yoshida kazuhiko 145 Yoshida Kazuhiko a [D Religion in the Classical Period A .AJLrchaeological surveys and research have made great strides in Japan recently, and the remains of what are believed to be the performance of religious rituals have been identified in archaeological sites from the Jomon, Yayoi, and Kofun periods. As might be expected, these findings indicate that there were beliefs in gods (kami) in the country of Wa ffi (ancient Japan) before the introduction of Buddhism. Without any textual evidence, however, we have no concrete idea as to how these kami were perceived, the contents of the beliefs in kami, or how the kami were worshipped. It is presumed that these were relatively simple beliefs, and probably there were no systematic doctrines, nor any religious structures that correspond to the shrines (jinja W4) of later times. One could classify these phenomena as one type of the common beliefs in gods that were to be found across the East Asian world of ancient times. These beliefs in gods/kami in ancient Japan were, in later times, taken to be the original 144 form of "Shinto." At present, however, these phenomena are considered to be different from what we now call "Shinto." The view that "Shinto" existed as an independent entity before the introduction of Buddhism in the sixth century is untenable today (see Taka-tori 1979; Kuroda 1995; Teeuwen and Scheid 2002; and the essay by Norman Havens in this Guide). the introduction of buddhism Buddhism was introduced to the land of Wa in about the middle of the sixth century ce. Buddhism, mostly of the Mahäyäna tradition, was transmitted to China in about the first century ce. At first Buddhism did not fit well into Chinese society, but from around the fourth century many of the Buddhist scriptures were translated into Chinese, and gradually a Chinese form of Buddhism developed. The countries surrounding China were strongly influenced by Chinese culture, including Chinese writing, Confucian teachings, Buddhism, and legal codes. Buddhism was transmitted to the kingdoms on the Korean peninsula at around the fourth or fifth century, and then was transmitted in turn from the Korean kingdom of Paekche to Japan around the middle of the sixth century, it is important to consider the official records as well as the results of archaeological research when examining the transmission of Buddhism to Japan. The remains of the earliest temples are distributed throughout the Asuka and wider Yamato area in central Japan. The official records from this period, such as the Nihon shoki B compiled in 720, state that Buddhism was introduced in 552. The passage that reports the transmission of Buddhism, however, refers to a version of the Suvarnaprabhäsa-sutra ?£M (T. no. 665) which was not translated into Chinese until 703, reflecting the fact that much of the information in this record was composed by its editors (see Fujii 1925; Inoue 1961). The year 552 was chosen on the basis of the belief that, according to some calculations, this was the beginning of mappô the degenerate age. In any case it is difficult to accept this dating as a historical fact. On the other hand, a number of records point to the year 538 as the date of transmission. One of these texts, the Gangôjigaran engi narabini ruki shizaichô Ťi^^íMM^MWáííň^M^ (part of the Gangôji engi manuscripts kept at Daigoji) claims to have been compiled in Tenpyô 19 (747) but is probably a much later forgery of the later Heian period, and thus is not a reliable source for the date of transmission (see Kita 1980). The Jôgú Shótoku Hôôteisetsu IféMWtk^EšntM. (extant at Chionin) also posits the year 538, but this text probably was not compiled until the early Heian period. The oldest document using the date 538 is the Gangôji engi t£P##^ quoted by Saichô in his Kenkairtm HlJtScIŠft. This is a different text than the Gangôjigaran engi referred to above, and is not extant. All we know about it is the short part quoted in the Kenkairon, and it is presumed to be a history of Gangôji from the mid- to late eighth century. Thus it appears that the 538 dating is later even than the Nihon shoki, being proposed around the end of the eighth century; this dating also is most likely a hypothesis presented at a later period, and cannot be accepted as historical fact (see Yoshida 2001}. All that we can say for certain is that the story that Buddhism was transmitted from Paekche during the time of Kinmei was in circulation from around the end of the seventh and into the eighth Religion in the Classical Period yoshida kazuh1ko century, and we have no