182 henrik h. sørensen
On the Characteristics of Esoteric Buddhist Apocrypha in China
The detection and identification of apocryphal scriptures in the con-
text of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism is complicated by the fact that
much of this material is by its very nature already quite hybrid. This
is both the case with bona fide Indian texts as well as with compo-
sitions made in China. Hence, a clear and well-defined demarcation
between what constitutes an “authentic scripture,” in the sense of a
“pure” text, and what is not is problematic for a number of reasons,
which will become clear in the following discussion. Suffice to say that
only some of the numerous Esoteric Buddhist scriptures from India
existing in Chinese translation are free from what may be referred to
as “cultural tampering.” It is in the nature of translations, especially if
they attempt to bridge very different cultural boundaries (as was the
case with medieval India and China), that certain modifications had
to be made in order to get the message across. It is also obvious that
some translators or teams took great liberties when translating texts
containing complicated doctrinal or ritual aspects. In addition, some
translators, such as the important ācārya and court monk Amogha-
vajra, simply added their own material to the texts they translated, or
otherwise subjected the texts to considerable editorial restructuring to
suit a given purpose.
The most common apocryphal type of Esoteric Buddhist scripture
we encounter in the Chinese material is the kind that masquerades
as a canonical sūtra or a treatise of Indian origin. Scriptures belong-
ing to this more common category by and large follow the format
and structure we find among exoteric apocryphal Buddhist scriptures.
This means that they mimic an authentic Indian Esoteric Buddhist
sūtra more or less faithfully. Even if misgivings as to the authenticity
of such a work arose in Buddhist circles at some later point in time,
often this type of apocrypha can be seen as having eventually attained
canonical status and recognition as an authentic, or at least respect-
able, scripture.^4
There is also a class of apocryphal texts that from the very inception
of their obscure beginnings were recognized as such and categorized
in the Buddhist catalogues as being either unauthentic, of dubious
provenance, or even a forgery. In other words, apocrypha that did
(^4) Such as was the case with the Shou lengyan jing (Pseudo-Śūraṅgama
Sūtra). T. 945.