How Can Buddhist Thought Be Brought Back to Life?

Towards Constructing a Philosophy of Coexistence
How Can Buddhist Thought Be Brought Back to Life?:
Buddhist Scriptures, Terms, and Translation
in Present-day Japan
Saito Akira
Translation is of enormous importance in the field of humanities. This is not limited to the reception of religious
thought, philosophical texts, and literary works of foreign provenance, and it can be readily understood if one
looks at the translation of many so-called classics into modern languages. Especially in the case of religious
thought and philosophical texts, a proper understanding of key terms is extremely important. The first prerequisite when attempting to translate such works is a proper understanding of key terms in the context in which
they appear in individual works while also taking into account the historical background in terms of culture
and intellectual thought. Next, the translator is faced with the need to select equivalents in the language into
which he is translating that are both reliable and as finely nuanced as possible. When a suitable equivalent cannot be found in the existing lexicon of the target language, he may resort to loanwords（e.g., bodhisattva, arhat,
samādhi, Buddha, and nirvāṇa）
, or to coining new words（such as Chinese yuanqi 縁起 for Sanskrit pratītya
samutpāda, foxing 仏性 for buddhadhātu, jingjin 精進 for vīrya, and zhongsheng 衆生 for sattva）.
Ⅰ. As is well-known, during the course of the history of Buddhism, spanning more than 2,400 years, Buddhist
texts were translated directly from Indic languages into other languages（if one excludes translations into
modern languages）only in China, from the second century A.D., and in Tibet, where they were translated as
a state-sponsored undertaking from the second half of the eighth century. In later times Chinese translations
were further translated, in a broad sense of the term, into Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc., while Mongolian
translations were produced on the basis of Tibetan translations. In addition, the Pāli scriptures were transcribed
and translated into Sinhalese and the languages of Southeast Asia, and since the nineteenth century translations
have been made from Sanskrit, Pāli, and other Indic languages into modern languages.
In the following, I shall begin by briefly surveying, in line with the topic of this paper and with reference to
some actual examples, the characteristics of Chinese and Tibetan translations of Buddhist texts.
Ⅰ-1. Several characteristics pertaining to translation can be noted in connection with Chinese translations. The
first is that during the period of early translations, prior to Kumārajīva（350–409）
, there were, apart from one or
two exceptions, no translators fluent in both Indic languages and Chinese. Consequently translations produced
up until about the fourth century under the Northern and Southern Dynasties generally have not insignificant
problems in terms of written Chinese per se as well as being of questionable reliability.
Secondly, prior to the introduction of Buddhism there had existed in China many philosophical traditions centred on Confucianism and Lao-Zhuang 老荘 thought（daojia 道家）, and it was necessary to ensure philosophical
and cultural consonance with these traditions, especially with the concepts of Lao-Zhuang thought. This can
be seen in the use of the term dao 道（Way）to translate bodhi（awakening）, the use of the term wuwei 無為
国際哲学研究 3 号 2014 249
（non-action）to express the unconditioned character of nirvāṇa, and the use of the term wu 無（nothingness）
,a
key term in Lao-Zhuang thought, to translate śūnya（empty）. In the case of this final example, criticism of this
so-called“matching the meaning”
（geyi 格義）system of understanding Buddhism later led to the adoption of
kong 空 as the standard translation of śūnya. It was for this reason that Dao’an 道安（312–385）, a leading critic
of“matching meanings,”summarized the rules to be followed when translating Buddhist texts into Chinese in
the form of five shortcomings that cannot be avoided in translation（such as changes in word order and simplification of repetitive expressions）and three situations in which the original must not be altered. In addition, Xuanzang 玄奘（600/602–664）cited five instances in which he deemed it appropriate to transliterate rather than
translate Buddhist terms; these will be touched on again below.
The third characteristic of Chinese translations, related to the first, is that because they were to a large degree dependent on the abilities of the translators, there is considerable variation in the quality of translations.
Ultimately outstanding translators such as Kumārajīva and Xuanzang provided models for terminology and
translation style.
Ⅰ-2. In contrast to these characteristics of Chinese translations, the following characteristics can be observed
in Tibetan translations. First, with regard to both its writing system and its reception of foreign cultures, Tibet
had close connections with India（and to a lesser extent with China）, and Buddhist culture was received in a
fairly direct form. From the late eighth century onwards the translation of Buddhist texts was carried out systematically and intensively as a state-sponsored undertaking, based on collaboration between Indian teachers
and Tibetan translators.
