Japanese Mythology

Hermeneutics on Scripture

Jun'ichi Isomae, Mukund Subramanian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781845531829
• eBook ISBN: 9781134949083
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Before the westernisation of Japan, mythological events were treated as national history. Two key documents have contributed to this history, both written over 1300 years ago: 'Kojiki', the Tale of Old Age, and 'Nihonshoki', the Chronicle of Japanese History. Both the Imperial Court and the general public searched for the origin of their identity in these documents, which took on the central and sacred role of scripture. Through the act of commentary and interpretation, the sacred books connected interpreters to their historical origins, authenticating where they came from, the emergence of the Japanese archipelago, and the uniqueness of the Japanese people. 'Japanese Mythology' explores the nation's attraction to this act of historical grounding and the varying identities that emerged during different historical periods. The study reveals that, rather than having any clear and unified substance, Japanese mythology has always been the result of a nostalgic desire to retrieve historical origins.

1 National History, Shintō, and Myth: General Remarks on the History of the Interpretation of the Kiki

Approaches to Japanese Mythology

Japanese mythology is typically identified with the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters) and Nihon shoki (Chronicle of Japan), which together are referred to as the Kiki. The works record the history of the Yamato kingdom and its rule, which extended throughout the Kinki region of Japan. Both were compiled, the Kojiki in 712 and the Nihon shoki in 720, when the Ritsuryō state (statutory system), which adopted the Chinese legal codes and institutions, was nearing completion. Both texts begin with tales of deities, narratives that are understood as myths today. Moreover, in the modern period, the Kiki texts have been understood in relation to the Western notion of “myth.” This urges us to question the way that this concept has been applied (noting that the term “myth” is not contained in the Kiki), and, consequently, how our understanding of the texts has been transformed.

Until recently, the study of Japanese mythology has been guided by the question of how to read the Kojiki and Nihon shoki in a self-referential manner. In other words, the texts alone have provided the assumed framework for all readings, and their significance within the discursive space of distinct historical periods has rarely been examined. This issue has been neglected by the two primary streams of interpretation in the postwar period. One stream, involving the Marxist historians Ishimoda Shō (1912–86) and Tōma Seita (1913–), who were influenced by Hegel, invokes a perspective on the materiality that originates from “the theory of the Heroic Age.”¹ This resulted from their re-reading the Kiki texts in terms of the memory of a primitive ethnic community dating back to pre-imperial times. The second stream involves Kōnoshi Takamitsu (1946–), a scholar of Japanese literature, and Mizubayashi Takeshi (1947–), a political historian.² Their orientation distinguishes the Kojiki and Nihon shoki as texts, attributing a distinct structure and coherence that one can say informs today’s main current of thought.

While issues of memory and amnesia within historical discourse, like the revisionist debate over the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre, have been extensively discussed within the field of modern history,³ likewise, regardless of the theme or time period, the predicament resulting from the annihilation of historical material confronts all fields of research. In this regard, one can conjecture that many written and orally transmitted narratives that have not been preserved must have existed alongside the Kiki texts. While the Kiki represented just one part of the whole discursive space of history in the ancient period, it worked to regulate other writings and oral traditions in an overarching manner.

Current research methods that discuss ancient Japanese mythology by focusing solely on the Kiki betray a textual approach that was once representative of the modern nation-state. An early manifestation of this textual approach can be seen in the works of Yoshimi Yoshikazu (1673–1761), a late Tokugawa period scholar belonging to Yamazaki Ansai’s Suika Shintō school. Yoshimi distinguished historical sources that clearly stated the date of composition and the names of authors from texts, including oral transmissions, whose origins were uncertain. For example, he rejected the Ise Shintō⁴ claim that the enshrined deity of the Outer Shrine, a shrine with close ties to the imperial house, was in fact Kuni-Tokotachi-no-mikoto by appealing to classical sources whose dates of composition were certain:

It is clear that the Outer Shrine originally did not enshrine Kuni-Tokotachi-no-mikoto. Those who make such claims believe only unofficial histories and mixed theories; they do not consult the state histories and official pronouncements…Not a single word that pronounces Kuni-Tokotachi-no-mikoto the enshrined deity of the Outer Shrine can be found in the true material records.⁵

As a result, it was determined that the Five Books of (Ise) Shintō (Shintō gobusho) and the Shintō texts of the Yoshida house, contrary to what was proclaimed, were not ancient. Instead, the Nihon shoki was granted higher status and proclaimed to be an authentic ancient source. Yoshimi declared that the familial documents which had been submitted to the court and the clan (uji) records that originally functioned to connect specific groups to the Kiki texts were inauthentic. During the early-modern period, the Kiki were separated from clan and family transmissions. In the process these texts became the repositories of national memory that was no longer connected to specific groups or families.

