1 Introduction
Regardless of how the term is understood, it is clear that any historical study of an element of human culture cannot be adequately discussed without employing the notion of structure. If one would replace the word âstructureâ with ânetwork,â as in the meaning of ânetlike interconnections,â it is possible to conceptualise two types of networks which construct the significance of that element. One is a conceptual network, which contains various components (thoughts and ideas related to practices, customs, beliefs, etc.) with which the element of study has a close relationship in a certain time and space. The multiple relationships within that time and space need to be explicitly brought to light and thoroughly analysed to allow a more complete and nuanced grasp of the elementâs meaning. However, the configuration of the components in this network and their semantic values are not static but continuously evolve or devolve due to the influence of forces tied to social practices and activities. Hence, the conceptual network always intersects with another type of network, which is one of historical human activity marked by socio-political, economic and cultural motivations, and which extends over a certain geographical area. Within this network, people, artefacts, texts, and other vehicles of human thoughts and expressions move from one place to another, crossing geographical, political and cultural borders, and affecting modes of human activity in other localities. Needless to say, they also impact on the configuration of the components in the conceptual net spun around the element of human culture we want to examine for a given time and space.
To say it differently, any object of historical inquiry related to human culture can be viewed from the perspective of a âtranslocalâ1 historical human network that extends âhorizontallyâ over certain geographical areas, and a âlocalâ conceptual network that widens âverticallyâ within a limited time and space, the content and internal configuration of which changes in accordance with the impetuses received from activities in the human network.2 Of course, it is impossible to concretely show the interrelatedness between the two networks for each time and space in intricate detail, however their historical existence and/or relevance can theoretically be assumed, and this will be the working guideline applied to the subject of inquiry in this chapter.
The subject that will be examined here is the combination of FudÅ ä¸å (Skt. Acala) and AizenâÅ ææç (Skt. *RÄgarÄja; often abbreviated as âAizenâ) in medieval Shingon esoteric Buddhism (Shingon MikkyÅ çè¨å¯æ).3 FudÅ, the âImmovable One,â and Aizen, the âKing of Lust,ââas his name is rendered by Roger Goepper (1993), who made an extensive study of the deityâare two important esoteric Buddhist divinities which are classified in the category of myÅÅ æç, âMantra Kingsâ or âWisdom Kingsâ; more will be said about them later. Recent research, which will also be explained in more detail later in this article, has shown that this particular belief functioned within specific Shingon circles as one of the primary doctrinal and ritual characteristics of the school in the medieval era. In other words, it constituted one of the fundamental components in the conceptual network that constructed the identity of a certain branch of medieval Shingon. According to the general scholarly consensus, it was a belief that was in all likelihood established in Japan somewhere during the late Heian period (794â1185), as there is no Indian or Chinese scripture to be found which mentions it. In fact, Shingon monks at the time were aware that there was no authoritative Buddhist text that showed the combination of the two deities, and were even proud to present it as one of the most important features of their own school, as shown in the following quote from the Himitsu kudenshÅ ç§å¯å£ä¼æ (Book of Secret Oral Instructions):4
馬é°èµãäºäºã人ã ã竪義ä¸åãã¬ãã¢ãæ ¥ã大æ¥çµä¸åææçãå¼åããè¾»ã²äºäºãæ ä¹ãæ¤å³èªå®ãçè¨å®ãä¸å ·ãæ³éä¸å¤§äºãç§äºä¹ã5
People have different interpretations regarding the âhorse penis [concentrationâ].6 However, it is true that in the Dainichi-kyÅ (Ch. Dari jing, Skt. MahÄvairocana sÅ«tra) there is no line that combines FudÅ with AizenâÅ and explains their interconnection. Hence, this [combination of FudÅ and AizenâÅ] is the exclusive, ultimate secret teaching of our own school, the Shingon School.
In this article I will attempt to shed more light on the processes that led to the formation of that particular feature of Shingon identity. At the present time, there are only a few explanations offered as to the possible reasons, causes, or contexts that led to its appearance and initial development. These explanations, which will be discussed in detail later, have not affected the general conclusion that the belief emerged at some point within Shingon circles in the course of the eleventh/twelfth century as an exclusively Japanese Buddhist invention.
However, a question one might ask is whether the belief was truly the product of local Japanese monksâ speculations, or if it was brought from China to Japan. Even if the truth is that the feature was not directly transmitted from the mainland to Japan but was instead created in the Japanese archipelago by esoteric Buddhist priests, it would probably still not be accurate to view the creation as standing totally independent from a human networkâ possibly extending to Chinaâin which various closely related thoughts and beliefs circulated. The greater part of the ninth century, the late tenth century, and the late eleventh century were periods in which numerous Buddhist texts and iconographies were imported into Japan through the travels of Japanese Buddhist monks to Tang or Song China,7 and it is possible that the idea of the combination of FudÅ and Aizen could have been derived from these materials. But if that is so, what would these materials have been, and through what network might this transfer have happened? Then there is the question of why the combination developed specifically in Shingon and not in Tendai å¤©å° Buddhism. There must be some characteristic particular to Shingon doctrine and practice which stimulated this development.
These are the questions that will be considered in this study. In keeping with what was said in the beginning of the chapter, these questions will be examined based upon the assumption that to understand the formation of the combination of FudÅ and Aizen in Shingon better, one must see it as being set at the intersection of a translocal historical human network and a local conceptual network of various thoughts related to doctrine and practice developed in specific Shingon circles at a certain time. Thus, the working theory, the ânetâ applied over the complex reality behind the creation processes of this particular belief, involves two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the combination of our two deities was produced in Shingon as the result of esoteric Buddhist concepts (e.g., in the form of texts, iconographies) circulating in a human network which possibly extended across the borders of Japan. The second hypothesis is that the combination gained a special status in a particular Shingon group of monks because of a close relationship with other components in the conceptual network of doctrines and practices that characterised that group.
In this chapter, I will first explain the basic features of the FudÅ-Aizen combination in medieval Shingon esoteric Buddhism. Then I will investigate the possible processes, paths, and conditions through which the combination was formed and elaborated. Finally, I will state my conclusions on the formation of the FudÅ-Aizen cult.
2 Description of the FudÅ-Aizen Combination in Medieval Shingon
FudÅ, the âImmovable,â and AizenâÅ, the âKing of Lust,â are two esoteric Buddhist deities which essentially embody a wisdomâan esoteric knowledge or concentrationâthat holds the power to shatter all obstructions to full Awakening. In this sense, both are often referred to with the term âwisdom kingâ (myÅÅ). If one wishes to describe them in more concrete and simple terms, one could say FudÅ represents the unshakable wisdom with which ultimate Awakening can be achieved, and AizenâÅ the wisdom which allows one to understand that human passions are identical with enlightenment. Of course, each deity is endowed with many other inherent philosophical features of a complex nature, which due to practical reasons cannot be provided here.
FudÅ mostly appears as a wrathful deity with dark blue skin holding a noose in the left and a double-edged sword in the right hand. He is surrounded by flames and seated on a rock which expresses the deityâs âimmobilityâ towards forces averse to enlightenment. His alternate physical form is a serpent known as the dragon king Kurikara å¶å©ä¼½ç¾ (Skt. *Kulika) which coils around a double-edged sword standing upside-down. AizenâÅ likewise assumes the appearance of a wrathful divinity, with brilliant red skin, hair on end, three fierce-looking eyes, and a lion crown on the head. He usually has six arms, each holding a different object, i.e., a bow, an arrow, a five-pronged vajra, a vajra-bell, a lotus, and âthatâ (a secret object symbolising various esoteric notions). The deity resides in a blazing circle (in most cases regarded as a sun disk in medieval Japan) and is commonly seated on a red lotus, which in turn rests on a precious vase spilling jewels.
