Oldest Heart Sutra Inscriptions

I'm just finishing up a translation of an article from modern Chinese using ChatGPT: "Early Versions of the Heart Sutra" by Hè Míng and Xù Xiǎoyù was published in a collection of essays about the Fangshan collection of inscriptions. In this post I want to briefly go over the evidence presented by He & Xu and make a few remarks. The original citation is:

贺铭 续小玉 (2017) “早期《心经》的版本”. 石经研究. 第一辑. 房山石经博物馆, 房山石经与云居寺文化研究中心, 12-28. 北京 : 北京燕山出版社.

Hè Míng and Xù Xiǎoyù. (2017). "Early Versions of the Heart Sutra." In Stone Scripture Research Vol 1, edited by the Fangshan Stone Scriptures Museum, and the Fangshan Stone Scriptures and Yunju Temple Cultural Research Center, 12-28. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan Publishing House.

The authors went to quite a lot of trouble to identify early versions of the Heart Sutra in China. For each text identified they supply an image. I'll include some images, but mainly just want summarise the text. Most of the images are of "rubbings": the process is in fact similar to lithographic printing. One smears ink on the stone surface and pressed paper against it, to obtain a negative image (hence the white text on a black background in most of the images).

—Inscriptions from Fangshan—

The authors noted 26 instances of the Heart Sutra amongst the Fangshan Stone Sutras 房山石经, of which only four could be securely dated. Hè & Xù only give specific details for the first two.

Yáng Shèshēng 楊社生 stele, 661 CE.

1. sixth year of Xianqing (661 CE) (Cave Eight, number 770).
2. second year of Zongzhang (669 CE) (Cave Three, number 238).
3. second year of Tiānshòu 天授 (691 CE)
4. first year of Yánzài延载 (694 CE)

The first two are found in:

中国佛敎协会, 中国佛敎图书文物馆编. (2000). «房山石经,隋唐刻经2» 华夏出版社.
Chinese Buddhist Association and Chinese Buddhist Library and Museum. (2000). Fangshan Stone Sutras, Sui and Tang Engraved Scriptures. Vol. 2, Huaxia Publishing House.

[There are no copies of this publication in the UK.]

The first inscription was commissioned by Yáng Shèshēng 楊社生 (date unknown) on 13 March 661 CE. My understanding was that this stele was one of 10,000 votive texts buried in a courtyard in Yunjusi ca. 1100 CE. However, He & Xu's information puts the stele in one of the storage caves. A minor point, but significant since it was stored rather than disposed of by burial. Though this doesn't explain how badly damaged the stone is or where the missing piece is (and I always thought that burial did explain these things). Unfortunately we now have conflicting sources and I have no way to resolve this.

The Yáng Shèshēng 楊社生 stele is the oldest known text of the Heart Sutra, and more or less conforms to the standard canonical text (T 251) with some minor character substitutions (which have the same phonetic value). As far as I know, my investigation of this artefact (Attwood 2019) is still the only English-language study of it.

—The Beilin Stele—

Beilin Stele

Originally from the ancient capital, Chang'an, this famous stele is now on display in the Stele Museum 碑林 in Xi'an 西安, Shaanxi 陕西. The artifact is known as

Táng jí wángxīzhī shèng jiào xù bēi. «唐集王羲之圣教序碑»
“The Preface to the Holy Teaching by Wang Xizhi in the Tang Collection”

In his comprehensive study of this object, Pietro De Laurentis (2021: 1, n. 1) notes that although all scholars cite the date as 672 CE and the compilation of characters began some years earlier: “the actual date of the stele’s erection falls on the first day of 673”.

On the other hand the project was many years in the making. This object is remarkable because each character was first individually copied from extant works of the celebrated calligrapher Wang Xizhi 王羲之 (307-365 CE). The style of script varies considerably from character to character, giving this text a very unusual look and feel. The stele is 226 x 94 cm. There are 30 columns of text, each of which contains up to 84 characters. Each character is about 3.5 cm in width and 4 cm in height. The Heart Sutra occurs in three columns on the left of this artefact (followed by the names of donors at the far left).

The Beiline stele image is from the Harvard University Library collection of Chinese rubbings (numbering over 5000 items, with 9 Heart Sutra texts).

