Japan Review 27 (2014): 31–51

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu:
Hachiman’s Initial Rise to Prominence
Bernhard SCHEID

In 749, a hitherto insignificant deity from Kyushu by the name of Hachiman
became the divine protector of Tōdaiji’s Great Buddha and was thereby
propelled into the highest echelons of the native shrine deities. This wasclearly due to the personal efforts of Emperor Shōmu, who was also thesingle main force behind the Great Buddha project. This article readdresses
Hachiman’s unprecedented divine career by focusing on Shōmu’s visionsof Hachiman and the changes of these visions in the post-Shōmu era. I
propose two major reasons for Hachiman’s success: 1) Hachiman’s relative
independence from the existing network of aristocratic ancestor deities,
which turned him into an impartial outsider unaffected by the complicatedpolitico-religious machinations at court; and 2) Shōmu’s attempt to establish
a politico-religious stronghold in Kyushu independent from the local
government, the Dazaifu. In this context, Hachiman’s famous oracularability is explained as a result of Shōmu’s interests rather than as a reason
for them. I further argue that Hachiman’s oracles probably lost importanceafter the Dōkyō incident of 769, which must have meant a serious crisis for
Hachiman’s cult in general. Wake no Kiyomaro, who unveiled Hachiman’s
fraudulent oracles regarding Dōkyō, was probably also a key figure in
Hachiman’s resurrection in the late eighth century. All in all I argue that
Hachiman’s enduring importance is best explained by his Bodhisattva-likefeatures, which took shape in the course of these events and singled him out
among the other kami.
Keywords: State Buddhism, ancestor cult, oracle, Tōdaiji, Usa, Dazaifu,
Great Buddha, Fujiwara no Nakamaro, Dōkyō, Wake no Kiyomaro

Research on Hachiman 八幡, one of the most popular Shinto deities (kami) in Japan, is not
yet very well established in Western Japanese Studies. One important essay, to which mostsubsequent Western research including this article is greatly indebted, was written by Ross
Bender in 1979.1 A few years later, in 1985, the art historian Christine Guth Kanda wrote a
1 The article summarizes Bender’s dissertation on Hachiman, finished in 1980. The dissertation, however, hasbeen published only on the internet (http://rossbender.org/japan.html). Bender has continued to work on the
Nara period, when Hachiman emerged to national prominence, but has turned away from religious topics.

31

Bernhard SCHEID

pioneering monograph on Hachiman art. The research of the 1980s was not followed up on,
however, perhaps owing to the confusing mix of native, Chinese, Korean, and—last but notleast—Buddhist aspects of Hachiman. Some of these aspects have been addressed in articles
by Allan Grapard, but a detailed historical analysis of Hachiman’s unprecedented “career” isstill missing in Western scholarship on Japan.2
Japanese research on Hachiman is dominated by the work of Nakano Hatayoshi 中野
幡能 (1916–2002) who devoted virtually his whole scholarly life to this topic.3 In particular,
Nakano is to be credited for tracing many legendary aspects of Hachiman to specific beliefs
and practices in Kyushu from where Hachiman originated. In recent years, however, critics
such as Iinuma Kenji 飯沼賢司 have pointed out that Nakano’s reconstruction of early
Hachiman cults presupposes the location of the ancient kingdom of Yamatai in Kyushu, atheory that has lost plausibility. As will be explained below, several aspects of Hachimanthat Nakano found in prehistorical Kyushu, such as Hachiman’s identification with Emperor Ōjin 応神天皇, are now better explained as “invented traditions” of the Nara or early
Heian periods. In addition, Nakano who is clearly influenced by postwar folklore studies
tends to deemphasize the political significance of Hachiman, according to Iinuma.4 Largely
in line with such criticism, Hasebe Masashi 長谷部将司 has presented a new analysis of thefragmentary historical records concerning Hachiman’s rise to national prominence.5 My
own reconstruction largely follows Hasebe’s approach.
In order to facilitate the discussion, I propose to analyze the “cult” of Hachiman as areligious phenomenon sui generis, without attributing it either to Shinto or to Buddhism.
Japanese authors call this phenomenon Hachiman shinkō 八幡信仰, a very practical term,
which may be translated as “Hachiman veneration.” In order to stress the unique featuresof this phenomenon, however, I would like to coin the term “Hachimanism.” Let me
clarify here that I understand Hachimanism not as a well defined religious confession or
school, but as a multitude of practices and beliefs focusing on Hachiman, which allows thecoexistence of different concepts of this deity both on a chronological and a spatial axis.
Nevertheless, like other shinkō as well, Hachimanism gained its identity and consistencyfrom certain religious centers that exerted decisive influences on its long term development.
For the later Nara period, which is the focus of this essay, these centers can be identified as
the Usa shrine temple complex (Usa Jingūji 宇佐神宮寺) in Kyushu and the Tōdaiji 東大寺
in Nara.

2 Grapard’s Hachiman-related essays are mainly concerned with Kyushu and include local cults at Usa andthe Kunisaki peninsula (Grapard 1986), Usa ritual and a critique on Guth’s art-historian approach (Grapard
1994), and notes on the fourteenth century Takusenshū (Grapard 2003, see note 6).
3 Hachiman shinkō no kenkyū, Nakano’s opus magnus of more than 900 pages, was first published in 1967. In
1975 an enlarged edition appeared in two volumes, which added a new introduction, three chapters and anindex at the end, but otherwise did not change the contents of 1967. Subsequently Nakano published studies
on select topics from Hachiman shinkō as well as several large collections of source materials on Hachiman
and Usa. In 2002, Hachiman shinkō jiten, a collection of essays of a more general, introductory nature waspublished under Nakano’s editorship.
4 Iinuma 2004, pp. 215–17.
5 Hasebe 2010. I would like to thank Ross Bender for pointing out this article to me.

32Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

1. Hachiman as a Yamato Supporter in Northern Kyushu
A history of Hachimanism must begin with the fact that, not withstanding his later importance, this deity cannot be found in either of Japan’s earliest mytho-historical chronicles, theKojiki (712) and Nihon shoki (720). This indicates that in the early eighth century Hachimancannot have been more than a deity of limited regional importance. Hachiman’s homeland
Kyushu, however, was not just any region by that time. Threats from Korea, uprisings oflocal ethnic groups, and last but not least the devastating plague of 735–737 turned it into
one of the most politically vulnerable regions of the emerging ancient empire of Japan. At
that time, Kyushu was the traditional point of entrance to the empire of Japan and in many
aspects a trendsetter for the rest of the country, at least in the seventh and eighth centuries.
It is in this context that a deity called Hachiman becomes apparent. In 720, the hayato 隼
人, a “barbarian” tribe in the south of Kyushu, killed a local governor according to the
Shoku Nihongi.6 While details about the government’s reactions are missing from the official
chronicle, the engi literature related to Hachiman—the various Hachiman shrine chronicles(engi 縁起) from later times—contains stories about a large military campaign against the
hayato, which was ultimately led to success by Hachiman’s divine intervention.7 This firstreported military action becomes an essential part of the Hachiman standard narrative.
Hachiman’s military role may be rooted in actual belligerent ritualism by priests whocreated the nucleus of this deity’s cult. The Shoku Nihongi mentions Hachiman for the
first time as one of three shrine deities in Kyushu that received rewards from the imperial
court for their support against the Korean archenemy, the kingdom of Silla in 737.8 In 740,
Hachiman is mentioned again in the context of a military enterprise led by the central
government, this time the quelling of Fujiwara Hirotsugu’s rebellion.9 These early reports
indicate that Hachiman’s cultic center in Usa, in the province of Buzen 豊前, had become aspiritual and military stronghold of the Yamato court.
According to the Shoku Nihongi, 740 was also the year when Nara’s most energeticemperor, Shōmu 聖武 (“Holy Warrior”; r. 724–749) received a divine message from the
Kyushu deity.10 As Hasebe Masashi has shown, however, the decisive turning point for the
Shōmu-Hachiman relationship seems to be the year 746, when Shōmu attributed his recovery
6 SN 8, Yōrō 4 (720)/2/2, SNKBT 13, pp. 66–67; cf. Bender 1979, p. 131. The Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀,
completed in 797, is the second of Six National Histories (Rikkokushi 六国史) by the ancient imperial court.
It consists of 40 volumes spanning the years 697 to 791. It is organized in a strictly chronological order basedon official administrative documents, and in this sense is regarded as a most reliable historical document.
7 Two sources are particularly important in this group of texts: 1) Usa Hachimangū Mirokuji konryū engi 宇佐八幡宮弥勒寺建立縁起 (also known as Konryū engi or Jōwa engi), reportedly compiled in 844, although thisearly dating is sometimes doubted; 2) Hachiman Usagū gotakusenshū 八幡宇佐宮御託宣集 (also known as
Takusenshū), 1313 by the Usa monk Jin’un 神吽, a compilation of earlier fragmentary sources. Many of thesesources were lost in 1184 during the Genpei War when Usa served temporarily as a stronghold of the Taira.
8 SN 12, Tenpyō 9 (737)/4/1; SNKBT 13, pp. 312–13. The other shrines were Tsukushi Sumiyoshi 筑紫住吉
and Kashiigū 香椎宮 (dedicated to Jingū Kōgō), both well attested in the Nihon shoki. Besides the Kyushu
shrines, Ise and Ōmiwa also received rewards through imperial messengers at the same occasion.
9 The rebellion of Fujiwara Hirotsugu 藤原広嗣 (–740), an ousted member of the court nobility, was based in
the local government (Dazaifu 大宰府) of Kyushu and could only be subdued by what was the largest military
campaign of the eighth century. The reasons for his protest seem to lie partly in the rivalry within the newly
formed four houses of the Fujiwara, partly with the general decline of the Fujiwara due to the deaths of thefour heads of these houses in the wake of the mentioned epidemic in 737. This affair seems to have led toa distance between Shōmu and his maternal Fujiwara relatives. For details, see Piggott 1997, pp. 253–54,
among others.
10 SN 17, senmyō 15, cited below, p. 37.

