The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and the Formation of Early Dilun 地論 Buddhism During the Luoyang 洛陽 Period of the Northern Wei 北魏

Abstract

This article re-examines the formation of early Dilun Buddhism in Luoyang era Northern Wei China by foregrounding the role of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing). While previous scholarship has emphasized Yogācāra-related texts such as the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (Ch. Shidi jing lun), this study argues that the Da banniepan jing constituted an important component of the intellectual and exegetical environment within which early Dilun thought emerged. Drawing on prosopographical evidence, this article examines the recurrent presence of the Da banniepan jing among early Dilun-associated figures and situates it within the broader intellectual environment of early Dilun Buddhism. It further proposes that Nirvāṇa-related doctrinal concepts may have provided one important conceptual framework through which the graded bodhisattva path was interpreted: the concept of universal Buddha-nature renders progressive cultivation intelligible as the gradual actualization of an inherent potential. The study also situates this doctrinal convergence within the broader hermeneutical culture of Northern Buddhism, characterized by text-centered exegesis, and traces several layers of interaction among court patronage, monastic scholarship, and lay devotion in which Nirvāṇa-related learning remained visible. On this basis, the formation of early Dilun Buddhism is associated with a Northern scholastic culture in which Nirvāṇa-related learning constituted an important intellectual layer.

1. Introduction

From what has been discussed by Tang Yongtong 湯用彤, it is clear that in the northern dynasties in China, already during the (Liu-)Song 劉宋 and Southern Qi 南齊 periods, there were figures engaged in the study of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經). After the reign of Emperor Xiaowen 孝文帝 (Tuoba Hong 拓跋宏; 467–499, r. 471–499) of the Northern Wei 北魏, such scholarship flourished on a grand scale. By the late Wei 魏 and the early Sui 隋, there were even more northern figures who became prominent through this learning. Roughly in the age of Emperor Xiaowen, the number of northern monks studying the Da banniepan jing was particularly great. Since this scripture entered north China from Liangzhou 涼州, one may see how close the relationship was between Buddhism under the Yuan-Wei regime (Yuan Wei 元魏) and that in Liangzhou (Tang 1997, p. 601). It may thus be inferred that, following Emperor Xiaowen’s relocation of the capital from Pingcheng 平城 to Luoyang 洛陽, imperial support for the development of Buddhism increased. It may cautiously be suggested that interest in the Da banniepan jing continued to develop further under Emperor Xiaowen’s reign.

According to the Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism (Ch. Shilao zhi 釋老志) in the Book of Wei (Ch. Wei shu 魏書), as the successor of Emperor Xiaowen, Emperor Xuanwu of the Northern Wei (Northern Wei Shizong Xuanwu Emperor 北魏世宗宣武帝; 483–515, r. 499–515) was deeply devoted to Buddhist principles and is said to have personally lectured on sūtras and śāstras within the inner palace on an annual basis. During the Yanchang era (Yanchang 延昌, 512–515), the total number of monasteries for monks and nuns across the provinces and commanderies of the realm reportedly reached 13,727. Since, in the first year of the Taihe era (Taihe 太和, 477), the total number of monasteries had stood at 6478, this represented—at least in terms of institutional scale—an increase of more than threefold over a period of slightly more than three decades.1 Yet such numerical growth pertains primarily to external form. The more pressing question is how Buddhist doctrinal learning and scholarly inquiry themselves developed during this period.

Scott Pearce argues that Northern Wei should be understood not simply as a “Chinese dynasty,” but as “a new sort of empire in continental East Asia,” formed through the interaction between Inner Asian military structures and the cultural and intellectual resources of the Chinese world (Pearce 2023, pp. 18–22). Such an approach is particularly important for understanding the Buddhist culture of Northern Wei Luoyang, where translation activity, scholastic formation, and court-sponsored religious discourse unfolded within the broader framework of an Inner Asian imperial order (Pearce 2023, pp. 5–6).

In the south, the accession of Emperor Wu of the Liang (Liang Wu Emperor 梁武帝, r. 502–549) in 502—marking the replacement of the Southern Qi 南齊 by the Liang—coincided with what may be characterized as the full maturation of Buddhist doctrinal scholarship. In the north, by contrast, Emperor Xuanwu of the Northern Wei ascended the throne in 500, and it was under his reign that new forms of Buddhist scholasticism associated with Vasubandhu (Ch. Shiqin 世親) were transmitted from India. This period thus witnessed the initial dissemination of these new doctrinal currents, which would later become important components of Northern Buddhist scholasticism.

If we are to characterize the general tendency of Jiangnan 江南 Buddhism, it may be described as a mode of inquiry oriented toward convergence and systematization of doctrinal positions. This tendency presupposed a certain attitude of reverence toward the canonical scriptures. Yet it also required a considerable degree of intellectual freedom in the interpretation of doctrine, a freedom that only gradually became possible. Even so, during the early period of the Song 宋 and Qi 齊 dynasties in Jiangnan, Northern Buddhism still retained a markedly different orientation.

In the north, rather than attempting to synthesize the doctrines of various sūtras or to construct comprehensive theoretical systems, Buddhist scholarship tended to concentrate on the internal purport of individual scriptures, seeking to clarify their specific doctrinal intent. Such an approach may be understood as differing in emphasis from the more synthetic tendencies often associated with Jiangnan Buddhism. According to Ōchō Enichi 横超慧日, this orientation appears to have been grounded in the assumption that, even if exegetical research on sūtras, such as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經), was carried out, it was safer and more intellectually secure to limit oneself to the authorized scope of interpretation, rather than to permit unrestricted hermeneutical speculation (Ōchō 1970, p. 33).

From this perspective, it is significant that, beginning around the fifth year of Zhengshi (Zhengshi 正始, 504), figures associated with the Vasubandhu tradition, such as Bodhiruci 菩提流支 (sixth century CE; ?–508–535–?) and Ratnamati 勒那摩提 (sixth century CE; ?–508–511–?), arrived from India. Subsequently, during the sixth century, additional monks, including Paramārtha 真諦 (499–569), also came from India. These translators sometimes collaborated and sometimes worked independently, devoting themselves energetically to the translation of Buddhist scriptures.

Among these figures, it is said that Bodhiruci and Ratnamati jointly translated the Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra (Ch. Shidi jing lun 十地經論). Ratnamati translated the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun 究竟一乘寶性論). In addition, Bodhiruci is credited with translating works such as the Madhyānta-vibhāga-śāstra (Ch. Zhongbian fenbie lun 中邊分別論), while Paramārtha translated the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Ch. She dacheng lun 攝大乘論). These texts, together with translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (Ch. Shenmi jietuo jing 深密解脫經), the Amitābha-sūtra (Ch. Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經), and related works, constituted an especially significant corpus within the Buddhist scholastic landscape of the period.

The Dilun 地論 tradition developed from the study of the Treatise on the Ten Stages (Skt. Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā-śāstra; Ch. Shidi jing lun), attributed to Vasubandhu and translated into Chinese by Bodhiruci and Ratnamati in the early sixth century. The Dilun school is not a formal sect but a community of exegetes and thinkers primarily concerned with the path of the bodhisattva as outlined in the ten stages, emphasizing moral cultivation, the accumulation of merit and wisdom, and the gradual attainment of Buddhahood.2 Dilun studies became especially prominent in Northern China and laid foundational concepts for the doctrinal synthesis seen in later Chinese Buddhist traditions.

Yet, according to Ōchō, the Lotus Sūtra (Ch. Fahua jing 法華經) may not have occupied as visibly central a position within certain strands of Northern Buddhist scholasticism as it later did in some Southern and Tiantai-related contexts, although the precise balance among scriptural traditions in the Northern Dynasties remains difficult to determine with certainty (Ōchō 1970, p. 34). A closely related question is whether the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing 華嚴經), precisely in this respect, possessed an appeal that resonated with Buddhist adherents in the Northern Wei. In this connection, one may note the monk Xuangao 玄高 (d. 444), whose biography is included in the “Chapter on the Practice of Meditation” (Ch. Xichan pian 習禪篇) of the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Ch. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳). According to this account, Xuangao subsequently became the preceptor of Crown Prince Huang (Tuoba Huang 拓跋晃; 428–451) under Emperor Taiwu 太武帝 of the Northern Wei (Tuoba Tao 拓跋燾; 408–452, r. 423–452).3 Xuangao’s disciple Xuanchang 玄暢 (fl. mid-fifth century) is said to have fled south after his master was killed by Emperor Taiwu in Pingcheng in 444, eventually making his way to Yangzhou 揚州, where he came to be held in high regard by Emperor Wen of Liu-Song (Song Wen Emperor 宋文帝; 407–453, r. 424–453). Concerning this Xuanchang, the Gaoseng zhuan states that, because the Huayan jing was a work of great length and of vast doctrinal scope, Xuanchang lectured on the Huayan jing only after his arrival in Yangzhou. Yet since his teacher Xuangao had already studied under Juexian 覺賢—who was known as the translator of the Huayan jing—it seems equally possible that Xuanchang’s engagement with the text may have had earlier roots in the Northern milieu.4

Thereafter, Emperor Xuanwu of the Northern Wei is known to have been sympathetic to Buddhism. In the imperial annals (“Basic Annals,” Di ji 帝紀; specifically, juan 8) of the Book of Wei, it is stated that the emperor lectured on the Vimalakīrti-sūtra (Ch. Weimo jing 維摩經) for monks as well as court officials; yet within the Xu gaoseng zhuan it is said that he had monks lecture on the Huayan jing.

A further illustrative episode is found in the biography of Bodhiruci in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, where an appended account concerns Ratnamati (translator: Baoyi 寶意). According to this account, Baoyi regularly lectured on the Huayan jing on behalf of the emperor. One day, when he was seated properly upon the high preaching platform, a figure resembling a heavenly official—holding a tablet—appeared and announced that he had come, by command of the Heavenly Emperor, to escort the Dharma Master so that he might lecture on the Huayan jing. Hearing this, Ratnamati requested that, since the present preaching session had not yet concluded, they wait until the end of the scriptural text; moreover, he explained that preaching required various ritual and musical functions and asked that preparations be made accordingly.5

The foregoing sources indicate that in the Northern Dynasties—particularly under the Northern Wei—attention was directed not only to the texts central to the Dilun tradition, such as the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (Ch. Shidi jing lun) and the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun), but also to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing). At the same time, as discussed above, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) appears to have remained one among several widely respected and frequently studied Mahāyāna scriptures in Northern Wei Buddhism. In the Northern Wei, the Da banniepan jing was widely regarded as an important Mahāyāna scripture, and the study of this scripture appears to have occupied an important place within certain forms of Mahāyāna Buddhist education in Northern China (W. Zhang 2024, p. 64).

Among the doctrinal themes associated with the Nirvāṇa Sutra6, the concepts of Buddha-nature7 (Ch. foxing 佛性)8 and the enduring dharmakāya (Ch. fa shen 法身) became especially influential in medieval East Asian Buddhist discourse. These ideas later became important points of reference within a variety of Northern Buddhist exegetical traditions, including circles associated with early Dilun scholarship.

The Da banniepan jing translated by Dharmakṣema (Ch. Tanwuchen 曇無讖; 385?–433) exerted a significant influence in the Northern Wei period. Among eminent monks, rulers and members of the aristocracy, this influence was primarily doctrinal and ideological. Among the general populace, however, the sutra’s core teaching—that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature and can attain Buddhahood—was also well received. Yet its expression took on a more visual and tangible form, particularly through the medium of stone inscriptions and votive steles.9

Fuse Kōgaku 布施浩岳 has pointed out that after the anti-Buddhist persecution carried out under Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei, Buddhism suffered a severe setback. During this period, Northern Wei Buddhism was, in comparison with that of the Southern Dynasties, relatively weakened. However, this situation began to change after Emperor Xiaowen relocated the capital to Luoyang around 494, a time corresponding in the south to the late Liu-Song and the Southern Qi period (Fuse 1942, vol. 2, p. 268). One of the emblematic events marking this turning point was Emperor Xiaowen’s invitation to Tandu 曇度 (d. 489), a specialist in the study of the Da banniepan jing active in the late Liu-Song, to travel to the Northern Wei capital of Pingcheng and deliver lectures there.

Emperor Xiaowen placed great importance on the development of Buddhism and appears to have supported forms of Buddhist learning in which the Da banniepan jing occupied a visible position. The Gaoseng Zhuan 高僧傳, in the “Biography of Tandu” (Ch. Tandu Zhuan 曇度傳), records the following:

The monk Tandu, whose family name was Cai, came from Jiangling. Even in his youth, he was known for his respectful conduct and his careful observance of monastic precepts. Sharp-minded and perceptive, he quickly stood out among his peers. Later, he made his way to the capital (Jiankang) to pursue study, where he immersed himself in a broad range of Buddhist scriptures. He paid particular attention to texts such as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra, the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa, and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, often probing beyond the literal meaning of the words to uncover deeper, more subtle insights. Due to a foot ailment, he journeyed westward and arrived in Xuzhou, where he studied the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Ch. Chengshi lun) again under Master Sengyuan. He mastered this treatise thoroughly and became a leading authority of his time. Yuan Hong (i.e., Emperor Xiaowen) of the Northern Wei heard of his reputation and, admiring his virtue from afar, sent envoys to summon him. Upon his arrival in Pingcheng, Tandu began giving large-scale lectures. The emperor personally attended and respectfully listened to his teachings, managing the sessions with care and attention. Tandu remained in the Wei capital, and his Buddhist teachings continued without interruption. Disciples gathered from afar, numbering over a thousand. He passed away in the thirteenth year of the (so-called) Taihe era, which corresponds to the sixth year of the Yongming reign of Southern Qi (circa 488 CE). He authored an eight-fascicle commentary titled Essential Meaning of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Ch. Chengshi lun dayi shu), which was widely circulated in the North.

