N

nabich’um. (). In Korean, “butterfly dance,” a CHAKPŎP ritual dance usually performed by Buddhist nuns during Korean Buddhist rituals, such as the YŎNGSANJAE. This dance is typically performed outdoors in the central campus of a monastery and is often accompanied by ritual chanting (PŎMP’AE; C. FANBAI) and traditional musical instruments. The pŏmp’ae chant requests the three jewels (RATNATRAYA) and protecting dragons (NĀGA) to attend the ceremony. Generally, the nabich’um is performed by two or four nuns in long, white robes with floor-length sleeves and yellow conical hats, thus resembling butterflies. The dance expresses a desire to transform oneself so as to lead all sentient beings to enlightenment. Nabich’um is quite slow, with subdued movements, and is performed without the feet of the dancer moving more than a step away from where the dance began. Nabich’um may also be performed as part of an offering of incense and flowers carried out by the dancers. Nabich’um is also sometimes performed without musical accompaniment.

nāḍī. (T. rtsa). In Sanskrit, “tube” or “pipe,” in tantric physiognomy, the “channels” that run throughout the body serving as conduits for the winds (PRĀṆA) that serve as the “mounts” of consciousness. According to some systems, there are 72,000 channels in the body. These channels branch out from networks located along the central channel (AVADHŪTI) that runs from the base of the spine to the crown of the head. The central channel is paralleled and entwined by two vertical channels on the right and left, called the RASANĀ (right) and LALANĀ (left). At the points where the right and left channels wrap around the central channel, there are networks (called CAKRA, or “wheels”) of smaller channels that radiate throughout the body. The number of these networks differs among various systems, but they are commonly said to be located along the central channel at the crown of the head, the point between the eyes, the throat, the heart, the navel, the base of the spine, and the tip of the sexual organ. Much tantric practice is devoted to techniques for loosening knots in the channels in order that the winds will flow smoothly through them, with advanced practices designed to cause the winds to enter the central channel. The system of channels also provides the basis for medical theories in both India and Tibet.

Nadī-Kāśyapa. (P. Nadī-Kassapa; T. Chu klung ’od srungs; C. Nati Jiashe; J. Nadai Kashō; K. Naje Kasŏp 那提迦葉). One of the three “Kāśyapa brothers” (together with URUVILVĀ-KĀŚYAPA and GAYĀ-KĀŚYAPA), also known in Pāli as the Tebhātika Jaṭilas. Prior to their encounter with the Buddha, the three brothers were matted-hair ascetics engaged in fire worship, living with their followers on the banks of the NAIRAÑJANĀ River. Nadī-Kāśyapa himself had three hundred followers. After his first teachings in the Deer Park (MṚGADĀVA) at SĀRNĀTH and in Vārāṇasī, the Buddha returned to URUVILVĀ, where he had practiced asceticism prior to this enlightenment. There, he encountered Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa, a famous ascetic (said to be 120 years old) who claimed to be enlightened. The Buddha spent the rains retreat (VARṢĀ) with him and his followers, performing some 3,500 miracles. When the Buddha eventually convinced Uruvilva-Kāśyapa that he was not enlightened and that the fire worship that he taught did not lead to enlightenment, Uruvilva-Kāśyapa requested ordination. Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa and his five hundred followers all cut off their long locks and threw them in the river, where the other two brothers and their followers saw them floating by. They came to investigate and also sought ordination. The Buddha taught them the so-called “Fire Sermon” (ĀDITTAPARIYĀYA), at which point they all became ARHATs. They all then traveled to RĀJAGṚHA, where, in the presence of King BIMBISĀRA, the new monks proclaimed their allegiance to the Buddha. The three brothers are often listed among the audience of MAHĀYĀNA sūtras.

nadī vaitaraṇī. (T. chu bo rab med; C. liehe zeng; J. retsugazō; K. yŏrhajŭng 烈河增). In Sanskrit, “river difficult to ford,” the fourth of the four types of “neighboring hells” (PRATYEKANARAKA) located at the four sides of the eight hot hells (cf. NĀRAKA). This hell is a river of boiling water, which the hell denizens are forced to swim across. The river is an example of the common Buddhist practice of appropriating elements of Hindu cosmology. In Hinduism, this river is important in funerary rites, when a gift of a cow is to be given to a brāhmaṇa in order for the deceased to be ferried across the river to the realm of YAMA. The boatman asks the deceased if the gift of a cow has been given. If so, they are allowed to board; if not, they must swim across the horrific waters. In the Mahābhārata, the Pāṇḍavas must cross the river en route to heaven. In Buddhist cosmology, it becomes just one of the “neighboring hells,” which all denizens of hell must swim across as they exit the hot hells.

nāga. (T. klu; C. long; J. ryū; K. yong 龍). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “serpent” or “dragon” (as in the Chinese), autochthonous beings said to inhabit bodies of water and the roots of great trees, often guarding treasures hidden there. They are depicted iconographically with human heads and torsos but with the tail and hood of a cobra. They inhabit an underwater kingdom filled with magnificent palaces, and they possess a range of magical powers, including the ability to masquerade as humans. Nāgas appear frequently in Buddhist literature in both benevolent and malevolent forms. They are said to be under the command of VIRŪPĀKṢA, the god of the west, and are guards of the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. They sometimes appear in the audience of Buddha, most famously in the twelfth chapter of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”), where an eight-year-old nāga princess offers a gem to the Buddha. She instantaneously transforms into a male, traverses the ten bodhisattva stages (BHŪMI), and achieves buddhahood. This scene is sometimes cited as evidence that women have the capacity to achieve buddhahood. In the story of the Buddha’s enlightenment, the Buddha is protected during a rainstorm by the nāga MUCILINDA. The Buddha is said to have entrusted the ŚATASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ (“Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Lines”) to the safekeeping of the nāgas at the bottom of the sea, from whom NĀGĀRJUNA recovered it. Digging the earth is said to displease nāgas, who must therefore be propitiated prior to the construction of a building.

Nāgabodhi. (T. Klu’i byang chub; C. Longzhi; J. Ryūchi; K. Yongji 龍智) (d.u.). A south Indian MAHĀSIDDHA, possibly of the eighth century, counted among the traditional list of eighty-four mahāsiddhas. He is renowned in Tibet as a master of ATIYOGA. He is said to have been a thief who tried to steal from NĀGĀRJUNA and ended up becoming his disciple, receiving tantric instructions from Nāgārjuna, which he then passed on to two disciples, ŚUBHAKARASIṂHA at NĀLANDĀ and VAJRABODHI in Sri Lanka, each of whom transmitted these teachings in China. In East Asian Buddhism, Nāgabodhi is considered the fourth of the eight patriarchs of the Zhenyan and SHINGON schools.

Nāgadīpa. In Pāli, “Serpent Island,” the ancient name for the Jaffna Peninsula at the northern tip of the island of Sri Lanka. According to the MAHĀVAṂSA, the Buddha came here during his second visit to the island in order to settle a dispute between two NĀGAs. A number of important monasteries and pilgrimage sites are located there. According to one prophecy, at the time when the teachings of the Buddha are about to disappear from this world, his relics (ŚARĪRA) will reassemble from the various reliquaries (STŪPA) and travel to the Rājāyatanacetiya in Nāgadīpa before returning to BODHGAYĀ, where they will burst into flame.

Naganuma Myōkō. (長沼妙佼) (1889–1957). Cofounder, with NIWANO NIKKYŌ (1906–1999), of Risshō Kōseikai, a Japanese “new religion” associated with the REIYŪKAI and NICHIREN schools. See RISSHŌ KŌSEIKAI.

Nagara. (S). One of the twenty-four sacred sites associated with the CAKRASAṂVARATANTRA. See PĪṬHA.

Nāgārjuna. (T. Klu sgrub; C. Longshu; J. Ryūju; K. Yongsu 龍樹). Indian Buddhist philosopher traditionally regarded as the founder of the MADHYAMAKA [alt. Mādhyamika] school of MAHĀYĀNA Buddhist philosophy. Very little can be said concerning his life; scholars generally place him in South India during the second century CE. Traditional accounts state that he lived four hundred years after the Buddha’s PARINIRVĀṆA. Some traditional biographies also state that he lived for six hundred years, apparently attempting to identify him with a later Nāgārjuna known for his tantric writings. Two of the works attributed to Nāgārjuna, the RATNĀVALĪ and the SUHṚLLEKHA, are verses of advice to a king, suggesting that he may have achieved some fame during his lifetime. His birth is “prophesied” in a number of works, including the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA. Other sources indicate that he also served as abbot of a monastery. He appears to have been the teacher of ĀRYADEVA, and his works served as the subject of numerous commentaries in India, East Asia, and Tibet. Although Nāgārjuna is best known in the West for his writings on emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), especially as set forth in his most famous work, the “Verses on the Middle Way” (MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ, also known as the MADHYAMAKAŚĀSTRA), Nāgārjuna was the author of a number of works (even when questions of attribution are taken into account) on a range of topics, and it is through a broad assessment of these works that an understanding of his thought is best gained. He wrote as a Buddhist monk and as a proponent of the Mahāyāna; in several of his works he defends the Mahāyāna sūtras as being BUDDHAVACANA. He compiled an anthology of passages from sixty-eight sūtras entitled the “Compendium of Sūtras” (SŪTRASAMUCCAYA), the majority of which are Mahāyāna sūtras; this work provides a useful index for scholars in determining which sūtras were extant during his lifetime. Among the Mahāyāna sūtras, Nāgārjuna is particularly associated with the “perfection of wisdom” (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) corpus. According to legend, Nāgārjuna retrieved from the Dragon King’s palace at the bottom of the sea the “Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines” (ŚATASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA), which the Buddha had entrusted to the undersea king of the NĀGAs for safekeeping. He also composed hymns of praise to the Buddha, such as the CATUḤSTAVA, and expositions of Buddhist ethical practice, such as the Ratnāvalī. (Later exegetes classify his works into a YUKTIKĀYA, or “logical corpus,” and a STAVAKĀYA, or “devotional corpus.”) Nāgārjuna’s works are addressed to a variety of audiences. His philosophical texts are sometimes directed against logicians of non-Buddhist schools, but most often offer a critique of the doctrines and assumptions of Buddhist ABHIDHARMA schools, especially the SARVĀSTIVĀDA. Other works are more general expositions of Buddhist practice, directed sometimes to monastic audiences, sometimes to lay audiences. An overriding theme in his works is the bodhisattva’s path to buddhahood, and the merit (PUṆYA) and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) that the bodhisattva must accumulate over the course of that path in order to achieve enlightenment. By wisdom here, he means the perfection of wisdom (prajñāpāramitā), declared in the sūtras to be the knowledge of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). Nāgārjuna is credited with rendering the poetic and sometimes paradoxical declarations concerning emptiness that appear in these and other Mahāyāna sūtras into a coherent philosophical system. In his first sermon, the DHARMACAKRAPRAVARTANASŪTRA, the Buddha had prescribed a “middle way” between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. Nāgārjuna, citing an early sūtra, spoke of a middle way between the extremes of existence and nonexistence, sometimes also referred to as the middle way between the extremes of permanence (ŚĀŚVATĀNTA) and annihilation (UCCHEDĀNTA). For Nāgārjuna, the ignorance (AVIDYĀ) that is the source of all suffering is the belief in SVABHĀVA, a term that literally means “own being” and has been variously rendered as “intrinsic existence” and “self-nature.” This belief is the mistaken view that things exist autonomously, independently, and permanently; to hold this belief is to fall into the extreme of permanence. It is equally mistaken, however, to hold that nothing exists; this is the extreme of annihilation. Emptiness, which for Nāgārjuna is the true nature of reality, is not the absence of existence, but the absence of self-existence, viz., the absence of svabhāva. Nāgārjuna devotes his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā to a thoroughgoing analysis of a wide range of topics (in twenty-seven chapters and 448 verses), including the Buddha, the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, and NIRVĀṆA, to demonstrate that each lacks the autonomy and independence that are mistakenly ascribed to it. His approach generally is to consider the various ways in which a given entity could exist, and then demonstrate that none of these is tenable because of the absurdities that would be entailed thereby, a form of reasoning often described in Western writings as reductio ad absurdum. In the case of something that is regarded to be the effect of a cause, he shows that the effect cannot be produced from itself (because an effect is the product of a cause), from something other than itself (because there must be a link between cause and effect), from something that is both the same as and different from itself (because the former two options are not possible), or from something that is neither the same as nor different from itself (because no such thing exists). This, in his view, is what is meant in the perfection of wisdom sūtras when they state that all phenomena are “unproduced” (ANUTPĀDA). The purpose of such an analysis is to destroy misconceptions (VIKALPA) and encourage the abandonment of all views (DṚṢṬI). Nāgārjuna defined emptiness in terms of the doctrine of PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA, or “dependent origination,” understood in its more generic sense as the fact that things are not self-arisen, but are produced in dependence on causes and conditions. This definition allows Nāgārjuna to avoid the claim of nihilism, which he addresses directly in his writings and which his followers would confront over the centuries. Nāgārjuna employs the doctrine of the two truths (SATYADVAYA) of ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) and conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA), explaining that everything that exists is ultimately empty of any intrinsic nature but does exist conventionally. The conventional is the necessary means for understanding the ultimate, and the ultimate makes the conventional possible. As Nāgārjuna wrote, “For whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.”

Nāgārjunakoṇḍā. “Nāgārjuna’s hill” (koṇḍā means “hill” in Telugu), an important archaeological site in southern India, in the modern state of Andhra Pradesh; it is the present name for Vijayapurī, the capital of the Ikṣvāku dynasty (c. 227–309) founded by Vāsiṣṭīputra Caṃtamūla after the decline of AMARĀVATĪ, the southern capital of the later Sātavāhana [alt. Śātavāhana] dynasty. In 1926, ruins were discovered of what was the most important monastic center in the Deccan. There is no archaeological evidence to support its traditional association with the philosopher NĀGĀRJUNA, although there are remains of Buddhist monasteries and reliquaries of at least four Buddhist schools. Each monastic unit consisted of a STŪPA, two CAITYA halls (one containing a stūpa, the other an image of the buddha), and a VIHĀRA (residential quarters). The stūpas at the site are designed in the shape of a wheel. Limestone panels and friezes have also been discovered at the site. Nāgārjunakoṇḍā and AMARĀVATĪ are particularly important for showing how Buddhist and Brahmanical structures were constructed at the same time, alongside each other, supported by different members of the same ruling families.

Nāgasena. (T. Klu sde; C. Naxian biqiu/Naqiexina; J. Nasen biku/Nagasaina; K. Nasŏn pigu/Nagasŏna 那先比丘/那伽犀那). The Sanskrit and Pāli name for an eminent ARHAT celebrated in the Pāli MILINDAPAÑHA and the Sanskrit Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra (which may derive from a Bactrian SARVĀSTIVĀDA textual lineage) for his discussions on Buddhist doctrine with the Bactrian Greek king Menander (P. Milinda). Although Nāgasena was not born into a Buddhist family, he was destined to come to the aid of the Buddha’s religion in fulfillment of a promise he had made in his previous existence as a divinity in the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. Thus, according to the Pāli account, he was born into a brāhmaṇa family in the Himalayas and became well versed in the Vedas at an early age. King Milinda was harassing the Buddhist order by skillfully disputing points of doctrine and defeating Buddhist representatives in debate. To counter this threat, the elder Assagutta summoned the monk Rohana, and charged him with the task of converting Nāgasena, convincing him to join the order and training him so that he might vanquish King Milinda and convert him to Buddhism. Rohana visited Nāgasena’s house for seven years and ten months before receiving so much as a greeting from his proud brāhmaṇa father. Finally, impressed by the monk’s demeanor, Nāgasena’s father became his patron and invited him daily for his morning meal. After Nāgasena was sufficiently educated in Vedic lore, Rohana engaged him in discussions and convinced him of the veracity of the Buddha’s teachings. Nāgasena entered the order under Rohana who, as his preceptor, taught him ABHIDHAMMA (S. ABHIDHARMA). One day, Nāgasena, having inherited his father’s pride, questioned the intelligence of his teacher. Rohana, an arhat endowed with the power to read others’ minds, rebuked Nāgasena for his arrogance. Nāgasena begged forgiveness, but Rohana would grant it only if Nāgasena defeated King Milinda in debate. Thereafter, Nāgasena was sent to the Vattaniya hermitage to train under Assagutta and while there achieved stream-entry (SROTAĀPANNA). He was then sent to PĀṬALIPUTRA to study under the elder Dhammarakkhita, where he attained arhatship. At the appropriate time, Nāgasena, who was then widely renowned for his erudition, was invited to Milinda’s kingdom. There, in the Saṅkheyya hermitage, Nāgasena engaged King Milinda in discussion on various points of doctrine, at the end of which the king took refuge in the three jewels (RATNATRAYA) and became a lay disciple in the Buddha’s religion. Scholars are uncertain whether such a dialogue ever took place. There was indeed a famous king named Menander (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, however, no historical evidence of Nāgasena. The text itself was probably composed or compiled around the beginning of the Common Era and marks some of the earliest abhidharma-style exchanges found in the literature. ¶ A different Nāgasena (corresponding to the second of the two Chinese transcriptions in the entry heading) is also traditionally listed as twelfth of the sixteen ARHAT elders (ṢOḌAŚASTHAVIRA), charged by the Buddha with protecting his dispensation until the advent of the next buddha, MAITREYA. East Asian sources claim that he resides on Bandubo Mountain with twelve hundred disciples. He is often depicted in paintings as cleaning his ears, earning him the nickname “Ear-Picking Arhat” (Wa’er Luohan). In CHANYUE GUANXIU’s standard Chinese depiction, Nāgasena sits leaning on a rock, with large nose and deep-set eyes, staring ahead in anger. He has a high forehead and a hump on his back. His mouth is open with his tongue exposed. He supports his chin with his fists.

naiḥsargikapāyattika. (P. nissaggiyapācittiya; T. spang ba’i ltung byed; C. sheduo; J. shada; K. sat’a 捨墮). In Sanskrit, “forfeiture offense,” a category of monastic infraction in the PRĀTIMOKṢA that includes offenses committed by a monk or a nun pertaining to the improper acquisition or characteristics of the alms bowl (PĀTRA), robes (TRICĪVARA), and other kinds of requisites. Such an offense always entails the forfeiture of property (although in some cases it is later returned). The offense is rectified when the guilty party forfeits the objects in question and confesses the misdeed to a SAṂGHA composed of four or more monks, to a gaṇa composed of two or three monks, or to an individual monk. In the Pāli VINAYA, there are thirty rules in this category, falling under three categories: robes, silk (although the rules pertain to other materials as well), and bowls. As an example of the first category, if a monk is given robe cloth by a layperson who is unrelated to him, he may accept only enough cloth to make an upper robe (UTTARĀSAṂGA) and an under robe (NIVĀSANA). Any additional cloth must be forfeited, and it is a violation to horde it. As an example of the second category, if a monk receives gold or silver, it must be forfeited; it is a violation of the rule to keep it. As an example of the third category, it is a violation for a monk to be in possession of an additional undamaged and properly made alms bowl for more than ten days; after ten days, the extra bowl must be forfeited and the transgression confessed.

