Geoffrey C. Goble. Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition. The Sheng Yen Series in Chinese Buddhist Studies. New York: Columbia University Press, 2019. 336 pp. $70.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-231-19408-2. Reviewed by Jeffrey Kotyk (McMaster University) Published on H-Buddhism (August, 2020) Commissioned by Jessica Zu (Princeton University, USC Dornsife) In recent years we have seen increasing publi‐ of the first chapter. We have no evidence that Śub‐ cations on the topic of Japanese Mikkyō in the hākarasiṃha was seen as presenting a new teach‐ English language, but attention to its predecessor ing and no reliable way of knowing how he pre‐ in Tang China is especially welcome.[1] The title of sented himself and his Buddhism” (p. 9). This is one Geoffrey C. Goble’s book, Chinese Esoteric Bud‐ of the key arguments of Chinese Esoteric Bud‐ dhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the dhism, but one can summon counter evidence Emergence of a Tradition, immediately sparks in‐ against it (see below). Chapter 1 defines “Esoteric terest, given the absence of a dedicated mono‐ Buddhism” as separate from an “esoteric Bud‐ graph on the influential court cleric Amoghavajra dhism” (uppercase versus lowercase e), the latter from the mid-Tang. Upon reading Chinese Esoteric being dhāraṇīs (incantations) and spells, while the Buddhism, however, I concluded that it contains a former is understood as something new to China number of indefensible claims and theories that and in particular established by Amoghavajra. render the main arguments in the book difficult to Does Goble’s key apparatus for defining Eso‐ accept, although at the same time I have to com‐ teric Buddhism hold up? I do not believe it does. mend the author for his extensive excavation of Contrary to what Goble claims, we actually do primary sources in classical Chinese, ranging from have evidence that a Mantric tradition was, in Buddhist texts to state chronicles. Many of the fact, regarded as a new and innovative teaching problems I will point out below could have been even before Śubhākarasiṃha. Several of the fol‐ avoided had the author consulted more secondary lowing points were already explained in Yoritomi sources, particularly in Japanese, but the book’s Motohiro’s work, which does not appear in Goble’s bibliography only lists a handful of studies in Japa‐ bibliography.[2] nese and Mandarin Chinese. The Tuoluoni ji jing 陀羅尼集經, translated by ing “Esoteric Buddhism.” In the synopsis, Goble Atikūṭa 阿地瞿多 in 654, describes the consecration writes, “The first step in this project is to provide the “Secret Dharma Depository of the Buddhas” One of the key concerns of the book is defin‐ evidence of local recognition of Esoteric Buddhism as a new teaching and to delineate as clearly as possible what that teaching was. This is the subject of a ritual space and the initiation of disciples in (zhufo mimi fazang 諸佛祕密法藏). This would refer to a maṇḍala (sacred ritual space) and the accom‐ panying abhiṣeka (consecration). The ritual H-Net Reviews process uses a vajra (T 901, 18: 813c19-814c23). hākarasiṃha, that we have “no reliable way of Moreover, Zhisheng 智昇 (669–740) in 730 reported knowing how he presented himself and his Bud‐ dhism. We only have access to others’ representa‐ that Atikūṭa “established a Universal Altar for Dhāraṇīs 建陀羅尼普集會壇” (T 2154, 55: 562c15). tions. In sources produced prior to 755, Śub‐ This was, I believe, unprecedented in Chinese histo‐ hākarasiṃha is identified as transmitting the ry and would have been recognized as a new mod‐ dhāraṇī teaching rather than something new in his el of Buddhist practice. scriptural translations” (p. 9). This is an erroneous Moving ahead a few decades, Chinese monks assertion for the simple fact that we have the com‐ in India were exposed to the new Mantric prac‐ mentary to the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, which was tices. Although on page 19, Goble notes that the Chi‐ compiled and expanded on by Yixing based on the ble for the transmission of several key texts back er, rejects this authorship: “All told, evidence sug‐ nese monk Wuxing 無行 (b. 