釋曇度，本姓蔡，江陵人。少而敬慎威儀，素以戒範致稱。神情敏悟，鑒徹過人。後遊學京師，備貫眾典。《涅槃》、《法華》、《維摩》、《大品》，並探索微隱，思發言外。因以脚疾西遊，乃造徐州，從僧淵法師更受《成實論》，遂精通此部，獨步當時。魏主元宏聞風餐挹，遣使徵請。既達平城，大開講席。宏致敬下筵，親管理味。於是停止魏都，法化相續，學徒自遠而至，千有餘人。以偽太和十三年卒於魏國，即齊永明六年也。撰《成實論大義疏》八卷，盛傳北土。10

This episode illustrates the close relationship between imperial patronage and Buddhist scholastic activity during Xiaowen’s reign. It also suggests that the Da banniepan jing occupied a respected position within the Buddhist culture of the late fifth-century Northern Wei.

The central aim of the present study may now be clarified. It is well known that discussions of the Dilun tradition generally emphasize the importance accorded to texts such as the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (Ch. Shidi jing lun 十地經論) and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing 華嚴經). This article argues that the Da banniepan jing formed an important part of the intellectual environment surrounding early Dilun Buddhism. A number of figures associated with early Dilun circles—including some Chinese monks who later assisted Bodhiruci and Ratnamati in their translation activities—appear to have been familiar with the Da banniepan jing and participated in intellectual environments in which Nirvāṇa-related learning remained influential.

At the same time, this article does not argue that the Da banniepan jing alone determined the formation of early Dilun thought, nor does it treat every reference to the text as evidence of direct doctrinal dependence. Rather, it distinguishes between several different levels of relationship: the general popularity of the scripture, its presence as part of a shared intellectual and exegetical environment, and cases of more direct doctrinal convergence. The central argument advanced here concerns primarily the second and third levels. In other words, this study proposes that Nirvāṇa-related learning formed one important layer within the broader intellectual milieu in which early Dilun exegetes received, interpreted, and articulated new Yogācāra-related materials.

Nevertheless, when discussing the Dilun tradition, and especially its early representatives, comparatively insufficient attention has been paid to the role of Nirvāṇa-related learning within the broader intellectual environment surrounding early Dilun Buddhism. This article therefore seeks to narrow the scope of inquiry by focusing on early Dilun figures who were directly or indirectly associated with Bodhiruci and Ratnamati, and to examine the relationship between their intellectual formation and the Da banniepan jing. Such an inquiry also forms part of a broader attempt to reconsider the intellectual history of Buddhism in the Northern Wei during the early period following the relocation of the capital from Pingcheng to Luoyang.

Recent scholarship on Northern Wei Buddhism has increasingly emphasized the complex interaction between court patronage, translation activity, monastic networks, and the formation of new forms of Buddhist scholasticism in sixth-century North China. Studies by scholars such as Scott Pearce, Jinhua Chen, Antonello Palumbo, and Robert Sharf have demonstrated that Northern Buddhism should not be understood merely as a passive recipient of Indian doctrinal transmission, but as an active intellectual environment shaped by political institutions, regional exegetical traditions, and evolving forms of scriptural interpretation. Building upon these broader discussions, this article focuses specifically on the role of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) within the intellectual milieu surrounding the emergence of early Dilun Buddhism in Northern Wei Luoyang. The following sections move from historical context and prosopographical evidence to doctrinal analysis, not in order to establish a single line of direct causation, but to clarify broader patterns of intellectual overlap and exegetical convergence.

2. The Northern Wei 北魏 Court’s Attitude Toward Buddhism in the Luoyang 洛陽 Period

Before turning to the early Dilun figures themselves, it is necessary to clarify the institutional and courtly context in which Buddhist scholastic activity developed after the Northern Wei’s relocation to Luoyang. The purpose of this section is not merely to summarize imperial Buddhist policy, but to show how court patronage, scriptural lecturing, and the circulation of Buddhist texts created a setting in which multiple exegetical traditions—including Nirvāṇa-related learning—could overlap with the emerging Dilun milieu.

Emperor Xiaowen 孝文帝 (Tuoba Hong 拓跋宏; 467–499, r. 471–499) institutionalized Buddhism after the relocation to Luoyang, promoting temple construction and monastic expansion. Regarding Emperor Xiaowen’s attitude toward Buddhism, the Wei Shu 魏書, in its “Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism” (Ch. Shilao Zhi 釋老志), records the following:

In the eighth month of the first year of the Chengming era, the Emperor Xiaowen (Gaozu) held a grand Buddhist offering at Yongning Monastery, at which more than one hundred men and women of respectable households were ordained as monks and nuns. The emperor himself performed the tonsure, bestowed monastic robes upon them, and ordered them to observe the precepts and cultivate the Way, dedicating the resulting merit to the Former Emperor Xianzu. In the same month, an edict was issued to construct Jianming Monastery. In the second month of the first year of the Taihe era, the emperor visited Yongning Monastery to hold a vegetarian feast and granted amnesty to prisoners sentenced to death. In the third month, he again visited Yongning Monastery to convene an assembly, performing ritual practices and listening to scriptural lectures. He further ordered the officials of the Secretariat and the Chancellery to engage in discussions of Buddhist doctrine together with the monastic community, and distributed monastic robes and precious objects to the monks in varying amounts. He also established Siyuan Monastery at the site of the former fortifications of Emperor Taizu on Mount Fang. From the Zhengguang era up to this time, within the capital there were nearly one hundred monasteries, with more than two thousand monks and nuns. Throughout the various regions, there were 6478 monasteries and 77,258 monks and nuns.

承明元年八月，高祖於永寧寺，設太法供，度良家男女為僧尼者百有餘人。帝為剃發，施以僧服，令修道戒，資福於顯祖。是月，又詔起建明寺。太和元年二月，幸永寧寺設齋，赦死罪囚。三月，又幸永寧寺設會，行道聽講，命中、秘二省與僧徒討論佛義，施僧衣服、寶器有差。又於方山太祖營壘之處，建思遠寺。自正光至此，京城內寺新舊且百所，僧尼二千餘人。四方諸寺六千四百七十八，僧尼七萬七千二百五十八人。11

This passage indicates that after Emperor Xiaowen relocated the capital to Luoyang, he actively supported the development of Buddhism by founding monasteries and ordaining monks and nuns, while also encouraging the discussion and study of Buddhist doctrine. Clearly, such attitudes and measures on the part of Emperor Xiaowen, following the transfer of the capital, laid a solid foundation from the outset for the vigorous flourishing of Buddhism and its intellectual traditions in the Northern Wei during the Luoyang period. Although the Book of Wei does not mention the Da banniepan jing explicitly in this context, the broader prominence of Nirvāṇa-related learning during the period forms an important background to the developments discussed.

This evidence is significant for the present argument because it shows that the Luoyang period was marked not only by institutional expansion, but also by the court’s active support for doctrinal discussion and scriptural learning.

Following the death of Emperor Xiaowen, the throne was succeeded by Emperor Xuanwu 宣武帝 (Yuan Ke 元恪; 483–515, r. 499–515). He, too, was a ruler who strongly promoted Buddhism, and together with Emperor Xiaowen he helped to usher in what may be regarded as a “golden age” of Buddhism in the Northern Wei during the Luoyang period. Regarding Emperor Xuanwu’s attitude toward Buddhism, the Wei Shu records as below:

Emperor Xuanwu (Shizong) was deeply devoted to Buddhist doctrine. Each year he regularly delivered lectures on sūtras and śāstras within the inner palace, widely assembling eminent monks and clarifying their doctrinal import. The activities of the monastic community were recorded and compiled into what was known as the Inner Court Diary. As those above venerated Buddhism, those below became all the more inclined toward it. By the Yanchang era, the cumulative number of monasteries for monks and nuns throughout the prefectures and commanderies of the realm had reached 13,727, and the monastic population was correspondingly vast. In the first year of the Xiping era, an edict was issued dispatching the monk Huisheng as an envoy to the Western Regions in order to collect various sūtras and Vinaya texts. In the winter of the third year of the Zhengguang era, he returned to the capital. The scriptures and treatises he brought back, numbering 170 works, were subsequently circulated in the world.

世宗篤好佛理，每年常於禁中，親講經論，廣集名僧，標明義旨。沙門條錄，為《內起居》焉。上既崇之，下彌企尚。至延昌中，天下州郡僧尼寺，積有一萬三千七百二十七所，徒侶逾眾。熙平元年，詔遣沙門惠生使西域，採諸經律。正光三年冬，還京師。所得經論一百七十部，行於世。12

The Weishu further records that Emperor Xuanwu personally lectured on Buddhist scriptures and treatises within the palace on a regular basis, assembling eminent monks to clarify doctrinal meanings. This passage not only attests to direct imperial participation in Buddhist exegesis, but also indicates the emergence of a court-centered system of doctrinal discussion. At the same time, the state actively supported scriptural transmission, as evidenced by the mission of the monk Huisheng to the Western Regions, which resulted in the acquisition of 170 texts.

Taken together, the two passages cited above indicate that after the Northern Wei relocated its capital to Luoyang, the first two emperors—Emperor Xiaowen and Emperor Xuanwu—both vigorously supported the development of Buddhism. They not only increased the number of monks and nuns and expanded the network of monasteries within the realm, but also encouraged the discussion and study of Buddhist doctrine. At the same time, during the reign of Emperor Xuanwu, Buddhist monks were actively dispatched to the Western Regions to collect scriptures and treatises not yet available within the Northern Wei. Although these accounts, as preserved in the Book of Wei, do not explicitly mention the Da banniepan jing itself, it seems likely that this scripture—already widely disseminated during the Northern Liang 北涼 and the Pingcheng 平城 period of the Northern Wei—continued to remain influential in the context of the further development of Buddhism following the transfer of the capital to Luoyang.13 Emperor Xuanwu’s dispatch of envoys to the Western Regions to obtain Buddhist texts also reflects the broader circumstances in which figures such as Bodhiruci and Ratnamati came from India to the Northern Wei to translate scriptures and propagate the Dharma, thereby contributing to the formation and development of the Dilun tradition in China. This may thus be regarded as the historical context for the discussion that follows concerning the relationship between the Da banniepan jing and the early Dilun tradition.

Court support for Buddhist learning was not limited to the emperor himself; it also involved high-ranking officials who participated in Buddhist lectures and doctrinal debate. In addition to the attitudes of the emperors discussed above, the stance toward Buddhism adopted by powerful high-ranking officials at court during this period also constitutes a factor that cannot be overlooked when examining the broader context of Buddhist development in the Northern Wei Luoyang era, within which the Dilun tradition was active. In this regard, one may note the following passage recorded in the Book of Wei (Ch. Wei shu):

Li Tonggui was a native of Gaoyi in Zhao Commandery, and the younger brother of Li Yishen, Governor of Yangxia. In physical appearance he was imposing, with a girth of ten wei around the waist. His learning encompassed the various Confucian classics, many of which he studied and recited extensively. He also read Buddhist scriptures and had a particular interest in medical arts. At the age of twenty-two, he was recommended as a xiucai and, after being examined by means of policy questions, was appointed as Gentleman for Court Service and concurrently served as Assistant Instructor at the Imperial Academy. He was later transferred to the post of Gentleman of the Secretariat, where he was in charge of ceremonial regulations, participated in the compilation of the dynastic history, and was subsequently promoted to Erudite of the Imperial Academy, with the additional title of General Who Subdues the Caitiffs. In the second year of the Yongxi era, the emperor went in person to Pingdeng Monastery, where the monastic community expounded the Dharma. By imperial command, Tonggui engaged in doctrinal disputation. His articulation was clear and resonant, and the exchange was worthy of observation. The emperor was greatly pleased with him. In the spring of the third year, during the ceremony of offering vegetables, an edict summoned high officials and academic functionaries to the Xianyang Hall. The Chancellor of the Imperial Academy, Liu Xin, lectured on the Classic of Filial Piety; Li Yu of the Yellow Gate lectured on the Record of Rites; and the Gentleman of the Secretariat, Lu Jingxuan, expounded the “Xia Xiaozheng” chapter of the Da Dai Liji. At that time, Confucian learning was widely promoted, and Tonggui was invited to attend the lectures. Although he had long excelled in the interpretation of the classics and was equally adept at analytical argumentation, he was not permitted to lecture publicly on the classics, a matter that caused him deep regret. During the Tianping era, he was transferred to the position of Vice Director of the Secretariat. In the Xinghe era, he concurrently held the post of Attendant Cavalier Regular Servant and was dispatched on a mission to Xiao Yan. Xiao Yan, who was deeply devoted to Buddhist learning, assembled eminent monks at the Aijing and Tongtai monasteries to lecture on the Da banniepan jing and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Ch. Dapin jing), and he invited Tonggui to participate in the assembly. Xiao Yan also ordered his court officials to attend and listen. Tonggui engaged in doctrinal disputation for an extended period, and both monastics and laypeople alike regarded his performance as excellent.

