. the apocrypha and esoteric buddhism in china 189
bodhisattva Maming/Aśvaghosa, is a Chinese construct—basically, an ̣
invented divinity with no traceable Indian history.^31
Intersectarian Apocrypha and Hybrid Texts
Apocrypha that were composed in order to accommodate intersectar-
ian borrowings between the different schools of Chinese Buddhism
constitutes a category of their own. Such scriptures were produced as
part of a strategy of appropriation. In other words, what had proven
a popular practice or important political symbol in another sectar-
ian context was taken over and utilized in a different religious con-
text. There are many examples that illustrate this interesting feature of
Esoteric Buddhist apocrypha in medieval China, but for the present
purpose it will suffice to provide a few representative cases of this type
of apocrypha.
During the late Tang, doctrinal and ritual rapprochement between
Zhenyan Buddhism and Chan took place. One of the best and clear-
est examples of an apocryphal scripture reflecting this development is
the Jin’gang junjing jin’gang ding yijie rulai shenmiao bimi jin’gang jie
da sanmeiye xiuxing sishier zhongtan fa jing zuoyong wei fayi ze—Da
Piluzhena jin’gang xindi famen mi fajie tan fayi ze
(The Lofty Vajra
Scripture, Vajraoṣṇīsa of All the Tathāgatas, the Deep and Wonder-̣
ful, Secret Vajradhātu, Great Samaya, the Scripture for Cultivating
the Forty-two Kinds of Methods [for Setting up] the Altar Employing
the Awesome Methods of Ritual Proceedings, the Dharma Door of
the Esoteric Dharma Precepts Altar’s Methods of Ritual Proceedings
of Mahāvairocana’s Vajra Mind Ground; hereafter Tanfa yice), falsely
attributed to Amoghavajra.^32 This scripture features Esoteric Bud-
dhist practices and beliefs combined with a list of the Chan Buddhist
patriarchal lineage, including authentic verses of transmission
(^31) Some years ago Roger Goepper, in his study of Aizen Myōō, also arrived at a
similar conclusion with regard to the object of his work. Aizen, considered an impor-
tant and orthodox divinity in Japanese Shingon, turned out not only to have no Indian
past but no Chinese past, either. He is simply a Japanese Heian construct and the texts
seeking to associate him with China are apocryphal. Cf. Goepper 1993.
(^32) P. 3913. Cf. Tanaka 1983, 135–66. For a résumé of this chapter in English, see
Tanaka 1981. See also Sōrensen, “The Presence of Esoteric Buddhist Elements in Chi-
nese Buddhism during the Tang,” in this volume.