The Travelogues of Buddhist Monks and the Knowledge of the Western Regions during the Fourth to the Sixth Centuries

Abstract

In the context of monks traveling westward in search of Buddhist scriptures, their travelogues emerged during the fourth to the sixth centuries as a new channel for producing knowledge about the Western Regions, distinct from official sources. The fundamental reason monks wrote these travelogues was to enhance the sanctity of their journeys and the scriptures. Additionally, they fulfilled the demands among Buddhists for information about Buddhism in Central Asia and India. The knowledge about the Western Regions in these travelogues was referenced in works by Chinese scholars, such as the Weishu, Beishi, Shuijing zhu, and Luoyang qielan ji, thereby expanding the audience for such knowledge. Even after the original texts were lost, their content continued to be transmitted through these citations. However, while Chinese scholars often criticized these travelogues for some absurd accounts and made adaptations or deletions, they were nonetheless compelled to utilize the unique knowledge these travelogues offered about the Western Regions.

1. Introduction

The knowledge of the foreign world was fundamental for empires in history interacting with foreign kingdoms or peoples, whether these interactions were peaceful or belligerent. Among the knowledge about surrounding regions, the knowledge concerning the Western Regions 西域 (xiyu),1 held special significance for medieval China. This was primarily because the political centers of China from the Han to the Tang dynasties were located in the Guanzhong Basin 關中盆地, which was connected to the Western Regions via the Hexi Corridor 河西走廊. Maintaining stable control over the oasis city-states north and south of the Taklamakan Desert directly impacted national security. Meanwhile, the transportation routes and connections between China and the Western Regions were crucial channels for the precious commodities required by the court.2

From the third century, Buddhist monks began traveling westward to Central Asia or India in search of the Tripiṭaka. Some of them wrote travelogues, documenting the natural environments, cultural customs, and Buddhist relics along the way, and the routes they traveled. These records served as a window for the contemporary Chinese literati to acquire knowledge about the Western Regions. Thanks to the efforts of historians and sinologists, we now have a considerable understanding of these travelogues.3 Therefore, this paper does not aim to conduct a comprehensive examination of monastic travelogues, nor to provide a complete picture of how medieval Chinese scholars perceived the Western Regions based on these records. Instead, it focuses on the early development of monks’ travelogues, approximately spanning from the Jin to the Tang dynasties (fourth to sixth centuries). The focus on this period is not due to the high frequency with which monks traveled westward in search of Buddhist scriptures. Rather, it is because, during the fourth to the sixth centuries, the travelogues of these monks, as a channel for producing the knowledge about the Western Regions, engaged deeply with the traditional methods of acquiring such knowledge in China. This period laid the foundation for how the two systems of knowledge about the Western Regions would influence each other. Hence, this paper explores the “life history” of the knowledge contained in monastic travelogues: the initial reasons for producing such knowledge, the reasons for their dissemination, the methods through which they were spread, and how the knowledge provided by these travelogues was localized. Specifically, it examines how such knowledge was utilized and even transformed through interaction with the knowledge obtained via other channels.

2. Monastic Travelogues as a New Channel for Western Regions Knowledge Production

Before Emperor Wu of Han 漢武帝 sent Zhang Qian 張騫 on a diplomatic mission to the Western Regions, people in China had a limited and imprecise understanding of these regions. One example is the knowledge on jade during the pre-Qin period. The Guanzi 管子mentions that “jade is from the mountains near the Yuezhi 大月氏” (Guanzi jiaozhu, p. 1446), indicating a notion that jade originated from the Yuezhi, who resided in the Hexi Corridor during this time. In fact, the primary source of jade was the Kingdom of Khotan on the southern edge of the Taklamakan Desert. More than 750 pieces of jade artifacts were unearthed from the tomb of Fu Hao 婦好, dating back to the 13th century BCE; testing showed that most of this raw jade came from Khotan (Zhongguo Shekeyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo 1980, pp. 114–95). This suggests that people in the pre-Qin period had a rudimentary understanding of the Yuezhi at the western frontier, with almost no knowledge about regions west of the Hexi Corridor.

