The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism

Mātṛceṭa. (T. Ma khol; C. Moxilizhizha; J. Machiriseita; K. Majillijet’a 摩咥里制

) (c. third century CE). An Indian monk regarded as one of the great Sanskrit poets of the Buddhist tradition. It is said that at the time of the Buddha he was an oriole who, upon seeing the Buddha, sang a beautiful song. Hearing the song, the Buddha predicted that the bird would be reborn as a great poet in the future. Mātṛceṭa was a Hindu poet and a devotee of Śiva. He was a skilled orator, defeating many Buddhists in debate. The monks of NĀLANDĀ monastery appealed to NĀGĀRJUNA for assistance and ĀRYADEVA volunteered to represent his teacher. Mātṛceṭa and Āryadeva engaged in a famous debate, with Āryadeva eventually defeating Mātṛceṭa and converting him to Buddhism. His most famous work is the Śatapañcāśatakastotra (“Praise in One Hundred Fifty Stanzas”), a work that praises the qualities and deeds of the Buddha in thirteen sections. A second work in praise of the Buddha is his Catuḥśataka (“Four Hundred Verses,” also known as the Varṇārhavarṇastotra, not to be confused with the CATUḤŚATAKA by Āryadeva). YIJING, who visited India in the seventh century, reported that the two hymns were taught to all monks, whether HĪNAYĀNA or MAHĀYĀNA, immediately after ordination, and were regularly chanted at assemblies. Yijing translated the former work into Chinese. Mātṛceṭa is also known for his hymns in praise of TĀRĀ. In addition, he was the author of the Mahārājakaniṣkalekha (“Letter to King Kaniṣka”); he was invited to court by the king but, pleading old age, sent a letter of advice instead. If the reign of KANIṢKA is placed in the second century, it is possible that the letter is addressed to Kaniṣka II. In some Tibetan sources, Mātṛceṭa is identified with Āryaśura.

mātṛkā. (P. mātikā; T. phyi mo; C. modalijia; J. matarika; K. madalliga 摩怛理迦). In Sanskrit, lit. “matrix” and related etymologically to that English word; systematized “matrices” or “lists” of terms and topics appearing in the SŪTRAs, which served as the nucleus of the ABHIDHARMA literature. Important early disciples of the Buddha, including ŚĀRIPUTRA, MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA, and MAHĀKĀTYĀYANA, are said to have compiled such lists in order to systematize the disparate teachings found in the Buddha’s discourses, using these rosters as mnemonic devices for teaching the DHARMA to their students. The earliest matrices may have been such common dharma lists as the five aggregates (SKANDHA), twelve sense spheres (ĀYATANA), and eighteen elements (DHĀTU). These relatively simple lists were gradually elaborated into complex matrices that were intended to provide a systematic overview of the full range of Buddhist spiritual development, such as an exhaustive matrix of twenty-two triads (such as wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate) and one hundred dyads that provides the exegetical framework for the DHAMMASAṄGAṆI, the first book in the Pāli ABHIDHAMMA. None of the early matrices of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA or YOGĀCĀRA schools are extant, but they can be reconstructed from culling the lists treated in their abhidharma literatures; these rosters closely follow those appearing in the Pāli abhidhamma. By tying together, expanding upon, and systematizing these various matrices, the different schools of abhidharma constructed scholastically meticulous and coherent exegeses of Buddhist doctrine and soteriology. The mātṛkā thus served as the forerunner of the adhidharma, and the abhidharma thus represents an elaboration and analysis of these lists. In some early accounts, in fact, a matrix was essentially synonymous with the abhidharma, and both terms are used in differing accounts of the initial recitation of the Buddhist canon following the Buddha’s demise; indeed, the ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA is sometimes even referred to as the mātṛkāpiṭaka.

mātṛtantra. (T. ma rgyud). In Sanskrit, lit., “mother tantra”; a term used in a twofold division of ANUTTARAYOGA tantric texts as mother tantras and father tantras (PITṚTANTRA). The former, also known as ḌĀKINĪ tantras, are traditionally said to emphasize wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) over method (UPĀYA), especially wisdom in the form of the mind of clear light (PRABHĀSVARACITTA). This designation may also derive from the fact that in these tantras, the majority (and in some cases, all) of the deities of the MAṆḌALA are female.

mātsarya. (P. macchariya; T. ser sna; C. qian/ji; J. ken/shitsu; K. kan/chil 慳/嫉). In Sanskrit, “selfishness,” “miserliness”; one of the forty-six mental concomitants (see CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA school, one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school, and one of the fifty-two according to the Pāli abhidhamma; it is listed among the secondary afflictions (UPAKLEŚA). Mātsarya is described as the inability to bear the good fortune of others because of one’s attachment to objects. It is related to hatred (DVEṢA) and results in mental discomfort and unhappiness.

Matsuo Bashō. (松尾芭蕉) (1644–1694). A renowned Japanese Buddhist author of the Edo period. Although famous in the West especially for his haiku poetry, Bashō is also known for his renga, or linked verse, prose works, literary criticism, diaries, and travelogues, which also contain many famous poems. His most celebrated work is his travel diary, a work in mixed prose and verse entitled Oku no Hosomichi (“Narrow Road to the Deep North”), published posthumously in 1702. He was born in Iga Province (present-day Mie prefecture) to a family of the samurai class, but abandoned that life in favor of living as a Buddhist monk, much like the Heian period (794–1185) SHINGONSHŪ monk SAIGYŌ (1118–1190), with whom he is often compared. Bashō received instruction from the RINZAISHŪ master Butchō (1643–1715), and his work is commonly regarded as conveying a ZEN aesthetic, as in the famous haiku poem he wrote at his moment of awakening: “A timeless pond, the frog jumps, a splash of water” (J. furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu, mizu no oto).

māyā. (T. sgyu ma; C. kuang; J. ō; K. kwang 誑). In Sanskrit, “deceit,” “deception,” “trickery,” “fraudulence”; one of the forty-six mental concomitants (see CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA–VAIBHĀṢIKA school of ABHIDHARMA and one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school; it is classified among the secondary afflictions (UPAKLEŚA). Deceit includes such acts as feigning virtue and accomplishment, resorting to deceptive speech or underhanded subterfuge, and engaging in any of the inappropriate livelihoods (cf. SAMYAGĀJĪVA; ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), such as divination or fortune-telling, when done with the intent to impress, trick, exploit, or manipulate others.

Māyā. [alt. Māyādevī; Mahāmāyā] (T. Sgyu ’phrul ma; C. Moye; J. Maya; K. Maya 摩耶). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “Illusion”; the mother of GAUTAMA Buddha. Her father was Añjana, king of Devadaha, and her mother was Yaśodharā. Māyā and her sister MAHĀPRAJĀPATĪ were both married to the Buddha’s father ŚUDDHODANA, the king of KAPILAVASTU. Māyā was between forty and fifty when the future buddha was conceived. At that time, the future buddha was a BODHISATTVA residing in TUṢITA heaven, where he surveyed the world and selected his future parents. On the night of his conception, Māyā dreamed that four great gods transported her to the Himalayas, where goddesses bathed her in the waters of the Anotatta Lake and clad her in divine raiment. As she lay on a couch prepared for her, the future buddha, in the form of a white elephant holding a white lotus in its trunk, entered into her right side. After ten lunar months, during which time she remained chaste, Māyā set out to visit her parents in Devadaha. Along the way she stopped at the LUMBINĪ grove, where she gave birth to the prince and future buddha while holding onto a branch of a ŚĀLA tree; according to some accounts, he emerged from her right side. Seven days later, Māyā died. Varying reasons are provided for her demise, including that she died from joy at having given birth to the future buddha and that she died after seven days because she would have died from a broken heart when Prince SIDDHĀRTHA subsequently renounced the world at the age of twenty-nine. It is also said that the mothers of all buddhas die shortly after their birth because it is not suitable that any other child be conceived in the womb that had been occupied by a future buddha. Māyā was reborn as a male divinity named Māyādevaputra in the TUṢITA heaven. After her death, Māyā’s sister Mahāprājāpatī raised the future buddha as her own child. Because his mother’s death had prevented her from benefiting from his teachings, the Buddha once spent a rainy season in TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven atop Mount SUMERU, during which time he preached the ABHIDHARMA to his mother, who had come from tuṣita heaven to listen, along with the other assembled divinities. These teachings, which the Buddha later recounted to ŚĀRIPUTRA, would become the ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA. The Buddha’s descent from the heaven at SĀṂKĀŚYA at the conclusion of his teachings is one of the most commonly depicted scenes in Buddhist art. The entry of the future Buddha into his mother’s womb, and by extension into the human realm of existence, is a momentous event in Buddhist history, and elaborate descriptions of that descent and of that womb appear in a number of texts. One of the most famous is found in the forty-fourth chapter of the GAṆḌAVYŪHA, a MAHĀYĀNA SŪTRA dating from perhaps the second century of the Common Era. In the sūtra, SUDHANA goes in search of enlightenment. During his journey, he encounters all manner of exalted beings, each of whom provides him with instruction. One of the teachers he meets is Māyā. She describes in elaborate detail how her son entered her womb, revealing that it was able to accommodate much more than a white elephant, without for a moment distorting her form. She reveals that it was not only the bodhisattva SIDDHĀRTHA who descended from the tuṣita and entered her womb; in fact, countless other bodhisattvas accompanied him to become buddhas simultaneously in millions of similar universes. She reveals as well that she is the mother not only of all the buddhas of the present, but of all the buddhas of the past and that she will also be the mother of the next buddha, MAITREYA.

māyādeha. (T. sgyu lus; C. huanshen; J. genshin; K. hwansin 幻身). In Sanskrit, “illusory body”; a polysemous term that, in its most general sense, refers to the fact that the body is insubstantial and thus like an illusion. The term is also the name of one of the so-called SIX YOGAS OF NĀROPA, where it encompasses a range of practices, including the contemplation of one’s own reflection in a mirror and expressing praise and blame to the reflection as a means of overcoming attachment to one’s body. In a more technical sense, the term refers to a body achieved through the practice of ANUTTARAYOGATANTRA, in which as a result of insight into the nature of reality and the control of the subtle energies that course through the CAKRAs, the yogin creates a subtle body created from the subtle wind (PRĀṆA) that serves as the conduit of the mind of clear light (PRABHĀSVARACITTA); this body appears in the form of the buddha that one will become.

Māyājāla. (T. Sgyu ’phrul dra ba). In Sanskrit, “Magical Net”; a class of TANTRAS. Certain Buddhist tantras from the eighth century onward described themselves as extractions from a massive, and probably mythological, urtext. In Tibet, and particularly within the RNYING MA sect, the Māyājāla (“Magical Net”) became associated with the tantras of the MAHĀYOGA class. It is often said that there are eighteen Māyājāla tantras, although sources differ on which tantras should be included in the list. For the Rnying ma, the GUHYAGARBHATANTRA has been the most influential of the Māyājāla tantras, and its MAṆḌALA of one hundred deities (forty-two peaceful and fifty-eight wrathful deities) appears throughout the later Rnying ma ritual traditions. Some scholars have suggested that the similar group of VAJRAŚEKHARA tantras, also eighteen in number, represented a precursor to the Māyājāla group. The Vajraśekhara group played a larger role in East Asian tantric Buddhism. While the Vajraśekhara and Māyājāla groups share several titles in common, the Vajraśekhara tantras are generally associated with the YOGATANTRA class, of which the SARVATATHĀGATATATTVASAṂGRAHA is a particularly important member. See also GUHYAGARBHATANTRA.

māyākāra. (T. sgyu ma mkhan; C. huanshi; J. genshi; K. hwansa 幻師). In Sanskrit and Pāli, lit., “illusion-maker”; a term often translated as “magician,” in the sense of someone who is able to conjure things that appear to be real but are in fact illusions. Given the consistent Buddhist claim of the fictive nature of ordinary sense experience, the magician figures prominently in illustrations of the false appearances of the world. In one example, a magician casts a spell on his audience, causing them to see what is in fact a small pebble as a beautiful woman. The magician also sees the woman but knows that she is not real. A person arriving late for the performance is unaffected by the spell and sees only the pebble. In this metaphor, the audience is likened to ordinary sentient beings, who both perceive false appearances and believe them to be true. The magician is likened to an ARHAT who perceives false appearances but is unaffected by them, knowing them to be false. The latecomer is like the Buddha who sees things as they truly are.

māyopamasamādhi. (T. sgyu ma lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin; C. ruhuan sanmei; J. nyogenzanmai; K. yŏhwan sammae 如幻三昧). In Sanskrit, lit. “illusion-like SAMĀDHI”; a meditative state that occurs after rising from the direct perception of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). In this state, after having perceived the pure vacuity of emptiness, the objects of experience again appear to be real, but the meditator knows that they are like illusions, appearing to have intrinsic existence but in fact being empty thereof.

Mazu Daoyi. (J. Baso Dōitsu; K. Majo Toil 馬祖道一) (709–788). Chinese CHAN master of the Tang dynasty and retrospective patriarch of the HONGZHOU ZONG of the broader Chan tradition. Mazu was a native of Hanzhou in present-day Sichuan province. At an early age, he became a student of the Chan master Chuji (alt. 648–734, 650–732, 669–736) of Zizhou (also in present-day Sichuan province) and received the full monastic precepts later from the VINAYA master Yuan (d.u.) at nearby Yuzhou. Mazu is said to have later visited the sixth patriarch HUINENG’s disciple NANYUE HUAIRANG (677–744), under whom he attained awakening. According to the famous story, which is frequently recited in Chan literature, Mazu was awakened when his teacher Nanyue likened Mazu’s sitting in meditation to the act of polishing of a roof tile: just as a roof tile cannot be polished to make a mirror, sitting meditation, says Nanyue, cannot lead to buddhahood. In his thirties, Mazu began teaching at various monasteries in the southern regions of Fujian and Jiangxi province. In 769, he began his residence at the monastery of Kaiyuansi (also known as Youqingsi) in Zhongling (in present-day Jiangsu province) and attracted many students. Emperor Xianzong (r. 805–820) later gave him the posthumous title Chan Master Daji (Great Serenity). His teachings are recorded in the Mazu Daoyi chanshi guanglu. Mazu developed the idea of “original enlightenment” (BENJUE) from the DASHENG QIXIN LUN (“Awakening of Faith According to the Mahāyāna”) in a radical direction. He asserted that “everyday mind is the way” (pingchangxin shi dao) and that “mind itself is the Buddha” (zixin shi fo), arguing that sentient beings have never in fact been deluded but have always been awakened buddhas. Although Mazu did not intend to advocate maintaining a deluded state of mind but wanted instead to recognize the value of the ordinary life as the ground of enlightenment, his emphasis on the inseparable relationship of enlightenment and ignorance drew severe criticisms, especially from GUIFENG ZONGMI (780–841), who believed that Mazu’s teachings fostered antinomianism for suggesting that practice was not necessary in order to awaken.

mchod rten. (chöten). In Tibetan, lit., “basis for worship”; the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit terms STŪPA and CAITYA. As in India, the Tibetan stūpa serves as a reliquary, and may contain the remains (ashes, hair, bones) of a prominent lama (BLA MA) or objects associated with an exalted being, such as the begging bowl or robe of a famous monk. In the case of a highly exalted personage, such as one of the DALAI LAMAs, the body is not cremated but is instead embalmed and then entombed inside a stūpa. They range greatly in size, from several inches high to hundreds of feet tall. In a standard ritual that precedes a teaching, the lama is offered a statue of the Buddha, a text, and a small stūpa, representing the body, speech, and mind of the Buddha, respectively. One of the most common forms of Buddhist practice in Tibet is to circumambulate a stūpa in a clockwise direction. There is a large literature in Tibetan devoted to the construction, consecration, and symbolism of the stūpa. Many different types of stūpas are described, one of the most famous rubrics being the eight types of stūpas, each with a different shape, which commemorate eight events in the life of the Buddha. These are: (1) the “heap of lotuses stūpa” (pad spungs mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s birth, (2) the “enlightenment stūpa” (byang chub mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s achievement of enlightenment beneath the BODHI TREE, (3) the “many auspicious doors stūpa” (bkra shis sgo mang mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s turning of the wheel of the dharma, (4) the “display of miracles stūpa” (cho ’phrul mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s display of miracles at ŚRĀVASTĪ, (5) the “divine descent stūpa” (lha babs mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s descent from the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven on the summit of Mount SUMERU to SĀṂKĀŚYA, (6) the “settling of disputes stūpa” (dbyen bsdums mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s healing of a schism within the monastic community caused by his cousin DEVADATTA, (7) the “victory stūpa” (rnam rgyal mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s extension of his life by three months, and (8) the “nirvāṇa stūpa” (myang ’das mchod rten) commemorating the Buddha’s passage into PARINIRVĀṆA. See also BAXIANG.

Mchog gyur gling pa. (Chokgyur Lingpa) (1829–1870). A Tibetan Buddhist visionary renowned for his activities as a treasure revealer (GTER STON) in Khams, eastern Tibet. His full name is often given as Mchog ’gyur bde chen zhig po gling pa (Chokgyur Dechen Shikpo Lingpa). At the age of thirteen, he had his first vision of PADMASAMBHAVA, who predicted that he would discover treasure texts (GTER MA). His early claims to be a gter ston were rejected and he was expelled from his monastery for having a consort. He eventually won the trust of ’JAM MGON KONG SPRUL and ’JAM DBYANGS MKHYEN BRTSE DBANG PO, and came to be regarded as an authentic revealer of treasure, discovering texts that he himself translated and for which he composed liturgies. He also discovered relics and images. With ’Jam mgon kong sprul and ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse dbang po, he is considered an important figure in the RIS MED or nonsectarian movement in eastern Tibet during the nineteenth century.

mchog zung. (choksung). In Tibetan, “the two supreme attendants.” In Tibetan Buddhist art, ŚĀKYAMUNI is typically depicted flanked by two ancillary companions, ŚĀRIPUTRA who is supreme in wisdom, and MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA who is supreme in ṚDDHI (magical attainment). See ER XIESHI.

