Master Nian念法師 as the “Westerner”: Re-Establishing Orthodoxy in Chinese Abhidharma

Abstract

Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises started to be carefully studied and commented on by monks in early medieval China with the translation of hṛdaya treatises, the *Aṣṭagrantha, and the *Vibhāṣas. However, with the “new” translations undertaken by Xuanzang and his clique, these were regarded as “old” translations and the thoughts of these scholars were gradually marginalized. Examining a doctrinal debate in Puguang’s Jushe lun ji, this article delves into the construction of authority by Xuanzang and his disciples in the field of Abhidharma. In this debate, Puguang criticizes Zhinian’s viewpoint solely based on its similarity with the view of “westerners” (xifang shi). The evidence Puguang presents is a quote from the newly translated *Mahavibhāṣa, which he uses to extol the value of Xuanzang’s “new” translation. It shows how Xuanzang and his team use the orthodoxy constructed by Kashmiri Vaibhāsikas to justify their own authority. Their success comes at a sacrifice of diversity of Abhidharma studies in China.

1. Introduction

As the most famous pilgrim and monastic scholar in the history of Chinese Buddhism, Xuanzang’s influence cannot be overestimated. Apart from his grand contributions, scholars have also pointed out that Xuanzang and his clique tend to laud the value of their “new” translations, while disparaging the so-called “old” translations (Barrett 1990; Greene 2017). Greene (2017), for instance, brings to light a Yogācāra-inflected Dunhuang manuscript from the late seventh century, wherein the author contests the sectarian intellectual identity forged by Xuanzang and his disciples (p. 5). This article, on the other hand, unveils fresh evidence of Xuanzang’s polemics of “new” versus “old” translations within the field of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.

In Puguang’s Annotations on the Commentary of the Treasury of Abhidharma (Chinese, hereafter Chi.: Jushe lun ji 俱舍論記),1 a certain Master Nian (Chi.: Nian fashi 念法師) is referenced on five separate occasions.2 Despite referring to him as the “ancient sage” (Chi.: gude 古德), Puguang is notably critical of Master Nian’s perspectives. There are different reasons for his criticism. Most prominently, on one occasion, Puguang contends that Master Nian’s viewpoint is incorrect since it is similar to the views held by the “western masters” (Chi.: xifang shi 西方師), as opposed to the prevailing views in Kashmir. The identity of Master Nian, the contradictory treatment of him as both an esteemed “ancient sage” and a holder of incorrect views, as well as Puguang’s stance in making these judgements, all serve as noteworthy aspects of inquiry. This paper will begin with a detailed examination of the debate on the list of the thirteen faculties (Sanskrit, hereafter Skt.: indriya) that are deemed to be essentials during the “path of seeing” (Skt.: darśanamārga) as discussed in the Jushe lun ji. This exploration aims to shed light on the reasons behind the stern attitude of Xuanzang and Puguang towards pre-Xuanzang Abhidharma monastic scholars, exemplified by Zhinian. This will reveal the construction of orthodoxy in the field of Abhidharma in China, and how the authority of the Indian Sarvāstivāda school in Kashmir was leveraged by Xuanzang and his immediate disciples to validate the significance of Xuanzang’s “new translation” (Skt.: xinyi 新譯).3

2. Discussions

2.1. Master Nian and Abhidharma Studies in China before Xuanzang

According to Puguang, Master Nian came from Wei 魏, a prefecture in Jizhou 冀州, which is in present-day Hebei.4 Master Nian was proficient in the Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions (Skt.: *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra, hereafter *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya;5 Chi.: Za apitan xinlun 雜阿毘曇心論).6 Fabao’s 法寶 Explication of the Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Chi.: Jushe lun shu 俱舍論疏)7 also mentions Master Nian’s expertise in Jiayan 迦延,8 which likely refers to Kātyāyanīputra’s Treatise of Abhidharma with Eight Collections (Skt.: *Abhidharmāṣṭagranthaśāstra, hereafter *Aṣṭagrantha; Chi.: Apitan ba jiandu lun 阿毘曇八犍度論). Given that the *Aṣṭagrantha was translated in 383 CE, the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya was translated in the fifth century, and Master Nian lived before Xuanzang (602? – 664), Master Nian should have been active between the fifth and seventh centuries. Upon scrutinizing the scholarly monks of this era, “Master Nian” most likely refers to Zhinian 志念 (535–608), originally from Jizhou. He was renowned for his expertise in both the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya and the *Aṣṭagrantha.