Nairañjanā. (P. Nerañjarā; T. Ne ran dza na; C. Nilianchanhe; J. Nirenzenga; K. Niryŏnsŏnha 尼連禪河). Ancient name of the present-day Lilaja River, a tributary of the Ganges, located in the modern Indian state of Bihar; site of the Buddha’s austerities and enlightenment. During a six-year period, from the time of his departure from the palace to his achievement of buddhahood, the BODHISATTVA Prince SIDDHĀRTHA practiced austerities at URUVILVĀ along the banks of this river. It was while bathing in this river during a period of intense self-mortification that the bodhisattva swooned from hunger, after which he concluded that extreme asceticism was not a viable path to liberation from suffering and continued rebirth. Sitting under a tree on the bank of the river, he accepted a bowl of milk porridge from a young woman named SUJĀTĀ, who mistook his gaunt visage for a YAKṢA to whom the local village made offerings. He ate the meal and then cast the dish into the river, saying, “If I am to become a buddha today, may the dish float upstream.” The plate floated upstream for some distance before disappearing into a whirlpool, descending down to the palace of a serpent king (NĀGA), where it landed on top of the bowls used by the previous buddhas, making a clicking sound. The bodhisattva spent the afternoon prior to the night of his enlightenment in a grove on the banks of the river. After his enlightenment, it was on the banks of this river that BRAHMĀ persuaded him to teach the dharma. The Buddha later converted the ascetic URUVILVĀ-KĀŚYAPA, whose hermitage was located along this Nairañjanā River.

nairātmya. (T. bdag med; C. wuwo; J. muga; K. mua 無我). In Sanskrit, “selflessness,” referring to the absence of a perduring self. It is a later scholastic term synonymous with the canonical term ANĀTMAN, lit., “nonself”; here, the same notion is turned into an abstract noun, nairātmya, hence “selflessness.” This translation should not be understood in its common English meaning as a personality trait that is the opposite of selfishness. Nairātmya instead is used philosophically to refer to the quality of an absence of self. The major Buddhist philosophical schools of India differ on the precise meaning of this selflessness, based on how they define “self” (ĀTMAN). They would all agree, however, that an understanding of nairātmya is the central insight of the Buddhist path (MĀRGA) leading to liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Two types of nairātmya are distinguished, based on what it is that lacks self. The first is called the selflessness of persons (PUDGALANAIRĀTMYA), which refers to the absence of a permanent and autonomous entity among the aggregates of mind and body (NĀMARŪPA) that transmigrates from lifetime to lifetime. The second type of nairātmya is called the selflessness of phenomena (i.e., phenomena other than persons), or DHARMANAIRĀTMYA, which refers to the absence of any kind of enduring element in the factors that make up the universe. Nairātmya is used in both HĪNAYĀNA and MAHĀYĀNA philosophical schools but receives particular emphasis in the Mahāyāna. In the MADHYAMAKA school, e.g., the selflessness of phenomena is defined as the absence of intrinsic nature, or SVABHĀVA; see NIḤSVABHĀVA. ¶ Nairātmyā (T. Bdag med ma; C. Wuwomu), or “Selfless,” is also the name of the consort of HEVAJRA. In the HEVAJRATANTRA, she represents the overcoming of wrath.

naiṣkramya. (P. nekkhamma; T. nges ’byung; C. chuyaozhi/chuli; J. shutsuyōshi/shutsuri; K. ch’uryoji/ch’ulli 出要志/出離). In Sanskrit, “renunciation” (see also NIḤSARAṆA; NIRVEDA) especially in the sense of leaving mundane life and embarking on a religious vocation. The Buddha repeatedly exhorts monks to develop renunciation as a means of eliminating attachment to the pleasures of the senses. As such, in the cultivation of the path (MĀRGA), renunciation is associated with right intention (SAṂYAKSAṂKALPA) and is essential for all three trainings (TRIŚIKṢĀ) in morality (ŚĪLA), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ). In the Pāli tradition, renunciation constitutes the third perfection (P. pāramī; S. PĀRAMITĀ) mastered by the bodhisatta (S. BODHISATTVA) on the path leading to buddhahood. In the MAHĀYĀNA traditions, renunciation is lauded as a prerequisite to developing the aspiration for enlightenment (BODHICITTA), since it is impossible to develop a wish to liberate all beings from SAṂSĀRA unless one is dissatisfied with saṃsāra oneself. In order to develop renunciation, the adept is advised to contemplate the rarity of human birth (KṢAṆASAṂPAD), the suffering inherent in the realms of saṃsāra, the cause and effect of actions (KARMAN), and the inevitability and unpredictability of death.

naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana. (P. nevasaññānāsaññāyatana; T. ’du shes med ’du shes med min skye mched; C. feixiang feifeixiang chu; J. hisōhihisōjo; K. pisang pibisang ch’ŏ 非想非非想處). In Sanskrit, “sphere of neither perception nor nonperception,” the fourth and highest of the four levels of the immaterial realm (ĀRŪPYADHĀTU) and the fourth of the four immaterial absorptions (ĀRŪPYĀVACARADHYĀNA). It surpasses the first three levels of the immaterial realm, viz., infinite space (AKĀŚĀNANTYĀYATANA), infinite consciousness (VIJÑĀNĀNANTYĀYATANA), and nothingness (ĀKIÑCANYĀYATANA), respectively. It is a realm of rebirth and a meditative state that is entirely immaterial (viz., there is no physical or material [RŪPA] component to existence) in which perception of all mundane things vanishes entirely, but perception itself does not. Beings reborn in this realm are thought to live as long as eighty thousand eons (KALPA). However, as a state of being that is still subject to rebirth, even the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception remains part of SAṂSĀRA. Like the other levels of both the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPADHĀTU) and the immaterial realm, one is reborn in this state by achieving the specific level of meditative absorption associated with that state in the previous lifetime. One of the most famous and influential expositions on the subject of these immaterial states comes from the VISUDDHIMAGGA of BUDDHAGHOSA, written in the fifth century. Although there are numerous accounts of Buddhist meditators achieving immaterial states of SAMĀDHI, they are also used polemically in Buddhist literature to describe the attainments of non-Buddhist YOGINs, who mistakenly identify these exalted, but still impermanent, states of existence as the permanent liberation from rebirth. See also DHYĀNASAMĀPATTI; DHYĀNOPAPATTI.

Nakagawa Sōen. (中川宋淵) (1907–1984). Japanese ZEN monk in the RINZAISHŪ who was influential in the early transmission of that Zen tradition to North America. Born in Taiwan to a Japanese military family, he graduated from Tōkyō Imperial University in 1931 and was ordained as a monk at Kogakuji in 1933. After hearing the MYŌSHINJI Zen master Yamamoto Genpo (1866–1961) speak at Ryūtakuji, he became his disciple and trained under him at the latter monastery, eventually becoming abbot there. In 1935, Nakagawa began corresponding with Nyogen Senzaki (1876–1958), a Rinzai missionary in California, and eventually traveled to San Francisco to visit Senzaki in 1949; he made ten more such visits over the next three decades. Nakagawa helped to establish the Zen Studies Society in New York in 1965 and the Daibosatsu Zendo in the Catskills in 1971.

Nakchin. (樂眞) (1045–1114). In Korean, “Enjoying Truth”; Korean scholar-monk during the mid-Koryŏ dynasty, also known as royal master (wangsa) Ogong T’onghye (Awakening to Emptiness, Penetrating Wisdom). Initially a student of the state preceptor (kuksa; see GUOSHI) Kyŏngdŏk Nanwŏn (999–1066), Nakchin passed the monk’s examination (SŬNGKWA) and received the title “greatly virtuous” (taedŏk). After Nanwŏn’s death, Nakchin became a close colleague of the state preceptor Taegak ŬICH’ŎN (1055–1101), the fifth son of the Koryŏ king Munjong (r. 1046–1083). After Ŭich’ŏn surreptitiously departed for China against his royal father’s wishes, the king sent Nakchin after him, and they eventually studied together under the HUAYAN teacher Jinshui Jingyuan (1011–1088), at Huiyinsi in Hangzhou. After the two monks returned to Korea, Nakchin stayed with Ŭich’ŏn at Hŭngwangsa in the capital, where he assisted Ŭich’ŏn in establishing the large monastic library known as the Kyojang Togam and in publishing the massive Koryŏ sokchanggyŏng (“Koryŏ Supplement to the Canon”), which was especially important for its inclusion of a broad cross section of the indigenous writings of East Asian Buddhist teachers. Nakchin also served as an editor of Ŭich’ŏn’s Wŏnjong mullyu. Nakchin eventually rose to the preeminent position of “SAṂGHA overseer” (K. sŭngt’ong; C. SENGTONG) under King Sukchong (r. 1096–1105) and, in 1114, received the title royal master (wangsa).

Nakula. (S). See BAKKULA.

Nakulapitṛ and Nakulamātṛ. (P. Nakulapitā and Nakulamātā; T. Ne’u le’i pha, Ne’u le’i ma; C. Nayouluo fu, Nuoguluo zhangzhe mu; J. Naura fu, Nakora chōja mo; K. Naura pu, Nakkora changja mo 那憂羅父, 諾酤羅長者母). In Sanskrit, “Nakula’s Father” and “Nakula’s Mother”; lay followers of the Buddha, declared by him to be foremost among laypersons who are intimate companions. According to the Pāli account, they were a married couple who lived in the village of Suṃsumāragiri in Bhagga country. Once on a visit to their village, the Buddha was staying at a grove called Bhesakalāvana. The couple went to pay their respects and, upon seeing the Buddha, immediately fell at his feet, calling him their son and asking why he had been away so long. This spontaneous reaction was a consequence of their past existences: for five hundred lifetimes they had been the Buddha’s parents, and for many more lives they were his close relatives. The Buddha preached to them, and they immediately became stream-enterers (sotāpanna; S. SROTAĀPANNA). Once when Nakulapitā was gravely ill, he began to fret about the fate of his wife and family, should he die. Nakulamātā, noticing his condition, consoled him in such a way that his anxiety was removed and he recovered his health. Later, he recounted what had transpired to the Buddha, who congratulated him on his wife’s good qualities. Nakulapitā’s conversations with the Buddha are recorded in the Pāli SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA. The Buddha again visited their village many years later when the couple was old. They invited him to their home for his morning meal. There, they related to him their devotion to one another and asked for a teaching that would keep them together through their future lives. It was on the basis of this discussion that the Buddha declared Nakulapitā and Nakulamātā foremost among those who live intimately. In a former life, Nakulapitā had resolved to attain this type of preeminence: during the time of the buddha Padumuttara, as a householder in the city of Haṃsavatī, he overheard the Buddha praise a lay couple for their intimacy.

Nālāgiri. (T. Nor skyong; C. Hucai/Shoucai; J. Gozai/Shuzai; K. Hojae/Sujae 護財/守財). The Sanskrit and Pāli name of a ferocious elephant whom the Buddha tames, in a scene often depicted in Buddhist art. The elephant was so dangerous that the citizens of RĀJAGṚHA asked King AJĀTAŚATRU to have a bell put around his neck to warn people of his approach. In an attempt to assassinate the Buddha and take control of the SAṂGHA, the Buddha’s cousin DEVADATTA bribed the king’s elephant keeper to let loose the fierce elephant against the Buddha. After being given a large quantity of palm wine, the elephant was unleashed and rampaged through the city. Hearing the bell, the monks implored the Buddha not to collect alms in the city that day, but he ignored their pleas. A woman who was fleeing from the elephant dropped her child at the Buddha’s feet. When the elephant charged, the Buddha spoke to him and suffused him with loving-kindness (MAITRĪ), causing the elephant to stop before him. When he stroked the elephant’s head, it knelt at his feet and received teachings from the Buddha. The townspeople were so impressed by the miracle that they showered the elephant’s body with jewelry; for this reason, the elephant was henceforth known as DHANAPĀLA, “Wealth Protector.” In some sources, he is called Vasupāla.

Nālandā. (T. Na len dra; C. Nalantuosi; J. Narandaji; K. Narandasa 那爛陀寺). A great monastic university, located a few miles north of RĀJAGṚHA, in what is today the Indian state of Bihar. It was the most famous of the Buddhist monastic universities of India. During the Buddha’s time, Nālandā was a flourishing town that he often visited on his peregrinations. It was also frequented by MAHĀVĪRA, the leader of the JAINA mendicants. According to XUANZANG (whose account is confirmed by a seal discovered at the site), the monastery at Nālandā was founded by King Śakrāditya of MAGADHA, who is sometimes identified as the fifth-century ruler Kumāragupta I (r. 415–455). It flourished between the sixth and twelfth centuries CE under Gupta and Pāla patronage. According to Tibetan histories, many of the greatest MAHĀYĀNA scholars, including ASAṄGA, VASUBANDHU, DHARMAKĪRTI, DHARMAPĀLA, ŚĪLABHADRA, and ŚĀNTIDEVA, lived and taught at Nālandā. Several MADHYAMAKA scholars, including CANDRAKĪRTI, are also said to have taught there. At its height, Nālandā was a large and impressive complex of monasteries that had as many as ten thousand students and fifteen hundred teachers in residence. During the reign of Harṣa, it was supported by a hundred neighboring villages, each with two hundred households providing rice, butter, and milk to sustain the community of monastic scholars and students. The library, which included a nine-story structure, is said to have contained hundreds of thousands of manuscripts. The university had an extensive curriculum, with instruction offered in the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, SAUTRĀNTIKA, YOGĀCARA, and MADHYAMAKA, the Vedas and Hindu philosophical schools, as well as mathematics, grammar, logic, and medicine. Nālandā attracted students from across Asia, including the Chinese pilgrims YIJING and Xuanzang, who provided detailed reports of their visits. Both monks were impressed by the strict monastic discipline that was observed at Nālandā, with Xuanzang reporting that no monk had been expelled for a violation of the VINAYA in seven hundred years. In the eleventh century, NĀROPA held a senior teaching position at Nālandā, until he left in search of his teacher TILOPA. In 1192, Nālandā was sacked by Turkic troops under the command of Bakhtiyar Khilji, who may have mistaken it for a fortress; the library was burned, with the thousands of manuscripts smoldering for months. The monastery had been largely abandoned by the time of a Tibetan pilgrim’s visit in 1235 CE, although it seems to have survived in some form until around 1400. Archaeological excavations began at Nālandā in the early twentieth century and have continued since, unearthing monasteries and monastic cells, as well as significant works of art in stone, bronze, and stucco.

Na lan dra. [alt. Na len dra]. A Tibetan monastery named after the famed Indian Buddhist university of NĀLANDĀ. Na lan dra was founded in 1435 by the renowned scholar RONG STON SMRA BA’I SENG GE. Located in the region of ’Phan yul (Penyul) north of LHA SA, the institution is often known as ’Phan po Na len dra (Penpo Nalendra). The monastery declined after its founder’s death and was absorbed by the SA SKYA sect at the end of the fifteenth century.

nāmarūpa. (T. ming gzugs; C. mingse; J. myōshiki; K. myŏngsaek 名色). In Sanskrit and Pāli, lit. “name-and-form,” “mind-and-matter,” “mentality-and-materiality”; a term for the mental and physical constituents of the person, with “name” (nāma) subsuming the four mental aggregates (SKANDHA) of sensations (VEDANĀ), perception (SAṂJÑĀ), conditioning factors (SAṂSKĀRA), and consciousness (VIJÑĀNA), and “form” (RŪPA) referring to the materiality aggregate, viz., the physical body. The term occurs most commonly as the fourth of the twelve links in the chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), where, in some interpretations, it refers to the five aggregates of a new lifetime at the moment of conception, when the consciousness (vijñāna) from the previous lifetime enters the womb; in this interpretation, “name” would be the consciousness that has arrived in the womb from the previous lifetime, and “form” would be the embryo that it inhabits. Name and form are said to rely upon each other, like a lame man (name) traveling on the shoulders of a blind man (form). Because of this reciprocal relationship, if consciousness (name) is not present, the form of the embryo will not develop and miscarriage will result. But consciousness (name) also cannot exist without the support that form provides, for it is only when there are physical sense bases (INDRIYA) that can come into contact with the external world that consciousness can be produced. Name and form are thus also compared to two bundles of reeds leaning against one another, neither of which can stand without the other. In addition to this sense of the term as the physical and psychical components of the person, the term is also used in a wider sense to refer to the entire world, since it is composed of mind (nāma) and matter (rūpa).

nam Myōhōrengekyō. (J) (南無妙法蓮華經). Alternate transcription of NAMU MYŌHŌRENGEKYŌ.

Namo Buddha. (T. Stag mo lus sbyin). Together with SVAYAṂBHŪ and BODHNĀTH, one of the three major STŪPAs of the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. Located twenty-five miles (forty kilometers) southeast of Kathmandu, it is built at the putative site where a prince named Mahāsattva, a bodhisattva who was a previous rebirth of ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha, sacrificed his life to feed a starving tigress. In some versions of the story, the prince came across a starving tigress and her hungry cubs and, in order to save their lives, jumped off a cliff, committing suicide so they could eat his flesh. In another version, commemorated on a rock carving near the stūpa, the prince cut off pieces of his flesh and fed them to the tigress until he finally died. The stūpa is said to be built over his bones, and the tigress’s cave is nearby. The Tibetan name of the stūpa means, “Offering the Body to the Tigress.” The Nepali name is said to derive from the fact that there were once many tigers in the area; the residents would therefore repeat “namo Buddha” (“homage to the Buddha”) for protection.

Namsan. (南山). In Korean, “South Mountain,” important Buddhist site located to the south of the ancient Silla-dynasty capital of KYŎNGJU. Namsan had been worshipped as a Korean sacred mountain since prehistoric times and was strongly embedded in local shamanic cults. With the advent of Buddhism, Namsan became the center of Buddhist worship in Korea as the representation of Mt. SUMERU, the axis mundi of the world in Buddhist cosmology. As a result, the whole area of Namsan is dotted with rock-cut reliefs, engravings, and stone images, all fine examples of Korean Buddhist art from the seventh through the fourteenth centuries, depicting among many others the buddhas ŚĀKYAMUNI, BHAIṢAJYAGURU, and AMITĀBHA. Most of these images date from the seventh and eighth centuries, when the political power of the Silla dynasty was at its height. Most noteworthy is the massive boulder in T’apkok (Pagoda Valley), which is carved with a rich tapestry of Buddhist images that depict the popular view of the Buddhist world during the Silla period. In the center of the boulder’s northern face is a seated buddha image, which is flanked by two images of wooden pagodas. A mythical lion below the pagodas acts as a guardian to this scene. The eastern face expresses the belief in the PURE LAND. It depicts a narrative scene of Amitābha, flanked by two BODHISATTVAs, presumably AVALOKITEŚVARA and MAHĀSTHĀMAPRĀPTA, with accompanying images of flying beings (S. APSARAS) and monks who came to venerate this central figure. On the boulder’s southern face, a buddha triad and an individual image of a bodhisattva are carved. Finally, on its western face is depicted an image of Śākyamuni at the moment of his awakening beneath two BODHI TREEs. Other noteworthy Buddhist images at Namsan include the rock-cut reliefs of seven buddhas at Ch’ilburam (Seven Buddhas Rock), which is uniquely composed of two boulders, one with a buddha triad, the other one with four bodhisattvas; the seated stone statue of Śākyamuni at Mirŭkkok (Maitreya Valley), which is one of the best-preserved Buddhist stone statues from the eighth century; the seated image of a bodhisattva carved on the high cliff of Sinsŏnam (Fairy Rock); and the seated figure of Śākyamuni in Samnŭnggok (Samnŭng Valley), which was carved on a colossal rock twenty-three feet high and sixteen feet in width.

namu Amidabutsu. (C. namo Amituo fo; K. namu Amit’a pul 南無阿彌陀佛). In Japanese, “I take refuge in the buddha AMITĀBHA.” Chanting of the name of the buddha Amitābha as a form of “buddha-recollection” (J. nenbutsu; see C. NIANFO) is often associated with the PURE LAND traditions. In Japan, nenbutsu practice was spread throughout the country largely through the efforts of itinerant holy men (HIJIRI), such as KŪYA and IPPEN. With the publication of GENSHIN’s ŌJŌ YŌSHŪ, the practice of nenbutsu and the prospect of rebirth in Amitābha’s pure land came to play an integral role as well in the TENDAI tradition. HŌNEN, a learned monk of the Tendai sect, inspired in part by reading the writings of the Chinese exegete SHANDAO, became convinced that the nenbutsu was the most appropriate form of Buddhist practice for people in the degenerate age of the dharma (J. mappō; C. MOFA). Hōnen set forth his views in a work called Senchaku hongan nenbutsushū (“On the Nenbutsu Selected in the Primal Vow,” see SENCHAKUSHŪ). The title refers to the vow made eons ago by the bodhisattva DHARMĀKARA that he would become the buddha Amitābha, create the pure land of bliss (SUKHĀVATĪ), and deliver to that realm anyone who called his name. To illustrate the power of the practice of nenbutsu, Hōnen contrasted “right practice” and the “practice of sundry good acts.” “Right practice” refers to all forms of worship of Amitābha, the most important of which is the recitation of his name. “Practice of sundry good acts” refers to ordinary virtuous deeds performed by Buddhists, which are meritorious but lack the power of “right practice” that derives from the grace of Amitābha. Indeed, the power of Amitābha’s vow is so great that those who sincerely recite his name, Hōnen suggests, do not necessarily need to dedicate their merit toward rebirth in the land of bliss because recitation will naturally result in rebirth there. Hōnen goes on to explain that each bodhisattva makes specific vows about the particular practice that will result in rebirth in their buddha-fields (BUDDHAKṢETRA). Some buddha-fields are for those who practice charity (DĀNA), others for those who construct STŪPAs, and others for those who honor their teachers. While Amitābha was still the bodhisattva Dharmākara, he compassionately selected a very simple practice that would lead to rebirth in his pure land of bliss: the mere recitation of his name. Hōnen recognized how controversial these teachings would be if they were widely espoused, so he instructed that the Senchakushū not be published until after his death and allowed only his closest disciples to read and copy it. His teachings gained popularity in a number of influential circles but were considered anathema by the existing sects of Buddhism in Japan because of his promotion of the sole practice of reciting the name. His critics charged him with denigrating ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha, with neglecting virtuous deeds other than the recitation of the name, and with abandoning the meditation and visualization practices that should accompany the chanting of the name. Some years after Hōnen’s death, the printing xylographs of the Senchakushū were confiscated and burned as works harmful to the dharma. However, by that time, the teachings of Hōnen had gained a wide following among both aristocrats and the common people. Hōnen’s disciple SHINRAN came to hold even more radical views. Like Hōnen, he believed that any attempt to rely on one’s own powers (JIRIKI) to achieve freedom from SAṂSĀRA was futile; the only viable course of action was to rely on the power of Amitābha. But for Shinran, this power was pervasive. Even to make the effort to repeat silently “namu Amidabutsu” was a futile act of hubris. The very presence of the sounds of Amitābha’s name in one’s heart was due to Amitābha’s compassionate grace. It was therefore redundant to repeat the name more than once in one’s life. Instead, a single utterance (ICHINENGI) would assure rebirth in the pure land; all subsequent recitation should be regarded as a form of thanksgiving. This utterance need be neither audible nor even voluntary; instead, it is heard in the heart as a consequence of the “single thought-moment” of faith (shinjin, see XINXIN), received through Amitābha’s grace. Shinran not only rejected the value of multiple recitations of the phrase namu Amidabutsu; he also regarded the deathbed practices advocated by Genshin to bring about rebirth in the pure land as inferior self-power (jiriki). Despite harsh persecution by rival Buddhist traditions and the government, the followers of Hōnen and Shinran came to form the largest Buddhist community in Japan, known as the JŌDOSHŪ and JŌDO SHINSHŪ.

