80 charles d. orzech and henrik h. sørensen
The use of spells (zhou , mantra) and dhāran ̣īs (tuoluoni )
have a long history in China which dates at least to the 2nd century.
In the course of the Nanbeichao period (440–589) the use of spells
became fairly common among Buddhist practitioners due to the large
number of spell-texts that were translated.^17 The term most frequently
encountered in this period was zhou. Exactly when the use of the
term “true word” (zhenyan ) as a translation of mantra came in
vogue in China is not known for certain. However, it appears to have
taken place sometime during the the middle of the seventh century
at the very latest.^18 Zhenyan is used extensively in the sense of “man-
tra” throughout the Tuoluoni ji jing ( Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha
T. 901), a compendium of spell texts rendered by the Indian monk
Atikūta (̣ fl. 650s) in 654 C.E. In Bodhiruci’s (
?–727) voluminous translation of the Amoghapāśakalparāja (T. 1092)
from 707 C.E. the term zhenyan replaces the term zhou for “spell.”^19
However, the two are virtually identical which can be seen by com-
paring the long and short versions of the Amoghapāśakalparāja. The
teaching and translation activities of Śubhākarasiṃha (Shanwuwei
637–735), Vajrabodhi (Jin’gang zhi 671–741), and
Amoghavajra (Bukong jin’gang 704–774) in the Tang court
during the first half of the eighth century cemented the usage of
zhenyan as the preferred term.^20
(^17) See Copp, “Dhāraṇī Scriptures,” Robson, “Talismans in Chinese Esoteric Bud-
dhism,” Sørensen, “Esoteric Buddhism and Magic in China,” and “Esoteric Buddhism
in China: A Discursive Attempt at a Definition,” in this volume.
(^18) For a discussion of the term see Orzech 2006b, 46–47 and “Esoteric Buddhism in
the Tang: From Atikūta to Amoghavajra (651–780),” in this volume.̣
(^19) This appears to be further evidence that “spell,” i.e. dhāraṇī and mantra were
understood as meaning the same thing and functioning in much the same way. Note
that the scripture has also changed the term “spell” and “dhāraṇī” in its title which
otherwise appear in the titles of the earlier translations of the Amoghapāśadhāraṇī
sūtra. See, for example, T. 1094, T. 1095 and T. 1097. Note that the latter translation
uses both “spell” and “dhāraṇī” in its title.
(^20) See Orzech, “Esoteric Buddhism in the Tang,” in this volume, and Orzech, 2006b,
46–47. But it is notable that the term zhou is not completely displaced and continues
to occur. For example, the Mohe feishiluomonaye tipo heluoshe tuoluoni yigui
which is likely late eighth or ninth century,
details the use of zhou T. 1246 21.221a26. See Orzech, “After Amoghavajra,” in this
volume. For Śubhākarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi, and Amoghavajra see the relevant articles
in this volume. For a translation of their biographies see Chou 1945.