Asymmetric Time: Keisei’s Oracular Conversations with the Great Tengu of Mount Hira

1 Introduction

In 1239, Tendai monk Shōgetsubō Keisei (1189–1268), was called to the residence of his brother Kujō Michiie (1193–1252), who had succumbed to a sudden illness. In a short document entitled Oracles of the Old Man of Mount Hira (Hirasan kojin reitaku 比良山古人霊託), Keisei recounted how, upon his arrival at his brother’s residence, a young lady-in-waiting became possessed by a mountain spirit or deity claiming to be the Great Tengu of Mount Hira. Keisei played the role of witness, facilitator and interpreter of the deity’s words. The term tengu, literally “celestial dog,” designates a category of beings that cover the entire range from malevolent demons to benevolent protector deities, without ever losing their air of ambivalence. One of their more permanent characteristics is that of possessing human beings for a variety of purposes that can be either ill- or well-meaning. Hirasan kojin reitaku describes such a possession process and provides a detailed and comprehensive record of a series of dialogues that took place between Keisei and the Great Tengu. Keisei wrote it shortly after Michiie recovered from his illness and completed it with a colophon in 1254.

My objective in this article is twofold. First, I will introduce Keisei and his position in the Kujō family, as well as the production context of Hirasan kojin reitaku. Second, I will analyze the narrative structure of our document and reflect upon the possible meaning and place of an oracular text of this kind within the Kujō family dynamics. My intention is to bring to the fore the ways in which Keisei’s recounting of his conversations with the tengu reveal the temporal and emotional framework at play in Hirasan kojin reitaku. Although this text is of a partly documentary nature, it is highly subjective in its timing, content and scope. It is not my purpose to discuss the historical veracity or historicity of the encounter described in Hirasan kojin reitaku. I follow in this a distinction suggested by anthropologist Sakurai Tokutarō, between the ‘historical veracity/truth’ (rekishiteki shinjitsu 歴史的真実) and the ‘historical veridicity/reality’ (rekishiteki jijitsu 歴史的事実) of a given document. In his discussion of the genre of jisha engi 寺社縁起 (foundation narratives of temples and shrines), Sakurai states that the lack of historical reality does not preclude a lack of historical veracity or truth.^{[1] , [2]} Stepping away from the perceived necessity to transmit ‘science-based’ facts thus allows for a more inclusive approach and a less ambiguous appreciation of ‘oracular’ texts such as Hirasan kojin reitaku.

2 Keisei and the Kujō Family

Keisei, or Shōgetsubō Keisei 證月坊慶政 (1189–1268) was born only a few years after the end of the Genpei War (1180–1185).^[3] His lifespan thus encompassed both the reconstruction of what was destroyed in the conflict and the dawn of the Kamakura regime, in which some of his closest family members played a central role. Keisei is briefly mentioned as a role model for moral conduct in Collection of Sand and Pebbles (Shaseki-shū 沙石集, 1283) and several imperial anthologies include poems by him. His name appears in a single fifteenth century clerical genealogy, The Continued Mii Lamp Account (Mii zoku tōki 三井続燈記, 1483; DNBZ 111 Denki sōsho 伝記叢書). Although very brief, this mention linked him directly to Onjōji 園城寺, Enryakuji’s 延暦寺 rival temple in vying for supremacy in the Tendai school of Buddhism during the medieval period. However, beyond these few elements, Keisei was all but forgotten between the thirteenth and the twentieth century.^[4]

In 1970, the Imperial Household Agency (Kunaichō 宮内庁) published an Anthology of Temple Histories (Shoji engi-shū 諸寺縁起集), assembling documents “formerly owned by the Imperial Fushimi Family and the Kujō Families” (Fushimi miyake Kujōke kyūzō 伏見宮家九条家蔵).^[5] This collection helped establish not only that Keisei belonged to the Kujō family, but that he was the oldest brother of Kujō Michiie 九条道家 (1193–1252).^[6] Besides achieving the highest political charges of his time, Michiie was also father to Yoritsune 頼経 (1218–1256), the fourth Kamakura shōgun, and grandfather to the young emperor Shijō 四条天皇 (1231–1242; r. 1232–1242).^[7] Kujō Kanezane 九条兼実 (1149–1207), Keisei and Michiie’s grandfather, was the founder of the Kujō lineage. His brother Jien 慈円 (1155–1225), the author of the Selected Humble Opinions (Gukanshō 愚管抄), a teleological history of Japan, was one of the most powerful Tendai monks of his time and a famous poet. Once his belonging to the Kujō family was established, Keisei thus rose from the status of an obscure monk and poet to a figure close to the highest circles of power of the early medieval period in Japan.

