The East Asian Transmission of the Chuanlao Song (川老頌) of the Diamond Sūtra: Centering on Versions from Premodern Korea and Edo Japan

Abstract

The Chuanlao Song, composed by the Southern Song Chan monk Daochuan 道川 (1104–1163, Southern Song), represents a hybrid form of exegetical lecture text from the Diamond Sūtra (金剛經). Neither a standard commentary (zhu 註) nor a ritual manual (keyi 科儀), it fuses rhetorical features of Chan sermons with versified praise, often associated with chanting. From the twelfth century onward, the Chuanlao Song circulated across China, Korea, and Japan, yet its textual identity has long been obscured. In particular, the Zokuzōkyō (續藏經) recension misclassified it as a commentary, resulting in interpretive confusions that have persisted into modern scholarship. This study reconsiders the Chuanlao Song within broader contextual frameworks of textual form, ritual practice, and editorial strategy. While grounded in philological analysis, three regional trajectories are highlighted: the Chuanlao Song’s preservation in China as an appended text within collective annotations; its transformation in Korea through royal patronage and the multiplication of textual forms; and its reinterpretation in Edo-period Japan as an object of sectarian commentary. By tracing these transregional movements, this study argues that the Chuanlao Song offers a valuable case study of how Buddhist texts were circulated and adapted across East Asia, shedding light on the intra-Chinese domestication and, beyond China, regional vernacularization and recontextualization.

1. Introduction

Although the Diamond Sūtra has been the subject of extensive exegetical and art-historical scholarship, the Chuanlao Song (川老頌; hereafter Chuanlao gāthā)—a unique Southern Song lecture text combining verse interpretation and ritual performance—has rarely been systematically examined. The term song (頌) here refers to a Buddhist gāthā, a versified exegetical form in Chan tradition, rather than a song in the musical sense (McRae 2003). Previous studies have often conflated it with later commentarial editions preserved in the Zokuzōkyō, obscuring its original character and transregional significance.

This study asks how the Chuanlao gāthā, as a verse-based ritual text, evolved and circulated across East Asia. It reconsiders the text within broader frameworks of textual formation, ritual practice, and editorial transmission. Drawing on Chinese, Korean, and Japanese sources, it traces the text’s transformation from Daochuan’s original lecture verses to its later reception in Goryeo and Edo Japan. By reconstructing this trajectory, the study clarifies how the Chuanlao gāthā functioned as both an exegetical appendix to the Diamond Sūtra and a vehicle for ritual recitation, illuminating the dynamics of cross-cultural adaptation and textual circulation within East Asian Buddhism.

2. The Formation of the Chuanlao gāthā and an Overview of Its Versions

2.1. The Formation of the Chuanlao gāthā and Misunderstandings Related to the Zokuzōkyō Version

The monastic name of Chuanlao was Daochuan, his lay surname was Di (狄), and his dharma name was derived from the combined meaning of the horizontal “three” (三) with the vertical “river” (川); he was also referred to as Chan Master Chuan. In his later years, he resided at Shiji Monastery on Mount Yefu in Lujiang and, due to this, he was also called “Yefu 冶父”, a title showing intimacy and reverence. His activities are recorded in the Lamp Records (燈錄) and local gazetteers (方志)1, indicating that he was active in the Jiang–Zhe region during the Southern Song and maintained considerable contact with the literati. This is already evident in the two Southern Song prefaces attached to the transmitted editions of the Chuanlao gāthā. Before the age of twenty, Chuanlao served as an archer; later, he entered monastic life under the Senior Monk Qian 谦首座 of Dongzhai 東齋 and received his dharma name. At the age of twenty-three, he inherited the Linji lineage from Ji-cheng at Pan’an and, from then on, he specialized in lecturing on the Diamond Sūtra. After the age of forty-seven (some sources claim forty), he resided at Yefu; at sixty, after writing a “Verse of Departure”, he passed away in a seated posture. His life span is generally thought to have been circa 1104–1163 and can be divided into four stages: (1) awakening under the rod after losing his official post; (2) traveling as a mendicant before returning to Dongzhai; (3) gaining increasing respect from both monks and laypeople, with Shiji Monastery receiving an inscribed plaque; (4) being invited to teach and serving as abbot of Yefu Monastery.

The above biographical sketch serves only to establish the timeframe for the composition of the Chuanlao gāthā. Most extant single-text editions carry the “Postface by Zheng Zhen 鄭震 (fl. 12th c.)”, dated to the Xinsi year of Shaoxing (紹興辛巳, 1161, Southern Song)2, which is in accordance with the statement in the Zhongwu Jiwen that Chuanlao “composed a late commentary on the Diamond Sūtra.” If we correlate this with the four stages of his life, the ordination occurred during stage (2), while the initial formation of the verses on the Diamond Sūtra should have taken place during stage (3). M. Li (2022) argues for a date between 1127 and 1163, which is also in accordance with the record in the Gazetteer of Mount Yefu, limiting it to the reign of Emperor Gaozong of the Song. G. Li (2022) pushes the date back to Chuanlao’s vigorous years at Dongzhai, but this fails to adequately account for the accumulated components of the verses formed through long years of preaching. This study regards Zheng Zhen’s postface only as marking the late publication date, while the Chuanlao gāthā itself was gradually shaped over many years of lectures.

The basic form of the Chuanlao gāthā (Diamond Sūtra) follows a tripartite structure: (1) a passage or phrase from the Diamond Sūtra (beginning with the sutra’s title and, in some cases, offering word-by-word explanations); (2) Daochuan’s interlinear remarks (citing ancient masters or providing his own sayings); (3) a gāthā (verse) composed by Daochuan. This cycle continues until the end of the scripture. For example,

[Diamond Sūtra text] Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (sutra title)

[Daochuan’s remark] ○3

The Dharma does not arise alone; who will provide it with a name?

法不孤起，誰為安名？

[Daochuan’s verse]

Great Dharma King, neither short nor long.

Originally neither black nor white, yet showing green and yellow everywhere.

摩訶大法王，無短亦無長。本來非皂白，隨處現青黃。

White hair sees the splendor of morning, forests wither with the evening frost.

