A Translation and Study of Chán Master Jìngxiū’s 淨修禪師 Preface to the Zǔtáng jí 祖堂集

Abstract

This paper examines Chán master Jìngxiū’s preface to the original Zǔtáng jí in one scroll, which was presented to him by Jìng and Yún at the Zhāoqìng monastery in Quánzhōu around the mid-tenth century. Building on a recent TEI-based edition, it offers an annotated translation and comprehensive analysis of the preface, with special attention to its structure, linguistic features, and issues of intertextuality. The essay focuses on elements of textual history, the possible incentives behind the compilation of the Zǔtáng jí, and Jìngxiū’s perception of the text. Most importantly, this study investigates in detail two idiomatic expressions used by Jìngxiū (i.e., “[cases of] shuǐhè easily arise”; “[the characters] wū and mǎ are difficult to distinguish”), showing their significance for understanding the preface. In addition, we demonstrate that further research is needed to support the hypothesis according to which the original Zǔtáng jí would correspond to the first two fascicles of the received Goryeo edition of 1245. Eventually, this article serves as the first part of a research summary on the textual history of the Zǔtáng jí aimed at facilitating further studies on this highly important Chán text.

1. Introduction

The Zǔtáng jí 祖堂集 (Collection of the Patriarchal Hall; K.1503; B25, no. 144; henceforth ZTJ) is the earliest fully extant, multi-lineal witness of the Chán Buddhist literary genre that later came to be known as chuándēng lù 傳燈錄 (Records of the Transmission of the Lamp).1 Initially compiled by Jìng 靜 (d.u.) and Yún 筠 (d.u.), on whom we have little information, the text was prefaced by Chán master Jìngxiū 淨修禪師 (892?–972) of the Zhāoqìng monastery 招慶寺 in Quánzhōu 泉州 (in present-day Quánzhōu city 泉州市, Fújiàn province 福建省).2 A dharma-heir of Bǎofú Cóngzhǎn 保福從展 (d. 928), Jìngxiū was a second-generation disciple of Xuěfēng Yìcún 雪峰義存 (822–908), one of the most influential Chán masters of the late Táng 唐 (618–907).3 The ZTJ inherits the patriarchal lineage of the Bǎolín zhuàn 寶林傳 (Chronicle of the Bǎolín [monastery]; B14, no. 81; henceforth BLZ)4 and the earliest stratum of the text was likely completed around the mid-tenth century.5 The sole extant witness of the ZTJ is the Goryeo 高麗 woodblock edition carved in the 32nd year (eulsa 乙巳) of the Gojong 高宗 era (1245). It was found among the extra-canonical works of the second enterprise of the Goryeo Buddhist canon (Kor. Goryeo Daejanggyeong 高麗大藏經),6 supplemented by a second preface written by a certain Gwangjun 匡儁 (d.u.).7

Along with the Dūnhuáng 敦煌 manuscripts, the ZTJ was one of the major discoveries of Chinese textual materials in the early 20th century (Zhāng 2009, p. 1). Being the earliest fully extant, multi-lineal lamp record, it is not only an important source with regard to the literary history of the Chán tradition, but also for the study of the language of the late Táng and Five Dynasties (907–960), a crucial period in the transition from Middle Chinese (zhōnggǔ hànyǔ 中古漢語) to Early Mandarin (jìndài hànyǔ 近代漢語) (Yanagida 1980–1984, vol. 1, p. 2; Zhāng 2009, p. 1). Indeed, as evidenced by numerous editorial notes in the text, the ZTJ was, for the most part, compiled based on various types of records, such as xínglù 行錄 (“record of conduct”; F: 28), shílù 實錄 (“veritable record”; F: 18), xíngzhuàng 行狀 (“account of conduct”; F: 5), biélù 別錄 (“separate record”; F: 3), or biézhuàn 別傳 (“separate biography”; F: 1).8 In addition to these, the compilers of the ZTJ explicitly referred to the BLZ and the praise verses composed by Jìngxiū in his Quánzhōu Qiānfó xīnzhù zhūzǔshī sòng 泉州千佛新著諸祖師頌 (Eulogies for the Patriarchs newly composed by Qiānfó [Dèng] of Quánzhōu; Or.8210/S.1635; henceforth QFS).9 Eventually, other classical sources were consulted, including: (a) manuscript copies of literary compositions such as poems (shī 詩), songs (gē 歌), and stanzas (jì 偈);10 (b) stele or stūpa inscriptions,11 and probably (c) Chán texts and bio-hagiographical records that circulated at the time.12 Combined with the fact that the language and the style of the text most likely did not undergo revisions by Northern Sòng 北宋 (960–1127) literati or prior to the carving enterprise (Demiéville 1970, p. 264; Kinugawa 1998, p. 118), this makes the ZTJ one of the most valuable sources for the study of the vernacular of the late Táng and Five Dynasties and linguistic research on the development of Early Mandarin. In addition, the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ preserves many graphic variants (yìtǐzì 異體字), such as demotic characters (súzì 俗字), ancient characters (gǔzì 古字), or simplified characters (jiǎnhuàzì 簡化字), as well as phonetic loan characters (tōngjiǎzì 通假字), which appear to reflect the customs of non-official documents during these periods.13 As such, the record is also a treasure trove for the study of graphic variants and historical phonology (Zhāng 2009, p. 8; see, e.g., Kinugawa 2010b).

On the basis of recently produced XML/TEI-based diplomatic and regularized editions of the prefaces of Jìngxiū and Gwangjun published on the Database of Medieval Chinese Texts,14 this paper presents, for the first time, a critically annotated English translation and comprehensive study of the first of these prefaces.

The main objective of this study is to provide a multifaceted analysis of Jìngxiū’s preface, including aspects of linguistics, literary studies, and textual history. Special attention is paid to the structure and linguistic features of the preface (e.g., phonetic loans, the use of syntactic and semantic parallelism, issues of intertextuality). In addition, the text is scrutinized in search of elements that can help to unravel the complex textual history of the ZTJ (e.g., date of compilation, size and contents of the original text). Eventually, the concerns and religious aspirations of Jìngxiū are carefully examined and contextualized through an evaluation of previous Chán histories and his QFS. Throughout the paper, the analysis is supported by external evidence gathered from historical sources (e.g., bibliographic catalogs, official histories, gazetteers) in order to refine the information retrieved from the foreword of the abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery.

As a result, we demonstrate that despite its relative brevity, the preface not only provides a wealth of information on the circumstances and incentives that have led to the compilation of the ZTJ, but also contains precious clues about the form and contents of the original text, now lost. In this respect, we show that further research is needed to support the hypothesis according to which the “original” ZTJ in one juàn 卷 (scroll) would correspond to the first two juàn (fascicles or volumes) of the received Goryeo edition of 1245. Most importantly, this study provides a detailed analysis of two idiomatic expressions used by Jìngxiū (i.e., “[cases of] shuǐhè easily arise” 水涸(=鶴)易生, and “[the characters] wū and mǎ are difficult to distinguish” 烏馬難辯(=辨)), highlighting their significance for understanding the preface. Eventually, in consideration of the fact that Jìngxiū’s preface illustrates well the complexity of the work as a whole, whether from the point of view of philology (e.g., variant characters, phonetic loans, intertextuality) or that of literary history (e.g., interplay of multifarious socio-religious motives, literary impetus), we argue for a more nuanced approach to the ZTJ that integrates different angles of study without reducing the text to one of these aspects.

Through this paper, we further provide the first part of a research summary of what is known and what remains uncertain about the ZTJ. It is the authors’ wish that this will help to correct a few misconceptions about the text and facilitate further research on this complicated but highly important Chán Buddhist record.

2. The Goryeo Edition of the ZTJ

As is well known, the sole extant witness of the ZTJ is the Goryeo woodblock edition carved in the 32nd year of the Gojong era (1245) (Yanagida 1964, p. 12; Yanagida 1980–1984, vol. 1, p. 1). This dating is based on the following editorial note, which closes the first juàn: 「乙巳歲分司大藏都監彫造」 (“Carved by the Branch Office of the Great [Buddhist] Canon Directorate in the eulsa year”),15 where the eulsa 乙巳 year corresponds to the 32nd year of king Gojong’s 高宗 (1192–1259; r. 1213–1259) reign, from February 1245 to January 1246.16

Figure 1. Last zhāng 張 (printing surface) of the first juàn 卷 (fascicle) of the ZTJ, where the inscription related to the date of the carving of the Goryeo edition (“乙巳歲分司大藏都監彫造。”) is found (photograph by Christoph Anderl).

Figure 1. Last zhāng 張 (printing surface) of the first juàn 卷 (fascicle) of the ZTJ, where the inscription related to the date of the carving of the Goryeo edition (“乙巳歲分司大藏都監彫造。”) is found (photograph by Christoph Anderl).

