280 charles d. orzech
The narrative arch of the scripture is set in the introduction and begins
with the manifestation of Mahāvairocana in the Akanisṭha heaven, ̣
the highest heaven of the triple world, at precisely the moment when
Siddhārtha (here called Sarvārthasiddhi) enters his final trance. This
trance, which would be fruitless, is interrupted by the cosmic bud-
dhas, who grant him abhisekạ into the “fivefold wisdom” to realize his
identity as the Tathāgata Vajradhātu.^73
Vajradhātu then proceeds to construct the great Vajradhātu Mandala,
transforming himself into Mahāvairocana and emanating the other
four buddhas of the central assembly. He then constitutes the rest of
the mandala through a series of abhisekạ s that transform the assem-
bled bodhisattvas—beginning with Samantabhadra—into the deities of
the mandala. Thereafter, Vajrasattva describes the process of abhiṣeka
to be replicated by others. As Abé (1999) has pointed out, this process
constitutes a radically different genealogy of Buddhist wisdom from
the widely accepted one, and the lineage claims made by Amoghavajra
and his disciples reflect this.^74
Some twenty-five works are associated with Vajrabodhi’s name
in the canon and Japanese sources attribute several more. Vajrabo-
dhi, like other monks who possessed mantric knowledge before him,
gained a reputation as a thaumaturge, and Xuanzong called on him to
produce rain, apparently with some success. Despite two decades of
service, Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra left Chang’an in 741, likely in
response to an imperial order expelling foreign monks.^75 Vajrabodhi
died in Loyang and shortly thereafter Amoghavajra set out for South
Asia to seek further teachings.
Amoghavajra
After a sojourn of more than five years in India and Sri Lanka, Amogha-
vajra returned to the Tang capital in 747. Lodged at Jingying Temple
(^73) Abé 1999, 144–46, presents an excellent description of this sequence. The original
is T. 74 865.18:208a–b.
Abé’s analysis of the genealogical implications is as relevant for the Tang as it is
for Kūkai. See Abé 1999, 127–41, 146. For the lineage claims of Amoghavajra’s dis-
ciples, see Orzech, “After Amoghavajra,” in this volume.
(^75) Zanning’s account obscures the issue by presenting Vajrabodhi saying that he
does not have to leave because the order applies to “barbarian” monks huseng ,
not to “Indian” monks fanseng , and it also portrays Xuanzong as personally
ordering Vajrabodhi to stay. See Song gaoseng zhuan, T. 2061.50:711c2–6, and Chou
Yi-liang 1945, 277 –78 for a translation.