Although Keisei was possibly Yoshitsune’s oldest son, he was sent to Onjōji to be trained as a monk at a young age.^[8] The Kujō family had close ties with that temple, and at least two other brothers of Keisei’s achieved high-ranking positions there.^[9] In contrast with his brothers who stayed within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Keisei left Onjōji at the age of eighteen and settled down in Matsuo, in the “western hills” (Nishiyama 西山) of Kyoto, in order to follow the teachings of Enrō (延朗; 1130–1208), a well-known “recluse monk” (tonseisō 遁世僧, lit. “monk secluded from the world”).^[10] Enrō died in 1208, only two years after his arrival, but Keisei stayed in Matsuo. Eventually, almost two decades later, in 1224, he would build his own temple on the location of his teacher’s grave. The name he chose for his temple, Hokkesanji 法華山寺, echoed Enrō’s particular devotion for the Lotus Sutra.

Recluse monks had a different standing than monks who remained within the clerical hierarchy.^[11] Many tonseisō chose secluded locations or mountain temples as places of residence, but such a choice did not preclude numerous coming-and-goings, social interactions, and visits. On the contrary, recluse monks tended to be particularly involved in construction and restoration activities, as well as memorial services. Another aspiration often shared by recluse monks was the commitment to a “renewal” of the teachings of the historical Buddha, seen as being thoroughly neglected, if not lost. Keisei, while following in Enrō’s traces as a recluse monk, was also deeply involved with his family’s affairs.^[12] He was especially close to his younger brother Michiie, with whom he collaborated on numerous projects, both political and religious. Until the end of his life, at almost eighty, Keisei was involved in building and restoration activities in various temples of western Japan, all of which had ties to his family, but especially at Hōryūji 法隆寺 (Nara) and at Onjōji 園城寺 (Ōtsu).^[13]

3 Overview and Structure of Hirasan Kojin Reitaku

Despite Keisei’s lack of notoriety, two of his works are comparatively well known. The first one is Kankyo no tomo 閑居友, A Companion in Eremitism (1222), an anthology of didactic tales in three volumes. It is unusual in that it contains an entire volume dedicated to female rebirth stories, which makes it likely to have been commissioned by a lady of the aristocracy.^[14] It is also considered to have been influenced by Kamo no Chōmei’s almost contemporaneous Hosshinshū 発心集, a work Keisei appears to have had access to soon after it was written^[15]. Although the authorship of Kankyo no tomo was credibly attributed to Keisei from the seventeenth century onwards, interest for its author remained limited.

The second document historically known to have been written by Keisei is Hirasan no kojin reitaku, The Oracles of the Old Man of Hirasan (1239), the account that constitutes the focus of this article. It is a relatively short document, counting around sixteen pages in manuscript form and roughly 5700 characters.^[16] As alluded to above, Keisei wrote it in the context of an illness that befell Michiie in 1239, while he was staying in his residence on the grounds of Hosshōji. Five manuscripts of the text are currently known and extant.^[17] The earliest manuscript is preserved in the Kujō library held by the Imperial Household and estimated to be from the Nanbokuchō period (1336–1392).^[18] To my knowledge, there are three published versions of the text, two of which are based on the Kunaichō manuscript. The first one was published by the Imperial Household Agency in 1970 (Hirasan kojin reitaku 1970). The second version is included in the Nihon koten bungaku taikei collection (volume 40, 1993), annotated and commented by Kinoshita Motoichi 木下資一. Prior to that, Kinoshita also published a critical edition of the Kōzanji manuscript (Kinoshita 1987). The content of the five manuscripts is almost identical, with only slight differences in wording.

Despite the strong similarity of the five known versions, their variations reveal crucial information.^[19] Firstly, the introductory paragraph of the Kunaichō manuscript states that one copy was to be kept in the temple and that another copy was sent to the house of the shogun, who was at the time Yoritsune, Michiie’s son. In addition, the colophon of the same manuscript states that it was a draft (see below). Secondly, the Inokuma manuscript, which is an anonymous copy, includes a marginal note that constitutes the single solid evidence linking Keisei to the Kujō family, stating that he was Michiie’s older brother:

The name ‘Shōgetsubō shōnin’ [designates] Minedono’s older brother, who entered the Buddhist path because he was accidentally dropped as an infant and, as a result, had a spinal protuberance; he was the founder of Ichi’on–ji and Hokkesanji, also known as “the mountain oratory.”

