Notes on Xuanzang's Waning Years

The religious history of Xuanzang sees him going from triumph to triumph, hobnobbing with emperors, and generally being successful and loved by all. Xuanzang is the ideal Chinese Buddhist monk, highly educated, adept at Sanskrit and translation, a shrewd political operative, and so on. A typical Buddhist saint in many respects.

I was, therefore, intrigued by a new article by Liu Shufen 劉淑芬, which paints a very different picture of the later years of Xuanzang's life.

"... the conventional wisdom about Xuanzang's later years has been largely misinformed, and needs to be modified in light of more sensitive readings of data in sources like the [Yancong] Biography. (Liu 2022: 259)

This is the latest in a series of articles by her on this topic. Liu brings out nuances that are easily overlooked, such as Gaozong keeping Xuanzang under virtual house arrest (657-658); or Gaozong appointing no less that seven officials to oversee Xuanzang's translation work. Moreover, after Xuanzang died his translation work was abandoned and his team of experts disbanded.

However, these events have to be seen alongside others such as a pregnant Wu Zhao asking Xuanzang to pray for her and her baby after she experienced difficulties in pregnancy. Not only does this seem to have occurred, but Xuanzang was able to temporarily ordain the new prince as a monk (to gain merit).

Liu points out that most commentators ignore the socio-political ructions during the early decades of the Tang dynasty. Liu's article prompts me to look again, particularly at the Yancong Biography. Her reading of the Biography and use of other contemporary sources is novel and draws out points that have long been overlooked, which makes it valuable.

However, Liu is reading the Biography in a relatively naive way, taking the text more or less at face value. By contrast, Jeffrey Kotyk (2019), who cites one of Liu's early contributions, has argued that we would be on safer ground reading the Biography as fiction based upon a true story (now long obscured and largely unrecoverable). Similarly, Max Deeg has shown that Xuanzang's Travelogue of his journey to the west often seems to serve purposes other than geography or history: Xuanzang was trying to exert a Buddhist influence over (a resistant, non-Buddhist) Taizong.

What I'm going to attempt in this essay is a critical reading of Liu (2022), in the light of Kotyk (2019) and some of Max Deeg's articles (2007, 2012, 2016). This is not simply an exercise, since the authorship of the Heart Sutra is an open question and the main suspect is Xuanzang. He certainly had the means and the opportunity. We can only speculate as to his motives, but a more nuanced picture of his later life might help.

The appeal of Xuanzang in the west has been partly due to the novel Journey to the West (Xī yóu jì; 西遊記), published in the 16th century, via Arthur Waley's 1942 abridged translation, Monkey, and the TV show of the same name, which aired throughout the English-speaking world (including New Zealand, where I grew up). It is also partly because Xuanzang's travelogue provided geographical information on ancient India accurate enough that nineteenth century British explorers used it to rediscover a number of lost Buddhist archaeological sites (this topic is explored in Charles Allen's popular history book, The Buddha and the Sahibs).

However, while Xuanzang himself was relatively popular in his lifetime, his translations were not popular either amongst the literati or the commoners. Nattier (1992) observed that where a translation of a text by Kumārajīva existed, a new translation by Xuanzang never replaced it. Xuanzang insisted on translating into Chinese prose that was considered turgid and ugly by the aesthetics of the day, but which modern commentators refer to as "accurate". Philologers praise Xuanzang because his sources are more visible than for any other Chinese translators. A Sanskrit source was, and still is, the most important criterion for authenticity of Buddhist texts in China. By contrast Kumārajīva's translations are still in use in modern Chinese-speaking places.

It is still common to see references to Kumārajīva as an expert in Chinese. For example, Felbur (2019: 2) refers to his "prodigious mastery of the Chinese language". However, this appears to be a pious fiction. During this period of translating T 223 and T 1509 (ca 400-404 CE), Kumārajīva's Chinese was poor enough for his collaborator, Sēngruì 僧睿 (371–438 AD) to record numerous complaints, notably:

“The Dharma Master [i.e. Kumārajīva] has great difficulty with the Chinese language. In regard to translating, the Sanskrit is beautiful, but his translation can hardly be understood.” (Chou 2004: 293).

Kotyk (2021) has also raised doubts about the level of understanding of Sanskrit in China, at any period. It is one thing to learn to read Sanskrit and translate it into another language. It is another thing entirely to compose in Sanskrit or to translate from Chinese to Sanskrit. The latter is particularly difficult because of the difference in grammatical information the writing system. A single verb in Sanskrit can have hundreds of forms which serve to indicate person, number, tense, and mood. In Middle Chinese, a single character representing a verb is used for all conjugations. Information on the person, number, tense, and mood often has to be implied from the context in Chinese, but is always explicit in the morphology of words in Sanskrit.

Liu broadly accepts accounts of Xuanzang's popularity with Emperor Táng Tàizōng 唐太宗 and dates the beginning of Xuanzang's troubles to the accession of his ninth son to the the Throne. However, Liu paints a considerably less flattering portrait of Xuanzang personally, than we find elsewhere. She notes, for example, that Xuanzang was unpopular because his translation methods were seen as suspect:

“To make matters worse, Xuánzàng is said to have possessed a somewhat abrasive personality, particularly when it came to matters regarding translation, which ended up offending quite a few elite monks.” (Liu 2022: 259)

Daoxuan 道宣 (596-667 CE), who also composed a biography of Xuanzang, "is said to have walked out of one translation session presided over by Xuánzàng in 645, and commented that while Xuánzàng’s translations were not of the finest quality, they did reflect his meritorious efforts.” (Liu 2022: 259). It seems that “Xuánzàng was on poor terms with more than a few of the era’s leading Buddhist monks”. (Liu 2022: 260). Buddhist histories often downplay Buddhist internecine conflicts, so this minority report is important in providing balance.

Life After Tàizōng 太宗.

“Xuánzàng’s stature at court changed dramatically following Taizong’s death .” (Liu 2022: 259)

The Táng 唐 Dynasty was founded on the ruins of the short-lived Sui dynasty by the Duke of Tang, aka Lǐ Yuān 李淵, later Emperor Gāozǔ 高祖. He was succeeded his son, Lǐ Shìmín 李世民 who became Emperor Tàizōng 太宗 (4 September 626 – 10 July 649). On the demise of Tàizōng, and after some of the more obvious candidates were eliminated, his ninth son, Lǐ zhì 李治 became Emperor Gāozōng 高宗 on 15 July 649.

Although the Tang is routinely portrayed as a "golden era" of Chinese culture, the early decades are better characterised as a period of simmering tensions and outbreaks of insurrection as the stronger aristocratic clans continued to flex their muscles. One issue for Han Chinese was that the Lǐ 李 clan had Turkic blood. The Turks north of the Great Wall were a considerable factor in this region. It was only with the help of the Blue Turks, for example, that the first Sui Emperor reunified China after some centuries of disunity. Later, the rebel leader An LuShan would capture the capital Chang'an with the help of Turks.

However, not content to fight outbreaks of insurrection, the early Tang emperors carried on the disastrous campaigns against the Korean peninsula initiated by the Sui Emperors (who lost in the most spectacular fashion). They also extended the boundaries of the Empire west into Central Asia and did battle with marauding Tibetans.

Liu notes that even within the Lǐ 李 clan there were tensions. Gaozong was suspicious of officials appointed by Taizong and many of Xuánzàng’s patrons were amongst them. (Liu 2022: 259). The period 657-658 saw the persecution of noted "Taizong loyalists." I don't understand Liu's use of this term "Taizong loyalists" since at this point Taizong is dead. There was definitely factionalism in the court at the time. There were, for example, pro and anti Wu Zhao factions.

Throughout the early Tang there were plots and attempted coups by factions within the court, even within the ruling Li clan.

Under Gaozong, during the period 657-658, Liu argues that Xuanzang was "kept under surveillance" although it might be better termed "house arrest", since he was confined to his monastery or the palace respectively. Liu (2022: 263) notes that during 657, while living in the Imperial Palace at Luoyang, Xuánzàng was ill but was denied medical attention. He snuck out of the palace to consult a physician but was caught and reprimanded.

After having produced a large number of translations under Taizong, Xuanzang's output plummeted under Gaozong. Liu notes, for example, that Xuánzàng did no translation work in 655 (2022: 260). Early in 657, the court moved to Luoyang and Xuánzàng was compelled to go with them, and had only five assistants of his own. During the period 656-657, he completed only one translation and that only one scroll in extent (Liu 2022: 262).

On returning to Chang’an, Xuánzàng was ordered to reside at Ximing monastery but was not given a position or title. No members of his translation team based at Da Ci’en monastery were allowed to accompany him. Gaozong gave him ten "newly ordained" monks instead, but they could not have had the training necessary to do translation work. "In other words," says Liu (2022: 263), "the Ximing monastery was to serve as a place of confinement, and a non-productive one at that.”

From from 658-659, “Xuánzàng was only able to translate three short scriptures, and only when Gaozong gave permission for a short trip back to the Da Ci’en monastery.” (Liu 2022: 263).