Gaoyang County

This artefact is only mentioned in passing, the whole entry can be translated as:

"The National Library 国家图书馆 holds rubbings from the stele Fú shuō Mílè púsà dōu lǜ tiānxià shēngchéng fójīng bēi «佛说弥勒菩萨兜率天下生成佛经碑» “The Sutra of the Buddha Pronouncing the Advent of Maitreya Bodhisattva and His Attainment of Buddhahood”, from the third year of Tang Yifeng (678 CE) in Gaoyang County 高阳县, Hebei Province 河北 . On these rubbings, the translation of the Heart Sutra by Master Xuanzang can also be observed."

The stele is ca 206 x 95 x 24 cm, with writing covering front, back, and the sides. The Heart Sutra is on one side. He & Xu don't supply an image of this inscription, but images are online in any number of places. This image from an auction house is the only one I could find which included the side panels. I can just make out part of the Heart Sutra on the left side panel.

—Inscriptions from Longmen—

The authors identified three datable Heart Sutra texts in the Longmen Grottoes 龙门石窟, in Henan 河南 Provence. This is the site of the other ancient capital of Tang China, Luòyáng 洛阳.

Two copies of the Heart Sutra were found in the Liánhuā dòng 莲花洞 “Lianhua Cave”, both dated by He & Xu to ca 700 CE. One was inscribed by Huángfǔ Yuánhēng 皇甫元亨. This is all the detail that the author's give. However, from a forthcoming article by Claudia Wenzel we learn:

The Heart Sutra inscription below niche 37 is followed by a date corresponding to July 11, 700 (久視元年八月廿一日).

It seems that the other inscription (below niche 43) is in fact undated, and that He & Xu simply assumed it was from the same period. I don't have enough information to know if this was valid, but Wenzel had access to He & Xu (2017).

A third copy found in the Leigutai Zhong Cave 擂鼓台中洞, dates from the reign of Wǔ Zétiān 武則天 (690-704 CE) [aka Wǔ Zhào 武曌; 624–705 CE].

Rubbing of a Heart Sutra from Liánhuā dòng 莲花洞

The source that He & Xu cite for these inscriptions is

王振国 (2006) «龙门石窟与洛阳佛教文化» 中州古籍出版社

Wáng, Zhènguó (2006) The Longmen Grottoes and Buddhist Culture in Luoyang. Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House.

—Earliest Dated Manuscript—

Pelliot Chinois 2884

In addition to noting the oldest inscriptions, the authors also attempted to identify the oldest Heart Sutra manuscript in China. This is a manuscript, dated 771 CE, from the Dunhuang cache. It was acquired by Paul Pelliot and is now held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France: catalogued as Pelliot Chinois No. 2884. The paper is ripped and pieces are missing.

The last line of the colophon reads:

景雲二年四月八日孔直主安張而易思忠敬忍

This may be translated as:

"On the 8th day of the 4th month of the 2nd year of Jingyun, Kǒng Dàoshēng's 孔道生 wife, née Zhāng 張, respectfully had this copy made for her son Sīzhōng 思忠 ." [Based on the BnF translation].

The date in question, 景雲二年四月八日 "Jǐngyún 2.4.8", corresponds to 30 April 711 CE (De Laurentis 2021: 111).

Note: I used a colour image from the BnF site rather than the monochrome image from the article.

—Spurious Claims to Antiquity—

The authors note some minor variations in the various inscriptions. More significantly they also track down some rumours of older texts that are, to my knowledge completely unknown in the English language Heart Sutra literature.

The first is a claim that a copy of the Heart Sutra was made by Ouyang Xun 欧阳询 in 625 CE (a date that would confound my own theories). The image of this calligraphy has been published numerous times (and can be found in many places online),

The authors dismiss the date as spurious:

However, this is impossible because it was not until the twenty-third year of the Zhenguan 贞观 era (649) on May 24th that Master Xuanzang translated this sutra in Cuìwēi gong 翠微宫 ”Cuiwei Palace” on Zhōng nánshān 终南山 “Mount Zhongnan”.

While this fact is widely cited, it is certainly not accurate. 

The 649 CE date only occurs in the hagiography of Xuanzang composed by Yàncóng 彥悰, brought out in 688 CE (24 years after Xuanzang's death). The fact is not corroborated by any contemporary document or official records (Kotyk 2019; Attwood 2020). Furthermore, it occurs in the context of a standard Chinese miracle tale. The same story asserts that Emperor Taizong made a deathbed conversion to Buddhism, which mainstream historians have universally expressed doubts over (he was famously anti-Buddhist). All of which cast doubt on the 649 CE date.