Namuci. (T. Grol med; C. Mowang [Boxun]; J. Maō [Hajun]; K. Mawang [Pasun] 魔王 [波旬]). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “Non-releaser,” a cognomen of MĀRA, the anthropomorphized evil one, also sometimes known as PĀPĪYĀṂS. Namuci is the name of a devil killed by the king of the divinities, INDRA, and absorbed into the Buddhist pantheon as one of the evil ones (māra). Namuci is sometimes identified with the third of the four types of māras most commonly found in Buddhist literature: (1) kleśamāra (P. kilesamāra), the māra of afflictions; (2) SKANDHAMĀRA (P. khandhamāra), the māra of the aggregates; (3) MṚTYUMĀRA (P. maccumāra), the māra of death; and (4) DEVAPUTRAMĀRA (P. devaputtamāra), the divinity Māra. As the “personification of death” itself, Māra cum Namuci thus releases no one from his grasp.

namu Myōhōrengekyō. (C. namo Miaofa lianhua jing; K. namu Myobŏp yŏnhwa kyŏng 南無妙法蓮華經). In Japanese, lit. “Homage to the Lotus Flower of the Sublime Dharma Scripture,” the phrase chanted as the primary practice of the various subtraditions of the NICHIRENSHŪ, including NICHIREN SHOSHŪ and SOKKA GAKKAI. The first syllable of the phrase, “namu,” is a transcription of the Sanskrit term “namas,” meaning “homage”; “Myōhōrengekyō” is the Japanese pronunciation of the title of KUMĀRAJĪVA’s (344–413) Chinese translation of the influential SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”). The phrase is also known in the Nichiren tradition as the DAIMOKU (lit. “title”). Chanting or meditating on the title of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra seems to have had a long history in the TENDAISHŪ (TIANTAI ZONG) in Japan. The practice was further developed and popularized by the Tendai monk NICHIREN, who placed this practice above all others. Relying on the FAHUA XUANYI, an important commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra by the Chinese monk TIANTAI ZHIYI (538–597), Nichiren claimed that the essence of the scripture is distilled in its title, or daimoku, and that chanting the title can therefore lead to the attainment of buddhahood in this very body (SOKUSHIN JŌBUTSU). He also drew on the notion that the dharma was then in decline (J. mappō; see C. MOFA) to promote the chanting of namu Myōhōrengekyō as the optimal approach to enlightenment in this degenerate age. The ONGI DUDEN (“Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings”), the transcription of Nichiren’s lectures on the sūtra compiled by his disciple Nichikō (1246–1332), gives a detailed exegesis of the meaning of the phrase. In the Nichiren interpretation, namu represents the dedication of one’s whole life to the essential truth of Buddhism, which is the daimoku Myōhōrengekyō. Myōhō refers to the “sublime dharma” of the nonduality of enlightenment and ignorance. Renge is the “lotus flower” (PUṆḌARĪKA), which, because it is able to bear seeds and yet bloom at the same time, symbolizes the simultaneity of cause and effect. Finally, kyō represents the voices and sounds of all sentient beings, which affirm the universal presence of the buddha-nature (C. FOXING). The chanting of the phrase is therefore considered to be the ultimate means to attain buddhahood, regardless of whether or not one knows its meaning. In addition to its soteriological dimension, the chanting of the phrase is believed by some to convey such practical benefits as good health and financial well-being.

ñāṇadassanavisuddhi. In Pāli, “purity of knowledge and vision”; according to the VISUDDHIMAGGA, the seventh and final of seven “purities” (P. visuddhi; cf. S. VIŚUDDHI) to be developed along the path to liberation. This purity consists of knowledge associated with the attainment of any of the four supramundane or noble (P. ariya; S. ĀRYA) paths, viz., that of the stream-enterer (P. sotāpanna; S. SROTAĀPANNA), once-returner (P. sakadāgāmi; S. SAKṚDĀGĀMIN), nonreturner (P. anāgāmi; S. ANĀGĀMIN), or worthy one (P. arahant; S. ARHAT). Entry into the path is preceded by what is called “change-of-lineage knowledge” (GOTRABHŪÑĀṆA), which arises immediately following the attainment of the conformity knowledge (ANULOMAÑĀṆA) that occurred as the culmination of the preceding (sixth) purity called PAṬIPADĀÑĀṆADASSANAVISUDDHI, or “purity of knowledge and vision of progress along the path.” Change-of-lineage knowledge takes as its object the unconditioned NIRVĀṆA element (P. nibbānadhātu; S. NIRVĀṆADHĀTU) by virtue of which the practitioner ceases kinship with ordinary worldlings (P. puthujjana; S. PṚTHAGJANA) and becomes a noble one (ariya; ārya). Immediately thereafter, he or she enters the path by attaining what is called MAGGACITTA, or “path consciousness.” It is this attainment of path consciousness that, technically speaking, constitutes the purity of knowledge and vision. If, at this time, the practitioner attains the path of a stream-enterer, which is the first and lowest of the four paths of sanctity, he or she permanently uproots the first three of ten fetters (SAṂYOJANA) that bind one to the cycle of existence, viz., (1) belief in the existence of a self in relation to the body (P. sakkāyadiṭṭhi; S. SATKĀYADṚṢṬI); (2) belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals (P. sīlabbataparāmāsa; S. ŚĪLAVRATAPARĀMARŚA); and (3) skeptical doubt about the efficacy of the path (P. vicikicchā; S. VICIKITSĀ). The sotāpanna will never again suffer a lower rebirth and is destined to attain full enlightenment (BODHI) and nibbāna in at most seven more lifetimes.

nānādhātujñānabala. (T. khams sna tshogs mkhyen pa’i stobs; C. zhongzhongjie zhili; J. shujukai chiriki; K. chongjonggye chiryŏk 種種界智力). In Sanskrit, “power of knowing diverse elements,” one of the ten special powers (BALA) of a buddha (S. tathāgatabala). One of the keys to the Buddha’s extraordinary pedagogical skill was his telepathic ability to understand the level of spiritual development or capacity of each member of his audience, whereby he was able to teach what was most appropriate for a given person at a given time (see TRĪNDRIYA). Thus, it is said that the Buddha taught the goal of rebirth as a divinity in heaven (SVARGA) to those who lacked the capacity to seek liberation from rebirth, and the doctrine of the absence of a perduring self (ANĀTMAN) to those who lacked the capacity to understand the more profound doctrine of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). Whereas the NĀNĀDHIMUKTIJÑĀNABALA reflects a buddha’s ability to discern the predilections or personality of a disciple in a particular lifetime, the nānādhātujñānabala reflects a buddha’s ability to discern the level of intelligence of a disciple in a particular lifetime. According to some conceptions of the Buddha, through his skillful methods (UPĀYAKAUŚALYA), the Buddha was able to give a single discourse (sometimes said to consist only of the letter “A”), and each member of the audience would hear a different teaching appropriate for him or her.

nānādhimuktijñānabala. (P. nānādhimuttikañāṇa; T. mos pa sna tshogs mkhyen pa’i stobs; C. zhongzhong shengjie zhili; J. shujushōge chiriki; K. chongjong sŭnghae chiryŏk 種種勝解智力). In Sanskrit, “power of knowing diverse aspirations,” one of the ten special powers (BALA) of a buddha (S. tathāgatabala). One of the keys to the Buddha’s extraordinary pedagogical skill was said to be his telepathic ability to understand the predilections or interests of each member of his audience, so that he could tailor his message to the aspirations of each individual. Thus, it is said that when the Buddha taught the practice of SAMĀDHI, he set forth forty different objects of concentration, each appropriate for a different personality. For those who were lustful, he taught meditation on the foulness of the human body; for those who were hateful, he taught meditation on loving-kindness; for those who were proud, he taught meditation on the twelve links of dependent origination; for those who were distracted, he taught meditation on the breath. Whereas the NĀNĀDHĀTUJÑĀNABALA reflects a buddha’s ability to discern the level of intelligence of a disciple in a particular lifetime, the nānādhimuktijñānabala reflects a buddha’s ability to discern the interests or personality of a disciple in a particular lifetime.

Ñāṇagambhīra. The name given to the great fifteenth-century reformer of Thai Buddhism in the PADAENG CHRONICLE. He is known as MEDHAṄKARA in the JINAKĀLAMĀLĪ.

Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu. (1905–1960). A distinguished British THERAVĀDA monk and translator from Pāli. Born Osbert Moore, he was educated at Exeter College, Oxford. During World War II, he served as a staff officer in Italy, where he became interested in Buddhism after reading Julius Evola’s The Doctrine of Awakening. He joined the BBC after the war. In 1949, he traveled to Sri Lanka with his friend Harold Musson. Together, they received lower ordination (P. pabbajjā; cf. S. PRAVRAJITA) as novices (P. sāmaṇera; S. ŚRĀMAṆERA) at the Island Hermitage in Dodunduwa. They took higher ordination (UPASAṂPADĀ) as monks (P. bhikkhu; S. BHIKṢU) at Vajirarama Temple (Colombo) in 1950. Taking the ordination name Ñāṇamoli, Moore spent the remainder of his life living as a monk at the Island Hermitage, translating Pāli texts into English. His magnum opus was his renowned translation of BUDDHAGHOSA’s VISUDDHIMAGGA, rendered as The Path of Purification, in 1956. Other translations include the NETTIPPAKARAṆA (published as The Guide) and the PAṬISAMBHIDĀMAGGA (published as The Path of Discrimination), as well as most of the suttas of the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA and several from the SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA. Other of his books include The Life of the Buddha and A Thinker’s Note Book. He died suddenly of heart failure while on pilgrimage at Majo and was cremated at Vajirarama monastery.

Ñāṇaponika Mahāthera. (1901–1994). A distinguished German THERAVĀDA monk and scholar. Born Siegmund Feniger to a Jewish family in Hanau am Main, Germany, he first developed an interest in Buddhism through readings in his youth. His family moved to Berlin in 1922, where he met like-minded students of Buddhism and later formed a Buddhist study circle in the city of Konigsberg. He traveled to Sri Lanka in 1936 for further study and to escape Nazi persecution. That same year, he received lower ordination (P. pabbajjā; cf. S. PRAVRAJITA) as a novice (P. sāmaṇera; S. ŚRĀMAṆERA) under the German scholar-monk ÑĀṆATILOKA at his Island Hermitage in Dodunduwa. He took higher ordination (UPASAṂPADĀ) as a monk (P. bhikkhu; S. BHIKṢU) in 1937. During World War II, he was interned by the British at Dehra Dun along with with other German nationals, including Heinrich Harrer (who would escape to spend seven years in Tibet) and LAMA ANAGARIKA GOVINDA. After the war, he traveled to Burma with Ñāṇatiloka to participate in the sixth Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, SIXTH) that was held in Rangoon (Yangon). Ñāṇaponika was a delegate to several WORLD FELLOWSHIP OF BUDDHISTS conferences convened at Rangoon, Bangkok, and Phnom Penh, and served as vice-president of the organization in 1952. He resided at the Forest Hermitage in Kandy from 1958 to 1984. Ñāṇaponika was the founding editor of the Buddhist Publication Society and served as its president till 1988. An energetic teacher and prolific writer, his books include the influential The Heart of Buddhist Meditation and Abhidhamma Studies. For his many contributions and accomplishments, Ñāṇaponika was honored as one of four “Great Mentors, Ornaments of the Teaching” (mahāmahopadhyāyasāsanasobhana) in the AMARAPURA NIKĀYA, the monastic fraternity to which he belonged. He was for several decades the most senior Western Theravāda monk in the world, having completed his fifty-seventh rains retreat as a monk by the time of his death in 1994.

Ñāṇatiloka Mahāthera. (1878–1957). A distinguished German THERAVĀDA monk and scholar. Born Anton Walter Florus Gueth in Wiesbaden, Germany, in 1878, Ñāṇatiloka studied music at conservatories in Frankfurt and Paris and became a violinist. As a child, he became interested in religion, and, after attending a lecture on Theosophy in Berlin in 1899, he decided to travel to Asia. Traveling as a violinist, he toured Turkey, Egypt, and India. From India, he went to Sri Lanka and then to Burma. In 1903 he took ordination as a Buddhist novice (P. sāmaṇera; S. ŚRĀMAṆERA) in Rangoon (Yangon) from bhikkhu Ānanda Metteyya, apparently the first German ever to be ordained. In the following year he took higher ordination (UPASAṂPADĀ) as a monk (P. bhikkhu; S. BHIKṢU). After his ordination, Ñāṇatiloka moved to Sri Lanka in 1905. He traveled to Europe in 1910–1911, the first of many international tours, staying mostly in Switzerland, where he conducted the first Buddhist novice ordination (P. pabbajjā; cf. S. PRAVRAJITA) on European soil. In 1911, he returned to Sri Lanka and made his hermitage on an island infested with poisonous snakes in the middle of Ratgama Lake in southwestern Sri Lanka. When he arrived at the hermitage site, he was the only human on the island. People in the nearby town of Dodanduwa brought him offerings by boat every day. Soon, many Europeans came to be ordained by Ñānatiloka at what became known as Island Hermitage. He was interned by the British during World War I as an enemy alien. In 1916, he was given a passport to return to Germany via the United States. He traveled to Honolulu and then on to China but was arrested in Chungking (Chongqing) and imprisoned in Hankow (Hankou) until 1919, when he was exchanged by the International Red Cross and sent back to Germany. He was unable to return to Sri Lanka in 1920 and so went on to Japan, where he served as a professor at Komazawa University. In 1926, Ñāṇatiloka was finally able to return to Sri Lanka. Ñāṇatiloka was interned again with other German nationals (including his student ÑĀṆAPONIKA) during the Second World War and returned again to Sri Lanka in 1946. He was later naturalized as a Sri Lankan citizen. He founded the International Buddhist Union with LAMA ANAGARIKA GOVINDA, another student, to whom he gave his Buddhist name. Ñāṇatiloka was viewed by the Sinhalese as a great religious practitioner; upon Ñāṇatiloka’s death in 1957, he received a cremation ceremony of the highest honor in Independence Square, with both the prime minister of Sri Lanka and the German ambassador attending. He published his most famous work, The Word of the Buddha, in 1906, as well as articles and books in both English and German, including Buddhist Dictionary, Guide through the Abhidhamma-Piṭaka, and Path to Deliverance.

Nanatsudera. (七寺). Japanese vernacular name of the monastery of Tōenzan Chōfukuji in downtown Nagoya; famous as the repository of a massive twelfth-century manuscript canon of East Asian Buddhist works that was designated an Important Cultural Property after World War II. The monastery, which is affiliated with the SHINGONSHŪ, was founded by GYŌGI in 735 and was originally named Shōgakuin. The monastery was destroyed in an air raid in March 1945, but its canon survived, stored in lacquered chests called karabitsu. In 1990, scholarly investigation of the 4,954 juan (3,398 in rolls, 1,556 in folded books) of Nantsudera’s canon identified scores of juan of scriptures that were long believed to have been lost. Especially important were several previously unknown Chinese Buddhist APOCRYPHA, including seminal works of the proscribed SANJIE JIAO school. The Nanatsudera collection is considered by many scholars of East Asian Buddhism to be the most important discovery of Buddhist textual materials since the unearthing of the DUNHUANG cache in the early twentieth century.

Nanda. (T. Dga’ bo; C. Nantuo; J. Nanda; K. Nanda 難陀). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “Joyful”; an ARHAT declared by the Buddha to be foremost among his monk disciples in self-control. Nanda was the son of ŚUDDHODANA and MAHĀPRĀJĀPATĪ and half brother of the Buddha. He was a few days younger than the Buddha, and Mahāprajāpatī handed him over to a wet nurse so that she could raise the bodhisattva as her own son when the latter’s mother, MAHĀMĀYĀ, died. Nanda was extremely handsome (he is also known as Sundara Nanda, or “Handsome Nanda”) and was said to have been vain about his looks. During the Buddha’s sojourn at the ŚĀKYA capital of KAPILAVASTU after his enlightenment, he visited Nanda on the day his half-brother was to be married to a beautiful maiden named JANAPADAKALYĀṆĪ NANDĀ (also called Sundarī Nandā). Having wished his half brother well, the Buddha handed him his alms bowl (PĀTRA) to carry back to the monastery; the scene of Nanda holding the bowl, standing between the departing Buddha and his beckoning bride-to-be, is often depicted in Buddhist art. Once Nanda arrived at the monastery with the alms bowl, the Buddha asked Nanda to join the order, and only reluctantly, and out of deference to the Buddha, did he agree. But he longed for his fiancée and soon fell ill from his loneliness and depression, drawing pictures of her on rocks. Knowing Nanda’s mind, the Buddha then flew with him to the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. Enroute, he pointed out an injured female monkey and asked Nanda whether Janapadakalyāṇī Nandā was more beautiful than the monkey; Nanda replied that she was. When they arrived in the heaven, the Buddha showed Nanda the celestial maidens attending the gods. Nanda was entranced with their loveliness, which far exceeded the beauty of Janapadakalyāṇī, saying that, compared to the celestial maidens, the beauty of his bride-to-be was like that of the monkey. The Buddha promised him one of these maidens as his consort in his next lifetime if he would only practice the religious life earnestly. Nanda enthusiastically agreed. Upon returning to the human world at JETAVANA grove, Nanda was criticized by ĀNANDA for his base motivation for remaining a monk. Feeling great shame at his lust, he resolved to overcome this weakness, practiced assiduously, and in due course became an ARHAT. In another version of the story, Nanda only overcomes his lust after a second journey: after going to heaven, the Buddha takes Nanda on a journey to hell, where he shows him the empty cauldron that awaits him after his lifetime in heaven. After his enlightenment, Nanda came to the Buddha to inform him of his achievement and to release the Buddha from his promise of celestial maidens. It was because of his great will to control his passions that Nanda was deemed foremost in self-control. Due to his previous attachment to women, however, it is said that even after he became an arhat, Nanda would stare at the beautiful women who attended the Buddha’s discourses. The story of Nanda appears in a number of versions, including the poem SAUNDARANANDA by AŚVAGHOṢA.

