The Tendai Use of Official Documents in the Ninth Century: Revisiting the Case of Monk Daosui *

: This article looks into ninth-century Japanese Tendai man-uscripts, including official letters and certificates concerning Saichō’s 最 澄 (767–822) trip to China. A particular focus is on the Kanjō Ajari senji kanchō 灌頂阿闍梨宣旨官牒 [Official Documents of the Edicts for Abhiṣeka-ācārya], a small collection of the official letters between the court and Tendai monks including Saichō and Ennin 圓仁 (794–864), which was appended to the Bukong biaozhi ji (Jp. Fukū Sanzō hyōseishū ) 不空三蔵表 制集 , originally copied in 1087 or 1088, and is currently stored in Kyoto Shōren’in 青蓮院 . These sources concentrate on the narratives about the Chinese Monk Daosui 道邃 (fl. 805). These display how the Tendai monks vindicated their rightful lineage from China. By twisting the transmission line, Monk Daosui, an obscure figure to Chinese Buddhists, was elevated to a prominent representative of the Chinese Tiantai school. These official documents from the Tendai circle illustrate a captivating story of Buddhist use of official documents in a Sino-Japan context during the ninth century.


Introduction
T his article first introduces the main sources cited, and then provides a political context for these exchanges and a preliminary picture of Saichō's 最澄 (767-822) contact with the Chinese Tiantai 天台 Master Daosui 道邃 (fl. 796-805), who preached on the Bodhisattva precepts in southern China. From a social perspective, Buddhist rituals such as ordination and precepts conferral provided a framework for the interaction between the laity, officialdom, and monastics. The narratives composed by Chinese and Japanese monks illustrate attempts at forging institutional legitimacy. During this process, I analyse both the cooperation between Buddhist monks from different countries and the ethnic tensions which also arose. The sources are in essence a matter of the narratives about the Chinese Monk Daosui. These display how the Tendai monks vindicated their rightful lineage from China. These official documents from the Tendai circle illustrate a captivating story of Buddhist use of official documents in a Sino-Japan context during the ninth century.

Kenkairon
The Kenkairon 顕戒論 [On Promoting the Mahāyāna Precepts] is a brief summary of the ideas and theoretical grounds of the Tendai sect. 1 It explains Saichō's idea of replacing the Hinayāna precepts with the Mahāyāna precepts. After Saichō returned from China, he began making great efforts to establish a new Mahāyāna precept platform. Nevertheless, the Nara monks characterized Saichō's Chinese transmission as dubious. In order to counter their criticism of a supposedly inauthentic transmission from China, Saichō submitted the Kenkairon to the court in 820 CE. 2 The criticisms can be found in

Kenkairon Engi
It has been traditionally assumed that Saichō or his later disciples compiled the Kenkairon engi 顕戒論縁起 [Materials concerning the Kenkairon] in 821 to defend the Kenkairon against contemporaneous criticisms of Saichō's proposal of Tendai ordination rules. This is just a year later than the submission of the Kenkairon. However, this compilation of works was probably not edited by Saichō himself, just like other documents forged after his death in order to legitimize his esoteric transmission. 6 To be specific, Kenkairon engi was written to validate his Chinese masters including Shunxiao 順曉 (fl. 805) and Daosui. It seems that this work emerged later than other sources like Denjutsu isshinkaimon 傳述一心戒文 [Narrated Account of the Transmission of One-Minded Precepts] and Naishō buppō kechimyakufu. 7 By adducing the names of Chinese masters, these works were all compiled for the purpose of strengthening the line of transmission of Saichō's sect.
An earlier edition of this Biaozhi ji (full name Daizong chao zeng sikong dabianzheng Guangzhi sanzang heshang biaozhi ji 代 宗朝贈司空大弁正広智三蔵和上表制集, T no. 2120), a collection of official documents and edicts related to the prominent Esoteric Master Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空,, was first compiled by Amoghavajra's disciple Yuanzhao 圓照 (719-800). The documents in this collection contain valuable information on Amoghavajra's activities in the Tang dynasty and the remarkable imperial patronage he received from the Tang court.
Yuanzhao's edition was possibly brought back to Japan by Kūkai 空海 (774-835), and then copied for several times in Japan. 9 The Seiren'in 青蓮院 edition is transcribed by Shunchō 俊超 (fl. 1087) as requested by Ryōyū 良祐 (?-1127), who was the first abbot of Seiren'in. 10 The 'Kanjō Ajari senji kanchō' is attached to the fourth fascicle of the Biaozhi ji, and cannot be found in the abovementioned Taishō canon (T no. 2120). Therefore, even though the Biaozhi ji was initially a collection of official documents related to Amoghavajra, this 'Kanjō Ajari senji kanchō' is an entirely Tendai selection of official letters concerning Saichō, Kōjō, and Ennin.

