Religious Governance and Canon Compilation: The Inclusion of the Fozu Tongji in the Ming Buddhist Canon

Abstract

The Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 (Comprehensive Records of the Buddha and Patriarchs), compiled by the Tiantai monk Zhipan 志磐 during the Song dynasty, is a seminal work in the history of historiography. This article focuses on its inclusion process during the Ming dynasty, revealing the interplay between textual transmission and political power. Through primary source analysis and textual criticism, this article examines how the Fozu tongji became included in Ming court editions of the Buddhist Canon. Two main conclusions emerge: First, the Fozu tongji—a text documenting the history of the Tiantai school—was formally included through advocacy by Puqia 溥洽 of the seng lu si 僧錄司 (Buddhist Registry Office), signifying the imperial rulers’ recognition of the Tiantai school. Second, to align with state ideology, all prophecy-related content was systematically eliminated from the original text. This case study provides a window into practices of religious governance in the early Ming Dynasty. Furthermore, it enriches the scholarly understanding of the dissemination history of the Fozu tongji and also provides broader insights on the inclusion of Buddhist texts. While inclusion in the canon elevated the Fozu tongji’s influence, the text was altered under the ideological “purification” imposed by the state.

1. Introduction

The Fozu tongji, compiled by Zhipan, a monk of the Tiantai school during the Song dynasty, is a Buddhist historical text written in the ji zhuan style 紀傳體 (Biographical Historical Style). It chronicles the history of Buddhism from the times of the Buddha to the Song dynasty, making it a critical primary source for the study of Chinese Buddhist history. The Fozu tongji traces a lineage of transmission from the Buddha Śākyamuni through Indian patriarchs to the patriarchs of the Tiantai school in China. From the perspective of religious history, the text established the legitimacy of the Tiantai school and served as a strategic response to the Chan challenge. Consequently, it became a work of singular importance for Tiantai monks during the Song Dynasty and beyond.

Notable studies on the Fozu tongji include those by Chen Yuan, Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, Jan Yun-hua, and others. Chen Yuan and Jan Yun-hua conducted in-depth research on the life of Zhipan and the compilation process of the Fozu tongji during the Song Dynasty. Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer pointed out that the compilation of the Fozu tongji represented the Tiantai School monks’ attempt to construct their own sectarian history.1 The section titled Fayun tongse zhi 法運通塞志 (Records of the Propagation of Dharma) has been translated into English on multiple occasions.2

This article aims to build upon existing scholarship of the Fozu tongji by focusing attention on its publication history. In particular, I highlight the process of its inclusion in the Ming court editions of the Buddhist Canon.

The process of ru zang 入藏 (inclusion in the canon) played a crucial role in the dissemination of Buddhist texts in ancient China. Inclusion not only signified official recognition of the text but also enhanced its influence and expanded its circulation.3 Additionally, this case study of the Fozu tongji offers insight into religious governance in the early Ming Dynasty.

Li Fuhua and He Mei (Li and He 2003, pp. 375–464) noted that the Fozu tongji was first included in the First Edition of the Southern Canon and later in the Yongle Southern Canon. However, when Zhu Di 朱棣 ordered the publication of the Yongle Northern Canon, the Fozu tongji was excluded.

Aitani Yoshimitsu (Yoshimitsu 2009, pp. 43–66) analyzed why the Fozu tongji was excluded from the Yongle Northern Canon. He argued that Puqia 溥洽, who edited the version of the Fozu tongji contained in the First Edition of the Southern Canon, had assisted the Jianwen Emperor 建文帝 (personal name Zhu Yunwen 朱允炆) in his escape. This political event eventually led to Puqia’s imprisonment by Zhu Di, and may have been the reason the Fozu tongji was not included in the newly published Yongle Northern Canon. Ding Yuan (Ding 2024, pp. 11–20) holds the same view.

The three aforementioned scholars have conducted profound explorations into the publication history of the Fozu tongji, laying a significant foundation for this field of study. However, when viewed through the lens of contemporary academia, there may still be certain aspects that warrant further enrichment and discussion. This article aims to build upon their work by offering supplementary insights.

Firstly, previous studies on the inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canons have been insufficiently comprehensive, failing to thoroughly analyze the original source of the First Edition of the Southern Canon version of the Fozu tongji. Secondly, prior analyses of why the Yongle Northern Canon excluded the Fozu tongji contain errors. The Jianwen Emperor’s purported escape is a later invention rather than a historical fact. Thirdly, previous research has overlooked textual changes in the Fozu tongji following its inclusion in the canon. After its inclusion in the Canon, the text of the Fozu tongji underwent textual alterations.

This article further explores the inclusion process of the Fozu tongji during the Ming dynasty. The main body of the article is organized into four sections: The first section analyzes the original source of the First Edition of the Southern Canon version of the Fozu tongji. The second section examines the relationship between the inclusion of the Fozu tongji and Puqia. The third section responds to an erroneous view of Aitani Yoshimitsu and Ding Yuan. The author argues that the fabricated rumor of Puqia hiding Emperor Jianwen is unreliable and thus unrelated to the exclusion of the Fozu tongji from the Yongle Northern Canon. The fourth section analyzes textual alterations made to the Fozu tongji after its inclusion to align with official ideology.

2. The Original Source of the Tripitaka Edition of the Fozu Tongji

In this section, this article examines the original source of the zang jing ben 藏經本 (Tripitaka edition) of the Fozu tongji. It was first published in the seventh year of the Xianchun 咸淳 era (1271) during the Southern Song dynasty. It circulated as a dan ke ben 單刻本 (separate edition) during the Song and Yuan dynasties and was not included in the Qisha Canon 磧砂藏 or the Puning Canon 普寧藏. It was not until the Ming dynasty that the Fozu tongji was included in the Buddhist canon.

