The Tripitaka and the Multilateral Interactions of Political Powers in East Asia from the 10th to the 13th Century

Abstract

In the mid to late Tang Dynasty, the compilation and reproduction of the tripiṭaka (Tripitaka) was directly intervened and controlled by the authorities, surpassing its own religious function and becoming an important political expression form with Buddhist elements. In the 10th century, with the collapse of the Tang Empire, the Liao, Song, and Western Xia coexisted within its original territory. At the same time, the political situation in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam has undergone drastic changes. Within this period, the Song and Liao empires formed a dual core pattern, and the printing and issuing of the Tripitaka with strong political attributes became an important means of competition between the two sides. From the end of the 10th century to the early 11th century, the Song was the first to complete the Kaibao Canon, maintaining the monopoly of the printed Tripitaka during this period and taking it as an important way to establish the world order dominated by the Song and consolidate its relationship with neighboring political powers. Japan, which was not part of the tribute system dominated by the Song, became a target that Emperor Taizong of Song vigorously sought. Under the guidance of this political logic, the Song court, which advocated Daoism, also wanted to voluntarily issue the newly printed Daoist Canon to Vietnam, to exert its religious and political influence. After the mid-11th century, with the establishment of the Khitan Canon, the competition began between the Liao and Song dynasties over the printing and distribution of the Tripitaka. As one of the dual core patterns, the Liao attempted to challenge the monopoly position of the Song’s Kaibao Canon and the cultural hegemony behind it. In this situation, Goryeo, which was wavering between the Liao and Song, became the battlefield of competition between the two empires, presenting complex changes in terms of whether to accept the Tripitaka and their reception standards. In the late 11th century, the Goryeo and the Western Xia almost coincidentally embarked on the so-called “third path”—the construction of their own independent Tripitaka. Due to their limited positions in the political landscape of East Asia at that time, these Tripitakas were not granted to neighboring regimes outside their borders after completion, and therefore did not have international significance. It should be noted that although the positioning of the Goryeo Canon was different from that of the Song and Liao editions, it still belonged to the competition among the same language; the emergence of the Tangut Canon marked a new possibility and opened the way for future Tibetan and Manchu Canons. Briefly, the printed Tripitaka was deeply involved in the multilateral interactions of political powers in East Asia from the 10th to the 13th Century.

1. Preface: Variations in the East Asian World and the Transformation of the Chinese Tripitaka

From the 10th to the 13th century, with the disintegration of the world order centered around the Tang Empire (618–907), the interaction between various political powers in East Asia entered a new era. At this time, the Song Dynasty (960–1276), along with northern ethnic regimes such as the Liao (916–1125) and Western Xia (1038–1227), partially inherited the legacy of the Tang Dynasty, forming a tripartite balance in China. In the Korean Peninsula, the Goryeo Kingdom was caught between the Song and Liao dynasties under the influence of the idea to obey powerful forces and geopolitical factors, oscillating between these two regimes. Vietnam, which has become an independent regime, inherited several institutions since the Tang Dynasty and was significantly influenced by the Song Dynasty at the same time. In terms of political culture, it was reflected in the overlap of political institutions and cultures between the Tang and Song. At the same time, the Chinese Tripitaka, which is the culmination of Buddhist culture in the East Asian world, is also undergoing a transformation from the era of manuscripts to the era of prints.

The early written Tripitaka is known as the “all sutras 一切經”. According to Fang Guangchang 方廣錩’s research, during the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420–589), the official authorities of Northern Qi (550–577) and Northern Zhou (557–581) had already constructed the Tripitaka. The Zhongjing Mulu 眾經目錄 (Catalogue of Buddhist Sutras) was compiled by imperial decree of Emperor Wu of Liang (464–549, r. 502–549), with the aim of compiling the Tripitaka based on it (Fang 2006, p. 17). The information from Dunhuang documents (S. 996) also proves that, as early as the second half of the 5th century, there was a trend in northern China for individuals to construct the Tripitaka. Feng Xi 馮熙 (438–495), an older brother of the empress dowager Feng (442–490) in Northern Wei (386–534), once organized the copying of ten sutras, each consisting of 1464 volumes, under the pretext of praying for blessings from the emperor, empress dowager, and others, and distributed them to various important parts of the country as a merit. In a sense, these Tripitaka manuscripts were indeed copied by Feng Xi’s personal organization, but in terms of their scale and radiation, they have an undeniable political background that is beyond the capabilities of the general public. In the Tang Dynasty, starting from the Kaiyuan period (713–741), Emperor Xuanzong (685–762, r. 712–756) directly and effectively regulated the inclusion of Buddhist scriptures into the Tripitaka. The scriptures translated by the monks must also be approved by the court before they can be included in the Tripitaka (Fang 2006, p. 23). The manuscript Tripitaka, based on the Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu 開元釋教錄 (Catalog of Buddhist scriptures during the Kaiyuan Period), formed a relatively fixed number of volumes and order in the middle and late Tang Dynasty. Its replication method mainly relies on top–down distribution, bottom–up retrieval, and parallel transcription.

In the process of converting the Tripitaka from manuscripts to prints, the earliest to be initiated in the East Asian world was the Song Empire, which had a more developed culture and technology. However, although the single printing cost of early editions of the Tripitaka was limited, its woodblock printing was a comprehensive, large-scale project that could not be completed by individuals but often required the intervention of the regimes. For example, the Kaibao Canon 開寶藏 was finally completed under the direct instructions of the Song court and even the Song emperors, after two generations of monarchs and more than ten years. The later Khitan Canon 契丹藏 and the first carved version Goryeo Canon 高麗藏were also completed under the direct support and management of the Liao Empire and Goryeo regime, overseen by their monarchs. Therefore, early editions of the Tripitaka had a national project nature and played an important role in political interactions and international order in East Asia. Compared to the manuscript Tripitaka, its dissemination method mainly manifests as top–down bestowal or bottom–up request (sometimes the two are different perspectives on the same transaction), without a parallel connection between different Buddhist temples. And its cataloging and ranking followed the relatively uniform standard in the middle and late Tang, especially after the destruction of Buddhism in the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism 會昌毀佛 (840–846). The inclusion of newly translated Buddhist scriptures also requires official recognition and approval (Xu Zhang 2019). According to Fang Guangchang’s periodization of the form of the Tripitaka, from the publication of the Kaibao Canon in the early Northern Song to the end of the Northern Song (early 12th century), this was a period of coexistence between manuscripts and prints of the Tripitaka. In East Asia, this transformation followed a similar pace in both southern and northern China (Song and Liao) and the Korean Peninsula. Vietnam achieved the self-engraving of the Tripitaka as late as the end of the 13th century, and Japan continued the tradition of manuscript Tripitaka until the Edo period. Overall, the core transformation of the Tripitaka from manuscripts to prints occurred in East Asia from the 10th to the 13th century, when multiple regimes coexisted and, in the vast majority of cases, there was no absolute core, as in the Tang Empire from the 7th to the 9th century.

Prior research on the Tripitaka is very abundant and can be roughly summarized into the following four aspects: (1) the overall and systematic study of the lineage and characteristics of the hand-copied and printed Tripitaka (such as Li and He 2003; Fang 2006; J. Li 2007; Wu and Chia 2016; Long and Chen 2020); (2) the systematical research and compilation of fragments of certain versions of the Tripitaka (such as the Kaibao Canon, Khitan Canon and Zhaocheng Jin Canon 趙城金藏, etc., focusing on the emphasizing the disclosure and analysis of new materials; (3) the research and exhibitions on the material forms of Tripitaka of manuscripts and prints (e.g., Jingshan Wanshou Chan Temple and Zhejiang Library 2025); and (4) the process research on the carving, printing, circulation, and dissemination of Tripitaka (such as H. Zhang 2009, pp. 35–47; Cheng and Yang 2021, pp. 246–59; Depeng Wang 2023, pp. 105–11, 119).1

Overall, the existing research on the Tripitaka mainly adopts the approach of philology, involving aspects such as the evolution of catalogs, version sources, text forms, binding methods, and the case research of fragments. However, the research in the fields of engraving, printing, and circulation of Tripitaka focuses more on the restoration of overall procedure and specific details, and often limits its investigation of cross-border flow and the influence of one canon on another to the interaction between two regimes (such as the Song Dynasty and Western Xia, Song and Goryeo, Liao and Goryeo, etc.), without carefully comparing and analyzing them from a more macro perspective in the multilateral international context of the coexistence of multiple regimes in East Asia from the 10th to the 13th century. A recently published article by Jiang Jing, Shen Junnan, and Wang Kanliang has made some breakthroughs in this topic, discussing the “Tripitaka Diplomacy” in the East Asian world from the 10th to the 12th century. But its overall structure is still the three sets of binary interactive relationships between the Song and Liao, the Song and Goryeo, and the Liao and Goryeo, while excluding the other regimes that coexisted with the Song and Liao. It also did not pay more attention to the phased characteristics of the issuance, purchase, and replication of the Tripitaka during these two or three hundred years (Jiang et al. 2025, pp. 1–14).

My intention in this study of the Tripiṭaka is to go beyond a philological approach and to take it as a symbolic political and cultural capital involved in the interactions of various East Asian regimes from the 10th to the 13th century. At that time, the various political regimes in East Asian include the Liao, Song, Jin (1115–1234), Western Xia, Dali (937–1094, 1096–1254), the early Mongol–Yuan Empire (1206–1368), the Vietnamese Lý Dynasty (1009–1225) to the early Chen Dynasty (1225–1400), Goryeo (918–1392), and Japan from the late Heian period (794–1192) to the early Kamakura period (1185–1333). Among the aforementioned regimes, the main characteristics of the Northern ethnic dynasties (the Liao and Western Xia), Goryeo and Japan in the east, and the Dali Kingdom in the southwest, are the close integration of Buddhist ideology and political culture. The Song and Jin dynasties, which successively held the Central Plains, highly valued Confucianism. The Song court also had a desire to venerate Taoism and spread it outward, reaching its peak during the reign of Emperor Huizong (1082–1135, r. 1100–1126).

In short, my general aim is to explore this topic beyond the political boundaries and the binary interaction mode, and to conduct multilateral exploration and comparative analysis from the macro context of the entire East Asian region, clarify its different characteristics, and ascertain its changing trends. Specifically, the issuance, replication, and reconstruction of the Tripitaka is an important dimension for us to explore the political culture and interaction patterns between multi-regimes during this period, which goes beyond bilateral interactions and was shared by various political powers in East Asia from the 10th to the 13th century. Due to the involvement of multiple versions and the complexed situation of the Tripitaka, I intend to limit the scope of this article to the official compilation and printing editions, and roughly divide the interaction between the Tripitaka and various political regimes in East Asia into three major stages to follow the timeline: (1) the monopoly period of the Kaibao Canon, (2) the period of competition between the Tripitaka of Song and Liao dynasties, and (3) the period of self-creation by the Goryeo and Western Xia. There are some overlaps and interweaving among each period, which is not a substitutive relationship. It is now roughly analyzed in chronological order as follows.

2. The Analysis of Transmission Modes During the Monopoly Period of the Kaibao Canon and Its Relationship with the Multiple Regimes in East Asia During This Period

The decades from the completion of the Kaibao Canon in the early Northern Song to the publication of the Khitan Canon in the middle and late Liao were a period of monopoly of the Kaibao Canon as a standalone edition of the Tripitaka in East Asia. During this period, the only source of the Tripitaka imported by the neighboring political regimes of the Song Dynasty was the official edition of the Kaibao Canon. As a result, Kaifeng, the capital city of Northern Song, was the sole output center of the Tripitaka system for the entire period.

Looking back at the carving and printing process of the Kaibao Canon, this project did not start in Kaifeng, the political center of the Northern Song Dynasty, it was completed in the Sichuan region (Zhipan 2012, p. 1022).2 However, from the beginning of its woodblock carving in 971, it was operated under the direct supervision of the eunuch officer selected by Emperor Taizu (927–976, r. 960–976) of Song. Unfortunately, during his lifetime, Emperor Taizu did not witness the final completion and printing of the Kaibao Canon. In 983, this printed Tripitaka was fully completed and stored in the Taiping Xingguo 太平興國 temple of Kaifeng Prefecture. This prestigious temple, named after the first reign title of Emperor Taizong (939–997, r. 976–997) of Song, located in the capital city, was one of the most important official temples of the same name that was widely spread throughout the country during the Taiping Xingguo era (976–984). According to Li Tao 李燾 (1115–1184)’s records, this temple was renovated and rebuilt on the basis of the official temple (Longxing Temple) in the Tang Dynasty (T. Li 2004, p. 396). At this time, a specialized printing institute of Buddhist scriptures was established (located on the west side of the translation institute of Buddhist sutras), and began the activity of printing scriptures with a clear official background. Taiping Xingguo Temple was a national sutra translation center during the Northern Song Dynasty, and most of the newly imported sutras during this period were translated from here. The newly translated Buddhist sutras here also need to be woodblock printed with the approval of the Song court and added to the official collection sequence of the Kaibao Canon. Overall, the woodblock carving, printing, and circulation system of the Kaibao Canon followed the practice of official issuance of Buddhist canons in Tang, becoming a typical representative of the official version of the early printed Tripitaka.

After the completion of the Kaibao Canon, as an important cultural export project of the Song court, it was repeatedly bestowed upon the regimes of the Western Xia, Goryeo, and the Lý Dynasty of Vietnam (1009–1225), and sporadically exported to the Liao region through some informal means. However, in the specific practical process, the purpose of the Song court was often not limited to issuing the Tripitaka, but included the purpose of clarifying its suzerain status over the regime and maintaining a unified tribute system centered on the Song Empire. The contents of religious canons bestowed by the Song court are sometimes not limited to Buddhism, but also include Taoist scriptures closely related to the ideological and political legitimacy construction of the Song Dynasty.