This situation changed only after Zhang Qian returned from Central Asia in the second century BCE. After more than a decade of adventures, when he arrived at Chang’an 長安 Zhang Qian reported extensive knowledge about the Western Regions to the Western Han dynasty. Among this information, Emperor Wu of Han most valued the details about various Western kingdoms. Zhang Qian reached Dayuan 大宛, Yuezhi, Daxia 大夏, and Kangju 康居. He also learned from the locals about kingdoms he could not visit himself, such as Wusun 烏孫, Anxi 安息, Ancai 奄蔡, and others. His report on Dayuan included its geographical location, economic condition, population, military strength, and its relations with Daxia and Wusun.4 The previously unknown knowledge about the Western Regions provided by Zhang Qian prompted Emperor Wu of Han to send a second mission to the Western Regions, aiming to contact and ally with the Wusun to jointly resist the Xiongnu 匈奴. In fact, Zhang Qian’s first mission was also intended to counter the Xiongnu, as the Western Han sought to form an anti-Xiongnu alliance with the Yuezhi. During the Eastern Han period, the knowledge of the Western Regions came from officials engaged in long-term diplomatic and military activities there. The surviving records of the Eastern Han’s governance of the Western Regions are found in the “Biography of the Western Regions” in the Houhan shu 後漢書·西域傳. According to Fan Ye 范曄, the author of the Houhan shu, the fundamental materials for the “Biography of the Western Regions” were “all recorded by Ban Yong 班勇 at the end of Emperor An’s 安帝 reign” (Houhan shu. vol. 88, pp. 2912–13). Ban Yong, along with his father Ban Chao 班超, had served as the Administrator 長史of the Western Regions for a long time.5 In addition, information about the Western Regions was obtained from foreign capitulators or official visits to foreigners. In fact, Zhang Qian was sent to the Western Regions because Xiongnu capitulators reported that the Yuezhi deeply resented the Xiongnu for not only defeating them but also making a drinking vessel from the head of their king.6 Therefore, Emperor Wu of Han attempted to seek the Yuezhi as an ally.

In summary, from the second century BCE to the second century CE, the production of knowledge about the Western Regions was led by the government to meet its own needs. Whether it was produced by diplomatic envoys who opened the door for the Chinese literati to understand the western world, experienced officials who served in the Western Regions over a long period of time, or foreigners who provided information about their homeland, they all supplied knowledge about the Western Regions to the emperor and officials in the capital through oral reports or written documents. Such knowledge served as a basis for decision making regarding diplomatic activities or military actions. In fact, this government-dominant channel remained a major means for the Chinese literati to acquire knowledge about the Western Regions for over a thousand years thereafter. However, from the fourth century, travelogues written by monks emerged as another source of knowledge about the Western Regions.

From the second century CE, the scale and depth of efforts to translate Buddhist scriptures increased, making Buddhists increasingly aware of the insufficiencies in existing Buddhist texts. Consequently, in the following centuries, monks began traveling westward in succession, seeking to obtain original Buddhist texts or to learn Buddhist knowledge in Central Asia or India. Some of these monks documented their westward journeys in travelogues. According to official bibliographies such as the Suishu jingji zhi 隋書經籍志 and monastic biographies such as the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, numerous travelogues by monks are known, including the Travelogue of Faxian 法顯傳, Zhimeng’s 智猛 Youxing waiguo zhuan 遊行外國傳, Tan Yong’s 曇勇 Waiguo zhuan 外國傳, Zhu Fawei’s 竺法維 Foguo ji 佛國記, Shi Fasheng’s 釋法盛 Liguo zhuan 歷國傳, and the Travelogue of Huisheng 惠生行傳 among others. However, only Faxian’s work has survived in its entirety. The other travelogues can only be partially reconstructed through excerpts preserved in later encyclopedias such as the Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 and the Taiping yulan 太平御覽. For the Chinese at that time, these travelogues, which recorded information about the natural geography, Buddhist temples, and local histories of Central Asia and India, undoubtedly provided a new channel for producing knowledge about the Western Regions, in addition to the official channels.

Monks’ travelogues emerged as a channel of acquiring knowledge of the Western Regions, with the establishment of Buddhism in China and the development of the translation of Buddhist scriptures. Despite each monk having individual objectives when embarking on journeys to the west, their underlying purposes were invariably all related to Buddhism.7 For example, at the end of the fourth century, Faxian realized that the rules and discipline were mutilated and imperfect, so he journeyed to Tianzhu in search of monastic discipline along with monks such as Huijing 慧景, Daozheng 道整, Huiying 慧應, and Huiwei 慧嵬 (Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, p. 2). As for Zhimeng, he not only sought Buddhist scriptures but also aspired to make a pilgrimage to the sacred sites associated with the Buddha in Tianzhu.8 Nevertheless, it is essential to note that these motivations were not the direct causes for the composition of travelogues but rather the historical context. Hence, our subsequent exploration will focus on the direct impetus behind the transmission of knowledge of the Western Regions. Specifically, we will endeavor to address the question: what drove the monks on their journeys to the west to document their experiences?

The historical materials directly related to this issue are the travelogues written by medieval monks. However, since many of these travelogues have been lost, we must rely on the only complete text available, the Travelogue of Faxian, to answer this question. At the end of the Travelogue of Faxian, Faxian said:

I, Faxian, departed from Chang’an and, after six years, arrived in Middle Tianzhu, where I stayed for another six years. My return journey took three years, ultimately bringing me to Qingzhou. In total, I traveled through nearly thirty kingdoms. From the Western Regions to Middle Tianzhu, the dignity and spiritual practices of the monks are beyond detailed description. In my opinion, Chinese monks were not familiar with the precepts of Indian Buddhism. Thus, disregarding my own insignificant life, I braved the perilous seas and endured many hardships. Fortunately, with the blessings of three Bodhisattvas, I survived the dangers. Consequently, I recorded my experiences on bamboo slips and silk scrolls, hoping that future wisemen might also learn and benefit from my observations. This occurred in the year of Jiayin.

(Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, vol. 5, p. 150; Beal 1869, p. 173)

This passage contains information about the process of writing the Travelogue of Faxian, which has not been previously noted by scholars. “In the year of Jia Yin” refers to the year 414, when Faxian returned to China. It is certain that Faxian began to document his experiences in that year. However, it is noteworthy that Faxian emphasizes that the various kingdoms he traveled through overland to India and the Buddhist rituals he witnessed cannot be described in detail. This indicates that the “experiences” recorded at this time were actually only his experiences of returning by sea—from obtaining the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 彌沙塞律藏本, Dīrghāgama sutra 長阿含, Saṃyuktāgama-sūtra 雜阿含, and a Samyukta-piṭaka 雜藏, to his landing in Laoshan 牢山.9 Therefore, the Travelogue of Faxian was not written in one go; it was first completed with the account of his maritime journey and perils. Faxian did not specify why he chose to write this part first. We believe that this was likely because the maritime journey, being recent and fraught with frequent storms and near-death experiences of almost being thrown into the sea by fellow merchants, was most vividly remembered by Faxian. Additionally, we may also find clues from the deeds of the mid-Tang monk Wukong 悟空.

The Wukong ru zhu ji 悟空入竺記 is frequently cited to discuss the transportation routes connecting China and the Western Regions after the An Lushan Rebellion. However, it actually originates from the preface of the Shili sutra 十力經, translated by a Kucha monk Wutitixiyu 勿提提犀魚. Wukong, whose original name was Che Fengchao 車奉朝, accompanied a diplomatic mission to Kashmir 罽賓 in 751 and stayed in the Western Regions for over twenty years. During this time, he made pilgrimages to Buddhist sites in North and Middle Tianzhu. In 780, he returned to Chang’an with a Tang diplomatic mission. On his return journey, he carried the Shili sutra and the Daśabhūmika sutra 十地經, which he had translated earlier in Kucha and Khotan. However, due to concerns that the Uyghur Khagan did not believe in Buddhism, he did not dare to bring the Sanskrit manuscripts with him.10 The monk Yuanzhao 圓照 recorded these details of Wukong’s life in the preface he wrote for the Shili sutra, noting:

I, the monk Yuanzhao, acknowledge my shortcomings, humble status, and lack of talent. Nevertheless, I have been fortunate to live in a prosperous era, which has granted me the opportunity to engage in translation work. I compiled the Gujin yijing tuji xuji 古今譯經圖記續記, documenting authentic Buddhist scriptures, and also edited the Zhenyuan xu kaiyuan shijiao lu 貞元續開元釋教錄. Wukong recounted his experiences in detail and entrusted me to record them, which I included in the Gujin yijing tuji xuji to authenticate these events. Although Wukong’s experiences occurred many years ago, I inquired deeply, and he earnestly provided detailed oral responses. My records are plain. I have incorporated them into the book, hoping that discerning readers will appreciate his aspirations.

(CBETA 2023. Q3, T17, no. 780, p. 717b27-c3)

Wukong voluntarily shared his experiences in the Western Regions with Yuanzhao, likely because of Yuanzhao’s work. At that time, Yuanzhao was compiling the Gujin yijing tuji xuji and the Zhenyuan xu kaiyuan shijiao lu. He had the authority to determine whether the sutras brought by Wukong could gain official recognition and be included in the canon. However, Wukong did not bring back the original Sanskrit manuscripts, which likely cast doubt on the authenticity of those sutras. Therefore, he thoroughly disclosed his long years in the Western Regions, especially his pilgrimages to North and Middle Tianzhu, and his collaboration with local monks in translating sutras in Kucha and Khotan, to enhance the credibility of his translations. The arduous and perilous journeys of monks seeking the Dharma enhanced the sanctity of both the monks and the scriptures they brought back to some extent. As a result, Yuanzhao accepted Wukong’s account and detailed his experiences in the preface. This demonstrates that the sanctity conferred by these westward journeys was recognized by the Buddhist community. Otherwise, Yuanzhao would not have felt the need to present Wukong’s experiences to the readers in the preface. Thus, we believe that Faxian first recorded this part of his journey upon returning to enhance the sanctity of himself and the scriptures he brought back by showcasing his arduous experiences to the “wisemen”.

Following Faxian’s own account in the Travelogue of Faxian, a colophon reveals how Faxian documented his complete experiences. The full text of the colophon is as follows:

In the twelfth year of Yixi 義熙, when Star Sui was at the Star Shou, at the end of the summer retreat, Huiyuan introduced the monk Faxian to translate the sutras. Upon his arrival, Huiyuan persuaded him to stay for the winter retreat. Seizing the opportunity during their gatherings and discussions, Huiyuan inquired about Faxian’s travels. Faxian, with respect and compliance, recounted his experiences faithfully. Consequently, Huiyuan encouraged Faxian to provide a detailed account of the parts he had previously summarized. Faxian then narrated the entire journey from beginning to end. Thus, I marvel at his experiences, believing he is unparalleled in both ancient and modern times. Since the introduction of Buddhism to the East, there has been no one like Faxian, who disregarded personal safety to seek the Dharma.

