From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...>
Date: August 3, 2020 at 6:01:14 AM EDT
To: h-review@...
Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...>
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Judaic]:  Kita on Cypess and  Sinkoff, 'Sara Levy's World: Gender, Judaism, and the Bach Tradition in Enlightenment Berlin'
Reply-To: h-review@...

Rebecca Cypess, Nancy Sinkoff, eds.  Sara Levy's World: Gender,
Judaism, and the Bach Tradition in Enlightenment Berlin.  Rochester  
University of Rochester Press, 2018.  x + 292 pp.  $99.00 (cloth),
ISBN 978-1-58046-921-0.

Reviewed by Caroline A. Kita (Washington University in St. Louis)
Published on H-Judaic (August, 2020)
Commissioned by Barbara Krawcowicz

Sara Levy's World: Gender, Judaism, and the Bach Tradition in
Enlightenment Berlin, edited by Rebecca Cypess and Nancy Sinkoff,
brings much-needed attention to the life of a remarkable German
Jewish musician and patron who helped to shape German musical
heritage as we know it today. Born in Berlin to the prominent Itzig
family, Sara Levy's (1761-1854) appreciation of music was fostered
from a young age. She took piano and harpsichord lessons from Wilhelm
Friedemann Bach (1710-1784), the eldest son of Johann Sebastian Bach,
and later served as a patron of Wilhelm and his brother Carl Philipp
Emmanuel (1714-1788). Her music salon was renowned and many of the
works she commissioned from the Bach family were first performed
there. In addition to these commissioned works, Levy amassed an
impressive collection of musical manuscripts during her lifetime,
which she later donated to the Sing-Akademie zu Berlin. However,
while her musical archive may have sparked initial interest in Levy,
this volume probes far beyond the "Bach Tradition" she fostered.
Emerging from an international and interdisciplinary symposium held
at Rutgers University in 2014, this rich collection of essays takes
Levy's life as a springboard to rethink the role of elite Jewish
women in the Jewish and German Enlightenments, and, more broadly, to
reconsider assumptions about the Jewish co-constitution of German
culture at the turn of the eighteenth century [1].

Nancy Sinkoff's introduction situates Levy in the scholarship of
Jewish studies, German studies, music history, and women's history.
As a Jewish _salonnière_ who did not convert to Christianity; as a
woman participating in the Haskalah; as a Jewish woman who helped to
preserve and promote the music of a canonical German composing
family; and finally, as a female musician who performed publicly,
Levy was exceptional on many fronts. Sinkoff also articulates the
stakes of bringing Levy to the forefront of scholarship--neglecting
the stories and contributions of individuals like Levy, she argues,
leads to a "distortion" of our understanding of a number of key
aspects of life in Enlightenment Berlin, from the "Court Jewish
phenomenon" to the role of Jews in "cultivating musical historicism"
to the engagement of enlightened Jews with music and musical
aesthetics (p. 8).

The rest of the volume is organized into three sections. The first
focuses on Levy as a _salonnière_, a patron, a Jew, and a musician;
the second reflects on art and aesthetics as a reflection of
Jewish-Christian relations in Levy's time; and the final section
analyzes the musical manuscripts in Levy's collection, using these
documents as a lens to understand the dynamics of the social world in
which Levy moved. The epilogue offers a documentary analysis of
selections of Levy's correspondence. Thus, the first and third
sections and the epilogue speak to Levy's own life and influence,
whereas the essays in the second section reflect more broadly on
ideas about art, gender, and religious-cultural identity circulating
in Levy's time.

The first section begins in a space familiar to those studying the
role of elite German Jewish women in eighteenth-century culture: the
salon. Marjanne E. Goozé's essay, "What was the Berlin Jewish Salon
around 1800?" offers an overview of this cultural establishment and
an insight into its reception history. Goozé also notes how recent
scholarship has challenged assumptions about the salon, in
particular, the idea that these were necessarily spaces of Jewish
"integration" into German society, leading to religious conversion.
This context is helpful for understanding the significance of this
space for Levy; the salon allowed her to showcase her prodigious
musical talent and her patronage of talented artists, such as the
Bach sons, and it also created a "liminal space" where she might
engage with others of different faiths without the need to abandon
her own (p. 29).

Christoph Wolff's essay, "Sara Levy's Musical Salon and Her Bach
Collection," focuses on Levy's own relationship to the Bach family
and to the Sing-Akademie. According to Wolff, Levy's collection of
music manuscripts reveals "a scope and character without parallel
elsewhere" (pp. 44-45) in that it includes not only the scores of
significant works by J. S. Bach and his sons but also individual
instrument parts, likely performed by Levy and her friends. In his
reflection on the chamber works that Levy commissioned from C. P. E.
Bach, Wolff remarks on the unique orchestration of these works, which
call for dialogue between woodwinds and string instruments, and in
particular the use of a viola rather than a violin to acoustically
draw attention to the "middle ground" of the score (p. 45). Wolff
likens this arrangement to the ideal of a balanced conversation
between opposing viewpoints fostered at Levy's own salon. This essay
concludes with a brief synopsis of the history of the Sing-Akademie
archive, which disappeared after the Second World War. Only with its
recovery in Kiev in 1999 were Levy and her music collection finally
made known to a wider public.