Catalogues
The Buddhist catalogues consist of an important part of Japanese monks' reports for the Japanese emperors. Saichō submitted two catalogues regarding the materials, including scriptures and Buddhist objects, that he acquired from Taizhou 台州 and Yuezhou 越州. 11 9 For a detailed study on the Seiren'in hyōseishū in relation to the other manuscripts, see Ito, 'Shoren-in zō hyōseishū', 39-65. See also Kyūsojin, Heian jidai kana. 10 According to the epilogue in the manuscript, the fourth fascicle of Seiren' in edition was done in 1087 and was based on the 'Tenchō-fourth-year edition' (天長, 827). 11 Although the authenticity of the Yuezhou catalogue 越州錄 (Jp. Esshū roku) was doubted by Ushiba Shingen, Jinhua Chen has argued against him and affirmed Saichō's authorship of the Yuezhou catalogue. See Ushiba. 'Jodōin ban Dengyō',[93][94][95][96][97][98]Chen,Legend and Legitimation,36. Although the catalogues were finally edited upon his return to Japan, he carefully requested official certificates before his departure from Taizhou and Mingzhou 明州. These attached documents were signed respectively by the governors of Taizhou and Mingzhou, Lu Chun 陸 淳 (?-806) and Zheng Shenze 鄭審則 (fl. 805).

Saichō's Landing in Southern China
The Tang dynasty saw intense interplay between religion and politics, giving rise to an innovative discourse in religious writing. Emperor Dezong 德宗 (742-805, r.779-805) in particular encouraged a remarkable degree of local participation in Buddhist activities amongst Buddhists, Daoists, and the literati in the Taizhou area. In this regard, reports concerning the Japanese Tendai founder Saichō's visit to South China illuminate the dynamics of the interaction between Japanese monks and Chinese officials.
The Japanese ambassadors that Saichō came with received much attention from the Tang court in 804. While the previous kentōshi 遣唐使 returned to Japan in 784, it was not until the twentieth year of the Enryaku era (801) when the new capital of Heian was more settled and Japanese Emperor Kanmu 桓武 (r.781-806) finally turned his attention to a diplomatic mission seeking to enhance Sino-Japanese relations. 12 Fujiwara no Kadonomaro 藤原葛野麻呂 (765-818) was appointed as the Chief Ambassador, and Ishikawa no Michimasu 石川道益 (763-805) the Vice-Ambassador. In 804, four ships set out from Kyushu and two arrived safely in southern China. The first ship, carrying the Chief Ambassador and Kūkai 空 海 (774-835), arrived in Fuzhou a month after the departure. The second ship, carrying the Vice-Ambassador and Saichō, took two months to arrive at the nearer port Mingzhou due to storms. The third and fourth ships were unluckily blown back to Japan. At last, when the Vice-Ambassador and Saichō arrived in Mingzhou, where previous Japanese envoys visited, the local authorities did not give them any trouble. Saichō soon got ready to leave for Mount Tiantai in Taizhou, where he met Monk Daosui.
From the excellent foundation of the Cambridge History of China vol. 3: Sui-Tang Dynasties, it is fully understood that the political diversity began after the An Lushan 安祿山 rebellion in 755. It emphasizes the importance of views from a regional level, as central government no longer represented a unifying authority. While the Tang court was a weak one after Xuanzong's 玄宗 (r. 712-756; Li Longji 李隆基 [685-762]) rule, the cultural influence of Tang was still strong among East Asian countries. International contact between China and Japan was not interrupted until 806, when the Japanese court decided to terminate their missions to China.
Saichō's visit to China was significant because it details an instance of international contact at regional levels. Among several dominant ingredients of Buddhism as a religion, Buddhist precepts in particular, crossed the borders of politics and religions and became extremely important during the introduction and transmission of Buddhism. This aspect became particularly conspicuous after Saichō's return to Japan, and will be discussed in a later part of this article. Reinterpretations of the concept of ordination, especially concerning the conferral of precepts, were particularly needed whenever institutional legitimacy was brought into question due to the recognition of cultural difference. Such an institutional consideration is significant during cross-cultural transmission of Buddhism.

