The Transmission and Textual Transformation of the Shisong lü 十誦律 from the 6th to 13th Centuries

Abstract

The Shisong lü 十誦律, translated in the early 5th century, remains the only complete version of this Buddhist Vinaya text preserved to date and represents the first Vinaya text translated into Chinese. This Vinaya text introduced standardized terminology that significantly influenced subsequent translations of Vinaya texts and profoundly impacted Chinese Buddhism during the Six Dynasties period. Due to its complex translation history, the text is bifurcated into two lineages: the Northern lineage, featuring an initial 58-scroll version (without a preface), and the Southern lineage, with an expanded 61-scroll version (including a preface). This study examines the two oldest extant manuscripts of the Lüxu 律序 (Preface to the Shisong lü) from the Southern lineage—one from the Dunhuang collection currently preserved in Japan and the other from the Nara Japan. Through intensive comparisons with woodblock editions, these manuscripts from Dunhuang, and ancient Japanese manuscript Buddhist canons, this study not only traces the textual evolution of the Southern lineage of the Shisong lü from the 6th to the 13th centuries but also offers new insights into both the historical development and the relationship between these two lineages of the text. Methodologically, this paper provides inspiration for textual criticism of the Vinaya in particular and Buddhist studies in general.

The *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya (alt. *Sarvāstivādavinaya? *Daśādhyāya-vinaya) was translated in the early 5th century into Chinese as the Shisong lü 十誦律 (The Ten Recitation Vinaya). Since then, the Shisong lü, as the first Chinese Vinaya text, has remained the only complete version of this Buddhist Vinaya (see Hirakawa 1960, p. 128). Although it has been less influential in the history of Chinese Buddhism when compared to the Sifen lü 四分律 (Dharmaguptaka-vinaya; The Four Part Vinaya), the Shisong lü significantly influenced later Chinese translations of Vinaya texts by introducing standardized terminology1. The translation of the Shisong lü, which is discussed in detail below, was complicated and significant. This complexity led to the text bifurcating into two lineages shortly after the completion of the translation: the Northern lineage, based on the initial 58-scroll draft translated in Chang’an (present-day Xi’an, Shaanxi), and the Southern lineage, represented by an expanded 61-scroll version completed in Shouchun 壽春 (present-day Shouxian, Anhui). Both lineages have textual witnesses. Given the Shisong lü’s diversity in textual sources, scholars have shown particular interest in its transmission and textual transformations, exploring the respective evolutions of the two lineages and their relationship. This paper aims to contribute to this field by examining these aspects in greater detail.

Textual studies on the Shisong lü have evolved through two distinct phases. In the earliest stage, Japanese scholar Hirakawa Akira, with his seminal articles, established foundational methodologies and offered new insights into the text. Notably, he highlighted discrepancies in the historical records from the Six Dynasties and Sui-Tang periods regarding the relationship between the Southern and Northern lineages as well as the origins of the Lüxu 律序 (the Preface to the Vinaya) (Hirakawa 1960, p. 128). His detailed analysis of the Northern lineage manuscript of the Shisong lü (S.797), found among the Dunhuang manuscripts, revealed significant differences in division, content, linguistic style, and terminology when compared to later canonical texts (Hirakawa 1963, pp. 545–51). In recent years, Chinese scholars have made substantial contributions to this field. They have discovered 70 fragments of Dunhuang and Turfan manuscripts, thereby facilitating comparative studies that clarify the relationship between two lineages of texts (see Wang 2021, pp. 84–95; Liu 2021b, pp. 7–18; Liu 2022, pp. 27–43). By analyzing a range of sources from the Six Dynasties to the Five Dynasties period—including biographies of monks, scripture catalogs, and phonetic glossaries—and by utilizing diverse textual resources like woodblock editions of the Buddhist canons and ancient Japanese manuscript Buddhist canons from the Nara, Heian, and Kamakura periods2, these scholars have explored variations in the organization of Southern lineage texts and the underlying reasons for these differences (see Wang 2022, pp. 26–40).

Evidently, the depth and variety of the primary material have essentially shaped our understanding of how Buddhist scriptures are transmitted and transformed over time. In line with this, the present paper takes full advantage of the two oldest extant manuscripts of the Lüxu (Preface to the Shisong lü) from the Southern lineage—one from the Dunhuang collection currently preserved in Japan and the other from the Nara Japan. This study consists of three sections. It begins with an examination of the significance of the Lüxu in the textual study of the Shisong lü, emphasizing how changes in the position of the Lüxu within the Shisong lü reflect the general evolution of the Shisong lü itself. The second section introduces representative texts of the first scroll of the Lüxu, including manuscripts from the Southern Dynasties, Nara Japan, and various woodblock editions, so as to provide a foundational understanding for comparative analysis. The final section presents an comprehensive comparison of the first scroll of the Lüxu across different versions of the Shisong lü, tracing changes in content, structure, and terminology to reveal patterns of textual evolution of the Vinaya text from the 6th to the 13th centuries. This paper will offer new insights into the development of the southern lineage of the Shisong lü and into the relationship between the southern and northern lineages of it. Methodologically, it will provide inspiration for the textual criticism of the Vinaya in particular, and of Buddhist studies in general.

