two schools of Zen (Rinzai and Soto), and the
NICHIREN SCHOOL. Each new phase of Buddhism’s de-
velopment was portrayed as a reaction to the previous
stage and an improvement on it, and the Kamakura
schools were perceived as the apex of Japanese Bud-
dhism. Since the Kamakura period was considered the
beginning of the medieval era, the Kamakura schools
were treated as the prevailing form of Buddhism then,
and the Nara and Heian schools as precursors to it.
Hence, the primary focus was on Kamakura Bud-
dhism, which indeed evolved into the largest and most
pervasive schools of Buddhism at the close of the me-
dieval period.
The Kenmitsu theory offered by Kuroda critiqued
this model in several ways. First, it questioned the his-
torical periodization on which it was based. Kuroda
claimed that the medieval era began not in the twelfth
century with the Kamakura period, but in the tenth
century with the emergence of an estate-based econ-
omy that supported elite society and religious institu-
tions alike. This social, economic, and political
structure persisted until the fifteenth or sixteenth cen-
tury, and was controlled conjointly by three ruling
elites: the imperial court and aristocracy, the warrior
government and its functionaries, and the leading re-
ligious institutions. In this medieval context the reli-
gion that dominated Japan was Kenmitsu Buddhism.
The second critique was that the dominant forms
of medieval religion were not the new Pure Land, Zen,
and Nichiren movements, but rather Tendai, Shingon,
and NARA BUDDHISM. These possessed the largest
number of clerics, temples, and resources in medieval
times, and were the ones most frequently mentioned
in medieval documents and texts. With a few excep-
tions, the new movements developed into influential
religious organizations only in the late 1400s or early
1500s. Hence, Nara and Heian Buddhism should be
considered the norm for medieval Japan instead of Ka-
makura Buddhism. And the new Kamakura move-
ments should be regarded as fringe groups rather than
as mainstream religion.
The third critique found in the Kenmitsu theory was
of the concept of sects or discrete schools of Buddhism.
Beginning in the Tokugawa period (1603–1868) Bud-
dhism was structured into individual sectarian organi-
zations, each with an orthodox body of teachings, a
centralized religious authority, a defined set of rituals,
a liturgical calendar, an apologetic history, and a hier-
archy of member temples. Buddhist schools such as
Tendai, SotoZen, or Pure Land’s Jodoshuthus became
distinct, independent entities. This sectarian structure,
according to Kuroda, has been mistakenly projected
onto the medieval setting, thereby producing a dis-
torted view of religion. The Kenmitsu theory presented
medieval Buddhism as less rigidly segmented and the
boundaries between groups as more permeable. Reli-
gious institutions such as monasteries, temples,
chapels, wayside shrines, and private meetinghouses all
existed, but people could easily cross lines to partici-
pate in multiple settings. Priests of the Nara monas-
teries, for instance, studied the teachings across the
various Nara schools as correlative philosophies rather
than as rival sectarian dogma. Likewise, Tendai and
Shingon clerics frequently looked beyond their own
doctrinal circles and sought instruction in other set-
tings or guidance from other masters. The fluidity of
religious activity across putative schools contributed to
the creation of a systemwide medieval orthodoxy in
the form of Kenmitsu Buddhism.
The actual content of Kenmitsu Buddhism varied
from one institution to another, but it was predicated
on the assumption that esoteric practices (rituals,
chants, meditations, prayers, invocations, use of sacred
texts, physical austerities, etc.) had the capacity to ac-
tualize Buddhahood in this world and to engage the
vast and complex spirit world of MAHAYANABuddhism.
Such practices were the stock and trade of most reli-
gious institutions and were passed down in master–
disciple lineages through secret transmissions and
initiation ceremonies. Attached to these practices were
a variety of ideas explaining and legitimizing them.
This secret lore constituted the esoteric teachings
(mikkyo) of Kenmitsu Buddhism. Beyond them were
the exoteric teachings (kengyo), the systems of thought
and doctrine, which were likewise a major enterprise
of medieval institutions. Those doctrines and philoso-
phies operated alongside esoteric teachings and were
considered supportive of them. But exoteric teachings
usually differed across institutions, thus distinguishing
them from each other. What drew them together, how-
ever, was their common recognition of the efficacy of
esoteric practices and their perpetuation of them as the
core of Buddhism. In every major tradition, esoteric
practices were considered primary and exoteric teach-
ings secondary. This shared recognition gave cohesion
to Kenmitsu Buddhism as Japan’s medieval orthodoxy.Japan’s medieval Buddhist establishment
One major center of Kenmitsu Buddhism was Enryakuji,
the Tendai monastic complex on Mount Hiei, founded
by SAICHO(767–822). Tendai doctrine revolved aroundEXOTERIC-ESOTERIC(KENMITSU) BUDDHISM INJAPAN