Subsequently, after Yoshimi, there was a time when scholars of Nativism applauded the Kojiki above all other texts. As the modern state founded on the imperial system (tennōsei kokka) took shape in the nineteenth century, accounts derived from the Kiki appeared as official history in state-sponsored textbooks. Thus, the Kiki functioned as the source of historical identity among national subjects (kokumin) and as the memory of a pure and continuous ethnic community (minzoku). One can say that already, by the late eighteenth century, Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801) had reinterpreted the Musuhi-no-kami (the deity enabling creation) in the Kiki as signifying the origin of all things, including human beings,⁶ stating:

All living things in this world…instinctively know well and perform those acts which they must each perform, and this all comes about through the august spirit of the Musuhi-no-kami. Human beings are born into this world as especially gifted beings.⁷

Let us now turn to the question of how the Kiki texts functioned in the ancient and medieval periods. What follows is an examination of how the Kiki were related to clan traditions (ujibumi) and familial records (kachō), Kiki commentaries, and Shintōist texts (Shintōsho). In the process, we will also discuss the transformation of the discursive space that signified these works over time.

Kōnoshi Takamitsu⁸ and Isomae Jun’ichi, among others, have researched the history of Kiki interpretation in order to trace the distinct worldviews that have been reflected onto the texts. Such approaches have tended to compare individual texts in a chronologically arranged fashion. However, non-Japanese scholars of world religions have brought to light the discursive space of interaction surrounding such written documents by introducing the three textual categories of canon, scripture, and commentary. As a result, texts such as the Bible or Confucian classics, which had previously been considered orthodox in an unchallenged manner, have been re-examined.⁹ Thus, scholars today refer to the “canonization process” rather than to the notion of a predetermined canon. It became apparent that applying this methodological approach to the Kiki would yield critical insights. Henceforth, in order to understand the historical nature of our present-day understanding of the Kiki, which also informs the horizon of our own contemporary research, the modern textual category referred to as the “scholarly essay” (constituting the fourth textual category) will also be examined.

The Ancient Discursive Space

As already noted, the Kiki were compiled in close relation to the establishment of the Ritsuryō state’s ruling structure. Although scholars have pointed out structural differences in the stories of the Kojiki and Nihon shoki, both texts sought to legitimate the hegemonic rule of the state founded on the imperial system. Let us first examine the foundational myth.

In the beginning, the order-less world divided into heaven and earth, and in the midst a solitary deity emerged. After several generations, the male deity Izanagi and the female deity Izanami materialized and gave birth to all things, including the land which was the Japanese archipelago, with its mountains, rivers, grass, and trees. In addition, three additional principal gods, Amaterasu Ōmikami, Tsukiyomi-no-mikoto, and Susanowo-no-mikoto, were born. Amaterasu ruled the heavens as the sun goddess and provided order to the mythical world of the Kiki, as the ancestral deity to the imperial house. The story goes on to provide an account of the origin of mortal death in the conflict between Izanagi and Izanami, and furthermore elaborates on the cycle of day and night as emerging from the battle between Tsukiyomi-no-mikoto, the moon god, and Amaterasu, the sun goddess.

Eventually, the grandson of Amaterasu, Ho-no-Ninigi-no-mikoto (a name referring to maturing ears of rice) descended from the heavenly realm to the earthly sphere, where he pacified the deities of the earth, represented by Ōkuninushi-no-mikoto. The stories involving the kami end by demonstrating that the descendants of Ho-no-Ninigi-no-mikoto (i.e., the emperors) possess the authority to rule the Japanese archipelago. The narrative then moves from the age of deities to the age of humans, recounting how successive emperors, beginning with Emperor Jimmu, and princes, such as Yamatotakeru, brought the Japanese islands (and perhaps even the Korean peninsula) under military, religious, and political control.

We should note from the outset that the texts were not intended for the subservient population but rather the aristocracy and the officials in the Yamato court. As Tsuda Sōkichi (1873–1961) has pointed out, the concept of divinity (kami) within the Kiki reveals a strong influence of Chinese Confucianism and is indicative of a clear conceptual bent that should have differed significantly from popular notions of the divine at the time.¹⁰ Furthermore, the characters within the Kiki belong largely to the imperial house and to the ruling elite, whereas other groups merely appear as objects of conquest.¹¹

From the Nara period (710–84) through the early Heian period (794–1185), lectures on commentaries of the Japanese Chronicles (Nihongi kōsho, approximately dated 721–965) were produced periodically for the central aristocracy in order to create a unified textual understanding of the Ritsuryō state.¹² There is no evidence that the commoners in regional villages, or the bemin slaves belonging to particular clans, read or were even informed about the Kiki.

