. esoteric buddhism in the tang 283
logical assumptions and ritual techniques of the STTS. But Amogha-
vajra’s distinction—one based on distinctive genealogy realized only
through abhiṣeka—never rose to sectarian status during the Tang.
Understanding the nuances of the Tang situation has been hampered
by the almost unavoidable reading of the Tang data through the works
of Kūkai and later Japanese exegetes.
For instance, it is notable that in Amoghavajra’s works the term
“esoteric teaching” (mijiao ) appears repeatedly, but it seldom
appears in sharp contrast with “exoteric teaching” (xianjiao )
as part of a polarized hermeneutic found in Song or Japanese works.
Only one text attributed to the master, the Zongshi tuoluoni yi zan
( T. 902) uses both the term “esoteric teaching” and the
term “exoteric teaching.”^81 It is perhaps significant that no distinction
is made in Tang catalogues between “esoteric” and “Mahāyāna” texts.
The earliest such distinction appears only in the Northern Song Cata-
logue of the Dharma Treasure Compiled in the Dazhong Xiangfu Period
(Dazhong xiangfu fabao lu ).^82
Further, while scholars have come to use the term “Zhenyan” to
designate a school or lineage (zong ) on the model of the Japanese
Shingon, the term “mantra school” (zhenyan zong Japanese
Shingonshū) is not found in medieval Chinese texts.^83 However, the term
“mantra” (zhenyan ) is ubiquitous in Tang and Song scriptures in
a variety of locutions, including Zhenyan sheng (Mantrayāna)
and Zhenyan zang (Mantrapit aka).̣^84 Works attributed to
(^81) T. 901.18:898b21–23. Although accepted as authentic, the text does not appear
in Amoghavajra’s list of scriptures submitted to the throne in 771, is not attested in
contemporary catalogues, and first appears as a text retrieved by the Japanese pilgrim
Engyō, a disciple of Kūkai. 82
This catalogue is an essential resource for the study of the period. Issued in 1013,
the Catalogue was compiled under the leadership of Zhao Anren (958–1018).
It is found in Zhonghua da zang jing vol. 73, pp. 414–523. It is now avail-
able in electronic facsimile at http://www.fjdh.com/booklib/Index.html. For a discus-
sion see Orzech, “Esoteric Buddhism in the Song Dynasty,” in this volume.
(^83) Much of contemporary Chinese scholarship uses this term. See, for instance, Xia
2008, 25, 38, etc.; Lü 1995, 201, 311. The term zong in its strongest sense indicates a
lineage with a founding ancestor and series of patriarchs, while in its weaker sense can
simply mean a common doctrinal theme or position. See Weinstein 1987a, 482–87.
(^84) Zhenyan sheng appears in several places in the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi-
sūtra and in its Commentary. See, for instance, T. 848.18:5c08, c09, 51a29, 54c19;
T. 860.18:188a04; T. 1796.39:625c25, c27, 671a12. Zhenyan zang is used by
Śubhākarasiṃha and Yixing in the Mahāvairocana sūtra, T. 848.18:14a4; and its Com-
mentary, T. 1796.39:680b1, 688a19.