THE CHÁN TEACHING OF NÁNYÁNG HUÌZHŌNG (-775) IN
TANGUT TRANSLATION
KIRILL SOLONIN (FOGUANG UNIVERSITY)1
1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Among the Khara Khoto fndings, scholars have discovered a group of texts
which may generally be identifed as Chán Buddhist materials. These texts
are not as numerous as one might expect; traditional genres of Northern
Sòng Chán Buddhism (such as “transmission of the Lamp” histories and
“recorded sayings” collections) are scarce in the Tangut collections in St.
Petersburg and elsewhere. This phenomenon confrms the general impression that the Buddhist schools which had determined the general framework
of Sòng Buddhism (including various versions of Chán Buddhism as well
1
This paper could only have appeared with the help and guidance of my colleagues. John
McRae was a careful reader and suggested a lot both in terms of English expression and
actual content. Lín Yīngchìn 林英津 of Academia Sinica, Niè Hóngyīn 聶 鴻音 and Sūn
Bójūn 孙伯君 from the Academy of Social Sciences contributed a lot into my research as
well as Guillaume Jacques. The research of these scholars allows more adequate and
accurate reading of the Tangut texts. I was greatly assisted by Dr. Irina Popova, Dr.
Arakawa Shintarō 荒 川 慎 太 郎 , Dr. Cristoph Anderl, Dr. Ron Judy and others. Special
thanks to the anonymous reviewer of the paper, who provided me with valuable comments.
Needless to say, the mistakes and inadequacies are solely my responsibility, while the merit
generated by this work (if any at all) should go for the beneft of the people mentioned
above. Also, I would like to thank the group of students, including Wáng Péipéi 王 培 培 、
An Yā 安 婭 , Sūn Yǐngxīn 孫 穎 新 , Lǐ Yáng 李 楊 , and Hán Xiāoruì 韓 瀟 銳 from the
Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing who helped me enormously in the computer input of
the Tangut text.
However, Tangut Buddhist texts include a substantial number of Pure Land
compilations, some of which might be related to the period of Tiāntái and Pure Land
convergence (e.g. the works of Sìmíng Zhìlǐ 四 明 智 禮 and Zūnshì 遵 式 during the
Northern Sòng, but research into this body of materials is insufcient. The same applies to
the texts produced by the Dharma Propagation Bureau (傳法院, originally Sūtra Translation
Bureau 譯經院) of the Northern Sòng: the Tangut repertoire should be compared with the
list of works translated during the Northern Sòng. Thus, far there only four sūtras, which
originated from the Dharma Propagation Bureau have been identifed. Comparison of the
nomenclature of texts produced by the Northern Sòng and the Khitan texts from Fángshān
seems more promising, but more research is needed. Thus, these conclusions are not fnal.
(See Nishida Tatsuo 1997: 462).
NATHAN W. HILL
275
as Tiāntaí thought) were not widespread in the Tangut State (1038–1227),
and the texts of these schools were not easily available in the areas of the
Loop of the Yellow River where the Tangut State (Xīxià Kingdom)
emerged. One exception is the set of Huáyán school compilations, especially the works collected and edited by Jìnshǔi Jìngyuán ( 晉 水 淨 源 ,
1011-1088) during the Huáyán revival in the Northern Sòng.2 Judging from
the repertoire of available texts, one might assume that Tangut Buddhism
(or at least that part of Tangut Buddhism which evolved under the infuence
of specifc Chinese Buddhist traditions) was dominated by an agenda and
textual curriculum largely independent from the mainstream development
of Sòng Buddhism. The origins of this agenda and curriculum are not clear,
but there are good reasons to believe that at least parts of it belonged to a
more general set of Buddhist traditions, which emerged in the areas
adjacent to Wǔtaíshān during the Táng (618-907) and Five Dynasties (907960) periods. Parts of this Buddhist complex evolved on the basis of late
Táng Huáyán thought and its development culminated in the Buddhism of
the Khitan Liáo state ( 遼 , 916-1125). Considering the relationship which
once existed between the Liáo and Tangut states one might further
speculate that some of the Buddhist texts discovered in Khara Khoto originated from the Khitan Empire.3 This hypothesis might explain the fact that
2
The most popular among these are, of course, Jìngyuán’s version of the Golden Lion of
Huáyán (the so-called Huáyán Jinshīzi zhāng yúnjiànjǐe 華嚴金獅子章雲間解, Tangut: 键
册 柏 磪 硉 录 Kychanov E. 1999: Entry 304 ) and Contemplation of Returning to the
Source by Fǎzàng, the text also edited by Jìngyuán ( 還源觀 (full title: Xīu Húayán āozhǐ
wàngjǐn huányuán gūan 修華嚴奧旨妄盡還源觀), Tangut: 樊 縹 蜌 Kychanov 1999: Entry
302; concerning Jìngyuán’s editing the text and the problems thereof, see Jìngyuán’s Jì
chóngxìao 紀重校, appendix to the Taishō edition of Fǎzàng’s work, T45, no 1876).
3
Among the texts of defnite Khitan origin preserved in Tangut translations (sometimes
Chinese originals are also available from Khara Khoto fndings) the most important are: The
Mirror ( 鏡 , 蔓 Tang. 413 no 2548, Kychanov 1999: 752), which is a translation of
otherwise unknown work of the famous Khitan Buddhist master Fǎchúang 法幢(also known
as Daozhen or Daochen, d. u.) The Record of the Mirror of the Mind (Xīnjìng lù 鏡心錄).
The other is The Meaning of Luminous One-Mind of the Ultimate One-Vehicle (Jīujìng
yīshéng yúanmíng xīnyì 究竟一乘圓明心義 Tangut: 篿 蜶 挨 蓕 饲 竖 絧 佬 Tang 183 no
2848, composed by the famous Khitan Master Tōnglǐ 通 理 Tangut: 佬 缊 (d. u.).
Kychanov 1999: Entry 501). This monk had once been responsible for carving of a part of
the stone sūtras in Fángshān. Works of his in Chinese have also been discovered in Khara
Khoto; e.g. Kozlov’s Chinese Collection, call number A-26). These fndings demonstrate the
connections which once existed between Tangut and Khitan Buddhists. The Mirror
demonstrates strong Huáyán afliation, while the work of Tōnglǐ is written in a very
peculiar style and might be a record of one of the master’s sermons. See Solonin (2008).
276
INTRODUCTION
the texts representing the developments of Buddhism peculiar to the
Northern Sòng period (Tīāntái works and various Chán Buddhist materials,
specifcally the collections of “recorded saying” and “transmission histories”)4 are not common in Tangut collection both in St. Petersburg and
elsewhere. A couple of Jīn dynasty “recorded sayings” texts in Chinese
occur among the Khara Khoto fndings, but these also belong to the
traditions less popular in China.5
The matter is further complicated by the evidence that in addition to
Khitan Buddhism, Tangut Buddhism was also infuenced by the popular
form of the Sòng-Yuán Buddhism known under the general rubric of the
“Teaching of the White Cloud” (Báyúnzōng 白 雲 宗 ). Thus, some of the
Buddhist texts, normally believed to originate from the period of the Xīxià
kingdom are in fact from the so-called “Canon from the Lands to the West
from Huánghé” (Héxī zàng 河西藏), which was put together by Guǎnzhǔbā
( 管 主 八 ), a Yuán Imperial Preceptor of Tangut origin on the basis of
several Chinese editions of Tripiṭaka. Guǎnzhǔbā defnitely had some
knowledge of Khitan Buddhism: he was instrumental in the process of the
4
The general development of Buddhism during the Northern Sòng is described in Welter
(2006). The introductory part of this book (especially p. 8-17) presents an overview of the
Northern Sòng Buddhist revival with the specifc references to the Chán (and its
characteristic genre of yǚlù) as well as Tīantái and the Pure Land. For an assessment of the
role of Buddhism in society and the major trends of its evolution during the Sòng see
Gregory (1999). As far as Chán yǚlù ( 語 錄 ) are concerned, there is only one Tangut
composition has been identifed as such: 况 脅 促 篸 聲 祇 贱 前 并 , Chinese: [Jinan Bixing]
chánshī suíiyuán jí 濟南 [phji xiəj 比行-tentative reading] 禪師隨緣集, Tang 398, no 2609,
2610. Kycanov (1999: Entry 669). Kychanov renders the title of this text as 河南裴休禪師
随缘集. Tangut 促 篸 may be used in this way so as to render the name of Péi Xiū, and this
reading is indeed intriguing, but in the Tangut version of Zōngmì’s Chán Preface (諸說禪
源諸詮集都序, 礠 同 聲 樊 并 镣 守 Tang 227 no 735 the frst character in the name of the
author of the Preface to Zōngmì’s work is rendered as 絊 which is a standard way to render
Chinese 裴 ). As far as Tiāntaí teachings in Xīxià are concerned, in the St. Petersburg
collection I was able to identify only one text which bears clear Tiāntaí infuence: 戊 蜌 缞
蒷 ◎ 蕭 蒾 , Chinese: 三觀九門◎ (unknown character) 鎖文 (Tang 304 no 2551; Catalog,
Entry: 647), but this composition seems to be a non-sectarian meditation manual. It is composed according to the schematic design of “the way of contemplation” ( 觀 門 ) and the
complementary of the “way of doctrinal learning” ( 教門) all incorporated into the scheme
of a “complete teaching.” (Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄 as well as Sūn Chāngshèng 孫昌盛
both believe that there are more Tiāntái-related compilations in Tangut collection in St.
Petersburg and elsewhere).
5
These texts are listed in Men’shikov (1984). However, attribution of the texts to the Jīn
dynasty as adopted by Men’shikov is sometimes erroneous.
NATHAN W. HILL
277
inclusion of some of the important Liáo works into the Chinese Buddhist
canon.6 He published the texts in the “Héxī (probably Tangut) script” in the
31st year of Zhìyuán ( 至 元 , 1291) reign period and distributed them
throughout the former Tangut territory.7 This means that some of the texts
unearthed in Khara Khoto might actually date not to the times of the
Tangut kingdom but to a much later period; this suggests that the chronology of Tangut Buddhism and the provenance of some of the Khara Khoto
textual discoveries should be reconsidered.
Generally, Buddhism in Xīxià evolved along the lines of two diferent
source traditions: the Chinese and the Tibetan. The Chinese component of
Tangut Buddhism integrated a number of diverse constituents, the most important of which were the teachings of the Huáyán school—represented by
a substantial number of works, both translated from Chinese (mostly the
works of Guīfēng Zōngmì 圭峰宗密 , 780-841 and his master Chéngguān
澄 觀 738-839) and texts which look like original Tangut compilations. 8
The dominating trend in Tangut Húayán was probably the tradition of later
Huáyán thought represented by Chéngguān and Zōngmì, while the earlier
and bigger works of Zhìyàn ( 智儼, 602-668) or even bigger compilations
by Fǎzàng ( 法 藏 , 643-712) are not found among the Khara Khoto texts.
Tangut compilations discovered in Khara Khoto demonstrate an apparent
lack of interest in the original Huáyán intellectual milieu: the philosophical
compendia of Huáyán Buddhism are not found among Tangut texts, and the
intellectual agenda is represented by the concise expositions of Huáyán
thought such as the Golden Lion by Fǎzàng. The popularity of Chéngguān
and Zōngmì might be explained both through Khitan infuence and through
6
It was probably Guǎnzhǔbā who had authorized the incorporation of the Dàozhen’s (道
, mid 11th century) work Xiǎnmì yuántōng chéngfóxīn yaòjí (顯密圓通成佛心要集) into
the Jìshā edition (磧砂藏,published in 1322) of the Buddhist canon. See Xiǎnmì yuántōng
chéngfóxīn yaò bìng gōngfo lìshēng yí hòuxù 顯密圓通成佛心要並供佛利生儀後序 T46
no1955: 1007a2-2.
7
Sūn Bójūn (2009).
8
See Solonin K. (2008). Concerning original Tangut compilations, one’s judgment
should be conservative: the history of the formation of Tangut culture in general is not as
clear as we would like it to be; and the Xīxià heritage includes texts whose Chinese or
Tibetan (some Tangut texts claim that they were translated directly from Sanskrit) originals
are not always easily identifed. Therefore the provenance of a number of Tangut works,
which had been initially considered to be original Xīxià compilations should now be
reconsidered. This includes the text of the collected saying of Hùizhōng: My frst
identifcation of the text as an original Tangut work was erroneous, but the mistake was
revealed only after several copies of the text were examined.
278
INTRODUCTION
the later engagement with the White Cloud “teaching classifcations” which
termed the doctrines of these two masters as the “Perfect Teaching”
(yuánjiào 圓 教 ) and was known for its overall reverence for the Huáyán
thought. That school probably considered its founder Qǐngjúe ( 清覺) to be
some sort of upholder of Chéngguān-Zōngmì tradition.9 Whatever might be
the situation with the actual sources of Tangut Huáyán, this paradigm of
thought had created the background against which the bulk of Chinese
Buddhism in the Tangut State evolved. Thus, the Chinese Buddhism of the
Tangut State cannot probably be identifed as Huáyán in the strict sense, but
rather as a Huáyán-oriented set of doctrines and practices. From the recent
fndings in Níngxià one can further assume that alongside Huáyán, Chinese
Buddhism in the Tangut State was also represented with the set of doctrines
and texts associated with the tradition of the Sūtra of the Perfect
Enlightenment (圓覺經).10 Research into these texts is still insufcient, but
their discovery fts well into the general scheme of the development of the
Chinese Buddhism in the Tangut state and demonstrates the deep connection between the shape which Buddhism took among the Tangut and the
tradition of Zōngmì.
As far as the Chinese Chán Buddhism in Tangut State is concerned,
among the fundamental Chán works one can only fnd the Platform sūtra11
and the Treatise on the Contemplation of the Mind,12 which had been traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma (in fact composed by Shénxiù), and
9
According to Sūn Bójūn (2009) the Tangut version of Zōngmì’s Chán Preface contains
an engraving depicting Chéngguān, Zōngmì and Qǐngjúe engaged in a discussion.
10
Recently a set of texts including a woodblock edition of the Sūtra of the Perfect
Enlightenment together with an unknown commentary had been discovered in Shānzǔigǒu
(山嘴沟) and had been published by Sūn Chāngshèng (photocopies provided by the courtesy
of the publsiher).
11
The Platform Sūtra was not a very popular text in Xīxìa: so far only scattered
manuscript fragments of Tangut translation of the same version text discovered in various
collections. For an account of the available texts, see Solonin (2008b).
12
Tang 400 no 582, 6509 (Kychanov 1995 Entry: 435) 胇 萇 菞 祇 絧 蜌 礌 皽 ; in
Chinese transcription: Dámódàshī guānxīn běnmǔ 達摩大師觀心本母.This text is preserved
as a woodblock print, which implies its greater popularity. However, the available Tangut
version difers substantially from the extant Chinese versions of the text: the title of Tangut
texts uses 礌 皽 (běnmǔ 本母) instead of a more traditional 論(菬 4464) which is normally
used to render Chinese lùn. The order of questions and answers in the text, as well as their
contents sometimes deviate from the Chinese version; Tangut text includes a Preface and a
Postface, probably compiled by the Tangut translators themselves and a fnal gatha, which is
not the one preserved in the Chinese versions. (Very brief introductions of this text see
Nishida Tatsuo 1997.
NATHAN W. HILL
279
some sort of an abridged Chán “transmission of the Lamp (dēnglù 燈錄)”
text,13 whereas the rest the Tangut Chán Buddhist curriculum was constituted by various compositions, in one way or another dependent on the
works of Guīfēng Zōngmì.
1. 2. The Works of Nányáng Huìzhōng in Tangut translation
Another popular Chán personality in the Tangut state was Nányáng
Huìzhōng (南陽惠忠?-775), once a State preceptor (guóshī 國師) during
the Táng dynasty14 and a popular fgure in the Chán movement during the
second half of the Táng period. While Zōngmì seems to have extended continued infuence on the formation and development of Tangut Buddhism in
general; the impact of his ideas is traceable throughout the whole milieu of
commentarial literature in the Tangut language which his works brought to
life,15 Nányáng Huìzhōng’s collected sayings hold an absolute record in
terms of the circulation of a single work: his collected sayings number up
to 17 copies, thus without doubt this text enjoyed unrivaled popularity
within the Tangut State. 16 Another famous work of Huìzhōng’s discovered
in the Tangut collection in St. Petersburg is a Tangut translation of
Huìzhōng’s commentary to the Prajñāpāramitā hṛdaya—a once authoritative
Chán Heart sūtra commentary, whose Chinese version is generally available
only within bigger compilations.17 Most of the copies of Huìzhōng’s col13
Tang 368 no 6238, 7117. (Kychanov 1999: Entry 756) 沟 扼 戊 ,Chinese: Dēngyào
sān 燈要三 in Chinese transcription. As it appears from the title we currently have only the
third juan of the text, devoted to the frst generation of Huìnéng’s disciples. The text
generally coincides with the relevant materials from Jǐngdé chūandēnglù (景德傳燈錄). In
fact in St. Petersburg collection there is a copy of Jingde Chuāndēng lù, which is
traditionally considered to originate from Dūnhuáng, however Rong Xinjiang believes that
the text is probably a part of Khara Khoto fndings.
14
In Tangut texts he is normally known as 唐忠國師, Tangut: 綒 瞼 繕 祇 . Tangut 瞼 is
transcribed as tśhjou, the longer version provides an alternative reading 紧 .
15
E.g. 礠 同 聲 樊 并 镣 守 距 蒾 , Chinese: 諸說禪源集都序鋼文 Tang 227, no4736
Kychanov (1999 Entry: 646); 絧 睫 矖 蒷 蒾 Chinese: 心地法門文,Tang 166 no7169, etc.
Kychanov (1999 Entry: 645).
16
See Kychanov (1999 entries: Tang 186 , no 2891, 3816, 2612, 2626, 2611, 2832,
2894, 2536, 2822, 2840, 2849, 2895, 2886, 5607, 2613, 6376, 2514).
17
This text will be discussed in more detail below. The frst pages of the woodblock
edition of Tangut text are damaged, so the original title of the text in Tangut translation is
not known, nor there are any indications on the title of the work on the baíkǒu (blank space
in the middle of a page), but Arakawa Shintarō in his recent publication (2006) has
280
INTRODUCTION
lected sayings in Tangut translation had been circulating as woodblock
printed books, which suggests even greater popularity of the State
Preceptor’s works in the Tangut State. Considering the fact that the
Buddhist scene in the Tangut State was so much dominated by Zōngmì, the
contextualizing of Huìzhōng’s works in the Tangut State poses certain
difculties, in part because of the well-known fact that animosity once
existed between Huìzhōng and the tradition of Hézé Chán ( 荷 澤 禪 ) to
which Zōngmì had sworn loyalty. Another aspect of the problem is that, by
the Sòng-Yuán period when the bulk of the Chinese Buddhist texts were
translated into Tangut, Huìzhōng was no longer in the frst tier of important
Buddhist personalities. The principles upon which the Tangut selected texts
for translation remain unclear: although some Sòng texts are in fact found
in the Khara Khoto collection, Chinese Buddhism in the Tangut State by no
means reproduced the contemporaneous Chinese Buddhist complex. Thus,
the mystery of the enormous popularity of Huìzhōng’s works in Xīxià calls
for a plausible explanation. To explain this paradox one might resort to a
twofold hypothesis: frst, the teaching of Huìzhōng was still popular at least
during the Five Dynasties and Northern Sòng periods and collected sayings
of the Master were still available in a separate edition which probably
served as the source for the Tangut translation; the second: to gain popularity the records of Huìzhōng should have been altered in such a way as not
to contradict Zōngmì’s thought. Thus, a deeper look into the Tangut translation of Huìzhōng’s collected sayings in necessary.
The texts of the collected sayings of Huìzhōng preserved in Tangut
translation can be divided into two groups: the frst and the most numerous
group consists of several variants of a shorter or abridged version of the
collection, variations among the texts belonging to this group are minor.
Thus, one might come up with a plausible suggestion that all of the texts in
this category had evolved from one common source. The second group is
represented by a much smaller number of texts (probably one or two)
which seem to be based on a quite diferent original tradition as compared
to the majority of the “shorter version” texts. The diferences in contents
between the longer and shorter versions are substantial, so one might assume that the “longer” version is derived from an alternative tradition of
Chán lore. Although there are numerous correspondences between the two
versions of the collected sayings of Huìzhōng in Tangut translation, for the
time being the most appropriate approach will be to study the texts separconvincingly demonstrated that the work in question is in fact Huìzhōng’s commentary on
Prajñāpāramitā hṛdaya.
NATHAN W. HILL
281
ately, indicating when necessary the cases where overlap occurs between
them.
The present study concentrates on the text that is representative of the
“abridged version” of Huìzhōng’s records. This text bears the title: The
Newly Carved twenty-fve Questions and Answers (Tangut: 笇 藵 舉 灯 氦
瑚 框 Chinese reconstruction: 新刻二十五問答),18 and consists of 14 “butterfy” (húdié 蝴 蝶 ) pages, 14 lines per page and 15 characters per line.
The text is preserved completely. This text serves as the basis for the
transcription and translations provided below.
The text, bearing the title Another Collection of twenty-fve Questions
and Answers by the Tang State Preceptor Zhōng while he was staying in
the Guāngzhái Temple19 represents an alternative “longer” textual tradition.
The text consists of 16 ‘butterfy’ pages, 22 lines per page, 19 characters
per line and thus is substantially bigger than the Newly Carved Questions
and Answers. In the present study this text is used mostly for reference purposes. I shall refer to it as a ‘longer version’ or ‘longer text’ in the
discussion which follows. The longer version not only includes detailed and
informative records of Huìzhōng’s encounters with various interlocutors,
both monastic and lay, who are often referred to by names, titles, or both,
but also incorporates a commentary into the body of the text; whereas the
shorter version, which is the focus of the present study, is composed of
rather brief records of Huizhong’s dialogues with unspecifed persons, and
has no commentary whatsoever.20 A detailed analysis of the two traditions
of Huìzhōng’s texts in Xīxià is already underway, but here it would sufce
to indicate the central point about them: The “longer” version overlaps
often with the extant Chinese materials on Huìzhōng preserved in various
collections of the Chán lore and is more or less in tune with what is already
known about Huìzhōng’s doctrine from traditional Chinese sources; by
contrast, the outline of Huìzhōng’s teaching as presented in the texts belonging to the “shorter” version is signifcantly diferent from what is
traditionally believed to be the core of Huìzhōng’s teaching. In other words,
the most famous of Huìzhōng’s gōngàn and discourses (such as: “calling a
servant three times” (sān huàn shìzhě 三 喚 侍 者 ), “building the seamless
18
Tang. 186 no 2536. For the initial research of the text and problems thereof see below.
The frst character in the available edition is written with a diferent radical.
19
Tang. 186 no 2514. 綒 瞼 繕 祇 萂 榴 缾 棍 科 纚 穔 玛 缾 綀 緽 佬 沏 瑚 舉 灯 氦 瑚 框
篎 守 , Chinese: 唐忠國師住光宅眾舍中時眾人問佛理二十五問答 並序.The last two
Chinese characters are reconstructed tentatively on the basis of the Chinese literary norm.
20
Some versions of this “shorter” text, especially the manuscript copies, contain
commentaries, or rather “private notes” by the copyists.
282 INTRODUCTION
pagoda” (wúfèng tā 無 縫 塔 ), “insentient beings possessing the Buddhanature” (wúqíng yǒuxìng 無 情 有 性 ), “insentient beings preaching the
Dharma” (wúqíng shūofǎ 無情說法), and “identity between the mind and
the body” (shēnxīn yīrú 身心一如) are not found in the shorter version.21
The same is true about the longer version, which however includes a
famous discussion about the “insentient beings possessing the Buddhanature.” Even in this case the critical invectives concerning the contents of
the “Southern teaching” are found in an amended and less acute form; the
laments about the corruption of the Platform Sūtra and parts of the criticism
towards the “Southerners,” especially the famous paragraph where
Huìzhōng accuses the “Southern” teaching of being “heterodox,” are
omitted. These facts allow us to suggest that Tangut texts in either version
are the translations from otherwise unknown Chinese sources. These observations alone would sufce to position the Tangut version and its alleged
Chinese original apart from the known Chinese collections: various Chinese
compilations share a more or less similar set of stories and anecdotes
involving Huìzhōng and his counterparts, and this set might possibly be
traced to a certain common source (or group of sources). 22 There are traces
of editing in the traditional Chinese accounts on Huìzhōng as well, but none
of them is as vivid as in the Tangut case.
The dating of both “longer” and “shorter texts” is highly problematic:
none of the copies which I have studied has a colophon or any indication
concerning the date of publication. One cannot rule out the possibility that
further research would actually reveal the date of publication or translation
of the text, but the problem of the dating of the Chinese original of the
Tangut text would still persist. In the following discussion I argue that
21
A more or less concise exposition of Huìzhōng’s Chán thought might be found in
various histories of Chán Buddhism, e.g.: Dumoulin (2005: 160-162). Dumoulin’s entry on
Huìzhōng contains an interesting observation of the famous Huìzhōng’s stance on the
“seamless pagoda”: Dumoulin believes that this metaphor has visible Huáyán implications.
More detailed introduction to Huìzhōng’s thought, See Dù Jìmín, Wėi Dàorǔ (2007:
227-236); Yáng Zēngwén in his History of Chán Buddhism during the Tang and Five
Dynasties also devoted a paragraph to Huìzhōng’s teachings. However, almost all the
modern research concentrates on the above mentioned topics. Most of these encounters had
been translated into Japanese or Western languages; see below, Note 25 et passim.
22
This observation will be further elaborated in future research. Although at this stage I
would like to limit myself mostly to the textual exploration of only one version of Tangut
translation of Huìzhōng’s yǔlù and will try to avoid any premature observations concerning
the actual nature of Huìzhōng’s ideas, some preliminary remarks are due to clarify the
subject.
NATHAN W. HILL
283
Huìzhōng’s encounters which constitute the text of the “shorter” version
were edited in such a way as to secure the conformity of the State
Preceptor’s teaching with the teaching of Zōngmì. Therefore the Chinese
original of the text was probably compiled in the middle of the nineth
century, but until more defnite data is acquired this remains mere speculation. I am inclined to believe that the Tangut translation of the Huìzhōng’s
sayings refects a mature stage of the translation. Therefore it would not be
inappropriate to provisionally date the Tangut translation to the late 12th13th centuries, probably after the fall of the Tangut Empire.
1.3. Nányáng Huìzhōng in the Chinese Sources
The State preceptor Huìzhōng23 was a prominent fgure in the Chán movement in the middle Tang, both from the point of view of his impact on the
development of Chán Buddhism and Chinese Mahāyāna in general. He
enjoyed rare ofcial recognition and royal favor extended to him by the
Tang emperors Sùzōng ( 肅 宗 reigned 756-763) and Dàizōng ( 代 宗
reigned 763-780). The title of the “State Preceptor,” bestowed on him by
Táng Sùzong in the second year of Shàngyuán ( 上 元 761), secured
Huìzhōng a position among the most important Buddhist leaders of Táng
23
In the available Chinese sources Huìzhōng is referred to as 慧/ 惠忠國師,忠國師,
南陽國師 etc. The date of birth is unclear, while the death is dated by the nineth day of the
12th year of the Dali (大曆-775) era. (See Zǔtáng jí (ZTJ) 祖堂集, in Lán Jífù 藍吉富, ed.
Chánzōng qúanshū 禪 宗 全 書 , 1 (Taibei: Wénshū chūbǎnshè, 2006): 494t; in the further
discussion I will refer to the modern edition of ZTJ by Zhonghua shuju (Sūn Chāngwǔ 孙昌
武 2007). There various versions of the date of the Master’s birth, but none of them are
defnite. The complete list of texts and works where Huìzhōng is mentioned in any
connection as well as his own compilations is to be found in ZTJ, 1: 171-176)
284 INTRODUCTION
China,24 and his unique Chán style made him one of the most original followers of the “immediate teaching” of the Southern Chán.
Most of what is known about Huìzhōng’s life and teachings comes from
two sections on him in Jǐngdé chūandēnglù (one entry devoted to his
biography, the other containing records of his encounters with various interlocutors; 景德傳燈錄 hereafter JDCDL),25 Liángdēng hùiyào (聯燈會要
hereafter LDHY), Zǔtáng jì ( 祖 堂 集 hereafter ZTJ) scattered remarks in
Fózǔ tǒngjì, (佛祖統記 hereafter FZT) and other historical compilations.
