792 james l. ford
within the Nara schools before Kūkai’s Shingon transmission from
China. We then examined the important impact of Kūkai’s exoteric-
esoteric taxonomy on Buddhism during the Heian period. Finally, I
chose to explore the further assimilation of esotericism, in terms of
doctrine and practice, through three prominent Nara scholar-monks
of the late Heian and early Kamakura period, some five centuries after
Kūkai’s return from China. Given space, we might also have analyzed
the mandalacization of geography (Nara temple complexes in particu-
lar) or the prominence of esoteric deities (e.g., Kannon) within Nara
devotion.
It should be clear by now that any effort to characterize the Nara
establishment, either before or after Kūkai, as exoteric or even “miscel-
laneous esoteric” (zōmitsu) is problematic or misleading at best. Eso-
teric sūtras, doctrines, and practices were widespread within the Nara
schools well before Kūkai. Once Kūkai introduced the Chinese tax-
onomy that clearly distinguished exoteric from esoteric, Nara scholar-
monks were quick to embrace the new hermeneutic. At the same time,
this called for conscious efforts to reconcile previously unrecognized—
or perhaps not fully recognized—tensions between exoteric and eso-
teric discourse on doctrine, practice, and the path to buddhahood.
In many respects, the necessary ideological reforms took place after
esotericism had been fully integrated into the practice and discourse
of the Nara establishment. Here Jōkei is a notable case in point. The
Nara sects, while still adhering to the exoteric texts and commentaries
that were the basis of their doctrinal lineages and institutional identity,
fully embraced esoteric discourse and practice in their own creative
ways. This ideological merger, labeled appropriately by Kuroda as the
kenmitsu system, became the currency of power and authority for the
temple establishments until well into the Muromachi period.
We have only touched on the underlying motivations and appeal
for incorporating esoteric texts and practices into the traditional arse-
nal of Buddhist practice. Such an analysis, useful as it might be, would
take us considerably beyond the scope of this essay. I shall, however,
conclude with a general observation. Put simply, the esoteric tech-
nologies—and the sophisticated ideology that informed them—were
instruments of power, much as “real” technology is today. Monks
trained in the “secrets” of this ritual knowledge held sway over nature
(e.g., weather), sickness, death, and even salvation. Although some of
the texts and practices were already part of the ritual inventory of the