Part IV:

Secondary Sources for the Study of the San-chieh Movement

1.      Biographies and Tales

1)      Hsü kao seng chüan

            The Hsü kao seng chüan, compiled by the famous Tao-hsüan some 60 years after Hsin-hsing's death, contains the biographies of Hsin-hsing and three of his followers, P'ei Hsüan-cheng, Pen-chi, and Seng-yung. Although not the earliest biography of Hsin-hsing, the fact that Tao-hsüan resided on Chung-nan shan, the site of the reliquaries for Hsin-hsing and many of his followers, as well as the generally acknowledged reliability of the Hsü kao sang chüan, make it an important source for the study of the San-chieh. As usual, Tao-hsüan relied on earlier source material in his biography of Hsin-hsing, in particular the record of the Li tai san pao chi. Although there are no other extant, verifiable sources, it is almost certain that Tao-hsüan saw the memorial stele composed by Pei Hsüan-cheng at Chung-nan shan (cf. T.50.560a.26-27 and T.50.560b.2-3), and therefore it is possible that much of the biography which is not taken from the Li tai san pao chi is taken from this stele.

             Hsin-hsing's biography is contained in the 16th chüan, in the section on monks who practiced dhyana, which is itself interesting.[1] According to his biography, Hsin-hsing was from Wei-chün,[2] and his family name was Wang-shih. Born of exceptional causes, he had the hagio­graphically usual brilliant youth, exhibiting his compassion at four and his wisdom at eight, and of course he was widely versed in the sutras and sastras. The biography also contains much that refers to Hsin-hsing's teachings, such as the fact that he investigated the teachings by the era and man by his affliction, an obvious reference to the San-chieh doctrine that the teaching must be in accord with the capacity. Tao-hsüan also referred to the uniqueness of Hsin-hsing's teachings, saying that they were not like the interpretations of old, for example, "[Those] who were not yet sravakas were praised as bodhisattvas," a probable reference to the San-chieh practice of "universal respect."[3]

        Tao-hsüan also mentions Hsin-hsing's emphasis on practice, the need to make the medicine fit the disease, and other teachings, all of which are confirmed by the extant San-chieh texts. Although there is no mention of where Hsin-hsing received the precepts,3 his biography tells us that he "discarded the complete precepts at the Fa-tsang ssu in Hsiang-chou," a prefecture near to his birthplace, in modern Hon Prefecture.4 Thereafter Hsin-hsing made offerings to the various Fields of Respect and Compassion, wore simple clothes, and was sparing in his food. Tao-hsüan　records that people came from all over to question him, and because Hsin-hsing was always straightforward in his replies all who heard him believed him and were converted.

　    Sometime in the beginning of the K'ai-huang period (581-600) Hsin-hsing was invited to the capital, and the famous statesman Kao-chiung established a dwelling for him in the Chen-chi ssu.5 Once in the capital, Hsin-hsing composed the Tui ken chi hsing, the San chieh chi iu, and the Chung shih shu fa, composed "east of the mountains," in more than forty chüan. The only other mention of anything composed "east of the mountains" (referring to the general area of Hsin-hsing's early life, present-day Honan and Hopei provinces) is the Chi lu in the biography of Pen-chi (T.50.578a). Again, as the Ta t'ang nei tien lu, also composed by Tao-hsüan, only lists two works, the San chieh wei pieh lu chi and the Tui ken chi hsing tsa lu, I imagine this to be simply a reference to miscellaneous teachings, given before Hsin-hsing arrived in Chang-an, and later included in the body of teachings known collectively as the Tui gen chi hsing tsa lu. In addition to the Chen-chi ssu, Tao-hsüan records five other San-chieh temples established in the capital, the Hua-tu [ssu], which was changed to the Chen-chi ssu in 619), the Kuang-ming [ssu], the Tz'u-men [ssu], the Hui-jih [ssu], and the Hung-shan [ssu]. Tao-hsüan recorded that at these and other temples, everybody practiced the "six periods worship," dāna, and begging for food, all of which are well known San-chieh practices.

            Hsin-hsing died at the Hua-tu ssu (Chen-chi ssu) on the 4th day of the 1st month of K'ai-huang 14 (594), age 54 (the Ku ta Hsin-hsing chan shih ming t'a pei gives his age as 55). After seven days his corpse was escorted to the Ch'ih-ming pu of Chung-nan shan, where they abandoned his body, collected his bones, erected a reliquary and put up a memorial stele, which, according to Tao-hsüan, was composed by Pei Hsüan-cheng and is at the foot of the mountain.

Attached to the biography of Hsin-hsing is the biography of P'ei Hsüan-cheng, a close disciple of Hsin-hsing. Tao-hsüan records that although P'ei was originally a monk at the end he wore layman's clothes. That he was of a relatively high station in life is evident from the fact that he is referred to as a "retired gentleman," that he penned Hsin-hsing's works, and that he composed not only Hsin-hsing's memorial but his own as well!6 A memorial stele for Pei was recorded in the Pao k'e ts'ung pien as having been erected in 634. Recorded in the Chang-an section of the catalogue, the entry states that there is no mention of the name of the composer or the calligrapher, which has tended to strengthen the conviction that this is the memorial composed by P'ei himself.7 Tao-hsüan also recorded that the stele is in front of the northern grotto of the Chih-hsiang ssu.8 At the end of this biography of Hsin-hsing and the attached biography of P'ei Hsüan-cheng, Tao-hsüan added that there is another biography, as seen in the Li tai san pao chi, a fact confirmed by his own generous borrowing from the same.

The biography of Hsin-hsing's close disciples, Seng-yung and Pen-chi, are also contained in the section of monks who practiced meditation.9 Seng-yung's biography is based very closely on the Hua-tu ssu ku Seng-yung chan shih t'a sing (discussed above, Chapter 8), erected next to Hsin-hsing's reliquary. Aside from the value of the Hsü kao seng chüan biography as a testimonium for the study of this memorial, the fact that Tao-hsüan saw and used it as a source tends to support the thesis that he would also have seen and, most likely, relied on, the memorial which Pei Hsüan-cheng composed for Hsin-hsing. Tao-hsüan also mentions a reliquary for Pen-chi, but nothing more is known of it.