The alternative set of data on the State Preceptor is provided by Zànníng
(贊寧, 919-1001) in the Sòng Biographies of the Eminent Monks (宋高僧
傳, Sōng gāosēngzhùan, hereafter SGSZ).26 However, all the sources generally agree on the broad learning of Huìzhōng, and also on the fact that he
was the direct disciple of Huìnéng or obtained Dharma from the Double
Peak Mountain (Shúangfēng shān 雙峰山, that is East Mountain teaching—
Zànníng’s version).27 At the same time all the Chinese sources (except ZTJ)
24
According to the Garden of Stories from the Hall of the Patriarchs ( 祖 庭 事 苑 ) by
Shànqīng (善卿), the institution of the State Preceptor originated from the Western regions,
and was frst applied to the monk Fǎcháng ( 法常 ) of the Northern Qí. Later the title was
bestowed on the masters to whom “the whole country could resort for refuge.” In the Táng
among the Chán masters the title was applied to Shénxiù and later to Huìzhōng, meaning
that both Masters were allowed to “enter the forbidden realm in order to propagate the
teaching” (入禁中說法, 亦號國師. See Shànqīng 善卿, Zǔtíng Shìyuàn 祖庭事苑, ZZ 64:
409b15-21). This account by Shànqīng is based on the earlier explanation by Zànníng in
The Brief History of the Monks of the Great Sòng (Dà Sòng sēngshǐ lǜe 大宋僧史略, T 54:
244 c1-13. Zanning mentions Shénxìu and Hùizhōng as the State preceptors. According to
Zànníng, the tradition of appointing State Preceptors continued during the Five Dynasties as
well, there is information about the institute of the State Preceptors in the Liáo as well. The
title of the State Preceptor was also bestowed on Pǔjì and Yìfú—prominent disciples of
Shénxiù.
25
One of the frst scholarly accounts about Hùizhōng in Western scholarship probably is
the philological study of the entry on this master in Zǔtáng jí: Waley (1968: 242-246).
Huìzhōng’s entry is labeled “Gǔanglù” (廣錄) and is found in the 28th chapter of JDCDL.
For a German translation see Wittern (1998: 164-193).
26
See Sòng Gāosēngzhuàn 宋高僧傳 (SGSZ, T. 50: 762b12-63, b21). Zànníng’s account
on Hùizhōng (based on Hùizhōng’s epitaph by Fēixí) deserves special attention due to its
rich allusions and tacit indications on Huìzhōng’s teachings and his criticisms towards other
Chán traditions.
27
SGSZ: 762 b13. Welter believes that honorifc Shúangfēng shān represents the Fifth
Patriarch Hóngrén. (Welter 2006: 77), though historically it seems more appropriate to
identify “Shúangfēng shān” with the Fourth Patriarch Dàoxìn. Of course, Huìzhōng’s study
under Dàoxìn is impossible.
NATHAN W. HILL
285
are meaningfully silent about the actual nature of the relationship between
the Sixth Patriarch and Huìzhōng, thus rising doubts concerning the State
Preceptor’s claim to represent the genuine Chán teaching allegedly
inherited from the Sixth Patriarch. An alternative version is suggested by
Quánzhōu qiānfó xīnzhǔ zhǔ zǔshī sòng composed by Wéndèng ( 文僜),28
which makes Huìzhōng the successor to Qǐngyuán Xíngsī and through this
links him up with Shítóu Xīqiān.29 Thus, Huìzhōng’s scholarly afliation
was uncertain already during the Five Dynasties and still is debated. 30
Nevertheless, at least for a certain time Huìzhōng was considered to be a
successor to the whole body of the Chán heritage of the Suí and early Táng
and was appreciated as an authority on the “Southern Chán.”31 He was one
28
The concluding verse of Huìzhōng’s entry in ZTJ (ZTJ 1: 173) is identical with the one
introducing the State Preceptor in Quánzhōu qiānfó xīnzhǔ zhǔ zǔshī sòng (T 85 no 2861:
1322b23-25)
29
T 85 no 2861; Welter (2006: 67; 76-79). The fnal verses in Huìzhōng in ZTJ as well
as the entry in Quánzhōu qiānfó xīnzhǔ zhǔ zǔshī sòng are not easy to interpret, especially
given that there are substantial deviations among the versions preserved in ZTJ, Taishō and
the Dūnhuáng text of Quánzhōu qiānfó xīnzhǔ zhǔ zǔshī sòng (see Lǐ Yùkūn 1995: 36.) The
verse in Taishō reads as follows: 唐朝國師, 大播鴻猷, 曹溪探月, 渭水乘舟, 二天請問,
四眾拋等, 法才極瞻, 大耳慚羞. Tentative translation: “The State Preceptor of the Táng
Dynasty broadly propagated the Great Accomplishment ( 鴻/洪猷 synonymous with 大業);
in Cáoxī [he] searched for the moon ( ZTJ: “sun”), on the Wèi river he boarded the boat
(unknown allusion). The two lords asked for instructions (Dūnhuáng version and ZTJ:
“asked for a gāthā”, “two lords” probably implies the two emperors who maintained close
relationship with Huìzhōng); the fourfold assembly threw away everything ( ZTJ and
Dūnhuáng text read: 拋 籌 -“threw the tallies,” which does not make much sense. This
sentence is probably parallel with the following entry on Mǎzǔ: 久定身心,一時拋擲 “At
once [he] threw away the mind and body which long were in meditation (probably an
allusion on the master’s famous encounter with Huáiràng about the uselessness of the
“sitting meditation”. I follow the Taishō version. See also Welter (2006: 66); When the
Dharma talent is fully adequate, the Great Ear (allusion to the encounter between Huìzhōng
and Indian master Great Ear—one of the most famous among Huìzhōng’s gōngàn) is
ashamed.” The translation of the version of the verse in ZTJ, see Anderl (2004a: 633-634).
30
Various hypotheses concerning Huìzhōng’s afliation are discussed by Abe Choichi,
who comes to a conclusion that the tradition connecting Huìzhōng with the Sixth Patriarch
is the most reliable. See Abe Choichi (1999: 67-68). Abe Choichi bases his observations
almost exclusively on the materials from SGSZ and seems to neglect other sources.
31
Huìzhōng’s activities partially coincided in time with the campaigns, launched by
Shénhuì to establish the “Southern School”, so one of the reasons of the court interest
towards Huìzhōng was the fact he was recognized as the last student of Huìnéng (See
Wittern 1998: 165). Biography of Nányáng Huìzhōng together with several important
gōngàn is translated in Ferguson 2000: 50-56
286
INTRODUCTION
of the frst three Huìnéng’s disciples who had been summoned to the capital
by the imperial decree (the other two: Hézé Shénhuì (荷澤神會, 684-758)
and Sìkōngshān Běnjìng (司空山本淨,667-761). The substantial renown
and fame of the Master from Nányáng did not, however, outlast him: he
had only one disciple and did not established a lineage of his own.32
Nevertheless, his teaching continued to be infuential for many years to
come and the State Preceptor came to be associated with some important
Chán practices.33 Huìzhōng’s epitaph was composed by Fēixí ( 飛 錫 ), a
learned monk and one of Bùkōng’s (不空 Amoghavajra, 705-774) associates in the translation of esoteric texts. 34 Feixi’s literary style was probably
quite exceptional since he was often asked to produce epitaphs for eminent
monks, including Huìzhōng.35 This epitaph has survived only in quotations,
and served as a source for the biography of Huìzhōng in SGSZ. Huìzhōng’s
life was seemingly uneventful: out of probably more then eighty years of
his entire life span,36 Huìzhōng spent about forty years in the Dǎngzǐ Gorge
of Báiyǎn Mountains in Nányáng practicing meditation. 37 He became
32
SGSZ however mentions a number of disciples of the State Preceptor, both monastic
and lay, some of rather high standing. See Abe Choichi 1999: 78-79
33
Some instances of Huìzhōng’s impact on the development of Chán Buddhism during
the late Táng and Five Dynasties will be dealt with in the Translation part.
34
Fózǔ tǒngjì lists Fēixí as a monk of unknown lineage. However, his interests were
broad: he operated as a translator of esoteric texts, was also interested in Pure Land
Buddhism and practice of niànfó. Originally Bùkōng’s translation center was located in the
Qiānfú sì, were Huìzhōng was residing, thus, the possibility of mutual familiarity between
the two monks cannot be ruled out. (See FZTZ . T 49: 246, a4-10.) His biography is also
included into SGSZ.
35
Feixi’s biography in “Sòng Gāosēngzhuàn” (SGSZ) specifcally mentions Huìzhōng’s
epitaph. (See SGSZ T 50: 21, a15-20). Zànníng apparently had access to a number of the
epitaphs composed by Feixi, since in his assessment of Fēixí’s work he criticizes his style
for its excessiveness.
36
The traditional biographies of Huìzhōng do not provide his birth date, but unanimously
agree on the fact that Huìzhōng received transmission from the Sixth Patriarch, who passed
away in 713. Thus, Huìzhōng, in order to be able to be his student should have been born
about 690. The canonical story of Huìzhōng becoming the disciple of Huìnéng and receiving
the prediction of becoming the Patriarch and establishing Buddhism as the sole religion in
China is preserved in many historical compilations; one of the most important is the account
in ZTJ. For the earliest English translation of the relevant paragraphs, See Waley (1968:
166). For a full translation of Huìzhōng’s entry in ZTJ with an extremely meticulous
linguistic analysis see Anderl (2004b: 603-634).
37
Account in JDCDL: “His practice of the Way became known in the imperial domain”
(道行聞於帝里). Similar references are also found in SGSZ.
NATHAN W. HILL
287
famous at the court of Xuánzōng (玄宗, reigned 713-756) some time during
the Kāiyuán era through the mediation of Kāiguó gōng Wáng Jū (開國公王
琚 , 657-746),38 who was also among the followers of Hézé Shénhuì, and
other ofcials, who had been impressed by the master’s performance. This
fame as well as the petition from the court ofcials resulted in Huìzhōng’s
appointment as the abbot the Lóngxìng Temple (龍興寺) in Nányáng—an
important stronghold of Chán-Buddhism, which also used to be the abode
of Hézé Shénhuì. The honorifc “Nányáng” added to the State Preceptor’s
name probably dates back to the time of his presiding over this temple and
was also shared by Shénhuì. During the Ān Lùshān rebellion Huìzhōng
maintained loyalty to the dynasty; thus, when the court ofcials had
requested his transfer to the capital shortly after the uprising had been
pacifed, their request was granted. After being summoned to Cháng’ān by
the emperor Sùzōng in 761, Huìzhōng at frst resided in the Western
Meditation Hall (Xī chányùan 西禪院) of Qīanfú sì (千福寺). From there
he was later transferred to the Guāngzhái sì ( 光 宅 寺 ), where he stayed
during the frst years of the reign of the next emperor, Daìzōng.39 Huìzhōng
tried to engage himself in the court politics by presenting reports to the
throne on several occasions, and suggested that the norms and rituals of
Yáo and Shùn be employed in government practices, thus attracting the
attention both of the rulers and their high court ofcials. The Master from
Nányáng did not enjoy staying in the capital for too long and fnally requested permission to return to his native land. The request was granted, and
38
See Abe Choichi (1999: 70).
This account is based on the traditional biography of Huìzhōng from JDCDL.
Huìzhōng’s frst visit to Chang’an took place shortly before the Ān Lùshān rebellion, during
which Huìzhōng demonstrated profound loyalty, which was later rewarded by the court.
Huìzhōng probably moved to the Guāngzhaí temple about 763—the year when Daìzōng
ascended the throne. Some kind of special relationship was maintained between Huìzhōng
and Daìzōng as well. Sòng Biographies of the Eminent Monks provide a more informative
account on Huìzhōng. The biography of Huìzhōng in SGSZ is based partially, if not
completely, on the epitaph composed by Fēixí and presents Hùizhōng from a rather diferent
perspective: according to SGSZ Huìzhōng presented a report to the emperor indicating the
necessity of using the ways of Yáo and Shùn in the state government and through this won
the favor of the emperor and the court ofcials (See SGSZ 1: 205). The master developed a
special relationship with Sùzōng which later served as a motive for several gòng àn.
Huìzhōng section in ZTJ contains the records of several encounters between Hùizhōng and
Sùzōng and Dàizōng. (See ZTJ 1: 486b, 493t, etc.; Anderl 2004.) Huìzhōng’s supernatural
powers are recorded in the account of his encounter with the Indian master “Great Ear” ( 大
耳), which is to be found in all traditional sources about Huìzhōng.
39
288
INTRODUCTION
Huìzhōng received an opportunity to spend his last years in the area of
Mount Wǔdàng, where he established temples and mediation halls. He
specifcally requested that the newly established temples be equipped with
an edition of the Tripiṭaka. The biographical accounts summarized above
represent Huìzhōng through a more or less standardized set of positive
characteristics, whose historical accuracy is questionable. What Huìzhōng’s
accounts unanimously agree upon is the fact that the State Preceptor was
preoccupied with the polemics against the “Southerners”: his largest and
best structured encounters found in various Chinese collections are all
devoted to challenging and criticizing the foundations of the Southern
teaching, but the master never specifed to whom this term actually implied.
Huìzhōng’s activities were taking place almost simultaneously with
Shénhuì’s eforts to establish the Southern School. The Hóngzhōu movement of which Huìzhōng had probably been aware also began its rise to
prominence during his time.40 The recorded sayings of Huìzhōng demonstrate his critical stance concerning both these doctrines, which he
determined through a generalizing term the “Southerners.” Some of that
criticism, though indirectly, was made public even in Huìzhōng’s epitaph.
Although neither Shénhuì nor Huìzhōng ever mentioned each other by
name,41 and there was only a loose relationship between Huìzhōng and
Mǎzǔ, the existing records of the State Preceptor leave an impression that
he was often reacting to the teachings of these two great masters in the
formulation of his own “positive doctrine”. Needless to say, Huìzhōng’s
sayings that were incorporated into various Chán collections were extensively edited, and we are in no position to determine which of the
numerous encounters and sermons represent the ideas of the historical
Huìzhōng and what was added by someone using his name and fame to
promote his own ideas. There are several internal inconsistencies which
allow a glance on the nature of how Huìzhōng’s standing on several doctrinal issues transformed to meet certain sectarian needs: The Master
sometimes appears ambivalent in his assessment of his Chán rivals. In the
40
There are records of the Master’s written communications with Mǎzǔ, so one might
suggest that the two masters had at least superfcial knowledge of each other’s teachings.
41
See Yanagida (1989: 247-254). From Yanagida’s analysis of the available data it is
clear that the two monks had been engaged in some kind of relationship: even the Shénhuì
stele originated from the home temple (Lóngxìng sì 龍興寺) of Huìzhōng; one of Shénhuì’s
disciples Dàbēi Língtǎn ( 大 悲 靈 坦 ) later became the attendant to Hùizhōng, etc. (See
Yanagida 1989: 251-252: biography of Dàbēi Língtǎn: SGSZ,T50: 767a16-b29). Yanagida
also suggested that the refernces to “Chán guest” and the “parasite in the lion’s body” in
fact represent Shénhuì.
NATHAN W. HILL
289
famous encounter involving a letter written to him by Mǎzǔ, the State Preceptor seems to have a somewhat friendly attitude, whereas on another
occasion he accuses the “Southerners” of “adopting a robber for son” and
“selling fsh eye for a bright pearl.” The whole encounter implies a substantial degree of familiarity with Hóngzhōu doctrine, which Huìzhōng
probably could not have had, 42 and a specifc ethical stance resembling that
of Zōngmì. Thus, this encounter may be considered to be an answer to a
provocative question and the Master’s reply is exactly as expected to prove
his afliation with the learned Chán of Zōngmì’s followers. The State
Preceptor Nányáng’s famous lament that the Platform Sūtra had been
corrupted by anonymous “Southerners” also seems to refect his painful
reaction to Shénhuì’s claims; his irritation was probably caused by the
possibility that his position as the last true disciple of the Sixth Patriarch
(the claim which might have secured his high esteem among the capital
elite and was not necessarily true) could be undermined or at least
challenged.43 Complicated relationships among various Buddhist schools
probably refected factional struggle in the Táng court; from a political
perspective the Huìzhōng and Shénhuì should be considered not rivals, but
two successful upholders of the Southern Chán against other Buddhist
factions.44
The considerations concerning the editing of Huìzhōng’s collected
sayings are even truer with regard to the Tangut translation of Huìzhōng’s
collection. As will be demonstrated in the “Translation” section of the
present study, Huìzhōng’s sayings translated into Tangut were heavily
redacted or even falsifed even as compared to the extant Chinese versions;
his extant discourses and encounters demonstrate little connection with his
only extant work—the Heart Sūtra commentary (see discussion in the following section). Therefore, as John McRae has suggested, it would be
42
Observation by J. McRae in personal communication, December 8, 2009
Ishii Shūdō 石井修道(1988: 315-345) specifcally discusses the nature of the famous
polemic piece where Huìzhōng criticizes “the Southerners” for corrupting the Platform
Sūtra. However, in Yanagida Seizan’s opinion this paragraph is a probably a later addition
to Huìzhōng’s sayings (Yanagida Seizan 1989: 315). The fact of the corruption of the Platform Scripture might possibly relate to the paragraphs known only from the Japanese
versions of the sūtra: i.e. the part where Huìnéng predicts that the one who will uphold and
continue his teaching will be the one from Nányáng and will start the preaching in Luòyáng.
(Schlütter 2007: 388). One might speculate that Huìzhōng who had himself reportedly
received an inspiring prophecy from the Sixth Patriarch and was from Nányáng might have
intended the prophecy to apply to himself.
44
This point of view is expressed by Abe Choichi (1999: 79-80).
43
290
INTRODUCTION
appropriate to keep in mind that we are dealing not with the historical
Huìzhōng and the writings which express his ideas in an adequate and
historically accurate way, but with a rather fctional personality, representing certain polemic trends in Chán thought 45 of the late Táng and Five
dynasties periods. Therefore, the name “Huìzhōng” alongside representing
the Master himself is a convention indicating the amalgamation of
teachings and practices which had been attributed to or associated with him.
Although Huìzhōng was well known during his lifetime and had emperor
Sùzōng as his disciple in the meditation hall 46, had participated in crucial
Buddhist discussions, articulated his opinions concerning the most important of the doctrinal issues of mid-Táng Buddhist agenda, 47 little of his
heritage has survived. However, “Yìwén zhì” ( 藝 文 志 ) of the Sòng
History lists a collection of “recorded sayings” which might be attributed
to Huìzhōng: The Collected sayings of the State Preceptor Huìzhōng (secular family name Rǎn 冉) in one fascicle48, which did not survive in Chinese,
at least under this title as a separate work. Alongside this text, the collected
sayings of Huìzhōng were taken to Japan by Enchin (圓珍, 814- 891)49 and
Ennin (圓仁 794-864). The contents of these compilations remain unclear,
but apparently they were not very much diferent from the presentations in
JDCDL, LDHY and elsewhere.
45
To determine this kind of fctional authorship McRae suggests the term “vector of
editorial positioning” as an opposition to the “fully intentional author.” (personal
communication, December 8, 2009)
46
Various collections of Chán sayings have records of Sùzōng communicating with
Huìzhōng in the Chán manner of the encounter dialogue. These encounters are found in
JDCDL and SGSZ, ZTJ, but in neither of Tangut versions.
47
Huìzhōng articulated opinions concerning the universality of Buddha-nature, identity of
ordinary mind with the Buddha, etc. One of the most relevant issues here is Huìzhōng’s
relationship with Hézé Shénhuì and Huìzhōng’s attitude towards the “Southern Chán” and
the so-called “heresies” in Chán Buddhism. Hùizhōng never directly mentioned Shénhuì in
his discourses and was openly critical of the excessive Chán teachings which postulated the
direct identity between ordinary mundane actions and the Buddha-nature. Concerning
Hùizhōng’s relationship with Shénhuì, see Yanagida Seizan (1989: 247-254). Huìzhōng’s
relationship to the “heresies” is discussed in Jorgensen (1990: 118-141).
48
Huìzhōng Guóshī yǚ yī běn. Rǎnshì . (惠忠國師語一卷冉氏). The secular surname of
Huìzhōng was Rǎn.
49
See Rìběn bǐiqú Yuánzhēn rù Táng qiúfǎ mùlù (日本比丘圓珍入唐求法目錄), T 55,
no2171: 1101a27: Instructions by the monk Zhōng from Nányáng in one volume (南陽忠和
上言教一本)
NATHAN W. HILL
291
JDCDL contains records of several encounters between Huìzhōng and
eminent monks of his time, as well as the transcripts of his sermons.50
LDHY51 contains a set of twenty fve encounters (just like Tangut texts do,
but the set and contents of these encounters are diferent) between
Huìzhōng and diferent disciples which took place while the master was
staying in the Guāngzhái temple. Various collections of recorded sayings of
Chán masters from the Sòng and Yuán periods also mention Huìzhōng and
refer to his gōngàn, but most of these records repeat each other and can be
traced to the seminal sources on Huìzhōng, primarily to the data contained
in the ZTJ and JDCDL. A lot of Chán Buddhist anthologies compiled at
diferent times from the Northern Sòng to the Míng-Qīng periods frequently mention Huìzhōng, but add very little to what had already been
recorded in ZTJ and JDCDL. Several times Huìzhōng appears in a gigantic
exposition of Buddhist teachings in China—the Zōngjìng lù composed by
Yǒngmíng Yánshòu (永明延壽 904-975), his sayings and stories associated
with him occur in the Cóngróng lù (從容錄) by Wànsōng Xíngxiù (萬松行
秀 1166-1246) and in other collections of Chán lore. The quotations from
Huìzhōng preserved by Yánshòu are valuable since some of them are attested neither in JDCDL nor in ZTJ; the later anthologies also included
Huìzhōng’s discourses preserved by Yánshòu.52 This observation allows a
suggestion that Yánshòu had broader access to a variety of sources which
had incorporated, in one way or another, the sermons and encounters by
Huìzhōng which were later lost or had been neglected. Later the sayings of
Huìzhōng continued to appear in various Chán anthologies and fnally were
incorporated into the Collection of Recorded Sayings, Selected by the
Emperor ( 禦 選 語 錄 ), put together in 1734 by the Qīng emperor
Yōngzhèng.
1. 4. Overview of Huìzhōng’s teachings
This section deals only with some aspects of Huìzhōng’s thought, especially those which are relevant for the Tangut translation which follows and
intends to rather indicate the problems than to solve them. In terms of
presenting Huìzhōng’s teaching, scholars mostly address various discourses
50
JDCDL T. 51: 437c17-439, b19.
ZZ 79: 33b1-36a6. However, it is hard to reconstruct the actual division of the text,
which in fact includes more than 25 discourses.
52
Yánshòu’s work almost coincided with the time of the compilation of ZTJ, so for many
Huìzhōng’s accounts Yánshòu must be given priority before JDCDL.
51
292 INTRODUCTION
by Huìzhōng scattered throughout various collections of Chán lore. As
mentioned above, most of the discourses known form the traditional
sources are polemic, therefore Huìzhōng’s teaching (if there in fact was
one) can be only partially extracted form them. Another source to reconstruct Huìzhōng’ thought might be his “Preface” to Xuánzàng’s version of
the Heart Sūtra,53 composed at imperial request. Alongside the “Preface,”
Huìzhōng’s understanding of prajñāpāramitā is presented in the Three
Commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitā hṛdaya ( 般 若 波 羅 蜜多 心經 三 注 ),
probably put together sometime during the Sòng dynasty by the students of
a famous Cáodòng monk Fúróng Dàokǎi (芙蓉道楷, 1048-1118).54 The text
consists of the word by word commentary to the text by Huìzhōng, Dàokǎi
himself and the Chán Master Huáishēn from Císhòu Temple (慈受禪師懷
深 , 1076?-1132?). However, the Heart sūtra together with Huìzhōng’s
“Preface” and Commentary formed an integrated whole which circulated as
an independent text at least sometime during the Northern Sòng dynasty.55
An independent edition of the Heart Sūtra accompanied by Huìzhōng’s
“Preface” and commentary was located among the Korean Buddhist texts. 56
53
See T 8, no 0251, p. 848b23-28
The text is preserved in ZZ 26, no 533: 796-801. The version, presented in CBETA is
based on the third edition of the text carried out during the third year of Kansei ( 寬 政 ,
1792). The provenance of the text is mysterious—the available biographic data on the
compiler of the text, Fúróng Dàokǎi does not mention his interest neither in Hùizhōng nor in
Prajñāpāramitā; during the early stage of his career, this master had been associated with
the study of the Lotus sūtra. (See Jiātài pǔdēnglù, 嘉 泰 普 燈 錄 , ZZ 79, no 1559:
309a14-310a15: “Biography of the Chán Master Fúróng Dàokǎi from Tīanníng Temple in
the Eastern Capital”). Detailed study of Dàokǎi’s career see Shlütter (2008: 82-83).
55
Ui Hakuju (1948: 69-81) mentions that the text of Huìzhōng’s Preface had been
located among the stone inscriptions in Xíanníng (咸寧縣) county of Shaanxi province and
included into the Jīnshí xǜ piàn (金石續篇). The text is dated by the second year Dàzhōng
xiángfú 大中祥符—1009/10) of the Northern Sòng (Ui Hakuju however connects this date
with the Yúan dynasty (Ui Hakuju 1948: 70). Tei Sei in his study lists both the available
texts and the instances where the text by Huìzhōng is mentioned, and the earliest is by the
year 1110 (Tei Sei 2005: 62-63 et passim)
56
The Korean text is in fact even later than the Japanese edition of the Kansei era: the
printed text of the sūtra itself is dated by the ffth year Guāngwǔ (光武) of Choson (1901),
while the commentary is dated by the second year Lóngxī ( 隆熙, 1908). See Furuta Shōkin
(1973: 362-364). The provenance of the originals for this edition is not discussed, however
Furuta Shōkin mentions that the text of the commentary is diferent from the one
reconstructed by Ui Hakuju, so the two texts probably represent diferent textual traditions.
As far as I was able to determine, the Korean text is in fact clearer and has less mistakes
than the one extracted by Ui Hakuju.
54
NATHAN W. HILL
293
Recently, Arakawa Shintarō discovered an independent edition of Tangut
translation of the Heart sūtra with Huìzhōng’s commentary.57 In his publication Arakawa provides a careful reading of the text with the translation
into modern Japanese and philological analysis of the text. 58 Another
important discovery is the independent version of the sūtra with Huìzhōng’s
comments located among the Chinese texts from Khara Khoto by Tei Sei. 59
Further textual study is necessary, but even now it is clear that the version
of the Sūtra and its “Commentary” by Huìzhōng available from Khara
Khoto represent an independent textual tradition. 60 These fndings allow us
to suggest that Huìzhōng’s prajñāpāramitā thought did in reality enjoy at
least some popularity and circulated in a number of copies sufcient to
attract the attention of the people responsible for translating the texts into
Tangut. The discovery of an independent version of Huìzhōng’s
Commentary allows a suggestion that a separate volume of his Chán
encounters could have circulated at least during the Northern Sòng dynasty.
However, Huìzhōng’s Chán encounters may be connected with his
prajñāpāramitā ideas only in a very loose way: the Master from Nányáng
apparently does not quote his works in his sermons and dialogues and uses
57
Arakawa Shintarō (2006: 95-156).
It is important to note in this respect that the Tangut text (at least the opening part)
difers from all three available Chinese versions. Furuta’s reading in fact is more reliable
whereas some sentences in Ui’s version just do not make sense, e.g.: 唯覺多分, 心隨境轉,
輪回六道, 墮於邪見 (Ui Hakuju Op. cit.: 74; cf.: Furuta’s reading: 惟學多聞, 分別名相;
the rest is similar to Ui Hakuju: (“[The ordinary people] only try to attain broad learning
and discern between the names and characteristics, transform following the objects, abide in
the circle of the life and death and the six transformations and fall into the heterodox
views.”) Tangut text gives the following reading (in the Chinese transcription): 唯尋多聞,
分別名相, 心隨名相, 因境起念, 六道輪回,墮邪見間. See Arakawa Shintarō (2006:
fg. 2; 106). This reading is diferent from both Chinese versions.