basis for pinning down a specific date. Though the exact date for the transmission of Buddhism is not clear, it may be admitted that it most likely occurred during the time of Kinmei (539-571). asuka buddhism The Buddhism of Wa from the period after the official transmission until the early mid-seventh century is now referred to as "Asuka Buddhism" ?S.ftttSL This was a time when Buddhism was sustained by the political powers of the Wa state, such as the powerful aristocratic families {ujizoku .ftJS)—especially the Soga family—and influential visitors and naturalized immigrants from abroad. The Asukadera, built by the Soga family, was the first full-scale temple in Japan (see Tsuboi 1985). The imperial family was more apprehensive about embracing Buddhism, but there were some members—such as Umayado no miko JffipilE, who established Horyuji—who were exceptions and were active in promoting it. A number of families of immigrant origin, such as the Hata # family, also built Buddhist temples. There are about fifty temple ruins from this period known to us today; these were located around Asuka in Yamato and mostly in the Kinai (Kansai) area. It is believed that most of these were family temples of the ujizoku. For the most part, Asuka Buddhism could be described as the Buddhism of the ujizoku. Another characteristic of this period is that many nuns were active during the early days of Buddhism in Wa, and many temples (amadera were built for nuns. who was "shotoku TAISHi"? Any discussion of Asuka Buddhism in the past focused on the figure of Shotoku Taishi Sffibfc^p, who was presented as an outstanding politician as well as a man of culture, who fully understood sophisticated Chinese thought and Buddhist philosophy, created the "Seventeen-article constitution" SS+t^, and composed commentaries on three major Buddhist sutras. Contemporary Japanese historians, however, have looked closely at the evidence for these claims, veiled in the mists of legend, and discredited them one after the other as a later product of the Shotoku Taishi cult. Kume Kunitake (1988) has claimed that the various stories recorded in the Shotoku Taishi denryaku MW-kJ-fc fS are not historical facts, and the basic records in the Nihon shoki—that he was born in a stable, could predict the future, and so forth—are nothing more than creative fiction. Tsuda Sokichi (1950) also claimed that many of the accounts in the Nihon shoki are not historically accurate, and argued convincingly that the so-called "Seventeen-article constitution" was composed at the time the Nihon shoki was compiled. Fujieda Akira (1975) compared the commentaries attributed to Shotoku Taishi with texts discovered at Tun-huang and concluded that these commentaries were composed in China, not by Shotoku Taishi in Japan. On the basis of these studies, Oyama Seiichi (1998; 1999; 2003) has argued that the figure we know of as "Shotoku Taishi" was created at the time of the compilation of the Nihon shoki. Oyama acknowledges the historical existence of Umayado no miko, but recognizes the historicity of only three facts associated with him: his family lineage, date of birth, and his involvement in the construction of the Ikaruga MM palace and establishment of the Ikaruga temple (later to become Horyuji). He does not recognize the historicity of any other events associated with Shotoku Taishi recorded in the Nihon shoki, and concludes that they were produced by the editors of this compilation. He also argues that the historical materials at Horyuji—such as the famous inscription on the halo of the Sakyamuni triad in the Kondo of Horyuji, and the inscription on the Tenjukoku shucho Ji #Hti81 embroidery ("this world is an illusion; only the Buddha is real")—were not composed in the time of Suiko ^i^T (592-628) but after the compilation of the Nihon shoki, probably by those involved in the Shotoku Taishi cult around the middle of the eighth century. Oyama argues that the image we know of as "Shotoku Taishi" was created in the Nihon shoki on the basis of the idealized image of a Chinese sage who combines the three "ways" of Confucius, Buddha, and the Tao. Thus we should consider "Shotoku Taishi" as a figure created at a later date, and it is a mistake to try to understand the Buddhism of this period in terms of his life and activities. hakuho buddhism The Buddhism in Japan from the later half of the seventh century to around the time of the transfer of the capital to Heijokyo/Nara (710) is called "Hakuho Buddhism" fiB/filfc Buddhism infiltrated rapidly throughout Japan during this period, which began about