2)      Ming pao chi

This text, compiled around 650 by T’ang-lin, a descendant of the San-chieh patron and minister of the Sui dynasty, Kao-chiung, contains stories relating to Hsin-hsing (T.51.788a-c), Seng-yung (T.51.788b), and Hui-ju (T.51.788c).10 The text shows little direct influence of the Hsü kao seng chüan, although the contents of the two are very similar. Inasmuch as T'ang-­lin was the grandson of the San-chieh patron Kao-­chiung (founder of the Hua-tu ssu), and stated that he often visited the Hua-tu ssu, it is possible that both T’ang-lin and Tao-hsüan were drawing on common traditions.

Like the Hsü kao seng chüan, the Ming pao chi says that Hsin-hsing was very intelligent as a child and widely studied the sutras and sastras. It also gives details of his teachings, for example:

"[Hsin-hsing] taught that what was contained in the Buddha's sutras was for the purpose of salvation; some [scriptures] taught the path to man according to their basic nature [i.e., Buddha-nature] and some determined the Dharma in accordance with time and the situation. The present is very distant from [the time of] the sage and [man's] nature at this time is very different. If an inferior man practices the superior teachings the Dharma will not match the capacity…The import [of his teachings is to] encourage people [to cultivate] universal respect [of others] and recognition of [one's own] basic evil [nature].11

One interesting aspect of this record is that T’ang-lin confirms the early literary tradition of Hsin-hsing, giving his works as a thirty-six chüan Jen chi lu and a four chüan San chieh fa.

3)      Hsin hsiu k'o fen lu hsueh song chüan

This collection of biographies by T'an-ngo of the Yuan dynasty contains the following biographies, all based on their counterparts in the Hsü kao song chüan:

a.       Hsin-hsing, chüan 13 (Manji Zōkyō, vol. 133, p. 323).

b.      P'ei Hsüan-cheng (attached to Hsin-hsing's biography).

c.       Pen-chi, chüan 22 (ibid., p. 413).

d.      Song-yung, chüan 14 (ibid., p. 331).     

4)      Fa yuan chu lin

            This text, composed by Taōshih (d.683), includes the story of Hui-ju, taken from the King pao chi (T.53.678b).

5)      Fa hua chüan chi

            This text, composed by the T’ang dynasty monk Seng-hsiang, also contains the Hui-ju story, but adds the interesting tale that Hui-ju discarded the heterodox teachings of Hsin-hsing, and embraced and taught the Lotus Sutra (T.51.57c). At the end of the story Seng-hsiang attributes his tale to the Ming chih chi and added the observation that although this story also appears in the Ming pao chi, that text did not mention Hui-ju's preaching of the Lotus Sutra.12 Another tale in a similar vein of San-chieh rejection is found in the story of Hsiao-tz'u.13       

            Another source which mentions followers of the San­chieh-chiao is the Shih men tzu ching lu, which contains three short stories of San-chieh devotees who recanted their beliefs upon hearing of the horrors of hell that awaited them if they persisted.14 In addition, references to monks who lived at San-chieh temples, followed the teachings of Hsin-hsing, etc., can be found in many of the historical texts of the Chinese canon (e.g., T.53.468a; T.53.494a, etc.), and it is to be hoped that someday a study of these records, together with the epigraphical evidence, will be able to bring the history of the movement into sharper focus.

2.      Sectarian Sources

            As with the doctrines of any religious sect, those of the San-chieh share many features with the other Buddhist sects of Sui-T'ang China. It is particularly important to contexualise the teachings of the San-chieh because of the lack of a commentarial tradition within the sect itself. Thus, the works of contemporaneous Buddhists, while sectarian and polemic in their nature, become an important aid for the clarification of San-chieh doctrine.        As the San-chieh emphasized the decayed capacity for practice, it is only natural that they would have had doctrinal affinities and disputes with the followers of the Pure Land teachings. Thus we find several works of that school which take up the doctrines of the San-chieh. The Shih ching t'u ch'ün i iun composed by Huai-kan (late 7th century) deals with a variety of doubts and questions relating to the Pure Land teachings. The 3rd and 4th chüans of this work are concerned with the San-chieh. Among the many commentaries on this work, the Gungiron Tanyōki of Dōchū (d. 1281) is one of the best secondary sources for the study of the San-chieh. As well as presenting many of the doctrines of the sect, Dōchū also quotes widely from the texts of the San-chieh, thus making this work an excellent source of testimonium for the textual study of the extant San-chieh materials; see Nishimoto Teruma, "Shakujodogungiron ni okeru Sangaikyō hihan to ronri" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, vol. 38 no. 2 (1990). Other Pure Land works which discuss the teachings of the San-chieh include the Hsi fang yao chueh shih i t'ung kuei (T.47.108a), the Nien fo ching, T.47.127a), and the Ching t’u shih i lun, attributed to Chih-i (T.47, no. 1961).           

            If the San-chieh vision of man's capacity is similar to that of the Pure Land masters, the San-chieh description of the dharmadhātu was very similar to that of the Hua-yen school. There are expositions of San-chieh doctrine in several of the works of Chih-yen, the second patriarch of the Hua-yen school: the Hua yen wu shih yao wen ta contains a rather long section on the San-chieh (T.45.532b-534c), and the Hua yen ching nei sho wen to tsa k’ung mu sho also mentions the teachings of the San-chieh (T.45.557b). Interestingly enough, Chih-yen (who lived very close to the site of Hsin-hsing's reliquary) was criticized by a later Hua-yen scholar for incorporating San-chieh doctrines into his own teachings (Yabuki, p. 105).

            Fa-tsang, the systematizer of Hua-yen doctrine, compiled the Hua yen wu chiao chang, a survey of Buddhist doctrine from a Hua-yen point of view. This work (T.45.481a) as well as the many commentaries to it (e.g., T.72.383a-384b), help to clarify many of the similarities between the Hua-yen and San-chieh doctrines.  Chi-tsang, in his commentary to the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, the Ching ming i hsüan also briefly mentions the teachings of the San-chieh (T.38.853c).

3.      Secular Chinese Sources

            Although there is not a lot of material in this category, the materials which do exist form almost the entirety of historical source materials for the study of the San-chieh. Yabuki made admirable use of these materials to reconstruct the history of the San-chieh, and all of these documents may be found in his Sangaikyō no Kenkyū. Records concerning the Hua-tu ssu may be found in many different works, no doubt due to the fact that it was the headquarters of the sect and the home of the Inexhaustible Storehouse. The Liang chang hsin chi of Wei-shu (chüan 3), the Chüan T'ang wen (chüan 28), the T'ai ping kuang chi (chüan 493), and the Ch'ang-an chih (chüan 10), all include references to either the Hua-tu ssu, the Inexhaustible Storehouse, or both. The Sui-Shu, chüan 41, contains the biography of Kao-chiung, the powerful Sui statesman and backer of the San-chieh, who first established the Hua-tu ssu (known as the Chen-chi ssu at the time).