The ZTJ was carved as part of the second Goryeo canon enterprise, later known as the Palman Daejanggyeong 八萬大藏經 (“Great [Buddhist] Canon in 80,000 [plates]”),17 or, more precisely, as part of the extra-canonical section of the Goryeo canon.18 This project was initiated by Gojong and his ministers in the 23rd year of his reign (1236), after the woodblocks of the first Goryeo canon and its supplements had been destroyed in 1232, in the wake of the Mongol incursions.19 For this purpose, the Central Directorate for the Buddhist Canon (Daejang dogam 大藏都監) was established on Ganghwa island 江華島, where the royal family and government officials had been forced to take refuge (Wu and Dziwenka 2015, p. 254). Branch offices (Bunsa daejang dogam 分司大藏都監) were established in other places to help with the carving enterprise, among which several were located in Jinju 晉州, Namhae county 南海郡 (in present-day South Gyeongsang province 慶尙南道).20 The ZTJ, like the Zōngjìng lù 宗鏡錄 (Record of the Mirror of the Source; K.1499; T48, no. 2016; compiled by Yǒngmíng Yánshòu 永明延壽, trad. 961), was likely carved in a branch office located in Jinju.21 The carving enterprise of the second Goryeo canon per se began as early as 1237 and it was achieved in the 38th year of Gojong’s reign, i.e., in 1251.22

After several relocations, the printing blocks that were initially stored on Ganghwa island were moved to the Haein monastery 海印寺 located on Mt. Gaya 伽耶山 (South Gyeongsang province), likely in order to avoid the potential danger of destruction by the so-called Wōkòu 倭寇, the pirates who pillaged the Chinese and Korean coastlines.23 This is where the printing blocks of the ZTJ were “discovered” at the beginning of the 20th century by Japanese scholars.24

2.1. Format and Characteristics of the Goryeo Edition of the ZTJ

The Goryeo edition of the ZTJ consists of 20 juàn and 385 carved zhāng 張 (printing surfaces), for a total of ca. 189,000 characters. On average, one juàn consists of around 9450 characters, with the two first juàn being the largest (respectively, ca. 12,720 and ca. 13,170 characters)25 and the two last juàn being the shortest (respectively, ca. 7460 and ca. 7500 characters).26 According to Kinugawa Kenji 衣川賢次, the printing blocks of the ZTJ have an approximate dimension of 21 cm (height) × 52 cm (width).27

As is the case with other woodblock editions of the Buddhist canon, the primary unit of the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ is not the woodblock, but the zhāng in association with the juàn to which it belongs. This is evidenced by the carvings on the side of each woodblock. Indeed, as can be seen in the background of Figure 2, the sides are carved with the inscription “Zǔtáng 祖堂”, followed by the number of the juàn and, in smaller script, the number of the printing surfaces in that juàn. For example, one inscription reads: “Zǔtáng 祖堂, wǔ 五, shíwǔ zhāng 十五丈(=張), shíliù zhāng 十六丈”.28 This is also evident from the editorial inscriptions in smaller script usually found in the margin of each printing surface. For instance, for each juàn (e.g., “祖堂卷第一”, “祖堂卷第二”), the zhāng are given a number (e.g., “第二張”, “第二十四張”), with the exception of the first zhāng of each juàn, where it is omitted. At the beginning of a new juàn, the numbering of the printing surfaces starts again. With very few exceptions (i.e., the end of several juàn), the woodblocks of the ZTJ are carved on both faces.

Each zhāng normally consists of 28 vertical lines or columns, marginal editorial notes excluded.29 This standard layout had been in use in manuscript editions and some early printed editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon (Róng 2007, p. 342; Wu 2015, p. 31). In contrast, the zhèngzàng section of the Goryeo canon usually consists of 23 columns per printing surface. Naturally, the number of columns on the last zhāng of a given juàn can be lower if the juàn is finished. For example, the last printing surfaces of the first and second juàn (zhāng no. 25 in both cases) consist of 12 and 13 columns, respectively.30

In the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ, a column usually consists of 18 characters, the standard in manuscripts and some early printed editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon being 17 characters per column (Róng 2007, p. 342; Wu 2015, p. 31). This contrasts again with the zhèngzàng section of the Goryeo canon, where a standard column usually consists of 14 characters. However, as Robert E. Buswell has noted, the extra-canonical works appended at the end of the second Goryeo canon “[…] show a remarkable diversity in format, ranging from 17 to 24 logographs per line.”31 In addition to this, in the ZTJ, the expected number of characters per column is frequently disrupted. This can be observed, for example, in the table of contents of the Goryeo preface, in passages where inline editorial notes are inserted, or in other specific cases (e.g., gāthās, poems, songs, praise verses, end of an entry). Even in presumed regular parts of the text, it is not rare to find columns that consist of 19 or more characters (e.g., ZTJ_001-05.10, ZTJ_001-18.04, ZTJ_001-18.07). The preface by Jìngxiū, however, does not show any particular feature, with the exception of the first column, which consists of the title of the preface (‘Zǔtáng jí’ xù 《祖堂集》序, “Preface to the Collection of the Patriarchal Hall”) and, separated by a space, the names and function of the preface’s author, written in smaller script.32

The editorial notes referencing the juàn and the zhāng are usually located on the right-hand margin of each zhāng (i.e., left-hand margin when printed).33 Below this reference, one frequently finds a name that corresponds to the name of the donors who sponsored the individual printing blocks.34 For example, at the end of the second zhāng of the first juàn, the note likely reads: 「祖堂，卷第一、第二張，仁甫。」 (“Zǔtáng fascicle no. 1, printing surface no. 2, Rénfǔ”).35

Another characteristic of the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ, although not exclusive to this text, is that the character jiàn 建 is tabooed throughout the twenty juàn, usually lacking its last stroke (i.e., quēbǐ 缺筆) (Yanagida 1980–1984, vol. 3, p. 1597). This was done in order to avoid the personal name of the founder of the Goryeo kingdom, Wang Geon 王建 (877–943; r. 918–943; temple name Goryeo Taejo 高麗太祖), who was also a supporter of Buddhism, and more specifically of Seon (i.e., Chán) (see, e.g., Vermeersch 2014, p. 75). Four examples are given in

Table 1. Four examples of the tabooed character jiàn 建 in the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ.

ZTJ_001-17.20.03	ZTJ_001-18.11.07a	ZTJ_001-22.26.11	ZTJ_017-10.20.11

The first three images correspond to the three occurrences of jiàn 建 in the first juàn, while the fourth image is the last occurrence of the character in the ZTJ, at the end of the entry of Guīshān Zhèngyuán 龜山正原 (ca. 792–869; BSPAD ID: A014172) in juàn 17.

below.

2.2. General Structure of the Goryeo Edition of the ZTJ

With regard to its structure, the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ opens with the preface of Chán master Jìngxiū.36 It is directly followed, on a new line, by a second preface authored by Gwangjun at the occasion of the carving enterprise.37 This foreword is not given any title in the text but, in secondary literature, it is frequently referred to as the Hǎidōng xīnkāi yìnbǎn jì 海東新開印版記 (Notes to the Korean newly edited printing blocks [of the Zǔtáng jí]).38 Eventually, the main section of the text, divided into twenty juàn, follows. The first juàn begins on the eighth column of the fourth zhāng, after Gwangjun’s foreword.39 The remaining fascicles, however, systematically begin on a new printing block.

Each juàn opens and closes with an editorial note referencing the juàn in question (e.g., “祖堂集卷第一”). The closing note is sometimes followed by the number of the zhāng and/or a donor’s name in smaller script. On the first line of juàn 2, a note in smaller script reads: 「於卷內，西天并震旦一十七祖已畢。」 (“Inside the fascicle, [the entries of the remaining] seventeen patriarchs of India and China are concluded.”).40 Juàn 3 and 4 do not open with any special editorial note. However, from juàn 5 to 13, the fascicles open with a variation of the following comment: 「石頭下，卷第二，曹溪三、四、五代法孫。」 (“Successors of Shítóu [Xīqiān], second juàn; third, fourth and fifth generations of the dharma-heirs of Cáoxī (i.e., Huìnéng)”).41 By contrast, juàn 14 to 20 open with a variation of the following editorial note: 「江西下，卷第一，曹溪第二代法孫。」 (sic., “Successors of Jiāngxī [Mǎzǔ], first juàn; second generation of the dharma-heirs of Cáoxī”).42 Ultimately, the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ ends with juàn 20, which is closed with the usual editorial note mentioning the juàn, the zhāng, and the name of the donor.43

In total, the ZTJ contains 246 bio-hagiographical entries of figures, legendary or historical, who were associated with the Chán tradition.44 With the exception of Mǐlǐng’s 米嶺 entry, i.e., the last entry recorded in the ZTJ (ZTJ_020-16.01.16), each entry begins on a new line. These entries, however, are not usually structured or laid out according to the different textual units that they contain.