Volume 8 of the Gu zunxiu yulu 古尊宿語録 in the First Edition of the Southern Canon includes its historical publication details, written in the twelfth year of the Yongle era (1414) by the early Ming dynasty monk Jingjie 淨戒. Its content is as follows:

In the spring of the year ji mao 己卯, after the reign era was changed in a certain year of the Ming dynasty (大明□□改元己卯春), the emperor, who cherished Buddhist teachings, ordered the re-engraving of the Buddhist canon and issued an edict permitting the inclusion of texts related to the transmission and propagation of Buddhism from various Buddhist schools.4

In the preface to the Xu chuandeng lu 續傳燈録 written by the early Ming dynasty monk Juding 居頂, the author writes:

In the winter of the xinsi year during the Hongwu era (洪武辛巳冬), as the court was about to complete the engraving of the sūtras, vinayas, and śāstras sections of the Buddhist canon, the emperor specially issued an edict to the Buddhist Registry Office, requiring that the most essential texts from each Buddhist school be included in the canon according to their respective categories.

(Juding 居頂. 2020. Yuan an ji 圓庵集 [Collected Works of Yuan’an]. Volume.4. In Xi jian Ming dai si bu cong kan稀見明代四部輯刊 [Collectanea of Rare Ming Dynasty Texts in Four Categories]. Taiwan: Jingxue Book Co., Ltd. 經學文化事業有限公司. 2nd collection. Vol. 49. p. 94)

Based on the research of Nozawa (2008, pp. 443–59), the phrase “大明□□改元己卯” refers to the first year of the Jianwen era (1399), while “洪武辛巳” corresponds to the third year of the Jianwen era (1401). This adjustment reflects the avoidance of directly referencing historical events related to Emperor Jianwen after Zhu Di ascended to the throne.

From this, it is clear that the Fozu tongji was included in the Buddhist canon as one of the essential texts of various Buddhist schools. In the First Edition of the Southern Canon, its identifier in the one thousand characters (qian zi wen zhihao fa 千字文帜号法) ranges from the character “shang” (賞) to the character “meng” (孟). After the completion of the First Edition of the Southern Canon, the printing blocks were stored in Tianxi Temple 天禧寺. Following the destruction of this edition, Zhu Di ordered the re-engraving of the Yongle Southern Canon, in which the Fozu tongji was included. Its identifier in the one thousand characters ranges from the character “cheng” (城) to the character “jie” (碣).5 However, when it came to the engraving of the Yongle Northern Canon, the Fozu tongji was excluded. Details of its exclusion are discussed below.

The Jinling fancha zhi 金陵梵剎志, Volume 2, the Qin lu ji 欽録集, reads as follows:

On the eighteenth day of the twelfth lunar month, (the 18th year of the Yongle era, 1420), Left jue yi 左覺義 (Assistant of Monastic Instruction, lit. “enlightener”)Hui Jin 慧进 of the Buddhist Registry Office and others respectfully submitted a memorial stating: regarding the transcription of the Buddhist canon, apart from the parts already transcribed, organized, and proofread, it has been verified that texts such as the Lianzhu songgu 聯珠頌古 are new additions to the Nanjing edition of the canon (nan jing zang 南京藏). A decision is requested on whether these should be excluded or retained for publication. To this end, the names and volumes of the related texts are listed below, and this is respectfully reported... (the listed books mention) the Fozu tongji, forty-five volumes, compiled by the monk Zhipan during the Jingding 景定 years (1260–1264) of the Southern Song dynasty. It is now managed by the monk Baocheng, who has raised funds to have it engraved and included in the canon. On the 19th day, by imperial decree, these texts shall not be included in the Buddhist canon. The emperor’s decree ends here.

(Ge yinliang 葛寅亮. 2011. Jinling fancha zhi 金陵梵剎志 [Gazetteer of Buddhist Monasteries in Jinling]. Nanjing: Nanjing Publishing House 南京出版社. pp. 85–6)

The “Nanjing zang 南京藏” mentioned here refers to the Yongle Southern Canon. It is generally accepted in academia that the original woodblocks of the First Edition of the Southern Canon had perished before the 18th year of the Yongle era (1420). The Qin lu ji records the Fozu tongji as having “forty-five volumes 四十五卷”, which is likely an inversion of “fifty-four volumes 五十四卷”, aligning with the number of volumes in the Yongle Southern Canon edition of the Fozu tongji. In contrast, the First Edition of the Southern Canon edition of the Fozu tongji had fifty-five volumes, differing from the Yongle Southern Canon edition. The next section will provide a detailed analysis of the reasons for the exclusion of the Fozu tongji from the Yongle Northern Canon. This section will first examine the original source of the Tripitaka edition of the Fozu tongji.

The Qin lu ji mentions that the Fozu tongji in the Yongle Southern Canon was published by Baocheng 寶成. No biographical records of Baocheng are known to exist. However, the Shi shi yuanliu 釋氏源流, completed during the Yongle era, is attributed to Baocheng, a monk of Bao’en Temple 報恩寺 (Baocheng 寶成. 1993. Shi shi yuan liu 釋氏源流 [Origin of the Śākya Clan]. Beijing: Zhong guo shu dian 中國書店 [China Bookstore]. preliminary pages). This Baocheng is likely the same person who engraved the Fozu tongji.

