Medieval Shinto As A Form of Japanese Hi

Cahiers 1 6 PZ
d'Extrême Asie
'e\âitio
Volume édité par Bernard Faure,
Michael Como, lyanaga Nobumi
Rethinking Medieval Shintô

Repenser le shintô médiéval
MEDIEVAL SHINTĎ AS A FORM OF ‘JAPANESE HINDUISM’ 263
MEDIEVAL SHINTČ AS A FORM OF ‘JAPANESE HINDUISM’

AN ATTEMPT AT UNDERSTANDING EARLY MEDIEVAL SHINTČ 1
Iyanaga Nobumi 彌永信美
Le présent article propose une nouvelle manière de concevoir ce que

l’on appelle le «bshintď médiévalb» ou, plutôt, certains courants de la pensée
«bbouddho-shintoïsteb» de la première moitié du MoyenbÂge, comme «bune
forme japonaise de l’ “hindouisme”b». En partant d’un passage du Yamato
Katsuragi hďzanki 大和城寶山記 (milieu du XIIIe siècleb?), qui reproduit
un mythe cosmogonique hindou à travers un texte du Dazhidu-lun 大智度
論, on essayera de remonter à Annen 安然 (841-889 ou 898) et à Seison 成
尊 (1012-1074) pour retrouver les inspirations premières sur lesquelles ces
courants semblent s’être formés. La pensée mystique immanentiste d’Annen,
qui sera l’un des plus importants précurseurs de la «bPensée de l’Eveil
Originelb» (hongaku shisď 本覺思想) du MoyenbÂge, et surtout ses spéculations
sur les soumissions des divinités hindoues par les Vénérés bouddhiques, auront
pu servir de base pour le développement d’une certaine tendance théiste dans
la pensée du «bbouddho-shintoïsmeb». D’autre part, Seison, qui s’est appuyé
lui-même sur une exégèse mythologique d’Annen, a écrit vers la fin d’un
ouvrage intitulé Shingon fuhď san’yďshď 眞言付法纂要抄 (1060) quelques
lignes qui auront une influence décisive sur la pensée shintoïste naissante à
la fin du XIIe siècle et au XIIIe siècleb: il y identifie virtuellement le Japon au
«bpays d’origine du Buddha MahÃvairocanab». C’est de là que sont parties
bien des théories universalistes plaçant le Japon à une position primordiale
dans le monde. Les diࢢérentes versions du mythe du roi MÃra du Sixième
Ciel semblent également liées à ces lignes de Seison.
Dans la seconde partie de l’article, on tentera de jeter une nouvelle lumière
sur les résultats de cet examen de diࢢérents discours de la première moitié du
MoyenbÂge, en considérant l’ouvrage du savant «bnativisteb» de l’époque Edo,
Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 (1776-1843), intitulé Indo zďshi 印度藏志. Hirata,
qui développe des critiques virulentes contre le bouddhisme, essaie de retrouver
des fragments de mythes originels hindous dans les Ecritures bouddhiques, et
déclare qu’ils sont en réalité des traces de la mythologie japonaise, qui est la
vérité universelle. Dans ses analyses de textes bouddhiques, il avance que le
contenu des ouvrages ésotériques représente la pensée hindoue à peine déguisée
sous une apparence bouddhique. Et la théologie qui résulte de ses enquêtes
est étonnamment proche de la théologie des courants médiévaux qui ont été
examinés dans la première partie.
Ainsi, malgré l’étrange impression que peut produire la notion de «bforme
japonaise de l’ “hindouisme”b» à première vue, il semble que cette manière de
concevoir la pensée shintoïste naissante à l’époque médiévale puisse avoir une
certaine valeur heuristique pour comprendre ses caractères fondamentaux.
‫ ؕۺ‬I would like to express my deep gratitude to Mr. Dominic Steavu who kindly corrected
the English of this article. Needless to say, all the mistakes and awkwardness are mine.
Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 16 (2006-2007)b: 263-303

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009
Do not circulate without permission of the editor / Ne pas di௅user sans autorisation de l’éditeur
264 Iyanaga Nobumi
Introduction
As the title indicates, this paper proposes a new understanding of early medi-
eval Shintď thought by interpreting it as a form of “Japanese Hinduism.”2 By the
phrase “early medieval Shintď,” I mean to designate a certain number of texts that
are usually categorized as “Ryďbu Shintď” 兩部神道 or “Ise Shintď” 伊勢神道. Since
there is no unanimity, even among specialists of Shintď, concerning the classifica-
tion of texts in these categories,3 it is safer to assume that they roughly belong to
the early medieval period, that is between the Insei 院政 and the Nanbokuchď 南
北朝 periods. The suggestion that Shintď is a form of “Japanese Hinduism” may
appear odd at first, but it is precisely this sentiment of “oddity” that I would like
to stress, in order to use it as a “heuristic guide” to assist us in articulating a new
perspective on the ideological background against which Shintď thought developed.
To begin with, I would like to call attention to a passage that struck me when
I first read it. It is the beginning of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki 大和城寶山記,
a Shintď text that can roughly be situated in the mid- or late thirteenth century.4
Thus we heard: When Heaven and Earth were about to be realized, the pneuma of water
changed into Heaven and Earth. The winds of the ten directions came each against other,
touching each other and were able to bear (ji-su 持) the great water. On the water, a sacred
being (jinshď/kami 神聖) was born through transformation. It had a thousand heads and
two thousand hands and feet: its name was Ikď, the Permanently Compassionate Divine
King (Jďjĭ jihi jinnď to nazuke Ikď to nasu 名常住慈悲神王、爲葦綱). From the navel of this
human god (nin-jin 人神) blossomed a lotus flower of a thousand marvelous treasure petals
of gold; the lotus emitted a great light, similar to ten thousand suns shining all together.
It is িom this flower that [another] human god was born: he sat in the lotus position and
shone with unlimited light also; his name was the Deva-king BrahmÃ (Bon-tennď 梵天
‫ ؕۻ‬The term “Hinduism” has been object of critical discussion by some scholars, as a “con-
structed concept,” resulting িom the dialectical encounter between India and Europe (see Richard
King, Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘the Mystic East’, London and New
York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1999, pp.‫؜‬98-111; Gregory Price Grieve, “Staking
Out the Field: A Henotheistic Review of Supplemental Readers for the Study of Hinduism,”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 76, No. 3 (2008), pp.‫؜‬716-747; Brian Kemble
Pennington, Was Hinduism invented?: Britons, Indians, and Colonial Construction of Religion,
Oxford University Press 200‫ — ۾‬I owe these references to Charles D. Orzech. We can argue that
the category “Shintď” is also a constructed concept (see Mark Teeuwen, “From Jindõ to Shintď:
A Concept Takes Shape,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 29/3-4, 2002, pp.‫؜‬233-263). See
also my remark in the conclusion on the “neo-paganism” (below, p. 299).
‫ ؕۼ‬See Kadoya Atsushi 門屋溫, “‘Shintď-shi’ no kaitai: shingon shintď kenkyĭ no kadai”
「神道史」の解體——眞言神道研究の課題, Nihon bukkyď kenkyĭ-kai 日本佛教研究會 ed., Nihon no
bukkyď 日本の佛教, III, Kami to hotoke no kosumorojí 神と佛のコスモロジー, Kyďto: Hďzďkan 法藏
館, 1995, pp.‫؜‬167-180.
‫ ؕ۽‬I use the text edited by Itď Satoshi 伊藤聰 in Ise Shintďshĭ 伊勢神道集 (coll. Shinpukuji
zenpon sďkan 眞福寺善本叢刊, second series, vol. 8), Kyďto: Rinsen-shoten 臨川書店, 2005, p.
6‫ — ܊‬The date of composition of early medieval Shintď texts is a very complicated problem.
If the arguments presented by Abe Yasurď in his article in this volume can be confirmed, we
should think that many of them, including the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, were created much
earlier than commonly believed.

王). He gave birth to eight children, who in turn gave birth to all the people in Heaven
and on Earth (tenchi ninmin 天地人民). He was named Heavenly God, and also called the
Heavenly Emperor Ancestor-God (tentei no so-jin 天帝神).
This text is almost a literal quotation িom the Dazhidulun 大智度論.5 We can
presume িom this quotation that the author of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki was
familiar with the Dazhidu-lun. More striking still is the fact that this account of
creation is a famous Hindu myth which explains that the cosmos originated িom
the navel of ViҎѲu-NÃrÃyaѲa who was lying at the bottom of the ocean, sleeping on
ĜeҎa, the cosmic serpent.6 This myth is quoted in several Buddhist texts as an example
‫ ؕ۾‬Dazhidulun, T. XXV 1509: 116a5-11 (see E. Lamotte, Le Traité de la grande vertu de

sagesse de NÃgÃrjuna (MahÃprajñÃpÃramitÃĝÃstra), I, Louvain, 1966, p. 466); there is a very similar
passage in another Chinese Buddhist text, the Zapiyujing 雜譬喩經, T. IV 207: 529b9-‫ ܇‬Compar-
ing the passages িom the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, the Dazhidulun and the Zapiyujing, we can
be sure that the author of the Shintď work used the Dazhidulun (see also Agatsuma Matashirď
上妻又四郎, “Chĭsei Bukkyď-shintď ni okeru Bon-tennď shisď” 中世佛教神道における梵天王思想,
Terakoya gogaku-bunka kenkyĭ jo ronsď 寺子屋語學文化研究所論叢, 1982, p. 47 and n. 8). The dif-
ference between the two Buddhist texts being minimal, it may seem unimportant to determine
the exact source of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki. However, another passage িom the latter
work clearly refers to a passage in the Dazhidulun: we find in the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki the
following statement: “The tradition says: At the beginning of the kalpa, there existed a sacred
being named Permanently Compassionate Divine King (he is called ‘Deva king MahÃbrahmÃ
Ĝikhin’ [Shiki daibon tennď 尸棄大梵天王] in the language of the Law [hďgo 法語], and Ame no
minakanushi no mikoto 天御中主尊 in the language of gods [jingo 神語]). He resides in the Deva
Palace of MahÃbrahmÃ and has a wide and great thought of Compassion and Sincerity for the
beings. Thus, he created one hundred billion suns and moons, and one hundred billion Deva
BrahmÃ (hyakuoku nichigachi oyobi hyakuoku Bonten 百億日月及百億梵天), to save (watasu 度) an
unlimited number of beings. This is why he is the great ancestor of all the devaputras, and he
is the original master of the Trichilio-megachiliocosm” (Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, Itď ed.,
p. 619). — Now, there is a passage িom the Dazhidulun where we can read: “The Deva king
BrahmÃ who is the sovereign of the Trichilio-megachiliocosm is Ĝikhin (Shiki 式棄)” (T. XXV
1509: 58a26; see Lamotte, op. cit., I, p. 13). The transliteration of the name “Ĝikhin” used in the
Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki is di௅erent িom the one found in the Dazhidulun. Agatsuma (ibid., p.
49 and n. 15, 16) showed that the transliteration 尸棄 is based on the introductory chapter of the
Lotus Sĭtra (T. IX 262: 2a18-19), where two MahÃbrahmÃ are enumerated, masters of the Saha
world Ĝikhin and JyotiҎprabha, J. Shiki daibon 尸棄大梵 and Kďmyď daibon 光明大梵. But the
statement according to which MahÃbrahmÃ Ĝikhin is the “master of the Trichilio-megachilicosm”
is certainly based on the Dazhidulun. — We can also note that the impressive cosmic vision of
“one hundred billion suns and moons, and one hundred billion Deva BrahmÃ” has its counterpart
in the Dazhidulun, T. 1509: 113c26 (百億日月乃至百億大梵天。是名三千大千世界). We find the phrase
“百億日月百億梵王” in the Fahua yishu 法華義疏 by Jizang 吉藏 (T. XXXIV 1721: 464c21), and the
Hokke kaõishď 法華開示抄 by Jďkei 貞慶 (1155-1213) (T. LVI 2195: 274b3), or “百億日月乃至百億
大梵天” in the Konkďmyď saishďď-kyď gensĭ 金光明最勝王經玄樞 by Gangyď 願曉 (835-871) (T. LVI
2196: 539c11), or another similar phrase “百億日月中央即四禪梵王” in the Shingonshĭ kyďjigi 眞言宗
教時義 by Annen 安然 (841 - between 889 to 898) (T. LXXV 2396: 435b2).
‫ ؕۿ‬This myth is known in many Hindu texts, such as the MahÃbhÃrata and the BhÃgavata
PurÃЌa. See for example R. G. Bhandarkar, VaiШЌavism, Ĝaivism and Minor Religious Systems,
Strasbourg, 1913, pp.30-32; Madeleine Biardeau, Études de mythologie hindoue, I, Cosmogonies
purÃЌiques, Publications de l’Ecole িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, vol. 128, Paris: Adrien Maison-

266 Iyanaga Nobumi
of heterodox (or non-Buddhist) teaching (gedď 外道)7. In the Dazhidulun itself, it is

mentioned as a story of the “secular world” (sezoku 世俗) (T. 1509: 116a15). Indeed,
creationism, as it appears in this Indian myth and others, was consistently criticized
in Buddhist texts until the rise of Tantrism. The parallels that this narrative shares
with the classical Japanese myth of cosmogony as it is found in the Nihon shoki 日
本書紀 probably contributed to its inclusion in the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, but
it is surprising that the authors of the Shintď work went so far as to find it in the
great corpus of Buddhist texts, without noting its heterodox character — because
it is clear that they did not mean to advocate a doctrine contrary to Buddhism.
A close comparison of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki passage with its source in
the Dazhidulun reveals some interesting details. First, the name of the primordial
deity “Ikď” 葦綱8 in the Shintď work is rendered “Bichĭ” 韋紐, the usual translitera-
tion of the name ViҎѲu, in the Buddhist text. The character “i” 葦 was certainly
chosen because its form is similar to that of “韋”; it means “reed” (ashi 葦). In the
Nihon shoki version of the myth, a “reed sprout,” “ashi-kabi” 葦 , is the “first thing”
that appeared “between Heaven and Earth” (ame tsuchi no naka ni hitotsu no mono
nareri. Katachi ashi-kabi no gotoshi 天地之中生一物。状如葦 ) (NKBT 67, pp.‫؜‬76-77).
Another di௅erence between the Dazhidulun and the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki is
the phrase “on the water was born by transformation a sacred being” (suõď ni kami
keshď shite 水上神聖化生) which appears in the latter text as variation on the former’s
simpler “on the water, there was a person with a thousand heads [and…]” (shuishang
you yiqiantou ren 水上有一千頭人). The word “神聖” which is read as “kami” certainly
comes িom the first cosmogonic myth of the Nihon shoki, which explains “… Aীer
[Heaven and Earth were formed], a sacred being (kami) came to exist between the
two” (shikď shite nochi kami sono naka ni are masu 然後、神聖生其中焉) (NKBT 67,
pp.‫؜‬76-77).9 The word shensheng is of rather rare usage in Chinese sources; it occurs
most oীen in its adjectival meaning, in coƎunction with imperial referents such
as tianzi 天子 or bixia 陛下, modiূing them as in “sacred Son of Heaven” or “sacred
Majesty,” and so on.10 A commentary on the Nihon shoki that dates back to the
neuve, 1981, pp. 51-5‫ۻ‬

‫ ؕ܀‬The Waidao xiaocheng niepan lun 外道小乘涅槃論 (T. XXXII 1640: 157a11-19) and the
commentary on the Madhyamaka-ĝÃstra by Jizang 吉藏, the Zhongguan lun shu 中觀論疏 (T. XLII
1824: 14c4-16), which quotes the former (see Lamotte, op.cit., I, p. 466 and n. 2). See also an old
Indian commentary on the EkottarÃgama, the Fenbie gongdelun 分別功徳論 (T. XXV 1507: 31a8-13).
‫ ؕ܁‬There are several variants of this name depending on the manuscript: some have “事
網” with “葦” as a variant for “事”; others have “事綱” with the variant “葦綱”; this shows that
the copyists had diைculties in understanding the meaning of this name (see Itď Satoshi 伊藤聰,
“Hokekyď to chĭsei jingi sho: Toku ni Kamakura-ki ryďbu-shintď sho ni okeru Bon tennď setsu
o megutte”『法華經』と中世神書—特に鎌倉期兩部神道書における梵天王説を巡って, in Kokubungaku:
Kaishaku to kanshď 國文學—解釋と鑑賞, special issue ‘Hokekyď’ to chĭsei bungei『法華經』と中世文藝,
1997, pp.‫؜‬50-51 and n. 3).
‫ ؕ܂‬Kadoya Atsushi assisted me with the interpretation of this passage (see the mailing list
kuden-ML, messages entitled “Where is the ‘shinsei’,” dated 2009/03/01). I would like to express
my gratitude to him.
‫ ؕ܃‬See for example Xin Tangshu 新唐書 (Zhonghua shuju 中華書局), Liechuang 列傳, xci,

early tenth century, the Nihon shoki shiki teihon 日本書紀私記丁本, quotes a Chinese
work entitled Sanwu lõi 三五曆記 with regard to the above phrase. This lost work,
purportedly written in the kingdom of Wu 呉 during the third century, is credited
with recording that “at the beginning of world, there was a sacred [being] (shensheng)
named tianhuang 天皇 with one body with thirteen heads.”11 This is an interesting
detail: on the one hand, we may assume that the myth িom the Nihon shoki was
based on this Chinese text; on the other hand, we can conceive that the author‫ܠ‬
of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki knew not only about the Nihon shoki (this can be
inferred িom the allusion to the reed in the name of the primordial god “Ikď” 葦
網), but also about the Sanwu lõi (perhaps through the same quotation িom the
Nihon shoki shiki). If this is true, we may deduce another reason for which they
were interested in this cosmogonic fable of Hindu mythology. The mention of a
primordial god with “a thousand heads and two thousand hands and feet” can point
to the “sacred being with thirteen heads” িom the Sanwu lõi. The authors of the
Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki could have wanted to posit a more powerful god than
the primordial deity of the Nihon shoki, with many more heads, hands and feet.
The Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki is a rather special case in the series of early Shintď
texts িom the late twelীh- to late thirteenth centuries, in the sense that it is not
directly related to Ise shrine, but rather to the Shugendď of Katsuragi mountains.
The Dazhidulun myth িom the beginning of this text is rarely quoted in other
Shintď materials — except the Tenchi reiki fu roku 天地麗氣府録, which in naming
its source as the “Treatise,” “ron” 論, cites the exact text of the Dazhidulun.12 This
p.b3784: “tianzi shensheng” 天子神聖; ibid., cxii, p. 4175: “bixia shensheng yongzhi” 陛下神聖勇智. — It
is perhaps significant that a little earlier than the compilation of the Nihon shoki (completed in
720), empress Wu Zhao 武照 cherished the word shengshen 聖神 and used it in several of her titles,
such as shengshen huangdi 聖神皇帝, jinlun shengshen huangdi 金輪聖神皇帝, yuegu jinlun shengshen
huangdi 越古金輪聖神皇帝, Tiance jinlun dasheng huangdi 天册金輪聖神皇帝.
‫ ؕ܄‬Nihon shoki shiki teihon 日本書紀私記丁本, Kokushi taikei 國史大系, VIII, p. 195: “呂濟三五曆
記云。開闢之初。有神聖。一身十三頭。號天皇.” — Note that “tennď” 天皇 was a new word in Japan when
the Nihon shoki was compiled, first appearing during or shortly aীer the reign of the Emperor
Tenmu 天武天皇 (631? - 686, r 673-686). [Dominic Steavu, who kindly reviewed and corrected
the English of this paper, points out that in the Daoist work entitled Badi miaojing jing 八帝妙精經
(CT 640, 7a), there is the following passage: “天皇君人面蛇身、十三頭。平初元年十一月八日出治.” The
coincidence is surprising, and worth noting.] This phrase িom the Sanwu lõi might have been
one of the sources of for the title. — Lone Takeuchi called my attention to the word “shensheng/
shinsei” 神聖; Kanazawa Hideyuki 金澤英之 pointed out both this quotation িom the Nihon shoki
shiki and the article by Kďnoshi 神野志 that follows. I would like to express my gratitude to both
of them. — On the quotations of the Sanwu lõi in the beginning passage of the Nihon shoki,
see Kďnoshi Takamitsu 神野志隆光, “Nihon shoki ‘Jindai’ bďtď-bu to Sango rekiki”『日本書紀』「神
代」冒頭部と『三五曆紀』in Yoshii Iwao 吉井嚴, ed., Kiki Man’yď ronsď 記紀萬葉論叢, Tďkyď: Hanawa
shobď 塙書房, 1992, pp.‫؜‬96-1‫܊‬
‫ ؕ܅‬Tenchi reiki furoku 天地麗氣府録, in Shintď taikei 神道大系, Shingon shintď 眞言神道, I, ‫؜‬
121-122; see also Satď Masato 佐藤眞人, “‘Tenchi reiki furoku’ no shutten in’yď ichiran, jď”『天
地麗氣府録』の出典・引用一覽・上, Ďkurayama ronshĭ 大倉山論集 37 (1995), pp.‫؜‬238-240. — We can
suppose that the author‫ ܠ‬of the Tenchi reiki furoku knew the opening myth of the Yamato
Katsuragi hďzanki, and traced back its source to the Dazhidulun. But the meaning becomes very