            The Ch'ang-an chih also contains records of other temples of the San-chieh: The Tz'u-men ssu, later changed to the I-te ssu, chüan 10, p. 2; the Kuang-ming ssu, later converted to one of the Ta-yun ching ssu, chüan 10, p. 7; and the Hui-jih ssu, chüan 10, p. 9.

            The various catalogues which record the memorial steles for Hsin-hsing and other followers of the San-chieh are discussed in Part III.

4.      Modern Studies

            With some slight qualification one is justified in saying that a Western scholar has yet to take up the study of the San-chieh. Antonio Forte has touched on the San-chieh several times in connection with his studies of Empress Wu: Political Propaganda and Ideology In China at the End of the Seventh Century (Napoli, 1976), especially pp. 166-168 which discuss the "blacklisting" of San-chieh texts; "La Secte Du Troisiéme Stade et l'He'résie de Devadatta" (BEFEO 74 [1985], 469-76), in which he shows that Yabuki's identification of Empress Wu, Huai-i, and the Great Cloud Sutra with "the three false jewels" (used to describe the San-chieh by Chih-sheng) is based more on Yabuki's own ideas or orthodoxy than fact;15 "Il <<Monastero Dei Grandi Chou >> A Loyang," in which he examines the history of the Ta Fu-hsien ssu, temporary site of the Inexhaustible Storehouse; and "The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chih-sheng’s Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra" (in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. Robert Buswell) in which he examines the nature of Chih-sheng's inclusion of the Fo shuo shih so fan che yu ch'ieh fa ching ching in the apocryphal section of his catalogue as well as gives valuable information on the people involved in having the work put into the canon.

            Another work which discusses one of the texts which formed the basis of this San-chieh apocrypha is Tokuno Kyoko, "The Book of Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma." In Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed., Buddhism in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).16

            Finally, Mark Lewis has taken up the fascinating question of the suppression of the San-chieh in historical context in "The Suppression of the Three Stages Sect: Apocrypha as a political issue."17 Dr. Lewis' article is the most in-depth study of San-chieh doctrine in a western language and goes far in elucidating the basic doctrines of the school, especially with regard to the nature of the sect's universalism and the accompanying view of doctrine and practice in the third stage. The major thesis of the work is a rebuttal of the standard explanation for the suppression of the San-chieh, i.e., that its insistence on labeling the sattvas of the third stage corrupt and of lowered (or nil) capacity was unacceptable to the rulers, who considered their rule to be the evidence of harmony and goodness in the affairs of men. He rejects this theory because he considers the doctrine of mo-fa to be "a theory of religious decay; it does not comment on the mores of sociey (sic) at large or the possibilities of a civil law."18 In fact, as Lewis points out, the San-chieh did not argue the moral bankruptcy of the ruler and even prescribed punishments which the ruler could inflict upon wayward monks, including the death penalty.19  In his study Lewis makes very good use of a biography of a San-chieh master discovered in a Tun-huang text; this biography was originally studied by Ōtani Shōshin in "Sangai Bōzenji Gyōjō Shimatsu ni tsuite," in Shigaku Ronsō, no. 7 (Tokyo: Iwanami [Keijō Teikoku Daigaku Bungakkai Ronsan]).29

            Until the recent work of Nishimoto Teruma (Sangaikyō no Kenkyū Tokyo: Shunjun-sha, 1998) and a few others, even in Japan very few scholars have worked on the San-chieh in the last eighty years. This is no doubt due to the existence of the very thorough study done by Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū, in 1927. This book (over 1200 pages) contains virtually all of the documents pertaining to the sect from Tun-huang, Japan, and China, and is a most remarkable testament to Dr. Yabuki’s deep understanding of Buddhist doctrine as well as his persistence in unraveling the tangled story of the San-chieh. Dr. Yabuki also published many other articles about the San-chieh: "Sangaikyō no Fuhō ni tsuite" in Tetsugaku zasshi, vol 32, no. 369 (1917), vol 33, nos. 373 and 374 (1918), which discusses the San-chieh doctrines of the Universal Buddha, Universal Respect , etc.; "Sangaikyō" in Shisō, no. 60 (1926) which gives an overview of San­chieh-chiao doctrines; and "Sangaikyō to Nihon Bukkyō" in Shūkyōgaku Ronshu (Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1930) which gives an interesting comparison between the history, doctrine, and practice of the San-chieh and the new schools of Kamakura Buddhism. In addition there are several articles concerning the San-chieh which I have not been able to obtain: "Sangaikyōgi oyobi kyōshi no yōkō" in Dai Ajia, vol. 3, no. 5 (1935); "Sangaikyō to Gendai Shisō" in Saisei, vol. 14, no. 2 (1930); "Jidai no Gensō to Sangaikyō" in Uchū, vol. 7, no. 7 (July, 1932); "Sangaikyō ni okeru Zenbukkyō no Kaizō Undō to sono Keizai Shisō" in Bukkyō Shisō, vol. 3, no. 3; "Sangaikyō no Kenkyū o megurite" in Bukkyō Shisō, vol. 7, no. 1 (January, 1932); "Sangaikyō ni tsuite" in Nihon Shūkyō Daikōza, nos. 12 & 14 (1928).

            In addition to Yabuki’s articles on the San-chieh movement, many of his other works on Tun-huang MSS deal with the texts of the school, e.g., "Tonkō Chihoshutsu Kosha Butten Rōtogurafu Kaisetsu Mokuroku" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, vol. 2, no. 6 (1917); "Tokyo Shutsudo Gigi Kobutten ni tsuite" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, vol. 3, no. 1 (1918); "Shina Bukkyōbshi to Genzon Gikyō" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, special volume, Gendai Bukkyō no Kenkyū (1931); Meisha Yōin (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1930), etc. For a complete list of Yabuki's various publications see Yabuki, Keiki, Shisō to Seikatsu (Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 1940). See also the reviews of Sangaikyō No Kenkyū by A. Waley in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 162-16923 and Ono Hōdō, "Sangaikyō No Kenkyū" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, new series, vol. 4, no. 5, Showa 2 (1927).