證月上人ノ名、峯殿ノ兄ナリ、乳児取落ニ依テ背骨出ル故に沙門ニ入ル、一音院・法華山寺字峯ノ堂等ノ祖師。^[20]

These two elements, the fact that one copy of Hirasan kojin reitaku was sent to the shogun’s house, and the note elucidating the family link between Keisei and Michiie are fundamental for situating the context and importance of our document. Although Kinoshita notes that there are lingering doubts concerning the authenticity of the Inokuma manuscript, researchers now widely agree on the fact that the family connection it indicates is valid and correct.^[21]

The core of the text consists in a dialogue between Keisei and a mountain spirit called either “The Old Man of Mount Hira” (Hirasan kojin 比良山古人) in the title and the colophon (HKR 457/477; 468/482) or “The Great Tengu of Mount Hira” (Hirasan no Daitengu 比良山大天狗) at the beginning of the text (HKR 457/477). The dialogue is framed by an introductory paragraph and a colophon. It consists of about fifty questions and as many answers. Most questions are signaled by the character to.u/mon 問 (question), and the majority of the answers are marked by the corresponding character kota.u/tō 答 (answer). Keisei invariably asks the questions and the Tengu answers them, a pattern similar to ritualized dialogues (mondō 問答) serving as initiation rites, but not necessarily common in oracular texts.^[22] While the dialogue starts off predictably with enquiries about the background of Michiie’s illness and its possible outcome, it then spreads into a variety of directions, as Keisei seizes the opportunity to ask the willing spirit about different topics ranging from the fate of deceased or living family members and political or religious figures to the living conditions in the Tengu realm.

4 Context of Production: Michiie’s Illness

Hirasan kojin reitaku begins with a description of the circumstances that led to its production.

On the eleventh day of the fifth month of En’ō 1 (1239), [Michiie] fell ill. On the nineteenth of the same month, [Keisei] left the Thousand-day fire ritual and made for [his brother’s] residence. He arrived on the twenty-third and until the twenty-eighth of the same month, it appears that, during that time, there occurred three oracles. Overall [Keisei] stayed for nine days. Because the illness receded unexpectedly, it was ordered that this account be not shown to people. Hence, it was decided that it would not be made public.^[23] /One copy was written and kept [in the temple]. Another one was sent to the house of the shogun/.^[24]

It is said that the Great Tengu of Mount Hira took possession of a twenty-one-year-old woman. /She was the wife of Iemori, the provisional Vice-Deputy of the Ministry of Justice 刑部権大輔家盛, and a daughter of Eye of the Law Tai’in from Iyo 伊与法眼泰胤/.

延応元年五月十一日。御不例。同十九日。閣千日護摩参向[矣]。自同廿[三]日参住。至于同廿八日。其間三ケ度霊託云・。已上九ケ日[参]住也。事外御減之間。此書輙不可令見人之由。被仰。仍不可出窓外之由。令申了。⟨一本書進入了。一本進将軍家了⟩。

比良山大天狗託於廿一歳女人云。⟨刑部権大輔家盛之妻。伊与法眼泰胤之女也⟩。^{[25] , [26]}

This opening passage states how, on the eleventh day of the fifth month of 1239 (En’ō 1), Michiie fell ill with a disease that was to last for about a month, during which numerous prayers and healing ceremonies were undertaken.^[27] Keisei, who was conducting a propitatory Thousand Day Fire Ritual at Hokkesanji at the time traveled to the Hosshōji 法性寺, the temple where Michiie resided and on the grounds of which he had vowed to build Tōfukuji 東福寺, a temple he intended to turn into the mortuary temple (bodaiji 菩提寺) of the Kujō family.^[28] He arrived on the twenty-third day and stayed for nine days. On the day of Keisei’s arrival, a young court lady who lived on the premises of the temple became possessed by a spirit named “The Great Tengu of Mount Hira” (Hirasan no Daitengu 比良山大天狗). Between the twenty-third and the twenty-eighth day, Keisei held three conversations with the tengu who was speaking through the young woman. At the end of these encounters, Michiie’s state greatly improved. Hirasan kojin reitaku is the edited transcription of these dialogues.