33

Bernhard SCHEID

from an illness to Hachiman, and rewarded the deity with special ranks and estates.11
This year also marks the end of Shōmu’s “wandering period,” which consisted of several
attempts to transfer the capital and/or to find a suitable place for his project of constructing
a monumental Buddha.12 Thus, Shōmu seems to have established a special relationship with
Hachiman, when he reorganized his court in the capital of Heijōkyō 平城京 (Nara) after adecade of political turmoil and crisis. As I attempt to demonstrate below, Shōmu’s vision ofHachiman was probably the basis for the deity’s rise to national prominence. Therefore, thecentral questions of this essay are: 1) What kind of deity did Shōmu see in Hachiman;
2) what kind of benefits did he hope for; and 3) to what extent was this vision shared or
modified by his environment and his successors?
2. Hachiman and Shōmu
Nakano Hatayoshi argues quite convincingly that the name of Hachiman (or Yahata in theprobable original reading) can be traced back to a prehistorical place name in Kyushu.13
Nevertheless, it is very well possible that the existence of a deity by this name is not mucholder than its first mention in the Shoku Nihongi. All engi chronicles state quite explicitlythat from early on three different families practiced the worship of what eventually became
known as Hachiman. Besides the Usa 宇佐, who were probably early chieftains of the region
by this name and are briefly mentioned in the Nihon shoki,14 we find another family by thename of Karajima 辛嶋 with strong ties to the Korean peninsula, as well as a family by thename of Ōga 大神 (or Ōmiwa) who we are, according to Nakano, relatives of the importantpriestly lineage of Ōmiwa in Yamato written with the same characters (大神, “great deity”).
In other words, Hachiman cannot be seen as the ancestor deity (ujigami 氏神) of one
specific uji lineage, as was usual for most other early shrine deities. Moreover, his main placeof worship seems to have shifted between various locations before settling in today’s Usa
Jingū 宇佐神宮, where Hachiman was worshiped together with Miroku Bosatsu 弥勒菩薩
in one of Japan’s first “shrine temple complexes” (jingūji 神宮寺). Thus, already in Kyushu,
Buddhism also played an important role in the establishment of Hachiman. In this sense,
Hachiman can be regarded as a hybrid, supra local deity, uniting different regional interests
and religious aspects.15
Besides the military aspect of Hachiman mentioned before, the mobility and internationality of Hachiman’s cult in Kyushu is certainly a factor explaining why Hachiman
became part of Shōmu’s great legacy, the construction of the Great Buddha (daibutsu)
in Nara’s Tōdaiji. The biggest bronze statue of the ancient Buddhist world, an image of
11 Hasebe 2010, p. 46. Hasebe refers to an official report by a shrine priest from Usa of 821, which states that
Hachiman received the “third rank” (san’ i 三位) and 400 farm households. By contrast, Hachiman had
received only twenty households in 740, after the Hirotsugu rebellion (see below).
12 Augustine 2012, in particular pp. 71–77.
13 While the Chinese characters 八幡 convey the meaning of “eight banners,” Nakano tends to read yahata (oryawata) as “eight fields” (八畑). For a summary of Nakano’s theories on this point, see Nakano 1967, pp.
918–21, and Bender 1979, p. 129.
14 Nihon shoki, Aston 1972, vol. I, p. 112. According to this report, Jinmu, the founder of the imperial lineage,
arranged a marriage between an Usa princess and a certain Amanotane, here reported as an ancestor of the
Nakatomi (i.e. the Fujiwara).
15 This view is supported by Nakano’s analysis of the complex ritual relations between Usa and other shrines in
the former province of Buzen (Nakano 2002b; see also Law 1994).

34

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

Rushana Nyorai, marked the center of a network of provincial Buddhist temples (kokubunji
国分寺) that was also designed by Shōmu.16 The Great Buddha can be seen as the embodiment of Shōmu’s ambition to govern the country on the basis of Buddhist doctrine. But
why, then, did he need the kami, and why did he choose a local deity from Kyushu toprotect a Buddhist icon that was itself regarded as protector of the state?
In fact, Shōmu’s Buddhism never excluded the native kami and native ancestor cults.
We should keep in mind that, parallel to the establishment of the kokubunji network andother reforms directed towards Buddhism, Shōmu took on the status of a “manifest deity”(akitsukami 現神) much more explicitly than any emperor before. In the words of Joan
Piggott, this emperor was a “multiple charismatic personae—sage ruler, heaven’s descendent,
manifest kami, and Servant of the Buddha.”17 Shōmu’s inclusivist religious worldview cameto the fore most vividly in the year 749, when the casting of the statue and its gilding were
finally completed. Incidentally, this was also the year when Shōmu, at the apex of his power
but also troubled by sickness, stepped aside to pass the throne on to his daughter Princess
Abe 阿倍.18 This was an unprecedented maneuver of imperial succession. Finally, 749 was
the year when Hachiman made his first appearance in Nara.19
2.1. Hachiman and the Daibutsu Project, 749
In the context of Shōmu’s daibutsu project, the specific importance of the kami in generaland Hachiman in particular can be clearly detected from edicts issued in 749. Imperial
edicts (senmyō 宣命) were usually read aloud in front of a large audience of courtiers andcommoners in the name of the emperor. Whenever a senmyō is cited in the Shoku Nihongi,
this indicates that the related event was one of utmost importance.20 Nevertheless, senmyō
were not simply boring official speeches. On the contrary, in the otherwise terse style of thechronicle, they constituted a narrative genre of their own, which reveals some backgroundinformation (however fabricated) on the motivations behind the reported facts. While wehave to take these senmyō as carefully tailored and censored sources of information, theyclearly reveal history as it was intended to be understood by subjects of the Nara rulers.
Thus, as far as such edicts refer to Hachiman, they can be regarded as the foundation, or ina sense the myth of origin, of his cult in the capital.
The first edicts relevant for the history of Hachiman and the daibutsu were related tothe discovery of gold in northern Japan in the second month of 749. This discovery ensured
the gilding and thus the completion of the Great Buddha. At this occasion, Shōmu ordered
the proclamation of two edicts in his name. The first (senmyō 12) was a short expressionof gratitude directed to the still unfinished statue itself and contains the famous self16 Buddha Vairocana, later commonly known as Dainichi in Japan.
17 Piggott 1997, p. 238.
18 Abe (718–770) is the famous “last empress” of Japanese antiquity who ruled twice, first as Kōken Tennō 孝謙
天皇 (749–758) and later as Shōtoku Tennō 称徳天皇 (764–770). For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to her
as Abe or Empress Abe.
19 The events of this year are analyzed in Bender 2012, on which the following section is based.
20 Japanese historiography has identified and numbered the senmyō, which are usually in Japanese in contrast
to the standard Chinese of the chronicle. Herbert Zachert (1908–79) devoted a lifetime to the translationof the senmyō from Shoku Nihongi into German. Two editions of his translations appeared in 1932 and 1950
respectively.