Mdo Mkhyen brtse Ye shes rdo rje. (Do Kyentse Yeshe Dorje) (1800–1866). A Tibetan Buddhist master from the Mgo log (Golok) region of eastern Tibet, venerated as the body incarnation of the famous eighteenth-century treasure revealer (GTER STON) ’JIGS MED GLING PA and an important lineage holder of the “heart essence” (SNYING THIG) tradition of RDZOGS CHEN. He was the disciple of the first RDO GRUB CHEN, who instructed him to live the life of a lay tantric practitioner. He was known for his magical powers (SIDDHI), such as the ability to fly and to subjugate demons. Often known by the epithet ’Ja’ lus pa chen po, “Great Rainbow-Body Man,” his disciples included the second Rdo grub chen and DPAL SPRUL RIN PO CHE.

Mdzod bdun. (Dzö Dün). In Tibetan, lit. “seven great treasuries”; an important collection of texts compiled by the Tibetan master of the RNYING MA sect KLONG CHEN RAB ’BYAMS. The central theme of these works is the Rnying ma doctrine of RDZOGS CHEN. The seven texts are:

1. Gnas lugs mdzod (“Treasury of the Abiding Nature of Reality”)

2. Man ngag mdzod (“Treasury of Instructions”)

3. Chos dbyings mdzod (“Treasury of the DHARMADHĀTU”)

4. Grub mtha’ mdzod (“Treasury of Philosophical Systems”)

5. Theg mchog mdzod (“Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle”)

6. Tshig don mdzod (“Treasury of Word and Meaning”)

7. Yid bzhin mdzod (“Wish-fulfilling Treasury”)

Me ’bar mtsho. (Mebar Tso). In Tibetan, lit. “Lake of Blazing Fire”; an important Buddhist sacred site in the Bum thang region of central Bhutan, associated with the great Bhutanese treasure revealer (GTER STON) PADMA GLING PA. It is not an actual lake, but a wide pool amid a rock gorge, said to be the location from which Padma gling pa unearthed his first treasure (GTER MA). It takes its name from the well-known account of how Padma gling pa emerged from the river’s depths with a butter lamp in his hand that remained burning.

Medhaṅkara and Mahādhammagambhīra. The names of two members of a delegation of twenty-five monks from the Thai kingdom of Lānnā (Chiangmai) who, in 1424 CE, together with a group of eight monks from Kamboja and six from Rāmañña (the Mon homeland in Lower Burma), were reordained in Sri Lanka at the Kalyāṇī river near Colombo. The delegation returned to Thailand in 1425, settling first in the kingdom of AYUTHAYA before proceeding to Chiangmai in 1430. The next king of Chiangmai, Tilokarājā (r. 1442–1487 CE), strongly promoted the reformist Sinhalese sect led by Mahāmedhaṅkara and Mahādhammagambhīra, making it the dominant Buddhist order throughout northern Thailand. This reformation occurred at the same time that the king consolidated and expanded the territories under his rule. Tilokarājā’s patronage of the new Sinhalese order is celebrated in the sixteenth-century text JINAKĀLAMĀLĪ. In the PADAENG CHRONICLE, the leader of this reformist movement is given the name Ñāṇagambhīra.

meditation. There is no single term in Buddhism that corresponds precisely to what in English is called “meditation.” Some of its connotations are conveyed in such Buddhist terms as BHĀVANĀ; CHAN; DHYĀNA; JHĀNA; PAṬIPATTI; SAMĀDHI; ZUOCHAN.

Menzan Zuihō. (面山瑞方) (1683–1769). Japanese reformer of the SŌTŌSHŪ of ZEN during the Tokugawa period (1600–1867), who is largely responsible for establishing DŌGEN KIGEN (1200–1253) as the font of orthodoxy for the Sōtō school and, during the modern and contemporary periods, as an innovative religious thinker. Born in Higo province in the Kumamoto region, Menzan studied with MANZAN DŌHAKU (1636–1715) and later Sonnō Sōeki (1649–1705). At a thousand-day retreat Menzan led following Sonnō’s death, Menzan read texts by Dōgen that had been neglected for centuries and subsequently used them as the scriptural authority from which he forged an entirely new vision of the Sōtōshū; he then deployed this revisioning of Dōgen to justify a reformation of long-held practices within the school. Menzan was a prolific author, with over a hundred works attributed to him, sixty-five of which have been published in modern Sōtō school collections; these works include everything from detailed philological commentaries to extended discussions of monastic rules and regulations. He remains best known for his Shōbōgenzō shōtenroku, an eleven-roll encyclopedic commentary to Dōgen’s magnum opus, the SHŌBŌGENZŌ.

Mettāsutta. (C. Ci jing; J. Jikyō; K. Cha kyŏng 慈經). In Pāli, the “Discourse on Loving-Kindness”; one of the best-loved and most frequently recited texts in the THERAVĀDA Buddhist world. According to the Mettāsutta’s framing narrative, a group of monks went into the forest during the rainy season to meditate. The tree deities of the forest were disturbed by the presence of the monks and sought to drive them away by frightening them during the night. The monks went to the Buddha and requested his assistance in quelling the disturbance. The Mettāsutta was the discourse that the Buddha then delivered in response, instructing the monks to meditate on loving-kindness (P. mettā; S. MAITRĪ), thinking, “May all beings be happy and safe. May they have happy minds. Whatever living beings there may be—feeble or strong, long, stout, or of medium size, short, small, large, those seen or those unseen, those dwelling far or near, those who are born as well as those yet to be born—may all beings have happy minds.” Having radiated these thoughts throughout the forest, the monks were no longer troubled by the spirits. The Mettāsutta appears in an early scriptural anthology, the SUTTANIPĀTA, a later collection, the KHUDDAKAPĀṬHA, and in a postcanonical anthology of “protection texts,” (PARITTA). (Separate recensions appear in the Chinese translations of the EKOTTARĀGAMA and the SAṂYUKTĀGAMA, the latter affiliated with the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school.) The Mettāsutta’s great renown derives from its inclusion among the paritta texts, which are chanted as part of the protective rituals performed by Buddhist monks to ward off misfortunes; indeed, it is this apotropaic quality of the scripture that accounts for its enduring popularity. Paritta suttas refer to specific discourses delivered by the buddha that are believed to offer protection to those who either recite the sutta or listen to its recitation. Other such auspicious apotropaic suttas are the MAṄGALASUTTA (“Discourse on the Auspicious”) and the RATANASUTTA (“Discourse on the Precious”). These paritta texts are commonly believed to bring happiness and good fortune when chanted by the SAṂGHA. See also BRAHMAVIHĀRA.

Miaoshan. (J. Myōzen; K. Myosŏn 妙善). In Chinese, “Sublime Wholesomeness”; a legendary Chinese princess who is said to have been an incarnation of the BODHISATTVA GUANYIN (S. AVALOKITEŚVARA). According to legend, Princess Miaoshan was the youngest of three daughters born to King Zhuangyan. As in the legend of Prince SIDDHĀRTHA, Miaoshan refused to fulfill the social expectations of her father and instead endured great privations in order to pursue her Buddhist practice. In frustration, Miaoshan’s father banished her to a convent, where the nuns were ordered to break the princess’s religious resolve. The nuns were ultimately unsuccessful, however, and in anger, the king ordered the convent set ablaze. Miaoshan escaped to the mountain of Xiangshan, where she pursued a reclusive life. After several years, her father contracted jaundice, which, according to his doctors’ diagnosis, was caused by his disrespect toward the three jewels (RATNATRAYA). The only thing that could cure him would be a tonic made from the eyes and ears of a person who was completely free from anger. As fate would have it, the only person who fulfilled this requirement turned out to be his own daughter. When Miaoshan heard of her father’s dilemma, she willingly donated her eyes and ears for the tonic; and upon learning of their daughter’s selfless generosity and filiality, Miaoshan’s father and mother both repented and became devoted lay Buddhists. Miaoshan then apotheosized into the goddess Guanyin, specifically her manifestation as the “thousand-armed and thousand-eyed Guanyin” (SĀHASRABHUJASĀHASRANETRĀVALOKITEŚVARA). Later redactions of the legend include Miaoshan’s visit to hell, where she was said to have relieved the suffering of the hell denizens. The earliest reference to the Miaoshan legend appears in stele fragments that date from the early eleventh century, discovered at a site near Hangzhou. Other written sources include the Xiangshan baojuan (“Precious Scroll of Xiangshan Mountain”), which was revealed to a monk and then transmitted and disseminated by a minor civil servant. With the advent of the Princess Miaoshan legend, the Upper Tianzhu monastery, already recognized as early as the tenth century as a Guanyin worship site, became a major pilgrimage center. The earliest complete rendition of the Miaoshan legend dates from the early Song dynasty (c. twelve century). Thereafter, several renditions of the legend were produced up through the Qing dynasty.

Mi bskyod rdo rje. (Mikyö Dorje) (1507–1554). Tibetan Buddhist master recognized as the eighth KARMA PA, revered as one of the most dynamic teachers in his lineage. He was born in eastern Tibet and as a newborn child is said to have declared, “I am the Karma pa.” Although a rival candidate was simultaneously promoted in A mdo, prominent BKA’ BRGYUD lamas identified Mi bskyod rdo rje as the reincarnation of the seventh Karma pa. His enthronement took place on 1513 at RI BO CHE monastery. He received an invitation from the Chinese emperor Wuzong Zhengde (r. 1506–1522) who dispatched a military troop as an escort. The Karma pa declined the invitation, divining that the emperor would soon die. When the military escort returned to court, they found the emperor had indeed passed away. Mi bskyod rdo rje was famed as both a meditation master and scholar. He wrote dozens of works, including philosophical treatises on MADHYAMAKA and ABHIDHARMA, tantric commentaries, poetry, works on linguistics, SĀDHANAs, liturgies, and other ritual texts; his collected works comprise over thirty volumes. His artwork contributed to the establishment of a new painting style in eastern Tibet, known as the karma sgar bris, or “karmapa encampment” style.

middha. (T. gnyid; C. shuimian; J. suimen; K. sumyŏn 睡眠). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “torpor,” or sometimes simply “sleep.” In the SARVĀSTIVĀDA and YOGĀCĀRA dharma lists, middha is one of the four or eight “indeterminate” (ANIYATA) factors among the fifty-one mental constituents (CAITTA; P. cetasika) that, depending on the intention of the agent, may be virtuous, nonvirtuous, or neutral. Middha is defined as the unintended withdrawal of the senses’ engagement with their objects. The term is often seen in compound with “sloth” or “ laziness” (STYĀNA), which together constitute one of the five hindrances (NĪVARAṆA) to meditative absorption (DHYĀNA), specifically hindering the meditative factor (DHYĀNĀṄGA) of applied thought (VITARKA). This hindrance is countered by the spiritual faculty (INDRIYA) of effort (VĪRYA). Ways of countering sloth and torpor include memorizing the doctrine, developing the perception of light, or simply walking around in the open air. In the Pāli abhidhamma, middha is classified as an unvirtuous (akusala) state. In Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra it is indeterminate because sleep may be virtuous, unvirtuous, or neutral based on one’s state of mind when falling asleep.

Mihintale. The Sinhala name of a mountain in Sri Lanka, located eight miles east of ANURĀDHAPURA; it is called Missakapabbata in Pāli. Mihintale is said to be the place where the monk MAHINDA, son of the emperor AŚOKA and recently arrived from India, first met the king of Sri Lanka, DEVĀNAṂPIYATISSA, teaching the king the dharma and thus introducing Buddhism to the island. The king was hunting in the area and, following a stag into the forest, encountered Mahinda and his companions. A STŪPA marks the site of their meeting. The mountain became an important place of pilgrimage, with numerous VIHĀRAs and shrines constructed over the centuries.

Miidera. (三井寺). A famous monastery in Ōtsu, Japan, which is currently the headquarters (honzan) of the Jimon branch of the TENDAISHŪ. In 858, the monk ENCHIN restored the dilapidated monastery of Onjōji, which was originally constructed by retired Emperor Kōbun’s (r. 671–672) children as their clan temple in 686. Onjōji, which was renamed Miidera, thus became a subtemple of the powerful monastery of ENRYAKUJI on the nearby HIEIZAN. In 993, after a long period of conflict between the disciples of ENNIN and Enchin over the issue of succession, Enchin’s followers moved to Miidera and eventually formed a separate branch of Tendai. For the next six hundred years, the monks of Miidera continued to contend for authority with the monks at Enryakuji, which came to be known as the Sanmon branch of the Tendaishū. Miidera suffered from a series of great fires from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, and further destruction was done to the monastery by the forces of Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598) in 1561. The golden hall (kondō) was rebuilt several decades later in 1598, and restoration efforts continued for several decades. Miidera is famous for its numerous treasures now designated important cultural properties.

mijiao. (J. mikkyō; K. milgyo 密教). In Chinese, “esoteric teachings”; a term used to describe a large body of literature and practices that included both MAHĀYĀNA rituals introduced from India and Central Asia into China beginning in the third and fourth centuries CE, as well as more specifically “tantric” teachings translated into Chinese in the eighth century. Rather than representing a specific independent school, mijiao refers more generically to a range of esoteric practices (including the recitation of MANTRAs and the creation of MAṆḌALAs), which came to be adopted by many of the Buddhist traditions of China. A more systematic form of mijiao appeared in the zhenyan zong (see SHINGONSHŪ), which flourished during the Tang dynasty, declining in influence after the Huichang persecution (see HUICHANG FANAN) of 842–845. Its adherents included the foreign masters ŚUBHAKARASIṂHA, VAJRABODHI, and AMOGHAVAJRA, each of whom held influential positions at court during the Tang, where the image of the divine king, as well as rituals to protect the state (HUGUO FOJIAO), found favor. Among the most important texts for mijiao were the MAHĀVAIROCANĀBHISAṂBODHISŪTRA and the SARVATATHĀGATATATTVASAṂGRAHA. See also MIKKYŌ.

mikkyō. (密教). In Japanese, lit. “esoteric teachings”; often translated as “esoteric Buddhism.” The term mikkyō is used collectively today to refer to a large body of texts, liturgies, implements, and rituals that were imported from China to Japan during the Heian period (794–1185) by influential Japanese monk-pilgrims in the Japanese TENDAISHŪ and SHINGONSHŪ traditions. These new teachings and objects in turn were largely, but not exclusively, based on the teachings of late medieval Indian Buddhism (see TANTRA and VAJRAYĀNA) that had reached Central Asia and China. SAICHŌ (762–822) and KŪKAI (774–835) played the most notable roles in introducing esoteric Buddhism to the Japanese isles. Their trips to Tangdynasty China (618–907) coincided with the height of esoteric practice on the continent. While Saichō’s brief voyage to China in 804 focused on TIANTAI practice, he also learned a limited number of MANTRA practices toward the end of his stay, which he introduced to Japan. In 806, KŪKAI returned from a three-year stay in the Tang capital of Chang’an, bringing back with him the extensive training he had received in esoteric Buddhism from the prominent tantric master HUIGUO (746–805), as well as a large collection of esoteric texts and MAṆḌALAs. In the following years, Saichō and Kūkai’s esoteric rituals quickly gained favor with the Japanese court, gradually becoming dominant among the political elite over the course of the Heian period. Alongside Kūkai’s Shingon school of mikkyō (known as TŌMITSU), Tendai Buddhism increasingly developed its own set of tantric practices (known as TAIMITSU) under such successors of Saichō as ENNIN (794–864), ENCHIN (814–891), and ANNEN (b. 841). These practices were further adopted by the Nara Buddhist institutions and heavily influenced the growth and development of SHUGENDŌ. Many local cultic practices, now collectively referred to as SHINTŌ, also incorporated esoteric rituals. The primary deity of worship in mikkyō is the universal buddha MAHĀVAIROCANA. Concrete goals of esoteric practice included maintaining power, attaining good fortune, warding off evil, and becoming a buddha in one’s very body (SOKUSHIN JŌBUTSU). Common ritual implements included maṇḍalas (see KONGŌKAI and TAIZŌKAI); icons, sometimes hidden, that were presented in the ritual hall (see HIBUTSU); and various ritual objects such as wands, bells, and the VAJRA.

Mi la’i mgur ’bum. (Mile Gurbum). In Tibetan, “The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa”, containing the collected spiritual songs and versified instructions of the eleventh-century Tibetan yogin MI LA RAS PA. Together with their brief narrative framing tales, the songs in this collection document the later period of Mi la ras pa’s career, his life as a wandering hermit, his solitary meditation, subjugation of demons, and training of disciples. The work catalogues his songs of realization: expressions of his experiences as an awakened master, his reflections on the nature of the mind and reality, and his instructions for practicing the Buddhist path. The songs are composed in a vernacular idiom, abandoning the highly ornamental formal structure of classical poetry in favor of a simple and direct style. They are much loved in Tibet for their clarity, playfulness, and poetic beauty, and continue to be taught, memorized, and recited within most sects of Tibetan Buddhism. Episodes from the Mi la’i mgur ’bum have become standard themes for traditional Tibetan Buddhist plastic arts and have been adapted into theatrical dance performances (CHAMS). The number 100,000 is not literal, but rather a metaphor for the work’s comprehensiveness; it is likely that many of the songs were first recorded by Mi la ras pa’s own close disciples, perhaps while the YOGIN was still alive. The most famous version of this collection was edited and arranged by GTSANG SMYON HERUKA during the final decades of the fifteenth century, together with an equally famous edition of the MI LA RAS PA’I RNAM THAR (“The Life of Milarepa”).