630) had been responsi‐ oral testimony of Śubhākarasiṃha. Goble, howev‐ gests that the Commentary postdates the lives of to China, another essential item of interest related Śubhākarasiṃha and Yixing and is possibly a Japa‐ to Wuxing is the letter he sent to the Chinese court, nese product” (pp. 19–20). which Goble does not mention. The letter was brought to Japan by Ennin 圓仁 (794–864) (南荊州沙 Some remarks about the authorship of the 門無行在天竺國致於唐國書一卷; T 2167, 55: 1086c22). commentary were voiced by Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄 portant line is preserved in the Shingon shūkyō jigi in 1954 expressing doubts about Yixing’s involve‐ (b. 1907) as early as 1944. He also wrote an article Only a few lines of this letter are extant. One im‐ 眞言宗教時義 by Annen 安然 (841–915?). The extant ment in the text in question (this does not mean it line from Wuxing’s letter reads, “Recently the new was a Japanese composition however). Osabe Mantra teachings have become revered in the should have been cited (especially his monograph country [India] 近者新有眞言教法擧國崇仰” (T 2396, on Yixing) but was not, although later scholars in 75: 421a11). Yijing 義淨 (635–713), who visited Japan have generally not accepted Osabe’s propos‐ al. Excellent recent studies on the commentary in Southeast Asia and India between 671 and 695, also reported that the Vidyādharapiṭaka (zhou zang 呪 its various recensions include those by Kameyama 藏), in other words, the canon of dhāraṇīs or Takahiko, Shimizu Akisumi, and Mano Shinya.[3] These scholars discuss the complex factors under‐ mantras, had not yet spread eastward to China (呪 藏東夏未流). Yijing himself had repeatedly entered lying the production and transmission of multiple the tanchang 壇場 (here referring to the ritual recensions of the commentary (the two main ver‐ sions in use by scholars are T 1796 and X 438). space or maṇḍala) at Nālanda intent on acquiring this practice, but his merit was insufficient (淨於那 Goble’s argument against the traditionally at‐ T 2066, 51: tributed authorship of the commentary is easily re‐ 7a9-12). These accounts prove that the Chinese futed with reference to the commentary itself and were already aware of an innovative new ap‐ other Chinese and Japanese sources. I present five proach to Buddhist practice centered on mantras, points that contest Goble’s argument. First, the which clearly required some sort of authorization by Amoghavajra’s disciple Huilin 慧琳 (737–820), 爛陀亦屢入壇場希心此要而為功不並就; sub-commentary in the Yiqie jing yinyi 一切經音義 or initiation. produced in 807, cites the commentary with the ab‐ An important part of Chinese Esoteric Bud‐ breviated title Yiji 義記, noting it was produced by dhism is its treatment of Amoghavajra’s predeces‐ Yixing. This abbreviated title likely stems from sors. Goble addresses the careers and roles of Śub‐ Dapiluzhena jing yiji 大毘盧遮那經義記, which is an hākarasiṃha, Yixing, and Vajrabodhi in the intro‐ duction. Goble argues, with regard to attested title in Annen’s catalog, the Sho ajari shin‐ Śub‐ 2 H-Net Reviews gon mikkyō burui sōroku 諸阿闍梨眞言密教部類總録 men‐ tions the translation but not the commentary.[5] (T 2756, 55: 1114c24-26) from the year 902. Annen also noted this work was “expounded by Śub‐ Fourth, the Liangbu dafa xiangcheng shizi fufa hākarasiṃha and recorded by Yixing 無畏釋一行記” (T 2176, 55: 1114c24). This only demonstrates the ji 兩部大法相承師資付法記 by Haiyun 海雲 in 834 traditional position that this commentary was Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi in seven fascicles, which records that Yixing produced a commentary to the orally explained by Śubhākarasiṃha at first and later were arranged as fourteen (T 2081, 51: then Yixing added further material on the basis of 786c17-18). Fifth, Annen (T 2176, 55: 1114c24) this. Huilin’s definition of the term mānava 摩納婆 recorded that a commentary to the Vairocanāb‐ was clearly derived from the commentary (com‐ hisaṃbodhi (大毘盧遮那經義記十卷) was brought to b5). Huilin clearly had the commentary in his pos‐ Japan by Genbō 玄昉 (d. 746). Genbō stayed in Chi‐ session in the year 807 in China. were fraudulent, it is clear that Genbō returned pare T 2128, 54: 353b23-c1 and T 1796, 39: 594a27- na between 716 and 735. Unless Annen’s records Second, Yixing’s own theory of fixed and aver‐ with one version of the commentary. Genbō’s aged New Moons is actually incorporated into the dates in China overlap with the careers of Śub‐ commentary in the section on astrology and cal‐ hākarasiṃha and Yixing in the capital. Genbō was endrical conventions. I have discussed this section actually in China when the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi of the commentary and Yixing’s theory in a past and its commentary were produced. study.