59
Tei Sei (2005: 59-71). Unfortunately, in his publication of Tangut text of the Commentary Arakawa does not compare Tangut text with the Chinese version available among
the St. Petersburg fndings (TK-166, initial description see Men’shikov 1984) studies by Tei
Sei. Tei Sei did the comparison of the Chinese text from Khara Khoto with the available
versions by Ui Hakuju, Furuta Shōkin and the version kept in Daianji ( 大安寺). I have not
had access to the St. Petersburg manuscript as of late, but from what I had been able to
determine from Arakawa’s publication and extracts provided by Tei Sei, the Khara Khoto
Chinese text is probably the source for Tangut translation.
60
Tei Sei provides altogether 17 instances where the Khara Khoto text deviates from all
available Chinese texts (Tei Sei 2005: 63-68). This allows a plausible suggestion that the
Xīxià text represents an independent textual tradition. As for the date of the publication,
defnite timing of the publication is still uncertain.
58
294 INTRODUCTION
a diferent set of formulae and metaphors. This might, of course, be
explained through the diference of the genres, but is still merits further
research.61 Here it would sufce to say that some of the formulae and
metaphors found in ZTJ, JDCDL, etc. are in fact genuine: exposition of the
Master’s teaching by SGSZ, which in turn in based on Huìzhōng’s epitaph
by Fēixí, is basically retelling of some of Huìzhōng’s metaphoric utterances. As a matter of fact general tune of the State Preceptor’s entry in
SGSZ contains much less explicit polemic invectives than accounts in the
Chán histories and anthologies.
Modern scholarship until now has concentrated on just a few aspects of
Huìzhōng’s thought: mainly his ideas of “insentient beings possessing the
Buddha nature,” “insentient beings preaching the Dharma” 62 and his atti61
There is considerable Japanese scholarship on the understanding of the prajñāpāramitā
by Huìzhōng and other Chán leaders. The list of the Chán commentaries on the Heart sūtra
had been composed and the contents of the text were analyzed by J. McRae . (See McRae:
1988). McRae’s analysis of Hùizhōng’s views on the Heart sūtra, which is both poetic and
scholarly, will sufce for now, with one addition: Huìzhōng seems to have fully shared the
idea of the identity between the “mind” ( 心 ) and “dharaņī” ( 咒 ). There is a saying by
Hùizhōng which clearly indicates this opinion of the State Preceptor: “Dharaņī is the
original mind of the sentient beings; the words indicate the mind; that is why it is called
Prajñāpāramitā- dharaņī.” These examples can be multiplied so that the identifcation
between the mind and the dharaņī adopted by Huìzhōng will be even clearer. (See Furuta
Shōkin 1973: 361-369, esp.: 368. Further in the discussion this text is related to as “Furuta’s
reading”). In addition, a few indications of Huìzhōng’s actual association with preaching
Prajñāpāramitā are found in ZTJ: praising Huìzhōng, the “Chán guest” mentions, that
Huìzhōng is preaching Prajñāpāramitā for the sentient beings, couple of his encounters
provide indications of Huìzhōng’s profound knowledge of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings.
(See ZTJ 1: 169). Some formulae in Huìzhōng’s Commentary and in his encounters
demonstrate certain relationship between the two traditions; e.g. the formula 身心一如 in
the Commentary is presented as 心法一如.
62
The discussion about whether all the beings, both sentient and insentient, possess the
Buddha nature was going on in Chinese Buddhism since the time of Zhú Dàoshēng
(360-434). The best and most detailed exposition of Nányáng Huìzhōng’s teaching
concerning this particular issue as well as other important topics, is to be found in
Murakami (1996: 427-448); concise exposition of this discussion and Nányáng Huìzhōng’s
unique stance on the matter could be found in Sharf (2007: 220-222); discussion on what the
term 情 “ feelings” actually means in Chán Buddhist context and how the saying about
“insentient beings preaching the Dharma” should be understood, see Anderl (2004a:
180-184; 190-207). The discourse connected with the matter concerning whether or not the
insentient beings possess the Buddha-nature is highly polemic, and should probably be
understood in the broader context of the mid-Táng Buddhism. According to scholarly
accounts, especially those by Yanagida Seizan, whose opinion on the issue is widely
NATHAN W. HILL
295
tude to the possible corruption of the text of the Platform Sūtra by the
“Southerners” (probably by the followers or the students of Shénhuì or of
Mǎzǔ Dàoyī 馬 祖 道 一 , 709-788)63 and his criticism of the “heterodox”
teachings of Chán Buddhism. Dwelling amidst the acute orthodoxy disputes
among various Chán lineages and schools, Huìzhōng tried to maintain his
position as successor of the Sixth Patriarch: his views were not similar to
the views of Hézé Shénhuì64 of which Huìzhōng had defnitely been aware,
and in the Chinese sources known to me he never directly associated
himself with the Southern School. The association with the “Southern
School” presented in Tangut texts (in both versions) implies a quite
diferent interpretation of this term by Huìzhōng as compared to the
traditional understanding of the nature of the Souther School (see encounter
25 in the Translation section). At the same time, the negative attitude which
the Master demonstrated to “sitting meditation and looking at the purity”
( 看 淨 ) demonstrates that his attitude to the Northern teaching was also
critical:
[Someone] asked: Sitting meditation and looking at the purity, 65 what about
it? The master said: [The mind] is neither polluted nor pure. 66 Is it [really]
necessary activate the mind67 and look at the characteristic of purity?68
accepted by Japanese and Western scholarship alike, Huìzhōng’s polemics are aimed at
Shénhuì, who is presented in the encounters with Huìzhōng (at least if identifcation of the
“Southerner” and the “Chán guest” with Shénhuì is correct) as a person of biased views
who is rather unfamiliar with the scriptures. In the debates, Huìzhōng is of course the
winner. However, in some cases identifcation of Huìzhōng’s interlocutors with the
followers of Mǎzǔ seems more appropriate (See note 43). For the summary of Huìzhōng’s
teachings, see Yáng Zēngwén (1999: 237-246).
63
Most of modern scholarship follows Yanagida’s conclusions implying that the criticism
by Hùizhōng was mostly aimed at Shénhuì. However, Ishii Shūdō I think reasonably
indicates the exposition of the “southern” teaching as found in JDCDL (T 51 no2076:
437c21-c25) is diferent from Shénhuì’s teachings and closer to the ideas of Mǎzǔ Dàoyī
(Ishii Shūdō, 1988: 319-320.). Also, see above, Note 43.
64
Again, this is only a tentative observation: Ishii Shūdō (Op. cit., p. 323) indicated that
some of Hùizhōng’ sayings, especially: “Do not think neither about good nor about bad and
naturally see the Buddha nature” (善惡都莫思量, 自然得見佛性, ZTJ 1: 166) can in fact
be traced to Shénhuì’s sayings and The Biography of the Great Master Cáoxī (曹溪大師傳).
65
In the question part homonym 靜 is used instead of 淨, but in the following sentence
the Master is talking about the “purity” (淨) and not “tranquility” (靜).
66
“Neither polluted nor pure” ( 不 垢 不 淨 )—one of the few examples when Huìzhōng
actually quotes the Heart Sūtra.
67
“Activate the mind” (起心) an important Northern School term.
68
See JDCDL, T 51: 15244b19-20
296
INTRODUCTION
The general impression is such that the State preceptor probably tried to
uphold some balance between the growing Chán movement and Buddhist
doctrinal learning ( 義 學 ) or at least tried to overcome the tendency to
neglect the teaching of the sūtras, so that the Chán practice could be well
grounded in the Buddha’s teachings of the “ultimate meaning.” 69 Yǒngmíng
Yánshòu believed that Huìzhōng’s ideas confrmed his viewpoint on the
necessity of a balance between the Chán practice and doctrinal learning 70
and presented Huìzhōng’s views on the legitimacy of the Chán practices
and the proper attitude to the instructions of the masters in the following
way:
The State Preceptor Nányáng Zhōng said: The Dharma of the Chán school
[means that one should] rely on the teaching of the ultimate meaning ( 了義 )
of the One Vehicle and [thus] attain compliance ( 契 取 ) with the original
mind-ground ( 本 原 心 地 ). [Thus], what is being transmitted [in the Chán
lineages] should be identical with the Way of the Buddha and not be based on
the illusory senses ( 妄 情 ) and [teachings which] are not of the ultimate
meaning. If [one] horizontally ( 橫 ) has views and makes judgments, [he will]
raise doubts in the future practitioners and they will make mistakes, there is
no beneft in any of that. Vertically ( 縱 )71 one follows his master-artisan ( 師
匠 ) and has to accept the fundamental ideas [ 宗旨 of a school]. If [what one
gets from the teacher] is in concord with the ultimate meaning [of the
Buddha’s teaching], then one can proceed in his practice relying on this. If
[one follows?] the teachings of the non-ultimate meaning ( 不 了 義 ) [the
teachings and practices] would contradict each other. That is like a lion that
has in him a parasite, which eats fesh from the inside of the lion’s body.
Then, even if [what the master says] is not a heterodox doctrine or [the
69
This view is generally maintained by Dù Jìmín and Wėi Dàorǔ in their account of’
Huìzhōng’s teaching. This attitude of the modern scholars is supported by Huìzhōng’s
sayings, which were collected and presented by Yánshòu in Zōngjìng lù.
70
For a description of Yánshòu’s position concerning the necessity of coherence between
the Chán and doctrinal learning see Welter (2006: 155-156). Welter speculates that
Huìzhōng had some sort of nonsectarian approach to Chán, which together with his elite
connections secured him a privileged position both in ZTJ and Zōngjìng lù. See Welter
(2006: 77-78).
71
The words “horizontally” and “vertically” have many meanings in the Buddhist
Chinese; here, depending on the context, I would prefer to understand them as: “on the one
hand, on the other hand.” “Horizontally” also means “without sequence,” that is “in
communication with the peers,” while “vertically” would mean “in the line of transmission.” On other occasions, the compound 縱橫, is synonymous with 自在, 具足, 任意 and
similar terms, all meaning “naturalness” or spontaneity. (See Anderl 2004: 564)
NATHAN W. HILL
297
doctrine inspired by the] devils, it still will be able to destroy the Buddha’s
teaching.72
Here Huìzhōng appears as an opponent of radical Chán: Chán practice
should not be opposed to, but must be carried out in accordance with the
doctrinal teachings of the sūtras—especially of those with the “ultimate
meaning” ( 了 義 ). Yánshòu, who quoted this paragraph in the part of his
Zōngjìng lù devoted to the clarifcation of the relationship between
doctrinal teachings and direct understanding of the Buddha’s ideas ( 佛意),
did not see any substantial diference between Huìzhōng and the followers
of competing Chán traditions; he had included Huìzhōng along with
Guīfēng Zōngmì ( 圭 峰 宗 密 ) and Éhú Dàyì ( 鵝 湖 大 義 , 746-818—a
prominent member of the Mǎzǔ’s lineage) 73 and Huìnéng’s another disciple
Sìkōngshān Běnjìng74 into the category of the Chán teachers who, at least
from Yánshòu’s perspective, all shared common views concerning the
relationship between doctrinal teachings and the Chán practices:
From the twenty-eight patriarchs of the Western Heaven (India) and six
patriarchs of this land up to the great teacher Mǎzǔ of Hóngzhōu and the State
Preceptor Zhōng from Nányáng, Chán master Éhú Dàyì and master Běnjìng
from the Sìkōng mountain and others—each of them broadly penetrated into
the meaning of the sūtras and treatises and completely understood his own
mind. The way they instructed the students was through the indication that the
true realization is never outside one’s own chest ( 胸 臆 — the thoughts and
feelings deep inside one’s self); … thus, the teaching of the Sage should be
used as a measure of defnite authenticity ( 定量).75 False and heterodox views
are hard to remove, thus, the supreme teaching should be used as a compass
72
T 48: 418c11-15. This paragraph might imply tacit criticism towards both the Hóngzhōu and Hézé lineages which, according to Huìzhōng, were favoring the teachings of the
masters instead of the Buddha’s actual words. This paragraph is quoted in other sources as
well, and Yanagida believes that this “insect eating lion’s fesh” is Shénhuì (Yanagida
Seizan 1989: 253-254). The version of the paragraph in the Zōngjìng lù is more
straightforward than the parallel quotation in JDCDL, but the message of the both passages
is similar. This paragraph is preserved also in LDHY, where it is introduced with the
formula “[The Master] instructed the audience” ( 示眾曰)—probably one of the few actual
discourses by Huìzhōng.
73
Account of Éhú Dàyì’s career See Yáng Zēngwén 1999: 338-341
74
Considering Huìzhōng and Běnjìng together is legitimate because the two knew each
other. (See JDCDL, T 51: 244c10)
75
The term 定 量 allows a number of diferent interpretations: here I am inclined to
interpret it as 聖 教 量 — “ measure of doctrinal authority” or “source of defnite
authenticity” as opposed to 情量—“measure of sensual cognition.” This last interpretation
is based on the usage by Huángbò in Chuānxīn fǎyào. (傳心法要, T.48 no 2012: 381c19)
298
INTRODUCTION
in such a way that the followers could rely on something substantial ( 依憑有
據 ). That is why Venerable Guīfēng said that the founder of all the traditions
is Śakya, the sūtras are his words and contemplation ( 禪 - dhyāna) is his
thought (意). Words and thought do not contradict each other.76
The tenor of Huìzhōng’s criticism towards excessive forms of the Chán
practice and his emphasis on the necessity of coherence between the
doctrinal learning and the Chán practices, and his reservations about the
adequacy of certain ideas of the Hóngzhōu school, all resembled Zōngmì’s
style. As a result Yánshòu did not discern between the two masters in this
respect. Huìzhong’s concerns about ethical implications of the direct
identifcation between the actions of ordinary mind and the Buddha nature
were not unlike the doubts and reservations expressed later and in a more
elaborate fashion by Zōngmì,77 however the Master Guīfēng never mentions
Huìzhōng in any of his compilations.78 This implies that the suggestion that
Hézé Shénhuì and his tradition were a tacit target of much of Huìzhōng’s
criticism towards contemporary Chán practices is correct.79 Although
Huìzhōng seems to have shared the Mǎzǔ’s maxim of “the mind is the
Buddha” (即心即佛; Huìzhōng however preferred the formula “neither the
mind nor the Buddha” 非 心 非 佛 ), 80 his understanding of the actual
76
T 48: 418a29-b06. Cf translation of this paragraph in Welter (2006: 155-156).
Jia Jinhua (2006: 68-70).
78
This is especially interesting if one keeps in mind that Yánshòu was substantially
infuenced by Zōngmì’s ideas and quotes him extensively in all of his major works.
79
The analysis by Murakami Shun convincingly demonstrates that there were substantial
diferences in the interpretation of the Buddha-nature and especially the idea of its presence
in both sentient and non-sentient beings between Huìzhōng and Shénhuì. This contradiction
might well have been the real watershed between the two masters. (See Murakami 1996:
439)
80
JDCDL in the biography of Chán master Zìzài (自在) from the Fúniú mountain (T 51
no2076, p. 253a26-b01) mentions that Mǎzǔ had written a letter to Hùizhōng, which had
been delivered by Zìzài. Upon meeting Zìzài Hùizhōng asked him:
77
“How does the Great Master Mǎ instruct his disciples?” Zìzài answered: “The mind is the
Buddha.” The State Preceptor said: “What kind of talk is that?” And after a long while asked
again: “Is there any teaching besides that?” Zìzài answered: “Neither the mind nor the Buddha.
Or sometimes [Master Mǎ] says: “Neither the mind, nor the Buddha nor a thing.” The State
Preceptor said: “That is a bit better.”
Hùizhōng maintained certain relationship with Mǎzǔ’s tradition and probably enjoyed a
certain degree of recognition among Mǎzǔ’s followers. See Yáng Zēngwén (1999: 245-246).
However, the formulas “the mind is the Buddha” and “neither the mind nor the Buddha” (or
“no-mind” is the Way”) should probably be treated not as antonymous but as a mutually
NATHAN W. HILL
299
meaning of this sentence and the whole concept of the Buddha-nature was
diferent from that of Hóngzhōu school.81 Concerning the accusation that
his teaching is basically the same as the Hóngzhōu doctrine, the Master had
following to say:
[The guest] said: You, Master also say: “The mind is the Buddha.” The
benevolent friends from the South [teach] the same. Is [your] teaching similar
[with theirs] or diferent? You Master should not only establish yourself [i.e.
your own correctness] and deny the [teachings of] others. The Master replied:
complying parts of a single formula, implying empty and non-empty aspects of
tathāgata-garbha. (See Jia Jinhua 2006: 108-110; however this observation relates to the case
of Huángbò and other disciples of Mǎzǔ.)
81
The famous paragraph in ZTJ reads as follows:
“…[Zhìxìn] again asked: How to attain the Dharma body of the Buddha? The Master answered:
“By transcending (超) the realm of Vairocana (毘盧遮那境界).” [Zhìxìn] asked again: “How can
one transcend the Pure Dharma body?” The Master said: “One should not be attached to
searching for the Buddha.” [The student] asked again: “And which one is Buddha?” The Master
said: “The mind is the Buddha.” The student asked: “The mind has afections, how can it be the
Buddha?” The Master answered: “The nature of afections is such that they will disappear by
themselves.” The student asked: “Is it not that one has to cut of the afections?” The Master
answered: “Cutting of the afections is the teaching of the Listeners to the Voice and
Pratyekabuddhas. When one realizes that the afections [in fact] do not arise, this will be called
the great nirvāņa.” (ZTJ 1: 166-167; the translation is based on: Anderl 2004a: 615-616).
One might read this paragraph as an indication that Huìzhōng did not accept the idea of
the direct identity between the ordinary manifestations and actions of the mind and the
Buddha-nature. Realization of the original non-arising of the afections indicates that they
originally do not belong to the realm of the Buddha-nature in the same way as the clouds do
not belong to the realm of the sun: the clouds can cover the sun and conceal it, but are not
the part of its omni-luminous substance. Apparently this is how this paragraph had been
understood by Fēixí and Zànníng: according to SGSZ (1: 204-205) this Huìzhōng’s fragment
is fact polemic:
…that is why he taught about transcending (超) Pílú (毘盧, Vairocana), so that the disciples were
not attached to the search for the Buddha; that is why he talked about getting beyond ( 越 ) the
Dharma body, and hoped that the true nature will not be polluted ( 俾夫無染正性 ). Is it really
possible to go beyond Pílú or transcend the Dharma body? That is why [Huìzhōng] put the
void-like mind (虛空之心) into correspondence with the void-like principle (虛空之理); the tiny
delusions then became like clouds and haze ( 纖妄若雲翳) and the penetrating principle became
like the sun and the moon (宗通如日月).
This paragraph, although exceedingly eloquent could indicate that Huìzhōng was
opposing the teaching of those who advocated the direct identity between the ordinary
actions of the mind and the Buddha-nature, thus polluting the “true substance” and put
300
INTRODUCTION
“Sometimes the names are diferent, but the substances [which they represent]
are similar; sometimes the names are similar, but the substances difer, this is
the reason for the disorder and lack of restraint ( 濫 ). Just like the names of
bodhi, nirvāṇa, the true reality are diferent, but their substance is the same; or
the names of the true mind and deluded mind, wisdom of the Buddha and
wisdom of the world are similar, but their substance is diferent. That is, in
the South [they] mistakenly call the mind which is deluded “the true mind”,
thus recognizing a robber as a son; [they] call the wisdom of the world “the
wisdom of the Buddha”, just in the same way as the fsh eye is sometimes
erroneously taken for the bright pearl. There cannot be overall identity
[between my teaching and theirs], and the things should be discriminated
clearly ( 甄別 ). [The guest further asked]: “How to overcome this mistake?”
The Master answered: “You only have to carefully look inside of yourself ( 反
觀 ) and examine skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus one by one: is there a tiniest
thing to be obtained?” [The guest] replied: “I have carefully contemplated it,
and have not seen anything which can be obtained.” The Master said: “Have
you destroyed the characteristic of the mind and body?” [The guest]
answered: “The nature of the mind and body is such that they disappear by
themselves, what is there left to destroy?” The Master asked: “Is there any
thing outside the mind and body?” [The guest] answered: “The mind and the
body have no outside, how could there be any thing?” The Master asked:
“Have you destroyed the mundane characteristic?” [The guest] answered:
“The mundane characteristic is the absence of characteristics, what is left
there to destroy?” The Master said: “If so, than you have overcome the
mistake.”82
This segment of the text is interesting in many respects, since it clearly
introduces the diferences which Huìzhōng saw between his teachings and
the doctrines of the “Southerners”: for him the world was a creation of the
mind, which in turn is also devoid of reality and is a mere composition of
the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus. In this respect there is no division
between the mind and the body (unlike in the doctrine of the “Southerners”
presented in the beginning of this paragraph), and the careful analysis of
the mind and body reveals that neither inside nor outside there is anything
which can cause attachment. Thus, the mind and body disseminate in the
forward the proposition which implied a separation between the afections and the
Buddha-nature, which, as a “penetrating principle” is thus as bright as the sun and the
moon. One can further elaborate on this topic by saying that Zànníng (or rather Fēixí, on
whose epitaph to Huìzhōng the biography is based) interpreted Huìzhōng’s teaching through
the common early Chán metaphor of the sun and the clouds (McRae 1988: 132-136)
82
JDCDL T 51 no2076: 438c17-439a2; Wittern (1996: 183-185). Wittern also provides
the sources of allusions and metaphors used in this dialogue.
NATHAN W. HILL
301
emptiness and the “characteristic of the world” becomes “the absence of
characteristics.” The most interesting part of the above encounter for the
present research is the way this paragraph is represented in the “shorter
version” of Huìzhōng’s collected sayings in Tangut translation: the part
which involves the criticism of the “Southerners” is omitted and the Tangut
version starts with: “How to overcome this mistake in the Chán practice”
(See encounter 24 in the Translation). The above encounter in JDCDL is
clearly connected with the Huìzhōng’s theory of the identity between the
mind and the body ( 身 心 一 如 ) and is properly understood only in the
framework of this idea; whereas the Tangut version seems to be taken out
of context and thus acquires diferent meaning as compared to the available
Chinese versions, and looses its original polemic substance.
1.5. Nányáng Huìzhōng, Huáyán thought and the Tangut Translation
Another aspect of Huìzhōng’s thought to be briefy considered here is his
possible usage of Huáyán concepts in formulating his teachings. Testimony
for Huìzhōng’s afliation with the doctrinal learning ( 義 學 ) and particularly with the Huáyán intellectual paradigm, could be seen from his broad
usage of a number of the terms normally associated with the Huáyán
scholarly vocabulary: “six characteristics” ( 六 相 ), “ten bodies of the
Buddha” ( 十 身 ).83 In fact, his whole theory of the omnipresence of the
Buddha nature has an explicit Huáyán background (that is the idea
“everything being the creation of the mind” 一 切 法 唯 心 所 造 ), thus
indicating that the Preceptor from Nányáng was in a way an intellectual
successor to the Northern School of Chán, which also had been known for
its Huáyán sympathies.84 In this regard however it should be mentioned that
Huìzhōng and other Huáyán sympathizers in the various Chán lineages did
not operate within a clearly delineated system of thought of the Huáyán
school as it had been created by Zhìyàn and Fǎzàng; for these Chán leaders
Huáyán was more of an intellectual paradigm useful for an adequate
exposition of their views. Quotations which demonstrate the importance of
the Huáyán ideas for Huìzhōng are found in all of the Chinese collections
of his sayings, but even more so in Tangut translation.85 The mere fact of
83
The “ten bodies of the Buddha” are mentioned in a polemic concept and does not
allow concluding that Huìzhōng put any stock into this concept.
84
Murakami Shun (1996: 439-440). Murakami in fact believes that Huìzhōng might be
considered the intellectual successor to the Fourth Patriarch Dàoxìn (道信, 580-651).
85
Here it is interesting to mention that, as far as I was able to determine, State Preceptor
302
INTRODUCTION
Huìzhōng’s adherence to the Huáyán terminology is not surprising: the
explication of the Chán concepts through the trivia of the “principle and
things penetrating into each other without obstacles” permeated Chán
discourse all through the Táng dynasty86 and Huáyán thought provided a
suitable paradigm and adequate intellectual vocabulary for many of the
early Chán masters. More signifcant is that the Master from Nányáng, at
least as he is presented in the Chinese and Tangut encounters, put Huáyán
ideas into the core of his own concepts. For example, Huáyán thought
determined his understanding of the Buddha nature and his conclusion
about the ability of non-sentient beings to preach Dharma. With regard to
Huìzhōng’s possible Huáyán connections, one paragraph, found in various
Huìzhōng sources, is particularly interesting. That is the discussion between
Huìzhōng and the “Chán guest” from the South:
[The Chán guest] asked again: “Sentient beings and the Buddha are identical,
which means that it takes one Buddha to practice and thus all sentient beings
would attain the liberation in response. But now we see that it is not like this,
so what does this identity really mean?” The Master said: “Haven’t you seen
the meaning of the “six characteristics” in the Huáyán sūtra? In identity there
is diference; in diference there is identity; in creation there is destruction and
in destruction there is creation; in general there is specifc and in specifc
there is general. Although sentient beings and the Buddha share the same
nature, it does not deny the fact that each of them follows his own way of
perfection and gains what he has achieved. Looking at another person eating
you will never feel full yourself.”87
This paragraph introduces the concept of the “six characteristics” peculiar
to the Huáyán thought. However, the saying used by Huìzhōng had later
became a standard formula and was current as an independent text (rather,
a verse) under the title The Meaning of the six characteristics of Huáyán
never exposed his teaching in terms of “principle-things” paradigm, whereas in the Tangut
translation of his encounters he actually refers to this intellectual device.
86
The growing importance of Avataṁsaka-sūtra, Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna and
related teachings of Huáyán zōng for the development and evolution of Chán had been
demonstrated by Lü Cheng (Lǚ Chéng) as early as in 1954. (See Lǚ Chéng 2003: 342-343.
Similar ideas were shared by Yīnshùn ( 印 順 ) in his Zhōngguó Chánzōngshǐ. The
interference between Huáyán and Chán has been sufciently elaborated by Kamata Shigeo
and Yoshizu Yoshihide. See Kimura Kyotaka (2007: 221-230). The ideas of Mǎzǔ also
evolved under substantial infuence of Huáyán and tathāgata-garbha thought. See Jia Jinhua
(2006: 67-73). Abe Choichi also agrees with the Huáyán afliation of the State Preceptor
(See Abe Choichi 1999: 73-74).
87
ZTJ 1: 170; a similar paragraph is found in other accounts as well.
NATHAN W. HILL
303
(華嚴六相義) and was developed into a diagram associated with the Fǎyǎn
Wényì (法眼文益 885-958) lineage.88 The earliest use of the formula in the
Chán context is attested to in Huìzhōng’s sayings, so it seems plausible to
suggest that Huìzhōng was in fact one of its inventors and that the application to the Huáyán theory of the “six characteristics” in the Chán context
was closely associated with his teachings.
When speaking of the infuences of the specifc Huáyán teachings on the
formation Huìzhōng’s thought, one should keep in mind that direct impacts
are hard to trace in the encounters of the State Preceptor. For example,
Chéngguān’s theory of the Buddha-nature was much more sophisticated
than that of the State Preceptor and he probably did not know about
Chéngguān’s fndings due to the diference in age between the two Masters;
Zhìyàn’s ideas are not clearly identifed in his discourses as well. 89
Therefore, one should rather speak about the Huáyán-oriented approach and
general attitude based on the Huáyán idea of the “perfect interfusion”
(yuánróng 圓 融 ), which was probably embedded in Huìzhōng’s thought,
even though he never used this word. 90 This, of course, does not deny the
fact that Huìzhōng was one of the main proponents of Chán and not just a
learned monk, but at the same time he was quite at home with the parables
and metaphors originating from various sūtras, especially Huáyán.91 For
him, the ideas expressed in the Avataṁsaka-sūtra were not just mere fgures
of speech, but actual intellectual foundations on which he partially based
his own discourse. In this regard Dumoulin’s observation about possible
Huáyán roots of the “seamless pagoda”, which Huìzhōng wished erected in
his remembrance, appears to be quite relevant. The shorter Tangut version
of Huìzhōng’s collected sayings seems to be representative of this
88
Zhìzhāo 智 昭 , Réntiān Yǎnmù 人 天 眼 目 , T 48, no 2006: 324a3-12. The verse in
Wényì’s version was however enhanced. The actual author of the diagram was Lí Tōngxuán
(李通玄 635-730).
