. amoghavajra 353
; T. 1665.32:572–574) fur-
ther characterized the expertise of “men who practice words of truth”
(zhenyan xing ren ) as the most advanced and efficient
means of salvation, in contrast to the bodhisattva’s gradual course of
conduct.
While the historical relation between practice and doctrine is dif-
ficult to determine, such self-descriptions remain ambiguous; they
hardly indicate whether they were understood in terms of doctrinal
distinctions based on the self-conception of a specific lineage, or were
rather rhetorical, meant to establish an integrated yet exalted status
of Amoghavajra’s ritual pragmatics in relation to Mahāyāna praxis.
A significant context of these self-descriptions, however, is the appar-
ent emphasis on the efficacy of ritual expertise and its technical imple-
mentation vis-à-vis established Buddhist praxis. This is mirrored in
Amoghavajra’s use of tantric ritual pragmatics in conjunction with
the role of the ācārya, monopolizing three basic functions of religious
authority: to guarantee authentic transmission of doctrine and praxis,
to direct the liturgy, and to mediate between divine force and imperial
sovereignty (Lehnert 2006).
The traditional narrative of transmission claimed that seminal scrip-
tures were lost during transport in a storm at sea; although the vessel
was saved by Vajrabodhi’s wizardry, the scriptures were cast overboard
by the panicked crew (T. 1798.39:808b; Orzech 1995b). Amoghavajra
grounded his authority in the purportedly fragmentary textual tradi-
tion of the STTS, and he presented Vajrabodhi’s translation (T. 866)
as a contingent reference to universal order that was still accessible
through authentic ritual performance. Such textual policy ensured
exclusive authority, despite the weak textual evidence for authenticity,
and paved a pragmatic way to consolidate Amoghavajra’s legitimacy
through textual production in close relation to ritual practice (Leh-
nert 2008). The purposeful way in which Amoghavajra arranged and
justified elaborate ceremonies for specific aims helped to further dis-
solve traditional authority of textual transmission into his ritual aes-
thetics of (self-)sacralization. Directing liturgy, Amoghavajra referred
to concepts of Indian dramaturgy (T. 869.12:286c10–14; Giebel
1995, 179–182) and situated the linguistic indeterminacy of mantric
speech in mythical contexts. Such body politics allowed him to act
as a mediator between the military elite, the imperial household, and
domains of divine force demarcated by textual production and ritual
practice.