35

Bernhard SCHEID

designation of Shōmu as “servant of the Three Jewels” (i.e. Buddhism). The second (senmyō
13) explains and justifies the whole daibutsu project in some detail:[… Since] the words of the Buddha are superior among all laws in protecting thenation, We placed the Sutra of the Victorious Kings21 in all the provinces under heaven
which We govern, and said that We would construct an image of Rushana Buddha.22
There upon We prayed to the kami of heaven and earth, and to the divine tennō who
founded the reign in the distant ages past […]. But many people were doubtful ofsuccess, and We ourselves were anxious that there would not be enough gold. Then We
received the divine revelation of the Three Jewels, and the kami of heaven and earth together vouchsafed particularly good fortune, and also the imperial spirits (sumeraga mitamatachi 天皇御霊多知) granted their blessing, and they cherished Us with particularaffection, and made [the gold] appear.23
In this edict, Shōmu not only recounts the creation of the Great Buddha but outlines his
entire politico-religious program:
Buddhism is the essential tool for protecting the state (= the emperor).
In order to promote Buddhism, Shōmu ordered the construction of temples everywherein the country and of the Great Buddha.
In order to realize these projects, Shōmu prayed to all kami, and in particular to thespirits of former emperors.
Thus, Shōmu appeals also to non-Buddhist divine forces in order to realize state Buddhism.
Eventually both Buddhas and kami indeed grant their help, according to the edict. “Divine
revelation of the Three Jewels” seems to be a key term in this context, since it contains
allusions to both Buddhas and kami.24 It may even be an allusion to an oracle by Hachiman,
as I will show below. While the edict does not mention Hachiman directly, it soon becomes
evident that he was already a major player among Shōmu’s divine aids. Later in the same year,
on the nineteenth day of the eleventh month,25 Hachiman himself announces his coming to
the capital.26 This was the first seemingly spontaneous act of speaking (takusen 託宣) in Shoku
Nihongi, for which Hachiman became famous.27 Hachiman’s “visit” was in fact a one monthprocession from Kyushu to Nara, led by the Usa priestess Ōga no Morime 大神杜女 and21 Saishōōkyō 最勝王經, otherwise known as Konkōmyōkyō or Sutra of the Golden Light, one of the “three sutrasof state protection”; here it is used as pars pro toto for the provincial temples (kokubunji) that were meant tostore copies of the sutra.
22 Buddha Vairocana, also known as Dainichi, here the Great Buddha.
23 Senmyō 13, SN 17, Tenpyō Shōbō 1 (749)/4/1; SNKBT 14, pp. 64–69. Zachert 1932, pp. 184–85. My
translation follows Bender 2012, p. 9, with small modifications.
24 Sanbō no sugurete ayashiki ōmikoto no shirushi 三宝乃勝神枳大御言験 (SNKBT 14, pp. 66–67). Sanbō 三
宝, the “Three Jewels” (Skt. triratna), are used as a synonym of the Buddha or Buddhism here. Ayashi(“miraculous”), on the other hand, is written somewhat unusually with the character 神 (kami). While thephrase clearly points to a verbal revelation, I am not convinced by Joan Piggott’s interpretation of it as a“miraculous mantra” (Piggott 1997, p. 276).
25 Translated into the Western calendar system, this event happened on January 1, 750. To avoid confusion, I
render Tenpyō Shōbō 1 (the traditional nengō reference to this year) always as “749.”
26 Yahata no ōkami takusen shite, kyō ni mukafu 八幡大神託宣向京. SN 17, 749/11/19; SNKBT 14, pp. 94–95.
27 See below, p. 42.

36

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

her brother Ōga no Tamaro 大神田麻呂.28 Shoku Nihongi reports among other things thathighways had to be cleaned and the killing of animals was prohibited in the provinces on theway. Upon Hachiman’s arrival, “a new building was constructed in the Nashihara no Miya
梨原宮 south of the palace and made a divine palace (jingū).”29
The highlight of these events, however, was a kind of reunion of Hachiman and theimperial family (including the now-ruling Empress Abe, her father Shōmu, and her mother
Kōmyō 光明) in front of the Tōdaiji, the temple of the Great Buddha. The form in which
Hachiman was present at the reunion is not quite clear. At any rate, his priestess, Morime,
was carried in a “palanquin of a purple color, like that of the imperial palanquin.” This
unprecedented honor may have been meant for Hachiman, which would imply that Morime
took a kind of “divine body” (shintai 神体) with her, or that she herself acted as a kind of
human shintai of the kami. At the temple grounds of Tōdaiji, a huge festival took place and“five thousand Buddhist priests read sutras in praise of the Buddha.” Yet, the imperial edicton this occasion was not addressed to the Great Buddha (who was officially inaugurated
two years later in an even larger ceremony), but to Hachiman and Himegami who were
promoted to excessively high ranks, as will be discussed in more detail below. An edict(senmyō 15) proclaimed by chancellor Tachibana no Moroe 橘諸兄 (684–757) in the nameof Retired Emperor Shōmu (sic) relates these promotions to the daibutsu project as follows:[…] In the last year of the dragon (740), We worshipped at the Chishikiji 智識寺 in theŌgata district of Kawachi.30 Because We desired to construct such an image and yet
were unable to do so, We appealed to the Great Kami Hachiman of the Broad Ways who
dwells in the Usa district of Buzen Province. The god proclaimed (noritamawaku 勅):We, as a kami, will invite the kami of heaven and earth and will certainly
accomplish [your wish]. We will turn water into steam for the casting of coppe.
We will merge our body with the grass, trees and earth. It shall be done without
hindrance.
Because of the proclamation of the god We were overjoyed, and We have been able toaccomplish this work.31
Thus, this edict recounts a similar story as the one cited above, this time indicating theconcrete names of places and deities involved. We learn that Shōmu got his inspiration
to build the giant statue of Roshana Buddha (the Nara daibutsu) in a Buddhist temple in
28 My reading “Ōga” of the name 大神 follows Nakano, in line with most Western authors. The SNKBT editionof SN has “Ōmiwa” (SNKBT 14, p. 93).
29 SN 17, 749/12/18, SNKBT 14, pp. 94–97; tr. Bender 2012, p. 26 (modified). The exact location of theNashihara no Miya is unknown but the place must have been close to the Second Avenue (Nijō) south of
the imperial palace, according to later sources (SNKBT 14, p. 96, note 1). The Nashihara shrine is therefore
not identical with the Hachiman shrine inside the Tōdaiji precincts that appears somewhat later, nor withthe present Tamukeyama Hachiman shrine 手向山八幡宮, south of the Hokkedō temple hall in Nara.
Nevertheless, all these places are on the same east-west axis corresponding to Nijō Avenue.
30 This refers to a report of 740 (Tenpyō 12), i.e. the troubled time after the Hirotsugu rebellion when Shōmu
was in search of an alternative place for his capital (see above). See also Piggott 1997, p. 58.
31 Senmyō 15, SN 17, 749/12/27; SNKBT 14, pp. 96–97; tr. Bender 2012, p. 27 (modified). See also Bender
1979, pp. 135–36.

37

Bernhard SCHEID

Kawachi, which was dedicated to the same Buddha. In order to realize his aims, however,
Shōmu did not direct his prayers to Roshana Buddha himself but to Hachiman, who had
just helped to quell the afore-mentioned Hirotsugu rebellion. Hachiman promptly revealed
himself and told the emperor in poetic words that he would physically intervene in order toensure the casting of the Great Buddha.32 It seems as if all the Buddhas, kami, and imperial
spirits that Shōmu invoked comprehensively in the earlier edict take on a concrete shape in
Hachiman. At least structurally, Hachiman occupies the same position in this edict as thevarious numinous agencies in the edict issued eight months before. In both cases, we cansee the clear intention of Shōmu not only to rely on canonical Buddhist powers, but also tomake sure that native deities, including his ancestors, support the project. In this context,
we may recall the famous (yet not well attested) legend of Shōmu’s fundraiser Gyōki 行基(668–749), who was sent to the imperial ancestor goddess Amaterasu in Ise to solicit her
support for the daibutsu project.33

Figure 1. Hachiman’s palanquin. Tamukeyama Hachiman shrine, Nara, 14th c.34

2.2. Hachiman’s Ranks
Shōmu’s particular favoring of Hachiman has been explained by the fact that Shōmuregarded him as his ancestor, the semi-mythical Emperor Ōjin 応神, with whom Hachiman
is conventionally associated in most modern Hachiman shrines. Nakano Hatayoshi, forinstance, tends to follow the engi literature, which identifies Ōjin and Hachiman from early
on.35 More recent authors like Iinuma and Hasebe, however, have raised doubts in thisrespect. The aforementioned high ranks, bestowed on Hachiman and his consort in front of
the Great Buddha, have become an important issue in this debate.
32 Variants of this oracle became an important asset of later Hachiman lore, for instance in the “Oracles of theThree Shrines” (sanja takusen 三社託宣). On this topic, see Bocking 2000.
33 For an early mention in the Nakatomi harae kunge (12th–13th c.), see Teeuwen and van der Veere 1998, p. 41.
See also Itō 2003, p. 85.
34 Used in ceremonies that reenact Hachiman’s visit of the capital this palanquin is sometimes regarded as the
prototype of the modern mikoshi (portable shrine). Important Cultural Property. Source: Grand Exhibitionof Sacred Treasures from Shinto Shrines (Kyushu National Museum, Jan. 15–March 9, 2014, http://www.
kyuhaku.jp/exhibition/exhibition_s34.html, last accessed April 3, 2014).
35 For a summary of Nakano’s arguments, cf. Nakano 2002a, pp. 47–50.