2.3. Prints and Photographic Reproductions Consulted

The main source consulted to prepare the materials relevant for this paper was a scanned copy of what appears to be an original print of the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ that is stored at the Library of the Institute for Research in Humanities 人文科学研究所図書室 of Kyōto University 京都大學 (Kyōto, Japan). In the library catalog of Kyōto University, the collection to which the print belongs is referenced as follows: Gāolí zàngjīng bǔyí 高麗藏經補遺 (Supplement to the Goryeo [Dae]janggyeong), Cháoxiǎn Shì Hǎimíng Zhuàngxióng jí 朝鮮釋海冥壯雄輯 (collected by the Joseon monk Haemyeong Jangung), Zhāohé shísān nián 昭和十三年 (13th year of the Shōwa era [1938]), yòng Cháoxiǎn Hǎiyìnsì cáng Gāolí kānbǎn yìnběn 用朝鮮海印寺藏高麗刊板印本 (printed copy based on the Goryeo woodblocks stored at the Haein monastery in Korea), 61 cè 册 (61 volumes). The library reference of the print is Kyōdai jinbunken 京大人文研, Tōhō 東方, shi 子-XIII-419. On the case (see Figure 3), it is written: Gāolí zàngjīng bǔyí 高麗藏經補遺 (Supplement to the Goryeo [Dae]janggyeong), quán shíbā hán 全十八函 (13 cases in total), dì liù hán 第六函 (sixth case), sān běn 三本 (three volumes), Zǔtáng jí 祖堂集.

Inside the case, the print is bound in three volumes, corresponding to the 25th, 26th, and 27th volumes in the series. This edition has stamps from the former Tōhō bunka kenkyūjo 東方文化研究所 of Kyōto University (see Figure 4), which would indicate that the print was acquired between 1938 and 1949, before the institute was integrated into the new Jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo 人文科学研究所.45

Because the quality of the prints may vary and they are subject to small inconsistencies, it is important to consult other prints of the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ. To this end, we consulted the good-quality facsimile edition of the print stored at Hanazono University 花園大学 (Kyōto), reproduced in the Zen bunka kenkyūjo 禅文化研究所 (The Institute for Zen Studies) edition of 1994. On the other hand, facsimiles such as that of the Shanghai Classics Publishing House 上海古籍出版社 (1994), which is ultimately based on the same print, should be used with caution since modifications were made to the reproduction at an earlier stage (e.g., addition of strokes to damaged characters, of parentheses).46

In addition to the prints and facsimile reproductions listed above, the following editions of the ZTJ and its first preface were consulted: (Yanagida 1953 [Zǔtáng jí xù 祖堂集序, p. 36]; Yanagida 1964 [Zǔtáng jí xù, pp. 13–18]; Fóguāng dàzàngjīng biānxiū wěiyuánhùi 1994; Wú and Gù 1996; Zhāng 2001; Sūn et al. 2007; Zhāng 2009; Kinugawa 2010a [Zǔtáng jí xù, pp. 8–9]; Kinugawa 2010b [Zǔtáng jí xù, pp. 315(2)–314(3)]).

To this day, the best annotated editions of the complete text of the ZTJ are those of Sūn Chāngwǔ 孫昌武, Kinugawa Kenji 衣川賢次, and Nishiguchi Yoshio 西口芳男 (Sūn et al. 2007) and Zhāng Měilán 張美蘭 (Zhāng 2009).

The preface for which we provide a translation in the following section is the first preface of the ZTJ. It was composed by Chán master Jìngxiū, also known as Wéndèng, at the request of Jìng and Yún (i.e., the original compilers of the ZTJ), who presented their text to him at the Zhāoqìng monastery in Quánzhōu around the mid-tenth century.

3. The Preface of Chán Master Jìngxiū

3.1. Edition and Annotated Translation

祖堂集序47

泉州招慶寺主淨修禪師文僜述

夫諸聖興來，曲收迷子。最上根器，悟密旨於鋒鋩未兆之前。中下品流，省玄樞於機句已施之後。根有利鈍，法無淺深。矧乎聖人雖利生而匪生，聖人雖興化而寧化。苟或能所斯在，焉為利濟之方？然遺半偈一言，蓋不得已而已。言教甚布於寰海，條貫未位於師承。常慮水涸易生，烏馬難辯。今則招慶有靜、筠二禪德，袖出近編古今諸方法要，集為一卷，目之《祖堂集》。可謂珠玉聯環，卷舒浩瀚。既得奉味，但覺神清。仍命余為序，堅讓不獲，遂援毫直書。庶同道高仁，勿以譏誚。乃錄云爾。

Preface to the Zǔtáng jí (“Collection of the Patriarchal Hall”)48

Composed by Wéndèng, Chán master Jìngxiū,

abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery in Quánzhōu.

As for the sages who have arisen [in this world], they have extensively received the deluded sons.49 [Those with] the foremost predispositions awaken to the secret purport before the incisiveness [of the sages] has been displayed.50 [Those with] medium or low aptitudes understand the mysterious essence after it has been exposed through critical phrases.51 The predispositions [of people] are either sharp or dull, but the dharma is without [differentiation between] shallow and deep. How much more, even if the sages benefit sentient beings, there are [in reality] no [such things as] sentient beings;52 and even if the sages engage in transforming [them], how could there be [any] transforming?53 If [a distinction between] agent and patient exists,54 how could this constitute a method to help [sentient beings]?55

This being the case, [the sages] have handed down half a gāthā and an utterance because they had no alternatives. Their oral teachings have abundantly spread throughout the world, but an arrangement has not yet been set up concerning the succession of the masters.56 [Yet,] I am often concerned that [cases of] shuǐhè (water crane)57 easily arise and that [the characters] wū 烏 (crow) and mǎ 馬 (horse) are difficult to distinguish.58

But now, at the Zhāoqìng monastery, the two Chán-worthies59 Jìng and Yún have presented60 these recently compiled essentials of the dharma of the past and the present and from all regions, which they collected into one scroll and titled Zǔtáng jí (“Collection of the Patriarchal Hall”).61 It can be said to be like pearls and jade gemstones stringed in a chain,62 a volume which is full of riches.63 Having received this entrusted delicacy, I just felt that my mind was refreshed.64

[Jìng and Yún] repeatedly requested me to write a preface, which I firmly declined, but without success. Consequently, I grabbed a brush and wrote straightforwardly,65 with the hope66 that the virtuous ones, fellow practitioners of the [Buddhist] Way, will not deride [me] for it.67 The preface was recorded like this.68

3.2. The Author of the Preface

As evidenced by the header, the original preface of the ZTJ was composed by Chán master Jìngxiū,69 or Wéndèng,70 who introduces himself as abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery in Quánzhōu. Also known as Qiānfó Dèng 千佛僜 and Xǐngdèng 省僜,71 Jìngxiū is the author of the Quánzhōu Qiānfó xīnzhù zhūzǔshī sòng 泉州千佛新著諸祖師頌 (Eulogies for the Patriarchs newly composed by Qiānfó [Dèng] of Quánzhōu; S.1635; hereafter QFS), a collection of thirty-eight tetrasyllabic octave eulogies (sòng 頌) or praise verses (zàn 讚)72 written for the patriarchs and masters of the Chán tradition, thirty-six of which were appended at the end of their respective entries in the ZTJ.73 In addition, the Jǐngdé chuándēng lù 景德傳燈錄 (Jǐngdé [era] Record of the Transmission of the Lamp; T51, no. 2076; compiled by Dàoyuán 道原 (d.u.) ca. 1004, edited by Yáng Yì 楊億 (974–1020) et al. by 1009; hereafter JDCDL) records two regulated heptasyllabic octave verses (qīlǜ 七律) composed by him in its juàn 29.74 Among the most informative sources on Wéndèng are: (1) the ZTJ, (2) the Zǐyún kāishì zhuàn 紫雲開士傳 (Biographies of the founders of the Zǐyún [monastery]),75 and (3) the Quánzhōu Kāiyuánsì zhì 泉州開元寺志 (Gazetteer of the Quánzhōu Kāiyuán monastery).76

According to these sources, Wéndèng’s family name was Ruǎn 阮 and he was a native of Xiānyóu county 仙游縣 of Quánzhōu prefecture.77 He became a monk at the Pútí temple (or cloister) 菩提院 of the Lónghuá monastery 龍華寺 and took the full precepts at the age of twenty.78 These sources claim that Wéndèng initially investigated in detail the vinaya (“lǜbù 律部”) and that he regularly lectured on the “shàngshēng 上生”, i.e., the Fóshuō Guān Mílè púsà shàngshēng Dōushuàitiān jīng 佛說觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經 (Sūtra on the contemplation of Bodhisattva Maitreya’s rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven preached by the Buddha; T14, no. 452).79 After having presumably heard that Chán was the superior tradition (“我聞禪宗最上”), Wéndèng then decided to go and study under the guidance of Chán masters. The ZTJ recounts that he first met with Xuěfēng Yìcún’s disciples Gǔshān Shényàn 鼓山神晏 (d. 936~944?), Chángqìng Huìléng 長慶慧稜 (854–932), and Xuánshā Shībèi 玄沙師備 (835–908).80