My work on the history of the Heart Sutra suggests that the text was not composed until after 654 CE, when the text containing the Heart Sutra dhāraṇī—Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901)—was translated by Atikūṭa. Thus I come to the same conclusion as He & Xu, for slightly different reasons.

The upshot is that the date on the Ouyang calligraphy is (still) not creditable. The authors note several other claims that copies or inscriptions were made much earlier than 654 CE and dismiss these for the same reason. My rationale for rejecting these claims is the same.

Another spurious claim is that a Heart Sutra text was inscribed in stone by Zhāng Ài 张爱 "at Shàolín sì 少林寺 'Shaolin Temple' in August of the twenty-third year of the Zhenguan era (649)." While this "fact" is also widely cited, the authors could find no evidence that it ever existed: there is no extant inscription and no rubbing of it. They concluded that Zhēnguān 贞观 may have been a mistake for Kāiyuán 开元 (some centuries later).

I note that the Shaolin Temple is now a Chinese government-run tourist attraction focused on martial arts and the link between martial arts and Buddhism has always seemed tenuous for the simple reason that Buddhists universally espouse non-violence.

And finally the authors investigated the claim that on “August 27, 657", Zhuāng Níng inscribed a blessing for Husband Zīfú” (显庆二年八月一日庄宁为夫资福书) and included the Xīn jīng «心经»). And they concluded that the texts were actually fabricated by Gù Nányǎ 顾南雅 (1765-1832).

Thus none of the stories of early copies Heart Sutras in China stand up to scrutiny. Which is something of a relief for me. My thesis on the date of composition survives a major test.

~~oOo~~

My thanks to Ji Yun 纪赟, who first alerted me to this article in 2018. And thanks to Michael Radich for allowing me a preview of Claudia Wenzel's forthcoming article.

—Bibliography—

On Chinese epigraphy generally see the Stone Sutras project which will eventually reproduce the fine, large-format printed volumes from Harrassowitz Verlag and the China Academy of Arts Press.

Attwood, Jayarava. (2019). "Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele." Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 32, 1–30. https://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/article/xuanzangs-relationship-to-the-heart-sutra-in-light-of-the-fangshan-stele/

———.2020. "The History of the Heart Sutra as a Palimpsest." Pacific World, Series 4, no.1, 155-182. https://pwj.shin-ibs.edu/2020/6934

De Laurentis, Pietro. (2021). Protecting the dharma through calligraphy in Tang China : a study of the Ji wang shengjiao xu 集王聖教序 , the preface to the Buddhist scriptures engraved on stone in Wang Xizhi's collated characters. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica.

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2019). "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(5-6): 513–544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685322-10556P01

Wenzel, Claudia. (forthcoming). Buddhist Stone Sutras: Shaanxi 3. Wiesbade: Harrassowitz Verlag – Hangzhou: China Academy of Arts Press.

The Lost Translations of the Heart Sutra

If there is anything eternal, it may well be Buddhist anxieties about the authenticity, legitimacy, and authority. These anxieties seem to be present in the earliest strata of Buddhist writing and continue down to the present. One of the principle methods of making a text seem more authentic (etc) is to claim that it is old. There is a Buddhist heuristic that the older a text is, the more authentic it is. This is one reason that, for some people, the Pāli texts are seen as more authentic and thus more legitimate and more authoritative than other texts.

In the arena of Heart Sutra studies there is an old argument for the antiquity of the text, which is to cite the so-called "lost translations", and one in particular. This essay draws heavily on Watanabe (1990) an article, published in Japanese, but of which I have recently made an English translation, using ChatGPT and some other online translation apps. Watanabe was the first to make this argument and it was made in 1990, two years before Nattier stumbled on the fact that the Sanskrit text is a backtranslation. 

We can see this trope of lost translations invoked, for example, in recent Zen Buddhist commentaries on the Heart Sutra by Red Pine (2004) and Tanahashi Kazuaki (2014). Both men cite a lost translation attributed to Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 222–254 AD) that enables them to date the Heart Sutra very early (first or second century CE). Tanahashi Kazuaki (2014: 62) says:

Among the vanished texts, the most noteworthy is the rendition by Zhiqian [sic] of the third century. Traditionally regarded as the oldest Chinese translation of the Heart Sutra, this text was reportedly included in [Sengyou’s Catalogue].