268 Iyanaga Nobumi
quotation in the Tenchi reiki fu roku is in turn reproduced in the famous Ruõu
jingi hongen 類聚神本源 and in the Korenshĭ 瑚璉集, both by Watarai Ieyuki 度會
家行 (1256-1361), and also in the Gengenshĭ 元元集 by Ieyuki’s disciple Kitabatake
Chikafusa 北畠親房 (1293-1354).13
Even though the influence of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki is not clearly appar-
ent, there is at least one work of the Ise shrine tradition in which it is discernible:
the Jinnď keizu 神皇系圖 refers to primordial being, “shinsei,” named Kunitokotachi
no mikoto 國常立尊; his other names include “Jďjĭ bi-son” 常住尊 (Venerable
Permanent “Bi”), “Ame no minakanushi no kami” 天御中主神, and “MahÃbrahmÃ
Ĝikhin” (Shiki Daibon tennď 尸棄大梵天王), master of the Great Chiliocosm (daisen
sekai no aruji 大千世界主); further, it is said that “altogether there are Eight gods
who transformed themselves in the treasure seat of Ame no minakanushi no kami;
they revealed one hundred billion Sumerus, one hundred billion Suns and Moons,
one hundred billion worlds in the four [directions], and gave birth by transforma-
tion to all people in Heaven and on Earth (tenchi ninmin 天地人民), becoming their
original ancestors.”14 Thus, even if the reference to the Hindu myth is not explicit,
it is clear that the textual and ideological influence, of the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki
was not negligible in the Ise shrine milieu.15
We will now turn to the question of why this Hindu myth came to be included
in an early medieval Shintď text, and consider, more generally, the role of Buddhist
Devas in early medieval Shintď discourse.
Annen and Buddhist Devas in early medieval Shintč
There are several trends in the early medieval Shintď discourse on Buddhist
Devas. It is possible to trace some of these back to Annen’s thought. Among the
most important of these are:
di௅erent when the Buddhist source is identified: in the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, the myth is
presented as a genuine revelation, while in the Tenchi reiki furoku quotation, the reader knows
that it is a Buddhist perspective.
‫ ؕ܆‬All of these works belong to the Ise shrine lineage. See Ruõu jingi hongen 類聚神本源;
Korenshĭ 瑚璉集, ST, Ise Shintď, jď 伊勢神道・上, p. 407, pp.‫؜‬572-573; Gengenshĭ 元元集, Masamune
Atsuo 正宗敦夫, ed., Nihon koten bungaku zenshĭ 日本古典文學全集 39, 1934, p.‫۾؜‬
‫ ؕ܇‬Jinnď keizu 神皇系圖, in Ise Shintďshĭ 伊勢神道集, p. 630, p. 631: “都八柱神者、天御中主神
寶座之内獨化神也。明二、百億須彌、百億日月、百億四天下一、而爲二天地人民化生元一者也.” — Note that
the phrase “people in Heaven and on Earth (天地人民),” which may seem rather common, is in
fact very rare: there are only eleven occurrences in all eighty-five volumes of the Taishď Canon;
all of them are based on the Dazhidulun passage quoted above.
‫ ؕ܈‬Another intriguing point common to all these myths is the importance attributed to
Ame no minakanushi no mikoto. In the Nihon shoki, this god appears only once, in the quota-
tion িom “one of the di௅erent traditions” (issho ni iwaku 一書曰) (NKBT 67, pp.‫؜‬78-79), while in
the Kojiki 古事記, it is the first deity mentioned (NKBT 1, p. 50). Since the Kojiki was practically
unknown during the medieval period, the reason why this god became so important in Ise shrine
traditions remains a mystery.

‫ ۺ‬The Myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven;

‫ ۻ‬The discourse on BrahmÃ (BrahmÃ Ĝikhin and BrahmÃ JyotiҎprabha) distin-
guishes between the Inner and Outer shrines (naikĭ 内宮 and gekĭ 外宮) of Ise, which
are connected to two BrahmÃ, and correlate to Ame no minakanushi no mikoto;
‫ ۼ‬The discourse on ìĝÃna (Ishana-ten 伊舍那天), which is associated to Izanagi
伊弉諾 and Izanami 伊弉冉.
Other than these three traditions, the Shingon fuhď san’yďshď 眞言付法纂要抄
by Seison 成尊 (1012-1074), which had a crucial influence on the formation of
medieval Shintď thought, also displays some elements that are evocative of Annen’s
views on mythology. Since Seison stands at the chronological midpoint between
Annen (late ninth century) and the emergence of the medieval Shintď works (late
twelীh century), we will first examine his text and consider how it reflects Annen’s
speculations.
Annen and Seison’s Shingon fuhĎ san’yĎshĎ
In 1060, Seison, disciple of the founder of the Ono-ryĭ 小野流, Ningai 仁海 (951-
1046), dedicated his short work on the history of the transmission of the Shingon
School, the Shingon fuhď san’yďshď, to the heir prince Takahito 尊仁 — who was to
become Emperor Go-SaƎď 後三条天皇 (1034-1073, r. 1068-1073) — for whom he
acted in the capacity of protector monk (gojisď 護持僧).16 Towards the end of this
work, we find the following passage:17
To begin with, among the eighty-four thousand cities in Jambudvípa, it is only in this
Sunny Valley (yďkoku 陽谷, Japan) that the secret teaching will be prosper: I explained this
already. In olden times, the Bodhisattva Ikď 威光菩 (Majestic Light) (the deity Maríci,
a transformation body of MahÃvairocana) always resided in the Sun palace (nichigĭ 日
宮) and resolved the trouble pertaining to the King of Asuras (ashura-ď no nan 阿修羅王
難). Now, Vajra of Pervasive Light (HeƎď kongď 遍照金剛 [the Esoteric name of Kĭkai])
eternally lives in the Sun Region (Nichiiki 日域; Japan) to increase the good fortune of the
Saintly King of the Golden Wheel (Konrin jďď 金輪聖王, cakravartin, here, the Japanese
imperial dynasty). [Our country’s] god is named Tenshď-son [or Amaterasu no mikoto]
天照尊 (the Venerated One who Shines in the Sky), and the country is named “Country
of the Origin of the Sun” (Nihon-koku 日本國). It is the spontaneous [or self-existing]
principle (jinen no ri 自然之理) which gives the spontaneous names (jinen no myď 自然
名). All this is truly based on this [spontaneity?] (makoto ni kore wo moto to suru yue
nari 誠職此之由矣). This is why, [in the same way that] the Iron stĭpa of Southern India
(Nan-Ten tettď 南天鐵塔) includes the entire Mind Palace of the Dharma Realm (hokkai
shinden 法界心殿) despite its small size, the Sunny Valley of the Eastern Vehicle (Tďjď
‫ ؕ܉‬See Itď Satoshi, “Kaidai” 解題, in Chĭsei sentoku chosaku shĭ 中世先徳著作集, (coll.
Shinpukuji zenpon sďkan, second series, vol. 3), Kyďto: Rinsen shoten 臨川書店, 2006, p. 53‫܁‬
‫ ؕ܊‬T. LXXVII 2433: 421b29-‫ ܁‬Here, I follow the text of the oldest manuscript found in
the Shinpukuji library (edited by Itď, Chĭsei sentoku chosaku-shĭ, p. 426): 抑於贍部州八萬四千聚落
之中。唯陽谷内盛。
祕密教事。見上。
又昔威光菩（摩利支天即大日化身也）
常居日宮。除阿修羅王難。
今遍照金剛。
鎭住日域。増金輪聖王福矣。
神號天照尊。邦名日本國乎。自然之理。
立自然名。誠職此之由矣。
是故南天鐵塔雖。
全包法界心殿。東乘陽谷雖鄙。皆是大種姓人。明知。大日如來加持力之所致也。是凡愚所識乎。

270 Iyanaga Nobumi
yďkoku 東乘陽谷), although it is a remote and provincial region, is [inhabited by] all the
great [noble] clans [destined to Enlightenment through the Esoteric teaching]. Thus, we
clearly know that [all this] is the e௅ect of the sacramental power (kajiriki 加持力) of the
TathÃgata MahÃvairocana (Dainichi nyorai 大日如來: TathÃgata Great Sun). How could
this be known by foolish, ordinary people?
Since this is a text o௅ered to an imperial prince, it is very rhetorical, and con-
siderably diைcult to penetrate. Nevertheless, the reliance of the passage on solar
symbolism is readily discernible (for example, we find expressions like “Sunny Valley,”
yďkoku, “Sun Palace,” nichigĭ, “Sun Region,” nichiiki, “Vajra of Pervasive Light,”
HeƎď kongď, “the Venerated One who Shines in the Sky,” Tenshď-son, and so
on). The sentence which reveals that “Vajra of Pervasive Light eternally lives in the
Sun Region to increase the good fortune of the Saintly King of the Golden Wheel”
is a reference to Kĭkai’s mummy — resting in a meditative state in the Inner Hall
(oku no in 奧の院) of Kďyasan until the coming of the next Buddha Maitreya — and
the protection it confers on the imperial family. The end of the passage explains
that “[in the same way that] the Iron stĭpa of Southern India includes the entire
Mind Palace of the Dharma Realm despite its small size, the Sunny Valley of the
Eastern Vehicle, although it is a remote and provincial region, is [inhabited by] all
the great [noble] clans [destined to Enlightenment through the Esoteric teach-
ing].” Although Japan is a small country, far removed িom the center of the world
which was considered to be at the place of the Buddha’s enlightenment (Bodh-gayÃ
in India), it is on the archipelago that Esoteric Buddhism prospers the most. It is
an argument to contradict the prevailing pessimistic opinion of the period, which
considered Japan as a “remote little land like a scattered grain of millet” (zokusan-
hendo 粟散邊土). We must remember that this era was dominated by the fear of
the Last Period of the Buddha’s Law. Studies have established that it is against
this largely fatalistic background that the ideology of “Japan as Divine Country”
(shinkoku shisď 神國思想) was established.
The most important aspect of this excerpt is that it provides for the first time the
fundamental idea that Japan is the “Country of the Origin of the Sun.” Its principal
deity, “the One who Shines in the Sky” [Amaterasu Ďkami], is protected by the
spirit of a monk named “Vajra of Pervasive Light,” who “corresponds” in a mysteri-
ous way to the Buddha MahÃvairocana — whose name is translated as “Great Sun”
(Dainichi) or the “Pervasive Light” (HeƎď 遍照). The idea that “it is the sponta-
neous [or self-existing] principle which gives the spontaneous names” is based on
the primal mantric linguistic philosophy that characterizes Tantric metaphysics.18
‫ ؕ܋‬This important concept of “natural names” seems to be based on a passage িom Kĭkai’s
空海 work on siddhaѮ characters, the BoŶi shittan jimo shakugi 梵字悉曇字母釋義: T. LXXXIV
2701 361a11-15: “According to the Dai Birushana kyď 大毘盧遮那經, it is said that the characters
are the creation of the spontaneous principle (jinen dďri 自然道理); they are created neither by
TathÃgata, nor by King BrahmÃ or other Devas. […] The di௅erent Buddhas and the TathÃgatas
examined these naturally essential characters (hďnen no moŶi 法然之文字) with their Buddha-eyes
(butsugen 佛眼), and taught them according to the true reality (nyojitsu 如實) for the benefit of
sentient beings…” This passage is quoted by Annen in his Shittanzď 悉曇藏, T. LXXXIV 2702:

The pun on the words “Dainichi and “Dainichi[no]honkoku,” MahÃvairocana and

Japan, “the Great Sun” and “the Country of Origin of the Great Sun,” is not readily
apparent in this case because the character “Dai” before “Nihonkoku” is lacking.19
Soon aীer Seison, a manuscript by his second generation disciple and founder of
the Sanbďin-ryĭ 三寶院流 lineage, Shďkaku 勝覺 (1057-1129), already attests that
the idea of connecting the Buddha to the country by means of puns had already
developed by 1109;20 and as Itď Satoshi has shown, there are other important Shingon
monks of the early thirteenth century, such as Dďhď 道寶 (1211-1268) and Dďhan
道範 (1184-1252), who rely on the same double entendre in their works.21 Yet, even
before these Shingon monks of the thirteenth century, the idea had been formulated
in the Nakatomi no harae kunge 中臣祓訓解, which dates back to 1191 or earlier,
making it one of the oldest fundamental texts of medieval Shintď. The document
contains a short gloss explaining the phrase “yomo no kuni” 四方之國, literally “the
country of four directions”: it refers to the “Country of Dainihon, that is, the
Palace of Dainichi, the World Land” (Dainihon-shĭ nari, Dainichi-gĭ, sekai kokudo
nari 大日本洲也、大日宮、世界國土也).22 Thus, Japan is equated with the entire World!
The main mythological arguments in Seison’s text identiূ the Bodhisattva Ikď
(Majestic Light) with the Buddha MahÃvairocana; they also identiূ this same Ikď
with Maríci, who is described in turn as “a transformation body of the Buddha
MahÃvairocana,” residing in Sun palace (nichigĭ 日宮), and who “resolved the trouble
pertaining to the King of Asuras.”
The association of the “Bodhisattva Ikď,” Bodhisattva of Majestic Light, with
the “transformation body of MahÃvairocana” certainly relies on a passage িom the
Jingang ding jing 金剛頂經, where the Buddha is said to have taken the Vow of the
Great Bodhisattva of the Great Majestic Light (Dai-ikď dai-bosatsu sanmaya 大威
光大菩三昧耶). This produces a light compared to a gathering of many great sun-
wheels (shuta dai nichirin 衆多大日輪), constituting a shape of the Vajra Sun-wheel
(Kongď nichirin 金剛日輪) in the palm of the Buddha; and িom this Vajra Sun-wheel
is born a Bodhisattva MahÃsattva named “Great Majestic Light” (Dai-ikď bosatsu
369c27-370a‫ — ۼ‬Kĭkai’s quotation cannot be found in the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra (Dai Birushana

kyď ), T. XVIII 84‫܁‬
‫ ؕ܌‬In some later manuscripts, this character is added; and the edition in the Taishď Canon
follows this amended reading; but the oldest manuscript lacks this character, and this seems to
have been the original form.
‫ ؕ܍‬Uejima Susumu 上島享, “Nihon chĭsei no kami-kannen to kokudo-kan” 日本中世の神
觀念と國土觀, in Ichi-no-miya kenkyĭkai 一宮研究會 ed., Chĭsei Ichi-no-miya sei no rekishi-teki
tenkai 中世一宮制の歴史的展開, II, Sďgď kenkyĭ-hen 總合研究編, Tďkyď: Iwata shoin 岩田書院,
2004, p. 89b; pp.‫؜‬51-5‫۽‬
2‫ ؕۺ‬Itď Satoshi, “Amaterasu Ďmikami Dainichi nyorai shĭgď setsu o megutte, jď” 天照大神
＝大日如來習合説をめぐって（上） , Ibaraki daigaku jinbun gakubu kiyď (Jinbun gakka ronshĭ) 城大學
人文學部紀要（人文學科論集）, No. 39, 2003, pp.‫؜‬70b-71a. Dďhan 道範, Shoshin tongakushď 初心頓覺
抄, Shingonshĭ zensho 眞言宗全書 37, p. 32‫܀‬
2‫ ؕۻ‬Nakatomi no harae kunge 中臣祓訓解, in Chĭsei Shintď ron 中世神道論 [NSST 19], p.
269a; see also p. 4‫۾‬

272 Iyanaga Nobumi
makasatsu 大威光菩摩訶 ).23 Furthermore, Itď mentions that in his commentary

on Seison’s work, the Shingon fuhď san’yďshď kikigaki 眞言付法纂要抄聞書, Gďhď 杲
寶 (1306-1362) refers to a writing by Annen called “Shingon yďmitsu-ki” 眞言要密
記.24 This is certainly the same work as the Marishiten yďki 摩利支天要記 quoted in
the Asabashď 阿娑縛抄; a very closely related text, the Annen Shingon yďmitsu-ki 安
然眞言要密記, is also cited in the Byakuhď kushď 白寶口抄.25 At any rate, it is a lost
work, and we cannot determine its original title with certainty, but it is entirely
possible that Annen possessed a Shingon yďmitsu ki describing esoteric rituals for
di௅erent deities, and one of its chapters was devoted to Maríci. The text that the
Asabashď cites is a most interesting one: we may divide it into three sections, the first
of which defines “the Bodhisattva Maríci” as a “Vow of MahÃvairocana” (Dainichi
sanmaya 大日三昧耶). The second section is a long sequence of quotations িom
di௅erent authors on the problem of the place of MahÃbrahmÃ in the hierarchy of
Buddhist Heavens, and the expanse of worlds corresponding to each stage of the
Heavens. Since this concern is characteristic of Annen’s other doctrinal works, we
may consider it corroboration for the presumption that the Marishiten yďki was
extracted িom one of his texts. We should notice however that it is very diைcult
to determine the original texts that are quoted there — this is typical of Annen’s
quotations. The third and final section relates a very peculiar myth in which Maríci
plays an important role in the war between Indra’s army and the Asuras. Leaving the
second section for later discussion, we will first examine the first and third sections.
But I must first say a word about Maríci himself: the Sanskrit word “maríci,” means
“ray of light of Sun or Moon” or “mirage.” In Hindu mythology, the deity Maríci
is regarded as a son of Svayambhĭ, or a son of BrahmÃ. In the Japanese tradition,
it seems that the deity was appreciated for its name’s phantasmagoric connotations:
since a mirage cannot be captured or struck, Maríci was especially worshipped as
a protector god of warriors.
The first section in Annen’s text is presented as a short quotation িom a ritual
work on Maríci. It says: “According to the Ritual text of the Deity Maríci (Marishi-
ten giki 摩利支天儀軌) translated by Amoghavajra, it is said that the bodhisattva
Maríci is [born িom] a Vow of MahÃvairocana (Dainichi sanmaya 大日三昧耶),
who has entered the Concentration of the Metaphor of the Sun (nichi-yu zanmai
日喩三昧); he is a subordinate of the Deity Sĭrya.”26 Unfortunately, like many of
Annen’s references, this passage cannot be located, despite the fact that a ritual text
entitled “Molizhi pusa lüe niansong fa” 摩利支菩略念誦法, translated by Amoghavajra
does exist (T. XXI 1258). Even the expression nichiyu zanmai, “Concentration of
the Metaphor of the Sun” cannot be found in the Indian and Chinese sections of
the Taishď Canon. What we find instead is a passage িom the Commentary of the
2‫ ؕۼ‬Jingangding jing 金剛頂經, T. XVIII 865 i 210a18-b‫܂‬

2‫ ؕ۽‬Itď Satoshi, “Kaidai,” in Chĭsei sentoku chosakushĭ, p. 54‫۾‬
2‫ ؕ۾‬Asabashď 阿娑縛抄, TZ. IX 3190: 467c3-468a19; Byakuhď kushď 白寶口抄, TZ. VII 3119:
178b18-c28, 281a25-b‫܈‬
2‫ ؕۿ‬Asabashď 阿娑縛抄, TZ. IX 3190: 467c3-5: “不空譯、摩利支天儀軌云。摩利支天菩者。是大日
三昧耶故入於日喩三昧。即日天眷屬.”

