Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1: 89–107© 2015 Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture

Yoshida Kazuhiko 吉田一彦

The Credibility of the Gangōji engi

The Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō (hereafter Gangōji engi) contains entries that cannot be accepted as historical facts, entries that do not
fit with the historical period for which they are claimed, and items that raise
doubts due to internal inconsistencies in the text itself. The text makes a dubious claim of composition on the eleventh day of the second month of Tenpyō
19 (747), but should be considered a forgery from a later period. The document appears to have been written as an engi for Toyuradera (Kenkōji) in
the late ninth century, the first stage of compilation. It was probably revisedand extended into its present form in the late Heian period (late-eleventh
to mid-twelfth century) as an engi of Gangōji, the second and final stage ofcompilation.

keywords: Daigoji archives—Gangōji engi—Toyuradera engi—Kenkōji—Gisai—transmission of Buddhism

Yoshida Kazuhiko is a Professor in the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Nagoya City University.

89

W

ith regard to the date for the transmission of Buddhism to Japan,
Japanese who received their education before the war (pre-1945) will
identify the date as 552 ce. This theory is based on the records of the
Nihon shoki 日本書紀, in an entry for the tenth month of Kinmei 13. Those whowent to school after the war, including myself, learned that the date was 538 ce.
In my case, I remember a large banner showing a chart with a detailed timelineof Japanese history strung across the top of the blackboard at the front of my elementary school classroom. Here it was clearly noted: “538, the transmission of
Buddhism.” This date was also taught in middle and high school history classes.
This is based on two texts, the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō 元興寺
伽藍縁起幷流記資財帳 and the Jōgū Shōtoku hōōtei setsu 上宮聖徳法王帝説, which
record that the transmission of Buddhism occurred in Kinmei 7, a bogo 戌午
year in the sixty-year cycle, matching the year 538 in the Western calendar. Many
recent junior and senior high school textbooks list both dates, since it is difficultfor historians to decide between them.
Which of these dates is correct? Or perhaps neither is correct? The report of thetransmission in the Nihon Shoki is very problematic, and it is difficult to support
the historicity of its account and the date of 552.1 But there are also problems withthe 538 date, and one should not simply accept it as a substitute for 552. The main
problem with this theory is that both of the documents in which it is found are fullof enigmas, authorship is uncertain, it is not clear when the text was produced, and
it is not known to what extent we can believe what it says. In short, its credibility asa historical document is suspect. Here I would like to take up one of these texts, theGangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō, and examine its textual characteristics,
the possible date of its composition, and the credibility of its content.
The Gangōji engi
The Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō is not a well- nor long-known
text; it is a newly-discovered historical document that came to light in the Meiji
period (1868–1912), discovered in the temple archives of Daigoji by the art histo* This article is a partial and slightly revised translation of Yoshida (2003). For further details
on the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō and the transmission of Buddhism to Japan,
see Yoshida (2012).
1. For details on the problems with the Nihon Shoki account, see my chapter on “Dōji nobunshō” 道慈の文章 in Ōyama (2003, 273–314).

90

yoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 91

rian Hirako Takurei. The Daigoji archives included a collection of engi in eighteen volumes, of which the second volume was labeled “Gangōji engi,” which
included the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizai. Hirako came across these
documents at Daigoji in Meiji 39 (1906), and introduced them to the scholarly
community the next year (see Hirako 1907a and 1907b). This was the first timethat these texts (and their contents) became known to the world.
The Gangōji engi consists of a bound booklet 27.1 cm long and 16.1 cm wide of
thick Japanese paper. Including the cover, it is made of thirty-eight pages (chō 丁).
Each half-page has six lines of text. The cover is light brown with a small chrysanthemum pattern, and “Gangōji engi” is written on the top left corner. The
inside pages use a whiter shade of Japanese paper made from mulberry (choshi
楮紙). All of the eighteen volumes of the engi documents kept at Daigoji have thesame characteristics, such that they appear to have been copied by a single person at one time. Volume one on Tōdaiji 東大寺 and volume 6 on Shōdaiji konryū
engi 招提寺建立縁起 include postscripts stating that these were copied by amonk named Bengō 弁豪 in the seventh month of Ken’ei 2 (1207), and proofread
by a monk named Kōen 光淵 in the ninth month of the same year. The Gangōji
engi also has a postscript attributed to Kōen, so it is safe to conclude that thisbooklet as a whole was copied on this date by Bengō and Kōen.2
The Gangōji engi booklet contains four texts:
1. Buppon denraiki 仏本伝来記
2. Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō
3. Bō koki 某古記
4. Jishun shikanmon 慈俊私勘文
It was the second item on Gangōji that drew the attention of Hirako and otherresearchers and that concerns us here. This section opens with a long engi text, followed by two inscription quotes: Tō fukubanmei 塔覆盤銘 (or Tō robanmei 塔露盤銘) and Jōroku kōmei 丈六光銘, and then some closing comments and a date,
and acknowledgments of examination by the Administrator of Monks ( 僧綱).
Finally there is a very short “outline of resources” (shizaichō 資財帳). The engi
text provides a detailed description of the early days of Buddhism in Japan: thetransmission of Buddhism from the Korean kingdom of Kudara 百済 to Japan(倭国) and its dates; Emperor Kinmei’s order to Empress Suiko to construct thefirst Buddhist hall; the controversy over whether or not Buddhism should be
accepted; accounts of the earliest Buddhist temples, the first ordinands, the construction of the two temples of Toyuradera 豊浦寺 and Gangōji 元興寺 based ona vow made by Suiko, and the donation of land and finances to these temples by
2. For details on the Gangōji engi text and the research on it since its discovery, see Yoshida2001.

