. after amoghavajra 319
the Qinglong temple, the Xingshan temple, and others drew disciples
from all over East Asia in the following century—and a good deal of
what we know about late Tang esoteric Buddhism has been gleaned
from the reports and inventories of pilgrims from Japan who were
drawn to these institutions.^20
Amoghavajra privileged the teachings of the STTS, as he makes this
clear in his will and elsewhere. But most disciples were initiated into
other esoteric cycles, predominantly but not exclusively those associ-
ated with the MVS. Although some scholars have tried to trace the
“dual mandala” system propounded by Kūkai to Amoghavajra, his
own pronouncements make that very unlikely (Orzech 2006, 48–50).
Accounts by Amoghavajra’s disciples do not contradict the supremacy
of the STTS, but they do underline Amoghavajra’s own remarks of a
more ecumenical sort. For instance, Zhao Qian, a lay disciple and the
author of Amoghavajra’s “Account of Conduct,” relates the story of
Vajrabodhi’s cognition of Amoghavajra’s worthiness in a dream, after
he had denied Amoghavajra’s request for the Dharma. On awakening,
he sent for Amoghavajra, who was preparing to depart for India to
find a teacher. The patriarch (zushi ) was delighted:
“I will completely transmit my Dharma treasury to you.” Then, on
another morning on his behalf he transmitted to Amoghavajra the
methods of the Five Families, the abhiṣeka, the homa—the teachings an
ācārya should know. [He also transmitted] the Mahāvairocana sūtra and
the manuals of Susiddhi, all of the Buddhoṣṇīsa ̣ divisions, and all of the
mantra practices. (T. 2056.50:292c8–11)Thus, one tradition dominates, but not exclusively. As far as can be
ascertained, the STTS is the dominant structural template in the teach-
ing of Amoghavajra’s disciple Huiguo as well.^21 This is apparent from
examination of the “Womb” or Garbhakośa manuals in the Huiguo-
Kūkai lineage. Despite their Garbhakośa trappings, the underlying
structure of these manuals is based on mudrā-mantra pairs originating
(^20) It has often been asserted that patronage for esoteric masters and rites was cur-
tailed after the death of Emperor Daizong in 779. This is not correct, and there is
evidence of considerable patronage and imperially sponsored abhiṣeka into the late
ninth century. See the discussion below.
(^21) We must exercise caution in assigning this preference any semblance of “ortho-
doxy.” Despite the remarkable patronage and institutional imprimatur of Daizong
and despite the preference of the Huiguo-Kūkai lineage, teachings associated with the
Mahāvairocana sūtra, the Susiddhikara, and other ritual cycles were widespread and
took on new dimensions in the decades following Amoghavajra’s death.