initially treated with suspicion by emperor Xuanzong
(r. 712–756). He was placed under house arrest, and
his Sanskrit texts were impounded. But it soon became
clear that the new teachings came along with consid-
erable advances in mathematics and particularly cal-
endrical astronomy, areas that were central to imperial
ideology. The polymath monk Yixing (673–727) was
assigned to spy on S ́ubhakarasimha, as much as to help
him in his work of translation and dissemination of
the Vairocanabhisambodhiand other mantra (Chinese,
zhenyan) teachings, including the Subahupariprccha.
A few years later in 720 C.E. the monk Vajrabodhi
(671–741) arrived in the Chinese capital Chang’an
(possibly from S ́rvijaya) and soon he and his chief dis-
ciple Amoghavajra (705–774) were, if not embraced by
the court, at least given permission to translate texts
and to take on disciples in exchange for performing
ritual duties for the imperial house. Amoghavajra
proved himself a valuable ally to the imperial house
during the chaos of the An Lushan rebellion (755–763)
and he gave emperor Suzong (r. 756–762) abhiseka as
a cakravartin or world-ruling king. Under Suzong and
then under his successor Daizong (r. 762–779), Amo-
ghavajra and his disciples articulated an ideology of
dual rulership with the cakravartin supported by his
acarya (religious preceptor) in a pattern remarkably
similar to that found in South Asia. Amoghavajra not
only produced translations of tantras and ritual man-
uals, but he also produced updated versions of some
Mahayana texts, bringing their language into line with
the latest esoteric or mantra discourses by adding
dharanand ritual commentaries. The most promi-
nent of these texts was the Chinese RENWANG JING
(HUMANEKINGSSUTRA), a scripture that melded tra-
ditional Chinese and Buddhist notions of rulership.
Under Amoghavajra’s tutelage the teachings associated
with the Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha permeated
much of the court, the military, and many imperial in-
stitutions. A ritual arena for homaand other practices
was established in the imperial compound. Mañjus ́r
replaced Pindola in monastic refectories, large num-
bers of “tantric” ritual manuals were translated, and
permanent altars for homaand abhiseka were con-
structed. Thematically speaking, Amoghavajra’s Bud-
dhism was, to borrow the Korean phrase, “State
Protection Buddhism,” and its most developed ritual
dimensions concerned propping up the imperial
house, ensuring the health of the emperor, giving suc-
cor to its ANCESTORS, helping to keep meterological
and cosmic portents favorable, and generally esoteriz-
ing monastic establishments that were imperially
funded. Although Daizong’s successor Dezong (r.
779–805) initially severed lavish patronage to the
mantra teachings, he later reversed his decision and
supported the last of the great South Asian translators
of the Tang, the monk Prajña (734–806?).
Imperial patronage henceforth was spotty. During
the early Song dynasty the last group of great South
Asian translators, Dharmapala (963–1058), Danapala
(fl. tenth century), and Fatian (d. 1001) produced
more complete versions of the Sarvatathagatatattva-
samgraha,a version of the Guhyasamaja,and a trans-
lation of the S ́rlvajramandalamkaramahatantraraja.
Patronage was, however, sporadic until the Mongols
(Yuan dynasty, 1234–1368) and even later Ming
(1368–1644) and Qing dynasty (1644–1911) patron-
age of Tibetan VAJRAYANA. Severed from the court and
bereft of its natural metaphoric locale at the actual
center of power, various elements of the system
merged back into the stream of late Mahayana while
others were simply rolled into Vajrayana from Tibet.
Indeed, the ritual technology associated with these
teachings, especially that promising various forms of
siddhiand connected with homaand aves ́a,had an im-
pact not only on the Mahayana in China, but also on
Daoism and on local religious traditions. Perhaps more
than all the divinities and complex ritual, Chinese
traditions—Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike—found
the ideology of hiddenness and the aura of the esoteric
power of mantra most appealing. The idea of mantra
had already been circulating from the second century
onward and served as a model for the Brahma-
language of Daoist scripture. An exclusive focus on the
short-lived presence of a sectarian tantric or esoteric
“school” misses the point entirely. By the twelfth cen-
tury there were esoteric CHAN SCHOOLtransmissions,
rites deriving directly from the tantras in use in PURE
LAND SCHOOLcircles and more generally for the sal-
vation of the dead (the shishior “distribution” of food
to ghosts and the elaborate shuiluor Land and Water
Masses). Popular accounts of the acaryas celebrated
their wielding of siddhiin a manner not unlike tales of
siddhas found in South Asia and Tibet.
While a polity inspired by and enacted according to
the Sarvatathagatatattvasamgrahawas made an actual-
ity for some twenty-five years in China, we have no
solid evidence that the teaching garnered full institu-
tional support in Korea either under the Silla (668–935)
or Koryo ̆(918–1392) periods. Although the SAMGUK
YUSA(MEMORABILIA OF THETHREEKINGDOMS) men-
tions two esoteric “sects” under the Koryo ̆(Ch’ongji
or Dharanschool and the Sinin or Mudra school) theTANTRA