李同軌，趙郡高邑人，陽夏太守義深之弟。體貌魁岸，腰帶十圍，學綜諸經，多所治誦，兼讀釋氏，又好醫術。年二十二，舉秀才，射策，除奉朝請，領國子助教。轉著作郎，典儀注，修國史，遷國子博士，加征虜將軍。永熙二年，出帝幸平等寺，僧徒講法，敕同軌論難，音韻閒朗，往復可觀，出帝善之。三年春，釋菜，詔延公卿學官於顯陽殿，敕祭酒劉廞講《孝經》，黃門李郁講《禮記》，中書舍人盧景宣解《大戴禮．夏小正篇》。時廣招儒學，引令預聽。同軌經義素優，辯析兼美，而不得執經，深為慨恨。天平中，轉中書侍郎。興和中，兼通直散騎常侍，使蕭衍，衍深耽釋學，遂集名僧於其愛敬、同泰二寺，講《涅槃》、《大品經》，引同軌預席。衍兼遣其朝臣並共觀聽。同軌論難久之，道俗咸以為善。14

Li Tonggui 李同軌 (500–546), who entered official life as a xiucai 秀才, began his career as Gentleman for Court Service (Ch. feng chaoqing 奉朝請) and Assistant Instructor at the Imperial Academy (Ch. guozi zhujiao 國子助教), and was subsequently promoted to Gentleman of the Secretariat (Ch. zhuzuo lang 著作郎) and Erudite of the Imperial Academy (Ch. guozi boshi 國子博士). He was born at the time when the Northern Wei had just relocated its capital to Luoyang and became a high-ranking official of the court during the Luoyang period. After the establishment of the Eastern Wei 東魏, he further served as Vice Director of the Secretariat (Ch. zhongshu shilang 中書侍郎), was dispatched as an envoy to the Liang, and became the instructor of the sons of the powerful minister Gao Huan 高歡. It may be said that Li Tonggui’s attitude toward Buddhism, to a certain extent, reflects that of a considerable segment of Northern Wei court officials during the Luoyang period.

As can be seen from the above passage in the Book of Wei, Li Tonggui attached great importance to Buddhism. He frequently invited eminent monks to lecture on the Da banniepan jing at Buddhist monasteries, and he himself attended these lectures. Although a variety of Buddhist scriptures and treatises were in circulation at the time, the Book of Wei, in recording Li Tonggui’s life, mentions only the Da banniepan jing and the Dapin jing 大品經. This passage at least suggests that the Da banniepan jing occupied a visible and respected position within certain Buddhist and intellectual circles during the Northern Wei Luoyang period. This should not be taken to imply that it eclipsed other important scriptures, such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra or the Lotus Sūtra, whose influence likewise remained substantial in different doctrinal and regional contexts. For the purposes of this article, Li Tonggui’s case helps illustrate the social breadth of Buddhist scholastic activity in the Luoyang courtly environment, within which scriptural learning was shared by monks, rulers, and literati officials alike.

The late fourth and early fifth centuries witnessed a major transformation in the formation of Chinese Buddhism. Antonello Palumbo, for example, has argued that this period marked “a radically new stage in the history of Buddhism in China,” characterized by the emergence of large-scale translation enterprises, new forms of Buddhist scholasticism, and increasingly institutionalized monastic networks centered around Chang’an and North China (Palumbo 2013, pp. 1–2). In this context, Buddhist texts should not be viewed merely as passive witnesses to Indian sectarian traditions, but rather as products of concrete historical actors operating within specific political and intellectual environments (Palumbo 2013, p. 6).

3. Nirvāṇa-Related Learning and the Early Dilun 地論 Scholastic Network in the Northern Wei Luoyang Period

Having examined the relevant background in the preceding sections, this section turns from courtly and institutional context to the monastic networks surrounding Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, Huiguang, and their disciples. Its aim is not simply to list monks who studied the Da banniepan jing, but to examine how Nirvāṇa-related learning repeatedly appears within the same networks in which early Dilun scholarship was transmitted and developed. To this end, it is first necessary to reconstruct the principal figures and their lives on the basis of biographical sources, so as to assess the ways in which Nirvāṇa-related learning intersected with their intellectual formation.

The Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Ch. Xu Gaoseng Zhuan 續高僧傳) contains an account of the life and career of Daochong 道寵 (fl. early sixth century), a disciple of the Northern Wei translator Bodhiruci, who was an influential monk active in the Luoyang region during the early sixth century.

At first, the Tripiṭaka master Ratnamati instructed three persons. Fang and Ding, the two scholars, transmitted to them the essentials of the Dharma. Huiguang alone specialized in teaching the disciplinary code. The Tripiṭaka master Bodhiruci taught exclusively Daochong. Daochong, in the northern sector, instructed Lao and Yi, four persons. Huiguang, in the southern sector, instructed Ping and Fan, ten persons. Thus, it came about that in the Luoyang region there were two routes, southern and northern.

初勒那三藏教示三人，房定二士授其心法，慧光一人偏教法律。菩提三藏惟教於寵。寵在道北教牢宜四人，光在道南教憑範十人，故使洛下有南北二途。15

This account suggests that Ratnamati had three accomplished disciples, among whom Huiguang 慧光 (468–537) stands out as the most prominent. Huiguang, in turn, trained a further group of ten distinguished disciples. Taken together, this record provides valuable evidence for reconstructing the intellectual milieu surrounding Ratnamati and the circle of figures associated with him.

Later bibliographical and doctrinal sources often refer to “the ten disciples of Huiguang” as a convenient designation for the second generation of Dilun 地論 masters associated with the Bodhiruci–Ratnamati lineage in sixth-century North China. A closer examination of the evidence, however, suggests that this expression does not denote a fixed or closed list of individuals. Rather, it functions as a retrospective label for a core network of exegetes who gathered around Huiguang and collectively ensured the dissemination of Daśabhūmika learning in the decades following Ratnamati’s activity. In my opinion, the so-called “ten disciples” should be understood as a functional teaching network rather than as a numerically precise group.

Within this network, several figures can be identified as indisputable central disciples of Huiguang. Fashang 法上 (495–580) and Daoping 道憑 (?–559) emerge as the most prominent representatives of Dilun exegesis, each also associated with the interpretation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and related doctrinal corpora, while Tanyin 曇隱 (fl. sixth century; also known as Dayin 大隱) represents a parallel but equally crucial trajectory in the transmission of Vinaya learning. These three figures collectively illustrate the doctrinal breadth of Huiguang’s circle, in which Daśabhūmika thought, Nirvāṇa doctrine, and disciplinary expertise were not isolated pursuits but mutually reinforcing components of a coherent scholastic environment.

Surrounding this inner core was a wider group of lecturers and exegetes—such as Sengfan 僧範 (476–555), Huishun 慧順 (fl. sixth century), Lingxun 靈詢 (482–550), Sengda 僧達 (fl. sixth century), and Daoshen 道慎 (fl. sixth century)—each associated with the teaching of particular texts, including the Daśabhūmika, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the Vimalakīrti, and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Rather than peripheral disciples within a rigid hierarchy, they should be understood as specialized transmitters of Dilun learning in different regions. Other figures sometimes included in later enumerations, such as Anlin 安廩 (fl. sixth century), Tanyan 曇衍 (fl. sixth century) or Tanzun 曇遵 (fl. sixth century), appear more accurately as affiliated intellectuals, southern transmitters, or members of subsequent teaching generations influenced by Huiguang’s lineage. Taken together, these materials suggest that “Huiguang’s ten disciples” was not a fixed historical group, but a later historiographical label for a broader scholastic network.

Jinhua Chen has approached medieval Chinese Buddhism not merely through doctrinal taxonomy, but through the study of monastic networks, court patronage, kinship structures, and institutional formations. His work on Sui Buddhism, for instance, highlights the extent to which Buddhist intellectual activity was embedded within broader political and social configurations linking eminent monks, aristocratic lineages, and imperial authority.16 Such perspectives provide an important methodological framework for reconsidering the intellectual environment surrounding early Dilun Buddhism in Northern Wei Luoyang.

It should be emphasized, however, that the figures discussed here were rarely specialists devoted exclusively to a single scripture. Most participated simultaneously in multiple exegetical traditions—including those associated with the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Vinaya literature, Yogācāra-related treatises, and Buddha-nature discourse. In this context, the importance of the Da banniepan jing lies in its repeated appearance within networks associated with early Dilun monks.

The first case to consider is Tanwuzui 曇無最 (fl. late fifth to early sixth century), whose importance lies in his position at the intersection of established Chinese Mahāyāna exegesis and the newly arriving translation activities associated with Bodhiruci. Tanwuzui, an eminent Chinese Mahāyāna exegete renowned for his lectures on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, was held in high esteem by Bodhiruci, who reportedly translated Tanwuzui’s Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章 into Sanskrit and transmitted it to India. Tanwuzui should be understood as a prominent Chinese Mahāyāna exegete whose doctrinal authority and exegetical activity preceded the formation of the Dilun tradition, while exerting a significant influence on the intellectual milieu encountered by Bodhiruci and Ratnamati upon their arrival in North China.

The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan contains an account of the life and career of Tanwuzui as the following:

Tanwuzui was universally esteemed within the Buddhist community and repeatedly met the expectations of his contemporaries. He was later commanded by imperial decree to reside at Rongjue Monastery in the eastern capital of Luoyang, a monastery originally established by Wenxian Yi of Qinghe. Its cloisters and halls were extensive, encircling an area of some three li. Zui excelled at the propagation and dissemination of the teaching, attaining subtle mastery of both the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing). His monastic following numbered in the thousands, and they pursued their regular religious activities without lapse. The Indian monk Bodhiruci, upon encountering him, paid him reverence and addressed him as the “Bodhisattva of the Eastern Lands.” Bodhiruci once read Zui’s Dasheng yi zhang (Exposition of the Meaning of the Mahāyāna), and each time he snapped his fingers in praise, exclaiming “Excellent!” He then translated the work into Sanskrit and sent it to Da Xia. Readers there, upon studying it, all turned eastward to venerate him as a sage. Throughout his life, however, Zui consistently regarded the propagation of the Dharma as his principal responsibility.

最德洽釋宗屢當時望，後勅住洛都融覺寺，寺即清河文獻懌所立，廊宇充溢周于三里。最善弘敷導，妙達《涅槃》、《華嚴》，僧徒千人常業無怠。天竺沙門菩提留支見而禮之，號為東土菩薩。嘗讀最之所撰《大乘義章》，每彈指唱善，飜為梵字，寄傳大夏。彼方讀者皆東向禮之為聖人矣。然其常以弘法為任。17

From this passage in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, it may be inferred that Tanwuzui and Bodhiruci were active in the Northern Wei’s new capital of Luoyang at roughly the same time, and that Bodhiruci held Tanwuzui in particularly high esteem. Tanwuzui possessed an especially profound mastery of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing), and his disciples studied the Da banniepan jing under his guidance. Bodhiruci further translated Tanwuzui’s writings into Sanskrit and transmitted them to the Western Regions. These circumstances indicate that Tanwuzui’s intellectual prestige and his engagement with the Da banniepan jing appear to have formed part of the exegetical environment encountered by Bodhiruci, one of the most representative figures of the early Dilun tradition, upon his arrival in Northern China.

The case of Bodhiruci’s reported admiration for Tanwuzui—whom he is said to have honored as a “bodhisattva of the Eastern Lands” and whose writings he translated into Sanskrit—provides a striking example. These accounts suggest that Indian monks arriving in Northern China did not encounter an intellectual vacuum. Rather, they entered a well-developed exegetical environment shaped by earlier Chinese engagements with Mahāyāna scriptures. Rather, they entered a well-developed exegetical environment in which texts such as the Da banniepan jing had already shaped the conceptual vocabulary, interpretive frameworks, and standards of doctrinal authority. The high esteem accorded to figures like Tanwuzui, whose mastery of the Da banniepan jing was widely recognized, indicates that local traditions of Buddhist learning possessed a degree of sophistication that could command the respect of foreign translators.

These circumstances suggest that the transmission of Buddhist scholasticism in the Northern Wei was not simply a one-directional process of doctrinal importation. Translators such as Bodhiruci operated within an already developed Chinese exegetical environment in which Nirvāṇa-related learning occupied an important position. Their translation activities and exegetical contributions unfolded within pre-existing patterns of interpretation that likely influenced how newly translated texts were received and understood.18 In this sense, the emergence of the Dilun tradition may thus be understood not simply as the transmission of Yogācāra-related ideas, but also as their reinterpretation within a conceptual environment in which the Da banniepan jing had long remained an important reference point. Therefore, Tanwuzui’s case is important not because it proves direct doctrinal dependence between the Da banniepan jing and Dilun thought, but because it shows that Bodhiruci encountered a local Buddhist environment in which Nirvāṇa-related exegesis already possessed considerable prestige.

This perspective also resonates with Robert Sharf’s critique of the conventional “encounter” model in the study of Chinese Buddhism. As Sharf has argued, the notion of Buddhism “entering” China and subsequently undergoing “Sinification” presupposes a misleading image of two discrete, self-contained cultural traditions engaging in dialog. In reality, the Chinese engagement with Buddhism unfolded largely within a Sinitic linguistic and intellectual milieu, such that what later appears as the reception of an Indian tradition was, in many respects, already mediated through indigenous exegetical concerns (Sharf 2002, pp. 1–2+18–19). From this vantage point, figures such as Bodhiruci are better understood not as agents introducing a fully formed doctrinal system into China, but as participants operating within an interpretive field that had already been shaped by prior Chinese engagements with a range of Buddhist scriptures, among which the Da banniepan jing occupied a particularly visible position.

Huiguang 慧光 (468–537), broadly versed in both sūtras and śāstras, was regarded as an authority of his age. He was also connected with the study and interpretation of the Da banniepan jing, on which he is said to have composed a commentary. Huiguang himself even authored a commentary on the Da banniepan jing. The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan records the life and career of Huiguang as below:

Ratnamati initially translated the Daśabhūmika (Ch. Shidi jing lun) independently. It was only later that a joint translation was undertaken, a matter recorded in a separate biography. During this period, Huiguang had the opportunity to attend these translation sessions. Because he had long been familiar with the languages involved, he was able to mediate between the two divergent interpretations, selecting and discarding points on the basis of his own understanding, while preserving their essential doctrinal framework. From this point onward, the Dilun tradition came to circulate more widely, with its chapters named and its meanings elucidated. The initial formation of the Four Part Vinaya (Ch. Sifen lü) of the school may be traced back to this very context. With regard to texts such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing), the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing), the Vimalakīrti-sūtra (Ch. Weimo jing), the Daśabhūmika (Ch. Shidi jing lun), and the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Ch. Pusa di chi jing), Huiguang produced commentaries that probed their profound purport and disseminated their teachings. His writings, while preserving a distinctive intellectual vigor and stylistic integrity, were often concise and sparing in their treatment of textual divisions and phrasing. For this reason, over the course of a thousand years his pure disciplinary standards have been looked up to with reverence, and generations of teachers have honored him as a central authority of the tradition.

