. translation of tantras 447
by Li Zunxu was issued in 1036, the Linji faction’s dominance
at court was complete.
Could the Linji branch of Chan’s rise to prominence in the court
have had any relationship to the Institute for the Propagation of the
Teaching? Circumstantial evidence suggests that there may have been
a link. The defeat of the Song armies at the hands of the Liao and
the humiliating terms of the Shanyuan treaty in 1004–1005
fueled anti-foreign sentiment and the nativism of the Guwen move-
ment. Linji Chan championed the sayings of home-grown Chinese
buddhas—sayings modeled on the ancient Confucian Analects and
the Zhuangzi—over the teachings of foreign Indian buddhas. One of
the most visible emblems of the foreign in the capital—particularly of
foreign Buddhism—was the Chuanfa yuan. So perhaps we should view
esoteric Buddhism and government patronage of translation as con-
tributing to the rise of Linji Chan. And perhaps Linji Chan was in part
the answer to what some in the Northern Song saw as increasingly
alien Indian Buddhism and as the nativist reply to the Song dream of
a Buddhist ecumene.
But the shift in court fashions did not mean that the popularity
of esoteric deities, scriptures, or practices, whether on their own or
as elements in other systems, lessened or abated. Esoteric Buddhism
had been a part of the Chinese scene for centuries, and late Chinese
Mahāyāna was already “esotericized” and would remain so. There is
also some evidence that some of the esoteric texts rendered at the
institute did in fact have an impact on Song Buddhism.^35
Key Personnel of the Chuanfa yuan
The main translators in the first decades of the institute were
Devaśāntika, Dānapāla, Dharmadeva (d. 1001), and Fahu.^36 Transla-
tion of Sanskrit works, prolific during the first decades of the Insti-
tute, became sporadic thereafter, and for all intents and purposes
ceased after the death of Richeng (Sūryakīrti, d. 1078).^37 Eighteen
texts in the Taishō canon are attributed to Devaśāntika, and another
seventy-four are attributed to him under his new name (from 978),
(^35) For this, see Keyworth, “Buddhist Tantras and Chinese Culture,” and Orzech,
“Esoteric Buddhism under the Song,” in this volume. 36
An excellent discussion of these four monks is found in Jan 1966a, 36–41.
(^37) Bowring 1992, 79–93.