Firstly, I will discuss the transmission of the Kaibao Canon of the Northern Song to the Liao Empire. The date of the completion of the Kaibao Canon was just before Emperor Taizong of Song launched the Yongxi Northern Expedition, 雍熙北伐, in 986, and the relationship between Song and Liao was in a state of war or a military confrontation on the brink of war. There was no possibility of a large-scale textual collection like the Tripitaka being imported into the territory of the Liao Dynasty as a whole. This state continued until the signing of the Treaty of Chanyuan in 1005. Whether from the records of historical materials or from the physical materials unearthed thus far, there is no obvious evidence to prove that during the more than 20 years between the completion of the Kaibao Canon in 983 and the Treaty of Chanyuan, the Song court once exported the entire printed Tripitaka to the Liao area. After the signing of the Treaty of Chanyuan, Song and Liao agreed to become brotherly countries, achieving a transition from a state of war to peaceful coexistence. Despite this, due to strict restrictions on book exports and imports between the two regimes, the importation of printed volumes of the Tripitaka into the Liao area remained minimal thereafter. More importantly, as demonstrated by subsequent examples, the objects of the Song Dynasty’s issuance of the Kaibao Canon were often vassal countries that regarded it as their suzerain, such as the Western Xia, Goryeo, and Lý Dynasty of Vietnam. The Liao Dynasty was in a state of war with Song before the Treaty of Chanyuan, but later established reciprocal bilateral relations with it, not part of the tribute system centered around Song. Therefore, the Song court had no reason to bestow the Kaibao Canon with political symbolism to the Liao. For the same reason, the Liao court also would not accept such a Tripitaka.

From the specific form and catalogic order of the printed Tripitaka, the Khitan Canon published later in the Liao Dynasty did not adopt the special form of the Kaibao Canon of Song with a single line of fourteen characters, but inherited the basic form of the manuscripts of Tripitaka in Tang, with a single line of seventeen characters. According to Fang Guangchang, the catalogic order of the numbering system of Qianziwen 千字文 (the text of 1000 Chinese characters) in the Khitan Canon is strictly organized according to the Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu · Rucang Lu 開元釋教錄·入藏錄, which is actually based on a handwritten Buddhist canon circulated in the northern region. Correspondingly, the actual organizational form of the Kaibao Canon, which was first published in the Sichuan region, should be one of the variations of the various handwritten Buddhist canons based on the Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu · Rucang Lu at that time, which differs from its formal version (see Fang 2021, p. 422). Therefore, the Khitan Canon is not a replica of the Kaibao Canon, but belongs to a different lineage of handwritten Buddhist canons in the central plain of China.

However, a fact that cannot be ignored is that, based on the thousand-character text numbering system inherited from Tang, both the Khitan Canon (referring to Fang Guangchang’s so-called “Liao Big-Character Canon”) and the Kaibao Canon have plate numbers engraved on the right end of each plate. As Fang Guangchang said, there is no need to indicate the order on each piece of the manuscripts of Tripitaka; only the printed Tripitaka needs these numbers. The method of labeling plate numbers (such as No. 8 and No. 10 of the large character edition of the Khitan Canon discovered in Yingxian Timber Pagoda) was an innovation of the Kaibao Canon. The plate number of the large character edition of the Khitan Canon clearly reflects the influence of the Kaibao Canon (Fang 2021, p. 129).

From the contents included in the remaining volumes of the Khitan Canon, whether the large character version discovered in the Yingxian Timber Pagoda in 1974 or the small character version discovered in the Tiangong Temple in Fengrun County, Hebei Province, in 1987, newly translated Buddhist sutras in Song, such as Foshuo Dacheng Sheng Wuliangshou Jueding Guangming Rulai Tuoluoni Jing 佛說大乘聖無量壽決定光明如來陀羅尼經 have been found. Some scholars believe that the Kaibao Canon did indeed enter the territory of the Liao Dynasty based on this evidence (See Xiqing Zhang et al. 2006, pp. 160–62). However, the logical problem with this inference is that the initial edition of the Kaibao Canon was still printed in the standard number of volumes of the Tang Dynasty’s Tripitaka of 5048 volumes, and did not include newly translated Buddhist sutras in the Song. Therefore, the emergence of newly translated Buddhist sutras can only prove that these newly translated scriptures were transmitted to the Liao region through some means but cannot prove that the Kaibao Canon was transmitted to the Liao region as a whole. According to the record by Fozu Tongji 佛祖統紀, “in the eleventh lunar month (of the third year of Tianxi 天禧 period [1019]), the Eastern Jurchen Kingdom paid tribute and requested the Tripitaka, and (the Song court) issued a decree to give it.” (Zhipan 2012, p. 1063). Xu Shiyi believed that during the printing process, the Khitan Canon may have referred to the Tianxi revised version of the Kaibao Canon, while also supplementing it based on the handwritten Buddhist canon circulated in the northern area at that time. The difference between the two printed Buddhist canons originated from the differences in the handwritten Tripitaka they were based on (Shiyi Xu 2006, pp. 45–50). From the perspective of the relationship between the so-called Eastern Jurchen Kingdom and Song and Liao, this regime not only paid tribute to the Northern Song, but also had to rely on the power of the Liao Dynasty due to geographical factors. Therefore, there is a possibility that the Khitan people indirectly obtained complete or partial copies of the Kaibao Canon from the Eastern Jurchen Kingdom.

Based on the above discussion, the Liao people may have directly obtained scattered parts of the Kaibao Canon, or indirectly obtained all or part of this printed canon, or used the canon seen by envoys to Song in Kaifeng to imitate and establish a similar numbering system applicable to the printed Tripitaka in the later Khitan Canon, all of which reflect the transmission and influence of the Kaibao Canon in the Liao region. However, the above evidence still cannot shake a fundamental fact: there is still no reliable material to fully demonstrate that the Kaibao Canon was imported into the Liao region as a whole.

Secondly, it was the transmission of the Tripitaka of Song to the Goryeo Kingdom. According to the record in Goryeosa 高丽史 (History of Goryeo), in the eighth lunar month of the eleventh year of Taejo (928), a Silla monk loaded a Tripitaka from the Fujian region occupied by the Wang Min regime (909–945) onto the Ryesŏng River by boat. The King of Goryeo personally welcomed it and placed it in a royal Buddhist institute (Chŏng 2013, p. 31). This is the first time that the Goryeo regime imported a complete Tripitaka from China. However, it should be noted that at this time, the Kaibao Canon had not yet been fully printed, and the imported Tripitaka could only be a handwritten version of the Tripitaka. Additionally, although the Goryeo regime treated this Tripitaka with the highest standard of ritual, personally welcomed by the king, the way it was obtained was not through official conferment, but was obtained by a monk through other means.

According to historical records, the Song court first awarded a printed version of the Tripitaka to Goryeo in 989. Specifically, Goryeo had previously sent a monk to pay homage and request the Tripitaka. “At this time, (the Song court) bestowed upon Goryeo (the Tripitaka), and at the same time, bestowed upon the purple robe, and ordered him to go back to his motherland (along with the Tripitaka)” (Tuotuo 1977, pp. 14039–40). When the monk obtained the Tripitaka, six years had passed since the completion of the publication of the Kaibao Canon. Therefore, we have reason to speculate that the Tripitaka imported into Goryeo this time was likely the printed version of the Kaibao Canon. During this period, although the Song court had just experienced the tragic failure of the Yongxi Northern Expedition in 986, its dominant position in the entire East Asian political system had not been completely lost, and its exchanges with Goryeo were also very close. According to Fozu tongji, in the first year of Chunhua 淳化 (990), “the King of Goryeo sent envoys to request the gift of the Tripitaka and the Buddhist collections personally written by the emperor. The Song court issued an edict to grant them to him”. (Zhipan 2012, p. 1039) A related record in Song shi 宋史 (The History of Song) is “that in the second year of Chunhua (991), the Goryeo court sent Han Eongong 韓彥恭 (940–1004) as the envoy to pay tribute. Han Eongong expressed the intentions of the King of Goryeo and requested printed Buddhist scriptures. The Song court issued an edict to bestow upon him the Tripitaka, the imperial collections, Mizang quan 秘藏詮 (Interpretations of Esoteric Buddhism), Xiaoyao yong 逍遙詠 (Song of praise on Xiaoyao), and Lianhua xinlun 蓮花心輪 (Lotus Heart Cakra) (Tuotuo 1977, p. 14040). This award has also been confirmed by historical records from Goryeo. According to Goryeosa, in the fourth lunar month of the tenth year of King Seongjong’s reign (991), Han Eongong returned from Song and presented the Tripitaka. The King of Goryeo welcomed the Buddhist scriptures into the inner hall, invited monks to explain and recite them, and issued relevant decrees. In the tenth lunar month of the same year, the other envoy went to Song, thanks to the Song court for bestowing the Tripitaka and Imperial Collection (to Goryeo) (Chŏng 2013, p. 74). From the above records, it can be concluded that just one year after obtaining the Kaibao Canon for the first time, Goryeo sent envoys again to request the Song court to grant them a new Tripitaka. Unlike the previous occasion, this time, it was not monks who were tasked with the mission, but rather a diplomatic delegation. The Buddhist scriptures bestowed by the Song court, apart from the complete Tripitaka, also included interpretative texts on Buddhist doctrines, such as the Mizang quan, which was claimed to be composed by Emperor Taizong of Song. This form of combining Buddhist scriptures with the emperor’s personal interpretation of Buddhist doctrines to bestow them reflected the profound political implications behind the Song court’s action. On the side of Goryeo, they also adopted the highest level of treatment for the gifts bestowed by the Song court, with the king personally welcoming them into the inner palace, and specially dispatching a delegation headed by an Hanlim 翰林 Scholar to express gratitude to the Song court. From this perspective, whether for the Song court, which bestowed the Tripitaka, or for Goryeo, which received it, the political implications of this process are undeniable, and it is an important link to maintain the East Asian political order centered around the Song Empire.

From the end of the 10th century to the beginning of the 11th century, the Liao Dynasty launched three wars against Goryeo. During the Liao invasions, Goryeo put up a resolute resistance and repeatedly defeated the Khitan army. However, under continuous political and military pressure, Goryeo ultimately had to submit and became a tributary state of the Liao Empire. Yet, before 1030, the interactive relationship between Song and Goryeo had not completely ceased, and the Song court continued to bestow the Tripitaka on Goryeo. According to Song shi, in the ninth lunar month of the third year (1019) of the Tianxi era of Emperor Zhenzong (968–1022, r. 997–1022), Dengzhou 登州 Prefecture reported that Goryeo had sent Choi Won Shin 崔元信 (active in the early 11th century) as an envoy to pay tribute to the Song court, but unfortunately, his ship capsized and the tribute was lost. The Song court immediately dispatched an imperial eunuch to pacify the situation and summoned Choi Won Shin and others in the eleventh lunar month of the same year to accept their tribute. While presenting various kinds of tribute, Choi Won Shin and others still requested “to obtain a complete set of the Tripitaka”. (Tuotuo 1977, p. 14044) Based on this record, during the period after the Treaty of Chanyuan and the wars between the Liao Dynasty and Goryeo, Goryeo did not give up its tribute to the Song Dynasty and continued to request the entire Tripitaka, which carries high political and religious significance.

According to Zhang Hongwei’s research, the fourth introduction of the Tripitaka into Goryeo occurred in 1020–1021. This historical event is recorded on the monumental stele of the Dae Ja Eun Hyeon Hwa Sa 大慈恩玄化寺 in Goryeo. By combining the contents on both the front and back of the stele, it can be inferred that the request for the Tripitaka was made roughly between the fourth and fifth years of the Tianxi era, most likely at the beginning of the fifth year of the Tianxi era (1021) (H. Zhang 2009, pp. 37–38). Combined with records from Song shi, it is mentioned that in this year, the king of Goryeo sent a delegation of 179 people, including the special envoy, the Vice Minister of Rites, to the Song Dynasty to express gratitude and to tell (the Song court) of its making peace with Khitan. They also requested books on Yin-yang and geomancy, as well as the Shenghui Fang 聖惠方 (an imperial medical text). The Song court granted them these requests (see Tuotuo 1977, p. 14044). In Goryeosa, there are also records of the Song Emperor bestowing Goryeo the Shenghui fang, Yin-yang erzhai shu 陰陽二宅書 (The Book of Yin-Yang Two Residences), Qianxing Calendar, and a complete set of Tripitaka (Chŏng 2013, p. 118). Various historical materials confirm that in 1021, the Song court once again presented a complete set of Tripitaka to Goryeo. Moreover, the Song court specifically issued a new calendar named after the new reign title “Qianxing 乾興” of Emperor Zhenzong at the same time as presenting the Tripitaka, emphasizing the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Song Dynasty and Goryeo and bundling the presentation of the official Kaibao Canon with a series of political implications. However, judging from Goryeo’s actions, they specifically mentioned making peace with Khitan to the Song court; and from existing historical materials, it does not seem that they adopted the ritual of the king personally welcoming the Tripitaka, as was common during the reigns of Goryeo’s Tajo (877–943, r. 918–943) and Seongjong (960–997, 981–997). This might be due to political pressure from the Liao Dynasty. Afterwards, Goryeo fully submitted to the Liao Dynasty, and the relationship between Song and Goryeo entered a period of about forty years of interruption (1030–1070) (Yang 1997, p. 31). During this period, we no longer see records of the Song Dynasty presenting a complete set of Tripitaka to Goryeo in existing historical materials from both sides. In other words, although this symbolic act continued for a period of time after the Liao–Goryeo War, it did not last long and was interrupted due to the evolution of the tripartite relationship between the Song Dynasty, Liao Dynasty, and Goryeo in East Asia.

