How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
61
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā∗
Kuwayama Sho-shin
Kyoto University
While the Chinese monk Xuanzang’s travels in South Asia are well known, the reason why he decided to
make Nālandā his main destination has not been previously examined in detail. This article focuses on the
early history of the Nālandā University, the South Asian monks from Nālandā who were active in China
during the sixth and seventh centuries, and how Xuanzang may have come to know about the renowned
educational institution in India through the works of these South Asian monks and their disciples. The
article also tries to clarify the possible date of Xuanzang’s departure for India.
Keywords: Xuanzang, Nālandā Mahāvihāra, Paramārtha, Prabhākaramitra, Yogācāra
doctrines in China
It is widely known that Xuanzang
(d. 664) studied the Yogācāra doctrines in
the famous Buddhist University of Nālandā, but the question of how he knew about
Nālandā and why he went there has never been raised. As a matter of fact, young
Xuanzang learned of the new trend of Buddhism which the Indian Paramārtha
(499–569) had brought with him to south China in the middle of the sixth century.
Paramārtha is known to have been of the same current of Sthiramati, a sixth-century
monk-scholar in the school of Valabhı̄, and Paramārtha himself was from Ujjainı̄ not
far from Valabhı̄. Why did Xuanzang not go to Valabhı̄ and preferred, instead, to go
to Nālandā?
XUANZANG’S STUDIES AND MASTERS
Xuanzang’s original name was Chen Yi
. Having entered the monastic life at the
Jingtu Monastery
in Luoyang, Xuanzang first learned the Vimalakı̄rtinirdeśa
∗ Previously published in Antonino Forte ed., Tang China and Beyond: Studies on East Asia from the Seventh
to the Tenth Century. Kyoto: Scuola di Studi sull’Asia Orientale, 1988. Slight changes to style and referencing
have been made in this version.
CHINA REPORT 48 : 1&2 (2012): 61–88
SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/000944551104800204
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
62
Kuwayama Shōshin
and the Saddharmapun.d.arı̄ka-sūtra.1 Becoming a śraman.a between 609 and 617, he
listened to Master of the Law Jing
, who preached the Mahāparinirvān.a-sūtra
and, in addition, he was given lectures on the Mahāyānasam.graha by Master of the
Law Yan
. He is said to have been so interested in this śāstra that he tried to
learn the whole of it by heart and was actually able to do so.2 Faced with the battles and
the social disorder at the end of the Sui dynasty (581–618), he left Luoyang together
with his elder brother, the monk Zhangjie
, who had been taking care of young
Xuanzang, and reached Chengdu
, the capital of the Shu province, where he
also listened to the Mahāyānasam.graha under Baoxian
and the Abhidharmahr.daya under Daoji
.3 Daoji, a specialist in the Mahāyānasam.graha doctrines, had
been taught in Pengcheng
by Jingsong
. He bestowed unstinted praise
on this śāstra during his stay in Chengdu. Baoxian was also specialised in the
Mahāyānasam.graha.4
Xuanzang then left Chengdu via Jiangling
for Zhaozhou
(in Hebei),
where he met Daoshen
, under whom he learned the Tattvasiddhi-s'āstra translated by Paramārtha.5 Next he made his way to Xiangzhou
(Anyang
in
Henan) where Huixiu
taught him both the Sam.yuktābhidharmahr.daya and the
Mahāyānasam.graha.6 Huixiu had studied the latter, following Tanqian
and Daoni
.7 Daoshen in Zhaoshou was well versed in the Tattvasiddhi-s'āstra which he had
studied under Zhinian
.8
Coming back to Changan and residing at the Dajue Monastery
,
Xuanzang continued to ask prominent monks his never-ending questions on the
Mahāyānasam. graha. The Abhidharmakośa-śāstra was taught to him by Daoyue
,9 the Mahāyānasam. graha by Fachang
and Sengbian
,10 and the
11
Mahāparinirvān.a-sūtra by Xuanhui
.
Among the scholars who instructed Xuanzang, Daoyue first learned the Tattvasiddhi'sāstra and the Sam.yuktābhidharmahr. daya under Zhinian
and Zhitong
respectively; then he was taught the Mahāyānasam. graha by Daoni and eventually
became specialised in the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra. He had obtained a text of the commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra written by Huikai
who directly listened
to Paramārtha, and became an indispensable resident in the Da Chanding Monastery
by the order of the emperor Yangdi in order to give lectures on this śāstra.
1
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 4.446c14.
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.221c23-27.
3
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.222a18-19.
4
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 14.532bl4-c23.
5
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.222b19.
6
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 4.447a29.
7
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 15.544b28-c2.
8
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 11.509a8.
9
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.2221b20-23.
10
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.222b24-27; Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 4.447b3-12.
11
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 4.447b12-14.
2
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
63
He later took part in the translation works of Prabhākaramitra who had a deep knowledge of the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra.12
The following shows what and from whom Xuanzang learned in China before his
departure for India.
1. Mahāparinirvān.a-sūtra
i. Master
ii. Xuanhui
2. Mahāyānasam.graha
i. Master of the Law Yan
ii. Bianxiang
iii. Daoyue
iv. Baoxian
v. Huixiu
vi. Fachang
vii. Sengbian
viii. Xuanhui
3. Abhidharmahr.daya
i. Daoji
4. Sam.yuktābhidharmahr.daya
i. Huixiu
5. Abhidharmajñāprasthāna
i. Daozhen (Zhizhen)
)
6. Tattvasiddhi-s'āstra
i. Daoshen
7. Abhidharmakośa
On the basis of an interpretation of Tanyan
, Fachang had been giving lectures
on the Mahāparinirvān.a-śūtra, but changed his subject at the age of 22 in 588 to
the Mahāyānasam.graha. He also took an important role when Prabhākaramitra made
Chinese versions of the Indian texts.13 Sengbian followed Zhinian who had learned the
Mahāyānasam. graha under Jingsong, so he was an interpreter of the ideas of Jingsong.
He was also a member of Prabhākaramitra’s translation team.14
The Mahāyānasam. graha was the central and most influential to Xuanzang among
many śāstras that he had learned. Fachang in Changan and Huixiu in Anyang were the
monks who followed the interpretation of Tanqian. Bianxiang
also was a monk
12
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 13.527a13-528c3.
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 15.540c14-541b23.
14
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 15.540a24-c13.
13
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
64
Kuwayama Shōshin
along the same lines, if Xuanzang ever listened to him.15 Daoji and Baoxian followed
16
along the lines of Fatai
who was a disciple of Paramārtha and a teacher of
17
Jingsong, a teacher of both Daoji and Baoxian.18 Xuanhui and Sengbian studied the
interpretation of Daoyue, who was a disciple of Daoni. Huixiu was also a disciple of
Daoni, one of the disciples of Paramārtha. Tanqian, however, was not a direct disciple
of Paramārtha, but he founded a school in Changan based on the Mahāyānasam. graha
text which he had obtained in Guizhou
.19
The Daye era (605–616) of the Sui dynasty, during which Xuanzang became
a śraman.a, was the age in which the new wave of Buddhist thought brought by
Paramārtha took the Buddhist world by storm. Following the Chinese version of
the Mahāyānasam. graha, Tanqian, Daoni and Fazhun
successively opened new
schools in North China, and their disciples were extending the boundary of Buddhist
knowledge, depending upon the various interpretations of the Mahāyānasam.graha that
they had learned. Therefore, it may be of no surprise that Xuanzang concentrated his
effort on the Mahāyānasam.graha. Considering how Xuanzang learned it, however, we
cannot think it natural that he had visited a lot of scholar-monks without a certain
purpose; he systematically tried to understand Paramārtha’s teaching, namely, the Yoga
15
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 12.519c3-520a23.
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 1.431a7-b24.
17
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 10.501c14-20.
18
Xu Gaoseng zhuan, respectively T. 2060 14.532b15 and T. 2060 14.532c21-22.
19
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 18.571b12-574b6.
16
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
65
and Vijñānamātravāda thought. Xuanzang’s biography written by Huili
and
Yancong
says that he resolved to travel to the Western Regions in order to inquire
about this thought and to bring to China the Sanskrit text of the Yogācārabhūmi which
had been translated only partially in Chinese. Paramārtha himself had translated only
one-tenth of the first part of it. This was called in China the Shiqidi lun
(Treatise on the Seventeen Lands). Regrettably, however, even this Chinese version
does not seem to have been extant at the time of Xuanzang. If he earnestly tried to
listen to various teachers, it was in order to understand all that Paramārtha had been
teaching Chinese Buddhists. Although much inclined to study the Mahāyānasam.graha
that also expounds the essentials of Mahāyāna Buddhism through the eyes of the
Vijñānamātravāda thought, Xuanzang seems to have been in darkness.
In response to the earnest demand of the Liang emperor Wudi (502–549),
Paramārtha reached the Southern Sea (Nanhai
) in the 12th year of Datong (546).
The emperor sent Zhangfan
, with a returning Cambodian envoy, in search of
virtuous priests and monks as well as various sūtra and śāstra. The king of Cambodia,
therefore, earnestly requested Paramārtha to leave for South China. Paramārtha thus
went to China but lived a miserable life, since the Liang dynasty collapsed just after
his arrival. He was born in Ujjainı̄ in 499. The Buddhist thought of Paramārtha is
said to have been similar to that of Sthiramati. Sthiramati was a native of Lat.a, a
country in western India which the Da Tang Xiyu ji
divides into north
and south, corresponding to Valabhı̄ and Mālwā respectively. The Da Tang Xiyu ji
says that the capital of Mālwā was along the southeast of the Mahi river, so we know
it was Vadodara or modern Baroda. Lat.a, therefore, was an extensive country which
comprised Valabhı̄ and Mālwā. Hence, the country where Paramārtha grew up was a
neighbour of that of Sthiramati.
