Review

Duke University

Professor Wei Wu's excellent first work, Esoteric Buddhism in China: Engaging Japanese and Tibetan Traditions, 1912–1949, is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature on modern Chinese Buddhism. Tracing the re-importation of esoteric Buddhism into China, Wu argues that transnational movements of religious traditions are not simple transplants but “an ongoing process between various agent groups, their practices, and theories… being constantly reinterpreted in the specific circumstances” (28). Wu claims that few scholars have explored this modern importation of esoteric Buddhism through the interplay of doctrine, ritual, and institutions (2). Wu demonstrates how to dialectically approach the dual process of importing and legitimizing esoteric Buddhism in the face of a new modernizing Chinese state, religion versus superstition debates, and state-borderlands interactions allowing broader implications for the study of modern transnational religion.

Wu opens by asserting the need for Ann Swidler's repertoire theory, defining culture as a toolkit “that people use in a varied configuration to construct their interpretations,” in this case, to understand the agents importing new religious ideas (4). Using this theory, Wu frames the importation of esoteric Buddhism into China as providing a new lens to understand Buddhist modernism while also highlighting the agents choosing from their repertoire of Buddhist, cultural, and individual tools rather than simply following modernist trends in religion (7). Chapter One “Chinese Buddhism in Transition” provides an overview of the cultural, political, and religious transitions during the Qing-Republican period, focusing on Yang Wenhui (杨文会) and Taixu's (太虚) circle and the ideal of the eight Tang dynasty Buddhist sects (31), and the early 1910s-1920s importation of Japanese and Tibetan Buddhism into China (34). Chapter Two “The Lamas and the Rituals” asserts that public esoteric rituals “became an arena for contesting esoteric Buddhism” (51) by lamas (白普仁 Bai Puren and 班禅额尔德尼the Panchen Lama, Banchan Eerdeni), patrons, secular intellectual skeptics (69), and government anti-superstition campaign agents (62) to contest esoteric Buddhism's role in a new China in the process of nation-building, religious reform, and modernization. Wu illustrates a range of Buddhists' responses to modernity, many of which, unlike David McMahan's theory of Buddhist Modernism, chose not to demythologize, instead seeking to prove esoteric Buddhism's value (55-56). Wu reveals a contradiction during the Nanjing decade (1927–1937) anti-superstition campaigns, even as Han esoteric Buddhists were forced to legitimize their rituals and praxis in the face of state suppression (20, 55–56), Nanjing strategically conferred state titles to high-level Tibetan and Mongolian lamas, using the very traditions they condemned to consolidate control over the borderlands (63). Chapter Three “Esoteric Buddhism for Laypeople” explores the mutually beneficial lama-patron relationship (79, 93), lamas' place within lay Buddhist societies, the formation of esoteric Buddhist societies (王弘愿 Wang Hongyuan's Chinese Esoteric Buddhism Revival Society, 震旦密教重兴会 Zhendan Mijiao Chongxinghui) (77), the social mobility esoteric teachings offered women (申書文 Shen Shuwen and 方于 Fang Yu) (85), and the lay spiritual practice of translation seen in the early Chinese versions of The Tibetan Book of the Dead (西藏度亡经,Xizang Duwangjing) (88).

Chapter Four “Debates on Esoteric Buddhism” discusses the 1920s-1930s esoteric Buddhism debates from Taixu, Chisong (持松), and Dayong's (大勇) group and layman Wang Hongyuan as they question the validity of Japanese and Tibetan esoteric Buddhism (101, 114), their doctrines and doctrinal classification (panjiao 判教) (97-98), the existence of lay teachers (105), and esoteric/exoteric distinctions (96), emphasizing the active process of interpretation, and the former group's shift towards Tibetan esoteric Buddhism. Chapter Five “The Path to Enlightenment” uses Taixu and Dayong's group's interest in Tsongkhapa's (宗喀巴, Zongkaba) Lamrim (Stages of the Path, 道次第 Daocidi) to show early Chinese fascination with the newfound scholarly richness of the Tibetan Buddhist commentary tradition (124), follows their translation, and highlights Nenghai's (能海) Lamrim pedagogy seeking to welcome all Chinese Buddhists (127). Wu presents the importation of esoteric Buddhism as a dialectical process of translation and interpretation. Chapter Six “Tibetan Buddhism Among Han Chinese” uses Nenghai's early life and career as a case study. Wu explores Tibetan esoteric Buddhism's early importation in China tracing early Tibet travel group (留藏学法团, Liuzang Xuefatuan) activities (153), encounters with Lamrim (155), attempts at building esoteric centers on Wutaishan (五台山) (156), then finally, the formation of Nenghai's lineage at Jincisi (近慈寺) in Sichuan (162). Wu argues that Nenghai stands out by maintaining Chinese Vinaya (174) and appealing to other Chinese sensibilities via teaching ethics and exoteric Buddhism as fundamental while making esoteric praxis available for everyone (166–7). Wu concludes that this history of esoteric Buddhism importation presents a slice of modern Chinese Buddhist history and a broader narrative of the human quest for knowledge during increased cross-cultural communications.

I am disappointed that this work is framed as focusing on Japanese and Tibetan esoteric Buddhism in China but instead follows the academic trend of concentrating more on the former. Additionally, with the use of Chinese, English, Mongolian, and Tibetan names, the translation and transliteration inconsistencies make it difficult to follow. Wu prioritizes providing Chinese (187) and Tibetan (201) terms over Japanese,

providing no Japanese appendix and occasionally only providing an English title for Japanese primary sources (99). Place names are inconsistent with some literal or abnormal translations such as Compassionate Cause Temple (慈因寺) (39) and Mount Kōya for Kōyasan (高野山) (31). Chinese terms for `esoteric' (mijiao 密教) are used inconsistently with nine different terms throughout the text without explanation. There are minor naming and factual errors, such as romanizing the Kōyasan chief priest's name Kanayama Bokushō (金山穆韶) as `Kaneyama' and stating that Li Yizhen (黎乙真) traveled to Kōyasan to receive ācārya (阿阇梨 asheli, 阿闍梨 ajari) from Shingi Shingon Buzan sect's (Shingi Shingonshū Buzanha 新義真言宗豊山派) past chief priest Gonda Raifu (權田雷斧), whereas Shingi Shingon's head temple, Negoroji (根来寺), is in Iwade, Wakeyama (84). Some of these issues may be caused by prioritizing Chinese sources. These minor errors might cause misunderstandings that someone outside the immediate field may not be able to discern.

Overall, this publication is a great accomplishment for Wu. As a researcher of the importation of Japanese esoteric Buddhism into China during the Republican period, I am excited by the addition of Wu's work to this small but expanding body of literature. This important work enriches the field of modern Chinese Buddhist studies as well as broader East Asian and transnational religions.