On Xianqing 1.1.27 (1 Feb 656), following the debate with Lǚ cái 吕才 (606-665), which Xuanzang won, Gaozong appointed several court officials to supervise Xuanzang's translation project (Liu 2022: 261; see also Li 1995:263-4). These officials are all known to history (via the Old Tang Records and the New Tang Records).

• Yu Zhining 于志寧 (588–665). Removed from office in 659 for not supporting Wu Zhao becoming Empress Consort.
• Lai Ji 來濟 (610–662). Also opposed Wu Zhao; demoted and exiled in 657.
• Xu Jingzong 許敬宗 (592 – 672). Served in Sui Dynasty as well as Gaozu, Taizong, and Gaozong. He supported Wu Zhao's being made EC and also supported her son (Li Hong) becoming Crown Prince.
• Xue Yuanchao 薛元超 (622–683). A noted literary talent and mid-level official. An ally of Li Yifu. Exiled in 663, forgiven, promoted. Died of natural causes.
• Li Yifu 李義府 (614–666). Noted poet and politician. A highly favoured ally of Wu Zhao who helped to eliminate her rivals. Exiled 658 after conflict with Du Zhenglun, but restored 659. Exiled again in 663 for corruption. Awarded posthumous honours in 692 by Wu Zetian.
• Du Zhenglun 杜正倫 (d. ca 658). Served in military under Taizong but exiled in 643. Restored and promoted by Gaozong. Exiled in 658 after conflict with Li Yifu and died soon afterwards.

The decree as presented in Yancong's Biography suggests that these men would read the translations and "should there be any unfitting or improper expression, they should polish and improve them as required." (Li 1995: 264). That is to say, these men were empowered to change Xuanzang's translations as they saw fit. This may have been a contributing factor in the precipitous fall in translation output during this period.

We might euphemistically refer to this as an "editorial board", but "board of censors" might be more apt. I can see no superficial commonality between there men. Some opposed Wu and some supported her. They were all in favour when appointed, but were not always favoured.

A key moment in the history of the Heart Sutra is the letter from Xuanzang to Gaozong dated 26 Dec 656, which mentions the Heart Sutra for the first time, amongst a raft of other gifts for the new prince and his parents:

"I dare to offer a copy of the Prajñā Heart Sutra in gold letters, one scroll and a case."
(輒敢進金字 «般若心經» 一卷并函 T 50; 2053.272b.12).

During a difficult pregnancy, Wu Zhao asked Xuanzang to pray for the safe delivery of the baby. He agreed and suggested as an extra measure that the baby be given the rite of tonsure (technically making it a Buddhist monk). After the safe birth of Lǐ xiǎn 李顯, the rite was administered.

Liu notes that no court officials attended Xuanzang's funeral and five years later, in 669, Gaozong had Xuánzàng exhumed and reinterred at Shǎolíngyuán 少陵原 “in the hills outside Chang’an”. Some 10 km from the palace.

Li’s translation of the Yancong Biography at this point reads: “This was because the original tomb was too near the capital and was visible from the imperial palace, so the emperor was often grieved at the sight of it.” (339). However, Liu suggests “The ostensible reason for this decision was that the emperor wished to mournfully gaze on Xuánzàng’s small white stupa.” Thus Liu’s reading is the exact opposite of Li’s.

Liu argues that the reinterment was a slight. Reburial did occur, for example, when tombs were damaged or newly acquired clan wealth demanded a higher status monument for ancestors. But these don’t apply to Xuánzàng. This aspect of Liu's argument is the most speculative, it involves speculating about the motives of those involved, and thus the weakest part of it.

For example (264-5) She describes the lack of imperial presence at his funeral in Yuhua. And she implies from this that Xuánzàng was marginalised by both Gaozong and the Buddhist establishment. And yet she also notes “When Xuánzàng’s corpse was laid to rest on the 14th day of the 4th lunar month, the monastic and lay Buddhist worshippers of Chang’an commemorated his passing with a lavish funeral precession” (265). However, she overlooks the fact that Biography reports that these were paid for out of public coffers following an imperial edict to this effect (Li 1995: 337-338).

Note also Biography (Li 1995: 338):

Being a person learned in the Way and highly virtuous, the master was deeply adored by the reigning monarch [i.e. Gaozong], who therefore issued decrees repeatedly in favor of him after his death. None of the ancients could be compared with him in this respect.

Critical Reflections

Liu uses a number of sources but relies heavily on the Biography of Xuanzang attributed to Huili and Yancong and completed in 688: i.e. Dà Táng dà Cí’ēnsì sānzàng fǎshī chuán xù «大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳序» (T 2053). She also draws on the Biography by Dàoxuān 道宣 (596–667).

One of the problems that I see with Liu's use of the sources is her uncritical acceptance of the date of translation of the Heart Sutra as 649 CE. This date is tied to the death of Tàizōng 太宗 in the same year and is part of a story that sees Taizong making a death-bed conversion to Buddhism under Xuanzang's guidance. Secular historians agree that this story is apocryphal. Taizong had a life-long antipathy towards Buddhism, even if he liked Xuanzang on a personal level. State support for Buddhism is a separate issue and continued even when emperors like Taizong and Gaozong were antipathetic to the religion.

The source of the 649 date is the Kāiyuán shìjiào lù «開元釋教錄» (T 2154) [hereafter Kaiyuan Catalogue]. This bibliography of Buddhist texts in Chinese translation was compiled 730 CE by Zhìshēng 智昇. No earlier source supports this date. Moreover, in the Yancong Biography Taizong dies on the 26th day of the fifth month of the 23rd year of Zhenguan (ca 10 July 649), but in the ninth month of the previous year (Sept 648) the Biography records the Emperor enquiring about the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā and encouraging Xuanzang to do a new translation. It seems likely that Zhìshēng took that story and replaced the Vajracchedikā with the Heart Sutra.

Keep in mind that the dhāraṇī in the Heart Sutra appears to have been copied from the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901), translated by Atikūṭa in 654 CE. This means that the Heart Sutra was likely composed after 654.

Note that the first literary mention of the Heart Sutra also occurs in the Yancong Biography assigned to the 5th day of the 12th month of the 2nd year of Xianqing (26 Dec 656).
Kotyk argues that the Yancong Biography:

"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."

Much of the Yancong Biography describes Xuanzang in superlative or miraculous ways consistent with what Joseph Bulbulia has called “charismatic signalling.” The primary purpose of charismatic signalling is to provide a way to “align prosocial motivations” in large religious movements: “Charismatic culture supports cooperative outcomes by aligning powerful emotions, motivations, and intentions among potentially anonymous partners, toward collective goals.” (Bulbulia 2009: 545.)

The sick man story is inserted into a fairly standard Buddhist miracle tale. As outlined by Robert Campany, these involve “a compassionate, salvific, and clear intervention in human affairs by some powerful being, typically the bodhisattva or buddha on whom the sūtra focuses.” (Campany 1991: 30-1)

Conclusion

I think Liu's observations of apparent hostility by Gaozong towards Xuanzang are important and I plan to begin incorporating them into my spiel on the Heart Sutra. That said, I am not entirely convinced by Liu's methods. I detect a tendency towards naïve acceptance of the Yancong Biography as a reliable historical source. My sense is that Liu is on the right track, but could be more explicit about how she interprets sources and why she thinks these observations are reliable.

I plan to write an academic essay (or perhaps two) in response to Liu. I would like to think more about her observations in the light of many articles by Max Deeg on the use of the Xiyu ji (Record of the Western Regions) which is attributed to Xuanzang. I would also like give some thought to the role of Wu Zhou/Wu Zetian in this story. After all, the Heart Sutra was composed in the same timeframe as the appointment of Wu Zhao to the position of Empress Consort.

I would also like to consider hermeneutic principles, the formal heuristics developed for obtaining reliable historical information from normative religious texts. These are seldom openly discussed in a Buddhist Studies context and I think making them more explicit would enhance Liu's contribution. 

For example, Liu tacitly makes use of the hermeneutic principle of embarrassment. As she says, an event like the appointment of a board of censors to police Xuanzang's translations (which coincided with his house arrest and a precipitous drop in his output of translations) is deeply unflattering to him. Since the Yancong Biography is more of a hagiography, with a relentless positivity about Xuanzang, this imposition by Gaozong on Xuanzang, makes the story more plausible than it otherwise might be.

However, this must be balanced by other hermeneutic principles, such as the principle of corroboration. As Kotyk notes, the crossover between Daoxuan's more prosaic account of Xuanzang, and Yancong's  superlative account, is the region we look to for reliable information. Liu repeatedly notes that details she relies on are only found in the Yancong Biography. She seems to say that this makes the work more important, but the lack of corroboration should have suggested the opposite, i.e. that the unique details in Yancong are less reliable than those which are corroborated by Daoxuan.

And with a more nuanced view of Xuanzang, I believe we will need to revise the history of the Heart Sutra to incorporate Liu's observations.  