[4] If the commentary were a Japanese com‐ As the research of various Japanese scholars position, as Goble suggests it could be, the au‐ shows, there were some emendations and edits to thor(s) would have had to be familiar with the as‐ the commentary in China after Yixing’s time, but tronomical theory of Yixing. This seems unlikely the bulk of the work dates back to Yixing and Śub‐ because his calendar, the Dayan li 大衍暦, would hākarasiṃha.[6] Moreover, looking at the two not have been accessible to monastics in China main recensions of this commentary that are and Japan. Furthermore, the commentary trans‐ commonly used today (T 1796 and X 438), we see lates twelve zodiacs as shi’er fang 十二房 (twelve lines that commence with “the ācārya states ...” (阿 闍梨云; T 1796, 39: 579c10), which is likely Śub‐ chambers) (T 1796, 39: 618a8). If the commentary were produced during or after Amoghavajra’s hākarasiṃha’s own voice, albeit translated into time, especially by a Japanese hand, we would ex‐ Chinese. In fact, although Yixing is normally credit‐ pect to see the more conventionally established ed with the authorship of the commentary, and in‐ wei 十二位 (twelve places). deed it is a fact he clearly edited and added materi‐ uted to Saichō 最澄 (767–822), mentions the produc‐ the Gishaku mokuroku 義釋目錄 by the Japanese terms shi’er gong 十二宮 (twelve palaces) or sh’er al, it seems that Yixing built up from Śub‐ Third, the Taizō engi 胎藏緣起, which is attrib‐ hākarasiṃha’s oral commentary. An item listed in monk Enchin 圓珍 (814–91) includes a certain Fan‐ tion of the commentary: Yixing “frequently con‐ ben Piluzhena chengfo jing chaoji 梵本毗盧遮那成佛 sulted with Tripiṭaka Master Śubhākarasiṃha. 經抄記 (X 438, 23: 299b21), which is not extant, but [They] translated the Sanskrit of the Vairocana-sū‐ tra into a Chinese text, altogether seven fascicles, this appears to have been notes for the Sanskrit which was then transmitted into the world, while Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi. also producing a commentary on the meanings [of hākarasiṃha had together translated said text in the text] 每於無畏三藏所諮, 毗盧遮那經, 自譯梵文以爲 Yixing and Śub‐ 724, so undoubtedly these notes were likely record‐ 漢典凡七卷, 見傳於世,兼為疏義.” The Ryaku fuhō den ed from Śubhākarasiṃha. Yixing, we can imagine, 略付法傳 by Kūkai 空海 (774–835), however, only incorporated these into the commentary, as seems 3 H-Net Reviews to have been the case. Furthermore, the commen‐ This idea is further elaborated in the commen‐ tary on the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi deals with tary as follows: “The gate into the entry of Mantra many more topics than only the dhāraṇī teach‐ generally includes three items. The first is the gate ings—in fact, it explains abhiṣeka and the creation related to the mysteries of body. The second is the of a maṇḍala, which leads me to wonder why Gob‐ gate related to mysteries of speech. The third is the le claims that “in sources produced prior to 755, gate related to mysteries of mind. These matters Śubhākarasiṃha is identified as transmitting the will be broadly discussed below. The practitioner dhāraṇī teaching rather than something new in his purifies their three karmas through these three scriptural translations” (p. 9). means. It is by being empowered [*adhiṣṭhāna] with the three mysteries of the Tathāgata that it is The above points can only lead one to con‐ clude that Goble’s challenge to the traditionally at‐ possible to fulfill the bhūmis and pāramitās in this tributed authorship of the commentary to the lifetime, and not further pass through numbers of Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi is indefensible and more‐ 者心密門. 