Religion in Nara and Heian Japanof the abbot at the major temples (Tōdaiji in 752 and Kōfukuji in 757), and their internal organ-
ization through the temples’ three highest officials (sangō), represent the institutionalization of
the monastic order on a micro level.
The Japanese scholar Ihara Kesao has explained the connection between these “external” and
“internal” developments through the kokusei- kasei paradigm, a theoretical approach of great
benefit for Western scholars wishing to apply, or question, the application of the categories
“public and private” in a premodern context.^48 Ihara uses these concepts primarily to refer to the
medieval period, but I would argue that his methodology of addressing the temples, their rituals
and emerging lineages can equally be applied to the earlier Nara and Heian periods.
To better comprehend the importance of shared lineages and exoteric- esoteric rituals, further
analysis of the rise of the aristocratic monzeki or “subtemples” within the larger temple complex
is of utmost importance. The first to emerge was Kōfukuji’s Ichijōin in 980, starting a process
that would transform the head temple effectively into a dual organization with Daijōin by the
latter half of the Heian period, leading to internal factionalism and competition for high ritual
positions. Further analysis of the monks, their dual institutional and doctrinal identities, and their
connection with the creation of new rituals could greatly improve our understanding of the
state’s exoteric- esoteric conceptual basis. Japanese scholarship on the medieval monzeki, such as
Takayama Kyōko’s work on Kōfukuji, has made tremendous progress but their insights have yet
to be included in Western scholarship.^49
The relation between the temples and the abstraction “state” can be analyzed through institu-
tional reform, ritual developments, gender categorizations, and commentarial studies. During
the past decade several Japanese academics have produced impressive studies that address the con-
nections among the temples on the one hand, and the major temple complexes versus the organ-
ization of the state on the other. Most of these have, however, dealt with Heian period
developments and the Nara period is still in need of more attention.
Contrary to the popular view of the Nara period as stable and centralized, the eighth century
was characterized by intense political strife of which the temples, monks, nuns, the production of
texts, and the creation of rituals were an integral part. From both a conceptual and an institu-
tional point of view, there was no distinction between matters of governance and the religious
sphere, as the one would be formulated by referring to the other.^50 The best- known model that
addresses the connection between sovereignty and Buddhism is undoubtedly Kuroda’s usage of
ōbō buppō or “The Law of the Sovereign and the Law of the Buddha,” a premodern term that
refers to Buddhism and governance as “the two wings of a bird” or “the two wheels of a cart.”^51
Kuroda argues that this mutually dependent relationship (ōbō buppō sōi ron) came to the fore in the
eleventh century and that the Eight Heian Schools formed one exoteric- esoteric framework that
included kami worship and onmyōdō.^52 The development of this exoteric- esoteric framework and
its creation of particular ritual hierarchy developed alongside the emergence of the landholding
system (shōen) in connection with the rise of strong temple complexes (jisha).
Kuroda’s application of ōbō buppō and kenmitsu Buddhism is thus in fact central in the formula-
tion of his influential theory that attempts to explain the connection between religious and polit-
ical power in the premodern period, the kenmon taisei or “gates of power system.” This concept
refers to the three powerful groups comprising the court nobles (kuge), the warrior aristocracy
(buke), and the temple- shrine complexes (jisha).^53 While Kuroda’s theory has been widely applied
by both Japanese and Western scholars, his model has not gone unchallenged.
In The Gates of Power, Mikael Adolphson argued for an “integrated treatment of religion and
politics” to correctly understand the “cooperative rulership” of religious and secular elites.
Through a close analysis of divine demonstrations, Adolphson demonstrates how certain
“internal” temple matters cannot be disconnected from power struggles at the court.^54