. exploring the esoteric in nara buddhism 787
cally substantialistic. Hossō also emphasized the gradualist bodhisattva
path to enlightenment, traditionally understood to take some three
kalpas to achieve. This view was at odds with the rapid realization of
enlightenment proffered by both Saichō and Kūkai, captured by the
phrase sokushin jōbutsu (“the realization of buddhahood in
this very body”).^4
Finally, at perhaps a more philosophical level, Hossō scholar-monks
were reluctant to accept the esoteric and nondual contention that the
phenomenal world is produced out of the universal principle of such-
ness (shinnyo engi ), or dharmakāya. Hossō emphasized the
fundamental divide between the universal principle and phenomena.
The former is eternal and unchanging, and thus transcends the reality
of cause and effect. The latter is based on distinctions between dhar-
mas and is subject to causal analysis. As noted, Hossō emphasized the
difference between dharmas, the psychophysical constituents of reality,
in terms of their characteristics, hence the name “Dharma Characteris-
tics” school. Tendai and Shingon emphasized the fundamental identity
of all dharmas based on emptiness or the universal dharmakāya.
Despite these tensions, Hossō monks at Kōfukuji and elsewhere
journeyed to Tōji and Mt. Kōya, centers of the Shingon sect, to mas-
ter the esoteric teachings and ritual practices. Kōfukuji is a character-
istic example of this marriage between exoteric doctrine and esoteric
practice. Jōshō (906–983), who served as bettō of Kōfukuji, pro-
fessed to being a Hossō-Shingon monk, and Shingō (934–1004) is well
known for integrating mind-only (yuishiki ) contemplation and
esoteric practice. But neither proposed doctrinal reforms to address
these noted tensions, which, in fact, had inspired well-known debates
and numerous back-and-forth treatises between Hossō monks and
Tendai adversaries during the ninth and tenth centuries.^5
Early in the Kamakura period, Jōkei and Ryōhen were the first to
offer reforms designed to address these doctrinal tensions. Although
too complex to review in detail here, I would like to highlight three
important moves and their relevant significance in the context of eso-
teric influence on this prominent Nara school.^6 In a general sense,
(^4) For a detailed analysis of the development of this teaching, including the contri-
butions of Saichō and Kūkai to it, see Groner 1984a, 54–58.
(^5) For a summary of these debates involving Tendai representatives Saichō and
Ryōgen and Hossō monks Tokuitsu and Hōzō , see Ford 2006, 47–51.
(^6) For readers desiring a more complete review and analysis, see Ford 2006, 54–67.