354 martin lehnert
Amoghavajra’s influence on Buddhism can be understood in political
terms as counteracting the imminent decline of Buddhist institutions
following the An Lushan Rebellion (see Gernet 1995, 51–58). Often
portrayed as a master of apotropaic wizardry, Amoghavajra accom-
modated the functional status of Buddhism at court in terms of the
ācārya who is privileged to access “numinous empowerment” (shen-
bian jiachi , vikurvitādhiṣṭhāna) and committed to protect
imperial order. Overriding the confines of textual tradition and tying
the authenticity of ritual praxis to his own expertise, he was never con-
sidered by tradition to be a patriarch, in the sense that the Tiantai or
Chan lineages were construed. Since the status of his disciples depended
on the exclusivity of being initiated into the proper ritual practice, tes-
tified to by the master’s consecration, patriarchal and lineage claims
were expressions of mutual recognition. As a way to legitimize com-
petency, such claims rather referred to the synchronic formation and
transmission of a hierarchy based on symbolic and ritual pragmatics,
whereas diachronic (or rather, post facto) constructions of sectarian
lineage have not emerged as a long-standing issue.
Although the magnitude of his activities and the recognition he
received at court surpassed that of any other Buddhist master, Amogha-
vajra did not achieve comparably lasting fame. What remained after
his death in 774, and after Emperor Dezong’s (r. 780–804 C.E.)
decision to stop the liturgical services carried out by his disciples in the
imperial chapel, was a complex, seemingly unsystematic body of rather
technical scriptures barely accessible to the Buddhist laity. Amogha-
vajra’s ritual policy, however, influenced later Buddhist ritual masters,
the most prominent of whom was Kūkai (774–835 C.E.), who
claimed to be an heir of Amoghavajra’s lineage (Abé 1999, 128).
Imperial Preceptor and Ritual Expert
Working in the imperial chapel and monasteries, maintaining close
relations to the court, Amoghavajra introduced a large repertoire of
purificatory and apotropaic rituals, ceremonies of fire immolation
(homa) and consecration (abhiṣeka) rituals for the control of the
weather and celestial phenomena, rituals for prolonging the emperor’s
life, and rituals for the salvation of the dynastic ancestors. He further
developed a sumptuous liturgy of state protection, which allowed him
to respond to the demands of the government for the sacralization of
imperial sovereignty. His remarkable career depended less on insti-