The second characteristic is the prevalence of literal translations. In Chinese translations it was general practice to use transliteration for important terms such as buddha, bodhisattva, and nirvāṇa, but in Tibet Buddhist
terms were primarily rendered in Tibetan, as is exemplified by sangs rgyas（“he who has awakened and opened
up”
）for buddha, and transliterations are rare. For Tibetans prior to their acceptance of Buddhism, all Buddhist
terms were new, and there were no similar philosophical concepts that might lead to misunderstanding. Consequently, there existed a cultural-historical background that made it comparatively easy to opt for literal translation. When doing so, reference was often made to the definitions provided by relevant Indian treatises and
commentaries.
The third characteristic, related to the first, is that while some variation in the quality of translations due to
differences in the understanding and powers of expression of the translators（or their Indian teachers）can be
seen in Tibetan translations too, the range of such variation is comparatively small. A background factor in this
could be said to have been the compilation of the Mahāvyutpatti and Madhyamavyutpatti（814）, which were produced with the aim of providing rules for translation and unifying terminology, functions that they fulfilled to a
certain degree.
Next, I wish to give an example that illustrates these differences between Chinese and Tibetan translations
regarding their translators’thinking about translation. In Chinese the word bhagavat, commonly used as a term
of address for the Buddha by his disciples, was either translated as, for example,“World-honoured One”
（shizun
世尊）or else transliterated as boqiefan 薄伽梵, etc. Xuanzang, in particular, cited this term as an example of the
second of the five kinds of terms not to be translated, i.e., terms with several meanings.
‌The Dharma-master Xuanzang of the Tang clarified five kinds［of terms］that are not translated. The first
is those that are not translated because they are secret, such as dhāraṇīs. The second is those that are not
translated because they contain many［meanings］
, such as bhagavat,［which is not translated］because it
contains six meanings. The third is those that are not translated because they do not exist here［in China］
,
250 Towards Constructing a Philosophy of Coexistence: Investigating the Values of Ancient Eastern People through Languages
such as the jambu tree. The fourth is those that are not translated because of conformity to old［traditional
transliterations］
, such as anou［duoluosanmiaosan］puti 阿耨［多羅三貌三］菩提［for anuttarasamyaksaṃ
bodhi］
. It is actually possible to translate this［as wushang zhengdeng jue 無上正等覚］, but because there
has existed a transliteration of the Sanskrit since［the time of Kāśyapa］Mātaṅga（said to have first transmitted Buddhism to China in the Later Han）
［it is transliterated］. The fifth is those that are not translated
in order to engender good, such as［the transliteration］bore 般若［for prajñā］, which is venerable and solemn, whereas［the translation］zhihui 智慧（wisdom）is superficial and shallow, and it is not translated in
order to make people engender respect.ⅰ
In this fashion Xuanzang cited concrete examples of five typical cases in which he deemed it appropriate
to transliterate rather than translate. In Tibetan, on the other hand, it is common practice to translate in all of
these cases except the first（dhāraṇīs）and the third（names of things peculiar to India, such as jambu）
. The following is the explanation of bhagavat in the sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa（Madhyamavyutpatti）, which gives the
reasons for the Tibetan translations adopted for more than four hundred important Buddhist terms. Bhagavat is
translated as bcom ldan ’das in Tibetan, and the reasons for this are explained as follows.