"Sengyou's Catalogue" refers to the Chūsānzàng jìjí «出三蔵記集» (T 2145), compiled by Sēngyòu 僧祐 (445-518 CE). Amongst the resources employed by Sengyou were older catalogues, notably one by Dao-an 道安 (312–385) compiled in 374 CE (itself now lost). In the Dao-an section of Sengyou’s catalogue we find two texts listed:

A. Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu yī juàn 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪一卷 “Dhāraṇī of the Great Prajñāpāramitā”; one scroll. (T 2145; 55.31b9)

B. Bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu yī juàn (yìběn) 般若波羅蜜神呪一卷(異本) “Dhāraṇī of the Prajñāpāramitā”; one scroll (different version). (T 2145; 55.31b10).

The astute reader will note that neither text is called a Heart Sutra; or a sutra, for that matter. It is less obvious, perhaps, that neither text is attributed to Zhi Qian. The term shénzhòu 神呪 probably translates dhāraṇī or vidyā, but we don't know. Not only are there no Indic sources for these titles, the texts themselves were lost by the Tang dynasty. So these catalogue entries are almost everything we know about these two shénzhòu texts.

One may compare these with the two entries in the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901), translated by Atikūṭa 654 CE. I translate and comment on these entries in a blog post: Svāhā in The Heart Sutra Dhāraṇī (5 July 2019)

I say almost everything we know, but there is a little more because the texts crop up in some later catalogues with the notation: "produced from the Large Sutra" (Chū dà pǐn jīng 出大品經), which is used to indicate the text is an extract from the larger work. Furthermore, in the Zhòngjīng mùlù (衆經目録) (also known as Yàncóng Lù 録), compiled and written under the guidance of Yàncóng 彦琮 (602 CE), both the A and B shénzhòu texts are classified as “separately produced” (biéshēng 別生). This is a term used for locally produced Chinese Buddhist texts, and has also been applied to chāo jīng 抄經 or digest texts. 

And all this evidence from the catalogues is consistent with the comments of Kuījī (T 1710) and Woncheuk (T 1711) who both composed commentaries on the Heart Sutra in the late-seventh century. They clearly state that they don’t believe the Heart Sutra to be an authentic Buddhist sutra; rather, they both see it as a compilation of passages from other Prajñāpāramitā texts. Moreover, physical and literary evidence stops entirely in the mid-seventh century: earliest artefact is from 661CE, earliest literary mention is from 656 CE.

So there are two processes to try to understand. How did the two shénzhòu come to be associated with Zhi Qian? And how did the shénzhòu texts come to be considered versions of the Heart Sutra?

Zhi Qian and Fèi Chángfáng

Following Sengyou, a series of three catalogues named Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄», by Fǎjīng 法經 (594 CE), Yancong 彥悰 (602 CE), and Jìngtài 靜泰 (663-665 CE), all list the two shénzhòu texts as "translator lost" (shī yì 失譯). However, in the midst of these we also have the Lìdài sānbǎo jì «歷代三寶紀» (T 2034) compiled by Fèi Chángfáng 費長房 (597 CE). The Lìdài sānbǎo jì is infamous amongst scholars for adding attributions to texts that were previously listed as "translator lost". Many of these attributions are false and the text is widely considered unreliable in matters of attribution. Fei's entry for the A text reads:

摩詞般若波羅蜜呪經 見宝唱録或直云般若波羅蜜呪經〔支謙訳〕
Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. See the Bǎochànglù; in some cases it is just called Bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Translated by Zhi Qian.

Note the subtle change in the title. The character shén 神 "divine" has been dropped and the character jīng 經 "text, sutra" has been added. Still, everyone involved thinks this is the same text as found in Sengyou's Catalogue. Note that the Bǎochànglù is a reference to another catalogue that no longer exists: the Liángshì zhòng jīng mùlù «梁世衆經目錄» compiled by Bǎochàng 寶唱 ca. 520-521. It's possible that Bǎochàng was responsible for this attribution, but Fèi Chángfáng made up so many attributions that the finger points squarely at him. Also note that, contra the Zhòngjīng mùlù catalogues, Fèi Chángfáng considers the version without móhē 摩詞 in the title to be a variant of the A text rather than a distinct B text.