Two facts support this assumption: First, Bao’en Temple, where Baocheng was based, is the same as Tianxi Temple, where the printing blocks of the First Edition of the Southern Canon were stored. Originally named Tianxi during the Song dynasty, it was renamed Da Bao’en Temple 大報恩寺 in the tenth year of the Yongle era (1412). Second, Xing’s research (Xing 2010, p. 36) suggests that Baocheng, the author of the Shi shi yuanliu, was born during the Hongwu 洪武 era. Given the temporal and geographical alignment, the Baocheng associated with the Shi shi yuanliu and the Baocheng who engraved the Fozu tongji are almost certainly the same person.

Thus, the Shi shi yuanliu can be used to examine Baocheng’s background. The Shi shi yuanliu includes a postscript written by Baocheng, which identifies him as a monk from Siming 四明 (modern Ningbo 寧波). Notably, the Fozu tongji was first published in Ningbo during the Song dynasty. Therefore, the edition of the Fozu tongji that Baocheng engraved may have originated from a separate edition he obtained in the Ningbo region.

In summary, the main conclusions of this section are as follows: the Fozu tongji circulated as a separate edition during the Song and Yuan dynasties and was not included in the Buddhist canons. In the early Ming dynasty, under the organization of Baocheng, a monk in charge of the canon at Da Bao’en Temple, a new edition of the Fozu tongji was produced. During Emperor Jianwen’s re-engraving of the Buddhist canon, this edition was included in the First Edition of the Southern Canon as one of the essential texts of various Buddhist schools. It was also included in the Yongle Southern Canon, but it was excluded from the Yongle Northern Canon.

3. Puqia and the Inclusion of the Fozu Tongji in the Buddhist Canon of the Ming Dynasty

3.1. Puqia as the Primary Advocate for the Inclusion of the Fozu Tongji in the Buddhist Canon

The previous section examined the dissemination of the Fozu tongji during the early Ming period. This section argues that the turbulent fate of the Fozu tongji in the early Ming was directly linked to the role of Puqia, who served as the Left Shanshi 左善世 (Director of Monastic Affairs, lit. “worthy of the world”) of the Buddhist Registry Office. The inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canon is likely owed much to the efforts of Puqia and other Tiantai monks. Three key pieces of evidence support this argument.

First, the First Edition of the Southern Canon edition of the Fozu tongji should have been edited by Puqia. As shown in Figure 1, in the 21st volume of this edition, it is explicitly written: “Continued and compiled by Puqia, the left shanshi of the Buddhist Registry Office and abbot of Tianxi Temple (皇明僧録司左善世天禧講寺住持溥洽續編).” The content supplemented by Puqia includes the Tiantai school monks of the Yuan and Ming dynasties, not recorded in the Fozu tongji. This part was left blank in the Song dynasty version of the Fozu tongji.6

The left shanshi, whose rank was sixth grade, was the highest official of the Buddhist Registry Office. Ming dynasty scholar Yang Shiqi wrote the “Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master of the Buddhist Registry Office Right shan shi (僧録司右善世南洲法師塔銘)” for Puqia after his death. According to this historical record, Puqia was initially promoted to left shanshi around the twenty-fifth year of the Hongwu era (1392), and the time when he continued to compile the Fozu tongji should be after this year (Yang shiqi 楊士奇. 1998. Dong li wen ji 東里文集 [Collected Works of Dongli]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. Vol. 25. p. 377). From this detail in volume twenty-one, it can be inferred that the Fozu tongji was edited by Puqia when it was included in the Buddhist canon.

Second, Puqia was also a monk of the Tiantai school, which gave him a reason to promote the inclusion of the Fozu tongji, the only complete record of the Tiantai school’s transmission, in the Buddhist canon. Yang Shiqi’s Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master 南洲法師塔銘 reads: “The source and flow of the Tiantai school began with the Buddha’s teachings on Vulture Peak (tiantai zhi yuan qi yu jiu ling 天台之源, 啓于鷲嶺); after a thousand years of transmission, it ultimately reached Master Puqia (qian sui zhi xia chuan ji qia gong 千歲之下,傳暨洽公).”. This confirms Puqia’s identity as a Tiantai school monk.

Puqia also had close interactions with the Tiantai school’s eminent monk, Dongming Huiri 東溟慧日. Yang Shiqi’s Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master records Puqia’s early deeds, stating: “After receiving full ordination, Puqia went to Shang Tianzhu Temple 上天竺寺 to pay respects to Dongming Rigong 东溟日公. Upon seeing him, Dongming 東溟 immediately held him in high regard and appointed him to manage the temple’s guest affairs. His demeanor was composed and dignified, and his observance of rituals was strict and orderly, earning the admiration and approval of many venerable monks in the monastery.”. Dongming Rigong is a moniker for Dongming Huiri, whose biography is found in the Ming Gao Seng Zhuan 明高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Ming Dynasty). As the only comprehensive record of the Tiantai school’s transmission, the inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canon undoubtedly holds significant importance for the Tiantai school.

Third, as mentioned in the previous section, the publication affairs of the First Edition of the Southern Canon were primarily overseen by the Buddhist Registry Office. Puqia, as the highest official of the Buddhist Registry Office, had the authority and capability to promote the inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canon.

Considering these three points, this article suggests that the inclusion of this Tiantai school history book in the canon was likely attributable to Puqia’s efforts. It should be noted that among the evidence cited above, only the juan 21 colophon is a strictly direct source, while the others serve as contextual inferences.