FudÅ has roots in Indian religion as the wrathful transmutation of VajrapÄá¹i. Insofar as AizenâÅ is concerned, however, although a possible precursor of the deity might be found in the Indian god Ṭakki-rÄja, its distinct features are only fully explained in the Jingangfeng louge yiqie yujia yuqi jing éå峯æ¨é£ä¸åçä¼½çç¥çµ (J. KongÅbu rÅkaku issai yuga yugikyÅ, SÅ«tra of all Yogas and YogÄ«s of the Pavilion with the Vajra-Top, T 867), often abbreviated as Yuqi jing (J. YugikyÅ), a Chinese scripture said to be a translation made by Vajrabodhi or Amoghavajra, though this attribution is highly questionable. Therefore, since no direct prototype can be found in India, Goepper (1993: 87â88) believes that the figure of the wisdom king of lust might have been first created in Tang China.8
The Yuqi jing was brought to Japan in the ninth century on different occasions by three Shingon priests (KÅ«kai 空海, Eun æµé, and Shuei å®å¡), but it also quite soon circulated in Tendai, as is evidenced by the fact that Annen å®ç¶ (841?â915?), a prolific Tendai monk, was among the first Japanese monks to write a commentary on the scripture (T 2228). However, although Aizen was surely well known in both Shingon and Tendai, it seems that the wisdom king was considered most essential in Shingon, and especially at Daigoji éé寺 (AsabashÅ,
It was also particularly in the Ono branch that Aizen was interconnected to FudÅ. One of the oldest Shingon texts in which they are described as forming a union is the KakuzenshÅ è¦ç¦
é (Book of Kakuzen), written at the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century by the Ono priest Kakuzen è¦ç¦
(1143âca. 1213). In this work, an image is given of a special variant of Aizen, the âdouble-headed Aizenâ (RyÅzu-Aizen 両é ææ), which shows the deity with a single body, two handsâthe right hand grasping a five-pronged vajra and the left hand a vajra-bellâand two heads, the one on the left (from the observerâs view) wrathful-looking and the one on the right showing a compassionate expression (Figure 4.1). An oral instruction is quoted, which is said to have been passed on by ShÅbÅ èå® (832â909), founder of the Daigoji temple and first patriarch of the Ono branch, which says that the face on the left is FudÅ, and the face on the right Aizen (
Aizen with Two Heads. KakuzenshÅ (KakuzenshÅ KenkyÅ«kai edition; Kamakuraperiod manuscript preserved in the KajÅ«ji å§ä¿®å¯º).
How were FudÅ and Aizen interpreted in this dual and yet non-dual state? The KakuzenshÅ does not provide a clear explanation of what esoteric principles they represent exactly, but it includes an elaborate discussion on the relationship between Aizen and Zenâai ææâa deity which is also explained in the Yuqi jing but in a chapter different from the one devoted to Aizenâfrom which it may be learned that our King of Lust was seen in the light of the duality and non-duality of Concentration (â jÅ å®) and Wisdom (e æµ).9 These two principles commonly refer respectively to the Womb maá¹á¸ala (TaizÅ mandara èèµæ¼è¼ç¾ ) and the Vajra-realm maá¹á¸ala (KongÅkai mandara éåçæ¼è¼ç¾ ), the twofold maá¹á¸alas of Shingon tradition. From this it may be assumed that the single-bodied FudÅ-Aizen was probably also seen by that time as an icon expressing the duality and yet inseparability of Womb and Vajra realms.
In her study of the two-headed Aizen, Kagiwada (2012) provides some medieval sources which associate Aizen with the Vajra realm and FudÅ with the Womb realm and further points out that in the Kamakura period (1185â1333) the rite of Aizen was enacted according to the Vajra-realm liturgy, and FudÅ following the rules for the Womb maá¹á¸ala ritual (p. 58). However, the association of the two deities with the two maá¹á¸alas was not that clear cut. There are numerous Kamakura-period sources touching upon these two deities which state different descriptions of their characters. Depending on the source taken, Aizen can either represent the Vajra (Wisdom), the Womb (Concentration/Principle), or non-duality. Likewise, FudÅ can stand for one or the other, or for the non-duality of both. There is no room here for exemplifying each of these cases with concrete sources, but the variety of connections can be illustrated with the contents of the following excerpt from the Bikisho é¼»å¸°æ¸ (Book of the Return to the Origin; 1324), which projects the combination of FudÅ and Aizen on the Inner and Outer shrine of Ise ä¼å¢ in two different ways (p. 506):
When applying the teaching of FudÅ and Aizen [to the two shrines], on a simple level it is said that FudÅ is the Womb world, the Inner shrine (Amaterasu å¤©ç §), and that Aizen is the Vajra realm, the Outer shrine (Toyouke è±å). On a more secret and profound level, when adding the teaching of the sun and moon disks, the moon disk is [said to be] FudÅ, the Outer shrine. This is because the outer aspect (lit. âsurfaceâ) of the moon expresses Wisdom (Vajra). The sword of FudÅ [also] expresses this [Wisdom]. The sun disk is Aizen, the Inner shrine. [This is because] the outer aspect (lit. âbodyâ) of the Womb maá¹á¸ala expresses Principle. The vase on which Aizen is seated [likewise] expresses this [Principle]. These twin disks are taught as the âreal-life embodimentsâ (shÅjin ç身) of FudÅ and Aizen.
As this example shows, it seems that whereas the basic view involved attributing Aizen to the Vajra and FudÅ to the Womb realm, the configuration could be reversed when certain elements or viewpoints were added, such as the duality of sun and moon disk, with the sun expressing âPrincipleâ (ri ç; or Womb realm) and the moon âWisdomâ (chi æº; or Vajra realm). From this perspective, since the blazing circle seen in the iconography of Aizen was commonly interpreted as a sun disk, the deity was connected to the sun goddess Amaterasu of the Inner shrine (Womb realm) instead of to the kami of the Outer shrine (Vajra realm).10
It is difficult to affirm that Aizen, for example, is exclusively representative of either the Vajra or the Womb realm since the notion of non-duality by definition means neither of the two wisdom kings can be separated from one another, just as the twin maá¹á¸alas are in fact always one. What is important to understand, however, is that there were different lenses through which each wisdom king could be viewed, and that depending on the lens different explanations could be given.
Besides the âsun-moonâ distinction, another important lens was that which differentiated between âbodyâ (shintai 身ä½) and âinner realityâ (naishÅ å 証). On this topic, medieval sources talk for example of FudÅ as having the âbodyâ of Wisdom (Vajra) which possesses the âinner realityâ of Principle and Wisdom amalgamated.11 In contrast to this type of FudÅ, then, Aizen would have to have the âbodyâ of Principle (Womb) of which the âinner realityâ consists of both Principle and Wisdom.
Although such an unambiguous statement of the definition of Aizen cannot be found, the view can be supported by the case of the FudÅ-Aizen arrangement in the GoyuigÅ daiji 御éºåå¤§äº (Essentials of the Testament [of KÅ«kai], 1328) of the Daigoji priest Monkan æ観 (1278â1357). In this work, an explanation is given of the âThree Worthiesâ (sanzon ä¸å°) FudÅ, Aizen, and Nyoirin Kannon å¦æ輪観é³, the latter represented by a five-wheel stÅ«pa containing two ârelic-jewelsâ (man-made jewels holding inside a number of Buddha relics). These three icons were fashioned with sandalwood and placed inside a miniature shrine, the interior space of which was associated with the three major peaks of Mount MurŠ室çå±± in the ancient Yamato province, with Aizen set on the left, FudÅ on the right, and the stÅ«pa on the middle peak. The ceiling inside the miniature shrine was further painted with different esoteric Buddhist images.12 On the part of the ceiling above the statuette of Aizen the Vajra-realm maá¹á¸ala was drawn, and above FudÅ the Womb maá¹á¸ala. In the case of Aizen, an explanation in the GoyuigÅ daiji says the following about its connection to the Vajra realm: âææçä¸å¤©äºå³éåçæ¼éç¾ ãæ¤ææè½å¤æ¬èº«å 証æå ·è«¸å°ä¹â. As these Sino-Japanese remarks mention âAizenâ in conjunction with âvajraâ, the common interpretation given in MikkyÅ studies is that Aizen ârepresentsâ the Vajra realm. However, properly read, the phrases state: âOn the ceiling above AizenâÅ is drawn the Vajra-realm maá¹á¸ala. The [deities of this maá¹á¸ala] are the deities which Aizen holds as the inner reality (naishÅ) of its transformable (nÅhen) bodily appearance (honshin).â According to this rendering, then, Aizen is a deity of which the âinner realityâ corresponds to the Vajra realm and not its âouter body.â13 The same can be said about FudÅ but in a reverse way. Therefore, rather than simply concluding that Aizen here represents the Vajra realm, a more subtle and precise interpretation would be to argue that Aizen represents the vajra âwith its inner reality.â Its outer aspect, then, considering the fact that the explanation uses the term âtransformable,â which implies that the physical body has a different nature from the inner reality, in all likelihood expresses nothing but the Womb.14
In other words, although FudÅ and Aizen seem to emanate as it were from the non-dual unit of the stÅ«pa in the centre, each on a different side of it, and give the impression that each divinity expresses only one aspect of that non-dual unit, they each represent not one of the two maá¹á¸alas, but both, in a manner which distinguishes between outer body (statuette) and inner reality (maá¹á¸ala drawn above on the ceiling of the miniature shrine). This illustrates again that the connection of FudÅ and Aizen to the twin maá¹á¸alas should not be seen in a simple one-to-one relationship, which would hinder understanding the more complex nature of each wisdom king in this non-dual context.