These few opening lines hold a wealth of information. First, they tell us that Keisei was close enough to his younger brother to be called to his bedside. Second, although numerous rituals and ceremonies were being conducted to propitiate Michiie’s recovery, Keisei clearly acted as a kind of religious or spiritual mentor, as he was put in charge of dealing with the possession of the young woman, leading to his conversations with the Great Tengu. Third, Michiie’s illness receded, and this outcome required that the record of the tengu’s oracles was not to be publicly disclosed. Two copies of the manuscript were to be kept, one stored at Hosshōji and one sent to Kamakura, to the young shogun Yoritsune, Michiie’s son. No explanation is given for the two latter actions, and it is unclear whether they are correlated. According to Chikamoto Kensuke, the fact that a copy of Hirasan kojin reitaku was sent to the Kamakura shogun indicates that it was considered to bear on the Kujō clan as a whole. Moreover, Yoritsune was apparently taken ill at the same time as his father, and so was regent Hōjō Yasutoki.^[29] These events all happened in close synchronicity with the death in exile of Retired Emperor Gotoba on the second day of the second month of the same year and were seen by some as being related^[30].

Keisei appears to have written Hirasan kojin reitaku in 1239, in the wake of his brother’s illness. Fifteen years later, 1254, he added a colophon, which briefly summarizes the factual circumstances surrounding the production of the document:

In the year Ennō 1 (1239), on the twenty-third day of the fifth month, [the tengu] came to Hosshōjidono, [and stayed] until the twenty-eighth day of the same [month]. During this interval, I made my way three times to the oracle hall (reitakusho 霊託所). At times, the dialogue lasted until the hours of the rat (ne 子; 11pm–1am) or the ox (ushi 丑; 1–3am), and at another time until the hour of the tiger (tora 寅; 3–5am). Over that period, I outlined the inner motivations of various persons, or, among other topics, what [karmic] retribution awaits us from now on.

Written by the wandering monk^[31] Keisei

Oracles of the Old Man at Hirasan

This is a draft.^[32]

延応元年五月廿三日。参住法性寺殿。至同廿八日。其間三ケ度罷向此霊託所。或時ハ子丑時。或時ハ寅時マテ問答ス。其間人/\心操。当来果報等略之了。

沙門慶政記

比良山古人霊告草案也。

Both the initial and final passages of our document give a factual frame to an encounter that straddles not only the visible and the invisible realms, but also different “time zones.” Access to these dimensions is provided via a pattern of mediated discourse that is specific to oracular utterances.

5 Modes of Oracular Discourse

Divinatory and oracular practices are modes of interaction devised for establishing contact between the human realm and that of other types of beings. At their core, such practices aim at accessing knowledge that is perceived as being outside ordinary human grasp. In Carmen Blacker’s phrasing, the terms divination and oracles refer to

methods of communication between two worlds or dimensions which are usually divided from each other. We are trying to put questions which we are unable to answer for ourselves to another order of beings whose knowledge transcends the limitations of our own. Our knowledge of time stops short at the present moment. Our knowledge of causes is limited to a few rather crude mechanisms. It is comforting therefore to feel that another order of beings exists, beyond our own natural order and hence ‘supernatural’, whose knowledge not subject to these strictures and who can be called upon for advice.^[33]

As Blacker stresses in the introductory passage of an essay on divination and oracles in Japan, the crucial divide that humans seek to bridge via such interactions is their lack of agency on time. Techniques and processes are devised to better understand and act upon a present situation or future events. In contrast to worship or veneration, which can be unilateral, oracles or divinations imply a transmission or exchange of information. This transmission may either happen spontaneously or be staged and prepared for. In the latter case, such setups involve communication between a human being trained in specific techniques and an entity perceived as belonging to another world or realm of knowledge, whose intermission is sought.

In Japan, the most common words that designate such communication are takusen 託宣 (“proclaimed message”), shintaku 神託 (“message from a kami”), and reitaku 霊託 (“message from a departed spirit”) or reikoku 霊告 (“announcement from a departed spirit”).^[34] While the two former expressions refer to a message delivered by a deity who possesses a human being (or an animal), and speaks through this vessel, the two latter mostly refer to messages from the deceased. It is those two, reitaku and reikoku, that appear in Hirasan kojin reitaku. However, the delineation between deities and departed spirits is moot, and both categories are not mutually exclusive. The defining point is that oracles provide spaces and moments of junction between the human world and all that is beyond.