Furthermore, the underlying rationale for this achievement can be traced to the supportive stance of the Ming dynasty’s highest ruler, Zhu Yuan zhang 朱元璋, toward the Tiantai school. This is illustrated by a story from the Ming Gao Seng Zhuan: In 1369, Zhu Yuanzhang convened eminent monks at Jiangshan 蒋山 (modern Purple Mountain in Nanjing, 南京紫金山). When receiving them in the Fengtian Hall 奉天殿, he noted only the highly senior Master Hui Ri 慧日 stood out. Criticizing contemporary idleness among Buddhists, the emperor designated him as the “venerable monk with white eyebrows” for scriptural guidance, thereafter calling him solely “White Eyebrow 白眉.” (Ruxing 如惺. 1993. Ming gao seng zhuan 明高僧傳 [Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Ming Dynasty]. In Zhong hua da zang jing 中華大藏經 [Chinese Buddhist Canon]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. Vol. 62. p. 319).

Dongming Huiri, a prominent Tiantai school monk during the Yuan and Ming dynasties, maintained a close relationship with Puqia. His participation in the Jiangshan Dharma assembly earned him the favor and praise of Zhu Yuanzhang. This circumstance indirectly indicates that the Tiantai school received a degree of official recognition and support in the early Ming period. Against this backdrop, it would have been relatively easier for Puqia to promote the inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canon.

3.2. Puqia’s Official Position Changes and the Dissemination of the Fozu Tongji

After Zhu Yuanzhang’s death, the political landscape of the Ming dynasty underwent significant changes. Zhu Di overthrew his nephew Zhu Yunwen’s rule and seized the throne for himself. Puqia was also affected by the political situation, with his official position being repeatedly downgraded. This seemed to have a certain impact on the dissemination of the Fozu tongji. Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master records Puqia’s official position changes during the Yongle era:

During the Jingnan Campaign 靖難之役 initiated by the Emperor Taizong 太宗 (Zhu Di) of the Ming dynasty, Master Dao Yan 道衍 (Yao Guangxiao 姚廣孝) rendered significant auxiliary services. Upon ascending to the throne, Zhu Di summoned Dao Yan to Beijing and appointed him to oversee Buddhist affairs. Puqia proposed that Dao Yan assume the position of left shanshi, while he was willingly demoted to right shanshi. The Chengzu Emperor praised Puqia for his humility and approved his request. In the fourth year of the Yongle era (1406), the court issued an edict to reconstruct the Buddhist pagoda at Tianxi Temple in Nanjing. When the reconstruction was completed and the inauguration ceremony held, the Chengzu Emperor personally inspected the site and ordered Puqia to preside over the Dharma assembly. On that day, the pagoda was adorned with auspicious light, and thousands of people gathered to witness the event, which greatly pleased the emperor. However, a monk holding the position of Jueyi 覺義 became jealous of Puqia’s favor and fabricated charges against him, leading to Puqia’s demotion to Right Jueyi 右覺義.

(Yang shiqi 楊士奇. Dong li wen ji 東里文集 [Collected Works of Dongli]. p. 377)

This source indicates that Puqia’s first official position change occurred after the Jingnan Campaign. Monk Yao Guangxiao, also known as Dao Yan, was promoted to left shanshi for his contributions. Puqia willingly took the lower position of right shanshi. According to the Taizong wenhuangdi shilu 太宗文皇帝實録 (The Ming Veritable Records of the Yongle Emperor) and other documents, in the second year of the Yongle era (1404), Yao Guangxiao was promoted to Taizi shaoshi 太子少師 from left shanshi. However, his successor was the Zen monk Xuexuan Daocheng 雪軒道成, and Puqia was not restored to his original position.7

Puqia’s second official position change occurred in the fourth year of the Yongle era (1406). This personnel change within the Buddhist Registry Office resulted in the demotion of both Daocheng and Puqia, who held the positions of left and right shan shi, respectively. As recorded in the Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master, Puqia played a significant role in the ceremony for the reconstruction of the Tianxi Temple pagoda. This may indicate that Zhu Di did not persecute Puqia, despite his role as head of the Buddhist Registry Office during the Jianwen Emperor’s reign.

However, due to the scheming of an unnamed monk, Puqia was demoted after this event. According to the Xu zhi yue lu 續指月録 (the Continued Record of the Pointing at the Moon), Puqia was not the only one framed; Xuexuan Daocheng, who held a higher position than him, was also implicated and received a more severe punishment—imprisonment.8 Although the identity of the accuser remains unknown due to limited sources, this sudden political incident led to the punishment of the two most important officials of the Buddhist Registry Office, highlighting the severity of the accusations.

Before and after the Jingnan Campaign, Puqia’s position as a Buddhist leader in Nanjing was undermined, and the monk who assisted Zhu Di in seizing power, Dao Yan (Yao Guangxiao), became the highest official of the Buddhist Registry Office. During this process, Puqia does not seem to have suffered serious political repercussions, as his position as right shanshi was second only to Yao Guangxiao. However, the political incident in the fourth year of the Yongle era had a more severe impact on Puqia. Although the identity of the monk who framed Puqia and Dao cheng is unknown, Puqia was directly reprimanded by Zhu Di. Changes in the dissemination of the Fozu tongji correspond with Puqia’s demotions.

After the printing blocks of the First Edition of the Southern Canon were destroyed, Zhu Di ordered the re-carving of the Yongle Southern Canon. However, this edition of the Fozu tongji excluded the materials supplemented by Puqia. By the time the Yongle Northern Canon was compiled and published, the Fozu tongji was completely excluded from the Buddhist canon. This clearly links Puqia’s political status to the dissemination of the Fozu tongji.

