10 charles d. orzech, richard k. payne, henrik h. sørensen
rare in East Asia before the modern era.^18 This does not mean that we
cannot use the term for analytical purposes. But it does mean that the
South Asian sūtra / tantra binary pair does not figure prominently in
sinitic linguistic settings and when we use it with regard to those set-
tings we need to be very clear what we mean by it.
History, Context, Usage
These disagreements are the result not merely of a lack of consistency
on the part of modern scholars; they also reflect a wide variety of terms
and usages in Indic and Sinitic languages. Although the English label
esoteric Buddhism is a modern creation it seems apt as a designation
for certain East Asian phenomena because it corresponds to an indig-
enous term, mijiao (Japanese mikkyō) that in turn appears to
translate the Indic term guhya or ‘secret.’ Yet, when examined closely,
the apparently simple equation of guhya > mijiao > esoteric Buddhism
is fraught with problems. Not the least is the all too tempting notion
that we can simply defer to on-the-ground usage as the ultimate arbi-
ter of what esoteric Buddhism is.^19 Problems notwithstanding, careful
attention to the actual context of usage and the semantic matrix of
sinitic terms like bimi , mijiao , mikkyō, etc. is indispens-
able, and such careful attention is characteristic of the essays in this
volume. We note especially the following seven points that complicate
our understanding of esoteric Buddhism in East Asia:
- Key terms have been used in a great variety of ways.
- The introduction of new usages does not always make old usages
obsolete. Often we find multiple usages coexisting in the same
milieu. - Esoteric understandings often resulted in attempts at hegemonic
reinterpretation. For instance, Kūkai argued to the Nara clerical
(^18) Tandaluo occurs only once, in the Ruixiye jing T. 897.18:770b5.
The text is attributed to Amoghavajra and is also known as the Yuxiye jing
and the 19 Juxitandaluo jing or Guhyatantra.
A. M. Hocart 2004, 46–52 has a perceptive critique of approaches that take such
usage as the exclusive definitional criteria. Griffith T. Foulk, essentially makes the
same point and adds that “it is absurd to argue that because medieval Chinese Bud-
dhists never drew a distinction between lineages as semimythological entities and
schools as historical ones we should refrain from imposing that distinction on them.”
See his “The Ch’an Tsung in Medieval China,” 1992, 20.