Biographical narratives of Zhinian can be found in Daoxuan’s 道宣 (596–667 CE) Extended Biographies of Eminent Monks (Chi.: Xu gao seng zhuan 續高僧傳),9 Tan’e’s 曇噩 (1285–373 CE) Newly Compiled Monk Biographies Categorized by the Six Pāramitās (Chi.: Xinxiu kefen liu xueseng zhuan 新修科分六學僧傳),10 and Yichu’s (895?–968/977?) Six Books of the Śākya Clan (Chi.: Shishi liutie 釋氏六帖).11 The latter two sources are relatively concise. Here I will focus on Daoxuan’s account and address any discrepancies from the other two sources in footnotes, if applicable. According to Daoxuan:

Shi Zhinian釋志念, whose secular surname was Chen陳, was a native of Xindu信都 in Jizhou冀州. His ancestors were descendants of the Chen Clan (whose famous ancestors include Chen Shi陳寔 and Chen Fan陳蕃) of Yingchuan頴川, and they lived in Heshuo河朔 (the northern part of the Yellow River) due to their official positions. Zhinian was pure in character, lofty in ambition, clear in spirit, and outstanding in talent. He was considering visiting more places. Eventually, he sought further teachings in capital Ye鄴 (now Handan, Heibei) after being fully ordained. Master Daochang 道長 (d.u.), who was well-versed in the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom (Skt.: *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra; Chi.: Da zhi du lun大智度論) and was a role model for scholars. Zhinian brought his belongings and listened to his teachings for several years. Then he became as famous as the one on the seat. His virtues are equally noble with Yanli誕禮 (d.u.), Sengxiu僧休 (d.u.), and Faji法繼 (d.u.), who are all outstanding figures of that era.12 However, he believed that the pursuit of knowledge should not cease until death. Thus, he traveled to various lecture halls, delved into profound teachings, and strived to explore the hidden and mysterious parts. He also visited master Daochong 道寵 (477?–573?) and learned the Treatise of Ten Grounds (Skt.: Daśabhūmikaśāstra; Chi.: Shi di lun十地論) from him. He was able to predict the end right after listening to the beginning, as if he had already read it before. Then he learned that there was a venerable monk named Huisong 慧嵩 (fl. 511–60) in the Western Qin, who has profound knowledge of the Lesser Vehicle and was revered as the “Confucius of the Abhidharma” (Chi.: Pitan kongzi毘曇孔子). Huisong’s knowledge benefited the world and numerous followers gathered around him. Śramaṇas such as Daoyou道猷 (d.u.), Zhihong智洪 (d.u.), Huangjue晃覺 (d.u.), and Sanwei散魏 (d.u.) are the most excellent ones,13 just like gems in the wisdom garden. Zhinian followed Huisong with deep admiration and reached new heights.14

After successfully completing his studies, Zhinian returned to his hometown. He was subsequently invited by Gao Guiyan 高歸彥 (?-562), the governor of Jizhou and a clan brother of the Northern Qi Emperor Gao Huan 高歡 (496-547), to deliver lectures at a dharma assembly. He was joined by Master Sengqiong 僧瓊 (d.u.).15 Their lectures initially focused on the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra and later on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya.16 Zhinian continued to expound on these two treatises for over a decade until the onset of the persecution of Buddhism launched by Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou between 573 and 578.17 It is important to highlight that during that specific time frame, Zhinian chose to renounce his monastic status, yet he persistently pursued his studies in Abhidharma.18

Buddhism was revived and flourished when the Sui隋 dynasty was established. Zhinian made preparations for [re-]entering the monastic life as soon as the emperor encouraged people to become monks. Although he had mastered Kātyāyanīputra’s *Aṣṭagrantha, he never had the opportunity to explain it in detail. In the fourth year (584) of the Kaihuang開皇 era, he said to his younger monk brother Zhizhan (386?–533?), “I am the champion of the Lesser Vehicle and consider myself equal to an Arhat. However, the time has not yet come, so I will fold my wings for now.”19 Having benefited from Buddhist teachings before, Zhizhan was delighted to hear this. He reported it to master Mingyan明彥 (d.u.), a specialist of the *Tattvasiddhi who had always respected Zhinian. Along with his disciple Honggai (d.u.) and more than three hundred others, he respectfully invited Zhinian to expound on the Heart Treatise.20

Daoxuan goes on to portray Zhinian as a master of the *Aṣṭagrantha. On one occasion, Zhinian accurately completed some missing pages of an incomplete manuscript.