~~oOo~~

Jayarava's Raves is one of the longest running Buddhist blogs, having started in Nov 2005. At my peak I published one essay a week for five or six years running. My output has dropped but I haven't given up on blogging. Rather, I am more focused on publishing my observations and discoveries about the Heart Sutra in academic journals. I still enjoy writing essays and still write every day (this is the 604th essay I've written for this blog).

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Dà Táng dà Cí’ēnsì sānzàng fǎshī chuán xù 《大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳序》A biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty (T 2053). Translated into English by Li (1995).

Secondary Sources

Attwood, J. (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/

Bulbulia, J. (2009) “Charismatic Signalling.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture 3(4) : 518-551.

Campany, Robert F. (1991). “Notes in the Devotional Uses and Symbolic Functions of Sūtra Texts as Depicted in Early Chinese Buddhist Miracle Tales and Hagiographies.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14(1): 28-72.

Chou, P. (2004). ‘The Problem of the Authorship of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: A Re-examination.’ Historical Inquiry 34: 281-327.

Deeg, M. 2007. "Has Xuanzang really been in Mathura? Interpretation Sinica or Interpretation Occidentalia - How to critically read the records of the Chinese pilgrims." 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, 35–73. Kyōto: Editorial Committee.

Deeg, M. 2012. "Show Me the Land Where the Buddha Dwelled... Xuanzang’s Record of the Western Regions (Xiyu Ji 西域記): A Misunderstood Text?" China Report 48 (1-2): 89–113.

Deeg, M. 2016. "The political position of Xuanzang: the didactic creation of an Indian dynasty in the Xiyu ji." In “The Middle Kingdom and the Dharma Wheel: Aspects of the Relationship between the Buddhist Saṃgha and the State in Chinese History,” Vol. 1. Sinica Leidensia, 133: 94–139.

Eisenberg, Andrew. (2012) "Emperor Gaozong, the Rise of Wu Zetian, and factional politics in the Early Tang." Tang Studies 30, 45-69.

Felbur, Rafal. (2019) "Kumarajiva “Great Man” and Cultural Event". In A Companion to World Literature. Edited by Ken Seigneurie, 1-13. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Jorgensen, John. (2002). "Representing Wŏnch'ŭk: Meditations on Medieval East Asian Biographies." In Religion and Biography in China and Tibet, edited by Benjamin Penny. Routledge.

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

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2021). “The Study of Sanskrit in Medieval East Asia: China and Japan”. Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies 4.2 : 240–273; https://dx.doi.org/10.15239/hijbs.04.02.04

Li, Rongxi. (1995). A Biography of the Tripiṭaka of the Great Ci'en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

Liu, Shufen. (2022). “The Waning Years of the Eminent Monk Xuanzang and his Deification in China and Japan.” In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher. Edited by Jonathan A. Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 255–289. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004522152_010

Nattier, Jan. (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Wriggins, Sally Hovey. (2004). The Silk Road Journey with Xuanzang. Cambridge,MA: Westview Press.

Revisiting Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra

In my 2019 article on Xuanzang and the Heart Sutra, I argued that is was implausible for Xuanzang to have been involved in any clandestine attempt to pass the Heart Sutra off as a genuine sūtra. By contrast, Jeffrey Kotyk (2020) makes a good case for the Heart Sutra having been openly composed by Xuanzang as a condensation of the Prajñāpāramitā (i.e. a chāo jīng) and given to Gaozong and Wu Zhao as a gift on the birth of a son. On 6 January, 656, Xuánzàng sent a letter to the emperor celebrating the birth of a new prince the month before. He wrote in a letter: "I dare to offer a copy of the Prajñā Heart Sutra in gold letters, one scroll and a case." (輒敢進金字《般若心經》一卷并函 T 2053; 50.272b.12).

We still lack an explanation for the process of the text becoming an "authentic" sutra, although I have identified many of the components of the received myth and shown that they emerge over several decades. There must have been a point when the "fact" that the Heart Sutra was a translation by Xuanzang became established. If we accept Kotyk's thesis (and I am inclined to) then this transition occurred within five years because the Fangshan Stele, which credits Xuanzang as translator, is dated 13 March 661. 

Such considerations are tied up with questions of the historicity of sources. In the same article, Kotyk argued against the uncritical use of Xuanzang's Biography published in 688 CE* as an historical source because it is a hagiography with all that this implies: the religious and political agendas of the author are far from hidden. Unfortunately, when we strip out the magical and mystical elements we do not arrive at a narrative that tallies with the other historical sources (although, of course these also have their biases). In particular, the Biography appears to distort the relationship of Xuanzang and Taizong in ways that are favourable to the Buddhist community but not entirely plausible.

* i.e. Huìlì 慧立 and Yàncóng 彥悰. Da tang da ci'en si sanzang fasha chuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master [of the] Great Ci’en Monastery [of the] Great Tang), T 2053, 50.

Partly inspired by correspondence with Kotyk, I have also been critical of the use of the hagiography as history (Attwood 2019). By sheer bad luck my article was published before Kotyk (2020) whereas he was finished first and I had read a draft and corresponded with him about it while writing my article. Preceding us both, Max Deeg has been critical of naive readings of the Xuanzang's travelogue, Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì), composed ca 645 or 646 CE.

More specifically Deeg (2016: 126-8) has pointed to historical inaccuracies in how Xuanzang portrays the Indian king, Harṣavardhana (606 to 647 CE), of the Puṣpabhūti Dynasty (henceforth King Harṣa). Deeg plausibly argues that these inaccuracies appear to be deliberate narrative devices on the part of Xuanzang. He seems to have tried create a sympathetic protagonist for the Tang Emperor Taizong to identify with, so that he might take a moral lesson worked into the story. In this essay, I will extend Deeg's argument: if we accept that Xuanzang took a didactic approach in writing Notes on the Western Regions and gave Avalokiteśvara an educational role, then it is worth reconsidering the unexpected appearance of Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra in this light.

Avalokiteśvara

Name

The bodhisattva first appears in Chinese translations from the 2nd Century CE under a range of names (Nattier 2007). The various Chinese forms reflect two forms of the name in Sanskrit:, i.e. Avalokitasvara and Avalokiteśvara. The two names and the relative chronology were first noticed by Nikolaĭ Dmitrievitch Mironov (1927). The principal Chinese forms are:

• 廅樓亘  (Èlóuxuān). “Sound-Observer”
• 闚音      (Kuīyīn) “Sound-Observer”
• 見音聲  (Jiànyīnshēng) “He Sees Sounds” 
• 光世音  (Guāngshìyīn) “Sounds of the World of Light”
• 觀世音  (Guānshìyīn) “He Observes Sounds of the World”

Èlóuxuān 廅樓亘 might have been an attempt at a transliteration, perhaps of an even more primitive form of the name, i.e. Avaloka-svara. A possibility Nattier did not consider was a Prakrit form of the name: avalokita-svara in Pāḷi would be spelled olokita-sara.  The Gāndhārī form of the name is Ologispara.* 

* The Gāndhāri Dictionary) lists Olo'iśpare as representing Avalokeśvara (i.c. avaloka-īśvara). However, Salomon and Schopen (2002) have cast doubt on this reading of the inscription without being able to clarify what the correct reading should be. It is probably the locale the donor lived in. 

Up to about the 6th Century, Chinese translators were evidently encountering avalokita-svara since the translations all refer to having "observed" (avalokita) a "sound" (svara). This has a flavour of synaesthesia about it and I'm not aware of any convincing explanation of the name that deals with the fact that one does not usually observe sounds, one hears sounds and observes visual phenomena. The "spelling" Guāngshìyīn 光世音 is probably the result of having misheard the name as ābhā-loka-svara "light world sound".

It's sometimes suggested that the name Guānshìyīn 觀世音 was shortened during the Tang to Guānyīn 觀音 after the death of Emperor Taizong (r.  626 to 649), to avoid the wordshì 世 from his personal name 李世民 Lǐ Shìmín. Such taboos were common in China after Emperors died. However, the practice of shortening the name began long before the birth of Lǐ Shìmín. For example, Kumārajīva frequently uses the two character name in his Lotus Sutra translation (T. 262) dated 403 CE. In any case, the taboo usually required a substitution rather than a simple excision. For example, in some expressions 世 shì was substituted with 代 dài (Kroll 2015: 73).

From the 6th Century translations of Bodhiruci onwards, a new form of the name started appearing in which the word svara was replaced with īśvara "Lord, Master". These include Guānshìzìzài 觀世自在 (“Sovereign of the Observed World”), and Xuanzang's translation Guānzìzài 觀自在 (“Sovereign of the Observed”). Since Avalokitasvara absorbed some of the iconography of Śiva around this time it is assumed that he also absorbed one of Śiva's principle epithets, Maheśvara "Great Lord" to become Avalokita-īśvara (a-ī > e). Alexander Studholme includes a detailed discussion of the relationship between Avalokiteśvara in the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra and Śiva Mahēśvara as we meet him in the Purāṇa texts (2002: 37 ff) 

In translating Xuanzang's Travelogue, Samuel Beal explained Xuanzang's choice of characters for the name. Beal correctly back translated 自在 as īśvara, but understood it to mean “self-existent” and interpreted its meaning as “god.” This apparently influenced many later interpretations of the name. In fact Sanskrit īsvara more straightforwardly means "Lord" or "Master" from √īṣ, which is related to the PIE root *aik- "be master of, possess." Cognate words are English "own" (as in possess) and "owe" and German "eigen". In the Chinese Āgama texts, 自在 simply means "master". Reading Chinese Buddhist texts without reference to the Indic sources can lead us astray, even when they are composed in Chinese.