勒那初譯十地，至後合翻，事在別傳。光時預霑其席，以素習方言，通其兩諍，取捨由悟，綱領存焉。自此，地論流傳，命章開釋。四分一部，草創基茲。其《華嚴》、《涅槃》、《維摩》、《十地》、《地持》等，並疏其奧旨而弘演導。然文存風骨，頗略章句，故千載仰其清規，眾師奉為宗轄矣。19

From this passage, it is evident that Huiguang studied under Ratnamati, one of the representative figures of the early Dilun tradition, and that he assisted Ratnamati in his translation activities. Ratnamati was the translator of both the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun) and the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (Ch. Shidi jing lun), and Huiguang is said to have been present at his side, offering support during the process of translation. Huiguang also engaged with the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) and composed commentarial works to elucidate it. These circumstances indicate that Huiguang’s engagement with the Da banniepan jing formed part of the broader exegetical background within which the translation and interpretation of texts such as the Ratnagotravibhāga took place in Northern Wei Luoyang.

Huiguang’s significance for the present study therefore lies in his position between translation activity, Vinaya learning, Daśabhūmika exegesis, and Nirvāṇa-related commentary. His career illustrates the kind of overlapping scholastic environment in which early Dilun thought took shape.

Sengfan 僧範 (476–555) took ordination as a result of hearing lectures on the Da banniepan jing. When he first studied the Da banniepan jing, he is said to have grasped its purport in full at once. He later studied under Huiguang and composed a commentary on the Da banniepan jing. The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan records Sengfan’s life as below:

At the age of twenty-nine, Sengfan took up residence in a district, where he heard lectures on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing). He decided to attend the lecture, and thereupon experienced a sudden and spiritual awakening. His grasp of principle and reflective understanding advanced together, and he came to recognize the ultimate profundity of the Buddhist scriptures. He subsequently went to Ye city and took ordination under the monk Sengshi. At the outset he studied the Da banniepan jing and immediately exhausted its essential meaning. He then settled his mind at mount and forest, calming the distractions of unsettled emotion. Thereafter he went to Luoyang, where he studied the Lotus Sūtra (Ch. Fahua jing) and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing) under Lord Xian. He examined the divergent judgments and methods of earlier masters, and later shifted his course to follow Master Huiguang, from whom he received instruction. Immersed in savoring the teachings of emptiness, the years passed in succession. Having thoroughly penetrated the provisional means and doctrinal distinctions, his commitment to learning remained undivided and free from admixture. He then traveled abroad to propagate and transform, benefiting the regions of Qi and Wei. Whenever a preaching assembly was convened, the audience numbered more than a thousand. When he eventually returned to Ye, he could rightly be described as one of the outstanding masters of his age. Cui Jin, when composing his commentary on the Book of Changes, consulted him in order to appropriate its strengths. Song Jing, when formulating a calendrical system, sought his advice so as to discard its deficiencies. Eminent Confucian scholars such as Xu Zunming and Li Baoding, upon a single encounter with his discourse, placed their trust in his words and received from him the bodhisattva precepts. Followers gathered around him as densely as a marketplace. He lectured on the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, the Daśabhūmika, the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, and the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra (Ch. Shengman jing), composing explanatory notes and records for each. He further reworked these commentaries, citing scriptural sources throughout, and recast them into treatises. For this reason, works such as the Treatise on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the Treatise on the Mahāprajñā-sūtra came to be designated as “treatises” rather than merely commentaries.

年二十九，栖遲下邑，聞講《涅槃》。輒試一聽，開悟神府，理思兼通，乃知佛經之祕極也。遂投鄴城僧始而出家焉。初學《涅槃經》，頓盡其致。又栖心林慮，靜其浮情。復向洛下從獻公聽《法華》、《華嚴》。宗匠前修是非衢術，後徙轍光師而受道焉。耽味虛宗，歲紀遷貿。既窮筌相，學志無雜。乃出遊開化，利安齊、魏。每法筵一舉，聽眾千餘。逮旋趾鄴都，可謂當時明匠。遂使崔覲注《易》，諮之取長。宋景造曆，求而捨短。大儒徐遵明李寶頂等，一對信於言前，授以菩薩戒法。五眾歸之如市。講《華嚴》、《十地》、《地持》、《維摩》、《勝鬘》，各有疏記。復變疏引經，製成為論。故《涅槃》、《大品》等並稱論焉。20

According to this record, Sengfan first entered Buddhist study through an intensive engagement with the Da banniepan jing and is described by the hagiographical source as having quickly grasped its purport. Although Sengfan later engaged extensively with a wide range of scriptures and scholastic materials—including the Lotus Sūtra, the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, and Dilun-related texts—his early and sustained engagement with the Da banniepan jing remained an important component of his intellectual formation. Thereafter, Sengfan studied under Huiguang and, as one of his principal disciples, continued to engage in the study of a wide range of sūtras and śāstras. At a later stage, he lectured in Ye 鄴, where he attracted a large following of students, and he also composed a commentary on the Da banniepan jing. These circumstances indicate that, as one of Huiguang’s key disciples, Sengfan’s career illustrates how sustained engagement with the Da banniepan jing could coexist with, and possibly inform, broader forms of scholastic and exegetical activity within early Dilun circles.

Huishun 慧順 (fl. sixth century) likewise first heard lectures on the Da banniepan jing. He later ordained under Huiguang in order to resolve what had remained conceptually obstructed. The record of Huishun can be found in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan.

Shi Huishun, whose family name was Cui, was a native of Qi and the younger brother of Cui Guang, who served as shizhong (Palace Attendant). In his youth he was devoted to the Confucian tradition and possessed a comprehensive understanding of refined intellectual pursuits. As he grew older, he became weary of the entanglements of the secular world and lived as a layman. He initially listened to lectures on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) and grasped its meanings with virtually no omission. Once, while lecturing, he fell asleep and heard a voice saying: “This understanding is indeed clear, yet it has not reached the ultimate.” Thereupon his mind was cast into doubt, and he sought a means to resolve this inner affliction. Hearing that in the capital there was a Vinaya master named Huiguang who was widely versed in the Mahāyāna and whose learning left no text uncomprehended, Huishun traveled to Luoyang at the age of twenty-five. He immediately took refuge with Huiguang and received ordination, dwelling among his disciples. There he compiled and refined the essential principles of the Dilun teaching, laboring tirelessly, often to the point of forgetting to eat, as the years passed in succession. The two paths of doctrinal understanding and practice were thus verified together, sharpened like a keen mirror within his mind. The three restraints and the threefold collective precepts were correspondingly manifested outwardly in his spiritual bearing.

釋慧順，姓崔，齊人侍中崔光之弟也。少愛儒宗，統知雅趣。長厭塵網，為居士焉。初聽《涅槃》，略無遺義。因講而睡，聞有言曰，此解乃明，猶未為極。心遂遲疑，伺決其病。承都下有光律師者，廣涉大乘，文無不曉。因往洛陽，時年二十有五。即投光而出家焉，寓於門下，纂修地旨，倦無終食，歲紀相尋。證教兩途，銳鏡於心內。三持三聚，影現於神外。21

Huishun likewise later entered Huiguang’s circle of instruction and became one of his important principal disciples. Moreover, prior to seeking out Huiguang, Huishun had already undertaken a systematic and in-depth study of the Da banniepan jing. In other words, Huishun’s early Buddhist formation included substantial engagement with the Da banniepan jing. This circumstance thus constitutes further evidence that the disciples and close collaborators surrounding Huiguang—himself a key figure in the early Dilun tradition and an assistant in the translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga—were connected, in varying degrees, with the Da banniepan jing and its exegetical tradition. The case of Huishun is significant not because it demonstrates direct doctrinal dependence, but because it illustrates the extent to which engagement with the Da banniepan jing and participation in Dilun-related scholastic networks could overlap within the same monastic career.

The cases of Sengfan and Huishun show that engagement with the Da banniepan jing did not stand apart from Dilun learning. Rather, it could function as part of a broader formation that also included Huayan, Vinaya, and Daśabhūmika-related study.

Daoping 道憑 (?–559) early on studied the Da banniepan jing and texts such as the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Ch. Chengshi lun 成實論), but later turned to Huiguang to study Vinaya (Ch. lü 律). The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan records his career as below:

Shi Daoping, whose family name was Han, was a native of Ping’en. He took ordination at the age of twelve, entering Shao Monastery in Guixiang. At the outset he recited the Vimalakīrti-sūtra (Ch. Weimo jing), reviewing it repeatedly on his own. He is said to have covered some 4400 characters per day. What he heard once he never forgot, and he thereby came to master several scriptures. He later studied the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing), gaining a general grasp of its broader sections. He subsequently turned to the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Ch. Chengshi lun). After hearing only half a passage, he was immediately able to articulate its central doctrinal meaning. Daoping’s reputation for intelligence was such that it rivaled that of figures of antiquity, and news of his abilities spread far and wide, so that people from near and distant places all sought to pay him reverence. After seven summers of monastic training, Daoping wished to lecture on the Da banniepan jing, but remarked that “the text admits of divergent interpretations within a single exposition, and the underlying principles are difficult to substantiate. I fear that this would amount to empty instruction and constitute a grave slander of the Dharma.” After completing eight summers, he ascended and proceeded to cultivate meditative practice. He traveled throughout the regions of Zhang, Fu, Yi, and Luo, seeking out exemplary teachings wherever they were found. Later, while concentrating his mind during the summer retreat at Shaolin Monastery, monks in search of the Way came through the undergrowth to visit him. Hearing that Master Huiguang was actively propagating the Vinaya corpus, Daoping therefore went to listen to Huiguang. Through this encounter Daoping gained insight into the Mahāyāna and found it deeply consonant with his own aspirations. He remained there for a full decade, during which his reputation steadily increased. He then took leave of Huiguang and traveled widely to transmit the Dharma and carry out teaching and transformation. Such excellence in the transmission of the lamp in the regions of Zhao and Wei was rarely to be found. Daoping lectured on the Shidi jing lun, the Da banniepan jing, the Huayan jing, and the Sifen lü, and in each case was able to lecture upon a text as soon as he opened the fascicle.

釋道憑，姓韓，平恩人。十二出家，投貴鄉邵寺。初誦《維摩經》，自惟歷覽，日計四千四百言。一聞無忘，乃通數部。後學《涅槃》，略觀遠節。復尋《成實》，初聽半文，便竪大義。聰明之譽，無羨昔人。致使遐邇聞風，咸思頂謁。七夏欲講《涅槃》。惟曰，文一釋異，情理難資，恐兼虛課，謗法誠重。八夏既登遂行禪境。漳滏伊洛，遍討嘉猷。後於少林寺攝心夏坐，問道之僧披榛而至。聞光師弘揚戒本，因往聽之。涉悟大乘，深副情願。經停十載，聲聞漸高，乃辭光，通法弘化。趙魏傳燈之美，罕有斯焉。講《地論》、《涅槃》、《花嚴》、《四分》，皆覽卷便講。22

Similar to the case of Huishun discussed above, Daoping likewise began by undertaking an intensive study of the Da banniepan jing, in which he achieved a high level of mastery. He even considered delivering public lectures on the Da banniepan jing. Thereafter, Daoping sought out Huiguang and studied under him for a period of ten years, becoming one of Huiguang’s principal disciples. Daoping subsequently traveled independently to propagate the Dharma, lecturing on a number of sūtras and śāstras, including the Da banniepan jing. His activities of Dharma propagation were praised as exemplifying the “transmission of the lamp in the regions of Zhao 趙 and Wei 魏,” a characterization that indicates the esteem in which his teaching activity was held. Daoping’s career therefore provides another example of overlap between engagement with the Da banniepan jing, training under Huiguang, and participation in Dilun-related scholastic activity.

According to the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, Lingxun 靈詢 (482–550), too, had studied the Chengshi lun and the Da banniepan jing in his youth, and later also learned under Huiguang.

Shi Lingxun, whose family name was Fu, was a native of Yuyang. He entered the Buddhist path at a young age and studied the Chengshi lun together with the Da banniepan jing, penetrating their deepest and most recondite meanings. He further extracted essential points from the treatises, producing a two-juan abridgment, to which he added annotations and explanations. This work circulated widely in the world. He later abandoned the “Lesser Path” and turned his reverent attention to Master Huiguang, devoting himself day and night to study and inquiry for more than ten years. He attained comprehensive understanding of the subtle purport and esoteric teachings, fully discerning where doctrines were accessible or obstructed. Although he possessed broad knowledge of the canons as a whole, he particularly excelled in the Weimo jing, on which he also composed commentarial notes. When the capital was later transferred to the Zhang–Ye region, he traveled through the areas of Yan and Zhao, extending his teaching and transforming influence so that it reached all four assemblies.

釋靈詢，姓傅氏，漁陽人也。少年入道，學《成實論》并《涅槃經》，窮其幽府。又於論中刪要兩卷，注而釋之，盛行於世。後棄小道，崇仰光公。曉夕研尋十有餘載。纖旨祕教，備知通塞。雖博知群籍，而擅出《維摩》，兼有疏記。至遷京漳鄴，遊歷燕、趙，化霑四眾。23

Lingxun likewise undertook an intensive study of the Da banniepan jing prior to entering Huiguang’s circle, and he is also recorded as having composed a two-juan commentary on this scripture. He later studied under Huiguang for more than a decade. Judged by the length and depth of this period of training, he should, like the monks discussed above, be regarded as one of Huiguang’s important disciples, and his long period of training under Huiguang places him within the broader scholastic network associated with early Dilun learning. The evidence concerning Lingxun and related figures suggests that Nirvāṇa-related learning formed one important part of the intellectual background shared by some monks associated with Ratnamati’s translation milieu and the early Dilun tradition.