Mi la ras pa. (Milarepa) (1028/40–1111/23). The most famous and beloved of Tibetan YOGINs. Although he is associated most closely with the BKA’ BRGYUD sect of Tibetan Buddhism, he is revered throughout the Tibetan cultural domain for his perseverance through hardship, his ultimate attainment of buddhahood in one lifetime, and for his beautiful songs. The most famous account of his life (the MI LA RAS PA’I RNAM THAR, or “The Life of Milarepa”) and collection of spiritual songs (MI LA’I MGUR ’BUM, or “The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa”) are extremely popular throughout the Tibetan world. The themes associated with his life story—purification of past misdeeds, faith and devotion to the GURU, ardor in meditation and yogic practice, and the possibility of attaining buddhahood despite the sins of his youth—have inspired developments in Buddhist teaching and practice in Tibet. Mi la was his clan name; ras pa is derived from the single cotton robe (ras) worn by Tibetan anchorites, an attire Milarepa retained for most of his life. The name is therefore an appellation, “The Cotton-clad Mi la.” Although his dates are the subject of debate, biographies agree that Mi la ras pa was born to a wealthy family in the Gung thang region of southwestern Tibet. He was given the name Thos pa dga’, literally “Delightful to Hear.” At an early age, after the death of his father, the family estate and inheritance were taken away by Mi la ras pa’s paternal aunt and uncle, leaving Mi la ras pa, his mother, and his sister to suffer poverty and disgrace. At the urging of his mother, Mi las ras pa studied sorcery and black magic in order to seek revenge. He was successful in his studies, causing a roof to collapse during a wedding party hosted by his relatives, with many killed. Eventually feeling remorse and recognizing the karmic consequences of his deeds, he sought salvation through the practice of Buddhism. After brief studies with several masters, he met MAR PA CHOS KYI BLO GROS, who would become his root guru. Mar pa was esteemed for having traveled to India, where he received valuable tantric instructions. However, Mar pa initially refused to teach Mi la ras pa, subjecting him to all forms of verbal and physical abuse. He made him undergo various ordeals, including constructing single-handedly several immense stone towers (including the final tower built for Mar pa’s son called SRAS MKHAR DGU THOG, or the “nine-storied son’s tower”). When Mi la ras pa was at the point of despair and about to abandon all hope of receiving the teachings, Mar pa then revealed that the trials were a means of purifying the negative KARMAN of his black magic that would have prevented him from successfully practicing the instructions. Mar pa bestowed numerous tantric initiations and instructions, especially those of MAHĀMUDRĀ and the practice of GTUM MO, or “inner heat,” together with the command to persevere against all hardship while meditating in solitary caves and mountain retreats. He was given the initiation name Bzhad pa rdo rje (Shepa Dorje). Mi la ras pa spent the rest of his life practicing meditation in seclusion and teaching small groups of yogin disciples through poetry and songs of realization. He had little interest in philosophical discourse and no tolerance for intellectual pretension; indeed, several of his songs are rather sarcastically directed against the conceits of monastic scholars and logicians. He was active across southern Tibet, and dozens of locations associated with the saint have become important pilgrimage sites and retreat centers; their number increased in the centuries following his death. Foremost among these are the hermitages at LA PHYI, BRAG DKAR RTA SO, CHU DBAR, BRIN, and KAILĀSA. Bhutanese tradition asserts that he traveled as far as the STAG TSHANG sanctuary in western Bhutan. Foremost among Milarepa’s disciples were SGAM PO PA BSOD NAMS RIN CHEN and RAS CHUNG PA RDO RJE GRAGS. According to his biography, Mi la ras pa was poisoned by a jealous monk. Although he had already achieved buddhahood and was unharmed by the poison, he allowed himself to die. His life story ends with his final instructions to his disciples, the account of his miraculous cremation, and of how he left no relics despite the pleas of his followers.

Mi la ras pa’i rnam thar. (Milarepe Namtar). In Tibetan, “Life of Milarepa”; an account of the celebrated eleventh-century Tibetan yogin MI LA RAS PA. While numerous early Tibetan versions of the life story exist, including several that may date from his lifetime, the best-known account was composed in 1488 by GTSANG SMYON HERUKA, the so-called mad YOGIN of Tsang, based upon numerous earlier works. Its narrative focuses on Mi la ras pa’s early wrongdoings, his subsequent training and meditation, and eventual death. It is a companion to the MI LA’I MGUR ’BUM (“The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa”), also arranged and printed by Gtsang smyon Heruka, which records Milarepa’s later teaching career through a compilation of his religious instruction and songs of realization. Gtsang smyon Heruka’s version of the Mi la ras pa’i rnam thar is known and read throughout the Tibetan Buddhist cultural world and is widely accepted as a great literary achievement by Tibetans and Western scholars alike. The account of Milarepa’s life profoundly affected the development of sacred biography in Tibet, a prominent genre in Tibetan Buddhist culture, and has influenced the way in which Tibet’s Buddhism and culture have been understood in the West.

Milindapañha. (C. Naxian biqiu jing; J. Nasenbikukyō; K. Nasŏn pigu kyŏng 那先比丘經). In Pāli, the “Questions of Milinda”; a famous dialogical text that records the conversations of the ARHAT NĀGASENA and the Bactrian-Greek King Milinda (Menander) on various knotty points of Buddhist doctrine and ethics. The text was presumably composed in northern India in Sanskrit or Prakrit and later translated into Pāli, with the original composition or compilation probably occurring around the beginning of the Common Era. (There is an early Chinese translation made around the late fourth century, probably from a Central Asian recension in GĀNDHĀRĪ titled the *Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra, which is named after the BHIKṢU Nāgasena rather than King Milinda.) It is uncertain whether such a dialogue ever in fact took place. There was indeed a famous king of BACTRIA named Menander (alt. Menandros; Milinda in Indian sources) who ruled over a large region that encompassed parts of modern India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during the middle of the second century BCE. There is no evidence of Nāgasena’s existence, however. Whatever the historical reality, the “Questions of Milinda” is one of the best-known texts of Pāli Buddhism. The text is structured as a series of questions by the king and answers by the monk on a wide range of topics, with each of the interlocutors displaying an impressive knowledge of Buddhist doctrine and literature. Nāgasena always provides a satisfying answer to each of the king’s queries. His presentation of the dharma is so successful in fact that at the end of the dialogue King Milinda places his son upon the throne, enters the religious life, and becomes an arahant (S. arhat). The text was translated into Sinhalese in the eighteenth century by the elder Sumaṅgala. The Milindapañha is included in the Burmese recension of the Pāli TIPIṬAKA in the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA. Since its translation into English, it has become one of the more commonly anthologized of Pāli texts.

Mindon Min. (r. 1853–1878). Tenth king of the Konbaung dynasty and penultimate Burmese king to rule Burma (Myanmar) before the imposition of complete British rule. His reign is known for its reforms and cultural renaissance. He usurped the throne from his brother Pagan Min (r. 1846–1853), during whose reign Great Britain declared war on Burma for a second time in 1852. Upon becoming king, Mindon Min sued for peace and was compelled to surrender Burma’s remaining coastal provinces to Britain in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. In 1857 he built a new capital, MANDALAY, and sought to make it into a center for Buddhist learning. In 1871, he summoned scholar-monks from throughout the country to convene a Buddhist council for the purpose of revising the Pāli TIPIṬAKA and its commentaries. By Burmese reckoning, this conclave was the fifth Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, FIFTH). The revised texts were inscribed on stone tablets and erected in the Kuthodaw Pagoda compound at the base of Mandalay Hill, where they can still be seen today. In the secular sphere, Mindon promoted a number of reforms. He assessed a land tax and fixed the salaries for government officials. He standardized the country’s weights and measures, built roads and a telegraph system, and was the first Burmese king to issue coinage. In 1872, he sent his chief minister, Kinwun Mingyi U Gaung, to London, Paris, and Rome to secure recognition of his kingdom as an independent country. Despite his efforts to revitalize his country culturally and politically, contemporary records indicate that many within the Burmese saṅgha (S. SAṂGHA) regarded British conquest of the Burmese kingdom as inevitable and imminent. Fundamentalist reform factions arose within the Burmese order that resisted the directives of the king’s monastic council and organized themselves into independent self-governing congregations (see GAING). After the British destruction of the Burmese monarchy in 1885, these reformed congregations were to play an important role in shaping Burmese monastic culture in the twentieth century.

Mingdi. (J. Meitei; K. Myŏngje 明帝) (r. 58–76 CE). In Chinese, “Bright Emperor”; emperor during the Later Han dynasty, who is traditionally associated with the introduction of Buddhism into China. According to a famous legend found in the preface to the SISHI’ER ZHANG JING (“Sūtra in Forty-Two Sections”), in 67 CE, Emperor Ming had a dream of a radiant golden figure flying through the air. After he awoke and asked his vassals to interpret his dream, they told him he had seen the Buddha. Emperor Ming subsequently sent envoys to the western regions (Xiyu, viz., Central Asia), where this divine being was known to reside. The envoys were said to have returned three years later with two foreign missionaries, KĀŚYAPA MĀTAṄGA and Zhu Falan (Dharmaratna), and many Buddhist scriptures, including a copy of the Sishi’er zhang jing. The emperor also ordered a monastery built on their behalves in the capital of Luoyang, which he called BAIMASI (White Horse Monastery), because the two Indian monks are said to have arrived in China with scriptures carried on white horses. Baimasi is, according to tradition, the first Buddhist monastery established on Chinese soil. Much of this legend is suspect. Buddhism probably had already begun to infiltrate into China at least fifty years prior to Mingdi’s dream, since the emperor’s vassals already knew who this golden figure was supposed to be. In addition, the Sishi’er zhang jing, the scripture thought to have been the first text translated by these two early missionaries, is now generally presumed to be an indigenous Chinese composition (see APOCRYPHA), not the translation of an originally Indian scripture.

Mi pham ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho. (Mipam Jamyang Namgyal Gyatso) (1846–1912). A prominent Tibetan Buddhist scholar of the RNYING MA sect and a leading figure in the RIS MED or so-called nonsectarian movement of eastern Tibet. He is often known as Mi pham rgya mtsho or ’Ju Mi pham in reference to his clan name. As a young child he excelled at study—it is said that he composed his first text at age seven—and quickly mastered a broad range of traditional Buddhist learning, from MAHĀYĀNA sūtras to tantric rituals, as well as subjects such as logic, astrology, grammar, medicine, and the arts. His ease in learning a vast body of scriptures was ascribed to his devotion to the BODHISATTVA of wisdom MAÑJUŚRĪ. He is said to have read the entire BKA’ ’GYUR seven times. He studied with and received transmission from many of the leading scholars of the day, including DPAL SPRUL RIN PO CHE and ’JAM MGON KONG SPRUL. His principal guru was the luminary ’JAM DBYANGS MKHYEN BRTSE DBANG PO. Unlike many other prominent Rnying ma lamas of his time, he was not actively involved in the discovery and revelation of treasure (GTER MA). He is especially renowned for his strikingly original, and often controversial, commentaries on important Indian treatises—scriptural exegesis of Indian works being relatively rare among his contemporary Rnying ma scholars. These works include his commentary on the ninth chapter of ŚĀNTIDEVA’s BODHICARYĀVATĀRA and his commentary on ŚĀNTARAKṢITA’s MADHYAMAKĀLAṂKĀRA. In other works, he sought to reveal the philosophical profundity of the RDZOGS CHEN teachings.

Miram Ch’ungji. (宓庵冲止) (1226–1292). Korean monk from the late Koryŏ dynasty and sixth-generation successor to the SUSŎNSA religious society (K. kyŏlsa; C. JIESHE) established by POJO CHINUL; also known as Pŏphwan. In 1244, Miram passed the highest-level civil examination at the age of nineteen. He was subsequently appointed to the Hallim academy, the king’s secretariat, and was later sent to Japan as an emissary. When he heard that state preceptor (K. kuksa; C. GUOSHI) CH’UNGGYŎNG CH’ŎNYŎNG was residing at the nearby monastery of Sŏnwŏnsa in Kaegyŏng, he decided to become the master’s disciple. In 1286, after Ch’unggyŏng passed away, Ch’ungji succeeded him as head of the Susŏnsa society. He later went to Yanjing (present-day Beijing) at the request of the Yuan emperor Shizong (r. 1260–1294). He passed away in 1292 at the age of sixty-seven, and was given the posthumous title and name State Preceptor Wŏn’gam. He was a talented poet and his poetry can be found in the Tongmunsŏn. His extant writings also include the Chogye Wŏn’gam kuksa ŏrok, Haedong Chogye cheyukse Wŏn’gam kuksa kasong, and Haedong Chogye Miram hwasang chapchŏ. A compendium of his writings, the Wŏn’gam kuksa chip, is no longer extant.

mithyādṛṣṭi. (P. micchādiṭṭhi; T. log par lta ba; C. ejian/xiejian; J. akuken/jaken; K. akkyŏn/sagyŏn 惡見/邪見). In Sanskrit, “wrong view,” “mistaken view,” or “perverse view”; a general term for misconceptions or a specific referent to erroneous philosophical positions, such as the belief in eternalism (ŚĀŚVATADṚṢṬI; ŚĀŚVATĀNTA) or annihilationism (UCCHEDADṚṢṬI; UCCHEDĀNTA) or the belief in a creator deity. The term is used more specifically as the last of the ten unwholesome actions (see KARMAPATHA)—viz., killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, senseless speech, covetousness, harmful intent, and wrong views—in the context of which it refers to the mistaken belief that actions do not have effects and that former and future rebirths therefore do not occur. This particular wrong view is considered to be especially pernicious because one who holds such views would be inclined to engage in unwholesome deeds, falsely believing that they would be no consequences. (It is noteworthy in this context that in East Asia, one of the terms used to translate mithyādṛṣṭi is the same as that used for akuśaladṛṣṭi or “nonvirtuous view.”) The term also appears as the fifth of five types of views (DṚṢṬI), which is a root affliction (MŪLAKLEŚA). The five are the view of the body as being real (SATKĀYADṚṢṬI); the view of holding to an extreme (ANTAGRĀHADṚṢṬI), that is eternalism or annihilationism; the holding of wrong views as being superior (DṚṢṬIPARĀMARŚA); the clinging to rites and rituals as being soteriologically efficacious (ŚĪLAVRATAPARĀMARŚA); and mithyādṛṣṭi. In this case as well, mithyādṛṣṭi includes the denial of cause and effect, the denial of the prospect of rebirth, or the denial of the possibility of liberation from rebirth.

mithyājñāna. (T. log pa’i shes pa; C. xiezhi; J. jachi; K. saji 邪智). In Sanskrit, “erroneous conceptions”; a consciousness that is mistaken with regard to its object of comprehension. Such knowledge may be nonconceptual, such as the perception of two moons by a person suffering from double vision, or conceptual, such as the belief that rebirth does not exist. This type of knowledge contrasts with the authentic knowledge of things as they are (yathārthajñāna), or the “knowledge and vision that accords with reality” (YATHĀBHŪTAJÑĀNADARŚANA). A common example of mithyājñāna offered by a variety of Indian traditions is mistaking a rope for a snake when the light is low: the presumed perception of a snake is completely erroneous, and the emotional reaction elicited by such a perception is entirely unwarranted. The most fundamental and deep-rooted of these misconceptions is the perception of the self (ĀTMAN) as an indivisible, unchanging, indestructible entity.

mithyāsaṃvṛti. (T. log pa’i kun rdzob). In Sanskrit, “false conventionality”; a term that occurs in MADHYAMAKA philosophy, where two types of conventionalities are enumerated: real conventionalities (TATHYASAṂVṚTI) and false conventionalities. A real conventionality is a conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA) in the sense that it is not the object of an ultimate consciousness and is falsely imagined to possess SVABHĀVA, or intrinsic existence. Even though it may be falsely conceived, it is not however utterly nonexistent (like a false conventionality) because a real conventionality is capable of performing a function (ARTHAKRIYĀ) in accordance with its appearance. For example, the water in a lake would be a true conventionality because it can perform the function of water, whereas as the water in a mirage would be a false conventionality because it could not perform the function of a water. Only a real conventionality is a conventional truth; it is true in the sense that it can perform a function; a false conventionality is not a conventional truth because it does not exist even conventionally.