是事下當廣說. 行者以此三方便, 自淨三業, 即 kalpas 入真言門略有三事, 一者身密門, 二者語密門, 三 over constitutes a fatal flaw in his analysis of Śub‐ 為如來三密之所加持, 乃至能於此生滿足地波羅密, 不復 hākarasiṃha and Yixing. To suggest that the com‐ 經歷劫數” (T 1796, 39: 579b27-c2).[7] This would mentary “is possibly a Japanese product” is mis‐ have been a revolutionary new concept to Chinese leading and wrong. I shared Goble’s idea with Shin‐ gon and Tendai monks, who agreed that such a Buddhists, especially when it was linked to the proposal was unreasonable. One remarked that mysteries Kūkai brought back a copy of the commentary in hākarasiṃha’s translation was arguably novel in 806, which in Kūkai’s catalog is also attributed to China, since it explained this concept of buddha‐ Yixing (T 2161, 55: 1064a8). My colleague further hood within one lifetime. noted that Kūkai repeatedly quoted from the com‐ of body, speech, and mind. Śub‐ I am compelled to challenge Goble’s claim that Śubhākarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi “seem to have mentary throughout his writings. Moving on, Goble argues, “In China, Śub‐ had little if any effect on the conception of Bud‐ hākarasiṃha’s texts were not conceived as a dis‐ dhism in China, likely due to the relative paucity of tinct or new teaching during his own lifetime” (p. their scriptural contributions to the Chinese Bud‐ 20). The Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, however, explains dhist canon” (p. 29). The foundations of Buddhist that attainment of full awakening is possible with‐ Mantrayāna in East Asia were, in reality, estab‐ in a single life, which is entirely unlike earlier lished by these two monks and then further devel‐ Mahāyāna texts, in which the path to full buddha‐ oped by Amoghavajra. Śubhākarasiṃha and Va‐ hood takes immeasurable lifetimes along the ten jrabodhi introduced lineages of abhiṣeka (initia‐ bhūmis of a bodhisattva’s career. The relevant line tions) and also new iconographical forms via ma in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi reads, “Moreover, he ṇḍalas. These two practices alone altered the face manifested the appearances of vajradharas, and of Chinese Buddhism. The pantheon of deities and the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Padmapāṇi, other figures who accompanied the maṇḍalas were and proclaimed throughout the ten directions the greatly influential within Chinese Buddhist art his‐ pure-worded Dharma of the Mantra path: that the tory. The iconography these two monks introduced stages from the first generation of [bodhi-]citta up ought to also have been addressed by Goble. These to tenth [can be] progressively fulfilled in this life‐ icons were preserved in Japan in various docu‐ 真言道清淨句法, 所謂初發心乃至十地, 次第此生滿足” (T zuzō vol. 2: 191–328) and Taizō kuzuyō 胎藏舊圖樣 ments, such as the Taizō zuzō 胎藏圖象 ( Taishō time 又現執金剛普賢蓮華手菩薩等像貌, 普於十方, 宣說 (Taishō zuzō vol. 2: 477–566), for example. From 848, 18: 1b2-4). 4 H-Net Reviews the perspective of art history, it is unreasonable to possessed and transmitted the Great Vairocana argue that Śubhākarasiṃha or Vajrabodhi had “lit‐ Scripture to Amoghavajra, there is no other evi‐ tle if any effect on the conception of Buddhism in dence that Vajrabodhi emphasized or was aware China,” since from the extant literature and of this text.” This is another puzzling statement, iconography, it is patently clear that this is untrue. since Japanese Buddhism traditionally teaches otherwise. Haiyun explained that Vajrabodhi knew Moving further into the study, Goble suggests that “it is difficult not to see Emperor Xuanzong’s that Śubhākarasiṃha understood the teachings of interest in Vajrabodhi—like Emperor Taizong’s in‐ Mahāvairocana and subsequently sought teach‐ terest in Xuanzang—as predicated on the intelli‐ ings from him (T 2081, 51: 784a5-10). There is clear‐ gence concerning foreign kingdoms that the monk ly evidence to support the idea that Vajrabodhi could provide” (p. 29). Taizong’s interest in Xuan‐ was aware of the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi and was zang was complex and not limited to an interest in initiated into it. If Goble disputes this, then he Xuanzang’s knowledge of foreign countries. The ought to have provided reasoning why. utility of gaining popular Buddhist support through Chinese Esoteric Buddhism is primarily con‐ sponsoring translations during a critical time in cerned with Amoghavajra. The background bio‐ his reign was more likely Taizong’s actual interest. graphical information is sufficient but could have A lot of the assumptions about Taizong’s relation‐ included a critical discussion of the Buddhist ship to Xuanzang are based on questionable hagio‐ sources that we possess to reconstruct the life of graphical evidence.