38

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

While shrine-ranking became a standard procedure in later times, it seems to have been
a novelty in the Nara period. In addition, both Hachiman deities received so-called hon 品
ranks, of which four grades existed. Hachiman was promoted to first rank (ippon 一品), Himegami to second. These ranks were Japanese additions to the Tang Code, the model of ancient Japan’s legal system, designed for members of the imperial family only. In other words,
this ranking implied the inclusion of the Hachiman deities into the imperial family. A similar
conclusion can be drawn in the case of the purple (i.e. imperial) palanquin mentioned earlier.
While this seems to sustain Nakano’s claim that Hachiman was already regarded as Emperor
Ōjin, Hasebe points out that the tennō himself had no rank since he was in a position above
the ranking system. The hon ranks, therefore, qualified the deities as belonging to the statusof princes and princesses (shinnō 親王), below the emperor. Thus, Hasebe turns the question of
ranking into an argument against the assumption that Hachiman was already identified as anemperor at that time. He further substantiates the interpretation of Hachiman as an imperial
prince through the fact that Hachiman and Himegami (or their respective shrines in Usa)
were given estates and farming households of an amount that corresponded exactly to theirrespective princely status: 800 households on eighty chō of rice fields for Hachiman (firstrank), and 600 households on sixty chō for Himegami (second rank).36
In any event, the rankings and their implications reveal that Hachiman and Himegami
were indeed imagined as members of the imperial family. It is therefore only logical that
their “servants,” i.e. the priestess Morime and her brother Tamaro of the Ōga family, werealso promoted to comparatively high ranks (junior four and junior five) of the court nobility, which immediately turned them into the highest ranking shrine priests in the country.37
In fact, the Shoku Nihongi already mentioned Morime and Yakeme 宅女, another priestessfrom the Ōga family, a year earlier. According to an entry from 748/8/17, both priestesses
were promoted by an extraordinary leap of three ranks to grade junior five/lower, which wascomparable to a provincial governor and put them in the tenjōbito 殿上人 class (allowing
them to enter the imperial palace).38 In addition, they were awarded the aristocratic kabane
姓 title of Asomi 朝臣. If we take this report at face value, it indicates that preparations fortheir visit to the capital had started at least one year in advance. Incidentally, Yakeme was
obviously replaced by Morime’s younger brother Tamaro but, all in all, female priestesses
seem to have dominated the Usa sanctuary at the time. Further, Morime was referred to as
negini 禰宜尼 or “priestess and [Buddhist] nun.”
2.3. Temporary Decline under Fujiwara Nakamaro, 752–764
As we have seen, the marvelous rise of Hachiman and Himegami to a position as the mostcherished deities of the court was probably owing to Shōmu’s personal predilection. This isconfirmed by the fact that Hachiman’s influence waned when Shōmu stepped back frompower in 749. As is commonly known, the political situation of the 750s was marked bysevere tensions arising from Shōmu having installed his unmarried daughter Abe as succes36 Hasebe 2010, p. 46. According to this formula, Hachiman might have been promoted to third rank alreadyin 746, when he received four-hundred households on twenty chō (ibid.). For the newly built kokubunji, ten
chō were standard at the time (Piggott 1997, p. 256).
37 Even the most high-ranking priests in Ise did not proceed beyond rank five at the time (Bender 1979, p. 136,
after Nakano 1967, p. 112).
38 SN 17, Tenpyō 20 (748)/8/17; SNKBT 17, pp. 58–59.

39

Bernhard SCHEID

sor.39 In this situation, the rising strongman of the Fujiwara lineage, Fujiwara Nakamaro 藤原
仲麻呂 (706–764) won the support of Shomū’s queen-consort Kōmyō 光明 (701–760, herself
born a Fujiwara). Kōmyō and Nakamaro were probably the real power holders, especiallywhen Shōmu eventually died in 756. This led to the abdication of Abe in 758, in favor of the“Fujiwara puppet” Junnin Tennō 淳仁天皇 (r. 758–764). Eventually, however, Abe and her
supporters defeated and killed Fujiwara Nakamaro after the so-called Nakamaro Rebellion of764, forcing Junnin to abdicate. They restored imperial dignity to Abe, who resumed it under
the name of Shōtoku Tennō. The period between 752 and 764, however, was marked by thegrowing political influence of Nakamaro’s Fujiwara branch (the Southern House, nanke 南家)at the cost of the Tachibana and other noble families who had held power under Shōmu.
Nakamaro’s rise seemed to exert a tremendously negative impact on the infant stageof Hachimanism. This impact, however, can only be read between the lines of Hachimanrelated reports in the Shoku Nihongi. First, in 754 Hachiman priests Morime and Tamaro
were accused of employing sorcery against the government and, consequently, downgradedand exiled.40 In the following year, Hachiman commanded through an oracle that all theestates of 1,400 households, which he had received in 750 should be restored to the court.41
This must have implied a severe economic setback for Usa. In order to explain why Usa
Hachiman himself should have demanded such a thing, we have to assume severe pressure
from the Dazaifu, the regional government of Kyushu, which was at that time directed by
the younger brother of Nakamaro, Fujiwara no Otomaro 藤原乙麻呂 (–760).42
Ironically, the same Otomaro had received his post in 750 following an oracle from
Usa, which commanded that Otomaro be promoted to junior third rank and made headof the Dazaifu.43 Such high promotions were usually issued in the name of the emperor
only, and thus clearly violated the realm of ceremonial procedures at court.44 In hindsight, these measures appear as unsuccessful efforts to draw Otomaro into the Hachiman
camp. Consequently, after the death of Shōmu in 756, Hachiman disappeared from the
Shoku Nihongi and remained silent until the second accession to the throne by Empress
Abe in 764.
3. Hachimanism under the Abe/Dōkyō Regime, 764–770
After Empress Abe defeated Nakamaro and resumed her position with much more authority than before, Hachiman not only reappeared in the official chronicle, but also regained
his economic supply.45 While we do not know what happened to his former priestess39 See above, note 18.
40 SN 19, Tenpyō Shōbō 6 (754)/11/24; SNKBT 14, pp. 150–51.
41 SN 19, Tenpyō Shōbō 7 (755)/3/28; SNKBT 14, pp. 152–53. The number includes also the households given
to Himegami.
42 Located in the province of Chikuzen, close to the modern city of Fukuoka, the Dazaifu was installed in
the late seventh century, after Japan’s great naval defeat in the Battle of Baekgang, 663. Besides governing
Kyushu, the Dazaifu’s main function was the control of the harbor of Hakata, Japan’s only international
entrance gate in the Nara period. It was in command of a small army of sakimori (frontier guards), who
initially were recruits from Northern Japan (Batten 2007, pp. 358–61).
43 SN 18, Tenpyō Shōbō 2 (750)/10/1; SNKBT 14, pp. 106–107.
44 Hasebe 2010, p. 50.
45 SN 25, Tenpyō Hōji 8 (764)/9/29 mentions 25 chō of dry land for Hachiman (SNKBT 15, pp. 38–39). Twoyears later Usa seems to have regained all estates given in 750. While the Shoku Nihongi mentions only 600
households for Himegami (SN 27, Tenpyō Jingo 2 [766]/10/2; SNKBT 15, pp. 116–17), it is hard to conceivethat Hachiman should not have received his 800 at that time as well (Hasebe 2010, p. 51).