Sanskrit texts and fragments noted by Mironov (1927) confirm that the name starts off as Avalokitasvara and transforms into Avalokiteśvara at some point. This change is more recently documented by Jan Nattier (2007) and Seishi Karashima (2016). It has also been noted by all and sundry that the latter name never caught on in China where the, now female, figure is still principally known as Guānyīn 觀音. The gender-change came much later than the period that interests me. 

What is not much discussed is the kind of compound that the words avalokita-svara and avalokita-īśvara might be. It is important to note that avalokita is a part participle, i.e. "seen, viewed, observed", not "seeing, viewing, or observing"; it comes from a root √lok meaning "look", i.e. it is rooted in the visual sense. The Chinese translation, guān 觀, also means "observe, consider"; the character combines the semantic radical xiàn 見 meaning "see" with a phonetic radical guàn 雚. As far as I can tell, few of the common  English translations correspond to possible grammatical analyses of the compound. The form avalokita-īśvara seems obviously to be a tatpuruṣa, "Lord of the seen [world]" or "Lord with [a compassionate] gaze."

However, avalokita-svara could be any of: "viewed sound" (karmadhāraya), "sound of the seen" (tatpuruṣa), or "whose sound is observed" (bahuvrīhi). None of these particularly makes sense to me, but then none of the traditional explanations follow the rules for interpreting Sanskrit compounds. There are certainly folk etymologies that sound plausible, but if you approach the compound from a purely grammatical point of view, then this name is strange.

One possibility is that the name was not composed in Sanskrit, but in Prakrit. So svara could be a wrong Sanskritisation of a Prakrit word. We know several examples of this (e.g. bodhisatva, sūtra, mahāyāna). We might note for example that Skt svara is Pāli sara "sound, voice". But Pāli sara is also Sanskrit:

• śara "reed, arrow" 
• śara "going" (√sṛ) 
• saras "lake"
• sara "remembering" (√smṛ)

Another root, √śṛ "crush", might also have given rise to sara (but this is not listed in the PTS Dictionary). So Pāli sara could stand for Sanskrit words śara, saras, sara, or svara. And only context can disambiguate them. With a name, the context could easily remain ambiguous. For example avalokitaśara "the one whose going is observed" is not entirely stupid as a name. The same root also gives us P. saraṇa "refuge" as in saraṇagamana "going for refuge", which could give the name a Buddhist flavour. I'm not saying this is the answer, but I am saying that answers we do have don't make much sense and this might be a way to seek a better explanation.

Roles

Nattier (2007) further summarises the roles that Guanyin tends to play in these early Mahāyāna texts:

1. A passive audience member. The name Guanyin crops up in lists of those present when doctrines are preached. 
2. As Èlóuxuān, the bodhisatva becomes an object of devotion. This is unusual because usually texts admonish us to become bodhisatvas, not the worship them. Paul Harrison has suggested that this role may be a Chinese invention. 
3. Receives a prophecy to Buddhahood.
4. Successor to Amitābha.

His first significant appearance is the Larger Sukhāvativyūha Sūtra. He was popularised in the translations of Dharmarakṣa, especially the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra. In none of these texts does Guanyin play the active role of teacher. In other words, what should surprise us about the appearance of Guanyin in the Heart Sutra is not that its a so-called wisdom text, since that compassion/wisdom distinction is anachronistic in relation to bodhisatvas at that time.  Of course, Guanyin is associated with compassion in the sūtras but not exclusively. For example, Kuījī describes him as "possesses wisdom and compassion, universally practices kindness, perpetuates pure lands, and rescues the defiled worlds" (Heng-Ching and Lusthaus 2001: 15. Translating 有具悲智遍行慈愍。紹隆淨剎府救穢方。T. 1710; 33.524c.10).

Before moving on I should say that Kuījī expresses no surprise at finding Guanyin in this text.  He tackles the name in his commentary as though it is just another set of characters. Woncheuk does spend some time establishing that Guanyin is fully enlightened, so we might infer that he uncomfortable about the absence of the Buddha. He notes "There is no introduction or conclusion in this [sūtra]. Since [this text] selects the essential outlines from all the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras, it has only the main chapter, without introduction and conclusion, just as the Kuan-yin ching (Avalokiteśvara-sūtra) is not composed of three sections." (Choo 2006: 138)

The idea that Guanyin's presence is unexpected may be partly due to expectations that grew up later, perhaps as a result the tantric practice of dividing deities up into demarcated "families". What ought to stand out is the fact that Avalokiteśvara is giving instruction, using words that—in the Large Sutra—were put into the mouth of the Buddha. However, there is a text in which Avalokiteśvara does have such a role and that is Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì). Before we turn to this text, we need to consider some generalities about the politics of early medieval China.

The Politics of Buddhism in China

Politics is an important aspect of the historiography of Buddhism in China, especially in Tang China. In order to flourish, in the ancient world, any religion has to negotiate a relationship with state power. There is no right of free of religion, though the Chinese were often tolerant of heterodoxy at this time. This relationship with the state has political, economic, and social dimensions. We may say that, in the ancient world, Buddhism flourishes because of these relations with governments and rulers, if only because monks are economically unproductive and supporting large numbers of them requires surplus wealth. A small community may produce surplus food to feed an extra person or two. But the building of, for example, large monasteries for hundreds of monks to live in one place requires the kind of wealth and resources that usually only states have access to. Rulers expect return on investment, even if that return is an intangible like the promise of a good afterlife. But religion can be a double edged sword, because it comes with obligations, both personal and political. A ruler has to be seen to be pious and to support the institutions of religion. In Tang China, even Taizong gave imperial support to Buddhism though it is clear that he did not like it. 

The dynamic with respect to Buddhism is particularly interesting because of the social structure of Buddhism: the distinction between full-time monks and the devout laity is not absolute. People could move between these two worlds and the monastic sangha was (at least in theory open to anyone). Increasingly, women were excluded from the monastic side Buddhism so that by the Tang women play a marginal role in Buddhist history (with one very notable exception).

The relationship between Buddhist monks and the Chinese state is fascinating because monks are economically unproductive, eschew social norms (especially the Confucian ethos of filial piety), refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the emperor (monks refuse to bow to him), and yet rely on patronage for their existence. Confucians saw Buddhists as deeply immoral for these reasons. While Buddhism did evangelise and attract largesse from the merchant class, it was their appeal to rulers that ensured that Buddhism flourished. This is all the more apparent in the light of periodically anti-Buddhist sentiment and purges such as occurred in China during the Tang. In addition, religious institutions were exempt from paying taxes and so tended to accumulate wealth. Although there are technical restrictions on individual monks from handling money or owning property, in practice Buddhist monasteries in the Tang Capital of Chang'an had incalculable wealth, were involved in usury and commerce, and as a result caused economic imbalances in the Chinese economy. We could see the purges in 845 CE in which the wealth of Buddhist monasteries was appropriated by the state and the scale of Buddhist institutions was drastically reduced (although only briefly) as a rebalancing of the economy. The expansion of Buddhist monasticism is often an economic disaster for the countries in which it happens (more especially where they also capture the reins of governance). 

Those who invest want a good return. In the case of Buddhism, the beneficiaries promise that generosity goes towards good fortune in the present life and a good rebirth for the donor. In a pre-modern world where life and death appear to be entirely a matter of fate, the promise of good fortune and a good rebirth attracted considerable largesse. Buddhists also provided pageantry in the form of large-scale ritual performances. The key to survival in early Medieval China was to have the ruling family on side, and while the Sui Dynasty Emperors had been great supporters of Buddhism, the early Tang Emperors, Gaozu, Taizong, and Gaozong were all indifferent or, in the case of Taizong, hostile, to Buddhism. 

For Xuanzang to be a favourite of the Buddhism-hating emperor, Taizong, then, is a not inconsequential historical fact. In the Biography, Xuanzang is first portrayed as defying the emperor to seek the Dharma in the West, although Kotyk (2019) shows that this defiance may have been invented since the imperial ban on travel was lifted before Xuanzang set out. On his return from the West, Xuanzang is welcomed and feted by the same Emperor (i.e. his defiance has no negative consequences). This is the Buddhist struggle with temporal power in a nutshell. 

