M. Bauer
however, realize that Nara’s main rituals, such as the Yuima- e or the Saishōō, in fact rose signifi-
cantly in importance only after the Nara period, formed “the nucleus of the early Heian estab-
lishment,” and continued to change in both format and institutional significance throughout the
Heian period.^40 While Fuhito is often mentioned in connection with the construction of the Nara
capital and its temples, we should not lose sight of his wife Tachibana no Michiyo (?–733) and
their daughter Imperial Consort Kōmyō (701–760), who both played pivotal roles in the expan-
sion of early Kōfukuji and the construction of several other temples.^41
When the capital was moved to Heian- kyō in 794, the rituals of the original Nara temples or the
“Southern Schools” continued to gain power, but in the latter half of the Heian period they were
confronted with the rise of new temples, the “Northern Schools.” In addition, grand temples, such
as Retired Emperor Shirakawa’s Hosshōji, and their newly established rituals created an alternative
route for monks to proceed to the elusive Ministry of Monastic affairs, or sōgō.
This institution, aimed at overseeing the Buddhist community, was founded in 624, and illus-
trates best the entanglement of Buddhism and State throughout the Nara and Heian period.^42
Alongside monastic developments and political intrigue, this ministry’s composition and signifi-
cance would change tremendously throughout these five centuries.
The main theoretical framework for addressing Buddhist developments during the Heian
period has undoubtedly been Kuroda Toshio’s “kenmitsu taisei ron” (“theory of Exoteric- Esoteric
Buddhism”). According to Kuroda, this Buddhist framework was formed during the early Heian
period and supported the religious and institutional sphere till the sixteenth century. His work
had great implications for our understanding of both Buddhism and kami worship throughout
the premodern period, but several Japanese and Western scholars have criticized Kuroda’s under-
standing of exoteric- esoteric Buddhism or his emphasis on the Tendai School.
It has to be noted that the usage of the term “school,” although widely used in Western
scholarship, might be inappropriate to describe the various groups or lineages to which monastics
belonged. Monks did not necessarily belong to a single “school” (“shū”), and one often finds that
the same person appears in several lineages. Ritual records often refer to the same monk as
belonging to a different temple or “school,” a characteristic that started during the Nara period
and continued throughout the premodern era. The emergence of combined lineages or “schools,”
linked with the development of the monzeki, and the presence of the higher nobility in the temple
hierarchy certainly needs to be further examined. For example, a closer look at certain “exoteric”
Hossō monks at Kōfukuji reveals that they also belonged to Shingon lineages. In addition, Sanron
monks at Tōdaiji’s Tōnan often belonged to Shingon.^43 The actual influence of these dual insti-
tutional identities on ritual and commentarial developments, however, remains unclear.
On the one hand, the application of the term kenmitsu (exoteric- esoteric) certainly makes sense
on the institutional and ritual level, but on the other hand it remains difficult to distinguish an
exoteric- esoteric synthesis within commentaries. The Hossō-Shingon monk Kojima no Shinkō
certainly is an example of a thinker who attempted to merge the exoteric and the esoteric but
much more research needs to be conducted to fully understand “kenmitsu” on a doctrinal level.^44
The institutional evolution of the sangha (Buddhist community) started well before the Nara
period with the creation of the Ministry of Monastic Affairs in 624 under Empress Suiko and the
establishment of the “Four Great Temples” in the fourth month of 680. These official temples
consisted of Asukadera (c.600), Kudara Ōdera (639), Kawaradera (c.660), and Yakushiji (680).^45
The ranking, number, and members of these exclusive institutions changed over the course of the
Nara and Heian periods, most notably by the inclusion of Kōfukuji in 710 and Tōdaiji in 752.^46
In 718 the Sōniryō, “Rules for Monks and Nuns” were promulgated, exemplifying the monks’
and nuns’ “status as belonging to the governmental bureaucracy.”^47 While the Ministry of
Monastic Affairs represented the monastic hierarchy on a macro level, the creation of the office