The authorship of this colophon is now challenging to determine. Zhang Xun 章巽 believed it may have been written by a patron of Faxian (Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, pp. 153–54). According to this, with the help of Huiyuan 慧遠, who was then residing on Mount Lu, Faxian entered the Eastern Jin capital Jiankang 建康to begin translating sutras in 416. By this time, two years had already passed since his return to China in 414. During his time in Jiankang, participants in Buddhist discussions, presumably including the author of this colophon, inquired with Faxian about his journey. They had not and could not personally travel to the Western Regions. As Sen points out, the Buddhist world of India was undoubtedly mystifying to the majority of Chinese laity, who were unable to visit India (Sen 2015, pp. 8–9). Therefore, the audience was naturally very interested in Faxian’s experiences, the condition of the monasteries, and the Buddha’s relics. Consequently, Faxian heeded their suggestions and elaborated on the experiences he had previously deemed “beyond detailed description”. The newly added content was no other than parts beyond his return by sea.11

Thus, we posit that the Travelogue of Faxian underwent two main phases before its final composition. This aspect of the writing process has not been previously recognized by researchers. Examining the reasons behind Faxian’s two attempts at recording his experiences, it becomes apparent that the immediate goal of monks writing travelogues in the medieval period was to shape their own spiritual identities and sanctify the Buddhist scriptures they translated. Additionally, these monks aimed to disseminate information regarding Buddhism from Central Asia and India within Buddhist communities in medieval China, catering to their desire to know more about the Buddhist world. Once a travelogue was completed, its utility transcended the author’s control, surpassing the initially anticipated goals and readership. Monks’ travelogues, enriched with abundant information about Central Asia and India, consequently became fertile grounds for generating knowledge about the Western Regions in medieval China.

3. Dissemination and Reception of Western Regions Knowledge in Monastic Travelogues

Knowledge in textual form can generally be acquired through reading or applied by utilizing the texts as a tool. For instance, a fragment of the Hanji 漢紀 unearthed from the Bezeklik caves in Turfan contains a tiny piece of history of Daxia.12 The knowledge of the Western Regions in the Han dynasty contained in this fragment can be directly accessed by the reader. Similarly, Dunhuang 敦煌 manuscript P.5538 is a bilingual conversation practice pamphlet in Sanskrit and Khotanese, with words or phrases first written in Sanskrit and followed by their Khotanese translations (Bailey 1938, pp. 521–43; Kumamoto 1988, pp. 53–82). This manuscript was likely a handbook used by a monk on a pilgrimage from India through Khotan to Mount Wutai in China (Rong 2017, pp. 87–89). For this monk, simply reading the Khotanese phrases from the handbook allowed him to utilize the bilingual knowledge it contained, ensuring smooth communication in Khotanese-speaking areas.

However, the dissemination of knowledge about the Western Regions in monks’ travelogues in medieval China could occur through means other than direct reading or usage. This was the citation of monks’ travelogues in the secular works of contemporary Chinese scholars. Although this method was indirect and sometimes involved alterations to the original texts, which could distort the monks’ original intentions, it effectively spread knowledge about the Western Regions to a broader audience of the Chinese literati. Consequently, the knowledge contained in these travelogues was incorporated into the traditional Chinese knowledge system and reached a wider readership.

The Shuijing zhu 水經注 is an important geographical work compiled in medieval China. Its author, Li Daoyuan 酈道元, lived in northern China in the mid-fifth century and never traveled to the Western Regions in person. However, when annotating the waterways of the Western Regions, he frequently cited monks’ travelogues such as the Travelogue of Faxian. By utilizing the geographical knowledge from these travel records, he provided new evidence for issues that the transmitted historical sources could not explain, and this even embraced the whole set of Buddhist geographical thought contained in the Western Regions knowledge. For instance, Li Daoyuan cited the Travelogue of Faxian to describe the route into the Indus River Valley:

Faxian stated: “After I had passed the Pamir, I entered the territory of North Tianzhu. From this place I followed the range to the southwest for fifteen days. The path became extremely difficult and treacherous, with steep and precipitous cliffs. These stone mountains stood upright like walls, reaching thousands of ren in height. Approaching them dazzled the eyes, and there was no place to set foot. Below the mountains flowed a river called the Xintou River 新頭河. People had previously chiseled through the rocks to create a path and installed ladders, leaning against the cliffs. After climbing seven hundred ladders, one had to cross the river by stepping on suspended ropes. The two banks of the river were approximately eighty paces apart. Access to the place was precluded by ninefold translations, so that neither Zhang Qian nor Gan Ying 甘英of the Han Dynasty had ever reached this place.”.