Overall, according to the Inscription for the Pagoda of Nan Zhou Master, composed by Yang Shiqi—the earliest extant historical material detailing his complete biography—Puqia enjoyed a high reputation within the Buddhist community and held significant political status during the reigns of the Hongwu and Jianwen Emperors. Not only was he highly esteemed by senior monks, but he also held high-ranking positions in the Central Buddhist Registry. Consequently, the Fozu tongji was included in both the First Edition of the Southern Canon and the Yongle Southern Canon completed during this period. Following the Jingnan Campaign, however, Puqia’s political standing declined rapidly. In the fourth year of the Yongle era (1406), he was falsely accused and demoted by order of the Yongle Emperor. This was likely due to his close association with the Jianwen Emperor. Thus, during the compilation of the Yongle Northern Canon, which was undertaken under Zhu Di’s direction, the Fozu tongji was excluded.

4. Reconsidering the Claim That Puqia Concealed the Jianwen Emperor

4.1. Dubious Points Recorded in the Mingshi’s Yao Guangxiao Biography

The third section examines Puqia’s relationship with the Fozu tongji. The reasons for the exclusion of the Fozu tongji from the Yongle Northern Canon, as proposed by Aitani Yoshimitsu (2009, pp. 43–66) and Ding (2024, pp. 11–20), differ from those presented in this study. Aitani, referencing the Ming Shi’s Yao Guangxiao biography 明史·姚廣孝傳, posits that Puqia’s concealment of the Jianwen Emperor after the Jingnan Campaign was the primary cause of the exclusion of the Fozu tongji from the Northern Canon. Ding Yuan also adopts this view. Ancient Chinese texts include narratives that Puqia harbored the Jianwen Emperor and assisted in his escape. However, the present article argues that these accounts are implausible and unrelated to the exclusion of the Fozu tongji from the Northern Canon.

According to the Ming Shi 明史 (the History of the Ming Dynasty), it appears that Puqia was imprisoned by the Ming Chengzu Emperor for allegedly assisting the Jianwen Emperor’s escape (Zhang ting yu 張廷玉. 1974. Ming shi 明史 [History of the Ming]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. p. 4081). However, this account in the Ming Shi is questionable for several reasons.

First, as noted in the previous section, Puqia was indeed framed by a monk in the fourth year of the Yongle era, but his punishment was merely demotion, not imprisonment. The monk imprisoned was the Zen monk Dao Cheng. The Taizong wenhuangdi shilu 太宗文皇帝實録, for the 13th day of the twelfth lunar month in the fourth year of the Yongle era, only records: “Demote Puqia, the right shanshi of the Buddhist Registry Office, to right jue yi 降僧録司右善世溥洽爲右覺義.” If Puqia had been imprisoned at the time, the shilu would have noted it (Li shimian 李時勉. 1962. Ming taizong shilu 明太宗實録 [Veritable Records of Ming Taizong]. Taiwan: Institute of History and Philology. p. 894).

Second, based on the research of Wang Chong wu 王崇武 (Wang 2024, pp. 35–50), the narrative of the Jianwen Emperor’s escape did not emerge until the Jiajing 嘉靖 era at the earliest, as seen in works like Zheng Xiao 鄭曉’s Jianwen Xunguo Ji 建文遜國記 (the Record of the Abdication of the Jianwen Emperor). Thus, the story of the “Jianwen Emperor fleeing as a monk (jianwen di wei seng dun qu 建文帝爲僧遁去)” is likely fictitious and could not have been the reason for Puqia’s punishment.

4.2. The Evolution of the Narrative of Puqia and the Jianwen Emperor

Historical records also make clear the evolution of the narrative surrounding Puqia and the Jianwen Emperor. The two sources cited below serve as key stages in this evolutionary process and are representative of the narrative’s development. The differences between these two records, which originated in different eras, will be analyzed in detail below. These sources are cited as follows, with certain marked details deserving special attention.

The Zhenze jiwen 震澤紀聞 (the Anecdotes Recorded at Zhenze) by Wang Ao 王鏊 reads:

Yao Guangxiao fell seriously ill. His procession stopped at the city gate without entering. He ordered his attendants to pitch a tent, saying, “The Emperor will come to see me.” Soon, the Ming Chengzu Emperor arrived. The Emperor showed great concern for Yao Guangxiao, granting him a gold spittoon and inquiring about his last wishes. Yao Guangxiao, folding his hands, replied, “This monk has no requests, but hopes Your Majesty will pardon the virtuous monk Nan Zhou 南洲 (Puqia’s alias), who has been imprisoned for years.” The Emperor immediately ordered Puqia’s release. Puqia, a renowned monk from Wu吳 and former left shanshi of the Buddhist Registry Office, had been imprisoned for angering the Emperor. On the day of his release, Puqia knelt to thank the Emperor. Due to his long imprisonment, he had not shaved his hair, and it now hung over his forehead. A few days later, the Emperor visited Yao Guangxiao again, after which Yao passed away.

(Wang Ao. 2014. Zhen ze ji wen 震澤紀聞 [Records of Zhenze]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. p. 84)

The Jinyan 今言 by Zheng Xiao 鄭曉 reads:

Puqia, also known as Nan Zhou, was from Shanyin 山阴, Zhejiang 浙江. In the early Hongwu period of the Ming dynasty, he was recommended as an eminent monk and entered the capital, where he rose to the position of left shanshi. During the Jingnan Campaign, he performed a Pharmaceutical Buddha Lamp Ritual 藥師燈 for Emperor Jianwen and cursed the Ming Chengzu Emperor (Zhu Di, Chang Ling 長陵). After the fall of Jin Chuan Gate 金川門, he shaved the Jianwen Emperor’s head, disguising him as a monk. Upon hearing of this, the Chengzu Emperor imprisoned Puqia for over a decade. When the Rong Guo Duke 榮國公 (Yao Guangxiao) fell critically ill, the emperor sent someone to ask about his last wishes. Yao Guangxiao pleaded for Puqia’s release, which the emperor granted. Upon release, Puqia had white hair several inches long covering his forehead. He went straight to Da Xinglong Temple 大興隆寺, knelt before Yao Guangxiao’s memorial tablet, and said, “My remaining life is a gift from the Shaoshi 少師 (Yao Guangxiao).” After the Ming Renzong Emperor 明仁宗 ascended the throne, Puqia’s official position was restored. He passed away at the age of eighty-two.