[8] Similarly, in my opinion, it is Amoghavajra, as well as their potential shortcom‐ more reasonable to argue that Vajrabodhi and his ings as hagiographies but such philological excava‐ monastic contemporaries were regarded by Xuan‐ tions of primary sources are not a feature in the zong’s court as valuable members of the sangha. book. There would have been far superior methods to ac‐ Buddhist hagiographies and state records can quire intelligence on foreign powers than relying be at odds with each other in Chinese history, so re‐ on foreign monks, and a survey of the dynastic constructing the life of a monk is no simple task. histories and various state compendia show that; One can also carefully use Japanese materials as in fact, state authors seldom seriously consulted additional references, such as the aforementioned Buddhist sources. For instance, the encyclopedic Ryaku fuhō den in the case of Amoghavajra. Fasci‐ You 杜佑 (735–812) has a line in the sub-commen‐ tary on the section on India that states, “Authors 1013 by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962-1025) and Yang Yi record the affairs of India, with many records of 楊億 (974-1020)—is another important source. In this voluminous work, which is now digitized and monks. One suspects that the popular records of searchable on CTEXT and Wikisource, we see some Faming and Dao’an are all fantastical and unreli‐ able, so they are not recompiled [here] 諸家紀天竺 references to Amoghavajra. This fascicle in partic‐ 國事, 多錄諸僧, 法明道安之流傳記, 疑皆恢誕不經, 不復 ular includes a memorial penned by Amoghavajra 悉纂也.” For these reasons, I think the statement in which he reviews his own long career. A eulogy that Amoghavajra acted as an unofficial intelli‐ These documents would have been worth bringing gence agent “according to an established role for into the wider study. Tong dian 通典 (fasc. 193) compiled in 801 by Du cle 52 of the Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜—completed in of Amoghavajra is also included in this fascicle. Buddhist monks in the Tang period” is also prob‐ Chapter 2 discusses Amoghavajra’s rise to in‐ lematic (p. 37). fluence in relation to the rites of the Tang “imperi‐ On page 45, Goble argues, “Although the Ac‐ al religion.” This is not an emic category (that is, count of Conduct passage suggests that Vajrabodhi Chinese did not have an equivalent term such as 5 H-Net Reviews this, nor did they think of their country as an “em‐ Goble does not seem to discuss this text in his pire”). As part of this discussion, Goble introduces book, despite its professional and political signifi‐ the specific ritual for the winter solstice, citing the cance in Amoghavajra’s life. This text was first Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書 (JTS 21.820). He states that “the drafted in 759, with a subsequent revision in 764. twelve zodiacal constellations” were enshrined on These were the years that Amoghavajra’s career as the altar, which sparked my interest, since I did not a court cleric flourished. We should note that the think that the zodiacal deities were incorporated edition of the Xiuyao jing in the Taishō canon is into the state rituals at this point in Chinese history not the original version produced by Amoghava‐ (the zodiac signs—Aries, Taurus, etc.