Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia

114 henrik h. sørensen

Usṇ̣īsavijaỵ ā is a female divinity that originated as a spell or dhāraṇī.
A latecomer to the Esoteric Buddhist pantheon, her cult comes to the
fore only with the rise of Tantric Buddhism in India after the eighth
century,^69 and became widespread under the Dali kingdom in Yunnan,
especially in connection with funerary practices.^70 In the Xixia empire,
under the influence of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, Usṇ̣īsavijaỵ ā’s cult
became highly prominent and was absorbed into the imperial cult.^71
With the Mongol takeover in the thirteenth century, Uṣṇīṣavijayā^
eventually rose to prominence throughout China.
Ātavaka/Dayuanshuai ̣ / (Great General) is a great
yakṣa or demon general; for some reason his cult is not testified to in
the Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist material. He appears for the first time
in the context of Chinese Buddhism during the middle of the Nanbei-
chao period (late fifth century), and features prominently in the spell
collection Tuoluoni zaji.^72 Not until the mid-Tang did Ātavaka become ̣
a mainstream protector of Zhenyan Buddhism, and through this finds
his way to the imperial court.^73 A sculptural example from the Five
Dynasties period is known from Yuanjuedong in Anyue, Sichuan. He
seems also to have been an important protector in the Dali kingdom
of Yunnan, as he figures prominently in the Long Roll.
During the latter half of the Tang it became increasingly common
for certain of the vidyārājas to be seen as emanations of leading bud-
dhas and important bodhisattvas. During the Song dynasty this trend
was canonized, and this doctrine is exemplified in sculptural group
no. 22, depicting the Ten Vidyārājas, at Dafowan, Mt. Baoding in
Dazu (color plate 4).^74

Assimilated Hindu Gods and Other Spirits

Various renderings of assimilated Hindu gods are among the earliest

Esoteric Buddhist art found in China. In the early Esoteric Buddhist

(^69) See Shaw 2006, 291–305.
(^70) Sørensen, “Esoteric Buddhism in the Nanzhao and Dali Kingdoms (c. 800–
1253),” in this volume.
(^71) Cf. Linrothe 1996 and 1998.
(^72) Cf. T. 1336.21: 0628c14–631a3.
(^73) See Duquenne 1983b. For a brief discussion, see also Sørensen 1991–1992b,
314–315.
(^74) See Howard 2001, 59–61.