Returning to the KakuzenshÅ, from the contents of this work it cannot be deduced that FudÅ and Aizen were given a primary place within the totality of medieval Shingon doctrines and practices. The belief is presented as merely one among many others. However, it is a fact that from a certain time onward, the combination had been given the status of highest secrecy, specifically at Daigoji. This has now become well known through the studies of Abe YasurÅ (1989, 2011, 2013), NaitÅ Sakae (2010, 2011), Lucia Dolce (2008, 2010), Gaétan Rappo (2010, 2017), and Bernard Faure (2016).
The way in which the combination was given its paramount importance can be found in a number of texts produced by Monkan in the early fourteenth century. For example, the GoyuigÅ daiji, mentioned above, presents the combination of FudÅ and Aizen as connected to the relic of the Buddha and the wish-fulfilling jewel (nyoi hÅju å¦æå®ç ) of the dragon, with which the relic shared status of consubstantiality, and furthermore, importantly, places them in the framework of the GoyuigŠ御éºå, the so-called Last Testament of KÅ«kai (774â835). The latter work, in all likelihood an apocryphal text produced in the tenth century, emphasizes the supreme importance of the relic-jewel, but it does not associate the relic or jewel to FudÅ and Aizen. These are only concretely connected to the contents of the Testament in Monkanâs writings,15 which emphasize that the combination of FudÅ and Aizen constituted one of the primary secrets of Shingon since the time of the founder KÅ«kai. Hence, by being placed in the context of the GoyuigÅ, the combination was elevated to one of the greatest secrets of Shingon, since in this context, it was KÅ«kai himself who stressed its importance.
Relics (jewels) were rather essential to Shingon practice as a relic was commonly used in most Shingon rituals, whether on a grand or small scale (Abe 1989: 126). As such, they can be defined as the currency of ritual exchange (Ruppert 2000), since the ritualâs success and the expected reward and status were believed to depend on them. They were also known to function as symbols of power, in particular of imperial authority, balancing out social relations vis-Ã -vis power holders (Ruppert 2000, Faure 2004).
In medieval Shingon a variety of texts were produced that explain how to perform a ârelic rite,â or dado-hÅ é§é½æ³ (âdadoâ being the Sino-Japanese rendering of the Sanskrit word âdhÄtu,â which is taken to mean ârelicâ). It seems that such a rite could not only be enacted independently but could also serve as a template for other rituals relying on the relic. Among such rituals mentioned by the dado-hÅ texts are the Latter Seven-day ritual (Goshichinichi no mishiho å¾ä¸æ¥å¾¡ä¿®æ³) and the Rain Prayer SÅ«tra ritual (ShÅugyÅhÅ è«é¨çµæ³), both large-scale state rituals, but there are also simpler practices such as the Goya nenju å¾å¤å¿µèª¦ rite, which was performed privately every day early in the morning. The primary icon (honzon æ¬å°) of a dado rite, as mentioned in the Dhatu-hÅ kudenshÅ« 
æ³å£ä¼é (Collection of Oral Instructions on the Relic Rite; copied 1281â1282), could be many objects, such as the Buddha HÅshÅ å®ç (Ratnasambhava), the Buddha-Mother Butsugen ä»ç¼ (BuddhalocanÄ), or a grain of rice. But among the possible icons, the dual FudÅ-Aizen was also included and, according to the text, considered most secret.
Thus, in theory, although this point needs to be further examined, the combination of FudÅ and Aizen could have functioned as the ultimate secret concentration in any form of Shingon practice that relied on the relic, both high state rituals and daily rites.16 But how was this belief formed? Was it created arbitrarily, or was it brought about due to the effect of more concrete reasons? I will investigate this issue in the next sections.
3 Processes behind the Creation of the FudÅ-Aizen Combination
The scholarly consensus is that FudÅ and AizenâÅ were connected to one another in medieval Japan in the course of the eleventh to twelfth century. Goepper (1993) indicated that there might possibly have been a connection between Acala and a deity called Ṭakki-rÄja, a plausible precursor of AizenâÅ in India, but advances the possibility as merely a tempting speculation and follows the common opinion that the belief started in Japan (Goepper 1993: 49, 52).
In a recently published study, Bernard Faure mentions that the coupling of FudÅ and Aizen may derive from that of FudÅ and GÅzanze éä¸ä¸ (Skt. Trailokyavijaya, âConqueror of the Three Worldsâ), as seen in the SonshÅ å°å maá¹á¸ala and Miroku å¼¥å maá¹á¸ala, and emphasises embryological symbolism as one of the driving principles behind their combination (2016: 204â205). These observations already point to the likelihood that a broader network of thought and belief produced the FudÅ-Aizen combination. However, besides the abovementioned factors, I believe the following two clues are also quite important when trying to unravel the intricate processes underlying the formation of the FudÅ-Aizen cult. The first clue is the composition of the Aizen maá¹á¸ala associated with the Tendai prelate Enchin åç (814â891), and the other clue is the world of Shingon esoteric rainmaking. Let us start first with a discussion of the maá¹á¸ala.
3.1 Enchinâs Aizen Maá¹á¸ala
The Aizen maá¹á¸ala (Figure 4.2) is a maá¹á¸ala in which nine different esoteric divinities are evenly arranged within a square or slightly rectangular frame. One of the oldest extant versions of the maá¹á¸ala, a hanging scroll made in 1107, which is today part of the Mary and Jackson Burke Collection (New York),17 shows in the middle our King of Lust, appearing under his usual wrathful form with one head, three eyes, and six arms. Above and underneath Aizen are two bodhisattvas, respectively Miroku (Skt. Maitreya) and Kannon è¦³é³ (AvalokiteÅvara), both drawn within a circle, which suggests their interconnection. To the left of Aizen stands the dragon king Kurikara, and to the right the shape of the Jewelled Banner (hÅdÅ å®å¹¢). Their elongated form and the fact that they are drawn inside the contours of a leaf-like shape suggest that the latter two features were also regarded as forming a pair. Below Aizen, in the two corners, are two wisdom kings, who were probably also regarded as a pair, illustrated by the fact that both are surrounded by flames and seated on a rock. The wisdom king in the left corner is Daiitoku 大å¨å¾³ (YamÄntaka) and the one in the right corner FudÅ. The final two divinities are the twelve-armed DaishÅ KongŠ大åéå, considered a variant of Dainichi (MahÄvairocana) or KongÅsatta éåè©åµ (Vajrasattva),18 drawn in a circle in the upper left corner, and our Aizen with two heads, draped in flames, in the upper right corner.19
Composition of the Aizen maá¹á¸ala as shown in the hanging scroll of the Burke Collection (dated 1107).
There is some mystery regarding the provenance of this particular maá¹á¸ala. According to a certain tradition, it was brought to Japan from China by Enchin:
The present drawing of the [Aizen] maá¹á¸ala can be found in the book of the AnâyÅbÅ priest (HÅgen). Ajari KÅgei [says]: âThe grandmaster of the SannÅâin and the Mii[dera] temple (Enchin) brought [this] AizenâÅ maá¹á¸ala back with him [from China]. (â¦) (Marginal note: The maá¹á¸ala is included in the grandmasterâs list of items used for personal practice (gojinen mokuroku 御æ念ç®é²), but no Buddhist title is given to it.)â (KakuzenshÅ,
TZ 5: 257a6â14)
Hence, according to the Tendai priest KÅgei çæ ¶ (977â1049), Enchin had taken the Aizen maá¹á¸ala back to Japan with him from China. The passage above also refers to AnâyÅbÅ HÅgen å®é¤æ¿è³æº, a Shingon monk of the Ninnaji ä»å寺 and Ishiyamadera ç³å±±å¯º temples active in the eleventh century,20 a fact which shows that the maá¹á¸ala also already circulated in Shingon by that time.