Miyun Yuanwu. (J. Mitsuun Engo; K. Mirun Wŏno 密雲圓悟) (1566–1642). Chinese CHAN master of the LINJI ZONG; also known as Tiantong. Miyun was a native of Changzhou prefecture in present-day Jiangsu province. He is said to have decided to become a monk after reading the LIUZU TAN JING and was formally ordained by Huanyou Zhengzhuan (1549–1614) at the age of twenty-eight. In 1602, Miyun followed Huanyou to the monastery of Longchiyuan in Changzhou and served as its prior (JIANYUAN). In 1611, Miyun received Huanyou’s robes and bowls as a mark of transmission. Three years later, Miyun succeeded Huanyou’s seat at Longchiyuan. In 1623, Miyun moved to the monastery Tongxuansi on TIANTAISHAN and again to Guanghuisi in Fuzhou prefecture (Zhejing province) a year later. In 1630, Miyun restored the monastery Wanfusi on Mt. Huangbo. He subsequently served as abbots of the monasteries Guanglisi on Mt. Yuwang, Jingdesi on Mt. Tiantong, and Dabao’ensi in Jinleng. His teachings are recorded in the Miyun chanshi yulu.

mizuko kuyō. (水子供養). In Japanese, lit., “offering to a child of the waters,” viz., “ceremony for an aborted fetus”; a memorial ceremony performed by women and their families on behalf of the spirits of aborted, miscarried, and stillborn fetuses. Abortion is legal and widely practiced in contemporary Japan and this ceremony has become increasingly common since the 1970s as a way both to placate the potentially malevolent spirit of an aborted fetus and to comfort the woman who chose to undertake the procedure. Images of the BODHISATTVA Jizō (KṢITIGARBHA) in the form of a child are enshrined at temples, roadside shrines, or even family altars, and dedicated to the spirit of the fetus. In temples where this ceremony is common, small images of the bodhisattva are made available, which will then be typically garbed in either red bibs and caps or baby clothes so as to represent the fetus, with chanting performed and offerings made before the image. The mizuko kuyō ceremony was originally performed as an offering service to Jizō, the patron bodhisattva of children, but evolved during the Edo period in Japan into a ceremony for aborted fetuses or victims of infanticide, along the lines of other rituals performed for the ancestors of a family lineage. (Given the widespread famines of the time, some parents may have thought it better to offer children the prospect of a better rebirth than the suffering of continued starvation or unremitting sickness.) Because of this connection to Jizō, a hymn commonly sung at contemporary ceremonies is an indigenous Japanese Buddhist composition that calls on Jizō to protect the spirit of a deceased child and lead him or her to buddhahood. The mizuko kuyō may be performed at any time of the year but is especially prevalent on days dedicated to rituals for deceased ancestors, such as the Bon Festival in August.

Mkha’ ’gro snying thig. (Kandro Nyingtik). In Tibetan, “Heart Essence of the ḌĀKINĪs”; an important set of treasure texts (GTER MA) of the RNYING MA sect of Tibetan Buddhism. These RDZOGS CHEN teachings are said to have been transmitted by PADMASAMBHAVA to Princess PADMA GSAL and to YE SHES MTSHO RGYAL. The treasure texts were discovered by PADMA LAS ’BREL RTSAL and were later included in the SNYING THIG YA BZHI, the fourfold collection of snying thig teachings by KLONG CHEN PA. He composed a commentary on the Mkha’ ’gro snying thig, entitled Mkha’ ’gro yang thig. The text and commentary together are known as the Mkha’ ’gro snying thig ma bu, the “Mother and Son Heart Essence of the Ḍākinīs.”

Mkhar chu. (Karchu). An important monastic center associated with both the RNYING MA and BKA’ BRGYUD sects of Tibetan Buddhism, located in the LHO BRAG region of southern Tibet. The original site was established by the ’Brug pa bka’ brgyud master Lo ras pa (1187–1250), but was later renovated and enlarged by famed ’Brug pa scholar and historian PADMA DKAR PO. The monastery and surrounding environs were a wealthy and active center for Buddhist practice, visited by numerous important masters. His disciple Nam mkha’i snying po stayed in a meditation retreat nearby, where he is said to have attained realization of MAHĀMUDRĀ. Mkhar chu later became a seat for Nam mkha’i snying po’s successive reincarnations. Other Rnying ma and Bka’ brgud masters associated with Mkhar chu include NYANG RAL NYI MA ’OD ZER, RGOD TSHANG PA MGON PO RDO RJE, GURU CHOS KYI DBANG PHYUG, and Me long rdo rje (1234–1303).

Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang. (Kedrup Gelek Palsang) (1385–1438). Also known as Mkhas grub rje, an early leader of the DGE LUGS sect of Tibetan Buddhism, who trained first under the influential scholar Red mda’ ba Gzhon nu blo gros (Rendawa Shonu Lodro, 1349–1412). At the age of twenty-three he met TSONG KHA PA, who became his principal GURU. Mkhas grub rje excelled in his study of Buddhist logic and philosophy and his collected works contain numerous influential treatises on PRAMĀṆA, MADHYAMAKA, and TANTRA (especially the KĀLACAKRA); among his most famous works is the Stong thun skal bzang mig ’byed. At the age of forty-seven, he ascended the golden throne of DGA’ LDAN monastery as the institution’s abbot, replacing Tsong kha pa’s other illustrious student RGYAL TSHAB DAR MA RIN CHEN (see DGA’ LDAN KHRI PA). Mkhas grub rje was recognized posthumously as being first in the line of PAṆ CHEN LAMA incarnations. Mkhas grub rje is commonly depicted in paintings and statues called rje yab sras gsum, “the triumvirate of the foremost father and his [two] sons,” showing Tsong kha pa flanked by Rgyal tshab and Mkhas grub. Here Mkhas grub can often be distinguished from Rgyal tshab by his younger visage and darker hair, and by his wild eyes, said to have been a result of his tantric practice.

Mkho mthing. (Koting). In Tibet, one of the four “extra taming temples” or “extra pinning temples” (YANG ’DUL GTSUG LAG KHANG) said to have been constructed during the time of the Tibetan king SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO to pin down the limbs of the demoness (T. srin mo) in order to introduce Buddhism into Tibet. It is located in LHO BRAG and pins down her left elbow.

mofa. (J. mappō; K. malpŏp 末法). In Chinese, “final dharma” period. The dispensation of Buddhism, like all compounded things, is presumed to be impermanent and subject to decay and eventually dissolution. This process of eschatological decline was believed to occur in stages, often calculated at either five hundred or one thousand years at each stage (although there were many variations), and began with the passage of the Buddha into PARINIRVĀṆA. In East Asia, the notion of decline was formalized into an influential doctrinal system, consisting of three stages or periods named “true dharma” (zhengfa; see SADDHARMA), “semblance dharma” (XIANGFA), and “final dharma” (mofa). This tripartite system was not inherited from Indian Buddhism. The term mofa is not the translation of the Sanskrit SADDHARMAVIPRALOPA (“destruction of the dharma”), but is instead a neologism derived from moshi, the Chinese translation of term PAŚCIMAKĀLA (“latter time”). The notion of the period of the final dharma spawned a large and influential exegetical tradition in East Asia. The date of the onset of the final period was variously calculated (and was generally assumed to have already begun soon after Buddhism’s introduction into East Asia). This assumption was widely employed as doctrinal justification for certain practices, such as the invocation of the name of the buddha AMITĀBHA (NIANFO) or the cult of the future buddha MAITREYA. In such contexts, it was claimed that during the period of the final dharma, beings lacked the capacity to successfully follow the standard path to liberation set forth by the Buddha and instead should rely on the efficacious powers of Amitābha or the prospect of an easier practice regimen after the advent of ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha’s successor, Maitreya. The notion of the age of the final dharma was espoused in many indigenous scriptures (see APOCRYPHA) written in East Asia. It also played an important role in the formation of such traditions as PURE LAND, JŌDOSHŪ, JŌDO SHINSHŪ, NICHIRENSHŪ, NICHIREN SHOSHŪ, and others. See also SADDHARMAVIPRALOPA.

Moggaliputtatissa. (C. Mujianlianzidixu; J. Mokukenrenshiteishu; K. Mokkŏllyŏnjajesu目犍連子帝須). According to Pāli sources, the monk who served as head of the third Buddhist council (SAṂGĪTI; see COUNCIL, THIRD) convened at Pāṭaliputta (S. PĀṬALIPUTRA) in the third century BCE. In a previous life, Moggaliputtatissa had been a divinity who, at the behest of a delegation of arahants (S. ARHAT), took human rebirth so that he could assist in the future purification of the Buddhist teaching. Fully trained in the TIPIṬAKA and its commentaries (AṬṬHAKATHĀ) as a novice, he became an arahant shortly after being ordained as a monk. King AŚOKA’s lavish support of the Buddhist SAṂGHA prompted many non-Buddhist mendicants and brāhmaṇas to don the robes of Buddhist monks merely as a livelihood. With the orthodox saṃgha unable to forcibly remove the bogus monks from their midst, the ordination ceremony (P. uposatha; S. UPOṢADHA) was suspended. When this situation had persisted for seven years, Moggaliputtatissa, at Aśoka’s request, taught the DHARMAVINAYA to the king so that he might intervene on behalf of the legitimate party. Aśoka interrogated the saṃgha and, drawing on the authority of the state (āṇācakka), defrocked those monks found to be improperly ordained. With the saṃgha thus purified of its corrupting influences, Moggaliputtatissa convened the third Buddhist council to rehearse the Buddha’s teachings as preserved in the Pāli tipiṭaka and its commentaries. At that time Moggaliputtatissa composed the KATHĀVATTHU, the seventh and last book of the ABHIDHAMMAPIṬAKA, to refute heretical views. At the conclusion of the council, Moggaliputtatissa dispatched missionaries to nine adjacent lands (paccantajanapada) to propagate the newly purified teaching.

Mogharāja. (C. Mianwang [biqiu]; J. Men’ō [biku]; K. Myŏnwang [pigu] 面王[比丘]). The Sanskrit and Pāli proper name of an eminent ARHAT declared by the Buddha to be foremost among monks who wore coarse robes. According to Pāli sources, he was a brāhmaṇa ascetic who studied under Bāvarī, and one of sixteen students sent to defeat the Buddha in debate. When the Buddha answered the question posed by Mogharāja, he attained arahantship immediately. He became known for stitching his robes from coarse cloth discarded by tailors and dyers. Mogharāja suffered from various skin ailments and, believing his residence to be infested with insects, he slept on a straw bed laid out in the open, even during the winter. When the Buddha inquired how he fared, Mogharāja responded that he was happy even in the cold. The boils and sores that covered his body were a consequence of a misdeed performed in a previous life. During the time of Padumuttara Buddha he had blackened the floor of the Buddha’s cloister with soot from a fire; for this transgression, he was compelled to suffer in hell for a thousand years and after that to endure skin disease for another five hundred lifetimes. It was during the lifetime of Padumuttara that Mogharāja heard him praise a disciple as foremost among those who wore coarse clothing, and he resolved to attain that preeminence during the dispensation of a future buddha.

moha. (T. gti mug; C. chi; J. chi; K. ch’i 癡). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “delusion,” “confusion,” “benightedness,” “foolishness”; as a synonym of “ignorance” (AVIDYĀ), moha denotes a fundamental confusion concerning the true character of the conception of a person (PUDGALA) and the phenomenal world and is thus an affliction (KLEŚA) and cause of future suffering. Moha appears frequently in the sūtra literature as one of the “three poisons” (TRIVIṢA) or three unwholesome faculties (AKUŚALAMŪLA): viz., the kleśas of greed or sensuality (RĀGA or LOBHA), hatred or aversion (DVEṢA), and delusion (moha). Moha is also one of the forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA school of ABHIDHARMA and is listed as the first of six “fundamental afflictions” or “defiled factors of wide extent” (kleśa-MAHĀBHŪMIKA) that are associated with all defiled thoughts, together with heedlessness (PRAMĀDA), lassitude (KAUSĪDYA), lack of faith (ĀŚRADDHYA), sloth (STYĀNA), and restlessness (AUDDHATYA). It also is listed as one of the fourteen unwholesome (akusala) mental states (CETASIKA) in the Pāli abhidhamma. Delusion is the opposite of nondelusion (AMOHA), one of the eleven wholesome factors (KUŚALADHARMA) in the YOGĀCĀRA list of one hundred dharmas (BAIFA).

Mohe zhiguan. (J. Makashikan; K. Maha chigwan 摩訶止觀). In Chinese, “The Great Calming and Contemplation”; a comprehensive treatise on soteriological theory and meditation according to the TIANTAI ZONG; attributed to TIANTAI ZHIYI (538–597). The Mohe zhiguan is based on a series of lectures Zhiyi delivered in 594, which were transcribed and edited by his disciple GUANDING. Zhi (lit. “stopping”) is the Chinese translation for ŚAMATHA (calmness, serenity) and guan (lit. “observation”) is the Chinese for VIPAŚYANĀ (insight); the work as a whole seeks to establish a proper balance between meditative practice and philosophical insight. Zhi and guan practice are treated in three different ways in this treatise. Zhi in its denotation of “stopping” means calming the mind so that it is not buffeted by distracting thoughts; fixing the mind so that it stays focused on the present; and recognizing that distraction and concentration are both manifestations of a unitary, nondual reality. Guan in its denotation of “observation” means to illuminate the illusory nature of thought so that distractions are brought to an end; to have insight into the suchness (TATHATĀ) that is the ultimate nature of all phenomena in the universe; and to recognize that in suchness both insight and noninsight ultimately are identical. The original text of the Mohe zhiguan consists of ten chapters, but only the titles of the last three chapters survive. The last extant chapter, Chapter 7 on “Proper Contemplation,” comprises approximately half of the entire treatise and, as the title suggests, provides a detailed description of the ten modes of contemplation and the ten spheres of contemplation. The first of the ten spheres of contemplation is called “the realm of the inconceivable” (S. ACINTYA). In his discussion of this realm in the first part of the fifth roll, Zhiyi covers one of the most famous of Tiantai doctrines: “the TRICHILIOCOSM in a single instant of thought” (YINIAN SANQIAN), which Zhiyi frames here as the “the trichiliocosm contained in the mind during an instant of thought” (sanqian zai yinian xin), viz., that any given thought-moment perfectly encompasses all reality, both temporally and spatially. By emphatically noting the “inconceivable” ability of the mind to contain the trichiliocosm, Zhiyi sought to emphasize the importance and mystery of the mind during the practice of meditation. This chapter, however, remains incomplete. The work also offers an influential presentation of the “four SAMĀDHIs,” that is, the samādhis of constant sitting, constant walking, both sitting and walking, and neither sitting nor walking. Along with Zhiyi’s FAHUA XUANYI and FAHUA WENJU, the Mohe zhiguan is considered to be one of the three most important treatises in the Tiantai tradition and is regarded as Zhiyi’s magnum opus. The Tiantai monk ZHANRAN’s MOHE ZHIGUAN FUXING ZHUANHONG JUE is considered to be the most authoritative commentary on the Mohe zhiguan.

Mohe zhiguan fuxing zhuanhong jue. (J. Makashikan bugyōdenguketsu; K. Maha chigwan pohaeng chŏnhong kyŏl 摩訶止觀輔行傳弘決). Often referred to in Chinese by its abbreviated title of Zhuanhongjue; a comprehensive commentary on ZHIYI’S MOHE ZHIGUAN composed by JINGXI ZHANRAN(711–782). In the past, the Mohe Zhiguan and the Zhuanhongjue were frequently printed together; hence, the traditional interpretation of the Mohe Zhiguan has been heavily dependent upon Zhanran’s commentary. It was largely through the exegetical efforts of Zhanran, in fact, that the Mohe Zhiguan was established as the foundation of Tiantai theory and practice. The commentary also provides Zhanran’s own views regarding the teachings of other rival schools, such as the HUAYAN ZONG, CHAN ZONG, and FAXIANG ZONG. Zhanran also advocated the view that human nature was inherently evil (xing’e lun), and his views on human nature are elaborated in his commentary.

mokṣa. (P. mokkha; T. thar pa; C. jietuo; J. gedatsu; K. haet’al 解

). In Sanskrit, “liberation,” “freedom” or “release”; the state of liberation from suffering and rebirth, achieved via the path of the ŚRĀVAKA, PRATYEKABUDDHA, or BODHISATTVA and virtually interchangeable with the synonymous VIMOKṢA. The term is often used as a synonym for NIRVĀṆA. Buddhahood is the ultimate form of mokṣa, but it is possible to achieve liberation (as an ARHAT) without achieving buddhahood. Whether all beings will eventually achieve some form of mokṣa and whether all beings will eventually achieve buddhahood are points of controversy among Buddhist schools. The term is often paired with SVARGA (“heaven”) as the two destinations that may result from practicing the Buddha’s teachings. That is, by leading a virtuous life, one is reborn as a divinity (DEVA) in one of several heavenly realms. By understanding the nature of reality, one attains mokṣa, final liberation from all forms of rebirth. In this pairing, svarga is the lesser goal for those incapable of seeking the ultimate goal of mokṣa in the present lifetime.

mokṣabhāgīya. (T. thar pa cha mthun; C. shunjietuofen; J. jungedatsubun; K. sunhaet’albun 順解

分). In Sanskrit, “aids to liberation”; abbreviation for the mokṣabhāgīya-kuśalamūla (wholesome faculties associated with liberation), the second of the three types of wholesome faculties (literally, “virtuous root”) (KUŚALAMŪLA) recognized in the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, along with the puṇyabhāgīya (aids to creating merit) and NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA (aids to penetration). This type of wholesome faculty involves the intent to listen to (śruta) and reflect upon (cintā) the Buddhist teachings and then make the resolution (PRAṆIDHĀNA) to follow the DHARMAVINAYA to such an extent that all one’s physical and verbal actions (KARMAN) will come into conformity with the prospect of liberation. The mokṣabhāgīyas are constituents of the path of preparation (PRAYOGAMĀRGA), the second segment of the five-path schema outlined in the Vaibhāṣika ABHIDHARMA system, which mark the transition from the mundane sphere of cultivation (LAUKIKA-BHĀVANĀMĀRGA) to the supramundane vision (viz., DARŚANAMĀRGA) of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni). In distinction to the nirvedhabhāgīyas, however, which are the proximate path of preparation, the mokṣabhāgīyas constitute instead the remote path of preparation and are associated only with the types of wisdom developed from learning (ŚRUTAMAYĪPRAJÑĀ) and reflection (CINTĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ), not meditative practice (BHĀVANĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ). The mokṣabhāgīyas are generally concerned with the temporary allayment of the influence of the three major afflictions (KLEŚA)—viz., greed (LOBHA), hatred (DVEṢA), and ignorance (MOHA)—by cultivating the three kuśalamūlas of nongreed (ALOBHA), nonhatred (ADVEṢA), and nondelusion (AMOHA). These factors are “conducive to liberation” by encouraging such salutary actions as giving (DĀNA), keeping precepts (ŚĪLA), and learning the dharma. The mokṣabhāgīya are associated with the development of the first twelve of the BODHIPĀKṢIKADHARMAs, or “thirty-seven factors pertaining to awakening.” Among them, the first set of four develop SMṚTI (mindfulness) as described in the four SMṚTYUPASTHĀNA (applications of mindfulness), the second set of four develop VĪRYA (effort) as described in the four PRAHĀṆA (efforts or abandonments), and the third set of four develop SAMĀDHI (concentration) as described in the four ṚDDHIPĀDA (bases of psychic powers). According to a different enumeration, there are five mokṣabhāgīya: (1) faith (ŚRADDHĀ), (2) effort (VĪRYA), (3) mindfulness (SMṚTI), (4) concentration (SAMĀDHI), and (5) wisdom (PRAJÑĀ).