1. The Significance of the Lüxu in the Study of the Shisong lü

The translation of the Shisong lü was eventful, and the translated manuscript was bifurcated into two textual lineages since the early 5th century. On the seventeenth day of the tenth month in the sixth year of the Hongshi 弘始 era of the Yao Qin 姚秦 dynasty (404 AD), Punyatāra 弗若多羅 (fl. 404), a Buddhist monk from Central Asia, recited the text in Sanskrit, while Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (343–413) provided the Chinese rendition. Unfortunately, Punyatāra’s untimely death from illness left the project incomplete, with only about two-thirds of the text translated3. The following year, Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 (fl. 405) arrived in Chang’an 長安, and he, at the request of Huiyuan 慧遠 (334–416) at Mount Lu 廬山, collaborated with Kumārajīva to complete the initial Chinese draft. This draft had 58 scrolls, but it remained unedited before Kumārajīva’s death in the eleventh year of the Hongshi era (409 AD)4. Fortunately, Vimalākṣa 卑摩羅叉 (?–413), Kumārajīva’s Vinaya teacher, was in Chang’an at the time. After Kumārajīva’s death, Vimalākṣa traveled to the Eastern Jin territory and completed an expanded version consisting of 61 scrolls by revising the initial draft at Shijian Monastery 石澗寺 in Shouchun5. Due to this complex translation history, the Shisong lü has two traditions in its texts, with the initial 58-scroll draft establishing the northern lineage and the expanded 61-scroll version establishing the Southern lineage. Both lineages have surviving texts: the Dunhuang and Turfan manuscripts primarily represent the Northern lineage (noncanonical texts) (See Hirakawa 1963, pp. 545–51; Wang 2021, pp. 26–40; Liu 2021a; Liu 2021b, pp. 7–18; Liu 2022, pp. 27–43), while the woodblock editions as well as Japanese manuscript Buddhist canons embody the Southern lineage (canonical texts).

Disputes and debates have persisted regarding the relationship between these versions. Early sources from the Southern Dynasties, such as the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks) and Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (Collection of Records about the Translation of the Tripiṭaka), viewed the Southern lineage as a revision of the Northern lineage, without specific reference to the “Preface to the Vinaya”.6 During the Sui Dynasty, works such as the Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 (Catalogue of Buddhist Scriptures) by Fajing 法經 (fl. 594) and the Lidai Sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 (Records of the Three Treasures throughout the Successive Dynasties) described the Southern lineage as a “retranslation” or “alternative translation” of the Northern lineage7. However, during the Tang Dynasty, a more balanced perspective emerged, notably through the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋敎錄 (Kaiyuan Catalogue of Buddhist Scriptures), which compared two Northern lineage versions (with 58 and 59 scrolls) to one Southern lineage version (with 61 scrolls)8 and claimed that the 58-scroll “Ten Recitations” was jointly translated by Punyatāra, Kumārajīva, and others, while the 3-scroll Lüxu was augmented by Vimalākṣa9. Among modern scholars, Hirakawa Akira supported the historical view from the Southern Dynasties, suggesting that the Southern lineage was a reconstruction, noting that the Northern lineage also contained content corresponding to the “Preface to the Vinaya”, albeit structured differently. This suggests that it is unlikely that Vimalākṣa originally translated it. Conversely, Chinese scholars have argued that the 58-scroll “Ten Recitations” in the Southern lineage was revised based on the Northern lineage, while the 3-scroll Lüxu was indeed an original translation by Vimalākṣa (see Wang 2021, pp. 84–95; Liu 2022, p. 42).

Notably, it turns out that the Lüxu is pivotal for discussions about the relationship between the two lineages of the text and the evolution of the Southern lineage. The Shisong lü of the Southern lineage comprises two parts: the shisong 十誦 (Ten Recitations) and the Lüxu. The “Ten Recitations” section has ten chapters, with each recitation in one chapter. The first to the sixth recitations deal with percepts for monks, and the seventh deals with those specifically for nuns. The “Eighth Recitation” addresses additional regulations, the “Ninth Recitation” Upavasatha’s questions, and the last miscellaneous regulations. The “Preface to the Vinaya”, also known as the “Preface to the Shisong lü 十誦律序” or simply the “Vinaya Preface 毗尼序”, documents the background, process, and narratives associated with the compilation of the three Piṭakas, with a special focus on the Vinaya. This preface is organized into three scrolls. The first scroll encompasses the first section, the “Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus 五百比丘集三藏法”, and the primary part of the second section, the “Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus 七百比丘集滅惡法”. The second scroll covers the ending part of the second section and the third section, “The Section of Miscellaneous Vinayas 毗尼雜品”. Finally, the last scroll contains the fourth section, “The Causal Section 因縁品”.