Swift thunder—how urgent!—but lightning is not true light.

華髮看朝豔，林凋逐晩霜。疾雷何大急，迅電亦非光。

Neither mortals nor saints can fathom it; how could dragons and devas measure it?

People of past and present do not recognize it, so the provisional name is set up as “Diamond”.

凡聖猶難測，龍天豈度量。古今人不識，權立號金剛。

As mentioned above, the Chuanlao gāthā took shape gradually through years of lecturing. From the perspective of extant East Asian editions, nearly all bear the title Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, with individualized titles or tendencies toward reinterpretation only appearing in a few editions found in Korea and Japan. This further confirms that the Chuanlao gāthā is not an independent work but, rather, an exegetical lecture text attached to the Diamond Sūtra for use in lectures, comparable to the Verses of Master Fu (i.e., Fu Xi 傅翕, 497–569, Liang) on the Diamond Sūtra [Fu Dashi Song Jin’gangjing 傅大士頌金剛經], distinct from widely circulating independent exegetical works such as the Exposition of the Diamond Sūtra attributed to the Sixth Patriarch Huineng 慧能 (638–713, Tang). Nevertheless, compared to purely doctrinal commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra, the Chuanlao gāthā, precisely because of its Chan spirit and literary style, was widely recited and influential across China, Korea, and Japan. Previous research has not systematically situated its place in East Asian Buddhist and intellectual history, largely because of insufficient examination and utilization of its various versions. Therefore, it is especially necessary to sort and categorize the key extant versions in East Asia in order to clarify misjudgments about the nature of the Chuanlao gāthā. Foremost among these is the need to address the many misconceptions generated by the Zokuzōkyō (X0461) version.

2.2. Misunderstandings Related to the Zokuzōkyō Version

In the view of academic researchers, the Chuanlao gāthā has mainly appeared in three forms:

• The collected commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra centered on the editions by Yang Gui 楊圭 (fl. 12th–13th c., Southern Song)4, Honglian (洪蓮, fl. 12th c.), and Zhu Di 朱棣 (1360–1424, r. 1402–1424, Ming dynasty);
• The text included in the Zokuzōkyō as no. 461, titled Commentary on the Diamond Sūtra (金剛經注) and attributed to Daochuan (see X24, no. 461, titled Commentary on the Diamond Sūtra);
• The editions printed in the Joseon dynasty, such as the Five Commentaries of the Diamond Sutra (金剛經五家解, hereinafter referred to as Five Commentaries) and the Three Commentaries (Samgahae).

Among these, the second is especially misleading, and it easily gives rise to the following three misconceptions:

• That Chuanlao composed a commentary (zhu 注) on the Diamond Sūtra;
• That all content in the Zokuzōkyō version was authored by Chuanlao;
• That the Zokuzōkyō edition was compiled in China and then transmitted to Japan.

Each of these requires clarification.

First, treating the Chuanlao gāthā as a commentary on the Diamond sutra is incorrect. As noted above, the essence lies in the Diamond Sūtra itself, not in the “song.” This is clearly indicated in the prefaces and postfaces of extant editions. By contrast, exegetical works such as those by the Indian masters Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, or the Exposition (解義) texts in China, were regarded as possessing a degree of independent existence. Although current East Asian editions show a variety of forms and titles, historical sources such as the Lamp Records (燈錄), monastic biographies, local gazetteers, and other literary and historical materials invariably refer to Chuanlao’s version only as a “song” (頌). The sole exception is Fan Chengda 范成大 (1126–1193, Southern Song)’s Gazetteer of Wujun (吳郡志), which, under the entry “Daochuan”, records that he “had composed a commentary on the Diamond Sūtra”, which was later also cited in “Wu Du Wen Cui” (吳都文粹) and “Gu Su Zhi” (姑蘇志).

Second, as pointed out by scholars such as Yang (2001) and G. Li (2022), the three-juan text included in the Zokuzōkyō is primarily composed of the official Ming commentary—the Commentary on the Diamond Sūtra (so called “New Commentary”, Xin zhu 新注). “New Commentary” produced by the exegetical monks Zongle 宗泐 (1318–1390, Ming) and Ruqi 如玘 (1320–1385, Ming) under the imperial command of the Emperor Taizu Zhu Yuanzhang 朱元璋 (r. 1368–1398, Ming). This commentary incorporates quotations from the Sixth Patriarch’s Exposition and the Chuanlao gāthā, but the Chuanlao gāthā accounts for less than one-third of the total text. The Taishō Canon (T. no. 1703) contains a one-juan version of “New Commentary”. Because of the high similarity in content, the Zokuzōkyō compilers, without careful investigation, misattributed the three-juan edition to Daochuan merely because it begins with the “Preface to the Diamond Sūtra by Chuanlao.” This has, to some degree, misled subsequent scholarship on the Chuanlao gāthā.

Finally, the Zongle’s “New Commentary” found in the Jiaxing Dazangjing 嘉興大藏經 (Jiaxing Canon) and Yongle Beizang 永樂北藏 (Northern Yongle Edition of the Canon) is contained in a single juan, and Ming bibliographies such as the Bibliographical Treatise of State History (國史經籍志), the Guide to Reading the Buddhist Canon (閱藏知津), and the Catalogue of the Danshengtang Collection (澹生堂藏書目) also record it as “one juan.” This clearly does not correspond to the present three-juan size. Moreover, no extant Chinese editions combine the Chuanlao gāthā with the Sixth Patriarch’s Exposition. Thus, the interlinear annotation of the Chuanlao gāthā into Zongle’s “New Commentary” was most likely a uniquely Japanese editorial act, rather than a Chinese compilation later transmitted to Japan. As already noted, the Chuanlao gāthā in China was only an ancillary component of the Diamond Sūtra editions; it was never the principal content of a publication. In Japan, however, because it became an important exegetical resource for scholars studying the Diamond Sūtra, it naturally came to be perceived as possessing the character of a “commentary.”