For a long time, there was an error in the Fundamental Sutra composed by Kātyāyanīputra (Jiayan benjing迦延本經). Although many masters lectured on this treatise, no one had noticed that there were four missing pages in the section of karma (Skt.: *karmagrantha; Chi.: ye jiandu業揵度).21 Zhinian wrote out the missing part based on the context. It was consistent with the doctrinal and literary style of the previous work. Initially, [people were] not aware of this. Later, the manuscript that was transmitted in the south of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River was acquired and it turned out to be exactly the same with the missing part composed by Zhinian. Zhinian then gained a reputation as a person with unfathomable [wisdom].22

It should be noted that the so-called biographies are more likely to be hagiographies.23 It may be somewhat exaggerated to claim that Zhinian completed the manuscript flawlessly. Nevertheless, this passage does demonstrate Zhinian’s considerable knowledge in this treatise. It also further confirms that Jiayan迦延 refers to *Aṣṭagrantha, since the section of karma is one of the eight sections (Skt.: grantha, Chi.: jiandu揵度) in the *Aṣṭagrantha. The title “Fundamental Sutra by Kātyāyanīputra” also aligns with this text’s position within the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. Ryōgen Fukuhara proposed, based on the text’s transliteration, that this work could potentially be the Gandhāran version of the text, which was later revised and Sanskritized by Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas under the title *Jñānaprasthāna (translated by Xuanzang under the title Apidamo fazhi lun 阿毗達磨發智論).24 The Vaibhāṣikas viewed this text as the foundational treatise of the Sarvāstivāda and composed an extensive commentary on the *Jñānaprasthāna. This results in the encyclopedic *Mahāvibhāṣa, translated by Xuanzang in 656 CE (Willemen et al. 1998, p. 66).

During the period when Yang Liang 楊諒 (575–605), the half-brother of Emperor Yang of Sui (569–618), governed Jinyang 晉陽, he requested Zhinian to deliver lectures on treatises of both the Great and the Lesser Vehicles at the Da Xingguo Temple 大興國寺. During Yang Liang’s rebellion, Zhinian retreated to his hometown.25 Throughout his lifetime, Zhinian composed nine volumes of commentary on the *Aṣṭagrantha and nine volumes of commentary on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya. These texts were extensively studied during that era. Zhinian also mentored hundreds of disciples, including Huixiu 慧休 (548–647)26 and Daoji 道基 (576?–637/638).27 From Huixiu’s biography, it is evident that Zhinian also taught the *Vibhāṣa.

[Huixiu] followed Zhinian to study treatises of the Lesser Vehicle. He listened to the *Aṣṭagrantha, the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, and the *Vibhāṣa for several times. He thoroughly investigated their fundamental principles and understood their intrinsic attachments.28 His understanding was clear and distinct. His practice was indeed sincere and strict. Zhinian said, “I have been lecturing on the Lesser Vehicle for many years. Now I meet this disciple. I believe it is not in vain.” Huixiu then composed the Profound Essay (Xuanzhang玄章) and the Exegetical Notes (Chaoshu抄疏) for the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya.29

Zhinian’s expertise in the Vibhāṣa is also highlighted in Huijing’s 慧净(578–?) biography.

There was a Buddhist scholar named Zhinian widely known in China. He was regarded by his contemporaries as being able to delve into every nook and cranny of the Lesser Vehicle. [Huijing] then followed him to study the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya and the *Vibhāṣa.30

Prior to Xuanzang, Abhidharma texts most commonly mentioned in monks’ biographies were the *Aṣṭagrantha, the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, and the *Vibhāṣa.31 The pre-Xuanzang translations of the Vibhāṣa compendia, including the Treatise of Commentary (Skt.: *Vibhāṣaśāstra; Chi.: Piposha lun鞞婆沙論)32 and the Treatise of Abhidharma commentary (Skt.: *Abhidharmavibhāṣa; Chi.: Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論),33 were considered to be more comprehensive scholarly resources compared to the relatively succinct Hṛdaya treatise series.34 Following Paramārtha’s (499–569) translation of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa and its auto-commentary into Chinese (completed in 568) under the title Explanatory Treatise of the Treasury of Abhidharma (Skt.: Abhidharmakośabhāṣya; Chi.: Apidamo jushe shilun 阿毘達磨俱舍釋論),35 some of Zhinian’s disciples had the opportunity to access this treatise. For instance, Huijing wrote thirty volumes of commentaries on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya and later studied the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. His biographical accounts by Daoxuan reveal his awareness of sectarian polemics between Vaibhāṣikas and non-Vaibhāṣikas in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.36 Daoyue 道嶽 (568–636) also initially studied the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya with Zhinian before studying Paramārtha’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.37 The knowledge of Abhidharma would soon be disseminated, primarily through three of Zhinian’s disciples, namely Huixiu, Daoji,38 and Daoyue, to the young Xuanzang.

2.2. Zhinian, Xuanzang, and Puguang

Zhinian passed away in the fourth year (608) of the Daye reign (605–618) during the Sui dynasty. At that time, Xuanzang was only about six years old and probably had not met Zhinian. At least no extant evidence has documented this. However, Xuanzang would establish connections with several disciples of Zhinian later on. A few years later, Xuanzang resided in the Jingtu Temple alongside his sibling. This period marked the concluding years of the Daye reign, characterized by hardship in terms of both food and dharma. Upon discovering that Daoji, a disciple of Zhinian, was teaching in Chang’an, Xuanzang and his elder brother went there to pursue their studies under Daoji’s guidance at the Zhuangyan Temple.39 Xuanzang’s wisdom, particularly his proficiency in the comprehensive discourse of Vibhāṣa and the intricate interpretations of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, soon garnered the attention of Daoji.