(Shuijing zhu jiaozheng, vol. 1, p. 4; Petech 1950, pp. 15–16)

Li Daoyuan’s annotation of a river primarily located in India directly relates to his acceptance of Buddhist geographical thought. Li cited Dao’an’s 道安 Shishi xiyu ji 釋氏西域記, which described the “Great Anavatapta Mountain阿耨達太山, on which there is a great lake, with palaces and towers exceedingly grand.” Li annotated, “The mountain referred to here is none other than the Kunlun Mountains.” This indicates his belief that the Great Anavatapta Mountain in Buddhist legends corresponds to the Kunlun Mountains in China. In both Buddhist and Chinese beliefs, these two mountains are identified as the sources of the Indus River and the Yellow River. Therefore, Li Daoyuan’s detailed description of the Indus River stems from his knowledge on the shared origin of the Yellow River and the Indus River. Once he begins narrating the basin of the Indus River, the Travelogue of Faxian becomes Li Daoyuan’s primary source of knowledge about the Western Regions.

The Shuijing zhu describes the kingdoms in the Indus River region as follows:

Faxian also said, “Cross the river and you will reach the Udyāna Kingdom 烏萇國, that is, the Northern Tianzhu, where the Buddha once arrived and left the mark of his foot. The mark is long or short according to the faith of the man who beholds it. Up to now it still exists. Also the stone, where the Buddha dried his robe, is still in existence. The Xintou River further flows towards the southwest, then it bends and flows to the southeast. It passes through the Middle Tianzhu. On both banks there is level country. There is a kingdom called Pitu 毗荼, where Buddhism is highly respected. The Punaban River 蒲那般河flows into the river. Along the river, there are over twenty temples. This river joins the Indus River through the kingdom of Mathurā 摩頭羅國. The kingdoms of Tianzhu lie to the west of the Punaban River, while the Middle Tianzhu, where the people are affluent, lies to the south of the river.”.

(Shuijing zhu jiaozheng, vol. 1, p. 4; Petech 1950, pp. 18–22)

Although Li Daoyuan claimed that the content above originated from Faxian’s records, a comparison with the original text in Faxian zhuan reveals that Li’s citation departs from the original and deliberately distorts Faxian’s actual route. Faxian’s journey took him from Udyāna to Śivika 宿呵多國, Gandhāra 犍陀衛國, Takṣaśilā 竺剎尸羅國, Puruṣapur 弗樓沙國, and Nagarahāra 那竭國. He crossed the Safed Koh 小雪山 then reached the area of Pitu (which was adjacent to Luoyi 羅夷國 and Bannu 跋那國) (Faxian zhuan, p. 46). However, to adhere to the structure of the Shuijing zhu, which is organized around waterways, Li Daoyuan retained only Udyāna, Pitu, Mathurā, and Middle Tianzhu. This indicates that while Li Daoyuan utilized the geographical knowledge from the travelogues, he also selectively edited and rephrased the information to fit his needs. In this way, the knowledge from these travel records was integrated into the traditional Chinese knowledge system.

The absorption of Western Regions knowledge from travelogues into official histories, written from the perspective of the Chinese dynasties, is a more typical example. In the 510s, the Northern Wei monk Huisheng 惠生 journeyed to the Western Regions to seek Buddhist scriptures, returning in the 520s. He authored the Travelogue of Huisheng, which detailed his observations in the Western Regions. The Eastern Wei historian Wei Shou 魏收 incorporated relevant content from the Travelogue of Huisheng into the chapter on the Western Regions in the Weishu 魏书. This is the first known official history to incorporate a monk’s travelogue.13 The current chapter on the Western Regions in Weishu, under the entry for the Hephthalites 嚈噠, mentions that during the years of Xiping 熙平, Emperor Suzong 肅宗（孝明帝）sent Song Yun 宋雲, the monk Fali 法力, and others to the Western Regions to seek Buddhist scriptures.14 Huisheng also traveled with them and returned during the Zhengguang 正光 years. He traversed various kingdoms and provided a summary, though he could not ascertain all the details regarding their origins, geography, or distances (Weishu, vol. 120, p. 2279). Subsequently, the chapter on the Western Regions lists seven kingdoms: Zhujubo 朱居國, Jiepantuo 渴槃陁國, Wakhan 鉢和國, Bozhi 波知國, Chitral 賒彌國, Udyāna, and Gandhāra 乾陀國.15 These records undoubtedly originated from the Travelogue of Huisheng. However, the “life history” of the knowledge from the Travelogue of Huisheng did not end there.