Natalie Naimark-Goldman's essay, "Remaining Within the Fold,"
highlights Levy's support of leading _maskilim_ in the Haskalah.
While the Jewish Enlightenment has traditionally been read as a
movement "created primarily by and for men" (p. 58), Levy's
subscriptions to Hebrew books and the financial assistance she
provided to Jewish writers and intellectuals demonstrates the active
role that women played in promoting education and modern ideas in the
Jewish community at this time. Moreover, they offer further evidence
of Levy's public commitment to Jewish culture and institutions, even
as she performed at the Berliner Sing-Akademie and donated to this
Christian organization her considerable manuscript collection. These
actions, Naimark-Goldman notes, point toward Levy's ambiguous
position in between the Jewish and Christian worlds that she
navigated daily.

George B. Stauffer's contribution, "Women's Voices in Bach's Musical
World," turns back in time, focusing on the careers of two female
performers of J. S. Bach's works in the generation preceding Levy:
Christiane Mariane von Ziegler (1695-1760) and Faustina Borndoni
(1697-1781). Stauffer's essay reveals how these vocalists paved the
way for Levy to perform Bach's music in public at a time when such
opportunities for women were rare.

The second section address how Jewish-Christian relations in Levy's
time resonated in the realm of aesthetics. Essays by Martha B. Helfer
and Elias Sacks focus on two of the most prominent thinkers of the
Jewish and German Enlightenments who were contemporaries of
Levy--Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn. Helfer's essay,
"Lessing and the Limits of Enlightenment," complicates the image of
Lessing the philo-Semite, highlighting the latent anti-Semitism in
popular dramatic works such as _The Jews_ (1749). Turning from drama
to other aesthetic forms, Elias Sack's essay, "Poetry, Music and the
Limits of Harmony," examines Moses Mendelssohn's translation of the
Psalms and his "aesthetic critique" of Christianity. Mendelssohn's
critique is grounded in music, which he links to the ethical life. He
suggests that with its neglect of the musical recitation of biblical
text, the Christian tradition "lost a critical tool for moral
formation and human flourishing" (p. 135). Sack's analysis of this
argument reveals how Mendelssohn's aesthetic writings stood at times
in contrast to the larger Enlightenment project of identifying
uniform and universal values. For Mendelssohn, a study of musical
practices reveals not commonalities between the two religious, but
rather a central flaw in Christianity.  

While Helfer and Sack's readings focus on the works of canonical male
Enlightenment writers, Yael Sela's essay, "Longing for the Sublime:
Jewish Self-Consciousness and the _St. Matthew Passion_ in
Biedermeier Berlin," centers on the writings of Jewish women for
evidence of how the tensions between Jewish and Christian culture
played out in aesthetic debates. Sela suggests music can be read as a
"distinct topos" in the epistolary and autobiographical texts written
by women; she defines this topos as "a literary strategy of critical
reflection, self-fashioning and cultural negotiation through learned
scrutiny and sensual contemplation" (p. 148). In her essay, Sela
focuses on the revival of Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ by Felix
Mendelssohn in 1829 and the reception of this performance by Levy's
contemporary, Rahel Varnhagen. A number of other contributions to
this volume draw attention to Sara Levy's personal connection to this
event: Felix Mendelssohn was Levy's grand-nephew; the manuscript of
the _Passion_ was gifted to Mendelssohn by Levy's sister, Bella
Salomon; and Mendelssohn's teacher, Carl Friedrich Zelter, who likely
fostered the young composer's fascination for Bach, was the caretaker
of Levy's musical estate at the Sing-Akademie. As Bach was the
composer who for many defined the German Protestant music tradition,
the revival of this work by a Jewish composer has been viewed as a
great German-Jewish collaboration, and arguably as one of the most
significant musical events in nineteenth-century German history [2].
In her essay, however, Sela highlights Varnhagen's ambivalent review
of the work, which the _salonnière_ believed failed to achieve the
sublime--the "expressive marriage between music and words that brings
out the deepest, most primal sentiments of all human existence" (p.
164). Instead, Varnhagen expresses a preference for oratorical texts
that recognize the sublimity of the Hebrew scriptures (such as
Handel's _Judas Maccabeus_) and for Bach's instrumental works. This
essay reveals how the writings of Jewish women highlight key moments
of Jewish estrangement from the project of building the German
_Kulturnation_ through music.

The third section of _Sara Levy's World_ brings us back to the salon
to examine the chamber music manuscripts found in Levy's musical
collection for insights into the cultural norms and debates of elite
Prussian Enlightenment society. Rebecca Cypess reads Levy's duets as
expressions of contemporary aesthetic and religious philosophy, in
particular, Moses Mendelssohn's idea of "Einheit in der
Mannigfaltigkeit" (Unity in Multiplicity), his model for a "tolerant
society in which Jews and Christians could co-exist in perpetuity"
(p. 182). Steven Zohn turns to more recent studies of musical
sociability and Edward Klormann's idea of "multiple agency" (p. 215)
to demonstrate how the salon's ideals of dialogue and conversation
shaped the quartets by C. P. E. Bach that Levy commissioned and
performed in this space. These essays are supplemented by audio
recordings of works by Bach and his sons found in Levy's collection.
Performed by the Raritan Players, these excellent recordings are
accessible on the website of Acis Productions and offer a unique
experiential component to the volume. Not only do these recordings
allow readers to follow along with the musical examples cited in the
text, but they also provide the opportunity to "listen in" to Levy's
salon as it might have sounded in her own day.