Enchin, as is well known, travelled to China in 853 and stayed there for five years, studying Buddhism and collecting new Buddhist materials, mainly at Mount Tiantai å¤©å° and Changâan é·å® (Ono 1982: 5â9). After his return in 858, he lived at the SannÅâin å±±çé¢ hall on Mount Hiei æ¯å¡å±± and later became the abbot of Enryakuji 延æ¦å¯º and Miidera ä¸äºå¯º. His connection to iconographies of Aizen is also a well-known fact. Besides the Aizen maá¹á¸ala, he is also reported to have brought back from China the iconography of TenkyÅ« Aizen 天å¼ææ, or âAizen with the Heavenly Bow,â which is a variant of a six-armed Aizen holding a bow above the head and pointing an arrow to the sky.21
However, there are conflicting opinions as to the origin of the nine-Buddha Aizen maá¹á¸ala. The thirteenth century AsabashÅ relates that Tendai priests of Enryakuji 延æ¦å¯º did not use the maá¹á¸ala at the time as they saw it as a forgery (AsabashÅ,
ä¸èº«ä¸¡é ææçäºäºãæ¯ä»éã¨ãªåºäºä¹ãæè¬æºè¨¼å¤§å¸«ä¹ä½ææçä½çµ¦ããå ¶éä¸ããªã説èåæãã«æãæ ã·ãä½ã·éæææçãå èä½é¡çµ¦ä¹ãçµæå ¨ä¸è¦èä¹ã
The image of Aizen with one body and two heads comes from a different school. That is to say, master ChishÅ [Enchin] made an AizenâÅ [maá¹á¸ala] with nine Buddhas, among which this [Aizen with two heads] is a primary [Buddha]. There is no clear textual explanation [for the image]. However, the image was made [by Enchin] according to speculations to express the inner reality of AizenâÅ. We cannot find it in the scriptures at all.22
As is said in these oral instructions coming from Shingon priests active at KÅyasan in the early Kamakura period, the maá¹á¸ala was created by Enchin himself on the basis of personal reflections on the inner reality of the King of Lust.
All these conflicting opinions, together with the fact that a ânine-Buddha Aizen maá¹á¸alaâ is not specifically mentioned in the various catalogues listing the items that Enchin or any other Japanese pilgrim monk brought back from China, make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the maá¹á¸ala was imported from Tang China or whether it was made in Japan. But despite the uncertainty, I think that the following arguments can be defended. First, it is fair to assume that if the maá¹á¸ala was indeed created in Japan, it was done so at an early time in the Heian period. This assumption can be supported by the fact that the oldest extant version of the maá¹á¸ala, the hanging scroll of the Burke Collection, which can be traced back to a disciple of KÅgei (see note 17), bears the style of early Heian-period paintings, which were mostly based on Chinese models (Goepper 1993, quoting Yanagisawa 1979). Second, if the maá¹á¸ala was created in early Heian-period Japan, when pilgrimage to China was thriving, there is the fair possibility it was done so on the basis of instructions received in China. Third, despite the fact that the creation of texts and iconographies was certainly quite active in medieval Japan, there is no direct reason to seriously doubt the oldest oral tradition of our maá¹á¸ala, that of KÅgei, which says that the maá¹á¸ala was brought to Japan from China by Enchin and that it was included among the items the latter Tendai prelate used for personal practice. In fact, it might well be that the later assertions of Enryakuji and KÅyasan monks saying that the maá¹á¸ala was first created by Enchin were simply based on a misunderstanding. Finally, the fact that an âAizen maá¹á¸alaâ is mentioned among the imported items in Annenâs Hakke hiroku is quite intriguing and might actually prove that the nine-Buddha Aizen maá¹á¸ala was indeed brought from China.
The question of whether the maá¹á¸ala was created by the sole genius of a Japanese monk or whether it was based on a Chinese model (in iconographical form or in the form of instructions) is important, because the composition of the maá¹á¸ala may well be one of the primary sources of the combination of FudÅ and Aizen in Japan, as I will now try to explain.
As Goepper rightly pointed out, the maá¹á¸ala was probably created by a learned monk who put various deities together on the basis of certain speculative connections, not as the result of a sudden mystical experience (1993: 76â77). In other words, the composition was achieved by the effort of specific intellectual religious musings regarding the various linkages between the deities. This fact can be supported by the iconographical resemblance of certain pairs in the maá¹á¸ala and by textual evidence. Indeed, the KakuzenshÅ quotes an instruction which establishes connections between the upper and lower bodhisattvas, the serpent Kurikara and the Jewelled Banner, the two-headed Aizen and Daiitoku, and DaishÅ KongÅ and FudÅ (
Still other speculative linkages were envisioned. The Himitsu kudenshÅ, for example, mentions the following additional association:
åä¹ä½ãææçã²ç«å ±å¶å©å ç¾ ã²äºä¹ãå ¶æ ãå¶æ¢¨ã«ã©å³ææãæä¹ãæè¬ã«ä¸åå°ãæç©ãå£ç´¢ä¹ãå£ç´¢ãç³ãå³å¤§æ¥å¦æ¥ãæºæ³å°ã²äºããå¼åã±ã¿ã«ä¹ãç´¢ãçä¹ãå³æ ä¸ãæãµãç ©æ©ã²ç¸ã¹ã«ç±ãå£æºããªãæ çè¨ææãçãæºäºãè½èæèããã«ç±é¡ä¹ãæè¬å¶æ¢¨å ç¾ ãçä¹ãå£ãæºä¹ãå£ã²åã ãå³çã«æºã²èã¹ã«æä¹ã
Further, one draws the image of AizenâÅ in the nine-Buddha [AizenâÅ maá¹á¸ala] and calls it âKurikara.â One calls it so following the thought that Kurikara is [none other than] Aizen. That is to say, the objects which the Worthy FudÅ holds in his hands are the sword and the noose. The sword and the noose are the two objects obtained when the two hands forming the Wisdom Fist mudrÄ of Dainichi Nyorai are pulled away from one another. The noose is Principle [the Womb realm], because it catches and binds ignorance and passions. The sword is Wisdom [the Vajra realm]. [Both] appear because according to the teachings of Shingon, [Principle] and Wisdom interpenetrate and become the active and the passive agents of Awakening.23 Hence, the serpent Kurikara is Principle and the sword is Wisdom. The serpent swallowing the tip of the sword indicates the thought that Principle possesses the inner reality of Wisdom.24
As this instruction shows, another important connection made in regard to the Aizen maá¹á¸ala is the identification of AizenâÅ in the middle and the serpent Kurikara to the left, to the extent that the former was even concretely referred to by the appellation âKurikara.â This detail further suggests the high probability that, generally, all deities surrounding AizenâÅ in the middle were in some way or another connected to the King of Lust. Indeed, as the Himitsu kudenshÅ remarks, âThe Worthy in the middle is Aizen encompassing all [nine divinities] (ä¸å°ãæ£ææãæä¹),â or âAll nine Buddhas together complete the meaning of Aizen [as the producer] of all phenomena (æ£ã·ãä¹ä½ãä¸æ³ææã義ã²ç¡ä¹).â25 These lines clearly indicate that all divinities in the maá¹á¸ala were regarded as different forms, aspects, functions, inner realities or emanations from AizenâÅ in the middle. In other words, Kurikara, DaishÅ KongÅ, FudÅ, the double-headed Aizen and the other divinities were drawn around Aizen in the centre because they were all regarded as partisans intimately endowed by that wisdom king of lust.
From this perspective, then, it is fairly easy to argue that the composition could readily have served as one of the sources behind the combination of FudÅ and Aizen. Indeed, since Kurikara, which basic teachings tell us is the alternate form of FudÅ, is drawn next to Aizen, the latter must surely be intimately connected to FudÅ. Another line of reasoning might have been that Aizen represents the passions (bonnÅ ç ©æ©), which are compared in various MahÄyÄna scriptures to the venom of serpents. Next to Aizen in the maá¹á¸ala is the image of the serpent Kurikara, the symbolic form of FudÅ. Hence, in this context, FudÅ cannot be but seen as a different manifestation of Aizen and vice versa. Furthermore, what image could better fit their interconnection than the double-headed AizenâÅ which figures in the upper right corner?