Buddhist Networks in Taizhou
Taizhou is present-day Linhai 臨海 Prefecture of Zhejiang Province. During the Tang dynasty, it was sometimes called Linhai Commandery, and belonged to either of the Eastern or Western Circuits 東西道 of Zhejiang 浙江. As the home Mount Tiantai, the headquarters of Chinese Tiantai, it was an important place of interest for Buddhist believers, Chinese monks who came to study, and foreign monks who came for pilgrimage and study. Saichō  expressed his wish to use the money for transcribing the Tiantai zhiguan 天台止觀, which was of course approved by Lu. Lu then appointed Daosui to assemble a group of people who accomplished the task a month later. Daosui also provided guidance until the manuscript transcribing finished successfully. Saichō was grateful and respectful in admiring the final product. This account is followed by nine poems by Chinese officers and Buddhist followers to bid farewell to Saichō. In the list of names of the participants, one finds the mention of 'Tiantai śramaṇa Xingman' (天台沙門行滿), along with other Tiantai monks and local gentry. 16 The appearance of the Monk Xingman 行滿 (d. 824) at this event is noteworthy for he was obscure in China, but became an important source of legitimacy in Japanese Tendai School later. 17 Furthermore, the account for the farewell banquet provides information about activities of this kind that low-rank officers, lay Buddhists, and monastics might join together for a semi-formal event. Judging from the bountiful examples of the poetry that Tang literati wrote to bid monks farewell, it was a common practice of the time.
In Saichō's case, the Lu Chun provided essential support for acquiring Buddhist scriptures and finding supervising masters. From these records, it is clear that Lu Chun acknowledged the courage of Saichō and arranged for him to study Tiantai Buddhism under Daosui. Regarding the question as to why Daosui was entrusted by Lu Chun to look after the Japanese monk visitors, we may now turn to Daosui's biography.

Biography of Daosui
Daosui's biography is a fascinating example of how Tendai monks validated their Dharma transmission from China. Thanks to Saichō and his disciples, several texts preserved in Hieizan provide many clues; there is otherwise rather little information about the life of Daosui. 18 Several Tendai and Tiantai texts provide longer or shorter biographical notes, and below is a list of them: According to this passage, Daosui was a high-ranking official before becoming a monk. It is not surprising that, after ordination, he continued to maintain exceedingly good connections with officers and prefects in places such as Shezhou and Yuezhou. After studying Buddhist precepts in northern China, he travelled to Changzhou to receive instructions from Zhanran 湛然 (711-782) at the Miaole Monastery 妙樂寺. Later, Daosui was said to give lectures on the Lotus Sūtra, the Tiantai zhiguan and Buddhist precepts at the requests of local officials in Yangzhou. He was particularly good at explaining the Perfect and Sudden Teaching of Tiantai Buddhism.  (798) and visited Daosui at the Guoqing Monastery on Mount Tiantai. As a lay Buddhist, he stated that he took refuge in Buddhism for more than twenty years. Being greatly inspired by Daosui's spiritual tranquility, one autumn in the ninth month of that year (ca. 804), he inscribed the passage on a piece of wood. As stated in the end of the passage.
During the early part of the Ninth Month that Autumn, Lu Shenze from the most prestigious clans carved wood so as to make this description [of Daosui's life]. 秋九月上旬, 百氏郡盧審則, 刻木而述之. 22 This text brings up some questions that current research cannot answer yet. 23 Why did Lu Zhenze carve it on a piece of wood and how did Saichō acquire it? Was it erected outside Daosui's monastery during Saichō's visit? Is it possible that this Lu Shenze was not his real name, given the possibilities of copying errors, or might it 20 Kenkairon engi, DZ 2: 659-670：陸參拜爲和上, 後至貞元十二年, 入天台 居山九年. 21 Kenkairon engi, DZ 2: 661-662. 22 Ibid. 23 For more information on the specific historical circumstances regarding Lu Shenze and Daosui, see Barrett, From Religious Ideology, chapter 2. Barrett speculates that this statement may be an indication of the creation of a woodblock that could be used for producing paper copies of the text. He also suggests that this was a project carried out semi-officially.
be Zheng Shenze instead? Despite of all the unsolved questions regarding the origin and authorship of this text, it still provides a clue that Daosui did attract lay Buddhists, and particularly the officers in southern China.
Another text in the Kenkairon genki, a Dharma transmission certificate from Daosui, 'Daosui heshang fufawen' 道邃和上付法 文, is attached, but its authenticity is challenged by scholars. 24 The manuscript titled 'Daosui heshang chuandao wen' 道邃和上傳道文 is preserved in the Hieizan Museum and officially designated as the Important Cultural Property of Japan ( Figure 1). Although it curiously states that Zhiyi predicted himself to be reborn in the 'Eastern Country' (i.e., Japan), there is not much new information on Daosui's life in this manuscript.
While most later texts quote Qianshu's account whenever referring to Daosui, there is later and rather different version of Daosui's biography in Zhipan's Fozu tongji 25 It begins by stating that Daosui's original background is obscure, but affirms that he became Zhanran's disciple during the Dali 大曆 era and that Zhanran expressed warm approval of Daosui. It then mentions Saichō's visit and his request for proof from Lu Chun, just the same account as written in the 24 Jinhua Chen has convincingly argued that this must be a later fabrication. See Chen, Legend and Legitimation, 73, note 44. 25 Fozu tongji, T no. 2035, 49: 190a04-b3