Finally, Barbara Hahn's epilogue, which features four letters sent by
Levy to the Swedish diplomat to Prussia, Karl Gustav von Brinckmann,
highlights how correspondence allowed for sociable and intellectual
exchange between Jewish women and Christian men. For Hahn, Levy's
correspondence might be read as a "stage" upon which she "presented
to her addressee ... a world created by Jewish women" (p. 252). These
personal notes illuminate Levy's personality and wit as well as offer
documentary evidence of the individuals with whom she regularly
interacted. While the relationships fostered through correspondence,
like those in the salon, may not have been sustainable outside of
these spaces, these institutions and practices nonetheless reveal
significant interactions that took place between individuals of
different genders, cultural backgrounds, and religious faiths during
the Enlightenment.

_Sara Levy's World_ offers a compelling portrait of a woman who
shaped the musical and intellectual landscape of her time. In fact,
it was so successful in piquing my curiosity about Levy that I must
confess to disappointment that not all of the essays link their
arguments back to Levy and her life in a substantial way. As a
result, one at times loses the "red thread" tracing Levy's unique
position that Sinkoff sets up so convincingly in the introduction.
Nevertheless, with its contributions from scholars of Jewish studies,
German studies, and musicology, this volume speaks to a broad,
interdisciplinary readership and offers diverse readings of
eighteenth-century German and Jewish culture. Its essays challenge
familiar narratives about the salon as an institution, about gender
roles in the Jewish Enlightenment, and about Jewish "acculturation"
and the Enlightenment credo of religious tolerance. They also invite
us once again to rethink the role that music played for German Jews
as a foundational aspect of _Bildung_--education and self-fashioning
of character--believed to be a necessary step to becoming a fully
engaged member of modern culture. The contributors to this volume
reflect critically on what it meant for Jews such as Levy and her
contemporaries to build and sustain a German musical tradition
grounded in a faith that was not their own. Scholars such as Ruth
HaCohen, Leon Botstein, and Philip Bohlmann have identified the
Enlightenment as a crucial moment in the development of narratives
surrounding Jewish otherness in music; HaCohen reminds us in
particular how the Enlightenment search for a "normative aesthetics,"
revived long-standing stereotypes of Jews as "noisy" and
"unmusical"--the antithesis of Christian harmony.[3] Although Levy's
archive does not appear to contain any specific documentation
articulating her position on these issues, she was likely aware of
these articulations of cultural difference. Moreover, reading Levy's
life and musical archive through this lens reminds us once again that
Jewish engagements with German culture during the Enlightenment were
often quite contradictory, and that categories of belonging must be
understood as dynamic and fluid, always developing in response to
shifting social landscapes.

This introduction to Levy's world thus offers further evidence of the
unique cultural entanglements between Germans and Jews during the
Berlin Enlightenment that created the German musical tradition we
celebrate today. It serves as a model for interdisciplinary,
collaborative scholarship and is an important contribution to the
ongoing work of moving Jewish female artists and intellectuals from
the margins of German Enlightenment history to the center.

_Caroline A. Kita is Associate Professor of German and Comparative
Literature at Washington University in St. Louis and the author of
_Jewish Difference and the Arts in Vienna: Composing Compassion in
Music and Biblical Drama.

Notes  

[1]. For more on the idea of "co-constitution" see Steven E.
Aschheim, _In Times of Crisis: Essays on European Culture, Germans
and Jews_ (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001).

[2]. A significant study of this history is Celia Applegate's _Bach
in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohn's Revival of the "St.
Matthew Passion"_ (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014).  

[3]. Ruth HaCohen, _The Musical Libel Against the Jews_ (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2011); Philipp Vilas Bohlman, _Jewish
Musical and Modernity_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); and
Leon Botstein, "The Jewish Question in Music," _Musical Quarterly_
94, no. 4 (2011): 439-53.

Citation: Caroline A. Kita. Review of Cypess, Rebecca; Sinkoff,
Nancy, eds., _Sara Levy's World: Gender, Judaism, and the Bach
Tradition in Enlightenment Berlin_. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. August,
2020.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54709

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License.

From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...>
Date: August 3, 2020 at 1:52:27 PM EDT
To: h-review@...
Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...>
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Buddhism]:  Kotyk on Goble, 'Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition'
Reply-To: h-review@...

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.  $69.99 (e-book), ISBN 978-0-231-55064-2; $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

In recent years we have seen increasing publications on the topic of
Japanese Mikkyō in the English language, but attention to its
predecessor in Tang China is especially welcome.[1] The title of
Geoffrey C. Goble's book, Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the
Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition, immediately sparks
interest, given the absence of a dedicated monograph on the
influential court cleric Amoghavajra from the mid-Tang. Upon reading
Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, however, I concluded that it contains a
number of indefensible claims and theories that render the main
arguments in the book difficult to accept, although at the same time
I have to commend the author for his extensive excavation of primary
sources in classical Chinese, ranging from Buddhist texts to state
chronicles. Many of the problems I will point out below could have
been avoided had the author consulted more secondary sources,
particularly in Japanese, but the book's bibliography only lists a
handful of studies in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese.