Thirdly, it is the import of the printed Tripitaka of Song to the Western Xia. According to the analysis by Shi Jinbo 史金波, the Western Xia’s request and purchase of the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty were mainly concentrated in the early period of its regime. Specifically, there were six instances, which occurred in 1031 during the reign of Deming 德明 (981–1032), 1035 during the reign of Yuanhao 元昊 (1003–1048, r. 1032–1048), and in 1055, 1058, and 1062 during the reign of Liangzuo 諒祚 (1047–1068, r. 1048–1068), as well as in 1073 during the reign of Bingchang 秉常 (1061–1086, r. 1068–1086). (Shi 1993, p. 54) In my opinion, these six instances can be roughly divided into two periods based on the establishment of the Western Xia and Yuanhao’s ascension to the throne in 1038. The first period, which consisted of two instances in 1031 and 1035, was initiated by Deming, the leader of the Tangut regime at the time, and Yuanhao, who had not yet claimed the throne and established his kingdom, through the offering of horses to request the Tripitaka from Song. (T. Li 2004, pp. 2549, 2708) These two requests indeed contained many religious purposes, namely, to absorb Central Plains Buddhism and develop local Buddhism in the Tangut regime by obtaining the complete printed Tripitaka. However, after Yuanhao claimed the throne and established his kingdom in 1038, the Song and Western Xia immediately entered a state of war, and diplomatic exchanges between them were interrupted. Furthermore, based on the previous discussion about the mutual exclusivity between the Song–Liao equivalent relationship and the bestowal of the Tripitaka, if the Western Xia regime wanted to assert an equivalent relationship with Song, it would not request the Tripitaka from the Song court. There are no records of the Western Xia requesting the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty during the 20 years from 1035 to 1055, which fully demonstrates the effectiveness of this principle. After the peace treaty between the Song and Western Xia was reached in 1044, Yuanhao agreed to relinquish his title and accept the enfeoffment from the Song. This principle, which applied to the equivalent relationship between Song and Liao, was no longer applicable between the Song and Western Xia. In 1045, “the Western Xia not only sent formal envoys to Song to thank them for the enfeoffment decree, but also sent two monks to thank them for the Tripitaka. In fact, the Song court granted the Tripitaka during Yuanhao’s reign, which was already ten years ago. Sending people to express gratitude at this time had an implication of political reconciliation, and it also showed Yuanhao’s high regard and urgency for Buddhist exchanges.” (Shi 1993, p. 27) This event also marked the beginning of the second period. After 1055, Liangzuo requested the Tripitaka from the Song court three times in just seven years, once again demonstrating the effectiveness of the aforementioned principle. That is, after the Western Xia regime re-accepted the enfeoffment from the Song court, it once again obtained the qualification to receive the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty; and the Western Xia’s continuous requests for the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty in such a short period of time also emphasized its status as a tributary state and released a very clear political signal.

Specifically, the third request for Buddhist scriptures by the Western Xia occurred in the same year that the Chengtian 承天 Temple was completed, namely the second year (1055) of the Zhihe era of Emperor Renzong (1010–1063, r. 1022–1063) of the Song. In the fourth lunar month of that year, “on the day of Gengzi, the Western Xia was granted a Tripitaka.” (T. Li 2004, p. 4330) Xixia shushi 西夏書事 (The Records of Western Xia Affairs) provides a more detailed account: “In the fourth lunar month of summer, envoys were sent to (the Song court) to pay tribute. (The Song court) granted them the Tripitaka. Due to the return of A’e 阿訛 and others by (the Song side), the Empress Mozang 沒藏 (?–1056) expressed gratitude to the Central Plains dynasty and sent envoys to pay tribute. Emperor Renzong granted the Tripitaka to comfort them.” (G. Wu 1995, p. 225). According to Shi Jinbo’s research, “A’e was a member of the Tangut ethnic group from Suizhou 綏州 Prefecture who defected to Song. To avoid border incidents, Emperor Renzong of the Song ordered A’e to return to the Western Xia.” (Shi 1993, p. 52). From this perspective, the opportunity for Western Xia to resume requesting the Tripitaka from Song was not primarily due to religious considerations, but rather a response to the goodwill signal emitted by Emperor Renzong in the A’e incident. As for the fourth request for the Tripitaka, it is mainly recorded in the Ci Xiaguozhu shu dazangjing zhao 賜夏國主贖大藏經詔 (The Imperial Edict to Bestow the Tripitaka to the king of Western Xia). This edict provides two details that were not provided in the previous historical materials. Firstly, the Tripitaka granted by the Song court was very complete, including not only the scriptures but also matching wrappings, signboards, etc. Secondly, the timing of its delivery was not random, but was chosen on the first day of the New Lunar Year grand assembly, with a distinct ceremonial attribute. The fifth request for the Tripitaka, which occurred after Liangzuo obtained power in 1062, was “specially completed the transaction when the envoys arrived at the border on the New Lunar Year’s Day of the seventh year of Jiayou “嘉祐” (Anonym 1962, p. 912). In this process, the time for bestowing the Buddhist scriptures remained on New Lunar Year’s Day, but the delivery location changed from the capital to the border.

The last request for Buddhist scriptures from the Western Xia occurred during the reign of Bingchang. In the twelfth lunar month of the fifth year of the Xining 熙寧 (1072), Bingchang “sent envoys to offer horses in exchange for the purchase of the Tripitaka, and the Song court granted him the Tripitaka while returning the horses he had offered.” (Tuotuo 1977, p. 14009). Xixia jishi benmo 西夏紀事本末 (The Chronicles of the Western Xia) provides more intriguing details regarding this event (J. Zhang 1998, p. 142). One commonality with the records in Song shi is that the Song court returned the horses presented as a gift to purchase the Tripitaka, which were traditionally used as a form of payment. In previous requests for the Tripitaka, the horses used for purchase ranged from fifty to seventy, all of which were accepted by the Song court. Generally, the Song court’s refusal of the horses presented by the Western Xia this time could be interpreted as a benevolent gesture to appease distant peoples. However, based on other details provided in Xixia jishi benmo, this explanation may not fully account for the situation. The biggest difference between this grant and the fourth was the cancellation of the grant of the Tripitaka at the highly symbolic and ceremonial New Lunar Year’s Day court ceremony, which was replaced by a border exchange. This practice continued the rules of the fifth grant, largely conveying the Song court’s distrust of the Western Xia and its unwillingness to allow its delegation to enter Song territory and make an appearance at the highly ceremonial New Lunar Year’s Day court ceremony by requesting the Tripitaka. This significant change may be related to the reforms undertaken during the Xining era (1068–1077) of Emperor Shenzong (1048–1085, r. 1067–1085) of Song, which sought to enrich the country and strengthen its military, and the increasingly hardline attitude towards the Western Xia and Hehuang (the Yellow River and Huang 湟 River) area issues. The aforementioned cold approach stands in stark contrast to the warm and affectionate attitude of Emperor Renzong of Song before and after the Western Xia’s third request for the Tripitaka. During the subsequent reigns of Emperor Shenzong, Emperor Zhezong (1077–1100, 1085–1100), and Emperor Huizong (1082–1135, r. 1100–1126), continuous wars broke out between the Song Dynasty and the Western Xia, and the relationship between the two sides remained tense or in a state of war. Without the corresponding political and transportation conditions, the Western Xia’s request for the Tripitaka from the Song court also came to an end.

Previous studies generally tend to interpret the 43-year-long activity of acquiring Buddhist scriptures in the Western Xia as a religious necessity. As Shi Jinbo pointed out, “this period marked the climax of the Western Xia’s preparation for and translation of Buddhist scriptures. The coincidence in timing between the Western Xia’s acquisition of Buddhist scriptures and their translation is not accidental, reflecting a close relationship between the two activities. The Chinese Tripitaka acquired by the Western Xia should serve as the basis for translating Buddhist scriptures into the Tangut language. Furthermore, it was also used as a reference for the Western Xia to engrave Chinese Buddhist scriptures.” (Shi 1993, p. 55) While this interpretation has some merit, from the perspective of translating Buddhist scriptures, it may not necessarily require many duplicates. Even considering the additions made to the Kaibao Canon by the Song people, which required obtaining the latest version of the printed Tripitaka to translate the newly translated Buddhist scriptures of Song, it is difficult to explain why the Western Xia requested the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty three times within a few years. Even if the Song court updated and supplemented the Kaibao Canon at a faster rate, there would not be much change within a few years. Therefore, a more reasonable explanation lies in the political implications behind the Western Xia’s request for the Tripitaka from the Song. Specifically, requesting the Tripitaka from the Song court is an important way to acknowledge and maintain the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Western Xia and the Song Dynasty; and when this suzerain–vassal relationship encountered a crisis or was damaged, such as during war or mistrust between the Song and Western Xia, the activity of requesting the Tripitaka will cease. According to existing historical materials, this principle was strictly adhered to by both Song and Western Xia.

Fourthly, there was the importation of the Tripitaka from the Song Dynasty to Vietnam. According to Annan zhilue 安南志略 (Annam Chronicles), written by Lê Tắc 黎崱 (1360s–1440s), who surrendered to the Yuan Empire, in the first lunar month of the second year of Jingde 景德 (1005) and the seventh lunar month of the fourth year (1007), the Song court granted the Tripitaka to the Lý Dynasty of Vietnam twice.3 At the beginning of the Lý Dynasty’s establishment, the Vạn tuế Temple was built in the new capital city of Thành phố Đại La, and the hall of Thành phố Tripitaka was constructed (Ngô 2015, p. 150), perhaps to house the Tripitaka just obtained from the Song Dynasty. Here, we are still unable to determine which request resulted in the Tripitaka being stored in the Thành phố Tripitaka. It cannot be denied that the Lý Dynasty of Vietnam specifically built a repository to store the Tripitaka obtained from Song, which not only has sacred significance at the religious level but also carries special political significance.

According to Annan Zhilue, Lý Công Uẩn 李公蕴 (974–1028, r. 1009–1028) sent envoys to congratulate (Emperor Zhenzong) on the worship of the Earth Goddess in Fenyin 汾阴 and requested the “Tripitaka” and eight styles of imperial calligraphy in 1010. The Song court agreed to this request and granted the Tripitaka and one hundred rolls of the imperial calligraphy of Emperor Taizong, along with a commendatory edict (Lê 2000, p. 294). At the beginning of Lý Công Uẩn’s reign and the relocation of the capital, he sought to appease the Song Dynasty by a series of methods mentioned above, in an attempt to seek recognition from the Song court to alleviate external pressure and stabilize the political situation. In 1014, Lý Công Uẩn once again presented tribute and requested the grant of armor and the Tripitaka. The Song court once again agreed (Lê 2000, p. 295). In my opinion, considering that the previous dynasty (Nhà Tiền Lê) had already obtained the Tripitaka and the Lý court had already established a repository for it in the new capital, Lý Công Uẩn’s two requests for the Tripitaka in a few years were more driven by political motivations than religious ones. It is noteworthy that perhaps due to these two requests for the Tripitaka, accompanied by actions of expressing loyalty to the central dynasty, such as congratulating on the worship of the Earth Goddess in Fenyin and requesting the grant of imperial calligraphy, Đại Việt sử kí toàn thư, compiled from a Vietnamese perspective, did not mention a single word about these. Lê Tắc, who had already submitted to the Yuan court, did not have such concerns and recorded all these events.

The most dramatic scene occurred in the late years of Lý Công Uẩn, specifically in 1018. According to Annan Zhilue, in the fifth lunar month of the second year of Tianxi 天禧 (1018), the Song court granted Lý Công Uẩn the Daozang jing 道藏經 to fulfill his request (Lê 2000, p. 295). The so-called Daozang jing here refers not to the Buddhist Tripitaka but to the Daoist Canon. Emperor Zhenzong of Song, as an emperor who highly revered Daoism, orchestrated the event of the descent of the Heavenly Scriptures, which had Daoist characteristics. The Xiangfu Daozang 祥符道藏 (Xiangfu Daoist Canon) compiled and printed in the ninth year of Dazhong Xiangfu 大中祥符 (1016) (see Xiang 2021, pp. 47–68), was also completed during this period as another national project during Emperor Zhenzong’s Daoism advocacy, which was presented by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 (962–1025). Based on this event, the so-called Daozang jing granted in the second year of Tianxi was most likely the Xiangfu Daozang that had just been completed two years prior. The Song court’s bestowal of this Daoist canon to neighboring regimes was similar to the bestowal of the Kaibao Canon, generally intended to export politics, religion, and culture to Vietnam through the religious canons. However, Đại Việt sử kí toàn thư does not mention this importation of the Daoist canon, instead recording that in the same year, “in the sixth lunar month of summer, (the Lý court) dispatched two envoys to Song to request the Tripitaka.” (Ngô 2015, p. 153). Annan Zhilue also has relevant records (Lê 2000, p. 295). In 1020, the Vietnamese envoy returned after his mission and obtained the Tripitaka. The edict ordered the monk director Phi Chí to go to Guangzhou to welcome the Tripitaka. In the next year, Vietnam sent a new mission to Song and established an octagonal structure to store the Tripitaka (Ngô 2015, p. 154). In summary, it is clear that while the Song court granted the Buddhist Tripitaka, it also had the intention and practice of bestowing the Daoist canon and promoting Daoism. The Vietnamese historical materials did not mention this point, still emphasizing their request and storage of the Buddhist Tripitaka. In 1023, Lý Công Uẩn issued an edict to copy the Tripitaka and store it in the other hall, initiating a large-scale project to copy the Tripitaka.

In summary, during the reign of Thái Tổ, the Lý court had already established a comprehensive system for acquiring, storing, and transcribing Buddhist scriptures, treating it as a religious project with national and political significance, reflecting the deep interaction between Vietnamese Buddhism and political culture during this period. Conversely, the introduction of the Daoist canon is not mentioned in any Vietnamese historical records, suggesting that it was more of a one-way export by the Song court and passive acceptance by the Lý regime, without establishing a closer connection with its political and religious system. Vietnam continuously imported printed Tripitaka during the Lý Dynasty and the early Trần Dynasty (1225–1400)4 However, they were always reproduced in manuscript form until the mid-13th century when the Trần Dynasty showed an intention to print the Tripitaka on its own.

Fifthly, it was the dissemination of the printed Tripitaka of Song in the Hexi Corridor region. Sun Changqing 孫長青 conducted a detailed examination of two newly discovered fragments of the Kaibao Canon, clarifying the fact that a set of Kaibao Canon once existed in the Dunhuang region (C. Sun 2021, pp. 183–88). According to the record in Song huiyao jigao 宋會要輯稿 (The Draft of Essential Compilations of Song), in the fifth lunar month of the first year of the Zhidao 至道 (995), Cao Yanlu 曹延祿 (?–1002) sent envoys to present tribute, requesting medicines, tea, bows and arrows, musical instruments, Buddhist scriptures, and other items, and also asking for purple robes for monks. The Song court complied with his request (Song Xu 2014, p. 9836). This material not only clearly and explicitly explains the nominal tributary relationship between the Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun 歸義軍 regime and the Song court during the reign of Emperor Taizong, but also explicitly mentions Buddhist scriptures in their list of requested items. Just a few months later, in the tenth lunar month of the same year, Cao Yanlu sent envoys to present a petition, requesting that the newly translated Buddhist sutras of the Song court be granted to their regime. The Song court agreed to this request. The reason why Cao Yanlu specifically requested this type of Buddhist sutras was likely because the Gui-yi-jun regime already had the set of the Kaibao Canon granted by the Song Dynasty within its jurisdiction; hence, they only needed to supplement with newly translated Buddhist sutras (See Fang 2006, p. 401). This event should be related to the request for Buddhist scriptures in the Dunhuang region in 995 mentioned above. This explains why Cao Yanlu requested the printing of newly translated Buddhist sutras from Song in the tenth lunar month of that year.