The life of Sthiramati covers a period between 510 and 570, and he was a contemporary of Guhasena (553–569), the sixth king of the Maitraka dynasty, under
whom Valabhı̄ flourished a little earlier than Nālandā. During this time the Maitraka
rule extended not only to eastern Saurāshtra, but also to westernmost Saurāshtra, or
modern Dawālka, and also covered the area around western Mālwā. As a result of
the decline of the Guptas after the death of Skandagupta (455–467), an impetus was
given to the rise of local powers, one of which was the Maitraka dynasty founded
(with the capital in modern Valla) by Bhatārka, a senapati of the Gupta force in
Saurāshtra. A copper plate inscription tells us that there was a monastery in Valabhı̄
called after the princess Dud.d.ā who was a niece of Mahārāja Dhruvasena I (519–549).
This monastery, founded in 525 by Dhruvasena I in memory of Dud.d.ā, eventually
developed into a very extensive monastery comprising seven vihāras in all and was
called the Dud.d.āvihāraman.d.ala, after the successive donations of monastic buildings
(Dutt 1962: 328–31); Paramārtha and Sthiramati are, thus, considered to have been
included in Buddhist activities centred on Valabhı̄ which had been supported by the
Maitrakan donors.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
66
Kuwayama Shōshin
The Yogācāra thought that what Paramārtha taught Chinese monks has usually
been regarded as different from what Dignāga and Dharmapāla in Nālandā had
conceived of. As stated earlier, Xuanzang learned the Mahāyāvasam.graha from the
lineage of Paramārtha, hence the first question of why he did not go to Valabhı̄. Had
Valabhı̄ already been replaced by Nālandā? Several decades after Xuanzang, Yijing
(635–713) reported that both Nālandā and Valabhı̄ were famous centres for
studies of Indian philosophy and science. Xuanzang must have known of Nālandā
before he left Changan, so the questions arise of when and how Chinese Buddhists
got information on Nālandā. Before discussing these points, let us try to ascertain
when Nālandā was established.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF S’RI¯ NĀLANDĀ MAHĀVIHĀRA
Tāranātha’s History of Indian Buddhism tells us that Nālandā started as the place where
As´oka had made offerings to the Śāriputracaitya and built a vihāra. It tells us also
that Nāgārjuna was a virtuous priest in Nālandā and that Suvis.n.u, a contemporary of
Nāgārjuna, built 108 vihāras in Nālandā to prevent both Mahāyāna and Hinayāna
Buddhism from decaying. Tāranātha further refers to Āryadeva who resided in Nālandā
in the fourth century as a teacher of the Mādhyamika school and to Asan.ga who was also
a resident in Nālandā in the fifth century. Asan. ga was later succeeded by Vasubhandu
(Chattopadhyaya 1970: 106, 109, 123, 167 ff.).
Such stories as referred to earlier are only the legend that had successively been
added to and enlarged as Nālandā developed into a mahavihāra. Tāranātha provides
no positive evidence, excavated or written documents, which shows that it became a
centre of Buddhism much later than Tāranātha says.
According to Faxian
(d. before 423), there stood an imposing Mahāyāna
san.-ghārāma and a Hı̄nayāna vihāra beside an Aśokan stupa situated three li south
of the Balianfu village
, that is, Pāt.aliputra. These monasteries are said to
have together contained 600 or 700 monks, and the rules of demeanour and the scholastic arrangements in them were worthy of observation. Faxian further reports that
śraman.as of the highest virtue from all quarters and students who inquired to find
out truth and the grounds of it, all resorted to these monasteries, and that śraman.as
of great virtue in this kingdom and various Mahāyāna bhiks.us honoured and looked
up to a Brahman teacher living there whose name was Mañjuśrı̄ . Besides, close to
these monasteries there stood the first and earliest of the 84,000 stupas that Aśoka
erected. As Faxian notes, this stupa was three li south of the city, so it was near the
two monasteries. In front of the stupa there was the footprint of the Buddha and a
stone pillar, and to the north of the stupa was the city of Nili
built by Aśoka.
Within Nili there also was a stone pillar with an image of a lion on the top. It was in
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
67
the village of Naluo
, a yojana southwest of this place, where Śāriputra was born
and later returned to attain nirvān.a. Over the spot, Faxian says, there was built a stupa,
which was still in existence.20
The village of Naluo has been suggested as being identical with Nālandā, the present
Baragaon, by Cunningham (1871: 395). Legge (1886: 81) wrote that a grand monastery
had subsequently been built there, famous for the five years residence by Xuanzang.
Ghosh quoted both the Mahāsudhāsana jātaka and the Mahāvastu. The former cites
Naluo as village near Rājagr.ha, in which Śāriputra was born, and the latter refers to
Nālandāgrama, half a yojana to Rājagr.ha, in which Śāriputra was born (Ghosh 1971:
2–3). Ghosh identifies Naluo with Nālandā, though he rightly admits that Nālandā
became prosperous later than Faxian, since there is no monument, in Faxian’s description, which shows the magnificence of Nālandā. Dutt (1962: 328–31), while admitting
that Nālandā was one of the sacred places related to Buddha, points out that Nālandā
emerged as a centre of Buddhism after the decline of the Gupta rule.
Contrary to Ghosh and Dutt, Sankalia (1972: 43) gives the opinion that Faxian’s
silence on Nālandā cannot be taken as evidence that Nālandā was still in its prehistory.
He bases himself on the fact that Faxian does not give any detailed descriptions not
only about Nālandā, but also about all of the countries he visited. A Japanese scholar,
Adachi, has another view on Nālandā and Naluo. According to him, Xuanzang, in the
Da Tang Xiyu ji, regards Śāriputra’s place of birth and nirvān.a as Kalapinaka which is
situated some 30 li west of Indraśailāguha, while Faxian identifies it as the village Naluo.
The village Naluo is, therefore, identified with Kalapinaka. And, in the Da Tang Xiyu
ji, Kalapinaka is a place different from Nālandā. Thus, discussing the names of places
in both records of Xuanzang and Faxian, Adachi reaches the conclusion that the village
Naluo and Nālandā are quite different from each other (Adachi 1940: 149, n. 4).
Attention should be drawn, however, to Faxian’s description of Pāt.aliputra and
farther south. In spite of Sankalia’s remark that the descriptions of Faxian are brief
for all countries and that it is normal that the mahāvihāra of Nālandā should not be
excluded, it is possible to admit that Faxian gives a full account of the district 3 li south
of Pāt.aliputra, as I mentioned earlier. The fact that Nālandā is not mentioned against
the background of such detailed descriptions tells us that it had not been rising as an
important place of Buddhism.
The real history of Nālandā is still obscure despite the excavations, but something
historical may be found in both Xuanzang’s biography and the Da Tang Xiyu ji,
which we may consider as the most reliable sources among the documents that refer
to Nālandā. Let us begin with the history of building activities as it appears in the Da
Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan
, that is, Xuanzang’s
biography first written by Huili and later continued and edited by Yancong.
After the nirvān.a of Buddha an old king of this country called Śakrāditya, from a
principle of loving obedience to Buddha, built this convent. After his decease, his
20
Gaoseng Faxian zhuan T. 2085 862a-862c. Legge (1886: 78–81).
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
68
Kuwayama Shōshin
son Buddhagupta-rāja seized the throne, and continued the vast undertaking; he
built, towards the south, another san.ghārāma. Then his son Tathāgata-rāja built a
san.ghārāma in the east. Next, his son Bālāditya built a san.ghārāma in the northeast.
Afterwards the king, seeing some priests who came from the country of China to
receive his religious offerings, was filled with gladness, and he gave up his royal
estate and became a recluse. His son Vajra succeeded and built another san.ghārāma
to the north. After him a king of ‘Mid-India’ built by the side of this another san.ghārāma. Thus, six kings in succession added to these structures. Moreover, the
whole establishment is surrounded by a brick wall, which encloses the entire convent.
One gate opens into the great college, from which are separated eight other halls,
standing in the middle (of the san.ghārāma). The richly adorned towers and the
fairy-like turrets, like pointed hilltops, are congregated together (...). All the outside
courts, in which are the priests’ chambers, are of four stages. The stages have dragon
projections and coloured eaves, pearl-red pillars, carved and ornamented, richly
adorned balustrades, and roofs covered with tiles that reflect the light in thousand
shades; these things add to the beauty of the scene. The san.ghārāma of India are
counted by myriads, but this is the most remarkable for grandeur and height.21
The Da Tang Xiyu ji also tells us as follows:
Not long after the nirvān.a of Buddha, a former king of this country named
Śakrāditya respected and esteemed [the system of the] One Vehicle, and honoured
very highly the Three Treasures. Having selected by augury a lucky spot, he built
this san.ghārāma. (...) His son, Buddhagupta-rāja, who succeeded him, continued
to labour at the excellent undertaking of his father. To the south of this he built
another san.ghārāma. Tathāgatagupta-rāja vigorously practised the former rules,
and he built east from this another san.ghārāma. The work being done, he called
together an assembly for congratulation (...) This king’s son, called Vajra, came to
the throne in succession, and was possessed of a heart firm in the faith. He again
built on the west side of the convent a san.ghārāma. After this a king of Central
India built to the north of this a great san.ghārāma. Moreover, he built round these
edifices a high wall with one gate. A long succession of kings continued the work
of building, using all the skill of tile sculptor, till the whole is truly marvellous
to behold.22
20
Gaoseng Faxian zhuan T. 2085 862a-862c. Legge (1886: 78–81).
