266 charles d. orzech
and adopted outside of these lines and this is an important dimen-
sion of ninth-century Chinese Buddhism. Finally, from the end of the
eighth century through the ninth century the prestige of institutionally
sanctioned esoteric Buddhism drew pilgrims from across East Asia to
the Qinglong , Xingshan , and other monastic centers
where initiation was available.
Under the influence of Japanese concerns, most modern and tra-
ditional scholars have drawn a clear distinction between the work of
early Tang translators of esoteric texts, that of the “three great mas-
ters” (san dashi ) who followed them—Śubhākarasim ̣ha (Shan-
wuwei 637–735), Vajrabodhi (Jin’gang zhi 671–741),
and Amoghavajra—and those working in the ninth century.^13 While
there are some differences, viewing these masters in the context of
earlier efforts and of the work of Indian, Central Asian, and Chinese
masters through the ninth century underscores continuities as well as
differences.
It is also helpful to make clear the different institutional circum-
stances and expectations in India and China. The pattern of a lord
and his mantrin did not “translate” smoothly to the Chinese court,
where Buddhism had long been an arm of the state. Prominent monk-
translators were more likely to end up in translation bureaus, or as
official government overseers of such efforts as the formation of the
Tripitaka, than as powerful pundit advisors. Further, some of these ̣
monks seem to have focused solely on translation work, while oth-
ers are known for their ritual services, magical prowess, teaching, and
mobilization of Buddhism on behalf of the state. Whether these differ-
ent roles reflect reality or are the result of other factors, such as a lack
of highly placed patrons, disciples’ accounts, and so on, is difficult to
fully ascertain.
Overall, the translations of the early Tang were overlaid with
the major systems surrounding the MVS and the STTS promoted
under government sponsorship in Daizong’s reign. After the death
of Amoghavajra (774) and Daizong (779), transmissions focused on
the “Yoga” of the STTS, the MVS, and the Susiddhimahākara-tantra
(T. 893) continued and evolved, while a variety of adaptations—cults
(^13) The distinction is usually cast in terms of emerging sectarian identity with the
“three great masters.” See, for example, Chou 1945, 245; Lü 1995, 201.