(Zheng xiao 鄭曉. 1984. Jinyan 今言 [Contemporary Records]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. p. 129)

According to Liu’s research (J. Liu 2011, pp. 170–73), the Zhenze jiwen was completed around the eighth year of the Zhengde 正德 era (1513). The Jinyan includes a preface written in the forty-fifth year of the Jiajing 嘉靖 era (1566), indicating its composition date. Among the many legends about Puqia and the Jianwen Emperor, Wang Ao’s account, being earlier, represents an early form of the legend. In contrast, the Jinyan, composed about fifty years later, reflects significant changes and thus represents a later, evolved version of the legend.

The story in Wang Ao’s record account includes many elements that deify Yao Guangxiao, such as the prediction that “the emperor will come to see me 上將來視,” which is inconsistent with historical facts. According to Zhu Di’s account in the Inscription for Yao Guangxiao 姚廣孝神道碑, he only mentioned that they had a pleasant conversation and did not refer to any prediction by Yao Guangxiao. Details of Puqia’s imprisonment also appear in Wang Ao’s record with some dramatic descriptions such as “[Yao] defied the imperial decree and was imprisoned (wu zhi xia yu 忤旨下獄)” and “hair already covered his forehead (fa yi fu e 髮已覆額).” Notably, this account does not yet involve Puqia’s relationship with the Jianwen Emperor.

However, in the records of the Jinyan, Puqia’s relationship with the Jianwen Emperor becomes the most crucial part of the story. The records in the Jinyan are more specific than those in the Zhenze jiwen. It adds details about Puqia shaving the Jianwen Emperor’s head and “performing a Pharmaceutical Buddha Lamp Ritual to curse (she yao shi deng chan zu 設藥師燈懺詛)” the Ming Chengzu Emperor, as well as Puqia’s words of gratitude to Yao Guangxiao. However, since the Jinyan was written over a hundred years after Puqia’s death in the first year of the Xuande 宣德 era (1426), its records are not entirely credible.

These examples demonstrate how later accounts of this story include increasingly elaborate historical details. Puqia was originally demoted, but later accounts describe him as being imprisoned for over a decade. His relationship with the Jianwen Emperor also gave rise to various rumors in later generations. The records in the Ming Shi are likely based on such rumors and its narrative contradicts earlier, more contemporaneous sources, such as the Taizong wenhuangdi shilu and the Xu zhi yue lu. Consequently, this account cannot be taken as reliable historical evidence, and the views of Aitani Yoshimitsu (2009) and Ding (2024) require revision.

5. Textual Changes to the Fozu Tongji After Its Inclusion in the Buddhist Canon

Follwing the above analysis, it can be concluded that the inclusion of the Fozu tongji in the Buddhist canon was due to the efforts of Tiantai school monks such as Puqia, and this success was premised on Zhu Yuanzhang’s favorable attitude toward the Tiantai school. After the Jingnan Campaign, Puqia demoted himself to right shanshi. In the fourth year of the Yongle era, Puqia was further demoted to right jue yi by Zhu Di. Meanwhile, Dao Cheng, who held a position similar to Puqia’s, was imprisoned. The Fozu tongji may have been excluded from the Yongle Northern Canon as a result. In addition, the original text of the Fozu tongji may have been altered to align with the official ideology after its inclusion in the canon. This section will provide a brief analysis of these alterations.

Based on the textological study of its various versions, this article posits two types of modifications: mechanical deletions and deliberate deletions. The former primarily involves the removal of content unrelated to Buddhism from the text, while the latter mainly targets politically sensitive material.

The most significant deletion in the First Edition of the Southern Canon edition of the Fozu tongji is the removal of records related to prophecies (chenwei 讖緯). Compared to the Gu huo zi 古活字 edition of the Fozu tongji,9 the First Edition of the Southern Canon edition deletes nine records related to prophecies (chenwei 讖緯) in the original text.10 The version lineage diagram of the Fozu tongji is presented in Figure 2 below. According to the research of Nishiwaki (2009, pp. 151–80), Yoshimitsu (2009), and Lian (2025), the Gu huo zi edition largely preserves the original form of the Fozu tongji.

For example, the Fa yun tong se zhi under the seventh year of the Taiping xinguo 太平興國 era (982) reads:

An official from Shuzhou 舒州 (modern Qianshan 潜山 in Anhui 安徽) presented an auspicious stone to the court. He reported that a man named Ke’e 柯萼 from Huaining 懷寧 county encountered a strange monk who guided him to Wan Sui Mountain 萬歲山 to search for treasure. The monk pointed at an ancient pine tree with his tin staff. Ke dug there and found a black stone inscribed with a prophecy by the eminent monk Bao zhi 寶志, from the Southern Liang 梁 dynasty. The inscription read, “I observe that after four or five dynasties, in the next year of bingzi 丙子, a golden age of peace will emerge under the Zhao 趙 dynasty. The dynasty will last through twenty-one emperors, and the nation will enjoy eternal peace and prosperity.” The monk then vanished. Upon seeing the stone, the emperor was filled with reverence and admiration. One day, Monk Zhi gong 志公 miraculously appeared in the palace, and the emperor personally heard his admonitions. Consequently, the emperor sent envoys to Zhongshan 鍾山 (modern Zijin Mountain in Nanjing, the burial site of Baozhi) to conduct a fast and sacrifice. The emperor decreed that Bao zhi be posthumously honored as the “Dao lin zhen jue Bodhisattva 道林真覺菩薩” and mandated that neither official nor commoner should speak his name directly. Since then, he has been respectfully referred to as “Baogong 寶公.”

