Textual Transmission and History

of Chan Buddhism in Xixia

K. Solonin, 中国人民大学
 On the term “ 宗”
• Textual heritage of Tangut Buddhism can be distributed among the so-called “textual
clusters” of Sinitic and Tibetan Buddhism, which in turn can be seen as rudiments of the
circulation of specific “schools” (zong 宗 in case of Sinitic Buddhism) or sets of
instructions lineages (in Tibetan case). The congruence between various “schools” of
Sinitic Buddhism and Tangut“textual clusters”is not straightforward, but allows an attempt
to formulate Tangut doctrinal taxonomy, which can partially account for the Tangut
Buddhist history . Tangut term mər2 礌 (zong 宗 ) emerges in the translated contexts in
the function similar to its Sinitic counterpart, e.g.: śjã1 mər2 聲礌， i.e. chanzong 禪宗 .
Derivatives of mər2 礌 such as mər2 dzji ̱j2 礌祇 （ zushi 祖師，“ founding master” ） or
mər2 tśja1 礌癝 （ zongdao 宗道 “ the way of [our] teaching” ） emerge in the Tangut
Buddhist literature, both translated and locally composed. In what follows we use the
term “school” with an understanding that in Tangut context it implies textual clusters
rather than actual lineages of transmission: to account for the latter we simply do not
have enough sources. Among such clusters/ schools the most clearly delineated one is the
Huayan-Chan group gravitating around the translations of the compositions by Guifeng
Zongmi 圭峰宗密 780-841, the fifth patriarch of the Huayan school and holder of Heze
荷澤 Chan lineage
 State of the Field
• Popularity of the Huayan and/ or Huayan Chan texts in Xixia has been noticed quite
early. The study of the so called Tangut Hongzhou texts had led to a suggestion that
Xixia remained a safe haven for the Heze lineage after its demise in the Tang . Further
studies revealed a presence of the Liao period compositions in the Tangut Buddhism,
including some works of Chan Buddhism . This resulted in a reevaluation of the
Huayan Chan in Xixia, which was now seen as originating from the Liao, or rather as a
part of the Buddhist curriculum of the Northern China during 10-12th centuries.
Comparative study of the Buddhist curriculum emerging from the Liao period finds
throughout Northern China and fragments of Tangut textual repertoire, especially
relating to the “hundred dharmas”, faxiang 法相 traditions and Tangut texts on the
Shi Moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論 seems to indicate in the same direction . This logic
implies that the Tangut translations of Zongmi basic works on Chan Buddhism are
also of the Liao origin. However, since the Liao editions of Zongmi texts are currently
unavailable, one has to proceed solely from the Tangut texts in order to reconstruct
this particular dimension of the Tangut Buddhist history. Currently direct association
of the Tangut texts of Zongmi works on Chan solely with the Liao Buddhism appears
an oversimplification.
Issues of Transmission: Platform Sūtra