As for the extensive commentary of the *Vibhāṣa and the profound meanings of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, [Xuanzang] meticulously explored and studied them, digging into deep caves, and get to the root of the problems. However, this treatise had been widely studied after being transmitted to the east. There are over ten different commentaries. [Xuanzang] stored them within the treasure trove of the mind and could recite them naturally. [Dao]ji often looked at him and signed, saying: “I have traveled to so many lecture monasteries, but I have never seen a young man with such spiritual understanding as this one!”40

Later Xuanzang also studied the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya with Huixiu.

The monk Huixiu privately taught [Xuanzang] the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya and the Compendium of the Great Vehicle (Skt.: *Mahāyānasaṃgraha; Chi.: She dacheng lun攝大乘論), pointing out the subtle nuances, and skillfully indicating the main points. They continued for eight months tirelessly. Huixiu is amazed. He couldn’t help but applaud and sigh in admiration, “You are truly an extraordinary person in this world!”41

He also studied the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya with Daoyue.

The monk Daoyue specialized in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and promoted Sarvāstivāda. He was able to comprehend all the key points. When he was spreading the teachings in the imperial city, he attracted a multitude of students. Xuanzang also studied with him… Since Xuanzang had not heard of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya before, he humbly sought Daoyue’s guidance day and night. [Dao]yue noticed that Xuanzang was very diligent. His wisdom is as bright as the morning glow. Daoyue joyfully taught him without exhaustion.42

Daoji, Huixiu and Daoyue were students of Zhinian. After a comprehensive analysis of nearly all available literature, Xuanzang continued to feel dissatisfied. He lamented,

I have traveled through the regions of Wu吳 and Shu蜀,43 arrived in the territories of Zhao赵 and Wei 魏, and did not reach the domains of Zhouqin周秦. Whenever there is a lecture, I will attend. Although I have mastered all available texts and teachings, I still have no way to understand those that have not been transmitted here.44

Evidently, Xuanzang was discontented with existing texts and teachings, which spurred his expedition to India.

[Xuanzang] arrived at the kingdom of Kashmir, which is commonly known as Jibin罽賓.45 How did the Jibin country come into existence? [Xuanzang] observed its territory and found it similar to Jibin. Originally, it was the sea of a dragon. Later it was obtained by an Arhat and attracted a multitude of masters well-versed at the Tripiṭaka. Hence, their country was surrounded by mountains on all four sides, with a circumference of more than seven thousand li.⁴⁶ The entrance was narrow and cramped. The country has five thousand monks, most of whom studied the Lesser Vehicle. The country had great sages, famous monks, and superior craftsmen. [Xuan]zang went there to study the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the *Nyāyānusāra, the *Hetuvidyā, the *Śabdavidyā, and the *Mahāvibhāṣa.47

Throughout his travels, Xuanzang obtained several texts that were hitherto unavailable in China. For instance, the *Nyāyānusāra is a treatise composed by Vaibhāṣika Saṃghabhadra as a counter-argument to Vasubandhu’s non-Vaibhāṣika interpretations found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.48 The *Mahāvibhāṣa, despite sharing the title Vibhāṣa, represents a new commentary from Kashmir on the *Jñānaprasthāna. In the country of Cīnabhukti,49 Xuanzang studied the *Samayapradīpikā, also composed by Saṃghabhadra in order to establish Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy. Xuanzang also had the opportunity to study some of these Abhidharma texts with different teachers during his pilgrimage.50 Upon his return to China, Xuanzang incorporated the translation of the newly accessible Abhidharma texts into his extensive translation project. He also retranslated the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Puguang, a disciple and translation assistant to Xuanzang, is the most important transmitter of Xuanzang’s Abhidharma teachings. According to Zanning 贊寧(919 – 1001),

Shi Puguang, whose origins are unknown, was intelligent by nature. He chose the wood (a metaphor for his path or method) and asked to serve the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang. Puguang served Master Xuanzang with a diligent and dedicated heart, unmatched by his peers.… Initially, Xuanzang disliked the old translations of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and believed that it had a lot of deficiencies. After obtaining the Sanskrit manuscript, Xuanzang re-translated it. He then secretly taught Puguang the oral teachings he received from the Vaibhāṣikas in western India. Thus, Puguang composed commentaries and provided interpretations.51