This simple demonstration shows that anyone with a basic knowledge of esoteric Buddhism could quite easily come to the conclusion that FudÅ and Aizen are interconnected when considering the arrangement of the nine Buddhas in the Aizen maá¹á¸ala. This is not to say that this conclusion was always consciously drawn by anyone who saw it. But although medieval Japanese texts do not mention the maá¹á¸ala as the source of the combination, one should not overlook the obvious implications of its composition. A quick glance at it suffices for one to see and understand that FudÅ and Aizen are interconnected, and thus it should be regarded as one of the primary possible sources from which the idea of the combination was derived in medieval Japan.
The following line of reasoning is also very crucial to the argument of this chapter. If one agrees that the composition was not made at random (the reverse is quite difficult to defend), then it must be recognised that the learned monk who created the maá¹á¸ala knew that Aizen, Kurikara, FudÅ and the double-headed Aizen are interconnected. Thus it follows logically that the connection, which almost naturally flows from the maá¹á¸ala, had to be explicitly known by its creator before the maá¹á¸ala came about, and that it was not a notion occurring later in the mind of an inquisitive monk. That is, the creator did not randomly draw the composition and later suddenly realise he had brought FudÅ and Aizen together. Instead, the creator knew beforehand that FudÅ/Kurikara is an inherent quality of Aizen, and therefore drew it next to that wisdom king.
In other words, the combination of FudÅ and Aizen was part of the conceptual network that lay behind the very appearance of the composition of the maá¹á¸ala. For that reason, it is important to determine whether the maá¹á¸ala was created by a Japanese monk exclusively on the basis of his own speculations or whether the composition was founded on beliefs produced in China. There is no way to ascertain the truth, but as argued above, it is possible the composition was first created in China. And thus, following the line of reasoning given above, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the combination of FudÅ/ Kurikara and Aizen was already known in Chinese esoteric Buddhist circles before it was transmitted to Japan. At any rate, it is no longer appropriate to state in a matter-of-fact fashion that the idea of FudÅ-Aizen was solely the product of the genius of a Japanese monk. Rather, its emergence in Japan could just as well have been the product of thoughts moving in a complex human network that stretched between China and Japan.
3.2 Rainmaking
The nine-Buddha Aizen maá¹á¸ala circulated in both Tendai and Shingon from at least the eleventh century. Following the arguments given above, it is thus reasonable to assume that, theoretically, the combination of FudÅ and Aizen could have been comprehended in both Tendai and Shingon. However, as mentioned before, the pair FudÅ-Aizen would come to be highlighted especially in the Ono branch circles of Shingon, more specifically at Daigoji. Tendai monks seem to have rejected the identification on the argument that it was written up in doubtful Shingon texts which should not be followed (Goepper 1993: 53). As is well known, Aizen, especially FudÅ-Aizen, was connected to various heterodox speculations in certain religious groups associated in some way with Shingon, and especially, again, with Daigoji (ibid.: 102â113).
The question remains thus why the combination was eventually held as an important secret in the Ono branch of Shingon, particularly at the Daigoji temple. Here one could think again of the significance of Seizonâs prayer to Aizen and the subsequent success his lineage, which was passed on at Daigoji, enjoyed with practices based on this deity on behalf of the court. However, although it might explain the strong tie of the Ono branch to the cult of Aizen, it does not tell us why monks of that particular branch used to combine the wisdom king with FudÅ. There has to be more to it than the effect of Seizonâs prayer. In this regard, I believe it is important to have a better historical understanding of what position exactly the combination of FudÅ and Aizen occupied in the larger conceptual network of doctrines and practices particular to the Ono branch and to Daigoji. Here it is necessary to refer to the other clue I mentioned that ought to be considered when trying to unravel the mystery of Fudo-Aizen in medieval Japan: rainmaking.
Why rainmaking? First, it is an undeniable fact that the medieval Shingon relic cult, with which our two wisdom kings were eventually connected, was inseparably tied to dragon worship. The Testament of KÅ«kai specifically describes the relic-jewel as an object of the dragon king and explains that it produces rain clouds that make all things grow. It also speaks of the âavatar of the jewelâ (nyoi hÅju gongen å¦æå®ç 権ç¾) that all Shingon grandmasters have to revere, which according to some texts is a different appellation for the dragon (Trenson 2013, 2016). In other words, Shingon priests, if they desired to follow KÅ«kaiâs footsteps, had to worship dragons.
Second, dragons can be worshipped wherever there is a drop of water, but as far as Shingon is concerned, the most important cultic places of dragon worship are the Shinsenâen ç¥æ³è royal garden, Mount MurÅ, and Daigoji. These three places are linked to one another essentially through the practice of rainmaking.26 Rainmaking is an all-round Buddhist affair, one of the basic tasks of a Buddhist monk so to speak, but the fact is that Shingon for a fairly long time, roughly between 950â1150, monopolised esoteric Buddhist rainmaking for the state.27 In that period, no other school was able to establish a stable tradition of esoteric Buddhist rain prayers. Moreover, certain Shingon monks, most of them trained at Daigoji, achieved a bright career due in large part to their success with rain-producing, and the line of Daigoji rainmakers eventually developed into a veritable branch of the school, the Ono branch. Indeed, it is essential to know that the Ono branch was originally established as the lineage inheriting the secrets of Shingonâs oldest traditional esoteric rain ritual (ShÅugyÅhÅ). Third, it is a fact that the latter ritual was a practice constructed on the interconnection between FudÅ, Aizen, and the relic/jewel (Trenson 2013, 2016). What is more, these principles do not just simply figure in the ritual as abstract notions brought to mind during meditation but with concrete, physical representations (as a banner deity, a dragon, and a Buddha relic). In fact, whereas the FudÅ-Aizen combination might theoretically have been adopted during meditation procedure in every relic ritual (cf. supra), it was only in the rain ritual that they appeared as real visible features.
There is no room here for an elaborate discussion of the rain ritual (ShÅugyÅhÅ), of which I have already provided an explanation on different occasions (Trenson 2013, 2016). I will therefore skip the details and instead explain its basic structure.
The rain ritual took place regularly between 875 and 1273 in a wooden building built temporarily for the purpose at the Shinsenâen imperial garden. Inside the building four or five separate platform rites were enacted, but the heart of the ritual consisted of the Great Platform rite (DaidanpŠ大å£æ³). The structure of this platform rite, as shown in Figure 4.3, was built on the vertical interconnection between FudÅ (central dragon-banner planted on the roof), Aizen (central dragon among the five dragons appearing in a maá¹á¸ala spread out on the platform), and the relic (set inside a box, or in a blue vessel resting on a wooden lotus, in the middle of the same platform), which was visualised as a jewel. In some cases, Ichiji Kinrin ä¸åé輪, the One-syllable Golden Wheel-turning King, was substituted for FudÅ.
Core structure of the Great Platform rite of the ShÅugyÅhÅ.
The rationale for the interconnectedness between platform and roof is based on an instruction related to one of the auxiliary platform rites of the rain ritual, the Offering to the Twelve devas (JÅ«niten åäºå¤©). According to this instruction, the image of Kurikara had to be visualised in the centre of the platform and imagined as being linked to the banner on the roof. This type of meditation was most likely not restricted to this particular offering but also applied in the great platform rite.