As far as we can tell, then, Chángfáng simply made up this attribution. And there is no reason to suppose that Zhi Qian translated the Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu or the Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Rather, such texts were likely just extracts from the Large Prajñāpāramitā text that circulated independently. Note that it is quite definite that the Xīn jīng (T 251) copied multiple passages from the Móhē bānrě bōluómì jīng «摩訶般若波羅蜜經» (T 223), translated by Kumārajīva in 404 CE, as does the Dàmíngzhòu jīng (see below). Assuming that all the catalogue entries relating to the shénzhòu texts are references to the same text, the appearance in Dao-an's catalogue dated 374 definitely rules out it being a Heart Sutra. The passages copied did not even exist until thirty years after this date.

That said, the attribution to Zhi Qian is cited in influential catalogues such as the Neidian Catalogue (Dà Táng nèidiǎn lù «大唐内典録» T 2149), compiled by Dàoxuān 道宣 (664) and the Kaiyuan Catalogue (Dà Táng kāiyuán shìjiào lù «大唐開元釋教錄» T 2154), compiled by Zhìshēng 智昇 (730). The latter was especially influential as it was used to reconstruct the Buddhist canon after the purges of 849 and eventually provided the organisational scheme followed by the Tasihō canon.

At this point, then, the móhē shénzhòu text has been identified as a translation by Zhi Qian, while the B shénzhòu (sans móhē) is either noted as "translator lost" or is said to be the same text with a different title, despite Sengyou's clear note that they were different. What we do not have anywhere in the picture is a Heart Sutra text. We turn to this mystery next.

Zhi Qian and the Heart Sutra

The key moment here is the appearance, already mentioned above, of the Kaiyuan Catalogue by Zhìshēng, in 730 CE. Something new happens in this catalogue, which is the first mention of a text that we know to be a Heart Sutra:

A 摩詞般若波羅蜜呪經 或無摩詞学 見宝唱録〔支謙訳〕 Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Some texts lack the Móhē characters; see the Bǎochànglù; (translator Zhi Qian).

B 欠 Missing.

C 摩詞般若波羅蜜大明呪經 亦云摩訶大明呪經 初出与唐 訳般若心経等 同本見経題上〔羅什訳〕 C. Móhē bānrě bōluómì dàmíngzhòu jīng. Also called Móhē dàmíng zhòu jīng, first produced in the Tang. A translation of the Heart Sutra, See the same Sutra title above. (Translated by Kumārajīva).

Like Fèi Chángfáng and unlike the earlier catalogues, Zhìshēng considers the texts without Móhē to be a variant title rather than a separate text. 

Text C, the Dàmíngzhòu jīng, is extant and included in the Taishō as T 250. This entry in the Kaiyuan Catalogue is the first mention of the text in history. The Dàmíngzhòu jīng is not included amongst the translations of Kumārajīva in any older catalogue. And this means that it was almost certainly not by Kumārajīva. Indeed, this has long been the consensus. Back in 1932, when listing all the Prajñāpāramitā texts, Matsumoto Tokumyo (1932: 9) noted Er hat aber dieses Sūtra nicht übersetzt “But he has not translated this sutra”. Conze adds the detail that it was translated by one of Kumārajīva's "disciples" a theme recently taken up by Charles Willemen in a series of rather silly articles. Willemen asserts, on the flimsiest evidence imaginable, that Dàmíngzhòu jīng was translated by Zhu Daosheng. But he presents no plausible evidence for this assertion. Indeed, we know that the Heart Sutra per se is not a translation. It was composed in Chinese, in the middle seventh century (actually between 654 and 656 CE).

There is no doubt that this entry in the Kaiyuan Catalogue, dated 730 CE, is also the source of the conflation of the shénzhòutexts with the Dàmíngzhòu jīng, and combined with the idea that Zhi Qian translated the Móhē shénzhòu text, it explains why some people believe in a lost translation of the Heart Sutra by Zhi Qian. To be clear, no such thing ever existed and the evidence for it was always weak.

From the absence of the Dàmíngzhòu jīng in earlier catalogues we can also infer it was composed after the composition of the Xīn jīng. And Watanabe adds that it was not translated from Sanskrit, but composed in Chinese. Thus not only is the Dàmíngzhòu jīng not a translation, it is not (and could not be) a translation by Kumārajīva.