89
The issue of possible connection between Huìzhōng and Chéngguān is not as simple as
it might look like: there are several examples where Huìzhōng’s sayings seem to be
quotations from Chéngguān. This observation, if proven might be one more indication of the
nature of the editing of the Tangut version of Huìzhōng’s collecting sayings.
90
Murakami Shun tends to connect Huìzhōng’s idea of the “insentient preaching
Dharma” with the his observation that Huìzhōng’ dwelt in the “inclusive and harmonious
world of Huáyán” (華嚴圓融世界) which predetermined many of his ideas, including the
above famous maxim. (Murakami 1996: 438).
91
E.g. the dialogue with a Chán quest, where Huìzhōng talks about the realms of
Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra, then quotes Avataṁsaka-sūtra etc. during one brief encounter.
(ZTJ 1: 170). This encounter is analyzed in detail by Murakami Shun.
304
INTRODUCTION
characteristic feature of the system of thought the State Preceptor created:
despite omitting almost all of the discourses and encounters which made
Huìzhōng famous among the Chinese Chán Buddhists, the compilers of the
text which later became the source for Tangut translation carefully preserved all the Huáyán related topics and references to the Huáyán teaching,
as well as incorporating some new, otherwise unknown expositions of the
Master’s teaching. This visible Huáyán afliation might have been one of
the reasons why the collection of Huìzhōng’s sayings was popular in Xīxià,
whose Buddhist universe was otherwise dominated by Huáyán-Chán discourse; that could also be an indirect indication of Huìzhōng’s possible
popularity in Liáo, which had been known for its Huáyán sympathies and
suspicious attitude towards Chán Buddhism in general.
1.6. Some considerations concerning the contents of the Tangut Translation
The example above and others to be presented in the Translation demonstrate that the Tangut “shorter” version of the collected sayings of the State
Preceptor does not contain any criticism of competing Chán traditions; nor
does it include any of the famous discussions with the “Southerners.” As
one will see from the following, in the Tangut text Huìzhōng is represented
in such as way as to abolish all the points where doctrinal tension with
either Zōngmì, Shénhuì or Mǎzǔ (rather with the specifc understanding of
him preserved in some Tangut texts) 92 traditions could have emerged. The
means to do it had probably been the emphasis on the “learned discourses”
involving the discussions of the problems of “nature”, “mind”,
“substance”, “function”, etc. The discussion in this circumstance should
probably be arranged through the broad use of the Huáyán intellectual
paradigm. The foundation for that was already present in the State
Preceptor’s thought, and it only needed some further elaboration. The most
vivid example of such “learned” discussion is found in encounter 15 in the
Translation, where the Master discusses the diferences between the
“nature” and “substance” using the mirror metaphor which clearly
resembles the metaphor used by Zōngmì in his Chán Chart. As far as
traditional Chinese accounts on Huìzhōng allow one to conclude, the State
Preceptor was not totally uninterested in the problems of substance, nature,
etc., but his main concern was instead the relationship between the “mind
and the nature” which he explained through the metaphor of “water and
92
On the Tangut understanding of Mǎzǔ see Solonin (2003) and the discussion below.
NATHAN W. HILL
305
ice”. (This metaphor has a defnite Tiāntái background.) Exposition of the
relationship between the substance and nature through the metaphor of
bronze, its polished surface and ability to refect had probably been a
popular device within the Huáyán-Chán tradition, its use by Huìzhōng is
unattested in his sayings. Thus, one might speculate that this paragraph is
also an editorial interpolation aimed at reconciliation between the traditions
of Huìzhōng and Zōngmì.
Explication of the diference between the substance and nature through
the “mirror parable” has previously been considered characteristic of
Zōngmì’s polemic exposition of the Hézé teaching as opposed to the
Hóngzhōu lineage. If we accept the suggestion that encounter 15 really refects Huìzhōng’s opinion, then it would be him and not Zōngmì who must
be acknowledged as the one who put the mirror metaphor into wide circulation. However, the suggestion that this encounter was incorporated into the
body of Huìzhōng’s lore later is equally plausible. In this case, one deals
with the extraordinary amount of editing of the original set of textual
materials, which had been undertaken in order to reconcile the tradition of
the master from Nányáng with the teaching of Zōngmì.
The “mirror metaphor” implies the concept of “awareness” ( 靈知), for
which Zōngmì had been famous. Seemingly, encounter 21 in Tangut text
does introduce a concept which could be translated as “awareness.” 93
Although my translation of Tangut 糑 緂 as “awareness” ( 靈 知 ) is
tentative,94 the general tenor of the encounter permits the suggestion that
Huìzhōng probably had in mind a somewhat similar concept, when he said
that that “awareness does not interrupt.” This encounter has also been
heavily edited: the phrase about “awareness” is not found in the concurring
Chinese sources. Thus, the appearance of this concept in the Tangut
translation might also be considered the result of further editing of
Huìzhōng’s records in order to secure their correspondence with Zōngmì’s
postulates. Another Tangut encounter where one might notice
straightforward editing or even recreating Huìzhōng’s thought is the entry
93
The only indication that Huìzhōng might have had that kind of views found in the
Chinese sources is a phrase in his commentary on the Heart sūtra: “(explanation of the truth
of sufering) The mind is fundamentally pure and numinous; it needs not to rely on the
cultivation and realization, this is called the truth of sufering.” Here the compound “pure
and numinous” ( 清 靈 ) might be interpreted in such a way that the mind has “spiritual
ability” or “emanation”, which allows fnal enlightenment. (Full translation of the paragraph
and discussion thereof See McRae 1988: 95)
94
Tangut 糑 mjijr is a polysemantic graph being a Tangut equivalent for the Chinese 寺,
廟, and also of 神,靈 etc.
306
INTRODUCTION
number 9 in the Translation. In this paragraph the Master from Nányáng is
discussing the nature of “Dào” with a certain “immortal.” From the context
it is clear that the Master’s interlocutor is a follower of some Taoist
teaching, and the Master explains to him why his understanding of the
“Way” is superior to his opponent’s. Repeating the maxim of “Dào” as the
fundamental nature of sentient beings, he further talks of its subtlety and
concludes by saying that “Dào is the profoundest among the profound and
the gate to all the miracles” (玄之又玄, 萬妙之門.) This phrase in its original Buddhist context implies the idea of awareness (zhī 知) and is seen as
a motto of Huáyán-Chán interpretation of Hézé teaching, while in
Huìzhōng’s encounters preserved in the traditional sources one fnds
nothing similar. This Tangut paragraph is defnitely a result of editing or is
entirely falsifed: although this phrase occurs now and then in various
Buddhist sources starting with Paramārtha’s (499-569) translation of
Mahāyāna saṁparigraha-śāstra, it became widely known in the Chán
context after the publication of Chéngguān’s and Zōngmì’s works,
especially the Chán Chart and set of commentaries to the Perfect
Enlightenment sūtra, where this formula is used to describe Shénhuì’s
teaching. This means that the idea of “awareness as the gate to the
miracles” was put into circulation probably after the State Preceptor’s
death. Although Huìzhōng’s usage of this saying is more rhetoric than
meaningful and less sophisticated than in Chéngguān’s or Zōngmì’s works,
the fact that Huìzhōng actually said something at least superfcially in tune
with Shénhuì (or his supposed disciples) might also be interpreted as the
sign of reconciliation between the traditions.
One more feature allowing a suggestion that the editors of the text
probably wanted Huìzhōng to have a concept of “awareness” could be seen
in numerous indications on the ability of the nature and substance to “see”
( 見 ) and to “refect” ( 照 ). From the point of view of the compilers of
Tangut text, the notions concerning nature’s ability “see and refect” in
Huìzhōng’s collected sayings (encounter 1) occupied a crucial position in
Huìzhōng’s religious system. Although, as far as I was able to determine,
these ideas are foreign to the actual Huìzhōng’s encounters as known from
the traditional sources, at the same time, in addition to the mirror metaphor,
their introduction into the fabric of Huìzhōng’s teaching allows the drawing
up of lines between Huìzhōng and Zōngmì. The identifcation of
Huìzhōng’s “seeing” “refecting” and “awareness” with the relevant terms
in Zōngmì’s soteriological constructions, if defnitely proven, could indicate
the existence of certain conceptual connections between Huìzhōng and the
NATHAN W. HILL
307
tradition of Shénhuì. Another way to look at it will be a hypothesis that
Huìzhōng’s encounters which were incorporated into the Chinese source
text were rewritten in such a way as to secure the compatibility between the
teaching of the State Preceptor from Nányáng and Huáyán - Chán tradition
represented by Zōngmì. The frst assumption apparently contradicts the
available historical evidence (or its generally accepted interpretation);
whereas the second hypothesis appears plausible but needs more decisive
testimony.
The “gold metaphor” used to present the relationship between the
Buddha-nature and sentient beings (entry 18) which fell into Hell is of
more common nature and is widespread in various modifcations (gold and
jewelry; grain and diferent products made thereof etc.) bears visible
Huáyán favor. Normally the “gold” is referred to as a metaphor of the
“true reality” which does not change, but follows the conditions (真如不變
隨緣). This metaphor is attested several times in the Great Commentary to
the Perfect Enlightenment Sūtra (圓覺經大疏 )—Zōngmì’s magnum opus
and relevant texts and is obviously a borrowing from Fǎzàng’s Golden
Lion of Huáyán. The origin of this metaphor as used in the Huáyán texts
can probably be traced to the doctrine of the two dimensions of the “one
mind” (i.e. “the gate of the true reality” and “the gate of birth and
extinction”) as presented in the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, and
widely used in various Huáyán works to explain the relationship between
“the nature and characteristics” or between the visible forms and their
underlying reality (e.g. The Golden Lion of Huáyán). In the Chinese
sources available now Huìzhōng does not resort to this metaphor and uses
the comparison between water and ice, though under slightly diferent
circumstances. As in the case with the “mirror” metaphor I am inclined to
think that we are dealing with a case of editing or the addition of the new
materials into the original text.
The fnal testimony for possible Huáyán-Chán contamination of the ideas
presented in the Tangut translation of Huìzhōng’s collected sayings is seen
in the encounter 22 of the Tangut translation. Here the State Preceptor is
using the phrase “luminous substance stays alone” (照體獨立). This phrase
is frst attested in the so-called Huáyán xīnyaò fǎmén zhǔ (華嚴心要法門
注 )95—the record of Chéngguān’s communication with the emperor
Shùnzōng (順宗, reigned 805-806) with the commentaries by Zōngmì. The
discussion obviously took place long after the State Preceptor’s death;
therefore this encounter or at least this phrase cannot be genuine words of
95
The text is available from the Khara Khoto collection both in Chinese and in Tangut.
308
INTRODUCTION
Huìzhōng and defnitely represent a purposeful insertion aimed at indicating
the proximity between the approaches of the State Preceptor and
Chéngguān- Zōngmì trend of Buddhist thought.
In the last encounter (encounter 25) Huìzhōng presents his religious ideal
and determines his scholarly afliation. Although the translation of the Tangut text here is a bit obscure, the general balance of Huìzhōng’s utterance is
that apart from his “Dharma Gate of the Mind-ground of the Southern
school” (nánzōng xīndì fǎmén 南 宗 心 地 法 門 ), all other teachings are
produced by the people who have not yet overcome the obstacle of
ignorance. The formulation of this teaching is thus not free from certain
polemic charge, but at the same time complies with the general tune of
Huizhong’s thoughts as expressed in the preface to the Heart Sūtra, which
which also attaches specifc importance to the idea of the “mind-ground”.
The middle part of the encounter, i.e. the discussion of the virtues of the
Great Diamond man is collated out of two diferent encounters in JDCDL,
whereas the discussion of the Master’s own Dharma Gate is entirely
unattested in the Chinese sources. This observation allows a suggestion that
this term was specifcally coined in order to delineate Huìzhōng’s doctrine
against the tradition of Zōngmì.
This phenomenon should be considered together with the exposition of
the Hóngzhōu teaching as preserved in Tangut texts. 96 By comparing the
Tangut version of Huìzhōng’s records with the Xīxià works devoted to the
exposition of Hóngzhōu teaching might notice the following: the way the
Hóngzhōu doctrine is presented in Tangut * Hóngzhōu zōngshī jiàoyī and
*Hóngzhōu zōngqù kāimíng yàojì97 is very much biased toward the Huáyán
paradigm and the teaching of “mind-ground” and has little in common with
the exposition of the Mǎzǔ’s ideas in traditional sources. At the same time
both “Hóngzhōu” texts feature something which is called “Báizhàng’s
gatha” (百丈偈)98 which also introduces the concept of the “mind-ground”
in a way not unlike the one found in the Commentary to the Heart sūtra by
the State Preceptor from Nányáng. Without drawing premature conclusions,
one could still suggest that the idea of the “mind-ground” was somewhat
popular in the circles engaged in the translation of Chán texts into the
96
See Solonin (2003).
See note 99. Both texts are mentioned under the pīnyīn transcriptions
reconstructed titles.
98
The Hóngzhōu zōngshī jiàoyī just includes the text, whereas Hóngzhōu
kāimíng yàojì provides an extensive commentary impregnated with the visible
infuences. The text of gatha is unattested in the traditional sources and defnitely
something written or composed by Báizhàng.
97
of their
zōngqù
Huáyán
was not
NATHAN W. HILL
309
Tangut and among their Chinese counterparts. The reasons for such a
transformation of Chán Buddhism in Tangut State could only be seen in the
religious situation in China during the Sòng and Yuán dynasties and expect
further elaboration. The popularity of the alleged tradition of the
“mind-ground” ( 心 地 ) might explain at least parts of corrections and
additions found in Tangut text, which might be considered attempts to
reconcile the teaching of Huìzhōng and Zōngmì.
This kind of transformative approach is not something unseen among
Tangut Buddhist texts: another example of the transformation of the famous
concepts of Chinese Buddhism into the Huáyán-favored discourses of
Tangut translations might be seen in the specifc understanding of the
Hóngzhōu teaching which can be extracted from Tangut texts. These texts,
scarce as they are, demonstrate the consequences of such an approach
rather vividly. Recently two Tangut texts (again a longer and a shorter
version of the same compilation unknown from the Chinese sources) were
located in Tangut collection in St. Petersburg. 99 These texts clearly
demonstrate that the version of Mǎzǔ’s teaching known in Tangut language
had emerged as a result of some serious editing (or rewriting) of the
Hóngzhōu ideas in the light of a Huáyán intellectual paradigm. In the
course of the editing the original teaching of Mǎzǔ had been transformed in
such a way that it in fact no longer resembles (or is loosely connected with)
the original doctrine of the founder or of any of his immediate disciples. As
one will see, Huìzhōng’s collected sayings were also edited in such a way
as to both preserve Huáyán elements and exclude features which could
have indicated the State Preceptor’s repulsion of the radical Chán of
Hóngzhōu. Another objective had probably been to remove the critical
paragraphs involving Shénhuì from his speeches.
The comparison between the shorter and the longer versions creates a
strange impression: it appears that in the Tangut State there coexisted two
independent traditions of Huìzhōng’s lore. While the shorter text, which is
the main subject here, represents a rather substantially edited version of
Huìzhōng’s encounters which only loosely resembles his ideas and attitudes
99
One of these texts bears the title 穲 呈 礌 祇 残 篔 (Hóngzhōu zōngshī jiàoyí 洪州宗師
教 儀 , Tang 111 no 2529) and 穲 呈 礌 祇 谴 繌 虓 粄 扼 蘽 (Hóngzhōu zōngqù kaī
míngxūan yàojì 洪州宗趣開明宣要記, Tang 112 no 2540). See Solonin (2003). Generally
speaking the texts, especially the second one, which is an enlarged version of the frst text,
are devoted to explication of the original harmony between the teachings of Shénhuì and
Mǎzǔ, and explaining of the Mǎzǔ’s doctrine through the paradigm of “reality which
changes under the circumstances but remains immutable; remains immutable, but changes at
the same time” (真如隨緣不變;不變隨緣).
310
INTRODUCTION
known from elsewhere, the longer version of his collected sayings is much
closer to the known Chinese versions of Huìzhōng’s encounters. The origin
of this new interpretation of Hóngzhōu teaching is unclear, but as was
mentioned above its sources can be traced either to the Khitan Buddhism or
to the tradition of Báiyún school ( 白 雲 宗 ) of the Northern Sòng.
Considering the fact that Báiyún school on the one hand refuted the Chán
Buddhism, but greatly revered Zōngmì, the second option cannot totally be
ruled out.
The pure Chán heritage of Huìzhōng, as it is recorded in various
collections of his sayings includes a number of gōng’ àn, records of his
encounters with various famous Chán personalities, a few references to a
specifc Chán practice of the “circular sign” ( 圓 相 ),100 which implied
drawing circles, or making the circle signs with one’s fngers. This practice
is allegedly inherited by Huìzhōng from his master Huìnéng and was transmitted further to Huìzhōng’s only disciple Dānyuán (耽源, dates unknown),
who further passed it over to Yǎngshān Huìjì ( 仰 山 慧 寂 840-916, or
804-890).101 Thus Huìzhōng might be considered one of the founders of the
Guíyǎng tradition; at least he predicted the appearance of Yǎngshān Huìjì,
to whom the original practices of Huìnéng were destined to be
transmitted.102 However, none of the Tangut texts ever mentions this
allegedly famous practice.
These indications are sufcient to demonstrate that Huìzhōng was well
known at least during the late Táng and Five Dynasties period, but for
some reason his teachings became less popular later—though they never
completely vanished from the Chán Buddhist canon.103 In Xīxià, however,
he continued to remain famous and respected, and, as mentioned above, his
works enjoyed an outstanding circulation, far exceeding even that of the
Platform Sūtra of his hypothetical teacher, Huìnéng. 104 With the addition of
100
E.g.: ZTJ 1: 166
See Réntiān Yǎnmù, T 48: 321c10-322a6. This tradition is also supported by
Wànsōng Xíngxìu. (Cóngróng lù, T 48: 276a15-17). Discussion of this practice see Wǔ
Yǒngměng 吳永猛 1991: 53-68
102
Réntiān Yǎnmù: 321c11-12; Cóngróng lù. Ibid.
103
One of the latest expositions of Hùizhōng’s teaching is to be found in the “Recorded
Sayings Selected by the Emperor” compiled by the Qing emperor Yǒngzhèng (Shìzōng 世
宗 ) in 1734. (See 禦 選 語 錄 , ZZ 68, no1368, p.610a6-611b11). Hùizhōng’s arguments
concerning various Buddhist issues, especially the omnipresence of the Buddha-nature were
quoted by various masters, including Sìmíng Zhìlǐ.
104
The Platform sūtra was virtually unknown in the Tangut State: so far only one
manuscript of the text has been discovered. Lack of the printed copy of the text allows a
101
NATHAN W. HILL
311
Tangut translation of Huìzhōng’s commentary on the Heart Sūtra, this
makes him the most popular Chán author in Tangut State. To my mind, the
study of the Tangut translation of Huìzhōng’s dialogues could both enhance
our understanding of the development of Chán in China during the Táng
and Five dynasties and help to confgure a more sophisticated
representation of Chinese Buddhism in the Tangut State. Below are some
preliminary considerations concerning the contents of the text.
Some time ago I published a preliminary study of the Tangut text whose
title was tentatively reconstructed as: “The twenty-fve answers of the State
Preceptor Tangchang to the questions about the Buddhist principles asked
by the assembly while the [master] was staying in the monastery Palace of
Light.”105 Initially the text was identifed as a unique Tangut compilation,
representing a specifc Tangut development of Chán Buddhism richly
impregnated with Huáyán concepts and ideas, presumably ones derived
from the works of Zōngmì, who was once popular in Tangut state. Further
research established that Tangut text is in fact a translation of a certain
Chinese text—one which contained twenty-fve answers to various
questions, posed by monks before the State preceptor Huìzhōng, who is
featured in the Tangut text as the “Táng State Preceptor Zhōng” ( 唐忠國
師 ). Several entries in the text were identifed in the surviving Nanyang
Huìzhōng’s materials, thus, the Tangut “State Preceptor Tangchang” was
positively identifed as Nányáng Huìzhōng, the State Preceptor of the Táng
dynasty during the reigns of the emperors Sùzōng and Daìzōng. What
follows below is the original Tangut text, a Chinese transcription of the
Tangut text, together with the English translation.
2. PRINCIPLES OF TRANSCRIPTION.
The text of the Newly Carved Twenty-fve Questions and Answers consists
of a Preface and twenty fve encounters, each one of them is introduced
through a standard formula “Someone asked” (砫 瑚 Chinese: 或/有人問).
Although the longer version demonstrates that the Tangut translators were
not unaware of the pseudo-historical circumstances in which the dialogues
had supposedly taken place, the shorter version omits them. Thus, the
Tangut text appears to have been modeled after the early and middle Chán
suggestion that this text in fact was not so widespread and not as authoritative as one might
suggest.
105
Solonin (2006 and 2009). Both papers share erroneous identifcation of the State
Preceptor Hùizhōng.
312
INTRODUCTION
texts of the Táng dynasty rather than the “encounter dialogue” collections
of the later period.
The text chosen for this study is well preserved and in most cases allows
clear reading of Tangut characters. This study provides a readable Chinese
transcription of the text and an annotated English translation. In order to
make the transcription reliable and useful, the procedure of transforming
Tangut text into Chinese should be clarifed. The Tangut language is not
Chinese, its grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure can not always be
easily rendered through Chinese linguistic forms. The irony of the situation
is that all the available dictionaries on the basis of which the Tangut script
has been deciphered, are Tangut-Chinese or vice versa; thus, the initial step
of research into any text is the substitution of Tangut characters with
Chinese ones. This procedure was widely employed by the founders of
Tangut studies, including M. G. Morisse, A. I. Ivanov, N. A. Nevskij,
Wáng Jìngrú and others. However, the founders of Tangut studies in most
cases were comparing original texts with their Tangut translations, so they
had an opportunity to check their transcriptions against Chinese/Tibetan
originals. Thus, mistakes in the transcriptions were reduced to a minimum,
and the philological and historical conclusions reached remain reliable.
If one simply indiscriminately substitutes Tangut characters with the
Chinese ones which he fnds in various dictionaries there will be only an
illusion of understanding. What appears after the switch from Tangut to
Chinese would in fact be an incoherent set of characters rather than a
readable text. This set must be further rearranged according to the known
rules of Chinese and Tangut syntax, and ideally this would produce a reliable text in Chinese, which can later be translated into other languages. 106
However, transcription is only of limited applicability: Tangut translators
tended to model their writings after certain samples, so if a Tangut text is a
translation of a Chinese work of a certain genre (treatise, yǚlù, ritual
manual, commentary), Tangut version obviously would imitate this text in
both vocabulary and structure. Tangut translators sometimes even would
violate the order of words in a sentence in order to comply with the
original. Comparing a text with the similar texts in Chinese (although the
Chinese original of a particular work in question might be no longer
available or as yet not identifed in the corpus of Chinese Buddhist
writings) gives the transcription a certain reliability. However, when one is
dealing with an original Tangut document which was compiled with no
106
This procedure was used by R. Dunnell in her translation of the Gǎntōng Stele text
from Liángzhōu. See Dunnell R. (1995).
NATHAN W. HILL
313
Chinese or Tibetan in mind, the transcription will appear less reliable or
altogether meaningless.
Further complications are due to the fact that most studies of Tangut
grammar have been carried out on the basis of the so-called secular works.
It was long believed that the Buddhist texts, due precisely to their close
imitation of Chinese originals, cannot be valued as a legitimate source for
Tangut linguistic study.107 At present, Buddhist texts are no longer neglected, but the procedure of the “corresponding reading” ( 對 讀 ) remains
the same. The principles of the “corresponding reading” and the problems
which emerge therein were carefully researched by Lín Yīngchìn 林英津,
in her meticulous study of Tangut translation of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṁgīti
(真實名經).108 These principles might be, with slight alterations, utilized in
the transcription of other texts. While undertaking the “corresponding
reading” one should be aware that there is only limited correspondence
between the Chinese and Tangut graphs. That is to say, that one Tangut
character can represent several Chinese signs, whereas one Chinese graph,
depending on the context, can be represented by diferent Tangut
characters. The Tangut language has a number grammar particles (sufxes,
prefxes, adverbs, indicators of direction, aspect, etc.) which cannot, or can
hardly be, rendered through Chinese characters (it was mentioned as early
as N. A. Nevskij’s works, that the Chinese equivalents of certain
grammatical characters are in fact mere conventions established by Tangut
philologists and using them to render Tangut texts would lead to misunderstandings), and even if such a rendering is done, this does not help
107
Although Nishida Tatsuo formulated conditions on the basis of which the sūtras and
other Buddhist texts can be used as the sources for linguistic inquiries, more recent works
(e.g. Kepping K. B. 1985, Lǐ Fànwén’s Xìa-Hàn zìdiǎn 夏漢字典) are predominantly based
on examples from Confucian classics, military treatises, historical compilations and
phraseology provided originally by the Wénhǎi 文海 dictionary, etc. Kychanov’s Tangut
Dictionary (Kychanov 2006) in addition includes entries and examples of phraseology from
Tangut law codes and the Tangut encyclopedia The Sea of Meanings Established by the
Saints and linguistic data he had acquired compiling the Catalog of Tangut Buddhist texts as
well as vocabulary from the legal documents, thus enhancing the reference base.
108
Lín Yīngchìn (2006: 1-2; 58-61). There are some other researches of the same high
quality, devoted to the careful reading, transcription and determining the original for Tangut
translation of certain texts (e.g.: Duàn Yǜqüán 2009: 57-70), but nobody (after pioneering
works of Wáng Jǐngrú and later Nishida Tatsuo) had yet dealt with a Tangut text of such
size and complexity as Zhēnshímíng jīng. Lín suggests that a Tangut text should be frst
transliterated, then rendered character by character and fnally translated. This threefold
procedure allows one to arrive at a more adequate understanding of the text in question.
314
INTRODUCTION
determine the actual meaning of a sentence. Below, one can fnd a brief
explication of the principles on which the transcription of Huìzhōng’s collected sayings is based. Tangut translators used fxed formulas to translate
standard Chinese Buddhist expressions, the Tangut graphs used thereby are
not mere substitutions of the relevant Chinese signs, but rather perform
their specifc semantic and syntactic functions.
Generally, the meaning of the ordinary (not grammatical indicators)
characters should be determined not only on the basis of dictionary entries,
which can be sometimes misleading, but should also depend on the general
agenda of a text and particular context; multiple usage of the same graphs
or combinations thereof in various contexts, both in the text in question and
reference texts, should be taken into consideration; transcription should not
be a mere substitution, but should evolve into a meaningful translation,
carried out according to the rules, vague as they are, of Tangut and Chinese
grammar. Syntactic connections among the words in a sentence should be
made as clear as possible, so that the transcription and later translation
represents as close as possible to the actual meaning of a text—not what the
author of the transcription constructed on the basis of uncertain
presuppositions. Thus, a lot of meanings are established according to the
context and sometimes do not fully coincide with the dictionary values. The
procedure described here is not exact or fully scientifc, but allows for the
achievement of a certain degree of accuracy in reading and understanding
the text. According to Lín, the transcription procedure consists of four
phases: reading and transcribing Tangut, word by word substitution of
Tangut characters with the Chinese graphs, analysis, and a fnal re-writing
of the text into a meaningful composition. In the study which follows I am
presenting a more or less fnal result of the reading and will refer to the
linguistic problems involved only when it is absolutely imperative, and will
consider them from an exclusively descriptive and utilitarian viewpoint.
The basic sources for the linguistic references for this study are the glossar ies and word lists found in the Xīxiàyǔyì “Zhēnshímíng jīng” shìwén
yánjīu by Lín Yīngchìn, and a glossary of Buddhist terminology extracted
from the Avataṁsaka-sūtra by Nishida Tatsuo.109 Some of the transcriptions
are based on Arakawa’s edition of the Tangut translation of the Huìzhōng
Commentary to the Heart Sūtra . My own earlier research in Tangut Chán
Buddhist texts was also helpful in this respect. Other sources used for
reference were: Tangut dictionary by N. A. Nevskij, Tangut dictionaries by
109
Nishida Tatsuo (1977; 3: 63-254). Interpretation of the verbal forms is based on
Jacques (2009).
