260 martin lehnertrei es itself as speech in ritual performance.^44 Consequently, zhenyan
denotes mantric “Sanskrit” signi ers transcribed in Chinese translations
as incidences of unconditional and therefore empowering, ef cacious
speech acts. To quote these “words of truth”, the Chinese texts used
a distinct set of Chinese graphs belonging to the class of the “mouth”
(Chin. kou ) radical as well as the syllabic Siddham script, indicating
that these were—as was the case in Sanskrit language practice—sounds
performed, but not meanings to be re ected upon. There was never a
provision of translated or “genuine” Chinese zhenyan.
Tantric Buddhist scriptures were translated in team work following the
model of the 7th century bureaus of translation perfected by Xuanzang
(600–664), but obviously in a somewhat downscaled manner.^45
The in uential Chan monk Yixing^46 (673–727), mentioned by
Vajrabodhi as having taken part in the translation work, had already
assisted ubhakarasiha in translating the Mahvairocanbhisa bodhi, on
which he composed extensive exegesis also inspired by Chan and Tiantai
related conceptions. A con scation of ubhakarasiha’s manuscripts
suggests that emperor Xuanzong (r. 712–756) who favoured Dao-
ism initially was suspicious about Tantric pragmatics.^47 Yixing helped
to formulate a doctrinal expression more consistent with Buddhist
practices known in China, and facilitated their acceptance at the court.
Subsequently, ubhakarasiha translated Tantric scriptures such as the
Susiddhikara^48 and the Subhuparip cch,^49 which instruct the whole range
of siddha practices and precepts. These were of great importance for
thaumaturgical, demonological, apotropaic and other mantic types of
ritual as well as initiation criteria, and became in uential in Tantric
Buddho-Daoist syncretisms and local cults as well.^50(^44) Lehnert 2006, pp. 93–95.
(^45) Wang 1986, pp. 123–131.
(^46) For Yixing’s broad knowledge and eminent genealogical background as causes
for his rise to political power under emperor Xuanzong, see Chen 2000, pp. 1–38; cf.
Weinstein 1987, pp. 55–56. 47
The Kaiyuan shijiao lu indicates that ubhakarasiha, after having presented his rst
translation to the emperor, was not allowed to continue his work and to translate further
manuscripts. See T.2154.55.572a12–15; cf. Chou 1945, p. 265 n. 78; Orzech 1998,
p. 139. Another reason for emperor Xuanzong’s initial non-acceptance might have been
the recent Buddhist support of empress Wuhou’s proclamation of the Zhou dynasty
(690–705). However, the apotropaic “technology” of Tantric pragmatics nally turned
out to be decisive for Xuanzongs patronage of the “secret teachings” (Twitchett 1979,
pp. 411–413). On Xuanzong’s patronage of Vajrabodhi, see Weinstein 1987, p. 55. 48
Extant text in three recensions: T.893.18.603a–633c, 633c–663b, 663b–692a.
(^49) T.895.18.719a–735b, 735–746b.
(^50) Strickmann 1996, pp. 221–229, 236–241, 299–301.
HEIRMAN_f9_247-276.indd 260 3/13/2007 6:40:08 PM