6 charles d. orzech, richard k. payne, henrik h. sørensen
Esoteric Buddhism
As indicated by positions two and three above, a key area of con-
tention has focused on whether there was a clearly defined and self-
consciously distinctive stream of esoteric Buddhism that developed
gradually in India in the first few centuries of the Common Era that
preceded more mature developments from the sixth century onward.
Some scholars regard esoteric Buddhism as having evolved gradu-
ally, becoming a distinctive stream within the late Mahāyāna closely
connected with dhāraṇī practice. Henrik Sørensen, for instance, argues
that esoteric Buddhism has its roots in Indian Mahāyāna and developed
from a special trend within it, namely that of ritualism and magic.^4
According to Sørensen, early forms of esoteric Buddhist practice are
first evident in “esoteric” addenda to various Mahāyāna sūtras.^ They
were followed by later, increasingly complex and mutually integrated
layers of practices that eventually evolved into a full-fledged meta-
system containing all, or at least most of the earlier strata of practices
organized to form a comprehensive and inclusive whole.^5 He ques-
tions the view that esoteric Buddhism did not develop until the sev-
enth century and also rejects the view that Zhenyan Buddhism of
the eighth and ninth centuries represented mainstream esoteric Bud-
dhism in China. According to this understanding esoteric Buddhism
is a form of Mahāyāna, not a separate school, but a movement center-
ing on attaining its spiritual and worldly goals through ritual practices.
Esoteric Buddhism developed into a distinct form of Mahāyāna, actu-
ally in tandem with the rise of Mahāyāna, and we may therefore find
embryonic, “esoteric” traces of what later became mainstream, esoteric
Buddhist “building-blocks” in some of the earliest Mahāyāna scrip-
tures. Central to Sørensen’s argument is his insistence on a heuristic
approach: he considers the term “Esoteric Buddhism” as the most use-
ful, if not perfect, way of expressing this form of Buddhism. Here one
can draw parallels to discussions of Chan and Pure Land. Indeed, it
is sometimes desirable to talk of Chan prior to the mid-Tang, or Pure
(^4) For an articulation of this position see Sørensen, “On Esoteric Buddhism in
China: A Working Definition,” in this volume.
(^5) For the early, undeveloped esoteric Buddhist elements encountered in the
Mahāyāna literature he prefers the use term “esoteric Mahāyāna.” Sørensen uses
“Tantra” and “Tantric Buddhism” exclusively for the esoteric Buddhist developments
that took place in India (and later in Tibet and China) during and after the seventh
century.