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 3.237b9-24. Tr. Beal (1911: 110–12). See also Julien
(1853: 149–51).
22
Da Tang Xiyu ji T. 2087 9.923b21-c17. Tr. Beal (1884: 2.168-170). See also Watters (1905:
164–66).
21
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
69
Yijing, moreover, says as follows:
At about seven stations to the north-east of the Mahābodhi Monastery the Nālandā
Monastery is reached, which the ancient king Śrı̄-Śakrāditya built in honour
. sa. At the beginning of foundation this vihāra
of the North Indian bhiks.u Rājavam
was only a little more than a square fence. Afterwards the kings, succeeding to the
empire, continued to undertake their father’s work. The structure is extensive and
magnificent, and at present in the Jambudvipa there is none superior to it.23
The king Śakrāditya is the fourth king of the Gupta dynasty who also held
Mahendrāditya as an epithet. Buddhagupta whose name was inscribed on the Eran
stone pillar with the date 165 of the Gupta era (AD 494) is a Gupta sovereign ruling only in 494 and 495. The Gupta genealogy after Skandagupta, the fifth king, is
vague, so a king called Tathāgatagupta by Xuanzang is quite unknown among the
lineage of kings, as is the case with Vajra. Only Bālāditya has been identified, as he
held the other name of Narasim.hagupta. Accordingly, there is no clear evidence for
such a succession of the Gupta kings as Xuanzang shows. Whatever the identity of
these kings may be, the foregoing descriptions show that Nālandā was found as a small
san.ghārāma donated by Kumāragupta Śakrāditya. As his reign covers a time span
between 415 and 455, it is natural that Faxian keeps silence on Nālandā in the first
decade of the fifth century.
From then on Nālandā gradually increased the number of the buildings and developed into an extensive vihāra enclosed by a brick wall built by a king of ‘Mid-India’, as
Xuanzang calls him. The magnificent view of Nālandā vihāras was brought to completion
with the Śrı̄-Nālandā Mahāvihāra, famous as a centre of Indian sciences. Xuanzang says
that the Mahāyāna and Hı̄nayāna philosophies, Vedic thoughts and Hetuvidya as well as
arithmetics and medical sciences were studied. The king of ‘Mid-India’ who gave the last
touch to Nālandā just before Xuanzang is identified with Hars.avardhana Śı̄lāditya by some
scholars (Dutt 1962: 329) and with Yaśodharman by others. Yaśodharman only appears
on the three stone inscriptions found at Mandasor. He is supposed to have been short
lived and is dated between 530 and 535 (Devahuti 1970: 48, n. 64; Majumdar 1954:
35–40). If the ‘Mid-Indian’ king in question had been Śı̄lāditya—the very influential king in north and central India at the time of Xuanzang—Xuanzang would not
have described him as such a vague figure as a king of ‘Mid-India’. In addition, it is not sure
how Yaśodharman was connected to Nālandā. We should, therefore, refrain for the time
being from a precise identification of the ‘Mid-Indian’ king. In the case that he was
Yaśodharman, Nālandā was completed in the first half of the sixth century. If it was
Śı̄lāditya, it would have come to its magnificence after he came to the throne in 606
(Devahuti 1970: 83).
23
Da Tang Xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan T. 2066 1.5b17-21, with some modifications with respect to
Chavannes’ (1894: 84–85) version.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
70
Kuwayama Shōshin
THREE INDIAN MONKS IN SIXTH-CENTURY CHINA:
NARENDRAYAS’AS, JINAGUPTA, DHARMAGUPTA
In order to search for informants who could have given information about the Śrı̄Nālandā Mahāvihāra, we have to deal here with three Indian monks who arrived in
China in the sixth century after Paramārtha. From a general examination of the various
biographies of eminent monks in the Lidai Sanbao ji
and the Xu Gaoseng
zhuan
, we know that the Indian monks who arrived after Paramārtha amount
to eight. These are Narendrayaśas, Jñānabhadra, Yaśagupta, Jinayaśas, Jinagupta,
Dharmaruci, Vinı̄taruci and Dharmagupta. We know that four of them—Jñānabhadra,
Yaśagupta, Jinayaśas and Jinagupta—came in a group from Gandhāra, but only
Jinagupta is well documented in several biographies, since he became an important
official translator protected by the Sui court. Dharmaruci, originating in Mālwā, is
only known to have translated a text of Indian astronomy into a 20 roll Chinese text
between 566 and 571 by the order of Yuwen Hu
.24 Vinı̄taruci went to China
without thinking that it was too far from his homeland, and translated two Indian
scriptures in 582, but we are not informed of his date of arrival.25
Narendrayaśas (490–589)26 came from modern Swāt (Ud.d.iyāna) and entered the
monastic life when he was 17. He received the complete precepts at the age of 21, and
after five summer retreats, undertook an extensive pilgrimage throughout the Indian
subcontinent from the Himalayas to the kingdom of Sim.hala (modern Śri Lānka).
After staying for 10 years at the Kalandaka Monastery in Magadha, he returned home,
but was forced to leave for the region north of the Snowy Mountains (the Karakorum).
Eventually he reached the country of Ruirui
(Rouran
, Ruru
) in central Mongolia. As soon as he arrived there, he met with the Turkish attack of Ruirui.
Since the Turks blocked the way up to the west, he had to give up returning to the
homeland. Then he had to wander northward and reached Nihai
(Muddy Sea)
which is said to have been located about 7,000 li to the north of the Turkish territory.
However, he had no intention of settling down there, and again wandered southward
to the state of Northern Qi, the capital of which was Ye , where he arrived finally
in the seventh year of the Tianbao era (556) at the age of 40.27
On the basis of this date we may calculate his date of birth (517) or that in which
he received the precepts (537), and the date when he left for his pilgrimage after the
summer retreat, that is, 541. On the other hand, we are confronted with another dating
which is in contrast with the foregoing solution. The same Daoxuan
says that
Narendrayaśas died at the age of 100 in the ninth year of Kaihuang of the Sui dynasty.28
24
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 1.429b28-c1.
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.433b2-6.
26
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.432a21-433b2.
27
See Daoxuan’s account in his Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.432c3-4.
28
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.433al 14-15.
25
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
71
According to the calculation based on this, the year of receiving the precepts should be
510 and the departure for pilgrimage should be converted into the year 514. Taking
into consideration a 10 years stay at the Kalandaka Monastery, we may reach tentative
dates of his travels from Swāt to China, between 551 and 556 by the former dating
and between 524 and 556 by the latter. Daoxuan also says in his Xu Gaoseng zhuan
that Yancong
(557–610) had edited a biography of Narendrayaśas and that his
travels covered the long time span of more than 40 years.29 If we regard the ‘more than
forty years’, as covering the duration from the very beginning of his travels, or the first
departure from Swāt to the Indian subcontinent till the arrival at Ye, the departure
around 514 may correspond to the 40 years travel, for 40 added to 514 makes 554.
This is very close to the year 556, the year in which he arrived at Ye.
During his long journey throughout India he actually paid homage to Buddha’s
alms bowl in Purus.apura, Buddha’s sacred robe and us. n.ı̄.s a bone in Nagarahāra and
Buddha’s teeth somewhere in modern Afghanistan. Furthermore, Daoxuan refers to
the ‘stone foundation of the ladder of Heaven’ (tianti shitai
), which means
that he proceeded to modern Sankı̄sa where Buddha is believed to have stepped down
from the Tus. ita heaven. Daoxuan also says that he had been to the ‘precious stupa
of the Nāga shrine’ (longmiao baota
).30 This place has not been identified
yet, but it is to be supposed to have been related to the legendary life of Buddha, so
it should be sought within modern north India. Narendrayaśas resided in the monastery of Kalandaka which is also in north India. Although the Kalandaka Monastery
was situated between old and new Rājagr.iha, the Xu Gaoseng zhuan does not tell
us that Narendrayaśas had been to Nālandā. This may suggest that Nālandā was not
yet famous.
In chronological order, next to Narendrayaśas, comes Jinagupta.31 Born in Purus.apura in Gandhāra, he entered the monastic life at the Mahāvana san.ghārāma under
Jinayaśas as his upādhyāya and Jñānabhadra as ācārya. At the age of 27, he received the
complete precepts. After three summer retreats during which he studied the vinaya,
he left Gandhāra in a group of 10 monks that included his teachers mentioned earlier, in order to preach Buddha’s Law. He stayed one year in Kāpiśı̄ and reached the
country of the Hephthalites in Tokhāristān via Bāmiyān, then passed Tāshkurghān
and Khotan. It was in the first year succeeding the dynasty of Western Wei or in 557
that he arrived at Shanzhou
in modern Qinghai
province. Daoxuan says
that Jinagupta died at the age of 78 in the 20th year of Kaihuang (600).32 Accordingly
he was born in 523, received the precepts in 549, left Gandhāra in 551 and arrived
at Shanzhou in 553 or 554, which is quite in disagreement with 557 (see Kuwayama
1987: 718–19).
29
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.433bl, 433a27.
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.4321b4. But probably we have to understand: ‘ladder of heaven’ (tianti
) and ‘stone tower’ (shitai
), ‘Nāga shrine’ (longmiao
) and ‘precious stupa’ (baota
).