—originated jra. The main body of the text also defers to Indian in Mesopotamia and were initially transmitted or Sino-Indian astronomers resident in the capital, into China via Buddhism) (p. 62). However, upon namely, the Kāśyapa and Gautama families, and reading the original source, I did not see any refer‐ the monk Kumāra[9]. In light of these facts, to sug‐ ence to zodiacal signs or constellations but only to gest Amoghavajra rose to prominence on a wave the twenty-eight lunar stations (ershiba xiu 二十八 of violent magic unduly modifies his image toward 宿). Goble also mentions Tianyi 天一 and Taiyi 太一, that angle. Amoghavajra was also involved in as‐ trology and astronomy to some extent. but I do not see these in the original Chinese text. This sort of imaginative or otherwise defective in‐ Goble argues that “in Esoteric Buddhism, stan‐ terpretation of the primary source is misleading. dard ethical proscriptions and prescriptions for Chapter 3 discusses Esoteric Buddhism and both monastic Buddhists and lay practitioners warfare, topics with which Amoghavajra was evi‐ were effectively subordinated to an ethic of pow‐ dently familiar. Here we find extensive documen‐ er” (p. 128). This ethical flexibility described here tation of ritual forms used in the Tang military, in‐ was not necessarily an innovation of Amoghava‐ cluding Buddhist and Daoist sources that are con‐ jra. We can point to the work of the Huayan patri‐ arch Fazang 法藏 (643–712), namely, his commen‐ nected to Amoghavajra. Extensive details are pro‐ vided for this topic. Goble argues that “Amoghava‐ tary on the bodhisattva precepts: Fanwangjing jra’s meteoric ascent was largely the result of two often cited the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽論 (T 1579), pusa jieben shu 梵網經菩薩戒本疏 (T 1813). Fazang essential and related factors” (p. 95). He cites the An Lushan rebellion and Amoghavajra’s subjuga‐ which gives the bodhisattva a great deal of ethical tion rituals with which he was believed to subdue flexibility to carry out acts of theft and even homi‐ and kill enemies. Although many details are given cide if circumstances permit. Such acts performed to argue for these two points, I would argue that it out of compassion generate merit according to was not strictly Amoghavajra’s abilities in spell‐ said text (T 1579, 30: 517b6-17). Fazang’s commen‐ craft that facilitated his rise in elite society. tary allows for the production of weapons and Amoghavajra’s career during this period included subduing of unruly sentient beings (T 1813, 40: other activities, most notable was his compilation 639b5-9). In light of this, the argument that and formulation of Indian astrology for imple‐ Amoghavajra’s system of Buddhism was subordi‐ mentation within a Chinese environment. The rel‐ nated to an ethic of power appears overstated and evant text in question is listed in the bibliography not entirely justified. of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism as Wenshushili pusa This sets the stage for chapter 4, which deals 殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經 (T 1299), with Amoghavajra’s relationships with various su (in other words, Xiuyao jing, not Suyao jing). the changes the Tang government saw during the jizhu xiansuo shuo jixiong shiri shan’e suyao jing 文 elite figures, including the emperors and other but 宿 (lunar lodge or constellation) is xiu and not prominent men. Goble goes into great detail about 6 H-Net Reviews years of Amoghavajra’s career. He also outlines bi‐ Esoteric ographical details of the people with whom Amoghavajra remains to be written. Amoghavajra interacted, with reference to the dy‐ Buddhism. The definitive study on Notes nastic histories and other sources. Chapter 5 ad‐ [1]. I must thank Joseph P. Elacqua and Jayara‐ dresses the institutional establishment of Esoteric va Attwood for their comments regarding this re‐ Buddhism. Goble asserts an argument made view. I must also thank my colleagues from Shin‐ throughout earlier chapters, that “Amoghavajra gon and Tendai who shared their views. represented his teaching as a new teaching, one [2]. Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, “Mikkyō no that was not known in China until he transmitted kakuritsu” 密教の確立, in Indo mikkyō インド密教, what he had received in southern India” (p. 174). ed. Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Mo‐ Chapter 6 of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism explores tohiro (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999), 32–56. the legacy of Amoghavajra. This chapter also ex‐ tends into discussions of how Zanning 贊寧 (920– [3]. Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄, “Ichigyō Zenji no kenkyū” 一行禪師の研究, Mikkyō kenkyū 密教研究 87 1001) in particular shaped contemporary and also modern understandings of Amoghavajra and his (1944): 21–39; Osabe Kazuo, “Dainichikyō sho no Esoteric Buddhism. sensha to Gishaku no zaijisha ni kansuru gimon” 大日經疏の撰者と義釋の再治者に關する疑問, Mikkyō Goble gives different titles of texts in transla‐ bunka 密教文化 27 (1954): 40–47; Osabe Kazuo, Ichi‐ tion. For instance, Great Vairocana (p. 2), Mahā‐ gyō Zenji no kenkyū 一行禪師の研究 (Kobe: Kōbe vairocana (p. 3), and Great Vairocana Scripture (p. 18) for Dari jing 大日經 (on page 45 this is literally Shōka Daigaku Keizai Kenkyūsho, 1963); Kameya‐ ma Takahiko 龜山隆彦, “Dainichikyō sho ni okeru translated as Great Sun Scripture), but a more sen‐ senryakushaku shinpishaku ni tsuite”『大日經疏』 sible approach would be to consistently use an at‐ における淺略釋・深秘釋について, Indogaku Bukkyō‐ tested Sanskrit title of the work in question, such gaku Kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 56, no. 1 (2007): 169– as that given in the fragments explored by Mat‐ 72; Shimizu Akisumi 清水明澄, “Tōdo ni okeru sunaga Yūkei in 1966, and also recently used by Kanō Kazuo: namely, Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi.[10] Dainichikyō chūshakusho no seiritsu katei: Onkojo wo chūshin toshite” 唐土における『大日經』注釋書の We also see typographical errors throughout the 成立過程:『温古序』を中心として, Mikkyō bunka 密 book, which are too numerous to list here. Goble 教文化 221 (2008): 49–72; and Mano Shinya 真野新 mentions in passing “the deity Vinayaka (pinaya‐ jia tian 毘那夜迦天) or Vinayaka Gānapati (pinaya‐ 也, “Kanyaku Dainichi-kyō chūshakusho no seiritsu jia enabodi 毘那夜迦誐那缽底), the esoteric Gaṇeśa” ni kansuru kōsatsu: Kyōten kanyaku tono kankei kara” 漢訳『大日経』註釈書の成立に関する考察 : 経典 (p. 186). It should be Vināyaka and Gaṇapati re‐ 漢訳との関係から, Ronsō Ajia no bunka to shisō 論叢 spectively. More care with Sanskrit names would アジアの文化と思想 25 (2016): 34–121. have been desirable (especially now that MonierWilliams is digitized). [4]. Jeffrey Kotyk, “Early Tantric Hemerology To sum up, I believe that Chinese Esoteric Bud‐ in Chinese Buddhism: Timing of Rituals according dhism offers extensive biographical details regard‐ to Śubhakarasiṃha and Yixing,” Canadian Journal ing Amoghavajra’s life and career, as well as those of Buddhist Studies 13 (2018): 12–13. [5]. Dengyōdaishi zenshū 傳教大師全集 (Hieizan religiously or professionally connected to him, and Senshūin Fuzoku Ezan Gakuin 比叡山専修院附属叡 all this is indeed valuable, but this monograph suf‐ 山學院, 1926), vol. 4, 5 [391]; and Kōbōdaishi zenshū fers from a number of problems. In light of what I have outlined above, I cannot recommend Chinese 7 H-Net Reviews 弘法大師全集 (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1911), 1:613–14. [6]. See discussion of extant texts in Shimizu, “Tōdo ni okeru Dainichikyō chūshakusho no seirit‐ su katei,” 55. [7]. Quoted from Kotyk, “Early Tantric Hemerology in Chinese Buddhism,” 2n1. [8]. I critically discuss Xuanzang’s relationship with Taizong in my recent study: Jeffrey Kotyk, “Chinese State and Buddhist Historical Sources on Xuanzang: Historicity and the Daci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳,” T’oung Pao 通報 105 (2019): 531–35. [9]. Yano Michio, Mikkyō senseijutsu 密教占星 術 (Tokyo: Tōyō Shoin, 2013), 132–42, 226–50; and Sukuyō-kyō shukusatsu 宿曜經縮刷 (Nagoya: Waki‐ ta Bunshō, 1897), 1:29. [10]. Matsunaga Yūkei 松長有慶, “Dainichi-kyō no bonbun danpen ni tsuite” 大日經の梵文斷編につ いて, Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研 究 14, no. 2 (1966): 855; and Kanō Kazuo, “Vairo‐ canābhisaṃbodhi,” in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Bud‐ dhism, vol. 1, ed. Jonathan A. Silk (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 382–89. If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-buddhism Citation: Jeffrey Kotyk. Review of Goble, Geoffrey C. Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. August, 2020. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55284 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 8