It should be noted that the Tripitaka that the Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun regime requested from the Song court was not only the printed Kaibao Canon, but also explicitly included the more meritorious and ceremonial handwritten Tripitaka. According to Song Huiyao Jigao, in the leap fifth lunar month of the fourth year of Jingde (1007), the Buddhist officials of Shazhou Prefecture requested to come to the capital for the reason that Cao Yanlu submitted a request for a set of Tripitaka in gold and silver characters. The Song court ordered Yizhou Prefecture to copy a set of Tripitaka in gold and silver characters and presented it to him (Song Xu 2014, p. 9836). In the fourth lunar month of the seventh year of Dazhong xiangfu (1014), a monk in the Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun regime submitted another request for a set of Tripitaka in gold and silver characters, and the Song court once again agreed (Song Xu 2014, p. 9836). Therefore, the Tripitaka presented by the Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun regime twice during the reign of Emperor Zhenzong of Song was not a printed Tripitaka, but a more exquisite and rare handwritten Tripitaka in gold and silver characters. According to Wang Xuemei’s research, “Apart from the Tripitaka in gold and silver characters of the Vajracchedika-sutra written by decree in the fourth year of Qiande 乾德 (966), from the sixth year of Qiande (968) to the fourth year of Kaibao (971), during the four years before the Tripitaka was printed, the Tripitaka in gold and silver characters were written several times in the Shu 蜀 region, and five sets of Tripitaka in gold and silver characters were written in Yizhou Prefecture(Chengdu). Even after the Kaibao Canon was carved and printed for circulation, Yizhou remained the supplier of Tripitaka in gold and silver characters written by decree in the Northern Song Dynasty.” (X. Wang 2022, p. 152). Therefore, even after the Kaibao Canon was completed, the Song court still presented exquisite Tripitaka in gold and silver characters to the neighboring vassal states, and it cannot be assumed that all the Tripitaka presented by the Song court were printed Tripitaka. However, from another perspective, the two cases presented the uniqueness of the Tripitaka in gold and silver characters. Therefore, among the general presentations, the printed Tripitaka, which has a relatively lower cost, should have been the main option for the Song court.

Sixthly, it was the dissemination of the printed Tripitaka of Song in the Western Regions. Between 980 and 984, Wang Yande 王延德 (939–1006) represented Emperor Taizong of Song to pay a return visit to the Gaochang Uighur regime (866-early 13th Century). The Gaochang Uighur and its affiliated small state, the Kucha Uighur, also paid tribute to the Northern Song several times (Song Xu 2014, pp. 9767–75; Tuotuo 1977, pp. 14109–13, 14123). From this perspective, although the Song Empire did not control the Western Regions as thoroughly as the Han and Tang Empires because of the rise of the Western Xia, due to the inertia of the Tang Dynasty’s absolute influence, the Western Regions still recognized the Song Dynasty as the legitimate dynasty of the Central Plains. At least during the Northern Song, its influence on the Western Regions was never interrupted. Wang Ding 王丁 investigated the fragments of the Kaibao Canon collected in Germany, Japan, and Russia, and discussed the background of this earliest printed Tripitaka flowing to the Western Regions (Ding Wang 2010, pp. 160–90). Dingyuan 定源 introduced three newly discovered incomplete printed materials unearthed in the Western Regions, pointing out that they are fragments of the same printed edition, and their font style is consistent with the characteristics of the Kaibao Canon, suggesting that they are remnants of the edition. Based on the format characteristics of the upper and lower borders, he believes that the later supplementary or additional engravings of the Kaibao Canon differ from the early printed edition, as they adopted the upper and lower borders (Dingyuan 2023, pp. 40–50). Overall, although there are no clear records in extant historical materials of the Western Regions requesting the Kaibao Canon from the Song court, based on the characteristics of the existing incomplete volumes, it is likely that this printed Tripitaka or its later supplementary or additional versions had spread to the Western Regions, which are farther away from the Hexi Corridor. Under the current material conditions, it is difficult for us to conclude with certainty that the Northern Song granted the complete printed Tripitaka to the Western Regions. However, considering the fact that the Gaochang Uighur and Kucha Uighur paid tribute to the Song Dynasty multiple times, combined with the prevalence of Buddhism within their political jurisdiction, based on the general principle of the Song court bestowing the complete Tripitaka to vassal states, there was also a possibility that the Western Regions obtained the complete set of the Kaibao Canon.

Seventhly, it was the export of the Tripitaka from the Song court to Japan, which included significant changes in the early and late periods. It is quite dramatic that Japan, which had no direct vassal or diplomatic relations with Song and was relatively far away, was the earliest among the East Asian regimes to obtain a complete set of the printed Tripitaka, as indicated by existing historical materials. As Li Yiwen stated: “the Japanese were now confronted with the decision of whether to rejoin the China-centered tribute network.” (Y. Li 2023, p. 51). According to Song Shi, Chōnen once said in a letter: “I left the coast on a merchant ship, hoping to reach the imperial court in my lifetime… I humbly offer myself as a lowly person, to the great China. … I leave the nest of the phoenix, and return to the home of the ants. Whether in this place or that, I admire only your majesty’s great merit; although we are separated by the seas and mountains, I dare not forget your profound concerns. Even if I sacrifice my body for you, I could not repay the favor that I received in on day.” (Tuotuo 1977, pp. 14135–36). According to Li Yiwen’s analysis: “First, this letter’s phrasing is striking: Chōnen honored the Chinese emperor and China in the extreme, even at the expense of disparaging his own country, describing China as ‘the nest of the phoenix’ but referring to Japan as ‘the home of the ants’, a metaphor used during the tribute era. The strikingly humble and submissive tone of the language in Chōnen’s letter, furthermore, is consistent with the accompanying gifts for Emperor Taizong. Chōnen presented more than ten bronze vessels, the Code for Bureaucrats 職官令, and the Chronicle of Kings 王年代記.” (Y. Li 2023, p. 52). “The gifts sent by Chōnen and delivered by Ka’in 嘉因, in terms of both content and amount, were more than simply a set of private gifts from monk to emperor—Chōnen’s gifts rather shared some characteristics with tribute goods. Submitting the official code and chronicles symbolized, to a degree, declaring allegiance.” (Y. Li 2023, p. 53). Although the elements symbolizing the new era of unofficial communications were also evident in Chōnen’s letter (Y. Li 2023, p. 53), it is clear from Chōnen’s humble words and the types of gifts included in his tribute that it will greatly impress the Song court as acknowledging Japan’s vassal status. It was difficult to confirm whether this impression was the true intention of Japan or a rhetorical strategy adopted by Chōnen to achieve his specific goals, or a combination of both. However, judging from his trip, the greatest wish for him, to receive a complete set of the Tripitaka, was largely fulfilled. Considering that the Kaibao Canon had been completed and shipped to the capital of Northern Song, Kaifeng, one year before Chōnen’s trip, the set of Tripitaka given to him by the Song court is likely to be this printed Tripitaka. In addition, according to the record by Jōjin 成尋 (1011–1081), Emperor Taizong also bestowed upon Chōnen 286 volumes of newly translated Buddhist sutras (Jōjin 2009, p. 628). To solve the transportation problem after the Tripitaka was bestowed, the emperor also ordered the transport of this huge set of Tripitaka to the port of Taizhou Prefecture (Hao 2012, pp. 210–12). Therefore, at least from the perspective of the Song Dynasty, Japan was regarded as a vassal state under a unified tributary system in the period of Chōnen. Therefore, the Song court also believed that it could satisfy Chōnen’s request and bestow the Tripitaka needed by Japan, just as it was bestowed upon Goryeo. It should be noted that Chōnen came to China at a time when Emperor Taizong intended to recover You 幽 and Yun 雲 Prefectures and launch a northern expedition to rebuild the East Asian political structure centered on the Song Empire. At this time, from Zhao Guangyi’s perspective, even the Liao Dynasty was a target worthy of punishment and conquest. Therefore, when Chōnen made humble remarks and presented gifts with the nature of tributes, it is not difficult to understand why the Song court adopted a policy of treating Japan as a tributary country and bestowing the Tripitaka, which was commensurate with such a status.

However, “by Jōjin’s day, pilgrims from Japan were not simply receiving Buddhist texts from China but had tried to discuss Buddhist teachings with Chinese monks on an equal footing, a tendency consistent with Japan’s break from the China-centered tribute network.” (Y. Li 2023, p. 64). In 1083, Jōjin’s disciple Kaishū 快宗 visited China for the second time, wearing the purple robe that Jōjin had received when he presented himself to Emperor Shenzong. When Emperor Shenzong noticed this purple robe, he asked the attendants when it had been bestowed. Someone replied, “During the Xining era, it was given to the monk Jōjin during his visit, and now he comes to pay tribute again.” However, Emperor Shenzong immediately corrected the official: “It is not paying tribute. They came only because they were on a pilgrimage to Mount Tiantai.” (T. Li 2004, p. 8031). Comparing the attitudes and perceptions of Emperor Shenzong and Emperor Taizong, it is evident that the Song Dynasty’s positioning of Japan underwent a significant transformation. If Emperor Taizong, on the eve of the Yongxi Northern Expedition, still largely held himself above Japan as a suzerain and attempted to confirm his political status through the bestowal of the Tripitaka. At this time, Emperor Shenzong had clearly pointed out that the relationship between the Song and Japan was not that of suzerain and vassal state, and Jōjin’s purpose for this trip was not a political tribute but a religious pilgrimage. For this reason, the Song court had no obligation or reason to bestow the entire Tripitaka to him.

As previously mentioned, after the completion of the engraving of the Kaibao Canon, it was transported to the Printing Hall of the Taiping Xingguo Temple in Kaifeng for unified management and printing by imperial decrees. However, in 1071, an imperial edict abolished the Printing Hall. The engraved blocks, which were under official management, were subsequently moved to the Xiansheng 顯聖 Temple outside the Changhe Gate in the northwest of Kaifeng. (See J. Li 2007, p. 143). In the view of Zhao Dongsheng 趙冬生, Chen Wenxiu 陳文秀, and Li Jining 李際寧, there is a lack of clear historical records regarding the reasons for the abolition of the Printing Hall. However, at that time, tightening government expenditure was a significant issue (Zhao and Chen 1995, pp. 61–67; J. Li 2007, p. 144). In my opinion, the initial intention of the Song court was to directly transport the engraved blocks of the Kaibao Canon to Hangzhou and have a monk preside over the printing (Song Xu 2014, p. 3682), away from the political center of Kaifeng, to maximize the decoupling from politics. Combined with the aforementioned incident in 1072, where the Western Xia attempted to redeem the Tripitaka in the capital city but was restricted, not only were their tribute horses returned, but the transaction was also changed to a border delivery, it can be seen that the Song Dynasty’s adjustment of the printing policy for the Kaibao Canon was not solely due to economic reasons, but had other profoundly political intentions—namely, to gradually decouple the printing of the Tripitaka from direct official management and control, thereby diluting its underlying political and cultural implications.

Based on the existing historical records, during the period that the engraved blocks of the Kaibao Canon were stored in the Xianqing Temple, there were two main methods for paying for the printing of Buddhist scriptures for Japanese monks: state payment and self-payment by the requester. According to the seventh volume of Can tiantai wutai shan ji 參天台五臺山記 (The Visting Records of Mount Tiantai and Mount Wutai), Jōjin once went to Xiansheng Temple hoping to purchase some Buddhist scriptures, but was hindered by the official prohibition on foreign purchases. After reporting the matter, Jōjin finally obtained an imperial decree, ordering Xiansheng Temple to print and grant him the newly translated Buddhist scriptures, with the expenses paid by the temple. From this record, it can be inferred that although the Song court officially provided considerable support and sponsorship for Jōjin’s Buddhist scriptures purchase activities, it was only an exceptional operation of economic sponsorship, rather than directly following the principle of the tributary states seeking Tripitaka, as in the case of Chōnen’s visit, by bestowing a complete set of Tripitaka. According to the eighth volume of the same book, besides communicating with the Song court and obtaining new translations of Buddhist scriptures since the beginning of the Northern Song with the printing expenses paid by Xiansheng Temple, Jōjin also purchased 102 volumes of Buddhist scriptures in twice (Jōjin 2009, p. 672), with the first purchase of 52 volumes costing 1500 wen, averaging less than 29 wen per volume; the second purchase of 50 volumes costing 1200 wen, averaging 24 wen per volume. From the actions of money paid, it can be inferred that the cost of printing some volumes of the official Kaibao Canon was very low, perhaps indicating that the Song court only charged Jōjin and others the cost price. However, this record still undoubtedly presented that, regardless of whether the payment was made by the officials of the Song court, the printing institution, or Jōjin himself, the printing of scattered volumes of the Tripitaka was already largely a commercial activity, rather than a political gift with obvious characteristics of tribute and bestowal. According to Li Jining’s analysis, the way of the temple involved in printing issues gradually shifted from official management to temple management, and the activity of printing and distributing Buddhist scriptures gradually became a kind of civilian activity for fulfilling vows and circulation demands (J. Li 2007, p.149).