31
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.433b7-434c13.
32
Xu Gaoseng zhuan 2.434c5-6.
30
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
72
Kuwayama Shōshin
The introduction of the Chinese version of the Saddharmapun. d.arı̄kasūtra, made by
Jinagupta, shows that Jinagupta and Dharmagupta revised the Indian texts of Buddhist
scriptures in the first year of Renshou (601) of the Sui dynasty.33 Chisheng
in
730 says that Jinagupta was engaged in the work of translation from the fifth year of
Kaihuang (585) until the end of Renshou (604), and that at the end of Renshou (604)
Jinagupta was exiled to Eastern Yue
.34 If this is true, he may have been 78 years
old when he was exiled. According to this dating, the date of his birth should be 527,
that of his receiving the precepts should be 553 and that of his leaving Gandhāra 555.
The date of his arrival at Shanzhou is 557 or 558.
From the biography of Jinagupta we can verify that he had never been to any Indian
country other than Gandhāra and that there is no evidence that he was well informed
of Nālandā. Besides, it is interesting to know from the Lidai Sanbao ji and the Da
Tang Neidian lu
as well as from the Xu Gaoseng zhuan that in Gandhāra
there had been monks of various countries even in the middle of the sixth century,
since Jinayaśas was from Magadha, Jñānabhadra from the kingdom of Padma and
Yaśagupta from the kingdom of Youpo
.
The last monk in this line is Dharmagupta.35 He was born in Lat.a (Luoluo
) in
modern western India, where Sthiramati originated. We do not know whether both monks
were contemporaneous, since the date of birth of Dharmagupta is unclear. Anyhow, it is
sure that it was not in Lat.a that he entered the monastic life. He had gone to Kānyakubja
at the age of 23, where he became a monk. At the age of 25 he received the complete
precepts under the guidance of Buddhagupta and Gun.agupta as well as Puzhao
(his Indian name is unknown). After three years he accompanied his teacher Puzhao to
Takkadeśa, the capital of which was probably near modern Siālkōt in Pākistān, where he
stayed five years in all.
It is important to know that Dharmagupta was informed of the kingdom of
Mahācı̄na from merchants who came from the northern routes during his stay in
Takkadeśa. He also knew that the kingdom of Kāpiśı̄ was at the junction of the northern routes where merchants and commodities had therefore been gathering; in any
earlier textual documents other than the Xu Gaoseng zhuan we have not a single line
of evidence for showing that Takkadeśa and Kāpiśı̄ were flourishing, nor have we any
earlier written documents in which these geographical names are clearly pointed out.
Hearing of Kāpiśı̄, he proceeded there, where he again heard merchants praising
the kingdom of Mahācı̄na flourishing as a Buddhist kingdom. There is no description of the countries between Takkadeśa and Kāpiśı̄ in his biography. If he hurried to
Kāpiśı̄ without special regard for Gandhāra and environs, Gandhāra may have already
been desolate. Therefore, it is necessary for us to know when he passed through
Gandhāra, in spite of the fact that the editor of his biography does not give any exact
33
T. 9 134c13-15.
Kaiyuan Shijiao lu T. 2154 7.550b17, 19–20.
35
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.434c23-435c27.
34
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
73
date. However, I think it highly possible that he passed through it in the end of the
seventies of the sixth century. The total duration of his stays in each country on the
way amount to about 10 years, and the biography proves, moreover, that he reached
Changan in 590.36
It is really curious that Dharmagupta became a monk not in his homeland, Lat.a,
but in Kānyakubja. Also strangely enough, he then proceeded westward in the direction
quite opposite to Nālandā, although Kānyakubja is rather close to Nālandā. According to
the Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan, Xuanzang read the Mahābhidharmavibhāśa
of Buddhadāsa under Vı̄ryasena at Bhadravihāra in Kānyakubja during a three months
stay, and learned the Sataśāstra of Deva and the Sataśāstravāipulyam under a Brahman
for one month in Takkadeśa.37 Even in the time of Xuanang’s visit to India, Takkadeśa
and Kānyakubja were thus famous for Indian philosophy, and even after the rise of
Nālandā they retained their fame. Yet if Nālandā had already been founded when
he went to Kānyakubja, it would not have been necessary for Dharmagupta to go
westward to Takkadeśa.
The foregoing discussion may prove that the Indian monks arriving after Paramārtha
could not give exact information about Nālandā. In other words, it seems at least
that Nālandā had not acquired great fame yet. In order to solve the question of how
Xuanzang knew about Nālandā, we have, therefore, to take a look at the written
information about India and the Western Regions in the time before his departure,
which, I surmise, may have been available to Xuanzang.
WRITTEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE WESTERN REGIONS
DURING THE SUI DYNASTY
The written information that Xuanzang could have referred to is limited to the Sui
period, as he left for India in either the first or the third year of Zhenguan (627 or
629), and nothing was compiled in the first decade (618–628) of the Tang rule.
(Illustrated Account of the Western Regions).
First comes the Xiyu tuji
It was edited by Pei Ju
probably in the earlier half of 606.38 The biography of
Pei Ju in the Sui shu tells us how he edited it:
Yangdi ascended the throne and built the Eastern Capital (Dongdu). As his official
duty [Pei] Ju constructed the governmental buildings in ninety days. At that time
various barbarians of the Western Regions came to Zhangye in order to exchange
commodities with China. The emperor let [Pei] Ju supervise the trade. Realising
36
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.435a17-b23.
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 2.233b24-26, 2.232a23-24.
38
On Pei Ju, see Jäger (1920–22). See also Wright (1978: 169–71).
37
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
74
Kuwayama Shōshin
that the emperor had a plan regarding distant countries, [Pei] Ju invited merchant
barbarians there to tell of the customs and natural topographies of their countries,
and compiled the Xiyu tuji in three juan, which he presented when he went to
court.39
The Xiyu tuji is a record of the Western Regions which was not written by
travellers to such regions, but depended on the information given by merchants who
came to the western border of the Sui. The text has long since been lost, and only
the preface written by Pei Ju himself has been preserved in his biography in the Sui
shu. It is important to underline that in the preface there is clear mention of three
to countries such as the Byzantine empire and
routes leading from Dunhuang
Sassanian Persia, as well as India. The northern route led to Hami, the Barkulnor, the
Kara-tāgh, the northern slopes of the Bogd-ōla range, the Yulduz valleys and, then
crossing the rivers flowing northward such as the Volga, reached the Byzantine
empire. In the middle of the route, one is led to Turfan via Hami, then to cities along
the southern slope of the Tianshan
range and reach modern Kāshghar. From there
one may proceed to Ferghāna, Sogdiana, where one may take routes to Persia. The
southern route leads to the southern fringe of the Taklamakan desert, then to the top
of the Pamirs where Gharbanda, or modern Tāshkurghān, is. From there the road goes
in the direction of Tokhāristān via Wa’khān and crossing the Hindūkūsh at Bāmiyān,
reaches Kāpiśı̄ and northern India.
Particular attention should be drawn to the southern route, which Jinagupta and
Dharmagupta took. Jinagupta left Gandhāra for Kāpiśı̄ and reached the Hephthalite
kingdom in Tokhāristān via Bāmiyān, and arrived at Tāshkurghān. Dharmagupta
also arrived at Kāpiśı̄, coming from Takkadeśa, then to Bāmiyān, Balkh (otherwise
Baghlān), Badakhshān, Wa’khān, and eventually found himself in Tāshkurghān.
Whatever the routes of these two Indian monks may have been, we can just make
conjectures on how Narendrayaśas proceeded from Ud.d.iyāna. The biography very
vaguely refers to his itinerary, only saying that he proceeded to the mountainous region
where he was attacked by thieves and, following a route to the east, reached Mongolia.
The route may have been described in his biography, which was edited by Yancong
(557–610), but is no longer extant. From the biography of Narendrayaśas written
by Daoxuan, we learn the following:
On inquiry, [Narendra]yaśas’ travels extended for more than forty years, in more
than fifty countries, for one hundred fifty thousand li. There was no place that he
had not paid hommage to, among which are the miraculous shadow of Buddha,
sacred remains, famous temples, eminent monks, abodes, rapid gorges, deep woods,
and mountains and seas where gods reside. All these places had immediate effects
39
Sui shu 67.1578.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
75
on him. He himself had no time to describe these things, since they covered such
extensive an area. The śraman.a Yancong therefore edited his real biography and
widely circulated it.40
Among the geographical works housed in the Sui court there seems to have been
preserved a five roll work which was entitled Da Sui fanjing poluomen fashi waiguo
(An Account of Foreign Countries by the Indian
zhuan
Master of the Law who translated the Texts during the Great Sui).41 This may have
been the work by Yancong, alluded to by Daoxuan.
Yancong also wrote another biography, which is mentioned in the notice on
Dharmagupta by Daoxuan in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan. The travel of Dharmagupta
covered a lot of famous countries. Hearing Dharmagupta recounting his experience,
Yancong knew that it well surpassed what had previously been known. Depending
upon his experience and by the order of the emperor, Yancong published the Da Sui
Xiguo zhuan
which consisted of 10 sections.42 According to the biography
of Yancong, it was carried out in 602.43
Apart from that, Yancong also edited the biography of Dharmagupta in four rolls,44
and later, together with Pei Ju, compiled an Indian geography entitled Tianzhu ji
(Account of India) by the order of the emperor.45 The Tong dian (193.1040)
says that in order to establish the contact with the Western Regions Emperor Yangdi
let Pei Ju receive people from the Western Countries, and that many of them readily
came to be received in audience, except for India. The Xin Tang shu (221A.6237) also
proves this circumstance. This suggests that for the edition of the Xiyu tuji Pei Ju did
not get any information on India and that Dharmagupta was the earliest and only
informant on India in early seventh century Sui.