Since Yang Huinan and Li Gengdao have already provided detailed accounts of the textual bases and bibliographical circumstances of the Zokuzōkyō version, this study will not repeat their discussion here. What can be observed, however, is that without clarifying the actual forms of the extant Chuanlao gāthā editions of the Diamond Sūtra, it is impossible to accurately utilize the prefaces, postfaces, and related information found in these versions. The following sections will, therefore—as far as possible—present the extant East Asian versions of the Chuanlao gāthā and trace the evolution of their textual forms in order to analyze their place in the exegetical history of the Diamond Sūtra.

2.3. Chinese Holdings: Primarily in the Form of Collected Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra

As noted above, extant versions of the Chuanlao gāthā in East Asia are relatively abundant, especially on the Korean peninsula. By contrast, those preserved in China are mainly in collected commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra from the Ming period onward. Even though the available materials are limited and difficult to collect, any study must begin with the Chinese versions of the Chuanlao gāthā.

Regarding the classification of editions, Li Gengdao divided them into three types: single-text editions (centered on the Song of the Diamond Sūtra by Chan Master Daochuan, discovered in the pagoda of Bihu Monastery in Zhejiang, dated to the Shaoxing Xinsi year, 1161), combined editions, and combined printings. In my view, such categories are incomplete, and their criteria are problematic. First, what is the standard for “single”? Li classifies as “single editions” even those texts that contain the Diamond Sūtra, the Chuanlao gāthā, and Zheng Zhen’s annotation on the Chuanlao gāthā. Second, the distinction he makes between “combined editions” and “combined printings”—on the basis of whether other works appear alongside but do not disrupt the original text—is unclear. The very form of the Chuanlao gāthā is to be interlinearly annotated within the Diamond Sūtra text—how, then, can one speak of “disruption”? Rather, the emphasis in distinguishing combined and collected editions should be on whether other Diamond Sūtra commentaries appear in parallel with the Chuanlao gāthā, or whether there are sub-commentaries (復注) that interpret the Chuanlao gāthā itself, thereby providing further exegesis of the Diamond Sūtra. These two levels of interpretation exist in different relationships.

Therefore, beyond the necessary clarifications above regarding the formation of the Chuanlao gāthā and the versions commonly used in scholarship, this study aims, above all, to collect as many extant East Asian versions as possible, to systematize the evolution of their textual forms, and to present the place of the Chuanlao gāthā within the exegetical history of the Diamond Sūtra and its role in the broader phenomenon of Diamond Sūtra exegesis.

Among extant editions, three prefaces can be found: the postface by Zheng Zhen, dated to the Xinsi year of Shaoxing (紹興辛巳, 1161, Southern Song); the preface by Zheng Fu 鄭復, undated but claiming to have frequently conversed with Yefu (Daochuan); and the preface by Huizang 惠藏 (fl. 12th c., Southern Song), dated to the Jihai year of Chunxi (淳熙己亥, 1179, Southern Song) and composed when republishing the text at Qiaoan. Zheng Zhen’s postface appears in all extant single-text editions, sub-commentaries, and some collected commentaries; Zheng Fu’s preface is found only in the folded-leaf edition excavated from the Song pagoda at Bihu, as well as in Japanese printed collected commentaries and sub-commentaries; Huizang’s preface appears in Korean and Japanese editions5 but not in the Bihu pagoda edition or other related Chinese versions. In what follows, I will examine these three prefaces to clarify the situation regarding the different versions.

In 1960, a cache of artifacts was unearthed from the Song-dynasty pagoda at Bihu. In the fourth-level niche of the pagoda, a folded-leaf edition of the Song of the Diamond Sūtra was discovered, the content of which is precisely a single-text edition of the Chuanlao gāthā. The Zhejiang Provincial Museum catalogue records it as follows: “Height 16.8 cm, width 16.5 cm, single-line frame, complete at beginning and end, with damage at top and bottom, five lines per page, fifteen characters per line, ninety-four and a half folded leaves, composed by Chan Master Daochuan. At the beginning there is a preface by Zheng Fu, ‘Right Gentleman for Court Service, newly appointed Vice Prefect of Jingnan Commandery.’ At the end there is a vow text composed by Chan Master Daochuan, followed by a fragmentary colophon, with the date ‘Xinsi year of Shaoxing (1161), Eighth Month, Last Day’ at its end.” At that time, Jin Zhichao 金志超, an expert from the Lishui Municipal Cultural Relics Committee, judged—on the basis of the fragmentary Zheng Zhen postface—that it must have been printed in 1161, and at the latest before the completion of the pagoda (1193). Accordingly, Chinese scholarship has long regarded this as the earliest surviving edition of the Chuanlao gāthā.

In my view, because this folded-leaf edition was stored in a niche of the pagoda, unlike items placed in the joints of bricks or underground crypts, it need not necessarily have been produced before the completion of the pagoda. Therefore, among extant East Asian editions with explicit publication dates, the edition held by Yeungnam University in Korea, dated to 1258 (King Gojong, wu-xu 戊戌 year, Goryeo), should be considered the earliest. However, this folded-leaf edition lacks Huizang’s 1179 preface (淳熙己亥, Southern Song)—a feature found in all later Korean editions and Japanese printed editions after the Kōryaku era 1380 (康曆二年, Muromachi period)—strongly suggesting its publication before 1179. Professional archaeological assessments of the paper and calligraphy have also concluded that it cannot date later than the Southern Song. Thus, it may be regarded as the earliest Chinese extant edition, and its folded-leaf format is also unique among the surviving texts.