Subsequently, Wéndèng went to study with Cóngzhǎn and became his dharma-heir.81 Wéndèng was therefore a second-generation dharma-heir of Yìcún,82 and a successor in the “southern” lineage of Huìnéng in the Qīngyuán Xíngsī 青原行思 and Shítóu Xīqiān 石頭希遷 branch, as portrayed in the ZTJ (Yáng 2001, p. 3). In this regard, it should be noted that at the end of the Táng and during the Five Dynasties, the lineage of Yìcún was flourishing in the prefectures of Fúzhōu 福州, Zhāngzhōu 漳州, and Quánzhōu (Suzuki 1975; Yáng 2006b, pp. 477, 480). According to Zhāng Měilán, Yìcún’s lineage was, at the time, not only the most prosperous Chán lineage of the region, but also of the whole Chinese territory.83 Naturally, the prominence of the Chán circles that formed around Yìcún and his successors did not solely rest on the charisma of its forebearers, but was closely linked to the support of local rulers and officials of the Mǐn 閩 (909–945) and Southern Táng 南唐 (937–976) kingdoms.84

After having studied with Cóngzhǎn, Wéndèng set out to travel in the regions of Wú 吳 and Chǔ 楚 (i.e., the Jiāngnán 江南 region), including Mt. Héng 衡山 (i.e., Nányuè 南嶽).85 Eventually, he returned to Quánzhōu, where he served as abbot of several Buddhist monastic institutions (see below). According to the Zǐyún kāishì zhuàn, Xú Xuàn 徐鉉 (916–991) praised his merit at the court and Zhào Kuāngyìn 趙匡胤 (927–976; r. 960–977; temple name Sòng Tàizǔ 宋太祖) subsequently conferred on him the name Zhēnjué 真覺. In the fifth year of the Kāibǎo 開寶 era (972), Wéndèng passed away, reportedly due to illness, and the Ruìguāng 瑞光 stūpa was erected for him.86

In Quánzhōu, Wéndèng first served as abbot of the Qiānfó temple 千佛院 of the Quánzhōu Kāiyuán monastery 泉州開元寺. The latter was founded by Huáng Shǒugōng 黃守恭 (629–712) in the second year of the Chuígǒng 垂拱 era of the Táng (686) and was, at the time, known as the Liánhuā monastery 蓮花寺.87 After several modifications, during the reign of Lǐ Lōngjī 李隆基 (685–762; r. 713–756; temple name Táng Xuánzōng 唐玄宗), in the 26th year of the Kāiyuán 開元 era (738), the monastery was renamed to Kāiyuán monastery 開元寺.88 With regard to the Qiānfó temple, the Zǐyún kāishì zhuàn records that it was built during the Tiānchéng 天成 era (926–930) of the Later Táng 後唐 by Wáng Yánbīn 王延彬 (886–930), nephew of Wáng Shěnzhī 王審知 (862–925) and cìshǐ 刺史 (prefect) of Quánzhōu prefecture.89 Wéndèng was invited by Wáng Yánbīn to serve as its abbot and kept his office there for over ten years.90

Thereafter, in the beginning of the first year of the Kāiyùn 開運 era (944) of the Later Jìn 後晉 (936–947), Wéndèng was invited by Huáng Shàopō 黃紹頗 (d. 944), then cìshǐ of Quánzhōu prefecture, to serve as abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery.91 Huáng Shàopō had been installed as cìshǐ by Zhū Wénjìn 朱文進 (d. 945; r. 944–945), former zhǐhuīshǐ 指揮使 (military commander) of the Gǒngchén 拱宸都 military corps, who had led an insurrection against Wáng Yánxī 王延羲 (d. 944; r. 939–944; temple name Mǐn Jǐngzōng 閩景宗), ruler of the Mǐn kingdom.92 Shortly after Wéndèng became abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery, Zhū Wénjìn bestowed on him the name Chán master Míngjué 明覺禪師.93 In the 11th month of the first year of the Kāiyùn era (944), the Zhāoqìng monastery was destroyed by fire when Liú Cóngxiào 留從效 (906–962) and a militia of local men regained control over Quánzhōu prefecture in favor of the Wáng family and had Huáng Shàopō executed.94 Two years later, after the fall of the Mǐn kingdom in ca. 945 and the absorption of a large portion of its territories by the Southern Táng 南唐, Liú Cóngxiào was appointed cìshǐ of Quánzhōu prefecture by Lǐ Jǐng 李璟 (916–961; r. 943–961; temple name Táng Yuánzōng 唐元宗).95 Eventually, in the seventh year of the Bǎodà 保大 era of the Southern Táng (949), an event precipitated the creation of the Qīngyuán military office 清源軍 by Lǐ Jǐng, who appointed Liú Cóngxiào as its jiédùshǐ 節度使 (military commissioner).96 It was perhaps around this time that the latter built a monastery in the southern garden of his secondary residence and invited Wéndèng to serve as its abbot.97 According to Kinugawa, it was between this event and the composition of the ZTJ’s preface that Liú Cóngxiào conferred on Wéndèng the name Chán master Jìngxiū 淨修禪師.98 Wéndèng probably kept his office as abbot of the monastery built by Liú Cóngxiào until he passed away in the fifth year of the Kāibǎo era of the Northern Sòng (972).

4. Analysis and Discussion of Chán Master Jìngxiū’s Preface

4.1. Issues of Textual History

Although relatively short, the preface of Wéndèng constitutes a precious source for unravelling an essential part of the textual history of the ZTJ. Two sections in particular offer valuable information: (1) the header and (2) the opening sentence of the third section of the preface, as laid out in the translation.

First, the header (“泉州招慶寺主淨修禪師文僜述”) informs us that the preface of the ZTJ was written by Wéndèng (a) after he had become abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery and (b) after he had received the dharma-name Chán master Jìngxiū. As noted above, Wéndèng was invited by Huáng Shàopō to serve as abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery in the beginning of the first year of the Kāiyùn era of the Later Jìn (944). Moreover, it is probable that Liú Cóngxiào conferred on him the dharma-name Chán master Jìngxiū sometime between the seventh year of the Bǎodà era of the Southern Táng (949) and his own death in 962. Therefore, we must conclude that Wéndèng’s preface was likely written after 949.

Incidentally, six passages in the first and second juàn of the ZTJ identify the “present” as the tenth year of the Bǎodà era (952).99 The first of these, which appears in the entry of Śākyamuni 釋迦牟尼 in juàn 1, goes as follows:

自如來入涅槃壬申之歲，至今唐保大十年壬子歲，得一千九百一十二年。教流漢土，迄今壬子歲，凡經八百八十六年矣。

From the Tathāgata’s entering into nirvāṇa in the Rénshēn year up to now in the tenth year of the Bǎodà era (952) of the [Southern] Táng, [i.e.,] Rénzǐ year, there have been 1912 years. As for when the [Buddhist] teachings spread to the Hàn territory up to the present Rénzǐ year, in total 886 years have passed.100

The second passage appears at the end of Bodhidharma’s 菩提達摩 entry in the second juàn.101 Eventually, the four remaining passages, which share the same formula (“迄今唐保大十年壬子歲”), can be found at the end of the entries of Huìkě 慧可, Sēngcàn 僧璨, Hóngrěn 弘忍, and Huìnéng 慧能 in the second juàn.102 This identification of the present with the tenth year of the Bǎodà era can hardly be regarded as a coincidence and this is why Japanese scholars have assumed that the ZTJ, as initially compiled by Jìng and Yún, was completed and prefaced by Wéndèng around 952.103

Second, the opening sentence of the third section of the preface (“今則招慶有靜、筠二禪德，袖出近編古今諸方法要，集為一卷，目之《祖堂集》。”) informs us that: (a) the text had been recently compiled by Jìng and Yún and that it was presented to Jìngxiū at the Zhāoqìng monastery; (b) that it was conceived as a collection of the “essentials of the dharma” from the past and the present and from various regions; (c) that it was compiled in one scroll; and (d) that Jìng and Yún gave it the title Zǔtáng jí, “Collection of the Patriarchal Hall”.104

Unfortunately, Wéndèng is very elusive with regard to Jìng and Yún, who are mentioned with abbreviated names only (Demiéville 1970, p. 266). In this sentence, they are referred to as two “Chán-worthies” or “virtuous [practitioners] of Chán” (chándé 禪德). This term, already in use in early Chinese Buddhist writings, was originally a contraction of chán dàdé 禪大德, i.e., a term of respect for persons of “great virtue” who engage in the practice of a type of meditation.105 With the emergence of Chán as a movement, the term came to be used as a form of address and respect for Chán monks.106 Combined with subsequent passages (“既得奉味”, “仍命余為序”), it is relatively clear, as Zhāng Měilán points out, that Wéndèng held Jìng and Yún in high regard (see Zhāng 2009, p. 6, n. 5). In this respect, while Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山 suggested that they were disciples of Wéndèng,107 Yáng Zēngwén 楊曾文 has argued that, in view of the terminology used by the latter, they were probably not his direct disciples but rather Chán monks of similar status, residing (temporarily?) at the Zhāoqìng monastery, both learned and enjoying good reputation.108 Eventually, it should be noted that Yanagida suggested that Jìng and Yún were Korean monks. However, as he himself admitted, there is no evidence to confirm or invalidate this hypothesis.109