Puguang is situated at the juncture where various transmission lines intersect. Puguang can be linked back to Zhinian via three distinct transmission lines, specifically through three monks who have studied with Zhinian: Huixiu, Daoji, and Daoyue. All of them instructed Xuanzang, Puguang’s direct mentor. As Xuanzang’s most immediate Abhidharma disciple, Puguang had access to an extensive array of Abhidharma resources, including both written texts and oral instructions. These resources can be broadly categorized into five groups. The first group comprises the Abhidharma texts translated prior to Xuanzang, including the Hṛdaya series, the two Vibhāṣas translated before Xuanzang, Paramārtha’s translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and others. The second group includes the Abhidharma commentaries written by pre-Xuanzang Abhidharma specialists such as Zhinian. From Zhinian’s biographical accounts, we know that he has authored nine volumes of commentary on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya. These commentaries, although not extant now, might have still been available at Zhinian’s time. The third group is constituted by the new translations produced by Xuanzang and his team, including the *Mahāvibhāṣa, the *Nyāyānusāra, the *Samayapradīpikā, the newly translated Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and others. The fourth group consists of the oral instructions disseminated through transmission lines in China. The fifth group includes the oral instructions Xuanzang received from Indian masters during his pilgrimage. Therefore, Puguang’s Abhidharmic view is built upon the legacy of a previous generation of Chinese Abhidharma scholars, as well as the texts and oral instructions accessible to the 7th-century Indian Sarvāstivādins. Next, we will explore his different attitudes toward these different sources.

In the Jushe lun ji, Puguang references Zhinian’s perspectives on five separate occasions. It is plausible that Puguang’s understanding of Zhinian’s viewpoints was acquired either through the social transmission of Zhinian’s oral teachings or from the written works left by Zhinian. Zhinian commented on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, and while his commentary is not extant today, it may still have been accessible during Puguang’s era. Puguang’s references to Zhinian are scattered throughout the Jushe lun ji. The first is a discussion of the thirteen faculties that are inevitably possessed during the path of seeing (Skt.: darśanamārga, Chi.: jiandao見道). The second case involves the smallest possible aggregation of particles (Skt.: paramāṇu; Chi.: weiju微聚). The third instance pertains to the controversy over the causal relationships between the pervasive mental factors (Skt.: mahābhūmikadharmāḥ; Chi.: dadi fa大地法) and the mind-king (Skt.: citta; Chi.: xinwang 心王). The fourth one is about senseless talk (Skt.: sambhinnapralāpa; Chi.: zahui yu 雜穢語) in the karma section. The fifth is about the knowledge of others’ minds (Skt.: paracittajñāna; Chi.: taxin zhi他心智) in the knowledge section. On all five occasions, Zhinian’s views are deemed outdated and incorrect. This article will use the discourse of the thirteen faculties during the path of seeing as a representative example.52

This discourse is positioned at the beginning of the instruction on the twenty-two indriyas, which exert power in various aspects. Following a comprehensive examination of the faculties’ attributes and their acquisition process, Vasubandhu starts to discuss the possession of faculties. This involves an exploration of the interrelationships among various faculties, specifically, the possession of other faculties if certain faculties are possessed. For example, in the 17th verse of the chapter on faculties, Vasubandhu asserts, “The one who has neutrality, the life-force and the mind is necessarily endowed with/possessed of [these] three [as a group].” (Skt.: upekṣajīvitamanoyukto’vaśyaṃ trayānvitaḥ;53 Chi.: 成就命意捨, 各定成就三).54 This implies that if an individual possesses the faculty of neutral feeling, life-force, or mind, they must concurrently possess all three faculties. Vasubandhu continues to discuss the necessary possession of five faculties by an individual who has the faculty of pleasure or body, seven faculties by one who possesses the faculty of suffering, eight faculties by one who possesses either the female or male faculty, and eleven faculties by one who possesses the faculty of having already known. He then explores the thirteen essential faculties possessed by an individual with the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known.

It is equivalent to say that an individual possesses the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known and that this individual is in the phase of the “path of seeing”— a period consisting of fifteen moments where the practitioner gains previously unknown insight.55 This faculty is the foremost among the three uncontaminated faculties that come at the end of the list of twenty-two faculties. The verse posits that there are thirteen faculties that are necessarily possessed by a person possessing the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known. However, the translations of the auto-commentary by Paramārtha and Xuanzang present two slightly different lists of these thirteen essential faculties. As per Paramārtha,

The verse is: Ājñāsyāmīndriya is associated with thirteen. Explanation: Which are the thirteen? They are the faculties of mind, life-force, and body; the female or male faculty; three faculties of sensation; five faculties of conviction and others. Ājñāsyāmīndriya is the thirteenth.56

However, according to Xuanzang,

If ājñāsyāmīndriya is accomplished, thirteen faculties are necessarily accomplished. These are [faculties of] body, life-force, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, neutrality; five faculties of conviction and others; as well as the ājñāsyāmīndriya (itself).57

The primary distinction is that Paramārtha enumerates three faculties of sensations and the male or female faculty. In contrast, Xuanzang includes four faculties of sensations and entirely omits the male and female faculties. The Sanskrit version aligns with Xuanzang’s enumeration.