MahÃvairocana-sĭtra which reveals that “the sun is the metaphor for the original
pure bodhi mind; it is the very Substance of Vairocana.”27 Seison was surely referring
to this passage of Annen’s work when associating the Bodhisattva of Majestic Light
with Maríci. According to Annen, the latter is directly related to MahÃvairocana,
and to the Sun, just like the Bodhisattva of Majestic Light in the Jingangding jing.
The third section is a long narration of a Maríci myth. Surprisingly, and con-
trary to his habit, Annen does not mention any references, so we are compelled to
look for them ourselves. The result is truly surprising since there appears to be no
source for this myth. There are many canonical texts or commentaries that narrate
myths related to the war between the Devas and the Asuras, a battle that began
with Ĝakra abducting the daughter of the Asura King Vemacitra.28 But no text, to
my knowledge I am aware of, has a story that Annen could have used for the basis
of his myth. In addition, I have been unable to find a passage relating the battle
between the Devas and the Asuras in which Maríci helps the Devas. My reluctant
conclusion is that Annen, using many versions of the battle between the Devas
and the Asuras, added significant portions, and invented this “Hindu-like” myth:29
[At the beginning of the kalpa,] the ÂbhÃsvara deities [deities of Radiant Sound]
descended onto Jambudvípa and gave birth to a child. It was Vemacitra, the king of Asuras.
This Asura king gave birth to a daughter; her form was like that of a Deva maiden, noble
and very delicate. Her name was Ĝací. [Vemacitra] wanted to give her to the Asura king
RÃhu as his consort; but Ĝakra devendra abducted her with his supernatural power and
brought her to [his] Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods. Summoning Viĝvakarman, he
made him build the city Sudarĝana. The latter built a city of ten thousand houses in a
time corresponding to seven days in the human world, adorning them with seven jewels
2‫ ؕ܀‬Dari jing shu 大日經疏, T. XXXIX 1796: 618c18-19: “日喩本淨菩提心。即是毘盧遮那自體.” —

The same text can be found in the Putixin yi 菩提心義 by Haiyun 海運, T. XLVI 1953: 988a12-‫܆‬
2‫ ؕ܁‬The Guanfo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 (T. XV 643: 646c14-647b11) relates a myth
according to which Indra married Ĝací, daughter of the Asura king Vemacitra; when she saw
Indra fornicating with a palace maiden, she became jealous and told her father about the incident.
This angered Vemacitra, who declared war against Indra and his Deva army. Indra eventually won
the war on account of the protection a௅orded by a PrajñÃpÃramitÃ dhÃraЌí. Zhiyi 智顗, in his
commentary on the Lotus sĭtra, the Miaofa lianhua jing weŶu 妙法蓮華經文句 (T. XXXIV 1718: 2
25b2-‫ ܄‬b13-20), adds to this story an episode according to which the Asura RÃhu ate the Sun
and Moon. On the other hand, the Zhengfa nianchu jing 正法念處經 (T XVII 721: 107a10-108a09)
tells a long story in which it is said that the Asura RÃhu wanted to see a Deva maiden, but was
unable to because he was blinded by the Sun.
2‫ ؕ܂‬但光音天下化於贍部界。生一子。所謂毘摩質多羅阿修羅王。是阿修羅王生一女子。其形如天女。端嚴甚
微妙也。其名曰舍脂。以此女欲爲羅阿修羅王妾也。帝釋天王以神通取此。將至忉利天上。召毘首羯磨天。令造喜
見城。經人間七日頃造一萬間舍訖。即以七寶嚴飾。以因多羅網覆其舍。毎網目有萬億鈴。鈴光鈴音合於一。即此舍
脂女囚置中寢。時二阿修羅王起引四兵。列見大海上。諸阿修羅王并百千萬軍衆集會。其影蔭現海水底。其數不可究
盡。爲奪彼舍脂女。上天帝宮時。日月天子放淨光。照耀修羅王兩眼眸子。羅阿修羅王以手欲執日月天子。摩利支
天菩有大勢方便。故現人間三歳小兒形。覆翳日月天宮。令威猛修羅王迷惑。亦吾以隱形法不令知日月天子及修
羅王。恆令帝釋天王悉摧破修羅王軍衆（或説云。摩利支天爲助護天帝日月。恆隱其形。縣前如微鳥竹籠。現其世界
之形相也）帝釋天毎月十六日講演大品般若。般若十六神王首深沙大王領引七萬阿僧眷屬。持智劍。須臾頃割裁
修羅軍陳若干眷屬。即修羅王等五體墮大海水上。如微塵數。時修羅王衆。不死藥。含齒中。
不敢散失。各有自通
力。
擇取微塵身體。如故活續。歸徃本宮。如此恆時雖受苦因勝他心深禁故。毎月十六日鬪諍無已。故天帝渇仰般若
力。一切諸佛權化皆應稱帝釋天所勢。是故摩利支天菩。以大方便神通力助護天帝也。

274 Iyanaga Nobumi
and covering them all with Indra’s net. On each node of this net, there were ten or a
hundred thousand rings, and their glitter together with their sound were [extremely
beautiful]. Ĝací was a prisoner [of this city], and slept there.
Then, the two Asura kings raised the four armies and lined them up on the
Ocean. Other Asura Kings, with their armies of millions and tens of millions of soldiers,
appeared at the bottom of sea. Unfathomable in their numbers, they all ascended up to
the Heavenly palace to get Ĝací back. At that time, the Sun and Moon gods (Sĭrya and
Candra) emitted a pure light to strike the Asura kings’ pupils. The Asura king RÃhu
tried to capture the two gods, but the Bodhisattva Maríci, with his great powers of
skillful means manifested in the form of a three-year old boy and obscured the palaces
of Sun and Moon, so that the raging Asura kings were blinded. It is also [said that]
with the Method for Concealing the Form, he could hinder Asura kings িom knowing
[the place where the deities Sun and Moon were], so that Ĝakra devendra would always
obtain victory over Asura armies. (According to another account, it is said that the deity
Maríci always helped and protected the King of Gods [Ĝakra] and the Sun and Moon;
he always hid them with a cloak akin to a delicate bird cage that presents a [delusional?]
aspect to the world).
On the sixteenth day of every month, Ĝakra devendra organizes the ceremony of
the Great PrajñÃpÃramitÃ preaching, and brings seventy thousand million subordinates
under the order of the sixteen divine kings of the PrajñÃpÃramitÃ (hannya jĭroku jinnď 般
若十六神王)30 and the Great King Deep Sands (JiƎa daiď 深沙大王). He [Ĝakra devendra]
goes to war carrying his sword of wisdom. He instantaneously defeats and cuts down
all the Asura armies, then deploys a number of his subordinates [to prepare for new
battles]. The bodies of the Asura kings and other Asuras fall into the sea, and are broken
into innumerable pieces. However, the Asura kings and their soldiers have a medicine of
immortality between their teeth, and despite being scattered into pieces, each of them
collect the pieces of their disintegrated bodies and with their resuscitative powers bring
themselves back to life; then all the Asura kings return to their original palace. They
always su௅er this way, and because they have a strong desire to vanquish others (?), they
start over the battle on the sixteenth day of every month. This is the reason why the
King of Gods [Ĝakra] longs for the power of prajñÃpÃramitÃ. All buddhas and provisional
beings are on the King of Gods’ side. This is why the Bodhisattva Maríci helps him with
his great supernatural power of skillful means.
We can be certain that Seison was referring to Annen’s work when writing that
“the Bodhisattva Ikď 威光菩 (Majestic Light) [identified with the deity Maríci, a
transformation body of MahÃvairocana] always resided in the Sun palace (nichigĭ 日
宮) and resolved the trouble pertaining to the King of Asuras (ashura-ď no nan 阿修
羅王難).” Indra’s immortality is well-known in Hindu mythology, but in this Bud-
dhist context, it becomes more intriguing, especially in light of the statement that
“the buddhas and provisional beings [bodhisattvas] are on the King of Gods’ side.”
This ethical distortion results িom the narrative conventions of the myth whereby
the Asura kings embody the archetypal villain while Ĝakra devendra incarnates the
quintessential hero figure. The Asura kings were in possession of a beautiful woman
named Ĝací, but Ĝakra makes away with her, and a battle ensues. In this battle,
30.ؕ According to the Gyďrinshď 行林抄 by Jďnen 靜然, the sixteen divine kings of the
PrajñÃpÃramitÃ are the twelve divine attendant generals of the TathÃgata BhaiҎajyaguru and the
Four Deva-kings (T. LXXVI 2409: 23a23-24).

the solar and lunar powers in the abductor’s service fall into peril, but a deceptive
agent, Maríci, comes to the rescue, and Ĝakra wins the battle.
This distortion recalls the medieval Shintď myth of King MÃra of the Sixth
Heaven. All of its variant forms roughly tell the same story: The existing world,
and all the beings in it, belonged to MÃra. When Amaterasu was about to create
Japan, MÃra foresaw that Buddhism would prosper in this new country. This would
permit people to escape his realm, and so he descended িom his Sixth Heaven to
hinder her. Amaterasu deceived him, promising that she would never tolerate Bud-
dhism. Under these conditions, she was permitted to create Japan, and because of
this promise, Buddhism is taboo in Ise Shrine in spite of the fact that Amaterasu
was actually a staunch protector of Buddhism.31 Annen’s myth is certainly more
complicated, but the essential features are very similar. In the myth of King MÃra
of the Sixth Heaven, the latter embodies the villain while Amaterasu is the heroin.
The disputed item is the country of Japan. This item, which was originally King
MÃra’s possession, is re-appropriated in a sense by Amaterasu, a solar symbol, who
employs িaudulent means to achieve her end. Thus, we may suppose some relation
between Annen’s myth on the battle between the Devas and the Asuras, and the
medieval myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven.
Annen and the myth of King MÂra of the Sixth Heaven

Granted, the relation between Annen’s Maríci myth and the medieval myth
of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven may not be explicit. Seison’s text on the “solar
character” of Japan on the other hand, displays comparatively clearer similarities
with the Shintď legend:32 both sources mention Amaterasu (the latter unequivo-
cally associates her with Maríci); the Asura K ing assumes the role of the villain
in Annen’s myth, while MÃra inherit this role in the Shintď version. On the other
hand, in many variants of the myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven, we encounter
the famous motif of “Japan as the Original Country of Dainichi,” which manifestly
derives িom the Seison’s texte.
3‫ ؕۺ‬There are many studies on this myth. I will mention only some of them: Itď Satoshi 伊
藤聰, “Dairokuten Maď setsu no seiritsu: Tokuni ‘Nakatomi no harae kunge’ no shosetsu o chĭshin
toshite” 第六天魔王説の成立̶̶特に『中臣祓訓解』の所説を中心として, Nihon bungaku 日本文學, 447, 1995;
Id., “Shasekishĭ to chĭsei shintď-setsu: Bďtď-wa ‘Daõingĭ no koto’ o megutte”『沙石集』と中世神
道説——冒頭話「太神宮御事」を巡って, Setsuwa bungaku kenkyĭ 説話文學研究, 35, 2000; Id. “Chĭsei
shinwa no tenkai: Chĭsei kďki no dairokuten Maď tan o megutte” 中世神話の展開̶̶中世後期の第
六天魔王譚を巡って, Kokubungaku Kaishaku to kanshď 國文學解釋と鑑賞, 633, 1998; Iyanaga Nobumi
彌永信美, “Le Roi MÃra du Sixième Ciel et le mythe médiéval de la création du Japon,” Cahiers
d’Extrême-Asie 9, 1996-1997, Mémorial Anna Seidel. Religions traditionnelles d’Asie orientale, II,
pp.‫؜‬323-396; Id. “Dairokuten Maď to chĭsei Nihon no sďzď shinwa” 第六天魔王と中世日本の創造神
話, I, II, III, Hirosaki Daigaku kokushi kenkyĭ 弘前大學・國史研究, 103-106, 1998-1999; Abe Yasurď
阿部泰郎, “Maď tono keiyaku: Dairokuten Maď shinwa no bunmyaku” 魔王との契約̶̶第六天魔
王神話の文脈, in Takehisa Tsuyoshi 武久堅 et al. ed., Chĭsei gunki no tenbďdai 中世軍記の展望台,
Tďkyď: Izumi shoin 和泉書院, 200‫ۿ‬
3‫ؕۻ‬See Abe Yasurď, “Maď tono keiyaku,” pp.‫؜‬109-1‫܃‬

276 Iyanaga Nobumi
There is one particular version of that myth in the first chapter of the Keiranshĭyďshĭ
溪嵐拾葉集 that is of special interest because of its close relation with Seison’s text:33
Concerning our country’s name, “Dainihon-koku,” it is recorded that in a secret
conversation, it was said: “Someone (Chĭkai 忠快 [b.1160; an important master of
Tendai esotericism, active until the early thirteenth century]) said that MahÃvairocana,
aীer realizing the enlightenment at the pinnacle of the Form Realm, threw down the
heavenly spear into the ocean of Jambudvípa. A foam was produced on the ocean’s surface
when the spear entered it, and it coagulated to become a country. This is the country of
Japan.” […] Personally, I think that [the Deity of ] the Great shrine of Ise is the Trace
Leী by MahÃvairocana.
Then, some lines further:34

Concerning three kinds of numinous Jewels (reihď 靈寶):35 The Divine Seal (shiŶi 神璽) [is]
the Figure [or Chart] of the Country (kokuzu 國圖)36, the anthropomorphic [maЌϒala]
3‫ ؕۼ‬Keiranshĭyďshĭ (T. LXXVI 2410: 511a4-10): “一。我國號大日本國事。密談云（忠快）或人物語

云。大日如來色界頂成道。南浮提之海中天逆鉾投下給。入海之時泡沫凝成州。所謂日本國是也。日本國南州二中
州内遮末羅州也。倶舍、此州羅刹婆居（矣）其羅刹婆伊勢太神宮是也。私云。大日垂迹也.”
3‫ ؕ۽‬Keiranshĭyďshĭ, (T. LXXVI 2410: 511b5-15): “一。三種靈寶事。神璽國圖也。尊形・蘇悉地・應
身也。寶劍三形・金剛界・報身也。内侍所種子・胎藏界・法身也。我國劫初、大海最底大日印文有之。三輪
ノ
金光是也。國形獨古也。種子㛾也。蘇悉地義也。四劫中、成劫蘇生義故也。號大日本國事。可思之。神宮僧不詣事。
昔天照太神、於日宮、阿修羅王與約諾故也（云云） .”
3‫ ؕ۾‬The following lines present the di௅erent correspondences of the three imperial regalia
with regard to di௅erent aspects of reality: ‫ ۺ‬categories of maЌϒala (mahÃ-maЌϒala, samaya-
maЌϒala, and bíja-maЌϒala); ‫ ۻ‬categories of sĭtras (Susiddhikara-sĭtra, Vajraĝekhara-sĭtra,
and MahÃvairocana-sĭtra); ‫ ۼ‬categories of Buddha’s body (nirmÃЌa-kÃya, saЈbhoga-kÃya and
dharma-kÃya).
3‫ ؕۿ‬It seems that for the medieval Japanese, the reality of the Divine Seal (shinshi or shiŶi
神璽) was particularly diைcult to represent. Thus, we find di௅erent understandings of what it
was. Some of these are found in other versions of the myth of King MÃra. In the Taiheiki 太平
記 (NKBT., 35, p. 167), for instance, we read: “… Then, King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven calmed
his anger and made his blood spew িom the five parts of his body (gotai yori chi wo ayashi 五
體ヨリ血ヲ出シ), and [with this blood] wrote a contract of firm promise, in which it said: ‘Until
the end of times, let the descendants of the Great Deity Amaterasu be the sovereigns of this
country! If there are those who, disobeying the King’s order, throw disturbance in the country
and cause the people to su௅er, then one hundred eighty thousand subordinates of mine will rush
up িom morning until night to punish and kill them.’ And he gave this contract to the Great
Deity Amaterasu. This is one of the views [explaining the origin of ] the current Divine Seal.”
Another version of the same myth in the Shintď sanshu no iŶu 神道三種之印呪, a manuscript
of the Hďbodai-in of Tďji 東寺寶菩提院 writes: “… According to another view, it is said that the
Divine Seal is Amaterasu oonkami’s written oath (kishď sho 起請書) to King MÃra, promising to
not protect Buddhism. It is on the basis of this written oath that the country could be realized,
and the Four Seas could be governed. This is the Jewel of Regal Longevity (? e ďi no juhď nari
依王位壽寶也). Yet another view propounds that it is the plan [or chart] of the Country (kuni no
sashizu 國指圖).” I owe this information to a personal communication with Itď Satoshi, to whom
I am deeply grateful. — The word “sashizu” usually refers to a building plan or a map. — See
also Tanaka Takako 田中貴子, “‘Keiranshĭyďshĭ’ ni okeru ďken to jingi”『渓嵐拾葉集』における王権と
神 in Imatani Akira 今谷明, ed., Ďken to jingi 王権と神 , Kyďto, Shibunkaku shuppan 思文閣出
版, 2002, pp.‫؜‬183-190.

in Venerable form (songyď 尊形);37 it is the Susiddhikara[-sĭtra], the Transformation

Body [of the Buddha].
The Jeweled Sword (hďken 寶劍) is [the image of a sword]; it is the symbolic form
(sangyď 三形) [maЌϒala], the Vajra Realm; it is the Reward Body.
The naishidokoro 内侍所 [the Divine Mirror] is [the image of a mirror]; it is the
Seed (shuji 種子) [siddhaЈ letter maЌϒala], the Womb Realm; it is the Dharma Body.
[About] the beginning of our country, [we say:] at the bottom of the ocean, there
was the Seal of the [Buddha] MahÃvairocana (Dainichi no inmon大日ノ印文); this was the
golden light of Miwa [or of the Three Wheels] (Miwa/sanrin no konkď kore nari 三輪
ノ
金光是也). The country’s form is [that of ] a one-pronged vajra. The Seed is “HĬѭ.”
Its meaning is [that of?] the Susiddhikara[-sĭtra] (soshitsuji-gi 蘇悉地義). This is because
among the four kalpas,38 the kalpa of formation (jďgď 成劫, Sk. vivarta kalpa) is that of
resuscitation (soshď-gi 蘇生義). You should ponder on [the fact that our country is] called
Dainihon-koku.
Concerning the interdiction for monks to make the pilgrimage to [Ise] Shrine:
In olden times, the Great Deity Amaterasu was in the Sun palace; she made a promise
to the king of Asuras. This is the reason.
Speculations on the three “numinous Jewels,” that is to say, the three regalia,
are typically convoluted. Nonetheless, the author’s attempts to associate these spe-
cifically Japanese regalia to universal Buddhist values are fairly clear; the passage
contains the characteristic expression “the Seal of the Buddha MahÃvairocana at
the bottom of the Ocean” which is encountered in the first story of the Shasekishĭ
沙石集, one of the classic versions of the myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven,
and an early repository of the idea of Japan as the “Original Country of Dainichi.”
The last short sentences, addressing the origin of the taboo on Buddhism at Ise,
is of particular interest since it states that Amaterasu resided in the Sun Palace.
Recall that another resident of the Sun Palace in Seison’s text is the Bodhisattva of
Majestic Light, who is a transformation of the Buddha MahÃvairocana, identified
with Maríci. The passage also mentions Amaterasu’s dealings with the Asura king,
who is featured in Seison’s and Annen’s works. Although this version of the myth
of MÃra is not the earliest one (the Shasekishĭ version is earlier, and the allusion
in the Nakatomi no harae kunge is much earlier; see below), I would venture to say
that this version of the Keiranshĭyďshĭ might represent the original form, of the
myth িom the logical or narrative standpoint.
We have noted above that the Nakatomi no harae kunge is one of the oldest texts
to present the notion of “Japan as the Original Country of Dainichi.” This same text
is also the earliest to contain an allusion to the myth of King MÃra: in it, we can
read that at the beginning of the time “when Heaven and Earth opened up, and the
Divine Jewel Sun manifested, the Buddha MahÃvairocana of the Dharma Realm and
Dharma Body, the king of mind (hokkai hosshin shinnď Dainichi 法界法身心王大日),
3‫ ؕ܀‬The anthropomorphic maЌϒala is usually called “Dai-mandara” 大曼荼羅 (Sk. mahÃ-

maЌϒala).
3‫ ؕ܁‬The four kalpas are the vivarta kalpa, 成劫, or kalpa of formation, the vivarta-siddha-
kalpa, 住劫, or kalpa of persistence, the saЈvarta-kalpa, 壞劫, or kalpa of destruction, and the
saЈvarta-siddha-kalpa, 空劫, or kalpa of nothingness.