Nandaka. (T. Dga’ byed; C. Nantuojia; J. Nandaka; K. Nandaga 難陀迦). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “Pleasing”; an ARHAT declared by the Buddha to be foremost among monk disciples who preach to nuns. According to the Pāli account, Nandaka was born into a rich family of merchants dwelling in Sāvatthi (S. ŚRĀVASTĪ). He entered the order on the same day that Anāthapiṇḍika (S. ANĀTHAPIṆḌADA) donated the JETAVANA grove to the Buddha after hearing him preach. Nandaka practiced meditation and soon attained insight and became an ARHAT. Once, the Buddha requested that he preach to a large gathering of nuns, who had entered the order with Mahāpajāpatī (S. MAHĀPRAJĀPATĪ). He was hesitant when he recognized that they had been his wives in a previous life, when he had been a king. Fearing criticism from his fellows, he sent another monk as his substitute. The Buddha insisted that he preach, however, for he knew that only a sermon by Nandaka could lead the nuns to liberation. On the first day of his discourse, all in attendance became stream-enterers (P. sotāpanna; S. SROTAĀPANNA), and on the second day, five hundred became arhats. It was because of his great skill on this occasion that Nandaka earned a reputation for being preeminent in preaching. In one sermon attributed to him, Nandaka addressed a group of monks gathered in a waiting hall at Jetavana monastery. His voice attracted the Buddha, who listened the entire night from outside, because the door was locked. When he entered the hall the next morning, Nandaka begged forgiveness for having made him wait, but the Buddha only praised Nandaka for the quality of his sermon, stating that it was the duty of all good monks to give such exhortations.

Nandimitra. (T. Dga’ ba’i bshes gnyen; C. Qingyou; J. Keiyū; K. Kyŏngu 慶友) (c. second century CE). An Indian ARHAT, presumed to have been born in Sri Lanka, who is traditionally regarded as the author the Nandimitrāvadāna (Da aluohan Nantimiduoluo suoshuo fazhu ji, abbr. Fazhu ji; “Record of the Duration of the Dharma Spoken by the Great Arhat Nandimitra”), the primary source for the cult of the sixteen (alt. eighteen) ARHAT, or LUOHAN. In this text, which was translated by XUANZANG in 654 CE, Nandimitra explains that, when the Buddha was on his deathbed, he entrusted his religion to sixteen great arhats (see ṢOḌAŚASTHAVIRA), who were charged with watching over and caring for the welfare of the laity and protecting the religious interests of Buddhism. These arhats were to remain in the world until the BODHISATTVA MAITREYA appears as the next buddha. They will then collect all the relics (ŚARĪRA) of ŚĀKYAMUNI and build a magnificent STŪPA to contain them. After paying homage to the stūpa, they will then vanish into PARINIRVĀṆA. Nandimitra gives the names of these sixteen arhats and identifies their domains and the size of their retinues.

Nang Thorani. (Laotian). See THORANI.

Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan. (J. Nankai kiki naihōden; K. Namhae kigwi naebŏp chŏn 南海寄歸内法傳). In Chinese, lit., “Tales of Returning from the South Seas with the Dharma,” translated into English as A Record of the Buddhist Kingdoms of the Southern Archipelago; an important Buddhist travelogue by the Chinese monk YIJING (635–713) and a major source of information on monastic practice in the various places that he visited during his trip. Yijing dreamed of following in the footsteps of the renowned pilgrims FAXIAN and XUANZANG and, in 671, at the age of thirty-six, set out for India via the southern maritime route. After arriving in 673, he visited the major pilgrimage sites (see MAHĀSTHĀNA) on the subcontinent, before traveling to the monastic university at NĀLANDĀ, where he remained for the next ten years, studying Sanskrit texts especially associated with the VINAYA tradition. After departing from India in 685, Yijing stayed over in ŚRĪVIJAYA (Palembang in present-day Sumatra) and continued his studies for another four years. It is there that he composed this record of his travels and began his translation of the massive MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA VINAYA. After returning once to Guangdong (Canton) to retrieve more paper and ink, he returned to China for good in 695 CE. Yijing’s four-roll long pilgrimage record is divided into forty sections, which provide a detailed description of the customs, rules, and regulations of the different Buddhist kingdoms and regions he visited. Unlike Xuanzang, Yijing is less concerned with describing the areas he visited and more with detailing the practice of Buddhism in the homeland of the religion. Yijing’s interest in establishing an orthodox interpretation of vinaya that could be emulated by the Chinese can be readily observed in his detailed account of monastic rules and best practices governing ordination procedures, monastic residence during the rains retreat (VARṢĀ), worshipping a buddha image, cleaning, washing, caring for the sick, and performing funerals, to name but a few. Many of the texts that Yijing cites in corroboration of these practices are now lost; Yijing’s record also serves as a valuable source for the study of the Buddhist literature of the period.

Nanhuasi. (南華寺). In Chinese, “Southern Florate Monastery”; located in present-day Guangdong province close to Nanhua Mountain and facing the Caoqi River. The monastery was built by an Indian monk in 502 CE during the Liang dynasty and was originally named Baolinsi (Bejeweled Forest Monastery). It went through several name changes until it was renamed Nanhuasi in 968 CE during the Song dynasty, and it has carried that name ever since. In 677 CE, during the Tang dynasty, HUINENG, the so-called sixth patriarch (LIUZU) of the CHAN school, is said to have come to Nanhuasi, where he founded the so-called “Southern school” (NAN ZONG) of Chan. From that point on, the monastery became an important center of the Chan school, and Huineng’s remains are enshrined there, as are those of the Ming-dynasty Chan monk HANSHAN DEQING (1546–1623 CE). The monastery contains a stone slab that supposedly displays indentations left by Huineng’s constant prostrations during his devotional services. The monastery is also famous for housing a bell named the Nanhua Bell, which weighs six tons and can be heard up to ten miles away.

Nanjō Bun’yū. (南条文雄) (1849–1927). Japanese Buddhist scholar who helped to introduce the modern Western discipline of Buddhist Studies to Japan; he is usually known in the West by his own preferred transcription of Nanjio Bunyiu. Nanjō was the third son of the abbot of a temple in the HIGASHI HONGANJIHA (see ŌTANIHA; HONGANJI) of JŌDO SHINSHŪ, and was eventually ordained as a priest in that sect. In 1876, the Higashi Honganjiha sent Nanjō to England, where he studied Sanskrit and other Buddhist canonical languages with FRIEDRICH MAX MÜLLER (1823–1900). After eight years overseas, he returned to Japan in 1884, teaching Sanskrit and Buddhism at Tōkyō Imperial University, where he was an important Japanese pioneer in Sanskrit pedagogy and the study of Indian Buddhist literature. He also held a succession of posts as professor and president of several Buddhist universities in Tōkyō, Kyōto, and Nagoya. Nanjō played a critical role in reviving the study of Buddhist literature in China. While he was in Oxford, Nanjō met YANG WENHUI (1837–1911; cognomen Yang Renshan) and later arranged to send Yang copies of some three hundred Chinese Buddhist texts that had been lost in China during the depredations of the Taiping Rebellion (1851–1865). Yang was able to reprint and distribute these scriptures from his personal publication house, the Jinling Sūtra Publishing Center, in Nanjing. Nanjō is best known in the West for publishing in 1883 the first comprehensive catalogue of the East Asian Buddhist canon, A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka, the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan, compiled by order of the Secretary of State for India. This catalogue is especially important for making one of the first attempts to correlate the Chinese translations of Buddhist texts with their Sanskrit and Tibetan recensions. Nanjō also edited the Sanskrit recensions of such texts as the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA and the larger and smaller SUKHĀVATĪVYŪHASŪTRA (which he translated in collaboration with F. Max Müller) and assisted HENDRIK KERN in preparing his Sanskrit edition of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA.

Nanpo Jōmyō. [alt. Shōmyō] (南浦紹明) (1235–1308). Japanese ZEN master in the RINZAISHŪ; a native of Suruga in present-day Shizuoka Prefecture. He studied under the émigré Chinese Chan master LANXI DAOLONG (1213–1278) at the monastery of KENCHŌJI in Kamakura. In 1259, Nanpo left for China, where he studied with the LINJI ZONG Chan master XUTANG ZHIYU (1185–1269). Before returning to Japan, Nanpo is said to have received Xutang’s seal of approval (see YINKE) and thus inherited Xutang’s Linji lineage. In 1267, Nanpo returned to Japan and served his teacher Lanxi. Nanpo later moved to the monastery of Sūfukuji in Hakata (present-day Kyūshū), where he continued to reside for the next thirty-three years. In 1305, he was invited to the influential monastery of Manjuji in Kyōto and was installed as its abbot. Later, he served as abbot of his home monastery of Kenchōji. In 1309, he received the posthumous title State Preceptor Entsū Daiō (Perfect Penetration, Great Resonance). Among his disciples SŌHŌ MYŌCHŌ (1282–1337), also known as Daitō, is most famous. Currently, virtually all monks in the Rinzai Zen tradition trace their lineages back to Nanpo via HAKUIN EKAKU (1685–1768). The lineages that originated from Nanpo came to be known collectively as the Ōtōkan, which is a combination of Sinographs taken from the names of Dai-ō, Dai-tō, and Kan-zan (see KANZAN EGEN).

Nanquan Puyuan. (J. Nansen Fugan; K. Namch’ŏn Powŏn 南泉普願) (748–834). Chinese CHAN master in the HONGZHOU ZONG; a native of Xinzheng in present-day Henan province. In 777, Nanquan received the full monastic precepts from a certain VINAYA master Hao (d.u.) at the nearby monastery of Huishansi in Songyue. Along with studying such important MAHĀYĀNA scriptures as the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA and AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA, Nanquan also explored the major texts of the SAN LUN ZONG, the Chinese counterpart of the MADHYAMAKA school of Buddhist philosophy. He later became the disciple of the eminent Chan master MAZU DAOYI (709–788) and eventually one of his dharma successors. In 795, he began his long-time residence on Mt. Nanquan in Chiyang (present-day Anhui province), whence he acquired his toponym. He remained on the mountain for thirty years, where he devoted himself to teaching his students. Among his immediate disciples, ZHAOZHOU CONGSHEN (778–897) is most famous. Nanquan is renowned for his enigmatic sayings and antinomian behavior. Many of his noteworthy conversations with other masters are quoted in public case collections, such as the BIYAN LU and CONGRONG LU. Nanquan’s teaching style is perhaps best captured in the (in)famous public case (GONG’AN) “Nanquan cuts the cat in two” (case no. 63 of the Biyan lu, case no. 14 in the WUMENGUAN). Monks from the eastern and western wings of the monastery were arguing over possession of a cat. Nanquan grabbed the cat and told the monks, “If anyone can say something to the point, you will save this cat’s life; if not, I will kill it.” No one replied, so Nanquan cut the cat in two. In the following gong’an in the Biyan lu (case no. 64), his disciple Zhaozhou Congshen returned to the monastery and heard the story. He immediately took off his straw sandals, placed them on his head, and walked away. Nanquan remarked, “If you had been here a moment ago, you could have saved that cat’s life.”

Nanshan lü zong. (J. Nanzan risshū; K. Namsan yulchong 南山律宗). In Chinese, the “South Mountain School of Discipline,” the name for a loose affiliation of Chinese exegetes who traced their lineage back to the Chinese VINAYA master DAOXUAN (596–667). (The name Nanshan, or South Mountain, refers to Daoxuan’s residence at ZHONGNANSHAN in present-day Shanxi province.) This tradition is largely concerned with the exegesis of the SIFEN LÜ (“Four-Part Vinaya”) of the DHARMAGUPTAKA school. This VINAYA text, which came to be adopted widely throughout East Asia, was translated into Chinese in 405 by the Kashmīri monk BUDDHAYAŚAS (c. early fifth century CE) and is still followed today in the East Asian Buddhist traditions. It taught a code of discipline that involved 250 principal monastic precepts for monks, 348 for nuns. The central scripture of the Nanshan lü zong is Daoxuan’s influential commentary on the Sifen lü, the Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao, which was composed in 626. Although the Nanshan lü zong remained the dominant tradition of vinaya exegesis in China, other groups such as the DONGTA LÜ ZONG (East Pagoda) and Xiangbu (Xiang Region) vinaya schools also flourished. The interpretations of the Nanshan lü zong were introduced into Japan by the Chinese monk GANJIN (C. Jianzhen; 687–763), who helped established the School of Discipline (J. RISSHŪ), one of the six schools of the Nara tradition of early Japanese Buddhism (see NARA BUDDHISM, SIX SCHOOLS OF).

Nanto shichidaiji. (南都七大寺). In Japanese, “seven great monasteries of Nara,” seven of the major Buddhist monasteries founded in the ancient Japanese capital of Nara. See individual entries for DAIANJI, GANGŌJI, HŌRYŪJI, KŌFUKUJI, SAIDAIJI, TŌDAIJI, and YAKUSHIJI.

Nanyang Huizhong. (J. Nan’yō Echū; K. Namyang Hyech’ung 南陽慧忠) (675?–775). Chinese CHAN master of the Tang dynasty; a native of Yuezhou in present-day Zhejiang province. He is said to have studied under the sixth patriarch (LIUZU) HUINENG (638–713) as a youth and to have eventually become one of his dharma successors. After Huineng’s death, Nanyang led an itinerant life, traveling from one monastery to the next until he settled down on Mt. Baiya in Nanyang (present-day Henan province), whence he acquired his toponym. He is said to have remained in seclusion on the mountain for some forty years. In 761, he was invited to the palace by Emperor Suzong (r. 756–762), who honored Nanyang as his teacher. He took up residence at the monastery of Qianfusi, but later moved to Guangzhaisi at the request of Emperor Daizong (r. 762–779). Nanyang later established the monasteries of Yanchangsi and Changshousi and installed a copy of the Buddhist canon (DAZANGJING) at each site. Juizong lived during a period of great efflorescence in the Chan school, but he was not closely identified with any one school. He is, however, said to have been critical of the teachings of the Chan master MAZU DAOYI (709–788) and other HONGZHOU ZONG teachers in Sichuan in the south of China, who rejected the authority of the traditional Buddhist scriptures; he is also said to have criticized the Hongzhou interpretation of “mind is buddha” as being akin to the ŚREṆIKA HERESY, in which the body is simply an impermanent vessel for an eternal mind or soul. The notion that “inanimate objects can preach the dharma” (wujing shuofa) is also attributed to Nanyang.

Nanyue Huairang. (J. Nangaku Ejō; K. Namak Hoeyang 南嶽懷讓) (677–744). Chinese CHAN monk of the Tang dynasty, Huairang was a native of Jinzhou in present-day Shandong province. At an early age, Huairang is said to have gone to the monastery of Yuquansi in Jingzhou (present-day Hubei province) where he studied VINAYA under the vinaya master Hongjing (d.u.). Later, he visited SONGSHAN and continued his studies under Hui’an (also known as Lao’an or “Old An”; 582–709), a reputed disciple of the fifth patriarch HONGREN (601–674). Hui’an purportedly introduced Huairang to the sixth patriarch (LIUZU) HUINENG (638–713), from whom Huairang eventually received dharma transmission. In 713, Huairang began teaching at the monastery of Boresi on Mt. Nanyue (present-day Hunan province), whence his toponym. There, Huairang acquired his most famous disciple, MAZU DAOYI (709–788). As most of what is known of Huairang comes from the work of Mazu and Mazu’s students, some scholars contend that the obscure figure of Huairang was used as a convenient means of linking Mazu’s successful HONGZHOU ZONG line with the legendary sixth patriarch Huineng. The Chan lamplight records (CHUANDENG LU) trace the GUIYANG ZONG and LINJI ZONG, two of the traditional “five houses” (see WU JIA QI ZONG) of the mature Chan tradition, back to Nanyue Huirang.

Nanyue Huisi. (J. Nangaku Eshi; K. Namak Hyesa 南嶽慧思) (515–577). Chinese monk in the TIANTAI school and teacher of TIANTAI ZHIYI (538–597); also known as Great Master Nanyue and Great Master Si. Huisi was a native of Yuzhou in present-day Anhui province. According to his biography in the Liang-era GAOSENG ZHUAN, Huisi was obsessed with the prospect of death in his youth and assiduously pursued a means of attaining immortality. Studying with his teacher Huiwen (d.u.), about whom next to nothing is known, Huisi is said to have learned a meditative technique based on NĀGĀRJUNA’s premise of the identity of emptiness, provisionality, and their mean (see SANDI), which he later taught to his own students. Monks who disagreed with his teachings tried to poison him, so Huisi left northern China for the south, but his popularity there prompted jealous monks to brand him a spy. This charge was rejected by the Chen-dynasty emperor, and Huisi continued to teach in the south, where he attracted many students, including the renowned Tiantai Zhiyi. Huisi’s meditative teachings on the suiziyi sanmei (“cultivating SAMĀDHI wherever mind is directed,” or “the samādhi of freely flowing thoughts”) were recorded in Zhiyi’s MOHE ZHIGUAN. In this type of meditation, the adept is taught to use any and all experiences, whether mental or physical, whether wholesome or unwholesome, as grist for the mill of cultivating samādhi. Huisi is credited with the compilation of several treatises, such as the Dasheng zhiguan, Cidi chanyao, Fahua jing anle xingyi, and others.

Nanzenji. (南禪寺). In Japanese, “Southern ZEN Monastery,” major monastery in Kyōto, Japan, that is currently the headquarters (honzan) of the Nanzenji branch of the RINZAISHŪ. In 1264, Emperor Kameyama (r. 1259–1274) built a country villa, which he later converted to a Zen monastery named Nanzenji. He invited the monk Mukan Fumon (1212–1291), a disciple of ENNI BEN’EN (1202–1280), to serve as the monastery’s founding abbot (J. kaisan; C. KAISHAN). After Fumon’s departure, the monk Soen (1261–1313) succeeded Mukan and oversaw additional construction at the monastery. As the first Zen monastery constructed by an emperor, many eminent Zen masters were appointed to its abbacy. In 1325, Emperor Godaigo (r. 1318–1339) invited MUSŌ SŌSEKI (1275–1351) to serve as abbot of Nanzenji. After his triumphant return to Kyōto in 1334, Godaigo elevated Nanzenji to the first rank in the influential GOZAN system. Nanzenji maintained this rank, even after political power was handed over to the Ashikaga shogunate. During the Muromachi period, the abbacy of Nanzenji came to be restricted only to those who had already served as abbot of another gozan monastery. For this reason, Nanzenji became the center of gozan culture and Zen practice. The monastery suffered from a series of conflagrations in 1393, 1447, and 1467. Although the monastery never fully recovered from these fires, some restoration efforts were made by Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598).

Nan zong. (J. Nanshū; K. Nam chong 南宗). In Chinese, “Southern School,” an appellation used widely throughout the Tang dynasty, largely due to the efforts of HEZE SHENHUI (684–758) and his lineage, to describe what they claimed to be the orthodox lineage of the CHAN ZONG; in distinction to the collateral lineage of the “Northern School” (BEI ZONG) of SHENXIU (606–706) and his successors. Heze Shenhui toured various provinces and constructed ordination platforms, where he began to preach that HUINENG (638–713), whom he claimed as his teacher, was the true sixth patriarch (LIUZU) of the Chan school. In 732, during an “unrestricted assembly” (WUZHE DAHUI) held at the monastery of Dayunsi in Huatai, Shenhui engaged a monk by the name of Chongyuan (d.u.) and publicly criticized what he called the “Northern School” of Shenxiu’s disciples PUJI (651–739), YIFU (661–736), and XIANGMO ZANG (d.u.) as being merely a collateral branch of BODHIDHARMA’s lineage, which advocated an inferior gradualistic teaching. Shenhui argued that his teacher Huineng had received the orthodox transmission of Bodhidharma’s lineage and the “sudden teaching” (DUNJIAO), which was the unique soteriological doctrine of Bodhidharma and his Chan school. Shenhui launched a vociferous attack on the Northern School, whose influence and esteem in both religious and political circles were unrivaled at the time. He condemned Shenxiu’s so-called “Northern School” for having wrongly usurped the mantle of the Chan patriarchy from Huineng’s “Southern School.” Shenhui also (mis)characterized the teaching of the “Northern School” as promoting a “gradual” approach to enlightenment (JIANWU), which ostensibly stood in stark contrast to Huineng’s and thus Shenhui’s own “sudden awakening” (DUNWU) teachings. As a result of Shenhui’s polemical attacks on Shenxiu and his disciples, subsequent Chan historians, such as GUIFENG ZONGMI (780–841), came to refer reflexively to a gradualist “Northern School” that was to be rigidly distinguished from a subitist “Southern School.” Modern scholarship has demonstrated that, in large measure, the centrality of the “Southern School” to early Chan history is a retrospective creation. The Chan patriarchal lineage going back to Chan’s putative founder, Bodhidharma, was still inchoate in the eighth century; indeed, contemporary genealogical histories, such as the LIDAI FABAO JI, CHUAN FABAO JI, LENGQIE SHIZI JI, and BAOLIN ZHUAN, demonstrate how fluid and fragile the notion of the Chan lineage remained at this early period. Because the lineages that eventually came to be recognized within the later tradition were not yet cast in stone, it was therefore possible for Shenhui to advocate that a semilegendary, and relatively unknown figure, Huineng, rather than the leading Chan figures of his time, was the orthodox successor of the fifth patriarch HONGREN and the real sixth patriarch (liuzu). While this characterization is now known to be misleading, subsequent histories of the Chan tradition more or less adopted Shenhui’s vision of early Chan history. The influential LIUZU TAN JING played an important role in this process of distinguishing a supposedly inferior, gradualist Northern School from a superior, subitist Southern School. By the eleventh century, with the composition of the mature Chan genealogical histories, such as the CHODANG CHIP (C. ZUTANG JI) and JINGDE CHUANDENG LU, this orthodox lineage was solidified within the tradition and became mainstream. In these later “transmission of the lamplight” records (CHUANDENG LU), the “Southern School” was now unquestioned as the orthodox successor in Bodhidharma’s lineage, a position it retained throughout the subsequent history of the Chan tradition. Despite Shenhui’s virulent attacks against the “Northern School,” we now know that Shenxiu and his disciples were much more central to the early Chan school, and played much more important roles in Chan’s early growth and development, than the mature tradition realized.