Oracles are closely interrelated with dreams, as evidenced by some of the terms describing dream experiences: premonitory dreams (mukoku 夢告, literally “dream announcement”), inspired dreams (reimu 霊夢, literally “dream inspired by a departed spirit”) or dream signs (musō 夢相, “sign received in a dream”). Oracles can mostly be defined as messages from “a kami to a human who is in a state of possession (kamigakari 神懸かり, hyōi 憑依)”.^[35] Originally, kami do not have a specific shape and abide temporarily in whatever vessel (yorishiro 依代) is suitable for their purpose. Thus, the mechanism of possession appears as a natural continuation of the way in which kami manifest themselves in the visible world.^[36] By contrast, dreams have a long pedigree in the history and transmission of Buddhism, starting with the hagiography of the Buddha in which they are recurrent and play a prominent role.^[37] However, in light of the complex interactions and interrelations between kami and Buddhist deities at all periods of Japanese history on the one hand, and the innately moot borders of oracular phenomena and dream visions on the other hand, most spiritual beings can use either channel to make themselves heard or to respond to people’s queries.

Dreams and oracles were held and recounted in a wide variety of sources. Although it is impossible to pinpoint one specific genre, some documents are especially prone to feature such visions: engi 縁起 (“origins,” foundation narratives), miraiki 未来記 (“foretelling tales”), takusenki 託宣記 (“oracle accounts”), yume no ki 夢の記 (“dream journals”) etc. In an article on the structure of oracular texts, Fujii Ryūsuke describes the Japanese medieval period an “age of oracles,” in which “people fervently believed that spiritual beings possessed persons and spoke through their voice”.^[38] Oracular activity in ancient Japan was considered statal business via the principle of “unity of ritual and government” (saisei icchi 祭政一致). Only chosen individuals, who were formed for that task, could be possessed. By contrast, medieval Japan witnesses a liberalization and democratization of the modes of communication between human and spiritual beings.^[39] This led to the establishment of a precise protocol of possession and a codification of interactions with the unseen world or other world (meikai 冥界, takai 他界).^[40]

In connection with this, incubation, the search for dream revelation, was widely practiced. Certain temples, most notably Kiyomizudera 清水寺, Ishiyamadera 石山寺 and Hasedera 長谷寺, all three dedicated to the worship of Kannon, were famous as sites for incubation retreats. From the Heian period onwards, travel and court diaries as well as numerous didactic Buddhist tales vividly describe how persons from all walks of life travel to these destinations in order to receive divine orientation for themselves or as proxies for relatives or employers.^[41] Dreams were understood as having a direct bearing on the course of life events. As such, like oracles, they were treated as tools of authentication or persuasion. Several “dream diaries” (yume no ki 夢の記) are preserved, the most famous of which being that of Kōben Myōe 高弁明恵 (1173–1232), which encompasses entire decades of his life.^[42] Keisei was a close friend of Myōe’s (possibly his disciple) and he appears to have kept a dream diary himself, which is unfortunately lost.^[43] Many of the documents in his own hand show that he not only accorded great importance to his dreams, but also acted upon them, using them in a proactive way as tools and arguments for taking decisions and fundraising campaigns. After Michiie’s death in 1252, dreams also became a channel of communication between the two brothers, Keisei heeding the advice he received via dreams from Michiie (see below). Similarly, in Hokkesanji engi, which recounts the foundation of Keisei’s temple on Nishiyama, he relies on dream visions to support his building and renovation projects.^[44]

Hirasan kojin reitaku provides a different yet correlated setting. The structure of the dialogue reflects a paradigmatic possession mechanism in Japanese religious culture.^[45] It is composed of three elements or actors:

1. An invisible entity that wishes to make itself heard or is called upon.

2. A conduit, or medium, through which this entity becomes audible and/or visible.

3. A third party, playing the role of interlocutor and interpreter, who both collects the message and translates its meaning for further use, be it individual or collective.