278 Iyanaga Nobumi
appeared in order to save the people who commit bad acts and lack aைnity [with
the Buddhist Law]. […] He manifested a provisional transformation form [that of
Amaterasu oonkami], and having leী a trace in Jambudvípa, he summoned King
MÃra to give him the Seal; he exerted the miraculous power of subjugation, and
then sent divine radiance and divine messengers (jinkď jinshi 神光神使 [the Buddhist
teaching and disciples]) to the Eight wild extremities of the world (hakkď 八荒).
[…] The Great Deity [Amaterasu] manifested in a cult superficially di௅erent িom
the Buddhist teaching, but on the inside [in his or her mind], he [or she] became
a divine protector and soldier of the Buddha’s Law.”39 This excerpt contains rather
oblique references, which seem to presuppose the reader’s familiarity with the
myth. This allows us to assume that it was widely disseminated even earlier than
the Nakatomi no harae kunge’s date of composition (before 1191).40
The influence of Annen’s speculation is more apparent in another allusion to
the same myth. It is found in the Tenchi Reikiki 天地麗氣記, chapter of the Reikiki
麗氣記, a very curious medieval Shintď cycle of texts dating back to the end of the
Kamakura period.41
[In the beginning,] the Two Great Deities [Izanagi and Izanami] married and governed
forever the world under Heaven. […] They created Heaven িom Yang and purity and the
Earth িom the heavy and the impure. Aীerwards, Heaven and Earth were fixed in a mild
brilliance, and they made kamis in Heaven and men on Earth. Then, for a period of one
hundred billion kalpas, there was no master among the nine mountains and eight seas
(kusen hakkai 九山八海; the Sumeru world). At that time, ìĝÃna-Maheĝvara of the Sixth
Heaven, the PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara (dairokuten no Izana-Makeshura, Bishaja-Makeishura 第六
天伊舍那魔化修羅、遮邪魔醯首羅) was trembling and rumbling in anger (meidď funnu 鳴動
忿怒) and there was no soul under Heaven. Then, the Son of the Deva Moon, one of the
Three Lights of Pervasive Shinning (heŶď sanmyď no gattenshi 遍照三明月天子), descended
and became the Deity of the Firm Earth (kenrď-chi-jin 堅牢地神)…42
Here, the curious deity name “dairokuten no Izana-Makeshura, Bishaja-

Makeishura” cannot be understood without considering Annen’s theory of the two
kinds of Maheĝvara that will be examined in the next section. For the scribes who
copied manuscripts of this work, this passage seems to have been particularly dif-
3‫ ؕ܂‬Chĭsei Shintď ron, pp.‫؜‬40-41 (p. 267a: original text): “ 所以ニ嘗天地開闢メシ初メ、神寶
日出でます時、法界法身心王大日、權化の姿ヲ現じ、跡ヲ閻浮提に垂れ、府璽を魔王に請ひテ、降伏の神力を
施シテ、神光神使八荒ニ驛シ、慈悲慈檄、十方ニ預シヨリ以降、忝ク大神、外ニハ佛教ニ異ナル儀式ヲ顯シ、
内ニハ佛法を護る神兵と爲る .”
40.ؕ Interestingly, this passage retells King MÃra’s bestowal of the Divine Seal to Amaterasu,
a motif that is developed in the fourteenth century Taihei-ki (see above, n. 36).
4‫ ؕۺ‬On the Reikiki, see Fabio Rambelli, “The Ritual World of Buddhist ‘Shintď’: The Reikiki
and Initiations on Kami-Related Matters (jingi kaŶď) in Late Medieval and Early-Modern Japan,”
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 29/3–4, 2002, pp.‫؜‬265-29‫܀‬
4‫ ؕۻ‬Chĭsei Shintď ron, p. 72 (p. 279a: original text): “…… 二神ノ大神、豫結幽契シテ、永ク
天下ヲ治メタマフ。
〔中略〕時に清陽ナルヲ以テ天ト爲シ、重濁ヲ以テ地ト爲ス。和ニ曜クコト一二ト定マテ後、
天ヲ以て神と爲し、地ヲ以テ仁ト爲す。百億萬劫ノ間、九山八海ニ主無かリシ時、第六天ノ伊舍那魔化修羅、
遮邪魔醯修羅、鳴動忿怒シテ天下ニ魂無し。此の時、遍照三明ノ月天子、下りテ堅牢地神ト成ル .”

ficult: there are many variants of the name in di௅erent versions of the work, and
none of them agree with each other.43 In another medieval Shintď work entitled
Rishu Makaen 理趣摩訶衍, which quotes this passage িom the Tenchi Reikiki, we
find yet another, considerably more serious error: the deity’s name is noted as
“dairokuten Maď Izana Makeishura, Birushana Makeishura” 第六天魔王伊舍那魔醯修
羅、毘盧遮那魔醯修羅, in which Maheĝvara, the angry deity of the Sixth Heaven, is
juxtaposed with, or even equated to Vairocana, the supreme and cosmic Buddha!44
Annen and his cosmological hierarchy of deities
As noted above, the second section of Annen’s text on Maríci is a sequence of

quotations িom doctrinal works on the problem of the place of MahÃbrahmÃ in
the hierarchy of Buddhist Heavens and the expanse of worlds corresponding to
each stage of Heavens. It is diைcult to understand the reason why Annen inserted
these quotations in his text on Maríci; perhaps it was to introduce the myth of the
cosmic war between the Devas and the Asuras, which begins with a brief descrip-
tion of the origins of the kalpa. At any rate, similar discussions on the hierarchy of
Buddhist Heavens can be found in other works by the same author, such as the first
chapter of his treatise on siddhaЈ, the Shittan zď 悉曇藏 (T. LXXXIV 2702), and
more especially, his two main doctrinal treatises, the Shingonshĭ kyďjigi 眞言宗教時義
(T. LXXV 2396) [hereaীer abbreviated as Kyďjigi] and the Taizď Kongď Bodaishingi
ryakumondďshď 胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答抄 (T. LXXV 2397) [hereaীer abbreviated as
Bodaishingi-shď]. In these two treatises, the passages on the hierarchy of Buddhist
Heavens appear in the same context:45 Annen raises the question of the subjugation
of hindering gods in di௅erent Tantric sources, and attempts to reconcile apparent
discrepancies between various narrations. He quotes a number of texts that present
the subjugation of di௅erent forms of gods by Buddhist agents at each stage of the
cosmos, িom the pinnacle of the Form Realm, which was the original place of the
Buddha MahÃvairocana’s enlightenment, to the top of Mount Sumeru, where the
Buddha ĜÃkyamuni subjugated MÃra (who is identified with ìĝÃna). Furthermore,
in the Bodaishingi-shď, this theoretical িamework is combined with the esoteric
doctrine of the Buddha’s four or five bodies, namely the Self-Nature Body (jishď-shin
自性身), the Self-EƎoyment Body (jõuyĭ-shin 自受用身), the EƎoyment Body for
Others (tajuyĭ-shin 他受用身), the Transformation Body (henge-shin 變化身) and the
Natural Outflow Body (tďru-shin 等流身).46 These bodies are in turn associated with
4‫ ؕۼ‬For example “第六天伊舍那魔化修羅（欲界頂）毘遮邪魔醯修羅（色界頂）: see Taishď daigaku

sďgď bukkyď kenkyĭjo shinbutsu shĭgď kenkyĭkai 大正大學綜合佛教研究所神佛習合研究會 ed. Kďchĭ
kaisetsu gendaigo yaku Reikiki 校解説現代語譯麗氣記, I, Kyďto: Hďzďkan, 2001, pp.‫؜‬236b-237b,
note IV-93; p. 240a, note IV-106; p. 241a, note IV-107, and p. 433a; p. 439b.
4‫ ؕ۽‬Kďbď-daishi zenshĭ 弘法大師全集, V, p. 2‫܋‬
4‫ ؕ۾‬Kyďjigi, T. LXXV 2396: 432c12-436a1; Bodaishingi-shď, T. LXXV 2397: 547c7-548b‫۽‬
4‫ؕۿ‬If the two kinds of “EƎoyment Bodies” are taken as one “EƎoyment Body,” these are
four bodies instead of five.

280 Iyanaga Nobumi
the four or five “grounds” (do 土) respectively, namely the ground of Self-Nature,
the ground of Self-EƎoyment, the ground of EƎoyment for Others, the ground
of Transformation, and the ground of Natural Outflow.
In the middle of this discussion, Annen refers to a passage িom the MahÃyÃna-
avatÃra ĝÃstra (Nyĭ daõď-ron 入大乘論), a work by a certain SÃramati of the late
fourth century. Here is how he cites it:47
[According to] the MahÃyÃna-avatÃra ĝÃstra, there are two kinds of Maheĝvara: one is
PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara who is the sovereign of the Fourth Meditation [Heaven], and the other
is ìĝÃna-Maheĝvara who is the sovereign of the Sixth Heaven.
Unfortunately, this quotation is erroneous. The original text of the MahÃyÃna-

avatÃra ĝÃstra discusses the ten ascending “grounds” (jĭji 十地, daĝa-bhĭmi) of the
bodhisattva in MahÃyÃna doctrine; each bodhisattva “ground” corresponds to a
status in a Buddhist cosmological stage, the so-called “Fruits of Merit” (fukka 福
果, puЌya-phala).48 Thus, the Fruit of Merit of the first ground is the kingship of
Jambdvípa, that of the second ground is to become cakravartin, that of the third
ground is to become Ĝakra devendra, that of the fourth ground is to become king
of the Heaven of Yama, that of the fiীh ground is to become king of the Heaven
of TuҎita, that of the sixth ground is to become king of the Heaven of NirmÃѲarati,
that of the seventh ground is to become king of the Heaven of Paranirmita-vaĝavartin
(which is none other than King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven), that of the eighth
ground is to become BrahmÃ of a single chiliocosm, that of the ninth ground is to
become BrahmÃ of a Duochiliocosm, and that of the tenth ground is to become
the Deva-king of the Trichiliomegachiliocosm in the Heaven of ĜuddhÃvÃsa, which
corresponds to the pinnacle of the Fourth Meditation Heaven and the Form Realm.
What is of interest for our purpose in this enumeration is that this last king of the
ĜuddhÃvÃsa Heaven is identified with Maheĝvara in a number of MahÃyÃna works,
most notably the MahÃyÃna-avatÃra ĝÃstra. This raises an important question:
since Maheĝvara is the name of Ĝiva, is it possible that the bodhisattva of the tenth
ground is identified with a Hindu god that was reputed to be a violent, wrathful
deity? This is the subject of a “Question and Answer,” which goes as follows:49
Question: This Maheĝvara of which you talk, is it the same as the Maheĝvara of the
Mundane speech?
Answer: It is ìĝvara of the [Heaven of ] ĜuddhÃvÃsa, it is not the ìĝvara of the Mundane
speech. Although the Maheĝvara of which you talk has the same name, they are not the
same. There is Maheĝvara of the [Heaven of ] ĜuddhÃvÃsa, and there is PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara
4‫ؕ܀‬Bodaishingi-shď, T. LXXV 2397: 547c15-17: “入大乘論有二種摩醯首羅。一毘遮舍摩醯首羅。是

第四禪主。二伊舍那摩醯首羅。是第六天主.”
4‫ؕ܁‬MahÃyÃna-avatÃra ĝÃstra, T. XXXII 1634: 43a24-b1: “初地福果。爲閻浮提王。第二地福果。
爲轉輪聖王。主四天下。第三地福果。爲天帝釋。第四地福果。爲焔魔天王。第五地福果。爲兜率陀天王。第六地福
果。爲化樂天王。第七地福果。爲他化自在天王。第八地福果。爲千世界梵。第九地福果。爲二千世界梵。第十地福
果。爲三千大千世界淨居天王.”
4‫ؕ܂‬Ibid., T. XXXII 1634: 46b4-10: 問云。所云摩醯首羅者。爲同世間摩醯更有異耶。答云。是淨居自
在。非世間自在。汝云摩醯首羅者。名字雖同。而人非一。有淨居摩醯首羅。有毘舍闍摩醯首羅。其淨居者。如是菩
鄰於佛地猶如羅縠障。於一刹那頃。十方世界微塵數法悉能了知。

[a piĝÃca is a kind of goblin, an evil lower-class demon]. The one of the [Heaven of ]
ĜuddhÃvÃsa is a bodhisattva, so close to the Buddha ground that he is separated িom it
as if only by gauze. He is able to completely know all the numberless dharmas of all the
worlds of the ten directions in an instant.
This is the text that Annen claims to quote in his Bodaishingi-shď that we trans-
lated above. We can see how Annen mistakenly identified “PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara,” the
demonic Hindu god, with the sovereign of the Fourth Meditation Heaven — that
is the bodhisattva of the tenth ground — and posited ìĝÃna-Maheĝvara as “the
sovereign of the Sixth Heaven,” a position normally identified with King MÃra (of
the Sixth Heaven). This sovereign of the Sixth Heaven, the Paranirmita-vaĝavartin
Heaven, is usually named Vaĝavartin, which is translated into Chinese as Zizai tian
(J. Jizai-ten) 自在天; the fact that “ìĝvara,” another name for Maheĝvara, was also
translated by the same word was a major cause of confusion.50 On the other hand,
ìĝÃna, which is another name for Ĝiva, usually designates the guardian deity of the
Northeast in the group of twelve guardian deities of directions. In a passage িom
the Chishengguang foding yigui 熾盛光佛頂儀軌, the name ìĝÃna is rendered as Zizai
tian in the expression “Zizai tian of the North-eastern Realm of Desire” (東北角欲
界自在天).51 However, in most cases the name is transliterated as 伊舍那, typically
pronounced “Ishana” in Japanese. However, Oda’s Bukkyď daõiten proposes another
pronunciation, namely “Izana.” This variant is interesting for our topic, as we will
see later. At any rate, the twelve directional deities, among which figures ìĝÃna seem
rather close to the earthly plane (except for BrahmÃ “of the above”), so it appears
understandable that Annen placed ìĝÃna in the Realm of Desire.
In the aforementioned Shittan zď, Annen’s doctrine is even more complicated.
He writes:52
There are three kinds of Maheĝvara: the first is the sovereign of the Heaven of the
Fourth Meditation, and he is called PiĝÃca; he is the great arrogant [deity], sovereign of
the Trichiliocosm. It is he who was subjugated by Fudď [Myďď] when the Buddha first
attained enlightenment as it is taught in the Sĭtra of the Diamond Sinciput. The second
is the sovereign of the Heaven of the First Meditation, and he is named ĜaѮkara; the
Commentary on the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra writes that he has the great sovereign power
over the single [chilio]cosm, but not in the Trichiliocosm. The third is the sovereign
of the Sixth Heaven, and he is named ìĝÃna; as seen in the Jingang shouming tuoluoni
jing [金剛]壽命[陀羅尼]經, the Buddha, upon his descent িom Mount Sumeru, ordered
Trailokyavõaya to subjugate this deity along with his consort for they were obstinate
and diைcult to convert.
Here, “ĜaѮkara” is yet another name for Ĝiva-Maheĝvara; it occurs much less
িequently in the Chinese Buddhist Canon; the quotation িom the Commentary
50.ؕOn this problem, see my “Le Roi MÃra du Sixième Ciel et le mythe médiéval de la création
du Japon,” p. 336, pp.‫؜‬339-340; “Dairokuten Maď to chĭsei Nihon no sďzď shinwa,” I, pp.‫؜‬47-4‫܂‬
5‫ؕۺ‬Chishengguang foding yigui, T. XIX 966: 343c26-2‫܀‬
5‫ؕۻ‬Shittanzď, T. LXXXIV 2702: 372a10-16: “摩醯首羅亦有三種。一四禪主名毘遮舍。此乃金剛頂
經佛初成道、令不動尊降伏三千界主大我慢者是也。二初禪主名商羯羅。此乃大日經中、商羯羅天。於一世界有大
自在、非於三千界者是也。三六天主名伊舍那。此乃壽命經中、佛下須彌令降三世降伏強剛難化天王大后是也.”