92 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
Suiko; and so forth. The two “inscription quotes” are presented as transcriptions
from metal or stone objects and are highly valued as accurate indicators of thestate of early Buddhism in Japan, and many consider them of higher historicalvalue than the engi text itself.
doubts concerning the gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichōDespite interest in its contents, doubts were soon expressed about the authenticity of the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō. The text claims to havebeen produced on the eleventh day of the second month of Tenpyō 19 (747ce). However, when Hirako showed the text to his friend Kita Sadakichi, oneof the top historians of the time, Kita took one look and concluded that, basedon the content and form of the text, it could not be from the Tenpyō era but
was most likely a forgery produced in the late Heian period, that is, the eleventh
to twelfth century (see Kita 1980). Again, the well-known architect Fukuyama
Toshio claimed that the style of the text belongs to the late Nara period (eighth
century), and that the contents (except for the inscription quotes) could not be
trusted. Indeed, he dismissed it as a “clumsy forgery” (setsuretsu naru zōsaku 拙
劣なる造作; Fukuyama 1968).
Of course there are those who, even now, accept this text at its face value as
having been composed in 747. And there are still some theories that take this text
as a basis for discussing the early history of Buddhism in Japan. My understanding, however, is that, based on the content and form of this text, it must be a latercomposition. Since it falsely claims an earlier date or origin, it must be called apocryphal. Both Kita and Fukuyama had a keen eye, and it is crucial that further studies on this text should be based on the research of these eminent scholars. Thus
my interpretation of the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō is that it wascomposed as an engi in the later part of the ninth century at Kenkōji 建興寺 (Toyuradera; first stage), and then revised to its present form in the latter part of the
Heian period with addenda and modifications as an engi of Gangōji (second stage).
Problems with the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichōAs one reads the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō, one finds many
unbelievable passages. Here is a list of twelve of these issues, and some speculation on why and how the contents were composed.
1. the claim of umayato-toyotomiminomiko
The very beginning of the text claims that it was written by Umayato-toyotomiminomiko 厩戸皇子 in the hundredth year of Toyomikegashikiya-hime(Suiko 推古). Thus the text itself claims to have been written by Prince Umayato

yoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 93

(more commonly known as Shōtoku Taishi) in 613 ce (kiyū 癸酉, in the sixty-year
cycle). The date of composition given at the end of the text, however, is the eleventh day of the second month of Tenpyō 19 (747). These claims, as we shall see, are
not plausible, even if one ignores the internal inconsistency of the text. It is likelythat this opening claim was added during a later period when faith in Shōtoku
Taishi was popular.
2. the birthdate of suiko and the mukuhara palace
Next, this text claims that Buddhism was transmitted from the king of the
Korean kingdom Kudara in 538, and that Emperor Kinmei, following the adviceof Soga no Iname, instructed Suiko to honor Buddhism in her palace at Mukuhara 向原. Suiko followed these instructions and enshrined the Buddhist materials given by the king of Kudara and offered them homage. Given the imperialfamily lineage, it is impossible for Suiko to have become an adult by 538. According to the Nihon shoki, Suiko had not yet been born in 538. This engi distorts
history by placing Suiko’s birth forty years earlier, making her a hundred years
old in 613.
3. suiko and the mukuhara palace
The Nihon shoki claims that Soga no Iname’s house was located at Mukuhara,and that Iname turned this house into a temple when Buddhism was transmitted to Japan. The engi, however, not only claims that Suiko was already born at
this time, but also that the building at Mukuhara (here given as 牟久原), where
Buddhism was honored, was Suiko’s palace. This claim is also difficult to accept
as historical, and must be seen as an attempt to wrest credit for the early supportof Buddhism away from Iname and to Suiko. This is also related to the claims
concerning Toyuradera, as explained below.
4. the history of the relocation of toyuradera
Although this engi claims to be that of Gangōji, the longest passages are actuallythose concerning Toyuradera. Eventually the Buddhist facility established by Suiko(later known as “Mukuhara-dono” 牟久原殿) was relocated to another palace in
Sakurai, where the Sakurai dōjō 桜井道場 (later Sakuraidera) was built. Later, Suikoherself turned her own palace at Toyura 等由良の宮 into a temple and relocated
Sakuraidera to create Toyuradera (等由良寺, 豊浦寺). That is, according to this engi,
Toyuradera was established by Suiko by relocating the original site at Mukuhara
to Sakurai, and then to Toyuradera. Finally, the text claims that the very first ordinands in Japan were three nuns (including Zenshin’ni 善信尼) who lived at thistemple. However, these claims cannot be taken as historical.

