From Chang’an to Nālandā:
The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk
Xuanzang (602?–664)
All but one of the articles collected in this volume are selected
from over fifty papers originally presented at the first international
conference on Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664) and Silk Road Culture,
held in the summer of 2018 at Guiyuan Monastery 歸元寺 in Chang’an.
The Guiyuan Monastery was built during the Zhenguan reign (627–
649) of the Tang dynasty to celebrate Xuanzang’s epochal return
to Chang’an from his protracted pilgrimage to Central and South
Asia. His epic journey resulted in some of the most significant
Sanskrit-to-Chinese translations and commentaries of Buddhist
scriptures, and the records of his extraordinary exploration are no
less impressive that centuries later, still fascinates the world. This
volume of scholarship delves into aspects of Xuanzang’s life, legacy,
and impact that continues to affect us today.
JI Yun and SHI Xingding
Guiyuan Temple
00068(平)
From the Ground Up: Buddhism &
East Asian Religions
Edited by SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua,
Association for the Promotion
of Xuanzang Culture
From Chang’an to Nālandā:
The Life and Legacy of
the Chinese Buddhist Monk
Xuanzang (602?–664)
Edited by SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua, JI Yun and SHI Xingding
From Chang’an to Nālandā:
The Life and Legacy of
the Chinese Buddhist Monk
Xuanzang (602?–664)
Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Xuanzang and Silk Road Culture
Edited by
SHI Ciguang
CHEN Jinhua
JI Yun
SHI Xingding
COVER IMAGE: Map showing Xuanzang’s travels from Sogdians website. Courtesy
of Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C., Map by CHIPS.
Table of Contents
From Chang’an to Nālandā:
The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk
Xuanzang (602?–664)
Shi Ciguang 釋慈光
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Doctrinal Studies
1.1. Yamabe Nobuyoshi 山部能宜
A Hypothetical Reconsideration of the ‘Compilation’ of Cheng
Weishi Lun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Ernest Billings (Billy) Brewster
Survivability: Vasubandhu and Saṅghabhadra on the Continuity
of the Life of a Sentient Being as Translated by Xuanzang . . . . . . . 79
1.3. Li Zijie 李子捷
The Transformation of the Theory of Zhongxing 種姓 (Skt. Gotra)
before Xuanzang’s Translations: With a Focus on the Pusa
Yingluo Benye Jing 菩薩瓔珞本業経 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
1.4. Dan Lusthaus
What is ‘New’ in Xuanzang’s New Translation Style? . . . . . . . . . . . 159
1.5. Richard D. McBride II
How Did Xuanzang Understand Dhāraṇī?: A View from His
Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
FROM CHANG’AN TO NĀLANDĀ:
THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF THE CHINESE BUDDHIST MONK
XUANZANG (602?–664)
2. Historical And Biographical Studies
2.1. Shigeki Moro 師茂樹
Biography as Narrative: Reconsideration of Xuanzang’s
Biographies Focusing on Japanese Old Buddhist
Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
2.2. Jeffrey Kotyk
Chinese State and Buddhist Historical Sources on Xuanzang:
Historicity and the Da Ci’en Si Sanzang Fashi Zhuan 大慈恩寺
三藏法師傳 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
2.3. Guo Wu 伍國
Context and Text: Historicizing Xuanzang and the Da Tang
Xiyu Ji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
3. Transborder And Transcultural Perspectives
3.1. Max Deeg
How to Create a Great Monastery: Xuanzang’s Foundation
Legend of Nālandā in Its Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
3.2. Arun Kumar Yadav
The Mahābodhi Temple: Centre of Indo-Chinese Cultural
Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
3.3. Yu Xin 余欣
Archaeological Evidence, Cultural Imagination and Image of
the Medieval World: New Perspectives on Treasures from
Qiuci. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
FROM CHANG’AN TO NĀLANDĀ:
THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF THE CHINESE BUDDHIST MONK
XUANZANG (602?–664)
3.4. George A. Keyworth
On Xuanzang and Manuscripts of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra at Dunhuang and in Early Japanese Buddhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
4. Appendix
4.1. Siglinde Dietz
The Xuanzang Project at the University of Göttingen . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Author Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
Chinese State and Buddhist Historical
Sources on Xuanzang: Historicity and
the Da Ci’en Si Sanzang Fashi Zhuan
大慈恩寺三藏法師傳
JEFFREY KOTYK
McMaster University
Abstract: This paper explores the historicity of state and Buddhist
accounts of the monk Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664), arguing that in
the reconstruction of Xuanzang’s life and career we ought to utilize
the former to help adjudicate the latter. It is specifically argued that
the Da Ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (T no.
2053), a biography of Xuanzang sometimes cited by modern scholars, was produced as Buddhist propaganda to advance the standing
of certain monks under the reign of Wu Zetian 武則天 (r. 690–705).
It is further argued that the objectivity of the Buddhist account that
describes Emperor Taizong 太宗 (r. 626–649) embracing Buddhism
in his twilight years under the influence of Xuanzang ought to be
reconsidered.
Keywords: Xuanzang, Historiography, Histories, Taizong, Yancong,
Huili
This article was originally published as 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 105 (2019): 513–44. This research was carried out while receiving the Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation
Postdoctoral Fellowship in Buddhist Studies (administered by the American
From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664): 000–000
270
271
Introduction
T
his paper explores the value of utilizing state and secular sources
alongside Buddhist accounts in the reconstruction of the life
and career of the eminent Buddhist monk and translator Xuanzang
玄奘 (602?–664). I will argue that these non-Buddhist sources can
and ought to be employed to help adjudicate the accounts we read in
Buddhist sources. Utilizing these resources, this study takes a particular interest in a part of Buddhist history that has uncritically painted
a relationship between the emperor Taizong 太宗 (r. 626–649) and
Xuanzang based upon what I will argue is imaginative material found
in the Da Ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (T no.
2053; hereafter Ci’en zhuan),1 a biography of Xuanzang purportedly
produced by Huili 慧立 (615–ca. 677) and thereafter expanded
by Yancong 彥悰 (fl. 688). The title is translated as Biography of the
Tripiṭaka Dharma Master of Great Ci’en Monastery. Accounts of
Xuanzang and Taizong in other available sources from the medieval
period, however, provide a different narrative, and one that in my
estimation is closer to an objective ‘positivistic’ historical reality, as
I will show.2 In particular, I will contrast the Ci’en zhuan with the
Council of Learned Societies). I am grateful to James A. Benn and Jayarava Attwood for providing feedback on drafts of this paper.
1
All Buddhist canonical texts are cited according to the index numbers and
pagination in the following collections: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō (abbreviated as
T ) and Xuzangjing (abbreviated as X ).
2
No history is entirely neutral in its composition. This extends to my own
work presented in this study. I will primarily utilize a philological framework
under the assumption that we can and ought to attempt to reconstruct a past
reality as objectively as possible. There are, of course, alternative approaches to
writing history. Carl R. Trueman notes that ‘one of the popular cliches of contemporary culture is that all truth is relative. ... This relativism has manifested
itself within the historical profession over recent decades in terms of a rising epistemological skepticism, if not nihilism, that has tended in the most extreme cases
to make all narratives simply projections of the present-day circumstances and
opinions of the historian.’ See Trueman, Histories and Fallacies, 25.
272
biography of Xuanzang penned by Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), whose
work is arguably more reliable in terms of historicity.
The present study specifically argues that the Ci’en zhuan represents a form of Buddhist propaganda from the year 688—a time
when Wu Zetian 武則天 (624–705) was the de facto ruler of the
Chinese court—produced by Yancong with the aim of advancing the
status of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Chinese monks associated with
this text at court, while also rewriting some aspects of Emperor Taizong’s life in order to advance the contemporary rise of Buddhism.
Despite the issues with this document, which we will explore at
length below, the Ci’en zhuan has been used in the reconstruction of
Xuanzang’s life in modern scholarship. Kuwayama Shōshin 桑山正進
and Hakamaya Noriaki’s 袴谷憲照 chronology of Xuanzang’s career,
and Liu Shufun’s 劉淑芬 study, for instance, all accept the Ci’en
zhuan as a valid source of objective historical knowledge about Xuanzang in their writings. The latter understands this work to be the
most important historical resource regarding the life of Xuanzang,
and she bases many of her arguments concerning Xuanzang’s life on
this document.3
Here we might recall John Kieschnick, who observes that ‘scholars
have concentrated on winnowing out such fabulous elements in an
attempt to uncover a factual core.’ He further notes that this process
‘is crucial if we are to understand what a given monk really said and
did at a particular place and time.’4 With respect to Xuanzang specifically, Moro Shigeki suggests that his biographies ‘should be also
criticized as narratives based on Xuanzang’s personalities imagined
and/or idealized by the author(s) and editor(s).’5 This salient point
highlights the need to remain constantly aware of the agendas of
Xuanzang’s biographers or those who simply wrote about him to any
extent—Buddhist or otherwise—which is a topic to which we shall
pay close attention.
Kuwayama and Hakamaya, Genjō; Liu, ‘Xuanzang de zuihou shi nian,’ 4,
11–13.
4
Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk, 1.
5
Moro, ‘Biography as Narrative’, 477.
3
273
The present study additionally argues that utilization of secular
and state sources—i.e., dynastic histories and encyclopedic compendia—will furnish elements for use within a critical apparatus
with which historians of Chinese Buddhism might better compare
and contrast accounts of Buddhist monks. One would similarly not
reconstruct the history of Christianity using Church sources alone,
and likewise we scholars of Chinese Buddhism ought to read all
available premodern materials when carrying out our excavation of
Chinese Buddhist history. Of course, secular and state sources have
their own prejudices and biases, but I will show that they can and
ought to be used to help gauge the veracity of accounts of Xuanzang
in Buddhist writings.
The Primary Chinese Buddhist Sources on Xuanzang’s Life
The Da Tang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (T no. 2087) is Xuanzang’s travelogue written upon his return to China at the request of Emperor
Taizong in 646. This text is an account of Xuanzang’s journey to
the ‘Western Regions’ (Xiyu 西域, i.e., Central and Inner Asia, and
India) and back between the years 627/629–645. The travelogue also
provides details about the cultures, folklores, customs, and measurements of India and neighboring regions. The content of this work
has some issues, such as its descriptions of places in India that Xuanzang might not have actually ever visited himself, but nevertheless
this document still aids us in judging the credibility of a later work
often mined for biographical information about Xuanzang’s life,
namely, the Ci’en zhuan.6
I would, however, suggest that the Ci’en zhuan ought not be
utilized as a credible source of objectively historical knowledge about
Xuanzang without careful comparisons to other sources. The preface
to the work by the monk Yancong, who appears to be the actual
6
Deeg, for example, suspects that Xuanzang might not have actually visited
Mathurā in India despite having written a description of it. See Deeg, ‘Has Xuanzang Really Been in Mathurā?’, 426–388.