282 Iyanaga Nobumi
on the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra is roughly exact.53 Once more, the context is that of

subjugation and Buddhist cosmology.
In light of these passages, it is now possible to understand the curious name
“ìĝÃna-Maheĝvara of the Sixth Heaven, [that is] PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara (dairokuten
no Izana-Makeshura, Bishaja-Makeishura 第六天伊舍那魔化修羅、遮邪魔醯首羅)”
mentioned in the Tenchi Reikiki’s allusion to the myth of MÃra of the Sixth Heaven
who, “for a period of one hundred milliards of kalpas,” was “trembling and rum-
bling in anger.”
But what is more important for our purpose is the central idea that Annen
forwards in these passages: we notice a constant preoccupation with Buddhist
cosmological doctrines, especially the beginning of a kalpa — or, more specifically,
the creation of the world. This is particularly evident in the first chapter of the
Shittan zď which extensively deals with the question of cosmogony by addressing
the di௅erent theories about the origins of writing. We read for example a quotation
িom Zhanran’s 湛然 Hongjue 弘決 commentary on the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀:54
The Hongjue 弘決 by Zhanran says: The king of Devas MahÃbrahmÃ gave birth to Eight
Devas sons; these Eight Devas sons gave birth to the beings of the Four clans (shishď 四
姓 [the four varЌas]), the kШatriya, the brÃhmaЌa, the vaiĝya and the ĝĭdra. This is why
these Eight Devas sons are the fathers of all the beings.
The original passage in the Zhiguan fuxingchuan hongjue 止觀輔行傳弘決 is of a

particular interest55 since it is an indirect reference to the text of the Dazhidulun
that was quoted in the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki.
Another important doctrinal feature of the above selections িom Annen’s works
is a very clear inclination — especially apparent in the Kyďjigi and the Bodaishingi-
shď — towards ideas that would later form the core of medieval Tendai’s “Original
Enlightenment” thought (hongaku shisď 本覺思想). In his discussion of subjugation
theories in the Tantric sources of the Bodaishingi-shď, Annen writes:56
Thus, the subjugation of MÃra is di௅erent in each of the four grounds [Annen refers
here to the theory of the four bodies of the Buddha corresponding to four “grounds”].
According to the Vimalakírti [nirdeĝa sĭtra] and others, it is said that the domain of MÃra
is thusness, and the domain of the Buddha is thusness; this is the subjugation of MÃra
on the ground of Self-Nature, by [the Buddha of ] the Self-Nature Body.
Here again, Annen’s quotation of the Vimalakírtinirdeĝa-sĭtra contains an
error; the phrase stating that “the domain of MÃra is thusness, and the domain of
5‫ؕۼ‬Commentary to the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra, T. XXXIX 1796: 634c6-8: “并置商羯羅天。此是

摩醯首羅。於一世界中有大勢力。非三千世界主也.”
5‫ؕ۽‬Shittan zď, T. LXXXIV 2702: 371a11-‫܇‬
5‫ؕ۾‬Zhiguan fuxingchuan hongjue, T. XLVI 1912: 1 434a26-b6: “大論云。遍淨天者四臂捉貝持輪騎
金翅鳥。有大神力而多恚害。時人畏威遂加尊事。劫初一人手波海水千頭二千手。委在法華疏中。疏云。二十四手千
頭少一化生水上。齊中有千葉蓮華。華中有光如萬日倶照。梵王因此華下生。生已作是念言。何故空無衆生。作是念
時他方世界衆生應生此者。有八天子忽然化生。八天子是衆生之父母。梵王是八天子之父母。韋紐是梵王之父母.”
5‫ؕۿ‬Bodaishingi-shď, T. LXXV 2397: 547c25-26: “然降魔事四土不同。若維摩等。魔界如佛界如者、
是自性土自性身降魔也.”

the Buddha is thusness” is not found in the Vimalakírtinirdeĝa-sĭtra, but in the

ĜĭraЈgamasamÃdhi-sĭtra; nonetheless it is true that in the Vimalakírtinirdeĝa-sĭtra,
there is a very similar notion stating that “many of these [MÃras] are bodhisattvas
[established] in the inconceivable liberation; with their power of skillful means,
they manifest as King MÃra in order to convert the beings.”57 In the Kyďjigi, we
find a similar expression of the same doctrine:58
Now, in the mantra school (shingon-shĭ 眞言宗), we say that on each ground of the four
Bodies [of the Buddha], there exists a King MÃra. On the ground of the Self-Nature
[Body], MÃra is originally subjugated [this corresponds with the above doctrine, according
to which the domain of MÃra and that of the Buddha are equally “thusness”]; on that of
the EƎoyment Body, the Buddha first realizes the enlightenment and then subjugates
[MÃra]; on the ground of the Transformation Body, he first subjugates [MÃra] then
realizes [enlightenment]; on the ground of the Natural Outflow Body, he never realizes
[enlightenment] and always subjugates [MÃra]. The domain of MÃra is thusness; that
of the Buddha is thusness. There is unique thusness, and no two thusnesses. This is the
True Thusness that subjugates MÃra on the ground of the Self-Nature [Body].
In such a perspective, where all is simultaneously Buddha and MÃra, where all
opposites are dissolved in the Unique Thusness (ichinyo 一如), the mythical distinc-
tion between MÃra and Maheĝvara is no longer of real importance. In the erroneous
quotation of the MahÃyÃna-avatÃra-ĝÃstra, Annen had replaced the “Maheĝvara of
the [Heaven] ĜuddhÃvÃsa,” that is to say the bodhisattva of the tenth ground, with
“Maheĝvara-PiĝÃca,” the demonic Maheĝvara. That would imply that the bodhisattvas
of the tenth ground are demonic beings. But if MÃra is a bodhisattva “established in
the inconceivable liberation” as stated in the Vimalakírtinirdeĝa, then, this anomaly
may be significant: all the subjugations that are narrated in di௅erent texts would
simply be a play on transcendental powers, with the unique aim of converting the
beings through skillful means — but in the ultimate truth, these beings are already
converted and reside in the original and eternal nirvÃЌa িom the beginning. It is
possible, in these conditions, that the “error” of Annen’s quotation is perhaps a
deliberate modification of the text’s original meaning.
Such radical non-dualist metaphysics, characteristic of “Original Enlightenment”
ideology, can lead toward a latent antinomianism in which the distinction between
Good (the Buddha) and Evil (MÃra, demonic beings) tends to “dissolve into the
Unique Thusness.” It is possible to suppose that such non-dualistic metaphysics
was the underlying principle for the di௅erent versions of the myth of King MÃra
of the Sixth Heaven that were narrated in the Middle Ages, and more generally,
in sources of early medieval Shintď thought.
5‫ؕ܀‬ĜĭraЈgamasamÃdhi-sĭtra, T. XV 642: 639c14-20: “魔界如即是佛界如。魔界如佛界如不二不

別。我等不離是如。魔界相即是佛界相。魔界法佛界法不二不別。我等於此法相不出不過。魔界無有定法可示。佛
界亦無定法可示。魔界佛界不二不別。我等於此法相不出不過。是故當知。一切諸法無有決定.” Cf. Vimalakírti
nirdeĝa sĭtra, T. XIV 475: 547a15-17: “十方無量阿僧世界中作魔王者。多是住不可思議解脱菩。以方
便力教化衆生現作魔王.”
5‫ؕ܁‬Kyďjigi, T. LXXV 2396: 434b21-25: “今眞言宗四身土中皆有魔王。但自性土本來降伏。受用身土
成佛後降。變化身土先降後成。等流身土不成常降。魔界如也。佛界如也。一如無二如者是自性土中眞如降魔也.”

284 Iyanaga Nobumi
Annen and the Deva BrahmÂ in Early medieval Shintč thought
According to Annen, Maheĝvara of the Fourth meditation heaven, known as

PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara, is identified with the primordial god of hinderance, the funda-
mental enemy of Buddhism. But since “the domain of MÃra is thusness [and] that
of the Buddha is thusness,” MÃra is identical with the Buddha himself. There is a
passage in the Keiranshĭyďshĭ which seems to draw this very conclusion, adding to
it an interesting Shintď development. In a discussion of the identity between the
“Brilliant Deity” (shinmei 神明, that is Amaterasu) and the Buddha MahÃvairocana,
the author explains:59
Moreover, our country is a divine country (waga kuni wa shinkoku nari我國ハ神國也); if
we seek its primordial deity (gaŶin 元神), it is Tenshď daõin 天照太神, who is the same
as Maheĝvara. Now, the master of the Shingon teaching (shingon kyďshu 眞言教主) is also
Maheĝvara who realized the Path in the AkaniҎҘha Heaven [the pinnacle of the Form
Realm]. This is why it is said that the Brilliant Deity is MahÃvairocana.
A little further, the same text associates Maheĝvara with Amaterasu more directly:60
At the time of our country’s creation, Tenshď daõin alone descended িom the heaven.
Her divine descendants gradually spread and filled up our country. There is no being,
even ourselves, who is not her descendant. From the point of view of ritual (jisď ni kore
wo ronzureba 事相ニ論レ之者), the Brilliant Deity is truly our parent, [and we are her]
grandchildren. Moreover, Maheĝvara considers all the beings of the Three Planes as
his own children, and pondering his role in fostering living beings, he [developed]
compassion for them. [This is why] our Tenshď daõin is Maheĝvara [himself ]. You
should profoundly consider this.
Such a direct association of Maheĝvara with MahÃvairocana and/or Amaterasu

is not habitual; a much more িequent association is the one between the Deva
BrahmÃ and the primordial Shintď god, Amaterasu or Ame no minakanushi no
mikoto.61 Moreover, in the Ise Shintď tradition, where the dual nature of the Outer
Shrine (gekĭ 外宮) and the Inner Shrine (naikĭ 内宮) is essential, this BrahmÃ is
divided into two BrahmÃs, Ĝikhin and JyotiҎprabha (Shiki daibon 尸棄大梵 and
Kďmyď daibon 光明大梵). This pair also appears in the introduction to the Lotus
Sĭtra (see above n.‫؜‬5). In Japanese sources, it is first mentioned in the Sengĭ himon
仙宮祕文 (probably composed between 1242 and 1274):62
5‫ؕ܂‬Keiranshĭyďshĭ, T. LXXVI 2410: 516a17-20: “加之我國ハ神國也。尋二其元神一ヲ天照太神也。此

則大自在天也。今ノ眞言教主モ色究竟天ノ成道大自在天是也。故以二神明一習二大日一也.”
60.ؕIbid., T. LXXVI 2410: 521b10-17: “我國開闢ノ時。天照太神獨リ天下リ玉フ。其ノ神子孫漸ク廣テ我
國流滿。我等衆生ニ至ルマテ天照太神ノ苗孫ナラスト云事無レ之。事相ニ論レ之者。
神明ハ實ニ是レ我等カ孫親也。加レ之
大自在天ハ三界所有ノ衆生ヲ悉ク是我子也ト思テ成二シテ生者養者見一ヲ立二慈悲一給也。今ノ天照太神又大自在天ナレ
ハ
也。深可レ思二合之（云云）.”
6‫ؕۺ‬As we have already seen an example িom the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki: see above n. ‫۾‬
6‫ؕۻ‬Sengĭ himon, Shinpukuji zenpon sďkan, Ryďbu shintďshĭ, p. 397: “大八州中。神風伊勢國、天
照座二所乃皇太神者、
是天地開闢之元神。
故一大三千世界主座也。
尸棄大梵天皇
（此云天御中主神。
亦名曰伊勢國
天照坐豐受皇太神宮是也。）光明大梵天皇（此云大日孁貴。亦名號伊勢國天照坐皇太神宮是也。）
”

In the Eight Great Provinces (daihachi-shĭ 大八州; Japan), in the land of Ise of divine winds
(shinpĭ 神風), the Two Great Imperial Deities (kďtaõin 皇太神) take seat at [the Shrine
of ] Amaterasu. They are the primordial gods (gaŶin 元神) of the creation of Heaven
and Earth. [Thus,] this is the Seat of the Master‫ ܠ‬of one Great Trichiliocosm (ichidai
sanzen sekai shu no za nari 一大三千世界主座也). [The Two Deities are:]
Emperor MahÃbrahmÃ Ĝikhin (Shiki Daibon tennď 尸棄大梵天皇) (that is to say, here [in
Japanese], “Ame no minakanushi no mikoto.” He is also named the Great Imperial Deity
“Toyouke” (Toyouke kďtai jingĭ 豐受皇太神宮) taking seat at [the Shrine of ] Amaterasu
in the land of Ise).
Emperor [or Empress] MahÃbrahmÃ of Brilliant Light [JyotiҎprabha] (Kďmyď Daibon
tennď 光明大梵天皇) (that is to say, here, “Ďhirume no muchi” 大日孁貴 [which is another
name of Amaterasu]. He [or she] is also named the “Great Imperial Deity” that takes its
seat at [the Shrine of ] Amaterasu in the land of Ise).
What is important to note here is that these “Two Great Imperial Deities” are
“the primordial gods (gaŶin 元神) of the creation of Heaven and Earth” and there-
fore, are “the Seat of the Master‫ ܠ‬of one Great Trichiliocosmos.” This means that
the said deities are the sovereigns of all the world; if one looks for such deities in
Buddhist scriptures, it is not diைcult to find them in the above mentioned passages
িom Annen’s works.63
There are many early Shintď texts that identiূ Shiki Daibon and Kďmyď Dai-
bon with Ame no minakanushi and/or Amaterasu.64 An interesting example can be
found in one of the works belonging to the Reikiki cycle, the Isuzugawa Yamadahara
Toyouke kďtaõin chinza shidai 五十鈴河山田原豐受皇太神鎭座次第. There, King BrahmÃ
Ĝikhin, associated with a water jewel (suõu 水珠), is said to be MahÃvairocana of
the Vajra Realm. He is also identified with Ame no minakanushi no mikoto and
Toyouke kďtaõin 豐受皇太神; on the other hand, King BrahmÃ JyotiҎprabha, associ-
ated with a fire jewel (kaju 火珠), is said to be MahÃvairocana of the Womb Realm.
He is further identified with Ame no minakanushi, Tenshď kďtaõin 天照皇太神,
Paranirmita-vaĝavartin, and Maheĝvara (Makeishura 魔醯首羅). The text continues:65
6‫ؕۼ‬Annen’s references to these deities usually occur in the context of citations িom com-
mentaries on the Lotus Sĭtra. One of the most important of these was Jizang’s 吉藏 commentary,
quoted in the Kyďjigi: T. LXXV 2396: 435a26-b3; the passage in question is found in Jizang’s
commentary: T. XXXIV 1721: 464c2-2‫ ۾‬I translate Annen’s summary here: “According to the
Sanlun 三論 school, it is said: The SuvraЌaprabhÃsa says that king BrahmÃ [sovereign of ] one
hundred billion of [suns and moons] is king BrahmÃ of the First Meditation [Heaven]. [This
Heaven constitutes the] lowest category. The Daĝabhĭmika-sĭtra says that Maheĝvara sovereign of
one Chiliocosm is king BrahmÃ of the Second Meditation [Heaven]; this is the middle category.
The Bodhisattva of the ninth ground becomes king BrahmÃ sovereign of two Chiliocosms. This
is king BrahmÃ of the Third Meditation [Heaven]: it is the superior category. The sovereign
of the Trichiliocosm resides at the center of one hundred billion suns and moons; it is the king
BrahmÃ of the Fourth Meditation [Heaven]. It is the highest among superior categories.” — Note
the characteristic mention of the “one hundred billion suns and moons.”
6‫ؕ۽‬See relevant examples in Agatsuma Matashirď, art. cit. (n. 5 above); Itď Satoshi, art. cit.
(n. 8 above) and in my aforementioned articles (n. 31).
6‫ؕ۾‬Isuzugawa Yamadahara Toyouke kďtaõin chinza shidai, in Kďbď Daishi zenshĭ 弘法大師
全集, V, p.74: “亦名大自在天王。昔爲威光菩。住日宮破阿修羅王難。今居日城成天照太神。増金輪聖王福.”

286 Iyanaga Nobumi
He (or she) is named also “Daõizai-ten” (Maheĝvara); in olden times, he (or she) became
the Bodhisattva Ikď (Majestic Light). Residing in the Sun palace, he (or she) resolved the
trouble pertaining to the King of Asuras. Now, residing in the Sun Region, he (or she)
became Tenshď daõin to increase the good fortune of the Saintly King of the Golden Wheel.
Thus, we find again a clear allusion to the myth of Maríci িom Seison’s Shingon
fuhď san’yď-shď.
In one text associating King BrahmÃ with Amaterasu (Tenshď daõin 天照太神 ),
the very peculiar Bikisho 鼻歸書 written by the Vinaya master Chien 智圓律師 in
1324, we may find another clear reference to Annen. The Bikisho is a commen-
tary on the various interpretations of “Tenshď daõin”; these are divided into two
main parts, the “intra-doctrinal” (kyďnai 教内 ) and “extra-doctrinal” (kyďge 教外 ).
The “intra-doctrinal” part is divided into two “meanings” (gi 義 ): the first “corre-
sponds
紀
to what is explained in [texts] such as the Chronicle of Japan (Nihonki 日
本記 ).”66 This “probably refers to traditional myths and kami lineages.”67 The sec-
ond “meaning” is much more developed: it is “made clear by the two teachings of
ĜÃkyamuni and MahÃvairocana” (we should perhaps understand this as the exo-
teric and esoteric teachings of Buddhism). This second “meaning” is sub-divided
into five further “meanings,” as Fabio Rambelli and Mark Teeuwen explain:68
In a Buddhist context, the divinity “Amaterasu” refers to the following [five “meanings”]:
‫ ܖ‬MahÃvairocana of the two realms (ryďbu Dainichi 兩部大日); (ii) Fudď Myďď and
Aizen Myďď; (iii) MahÃbrahmÃ (Daibonten 大梵天); (iv) King Enma; and ‫ ܣ‬Kďbď
Daishi. This series of associations is hierarchically structured, িom the cosmic Buddha
of esoteric Buddhism in its two fundamental modalities, to two of its more powerful
emanations (Fudď and Aizen), to the Deva king of the Realm of Forms, BrahmÃ, to the
embodiment of negativity, King Enma, the ruler of hell and su௅ering, and finally to a
human manifestation, Kďbď Daishi.
If we concentrate on the first part of the third of these di௅erent “meanings,”

namely the association of Amaterasu (including both the naikĭ 内宮 and the gekĭ
外宮 of the Shrine of Ise) with the Deva MahÃbrahmÃ, we may turn our attention
to the following excerpt:69
…In the third place, we learn that [Amaterasu is associated with] MahÃbrahmÃ. This
means [the following]: [it is said in texts] such as the Chronicle of Japan that [at the
beginning of the creation, when] the Heavenly-reverse-Halberd (ama no saka-hoko 天逆
鉾) was dropped [into the brine], King MÃra descended,70 and claimed Japan, saying: “At
the top of the Realm of Desire, [I am (?)] King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven (dairokuten
no Maď 第六天ノ魔王).” This person (kono hito 此人) at the top of the Realm of Form is
[called] “King BrahmÃ” (Bonnď 梵王). In order to convert and save us, [and] lead [us in]
the teaching of Buddha (bukkyď shinan 佛教指南), this person descended িom heaven,
6‫ؕۿ‬Text of Bikisho, in Shintď taikei 神道大系, Shingon shintď 眞言神道 jď 上, p. 505, l. ‫۾‬
6‫ؕ܀‬Mark Teeuwen and Fabio Rambelli, eds., Buddhas and Kami in Japan: HoŶi-suõaku as
a Combinatory Paradigm, London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2003, Introduction, p. 4‫܁‬
6‫ؕ܁‬Ibid., pp.‫؜‬48-49; see Bikisho, p. 505, l. 5-‫܁‬
6‫ؕ܂‬Bikisho, p. 507, l. 3-‫܀‬
70.ؕThe text has a note, indicating that the following myth about King MÃra is not found
in the Chronicle of Japan.