Qianshu's Ethnicity
Daosui's career as a Dharma preacher was characterized by official support and interaction with Japanese monks. Daosui's guidance was the greatest resource of Saichō's time in Taizhou. In the certificate attached in the Taishū roku mentioned above, Daosui is given the title of the 'Manager, the Great Tang Tiantai Perfect School Abbot, the Western Capital Monk Daosui' (勾當大唐天台山圓宗座主西京和 28 T no. 2035, 49: 190a22. 29 The corresponding part in the Zhiyao: T no. 1928, 46: 710c12-c19. 30 T no. 2035, 49: 190a21. 31 T no. 2035, 49: 190a05. 尚道邃), which made him a representative of the government. Moreover, as Qianshu's account says: In the twentieth year of the Zhenyuan era (804) According to this passage, Daosui had been patronised by Lu Chun since 804 but the lecture was later suspended, probably in 805. It is clear that the suspension of Daosui's lectures was due to the activities he engaged in with Japanese monks. Both lecturing to and managing Japanese visitors were duties given to him by Lu Chun. However, Qianshu explained in a cautious manner that it seems he was aware of a potential problem. In other words, this evidence shows the close attention given by the government to the intimate relationship between Chinese and Japanese monks.
As mentioned above, Qianshu's ethnicity was in question. If Qianshu was a Japanese monk, as Zhili and Zhipan understood, then the compiler of Kenkairon engi on Mount Hiei mistook Qianshu's identity, either deliberately or simply out of ignorance, regarding Qianshu as a Tang monk. If Zhipan was wrong and Qianshu was indeed a Tang monk, the question then falls on the meaning of benguo jiaomen 本國教門. It may refer to Daoism which was regarded by Qianshu as the 'national religion' of Tang. Then this passage indicates a connection between Daosui and Daoist followers, which is not entirely impossible.
An examination of the usage of the terms 'benguo' 本國 and 'ribenguo' 日本國 is constructive for a case like the current one. Its use is much clearer for the Tang dynasty, which was most of the time referred to as 'Da Tang 大唐', ie. the 'Great Tang', whereas it is a more ambiguous reference to Japan. 33 Regarding this particular passage, another possibility is that when the original text was transcribed in Japan, a scribing error occurred and the character 'ri' 日 was carelessly omitted from the original, 'ribenguo' 日本國. It might also have happened because the transcriber regarded the Kenkairon engi as produced for the Japanese emperor and other domestic readers, and hence changed the wording consciously.
When Saichō first arrived at Taizhou in 804, the region was in a constant state of warfare between the Chinese and non-Han groups. Given that Buddhist monasteries played an important role of Confucianisation in the process of Chinese cultural colonisation in southern China, Daosui's monastery was also able to be a cultural outpost of the Buddhist exchange between Chinese and Japanese monks. 34 The political implications of Daosui's activities indicate a multicultural setting in Taizhou.
On the other hand, foreign monks in China must have received special attention from an officialdom which was itself confronted with ethnic tensions in the south-eastern region. It often happened that the regional government was in favour of imparting Chinese culture to foreigners, and Chinese Buddhism was presented as part of Chinese culture so as to build amiable relations rather than hostility. The support of Tang officials towards Daosui was in this sense a deliberate act of policy motivated by Chinese dynastic pride. Daosui and the officials were loyal servants to the court when receiving foreign monks. Even though we cannot precisely know their own intentions, the Buddhist teaching and learning of Buddhist monks were in this case secondary to the political considerations. The ideological acts of Chinese central and local government officials may be better regarded as part of the enactment of policy towards foreign Buddhist monks. Thus during Saichō's stay in Taizhou he witnessed the subtle religio-political interactions among ethnic groups.