274
author of the text as it presently exists, includes an inscription with
the date of the fourth year of Chuigong 垂拱 (688). The preface explains that the monk Huili of Weiguo Xi si 魏國西寺 (the ‘Western
Temple Weiguo’) originally produced a biography (zhuan 傳) of Xuanzang in five fascicles, but the ‘author feared that some of the virtuous points might have been overlooked, and so he had it stored in an
underground chamber’ 慮遺諸美遂藏之地府.7 Huili is then said to
have ordered his disciples to fetch the manuscript from the chamber
while on his deathbed, but it was ‘scattered in segments to various
places. Sometime later, after several years of searching and purchasing, it was recently brought together again in its complete form’ 流
離分散他所, 累載搜購近乃獲全. Yancong then explains that he used
this recompiled text as a basis for his extended ten-fascicle version.8
There are comments attributed to Huili appended to the end
of the text, in which he relates that Xuanzang ‘in the spring of the
nineteenth year of the present reign of the Tang dynasty [645] on the
twenty-fifth day, returned to Chang’an 以今唐十九年春正月二十五日
還至長安’.9 This mention of the present reign-era (i.e., Zhenguan 貞
觀) would presumably indicate that Huili was writing between 645,
when Xuanzang returned to China, and 649, when the emperor
Taizong died. Yoshimura Makoto 吉村誠 makes this observation and
interprets this date to be the approximate time when Huili produced
his version of Xuanzang’s biography, suggesting that Huili produced
his manuscript before 649.10 Did Huili actually produce a five-fascicle version sometime between 645–649? The first problem with this
account of Huili’s activities is that the monastery Weiguo si existed
The suffix xi 西 (‘western’) can be explained by the fact that there were five
temples called Taiyuan si in Tang China. There was also a sister temple with the
same name, but referred to as ‘Eastern Weiguo Temple’ (東魏國寺) in Luoyang,
between 4 February 688 until before 690. See Forte, ‘On the Origins of the Great
Fuxian Monastery’, 68.
8
T no. 2053: 50.221a27–b14. For an English translation, see Li, A Biography
of the Tripiṭaka Master, 8–9.
9
T no. 2053: 50.279a18–19. Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 343–44.
10
Yoshimura, ‘Dai Tō Daijion-ji Sanzō Hōshi den’, 81.
7
275
with this specific name only between the years 687/88–690. Wang
Pu’s 王溥 (922–982) Tang huiyao 唐會要, compiled in 961, relates
the following:
Chongfu si—Linxiang Ward [i.e., Xiuxiang Ward 休祥坊]—was
originally the estate of Director Yang Gongren [d. 639]. On the
second day of the ninth lunar month in the second year of Xianheng
[October 10, 671], Taiyuan si was established using the estate of Empress Wu’s maternal family. In the twelfth lunar month in the third
year of Chuigong [January 9 to February 6, 688], it was renamed
Weiguo si. On the sixth day of the fifth lunar month in the first year
of Zaichu [April 20, 690], it was renamed Chongfu si.
崇福寺, 林祥坊, 本侍中楊恭仁宅. 咸亨二年九月二日, 以武后外
氏宅立太原寺. 垂拱三年十二月, 改為魏國寺. 載初元年五月六
日, 改為崇福寺.11
The earliest mention of Xuanzang’s biography attributed to Huili
and Yancong is in 730. Zhisheng 智昇 (?–740+) in his Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 (T no. 2154) associates Huili with the Taiyuan si
and not Weiguo si. Zhisheng relates that Huili ordained as a monk in
629. He was later ordered by imperial decree to assist in translations
at Ci’en si (the institution with which Xuanzang was affiliated),
before becoming rector of Ximing si 西明寺, and later abbot of Tai11
Tang huiyao, 48.846. Forte argues that this dating is incorrect, but ‘it is certain that the monastery existed by July 3, 671 (Xianheng 2.5.22), because it is
mentioned twice in a manuscript copied on that very day’. Forte points out that
a different source, the Gangmu bieji 綱目別記 (not extant), gives the date of the
name change as the second lunar month of the 3rd year of Chuigong (March 19
to April 17, 687). A separate source, the non-extant Diwang niandai li 帝王年代
曆, gives February 19, 687. Forte concludes that February 19, 687 was the actual
date of the renaming. Forte further notes that the monastery was called Chongfu
si on December 23, 689 or January 9, 690. The point to take away from Forte’s
discussion is that the monastery in question was called Weiguo si approximately
between 687–690. See Forte, ‘The Chongfu Monastery’, 457–60.
276
yuan si.12 These monasteries were all located in the capital Chang’an.
Also, Antonino Forte notes that the ‘last colophon in which he
[Huili] is mentioned as chief of the Taiyuan Monastery is dated
January 29, 677.’13 Huili’s latest date is 677, a time when he is still
associated with Taiyuan si. This is still a decade before 687/88, when
Taiyuan si was renamed to Weiguo si.
According to Yancong’s preface, Yancong himself was asked to
edit and expand Huili’s manuscript, although there is no mention
of whom specifically made this request. Zanning’s 贊寧 (920–1001)
Song Gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (T no. 2061) includes an account of
Yancong that states it was Huili’s disciples who made this request to
Yancong, rather than Huili himself.14
Even if we assume that Huili had lived until around 687/88
when Taiyuan si was renamed Weiguo si, Yancong still states that the
scattered pieces of Huili’s manuscript had only been fully collected
after ‘several years of searching and purchasing’. The monastery’s
renaming—and apparently Yancong’s work—date to circa 688. We
are therefore left to wonder why Yancong would associate Huili with
the contemporary name of the monastery in question.
Another issue that arises is that court and Buddhist chroniclers
in medieval China faithfully recorded dates of important events
together with the deaths of eminent figures, hence the absence of
dates in Yancong’s outline of Huili is suspicious. There are no contemporary records of Huili’s biography of Xuanzang, which could be
conveniently explained away by the traditional account that Huili hid
his manuscript away before it ended up scattered in pieces, only to
be restored ‘several years’ later. Yoshimura, however, argues that some
structural features apparent in the text, such as a great many petitions
to the emperor included in fascicles six to ten, are reflective of Yancong’s editing.15 If Yancong did, in fact, have access to a manuscript
by Huili, then perhaps Zhisheng’s brief account is most plausible, in
12
13
14
15
T no. 2154: 55.564b27–c3 and 624c24.
Forte, ‘The Chongfu Monastery’, 457, note 12.
T no. 2053: 50.221b8–9 and T no. 2061: 50.728c25–26.
Yoshimura, ‘Dai Tō Daijion-ji Sanzō Hōshi den’, 84–85.
277
that he states Huili simply died before his work was completed, and
Yancong finished it.16 The story in the extant preface about Huili’s
manuscript being hidden away and then painfully reconstructed
remains suspect in my opinion. Liu Shufen, in contrast, accepts the
traditional narrative about Huili’s manuscript and suggests that
Huili did not dare show his biography to anyone because it recorded
politically sensitive contemporary matters, but such a conclusion
might have to be reconsidered if we cannot conclusively establish that
Huili’s work was really incorporated into the Ci’en zhuan.17
In any case, the main problem with identifying material from
Huili, I contend, is that we simply do not have adequate manuscript
evidence, and we may only realistically speak of the extant recension,
i.e., Yancong’s work from 688 (assuming, of course, this date is genuine). I will therefore only speak of Yancong’s work.
What sort of material formed the foundation for Yancong’s work?
It is clear that Yancong’s work adapts material from Xuanzang’s
travelogue. For instance, with respect to the dietary customs of the
monks of Kucha, Xuanzang states, ‘As they eat the three kinds of
pure meat together with other foodstuffs, they are still stagnating
in the stage of the gradual teaching’ 尚拘漸教食雜三淨.18 Yancong,
however, imagines from this brief comment that Xuanzang rejected
an offering of meat from the king, which appears to constitute an
attempt at emphasizing a Mahāyāna identity:
On the following day, the king invited the Master to the palace and
offered him various kinds of food, among which were the three kinds
T no. 2154: 55.564c10–13.
Liu, ‘Xuanzang de zuihou shinian’, 97.
18
T no. 2087: 51.870a26. See English translation by Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 17. The three types of pure meat (also sanzhong jingrou 三種淨肉) refer to three types of meat that a Buddhist monastic
may consume without penalty. The monastic must not have seen, heard, or suspected that the meat was consumed for their benefit. If otherwise, the meat is
said to be impure and must not be consumed by the monastic. This rule is stated
in the Vinaya. See Sifen lü, T no. 1428, 22: 872b11–13.
16
17
278
of ‘clean meat’. These the Master refused to take. The king was quite
amazed by it, and so the Master said in explanation, ‘It is permissible
to take meat in the gradual teaching of Buddhism, but I follow the
Mahāyāna teaching, which prohibits the eating of meat.’ Thus, he
took some other kind of food.
明日, 王請過宮備陳供養, 而食有三淨. 法師不受, 王深怪之, 法師
報:‘此漸教所開, 而玄奘所學者, 大乘不爾也.’受餘別食.19
Xuanzang in his travelogue only reports a few details about the king
of Kucha, but does not mention ever meeting him, let alone dining
together. This and other examples demonstrate that the Ci’en zhuan
is only loosely based upon true events.
There exists an arguably more historical account of Xuanzang
available from a Buddhist hand, which postdates Xuanzang’s travelogue by only a few years. This was written by Daoxuan sometime
between 646–649. The earliest recensions of this text were preserved
in Japan at the Kōshō-ji 興聖寺 and elsewhere. Separate manuscripts
of Xuanzang’s biography by Daoxuan are from Kongō-ji 金剛寺 and
Nanatsudera 七寺. Saitō concludes that the Kongō-ji version is the
oldest text.20 The Kōshō-ji manuscript was copied during the Heian
period (784–1185). Fujiyoshi Masumi 藤善眞澄 dates the original
recension of Xuanzang’s biography in this manuscript to 648.21 This
recension was later updated by Daoxuan before 667, and then it was
further revised in 669 by unknown persons following Daoxuan’s
death.22 The latter recension became part of the standard edition of
T no. 2053: 50.226c13–16; Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 39.
The text from Kōshō-ji is reproduced with critical annotations in Yoshimura, ‘Kōshō-ji-bon Zoku kōsō den’, 190–216. I have based my study of Daoxuan’s
biography upon Yoshimura’s critical edition, given its clarity and accessibility.
Although the Kongō-ji version is older, the Kōshō-ji recension still dates to the
lifetime of Daoxuan. There do not appear to be substantial differences between
these two recensions. See table 3 in Saitō, ‘Features of the Kongō-ji Version’, 87.
21
Fujiyoshi, Dōsen den no kenkyū, 200–01.