During the early Tang dynasty, historian Li Yanshou 李延壽 compiled the histories of the Northern Wei, Northern Qi, Northern Zhou, and Sui dynasties into the Beishi 北史. Since its publication, this work has been highly regarded by scholars. Northern Song historian Sima Guang 司馬光 praised it, stating, “Li Yanshou’s book is indeed an excellent history of recent times.… Its narrative is concise and direct, in contrast to the official histories of the Southern and Northern Dynasties, which are often verbose and extraneous. I believe, only Li Yanshou’s work can be compared to that of Chen Shou 陳壽.” (Sima wengong ji biannian jianzhu, vol. 62, p. 79). Southern Song bibliophile Chao Gongwu 晁公武 also commended Li Yanshou’s Beishi, noting that Li “eliminated redundancies and supplemented the texts with new records. His work significantly surpassed the original histories. To this day, scholars primarily consult his works, while Shen Yue’s Songshu 宋書 and Wei Shou’s Weishu are seldom referenced.” (Junzhai dushu zhi jiaozheng, vol. 6, p. 241). In his praise of the Beishi, Chao Gongwu also noted that, in comparison, the Weishu had fewer readers. By the mid-Northern Song period, when Liu Bin 劉邠, Liu Shu 劉恕, An Tao 安燾, and Fan Zuyu 范祖禹 were collating the Weishu, they discovered that “over the course of several hundred years, about thirty volumes of the book had been lost or become incomplete.” (Jiuben weishu muluxu, pp. 3063–65). The “Biography of the Western Regions” in the Weishu was among the missing volumes. However, because the “Biography of the Western Regions” in the Beishi drew on the “Biography of the Western Regions” in the Weishu to incorporate relevant records from the Travelogue of Huisheng, it can be asserted that the Western Regions knowledge contained in the Travelogue of Huisheng continued to be transmitted despite the loss of itself and the “Biography on the Western Regions” in the Weishu. Rather, it continued to be read and disseminated through the more widely influential Beishi.16

This is true not only for the Travelogue of Huisheng, but for other scattered travelogues written by monks containing unique knowledge on the Western Regions which have also extended their “lifespan” through citations in works by Chinese scholars. For example, Yang Xuanzhi’s 楊衒之 Luoyang qielan ji (A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang 洛陽伽藍記) not only quotes the Travelogue of Huisheng, but also references the Travelogue of Daorong 道榮傳. Similarly, Du You 杜佑 cites Fasheng’s 法盛 Liguo zhuan 歷國傳 in the chapters on Western Barbarians of his Tongdian 通典.

It can be said that every time readers examine the sections of the Shuijing zhu concerning Indian geography, they are effectively reading the relevant contents from the Travelogue of Faxian. Similarly, each reading of the chapter “Biography of the Western Regions” in Weishu and Beishi, or other historical texts such as Luoyang qielan ji and Tongdian, represents a repeated study and utilization of the Western Regions knowledge originally found in the now-lost Travelogue of Huisheng and other monastic travelogues. Whether driven by personal curiosity about the Western Regions or national interest in gathering knowledge about these areas, these readers were, in fact, the audience for the Western Regions knowledge contained in the monastic travelogues.

As previously discussed, monks and official diplomatic envoys or officials had distinctly different purposes when documenting their experiences in the Western Regions. Hence, the knowledge on the Western Regions produced by both parties through their writings is typically complementary rather than overlapping. Furthermore, this unique value also means that the Chinese scholarly works at that time heavily relied on the geographical and historical knowledge provided by monks’ travelogues. Conversely, monks’ travelogues, through the writings of Chinese scholars, extended beyond their initially intended audience, making the knowledge about the Western Regions accessible to a wider readership. However, the process by which these monks’ travelogues entered into the Chinese knowledge system represents not just the fusion of two positions or even two types of knowledge—the traditional Chinese Western Regions knowledge and the Buddhist Western Regions knowledge, but also the conflicts between these heterogeneous knowledge systems.

4. The Same “Western Regions”, Two Types of “Knowledge”

This section aims to discuss two types of “Western Regions knowledge”, which are not distinguished by temporal or spatial factors. In other words, the divergence in “Western Regions knowledge” is neither a result of the different times at which this knowledge was formed nor due to regional differences within the “Western Regions” that led recorders to produce distinct types of knowledge about the same region. The emergence of these two types of “Western Regions knowledge” stems from the differing purposes of the recorders and their underlying positions. Wei Shou’s comments on the Travelogue of Huisheng before he cites it reflect his critique as a recipient and re-producer of one type of “Western Regions knowledge” directed at Hui Sheng, the producer of another type of “Western Regions knowledge”:

Huisheng has visited various kingdoms, but since there is no way to know the history, landscape, or distance of these kingdoms, here I can only present basic information about them.

(Weishu, vol. 120, p. 2279)

For Wei Shou, the records of the various kingdoms in the Western Regions should include “essential details” (such as population, military information, as well as other political and social data), the natural geographical environment, the distances between various cities within these kingdoms, and their proximities to the capital or frontier towns of the Northern Wei dynasty. However, Hui Sheng’s records of the Western Regions obviously omit these details. What, then, would monks like Hui Sheng prioritize in their records of the Western Regions? When compiling the “Biography of the Western Regions” in the Weishu, Wei Shou’s sources included not only the Travelogue of Huisheng but also a report by Dong Wan 董琬 after his mission to the Western Regions in the early 430s. Dong Wan’s mission was an official effort by the Northern Wei to establish relations with the kingdoms of the Western Regions, especially the nine kingdoms that paid tribute during Emperor Taiwu’s reign. Dong Wan and Hui Sheng embodied the official and the Buddhist positions, respectively, each documenting what they considered to be significant “knowledge on the Western Regions”. Notably, they both recorded information about several common kingdoms. A comparison of the records by envoys and monks reveals the differences between the two types of “Western Regions knowledge”.