a century after its official transmission. In contrast to Asuka Buddhism, which was based on an axis of powerful families {ujizoku) in the Yamato region, Hakuho Buddhism developed among a greater variety of social classes and geographical regions. The Buddhism of the ujizoku continued to prosper, and at the same time became actively involved with Buddhism and its promotion, thus laying the foundation for "state Buddhism." In the outlying regions we find Buddhism promoted by powerful regional clans, as well as the beginnings of Buddhism among the common people, with many temples being built throughout the Japanese archipelago. "State Buddhism" began under the ruler Jomei; that is, he established the Kudara odera the first royal, or "national," temple in Wa—in 639. The ruins of this temple were excavated in 1997 and 1998, revealing a very large site with buildings that must have taken many years to construct. "National" temples were then built one after the other: Kawaradera ;i|JK# and Sufukuji by Tenji and the construction of Yakushiji M ©#, begun by Tenmu and completed under Jito. The nation's name was changed from Wa to Nippon at the end of the seventh century, and the ruler took on the title of tenno ("emperor"). Jito could thus be considered the first Japanese tenno, and she also was the first to complete a Chinese-style capital—Fujiwara-kyo in Asuka. Kudara odera was transferred to Fujiwara-kyo as a national temple and renamed Daikan daiji ±"g^c#; this was joined by Kawaradera JI JH# (Gufukuji ?JM^), Yakushiji, and the Asukadera fH*r# confiscated from the Soga family (which became Gangoji 7G]R#). As for the temples of the ujizoku, Soga no Kuranoyamada no Ishikawa no Maro established the Yamadadera LUE3#, and the Nakatomi (Fujiwara) family the Yamashina-dera (later KSfukuji PH1#). Excavations on the site of Yamadadera show that the cor- 14« Religion in the Classical Period yoshida razuhiko 149 ridors of the temple building had fallen to the side and remained preserved in the ground. Thus a building constructed in the second half of the seventh century—having collapsed in the first half of the eleventh century—was preserved for us to see. This important discovery revealed much about the temples of the ujizoku. The most important aspect of Buddhism in this period, however, was the construction of many temples in local areas throughout Japan. Over seven hundred sites have been excavated, and further excavations promise to yield even more results. The existence of so many temples from this time period indicate that this was the first construction boom in temples for the Japanese archipelago. The concrete characteristics of these temples can be viewed in local museums around the country, and are available in catalogues published at the time of various exhibitions (e.g., Ritto Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan 1991; Nagoya-shi Hakubutsukan 1994; Gifu-ken Hakubutsukan 1995). The people who constructed these temples were powerful local clan families. Stories concerning the Buddhist faith of these local families and the construction of these temples can be found in collections such as the Nihon ryoiki 3 $8=^12 (see Nakamura 1973) and Izumo no kuni fudoki tUS HH,±IS (see the essay by Morrell in this Guide). This period also saw the spread of Buddhism among the "common people." An entry in the oldest extant handwritten copy of a sutra in Japan (the &W$iWMJ\?M. [Vajramanda-dharani], T no. 1345) reports that a certain preacher-monk named Horin S# was active in Shiki no kori SijStiF in the land of Kawachi in 686, and that he had organized a group of "friends" (chishiki Sflft) to practice the copying of sutras. Shiki no kori was a progressive area and still within the Kinai area, but this entry indicates that monks were active in propagating Buddhism in such local areas, and that Buddhism had begun to spread among the common people, the issue of "state buddhism" Buddhism in ancient Japan is often explained in terms of "state Buddhism." This concept has been in use by many for a long time, including scholars such as Tamamuro Taijo (1940) and Hori Ichiro (1977), and was a mainstay of postwar scholarship from the 1950s to the 1970s. Tamura Encb.6 (1982) argued that state Buddhism began in the Hakuho period and characterized the developments from Asuka Buddhism to Hakuho Buddhism as a shift from "ujizoku Buddhism to state Buddhism." According to this theory, the state played a central role in the acceptance of Buddhism into Japan, and such a state system was formed by the second half of the seventh century. Inoue Mitsusada (1971), on the other hand, argued that the state Buddhism of ancient Japan should be understood in terms of ti the legal structure (such as the ritsuryo #^ regulations) that regulated such matters. From this f-i : perspective, the basic character of state Buddhism can be seen in the laws and regulations S promulgated in the legal codes such as the soniryo IIM^" (regulations for monks and nuns), kandosei HfBEM (regulations for bureaucrats), and sogosei -ft fflSU (see Yoshida 1995). Beginning in the 1980s, however, the theories on "state Buddhism" began to be criticized from many different angles, so that they are no longer tenable on their own. In the first place, the term "state Buddhism" itself is too ambiguous, and a close examination of its IgjtfjH various aspects reveal numerous problems. The regulations of the soniryo, for example, were mostly disfunctional, so any theory based on the assumption that the letter of the law was reflected in actual practice is untenable. Again, "privately ordained" monks and nuns (shido soni fASMf M) were indeed proscribed by law, but in fact they were widely accepted, and were very active in all areas, including the Buddhism of local clan families, among the common people, and even within "state Buddhism" (consider, for example, the case of Kukai). What is required is a relativization of "state Buddhism." There is no doubt that in ancient Japan there was a form of "state Buddhism" (see the following section). This was not, however, the total sum of Buddhism during this period. "State Buddhism" was only a part of a greater array of Buddhist activity that included the Buddhism of the imperial court and the aristocratic families, that of the local clan families, and that of the common people, as well as the interaction between these aspects. The shift from Asuka Buddhism to Hakuho Buddhism, therefore, is not a simple development from "aristocratic ujizoku Buddhism" to "state Buddhism," but a more complicated development from "aristocratic Buddhism" to a variety of "Buddhisms" including aristocratic Buddhism, state Buddhism, the Buddhism of the local clan families, and that of the common people (see Yoshida 1995). The view of Buddhism in ancient Japan as merely "state Buddhism" has also served as a basis for presenting a contrast with the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura era and the medieval period, which are then explained as "Buddhism for the masses" (tninshu bukkyo f&ffcUM.; see, for example, Hara 1929; Ienaga 1947). In this view, the history of Buddhism from ancient to medieval Japan is explained in terms of a shift "from state Buddhism to Buddhism for the masses." The kenmitsu-taisei ili'lf #iW theory of Kuroda Toshio (1975,1990, and 1994; Dobbins 1996), however, presents a convincing argument that the real axis of medieval Buddhism was formed by the "old" Buddhist schools of the "exoteric and esoteric" schools (kenmitsu bukkyo), so that there was also a mixture of various "Buddhisms" in medieval times as well. In any case, the kenmitsu-taisei theory requires a wholesale reevalu-ation of ancient Japanese Buddhism, not just Buddhism in the medieval period. buddhism and the state in ancient japan From the later half of the seventh century, the state adopted policies to actively promote Buddhism, such as the construction of temples and statues, the sponsorship of rituals {hoe &?*) and the copying of sutras, and the promotion of monks and nuns. The era of empress Jito W$i (690?-697) was a turning point. Jito sought to establish a state based on Chinese models of legal codes, the construction of a capital, and the compilation of a national history. Religious policy called for a dual religious foundation for a newly reborn Japanese state based on both jmgiYkami rituals (jingi saishi #IftlgfE) and Buddhism. Japanese myths were created, providing a literary expression for the imperial transmission through a single family lineage. Buddhism was tapped for state rituals based on the Suvarnaprabhasa-sutra to be performed across the country. The state also provided regulations for the ordination of monks and nuns, borrowing the Chinese system for state recognition of ordinands. The number of annual official ordinations (nenbundosha %fr^M) Religion in the Classical Period was set at ten. The empress established a capital (Fujjwara-kyô) that was lined with splendid state-supported temples such as Yakushiji, and she was cremated after her death. The imperial line of Jitô, continuing with Monmu Genmei 7tM, Genshô tľiE, and so forth, all attached great importance to Buddhism. The