Ājñāsyāmīndriya is accompanied by thirteen. Which thirteen? The indriyas of thought, life, and body, four indriyas of sensation, the indriyas of conviction and others, as well as ājñāsyāmīndriya (itself). ājñāsyāmīndriyopetas trayodaśabhir anvitaḥ/katamais trayodaśabhiḥ/ manojīvitakāyendriyaiḥ catasṛbhir vedanābhiḥ śraddhādibhir ājñāsyāmīndriyeṇa ca /58

It is ambiguous whether Paramārtha altered the text during his translation or the Sanskrit manuscript he uses differs from Xuanzang’s version. It is more certain that whether the female/male faculty should be included within the list of thirteen essential faculties had been a contentious issue. This controversy pertains to Sarvāstivādins’ doctrine, which posits that those individuals devoid of a male/female faculty (Skt.: avyañjanā; Chi.: wuxing無形) or those possessing dual male/female faculties (Skt.: ubhayavyañjanā; Chi.: erxing 二形) are incapable of reaching the stage of the path of seeing. Sarvāstivādins assert that only individuals with one and only one binary male/female faculty can achieve this stage, implying that the binary female/male faculty is a prerequisite for anyone possessing the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known. However, both the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, accessible to Zhinian, and Xuanzang’s translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, accessible to Puguang, exclude male/female faculties from the list of thirteen essentials. As per the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya,

If ājñāsyāmīndriya is accomplished, thirteen faculties are necessarily accomplished. These are the [faculties of] body, life-force, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, neutrality; five faculties of conviction and others; as well as the ājñāsyāmīndriya (itself).59

This scholastic problem is addressed both by Zhinian and Puguang. In the Jushe lun ji, Puguang starts with an imagined interlocuter:

Question: Will the female or male faculty be accomplished in the stage of path of seeing? If one of them is accomplished, why is it not mentioned? If not, how can the person enter the [stream of] noble ones?60

Rather than immediately offering his viewpoint on this matter, Puguang opts to first introduce Zhinian’s interpretation. Considering that all of Zhinian’s works are no longer extant, this serves as a precious resource that offers insight into the intellectual perspective of Zhinian, one of the most eminent Abhidharma scholars prior to Xuanzang.

The ancient sage Master Nian says, “Although one of the two faculties, i.e., the female faculty and the male faculty, will definitely be accomplished during the path of seeing, when the male faculty is accomplished, the female faculty is not. When the female faculty is accomplished, the male faculty is not. Because it is not definite which one will be accomplished, neither is mentioned.”61

We do not know where exactly Puguang learned the view of Zhinian. Did it come from Puguang’s commentary on *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, or from oral instructions passed on through the transmission lines? Whatever the case, it offers an opportunity for us to learn about Zhinian’s thought as well as Puguang’s attitude towards it. From Zhinian’s perspective, the absence of both female and male faculties from the list of thirteen essential faculties does not conflict with Sarvāstivādins’ assertion that individuals lacking a male/female faculty cannot achieve the path of seeing. He contends that an individual who reaches the path of seeing still retains a single binary male/female faculty, either female or male. However, neither of these faculties is included in the list since we are not sure which one (male or female) will be possessed. While Puguang agrees with Zhinian regarding the list of thirteen essential faculties, he expresses dissatisfaction with Zhinian’s rationale. Zhinian’s argument for excluding the two male/female faculties from the list aligns with the views of non-Vaibhāṣikas, which subsequently becomes a point of critique for Puguang.

The argument against the first view, which is presented by Master Nian: if it is because it is not definite which one of the male/female faculties will be possessed that neither of them are mentioned in the path of seeing, why does the 156th volume of the *Mahāvibhāṣa, when discussing “the essential faculties for someone with both female faculty and male faculty”, states, “for the past and the future, nine essentials; for the three periods, two essentials; for the present, four essentials. The nine essentials for the past and the future are the four sensations and the five skillful faculties starting from conviction. The two for the three periods are the mind and one of the sensations. The four at present are the male, female, body, and life-force. The other [faculties] may or may not be possessed, as discussed above. The western masters state, ‘It should be said that there are ten essentials in the past and in the future, which are the five sensations and the five skillful faculties starting from conviction. There is only one essential in the three periods, [sensation if not considered as an essential] since it is not definite which sensation will be possessed.’ The masters from Kashmir say, ‘Although the name is not definite, the number is definite. There is definitely one sensation to be possessed. Therefore, here the number should be considered, rather than the name’”?62