We also have to look at the audience for the Biography. Xuanzang's influence as a translator is facet that is often exaggerated. In fact very few works attributed to him were influential except for some of his translations of Yogācāra works for which there were no previous translations. When it came to sūtras, none of Xuanzang's translations displaced those of Kumārajīva from 250 years earlier. The Fǎxiàng 法相 School of Yogācāra Buddhism that he founded lasted only about a century and was never very influential (although Yogācāra per se was very influential). By 688, some 24 years after his death, Xuanzang's lack of influence must have started to be obvious. Yancong's Biography seems to be tuned to giving Xuanzang's remaining followers a boost and perhaps generating some positive PR amongst other Buddhists. It is, however, unlikely that the Biography was widely read outside of Buddhist circles. This circle may or may not have included the Empress Dowager Wu Zhao (her husband Gaozong died in 683 CE) although in 688, Wu Zhao had her hands full suppressing a rebellion by members of the ruling Li family, paving the way to becoming Emperor herself. Wu Zhao was not beyond inducing Buddhist monks to engage in conspiracies to promote the idea of a female emperor. 

Teachable Moments

With this overview, we can now consider the political dimension of Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì) and in particular the role played by Guanyin in the story of King Harṣa. Max Deeg (2009, 2012, 2016) has made a considerable contribution to our understanding of the Notes. He highlights and critiques the naive, positivist use of the text, in which everything is taken at face value. He also points out that little or no attempt has been made to position the Notes as one of a genre of Buddhist travelogues (2009: 35-41). In addition, while Xuanzang likely wrote notes for the book, the fincal composition was actually compiled and redacted by Biànjī 辯機. 

Deeg has shown that Xuanzang manipulated his narrative to make it more palatable to Taizong. 

"In the light of Taizong's sensitivity to his own standing, reputation and the impression he would make on future generations, it becomes clear that Xuanzang had to manoeuvre and act quite adroitly to convey the politically and morally critical message directed to his emperor" (Deeg 2016: 98).

As noted above, Deeg (2016) concentrates on King Harṣa. This is partly because Harṣa is quite well documented. We have inscriptions, three plays that are attributed to him, and a biography, Harṣacarita, composed in Sanskrit by Bāṇabhaṭṭa (Bāṇa). So we can directly compare Xuanzang's narrative with the Indian evidence. Deeg argues "that the Indian king is portrayed not as a historical person, but as an idealized Buddhist ruler and—as I have argued elsewhere [Deeg 2009: 51]—as a speculum, or a 'mirror,' held before Taizong." (2016: 100). Xuanzang has two political purposes in the Notes. Firstly to flatter Taizong and secondly to quietly admonish him by presenting kingdoms in Indian in ideal Buddhist terms. And to this end Xuanzang presents Harṣa as relatable, but also as a Buddhist (an ideal Buddhist) king. 

A clearly Buddhist embellishment in Xuanzang’s story is the episode of Avalokiteśvara’s advice to Harṣa to take up the royal or imperial duties without assuming the “lion throne” (shizi zhi zuo 師子之座, Skt. siṃhāsana) and the title “great king” (dawang大王, Skt. mahārāja, or mahārājādhirāja) which does not have any direct correspondence in any of the other sources on Harṣa. (Deeg 2016: 126-7).

In the story of Harṣa, as Xuanzang tells it, the reigning king is killed by a neighbouring kingdom. His son is dead, but his younger brother (Harṣa) is proposed as king instead. This idea is greeted with popular acclaim and the job is offered to Harṣa. However, Harṣa hesitates, protesting that he is hardly qualified and lacks virtue. Something Deeg does not comment on, I think, is that this level of modesty is a Chinese virtue that is not so prominent in India (Compare my discussion of Ajātasattu's meeting with the Buddha. Attwood 2010).

"The public opinion considers (me) suitable (for the throne, but how could forget (my own) shortcomings? Now, at the banks of the river Gaṅgā there is a statue of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, Since it has (already shown) a lot of wonderful signs I wish to go there and ask for advice." (Deeg 2009: 52)

Translating: 物議為宜，敢忘虛薄？今者殑伽河岸，有觀自在菩薩像，既多靈鑒，願往請辭。(T 2087; 51.894.b8-10 ff.)

The Bodhisatva counsels Harṣa to take the job, predicting that because of his previous merit he will be a great king. This is where he advises Harṣa not to assume the “lion throne” (Shīzǐ zhī zuò 師子之座, Skt. siṃhāsana) and the title “great king” (dàwáng 大王, Skt. mahārāja, or mahārājādhirāja). Harṣa takes the throne and eschews the titles, but his first act is to vow vengeance on the neighbours who killed his elder brother. He goes on to conquer them and the rest of India in a sweeping military conquest. 

In his presentation of this material, Xuanzang is at pains to make Harṣa recognizable to Taizong, to make Harṣa a "mirror" for Taizong to see himself.

"The intention in the context of the [Notes] is clear: both rulers are lauded because of their pacification of the realm, the construction of stūpas and monasteries (vihāra), and the convocation of donation parties. This was certainly meant as a propagandistic and 'pedagogical' hint directed to the address of the emperor Taizong..." (Deeg 2009: 57)

Deeg (2016) returns to the Notes and draws out further reasons to think that this is so. For example, he draws parallels between Xuanzang's Harṣa narrative and the facts of how Taizong gained the throne, i.e. by murdering his brothers and the heir apparent, and forcing his father to Abdicate (2016: 125). Deeg notes that there was an ongoing power struggle between Taizong and his chief ministers over who would succeed him. In the end it was Li Zhi , his 9th son, who became Emperor Gaozong in 649 CE. Court factionalism raged on until 655 CE, when Wu Zhao became Empress Consort and decisively brought the still powerful Yang family in on the side of Gaozong (see for example the account in Eisenberg 2012).

In Xuanzang's narrative, Harṣa's older brother is killed and his taking the throne is encouraged by Avalokiteśvara. Taizong had murdered his own brother to take the throne. Deeg seems to argue that Xuanzang is offering Taizong a justification for his fratricide in the form of adopting Buddhist ideals of rulership. But this is achieved indirectly and Taizong is left to draw his own conclusions. Deeg speculates that Taizong might have felt reluctance to assume the throne given his means of ascension. I find this aspect of his account less plausible. A man who murders his brother and forces is father to retire does not seem the type to then have doubts. Taizong is, above all, decisive. However, as Deeg points out (2016: 128) the Harṣacarita does portray Harṣa as reluctant to assume the throne, so perhaps the comparison was intended to flatter Taizong (the man with no doubts). The other parallel between the two rulers is that Harṣa goes on to conquer all of India unifying it under his rule. This was ever the ideal for a Chinese emperor and something that Taizong was quite successful at.

"I think that the narrative of Harṣa's royal lineage and ascension to the throne is directed towards the ruling emperor Taizong—and maybe also towards the ambitious crown prince, and later emperor, Gaozong—as a reminder of the pious and correct behavior of an ideal ruler" (Deeg: 2016: 125).

Although Gaozong is mentioned in passing, and is not prominent in Deeg's articles, it is worth considering that Gaozong was part of the intended audience of the Notes.


Īśvara

Indian records show that Harṣa was not a Buddhist, he was a devotee of the benevolent forms of Śiva, particularly Maheśvara or Paramameśvara. Deeg suggests that if there were an historical event behind the story, that Maheśvara could mutatis mutandis become Avalokiteśvara for Xuanzang's purposes. Especially in Xuanzang's Chinese where the names are Dàzìzài 大自在 and Guānzìzài 觀自在 respectively (128). It is not that Buddhism was entirely foreign to Harṣa, Buddhists were a major presence in India at the time. The Harṣacarita, authored by "stern Śaiva" Bāṇabhaṭṭa, used Buddhist elements in his description of the king. 

For my purposes, what is significant is not simply that Xuanzang has altered the story to serve a political purpose, so much as that he has Avalokiteśvara step outside his role of saviour and protector to become a political advisor. One whose advice led to the annihilation of Harṣa's enemies (who had killed his brother) but which also led to a massive subcontinent spanning war of conquest. The model here, of course is Asoka. The key difference is that Asoka became a Buddhist only after being repulsed by his bloody wars of conquest. Asoka renounced violence to become the ideal Buddhist king, whereas Harṣa embraces violence on the advice of Avalokiteśvara. Taizong was also involved in pacifying remaining pockets of rebellion in the newly reforged Chinese Empire, but was also actively extending the boundaries. 

Summary and Conclusion

Max Deeg has argued that we need to be aware of the political and didactic elements in Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (Xīyù jì 西域記). Focussing on the events that Xuanzang links to the historical figure of King Harṣa, we can see from Indian sources that this story has been changed (by Xuanzang) in ways that can be interpreted as manipulation for political ends. The story has been recast so as to reflect Chinese values. It makes flattering comparisons between Harṣa and Taizong, but reflects Xuanzang's views on ideal governance and regal deportment. Xuanzang is a Buddhist while Taizong is rather unsympathetic to Buddhism. Xuanzang therefore uses the medium of an historical morality take, based on a real story, to get his message across. In this cause, Śaivite Harṣa becomes a Buddhist who consults and receives political advice from Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisatva of compassion. This advice is apparently calculated to resonate with Taizong and to justify his wars of conquest. Xuanzang cannot come right out and chastise Taizong for usurping the throne, but he can show Taizong a way to atone for his usurpation by being a "good" emperor on Xuanzang's terms. This is a rather bold project on Xuanzang's part, but since no one in China at that time had the ability to fact-check his account, it was taken at face value.  It is only now that we can compare the Indian accounts and see the discrepancies.