mokṣamārga. (T. thar lam; C. jietuodao; J. gedatsudō; K. haet’alto 解

道). In Sanskrit, “path to liberation”; a path that leads to liberation from SAṂSĀRA, as opposed to a favorable rebirth within saṃsāra, such as in the heavens (SVARGA). In this case, the term would refer specifically to the five paths (PAÑCAMĀRGA): the path of accumulation (SAṂBHĀRAMĀRGA), the path of preparation (PRAYOGAMĀRGA), the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA), the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA), and the adept path where there is nothing more to learn (AŚAIKṢAMĀRGA). However, any virtuous practice that is motivated by the wish to achieve liberation from rebirth would also be qualified as a “path to liberation.”

mokt’ak. (C. muduo; J. bokutaku 木鐸). In Korean, “wooden clacker”; a wooden percussion instrument that is used in Korean Buddhist monasteries to call monks and nuns to assembly and to keep time during religious services or meditation periods. The mokt’ak is abstractly carved in a shape that resembles a fish, and is thus the functional equivalent in Korea to the Chinese “wooden fish” (MUYU; see also DRUM). The instrument is constructed by carving wood (typically apricot, jujube, or birch) in the shape of a round bell with a handle grip. The bell shape of the wood is cut across the middle and the center hollowed out, producing a sound box. The sound resonates when it is struck by a small wooden mallet. The long, narrow cut in the mokt’ak represents the mouth of a fish, while the two small holes on each side of the “mouth” represent the eyes of a fish. Because a fish’s eyes are always open day and night, the stylized mokt’ak version of the wooden fish is a subtle admonition to monks and nuns to remain ever vigilant about their practice. The term mokt’ak itself originates from ancient Chinese custom in which a government official would use a wooden or iron bell to summon people to the announcement of a new government ordinance. However, a Chinese wooden clacker is an iron bell with a wooden clapper inside, an instrument that is called a yoryŏng in Korean.

monsan. (門参). In Japanese, lit. “lineage instructions,” probably an abbreviation of monto hissan (the secret instructions of this lineage); secret kōan (GONG’AN) manuals used in medieval Japanese SŌTŌSHŪ monasteries of the ZEN tradition, which provide detailed descriptions of the kōan curriculum taught in the various Sōtō lineages. As a record of the secret instructions transmitted in a particular lineage, the possession of these manuals often served as proof of the inheritance of that particular dharma lineage. The manuals contain names of kōans and a series of standardized questions and answers (WENDA) for each kōan. The monsan provide the required responses to the master’s questions, which are in the form of Chinese verses and phrases known as AGYO and JAKUGO. The earliest extant monsan texts date from the sixteenth century, but they seem to represent long-established traditions within Zen lineages.

moshi. (J. masse; K. malse 末世). In Chinese, the “latter time”; a translation of the Sanskrit term PAŚCIMAKĀLA. The term commonly appears in the MAHĀYĀNA sūtras to refer to the time following the Buddha’s passage into PARINIRVĀṆA. In China, this term seems to have served as the basis for the Chinese neologism MOFA, the more common term in East Asia to refer to the final period of the dharma.

Mouzi. (J. Bōshi; K. Moja 牟子) (fl. c. third century CE?). A Chinese Buddhist layman who is the composer of the MOUZI LIHUO LUN, a text that is often known eponymously as simply the Mouzi. The author’s family name was Mou and he is traditionally identified as Mou Rong of the Latter Han dynasty (25–220 CE), although this identification is no longer accepted by scholars. According to the preface to his treatise, Mouzi was a scholar-official from Cangwu in Jiaozhou, in the far southern reaches of the Chinese empire, where there seems to have been a flourishing Buddhist community that may date to the Latter Han dynasty. Mouzi’s references to Buddhist monks wearing saffron robes, eating one meal a day, and living a celibate life suggest that he may have had contact with foreign monks who accompanied Indian traders arriving at southern Chinese seaports. Mouzi is said to have given up his administrative career after his mother’s death so that he could devote himself to Buddhist scholarship and meditation for the rest of his life. Other than the attribution that he was the writer of this earliest extant Buddhist treatise written by a Chinese layman, however, nothing more is known about him.

Mouzi lihuo lun. (J. Bōshi riwakuron; K. Moja ihok non 牟子理惑論). In Chinese, “Treatise on the Resolution of Doubts,” or “Treatise on the Disposition of Error”; the earliest extant Buddhist treatise written by a Chinese convert; often known by its abbreviated eponymous title, the Mouzi. The text is attributed to a Chinese Buddhist layman, MOUZI, who is claimed to have hailed from the south of China. The text is a polemical Buddhist defense of the faith, which responds to criticisms of Buddhism by rival religions in China. The text consists of a eulogistic preface, thirty-eight short dialogues between Mouzi and unnamed critic(s) of Buddhism, and a brief conclusion, in which the antagonist finally acquiesces to the rectitude of Buddhist positions. Stylistically, the work is written in Confucian commentarial form, thus making more palatable its putatively subversive idea, viz., that adherence to Buddhism is completely compatible with being a righteous and filial Chinese. Typically, criticisms deriving from Confucian beliefs are refuted using references from the Laozi and Zhuangzi, while Daoist criticisms are refuted with astute readings of both Daoist and Confucian texts. The Mouzi was thus successful not simply because it refuted the critiques of rival religions; in addition, by demonstrating the inherent inaccuracy and speciousness of their positions, the treatise was also able to prove the veracity, if not the superiority, of Buddhism itself. In one of the dialogues that argues that filiality is found not only in Confucianism but in Buddhism as well, the Mouzi compares the Buddhist monk to a son who saves his father from drowning by grabbing him and lifting him upside down back into the boat. Although the inelegant manner in which the son grabbed his father may initially seem disrespectful, since it saves his parent from drowning, the act would be acceptable even according to Confucius himself, who insisted that exigent circumstances justified adaptable demonstrations of filial piety. Similarly, the behavior of a Buddhist monk who leaves the home life may in fact be filial, even though initially it may not appear to be so. In another section, the Mouzi substantiates the filiality of Buddhism by pointing out that, since the Buddha protected his parents ŚUDDHODANA and MĀYĀ by showing them the path to their salvation, practicing Buddhism was indeed filial. In another dialogue concerning criticisms of the Buddhist teaching of rebirth, the Mouzi compares the spirit that is reborn to the seeds of a plant, which can grow into new plants even after the leaves and roots (viz., the physical body) have died. The composition date of the Mouzi has proven to be an intractable problem. Its preface claims that the text was written in the second century CE, although current scholarly estimates of its date range from the second quarter of the third century through the fourth or even early fifth century. More likely, the text developed over time, with many accretions. The text was included in the (nonextant) Fa lun (“Collection on the Dharma”), compiled by Lu Cheng (425–494) around 465, which would be the terminus ad quem for its composition. The text that is extant today is the recension appearing in SENGYOU’s (445–518) HONGMING JI (“Collection on the Propagation and Clarification [of Buddhism]”), the important anthology of Buddhist apologetics, compiled c. 515–518. Although some earlier scholars have questioned the authenticity of the text, it is now generally accepted to be in fact one of the earliest extant sources from the incipiency of indigenous Chinese Buddhism.

mozhao Chan. (J. mokushōzen; K. mukcho Sŏn 默照禪) In Chinese, “silent illumination meditation”; a form of Chan meditation attributed to the CAODONG ZONG (J. SŌTŌSHŪ), and specifically the masters HONGZHI ZHENGJUE (1091–1157) and his teacher Danxia Zichun (1064–1117). This practice builds upon the normative East Asian notion of the inherency of buddhahood (see TATHĀGATAGARBHA) to suggest that, since enlightenment is the natural state of the mind, there is nothing that needs to be done in order to attain enlightenment other than letting go of all striving for that state. Authentic Chan practice therefore entails only maintaining this original purity of the mind by simply sitting silently in meditation. Hongzhi’s clarion call to this new Caodong-style of practice is found in his Mozhao ming (“Inscription on Silent Illumination”), which may have been written in response to increasingly vehement criticisms of the practice by the rival LINJI ZONG, although its dating remains uncertain. In Hongzhi’s description of the practice of silent illumination, silence (mo) seems to correlate roughly with calmness (Ch. zhi, S. ŚAMATHA) and illumination (zhao) with insight (C. guan, S. VIPAŚYANĀ); and when both silence and illumination are operating fully, the perfect interfusion of all things is made manifest. Silent-illumination meditation thus seems to have largely involved prolonged sessions of quiet sitting (see ZUOCHAN) and the cessation of distracted thought, a state likened to dead wood and cold ashes or a censer in an old shrine. The Linji Chan adept DAHUI ZONGGAO deploys the term to denigrate the teachings of his Caodong contemporaries and to champion his preferred approach of practice, investigating meditative topics (see KANHUA CHAN) through Chan cases (C. GONG’AN), which demands a breakthrough to enlightenment, not simply what he claims is the passive sitting of the Caodong zong. After Dahui’s obstreperous critique of mozhao, the term seems to have acquired such a pejorative connotation that it stopped being used even within the Caodong tradition. See also SHIKAN TAZA.

mrakṣa. (P. makkha; T. ’chab pa; C. fu; J. fuku; K. pok 覆). In Sanskrit “disparagement” or “hypocrisy.” The term is typically interpreted to mean either concealing the achievements or wholesome qualities of others, or concealing one’s own faults. Mrakṣa is one of the forty-six mental concomitants (see CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA–VAIBHĀṢIKA school of ABHIDHARMA and the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA and one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school; it is classified among the secondary afflictions (UPAKLEŚA).

mṛdvindriya. (T. dbang po rtul ba; C. dungen; J. donkon; K. tun’gŭn 鈍根). In Sanskrit, “dull faculties”; the lowest of the “three capacities” (TRĪNDRIYA) used to describe those disciples of the Buddha whose intellectual and spiritual abilities are lesser than those with “average faculties” (MADYENDRIYA) and “sharp faculties” (TĪKṢṆENDRIYA). The “follower of faith” (ŚRADDHĀNUSĀRIN) who enters into practice more quickly than the “follower of dharma” (DHARMĀNUSĀRIN), without first investigating whether the practice will deliver the result, is the archetypal mṛdvindriya person. The term appears in discussions of UPĀYA, the Buddha’s skill at adapting his teachings to the intellects, interests, and aspirations of his disciples. The Buddha offers the simplest teachings, such as that the practice of charity (DĀNA) and morality (ŚĪLA), which result in a favorable rebirth as a divinity or human, to those of lesser faculties, understanding that such disciples are initially incapable of understanding more sophisticated teachings. The term is also put to polemical use, describing the adherents of competing schools who mistakenly think that their understanding of the doctrine is the Buddha’s highest teaching. In the MAHĀYĀNA, those with “dull faculties” do not gain the irreversible (AVAIVARTIKA) stage until a later stage of the path.

Mṛgadāva. [alt. Mṛgadāya] (P. Migadāya; T. Ri dwags kyi gnas; C. Luyeyuan; J. Rokuyaon; K. Nogyawŏn 鹿野苑). In Sanskrit, the “Deer Park” in the modern town of SĀRNĀTH, some four miles (six kms.) north of Vārāṇasī, where the Buddha preached his first sermon, the “Turning the Wheel of the Dharma” (S. DHARMACAKRAPRAVARTANASŪTRA; P. DHAMMACAKKAPPAVATTANASUTTA), following his enlightenment; the site was also known as ṚṢIPATANA. It was there that the Buddha encountered the “group of five” (S. PAÑCAVARGIKA; P. pañcavaggiyā), the five ascetics who had previously repudiated him for abandoning the practice of austerities, and it was to this group that the Buddha taught the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni) and the eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). A number of other important discourses were also delivered there. The Deer Park later became the site of a large monastery. According to the Chinese pilgrim XUANZANG, the place derived its name from the Nigrodhamṛgajātaka, which tells the story of when the bodhisattva was reborn as Nigrodha, king of the deer. When he offered himself in sacrifice, the king of Vārāṇasī was so moved that he established a sanctuary where deer could live unmolested by hunters.

Mṛgāramātṛprāsāda. (P. Migāramātupāsāda; T. Ri dwags ’dzin gyi ma’i khang bzang; C. Luzimu tang; J. Rokushimodō; K. Nokchamo tang 鹿子母堂). In Sanskrit, “Hall of Mṛgāra’s Mother”; the name of the monastery inside the Pūrvārāma (P. Pubbārāma), a park located outside the eastern city gate of ŚRĀVASTĪ, which was constructed for the Buddha by his foremost female lay disciple VIŚĀKHĀ, who was also known as “Mṛgāra’s Mother.” The monastic residence is said to have been two stories high, with five hundred rooms on each floor, and each room lavishly appointed. A golden water tower that could hold sixty pots of water rose from the roof. The Buddha is said to have spent the last twenty years of his life in Śrāvastī, dividing his time between this monastery built for him by Viśākhā and the JETAVANA monastery in ANĀTHAPIṆḌADA’s park (S. Anāthapiṇḍadārāma) built for him by his foremost male lay disciple Anāthapiṇḍada, typically moving between both sites every day.

mṛtyumāra. (T. ’Chi bdag gi bdud; C. Simo; J. Shima; K. Sama 死魔). In Sanskrit, “māra of death”; one of the four metaphorical forms of MĀRA, the personification of evil, along with the māra of the afflictions (kleśamāra), the māra of the aggregates (SKANDHAMĀRA), and the deity Māra (DEVAPUTRAMĀRA). In this form, death itself is an aspect of Māra, since death brings an end to everything that one holds precious in this current life.

mtha’ ’dul gtsug lag khang. (tadül tsuklakang). In Tibetan, the four “edge-taming temples” or “edge-pinning temples” of KHRA ’BRUG, ’GRAM, BKA’ TSHAL, and GRUM PA RGYANG, said to have been constructed during the time of the Tibetan king SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO to pin down the limbs of the demoness (T. srin mo) in order to pacify Tibet to prepare it for the introduction of Buddhism. The LHA SA gtsug lag khang, also known as the JO KHANG, pins down her heart and the four edge taming temples her right and left shoulders and hips.

Mtshur phu. (Tsurpu). A Tibetan monastery that served as the seat of the KARMA PA, established in 1187 by the first KARMA PA DUS GSUM MKHYEN PA in the Stod lung (Tölung) valley, northwest of LHA SA. The monastery was actually a large complex of assembly halls, residences (including that of the MTSHUR PHU RGYAL TSHAB incarnations), retreat centers, and meditation caves that greatly expanded as the fame of the Karma pas grew. At its height, it housed over one thousand monks. The monastery was completely demolished during the Chinese Cultural Revolution but has been partially restored since the 1980s.

1. Go shrī Dpal ’byor don grub (Goshri Paljor Döndrup, c. 1427–1489)

2. Bkra shis rnam rgyal (Tashi Namgyal, c. 1490–1518)

3. Grags pa dpal ’byor (Drakpa Paljor, c. 1519–1549)

4. Grags pa don grub (Drakpa Döndrup, c. 1550–1617)

5. Grags pa mchog dbyangs (Drakpa Chokyang, c. 1618–1658)

6. Nor bu bzang po (Norbu Sangpo, c. 1659–1698)

7. Dkon mchog ’od zer (Könchok Öser, c. 1699–1765)

8. Chos dpal bzang po (Chöpal Sangpo, c. 1766–1820)

9. Grags pa ye shes (Drakpa Yeshe, c. 1821–1876)

10. Bstan pa’i nyi ma (Tenpe Nyima, c. 1877–1901)

11. Grags pa rgya mtsho (Drakpa Gyatso, c. 1902–1959)

12. Karma Grags pa bstan pa yar ’phel, a.k.a. Bstan ’dzin phrin las chos kyi nyi ma (Tendzin Trinle Chökyi Nyima, b. 1960)

Mu’an Xingtao. (J. Mokuan Shōtō; K. Mogam Sŏngdo 木菴性瑫) (1611–1684). Chinese CHAN master, calligrapher, and pioneer of the ŌBAKUSHŪ in Japan. He was a native of Quanzhou in present-day Fujian province. After his novice ordination at the age of eighteen, Mu’an received the full monastic precepts from the monk Yongjue Yuanxian (1578–1657) on Mt. Gu (present-day Fujian province). Mu’an visited the eminent Chan master MIYUN YUANWU before he returned to Yongjue, under whom he is said to have attained awakening. Later, Mu’an continued his studies under FEIYIN TONGRONG and his disciple YINYUAN LONGQI at the monastery of Wanfusi on Mt. Huangbo (present-day Fujian province). Mu’an eventually became Yinyuan’s disciple and inherited his lineage. In 1655, Mu’an arrived in Nagasaki, Japan, and began his residence at the monastery of Fukusaiji. In 1661, Mu’an followed Yinyuan to his new monastery of MANPUKUJI in Uji. Three years later, Mu’an succeeded Yinyuan as the abbot of the monastery, and the next year he oversaw the ordination of monks at the triple-precept platform ceremony (sandan kaie). In 1670, he received the purple robe, and later with the support of the shōgun Tokugawa Ietsuna (1639–1680), he established the monastery of Zuishōji in Edo. In 1675, he turned over the administration of Zuishōji to his disciple Tetsugyū Dōki (1628–1700) and that of Manpukuji to Huilin Xingji (1609–1681).

muccitukamyatāñāṇa. [alt. muñcitukamyatāñāṇa]. In Pāli, “knowledge arising from the desire for deliverance”; according to the VISUDDHIMAGGA, the sixth of nine total types of knowledge cultivated as part of “purity of knowledge and vision of progress along the path” (PAṬIPADĀÑĀṆADASSANAVISUDDHI). This latter category, in turn, constitutes the sixth and penultimate purity (P. visuddhi; S. VIŚUDDHI) to be developed along the path to liberation. Having cultivated aversion toward all conditioned formations (P. saṅkhāra; S. SAṂSKĀRA) and the mental and physical phenomena (NĀMARŪPA) comprising the individual and the universe, because of their frightful nature and fundamental unsatisfactoriness, the practitioner generates the desire to be free from them. The Visuddhimagga explains that, like a frog caught in a snake’s mouth, a bird caught in a cage, or a deer caught in a hunter’s snare, the practitioner, being fearful of, dissatisfied with, and taking no delight in any kind of becoming in any realm or abode of existence, wishes only for deliverance from the cycle of rebirth.