            In addition to the edition of the San-chieh fo fa by Yabuki, Oya Tokujo also prepared an early edition of the Nara MSS of the San chieh fo fa (collotype edition, Ryūkoku University, dated 1926). Notes on the main text used for his edition are contained in his "Shōgozō no Shakyō ni tsuite-- Shōgozōbon Sangaibuppō Kō" in Nara, no. 12, 1929. An early article on the San chieh fo fa is Kawano, Hōun "Shingyō zenji no Sangaibuppō" in Mujintō vol. 14  no.4 (1909). An outline of the Tui ken chi hsin chi is given by Takao Yoshitaka in "Taikonkigyōho dankan gaisetsu" in Seiiki bunka kenkyū 1 (1958): 208-209; see also his "Ryūdai Toshokan shozō Sangaikyō   shiryo nit suite" in Ryūkoku Daigaku Ronso 255 (1924). In addition to the Japanese translation in his Sangaikyō no kenkyū, Nishimoto published a contemporary translation of a portion of the Tui ken chi hsin chi in Kimura Kiyotaka, Bukkyō Kanbun Dokuhon (Tokyo: Shunjun-sha, 1990). Tsukamoto Zenryū introduced the editions of the Chen yüan lu transmitted in Japan in his "Nihon ni yizonsuru genbon ‘Jogan shintei shakyō mokuroku’" included in Kandahakase kanreki kinensyoshigakuronsyū (1957).

            Nishimoto first introduced many of the San-chieh manuscripts that he identified in his "Sangaikyō shahon no saikentō –shinshutsu shahon no shōkai o fukumete" in Indogaku bukyōgaku kenkyū vol. 45 no.1 (1996).

            A fair amount has been written about the Inex­haustible Storehouse of the San-chieh: Tsukamoto Zenryū has published an article titled "Shingyō no Sangaikyōdan to Mujinzō ni tsuite" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, vol. 3, no. 4 (1926), pp. 65-80, but there is little in this article not found in either Yabuki or Gernet.24 The best discussions of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, including both its institutional context and historical background are to be found in the various works of Michibata Ryōshū, who has devoted most of his life to the study of the institutional and economic history of Chinese Buddhism:25 "Mujin no Kenkyū" in Nihon Shūkyō Kōza, vol. 5 (1934); "Shina Bukkyō Jiin Kinyū Jigyō" in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 14, no. 1; Chūgoku Bukkyōshi (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1939); Chūgoku Bukkyō to Shakai Fukushi Jigyō (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1967), esp. pp. 107-121; and Tōdai Bukkyōshi no Kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1957), esp. pp. 514-545; most of Michibata's earlier work on the various aspects of the Inexhaustible Storehouse (including the above "Mujin no Kenkyū") have been brought together in his most recent book, Chūgoku Bukkyō Shakai Keizaishi no Kenkyū (Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1983), esp. pp. 97-120 and 184-250. See also  Hidetoshi, "Sangaikyō no seiritsu;" Kaneko Hidetoshi, "Sangaikyō no fusekan" in Bukkyō Shigaku, vol. 7, no. 4 (1959); Hayakawa Michio, "Sangaikyō to mujinzōin" in Kamodai shiron 1 (1988); see also Hayakawa Michio, "Sangaikyō no imi suru mono (jyo)" in Ōdai shiron 2 (1989). Others who touch on the Inexhaustible Storehouse include Lien-sheng Yang, "Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-raising Institutions in Chinese History" in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, no. 13 (1950) and Jaques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society (a translation of his Les Aspects Economiques Du Bouddhisme [Saigon, 1956]), pp. 210-217; for a discussion of "inexhaustible goods" in early Buddhism see also Tomomatsu Entei "Mujinzai to buha" in Bukkyō Shisō Ronsō. Tokyo: Sanyōsha (1973). Several other articles which discuss similar institutions in different settings include: Miller, Robert, "Buddhist Monastic Economy: The Jisa Mechanism" in Comparative Studies In Society and History, vol. 3, no. 4 (July, 1961) and Barau, Andre, "Indian and Ancient Chinese Buddhism Institutions Analogous to the Jisa" in Comparative Studies In Society and History, vol. 3, no. 4, (July, 1961).

            Nishimoto Teruma has taken up issues about San-chieh institutional rules in "Sangaikyō no kyōdanritsu ni tsuite: `seiho’ ikkan no kenkyū" in Indotetsugaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, 3 (1995); his "Sangaikyō shinshutsu shiryō P2849 ni tsuite Shingyō zenjisen ‘jyuhakkaihō’ o chūshin to shite" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū vol.87 (44-1), 1995 looks at a manuscript that he recently identified that describes the ritual of receiving the eight precepts for laity. See also Kaneko Hidetoshi, "Sangaikyō no seiritsu" in Bunka Shigaku 13 (1957);

       In addition to his work on Chinese Buddhist economic history, Michibata has also published several articles which explore the possible relation between Hsin-hsing and the patriarchs of Pure Land Buddhism, Tao-cho (562-­645) and Shan-tao (613-681): "Dōshaku Zenji To Sangaikyō" in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 15, no. 1, 1933; and "Zendō to Sangaikyō" in Shūgakuin Kiyō, 1932. Both of these articles have been reprinted in Chūgoku Jōdokyōshi no Kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1980). Other articles which discuss the San-chieh in the Pure Land context include Satō Mitsuo, "Nihon Jōdokyō No Sangaidan" in Makaen, vol. 4, no. 1, Taishō 1327 and Tajima Tokuon, "Reiji Sahō to Sangaikyō to no Kankei," in Taishō Gakuhō, vol. 30, no. 31.28 See also Nishimoto Teruma, "Shakujodogungiron ni okeru Sangaikyō hihan to ronri" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, vol. 38 no. 2 (1990); Kaneko, Hiroya "Sangaikyo to ‘Gungiron’" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenky Vol.98 (49-2) 2001; Kumehara Yūji, "Zendō Kyōgaku to Sangaikyō" in Bukkyō Rongo 33 (1989): 41-44; Kumehara Yuji, "`Nembutsukyō' no taisangaimon" in Bukkyō Rongo 31 (1987): 48-51;  Kumehara, Yuji "Saihō yōketsu no taisangai shakunan" in Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū. vol. 36 no 2 (1988); Yamamoto, Fukkotsu, "Shingyo to Dōshaku no Kōshō" in Indo bukkyo kenkyu, vol. 6 no.2 (1958).