Naong Hyegŭn. (懶翁慧勤) (1320–1376). In Korean, “Old Lazybones, Earnest in Wisdom,” an eminent Korean SŎN master and pilgrim of the Koryŏ dynasty. Naong was a native of Yŏnghae in present-day North Kyŏngsang province and is said to have decided to become a monk after the traumatic death of a close friend in 1339. After his ordination by the monk Yoyŏn (d.u.) of the hermitage of Myojŏgam on Mt. Kongdŏk, Naong traveled from one monastery to the next until he settled down at the monastery of Hoeamsa in 1344. Four years later at Hoeamsa, Naong is said to have attained his first awakening. In 1347, he left for China where he met the Indian master ZHIKONG CHANXIAN (1289–1363; K. Chigong Sŏnhyŏn; S. *Śūnyadiśya-Dhyānabhadra) at the monastery of Fayuansi in the Yuan-dynasty capital of Yanjing; later, Naong would receive dharma transmission from Zhikong. After studying under Zhikong, Naong visited the Chan master Pingshan Chulin (1279–1361) at Jingcisi in Hangzhou (present-day Zhejiang province). Naong is said to have later received Pingshan’s chowrie (FUZI; VĀLAVYAJANA) as a sign of his spiritual attainment. Before his return to the Yuan capital of Yanjing in 1355, Naong made a pilgrimage to MT. PUTUOSHAN, where he made offerings to the bodhisattva AVALOKITEŚVARA (GUANYIN). Upon his arrival back in Yanjing, he was appointed abbot of the monastery of Guangjisi by Emperor Xundi (r. 1333–1368). In 1358, Naong returned to Korea and three years later was invited to the royal palace, where he taught the king and queen. In 1370, Naong was appointed the royal preceptor (wangsa) and abbot of the influential monastery of SONGGWANGSA. Naong was viewed as a living buddha and eventually became the object of cultic worship: in the apocryphal Ch’isŏng kwangmyŏng kyŏng (“Book of Blazing Light”), which was widely disseminated in Korea in the sixteenth century, Naong is said to have been an emanation of ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha himself. He spent the next few years revitalizing the community at his old monastery of Hoeamsa. Among his many disciples, MUHAK CHACH’O (1327–1405) is most famous.

Nara Buddhism, Six Schools of. A traditional grouping of six major scholastic schools of Japanese Buddhism active during the Nara period (710–794 CE): (1) Sanronshū (see SAN LUN ZONG), an East Asian counterpart of the MADHYAMAKA school; (2) Kegonshū (see HUAYAN ZONG), an East Asian exegetical tradition focused on the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA; (3) RISSHŪ, or VINAYA exegesis; (4) Jōjitsushū (see CHENGSHI LUN) the TATTVASIDDHI exegetical tradition; (5) Hossōshū (see FAXIANG ZONG), an East Asian strand of YOGĀCĀRA; and (6) Kushashū, focused on ABHIDHARMA exegesis using the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA. These six schools are presumed to have been founded during the initial phase of Buddhism’s introduction into Japan, between c. 552 and the end of the Nara period in 794. These learned schools were eventually supplanted by the practice and meditative schools of TENDAISHŪ and SHINGONSHŪ, which were introduced during the succeeding Heian period (794–1185), and the later schools of the ZENSHŪ, the pure land schools of JŌDOSHŪ and JŌDO SHINSHŪ, and NICHIRENSHŪ of the Kamakura period (1185–1333).

Nara daibutsu. [alt. Birushana Nyorai] (奈良大佛/毘遮那如來). In Japanese, lit. “The Great Buddha of Nara”; a colossal image of the buddha VAIROCANA located at TŌDAIJI in the ancient Japanese capital of Nara. At about forty-eight feet (14.98 meters) high, this image is the largest extant gilt-bronze image in the world, and the Daibutsuden (Great Buddha Hall) where the image is enshrined is the world’s largest surviving wooden building. Despite its massive size, however, the current Daibutsuden, which was reconstructed during the middle of the Edo period (1603–1867) to a height of 156 feet (forty-eight meters), is only two-thirds the size of the original structure. The Indian monk BODHISENA (J. Bodaisenchi) (704–760), who traveled to Japan in 736 at the invitation of Emperor Shōmu (r. 724–749), performed the “opening the eyes” (KAIYAN; NETRAPRATIṢṬHĀPANA) ceremony for the 752 dedication of the great buddha image. The bronze body of the image was restored in 1185, and the massive head (seventeen feet, or 5.3 meters, in size) was repaired in 1692. See also KAMAKURA DAIBUTSU.

Nārada Mahāthera. (1898–1983). A prominent modern Sri Lankan THERAVĀDA scholar and missionary monk (dhammaduta bhikkhu). Born in a Colombo suburb, he studied at the Roman Catholic St. Benedict’s College (where the medium of instruction was English) and at the Buddhist Paramananda Vihāra Sunday school. He was ordained as a novice (P. sāmaṇera; S. ŚRĀMAṆERA) at the age of eighteen under the guidance of Pelene Vajirañāna Mahānāyaka Thera. He received a traditional monastic education in Pāli but also studied Western philosophy, logic, and ethics. He began missionary work with the Servants of the Buddha Society and took his first journey outside of Sri Lanka in 1929, to India. He later traveled widely in Southeast Asia and developed close ties with Buddhists in Indonesia and Vietnam. In the late 1940s, he was involved in the resumption of Theravāda missionary activity among the Newars of Kathmandu Valley in Nepal after the ban on religious propagation was lifted by the Rana regime. He also devoted himself to promoting Theravāda Buddhism in Australia and Western Europe and was elected president of the Buddhist Vihāra Society in London in 1948. Nārada Mahāthera was a prolific writer, and his publications ranged from Buddhist ethics and meditation to ABHIDHAMMA studies. His more popular books include Buddhism in a Nutshell, The Buddha and His Teachings, The Buddhist Conception of Mind or Consciousness, The Buddhist Doctrine of Kamma and Rebirth, The Way to Nibbana, The Life of the Buddha, and An Elementary Pali Course. His English translations include The Dhammapada and Abhidhammathasaṅgaha: A Manual of Abhidhamma.

Naraen Kongō. (J) (那羅延金剛). See NIŌ.

nāraka. (P. nerayika; T. dmyal ba; C. diyu [youqing/zhongsheng]; J. jigoku [ujō/shujō]; K. chiok [yujŏng/chungsaeng] 地獄[有情/衆生]). In Sanskrit, “hell denizen,” the lowest of the six rebirth destinies (GATI) in the realm of SAṂSĀRA, followed by ghosts, animals, demigods, humans, and divinities. In Buddhist cosmography, there is an elaborate system of hells (naraka or niraya in Sanskrit and Pāli), and Buddhist texts describe in excruciating detail the torment hell denizens are forced to endure as expiation for the heinous acts that led to such baleful rebirths (cf. ĀNANTARYAKARMAN). According to one well-known system, the hells consist of eight hot hells, eight cold hells, and four neighboring hells (PRATYEKANARAKA), all located beneath the surface of the continent of JAMBUDVĪPA. The ground in the hot hells is made of burning iron. The ground in the cold hells is made of snow and ice; there is no sun or any source of light or heat. The eight hot hells, in descending order in depth and ascending order in suffering, are named reviving (SAṂJĪVA), black line (KĀLASŪTRA), crushed together (SAṂGHĀTA), crying (RAURAVA), great crying (MAHĀRAURAVA), hot (TĀPANA), very hot (PRATĀPANA), and interminable (AVĪCI). The eight cold hells, in descending order in depth and ascending order in suffering, are named blisters (arbuda), bursting blisters (nirarbuda), chattering teeth (aṭaṭa), moaning (hahava; translated into Tibetan as a chu zer ba, “saying ‘achoo’”), moaning (huhuva), [skin split like a] blue lotus (utpala), [skin split like a] lotus (padma), and [skin split like a] great lotus (mahāpadma). The neighboring hells include (1) the pit of embers (KUKŪLA), (2) the swamp of corpses (KUṆAPA), (3) the road of razors (KṢURAMĀRGA), grove of swords (ASIPATTRAVANA), and forest of spikes (AYAḤŚĀLMALĪVANA), and (4) the river difficult to ford (NADĪ VAITARAṆĪ). Buddhist hells are places of rebirth rather than permanent postmortem abodes; there is no concept in Buddhism of eternal damnation. The life spans in the various hells may be incredibly long but they are finite; once the hell denizen’s life span is over, one will be reborn elsewhere. In a diorama of the hells on display at the Chinese cave sites at DAZU SHIKE, for example, after systematic depictions of the anguish of the various hells, the last scene shows the transgressor being served a cup of tea, as a respite from his protracted torments, before being sent on to his next rebirth.

Nara, seven great monasteries of. See NANTO SHICHIDAIJI.

Nārāyaṇa. (T. Sred med kyi bu; C. Naluoyan tian; J. Naraenten; K. Narayŏn ch’ŏn 那羅延天). In ancient India, Nārāyaṇa was the son of the primordial person (puruṣa) and was later regarded as an avatar of the Hindu god Viṣṇu. He was adopted into Buddhism as one of the guardian deities (DHARMAPĀLA). His image is often seen standing at the entrance to a monastery, protecting its hallowed precincts from baleful influences. Because the divinity BRAHMĀ (alt. Mahābrahmā) was born from a lotus that blossomed from the navel of Nārāyaṇa, Nārāyaṇa is also sometimes identified as being the mother of Brahmā, the presiding divinity in the third and highest of the three levels of the first DHYĀNA heaven in the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPADHĀTU). (Like Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā is also adopted into Buddhism as a dharmapāla.) Since Brahmā is regarded as the “father of creatures,” Nārāyaṇa is in turn called the “Origin of Human Life” (C. Renshengben). Nārāyaṇa is said to dwell in the Diamond Grotto on WUTAISHAN in China, which leads directly to the pure land and was thought to be the site where MAÑJUŚRĪ and VIMALAKĪRTI discussed the MAHĀYĀNA teachings in the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA.

Narendrayaśas. (C. Naliantiliyeshe; J. Narendairiyasha; K. Naryŏnjeriyasa 那連提黎耶舍) (517–589). Sanskrit proper name of an Indian translator of primarily Mahāyāna Buddhist texts into Chinese. Born in OḌḌIYĀNA in northeastern India into the KṢATRIYA caste, Narendrayaśas was ordained at the age of seventeen and left on pilgrimage to the Buddhist sacred sites on the Indian subcontinent, his travels taking him as far as the Himalayas in the north and the island of Sri Lanka in the south. After residing at the VEṆUVANAVIHĀRA monastery in India for a decade, he eventually traveled north of the Himalayas to propagate Buddhism, before getting caught in the Turkic invasions that made it impossible for him to return home. Turning east through Central Asia, he ended up traveling along the SILK ROAD to China, arriving in the Northern Qi kingdom in 556. Residing at Tianpingsi at the request of Emperor Wenxuan (r. 550–559) and later at Daxingshansi in Chang’an, he translated some fourteen texts into Chinese, including the KARUṆĀPUṆḌARĪKA, SAMĀDHIRĀJA, and the MAHĀMEGHASŪTRA.

Nā ro chos drug. (Naro chödruk). The Tibetan name for a series of tantric practices, often translated into English as “the six yogas (or dharmas) of Nāropa,” which are attributed to the eleventh-century Indian adept NĀROPA. These practices spread widely throughout Tibet, where they were transmitted among various Tibetan Buddhist traditions, including those of the SA SKYA and DGE LUGS. However, the Nā ro chos drug became a fundamental component in the meditation training of BKA’ BRGYUD practitioners and continue to be practiced especially in the context of the traditional three-year retreat. Nāropa received several streams of tantric instruction from his GURU, the Indian SIDDHA TILOPA, including the BKA’ BABS BZHI (four transmissions). According to tradition, he later codified these instructions and transmitted them to his Tibetan disciple MAR PA CHOS KYI BLO GROS, although Nāropa had died before Mar pa’s first journey to India. However, Mar pa received these teachings from Nāropa’s disciples and taught them in Tibet as the Nā ro chos drug. There are several slight variations in their presentation, but the most common enumeration of the Nā ro chos drug are (1) GTUM MO (tummo), literally “fierce woman,” referring to the inner heat produced as an effect of manipulating the body’s subtle energies; (2) sgyu lus (gyulu), “illusory body” (see MĀYĀDEHA), in which the meditator realizes the illusory nature of ordinary experiences; (3) rmi lam (milam), “dreams,” referring to the practice of developing conscious awareness during dream states; (4) ’od gsal (ösel), “clear light” (see PRABHĀSVARA), referring to the luminous aspect of mind and its recognition; (5) BAR DO, “intermediate state,” referring to the practice of mental control during the disorienting period between death in one lifetime and rebirth into another; (6) ’PHO BA (powa), “transference,” which is the practice of ejecting the consciousness out of the body at the moment of death to take rebirth in a pure realm. The first four are generally believed to facilitate liberation in the present life, the last two at the time of death.

Nāropa. (1016–1100). An Indian scholar and tantric master who holds an important place in the lineages of tantric Buddhism in Tibet. According to his traditional biography, Nāropa was a brāhmaṇa born in Bengal, who traveled to KASHMIR as a child. He was forced to marry at the age of seventeen, but the marriage ended by mutual consent after eight years. According to some sources, Nāropa’s wife (or sister according to other sources) was NIGUMA, who became a famous tantric YOGINĪ. Nāropa was ordained as a Buddhist monk, entering NĀLANDĀ monastry in 1049. His talents as a scholar eventually led him to be selected to serve as abbot and as a senior instructor known by the name Abhayakīrti. In 1057, while at the monastery, he encountered an old hag (in reality a ḌĀKINĪ), who told him that he had understood the words of the texts he had studied but not their inner meaning. She urged him to go in search of her brother TILOPA. As a result of this encounter, Nāropa left the monastery to find Tilopa and become his disciple. Over the course of his journey, he encountered Tilopa in various forms but was unable to recognize him. Tilopa eventually revealed himself to Nāropa, subjecting him to a famous series of twelve greater and twelve lesser trials, involving serious physical injury and mental anguish. Tilopa eventually transferred his realization to Nāropa by striking him on the head with his shoe. Nāropa later compiled Tilopa’s instructions and transmitted them to his own disciples. According to tradition, these students included the Tibetan translator MAR PA CHOS KYI BLO GROS, but in fact Nāropa had died before Mar pa made his first journey to India. Regardless, various instructions of Nāropa were transmitted to Tibet, the most famous of which are the NĀ RO CHOS DRUG, or “six doctrines (or yogas) of Nāropa.” These practices became important for numerous Buddhist lineages but are especially associated with the BKA’ BRGYUD sect, where Nāropa holds a central place in the lineage from VAJRADHARA to Tilopa to Nāropa to Mar pa to MI LA RES PA. Several works attributed to Nāropa are preserved in the Tibetan canon.

nāśanīya. (P. nāsana; T. bsnyil ba; C. binchu; J. hinzui; K. pinch’ul 擯出). In Sanskrit, lit. “removal”; an ecclesiastical procedure (KARMAN) that the SAṂGHA carries out against a novice (ŚRĀMAṆERA) or a nun (BHIKṢŪṆĪ), whereby certain privileges are withdrawn because of misconduct. According to the Pāli VINAYA, there are three kinds of nāśanīya (P. nāsana): (1) liṅganāsana, or “removal of the sign,” here meaning removing the robe or defrocking the guilty party; (2) saṃvāsanāsana, or removing the guilty party from association with other monastics; and (3) daṇḍakammanāsana, or the expulsion of a novice for an offense. There are ten occasions that may entail the application of nāsana to the novice, viz., (1) killing living creatures, (2) theft, (3) unchastity, (4) lying about spiritual attainments, (5) using intoxicants, (6–8) criticizing either the Buddha, the dharma, or the saṃgha, (9) heresy, and (10) seducing nuns.