next emperor, Shómu HiS (724-749), in accordance with the wishes of the empress Kômyô established Kokubunji H íj-^F and Kokubun-niji HihFg# around the country (see Tsunoda 1986-1997), and built the "big Buddha" {daíbutsu ý^-ík) of Tôdaiji (see Inoue 1966; Horiike 1980-1982). The Kokubunji series of temples was modeled on the Chinese system and built with the advice of Do)i MM, a monk who had traveled to China. When the capital was moved from Fujiwara-kyô to Heijô-kyô (Nära) in 710, major temples such as Daianji ;ferc#, Yakushiji, and Gangôji were transferred to the new capital, the temple housing the daibutsu was renamed "Tôdaiji" MJK^ŕ, and the residence of empress Kômyô was made into a nunnery and named "Hokkeji" The empress's daughter, who became the next tenno Kôken/Shôtoku #j|t • %fM (749-758 and 764-770), established the temple Saidaiji W^; #. In this way the new capital was filled with large state temples. The copying of the Buddhist canon also was a large-scale state-supported project The details of this project are recorded in the Shôsô'in documents JEÄSSľŽlr, which have received close scrutiny recently (see Yamashita 1999). It should also be noted that Shómu himself was ordained as a monk, the first case of an ordained tennô in Japanese history. Shômtt abdicated at around the same time he was ordained, and his daughter Kôken/Shôtoku also abdicated once before becoming a nun, and then later ascended the throne again. This is notable as the only case in Japanese history where a tenno reigned while ordained a Buddhist monk/nun (see Katsuura 2000). The system for regulating the sangha was gradually institutionalized, and in 734 (Tenpyô 6) it was required that anyone to be ordained as an official monk or nun must master two texts: the Lotus Sutra and Suvarnaprabhasa-sutra. It is presumed that this requirement was also influenced by the advice of Dôji. The imperial line of Jitô came to an end with Kôken/Shôtoku, and shafted to the line of Kónin 5íľt (770-781) and Kanmu Hi£ (781-806), and the capital also shifted first to Nagaoka and then to Heian (Kyoto). It is often said that the capital was moved in order to avoid the political meddling of the Buddhist establishment, but this theory is no longer accepted. The capital was moved because there was a change in the imperial line. Kanmu performed a kôten ritual ÍRÍSfE and announced the change in imperial lines. This Kónin imperial line also followed a policy promoting Buddhism, establishing major temples in the new capital such as Toji and Saiji H#. Kanmu was a strong supporter of Saieho, and Saga HÍK (809-823) supported Kukai (see below). JINGI rituals and the state in ancient japan At the time of Tenmu and Jitô at the end of the seventh century, the Japanese state developed a series of state religious rituals (jingi saishi) that were modified but based on such religious rituals current at the time in T ang China. The Japanese regulations (ritsuryo) from this time include a section on "kami-related" matters (jingiryó ílíft <£-), but the contents were prepared on the basis of the T'ang ritual regulations (shirei ijwl yoshida kazuhiko ^). The contents of these two codes are identical in many respects, but there are some crucial differences. The twin pillars of the imperial rites in China were the rituals for honoring "heaven" ikoshi f PfE) and the rituals for honoring the imperial ancestors (sobyo tr$B), and the regulations in general were based on this structure. A comparison of the T ang regulations and the Japanese jingiryo show that the regulations for ritual sacrifices (shakuten $i M) m the T ang regulations are covered under the "scholarly regulations" (gakuryo in Japan; that the Japanese regulations do not make a distinction between the ritual honoring of the heavenly deities (shi wi) and the ritual honoring of earthly deities {sai IS); that the jingiryo includes instructions of imperial ascension rituals not included in the Chinese regulations; and that the jingiryo includes descriptions of oharai jg$L, a matter that did not exist in the Chinese regulations. The idea of the "mandate of heaven" that the person who has the favor of "heaven" ascends the imperial throne, developed early in China. In ancient Japan, however, the acceptance of this idea was shunned because of the implication that the imperial line could be overthrown and replaced. Instead, the idea was produced that the imperial family was in a blood relationship and descended from the gods, and this idea was expressed through the creation of myths. This significant difference was reflected in the respective