Daoping and Lingxun further reinforce this pattern: both figures moved between Nirvāṇa-related learning and Huiguang’s teaching network, suggesting that the early Dilun milieu was shaped by intersecting forms of scriptural and scholastic training.

Fashang 法上 (495–580) of the Northern Qi 北齊 was a celebrated master of his time. At the age of nine he obtained the Da banniepan jing. Upon opening it and reciting it, he immediately developed world-weariness and consequently ordained under the meditation master Daoyao 道藥. The Da banniepan jing appears to have played an especially important role in Fashang’s early religious life, although he later engaged extensively with a wide range of scriptures and treatises. He later turned to Huiguang and received full ordination (the complete precepts). Among his writings was a two-fascicle Treatise on Buddha-nature (Ch. Foxing lun 佛性論).

Similarly, the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan contains an account of the life and career of Fashang as the following:

At the age of nine, Fashang obtained the Da banniepan jing. Upon opening it and reciting it, he immediately developed a sense of world-weariness. When he reached the age of twelve, he sought out the meditation master Daoyao and took ordination. Fashang then traveled through the neighboring regions, before returning to his home district of Ji. He later went to the Eastern Capital, where he took temporary residence and devoted himself single-mindedly to the pursuit of the Way. His spiritual bearing was lofty and clear, and his illumination extended to both language and doctrinal discourse. Wherever he resided, people praised him unanimously, calling him a “sage novice.” Subsequently, he moved to Hushan Monastery on Mount Linlü, where he recited the Weimo jing and the Fahua jing. In little more than twenty days, he mastered both scriptures. Seeking deeper understanding through recitation, he then returned to Luoyang. …… Later, encountering a time of scarcity, he lacked both clothing and food. Yet he devoted himself entirely to the Da banniepan jing, remaining unmindful of hunger and cold. A single grain of rice supplemented with vegetables sufficed for his meals, and a single garment combined with grasses served as his clothing. As his physical form was worn down to exhaustion, his spiritual vitality advanced day by day. He then turned to Master Huiguang and received full ordination. His moral discipline was already firmly established from early on and required little guidance from his teacher. He applied himself diligently to the examination of principle, allowing not a moment of time to be wasted. …… Once his wisdom and scholarly accomplishments became widely known, the community repeatedly requested that he teach, and he accordingly lectured on the texts such as the Shidi jing lun, the Pusa di chi jing, the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (Ch. Ru lengqie jing), and the Da banniepan jing. These lectures were delivered in successive cycles, and for each he composed written commentaries.

九歲得《涅槃經》，披而誦之，即生厭世。至于十二，投禪師道藥而出家焉。因遊相土，尋還汲鄉。又往東都，栖遑務道。神氣高爽，照曉詞論。所在推之咸謂聖沙彌也。後潛林慮上胡山寺，誦《維摩》、《法花》。纔浹二旬，兩部俱度。因誦求解，還入洛陽。……後值時儉，衣食俱乏。專意《涅槃》，無心飢凍。故一粒之米加之以菜，一衣為服兼之以草。練形將盡而精神日進。乃投光師，而受具焉。性戒夙成，不勞師導。勤勤諦理，無失寸陰。……既慧業有聞，眾皆陳請，乃講《十地》、《地持》、《楞伽》、《涅槃》等部。輪次相續，並著文疏。24

Readers with a basic familiarity with the history of Chinese Buddhism in the Northern and Southern Dynasties will be aware that Fashang was one of the most important figures in the history of the Dilun tradition and a representative disciple within Huiguang’s lineage. As can be seen from this passage in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, prior to his association with Huiguang, the Da banniepan jing appears to have played an especially formative role in Fashang’s early religious life. The hagiographical account links both his decision to take ordination and his perseverance under hardship with his engagement with the Da banniepan jing. Against this background, after following Huiguang for many years, Fashang went on to lecture publicly on the Da banniepan jing and to compose commentarial works on it.

On the basis of the sources currently available to us, Fashang emerges as the most important figure for understanding Huiguang’s circle of disciples and the so-called “Southern Route” of the Dilun tradition. The later and well-known lineage of Huiyuan 慧遠 (523–592) of Jingying Monastery 淨影寺 derives from Fashang. Fashang’s sustained engagement with the Da banniepan jing suggests that Nirvāṇa-related learning remained an important element within Huiguang’s broader circle and within the intellectual background of some early Dilun figures.

The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan likewise records the life of Daoshen 道慎 (fl. sixth century) as the following:

Shi Daoshen, whose family name was Shi, was a native of Gaoyang. He took ordination at the age of fourteen, reciting and listening to the scriptures in accordance with his regular monastic discipline. After receiving full ordination, he entered Luoyang, where he studied the Dilun teaching under Master Huiguang. He later received instructions from senior monastic authorities (Fashang?), while directing his own aspirations toward the Da banniepan jing. His disposition was calm and unassuming, and his personal bearing was gentle and composed. He took as his own responsibility the organization and guidance of his disciples, maintaining and upholding the Great Dharma. Whenever he participated in discussions or expounded the precepts, he listened kneeling until the very end. In lecturing and bringing clarity to confused minds, his language was never prolix or extended. The wise feared that his words were too few, while the unlearned worried that they were not enough. The five assemblies held him in great esteem. For this reason, Emperor Xuan invited him to serve as a state monastic overseer in the capital.

釋道慎，姓史，高陽人。十四出家，誦聽依業。受具已後入洛，從光師學於地論。後稟上統，而志《涅槃》。性度夷簡，風量陶然。綱網門徒，維攝大法而為己任。每參說戒，跪聽至訖。講悟昏情，詞無繁長。智者恐其言少，愚者慮其不多。五眾愛重。故宣帝請為國都。25

Shortly after taking ordination, Daoshen traveled to Luoyang to study under Huiguang, where his primary areas of training were Dilun learning and the study of monastic discipline. At the same time, however, throughout his period of study within Huiguang’s circle, Daoshen appears to have directed particular attention to the Da banniepan jing during his religious cultivation. This case adds another example of a monk connected with Huiguang’s circle whose training included significant engagement with the Da banniepan jing.

Moreover, the Sui monk Lingyu 靈裕 (518–605) studied under Daoping, was likewise skilled in the Da banniepan jing, and also composed a scriptural commentary. The Xu Gaoseng Zhuan contains his life as below:

The monk Lingyu, whose secular surname was Zhao, was a native of Quyang in Julu, Dingzhou. From early childhood, he exhibited extraordinary conduct that moved those around him. Whenever he saw the image or presence of a monk, he instinctively showed them reverence. The sound and sight of animal slaughter would cause him deep sorrow, and his example inspired those in his community and even his relatives to abstain from killing. By the age of six, he already understood the significance of receiving precepts. … Upon reaching adulthood, he heard of the eminent preceptor Huiguang and his virtuous reputation in Ye city, and immediately set out to become his disciple. However, Huiguang had passed away just seven days earlier. Lingyu lamented having missed the opportunity to study under him and, seeking an anchor for his monastic discipline, turned instead to Master Daoping and began studying the Dilun tradition. He remained at Daoping’s Dharma seat for three years. At the age of twenty-two, he received full ordination. … Later, he traveled south to the Zhang and Fu rivers, where he studied the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya under the master Yin. He memorized and practiced the five-fascicle version of the text after hearing it only once. At that time, the Dilun school was rising in prominence. Huiguang had been its original transmitter and chief expositor. Daoping had personally received the tradition from Huiguang, and both masters had their own distinct interpretations. Lingyu studied under Daoping’s guidance, engaging deeply day and night. Those who witnessed his sharp insights and novel interpretations unanimously praised him. During the reign of Emperor Xuan of the Qi dynasty, when Buddhist doctrine was widely promoted and the prestige of the Buddhism reached its peak, Emperor Xuan of Qi greatly promoted the Buddhist teachings, and Fashang’s fame and power prevailed over all other schools and Buddhist scholars. Many scholars sought fame and advantage through association with popular teachers. But Lingyu remained steadfast and independent, standing apart from worldly pursuits. His only concern was that there might be Dharma he had not yet heard, and he remained eager to seek it out. In later years, Fashang came to rely on Lingyu for important responsibilities and regarded him with deep respect. From then on, Lingyu devoted much of his energy to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Dilun tradition, and the Vinaya. He both studied existing interpretations and developed new and creative insights into these texts.

釋靈裕，俗姓趙，定州鉅鹿曲陽人也。年居童幼，異行感人，每見儀像沙門，必形心隨敬。聞屠殺聲相，亦切愴胸懷。致使鄉黨傳芳，親緣為之止殺。年登六歲，便知受戒。……年始弱冠，聞慧光律師英猷鄴下，即往歸稟。會已歿世，纔經七日。獨嗟無遇，戒約何依。乃迴投憑師，聽於《地論》。荏苒法席，終于三年。二十有二，方進具戒。……後南遊漳滏，於隱公所偏學《四分》，隨聞尋記五卷行之。又以地論初興，惠光開悟之元匠，流衍弘導。道憑即光師之所親承，憑光並有別傳，裕依憑法席。晨夜幽通，發奇剖新者，皆共推揖。有齊宣帝盛弘釋典，大統法上勢覆群英。學者望風嚮附，用津僥倖。唯裕仗節專貞，卓然不偶倫類。但慮未聞所聞，用為翹結耳。後上統深委高亮，欽而敬之。自此專業《華嚴》、《涅槃》、地論、律部，皆博尋舊解，穿鑿新異。26

Lingyu later became an important figure associated with Nirvāṇa-related learning in the Northern Dynasties. At first, he had hoped to study under Huiguang, but learned that Huiguang had already passed away. He then turned to Huiguang’s student, Daoping, from whom he received instruction in Dilun learning. Lingyu’s reputation in the Buddhist community grew considerably—so much so that even Fashang, who headed the monastic order under Northern Qi, regarded him with high esteem. It is also worth noting that one of Fashang’s own students was Huiyuan of Jingying Temple, who would later emerge as a central figure in the Southern Branch of the Dilun school. There were also connections between Huiyuan and Lingyu. This evidence does not by itself prove a direct doctrinal line of influence, but it does show that Nirvāṇa-related learning continued to circulate among monks who were connected, directly or indirectly, with later Dilun lineages. These examples suggest a continued overlap between Nirvāṇa-related learning and certain circles associated with later Dilun traditions.

In addition to the monks discussed above who were directly associated with the earliest Dilun masters, such as Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, and Huiguang, there were other figures in later periods who continued to study and transmit the Da banniepan jing in circles that overlapped with, or stood near, Dilun-related doctrinal lineages. For example, in Tanyan’s 曇延 (516–588) youth, he heard the Hedong 河東 monk Sengmiao 僧妙 lecture on the Da banniepan jing. Sengmiao expounded this scripture and took it as his regular vocation. Tanyan is said to have grasped its purport and thereupon left household life to become a monk. Tanyan authored a fifteen-juan Commentary on the Da banniepan jing (Ch. Niepan jing shu 涅槃經疏). In the transitional period between the Sui 隋 and Tang 唐, many of his disciples were notably proficient in the learning on the Da banniepan jing. Owing to limitations of space and the specific focus of the present study, these figures cannot be treated in detail here.

On the other hand, another factor that cannot be overlooked is the pronounced imbalance in the extant hagiographical sources upon which we rely, particularly in their coverage of the Southern and Northern Dynasties. According to the statistics compiled by Yamazaki Hiroshi 山崎宏, in the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Ch. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳), compiled in the Liang 梁 dynasty of the Southern Dynasties, the number of Northern monks accorded individual biographies amounts to only about one-tenth of those from the south. Even Tanyao 曇曜, a representative figure of the Northern Wei Buddhist community following the end of Emperor Taiwu’s suppression of Buddhism, was not granted a separate biography in the main section. By the Tang period, with the reunification of the north and south, sources from the northern regions had become more readily accessible. As a result, the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Ch. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳) reduced this numerical disparity between the two regions. Nevertheless, the overall situation still remained one in which monks from the Southern Dynasties were represented in significantly greater numbers than those from the north (Yamazaki 1942, pp. 247–48). From this perspective, in the Northern Wei, especially after the relocation of the capital to Luoyang, the number of Buddhist monks actively engaged in the propagation of the Dharma and in translation activities, and thus worthy of being recorded, must in fact have been considerably greater than the number preserved in the extant sources available to us today. Owing, however, to factors such as the anti-Buddhist persecutions in the Northern Wei and the historiographical perspective of the Southern Dynasties, which tended to privilege their own regions, we are able to access only a portion of the relevant information. It is therefore possible that the number of Northern Wei monks associated with the study of the Da banniepan jing was greater than what can be recovered from the extant sources.

Compared with the abundance of sources available for the period after the Tang, the relevant materials from the Northern Dynasties are comparatively limited in quantity. As a result, our knowledge of the early Dilun masters around the time of the Northern Wei’s relocation of the capital to Luoyang remains fragmentary. The present section has relied primarily on Buddhist hagiographical sources to examine the principal Dilun figures in the period surrounding the arrival of Bodhiruci and Ratnamati in China to translate scriptures and propagate the Buddhist Dharma, with particular attention to those monks directly associated with the two. On this basis, it becomes apparent that, a considerable number of Chinese monks associated with Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, Huiguang, and their subsequent teaching networks had engaged, to varying degrees, with the Da banniepan jing. Among them, some even achieved a profound level of mastery of this scripture. According to our conventional understanding, it is precisely these figures who constitute the core of the early Dilun masters.27 This observation suggests that, although scholarly discussions have typically emphasized the Dilun masters’ esteem for texts such as the Shidi jing lun and the Huayan jing, the Da banniepan jing had functioned as one shared point of reference within the broader intellectual environment of early Dilun-associated monks.

