. early esoteric buddhism in korea 595
Conclusion
Summing up the above, it is obvious that the early history of Esoteric
Buddhism in Korea is sketchy and full of holes. Beyond the archaeo-
logical material, which itself is rather meager (at least from the period
before the second half of the seventh century), there is in fact very
little substantial material on which to establish a viable historical
development for the tradition in question. If we choose not to dismiss
the information from the Samguk yusa entirely but accept its tales as
“pointers,” then we may tentatively consider that Esoteric Buddhist
practices of the unsystematic kind became gradually popular on the
Korean Peninsula from the seventh century onwards, possibly reach-
ing some level of importance by the late eighth to early ninth centu-
ries, but only to achieve spiritual prominence under the succeeding
Koryŏ dynasty (918–1392).
On the basis of what has been shown as constituting the sources for
the presence of Esoteric Buddhist practices on the Korean Peninsula
during the seventh to eighth centuries, it is obvious that they were not
understood as belonging to a distinct form of Buddhism. Moreover,
they were not dominant features in Korean Buddhism at that time
either. That Esoteric Buddhist lore and beliefs were essentially con-
fined to mainstream ritual practices is underscored by the fact that all
the authors, most of whom were important scholar-monks who wrote
about and commented on it during this early phase, belonged to one
of the important doctrinal schools of Korean Buddhism, including the
Pŏpsang /Yuga , the Hwaŏm , and the Ch’ŏnt’ae
schools of Buddhism.
Esoteric Buddhism under the Unified Silla would seem to have been
an undercurrent in Silla Buddhism, rather than an independent tra-
dition. The Zhenyan tradition of Tang China obviously did play an
important role in the transmission of Esoteric Buddhist practices to
the Korean Peninsula. However, even though a number of Korean
monks studied under masters of Zhenyan Buddhism (i.e., the tradition
associated with Śubhākarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi, Amoghavajra, et al.) in
Silla, including the tradition of the Dual Mandalas, i.e., those of the Dharmadhātu and
the Vajradhātu (see Ko 1986, 127–221; and Sŏ 1994b, 67–102). Part of the problem
with this is that we do not have sufficient information on the activities of the Korean
disciples of the great ācāryas active in Tang China. Especially reliable information on
their later years and whether or not they returned to Silla is completely wanting.