One of the key concerns of the book is defining "Esoteric Buddhism."
In the synopsis, Goble writes, "The first step in this project is to
provide 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 the first chapter. We have no evidence
that Śubhākarasiṃha was seen as presenting a new teaching and no
reliable way of knowing how he presented himself and his Buddhism"
(p. 9). This is one of the key arguments of _Chinese Esoteric
Buddhism_, but one can summon counter evidence against it (see
below). Chapter 1 defines "Esoteric Buddhism" as separate from an
"esoteric Buddhism" (uppercase versus lowercase _e_), the latter
being _dha__̄__raṇi__̄_s (incantations) and spells, while the
former is understood as something new to China and in particular
established by Amoghavajra.

Does Goble's key apparatus for defining Esoteric Buddhism hold up? I
do not believe it does. Contrary to what Goble claims, we actually do
have evidence that a Mantric tradition was, in fact, regarded as a
new and innovative teaching even before Śubhākarasiṃha. Several
of the following points were already explained in Yoritomi Motohiro's
work, which does not appear in Goble's bibliography.[2]

The _Tuoluoni ji jing_ 陀羅尼集經, translated by Atikūṭa
阿地瞿多 in 654, describes the consecration of a ritual space and
the initiation of disciples in the "Secret Dharma Depository of the
Buddhas" (_zhufo mimi fazang_ 諸佛祕密法藏). This would refer
to a _ma__ṇḍ__ala_ (sacred ritual space) and the accompanying
_abhi__ṣ__eka _(consecration). The ritual process uses a _vajra_ (T
901, 18: 813c19-814c23). Moreover, Zhisheng 智昇 (669-740) in 730
reported that Atikūṭa "established a Universal Altar for
Dhāraṇīs 建陀羅尼普集會壇" (T 2154, 55: 562c15). This
was, I believe, unprecedented in Chinese history and would have been
recognized as a new model of Buddhist practice.

Moving ahead a few decades, Chinese monks in India were exposed to
the new Mantric practices. Although on page 19, Goble notes that the
Chinese monk Wuxing 無行 (b. 630) had been responsible for the
transmission of several key texts back to China, another essential
item of interest related to Wuxing is the letter he sent to the
Chinese court, which Goble does not mention. The letter was brought
to Japan by Ennin 圓仁 (794-864)
(南荊州沙門無行在天竺國致於唐國書一卷; T 2167, 55:
1086c22). Only a few lines of this letter are extant. One important
line is preserved in the _Shingon shūkyō jigi_ 眞言宗教時義
by Annen 安然 (841-915?). The extant line from Wuxing's letter
reads, "Recently the new Mantra teachings have become revered in the
country [India] 近者新有眞言教法擧國崇仰" (T 2396, 75:
421a11). Yijing 義淨 (635-713), who visited Southeast Asia and
India between 671 and 695, also reported that the Vidyādharapiṭaka
(_zhou zang_ 呪藏), in other words, the canon of _dhāra__ṇ__ī_s
or _mantra_s, had not yet spread eastward to China
(呪藏東夏未流). Yijing himself had repeatedly entered the
_tanchang_ 壇場 (here referring to the ritual space or
_ma__ṇḍ__ala_) at Nālanda intent on acquiring this practice, but
his merit was insufficient
(淨於那爛陀亦屢入壇場希心此要而為功不並就; T
2066, 51: 7a9-12). These accounts prove that the Chinese were already
aware of an innovative new _approach_ to Buddhist practice centered
on _mantra_s, which clearly required some sort of authorization or
initiation.

An important part of _Chinese Esoteric Buddhism_ is its treatment of
Amoghavajra's predecessors. Goble addresses the careers and roles of
Śubhākarasiṃha, Yixing, and Vajrabodhi in the introduction. Goble
argues, with regard to Śubhākarasiṃha, that we have "no reliable
way of knowing how he presented himself and his Buddhism. We only
have access to others' representations. In sources produced prior to
755, Śubhākarasiṃha is identified as transmitting the
_dhāra__ṇ__ī_ teaching rather than something new in his
scriptural translations" (p. 9). This is an erroneous assertion for
the simple fact that we have the commentary to the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_, which was compiled and expanded on by
Yixing based on the oral testimony of Śubhākarasiṃha. Goble,
however, rejects this authorship: "All told, evidence suggests that
the _Commentary_ postdates the lives of Śubhākarasiṃha and Yixing
and is possibly a Japanese product" (pp. 19-20).

Some remarks about the authorship of the commentary were voiced by
Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄 (b. 1907) as early as 1944. He also wrote an
article in 1954 expressing doubts about Yixing's involvement in the
text in question (this does not mean it was a Japanese composition
however). Osabe should have been cited (especially his monograph on
Yixing) but was not, although later scholars in Japan have generally
_not_ accepted Osabe's proposal. Excellent recent studies on the
commentary in its various recensions include those by Kameyama
Takahiko, Shimizu Akisumi, and Mano Shinya.[3] These scholars discuss
the complex factors underlying the production and transmission of
multiple recensions of the commentary (the two main versions in use
by scholars are T 1796 and X 438).