Muchū mondō. (夢中問答). In Japanese, “Questions and Answers in Dreams,” a primer on ZEN (C. CHAN) training attributed to the RINZAISHŪ master MUSŌ SOSEKI (1275–1351). The Muchū mondō is a record of the answers given by Musō to the questions regarding Zen asked by Ashikaga Tadayoshi (1306–1352), the brother of the shōgun Ashikaga Takauji (1305–1358). In total, Tadayoshi and Musō exchanged ninety-three sets of questions and answers that covered a wide range of subjects, including everything from praying for merit to the study of kōans (C. GONG’AN) and the practice of seated meditation (J. zazen; C. ZUOCHAN). Due to its simple and clear discussion of topics relevant to a lay audience, the Muchū mondō has been widely read within the tradition and republished often.

Mucilinda. [alt. Mahāmucilinda] (P. Mucalinda; T. Btang bzung; C. Muzhenlintuo; J. Mokushinrinda; K. Mokchillinda 目眞隣陀). In Sanskrit, the name of a snake divinity (NĀGA) who is said to have sheltered GAUTAMA Buddha while he was meditating following his enlightenment. According to the Pāli account, Mucalinda (S. Mucilinda) was the eponymous name of the nāga king of the Mucalinda tree, which was located in URUVILVĀ, along the bank of the NERAÑJARĀ river near the BODHI TREE in BODHGAYĀ, the site of the Buddha’s enlightenment. In the third week following his enlightenment, the Buddha was meditating there, experiencing the bliss of enlightenment, when a severe thunderstorm broke out. Seeing that the Buddha was in danger, the nāga king of the tree (whom the commentaries say lived in a pond next to the tree), coiled himself around the Buddha seven times and then spread his hood over him like an umbrella to protect him from the storm. In other accounts, the nāga king resides in the Mucilinda lake, which is located just south of the present-day site of the MAHĀBODHI TEMPLE at Bodhgayā, and the event occurs in the sixth week following the enlightenment. In some versions of the story, once the storm had passed, the nāga transformed himself into a youth who then paid his respects before the buddha. The scene is a frequent subject of Buddhist art, where Mucilinda is often depicted in multiheaded form (often with seven heads). The story of Mucilinda is also exuberantly told in the LALITAVISTARA as well as in various MAHĀYĀNA sources.

muditā. (T. dga’ ba; C. xi; J. ki; K. hŭi 喜). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “joy” or “sympathetic joy”; the third of the four divine abidings (BRAHMAVIHĀRA) and four immeasurables (APRAMĀṆA). Sympathetic joy is the attitude of taking delight in the happiness and good fortune of others and is the opposite of jealousy and envy. The other three divine abidings and immeasurables are MAITRĪ (loving-kindness), KARUṆĀ (compassion), and UPEKṢĀ (equanimity). The divine abidings are used for the cultivation of tranquillity or serenity meditation (ŚAMATHA). Of the four divine abidings, sympathetic joy, along with loving-kindness and compassion, is capable of producing the first three of four states of meditative absorption (DHYĀNA). Equanimity alone is capable of producing the fourth dhyāna. In the VISUDDHIMAGGA, sympathetic joy is listed as one among forty possible meditative topics (KAMMAṬṬHĀNA). The text indicates that, along with the other three divine abidings, sympathetic joy is used only for the cultivation of tranquillity, not to cultivate insight (P. VIPASSANĀ; S. VIPAŚYANĀ).

mudrā. (P. muddā; T. phyag rgya; C. yin; J. in; K. in 印). In Sanskrit, lit., “seal,” “mark,” or “sign”; but in Buddhist contexts it often refers to hand and arm “gestures” made during the course of ritual practice or depicted in images of buddhas, bodhisattvas, tantric deities, and other Buddhist images. Mudrās commonly associated with figures of the Buddha, such as the “gesture of fearlessness” (ABHAYAMUDRĀ), the “earth-touching gesture” (BHŪMISPARŚAMUDRĀ), the “wheel of the dharma gesture” (DHARMACAKRAMUDRĀ), and the “gesture of meditation” (DHYĀNAMUDRĀ), are found in the earliest Indian representations of ŚĀKYAMUNI. With the development of MAHĀYĀNA and VAJRAYĀNA iconography, the number of mudrās depicted in Buddhist art proliferated, until they numbered in the hundreds. They are a prominent feature in the vajrayāna artwork of the Himalayan region (northern India, Nepal, Tibet, and Bhutan) as well as early tantric images from Southeast Asia and the esoteric traditions of East Asia. Mudrās are also dynamic hand movements performed during the course of tantric ritual practice, where they may symbolize material offerings, enact forms of worship, or signify relationships with visualized deities. ¶ In a more specifically tantric denotation, the term mudrā is used to refer to a sexual consort, of which there are two types: the JÑĀNAMUDRĀ (a visualized consort) and the KARMAMUDRĀ (an actual consort). The highest state of realization in certain tantric systems is called MAHĀMUDRĀ, the great seal. See also ABHAYAMUDRĀ; AÑJALIMUDRĀ; BHŪTAḌĀMARAMUDRĀ; BODHYAṄGĪMUDRĀ; DAINICHI KEN-IN; HŪṂKĀRAMUDRĀ; HŌSHU-IN; ONGYŌ-IN; TARJANĪMUDRĀ; VARADAMUDRĀ; VITARKAMUDRĀ.

Mugai Nyodai. (無外如大) (1223–1298). Influential nun, who became Japan’s first female ZEN master. A daughter of the powerful Adachi clan, Mugai entered the cloister and became a student of émigré teacher WUXUE ZUYUAN (J. Mugaku Sogen, 1226–1286). Wuxue was a Chinese CHAN master in the LINJI ZONG (J. RINZAISHŪ), who reluctantly came to Japan in 1279 at the invitation of Hōjō Tokimune (1251–1284), the eighth regent of the Kamakura shogunate, to escape the depredations of the Mongol troops then invading China. Nyodai eventually became a dharma heir (J. hassu; C. FASI) in WUXUE’s Rinzai lineage, together with the imperial scion and monk KŌHŌ KENNICHI (1241–1316). Nyodai later founded Keiaiji, a Rinzai Zen convent in the Japanese capital of Kyōto, which eventually became the leading cloister of the five mountain convent system (amadera gozan), the nun’s counterpart of the five mountain (GOZAN) monastery system of the Kamakura.

Mugujŏnggwang taedarani kyŏng. (S. Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhādhāraṇī; T. ’Od zer dri ma med pa rnam par dag pa’i ’od gzungs; C. Wugoujingguang datuoluoni jing; J. Mukujōkō daidaranikyō 無垢淨光大陀羅尼經). In Korean, “Great DHĀRAṆĪ Scripture of Immaculate Radiance”; the world’s oldest extant printed text, printed c. 751 CE in Silla dynasty Korea. The woodblock printing of the text was rediscovered in 1966 during reconstruction of the Sŏkka t’ap (ŚĀKYAMUNI STŪPA) at the royal monastery of PULGUKSA in the ancient Silla capital of KYŎNGJU. The terminus ad quem for its printing is 751 CE, when the text was sealed inside the Sŏkka t’ap, but since the colophon to the Dhāraṇī states that it was translated into Chinese in 704 by *Mitraśānta, the printing may well have occurred decades earlier. The dhāraṇī was printed using xylographic (woodblock) technology, in which the Sinographs are carved on specially cured wood in mirror image, then an impression taken off the blocks with ink.

Muhak Chach’o. (無學自超) (1327–1405). A Korean SŎN monk and pilgrim during the transition from the Koryŏ to the Chosŏn dynasty; Muhak was a native of Samgi (present-day South Kyŏngsang province). After his ordination in 1344, Muhak traveled to different monasteries to study. In 1353, he went to China, where he met the Indian ĀCĀRYA ZHIKONG CHANXIAN (d. 1363; K. Chigong Sŏnhyŏn; S. *Śūnyadiśya-Dhyānabhadra) and studied under his Korean student NAONG HYEGŬN at the Yuan-dynasty capital of Yanjing. Muhak returned to Korea in 1356. When Naong returned two years later, Muhak continued his studies under him at the hermitage of Wŏnhyoam on Mt. Ch’ŏnsŏng. In 1392, shortly after the establishment of the Chosŏn dynasty, Muhak was invited to the palace as the king’s personal instructor (wangsa) and given the title Venerable Myoŏm (Subtle Adornment). He was also asked to reside at the royal monastery of Hoeamsa. In 1393, Muhak assisted the Chosŏn-dynasty founder, King T’aejo (r. 1392–1398), in deciding on the location for the new capital in Hanyang (present-day Seoul). Among his writings, Muhak’s history of the Korean Sŏn tradition, Pulcho chongp’a chido, is still extant.

Mujaku Dōchū. (無着道忠) (1653–1744). Japanese ZEN master and historian of the RINZAISHŪ. Mujaku was a native of Tajima in present-day Hyōgo prefecture. He entered the monastery at a young age and was ordained by the monk Jikuin Somon (d.u.) at the monastery of Ryūgein. At the age of twenty-two, Mujaku followed his teacher Jikuin to Daijōji, where the latter was invited as its founding abbot (kaisan; C. KAISHAN). Later that same year, Jikuin was invited to MYŌSHINJI as its abbot and again Mujaku followed. In 1707, Mujaku himself became the abbot of Myōshinji and served again as abbot in 1714. He retired to Ryūgein in 1722 and devoted much of his time to his writing. Mujaku was a prolific writer who is said to have composed more than 370 works. His works include commentaries on various scriptures and discourse records (YULU) of CHAN and Zen masters, monastic regulations for the Zen community (see QINGGUI), histories of temples and monasteries, and dictionaries of Zen terms and vernacular phrases. His work thus serves as an invaluable tool for studying the history, doctrine, ritual, daily behavior, and language of the Zen tradition.

Mujū Ichien. (無住一圓) (1227–1312). A Japanese monk during the Kamakura period; also known as Mujū Dōgyō. He was born into a warrior family and became a monk at the age of eighteen. Mujū studied the doctrines of various sects, including the Hossōshū, SHINGONSHŪ, TENDAISHŪ, and JŌDOSHŪ, and received ZEN training from the RINZAISHŪ monk ENNI BEN’EN (1202–1280). In 1262, Mujū built Chōboji (Matriarchal Longevity Monastery) in Owari (present-day Nagoya, a port city in the center of the main Japanese island of Honshū), where he spent the rest of his life. Although affiliated with the Rinzaishū, Mujū took an ecumenical approach to Buddhism, arguing that all the different teachings of Buddhism were skillful means of conveying the religion’s ultimate goal; he even denounced NICHIREN (1222–1382) for his contemporary’s exclusivist attitude toward his own eponymous sect. Mujū was also famous for his collections of Japanese folklore, such as the SHASEKISHŪ (“Sand and Pebbles Collection”), written between 1279 and 1283; his Tsuma kagami (“Mirror for Wives”) of 1300; and his 1305 Zōdanshū (“Collection of Random Conversations”). In particular, in the Shasekishū, Mujū introduced the idea of the “unity of spirits and buddhas” (SHINBUTSU SHŪGŌ), describing the Japanese indigenous gods, or KAMI, as various manifestations of the Buddha.

Mukai nanshin. [alt. Bukai nanshin] (霧海南針). In Japanese, “A Compass on the Misty Sea”; a Japanese vernacular sermon (kana hōgo) written in 1666 for a lay woman by the Japanese ŌBAKUSHŪ monk CHŌON DŌKAI and published in 1672. The Mukai nanshin provides an explanation of ZEN practice with reference to the four great vows (SI HONGSHIYUAN) and the six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ) of the BODHISATTVA. The Mukai nanshin also contains criticisms of other contemporary teachings, especially that of Zen kōan (C. GONG’AN) training as then practiced in Japanese Zen. Both the RINZAISHŪ and SŌTŌSHŪ of the Zen school during the Tokugawa period relied heavily upon the rote memorization of kōans and capping phrases (JAKUGO) and tended to ignore the study of the literary content of the kōans due to their lack of formal training in classical Chinese. Ōbaku monks like Chōon, under the influence of their Chinese émigré teachers, began to criticize this tendency within the Zen community in Japan.

Mukan Fumon. (無關普門) (1212–1291). Japanese proper name of RINZAISHŪ monk and first abbot of NANZENJI; also known as Gengo. Mukan was born in Hoshina in Shinano province (present-day Nagano prefecture) and received the BODHISATTVA precepts around 1230 at a monastery affiliated with MYŌAN EISAI’s (1141–1215) lineage. He became versed at Japanese exoteric and esoteric Buddhist teachings, and traveled around the eastern part of Japan, especially the Kantō and Tōhoku regions, to lecture. Between 1243 and 1249, Mukan studied under ENNI BEN’EN (1202–1280). Mukan traveled to China in 1251, where he received transmission from Duanqiao Miaolun (1201–1261), the tenth-generation master in the YANGQI PAI collateral lineage of the LINJI ZONG, before returning to Japan in 1263. Mukan became the third abbot of Tōhukuji in 1281 and was later appointed in 1291 by the cloistered Emperor Kameyama (r. 1260–1274) to be the founding abbot (J. kaisan; C. KAISHAN) of Nanzenji. There is a well-known story about his appointment as the Nazenji abbot. The monastery was originally built as a royal palace, but soon after the emperor moved there, ghosts began to haunt it. After several other monks failed to exorcise the ghosts, the emperor finally invited Mukan to try. Mukan succeeded in removing the ghosts by conducting Zen meditation with his disciples. In gratitude, the emperor turned the palace into a Rinzai monastery and appointed Mukan its abbot.

mūla. (T. rtsa; C. gen; J. kon; K. kŭn 根). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “root” or “faculty”; referring specifically to three unwholesome or nonvirtuous (AKUŚALA) and three wholesome or virtuous (KUŚALA) roots or faculties that determine the moral quality of volition and volitional action (CETANĀ), the latter being essentially equivalent to the catalyst of action (KARMAN). The three unwholesome roots are greed (LOBHA), hatred (DVEṢA) and delusion (MOHA). The three wholesome roots are nongreed (ALOBHA), nonhatred (ADVEṢA), and nondelusion (AMOHA). Greed encompasses everything from the mildest desire for something to the grossest form of lust and arises through unsystematic attention (AYONIŚOMANASKĀRA) to alluring objects. Hatred encompasses everything from the mildest dislike of something to the most intense feelings of rage and arises through unsystematic attention to unattractive objects. The expression “wholesome faculties” or “virtuous roots” (KUŚALAMŪLA) refers not only to the absence of such unwholesome states but also to the presence of virtuous states. Thus, for example, nongreed refers to liberality and generosity, nonhatred to kindness, and nondelusion to wisdom, etc. As an antidote to greed, the perception of impurity (AŚUBHA) in objects is to be cultivated. As an antidote to hatred, loving-kindness (MAITRĪ) is to be cultivated. As an antidote to delusion, wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) is to be cultivated. The term mūla is used sometimes to refer to these attitudes that produce wholesome or unwholesome actions, and sometimes to refer to the positive and negative actions themselves, including those performed in previous lives. See also KUŚALAMŪLA; MOKṢABHĀGĪYA; NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA; SAMMUCCHINNAKUŚALAMŪLA.

mūlakleśa. (T. rtsa ba’i nyon mongs; C. genben fannao; J. konpon bonnō; K. kŭnbon pŏnnoe 根本煩惱). In Sanskrit, “root afflictions,” “basic afflictions”; a subcategory of the forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school of ABHIDHARMA and fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school. It comprises the fundamental negative mental states, enumerated as six: sensuality (RĀGA), anger (PRATIGHA), pride (MĀNA), ignorance (AVIDYĀ), doubt (VICIKITSĀ), and views (DṚṢṬI). They are called root afflictions because they are the sources of all other afflictions, and are distinguished from the “secondary afflictions” (UPAKLEŚA), which are narrower in applicability. The list is also closely related to the three poisons (TRIVIṢA) of sensuality or greed (rāga or LOBHA), hatred or aversion (DVEṢA), and delusion (MOHA).