The evidence surveyed in this section does not by itself establish direct doctrinal dependence. It does, however, show a recurrent pattern: many monks associated with Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, Huiguang, and later Dilun-related lineages had also engaged with the Da banniepan jing. This pattern provides the basis for the following doctrinal analysis, which asks how far Nirvāṇa-related concepts may have intersected with early Dilun interpretations of the bodhisattva path.

4. Possible Doctrinal Convergences Between Nirvāṇa-Related Learning and Early Dilun Thought

Modern scholarship on tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature thought has focused on questions of ontology, soteriology, and the relationship between inherent Buddhahood and cultivation. Scholars such as Sallie B. King, Michael Radich, Michael Zimmermann, and Christopher Jones have demonstrated the diversity and historical development of Buddha-nature discourse across Indian and East Asian Buddhist traditions (See King 1991; Zimmermann 2002; Jones 2020b). The present discussion approaches these issues from a different angle by focusing on the intersection between Nirvāṇa-related discourse and the scholastic formation of the early Dilun milieu in Northern Wei China.

The discussion that follows does not seek to prove a direct textual dependence of early Dilun thought upon the Da banniepan jing in every case. Rather, it examines a range of conceptual affinities, terminological overlaps, and exegetical convergences through which Nirvāṇa-related learning may have interacted with Dilun scholastic concerns. In this sense, “doctrinal convergence” is used here in a qualified sense: it refers not to a single line of causal influence, but to the intersection of Buddha-nature discourse with emerging Dilun interpretations of the bodhisattva path.

Recent scholarship has emphasized the importance of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra to the formative stages of tathāgatagarbha thought. In particular, Michael Radich has argued that this scripture is best regarded as our earliest extant text systematically articulating tathāgatagarbha doctrine, and thus as a privileged locus for investigating the conditions of its emergence. In this reading, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra (Ch. Da banniepan jing) does not merely reflect a developed stage of Buddha-nature speculation, but rather preserves a doctrinal stratum in which the notion of an inherent “embryo” or “womb” of Buddhahood is first elaborated as a soteriologically meaningful principle (Radich 2015, pp. 13–14+16–17). Such a perspective reinforces the view advanced in the present study that the Da banniepan jing should not be treated merely as a distant background text, but as one important conceptual resource for understanding the intellectual environment in which early Dilun thought emerged.

In the previous section, we examined early Dilun masters who studied the Da banniepan jing. In this section, I turn to the level of doctrinal thought, seeking to identify and analyze traces of the influence exerted by the Da banniepan jing on the early Dilun figures. The foregoing prosopographical analysis has shown that engagement with the Da banniepan jing was widespread among a number of figures associated with early Dilun circles. The question that now arises is how far such engagement can help us understand possible doctrinal convergences between Nirvāṇa-related learning and early Dilun thought.

While the preceding discussion has suggested that a number of early Dilun-associated figures were engaged with the Da banniepan jing, the significance of this relationship may extend beyond mere textual familiarity or devotional preference. What remains to be clarified is how Nirvāṇa doctrine functioned at the level of doctrinal structure within the emerging Dilun tradition. In this respect, it may be argued that the Da banniepan jing and the Shidi jing lun represent two complementary dimensions of early Northern Wei Buddhist thought: the former articulating a discourse of Buddha-nature and ultimate reality, and the latter providing a systematic account of the bodhisattva path as a graded process of spiritual cultivation.

From this perspective, the widespread emphasis on Buddha-nature in the Da banniepan jing may be seen as offering one possible conceptual basis for the soteriological framework elaborated in the Shidi jing lun. The Da banniepan jing famously affirms that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, thereby asserting the universal potential for Buddhahood. By contrast, the Shidi jing lun outlines a highly structured path of practice, in which the bodhisattva advances through ten successive stages toward full enlightenment. A fundamental question thus arises: on what basis can ordinary beings, mired in ignorance and defilement, be said to be capable of traversing such an elevated path? It is here that the Da banniepan jing may help clarify one possible doctrinal background for such a soteriological framework. By positing that all beings already possess the inherent ground of Buddhahood, the Da banniepan jing offers one way of conceptualizing the basis that renders the progressive cultivation of the bodhisattva path both intelligible and meaningful. In this sense, it may be suggested that the Da banniepan jing may have served as one interpretive resource for understanding the graded soteriology articulated in the Shidi jing lun.

A further dimension of this relationship emerges when one considers the tension between the Da banniepan jing’s emphasis on the eternality of the Buddha’s dharmakāya and the Dilun tradition’s focus on gradual cultivation. The Da banniepan jing repeatedly stresses that the Buddha’s true body—the dharmakāya—is eternal, unchanging, and ever-present, in contrast to the impermanent rūpakāya that appears within the world as a skillful means. By contrast, the Dilun exegetical tradition, grounded in the Shidi jing lun, emphasizes the progressive realization of Buddhahood through the accumulation of merit and wisdom across successive stages of the bodhisattva path. This apparent tension between an already accomplished Buddhahood and a not-yet-realized path of cultivation presents a significant hermeneutical challenge. It is here that the doctrinal resources associated with the Da banniepan jing may have offered one way to mediate this tension within early Dilun thought. Rather than treating these two perspectives as mutually exclusive, some early Dilun exegetes may have drawn upon Nirvāṇa-related concepts to negotiate the tension between inherent Buddhahood and progressive cultivation. In this reading, the bodhisattva path does not produce Buddhahood, but rather gradually discloses or actualizes a Buddhahood that is ontologically prior.28 The ten stages thus represent not the creation of a new state, but the unfolding of an inherent potential grounded in Buddha-nature.

Such an interpretive strategy would allow for a possible integration of ontological and soteriological dimensions within a single doctrinal framework. The Da banniepan jing provides the metaphysical assurance that liberation is universally accessible, while the Shidi jing lun offers a practical schema through which that liberation may be realized in a structured and disciplined manner. In this sense, the relationship between the Da banniepan jing and the Dilun tradition should not be understood merely in terms of historical influence, but rather as a form of doctrinal convergence in which two distinct yet complementary modes of Buddhist thought are brought into dynamic alignment.

When viewed in this light, the prominence of Nirvāṇa-based learning among early Dilun figures takes on a new significance. It suggests that their engagement with the Da banniepan jing was not merely incidental, but formed part of the intellectual conditions under which Dilun thought could emerge and develop. The doctrinal synthesis implied by this convergence would later find more explicit articulation in texts such as the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun), which systematizes the theory that resonates closely with both Nirvāṇa and Yogācāra traditions. In this respect, the early Dilun tradition may be understood as occupying a transitional position, in which the ontological insights of the Da banniepan jing were brought into productive dialog with the soteriological structures of Yogācāra thought.

A particularly noteworthy passage in the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra (Ch. Miaofa lianhua jing youbotishe 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍), traditionally attributed to Vasubandhu but translated by Bodhiruci, explicitly states that the prediction of Buddhahood is “a demonstration that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature” (Ch. zhongsheng jieyou foxing 眾生皆有佛性). This formulation has no direct counterpart in the Lotus Sūtra itself, where the universal attainment of Buddhahood is asserted but not grounded in the concept of Buddha-nature.

As for the conferral of prediction, it is manifested in six contexts: five are predictions given by the Buddha, and one is a prediction given by a bodhisattva. With regard to the Tathāgata’s predictions, these refer to cases such as Śāriputra and Mahākāśyapa, who were well known among the assembly; because their names differed, they were each given individual predictions. In the case of Pūrṇa and others—five hundred persons, or one thousand two hundred persons—who shared the same designation, predictions were conferred upon them simultaneously. Those who were still in training and those beyond training likewise shared the same title, and since they were not individually distinguished within the assembly, they too received predictions collectively. When the Tathāgata bestowed a distinct prediction upon Devadatta, this served to demonstrate that the Tathāgata harbors neither resentment nor ill will. The conferral of predictions of Buddhahood upon bhikṣuṇīs and various heavenly maidens demonstrates that women—whether lay or monastic—who cultivate the bodhisattva path may all attain Buddhahood, and thus they are granted such predictions. As for predictions given by bodhisattvas, these are to be understood as illustrated below in the “Chapter on the Never-Disparaging Bodhisattva” (Ch. Buching pusa pin): “He paid homage and offered praise, saying, ‘I do not disparage you; you will all become Buddhas.’” This serves to demonstrate that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature.

言授記者，六處示現，五是佛記、一菩薩記。如來記者，謂舍利弗大迦葉等眾所知識，名號不同故別與記。富樓那等五百人千二百等同一名故，俱時與記。學無學等皆同一號，又復非是眾所知識，故同與記。如來與彼提婆達多授別記者，示現如來無怨惡故。與比丘尼及諸天女授佛記者，示現女人在家出家修菩薩行皆證佛果，故與授記。菩薩記者，如下《不輕菩薩品》中示現應知。“禮拜讚歎作如是言：我不輕汝，汝等皆當得作佛”者，示現眾生皆有佛性故。29

The introduction of foxing 佛性 as the underlying rationale for prediction thus may represent a significant exegetical shift. It effectively reinterprets the Lotus Sūtra’s soteriological claim—namely, that all beings will become Buddhas—through a Buddha-nature framework closely associated with the Da banniepan jing, in which Buddha-nature is understood as the inherent basis for enlightenment. In this way, what is presented in the Lotus Sūtra as a future promise becomes, in the commentary, a necessary consequence of an already-present ontological ground.

This suggests that the Fahua jing lun, at least in its extant Chinese form, reflects a doctrinal milieu in which Buddha-nature theory had already become a dominant interpretive paradigm, capable of reshaping the exegesis of other Mahāyāna scriptures. Whether this reflects a later interpolation, a Sinicized exegetical strategy, or a broader development in late Indian Mahāyāna thought remains an open question, but the broader relevance of Nirvāṇa-related Buddha-nature discourse is difficult to ignore.

According to previous research, Ratnamati, the Chinese translator of the Ratnagotravibhāga (=RGV; Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun), began his translation work in Northern Wei in either 498 or 508 CE, around the early 6th century. Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿 suggests that Ratnamati arrived in China in 508, translated the Shidi jing lun between 508 and 511, and worked on the Ratnagotravibhāga from 511 to 515 (Ui 1959, p. 21).

In the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun, dhātu, gotra, and tathatā—three key Sanskrit terms that in the Ratnagotravibhāga designate distinct aspects of ultimate reality—are semantically compressed into a single Chinese construct, zhenru foxing 真如佛性. This compression blurs the ontological boundaries among “element,” “lineage,” and “suchness,” producing, or at least encouraging, a more unified reading of intrinsic Buddha-nature that can simultaneously denote substance, potentiality, and function:

In summary, by three kinds of meaning, it is said by the Lord (Buddha) that “all sentient beings are always [possessed of] tathagatagarbha” [by the following three meanings]: that the pervasiveness of the dharma-body (dharmakāya) of the tathāgata permeates all sentient beings; that there is no difference within the Tathāgata’s suchness, and that there exists the origination of the lineage/potential (gotra) for a Tathāgata [in every sentient being].

samāsatas trividhenārthena sadā sarvasattvās tathāgatagarbhā ity uktaṃ bhagavatā/yad uta sarvasattveṣu tathāga-tadharmakāyaparispharaṇārthena tathāgatatathatāvyatibhedārthena tathāgatagotrasaṃbhavārthena ca/30

What does this verse mean? Since it conveys three meanings, therefore the Tathāgata explains that all beings at all times inherently have tathāgatagarbha. What are these three? First, the tathāgata’s dharma-body is universally omnipresent in the bodies of all beings, because the verse states that “fo fashen bianman 佛法身遍滿 (being filled with the dharma-body of the Buddha).” Second, there is no distinction within tathāgata’s suchness, because the verse says that “zhenru wu chabie 真如無差別 (no difference in suchness).” Third, all beings truly and completely possess buddha nature as suchness (zhenru foxing 真如佛性), because the verse asserts that “jie shi you foxing 皆實有佛性 (all truly and completely having buddha nature).”

此偈明何義。有三種義，是故如來說一切時一切眾生有如來藏。何等為三？一者，如來法身遍在一切諸眾生身，偈言佛法身遍滿故。二者，如來真如無差別，偈言真如無差別故。三者，一切眾生皆悉實有真如佛性，偈言皆實有佛性故。31

The Sanskrit text explains that tathāgatagarbha has three meanings or purposes: dharmakāya, tathatā, and the tathāgata gotra. The third part of the definition of tathagatagarbha—namely, tathāgatagotra—is translated as zhenru foxing in the Chinese translation, a rendering of gotra that is improbable. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance and thus worth emphasizing.32

A particularly noteworthy issue here concerns the Sanskrit term tathāgatagotra, which in Ratnamati’s Chinese translation is rendered as “zhenru foxing” (suchness-buddha-nature). It is difficult to regard this as a fully faithful and precise translation of the original Sanskrit expression. First, the Sanskrit term contains no element corresponding to tathatā, which would align with the Chinese rendering “zhenru 真如” (suchness). More importantly, in his translation Ratnamati renders “gotra” as “foxing 佛性” (buddha-nature). Although this choice cannot be considered incorrect, it is at the very least a creative or interpretive translation that goes beyond a strictly literal equivalence.

What, then, accounts for this phenomenon? The factors underlying it must necessarily be multiple; yet one possible explanation is the prominence of Buddha-nature discourse associated with the Da banniepan jing in the Chinese Buddhist environment of the time. Prior to the translation activities of Bodhiruci and Ratnamati in the Northern Wei, the Chinese Buddhist scriptures and treatises that explicitly employed the term foxing and offered a corresponding exposition of its meaning included, most prominently, the Da banniepan jing. Although the expression foxing also appears in a small number of other Chinese Buddhist texts, such occurrences are sporadic and context-dependent, rather than constituting a clearly defined and established technical term. By contrast, it is well known that both the term foxing and the doctrinal content it conveys form one of the central themes of the Da banniepan jing as translated by Dharmakṣema.

