is the title most commonly used to refer to the collection of works written in Japan by the 13th-century Buddhist monk and founder of the Sà Âtà  Zen school in Japan, Eihei Dà Âgen. Several other works exist with the same title (see above), and it is sometimes called the Kana Shà Âbà Âgenzà  in order to differentiate it from those. The term shà Âbà Âgenzà  can also be used more generally as a synonym for Buddhism as viewed from the perspective of Mahayana Buddhism.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the term True Dharma Eye Treasury () refers generally to the Buddha Dharma; and in Zen Buddhism, it specifically refers to the realization of Buddha's awakening that is not contained in the written words of the sutras.
In general Buddhist usage, the term "treasury of the Dharma" refers to the written words of the Buddha's teaching collected in the Sutras as the middle of the Three Treasures of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. In Zen, however, the real treasure of the Dharma is not to be found in books but in one's own Buddha Nature and the ability to see this Correct View (first of the Noble Eightfold Path) of the treasure of Dharma is called the "Treasure of the Correct Dharma Eye".
In the legends of the Zen tradition, the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  has been handed down from teacher to student going all the way back to the Buddha when he transmitted the Shobogenzo to his disciple MahÃÂkÃÂà Âyapa thus beginning the Zen lineage that Bodhidharma brought to China.
The legend of the transmission of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  to MahÃÂkÃÂà Âyapa is found in several Zen texts and is one of the most referred to legends in all the writings of Zen. Among the famous koan collections, it appears as Case 6 in the Wumenguan (The Gateless Checkpoint) and Case 2 in the Denkoroku (Transmission of Light). In the legend as told in the Wumenguan, the Buddha holds up a flower and no one in the assembly responds except for Arya Kashyapa who gives a broad smile and laughs a little. Seeing MahÃÂkÃÂà Âyapa's smile the Buddha said, <blockquote> I possess the Treasury of the Correct Dharma Eye, the wonderful heart-mind of Nirvana, the formless true form, the subtle Dharma gate, not established by written words, transmitted separately outside the teaching. I hand it over and entrust these encouraging words to Kashyapa. </blockquote>
Dahui Zonggao, the famous 12th-century popularizer of koans in Song dynasty China, wrote a collection of kà Âans with the Chinese title Zhengfa Yanzang (æ£æ³Âç¼èÂÂ). In Japanese this is read as Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, using the same kanji for its title as Dà Âgen's later work. When Dà Âgen visited China in 1223, he first studied under Wuji Lepai, a disciple of Dahui, which is where he probably first came into contact with Dahui's Zhengfa Yanzang. In his book Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, the modern scholar Carl Bielefeldt acknowledges that Dà Âgen likely took the title from Dahui for his own kà Âan collection, known now as the Shinji Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â. He later used the same title again for what is now his most well-known work, the Kana Shà Âbà Âgenzà  (now almost always referred to simply as "the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â"): <blockquote> Indeed the fact that Dà Âgen styled his effort "Shà Âbà  genzà Â" suggests that he had as his model a similar compilation of the same title by the most famous of Sung masters, Ta-Hui Tsung-kao [Dahui Zonggao]. Unlike the latter, Dà Âgen was content here simply to record the stories without interjecting his own remarks. A few years later, however, he embarked on a major project to develop extended commentaries on many of these and other passages from the Ch'an literature. The fruit of this project was his masterpiece--the remarkable collection of essays known as the kana, or "vernacular", Shà Âbà  genzà Â.</blockquote>
The different component texts—referred to as fascicles—of the Kana Shà Âbà Âgenzà  were written between 1231 and 1253—the year of Dà Âgen's death (Dà Âgen, 2002, p. xi). Unlike most Zen writings originating in Japan at that time, including Dà Âgen's own Shinji Shà Âbà Âgenzà  and Eihei Koroku, which were written in Classical Chinese, the Kana Shà Âbà Âgenzà  was written in Japanese. The essays in Shà Âbà Âgenzà  were delivered as sermons in a less formal style than the Chinese language sermons of the Eihei Koroku. Some of the fascicles were recorded by Dà Âgen, while others were recorded by his disciples.