22
Daoxuan died in 667, but reference is made to the reburial of Xuanzang’s
19
20
279
the Xu Gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (T no. 2060), which was reproduced
in the xylographic Korean (Goryeo) canon, and later twentieth-century typeset Taishō canon.23 Daoxuan’s biography as recorded in the
Kōshō-ji manuscript, as I will show below, is a far superior source of
historical facts than Yancong’s work, in light of how the former generally accords with state accounts, which we will discuss below.
The Uncertain Origin of the Da Tang Gu Sanzang Xuanzang
Fashi Xingzhuang 大唐故三藏玄奘法師行狀
There is another Buddhist work which we must discuss that is
accepted by some modern scholars as an authentic account of Xuanzang from shortly after his death in 664, titled Da Tang gu Sanzang
Xuanzang Fashi xingzhuang 大唐故三藏玄奘法師行狀 (T no. 2052),
purportedly produced by a certain Mingxiang 冥詳, whose identity
is otherwise unattested anywhere else apart from this work, in which
he is said to have been present at Xuanzang’s funeral.24 Liu Shufen
dates this text to sometime before 664, since it mentions Xuanzang’s
funeral, although such a dating is highly problematic when we consider elements within this work and its first mention in the historical
record.25 First, the title of T no. 2052 is not cited in Chinese catalogs
from any time period. Yoshimura assigns a date of 664 or thereafter,
which is when Xuanzang died, hence the prefix gu 故 (‘the late’) in
the title of the text.26 The closest title cited in Chinese works reads
Tang Zang Fashi xingzhuan 唐奘法師行傳, which is found in the
remains in 669. See T no. 2060: 50.458b9; Chi, ‘Dōsen no zenhansei’, 90. Yancong gives the precise date of this ceremony as the eighth day of the fourth
lunar month in the second year of Zongzhang (總章二年四月八日; T no. 2053:
50.278b8–9).
23
Yoshimura, ‘Genjō no nenji mondai ni tsuite’, 187. For Xuanzang’s biography in the Taishō edition, see T no. 2060: 50.446c8–458c13.
24
T no. 2052: 50.220a1.
25
Liu, ‘Xuanzang de zuihou shinian’, 15.
26
Yoshimura, ‘Genjō no nenji mondai ni tsuite’, 184.
280
Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (T no. 2122) produced in 668 by Daoshi 道
世 (d. 683), who was a contemporary of Xuanzang. This reference,
however, is to Xuanzang’s travelogue.27
The Taishō editors consulted two manuscripts from the Heian
period (from Kanchi-in 觀智院 and Hōbodai-in 寶菩提院) when
producing the typeset version of T. no. 2052. The absence of dates
or any other details here indicate that the editors were estimating
the date of the manuscripts at hand. The identity of the purported
author of T no. 2052 is actually not derived from the title, but rather
from the inscription at the bottom of the document.28 From the details of the Japanese postscript we can ascertain that the original copy
of T no. 2052 by Genbō 賢寶 (1333–1398) was made in 1391, and
then another copy was produced in 1687, followed by another copy
being made in 1743.29 The earliest date directly attested in T no. 2052
is therefore 1391. It is still uncertain, however, from where Genbō
acquired his copy.
We can infer that Genbō was not the author, since T no. 2052 is
cited in earlier Japanese works with the abbreviated title Xuanzang
xingzhuang (Jp. Genjō kōjō 玄奘行狀). The earliest citation of T no.
2052 is in the Mishū kyōsō shō 祕宗教相鈔 (T no. 2441) by Chōyo
重譽 (fl. 1139–1143), in which an argument for the legitimacy of
esoteric or Mikkyō lineages is made on the basis of this document,
Compare T no. 2122: 53.780a4–6 and T no. 2087: 51.907b5–6.
The first line reads as follows: ‘This chronicle was obtained on day … of
the eighth lunar month in the second year of Meitoku. Compiled by Mingxiang
(etc., etc.)’ 明德二年八月日,感得了此,記冥詳撰云云. Here 明德二年 could also
correspond to a Chinese reign-era (the year 935), but this is from a Japanese
hand, thus it would refer to the second year of Meitoku (1391). As noted earlier,
Mingxiang 冥詳 is not a name attested anywhere else, but an alternate authorship
will be proposed below.
29
There is a date of the fourth year of ‘Enkyō’ (延亨), hino-tō 丁卯 on the sexagenary cycle, but this is a scribal error for the fourth year of Jōkyō 貞享 (there
was no ‘Enkyō’ era), which landed on a hino-tō year (1687). The last date given is
the third year of Kahō 嘉保 (1096), but again this is a scribal error, likely for the
third year of Kanpō 寛保 (1743).
27
28
281
which explains why it was hidden away before the time of Genbō:
Scholars of the exoteric teachings have long since greatly doubted
the heritage of Mantra, perhaps even saying that it was not taught
by the Buddha, yet in the Account of Xuanzang, clearly there is the
Long-Lived Brahmin, who was a disciple of Nāgārjuna from whom
Dharma Master Xuanzang learnt the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
and Catuḥśataka etc. Now the exoteric teaching has Tripiṭaka Xuanzang following the teachings of Nāgabodhi Ācārya, yet how is it
that the scholars of the exoteric teachings make light of the Mantra
transmitted by Nāgabodhi?30 That Account [of Xuanzang] is cited to
clarify this meaning. Having thus cited the text of the account and
contemplated it, Tripiṭaka Xuanzang was also a disciple of Nāgabodhi Bodhisattva.
謂顯教學者, 從昔已來大疑眞言禀承, 恐言非佛説, 然《玄奘行状》
中, 明有龍猛之弟子長命婆羅門, 玄奘法師就已受學《中》
、
《百》論
等. 今顯教法, 將玄奘三藏既隨龍智阿闍梨教, 然者豈顯教學者輕傳
智所傳之眞言乎? 爲顯此意方引彼傳説也. 故引行状文畢云以此觀
之, 玄奘三藏亦是龍智菩薩弟子也.31
The names of Nāgārjuna 龍猛 and Nāgabodhi 龍智 are conflated
here, but it seems that the former was meant. If T no. 2052 had been
available during the formative years of Mikkyō (ninth and tenth
centuries), we might imagine that someone would have noticed what
Chōyo is pointing out here. The Kōshō-ji recension of Xuanzang’s
biography does not actually mention this encounter.32 T no. 2052
Read den 傳 as ryū 龍.
T no. 2441: 77.647c12–c20. See T no. 2052: 50.215c6–9.
32
We see the following therein: He arrived in the country of Ṭakka, its land
located amongst flat rivers, being more than ten-thousand li in circumference. The two rivers divided into flows from which plants and trees flourished.
He gradually moved onward to the southeast, passing through six countries, in
which there were many ruins. 至磔迦國, 土據平川, 周萬餘里, 兩河分注, 卉木繁
榮. 漸次東南, 路經六國, 多有道迹. See text reproduced in Yoshimura, ‘Kōshō30
31
282
gives the following account of Xuanzang in Ṭakka, which is what
Chōyo cites. T no. 2052 reads as follows:
He then went onward to the eastern frontier of Ṭakka. There
was a great mango grove. Within the grove was a seven-hundredyear-old brahmin. Looking at his face, one could reckon him to be
about thirty. He was learned in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and
Catuḥśataka, as well as the Vedas. He was said to be Nāgārjuna’s
disciple. The Dharma Master [Xuanzang] stayed one month to study
scriptures and the Catuḥśataka. Next, he went eastward to Cīnabhukti.
次到磔迦東境. 有大菴羅林, 林中有一七百歲婆羅門, 觀其面
貌, 可稱三十許. 明《中》
、
《百》論及吠陀書. 云是龍猛弟子. 法
師就停一月, 學經《百論》. 又東到那僕底國. 33
The Goryeo recension of Daoxuan’s biography of Xuanzang gives
a similar account.34 Hence, this account of Xuanzang studying
under Nāgārjuna’s aged disciple was not part of Daoxuan’s original
biography as preserved in the Kōshō-ji recension, but it appears in T
no. 2052 and thereafter in the Korean recension reproduced in the
Taishō.
Yoshimura accepts the veracity of these later sources and in his
chronology of Xuanzang’s life places this purported period of study
in the year 631.35 However, the remarkable gap in years—at least four
or five centuries—between this figure and Nāgārjuna is not addressed
anywhere. Mikkyō monks in Japan presumably would have noticed
the purported connection between Xuanzang and Nāgārjuna’s lineage had the relevant account been known in Japan during the ninth
ji-bon Zoku kōsō den’, 196. The rivers here refer to the Vipāśā to the east and
Indus to the west. See Xuanzang’s description in his travelogue: T no. 2087:
51.888b14–21. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 97.
33
T no. 2052: 50.215c6–9.
34
T no. 2060: 50.449a16–26.
35
Yoshimura, ‘Genjō no nenji mondai ni tsuite’, 201.
283
or tenth centuries. This point stands to cast suspicion on the dating
of T no. 2052 to ca. 664.
Another factor to consider in this respect is that the earliest reference in Japan to T no. 2052 is found in the Tōiki dendō mokuroku
東域傳燈目錄 (T no. 2183), produced by the monk Eichō 永超
(1014–1096) of Kōfuku-ji 興福寺 in 1094. We see the following two
entries therein:
Account of the Ci’en Tripiṭaka [Master]. One fascicle. (Compiled by
Shi Yixiang) 慈恩三藏行狀一卷(釋宜祥撰)
Encomium of the Ci’en Grandmaster Ji. One fascicle. (Produced by
Emperor Wen of the Great Song) 慈恩基大師讚一卷(大宋文皇帝御
製)36
It is uncertain to which Song emperor the latter refers, since the
character wen 文 was used in all of their posthumous names, but
this biography of the monk Ji would have been composed sometime
between the start of the Song in 960 and 1094, when Eichō produced
his bibliography. Although the earlier text by Yixiang is not stated to
be from the Song, Eichō grouped these two works together, which
possibly indicates that they were brought to Japan together between
960–1094 (the former is not found in any earlier Japanese or Chinese
catalog), and kept together in the repository that Eichō surveyed. We
might therefore speculate that the former work was also produced
during the early Song or perhaps somewhat earlier. Finally, it is
important to note that the author of T no. 2052 could have been, it
seems, a certain Shi Yixiang 釋宜祥 (or possibly Shi Mingxiang 釋冥
祥), and not Mingxiang 冥詳 (note the latter character).
Historians have generally relied upon the biographical literature
produced by Daoxuan, Yancong, and Yixiang/Mingxia when reconstructing the life of Xuanzang, but there are additional sources that
we might consult for the purposes of crosschecking primary sources.
One such set of underappreciated sources in the present context to
which we can refer are state sources produced by court historians.
36
T no. 2183: 55.1163b17–18.