40

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

Morime, her brother, Ōga no Tamaro, was pardoned in 766 and regained his court ranks
as well as a position as the governor of Bungo (south of Buzen where Usa is located). In
other words, the status quo of Usa under Shōmu was more or less reestablished by Abe
during her second reign.
This sets the scene for Hachiman’s ambivalent role in the well known Dōkyō 道鏡
incident. The rise and fall of this Rasputinian Buddhist monk, who became the most important
advisor of Empress Abe, has been the topic of many previous studies.46 Let me, therefore, recall
only briefly the most important events of 769, when Dōkyō (700–772) had advanced to thehead of the Council of State (dajōdaijin zenji 太政大臣禅師), a feat that no Buddhist monk
had ever achieved or was to achieve again. Dōkyō’s ambitions, however, were not yet satisfied.
According to the Shoku Nihongi, a certain priest from the Dazaifu, Nakatomi no Asomaro,“fabricated a pronouncement of Hachiman, which said: ‘Let Dōkyō be made emperor and there
shall be a great peace in the realm’.”47 In this case, even the Empress harbored doubts concerning Hachiman’s oracle and requested a confirmation from Usa. To that end, she selected Wakeno Kiyomaro 和気清麻呂 (733–799), the younger brother of a trusted lady in waiting, as anemissary. Kiyomaro returned from Kyushu with Hachiman’s most famous decree:
Since the beginnings of our country, lord and subject have been fixed. Never was a
subject made lord. Establish the heavenly sun succession within the imperial lineage.
Sweep unjust persons swiftly away.48
In later times, these words would be cited time and again to consolidate the dogma of imperial
succession in a single bloodline. Kiyomaro’s message may indeed have wrecked Dōkyō’splans, but did not lead to his immediate downfall. This had unfortunate consequencesfor Kiyomaro, who was sent into exile barely escaping execution. When the empress diedshortly thereafter, however, Dōkyō was also exiled, and a new branch of the Fujiwara took
over business at court. As Herman Ooms has recently analyzed in detail, this also spelled
the end of the so-called Tenmu dynasty from Emperor Tenmu 天武天皇 (631–686) via
his great grandson Shōmu to Empress Abe.49 The exiled Kiyomaro, on the other hand,
reappeared soon after Dōkyō’s fall, obviously favored by the latter’s erstwhile enemies. He
eventually advanced to a position as one of the most trusted members of the new regime led
by Kanmu Tennō 桓武天皇 (737–806), and became one of the architects of the relocationof the capital to Heiankyō 平安京.
Later exegetes from antiquity to the present celebrate both Kiyomaro and Hachiman as
paragons of loyalty to the throne for their opposition to Dōkyō and as the saviors of the imperial lineage. From this perspective, it makes sense to explain Hachiman’s Bodhisattva title
and identification with Emperor Ōjin as a kind of “reward” for his anti-Dōkyō oracle. Bothattributions had become apparent in the early Heian period at the very latest. However, official
reports reveal that Hachiman was again shrouded in silence after the Dōkyō incident. It
is much more probable, therefore, that the contradictory messages from Usa raised serious
doubts regarding Hachiman’s oracles. Moreover, Hachiman was clearly a creation of Shōmu
whose dynasty was replaced by another branch of the imperial family, the descendants of
46 See, for instance, Bender 1979.
47 Bender 1979, p. 142.
48 SN 30, Jingo Keiun 3 (769)/9/25; SNKBT 15, pp. 254–57; Bender 1979, p. 125.
49 Ooms 2008, especially, ch. 8, “Plottings.” See also Toby 1985.

41

Bernhard SCHEID

Emperor Tenji 天智, who were backed up by different factions at court. This shift of power
seems to have been one reason for the subsequent transfer of the capital under Kanmu.50
While this probably did not mean a complete setback for Buddhism, as earlier authors often
maintained, it did mean an end to Shōmu’s Buddhocratic policies of which Hachiman
was certainly a part. Thus, it would have been no surprise if the Hachiman boom of the
Nara period had ended here as abruptly as it had begun. The fact that this did not happen
indicates that Hachimanism had taken on an indispensible function in late Nara society.
4. Hachiman’s Oracles
As Bender has pointed out, “in the Nara period Hachiman spoke, while the Sun Goddess
was silent. This distinctive oracular function helps to explain the attention lavished on
Hachiman by the early Nara court.”51 But is it plausible that Hachiman was the only deityof the eighth century to give oracles? And if so, why? In fact, the word “oracle” (takusen) is
mentioned only three times in the Shoku Nihongi, yet always in relation to Hachiman. In
some other cases, the term kyō 教 (“advice”) is used for Hachiman’s proclamations. Altogether, the Shoku Nihongi contains six separate reports of Hachiman revealing his divine
will in the form of an oracle.52 Whether this really substantiates Bender’s claim needs to be
explored through a closer examination of Japanese oracular practices in general.
If we look for similar divine revelations in the first official chronicle, the Nihon shoki,
two famous examples come to mind. The first is the encounter between the Yamato-based
deity Ōmononushi 大物主 and the mythical Emperor Sujin 崇神 (officially counted as Japan’s
10th emperor) in the wake of a devastating plague, which was poised to eliminate theentire populace. When Sujin desperately appealed to the (unknown) gods who had sent the
epidemic, a kami by the name of Ōmononushi revealed himself in a dream and explainedthat a new form of ritual including a separate shrine and a separate priestly lineage werenecessary to appease him. This led to the foundation of the Ōmiwa shrine and indeed put
an end to the calamities.53
The second famous example is a divine revelation addressing the semi-historical Emperor Chūai 仲哀 (14th emperor), who happened to be on a military campaign in Kyushu. In
this case, a deity spoke through the mouth of his queen-consort, Jingū Kōgō, demanding theemperor direct his campaign against the Korean kingdoms. When Chūai ignored the oracle,
he soon died, while the invasion of the peninsula was successfully carried out by Jingū.54
Less spectacular reports of divine speech include an oracle (taku 託) by the old ancestor
deity Izanagi who was worshipped on the island of Awaji. In the year Richū 履中 5 (404,according to Nihon shoki chronology), he revealed through the mouth of a local priest (hafuri
祝): “I cannot endure the stench of blood.” This oracle terminated the branding of horse
50 Toby 1985.
51 Bender 1980, p. 30.
52 For surveys of the original texts cited in this section, I used an online edition of the Six Imperial Chronicles(Rikkokushi) based on the Shintei zōho Kokushi taikei 新訂増補国史大系 edition published between 1929 and1964 by Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, provided by Arayama Keiichi 荒山慶一 at http://www.j-texts.com/sheet/rikkoku.html (last accessed: April 3, 2014).
53 NSh, Sujin 5; Aston 1972, vol. I, pp. 151–53. The Kojiki contains a shorter version.
54 NSh, Chūai 2; Aston 1972, vol. I, pp. 221–23. According to the Kojiki version of this story, Amaterasu andthe Sumiyoshi deities reveal themselves through the empress.