Another work on the Western Regions, the Xifan ji
(Account of Western
Barbarians), would be highly informative, if it still survived completely. This was
written by the Sui official Wei Jie
, who was really sent as an envoy by Yangdi to
the Western Countries.46
Thus, the information on the Western Countries and India was almost all brought
by the Indian Buddhist monks which I have discussed in the previous section. Yancong
was so keen to collect foreign news that he became closely involved with the compilation
of all the books on the Western Regions known to us. The biography of Narendrayaśas
first came out at the end of the sixth century, then the Da Sui Xiguo zhuan in 602,
40
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.433a27-b2.
Sui shu 33.986.
42
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.435c.
43
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.437c3.
44
Da Tang Neidian lu T. 2149 5.278c27.
45
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 2.437c21.
46
Sui shu 83.1841; Tong dian 193.1039, 1040.
41
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
76
Kuwayama Shōshin
the Xiyu tufi in the early half of 606 (Kuwayama 1975: 100–01), and the Tianzhu
ji before 610. Of all these works nothing remains except the titles and part of the
preface of the Xiyu tuji. My opinion is that Xuanzang could not have learned about
Nālandā from these works which were based on the information given by the Indian
monks mentioned earlier.
XUANZANG’S FIRST ITINERARY
Xuanzang certainly knew before his departure which places to go and which road to
take. The itinerary that he actually took is well known through his most extensive
biography, the Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan. He arrived at Hami, passing
through the corridor of Hexi, and proceeded to Turfan at the urgent request of Qu
Wentai
, the king of Gaochang
. A sister of Qu Wentai had been married
with the eldest son of Ton-yabghu (Tong Yehu
)Khaqan of the West Turks.
Ton-yabghu was most influential over vast areas between the Altai mountains and
the cities in Sogdiana as well as along the southern fringe of the Tianshan range.
He had set his eldest son, who had the official title of Tudun Shad and who had
married a sister of the Gaochang king, near Qal’a-ye Zāl at the confluence of the
Daryā-ye Āmū and the Surkhāb (the Qunduz); moreover, he had put another son, called
Xili
Tegin, in Ferghana. Qu Wentai gave Xuanzang much help and advice—both
materially and morally—for his safe arrival at the headquarters of Ton-yabghu.
Ton-yabghu warmly received him and let him pass through his vast domains with a
special escort to reach Qal’a-ye Zāl and farther. It is a fact that Xuanzang could travel
from Turfan till Tokhāristān more easily than one would expect, thanks to the protection of politically influential powers. The biography even informs us that Ton-yabghu
made a young interpreter, who had been in Changan for several years, accompany
Xuanzang to Kāpiśı̄.47
Whatever the practical details of his travels may have been, the following passage
from the first juan of the biography clearly points out that he had, in fact, conceived
an original itinerary which differed a little from the actual route taken.
At this time an official (or: some officials) of the king of Gaochang, Qu Wentai,
was in Hami. The day he was returning to Gaochang, he happened to meet the
Master of the Law [Xuanzang]. He told his king, when he went back home, [that
Xuanzang was in Hami]. As soon as the king [of Gaochang] heard of him, he
dispatched an emissary on that very day in order to command the king of Hami
to send the Master of the Law. Moreover, [the king of Gaochang] selected several
tens of superior horses and sent the nobility to see Xuanzang in Hami. They arrived
47
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 2.227b27-cl.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
77
after [Xuanzang] had been in Hami ten days and more, and explained the king’s
will, and earnestly besought him to comply with the arrangement. Xuanzang had
intended to take the road leading past Kehanfutu
, but now, despite his
respectful refusal of the king of Gaochang’s consideration, he could not escape from
it and so was obliged to go. Crossing the southern desert, after six days they came
to the borders of Gaochang, to the town of Baili
.48
Xuanzang had first conceived the plan of proceeding to Kehanfutu from Hami
without passing Gaochang. The identification of Kehanfutu varies among scholars:
Jimsa for Chavannes (1905: 558) and Xu Song
,49 Mulei
for Abe (1955:
165–68, 517 ff.), the Panopa valley for Matsuda (1970: 316–18) and Guchen for
Shimazaki (1977: 214–26). It may suffice for us to know that it was a town situated
on the northern fringe of the Bogd-ōla. This itinerary suggests that Xuanzang had it
in mind to take the road leading directly from Hami to the north of the Bogd-ōla,
where the Khaqan of the Western Turks Ton-yabghu was influential, with Kehanfutu
as a crucial station for his control over the East Turks, Gaochang and Tang China.
Khaqan of the Western Turks (a
The Sui shu50 tells us that the Chuluo
predecessor of Ton-yabghu) had no special headquarters but usually lived in the
territory where the Wusun
had formerly been. He ordered two minor Khaqans
to govern his provinces: one of them was north of the town of Shi (Shash, modern
Tashkent), from where he controlled various countries of Iranian stock, while the
other was north of Guizi
(Kucha), in the district called Yingpo
(the Yulduz
valleys). It also informs us of the early development of the West Turks who, gradually
seceding from the main Turkish groups and extending to the west, crossed the Altai
mountains and subjugated all Iranians in the Western Regions, Kucha, Hami and
the Tiele
Turks. This implies that in the time of Chuluo Khaqan at the end of
sixth century they extended their territory to the northern fringes of the Tianshan
and established rule over the eastern regions south of the Tianshan. Then Shekui
Khaqan further extended his rule covering the vast area between the Altai and
the Aral sea and subjugating all the oasis cities west of Yumen
. As a result, he
came to stand face to face with the East Turks, sharing the vast area of tile eastern half
of the North Asiatic steppe.
After Shekui Khaqan, Ton-yabghu came to the throne of Grand Khaqan between
the llth year of Daye (615) and the second year of Wude (619). Brave, resourceful
and highly proficient in attack, he eventually annexed the Tiele in the north, fought
against Sassanian Persia in the west, came into contact with Kāpiśı̄ in the south and
48
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.224c14-21. See also Julien (1853: 32); Beal (1911:
24–25).
49
Hanshu Xiyu zhuan buzhu 2.24b8-11; Xiyu shuidao ji 3.25a8-9.
50
Sui shu 84.1876; Chavannes (1903: 14 ff.)
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
78
Kuwayama Shōshin
made all of them come under his jurisdiction. The Jiu Tang shu51 further tells us that
he possessed the Western Regions as a supreme ruler with several hundred thousand
archers. He was also reported to the Tang court, to have first depended upon the old
home ground of the Wusun in the north of the Tianshan, and later to have moved his
headquarters to the Qianquan
district north of Shash. His close relations with
the Sassanians and the Kāpiśians made his headquarters shift westward.
As to the Eastern Turks, Jieli
Khqan came to the throne of Grand Khaqan in
620 and was to be confronted with Ton-yabghu. On the Stein manuscript 367, dated
the first year of Guangqi (885), there appears Yizhou
(modern Lupchuk), where,
in the beginning of the Tang period, there was a local resident, named Shanfutuo
, belonging to the East Turks (Haneda 1930: 590; Stein 1921: 1155–58). The
Stein manuscript shows that the East Turks were influential even in the region west
of Hami. In addition, in 625 or 626, Jieli Khaqan sent a messenger to Ton-yabghu to
warn him with the statement that the road on which a Chinese princess would pass
was in his territory. In this way Jieli Khaqan tried to prevent Ton-yabghu Khaqan
from marrying her.52 This statement implies that a political situation similar to that
known from the Stein manuscript seems to have been in existence even in the eastern
half of the region south of the Tianshan in the early seventh century. How strong the
influence of Jieli Khaqan was can be guessed from the description in the biography of
Xuanzang where we read that the king of Gaochang, a brother-in-law of Ton-yabghu
Khaqan, ordered the king of Hami to send Xuanzang. The setting up of both the north
and south headquarters of the Western Turks53 may be regarded as a necessary policy of
Ton-yabghu Khaqan in his struggle against Jieli Khaqan: The south headquarters are
identified by Matsuda (1970) as being in the Yulduz valley, and the north and south
fringes of the Bogd-ōla were severe for both groups of Turks. For the West Turks, the
maintenance of Kehanfutu must have been strategically all the more indispensable,
since Ton-yabghu Khaqan moved the headquarters westward.
Yet, the eastern borders of the West Turks seem to have been short of defence when
Xuanzang came to Hami with the intention of proceeding to Kehanfutu. The state of
affairs in the north of the Bogd-ōla was changing, and crossing the mountains may
have been dangerous. If the northern region had been at peace and in good order
under the control of the West Turks, Qu Wentai could have sent Xuanzang through
the Bogd-ōla to Kehanfutu. On the contrary, he in fact escorted Xuanzang to Balujia
via Kara Shahr and Kucha along the southern fringe of the Tianshan. From
Balujia he crossed the mountain to proceed to the Khaqan’s headquarters. The fact
that Qu Wentai did not try to reach the north directly from Turfan suggests that the
conditions were not entirely peaceful. This may be in relation to the military movements of Ashina Sheer
. In the first year of Zhenguan (627), the Tiele,
51
Jiu Tang shu 194B.5181; Chavannes (1903: 24 ff.).
Jiu Tang shu 194B.5181 ff. (Chavannes 1903: 24 ff.); Zizhi tongjian 192.6046.