The next element of importance in terms of textual history concerns the nature of Jìng and Yún’s compilation. In this respect, Wéndèng informs us that the ZTJ was conceived as a collection of the “essentials of the dharma” (fǎyào 法要). In the ZTJ, the first occurrence of this term is in the entry of Saṃghanandi 僧伽難提, the putative seventeenth patriarch of India, where it is equated with the terms fólǐ 佛理 (“principle(s) of the buddhas”) and fóyì 佛義 (“intents of the buddhas”).110 Fǎyào therefore not only refers to the teachings of a master, but to the supposed gist of his instructions.111 Elsewhere in the text, we find the fourth patriarch Dàoxìn 道信 (580–651) transmitting his fǎyào to Niútóu Fǎróng 牛頭法融 (594–657), upon which the latter is said to be purified from the afflictions that he was still suffering from.112 From the point of view of the tradition, the “essentials of the dharma” therefore potentially have a transformative effect on their recipient(s).113 Eventually, from the concluding passage of the (unusually) long entry of Yǎngshān Huìjì 仰山慧寂 (807–883) in juàn 18, we also know that these fǎyào could be written down and compiled in dedicated records.114 Yanagida, who dedicated a good portion of his life to researching the ZTJ, viewed these transformative exchanges or “encounter dialogues” as the most important underlying theme of the text.115 In line with this, John Jorgensen also noted that the ZTJ’s entry of Huìnéng, for example, displayed a penchant for introducing doctrinal issues, which were less present in previous hagiographical accounts of the sixth patriarch’s activities (see Jorgensen 2005, pp. 656–57). Jiǎ Jìnhuá 賈晉華 also rightfully noted that it is incorrect to state that the materials found in texts like the ZTJ and the JDCDL were created or forged by Chán monks of the late Five Dynasties or the Sòng, although they manifestly underwent a process of selection and editing (Jia 2006, p. 52). As such, one should be careful not to reduce the ZTJ to a text that would have been specifically fabricated for sectarian purposes.

Returning to the preface, Wéndèng clarifies that these fǎyào were collected from “the past and the present, and from all regions” (gǔjīn zhūfāng fǎyào 古今諸方法要). Were we to interpret this passage literally, the sources gathered by Jìng and Yún should not have been restricted to either India or China, or to one region of the Chinese territory (e.g., Quánzhōu prefecture). In addition, their compilation should not have ended, for example, with Huìnéng or his first- and second-generation dharma-heirs, like the BLZ. The phraseology rather suggests that the ZTJ also included materials related to more contemporary figures, perhaps local or locally celebrated Chán masters who were active in the 9th century up to the first half of the 10th century, i.e., the “present” of the compilation.116 This being the case, while it would not be incompatible with the title of the work and the information gathered on the function of the patriarchal halls in the late Táng and early Sòng,117 evidence is still lacking in this respect and the one-scroll format of the text would restrict the possible coverage of Chán masters.

The last two pieces of information that can be retrieved from Wéndèng’s preface in terms of textual history are the fact that Jìng and Yún’s collection consisted of one scroll and that “Zǔtáng jí” was its original title. Because the title of the work has remained unchanged over the course of time, it will not be discussed further here. This is not true, however, of the format of the text, since the extant witness of the ZTJ, the Goryeo edition, consists of no less than twenty juàn.

That the ZTJ at one stage consisted of only one juàn is confirmed by the first line of the Goryeo preface, which reads as follows: 「已上序文并《祖堂集》一卷，先行此土。」 (“The above preface, together with the Zǔtáng jí in one scroll, first made their way to this land (i.e., the Goryeo kingdom)”).118 Furthermore, we have external evidence for this in two works of the Sòng dynasty. The first is the Chóngwén zǒngmù 崇文總目 (General Catalogue of the Chóngwén [Imperial Library], 1041), which records an edition of the ZTJ in one scroll in its Shìshū lèi zhōng 釋書類中 (“Category of Buddhist writings, Part Two”) section.119 The second reference is found in the Tōngzhì 通志 (Comprehensive Record, 1161), the encyclopedic work of Zhèng Qiáo 鄭樵 (1104–1162).120 With the format of the initial collection confirmed, one question arises: what kind of materials did the ZTJ originally contain and how did it differ from the received Goryeo edition?

From Wéndèng’s preface, it can be surmised that the type of materials contained in the ZTJ in one scroll was similar in nature to that of the Goryeo edition, i.e., a collection of sources related to figures associated with Chán, which was thought to be representative of their teachings. Considering its size, however, it must have covered much fewer figures than the received text. First, we know from the passages that identify the present as the Rénzǐ year or tenth year of the Bǎodà era (952) that the original ZTJ included materials related to Śākyamuni, Bodhidharma, Huìkě, Sēngcàn, probably Dàoxìn, Hóngrěn, and Huìnéng. In addition, because these passages are found in the first two fascicles of the Goryeo edition, where the BLZ is explicitly cited as a source, it is generally assumed that the collection also included materials related to all of the Chán patriarchs listed in the BLZ.121

If we follow this reasoning, it should be noted that, in 1980, Shiina Kōyū 椎名宏雄 had already found evidence that six first-generation and two second-generation disciples of Huìnéng had an entry, or, at the minimum, were mentioned, in the nonextant tenth juàn of the BLZ. These Chán masters are: Nányuè Huáiràng 南嶽懷讓 (677–744), Yǒngjiā Xuánjué 永嘉玄覺 (665–713), Sīkōng Běnjìng 司空本淨 (667–761), Cáoxī Lìngtāo 曹溪令韜 (666/671?–760), Nányáng Huìzhōng 南陽慧忠 (675–775), Hézé Shénhuì 荷澤神會 (684–758), Shítóu Xīqiān 石頭希遷 (701–791), and Mǎzǔ Dàoyī 馬祖道一 (709–788).122 With the exception of Lìngtāo, all of them have an entry in the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ. Furthermore, while Qīngyuán Xíngsī 青原行思 (671–741) is absent from this list, he was nonetheless mentioned in the supposed entry of Shítóu and identified as the master to whom Shítóu succeeded.123 In light of this information, it is legitimate to ask oneself if, like the patriarchs, these masters had an entry in the original ZTJ or not.

Unfortunately, this question is difficult to answer. For instance, in Huáiràng’s entry in the ZTJ, the short biographical introduction and the ensuing textual unit are almost identical to the extant quotes of his entry in the BLZ.124 Other passages of the BLZ related to Huáiràng, which survive only in fragments, can be found in the ZTJ as well, with only minor variations.125 On the other hand, the quotes of the BLZ retrieved for Xuánjué, Běnjìng, Huìzhōng, and Shénhuì are too succinct to elaborate on their relations with the ZTJ. Eventually, only portions of the short fragments on Shítóu and Mǎzǔ overlap with sections of their entries in the ZTJ, with variations. As a result, we cannot determine with a sufficient degree of certainty if sources related to Huìnéng’s disciples were included in the ZTJ in one scroll or not. Even in the case of Huáiràng, it cannot be excluded that the materials were added at a later stage based on the BLZ or another source similar in content.

The second text that is important to consider with regard to the textual history and possible contents of the original ZTJ is the QFS, a collection of thirty-eight praise verses composed by Wéndèng, which antedated his preface to the ZTJ.126 The first thirty-three verses were written for the Chán patriarchs listed in the BLZ and the five remaining ones were composed for Chán masters of the lineage of Huìnéng, who, as noted above, likely appeared in the tenth juàn of the BLZ. In the QFS, the latter are referred to as Nányuè Ràng 南嶽讓, Jízhōu Xíngsī 吉州行司, National Preceptor Huìzhōng 國師惠忠, Shítóu 石頭, and Jiāngxī Mǎ 江西馬, all with the epithet héshàng 和尚 (“preceptor, teacher”).127 According to the preface of the QFS, written by a certain Huìguān 慧觀 (d.u.), monk on Mt. Zhōngnán 終南山, located south of Cháng’ān 長安 (present-day Xī’ān city 西安市), it was at Huìguān’s request that Wéndèng composed the praise verses, with an explicit reference to the BLZ.128 With the exception of Huáiràng and Shítóu, the verses of the QFS were all appended at the end of the corresponding entries in the ZTJ. Furthermore, it should be noted that the ZTJ includes six supplementary eulogies written by Wéndèng. These were composed for: Dàowú Yuánzhì 道吾圓智 (769–835), Déshān Xuānjiàn 德山宣鑒 (780?–865), Dòngshān Liángjiè 洞山良价 (807–869), Xuánshā Shībèi 玄沙師備 (835–908), Chángqìng Huìléng 長慶慧稜 (854–932), and Nánquán Pǔyuàn 南泉普願 (748–834).129 In total, the received ZTJ records forty-two of Wéndèng’s praise verses.130

Yanagida believed that there was a strong connection between the QFS and the ZTJ and that the composition of the latter was tied to that of the former.131 Kinugawa, on the other hand, has tempered this view, pointing out, among other things, that if such was the case, it would be relatively strange that Wéndèng would not allude to this in his preface. Building on his research on the different layers of the text (see below), Kinugawa even suggested that this omission points to the fact that the verses of Wéndèng were not yet included in the ZTJ in one juàn.132 What is certain, however, is that, in view of the above, the compilers of the original ZTJ must have been familiar with sources related to a few first- and second-generation disciples of Huìnéng. However, at present, evidence is still lacking as to whether or not these figures, mentioned in both the BLZ and the QFS, already appeared in the earliest stratum of the text.