‌
“Bhagavān”is in the first place called bhagavān because of his defeat of the four demons（bhagnamāraca
tuṣṭayatvād）
. Because he has vanquished the four demons（i.e., five aggregates, mental afflictions, death, and
the heavenly Evil One）
, it refers to“one who has vanquished”
（bcom pa）. Again, according to one view,
bhaga is a designation for“six kinds of good［qualities］,”namely, appearance, fame, might, splendour, wisdom, and effort, and it refers to what is common to these six［good qualities］.That -vat appears is because,
since he has good qualities（bhago ’syāstīti）, he is bhagavān（“one who has good qualities”）and is said to
be“one who possesses”
（ldan pa）
.... Because he has in particular gone beyond the mundane god bhagavān,
［’das］was added, and he was called bcom ldan ’das（he who has vanquished［the four demons］, possesses
［six kinds of good qualities］
, and has gone beyond［the mundane god］）.... The mundane［god］bhagavān is
called［simply］legs ldan（
“he who possesses good”）.ⅱ
In Tibetan translations, the term bcom ldan ’das, at first sight difficult to comprehend and meaning literally
“he who has vanquished, possesses, and has gone beyond,”is generally used as the standard equivalent for
bhagavat. However, as can be inferred from the similar explanation found in the Arthaviniścayasūtranibandhana
by Vīryaśrīdatta（a scholar active at Nālandā in the second half of the eighth century）quoted in note 2, this
translation resulted from the fact that the Tibetans set much value on the Abhidharma traditions of the Sarvāstivādins. As in the case of the translation sangs rgyas（“he who has awakened and opened up”）for buddha, one
can see here a characteristic of Tibetan translations that resulted from their having set great store by traditional understanding of a word’s meaning, even if it was based on folk etymology, and then having attempted to
devise an equivalent that reflected this understanding as faithfully as possible.
Ⅱ. Modern Translations of Buddhist Texts and Buddhist Terminology
Having examined the characteristics of Chinese and Tibetan translations, I next wish to consider the pros and
cons of Chinese Buddhist terminology, which has constituted the foundations of Japanese Buddhism.
Ⅱ-1. An Obstacle to the Intellectual Understanding of Buddhism
In Japan, Buddhism has played an important role as the substratum of cultural traditions. It is impossible to
speak of Japan’s cultural traditions without mentioning Buddhism, be it various forms of Buddhist beliefs, annu国際哲学研究 3 号 2014 251
al events, funerary rites, temple architecture, landscape gardening, Buddhist sculpture and painting, performing
arts, or the Japanese syllabary.
But what about the intellectual understanding of Buddhism? Regardless of how much people may admire
Buddhist sculpture and how many people may reflect on the passing of another year when hearing temple
bells tolling in the distance on New Year’s Eve, make a first temple visit at the start of the year, and continue
to value, albeit to a lesser degree, funeral services for relatives, regrettably it has to be said that the Japanese
have very few opportunities to read Buddhist texts at first hand and deepen their understanding of Buddhist
thought.
There are several reasons for this. Since early times,（1）great importance has been considered to lie in the
recitation of Buddhist scriptures, and treatises and commentaries were regarded as works to be studied by
scholar-monks. Further,（2）the study of Buddhist texts（both scriptures and treatises）meant studying the
writings of sect founders and works related to sectarian doctrines, and if these were written in Chinese, they
would be studied in pseudo-classical Japanese renditions. In addition,（3）the point of contact between ordinary
people and Buddhist texts was deemed to lie in Buddhist services or in Buddhist tales, essays, and the like, and
traditionally ordinary people could be said to have had few opportunities to come in direct contact with Buddhist texts. Moreover,（4）since modern times the study of Sanskrit and Pāli has been pursued in earnest and
research on the original texts of Buddhism has advanced, but in many cases, for better or worse, the tradition
of valuing both the practice of rendering Chinese in pseudo-classical Japanese and the use of Sino-Japanese
equivalents of Buddhist terms has been preserved.
Ⅱ-2. Problems Surrounding the Interpretation of Buddhist Terminology: The Pros and Cons of Sino-Japanese
Equivalents
When it comes to deepening our intellectual understanding of Buddhism, what are the pros and cons of continuing to use Chinese translations of Buddhist terms?
An enormous number of technical terms appear in Buddhist scriptures and treatises. While based on Sanskrit
and Middle Indo-Aryan languages, including Pāli, many of these were translated into other languages, especially
Chinese, and became established as terms that have been widely accepted in the world of East Asian Buddhism
down to the present day（e.g., si shengdi / shi shōtai 四聖諦［caturāryasatya］, wuyun / go’un 五蘊 or wuyin /
go’on 五陰［pañcaskandha］
, wuwo / muga 無我［anātman］, and yuanqi / engi）. These technical terms include
some that, though based on concepts of Indian provenance, were established in the course of the development
of Chinese Buddhism（e.g., lishi wu’ai / riji muge 理事無礙［“non-obstruction between principle and phenomenon”
］
, shijie huju / jikkai gogu 十界互具［
“mutual possession of the ten realms”
］, and caomu chengfo / sōmoku
jōbutsu 草木成仏［
“attainment of Buddhahood by grasses and trees”
］）.