53
See note 51.
52
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
79
Turks rebelled. Ashina Sheer took as his base
the Uighurs and the Xueyantuo
Kehanfutu, preserving his western territory, after he was defeated by the Xueyantuo
Turks in the second year of Zhenguan (628).54
From all this we can conclude that since Xuanzang intended to proceed to
Kehanfutu from Hami, it is evident that he did not know the latest developments
of the political and military situation. These were known, of course, to Qu Wentai
who convinced Xuanzang to come to Gaochang. In other words, the information
Xuanzang had carried with him since his departure was out of date at the time of his
arrival at Hami.
THE PERSON WHO SUGGESTED THE ITINERARY
AND INFORMED XUANZANG ABOUT NĀ LANDĀ
Prabhākaramitra seems to have done so, though two questions yet remain to be
solved. The first is the date of Prabhākaramitra’s arrival in Changan; the second question is the date of Xuanzang’s departure from Changan for the West. Let us discuss
here these two questions.
Biographical material about Prabhākaramitra is found in many sources.55 According
to his biography, included in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan, he was born in ‘Mid-India’ in 565,
and entered the monastic life at 10 sui in 574. After learning a laks.a (100,000, that
is, a great quantity) of Mahāyāna sutras, he received the complete precepts. Ten years
later, he went southward to Nālandā and met S´ı̄labhadra who had vigorously been
lecturing on the Yogācārabhūmi. The biography does not give the year when he received
the precepts, but if we consider that one could be qualified to receive them at the age
of 20, this may have been 583. If such a date were accepted, he must have gone to
Nālandā in 594 or 595. By learning the Yogācārabhūmi, which also clarifies the thought
of Hı̄nayāna Buddhism, he could recite various sutras from it. Prabhākaramitra was so
clever and deep-minded that he had a thorough knowledge not only of Buddhism but
also of Vedic thought, and was well versed in both Mahāyāna and Hı̄nayāna thought.
He was recommended by the fellows of the Buddhist community as a man who initiated monks in the light of True Law. Among his disciples there were three who deeply
mastered the meanings of Buddhist thoughts, named Prajña, Indra and Varman.
Although he had been leading Buddhism together with many of his disciples and
54
Jiu Tang shu 109.3289; Xin Tang shu 110.4114 (Chavannes 1903: 175).
See Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 3.439c26-440c3 (partially tr. in Chavannes 1903: 192–93); Huize’s
preface of the Prajñāpradipamūla-madhyamakavr.itti (T. 1566, 51a10 ff.); Li Baiyao’s preface of the
Mahāyāna-sūtralām
. kāra (T. 1604, 590a6 ff.); Falin’s preface of the Mahāsam. nipātaratnaketu-dhāran.i
(T. 402, 537c15 ff.); Bianzheng lun T. 2110 4.512c9 ff.; Da Tang Neidian lu T. 2149 5.281a11-20; Gujin
yijing tuji T. 2151 4.366c2-11; Kaiyuan Shijiao lu T. 2154 8.553b3-554a9; Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu
T. 2157 11.852c15-853b29.
55
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
80
Kuwayama Shōshin
devotees in his homeland, and had been received with veneration by the king and his
lieges, he further desired to preach the Law to the northern barbarians whom he heard
still remained uncivilised in Buddhism and were only brave in character. In addition,
he had been well aware that monks were subject to karma. Therefore, together with
10 companions, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, he went northward from place to
place and reached the headquarters of Ximian
Khaqan (of the West Turks), who
came to hold him in high esteem within 10 days of his arrival.56
Of vital importance is the fact that Prabhākaramitra learned from Śı̄ labhadra in
Nālandā, who had energetically been advocating the Yogācārabhūmi through which
Prabhākaramitra became so eminent in the thought of both Buddhism and Veda as to be
recommended as a teacher of the Law. Profoundly versed in the YogaVijñānamātravāda,
he went to China and made the first Chinese version of the Mahāyāna-sūtralam.kāra
in the fourth year of Zhenguan (630). As stated in his biography, Xuanzang had
known about the existence in India of the Yogācārabhūmi before his departure, but
his philosophical knowledge was based on a very small initial part of it—called in
China Shiqidi lun
. Then, without the information of Prabhākaramitra, the
statement in the biography of Xuanzang that he resolved to travel to India in order
to take the text of the Yogācārabhūmi 57 would not have been made. In other words, it
was from Prabhākaramitra that Xuanzang heard for the first time that the Shiqidi lun
was only a small part of the Yogācārabhūmi, the complete text of which was found in
India, more exactly in the Śrı̄ Nālandā Mahāvihāra where Śı̄ labhadra was teaching
the Yogācāra thought on the basis of such text.
How could Prabhākaramitra go to China from the land of the northern barbarians?
The biography only tells us that in the ninth year of Wude (2 February 626 to 22
January 627) the prince Gaoping
was sent as an envoy to the barbarous land
where he met Prabhākaramitra and that the prince desired to take him to the east.58
We will try here to give an account of the background of the relations between the
prince Gaoping and Prabhākaramitra.
For the young Tang dynasty it was the foremost matter of concern to defend the
country against the East Turks who had often been threatening China from the north.
In order to restrain the menace, the Tang rulers found it of utmost necessity to be in
good terms with the West Turks who, on the other hand, also had a pressing need for
friendly relations with Tang China in order to keep their eastern domains quiet, in
view of the fact that they had moved their main operations to the west. So the West
Turks brought tributes to China almost every year or twice a year from the second
year of Wude (619). In 619 China received a tribute from the West Turks who came
together with Gaochang. In 620 they went to the Tang court and offered a gigantic
56
See the preceding note.
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 1.222c4-6. Tr. Julien (1853: 12–13); Beal (1911: 10).
See also Da Tang gu sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuan T. 2052 214c8-10.
58
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 3.440a; Chavannes (1903: 192).
57
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
81
bird from Syria.59 The Cefu yuangui says that the West Turks came twice in 620, and
also tells us that they came in the third month of the following year 621. Moreover,
the West Turks brought with them a gift of a lion skin in the fourth month of 622
and fine horses in the eighth month of the same year.60 The Cefu yuangui tells us that
the West Turks requested a princess from Tang China on the occasion of the tribute in
either the fourth or the eighth month of 622.61 In the sixth year of Wude (623) they
also sent an envoy and in the seventh year (624) Moheduo
Khaqan was sent
by Ton-yabghu Khaqan.62 Since the accession of Ton-yabghu Khaqan the West Turks
had sent missions to Tang China and such a series of tributes resulted in asking for a
Tang princess in 622 and in begging for peace in 623. The Cefu yuangui informs us
how in the fourth month of the eighth year (625), China decided to give a princess to
Ton-yabghu Khaqan. Ton-yabghu Khaqan sent a mission in order to ask for marriage.
The emperor asked Pei Ju whether the West Turks were too distant to give aid in an
emergency, and what should be decided about their request for a Chinese princess.
Pei Ju answered that the northern barbarians were strong. Chinese should be friendly
to farther countries while fighting against the nearer, since they were making plans
for the new nation. Pei Ju suggested that the best way to intimidate Jieli Khaqan was
to accept for the moment Ton-yabghu’s demand for a princess. When China would
be strong enough to resist the attack of the northern barbarians, then it should
be considered without haste whether it was really necessary to give a princess or not.
The emperor followed his advice, and let the prince Gaoping go to the country to
declare his will. Ton-yabghu Khaqan was much pleased.63
The prince Gaoping is Li Daoli
, who was the heir of Li Xiaoji
,
the Prince Yonganzhuang
, according to the genealogical table of the Tang
imperial family.64 The first emperor of the Tang dynasty received the emissary of
Ton-yabghu Khaqan in the fourth month of the eighth year of Wude (625), who
requested a Princess. But the year in which the Prince Gaoping went out to the West
Turks is not given in any sources except the biography of Prabhākaramitra in the
Xu Gaoseng zhuan that clearly mentions it was the ninth year of Wude (2 February
626 to 22 January 627).
The prince Gaoping met Prabhākaramitra in the court of Ton-yabghu Khaqan.
Respecting his personality and profound knowledge, Li Daoli was to bring him, with
the permission of the emperor, to Changan. The significance of Prabhākaramitra’s
arrival was great in view of the impact he made on the Chinese Buddhist world.
As his biography states, Prabhākaramitra thoroughly answered the questions that
59
Jiu Tang shu 1.10, 194B.5181.
Cefu yuangui 970.11396.
61
Cefu yuangui 978.11495.
62
Cefu yuangui 970.11397.
63
Cefu yuangui 978.11495.
64
Xin Tang shu 70A. 1985.
60
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
82
Kuwayama Shōshin
had not been elucidated before.65 By the order of the emperor he began translating
the scriptures at the Daxing shan Monastery
in the third month of the
third year of Zhenguan (629), with the assistance of 19 monk-scholars of profound
learning who responded to the call of the emperor.
However, the year of his arrival is rather obscure, as his biography only tells us
that in the 12th month of ‘that year’ he arrived at the capital together with the prince
Gaoping, and was received in audience. Does ‘that year’ mean the ninth year of Wude
(2 February 626 to 22 January 627)84? Probably it could be so, so far as it must be
solved within the limit of the passage of his biography. Other sources, however, give
another date, the first year of the Zhenguan era (23 January 627 to 10 February 628).