From the three prefaces written in the Southern Song, we can catch a glimpse of contemporary attitudes toward the single-text editions of the Chuanlao gāthā. For ease of discussion, they are presented here in parallel:

“One day, Elder Chuan of Yefu brought me the Song of the Diamond Sūtra that he had composed, wishing to have it carved and disseminated, and asked me to write a preface. Feeling my own shallowness, I dared not accept, but upon reflection I thought: The World-Honored One, while seated in the Jeta Grove, answered Subhūti’s questions and expounded the Prajñāpāramitā for all beings. When translated into China, Master Fu was the first to compose verses on it. Now Elder Chuan, again, for each word or phrase of this sūtra, has composed verses. To those with clear eyes, this might seem like ‘adding a head atop the head,’ yet it enables those not yet awakened to open the mind’s ground. Just as Chan Master Zongmi 圭峰宗密 (780–841, Tang) Guifeng recited the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment and thereby comprehended its ultimate meaning, or as one who parsed the Śūraṃgama Sūtra suddenly attained great awakening, and just as some on hearing songs or poems recognized their own nature—so too may this Song awaken those who later read it. Is this not excellent? This was Yefu’s intention, and it is also mine. Thus I record my view at the end of the sūtra. Dated the last day of the Eighth Month, Xinsi year of Shaoxing (1161), inscribed by Zheng Zhen, Vice Director of the Secretariat, Supervisor of the Chongdao Monastery of Taizhou.”

[Zheng Zhen’s Postface 鄭震序]

“The Buddha preached the Supreme Vehicle, called Prajñā. Its essential meaning is profound, none surpassing this scripture. Its words are near while its principles are remote; it does not increase or decrease by saint or commoner, nor is it stained or purified by true or false—like the bright moon illuminating a hundred rivers, the shallow and deep are equally suffused; like the wind sounding in myriad hollows, large and small all resound together. Thus, sentient and non-sentient, with form and without, all return to true emptiness, none failing to be of one essence. Subhūti posed questions out of doubt, and the Buddha provisionally used words to teach. Since the Dharma came east, more than a thousand years have passed, and among the many expositions and glosses, some even established their own schools that have been transmitted to the present. Though Bodhidharma transmitted mind to mind without relying on words, still at Caoxi this very scripture was heard, leading to great liberation. Now Elder Chuan of Yefu, heir of Caoxi, grandson of Linji, son of the Withered Tree, has conversed with me on emptiness for many years. On an idle day he brought forth these verses on the sūtra, and I was asked to compose a preface. When great adepts overturn words entirely, those who read these verses should not take them as verbal interpretations, and thus they will not contradict the doctrine of ‘no preaching.’ Knowing this, I write this preface.” Signed by Zheng Fu, Vice Prefect of Jing’nan Military Prefecture 荊南軍

[Zheng Fu’s Preface 鄭復序].

“This scripture is like the Analects of Confucianism: though its words are finite, its principles are inexhaustible. Since the Dharma came from the West, though it is contained in scroll 577 of the Great Prajñā Sūtra, its wording and meaning were translated by the masters of the Six Dynasties; the version now in use is Kumārajīva’s. Commentaries have differed, but Master Zongmi obtained the most. His preface says, ‘Dwelling in seventeen places, he indicated the stages; dispelling twenty-seven doubts, he secretly transmitted the bloodline.’ His doctrine of the Three Emptinesses and the myriad practices of the bodhisattva are not easily attained without deep mastery of Prajñā. Now Zhengjiang Liu and Fan of Shangzhi recently obtained this text and had it carved at Qiao’an, requesting me to write a preface. The World-Honored One preached Prajñā in four places and sixteen assemblies; this dialogue with Subhūti in the Jeta Grove was the ninth assembly. In publishing it, one should forget the snare and remember the rabbit, yet Elder Chuan could not avoid ‘painting legs on the snake.’ Written by Huizang Wujin on the retreat day in the Jihai year of Chunxi (1179).”

[Huizang’s Preface 惠藏序].

Collected commentaries are, at present, the most common form in which the Chuanlao gāthā is found in China. More specifically, this form was standardized through the sequence of Yang Gui’s Seventeen Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra (compiled in the Southern Song), Zhu Di’s imperial editions of Collected Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra, and Honglian’s revised Fifty-Three Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra (Ming). A comparison of the three shows that the citations of the Chuanlao gāthā inserted as interlinear annotations are essentially consistent. This means that in China, the Chuanlao gāthā appears to have circulated primarily not through Daochuan’s single-text Diamond Sūtra Gāthā but rather through the Seventeen Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra, compiled shortly after his death by Yang Gui.6

In addition, the Linked Pearls Collection of Chan Verses on Ancient Cases (禪宗頌古聯珠通集, hereafter Linked Pearls Collection; X65, no. 1295), compiled by Faying 法應 (fl. 12th c., Song) in 1175 during the Song period and continued by Puhui 普會 (fl. 14th c., Yuan) during the Yuan period, includes a section interpreting six passages from the Diamond Sūtra that cite several Chuanlao gāthā verses alongside other Chan sayings. The formation of this collection is likely related to the Korean versions, and this is discussed in detail in Section 2.

At present, in the antiquarian book and manuscript market, one often encounters a work entitled Annotation on the Diamond Sūtra with Iron Tools for Breaking Through, with the Chuanlao Song (金剛經注解鐵鋑䤾川老頌, one juan in one fascicle). This is actually a sub-commentary on the Annotation on the Diamond Sūtra: Iron Tools for Breaking Through (金剛經鐵鋑䤾, hereafter Tie zhu), for which its form resembles that of the Chuanlao gāthā. Examining the contents, although the title page bears the words “Chuanlao’s Annotation on the Diamond Sūtra”, in fact, the book has little relation to the Chuanlao gāthā, apart from the following: (1) in some versions, Huizang’s preface is inserted at the beginning and labeled “Preface to the Diamond Sūtra with Annotations by Chuanlao”; (2) the first section of the Chuanlao gāthā is added before the internal title “Annotation with Iron Tools for Breaking Through”; and (3) under the explanation of “one form is no form” in the Diamond Sūtra, a passage from the Chuanlao gāthā is quoted.