284
State Accounts of Xuanzang
The state accounts of Xuanzang serve as a means to compare
the aforementioned Buddhist accounts against another set from
non-Buddhist authors. I argue that these state accounts assist the
modern historian in inferring which details from Buddhist sources
are suspect or—more importantly—ought to be considered plausible
in our reconstruction of Xuanzang’s life.
We need to be aware, however, that court historians, like
Buddhists, had their own agendas when producing histories. For
instance, the Xin Tang shu 新唐書, a revised dynastic history of the
Tang produced by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–1072) and Song Qi 宋
祁 (998–1061) in 1060, omits all of the biographies of monks that
Liu Xu 劉昫 (887–946) had included in fascicle 191 of the Jiu Tang
shu 舊唐書, compiled in 945. The omission of biographies of monks
by Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi was likely the result of anti-Buddhist
sentiments on the part of these two men and their wider literati
community. Song Qi, for instance, severely criticizes Buddhism in
his other writings.37 Although some non-Buddhist authors indeed
had their prejudices toward Buddhism, this was likely to result in
omission of information, rather than any glorification of past monks.
Apart from the work of Song Qi, the non-Buddhist sources at hand
generally appear to describe Buddhist persons in an unsympathetic
and ordinary—if not neutral—manner. Little ink, in any case, was
spent on Buddhist figures compared to the emperors and statesmen
that received the primary attention of court authors, yet even these
small accounts dealing with Buddhist figures are invaluable as references with which we can crosscheck accounts written by Buddhists.
The most important state source in this regard is the Jiu Tang shu,
which provides a brief overview of Xuanzang’s life, which noticeably
differs from Yancong’s biography in several significant details. The
first example concerns Xuanzang’s departure and return to China:
See the third juan of Song Jingwen gong biji 宋景文公筆記 (SKQS), 862:
547a8–b4. For extensive details on the writing of history during the Chinese medieval period, see Twitchett, Writing of Official History.
37
285
The monk Xuanzang was of the Chen family, being a man of Yanshi
in Luozhou. During the later years of the Daye reign era [605–616]
he renounced the home life to become a monk, and then extensively
read scriptures and treatises. He thought that translators had made
many errors, hence he would travel to the Western Regions to extensively search for alternate versions to consult. Early in the Zhenguan
reign era [627–649], accompanying merchants he ventured to the
Western regions. Xuanzang could always explain and resolve difficulties in debate wherever he was, owing to him being outstanding in
terms of breadth of learning. Foreigners [i.e., non-Chinese people]
far and wide all respected him. He was present in the Western
Regions for seventeen years, where he travelled through more than
a hundred states, allegedly always understanding the languages of
those countries. He also collected [information on] their geographies, folk customs, and what their lands possessed, compiling the
Account of the Western Regions in twelve fascicles. In the nineteenth
year of Zhenguan [645], he returned to the capital. Taizong [r.
626–649] met him and was greatly delighted. They spoke together.
As a result of this, [Taizong] ordered that the 657 Sanskrit texts that
had been brought be translated at Hongfu si.
僧玄奘, 姓陳氏, 洛州偃師人. 大業末出家, 博涉經論. 嘗謂翻譯者
多有訛謬, 故就西域, 廣求異本以參驗之. 貞觀初, 隨商人往游西
域. 玄奘既辯博出群, 所在必為講釋論難, 蕃人遠近咸尊伏之. 在
西域十七年, 經百餘國, 悉解其國之語, 仍采其山川謠俗, 土地所
有, 撰《西域記》十二卷. 貞觀十九年, 歸至京師. 太宗見之, 大悅,
與之談論. 於是詔將梵本六百五十七部於弘福寺翻譯.38
Liu Xu and the earlier team responsible for compiling the history,
despite postdating Yancong by close to three centuries, were in privileged position to Yancong with respect to writing history, since they
had access to court records from the Tang state.39 We might therefore
38
Jiu Tang shu 191.5108. The remark about Xuanzang’s remarkable linguistic abilities was likely overstated.
39
Twitchett, Writing of Official History, 191–97.
286
imagine that this account was directly extracted from or based upon
court records.
Another relevant state source is Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962–1025)
and Yang Yi’s 楊億 (974–1020) Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜, completed
in 1013, which provides the following outline of Xuanzang’s accomplishments:
Xuanzang returned from India with over six-hundred Sanskrit
texts. Taizong was amazed by this and ordered learned śramaṇas to
translate them with him. Providing comments on the holy teachings
of the Tripiṭaka, Taizong produced a preface for the treatises. The
crown prince again explained their virtues by writing an account of
the holy to expand on their meaning.
玄奘於中天竺國將梵本經論六百餘部而歸. 太宗奇之, 召高業沙
門與之翻譯. 出三藏聖教, 太宗為其論序. 皇太子重闡斯美, 乃
著述聖記以廣其義. 40
This preface of Taizong refers to the Da Tang sanzang shengjiao xu
大唐三藏聖教序. The latter item refers to a preface penned by the
crown prince, who would later become Emperor Gaozong 高宗 (r.
649–683). Daoxuan preserved both of these documents in his Guang
Hongming ji 廣弘明集, a compilation of political and other assorted
documents related to Buddhism, produced in 664.41 Daoxuan in his
biography also mentions that Xuanzang’s request for a preface and
the responses he received.42
Li Fang’s 李昉 (925–996) Taiping yulan 太平御覽, produced between 977–983, cites a text titled Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 of the Tang,
which could only refer to Daoxuan’s work, although he seems to
have also consulted the memorial inscription of Xuanzang. Li Fang
gives the following account:
40
41
42
Cefu yuangui, SKQS 903: 51.43b2–5. Read chu 出 as xu 叙.
T no. 2103: 52.258a27–c16 & 259a11–b17.
See Kōshō-ji manuscript in Yoshimura, ‘Kōshō-ji-bon Zoku kōsō den’, 212.
287
The Biographies of Eminent Monks from the Tang dynasty states
that Tripiṭaka Dharma Master Xuanzang was from Chenliu,
being of the Chen family. Early in the Zhenguan period, leaving
the capital, he vowed to travel to the Western countries to visit the
holy sites. After six years he arrived in the city of Magadha. For
around twelve years, he visited sages. He fully mastered and probed
the depths of the texts from the Nāga Court and the mysteries of
Vulture’s Peak.43 He also travelled to the cave in which Mahākāśyapa
had convened an assembly, and the tree under which a thousand
sages attained the Way [i.e., the Bodhi Tree], sincerely prostrating
himself, burning incense, and scattering flowers.44 Great feasts were
organized. Thus, the masses of the five realms of India and the
eighteen kings offered [to Xuanzang] felts, and cast unto him
pearls, which amassed like a mountain. They all called the
Dharma Master ‘Mahāyāna[-deva]’. Upon returning to the
east, Taizong commanded him to stay at the Hongfu temple,
whereupon he summoned twenty virtuous monks, such as
Lingrun, to [assist in] translating Sanskrit.
唐《高僧傳》曰: 三藏法師玄奘, 陳留人, 姓陳氏. 貞觀初, 肇自咸
京, 誓往西國, 窮覽聖跡, 經六載至摩伽陀城. 凡十二年, 備歷聖
君, 龍庭之文, 就嶺之秘, 皆研機睹奧矣. 又造伽葉結集之墟, 千聖
道成之樹, 虔心頂禮, 焚香散花. 設大施會. 於是五天億眾、十八國
王獻氈投珠, 積如山岳, 咸稱法師為大乘也. 及東歸, 太宗詔留於
弘福道場, 乃詔名德僧靈潤等二十人譯梵.45
‘Dragon Court’ (longting 龍庭) is in reference to the ‘Dragon Palace’ (longgong 龍宮), i.e., the Nāga Palace, which refers to the location from which Nāgārjuna retrieved the Mahāyāna teachings. Although Xuanzang records legends
about palaces of nāgas in his travelogue, the term here is simply an allusion to
Mahāyāna scriptures.
44
Read zao 造 (‘create’) as you 遊 (‘travel’). Read xu 墟 (‘mound’) as ku 窟
(‘cave’). Xuanzang’s travelogue and Yancong’s narrative both describe this cave.
The latter appears to have adapted text directly from the former. See T no. 2087:
51.922b14–18 and T no. 2053: 50.238a7–11.
45
Taiping yulan, SKQS 899: 655.5b8–16.
43
288
This account glorifies Xuanzang in a manner atypical of the other
state sources. The middle of this outline appears to be adapted—
albeit with some modification of the original text—from Xuanzang’s
memorial inscription, which extols Xuanzang in the same manner
as Yangcong’s biography of him.46 According to the colophon of
the inscription, the authors of the inscription were Liu Ke 劉軻
(fl. eighth century) and the monk Jianchu 建初. According to the
preface, the monk Lingjian 令撿 produced the inscription itself at
Xuanzang’s pagoda. The date given at the end of the inscription is
from the fourth year of Kaicheng 開成 (839), hence it postdates Xuanzang’s death by nearly two centuries, at a time when a legendary
image of Xuanzang detached from the earlier historical figure was
already well-established.47For instance, the memorial inscription
states that ‘the Dharma Master’s name flowed throughout the five
realms of India. Men of the three disciplines looked up to him like
the sky, hence the Mahāyāna teachers called the Dharma Master
*Mahā-deva [‘Great Deva’], while the Hīnayāna teachers called him
*Mokṣa-deva [‘Liberation Deva’]’ 法師既名流五印, 三學之士, 仰之如
天, 故大乘師號法師為摩訶天, 小乘師號解脫天.48 No known Indian
source, however, ever mentions Xuanzang, hence we ought to resist
Xuanzang’s memorial inscription is titled Da Tang Sanzang Dabianjue
Fashi taming 大唐三藏大遍覺法師塔銘. See X no. 1651: 88.375a18–377b8. The
original stone tablet is extant. For photographic reproduction, see ‘http://coe21.
zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/djvuchar?4E8E,95D0,7B49. This inscription differs from
the stele inscription produced by Emperor Gaozong at Ci’en si in lunar month
four of 656: ‘He graced Anfu men, where he watched the formal welcome of the
monks and Xuanzang. He ordered the construction and inscription of a stele for
Ci’en si. The procession was carried out with Indian rituals. There were a great
many following it’ 御安福門觀僧玄奘迎, 御製並書慈恩寺碑文, 導從以天竺法儀,
其徒甚盛. Jiu Tang shu 4.75. This event is also recorded in the Taiping yulan,
SKQS 898: 589.441a7–11.
47
X no. 1651: 88.377b8.
48
X no. 1651: 88:375c24–376a2. Li Fang, or the source he cited, appears to
have misread mohe 摩訶, a phonetic transliteration of Sanskrit mahā as meaning
dacheng 大乘, the Chinese semantic translation of Mahāyāna.
46
289
reading these descriptions as representing any historical reality from
Xuanzang’s own time, although it is indeed conceivable that he was
at least known and respected amongst Buddhist circles in India when
he lived there, especially in light of his fluency in Sanskrit and status
as a resident Chinese monk.