Nāsik. A group of twenty-four Buddhist caves dating from the early second century CE, northeast of Mumbai (Bombay) in the Indian state of Maharastra. All the caves except cave 18 are VIHĀRA caves. The interiors of the caves are quite plain, in contrast to their highly ornamented exteriors, which include lithic carvings made to resemble wooden structures. The CAITYA cave has a pillared interior with a STŪPA in its apse, which is a characteristic feature of early Indian Buddhist cave temples. Figures and ornaments in its facade bear resemblance to similar motifs at SĀÑCĪ, suggesting artistic influence from that site.

nāstika. (P. natthika; T. med pa pa; C. zhiwu; J. shūmu; K. chimmu 執無). In Sanskrit, literally, “one who says ‘is not’,” that is, “nihilist,” typically used in Buddhist materials to refer to specific ŚRAMAṆA religious groups, like the ĀJĪVAKA and some of the Cārvāka materialists, who either do not accept the validity of moral cause and effect (KARMAN) and hence REBIRTH, or reject the reality of sensory phenomena. In Hindu literature, the term is used to refer to those who reject the authority of the Vedas; in this latter sense, Buddhists (as well as the JAINA) are classed as nāstika.

nat. In Burmese, a generic term for a “spirit” or “god.” Burmese (Myanmar) lore posits the existence of numerous species of nats, of both indigenous and Indian origin. Nats can range in temperament from benign to malevolent, including those who are potentially helpful but dangerous if offended. The most generally benevolent species of nats are the divinities (DEVA) of the Indian pantheon. This group includes such gods as Thakya Min (ŚAKRA) and Byama (BRAHMĀ). Nats of Indian origin are typically looked upon as servants of the Buddhist religion, which is how they are depicted in Burmese Pāli literature. Indigenous nats in the form of nature spirits are thought to occupy trees, hills, streams, and other natural sites, and may cause harm if disturbed. The guardian spirits of villages and of the home are also classified as nats. Certain nats guard medicinal herbs and certain minerals, and, when properly handled, aid alchemists in their search for elixirs and potions. One species of nat, the oktazaung, are ghosts who have been forced to act as guardians of pagoda treasures. These unhappy spirits are thought to be extremely dangerous and to bring calamity upon those who attempt to rob pagodas or encroach upon pagoda lands. The best-known group of nats is the “thirty-seven nats” of the Burmese national pantheon. For centuries, they have been the focus of a royal cult of spirit propitiation; the worship of national nats is attested as early as the eleventh century CE at PAGAN (Bagan). At the head of the pantheon is Thakya Min, but the remaining are all spirits of deceased humans who died untimely or violent deaths, mostly at the hands of Burmese monarchs. The number thirty-seven has remained fixed over the centuries, although many of the members of the pantheon have been periodically replaced. One of the nats who has maintained his position is Mahagiri Min, lord of the nat pantheon, occupying a position just beneath Thakya Min. Mahagiri dwells atop Mount Poppa and is also worshipped as the household nat in most Burmese homes. An annual nat festival of national importance is held in August at the village of Taungbyon near Mandalay. The festival is held in honor of Shwepyingyi and Shwepyinnge, two Muslim brothers who became nats as a consequence of being executed by King Kyanzittha of Pagan (r. 1084–1112) who feared their supernormal strength.

navadharma. In Sanskrit, the “nine dharmas,” also known as the NAVAGRANTHA (“nine books”); nine MAHĀYĀNA SŪTRAs that are the object of particular devotion in the Newar Buddhist tradition of Nepal. The notion of a collection of nine books seems to have originated in the Newar community, although the nine sūtras are all of Indian origin. The nine are the AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ, SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA, LALITAVISTARA, LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA, SUVARṆAPRABHĀSOTTAMASŪTRA, GAṆḌAVYŪHA, Tathāgataguhyasūtra, SAMĀDHIRĀJASŪTRA, and DAŚABHŪMIKASŪTRA. Of these nine, the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā is granted the highest esteem, having its own cult and its own deity, the goddess PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ. These texts serve an important ritual function in Newar Buddhism, where they are said to represent the entire Mahāyāna corpus of SŪTRA, ŚĀSTRA, and TANTRA. These texts are often recited during the religious services of monasteries, and a recitation of all nine texts is considered to be particularly auspicious. Some Newar Buddhist rituals (vrata) include offerings to the three jewels (RATNATRAYA), in which a priest will make a MAṆḌALA for the GURU, the Buddha, the DHARMA, and the SAṂGHA. These sūtras of the nine dharmas are used in the creation of the dharmamaṇḍala, a powerful ritual symbol in Newar Buddhism. In this MAṆḌALA, the center space is occupied by the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā. The fact that there are nine of these texts may derive from the need to have nine elements in the maṇḍala. Different renditions of the dharmamaṇḍala indicate that the texts included in the navadharma may have changed over time; this particular set of nine sūtras seems to date from the fifteenth century. Although these texts are held in particularly high regard, they are not the only authoritative texts in Newar Buddhism.

navagrantha. (S). The “nine books.” See NAVADHARMA.

navaṅga[pāvacana]. (S. navāṅga; T. gsung rab yan lag dgu; C. jiubu jing; J. kubu kyō; K. kubu kyŏng 九部經). In Pāli, the “nine sections” or categories of the Buddha’s teachings based on content, structure, or literary style. In the Pāli tradition and some BUDDHIST HYBRID SANSKRIT sources, the nine sections that are typically listed are discourses (P. sutta; S. SŪTRA), aphorisms in mixed prose and verse (P. geyya; S. GEYA), prophetic teachings or expositions (P. veyyākaraṇa; S. VYĀKARAṆA), verses (GĀTHĀ), utterance or meaningful expressions (UDĀNA), fables (P. ITIVUTTAKA; S. ITIUṚTTAKA), tales of previous lives (JĀTAKA), marvelous events (P. abbhutadhamma; S. ADBHUTADHARMA), and catechisms or works of great extent (P. vedalla; S. VAIPULYA). See also DVĀDAŚĀṄGA[PRAVACANA].

navasaṃjñā. (P. navasaññā; T. ’du shes dgu; C. jiuxiang guan; J. kusōkan; K. kusanggwan 九想觀). In Sanskrit, lit. “the nine perceptions,” one of the so-called meditations on the impurity/foulness [of the body] (AŚUBHABHĀVANĀ), the objective of which is to facilitate understanding of impermanence (ANITYA), to develop disenchantment toward one’s own and others’ bodies, and/or to subdue lustful thoughts. In this meditation, the adept either mentally visualizes or physically observes the progressive decay of a corpse through nine specific stages: mottled discoloration of the corpse (vinīlakasaṃjñā), discharges of pus (vipūyakasaṃjñā), the decay of rotten flesh (vipadumakasaṃjñā), bloating and tumefaction (vyādhmātakasaṃjñā), the exuding of blood and the overflow of body fluids (vilohitakasaṃjñā), infestation of worms and maggots (vikhāditakasaṃjñā), the dissolution of flesh and exposure of bones and sinews (vikṣiptakasaṃjñā), the cremated remains (vidagdhakasaṃjñā), and the dispersed skeletal parts (asthisaṃjñā). These contemplations help to wean the meditator from the affliction of lust (RĀGA; LOBHA), but lead only to the first of the four levels of meditative absorption (DHYĀNA).

Neichi Toin. (1557–1629). Important Mongolian teacher who helped to spread Buddhism in Inner Mongolia; his traditional biography appears in a work entitled Cindamani-yin erike. Neichi Toin was the son of a Torghud noble. In order to comply with his father’s wishes, he married and fathered a child, but left the family home in his late twenties and traveled to Tibet. He spent several years at BKRA SHIS LHUN PO monastery, where he studied with the first PAṆ CHEN LAMA, BLO BZANG CHOS KYI RGYAL MTSHAN, receiving tantric initiation from him. He excelled particularly in practices associated with YAMĀNTAKA. In the 1590s, he returned to Mongolia, first to the Khalka region and then to Hohhot, where he spent the next thirty years living as a yogin with a group of disciples. His biography, which seems to take the story of MI LA RAS PA as its model, describes his habitation in mountain caves, his practice of GTUM MO, his unconventional behavior, and his performance of various miracles. He is said to have worn blue and green robes and to have taken money intended for monasteries and given it to the poor. Around 1629, he went to Eastern Mongolia, where he sought to spread Buddhism, bringing him into conflict with local shamans. He secured the support of powerful nobles, leading to the founding of four monasteries in the region. Although a devotee of the DGE LUGS PA, he ran afoul of the fifth DALAI LAMA (NGAG DBANG BLO BZANG RGYA MTSHO), who criticized him for giving the YAMĀNTAKA initiation to those without the proper qualification and for claiming to be the incarnation of TSONG KHA PA. On a more political level, it appears that the Dalai Lama was concerned that a Mongol was developing a strong following outside the bounds of the Dge lugs hierarchy controlled from LHA SA. When a formal complaint was brought against Neichi Toin, the Manchu emperor deferred to the Dalai Lama, who declared that Neichi Toin did not have the necessary qualifications to be a high lama. He was therefore purged and his followers disbanded.

nenbutsu. [alt. nembutsu] (念佛). In Japanese, “recollection of the Buddha’s name.” See NIANFO; NAMU AMIDABUTSU; ICHINENGI; TANENGI.

netrapratiṣṭhāpana. (P. akkhipūjā; T. spyan dbye). In Sanskrit, “fixing the eyes,” viz., “opening the eyes”; a consecration ceremony for a buddha image (BUDDHĀBHIṢEKA), which serves to vivify the inert statue or painting, rendering it a hypostatization of the buddha. There are many versions of the ritual. In Southeast Asia, after making offerings to such Brahmanical protective divinities as INDRA, AGNI, or YAMA and conducting a purification ritual, the eyes of the image are painted in as the final act of preparing for its installation in a shrine. The ritual concludes with the recitation of a series of protective chants (PARITTA). The entire ritual often runs through the entire night, with the eyes “opened” around sunrise as the climax of the ritual. The Pāli form akkhipūjā, lit. “ritual of [opening] the eyes,” is attested by the late-fifth or early-sixth century, in the MAHĀVAṂSA and BUDDHAGHOSA’s SAMANTAPĀSĀDIKĀ. In Mahāyāna texts, such image consecration by painting in the eyes appears in the RATNAGUṆASAṂCAYAGĀTHĀ, which dates prior to the fifth century CE. See also PRATIṢṬHĀ. For East Asian equivalents, see DIANYAN; KAIYAN.

Nettippakaraṇa. In Pāli, “The Guide,” a paracanonical Pāli text dedicated to the exegesis of scripture, which is included in the longer Burmese (Myanmar) edition of the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA. The Netti (as it is often called) is traditionally ascribed to the Buddha’s disciple Kaccāna (see KĀTYĀYANA; MAHĀKĀTYĀYANA), but was likely composed in India sometime around the beginning of the Common Era. Some scholars presume that the work is a revision of the closely related PEṬAKOPADESA, which it ultimately superseded. Both the Netti and the Peṭakopadesa develop an elaborate hermeneutical theory based on the broad rubrics of “interpretation” or “guidance” (netti; cf. Skt. netri) as to “sense” (byañjana; Skt. vyañjana) and interpretation as to “meaning” (attha; Skt. ARTHA). The Netti is divided into two major sections: an outline of the contents, and a longer systematic set of rubrics that describe specific techniques of interpretation, in three subsections. See also VYĀKHYĀYUKTI; SANFEN KEJING.

neyārtha. (P. neyyattha; T. drang don; C. buliaoyi; J. furyōgi; K. puryoŭi 不了義). In Sanskrit, “provisional,” “conventional”; one of the two categories (along with NĪTĀRTHA, “definitive,” “absolute”) into which the teachings of the SŪTRAs may be classified. The terms neyārtha and nītārtha are among several sets of categories employed in the interpretation of scriptures, providing a means of accounting for statements that appear to contradict what is regarded as the Buddha’s final position on a topic. The Indian schools differ on what constitutes a provisional statement, with some holding that any statement by the Buddha that cannot be accepted literally is provisional, with others holding instead that any statement that does not describe the final nature of reality is provisional. See also SATYADVAYA; ABHISAṂDHI; ABHIPRĀYA.

Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. (Ngawang Losang Gyatso) (1617–1682). The fifth DALAI LAMA of Tibet, widely held to be one of the most dynamic and influential members of his lineage. He was the first Dalai Lama to formally wield both religious and secular power over the Tibetan state and is renowned for his diverse range of religious and political activities. Commonly referred to as “the great fifth” (lnga pa chen po), Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho established himself as a gifted teacher, accomplished tantric practitioner, prolific author, and skillful statesman. The fifth Dalai Lama was born to an aristocratic family in the region of ’Phyong rgyas (Chongye) near the burial grounds of the early Tibetan dynastic rulers. His family had close ties with the RNYING MA sect, although the Dalai Lama claimed in one of his autobiographies that his mother had been the tantric consort of the JO NANG master TĀRANĀTHA and that Tāranātha was his biological father. He was recognized as the fifth Dalai Lama in 1622 by BLO BZANG CHOS KYI RGYAL MTSHAN, although there was a rival candidate, Grags pa rgyal mtshan. The fifth Dalai Lama mastered the DGE LUGS curriculum but also had a strong interest in Rnying ma, SA SKYA, and BKA’ BRGYUD. During this period, the Dge lugs was being persecuted by the kings of Gtsang, who were patrons of the KARMA BKA’ BRGYUD. The fifth Dalai Lama cultivated a relationship with the Qoshot Mongols. This deepened a connection with the Mongols begun by the third Dalai Lama, BSOD NAMS RGYA MTSHO, and enhanced by the fourth Dalai Lama, YON TAN RGYA MTSHO. With the aid of the Qoshot Mongol ruler Gushri Khan (1582–1655), the fifth Dalai Lama and his Dge lugs sect prevailed after a period of bitter political rivalry against the Bka’ brgyud and their supporters in the Gtsang court. In 1642, the Dalai Lama and his regent Bsod nams chos ’phel became the rulers of Tibet, although it took nearly a decade before their power was consolidated throughout the provinces of central Tibet and extended to parts of eastern and western Tibet. The relationship thus forged between the Dalai Lama and the Mongol ruler was based on the so-called priest-patron (YON MCHOD) model previously established between the Sa skya heirarch ’ PHAGS PA BLO GROS RGYAL MTSHAN and Qubilai Khan. The Dalai Lama promoted the view that he and the previous Dalai Lamas were incarnations (SPRUL SKU) of the BODHISATTVA AVALOKITEŚVARA and that he himself was linked to the three great religious kings (chos rgyal) SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO, KHRI SRONG LDE BTSAN, and RAL PA CAN. In 1645, the fifth Dalai Lama began construction of the PO TA LA Palace on the site of Srong btsan sgam po’s palace on Dmar po ri (Red Hill) in LHA SA. He named it after POTALAKA, the abode of Avalokiteśvara. The palace included his residence quarters and space for the Tibetan government, the DGA’ LDAN PHO BRANG, both relocated from ’BRAS SPUNGS monastery. In 1652, at the invitation of the Qing emperor, the fifth Dalai Lama traveled to the Manchu imperial court in Beijing, where he was greeted with great ceremony, although he resented attempts by the Chinese to present him as a vassal of the Qing emperor rather than as an equal head of state. The Dalai Lama forced the conversion to Dge lugs of those monasteries he considered doctrinally heterodox or politically dangerous. These included numerous Bka’ brgyud institutions and, famously, the monastery of Dga’ ldan (formerly Rtag brtan) phun tshogs gling (see JO NANG PHUN TSHOGS GLING), whose Jo nang texts were ordered to be locked under state seal. The fifth Dalai Lama did, however, support the founding of new Rnying ma institutions, such as RDZOGS CHEN monastery and SMIN GROL GLING, and the renovation of RDO RJE BRAG. He himself was a “treasure revealer” (GTER STON), discovering several texts that are included in his collected works. His religious training was broad and eclectic; among teachers of the Dge lugs sect, he was particularly close to the first PAṆ CHEN LAMA, BLO BZANG CHOS KYI RGYAL MTSHAN, who had also been the teacher of the fourth Dalai Lama, and from whom the fifth Dalai Lama received both his novice vows in 1625 and his monastic vows in 1638. After the Paṇ chen Lama’s death, the Dalai Lama identified his next incarnation, continuing the alternating relation of teacher and student between the two foremost lamas of the Dge lugs. He died in 1682, but his death was kept secret by his regent, SDE SRID SANGS RGYAS RGYA MTSHO, until 1697. He is entombed in a massize STŪPA in the Po ta la. The fifth Dalai Lama was a prolific and talented author, with his collected works comprising twenty-five volumes on a wide range of topics. Of particular note are his extensive autobiographies. Among his more strictly “religious” works, his LAM RIM teachings entitled LAM RIM ’JAM DPAL ZHAL LUNG is well known.

Ngal gso skor gsum. (Ngalso khorsum). In Tibetan, “Trilogy on Rest”; one of the major works by the Tibetan master KLONG CHEN RAB ’BYAMS. It is composed of three cycles of teachings, each of which contains a root text, summary, autocommentary, and essential instruction (don khrid), as well as additional texts, for a total of fifteen works. The three cycles of teachings are (1) Sems nyid ngal gso (“Resting in Mind Itself’); (2) Sgyu ma ngal gso (“Resting in Illusion”); and (3) Bsam gtan ngal so (“Resting in Concentration [DHYĀNA]”).

Ngor e wam chos ldan. [alt. Ngor e waṃ chos ldan] (Ngor Evam Chöden). A Tibetan monastery founded by Ngor chen (“the great man of Ngor”) KUN DGA’ BZANG PO in 1429 near Gzhis ka rtse (Shigatse) in Gtsang (Tsang); the seat of the head of the NGOR subsect of the SA SKYA sect. After the monastery of Sa skya, it is regarded as the second most important monastery of the Sa skya sect, especially famous as a center for the LAM ’BRAS (path and result) teachings. It had four branches (bla brangs): Klu sding, Thar rtse, Phan bde khang gsar, and Khang sar; the abbacy (three years in duration) alternated among them. Its extensive library contained a number of Sanskrit manuscripts. The TSHAR PA order is considered an offshoot of the Ngor subsect. Prominent among a network of monasteries associated with Ngor e wam chos ldan is the Lhun grub steng monastery in SDE DGE, the monastery most closely associated with the royal family and the location of the famous Sde dge printery.

Nguyên Thiều. (C. Yuanshao 元韶) (c. 1610–c. 1691). Chinese monk who is considered the founding patriarch of a Vietnamese branch of the Chinese LINJI ZONG of CHAN. Born in Guangdong (China), he became a monk at the age of nineteen. He arrived in Vietnam in 1665 accompanying Chinese merchants and settled in Bình Định province (central Vietnam). He eventually built the Thập Tháp Di Đà monastery and began to teach Chan. He also founded the Hà Trung monastery in Thuận Hóa and Quốc Ân monastery in Huế. After that, at the request of Lord Nguyễn Phúc Tần, he returned to China to bring back Buddhist materials and utensils and to invite other eminent monks to Vietnam. Among these monks was the Chan master Thạch Liêm. Nguyên Thiều was the first monk to teach Linji Chan in central Vietnam. The modern Vietnamese Buddhist claim of an affinity with Linji Chan derives from this transmission via Nguyên Thiều.

NhẦt Hạnh. (V) (一行). See THÍCH NHẤT HẠNH.

nianfo. (J. nenbutsu; K. yŏmbul 念佛). In Chinese, “recollection, invocation, or chanting of [the name of] the Buddha.” The term nianfo has a long history of usage across the Buddhist tradition and has been used to refer to a variety of practices. The Chinese term nianfo is a translation of the Sanskrit term BUDDHĀNUSMṚTI (recollection of [the qualities of] the Buddha), one of the common practices designed to help develop meditative absorption (DHYĀNA) in the mainstream traditions. Buddhānusmṛti is listed as the first of six fundamental contemplative practices, along with recollection of the DHARMA, SAṂGHA, giving (DĀNA), morality (ŚĪLA), and the divinities (DEVA). Buddhānusmṛti (P. buddhānussati) is also the first in the Pāli list of ten “recollections” (P. anussati; S. ANUSMṚTI), which are included among the forty meditative exercises (see KAMMAṬṬHĀNA) discussed in the VISUDDHIMAGGA. The meditator is instructed to reflect on the good qualities of the Buddha, often through contemplating a series of his epithets, contemplation that is said to lead specifically to “access concentration” (UPACĀRASAMĀDHI). In early Mahāyāna texts, the term seems to refer to the meditative practice of recollecting, invoking, or visualizing an image of a buddha or advanced BODHISATTVA, such as ŚĀKYAMUNI, MAITREYA, or AMITĀBHA. In East Asia, the term nianfo came to be used primarily in the sense of reciting the name of the Buddha, referring especially to recitation of the Chinese phrase namo Amituo fo (K. namu Amit’abul; J. NAMU AMIDABUTSU; Homage to the buddha Amitābha). This recitation was often performed in a ritual setting and accompanied by the performance of prostrations, the burning of incense, and the intonation of scriptures, all directed toward gaining a vision of Amitābha’s PURE LAND of SUKHĀVATĪ, a vision that was considered proof that one would be reborn there in the next lifetime. New forms of chanting Amitābha’s name developed in China, such as WUHUI NIANFO (five-tempo intonation of [the name of] the Buddha), which used leisurely and increasingly rapid tempos, and YINSHENG NIANFO (intoning [the name of] the Buddha by drawing out the sound). Nianfo practice was often portrayed as a relatively easy means of guaranteeing rebirth in Amitābha’s pure land. Many exegetes referred to the vows of the bodhisattva DHARMĀKARA (the bodhisattva who became Amitābha) as set forth in the SUKHĀVATĪVYŪHASŪTRA, as evidence of the efficacy of nianfo practice in the degenerate age of the dharma (MOFA). In China, these various forms of nianfo were advocated by such famous monks as TANLUAN, DAOCHUO, and SHANDAO; these monks later came to be retroactively regarded as patriarchs of a so-called pure land school (JINGTU ZONG). In fact, however, nianfo was widely practiced across schools and social strata in both China and Korea and was not exclusively associated with a putative pure land tradition. In Japan, nenbutsu, or repetition of the phrase “namu Amidabutsu” (homage to Amitābha Buddha) became a central practice of the Japanese PURE LAND schools of Buddhism, such as JŌDOSHŪ, JŌDO SHINSHŪ, and JISHŪ. The practice spread rapidly among common people largely through the efforts of such itinerant holy men (HIJIRI) as KŪYA and IPPEN. Influential pure land teachers, such as HŌNEN and his disciple SHINRAN, also promoted the exclusive practice of chanting the phrase NAMU AMIDABUTSU and debated whether multiple recitations of the Buddha’s name (TANENGI) were expected of pure land adherents or whether a single recitation (ICHINENGI) would be enough to ensure rebirth. Despite periodic suppressions of this movement, Hōnen and Shinran’s schools, known as the Jōdoshū and Jōdo Shinshū, became the largest Buddhist communities in Japan.

niangu. (J. nenko; K. yŏmgo 拈古). In Chinese, “raising [and analyzing] ancient [cases]”; a “lettered Chan” (WENZI CHAN) literary style, which uses verse to comment on CHAN public cases (GONG’AN). See HUANGLONG PAI.