It is also worth mentioning that Dong (2015) discovered a fragment (no. Дx.284) entitled Essential Verses in Thirty-Two Sections for the Ritual of the Diamond Sūtra (銷釋金剛科儀要偈三十二分) in the Russian Collection of Dunhuang manuscripts, originating from Khara-Khoto in the Western Xia. This fragment can be collated with fragments no. 69, 102, and 103 in Dunhuang Manuscripts in the Collection of the Zhejiang Library (see Mao 2000, pp. 14, 19), suggesting that they all derive from the same manuscript. The manuscript interlinearly annotates each section of the Xiaoshi Jin’gang Keyi 銷釋金剛科儀 (Interpretation and Ritual Manual of the Diamond Sutra, hereafter Jin’gang Keyi) by Zongjing 宗鏡 of the Southern Song (1242), together with the Tie zhu, according to a set pattern. This shows that the Tie zhu circulated in the northwestern regions during the Song and Yuan periods. The abovementioned mis-titled Qing edition may have arisen for two reasons: either because both the Tie zhu and the Chuanlao gāthā are in verse form, and with the latter long lost, the compilers confused the two; or because by the Qing period, the Chuanlao gāthā was more influential than the Tie zhu, leading publishers deliberately mislead readers by attaching Chuanlao’s name to facilitate circulation.

Apart from the sub-commentary on the Tie zhu, another work widely circulating among the people in the Song–Yuan period that cited the Chuanlao gāthā was the Jin’gang Keyi. Its concluding section ends with the last verse of the Chuanlao gāthā:

Chuanlao said: Like the hungry obtaining food, the thirsty finding drink,

The sick recovering health, the hot finding coolness;

The poor gaining treasure, the child seeing its mother;

The drifting boat reaching shore, the lonely traveler returning home;

The drought meeting sweet rain, the nation having loyal ministers;

Foreign lands submitting, the eight directions coming in homage.

In every case it is so, in all things fully manifest.

Past and present, saint and commoner, hell and heaven alike;

East, west, south, north—no need for deliberation.

The myriad beings of the dust-world and sand-worlds all enter the Diamond’s great dharma assembly.

川老頌云: 如饑得食、渴得漿，病得瘥、熱得涼。貧人得寶，嬰兒見娘。飄舟到岸，孤客還鄉。旱逢甘澤，國有忠良。四夷拱手，八表來降。頭頭總是，物物全彰。古今凡聖，地獄天堂。東西南北，不用思量。剎塵沙界諸群品，盡入金剛大道場。

(X24, no. 467, p. 755)

The placement of this verse at the conclusion indicates that it functioned as a verse of dedication and circulation, clearly intended for ritual contexts. Ritual is not ancillary to texts; ritual practices shape the production, circulation, and meaning of Buddhist scriptures (see Sharf 2005). By the Ming dynasty at the latest, the Jin’gang Keyi had become a liturgical text used in Buddhist and popular religious rites such as memorial services, longevity prayers, and blessings. This is directly related to its versified form. I have previously argued that the formation of the Jin’gang Keyi was itself tied to the ritual practice of Diamond Sūtra devotion.

Returning to the Chuanlao gāthā: Although less regular in form than the Tie zhu or the Jin’gang Keyi, and marked by Chan idioms not always suited to ritual chanting, this does not imply that Daochuan had no concern for musicality when composing the verses. Hou Yan 侯豔 and Guo Dan 郭丹, from the perspective of music and literature, has analyzed the Chuanlao gāthā’s frequent use of colloquial chants “lalari (啰啰哩)”, identifying them as connected with the tune Wannian huan 萬年歡, popular in the Tang–Song period (Hou and Guo 2012). Jeon Kyung-uk (전경욱) is a pioneering scholar in the study of Buddhist archaic sounds and their Korean transmission. In his many articles and his 2019 monograph, he thoroughly investigates how vocalizations like “lalari (라라리)”—chanted by Chan monks in Tang–Song Buddhist literature, including the Chuanlao gāthā—were transmitted to Korea and underwent unique development and localization during the Goryeo and Joseon periods. His work is widely recognized as a major contribution to research on the origins and forms of Korean folk song language and oral traditions, including “Arirang” (Jeon 2019). Furthermore, in the Yongle Beizang, Buddhist musical scriptures such as the Names of the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Sacred Monks (諸佛世尊如來菩薩尊者神僧名經) and the Songs of the Names of the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Sacred Monks (諸佛世尊如來菩薩尊者名稱歌曲) appeared, in which the Chuanlao gāthā is almost fully included, with each verse followed by the following choral refrain:

All Buddhas, Thus-Come Ones. (In) good cause and effect. All lies in arousing the good mind of the Thus-Come One. All Buddhas, Thus-Come Ones.

(Original text: 諸佛如来。[和]好因果。都只在发善心如来。諸佛如来。)

If such musicalized forms appeared only later, this too demonstrates the wide influence of the Chuanlao gāthā.

In addition, the Jin’gang Keyi and the Chuanlao gāthā were both incorporated into the Five Commentaries that circulated between late Goryeo and early Joseon. In the preface to this work, the Chuanlao gāthā is mentioned alongside Zongmi’s Essentials and the Sixth Patriarch’s Exposition. The Sixth Patriarch’s influence is obvious, and Zongmi’s authority in exegetical history is already clear from the earlier Southern Song prefaces. Moreover, the Zokuzōkyō version, as noted above, combined the Chuanlao gāthā with the Sixth Patriarch’s Exposition into Zongle’s “New Commentary.” All of these editorial practices testify to the considerable influence of Daochuan’s work, especially given his otherwise modest place in Buddhist history.

The formation of the Five Commentaries may have some internal connection with Yang Gui’s Seventeen Commentaries. In other words, research on the Chuanlao gāthā cannot be separated from the perspective of the collected and combined commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra from the Song–Yuan period onward. Only when we recognize that the primary form of the Chuanlao gāthā in China and East Asia was within such collected commentaries can we avoid research errors and understand the editorial and publishing practices of history as cultural phenomena in their own right.

3. The Transmission of the Chuanlao gāthā Diamond Sūtra in Korea

The influence of the Chuanlao gāthā on the Korean peninsula can be traced back to Hye-sim 慧諶 (1178–1234, Goryeo) of the Goryeo dynasty, who compiled the Collection of Chan Verses (Seonmun Yeomsongjip 禪門拈頌集). According to Hye-sim’s own colophon, the compilation can be dated to the 14th year of Zhenyou (1226). In juan 2, the Chuanlao gāthā is cited in five places, each corresponding to interpretations of specific passages from the Diamond Sūtra (see

Table 1. Passages from the Collection of Chan Verses citing the Chuanlao gāthā on the Diamond Sūtra (ABC, K1505 v46, pp. 28–30).