Dà Âgen rearranged the order of the fascicles that make up the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  several times during his own lifetime, and also edited the content of individual fascicles. After his death, various editors added and removed fascicles to make different versions of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â. In pre-modern times there were four major versions that consisted of 60, 75, 12, and 28 fascicles, with the 60-fascicle version being the earliest and the 28-fascicle version the latest. The first two were arranged by Dà Âgen himself, with the 75-fascicle version containing several fascicles that had been edited from the earlier 60-fascicle version. Several copies of both the 60- and 75-fascicle versions exist, including one containing Dà Âgen's handwriting and that of his student, Koun Ejà Â. On the other hand, the 12-fascicle version, also known as the Yà Âkà Âji manuscript after the temple where it was found in 1936, is known from only two examples, one copied in 1420 and the other recopied from that in 1446. This version contains 5 fascicles not found in the older versions, including the only surviving manuscript of Ippyakuhachi Hà Âmyà  Mon. It also contains a note at the end of Hachi Dainin Gaku written by Koun Ejà  indicating that it was to be the last fascicle of a 100-fascicle version; this was never completed due to Dà Âgen's illness near the end of his life. It is unclear which chapters this 100-fascicle version would have included and in what order. Finally, the 28-fascicle version, also known as the Eihei-ji manuscript or the "Secret Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â" (), dates from the mid-1300s and actually only contains 26 fascicles because Shin Fukatoku appears twice and Butsudà  is included twice in two different versions. The fascicles of the Eihei-ji manuscript were taken from the 75- and 12-fascicle versions and still retain the numbering system used from their source collections. Yoibutsu Yobutsu is an exception and is numbered as fascicle 38, which does not correspond to any extant version.
Other pre-modern versions of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  exist, all of which were rearrangements of the four main versions discussed above, often with additional material from Dà Âgen that he did not intend to include. Bonsei, who died in the early 15th century, created an 84-fascicle version consisting of the 75-fascicle version plus 9 books from the 60-fascicle version. Four copies of Bonsei's collection survive, with the oldest dating from 1644. An 89-fascicle version called the Daijà Âji manuscript was put together in 1689 by Manzan Dà Âhaku based on Bonsei's version of 84 plus 5 additional fascicles, including Bendà Âwa, Jà «undà  Shiki, and Jikuin Mon, which were not previously considered part of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â. He also ordered the books based on the date they were written and not on the order Dà Âgen intended, suggest he likely believed the ordering was a later decision not made by Dà Âgen himself. Hangyo Kà Âzen, aiming to make the most comprehensive version of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, compiled a 96-fascicle version called the Komazawa University Library manuscript containing every known book from previous versions except Ippyakuhachi Hà Âmyà  Mon. It also included more additional writings, including the apocryphal Chinzo and several variant versions of other chapters. Kà Âzen's version became the basis for the first printed version of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, the Honzan edition. Finally, a 78-book version was made by Tenkei Denson while he was preparing his commentary, Benchà «, on the text. He thought that the 60-fascicle version was compiled by Giun and was the oldest, most correct version, and as result his version is identical for the first 59 fascicles except for two replacements from other versions and one combination of two fascicles into one. The remainder is added from the 12- and 75-fascicle versions with 10 fascicles from those being specifically excluded.
Modern editions of Shà Âbà Âgenzà  contain 95 fascicles based on the late-17th-century 96-fascicle version of Hangyo Kozen, the 35th abbot of Dà Âgen's monastery Eihei-ji. This began as a 90-fascicle version, the first to be printed on woodblocks rather than hand copied, beginning in 1815 and known as the Honzan edition. The six fascicles that were removed included the inauthentic Chinzo as well as five chapters regarded as secrets of the Sà Âtà  School. The original woodblocks are now stored at Eihei-ji. In 1906 the revised Honzan version of 95 fascicles including the five "secret" chapters was published. The only chapter originally intended to be part of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  missing from the revised Honzan version at this stage was Ippyakuhachi Hà Âmyà  Mon because it was not discovered until 1936. In 1929, the Sà Âtà Âshà « Zensho edition was released adding back Chinzo. It was removed again in a revised edition in 1970, and then added again in the 1974 Zoku Sà Âtà Âshà « Zensho along with Ippyakuhachi Hà Âmyà  Mon. Many other versions were made in the 20th century, some of which indiscriminately combined sections from different manuscripts. Today, arguably the most faithful printed version in Japanese is the 1988 edition compiled by Kà Âdà  Kawamura consisting of the original 75-fascicle version from the single 1547 Ryà «monji manuscript, the 12-fascicle 1446 Yà Âkà Âji manuscript, nine uncollected works not originally intended for the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, and initial drafts of seven chapters.