            Yagi Kokei discusses the possible influence of San-chieh ideas in the school of Japanese Tendai founded by Genshin in "Eshin Kyōgaku ni okeru Sangaikyō no Kōsatsu," Shina Bukkyō Shigaku, vol. 6, no. 2 and vol. 7, no. 2. The question of the relation between the Pure Land practice of chanting and confession and that of the San-chieh are taken up in Hirokawa Akitoshi, "Tonkō Shutsudo Nanakai Butsumyōkyō ni tsuite," in Shūkyō Kenkyū, no. 251 (March, 1981); see also Daniel Stevenson, "The T’ien-t’ai Four Forms of Samādhi and Late North-South Dynasties, Sui, and Early T’ang Buddhist Devotionalism," (Ph.D. dissertation, Colulmbia University, 1987) for comparisons of various liturgical practices of this sort. Also basing himself partly on the "Seven Stage Buddhanāma," Tokiwa Daijō, in "Sangaikyō no Botai to shite no Hōzanji" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, vol. 4, no. 1, 1927, explores the possible relationship between Hsin-hsing and Ling-yu; see also Tokiwa Daijō, "Zui no Reiyū to Sangaikyō no Nanakabutsumyokyō"  from his Shina Bukkyō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjun-sha, 1938). One of the more intriguing, if difficult, areas for future study is that of the doctrinal lineage of the San-chieh. As with the lack of a continuous commentarial literature to use as an aid in the study of San-chieh texts, the lack of an easily coherent doctrinal tradition is both a blessing and a curse. A curse because it means blindly casting about in the obscure records of Northern dynasties Buddhism, the birthplace of the San-chieh, and yet a blessing because it forces one to try to ascertain the meaning with a relative lack of preconceptions.

            Kimura Kiyotaka, a scholar of early Hua-yen history, has recently written two articles on the San-chieh: "Shingyō no Jikikan to sono Igi," in Nippon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpō, no. 49, 1982, which explores the idea of the three periods as well as offers some suggestions for future research; Nishimoto Teruma’s "Sangaikyō tenseki ni okeru ‘kai’ no yōhō" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū vol.80 (40-2) 1992 examines the meaning of "chieh" ("level" or, traditionally for the San-chieh movement, "stage"); see also Kumehara Yuji, "Sangaikyō no jidaikan nit suite" in Shūkyō Kenkyū, 283 (1990). My own "Mo-fa, The Three Levels Movement, and the Theory of the Three Periods" investigates the lack of reference to the three periods of the dharma in San-chieh documents in order to argue that the three levels refers to levels of capacity rather than temporal stages. An important source for Hsin-hsing was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, and the eschatological element natural to texts purporting to detail the "last" instructions of the Buddha has often been noted; Mizutani Koshō examines the nirvāṇa-sūtra corpus in terms of a "crisis mood" in "Daijō Nehan kyōtengun ni arawaretaru kiki shisō" in Bukkyō Daigaku Kenkyū vol. 37 (1953); Kimura Kiyotaka’s "Chigen/Hōzō to Sangaikyō" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, vol. 27, no. 1 (1978), examines the relationship between Hua-yen doctrines and those of the San-chieh movement. Hong, Jae-song looks at possible influences on Gyōgi in "Sangaikyō no eikyōmoto to Gyōgi o kangaeru" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenky Vol.100 (50-2) 2002; see also his "Sangaikyō no eikyō –Enkyou・Shinbō to Dōsho no kōsatsu" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyu, vol. 47 No.2 (1999). Nishimoto Teruma’s "Sangaikyō no kyōhan ni tsuite" looks at the San-chieh doctrinal classification system, and his "Sangaikyō wa itan ka" looks at the question of the San-chieh as a heretical movement. See also Nishimoto, Teruma "Sangaikyō no shisōteki wakugumi no keni ni tsuite" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū vol.43, No.2  (1995). The Vimalakīrtinirdeṣa figures in the San-chieh doctrines in several contexts—see Hashimoto Yoshihisa, "Sangaibuppō ni oyoboshita Yuimakyō no eikyō ni tsuite" in Shūkyō kenkyu vol. 33 no.3 (1960).

            On the "universal practice" of the San-chieh see Kumehara Yūji, "Sangaikyō no fugyō ni tsuite" in Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū. vol. 39 no 2 (1991); see Nishimoto Teruma’s fascinating discussion of the contemplative practices of the San-chieh in Nishimoto, Teruma "Sangaikyo no kanhō ni tsuite" in Okurasan ronshu vol. 44 (1999). Professor Okabe Kazuo, who first introduced me to the study of Chinese sutra catalogs, apocryphal scriptures, and thereby to the study of the San-chieh movement, wrote about the San-chieh understanding of "Buddha" in  "Sangaikyō no Buddakan" in Nihon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpō vol. 53 (1988).

            The famed sinologist Kanda Kiichirō has made several studies of the various memorial steles erected for Hsin- hsing and his followers: "Sangaikyō ni kansuru Zui-Tō no Kohi" in Bukkyō Kenkyū, vol. 3, nos. 3 and 4 and vol. 4, no. 3; and "Kedoji Tōmei ni tsuite" in Shinagaku, vol. 2, no. 9. There is little information in these articles not found in Yabuki’s treatment of the steles, and both have been supplemented by Tsukamoto Zenryū’s "Sangaikyō Shiryō Zakki" in Shina Bukkyō Shigaku, vol. 1, nos. 1-2. See also Tokiwa Daijō and Sekino Tadashi, Shina Bukkyō Shiseki, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Bukkyō Shiseki Kenkyūkai, 1928­-1931), plates 58-61, and the accompanying notes, Shina Bukkyō Shiseki Hyōkai (Tokyo: Bukkyō Shiseki Kenkyūkai, 1931). Nakada Yūjirō has also written about the Seng-­yung memorials: "Kedoji Sōyū Zenji Tōmei Kojiki" in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 31, no. 1 (February, 1952) and "Ōtankeibon Sōtaku Kedōjihi ni tsuite" in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 33, no. 4 (1954); see also Nakada Yūjirō, "Setsuso Shingyō zenjihi"  in Nakada Yūjirō Chosashū vol. 3 (Nigensha, 1984). Nishimoto has updated the field with recent studies of San-chieh steles: "Seian kinkō         no sangaikyō shiseki Hyakutōji to Kanegawawan Tōkokuseki Kossekkyō" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, vol. 48 no. 1 (1999); Nishimoto, Teruma, "Sangaikyōto no hanbetsu kijun mishōkai sekkoku shiryō o chūshin to shite" in Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū vol.92 (46-2), 1998.