NATHAN W. HILL
315
E. I. Kychanov and Lǐ Fànwén,110 and grammatical references (if not
otherwise specifed) are based on the study of Tangut grammar by Nishida
Tatsuo.111 Personal names are transcribed through the Chinese equivalents
provided by Nevskij, since these are more adequate for the identifcation of
historical personalities. If a personal name is positively identifed, the
references are placed in footnotes. The larger text provides personal names
of Huìzhōng’s interlocutors, so further identifcations are possible in the
course of future research. As far as the Buddhist terminology in the
collected sayings of Huìzhōng is concerned, the text does not present much
difculty: it operates within the standard Chán vocabulary, and all the terms
closely reproduce the standard Tangut versions of Chinese terminology; the
titles of the Buddhist texts, quoted in the collected sayings, are also
standard and well attested in the reference tools, thus I do not comment
upon them specifcally112 and will limit myself only to the Chinese
reconstruction of the relevant terms, titles and personal names. Sometimes
the meaning of a Tangut graph is clear, but our research into the Tangut
Buddhist text is insufcient to provide it with an adequate Chinese
equivalent. Monastic names, with very few exceptions (unfortunately
Huìzhōng’s name is such a case) were translated into Tangut not
phonetically, but semantically, therefore transcribing the names using any
of the existing phonetic reconstructions does not allow any identifcations
between the monks mentioned in the text and the actual Chinese Buddhist
personalities (e.g. 膳 秸 -慧+能;矖 維 -法+達;错 库 -玉+泉).
Below I would like to demonstrate the nature of the transcription
procedure using the example of the Preface to the Collected sayings of
Huìzhōng. The Preface occupies pages 1ab-2a of the original text. Below
one will see the original Tangut text, the second line will be the character
by character Chinese rendering and fnally the version, which, to my mind,
is readable and can be used by someone not familiar with the Tangut
language.
110
Nevskij (1960); Kychanov (2006); Lǐ Fànwén 李范文 (2008).
Nishida (1964-1966). Kepping’s study of Tangut morphology is less helpful here,
since her conclusions are based mostly on the examples from secular literature.
112
Exhausting list of the sūtras and other texts, mentioned in the text below could be
found both in Kychanov’s Catalog as well as in the List of Buddhist texts in Tangut
language included into the third volume of Seikabun no Kegon kyō by Nishida Tatsuo.
111
316
INTRODUCTION
綒 瞼 113繕 祇 萂 榴 缾 棍 科 纚 穔 玛 缾 綀 緽 佬 沏 114瑚 舉 灯 氦 瑚 框
篎守
115
唐 忠 國 師 光 宅 眾 舎 內 住 時候眾 人 佛 義 / 理 問 二十
五 問 答並序
1
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
礌
0856
mər
2.76
本
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
簁
1943
nja
2.18
非
箎
1771
sjij
2.54
智
腞 116
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
贝
0306
njir
2.72
權
呢
3951
thu
1.01
立。
疥
2639
mjiij
2.35
名
礌
0856
mər
2.76
本
疥
2639
mjiij
2.35
名
哗
2194
mjij
1.36
無
箎
1771
sjij
2.54
智
腞
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
2
贝
0306
njir
2.72
權
疥
2639
mjiij
2.35
名
铜
5611
khjwɨ
1.30
說。
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
搓
0930
dju
1.03
有
丑 117
0749
phji
1.11
令
窾
1542
ku
1.01
則
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
融
4713
rjur
1.76
世
袭
5993
kha
1.17
間
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
怖
0508
ŋwu
2.01
是
疥 搓 丑
窾
2639 0930 0749 1542
113
In most cases the shorter version texts use the sign 瞼 to transcribe the master’s name.
Only one Tangut text provides a comment indicating that the name should be read as 祣 .
114
Tangut 沏 . Nishida (1964-1966: 579)—verbal prefx, “indicating of progressiveness”
of an action; Lín Yingchìn (2006: 331).
115
Translation of Tangut 篎 守 as 並序 is unattested in the sources known to me, but is
the only Chinese equivalent which seems to make sense in the given context.
116
Tangut 腞 .Nishida (1964-1966: 570); not to be mixed with 落 (might be interpreted
as the indicator of the theme of a discussion, quite diferent in meaning from 腞 ,but
habitually rendered through the same Chinese character 者).
117
Nishida (1964-1966): 丑 “causative sufx”; Lín Yīngchìn (2006: 326): 令,使令.
In case of our text 丑 corresponds with 窾 (則),thus tentative translation is probably: “if it
were so,…then.”
NATHAN W. HILL
mjiij dju phji ku
2.35 1.03 1.11 1.01
名 有 令
則
3
融
4713
rjur
1.76
世
袭
5993
kha
1.17
間
疥
2639
mjiij
2.35
名
怖
0508
ŋwu
2.01
是
癝
20
tśja
1.19
道
籄
2091
zji
2.10
最
蜶
5712
dʑjwa
1.19
竟
簁
疥
1943: 2639
nja mjiij
2.18 2.35
非 。名
搓
0930
dju
1.03
有
4
窾
1542
ku
1.01
則
吭
2997
dji.
1.67
沉
怖
0508
ŋwu
2.01
是
吭 118
2997
dji.
1.67
沉
禑
1045
da.
2.56
言
籋
2098
ŋa
2.14
我
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
订
1245
·jij
1.36
自
搓
0930
dju
1.03
有
羋
3266
dzju
2.03
主
窾
1542
ku
1.01
則
簁
1943
nja
2.18
非
贴
5498
jij
1.36
相
焊
2019
thja
1.20
彼
怖
0508.
ŋwu
2.01
是
瞭
0043
ŋwu
2.10
隨
贴
5498
jij
1.36
相
綃
2544
śjɨj
2.37
聖
5
簁; 籋 疥 疥 哗 籋 疥 篟 癏 籋
1943 2098 2639 2639 2194 2098 2639 1918 0009 2098
nja ŋa mjiij mjiij mjij ŋa mjiij mji śjwo ŋa
118
Nishida (1977: 169): 吭 -没,沉.
腞
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
317
318
INTRODUCTION
2.18 2.14 2.35 2.35 1.36 2.14 2.35 1.11 1.48 2.14
非 我 名 名 無 我 名 不 生 我
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
秲
1207
dzjar
2.74
滅
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
并
0478
śioo
1.53
集
6
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
紝 怖
2355; 0508
sã
ŋwu
1.24 2.01
散 是
哗
2194
mjij
1.36
無
簁
1943
nja
2.18
非
哗
2194.
mjij
1.36
無。
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
妒
1279
.jɨ
1.30
言
蒜
5285
ljɨ
1.29
也
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
落
3583
tja
1.20
者
截 119
2621
sjiij
2.35
思
7
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
絍
2492
dza
2.14
測
臀
5645
tji.
2.60
所
哗 120
2194,
mjij
1.36
無
簄
1946
lə
0
念
119
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
蘦
5354
thjɨ
2.28
此
翖
3316
·jiw
1.45
故
蹦
0322
tśhjwo
1.48
便
癌
0105
kju.
1.59
求
臀
5645
tji.
2.60
所
带
0944.121
mə.
1.68
無.
Nishida (1977), 截 =想,in combinations 思惟.Nevskij: in combination with 簄 gives
思 惟 . In the parallel phrases in Tangut text both signs should stand for “ordinary,
discriminating thought”, and further implications of 簄 (念)could be disregarded.
120
Nishida (1977: 190) 絍 臀 哗 =不可測. Nevskij: 絍 =望,譬喻, in composite terms
sometimes stands for: 計 , thus might be translated as the “descriptive and analytical
understanding.”
121
In fact Tangut 哗 and 带 are both rendered through Chinese 不 or 無 , but their
meaning is diferent (Nishida 1964-1966: 577-579).
NATHAN W. HILL
瞓
0415
tsu
1.1
精
腞
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
8
翍
3310
wa.
2.56
廣
翛
3320
ɣiew
1.44
學
订
1245
·jij
1.36
自
吞
5643
mjɨ
1.30
不
聁
3469
sjij
2.33
識.
蟅
5906
ńia
2.23
眾生
緛 谍 122 礌
1139 0856
jij
mər
1.36
2.76
之
本
絧
2518
njiij
1.39
心
怖
508
ŋwu
2.01
是
9
翖
3316
·jiw
1.45
故
蒜
5285
ljɨ
1.29
也
礌
0856
mər
2.76
本
絧
2518
njiij
1.39
心
贴
5498
jij
1.36
相
綃
2544
śjɨj
2.37
聖
腞
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
碧
0330
mjij
1.39
夢
聁
3469
sjij
2.33
識
瞭
0433
bju
1.03
因
122
癿
0046
ljij
2.33
見
吞
5643
mjɨ
1.30
不
319
秸
2620,
njwi
2.10
能
禨
1160
ka
2.14
離
矺
0582
thjij
2.33
如何
漓
3211
sjo
2.44
蹦
0322
tśhjwo
1.48
便
蒜
5285.
ljɨ
1.29
也
订
1245
·jij
1.36
自
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
羋
3266
dzju
2.03
在
落
3583
tja
1.20
者
笍
1599
rjir
1.79
得。
Although Tangut 谍 rendered through Chinese 之 it fully corresponds to the Chinese
character only in a limited number of cases (other possibilities: 與,於 etc.). Lín Yīngchìn
(2006: 427-428).
320
INTRODUCTION
10
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
疥
2639
mjiij
2.35
名
呢
3951
thu
1.01
立
碕
0771.
phjij
1.36
建。
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
氨
0113
śjɨj
1.42
成
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
翛
3320
ɣiew
1.44
學
魏 123
5815
tsjɨ
1.30
而
订
1245
·jij
1.36
自
11
例
3228
thjoo
1.53
妙
腕
5682
ka.r
1.83
量
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
挎
3015
lhju.
2.52
獲得
吞
5643
mjɨ
1.30
不
哗
2194
mjij
1.36
無。
融
4713
rjur
1.76
世
袭
5993
kha
1.17
中
矖
0467
tsjiir
1.93
法
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
12
沪
2191
dzjo
1.72
譬喻
臀
5645
tji.
2.60
所
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
綕
2562
wjij
2.32
有
落
3583
tja
1.20
者
篟
1918
mji
1.11
不
阶
2620
njwi
2.10
能 。
焊
2019
thja
1.20
彼
瞭
0433
bju
1.03
因
簵
1986
djo
2.64
修
箎
1771
sjij
2.54
智
綃
2544
śjɨj
2.37
聖
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
嘻
5880
ŋwu
2.01
以
论
3574
tsjij
2.33
了悟
腞
3818
mjijr
2.68
者
鞘
嘻
沪
魏
124
4507 5880 2191 5815
123
订
1245
·jij
1.36
自
Probably a mistake,Tangut 魏 should be changed to 嘻 .
且
4515
tsho
2.62
虛空
臀
5645
tji.
2.60
所
穉
1364
ŋa
1.17
NATHAN W. HILL
śio
1.50
引
ŋwu dzjo tsjɨ
2.01 1.71 1.30
以
譬喻 而
13
穁
1357125
ŋwer
1.77
似
筟
1737
ka
1.17
等
臀
5645
tji.
2.60
所
哗
2194126
mjij
1.36
無。
禑
1045
da.
2.56
語
胎
5414
rejr
2.66
多
癝
0020
tśja
1.19
道
蟍
5911
khwa
1.17
遠
321
蒜
5285
ljɨ
1.29
也
A Chinese text, which appears as a result of the rearrangement of the
transcription according to the rules of Chinese grammar, will look as
follows:
道本非道,智者權立道;名本無名,智者權說名。使有道則是世間道
使有名則是世間名。有道則是相,相非究竟;有名則是沉,沉非自在
因此聖者說: 我道非道,我名無名。我名不生,我道不滅,不集不散,
無是無非,因此乃曰: 道。道者無思可測,念亦無可求。精者不能見,
廣學自不識,如何也?道者,是眾生之本心故也。本心離相乃得自在。
聖者因夢識建立道名。道者,不修而自成,不學而自妙,以量不能得;
以智無可了悟 .世間法無有可比喻。因此聖者引虛空以比喻,而無所
似等。語多道遠。
This text is already readable and allows a coherent translation. The study
of the collected sayings of Nányáng Huìzhōng which follows further is
based on the same procedure as presented above.
The Way originally is not the Way, the Wise one provisionally established the
Way; the Name originally has no Name, the Wise one provisionally
established the Name. If the Way really was [existent], then it would have
been the mundane way; if the Name really was [existent], then it would have
been the mundane Name. If there were the Way, it would have been a
characteristic, and characteristics are not ultimate. If there were Name, this
would have been drowning, and drowning is not [when one] is his own
master. Therefore the Sage said: “My Way is not the way; my Name has no
124
Nishida (1977: 鞘 =導,引導
Nishida (1977): 穁 =比,等;筟 =等
126
Expressions with Tangut: 臀 哗 (所無,無可)are often used to render Chinese 不可 in
standard formulas such as 不可思議,不可得 etc. (Nevskij 1960;1: 369)
125
322 INTRODUCTION
name. My Name is not born and my Way does not come to extinction. [The
Way] does not accumulate and does not disperse; [in it] there are no “yes”
and no “no,” and that is why it is called “The Way.” The Way cannot be
measured by discrimination and cannot be attained by thought. The diligent
do not see it; [those of] broad learning themselves do not know it. Why is
that? That is because the Way is the original mind of sentient beings. The
original mind transcends the characteristics and attains self-mastery. The Sage
had established the Way and the Name because of the “dreaming
consciousness.” The Way is achieved naturally by itself without cultivation;
without any practice it is miraculous by itself. It cannot be attained through
measurement, nor can it be understood through wisdom. It can be compared
to none of the worldly dharmas, thus, the Sage took the “void” as a metaphor,
but there is nothing, which could be similar or equal to [this mind]. The
words are many, and the Way is far away.
Using the procedure described above, I have tried to make the Tangut
text as understandable to a reader unfamiliar with the Tangut script as I
possibly could. In the text which follows I have omitted the character by
character rendering and presented what I think to a certain degree
resembles a possible Chinese original of the Tangut text. The study is by no
means complete, but since the Chinese original of the collected sayings of
Huìzhōng is currently unavailable, the reconstructed text can probably
provide some impression of how it might have looked. Linguistic
references concerning the details of transcription are provided only when
absolutely imperative.
3. ANNOTATED TRANSLATION
1a 唐忠國師住光宅眾舍中時眾人問佛理二十五問答並序
道本非道,智者權立道;名本無名,智者權說名。使有道則是世間道
使有名則是世間名。有道則是相,相非究竟;有名則是沉,沉非自主
因此聖者說: 我道非道,我名無名。我名不生,我道不滅,不集 1b 不
散,無是無非,因此乃曰道。道者無思可測,念亦無可求。精者不能
見,廣學自不識,如何也?道者,是眾生之本心故也。 本心離相乃得
自在。聖者因夢識建立道名。道者,不修而自成,127不學而自妙,以
量不能得;以智無可了悟 .世間法無有可比喻。因此聖者以引虛空比
喻,2a 而無可似等。語多道遠。128
127
128
Cf.: Mǎzǔ: “The Way needs no cultivation” (道不用修), Jia Jinhua (2006: 123).
Cf.: JDCDL: 言多去道遠矣 (T 51: 244b24)
NATHAN W. HILL
323
The Way originally is not the Way, the Wise one provisionally established the
Way; the Name originally has no Name, the Wise one provisionally
established the Name. If the Way really was [existent], then it would have
been the mundane way; if the Name really was [existent], then it would have
been the mundane Name. If there were the Way, it would have been a
characteristic, and characteristics are not ultimate. If there were Name, this
would be drowning, and drowning is not [when one] is his own master.
Therefore the Sage said: “My Way is not the way; my Name has no name.
My Name is not born and my Way does not come to extinction. [The Way]
does not accumulate, nor does it disperse; [in it] there is no “yes” and no
“no”, and that is why it is called “The Way.” The Way cannot be measured
by discrimination and cannot be attained by thought. The diligent [ones] do
not see it; [these of] broad learning themselves do not know it. Why is that?
That is because the Way is the original mind of sentient beings. The original
mind transcends the characteristics and attains self-mastery. The Sage had
established the Way and the Name because of the “dreaming consciousness.”
The Way is achieved naturally by itself without cultivation; without any
practice it is miraculous by itself. It cannot be attained through measurement,
nor can it be understood through wisdom. None of the dharmas in the world
can be compared to it, thus, the Sage took the “void” as a metaphor, but there
is nothing, which could be similar or equal to [this mind]. The words are
many, and the Way is far away.
1. 箿 瑚 : 緽 禑 : “緁 癿 緽 氨 ” 妒 落 蘦 佬 矺 漓 ? 祇 禑 : 礌 緁 妄 阶 落 ,
癿 怖 . 礌 緁 癿 阶 癿 , 搓 籃 哗 落 ,妄 怖 . 妄 礌 焊 槽 ,萚 膌 篟 纁 落 ,緁
怖 .蘦 堡 緁 癿 谍 緽 氨 妒 蒜 .篎 瑚 : 毯 纚 酞 秲 例 贴 佬 落 ,莻 耳 怖 ?
祇 禑 : 息 簄 癿 阶 ,窾 毯 佬 怖 ; 癿 窗 癿 碽 維 緽 氨 落 ,纚 佬 怖 .搐 癿
緁 怖 .緁 落 癝 怖 ;癝 落 萚 怖 ;萚 落 緽 怖 .蘦 落 太 佬 怖 .緁 癿 礌 晰 穉
盝 ,癿 籃 篟 搓 ,癿 订 癿 哗 ,蹦 秲 佬 怖 .瑚 腞 蘦 薀 梁 省 残 蘞 .
佛語曰 130: “ 見性成佛”者,其義如何?師謂 : 本性能照
者是見。本性能見 [而]無有可見 131者是照 132也。因此本照 133無盡功行
1. 或問 :
129
129
Longer version mentions the name of Huìzhōng’s interlocutor: 即 瓤 繕 腲 ( 開 君
khwaa khjwā 國王 tentative reconstruction of a title; personal name: 絉 浦 ljuu xjwī, 劉鳳,
tentative reconstruction)
130
Tangut: 妒 (Chinese 言,說 曰). At the end of sentence indicates the direct speech.
131
Tangut: 癿 搓 籃 哗 : Chinese: 無有可見
132
Tangut: 妄 Chinese: 照,
133
Tangut: 妄 礌 Chinese: 照本.Possible translation: “original” or “innate refection.” I
think in this paragraph Huìzhōng presents the following scheme: Nature can see, that seeing
is an innate refection. The innate refection produces merits which allow to actually see
(attain) the nature, that is to transform the innate ability into the actuality. The discussion
here in a way resembles the relationship between the original nature which possesses the
324 INTRODUCTION
者是性。如此曰“見性之成佛” 134也。又問 : 生住異滅 135四相,義者
是何?師謂 : 一念能見 136則是生義。常見 137乃至成佛者是住義。 2b 見
體是性,性者是道 ,138 道者是功 139,功者是佛。此者是異理。見性本
來虛寂,不有可見。見即無見,140便滅理也。問者攝受141此[而]求學。
1. Someone asked: The Buddha said: “What is the meaning of “seeing nature
and becoming the Buddha?” The Master said: “Essential nature can refect,
that is seeing. The essential nature can see, and there is nothing to be seen,
that is the refection. Because of this “refecting the source”, inexhaustible
merits are [established], and that is nature. That is why it is called “becoming
Buddha by seeing the nature.” [Someone] asked again: “What is the meaning
of the four characteristics of being born, abiding, diference and extinction?”
The Master said: “Being able to see the “one-thought” is the meaning of
being born. [Transition] from ordinary views to becoming the Buddha is the
meaning of abiding. 2b Seeing the substance is the nature, the nature is the
Way, the Way is merit and merit is the Buddha, this is the meaning of
diference. [If] one sees that that the nature is essentially tranquil and empty,
completeness of merits and refects upon the dhārmadhātu found in the Śikşanānda’s
translation of the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna. (See T32 no1667: 587b18-19). In the
Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna the merits of the nature are understood as the “light of the
Great wisdom”, so the idea is a bit diferent from Hùizhōng’s.
134
緁 癿 谍 緽 氨 : more appropriate translation would be not: “see the nature and
become the Buddha”, but “become the Buddha through seeing the nature.” (Lín Yīngchìn:
427)
135
Chinese: 生,住,異,滅.Tangut: 毯 纚 酞 秲
136
息 簄 , Chinese: 一念,here 息 is not a numeral. I think in this context, although it
is not fully supported by other evidence, the character should be translated as “once.”
Possible translation: “momentarily action of thought”, “one moment of thought,” complies
fully with the traditional Buddhist interpretation. Usage of 息 簄 as the equivalent of 一念
is attested in Hùizhōng’s Tangut Commentary on the Heart Sūtra. (Arakawa 2006: 148)
137
Tangut: 窗 癿 Chinese: 永/常見, probably should be translated as the“views of the
permanence of self, things, body, etc.” Another version of the translation should be
“ordinary” or “everyday thoughts”, since the “permanence” in Buddhist philosophical sense
is rendered through Tangut 絢 . This last interpretation would be in a better tenor with
Huìzhōng’s polemics with the Hóngzhōu school.
138
Attested in Hùizhōng’s “Commentary”: 性即是道
139
Chinese 功/用, Tangut: 萚 .
140
Tangut: 癿 订 癿 哗 Unattested in Hùizhōng, but found in Zǐxuán (子璿) Jīngāngjīng
zuǎnyào kāndìng jì (金剛經纂要刊定記), which is an elaboration of Zōngmì’s Jīngāngjīng
zuǎnyào, thus is a composition belonging to the trend of thought adjacent to Huìzhōng’s:
“Seeing is non-seeing and this is called purity” (T33 no1702: 194c27)
141
Chinese: 攝受,Tangut: 梁 省
NATHAN W. HILL
325
[if] seeing is non-seeing: this is the meaning of extinction.” The asker
accepted this and asked for [the further] instruction.
2. 箿 瑚 : 瞪 竛 絧 膌 城 , 絢 妄 篟 笍 . 蝷 蝷 繢 菤 , 莻 耳 佬 籃 ? 祇 禑 :
菤 繢 息 緂 萯 ? 竢 禑 : 緂 籋 .祇 禑 : 緂 窾 焊 怖 .緂 纚 磀 属 筙 肒 .緂
纚 磀 属 窾 , 焊 緂 订 眮 簧 .礌 緁 葾 癿 , 窾 始 癝 谍 樊 怖 .礌 緁 緂 癿 ,
窾 焊 订 吕 菤 前 .緁 沪 繰 堡 祊 癏 ,往 蒋 繰 谍 况 ? 緁 礌 毋 篟 霹 菤 ,吞
緂 窾 翛 挡 維 怖 .瑚 腞 聯 菤 葒 窅 荺 絠 .
2. 或問: 弟子行心142時不得常照,143間間144續斷,145應何義?146師謂:
知續斷乎?147子謂: 我知。師謂: 知則是此: 住知148莫為作意。149住知
作意,則此知即成妄。見本淨性,真如150是 3a 道之源,知見本性則此
142
Tangut: 絧 膌 .Concerning the use of 膌 See Lín Yīngchìn: 377. Chinese: 心 行 .
Műller: “operations of mind, mental factors” also “intentions.”
143
Tangut: 絢 妄 Chinese: 常照.Sometimes in the Chinese texts should be 寂而常照 as
a part the exposition of śamatha-vipaśyanā. (See Zōngjìng lù, T 48 no2016: 682a6-10).
There are also other usages of the term.
144
Tangut: 蝷 蝷 Chinese: 中 中 , 間 間 . Zhēnshímíng jīng, p. 364: “in between.”
However, the interpretation of the paragraph is tentative.
145
Tangut: 糜 菤 Chinese: 續斷. For 糜 see Lín Yīngchìn (2006: 382).
146
Tangut: 莻 耳 佬 籃 If directly rendered into Chinese: 當 何 義 . If the text were
translated from the literary language, Tangut question would probably use a formula 焊 佬
矺 漓 ( 其 義 如 何 ). Although I haven’t identifed any relevant formulas in Hùizhōng’s
records (esp. in ZTJ) I am inclined to think that this Tangut sentence might render some sort
of Chinese oral expression and thus might similarly represent a Tangut colloquialism. The
usage of the graphs in this structure is discussed in Jacques (2009).
147
Tangut: 息 緂 萯 In Chinese rendering: 一知?Tangut: 萯 (the second person pronoun
used with the verb) See Lín Yīngchìn: 86-87. 息 used as an interrogative particle.
148
Tangut: 緂 纚 Chinese: 知住(According to Tangut grammar must be rendered: 住
知)
149
Tangut: 磀 属 筙 肒 Chinese: 莫為作意. Műller: “作意: to pay attention, focus on
something, mental orientation,” here: “To concentrate mind on the objects.”
150
Tangut: 始 窾 This Tangut term is normally transcribed through the Chinese 真如 and
this transcription is attested by many examples. However, a literally translation would be
真 實 , thus, the meaning of the term changes substantially: from the “truly such” to the
“truly real.”
326
INTRODUCTION
自斷將去。151性譬如水起浪 : 152何罪,水之濕?不知性本來不動斷,
則是未及學。問者斷疑歡喜而去
2. Someone asked: “When disciple activates his mind, he does not attain
“permanent refection” and is interrupted every now and then. What is the
meaning of this?” The Master said: “[You] know about the interruption?”
The disciple said: “[I] know.” The Master said: “If [you] know, then it is like
that: When you abide in knowledge, do not concentrate you mind on the
objects. If [you] abide in the knowledge and [your] mind concentrates on the
objects, then the knowledge will be itself turned into delusion. Seeing the
purity of the essential nature is the 3a source of the True Way. If [you] know
the essential nature, it [delusions] will leave naturally. The nature may be
compared with how the water produces the waves: what crime is in the
humidity of water? [You] do not know that the nature essentially does not
move and cannot be interrupted, that is why [you] have not learned anything.”
The asker had his doubts extinguished, and left with joy.
3. 砽 瑚 : 蛧 萇 瞲 禑 : “薋 稯 絧 纚 窾 , 競 蕽 矖 怖 . 薋 稯 絧 篟 纚 窾 ,
聂 綀 矖 怖 .薋 稯 篟 薋 稯 絧 纚 窾 , 蟅 教 矖 怖 ” . 礠 緽 矖 落 莻 耳 怖 妒 ?
祇禑: 蘦戊属稯癿阶落, 眮紩瞭癏怖. 絧搐礌蟔眮哗订癿落
窾, 緽矖怖. 瑚腞禑: 籄袭紩铜哗蒜妒.
3.或問: 維摩經謂: “住調伏心則是聲聞法,不住調伏心則是愚人 153
法。住調伏不調伏心則是菩薩法”。 154 何是155諸佛法者? 師謂 : 能
151
Tangut: 订 谩 前 ,Chinese: 自去 with a verbal prefx 谩(possibly: the indication
the future tense). Part of this encounter might be relevant to ZTJ 1: 166. (煩惱性自離, “the
nature of afections is such that they live by themselves”).The idea that afections should
not be removed but would rather disappear themselves as soon as the true nature is realized
seems to be one of the foundations of Huìzhōng’s thought. If further elaborated, this
observation could more defnitely indicated Huìzhōng’s afliation with the early Chán.
152
Tangut: 沪 繰 堡 祊 癏 . Chinese: 譬水如起浪,(比如水起浪).
153
Tangut: 聂 綀
154
Original text: 若住不調伏心,是愚人法;若住調伏心,是聲聞法.是故菩薩不當住
於 調 伏 、 不 調 伏 心 , 離 此 二 法 , 是 菩 薩 行 .(Vimalakirtinirdeśa in Kumārajiva’s
translation). T14 no0475: 545b23-24
155
Interrogation formula: 莻 耳 怖 . This formula is used throughout the text and I render
it through Chinese 何也 as a convention.
NATHAN W. HILL
327
見此三調伏者,是因妄思起 1563b。即見心157體本來無妄者,則是佛法。
問者謂: “甚中,158是不可思議。”159
3. Someone asked: “The Vimalakirti-sūtra says: “Abiding in the controlled
mind is the Dharma of the Listeners to the Voice. Not abiding in the
controlled mind is the Dharma of the stupid. Abiding [both] in controlled
mind and uncontrolled mind is the Dharma of bodhisattvas.” What is the
Dharma of Buddhas?” The Master said: “The ability to see these three
regulations and suppressions arises from the deluded discriminations. 3b
Seeing that the substance originally does not have any delusions is the
Dharma of the Buddha.” The asker said: “How extremely profound this is.”