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. (T. Dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’u byas pa; C. Zhong lun; J. Chūron; K. Chung non 中論). In Sanskrit, “Root Verses on the Middle Way”; the magnum opus of the second-century Indian master NĀGĀRJUNA; also known as the Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Madhyamakaśāstra. (The Chinese analogue of this text is the Zhong lun, which renders the title as MADHYAMAKAŚĀSTRA. This Chinese version was edited and translated by KUMĀRAJĪVA. Kumārajīva’s edition, however, includes not only Nāgārjuna’s verses but also Piṅgala’s commentary to the verses.) The most widely cited and commented upon of Nāgārjuna’s works in India, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, was the subject of detailed commentaries by such figures as BUDDHAPĀLITA, BHĀVAVIVEKA, and CANDRAKĪRTI (with Candrakīrti’s critique of Bhāvaviveka’s criticism of a passage in Buddhapālita’s commentary providing the locus classicus for the later Tibetan division of MADHYAMAKA into *SVĀTANTRIKA and *PRĀSAṄGIKA). In East Asia, it was one of the three basic texts of the “Three Treatises” school (C. SAN LUN ZONG), and was central to TIANTAI philosophy. Although lost in the original Sanskrit as an independent work, the entire work is preserved within the Sanskrit text of Candrakīrti’s commentary, the PRASANNAPADĀ (serving as one reason for the influence of Candrakīrti’s commentary in the European reception of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā). The work is composed of 448 verses in twenty-seven chapters. The topics of the chapters (as provided by Candrakīrti) are the analysis of: (1) conditions (PRATYAYA), (2) motion, (3) the eye and the other sense faculties (INDRIYA), (4) aggregates (SKANDHA), (5) elements (DHĀTU), (6) passion and the passionate, (7) the conditioned (in the sense of production, abiding, disintegration), (8) action and agent, (9) prior existence, (10) fire and fuel, (11) the past and future limits of SAṂSĀRA, (12) suffering, (13) the conditioned (SAṂSKĀRA), (14) contact (saṃsarga), (15) intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA), (16) bondage and liberation, (17) action and effect, (18) self, (19) time, (20) assemblage (sāmagrī), (21) arising and dissolving, (22) the TATHĀGATA, (23) error, (24) the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, (25) NIRVĀṆA, (26), the twelve links of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), and (27) views. The tone of the work is set in its famous homage to the Buddha, which opens the work, “I bow down to the perfect Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught that what is dependently arisen is without cessation, without production, without annihilation, without permanence, without coming, without going, without difference, without sameness, pacified of elaboration, at peace.” The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā offers a relentless examination of many of the most important categories of Buddhist thought, subjecting them to an analysis that reveals the absurd consequences that follow from imagining any of them to be real in the sense of possessing an independent and intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA). Nāgārjuna demonstrates repeatedly that these various categories only exist relationally and only function heuristically in a worldly and transactional sense; they do not exist ultimately. Thus, in the first chapter, Nāgārjuna examines production via causes and conditions, one of the hallmarks of Buddhist thought, and declares that a thing is not produced from itself, from something other than itself, from something that is both itself and other, or from something that is neither itself nor the other. He examines the four kinds of conditions, declaring each to lack an intrinsic nature, such that they do not exist because they do not produce anything. In the second chapter, Nāgārjuna examines motion, seeking to determine precisely where motion occurs: on the path already traversed, the path being traversed, or on the path not yet traversed. He concludes that motion is not to be found on any of these three. In the twenty-fifth chapter, he subjects nirvāṇa to a similar analysis, finding it to be neither existent, nonexistent, both existent and nonexistent, nor neither existent nor nonexistent. (These are the famous CATUṢKOṬI, the “four alternatives,” or tetralemma.) Therefore, nirvāṇa, like saṃsāra and all worldly phenomena, is empty of intrinsic nature, leading Nāgārjuna to declare (at XXV.19), in one of his most famous and widely misinterpreted statements, that there is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. The thoroughgoing negative critique or apophasis in which Nāgārjuna engages leads to charges of nihilism, charges that he faces directly in the text, especially in the twenty-fourth chapter on the four noble truths where he introduces the topic of the two truths (SATYADVAYA)—ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) and conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA)—declaring the importance of both in understanding correctly the doctrine of the Buddha. Also in this chapter, he discusses the danger of misunderstanding emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), and the relation between emptiness and dependent origination (“That which is dependent origination we explain as emptiness. This is a dependent designation; just this is the middle path”). To those who would object that emptiness renders causation and change impossible, he counters that if things existed independently and intrinsically, there could be no transformation; “for whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.” There has been considerable scholarly discussion of Nāgārjuna’s target audience for this work, with the consensus being that it is intended for Buddhist monks well versed in ABHIDHARMA literature, especially that associated with the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school; many of the categories to which Nāgārjuna subjects his critique are derived from this school. In the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma, these categories and factors (DHARMA) are posited to be endowed with a certain reality, a reality that Nāgārjuna sees as implying permanence, independence, and autonomy. He seeks to reveal the absurd consequences and hence the impossibility of the substantial existence of these categories and factors. Through his critique, he seeks a new understanding of these fundamental tenets of Buddhist philosophy in light of the doctrine of emptiness as set forth in the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ SŪTRAs. He does not cite these sūtras directly, however, nor does he mention the MAHĀYĀNA, which he extols regularly in other of his works. Instead, he seeks to demonstrate how the central Buddhist doctrine of causation, expressed as dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), necessarily entails emptiness (śūnyatā). The understanding of emptiness is essential in order to abandon false views (MITHYĀDṚṢṬI). Nāgārjuna therefore sees his purpose not to reject the standard categories of Buddhist thought but to reinterpret them in such a way that they become conduits for, rather than impediments to, liberation from suffering, in keeping with the Buddha’s intent.

Mūlapariyāyasutta. (C. Xiang jing; J. Sōkyō; K. Sang kyŏng 想經). In Pāli, “Discourse on the Root Instruction” or the “Roots of Phenomena”; the first sutta in the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA (an untitled recension of uncertain affiliation appears in the Chinese translation of the EKOTTARĀGAMA; there is also a related SARVĀSTIVĀDA recension that appears as the 102nd SŪTRA in the Chinese translation of the MADHYAMĀGAMA). Preached to a gathering of monks in Ukkaṭṭhā, the Buddha explains the basis of all phenomena under twenty-four categories (e.g., the four material elements, the heavens, sensory cognition, etc.), noting that the nature of these phenomena is truly knowable only by a TATHĀGATA. The Buddha describes the different cognitive capacities of four types of persons: ordinary worldlings (PṚTHAGJANA), disciples engaged in higher training, worthy ones (ARHAT), and perfect buddhas (SAMYAKSAṂBUDDHA).

Mūlasarvāstivāda. (T. Gzhi thams cad yod par smra ba; C. Genben Shuoyiqieyou bu; J. Konpon Setsuissaiubu; K. Kŭnbon Sŏrilch’eyu pu 根本

一切有部). In Sanskrit, lit., “Root SARVĀSTIVĀDA”; a subsect of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA (lit. “Everything Exists”), one of the “mainstream” (i.e., non-Mahāyāna) schools (NIKĀYA) of Indian Buddhism. The differences between the Mūlasarvāstivāda and the Sarvāstivāda are not entirely clear, but they are differentiated less by doctrinal disagreements than by disputes over VINAYA. There is virtually no evidence in Indian inscriptions of the term “Mūlasarvāstivāda,” suggesting that it did not have an independent sectarian identity; to the contrary, however, some Chinese pilgrims to India mention only the former term. The scholarly consensus is that the designation Mūlasarvāstivāda seems to have originated in a dispute over vinaya recensions between the Sarvāstivāda school of MATHURĀ in north-central India and the northwestern Sarvāstivāda school in the KASHMIR-GANDHĀRA region. By calling their vinaya recension the MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA VINAYA—the “root” or “source” of the Sarvāstivāda vinaya in one interpretation—the Mathurā sect was claiming its primacy over other strands of the Sarvāstivāda school, especially this northwest branch, and essentially asserting that the Kashmiri Sarvāstivāda school was an offshoot of the Mathurā community. After the northwestern school fell into decline, the Mathurā school may also have adopted this name to demonstrate its preeminence as the “original,” “root,” or “foundational” Sarvāstivāda school. Their Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya proved to be extremely important in the history of Buddhism by providing the foundation for monastic practice in the mature Tibetan traditions of Buddhism.

Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya. (T. Gzhi thams cad yod par smra ba’i ’dul ba; C. Genben Shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye; J. Konpon Setsuissaiubu binaya; K. Kŭnbon Sŏrilch’eyubu pinaeya 根本

一切有部毘奈耶). In Sanskrit, the “Monastic Code of the MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA,” or “Original Monastic Code of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA School”; one of the six extant recensions of the VINAYA. Divergences between their respective monastic codes were one of the principal differentiating characteristics of the various mainstream schools of Indian Buddhism. The attempt to differentiate the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya from the Sarvāstivāda vinaya (both of which are extant in Chinese translation) may well derive from a polemical claim by the MATHURĀ branch of the Sarvāstivāda school in north-central India that their tradition comprised the “root” or “foundational” monastic code of the school. Whatever the precise denotation of the term, the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, is by far the longest of the extant vinayas—by some calculations some four times longer than any of its counterparts. The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya contains some material that suggests it may belong to one of the earliest strata of the vinaya literature. The text was composed in Sanskrit in the first or second centuries CE, but only a few Sanskrit fragments have been discovered at GILGIT. The code is preserved in full only in Tibetan translation, although there is also a partial (but still massive) Chinese translation made by YIJING (635–713) in the late seventh and early eighth centuries. The code details 253 rules and regulations for fully ordained monks (BHIKṢU) and 364 rules for fully ordained nuns (BHIKṢUNĪ) as well as precepts for male and female lay practitioners (UPĀSAKA and UPĀSIKĀ), male and female novices (ŚRĀMAṆERA and ŚRĀMAṆERIKĀ), and female probationers (ŚIKṢAMĀṆĀ). Because each rule requires an explanation of how it came to be established, the text is a vast source of stories (many of which do not appear in other codes) that provide essential insights into Buddhist monastic life at the time of its composition. The collection also includes discussions of areas of monastic life that receive short shrift in other recensions, such as how to escort images on procession through town or lend the SAṂGHA’s money with interest to laypeople. The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya also includes many narratives (AVADĀNA) and stories, including one of the earliest Sanskrit accounts of the life of the Buddha, as well as SŪTRAs that in other mainstream traditions appear in the scripture section of the canon (SŪTRAPIṬAKA). Because of its eclectic content, the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya functions almost as proto-canon (TRIPIṬAKA). The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya is the monastic code still followed today in the Tibetan traditions of Buddhism, where it is studied primarily via the summary composed by GUṆAPRABHA, entitled the VINAYASŪTRA.

Mūlasāsana. In Pāli, the “Origin of the Religion”; a Pāli chronicle composed in northern Thailand during the early fifteenth century, prior to the CĀMADEVĪVAṂSA and JINAKĀLAMĀLĪ, both of which use it as a source. The work is written in the Tai-Yuan language, a dialect prevalent in the Lānnā Thai kingdom. The chronicle recounts how a reformed monastic tradition from Sri Lanka was introduced to Martaban (Muttama) in Lower Burma in the fourteenth century, and how this tradition was then spread to SUKHOTHAI and Chiengmai.

mūlatantra. (T. rtsa rgyud). In Sanskrit, “root tantra”; a term used to distinguish the foundational text in a given tantric cycle from the various addenda, commentaries, ritual texts, and SĀDHANAs connected with the TANTRA. Thus, one would speak, for example, of the root tantra of the GUHYASAMĀJA.

mūlavijñāna. (T. rtsa ba’i rnam shes; C. benshi; J. honjiki; K. ponsik 本識). In Sanskrit, lit. “root consciousness,” “foundational consciousness”; a generic form of consciousness described within the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA branch of the mainstream Buddhist schools, which was said to serve as the support for the six sensory consciousnesses, just as the root of a tree is the basis of the leaves. This concept of a root consciousness may have been the antecedent of the storehouse consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA) in the YOGĀCĀRA school; the term is sometimes used as an alternate name for that form of consciousness in Yogācāra materials.

Müller, Friedrich Max. (1823–1900). Arguably the most famous Indologist of the nineteenth century, born in Dessau, the capital of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau, son of the famous Romantic poet Wilhelm Müller. He studied Sanskrit in Leipzig, receiving a doctorate in philology in 1843 at the age of twenty. In Berlin, he attended the lectures of Franz Bopp and Schelling. He went to Paris in 1846 where he studied with EUGÈNE BURNOUF, who suggested the project that would become his life’s work, a critical edition of the Ṛgveda. In order to study the available manuscripts, he traveled to London and then settled in Oxford, where he would spend the rest of his life, eventually being appointed to a newly established professorship in comparative philology. Although best known for his work in philology, Indology, and comparative religion, Müller wrote essays and reviews on Buddhism throughout his career. Perhaps his greatest contribution to Buddhist studies came through his role as editor-in-chief of the Sacred Books of the East series, published between 1879 and 1910. Ten of the forty-nine volumes of the series were devoted to Buddhist works. Reflecting the opinion of the day that Pāli texts of the THERAVĀDA tradition represented the most accurate record of what the Buddha taught, seven of these volumes were devoted to Pāli works, with translations by THOMAS W. RHYS DAVIDS and HERMANN OLDENBERG, as well as a translation of the DHAMMAPADA by Müller himself. Among other Indian works, AŚVAGHOṢA’s famous life of the Buddha appeared twice, translated in one volume from Sanskrit by E. B. Cowell and in another from Chinese by SAMUEL BEAL. HENDRIK KERN’s translation of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”) was included in another volume. The final volume of the series, entitled Buddhist Mahāyāna Texts (1894), included such famous works as the VAJRACCHEDIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA (“Diamond Sūtra”), the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀHṚDAYASŪTRA (“Heart Sūtra”), and the three major PURE LAND sūtras, all Indian works (or at least so regarded at the time) but selected because of their importance for Japanese Buddhism. Müller’s choice of these texts was influenced by two Japanese students: TAKAKUSU JUNJIRŌ and NANJŌ BUN’YŪ, both JŌDO SHINSHŪ adherents who had gone to Oxford in order to study Indology with Müller. Upon their return, they introduced to Japanese academe the philological study of Buddhism from Sanskrit and Pāli sources. The works in Buddhist Mahāyāna Texts were translated by Müller, with the exception of the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING (*Amitāyurdhyānasūtra), which was translated by Takakusu. In his final years, with financial support of the King of Siam, Müller began editing the Sacred Books of the Buddhists series, which was taken over by T. W. Rhys Davids upon Müller’s death in 1900.

muni. (T. thub pa; C. mouni/shengzhe; J. muni/shōja; K. moni/sŏngja 牟尼/聖者). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “sage”; used in India to refer various seers, saints, ascetics, monks, and hermits, especially those who have taken vows of silence. In Buddhism, the term is used in reference to both the Buddha and PRATYEKABUDDHAs, more rarely to ARHATs. It figures in two of the most common epithets of the Buddha: ŚĀKYAMUNI, or “Sage of the Śākya Clan,” and MAHĀMUNI, or “Great Sage.” The term also figures in the name MANTRA of the Buddha, “oṃ muni muni mahāmuni Śākyamuni svāhā.”

mūrdhan. (T. rtse mo; C. ding; J. chō; K. chŏng 頂). In Sanskrit, “summit,” or “peak,” or “climax”; the second of the “aids to penetration” (NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA); these aids are developed during the PRAYOGAMĀRGA (path of preparation) and mark the transition from the mundane path of cultivation (LAUKIKA-BHĀVANĀMĀRGA) to supramundane vision (viz., DARŚANAMĀRGA) on both the HĪNAYĀNA and MAHĀYĀNA paths. Mūrdhan is defined specifically in terms of faith in the validity of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatāni), a faith that begins to develop at the level of ŪṢMAN (heat), the first of the aids to penetration, and reaches its “summit” or “climax” at the level of mūrdhan. This stage is called “summit,” the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ explains, because it is like the summit of a mountain, where one cannot tarry long: either you continue on to ascend another peak or you retreat back down the mountain. Therefore, if one has no difficulties, one will progress on to KṢĀNTI (forbearance); but if one meets with problems, one will retrogress back to ūṣman. Thus, mūrdhan and ūṣman, the first two of the nirvedhabhāgīyas, are still subject to retrogression and thus belong to the mundane path of cultivation (laukikabhāvanāmārga). Mūrdhan marks the end of the possibility of the wholesome faculties (KUŚALAMŪLA) created by past salutary deeds being destroyed by unwholesome mental states, such as anger. The kuśalamūla are no longer susceptible to destruction from this point on the path forward to the achievement of the state of the ARHAT or buddha.

muṣitasmṛti. (P. muṭṭhassati; T. brjed nges; C. shinian; J. shitsunen; K. sillyŏm 失念). In Sanskrit, “inattentiveness,” “negligence,” or “forgetfulness”; one of the forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school of ABHIDHARMA (where the term is also called smṛtināśa) and one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school. Within this group, it falls into the category of the “secondary afflictions” (UPAKLEŚA). “Inattentiveness” refers to the lack of clarity caused by the failure to attend properly to and be mindful of either the present moment or an intended object of attention, or the failure to recollect what had transpired in the immediately preceding moments. It involves the inattentiveness to virtuous objects, thus leading to attention to nonvirtuous objects. The term is taken to be one of the possible derivative mental states of “ignorance” (AVIDYĀ), because it causes the mind to become distracted to the objects of the afflictions. It is the opposite of “attentiveness,” “proper recollection,” and “presence of mind” (SMṚTI).