94 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
First, as we have already pointed out, we cannot accept the claim that Suiko
had a palace at Mukuhara as historical. Next, with regard to the Buddhist establishment at Sakurai, the Nihon shoki does indeed record that three nuns (including Zenshin’ni) dwelt at Sakuraidera, but it does not say anything about where
this was located or what kind of temple it was. The Nihon shoki does not mention
any connection between Sakuraidera and Toyuradera, or that the three nuns had
any connection with Toyuradera. It appears that the story in the engi was createdto burnish Toyuradera’s reputation by claiming that the temple had been hometo the first ordinands in Japan. According to this engi, Toyuradera was heir tothe first Buddhist establishment at Mukuhara, and the proud home of this firstJapanese ordinand, but there is no basis for its historical veracity.
5. gangōji, kentsūji, and toyuraderaThis engi claims that Gangōji had its roots in Toyuradera (which had supposedly begun as the Mukuhara hall for nuns and then became Sakuraidera), andthat its original name was Kenkōji 建興寺. It also claims that a “monk’s temple”
僧寺 was also constructed here and called Kentsūji 建通寺. But this assertion isso historically implausible as to be absurd. Gangōji was never a temple for nuns.
Gangōji is the Buddhist title of the Asukadera established by the Soga family as thefirst genuine Buddhist temple in Japan, which was a temple for monks. In contrast,
Toyuradera was a temple for nuns, and its Buddhist name was Kenkōji. These two
establishments were two separate temples, constructed in different places with different names. The engi‘s efforts to unify these institutions reflects the complicatedprocess through which it was written rather than any historical fact.
6. the name “kentsūji”
The Buddhist titles of Gangōji and Hōkōji for Asukadera are well known throughentries in the Nihon shoki and Shoku Nihongi. The name Kentsūji, however, does
not appear in any historical record from the Nara and early to mid-Heian periods. It appears for the first time in the Shichi-daiji junrei shiki 七大寺巡礼私記,
a document from the twelfth century. Thus it appears that Kentsūji as anothername for Gangōji was unknown until a much later period than is claimed in theengi.
7. suiko’s name
This engi refers to Suiko as “Sakuraitoyura-no-miya chitenka” サクライトユラ
宮治天下, but this is also very suspicious. The Nihon shoki records that Suikoascended the throne as Toyuranomiya 豊浦宮, and retired as Oharida-no-miya
小墾田宮 in Suiko 11. Therefore Suiko is usually referred to as Oharida-no-miyayoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 95

chitenka (Gyo’u) 小墾田宮治天下(御宇). The name “Sakuraitoyura” does notappear in any other text, and the combination of two separate palaces—Saikurai
and Toyura—is suspicious. There is also no other example where the names of
two palaces—such as Chitenka and Gyo’u—are combined. This appears to be aneffort to support a false name by relying on the fabricated connections between
Mukuhara, Sakurai, and Toyura.
8. suiko as “great great king”
In this engi Suiko is referred to as the “Great Great King” (Dai-dai-ō 大々王).
The term “Great King” 大王 for the ruler in Japan was used before Tennō 天皇
became standard, but there is no other example in historical documents where“Great Great King” is used. Again, this is not being used as a general title for aruler. The engi itself uses “Tennō” to refer to the ruler, and “Great Great King” isused only to refer to Suiko. At first she is referred to only as “Great Great King,”
but after Bidatsu ascends the throne she is referred to as “Empress Great GreatKing” (大后大々王), and when she herself ascends the throne she is referred toas “Great Great King Emperor” (大々王天皇). This pattern of naming cannot befound anywhere else, and the combinations are also strange; it is unthinkablethat such titles were used in the sixth and seventh century.
9. suiko’s vow
This engi claims that the Toyuradera (as a nun’s temple) was established throughthe will of Emperor Kinmei at the advice of Iname, and through a vow made by
Suiko. It also claims that Hosshidera 法師寺 (Kentsūji) was built on the basis ofa vow by Suiko and at the behest of Umayatono miko (Shōtoku Taishi) and Sogano Umako. In other words, both Gangōji and Toyuradera are temples foundedthrough Suiko’s vows. In fact, however, although Asukadera (whose dharma
name is Gangōji) was constructed due to a vow by Umako, it is more likely that
Toyuradera (dharma name Kentsūji) was built as a temple for nuns by the Soga
family. Why, then, does this engi present a false premise? I will discuss this indetail later.
10. suiko’s donations
This engi claims that Suiko—when she was a hundred years old in 613 (a kiyūyear)—donated forests, parkland, lakes, stipends (fuko 封戸), and servants to atemple for nuns, and parkland, stipends, and servants to Hosshidera. However,there is no other historical record that mentions these donations, and the fuko
stipend system did not yet exist in Suiko’s time. Thus this claim cannot be recognized as historical.

96 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
11. kiyū year and the 613 date
As for the date 613, the Shinshō kyakuchokufushō 新抄格勅符抄 (a legal document from the Heian period) records for the twelfth month of Hōki 11 (780) thata stipend of 1700 units (ko 戸) was assigned to Asukadera for the first time in a
kiyū year, noting that another hundred units were assigned in the fifth month of
Hōki 11 (780), along with a list of how many units were assigned according tolocation. It adds that in this year, stipends were assigned for the first time also
to Daianji 大安寺 and Kawaharadera 川原寺. It is generally accepted (and I agree)that this “kiyū year” refers to Tenmu 2 (673). This engi, however, backs up a single
sixty-year cycle and speciously claims that this happened during the time of Suikoin 613.
12. the vow to protect the temples
This engi claims that Suiko, Umayato, and various ministers made a vow that thematerials donated to the two temples should not come to harm for ages, and thatanyone who tries to take them away should suffer various calamities. This claim
is also difficult to believe as historical. As Kita Sadakichi has pointed out, thisclaim must have been added in a later period when Gangōji or Toyuradera werein decline and were in danger of losing their land and treasures.
additions of a later age, or composed in a later age?
If we look at the history of research on the engi, one comes across the theory thatthese suspicious passages were “later additions.” That is, they admit that there issome suspicious content, but assert that the problematic passages must be additions of a later age, whereas the rest of the text can be admitted as having been
written in Tenpyō 19 (747). I cannot accept this interpretation, and believe thatthe entire text was composed at a later date. First, the suspicious contents are
all part of the basic sections of this engi, especially items 4–6 and 9–12. Items 2,
3, and 7 are also integral parts of the text, and the claims of items 6, 7, and 8 are
related to matters throughout the text. If we remove the suspicious parts, theentire engi loses its central contents. It is thus unreasonable to claim that the engi
was composed in 747, with some parts added at a later time; it should be understood that the entire text was written at a later date.
the composition of the “outline of resources”
As for the “outline of resources” (shizaichō) at the end of the Gangōji garan engi
narabini ruki shizaichō, it contains only three entries, which is very short andunusual for such texts from the ancient period. What is the reason for such a
dearth of entries? In addition, the placement of these entries is strange. Usuallyyoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 97