4. 箿 瑚 : 妹 绢 膳 落 , 莻 耳 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 緁 癿 盝 葾 落 , 妹 怖 . 緁 癿 盝
葾 , 搐 碭 铺 哗 , 融 澎 篟 潜 , 始 始 篟 霹 落 , 绢 怖 .搐 緁 碭 哗 , 沪 緝
饶堡, 科絸苔墅, 膌薸猫哗落, 膳怖. 瑚腞禑: 遍礝蟅緳緛, 蘦
论挨哗. 拌瞤菭却铜臀帛綕.
戒定慧161者,何也?師謂 : 見性寂靜者是戒。見性寂靜,
體無邊界,不從流世,162真真不動者是定。體性無邊,譬如玻璃,內
外光明,各行無礙163者是慧。問者謂: 千萬眾生無一解此。自古苦勞,
有何可說?164
4. 或問 :
156
160
Tangut: 眮 紩 瞭 癏 . Lín Yīgchìn (2006: 345) reads Tangut 眮 紩 as 妄思(vikalpo-分
别).
157
Tangut: 絧 搐 礌 晰 眮 哗 订 癿 落 窾 緽 矖 怖 . In this sentence structure, everything
before 落 (in Chinese transcription: 心體本於妄無自見者) is the subject of the utterance.
The previous sentence is parallel to this one.
158
Tangut: 籄 袭 .I cannot explain the usage here, Tangut expression probably is
equivalent to the Chinese: 甚哉.
159
Tangut: 紩 铜 臀 哗 (不可思議)—standard Buddhist formula. In our text, however:
紩 铜 哗 (不思議).
160
In the longer version, the name of Hùizhōng’s discussant is 稙 祼 碞 塘 (thjij tśjow
gjuu śiə 田張玉使 ), whose personal name was 伸 祼 瞼 ( 孫長 中?). Tangut 碞 塘 can be
provisionally reconstructed as a transcription of Chinese 禦 史 , thus, the name of the
Master’s interlocutor could be “censor Tian Zhang.” The diference between this title and
personal name should be further clarifed. The encounter in general is unattested in the
Chinese sources. However, ZTJ features someone 魚軍容 Yǘ jūnróng, where “jūnróng” is a
military rank. The one mentioned in Tangut text could be the same person as Yǘ jūnróng
from ZTJ.
161
Tangut: 妹 绢 膳
162
Tangut: 融 澎 篟 潜 . Chinese: 不從世流/漂 For Tangut prefx 澎 , See Lín Yīngchìn
(2006: 332).
163
Tangut: 膌 薸 絥 哗 落 膳 怖 . The sentence structure similar to the one in the Note 125
164
Tangut: 铜 耳 帛 綕 . Sentence structure similar to the one in the Note 100.
328
INTRODUCTION
4. Someone asked: “What are precepts, concentration and wisdom?” The
Master said: “Seeing that the nature is pure and tranquil is precepts. Seeing
that nature is tranquil and pure, and that the substance has no limit, does not
follow the superfcial worldly [things?], [that it is] truly unmovable—this is
concentration. [When] substance and nature have no limit, when light
[penetrates] inside and outside like through the glass, when every practice [is
carried out] without obstacles—that is wisdom. The asker said: “Among the
myriad of sentient beings there is not one who understands this. From ancient
times [sentient beings] are exhausted in futility. What is there left to say?”
5. 箿 瑚 : 庭 矺 漓 簵 窾 緽 氨 笍 蒜 ? 祇 禑 : 簄 哗 搐 癿 窾 , 订 緽 氨 怖 .
篎瑚: 往堡簄哗蒜? 祇禑: 緽簧簄哗. 篎瑚: 緽篟簧簄落, 莻耳
怖? 祇禑: 緽铜埠祡矖簄笍籃哗窾, 庆单亡蘀怖妒. 瑚腞葒窅
沏絠.
5.或問 165: 4a 行如何修則得成佛也?師謂 : 無念見體, 166則是即成佛。
又問: 如何是無念?師謂 : 無念成佛。又問: 不成佛念者,何也?師
謂: 佛說: “少法念無可得167則是阿耨菩提.”168問者歡喜而去。
5. Somebody asked: “How should one cultivate 4a to become a Buddha?”
The Master said: “No thought and seeing substance—then [you] will become
Buddha.” [Practitioner] asked again: “What is no thought?” The Master said:
“No-thought becomes the Buddha.” Another question: “What are the thoughts
of those who had not yet become Buddhas?” The Master said: “The Buddha
said: “[When] there are not even the smallest thoughts about dharmas to be
obtained, then it is anubodhi.” The asker left with joy.
6. 箿 瑚 : 瞲 其 袭 铜 : 竃 鸥 若 臅 , 緥 丸 精 屠 嘻 癌 墒 属 , 窾 緽 氨 息
笍 .祇 禑 : 篟 笍 . 往 瞭 篟 笍 ? 祇 禑 : 緽 氨 落 絧 怖 . 若 臅 落 竃 怖 .
竃 落 睫 繰 莊 矩 怖 , 緽 氨 矺 笍 ? 篎 瑚 : 蘦 禑 簁 窾 , 矺 漓 笍 蒜 ?祇 禑 :
緁癿订笍? 篎瑚: 緁往礮蔎恐? 祇禑: 恐礮哗蒜. 篎瑚: 莻耳粺
籃 ? 祇 禑 : 癿 窾 絪 癿 , 篟 癿 窾 ,篎 紩 皆 嘻 笍 , 臀 篟 綕
165
The larger text mentions the name/ title of Huìzhōng’s interlocutor: 肦 笿 (yjwā wəj 元
維)
166
Tangut: 簄 哗 搐 癿 . Chinese: 無念見體
Tangut: 埠 祡 矖 簄 笍 籃 哗 .Chinese: 若干少法念無可得. Attested usage in Furuta’s
reading: 無法可得. The Tangut version is more straightforward, emphasizing that there is
not a single smallest dhrama to be obtained.
168
Tangut: 庆 单 亡 蘀 Anubodhi. Chinese: 覺知
167
NATHAN W. HILL
329
6. 或問 : 經典中說 : “ 以割身節,出血,救俗 [之]為供養” 169,則得170
成佛?師謂: 不得。[又問]: 何以不得?師謂 : 成佛者,是心。 4b 解節
者,是身。身者,地水火風也,何得成佛?又問 : 非此說,則如何得?
師謂: 見性即得。又問: 性似171與何物?師謂: 無似物也。又問: 應何理?
師謂: 見則便見,不見則又以知思172不有可得。\
6. Someone asked: “The sūtra says: “[One] dismembers the limbs and joints
of the body, lets out the blood and saves the people as [an act] of reverence.”
Will [one] become Buddha [if he does so]?” The Master said: “No.” [He was
asked again]: “Why not?” The master said: “What becomes Buddha is mind.
Limbs and joints 4b are the body. The body is earth, water, fre and wind,
how can it become Buddha?” Another question: “These words are wrong, but
then how [can one become Buddha]?” The Master said: “See the nature and it
will come naturally.” Another question: “What thing does the nature look
like?” The master said: “There is nothing for it to look like.” Another
question: “What does this mean?” The Master said: “You see it then you see
it. You do not see it, [you still] will not be able to conceive it by thinking.”
7. 砶 瑚 : 戊 菢 庆 愤 蓎 弱 落 , 莻 耳 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 繐 殆 蛆 怖 . 篎 瑚 : 矻
漓惯茫? 祇蚲: 茫落眮怖. 胎弱戊癎礌毋订穉. 蘦佬緂窾焊槽
订 菤 . 焊 茫 论 腞 ,翗 聻 毯 笍 . 緽 氨 晾 窾 緂 瞭 絧 膌 . 緽 铜 : “逗 店
篟 茫 嘻 , 筁 仅 毋 笭 妒 ”.礠 翛 腞 弛 , 緁 礌 毯 哗 挡 癿 , 絧 癏 嘻 逗 店
茫 晾 , 茫 絧 癏 落 ,订 逗 店 絧 怖 吞 緂 . 蘦 絅 腪 簧 , 粔 膁 篟 笍 . 罏 簵
腞弛, 翗絧篟癏, 簄霹哗窾, 焊槽粔膁蒜.
7.或問 : 三大阿僧祇劫173者何也?師謂 : 是貪怒癡。又問: 如何滅斷?
師謂: 斷者,是妄。 174多劫三毒本來即1755a 空。知此理,則此順即斷。
悟此斷者唯得天生。欲成佛,則因知行心。 176佛說: “以不斷煩惱入
169
Tangut: 竃 鸥 若 臅 …嘻 癌 墒 属 . The questions seems to be an inaccurate quotation
from the Shèng tiānwáng pānruòbōlūomì jīng ( 勝 天 王 般 若 波 羅 蜜 經 ). T8 no231:
718a27-28. This source was important for Shénhuì, so here is one more indication of the
possible connection between the teachings of the two masters (observation by John McRae.)
170
Tangut: 息 笍 . Interrogative construction with the particle 息 .
171
Tangut: 恐
172
Tangut: 紩 截 Chinese: 知思/想—mundane, discriminating knowledge.
173
Tangut: 庆 愤 蓎 弱
174
Tangut: 茫 落 眮 怖
175
Tangut: 订 .As it is clearly attested by Huìzhōng’ s “Commentary” to the Heart Sūtra,
Tangut 订 should be translated not as 自 but as 即 . The same translation is employed
throughout the text.
176
Tangut: 緂 瞭 絧 膌 .This paragraph is not easy to interpret, depending on the unclear
meaning of 膌 . In the Tangut version of the Heart Sūtra with Huìzhōng’ s commentary this
character represents what Avalokiteśvara “practice” (行) of the Prajñāpāramitā. Translation
330
INTRODUCTION
於涅槃。”諸弟子等不見性本無生,欲以起心斷煩惱, 177不知起斷[煩
惱之 ]心者即是煩惱心。此故成纏,[而]不得解脫。今修者唯不起心,
無動念,178則因此解脫也。
7. Someone asked: “What are the three great asaṁkhyeya kalpas?” The
master said: “[They] are greed, anger and stupidity.” [The practitioner] asked
again: “How to eliminate them?” The Master said: “Elimination is a delusion.
During many kalpas the three poisons were essentially 5a empty. [If you]
understand this principle, [they] will disappear by themselves according to
this. Those who understand this extinction [of the three poisons] will only
receive birth in Heaven [as retribution]. [Those who] desire Buddhahood
should awaken their mind basing on the wisdom. The Buddha said: “Not
eliminate the delusions and enter nirvāna.” The disciples do not see that the
nature initially is not born and wish to activate their minds to eliminate
delusions. [They] do not know that the mind which is awakened to eliminate
[delusions] is the deluded mind itself. That is how the cufs emerge and there
can be no liberation. Now the practitioners [should] not activate their minds
and should not activate their thoughts. Thus, [will] the liberation [be
achieved.]”
8. 箿 瑚 : 蟅 緛 緽 氨 息 笍 ? 祇 禑 : 篟 笍 . 篎 瑚 : 蟅 緛 篟 笍 窾 , 緽 氨
腞瞸? 祇禑: 蟅緛眮怖, 话贴纚, 魏緽氨笍充? 緽氨腞落, 蟅緛
谍 礌 緁 怖 . 篎 瑚 : 蟅 緛 礌 緁 , 往 礮 蔎 恐 ?蒜 ? 祇 禑 : 礌 緁 恐 礮 哗 ,
融 袭 沪 拖 带 ,恐 絍 臀 脖 綕 妒 .
8. 或問: 眾生得成佛?師謂: 不得。又問 : 眾 5b 生不得,則成佛者
誰?師謂 : 眾生是妄。住四相而得成佛乎? 179成佛者者, 180眾生之本
性也。又問: 眾生本性是似與何物?師謂 : 本性無似物,世間無所譬,
豈有可似量?
8. Someone asked: “Are sentient beings become Buddhas?” The Master said:
“No.” Another question: “If the living 5b beings will not, then who is going
to become Buddha?” The master said: “Sentient beings are an illusion. [They]
“to activate/exercise the mind relying on wisdom” seems plausible, but requires further
interpretation. As it appears from the text, 膌 is opposed to 癏 , which is interpreted as the
Chinese 生 or 起.
177
Similar idea is expressed in Huìzhōng’s “Commentary”: “Impossible to seek for the
mind through activating the mind” (Furuta’s reading, p. 368). That is: afections as functions
of the mind cannot be annihilated through increasing of the mental activity. The desire to get
rid of delusions is in fact itself a delusion.
178
Tangut: 簄 霹 哗
179
Rhetoric question using Tangut: 充 ,Chinese: 乎.
180
Tangut: 腞 落 .
NATHAN W. HILL
331
abide in the four characteristics, how is that they can become Buddhas? What
is going to become Buddha is the essential nature of sentient beings.” Another
question: “Which thing does the essential nature of sentient beings look like?”
The Master said: “It does not look like any thing, there is no thing in the
world to compare to it, and how can it be measured?”
9. 非 莎 柜 瑚 : 祇 癝 息 翛 ? 祇 禑 : 目 癝 矺 漓 ? 莎 禑 : 癝 落 穉 盝
谍 祘 怖 . 礹 窃 肁 砍 , 付 请 缺 丸 , 庙 聁 繠 ? (unclear graph)怖 . 祇
禑 : 癝 吞 搞 萯 蒜 . 籋 罏 癝 铜 , 舊 焦 萝 萯 .焊 槽 癝 落 , 蟅 緛 癦
癦谍礌緁怖. 礌緁癿窾订羋盝疤. 焊癝绕例, 蔓城篟癿, 萝
城 篟 蕽 衬 城 篟 笍 .礠 綀 坚 坚 焊 膌 , 燃 癐 吞 緂 , 绕 袭 籄 绕 缾 例
旺怖. 笍腞絢纚, 聁腞篟腪, 阶腞絢疤. 蘦佬絅窾蹦癝妒蒜.
莎禑: 聲祇往磟蚚萯蒜妒
9. 有仙人181問: 師,學182道? 師謂: 汝道如何?仙謂: 道者是空寂之
氣。是飲露食藥,183清○脫泥,184養長魂識。師謂: 汝185不慧道也。6a
今我說道,汝乃 186聽。此順道者,一切眾生之本性也。 187見本性,則
自主寂樂。此道玄妙,看時不見,聽時不聞,求時不得,諸人日日行
此,一切不知,是玄中最玄,眾妙門。188得者常住,識者不纏,能者
常樂,因此義則便曰“道”也。仙謂: 禪師,何殊妙。
Some immortal asked: “Do you, Master, practice the Way? The Master said:
“What is your Way?” The immortal said: “The Way is the qi of emptiness
and tranquility. [We] drink the dew and eat the medicine, purify ○ and aban don the mud, feed and grow the mind and spirit.” The master said: “You do
not understand the Way. 6a Today I will tell [you] about the Way, and you
listen. According to this, the Way is the essential nature of all sentient beings.
See the essential nature and attain sovereignty over yourself and tranquil joy.
This Way is profound and miraculous, [you] look at it and do not see it, listen
to it and do not hear it, search for it and never get it. People follow it daily
and nobody knows [about it]. It is the most profound among the profound, the
door to all the miracles. Those who get it abide in permanence, those who
understand it are not bound [by afictions], those who can [follow it] are in
181
Tangut: 莎 柜 Larger text has his name as: 搞 泌 (Xiāngshān 相山)
See note 104
183
Tangut: 礹 切 肂 砍
184
○ represents a sign which I could not read.
185
Instead of actual second person pronoun, the text here uses verbal indicator 萯 .
186
From the context it appears that Tangut 焦 together with the second person pronoun
and 萯 indicate the imperative mood. Using 乃 in this context is conventional.
187
See The Preface
188
Tangut: 绕 袭 籄 绕 缾 例 蒷
182
332
INTRODUCTION
permanent joy. Because of that meaning it is called the Way.” The immortal
said: “How outstanding you are, Chán master!”
10. 箿 瑚 : 祇 舊 葾 息 斌 萯 ? 祇 禑 : 葾 斌 眮 嘻 (unclear graph). 篎 瑚 :
緽 矺 漓 氨 ? 祇 禑 : 订 搐 礌 葾 ,葾 斌 帛 际 ? 蔲 葾 斌 窾 , 絧 息 癏 怖 .
絧 癏 腪 簧 . 腪 窾 腫 蒜 . 絧 癏 籃 哗 , 礌 葾 緂 窾 ,蹦 緽 氨 怖 .
10. 或問師: 汝察淨189?師謂: 察净 6b 妄也。又問: 如何成佛?師謂 : 自
體本淨,察淨何用?若察淨則是心起。190心起成纏。纏則墮也。應無
起心,知本淨則便成佛也。
10. Someone asked the Master: “Do you contemplate the purity?” The Master
said: “Contemplation of the purity 6b is delusion.” Another question: “How
to become Buddha?” The master said: “The self substance is essentially pure,
what is the use of contemplating purity? If [one] contemplates purity, [his]
mind will rise [to action]. The mind rises and bondages appear. Bondages are
the fall (to Hell). One should not give rise to the mind, understand the original
purity and then [one] will become Buddha.”
11. 箿 瑚 : 萰 粔 膁 落 , 莻 耳 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 萰 聁 落 , 萰 粔 膁 絧 怖 . 篎
瑚 : 緽 萰 聁 息 罈 ? 祇 禑 : 緽 罈 . 篎 瑚 : 蟅 緛 息 罈 ? 祇 禑 : 罈 .篎 瑚 :
萰聁罈菋息篔, 往瞭緽粔膁笍, 蟅緛篟粔膁蒜? 祇禑: 蟅緛般
瞭澎碅, 緽般瞭篟碅, 絅蹦搐佬蘦堡蒜.
189
Tangut: 葾 斌 ,Chinese: 察,sometimes: 緣. In the frst meaning it probably should be
interpreted as “to observe” “to contemplate” in a sense not unlike 看 (especially
considering the fact that 斌 and 彬 -看 are almost indiscernible) “to look” in the Northern
School Chán texts. The context of the paragraph seems to be in favor of this interpretation.
Second person pronoun in the discussion is rendered through the verbal sufx 萯 . The
similar paragraph see: JDCDL (T 51: 244b20-21). The paragraph reads:
問坐禪看靜此復若為? 師曰: 不垢不淨,寧用起心而看淨相?
[Someone] asked: Sitting meditation and looking at the purity, what about it? The master said: [The
mind] is neither polluted nor pure. Is it necessary activate the mind and look at the characteristic of
purity?
190
For Huìzhōng “arising” ( 起 ) of the mind was a crucial term in his analysis of the
emergence of rūpa and following evolvement of delusion. “Non-arising”, the situation
where the mind cannot be “attained” 不 可 得 ), was synonymous with the realization of
emptiness. However, Huìzhōng did not believe that either “arising” or “non-arising”
represent the ultimate realization; his position was that of the “transcendence” ( 超越). (See
Furuta’s reading: 364; discussion on the matter See McRae 1988: 95-96)
NATHAN W. HILL
333
11. 或問 : 八解脫 191 者何也? 192 師謂 : 八識者,八解脫心也。又問 :
佛有八識?師謂 : 佛有。又問 : 眾生有?師謂 : 有。又問 : 雖然一
樣193有八識,為何佛得解脫,[而]眾生不解脫 7a 也?師謂: 眾生隨境
流轉,194佛隨境不轉,195故便體義如此也。
11. Someone asked: “What are the eight liberations?” The Master said: “The
eighth consciousness is the mind of the eight liberations.” Another question:
“Does Buddha have the eighth consciousness?” The Master said: “The
Buddha has [it].” Another question: “Do sentient beings have [it]?” The
Master said: “[They] have [it].” Another question: “Although [the Buddha
and sentient beings] similarly have eight consciousnesses, why is that that the
Buddha attained the liberation and sentient beings are not liberated?” 7a The
Master said: “Sentient beings fow and transform relying on the [external]
objects and the Buddha does not fow and transform relying on the [external]
objects. That is the essential meaning.”
12. 箿 瑚 : 矺 漓 戊 揉 臼 笍 ? 祇 禑 : 絧 戊 砈 蔎 篟 蠣 荒 癿 , 窾 戊 揉
臼 怖 .焦 紻 篟 簄 , 挡 激 簄 哗 ,竀 纚 簄 父 , 戊 揉 臼 怖 .
12. 或問: 如何得出三界?師謂: 見心與三世不拘墼, 則出三界也。
不念過去,不念未來,超現在念,[而]出三界也。
12. Someone asked: “How to leave the three realms?” The Master said: “See
that the mind is not bound by the three realms, and then you will leave the
three realms. Do not think about the past, do not think about the future,
transcend the thoughts of the present, and then [you will] leave the three
realms.”
13. 箿 瑚 : 蟅 緛 緽 怖 , 緽 蟅 緛 怖 妒 落 , 蘦 佬 矺 漓 ? 祇 禑 : 緁 癿 緽
怖, 篟癿蟅怖. 焊佬蘦堡
191
Tangut: 萰 粔 膁 .According to the larger text, Huìzhōng is talking to someone called
吩 葾 键 (Lotus Yan)
192
This phrase can be interpreted in two ways: “the eight consciousnesses” and “the
eighth consciousness.” Since the Tangut does not have 虃 (Chinese 次第) the frst version
seems to be grammatically correct. This usage is not concurred by the relevant Chinese
sources (e.g. Réntiān yǎnmù), where the discussion is devoted to the “eighth consciousness”
See “Biàn dìbā shì” 辯 第八識 in Réntiān yǎnmù T48 no 2006: 322c1-3. The mentioned
text placed in the Guīyǎng ( 溈 仰 ) section of the collection which confrms that some
intellectual relationship existed between Hùizhōng and the Guīyǎng lineage of Chán.
193
Tangut: 息 篔 , Chinese: 一樣. Proximity with the modern Chinese (unattested in yǚlù,
as far as I know) is only occasional.
194
The phrase attested in Hùizhōng’s “Commentary.” See Furuta’s reading: 363
195
Tangut: 般 , Chinese: 境.
334
INTRODUCTION
13.或問: “眾生是佛,佛是眾生”者,其義如何?師謂: 見性是佛,
不見是眾[生]。其義如此。
13. Someone asked: “The Buddha is the sentient beings; the sentient beings
are the Buddha. What is the meaning of this?” The Master said: “[If you] see
the nature, then [you are] the Buddha, [if you] do not see the nature, [then you
belong to] the sentient beings. That is what it means.”
14. 箿 瑚 : 绢 瞭 膳 笭 窾 息 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 篟 蒜 . 膳 瞭 绢 笭 窾 息 怖 ? 祇
禑: 篟蒜. 蘦落矺漓? 祇禑: 绢瞭膳笭窾競蕽矖怖. 膳瞭绢笭
窾蘪肅矖怖. 绢膳緳筟窾, 蟅论矖怖. 緳绢绢篟搓, 緳膳膳贴
哗, 蘦落緽矖怖蒜.
14. 或問 : 196隨定入慧,則是?197師謂 : 不是 7b 。[ 又問 ] 隨慧入定則
是?師謂 : 不是。 [又問]: 此者如何?師謂 : 隨定入慧,則是聲聞法;
隨慧入定,則是獨覺 198法。定慧平等,則菩薩法也。正定不有定,正
慧無慧[之]相。此者是佛法。
14. Someone asked: “Enter the wisdom following the concentration, would
that be right?” The Master said: “No, it would not be.” 7b [Another
question]: “Entering the concentration following the wisdom, would that be
right?” The Master said: “No, it would not be.” [Another question]: “Why is
that?” The Master said: “Entering concentration following the wisdom is the
Dharma of the Listeners to the Voice. To enter wisdom following the
concentration is the Dharma of the Enlightened by themselves. Concentration
and wisdom are equal and this is the Dharma of the Bodhisattvas. The true
concentration does not have [the characteristic] of concentration, the true
196
Tangut: 舵 翪 , which stands for the Chinese 供奉 (“gòngfèng” a monk of a lower
rank, “attendant”).
197
Tangut: 绢 瞭 膳 笭 窾 息 怖 . I fnd it difcult to translate the question properly. A
tentative suggestion here might be that Tangut 窾 is used instead of 竀 normally translated
as 實 or 如(真如;如来).If this suggestion is accepted, then the Chinese rendering of the
paragraph could be 一如 (實), thus ftting into Huìzhōng’s teaching (e.g. his famous saying:
“Body and mind are one and identical 身心一如”).This is a mere speculation, since Tangut
translation of the Huìzhōng’s “Commentary” uses another formula: 心法一如(絧 矖 挨 始 ,
Arakawa 2006: 130, where he follows Tangut with the reference to the Chinese original; fg.
5) Therefore I chose to neglect the nominal meaning of the Tangut 息 and translate 怖 as
是 as antonymous to 簁 (Chinese 非).The discussion in this encounter is modeled not along
the lines of Huìnéng’s discourse on the precepts, concentration and wisdom, but on the
above translated paragraph on the controlled and uncontrolled mind as presented in the
Vimalakirti-sūtra.
198
Tangut: 蘪 肅
NATHAN W. HILL
335
wisdom does not have the characteristic of wisdom. This is the Dharma of the
Buddha.”
15. 箿 瑚 : 搐 落 莻 耳 怖 ? 緁 落 矺 漓 蒜 ? 挨 怖 充 , 酞 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 搐
瞭 挨 怖 , 緁 瞭 酞 蒜 . 蘦 落 矺 漓 ? 祇 禑 : 搐 沪 擅 堡 , 緁 沪 曼 堡 ,蘦
絅 酞 蒜 . 篎 瑚 : 曼 擅 嘻 属 , 往 瞭 酞 蒜 ? 祇 禑 : 曼 落 擅 菋 怖 ,粺 ,礮
妄 吞 阶 .睶 曼 簧 城 , 蹦 礮 妄 阶 蒜 . 焊 瞭 酞 蒜 . 蟅 緛 癦 癦 癐 緽 緁
缾 , 菞 界 緂 聁 绢 筫 攻 际 , 蹦 礌 絧 癿 . 礌 絧 癿 篎 , 订 沸 簵 膌 ,蹦 妄
葾笍怖. 簁怖粄螺, 萡钳絧哗, 埠羈篟栏, 礝贴絻艱, 魏猴碽
紴 簁 ; 曼 搐 絢 妄 ,魏 焊 碽 扦 簁 . 礝 贴 怂 怂 , 曼 搐 盝 盝 , 前 耫 篟 搓 ,
猴睴魏哗. 簵腞絧膌, 蘦瞭锻籃, 礠緽緁魏蘦蔎息篔.
體者何也?性者如何?是一乎200?異也?師謂: 因體是
一;因性異也.2018a [又問]: 此者如何?師謂: 譬體如銅,202譬性如鏡,
此故異也。又問 : 鏡以銅作,何為異也?師謂 : 鏡者,雖然是銅,
[其]不能照物;磨成鏡時,便[其]能照物也,因此異也。一切眾生皆有
佛性,用大善知識定指示 ,便見本心。見本心後,自起精修,便得照
明清,宣示是非,無分別[之]心,不受小塵。萬相令顯而非來彼,鏡
體常照而非往此。萬相亂亂,鏡體 8b 寂寂,不有往來,亦無彼此。修
者心行,應隨此203合,諸佛性亦與此一樣。204
15. 或問 :
199
15. Someone asked: “Substance, what is it? Nature, what is it? Are they the
same or diferent?” The Master said: “Looking from substance they are one,
looking from nature they are diferent.” 8a [Another question]: “How is
that?” The Master said: “The substance is like bronze, the nature is like a
199
Dialogue with a “wise man.” Tangut: 羴 腞 (賢者).
Here the question is posed using the numeral for “one” (挨 ) as opposed to “diferent”
(酞 ): 挨 怖 充 酞 怖 . This is not a standard formula, probably it might derive from some
Chinese oral form.
201
Tangut: 蒜 (也).
202
Chinese: 體譬銅如 Tangut: 搐 沪 擅 堡
203
Tangut: 焊 瞭 . A widespread Tangut expression, meaning: “according to this”, “due
to this”, “following that”, “because of that”, etc. I do not think there is a standard Chinese
equivalent for this utterance.