Musō Soseki. (夢窓疎石) (1275–1351). Japanese ZEN master in the RINZAISHŪ. A native of Ise, he became a monk at a young age and studied the teachings of the TENDAISHŪ. Musō’s interests later shifted toward Zen and he became the student of the Zen master KŌHŌ KENNICHI. After receiving dharma transmission from Kōhō, Musō led an itinerant life, moving from one monastery to the next. In 1325, he received a decree from Emperor Godaigo (r. 1318–1339) to assume the abbotship of the powerful monastery of NANZENJI in Kyōto. The following year, he went to Kamakura, where he served as abbot of the influential monasteries of Jōchiji, Zuisenji, and ENGAKUJI. Later, he returned to Nanzenji at the request of the emperor. In 1333, Emperor Godaigo triumphantly returned to Kyōto and gave Musō the monastery Rinsenji and the title of state preceptor (kokushi; C. GUOSHI). After the emperor’s death in 1339, Musō established the new monastery of TENRYŪJI with the help of the shōgun Ashikakga Takauji (1305–1358) and became its founding abbot (J. kaisan; C. KAISHAN). In this manner, Musō came to serve as abbot of many of the top-ranking monasteries of the GOZAN system. His disciples came to dominate the medieval Zen community and played important roles in the rise of gozan culture. His teachings are recorded in the Musōroku, Musō hōgo, and MUCHŪ MONDŌ.

Muyong Suyŏn. (無用秀演) (1651–1719). Korean scholastic (KYO) monk of the Chosŏn dynasty. Muyong lost both parents at the age of thirteen and lived with his elder brother, until he decided in 1669 to become a monk at the monastery of SONGGWANGSA. Three years later, he went to the monastery of SŎNAMSA to continue his studies under Ch’imgoeng Hyŏnbyŏn (1616–1684). At Ch’imgoeng’s recommendation, Muyong became a disciple of the eminent SŎN master PAEGAM SŎNGCH’ONG (1631–1700) at Songgwangsa. In 1680, Muyong held a public lecture at Sinsŏnam in the vicinity of Chinggwangsa. In order to accommodate the large number of people coming to his lectures, Muyong is said to have moved back to the larger monasteries of Sŏnamsa and Songgwangsa. Muyong at one point went into retreat to meditate, but he was forced to return to teaching at the request of all those people who wished to attend his lectures. He also assisted in Paegam’s publication of Buddhist scriptures. After Paegam’s death, he taught at the hermitage of Ch’ilburam. In 1719, when his disciple Yakt’an (1668–1754) organized a great assembly to study Hwaŏm (C. HUAYAN) doctrine and verse commentaries to the public cases (K. kongan; C. GONG’AN) of the Chan masters of old, Muyong was asked to preside. His essays, letters, and poems are collected in the Muyongdang chip.

muyu. (J. mokugyo; K. mogŏ 木魚). In Chinese, literally “wooden fish”; referring to a wooden percussion instrument carved in the shape of a fish, which is commonly used in Chinese Buddhist monasteries to summon monks and nuns to daily events and to mark time during rituals. It is one of the four percussion instruments (see DRUM), together with the Brahmā bell, dharma drum, and cloud-shaped gong. Various explanations are given for its fish-like shape. According to the BAIZHANG QINGGUI (“Baizhang’s Rules of Purity”), since a fish’s eyes are never closed, the wooden fish is a subtle admonition to monks and nuns to remain ever vigilant about their practice. The TIANTAI monastic code, Jiaoyuan Qinggui (“Rules of Purity for the Garden of the Teachings”), includes a story said to come from the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ, about a monk who had been reborn as a fish with a tree growing out of his back, which was retribution for betraying his teacher and slandering the dharma in a prior lifetime. Whenever the tree swayed, the fish bled and felt great pain. One day, the monk’s former teacher was crossing the sea in a boat and, seeing the fish, recognized it to be his former student. He performed the “rite of water and land” (C. SHUILU HUI), freeing the fish from its torment, and the fish repented for its past behavior. When his former student was again reborn, the tree was donated to a monastery, which carved it into the shape of a fish as a symbol of admonition. In a third story from a different source, the Chinese pilgrim XUANZANG was returning home from India and saved a wealthy man’s three-year-old son from the stomach of a big fish. The man wanted to repay him for his deed, so Xuanzang instructed him to have a piece of wood carved in the shape of a fish and hung in the monastery for the benefit of the fish. Over time, the body depicted on the wooden fish began to take on more the look of a dragon, autochthonous water divinities in traditional China, with a dragon-like head with a talismanic pearl (MAṆI) in its mouth. In Korea, the muyu takes on the more abstract fish shape of the MOKT’AK (wooden clacker).

Myōan Eisai. (明庵榮西) (1141–1215). Japanese monk associated with the TENDAISHŪ (C. TIANTAI ZONG) and ZENSHŪ (C. CHAN ZONG) traditions; a successor in the HUANGLONG PAI collateral lineage of the Chinese LINJI ZONG, he was also the first monk to introduce the Chan school to Japan. Eisai became a monk at a young age and received the full monastic precepts on HIEIZAN, studying the Tendai teachings at the monastery of MIIDERA. In 1168, he left for China and made a pilgrimage to Mt. Tiantai and Mt. Ayuwang in present-day Zhejiang province. He returned to Japan that same year with numerous Tiantai texts of and made an effort to revitalize the Tendai tradition in Japan. In 1187, Eisai set out on another trip to China. This second time, he stayed for five years and studied under the Chan master Xu’an Huaichang (d.u.) on Mt. Tiantai. Eisai followed Xu’an to the monastery of Jingdesi on Mt. Tiantong when the latter was appointed its abbot in 1189. After receiving dharma transmission from Xu’an, Eisai returned to Japan in 1191. Eisai’s efforts to spread the teachings of Zen was suppressed by his fellow Tendai monks of ENRYAKUJI despite his claim that the denial of Chan meant the denial of the teachings of SAICHŌ, the spiritual progenitor of Tendai. In 1198, Eisai composed his KŌZEN GOKOKURON, wherein he defended Zen and argued for its usefulness in governing the nation and protecting Japan from foreign invasion. In 1199, he traveled to Kamakura where he won the support of the new shogunate and became the founding abbot (J. kaisan; C. KAISHAN) of the monastery of Jufukuji. Three years later, the shōgun Minamoto Yoriie (1182–1204) established KENNINJI and appointed Eisai as its founding abbot. In 1214, he composed his treatise on tea, the KISSA YŌJŌKI, for Minamoto Sanetomo (1192–1219) who suffered from ill health. At Kenninji, Eisai taught a form of Zen that reflected his training in the esoteric (MIKKYŌ) teachings of Tendai.

Myoch’ŏng. (妙清) (d. 1135). Korean monk during the Koryŏ dynasty who used his geomantic prowess to exert political power and who eventually led a rebellion against the kingdom; also known as Chŏngsim. Myoch’ŏng was a native of Sŏgyŏng (lit. “Western Capital”; present-day P’yŏngyang). His teachings on geomancy and divination, known as TOCH’AM, were derived from the earlier geomantic theories of TOSŎN (827–898) and became widely influential in Korea, eventually leading to Myoch’ŏng becoming an advisor to the Koryŏ king in 1127. In an attempt to emphasize the independence of the Koryŏ kingdom from the Chinese Song dynasty, Myoch’ŏng also proposed that the king adopt the title emperor and advocated that Koryŏ invade the adjacent kingdom of Jin. Taking advantage of the political turmoil of his times, Myoch’ŏng also attempted (unsuccessfully) to persuade the king to move the Koryŏ capital from Kaesŏng to Sŏgyŏng, his own ancestral home, which he claimed was a more geomantically auspicious site. His suggestions were criticized by such conservative officials as Kim Pusik (1075–1151), the famous general and compiler of the Korean history Samguk sagi. His proposals to move the capital rebuffed, Myoch’ŏng and other sympathetic court officials rebelled against the state in 1135, establishing a new kingdom, Taewi, and declaring Sŏgyŏng its capital. Myoch’ŏng’s troops were defeated by the royal army led by Kim Pusik, and Myoch’ŏng himself was eventually betrayed and killed by one of his own officers.

Myōe Kōben. (明慧高弁) (1173–1232). A Japanese SHINGONSHŪ monk who sought to revitalize the Kegonshū (C. HUAYAN ZONG) in Japan; commonly known as Myōe Shōnin. Kōben promoted traditional Buddhist values over the newer approaches of so-called Kamakura Buddhism. Against the prevailing tide of belief that the world was in terminal decline (J. mappō; C.MOFA), he took a positive stance on Buddhist practice by arguing that salvation could still be attained through traditional means. Kōben was born in Kii province (present-day Wakayama Prefecture) and orphaned at the age of eight when both parents died in separate incidents. He went to live under the care of his maternal uncle Jōgaku Gyōji, a Shingon monk at Jingoji on Mt. Takao, northwest of Kyōto. In 1188, at the age of sixteen, he was ordained by Jōgaku at TŌDAIJI. He took the ordination name Jōben and later adopted the name Kōben. After ordination, he studied Shingon, Kegon, and esoteric Buddhism (MIKKYŌ) at one of Tōdaiji’s subtemples, Sonshōin. Kōben tried twice to travel on pilgrimage to India, first in the winter of 1202–1203 and second in the spring of 1205, but was unsuccessful. On his first trip, Kasuga, a spirit (KAMI) associated with the Fujiwara family shrine in Nara, is said to have possessed the wife of Kōben’s uncle, Yuasa Munemitsu, and insisted that Kōben not leave Japan. In the second attempt, he fell ill before he set out on his trip. In both instances, Kōben believed that the Kasuga deity was warning him not to go, and he consequently abandoned his plans. These portents were supported by Fujiwara opposition to his voyage. In 1206, the retired emperor Gotoba gave Kōben a plot of land in Toganoo. Gotoba designated the temple there as Kegon, renamed it Kōzanji, and requested that Kōben revive the study of Kegon doctrine. A year later, Gotoba appointed him headmaster of Sonshōin with the hope of further expanding Kōben’s promotion of the Kegon school. Despite this generous attention, Kōben focused little of his efforts on this mission. He initially built a hermitage for himself at Toganoo, and it was not until 1219 that he constructed the Golden Hall at Kōzanji. Kōben dismissed the newer schools of Buddhism in his day, particularly HŌNEN’s (1122–1212) reinterpretation of pure land practice in the JŌDOSHŪ. In 1212, he denounced Hōnen’s nenbutsu (C. NIANFO) practice in Zaijarin (“Refuting the False Vehicle”), a response to Hōnen’s earlier work, Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū (“Anthology of Selections on the Nenbutsu and the Original Vow”; see SENCHAKUSHŪ). In contrast to the Jōdoshū’s exclusive advocacy of the single practice of reciting the Buddha’s name, Kōben defended the traditional argument that there were many valid methods for reaching salvation. Kōben spent the last several decades of his life experimenting with ways to make Kegon doctrine accessible to a wider audience. In the end, however, his efforts were largely unsuccessful. He was unable to garner popular support, and his disciples never founded institutionally independent schools, as did the disciples of the other teachers of Kamakura Buddhism. Kōben was fascinated by his dreams and recorded many of them in a well-known text known as the Yume no ki, or “Dream Diary.” Like most Japanese of his day, Kōben regarded many of these dreams to be portents coming directly from the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and gods.

myōkōnin. (妙好人). In Japanese, “sublimely excellent people”; a term used especially in the JŌDO SHINSHŪ tradition of Japanese PURE LAND Buddhism to refer to a devout practitioner of nenbutsu (C. NIANFO; recitation of the Buddha’s name). The Chinese exegete SHANDAO (613–681) was the first to use the term myōkōnin (C. miaohaoren) in his commentary on the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING (“Book of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Limitless Life”), where he explains that the SŪTRA uses the term lotus flower (PUṆḌARĪKA) to refer to a “sublimely excellent” nianfo practitioner; HŌNEN similarly used the term to refer to nenbutsu practitioners in general. But it was SHINRAN (1173–1263), the founder of Jōdo Shinshū, who adopted the term in such writings as his Mattōshō (“Lamp for the Latter Age”), to refer to Jōdo Shinshū adherents whose virtuous conduct, prompted by their sincere faith in the buddha AMITĀBHA, could serve as a model for their colleagues. The term was popularized during the mid-nineteenth century with the publication of the MYŌKŌNINDEN, edited by the NISHI HONGANJIHA priest Sōjun (1791–1872). This collection of tales about various myōkōnin demonstrates how the acceptance of Amitābha’s grace leads to virtuous deeds that are worthy of emulation. The myōkōnin could be farmers, fishermen, merchants, warriors, doctors, or priests, but many of them were illiterate peasants. The Jōdo Shinshū tradition is somewhat ambivalent toward the myōkōnin: despite the myōkōnin’s sincere faith in Amitābha, they did not necessarily accept the authority of the school’s head or some of its doctrines. Hence, despite being pure expressions of pure land faith, the myōkōnin are not necessarily a proper model for Jōdo Shinshū followers and may even be heretical. Because many of myōkōnin were uneducated common people, few left any writings, with the prominent exception of the modern myōkōnin Asahara Saichi (1850–1932).

Myōkōninden. (妙好人傳). In Japanese, “Record of Sublimely Excellent People”; a JŌDO SHINSHŪ collection of the biographies of the MYŌKŌNIN, viz., devoted practitioners of the practice of nenbutsu (C. NIANFO; recitation of the Buddha’s name). The anthology was first compiled by a NISHI HONGANJIHA priest Gōsei (1721–1794) and edited by Gōsei’s disciple Rizen (1753–1819). The Nishi Honganji priest Sōjun (1791–1872) made additional editorial changes to this earlier edition and first published the Myōkōninden in 1842. Sōjun’s original edition collected the biographies of twenty-two myōkōnin, in two rolls. Sōjun added more biographies between 1843 and 1858, and eventually published four additional chapters, adding biographies of thirty-seven myōkōnin in 1843, nineteen in 1847, thirty-seven in 1856, and twenty-one in 1858. In 1852, Zō’ō (fl. nineteenth century) also published the Zoku Myōkōninden (“Supplement to the Myōkōninden”) with additional biographies of twenty-three myōkōnin. The present version of the text was first published in 1898, combining in a single volume all six chapters (viz., Gōsei’s original first chapter, Sōjun’s four additional chapters, and Zō’ō’s supplement). The myōkōnin featured in the collection comes from various social classes, although most of them are common people, such as peasants and merchants. The accounts of their lives emphasize such traditional social virtues as filial piety, loyalty, and generosity, as well as the rewards of exclusive nenbutsu practice and the dangers of KAMI (spirit) worship.

myŏngbu chŏn. (冥府殿). In Korean, “hall of the dark prefecture”; a basilica in Korean monasteries that is dedicated to the BODHISATTVA KṢITIGARBHA, the patron bodhisattva of the denizens of the hells (NĀRAKA), and the ten kings of hell (shiwang), the judges of the dead. This hall is where monks typically perform the forty-ninth day ceremony (K. sasipku [il] chae; C. SISHIJIU [RI] ZHAI), which sends the deceased being to the intermediate transitional state (ANTARĀBHAVA) and then on to the next rebirth. See also YAMA.

Myŏngnang. (明郎) (d.u.). Korean monk of the Silla dynasty and reputed founder of the sinin (divine seal), or esoteric Buddhist, tradition; also known as Kugyuk. His father was a high-ranking court official and his cousin was the VINAYA master CHAJANG. Myŏngnang traveled to China in 632 and returned four years later to propagate the new teachings of esoteric Buddhism. He established the monasteries of Kŭmgwangsa and Wŏnwŏnsa and made them centers of esoteric Buddhist activity in Korea. He also was one of the teachers of the influential Korean scholiast WŎNHYO (617–686). The monastery Sach’ŏnwangsa is known to have been built at the site where Myŏngnang prepared a MAṆḌALA and recited MANTRAs that spawned the typhoon that defeated the Tang Chinese invasion force. His teachings continued to flourish until the Koryŏ dynasty, when he came to be viewed retrospectively as the founder of the sinin tradition.

Myōshinji. (妙心寺). In Japanese, “Sublime Mind Monastery”; an influential ZEN monastery in Kyōto that is currently the headquarters (HONZAN) of the Myōshinji branch of the RINZAISHŪ. After the eminent Zen master Daitō’s (see SŌHŌ MYŌCHŌ) death in 1337, Emperor Hanazono (r. 1308–1318) converted his country villa into a monastery, which he named Myōshinji, and installed Daitō’s disciple KANZAN EGEN as its founding abbot (J. kaisan; C. KAISHAN). During the Muromachi period, Myōshinji was excluded from the powerful GOZAN ranking system and became the subject of harsh persecution during Ashikaga’s rule. In the early half of the fifteenth century, the monk Nippō Sōshun (1358–1448) oversaw the restoration of Myōshinji, but the monastery was consumed in a conflagration during the Ōnin war (1467–1469). In 1477, with the support of Emperor Gotsuchimikado (r. 1464–1500) the monastery was restored once more under the supervision of its abbot Sekkō Sōshin (1408–1486). At the decree of Emperor Gokashiwabara (r. 1500–1526), Myōshinji was included in the gozan system and enjoyed the financial support of a high-ranking official monastery. Largely through its tight fiscal management and active proselytizing efforts, Myōshinji expanded quickly to control over fifty branch temples and became one of the most influential monasteries of the Rinzai Zen tradition. During the Edo period, a renowned Zen master of the Myōshinji lineage named HAKUIN EKAKU played an important role in the revitalization of the kōan (C. GONG’AN) training system.

Myur lam lam rim. (Nyurlam Lamrim). In Tibetan, “The Quick Path Stages of the Path”; an important LAM RIM, or “stages of the path,” treatise composed by the second PAṆ CHEN LAMA Blo bzang ye shes dpal bzang po (Losang Yeshe Palsangpo, 1663–1737). The work’s complete title is Byang chub lam gyi rim pa’i dmar khrid thams cad mkhyen par bgrod pa’i myur lam.