TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)But what is stunning is that there is little systematic exploration of the
Chinese context and its effect on the development of East Asian Vajrayiina.
With the exception of some of the researches of Osabe Kasuo, and some of the
French school-R. A. Stein, M. Strickmann, A. Seidel, and their students-
Chinese Vajrayiina has remained unknown and uncharted.^14 Further, the excep-
tions which I have just cited have been piecemeal in character, densely
philological, and lamentably slow in their dissemination and impact. Particularly
important are the research and seminar reports of R. A. Stein. Hidden in hard to
find Annuaire, these researches have yet to influence wider audiences.^15 Indeed,
the only books on East Asian Vajrayiina available in English totally ignore this
scholarship and recite the orthodox Shingon version of the development of the
tradition in China.^16 As I argue below, the Chinese context had as much impact
on the shape of the Vajrayana in China, Japan, and Korea as did its Indian roots.
But before I discuss these issues further, I must briefly touch on other causes
for Chen-yen's invisibility. From the perspective of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy
as promoted from the Sung dynasty onward, Chen-yen in particular and Bud-
dhism and Taoism generally were anathema. The reign of the emperor Tai-tsung
(762-79), during which the iiciirya Amoghavajra was most powerful, is
regarded as the epitome of the degrading influence of Buddhism on imperial
institutionsY In the orthodox Confucian view this is the worst moment in the
dynasty that was most guilty of Buddhist and Taoist fraternization.
Modem sinologists have picked up, largely unconsciously, these twin blind-
ers of Shingon and Neo-Confucian orthodoxy, and these biases dovetail with
late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century Western views of China, in which
Confucianism represented enlightened ethical rationalism and Buddhism and
Taoism represented the magical and superstitious religion of the masses. Bud-
dhism during the T'ang (618-907), especially before the An Lu-shan rebellion
of 755 and the persecution of 845, is seen as the "apogee" of the religion in
China. Thereafter there are-to quote one sinologist-"memories of a great tra-
dition" and "decline."^18 Although the economic and social dimensions of Bud-
dhism increased after the T'ang, "no outstanding Buddhist cleric such as
Hsiian-tsang, Fa-tsang, or Chih-i emerged; no new school of Buddhist thought
developed; no important Buddhist siitra was translated."^19 Chen-yen in particular
"declined."^20
This sort of evaluation follows naturally from the premises of Western sino l-
ogy and Confucian orthodoxy with their focus on great men and schools of
philosophical discourse rather than on popular movements and ritual. Moreover,
it is an evaluation reinforced by traditional Buddhist reckonings of what consti-
tutes authoritative and "orthodox" tradition. Indeed, Stanley Weinstein notes
that
The most significant feature of the Buddhism of the post-An Lu-shan
era was its "popular" character. Inasmuch as Buddhism had a mass
following in China before the rebellion, it obviously contained ele-