. the apocrypha and esoteric buddhism in china 195
to Amogavajra. There are many reasons why we should suspect that
this is not an authentic Indian or even Chinese scripture but in all
likelihood a Japanese apocryphon. First, it is not found or mentioned
in any of the standard Chinese Buddhist catalogues, including the
library lists from Dunhuang. Second, it was not included in the Koryŏ
Tripitaka. Third, the text is unique; it does not exist in any other ver-̣
sion. Fourth, it is not mentioned in the catalogues brought back to
Japan by the various pilgrim-monks. Fifth, it exists only in the form
of a late print dating from Kyōwa 1st year (1801) and the accompany-
ing colophon states that it is based on an early Kamakura manuscript
from Kenkyū 4 (1193 CE).^53 Moreover, it is not written in the style
or format characteristic of authentic works translated or written by
Amoghavajra. Finally, it was obviously written to provide a doctrinal/
ritual link between Shingon practices and those related to the Pure
Land tradition, a common feature of late Heian and Kamakura Bud-
dhism in Japan.
Conclusion
The Esoteric Buddhist apocryphal texts we encounter in the Chinese
Buddhist literature is as diverse as the more ordinary apocryphal
Buddhist scriptures. Esoteric Buddhist apocrypha occur in growing
number from the middle of the Nanbeichao period onward, and the
production of these scriptures would appear to have reached their
apex during the Tang. As we have seen, Esoteric Buddhist apocrypha
come in a variety of forms, some more apocryphal than others, and
some authentic scriptures that include additional inauthentic parts.
Although fairly strict standards were set up to prevent apocryphal
scriptures from entering the official Buddhist canon, the task would
appear to have been hopeless, and in the course of time numerous
fabricated texts were eventually included in the canon as authentic
Indian, or at least orthodox, scriptures. It should not be forgotten that
the composition of apocrypha was not necessarily considered mor-
ally or doctrinally problematic at the time they were made, or even
spiritually fraudulent, for that matter—at least, not as we generally
understand it today. Undoubtedly, many authors of apocryphal tracts
were devout Buddhists and sincere practitioners who somehow felt the
(^53) Cf. Ochiai 1991, 80a.