In the case of Hirasan kojin reitaku, the young lady-in-waiting, the unnamed wife of Iemori, one of Michiie’s retainers, serves as the channel through which the Tengu manifests himself.^[46] As such, the situation reflects a classical divination structure with the young woman serving as a miko, a vessel for communication with the spirit world and a priest usually trained in esoteric Buddhism.^[47] Here Keisei takes up this role in order to both monitor and interpret the message conveyed. Possession techniques or mechanisms could be induced, anticipated and hopefully warded off or reacted to. In classical and medieval Japan, one particularly critical situation in which this set-up was deployed was when imperial parturients were threatened by malevolent spirits. Onjōji was the best-equipped temple for this kind of operations, for which it held a quasi-monopoly.^[48] The priests who were in charge of these rituals were usually referred to as genja/genza 験者, “persons of power.” Since Keisei was trained at Onjōji, it can be surmised that he had these competences, all the more so because his two brothers Ryōson 良尊 (1189–1246) and Dōkei 道慶 (?–1285) held not only the title of genja, but also that of Kumano sanzan kengyō 熊野三山検校, “Supervisor of the Three Mountains of Kumano,” one of the highest ritual ranks at Onjōji.^{[49] , [50]}

The possession process takes place in several consecutive steps. The person whom the illness befalls acts as a kind of signal or alarm, that triggers a case of possession, i.e. the manifestation of a spirit through a “borrowed body.” The spirit then speaks through that person, who is the (either trained or untrained) medium. It is important to note that the possessing spirit is not necessarily the cause of the grievance and can, on the contrary, appear in order to elucidate it. Finally, the priest interprets the spirit’s message and pacifies it, bringing a resolution to the situation at hand.^[51] Hirasan kojin reitaku illustrates all the steps in this process: the Tengu manifests himself though the young lady in waiting, reveals his identity, and states his purpose in appearing at that moment. Although he does explain the cause of Michiie’s illness, he has his own agenda, which is both correlated to and distinct from the nodal point of Michiie’s current situation. Similarly, Keisei seizes the opportunity to go beyond the urgent business of his brother’s health, and to ask the tengu about a wide array of different topics. The exchange takes place under the form of a question-and-answer dialogue (mondō). Keisei asks some fifty questions. It is crucial to note that once the dialogue is engaged, the lady-in-waiting is not mentioned at all anymore, not even at the end. Her presence is erased; she is a pure intermediary in the encounter between Keisei and the Tengu.

6 Medieval Tengu

The word tengu, literally “celestial dog”, comes from China, where it initially designated both a meteor-demon and an animal-shaped mountain demon. It is mostly the latter image that took hold in Japan, where it not only prospered, but changed distinctively depending on the historical periods, regularly gaining new layers of meaning. Until the early medieval period, tengu were mostly depicted as demons of the woods and mountains trying to trick and deceive human beings, much like foxes.^[52] The eleventh century compilation of Buddhist didactic tales Konjaku monogatari-shū 今昔物語集 (Tales from Times Now Past) counts numerous tales in which tengu appear already in a much more complex light. Tengu are described as shape-shifting beings, that appear as kites in their “natural” form, but can manifest themselves as any other being, with a predilection both for possessing people and for changing into priests or nuns with the purpose of harming Buddhism.^[53] As a matter of fact, an antagonistic relationship toward Buddhism is the main characteristic of tengu of the medieval period.^[54]

Simultaneously, tengu were also considered as ghosts from the dead. As such, there is some overlap with tales and representations involving “vengeful spirits” (onryō 御霊, goryō 怨霊). Vengeful spirits mostly arise from deceased who have suffered wrongful or violent deaths, who died in exile or at the hands of political opponents. While some tengu tales feature these elements, the focus tends to be toward wrongful pride, attachment or conceit. As a punishment for this sin against one of the main tenets of Buddhist precepts, persons guilty of arrogance or suspected heresy were reborn in the “Tengu realm” (tengudō 天狗道). The tengudō is a kind of special purgatory and holds a distinct status within the six destinies of Buddhist cosmology. Tengu were considered as fallen or faulty Buddhist practitioners, but not entirely beyond redemption: the “original vow” they made in choosing the Buddhist path remained valid and prevented them from falling into one of the three lower realms (hells, hungry ghosts, or beasts). Thus, Buddhist priests who showed excessive pride in their achievements or career were said to fall into the “Tengu realm” or the Demon realm (madō 魔道, literally “way of the demons”), which were seen as almost interchangeable.^[55] The political machinations of the imperial and aristocratic sphere were part of the same environment. This meant that persons in a position of power and influence, especially Buddhist priests and nuns, but also powerful aristocrats, including emperors, empresses and their entourage, were susceptible to suffer the same fate if they had taken Buddhist vows.

