Religion in Nara and Heian Japanto the premodern monks, patrons, or practitioners who engaged with a plurality of teachings. As
shown by the case of Onmyōdō, or Yin- Yang divination, even the application of the term “reli-
gion” or the Japanese designation “shūkyō” itself is at times contested.
Buddhism arrived at the Yamato court in the sixth century through the Korean kingdom of
Paekche, placing Japan at the crossroads of East Asian cultural, political, and religious spheres of
interest. One of Japan’s earliest historical narratives, the Nihon shoki, relates that the court received
sacred texts or sūtras, and a statue of the Buddha. This official history mentions that factionalism
ensued between the Mononobe and Nakatomi families on the one hand and the Soga on the
other. The former are said to have rejected these new teachings, while the latter were willing to
accept the new religion. The “official” reason still mentioned in most textbooks on premodern
Japan is that the Mononobe and the Nakatomi favored Japan’s “indigenous” kami (gods or divini-
ties). Such an explanation, however, disregards factionalism at court and the larger political
context in which the Nihon shoki, as an official and imperially sanctioned history, was composed.
Some scholars, such as Donald McCallum, have stressed the importance of including other
sources—the engi or temples’ “Origin Chronicles,” including the Gangoji engi and the Daianji
engi, for example—to reassess the historical accounts mentioned in the Nihon shoki.^8 While
Edward Kidder and others have disagreed with some of McCallum’s conclusions, it is certain that
from the outset Buddhism was thrown into a highly politicized context characterized by fac-
tional strife, exemplifying the fact that from its arrival in Japan, Buddhism and governance were
not separate entities. Within a few decades, Buddhism firmly established itself, one of its main
supporters being Empress Suiko’s regent, Shōtoku Taishi (574?–622?), one of premodern Japan’s
most enigmatic personalities.
It is difficult to overestimate the prestige accorded to Prince Shōtoku throughout Japanese
history. Traditionally he is regarded as a patron saint of Japanese Buddhism, responsible for not
only defeating Buddhism’s opponents, the Mononobe, but also authoring Buddhist commentar-
ies, constructing temples, and drafting Japan’s so- called Seventeen- Article Constitution in 604.
In recent years, however, several studies have argued for a reevaluation of Prince Shōtoku and
scholars have attempted to distinguish the “historical” Prince Umayado (Umayado no Ōji) from
his mythical persona, analyzing the rise of the Shōtoku cult and its persistence throughout the
premodern period. According to Michael Como, certain kinship groups of Silla origin were in
fact responsible for the construction of a “Shōtoku cult,” drawing attention away from the Soga
and thus creating a focus on the “royal” Prince Umayodo.^9 Kevin Carr continued along this
route and further discussed the changing identities of Shōtoku throughout the medieval period
through visual hagiographies and imagination.^10 While progress has been made regarding the
construction of the mythical Shōtoku, it is clear that this insight has yet to be included in intro-
ductions to premodern Japanese history and religion.
From its arrival in Yamato, Buddhism played a significant role in the formulation of sover-
eignty within the larger context of state formation. Whether it was the construction of Tōdaiji
and its daibutsu (“Great Buddha”) in the seventh century, the creation of Fujiwara no Michinaga’s
(966–1027) temple, Hōjōji, in the eleventh, or the construction of Retired Emperor Shirakawa’s
(1053–1129) grand Hosshōji in 1075, Buddhism was always central in the creation of authority.^11
Buddhism was not, however, the only tradition to do so, and several scholars from the fields of
Archaeology, History, and Religion have attempted to unravel the eclectic worldview that sur-
rounded the creation of an imperial line before and during the eighth century.
While the Nara period is often portrayed as a stable period in which the first “permanent”
capital was constructed, we have to realize that this century was characterized by intense political
strife between imperial lineages and conflicts within the emerging Fujiwara family. The creation
of Tōdaiji’s Construction Agency, the early Kōfukuji community, and the sponsorship and