Daosui's Title
First of all, Zhipan's mention of Daosui's title is worth noting. Japanese Tendai scriptures tend to refer to Daosui as the seventh patriarch, which, according to Jinhua Chen, should be the seventh generation after Zhiyi, and was a misreading by Tendai monks. 35 In contrast, Zhipan has put Daosui as the tenth patriarch. 36 Up to this point, we have come to several different titles of Daosui, including the seventh, ninth, and tenth patriarch, while in the earliest source, it was simply 'a Tiantai monk.' Saichō first mentions Daosui in the Kenkairon and the Taishū roku. In these two texts, Saichō refers to Daosui respectively as 'Master Daosui of the Western Capital, Abbot of the Perfect Teachings on Mount Tiantai in the Great Tang' (Daitō Tendaisan enshū zazu seikyō Oshō Dōzui 大唐天臺山圓宗座主西京和尚道邃) 37 and 'Tiantai Master Daosui' (Tendai Dōzui Oshō 天臺道邃和尚). 38 Moreover, in the preface to Taishū roku, Saichō emphasised the achievement of his master Daosui and Chinese prefects' generous support for his Buddhist activities. This emphasis is totally understandable since Saichō's bibliographies were made to convince the emperor of the value of his study in China. In the Naishō buppō kechimyakufu, he was simply referred to as the 'Master Daosui who transmitted Bodhisattva precepts' (chuan pusajie Daosui heshang 傳菩薩戒道邃 和上). 39 35 Chen,Legend and Legitimation,[61][62][63]  This title of 'so-and-so Tiantai monk', however, is still quite a modest one for the Chinese master. It is possible that it was used in such way because Saichō himself was not so confident of Daosui's fame in Tiantai circles in China. By contrast, in later times, Daosui's status levelled up to the 'seventh generation disciple after Zhiyi' (Chisha daishi daishichi deshi 智者大師第七弟子) 40 as mentioned in the court certificate collected in Kōjō's Denjutsu isshinkaimon. 41 The same title 'seventh generation disciple after Zhiyi' appears in the Kenkairon engi, in the 'Saichō denhō kōgen' 最澄傳法公驗 [Certificate for Saichō's Dharma Transmission]. This is a certificate granted by the Japanese Jibushō 治部省 (i.e. a government office controlling clans, genealogies, ceremonies, and foreign envoys). The same certificate approved on the sixteenth day of the ninth month in 805 is collected in the Kanjō Ajari senji kanchō 42 (Figure 2). In the certificate, the text goes, sees Ennin's official correspondence with the court. The last section of the include several letters between Ennin and the court. In the court's reply to Ennin dated the fifteenth day of the sixth monk in 848, the officer quotes Ennin's report. Daosui was referred to the sixth-generation disciple of Zhiyi (Chisha Daishi dairoku deshi 智者 大師第六弟子), because Zhiyuan, Ennin's Chinese master at Mount Wutai, had to become the seventh 44 ( Figure 3). On the Chinese end, Qianshu's account in the Kenkairon engi was collected only in the appendix of the Chinese Tiantai biographies, Tiantai jiuzuzhan, compiled by Shiheng. Shiheng's arrangement implies that Daosui was not recognized as the main patriarchal line in the Tiantai tradition but since he saw Qianshu's account, he still included it in the appendix.
Zhipan's Fozu tongji included Daosui as the tenth patriarch 'Shizu xingdao zunzhe Daosui' 十祖興道尊者道邃 [the Tenth Patriarch, Invigorating the Way, Venerable Daosui]. 45 Zhipan apparently did not quote any information from Qianshu but the notes (which may have been added by later editors) do mention Qianshu. Following these notes, Qianshu's ethnicity was in question. If Qianshu was a Japanese monk, as Zhipan and another compiler understood, then the compiler of Kenkairon engi on Mount Hiei mistook Qianshu's identity, either deliberately or simply out of ignorance, taking Qianshu to be a Tang monk. If Zhipan and the other compiler was wrong and Qianshu was indeed a Tang monk. Yet it is not clear whether Zhipan had read Qianshu's account or whether he did not trust Qianshu's account.
Up to this point, to conclude briefly, we have seen the following titles of Daosui: The earliest title of 'so-and-so Tiantai monk' is a modest one for the Chinese master. It is possible that it was used in such way because Saichō himself was not so confident of Daosui's fame among Tiantai circles in China. Even the 'Proof of Dharma Transmission' (Daosui heshang chuandao wen) does not mention a sixth-or seventh-generation disciple specifically. 46 In later times, however, Daosui's status levelled up to the 'seventh generation disciple after Zhiyi'. The counting of generations in the patriarchal line is disparate. We have seen Daosui as the six and the seventh generation after Zhiyi in the Tendai sources. He is also referred as 'the seventh patriarch Daosui' in the Kenkairon engi, 47 which was much more respectful than simply 'Tiantai Monk'.