In summary, if we compare Chōnen, who came to China during the reign of Emperor Taizong of Song, with Jōjin, who came during the reign of Emperor Shenzong, we can clearly observe the significant changes in the way the Tripitaka was imported into Japan during the early to mid-to-late Northern Song. This change was closely related to the transition of the printing institution responsible for managing the printing of Buddhist scriptures in the Song Dynasty. The transition was from being directly managed and controlled by the imperial government at the Taiping Xingguo Temple Printing Institute to being primarily managed by monks at the Xiansheng Temple in the suburbs of Kaifeng, which is not directly under the imperial government. It is also closely related to the change in the Song’s positioning of Japan. After completely denying the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Song Dynasty and Japan, the practice of bestowing the entire Tripitaka, as was done with Chōnen in the early Song, became outdated and against diplomatic principles. Therefore, at most, the official support for Jōjin was limited to instructing the temples responsible for specific printing affairs to pay for the printing costs through imperial edicts, or selling the printed Buddhist scriptures to him at a discount, rather than directly bestowing the entire Tripitaka or even being responsible for its transportation within the Song territory.

Until now, we have analyzed the situations in which the printed Tripitaka of Song was distributed to the Liao, Goryeo, Western Xia, Vietnam, Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun regime, the Western Regions, and Japan. Based on the above analysis, the dissemination of the Kaibao Canon can be broadly divided into two categories: the first category includes Goryeo, Western Xia, Vietnam, and the Cao family’s Gui-yi-jun regime, which maintained suzerain–vassal and tributary relations with the Song Dynasty, adopting a request–grant model based on the entire set of Tripitaka. If such relations were terminated, as was the case between the Song and Goryeo (due to Goryeo’s submission and tribute to Khitan) during the forty years after 1030, the grant of the entire set of Tripitaka was immediately suspended. The second category includes the Liao and Japan, which had no suzerain–vassal or tributary relations with the Song but instead maintained equal relations. Therefore, the Song court did not grant them the entire set of Tripitaka. The specific case of Chōnen should be related to the unique international political relations pattern in the early Song and the Song court’s perception bias towards Song–Japanese relations. It should be regarded as an exceptional case during a period of exploration and transition. Additionally, due to the lack of historical materials and the fact that only sporadic unearthed documents provide evidence for the kingdoms in the oasis Western Regions, it is still not entirely certain which category they belong to. Based solely on the criteria of whether they were suzerain–vassal or tributary countries, they seem to belong to the first category. Tansen Sen believes that since the founding of the Institute for the Transmission of the Dharma and the establishment of the printing office, Buddhist texts and canons produced by the organization had become cherished items in Song China’s diplomatic relations with the neighboring kingdoms…. This demand for Buddhist translations among the non-Chinese states reinforced the Chinese claim that China was the only high civilization in the world (Sen 2002, p. 40). However, it should be noted that the recipients of the set of Tripitaka were not as numerous as possible, but were strictly limited to political entities under its tributary system and maintained suzerain–vassal relations. This principle is closely related to the distribution of the Kaibao Canon during the Northern Song, i.e., to its attempt to establish a unified East Asian order. After the establishment of the “Twin Stars” pattern (the Song and Liao) in the East Asian through the signing of the Treaty of Chanyuan in 1005, the competition between the later-completed Khitan Canon and the earlier-dominated Kaibao Canon in the Sinosphere also began.

3. The Competition in the Same Language Between the Khitan Canon and the Kaibao Canon in the Sinosphere

As previously discussed, the Kaibao Canon of Song may have been introduced to the Liao through scattered copies and other indirect means. However, because of the reciprocal relationship between the Liao and Song, it was absolutely impossible for the Liao to accept top–down gifts from the Song. Nevertheless, the transition from manuscript to printed editions of the Tripitaka was a significant trend, and Buddhism in the Liao Dynasty could not remain unaffected by this trend. More importantly, when the issuance of the complete Tripitaka was not merely a religious action but presented rich political implications, becoming a political ceremony indicating the status of suzerain–vassal states, the Liao Dynasty, if it wanted to contend with the Song Dynasty in the multilateral political landscape of East Asia, or even occupy a dominant position, had to attach importance to this important religious–political expression form. Therefore, the Liao court had already started the carving and printing works of the Khitan Canon from the reigns of Emperor Shengzong (972–1031, 983–1031) and Emperor Xingzong (1016–1055, r. 1031–1055), and completed the printing of the complete Tripitaka during the reign of Emperor Daozong (1032–1101, r. 1055–1101). In my opinion, the printing of the Khitan Canon not only had the intention of rivaling the Kaibao Canon of Song, but could also be seen as an aspect of the sinicization process and the awakening of orthodox consciousness of Liao. However, the cultural competition between the two regimes objectively made them increasingly similar, exhibiting certain common characteristics and principles of the Tripitaka issuance.

Although the Khitan Canon was inspired by the Kaibao Canon in specific technical aspects, such as plate numbers, or included a small number of newly translated Buddhist scriptures from the Song in its later updated versions, it was not systematically influenced by it. Instead, it mainly followed the catalog system based on the Kaiyuan shijiao lu of the Tang, and was also similar in form to the standard Tripitaka manuscripts in the Tang.5 This attitude may be related to the orthodox concept of the Liao Dynasty. According to Miao Runbo’s research, the historical compilation activities during the reign of Emperor Xingzong contained “three major reforms” to the founding history of the Liao Dynasty, the second of which was to advance the founding year of this dynasty from 916 to 907. In 907, Abaoji 阿保機 (872–926, r. 916–926) became the Khitan Khan, connecting it with the fall of the Tang Dynasty and aligning with the orthodox tradition of the dynasties in the Central Plains. (See Miao 2024, p. 270). For the Liao court, whether it continued the orthodoxy of the Shi–Jin Dynasty (936–947) in the early period or continued directly to the Tang Empire after the revision of historical records in 1044 (Liu 2004, pp. 191–92; Miao 2024, pp. 220–30), it was impossible to recognize the orthodoxy of the Song Dynasty that coexisted with it. Based on this political consideration, regardless of whether the Liao people had seen the complete Kaibao Canon before compiling the Khitan Canon, the imitation of it was only partial and technical. The foundation of the Khitan Canon should be directly inherited from the orthodox and standardized Tripitaka manuscripts of Tang, vowing a seamless continuation of orthodoxy between the Tang and Liao Dynasties.

The competition in the same language between the Khitan Canon and the Kaibao Canon also manifested in their choices and settings of printing centers, updates to the content included, and expansions in scale.

Firstly, regarding the selection and establishment of the printing centers, the Liao court chose Yanjing (the southern capital and nowadays Beijing) as the center for engraving and printing the Tripitaka, which had the most densely populated and economically prosperous population among its five capitals, and had a solid Buddhist foundation and numerous large temples since the Tang Dynasty. The Hongfa Temple, located in Yanjing, was an important temple responsible for engraving and printing the Tripitaka during the Liao Dynasty. Both the collections of Buddhist scriptures in the Ying County Timber Pagoda and the Tripitaka stored in the pagoda of the Tiangong Temple in Fengrun County contain inscriptions mentioning the Hongfa Temple in Yanjing or its monks responsible for printing and circulation (Zheng 1981, p. 217; G. Chen 1989, p. 82). However, the specific location of the printing center is not recorded in the existing historical materials, and it is only known to be located within the city of Yanjing. According to Du Chenghui 杜成輝’s research, based on the inscriptions at the end of the existing incomplete volumes of the Khitan Canon, the Liao court had officially established a printing center with a relatively clear organizational structure and division of labor before 1070 (Du 2016, pp. 60–64). The printing center located in the Hongfa Temple was an institution responsible for collating, engraving, printing, and circulating, which not only engraved and issued official Tripitaka but also other official Buddhist scriptures. It had positions such as the director, the magistrate, the chief manager, the collator, and the hall manager, among which the director and magistrates were held by officials in the court; the compilation and collation work was undertaken by eminent monks from various temples. In this printing and circulation institution, presiding officers, compilers, and collators formed a perfect team, already possessing the rudiments of later publishing institutions (Du and Li 2013, pp. 24–27). Overall, in terms of the location and institutional composition of the printing center, the Liao court followed the practices of the Song Dynasty, placing it in a significant location within the capital and establishing a strict management system. In terms of its specific division of labor, the positioning by the Liao court of the Buddhist-Scripture Printing Institute was more comprehensive and integrated compared to the Song. Apart from being responsible for the engraving, printing, and circulation of Buddhist scriptures, it also had the duty of compilation and collation. The personnel involved in the compilation and collation of Buddhist scriptures at the institute were not limited to those from the institute itself, but also included monks from other important temples in Yanjing, such as Tianwang Temple. This fact reflected a greater degree of integration and unified utilization of Buddhist resources in Yanjing by the Liao court.

Secondly, in terms of updating the included content and expanding the volume scale, the Liao court was not satisfied with the number of 5048 volumes determined in Kaiyuan shijiao lu. According to Luo Zhao’s research, the first printed version of the Khitan Canon (the Tonghe edition completed during the reign of Emperor Shengzong) consisted of 505 packages. The editor-in-chief was Quanming 詮明, and the catalog included Kaiyuan shijiao lu and Xu Kaiyuan shijiao lu (The Continued Catalog of Buddhist scriptures after the Kaiyuan Period), three volumes written by Quanming, which exceeded the original 480 volumes of Kaiyuan shijiao lu by 5.2%. The Chongxi–Xianyong edition, completed during the reigns of Emperor Xingzong and Emperor Daozong, consisted of 579 packages. The editor-in-chief was probably Jueyuan 覺苑, and the catalog included the Rucang lu 入藏錄 (The Catalog of Buddhist Scriptures of the Khitan Canon) written by one Taibao Master (possibly Jueyuan), which exceeded the Kaiyuan shijiao lu by 20.6% and increased by 14.65% compared to the Tonghe edition. In 1992, Luo Zhao updated his opinion. He pointed out that there were more than two versions of the Khitan Canon (Luo 1992, pp. 52–56). However, regardless of the specific number of versions, the Khitan Canons were constantly updated and supplemented at least during the decades from Emperor Shengzong to Emperor Daozong.

This process of continuous supplementation, collation, and revision had some similarities to the Kaibao Canon. According to the research by Tong Wei 童瑋, on the basis of the original 5048 volumes, the Kaibao Canon added 187 Buddhist scriptures, totaling 279 volumes and 30 packages, newly translated from 982 to 999, during the reigns of Emperor Taizong and Emperor Zhenzong. After the Tianxi era, four volumes of the Vināyaka Sutra were deleted due to content violations. By the end of the Northern Song, the Kaibao Canon had successively added four collections of 57 volumes (5 packages) from Emperor Taizong’s literary works, a continuation canon of the Zhenyuan Lu 貞元錄 (The Catalogue of Buddhist Sutras in the Zhenyuan Era) (with a catalog) of 127 scriptures and 275 volumes (27 packages), 90 newly translated scriptures of 423 volumes (43 packages) from 1000 to 1073, 42 newly translated scriptures of 193 volumes (22 packages) from 1078 to 1112) totaling, and 24 Buddhist texts including Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (The Collected Pearls in the Dharma Gargen), Song zhenzong zhu sishier zhang jing 宋真宗注四十二章經 (The Annotations on the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters by Emperor Zhenzong) and the scriptures of Chan Buddhism, such as Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄 (The Chan Genealogy Records during the Jingde Era), totaling over 310 volumes and 42 packages. Additionally, it also includes the commentaries of 193 volumes (22 packages) by the Tiantai and Ci’en schools. As a result, by the end of the Northern Song, the Kaibao Canon had gradually increased to over 6620 volumes, totaling 653 packages, which exceeded its original volume count by 31.1% and its original package count by 36% (Tong 1991). It should be noted that during the supplementation process, only the Buddhist scriptures newly translated between 982 and 999 were assigned the thousand-character text numbers, while subsequent documents added to the collection were not numbered, seemingly to distinguish between the content with text numbers as the main body part of the Kaibao Canon and the content without text numbers that was continuously supplemented.

In contrast, regarding the Khitan Canon, the thousand-character text numbering system was continued to be used in the additions made during the reigns of Emperor Xingzong and Emperor Daozong. Stone inscriptions from the Liao and Jin dynasties, such as the “Record of the Creation of the Buddhist Sutra Collection at Qingshui Temple on Yangtai Mountain” and “Inscription on the Monument of the Reconstruction of the Prajnaparamita Sutra Collection at the Great Huayan Temple”, clearly indicate that the total number of packages in the Khitan Canon is 5796. From this perspective, compared to the Kaibao Canon, which was continuously supplemented and did not assign thousand-character text numbers to the documents subsequently added to the collection, the Khitan Canon should have formed a definitive edition with clear text numbers during the Xianyong era of Emperor Daozong of the Liao Dynasty, exhibiting characteristics of relative stability and authority.

Regarding the content included, both the Kaibao Canon and the Khitan Canon only exist in fragmented volumes, especially the Khitan Canon, which only has several incomplete copies for reference. The assertion by previous scholars that the small steles of the Fangshan Stone Sutras are replicas of parts of the Khitan Canon (Zhongguo Fojiao Tushu Wenwuguan and Fangshan Shijing Zhengli Yanjiuzu 1981, pp. 13–15) also has certain issues and cannot be considered an accurate claim (Li and He 2003, p. 269). Based on Tong Wei’s research, the additions to the Kaibao Canon are relatively clear; however, for the Khitan Canon, apart from the additions such as the Zhenyuan lu recorded in the continuous addition of Buddhist scriptures and catalogues, which are approximately the same as those in the Kaibao Canon with 127 scriptures and 275 volumes, the other additions are unclear and cannot be fully matched with the new additions in the Kaibao Canon. Although the small steles of the Liao Dynasty in Fangshan engraved Buddhist scriptures with unified thousand-character text numbers may not be complete replicas of the Khitan Canon, and the overall development characteristics of Buddhism in the Liao was different from the Song, these evidences suggest that the additions to the Khitan Canon should have a significant difference from the Kaibao Canon in the Song, mainly focusing on Esoteric Buddhist scriptures (including a large number of sutras and mantras). In contrast, there may not be many additions to the Chan and Tiantai scriptures, which were considerably popular in the Central Plain and southern regions in the Khitan Canon. As for the newly translated Buddhist scriptures in the Song Dynasty, there are a total of 30 packages from the characters “ke 刻” to “hui 惠” in the Liao Dynasty’s engraved Buddhist scriptures in Fangshan, which correspond precisely to the 187 Buddhist scriptures and 279 volumes newly translated from 982 to 999. Therefore, it is likely that the Liao’s incorporation of newly translated Buddhist scriptures from the Song was limited to those explicitly added with package numbers in the Kaibao Canon and those already imported through some means before the Treaty of Chanyuan; while the newly translated Buddhist scriptures of the Song after the establishment of their equal relationship through the treaty and the other Buddhist texts without formal package numbers were not included in the Khitan Canon.

