282 sØrensen
if one uses it as a general term to designate Esoteric Buddhism at Dunhuang
during the Tibetan rule of Shazhou, and even after, it is both wrong and mis-
leading. Esoteric Buddhism of the Chinese variety as a whole can and should
not be identified as belonging to the Guhyavāda, as it represents an entirely
different, historical and religious transmission, and one which was moreover
strongly influenced by Chinese cultural and religious concerns as has already
been noted. Added to this we may also argue that by all indications Chinese
Buddhism was the dominant factor at Dunhuang, even during the Tibetan
rule. Hence, during the Tibetan rule, local forms of Esoteric Buddhism were
a blend of Chinese and Tibetan forms of practice and doctrine, also including
elements of Indian and even Uyghur origin. Essentially we are dealing with fea-
tures of Indian Tantric Buddhism as represented by translations and original
works in Tibetan, which in turn was mixed with mainstream Chinese Esoteric
Buddhism to form the rather unique tradition we see unfold at Dunhuang dur-
ing the late 8th to 10th centuries.
Conclusion
Although the examples presented here only constitute the proverbial tip of
the iceberg, it should by now be sufficiently clear that Esoteric Buddhism as
it developed at Dunhuang from the middle of the Tang and onwards, repre-
sents a rather unique case in the history of Buddhism—a development, which
reflects a tightly woven web of intercultural and interreligious strands of sev-
eral different Buddhist traditions including even religions. This multifaceted
interaction brought about a form of Esoteric Buddhism which in many ways
was a precursor for the persuasive ascendance of Tibetan-style Buddhism that
dominated extensive parts of Central Asia and Western China from the 11th
century onwards.
The integration of certain Buddhist cults is evident in many examples
found among the surviving religious art at Dunhuang, documenting on the
one hand the close relationship that existed between texts, ritual practices and
occurs on several occasions in the Tibetan manuscripts. Cf. eg. P. tib. 837, P. tib. 42, etc.
However, Eastman also applied the term ‘Vajrayāna’ as a common denominator for
Esoteric Buddhism, thereby committing the error of conflating Indo-Tibetan and Chinese
traditions without explaining their distinct religious and historical features. Moreover he
was of course wrong in insisting that “there was virtually no Chinese Vajrayāna tradition
at Tun-huang.” This was precisely what changed with the arrival of the Tibetans in the
region during the late 8th century. Cf. Eastman, “Mahāyoga Texts at Tun-huang,” 57.