Goble's argument against the traditionally attributed authorship of
the commentary is easily refuted with reference to the commentary
itself and other Chinese and Japanese sources. I present five points
that contest Goble's argument. First, the sub-commentary in the
_Yiqie jing yinyi_ 一切經音義 by Amoghavajra's disciple Huilin
慧琳 (737-820), produced in 807, cites the commentary with the
abbreviated title _Yiji _義記, noting it was produced by Yixing.
This abbreviated title likely stems from _Dapiluzhena jing yiji_
大毘盧遮那經義記, which is an attested title in Annen's
catalog, the _Sho ajari shingon mikkyō burui sōroku_
諸阿闍梨眞言密教部類總録 (T 2756, 55: 1114c24-26) from
the year 902. Annen also noted this work was "expounded by
Śubhākarasiṃha and recorded by Yixing 無畏釋一行記" (T
2176, 55: 1114c24). This only demonstrates the traditional position
that this commentary was orally explained by Śubhākarasiṃha at
first and then Yixing added further material on the basis of this.
Huilin's definition of the term _mānava_ 摩納婆 was clearly
derived from the commentary (compare T 2128, 54: 353b23-c1 and T
1796, 39: 594a27-b5). Huilin clearly had the commentary in his
possession in the year 807 in China.

Second, Yixing's own theory of fixed and averaged New Moons is
actually incorporated into the commentary in the section on astrology
and calendrical conventions. I have discussed this section of the
commentary and Yixing's theory in a past study.[4] If the commentary
were a Japanese composition, as Goble suggests it could be, the
author(s) would have had to be familiar with the astronomical theory
of Yixing. This seems unlikely because his calendar, the _Dayan li_
大衍暦, would _not_ have been accessible to monastics in China and
Japan. Furthermore, the commentary translates twelve zodiacs as
_shi'er fang_ 十二房 (twelve chambers) (T 1796, 39: 618a8). If the
commentary were produced during or after Amoghavajra's time,
especially by a Japanese hand, we would expect to see the more
conventionally established terms _shi'er gong_ 十二宮 (twelve
palaces) or _sh'er wei_ 十二位 (twelve places).

Third, the _Taizō engi_ 胎藏緣起, which is attributed to Saichō
最澄 (767-822), mentions the production of the commentary: Yixing
"frequently consulted with Tripiṭaka Master Śubhākarasiṃha.
[They] translated the Sanskrit of the _Vairocana-sūtra_ into a
Chinese text, altogether seven fascicles, which was then transmitted
into the world, while also producing a commentary on the meanings [of
the text] 每於無畏三藏所諮, 毗盧遮那經,
自譯梵文以爲漢典凡七卷, 見傳於世,兼為疏義." The
_Ryaku fuhō den_ 略付法傳 by Kūkai 空海 (774-835), however,
only mentions the translation but not the commentary.[5]

Fourth, the _Liangbu dafa xiangcheng shizi fufa ji_
兩部大法相承師資付法記 by Haiyun 海雲 in 834 records
that Yixing produced a commentary to the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ in seven fascicles, which later were
arranged as fourteen (T 2081, 51: 786c17-18). Fifth, Annen (T 2176,
55: 1114c24) recorded that a commentary to the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ (大毘盧遮那經義記十卷) was
brought to Japan by Genbō 玄昉 (d. 746). Genbō stayed in China
between 716 and 735. Unless Annen's records were fraudulent, it is
clear that Genbō returned with one version of the commentary.
Genbō's dates in China overlap with the careers of
Śubhākarasiṃha and Yixing in the capital. Genbō was actually in
China when the _Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ and its commentary were
produced.

As the research of various Japanese scholars shows, there were some
emendations and edits to the commentary in China after Yixing's time,
but the bulk of the work dates back to Yixing and
Śubhākarasiṃha.[6] Moreover, looking at the two main recensions
of this commentary that are commonly used today (T 1796 and X 438),
we see lines that commence with "the _ācārya_ states ..."
(阿闍梨云; T 1796, 39: 579c10), which is likely
Śubhākarasiṃha's own voice, albeit translated into Chinese. In
fact, although Yixing is normally credited with the authorship of the
commentary, and indeed it is a fact he clearly edited and added
material, it seems that Yixing built up from Śubhākarasiṃha's
oral commentary. An item listed in the _Gishaku mokuroku_
義釋目錄 by the Japanese monk Enchin 圓珍 (814-91) includes a
certain _Fanben Piluzhena chengfo jing chaoji_
梵本毗盧遮那成佛經抄記 (X 438, 23: 299b21), which is not
extant, but this appears to have been notes for the Sanskrit
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_. Yixing and Śubhākarasiṃha had
together translated said text in 724, so undoubtedly these notes were
likely recorded from Śubhākarasiṃha. Yixing, we can imagine,
incorporated these into the commentary, as seems to have been the
case. Furthermore, the commentary on the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ deals with many more topics than only
the _dhāra__ṇ__ī_ teachings--in fact, it explains
_abhi__ṣ__eka_ and the creation of a _ma__ṇḍ__ala_, which leads
me to wonder why Goble claims that "in sources produced prior to 755,
Śubhākarasiṃha is identified as transmitting the
_dhāra__ṇ__ī_ teaching rather than something new in his
scriptural translations" (p. 9).