In the medieval period, the Kingdom of Zhujubo 朱俱波國was located in what is now Yecheng County 葉城縣, Xinjiang. Dong Wan described the Kingdom of Zhujubo as follows: “the kingdom of Xijuban悉居半國, formerly known as the kingdom of Xiye 西夜國, also named Zihe 子合. The king was titled Zi, and his capital was located at Huqian呼犍. It is to the west of the kingdom of Khotan, 12,970 li from Dai 代.” (Weishu, vol. 120, p. 2264). In contrast, Huisheng recorded the Kingdom of Zhujubo as follows: “The Kingdom of Zhuju is west of Khotan. The Zhuju inhabitants live in the mountains, cultivate wheat, and produce forest fruits. Most are followers of Buddhism. Their language is similar to that of Khotan. They are subjects of the Hephthalites.” The records of the official envoy Dong Wan emphasized the kingdom’s name and its two alternative names, the king’s title, the capital, its location relative to the important oasis city Khotan, and the distance from the Northern Wei capital. These details were clearly of primary interest to the Northern Wei government because they provided a basis for making strategic decisions regarding the Western Regions. Conversely, Hui Shen’s records detailed the location in relation to Khotan, aspects of the local people’s lifestyle and production, their Buddhist faith, and their language.17 Although Hui Sheng also noted the location of the Kingdom of Zhujubo, he omitted the distance information, which was the exact criticism Wei Shou had of his records. The latter three aspects that Hui Sheng recorded were not the focus of official interest, particularly the religious information, which would be of primary concern to a Buddhist monk like Hui Sheng and the intended readers of his travelogue. It is also important to consider that Wei Shou might have selectively edited Hui Sheng’s records in the Weishu, retaining only the information pertinent to governmental needs. The Travelogue of Huisheng likely contains a greater amount of information related to Buddhism. The Luoyang qielan ji records the monasteries in Luoyang, references the Travelogue of Huisheng and the accounts of Song Yun, who traveled with Hui Sheng, thus preserving more of their original records. For instance, during their stay in Udyāna, Hui Sheng and Song Yun deliberately sought out Buddhist holy sites:

Thereafter Song Yun and Huisheng went out of the city to look for the sites where Tathāgata had preached. On the east of the river was a place where Buddha dried his robes. Previously, when Tathāgata came to Udyāna to convert the populace, the Nāga was so infuriated as to cause a violent rainstorm drenching the inside and outside of Buddha’s sanghāțī. When the rain stopped, the Buddha was at the foot of a boulder facing east and drying his kāșāya. After the passage of so many years, the marks were as sharp as new. Not only were the seams clearly visible, but also all the fine details were as if new. If one should go there for a quick look, he might not be able to get a clear view, but if he should scrape the spot, the patterns would become all the more vivid. There were stūpas at the sites where the Buddha had sat and where he dried his garments.

(Wang 1984, pp. 230–31; Zhou 2010, pp. 186–87)

Therefore, the original Travelogue of Huisheng likely contained more information related to Buddhism. Dong Wan’s and Huisheng’s divergent records of the same Kingdom of Zhujubo exemplify how their differing perspectives resulted in the production of two distinct types of Western Regions knowledge in their respective accounts.

Indeed, the conflicts between official knowledge on the Western Regions and that produced by individual monks in their travelogues persisted. During the mid-Tang period, Du You, while compiling the Tongdian, read several accounts of Tianzhu that quoted from Faxian and other monks’ travelogues. He criticized these works by saying, “Many monastic travelogues, when documenting events in Tianzhu, often excerpt passages from the travelogues of Faxian and Dao’an. I argue that these excerpts are all absurd and unreliable.” (Tongdian, vol. 193, p. 5262). For those historical works about the Western Regions that relied on monks’ travelogues, Du You listed and criticized each one of them:

Various scholars compile the history of the Western Regions, with most of them citing monastic travelogues, such as Faxian’s You tianzhu ji 遊天竺記, Zhisengzai’s 支僧載 Waiguo shi 外國事, Fasheng’s 法盛 Li zhuguo zhuan 歷諸國傳, and Dao’an’s Xiyu zhi. While works like Foguo ji, Tanyong’s Waiguo zhuan, Zhimeng’s Waiguo zhuan, Zhitan’s 支曇 Di wushan ming 諦烏山銘, and Yancong’s 彥琮（翻經法師） Waiguo zhuan 外國傳 tend to embellish the miraculous and bizarre events surrounding the Buddha. Compared to other accounts, these narratives appear highly implausible, and thus, I generally omit them.