These could all be said to reflect the finely honed intellect and sensibilities of not just Gotama Buddha, but
also those who transmitted the sūtras and precepts（vinaya）, as well as scholars and authors of treatises. Nor
can one overlook the efforts of those who translated the sūtras and treatises into other languages and the scholars who, taking into account the philosophical background and sectarian traditions, coined appropriate terms for
giving expression to different ideas. Traditional terminology includes many superb translations that are succinct
and to the point, such as yüanqi / engi, wuwo / muga（or feiwo / higa 非我）, and zhongdao / chūdō 中道（mad
hyamā pratipad）
, and these have long become part of the Japanese language.
But among traditional Sino-Japanese terms, those consisting especially of only one character─e.g., fa / hō 法
（dharma）
, yun / un 蘊（skandha）
, chu / sho 処（āyatana）, jie / kai 界（dhātu）, se / shiki 色（rūpa）, shou / ju
受（vedanā）
, and xiang / sō 想（saṃjñā）─are not easy to understand properly when heard spoken or even if
one knows the written character. Translated terms need to be understood with reference to prime examples of
252 Towards Constructing a Philosophy of Coexistence: Investigating the Values of Ancient Eastern People through Languages
their usage and in their proper context, but there are many Chinese equivalents that may give rise to misunderstanding. In the following I wish to consider the term ji / jū 集（lit.“collect”）among the Four Noble Truths
（in Chinese, ku 苦, ji, mie 滅, and dao 道）
.
The Sanskrit equivalents of the Four Noble Truths are duḥkha, samudaya, nirodha, and mārga. Among these,
samudaya refers to the arising of suffering or to the cause（mental afflictions）underlying the arising of suffering, and so it is appropriate to translate it into English as“arising”or“cause.”The terms for the other three
truths mean“suffering,”
“suppression, control,”and“way, path,”respectively, and apart from the fact that the
Chinese equivalent of the third truth（mie“annihilation”）has more negative connotations than the Sanskrit
nirodha, there are no major problems with the traditional Chinese terms.
Next, it is important to seek out definitions or examples of a term’s usage to support a modern translation. I
now wish to touch briefly on this point. Corroboration for the English equivalents“arising”* and“cause”
** for
samudaya can be found in the following passages, the first from a Pāli scripture and the others from Sanskrit
treatises and commentaries.
*Thus there is the arising（samudaya）of this entire mass of suffering.
evam etassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti//（SN II, p. 17.26-, 29-30）
Thus there is the arising（samudaya）of this entire great mass of suffering.
evam asya kevalasya mahato duḥkhaskandhasya samudayo bhavatīti/（AKBh, pp. 135.5-6, 139.12, 140.21）
**It is a cause because suffering arises from this.
samudety asmād duḥkham iti samudayaḥ/（AKBh, p. 5.16）
‌
“It is a cause because suffering arises from this”means that the aggregates which are the cause are samu
daya and that the aggregates which are the result are duḥkha.
‌samudety asmād duḥkham iti samudaya iti. hetu-bhūtāḥ skandhāḥ samudayaḥ. phalabhūtāḥ skandhā
duḥkham iti varṇayanti.（AKVy, p. 23.4-6）
Why, then, did Kumārajīva, Paramārtha（who also translated samudaya as jisheng 集生 and hehesheng 和合生）
,
and Xuanzang all assign the translation ji to samudaya, which signifies the“arising”or“cause”of suffering?
One possible reason is that, when choosing a single-character translation for each of the Four Noble Truths,
they mechanically adopted the term ji, which was frequently employed to render the Sanskrit prefix sam-. It
is to be surmised, in other words, that ji in jiqi 集起 or jisheng 集生（sam［ji］+ udaya［qi or sheng］）had long
been in use and this tradition was maintained by Kumārajīva and others.