Conclusions

Watanabe (1990) concludes from this that the idea of a lost translation of the Heart Sutra by Zhi Qian was simply made up. The text in question was not a Heart Sutra and was not associated with Zhi Qian. Moveover the Dàmíngzhòu jīng attributed to Kumārajīva was not associated with him, was not even a translation, and was produced after the Xīn jīng. 

There is no reliable evidence of the Heart Sutra prior to the 650s CE. Moreover, Jan Nattier (1992) showed that the Sanskrit text was a back-translation from Chinese. The first mention of a Sanskrit text is in Woncheuk's commentary, but it is vague and could be a reference to the Sanskrit Large Sutra, since Woncheuk knew that to be the source of most of the copied passages.

All attempts at pushing back the existence to dates earlier the seventh century fail for lack of evidence. The oldest physical evidence of the Heart Sutra from anywhere in the world, is the inscription from Fangshan (see Attwood 2019) dated 13 March 661. The oldest literary mention occurs in letter dated 26 Dec 656, reproduced in Yancong's hagiography of Xuanzang (T 2053), but also preserved independently (See Kotyk 2020). This gives us the terminus ante quem. The earliest commentaries are Chinese texts from the late seventh century by Kuījī (T 1710), Woncheuk (T 1711), and Jìngmài 靖邁 (X 522). Note that the latter has received almost no scholarly attention.

We find evidence of the Heart Sutra in Tibet from roughly the eighth century, though this date is dependent on the attribution of Tibetan commentaries to Indian authors, some of whom are otherwise completely unknown, and some of whom are the most famous Buddhists who ever lived. And from India? There is no evidence of the Heart Sutra from India. No manuscripts, no inscriptions, no mentions in other texts. This is consistent with what we expect given that the Sanskrit text is a back-translation made in China.
All the evidence points to the same conclusion: The Heart Sutra was composed in Chinese ca 654–656 CE, using copied passages from Móhē bānrě bōluómì jīng «摩訶般若波羅蜜經» (T 223) and a dhāraṇī from the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀罗尼集經» (T 901) translated in 654 CE (giving us the terminus post quem).

It's interesting that translators like Red Pine and Tanahashi have drawn on Japanese scholarship where it suits their purposes, but have entirely ignored this very important work by Watanabe. The false idea of the lost translation by Zhi Qian plays into their anxieties about the authenticity of this sutra that is not a sutra. And they employ the idea uncritically despite a long standing consensus around Watanabe's solid debunking of it. It turns out that, despite being very popular, both Red Pine and Tanahashi belong with D. T. Suzuki and Edward Conze as unreliable guides to this text. 

I have produced a draft English translation of Watanabe (1990) and uploaded it for comment on academia.edu. I will soon submit an article to an academic journal that discusses this material.

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Attwood, J. (2019). "Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele." Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 32, 1–30.

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2019). “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(5-6): 513.

Watanabe, Shōgo. 1990. “Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu jīng and Móhē bānrě bōluómì dàmíngzhòu jīng, As Seen in the Sutra Catalogues.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 39-1: 54–58.

Extant Chinese Bibliographies

1. Chūsānzàng jìjí «出三蔵記集» (T 2145), compiled by Sēngyòu 僧祐 (445–518 CE)
2. Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄». (T 2146), compiled by Fǎjīng 法經 (594 CE)
3. Lìdài sānbǎo jì «歷代三寶紀» (T 2034), compiled by Fèi Chángfáng 費長房 (597 CE).
4. Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄» (T 2147), compiled by Yancong 彥悰 (602 CE)
5. Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄» (T 2148), compiled by Jìngtài 靜泰 (663-665 CE)
6. Dà Táng nèidiǎn lù «大唐内典録» (T 2149), compiled by Dàoxuān 道宣 (664).
7. Gǔ jīn yìjīng tújì «古今譯經圖紀» (T 2151), compiled by Jingmai 靖邁 (7th century).
8. Dàzhōu kāndìng zhòngjīng mùlù «大周刊定衆經目錄» (T 2153), compiled by Míngquán 明佺 et al. (695).
9. Dà Táng kāiyuán shìjiào lù «大唐開元釋教錄» (T 2154), compiled by Zhìshēng 智昇 (730)
10. Zhēnyuán xīn dìng shìjiào mùlù «貞元新定釋教目錄» (T 2157) compiled by Upāsaka Yuán Zhàozhuàn 照撰, (800)