these kinds of entries come before the closing remarks and date of the text, but
in this engi they come after. What accounts for this anomaly?
This engi claims that Gangōji was constructed due to a vow by Suiko, and thatshe donated “parklands, stipends, and servants” to Hosshidera in a kiyū year, andthat Prince Umayato composed the engi in this year. If that were so, then it would
be proper to see this “outline of resources” as referring to the parkland, stipends,
and servants that were donated by Suiko in a kiyū year. We could then understand
why this part was added after the notation on the date, and why only three items
were listed, that is, these three items would refer to the supposed donations by
Suiko. The donation of “stipends” (fuko 封戸) reflects the information found in the
Shinshō kyakuchokufushō. Thus it is likely that the assignment of these donations
to “a kiyū year” follows this entry or some other source based upon it. Consequently, it must be concluded that this “outline of resources” cannot be accepted
as being from the Tenpyō era, but must instead be viewed as part and parcel of thelater forgery in order to give credence to the main text.
the two inscription quotes
What, then, are we to make of the two inscription quotes, the (a) Tō fukubanmeiand (b) Jōroku kōmei? Inscription (a) claims to be from Kentsūji (Gangōji), andis a remarkable fit with the forged text of the engi. The suspicious terms “Sakuraitoyura no miya” and “Kentsūji” are the same as those used in the engi. Accordingly, these inscriptions could not have been inscribed on some memorial during
the time of Suiko, but must have been created at a later date at the same time andby the same person as the composer of the engi. As for the titles of the inscriptions, the character 露 in Tō fukubanmei as copied by Bengō is corrected to 覆 by
the editor Kōen, so that the correct reading is 塔覆盤銘 instead of 塔露盤銘.
How about inscription (b)? This inscription also claims that Gangōji was constructed at the behest of Umayato and Umako and due to the vow of Suiko, matching the claims of the engi text. It also uses the suspicious term “Sakuraitoyura no
miya.” Thus we must conclude that this inscription also was forged by the same
person at the same time as the engi text itself. Neither inscription (a) nor (b) can
be considered authentic records from memorials dating from the times of Suiko.
The Date of Composition of the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichōWhen was this text written? Who wrote it, and for what purpose? It is not easy toanswer these questions, but it seems that the text was created in two stages. The
first person to come to this conclusion was Fukuyama Toshio. When he read theengi, he was surprised to find that most of the text goes on and on about the history of Toyuradera, and not the history of Gangōji (Asukadera). Fukuyama concluded that the original text was written as an engi for Toyuradera, and was later98 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
rewritten into its current form as an engi for Gangōji. This is an insightful conclusion, and is most useful for understanding the engi. However, Fukuyama also
thought that the original Toyuradera engi was composed in ancient times, before
the Nihon shoki. I disagree. I think that the Toyuradera engi, which formed thebasis for the later Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō, was probably written
in the late ninth century, when there were struggles for control over Toyuradera,
and that it was composed as a text for one side to claim legitimacy.
the history of toyuradera
Let us step back a bit and take a look at the history of Toyuradera. This temple
was one of the first in Japan, and was a temple for nuns. Its origins are obscure,
but Fukuyama Toshio speculates that it was constructed near the home of Sogano Emishi during the reign of Emperor Jomei. This theory was followed andmodified by Shimizu Akihiro, suggesting that the temple was constructed by the
Soga family before the death of Suiko in 628 ce (Shimizu 2000). This is a reasonable assumption.
This temple first appears in historical records in an entry on the enthronement of Emperor Yōmei (585) in the Nihon shoki, which notes that Yamashiro noŌe no Ō 山背大兄王 stayed at “Toyuradera” when he was visiting Soga no Emishi. The next mention of Toyuradera is from an entry on the twelfth month of
Shuchō 1 (686), where this temple is listed along with the temples Daikan 大官,
Asuka 飛鳥, Kawahara 川原, Oharida 小墾田, and Sakata 坂田 as the sites where aMusha Taie 無遮大会 ceremony (for ritually sharing donations) was conducted.
This entry indicates that Toyuradera was one of the representative temples ofJapan in the later seventh century, and also that it was clearly a separate institution from that of Asukadera. In the Shoku Nihongi, the name “Kenkōji” can befound in entries for the fifth and seventh months of Tenpyō 1 (749). The earlier
entry tells of the donation of various goods and land to important temples topromote the long life of Emperor Shōmu and the salvation of sentient beings.
The second entry concerns the limits of the land donated to the temples. These
entries list the representative and important temples of the time, and include thename of Kenkōji, as well as a separate entry for Gangōji. From this it is clear that,in the mid-eighth century, Kenkōji was considered a major temple, and at thistime was a different temple than Gangōji.
disputes over the control of toyuradera
By the latter half of the ninth century, Toyuradera (or Kenkōji) suffered from ageneral decline, and was the focus of disputes over its control and management.
The Nihon sandai jitsuroku 日本三代実録 contains a detailed description ofthis matter in its entry for the twenty-third day of the eighth month of Gangyō

yoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 99
元慶 6 (882).3 According to this text, a dispute had arisen over the management(kenryō 撿領) of Kenkōji. People such as Soga no Kimura 宗岳木村 claimed thatthey had the right to manage the temple, and filed a suit to that effect with thegovernment. Gisai 義済, the current head (bettō 別当) of Kenkōji, disagreed.
Before examining this further, let us take a look at the situation of theseclaimants. The Soga family had been the strongest political force in the country
during the sixth and seventh centuries, but had lost out in a power struggle with
the imperial family. By the eighth century they had become a sidelined aristocratic family and taken the name “Ishikawa” 石川. Their power weakened evenfurther as they entered the Heian period, falling to a middling aristocratic levelor even lower. Right about the time of this dispute, this person (Ishikawa no
Kimura 石川木村, later Soga no Kimura) petitioned to recover his family’s ancestral name and resurrect the name Soga 宗岳 (later read “Muneoka”; see the entry
in the Nihon sandai jitsuroku for the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month of
Gangyō 1 [877]).
Kenkōji, on the other hand, was active as a temple for nuns in the seventh andeighth centuries. By the early Heian period, however, temples for nuns were in
decline, with their management handed over to male monks, the temple itself
becoming a residence for monks, or even becoming an abandoned temple (seeUshiyama 1990), and Kenkōji was no exception. The man named Gisai was amale monk affiliated with Gangōji, who had become head of Kenkōji. On theother hand, Soga was the main hereditary patron (dan’otsu 檀越) and thus had
the authority to speak on matters of temple management, giving us a case of apower struggle between older and newer authorities. Gisai wished to strengthen
his authority at the temple, and it is likely that he meant to make Kenkōji an affiliated or branch temple of Gangōji. There was a general tendency during the ninth
century for large temples to absorb smaller or rural temples as affliliated (betsuin
別院) or branch (matsuji 末寺) temples, which eventually developed into the“main and branch temple system” (hon-matsu taisei 本末体制) of medieval Japan.
In this dispute, Soga no Kimura claimed rights with regard to Kenkōji
based on the fact that it was a temple established by his family ancestor Sogano Iname. For evidence, Soga no Kimura submitted a document on the originsof the temple (hon-engi 本縁記), which described the history of Kenkōji with
Soga no Iname as the founder. Gisai, on the other hand, claimed that Kenkōji
was a temple that was originally a palace of Empress Suiko, and that it was not atemple of the Soga family. Gisai’s side submitted two pieces of evidence: Councilof State edicts (daijō kanpu 太政官符), the first (a) dated the thirteenth day of
the ninth month of Ninju 4 (854), and the second (b) the twenty-fifth day of theninth month of Jōgan 3 (861). The content of these documents reflects Gisai’s
3. For a yomikudashi of the original kanbun text, see Yoshida 2003, 106.

100 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
standpoint, so it is possible that he had influenced the government in advance toissue official documents supporting his cause. It is also possible that the documents were forged. They are not found in historical records of the time such as
the Ruijū sandaikyaku 類聚三代格 and Ruijū fusenshō 類聚符宣抄, and the contents suspiciously match the claims of Gisai. The contents of the document submitted by Soga are not known, but it is possible that this document was also aforgery.
Document (a) submitted by Gisai claims that Kenkōji is a temple that hadoriginally been located at Empress Suiko’s palace, and that the engi was written“formerly” (zenshi 前志). The characters for zenshi can also be read “saki ni shiruseshi mono,” which probably refers to an older document that records the temple’s history. This document was no doubt submitted to counteract the origin
text submitted by Soga no Kimura. The dispute thus hinged on the contents of
two origin texts. The Soga text claimed that Toyuradera was established throughconverting the building at Suiko’s Toyura palace, and that it represents the earliest appearance of the Buddha Dharma in Japan. It adds that Suiko donated “landand servants,” and that her vow was firm and earnest. The content is remarkably
close to that of the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō. On the other hand,
Gisai’s document (a) claims that the temple management (gōi 綱維) had neglected
temple upkeep and allowed it to fall into ruin, and that temple treasures had
been usurped to pay for secular expenses, which is counter to the express intent
of Suiko’s vow. It concludes that management of the temple should be assigned
to the current supervisor (chōkan 長官; that is, Gisai), and not the official management (sangō 三綱). Gisai’s document (b) refers to the “secular head” (zokubettō 俗別当)—presumably a member of the Soga family—as causing damage tothe temple, and ordering them to stop their activity. This document says exactly
what Gisai is claiming, and seems to be either the result of backroom intrigue oran outright forgery. It appears that at this time the official management, the temple patrons such as the Soga family, and the “secular head” had joined together
in opposing Gisai and his encroachment on Gangōji. In response, Gisai sought
to completely annihilate their stance, and fought back with these official documents. In the end, the government sided with Gisai and rejected the claims of theSoga family.
the first stage of composition
In light of this case, the Toyuradera engi that served as the basis for the Gangōjigaran engi narabini ruki shizaichō must have been the “former” zenshi text submitted by Gisai, rather than the hon-engi origin story submitted by Soga. Indeed,
the contents match up nicely. Where, then, did this text come from? The zenshi
text denies that Toyuradera was originally a temple of the Soga family. It is filledyoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 101with ahistorical claims regarding the origin of Buddhism in Japan, and Suiko’s
donations of land and servants, and cannot be an ancient text with a proper pedigree. The content contradicts that of the Nihon shoki, and it goes without sayingthat it cannot be a temple engi composed before the Nihon shoki (in general it isunthinkable that temple engi were composed as official documents before thetime of Nihon shoki). In addition, the content specifically attacks and completelydenies the claims and rights of the Soga family. I believe it is safe to conclude
that this text was forged specifically to present to the court as a refutation of the
hon-engi document submitted by the Soga family.
Thus, the Toyuradera engi that served as the basis for the Gangōji garan engi
narabini ruki shizaichō was either the zenshi text itself, or a modified form of
it that was closer to a temple engi. Which of these is more likely? If we lookat the section on the judgment by the government at the end of the passage in
the Nihon sandai jitsuroku, Gisai claimed that although Toyuradera originatedas a Buddhist hall built by Soga no Iname, it was Suiko who offered her palacegrounds as a place for the temple to be reconstructed. He adds that Soga no
Iname was in charge of building a Buddhist stupa by imperial order. This part ofthe story is a bit different from that found in the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki
shizaichō, which does not mention Iname’s construction of a stupa. Gisai further
buttresses his position by claiming that the Buddhist hall of Mukuhara was notpart of Iname’s house but rather a part of Suiko’s palace, which further minimizes Iname’s role. In light of these points, we may conclude that the Toyuraderaengi that served as the basis for the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō
was not the zenshi text itself. Instead, it had been modified with further content
and rewritten in the form of a temple engi. It was probably written at around thetime of the Gisai-Soga Kimura dispute, that is, the latter part of the ninth century, and the author may have been Gisai himself or someone connected to him
and Gangōji. This would be the first stage in the composition of this text, which
was probably called the Kenkōji engi at the time.
the kenkōji engi text
Is it possible that the original Toyuradera (Kenkōji) text still exists somewhere?
Unfortunately, we do not have a full text, but an excerpt is quoted in a document
called the Tennōji hiketsu (Deibarajaji makashosei hiketsu) 天王寺秘決 (提婆羅惹寺摩訶所生秘決). The Hiketsu refers to it as Kenkōji engi, in only two shortexcerpts.4 The first says that, according to a Kenkōji engi, Buddhist objects were
presented to Japan by the King of the Kudara kingdom on the twelfth day of the
4. For the original text see Yoshida (2003, 111), which is taken from a 1291 document in the
Maeda Ikutokukai Sonkeikaku Bunko 前田育徳会尊経閣文庫 (see Tanahashi 1996).

