318 charles d. orzech
its brevity and exclusivity. Other lineages were concerned to fill in the
gaps in transmission back to Śākyamuni, and were therefore necessar-
ily long. In this case, the accessibility of the teaching through initiation
by an ācārya who plays the role of Mahāvairocana appears to have
circumvented such pseudohistorical concerns.^15
Amoghavajra’s Descendants
Japanese scholars have long argued that the teachings of the “three
great ācāryas” (san dashi ) were distinctive.^16 Some have seized
on their overt soteriological dimensions in drawing a contrast with the
more “worldly” aims of other esoteric teachings, but this does not hold
up.^17 Further, the assumptions and needs of Shingon and Tendai have
led to an overstatement of the influence of Śubhākarasiṃha (Shanwu-
wei 637–735),^18 Vajrabodhi, and Amoghavajra during Xuan-
zong’s reign (685–756). It is not the soteriology that is decisive
but rather the sociology, technology, and access to knowledge.
First, access to advanced ritual technology was restricted through
closely controlled abhiṣeka and years or decades of intensive training.
Second, systems connected with the MVS and the STTS came to domi-
nate the scene. Third, and more significantly, Amoghavajra achieved
an unparalleled level of institutional patronage under Suzong (r.
756–762) and Daizong (r. 762–779). This, coupled with Amogha-
vajra’s strong emphasis on the STTS, produced conditions that allowed
for the development of sometzhing approaching an “orthodoxy” which
commanded tremendous prestige, both within China and beyond.^19
Institutional support did not altogether wither after Daizong’s death—
(^15) In an interesting twist, the two types of genealogy are combined in a text attributed
to Amoghavajra, the Jin’gangjun jing jin’gangding yiqie rulai shenmiao bimi jin’gangjie
dasanmeiye xiuxing sishierzhong tanfa jing zuoyong weiyi faze, Dapiluzhe’nafo jin’gang
xindi famen mifa jietanfa yize
found in Dunhuang (P. 3913, 2791, S. 5981, etc.). In this instance, each member of
the long line of Chan patriarchs ascends to the palace of Mahāvairocana to receive
abhisekạ. Tanaka 1983, 135–66, provides a discussion and critical edition. For an Eng-
lish summary, see Tanaka 1981. 16
The classic version of this argument was made in 1933 by Toganoo 1982 reprint,
esp. 16–27. 17
For an example of a critique see Strickmann 1996, 13, 96, 127–33.
(^18) See Pinte, “Śubhākarasiṃha,” in this volume.
(^19) This is often designated Zhenyan , but see the discussion in Orzech, “Eso-
teric Buddhism in the Tang,” in this volume.