nianhua weixiao. (J. nenge mishō; K. yŏmhwa miso 拈花微笑) In Chinese, lit. “holding up a flower and smiling subtly”; a famous CHAN transmission story in which ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha instructs the congregation nonverbally by simply holding up a flower. Only MAHĀKĀŚYAPA understands the Buddha’s intent and he smiles back in recognition, making him the first recipient of the Buddha’s “mind-to-mind transmission” (YIXIN CHUANXIN). Mahākāśyapa is thus considered the first patriarch (ZUSHI) of the Chan school. This story, also called the “World-Honored One holding up a flower” (Shizun nianhua), first appears in the 1036 imperially ratified Chan genealogical record, Tiansheng Guangdeng lu. There, the story also portrays the Buddha giving his disciple his robe as a token of transmission, but this event does not appear in the later versions of the story, such as in the 1093 Zongmen tongyao ji and the 1183 Liandeng huiyao. The same story is recorded also in the apocryphal Chinese sūtra Da fantianwang wenfo jueyi jing (“Mahābrahmā Questions the Buddha and Resolves His Doubts”), compiled sometime between the mid-twelfth and the late fourteenth centuries, probably in order to defend the historicity of the story, the authenticity of which was questioned even in Chan circles. The story became famous among not only Buddhist clerics but also literati. The tale eventually became a meditative topic within the Chan school and is recorded as the sixth case (GONG’AN) in the 1228 WUMEN GUAN (“Gateless Checkpoint”); there, it concludes by giving the Buddha’s verbal confirmation that the transmission is complete: “I have this repository of the true dharma eye (ZHENGFAYANZANG), the sublime mind of NIRVĀṆA, the authentic quality (C. shixiang; S. TATTVA) that is free from all qualities, the subtle and sublime dharma gate that does not rely on words or letters (BULI WENZI) but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures (JIAOWAI BIECHUAN). This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.” In Western literature, this story has been dubbed the “Flower Sermon,” but this designation is never used in Chan literature.

niannian wuchang. (C) (念念無常). See ER WUCHANG.

nibbidānupassanāñāṇa. In Pāli, “knowledge arising from the contemplation of disgust.” According to the VISUDDHIMAGGA, the fifth of nine knowledges (ñāṇa; S. JÑĀNA) 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 (visuddhi) to be developed along the path to liberation. The knowledge arising from the contemplation of disgust (P. nibbidā; S. NIRVEDA) refers to the sense of disillusionment that the adept feels toward the aggregates (khandha; S. SKANDHA) or the mental and material phenomena (NĀMARŪPA) comprising the individual and the universe; this response is prompted by the realization that all phenomena are frightening and dangerous because they are characterized by impermanence (P. anicca; S. ANITYA), suffering (P. dukkha; S. DUḤKHA), and nonself (P. anatta; S. ANĀTMAN). The practitioner thus becomes dissatisfied with the things of this world and takes no delight in the thought of any further becoming (BHAVA) in any realm of rebirth (GATI). The Visuddhimagga states that this fifth knowledge, arising from the contemplation of disgust, is in essence not different from the preceding two knowledges: “knowledge arising from the contemplation of terror” (BHAYATUPAṬṬHĀNAÑĀṆA) and “knowledge arising from the contemplation of danger” (ĀDĪNAVĀNUPASSANĀÑĀṆA; see also ĀDĪNAVA). The differences among the three are said to be only nominal.

Nichiren. (日蓮) (1222–1282). Japanese founder of the NICHIRENSHŪ, one of the so-called new schools of Kamakura Buddhism. Nichiren is said to have been born into a commoner family in present-day Chiba prefecture. At the age of twelve he entered the priesthood and was ordained at the age of sixteen. In 1239, he left his rural temple and went first to Kamakura and then to the capital of Kyōto to study at the great monasteries there. Although he draws heavily on TENDAI and TAIMITSU teachings in his own writings, Nichiren seems to have been acquainted with other traditions of Buddhism as well. During this period, Nichiren began to question what he perceived as inconsistencies in the doctrines of the various schools he was studying. In particular, Nichiren disagreed with the JŌDOSHŪ pure land tradition of HŌNEN (1133–1212), and the practice of reciting the buddha’s name (NENBUTSU; C. NIANFO). Nichiren eventually concluded that the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”) contained the Buddha’s ultimate teaching, relegating all other teachings to a provisional status. Armed with this new insight, Nichiren proclaimed in 1253 that people should place their faith in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra by reciting its “title” (J. DAIMOKU), viz., NAMU MYŌHŌRENGEKYŌ (Homage to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra), an act that he claimed was sufficient for gaining liberation in the time of the decline of the dharma, or mappō (C. MOFA). It was at this point that he adopted the name “Nichiren” (“Lotus of the Sun,”: i.e., Japan) Although Nichiren was a controversial figure, he attracted a large number of followers in Kamakura. In 1260, he wrote the Risshō Ankokuron (“Treatise on Establishing the Right [Teaching] for Securing the Peace of Our Country”), a tract that encouraged the Kamakura military government (bakufu) to rely on the teachings of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra in order to avert political disaster and social upheaval and, in turn, to patronize Nichiren’s school over other Buddhist sects. As a result of his lobbying, and his challenge to the pure land tradition, Nichiren was arrested and exiled to Shizuoka prefecture in 1261 but was pardoned two years later. In 1271, a failed assassination plot against Nichiren hardened his resolve. He was arrested again in 1272 and banished to the island of Sado, where he wrote many of his most important treatises, including Kaimokushō (“Opening the Eyes”) and Kanjin no honzonshō (“The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind”). In 1274, he was once again pardoned and subsequently returned to Kamakura. Failing for a third time to convince the Kamakura bakufu to turn to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra for protection and salvation, he retired to Mt. Minobu in Yamanashi prefecture. There, he devoted his time to educating his disciples and writing essays, including Senjishō “(On the Selection of the Time”) and Hō’onshō (“Repaying Indebtedness”). Nichiren died at the age of sixty in the year 1282, leaving behind hundreds of works and divisive infighting for control of his legacy.

Nichiren Shōshū. (日蓮正宗). In Japanese, “Orthodox School of Nichiren”; one of the principal Japanese Buddhist schools based on the teachings of NICHIREN (1222–1282). Nichiren Shōshū is descended from Nichiren through Nichikō (1246–1332), the alleged sole heir of Nichiren among his six chief disciples. Nichikō was a loyal student and archivist of Nichiren’s writings, who established in 1290 what was then called the Fuji school at TAISEKIJI, a monastery on Mt. Fuji in Shizuoka prefecture. Nichikō’s school later divided into eight subbranches, known collectively as the Fuji Monryū (Fuji schools) or Nichikō Monryū (Nichikō schools). The monk Nichikan (1665–1726), a noted commentator and teacher, was instrumental in resurrecting the observance of Nichiren’s teachings at Taisekiji. He was also the person who systematized and established many of the innovative features of the school, particularly the school’s unique view that Nichiren was the Buddha (see below). The eight associated temples that remained in the Fuji school reunited in 1876 as the Komon sect, later adopting a new name, the Honmon. However, in 1899, Taisekiji split from the other temples and established an independent sect, renaming itself Nichiren Shōshū in 1912. In 1930, MAKIGUCHI TSUNESABURO and Toda Josei established the SŌKA GAKKAI (then called Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai), a lay organization for the promotion of Nichiren Shōshū thought, but quickly ran afoul of the Japanese government’s promotion of the cult of state Shintōism. Makiguchi refused to comply with government promulgation of Shintō worship and was imprisoned for violating the Peace Preservation Law; he died in prison in 1944. Toda was eventually released, and he devoted himself after World War II to promoting Sōka Gakkai and Nichiren Shōshū, which at that time were closely connected. The two groups acrimoniously separated in 1991, Nichiren Shōshū accusing Sōka Gakkai of forming a personality cult around their leader IKEDA DAISAKU (b. 1928) and of improper modifications of Nichiren practice; Sōka Gakkai accusing the Nichiren Shōshū leader Abe Nikken of trying to dominate both organizations. The two groups now operate independently. Nichiren Shōshū has grown to over seven hundreds temples in Japan, as well as a few temples in foreign countries. Nichiren Shōshū distinguishes itself from the other Nichiren schools by its unique view of the person of Nichiren: it regards the founder as the true buddha in this current degenerate age of the dharma (J. mappo; C. MOFA), a buddha whom ŚĀKYAMUNI promised his followers would appear two thousand years in the future; therefore, they refer to Nichiren as daishōnin, or great sage. Other Nichiren schools instead regard the founder as the reincarnation of Jōgyō Bosatsu (the BODHISATTVA VIŚIṢṬACĀRITRA). Nichiren Shōshū’s claim to orthodoxy is based on two documents, not recognized by other Nichiren schools, in which Nichiren claims to transfer his dharma to Nichikō, viz., the Minobu sōjōsho (“Minobu Transfer Document”) and the Ikegami sōjōsho (“Ikegami Transfer Document”), which are believed to have been written in 1282 by Nichiren, the first at Minobu and the second on the day of his death at Ikegami. Nichiren Shōshū practice is focused on the dai-gohonzon maṇḍala, the ultimate object of devotion in the school, which Nichiren created. The DAI-GOHONZON (great object of devotion), a MAṆḌALA (here, a cosmological chart) inscribed by Nichiren in 1279, includes the DAIMOKU (lit., “title”), viz., the phrase “NAMU MYŌHŌRENGEKYŌ” (Homage to the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA), which is considered to be the embodiment of Nichiren’s enlightenment and the ultimate reason for his advent in this world. The gohonzon is placed in a shrine or on a simple altar in the homes of devotees of the sect. This veneration of the gohonzon to the exclusion of all other deities and images of the Buddha distinguishes Nichiren Shōshū from other Nichiren schools. The school interprets the three jewels (RATNATRAYA) of the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA to refer, respectively, to Nichiren (the buddha); to namu Myōhōrengekyō and the gohonzon (the dharma); and to his successor Nichikō (the saṃgha). By contrast, other Nichiren schools generally consider Śākyamuni to be the Buddha and Nichiren the saṃgha, and do not include the gohonzon in the dharma, since they question its authenticity. All schools of Nichiren thought accept Nichiren’s acknowledgment of the buddhahood that is latent in all creatures and the ability of all human beings of any class to achieve buddhahood in this lifetime.

Nichirenshū. (日蓮宗). In Japanese, “schools [associated with] Nichiren.” There was and is no single “Nichiren School,” but the term is used to designate all of the different schools that trace their origins back to the life and teachings of NICHIREN (1222–1282). At the time of his death, Nichiren left no formal institution in place or instructions for the formation of any such institution. Thus, a number of groups emerged, led by various of his disciples. These groups, which can collectively be referred to as Nichirenshū, disagreed on a number of important points of doctrine and theories of propagation. However, they all shared the fundamental convictions that the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”) was the highest of the Buddha’s teachings; that during the degenerate age (J. mappo; C. MOFA) liberation could be achieved by chanting the title (DAIMOKU) of that scripture; that Nichiren was the true teacher of this practice and Japan its appropriate site; and that all other forms of Buddhist practice were ineffective in this degenerate age and thus should be repudiated. However, Nichiren’s disciples and his followers disagreed on such questions as whether they should have any connections with other Buddhist groups; how aggressively they should proselytize Nichiren’s teachings; and whether the two sections of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra—the “SHAKUMON” (Chapters 1–14), or trace teaching, and the “HONMON” (Chapters 15–28), or essential teaching—are of equal importance or whether the “Honmon” is superior. During the Meiji period, specific schools of Nichiren’s teachings were recognized, with six different schools institutionalized in 1874. One of these, which called itself the Nichirenshū, declared the two parts of the sūtra to be of equal importance; the other five declared the superiority of the “Honmon.” One of these five eventually became the NICHIREN SHŌSHŪ.

nidāna. (T. gzhi/gleng gzhi; C. yinyuan/nituona; J. innen/nidana; K. inyŏn /nidana 因/尼陀那). A polysemous term in Sanskrit and Pāli, meaning variously “cause,” “motivation,” “occasion,” or “episode.” The term has at least three important denotations: (1) a general term for cause, used especially in the context of the twelvefold chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), often referred to as the “twelve nidāna,” or twelve “links” in this chain; (2) one of the traditional categories of Buddhist literature, devoted to narratives that describe the occasion for the Buddha’s exposition of a particular point of doctrine or a specific monastic rule; and (3) the portion of a sūtra that describes the setting of the discourse, such as where the Buddha was residing, the audience members, etc. In the second of these meanings, it is one of the nine (NAVAṄGA) (Pāli) or twelve (DVĀDAŚĀṄGA) (Sanskrit) categories (AṄGA) of Buddhist scripture, distinguished according to their narrative structure or literary style.

Nidānakathā. In Pāli, “Account of Origins,” the introduction to the JĀTAKA, the collection of stories of the Buddha’s past lives, which form the fifth and final part of the SUTTAPIṬAKA, the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA; it is traditionally attributed to the great fifth-century Pāli scholar BUDDHAGHOSA. The text gives an account of the Buddha’s previous lives as a bodhisatta (S. BODHISATTVA), continuing through his last birth, his enlightenment, and his early ministry. The work is divided into three sections: (1) The “Dūre Nidāna,” or “Distant Epoch,” begins with the bodhisatta’s encounter, as the mendicant SUMEDHA, with the buddha DIPAṂKARA. Sumedha could become Dipaṃkara’s disciple and achieve liberation as an arahant (S. ARHAT) in that life, but instead vows to become a buddha in the far distant future. Dipaṃkara predicts that he will indeed become a buddha (see P. veyyākaraṇa; S. VYĀKARAṆA). The ten perfections (P. pāramī; S. PĀRAMITĀ) that he must practice in order to achieve buddhahood are then described. This is followed by an account of subsequent buddhas who also prophesied his eventual attainment of buddhahood, and the identity of the bodhisatta on each of those occasions. Next comes a list of perfections and the jātaka story that best exemplifies it. The first section ends with his penultimate birth as a divinity in TUṢITA heaven. (2) The “Avidūre Nidāna,” or “Not Remote Epoch,” recounts his descent from tuṣita heaven, through his birth as the son of King Suddhodana (S. ŚUDDHODANA) and Queen MĀYĀ, his princely life and marriage, and his renunciation and penances, concluding with his achievement of enlightenment. (3) The “Santike Nidāna” or “Present Epoch,” recounts the period from his decision to teach the dhamma, through the conversion of his early disciples, and ends with the dedication of the JETAVANA grove as a monastery by the wealthy merchant Anāthapiṇḍika (S. ANĀTHAPIṆḌADA). The Nidānakathā represents the earliest continuous narrative of the Buddha’s life contained in Pāli sources, and it served as the basis of later expanded narratives, such as that found in the near-contemporary Manorathavilāsinī. It is important to note that these episodes do not provide a complete biography of the Buddha, beginning with his birth and ending with his death. Instead, they begin in the distant past with his vow to become a buddha, skip over his many births as a bodhisatta (which are contained in the jātaka stories to which the Nidānakathā serves as an introduction), and end with the donation of Jetavana, in the first years after his enlightenment. These Pāli accounts are all relatively late. Earlier biographies of the Buddha are found in Sanskrit works of other schools, such as the second-century CE BUDDHACARITA by AŚVAGHOṢA, the third-century MAHĀVASTU contained in the LOKOTTARAVĀDA VINAYA, and the third-century LALITAVISTARA.

Niddesa. In Pāli, “Exposition”; the eleventh book of the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA of the Pāli SUTTAPIṬAKA. It is a commentarial work on portions of the SUTTANIPĀTA and is divided into two parts, the CŪḶANIDDESA (“Lesser Exposition”) and the MAHĀNIDDESA (“Longer Exposition”). The former comments on the Khaggavisānasutta (cf. S. KHAḌGAVIṢĀṆA) and Parāyaṇavagga, while the latter comments on the AṬṬHAKAVAGGA. The book is among the earliest examples of the commentarial genre of Buddhist literature—so early, in fact, that it was included within the suttapiṭaka itself. See CŪḶANIDDESA; MAHĀNIDDESA.

nidhāna. (T. gter; C. fuzang; J. fukuzō/bukuzō; K. pokchang 伏藏/腹藏). In Sanskrit, “depository” or “hidden container”; ritual container placed in the interior of a Buddhist sculpture or hung above a painting in order to ritually vivify the image or painting. Following the methods described in the “Instructions on Image Making and Iconometry” (S. Sambaddhabhāṣitapratimālakṣaṇavivaranī; T. Rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas kyis gzungs pa’i sku gzugs kyi mtshan nyid kyi rnam ’grel; C. Zaoxiang liangdu jing; J. Zōzō ryōdo kyō; K. Chosang nyangdo kyŏng), the insertion of the container was, along with the eye-opening ceremony (KAIYAN; NETRAPRATIṢṬHĀPANA), an important part of the ritual of image consecration, which served as an agency for transforming the inert statue or painting into an object of worship. The contents of these intestinal depositories were often similar to those found in ŚARĪRA containers: viz., relic fragments, copies of DHĀRAṆĪ and SŪTRAs, and consecration certificates. But they also could be objects that would serve as a symbolic vivifying and spiritual force, e.g., viscera and entrails made from cloth, as well as five types of grain and five-colored threads. Although it is unknown when the tradition of sewing intestines to deposit in images began, the earliest extant East Asian example is a container found in the UDĀYANA image of ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha at Seiryōji in Kyōto, which is dated to 988 CE.

niepan ba wei. (C) (涅槃八味). See BA WEI.

Niepan xi. (J. Nehan wa yū; K. Yŏlban sŏk 涅槃夕). In Chinese, “dusk [when] the MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆASŪTRA [was preached]”; the second part of an expression that describes the two major stages in the teaching career of the Buddha. According to Chinese legend, the Buddha preached this scripture just before his ultimate demise (PARINIRVĀṆA)—a period that was likened to the sun setting at dusk. This statement is typically preceded by HUAYAN ZHAO, “the morning [when] HUAYAN [was preached],” since, according to the HUAYAN ZONG, in the days immediately following his enlightenment, the Buddha initially preached the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA, or Huayan jing. “Morning” refers to the earliest stage of the Buddha’s preaching career, which was likened to the sun rising at dawn.

Niepan zong. (J. Nehanshū; K. Yŏlban chong 涅槃宗). In Chinese, “Nirvāṇa tradition,” an eclectic Chinese lineage of scholiasts who dedicated themselves to exegesis and dissemination of the MAHĀYĀNA recension of the MAHĀPARNIRVĀṆASŪTRA (“Nirvāṇa Sūtra”). The Niepan zong did not exist in any formal sense; the term is instead used to designate a group of exegetes with analogous intellectual interests. Foremost among these exegetes is DAOSHENG (355–434), a member of KUMĀRAJĪVA’s (343–413) translation team in Chang’an, whose views are emblematic of teachers in this lineage. Daosheng was strongly critical of statements appearing in the first Chinese translation of the Mahāparnirvāṇasūtra, made in 418 by FAXIAN and BUDDHABHADRA, which asserted that all sentient beings except the incorrigibles (ICCHANTIKA) are endowed with the buddha-nature (FOXING). Daosheng opposed this view, which at the time had the authority of received scripture; instead, he made the radical claim that even icchantikas must also retain the capacity eventually to attain enlightenment, thus calling into question the accuracy of these two eminent monks’ scriptural edition. DHARMAKṢEMA’s new translation of the text four years later did not include the controversial statement and thus vindicated Daosheng’s position. Daosheng also explored the soteriological implications of the buddha-nature doctrine in the Mahāparnirvāṇasūtra. If the buddha-nature were inherent in all sentient beings, as the scripture claimed, then enlightenment was not something that would unfold through the mastery of a gradual series of steps, but would instead be experienced in a sudden moment of insight—a “re-cognition” of the enlightenment that has always been present. Hence, Daosheng claimed, buddhahood is in fact attained instantaneously (see DUNWU), not progessively. This position initiated an extended examination within East Asian Buddhism of sudden versus gradual theories of enlightenment that played out in many of the mature traditions, including the TIANTAI ZONG, HUAYAN ZONG, and CHAN ZONG. The teachings of the Niepan zong were also influential in promoting Chinese Buddhism’s turn away from “apophatic” forms of discourse emblematic of MADHYAMAKA styles of argumentation, to the more “kataphatic” or positive forms of discourse that are typical of the later indigenous schools, including Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan. Following Daosheng, his disciple Daolang (d.u.) in his Niepan jing yishu (“Commentary to the ‘Nirvāṇa Sūtra’”) postulated congruencies between the buddha-nature and emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), which suggested how the seemingly “apophatic” notion of emptiness found in Indian materials could actually serve as a dynamic force revealing the truth that underlies all conventional existence in the world. Still other Niepan zong exegetes devoted themselves to the text of the Mahāparnirvāṇasūtra itself, producing a new edition of the scripture known as the Southern Edition (Nanben), which collated the two earlier renderings and restructured the chapter headings. By the beginning of the Tang dynasty, the tradition of Mahāparnirvāṇasūtra exegesis had become moribund, and its intellectual concerns were subsumed into the Tiantai zong, which derived much of its teachings from the “Nirvāṇa Sūtra” and the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”).