The above points can only lead one to conclude that Goble's challenge
to the traditionally attributed authorship of the commentary to the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ is indefensible and moreover
constitutes a fatal flaw in his analysis of Śubhākarasiṃha and
Yixing. To suggest that the commentary "is possibly a Japanese
product" is misleading and wrong. I shared Goble's idea with Shingon
and Tendai monks, who agreed that such a proposal was unreasonable.
One remarked that Kūkai brought back a copy of the commentary in
806, which in Kūkai's catalog is also attributed to Yixing (T 2161,
55: 1064a8). My colleague further noted that Kūkai repeatedly quoted
from the commentary throughout his writings.

Moving on, Goble argues, "In China, Śubhākarasiṃha's texts were
not conceived as a distinct or new teaching during his own lifetime"
(p. 20). The _Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_, however, explains that
attainment of full awakening is possible within a single life, which
is entirely unlike earlier Mahāyāna texts, in which the path to
full buddhahood takes immeasurable lifetimes along the ten _bhūmi_s
of a bodhisattva's career. The relevant line in the
_Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ reads, "Moreover, he manifested the
appearances of _vajradharas_, and the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and
Padmapāṇi, and proclaimed throughout the ten directions the
pure-worded Dharma of the Mantra path: that the stages from the first
generation of [_bodhi_-]_citta_ up to tenth [can be] progressively
fulfilled in this lifetime
又現執金剛普賢蓮華手菩薩等像貌, 普於十方,
宣說真言道清淨句法, 所謂初發心乃至十地,
次第此生滿足" (T 848, 18: 1b2-4).

This idea is further elaborated in the commentary as follows: "The
gate into the entry of Mantra generally includes three items. The
first is the gate related to the mysteries of body. The second is the
gate related to mysteries of speech. The third is the gate related to
mysteries of mind. These matters will be broadly discussed below. The
practitioner purifies their three karmas through these three means.
It is by being empowered [*_adhi__ṣṭ__h__ā__na_] with the three
mysteries of the Tathāgata that it is possible to fulfill the
_bhūmi_s and _pāramitā_s in this lifetime, and not further pass
through numbers of kalpas 入真言門略有三事, 一者身密門,
二者語密門, 三者心密門. 是事下當廣說.
行者以此三方便, 自淨三業, 即為如來三密之所加持,
乃至能於此生滿足地波羅密, 不復經歷劫數" (T 1796,
39: 579b27-c2).[7] This would have been a revolutionary new concept
to Chinese Buddhists, especially when it was linked to the mysteries
of body, speech, and mind. Śubhākarasiṃha's translation was
arguably novel in China, since it explained this concept of
buddhahood within one lifetime.

I am compelled to challenge Goble's claim that Śubhākarasiṃha and
Vajrabodhi "seem to have had little if any effect on the conception
of Buddhism in China, likely due to the relative paucity of their
scriptural contributions to the Chinese Buddhist canon" (p. 29). The
foundations of Buddhist Mantrayāna in East Asia were, in reality,
established by these two monks and then further developed by
Amoghavajra. Śubhākarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi introduced lineages of
_abhi__ṣ__eka_ (initiations) and also new iconographical forms via
_ma__ṇḍ__ala_s. These two practices alone altered the face of
Chinese Buddhism. The pantheon of deities and other figures who
accompanied the _ma__ṇḍ__ala_s were greatly influential within
Chinese Buddhist art history. The iconography these two monks
introduced ought to also have been addressed by Goble. These icons
were preserved in Japan in various documents, such as the _Taizō
zuzō_ 胎藏圖象 (_Taishō zuzō_ vol. 2: 191-328) and _Taizō
kuzuyō_ 胎藏舊圖樣 (_Taishō zuzō_ vol. 2: 477-566), for
example. From the perspective of art history, it is unreasonable to
argue that Śubhākarasiṃha or Vajrabodhi had "little if any effect
on the conception of Buddhism in China," since from the extant
literature and iconography, it is patently clear that this is untrue.

Moving further into the study, Goble suggests that "it is difficult
not to see Emperor Xuanzong's interest in Vajrabodhi--like Emperor
Taizong's interest in Xuanzang--as predicated on the intelligence
concerning foreign kingdoms that the monk could provide" (p. 29).
Taizong's interest in Xuanzang was complex and not limited to an
interest in Xuanzang's knowledge of foreign countries. The utility of
gaining popular Buddhist support through sponsoring translations
during a critical time in his reign was more likely Taizong's actual
interest. A lot of the assumptions about Taizong's relationship to
Xuanzang are based on questionable hagiographical evidence.[8]
Similarly, in my opinion, it is more reasonable to argue that
Vajrabodhi and his monastic contemporaries were regarded by
Xuanzong's court as valuable members of the sangha. There would have
been far superior methods to acquire intelligence on foreign powers
than relying on foreign monks, and a survey of the dynastic histories
and various state compendia show that; in fact, state authors seldom
seriously consulted Buddhist sources. For instance, the encyclopedic
_Tong dian_ 通典 (fasc. 193) compiled in 801 by Du You 杜佑
(735-812) has a line in the sub-commentary on the section on India
that states, "Authors record the affairs of India, with many records
of monks. One suspects that the popular records of Faming and Dao'an
are all fantastical and unreliable, so they are not recompiled [here]
諸家紀天竺國事, 多錄諸僧, 法明道安之流傳記,
疑皆恢誕不經, 不復悉纂也." For these reasons, I think the
statement that Amoghavajra acted as an unofficial intelligence agent
"according to an established role for Buddhist monks in the Tang
period" is also problematic (p. 37).