The Biography by Huìlì 慧立 and Yàncóng 彥悰 portrays Taizong undergoing a deathbed conversion to Buddhism under the skilful guidance of Xuanzang. This is a kind of apotheosis for Taizong, since in embracing Buddhism he becomes in his last few days exactly the ideal ruler that Xuanzang had wanted. It is also the ultimate vindication of Buddhism to bring around the notoriously hostile emperor. However, again, the non-Buddhist Chinese historical sources make it very unlikely that Taizong did convert to Buddhism and few historians accept this account as factual. There is no supporting evidence from non-Buddhist (non-hagiographical) sources and it seems rather too convenient.

Avalokiteśvara is the bodhisatva par excellence in 7th Century China. Maitreya and Manjuśrī are also important but Avalokiteśvara's role in the Lotus Sutra and the Guanyin Sutra make him the most prominent "bodhisatva" in that context. And this alone could explain Xuanzang's use of Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra. However, he had to have known that the words he copied from the Large Sutra were mostly from the mouth of the Buddha and that the principal protagonists of the Prajñāpāramitā were the Buddha, Subhūti, Śāriputra, and Śakra, Lord of the Gods; not bodhisatvas. The instruction in the Large Sutra begins with the Buddha speaking to Śāriputra, although in the Small Sutra the Buddha asks Subhūti to instruct the bodhisatvas in Prajñāpāramitā. 

If Deeg's conjectures about Xuanzang's relations with Taizong and his attempts to create teachable moments in the Notes are right, then the unexpected appearance of Avalokiteśvara might be explained by his role in Xuanzang's narrative of Harṣa. While the Heart Sutra is more or less what it appears to be—i.e. a short summary of Prajñāpāramitā doctrine—and lacks the obvious political overtones of the Notes, the mere reference to Avalokiteśvara could be enough to invoke that earlier narrative for Gaozong and Wu Zhao. Gaozong took the throne more conventionally than his father, although in a parallel to Harṣa, only after his two older brothers had been eliminated (although in this case they but Wu Zhao (if any story about her can be believed) may well have emulated Taizong in murdering rivals for her position and purging the opposition once she gained power.

It's worth emphasising this last point since it is seldom even mentioned: Wu Zhao was not some kind of psychopathic anomaly. She has to be seen in the context of Taizong's murder of his brothers and competitors, his ruthless suppression of opposition, and relentless wars of conquest. Both unexpectedly rose to high office. Both murdered those who stood in their way. Both were astute leaders and politicians.

Kotyk has proposed that Xuanzang composed the Heart Sutra ca February 656 CE as a gift for the birth of Wu Zhao's son, Lǐ Xián 李賢 (29 January 655 – 13 March 684) who would later go on to be Crown Prince. Around the same time, Lǐ Hóng 李弘 (652 – 25 May 675) was made Crown Prince, an event that also gave rise to the founding of Ximing and Jing'ai monasteries (in Chang'an and Luoyang respectively) and to projects to copy the entire Tripiṭaka and to catalogue all Buddhist texts in each city (which bore fruit in 664 and 666 CE respectively).

Xuanzang had to be very careful in expressing his criticism of Taizong. Wu Zhao was already a Buddhist and perhaps more likely target of the gift of a new condensed sutra which emphasised the ephemeral nature of experience than Gaozong. Perhaps Xuanzang felt less comfortable expressing criticism, but still managed to create a pointer back to the Notes by unexpectedly placing Guanyin where he was least expected. The gift of the sutra happened at a time when Wu Zhao had eliminated the most vehement opposition and cemented her grip on power. This did not end the factionalism that had begun during the reign of Taizong, but it was a decisive moment in bringing it to an end. Perhaps in retrospect the naming of Li Hong as Crown Prince is more significant than the birth of Li Xian.

I'm aware that the conclusion here is tenuous. As I revise the received tradition of the Heart Sutra I have to gently remove the layers of accreted myth and legend. What remains is fragmented and partial. It is not yet possible to clearly the shape of it. What is needed is for a qualified, preferably young, Sinologist to take up the enquiry and see what else may be discerned in the Chinese sources by someone with an open mind. As an enthusiastic amateur, who started this adventure far too late in life, I can only go so far with this. There are many questions about the Heart Sutra still to be answered, but we tend not to answer a question before it is asked. If I can contribute anything it is to show that there are open questions.

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Attwood, J. (2010). "Did King Ajātasattu Confess to the Buddha, and did the Buddha Forgive Him?" Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 15, 279-307.

Deeg, Max . (2009). ‘Writing for the Emperor. Xuanzang between Piety, Religious Propaganda, Intelligence and Modern Imagination’, In Straube, Martin, et al. (eds), Pāsādikadānam. Festschrift für Bhikkhu Pāsādika. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 32–60 (Indica et Tibetica 52).

Deeg, Max. (2012) “‘Show Me the Land Where the Buddha Dwelled …’—Xuanzang’s ‘Record of the Western Regions’ (Xiyu ji): A Misunderstood Text?,” China Report 48 (2012): 89–113.

Deeg, Max (2016). 'The political position of Xuanzang: the didactic creation of an Indian dynasty in the Xiyu ji.' In: Juelch, Thomas ed. The Middle Kingdom and the Dharma Wheel: Aspects of the Relationship between the Buddhist Saṃgha and the State in Chinese History, Vol. 1. (Sinica Leidensia, vol. 133). Leiden, Boston: Brill, pp. 94-139.

Eisenberg, Andrew. (2012) 'Emperor Gaozong, the Rise of Wu Zetian, and factional politics in the Early Tang.' Tang Studies 30, 45-69.

Karashima, Seishi. (2016) “On Avalokitasvara and Avalokiteśvara”, in Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University (ARIRIAB), vol. 20 (2017): 139-165.

Kroll, Paul W. (2015). A Student's Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese. Brill.

Mironov, N. D. (1927). 'Buddhist Miscellanea'. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2 (Apr., 1927): 241-279.

Nattier, Jan. (2007) ‘Avalokiteśvara in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations: A Preliminary Survey.’ In Magee, W and Huang, Y.H. (Eds). Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin) and Modern Society. Proceedings of the Fifth Chung-Hwa International Conference on Buddhism, 2006: 191-212. Taiwan: Dharma Drum Publishing.

Salomon, R. and Schopen, G. (2002) 'On an Alleged Reference to Amitābha in a Kharoṣṭhī Inscription on a Gandhārian Relief.' Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 25(1-2): 3-31.

Jingtai's Catalogue: Wu Zhao and Digest Texts

Carving Buddhist texts in stone was a very popular activity in China. The series, Buddhist Stone Sutras in China, is a set of large format books with images, transcriptions, and commentary on inscriptions in rock faces and on stone tablets from various places in China (Sichuan and Shandong provinces so far). The details of the inscriptions are accompanied by essays by experts in the field that help to explain the significance of them. 

One essay of considerable interest to me, in Vol 3 (Sichuan, Wofoyuan C) is by leading Prajñāpāramitā researcher Stefano Zacchetti (the cch is pronounced like k), Professor of Buddhist Studies at Oxford University. At the site known as Wofo Yuan 臥佛院, Anyue 安岳 County in Sichuan there are many Buddhist texts carved into the rock faces and cave walls. The opening sentence of the essay sets us up nicely:

At the Grove of the Reclining Buddha (Wofoyuan 臥佛院), cave 46 contains, among other texts, an incomplete carving of scrolls 1–2 of the Catalog of All Canonical Scriptures (Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄; T#2148, 55: 180c–218a; hereafter: Jingtai’s Catalog), composed during the second half of the seventh century by the Monk Jingtai 靜泰 (fl. 660– 666).

In this image of a rubbing of the first panel of text of Jingtai's Catalogue we can see the first column on the right is the title of the preface:  大唐東京大敬愛寺一切經論目序 Preface of the Catalogue of All Scriptures of the Great Jing'ai Monastery, Eastern Capital, Great Tang and the first character of the attribution 釋靜泰撰, "composed by Bhikṣu Jìngtài"

The presence of a scriptural catalogue or bibliography amidst a collection of mainly sutra inscriptions is remarkable. Why did anyone feel the need to set this rather utilitarian document in stone? We understand that narratives of the end of the Dharma (末法 mòfǎ) drove the monks at Cloud Dwelling Temple (雲居寺) to carve sūtras in stone to preserve them for posterity. But carving a catalogue is less easy to understand. However, for the story that I would like to tell, the why of it is not very relevant.

In trying to explain the presence of the catalogue at Wofoyuan, Zacchetti touches on two distinct aspects of my Heart Sutra research: firstly, it expands on the role of Wu Zhao (aka Wu Zetian) in Buddhism during the period that the Heart Sutra was composed and passed off as a genuine sūtra, and secondly it touches on the Chinese penchant for making digest texts (抄經 chāo jīng) and the ways in which bibliographers catalogued them.