Returning to the question of the extent of the original ZTJ, we know from Wéndèng’s preface that it was compiled in one scroll. This manifestly stands in contrast with the received Goryeo edition in twenty juàn, which is the basis of all modern research on the text. Puzzled by this issue, Yanagida put forward the hypothesis of a “long scroll” that had not yet been divided into proper juàn-type units and on which the characters would have been written in small script, in a very dense manner (see Yanagida 1980–1984, vol. 3, pp. 1599–600). Although in contradiction with Chán manuscripts retrieved from Dūnhuáng, Yanagida’s theory was adopted by Yáng Zēngwén in his Táng Wǔdài Chánzōng shǐ 唐五代禪宗史 (A History of the Chán School during the Táng and Five Dynasties) (see Yáng 2006b, p. 479). In fact, this problem was solved by Kinugawa upon close examination of the opening sentence of the Goryeo preface.133 The passage is as follows:

已上序文并《祖堂集》一卷，先行此土。爾後十卷齊到。謹依具本，爰欲新開印版，廣施流傳，分為二十卷。134

The above preface, together with the Zǔtáng jí in one juàn, first made their way to this land (i.e., the Goryeo kingdom). Thereafter, [a version in] ten juàn jointly arrived. Diligently relying on this complete volume, we thereupon wished to newly edit [it as] a printing block [edition] in order to circulate [the work] on a large scale, and [for this purpose] we divided it into twenty juàn.135

On the Goryeo woodblock, in “爾後十卷齊到”, the graph shí 十 (“ten”) was damaged in a such way that it looked like a yī 一 (“one”), especially when printed. Considering the above passage, it can be inferred that the initial ZTJ in one scroll was expanded to ten scrolls, a version that was then used by the editors of the Goryeo canon and further divided into twenty fascicles for the purpose of the carving enterprise.136 Since this important discovery was published by Kinugawa (cf. Kinugawa 1998),137 we know that it is inappropriate to equate the initial ZTJ as prefaced by Wéndèng with the received Goryeo edition. One question, however, remains: if the ZTJ was originally compiled in one scroll, what was the extent of that scroll?

At present, only hypotheses can be formulated in answer to this question. First, according to Róng Xīnjiāng 榮新江, it is estimated that, among Dūnhuáng manuscripts, the average diameter of a rolled-up scroll is around one cùn 寸 (i.e., 3.3 cm) (Róng 2007, p. 344; cf. Rong 2013, p. 489). While Dūnhuáng might not necessarily be representative of manuscript culture in other regions, the theory of a “long scroll” appears all the more unlikely in light of this information. In fact, among the Chán histories retrieved from Dūnhuáng, the Lìdài fǎbǎo jì is probably the longest text in one juàn, consisting of ca. 25,000 characters.138 Compared with the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ, this would correspond, for example, to the first two juàn of the text (ca. 23,800 characters, prefaces excluded). Fittingly, according to Gwangjun’s preface, it can be surmised that these two juàn originally corresponded to the first juàn of the ten juàn version of the ZTJ, prior to its division. Incidentally, as we have seen, the passages that identify the present as the tenth year of the Bǎodà era and those that explicitly cite the BLZ all appear in the first and second fascicles of the received Goryeo edition. Whether to see this or not as an indication of the scope of the original ZTJ is a matter that should be left to the appreciation of each until concrete evidence is found.

Kinugawa Kenji, the leading expert on the ZTJ, believes that the compilation of Jìng and Yún more or less corresponds to the first two juàn of the Goryeo edition.139 While we partly agree with this hypothesis, it also raises a number of questions. For instance, if the text was completed by the time Wéndèng wrote his preface, one may wonder why the ZTJ in one juàn would be concluded with the entry of Huìnéng. In addition, if Jìng and Yún had used the BLZ as a source for the thirty-three patriarchs, why would materials related to Chán masters such as Xíngsī, Huáiràng, Huìzhōng, Shítóu, and Mǎzǔ, all mentioned in the BLZ, be omitted? In fact, Wéndèng’s preface, his QFS, and the presumed content of the lost juàn of the BLZ (and its continuation by Wéijìng) all seem to suggest that the original ZTJ may have also contained materials related to later Chán figures. In this regard, we concur with the earlier observations made by John Jorgensen.140 This being the case, both hypotheses remain possible at this stage, and while this issue might be difficult to solve, linguistic research on the ZTJ could potentially offer additional evidence to shed light on the early layer of the text. These studies, however, will need to take into consideration the current results of textual history and be mindful of methodological issues.

4.2. Concerns of Wéndèng and Possible Incentives behind the Compilation of the ZTJ

Another topic of importance regarding the preface of Wéndèng relates to the incentives behind the compilation of the ZTJ. The abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery specifically raises a few concerns against which Jìng and Yún’s recent collection is contrasted.

First, Wéndèng explains that although the oral teachings of the “sages” (i.e., the buddhas, the bodhisattvas, and the Chán masters) have spread throughout the world (yánjiào shén bù yú huánhǎi 言教甚布於寰海), a proper arrangement has not yet been set up with regard to the master to disciple transmission (tiáoguàn wèi wèi yú shīchéng 條貫未位於師承). As noted in the translation, the second part of this sentence can either be interpreted as a general claim concerning the absence of a system to record and establish the lines of transmission of the Chán masters or, more specifically, as a statement regarding the fact that the Chán masters’ teachings had not yet been arranged according to these lineages. While the second option is more likely considering the general context of the preface and its emphasis on the teachings of the sages (e.g., rán wèi bàn jì yī yán 然遺半偈一言), these two aspects are in fact intricately linked to one another in the context of Chán literature. For instance, one particular feature of Chán histories is precisely their ingenuity in combining the adoption of pre-established lineages and the concomitant origination of (new) lines of transmission, whether factual or fictitious, which the texts aim at legitimizing.

If we follow the second interpretation, one may therefore wonder if the term yánjiào 言教 in the preceding clause should not be understood as pointing to written records of “oral teachings”, somehow equivalent to the yǔběn 語本 (lit. “books of sayings”), for only written records could effectively be arranged according to the lineages of the Chán masters. As a matter of fact, this was already suggested by Yanagida in his monumental paper on the development of the yǔlù 語錄 (“records of sayings”) genre.141 To be sure, there is little doubt that the teachings of famed masters were also transmitted orally in the form of maxims or short narratives, which were likely further discussed and commented upon (see McRae 2003, pp. 12, 83, 99–100). However, it is more likely that yánjiào refers here to the oral teachings of Chán patriarchs (and masters), which circulated independently in the form of notes or records.

Subsequently, Wéndèng mentions that this situation is aggravated by the fact that mistakes easily occur. In particular, the author of the preface points to: (a) issues pertaining to the (oral) transmission of the teachings, and (b) errors linked to graphic confusions.

As noted in the translation, in the clause cháng lǜ shuǐhè yì shēng 常慮水涸易生 (lit. “I am often concerned that [cases of] shuǐhè (i.e., water crane) easily arise”), the graph 涸 is a phonetic loan character (tōngjiǎzì; in this case, also known as tóngyīn tōngyòngzì 同音通用字) for the word hè 鶴 (EMC: ɣak, LMC: xɦak) (Pulleyblank 1991, pp. 122–23), with shuǐhè 水鶴 referring to a species of crane.142 The relative frequency of related and unambiguous polysyllabic terms such as 水潦涸 (F: 10), 水澇涸 (F: 2) or 水老涸 (F: 2) (EMC: ɕwi’law’ɣak; LMC: ʂyjˊlaw(ˊ)xɦak) (Pulleyblank 1991, pp. 290, 184, 122) suggests that the borrowing was, by the time, intentional, perhaps for the purpose of simplification or by custom. This phonetic loan is further attested, for example, in the praise verse composed by Wéndèng in his QFS for the 27th patriarch of India Prajñātāra 般若多羅,143 a verse that was later appended to his entry in the second juàn of the ZTJ.144

Regarding the meaning of shuǐhè in Wéndèng’s preface, the term refers to a narrative, manifestly popular among Chán circles, which is recounted in the ZTJ’s entry for Ānanda 阿難, the presumed second patriarch of India, in the following passage of juàn 1:145

師巡遊往至一竹林之間，聞一比丘錯念佛偈曰：「若人生百歲，不見水潦涸。不如生一日，而得睹見之。」阿難聞已，嗟歎曰：「世間一凡有，不解諸佛意。徒載四圍陀，不如空身睡。」阿難歎已，語比丘曰：「此非佛語。如今當聽我演佛偈曰：「若人生百歲，不會諸佛機。未若生一日，而得決了之。」」 (具如《寶林傳》所說也。)146

The Master (i.e., Ānanda) travelled around and arrived at a bamboo forest. [There] he heard a bhikṣu who was reciting erroneously a gāthā of the Buddha, saying: “If a man lives one hundred years, but does not see the [white] crane, it would be better [for him] to live one day and see it.” After hearing this, Ānanda lamented: “The common people of the world do not understand the intention of the buddhas. They vainly learn the four Vedas, but this does not compare to sleeping without any burden.”147 After Ānanda had sighed, he said to the bhikṣu: “These are not the words of the Buddha. You should now listen to me expound the gāthā of the Buddha: ‘If a man lives one hundred years, but does not understand the key point of the Buddha, it would be better [for him] to live one day and apprehend it fully.’” (This is completely like what is recounted in the Bǎolín zhuàn).