In summary, in the competition in the same language between the Khitan Canon and the Kaibao Canon, the Liao court, as the later entrant, drew inspiration from the printing system of the Sutra Printing Institute of Song at the institutional level and established a similar institution in the capital (the southern capital of the Five Capitals). In terms of text numbering, especially the plate numbering system, it adopted a similar setup to that of the Song Dynasty. More importantly, although both the Liao and Song dynasties used the Buddhist texts of 5048 volumes collected in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu as the basis for their Tripitaka, neither was satisfied with this. Instead, they continually added to it. The Song court continued to add scriptures to the Tripitaka until the end of the Northern Song, but fixed the package number at 515. On the other hand, the Liao court formed at least two versions of volume numbering systems in the Khitan Canon, including 505 and 579 packages, and ultimately settled on 579 packages. In terms of the content included in the two Tripitaka collections, the Song editors placed a strong emphasis on adding texts from Chan and Tiantai schools, while the Liao editors favored esoteric Buddhism, reflecting their differentiated development in Buddhism. Wang Yao proposed that the initiative to publish the Tripitaka in Khitan actually implied competition with the Song people. The Khitan Canon attempted to supplement the missing manuscripts in the Song edition in terms of content, with the collections of scriptures in the Zhenyuan Lu being the most significant (Y. Wang 1983, p. 10). Overall, the competition between the Song and Liao dynasties for the Tripitaka was intense, yet also contained strong similarities, and should be viewed as competition within the same framework.

With the rise of the Liao Dynasty, especially after the signing of the Treaty of Chanyuan, a dual-core structure of Liao and Song emerged in East Asia. Therefore, for the surrounding regimes as vassal states of the Liao, such as Goryeo and Western Xia, the Liao court had to adopt various rigid (political and military) and flexible (cultural and religious) strategies to consolidate its suzerain–vassal relationship with these regimes. Both Goryeo and Western Xia possessed considerable strength and repeatedly oscillated between the Song and Liao dynasties, necessitating special attention and efforts to win them over. Consequently, after the completion of the Khitan Canon, the Liao court also attached great importance to bestowing the Buddhist canon on regimes such as Goryeo and Western Xia, attempting to overshadow the influence of the Kaibao Canon of the Song in this regard and emphasizing the dominance of the Liao Empire in the East Asian order during that period. It should be noted that the Khitan Canon was still published in Chinese characters in Yanjing, the ruling center over the Central Plains for the Liao. In other words, the Liao court did not translate the entire Tripitaka into Khitan scripts, neither in so-called large nor small characters, and there are no reliable Khitan Buddhist scriptures extant. Therefore, the political expressions related to the Tripitaka by the Liao court were still primarily targeted at regimes within the Chinese character cultural sphere, presenting the situation of competition in the same language as the Kaibao Canon of the Song.

First, it is the case of Goryeo. According to Chen Junda’s research, “at the beginning of its establishment, Goryeo regarded the Khitan-established Liao regime as a ‘nation of birds and beasts’ and held an enmity attitude. Roughly after 1031, the Goryeo people’s view of the Liao changed, and they began to regard the Liao Dynasty as ‘orthodox’, accepting the reality that the Liao Dynasty was the suzerain state of Goryeo.” (J. Chen 2017, pp. 349–57). This change is clearly reflected in Goryeo’s acceptance of the Tripitaka granted by the Liao Dynasty. According to Goryeosa, on the third day of the third lunar month of the Guimao year, in the 17th year of the Munjong era (1063), the Khitan sent the Tripitaka to Goryeo. The (Goryeo) king prepared a ceremonial guard and went to the western suburbs to welcome it.” (Chŏng 2013, p. 225). Since the Xianyong edition of the Khitan Canon, including 579 packages, had not yet been completed at this time, the Tripitaka granted to Goryeo should be an earlier version of the Khitan Canon (possibly the Tonghe edition of the 505-package version, or the revised edition during the Chongxi era of the reign of Emperor Xingzong). However, judging from the record of the Goryeo king personally welcoming it at the western suburbs, it was clearly based on the previous reception specifications for the Tripitaka granted by the Song court. In this regard, both the Liao, which granted the Tripitaka, and Goryeo, which received it, deeply understood the political implications behind this event. That is to confirm the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Liao and Goryeo through the bestowal of the Tripitaka and related ceremonies. As previously mentioned, the Song court had already stopped bestowing Tripitaka to Goryeo at this time, and its original status had been replaced by the Liao Empire. In the 12th lunar month of the 8th year of the Hyeonjong era (1072), the Liao court “granted another Tripitaka to Goryeo” (Tuotuo 2016, p. 312). Given that the Xianyong edition of the Khitan Canon had been completely printed at this time, the Tripitaka granted to Goryeo should be this updated version.

According to Yang Weisheng’s research, in 1071, Goryeo sent envoys to the Song, restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries (Yang 1997, p. 31). Until 1116, Goryeo saw that the Liao had suffered repeated defeats in its wars with Jurchens and was continuously declining. Thus, it assessed the situation and stopped following the Liao’s calendar, abandoning the era title of Liao emperors. During the period between 1071 and 1116, although Goryeo recognized the Liao as its suzerain, adopted its era title, and maintained diplomatic relations with the Song at the same time.

In 1083, after a lapse of over 60 years, the Song court once again presented the Tripitaka to Goryeo. This time, Goryeo designated the prince to receive the Tripitaka presented by the Song (Chŏng 2013, p. 267). The most noteworthy point of this material is the identity of the person responsible for receiving the Tripitaka on behalf of Goryeo. As previously mentioned, during the ceremonies for the presentation of the Kaibao Canon during the reign of Emperor Taizong of Song and the presentation of the Khitan Canon during the reign of Emperor Daozong of Liao, the King of Goryeo personally welcomed the canons. The rank of protocol largely reflects Goryeo’s recognition of the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Song Dynasty and Goryeo, or between the Liao Dynasty and Goryeo. However, during the ceremony for the presentation of the Tripitaka by the Song court in 1083, Goryeo deliberately adjusted the rank of protocol for the reception. This change indicates, on one hand, that Goryeo still attached great importance to the bestowal by the Song court, sending the prince, a symbol of royal authority, to personally welcome it; but on the other hand, based on the principle that the king personally welcomes the Tripitaka, it means recognition of the identity of the suzerain state that bestows it, to avoid provoking the Liao court and leave the possibility for flexible interpretation that Goryeo recognized the suzerain–vassal relationship between Song and Goryeo, the host of the ceremony was downgraded to a certain extent, and the King did not personally welcome it.

In 1085, the envoys from the Goryeo came to pay tribute to the Song and requested to purchase a set of the Tripitaka and a copy of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Emperor Shenzong agreed to this request (T. Li 2004, p. 8671). In this case, the envoys from Goryeo did indeed request the Tripitaka from the Song, but the term used here was “beg for purchase 乞收買” rather than “beg for gift 乞賜”. The difference between “purchase” and “gift” is not just a distinction between paying money and obtaining it for free; more importantly, it reflects the positioning of the Song court for this request. If it were a gift, it would signify the Song’s recognition of its suzerain–vassal relationship. In other words, only vassal states of the Song, or those generally considered to have a clear tribute attitude, were eligible to receive the gift of the complete Tripitaka. However, under the circumstances at that time, Goryeo still followed the calendar of the Liao and maintained only a certain degree of diplomatic relations (not the suzerain–vassal relationship) with the Song Dynasty. Therefore, it was unable to enjoy the privilege of receiving the Tripitaka as a gift and could only purchase it.

The more dramatic competition between the Song and Liao dynasties occurred in 1086. At this time, Hwang Hu 王煦 (active in the late 11th Century), the fourth son of King Munjong of Goryeo, returned from the Song and offered 1000 volumes of Buddhist scriptures and sutras. He also requested the establishment of a management organization for Buddhist scripture collections at one royal temple and purchased up to 4000 volumes of books from the Liao and Song, all of which were published (See Chŏng 2013, pp. 2827–28). Hwang Hu, here, is the famous Goryeo monk Uicheon. According to the inscription materials, during Uicheon’s visit to the Song, Emperor Daozong of the Liao Dynasty in the north, hearing of his fame, sent over 6900 volumes of the Tripitaka and commentaries on various Buddhist sects, along with countless documents, medicines, and gold and silk (P.-s. Kim 2007, p. 171). From this perspective, Uicheon did not come to the Song to request the complete Tripitaka, but instead offered 1000 volumes of sutras. The Buddhist book collection organization he established at the royal temple, although it purchased 4000 volumes of Buddhist books from the Liao and Song dynasties, did not obtain a complete Tripitaka. The most puzzling aspect of this event was the unusually positive attitude of the Liao court toward it. Reasonably, Uicheon’s activity area was in the Song territory, which was not related to the Liao court. However, Emperor Daozong of the Liao Dynasty was extremely active in bestowing the entire Tripitaka and commentaries reflecting the development of Buddhism in the Liao on Uicheon. That was clearly not just out of personal care and respect for him because of his fame, but had political purposes behind it. Due to Uicheon’s special status as a prince, the reason why the Liao court urgently bestowed the entire Tripitaka on him was to clarify the suzerain–vassal relationship between the Liao and Goryeo, and to occupy a stronger position in the competition with the Song Dynasty. This event is also an important manifestation of the intensifying competition between the Song and Liao dynasties to export the Tripitaka to Goryeo.

The intense competition between the Song and Liao over the distribution of the Tripitaka reached its peak during the Yuanfu era of the Zhezong reign (1098–1100) of Song, or the final years of the Daozong reign of Liao. According to Goryeosa, in 1099, the Liao court dispatched an envoy named Xiao Lang to Goryeo to present the Tripitaka (Chŏng 2013, p. 317). Meanwhile, during the Xuanhe era of the Huizong reign of the Song Dynasty (1119–1125), Xu Jing 徐競 (1091–1153), who was sent to Goryeo, recorded: “the Heungwang Temple is located to the southeast of the capital, about two miles from the Changba Gate. It faces a stream and is extremely large in scale. Inside the temple are the lacquer Buddha statues bestowed during the Yuanfeng era, as well as the Tripitaka presented during the Yuanfu era (1098–1100).” (J. Xu 2021, p. 136). If Xu Jing’s record here is accurate and he did not mistakenly identify the Khitan Canon as the Tripitaka of Song, then both sides presented their respective versions of the Tripitaka to Goryeo in almost the same year.

By the end of the Liao Dynasty, Goryeo still followed the Liao’s calendar and used its era title (before 1116); the Liao court had not ceased bestowing the Tripitaka on Goryeo. According to Goryeosa, in the first lunar month of the second year of Yejong (1107), “the Liao sent Gao Cunsou 高存壽 (active in the early 12th Century) to congratulate on the king’s birthday and still (ren 仍 in Chinese) presented the Tripitaka” (Chŏng 2013, p. 356). The word “still (ren)” in this historical record reflects the continuity and consistency of this political and religious practice. According to Samguk yusa 三國遺事 (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms), during King Yejong’s reign in Goryeo (from 1105 to 1122), one royal master was ordered to study in China and purchased three Tripitakas from the Liao to bring back. These three Tripitaka scriptures were stored in three different temples (Iryŏn 2003, p. 134). During this period, as the Liao Empire was on the verge of decline, Goryeo’s acquisition of Tripitaka from the Liao was no longer limited to bestowal, but also adopted the direct purchase method.

Wang Depeng 王德朋 believes that, although Buddhism had established its position in the early and middle period of the Liao Dynasty, it was not until the reign of Emperor Daozong that it flourished greatly. Especially after the complete printing of the Khitan Canon in 1068, Emperor Daozong presented the Tripitaka to Goryeo as a gesture of “the cultural cultivation, elegance, and politeness of Liao are no different from Chinese”. In a certain sense, it was precisely due to the synchronization and resonance of the flourishing times of Buddhism in both the Liao and Goryeo that the situation of the Tripitaka frequently being presented from the Liao to Goryeo was ultimately formed (Depeng Wang 2023, p. 109). In my opinion, several details in the process of the Liao’s presenting the Tripitaka and Goryeo’s receiving it reveal that this activity related to the Tripitaka has far exceeded its original religious attributes and has become an important political expression. The Liao’s continuous presentation of the Tripitaka, even proactively presenting it without Goryeo’s request in the case of Uicheon, was not due to generosity, but rather a desire to establish and consolidate its suzerain status over Goryeo through this measure. For Goryeo, accepting the presentation of the Tripitaka from both the Song and Liao simultaneously was a concrete manifestation of its dual-headed diplomatic strategy. Moreover, during the powerful Liao, the rank of accepting the Tripitaka presented by the Song was lowered (the prince, rather than the king, personally welcomed it, while the king personally welcomed the Tripitaka presented by the Liao). When the situation reversed at the end of the Liao Dynasty, Goryeo switched from accepting the Tripitaka presented to purchasing it from them, all of which were the result of dynamic changes in the political situation among the Liao, Song, and Goryeo. The presentation, purchase, and acceptance of the Tripitaka became concrete manifestations of political interaction among the three parties. It should be clarified that presenting the Tripitaka was not the only way for the northern dynasties to confirm their suzerain status over Goryeo. Based on current materials, there is no clear evidence that the Jin Dynasty, which also held suzerain status, systematically presented the “Jin Tripitaka” to Goryeo.

Regarding the transmission of the Khitan Canon into the Western Xia, there is relatively little extant evidence, and it is far less systematic than the materials from Goryeo. It can be roughly divided into two aspects: descriptive records and physical material remains.

In terms of descriptive records, the most significant historical material is the vow text of the “Thousand Buddha Names Sutra of the Past Solemn Calamity 過去莊嚴劫千佛名經” in the Tangut script. According to its records, in the year of Wuyin 戊寅, the royal master Bai Faxin and the officer Zhiguang, along with 30 other leaders, were tasked with translating Buddhist scriptures into the Tangut language. By the first year of Min’an 民安, they had spent 53 years translating the Buddhist sutras of Mahayana and Hinayana, etc., and biographies of eminent monks, resulting in a total of 362 packages, 812 units, and 3579 volumes. Later, under the imperial decree of the so-called “Hucheng 護城 Emperor”, they re-collected the southern and northern scriptures, which led to the prosperity of Buddhism in the Western Xia territory, allowing the wisdom of Buddhism to shine upon the world, and the Dharma to permeate the entire land (Shi 1993, p. 291).

