. the development of the esoteric buddhist canon 305
(Chou 1945, 241–48; Kiyota 1978, 6 –7, 13–18; Matsunaga 1980,
83–114). Strickmann proposes that the Dhāraṇī Spirit-Spell Sūtra
Preached by the Seven Buddhas and Eight Bodhisattvas (Qifo bapusa
suoshuo da tuoluoni shenzhou jing
, T. 1332), which he dates to the late fourth or early fifth century,
contains the earliest outlines of the future tantric pantheon; and that
the Consecration Scripture (Guanding jing , T. 1331), which he
dates to about 457, preserves the earliest details of a consecration ritual
(Strickmann 1990; 1996, 52–53, 72–73, 428, n. 70). There is much evi-
dence, however, that medieval Chinese Buddhists understood dhāraṇī
and dhāraṇī procedures to be well within the Buddhist mainstream
(McBride 2005).
Medieval Sinitic Buddhist cataloguers as well considered the entire
Mahāyāna canon of scripture to be the “esoteric teaching” (mijiao
). That this is the case is found in the very classification of Bud-
dhist scriptures. In the Catalogue of Śākyamuni’s Teachings Compiled
During the Kaiyuan Period (Kaiyuan shijiao lu , T. 2154,
comp. 730), Zhisheng (ca. 700–740) divided Mahāyāna sūtras
into six categories: 1) the Prajñāpāramitā class; 2) the Mahāratnakūta ̣
or Jewel Heap class (following the Mahāratnakūṭa; Dabaoji jing
); 3) the Mahāvaipulya-mahāsam ̣nipāta or Great Collec-
tion class (following the Mahāvaipulya-mahāsaṃnipāta sūtra; Daji
jing ); 4) the Avatam ̣saka or Flower Garland class (follow-
ing the Avataṃsaka sūtra); (5) the Nirvāṇa class (following the
Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra); and (6) the Miscellaneous class,
which includes the Lotus, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and Laṇkāvatāra sūtras
(T. 2154.55:594a–610b). Here, the first category would be exoteric
teachings and all the rest would either comprise or at least contain
esoteric teachings. Most of the texts presumed to be part of the “eso-
teric Buddhist” canon, such as the Sūtra on Vairocana’s Attaining
Buddhahood (Da Piluzhena chengfo jing or Dari
jing , T. 848) and many dhāraṇī texts are contained in this last
miscellaneous class (Abé 1999, 156; T. 2154.55:603a.). This is fitting,
nevertheless, because Chinese exegetes, such as Zhiyi, Jizang, and so
forth, believed that the Lotus and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtras presented
the Mahāyāna’s “esoteric teaching” (McBride 2004).
Later cataloguers and compilers of Buddhist canons in the Sinitic
cultural sphere during the Tang period did not conceptualize a distinct
esoteric canon and generally followed the officially sanctioned classi-
fication scheme employed by Zhisheng. This includes Yuanzhao