102 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
twelfth month of Emperor Hironiwa (Kinmei 7). The second quotes the Kenkōji
engi as referring to the ordination of three nuns, including Zenshin.
If we compare these quotes with the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki
shizaichō, the text concerning the offering of Buddhist objects matches quite
closely. The Kenkōji engi quote identifies the Buddhist objects as “a statue ofPrince [Siddārtha], a vessel for an initiation ceremony (kanbutsu no ki 灌仏之器),
and one scroll on the origin of the Buddha 説仏起書,” which is the same threeobjects identified in the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō. Again, these
are the only two documents that identify these same three objects, indicatingthat these two texts are related. Again, the kanji used for Kuratsuri no obito tatto(按師首達等) and the names of the three nuns, as well as the phrasing indicatingthat these ordinations occurred at the behest of a government minister (大臣即喜令出家), are unique to these two texts. In other words, they are like two peas
in a pod in terms of content, style, and use of kanji.
The odds are high that the document known as the Kenkōji engi was thebasis for the document that became the engi for Toyuradera (Kenkōji) and is
now known as Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō. It is unfortunate thatthe complete text no longer survives, but the available quotes offer sufficientgrounds for such conjecture. In sum, we can conclude that the Kenkōji engi is
not an engi that is derived from the hon-engi submitted by the Soga family, butrather derives from an engi related to the zenshi text, composed in the latter halfof the ninth century by Gisai of Gangōji or someone in that tradition.
the second stage of composition
When, then, was the Kenkōji engi revised to produce the document we now
know as Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō, and what were the circumstances? As for the date, I believe that the latter part of the Heian period is themost likely. It has already been some time since Kita Sadakichi (1980) argued
that the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō is a forgery from the latter
Heian period. Kita is well known as a shrewd evaluator of ancient texts, andthough one may disagree with some of the details of his theories, I believe his
conclusion that this text can be dated to the late Heian period is incontrovertible. My main point of contention is that we should follow the analysis of Fukuyama by dividing the composition of this text into two stages.
As for the modifications, it must have taken some effort to turn what was originally an engi of a temple of nuns into an engi for a temple of monks. If we look at
the final results, the first and longest section goes on and on about the history of atemple of nuns, switching suddenly to a section concerning a temple for monks,
leaving a somewhat uneasy sense of imbalance. But perhaps there was no otherchoice. When, then, was the section on the temple of monks written, and is ityoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 103