The term “Hucheng Emperor” referred to here was a posthumous title given to Emperor Renxiao 仁孝 of the Western Xia. Shi Jinbo, Chen Aifeng, and Yang Fuxue all believe that the so-called “southern scripture” in the text refers to the Kaibao Canon, while the “northern scripture” should be the Khitan Canon (Shi 1993, p. 70; Chen and Yang 2006, p. 32). Wang Depeng further points out that the translation of Buddhist scriptures in Western Xia needs to be collated with the “northern scripture” (the Khitan Canon), indicating that it had already flowed into Western Xia at this time (Depeng Wang 2023, p. 108).

Another record detailing the collation of Buddhist scriptures by the Western Xia people is the translation collation note at the end of the Tangut language Karunika-rāja Prajñāpāramitā sūtra (инв. No. 683 in the Russian collection of manuscripts discovered in Harahot), which was printed with the sponsorship of Empress Dowager Luo in the first year of the Tianqing 天啓 (1194) of the Western Xia (Nie 2010, pp. 44–49). It details the situation where Empress Dowager Luo, the mother of King Huanzong (1177–1206, r. 1193–1206) of the Western Xia, vowed to organize the translation of “commentary” type classics and the re-collation of scriptures. A significant principle for historical research is that a single evidence is not sufficient. In this record, we once again see the usage of both “the southern and northern scriptures”. The Zhaocheng Jin Canon was completed in 1173. However, this large collection of Buddhist scriptures is a reprint of the Kaibao Canon, which does not have much collation value. Moreover, there is no clear record of the Jin court bestowing the Western Xia a complete printed copy of the Tripitaka from the Jin Dynasty. Hence, the possibility that the so-called “northern scripture” here refers to the Zhaocheng Jin Canon is almost non-existent. Therefore, it can be judged that the “northern scripture” here still refers to the Khitan Canon. The Western Xia once imported the complete Khitan Canon and used it together with the Kaibao Canon as an important basis for its domestic Buddhist scripture collation activities.

In terms of physical material remains, according to the research by Chikusa Masaaki 竺沙雅章 (1930–2015), Vol. 40 of the Buddhāvatamsaka-mahāvaipulya-sūtra (TK88) included in the Russian Collection of Khara Khoto Documents is a printed edition in 1094, and it is highly likely to be a reprint of the Khitan Canon. In addition, there are some incomplete volumes of the Khitan Canon among the Khara Khoto Documents, such as TK274 and φ123A, as detailed in Chikusa Masaaki’s article (Chikusa 2007, pp. 141–47). Furthermore, some Buddhist manuscripts unearthed in Khara Khoto are also closely related to the Khitan Canon. The original texts they are based on should be the Khitan Canon or single-volume scriptures published based on it (Xu Zhang 2023, pp. 98–106). From this perspective, the Khitan Canon was once introduced in its entirety into the Western Xia regime, and it not only had an impact on the capital city of Xingqing Prefecture (nowadays Yinchuan), but also on a single unit or some volumes that were sent to Khara Khoto, a strategic place on the northern border of Western Xia.

In addition, according to existing physical materials, the Khitan Canon was also introduced to the Western Regions, such as the Gaochang Uighur regime. The relationship between the Liao and the Uighur was very close. According to the biography of Shulv Ping 述律平 (879–953) in the Liao shi, her ancestor was a Uighur person, and she was born in the Khitan Right Great Tribe (Tuotuo 2016, p. 1319). This shows that the empress clan of the Khitan had a close kinship with the Uighur. In terms of Buddhism, in the early 20th century, fragments of the Khitan version of the Tripitaka were discovered in the former homeland of the Uighur in Xizhou Prefecture, which is located in nowadays Xinjiang (Matsui 2018, pp. 11–19). In recent years, many Buddhist texts from Turpan have been identified as belonging to the Khitan Canon (Kitsudō 2024, pp. 109–18). These discoveries confirm that not only did the Han people in the Central Plains read and chant the Khitan Canon, but the Uighur people also used it. According to Koichi Kitsudo, “as a gift given by the Khitan people, the Khitan Canon must be regarded as a national treasure in the Gaochang Uighur Kingdom, and ordinary monks are unable to access it. As we can see, Turpan introduced at least two sets of the Khitan Canon. It is likely that one of them was not a complete set, but a single volume.” (Kitsudō 2024, p. 115). Regarding the time of introduction of the Khitan Canon, current materials provide few accurate clues. Based on the interpretation of the fragments of the scripture of “Luofuna’s rescue pediatric diseases” collected by the Turpan Museum by Wu Hailong 武海龍 and Peng Jie 彭傑, it is believed that the upper limit of the introduction time of the Khitan Canon in Turpan should be between the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century, with the lower limit being at the end of the 12th century (Wu and Peng 2019, pp. 90–97). From this perspective, as a member of the tributary system of the Liao Dynasty, the Gaochang Uighur Kingdom was likely to have received the complete Khitan Canon as a gift, following the case of how the Liao court treated Goryeo and Western Xia. However, it should be noted that the Gaochang Uighur Kingdom should have received the Kaibao Canon granted by the Song earlier. Therefore, similar to Goryeo, which is far away in the East, Gaochang, located between the Song and Liao, was also one of the focal points of cultural competition on the bestowal of the Tripitaka of both sides.

Due to the fact that the records in the Liao shi are far less detailed than those in materials such as Changbian and Song shi, and there may be many omissions, coupled with the absence of complete historical materials compiled by the Western Xia and Western Regions themselves, such as the Goryeosa in Korea peninsula, we can only conclude from the current materials that some parts of the Khitan Canon did indeed spread to the Western Xia and Western Regions, and there may have been an overall import of the entire canon (the so-called “northern scriptures” as mentioned in the vow text of the “Thousand Buddha Names Sutra of the Past Solemn Calamity”). However, the details of its competition with the Song are unknown. From the general perspective, the Song’s Kaibao Canon should have dominated the Western Xia and Western Regions before the late 11th century due to its earlier completion and publication; the Liao’s Khitan Canon entered these regions later, towards the end of the 11th century or even the beginning of the 12th century, thus always being at a disadvantage in this competition in the same language. What is more noteworthy is that at this time, the Western Xia regime, as well as Goryeo, which had already initiated the engraving project of the Goryeo Canon after being invaded by the Liao, were already on the path of independently building their own printed Tripitaka.

4. Independently Established Tripitaka by Goryeo and Western Xia and Their Domestic Utilization Limitations Before the 14th Century

“Many scholars consider the role of Goryeo Canon in terms of the paradigm of ‘Buddhism for nation protection’ (hoguk bulgyo 護國佛敎) and believe that the canon functioned as a tool of state protection in Goryeo history.” (Wu and Chia 2016 p. 250). Specifically, Goryeo’s first inscription of the Tripitaka was linked to the three wars in which the Khitan invaded Goryeo. Tongguk Yi Sang-guk chip 東國李相國集 (The Collection of Prime Minister Lee of the Eastern Kingdom) records the reasons why Goryeo’s King Hyeonjong printed the Goryeo Canon.

In the second year of the Hyeonjong era (1011), the Khitan army launched a large-scale invasion. King Hyeonjong fled south for safety, but the Khitan troops remained stationed in Kaesong City without retreating. Consequently, (King Hyeonjong) made a supreme vow with his ministers, vowing to establish the engraved edition of the Tripitaka, after which the Khitan army would spontaneously retreat (Yi 1958, p. 19b).

Absolutely, the engraving of the Buddhist Tripitaka itself probably did not possess the divine power to force the Liao army to spontaneously retreat. However, judging from the motivation behind Goryeo’s engraving of the Tripitaka, it was inherently independent from the beginning. That is, through the activity of engraving the Tripitaka on its own, Goryeo sought to break away from its dependence on external forces for the Tripitaka.

In 1029, the first edition of the Goryeo Canon, which Goryeo had devoted its national resources to engraving, was initially completed. Later generations referred to this edition as the First Engraved Goryeo Canon7. Uicheon once explicitly stated in a memorial: “King Hyeonjong carved five thousand volumes of the secret Tripitaka” (P.-s. Kim 2007, p. 59). Ono Genmyō also claims that “the incomplete collection of the Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra in the first engraved edition of the Tripitaka of the Southern Zen Temple that I recently discovered is a reprint of the official edition of the Buddhist canon of the Northern Song. Not only are the number of characters, the number of lines, and the height of the printing block identical, but the styles of the characters are also similar.” (Ono 1983, p. 650). According to the previous discussion, at this time, the Khitan Canon had not yet been completed, and the Kaibao Canon still held a monopoly on the printed Tripitaka in East Asia. Therefore, there is no doubt that the original edition of the Goryeo Canon should be based on the Kaibao Canon; its engraving form, as well as basic characteristics such as the number of characters per line, the number of lines, and the height of the printing block, all follow the Kaibao Canon, reflecting a feature of closely following in its footsteps. It did not follow a different path like the Khitan Canon and adopt a different system of character count, line count, and volume numbering. Therefore, although the engraving of the First Engraved Goryeo Canon broke the monopoly of the Kaibao Canon earlier than the Khitan Canon (even the earlier completed Tonghe edition), it did not aim to compete with it in East Asia and form a separate international system of the Tripitaka.

The Song court bestowed the Buddhist canon on Goryeo, primarily during the reign of Emperor Taizong, and also once in the third year of the Tianxi era of Emperor Zhenzong (1019). From the time span of these behaviors, all occurred before the completion of the First Engraved Goryeo Canon. In fact, between the complete breakdown of Song–Goryeo relations (1030) as recorded in existing historical materials and the first time the Liao court bestowed the Tripitaka on Goryeo in 1063, there was a gap of more than thirty years. It was during this period that Goryeo, based on the First Engraved Goryeo Canon, initiated a continuous supplement work, increasing the total number of Buddhist scriptures included in the Goryeo Tripitaka to 1405 volumes and 570 packages, exceeding the number of packages of the Kaiyuan shijiao lu and the initial version of the Kaibao Canon by 18.75%, with the thousand-character text numbers extending to the character “Geng 更”. This supplement work was completed around the 1080s.8 Until this period, the number of volumes of the Goryeo Canon not only surpassed that of the Kaibao Canon marked with the thousand-character numbering system (515 packages), but even approached the scale of the Xianyong edition of the Khitan Canon, which had 579 packages.

During the preparation and implementation stages of the Supplementary Goryeo Canon, a pivotal figure was Uicheon, a high-ranking monk from Goryeo who held the status of a prince and was respected by both the Song and Liao. He recognized that while the First Engraved Goryeo Canon already possessed complete sutras and abhidharmas, the annotations were lacking. He aspired to reference ancient and current texts, integrating the teachings of various sects from both the Liao and Song, and compile them into a single Tripitaka for circulation (P.-s. Kim 2007, p. 57; H. Zhang 2009, p. 42). Uicheon was dedicated to this program and finally compiled the newly revised general catalogue of the Tripitaka of various sects in three volumes after two decades of effort, encompassing 1010 units and over 4700 volumes (P.-s. Kim 2007, p. 169). Based on the above materials, the newly collected texts by Uicheon were to encompass both the Liao and Song, integrating the latest Buddhist annotations and commentaries from both sides. The specific location for the engraving and printing of the Supplementary Goryeo Canon was a royal temple, Heungwang Temple, located in the capital of Goryeo. In 1067, after twelve years of work, the hall to deposit the woodblocks and the completed Goryeo Canon at Heungwang Temple was finished (Y. Kim 2002, pp. 47–77).

According to Xu Jing’s records, the Heungwang Temple stored the Tripitaka granted during the Yuanfu era of the Northern Song (J. Xu 2021, p. 136). To take this important national temple as the site for engraving the Revised Goryeo Canon was similar to the Taiping Xingguo Temple in the Song Dynasty, which was responsible for printing Buddhist scriptures, and the Hongfa Temple in the Liao Dynasty, which was responsible for engraving and printing Buddhist scriptures. At Uicheon’s request, King Munjong also specially organized the Tripitaka Supervising Office (Gyojangdogam 教藏都監) in the Heungwang Temple to oversee the engraving and printing of the Supplementary Goryeo Canon.

According to the Goryeosa, “on the Jiawu day (in the second lunar month of the fourth year of King Seonjong [1087]), the king visited the Kaeguksa Temple to celebrate the completion of the engraving of the Tripitaka.” (Chŏng 2013, p. 279). “On the Jiwo day (in the third lunar month), the King of Goryeo arrived at the Heungwang Temple to celebrate the completion of the Great Tripitaka Hall.” (Chŏng 2013, p. 280). Based on these records, the Supplementary Goryeo Canon should have been fully completed in 1087, and several grand celebratory ceremonies were held, covering major temples within the capital city. The storage location for the Tripitaka blocks should have been the newly completed Great Tripitaka Hall at Heungwang Temple. Thus, Goryeo’s independent work on compiling the Tripitaka was officially declared complete.

In 1231, the Mongols invaded Goryeo on a large scale, and the blocks of the Supplementary Goryeo Canon were destroyed in a fire. That year, the ruler of Goryeo moved the capital to Ganghwa Island to avoid the enemy’s onslaught. At this critical moment for the country, the Goryeo ruling class once again turned to enable Buddhism to fulfill its role in protecting the country. Therefore, the program to re-establish the Tripitaka restarted from 1236, and the carving process began in 1247 and was completed in 1251 (Wu and Chia 2016 p. 254). More than 80,000 scripture boards of this Re-engraved Goryeo Canon are preserved intact at Haein Temple 海印寺 in Mount Gaya of South Korea. There has been much research published on this Tripitaka, which will not be elaborated here.9 However, according to Yu Pu-hyŏn’s research on the original version of the Goryeo Canon, during the collation process, the Re-engraved Goryeo Canon was revised based on the Khitan Canon, or in the absence of an engraved Song edition, its additions were made based on the Khitan Canon (Yu 2008, pp. 409–42). Therefore, in the formation of the Goryeo Canon, although the Kaibao Canon of the Song played a dominant role, the role of the Khitan Canon cannot be ignored.

