Buddhist Veda and the Rise of Chan 85 Chapter 4 Buddhist Veda and the Rise of Chan Robert H. Sharf 1 Some years ago I argued that, when it comes to China, we should not think of esoteric Buddhism as an independent or self-conscious tradition set apart from other forms of Mahāyāna (Sharf 2002, 263–78). There is little evidence that the Indian masters who brought “esoterism” to China in the eighth century— most famously Śubhakarasiṃha (Shanwuwei 善無畏, 637–735), Vajrabodhi (Jin’gangzhi 金剛智, 671–741), and Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 705–774)— characterized their teachings as a new movement or independent lineage, and I suggested that it is inaccurate and anachronistic to apply the terms Tantra, Vajrayāna, or even Mijiao 密教 (as a proper noun) to developments in the Tang. The notion that esoterism constitutes a self-conscious tradition in China can be traced to later developments in East Asia, including the evolution of self-styled mikkyō lineages in Japan, as well as the writings of Song Dynasty historians such as Zanning 贊寧 (920–1001). Even in the case of South Asia, scholars may exaggerate the differences between early Tantric or Vajrayāna Buddhism on the one hand, and what we imagine to be non-Tantric or “mainstream” forms of Mahāyāna practice on the other. As Indian Buddhists appropriated ritual elements from surrounding Brahmanical culture—a process that seems to have accelerated in the seventh and eighth centuries—the gap between Buddhist and non-Buddhist forms of worship narrowed. This phenomenon may well have contributed to the even- tual disappearance of Buddhism in the land of its birth. The Brahmanicization of Indian Mahāyāna did not escape the notice of Chinese commentators. Yixing 一行 (683–727), a student of both Śubhaka- rasiṃha and Vajrabodhi, noted the similarities between the new Buddhist practices coming from the West, notably the homa or fire ritual, and non- Buddhist traditions of Vedic sacrifice. In his influential commentary to the Mahāvairocana-abhisaṃbodhi-sūtra, Yixing explains that Śākyamuni 1 This chapter was originally prepared for the conference “Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism,” held at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 16–18, 2014. My thanks to the participants of that conference as well as to Paul Copp, Jacob Dalton, Eric Greene, Robert Miller, Alexander von Rospatt, Koichi Shinohara, Elizabeth Horton Sharf, and Fedde de Vries for their insightful criticisms and suggestions. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/9789004340503_006 86 Sharf understood the allure of these popular rites, and so he intentionally appro- priated them and imbued them with Buddhist meanings. Yixing refers to the result as “Buddhist Veda” (fo weituo 佛韋陀)—outwardly it has the form of Brahmanical sacrifice but inwardly the teachings are those of orthodox Mahāyāna.2 The term “Buddhist Veda” is attested outside of China as well; Sylvain Levi discovered and edited a Sanskrit “Buddha Veda” from Bali, consist- ing of a collection of Buddhist Tantric liturgies for daily use. This collection, which is understood in Bali to be the counterpart of the “Brahmanical Veda,” likely dates back to the same period that saw the transmission of Buddhist esoterism to China (Lévi 1933: xxix–xxxi). And in their ninefold classification of Buddhist practices, the Nyingma tradition of Tibet uses the term “vehicle of Vedic austerities” (dka’ thub rig byed kyi theg pa gsum) to refer to the Kriyā, Carya, and Yoga tantras. The notion of Buddhist Veda is indeed apropos, as the new ritual forms were organized around the trope of sacrifice, were transmit- ted in secret from guru to disciple, and accentuated the use of elaborate altars (maṇḍalas) and spells (mantras) in the invocation of divine beings. Consequently, rather than approaching Chinese esoterism as a tradition set apart by its distinctive teachings, I argued that we might view it as a new ritual technology, brought to China by acclaimed Indian masters who were patron- ized by those who could afford their services. (The elaborate rites required considerable financial resources, and thus in both China and Japan it is not surprising that they were initially associated with imperial and aristocratic sponsors.) In time, elements of this “Vedic” technology—the use of incanta- tions and sacrificial altars in the service of a burgeoning pantheon of deities—trickled down to virtually all strata of Buddhism throughout East Asia. While the new “Tantricized” styles of Indian Buddhist practice had an impact on ritual, they had less influence in the domain of doctrine and ideology. In this chapter I would like to nuance my earlier argument, and offer an alternative understanding of the legacy of Tantra or “Buddhist Veda” in China. Chan is often heralded as the most Sinified of the major Chinese Buddhist 2 See the chapter on the “mundane and supramundane Homa” (humo 護摩, fire ritual) in the Dapiluzhe’na chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏: “The Buddha himself taught the very foundation of the Vedas, and in that way manifested the correct principles and method of the true Homa. This is the ‘Buddha Veda’” 今佛自説韋陀原本。而於其中更顯正理眞護摩 法。此佛韋陀 (T.1796:39.780b13–15). The term is picked up by Japanese commentators to refer to the Buddha’s appropriation of Vedic fire sacrifice as a means to restrain and subdue malevolent forces; see, for example, Yūban’s 宥範 (1270–1352) Dainichikyō-sho myōin-shō 大 日經疏妙印抄 (T.2213:58.611b), as well as the discussions in Toganoo 1982, 85–86; and Sharf 2003..