These sources say as follows:
1. In the first year of the Zhenguan era, Ton-yabghu Khaqan sent Zhenzhu tongsijin
, accompanied by the Prince Gaoping, as an envoy to receive the
princess and present the emperor with a golden belt decorated with 10,000
rivets of gold, and 5,000 horses.66
2. Prabhākaramitra arrived at Changan in the year jingxu
, the first year of
the Zhenguan era.67
3. Prabhākaramitra arrived at Changan with the Indian scriptures on the 12th
day of the 11th month in the first year of Zhenguan (24 December 627), the
year that is located at the constellation of Juzi
.68
4. Prabhākaramitra entered the capital in the 12th month of the first year of
Zhenguan (12 January to 10 February 628).69
The prefaces of the works translated by Prabhākaramitra thus agree in stating
that the year of his arrival was the first year of Zhenguan. However, the source no. 2
contradicts itself. When it speaks of jingxu
, we must understand bingxu
,
since the character bing was taboo during the Tang. Now, the bingxu year does not
correspond to the first year of Zhenguan, but to the previous year, that is, the ninth
year of Wude. It is very curious to find that the name of the sexagenary cycle bingxu
appears combined with the first year of the Zhenguan era, since the preface was written in the fourth year of the same era. This cannot be due to a miswriting nor due to
a misprinting which may have happened in the course of time.
65
Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 3.440a18-21.
Jiu Tang shu 194B.5182; Zizhi tongjian 192.6046.
67
See the preface by Huize of the Chinese version of the Prajñāpradipamūlamadhyamakavr.itti, quoted
earlier, note 55.
68
See the preface by Falin of the Chinese version of the Mahāsam
. nipātaratnaketu-dhāran.i, quoted
earlier, note 55.
69
See the preface by Li Baiyao of the Chinese version of the Mahāyāna-sūtralām.kāra, quoted earlier,
note 55.
66
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
83
Furthermore, when Falin later re-used his preface in the Bianzheng lun, he changed
jingxu
to gengxu
. Gengxu is not correct, since the first year of Zhenguan
is dinghai
. Daoxuan, who wrote ‘that year’ in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan, explicitly
says in his other work, the Da Tang Neidian lu, that Prabhākaramitra arrived in the
first year of Zhenguan. In 730, Zhisheng quoted the whole of the biography from
the Xu Gaoseng zhuan but changed the expression ‘that year’ into the ‘20th day of the
eleventh month of the first year of Zhenguan’ (l January 628). He did not change it
into ‘the ninth year of Wude’.70
The ‘that year’ and the jingxu (that is, bingxu) cannot be explained within the limits
of the foregoing sources. Let us try, then, to turn our eyes again to the Jiu Tang shu and
to the Zizhi tongjian, which are based on the records housed in the Tang court. They
say that in the first year of Zhenguan Ton-yabghu Khaqan sent Zhenzhu tongsijin in
the company of the prince Gaoping and presented certain things.71 Examining the
Cefu yuangui, in which the Tang receptions of the West Turkish missions are recorded,
we know that they came in the sixth month of the ninth year of Wude and in both
the first and the tenth months of the first year of Zhenguan.72 In other words, insofar
as the government documents are concerned, if it is to be supposed that Zhenzhu
tongsijin was received in the first year of Zhenguan, then the ninth year of Wude
should be ruled out.
The impossibility of clearing up the date of arrival probably derives from the
Buddhist attitude towards the second emperor of the Tang dynasty, Taizong, whose
reign began exactly with the Zhenguan era. Throughout the biographies of the monkscholars who took part in the translation works of Prabhākaramitra, a tendency to
put the accent on the Zhenguan era is evident: the Zhenguan initiation of translation
(biography of Huize
), the translation work of the Zhenguan era (biography of
Tanzang
) and the first translation of Bopo
, that is, Prabhākaramitra (biography of Xuanzang).73 Such expressions suggest that the Zhenguan era may have been
skillfully and beyond usual necessity stressed in order to pay homage to the emperor
Taizong. The translation work of Prabhākaramitra was certainly the first in the era,
yet we should be careful in accepting in an acritical way the statements about this era,
which tended to be idealised. If it was idealised even at the time of the early Tang, the
contemporary Buddhist monks might have changed the date of Prabhākaramitra’s
arrival—the Wude era of the emperor Gaozu—into the era in which the emperor
Taizong began to reign. This could explain why Daoxuan says that Prabhākaramitra
arrived in ‘that year’ and why Falin deleted the mention of the Wude era, the last year
of which saw the coup of Taizong who killed his brother, imprisoned his father, the
70
Kaiyuan Shijiao lu T. 2154 8.553b23-24.
See note 66.
72
Cefu yuangui 970.11397.
73
See respectively Xu Gaoseng zhuan T. 2060 3.441a8, 13.525c26, 4.457b21.
71
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
84
Kuwayama Shōshin
first Tang emperor, in the sixth month, and replaced the Wude era by the new era
Zhenguan. However, the name of the cyclical year jingxu (bingxu) remained undeleted, intentionally or unintentionally. After all, it is probable that Prabhākaramitra
came from the West Turkish land to Changan in either the 11th month or the 12th
in the ninth year of Wude under Gaozu, and was received at the New Year audience
in the first year of the new Zhenguan era by Taizong.
THE DATE OF XUANZANG’S DEPARTURE FOR INDIA
Still open is the discussion on the date of Xuanzang’s departure to the Western
Countries. Opinion has long remained divided between either the first (23 January 627
to 10 February 628) and the third year of Zhenguan (30 January 629 to 17 February
630). Problematical are the original sources which give both dates. Those which clearly
refer to the third year are the epilogue by Bianji
of the Da Tang Xiyuji (T. 2087
12.946b7-8), the Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan (T. 2053 1.222c15-16), the
Da Tang gu sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuang
(T. 2052
214c19) by Mingxiang
, the Xu Gaoseng zhuan (T. 2060 4.447b26-27) and the
Da Tang Neidian lu (T. 2149 5.283bl-2).
In the Ji gujin Fodao lunheng
(T. 2104 387b4-6), on the other
hand, Daoxuan says as follows:
In the beginning of the Zhenguan era, [Xuanzang] entered into the territory of
the capital to reside in the Zhuangyan Monastery
. He became well versed
in the Indian books and language soon after he began to learn them. He asked
for permission to leave for the West, but in vain. So he left taking a side road and
reached India in three years (or: in the third year [of Zhenguan]).
In a memorial to the emperor Taizong by Xuanzang, requesting a preface to the
translation of the scriptures he had carried out, he wrote that in the first year of
Zhenguan he had gone to the Western Regions in order to look for the secret pit. aka
of Tathāgata and inquire about the real teaching of Śākyamuni.74 However, he himself
had sent a letter from Khotan to the emperor in Changan which says that in the fourth
month of the third year of Zhenguan (29 April to 27 May 629) he secretly left for
India against the law.75 The biography of Xuanzang in the Jiu Tang shu also says that
he left in the beginning of Zhenguan.76
Most scholars have discussed such contradictory dates, solely from the point of
view that, since the Chinese characters for one and three are liable to be confused, they
74
Guang Hongming ji T. 2103 22.258a10-17.
Da Tang Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan T. 2053 5.251c18-19.
76
Jiu Tang shu 191.5108.
75
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
85
must have come from miswriting, and one of them, therefore, should be true. Quite
apart from the above, I came to a tentative conclusion on the basis of the interrelations
between the West Turks and Sassanian Persia. These would suggest that Xuanzang must
have left Changan not later than the beginning of the second year of Zhenguan.
The marriage policy between Ton-yabghu and Tang China was unsuccessful.
We read in the Jiu Tang shu:
Ton-yabghu Khaqan had great self-confidence in his strong power and prosperity.
As he gave no favour to his people, they bore an ill will against him, the Kharluq
s’ock of them often revolting against this ruler. On the other hand, Jieli Khaqan of
the East Turks, not pleased with the peace treaty between China and Ton-yabghu
Khaqan, often made his soldiers invade the territory of the West Turks, and sent
an envoy to tell Ton-yabghu that a Chinese princess, whom Ton-yabghu might
marry, could take no other road but that through Jieli’s territory. Ton-yabghu,
worrying about this message, could not venture to get married, and regrettably was
assassinated by an uncle of his. The uncle replaced him and became Moheduohou
Qulisipi
Khaqan. The emperor Taizong, hearing of this
accident, deeply lamented the death of his friend, and tried to bring to the place
of his death the jade and silk which were to be burned there as a funerary ritual,
but [his messenger] could not reach the place, since the West Turks were in a state
of disorder.77
These events are also described in the Cefu yuangui (978.11495) and the Zizhi
tongjian (192.6061). In the Tang annals of the Zizhi tongjian the death of Ton-yabghu
Khaqan and the replacement of a new Khaqan are recorded at the end of a series of
issues that belong to the second year of Zhenguan. The accounts of the Tiele Turks in
Jiu Tang shu (199B.5344) and of the Xueyantuo Turks in Xin Tang shu (217B.6134)
also give the time of his death as the second year of the Zhenguan era. His death in the
second year is also told in the biography of Ashina Sheer in both of the Tang shu.78
According to the Persian section in the Jiu Tang shu, in the end of the Daye era
of the Sui dynasty (c. 617), Ton-yabghu Khaqan often attacked and defeated the
Sassanians. He killed Kusahuo
(Khosraw II Parwēz) and gave the throne to a
son of Khosraw named Shili
(Shērōe), who eventually became the king Kawad II.
