. esoteric buddhism in the tang 265
on trends already present in the Mahāyāna and on much of South
Asian mantric lore.^9
The broad sweep of esoteric Buddhism during the Tang can be char-
acterized in a straightforward manner. We first see the translation of
a variety of texts representative of the growing interest in mantra and
dhāraṇī. Many of these texts promote a particular dhāraṇī, ritual, and
deity.^10 Second, we see the advent of texts representing distinct
and comprehensive systems that are meant to codify the swelling tide
of mantric texts, deities, and techniques. Full entry into these systems
was accessed only through abhiṣeka, effecting the ritual transformation
of a disciple into a cosmic overlord. Third, these overarching systems
were given what amounts to imperial imprimatur during the twenty-
year period from the 760s into the 780s. During this period, par-
ticularly during the period of Daizong’s (r. 762–779) support
of Amoghavajra (Bukong jin’gang 704–774), significant
religious and institutional infrastructure was put in place, including
imperially sanctioned altars for abhiṣeka in certain monasteries and
imperial palaces for the performance of rituals to benefit the state;
construction projects, including the renovation of Jin’ge Monastery
on Mount Wutai ; and the installation of Mañjuśrī as the
patron in official government monasteries.^11
State support and attendant prestige created a de facto orthodoxy,
which was enshrined in a list of seventy-two translations presented by
Amoghavajra to the throne in 771 that functioned as a codicil to the
canon (T. 2120.50:839a–840a). The prestige generated by this period
of support, coupled with continued lines of initiation, had a profound
effect on Buddhism for the remainder of the Tang.^12 While lineages
stemming from teachers performing abhisekạ who had received impe-
rial sanction continued, the teachings were modified in new ways.
Further, many individual techniques and deities were transmitted
(^9) This concern about violence is addressed explicitly in the Susiddhikāramahātantra-
saddhanopāyikā-paṭala (Suxidi jieluo jing , T. 893). See Giebel 2001,
- The original is 10 T. 893.18:614a4–617.
Early versions of the Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī sūtra might fit in this category. For
a study see Sørensen 2006c, 89–123. 11
See Martin Lehnert, “Amoghavajra: His Role in and Influence on the Develop-
ment of Buddhism,” and Chen Jinhua, “Esoteric Buddhism and Monastic Institutions,”
in this volume. Toganoo Shōun’s account of Amoghavajra stands up remarkably well.
Toganoo 1933, 101–11. 12
See Orzech, “After Amoghavajra: Esoteric Buddhism in the Late Tang,” in this
volume.