42

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

keepers on the island.55 There were similar reports from other places as well but there wereno particular shrines or deities that practiced divination significantly more often than others. The only hint at some kind of specialization pointed to the imperial court.56 All in all,the Nihon shoki conveyed the impression that rulers as well as priests and even commoners
were receptive to divine messages.
Comparing Nihon shoki and Shoku Nihongi, it is indeed striking that in the latter
chronicle Hachiman was the only kami to communicate oracles. While this certainly does
not mean that other kami ceased to reveal themselves, it points to a privileged position of
Usa in that respect. This may be related to new divinatory techniques imported from thecontinent. Also, the term takusen, which does not appear in Nihon shoki, hints at a new kindof specialization. In addition, the Usa oracles in the Shoku Nihongi differed from divine
revelations in the Nihon shoki also in terms of content. Hachiman gave advice of a more general, political nature. In this respect, his revelations bore similarities with the divine advice
to attack Korea, as received by queen-consort Jingū. By contrast, older examples from thecentral regions were related to divine wrath, and underscored the fearful nature (aramitama)of the kami.57 The political pragmatism inherent in Hachiman’s oracular activity points to a
new relationship between ruler and kami under the regime of Shōmu.
At the same time, we should note that Hachiman’s counsel in the post-Shōmu period
usually referred to his own shrines, or to matters concerning Kyushu. It was only when
Dōkyō tried to fortify his top position at court that Hachiman was drawn into the context
of imperial succession. While his first oracle on this topic was, according to official historiography,
a fraudulent message fabricated by a priest of the Dazaifu (i.e. a superior of the Usa priests),
the second oracle was obviously only achievable through the personal effort and courage ofthe messenger, Wake no Kiyomaro. In this regard it is interesting to look closer at the reportof Kiyomaro’s mission in the third official chronicle, the Nihon kōki:58[… Kiyomaro] went to the [Usa] shrine (jingū 神宮) and received an oracle. Kiyomaro
however prayed: “This advice by the Great God is most important for our country(kokka). The oracle is hard to believe. Please, show me a miracle (shin’ i 神異)!”Thereupon, the kami revealed himself in visible form. He was three jō (30 feet) tall andbright as the full moon. Kiyomaro almost lost consciousness (shōkon 消魂), fell down,
and was not able to look at him. Then the kami offered an oracle: …59
55 NSh, Richū 5; Aston 1972, vol. I, p. 307.
56 The head (haku 伯) of the Department of Divine Affairs is commanded to “take counsel of the Gods.
Accordingly, the priests (hafuri 祝) by divine inspiration, answered: […]” NSh, Kinmei 16 (555)/2; Aston
1972, vol. II, pp. 76–77.
57 Aramitama are the “rough spirits” that embody wrath and punishment by the kami in contrast to their “gentle
spirits” (nigimitama), i.e. their benevolent state of mind. Even in the case of Ise, there exists Aramatsuri no
Miya 荒祭宮, a branch shrine for the aramitama of Amaterasu. Incidentally, ominous oracles led to frequent
relocations of shrines at Ise in the late Nara period (Naumann 1988, p. 221).
58 The Nihon kōki 日本後紀 is the sequel to the Shoku Nihongi. Completed in 840, it covers the years 792–833.
As in other chronicles of the Six National Histories, the biographies of important persons are sometimes
summarized in a kind of obituary at the report of their deaths. In Wake no Kiyomaro’s case, the obituary in
the Nihon kōki is unusually long and detailed, as if it had been taken wholesale from another source. It has
also been published separately as Wake no Kiyomaro den 和気清麻呂伝. For a (rather dubious) discussion anda (rather useful) translation of this text into German, see Bohner 1940.
59 NK8, Enryaku 8 (799)/2/21. Hachiman’s oracle in this text conveyed the same message but is much longer
than the Shoku Nihongi version and criticizes Dōkyō explicitly (see Bender 1979, p. 143).

43

Bernhard SCHEID

According to this later source, Kiyomaro first received a confirmation of the pro-Dōkyō
oracle, which he refused to believe. In order to learn the real intentions of Hachiman, Kiyomaro resorted to the (old-fashioned?) means of personal communication with the deity andfinally heard what loyal supporters of the imperial lineage (the anti-Dōkyō camp) expected.
We should note that in this scenario, the personal experience of a middle-ranking courtierwas given more credibility than the divine message produced by professional priests. Thus,
the Nihon kōki cast serious doubts on the divinatory apparatus at Usa.60 At the same time,
Hachiman himself was separated from the oracles issued in his name.
While the chronicles, including the Nihon kōki, are silent on what was going on in
Kyushu in the aftermath of the Dōkyō incident, there exists an administrative report (gejō解状) by a certain member of the Ōga family, which is contained in the “Orders of the StateCouncil” (daijō kanpu 太政官符) of Kōnin 2 (821).61 This report includes not only valuable
information on the priestly lineages at Usa, but has been identified as one of the earliest
sources of Hachiman’s engi literature. According to this document, Wake no Kiyomaro
became governor of Buzen (including the Usa district) in Hōki 2 (771), and installed Ōga
no Tamaro (who had been pardoned under Abe/Dōkyō) as the head priest (daigūji 大宮司)
at Usa. Thereby he established the Ōga as the leading priestly lineage. The same events wererecorded in much more detail in the Takusenshū 託宣集, which was compiled in 1313. Basedon these sources it becomes evident that Kiyomaro undertook a substantial reform at Usa,
which stipulated among other things that all oracles be placed under the control of diviners(urabe) of the Dazaifu. In other words, Kiyomaro did not put a complete end to the divinatory
practices at Usa, but made sure that priests from a governmental institution would hold Usa
oracles in check.62
From this time forward, Hachiman’s shrine temple at Usa showed up sporadicallyat the level of official chronicles but received no particular attention. The Nihon kōki, forinstance, recounted that in 794 a certain monk Dentō Daihōshi 伝燈大法師 was sent to
Kyushu to read sutras at Usa and two other local shrines (Aso 阿蘇 and Munakata 宗形).63 In
the same vein, Hachiman was mentioned for the first time by his Bodhisattva title in 809:
“Head priests (gūji 宮司) were installed for the kami of Kehi in Echizen and for Hachiman
Daibosatsu 八幡大菩薩 in Buzen.”64 Apart from this unusual title, which is only mentioned
in passing, it appears as if Usa was not any different from other important shrines at the
periphery of the realm. While divination was certainly carried on there, it did not produce
spectacular results that made it into the official chronicles. This suggests that Hachiman’s
oracular functions were probably a factor in his initial rise, but did not maintain theirprominence after the Dōkyō incident. By the end of the ninth century, when the Mirokuji
60 It is interesting to see how this episode was turned into a pro-Usa and anti-Kiyomaro pronouncement in themuch later Takusenshū. Cf. Grapard 2003, p. 86.
61 The document by a certain Ōga no Ason Kiyomaro 大神朝臣清麿, kannushi priest at Usa of the Senior Eighth
Rank/Lower, has been edited and discussed in Hasebe 2010, pp. 44ff.
62 This is in line with the priestly structures at court as they become evident in the somewhat later Engishiki(926). According to this text, diviners (urabe 卜部) from different parts of the country including Kyushu
formed the lowest ranks of the Department of Divine Affairs (Jingikan 神祇官). One of their tasks was thecontrol of oracles and divinations reported by the Yin-Yang Bureau (Onmyō-ryō). See Scheid 2001, pp. 68–69.
63 NK 2, Enryaku 13 (794)/3/3. Dentō Daihōshi is otherwise known as Gyōkyō 行教, founder of Iwashimizu
Hachimangū in 859. That this monk should have been sent to Usa as early as 794 is, however, hard to believe.
64 NK 17, Taidō 4 (809)/*2/21. The Nihon kōki contains a similar report on Usa from 804, referring to priestly
promotions at Usa, the Kashima shrine 鹿嶋神社 in Hitachi, the Kehi shrine 氣比神社 in Echizen, and theKeta shrine 氣多神社 in Noto.

44

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu(the Buddhist part of the Usa temple shrine complex) came to dominate kami affairs in Usa,
women seem to have been expelled from the divinatory process.65 This must have further
weakened the original oracular tradition.
5. Hachiman as Imperial Bodhisattva
From the aforementioned, we can infer that theHachiman frenzy among the elites calmed downin the late eighth century, but that Usa remained
an influential regional shrine. Thus, there seems noneed to regard “Hachimanism” as an exceptionalreligious phenomenon. Yet, we can observe an
increase in attention to Hachiman in Buddhist
sources. From the hagiography of Saichō 最澄(767–822), we know that this influential Buddhist
reformer read sutras at Usa in gratitude for his safe
journey to China in 804.66 Kūkai 空海 (774–835),
the other great religious reformer under the regimeof Kanmu and his successors, is frequently credited
as the creator of “Hachiman in Buddhist garb,”
which implies that he created an iconography of
Figure 2. Hachiman in Buddhist garb.69
the deity that prevailed during the Heian andKamakura periods.67 Even more importantly, Hachiman was installed as a protecting deity atseveral ancient temples in Nara (Yakushiji 薬師寺, Daianji 大安寺) and Heiankyō (Tōji 東寺,
by Kūkai) following the example of the Tōdaiji. And finally a new shrine temple was createdin Iwashimizu in the south of Heiankyō around 860, that would soon outstrip the old
sanctuary at Usa. As I have argued in more detail elsewhere, these developments indicate a
growing interest in Hachiman on the part of Buddhist monks who seem to replace the court
as the driving force behind the spread of Hachimanism.68 This, I argue, is directly related tothe combination of Bodhisattva title and imperial pedigree, which turned Hachiman into
an ideal mediator between the Buddhist clergy and the court.
The general acceptance of Hachiman as a) Bodhisattva and b) manifestation of ŌjinTennō could not have been possible without influential lobbying. The key suspect is surely
Wake no Kiyomaro. After reorganizing Hachiman’s sanctuary at Usa, Kiyomaro assisted
Kanmu Tennō in the transfer of the capital to Nagaokakyō 長岡京 (784) and later to
Heiankyō (794). In the course of these activities, Kiyomaro sponsored the creation of two
Buddhist temples in the new capital region: Jinganji 神願寺, Temple of Divine Oath, andJingoji 神護寺, Temple of Divine Protection (also known as Takaosanji 高雄山寺).70 The
65 Grapard 2003, p. 87, based on Nakano Hatayoshi; personal communication between Grapard and Nakano.
66 Eizan daishi den 叡山大師伝, cf. Groner 2000, p. 89.
67 The locus classicus for this attribution is an entry in the Tōbōki 東宝記 (a chronicle of the Tōji temple by Gohō杲宝, 1352), translated quite differently in Guth Kanda 1985, p. 54, and Bogel 2009, p. 270.
68 Scheid 2014.
69 Hachiman as a monk (Sōgyō Hachiman 僧形八幡), Yasumigaoka Hachimangū, Yakushiji, Nara. Late 9th
century; painted wood sculpture; height: 33.9 cm; national treasure. (Reproduced from Konno 2004, p. 14.)
The figure probably held a string of prayer beads (juzu 数珠) in the left.
70 Hasebe 2010, pp. 58–59.