The identity of the dragon as Aizen is confirmed by an early Kamakura colour painting of a ShÅugyÅhÅ maá¹á¸ala kept at Daigoji that was spread out on the platform (Trenson 2016). It shows in the middle a wrathful deity with three fierce-looking eyes, hair on end, red skin, round fleshy face, and a lion crown on the head, which are all characteristics that collectively can only apply to Aizen. Another clue that points to Aizen is the seed syllable of the dragon shown in an early Kamakura text belonging to the Ono tradition. The syllable resembles the shape of the so-called Denpu Aizen ç°å¤«ææ, or âPeasantâs Aizenâ, a special form of Aizen appearing as a (double) serpent with a jewel on top of the head (for details, see Trenson 2013, 2016). In fact, the syllableâs shape closely resembles that of hhÅ«á¹, a double hÅ«á¹, which is the seed syllable of the King of Lust. Incidentally, the dragon of the Shinsenâen is explained in the Testament as having appeared to the founder as a double serpent. It appears thus that this double serpent was regarded as âAizenâ, at least within the Ono branch.28
It is important to realise that it is only in the context of the ShÅugyÅhÅ that FudÅ and Aizen appear as interconnected deities with concrete representations. This detail cannot be emphasised strongly enough. Moreover, the structure of the ritual explained above can be inferred from documents which date to the late Heian, early Kamakura period, and can fairly be thought to go back to at least the early twelfth century. This makes it the oldest Shingon relic ritual adopting the FudÅ-Aizen combination that can be pointed out. What this seems to suggest is that the ShÅugyÅhÅ must have been the very ritual context in which Shingon monks first implemented and elaborated the combination of our two wisdom kings. It is therefore understandable that our couple was especially valued in the Ono branch, which was after all originally established as the branch of rainmakers, and specifically developed in Daigoji circles, since that temple legitimately claimed the ritual as one of its primary secrets.29 This fact may come as a surprise, for although medieval texts explain that the combination of FudÅ and Aizen was used for various purposes, such as black sorcery, relational harmony through subjugation, prolongation of life, and providential childbirth, they hardly ever mention rainmaking. However, a careful study reveals that it was in the latter context that the combination had been worked out in most grandiose fashion.
Let us now examine further the sources or teachings on which this tripartite structure of rainmaking could have been based. The answer to that question can be found in the interchangeability of FudÅ with Ichiji Kinrin as the central banner deity on the roof. As already explained in a different article (2013), this interchangeability was probably not an example of one of those illogical playful liberties of Shingon priests, but founded on specific instructions in the Yuqi jing. Indeed, the Yuqi jing provides much pertinent esoterica, but among them are two points which deserve special attention. One point is the notion that the universal monarch Ichiji Kinrin is âbornâ from the âMother of all the Buddhasâ (Issai Butsumo ä¸åä»æ¯). More specifically, the scripture affirms that the One-syllable Supreme Wheel King arises from the mantra of the âBuddha-Motherâ Butsugen (Buddha-Eye; T.18.867: 260a6â12). The other point is that the secret knowledge incarnated by Aizen also functions as a âBuddha-Motherâ (ibid.: 257a19âb3). From these two points it can be argued that Shingon rain masters took the liberty to put either FudÅ or Ichiji Kinrin on the roof because they saw the central dragon on the platform as a âBuddha-Mother.â In other words, if the accent was laid on the idea of the Buddha-Mother producing Ichiji Kinrin, then the latter was installed, but if the accent was put on the idea of the Buddha-Mother Aizen as a different form of Kurikara,30 then FudÅ was a more logical counterpart. In either case, the interchangeability of FudÅ and Ichiji Kinrin can only be logically explained if one considers their mutual connection to the notion of the Buddha-Mother (Butsugen and Aizen) explained in the Yuqi jing.31
The argument above, which is also quite important to the discussion of FudÅ-Aizen in this article, is based on the fact that the Yuqi jing describes Aizen as a Buddha-Mother. As this might not be a very well-known fact, I would like to explain that aspect in more detail here. The explanation of Aizen as a mother of Buddhas is given in the following passage of the fifth chapter of the Yuqi jing (the passage has been abbreviated to enhance the clarity of the argument):
復説ææç
ä¸åå¿ææ°ãhhÅ«á¹ á¹akki hÅ«á¹ jjaḥï¼æ¢µåï¼ãä¸ç¥ã
å¾©èª¬æ ¹æ¬å°ãä¸ç¥ããå羯磨å°å¥ã亦åä¸æ§è¶ãè¥çºçµä¸éãå誦æ¬çè¨ãè½æ» ç¡é罪ãè½çç¡éç¦ãæåºè¿¦çæ³ãåäºéåæºãä¸ä¸ä¸çä¸ãä¸åç¡è½è¶ãæ¤åéåçãé ä¸æååãéåè©åµå®ãä¸å諸ä½æ¯ (T.18.867: 257a19âb3)
I will now further explain AizenâÅ. Its one-syllable heart-mantra is: hhÅ«á¹ á¹akki hÅ«á¹ jjaḥ. Furthermore, I will explain its basic mudrÄ: [â¦]. It is called the âkarma mudrÄ.â It is also called the âsamaya [mudrÄ].â If you form this mudrÄ once, and recite it together with its basic mantra, [the effects of] all evil actions are skilfully obliterated, countless merits are produced, and all four basic categories of rites, such as placation, are swiftly brought to a successful end. In the past, present, and future and in the Three Worlds there is nothing which exceeds [this mudrÄ and mantra]. These [powerful mudrÄ and mantra] are [together] called the âvajra Kingâ (KongÅ-Å), which within the [vajra] Peak Tradition is the highest name. They are the Concentration of KongÅsatta (Vajrasattva) and the Mother of all the Buddhas.
Some remarks have to be added first regarding the translation of the passage. Goepper made an excellent English translation of the entire fifth chapter of the Yuqi jing in which Aizen is explained, but his rendering of the passage here can be called into question. Goepper translates the final four phrases of the original Chinese text above as follows (1993: 16): âAnd this is called the vajra King (KongÅ-Å), which is among the highest things the utmost name. The Meditation of Vajrasattva is the Mother of all the Buddhas.â This is not a satisfactory translation as it lacks a proper understanding of the grammatical subject in these phrases. Indeed, this rendering overlooks the point that the subject is the same in all the four phrases, namely, the mudrÄ and mantra of Aizen. In other words, this translation misses one of the more important messages of the Yuqi jing, namely that AizenâÅ is a âBuddha-Motherâ just like Butsugen.
In fact, the translation I presented here can be supported by a reading of the same phrases in the YugikyÅ kuketsu çç¥çµå£å³ (Oral Instructions on the Yuqi jing) by DÅhan éç¯ (1178â1252). The text says: æ¤ã²åéåçããâ
â
ãéåãé ä¸æåãåãéåè©åµãå®ããªãä¸å諸ä½æ¯ã㪠(
Shingon monks were naturally well aware of the fact that Aizen is a Buddha-Mother. Kakuzen, for example, defines Aizen as such in the first passages of his discussion of the deity, quoting the lines of the Yuqi jing just mentioned to support this view (KakuzenshÅ,
4 Concluding Statements
As was mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the scholarly consensus is that the combination of FudÅ and Aizen was a purely Japanese invention, created somewhere in the course of the eleventh or twelfth centuries by Shingon esoteric Buddhist monks. Although some clues have been provided in previous scholarship to explain the origin of the FudÅ-Aizen cult, they do not affect the general assumption that the cult was created in Japan. This chapter is an attempt to broaden our perspective on the subject by considering it from the viewpoint of two intersecting networks, a translocal historical human network stretching between China and Japan, in which various thoughts and beliefs circulated, and a local conceptual network of esoteric ideas and practices developed in Shingon.
In regard to the translocal network, the importance of the nine-Buddha Aizen maá¹á¸ala was emphasized. As was argued in this chapter, it is rather evident that the interconnection of Kurikara, FudÅ and Aizenâthree of the nine deities depicted in the maá¹á¸alaâwas part of the very knowledge on the basis of which the maá¹á¸ala was made. A fairly early account included in the KakuzenshÅ mentions that the maá¹á¸ala was brought to Japan from China by the Tendai prelate Enchin. Therefore, as there is no apparent reason to deny the veracity of the account, the probability should be considered that the source of the FudÅ-Aizen belief lies in Chinese Buddhism.
Another important factor transmitted from China which contributed to the development of the FudÅ-Aizen cult in Japan was the notion of the âBuddha-Motherâ in the Yuqi jing. This Chinese scripture instructs that the âBuddha-Motherâ Butsugen âgives birthâ to the Buddha Ichiji Kinrin, and defines Aizen as being similarly a âMother of Buddhas.â It seems that Shingon rainmakers of the Ono branch used this knowledge in combination with the Fudo-Aizen dragon belief to ensure success in the Rain Prayer SÅ«tra ritual (ShÅugyÅhÅ). Indeed, as illustrated in this chapter, they conceived of Aizen as a dragon and connected it to FudÅ during meditations, but also, alternatively, to Ichiji Kinrin. This procedure shows that Shingon rainmakers besides the FudÅ-Aizen belief also relied on the instruction of the Buddha-Mother in the Yuqi jing, replacing Butsugen with Aizen as the progenitor of Ichiji Kinrin.