Ⅲ. The Project“Construction of Bauddhakośa: A Treasury of Buddhist Terms and Illustrative Sentences”
As was mentioned at the outset, it is above all a proper contextual understanding of important terms that
is indispensable for deepening our intellectual understanding of Buddhism. Up until now, attempts to devise
suitable modern equivalents of Buddhist terms have been made by individual researchers who were aware of
this issue. But today it could be said that there is a growing need to provide modern translations of important
Buddhist terms that may serve as a benchmark or as a starting point for further refinement, having first taken
into account these valuable earlier achievements and also having properly understood the traditional Chinese
equivalents.
Against this background, I wish to bring this paper to a close by touching on a related project in which I am
presently engaged, namely,“Bauddhakośa: A Treasury of Buddhist Terms and Illustrative Sentences”
（funded
with a grant-in-aid for scientific research）
. We are currently holding study meetings dealing with the five categories of one hundred elements of the Yogācāra school, but the following is an example taken from the five cate国際哲学研究 3 号 2014 253
gories of seventy-five elements of the Sarvāstivādins, which has already been made public as part of the results
of this project. It is the entry for manaskāra, one of the ten pervasive mental functions that has traditionally
been translated as zuoyi 作意（Xuanzang）
, etc. As well as presenting modern Japanese and English translations
in accordance with the definition given in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, there are also cited the original passage
that provides the basis for the modern translations, a Japanese translation of this passage, other relevant traditional Chinese and Tibetan translations, commentaries, translations in modern European languages, etc.（For
further details, reference should be made to the following Web site: http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~b_kosha/start_
index.html.）
manaskāra
〔漢訳：作意（玄奘）,思惟（真諦）, チベット語訳： yid la byed pa（= Mvy no.1926）
〕
【基準訳語】
傾注、心を向けること　〔E.〕attention
【定義的用例】
〔和　訳〕
傾注とは心を〔特定の対象に向けて〕はたらかせることである。
〔原　文〕
manaskāraś cetasa ābhogaḥ/（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu
ed. by Pradhan, 1967, 54,22, Chap.II v.24b）
〔玄奘訳〕
作意謂能令心警覺。（『阿毘達磨倶舍論』大正29巻19a21）　［普光釈を見る］
〔真諦訳〕
思惟謂心迴向。（『阿毘達磨倶舍釋論』大正29巻178b15）
〔チベット語訳〕
yid la byed pa ni sems kyi ’jug pa’o（Chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi bshad pa
【注釈文献】
北京版115巻72a8）
Abhidharmakośavyākhyā:（ed. by U. Wogihara, 1932-36, 127）
‌manaskāraś cetasa ābhoga iti. ālambane cetasa āvarjanam. avadhāraṇam ity-arthaḥ. manasaḥ kāro
manaskāraḥ. mano vā karoti āvarjayatīti manaskāraḥ.
【欧文訳例】
『阿毘達磨順正理論』:（玄奘訳, 大正29巻, 384b8-9）
引心心所。令於所緣有所警覺。説名作意。此即世間説為留意。
Pruden［1988: 190］:the act of attention;
La Vallée Poussin［1923: 154］:acte d’
attention［quotations omitted］
【関連文献】
その他のアビダルマ文献
瑜伽行派の文献
Concluding Remarks
As we have seen in the above, in order to gain an intellectual understanding of Buddhism, one must first understand the
meaning of technical terms in their individual contexts while constantly bearing in mind the historical background in
terms of intellectual thought, and having taken into consideration subtle differences in the meanings of different translations, their nuances, and examples of their actual usage, one must choose an equivalent that is as suitable as possible and
also easy to understand. It would seem that, as is suggested by the following statement, there was a similar awareness
of this basic principle in the early ninth century in Tibet too, where a great many Buddhist texts were translated as a
state-sponsored undertaking.
‌Ensure that the method for translating the true doctrine is one that does not conflict with the original meaning and
is easily understood in the Tibetan language too.