45

Bernhard SCHEID

application of the term jin (divine, kami) in both cases refers to Hachiman. Eventually,both institutions fused into the Jingoji at Mt. Takao that is protected by the Hiraoka
Hachiman shrine 平岡八幡宮. Since both Saichō and Kūkai served at this temple for sometime, it is possible that they first came into contact with Hachiman at this religious site. The
abandoned Jinganji, on the other hand, was originally built in the south of Nagaokakyō atOtokoyama, the site that some fifty years later became the Iwashimizu Hachiman shrine 石
清水八幡宮. Thus, Kiyomaro’s two temples clearly bore a strong connection with Hachiman.
It is therefore quite plausible that the figure of Kiyomaro was the link between Hachimanism under Shōmu and Hachimanism in the early Heian period at Iwashimizu. I hope todemonstrate this in more detail in my future work on Hachiman.
6. Conclusions
According to Iinuma Kenji, Hachiman expert Nakano Hatayoshi was challenged to go
deeper into the history of Hachiman in Kyushu, when his teacher, the eminent scholar
Miyaji Naokazu 宮地直一 (1886–1949) interpreted Hachiman as a hayarigami 流行神, i.e.
a spontaneous, irrational religious mass phenomenon of the Nara period.71 Judging fromthe abrupt ups and downs of Hachimanism mirrored in the Shoku Nihongi, it is indeed
tempting to regard the Nara enthusiasm for Hachiman as a reflection of social unrest
similar to the hayarigami phenomenon of the late Edo period. Millennial movements ofthis kind indeed existed already in the seventh century, as evidenced by the appearance of a
strange silkworm deity in 644 (one year before the Taika coup d’ état), which Michael Como
has pointed out recently.72 It is therefore quite tempting to regard Hachiman as anotherphenomenon of this kind. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Nara Hachimanism was an elite phenomenon.73 All excesses of ritual magnification notwithstanding, we
can surmise quite rational political motivations behind Shōmu’s choice of Hachiman. As
has been argued by Hasebe Masashi among others, Shōmu aimed to strengthen the positionof the tennō by creating equidistance with all the leading families at court. If this is correct,
it would be quite logical that Shōmu sought divine support from a kami that was not associated with one of the powerful clans. Conversely, this would also explain why the Fujiwara,
or at least the leading branches of that family, seem to have opposed the rise of Hachiman
under Shōmu and his daughter Abe. Hachiman therefore represents a kami that supported
Shōmu and his Buddhocratic policies at the cost of lineage privileges represented by the
canonical kami of the Kiki myths.
A second, yet related, political incitement concerns the power balance in Kyushu.
The upgrading of Usa priests to a status comparable to provincial governors suggests that
Shōmu planned to strengthen the shrine’s independence from the Dazaifu, establishingit as a source of authority under his immediate control. Again, the Fujiwara, who seem tohave monopolized the Dazaifu at the time, emerged on the opposing side. Shōmu probably
71 Iinuma 2004, p. 215. Miyaji’s analysis of Hachiman is published in Miyaji 1956.
72 NSh, Kōgyoku 3 (644)/7; Aston 1972, vol. II, pp. 188–89; Como 2009, pp. 143–44.
73 After all, even the Nihon ryōiki 日本霊異記 from the early ninth century, which depicts Shōmu’s reign as akind of golden age, contains only one mention of the “Great Yahata Shrine-Temple” 矢羽田大神寺 in Usa(NR III/19, SNKBT 30, p. 156), but does not report anything on Hachiman’s oracles or on his relationshipwith Shōmu and Dōkyō.

46

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

attempted to bypass the Fujiwara by establishing direct links to the divinatory apparatus
at Usa, which he used to back up his own decisions. Once these links were established,however, they were also used by people like Fujiwara no Nakamaro and finally by Dōkyō,until they partly lost their efficacy. If this supposition is correct, this could further imply
that the relations between Hachiman and the Great Buddha went in two directions. Not
only did Hachiman support the daibutsu project (perhaps through access to metallurgicalknowledge as has been assumed at times), but the daibutsu also enhanced the prestige ofHachiman and his oracles in Usa. Hachiman may have been brought to Nara not because
his oracles were so effective, but in order to make his oracles effective on a national scale.
In the course of these processes, which certainly did not develop according to one
concise master plan, Hachiman took on other characteristics that singled him out in thekami pantheon and made him attractive for Nara society. In this respect, we should lookonce more at Hachiman’s revelation to Shōmu, quoted in the edict of 750:
We, as a kami, will invite the kami of heaven and earth and will certainly accomplish[your wish]. We will turn water into steam for the casting of copper. We will merge ourbody with the grass, trees and earth. It shall be done without hindrance.
This oracle does not have much in common with the commands or curses by kami that weknow from oracular speech in the Kiki and other early sources. Rather, it bears similarities
to the vows of Bodhisattvas and Indian deva deities in canonical Buddhist texts. Hachiman
is presented here as an empathic deity who dedicates all his efforts to the common good.
There is no aramitama aspect, no indication in other words that Hachiman had the capacity
to turn his blessings into incomprehensible acts of destruction (as with “traditional” kami
like the above mentioned Ōmononushi).74 His divine charisma was probably modeled on
Buddhist guardians like Bishamonten 毘沙門天, who figures prominently in the Sutra of theGolden Light. Here Bishamonten proposes a kind of deal to any human king who protects
Buddhism and venerates the Sutra: divine protection (including military campaigns) in
exchange of material support of monks and nuns.75 Like Bishamonten, Hachiman is a
protector of the emperor-cum-state (kokka), and, or rather because, he leads all people to theteachings of the Buddha. In other words, Hachiman was not simply given a Buddhist title atsome point, but was first and foremost conceived of as an empathic Bodhisattva-like deity,
who acted according to moral principles. As such, he was different from the deities in older
mythological narratives who exhibited their “rough” and “gentle” aspects of aramitama
and nigimitama according to unfathomable rules. Hachiman was therefore the first kami
to embody a vision of transcendental justice, a late notion in the history of religions, as Jan
Assmann has pointed out.76

74 See above, note 55.
75 Bishamonten is the Japanese equivalent of Vaiśrava ṇa in Sanskrit. Prominent as the guardian of the Northand leader of the Four Guardians of Heaven (Shitennō), Bishamonten is the main protagonist in the GoldenLight Sutra’s “Chapter on Four Great Kings.” His numerous vows accord to the following example: “… wethe four great kings […] will perpetually protect, give refuge, guide […] and ensure peace and happiness of
the kings of humans who listens to, venerates and worships […] the Sublime Golden Light [Sutra]” (Dawa
2006, p. 33).
76 Assmann 1999.

47

Bernhard SCHEID

In my view, the pioneering role of a Bodhisattva-like savior who emerged from indigenous
traditions was already present in Shōmu’s edict. In this role, Shōmu may have envisioned
Hachiman’s efforts as a spiritual double of his own devotion to Buddhism. Hasebe evenmaintains that Hachiman was first identified as Shōmu, and only later as Ōjin.77 Although
this evolutionary sketch is perhaps a little too straightforward, both Shōmu and Hachiman
seem to have been shrouded in a similar spiritual aura in the eyes of Nara era Japanese. In
any event, the empathic and salvific aspects that Hachiman assumed under Shōmu’s regime
were surely more important for his long lasting career than his oracular or military functions.
It was his literal identification with a Bodhisattva that saved Hachiman from falling backinto oblivion after the failure of the overtly political instrumentalization of his oracles.