According to Puguang, Zhinian asserts that the reason both female and male faculties are absent from the list of thirteen essentials is due to the uncertainty of which one will be possessed. Puguang presents a case from the newly translated *Mahāvibhāṣa, arguing that such indeterminacy is only employed by Westerners in their reasoning. This case involves a disagreement between western masters and those from the kingdom of Kashmir regarding whether uncertainty can serve as a valid reason for excluding essentials. The debate also pertains to the number of essentials, but not during the path of seeing. Instead, it concerns the essentials for individuals possessing both female and male faculties. The three periods (Skt.: traiyadhvika; Chi.: sanshi 三世) refer to the past, the present, and the future. Western masters argue that there is only one essential for the three periods, due to the uncertainty of the sensation’s name. However, Kashmiri masters assert that despite the uncertainty of which sensation will manifest, it is certain that one sensation will be possessed. Therefore, the “number” (shu 數) is of significance, rather than the “name” (ming 名). In the *Mahāvibhāṣa, “western masters” typically refer to the Sarvāstivādins located in regions to the west of Kashmir, such as Bactria and Gandhāra.63 In an effort to maintain their authority, the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas dedicate considerable time in the *Mahāvibhāṣa to critique the perspectives of the western masters. During the era of Vaibhāṣikas’ compilation of the *Mahāvibhāṣa, there was a pronounced level of sectarian self-awareness (Willemen et al. 1998, p. 173). Vaibhāṣikas’ strategy of challenging the perspectives of western masters is crucial in maintaining their unique sectarian identity. This strategy was not as evident in the earlier texts which Zhinian was familiar with, but is prominent in more recently translated texts such as the *Mahāvibhāṣa, the *Nyāyānusāra, and the *Samayapradīpikā.

Authority and authentication are always important elements of transmission stories in religions as a whole, and in early Medieval Chinese Buddhism in particular (Deeg 2016, p. 11). One of the major motivations for Xuanzang’s pilgrimage was to correct the errors and contradictions in the texts translated before his time (Deeg 2016, p. 18.). Therefore, it is quite understandable that he would regard the manuscripts he brought back to be more credible than the Chinese translations and teachings he received before his pilgrimage. This attitude most likely also influenced his students, as can be seen in their unanimous praise of Xuanzang’s “new translations” (xinyi 新譯) and a devaluation of the “old translations” (jiuyi 舊譯). As Eric Greece says, “That Xuanzang and his followers rejected the scriptural authority of anything but their own ‘new translations,’ a term they popularized to this end, was a trope that began to circulate widely by the end of Xuanzang’s lifetime.”64 Similar to the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas, Xuanzang and his associates were fervently committed to preserving their unique intellectual identity. This was accomplished via two primary methods. First, Xuanzang and his adherents would contend that they have access to Indic texts of greater authority. Second, they would posit that their translations were more precise and significantly superior to earlier versions. Following their critique of the inaccuracies in Paramārtha’s previous translation,65 Puguang started to challenge Zhinian’s argument, which was regarded as representing the standpoint of western masters.

If Master Nian says, “Although one of the female and male faculties will necessarily be possessed during the path of seeing, they are not mentioned because it is indefinite which one will be possessed,” this is the view of the western masters. According to the view in the kingdom of Kashmir, there should be fourteen essentials since the number is definitely fourteen. However, [the verse] says that there are thirteen. Thus, Zhinian’s view is not reasonable. This is because he did not have the opportunity to see the new Vibhāṣa.66

In this context, Puguang appears to be flaunting his access to the newly translated Vibhāṣa, highlighting that Zhinian lacks this privilege. He criticizes Zhinian’s viewpoint as "unreasonable" (feili 非理), associating it with western masters who are often criticized by Vaibāṣikas in sectarian debates, as evidenced in Vaibāṣika-authored works such as the *Mahavibhāṣa and the *Nyāyānusāra. However, Puguang does not provide any additional arguments to substantiate why this perspective is not reasonable. Rather, he implicitly assumes the authoritative status of the Kashmiri masters’ viewpoint. Xuanzang’s translation of the new Vibhāṣa is important since it provides new evidence of how the self-proclaimed “orthodox” Vaibāṣika viewpoint refutes viewpoints of non-Vaibāṣikas. Following his rebuttal of Zhinian’s viewpoint, Puguang proposes a “correct perspective” (zhengjie正解) quoted from the *Nyāyānusāra.

Now the correct view is, “during the stage of the path of seeing, the male faculty and the female faculty might or might not be possessed. If possessed, either one of them is possessed. If not, it is the situation that the male or female faculty is abandoned when [faculties] are gradually abandoned from the bottom [of the body] to the top during the dying process. Therefore, the 150^th volume of the Mahavibhāṣa explains the minimum faculties of those driven by the faith like this: ‘the thirteen are the body, the life-force, the mind, the four sensations, the five faculties of conviction and so on, and one uncontaminated faculty. This is someone who enters the path of seeing after abandoning the defilements of the desire realm during the gradual dying process.’”67 The *Nyāyānusāra is composed by Saṃghabhadra 眾賢to refute Vasubandhu’s non-Vaibhāṣika stance. Saṃghabhadra states:

