12 charles d. orzech, richard k. payne, henrik h. sørensen
So too, to argue that all spells are merely Mahāyāna is analytically
flawed. This would reduce the esoteric to the Mahāyāna and does
not account for real social, religious and institutional phenomena
that are distinctly new developments. Both of these positions rob
the researcher of analytical leverage and blur distinctions that Bud-
dhists on the ground make (though again we need to be careful to
note that Buddhists do erase these distinctions when it serves some
particular end).- The use of analytic taxonomies suggested by sectarian sources has
been the cause of much confusion. For instance, some treatments
of esoteric Buddhism in China persist in applying the late Japanese
Shingon hermeneutic distinguishing “pure” (seijun mikkyō
or junmitsu ) from “miscellaneous” esoterism (zōbu mikkyō
or zōmitsu ) without mention of its’ provenance.^26
So too, many scholars have been drawn to and have uncritically
accepted the relatively late Tibetan four-fold doxological and evolu-
tionary taxonomy of Kriyā, Caryā, Yoga, and Anuttarayoga tantras.^27
The danger here is twofold: anachronism and the uncritical use of
sectarian taxonomies designed to champion a particular view. At
the same time, we don’t want to reject analytical distinctions that
may be helpful, simply because they originate in a period later
than the one under study. As we see it, any use of such taxonomies
requires careful explanation by the researcher. - The idea of the esoteric itself (mi , bimi ) is quite potent
and widespread in East Asia and not under some sort of central
control. Even in the presence of formal esoteric Buddhism marked
by abhiṣeka, lineage transmission, etc., it is common to find esoteric
deities, ritual sequences, ideas, and so on circulated, appropriated,
and integrated into other systems. One way to think of this is to
use the metaphor of “penumbra.” This allows us to avoid the widely
used “popular” or “folk” category which would be inappropriate in
cases such as Fudō in Shugendō, which is itself an initiatory sys-
tem, and homa and other rituals appropriated from Shingon in late
(^26) The terms do not appear as paired doctrinal or textual classifiers in the Chinese
canon and may be as late as the Edo period (1603–1868). For an analysis see Abé 1999,
152–154. A good example of such discussions is available in English in Kiyota’s Shin-
gon Buddhism, 1978, 5–17, where the “pure” category is aligned with Mahāyāna doc-
trinal literature while the “miscellaneous” elements are aligned with “popular beliefs.”
Also Strickmann 1996, 127–133, and Sharf 2002a, 265–267.
(^27) Dalton 2005, 115–181 and Kapstein 2000, 15–17.