. esoteric buddhism, material culture, and catalogues 715
magnificent government complex at Dazaifu until 809, ignorant of the
court’s response to his submission.
Portraits indicate the importance of transmission in distinctive
ways: first, as became crucially evident in the later dispute with Saichō,
the direct esoteric transmission from master to acolyte is at the core of
Kūkai’s novel system. Second, the portraits were intended to be part
of the ordination hall where consecration (abhiṣeka) took place. Also,
the integration of sovereigns in the passages that account for these
portraits is a further indication of the way in which esoteric themes
were seen as crucial to the religio-political base of the state.^20
One of the tangled threads that recent scholarship is attempting to
untangle is the confusion caused by the different contexts in which
the term mikkyō is used. The Shōrai mokuroku is relevant to this
discussion because it is clear evidence of the importance of the term
mitsuzō (rather than mikkyō), where zō refers quite clearly to
piṭaka, thereby presenting to the court a supplement to the established
Tripitaka of scripture, monastic regulations, and exegesis.̣^21 The situ-
ation has not been helped by a tradition of sectarian scholarship that
came to the fore during the mikkyō boom of the mid-1970s onward
(flourishing especially in the 1980s). One example is the helpful sum-
mary provided by Katsumata Shunkyō in the historical volume of the
Mikkyō Kōza series.^22 Distilling the 1930 findings of Ishida Mosaku,^23
he extracts those texts that, in the modern understanding of “pure
esotericism” (itself a problematic term),^24 are clearly of an esoteric
nature.
Unfortunately, the imposition of a post-facto taxonomy distorts
the nature of the esoteric tradition in the Nara period, and by exten-
sion gives us a misleading idea of what Kūkai was doing when he
(^20) See, for example, Shōrai mokuroku, Teihon 1, p. 31.
(^21) Abé 1999, 189–204, esp. 191ff, gives a full analysis of the various terms Kūkai
used to describe his tradition. Kūkai uses mitsuzō quite frequently and mikkyō only
once in his Catalogue and related works. Current translations of zō as “treasure house”
and the like obscure this crucial connection. 22
Katsumata Shunkyō 1977, 168–83.
(^23) Ishida Mosaku 1930. Ishida’s work was also used by Kushida Ryōkō 1964, a mas-
terful study of esoteric Buddhism in Nara and Heian Japan. Katsumata Shunkyō and
many others have used Kushida’s analysis of the esoteric scriptures available to the
Nara clergy when highlighting Kūkai’s contribution and its context. See also Inaya
Yūsen 1965. 24
Indeed, the term junmitsu may be traced back only as far as Ōmura Seigai
1972 (originally published 1918).