In this way, this chapter draws the attention to the fact that when investigating the origin of the FudÅ-Aizen combination in medieval Shingon, one should not ignore the influence of Chinese Buddhist ideas. In other words, it is important not to overlook translocal socio-historical networks in which esoteric knowledge passed from China to Japan through scriptures, iconographies, or other means.
At the same time, it is also essential not to disregard the significance of specific local developments. Hence, besides the âtranslocalâ one should not lose sight of the âlocal.â Indeed, although the source of the FudÅ-Aizen cult might ultimately lie in China, it was because of a special appropriation of the cult by Shingon monks that the feature became one of the hallmarks of Shingon and not of Tendai. Seizonâs reliance on Aizen to âprotectâ the emperor and the courtâs subsequent favour bestowed on his lineage (Ono lineage) initiated the strong connection of Shingon to the King of Lust. This connection was further consolidated by integrating Aizen in combination with FudÅ into the conceptual network centred around the Rain Prayer SÅ«tra ritual, the enactment of which was the prerogative of Shingon monks of the Ono branch. This could account for the fact that the FudÅ-Aizen cult developed especially in Shingon and more specifically in the Ono branch of that school. Although the truth is certainly infinitely more complex than the assumptions offered here for further scholarly reflection, I trust that this chapter broadens our perspective on the historical development of this intricate subject.
For a theoretical outline of the concept of translocality, see Greiner and Sakdapolrak 2013.
This line of thought is derived from the following theory of Franz Boas, as quoted by Lévi-Strauss: âThe detailed study of customs and of their place within the total culture of the tribe which practices them, together with research bearing on the geographical distribution of those customs among neighbouring tribes, enables us to determine, on the one hand, the historical factors which led to their development and, on the other, the psychological processes which made them possibleâ (Lévi-Strauss 1963: 6â7). Hence, a distinction is made here between a psychological or conceptual net of customs and practices (in which the custom under investigation has a specific place and meaning) existing within a âlocalâ tribe and a historical-geographical network stretching out âtranslocallyâ over different tribes in which the custom circulates. From this, the idea of a âhorizontalâ (âtranslocalâ) and a âverticalâ (âlocalâ) network can be derived.
In Western scholarship, Japanese MikkyÅ is mostly referred to with the label âesoteric Buddhismâ or âtantric Buddhism.â In this article, I use the former label, not because I am critical or sceptic of the latter, but because I find it more practical. Indeed, by using the label âesoteric Buddhism,â I avoid defining in this article what I mean by the âtantric Buddhismâ that has been transmitted from India to Japan, which is necessary when one employs the label (as was pointed out also in Orzech 2011: 9â10), but which is a complicated matter that cannot be resolved in only a few words.
âHimitsu kudenshÅâ is the title of a late Kamakura (1185â1333) period copy of a work written by HÅkyÅ å®ç¯/RendÅ è®é (fl. early Kamakura period), which records teachings from two KÅyasan Buddhist priests, Kakukai è¦æµ· (1142â1223) and YÅ«gen èæº (dates unknown). The alternative title given to the work is âKakugen kudenshÅâ è¦æºå£ä¼æ. This is the same work as the KakugenshÅ è¦æºæ reproduced in
Regarding citations from original sources, where the source cited is a manuscript, or where deemed necessary to make the argument clear, the original text is provided in addition to a translation; in other cases, it is omitted. The same lines quoted here can also be found in the KakugenshÅ (
The âhorse penis concentrationâ is one of the many interesting teachings explained in the Yuqi jing çç¥çµ (T.18.867), the scriptural basis for Aizen (cf. infra). The lines quoted here seem to suggest that the concentration involved the union of FudÅ and Aizen.
Here the reference is of course to the various Japanese pilgrim monks who went to Tang in the ninth century, and moreover to ChÅnen å¥ç¶ (?â1016) and JÅjin æå° (1011â1081), who both travelled to Song China. ChÅnen returned to Japan and brought back with him various texts, among which were forty-one new scriptures, and JÅjin, although he stayed and died in China, had several texts sent to Japan (see Fujiyoshi 2006; Kamikawa 2014).
Recently, Ogawa Toyoo (2014: 62â65) has shown that a direct precursor to AizenâÅ can be found in the figure of âKongÅ Aizen Bosatsuâ éåææè©è©, a two-armed deity with red skin, grasping an arrow in each hand, which appears in the Dale jingangsaduo xiuxing chengjiu yigui 大楽éåè©åµä¿®è¡æå°±åè» (T 1119). As the latter scripture is unquestionably a translation made by Amoghavajra, Ogawa argues that the figure of AizenâÅ in the Yuqi jing was probably formed in its wake.
On the interpretations and significance of the double-headed Aizen, see Dolce 2010.
On the relationship between Aizen and Amaterasu, see ItÅ 2002.
KakugenshÅ (381b): ä¸åã身ãè å³ãæºä½ããªãæºä½ãè çæºä¸äºãå 証ããª. Similarly, it is explained in the KanjÅ hiketsu: SanbÅin é ç§è¨£ãä¸å®é¢ã(Secrets on the Consecration Ceremony: SanbÅin) that the Vajra realm is in itself a non-dual entity, corresponding to the mind of a man: éåçå°æãå°å°æéä¹ãæ¯éåçä¸ äºä¹ãç·åè身ä¸äºå®æµä¸èº°ä¹ç¾© âConcerning the mudrÄ and mantra of the Vajra realm, the mudrÄ stands for the Womb and the mantra for the Vajra. That is because the Vajra realm is in itself non-dual. [The Vajra realm] stands for the single, non-dual, Concentration-Wisdom amalgamation mind-substance of a man.â The Womb realm, contrarily, is explained as the non-dual mind-substance of a woman. Hence, a distinction is drawn here between a man and a woman and their associated âinner mind-substances,â with a man linked to the Vajra and a woman to the Womb, and their respective mind-substances in both cases being explained as the union of the two realms.
For images of the Three Worthies, see NaitÅ (2010: 247, 2011: 45), Dolce (2008: 62, 2010: 183), and Faure (2016: 213). For the full text of the GoyuigÅ daiji, see Makino and Fujimaki 2002. For a study of the ritual and iconography of the Three Worthies, see Uchida 2012, Faure (2016: 209â219), and Rappo 2017.
The various manuscripts of the GoyuigÅ daiji offer different reading punctuations of this phrase, which are not all necessarily correct. The most logical reading of the final part of the phrase, I believe, is the following: âKore ha Aizen (ga) nÅhen honshin no naishÅ toshite shogu suru shoson nari.â Hence, according to this reading, the subject is not Aizen but kore, which refers to the term âVajra-realm maá¹á¸alaâ in the previous phrase. Also, the distinction between âouter bodyâ (or surface, physical appearance) and âinner truthâ and the attribution of these two aspects to one of the two maá¹á¸alas or to both, I believe, is one of the primary but often overlooked principles of the theory of non-duality in medieval MikkyÅ. For example, it should be considered that a combination like âFudÅ-Womb,â as in âthe enactment of the rite of FudÅ according to the Womb realm liturgy,â does perhaps not always express a relationship of equality (FudÅ is Womb), but of complementarity (Fudo as Vajra linked with the Womb). Also, an expression such as âa vajra-river flowing down from the east side of a mountainâ (as in Benâichisan ki å®ä¸å±±è¨ [Account of Mount MurÅ], 296b), with the east (normally expressing Womb) being seemingly wrongly equated with the Vajra, is perhaps not a mistake but an application of the idea that âeastâ as Womb is associated with a âvajra-riverâ to express non-duality. Or further, when a female principle which ought to appear as female yet manifests as a male entity, such as a âmale Amaterasuâ for example, it might be argued that the same âbody-inner mindâ lens is applied. Though confusing, perhaps, it is a basic philosophical feature of medieval MikkyÅ. I intend to explain this feature, which from a doctrinal point of view seems to have been based on the Yuqi jing, in more detail on another occasion.
