An Esoteric Alternative: Maitreya in the Chinese Commentary on the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi

In Buddhist Studies, Maitreya is a well-studied figure, especially as he is presented in earlier strata of Buddhist literature. He functions as a kind of hero with the promise of reintroducing the Buddhadharma to the world after it has been lost. In Buddhism, next to Śākyamuni, Maitreya was the likely second-most honored person, whose importance uniquely remained strong in both Āgama/Nikāya and Mahāyāna literatures. Less attention, however, has been paid to his position in Tantric contexts. The idea of a buddha in the remote future arguably becomes less significant when perfect awakening becomes possible for an individual in the present lifetime: one need not wait for Maitreya’s return when the tools for rapid awakening are immediately available.  Nevertheless, like many other bodhisattvas, Maitreya remains a figure in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi (大日經), a major Mantrayāna text that in 724 was translated by Yixing 一行 (673–727) and Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637–735). The text represents an early phase of new Buddhist practice (often called “Tantric” or “Esoteric” in English) that had emerged in India some decades before it was translated into Chinese. Yixing subsequently produced a commentary on the text based on the oral teachings of Śubhakarasiṃha. When examining Maitreya’s role, we can consider Śubhakarasiṃha’s interpretative method of viewing individuals and objects from both mundane and esoteric perspectives, i.e., the standard perspective versus the symbolic (the latter is part of the transformative framework for awakening in a single lifetime). The commentary is unique in that it provides a direct interpretation of both the text and accompanying maṇḍala (often in English called the Garbhadhātu-maṇḍala following the Japanese Taizōkai 胎藏界) by a major Indian monk. The complex history of the text, commentary, and maṇḍala as they were preserved in Japan must be addressed, with reference to critical comments by Osabe (1954), who argued against the authenticity of the commentary, largely due to an absence of references to it in Tang Chinese sources. Similarly, the iconographical record has to be critically discussed because the visual imagery was preserved in Japan. This paper will first discuss the roles of Maitreya in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, before moving on to the commentary and extant visual representations of the figure in the related maṇḍala and iconographical manuals preserved in Japan. With regard to the latter, the Japanese Tendai monk Enchin 圓珍 (814–891) in 855 copied icons at Qinglongsi 青龍寺 in Chang’an, which was preserved as the the Taizō zuzō 胎藏圖象. These can be compared to the oldest extant Garbhadhātu-maṇḍala at Tō-ji 東寺 in Kyoto. The symbolic interpretation of Maitreya in these contexts (textual and visual) evolved from earlier Mahāyāna and Āgama/Nikāya literatures, but took on new elements. We can better understand the early reworking of established lore in Indian Mantrayāna and then its evolution through China and Japan by examining Maitreya in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi in its wider East Asian context.

Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄. “Dainichikyō no sensha to gishaku no saijisha ni kansuru gimon.” 大日經疏の撰者と義釋の再治者に關する疑問. Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 27 (1954): 40–47.

Kano Kazuo. “Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. I, ed. Jonathan A. Silk, 382–389. Leiden: Brill, 2015. 

Mammitzsch, Ulrich. “On the Evolution of the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44, no. 1, no. 2 (1990): 25–50. 

Mano Shinya 真野新也. “Kan’yaku Dainichikyō no chūshakusho seiritsu ni kansuru ichi, ni no mondai”. 漢訳『大日経』の註釈書成立に関する一、二の問題. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 64, no. 1 (2015): 218–223. 

Somekawa Eisuke 染川英輔. Mandara zuten 曼荼羅圖典. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku, 2013.