Beyond the reference to the BLZ,148 in Chinese Buddhist literature, the earliest extant witness of this narrative appears to be in juàn 4 of the Āyùwáng zhuàn 阿育王傳 (Biography of King Aśoka; T50, no. 2042),149 where the confusion occurs between the terms shuǐlǎohè 水老鶴 and shēngmiè fǎ 生滅法 (lit. “the law of arising and ceasing”).150 As is made more explicit in the Āyùwáng zhuàn, the passage recited erroneously by the monk originates from a stanza of the Dharmapada (“[…]誦法句偈”). In the Khuddaka Nikāya (Minor Collection) of the Pāli Canon, the stanza reads as follows: “Rather than living a hundred years, not seeing the arising and ceasing [of phenomena], better to live one day, seeing the arising and ceasing.”151 Since the confusion alluded to in the ZTJ or the Āyùwáng zhuàn cannot be explained through the phonological profiles of the terms in Middle Chinese, it can be surmised that it was inherited from a Middle Indic language. As a matter of fact, Kenneth R. Norman, in A Philological Approach to Buddhism, briefly mentioned this narrative in his discussion of Sanskritizations from Gāndhārī, noting that: “[t]his Chinese version [of the Aśokāvadāna] was obviously following a tradition based upon a Sanskrit form *udaka-baka, which could only come from a Gāndhārī-type dialect which inserted a non-historic -k- in place of a glide -y-, in the compound udaya-vyaya ‘arising and passing away’.”152 In his edition of the Gāndhārī Dharmapada, John Brough had also mentioned this episode and reached a similar conclusion, although not necessarily through a Sanskrit translation of a Prakrit text.153 While the above explains the supposed phonetic origin of the monk’s confusion, it is relatively unlikely that Wéndèng was aware of this and, therefore, the moral and sense of the story for him should probably be sought elsewhere.

In fact, in the BLZ, or at least in the version of the Shèngzhòu jí 聖胄集 used to restore the text of the extant BLZ, the narrative continues.154 The bhikṣu returns to see his master and recounts his encounter with Ānanda, informing him of the correct gāthā. Upon this, the master retorts that Ānanda is old, that his memory is faulty, his wisdom deteriorating, his words replete with mistakes and that, therefore, he should not follow him. Shortly after, Ānanda crosses again the path of the bhikṣu, who, against his expectations, is still reciting the erroneous verse. Interrogated about this, the latter explains that his master told him not to give in, thereby plunging Ānanda into a state of relative hopelessness and precipitating his will to enter into nirvāṇa.

In light of this more complete account of the story, more or less in line with that of the Āyùwáng zhuàn,155 the focus appears to be less on the erroneous recitation of the gāthā than on the original misunderstanding of the bhikṣu and his master, their incapacity to recognize their mistake, and, therefore, their inability to uphold the “correct teachings” of the Buddha. In fact, the term shuǐlǎohè is commonly glossed in this way in modern dictionaries.156 In Wéndèng’s preface, then, the expression “[cases of] shuǐhè easily arise” likely refers to similar phenomena, perhaps conceived in relation to the orality of transmission. This interpretation seems to be supported by the contrast offered in the following phrase, which points to issues of written textual transmission.

Indeed, as evidenced by the next clause (wū mǎ nán biàn 烏馬難辯), the second concern of Wéndèng relates to errors resulting from graphic confusions. In fact, this idiomatic expression appears to have gained wide currency from at least the Sòng dynasty onwards. In the CBETA (Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association 2021) collection of texts, several variants of the expression can be found, including “字經三寫烏焉成馬” (F: 91), “三寫烏焉成馬” (F: 4), “烏焉成馬” (F: 41), “三寫烏成馬” (F: 1), “烏焉成馬之誤” (F: 1), “寫烏成馬” (F: 7), and “三寫烏馬” (F: 1), which all share the same basic meaning: “Copying three times [the character] wū 烏 (‘crow’) turns it into a mǎ 馬 (‘horse’)”, sometimes with an additional reference to the character yān 焉. The expression above indicates that confusions between these characters occurred relatively frequently during the copying process of manuscripts and this is understandable considering their cursive script forms.157 In fact, in the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ itself, certain demotic forms of 烏 and 焉, and the standard character form of 馬 could even be confused in their regular script forms (see

Table 2. Examples of the characters wū 烏, yān 焉, and mǎ 馬 in the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ.

ZTJ_005-14.05.12	ZTJ_004-04.28.07	ZTJ_004-04.15.02

below). Naturally, as is amply evidenced by the manuscripts retrieved from Dūnhuáng, graphic mistakes were a common phenomenon and one of the causes of textual corruption. Ironically, such mistakes are well attested in the Dūnhuáng copy of Wéndèng’s QFS (S.1635) and the verses of the QFS that were appended to the ZTJ.158

It is worth noting that the terms shuǐhè 水涸 and wūmǎ 烏馬 succeed each other in the Zǔtíng shìyuàn 祖庭事苑 (X64, no. 1261; edited by Mù’ān Shànqīng 睦庵善卿 in 1108; hereafter ZTSY), a Northern Sòng glossary of Chán terms. Indeed, in juàn 6, the author of the ZTSY notes “水涸：音鶴。” (lit. “水涸: the sound is [like that of] 鶴”), and then purportedly cites the story of Ānanda and the bhikṣu as recorded in the Gēnběn shuō yīqiè yǒubù pínàiyé záshì 根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事 (T24, no. 1451; translated by Yì Jìng 義淨). Interestingly, however, the narrative is abridged and a short phrase is inserted in the beginning, mentioning that the name of the monk was Shuǐlǎohè 水老鶴.159 Directly following the entry on shuǐhè, the ZTSY records: “烏馬，古語云：三寫烏成馬。” (lit. “Wūmǎ, an old adage says: ‘Copying three times [the character] 烏 turns it into a 馬’”).160 According to Huang Yi-hsun 黃繹勳, the sources of the ZTSY come for the most part from materials related to the Yúnmén 雲門, Fǎyǎn 法眼, and Línjì 臨濟 branches (see Huang 2006, pp. 140–41). Therefore, further research would be necessary to determine if the successive explanation of shuǐhè and wūmǎ should be attributed to the ZTSY’s organizational scheme, to the specific relation between these two terms, or even if this could somehow be linked to the ZTJ or related sources.

Returning to the main point, the contrast offered between these two idiomatic expressions in Wéndèng’s preface is probably not coincidental. From the above, it would appear that the first (shuǐhè yì shēng) refers to issues pertaining to the oral transmission of the teachings, while the second (wū mǎ nán biàn) points to common issues in written textual transmission. Both expressions highlight the need to record and collect the teachings of the Chán patriarchs and masters.

In this regard, it should be noted that while the Huìchāng 會昌 persecution and the Huángcháo 黃巢 rebellion had, to some extent, spared or even benefitted Chán Buddhist circles in the southeastern regions (see, e.g., Clark 1991, p. 60; Foulk 1992, pp. 25–27; Wáng 1997, pp. 53–63; Brose 2015, pp. 26–29, 30–31, and 53–67), the destruction of monasteries, stūpas, and patriarchal halls throughout the country was probably still in the collective memory of certain communities.161 Following the death of Wáng Shěnzhī in 925, the Mǐn kingdom itself, and particularly Quánzhōu prefecture, went through an era of great political instability.162 The above, combined with the consolidation of Chán as a self-conscious movement (see, e.g., Foulk 1992, p. 27), may have raised the alertness of certain individuals to the importance of preserving this shared tradition and presenting Chán as a unified movement despite the proliferation of different lineages. The relative peaceful governance of Quánzhōu prefecture by Liú Cóngxiào and his support perhaps allowed for such an enterprise to materialize (see Suzuki 1975, p. 112; Clark 1991, p. 42; Wáng 1997, pp. 160–64). In this respect, it can be assumed without too much suspicion that the concerns expressed by Wéndèng in his preface were genuine and not a mere façade to justify the compilation of a text that would exclusively serve sectarian agendas.

4.3. Wéndèng’s Perception of the ZTJ

In the last section of his preface, Wéndèng shares his impression upon receiving and reading the ZTJ, therefore providing us with precious (but little) information on how he regarded the initial compilation of Jìng and Yún.