On page 45, Goble argues, "Although the _Account of Conduct_ passage
suggests that Vajrabodhi possessed and transmitted the _Great
Vairocana Scripture _to Amoghavajra, there is no other evidence that
Vajrabodhi emphasized or was aware of this text." This is another
puzzling statement, since Japanese Buddhism traditionally teaches
otherwise. Haiyun explained that Vajrabodhi knew that
Śubhākarasiṃha understood the teachings of Mahāvairocana and
subsequently sought teachings from him (T 2081, 51: 784a5-10). There
is clearly evidence to support the idea that Vajrabodhi was aware of
the _Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_ and was initiated into it. If Goble
disputes this, then he ought to have provided reasoning why.

_Chinese Esoteric Buddhism_ is primarily concerned with Amoghavajra.
The background biographical information is sufficient but could have
included a critical discussion of the Buddhist sources that we
possess to reconstruct the life of Amoghavajra, as well as their
potential shortcomings as hagiographies but such philological
excavations of primary sources are not a feature in the book.

Buddhist hagiographies and state records can be at odds with each
other in Chinese history, so reconstructing the life of a monk is no
simple task. One can also carefully use Japanese materials as
additional references, such as the aforementioned _Ryaku fuhō den_
in the case of Amoghavajra. Fascicle 52 of the _Cefu yuangui_
冊府元龜--completed in 1013 by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962-1025)
and Yang Yi 楊億 (974-1020)--is another important source. In this
voluminous work, which is now digitized and searchable on CTEXT and
Wikisource, we see some references to Amoghavajra. This fascicle in
particular includes a memorial penned by Amoghavajra in which he
reviews his own long career. A eulogy of Amoghavajra is also included
in this fascicle. These documents would have been worth bringing into
the wider study.

Chapter 2 discusses Amoghavajra's rise to influence in relation to
the rites of the Tang "imperial religion." This is not an emic
category (that is, Chinese did not have an equivalent term such as
this, nor did they think of their country as an "empire"). As part of
this discussion, Goble introduces the specific ritual for the winter
solstice, citing the _Jiu Tang shu _舊唐書 (JTS 21.820). He states
that "the twelve zodiacal constellations" were enshrined on the
altar, which sparked my interest, since I did not think that the
zodiacal deities were incorporated into the state rituals at this
point in Chinese history (the zodiac signs--Aries, Taurus,
etc.--originated in Mesopotamia and were initially transmitted into
China via Buddhism) (p. 62). However, upon reading the original
source, I did not see any reference to zodiacal signs or
constellations but only to the twenty-eight lunar stations (_ershiba
xiu_ 二十八宿). Goble also mentions Tianyi 天一 and Taiyi
太一, but I do not see these in the original Chinese text. This
sort of imaginative or otherwise defective interpretation of the
primary source is misleading.

Chapter 3 discusses Esoteric Buddhism and warfare, topics with which
Amoghavajra was evidently familiar. Here we find extensive
documentation of ritual forms used in the Tang military, including
Buddhist and Daoist sources that are connected to Amoghavajra.
Extensive details are provided for this topic. Goble argues that
"Amoghavajra's meteoric ascent was largely the result of two
essential and related factors" (p. 95). He cites the An Lushan
rebellion and Amoghavajra's subjugation rituals with which he was
believed to subdue and kill enemies. Although many details are given
to argue for these two points, I would argue that it was not strictly
Amoghavajra's abilities in spellcraft that facilitated his rise in
elite society. Amoghavajra's career during this period included other
activities, most notable was his compilation and formulation of
Indian astrology for implementation within a Chinese environment. The
relevant text in question is listed in the bibliography of _Chinese
Esoteric Buddhism_ as _Wenshushili pusa jizhu xiansuo shuo jixiong
shiri shan'e suyao jing_
文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經 (T
1299), but 宿 (lunar lodge or constellation) is _xiu_ and not _su_
(in other words, _Xiuyao jing_, not _Suyao jing_). Goble does not
seem to discuss this text in his book, despite its professional and
political significance in Amoghavajra's life. This text was first
drafted in 759, with a subsequent revision in 764. These were the
years that Amoghavajra's career as a court cleric flourished. We
should note that the edition of the _Xiuyao jing_ in the Taishō
canon is not the original version produced by Amoghavajra. The main
body of the text also defers to Indian or Sino-Indian astronomers
resident in the capital, namely, the Kāśyapa and Gautama families,
and the monk Kumāra[9]. In light of these facts, to suggest
Amoghavajra rose to prominence on a wave of violent magic unduly
modifies his image toward that angle. Amoghavajra was also involved
in astrology and astronomy to some extent.