and, being alone [in this world], wished for a িiend (tomo omoi 友思). As a result of his
thought, a son-of-Deva (tenshi 天子, Sk. devaputra) descended. This [person] is called
“Harama” 波羅摩. [Among] these three people, King BrahmÃ created the brahmí script
in Southern India (Nanten boŶi 南天梵字), the Deva ViҎѲu (Bichĭ-ten 毘紐天) created
the Western barbarian script (ko-moji 胡文字) in the Western Barbarian Country, and
Harama ハラマ created the Chinese script in China, looking at the traces of birds on
the seashore. It is said also that these three people are [the same as] the three elder
and younger brothers of the Rishu-kyď (Rishu-kyď san kyďdai 理趣經三兄弟). There are
di௅erent versions [according to di௅erent] sĭtras, [but we have] harmonized [them, so as
to] not chose [one over the others], etc. (unnun 云々). [It is thus that we should] know
[this teaching].
As I have shown in a previous article,71 the curious theory that is recorded here
about the origins of three kinds of scripts is certainly based on the introductory
chapter of the Shittanzď. We may note here again the loose identification of MÃra
of the Sixth Heaven with King BrahmÃ, who, in turn, is associated with the curious
“Harama” 波羅摩/ハラマ (which could be pronounced “Barama” as well, since the
voiced consonant was not noted in medieval Japanese) and ViҎѲu. The following
passage িom the Shittanzď contains what is probably the original source of the
strange name “Harama:”72
In the Commentary to the Treatise on the Lotus Sĭtra (Hokke-ron chĭ 法華論注), Jďtď 常
騰 writes:
At the beginning of the kalpa, Maheĝvara had intercourse with ViҎѲí (? Bishunichi‫ ?؜‬毘
●釼73) and gave birth to a child named “BrahmÃ” (Baranma 婆藍摩). He had four faces
and taught the four Vedas (shi Hada 四波陀); he also had another face on the top [of his
head], which taught another Veda. The four Vedas taught by the four faces are those of
the Law of the World (sehď 世法, Sk. loka-dharma ?). The one taught by the face of the
top is profound and diைcult to understand. Only the four Vedas are current in the world…
Jďtď was a monk of the Hossď school 法相宗 িom the Nara period (741-815 [or
816]). His work, the Hokkeron chĭ, is lost, but fortunately, this citation survives in
the Hokkeron jikki 法華論述記 by Gõaku/Įichđk 義寂 (684-704) and Giichi/Įiil 義
一, two Korean monks িom Silla that Jďtď should have quoted.74
The Identification of ëěÂna with Izanagi/Izanami
Another interesting theme that appears in a number of early medieval Shintď

texts is the association between the Japanese deity Izanagi (and/or Izanami) and the
Buddhist/Hindu deity ìĝÃna. As we have already noted, ìĝÃna is another of Ĝiva’s
names, a special designation of his form as the guardian deity of the north-east in
7‫ؕۺ‬Nobumi Iyanaga, “The Logic of Combinatory Deities: Two Case Studies,” in Mark
Teeuwen and Fabio Rambelli, eds., Buddhas and Kami in Japan, pp.‫؜‬159-17‫ۼ‬
7‫ؕۻ‬Shittanzď, T. LXXXIV 2702: 371a14-‫܋‬
7‫ؕۼ‬The pronunciation of the second character, ●, which is unknown in any of the dictionaries
that I had access to, is not sure at all, and consequently the restitution “ViҎѲí” is not sure either.
7‫ؕ۽‬Hokkeron jikki, Z. XCV 353r, b16-v, a‫۾‬

288 Iyanaga Nobumi
the group of guardian deities of twelve directions. The identification with Izanagi
is apparently based on the similarity of the two names. An account of the myth of
King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven that can be found in the Kďya monogatari 高野物
語 is one of the first occurrences of this assimilation. The author and date of the
work cannot be conclusively determined, but it is very likely that it was written by
Dďhď 道寶, an important monk of the Shingon school, who lived িom 1211 until
1268 and was once the abbot of Tďji. Thus, we may surmise that the work was
written around the middle of the thirteenth century. The passage in question is
found in the third fascicle of the work, which was considered lost until Abe Yasurď
reconstituted it িom a very িagmented Daigoji manuscript in 198‫ ܁‬It is yet another
version of the myth of King MÃra, tentatively translated below:75
There is also a certain tradition which says that when our country did not yet exist,
King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven foresaw that on this island, the Buddha’s Law would
certainly spread; then, [he thought:] “There will be many people in this country who
will leave my Realm and reach the land of the Unconditioned (mui no tsuchi 無爲ノ土,
that is the nirvÃЌa).” As he was grieving over this, the TathÃgata MahÃvairocana peered
into King MÃra’s mind and realized that if King MÃra, foreseeing the situation, would
hinder [the creation of this country], then it would be diைcult for the Buddha’s Law
to spread. Having reflected on this, the TathÃgata transformed himself into a child of
King MÃra and became the sovereign of our country. He then uttered to King MÃra:
“[Oh Father,] do not be sad! I become this country’s sovereign and in the future, I will
make my progeny its kings. In this country, the Buddha’s Law will be taboo, and if there
are people who worship it, calamity will befall them so that the Buddha’s Law will not
spread.” [On these words,] King MÃra was satisfied, and leaving the country to his care,
he ascended back to the Heaven.
Aীerwards, [… when the country was created] kings and ministers were all firm
believers in the Law, and people had no wrong view. However, in worshiping at the
Great Sanctuary [of Ise], Shintď [or the jindď] is the principle [the text has a lacuna
at this point, and the meaning is not clear] (Daijingĭ o hďji hajime, mune tono jindď
75.ؕAbe Yasurď 阿部泰郎 , “Kďya monogatari no saihakken: Daigoji-bon kan san no

fukugen”『高野物語』の再發見̶醍醐寺本卷三の復原 , Chĭsei bungaku 中世文學 33, 1988, p.‫؜‬110a-
b: “ 又、或相傳ニ云ヘル事アリ。吾國未タナラサリシ時、第六天ノ魔王、ミソナハシ給フ。此嶋ニ必、仏法弘ルヘシ。
シカラハ、我サカヒヲ出テ、無爲ノ土ニイタランモノ、此國ニ多カルヘシ、ト嘆給ニ、大日如來、魔王ノ心ヲ知リ給テ、
若、魔王、是ヲ知テ妨ヲナシ給ナラハ、仏法弘リ難カルヘシ、トテ、案シシ
給テ、化シテ魔王ノ御子ニ成テ、吾國ノ主ト
テニヤウ
成、魔王申給。天尊、嘆給事ナカレ。吾、此國主成、子孫ヲシテ未來ノ國王タラシメテ、國ニハ仏法ヲ
レノト
ヲメンニハ
イミテ、是崇人禍ヰヲ与ヘ、仏法弘マラサルヘシ、トノ給ニ、魔王、心ユキテ、國ヲ預テ天ニ帰リ登給ヌ。其後、
ノ
大日如來、内證仏菩・眷属タチヲ國ノ中ニ集テ並給ヘルヲ、アマツ社・國ツ社、三千七百余所ト申、是也。神代
ノ
間ニモ、前仏、ツネニ來化シ給。〔中略〕人王ノ代ト成テ、崇神天王ノ御時、殊ニ神明ヲアカメ奉。□欽明天王ノ
御宇ニ、仏法初テワタリシニ、ナヘ〔テノ〕神冥衆力ヲエテ、擁護ヲナシ給フ。故ニ、仏法、時トシテスタルヽ事ナシ。
ニシテナシトモ
王臣篤信民庶邪見。然、大神宮ヲ奉始一、旨トノ神道ハ、殊ニ仏法ヲイミテ僧尼ヲキラヒ給事ハ、魔王
ニテヲナルヘシ
心恐、外聞ツヽシミ給心。
源、大日ノ化ヲ垂レ給ケル故ニ、國ヲ大日本國ト云、主ヲハ天照太神ト申也。天照ト云御名ハ、大日〔ト〕同シ心
ナルヘシ。大神ト申モ、大覺ノ義〔ニ〕タカハス。此事ヲ聞給テ、天照大神ノ御名ヲ思ヘハ、イサナキ・イサナミノ尊ト
申ハ、伊舍那君天・伊舍那后ト申、同事ニヤ。伊舍那ト申ハ、第六天魔王ノ御名也。此事、叶テ侍、誠ニテ侍ケリト、
イト忝ク侍カナ、吾國ノ昔ノ詞ト、魔王ノ梵號ト、一ツナル事、不思議ニコソ侍レ .”

wa 大神宮ヲ奉始一、旨トノ神道ハ ...); the Buddha’s Law is tabooed, and monks and nuns
are shunned. This is because of the mind’s fear of King MÃra; [the Deity of the Great
Sanctuary?] is mindful about its reputation.
At the outset, it is because MahÃvairocana [in Japanese, Dainichi] bestowed his
legacy of conversion [upon our country] (ke wo tare tamau 化ヲ垂レ給フ) that the country
is called “Dainihon-koku” [The “Original Country of Dainichi,” which means “Great
Sun”] and its sovereign is named “Amaterasu oonkami” [or Tenshď-daõin] [“Great Deity
Shining in the Sky”]. The name “Amaterasu” [Shining in the Sky] appears to have the
same meaning (kokoro 心) as Dainichi [Great Sun]. And [the meaning of ] “Great Deity”
(oonkami or daõin 大神) is no di௅erent িom the meaning of “Great Enlightened One”
(daikaku 大覺 [another name for “Buddha”]). If we understand this and ponder the name
of Amaterasu oonkami, are Izanagi and Izanami not the same as ìĝÃna and his consort?
ìĝÃna is the name of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven. This matter is truly revealing; it
is so gracious and wonderful. The fact that the Sanskrit name of King MÃra and our
ancient word [Izanagi] are no di௅erent, what a marvel this is! (fushigi ni koso habere不思
議ニコソ侍レ)
This text is replete with interesting details. In this version of the myth of King
MÃra, the child into whom the Buddha MahÃvairocana transforms is very prob-
ably Amaterasu herself; she does not fulfill the role of creator in a strict sense,
but is said to be the “sovereign of this country” িom the beginning. There is an
unfortunate lacuna in the sentence explaining the taboo of Buddhist things at Ise
shrine; since we find there the word “mune” 旨, which may mean “principle,” and
the word “jindď (or shintď)” 神道, I have tentatively translated this as “in worshiping
at the Great Sanctuary [of Ise], Shintď [or the jindď] is the principle”, but this may
be a misinterpretation.
The last part of the text, in which the name of MahÃvairocana surprisingly
coincides with that of Japan and Amaterasu, and the name of Izanagi coincides
with that of ìĝÃna-MÃra, may be considered as the conclusion to the passage. The
matching of MahÃvairocana’s name with “Japan” and “Amaterasu” recalls Seison’s
Shingon fuhď san’yď-shď once more. The phrase “Dainichi no ke wo taretamau” 大日
ノヲレフ
化垂給 translated as “Dainichi bestowed his legacy of conversion [upon our
country]” can be understood as an allusion to the theory of hoŶi suõaku 本地垂
迹 (Original Ground, Leী Trace), because we encounter the characteristic word
“tareru, tarasu” — which is the Japanese reading of the character “sui” 垂 used in
the compound “hoŶi suõaku.” Thus, Amaterasu in a sense is the “Trace Leী” by
the “Original Ground,” MahÃvairocana. Considering the “wonder,” and the feel-
ing of great “mystery” the author expresses when pointing out the coincidence of
Izanagi’s and ìĝÃna’s names, one might be inclined to think it was his first discovery
of corresponding “sameness.” For the author, it appears that the value of the passage
lies in directly relating Japan to India, the transcendental homeland of the cosmic
Buddha, through this correspondence in names. He probably did not pay much
attention to the implication of this “sameness,” namely that Izanami, the creator
god of Japan would be identified with MÃra, the enemy of Buddhism…
The fact that Dďhď identifies “King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven” with ìĝÃna
appears to be founded on Annen’s classificatory scheme of Heavens, in which “ìĝÃna-
Maheĝvara” is identified with “the sovereign of the Sixth Heaven” (see above, p. 280).

290 Iyanaga Nobumi
Moreover, in Annen’s discussion on di௅erent accounts of the subjugation myth of

hindering gods, we find two interesting passages which might have influenced this
identification between Izanagi/Izanami and ìĝÃna. In one long “question,” Annen
writes that according to some accounts of the subjugation myth, it is said that
“Maheĝvara, sovereign of the Three Realms (sangai tenshu 三界天主)” was subdued
together with his consort; that would mean that this Deva was married to a female.
But since “the impurity of husband and wife” (fĭfu fujď 夫婦不淨) is limited to the
Desire Realm, Annen asks whether this Deva is not the sovereign of the Desire
Realm, that is “Maheĝvara of the Sixth Heaven (dairokuten Makeishura 第六天摩醯
首羅).”76 Then, one page further in the Taishď edition, Annen states that “according
to the Shingon-shĭ, the wrathful body of ìĝÃna is called Rudra; he is also named
Maheĝvara: it is King MÃra of the Palace of the Sixth Heaven.”77 — Combining
these two passages, we may understand how for Annen, ìĝÃna was considered a
sexualized deity, associated with his female consort; ìĝÃna was therefore identified
with MÃra at the pinnacle of the Desire Realm, since the latter was typically rep-
resented as a god of love (KÃma Deva). These characteristics fit particularly well
with the Japanese creator gods, or rather “procreator” gods Izanagi and Izanami.
Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 and early medieval Shintč
In the second section of the Marishiten yďki analyzed above, there is a curious
passage which recounts the following: “The king of Devas MahÃbrahmÃ, who is the
sovereign of Trichiliocosm, and foremost the sovereign of the Saha World, is [also]
the sovereign of the Fourth Meditation [Heaven]. He is Maheĝvara-MahÃbrahmÃ
(Makeishura Daibon 摩醯首羅大梵), father of all sentient beings.”78 This “heretical”
doctrine is well-known িom the time of the DírghÃgama (T. I 1: 145a10-14) and can
be found in a number of texts. But to name this deity “Maheĝvara-MahÃbrahmÃ” is
extremely odd; there is no occurrence of such a name in the entire Taishď. However,
this anomaly can be explained in the following way: for Annen, deities are di௅erent
only inasmuch as they manifest themselves in various dimensions of heavens; but
in essence, they are all hindering powers of Buddhist Law, and, at the same time,
identical with the Buddha in the ultimate truth. In this sense, the individuality of
deities fuses into a unique cosmic force.
7‫ؕۿ‬Kyďjigi, T. LXXV 2396: 434a17-b4: “今大日如來初成正覺集大衆時。不動明王已降三界天主摩

醯首羅。彼有夫婦、似欲天主。豈非第六天宮摩醯首羅。若不爾者、豈肯梵世而有夫婦不淨之物。若爾成正覺已下
須彌頂之時。現降三世所降是何摩醯首羅（一）又若須彌山頂降三世所降伏是第六天摩醯首羅者。此外復寶金剛
所降伏是何摩醯首羅（二）又若有云。第六天魔非三界主。故義釋云。商羯羅天是摩醯首羅。於一世界有大自在。
非於三千界也（云云）商羯羅天是第六天故。三千界主是初禪梵王。依智度論、初禪梵王爲三界主。以初禪中、有
覺觀故、有主領義。二禪已上、無覺觀義故、無王領者。此外馬頭所降是何梵天（三）又初禪以上無男女別。糞滓等
事。何有夫婦不淨之物（四）.”
7‫ؕ܀‬Ibid. T. LXXV 2396: 435b3-4: “……今眞言宗云。伊舍那天忿怒之身名魯駄羅。亦名摩醯首羅。
是第六天宮魔王也.”
7‫ؕ܁‬Asabashď, TZ. IX 3190: 467c11-13; cf. Byakuhď-ku-shď, TZ. VII 3119: 278b18-20 (where
the expression “摩醯首羅大梵” is replaced with “摩醯修羅”).

The name “DaiboƎizai-ten” 大梵自在天 (“MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara”) that occurs in

Hirata Atsutane’s 平田篤胤 (1776-1843) Edo period Indo zďshi 印度藏志 is very similar
to the “Maheĝvara-MahÃbrahmÃ (Makeishura Daibon)” িom Annen’s work.79 We
will try below to shed light on early medieval Shintď thought through an examina-
tion of the Indo zďshi discourse on Buddhism and Buddhist/Hindu deities.
As it can be expected িom a nativist, Hirata was a decided critic of Buddhism.
He began to study Buddhism around 1803, especially concentrating on the Shutsujď
kďgo 出定後語 of Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715-1746);80 his first writing
about Buddhism, entitled Butsudď taii 佛道大意 (or Shutsujď shďgo 出定笑語), was a
transcription of a series of lectures he had delivered on Buddhism. He continued
his study and also wrote several other books on the topic. The Indozďshi is the most
important one among them: Hirata began to write it around 1820, but could not
finish it until his death in 184‫ۼ‬
Hirata’s buddhology had a very peculiar feature: he began his study িom read-
ing Tominaga’s work, then some basic works such as the Hasshĭ kďyď 八宗綱要 by
Gyďnen 凝然 (1240-1321) or the Genkď shakusho 元亨釋書 by Kokan Shiren 虎關師
錬 (1278-1346); he continued the curriculum by picking up and reading by himself
as many canonical Buddhist works as possible. He seems to have almost completely
ignored Japanese Buddhist schools. This is probably related to the circulation of
Buddhist texts in his time: the Ming edition of the Buddhist Canon was re-edited
in Japan in the later seventeenth century as the Ďbaku edition 黄檗版, and was rela-
tively accessible in Hirata’s time; but the works of Japanese schools were probably
more diைcult to obtain. It appears িom Hirata’s writings on Buddhism that he
had no special interest in Japanese Buddhist doctrines, and did not take the trouble
of reading them. This is a great weakness of his Buddhist learning. Nevertheless,
it is certain that Hirata’s works on Buddhism were the most significant, both in
quantity and quality, of any composed by a non-Buddhist author before Meõi.
Comparing his first work, the Butsudď taii, with the Indo zďshi, we may notice
an important di௅erence. While the Butsudď taii is a criticism of Buddhism িom
the first page to the last, in the Indo zďshi, Hirata attempts to prove the validity
of his own ideas through the examination of Buddhist sources. The theory that
he expounded was that Japanese mythology as he reconstituted it is the “universal
truth”; in order to demonstrate this, he attempted to demonstrate that the same
mythological principles were known by all the people of the world. In this context
Hirata analyzed Buddhist literature in order to extract িom it Indian myths, and
compared them with Japanese ones.
7‫ؕ܂‬On what follows in the text, see my “Yuiitsu no kami to hitotsu no sekai: Kindai shoki
Nihon to Furansu ni okeru hikaku shinwagaku no hajimari” 唯一の神と一つの世界—近代初期日本と
フランスにおける比較神話學のはじまり, in Kenkyĭ daihyďsha Nakagawa Hisasada 研究代表者・中川久定
ed. ‘Hitotsu no sekai’ no seiritsu to sono jďken「一つの世界」の成立とその条件, Kďtďken hďkokusho 高
等研報告書 701, Kyďto, 2007, pp.‫؜‬165a-240a.
80.ؕMichael Pye, trans. Emerging from meditation, by Tominaga Nakamoto. Honolulu: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press, 1990. — There exists a notebook of his studies on this topic, entitled
“Shutsujď shďgo genpon” 出定笑語原本, edited in Hirata Atsutane zenshĭ 平田篤胤全集 10, Tďkyď, 197‫܀‬

292 Iyanaga Nobumi
For Hirata, theories and doctrines proper to Buddhism are of no intrinsic interest;
in his thought, Buddhism is nothing other than a system of doctrines artificially
forged by the Buddha ĜÃkyamuni and his followers, and as such, it is something
to reject. However, he finds in Buddhist literature several ancient traditions that
their authors were unable to disguise. Thus, he proceeds to “excavate” িom this
mass of human production traces of genuine, authentic and natural (indigenous)
mythology. The Indo zďshi is the end result of this e௅ort in “textual archeology.”
The Indo zďshi consists of a considerable number of quotations িom Buddhist
materials. Because the author’s interest is centered on the “ancient brahmanic tra-
ditions” (baramon no kosetsu 婆羅門の古説), he makes copious use of Âgama texts
(whose antiquity was proven by Tominaga), but also historical data documented
in Chinese pilgrims’ records such as those of Xuanzang or Yõing. Hirata virtually
ignores MahÃyana sĭtras because for him, they contained nothing more than fabri-
cated nonsense. Interestingly, however, he does attach great importance to esoteric
texts. For example he writes the following:81
Magical spells and practices can be found in [a category of ] works known as secret
rituals (himitsu giki 祕密儀軌); most of these are presented as having been taught by the
Buddhist Ancestor (busso 佛 ; Hirata uses this expression to pejoratively designate the
Buddha ĜÃkyamuni), but they are all forged attributions; in fact, these were the practices
of brâhmans and [alleged] “heretics” (kano gedď 彼ノ外道) that [Buddhists] had stolen;
there is no single practice that can be traced back to the Buddhist Ancestor. […]
Although it is diைcult to find genuine traditions in the form that they were known in
these rituals, there are still some scattered, yet interesting spells, amulets or practices
that can be traced back to King MahÃbrahmÃ or gods of other names. A text entitled
“Ichõi shiŶu kyď” 一字心呪經 contains a spell named “Spell in one word of the Great King
turning the Wheel” which is almost certainly a true spell of the Great King BrahmÃ
transmitted by the Deva BrahmÃ.
Thus, for Hirata, the significance of esoteric Buddhism rested in the fact that
it was not really “Buddhist.”
Another expression of this idea can be found in a passage in which Hirata deals
with the esoteric work entitled “Kuyď jĭni daiitoku ten hďon-bon” 供養十二大威徳
天報恩品 (T. XXI 1297, that he designates by the title “Jĭniten senki 十二天餞軌).”
He writes:82
At the beginning, [this work] is entitled “Kuyď jĭni daiitoku ten hďon-bon” 供養十二大
威徳天報恩品 and at the end, it is named “Jĭniten senki” 十二天餞軌 It is a translation by
the tripiвaka Amoghavajra of the Tang. Upon reading it, one can discern that it is an
ancient book authored by brÃhmans, but it was rewritten in a Buddhist tone as if it
had been taught by the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra with the accord of the Buddhist
Ancestor. Although this is clear for those who read it with a critical eye (katsugan 活眼),
let me say that the Buddhist Ancestor usually despises King BrahmÃ and refutes the old
tradition, stating that ‘the creation of this world is not something of which he [that is,
8‫ؕۺ‬Zenshĭ, XI, pp.‫؜‬65b-66a, pp.‫؜‬67b-68a.