Domestic Competition in Japan
During the turn from the late Nara (710-794) to the early Heian period (794-1185), 48 the new Tendai School founded by Saichō separated them from the six Nara sects whose scholarly traditions had placed less emphasis on actual practices of Buddhism. 49 The competition between the Sanron and the Hossō was fierce during the early Heian, and Emperor Kammu attempted to balance the two sects by encouraging Buddhist monks to learn Sanron teachings. Saichō's criticism of the six Nara sects can be seen as a response to this competition, as stated in his proposal Shōnittō shōyakuhyō 請 入唐請益表 50 to study in Tang China. In the proposal, Saichō first denigrated the śāstra-centred Sanron and Hossō, and then he praised the value of the Lotus Sūtra as the foundation of the Tendai School. By stating the higher status of sūtras over śāstras, the Tendai School was elevated over both Sanron and Hossō. Returning from China, the legitimacy of Saichō's Chinese masters was challenged by Saichō's contemporaries. As an act of defiance, Saichō resubmitted the Kenkairon with more information about those Chinese masters and his visit. In the edition that Saichō presented the Kenkairon with notes and annotations, Saichō wrote. 48 Buddhist consciousness was reinforced by State Buddhism in Japan. For example, the yearly ordinand (nenbundosha 年分度者) system, initiated in accordance with Saichō's petition in the twenty-fifth year of the Enryaku era (806), was meant to ensure the integrity of the position of Tendai monks within the court. However, this is also proof of the growing sectarian consciousness on Saichō's part. Cf. Bowring,The Religious Traditions,62;98;130. 49 Groner, Saichō, 304. 50 DZ 4: 719. According to Stone's analysis of this text in relation to the 'State Buddhism', Saichō was probably the first to claim these six sects as representing an old system all together. Stone,'Realizing This World',[171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184] But the monk Saichō didn't get a chance to go to the Tang capital, staying as he did in marginal prefectures before returning [to Japan]. 而僧最澄, 未見唐都. 只在邊州, 即便還來. 51 Right after this passage, beginning with the phrase 'I argue' (tanetsu 彈曰) Saichō added in great details how warmly he was received by Chinese officials. This narrative is echoed in Saichō's Kenkairon regarding Daosui's status in China, at the very beginning of the whole text.