Between the twelfth to fourteenth century, descriptions of tengu became more detailed, including the way they dressed, ate, drank, etc. Hirasan kojin reitaku relates some elements of this kind. In virtue of their initial assimilation with mountains, tengu also started being portrayed as yamabushi 山伏, religious figures known for developing special powers by way of mountain retreats.^[56] Tengu zōshi 天狗草紙 (Tengu Scrolls), dated to the end of the thirteenth century, is one of the most famous medieval examples of this overlap. In elaborate detail, the ‘true’ form of the monks in seven major temples is revealed in the shape of tengu. ^[57] Concurrently, a number of mountains, among which the most famous ones were Mount Atago (north-west of Kyoto), Mount Ōtake (north-west of Kamakura) and Kinpusen (south-east of Nara) were known to be tengu playgrounds. Mount Hira was one of them.

The first half of the thirteenth century, the period in which Hirasan kojin reitaku was written, thus corresponds to a moment in which tengu were perceived as being in deep relationship with the Buddhist world conceptions that infused society. From harmful spirits rooted in autochthonous representations and mountain spirits unrelated to Buddhism, tengu had become manifestations of Buddhist wrongdoings, who needed Buddhist rituals to be pacified and stop causing personal or public disturbances.^[58] In parallel, a distinction appeared between good and bad tengu, mainly depending on whether the wrongdoings were performed intentionally or unwittingly. Good tengu acted as protectors and advisers, with a knowledge of past and future events. Bad tengu, by contrast, congregated in assemblies to spread confusion, disrupt peace and foment war or incendiary fires.^[59] The Great Tengu of Mount Hira is part of the former category, taking on two additional roles, that of tutelary and ancestral deity, intent on helping and informing his kin. Hirasan kojin reitaku provides a vivid example of that relationship.

7 Thematic Arcs and Timelines of Hirasan Kojin Reitaku

8 Asymmetric Time

Putting aside the right and wrong answers provided by the Tengu, I would like to argue that the “oracular time” of his foreseeing, whether directed toward the past or the future, occurs in a kind of ‘temporal no-man’s land,’ whose inhabitants have access to information in different timeframes and timelines. The six destinies of the transmigration worlds are all part of a cyclical framework; they are time-dependent, because the lifespan within this framework is finite. In addition, within the cyclical “grand scheme” of the transmigratory world, human time, or human-realm time, is linear (the same applies to animals): time extends only forward. By contrast, for kami, buddhas, but also tengu, there exists a time apart from human time, in which access to information on the past, present and future is readily available.^[77] By leaning into this “other time” (taji 他時) and thanks to contact with beings or entities providing that access, humans can acquire and/or prevail themselves of such information, in general through negotiation and transaction.

It is in this sense that I suggest using the expression ‘asymmetric time’: human beings are bound by the linearity of human time, but divination and oracles offer them a window to information that is situated beyond this limitation. If understood, interpreted and manipulated correctly, different strata of time give access to different sources and categories of information. Keisei, as a human being, is bound by physical time, but he can mold it by creating transmission lines via texts and ceremonies. While fully inscribed in historical time, Keisei creates bridges not only to human past and future, but also to a time beyond time, where non-humans dwell, be they tengu, kami, buddhas, ancestors, etc. Conversely, the medium, in this case the young lady-in-waiting, is quite literally absent. From the moment she is mentioned as possessed, she disappears from the discourse and is placed outside any time reference beyond that of her altered state of conscience. In the context of Hirasan kojin reitaku, as we have seen earlier, no mention is made of her after the beginning of the text: her voice is that of the Great Tengu who has erased her identity. The medium represents a means to an end and as such is little more than an empty shell, or to phrase it more positively, a sounding board.

Finally, Keisei, as any author or narrator, manipulates time in his rendering of the conversations with the Great Tengu. For example, in the colophon of Hirasan kojin reitaku, Keisei reports having had three conversations with the Great Tengu, each occurring at different dates and times of the night. Yet, nothing in the text indicates a temporal separation. In Keisei’s rendering, it could have been one ongoing conversation. This is one sign of Keisei editing the text not only for content, but for it to be understood as a single entity. As we have seen earlier, the colophon gives a succinct summary of the nature of the document. Although it is unclear why Keisei would have added these elements long after the initial account, the focus of these concluding lines resides in a neutral framing of the encounter with the Tengu both on a spatial and a temporal level. Keisei specifies that his encounters with the spirit possessing the young lady-in-waiting occurred in a dedicated space called either “Dharma spirit room” hōreisho 法霊所 or reitakusho “Oracle room” 霊託所.^{[78] , [79]} Although there are no further indications, this room was clearly situated within the precincts of Hosshōji, where Michiie as well as the lady-in-waiting resided. Similarly, there is no further comment to the fact that the conversations occurred during the night hours.

