Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One A -L Robert E. Buswell

S HINTO (HONJI S UIJAKU) AND B UDDHISM
SHUGENDO mountain ascetics resided. In addition
there were monastery gods (garanjin, such as Idaten,
the son of Śiva, but also arhats) and dharma protectors
(goho jin), even though this distinction was, in
most cases, purely theoretical. These orders of deities
were not clearly distinguished and, in practice, they often
overlapped. The case of Nichira is particularly interesting.
Originally a Korean general who became the
tutelary deity of Mount Atago, which was considered
a Japanese manifestation of bodhisattva Jizo (Ksitigarbha),
Nichira came to be treated as an ARHAT. The
name Nichira was interpreted as an abbreviation for
the Japanese words nichi from Nippon (Japan) and ra
from rakan (arhat). Arhats were the protectors of some
Zen monasteries in Japan.
As the case of Nichira indicates, not all kami were
autochthonous, or originally Japanese. Buddhist
priests brought to Japan deities from India, Korea, and
China. Some of them were quickly “naturalized” and
became very popular. Even today, many popular kami
include foreign deities such as Benten (Sanskrit, Sarasvat),
Daikokuten (Sanskrit, Mahakaka), Shinra (Korean,
Silla), Myojin (probably of Korean origin), and
other minor deities of Chinese origin related to yinyang
and polar star cults. In addition, new deities were
created under the influence of Buddhism. The two
most popular kami in modern times, Hachiman and
Inari, were produced by Buddhist combinatory doctrines
and rituals. Hachiman, in particular, is said to
have been the tutelary deity of a clan in southern Japan,
but was recognized by the state in the eighth century
as a great bodhisattva (daibosatsu) who promised to
protect the country and ensure the diffusion of Buddhism
there. He was also one of the protecting deities
of the Todaiji, the largest monastery in Nara. Since
then, he has always been one of the main protecting
deities of Japan.
Finally, premodern kami were usually not singular
subjectivities, but plural entities that combined historical
human beings, deities from various places in Asia,
and Buddhist supernatural beings. Hachiman, for example,
is both a kami and a bodhisattva, a king and a
holy being: He is the deified aspect of Emperor O jin
(who is said to have reigned in the late fourth to early
fifth centuries) and at the same time a Japanese manifestation
of Amida (Sanskrit, AMITABHA), or, according
to some sources, of Śakyamuni. Analogously, the
kami Inari began as an agricultural spirit bringing prosperity,
later became the tutelary deity of the Fushimi
area near Kyoto, and finally was envisioned as the
Japanese manifestation of the Indian cannibal ogresses
known as D AKINI. Inari is variously represented as an
old man, a white fox, or a beautiful woman.
With the development of increasingly complex hierarchies
of protection and classification of divinities,
we also see the formation of new interpretations about
their functions and their modes of interaction with human
beings. In general, buddhas and bodhisattvas were
in charge of supramundane benefits (such as better rebirths
and ultimate salvation), whereas the kami dealt
specifically with worldly benefits and material prosperity.
Furthermore, buddhas were normally benevolent,
whereas the kami were in charge of punishing
those who did not respect the deities. However, in
medieval Japan a more nuanced vision developed, according
to which buddhas and kami together administer
punishments against their enemies. On the other
hand, in some cases, such as in certain Shinto esoteric
rituals, the kami provided a form of soteriology. In addition,
refusal to worship the kami was considered a
subversive act by the establishment and a revolutionary
act by reform movements. In this way, the structure
of the Buddhist pantheon was directly connected
with visions of social order and morality.
Japanese kami as manifestations of Buddhist
sacred beings
Buddhism interacted with Japanese deities in a way
that finds no equivalent in most other Buddhist cultures
(though there are very few comparative studies
of Buddhist interactions with local deities). Around the
eleventh to twelfth centuries, kami began to be envisioned
as Japanese manifestations (Japanese, gongen;
Sanskrit, avatara) of bodhisattvas or other deities of
the Indian pantheon brought to Japan by Buddhism.
The capacity of manifesting themselves in many forms
is a feature of the gods of classical Indian mythology
that was later attributed also to buddhas and bodhisattvas;
in Japan, this feature was used to explain the
status of the kami. This logic of manifestation was
commonly defined as honji suijaku and wako do jin. The
term honji suijaku (literally, “the original ground and
its traces”) was originally used by the Chinese Tiantai
patriarch ZHIYI (538–597) in his exegesis of the LOTUS
SU TRA (SADDHARMAPUN D ARIKA-SU TRA). According to
Zhiyi, the first fourteen chapters of the scripture contain
the provisional “trace-teaching” of the historical
Buddha, whereas the final fourteen chapters are the ultimate
“original teaching” of the eternal Buddha. In
E NCYCLOPEDIA OF B UDDHISM
769