. after amoghavajra 325
fact that the texts seem to have had little circulation in China, one
cannot but harbor a suspicion that these texts might have a Japanese
provenance.^43 Nonetheless, the scholarly community has long accepted
their authenticity.^44
Haiyun’s text, the Haiyun/Yicao text mentioned above (T. 1212),
and a text attributed to Zhihuilun (the Prajñacakra, T. 1246),
appear to be the earliest canonical uses of the term “Two Divisions.”^45
If the provenance is indeed Chinese, it indicates either a Chinese prov-
enance for the idea, or the influence of Shingon (and Tendai) on the
Chinese scene in the mid-ninth century.^46
Faquan (fl. 800–870)
Active in the mid-ninth century, Faquan is known to have received
initiation into the MVS and Susiddhi from Farun (768–840?) and
into the STTS from Yicao.^47 He resided first at the Xuanfa monastery
, where he was abbot, then at the Qinglong monastery. Ennin
received initiations from him in 840, covering the MVS and various
individual divinities.^48 The ritual manual involved—the “Garbhakośa
Great Kalpa”—is usually identified as the “Xuanfa monastery kalpa”
.^49 Sometime in the late 840s or early 850s, Faquan moved to
the Qinglong monastery where, in 855, Enchin studied with him. Ten
years later, near the end of his journey, Shūei (809–884) also stud-
ied with him. During this time Faquan produced another Garbhakośa
(^43) The importance of a tripartite division, including the Susiddhikara as a synthesiz-
ing link between the STTS and the MVS, is a key element of Tendai teaching. Accord-
ing to Haiyun’s text, “the Susiddhi, taken together with the Two Divisions of the Great
Teaching which the Tripitaka Śubhākarasiṃ ̣ha translated previously, constitutes the
Great Teaching of Three Divisions”
, T. 2081 51.786c14.
(^44) The text is attested in several Japanese catalogues, both separately and in joint
form. Jinhua Chen has recently revisited this issue and strongly concludes that the
texts are authentic. I would not, however, rule out the joint title as a Japanese innova-
tion, or even other modifications. See Chen 2010, 94–95.
(^45) T. 1246 is taken up in the discussion of Zhihuilun below.
(^46) While I know of no evidence for the second possibility, it is not out of the
question. 47
This according to Haiyun’s Liangbu da fa, T. 2081 51.784b4–10, 787a8–10.
(^48) See Chen 2010, 134. The original is in Nittō guhō junrei gyōki
, BZ (1912–1922) 72: 3.122a16–17, 122b22–c6.
(^49) T. 852A. The full title is Da Piluzhe’na chengfo shenbian jiachi jing lianhua tai-
zang bei sheng mantuluo guang da chengjiu yigui gongyang fangbian hui
.