(Tongdian, vol. 191, p. 5199)

If we pay attention to such records in the travelogues, it is not difficult to understand why Du You was dissatisfied with them. According to the Daorong zhuan, cited in the Luoyang qielan ji, when the construction of the Kaniṣka-stūpa 雀離浮圖 in the Kingdom of Gandhāra was underway, no one could ascend the iron pillars. The king then built tall towers at the four corners of the stūpa and placed gold, silver, and treasures inside. He, along with his queen and princes, prayed and burned incense, after which the craftsmen were able to ascend the iron pillars and construct the stūpa. The locals believed that this was achieved with the help of the Four Heavenly Kings (Wang 1984, pp. 240–41; Luoyang qielan ji, vol. 5, p. 203). Such “miracles” likely abound in travelogues of the monks. What Du You needed was knowledge on the Western Regions that could be utilized by the government, rather than Buddhist temples, relics, or legends. However, since there were no other books available for use, Du You could only try to delete the bizarre miracles and cite some travelogue that seemed more reasonable to him, thereby producing Western Regions knowledge that suited the government’s needs. Therefore, there is not an insurmountable barrier between the two types of “knowledge on the Western Regions”. The “knowledge on the Western Regions” in monastic travelogues underwent a process of localization through indirect dissemination via textual citations. During this process, it was inevitably subjected to choices, deletions, and modifications by readers and re-compilers according to their needs, particularly those of the ruling dynasties. Consequently, the original knowledge transformed into a different form of “knowledge on the Western Regions”.

Later cases also demonstrate that such transformations can occur even before the text is fully formed. Monk Daoyuan 道圓 traveled to the Western Regions during the Later Jin dynasty of the Five Dynasties period in search of Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures. His journey lasted twelve years, and he spent six years living in India. On his way back to China, he passed through Khotan and met an envoy from the Northern Song. He accompanied the envoy, bringing with him “Buddha’s śarīra, a crystalware, and Sanskrit pattra sutra”, and together they arrived in Kaifeng in 965. When Emperor Taizu of Song 宋太祖 summoned Daoyuan, he inquired about the “customs, geography, and distances” of the places Daoyuan had visited, and Daoyuan provided detailed responses. (Songshi 宋史, vol. 490, pp. 14103–4). Emperor Taizu showed no interest in the Buddhist scriptures or relics that Daoyuan had brought back. Instead, he was interested in the social culture, the natural environment, and the distances between the various kingdoms and the Northern Song, which were exactly the types of knowledge that Wei Shou and Du You sought—practical information that could be utilized by the government. Although there are no other similar cases, the dialogue between Daoyuan and Emperor Taizu clearly illustrates that even without relying on textual adjustment, oral communication can effectively transform one type of “Western Regions knowledge” into another. Such transformations were likely not uncommon during the early development of monastic travelogues in the fourth to the sixth centuries.

By comparing the knowledge on the Western Regions produced to meet official needs with the knowledge emphasized in the monks’ travel records, it becomes clear that significant differences exist between these two types of knowledge. These differences have led to criticisms from readers with state-centric perspectives. The dissatisfaction expressed by Wei Shou and Du You reflects a structural conflict between these two types of “knowledge on the Western Regions”. The knowledge they expected to obtain differed from that provided by the monks’ travel records aimed at Buddhist readers. The fundamental reason for the phenomenon of “the same Western Regions with two types of knowledge” lies in the differing perspectives and purposes of the initial recorders. This divergence caused official envoys and monks to focus on different aspects of the same Western Regions.

5. Conclusions

Monks’ travelogues emerged alongside their westward journeys in search of Buddhist sutras from the end of the fourth century. Although monks documented their experiences in Central Asia and India primarily to enhance their own status and to share information about Buddhist sects, temples, and relics in the Western Regions with other Buddhists, they did not anticipate the dissemination of their records beyond the Buddhist community. Through references by Chinese scholars, the knowledge contained in these monastic travelogues reached a wider audience. Even if the original travel records were lost, excerpts preserved in other texts ensured the survival of such knowledge.

Since monks and diplomatic envoys observed and recorded Western information from fundamentally different perspectives, this inevitably led to a conflict between the two types of “Western Regions knowledge”. Consequently, when monastic travelogues were cited, the knowledge contained within them was inevitably deleted or modified to fit the state-centric perspectives of readers or compilers. Scholars in medieval China, who compiled historical records to meet official requirements, often expressed dissatisfaction with the Western Regions knowledge recorded by monks. However, they still had to use these travelogues because monks had distinct advantages in acquiring knowledge about the Western Regions compared to envoys. Envoys, restricted by their diplomatic missions, could not stay in the same place for long periods. In contrast, monks often stayed in a certain kingdom for years to learn languages or make pilgrimages to Buddhist sites. As a result, monks could provide unique knowledge that envoys could not gather. This is also why the academic value of monastic travelogues is widely recognized today.