The inscription mentions that Xuanzang’s activities were recorded in the national history (guoshi 國史) and the Ci’en zhuan, the latter
referring to Yancong’s biography, and thus indicating it was considered a credible source of history by Buddhists by this time. Nevertheless, Xuanzang’s own travelogue and Daoxuan’s biography of him
paint Xuanzang as a considerably humbler figure than what we read
here, a point that illustrates how fictionalized tales of his life—which
appear to have been written solely by Buddhists—became inseparable
from more objective historical accounts, a process that seems to have
commenced around the time of Yancong’s work in 688.
Daoxuan’s Account in Relation to State Sources
If the aforementioned memorial inscription and Yancong’s account
are generally unreliable as objective historical accounts, then what
of Daoxuan’s account, which was also produced as a Buddhist
document? Daoxuan’s account is generally in accord with most of
the state accounts and moreover, in my estimation, reads as realistic
and plausible, a point best explained by the fact it was written while
Xuanzang was still alive, which would have prevented excessive glorification.
With respect to some specific parallels with state sources, Daoxuan’s biography, for example, gives the following account of Xuanzang’s exit from China:
At the age of twenty-nine, he had become upstanding and independent. He presented a memorial to the court, but a bureaucrat would
not permit him transit, so he stayed in the capital, widely familiarizing himself with foreign lands, and extensively studying scripts and
languages. Walking or sitting, he sought instruction, spending days
in exchanges. He sat on the edge of his seat facing west, waiting to
290
hear of a chance. In the third year of Zhenguan [629], there was a
harvest shortage due to frost. An imperial decree was issued instructing clerics and laypeople to disperse to the four directions in search
of bounty. Owing to these fortunate circumstances, Xuanzang ventured to Guzang, before gradually going to Dunhuang. The route
was by sky and guard posts [i.e., it was an unmarked route]. With dry
rations on his person and pity for his own shadow, he looked forth
into the expanse, only seeing flat desert devoid of human tracks. He
left his fate to uncertainty and moved ahead, entrusting himself to
karma as he wandered about. He [eventually] arrived at the border
of Gaochang. At first, Xuanzang was in Liangzhou, lecturing on
sūtras and treatises. Chinese and foreigner alike, noble and common,
gathered around and held him in esteem. Merchants were passing
through and came to hear of [Xuanzang’s interest in] the foreign
regions.
時年二十九也, 遂厲然獨舉, 詣闕陳表, 有司不為通引, 頓迹京皐,
廣就諸藩, 遍學書語, 行坐尋授, 數日傳通, 側席面西, 思聞機候.
會貞觀三年, 時遭霜儉, 下敕道俗, 逐豐四出, 幸因斯際, 徑往姑
臧, 漸至燉煌. 路由天塞, 裹糧弔影, 前望悠然, 但見平沙, 絕無人
徑. 廻遑委命, 任業而前. 展轉因循, 達高昌境. 初, 奘在涼州, 講
楊經論, 華夷士庶, 盛集歸宗. 商客通傳, 預聞蕃域.49
Based on the above account, it appears that Xuanzang attempted
to petition the throne for permission, and presumably funding, to
travel west, but a bureaucrat simply did not permit his paperwork to
be processed, hence the monk resigned himself to remaining in the
capital, where he could study Sanskrit and other languages until such
time he could venture westward. Crop failure resulted in the state
granting monks such as himself permission to travel freely—presumably with minimal paperwork—which was an opportunity that Xuanzang seized. He travelled to the region of modern Gansu province,
where he appears to have stayed for a time. Although not explicitly
Chinese text adapted from Yoshimura, ‘Kōshō-ji-bon Zoku kōsō den’, 192.
English translation mine.
49
291
stated, I would infer that the passing merchants ferried him across the
desert in a typical caravan. The Jiu Tang shu, cited above, explicitly
states that Xuanzang headed West accompanying merchants.
Yancong’s narrative, in contrast, relates that Xuanzang made the
journey alone across the desert with an old horse, only surviving
due to miracles. It is far more realistic to suggest Xuanzang accompanied a merchant caravan to Gaochang and then onward to Agni.
Although Xuanzang was already a learned monk at the time he left
China, there is no record of him possessing sufficient knowledge of
desert navigation. Yancong was also unaware, it seems, that crossing a
desert (especially with a horse and not a camel) would have required
substantial amounts of water and provisions.
Yancong also tells of Xuanzang having to dodge arrows at watchtowers at the frontier.50 The other accounts, however, indicate that
Xuanzang did not surreptitiously exit China. He would have presumably had to file some paperwork when crossing the border posts with
his companions, as was standard procedure, but clearly this was not
an issue in the end, since he arrived in Gaochang, where he received
material support.
Yancong’s Ci’en zhuan, I argue, constitutes a fiction based upon
a true story, whereas Daoxuan’s biography can be treated as a far
more credible source of positivistic historical facts. The former does,
nevertheless, tell us how a Buddhist author in the late seventh-century imagined Xuanzang’s journey. Buddhists in China presumably
would have appreciated a story about one of their own countrymen
standing as a celebrated equal among Indian Buddhist scholars. The
memorial inscription for Xuanzang similarly glorifies the monk,
making him larger in legend than he ever probably was in real life.
Xuanzang’s life story is not limited to a single person, since it also
relates an account of his relationship to Emperor Taizong. Scholars
of Buddhist Studies have often accepted the Buddhist account of
their relationship. Dorothy Wong, for instance, states: ‘To the merits
of Xuanzang’s piety and dauntless efforts must be added the personal
charisma by which he gained the attention and admiration of Emper-
50
T no. 2053: 50.224a1–4.
292
or Taizong.’51 The nature of this relationship, however, must also be
subjected to critical evaluation, in light of the above discussion.
Xuanzang and Taizong
Yancong wrote that in 649, Taizong arrived at the Cuiwei Palace 翠
微宮, accompanied by Xuanzang. The subsequent narrative paints
Taizong as especially sympathetic toward Buddhist doctrine during
his final days:
After his arrival, the Emperor, besides attending to state affairs,
only discussed metaphysics and the Way with the Master. He asked
him about the law of causation and retribution, as well as about the
holy traces left by former sages in the Western Region. The Master
answered all the questions with quotations from scriptures, which
the Emperor accepted with deep faith; he often pushed up his sleeves
and remarked with a sigh, ‘We met the teacher too late, so that we did
not perform Buddhist affairs more extensively.’
既至, 處分之外, 唯談玄論道, 問因果報應, 及西域先聖遺芳故迹.
皆引經詶對. 帝深信納, 數攘袂嘆曰:‘朕共師相逢晚, 不得廣興佛
事.’52
In light of the above discussion concerning the credibility of Yancong’s work as a source of historical facts, it would be unwise to
assume this account reflects any actual change of heart on the part
of Taizong. Medieval Chinese court historians, in fact, never used
this account in constructing the life of Taizong, yet some modern
historians of Buddhism have done just this. Tansen Sen, for instance,
accepts Yancong’s biography as a valid source of historical knowledge,
arguing that ‘the emperor’s interaction with Xuanzang kindled his
51
Wong, ‘The Making of a Saint’, 44.
T no. 2053, 50: 260a8–11. For English translation, see Li, A Biography of
the Tripiṭaka Master, 221.
52
293
interest in Buddhist activities.’53 Sen cites Stanley Weinstein, who
writes that ‘T’ai-tsung [Taizong] is reported to have expressed regret
that his preoccupation with politics and military affairs had deprived
him of the chance to study the doctrines of Buddhism in any detail.
Performing a volte-face, he now proclaimed Buddhism to be superior
to both Confucianism and Taoism as well as to the other schools of
Chinese philosophy.’54 This is in reference to Yancong’s biography, in
which Taizong is said to have read Xuanzang’s translation of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論 (T no. 1579)—a key work of the Yogācāra
corpus—and proclaimed that Confucianism, Daoism and the Nine
Schools of Chinese thought ‘are merely a small pond in contrast with
the great sea. It is ridiculous that the world should say that the three
religions are equal in value’ 其儒道九流比之, 猶汀瀅之池方溟渤耳,
而世云三教齊致, 此妄談也.55
Some historians have correctly questioned this purported relationship between Xuanzang and Taizong. Howard Wechsler, for
example, expressed doubt about Taizong having developed Buddhist
convictions during his final days. Wechsler explains as follows:
T’ai-tsung is said to have regretted not having met Hsüan-tsang
[Xuanzang] earlier so that he could have encouraged the spread of
Buddhism. Whether he ever made such a statement is doubtful; if he
did it must have been a death-bed conversion, totally at variance with
his life-long hostility towards the Buddhist church and Buddhist
doctrine.56
Did Xuanzang and Taizong interact? If so, what sort of relationship
existed between them? To answer this question, we can again turn to
the work of Daoxuan. Daoxuan records that after crossing the Congling 葱嶺 range, Xuanzang sent a messenger ahead to the Chinese
state. An imperial decree was returned, ordering a meeting between
53
54
55
56
Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade, 47.
Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 25.
T no. 2053: 50.256a9–11; Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 194.
Wechsler, ‘T’ai-tsung’, 219.
294
the emperor and Xuanzang. The elephant carrying the texts and
images that Xuanzang had brought back from India died, and so
Xuanzang was forced to request assistance. The local king of Khotan
遁國 was ordered to assist Xuanzang, who was then able to cross the
desert with camels and horses, the expenses of which were covered by
the Chinese court.57
There is nothing here that would indicate Xuanzang was especially concerned about the response he might receive from the court.
Yancong records a memorial purportedly sent by Xuanzang to the
court, in which it is said: ‘Thus in the fourth month of the third year
of Zhenguan [April 29 to May 27, 629], I ventured to act against the
law and the regulations, and I set out privately for India’ 遂以貞觀三
年四月, 冒越憲章, 私往天竺.58 The same memorial text is reproduced
in the Quan Tang wen 全唐文 (fasc. 906), produced in 1814 by Dong
Hao 董誥.59 As outlined above, Xuanzang left Chang’an following a
regional food shortage, and thereafter was able to secure passage to
Gaochang in the company of merchants, so we are left to wonder
whether Xuanzang actually wrote this line. As an item of evidence
that would suggest, in fact, Xuanzang did not write this line, we can
look to a compilation of Xuanzang’s memorials that were preserved
in Japan as an individual text, which according to the Taishō editors
was Tang Chinese in origin (T no. 2119).60 This document contains
See text reproduced in Yoshimura, ‘Kōshō-ji-bon Zoku kōsō den’, 209.
T no. 2053: 50.251c18–19. Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 168.