The earliest commentaries on the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  were written by two of Dà Âgen's disciples, Yà Âkà  Senne and Kyà Âgà Â. Kyà Âgà  compiled two commentaries on the 75-fascicle version of Dà Âgen's Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, the first of which is called Shà Âbà Âgenzà  shà  (æ£æ³Âç¼èµæÂÂ) and the second Shà Âbà Âgenzà  gokikigaki (æ£æ³Âç¼èµ御è´æ¸). Collectively, they are called Gokikigakishà  (御è´æ¸æÂÂ), which is usually abbreviated as Goshà  (御æÂÂ). Senne is believed to be the author of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  Gokikigaki due to the use of the honorific modifier go (御), which would not normally be used to refer to one's own writing. The Gokikigaki contains a date of 1263, suggesting Senne may have completed it around that time. Kyà Âgà  began his Shà Âbà Âgenzà  shà  in 1303 and completed it in 1308. There is no evidence that these commentaries were widely read at the time they were produced. In fact, the first time the Goshà  is known to be mentioned in historical documents is in 1586, when it was saved from a fire at Senpuku-ji, a temple in Oita Prefecture in Kyushu. The Buddhist studies scholar Genryà « Kagamishima has written that Senne and Kyà Âgà Â's commentaries form the doctrinal core of the modern Sà Âtà  Zen school.
Within a few generations of Dà Âgen's death, the historical record becomes mostly silent on textual engagement with Dà Âgen's work, including the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â. Although most important Sà Âtà  Zen temples had copies of one or more fascicles of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, access was restricted to senior monks at that particular temple, making textual comparisons or compilations virtually impossible. Due to the many different recessions of the textâÂÂthe 60-, 75-, 12-, 25-fascicle versions discussed aboveâÂÂscribal errors, and variant versions of individual fascicles, the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  was thought to possibly be inauthentic at the beginning of a Tokugawa Era. In 1700, Manzan Dà Âhaku appealed to the authority of the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  when petitioning the government's Agency of Temples and Shrines to abolish the temple-dharma lineage system (garanbà Â) which had arisen several generations after Dà Âgen's death and tied a monk's lineage not to his teacher, but to a temple. In 1703 the government not only agreed with Manzan, but proclaimed that the Sà Âtà  school must base its practices on Dà Âgen's teachings. From this point, study and analysis of Shà Âbà Âgenzà  greatly increased.
One of the earliest commentaries on the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  was written by a monk named Tenkei Denson (1638âÂÂ1735) in opposition to the emerging pro-Dà Âgen movement led by Manzan. Tenkei's commentary, called Benchà «, was written from 1726 to 1729 using the 60-fascicle version. In it, he harshly criticized the text, rejected several fascicles altogether, and made extensive "corrections" and revisions to the source text. Mujaku Dà Âchà « (1653âÂÂ1744), a Rinzai monk, wrote a commentary from 1725 to 1726 that made many of the same points. Both Tenkei and Mujaku argued for a unity of all schools of Zen, but the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  harshly criticized some approaches to Zen practice, especially those found in Rinzai lineages in China during Dà Âgen's life. Tenkei and Mujaku both also argued that Dà Âgen did not understand Chinese grammar based on his unusual interpretation of Chinese quotations. Tenkei also consulted Senne and Kyà Âgà Â's Goshà  commentary discussed above, but rejected it.
Around the same time Menzan Zuihà  was dedicating much of his life to analyzing the Shà Âbà Âgenzà  in order to uncover Dà Âgen's source material. Menzan's student Fuzan and his students put this extensive study into writing in the 1770s. Menzan also made extensive use of Senne and Kyà Âgà Â's Goshà  commentary in when studying the Shà Âbà Âgenzà Â, and he criticized Tenkei for having rejected it. Within a few years the monk Honkà  made a commentary on the text and translated it into what was at the time the more respectable language of Classical Chinese. Commentaries were also made by the monks Zà Âkai and Rà Âran. An abridged collection of a variety of Dà Âgen's work appeared at this time called The Record of Eihei Dogen, which the famous poet Ryà Âkan wrote a verse on.
There are now five complete English translations of the Kana Shobogenzo:
Bold text indicates a fascicle not also included in the 75 fascicle version. An asterisk (*) indicates a fascicle not found in any other version.
Bold text indicates a fascicle not also included in the 60 fascicle version. An asterisk (*) indicates a fascicle not found in any other version.
Bold text indicates a fascicle not also included in the 60 fascicle version. An asterisk (*) indicates a fascicle not found in any other version. Note than no fascicles from the 12 fascicle version appear in the 75 fascicle version.
Bold text indicates a fascicle not also included in the 75 fascicle version. An asterisk (*) indicates a fascicle not found in any other version.