Nigrodha. (C. Nijutuo; J. Nikuda; K. Niguda 尼瞿陀). According to Pāli accounts, the name of the Buddhist novice who converted the Mauryan king Asoka (AŚOKA) to Buddhism. When Asoka ascended the throne, he is said to have continued his father’s practice of each day feeding sixty thousand mendicants and brāhmaṇas at the palace, but was unsettled by their indecorous deportment. One day he saw the young novice Nigrodha, an ARHAT, and was pleased by the boy’s dignity and calm demeanor. Nigrodha is said to have become an arhat upon his ordination at age seven. Nigrodha converted Asoka to Buddhism by preaching the Appamādasutta, whereupon the king ceased his benefactions to the sixty thousand mendicants and brāhmaṇas and gave undivided support instead to the Buddhist SAṂGHA. Although Pāli sources claim that Asoka became a staunch and exclusive supporter of the STHAVIRANIKĀYA, Asoka’s own inscriptions indicate that his allegiance to Buddhism was less rigid and that he continued to respect and support brāhmaṇas and non-Buddhist mendicants throughout his reign.

Niguma. (T. Ni gu ma). An Indian tantric YOGINĪ of the eleventh century, said to be either the wife or the sister of NĀROPA. Her teachings are renowned as the “six doctrines (or yogas) of Niguma” (Ni gu chos drug). They are inner heat (GTUM MO), illusory body (sgyu lus; MĀYĀDEHA), dream yoga (rmi lam), clear light (’od gsal; PRABHĀSVARA), transference of consciousness (’PHO BA), and intermediate state (BAR DO), nominally the same as the more famous NĀ RO CHOS DRUG (“six yogas of Nāropa”), but with different emphases. She is said to have transmitted these teachings to her Tibetan disciple KHYUNG PO RNAL ’BYOR, who returned to Tibet to found the Shangs pa branch of the BKA’ BRGYUD.

niḥprapañca. (S). See NIṢPRAPAÑCA.

niḥsaraṇa. (P. nissaraṇa; T. nges ’byung; C. li; J. ri; K. i 離). In Sanskrit, “escape” or “emergence,” often a synonym for liberation from REBIRTH. The term can also refer to the sense of dissatisfaction with SAṂSĀRA and the wish to escape from it, as in the compounds bhavaniḥsaraṇa, “escape for mundane existence,” jarāniḥsaraṇa, “escape from old age,” and kleśaniḥsaraṇa, “escape from the afflictions.” The wish to escape from rebirth is cultivated by contemplating such things as the relative rarity of rebirth as a human with access to the DHARMA, the uncertainty of the time of death, the cause and effects of actions, and the various sufferings inherent in the six realms of saṃsāra. See also NIRVEDA; NIRYĀṆA.

niḥsargika-pātayantika. (S). See PĀYATTIKA.

niḥśreyasa. (T. nges legs; C. zhishan; J. shizen; K. chisŏn 至善). In Sanskrit, “ultimate goodness,” a term often used in Buddhist texts to refer to liberation from REBIRTH. The term commonly occurs in conjunction with ABHYUDAYA (lit., “elevation”), which refers to the worldly prosperity and temporal happiness that is achieved through rebirth as a prosperous human or divinity. Thus, abhyudaya and niḥśreyasa constitute the two benefits that accrue from practicing the dharma: those who maintain the precepts and offer charity to the SAṂGHA attain the “elevation” (abhyudaya) of a happy rebirth within SAṂSĀRA; those who follow the path to its conclusion achieve the ultimate goodness (niḥśreyasa) of liberation from rebirth.

niḥsvabhāva. (T. rang bzhin med pa; C. wuzixing/wuxing; J. mujishō/mushō; K. mujasŏng/musŏng 無自性/無性). In Sanskrit, lit., “lack of self-nature,” “absence of intrinsic existence.” According to the MADHYAMAKA school, the fundamental ignorance that is the root of all suffering is the misconception that persons and phenomena possess an independent, autonomous, and intrinsic identity, called SVABHĀVA, lit., “self-nature” or “own-nature.” Wisdom is the insight that not only persons, but in fact all phenomena, lack such a nature. This absence of self-nature, or niḥsvabhāva, is the ultimate nature of reality and of all persons and phenomena in the universe. It is a synonym for emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). The Madhyamaka school is sometimes referred to as the niḥsvabhāvavāda, “proponents of the lack of intrinsic existence.” The term also figures prominently in the YOGĀCĀRA school and its doctrine of the “three natures” (TRISVABHĀVA) as set forth in the SAṂDHINIRMOCANASŪTRA, where each of the three natures is described as having a different type of absence of self-nature (triniḥsvabhāva). Thus, the imaginary (PARIKALPITA) is said to lack intrinsic nature, because it lacks defining characteristics (lakṣaṇaniḥsvabhāvatā). The dependent (PARATANTRA) is said to lack production (utpattiniḥsvabhāvatā), because it is not independently produced. The consummate (PARINIṢPANNA) is said to be the ultimate lack of nature (paramārthaniḥsvabhāvatā) in the sense that it is the absence of all differences between subject and object. See also NAIRĀTMYA; ANĀTMAN.

nikāya. (T. sde; C. bu; J. bu; K. pu 部). In Sanskrit and Pāli, lit. “group” or “collection,” a term with two important denotations: (1) Any of the various collections of SŪTRAs, such as in the Pāli canon, e.g., the “Long Collection” (DĪGHANIKĀYA), “Middle-Length Collection” (MAJJHIMANIKĀYA), etc. The Sanskrit collections of sūtras tend be called instead ĀGAMA. Nikāya is also used as a general term for the collection or “canon.” (2) Any of the various groups (in the sense of schools or sects) of “mainstream” (i.e., non-Mahāyāna) Indian Buddhism. Traditional lists enumerate eighteen such groups, although there were in fact more; the names of thirty-four schools have been identified in texts and inscriptions. These groups, divided largely according to which VINAYA they followed, are sometimes referred to collectively as Nikāya Buddhism, a term that more specifically refers to monastic Buddhism after the split that occurred between the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA and STHAVIRA schools. Nikāya Buddhism is also sometimes used as a substitute for the pejorative term HĪNAYĀNA, although it appears that in India the term hīnayāna was sometimes used to refer collectively to all Nikāya schools and sometimes to refer to a specific school, such as the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA. See also MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS.

Nikyōron. (J) (二教論). See BENKENMITSU NIKYŌRON.

Nīlakaṇṭhakasūtra. (S). See QIANSHOU JING.

nimitta. (T. mtshan ma; C. xiang/ruixiang; J. sō/zuisō; K. sang/sŏsang 相/瑞相). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “mark” or “sign,” in the sense of a distinguishing characteristic, or a meditative “image.” Among its several denotations, three especially deserve attention. (1) In Buddhist epistemology, nimitta refers to the generic appearance of an object, in distinction to its secondary characteristics, or ANUVYAÑJANA. Advertence toward the generic sign and secondary characteristics of an object produces a recognition or perception (SAṂJÑĀ) of that object, which may in turn lead to clinging or rejection and ultimately suffering. Thus nimitta often carries the negative sense of false or deceptive marks that are imagined to inhere in an object, resulting in the misperception of that object as real, intrinsically existent, or endowed with self. Thus, the apprehension of signs (nimittagrāha) is considered a form of ignorance (AVIDYĀ), and the perception of phenomena as signless (ĀNIMITTA) is a form of wisdom that constitutes one of three “gates to deliverance” (VIMOKṢAMUKHA), along with emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) and wishlessness (APRAṆIHITA). (2) In the context of THERAVĀDA meditation practice (BHĀVANĀ), as set forth in such works as the VISUDDHIMAGGA, nimitta refers to an image that appears to the mind after developing a certain degree of mental concentration (SAMĀDHI). At the beginning of a meditation exercise that relies, e.g., on an external visual support (KASIṆA), such as a blue circle, the initial mental image one recalls is termed the “preparatory image” (PARIKAMMANIMITTA). With the deepening of concentration, the image becomes more refined but is still unsteady; at that stage, it is called the “acquired image” or “eidetic image” (UGGAHANIMITTA). When one reaches access or neighborhood concentration (UPACĀRASAMĀDHI), a clear, luminous image appears to the mind, which is called the “counterpart image” or “representational image” (PAṬIBHĀGANIMITTA). It is through further concentration on this stable “representational image” that the mind finally attains “full concentration” (APPANĀSAMĀDHI), i.e, meditative absorption (P. JHĀNA; S. DHYĀNA). (3) The term also appears in CATURNIMITTA, the “four signs,” “sights,” or “portents,” which were the catalysts that led the future buddha SIDDHĀRTHA GAUTAMA to renounce the world (see PRAVRAJITA) and pursue liberation from the cycle of birth and death (SAṂSĀRA): specifically, the sight of an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and a religious mendicant (ŚRAMAṆA).

Nine Mountain Schools of Sŏn. See KUSAN SŎNMUN.

Ninnaji. (仁和寺). In Japanese, “Monastery of Humane Peace,” located in the ancient Japanese capital of Kyōto and affiliated with the SHINGONSHŪ. The construction of the monastery began in 886 under the patronage of Emperor Kōkō (r. 884–887) and continued through the reign of Emperor Uda (r. 887–897). The main hall was completed in 888 by Emperor Uda and today contains an important Amida (S. AMITĀBHA) triad that has been designated a national treasure. In 904, Emperor Uda established a residence for himself at Ninnaji and assumed control of the monastery. Monks of royal blood began serving thereafter as abbots of Ninnaji.

niō. (仁王/二王). In Japanese, “humane kings,” a pair of muscular wrathful guardian deities, often depicted as massive wooden statues flanking a separate entrance gate, called the Niōmon in Japanese Buddhist monasteries. (In Korea, this gate is known as the Kŭmgangmun, or Vajra Gate.) They are also sometimes known as the “two kings” (niō), the Kongōjin, or the Kongōrikishi. They are considered to be manifestations of VAJRAPĀṆI. The first figure is known as either Naraen Kongō (see NĀRĀYAṆA) or Agyō; he is usually depicted with his mouth open and holding a VAJRA in his right hand. The second figure is called either Misshaku Kongō or Ungyō; he usually has his mouth closed and is either wielding a sword or has nothing in his hands.

Niōzen. [alt. Ninōzen] (J) (仁王禪/二王禪). See SUZUKI SHŌZAN.

nirākāra. (T. rnam pa med pa; C. wuxiang; J. musō; K. musang 無相). In Sanskrit, “without aspect,” an epistemological term used to describe the process of sensory perception by those who assert that perception is direct cognition of the object itself, rather than of an image or “aspect” (ĀKĀRA) of the object. A point of contention among the Indian Buddhist schools (and Indian philosophical schools more generally) is whether sense perception is mediated or immediate. The proponents of the former position hold that even in “direct perception” (PRATYAKṢA), sensory objects are not perceived directly by the sense consciousnesses, but rather through the medium of an image or aspect, compared to a reflection cast by an object onto a mirror. Consciousness is thus affected by the object, which leaves its impression on the perceiving consciousness. Proponents of this theory of epistemology include the SAUTRĀNTIKA and YOGĀCĀRA, who are called “proponents of having an aspect” or “aspectarians” (sākāravāda). The contrary position is that the six sensory consciousnesses do in fact perceive their objects directly, without recourse to an image or aspect, hence the term nirākāra, or “without aspect.” In this case, consciousness is not changed by the object it perceives; consciousness is instead like a light that reveals an object previously hidden in darkness. Proponents of this position include the VAIBHĀṢIKA, who are called “proponents of no aspect,” or “nonaspectarians” (NIRĀKĀRAVĀDA).

nirākāravāda. (T. rnam pa med par smra ba). In Sanskrit, “proponents of no aspect,” or “nonaspectarians.” See NIRĀKĀRA.

Niraupamyastava. (T. Dpe med par bstod pa). In Sanskrit, “Hymn to the Peerless One”; one of the four hymns (CATUḤSTAVA) of NĀGĀRJUNA. The other three hymns are the LOKĀTĪTASTAVA, the ACINTYASTAVA, and the PARAMĀRTHASTAVA. All four hymns are preserved in Sanskrit and are cited by a wide range of Indian commentators, leaving little doubt about their authorship. The Niraupamyastava consists of twenty-four stanzas (plus a dedication of merit) in praise of the “Peerless One,” i.e., the Buddha. The praise falls roughly into three categories: the first section is devoted to the qualities of the Buddha’s mind, the second section is devoted to the qualities of the Buddha’s body, and the concluding section explains the relationship between the Buddha’s true body and the practice of the three vehicles (TRIYĀNA). Nāgārjuna explains that the Buddha has two bodies. The first is the DHARMAKĀYA, which is the Buddha’s true body and which is not visible to the world. The second is his physical body (RŪPAKĀYA), which is perfect, without orifices, flesh, blood, or bones and free from hunger, thirst, and any form of impurity. However, in order to conform to the ways of the world, the Buddha displays these physical aspects and engages in worldly activities with this body. With regard to the three vehicles, Nāgārjuna explains that because the DHARMADHĀTU is undifferentiated, there are not different vehicles; however, the Buddha teaches three vehicles in order to prompt beings to enter the path.

nirgrantha. (P. nigaṇṭha; T. gcer bu pa; C. lixi/nijianzi; J. rike/nikenshi; K. igye/nigŏnja 離繫/尼揵子). In Sanskrit, “free from all ties,” the term generally used in Buddhist texts to refer to the followers of NIRGRANTHA-JÑĀTĪPUTRA (P. Nigaṇṭha-Nātaputta), the Buddhist name for the leader of the JAINA religion, MAHĀVĪRA. As described in Pāli sources, this group followed the four restraints prescribed by their teacher: restraint regarding the use of water, restraint regarding evil deeds, cleansing themselves of evil, and realizing when evil is held at bay. They wore a single garment rather than going naked, and used it to prevent dirt and dust (which they regarded as living things) from entering their alms bowls. The Nigaṇṭhas were renowned for their extreme asceticism. They taught that the consequences of past deeds could only be eliminated through severe penance and that future consequences could only be eliminated through the complete suspension of action. The cessation of action, they believed, led to the cessation of suffering and sensation, by which means the individual would be freed from the cycle of REBIRTH. According to Pāli sources, the Nigaṇṭhas were influential during the Buddha’s time and already well established by the time he began his ministry. Their main strongholds were at Vesāli (S. VAIŚĀLĪ) and NĀLANDĀ. Among the many renowned members of the Nigaṇtha order were several nuns, some of whom, such as Bhaddā-Kundalakesā (S. BHADRA-KUṆḌALAKEŚĀ), later converted to Buddhism. The Nigaṇṭhas are frequently singled out for ridicule in early Buddhist literature. The Buddha describes them as unworthy in ten ways, viz., that they are without faith, unrighteous, without fear or shame, associate with evil friends, are puffed up and disparaging of others, greedy, stubborn, faithless, evil in thought, and are supporters of wrong views.

Nirgrantha-Jñātīputra. (P. Nigaṇṭha-Nātaputta; T. Gcer bu pa gnyen gyi bu; C. Nijiantuo Ruotizi; J. Nikenda’nyakudaishi; K. Nigŏnda Yajeja 尼揵陀若提子) (599–527 BCE). The name commonly used in Buddhist texts to refer to the leader of the JAINA group of non-Buddhists (TĪRTHIKA), also known by his title MAHĀVĪRA (Great Victor). In Pāli sources, Nātaputta (as he is usually called) is portrayed as the Buddha’s senior contemporary. He teaches a practice called the fourfold restraint, enjoining his followers to be restrained regarding water, to be restrained regarding evil, to wash away evil, and to live in the realization that evil was held at bay; a person who could perfect the fourfold restraint was called free from bonds (P. nigaṇṭha; S. NIRGRANTHA). Like the Buddha and the leaders of many other renunciant (P. sāmana, S. ŚRAMAṆA) sects, Nātaputta claimed omniscience. According to Buddhist accounts, he taught that the consequences of past deeds could be eradicated only through severe penance. He also taught that the accrual of future consequences could be prevented only through the suspension of action. The cessation of action would lead to the cessation of suffering and feeling, and with this the individual would be freed from the cycle of rebirth. In Pāli materials, Nātaputta is portrayed in a most unfavorable light and his teachings are severely ridiculed, suggesting that in the early years of the Buddhist community the Jainas were formidable opponents and competitors of the Buddhists. Nātaputta is described as often declaring the postmortem fate of his deceased disciples, although he did not in fact know it. He is said to have been irritable and resentful, and unable to answer difficult questions. His disciple CITTA abandoned him for this reason and became a follower of the Buddha. In fact, Nātaputta is described as losing many followers to the Buddha, the most famous of whom was the householder UPĀLI. Nātaputta was convinced that Upāli could resist the Buddha’s charisma and defeat him in argument. When he discovered that Upāli, too, had lost the debate and accepted the Buddha as his teacher, he vomited blood in rage and died soon thereafter. Buddhist sources claim that, on his deathbed, Nātaputta realized the futility of his own teachings and hoped that his followers would accept the Buddha as their teacher. In order to sow the discord that would result in their conversion, Nātaputta taught contradictory doctrines at the end of his life, teaching one disciple that his view was a form of annihilationism and another that his view was a form of eternalism. As a result, the Nigaṇṭha sect fell into discord and fragmented soon after his death. (This account, predictably, does not appear in Jaina sources.) News of Nātaputta’s death prompted Sāriputta (S. ŚĀRIPUTRA) to recite a synopsis of the Buddha’s teachings to the assembled SAṂGHA in a discourse titled SAṄGĪTISUTTA. Nātaputta is often listed in Buddhist texts as one of six non-Buddhist (tīrthika) teachers. See NIRGRANTHA; JAINA.

nirmāṇakāya. (T. sprul pa’i sku; C. huashen; J. keshin; K. hwasin 化身). In Sanskrit, “emanation body,” or “transformation body”; according to the MAHĀYĀNA descriptions, one of the three bodies (TRIKĀYA) of a buddha, together with the DHARMAKĀYA and the SAṂBHOGAKĀYA. In accounts where a buddha is said to have two bodies, the dharmakāya constitutes one body and the RŪPAKĀYA constitutes the other, with the rūpakāya subsuming both the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya. The term nirmāṇakāya may have been employed originally to describe the doubles of himself that the Buddha is sometimes said to display in order to teach multiple audiences simultaneously. (Cf. MAHĀPRĀTIHĀRYA.) In the Mahāyāna, however, the emanation body became the only body of a buddha to appear to ordinary beings, implying that the “historical Buddha” was in fact a display intended to inspire the world; in the debates about whether the Buddha felt hunger or suffered physical pain, the Mahāyāna schools as well as several of the MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS asserted that he did not, but rather appeared to do so in order to conform to worldly conventions. The nirmāṇakāya of a buddha is said to be able to appear in any form, including divinities, humans, animals, and inanimate objects; some texts even suggest that a buddha may appear as a bridge or a cooling breeze. The form of the nirmāṇakāya that appeared in India as Śākyamuni is called a “supreme emanation body” (UTTAMANIRMĀṆAKĀYA). All such nirmāṇakāyas are said to perform twelve deeds, from waiting in TUṢITA heaven for their last rebirth to entering PARINIRVĀṆA. Another type of nirmāṇakāya is the JANMANIRMĀṆAKĀYA, the “birth” or “created” emanation body, which is the form of a buddha when he appears as a divinity, human, or animal to benefit sentient beings, or as a beneficial inanimate object, such as a bridge. A third type is the ŚILPANIRMĀṆAKĀYA, an “artisan emanation body,” in which a buddha appears in the world as an artisan or as a work of art. The Sanskrit term nirmāṇakāya is translated into Tibetan as SPRUL SKU, spelled in English as tulku.