One possible issue here is that Xuanzang preferred to use the term Yindu 印度
when referring to India, rather than Tianzhu 天竺, since the former was closer to
the proper pronunciation according to him. Xuanzang himself stresses this point
in his travelogue. In the opening lines of his travelogue, in which he praises the
emperor, Xuanzang employs Tianzhu once—and this is the only time he does
so in this work apart from the other instance in which he advocates the alternative term—but this is clearly done to produce prose that rhymes (越自天府, 暨
諸天竺). Xuanzang otherwise exclusively used the term Yindu. See T no. 2087:
51.875b16–17 and 869a14–15.
59
Quan Tang wen 906.9448a6–b3.
60
Si shamen Xuanzang shangbiao ji 寺沙門玄奘上表記, T no. 2119. The
57
58
295
some memorials that we also find in Yancong’s text, but there is no
line therein corresponding to 冒越憲章, 私往天竺. Dong Hao appears to have extracted his collection of memorials from Yancong’s
work or some intermediary materials, whereas T no. 2119 appears to
be the original collection memorials written by Xuanzang.
Moving on, Daoxuan’s account records that Xuanzang arrived
in Chang’an during the first lunar month of the nineteenth year of
Zhenguan (February 2 to March 2, 645), where a large number of
onlookers prevented him from proceeding into the city. One can
imagine that Xuanzang, who at the time was an otherwise unknown
monk, returning with a sizeable baggage train from the Western Regions, would have attracted much attention from locals in the capital
and particularly from pious Buddhists who would have wanted to
worship the numerous images and scriptures.
At this time, Emperor Taizong was in Luoyang. Xuanzang
deposited his texts and statues in Hongfu si and proceeded onward
to Luoyang, where he met Taizong and spoke with him at length.
Taizong invited (or ordered) Xuanzang to accompany him on his
military expedition against Goguryeo, but Xuanzang adamantly
refused. Taizong relented and provided what was necessary for Xuanzang to commence his translation work, including a staff of laymen
and monks to assist his work. Xuanzang also produced his travelogue
shortly thereafter with the assistance of his disciple Bianji 辯機 (d.
649). Xuanzang also requested of Taizong the preface discussed
earlier. Xuanzang was asked to translate the Daode jing 道德經 into
Sanskrit, although this was wrought with many challenges, given the
linguistic and cultural differences between Chinese and Sanskrit.
In light of the above, we ought to be hesitant in accepting any narrative that would paint Taizong as being especially favorable toward
Taishō editors consulted two manuscripts: one from the Tang period and a copy
from the Nara period stored at Chion-in 知恩院 in Kyōto. Another title given
is Da Tang Sanzang Xuanzang fashi biaoqi yi juan 大唐三藏玄奘法師表啟
一卷. The Tōiki dendō mokuroku lists a Biaoqi ji yi juan 表啓記一卷 (T 2183:
55.1163b22) alongside other texts related to Xuanzang, but provides no further
details.
296
Buddhism, or even toward Xuanzang. Wong claims that the ‘personal bond he eventually developed with Taizong was instrumental to
his project’s success’.61 It is easy to speculate about Taizong’s personal
motivation—assuming he even had one—in funding Xuanzang’s
translation project. It might have simply been politically expedient,
especially when he was engaging in an expansionist military project
to the east against a state that posed no threat to China. It also would
have been in Buddhist interests to depict a personal bond between
Xuanzang and Taizong, and it is only Yancong’s biography of Xuanzang that depicts such an endearing relationship, whereas neither the
state sources nor Daoxuan’s work present their relationship in such a
manner.
The preface that Taizong wrote and his funding of Xuanzang’s
project might lead one to think that, in fact, Taizong held or eventually came to possess a strong interest in Buddhism, but even if this
were so, his purported comments in Yancong’s narrative seem far
too extreme, especially given the fact that no other source confirms
his sudden profound appreciation for Buddhadharma after reading
the Yogācārabhūmi. I think it is more realistic to suggest that Taizong
simply saw the political expediency of sponsoring Buddhist projects,
especially given that his family’s dynasty had only been established
within living memory after the Sui.
So why would Yancong write such a story about Taizong into his
narrative? To figure this out, we have to look at the time when he
produced his work.
Yancong in 688: A Connection to Wu Zetian?
Why would Yancong produce such a lengthy fantastical narrative
about Xuanzang’s life? The date of 688 and the aforementioned association with Weiguo si are significant in this respect, since not only
was Wu Zetian the de facto autocrat ruling over the Chinese court at
this time, but Weiguo si was also connected to her regime. This con-
61
Wong, ‘The Making of a Saint’, 47.
297
nection between the biography and Wu Zetian’s regime was already
noticed by Forte, who explained this connection as follows:
Yancong’s preface is dated to 20 April 688 (Chuigong 4.3.15). The
publication of the work took place, then, in a time of great Buddhist
expansion, with a Buddhist mingtang under construction and a
huge octagonal pagoda at its center being completed by 23 January
689 (Chuigong 4.12.27), less than nine months after the publication
of the biography. It is evident that if Xuanzang were not considered
extremely important by Wu Zhao’s Buddhist supporters at that time,
his biography would not have been published.62
Chinese Monks affiliated with Yogācāra were important among the
ideologues of Wu Zetian.63 This point offers a clue as to why Xuanzang’s biography specifically was effectively rewritten despite the
earlier publication of both his travelogue and Daoxuan’s biography of
him. This connection to Yogācāra also helps to explain why, according
to Yancong, Taizong was purportedly intrigued by the Yogācārabhūmi
enough to proclaim that Buddhadharma was superior to Confucianism, Daoism, and the Nine Schools of traditional Chinese thought.
Yancong even writes that Xuanzang was initially driven to travel
westward in search of the Yogācārabhūmi.64 Yancong, it seems, had
an interest in promoting this text specifically, rather than other translations by Xuanzang, such as the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (T no.
1585; Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra), which likely indicates that he
was attempting to promote the interests of those with expertise in the
Yogācārabhūmi. Kieschnick suggests that Buddhist biographical literature in medieval China was directed toward an elite audience, which
Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology, 169.
Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology, 168.
64
T no. 2053: 50.222c4–6. Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 18.
Modern scholars, such as Yoshimura, repeat this and state Xuanzang travelled to
India in order to acquire this text specifically, although this emphasis on his interest in the Yogācārabhūmi seems to stem from Yancong’s account alone. Yoshimura, ‘Genjō no Daijō-kan to sandenbōrin-setsu’, 57.
62
63
298
was especially so in the case of Daoxuan.65 In the case of Yancong—a
contemporary of Daoxuan—he was likely writing with Wu Zetian in
mind, if not under her direction or one of her subordinates, apparently in order to promote the interests of a group of monks.
We might indeed speculate that Yancong’s biography was
produced as a form of soft propaganda with the intention to ease
China’s transition from a pro-Daoist court under the Li family to
a pro-Buddhist court under Wu Zetian and her Buddhist allies.
For instance, it is highly unlikely that the Tang court under normal
circumstances would have allowed Buddhists to reconfigure the history of Taizong’s later years to make him appear uncharacteristically
sympathetic to Buddhism, yet this rewriting of history could have
only occurred under Wu Zetian. Taizong’s purported relationship
with Xuanzang and interest in Buddhism during his final years
conceivably would have bolstered the status of the Yogācāra lineage
that emerged from Xuanzang’s time, which around the year 688 was
active in court politics.66
The aforementioned connection between Weiguo si and Yancong
also points directly to influence by Wu Zetian or her close supporters, since this is also the same location and period (687–690) in
which the Huayan patriarch Fazang 法藏 (643–712) was resident,
and where he produced his commentary on the bodhisattva precepts.67 This commentary, the Fanwangjing pusa jieben shu 梵網經菩
薩戒本疏 (T no. 1813), is anomalous in that it offers a moral dispensation to possessing weapons ‘if it is to defend the Buddhadharma or
placate sentient beings’ 為護佛法及調伏眾生.68 That Fazang would
Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk, 7–8.
There were competing lineages within Faxiang 法相 / Yogācāra affiliated groups in Chang’an. Xuanzang’s disciple Ji 基 (632–682), otherwise known
as Kuiji 窺基, favored the work of the Indian teacher Dharmapāla, whereas the
Korean monk Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 (613–696) sought to make available the opinions
of other Indian authors. Chinese and Japanese Buddhists histories subsequently
painted the latter as unorthodox. Jørgensen, ‘Representing Wŏnch’ŭk,’ 74–78.
67
Yoshizu, Kegon ichijō shisō no kenkyū, 597; T no. 1813: 40.602a25.
68
T no. 1813: 40.639b5–6.
65
66
299
condone violence in this manner during the years in question likely
reflects an anticipation of civil unrest and loyalist retaliation that
would accompany the imminent founding of a new dynasty. Weiguo
si, it seems, was a major monastery in which Buddhist material favorable to a rising Wu Zetian was in production before 690. Yancong’s
biography of Xuanzang, I contend, was one of these works. This
argument is only strengthened by the fact that Fazang relied upon the
interpretation of bodhisattva ethics in the Yogācārabhūmi, which, in
fact, expressly condones violence and even homicide if carried out to
save beings from ending up in hell due to their own transgressions.69
The promotion of the Yogācārabhūmi evidently served the interests
of the saṃgha and the state under Wu Zetian.
If, as I have proposed, Yancong’s biography was indeed produced
under the influence of Wu Zetian’s regime, this likely explains why
court historians of later times did not consult it even after the Tang.
Medieval Chinese historians, such as Liu Xu and others, would have
noticed the considerable discrepancies between the works of Yancong
and Daoxuan, as well as the former in relation to the official historical
documents from the Tang court.
Further Implications: Xuanzang and the Heart Sūtra
The implications of the present study can be extended into modern
discussions on the origins of the Heart Sūtra. In 1992, Jan Nattier
proposed that this sūtra was produced in Chinese before being translated into Sanskrit, rather than a Sanskrit text having been translated
into Chinese.70 The latter explanation is still generally held to be the
case among Japanese scholars, such as Kōsei 石井公成, who rejects
The relationship between Fazang and the Yogācārabhūmi has been discussed in Kotyk, ‘Can Monks Practice Astrology’, 513–15.
70
Nattier, ‘The Heart Sūtra’, 153–223. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu lists among
Xuanzang’s work the Boreboluomiduo xin jing [Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya] in one
fascicle 般若波羅蜜多心經一卷 that was translated in year 23 of Zhenguan 貞觀
(649) at Cuiwei gong 翠微宮 at Zhongnan shan 終南山, with the monk Zhiren
69
300
Nattier’s theory. The Ci’en zhuan mentions the Heart Sūtra in two
places, a point that has been brought up to support specific arguments in this discussion.71 The first mention of the Heart Sūtra reads
as follows:
Now the Master had only his lonely shadow travelling with him, and
all he could do was repeat the name of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva
and recite the Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya Sūtra. Formerly, when the
Master was in the region of Shu, he once saw a sick man suffering
from a foul skin ulcer and dressed in rags. With a feeling of pity, he
took the man to his monastery and gave him money to purchase
clothes and food. Being ashamed of himself, the sick man taught the
Master this sūtra, which he often recited.