In other words, the Kiki texts did not propagate the cultural unity of the subservient masses from the perspective of the ruling elite, as apparent in the modern nation-state. Rather, the texts were compiled to shape the communal memory of the ruling class. This is also apparent from the fact that the imperial chronicles (teiki) and ancient tales (kuji), which originally formed the basis for the Kiki texts, were selected from familial documents belonging to distinct clans (shizoku/ujizoku). This is how it is described in the teiki and kuji in relation to Emperor Tenmu’s reign.¹³

Let us further examine the relationship between the Kiki and the ruling class of the Yamato court. At the time, the term Kiki was never employed. Instead, six texts were referred to as “state histories” (kokushi), which included the Nihon shoki but not the Kojiki. To be precise, the status of the Nihon shoki as opposed to the Kojiki was evident. The Nihon shoki was included as the first book of Six National Histories (rikkokushi), while the Kojiki, regardless of the original intent behind its compilation, was understood merely as a variant of the Nihon shoki.¹⁴ In fact, by late antiquity, the Kojiki was hardly read at all.

At the same time, the historical discourse propounded by the Ritsuryō state was not restricted to state histories, but included familial records (kachō) and clan transmissions (ujibumi). As stated in the Shoku Nihon shoki “these things [articles of Shoku Nihon shoki] are recorded in detail in the state histories and familial records.”¹⁵ Each clan possessed its own tradition that had been transmitted and had thereby incorporated passages from the Nihon shoki. As a result, the clan claimed to hold an intimate relationship with the imperial house, which then extended to include the state. We can see this structure within the Kogoshūi (Gleanings from Ancient Stories; compiled 807) of the Inbe clan,¹⁶ in the Takahashi ujibumi (compiled approximately 789) of the Takahashi clan,¹⁷ and in the familial histories included in the Shinsen shōjiroku (compiled 815)¹⁸ and the Six National Histories. To illustrate such textual relations, let us examine a passage from the Nihon shoki alongside the corresponding passage from the Kogoshūi.

Takamimusubi-no-mikoto spoke and said, “we have raised Amatsuhimoroki (tree to worship heavenly deities) and Amatsuiwasaka (rock to worship heavenly deities) to bless our descendants. You two deities, Ame-no-Koyane-no-mikoto and Futodama-no-mikoto, descend to the Middle Land of the Reed Plains and bless our descendants. You two deities, both serve within the palace and guard it well.” He also spoke and said, “Take the ear of rice from the sanctified garden of our Plain of High Heaven and give it to our children.”….For this reason, Ame-no-Koyane-no-mikoto and Futodama-no-mikoto, and the gods of the leading families with them, gave rice to all. (Nihon shoki)¹⁹

In comparison, Kogoshūi states:

Amatsumioya Amaterasu Ōhokami, Tamamimusuhi-no-mikoto thus spoke and said, “We have raised Amatsuhimoroki and Amatsuiwasaka to bless our descendants. You two deities, Ame-no-Koyane-no-mikoto and Futodama-no-mikoto, descend to the Middle Land of the Reed Plains and bless our descendants. You two deities both serve within the palace and guard it well. Take the ear of rice from the sanctified garden of our Plain of High Heaven and give it to our children. Futodama-no-mikoto, lead the gods of the leading families and serve your lord, and do according to the command of heaven.” Thus the various gods also came to serve.²⁰

In this passage that closely mirrors the language of the Nihon shoki, the Kogoshūi inserts a section (italicized in the original) wherein only the ancestor of the Inbe clan, Futodama-no-mikoto, is honored. Previous research has tended to view sections that do not overlap with the Kiki as the actual transmissions of the clans, while the overlapping sections have been understood as falsifications produced subsequent to the Kiki texts. However, such an understanding reflects the unconstructive effects of modern-day research that focuses solely on the Kiki, which at the same time treats the clan transmissions as mere variants of the Kiki, thereby overlooking the differences that are prevalent with regard to the social function of the two texts. The function of the clan transmissions and the familial records was to chronicle the history of each group’s service to the court, which as a result fulfilled a political purpose in advocating the legitimacy of a given clan’s respective social position within the court. Although the example above comes from the Heian period, there are many cases recorded in the Six National Histories, including a dispu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: Hermeneutics on the Theory of Sacred Texts and Nostalgia toward Historical Origins
• Chapter 1 National History, Shintō, and Myth: General Remarks on the History of the Interpretation of the Kiki
• Chapter 2 The Canon and Variants: An Examination of the Mythology of Susanowo
• Chapter 3 Myth in Metamorphosis: Ancient and Medieval Versions of the Yamatotakeru Legend
• Chapter 4 Myth and Rationality: Understanding God in the Early-Modern and Modern Periods
• Chapter 5 Myth and Nationalism: Motoori Norinaga’s Creation Myths
• Chapter 6 The Space of Historical Discourse: Ishimoda Shō’s Theory of the Heroic Age
• Notes
• Index