Zhang Hongwei pointed out, “the Buddhist and publishing exchanges between China and the Korean Peninsula were not just a one-way export from China to the Korean Peninsula, but a two-way interaction.” (H. Zhang 2009, p. 46). However, after the completion of the Goryeo Canon, neither the first engraved version, the revised version, nor the re-engraved version was ever imported back into China in reverse as a complete unit. In the winter of 1314, at the king’s order, a son-in-law of the King of Goryeo sent envoys to repair the Huiyin Temple while supervising the printing of fifty units of the Tripitaka in Hangzhou, which were then distributed to famous temples in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, such as the Shangtianzhu Temple, Xiatianzhu Temple, and Jiqing Temple in Hangzhou (Z. Li 1881, p. 9a). Although the printing project was funded by the Goryeo people, it was completed in Hangzhou. Therefore, the entire set of Tripitaka printed should not be considered as the Goryeo Canon, but rather the locally carved Tripitaka from China, most likely the Puning Canon completed in the early Yuan Dynasty in the Hangzhou area. In summary, this case does not prove the reverse import of the Goryeo Canon into China as a complete unit. It should be noted that Japan and Ryukyu did indeed obtain a completely re-engraved Goryeo Canon. However, it happened after the 14th century and not in the form of official bestowal and acceptance. From the existing materials, Ryukyu once requested the entire Tripitaka from the Joseon Dynasty to pray for national security. This research may reflect an effort to construct its own smaller regional order centered on Korea. However, from its geographical scope of transmission, it cannot be compared to the Song and Liao dynasties (Baba 2014, pp. 195–238; Yokouchi 2022).

From this perspective, the bestowal of Tripitaka was not solely related to the possession of complete and independent Tripitaka printing blocks, but rather concerns the suzerain power of countries in the political structure of East Asian. Therefore, both the Liao and Song had the authority to distribute Tripitaka to other countries and regimes after completing their own printed Tripitaka because of their suzerainty status; Goryeo, which had independent Tripitaka printing blocks but was in a tributary state, did not have this authority.

Overall, although the Goryeo regime adhered to the concept of “subservience to the great power” towards the Song and Liao, it was dissatisfied with external bestowals regarding the Tripitaka. Instead, based on the reference to the Kaibao Canon, it independently established the Tripitaka several times in 1029, 1087, and 1247, taking it as an important cultural project and a significant political expression. In terms of the publication of the Tripitaka in the Song, Liao, and Goryeo regimes, although it was a product of competition and rivalry among regimes, it never deviated from the core subject of Chinese character culture, reflecting the strong cohesion and influence of Chinese civilization.

Compared to Goryeo, which independently published the Chinese Tripitaka, the Western Xia regime took a different approach. After successively importing the Kaibao Canon and the Khitan Canon, they did not reprint a new Chinese Tripitaka. Instead, based on decades of translating Chinese Buddhist scriptures into Tangut scriptures, they ultimately formed a Tripitaka in Tangut script with over 3500 volumes. The incomplete Tripitaka in Tangut script currently seen was published during the Yuan Dynasty. However, according to the evidence presented by numerous historical materials, the Tripitaka in Tangut script should have been initially formed during the Western Xia period and bestowed upon various temples, but it was likely that the complete Tripitaka was still in manuscript form. The total number of volumes in the Tripitaka of Tangut script was significantly fewer than those in the Kaibao Canon and the Khitan Canon. Apart from factors such as possible incomplete translations, this situation may also be related to the Western Xia’s own selection of scriptures without translating commentaries and annotations.10 From this perspective, the compilation logic of the Tripitaka in Tangut script broke away from the model of competition in the same language among the Liao, Song, and Goryeo from the very beginning, exhibiting a certain degree of independence.

In terms of the package numbering system, although it adhered to the thousand-character tradition that has been established since the mid-Tang Dynasty for the Buddhist canons in the Han-Chinese area (Fang 2006, pp. 23–24), it does not adopt the “Thousand-Character” system in Chinese (the Northern Song, Liao, and Goryeo all used this numbering system for their Tripitaka in Chinese, with only some specific differences). Instead, it adopts the “Thousand-Character” system originally created by the Western Xia.11 According to the analysis conducted by Sun Bojun 孫伯君 based on the research of previous scholars, the Tangut script “Thousand Characters” also starts from the creation of the world, which is very similar to the content of the Chinese script “Thousand Characters”. However, its exposition of the origin and development of the universe and the nation, as well as the praise of ancestors for expanding territories and making achievements, also has obvious characteristics of its own, reflecting considerable cultural autonomy (B. Sun 2020, p. 78).

In the vow text of the “Thousand Buddha Names Sutra of the Past Solemn Calamity”, it is clearly stated that the initiation of the translation project of Tangut Buddhist scriptures took place during the reign of the so-called “Emperor of the Wind in the Xia Dynasty”, with the specific time being in the “Year of Wuyin”. According to Shi Jinbo’s convincing research, the “Emperor of the Wind in the Xia Dynasty” referred to here should be Yuanhao, the founding monarch of the Western Xia; and the “Year of Wuyin” was the first year of the Tianshou lifa yanzuo 天授禮法延祚 era (1038) (Shi 1993, p. 291). This vast and complex scripture translation project, which began in 1038 and ended in the first year of the Min’an era of the Western Xia (1090), took 53 years to complete. From the time node of the initiation of the scripture translation project, it was evident that the commencement of this project carries significant political implications. It occurred in the same year as the establishment of the regime, which can be seen as part of a series of political expressions of Western Xia’s independent country, competing with the Song and Liao dynasties.

The situation after the Qingli Treaty indicated that the Song court granted the Tripitaka to the Western Xia at least four times after it once again paid tribute to the Song. However, this practice ceased only during the reign of Emperor Shenzong, when relations between the Song and Western Xia deteriorated. If we do not understand these actions from the perspective of hindsight and return to the context when Yuanhao initiated the translation project, his original intention was likely to completely decouple from the Tripitaka granted by the Song court by constructing his own Tangut Canon. Once this project was initiated, it did not stop despite the Western Xia paying tribute to the Song again several years later. During the last request for Buddhist scriptures during the Bingchang period, the Song court had already shown obvious distrust towards the Western Xia. Afterwards, the Western Xia no longer requested Buddhist scriptures from the Song, and the Tangut Canon was initially completed after more than ten years. As for its full completion, it is possible to be as late as the early 13th century, the end of the Western Xia regime (For details, see B. Sun 2020, pp. 74–85).

Based on current historical materials, we can confirm that the Tripitaka in the Tangut script was completed during the existence of the Western Xia regime. Additionally, a large number of single-volume Buddhist scriptures in the Tangut script have been discovered among the excavated documents. However, in the absence of direct evidence, we cannot determine whether a complete Tripitaka in the Tangut script was already completed during the existence of the Western Xia regime. As for whether the Western Xia had independently carved and printed the Tripitaka in Chinese, Shi Jinbo held a positive attitude and claimed that we can refer to it as the Western Xia Canon of the Fozu Monastery in the Helan Mountain (Shi 1993, pp. 83–84). Li Jining conducted a detailed analysis of the materials and theoretical foundations used by Shi Jinbo and added several important materials, convincingly refuting the so-called “Western Xia Canon in Chinese”. He believes that Li Huiyue 李慧月, who printed the Tripitaka, was a Western Xia descendant in the Yuan Dynasty, and the Buddhist scriptures she sponsored for printing originated in the Hangzhou area, with a significant portion being the Puning Canon (J. Li 2001, pp. 139–54).

Dramatically, the printing of the complete Tripitaka in the Tangut script, as evidenced by extant historical materials, was not carried out in the Tangut homeland but in Hangzhou, thousands of miles away. In the vows written in the Tangut script for the “Thousand Buddha Names Sutra of the Past Solemn Calamity” in 1312, the three times of printing of the Tripitaka during the reigns of Emperor Chengzong (1265–1307, r. 1294–1307) to Emperor Renzong (1285–1320, r. 1311–1320) were recorded in detail. According to the records in Volume 3 of Dazong dixuan wenben lun, 大宗地玄文本論, published by the Qisha Yansheng Temple in Pingjiang during the Yuan Dynasty and stored in Japan, the Tripitaka in the Tangut script during the Yuan Dynasty totaled over 3620 volumes, 41 volumes more than the 3579 volumes translated during King Chongzong’s reign (1083–1139, r. 1086–1139), likely due to additions in later periods (Shi 1993, pp. 182–83). Based on the current evidence, the completion of the Tripitaka in the Tangut script was not during the existence of the Tangut regime, nor was the location of its engraving and printing within its territory. In other words, the Tripitaka in the Tangut script was only engraved, printed, and disseminated in areas outside its territory after the collapse of the independent regime.

In summary, unlike the Song and Liao Empires, the Western Xia, due to its limited influence in East Asia, had neither the intention nor the practice of bestowing the Tangut Canon on neighboring regimes. Therefore, its influence did not extend beyond its political boundaries during the Western Xia regime. Instead, after the collapse of its regime, the Tangut Canon broke out of its original political boundaries, was printed in Hangzhou, the core area of Chinese culture, and then spread to the Central Plains area. In some sense, it provided a precedent for the engraving of Tripitaka in ethnic scripts such as Mongolian and Manchu.

5. Conclusions

From the perspective of the development of Buddhism, its classical system had already undergone four compilations in ancient India and Central Asia before its introduction into China. However, the emergence of the so-called Tripitaka was a product of its entry into China. In the High Tang period, the compilation and reproduction of the Tripitaka (or “All Sutras” in early expressions) had evolved from individual actions during the Southern and Northern Dynasties to an officially supported and even dominant imperial activity. From the Kaiyuan era onwards, Emperor Xuanzong directly and effectively intervened in the inclusion of some Buddhist scriptures in the Tripitaka. Even the scriptures translated by monks had to be approved by the imperial court before being included in the Tripitaka. In Fang Guangcang’s view, “the imperial intervention in the Tripitaka is actually a kind of directional guidance from the political power to the theocracy. In order to maintain their long-term rule, Chinese rulers would never support the rise of an independent religious force, and they would definitely incorporate it into their own ruling system and bring it under their control.” “The intervention of emperors in the composition and content of the Tripitaka is unimaginable in India, and there was no such phenomenon in China before, but it became a routine after the Kaiyuan era. Therefore, with Emperor Xuanzong’s reign as a turning point, we should pay more attention to the rise and fall of imperial power and Buddhist theocracy (Fang 2006, p. 23).”

In the Northern Song, Buddhism had become a crucial medium for cultural exchange, cultural recognition, and peaceful diplomacy between the Central Plains dynasties and their neighboring countries. At this time, China had become the new center of Mahayana Buddhism and the second homeland of Buddhism.12 However, in East Asia at that time, the Northern Song was not the only center. In the repeated tug-of-war between the Song and Liao, especially after the establishment of their equal status in the Treaty of Chanyuan, East Asia was dominated by these two empires, resulting in a situation of “two-star co-shining”. The Song court had economic and cultural advantages, and the Liao dynasty had greater influence in the political and military fields. In this context, the establishment and distribution of the Tripitaka with strong political attributes became an important means of competition between the two sides. Specifically, the Song court completed the Kaibao Canon in 983, maintaining a monopoly on the printed Tripitaka from the end of the 10th century to the early 11th century, and taking it as an important way to establish and consolidate its suzerain–vassal relations with neighboring regimes. After the mid-11th century, with the establishment of the Khitan Canon, the rivalry and relative competition between the Liao and Song in the East Asian region extended to the field of engraving and distributing the Tripitaka. In particular, Goryeo in the east, Western Xia and Gaochang Uighur in the northwest became the competition between the Song and Liao. It should be noted that the distribution and acceptance of the Tripitaka was a confirmation of the suzerain–vassal relationship. Therefore, the Song and Liao, which had already established equally bilateral relations, or the Song Dynasty and Japan, which had not established formal diplomatic relations, did not have the logical basis for distributing and accepting the entire printed Tripitaka. Absolutely, there were exceptions to this general principled framework. For instance, Goryeo, under pressure from the Liao Empire, temporarily stopped requesting the Tripitaka from the Song court between 1030 and 1070, or intentionally lowered the rank of the ceremony for accepting the Tripitaka from the Song during a later period. Another case was the ambiguous attitude and misjudgments of the Early Northern Song towards Japan, which were also important reasons for Emperor Taizong to exceptionally grant the entire Tripitaka to Japan. It is significant that Goryeo and the Western Xia opened up the so-called “third path” to create their own Tripitaka, in addition to accepting the Tripitaka from the Liao and Song. The difference between the two cases is that Goryeo’s Tripitaka was mainly based on the Kaibao Canon and combined with the Khitan Canon for collation, still belonging to the same cultural circle of Chinese characters; the Tripitaka of the Western Xia was established in a different way, attempting to complete the Tangut Canon with its distinct ethnic and cultural attributes through translation. However, because of the status of Goryeo and the Western Xia in the multilateral political landscape of East Asia at that time, neither could achieve the status of a suzerain country. Therefore, after the completion of their independently established Tripitaka, they did not distribute it to neighboring regimes outside their borders, which was fundamentally different from the international Tripitaka of the Kaibao Canon and the Khitan Canon.

It should be noted that I did not involve the Fuzhou Canon. By the thirteenth century, canons such as the Fuzhou Edition had already appeared and were disseminated overseas. However, in my opinion, the nature of the Fuzhou edition is very different from the Kaibao, Khitan, and Goryeo Canons that I focused on discussing in this article, and it still belongs to unofficial editions of the Tripitaka. Therefore, the dissemination of the Fuzhou Canon may obtain some official support, but it cannot be regarded as a highly political action. Due to limitations in theme and length of this paper, I did not discuss the dissemination of these canons.

From this perspective, the issue of the bestowal and acceptance of the Tripitaka has become one of the important forms of interaction among East Asian regimes from the 10th to the 13th century. The cross-linguistic and multi-version dissemination and replication of the Tripitaka in East Asia are not only the product of interactions among regimes, but also historical testimony and a precious heritage of mutual cultural learning between ancient India, China, the Korean Peninsula, and Vietnam.