. esoteric buddhism in the tang 271
and interests.^31 This text, consisting of three fascicles and sixteen chap-
ters, is obviously different from and much shorter than the version
translated seven years later by Bodhiruci (see below).
The first fascicle sets out the benefits of the text—including that
mastery of the dhāraṇī will result in mastery of the world—as well as
instructions for painting the main image.^32 The second fascicle details
rites for various mundane achievements, such as using corpses to find
buried treasure, entering harems, and expelling demons that cause dis-
ease.^33 The third fascicle attends to more noble ends. It describes three
altars—for kings, for ministers, and for commoners—and spends the
most time on the procedures for bringing a king into the mandala.^34
This includes a rite of abhisekạ (T. 1097.20:428b), albeit one centered
on purifying imagery; subduing dragon kings with the aim of over-
lordship and relieving drought; and, finally, seeing the Buddha. A key
element of all these rites is the repetition of various short mantras.
However, more comprehensive details about mandalas, mantras, and
their internalization and visual manipulation are lacking. Strangely,
this text was not officially entered into the canon until 712.^35 Indeed,
it seems likely that the text was crafted to meet the political needs of
Manicintana’s main patron.
Bodhiruci^36
Even more peculiar is the fact that Manicintana’s colleague Bodhiruci
rendered a different version of the Amoghapāśa only seven years
after Manicintana’s translation. Bodhiruci was from South India and
(^31) As Reis-Habito points out, the empress assumed the title of cakravartin one
month after the translation of this text, which says that one who masters the dhāraṇī
“will rule the world... [and] be called a cakravartin.” See Reis-Habito 1999, 49–50. 32
T. 1097.20:421b28–421c26; 422b15–423b22.
(^33) See, for example, T. 1097.20:425b22–425c23 and the translations in Orzech
1994b, 116–20.
(^34) T. 1097.20:427b20–429a14; 429a15–429c3.
(^35) It is missing from the Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu ( T.
2153) of 695, despite the fact that some of the translation team worked on the cata-
logue. Forte 1984, 309, suggests that its political sensitivity and perhaps its esoteric
contents mitigated against inclusion. 36
This Bodhiruci, sometimes designated by scholars as Bodhiruci II, was origi-
nally named Dharmaruci , but his name was changed by Empress Wu. See
Forte 2002, 92. He is not to be confused with the earlier monk of this name (?–527)
who translated many important Mahāyāna works, including the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra
(Rulengqie jing , T. 671) and the Diamond sūtra (Jin’gang bore jing
, T. 236A).