possible to identify the period when these modifications were made? One major
hint is the introduction of the temple name “Kentsūji.” As mentioned earlier, there
are no ancient records that refer to Asukadera (Gangōji) as Kentsūji, and so common sense concerning ancient history disallows such a name. It seems that it wasforged to reflect the temple name “Kenkōji.” Both names use the same character,ken 建, and the similar tsū 通 substitutes for kō 興. As explained above, the nameKentsūji appears for the first time in the Shichi-daiji junrei shiki of the twelfth
century. Probably the name Kentsūji was created for the Gangōji garan engi
narabini ruki shizaichō and later popularized by people affiliated with Gangōji,
and then found its way into the pilgrimage text of the Shichi-daiji junrei shiki.
Kita has claimed that the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō was written (a) after the decline of Gangōji; (b) after the Fusō ryakki 扶桑略記 and Iroha
jiruishō 伊呂波字類抄, since neither of these texts mention it; and (c) before the
Gangōji engi copy dated the eleventh day of the fourth month of Chōkan 3 (1165).
This is an admirable theory, except that it includes Kita’s misunderstanding concerning the Iroha jiruishō. This text does, in fact, include a section that relies on
the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō, so the Iroha jiruishō must postdate
it. Also, it is important to consider the entry in the Shichi-daiji junrei shiki. Thus
I would modify Kita’s theory as follows: (a) the text was written after the declineof Gangōji; (b) since it is not mentioned in the Fusō ryakki (end of the eleventh
to the beginning of the twelfth century), it was written after this time; and (c) it
was written before the mention of Kentsūji in the Shichi-daiji junrei shiki (midtwelfth century). On this basis I conclude that the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki
shizaichō was forged into its present form during the late Heian period, sometime
between the latter part of the eleventh century and the mid-twelfth century.
additions at the second stage of composition
The entries on Kentsūji, a temple for monks, should all be considered additions ormodifications to an engi on Kenkōji, these occurring at a second stage of composition. Therefore the section on Suiko, Umayato-toyotomiminomiko, and Umako
founding Hosshidera (a temple for monks) in addition to a temple for nuns, thesection saying that Hosshidera was renamed “Kentsūji,” the section on Suiko
donating treasures to Hosshidera in addition to the temple for nuns, the section
on the construction of two Buddhist statues (jōroku-butsu niku 丈六仏二軀), andso forth should all be considered additions from this second stage. Again, theKentsūji portion of the Gangōji engi states that Suiko donated mountain forests,
parkland, lakes, stipends, and servants to a temple for nuns, and donated parkland, stipends, and servants to Hosshidera. The donations listed in the shizaichōrefer to the property donated to Hosshidera (a temple for monks), so it should
be understood as added in reference to the temple for monks. If this surmise is104 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)
correct, the shizaichō section was not part of the document at the first stage ofcomposition, but was composed and added during the second stage.
Why, then, was such a forgery composed at the latter part of the Heianperiod? Near the end of this engi there is a long section that tells how Suiko vowsthat the property donated to these two temples should not be endangered for allages, and that Prince Umayato and all his ministers also had the same wishes.
This section is conspicuously long and unnaturally emphatic. It adds the threatthat anyone who tries to take away this property should suffer great misfortune
and disaster. This indicates that the engi was written to protect Gangōji in some
way at a time when the temple was on the wane and in danger of losing its property. If we take a look at the history of Gangōji (see Iwaki 1999), the latter partof the Heian period was just such a time, when it would have been necessary to
make such claims. Thus it is safe to conclude that the motive for composing thisengi was to protect the temple from external threats and further erosion of thetemple’s influence. During this time, Kōfukuji 興福寺 monks were appointed as
the head (bettō) of Gangōji, so it may be that this text was composed to counteract
the influence of Kōfukuji on Gangōji. It is likely that the composer of this text
borrowed an earlier temple engi, revised it, and thus forged the Gangōji garan engi
narabini ruki shizaichō in order to protect and/or restore the temple’s influence.
A final revision to the text concerned the identity of the nuns said to haveresided at Toyuradera. The Gangōji engi claims that a nun named Hōmyō 法明 anda laicized monk named Eben 恵便 served as the teachers to three nuns, including
Zenshin’ni. By contrast, the Nihon shoki mentions only Eben. The same is true ofthe Kenkōji engi quoted in the Hiketsu. Thus, it is likely that Hōmyō was not listed
in the earlier version of the text, but added at the second stage. Moreover, reference
to a nun named Hōmyō brings to mind the Korean/Kudara Zen nun Hōmyō who
appears in the Yuima-e engi 維摩会縁起 (900). It appears that the composer of thisforgery felt that it was of insufficient import to have the teacher of these three nuns
to be only a laicized monk, and thus added the name of a famous nun. This item
must also be considered an addition at the second stage of composition.
Thus we conclude that the engi of Toyuradera that was composed around thelatter half of the ninth century was revised toward the end of the Heian period
into what we now have as the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō.
the gangō engi referred to by saichō
Saichō, the founder of the Tendai school on Mt. Hiei, wrote a treatise on theprecepts called Kenkairon 顕戒論, which contains a discussion of the role of theprecepts in response to a scholar-monk named Gomyō 護命, who represented
the Nara schools. This text contains a famous reference to a “Gangō engi” 元興
縁起, which appears in the context of a discussion of the transmission of Bud-yoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 105

