188 henrik h. sørensenstructural inconsistencies. Moreover, they can hardly pass for sūtras
in the usual sense of the word, even though they were clearly based
on original Indian manuscripts in some form. Interestingly, the so-
called “Kumārajīva translation,”^26 the latest of the three early versions,
contains large portions of text that are obviously of purely Chinese
origin. In contrast, the later, mature versions of this important Eso-
teric Buddhist sūtra, beginning with Saṅghabara’s translation from the
mid-Liang dynasty (502–552),^27 has by and large eliminated the incon-
sistencies and textual peculiarities of the earlier versions. Especially
the early eighth-century version by Yijing (635–713) is a well-
balanced translation that would appear to have been quite faithful to
the Sanskrit manuscript on which it is based.^28 The latest translation of
the Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī sūtra is the greatly expanded, three-chapter
version by Amoghavajra.^29 While it must not be forgotten that this lat-
est version of the sūtra reflects textual, iconic, and ritual developments
that took place in India after the earlier versions were translated into
Chinese, there are indeed many instances in this version where the
translator has augmented his translation with material that is purely
Chinese in nature. This includes cultural aspects found in the listing of
demons, astrological elements, reading of omens, and so on.
Another late text with obvious apocryphal features is the Maming
pusa da shenli wubi yanfa niansong guiyi
(Ritual Procedures of Aśvaghos a Bodhisattva’s Great Divine ̣
Powerful, Incomparable, and Fulfilling Method of Invocation),^30 the
translation of which has been ascribed to Vajrabodhi, one of the “Three
Great Ācāryas” of the Tang. A brief look at this ritual text reveals
beyond any doubt that it is not an authentic translation from San-
skrit. In fact, the scripture is neither an ordinary ritual text (despite its
title) nor a “pure” apocryphal sūtra either, although it clearly contains
parts of both types of texts. Furthermore, the text is not a translation
as claimed; in fact, it has nothing to do with Vajrabodhi. The section
it contains that masquerades as a sūtra, or rather the excerpt of one,
is obviously a fabrication. Second, and most important, the divinity
around which the text’s discourse and ritual revolves, namely the astral
(^26) T. 988.19:481c–4c.
(^27) T. 984.19:446b–59a.
(^28) T. 985.
(^29) T. 982.
(^30) T. 1166.20:674c–5a.