No.	Passage from the Diamond Sūtra	Citation from the Chuanlao gāthā
1	“The World-Honored One, after eating his meal, put away his robe and bowl, washed his feet, arranged his seat, and sat down.”	Daochuan’s remark: “Be alert!” Verse: “The meal finished, the feet washed,/Seat arranged, but with whom to entrust?/From the following text, do you know or not?/Watch closely—the waves arise on level ground.”
2	“If one sees all marks as no mark, one sees the Tathāgata.”	Daochuan’s remark: “The mountain is mountain, the water is water—where then is the Buddha?” Verse: “To see with form and to seek are both delusion;/Without form, without sight, one falls into partiality./Vast and boundless, never interrupted;/A single cold ray pierces the great void.”
3	“All sages attain distinction through unconditioned dharma.”	Daochuan’s remark: “A hair’s difference, and heaven and earth are apart.” Verse: “When the upright speak of heterodox dharma, all return to the upright;/When the heterodox speak of upright dharma, all become heterodox./North of the river an orange turns into trifoliate; south of the river the trifoliate turns into orange./When spring comes, they all blossom the same flowers.”
4	“What the Tathāgata calls the foremost pāramitā is not the foremost pāramitā; it is called the foremost pāramitā.”	Daochuan’s remark: “Still, there is some slight comparison.” Verse: “One hand lifts, one hand presses;/On the left blowing, on the right striking./Without strings, the music of non-birth is played—/Beyond the modes of scale, a tune entirely new./To be known only by those who know afterward,/Its name alone remains remote.”
5	“If one is despised by others, it is the result of past karma that would have cast one into evil destinies; but now, being despised in this life, the past karma is extinguished.”	Daochuan’s remark: “Without a matter, there is no growth in wisdom.” Verse: “Neither praise nor blame apply;/Once realized, all ten thousand affairs are complete./Neither lacking nor surplus, as vast as the great void./For you I inscribe the name ‘Pāramitā’.”

).

Shortly after its compilation, the Collection of Chan Verses became one of the texts used in the Chan monastic examinations on the Korean peninsula. This indicates that, by 1226 (the “bingxu 丙戍 year, 14th of Zhenyou 貞佑”, as cited in Hye-sim’s preface), the Chuanlao gāthā was already recognized and was held in high regard within Goryeo Chan Buddhism.

Different from the “collected commentaries” or “combined commentaries” mentioned earlier, here, the Chuanlao gāthā is combined with the recorded sayings of specific Chan masters—many of which are not necessarily commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra. It remains unclear whether Hye-sim’s use of the Chuanlao gāthā in this way was his own innovation or followed an existing precedent. Yang Gui’s Seventeen Commentaries on the Diamond Sūtra already included quotations from Chan sayings, but the overall editorial principle there was still to focus on exegesis of the Diamond Sūtra. Hye-sim’s compilation thus differs in orientation.

In juan 5 of the Linked Pearls Collection, several passages mirror the Collection of Chan Verses: It inserts Diamond Sūtra glosses amid Chan-case verses and, when quoting Chuanlao gāthā, surrounds them with almost the same Chan-master sayings. This overlap shows that the Chinese anthology drew on the Goryeo compilation, confirming that the Chuanlao gāthā reached Korea early.

In the Linked Pearls Collection, the name “Yefu Chuan” appears over thirty times—not only in verses on the Diamond Sūtra but also in verses on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment and in other masters’ sayings. All such citations are marked “later additions” or “further additions”, indicating that they were inserted by Puhui in the Yuan period. Since the Linked Pearls Collection carries a preface by Puhui dated to the summer of the Wuwu year of Yanyou (1318), as well as postfaces by Xiling of Jing’an and Chunpeng of Lingyin (1317), this indicates the extant text took shape around that time. One text must most probably have been borrowed from the other (or both from a third source). Judging from the sheer quantity of Chuanlao gāthā citations, the sixty-five-fascicle Linked Pearls Collection is richer, but chronologically, the Collection of Chan Verses is dated nearly a century earlier. If no earlier version of the latter can be found, then this is a case of textual circulation: the influence of the Chuanlao gāthā spread from China to Korea and then returned to China, carrying with it new editorial forms and Chan significance.

The earliest single-text edition7 of the Chuanlao gāthā in Korea, according to Professor Song Ilgie (송일기) of Chungang University, is the edition held at Yeungnam University. It consists of one fascicle, with Huizang’s preface, Zheng Zhen’s postface, and a colophon by Chan monk Tianyan 天演 of Chanyue Hermitage (though the surviving copy lacks its final leaves, and Tianyan’s colophon is inferred from colophons in later editions). In Tianyan’s colophon, we encounter an attitude toward the Chuanlao gāthā that contrasts sharply with the reservations expressed in the Southern Song prefaces, instead offering the highest praise for the Chuanlao gāthā as an exegetical text on the Diamond Sūtra:

“The scripture called the Prajñā Sūtra is not singular, but of all, our Buddha deemed the Diamond the finest. Though many have annotated this sūtra, Elder Chuan’s remarks and verses are most excellent. Hence Layman Magu and Master Weiqian raised funds to re-carve the blocks, and the scripture was printed and distributed without end. May it prolong the emperor’s lifespan, benefit the crown prince, and deliver all beings throughout the dharma realm into the great nirvāṇa. Ah! The scripture’s metaphors reveal its wondrous principle, and the verses highlight its profound meaning. Printing and distributing it is a vast vow indeed. Inscribed by Tianyan of Chanyue Hermitage in the mid-tenth month of the Wuwu year of Zhongxing, with Li Hongzai 李洪宰, Monk Weiqian 惟遷, and Zheng’an 正安 as carvers.”