REFERENCES
NK
NR
NSh
SN

Nihon kōki 日本後紀 (http://www.j-texts.com/chuko/koukiall.html)
Nihon ryōiki 日本霊異記 (SNKBT 30)
Nihon shoki 日本書紀 (http://www.j-texts.com/jodai/shokiall.html)
Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀 (SNKBT 12–16)

Assmann 1999
Jan Assmann. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität infrühen Hochkulturen. Beck Verlag, 1999. [First published in 1992.]
Aston 1972
W[illiam] G[eorge] Aston, tr. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D.
697. Tuttle, 1972. [First published in 1896.]
Augustine 2012
Jonathan Morris Augustine. Buddhist Hagiography in Early Japan: Images of Compassion
in the Gyōki Tradition. RoutledgeCurzon 2012. [First edition 2005.]
Batten 2007
Bruce Batten. “Cross-border Traffic on the Kyushu Coast, 794–1086.” In HeianJapan: Centers and Peripheries, ed. Mikael Adolphson, Edward Kamens, and StacieMatsumoto. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007, pp. 357–83.
Bender 1979
Ross Bender. “The Hachiman Cult and the Dokyo Incident.” Monumenta Nipponica
34:2 (1979), pp. 125–53.
Bender 1980
Ross Bender. The Political Meaning of the Hachiman Cult in Ancient and Early Medieval
Japan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1980. [Open access at http://rossbender.org/japan.html (2013/8/26).]
Bender 2012
Ross Bender. “Shoku Nihongi—The Year Tenpyō Shōhō 1.” PMJS Papers, 2012. [Openaccess at http://www.pmjs.org/pmjs-papers/papers-index/bender-tenpyo_shoho1/(2013/8/26).]
77 Hasebe 2010, pp. 52–53.

48

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

Bocking 2000
Brian Bocking. “Changing Images of Shinto: Sanja takusen or the Three Oracles.” In
Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami, ed. John Breen and Mark Teeuwen. Curzon, 2000,
pp. 167–85.
Bogel 2009
Cynthea Bogel. With a Single Glance: Buddhist Icon and Early Mikkyō Vision. Universityof Washington Press, 2009.
Bohner 1940
Hermann Bohner. “Wake-no-Kiyomaro-den.” Monumenta Nipponica 3:1 (1940), pp.
240–73.
Como 2009
Michael Como. Weaving and Binding: Immigrant Gods and Female Immortals in
Ancient Japan. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009.
Dawa 2006
Losang Dawa, tr. The King of Glorious Sutras Called the Exalted Sublime Golden Light:
A Mahayana Sutra, 21 Chapter Version. FPMT, 2006. (Online version: http://fpmt.org/
wp-content/uploads/teachers/zopa/advice/pdf/sutragoldenlight0207lttr.pdf, last access:April 3, 2014.)
Grapard 1986
Allan Grapard. “Lotus in the Mountain, Mountain in the Lotus: Rokugō Kaizan Nimmon Daibosatsu Hongi.” Monumenta Nipponica 41:1 (1986), pp. 21–50.
Grapard 1994
Allan Grapard. “Rite de voyage: Redressing Hachiman’s appearance.” In Mélanges
offerts à René Sieffert al’ occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, ed. Francois Macé.
Centre d’etudes japonaises, 1994, pp. 335–52.
Grapard 2003
Allan Grapard. “The Source of Oracular Speech: Absence? Presence? Or Plain Treachery? The Case of Hachiman Usa-gū gotakusenshū.” In Buddhas and Kami in Japan:
Honji Suijaku as a Combinatory Paradigm, ed. Mark Teeuwen and Fabio Rambelli.
Routledge, 2003, pp. 77–94.
Groner 2000
Paul Groner. Saichō and the Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School: With a New
Preface. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. [First published in 1984.]
Guth Kanda 1985
Christine Guth Kanda. Shinzō: Hachiman Imagery and Its Development. Harvard
University Press, 1985.
Hasebe 2010
Hasebe Masashi 長谷部将司. “Hachiman Daibosatsu seiritsu no zentei: Kōtō notenkan to Hachiman-shin no tensei” 八幡大菩薩成立の前提: 皇統の転換と八幡神の転成. In Nara nanto bukkyō no dentō to kakushin 奈良南都仏教の伝統と革新, ed. Samuel
C. Morse and Nemoto Seiji 根元誠二. Kyōsei Shuppan, 2010, pp. 41–66.
Iinuma 2004
Iinuma Kenji 飯沼賢司. Hachiman-shin to wa nani ka 八幡神とはなにか. Kadokawa
Shoten, 2004.

49

Bernhard SCHEID

Itō 2003
Itō Satoshi. “The Medieval Period: The Kami Merge with Buddhism.” In Shinto: A
Short History, ed. Inoue Nobutaka. RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, pp. 63–107. [First edited
in Japanese 1998, tr. Mark Teeuwen and John Breen.]
Konno 2004
Konno Toshifumi 紺野敏文. Shinzō no bi: Sugatanaki mono no, katachi 神像の美: すがたなきものの、かたち. Bessatsu taiyō 別冊太陽. Heibonsha, 2004.
Law 1994
Jane Marie Law. “Violence, Ritual Reenactment, and Ideology: The ‘Hōjō-e’ (Rite for
Release of Sentient Beings) of the Usa Hachiman Shrine in Japan.” History of Religions
33:4 (1994), pp. 325–57.
Miyaji 1956
Miyaji Naokazu 宮地直一. Hachimangū no kenkyū 八幡宮の研究. Risōsha, 1956.
Nakamura 1997
Kyoko Nakamura. Miraculous Stories from the Japanese Buddhist Tradition: The Nihon
ryōiki of the Monk Kyōkai. Harvard University Press, 1997. [First published in 1973.]
Nakano 1967
Nakano Hatayoshi 中野幡能 . Hachiman shinkōshi no kenkyū 八幡信仰史の研究 .
Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1967.
Nakano 1975
Nakano Hatayoshi. Hachiman shinkōshi no kenkyū 八幡信仰史の研究. 2 vols. Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1975. [Enlarged edition of Nakano 1967.]
Nakano 1985
Nakano Hatayoshi. Usagū 宇佐宮. Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1985.
Nakano 2002aNakano Hatayoshi, ed. Hachiman shinkō jiten 八幡信仰事典. Ebisu Kōshō Shuppan, 2002.
Nakano 2002b
Nakano Hatayoshi. “Hōjō-e no genryū to sono gaiyō” 放生会の源流とその概要. In
Nakano 2002a, pp. 327–42. [First published in 1975.]
Naumann 1988
Nelly Naumann. Die einheimische Religion Japans, Teil 1. Bis zum Ende der Heian-Zeit.
Brill, 1988.
Ooms 2008
Herman Ooms. Imperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan: The Tenmu Dynasty,
650–800. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008.
Piggott 1997
Joan Piggott. The Emergence of Japanese Kingship. Stanford University Press, 1997.
Scheid 2001
Bernhard Scheid. Der Eine und Einzige Weg der Götter: Yoshida Kanetomo und die
Erfindung des Shinto. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2001.
Scheid 2014
Bernhard Scheid. “Wer schützt wen? Hachimanismus, Buddhismus und Tennōismus
im Altertum.” Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques 68:1 (2014), pp. 263–84.
SNKBT 12–16
Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀, vols. 1–5. Shin Nihon koten bungaku taikei 新日本古典文学大系, vols. 12–16, ed. Aoki Kazuo 青木和夫 et al. Iwanami Shoten, 1989–1998.
50

Shōmu Tennō and the Deity from Kyushu

SNKBT 30
Nihon ryōiki 日本霊異記. Shin Nihon koten bungaku taikei 新日本古典文学大系, vol. 30,
ed. Izumoji Osamu 出雲路修. Iwanami Shoten, 1996.
Teeuwen and van der Veere 1998
Mark Teeuwen and Hendrik van der Veere. Nakatomi Harae Kunge: Purifikation andEnlightenment in Late-Heian Japan. Iudicium Verlag, 1998.
Toby 1985
Ronald P. Toby. “Why Leave Nara? Kammu and the Transfer of the Capital.” Monumenta Nipponica 40:3 (1985), pp. 331–47.
Zachert 1932
Herbert Zachert. “Die kaiserlichen Erlasse des Shoku Nihongi in Text und Übersetzung mit Erläuterungen: I. Einleitung und Semmyô 1–29.” Asia Major 8 (1932), pp.
105–232.
Zachert 1950
Herbert Zachert. Semmyō: Die kaiserlichen Erlasse des Shoku-Nihongi. Akademie-Verlag,
1950.

51