• Two sets of fragments: Tenri, Beijing

University, National Library, Academia Sinica, .
Origin: Dunhuang, supposedly fragments of
the same text (Solonin, 2009), dates around
1070-s
• Stein Collection in British Library, 1 fragment
(Wen Zhiyong, 2021). Origin: Khara-Khoto
 Comparison
• BL: tśji1 śjɨj2 筗氨（志成） = Chinese phonetic
borrowing; tsji̱ r1 njɨ2 矖維 （法達） =
translation from Chinese
• DH: tśji1 śjɨj2 練氨（知成） = phonetic
borrowing; xiwã1 tha2 嘿菛 = phonetic
borrowing
• BL: 呢阶 （ lit. 能立）； DH: 超癏
• Above evidence: separating aberrations, indicative
that the two texts are alternative translations
 Further implications
• Tangut version of the Jingde Chuandeng lu 景
德傳燈錄： tśji1 śjɨj2 筗氨（志成） ；
tsji̱ r1 njɨ2 矖維 （法達） , i.e. shares same
orthographic (phonetic?) conventions as BL,
i.e. alternative to DH.
• We observe typical Tangut situation with two
alternative versions of a basic text; one is
mainstream cluster, and the other-alternative
tradition
Issues of Transmission: Chan Preface by
Zongmi and the Huayan Chan cluster
• The texts in the so called Huayan Chan cluster had been originally studied by both present
author and colleagues worldwide, but various minute details continue to emerge in the
process of reexamination. The texts discussed here include the Tangut version of the Zhu
shuo Chan yuan zhuquan jidu xü 諸說禪源諸詮集都序 (Tangut: rjur1 tshji ̱j1 śjã1 ɣjow1
śio̱ 1 gu2 bu1 礠铜聲樊并镣守 ;T.48, no 2015, henceforth Chan Preface), and quotations
from this texts identified in a Tangut local composition Dharma gate of Mind-Ground nji̱j1
ljɨ2̣ tsji ̱r1 ɣa1 絧睫矖旺 (Catalog no. 645) . Connected with this is a brief study of the
Tangut version of the Chan Preface, i.e. Zhonghua chuan xindi chan men shizi chengxi tu
中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖 （ X.63 no 1225 ） , which is available as a full translation
and in quotations in a composition known as The Mirror tjɨj̣ 2 曼 .Direct quotations from
this text are discernable in the so called Hongzhou texts (see below). The Mirror is
identified as a translation of a Liao period doctrinal taxonomy text Jingxin lu 鏡心錄 by
Yuantong Daochen 圓通道㲀 （ 1056 ？ -1114 ？） . That is, its returns information about
the versions of textual transmission in the Liao and its reflection in Tangut texts.
• (examination of the texts in the paper) CONCLUSION: THERE EXISTED INDEPENDENT
TANGUT TRANSLATIONS
 SPECIFICS
• B. Agreement with none
• 1. 订搐毋紻哗箎膳(自體上無漏智慧)：T, K.: 性上無漏智慧，Tangut lacks： 能發起
• 2. 綀穉始谍臨佬论 （人空真之偏理）：T, K.: 悟我空偏真之理
• 3. 焊魏虃瞭笭槽怖 （其亦是次第之入，here śjij1槽 is a nominalizing marker modifying preceding verb root）T., K.: 然其趣入
門戶次第
• 4. zji2 zji2 癐癐 （一切）；T.,K.：疾；niow2 tshwew1履谴；T., K.: tutan 塗炭 (interpretative translation)
• 5. 篎粮翆磖紻瞭 （後來隨著年日過）; T., K. jihu洎乎 (interpretative translation)
• 6. dzjɨ̱2 佃 （xi習）T., K.: zuo 作
• 7. 瞤砈葞两 （宿世熏力）T.: su shi 宿世，K.: su xi宿習
• 8. rjɨr1 nji ̱j1痉絧 （骨心）T.,K.,: shen qing 神情
• 9. 篎粮纝珊毋焦縹 （然後複歸於山）T.: 方却表請歸山也；K.: 來請
• 10. 緽谍緳庭 （佛之正行）T.,K.: 佛之妙用
• 11. 瞸泛腪萯（誰縛汝）; T.,K.: 誰縛
• 12. 沪导瞮掉煞堡，焊落哗篔 （譬烹石求粥，無有此理）Not found in any Chinese version .
• 13. rjur1 tha1 礠緽 （諸佛）T.,K.: zhu shi諸師
• 14. Tangut version of the list of patriarchs (Qiu 21-22) includes sub-commentary with their sequential numbers not found in any
Chinese version .