Li Gengdao has judged this colophon to be of Southern Song origin. However, first, its praise of the Chuanlao gāthā is notably extreme; second, it explicitly describes Daochuan’s verses as “linked verses”, corresponding closely with Hye-sim’s Collection of Chan Verses and the Linked Pearls Collection. For these reasons, I consider Tianyan 天演 (or Cheon Yeon), Li Hongzai 李洪宰 (or Lee Hong-jae), Weiqian 惟遷 (or Yu Cheon), and Zheng’an 正安 (or Jeong An) to be Korean and the edition to have been first published in Korea, possibly modeled after a Song Chinese edition.

Other early Korean single-text editions include the Geumsa Temple (金沙寺) edition (1387) and the Munsu Temple (文殊寺) edition (1410). Thereafter, the main form of the Chuanlao gāthā on the Korean peninsula became the collected volume Five Commentaries. Song Ilgie has organized these editions alongside the 1869 Bongeun Temple (奉恩寺) edition (see Song 2019: 53, Table 3). From this, it is clear that, before the Five Commentaries, single-text editions of the Chuanlao gāthā were already in circulation on the peninsula. The Geumsa Temple edition of 1387 demonstrates the direct involvement of the royal family in promoting the scripture, while the Bongeun edition of 1869 represents the height of faith-oriented elaboration, incorporating praises, miracle tales, the Heart Sūtra in verse, and portions of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

The Korean transmission thus came to display features distinct from China and Japan:

• The integration of faith in both the Diamond Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra;
• The linkage of the Chuanlao gāthā with the Caoxi lineage via Hye-sim’s Collection of Chan Verses, in contrast to the Linji association in China;
• The consistently high esteem for the Chuanlao gāthā in Korea, which was praised alongside Huineng and Zongmi as an exegetical text that “brightened the Buddha’s sun and glorified the patriarchs’ way.”

The Chuanlao gāthā was also incorporated into royal-sponsored editions such as the Five Commentaries, Three Commentaries with Vernacular Explanations, and various other sub-commentaries written in both Chinese and Korean script. These were even printed using movable type cast from the royal hand of King Sejo 世祖. Notably, however, records indicate that even as late as the Chenghua reign (1472), the royal court continued to commission single-text editions of the Chuanlao gāthā—as seen in the publication of “Two Hundred Items of the Diamond Sūtra Explanations by Chuanlao”8. Moreover, editions of the Chuanlao gāthā were presented as state gifts in diplomatic exchanges with Ryukyu and Tsushima, highlighting its role in diplomacy. As Poceski (2007) shows, the rise of Chan depended on interlocking monastic–court–print networks that standardized editorial formats, curricula, and rhetorical conventions, enabling rapid redeployment of textual repertoires across regions. The Joseon editions of the Five Commentaries and related compendia should be read within such a networked regime of transmission.

Finally, the only extant sub-commentary on the Chuanlao gāthā composed by a Chinese author but preserved in Korea is the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra with Chuanlao’s Song and Zheng Zhen’s Sub-commentary. This work, discovered in the Korean Special Collections at Berkeley and also preserved in woodblocks at Mujua Hermitage in Changsu, Gyeongsang, consists of a single fascicle, with interlinear annotations throughout attributed to “Zhen.” Its colophon states that it was printed in the first year of Xuande (1426). Some scholars, such as Song Ilgie, have suggested that later single-text editions of the Chuanlao gāthā were extracted from this sub-commentary and that this was its “original form.” However, I consider this unlikely: neither Zheng Zhen’s postface nor Huizang’s preface mentions such an annotated edition, and historical records consistently speak of a Song of the Diamond Sūtra, not a commentary.

The Ming scholar Kim Jeonghui 金正喜 (1786–1856, Joseon) encountered such an edition at Puhyeon Monastery on Mount Myohyang but criticized it harshly, noting errors such as misidentifying Daochuan as a man of Shu (Sichuan) rather than Kunshan and the incorrect explanation of “Yefu.” He suspected that the annotations were not by Zheng Zhen but by another figure and that the text had been falsely attributed.

In summary, in Korea, the Chuanlao gāthā was preserved in a variety of forms—single-text editions, collected commentaries, sub-commentaries, and vernacular translations—with significant royal patronage, diplomatic functions, and editorial creativity. This renders the Korean transmission both the richest and the most distinctive among the three countries.

4. The Interpretation of the Chuanlao gāthā Diamond Sūtra in Japan

As noted earlier, the broad use of the Zokuzōkyō edition influenced the scholarly perception of the Chuanlao gāthā. While this represents a uniquely Japanese editorial approach, the form of “collected commentary” itself was not especially distinctive. The unique features of the Japanese transmission of the Chuanlao gāthā are most clearly seen in two Edo-period commentarial works that have been preserved until the present.

4.1. Man’an Eishū’s Notes on Zheng Zhen’s Sub-Commentary

The first is the Konju-shō (金頌抄, shōmono on verses of the Diamond Sūtra), preserved in the National Institute of Japanese Literature (catalog no. 4358895, call mark ワ8-16). Its bibliographic details are as follows: one fascicle; printed edition; external title: Chuanlao Diamond Sūtra (on a later cover and title slip); size: 261 × 190 mm; framed text area: c. 231 × 168 mm; internal title: Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra; final title: Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Abridged Notes; running title: Konju-shō with pagination; sixty folios in total. Each half-folio has twelve large-character lines and fourteen small-character lines; each large-character line (Chinese text) has twenty characters, and each small-character line (Japanese annotation) has twenty-six; the Chinese text is glossed one character per mark, whereas the Japanese text corresponds to two characters per mark. The colophon reads as follows: “Printed in the auspicious month of summer, 13th year of Kan’ei [1636]”, with publication mark “Tsurugaya Kyūbei of Shijō Bōmon, Kyoto.” It also bears handwritten marks such as “Loaned to Jōshōin Hōjō” and stamps of the “National Institute of Japanese Literature” and “Nagasaki Collection.”

A similar edition is preserved at the Institute for Zen Studies in Kyoto (catalog no. Z2/2924, title Chuanlao Diamond Sūtra Notes). It is identical in format to the aforementioned edition but is in poorer condition. The Institute records it as “copied by Man’an Eish ū万安英種 (1591–1654, Edo Japan)”, a prominent Sōtō Zen monk of the Edo period (1591–1654), a detail likely identified by the later owner Yanagida Seizan. A 1652 reprint (catalog no. Z3/0239) is also extant, showing that it was not a unique edition but had a degree of circulation.

