. esoteric buddhism and the tantras in east asia 7
Land prior to their classic formulation. So too, it can be useful to dis-
cuss “esoteric Buddhism” avant la lettre.^6
This position has not gone unchallenged as certain scholars have
voiced serious doubt concerning the existence of esoteric Buddhism as
a distinct movement very much prior to the sixth century. According to
this line of thought esoteric Buddhism developed rapidly on the basis
of previous Mahāyāna developments (dhāraṇī, etc.) and in response to
changes in patronage in medieval sāmanta feudalism in India. Con-
structions of it that include developments before the sixth century are
for all intents and purposes anachronistic projections. This position,
championed by Ronald Davidson (2002a), has certain similarities to
recent theoretical developments in evolutionary biology. It does not
argue for the rapid appearance of something out of nothing. Rather, it
argues that esoteric Buddhism was a new synthesis that pulled in ele-
ments of the Mahāyāna (dhāraṇī etc.) that had a long developmental
histories.^7 It is notable that the two positions have much in common.
While they differ on the usage of the terms esoteric Buddhism and
tantra their major disagreement is in ther reading of pre-sixth cen-
tury evidence. Is the evidence of the proliferation of dhāraṇī, abhiṣeka,
mantras, and so on in the Chinese translation record to be understood
as a distinctive movement or not?
The final position mentioned above has been advanced by Robert
Sharf (2002b) and Richard McBride (2004, 2005). Both writers seek
to problematize assumptions concerning esoteric Buddhism in China
that they argue have been uncritically accepted. Sharf in particular has
argued that the highly sectarian circumstances of Tibet and Japan have
misled scholars into constructing a ‘school’ of esoteric Buddhism in
China distinct from the Mahāyāna where none existed. Most scholars
now agree that seeking to understand esoteric Buddhism in eighth or
ninth century China by imposing a sectarian template on it of the likes
of medieval Shingon or Western Christianity distorts our view and
this position may be a welcome corrective to the way both Japanese
and Tibetan traditions have been viewed. Too little attention has been
(^6) In considering this argument it is important to avoid an overly reified conception
of Mahāyāna, and recall that Mahāyāna is itself a largely retrospectively constructed
category. There was not a clearly delineated Mahāyāna in relation to which an esoteric
form could develop. 7
Whichever position one takes, one is still left with the question of when it may be
analytically and heuristically sensible to talk about “esoteric Buddhism.”