Furthermore, as noted in the previous section, in the Northern Wei of the early sixth century, among those who maintained close contact with Bodhiruci and Ratnamati or assisted them in their translation work, the majority—so far as our current sources indicate—had engaged, to varying degrees, in the study of the Da banniepan jing. It is therefore possible that, when Ratnamati translated the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun), he adopted the term foxing from the Da banniepan jing to render tathāgata gotra (lineage of the Buddha), perhaps also in dialog with the Chinese collaborators around him.

Having completed our analysis of the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun as translated by Ratnamati, we now turn to the case of Huiguang 慧光 (468–537), a representative disciple of Ratnamati. As noted in the previous section, Huiguang had already undertaken an intensive study of the Da banniepan jing in his early years. He subsequently attached himself to Ratnamati, continuing his studies while at the same time assisting in Ratnamati’s translation activities. Regrettably, Huiguang’s own writings have largely been lost. Fortunately, however, a small portion of the text of his Commentary on the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing yi ji 華嚴經義記) has been preserved in volume 85 of the Taishō Canon (Jp. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經). Although brief in extent, this material is of considerable significance. We therefore present the full text and an English translation below:

The chapter entitled “Illumination of the Tathāgata” (Ch. Rulai guangming jue pin 如來光明覺品) elucidates the unobstructed functioning of the Tathāgata’s intentional activity (karma of mind), his pedagogical transformation, and the wisdom-practice that proceeds without hindrance, likened to radiant light. Because it illuminates beings in accordance with conditions, it is termed “illumination” (Ch. jue 覺). In this chapter, the emission of light from the mark-wheel (Ch. xianglun 相輪), and even the emission of light from the brow in the ten stages, signify that the Tathāgata’s intrinsic wisdom-practice manifests distinctions of level according to the differing capacities of practitioners. The differentiation of the names of bodhisattvas serves to indicate distinctions in their practices, virtues, and stages. Within the scope illuminated by this light, the exposition first clarifies the manifestation of the ultimate reality of the world (Ch. shijie shiji 世界實際); next it elucidates the Buddha, for the Buddha is the inner illumination of ultimate reality; then it clarifies the bodhisattvas, since true awakening is grounded in dependent origination. Thus, the realm of the material world (Ch. qi shijian 器世間) is treated first, the realm of right awakening and wisdom (Ch. zhi zhengjue shijian 智正覺世間) next, and the realm of sentient beings (Ch. zhongsheng shijian 眾生世間) last—this sequence indicating the initial manifestation of the internal process of cultivation. Thereafter, the order is reversed: first the individual bodhisattvas are distinguished, then the worlds, and finally the Buddha is elucidated—this signifying the completion and fulfillment of the process of cultivation. Among the bodhisattvas, Mañjuśrī (Ch. Wenshu 文殊) is presented first, because he initially realizes the true nature (Ch. zhenxing 真性) as the fundamental, wondrous wisdom of prajñā. Next comes Jueshou 覺首, whose inner illumination shines outwardly, hence the name “Head of Awakening.” Possessing the illuminating awareness of insight, he is able to gather the myriad practices; endowed with the capacity to assist and support, he is called Caishou 財首. Having accumulated and supported these practices, he is able to benefit others without limit, bestowing transcendent advantages, and is therefore named Baoshou 寶首. Possessing inexhaustible resources of benefit, he is able to benefit both himself and others; with virtues fully perfected, he is therefore called Deshou 德首. With such completeness of virtue, unless one employs skillful means and prajñā to discern all without remainder, one cannot adequately respond to conditions. Thus, he is next called Mushou 目首. Having the capacity to comprehend conditions without delusion, he is able to attain ever-renewed progress, hence the designation Jingjinshou 精進首. With such continual advancement, no Dharma remains uncollected, hence Fashou 法首. Having fully gathered all Dharmas, with true interpenetration shining forth and illumination unobstructed, he is therefore called Zhishou 智首. With such unobstructed illumination, the path becomes complete and perfected, harmoniously compliant and supple, hence Xianshou 賢首. Why are they all termed “head” (Ch. shou 首)? This is to indicate that they represent the foremost culmination of worldly cultivation. Thus, they are designated “head.” Since the full completion of worldly practice is brought to fulfillment here, they are so named. It also signifies the initial stage in the cultivation and accumulation of the true path. The fact that the emitted light first illuminates three thousand worlds and ultimately extends to hundreds of thousands of millions of worlds indicates that, at the initial arising of understanding, there is immediate comprehension of the characteristics themselves. It also suggests a progression from near to far; that all are said to be in the eastern direction accords with the interpretation given above. The statement that in each direction there is a great bodhisattva indicates that, within the sphere of skillful means, there is a causal practice grounded in intrinsic nature. That each has attendant bodhisattvas signifies that no practice is left unassimilated. That all come to this place indicates the complete integration into the fruition of intrinsic practice. Mañjuśrī is placed at the head to indicate the initial arousal grounded in wondrous reality. That the sequence culminates with Xianshou indicates that, although this practice is profound and vast, its realization is accomplished within the world, hence the designation Xianshou. Since practice does not arise in isolation but necessarily depends upon conditions, it is said to begin with the “golden-colored realm” and culminate in the “realm of true suchness.” Because there is true accord with the mind, genuine awakening is able to arise therein; hence it is said that one “cultivates pure conduct in the presence of the Buddhas.” The initial reference to immovable wisdom indicates the awakening of the fundamental truth at the outset; the final reference to “subduing adversaries” indicates that realization is accomplished within the world, though ultimate transcendence has not yet been fully manifest, and thus it is described as “subduing.” That Mañjuśrī expounds without being questioned indicates that wondrous eloquence arises from within and does not depend upon external conditions; it also signifies the presence of a beneficent friend who teaches without being asked. From the perspective of receiving benefit, this chapter concerns the practice of seeking to hear the Dharma, while the following chapter concerns the practice of seeking to expound it. From the standpoint of the sequence of causal origination and the accumulation of practice, wondrous reality responds through skillful means, and therefore Mañjuśrī is said to expound it. Since skillful means accords with ultimate reality, its virtue matures and returns to the source, again corresponding to the real. In the subsequent “Explaining Difficulties” chapter, Mañjuśrī raises questions, the bodhisattvas respond, they in turn question, and Mañjuśrī responds again—this serves to demonstrate that, as virtue matures and returns to the source, the questioning of the bodhisattvas is thereby manifested, and because the source gathers all virtues, the perfect manifestation of reality is termed the “response.”

如來光明覺品者，明如來意業教化智行無礙，猶如光明也。開曉於緣，故名為覺。就此品中放相輪光者，乃至十地放眉間光，就如來自體智行，隨修人不同，彰位殊之異也。菩薩名別者，彰行業德位差別也。就此光所照中，初明世界實際相顯也，次明佛者，實相內明，故次明佛也，實覺緣起，故明菩薩。此明器世間在初，智正覺世間在中，眾生世間在後者，明始顯內集起修相也。次後先明別菩薩，次別世界，後明佛者，此明終集起得實滿足修相也。就此菩薩中，初明文殊者，始證真性般若根本妙惠故也。次明覺首者，內明外朗，故曰覺首。既有覺照之明，故能集萬行，有資助之功，故曰財首。既有集助之行，故能利潤無窮，出世勝益，故曰寶首也。有資潤無窮故，能自利利他，德備具足，故云德首也。既有德備，若非方便般若鑒達無遺，無以善了於緣，故次云目首也。既有了緣不迷，故能達日新之功，故次明精進首也。既有日新之功，法無不集，故次明法首也。既備集諸法，真融暉炎，明照無滯，故次明智首也。既有明照無滯故，能道備圓滿，善順調柔，故次明賢首也。何故皆云首者，欲明世間修集中最，故名首也。以世間之行窮滿在茲，故云首也。又言修集真道之初，故言首也。此中放光始照三千，終至百千億世界者，欲明始發自相解，即相也。又亦以近及遠，復所以皆言東方者，義同前釋也。又言一方各有一大菩薩者，欲明方便之中自體因行也。各有眷屬菩薩者，明行無不攝也。各來至此者，明圓入自體果行也。文殊為首者，欲明始發於妙實也。復所以終至賢首者，欲明此行雖復深廣，而成在於世間，故云賢首也。然行非孤立，必託境而發，故云始於金色，終至如實色界也。既有實契於心，是以得真覺發中，故言於諸佛所淨修梵行也。所以初明不動智者，明始發真本也，終至伏怨者，亦明成在於世，未彰正離，故伏怨也。所以無問而皆文殊自說者，為欲明妙辯發中，非託外緣，又明不請之友也。若據受益而言，此品明求聞法行，下品明求說法行。若論緣起行集次第時，以妙實應於方便，故言文殊說也。既明方便契實，故方便德，就是以德熟歸本，還應於實故。下明難品，文殊顯問，諸菩薩答，諸菩薩問，文殊復答者，欲明德熟歸本故，彰菩薩問也，以本攝眾德故，如實圓彰，名為答也。33

Since Huiguang does not explicitly cite the Da banniepan jing in this passage, the following analysis should be understood not as evidence of direct textual borrowing, but as an attempt to identify possible conceptual resonances between Huiguang’s terminology and Buddha-nature discourse associated with the Da banniepan jing.

A possible point of contact between Huiguang’s exposition and the doctrinal framework of the Da banniepan jing lies in his systematic use of the terminology of “true nature” (Ch. zhenxing 真性), “ultimate reality” (Ch. shixiang 實相), and “ultimate limit” (Ch. shiji 實際). In this passage, Huiguang repeatedly employs expressions such as “attaining the root wisdom of prajñā by realizing true nature” (始證真性般若根本妙慧), “manifesting the ultimate reality of the world” (明世界實際相顯), “the Buddha as inwardly illuminating ultimate reality” (佛者實相內明), and “awakening grounded in reality giving rise to dependent origination” (實覺緣起). Taken together, these formulations may be read as articulating a soteriological sequence: realization of ultimate reality → awakening → cultivation → Buddhahood.

This structure corresponds closely to a central doctrinal equation found in the Da banniepan jing, where Buddha-nature (Ch. foxing 佛性) is explicitly identified with ultimate reality, such as tathatā (Ch. zhenru 真如), dharmatā (Ch. faxing 法性), and śūnyatā (Ch. kong 空) understood as ultimate truth. The sūtra repeatedly emphasizes that “all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature” and that this Buddha-nature is “permanent and real,” even equating it with the tathāgatagarbha. In this doctrinal context, “reality” (variously expressed as zhenxing, shixiang, or shiji) is not merely an ontological category, but the very ground of awakening itself.

Against this background, Huiguang’s terminology may be understood as a possible rearticulation of Buddha-nature discourse without employing the term foxing explicitly. When he speaks of “realizing true nature,” “inward illumination of ultimate reality,” or “awakening based on reality,” he is effectively describing awakening as the cognitive and existential realization of an underlying ontological ground. In other words, awakening (Ch. jue 覺) is not an epistemic event alone, but the manifestation or recognition of an already-present ultimate reality. This may be placed in relation to the Da banniepan jing’s understanding of enlightenment as the “seeing of Buddha-nature.”

A similar structural correspondence can be observed in Huiguang’s tripartite scheme of the “three kinds of world” (Ch. san shijian 三世間): the world as environment (Ch. qi shijian 器世間), the world of perfect awakening (Ch. zhengjue shijian 正覺世間), and the world of sentient beings (Ch. zhongsheng shijian 眾生世間). Although the Da banniepan jing does not formulate this triadic structure in the same systematic manner, it consistently presents a unified ontological vision in which sentient beings, Buddhas, and the cosmos are all grounded in Buddha-nature. Sentient beings possess Buddha-nature in a latent form, Buddhas are those in whom Buddha-nature is fully manifest, and the world itself unfolds as the domain in which this realization takes place. Huiguang’s schema may thus be interpreted as a systematic reconfiguration of this underlying vision, in which the dynamic unfolding of awakening is articulated across different ontological levels.

Particularly noteworthy is Huiguang’s expression “initially activating the true root” (Ch. shifa zhenben 始發真本), which may be read as resonating with themes also prominent in the Da banniepan jing’s doctrine of the inherent presence of Buddha-nature. The sūtra explicitly states that Buddha-nature is “neither produced nor created” and that it is originally present in all beings. In this light, Huiguang’s notion of “activating” or “bringing forth” the true root should not be understood as the production of something new, but rather as the manifestation or disclosure of what is fundamentally already there. This may point to a shared soteriological logic: cultivation does not generate ultimate reality, but reveals it.

At the same time, it is important to note that Huiguang is not merely reproducing the doctrinal language of the Da banniepan jing. Rather, he is engaged in a significant process of conceptual transformation. Instead of foregrounding the term “Buddha-nature” and its associated attributes (such as permanence, bliss, self, and purity), Huiguang systematically recasts this ontological discourse in terms of wisdom (Ch. zhi), practice (Ch. xing), illumination (Ch. guangming), and awakening (Ch. jue). In doing so, his language may be understood as bringing Buddha-nature-related concerns into conversation with a Huayan-oriented framework centered on “self-natured wisdom and practice” (Ch. ziti zhixing 自體智行). This may represent one possible pattern within Northern Wei exegetical practice, which can be seen as mediating between the ontological concerns of Buddha-nature discourse and the structural and soteriological concerns of Huayan tradition. In Huiguang’s hands, Buddha-nature-related assumptions may have been rearticulated in terms of cultivation, wisdom, and practice.