In fact, there are compelling arguments to support the notion that the Three Worthies were imagined from a vantage point which looks out toward the south. The five-wheel stÅ«pa resting on the central peak of Mount MurÅ was associated with the âIron Stupa of Southern Indiaâ (Benâichisan ki, 296b), a well-known trope in esoteric Buddhist doctrine. Also, a prayer dedicated to the relicâa relic was put in the five-wheel stÅ«paâwas often performed while facing south (since that is the direction of the Buddha HÅshÅ å®ç, who incarnates the relic-jewel). Hence, it is likely that Aizen was seen as occupying the eastern mountain and FudÅ the western mountain. If that is so, since east and west (or left and right hand) are commonly associated in MikkyÅ with respectively the Womb and Vajra realms, it supports the assumption that the physical appearance of Aizen, for example, represents the Womb, with the Vajra realm drawn above it expressing its inner reality.
Opinions differ on whether the tripartite jewel belief was established only in the second half of the thirteenth century (Abe 2011, 2013) or already in the early twelfth century (NaitÅ 2010: 119), as the texts themselves also claim. Abeâs point of view is credible as it is supported by documents. NaitÅ, on the other hand, accepts the message of Monkanâs texts, which says that the tripartite belief was upheld by the Daigoji abbot ShÅkaku åè¦ (1057â1129), but as he does not add any supportive argument, this conclusion can easily be questioned. However, as I have pointed out in a different study, the combination of FudÅ and Aizen with the relic (jewel) functioned as the secret structure of the esoteric rain ritual by at least the end of the Heian period, and presumably already by the early twelfth century (Trenson 2013, 2016). This fact makes it thus possible not only to confirm that the origin of the belief goes back to the Heian period, but also to re-examine the development of that cult from the perspective of rainmaking.
This theory can be supported by the following lines in the Gumon nikki æèæ¥è¨: å¡å¾å¤å¿µèª¦ã»åå «æ¥è¦³é³ä¾ã»æ¦å¾¡å¿µèª¦ã»å¾ä¸æ¥å¾¡ä¿®æ³ã»æ³è±ããæ¬ãå°ææçä»ç¼çæ³ä¹ãå³çå¦æå®ç æ³ä¹ãåé¿èµæ³ä¹ãå奥ç åå¹³æ³ä¹ãåè«é¨çµæ³ä¹ âThe daily Early Morning rite (Goya-nenju), the Offering to Kannon on the eighteenth day of the month, the Last-Day-of-the-Month rite (Tsugomori-minenju), the Latter Seven-Day ritual, and the Lotus SÅ«tra [ritual] are all rituals with AizenâÅ or Butsugen as the primary icon. In other words, these are all wish-fulfilling jewel rituals. So too are the Placation of Serpents rite (ByakujahÅ) and the Subjugation rite (ÅsashihyÅhÅ). The Rain Prayer SÅ«tra ritual is also such a ritual.â Although only Aizen is mentioned in this quote, it might be that the combination with FudÅ was understood.
For an image of the scroll, see Goepper (1993: 72) and Yanagisawa (1979: 91). The scroll itself is said to be a copy of a version possessed by the Tendai monk RyÅyÅ« è¯ç¥, who obtained it from his master ChÅen é·å®´ (1016â1081). The latter was a disciple of KÅgei çæ ¶, who affirmed that the maá¹á¸ala was brought back from China by Enchin (cf. infra).
The twelve-armed DaishÅ KongÅ is explained in the Yuqi jing (T.18.867: 258b03). It is said that the divinity was taken at Miidera as the real aspect of Aizen, whereas at Daigoji it was the two-headed Aizen (AsabashÅ,
For a more detailed description and discussion of the maá¹á¸ala, see Goepper 1993: 71â78.
The name of AnâyÅbÅ HÅgen often appears in the KakuzenshÅ (Ogawa 2013: 177). The fact that HÅgen was a Ninnaji priest is mentioned in the DenjushÅ« ä¼åé (T.78.2482: 250b23â24). On his relationship with Ishiyamadera, see Uchida 2012: 239.
Enchinâs name is also tied to a peculiar iconography of Aizen with four heads and four arms, seated on a four-headed lion of which each paw treads on a coiled serpent (KakuzenshÅ,
See also KakugenshÅ, fasc. 2: 340b.
The terms nÅ è½ (active) and sho æ (passive) form quite a complex but interesting aspect of medieval MikkyÅ. Basically, they indicate a principle or object which is âactingâ (nÅ) and a principle or object which is âacted uponâ (sho). For example, a distinction can be made between a moon disk resting on a lotus and a lotus drawn inside a moon disk. In the former case, the moon disk fulfils an active aspect (it âsitsâ on a lotus), in the later, a passive aspect (it functions as a âseatâ). The idea is that the one cannot be without the other. Hence, without Principle, there is no Wisdom and vice versa.
See also KakugenshÅ, fasc. 1: 328a, for similar but slightly different information.
See also KakugenshÅ, fasc. 2: 342a.
On rainmaking at the Shinsenâen and Daigoji, see Trenson (2003, 2010). The findings communicated in these articles, however, have been largely updated and amended in my recently published monograph on Shingon rainmaking and relic-jewel worship (see Trenson 2016).
I want to make clear here that I am referring to âesoteric Buddhist ritualsâ (shuhÅ ä¿®æ³) and not to all Buddhist rain prayers in general.
The fact that Aizen appears as a dragon here might perhaps come as a surprise. However, Aizen functions as a serpent in medieval Japanese religion and serpents and dragons were readily interchangeable in MikkyÅ. To remind us of that fact, the âdragon kingâ of the rain ritual appears as a serpent, the serpent divinity Suiten 水天 is mentioned among the âdragon kingsâ listed in the Peahen SÅ«tra (T. 19.982: 417b06), and Aizen was sometimes considered a different form of the âdragon kingâ Kurikara. Also, those familiar with the world of medieval Shinto will probably immediately recognise the conceptual link between Aizen and the dragon of the Shinsenâen as a logical idea. Indeed, medieval Shinto, in which Aizen sometimes functions as the primary icon (such as in the âReikiâ éºæ°), is often said to have been passed on by the dragon of the Shinsenâen (e.g., JingÅ«hÅ narabi ni shinbutsu itchi shÅ ç¥å®®æ¹å¹¶ç¥ä»ä¸è´æ, quoted in KÅchÅ« kaisetsu gendaigoyaku Reiki-ki).
The scholar Manabe ShunshÅ çéä¿ç § apparently asked Kagiwada the question why the cult of the two-headed Aizen (FudÅ-Aizen) especially developed at Daigoji. This was a question hard to answer (2012: 60). However, a possible solution is now available: the cult developed at Daigoji because it served as the core structure of rainmaking, the practice of which for a long time constituted one of the primary components in the conceptual network of secret doctrines and beliefs of that temple.
Daigoji rainmakers were probably well aware of the Kurikara-Aizen identity since they visualised Kurikara in connection to FudÅ on the roof during the Twelve-deva offering, and in addition visualised Aizen in the centre of the Great Platform rite, also probably in connection to FudÅ on the roof. For this reason, it is highly likely that the identity of Aizen as Kurikara was rather well known to them.
Of course, one might counter-argue that this is merely a conjecture, which it certainly is, but another logical explanation for the interchangeability cannot be readily provided. At any rate, I strongly doubt that the interchangeability was done arbitrarily or without any doctrinal foundation.
Goepper strongly asserts that Aizen is a male god (1993: 10). However, it seems to me that the idea of Aizen as the representative of the Womb or the âBuddha-Motherâ was quite common in medieval Japan, where, moreover, âBuddha-Motherâ was mostly understood not only in abstract but also in biological terms. I intend to explain the notion of the âBuddha-Motherâ in more detail in a forthcoming article.
ZasshÅ éé:ææçä»ç¼è ä¸äºä¹ï¼å²æ³¨ï¼æäºãäºã»ä¸ç¸éå¯å°ã鳥羽ï¼ç¯ä¿ï¼â äºã±ã権å§æ£ï¼åè¦ï¼ãä¸ã±æï¼âAizenâÅ and Butsugen are one matter (Inserted note: I suggest that one should make further inquiries about the two or three differences [between the two deities]. I believe the priest of Toba [Hanjun ç¯ä¿, 1138â1112] taught two differences and the supernumerary archbishop [ShÅkaku] three).â