516 george a. keyworthIn English-language scholarship, Orzech (2006b) goes the fur-
thest in defining esoteric Buddhism as the product of efforts by the
translator Amoghavajra (Bukong , 705–744), and, to a lesser
extent, Śubhākarasiṃha (Shanwuwei , 637–735), who brought
the Vajraśekhara sūtra (Jin’gangding jing , T. 865; a.k.a.
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha-mahāyānābhisamaya-mahākalparāja)
and the Mahāvairocana sūtra (Dari jing , T. 848), respec-
tively, from India and initiated the transmission of what would
become both Shingon and Tendai esoteric Buddhism
in Japan. Amoghavajra, in particular, is seen by his distant acolytes
in Japan—most notably Kūkai (a.k.a. Kōbō Daishi ,
774–835)—as the progenitor of a fundamentally different form of
Buddhism focused on the ritual dimensions of Mahāvairocana Bud-
dha. Strong evidence from Japanese pilgrims’ diaries, including those
written by two Tendai monks who journeyed to Tang (618–907) and
Song (960–1279) China, the Nittō guhō junrei gyōki
(Record of a Pilgrimage to Tang China in Search of the Dharma)
by Ennin (794–864), and the San Tendai Godaisan ki
(Record of a Pilgrimage to Mt. Tiantai and Mt. Wutai) by Jōjin
(1011–1081), suggest that Amoghavajra’s esoteric practices and
rites had established a strong foothold in China at Mt. Wutai by the
tenth century (Kamata 2003; Orzech 2006a).
Japanese scholarship has almost unquestionably presented a view
of esoteric Buddhism (mikkyō) that accords with Orzech (2006b) and
Gimello (2004); however, as Sharf (2002b) and McBride (2004, 2005)
have recently pointed out, the breadth of the net that can be encom-
passed by mijiao/mikkyō covers virtually all forms of ritual practice
in Chinese Buddhism over the past millennium. Strickmann, for
example, was keen to see nearly all aspects of Chinese ritual practice,
including Daoist, that smacks of Indian ritual, specifically both the
homa (humo ) fire ritual and spell incantation, as esoteric, thereby
assigning the adjective “esoteric” in esoteric Buddhism a meaning that
nearly means “ritual.” The fact that certain bodhisattvas, most nota-
bly Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin ), Mañjuśrī (Wenshu ), and
Samantabhadra (Puxian ), are essential figures in Chinese Bud-
dhist liturgy, both within and beyond the esoteric texts, makes the
search for the impact of esoteric Buddhism upon Chinese Buddhist
practice even more problematic.
Ritual in China, no matter the sectarian, tradition-based, or insti-
tutional connection one wishes to take into account, follows certain