(Zhipan. Fozu tongji. Vol. 44. p. 15. This edition, housed in the National Diet Library of Japan, is an exact replica edition of the Gu huo zi version)

In the First edition of the Southern Canon edition, this entire passage was deleted, as shown in Figure 3. Bao zhi, a prominent monk of the Qi 齐 and Liang 梁 dynasties, is recorded in the Nan shi 南史 (the History of the Southern Dynasties) as someone capable of “foretelling unmanifest omens and penetrating the thoughts of others (yu yan wei zhao shi ta xin zhi 預言未兆, 識他心智)” (Li yanshou 李延壽. 1975. Nanshi 南史 [History of the Southern Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhong hua shu ju 中華書局 [Zhonghua Book Company]. p. 1900). During the reigns of Emperor Taizong 太宗and Zhenzong 真宗 of the Song dynasty, legends about Baozhi circulated, and rulers employed these as proof of the legitimacy of their regimes.

Although miracle stories and predictions are common in Buddhist biographies, the specific chenwei passages mentioned above were directly related to dynastic legitimacy and political succession, which were far more sensitive issues under the Da Ming lu and ideology.

Chenwei (讖緯) first became prevalent during the Han Dynasty as a significant socio-intellectual and theological system. It combined mystical prophecies (讖) with doctrines that interpreted Confucian classics through a theological lens (緯), serving as an important tool for legitimizing political authority. The author of the Fozu tongji, Zhipan, unquestioningly accepted the credibility of such prophecies, asserting that they originated from three sources: Buddhist saints, divination results from turtle shells and milfoil, and sages in Confucian classics and historical texts (Zhipan Fozu tongji Vol.45. Gu huo zi version pp. 13–14). This, he believed, attested to the authority of prophecies. Consequently, the Fozu tongji contains numerous accounts of such matters.

However, this perspective diverges significantly from the political culture that had taken shape since the Song dynasty. Confucian elites of the Song dynasty frequently criticized prophecies, diminishing their influence on politics and eventually leading to their withdrawal from the historical stage.11 By the Ming dynasty, the Da Ming lu 大明律 (the Great Ming Code) explicitly prohibited the dissemination of prophecies. The text records:

Those who create prophecies (chen wei 讖緯), heretical books (yao shu 妖書), or inflammatory content (yao yan 妖言), or use such materials to incite the public, shall be executed. Those who privately possess heretical books, conceal them, or fail to report them to the authorities will be given 100 strokes of the bastinado and sentenced to three years of penal servitude.12

When the Fozu tongji was included in the Buddhist canon, the official ideology led to the removal of content related to prophecies. Zhipan’s views not only failed to align with the values of Confucian elites in the Ming dynasty but also risked legal repercussions.

To summarize, the editors of the Ming Dynasty’s Buddhist Canon excluded these contents primarily because they violated the prohibitions outlined in the Great Ming Code. Furthermore, this action reflects three underlying historical trends.

The first dimension concerns the evolution of political culture since the Tang and Song dynasties. According to scholars such as Naitō Konan, a significant transformation occurred in Chinese intellectual culture between the Tang and Song periods. Beginning in the Song Dynasty, Confucian scholars represented by Ouyang Xiu increasingly rejected the highly theological chenwei 讖緯 doctrines, advocating for the removal of such content from classical Confucian works. By the Ming Dynasty, the status of Neo-Confucianism was further strengthened, and this perspective evolved from a relatively new viewpoint into a widely accepted consensus. This intellectual shift also influenced the compilation of the Buddhist Canon, directly manifesting in the deletion of the Fozu tongji following its inclusion in the canon.

Second, this phenomenon is directly linked to the social regulations pursued by the early Ming rulers. According to scholars such as Edward L. Farmer (Farmer 1990, pp. 103–25), following the establishment of the Ming Dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang’s most urgent task was to stabilize social order and consolidate his authority. To this end, he systematically established distinctions between orthodoxy and heterodoxy across all levels of society. Central to this process was the establishment of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy.

Against this backdrop, the religious domain was also incorporated into this regulatory effort, with Zhu Yuanzhang imposing a clear distinction between orthodox and heterodox practices. Chenwei (讖緯), as a form of heterodox activity that interfered with politics, was thus subjected to strict restrictions. The textual deletions in the Fozu tongji represent a concrete manifestation of these early Ming social regulations in the handling of religious texts.

Third, this phenomenon also reflects the attitude of ancient Chinese Buddhist monks toward the relationship between religion and the state. Since the spread of Buddhism to China, there were monks who consciously utilized the chenwei doctrines that were prevalent at the time to establish connections between Buddhism and imperial legitimacy.

This article illustrates that the prophecies of the monk Baozhi were closely linked to the legitimacy of the Song Dynasty. Through such methods, Buddhists sought political support for their development. However, the case of the Fozu tongji demonstrates that during certain historical periods, particularly when ideological control was strengthened, monks also proactively avoided having their religion associated with politics. Even some ancient legends related to such associations were considered unsuitable for dissemination. Consequently, the content in the Fozu tongji related to chenwei was deleted.