Other articles written before Yabuki published his work include: Kōno Hōun, "Shingyō Zenji no Sangaibuppō" in Mujintō, vol. 14, no. 4, 1910; Imazu Kōgaku, "Shingyō Zenji no Jiseki oyobi sono Kyōgi" in Shūkyōkai, vol. 11, nos. 6 and 8, 1916; Iwasaki Kōgen, "Shingyō Zenji no Sangaikyō" in Shūkyōkai, vol. 13, no. 9, 1918; and Itō Yūkō, "Shingyō Zenji No Sangaibuppō ni tsuite" in Jōdoshūshi no Kenkyū (a reprint of Makaen, vol. 4, #2, Taishō 14). An article which I have not yet obtained is: "Sangaikyō Bekken" by Toko Takuso, in Komazawa Jissen Shujō, no. 4 (March, 1936).

Bibliography of Secondary Sources for the Study of the San-chieh Movement

Bareau, Andre. “Indian and Ancient Chinese Buddhism Institutions Analogous to the Jisa.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3/4 (July 1961).

Forte, Antonino.  “La Secte Des Troisiẻme Stades Et L’Hẻrẻsie De Devadatta.” BEFEO 74 (1985).

Forte, Antonino.  “Il <<Monastero Dei Grande Chou >>A Lo-Yang.” Annali dell’Instituto Orientale di Napoli 35 (1973).

Hashimoto, Yoshihisa 橋本芳契. “Sangaibuppō ni oyoboshita Yuimakyō no eikyō ni tsuite” 三階仏法におよぼした維摩経の影響について. Shūkyōkenkyu 33/3 (1960).

Hayakawa, Michio 早川道雄. “Sangaikyō kenkyū no rekishi to kongo no kadai” 三教研究の歴史と今後の課題. Toyoyama Kyōgaku Taikai Kiyō 17 (1989).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyō no kyōgi—fukyō nin'aku ni tsuite” 三階教の教義―普敬認悪に就いて. Toyoyama Kyōgaku Taikai Kiyō 18 (1990).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Tōdai sangaikyōto no shingyō sūhai ni tsuite” 唐代三階教徒の信行崇拝について. Taishō Daigaku Daigakuin Kenkyūronshū 15 (1991).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyō no jissen” 三階教の実践. Toyoyama Kyogaku Taikai Kiyaku 20 (1992).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyō no danatsu to Zuitō kokka”三階教の弾圧と隋唐国家. Toyoyama Kyōgaku Taikai Kiyaku 22 (1994).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyōdan no seikaku” 三階教団の性格. Toyoyama Gakuhō 39 (1996).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyō to mujinzōin” 三階教と無尽蔵院. Kamodai Shiron 1 (1988).

Hayakawa, Michio早川道雄. “Sangaikyō no imi suru mono (jyō)” 三階教の意味するもの. Kamodai Shiron 2 (1989).

Hirokawa, Akitoshi広川尭敏.  “Tonkō shutsudo Nanakai Butsumyōkyō ni tsuite -  Sangaikyō to Jōdokyō to no kōshō ni tsuite” 敦煌出土七階仏名経についてー三階教と浄土教との交渉. Shukyōkenkyu 251 (March, 1982).

Hō, Eizen方栄善.　“Sangaikyō no mujinzōin ni tai suru kōsatsu,” 三階教の無尽蔵院に対する考察. Tōgoku Daigakukō Daigakuin Kōdogakui Seikyūronbun (1987).

Hong, Jae-Song 洪在成. “Sangaikyō no eikyō –enkō・Shinbō to Michiaki no  kōsatsu" 三階教の影響―円光・神ぼうと道昭の考察, Indogaku  Bukkyōgaku Kenkyu 94 (March, 1999).

     ------洪在成. “Sangaikyō no eikyō motoaki to Gyōgi o kangaeru,” 三 階教の影響元あきと行基考える. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 100 (2002).

Hubbard, Jamie. “The Teaching of the Three Levels and the Manuscript Texts of the San chieh fo fa.” In七寺古逸經典研究叢書第五巻：中国日本撰述經典 In Nanatsudera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho  5: Chūgoku Nippon senjutsu kyōten. Tokyo, Daito Shuppansha, 2000.

Hubbard, Jamie. “Mo fa, the Three Levels Movement, and the Theory of the Three Periods.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 19/1 (1996).

Hubbard, Jamie. “A Heretical Chinese Buddhist Text: The Refuge of the Four Buddhas of the Universal Dharma.” In Donald Lopez, ed., Buddhism in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Hubbard, Jamie. “Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion: The Universal Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao.” In Paul Griffiths and John Keenan, ed., Studies in Tathāgatagarbha Thought. Los Angeles, Buddhist Books International, 1991.

Imazu, Kōgaku 今津洪嶽. “Shingyōzenji no Jiseki Oyobi sono Kyōgi" 信行禅師の事蹟及其の教義. Shūkyōkai (1915).

Ishii, Kōsei 石井公成. “Chigen no Nyoraizō shisō” 智厳の如来蔵思想。 Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 56 (1980).

Itō, Take 伊藤丈. “Sangaikyō no Rekishi to Kongo no Kadai” 三階教研究の歴史と今後の課題. Toyoyama Kyōgaku Taikai Kiyaku 17 (1989).

Itō Yūkō 伊藤裕晃. “Shingyōzenji no Sangaikyō Buppō ni　tsuite” 信行禅師の三階教仏法について Jyōdoshūshi no Kenkyū. Kyoto, Kyōeisha Insatsujo: 1937.

Iwasaki, Kōgen 岩崎敲弦. “Shingyōzenji no Sangaikyō” 信行禅師の三階教. Shūkyōkai (1917).

Kanda, Kiichirō 神田喜一郎.  “Kedoji tōmei ni tsuite” 化度寺塔銘に就いて.Shinagaku 2/9 (May, 1922).

Kanda, Kiichirō神田喜一郎.  “Sangaikyō ni kansuru Zuitō no kohi (jō)” 三階教関する隋唐の古碑（上）. Bukkyō Kenkyū 3/3 (1923).

Kanda, Kiichirō神田喜一郎.  “Sangaikyō ni kansuru Zuitō no kohi (ge)” 三階教関する隋唐の古碑（下）. Bukkyō kenkyū 3/４ (1923).

Kanda, Kiichirō神田喜一郎.  “Sangaikyō ni kansuru Zuitō no kohi (hoi)”三階に関する隋唐の古碑（補遺）.  Bukkyō kenkyū 3/2 (1923).