• Variants in the group A demonstrate partial agreement between the Tangut text and the version edited by Kamata Shigeo, i.e. the
Korean Wanli version, dependent on the Song edition. Group B however demonstrates that the original of the Tangut text was not
currently available version of the Wanli text. Examples 2, 3, 5, 4 can probably be neglected as not informative, whereas other
examples, in our understanding, indicate towards a version of the text independent from currently available Chinese version.
• 往絅渡瞭篟栏蒜 (Lit: 何故隨任不受也)= 汝何得不任？(all versions). Tangut omits 2nd SG.
• 蘦堡勿阶腞遍袭挨魏哗 (Lit.: 如此忍者千中無一) = 如此者十种有九 (all versions)
• 蛁弛碽铜（Lit.: 各等所說）= not found in other versions
• 挨舅泪灯梭怖 (Lit.: 是一百六十卷) = not found in other versions; other than that agrees with Taishō
• 往堡顽(Lit.: 有如何) = not found in other versions
• This sentence is damaged, but the surviving fragment implies different source text.
• 螴蕸挡糳 = 亦不改易.Tangut implies original: 未曾改易
• 翗沏箤吞祎落 (Lit.: 唯有所缺不全者) =但遺闕意義者，Tangut implies original without 意義
• 簵佃磀丸 (Lit.: 釋意修習) = 勸誡修習 （all versions）, etymology of phji1 thjɨ1 磀丸 is unclear, suggest phji1 磀 as homophone with phji1 丑 （causative
marker）
• Tangut sentence is altered as compared with Chinese, but the original implies: 今欲, agrees with Taishō
• 祇变瞪竛钞别 (Lit.: 師主弟子顛倒) =乃覺師資昭穆顛倒 (all versions), suggests original without zhaomu 昭穆, or, more likely omitting it as obscure to
the Tangut audience
• 往絅妒窾 (Lit.: If someone asks: For what reason?”), not found in other versions
• Tangut implies original without不可孫為部首, next sentence implies original with wo我
• Suggest original with jiao 教 only (Kamata jingjiao經教; Taishō, Tanaka: sheng jiao 聖教)
• 帛毖 (Lit.: 何邊)，meaning of phja1 毖 unclear. Chinese: 即未可也
• 饲礌臷蝕矰窾 (Lit.: 蓋根本足跡則) , not found in Chinese
• 葇虯胠绕舉怖 (Lit.：是迦葉阿難二), does not agree with Chinese
• 號祇瞪商唐焦稟，《守》袭笒焦萡 (Lit.:下師資相互傳，《序》中全辯). Chinese: 六祖傳序中，即具分析 (Kamata); Taishō: 下祖傳序中,即具分析;
Tanaka: 下至傳序即具分析. Tangut agrees with Tanaka (Dunhuang version)
• Interpretative translation using Tangut bureaucratic terminology.
• 焊蒼傣舉礌魏綟辊堡 (Lit.: 此南北二宗亦如高低) not found in Chinese versions. Chinese: 就當宗之中，以尊卑昭穆
• 
• Listed above are the most obvious cases. Out of 20 cases (2), (3), (4), (5), probably (7), (8), (12), (16), (20) disagree with either Chinese version of the Chan
Preface. (9), (11), (19) are interpretative translations; (18) partially agrees with the Dunhuang version. Combined with 14 cases identified in the Nie edition
of the Tangut translation this evidence returns a suggestion that the source text for the Tangut translation represented alternative version of the text. As is
visible from the correspondences above, in many cases Tangut disagrees on the instances where all Chinese versions agree: that is we can suggest a
common archetype for the Chinese versions, whereas the Tangut text stems from an independent lineage of transmission.
• Tanaka, “Tonko hon Zengen shyosen shyūto jyo”: 66.
 quotations
• (2) Dharma Gate: [蹦《聲樊守》袭铜]：“沪篤翛腞，絧碟號蒢皺螇纓，虃瞭磖紻 ,卢篎葌葌脭属，葌葌碟蒢堡”

• Tangut Chan Preface: 沪篤翛腞，絧碟號蒢皺螇纓，虃瞭磖紻卢篎葌葌脭属 ,葌葌碟蒢堡

• Taishō version: “如人學射，頓者，箭箭直注, 意在中的；漸者，日久方始, 漸親漸中。”(CBETA 2020.Q3, T48, no. 2015,
p. 407c15-16; “As if when someone practices in archery: sudden is when every arrow directly hits the target, since his intention
is concentrated [on the target]; gradual means that after long days [the arrows] start to gradually approximate and gradually
hit [the target]”.)
• Both Tangut sentences are identical: “As with a practitioner of archery: the intention of his mind is concentrated on hitting [the
target], and then gradual [means that] with the passage of days his [arrows] gradually start to approximate and gradually hit
[the target].”
• Although there is disagreement between the Wanli version Taishō versions , they both explicitly mention “sudden” and
“gradual”, which means that the Tangut quotation and the text of the Chan Preface again disagree with the available Chinese.
Both Tangut versions deviate from the original in an important point of omitting the opposition between “sudden” and
“gradual” as hitting the target directly or as a result of a longer process of practice. Since the two Tangut quotations are
identical, we observe that such was the wording in the Chinese original which was the basis of the Tangut translation.