‌dam pa’i chos bsgyur ba’i lugs ni don dang yang mi ’gal la bod skad la yang gar bde bar gyis shig/（
“Preface,”sGra
sbyor bam po gnyis pa［Ishikawa 1990: 2］）
Notes
ⅰ　唐玄奘法師明五種不翻。一秘密故不翻。陀羅尼是。二多含故不翻。如薄伽梵含六義故。三此無故不翻。如閻浮樹。四順
254 Towards Constructing a Philosophy of Coexistence: Investigating the Values of Ancient Eastern People through Languages
古故不翻。如阿耨菩提。實可翻之。但摩騰已存梵音故。五生善故不翻。如般若尊重智慧軽浅。令人生敬、
是故不翻。
（Fayun
法雲［Southern Song］,ed., Fanyi mingyi ji 翻訳名義集; T. no. 2131, vol. 54, 1057c7-12）
ⅱ　bhagavat = bcom ldan ’das: gcig tu na/ bhagnamāracatuṣṭayatvād bhagavān* zhes bya ste/ bdud bzhi bcom pas na
bcom pa la bya/ yang rnam pa gcig tu na bhaga ni legs pa rnam pa drug gi ming ste/ gzugs dang/ grags pa dang/
dbang phyug dang/ dpal dang/ shes rab dang/ brtson ps ste/ ’di drug gi spyi la bya/ vān zhes ’byung ba ni bhago
’syāstīti bhagavān zhes ldan par bshad de/…/’jig rten pa’i lha bhagavān las khyad par du ’das shes bla thabs su bsnan
te/ bcom ldan ’das shes btags/…’jig rten pa’i bhagavān ni legs ldan zhes gdags/（sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa［Ishikawa
1990: 6–7］）
*‌Cf. Arthaviniścayasūtranibandhana, Samtani ed., pp. 76.4–77.3: bhagavān iti māracatuṣṭayaṃ devaputrakleśaskandhamṛt
aiśvaryasya samagrasya rūpasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ/
jñānasyātha prayatnasya ṣaṇṇāṃ bhaga iti śrutiḥ// iti/
yulakṣaṇaṃ bhagnavān iti kṛtvā nairuktena nyāyena bhagavān/ aiśvaryādiguṇayogād vā, yathoktam –
Bibliography
Ishikawa, Mie［1990］: A Critical Edition of The sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa: An Old and Basic Commentary on the
Mahāvyutpatti, Studia Tibetica No. 18, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de［1923］: L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, traduction et annotations, Tome I, Paris: Librairie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Pruden, Leo M.［1988］: Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam by Louis de La Vallée Poussin, Volume I, California: Asian Humanities
Press.
Samtani, N. H.［1971］: The Arthaviniścaya-sūtra & Its Commentary (Nibandhana), Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
国際哲学研究 3 号 2014 255
執筆者一覧（五十音順）
一ノ瀬　正樹　東京大学大学院教授
井上　克人　関西大学文学部教授
大西　克智　東京藝術大学非常勤講師
呉　光輝　厦門大学外文学院副教授
小坂　国継　日本大学名誉教授
後藤　敏文　東北大学名誉教授
斎藤　明　東京大学大学院教授
白井　雅人　東洋大学国際哲学研究センター研究助手
関　陽子（山村　陽子）　東洋大学国際哲学研究センター研究支援者
竹中　久留美　東洋大学大学院文学研究科哲学専攻　博士後期課程
永井　晋　東洋大学文学研究科教授
堀内　俊郎　東洋大学国際哲学研究センター研究助手
三澤　祐嗣　東洋大学大学院文学研究科仏教学専攻　博士後期課程
村上　勝三　東洋大学文学研究科教授
渡部　清　上智大学名誉教授
アジャ・リンポチェ　チベット・モンゴル仏教文化センター所長
ギャワーヒー，アブドッラヒーム　世界宗教研究センター所長
ザキプール，バフマン　東洋大学大学院文学研究科哲学専攻　博士後期課程
ビービー，ヘレン　マンチェスター大学教授
マラルド，ジョン・Ｃ　北フロリダ大学名誉教授
メール，エドゥアール　ストラスブール大学教授
国際哲学研究　3 号
2014年 3 月31日発行
編　集　東洋大学国際哲学研究センター編集委員会
（菊地章太（編集委員長）
、伊吹敦、大野岳史）
発行者　東洋大学国際哲学研究センター
（代表　センター長　村上勝三）
〒112-8606　東京都文京区白山5-28-20　東洋大学　6 号館 4 階60466室
電話・FAX：03-3945-4209
E-mail：[email protected]
URL：http://www.toyo.ac.jp/rc/ircp/
印刷所　共立印刷株式会社
＊本書は、私立大学戦略的研究基盤形成支援事業の一環として刊行されました。

Download Report