. esoteric buddhism in the tang 267
of individual deities and specialized ritual practices—were adopted in
settings outside of the totalistic structure of abhiṣeka.
Early Tang Translators
Quite a number of translators cum missionaries working in the sev-
enth century rendered dhāraṇī texts, ritual manuals, and collections
that have been characterized variously as “miscellaneous [esotericism]”
(Ōmura 1972, 373–375), “proto-esoteric” or “proto-tantra” (Strick-
mann 1996, 129–130), or as “early Esoteric Buddhism.”^14 Viewed syn-
optically, these translations indicate a flourishing of esoteric practices
in Indian Mahāyāna circles in the seventh century. Among the works
translated are dhāraṇī texts;^15 versions of more complex vidhi (ritual
manuals, yigui ) centering around a particular divinity, such as
Mahāmāyūrī; and texts indicative of growing systematization of the
body of esoteric lore and practice around “families” (kula; bu ), such
as the Buddha, Lotus, Vajra, and so on.
Most notable among these translators were Atikūta ̣ (fl.
650s), Buddhapālita (?) (fl. late seventh century), Xuan-
zang (602–664), Pun ̣yodaya (dates unknown but arrived in
655), Divākara (613–687), Śiks ̣ānanda (652–710),
Manicintana (?–721), Yijing (635–713), and Bodhiruci
(?–727).^16 A brief look at the work of four of these translators,
Atikūta, Bodhiruci, Yijing, and Manicintana, gives us a sense of the ̣
range of esoteric teachings and practices current in the second half of
the seventh century. Further, Bodhiruci, Yijing, and Manicintana at
times worked together and their work reflects both the ascendancy of
(^14) For a trenchant critique of “miscellaneous esotericism” as a category, see Abé
1999, 152–158, and Sharf 2002a, 265–267. For “early esoteric Buddhism,” see Sørensen,
“Esoteric Buddhism in China: A Working Definition,” in this volume.
(^15) The archetypal and most influential of these is Buddhapāli’s Uṣṇīṣāvijāyā-
dhāraṇī sūtra (T. 967). The text was repeatedly translated—by Divākara, Yijing,
Śubhākarasiṃha, and Amoghavajra respectively—and gained virtually universal pop-
ularity. See Copp 2005, 171–192.
(^16) Lü 1995, 162–88, presents an excellent discussion of these and other figures. Lin
1935, 83–100, is the most thorough study of Puṇyodaya. Antonino Forte has produced
essays on Divākara, Manicintana, and Bodhiruci; see Forte 1974, 1984, 2002.