tantric threads between india and china 253- Siddha and vidydhara praxis: subsequently, the gure of the “per-
fected one” (Skt. siddha) or “bearer of magic knowledge” (Skt. vidydhara)
rose to an alternative, non-institutional form of Buddhist praxis analo-
gous to Jaina and aiva ascetic paradigms. Siddhas claimed to be able to
gain supremacy by way of their occult skill (Skt. siddhi) and knowledge of
mystic enchantment (Skt. myyogavid) over supra-human forces, such as
demons and divinities, as well as over the karmic matrix of reality. This
in turn—according to what was propounded in the Arthastra (Treatise
on Policy; 1st–2nd century)^19 —quali ed them as media of deception
for political ends. Their expertise also comprehended rain making,
restraining of re, changing poison into antidote and similar protective
and healing powers as expounded in early Tantric scriptures such as
the Mahmyrvidyrajñ (Kingly Spell of the Great Peacock).^20
Following Davidson, one may conclude that Tantric Buddhist
pragmatics developed not simply from an appropriation of new
opportune models of religious praxis but in complex response to the
displacement of institutional Mahyna owing to the feudalisation of
medieval Indian society, structually adapting itself to actual trends
of thought and changes of socio-political order. This signi cant shift
became manifest in the tantras, which were—to quote a formulation by
David L. Snellgrove—“able to turn the notion of kingship to practical
account.”^21
Hence, a set of issues conditioning the composition of Buddhist
tantras and the conception of a related praxis transmitted to China
can be discerned: Ritual pragmatics constituted an important part
of Tantric scriptures. Their implementation helped to reconcile Bud-
dhist institutional life with the demands of the ruling and military
class for a ritual sacralisation of the political sphere, which in turn
paved the way to a Buddhist liturgy of empowerment. The Buddhist
clergy aimed to compete with the Puric narrative in providing a
(^19) The treatise is traditionally attributed to the Mauryan strategist and royal coun-
sellor Kautiliya (3rd century BC) but was probably composed between the rst and
second century AD; Scharfe 1993, p. 293. The text deals with a broad range of issues
regarding discipline, government, economics and military affairs, advocating social
duties and law as techniques of rule independent of moral concerns. 20
Davidson 2002, pp. 174, 187–190, 194–201. For an account of corresponding
activities of legendary Korean monks as reported in the Samguk yusa (Bequeathed Matters
of the Three Kingdoms), see the chapter by Pol Vanden Broucke in this volume.
(^21) Snellgrove 1959, p. 204.
HEIRMAN_f9_247-276.indd 253 3/13/2007 6:40:06 PM