. after amoghavajra 327
yiqietuoluoni sanzhong xidi
( T. 899).^55
All four texts proclaim a method of “three types of siddhi” and
are structured around the three “families” of the MVS and the Susid-
dhikara, i.e., Buddha, Lotus, and Vajra. All draw upon and echo the
Fodingzun sheng fa and all draw elaborate classificatory
homologies between three levels of the body, three types of siddhi, the
three families, and three levels of accomplishment within each siddhi.
All are concerned with “busting karmic obstructions” that will lead
to rebirth in hell, and all present dhāraṇī practices with rudimentary
ritual instructions. They also present elaborate fivefold homologies
based on distinctly Sinitic taxonomies surrounding the “five activities”
and the “five viscera.” Further, T. 905, 906, and 907 also provide the
textual basis for a correlation between the three siddhis and three sets
of five-syllable mantras that play a key role in Japanese Tendai esoteric
Buddhism.^56
This received picture, however, has been challenged by recent
research. Chen Jinhua has presented considerable evidence that all
three “Podiyu” texts are Japanese fabrications written to legiti-
mate the mantra practice used in Saichō’s lineage in the ninth century.^57
On hindsight, one can see several warning signs, including a lack of
any trace of such texts in Chinese catalogues or in the Dunhuang doc-
uments. While it is clear that interest in the Susiddhi was growing in
the ninth century, and that the “three siddhis” taxonomy is found in
the Susiddhikara, the production of texts based on Sinitic taxonomies
is not the sole province of the Chinese.^58 Chen’s work opens the pos-
sibility that other works attested first in Japanese pilgrim’s inventories
may have a Japanese rather than a Chinese provenance.
Other Masters in the Late Tang
Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra were not the last monks to come to the
Tang to propagate esoteric teachings and practices. Prajña Bore
(^55) Also know by the alternative title Piluzhe’nafo biexing jing.
(^56) These are A-ra-pa-ca-na, A-vī-ra-hūṃ-khaṃ, and A-vaṃ-raṃ-haṃ-khaṃ. The
inclusion of Sinitic taxonomic categories and concerns has prompted Osabe 1971b,
209, and others to posit a “heterodox” late Tang esoteric current. 57
First put forward in Chen 1998.
(^58) See Hunter 2004, 65, 84-93; Suxidi jieluo jing , T. 893 18.685b1ff;
and Giebel 2001, 191–94.