204
This paragraph is closely related to the discussion of the relationship among the
substance (自性體), the function of the self-nature (自性用) and the refecting function of
the self-nature (隨緣用) in the Chán Chart by Zōngmì. See Zhōnghuá xīindì chánmén shīzì
chéngxī tú 中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖, ZZ 63 no 1225: 35a22-24. The proximity between
the two paragraphs allows a suggestion that there was certain relationship between Zōngmì
and Huìzhōng, although the timeline of that relationship is not exactly clear. Possibility that
this paragraph was interpolated into Huìzhōng’s Collected sayings later cannot also be ruled
out. In whatever case, the ideas expressed here demonstrate Huìzhōng’s strong afliation
with Huáyán thought.
200
336
INTRODUCTION
mirror, and this is why [they] are diferent.” [Another question]: “Mirrors are
made out of bronze, why are they diferent?” The master said: “A mirror,
although it is made out of bronze, [the bronze] cannot refect things. When
[the bronze] is polished into becoming a mirror, then it is able to refect
things. That is why [substance and nature] are diferent. All the sentient
beings possess Buddha nature; using the directions from the great benevolent
friends [the sentient beings] see their essential mind. After they see the
essential mind, industrious perfection emerges by itself, and [the mind of the
sentient beings] refects the purity and sees clearly right and wrong. [Then]
there is no mind of discrimination, [the sentient beings] are not infuenced
even by the fnest dust. The ten thousand characteristics become clear and
there is no “coming there.” The substance of the mirror shines permanently
and there is no “leaving here.” The ten thousand characteristics are in
disorder, but the substance of the mirror is 8b tranquil, there is no coming and
leaving, no here and there. When the practitioners awaken their minds, they
should proceed in accordance with this. The nature of the Buddhas is the
same with that.
16. 箿 瑚 : 瞪 竛 窾 絧 膌 城 , 焊 槽 穉 盝 簧 落 息 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 穉 盝 癿 窾 ,
翗 磀 属 怖 . 篎 瑚 : 莻 耳 粺 (mistake for 佬 ) 籃 ? 祇 禑 : 簵 腞 ,舊 竀
絧 膌 玛 ,癿 癿 籃 哗 .穉 盝 矺 癿 ? 緽 禑 : 笍 籃 埠 祡 矖 哗 , 窾 庆 单 亡
蘀怖妒.
16. 或問 : 弟子實心行時,此順是成空寂者?205師謂: 見空寂則唯是
作意。206又問: 應何義?師謂: 修者,汝實心行時見無所見。何見空
寂?應得佛語: 無少法則阿耨菩提也。
16. Someone asked: “When the disciples truly exercise their minds, will there
be tranquility and emptiness?” The Master said: “Seeing tranquility and
emptiness is solely the act of mind.” Another question: “What does that
mean?” The Master said: “Practitioners, when you truly awaken the mind, see
that there is nothing to be seen. To see tranquility and emptiness, what is that
for? Understand the words of Buddha: “If there is not a smallest dharma, then
it is Anubodhi.”
17. 箿 瑚 : 眮 癏 肅 窾 粔 膁 息 笍 ? 祇 禑 : 篟 笍 . 篎 瑚 : 眮 秲 肅 秲 窾
息笍? 祇禑: 篟笍. 矺漓笍蒜? 祇禑: 眮緂瞭眮簧, 肅緂瞭肅簧.
订絧穉盝, 緂篟纚窾, 穉盝緽絧窾怖. 焊佬魏蘦堡蒜.
205
206
One more question structure: 息 怖 , cf. Note 143
磀 属 作意
NATHAN W. HILL
337
17. 或問 : 起妄覺,207則得解脫?師謂 : 不 9a 得。又問 : 滅妄 , 滅覺
則得?師謂: 不得。[又問]: 如何得也?師謂: 隨妄知[而]成妄,隨
覺知[而]成覺。自心空寂[而]不住知,則實空寂佛心也。其理亦如此
也。
17. Someone asked: “When delusion arises and then comes awakening, will
there be liberation?” The Master said: 9a “There will be none.” Another
question: “When delusions are extinguished, awakening is extinguished; will
there be [liberation]?” The Master said: “There will be none.” [Another
question]: “Then how to attain [it]?” The Master said: “The wisdom of
delusions produces delusion, the wisdom of awakening produces awakening.
If the mind is empty and tranquil and does not abide in wisdom, then the true
empty and tranquil mind of Buddha will be attained. That is what it means.”
18. 箿 瑚 : 蟅 緛 输 属 窾 , 耻 笗 息 腫 ? 祇 禑 : 腫 . 篎 瑚 : 緽 緁 息 腫 ?
祇 禑 : 腫 . 篎 瑚 : 蟅 緛 腫 窾 ,蛜 栏 ; 緽 緁 腫 落 , 蛜 栏 篟 栏 ? 祇 禑 :
緽緁蛜篟栏. 篎瑚: 往蒜? 栏蒜篟栏蒜? 祇禑: 沪堡柏膼莊问
科穆, 膼贴虁疾, 柏緁焊槽礌毋篟瓮. 篟瓮窾礌绢怖. 礌绢窾
絢 疥 簧 .始 絢 窾 虁 疾 魏 哗 . 栏 籃 帛 搓 蒜 ?
208
眾生作罪,則地獄墮?209師謂: 墮。又問: 佛性墮?師謂:
墮。又問: 眾生墮則受苦,佛性墮者,受不受苦?師謂 : 佛性不受苦。
又問: 何因也,210受也,不 9b 受也?師謂: 譬如金器融於火爐內,器
相損壞,金性如此本來不變。不變則是本定。 211本定則成常名。 212真
常則亦無損壞,豈有可受[苦]?213
18 或問:
18. Someone asked: “If the sentient beings commit crimes do they fall into
Hell?” The Master said: “[They] fell.” Another question: “And does the
207
Tangut: 眮 癏 肅 窾 粔 膁 息 笍 . Chinese: 妄起覺,則得解脱?This phrase is not easy
to interpret: in the Southern Chán context it probably should mean that both delusion and
realization (awakening) are equally produced by the thought, therefore the though is the real
object of non-attachment. However, in this context one would expect to fnd Tangut 簄
(念)and not 緂 (知).
208
According to the larger text, the Master is talking to a gòngfèng.
209
Question using the verbal prefx 息 .
210
Tangut: 往 瞭 蒜 Chinese: 何因,何故
211
Tangut: 礌 绢 Chinese: 本定 No reference to the term.
212
Tangut: 絢 疥 簧 Chinese: 成常名
213
This paragraph again has strong Huáyán favor: the idea of transformation of the
immutable self-nature (bùbiàn súiyuán 不變隨緣) is one of the characteristic features of the
Huáyán and Huáyán afliated trends of thought. Interestingly, the interpretation of the
Hóngzhōu teaching known from Tangut texts also tends to elucidate Mǎzǔ’s teaching
through this paradigm.
338
INTRODUCTION
Buddha nature fall?” The Master said: “It falls.” Another question: “When
the sentient beings fall [into Hell] they receive sufering in retribution. When
[their] Buddha nature falls [into Hell] does it sufer or does it not?” The
Master said: “The Buddha nature does not sufer.” Another question: “For
what reason do [some] receive [sufering] and [some] do not 9b receive [it]?”
The Master said: “Compare it to a metal vessel melted in a stove. The form of
the vessel is destroyed, but the nature of metal does not change accordingly.
What remains unchanged is the “Originally established”. “Originally
established”is called permanence. [Something which is] true and permanent
cannot be destroyed. Is there any [sufering] for it to receive?”
19. 箿 瑚 : 绢 膳 緳 筟 佬 落 莻 耳 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 緁 篟 霹 窾 绢 怖 ; 篟 霹 癿
阶 落 , 膳 怖 . 庭 膌 焊 槽 矰 哗 窾 緳 筟 怖 . 蘦 瞭 礌 緁 妄 阶 ,窾 .緽 緁
癿怖.
定慧平等義者何也?師謂: 性不動則是定。能見不動者
是慧。行行如此無跡215則是平等。此隨本性能照,則是見佛性。
19. 或問:
214
19. Someone asked: “What is the meaning of equality of concentration and
wisdom?” The Master said: “The nature does not move—that is
concentration. Staying without movement and being able to see is wisdom. If
[you] practice according to this and leave no traces—that is equality. Due to
this, the essential nature will be able to refect, and thus [you will] see the
Buddha nature.”
20.箿 瑚 : 饲 緽 矺 漓 氨 ? 祇 禑 : 緽 篎 蟅 緜 , 蒜 玛 筜 簄 ,焊 臀 籈 膁 .
瑚 : 矺 漓 瞭 槽 笍 ? 祇 禑 : 界 履 癦 癦 癐 篟 截 ,窾 订 緽 緁 癿 , 瞭 槽 笍
蒜.
214
Encounter with the gongfeng Zháng Qìng ( 祼 棘 張慶,see: ZTJ 1: 165). No other
references are available about this person.
215
Tangut: 庭 膌 焊 槽 矰 哗 Chinese: 行行此順(因此)跡無. 庭 膌 should probably be
interpreted as the “practice” which due to the equality between concentration and wisdom
leaves no traces.
NATHAN W. HILL
339
20. 或問: 216 凡佛如何成?師 10a 謂: 佛及217眾生,一時218不念,此處
解脫。問: 如何得相應?219師謂一切善惡皆不思,則自見佛性,得相
應也。
20. Someone asked: “How to become a Buddha?” The Master 10a said: “[If]
for one moment you will not think about the sentient beings and the Buddha,
at this very spot you attain the liberation. That is how [you] attain liberation.”
Another question: “How to get harmony?” The master said: “Do not think of
all good and evil, and see Buddha nature for yourself. That is harmony.”
21. 箿 瑚 : 礌 毋 縇 通 , 緽 氨 煞 絅 怖 .矺 漓 絧 膌 吸 緽 氨 笍 蒜 ? 祇 禑 :
膌籃絧哗, 订緽氨笍. 瑚: 蔲絧哗, 窾緽瞸簧蒜? 祇禑: 絧哗订
緽氨. 緽氨魏絧哗. 瑚: 緽菞焚菞稌紩铜臀哗两, 罈, 蟅緛繫
216
Discussion with a “Chán guest” (Tangut: 聲 杰 Chinese: 禪客)
Tangut: 篎 (is normally rendered through Chinese 已,及,又,并,外 etc.). In this
particular case I fnd hard to determine the actual meaning of it, following the Chinese
versions of the encounter (next Note), I will translate it as 及—“and.”
218
Tangut: 蒜 玛 Chinese: 一時, well attested standard Buddhist usage.
219
Tangut: 瞭 槽 normally rendered through Chinese 隨順 (one of the expedient means,
associated among others, with the attainment of the “true aspect of the mind” ( 心真如) in
the teaching of Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna. However, in this case Tangut term is
equivalent to the “accordance” 相 應 ).The similar encounter is found in JDCDL. ZTJ,
LDHY:
217
僧問: 若為得成佛去? 師曰: 佛(JDCDL uses 曰 instead of 與)與眾生,一時放却,當處解脫.曰:
作麼生得相應去? 師曰: 善惡不思,自見佛性。
A monk asked: “How to become Buddha?” The Master said: For one moment cast away sentient
beings and the Buddha, then on this very spot you attain the liberation.” The Chán guest asked
again: “How to get the correspondence [with the Buddha]?” The Master said: “Do not think of
good and evil and then see the Buddha nature: that is how you get the “correspondence.””
See LDHY, ZZ 80 no 1565, 60c23-24; ZTJ, vol. 1, 166, etc. However, in the Tangut
version we have only a part of larger dialogue, which is otherwise present in all other
Chinese versions. For an English translation of the ZTJ version, See Anderl (2004b: 615).
Anderl uses “accordance” for 相應).JDCDL, unlike other texts refers to casting away the
thoughts about sentient beings and the Buddha. The Tangut version of this particular
encounter is thus closest to JDCL. The Chinese versions of this little encounter are written
with elements of colloquial speech. Tangut translation principles emerged from the
translation of Chinese works, written in the classical language, thus certain elements of the
Chinese original (if Tangut translation was based not on a wényán version of the text) could
not have been presented properly through a wényán based translation. Therefore, such
constructions as fnal 去 are not present in Tangut text, Chinese 作 麼 生 is translated
through standard form 矺 漓 , probably based on the Chinese 如何.Chinese 若為 (“what to
do”,“how”) is also translated through the standard formula: 矺 漓 如何.
340 INTRODUCTION
阶 . 蔲 絧 哗 , 窾 蟅 緛 瞸 繫 ? 祇 禑 : 絧 哗 笍 , 窾 蟅 緛 繫 始 怖 .蔲 繫
籃蟅緛癿, 窾翗絧搓簧. 絧蔲搓, 窾竀骇毯怖. 瑚: 絧蔲哗窾
菤癿卢簧? 祇禑: 眮絧礌哗, 糉緂篟菤, 矟癿矺簧?
本來出家,是因求成佛。如何心行221以得成佛?師謂 : 可
行無心, 即得成佛。問: 若無心,則誰成佛也?師謂 : 無心自成佛,
成佛亦無心。問: 佛大慈大悲有不可思議力,能度多眾生。10b 若無
心,則誰度眾生?師謂: 得無心則是真度眾生。若見眾生可度,則唯
成有心。若心實有,則生死也。問 : 若無心,則斷見或成?師謂 : 本
無妄心,靈知223不斷,邪見何成?224
21.或問:
220
222
220
According to the longer text, Huìzhōng’s interlocutor here is Chángzhōu Língjué ( 靈
覺 Tangut: 羴 肅 ).
221
Tangut: 絧 膌 (Chinese: 心行) Original Chinese version of the encounter uses 用心.
222
Tangut: 膌 籃 絨 哗 (Chinese: 可行無心)
223
Tangut: 糑 緂 , the Chinese equivalent is undetermined. Considering the dictionary
meaning and some known phraseology, one might suggest that the frst sign relates to the
matters, connected with the soul. I am inclined to suggest Chinese 靈知 or 良知. However,
on another occasion the lager text uses the expression 缊 緁 (normally would be translated as
靈/通性,but according to the Chinese original means 神性). Until Tangut translations of
Zōngmì’s texts are researched, this will remain a vulnerable hypothesis, especially if
complicated relations among Shénhuì, Zōngmì and Huìzhōng are taken into the
consideration.
224
Part of this encounter is found in JDCDL:
常州僧靈覺問曰: 發心出家,本擬求佛。為審如何用心即得? 師曰: 無心可用,
即得成佛。曰: 無心可用, 阿誰成佛? 師曰: 無心自成, 佛亦無心。曰: 佛有大
不可思議為能度眾生, 若也無心阿誰度眾生? 師曰: 無心是真度生。若見有生可
度者, 即是有心宛然生滅。(T 51 no2076, 439a3-8)
Changzhou monk Língjué asked: When I had the intention [to become enlightened] and abandon
the family, I originally pursued the goal of becoming Buddha. I do not understand, what kind of
mind practices should I follow in order to attain this [goal]? The Master answered: No-mind
might be helpful; it will make you a Buddha. Monk asked again: If no-mind is to be practiced,
then who is becoming the Buddha? The Master answered: The no-mind itself will become
Buddha. Buddha has no-mind. Due to his co compassion and benevolence Buddha has
inexpressible and unthinkable powers and can deliver the multitudes of sentient beings. If there
was no-mind, then who would deliver sentient beings? The Master answered: The no-mind is the
true deliverance of sentient beings. If you have a concept of sentient beings that have to be
delivered, it would be as if your existing mind dwells in the life and death.
Translation see Wittern (1996: 187). Wittern translates “mind” 心 as “Geist” (Spirit),
in the given context fully appropriate. As in the previous encounter one might notice, that
none of the colloquialisms present in JDCDL text were actually translated into Tangut.
Although the version in JDCDL is closest among others, it is by no means the source of the
Tangut translation. The last paragraph about the use the “spiritual knowledge”, “awareness”
NATHAN W. HILL
341
21. Someone asked: “I originally left the family because of the desire to
become Buddha. How should one practice his mind to become Buddha?” The
Master said: “[You] could follow the no-mind and thus become Buddha.”
Língjué asked again: “If there is no mind, then who will become Buddha?”
The Master said: “The no-mind will become Buddha. Becoming Buddha is
also no-mind.” A question: “Due to his compassion and benevolence the
Buddha has inexpressible and unthinkable powers and can deliver the
multitudes of the sentient beings. 10b If there is no mind then who is saving
the sentient beings?” The Master said: “Attaining the no-mind is the true
salvation of the sentient beings. If one sees (has views) the sentient beings he
has to deliver, then it only is the emergence of the existing mind. If the mind
exists, then there are truly life and death.” A question: “If there is no mind,
then how could [one] extinguish his views?” The Master said: “Originally
there is no deluded mind; the awareness does not interrupt, so how can evil
views appear?”
22. 箿 瑚 : 息 簄 瞭 槽 落 莻 耳 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 般 箎 舃 哗 , 订 瞭 槽 簧 .瑚 :
般 箎 舃 哗 窾 , 緽 緁 瞸 癿 ? 祇 禑 : 般 箎 哗 ,窾 搐 妄 蘪 蝳 , 订 嘻 订 篟
癿蒜
22.或問: 一念相應 225者,何也?師謂: 智境雙無,226 即成相應。問:
境智雙無, 227則誰見佛性?師謂 : 無境智則,照體獨立, 228以自不見
自也。22911a
is found only in the Tangut version and changes the message of the paragraph substantially.
The meeting with Língjué is the start of the discussion on the Buddha nature, where
Huìzhōng expressed some of his famous views. In the Tangut translation Huìzhōng
apparently draws a distinction: Língjué seems to identify the ordinary functions of mind
(including the benevolence and compassion) with the attaining of the Buddhahood, while
Huìzhōng indicates that besides the normal mind there is the “no-mind”, which manifests
itself as “spiritual knowledge” and is the true path to the Buddhahood. Tangut text seems to
be unique in this respect, since, as far as I know, Huìzhōng never used terminology of
“spiritual knowledge” (awareness in P. Gregory’s terminology), closely associated with
Shénhuì and Zōngmì. At the same time the discussion on the “no-mind” is in tenor with
Huìzhōng’s views expressed in the Commentary on the Heart sūtra: “When there is truly
no-mind, then the powers and responsive functions are manifested” ( 心正無之時,現能應
用 Furuta’s reading: 365)
225
Chinese: 一念相應 Tangut: 息 簄 瞭 槽 (possible translation: “accordance”, suggested
by Anderl).
226
Tangut: 箎 般 舃 哗
227
Attested in Huìzhōng’s Commentary: 心境兩忘. (Furuta’s reading, p. 363)
228
Tangut: 搐 妄 蘪 蝳 , Chinese: 照 體 獨 立 . This formula is often attested in
Chéngguān’s works, and thus cannot possibly be invented by Huìzhōng.
229
Tangut: 订 嘻 订 篟 癿 Chinese: 自 以 自 不 見 . A paragraph which superfcially
342 INTRODUCTION
Someone asked: “How to achieve accordance with “one thought”? The
Master said: “When object and wisdom are both absent, the harmony comes
naturally.” A question: “When wisdom and object are both absent, who is to
see the Buddha nature?” The Master said: “When object and wisdom are
absent, the refecting substance stays alone, and cannot see itself through
itself.” 11a
23. 箿 瑚 : 蟅 緛 緽 緁 蔎 酞 紪 哗 , 窾 挨 綀 庭 簵 緽 簧 城 , 蟅 緛 癦 癦 ,
蒜玛筟筟癐粔腳镀. 罏蘦篟堡落, 焊佬矺漓? 祇禑: 舊経册袭
泪贴佬吞穔蓇萯充? 秃袭酞搓, 酞袭秃搓, 氨袭疾搓, 疾袭氨
搓 , 镣 袭 紪 搓 , 紪 袭 镣 搓 .蟅 緛 緽 蔎 挨 緁 秃 纓 , 薸 商 篟 絥 ,两 泪
吞 筟 , 订 簵 订 笍 . 萂 蔵 龋 蔓 , 订 窗 篟 膿 .沪 豁 胯 弛 癦 癦 挨 穉 揉
镣, 泪吞筟瞭, 螑籃穉酞. 鼎蛤哗落, 穉揉纚纓, 睫蔎篟禨. 蛤
耳 篿 魏 闽 辊 搓 絅 , 穉 螑 槽 蜰 . 或 眿 豁 泪 ,穉 碭 維 ,穔 篎 豁 驳 , 焊
蔎 穁 丑 臀 帛 綕 ? 蹦 蟅 緛 癦 癦 , 挨 緽 緁 镣 , 箎 泪 吞 筟 ,魏 蘦 蔎 息
篔.
23. 或問 : 眾生與佛性無差別,則一人修行成佛時,一切眾生等等,
一時皆應230解脫。今不如此者,其義如何?師謂 : 汝不爾231見華嚴中
resembles this one was discovered in JDCDL, T 51 no2076, 436b6-9:
曰: 如何是一念相應?師曰: 憶智俱忘即是相應。曰: 憶智俱忘, 誰見諸佛? 師曰: 忘即無, 無
即佛。曰: 無即言無, 何得喚作佛? 師曰: 無亦空, 佛亦空乎故。曰: 無及 (即?) 佛, 佛即無
The question: How to obtain harmony through one thought? The master said: “Both remembrance
and wisdom should be forgotten. Question: If remembrance and wisdom are forgotten, who is
going to become Buddha? The master said: Forgetting is absence, absence is Buddha. Question: If
that is “absence”, then call it “absence,” why call it “Buddha”? The Master said: Absence is
empty, and the Buddha is also empty. And again: Absence is Buddha, Buddha is absence.
From this encounter one might see, that unlike in the alternative Chinese sources, in
Tangut text Huìzhōng emphasizes the “shining substance” which is obtained during the
practice. Huìzhōng put forward the idea of removing the opposition between wisdom and
object, and thus emancipating the shining of the substance. In this case again Tangut text
deviates from the available Chinese sources, and presents an idea somewhat diferent from
the one presented in the traditional accounts: as in the frst encounter the master speaks
about manifesting the refection of the self-nature. Important to note is the fact that this
paragraph is a part of bigger discussion between Huìzhōng and the guest from the South, the
last part of the discussion is included into the encounter 25 of Tangut translation. However,
the last sentence in the paragraph is only tentatively translated.
230
Modal verb: 镀 (equivalent to the Chinese 應)
231
Tangut: 穔 -is a part of interrogative structure, See Zhēnshímíng jīng: 433 Jacques
(2009: 8-9), transcription is conventional.
NATHAN W. HILL
343
六相 232義?233 同中有異,異中有同,成中有壞,壞中有成, 總中有別,
別中有總。眾生與佛虽 234同235一性,相互不礙,力才 236不等,自修自
得。237看有或人238食239,自永 11b 不滿。240譬一切禽類等共一空界,因
才不等,所證空别.241無翼翅?者,雖住空界,不離與地。集翅242亦有
高低故,因[所]證空別。243鳳凰禽才 ,至空邊,有外禽等與其,可令豈
有?244便一切眾生共一佛性,知才不等,亦與此一樣。
23. Someone asked: “The sentient beings and the Buddha nature do not have
diferences. Thus, when any person becomes Buddha through his actions, all
the sentient beings must attain liberation. Now it is not like that. What is the
reason for that?” The master said: “Haven’t you ever seen the Meaning of six
characteristics of Huáyán? In identity there is diferentiation, in diferentiation
there is identity, in creation there is destruction, in destruction there is
creation, in general there is specifc, and in specifc there is general. The
sentient beings and the Buddha possess the same nature, and are no obstacles
between each other. [Their] powers and abilities are not equal, and each one
of them gets what [he] had attained. By watching another person eating, 11b
you will never be satisfed. Compare it with the animals, which all belong to
the same realm of space: due to the inequality of their powers, what they
232
Tangut: 键 惶 袭 泪 贴 佬 Chinese: 華 嚴 六 相 義 . Probably this is a title of a
composition. The usage of the title Huáyán liùxiāng yì is attested in a number of Huáyán
works, but it was probably Huìzhōng who introduced it into the Chán curriculum.
233
Tangut: 键 惶 袭 泪 贴 佬 舊 吞 穔 癿 萯 The sentence uses both (萯 verbal indicator)
combined with the second person pronoun 舊 (汝).
234
Tangut: 纓 -part of Tangut structure equivalent to the Chinese 雖然.
235
Tangut: 秃 -Chinese: 同.
236
Tangut: 两 楞
237
From here to 便一切眾 –tentative translation.
238
Tangut: 萂 ( 光 ), probably a mistake for 萅 ( 他 人 ), especially considering the
following 蔵 (或)-“someone.” In the transcription the order of words had been altered.
239
Probably: 趋 -食.Tentative reading according to the larger text
240
Until this place the encounter is attested in all of Huìzhōng’s encounters. (e.g.: ZTJ 1:
170)
241
Tangut: 螑 籃 穉 酞 ,Chinese transcription: 證可空別,translation: 所證空別—“the
space which they attain is diferent?” Tentative translation.
242
Tentative translation: “[consider] together those who have wings.” Tangut: 鼎 耳 篿
243
Tangut: 穉 螑 槽 蜰 . Chinese: 因 證 空 殊 .Tentative reading.The whole “bird
section”in this paragraph is somewhat enigmatic, and I translate it tentatively.
244
Tangut: 丑 臀 帛 綕 . Chinese equivalent of this interrogation formula is hard to
determine: if directly transcribed into the Chinese, the formula would look like: 可/令所豈
有, thus it might be translated: “how is it possible.” This is probably a form of a rhetoric
question. Possible also, that 丑 令 belongs to the previous part of the sentence, but below
(Note 191) one can see a question form with the similar structure.
344 INTRODUCTION
acquire in the space is diferent. Although those who do not have wings they
belong to the realm of space, [they] never abandon the earth. The group of
winged creatures [fy] high and low, therefore they are diferent depending on
the position they occupy in the air. The bird qualities of phoenix take him to
the limits of space. If other birds were to be compared with the phoenix—how
can it be possible? Therefore the meaning of [what is said] about all sentient
beings sharing the same Buddha nature, but being diferent in knowledge and
abilities, is like this.”
24. 箿 瑚 : 聲 簵 絧 薠 禨 槽 矺 漓 怖 ? 祇 禑 : 舊 竃 絧 科 广 广 焦 蜌 萯 ?
氦 莡 , 灯 舉 唐 , 灯 萰 揉 蒜 蒜 ,臷 记 窾 羈 祡 礮 ,笍 臀 息 綕 ?框 禑 :
罏 竃 絧 科 ,广 广 焦 蜌 ,窾 挨 礮 笍 籃 搓 吞 穔 蓇 籋 .祇 禑 : 舊 竃 絧
贴苛沏簧? 框禑: 竃絧订贴禨, 苛籃往搓? 祇禑: 舊竃絧坊篎,
紪礮息搓? 框禑: 竃絧订哗袭, 篎絸礮帛搓? 祇禑: 舊融袭贴
苛沏簧? 框禑: 融袭贴订贴哗, 苛帛际? 祇禑: 蘦堡窾舊罏薠
禨 怖 .瑚 腞 蘦 瞭 妄 论 , 氢 禑 : 紩 铜 臀 哗 , 残 瞪 焦 栏 .
24. 或問 : 修禪如何滅心罪 ? 師謂 : 汝身心中稍稍觀 ?245 五 12a 蘊,十
二處,十八界,一一,根本246實小物,有可得?247答曰: 今身心稍稍
觀,不見一實物可得。師謂 : 汝已作身心相壞?答曰 : 身心離自相,
248
何有可壞?師謂 : 汝身心以外,有 249異事?答謂 : 身心即無中,豈
有外事?師謂: 汝已作世间相壞?答謂 : 世間相即無相,豈用壞?師
謂: 如此 12b 汝今滅罪也。問者隨此悟照,贊謂: 不可思議,[乃]承
教學。250
245
Tangut: 谬 谬 焦 蜌 . The verbal prefx 焦 not transcribed.
Tangut: 臶 记 Dictionary meaning is 根本, while in the term itself corresponds to the
Chinese 推窮 (“to fully exhaust” to “fully consider”). Thus, the meaning remains unclear.
247
Tangut: 笍 臀 息 綕 Rhetoric question: “Is there anything to be obtained?.” It is
possible that 臀 息 綕 present a standard interrogatory structure in rhetoric formulas.