8‫ؕۻ‬Ibid., XI, p. 62a.

King BrahmÃ] would be capable of.’83 But the sentence that I quote here is contrary to
this.84 From this single example, we can deduce everything…
From the historical point of view, it is true that esoteric Buddhist doctrines are
oীen very di௅erent িom classical Buddhist theories, and in many cases, they are
closer to Brahmanic or Hindu thought. Hirata quotes many “creationist” myths
িom the Buddhist Canon and associates them with Japanese mythology85. The most
িequently mentioned deity in the first eight scrolls of the Indo zďshi is probably the
Deva BrahmÃ, whom Hirata terms “the heavenly deity MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara (Dai-
bon Jizai teƎin 大梵自在天神).” For the nativist, the name of the supreme creator
god, whether it is BrahmÃ, Maheĝvara or ViҎѲu, does not matter much. The first
scroll of his work contains many of these cosmogonic myths of Brahmanic origin
(pp.‫؜‬9b-16a). To introduce them, Hirata presents beforehand a synthetic summary
in the following terms (p. 9b):
To understand this [the origins of brÃhmans], we must first inquire about the ancient
traditions of their country [India], namely those related to King MahÃbrahmÃ. First of
all, to expound their general outline, [it is said that in the beginning] there was a [single]
deity-world (tenkai 天界) in empty space, without beginning or end, named either Deva
MahÃbrahmÃ, BrahmÃ-ìĝvara (Bon-Jizaiten 梵自在天), or Maheĝvara (Daõizaiten 大自在天).
In that world, there existed a heavenly deity of great sovereignty (daishusai no teŶin 大主
宰の天神), called either King MahÃbrahmÃ, NÃrÃyaѲa or Maheĝvara (Makeishura-ten 摩
醯首羅天), who was also without beginning or end. He produced existence িom nothing,
and produced this world. Therefore, it is told that he is the Ancestor Deity (sojin 神)
who created not only humans, but all the beings in the world by transformation (keshď
seru 化生せる).
The nature of this “King MahÃbrahmÃ” is only revealed in the eighth scroll.
Hirata writes (pp. ‫؜‬272b-273b) (in the following translation, sentences between the
braces “{“ and ”}” are notes by Hirata himself ):
Now, what do people think of the heavenly deity by the name of MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara?
He is nothing more than a [god of ] the ancient tradition which confounded in a
single [deity] myths narrating [the exploits of ] the imperial ancestor of the [Japanese]
emperor (sumeragi no mi-oya 天皇の皇 ), [that is] the Great Deity Musuhi 産靈ノ大神 86
8‫ؕۼ‬See the DírghÃgama, T. I 1: 69b21-22: “彼梵自在天造此世界。梵志。造此世界者非彼所及.”

8‫ؕ۽‬Hirata cites the following passage িom the Kuyď jĭni daiitoku ten hďon-bon, T. XXI 1297:
384a21-23: “The Deva BrahmÃ is the sovereign of Upper Heavens; he is the father of sentient
beings. When this Deva is pleased, the entire Receptacle World is calm and without trouble.
Why? This is because at the beginning of the kalpa, this Deva realized the Receptacle World.”
8‫ؕ۾‬Although he does not quote the Dazhidulun passage that was used in the beginning of
the Yamato Katsuragi hďzanki, he cites other versions of the same myth several times; these are
found in the Zapiyujing (see above, n. 5), the Waidao xiaocheng niepanlun and the Zhongguan lun
shu (see above, n. 7): see Indo zďshi, Zenshĭ, 11, p. 10b, 15b, 45b, 59b, etc.
8‫ؕۿ‬The word “musuhi” (noted with various kaƎi such as 産靈, 産巣日, 産日 or 産魂) is com-
posed of two elements, “musu” meaning “generate, procreate” and “hi” (which can be pronounced
“bi” as well) meaning “spiritual” or “mysterious power.” At the beginning of the Kojiki, there is
a list of three cosmogonic deities, Ame no minakanushi, Takami-musuhi (or musubi) 高御産巣

294 Iyanaga Nobumi
and the Great Deity Izanagi. This can be deduced িom the fact that according to that
tradition, that deity created Heaven and Earth and all things. [In Japanese tradition,
it is said that] when Heaven and Earth first came to be separated, the Great Deity
Musuhi created the one thing whose form is difficult to be expressed (sono katachi
iigataki ichimotsu 其狀貌言難き一物 ).87 {Pondering the form of this “thing,” I believe it is
of female reproductive organs. This is why it is said that its form cannot be expressed.
I developed this point in my Koshi-den 古史傳 .88 Thus, this should be named “the dark
female (genpin 玄牝 ).”} This deity bestowed a heavenly pike with jade ornament (ame
no nuhoko 天の瓊戈 ) on the two deities Izanagi and Izanami and ordered them to stir
this thing whose form could not be expressed; when they withdrew the pike a drop
trickled down the tip of the pike and created the island Onogoro 於能碁呂島 . They
then descended on this island, and having generated a [common] thought, they set
up for the first time the path of husband and wife (fĭfu no michi o okoshi 夫婦の道を興
し ) and they produced all eighty kingdoms in [our] country and the myriad things,
including the green human grass (ao-hito-kusa 青人草 ). [...] Moreover, [they] stuck
the august pike in the ground of Onogoro island, and made it the august pillar of the
center of the country (kuni-naka no mi-hashira 國中の御柱 ). This pillar later became a
hill; looking at its true form, it looks very much like what is called the heavenly root
(tenkon 天根 [i.e. the divine phallus or liЊga]). This is not without reason, for it is clear
that the bestowed pike with jade ornaments was a thing of that kind. […] The passage
from the commentary on the MadhyamakaĝÃstra that I quoted in a previous chapter
on the topic of Four Castes, states: “the Deva ViҎѲu grasped a disk-halberd (ringeki 輪
戟 ), and has a great power. All beings came to be born িom it.”89 This is also related
to the august pike, and we should reflect on this [correspondence] too. {As I have
already explained in detail, ViҎѲu is another name for Maheĝvara.90 In the sentence “All
beings came to be born িom it,” “it” seems to indicate ViҎѲu, but if we consider the
matter it is clear that “it” indicates the halberd.}
Here, Hirata slyly attempts to establish an equivalence between MahÃbrahmÃ-

ìĝvara, the Great Deity of Musuhi, and the Great Deity Izanagi. But a few pages
further, he postulates more clearly that “the Deva MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara is the Great
Deity of Kami-musuhi 皇産靈ノ大神” (pp.‫؜‬279b-280b). Thus, it can be said with
relative certainty that in Hirata’s theology, there existed the following scheme:
日神 and Kami-musuhi (or musubi) 神産巣日神. These are the most abstract deities of classical
Japanese mythology; they are without sexual character, but in some cases, Kami-musuhi has
feminine features. In Edo period nativist ideology, these deities were considered as the supreme/
primordial gods of Japan.
8‫ؕ܀‬The beginning of the Nihon shoki 日本書紀 (NKBT 67, p. 76 [77]) notes that according
to one record (issho 一書), “when Heaven and Earth first came to be separated, there existed one
thing in the emptiness of space. Its form was diைcult to express. In it, there was a self-generated
deity: it was called Kuni-tokotachi no mikoto 國常立尊.”
8‫ؕ܁‬Koshi-den is the main work by Hirata; it is a commentary to his own version of Japanese
mythology. See Zenshĭ, I (Tďkyď, 1977), pp.‫؜‬119-b-120a (but here, Hirata says that this “thing
whose form was diைcult to describe” represents sexual intercourse between male and female
(which he equates more directly to female genitalia on p. 170a).
8‫ؕ܂‬Zhongguan lun shu 中觀論疏, T. XLII 1824: 14c15-16: “韋紐手執輪戟。有大威勢。故云萬物從
其生也.” This passage is quoted in the Indo-zďshi p. 12b.
90.ؕSee for example Indo zďshi, pp.‫؜‬11b-12b.

Takami-musuhi (identified with MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara)

Ame no minakanushi no kami
Kami-musuhi (identified with MahÃbrahmÃ-ìĝvara)
It is astonishing to notice the similarity between this scheme and the theological
structure of some of the early medieval Shintď texts that we have seen. Consider
for example that of the Sengĭ himon, which could be represented as follows (see
above, p.‫؜‬285):
(gekĭ) Toyouke kďtaõin = Ame no minakanushi no kami = Emperor MahÃbrahmÃ Ĝikhin

(naikĭ) Tenshď kďtaõin = Tenshď daõin = Emperor MahÃbrahmÃ JyotiҎprabha
Or perhaps the theological structure of the Toyouke kďtaõin chinza shidai is even
closer to Hirata’s scheme (see above, pp.‫؜‬285-286):
King BrahmÃ Ĝikhin (associated with a jewel of water) = MahÃvairocana of the Vajra Realm
= Ame no minakanushi no mikoto = Toyouke kďtaõin (male)
King BrahmÃ JyotiҎprabha (associated with a jewel of fire) = MahÃvairocana of the Womb Realm
= Ame no minakanushi = Tenshď kďtaõin 天照皇太神 (female)91
From what we have seen above, the notion of “Shintď as a form of ‘Japanese
Hinduism,’” which at first appears very odd, may now sound more appropriate: to
clearly outline the logic behind this statement, let us recapitulate:
‫ ۺ‬Hirata Atsutane extracted Indian myths — and especially Indian cosmogonic
myths — িom Buddhist texts, and postulated that they are essentially the same
as Japanese myths;
‫ ۻ‬He also thought that Buddhist esoteric texts are only superficially “Bud-
dhist” while their actual contents are not di௅erent িom those of Indian mythical
thought;
‫ ۼ‬Early medieval Shintď thought can be understood as an attempt to reinterpret
Japanese deities and related myths (especially those of the Outer and Inner shrines
of Ise) by using the structural patterns of esoteric Buddhist thought. The chief
concern of early medieval Shintď is cosmogony.
‫ ۽‬If it is true, as Hirata believes, that the esoteric Buddhist structural patterns
that were used as the basic interprative grid in medieval Shintď thought were only
superficially Buddhist, and that they essentially belonged to Brahmanic or Hindu
thought, the statement that “medieval Shintď was a form of ‘Japanese Hinduism’”
would not be nonsensical.
9‫ؕۺ‬Note that for Hirata, Ame no minakanushi is the supreme deity who has no attributes
and is almost completely inactive (except his “quiescent” generating power) (Indo zďshi, p.‫؜‬277b);
in this sense, this deity is beyond the actual action of creation. In these conditions, it is possible
to think that Ame no minakanushi of the Toyouke kďtaõin chinza shidai is equivalent to the two
“musuhi” deities of Hirata’s theology.

296 Iyanaga Nobumi
If we consider the issue under this light, the surprising similarity between
some forms of early medieval Shintď theology and Hirata’s views িom the Indo
zďshi (similarity which is very likely the result of a pure coincidence92) would be of
considerable significance. What was at stake in both medieval Shintď theology and
Hirata’s thought was the absolute origin of the world; for this purpose, they both
sought to investigate the most abstract deity (or deities) in Japanese mythology. It
was thus a logical consequence that Ame no minakanushi (in the thought of both
of them) and the “Musuhi” deities (in Hirata's theology) were considered as the
highest gods. Early medieval Shintď authors looked for these cosmogonic myths in
Buddhist texts because they were under profound Buddhist influence; in Hirata’s
case, it was because he wanted to find proof of his theories in Indian mythology
that he investigated Buddhist texts.
Conclusion
At the end of this study, I would like to present a larger vision that could
serve as the background for all the developments that we have examined so far.
In India, িom the seventh or eighth century onward, a very important religious
upheaval occurred; this “Tantric revolution” was a transformation that concerned
all the major Indian religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. Until
recently, this movement was explained by theories invoking, for example, a rise of
Dravidian irrationality at the expense of “Ãryan” rationalism; Buddhism, considered
as a rather “rational” religion, would have been submerged by the Tantric Hindu
flood. But such theories have become objects of criticism and other types of expla-
nations have been proposed. I personally think that one of the main drives which
led to the “Tantric revolution” of Indian religion was an internal movement within
Buddhism itself:93 িom the time of the early MahÃyÃna, Buddhism developed a kind
of paradoxical logic, such as the one represented by the phrase “Form is nothing
other than Emptiness.” The mechanics of this logic could lead to the reversal of
socially received values, producing concepts including “defilement is identical with
enlightenment” or “saЈsÃra is identical with nirvÃЌa.” Along the same lines, there
were also more markedly “Tantric notions” expressed in maxims like “Great anger
subjugates ordinary anger,” “Great craving cures ordinary craving” or even “since
everything is equally Thusness (or Emptiness) in ultimate truth, one should not
fear that which is considered ‘evil’ or ‘impure.’” This kind of reasoning could be very
similar to a certain Ĝaiva philosophy and practice by which one sought “the impure
9‫ؕۻ‬Hirata’s theory is so similar to medieval Shintď thought that we could doubt as to some
cryptic influence of the latter on him, even though he is ostensibly against medieval Shintď.
But even if it is true that he read some medieval Shintď texts (see Mori Mizue 森瑞枝, “Kinsei
ni okeru Reikiki” 近世における『麗氣記』in Kďchĭ kaisetsu gendaigo yaku Reikiki, pp.‫؜‬528-536), he
seems to have almost not known at all its theory about MahÃbrahmÃ.
9‫ؕۼ‬On what follows in the text, see my “Tantrism and Reactionary Ideology in Eastern Asia:
Some Hypothesis and Questions,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 13, pp.‫؜‬20-2‫ۻ‬

in order to attain ultimate purity.” The rise of this ontological tendency, which
could be labeled both Buddhist and Ĝaiva at the same time, along with the fall of
the Gupta dynasty and the emergence of small military states that were constantly
at war with each other, set the stage for the development of Tantric currents in
all Indian religions.94 It would appear that the “tantricization” of Indian religion
was triggered by the mutual stimulation of radical elements in Buddhist and Ĝaiva
movements. As a consequence of this evolution, Buddhism was submerged in a new
Hindu religiosity that was to a great extent the result of its own transformation.
In this sense, one could forward the hypothesis that the disappearance of Bud-
dhism in India was caused by the tradition’s “self-implosion” or internal auto-collapse.
One could also propose that a similar process occurred in Japanese Buddhism during
the Middle Ages, resulting, notably, in the advent of medieval Shintď.
Among the di௅erent causes for the “implosion” of Japanese Buddhism, we may
cite esoteric trends, especially “Original Enlightenment thought,” of which Annen
was one of the most far-reaching founders. It seems that the brand of Buddhism
conceived by his successors was almost no di௅erent িom a kind of theism or panthe-
ism; in this context, we may understand how the Buddha MahÃvairocana, Tenshď
daõin, and the Deva Maheĝvara for example, were considered manifestations of the
same fundamental and supreme deity at di௅erent levels of truth (this was what was
stated in the passage িom the Keiranshĭyďshĭ above, p.‫؜‬284). In this line of thought,
we may also comprehend how the opposition between “the universal” (hon 本) and
“the particular” (jaku 垂) was dissolved by an identity (soku 即), and “the particular”
was put above “the universal” in the ontological hierarchy. The idea of “Japan as the
original country of the Buddha MahÃvairocana” is an example of the dissolution
of opposition between “the particular” (“Japan” in this case) and “the universal”
(“the Buddha MahÃvairocana”); the reverse notion that “the kami is the Original,
the Buddha is the Trace” (jin-pon butsu-jaku 神本佛垂) is an expression of the posi-
tion of “the particular” above “the universal.”. From this perspective, it is natural
that individual deities (even King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven, who is the enemy
of Buddhism par excellence) are considered aspects of a vaguely defined universal-
ity of absolute divine power. Thus, the demonic Ĝiva (the “PiĝÃca-Maheĝvara” of
the MahÃyÃna-avatÃra-ĝÃstra), “the king Deva of the Fourth Meditation Heaven”
(the Maheĝvara identified with the bodhisattva of the tenth ground), and even
“Vairocana-Maheĝvara” (the name of a deity in the Rishu Makaen [see above, p.‫؜‬279])
are the same in essence. In its true form, the universal and absolute divine power
is represented as the Buddha MahÃvairocana, but in mundane reality, it necessarily
manifests itself in di௅erent particular deities; and these deities take the appearance
of awesome, awful, and amazing magical power. Early medieval Shintď — or rather
“jindď” — is constituted of such deities.
Thus, when the logical structure of Buddhist philosophy was “diluted” by the
massive introduction of “Original Enlightenment thought,” what resulted was a
9‫ؕ۽‬On this point, see Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the
Tantric Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, 200‫ۼ‬