是時顧影唯一, 但念觀音菩薩及《般若心經》. 初, 法師在蜀, 見一
病人, 身瘡臭穢, 衣服破污, 慜將向寺施與衣服飲食之直. 病者慚愧,
乃授法師此經, 因常誦習.72
If we treat Yancong’s biography as fictional, as I have proposed, then
it would be unreasonable to suggest Xuanzang actually learned the
Heart Sūtra from this mysterious figure. Part of Nattier’s argument
rests on this account. For instance, she states that ‘it is noteworthy
that Hsüan-tsang’s [Xuanzang’s] biography speaks not of his translation of the text, but of his being given the text by a sick man he
befriended.’ She then remarks that this ‘account provides concrete
evidence, then, both of Hsüan-tsang’s love for the text and his transport of its content (at least in oral form) to India.’ She also theorizes
that ‘the story of Hsüan-tsang’s receipt of the text becomes ever more
detailed in the course of its transmission, acquiring evidently hagiographic elements along the way.’73 She refers to the following line in
知仁 as scribe. The issue in present scholarship, however, is whether the Chinese
text in question was ever a translation.
71
Ishii, ‘Hannya shingyō wo meguru shomondai’, 492–99.
72
T no. 2053: 50.224b7–10. Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 26.
73
Nattier, ‘The Heart Sūtra’, 174, 180, 209 fn. 43.
301
the Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, produced by
the monk Yuanzhao 圓照 in 800:
This sūtra was translated by Kumārajīva [344–413], called the Sūtra
of the Great Luminous Dhāraṇī. A divine man bestowed it upon
Dharma Master Xuanzang when he was headed to the West. While
crossing the desert and encountering perils, he would recite it with
utmost sincerity, and thereby he remained free from disasters and
obstacles. The words of this Great Dhāraṇī are not false. Later he obtained the Sanskrit text and translated it without any variation [from
the original meaning].
此經羅什翻譯, 名曰大明呪經. 玄奘法師, 當往西方臨發之時, 神人
授與. 路經砂磧, 險難之中, 至心諷持, 災障遠離. 是大神呪, 斯言不
虛. 後得梵夾, 譯出無異.74
Kumārajīva in reality never translated this sūtra, since it is first
attested in China during the seventh century. We need to recognize
that Yancong’s biography of Xuanzang is already full of stories of
miracles and other fantastical elements. The biography in question
was already a fantastical hagiography from the beginning, hence it
is unnecessary to speak of the story in question ‘acquiring evidently
hagiographic elements along the way.’
The second mention of the Heart Sūtra in Yancong’s biography
is found in a memorial by Xuanzang, in which he offers a copy of
this text in gold letters (金字般若心經) to the imperial family when
a prince had reached one month following birth.75 This memorial is
also reproduced in fasc. 906 of the Quan Tang wen collection. The
event is also described in the memorial inscription to Xuanzang.76 We
also see it in the compilation of Xuanzang’s memorials preserved in
T no. 2157: 55.893c11–15.
T no. 2053: 50.272b12. Li, A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, 305. Li
translates this as ‘Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra’, but the Chinese is clearly Bore xin jing
般若心經 (i.e., the Heart Sūtra).
76
X no. 1651: 88.376c8.
74
75
302
Japan, a point that could indicate that this early witness to the Heart
Sūtra is authentic.77 Yancong’s narrative places it on the fifth day in
the twelfth lunar month of the first year of Xianqing 顯慶 (26 December 656). We might speculate that, if in fact Xuanzang produced
the Heart Sūtra, it might have originally been in a format such as
this—inked in gold letters and presented to the imperial family as a
nominal sūtra (jing 經)—even though it was not a translation, as several modern scholars have already argued. It is unlikely that anyone
would have objected to the text’s production while labelling it apocryphal if it had been produced by Xuanzang himself and then given
as a gift to the imperial family.
To sum up this section, I argue that Xuanzang did not receive
the Heart Sūtra from a mysterious figure before leaving for India.
However, it does appear that he possessed this work (or produced it
in Chinese) at some point only after returning from India. He furthermore utilized it in formal circumstances, a point that hints at the
early prominence of the Heart Sūtra even during Xuanzang’s own
later years.
Conclusion
This study has attempted to demonstrate the value of utilizing a
diverse range of texts, especially those from non-Buddhist sources, in
verifying the veracity of accounts of Xuanzang with a focus on the
Ci’en zhuan, arguing that its historicity is highly suspect in many
respects.
We primarily focused on the biographies of Xuanzang written by
Daoxuan and Yancong. The original recension of Daoxuan’s biography, which was preserved in Japan, appears to be a more authentic
and realistic account of Xuanzang’s early life and the first several
years following his return to China, especially when we compare
it to the secular sources we surveyed. For instance, Daoxuan’s work
and the account of Xuanzang in the Jiu Tang shu both indicate
77
T no. 2119: 52.825a16–17.
303
that Xuanzang left China through normal procedures, rather than
surreptitiously. Yancong’s biography, the Ci’en zhuan, in contrast,
has Xuanzang riding an exhausted horse through the desert alone
and dodging arrows at the Chinese frontier. This text was produced
in 688 under the influence of Wu Zetian’s rising regime. It is evident
that it constitutes an adaptation of the life story of Xuanzang, and
one that could only have been produced under her reign. I would
suggest that this biography, which has at times been uncritically
mined for historical facts about Xuanzang by some modern scholars, ought to be treated as a narrative or imaginative reconstruction
based upon true events. Although the Ci’en zhuan incorporates some
of Xuanzang’s memorials, which appear to be authentic (not all of
them, however, can be confidently established as such), at the same
time there are numerous fantastical elements that cannot be treated
as objective historical realities.
As to Yancong’s motivations, he possessed a clear interest in
promoting the Yogācārabhūmi, and did not shy away from putting
words into the mouth of the late emperor Taizong (again, this could
have only been done under Wu Zetian). His story was essentially
produced as a form of Buddhist propaganda promoting the interests
of his own community, specifically those clerics who possessed expertise in the Yogācārabhūmi. Modern scholars ought to reconsider
the extent to which Xuanzang was invested in this particular text,
especially in light of the other large works he translated.
I would not, however, argue that Yancong’s biography of Xuanzang must be entirely dismissed because of its fictional elements,
since it was clearly based upon a true story. Nevertheless, even the less
fantastical components in the narrative, which are tempting for the
modern historian to excavate, ought to be subject to critical scrutiny.
Taking the agreeable parts while ignoring all the miracle stories is an
unwise approach toward a primary source. We should recall a comment by Kieschnick, who cautions that ‘attempts to strip stories of
legendary materials meet with only limited success.’78
Xuanzang and Taizong indeed interacted with one another, and
78
Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk, 2.
304
the latter provided state funding for the translation of Sanskrit texts
into Chinese, but any suggestion that Xuanzang provided pastoral
care to the emperor, or that the emperor had a positive change of
heart toward Buddhism during his twilight years, are untenable in
my estimation. Historians of Taizong, such as Wechsler, are wise to
cast suspicion upon Buddhist works that would portray a religious
conversion by an emperor that is otherwise unattested in state and
secular documents. Buddhist sources from the Tang era, apart from
the Ci’en zhuan and those citing it, also do not attest to any such
deep interest in Buddhism on the part of Taizong. He might have
written a preface, but that does not mean he also wholeheartedly
endorsed the Yogācārabhūmi as the pinnacle of philosophy.
The implications of this study are finally extended to the contemporary discussion regarding the origins of the Heart Sūtra, specifically the two references to the text in the Ci’en zhuan. In light of
the many fantastical elements in this narrative, we ought to dismiss
the story that Xuanzang received the text from an ill man before
travelling to India. This means that Xuanzang did not have access to
this text before travelling to India. The second reference in the Ci’en
zhuan is included within a letter addressed to Gaozong, in which
Xuanzang offers a copy of the Heart Sūtra written in gold ink. This
later letter is also included in the collection of memorials of Xuanzang preserved in Japan, which likely indicates that it is authentic.
If this is true, then Xuanzang clearly felt this text was important,
a point that highlights its early significance, even during the life of
Xuanzang.
Bibliography
Abbreviations
SKQS
Siku quanshu 四庫全書 [Complete Library of the Four
Treasuries]. Yingyin Wenyuange Siku quanshu 景印文
淵閣四庫全書 [Photocopy of the Wenyuange edition of
the Siku Quanshu]. 1,500 vols. Taipei: Taiwan Shangwu
Yinshuguan 台灣商務印書館, 1983.
305
T
X
Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. [Taishō edition
of the Buddhist Canon]. 100 vols. Takakusu Junjirō
高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭 et al.,
eds. Tōkyō: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai 大正一切經刊刻
會, 1924–1934. Digitized in CBETA Online Reader
(http://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw) and SAT Daizōkyō Text
Database (http://21dzk.l.u-Tōkyō.ac.jp/SAT/satdb2015.
php).
Xinzuan wanzi xuzang 新纂卍續藏 [Wanzi Newly
Compiled Supplement to the Buddhist Canon].
CBETA Online Reader (http://cbetaonline.dila.edu.
tw).
Primary Sources
Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜 [Primeval Tortoise of the Record Bureau].
1,000 juan. Compiled in 1013 by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962–
1025) and Yang Yi 楊億 (974–1020). SKQS 902–919.
Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 [Skt. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra]. 10
juan. Translated in 659 by Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664). T no.
1585.
Da Ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 [A Biography
of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the
Great Tang Dynasty]. 10 juan. Completed by Yancong 彥悰
(d.u.) in 688 on the basis of a draft left by Huili 慧立 (615–?). T
no. 2053.
Da Tang gu sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuang 大唐故三藏玄
奘法師行狀 [Account of the Late Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
of the Great Tang]. 1 juan. Purportedly produced by a certain
Mingxiang 冥詳 (d.u.). T no. 2052.
Da Tang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 [The Great Tang Dynasty Record of
the Western Regions]. 12 juan. Compiled in 646 Bianji 辯機
(620–649). T no. 2087.
Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集 [Enlarged Collection for the
Propagation and the Clarification]. 30 juan. Compiled by
Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) in 664. T no. 2103.
Fanwangjing pusa jieben shu 梵網經菩薩戒本疏 [Commentary on
306
the Bodhisattva Precepts of the Brahma New Sūtra]. 6 juan. By
Fazang 法藏 (643–712) c. 687–690. T no. 1813.
Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 [Grove of Pearls of the Garden of Dharma].
100 juan. Compiled by Daoshi 道世 (d. 683) in 668. T no. 2122.
Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書 [Old Book of Tang]. 200 juan. Compiled in 945
by Liu Xu 劉昫 (887–946) et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書
局, 1975.
Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 [Record of Śākyamuniʼs Teachings
Compiled during the Kaiyuan period]. 20 juan. Compiled by
Zhisheng 智昇 (?–740+) in 730. T no. 2154.
Mishū kyōsō shō 祕宗教相鈔 [Summary of the Teachings of the
Esoteric School]. 10 juan. Written by Chōyo 重誉 (d.u.) in
twelfth century. T no. 2441.
Quan Tang wen 全唐文 [Complete Works of the Tang]. 1,000 juan.
Compiled in 1814 by Dong Gao 董皓 (1740–1818) et al. Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1983.
Si shamen Xuanzang shangbiao ji 寺沙門玄奘上表記 [Memorials of
the Temple Monk Xuanzang]. 1 juan. Unknown authorship.
Earliest Japanese copy from Nara period (710–794). T no. 2119.
Song Gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 [Song Biographies of Eminent
Monks]. 30 juan. Completed in 988 by Zanning 贊寧 (919–
1001) et al. T no. 2061.
Song Jingwen gong biji 宋景文公筆記 [Writings of Mister Song
Jingwen]. 3 juan. Compilation of writings by Song Qi 宋祈
(998–1061). SKQS 862: 533–554.
Taiping yulan 太平御覽 [Taiping Encyclopedia]. 999 juan. Compiled
by Li Fang 李昉 (925–996) between 977–983. SKQS 893–901.
Tang huiyao 唐會要 [Institutional History of the Tang]. 100
juan. Compiled in 961 by Wang Pu 王溥 (922–982). Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1955.
Tōiki dendō mokuroku 東域傳燈目錄 [Catalog of the Transmission of
the Lamp in the Eastern Region]. 1 juan. Compiled by Eichō 永
超 (1014–1095) in 1093. T no. 2183.
Xin Tang shu 新唐書 [New Book of Tang]. 225 juan. Compiled by
Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–1072) and Song Qi 宋祁 (998–1061)
in 1060. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1975.
Xu Gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 [Extended Biographies of Eminent
307
Monks]. 30 juan. Compiled by Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) c. 645.
T no. 2060.
Yogācārabhūmi (Chn. Yuqieshidi lun 瑜伽師地論). 100 juan.
Translated by Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664) between 646–648. T
no. 1579.
Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 [Zhenyuan
Revised List of Canonical Buddhist Texts]. Compiled by
Yuanzhao 圓照 (8th c.) in 800. T no. 2157.
Secondary Sources
Chi Limei 池麗梅. ‘Dōsen no zenhansei to Zoku kōsō den hatsu
kōhōn no seiritsu’ 道宣の前半生と
『続高僧伝』
初稿本の成立 [The
first half of Daoxuan’s (596–667) life and the formation of the
first version of the Xu Gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 completed in
the Zhenguan era (627–649)]. Nihon ko-shakyō kenkyūjo kenkyū
kiyō 日本古写経研究所研究紀要 (Journal of the Research Institute
for Old Japanese Manuscripts of Buddhist Scriptures) 1 (2016):
65–95.
Deeg, Max. ‘Has Xuanzang Really Been in Mathurā? Interpretatio
Sinica or Interpretatio Occidentalia: How to Critically Read the
Records of a Chinese Pilgrim’. In Essays on East Asian Religion
and Culture: Festschrift in Honour of Nishiwaki Tsuneki on
the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Christian Wittern
and Shi Lishan, 426–388. Kyoto: Editorial Committee for the
Festschrift in honor of Nishiwaki Tsuneki, 2007.
Forte, Antonino. ‘The Chongfu Monastery 崇福寺 in Chang’an:
Foundation and Name Changes’. In L’Inscription Nestorienne
De Si-Ngan-Fou, edited by Antonino Forte, 429–54. Kyoto and
Paris: Italian School of East Asian Studies & Collège de France,
1996.
———. ‘On the Origins of the Great Fuxian Monastery 大福先寺 in
Luoyang’. Studies in Chinese Religions 1 (2015): 46–69.
———. Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the
Seventh Century: Inquiry into the Nature, Authors and Function
of the Dunhuang Document S.6502, second edition. Kyoto:
Scuola Italiana di Studi sull’ Asia Orientale, 2005.
308
Fujiyoshi Masumi 藤善真澄. Dōsen den no kenkyū 道宣伝の硏
究 [Research on the Biographies of Daoxuan]. Kyoto: Kyōto
Daigaku gakujutsu shuppankai 京都大學學術出版會, 2002.
Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. ‘Hannya shingyō wo meguru shomondai - Jan
Nattier no Genjō sōsaku-setsu wo utagau’『 般若心経 』をめぐる諸
問題: ジャン・ナティエ氏の玄奘創作説を疑う [Issues Surrounding
the Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya: Doubts Concerning Jan Nattier’s
Theory of a Composition by Xuanzang]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku
kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 ( Journal of Indian and Buddhist
Studies) 64.1 (2015): 492–99.
Jørgensen, John. ‘Representing Wŏnch’ŭk (613–696): Meditations
on Medieval East Asian Buddhist Biographies’. In Religion and
Biography in China and Tibet, edited by Benjanmin Penny,
74–131. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2002.
Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval
Chinese Hagiography. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,
1997.
Kotyk, Jeffrey. ‘Can Monks Practice Astrology? Astrology and the
Vinaya in China’. In Rules of Engagement: Medieval Traditions
of Buddhist Monastic Regulation, edited by Susan Andrews,
Jinhua Chen and Cuilan Liu, 503–517. Hamburg: Hamburg
University Press, 2017.
Kuwayama Shōshin 桑山正進, and Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭.
Jinbutsu Chūgoku Bukkyō: Genjō 人物・中国仏教: 玄奘 [People:
Chinese Buddhism: Xuanzang]. Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha 大東
出版社, 1981.
Li Rongxi. A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en
Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty. Berkeley: Numata Center
for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995.
Li Rongxi. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions.
Moraga: BDK America Inc., 1996.
Liu Shufen 劉淑芬. ‘Xuanzang de zuihou shinian (655–664):
Jianlun Zongzhang er nian (669) gai-zang shi’ 玄奘的最後十年
(655–664)——兼論總章二年 (669) 改葬事 [The Last Ten Years of
Xuanzang’s Life (655–664): With a Discussion of His Reburial
in 669]. Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢 [Journal of
Chinese Literature and History] 95 (2009): 1–97.
309
Moro Shigeki. ‘Biography as Narrative: Reconsideration of
Xuanzang’s Biographies Focusing on Japanese Old Buddhist
Manuscripts’. In From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and
Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664),
edited by Shi Ciguang, Chen Jinhua, Ji Yun and Shi Xingding,
252–69. Singapore: World Scholastic Publishers, 2020
Nattier, Jan. ‘The Heart Sūtra: A Chinese Apocryphal Text?’.
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15,
no. 2 (1992): 153–223.
Saitō Tatsuya 斉藤達也. ‘Features of the Kongō-ji Version of the
Further Biographies of Eminent Monks 続高僧伝: With a Focus
on the Biography of Xuanzang 玄奘 in the Fourth Fascicle’.
Kokusai Bukkyō daigakuin daigaku kenkyū kiyō 国際仏教学
大学院大学研究紀要 [Journal of the International College for
Advanced Buddhist Studies] 16 (2012): 69–104.
Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment
of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press, 2003.
Trueman, Carl R. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the
Writing of History. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Twitchett, Denis. The Writing of Official History under the T’ang.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Wechsler, Howard J. ‘T’ai-tsung (reign 626–49) the Consolidator’.
In The Cambridge History of China: Volume 3, Sui and T’ang
China, 589–906, part I, edited by Denis Twitchett, 188–241.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Weinstein, Stanley. Buddhism Under the T’ang. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Wong, Dorothy C. ‘The Making of a Saint: Images of Xuanzang in
East Asia’. Early Medieval China 8 (2002): 43–95.
Yoshimura Makoto 吉村誠. ‘Dai Tō Daijion-ji Sanzō Hōshi den
no seiritsu ni tsuite’『 大唐大慈恩寺三蔵法師伝 』の成立につ
いて [On the Production of the Da Tang Da Ci’en si sanzang
fashi zhuan]. Bukkyōgaku 仏教学 [Buddhist Studies] 37 (1995):
79–113.
Yoshimura Makoto 吉村誠. ‘Genjō no nenji mondai ni tsuite’ 玄
奘の年次問題について [Chronological Issues with Xuanzang].
310
Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu ronshū 駒沢大学仏教学部
論集 [Komazawa University Journal of Buddhist Studies] 46
(2015): 183–205.
———. ‘Genjō no Daijō-kan to sandenbōrin-setsu’ 玄奘の大乗観
と三転法輪説 [Xuanzang’s View on the Mahāyāna and His
Explanation of the Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel]. Tōyō
no shisō to shūkyō 東洋の思想と宗教 [Thought and Religion of
Asia] 16 (1999): 57–79.
———. ‘Kōshō-ji-bon Zoku kōsō den maki-shi Genjō den:
Honkoku to kōtei’ 興聖寺本『 続高僧伝 』巻四玄奘伝: 翻刻と
校訂 [The Biography of Xuanzang in Fascicle Four of the Xu
Gaoseng zhuan Preserved at Kōshō-ji]. Komazawa Daigaku
Bukkyōgakubu ronshū 駒沢大学仏教学部論集 [Komazawa
University Journal of Buddhist Studies] 44 (2013): 190–216.
Yoshizu Yoshihide 吉津宜英. Kegon ichijō shisō no kenkyū 華厳一乗
思想の研究 [Research on Single-Vehicle Philosophy in Huayan].
Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha 大東出版社, 1991.
From Chang’an to Nālandā:
The Life and Legacy of the Chinese
Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664)
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Xuanzang
and Silk Road Culture
EDITORS: SHI Ciguang, CHEN Jinhua, JI Yun and SHI Xingding
BOOK DESIGN: Carol Lee
PUBLISHER: World Scholastic Publishers
560416, AMK AVE 10, 13-1001, Singapore
EMAIL: eurice.d.shih@worldscholastic.com
ISBN: 978-981-14-6185-9
FORMAT: Paperback / Softcover
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2020-05-01
LANGUAGE: English
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing in Publication Data
Names: Ciguang, Shi, editor. | Chen, Jinhua, 1966- editor. | Ji, Yun, editor. |
Xingding, Shi, editor.
Title: From Chang'an to Nālandā : the life and legacy of the Chinese Buddhist
monk Xuanzang (602?-664) / edited by Shi Ciguang, Chen Jinhua, Ji Yun
and Shi Xingding.
Description: Singapore : World Scholastic Publishers, 2020.
Identifiers: OCN 1156317437 | ISBN 978-981-14-6185-9 (paperback)
Subjects: LCSH: Xuanzang, approximately 596-664. | Buddhist monks--China-Biography.
Classification: DDC 294.361--dc23