Jingtai and the Catalogue of All Canonical Scriptures

As Zacchetti explains, we know very little about Jingtai the man. He is not mentioned in the mainstream biographies of monks, but he is mentioned in a minor work on Buddhist controversies (T 2104) by Dàoxuān 道宣 (596-667 CE). Almost as an afterthought, Daoxuan includes some biographical details about Jingtai: he was originally from Luoyang; he caught the attention of Emperor Gaozong, who after being unable to persuade him to disrobe and join the government, offering him the title of Dade (大德 = Skt bhadanta) at Jing'ai monastery (敬愛寺). Other sources confirm that Jingtai held this title. Gaozong also commissioned a new catalogue of Buddhist texts from Jingtai. Daoxuan is not entirely flattering to Jingtai, describing him as witty and eloquent but with relatively superficial knowledge of the Dharma (79 n.415). Jingtai was probably involved in a project to copy the entire Buddhist canon as it existed at that time (80).

I think we have to pause and consider the actual role of Gaozong after he married Wu Zhao in 655 and made her Empress Consort. Their marriage cemented a partnership that ended a long running internal power struggle that had begun during the reign of Emperor Taizong. The adult Wu Zhao was no shrinking violet, but rather a proactive and shrewd political operative and, more to the point, a Buddhist who was quite ready to use the Buddhist church as leverage against the Confucian bureaucracy. By the time Jingtai's catalogue was published, Gaozong had suffered his first bout of debilitating illness and Wu Zhao was the de facto ruler of China. Jingtai might have had orders via the Emperor, but they almost certainly came from Wu Zhao.

Whoever was behind it, Jingtai's catalogue was produced and survives down to the present. Like other early medieval bibliographers, Jingtai struggled with the issues involved in creating a catalogue at that time.

"Jingtai's preface starts with an interesting discussion of the structure of catalogs and their function in distinguishing genuine parts of the canon from the overgrowth of apocrypha and excerpts, which ought to be weeded out." (Zacchetti: 79)

A translation of that preface is a desideratum. Jingtai makes a comparison with the catalogue completed two years earlier in Chang'an by Dàoxuān 道宣 at Ximing Monastery 西明寺. Daoxuan authored the 《大唐內典錄》Dàtáng nèidiǎn lù "Great Tang Catalog of Texts" aka the Neidian Catalogue (664 CE).

"According to Daoshi's 道世 (?-683) Pearl Grove in the Garden of the Law (Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林), the Jing'ai Monastery was established in the new capital of Luoyang as a counterpart of the Xi-ming Monastery, the famous monastic institution in Chang'an, which had been founded by the Emperor in 656 for the welfare of Li Hong 李弘 (652-675), Empress Wu Zhao's 武曌 (r. 684-705) son, who had just been nominated Crown Prince." (Zacchetti: 80) (Note: on Daoshi's Grove of Pearls, see Hsu 2018)

It's important to note that Gaozong himself was not particularly religious and was probably not a Buddhist. His father had been decidedly anti-Buddhist. But Wu Zhao was a practising Buddhist (despite her purported penchant for murder) and in the 680s Buddhist monks sided with her in the divisions that ripped the court apart over Wu's wielding power through her sons and her eventual ascension to the throne. The Jing'ai Monastery played a key role in this. However, in the 650s, Wu's goals were unlikely to include direct rule. Having her son on the throne was probably the acme of her ambition. This may have changed after Gaozong began to suffer periodic bouts of illness that left Wu Zhao running the state. However, it was Wu Zhao who advocated for moving the capital from Chang'an to Luoyang, which happened ca 657 CE. Tradition has it that she was trying to escape being haunted by the ghost of one (or more) of her victims.

Jing'ai Monastery in Luoyang was founded in Jan 657-Feb 658, nominally by Li Hong for the benefit of his parents. It was built on the same plan as Ximing. When Wu Zhao took the imperial throne in 690, she renamed Jing'ai the Monastery of the Buddha's Prophecy (佛授記寺 Fo shouji Si), but after her reign it reverted to the earlier name. As part of the activities surrounding Li Hong's becoming Crown Prince, both the Ximing and Jing'ai Monasteries untook to make a complete copy of the Buddhist canon (as it existed at the time).

Jingtai was ordered to produce his catalogue on March 6 663, although a revision was ordered in February 664 possibly to incorporate newly finished translations by Xuanzang. The catalogue took three years to complete and was presented in 666 CE. It included 816 scriptures in 4,066 scrolls, but acknowledged 382 "missing texts" in 725 scrolls, that were not to be found in the libraries of Luoyang.

The two catalogues were organised along very different lines. Jingtai followed Yancong (彥琮) in having a layered taxonomic approach. Daoxuan followed Fei Changfang in organising the texts primarily chronologically by Dynasty.

Adding these details, which as far as I know are not mentioned in any history of the Heart Sutra helps to give our understanding of the time period. The view of history that Buddhists present tends to be one dimensional and there are few if any tensions in the unified Tang Empire. But as I've read more Chinese history it has become apparent that division and contention were ever present and that Buddhists took sides in these conflicts. The 6th Century bibliographer, Sengyou, wrote

"As for perverse Confucianists who abide by literature, they keep their distance [from Buddhism] because it is considered heathen. The honey-tongued heretics (i.e., Daoists) adopt [Buddhism] in their teaching and consider both to be the same teaching." (Ziegler 2015: 24)

With this we now move to the second aspect of Zacchetti's essay, how Jingtai treated digest texts.

Digest Texts and the Heart Sutra in Jingtai's Catalogue

The whole of scroll 3 and a large part of scroll 4 of the catalogue (not inscribed at Wofoyuan) are devoted to separately produced (別生) texts, that is to say "excerpts extracted from larger scriptures and circulating as independent texts (於大部內鈔出別行)" (Zacchetti 82). I have written about these before as digest texts (抄經 chāo jīng). Interestingly, Jingtai makes an effort to identify the larger sutras from which the extracts are made. Jingtai makes it clear that he does not consider such texts part of the Canon and they were not to be included in the Canon copying project (Zacchetti 83).

Jingtai's Catalogue (T 2148; vol 55) adopts a taxonomic scheme that has similarities to previous catalogues, particular the catalogue produced by Yancong in 602 (T 2147). The other main organisational principle used in China was chronological (based on dynastic succession). Jingtai employed a total of seven categories, the first three of which make up the "canon".

1. 單本 - Single translations. One-off translations and first translations.

2. 重翻 - Retranslations (other translations of the same text).

Each of which was divided into sub-categories

大乘經 - Mahāyāna sūtra
大乘律 - Mahāyāna vinaya
大乘論 - Mahāyāna commentary
小乘經 - Hīnayāna sūtra
小乘律 - Hīnayāna vinaya
小乘論 - Hīnayāna commentary

3. 賢聖集傳 "Collection Traditions of the Saints" is a standalone category considered to be translations.

4. 別生 Separately produced, that is, what Zacchetti calls "excerpts" and what I call "digests". This category also has several subcategories.

大乘別生 - Mahāyāna separately produced
大乘別生抄 - Mahāyāna separately produced extract
小乘別出生 - Hīnayāna separately produced
小乘別生抄 - Hīnāyāna separately produced extract
別集抄 Suspected as being spurious
眾經別生 Miscellaneous separately produced scriptures

5. 眾經疑惑 Miscellaneous dubious scriptures
6. 眾經偽妄 Miscellaneous false scriptures
7. 闕本 - Missing texts. These were texts that Jingtai had reason to believe should exist, but which could not be found in his library.

Note that the catalogue refers to the size of manuscripts in 紙 zhǐ "pages". These were roughly standardised sheets of paper 21 cm in width and between 41 and 48.5 cm in length, glued together as a strip and rolled into a scroll (Zürcher 313, n 54). They give a much better idea of the size of a manuscript, although as with all manuscripts the amount of text that could fit on a sheet was highly dependent on the scribe's handwriting. 

The following Prajñāpāramitā text translations are listed by Jangtai:

Single Translations

大乘經單本 (Mahāyāna Sūtra Single Translations)

• 大般若波羅蜜多經 (六百卷一萬二千紙)　唐世玄奘於玉華譯 (181c21-22) Mahāprajñāpāramitā sūtra (600 scrolls; 12,000 sheets) Xuanzang, T 220 completed in 663.
• 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 (四十卷或三十卷六百十九紙) 後秦鳩摩羅什共僧叡等於長安逍遙園譯一名大品 (181c23-25) Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (30 or 40 scrolls; 619 sheets) Later Jin, Kumārajīva with Sēngruì et al. in Chang'an, Xiaoyao Garden [Kumārajīva's translation institute] one named Great Section 大品. (T. 223).
• 勝天王般若波羅蜜經 (七卷一百二十一紙)　陳世月支國王子婆首那於楊州譯(182b03-4) Devarāja-pravara-prajñāpāramitā trans Upaśuṇya (T. 231).
• 仁王般若經 二卷(二十八紙) (183b04) Karunikaraja-prajnaparamita-sutra (27 pages) Trans Kumārajīva? (T 245)
• 文殊師利說般若波羅蜜經 一卷(二十二紙)　梁天監年曼陀羅譯 (184a19-20) *Mañjuśrī-pratibhātu-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. (1 scroll, 22 sheets)
• 般若多心經 (一卷一紙) (185a02) Gnosis Heart Sūtra (1 scroll; 1 sheet) Digest text composed 656 CE, by Xuanzang.