9 Conclusions

Hirasan koijn reitaku is perhaps Keisei’s most personal document, in the sense that it its main focus is not only the recovery of Michiie’s health, but the attempt to see clear in the fate that awaits the Kujō family in the future. In that, and although both works are of a vastly different scale and scope, Hirasan kojin reitaku could be usefully compared to Jien’s Gukanshō.^[80] In many ways, Keisei and Michiie functioned as a team, in which Keisei played the role of a religious safeguard to the political persona of his brother, as well as of the family at large.^[81] This role division echoes with that of an even more powerful duo, constituted of Jien and Kanezane, Keisei and Michiie’s illustrious forebears two generations earlier. Although Keisei’s writings don’t mention or even hint at any direct contact with either Jien or Kanezane, the parallels are blatant. Both Jien and Keisei aspired to a life of spiritual reclusion.^[82] In both cases, these aspirations were disrupted by the political fortunes of their brothers, leading them to take up a role of spiritual mentor at their side. Jien’s religious appointments and titles closely followed Kanezane’s political repeated rises and falls.^[83] Contrary to Jien, Keisei remained outside the clerical hierarchy and did not own ecclesiastical titles that could be revoked. From this point of view, his life and career were perhaps less strictly correlated to Michiie’s political fate. However, Keisei’s writings bear testimony to the depth of the relationship that linked the two brothers, with Hirasan kojin reitaku being possibly the most conspicuous proof of their connexion. The last document written by Keisei shows another facet of their relationship. In 1267, less than a year before his demise, in Kondō honbutsu shūjiki 金堂本仏修治記, Keisei describes how Michiie, who died in 1252, appeared to him in a dream and helped him secure enough funds to restore the Miroku statue of Onjōji’s main hall.^[84] Michiie thus remained a companion to his brother long after his death, attesting to the reciprocity of their relationship, based on mutual help and advice, even beyond death. It is manifest that both duos, Jien and Kanezane on the one hand, Keisei and Michiie on the other hand, were deeply intent on promoting the Kujō house as the ultimate solution to the troubles of the time. In Gukanshō, Jien clearly states that the country’s salvation lies in the cumulation of the two positions of Regent and Shogun in the hands of a Kujō heir.^[85] Conversely, Tōfukuji, the temple Michiie had vowed to build, was planned to serve the magnification and protection of the Kujō family.^[86] If Kōfukuji was the ancestral temple (bodaiji 菩提寺) of the Fujiwara clan, Michiie intended for Tōfukuji to play the same role for the Kujō family. Bodaiji can be understood as reflecting at the aristocratic level the imperial credo of the union between political and religious rule best exemplified by the expression obōbuppō 王法仏法, “Imperial Law – Buddhist Law,” coined in the early medieval period.^[87] Kanezane died when Keisei and Michiie were still very young, so there could not have been any defining interaction between him and his grandsons. But there must have been close interaction between Jien and his grand nephews. Chikamoto even suggests that Jien’s death in 1225 prompted Keisei to build Hokkesanji.^[88] Regardless of the depth of their interrelations, the two pairs of brothers used a similar blueprint of mutual help and support, with Kanezane and Michiie acting on the secular (political) side, Jien and Keisei on the religious (spiritual) side.

Most of Keisei’s writings are related in one way or another to transmission of knowledge on the one hand, concern for the fate of his family on the other.^[89] Such hopes and doubts can be seen to be lingering behind Keisei’s anxious questions to the Great Tengu about the fate of his family. In the guise of a “peer-to-peer” encounter between a human and a non-human actor, Hirasan kojin reitaku simultaneously provides a reflection on the political situation of the time, a dialogue on Buddhist morality, a performative entreaty for the wellbeing of Michiie, as well as an ethnography of the tengu world. It is also an attempt on the part of Keisei to pin down oracles, which are by essence open-ended utterances, and thus to close the gap between the invisible and the visible realms. By functioning at least partly as an allegory of Michiie’s affliction and of the fate of the Kujō family, whose fortunes were turning at the time, it plays a role akin to Jien’s Gukanshō, yet on a very different level and scope. In that sense, Hirasan kojin reitaku represents an exceptional window to contemporary world representations: from the fear of terrifying spirits or deities who raise war, famine, or natural disasters, to the living conditions of the imperial and aristocratic society of the times as well as the Buddhist spheres.