tantric threads between india and china 263Benevolent Kings),^59 the empire was threatened by the former Tibetan-
Uighur allies. In winter of the same year however, the alliance broke
apart after the sudden death of Pugu Huai’en , a leading
Uighur military commander.^60 This fortunate turn of events was attrib-
uted to Amoghavajra’s ritual practice around the new version which
was given the descriptive title Renwang huguo boreboluomiduo jing
(Scripture on Perfect Insight of State Protection
for Benevolent Kings),^61 linking Confucian notions to the Tantric con-
cept of state protection based again on a ritual devoted to the vidyrja
Acala. In 767, Amoghavajra initiated the ordination of 37 monks for
repeated performances of rituals on Mount Wutai to “establish the
state as a eld of merit.”^62 Signi cantly, this number refers to the 37
central deities of the vajradhtumaala.
Charles Orzech’s analysis (1998) of Amoghavajra’s scripture show-
cases in what way the text had been adjusted to the political conditions
at the Tang-court, closely associating de ciencies of imperial authority
with Buddhist soteriological concerns, the rule of the Son of Heaven
with the spiritual sovereignty of the Tantric hierophant (Chin. asheli
; Skt. crya ):^63 stressing techne for state protection, the rhetoric
and hermeneutics around this text as well as its ritual implementation
promised control where there was disorder and destruction to the enemy
of the state, who was conceived not only as a threat to imperial order
but also to the dharma.^64 Subsequently, this scripture became one of
the most venerated Buddhist stras at the courts of many East Asian
empires and kingdoms.
Amoghavajra was successful in blending religious, administrative and
political expertness into a unique concept of the sovereign hierophant(^59) The former version (T.245.8.825–834) was doubted to be a “apocryphal scripture”
(Chin. yijing ) or a Chinese “forgery” (Chin. weijing ); while being traditionally
attributed to Kumrajva (350–413), it is of late fth century origin; Orzech 1998, pp.
125–133, 289–291. For an imperial foreword to Amoghavajra’s version in which emperor
Daizong declares the necessity for actualising the text cf. T.246.8.834a10–b25. 60
Peterson, 1979: 489–491.
(^61) T.246.8.834–845. English translation in Orzech 1998, pp. 209–274.
(^62) T.2120.52.835b17–c9; Orzech 1998, pp. 161, 186–191, 196–198.
(^63) See Orzech 1998, pp. 160–167.
(^64) A similar narrative—albeit not refering to that scripture—and function of Buddhist
ritual for state protection is reported already for the 670s, when Tang-China attempted
to invade the kingdom of Silla, and the Chinese eet was reppeled by a Korean monk.
See the chapter by Pol Vanden Broucke.
HEIRMAN_f9_247-276.indd 263 3/13/2007 6:40:08 PM