codes, such as the inclusion of imperial ascension rituals in the jingiryo. These imperial ascension rituals consisted of the sensoshiki Slir^ and the daijosai jzM¥k accession ceremonies. It was also at this time that Ise Shrine was identified as the place that enshrines the ancestral deities of the imperial family (see Hayakawa 1986). The jingiryo prescribed thirteen types of state rituals to be carried out nineteen times in a year. The most important were the rituals of praying for and blessing the crops in the spring, and the rituals for celebrating the harvest in the fall. The first consisted of an annual festival of prayers {kinensai/toshigoi no matsuri flf^®), and the latter included the three celebrations of offering fruits from the new harvest: the shinjosai/kanname no matsuri ttlrlS,1 ainamesai/ainie no matsuri fflU^,1 and the niinamesai Ufll'0.3 The four celebrations (three types) of the kinensai, niinamesai, and the tsukmamisai B &l§4 (twice, once each in the sixth and twelfth months) were called "the four festivals" (shikasai fflU ^), and were considered the most important rituals. All of the most important shrine officials from around the country would gather for a hanpei BEffi offering5 on these occasions. Also, the jingiryo included provisions for the oharai purification ritual which is not found in the T'ang regulations, indicating that state rituals for removing impurity were considered important in Japan (see Yamamoto 1992). 1. An annua! festival during which the emperor offers, at Ise Shrine, sake and food made with rice from the new harvest. %. The offering of fresh grain from the new harvest at specifically designated shrines. 3. The harvest festival and offering of grain from the new harvest at the imperial palace and at shrines throughout Japan. The first niinamesai after the ascension of a new emperor is the daijosai. 4. A festival celebrated twice a year, on the eleventh day of the sixth and twelfth months, bringing together state officials for prayers. 5. An offering of nusa $? (zig-zag shaped paper) by state officials during state-supported ritual. Religion in the Classical Period YOSHIDA KAZtTHIKO It was only a few decades after the promulgation of the jingiryo, however, that it was necessary to revise these state rituals. As Okada Shoji (1994) has shown, new official ritu- p als were introduced one after the other from the last half of the eighth century into the ninth century. These new rituals were lined up along with the jingiryo rituals to form the core of state jingi rituals. These included local festivals such as the Kasuga matsuri $ H jjl, Hirano matsuri Sonokarakami matsuri IfflttW^, Kamo matsuri K3&£, Matsuo fj matsuri tSflllS, Umemiya matsuri Oharano matsuri ~KBM^, Omiwa matsuri iz$f$, Taima matsuri SSfit, Hiraoka matsuri Isakawa matsuri ^J!i#, and the Yamashina matsuri IhS-IS. Eventually the ceremony of the hanpei offering was riot per- If formed during jingiryo rituals, and the significance of this ceremony changed. The newly established official rituals merged with the evolving jingiryo rituals to form the system of state rituals, forming the core of Japanese jingi rituals from the beginning of the Heian period to the end of the Muromachi period. the rejection of taoism Taoism, along with Confucianism and Buddhism, is one of the representative religious traditions of China. Eventually Taoist culture—not just Buddhism—was transmitted to Japan. Many aspects of Taoist culture were accepted into Japan and flourished especially during the reign of Tenmu, in the second half of the seventh century. "Mahito" MX, one of the so-called "eight-colored tides" (yakusa no kabane /Vfe<0&fe) established during this period, and the posthumous title of Tenmu (Ku- 'I' MM AJcH) are examples §j of Taoist influence. By the eighth century, however, the situation began to change, and ft there was a sharp difference of opinion among those at the center of political power as to | whether or not Taoism should be accepted. Eventually, after the revolt of Nagaya 0 (Nagaya 6 no hen |III3i1, reflecting an attitude of wanting to be liberated from being kami (# JfMIK). Stories with these elements can be found in the historical documents of shrine-temples (jinguji #1ir#) such as Kehi Jinguji %iLWgiFt Wakasa Jinguji, Tado #S Jinguji, and Kaharu Jinguji, as well as in the Nihon ryoiki. These stories were understood in the past as indicating that such ideas were unique to Japan. The same type of stories, logic, and vocabulary, however, are also found in Chinese texts such as the Biographies of Eminent Monks ^tH-fifS (T. no. 2059) and Further Biographies of Eminent Monks SiSlSf5 (T. no. 2060). These ideas, and even the vocabulary, were imported into Japan as the result of influence from Chinese Buddhism. Thus it is proper to say that the concepts underlying the amalgamation of kami and buddhas in Japan were introduced and implanted from Chinese Buddhism. It is likely that monks who had traveled to and studied in China, and had a good understanding of the amalgamation of deities and buddhas in China—such as Doji, Saicho, and Kukai—transmitted this way of thinking to Japan. saicho and kukai The monks who best represent Buddhism in the early Heian period are Saicho WS. (767-822), transmitter of the Chinese T'ien-tai/Tendai a" tradition, and Kukai 5? ?H (774-835), transmitter of the Shingon HU tradition. These two were deeply involved in the management of state Buddhism and made important contributions in this regard, but in addition had a definitive influence on the later development of Buddhism in Japan (see Stone's essay in this Guide). The new Buddhist system that was formed around them yoshida kazuhiko defined the Buddhism of the Heian and Kamakura periods (for details see Groner 1984; Abe 1999; Ando and Sonoda 1974; Sonoda 1981; and Takagi 1997). the formation of sectarianism—the "eight schools" system Sectarianism in Japanese Buddhism, as mentioned above, received a major impetus in Enryaku 25 (806) with the implementation of a new ordination system. This revised system was proposed by Saicho, with the endorsement of Nara monks such as Gomyo It^p, and approved by the government. The revision called for assigning a specific number of annual ordinands to each of the seven schools of Buddhism: the "six schools" (but actually only four schools) in Nara and the new Tendai school. This system of annual ordinands began in the tenth year of Jit6 (696) by officially sanctioning ten annual ordinands. At this early date there were no distinct "schools," and thus the ordinands were not assigned to any specific tradition. The Enryaku-period revision, however, incorporated the concept of "schools" {shviha} and assigned three ordinands to each of the Hosso and Sanron HSti (which included the Kusha {R# and Jojitsu schools, and two each to the Kegon Rilsu W, and Tendai schools, increasing the total annual ordinands to twelve. As a result, the state officially recognized seven independent "schools," leading to the development of sectarianism. A bit later, on the twenty-third day of the first month in Jowa 2 (835), the government approved an additional three ordinands to be assigned annually to the Shingon school, thus raising to eight the number of officially recognized schools. Thus arose the system of "eight schools" (hasshii Aw) which dominated the religious world of the Heian and Kamakura periods. The early sprouts of this sectarianism actually began to germinate a bit earlier. Documents in the Shdsd'in documents from the middle of the eighth century already contain references to groups with the term shu (M or ^?). In this context, however, as Sonoda Koyu (1981) and Sone Masato (2000) have pointed out, these terms refer to academic Schools or groups that were quite different from the sectarian "schools" of the Heian and Kamakura periods and continuing to our contemporary times. During the Nara period, monks of different "schools" lived in the same temple, worshipped the same buddha, and chanted the same sutras. There was little sense of doctrinal or exclusivist sectarianism. The term shu began to take on sectarian connotations from the middle of the eighth century, but these were preliminary developments, and the definitive point in the birth of true sectarianism was the new system of ordinands introduced in 806. After this point, anyone who took the padi of an official monk had to follow this system and become ordained as a monk of one of the officially recognized "schools," at the ordination platform associated with that school The phrase "the six schools of Nara" (nanto rokushu S^rC*) is often used; however, this is not a phrase from the Nara period but has real referents only with the adoption of this revised system in 806. Sone (2000) argues that it was only after this time that each "school" decided on identifying their own "orthodox" Chinese founder and their basic texts, leading to the formation of sectarian doctrine (shugi t£H) and sectarian studies (shugaku ^?