First, the abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery associates the work with “pearls and jade gemstones stringed in a chain” (zhūyù liánhuán 珠玉聯環). This expression, beyond its function as a celebration of the literary quality of Jìng and Yún’s compilation (Kinugawa 1998, p. 116; HYDCD 1986–1996, vol. 4, p. 546, no. 3), is likely used as a metaphor for the Chán patriarchs (and masters?) who succeed each other in the text, placing emphasis on their value both as individuals embodying and exemplifying the dharma (“the pearls and jade gemstones”) and as a community (“stringed in a chain”).

Second, Wéndèng indicates that the work compiled by Jìng and Yún was rich in content (juǎnshū hàohàn 卷舒浩瀚). Indeed, as mentioned in the translation, this clause should probably not be understood literally, as pointing to the fact that the scroll of the ZTJ was particularly long.163 Rather, considering the parallelism with zhūyù liánhuán, it was likely intended in a metaphorical sense, with juǎnshū referring to the ZTJ itself and the stative-verb hàohàn, used figuratively to describe the richness or profundity of the volume’s content. In fact, the use of metaphorical expressions is continued in the following phrase (jì dé fèng wèi 既得奉味), where the ZTJ is associated with the common noun wèi (lit. “savor; flavor, taste”),164 a term that is also used to refer to the purport or intent of a work (yìyì 意義, zhǐqù 旨趣),165 in connection to its interest and literary flavor (yìwèi 意味).166

Having received the opportunity to taste the purport of the materials collected in the ZTJ, the abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery reportedly felt that his mind was refreshed (dàn jué shén qīng 但覺神清). Naturally, for Wéndèng, the ZTJ was not merely a piece of enjoyable literature or a work that had satisfactorily fulfilled some obscure sectarian agendas. As a collection of the gist of the teachings of figures associated with the Chán tradition (gǔjīn zhūfāng fǎyào 古今諸方法要), Jìng and Yún’s recent compilation was conceived as a religious text to be treated with great respect (jì dé fèng wèi). After all, the ZTJ re-enacted the verbal exchanges between the Chán masters, their disciples, officials, and other individuals, some of which had presumably led one party to gain a deeper insight into the Chán Buddhist truth-claims or triggered a so-called “enlightenment” experience.

While it is not surprising to find such appraisals and claims in the words of Wéndèng since he is himself part of that community of memory, it would be regrettable to neglect the self-narration and the ideological framework of the socio-religious actors of the time.167

5. Concluding Remarks

Throughout this study, we have demonstrated that the preface of Wéndèng, despite its relative brevity, not only provides a wealth of information on the circumstances and incentives that have led to the compilation of the ZTJ, but also informs us about the form and contents of the original text. In addition, the preface illustrates rather well the complexity of the ZTJ, both from the point of view of philology (e.g., variant characters, phonetic loans, intertextuality) and that of literary history (e.g., interplay of multifarious socio-religious motives, literary impetus). In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize some of the most important issues raised in this study.

First, concerning textual history, Wéndèng’s preface informs us that the original ZTJ, as initially compiled by Jìng and Yún, consisted of only one scroll. This format, as we have seen, is confirmed by the opening line of the Goryeo preface, the Chóngwén zǒngmù, and the Tōngzhì. However, it also stands in contrast with the received Goryeo edition, which consists of twenty juàn. In this respect, an important contribution was made by Kinugawa, clarifying that the compilation and editing process of the ZTJ underwent at least three stages: (1) a version in one scroll collected by Jìng and Yún around the mid-10th century, possibly ca. 952; (2) an expanded version in ten scrolls, perhaps completed by the end of the 10th century; and (3) the Goryeo edition of the ZTJ, edited and carved in 1245 (Kinugawa 1998, p. 122; Kinugawa 2010b, pp. 313(4)–12(5)). Given Kinugawa’s publication in 1998, we therefore know that it is inappropriate to equate the initial ZTJ prefaced by Wéndèng with the extant text.

Regarding the date of the initial compilation by Jìng and Yún, it can be surmised that it must have approximately coincided with the request addressed to Wéndèng to write a preface. Combining information gathered from the header of the preface, Wéndèng’s entry in the ZTJ, and other historical sources, we were able to determine that the composition of the preface must have been achieved after its author was conferred the dharma-name Jìngxiū by Liú Cóngxiào, i.e., probably after 949. In addition, six passages in the first and second juàn of the ZTJ identify the “present” as the tenth year of the Bǎodà era (952). As a result, it can be assumed with relative confidence that the ZTJ, as initially compiled by Jìng and Yún, was completed around 952 or, at least, the mid-tenth century (see Kinugawa 2007, p. 945).

As for the contents of this initial compilation, the passages mentioned above indicate that at least sections of the received entries of Śākyamuni, Bodhidharma, Huìkě, Sēngcàn, Hóngrěn, Huìnéng, and probably Dàoxìn must be identical to Jìng and Yún’s collection.168 Apart from this, other attempts at defining the contents of the original ZTJ remain hypotheses and should be treated with great caution. For instance, Kinugawa has argued that the ZTJ in one scroll more or less corresponds to the first two fascicles of the Goryeo edition,169 which would indicate that the text ended with the entry of Huìnéng. While coherent from an editorial point of view, this hypothesis also raises a number of questions. For instance, if the ZTJ was effectively achieved when Wéndèng wrote a preface for it, one may wonder why materials on Chán masters such as Xíngsī, Huáiràng, Huìzhōng, Shítóu, and Mǎzǔ, all appearing in the BLZ and the QFS, would have been omitted by the compilers. What would be the significance of such a text in the literary landscape of Chán histories and records? And how should one understand the expression gǔjīn zhūfāng fǎyào used by Wéndèng in his description of the ZTJ?

With the exception of fortuitous discoveries of manuscripts, only careful and methodologically sound research on the linguistic features of the text (e.g., interrogatives, verbal suffixes) and other textual aspects (e.g., toponyms, sources) could potentially enhance our understanding of the different strata that compose the ZTJ.

With regard to the incentives that have led to the ZTJ’s compilation, the information that we can gather from the preface is relatively scant.

First, Wéndèng mentions that in spite of the fact that the “oral teachings” of the Chán masters circulated widely, likely through a written medium, a proper arrangement had not yet been set up with regard to the master to disciple transmission. Whether we interpret this as a claim concerning the absence of an established record of lineages or as a statement regarding the organization of written records of the teachings of the Chán masters, this assertion is at odds with what we know of earlier Chán histories such as the Léngqié shīzī jì, the Chuán fǎbǎo jì, the Lìdài fǎbǎo jì, and the BLZ. In this regard, we know from the preface of the QFS and the first two juàn of the ZTJ that Wéndèng was at least familiar with the BLZ, which, as far as we can tell from the extant sources, recorded the lines of transmission of the Chán masters and arranged its contents according to this principle. In addition, since both his QFS and the ZTJ adopt the sequence of the thirty-three patriarchs of the BLZ (see, e.g., Yampolsky 2012, p. 9; Yáng 2006b, pp. 468–69), this would seem to indicate that if the abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery was left with a sense of dissatisfaction, it must have been related to Chán masters who did not have the status of patriarch. If correct, this would suggest that the ZTJ was intended as a more ecumenical work than previous Chán histories. However, this would challenge Kinugawa’s hypothesis that the original text centered on the thirty-three patriarchs.

Building on this, Wéndèng specifically mentions two issues that were sources of concern to him: (a) errors related to the (oral) transmission of the teachings (shuǐhè yì shēng) and (b) graphic confusions in written records (wū mǎ nán biàn). The former probably resonates with the need felt by certain Chán communities to collect and record the teachings of the masters in this period of civil disturbances (see McRae 2000, pp. 51–52). As for the latter, we know from the large corpus of Dūnhuáng manuscripts of the 9th and 10th centuries that graphic errors were a frequent textual phenomenon. The recent compilation of Jìng and Yún, then, must have been regarded by the abbot of the Zhāoqìng monastery as a remedy to his concerns.

Apart from this, the preface does not provide further details on the incentives behind the compilation of the ZTJ.170 It should be noted that in the third volume of his Sodōshū sakuin 祖堂集索引 (An Index to the Zǔtáng jí), Yanagida suggested that the ZTJ was specifically compiled at the request of Lǐ Jǐng, second ruler of the Southern Táng, at the occasion of the Xīnhài 辛亥 year (951).171 However, there is little textual evidence to confirm this hypothesis,172 and it would be at odds with what we know of the publication process of the JDCDL, although the political contexts are certainly different.173

In the final analysis, when read carefully, Wéndèng’s preface illustrates well the interplay of religious, socio-political, literary, and linguistic phenomena that have shaped the ZTJ’s compilation. In this respect, it is the authors’ wish that various angles of study (e.g., history, philology, socio-anthropology, religious studies) should be integrated and complement each other in order to work toward a rigorous reconstruction of the complex historical web that gave rise to the literary genre to which the ZTJ belongs. In this regard, we are very much indebted to the legacy of Yanagida Seizan, who strived to find a balance between the conceded mythological self-narration of Chán socio-religious actors and the kind of hyper-historicism that is occasionally found in academia.174