Integration of Precepts
Overall, there are two major changes in Saichō's conceptualisation of Buddhist precepts after his encounter with Chinese masters. First, in the proposal to study in China, he only indicated an interest in the Chinese Tiantai Lotus School. After he came back, however, he realised that expanding his doctrinal scope would bring more advantages to his group. Hence, he promoted the study of various 'zong' 宗 within one school. 52 Saichō's integrative view was influenced by Daosui. In the precept system which he promoted, the Lotus Sūtra's One-vehicle approach is mobilised as a functional tool to compete with the Esoteric monks.
Among the Tiantai teachings which Daosui taught Saichō, the Bodhisattva precepts eventually played the most important role. While the institution which Saichō established in 805 was about to vanish, he had to unite once again all the important teachings of the Tendai School: the bodhisattva path, meditation, and the perfect precepts (enkai 圓戒) which are mainly based on the three clusters of 51 DZ 1: 34-35; T no. 2376, 74: 590c7-8. Translation by Chen,Legend and Legitimation,51. 52 The word 'zong' (Jp. shū) is best understood as 'strands of thought' in medieval China. It should be noted that the Chinese use of the term 'zong' does not necessarily imply any institutional manifestation of a strand of thought. There is a difference in the use of the same word in Japan, however, because Nara state support does imply precisely that. pure precepts (Sanju jōkai 三聚淨戒) in the Brahmā's Net Sūtra. The doctrines of perfect and pure precepts came mainly from Daosui's teachings in Taizhou, which are in accordance with Zhiyi's teachings. Saichō's precepts adopt the One-vehicle path, the best and the highest path, in relation to the state. In the Kenkairon, he writes: If the proposals are approved, then the One-vehicle precepts (一乘佛 戒) of the Buddha will not cease (being transmitted) over the years, and the students of the Perfect (Tendai) School will flourish. One hundred bodhisattva monks will be installed on the mountain. Eight worthies who hold the precepts will pray for rain and easily obtain good results. 53 The state's patronage was so important that he had to mount a campaign of persuasion regarding the potential benefit to the state. According to this spread of the Perfect precepts would help to protect the state (denkai gokoku 伝戒護国).
The precepts study is linked with ideological agenda of the Tendai School. The Japanese monks' concern over being at the Buddhist periphery, which conflicted with dynastic pride, is a consistent theme in the Tendai tradition. 54 Saichō writes that, 'The provisional teachings have already drawn to a close and set in the west. The sun of the true teaching will now rise over the eastern land. ' 55 In other words, Buddhism will move to the east when the sun rises.

Conclusion
The current article has consulted sources from Saichō concerning his study in southern China in the early ninth century. Despite the 53 Kenkairon, DZ 1: 131. Translation by Groner,Saichō,176. 54 As the recurring phrase 'a peripheral land in the latter age' (masse hendo 末 世辺土) expresses. Stone,'Realizing This World',. Also, a survey of this type of claims is found in Blum, 'The Sangoku-Mappō Construct', 31-51. 55 Shugo kokkai shō, DZ 2: 234. Cf. Stone,'Realizing This World',220. fact that the narratives composed by Chinese and Japanese monks illustrate attempts at forging institutional legitimacy, they were not written from a different perspective and are complementary to the standard history. The Zhenyuan era saw a remarkable degree of local participation in Buddhist activities amongst Buddhists and court officials. For example, Chinese Tiantai Master Daosui, who preached on Bodhisattva precepts in southern China, was active and reached out in connecting officials, such as Lu Chun, Zheng Shenze, and Lu Shenze. From a social perspective, his teaching on Buddhist precept conferral provided a framework for the interaction between the laity, officialdom, and monastics.
This article then looks into several Tendai manuscripts preserved from Japan, including official letters and certificates concerning Saichō's trip to China. Then these sources concentrate on the narratives about the Chinese Monk Daosui. Daosui's biography and official titles were important to the legitimacy of Saichō and Ennin's Dharma transmission. In these official correspondences, the title of Daosui changed from one occasion to another, so as to suit the agenda of the writers. It displays the Tendai monks' efforts at vindication of their rightful lineage from China. By twisting the transmission line, Monk Daosui, an obscure figure to Chinese Buddhists, was elevated to a prominent representative of Master Zhiyi's disciple. These official documents from the Tendai circle illustrates a captivating story of the Buddhist use of official documents in a Sino-Japan context during the ninth century. Taken these together, Daosui's biography is a fascinating example of how Tendai monks validate their Dharma transmission from China.