The structure of the Konju-shō is complex, reflecting both the general features of the Diamond Sūtra editions after the Ming period and the distinct features of Edo-period lecture–commentaries. Its components are as follows:

• Huizang’s Preface to the Chuanlao Diamond Sūtra;
• A set of seventy-six verses at the beginning;
• A quatrain “Even birds and beasts delight in this Dharma”;
• Zheng Fu’s Supplementary Preface (Chuanlao’s verses on the Diamond Sūtra, undated);
• Empress Wu 武則天 (624–705, Tang)’s Opening Verse for the Scripture;
• The main text (alternating sections of Diamond Sūtra passages, Chuanlao’s verses, and Japanese annotations labeled “Notes”);
• A closing verse for the scripture;
• Zheng Zhen’s postface.

The main text proceeds from the sutra title, explaining each passage and sometimes even each word (e.g., “Thus have I heard 如是我聞”) in the following sequence: (1) sutra text, (2) Chuanlao’s verse, and (3) Japanese annotation—shōmono.9

Comparisons show that many of the Japanese annotations closely follow Zheng Zhen’s sub-commentary. For example, where Zheng Zhen glossed the “round diagram” (ensō) as representing the one mind encompassing all phenomena, the Japanese annotation translates or paraphrases this almost word for word, while also adding typical Edo-period lecture style phrasing. Across the whole text, the dependence on Zheng Zhen’s commentary is clear.

This not only confirms that Zheng Zhen’s sub-commentary on the Chuanlao gāthā had indeed circulated in East Asia but also highlights the significance of the Chuanlao gāthā in Japanese intellectual history. At the same time, other parts of the Konju-shō reflect the Japanese editors’ own creativity: for example, the explanation of “Thus have I heard” combines Zheng Zhen’s remarks with quotations from Chan sayings and elements of Confucian–Buddhist syncretism.

In addition, unlike the Korean editions, which tended to link the Chuanlao gāthā with the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Japanese interpretations often show influence from the Lotus Sūtra, reflecting doctrinal emphases of Edo-period Buddhism.

4.2. Ryūkei Shōsen’s Ancient Notes on the Chuanlao gāthā of the Diamond Sūtra

Another Edo interpretation is the Ancient Notes on the Chuanlao gāthā of the Diamond Sūtra (Kongōkyō Senrō-shō Ko Hyōki 金剛經川老頌古評記), authored by Ryūkei Shōsen 龍溪性潛 (1602–1670, Edo Japan), abbot of Myōshinji in the Rinzai tradition. The work bears a preface written by the author himself, dated to the second month of the Kan’ei 18 (寬永十八, 1641, Edo Japan), under the name “Sōsen 宗潜.” This places the text before the transmission of the Ōbaku school to Japan, indicating that the study of the Chuanlao gāthā was already established in Kyoto Rinzai circles.

Extant copies are held in several libraries, including the Ōsano Collection at Niigata University, the Kanazawa Bunko, the Institute for Zen Studies, and the Hagino Collection at Hanazono University. Most editions are similar in format: two fascicles; large characters for the sutra text and Chuanlao’s verses; small characters for Ryūkei’s annotations; without publication colophons but with private collection stamps.

The structure consists of a preface (with annotations) and main text, with the latter arranged as follows: (1) sutra text, (2) Chuanlao’s verse, and (3) Ryūkei’s annotation. Compared with the Konju-shō, this work is more formal: written entirely in Chinese, more literary in style, and focusing directly on the Chuanlao gāthā itself rather than using it as a stepping stone to explain the sutra. Ryūkei’s annotations emphasize Chan and Buddhist history, Chinese historical allusions, and the doctrinal context of the verses.

Thus, while the Konju-shō reflects the style of lecture notes (shōmono) rooted in Gozan Zen literary culture and Sōtō scholasticism, the Ancient Notes represents a more Rinzai-style, philological, and historical commentary. Both, however, demonstrate the high esteem in which the Chuanlao gāthā was held in Edo Japan, and both indicate that it was studied not only in Zen contexts but also across sectarian lines.

4.3. Summary of Japanese Interpretations

These two Edo works illustrate two approaches: one aligned with Japanese shōmono lecture traditions, and the other resembling Chinese-style exegetical commentaries. Both testify to the sustained Japanese interest in the Chuanlao gāthā as an exegetical lecture text of the Diamond Sūtra. Along with other manuscripts, such as the Chuanlao Notes on the Diamond Sūtra, these works demonstrate that the Chuanlao gāthā was not marginal but actively integrated into Japanese Buddhist scholarship, forging connections not only with Tendai and Pure Land thought but also Rinzai and Sōtō Zen. The trajectory from Joseon anthologization to Edo-period re-annotation and reprinting should be seen less as a unilinear oral transmission and more as a continuous editorial regime that refashions the text for new pedagogical and ritual contexts (see McRae 2003).

5. Conclusions

The Chuanlao gāthā, composed by Daochuan in the Southern Song, is not an independent commentary but an exegetical lecture text appended to the Diamond Sūtra. Its tripartite form—sutra passage, interlinear remark, and verse—combined Chan sermon style with literary and ritual elements, facilitating its wide recitation and transmission.

Across East Asia, its textual fate diverged: in China, it was absorbed into collective annotations, diminishing Daochuan’s individuality; in Korea, it received royal patronage, generated multiple textual forms, and even served as state gifts in diplomacy; in Japan, it became the subject of Edo-period lecture notes and sectarian commentary, linking Zen scholasticism with broader doctrinal traditions.

These trajectories reveal that the Chuanlao gāthā was never canonized as a fixed commentary; rather, through processes of combination, annotation, and reinterpretation, it became deeply embedded in East Asian exegetical culture. Correcting the long-standing misunderstandings of the Zokuzōkyō recension, this study positions the Chuanlao gāthā within the circulation of Diamond Sūtra texts across East Asia and demonstrates that exegetical texts should not be regarded as marginal glosses but as active agents in the transregional history of Buddhist scripture.