^). Eventually sectarian temples were also founded. In Tencho 7 (830), emperor Junna #3=0 decreed that each school submit a description of 158 Religion in the ClassicalVeriod yoshida kazuhiko 159 their teachings (Tencho roppon shusho XJSA^Hlr), and a representative of each school prepared a report on the doctrinal characteristics and historical development of their own tradition. The six documents that were submitted were the Daijo Hossd kertshin sho ~kM^ ffifijftt* by Gomyo W&i, the Daijo Sanron daigi sho -X^^Mi^MB by Gen'ei the Kegon-shu ichijo kaishin ron SJda?—flffl'kiir by Fuki If 1$, the Kairitsu denrai ki jSMSSt IB by Buan Hfe the Tendai hokkeshugi shu by Gishin HSi, and the Himitsu mandarajujushin ron #f!^iS$t+fti/i-C. Shigaku zasshi 38/8:71-74. Religion in the Classical Period Fukuyama Toshio lllüfell, 1968. Nihon kenchiku-shi kenkyü B *M^£M$£. Tokyo: Bokusui Shobö. Gifu-ken Hakubutsukan HJ^-ÄtfftÜf, 1995- Mino, Hida no kodaishi hakkutsu: Ritsuryö kokka nojidaimm ■ «*ft5&3&iS-tf-^BS^I*ft Gifu: Gifu-ken Hakubutsukan. Groner, Paul, 1984. Saichö: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School. Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 7. University of Hawafi Press, (reprint 2000) Hara Katsurö M #g|5,1929. Tözai no shükyö kaikaku 'MMCO'MW&M. In Nihon chiiseishi no kenkyü B ^+iti©if%, Hara Katsurö, pp. 304-21. Tokyo: Döbunkan. Hayakawa Shöhachi ^JI|J±A, 1986. Ritsuryösei to tennö ^^iM t ^iJ.. In Nihon kodai kanryösei no kenkyü B^&iXlKWM<9!i£. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. öyama Seiichi, ed., 2003. Shötoku Taishi noshinjitsu SS^Crf-WÄ^. Tokyo: Heibonsha. RiTTö Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan SÄKS6.S#W®II, 1991- Konan no kodai jiin: Kurita-gun no Hakuhöjfin 0 chüshin ni Ürt^Wt^K--mXUtO&B.^&'P'L-fc. Rittö: Rittö Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan. Ruch, Barbara, ed., 2002. Engendering Faith: Women and Buddhism in Premodern japan. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan. Saeki Arikiyo M&fifä, 1992. Dengyö Daishi den no kenkyü 15tfc*;ÜlifS«Wf%. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. Sakuma Ryü 1983. Nihon kodai söden no kenkyü B ^ffilflScOW^. Tokyo: Yoshi- kawa Köbunkan. Shjnkawa Tokio ff II 1999. Dökyö o meguru köbö: Nihon no kunshu, doshi no hö o aga- mezu Ä**ö CäTJCfö-H^«l-± ■ ®dt«&£|?ao-f. Tokyo: Daishükan Shoten. Sone Masato ^SIEA, 2000. Kodai Bukkyökai to öchö shakai "STOJÄfi11 EflttÄ. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. Sonoda Köyü ©EH#l!l!, 1981. Heian Bukkyö no kenkyü -^JAitoflf^. Kyoto: Hözökan. Suzuki Keiji Ip/fcH™., 1994. Tohikan kötsü to zaichi chitsujo: Nara-Heian shoki no Bukkyö o sozai toshite ®»5£Si«Ä*W-SaT:*WMOttii*S#t LT. Nihon-shi kenkyü 379:34-59- Takagi Shingen S^cpÄ, 1997. Kükai: Shögai to sono shühen SM-4äi t -Er©SSI. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. Religion in the Classical Period 1988. Bukkyöshi no naka no nyonin ik%k$.$±. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Tamamuro Täijö 1940. Mfeon Bukkyöshigaisetsu B ^ücftflSÜ. Tokyo: Risösha. Tamura Enchö EWHfg, 1982. Kokka Bukkyö no seiritsu katei HStttltoEKÄiäg. In Ninon Bukkyöshi B ~fciUk$L 1, ed. Tamura Enchö, pp. 208-26. Kyoto: Hözökan. Tanaka Kaidö BB^ÄS, ed., 1973. Nihon koshakyö genzon mokuroku B ^S^iSHi? BUS. Kyoto: Shibunkan. _. 1974- Nihon shakyö sökan B Kyoto: Shibunkan. Teeuwen, Mark, and Bernhard Scheid. 2002. Tracing Shinto in the History of Kami Worship: Editors' Introduction. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 29:196-207. Tsuboi Kiyotari *F#ftfi., 1985. Asuka no tera to kokubunfi flÜ©# k @5Hf- In Kodai Nihon o hakkutsu suru "frftB ^frfSSif"h 2. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Tsuda Sökichi it Kfcrj^j, 1950. Nihon Men no kenkyü B ^"S& Bf %. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. Yoshida Kazuhiko *ffl-jS, 1995. Nihon kodai shakai to Bukkyö B Jfqfrfttt^iftft. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan. _> 1996. Tado Jinguji to shinbutsu shügö ^&WM^ t In Ise-wan to kodai no Tökai j$ t SfätOMfä, ed. Umemura Takashi Ätt it, pp. 217-57. Tokyo: Meicho Shuppan. _. 2001. Gangöji engi" o meguru shomondai fyü^^fMMI CäÜSWII. Kodai 110: 267-88. _, 2002. Nihon shoki to Döji B *SfB t MM. In Shötoku Taishi nojitsuzö to genzö SÜi; t £Mt, ed. Umehara Takeshi ftH g et aL, pp. 167-86. Tokyo: Daiwa Shobö. -, 2003a. Nihon Bukkyöshi no jiki kubun B ^f.M£5&«WfflE$~. In Bunkashino kösö SCit Ä^SJI, ed. Ösumi Kazuo, pp. 20-57. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Köbunkan, _> 2003b. Revisioning Religion in Ancient Japan. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 30:1-26. Yoshida Kazuhiko, Katsuura Noriko JüTi'iHS and Nishiguchi Junko HnJlK1, eds„ 1999. NihonsM no naka nojosei to Bukkyö B