298 Iyanaga Nobumi
movement of “poetisation” of the world, by which mythical images িom Buddhist,

Japanese, or even Daoist (and Onmyďdď) mythologies were িeely combined, in
order to create a new mythical representation of the world. What is known today
as “early medieval Shintď” could have been one product of this movement; and the
astonishing development of esoteric rituals িom the Insei period onward could
have been another.
The world aীer the Insei period, in which more and more sub-lineages of esoteric
branches were created, was a world where everybody could be at the highest level of
intellectual production, and full of intellectual stimulation. At the same time, it was
a world in which the foundation of authority and sacredness of the ancient world
was in ruin, and each person had to be conিonted with a profound existential crisis.
We can imagine that the number of people constituting a blood-lineage or a trend
generally was very limited; and in many of these small groups, seeds of new, bold
ideas could be generated (in the modern world, they could have become the core
of what is usually called “new religions”). In this rich environment of intellectual
ferment, new movements of esoteric thought that would later evolve into medieval
Shintď were born. Revolutionary ideas spread through texts, on the one hand in the
aristocratic milieu, and on the other hand in that of shrine priests, giving birth to
successive layers of new systems. A good example of this phenomenon can be found
in the extraordinary development given to the ideas expressed in the short text by
Seison: not only did they give birth to the notion of “Japan as the Original country
of the Buddha MahÃvairocana,” they were also the basis on which the myth of King
MÃra of the Sixth Heaven was founded. This text served also as a “filter” through
which older texts, such as those of Annen, or even more classical texts such as the
Dazhidulun or Chinese commentaries on the Lotus sĭtra, could be examined again,
providing“seeds” for other new mythical speculations.
It is thus possible to think of Tantric Buddhism as a “specifically Hindu form of
Buddhism” — and conceive of Hinduism (or perhaps a certain, “tantricized” form
of Hinduism) much in the same way, as a “specifically Hindu form of Buddhism.”
On the other hand, early medieval Shintď may also be understood as a “specifically
Japanese (or ‘Japanized’?) interpretation of (Japanese) Tantric Buddhism.” If we
were to combine these statements, would it not be possible to think of Japanese
medieval Shintď as “a form of ‘Japanese Hinduism’”?
Hinduism and Shintď (or classical Japanese mythology) seem to share the label
of “indigenous religion.” But this “indigenousness” is itself a constantly re-invented
ideology; there is no “essential indigenousness.” The expression “indigenous religion”
reminds us of another word, “paganism.” It would be interesting to compare early
medieval Shintď with the “neo-pagan” movement of our time: like early medieval
Shintď, neo-paganism would have evoked feelings of suspicion (at least for people
of traditional learning) or renewal, and a certain intellectual thrill as well. Early
“medieval Shintď as a form of ‘Japanese Hinduism’ ” could also be a kind of “neo-
paganism” of the early medieval period…
To conclude this essay, I would like to present some questions and issues that
might profitably be pursued in the future. As we have seen above, there existed
rather obvious connections between Annen and Seison, and between Seison and

early medieval Shintď thought, or more directly, between Annen and early medieval
Shintď thought. However, Annen’s death came at the end of the ninth century,
while Seison’s activity ceased in the later half of the eleventh century, and early
medieval Shintď texts only emerged during the later part of the twelীh century.
The chronological gaps between these events have yet to be filled, but due to the
paucity of data, it has proven to be a diைcult undertaking.
Another important issue is that of when and how the people who were producing
early medieval Shintď discourse became (or did not become) aware of the fact that
their doctrines were not really “Buddhist.” It is my suspicion that many of them
were Buddhist monks, more or less sincere believers that were well-acquainted with
the materials of their tradition. Any novice with a minimum amount of exegetical
training would know that Buddhism always opposed the notion of creationism.95
Were they ever aware of the discrepancy between their novel theology and the old
tenets of Buddhism? If so, how did they attempt to reconcile this di௅erence?
Finally, and related to this question, it would be interesting to obtain more
insight about the relationship between medieval Shintď thought and what could be
termed “heresies.” In the Kďya monogatari that we have quoted above, there are a
few interesting lines about the ethical issues surrounding “shintď” (or jindď) deities
and practices. The Kďya monogatari presents itself as a dialogue between a “boy”
(shďdď 小童), who raises questions, and an “old monk” (rďsď 老僧), who answers
them. In one exchange, the “boy” says:96
“Incidentally, I have another doubt and would like to ask you a question about it. I heard
that the Original Grounds of the bright deities (shinmei 神明) of our country are indeed
buddhas and bodhisattvas. Now, [I know that] the buddhas’ and bodhisattvas’ mind is
full of compassion. They bestow blessings to men, and do not harm them. But when I
observe our country’s bright deities, they oীen possess male and female shrine servants,
and if one worships them, they kill people or harm things. On the other hand, while
Buddhist Law does not abhor (imi haberanu イミ侍ラヌ) the impurity [related to] birth
and death, I oীen hear that if they [the Japanese kamis] come to be in contact with it,
[they] lay a curse (tatari o nashi タゝリヲナシ) and harm people. Moreover, it oীen happens
that vile men and women are said to be possessed by them and act variously like insane
people. All this is far িom what one would expect of Buddhist behavior. While [the
buddhas and the bodhisattvas that are their] Original Grounds are such Great Saints
(daishď 大聖), why are the Traces so shallow and why do they cause people misfortune?
This is what I wonder…”
9‫ؕ۾‬This is true even in esotericism: see for example the MahÃvairocana sĭtra or the Jĭ-jĭshin
ron 十住心論 T. XVIII 848 i 2a29; T. XXXIX 1796 i 593a13-25; T. 2217 676a26-b27; T. LX 2218
xl 190c12-191c16; T. LXXVII 2425 i 312b3, c1-‫܆‬
9‫ؕۿ‬Kďya monogatari, ed. Abe, pp.‫؜‬111b-112a: “ 事ノ次ニ、不審ナル事、聊、尋申侍ラン。誠、吾國
ノ
神明ハ、本地、仏菩ニテ
ヲハシマスヨシ、承リ侍リ。仏菩ハ
、慈悲ヲ心トシ給フ。人ノタメニ恵ミヲ施給トモ、更〔ニ〕
害ナスヘカラス。シカルニ、此朝神明之アリサマ見給、キネ・カンナキニツキテ、是ヲ祭リ奉レハ、人ヲコロシ、
ヲノヲニ
物ヲソコナフ事、多ク侍リ。又、生死ノ不浄ナント申事ハ、仏法ニハイトイミ侍ラヌヲ、加様ノ事ヲ、タゝリヲナシ、人ニ
禍ヲアタヘ給事、多ク聞ヘ侍。是ノミナラス、神ノ付給トテ、サマ／＼、イヤシキシツノヲ・シツノメナント、物クルハ
シキ事、多ク侍。更ニ誠ノ仏法ノ境界ニ似ス。本地ハサコソメテタキ大聖ニテヲハシマスナルニ、垂迹ハイカニシテカク
ハ事アサクモ人ニクルシミヲ与ヘ給ニカ、ヲホツカナクソ侍ル .”

300 Iyanaga Nobumi
This is a very interesting ethical question, showing that for some in medieval
Japan kami seemed to behave in an unethical and “non-Buddhist” way. The “old
monk” answers this question by putting forward the argument of “wakď dďjin” 和光
同塵. He explains that this is similar to four kinds of esoteric rituals, among which
the subjugation rituals are intended to harm people — but these are intended as a
kind of skillful means to incite “foolish, ordinary people” to believe in Buddhism.97
Whether this explanation is convincing or not does not matter much. What is
important here is that as early as the mid-thirteenth century, kami worship could be
felt as something diࢢerent িom normal Buddhist practice. Thus, I believe that it is
possible to understand early medieval Shintď cults and theories as something other
than entirely “orthodox.” It would be interesting to further investigate this issue.
Bibliography
Abe Yasurď 阿部泰郎

1988 “Kďya monogatari no saihakken: Daigoji-bon kan san no fukugen”
『高野物語』の再發見—醍醐寺本卷三の復原. Chĭsei bungaku 中世文學 33:
93-1‫܆‬
2006 “Maď tono keiyaku: Dairokuten Maď shinwa no bunmyaku” 魔王との契
約第六天魔王神話の文脈. In Chĭsei gunki no tenbďdai 中世軍記の展望台, ed.
Takehisa Tsuyoshi 武久堅 et al., Tďkyď: Izumi shoin 和泉書院, pp.‫؜‬101-13‫ۺ‬
Agatsuma Matashirď 上妻又四郎
1982 “Chĭsei bukkyď-shintď ni okeru Bon-tennď shisď” 中世佛教神道における梵
天王思想. Terakoya gogaku bunka kenkyĭjo ronsď 寺子屋語學文化研究所論叢
1: 45-60.
Bhandarkar, RÃmakҎѲa GopÃla
1913 VaiШЌavism, Ĝaivism and Minor Religious Systems. Strasbourg.
Biardeau, Madeleine
1981 Études de mythologie hindoue, I, Cosmogonies purÃЌiques. Publications de
l’Ecole িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, vol.‫؜‬12‫ ܁‬Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.
Davidson, Ronald
2003 Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Grieve, Gregory Price
2008 “Staking Out the Field: A Henotheistic Review of Supplemental Readers
for the Study of Hinduism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion
76, no. 3: 716-74‫܀‬
9‫ ؕ܀‬Abe, ibid., pp.‫؜‬112a-113b.

Itù Satoshi 伊藤聰

1995 “Dairokuten Maď setsu no seiritsu: Tokuni Nakatomi no harae kunge no
shosetsu o chĭshin toshite” 第六天魔王説の成立—特に『中臣祓訓解』の所説
を中心として. Nihon bungaku 日本文学 44, no.‫؜‬7: 67-7‫܀‬
1997 “Hokekyď to chĭsei jingi sho: Toku ni Kamakura-ki ryďbu shintď sho ni
okeru Bon tennď setsu o megutte”『法華經』と中世神書—特に鎌倉期兩部
神道書における梵天王説を巡って. Kokubungaku: kaishaku to kanshď 國文學
解釋と鑑賞 62, no. 3: 50-57, special issue ‘Hokekyď’ to chĭsei bungei『法華
經』と中世文藝.
1998 “Chĭsei shinwa no tenkai: Chĭsei kďki no dairokuten Maď tan o megutte”
中世神話の展開—中世後期の第六天魔王譚を巡って. Kokubungaku: kaishaku to
kanshď 國文學—解釋と鑑賞 63, no. 12 (December): 68-7‫ۿ‬
2000 “Shasekishĭ to chĭsei shintď-setsu: Bďtď-wa ‘Daõingĭ no koto’ o megutte”
『沙石集』と中世神道説—冒頭話「太神宮御事」を巡って. Setsuwa bungaku kenkyĭ
説話文學研究 35: 59-7‫۽‬
2003 “Tenshď daõin Dainichi nyorai shĭgď-setsu o megutte, jď” 天照大神＝大日
如來習合説をめぐって（上） . Ibaraki daigaku jinbun-gakubu kiyď (Jinbun gakka
ronshĭ 城大學人文學部紀要（人文學科論集）39: 74-5‫܁‬
Iyanaga Nobumi 彌永信美
1983 “Daõizaiten” 大自在天. In Hďbďgirin 法寶義林 6, pp.‫؜‬713-76‫۾‬
1996-1997 “Le Roi MÃra du Sixième Ciel et le mythe médiéval de la création
du Japon.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 9, Mémorial Anna Seidel. Religions
traditionnelles d’Asie orientale II: 323-39‫ۿ‬
1998-1999 “Dairokuten Maď to chĭsei Nihon no sďzď shinwa” 第六天魔王と中世日
本の創造神話, I, II, III. Hirosaki daigaku kokushi kenkyĭ 弘前大學・國史研究
103-106: 44-68, 23-39, 17-4‫ۺ‬
2003a “Tantrism and Reactionary Ideology in Eastern Asia: Some Hypothesis
and Questions.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 13: 1-3‫ۼ‬
2003b “The Logic of Combinatory Deities: Two Case Studies.” In Buddhas and
Kami in Japan: HoŶi-suõaku as a Combinatory Paradigm, ed. Mark Teeuwen
and Fabio Rambelli, London, New York: Routledge Curzon, pp.‫؜‬145-17‫ۿ‬
2007 “Yuiitsu no kami to hitotsu no sekai: Kindai shoki Nihon to Furansu ni
okeru hikaku shinwa-gaku no hajimari” 唯一の神と一つの世界—近代初期
日本とフランスにおける比較神話學のはじまり. In ‘Hitotsu no sekai’ no seiritsu
to sono jďken「一つの世界」の成立とその条件, Kďtďken hďkokusho 高等研
報告書 701, Kenkyĭ daihyďsha Nakagawa Hisasada 研究代表者・中川久定,
Kyďto, pp.‫؜‬165a-240a.
Kadoya Atsushi 門屋溫
1995 “‘Shintď-shi’ no kaitai: shingon shintď kenkyĭ no kadai”「神道史」の解
體—眞言神道研究の課題. In Nihon no bukkyď 日本の佛教 3, Kami to hotoke
no kosumorojí 神と佛のコスモロジー, edited by Nihon bukkyď kenkyĭ-kai 日
本佛教研究會, Kyďto: Hďzďkan 法藏館, pp.‫؜‬167-180.

302 Iyanaga Nobumi
King, Richard
1999 Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘the Mystic East.’
London, New York: Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group.
Kďnoshi Takamitsu 神野志隆光
1992 “Nihon shoki ‘Shindai’ bďtďbu to Sango rekiki”『日本書紀』
「神代」冒頭部と『三
五曆紀』 . In Kiki Man’yď ronsď 記紀萬葉論叢, ed. Yoshii Iwao 吉井巖, Tďkyď:
Hanawa shobď 塙書房, pp.‫؜‬96-1‫܊‬
Lamotte, Etienne
1966 Le Traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de NÃgÃrjuna (MahÃprajñÃpÃramitÃĝÃstra)
I. Louvain.
Mori Mizue 森瑞枝
2001 “Kinsei ni okeru Reikiki” 近世における『麗氣記』. In Kďchĭ kaisetsu gendaigo
yaku Reikiki, pp.‫؜‬528-53‫ۿ‬
Pennington, Brian Kemble
2005 Was Hinduism invented?: Britons, Indians, and colonial construction of religion.
Oxford University Press.
Pye, Michael, trans.
1990 Emerging from meditation by Tominaga Nakamoto. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Rambelli, Fabio
2002 “The Ritual World of Buddhist ‘Shintď’: The Reikiki and Initiations on
Kami-Related Matters (jingi kaŶď) in Late Medieval and Early-Modern
Japan.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 29, nos.‫؜‬3-4: 265-29‫܀‬
Satď Masato 佐藤眞人
1995 “‘Tenchi reiki furoku’ no shutten in’yď ichiran, jď”『天地麗氣府録』の出典・引
用一覽・上. Ďkurayama ronshĭ 大倉山論集 37: 233-26‫۽‬
Tanaka Takako 田中貴子

2002 “Keiranshĭyďshĭ ni okeru ďken to jingi”『渓嵐拾葉集』における王権と神 .
In Ďken to jingi 王権と神 , ed. Imatani Akira 今谷明. Kyďto: Shibunkaku
shuppan 思文閣出版, pp.‫؜‬173-19‫ۻ‬
Taishď daigaku sďgď bukkyď kenkyĭjo shinbutsu shĭgď kenkyĭkai 大正大學綜合佛

教研究所神佛習合研究會, ed.
2001 Kďchĭ kaisetsu gendaigo yaku Reikiki 校解説現代語譯麗氣記 I. Kyďto:
Hďzďkan 法藏館.
Teeuwen, Mark
2002 “From Jindď to Shintď: A Concept Takes Shape.” Japanese Journal of
Religious Studies 29, nos.‫؜‬3-4: 233-26‫ۼ‬

Teeuwen, Mark and Rambelli, Fabio, eds.

2003 Buddhas and Kami in Japan: HoŶi-suõaku as a Combinatory Paradigm.
London, New York: Routledge Curzon.
Uejima Susumu 上島享
2004 “Nihon chĭsei no kami kannen to kokudo-kan” 日本中世の神觀念と國土觀.
In Chĭsei Ichi-no-miya sei no rekishi-teki tenkai 中世一宮制の歴史的展開 II,
Sďgď kenkyĭ-hen 總合研究編, edited by Ichi-no-miya kenkyĭkai 一宮研究
會. Tďkyď: Iwata shoin 岩田書院, pp.‫؜‬41-9‫ۺ‬
Keywords:
Medieval Shintď and Annen — Medieval Shintď and Seison — Shingon fuhď
san’yďshď 眞言付法纂要抄 (by Seison) and Medieval Shintď — Japan “as Original
Country of Dainichi” — Myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven — King BrahmÃ
in Medieval Shintď — Hindu deities and Medieval Shintď — Hirata Atsutane and
Medieval Shintď — Hirata Atsutane and India — Indo zďshi 印度藏志 (by Hirata
Atsutane) — Medieval Shintď and “heresy”


Medieval Shinto As A Form of Japanese Hi

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Medieval Shinto As A Form of Japanese Hi

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cahiers 1 6 PZ

Rethinking Medieval Shintô

MEDIEVAL SHINTČ AS A FORM OF ‘JAPANESE HINDUISM’

Iyanaga Nobumi 彌永信美

Le présent article propose une nouvelle manière de concevoir ce que

Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 16 (2006-2007)b: 263-303

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

‫ ؕ۾‬Dazhidulun, T. XXV 1509: 116a5-11 (see E. Lamotte, Le Traité de la grande vertu de

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

of heterodox (or non-Buddhist) teaching (gedď 外道)7. In the Dazhidulun itself, it is

neuve, 1981, pp. 51-5‫ۻ‬

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Annen and Buddhist Devas in early medieval Shintč

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

‫ ۺ‬The Myth of King MÃra of the Sixth Heaven;

Annen and Seison’s Shingon fuhĎ san’yĎshĎ

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

The pun on the words “Dainichi and “Dainichi[no]honkoku,” MahÃvairocana and

369c27-370a‫ — ۼ‬Kĭkai’s quotation cannot be found in the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra (Dai Birushana

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

makasatsu 大威光菩 摩訶 ).23 Furthermore, Itď mentions that in his commentary

2‫ ؕۼ‬Jingangding jing 金剛頂經, T. XVIII 865 i 210a18-b‫܂‬

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

2‫ ؕ܀‬Dari jing shu 大日經疏, T. XXXIX 1796: 618c18-19: “日喩本淨菩提心。即是毘盧遮那自體.” —

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Annen and the myth of King MÂra of the Sixth Heaven

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Then, some lines further:34

3‫ ؕۼ‬Keiranshĭyďshĭ (T. LXXVI 2410: 511a4-10): “一。我國號大日本國事。密談云（忠快）或人物語

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

in Venerable form (songyď 尊形);37 it is the Susiddhikara[-sĭtra], the Transformation

3‫ ؕ܀‬The anthropomorphic maЌϒala is usually called “Dai-mandara” 大曼荼羅 (Sk. mahÃ-

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Here, the curious deity name “dairokuten no Izana-Makeshura, Bishaja-

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Annen and his cosmological hierarchy of deities

As noted above, the second section of Annen’s text on Maríci is a sequence of

4‫ ؕۼ‬For example “第六天伊舍那魔化修羅（欲界頂）毘遮邪魔醯修羅（色界頂）: see Taishď daigaku

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Unfortunately, this quotation is erroneous. The original text of the MahÃyÃna-

4‫ؕ܀‬Bodaishingi-shď, T. LXXV 2397: 547c15-17: “入大乘論有二種摩醯首羅。一毘遮舍摩醯首羅。是

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

on the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra is roughly exact.53 Once more, the context is that of

The original passage in the Zhiguan fuxingchuan hongjue 止觀輔行傳弘決 is of a

5‫ؕۼ‬Commentary to the MahÃvairocana-sĭtra, T. XXXIX 1796: 634c6-8: “并置商羯羅天。此是

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

the Buddha is thusness” is not found in the Vimalakírtinirdeĝa-sĭtra, but in the

5‫ؕ܀‬ĜĭraЈgamasamÃdhi-sĭtra, T. XV 642: 639c14-20: “魔界如即是佛界如。魔界如佛界如不二不

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

Annen and the Deva BrahmÂ in Early medieval Shintč thought

According to Annen, Maheĝvara of the Fourth meditation heaven, known as

Such a direct association of Maheĝvara with MahÃvairocana and/or Amaterasu

5‫ؕ܂‬Keiranshĭyďshĭ, T. LXXVI 2410: 516a17-20: “加之我國ハ神國也。尋二其元神一ヲ天照太神也。此

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

If we concentrate on the ﬁrst part of the third of these di௅erent “meanings,”

© École িançaise d’Extrême-Orient, Paris, 2009

The Identiﬁcation of ëěÂna with Izanagi/Izanami

Another interesting theme that appears in a number of early medieval Shintď

makasatsu 大威光菩摩訶 ).23 Furthermore, Itď mentions that in his commentary

75.ؕAbe Yasurď 阿部泰郎 , “Kďya monogatari no saihakken: Daigoji-bon kan san no