Ton-yabghu Khaqan accordingly divided the heads of the West Turks to make them
govern the territory of Kawad II, so the kingdom of Persia came to be under the control
of Ton-yabghu. In the account on the Turks in Jiu Tang shu (194B.5181), Ton-yabghu
is said to have conferred the title of iltäbär to kings of cities in the Western Regions and
put one of his subjects, entitled tudun, in each city under his rule in order to collect tax.
So, Kawad II became a iltäbär, who was to be watched by a subject of Ton-yabghu.
77
78
Jiu Tang shu 194B.5182; Chavannes (1903: 25–26).
Jiu Tang shu 109.3289; Xin Tang shu 110.4114.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
86
Kuwayama Shōshin
The account on Persia in Jiu Tang shu (198.5312) says that at the death of Tonyabghu the tudun arrogated to himself the power in Persian territory without
submitting himself to the rule of the West Turks and that Kawad II died within a year
after he came to the throne. The section on Persia in the Xin Tang shu (221B.6258)
tells us of the same event in such a way that, despite the control of Ton-yabghu Khaqan
who let his general supervise collecting tax, Persia refused to follow the West Turks
at the death of Shili.
All the sources mentioned tell us that the death of Kawad II caused Sassanian
Persia to free herself from the yoke of the West Turks and their Turkish controller. It is
evident that Kawad II was only a puppet of Ton-yabghu Khaqan, so the tudun might
assassinate a puppet and could have his own way, since such a strong commander as
Ton-yabghu was dead. There must have been a chain reaction on the death of both
leaders of Persia and the West Turks. Therefore, Ton-yabghu Khaqan must not have
been killed after Kawad II’s death. Now, the reign of Kawad II began on the twentyfifth of February 628 and ended in September of the same year, according to Nöldeke
(1879: 437). Since Ton-yabghu gave Shērōe (Kawad II) the Persian crown, he was still
alive in February 628. Hence, his death must be placed between these two dates, that
is, in terms of the Tang calendar, between the fifteenth day of the first month and the
eighth month of the second year of Zhenguan. Then, we can roughly place the death
of Ton-yabghu between the second month and the eighth month of the second year
of Zhenguan.
The tributes from the West Turks in the early days of the Tang period began in the
seventh month of the first year of Wude and ended in the fourth month of the second
year of Zhenguan. After that, they came in the 11th month of the 3rd year, in both
the 1st and the 12th months in the 9th year and in the 8th month of the 11th year of
Zhenguan. As I have noted earlier, their successive tributes ended in the fourth month
of the second year of Zhenguan. After that, Moheduohou Qulisipi Khaqan, an uncle
of Ton-yabghu and the usurper, asked for the marriage in the fourth year of Zhenguan,
and Si-yabghu Khaqan, a son of Ton-yabghu and the opponent of his uncle, also did
so. But the emperor Taizong never accepted their demands for the reason that they
were in discord with each other for the position of Great Khaqan.79
Thus, after Ton-yabghu Khaqan was killed, the West Turks were divided into two
main groups: those who followed Moheduohou Qulisipi Khaqan who had proclaimed
himself the Great Khaqan, and those who installed a son of Ton-yabghu in Ferghana
entitled Yipishaboluo Siyabghu
Khaqan. In these circumstances,
various city states in the Western Regions tried to escape from the yoke of the West
Turks, and a series of skirmishes between the two groups also resulted in the weakness
of the West Turks. Xuanzang was near Qunduz on the southern bank of the Āmū, in
the headquarters of the tudun-shad (the eldest son of Ton-yabghu Khaqan) who married
a sister of Qu Wentai (king of Gaochang), when the assassination of the tudun-shad
79
Xin Tang shu 215B.6057; Zizhi tongjian 193.6061.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
How Xuanzang Learned about Nālandā
87
took place. This accident must have been in close connection with the death of Tonyabghu, as in the case of the death of the Persian king.
Under the escort of Qu Wentai, Xuanzang reached Kucha and waited 60 days
there for the reopening of the passes crossing the Tianshan range which had been
closed due to much snowfall. It is reported in the Cefu yuangui 125.1501 and the
Zizhi tongjian 192.6037 that at the beginning of Zhenguan unusually heavy snowfall
and frost had been causing damage to the people and cattle of the East Turks. If such
weather conditions had concerned the area to the west of the Altai mountains, the
reopening of the snowy passes would have been much more delayed than usual.
We have seen that if we calculate according to the Tang calendar the date of the
death of Kawad II as given by Nöldeke, we obtain the eighth month of the second
year of Zhenguan. The death of Ton-yabghu occurred a little before. Xuanzang, therefore, could cross the Tianshan in the fifth month or the sixth and meet Ton-yabghu
just before his death. The length of time that Xuanzang really took on the way to
the headquarters of the West Turks amounts more or less to six months, as he stayed
more than one month in Gaochang, two months in Kucha and two months in both
Guazhou
and Liangzhou
. Hence, it naturally follows that the lower limit
of his departure time from Changan is early in the second year of Zhenguan.
This conclusion accords perfectly with the result of our inquiry about
Prabhākaramitra’s arrival in Changan. We have suggested that he arrived at the end of
the ninth year of Wude and that he was received at the imperial audience on New Year’s
day in the first year of Zhenguan. If Xuanzang left Changan at the beginning of the
second year of the same era, he could have had the chance to meet Prabhākaramitra and
all the time necessary to discuss with him about Central Asia and India. Prabhākaramitra,
then, instructed Xuanzang how and where to go, and, among other places, must have
convinced him to render himself to Nālandā.
REFERENCES
Abe Takeo
. 1955. Nishi Uiguru kokushi no kenkyū
[Research on the
History of the Kingdom of Western Uighur]. Kyoto: Nakamura insatsu.
Adachi Kiroku
. 1940. Hokkenden
[Biography of Faxian]. Tokyo: Hōzōkan.
Beal, Samuel, tr. 1884. Siyuki. Buddhist Records of the Western World. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner
and Co.
———. 1911. The Life of Hiuen-tsiang by the Sharman Hwui Li with an Introduction Containing an Account
of the Works of I-Tsing. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.
Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, ed. 1970. Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Simla: Indian Institute
of Advanced Study.
Chavannes, Édouard, tr. 1894. Mémoire composé à l’époque de la grande dynastie T’ang sur les religieux éminents
qui allèrent chercher La loi dans les Pays d’Occident. Par I-Ching. Paris: Leroux.
———, tr. 1903. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux. St Petersburg: Imp. Acad. Sci.
———. 1905. ‘Lis pays d’occident d’aprè le Wei Lio’, T’oung Pao 6, 519–71.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
88
Kuwayama Shōshin
Cunningham, Alexander. 1871. The Ancient Geography of India: The Buddhist Period, Including the Campaigns
of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang. London: Trübner.
Devahuti, D. 1970. Harsha, a Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dutt, Sukumar. 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: Their History and Contribution to Indian
Culture. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Ghosh, A. 1971. Nalanda. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Haneda Toru
. 1930. ‘To Kokei gannen shosha Sashu-Ishu chishi zankan nit suite (
)’ [An Examination of the Fragments of the Manuscripts on the Geographics
of Shazhou and Yizhou Transcribed during the First Year of Guanggi Period], in Ogawa hakase kanreki
kinen shigaku chirigaku ronso (
) [Studies in History and Geography
in Commemoration of the Occasion of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Dr. Ogawa]. Kyoto: Kobundo,
585–605.
Jäger, Fritz. 1920–22. ‘Leben und Werk, des P’er Kü’, Ostasiatische Zeitschrift, Vol. 9, 81–115, 216–31.
Julien, Stanislas, tr. 1853. Histoire de la vie de Hiouen-Thsang et de ses voyages dans l’Inde, depuis l’an 629
jusqu’en 645 par Hoeï-Li et Yen-Thsong, suivie de documents et d’éclaircissements géographiques tirés de la
relation originale de Hiouen-Thsang. Paris: Impr. Nationale.
Kuwayama, Shōshin. 1975. ‘Khair Khaneh and its Chinese Evidences’, Orient: Reports of the Society for Near
Eastern Studies in Japan, Vol. 11, No. 11, 93–107.
———. 1987. ‘Literary Evidence for Dating the Colossi in Bamiyan’, in Gnoli Gherardo and Lionello
Lanciotti (eds), Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata. Serie Orientale Roma, No. 56.2. Roma:
Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 703–27.
Legge, James. 1886. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms. Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-hien of
his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399–414), in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Majumdar, R.C. 1954. ‘The Expansion and Consolidation of the Empire’, in R.C. Mamjudar (ed.), The
History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. 3. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 17–28.
Matsuda Hisao
. 1970. ‘To no Teishu no ryoken o ronzu’
[Discussion
on the Main Counties of Ting Prefecture during the Tang Period], in Zohoban kodai Tenzan no rekishi
chirigaku teki kenkyu
[The Geo-historical Studies on the Ancient
Tianshan Region]. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku shuppanbu, 292–323.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1879. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden. Leyden: Brill.
Sankalia, H.D. 1972. The University of Nalanda. Delhi: Oriental Publishers.
Shimazaki Akira
. 1977. Zui Tō jidai no Higashi Turukisutan kenkyū
[Research on Eastern Turkestan during the Sui and Tang Periods]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press.
Stein, Marc Aurel. 1921. Serindia. Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia and Westermost China, 5
Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Watters, Thomas. 1905. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India 629–645 A.D (Vol. II). London: Royal Asiatic
Society.
Wright, Arthur F. 1978. The Sui Dynasty. The Unification of China, A.D. 581–617. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
China Report 48, 1&2 (2012): 61–88
Downloaded from chr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016