Goble argues that "in Esoteric Buddhism, standard ethical
proscriptions and prescriptions for both monastic Buddhists and lay
practitioners were effectively subordinated to an ethic of power" (p.
128). This ethical flexibility described here was not necessarily an
innovation of Amoghavajra. We can point to the work of the Huayan
patriarch Fazang 法藏 (643-712), namely, his commentary on the
bodhisattva precepts: _Fanwangjing pusa jieben shu_
梵網經菩薩戒本疏 (T 1813). Fazang often cited the
_Yogācārabhūmi_ 瑜伽論 (T 1579), which gives the bodhisattva a
great deal of ethical flexibility to carry out acts of theft and even
homicide if circumstances permit. Such acts performed out of
compassion generate merit according to said text (T 1579, 30:
517b6-17). Fazang's commentary allows for the production of weapons
and subduing of unruly sentient beings (T 1813, 40: 639b5-9). In
light of this, the argument that Amoghavajra's system of Buddhism was
subordinated to an ethic of power appears overstated and not entirely
justified.

This sets the stage for chapter 4, which deals with Amoghavajra's
relationships with various elite figures, including the emperors and
other prominent men. Goble goes into great detail about the changes
the Tang government saw during the years of Amoghavajra's career. He
also outlines biographical details of the people with whom
Amoghavajra interacted, with reference to the dynastic histories and
other sources. Chapter 5 addresses the institutional establishment of
Esoteric Buddhism. Goble asserts an argument made throughout earlier
chapters, that "Amoghavajra represented his teaching as a new
teaching, one that was not known in China until he transmitted what
he had received in southern India" (p. 174). Chapter 6 of _Chinese
Esoteric Buddhism_ explores the legacy of Amoghavajra. This chapter
also extends into discussions of how Zanning 贊寧 (920-1001) in
particular shaped contemporary and also modern understandings of
Amoghavajra and his Esoteric Buddhism.

Goble gives different titles of texts in translation. For instance,
_Great Vairocana_ (p. 2), _Mahāvairocana_ (p. 3), and _Great
Vairocana Scripture_ (p. 18) for _Dari jing _大日經 (on page 45
this is literally translated as _Great Sun Scripture_), but a more
sensible approach would be to consistently use an attested Sanskrit
title of the work in question, such as that given in the fragments
explored by Matsunaga Yūkei in 1966, and also recently used by Kanō
Kazuo: namely, _Vairocanābhisa__ṃ__bodhi_.[10] We also see
typographical errors throughout the book, which are too numerous to
list here. Goble mentions in passing "the deity Vinayaka (_pinayajia
tian_ 毘那夜迦天) or Vinayaka Gānapati (_pinayajia enabodi_
毘那夜迦誐那缽底), the esoteric Gaṇeśa" (p. 186). It
should be Vināyaka and Gaṇapati respectively. More care with
Sanskrit names would have been desirable (especially now that
Monier-Williams is digitized).

To sum up, I believe that _Chinese Esoteric Buddhism_ offers
extensive biographical details regarding Amoghavajra's life and
career, as well as those religiously or professionally connected to
him, and all this is indeed valuable, but this monograph suffers from
a number of problems. In light of what I have outlined above, I
cannot recommend _Chinese Esoteric Buddhism_. The definitive study on
Amoghavajra remains to be written.

Notes

[1]. I must thank Joseph P. Elacqua and Jayarava Attwood for their
comments regarding this review. I must also thank my colleagues from
Shingon and Tendai who shared their views.

[2]. Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, "Mikkyō no kakuritsu"
密教の確立, in _Indo mikkyō_ インド密教, ed. Tachikawa
Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999),
32-56.

[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 (1944):
21-39; Osabe Kazuo, "_Dainichikyō_ _sho_ no 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 bunka_ 密教文化 27 (1954): 40-47; Osabe Kazuo, _Ichigyō
Zenji no kenkyū_ 一行禪師の研究 (Kobe: Kōbe Shōka Daigaku
Keizai Kenkyūsho, 1963); Kameyama Takahiko 龜山隆彦,
"_Dainichikyō sho_ ni okeru senryakushaku shinpishaku ni
tsuite"『大日經疏』における淺略釋・深秘釋について,
_Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū_ 印度學佛教學研究 56, no. 1
(2007): 169-72; Shimizu Akisumi 清水明澄, "Tōdo ni okeru
_Dainichikyō_ chūshakusho no seiritsu katei: Onkojo wo chūshin
toshite"
唐土における『大日經』注釋書の成立過程:『温古序』を中心として,
_Mikkyō bunka_ 密教文化 221 (2008): 49-72; and Mano Shinya
真野新也, "Kanyaku _Dainichi-kyō_ chūshakusho no seiritsu 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 :
経典漢訳との関係から, _Ronsō Ajia no bunka to shisō_  
論叢アジアの文化と思想 25 (2016): 34-121.

[4]. Jeffrey Kotyk, "Early Tantric Hemerology in Chinese Buddhism:
Timing of Rituals according to Śubhakarasiṃha and Yixing,"
_Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies_ 13 (2018): 12-13.

[5]. _Dengyōdaishi zenshū_ 傳教大師全集 (Hieizan Senshūin
Fuzoku Ezan Gakuin 比叡山専修院附属叡山學院, 1926), vol.
4, 5 [391]; and _Kōbōdaishi zenshū_ 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 seiritsu 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: Wakita 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, "Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi," in _Brill's Encyclopedia
of Buddhism_, vol. 1, ed. Jonathan A. Silk (Leiden: Brill, 2015),
382-89.

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.