Routledge Handbook of Premodern Japanese History

(nextflipdebug5) #1

M. Bauer


writing of Buddhist texts all took place in the midst of these political and institutional develop-
ments. It is in connection with the development and legitimizing of a ruling line that we start our
discussion of perhaps the least understood traditions, “Daoism” and onmyōdō.


Daoism, the absent tradition?


In his study, Imperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan, Herman Ooms addressed the formula-
tion of new symbolic legitimation by Emperor Tenmu (?–686) and his descendants. The seventh
century saw intense factional strife at court between the so- called Tenji and Tenmu lines, and
Ooms provides an in- depth study of the construction of imperial legitimacy during this period.
Central to his argument is the alleged assimilation of Daoist “mythemes” in the construction of a
new form of royal power, as exemplified by Tenmu’s usage of the title tennō, most commonly
rendered in English as “emperor.”^12
Ooms is not the only one to discover traces of “Daoism” in the early formulation of Japanese
kinship. In her work on the fourth- century formation of political power in Japan, Gina Barnes
argues that the early Kofun or burial mound system was based on the “Chinese Daoist mythol-
ogy of the Queen Mother of the West.”^13 Barnes adds that Himiko, the elusive female ruler who
allegedly ruled over Yamatai, might have functioned as an earthly counterpart of this Daoist
deity. Similarly, Edward Kidder states that Himiko’s rule was supported by “Daoist divination,”
and mentions that Chinese records describe her as making use of guei- dao, a form of Daoist
popular practice.^14
Nevertheless, the interpretation of Himiko’s engagement in “Daoist” practice ultimately
relies on what one understands the term “Daoism” to mean, in the cultural and religious frame-
work of early Japan. Scholars have dealt with this question in several ways, with some accepting
a Daoist presence in Nara- Heian Japan, and others categorically rejecting the idea. The problem
might be that there is no consensus regarding what would be understood as “premodern Japanese
Daoism” in the first place, rendering a discussion on whether or not it existed difficult to solve.
The most obvious route to follow might be to distinguish between an institutionalized Daoism
on the one hand and the presence of general Chinese practices and imagery on the other.
The theme of the Queen Mother of the West, raised by Barnes and Kidder, was also incorpor-
ated into Michael Como’s Weaving and Binding, in which he describes the vast influence of immig-
rant groups on the development of rituals and the religious landscape before and during the Nara
period. While rejecting any form of institutionalized Daoism during this period, Como put
forward the hypothesis that the cult of the Queen Mother of the West had become so widespread
that it was perceived as “native.”^15 This conclusion is, however, not accepted by several scholars,
who argue that one cannot prove that the Queen Mother of the West was indeed part of Japanese
religiosity, a disagreement situated between archaeological and textual interpretation.^16
This discussion transcends the Queen Mother and extends to the very application of the word
“Daoism” in a premodern Japanese context. The main point does not concern the absorption of
Chinese ritual elements per se, but revolves around the category “Daoism.” As Livia Kohn puts
it, “the question of the presence and role of Taoism in Japan is thus first of all a question of defini-
tion, then a question of degree.”^17 Scholars have struggled to define the term “Daoism,” yet
blithely applied it when addressing the Japanese context. In her work on Daoist studies in the
West, Anna Seidel mentions that what scholars of Japanese religion often label “Daoism” are in
fact practices and rituals part of a “pan- Chinese branch of learning with its own chain of trans-
mission distinct from Daoism.”^18 Nevertheless, Seidel saw a “pervasive influence of the Daoist
religion on Japanese culture,” a statement with which Kohn disagreed.^19 Once again it seems we
are dealing with a problem of definition.

Free download pdf