大乘論單本 Mahāyāna commentary Single Translations

• 般若燈論 (十五卷二百四十二紙)　唐貞觀年波頗蜜多等於勝光寺譯 (185b21-2) Prajñāpradīpa-mūlamadhyamaka-vṛtti (15 scrolls, 242 sheets) T 1566. Translation by Prabhākaramitra in 630-632
• 金剛般若經論 (三卷四十七紙)　後魏世菩提留支譯 (185c17) Diamond Sūtra Commentary by Vasubandhu. Trans Bodhiruci 509.
• 金剛般若論 (二卷僧佉菩薩造二十八紙)　隋大業年達摩 (185c25) Diamond Sūtra commentary by Asaṅga,. Trans Dharmagupta 613.

Retranslations

• 放光般若波羅蜜經 (三十卷 或二十卷四百六十紙)　晉元康元年無羅叉共竺叔蘭於陳留譯 (189b02-3) Shining Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra (460 sheets, possibly T221 by Mokṣala (291 CE)
• 光讚般若波羅蜜經 (十卷或十五卷二百一十五紙)　晉太康年竺法護譯右二經同本異譯。(189b04-6) Bright Stotra Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, (215 sheets) possibly T222 《光讚經》a partial Large Sutra translation by Dharmarakṣa (286 CE)
• 道行般若波羅蜜經 (十卷一百六十五紙)　後漢元和年支謙譯 (189b07-8) *Dharmacārya-prajñā-sūtra, T 224 (Lokakṣema)
• 小品般若經 (十卷或八卷一百五十四紙)　後秦弘始年羅什譯 (189b11-12) Smaller Prajñāpāramitā Sutra T227 (154 sheets) by Kumārajīva (1st Year of Hong, Later Qin, i.e. ca 400-1 CE) Usually dated 408 CE.
• 金剛般若經 (一卷舍衛國十二紙)　後秦弘始年羅什譯 (192c19) Diamond Sūtra. (12 sheets) Trans Kumārajīva (also Later Qin, First Year of Hong) usually dates 402 CE.
• 金剛般若波羅蜜經 (一卷婆伽婆十四紙)　後魏世菩提留支譯 (192c20-21)  Trans Bodhiruci, T236 509 CE.
• 金剛般若經 (一卷祇樹林十四紙)　陳世真諦譯 (192c22) Trans Paramārtha, T237 (562 CE)
• 能斷金剛般若經 (一卷十九紙)　唐世玄奘譯 右四經同本異譯。(192c23-4) trans. Xuanzang (1 scroll, 19 pages) [seemingly separate from his magnum opus] Jingtai comments that this is the best of the four (右四) alternative translations.
• 摩訶般若波羅蜜經鈔長安品 (五卷一名須菩提品一名長安品經八十三紙)　前秦建元年沙門曇摩埤共竺佛念譯 (196a08-10) Mahāprajñāpāramitā sūtra - transcribed in Chang'an Section (5 scrolls, one named "Subhūti Section", one named "Chang'an Section Sutra"; 83 pages) trans Former Jin, 1st year of 建 (ca 343 CE), by 曇摩埤 *Dharmapriya with 竺佛念 Zhú Fóniàn = T 226?

Digests

• 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪經 (一卷) (197a02)
• 般若波羅蜜神呪經 (一卷) (197a03)

These are the shen zhou texts mistakenly believed to be early, now lost, translations of the Heart Sutra. The titles trace back to three decades before Kumārajīva translated the Large Sutra (T 223), and the Heart Sutra as we know it copies passages from that text, so these can not be the same. Also, the Heart Sutra is already listed above distinct from these two texts.

Suspected of being fake

遺曰說般若經 (一卷)　後漢世支讖譯 (213b.03)
道行般若經 (二卷)　晉世衛士度譯 (217c.21)

These could be translations by Lokakṣema (支婁迦讖; fl. ca. 168-186). The first is possibly a version of 《佛說遺日摩尼寶經》 (T 350) while 《道行般若經》is the title of T224 translated in 179 CE and now widely considered to be an authentic translation by Lokakṣema.

Note that there is a separate translation of the Diamond Sutra by Xuanzang, which is traditionally said to have been made in 648-9 (according to the Biography by Yancong, a document that several of us have cast doubt on recently). Jingtai comments that this is the "best of the four alternative translations from different sources" (右四經同本異譯; T 2148; 55.192c23-4) although then and now Kumārajīva's translation was the most popular. Perhaps he means it is the best other than Kumārajīva's translation which is listed as a "single translation".

I've been puzzling over Yàncóng 彥悰. In the first place a Yancong produced a catalogue of Buddhist scriptures in 602 CE. In the second place Yancong was a younger contemporary of Xuanzang who produced a biography of him in 688 CE. This means there must have been (at least) two separate people with this name. This is probably obvious to everyone but me. 

The Heart Sutra is unequivocally treated as an authentic Mahāyāna Sūtra by Jingtai (T 2148; 55.185a02) and yet digest texts are excluded from the Canon. Note that Jingtai does not list any missing translations of the Heart Sutra, nor does he list any alternative translations. The text is singular and not attributed to a translator. Other texts by Xuanzang are clearly marked as such, including the extra translation of the Diamond Sutra not included in T 220. The 神呪 or shen zhou texts are not confused with the Heart Sutra and are listed as digest texts (they are sometimes said to be early, now lost, translations of the Heart Sutra but this is not possible because the titles predate Kumārajīva's Large Sutra translation from which the Heart Sutra copies passages).

Given the gist of Zacchetti's article, it would be interesting to look at Daoxuan's catalogue of the Ximing library and compare them with Yancong's catalogue which they were influenced by. However, Daoxuan's catalogue is organised on a very different basis and contains multiple entries for each text which makes a direct comparison with his catalogue more difficult.

Conclusions

I'm becoming quite fascinated by Wu Zhao (aka Wu Zetian) and her possible role in the history of the Heart Sutra. As much as anything because modern histories of the text simply don't mention her at all, despite the fact that she is the most important political figure of the mid-late 7th Century when Xuanzang was actively translating and writing. I'm not a feminist, but I am keenly aware that women get written out of history for bad reasons. A revised history with disruptive women, skullduggery, and deception seems infinitely more interesting to me than a traditional history only populated with one dimensional, saintly male characters.

Also, a close reading of the essay has caused me to look again at the notes in Jan Nattier's article where they cross over with the bibliographical tradition. Nattier notes, with comments from Alan Sponberg (who I know as Dharmacārin Saramati), that Kuījī sees the Heart Sutra as "separately produced". It is now possible to see that Kuījī has adapted a jargon term from the bibliographic tradition. This makes it clear that he knew that the Heart Sutra was a digest text and thus not a sūtra and importantly not a translation. Since Nattier does not join the final dots on this, I'm now in the process of writing it up for publication. 

Revising the history is vitally important for understanding the Heart Sutra, since history provides the context in which it existed. And modern English-speaking Buddhists have been short-changed when it comes to the history of Buddhism and the history of Chinese Buddhism in particular. We've been fed a bowdlerised version of history designed to suite a modernist palette: no magic, no deception, no superstition (except where it makes foreigners look stupid). A thorough revision of traditional accounts is overdue. 

It seems to me increasingly that insights lie at the intersections of fields. The intersections of history, bibliography, philology, and hermeneutics are where I am making new discoveries on a regular basis. There is so much work to still be done on the Heart Sutra. Most of it requires a much better knowledge of Middle Chinese than I possess or ever will possess. I can only hope that my work inspires some bright young thing to dive into this material and come up with gold. My 7th peer reviewed article is due out in May 2020 and I feel sure that I have only just scratched the surface. 

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Hsu, Alexander Ong. (2018). Practices of Scriptural Economy: Compiling and Copying a Seventh-century Chinese Buddhist Anthology. [Dissertation]. The University of Chicago, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

Zacchetti, Stefano. (2016). 'The Catalog of All Canonical Scriptures', in Claudia Wenzel and Sun Hua (eds.), Buddhist Stone Sutras in China – Sichuan Province, volume 3 Wofoyuan Section C: 65-96. Wiesbade: Harrassowitz Verlag – Hangzhou: China Academy of Arts Press.

Ziegler, Harumi Hirano. (2015). The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Vol. I. [Trans of Hongming ji (弘明集), T 2102]. BDK America.

Zürcher, Erik. (2013). Buddhism in China: Collected Papers of Erik Zürcher. Brill.