710 ian astley
and cultural history when the esoteric Buddhist culture on the Chinese
mainland had the greatest impact on Japanese history.
However, to place Kūkai’s Catalogue in context it is necessary to
examine the role of catalogues and similar documents in eighth- and
ninth-century East Asia; and to give an indication of the significance
of his achievements, it is instructive to look at some of the work of
later monks who, like Kūkai and Saichō, made the voyage to Tang
China to seek the teaching of the Buddha (nittō guhō shamon
, in Japanese terminology).^4 This essay thus seeks to give an
indication of the way in which an understanding of the many and
various catalogues that were composed within the ambit of eastern
Buddhism can supplement our understanding of the role of Buddhism
in general and of esoteric Buddhism in particular.
Inasmuch as these catalogues were generally compiled at imperial
behest, such understanding will largely be restricted to Buddhism’s
role in the fabric of national interests, rather than its popular signifi-
cance.^5 Indeed, cataloguing implies that there is an institutional need
to account for what is being catalogued. As such, in ancient Japan,
catalogues of Buddhist items are also found embedded in the pleth-
ora of monjo that account for the use of materials, whether in
statuary or mandalas, or of relatively sundry items such as sheets of
paper, brushes, and ink.^6 One can hardly imagine that the scribes who
recorded the details of materials used for copying and so on regarded
their work as anything more significant than simple accounting. It is a
(^4) These eight monks were Saichō , Kūkai , Jōgyō (n.d.–866), Engyō
(799–852), Ennin (794–864), Eun (798–869), Enchin (814–91),
and Shūei (809–884); accessible and useful details may be found under the rel-
evant headings in Ishigami and Nagahara 1999. A convenient listing of the extant
works acquired by these monks can be found in Sawa Ryūken 1975, s.v. Nittō hakke
shōraibon 5.
The focus here is thus much narrower than in Kieschnick 2003. While Kie-
schnick’s work embraces much more popular material, we do have in common an
urge to ensure that our understanding of these cultures is rounded out by considering
the role that material culture played in defining political, religious, and philosophical
parameters.
(^6) These monjo are the subject of the comprehensive edition begun in 1901 and still
being published by the Historical Institute at Tokyo University, Tōkyō Daigaku Shiryō
Hensanjo, ed. 1901–. This is an indispensible collection of these ancient documents.
Volume 12, for example, starting in 751 (Tempyō shōhō , 3), contains quite
a range of evidence pertaining to the copying of esoteric scriptures and the construc-
tion of esoteric artifacts. It reflects both the concerns of a well-developed statutory
state based in Nara and the situation on the continent.