. translation of tantras 445
[B]lood sacrifices are inimical to the True Vehicle and foul curses are
contrary to the exquisite principle. This newly translated Vināyaka sūtra
in four juan is not permitted to be entered into the canon. From now on
this [sort of] scripture will not be translated.^26The objections are to “sacrifices of flesh and blood” (hunxie zhi si
) and to “disgusting curses” (yanzu zhi zi ) judged to be
contrary to the “True Vehicle” (zhensheng ) and to its “exquisite
principle” (youguai yu miaoli ). Such objections to ele-
ments of the cemetery cult are plausible. But elements of cemetery
practice—the use of human bones in ferocious homa offerings, the
revival of corpses, etc.—occur as early as Śubhākarasiṃha’s
(Shanwuwei, 637–735) translation of the Subāhu-paripṛcchā (Supohu
tongzi qingwen jing ) in 726.^27 However, unlike
earlier translations, where the passages were rendered discretely, Song
translations were transparent and seem to revel in gory descriptions
of cemetery sorcery.^28 Nonetheless, we cannot simply assume that our
own or even later Chinese attitudes concerning what is or is not trans-
gressive apply during the Song. Sexual practices could be found in
certain Buddhist ritual texts from at least the Tang, and while certain
passages were rendered obliquely, obfuscation also occurred in South
Asia.^29 So too, ritual violence and its iconographic representation is
not unknown in esoteric texts and practices, as is evident from the use
(^26) T. 2035.49:405c26–406a2. This “edict” might have more to do with Zhipan’s
milieu than with that of the Institute. A “Vināyaka sūtra” (T. 1272) in four juan is
indeed found in the canon. It was translated by Dharmabhadra sometime between
989 and 999. 27
See, for instance, T. 895.18:726c29–727c22, or Manicintana’s late seventh-cen-
tury translation of the Scripture of the Amoghapāśa dhāraṇī
( T. 1097), which includes straightforward instructions for spells for resurrecting
corpses to help find buried treasure (20:425b22) and spells for entering the bedcham-
bers of asura women (20:425c24–426b1).
(^28) This is certainly the case for the text on the worship of Vajrabhairava (T. 1242).
See for instance, 21:204a23ff, 207a18ff, etc. Charles Willemen notes in his translation
and study of the Chinese Hevajratanra that Dharmapāla “rendered the Indian original
in a very tactful, deliberately abstruse way, but remaining true to the actual proceed-
ings of the Indian original” (Willemen 1983, 29). 29
Secrecy and its opposite—deliberate and flagrant transgressiveness—are well-
known tropes in the tantras. As Ronald M. Davidson has observed, secrecy coupled
with titillation may have been the most effective strategy for the propagation of a
religious system. See Davidson 2002a, 245–47.