Although the Fozu tongji gained official recognition and increased influence after its inclusion, it also underwent ideological “purification,” distorting its original form. Such censorship was also common in court-mandated historiographic projects of the Ming Dynasty. Other works containing politically sensitive content were also excluded from the court editions of the Buddhist Canon. These works—the Guzunsu yulu 古尊宿語錄, and the Xu chuan deng lu 續傳燈錄—were excluded from the Yongle Northern Canon by Zhu Di. Li and He (2003, p. 441) briefly discussed this phenomenon, suggesting that this exclusion was attributed to political considerations. They noted that the prefaces to the Guzunsu yulu and the Xu chuan deng lu contained records related to the Jianwen Emperor’s supervision of the canon compilation.

Beyond Buddhist literature, similar practices of textual censorship and modification also existed in other works. As Wolfgang Franke pointed out, due to the compilers’ adherence to the common standard of Confucian political ethics and contemporary political struggles, revisions were made to the Ming Shi Lu (Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty).13 Similarly, the compilation of the Yuan Shi (Official History of the Yuan) by the Ming Historiography Bureau was directly influenced by political forces, which deliberately obscured Zhu Yuanzhang’s use of prophecies (chen wei) during his rise to power.14

6. Conclusions

Through primary sources analysis and textual criticism, this article examined how the Fozu tongji became included in Ming court editions of the Buddhist Canon. Two main conclusions have emerged: First, the Fozu tongji—a text documenting Tiantai school history—was formally included through advocacy by Puqia of the Buddhist Registry Office, signifying the Tiantai school’s recognition by imperial rulers. Second, to align with state ideology, all prophecy-related content was systematically eliminated from the original text.

The importance of this case study lies primarily in two aspects. First, this article provides a case study for research on the inclusion process of texts into the Buddhist canon. Questions such as which texts can be included and which cannot have been faced by most historical editors of Buddhist canons. During the Sui and Tang periods, Buddhist bibliography saw the emergence of the “Ru zang lu 入藏録,” a catalog standardizing the inclusion of texts in the canon. This became a basic reference for editing and publishing Buddhist canons and marked the beginning of the regularization of canon content.15

Canon compilers adhered to certain standards when critically evaluating texts for inclusion. Historian Lan Jifu emphasized that political intervention proved decisive for the inclusion of Buddhist texts in the Canon.16 The case of the Fozu tongji supports Lan Jifu’s argument. As the top official in the Buddhist Registry Office, Puqia had major influence in both religious and political affairs. His backing played a key role in getting the Fozu tongji included in the Canon. After being framed by rivals, Puqia likely lost the Yongle Emperor’s trust. His subsequent demotion directly caused the Fozu tongji’s removal from the Canon. This case study shows that the inclusion of Buddhist texts in the canon is directly related to political recognition. In other words, the inclusion of Buddhist texts in the canon is not only a matter of textual dissemination but also reflects the relationship between politics and religion.17

Second, during the Ming Dynasty, the court editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon were supervised by the Imperial government.18 Thus, the case of the Fozu tongji clearly demonstrates a few key characteristics of religious governance in the early Ming era. On the one hand, during the early Ming period, emperors held favorable attitudes toward Buddhism. Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty, his political doctrines shaped subsequent religious governance. Zhu Yuanzhang maintained close ties with Buddhism, having experienced monastic life in his youth. Later, as emperor, he frequently organized Buddhist services (fa hui 法會) at Nanjing, honoring eminent monks. Huiri, a prominent monk of the Tiantai school, participated in these gatherings and received particular imperial favor.

Overall, these experiences favorably disposed him toward Buddhism throughout his life. Like Zhu Yuanzhang, Zhu Di expressed a favorable attitude toward Buddhism, producing writings on Buddhism and sponsoring the printing of the canon.19 Returning to the case study of the Fozu tongji analyzed in this article, while its inclusion in the canon directly resulted from Puqia’s advocacy, the underlying reason for its inclusion also lay in the Ming rulers’ tolerant stance toward Buddhism.

On the other hand, all Buddhist activities remained under strict supervision by the imperial government.20 The Great Ming Code contained multiple articles restricting religious activities, primarily to prevent heterodox activities potentially conducted by religious groups.21 As noted earlier, the prophecy-related content in the Fozu tongji was removed during its inclusion in the Canon, partially to comply with legal provisions of the Great Ming Code. Such prophecies often served as propaganda tools for rebel groups, threatening social stability. The Veritable Records of Ming Taizu document multiple cases of rebellions incited by such doctrines in the early Ming period. Consequently, these heterodox elements in the Fozu tongji were eliminated. Overall, early Ming religious governance prioritized the interests of its imperial power over theological concerns.22

Ming emperors supported Buddhist activities—organizing Buddhist services (fa hui) and printing the canon—to amplify Buddhism’s healthy influence. However, the emperors imposed strict restrictions on potential heterodox elements within Buddhism. The case study of the Fozu tongji shows this twofold strategy: its inclusion reflects the rulers’ efforts to secure monastic support, while textual removal demonstrates the state’s suppression of heterodox doctrines.

Based on the above analysis, we can attempt to formulate a generalized understanding of religious governance in pre-modern China. Religious governance refers to the state’s management of religious activities and organizations. Its core objective was to coordinate diverse religious activities with the state administrative system and the official state ideology, primarily from the perspective of maintaining social stability. This governance was implemented through specific policies and institutions, which included the system of monastic officials, policies restricting the number of temples, and—central to the discussion in this article—the censorship of religious texts.

During the late imperial period, a dynamic interaction existed between the governing and the governed. Taking the case examined in this study as an example, on one hand, the authorities censored content that conflicted with state ideology in the Fozu tongji, incorporating it into a new textual order: the Buddhist Canon. On the other hand, the governed—the Tiantai school monks in this instance—also tended to accommodate this demand to obtain state recognition and support.