Kanda, Kiichirō  神田喜一郎.  “Futatabi Kedoji tōmei ni tsuite.”  Shinagaku, 2/12 1923.

Kaneko, Hidetoshi 金子秀利. “Sangaikyō no seiritsu” 三階教の成立. Bunka Shigaku (1957).

Kaneko, Hidetoshi金子秀利. “Sangaikyō no fusenkan” 三階教の布施観. Bukkyō Shigaku (1959).

Kaneko, Hiroya 金子寛哉. “Sangaikyō to ‘Gungiron’” 三階教と「群疑論」. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 98 (2001).

Kawano, Hōun河野法雲. “Shingyō zenji no Sangaibuppō” 信行禅師の三階佛法.  Mujintō 14/4 (1909).

Kimura, Kiyotaka 木村清孝. “Chigen-Hōzō to Sangaikyō” 智厳・法蔵と三階教. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 54 (December, 1978).

Kimura, Kiyotaka 木村清孝. “Shingyō no jikikan to sono Igi” 信行の時機観とその意義.  Nippon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpō 49 (1984).

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Sangaikyō no fugyō ni tsuite” 三階教の普行について. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 78, Miyagi: Tōhoku Daigaku, March,1991.

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Seihōyouketsu no tai Sangai shakunan”「西方要決」の対三階釈難. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 72 (1988).

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Nenbukkyō no tai Sangaimon” 念仏鏡の対三階門. Bukkyō Rongi 31 (1987).

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Seihōyōketsu to Nenbukkyō” 西方要決と念仏鏡. Shūkyō Kenkyū 271 (1987).

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Zendō kyōgaku to Sangaikyō – ‘raisan’ muyoshū to no kanren ni oite” 善導教学と三階教―『礼讃』無余修との関連において. Bukkyō Rongi 33 (1987).

Kumehara, Yūji  粂原勇慈. “Sangaikyō no jidaikan ni tsuite” 三階教の時代観について. Shūkyō Kenkyū 283 (1990).

Lien-Sheng, Yang. “Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-Raising Institutions in Chinese History” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 13 (1950).

*Meishayōin. Review of Sangaikyō no kenkyū.

Michibata Ryōshū 道端良秀. "Dōshaku Zenji to Sangaikyō" 道綽禅師と三階教. Ōtani Gakuhō 15/1 (1933); reprinted in Chūgoku Jōdokyōshi no Kenkyū. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1980.

Michibata Ryōshū 道端良秀 “Zendō to Sangaikyō" 善導と三階教. Shūgakuin Kiyō, 1932; reprinted in Chūgoku Jōdokyōshi no Kenkyū. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1980.

Mizutani, Kōshō 水谷幸正. “Daijōnehankyōtengun ni arawaretaru kiki shisō” 大乗涅槃経典群にあらわれたる危機思想. Bukkyō Daigaku Kenkyū 37 (1953).

Nakata, Yūjirō 中田勇次郎. “Kedoji Sōyū zenji tōmei kōjiki” 化度寺僧邑禅師塔銘校字記. Ōtani Gakuhō 31/1: Feb., 1952.

Nakata, Yūjirō中田勇次郎. “Otankeibon sōtaku Kedoji hi ni tsuite” 翁譚渓本宋拓度寺碑について. Ōtani Gakuhō 33/4 (1954).

Nakata, Yūjirō中田勇次郎. “Setsushoku Shingyō Zenji hi” 薛稷信行禅師碑. In Nakata Yūjirō Choshakushū 3. Tokyo, Nigensha 1984.

Nakata, Yūjirō中田勇次郎. “Sōtaku Setsu Shoho sho Shingyō Zenji hi ni tsuite” 宋拓薛少保書信行禅師碑について. Ōtani Gakuhō 115 (32-2), 1952.

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Chūgoku Jōdokyō to Sangaikyō ni okeru mappōshisō no ichi” 中国浄土教と三階教における末法思想の位置. Shūkyōkenkyū, 290 (1991).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. "'Sangaibuppō’shohon no seiritsu to denpa nit suite"『三階仏法』諸本の成立と傳播について. In Nanatsudera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho  5: Chūgoku Nippon senjutsu kyōten. Tokyo, Daitō Shuppansha, 2000.

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō no kyōhan ni tsuite” 三階教の教判について. Shūkyō Kenkyū 303 (1995).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō wa itan ka” 三階教は異端か. Shirizu· Higashi Ajia Bukkyō Daisankan ‘Shinbukkyō no Kyōryū.’ Tokyo: Shunjyūsha: 1997.

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō bunken ‘Hotsubodaishinhō’ (P2283) ni tsuite” 三階教文献『発菩提心法』（P2283）について. Yamada Min Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbun shū “Sekaibunka to Bukkyō” 1, 2000.

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真.  “Sangaikyō shahon no saikentō –shinshutsu shahon no shōkai o fukumete" 三階教写本の再検討-新出写本の紹介を含めて”Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 45/1 December, 1996.

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照眞.  “ ‘Shakujōdo gungiron’ ni okeru Sangaikyō hihan no ronri” 「釈土群議論」における三階教批判の論理. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 38/2 (1990).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō no shisōteki wakugumi no ken'i ni tsuite” 三階教の思的枠組の権威について. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 43/2 (1995).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyōto no hanbetsukijun—mishōkai sekkokkū shiryō o chūshin to shite” 三階教徒の判別規準—未紹介石刻資料を中心として. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 92 (1998).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō tenseki ni okeru ‘kai’ no yōhō” 三階教典籍における「階」の用法. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 80 (1992).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō shinshutsu shiryō P2849 ni tsuite Shingyō zenji  'Juhakkaihō’ o chūshin to shite” 三階教新出資料P2849について信行禅師「受八戒法」を中心として. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 87 (1995).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照眞. “Sangaikyō no kanhō ni tsuite” 三階教の観法につて. Ogurasan Ronshū 44 (1999).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照眞. “Seiankinkō no Sangaikyō shiseki Hyakutōji to Kanegawawan kokuseki kossekikyō” 西安近郊の三階教史跡百塔寺と金川湾唐刻石窟石経. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 48/1 (1999).

Nishimoto, Teruma 西本照真. “Sangaikyō no kyōdankiritsu ni tsuite ‘seihō’ ikkan no kenkyū” 三階教の教団規律に就いて「制法」一巻の研究. Indotetsugaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 3/3 (1995).

