M. Bauer
Adolpson’s insights could be further explored by connecting his analysis with Ihara’s applica-
tion of the terms kokusei and kasei to understand ritual and institutional entanglement from the
Heian to the Kamakura period. Defining kasei as “that which regulates a particular kenmon,” Ihara
states that the polity of the center and the internal organization of the kenmon coexisted in one
another.^55 In criticizing Kuroda, Ihara considers the kenmon as “non- private” entities that ulti-
mately shared power. In other words, there was no strict opposition between the state and the
temples, leading us to rethink the concept “state” in a premodern context.^56
Similarly, Okano Kōji’s discussion on the connection between governance and temple com-
plexes allows us to connect in detail the evolution of the temple’s “internal” institutional struc-
ture with the abstraction “state.”^57 By applying the concepts of shared rule to the major temples’
internal institutional and ritual developments, we might be able to better understand the insepa-
rability of ritual, doctrinal, and institutional developments. The ideal medium for investigating
the connection between these elements might be the ritual site itself, interpreted as a Geertzian
“Theatre of the State,” in which both monastic and political powers are represented.
In recent years, studies have been conducted on the historical evolution of these rituals in rela-
tion to their institutional and religious significance. Central to these studies are records that list
the ritual participants’ institutional affiliation and the vast collections of remaining shōgyō, doc-
trinal texts used in preparation of debates (rongi). Especially the in- depth analysis of Kusunoki
Junshō and Minowa Kenryō has inspired several other Japanese and Western scholars to look at
the content of debate rituals such as Kōfukuji’s Yuima- e.^58 We can, however, extend this even
further—for example to the ritualized usage of texts or the creation of the “canon,” a discussion
that would enable us to connect Nara and Heian period developments.
While doctrinal texts did indeed occupy a central place in the preparation of rituals, relics, and
especially “ritual economy” are pivotal to understand the process in which rituals provided legit-
imacy and centralized authority. Brian Ruppert has suggested that relics and their function in
ritual exemplify a model that predates the ōbō buppō paradigm and embodies the concepts of bless-
ing (on) and requital (hōon).^59 These two principles are part of the four fundamental debts (shion),
stand for the fundamental relationships within Buddhist society, and thus are central to under-
standing of the relation between Buddhism and State.
From their arrival in Japan, the usage and production of Buddhist texts was heavily politi-
cized. Sutras were copied after the death of the sovereign or a patron, as exemplified by the
copying of the entire canon after Queen Consort Kōmyō’s death in 760.^60 When the monk
Genbō returned from Tang China in 735, he imported more than five thousand texts, all of
which were stored at Kōfukuji, the Fujiwara temple that was still being constructed around the
time. As I have argued, however, the text’s allocation to Kōfukuji and Genbō’s residence at the
same temple can be situated within the power struggle between the Tachibana and the Fujiwara
and his close relation to Emperor Shōmu and Kōmyō.^61 In other words, the import, production,
and storage of Buddhist texts was thoroughly embedded in power struggles at court.
Nevertheless, we should also be careful not to regard the writing of Buddhist texts merely as
an expression of political realities. Brian Lowe has argued that the study of the materiality, style,
and artistic properties of religious texts can be used to address hermeneutical questions and thus
explore the relation between material properties and the classification of knowledge.^62 In this
context, much further research is needed to explore the ritual of writing and to situate the Jap-
anese case within a larger, East Asian, framework. This approach would not just be a cross-
cultural one; it would also necessitate an approach that focuses on the ritualized process of writing
across traditions, genres, and periodization.
Buddhist texts were not always meant to be “read” and their purpose and significance changed
according to the type of religious practice of which they were part. Max Moerman and Heather