• (3) Dharma Gate: [蹦《聲樊守》袭铜]：“沪缞弱娟皺前，若弱葌葌辊，窾般揉魏,葌葌蟍癿焦堡妒”

• Tangut Chan Preface: “沪缞弱蒩皺前，若弱葌葌辊，窾般揉魏, 葌葌蟍癿焦堡妒”。

• Taishō version: “如登九層之臺, 足履漸高, 所見漸遠”。 (CBETA 2020.Q3, T48, no. 2015, p. 407c17)
• All three versions return similar translation: “Similarly to ascending a nine-level pagoda: while one advances to still higher
levels, his vision extends still further.” (Tangut lit.: “one sees objects further and further away.”)
 Mirror
• (6) The Mirror: [ 《聲樊并》袭铜 ] ：“蔲订絧薉论礌毋付葾，礌逗店哗，紻哗箎緁礌
订笒累，蘦絧緽怖，耳绢篟酞。蘦瞭簵落，籄较蓕聲怖，篎疥竀紴付葾聲妒。胇萇旺
號虃瞭商唐焦稟落 , 翗焊聲怖”
• [The Collection of Chan Sources says]: “If [one] instantly realizes that the mind is originally
pure and originally there are no afflictions; the untainted wisdom is essentially complete. This
mind is the Buddha, ultimately without differences. The practice based on this is the Chan of
the Supreme Vehicle, and also is called is the Chan of Purity of Tathāgata. What was
transmitted in the lineage of Bodhidharma is just this Chan.”

• Tangut Chan Preface: 蔲订絧礌毋付葾，礌逗店哗，紻哗箎緁礌订笒累，蘦絧緽怖，碽維

酞哗，蘦瞭薉论嘻簵落，籄较蓕聲怖，篎竀紴付葾聲魏妒 , 挨庭涅綖魏妒，竀始涅綖
魏妒。蘦落，涅綖癦癦谍礌臷怖。蔲簄簄簵佃阶窾，焊槽葌葌舅遍涅綖笍。胇萇旺號
虃瞭商唐焦稟落翗焊聲怖 。

• Taishō version: “ 若頓悟自心本來清淨，元無煩惱，無漏智性本自具足。此心即佛，畢竟

無異。依此而修者，是最上乘禪。亦名“如來清淨禪”，亦名“一行三昧”，亦名
“真如三昧”。此是一切三昧根本。若能念念修習，自然漸得百千三昧。達摩門下展
轉相傳者，是此禪也”。 (CBETA 2020.Q3, T48, no. 2015, p. 399b16-22)
 CONCLUSION
• Although the above evidence is too fragmentary, we can observe that the tradition of the
Chan Preface in Xixia was not uniform, and there is a probability of simultaneous
circulation of at least two versions of the text. As of now, we cannot connect the Tangut
versions with the one referred to by Yixing Huijue. However, usage of rjɨr2 njɨ2 碽維
(naizhi 乃至 ) in the Tangut translation of the Chan Preface and yi zhi 亦至 in Yixing
Huijue quotation seems to indicate in the direction of Yixing consulting text similar to the
currently available Tangut translation. According to our initial collation we suggest that the
source text for the current Tangut translation cannot be safely traced to any existing
Chinese version. We can further speculate that there might have been two versions of the
translation: one surviving now, and the other one, quoted in the Dharma Gate of the
Mind-Ground. In turn, the version of the Chan Preface quoted in the Mirror was again
different from the one emerging in any available Tangut translation. We suggest that the
one quoted in the Mirror had been the Liao edition, which in turn was not the source for
the Tangut translations. The nature of the Liao version of the Chan Preface and works of
Zongmi current in the Liao general remains to be explored: one quotation from Zongmi
(styled Guishan 圭山禪師 , following Pei Xiu habit) in the Xianmi Yuantong is not
identified in the available sources .