. esoteric buddhism, material culture, and catalogues 711
different matter, though, when we look at major catalogues such as the
Kaiyuan lu, which contain much of rhetorical significance and which
also harbor ideas about the proper management of state affairs.
Once Buddhism became part of the political fabric of China, it was
necessary for rulers to account for their commitment of resources to
Buddhist institutions, including personnel and attendant parapherna-
lia. This was partly for internal reasons of accounting, partly to pro-
vide an external display. The latter was, in turn, related to the general
concern with protection of the state ([zhen]huguo, [chin]gokoku [ ]
, a common prefix for major state-sponsored temples carried over
to Japan and Korea).^7 It was also related in part to rulers’ concern
to gather merit, both for their own pride, perhaps, but more cru-
cially because such merit was also part of the guarantee of protection
afforded by the power of Buddhism.^8
As has been observed in respective studies by Abé (1999) and Bogel
(2010), although esoteric texts were listed in the Zhenyuan-era cata-
logues (to which we will turn first), there was no specific identification
of them as pertaining to a particular school or tradition. It should be
noted, however, that they are distinguished from established textual
or scholastic traditions, for example those of the Huayan tradition.^9
Furthermore, they are also listed in subordinate positions, suggesting
that the purposes they served were peripheral to those of the major
scholastic traditions. Such peripheral concerns may be seen as proto-
scientific attempts to control forces with which contemporary technol-
ogy could not cope.
China: The Kaiyuan and Zhenyuan Catalogues
The Kaiyuan and the Zhenyuan catalogues, both compiled under the
Tang, run to twenty and thirty fascicles respectively—two to three
(^7) Cf. also the term zhenhu guojia (chingo kokka ), which says much about
the particular role of Buddhism in protecting the national polity.
(^8) Cf. Orzech 1998 for a comprehensive treatment of the manner in which Chinese
rulers adopted Buddhism for its transcendental support in the task of government.
(^9) See C. Bogel 2009, 69ff, which provides an extensive summary and analysis; see
also Bogel 2004 and 2008. Abé 1999, 156–59, makes similar points in his analysis of
the major Chinese cataloguers of the era. A more traditional art-historical perspec-
tive is given by Sawa Ryūken 1982; while Tokyo National Museum, ed. 2005 gives an
idea of the outstanding quality of the artifacts that were in circulation in East Asia at
that time.