Okabe, Kazuo 岡部和雄. “Sangaikyō no buddakan” 三階教の仏陀観 . Nihon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpō 53 (1988).

Ōno, Hōdō大野法道. “Sangaikyō no kenkyū” 三階教の研究. Shūkō Kenkyū 4/5 (1927).

Ōtani Shōshin 大谷勝真. "Sangai bōzenji gyōjo no shimatsu ni tsuite" 三階某禅師行状の始末について. Keijō Teikoku Daigaku Bungakkai Ronsan 7 (1938).

Ōya, Tokujō.大屋徳城 “Shōgozō no shakyō ni tsuite” 聖語蔵の写経に就いて. Shōgozōbon Sangaibukkyōhō 12; Nara: (1929).

Sasaki, Gesshō 佐々木月樵. “Sangaikyō to Jōdoshū” 三階教と浄土宗. Shina Jyōdokyōshi Jyo. Tokyo: Mugasanbō, 1913.

Takao, Yoshitaka　高雄義堅. “Ryūdaitoshokan Shozō Sangaikyōshiryō ni Tsuite”　竜大書館所蔵三階教資料に就いて. Ryūkoku Daigaku Ronsō 225 (1924).

Takao, Yoshitaka　高雄義堅. “Taikonkigyōhō dankan kaisetsu” 対根起行法断簡解説. Sēikibunka Kenkyū 1 (1958).

Takao, Yoshitaka　高雄義堅. “Mappōshisō to shoke no taido (ge)” 末法思想と諸家の態度（下）. Shina Bukkyōshigaku 1-3 (1937).

Tajima, Tokuon 田島徳音.  “Reijisahō to Sangaikyō to no kankei” 例時作法と三階との関係. Taishō Daigakuhō, 30･31 (1940).

Tokiwa, Daijyō 常盤大定.  “Sangaikyō no botai toshite no Hōzanji" 三階教の母胎とての寶山寺.” Shina Bukkyō no Kenkyū, 1927.

Tokiwa, Daijyō 常盤大定 and Sekino, Tadashi関野貞. “Shina Bukkyō shiseki hyōkai ichi” 那佛史蹟評解ー. Bukyō Shiseki Kenkyūkai, 1931.

Tokiwa, Daijyō 常盤大定. "Zui no Reiyū to Sangaikyō no Nanakabutsumyōkyō" 隋の霊ゆうと三階教の七階仏名.  Shina Bukkyō no Kenkyū. Tokyo: Shunjun-sha, 1938.

Tōkō, Takumune 東光琢宗. “Sangaikyō Bekken.” 三階教瞥見. Komazawa Jissen Shūjō  4 (1936).

Tomomatsu, Entei 友松エン諦. “Mujinzai to buha” 無尽財と部派. Bukkyōshisō Ronsō. Tokyo: Sanyōsha, 1973.

Tsukamoto, Zenryū 塚本善隆. “Nihon ni yuizonsuru genbon ‘Jogan shintei shakkyō mokuroku’” 日本に遺存する原本「貞元新定釈教目録」. Kandahakase Kanreki Kinen Shoshigaku Ronshū, 1957.

Tsukamoto, Zenryū 塚本善隆. “Shingyō no Sangai kyōdan to mujinzō ni tsuite” 信の三階教団と無儘蔵に就いて. Shūkyō Kenkyū 3/4 (1926).

Tsukamoto, Zenryū 塚本善隆. “Sangaikyō shiryō zakki” 三階教資料雑記.  Shina Bukkyō Shigaku 1/1 (1937).

Tsukamoto, Zenryū 塚本善隆. “Zoku Sangaikyō shiryō zakki” 続三階教資料雑記. Shina Bukkyō Shigaku 1/2 (1937).

Waley, Arthur. “Reviews of Books.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 5/1.

Yabuki, Keiki矢吹慶輝. “Sangaikyō” 三階教. Bukkyōshisō Kenkyū. Iwanami Shoten: 1926.

Yabuki, Keiki矢吹慶輝.  “Sangaikyō to Nihonbukkyō” 三階教と日本佛教. Shūkyōgaku Ronshū Tokyo, Kousei shuppansha: May 1930.

Yabuki, Keiki 矢吹慶輝.  “Sangaikyō no fuhō ni tsuite (shōzen)” 三階教の普法にいて(承前). Tetsugaku Zasshi 33/373 (1918).

Yabuki, Keiki 矢吹慶輝.  “Sangaikyō no fuhō ni tsuite (kan)” 三階教の普法に就いて(完). Tetsugaku Zasshi 33/374 (1918).

Yabuki, Keiki 矢吹慶輝. “Sangaikyō ni okeru zenbukkyō no kaizō undō to sono keizai shisō” 三階教における全仏教の改造運動とその経済思想. Bukkyō Shisō 3-3 (1928).

Yabuki, Keiki 矢吹慶輝. “Jidai no gensō to Sangaikyō” 時代の現相と三階教.  Uchū 7-7 (1932).

Yabuki, Keiki 矢吹慶輝. “Sangaikyō no kenkyū o megurite” 三階教の研究をめぐりて. Bukkyōshisō 7-1 (1932).

Yagi, Kōkei八木こう惠. “Eshin kyōgaku ni okeru Sangaikyō no kōsatsu (jyō)” 恵心教学に於ける三階教の考察（上）.  Shina Bukkyō Shigaku 6/2 (1942).

      -----八木こう惠. “Eshin kyōgaku ni okeru Sangaikyō no kōsatsu (ge)” 恵心教学に於ける三階教の考察（下）. Shina Bukkyō Shigaku 7/2 (1943).

Yamamoto, Fukkotsu山本佛骨. “Shingyō to Dōshaku no kōshō” 信行と道しゃくの交渉. Indobukkyōkenkyū 6/2 (1958).

Yoshida, Yasuo吉田靖雄. “Sanrinshugyō to Sangaikyō to no deai” 林修行と三階教との出会い.  In Gyōgi to Ritsuryō Kokka. Tokyo, Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1987.

Yoshida, Yasuo 吉田靖雄. "Gyōgi to Sangaikyō no kankei" 行基と三階教の関係. In Nihonkodai no Bosatsu to Minshū, 1988.

Yoshida, Yasuo 吉田靖雄. ‘‘Nihon Reiiki’ to Sangaikyō no kankei’”『日本霊異記』と三階教の関係.  In Nihonkodai no Bosatsu to Minshū, 1988.