dhism to Japan. Gomyō argued that “The Buddha Dharma was presented to the
Shikishima-no-miya-gyo’u Tennō 志貴嶋宮御宇天皇 [Emperor Kinmei] by theKing of Kudara in the year bogo (538) of the sixty-year cycle, and it has been
revered by the noble ruler ever since without fail.” In contrast, Saichō claimed
that “the enthronement of the emperor was in a kōshin 庚申 year and Emperor
Kinmei reigned for thirty-two years. If we examine the calendar carefully, there
is no bogo year [during his reign], and the Gangō engi claiming the bogo year iscontrary to the actual record.” This exchange shows that there was a text called
the Gangō engi during the time of Saichō and Gomyō, and contrary to the recordin the Nihon shoki, Buddhism was transmitted to Japan during a bogo year of the
sixty-year cycle. Saichō rejected this claim and took instead the “actual record”(here probably referring to the Nihon shoki), that Emperor Kinmei (also known
as Shikishima-no-miya-gyo’u Tennō) reigned for thirty-two years. This period,
however, does not include a bogo year of the sixty-year cycle, and therefore theclaim in the Gangō engi is mistaken.
What is this text that Saichō refers to as the Gangō engi? Hirako Takurei, who
discovered the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō at Daigoji, believedthat it was indeed the Gangō engi referred to by Saichō. In contrast, Kita Sadakichi argues that Hirako’s claim is mistaken, and that these two texts cannot be
the same. My conclusion is to agree with Kita, that these are two different texts.
Since, as we have seen above, the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō isa forgery from the late Heian period, the text referred to by Gomyō and Saichōmust be a different engi associated with Gangōji.
reconsidering the date of the transmission of buddhism to japan
As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, we have two claims to the date of
the transmission of Buddhism to Japan: the Nihon shoki opts for Kinmei 13 (552),
and a number of texts claim “Kinmei 7, a bogo year [of the sixty-year cycle]”(538). However, it has been shown that the section on the transmission of Buddhism in the Nihon shoki was influenced by texts such as the Konkōmyō saishō
ō kyō 金光明最勝王経, and was probably composed by the Buddhist monk Dōji
道慈 (?–744), a prominent Sanron monk. The year 552 was chosen because it was
believed at the time to mark the beginning of the degenerate mappō period, andcannot be taken as reflecting historical fact.
As for the texts that claim the 538 date, we must remove the Gangōji garan engi
narabini ruki shizaichō from consideration, since it is a forgery from the late Heianperiod and not historically reliable. The other source, the Jōgū Shōtoku hōō teisetsu,
is a compilation of a number of independent texts and, according to a detailed
analysis by Ienaga and Tsukishima, it should be divided into five separate sections (Ienaga and Tsukishima 1975). The reference to the 538 date is in the fourth106 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42/1 (2015)section. Ienaga and Tsukishima concluded that this section was composed “aroundthe eighth century,” but I think that it is at best from the end of the eighth century
and more likely from the early part of the Heian period in the ninth century. Thismeans that it is not a particularly ancient text.5 The oldest document that claims
the 538 date seems to be the Gangō engi referred to by Saichō and Gomyō, which
is not extant and is referred to only in Saichō’s Kenkairon. Given what we know
about the development of temple engi in general, it can be surmised that this text
probably was composed as a “history” (engi) of Gangōji in the mid- to late eighth
century.
Thus we must conclude that the 552 date was a later pretense, and cannot be
accepted as historically accurate. The 538 date may reflect an ancient transmission passed on by the Soga family or Asakusadera, and requires further investigation, but at this time there is no solid textual evidence that the claim predates
the composition of the Nihon shoki, and therefore accepting this claim is also
problematic. The least we can say is that by the end of the seventh century, it
was believed that Buddhism had been transmitted to Japan during the reign ofEmperor Kinmei, or during the time of Soga no Iname, but without determining
any specific date. In short, the best that can be said is that Buddhism was transmitted to Japan sometime around the middle of the sixth century.
Conclusion
I have concluded that the Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō was first composed as an engi of Kenkōji (Toyuradera) in the latter half of the ninth century(first stage), and was revised in the latter part of the Heian period with addenda
and modifications as an engi of Gangōji (second stage) to reach its present form.
Thus the date (eleventh day of the second month of Tenpyō 19 [747]) affixed tothe text is a false attribution and cannot be accepted as historically accurate. The
content also cannot be considered as historical fact, and unfortunately we cannot
take its description of early Buddhist history—nor the accounts of the founding,construction, and art of Toyuradera and Asukadera—as historically accurate.
Nevertheless it is an important document in considering the conflict with regard
to control over Kenkōji in the latter part of the ninth century, and a reflection of
the popularity and influence of faith in Shōtoku Taishi during this period. The
significance of this faith and popularity of Shōtoku Taishi in the history and culture of Japan is a topic that should be pursued further.

5. For more details on this text, see the article by Ōyama Seiichi on “‘Jōgū Shōtoku hōō teisetsu’seiritsu shiron” 「上宮聖徳法王帝説」成立試論 in Ōyama 2003, 147–68.

yoshida: credibility of the gangōji engi | 107references
Fujita Tsuneyo 藤田経世
1973 Kōkan bijutsu shiryō jiinhen jō 校刊美術史料寺院篇上. Tokyo: Chūōkōronbijutsu Shuppan.
Fukuyama Toshio 福山敏男
1968 Nihon kenchikushi kenkyū 日本建築史研究. Tokyo: Bokusui Shobō.
Hirako Takurei 平子鐸嶺
1907a Umako no Ōomi 有明大臣＜ウマコノオオオミ＞. Gakutō 学燈 11: 103–107.
1907b Gangōji engi ni shirusareta Bukkyō denrai no nendai 元興寺縁起に記された仏教伝来の年代. Gakutō 11: 149–53.
Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎 and Tsukishima Hiroshi 築島 裕
1975 Jōgū Shōtoku hōō teisetsu 上宮聖徳法王帝説 . In Shōtoku Taishi shū 聖徳
太子集, Ienaga Saburō, Fujieda Akira 藤枝晃, and Tsukishima Hiroshi,
eds. Nihon Shisō Taikei 2: 353–427. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Iwaki Takatoshi 岩城隆利
1999 Gangōji no rekishi 元興寺の歴史. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Kita Sadakichi 喜田貞吉
1980 Daigoji-bon “Shoji engishū” shoshū “Gangōji engi” ni tsuite 醍醐寺本
「緒寺縁起集」所収「元興寺縁起」について. In Kita Sadakichi chosakushū
6 Nara jidai no jiin 喜田貞吉著作集6奈良時代の寺院, 90–126. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Ōyama Seiichi 大山誠一, ed.
2003 Shōtoku Taishi no shinjitsu 聖徳太子の真実. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Shimizu Akihiro 清水昭博
2000 Kōkuri-kei Nokimarugawara no bunpu to sono haikei 高句麗系軒丸瓦の分布とその背景. Kodai bunka 52: 577–95.
Tanahashi Toshimitsu 棚橋利光
1996 Tennōji hiketsu 天王寺秘決. In Shitennōji komonjo 1 四天王寺古文書 1, ed.
Tanahashi Toshimitsu, 20–60. Osaka: Seibundō Shuppan.
Ushiyama Yoshiyuki 牛山佳幸
1990 Kodai chūsei jiin soshiki no kenkyū 古代中世寺院組織の研究 . Tokyo:
Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Yoshida Kazuhiko 吉田一彦
2001 Gangōji engi o meguru shomondai 元興寺縁起をめぐる諸問題. Kodai 古代
110: 267–88.
2003 Gangōji garan engi narabini ruki shizaichō no shinpyōsei 元興寺伽藍縁起
幷流記資財帳の信憑性. In Ōyama 2003, 91–122.
2012 Bukkyō denrai no kenkyū 仏教伝来の研究. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
[translated by Paul L. Swanson]