In order to make more visible these possible conceptual resonances between Huiguang’s thought in the Commentary on the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing yi ji) and the Da banniepan jing, I present below a comparative table aligning corresponding passages from the Huayan jing yi ji and the Da banniepan jing:

Huayan jing yi ji 華嚴經義記, by Huiguang 慧光 (468–537).	Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經, by Dharmakṣema (385?–433).
始證真性般若根本妙惠。	一切眾生悉有佛性。(T12, no. 374, 365c) 佛性者，即是如來。(T12, no. 374, 377b) 佛性者，名為真實。(T12, no. 374, 523a)
明世界實際相顯也。 佛者，實相內明。	佛性者，名第一義空，亦名實相。(T12, no. 374, 523b) 實相者，即是如來。(T12, no. 374, 525a)
開曉於緣，故名為覺。 實覺緣起。	見佛性者，名為菩薩。(T12, no. 374, 384a) 見佛性故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。(T12, no. 374, 386b)
明始發真本也。	佛性者，非作非生。(T12, no. 374, 522c) 一切眾生，本有佛性。(T12, no. 374, 365c)
德熟歸本，還應於實。	修行已，見佛性。(T12, no. 374, 386a) 見佛性已，即得成佛。(T12, no. 374, 389c)
器世間在初，智正覺世間在中，眾生世間在後。	一切眾生悉有佛性。(T12, no. 374, 365c) 佛與眾生，佛性無二。(T12, no. 374, 523c)
初明不動智者。	佛性常住，不變不易。(T12, no. 374, 523a)

A more explicit use of Buddha-nature terminology with the doctrinal framework of the Da banniepan jing can be observed in the Dilun monk Fashang 法上 (495–580), in his Commentary on the Treatise on the Ten Bhūmis (Ch. Shidi lun yishu 十地論義疏):

The section on samādhi may be understood, within the framework of the “gateway of Buddha-nature,” as the division concerning entry into quiescence, and it admits of two meanings. First, it indicates that the principle of the ten stages is profound and cannot be expounded without direct realization. Second, it expresses the intention to receive empowerment, and therefore one enters into samādhi. A question is raised: if great bodhisattvas maintain an equality between stillness and activity, why should they be described as first entering a state of concentration? The answer is that this is in accordance with the requirements of teaching and transformation. Moreover, in another sense, quiescence and the perfect path are fully integrated, comprehensively encompassing the myriad practices without obstruction or hindrance. Taking this as the vehicle, realization neither involves entering nor exiting; it manifests externally in function while gathering that function within the mind. Hence it is termed “entry.” “Radiance” signifies that the light of the Tathāgata is identical in all places and is mutually unobstructed. As stated in the treatise, “Radiance” denotes the illumination of all other Dharma-gate[s]. The expression “not an object of conceptualization” indicates that the true Dharma-body of the ten stages lies beyond discriminative thought, wondrously transcending names and forms. Thus, as the Lotus Sūtra states: “This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the marks of language are quiescent and extinguished; among the various kinds of sentient beings, none can fully comprehend it.” From the section on empowerment onward, within the gateway of Buddha-nature, this pertains to the adornment of the fruit in relation to the causal stages.

三昧分者，佛性門中入寂分凡有二義。一表十地理深，非證不說。二欲受加，是故入三昧也。問曰，大士靜亂平等，何當不定而始云者。答曰，蓋隨化□□□□又解□寂圓道，備通萬行，無障無礙。以之為乘，證無出入，顯在外用，攝用在心，故名入也。光明者，如來光同，處不相障礙故。論云，光明者，顯照一切餘法門故。非思量境者，明十地真法體非分別妙絕名相。故《法華經》云，是法不可示，言辭相寂滅，諸餘眾生類無有能得解。加分以下佛性門中果嚴因分。34

In contrast to the more indirect resonances observed in Huiguang’s surviving fragment, Fashang explicitly introduces the notion of a “Buddha-nature framework/gateway” (Ch. foxing men 佛性門) as a hermeneutical category. This indicates that Buddha-nature discourse, closely associated with the Da banniepan jing, had become available as an explicit hermeneutical category within at least some Dilun exegetical contexts.

Particularly noteworthy is Fashang’s doctrinal association of “suchness” (Ch. zhenru 真如), “ultimate truth” (Ch. zhendi 真諦), and “emptiness of the highest meaning” (Ch. diyi yi kong 第一義空) with Buddha-nature. This formulation closely parallels the Da banniepan jing’s identification of Buddha-nature with ultimate reality. Furthermore, Fashang explicitly states that “all sentient beings take the dharma-dhātu as their essence, yet it remains concealed due to afflictions,” which closely recalls a doctrinal pattern familiar from the Da banniepan jing’s doctrine that Buddha-nature is inherently present but obscured by defilements.

Another important point is that Fashang adopts a tathāgatagarbha-based cosmological model in which “because of the tathāgatagarbha, saṃsāra is spoken of; therefore, the tathāgatagarbha is the basis of all dharmas.” This statement suggests a substantial convergence with tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature discourse associated with the Da banniepan jing’s ontology, in which Buddha-nature functions as the ground of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. At the same time, this framework is further integrated with Yogācāra elements, such as the doctrine of the ālayavijñāna, contributing to the more synthetic doctrinal tendencies visible in later Dilun thought.

In this sense, Fashang’s work may represent an important stage in the transformation of Buddha-nature discourse: no longer merely an underlying conceptual influence, it becomes an explicit element within his exegetical reasoning. This marks a development beyond Huiguang’s more implicit usage and points toward later syntheses of ontology and practice.

As shown in the previous sections, a number of monks associated with early Dilun circles had previously engaged with the Da banniepan jing before or alongside their participation in the circles of Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Their prior or parallel engagement with Nirvāṇa-related exegesis may have accustomed some of them to a mode of interpretation centered on close textual analysis, doctrinal clarification, and the extraction of systematic meaning from a single authoritative source. When subsequently confronted with the more technical and scholastic materials associated with the Shidi jing lun, these exegetes did not approach the text in a vacuum. Rather, they may have brought with them interpretive habits partly informed by their engagement with the Da banniepan jing. In this sense, the relationship between the Da banniepan jing and early Dilun thought may also be understood in terms of continuity at the level of interpretive practice. In some cases, the transition from Nirvāṇa-related exegesis to Dilun scholasticism may not have entailed a complete break in hermeneutical orientation, but rather an extension and transformation of existing interpretive habits. The Shidi jing lun, with its structured account of the bodhisattva path, could have been read and explicated through interpretive habits partly cultivated in the study of the Da banniepan jing. At the same time, concepts associated with Nirvāṇa doctrine—particularly the affirmation of inherent Buddhahood—may have provided one interpretive resource for understanding the stages of the path.

Accordingly, the role of the Da banniepan jing in Northern Wei Buddhism may be understood not only in doctrinal terms, but also in hermeneutical terms. It reflects a broader intellectual culture in which the close reading of authoritative texts served as the primary vehicle for the production of Buddhist knowledge. Within this culture, the Da banniepan jing may have functioned both as a doctrinal resource and as one context for the cultivation of exegetical practice, contributing not only to what some Northern monks thought, but also how they read, interpreted, and systematized Buddhist teachings. This dual role helps to explain why Nirvāṇa-related learning remained relevant to the formation of early Dilun thought in Northern China.

In addition, Andō Toshio 安藤俊雄 has pointed out that the Da banniepan jing held another important significance in the Northern Wei, namely that it was employed by Northern Wei Buddhism to support and promote Mahāyāna precepts. In contrast to the Southern Dynasties, where discussion centered on whether Buddha-nature was “innate” (Ch. benyou 本有) or “newly arisen” (Ch. shiyou 始有), the Northern Wei was more concerned with, and placed greater emphasis upon, the principle of the universality of Buddha-nature. By adopting this perspective, the Buddhist community was able to take the universal presence of Buddha-nature as the foundation of Mahāyāna precepts, thereby regulating both monastics and rulers alike, and thus achieving the aim of protecting and sustaining Buddhism (See Andō 1970, p. 190). This objective, however, is not directly related to the Dilun tradition that constitutes the focus of this article, and will therefore not be discussed here in detail.

The foregoing discussion suggests that the relationship between Nirvāṇa-related learning and early Dilun thought may be understood not only through biographical association, but also through patterns of conceptual and exegetical overlap. The evidence remains uneven and should not be read as proving a single causal line from the Da banniepan jing to Dilun doctrine. Nevertheless, the recurrence of Buddha-nature terminology, concern with inherent Buddhahood, and efforts to relate ontology to graded cultivation suggest that Nirvāṇa-related discourse provided one important resource for early Dilun exegetical reflection.

5. Conclusions

This article sought to re-examine the formation of early Dilun thought in Luoyang era Northern Wei by foregrounding the role of the Da banniepan jing. While previous scholarship has tended to emphasize the importance of texts such as the Shidi jing lun and the Huayan jing in shaping the intellectual contours of the Dilun tradition, the analysis presented here suggests that the Da banniepan jing constituted an important component of the doctrinal, hermeneutical, and social environment within which early Dilun Buddhism emerged.

The argument has therefore proceeded in two steps. First, it works by reconstructing the prosopographical and institutional settings in which Nirvāṇa-related learning and early Dilun networks overlapped; and second, it examines possible doctrinal convergences between Buddha-nature discourse and Dilun interpretations of the bodhisattva path.

At the level of intellectual history, the prosopographical evidence examined in this study has shown that engagement with the Da banniepan jing was not merely incidental, but appears to have been widespread among a number of figures associated with the early Dilun milieu. From Huiguang and his disciples to influential exegetes such as Tanwuzui, the study of the Da banniepan jing formed one recurring element within Buddhist learning among several Northern monastic circles. This shared background suggests that the Da banniepan jing may have functioned as one important layer of intellectual formation, contributing to the conceptual vocabulary and doctrinal concerns of some communities in which Dilun thought later developed.

At the level of doctrinal structure, this article has argued that the relationship between the Da banniepan jing and the Shidi jing lun may be understood in terms of a convergence between ontology and soteriology. The Da banniepan jing’s affirmation of universal Buddha-nature may have provided one conceptual resource for interpreting the graded path of the bodhisattva intelligibly, while some Dilun exegetes may have articulated related concerns within a more systematic account of spiritual cultivation. In this sense, the emergence of Dilun thought need not be understood simply as a departure from earlier Nirvāṇa-related discourse; in some contexts, it may also be seen as continuing and rearticulating certain concerns associated with that discourse. The tension between inherent Buddhahood and progressive realization, far from constituting a contradiction, appears to have been productively negotiated within early Dilun exegesis through conceptual resources associated with Nirvāṇa-related doctrine.

From the perspective of hermeneutics, the continued visibility of the Da banniepan jing may also be seen as reflecting the broader intellectual culture of Northern Buddhism. The preference for text-centered exegesis, the emphasis on doctrinal clarity, and the relative caution toward large-scale synthetic systems all contributed to the selection of certain scriptures as privileged objects of interpretation. The Da banniepan jing, with its self-contained doctrinal architecture and its reputation as a text expressing the Buddha’s ultimate intent, appears to have been well suited to this interpretive environment. Its role thus helps illuminate not only certain doctrinal concerns of Northern monks, but also some of the ways in which they read and engaged with Buddhist texts.

When these dimensions are considered together, it becomes possible to propose a more comprehensive model for understanding the formation of early Dilun Buddhism in Luoyang era Northern Wei. Rather than viewing the rise of Dilun thought as a sudden doctrinal importation associated with the arrival of translators such as Bodhiruci and Ratnamati, it is more appropriate to interpret it as the culmination of a longer historical process. This process may be schematically described in three stages. First, during the Pingcheng period, the dissemination of the Da banniepan jing contributed to a doctrinal and devotional environment in which the concept of Buddha-nature became increasingly significant. Second, in the early Luoyang period following the relocation of the capital, this environment was further shaped through intensified imperial patronage, monastic institutionalization, and the development of more systematic exegetical practices. Third, in the context of increased contact with Indian scholastic traditions, this Nirvāṇa-related intellectual environment formed part of the conditions for the reception and reinterpretation of Yogācāra-related texts, contributing to the emergence of the Dilun tradition as a distinctive mode of Buddhist thought.

Seen in this light, early Dilun Buddhism appears not as an isolated scholastic development, but as a product of the dynamic interaction between inherited doctrinal resources and new textual inputs. The Da banniepan jing played a significant, though not exclusive, role in this process, not only by contributing the conceptual framework within which new ideas were received, but also by forming part of the intellectual and social networks through which such ideas circulated. To recognize this is to shift the focus of analysis from individual texts or figures to the broader configurations of knowledge, practice, and authority that underlie the formation of Buddhist traditions.

In conclusion, the history of early Dilun thought in Luoyang era Northern Wei may be more fruitfully understood when situated within the wider context of Northern Wei exegetical culture, in which Nirvāṇa-related learning formed one important strand. By integrating prosopographical, doctrinal, hermeneutical, and social-historical perspectives, this study has sought to show that the Da banniepan jing should not be treated as a marginal background text, but as one important strand within the broader formation of Northern Buddhist scholasticism. Future research may further explore how this Nirvāṇa-related exegetical framework continued to interact with subsequent developments in Eastern Wei 東魏 and Northern Qi 北齊 Buddhism, particularly in relation to the evolving interpretations of Buddha-nature and the bodhisattva path.

At the same time, this article does not claim that the Da banniepan jing functioned as the sole or universally dominant doctrinal source for early Dilun Buddhism. Many of the figures discussed above were engaged with multiple scriptures and scholastic traditions, including the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Vinaya literature, and Yogācāra-related texts. The evidence examined here instead suggests that Nirvāṇa-related learning formed one important layer within the broader intellectual environment of Northern Wei Buddhism. Further comparative work will be necessary to clarify more precisely how these multiple doctrinal currents interacted in the formation of early Dilun thought. More broadly, this article seeks to contribute to ongoing discussions concerning the formation of medieval Chinese Buddhist scholasticism, the reception of Yogācāra thought in Northern China, and the historical role of Buddha-nature discourse within early East Asian exegetical traditions.