248
Tangut: 竃 絧 订 贴 禨 Chinese: 身心 離 自 相 .In the Chinese JDCDL (Note 227)
version this phrase looks like: 身心性離, which should be translated as: “The nature of the
mind and the body is such that they disappear by themselves.” Similar sentence structure is
attested in Huìzhōng’s entry in the ZTJ: 煩惱性自離 (“The nature of afictions is such that
they disappear by themselves”—Anderl’s translation). The Tangut version should however
be translated as: “The mind and body abandon (transcend the self-characteristic). In the
Translation I follow the Tangut version.
249
Interrogation formula: 息 搓 . Chinese referent: 有不.
250
曰: 若為離得此過?師曰: 汝但子細反觀險入界處一一推窮,有可得否?曰 : 子
細觀之,不見一物可得. 師曰: 汝壞身心相耶?曰: 身心性離,有何可壞?師曰: 身
心外更有物不?曰: 身心無外,寧有物耶?師曰: 汝壞世間相耶?曰: 世間相即無相,
那用更壞?師曰: 若然者,即離過矣。禪客唯然受教.(Tangut and Chinese texts are
practically identical, so I leave the Chinese passage untranslated. See JDCDL,
438c26-439a03). Important to note that this paragraph also bears the traits of editing: in fact
246
NATHAN W. HILL
345
24. Someone asked: “If [one] is practicing Chán, what is the way to eliminate
the transgressions of the mind?” The Master said: “You should carefully
contemplate your body and mind Five 12a skandhas, twelve nidānas and
eighteen dhātu—is there a smallest thing in them to be obtained?” The answer was: “Now I have taken a detailed look into the mind and body and saw
that there is nothing to be obtained. 251 The Master said: “Have you achieved
the destruction of the characteristic of the mind and body?” The answer was:
“As soon as the self characteristic of mind and body has been abandoned, is
there anything left to destroy? The Master said: “Are there other things
outside your mind and body?” The answer was: “While there is no mind and
body, what other things can there be?” The Master said: “Have you achieved
the destruction of the worldly characteristic?” The answer was: “The characteristic of the world is no characteristic, what is there to be destroyed?” The
Master said: “Thus 12b you have extinguished the crimes.” The asker got
enlightened after that and exclaimed: “How profound!”, and received the
teaching.
25. 箿 瑚 : 蘦 堡 论 癿 , 篎 粮 棍 丝 嘻 庭 簵 , 际 充 ? 祇 禑 : 棍 丝 嘻 簵
魏 蚐 搓 , 棍 篟 丝 嘻 簵 魏 蚐 搓 . “篶 臤 瞲 其 ” 禑 : “挨 睫 毋 癏 , 挨 睫
毋 維 嘻 簁 , 盝 秲 竀 始 棍 虃 帛 搓 ?” “ 截 竲 瞲 ”禑 : “蔲 綀 緳 緁 蕽 窾 ,
挨 睫 毋 癏 , 挨 睫 毋 維 篟 怖 . 蘦 綀 酣 毯 篟 伯 , 筁 仅 篟 纚 妒 .”篎 “篵
筿 瞲 ”磵 禑 : 籒 笭 , 挨 耫 , 篟 縹 , 庆 茸 蟕 , 蘦 堡 礠 聻 綃 綀 , 癐 眮 絧
瞭 搓 .”蔰 较 吨 佬 篘 瞭 怖 , 窾 次 贴 谍 佬 , 付 葾 肅 , 絧 次 庭 棍 笍 籃
哗. 蔲融京紏蘞往瞭, 窾庭棍丝魏絥聨篟搓. 饲秊嘻佬篟絥,
佬嘻秊篟絥, 佬秊絥哗窾坚坚膌嘻膌哗蔎篟硰, 篟簵臀帛綕?
蔲秊繗佬稥, 佬繗秊稥, 窾瞭槽矺笍? 焊禑簁蒜. 瑚: 蘦矖旺
落疥贴息搓? 祇禑: 蘦矖礌毋疥贴篟搓. 疥贴哗袭纴疥贴呢.
蘦 矖 旺 疥 落 “柏 瑞 涅 綖 ” 妒 ,疾 臀 哗 蒜 . 篎 疥 “稐 篵 佰 涅 綖 ”妒 ,
監 父 哗 蒜 . 篎 疥 “ 矖 緁 涅 綖 ” 妒 , 蕸 瓮 哗 蒜 . 篎 疥 “粔 膁 涅 綖 ” 妒 ,
捐 腪 哗 蒜 . 蘦 佬 论 阶 窾 , “柏 瑞 菞 腞 ”妒 , 繢 阶 腞 哗 蒜 . 瑚 : “柏 瑞
菞 腞 ”胅 萚 往 罈 ? 祇 禑 : 蘦 谍 緳 萚 翗 緽 緂 阶 , 息 簄 瞭 槽 玛 , 粰 眥
逗 店 秲 阶 ,絼 籃 篟 搓 . 粰 眥 緳 萚 篿 阶 , 吞 祎 篟 搓 . 礠 聻 萰 胯 皳
綅弛谍絢稺蔲籃簧. 前薸絥哗, 磪硉腲堡. 箎膳萂竖, 菞缄焦
堡 . 篎 毯 筜 粙 , 礌 订 毯 哗 , 篎 秲 筙 粙 , 礌 订 秲 哗 . “ 键 册 瞲 ”禑 : “
矖 癦 癦 篟 毯 , 矖 癦 癦 篟 秲 . 蔲 蘦 论 阶 窾 , 礠 緽 竀 箙 艱 ”妒 . 蘦 “
蒼 礌 絧 睫 矖 旺 ”坊 篎 , 紪 挨 埠 羈 祡 矖 搓 妒 , 窾 焊 落 苔 哗 睬 驴 挡
惯 腞 怖 . 篎 蟨 蟨 矖 搓 妒 絧 , 坊 篎 菬 祬 腞 落 , 菞 稥 怖 .毋 妒 籃 往
顽? 焊堡綀蔎祤篟舉籃. 礠簵腞弛筒籃筒籃.
“this mistake”( 此 過 ) is the Southern concept of the direct identity between the ordinary
mind and the Buddha-nature, which is discussed right before the Chinese original of Tangut
text translated above.
251
Tentative translation.
346 INTRODUCTION
綒瞼繕祇萂榴缾棍科纚穔玛缾綀緽佬荺瑚舉灯氦瑚框
蜶
25. 或問: 如此悟見後,以游住252修行 [有 ]用乎?師謂 : 修以游住亦
有可,以不游住修亦有可。楞伽經謂: “起於一地,雖非及一地,真
如寂滅豈有住次?253”思益經謂: “若人聞正性,則不起於一地至於
一地也。此人不依生死,不住 13a 涅槃。”254又楞伽經偈謂: “初入,
255
一來,256不還,257阿羅漢,258如此諸天聖人,皆因妄心有。” 259若隨
第一義諦也,則是實相之理 , 實行清淨覺心 ,不可有住。若隨世俗方
便門,則遊住亦不有障礙。凡以事不礙理, 260以理不礙事, 261理事無
礙,則以日日行,不逆與無行,豈有所不修?若凝事迷理, 262凝理迷事,
263
13b 則何得相應?此謂非也。 264問: 此法門者,有名相?師謂 : 此法
252
Tangut: 棍 丝 Chinese: 遊住. The translation is based on the context. The term 棍
(“palace, place for living” etc.) represents bhūmi 地,which is peculiar to Huìzhōng’s text:
Tangut had a standard term for bhūmi: 睫 ,which is normally rendered through the Chinese
地.To preserve this peculiarity I use the word “place” in the translation.
253
Tangut: 棍 虃 Chinese: 住 次 (more appropriate Chinese would be 地 次 第 ).
Although Tangut quotation fts into the general content of certain parts of the Lankavatarasūtra, I failed to locate the quotation in its exact form.
254
The Chinese original version reads as follows: 若不從一地至一地,是人不在生死,
不住涅槃. Cf. 思益梵天所問經,T 15 no586: 36c7-9)
255
Tangut: 籒 笭 Chinese: 預流(Srotāpanna, Tangut lit.: 初入)
256
Tangut: 挨 耫 Chinese: 一來 (Sakŗadāgāmin)
257
Tangut: 篟 縹 Chinese: 不還 (Anāgāmin)
258
Tangut: 庆 茸 蟕 Chinese: 阿羅漢 (Arhat)
259
Chinese original version of the gatha in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra reads as follows: 預流,
一來果,不還,阿羅漢,如是諸聖人悉依心妄有.(T 16 no 672 597c1)
260
Tangut: 秊 吸 佬 篟 絥 聨 . Lit.: 以事不障礙理
261
Tangut: 佬 吸 秊 篟 絥 聨 Lit.: 以理不障礙事
262
Tangut: 秊 繘 佬 稥 Chinese: 凝事迷理
263
Tangut: 佬 繘 秊 稥 Chinese: 凝理迷事
264
Again, this paragraph strongly impregnated with Huáyán ideas, and is not attested in
other sets of Huìzhōng’s discourses. However, the ideas expressed in this section should
probably be interpreted in view of Huìzhōng’s prajñāpāramitā ideas. The “things” should
probably be understood as the manifestations of the mind (including emptiness and form),
whereas the “principle” is the principle of the “no-mind.” Personally I doubt the
authenticity of this paragraph basing on the following reason: the part of the discourse on
the “Great Diamond Man” is defnitely not authentic and is arranged through a combination
of two Huìzhōng’s discourses explicating related but nevertheless diferent topics (see right
below). The concluding description of the “Dharma Gate of the mind-ground of the
Southern school” is probably also a later interpolation: in Huìzhōng’s actual discourses he
never indentifes himself as a member of the “Southern” or whatever school and acutely
criticized the “teaching of the Southerners” (nánfāng zōngzhǐ 南 方 宗 旨 ). The formula
“Dharma Gate of the mind-ground of the Southern school” is unattested in the Chinese
NATHAN W. HILL
347
門本來不有名相。無名相中,立虛名相。此法門名者金剛三昧,不可
壞也。又名首楞嚴三昧,無勝度也。又名法性三昧,無轉變也。 又名
解脫三昧,無纏縛也。能解此理,則金剛大士, 265無人能伏。問: 金
剛 14a 大士有何功力?師謂 : 其之功德唯佛能知,隨一念相應時,能
離殑伽沙煩惱,不有所遺,能集殑伽沙功德,不有不全。[其]成諸天
八部龍神等之守護。往處無礙,[其]如獅子王。智慧光明,如大日。
复所生憂,即本無生,所滅憂,即本不滅。華嚴經謂: “一切法不生,
一切法不滅,若能悟此,則諸 14b 佛實現前。” 266此南宗心地法門 267
以外,有言異一少小法,此者則是未減無明障礙之人。又言有種種法
心以外難論人者,是大迷,於言何所在? 268如此人與語應不二,269諸
修者應增270應增。271
sources known to me, although Huìzhōng knew and used the term “mind-ground” (xīndì 心
地) extensively. I would interpret the introduction of this formula as an attempt to reconcile
Huìzhōng’s teaching with the tradition of Zōngmì, just as in the case with Tangut
interpretation of the Hóngzhōu teaching. However, the discussion of the “principle and
things” seems to have been widespread in the circles from which the Chinese original of
Huìzhōng’s discourses had originated: the larger text also contains it.
265
Tangut: 柏 瑞 菞 腞 Chinese: 金剛大士,Vajrasattva.
266
In this exact form the quotation had not been located in the sūtra.
267
Tangut: 蒼 礌 絧 睫 矖 蒷 Chinese: 南宗心地法門
268
Tentative translation, especially of Tangut: 毋 妒 籃 往 顽 (Chinese: 於言何所在 ).
Probably, the frst two graphs express a generalization, and imply everything which had
been said before, while the last three signs are a question, which I fnd hard to translate. The
whole concluding paragraph of the encounter is translated tentatively.
269
Tangut: 綀 蔎 祦 篟 舉 籃
270
Tangut: 投 籃
271
Tangut entry seems to be composed of the two original paragraphs from JDCDL.
Chinese version of the frst part of the encounter, See JDCDL (T 51 no2076: 439a29-b06):
脫無心名為何物?師曰: 名金剛大士。曰: 金剛大士有何體段?師曰: 本無形段。曰: 即
無形段,喚何物作金剛大士?師曰: 喚作無形段金剛大士。曰: 金剛大士有何功德?師曰:
一念與金剛相應,能滅殑伽沙劫生死重罪,得見殑伽沙諸佛。其金剛大士功德無量,非口
所說,非意所陳。
What is the name for the one who is liberated and had attained the no-mind? The Master said: He
is called the Great Diamond Man. Question: What is his physical form? The Master said: He has
no physical form. The monk asked: If he has no physical form, which thing is then called the
Great Diamond Man? The Master said: “That is, he is called the formless Great Diamond Man.
The question: What virtues does this Great Diamond Man have? The Master said: During one
moment of thought when he is harmony with the Diamond [substance], he can eradicate the
transgressions of the previous lives during the kalpas, as numerous as the sand in the Ganges; he
can see all the Buddhas. The virtues of this Great Diamond Man are immeasurable, no one can
explain or imagine them.
(See also: Wittern 1998: 191. Wittern’s translation is slightly diferent from mine).
348 INTRODUCTION
唐忠國師住光宅眾舍中時眾人問佛理二十五問答 竟
25. Someone asked: “After one understood that, is there any use to attain
perfection traveling through places?” The Master said: “You may travel
through the places, and also can avoid traveling through places.”
Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “Starting from one ground, although [you] do not
reach another ground, but do the extinction (nirvāna) and the true reality
(tāthātā) have sequence of stages [on the bodhisattva path]?”
Brahmaviśeṣacintīparipṛcchā-sūtra says: “If a man heard about the true nature,
he is not traveling from one place to another. This man does not follow life
and death, nor does he abide 13a in nirvāna.” Again, gatha from the
Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “The one who enters the stream, the one who returns
once, the one who never returns and the arhat: all these gods and saints exist
only due to the deluded mind.” If [you] proceed from the supreme ultimate
truth, which the meaning of the true characteristic, then in the practice of pure
awakened mind there are no places to pass. If [you] follow the mundane
expedient means, there is no harm in traveling through places. Really, things
do not hinder the principle, and principle does not hinder the things. Thus, if
[one] practices every day and does not contradict with the absence of
practice—is there any practice which will not be [fulflled]?” If [you] cling to
the things and misunderstand the principle, or cling to the principle and
misunderstand the things, 13b how do [you] attain the harmony? These words
are not true. A question: “Does this Dharma gate have a name and
characteristic?” The master said: “This Dharma gate originally had no name
The following part, See T 51: 439b12-15:
師曰: 無相似者, 世號: 無比獨尊。汝努力依此修行,無人能破壞者,更不須問.
任意遊行, 獨脫無畏.常有河沙賢聖之所覆護, 所在之處常得河沙天龍八部之所
恭敬, 河沙善神來護. 永無障難,何處不得逍遙?
The Master said: Since there is nothing which he looks like, in the world he is called the
Incomparable Revered One. You should follow and practice this way diligently, and no one will
be able to destroy you, so not ask any more. Follow the Way as you wish, attain liberation and
get red of fear: the sages, as numerous as the sands in the Ganges will always protect you;
wherever you are, the eight groups of Gods and Dragons will thus treat you with reverence. The
benevolent spirits as numerous as the sand in the Ganges will come to defend you. There will be
no more hindrances; will there be any place where you cannot wander at will?
(See also: Wittern 1998: 193. Wittern believes that the “Great Diamond Man” is the
translation of Sanskrit Vajrasattva). It should be noted here that in the original discourse by
Huìzhōng the above paragraph does not relate to the description of the Great Diamond Man,
but is devoted to “attaining harmony with “one-thought.” The two issues are connected, but
the Tangut version basically divides one single encounter into a number of shorter presentations. The opening part of this discussion had been transformed into a separate encounter
22 of the present edition. The larger text follows the pattern of JDCDL.
NATHAN W. HILL
349
or characteristic. In the absence of the name and characteristic, empty name
and characteristic were established. The name of this Dharma Gate is
Diamond Samādhi, because it is indestructible. Again, it is called Śūraṅgama
samādhi, because it cannot be surpassed. Again it is called the samādhi of
Dharma nature, because it does not change. Again it is called the samādhi of
Liberation, because there are no cufs in it. The one who understands it is the
Great Diamond Man; there is no one who can overcome him.” A question:
14a “What are the powers of the Great Diamond Man?” The master said:
“Only the Buddha knows his powers and merits. In harmony with one
moment of thought he can abandon the delusions as numerous as are the
sands of the Ganges and nothing will be left. [He] can collect merits as
numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and nothing will be incomplete. [He] is
under the protection of the eight categories of dragons and spirits and all the
gods. He goes everywhere without obstacles like the Lion king; his wisdom is
as bright as the great shining sun. Again, for the worries of birth, he is not
born; for the worries of extinction, he does not come to extinction.
Avataṁsaka-sūtra says: “All the dharmas are not born and do not disappear.
If you understand this, all the Buddhas will appear before you.” 14b Outside
of this Dharma gate of the mind ground of the Southern school, those who
speak about the other diferent small Dharmas, are the people who have not
eliminated the obstacle of avidyā. Again there are all sorts of Dharmas speaking of [something] outside of mind and posing difculties. These [people] are
in great delusion. All these talks: how are they possible? According to this,
there should be non-duality between the people and their teachings (i.e.
between what the people say and what they do), and practitioners must make
efort, must make efort.
Twenty fve answers to the questions on the Buddhist Principles, posed by the
assembly before the Táng State Preceptor Zhong while he was staying in the
Guangzhai Monastery. End.
REFERENCES
Chinese sources
Includes only the basic sources, the texts used for the references are
introduced in text. (Conventions: T with the volume and text number=
Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō; ZZ with the volume and text number=Shinsan
Zoku zōkyō (references sometimes done by the CBETA edition);
Müller=Digital Dictionary of Buddhism by Charles Müller).
350
INTRODUCTION
Chán Chart = 中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖 Zhōnghuá xīindì chánmén shīzì chéngxī tú ZZ
63 no1225 (composed by Zōngmì 宗密)
JDCDL= 景德傳燈錄 Jǐngdé chūandēnglù T 51 no 2076 (composed by Dàoyuán 道原)
LDHY= 聯燈會要 Liángdēng hùiyào ZZ 9 no1557 (composed by Wùmíng 悟明)
Réntiān yǎnmù=人天眼目 T 48 no2006 (composed by Zhìzhāo 智昭)
SGSZ= 宋高僧傳 Sòng Gāosēngzhuàn T 50 no 2061 (composed by Zànníng 贊寧); Fàn
Xiángyōng 范祥雍 ed. Sòng Gāosēngzhuàn 2 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shūjú: 2006
Zōngjìng lù= 宗鏡錄 Zōngjìng lù T 48 no2016 (composed by Yǒngmìng Yánshòu 永明延
壽)
ZTJ= 祖堂集 Zǔtáng jì (composed by 靜, 筠 二禪師 Jìng, Yún èr chánshī) 2 vols. 孙昌
武 Sūn Chāngwǔ, ed. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 2004
Modern Studies
Abe Choichi 阿部肇一 (1999) 中国禅宗史 Chugoku Zenshu rekishi translated by Guān
Shìqiān 關世謙 Taibei: Dongda
Anderl Ch. (2004a). “Studies in the Language of the Zutang Ji.” 2 vol. PhD. Dissertation,
University of Oslo
Anderl Ch. (2004b). “Qing 情 in Chán Buddhist Chinese”. Halvor Efring, ed. Love and
Emotions in Traditional Chinese Literature. (Sinica Leidensia LXIII). Leiden: Brill.
149-177.
Arakawa Shintarō 荒 川 慎 太 郎 (2006). “Study of Tangut version of Prajñāpāramitā
-hŗdaya-sūtra with a commentary preserved in Russia”. Philological Studies on Old Central Asian Manuscripts. Kyōto: University of Kyōto Press
Dù Jìmín 杜繼民 and Wėi Dàorǔ 魏道儒 (2007). 中國禪宗通史 Zhōngúo Cháanzōng
tōngshǐ. Nanjing: Jiangsu Rénmín chūbǎnshè
Duàn Yǜqüán 段玉泉 (2009). “西夏文《圣胜慧到彼岸功德宝集偈》考论 Xīxià wén
Shènghùi dàobǐàn gōngdé bǎojí jiè kǎolùn.” 西夏研究 Xīxià xué 4: 57-70.
Dumoulin H. (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History. India and China . Bloomington: World
Wisdom Press
Dunnell R. (1995). The Great State of White and High: Buddhism and State Formation in
11th century Xia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Ferguson A. (2000). Zen’s Chinese Heritage. The Masters and their Teachings. Somerville:
Wisdom Publications.
Furuta Shōkin 古 田 紹 欽 (1973). 隆 熙 二 年 南 版 陽 慧 忠 注 “ 摩 訶 般 若 波 羅 密 多 心
經”Lóngxī ni nan pan Nanyō Enchō chu Maka Hannyaharamita Shingyō. 新羅佛教研
究 Shinra bukkyō kenkyū. Tokyō: Yamakibo busshorin, 1973: 361-369 (also referred to
as “Furuta’s reading”)
Gregory Peter N. (1999). “Vitality of Buddhism in the Sòng”. P. Gregory and D. Getz, eds.
Buddhism in the Sung. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
Hamar I., ed. (2007). Refecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huáyán Buddhism. Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz Verlag.
Jacques, Guillaume (2009). “The Structure of the Tangut verb”, manuscript provided by the
NATHAN W. HILL
351
author.
Ishii Shūdō 石井修道 (1988). “南阳慧忠の南方宗旨の批判たっいて Nanyō Enchō no
nanpō shūshi no hihan ni tsuite.” 中国の仏教と文化 : 鎌田茂雄博士還暦記念論集
Chūgoku no bukkyō to bunka: Kamata Shigeo hakushi kinreki kinen ronshū. Tokyo: 大
蔵出版 Daizō shuppansha: 315-345
Jinhua Jia (2006) The Hóngzhōu school of Chán Buddhism in eighth through tenth-century
China. Albany: State University of New York Press
Jorgensen J. (1990). “Nányáng Huìzhōng and the Heresies of the Platform Sūtra”. Fo
Kuang Shan Report of International Conference of Ch’an Buddhism . Kaohsiung: Fo
Kuang Publisher 1990: 118-141
Kepping K. B. (1985). Тангутский язык. Морфология. Tangutskij Jazyk: Morfologija.
[Tangut Language: Morphology.] Moscow: Nauka Press
Kimura Kyotaka 木村清孝 (2007). “Huáyán and Chán”. Hamar I., ed. Refecting Mirrors:
Perspectives on Huáyán Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag,
Kychanov E. (1999). Каталог тангутских буддийских памятников. Katalog Tangutskikh
Buddhijskyh Pamytnikov. Kyoto: University of Kyoto Press.
Kychanov E. (2006). Словарь тангутского (Си Ся) языка. Slovar’ Tangutskogo (Si Sja)
Jazyka (Tangut Dictionary). Kyōto: University of Kyōto Press.
Lán Jífù 藍吉富 ed. (2006). 禪宗全書 Chánzōng qúanshū, vol. 1 Taibei: Wenshu chūbǎnshè
Lǐ Fànwén 李 范 文 (2008). 夏 漢 字 典 Xìa-Hàn zìdiǎn. Beijing: 中 國 社 會 科 學 出 版 社
Zhōngguó Shèhuìkēxué chūbǎnshè,
Lǐ Yùkūn 李玉昆 (1995). “敦煌遺書“泉州千佛新著諸祖師頌”研究 “Dūnhuáng yíshū
Quánzhōu qiānfó xīnzhǔ zhǔ zǔshī song yánjiū. Dūnhuángxué jíkān 敦 煌 學 輯 刊 (1):
29-35.
Lín Yīngchìn 林英津 (2006). 西夏語譯《真實名經》釋文研究 Xīxiàyǚyì “Zhēnshímíng
jīng” shìwén yánjīu. Taibei: 中央研究院語言學研究所 Zhōngyāng yánjiūyuan Yuyanxue
yánjiūsuo.
Lǚ Chéng 呂 澄 (2003). 中 國 佛 教 源 流 略 論 Zhōngguó fóxúe yuánliú lǜe lùn. Taibei:
Daqian chūbǎnshè.
McRae J. (1988). “Ch’an Commentaries on the Heart sūtra. Preliminary Inferences on the
Permutations of Chinese Buddhism”. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 11.2: 87-115.
Men’shikov L. N. (1984). Описание китайской части коллекции из Хара-Хото Opisanie
Kitajskoj chasti kollektsii iz Khara Khoto (fond P. K. Kozlova) (Description of the
Chinese part of the Khara Khoto Collection). Moscow: Nauka Press
Murakami Shun 村 上 俊 (1996). 唐 代 禪 思 想 研 究 Tōdai Zen shisō kenkyū. Hanazono
Daigaku: Kokusai Zengaku kenkyūsha.
Nevskij N. A. (1960). Тангутская филология. Tangutskaya flologia (Tangut Philology), 2
vols. Moscow: Nauka.
Nishida Tatsuo 西 田 龍 雄 (1997). 西 夏 王 国 の 言 語 と 文 化 , Seika Ōkoku no gongo to
bunka 2 vols. Tokyō: Iwanami Shoten,
Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄 (1966). 西夏語の研究 Seikago no kenkyū, 2 vols. Tokyō: Zauho
Press, 1964-1966
Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄 (1977). 西夏文華嚴經 Seikabun no Kegon kyō 3 vols. Kyōto:
352
INTRODUCTION
Kyōto University Press.
Schlütter M. (2007). “Transmission and Enlightenment in Chán Buddhism Seen through the
Platform Sūtra”. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 20: 379-409.
Schlütter M. (2008). How Zen became Zen. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.
Sharf R. H. (2007). “How to Think with Chán Gōng’àn”. Ch. Furth et al eds. Thinking with
Cases: Specialist Knowledge in Chinese Cultural History. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press
Solonin K. J. 索羅寧 (2001). (唐昌國師二十五問答出探) “Tángchàng Guóshī èrshíwǔ
wèndá chūtān”. 西夏學 Xīxìa xúe 2: 140-155.
Solonin K. J. (2008a). “The Glimpses of Tangut Buddhism”. Central Asiatic Journal 58.2:
66-127.
Solonin K. J. (2008b). “The Fragments of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch
Discovered in the Fu Ssu-nian Library, Academia Sinica”. Bulletin of the Institute of
History and Philology Academia Sinica 79.2: 163-185.
Sūn Bójūn 孫伯君 (2009). “Yúandài Báiyúzōng yìkán xīxìawén wénxian zōngkǎo” 元代白
雲宗譯刊西夏文文獻綜考.” Manuscript provided by the author.
Sūn Chāngwǔ 孙昌武 (2005)., ed. Zǔtáng jí 祖堂集, 2 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 2007
Tei Sei 程正 (2005). 《般若心經慧忠註》の諸本“Haramita Shingyō Enchō chu” no chu
bon”. 東アジア仏教研究 Tō Ajia bukkyō kenkyū 3: 59-71.
Ui Hakuju 宇井伯壽 (1948). 南陽惠忠の心經註疏“Nanyō Enchō no shingyō chusho”.
Hisamatsu Shinichi, ed. Zen no ronko: Suzuki Daisetzu hakase kiji kinen ronbunshū .
Tokyō: Iwanami Shoten.
Welter A. (2006). Monks, Rulers, Literati: The Political Ascendancy of Chán Buddhism.
New York: Oxford University Press
Wittern C. (1998). Das Yűlu des Chán-Buddhismus. Die Entwicklung von 8.-11.
Jahrhundert am Biespiel des 28. Kapitels des Jingde chuandenglu (1004). Bern: Peter
Lang Verlag,
Wǔ Yǒngměng 吳 永 猛 (1991). “Chánzōng yuánxiānglùn tányuán” 禪 宗 圓 相 論 探 源 .
Fójiàode sīxiǎng yú wénhùa 佛 教 的 思 想 與 文 化 . Taibei: 發 光 出 版 社 Fāguāng
chūbǎnshè. 53-68.
Yanagida Seizan 柳天聖山 (1989). “Hézé Shénhuì and Nányáng Huìzhōng”. 印度學佛教
學研究 Indogaku Bukyōgaku Kenkyū 7: 38-1.
Yáng Zēngwén 杨曾文 (1999). 唐五代禪宗史 Táng Wǔdài chánzōng shǐ. Beijing: 中國社
會科學出版社 Zhōngguó Shèhuìkēxué chūbǎnshè.