If the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is accomplished, there are thirteen essentials, i.e., the faculties of body, life-force, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, and neutrality, the five faculties of conviction and so on, and the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known. It is said that a person can attain the path of seeing in the process of dying because of the deep revulsion towards birth and death.68

This illustrates Puguang’s, and likely Xuanzang’s, favorable attitude towards texts embodying the Vaibhāṣika perspective, such as the *Mahāvibhāṣa and the *Nyāyānusāra, the orthodoxy of which is asserted by Vaibhāsikas themselves. In another case about the knowledge of knowing others’ minds, Puguang also extols the view in the *Nyāyānusāra to be the correct one, while criticizing the views of three pre-Xuanzang monastic scholars (Huang 2021). In contrast to their predecessors, Xuanzang and his disciples exhibit a heightened awareness of sectarianism within the Sarvāstivāda. They deliberately leverage the authority established by Vaibhāṣikas within Indian Sarvāstivāda to validate their own contributions in the transmission and translation of Abhidharma texts, as evidenced in this instance and others. Prior to his journey to India, Xuanzang was perplexed by disagreements among translated Indic texts and different interpretations offered by Chinese scholars. Specifically, in the field of Abhidharma, upon discovering a multitude of Vaibhāṣika texts claiming to be the sole orthodoxy, he naturally felt that many ongoing Abhidharma debates in China could be resolved using these new texts as a benchmark. Is it the reason why Puguang criticizes Zhinian? We cannot provide a definite answer with the limited evidence we have, but it is very likely that Puguang is using the sectarian view of the Kashmiri masters and Vaibhāṣika texts to extol their own status in Chinese Abhidharma studies.

3. Conclusions

This study focuses on a pre-Xuanzang monastic scholar, referred to as “Master Nian,” who is frequently mentioned in the Jushe lun ji, a work attributed to Xuanzang’s disciple Puguang. Given Puguang’s simultaneous reverence and critique of this monastic scholar, it prompts the question of the monk’s identity and the rationale behind Puguang’s contradictory stance. After identifying “Master Nian” as Zhinian, an exploration of Zhinian’s life and his expertise in Abhidharma texts was undertaken. As one of the most frequently referenced pre-Xuanzang Abhidharma masters in the Jushe lun ji, Zhinian demonstrated proficiency in nearly all translated Abhidharma texts available in the 6th-century China, such as the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya, the two earlier translated Vibhāṣas, and the *Aṣṭagrantha. He even authored volumes of commentary on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya. Xuanzang’s early Abhidharma education owes much to Zhinian, as three of his Abhidharma teachers, Huixiu, Daoji, and Daoyue, were all students of Zhinian.

However, the young Xuanzang was discontented with the teachings he received in China and sought to explore untranslated texts in India. During his pilgrimage, he gained access to many new texts. He also obtained new manuscripts for some texts that had earlier translations. There was a clear inclination among Xuanzang and his disciples to position Xuanzang’s new translations as the most authoritative ones. Xuanzang’s contribution in introducing both new texts and new translations was celebrated by his disciples, albeit at the expense of devaluing the so-called “old” translations and scholarly achievements of pre-Xuanzang monastic scholars, including Zhinian. Zhinian’s opinion was marginalized by Xuanzang’s disciple Puguang due solely to its association with the views held by western masters, the Sarvāstivādins residing in places to the west of Kashmir, such as Bactria and Gandhāra.

As part of the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas’ strategy to present themselves as the sole authority within the Sarvāstivāda, they consistently downplayed the views of western masters in texts such as the *Mahāvibhāṣa and the *Nyāyānusāra. Compared to earlier texts, these texts represent a period when Vaibhāṣikas were advocating for their sectarian identity very self-consciously. This self-promotion was used by Xuanzang and his team to fulfil their ambition to brand themselves as the discoverer of the true Buddhist authority, thanks to Xuanzang’s grand pilgrimage. This is reflected in the case of the thirteen essentials during the path of the seeing. Zhinian’s opinion is deemed as “unreasonable” merely because it aligns with the views of western masters instead of the masters from Kashmir. However, if we examine Abhidharma commentaries in other lineages, such as the Essence of the Ocean of Abhidharma, a Commentary on the Treasury of Knowledge (Tib.: mngon pa mdzod kyi ‘grel pa chos mngon rgya mtsho’i snying po) compiled by the 9th Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje (1556–1603) in Tibet, it can be seen that the Karmapa shares the same opinion as Zhinian.69 It can be inferred that Zhinian’s opinion might simply be “another” opinion rather than the Other opinion that is definitively wrong. This is a case in which the Abhidharma showcases the construction of authority and orthodoxy during the process of transmission and translation (chuanyi傳譯) of Buddhist texts. Xuanzang and his disciples’ claim of authority comes at a sacrifice of diversity in understanding Abhidharma Buddhism among Chinese Buddhists.