Changes in the position of Lüxu have punctuated the evolution of the Southern lineage. Evidence from the Six Dynasties through the Sui-Tang periods shows that the combination of the newly added Lüxu with the inherited “Ten Recitations” from the Northern lineage was not entirely stable but instead exhibited a discernible pattern. According to the positions of the Lüxu, we can categorize the Southern lineage Shisong lü into three distinct types: Lüxu danzhi 律序單置 (Preface Independently Placed), Lüxu houzhi 律序後置 (Preface Post-Placed), and Lüxu qianzhi 律序前置 (Preface Pre-Placed). The emergence and alternation among these three configurations mark four distinct phases in the evolution of the text.10

• First phase (Six Dynasties period): Known as the Lüxu danzhi type, where the Lüxu was independent from the “Shisong (Ten Recitations)” (see Wang 2022, pp. 28–30). The last recitation, also called the “Tenth Recitation” or alternatively the “Virtuous Recitation 善誦” or the “Vinaya Recitation 毗尼誦”, concluded this section.
• Second phase (Sui and early Tang periods): This period introduced the Lüxu houzhi type, where the Lüxu was appended at the end of the “Tenth Recitation”, collectively referred to as the “Virtuous Recitation”.11 Notably, the definitions of the “Virtuous Recitation” and the “Vinaya Recitation” shifted during this phase. While the “Virtuous Recitation” still referred to the last recitation, it now included both the “Tenth Recitation” and the “Preface to the Vinaya”. In contrast, the “Vinaya Recitation” specifically referred to the “Preface to the Vinaya”.
• Third phase (early Tang to the Kaiyuan era [713–741]): the Lüxu xianzhi type emerged, positioning the Lüxu after the “Ninth Recitation” and before the “Tenth Recitation”.
• Fourth phase (the middle to late Tang dynasty and the Five Dynasties period): This phase saw a return to the prominence of the Lüxu houzhi type, largely due to the influence of Zhisheng 智昇 (fl. 730) in his Kaiyuan Shijiao lu12. Zhisheng not only highly recommended the previously popular Lüxu houzhi type but also significantly impacted the naming and perception of the “Preface to the Vinaya”. He renamed it the “Vinaya Preface 毗尼序”, replacing the second phase’s “Vinaya Recitation” and effectively restoring the “Vinaya Preface” from “recitation” back to “preface”.13

The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu had a profound impact on the compilation of Buddhist scriptures and canons following the middle Tang period. Its influence was such that later editions of the Buddhist canon edition, from the late Tang through the Five Dynasties period, recognized the Lüxu houzhi type as orthodox14. Moreover, subsequent editions during the Song, Jin, and Goryeo periods continued to include this arrangement, referring to the preface in question as the “Vinaya Preface 毗尼序”. These insights into the evolution of the Shisong lü text draw on historical sources from the Six Dynasties to the Sui and Tang periods. This paper seeks to trace the developmental trajectory of the Shisong lü text through a comparative study of the first scroll of the Lüxu.

2. Representative Texts of the First Scroll of the Lüxu

In this paper, our discussion is specifically focused on the first scroll of the Lüxu both for its inherent significance and for practical reasons. The first scroll includes a manuscript from the Southern Dynasties discovered in Dunhuang, another from the Nara period in Japan, and various woodblock editions. By comparing these texts from different periods and types, we can concretely validate hypotheses regarding the evolution of the Shisong lü text. Now let us first introduce several representative texts of the first scroll of the Lüxu.

The first and foremost is a Dunhuang manuscript. As of 2021, Chinese scholars have cataloged 54 pieces of Dunhuang manuscripts and 14 Turfan manuscripts that are related to the Shisong lü. Among them, only four small fragments (Дx.16098…Дx.16427, Дx.18578…Дx.9278) have been identified as part of the Lüxu (see Liu 2021b, pp. 70–71). Recently, however, it came to my attention that among Japan’s newly designated nationally important cultural properties, there is a Dunhuang manuscript of the Lüxu (No. 951) that is owned by the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs. Given that this manuscript concludes with a dedication from the Southern Liang dynasty, hereinafter we refer to it as the “Liang version”. The Liang version is 20 sheets in total: the first sheet, slightly damaged, has 25 remaining columns, while sheets 2 through 19 each have 31 columns, and the 20th sheet contains 26 columns. In addition to the 606 columns of the main text, the manuscript has an end title indicating “the First Scroll of the lüxu 律序卷第上”. Additionally, it features a two-column colophon, which reads: “In the fourth month of the fourth year of the Putong era in the Liang Dynasty (523), the mao (i. e. rabbit) year, the Canon of Inexhaustible Righteous Dharma, copied the Vinaya for circulation and making offerings 梁普通四年太歲卯四月正法無盡藏寫律流通供養”. Transcribed just over a hundred years after the translation of the Shisong lü, the Liang version is relatively complete in terms of content, and the manuscript is well-preserved and features clear and neat handwriting. As the only surviving manuscript of the Lüxu from the Liang dynasty, its literary value is immeasurable.

Next, let us consider an imperial manuscript from the Nara Japan. During this time, many scripture-copying projects were carried out by the official scripture-copying institution, but only two that received the highest endorsement from the government were officially designated as “imperial authorized 敕定” canons. The first is the “Scriptures/Canon [copied] at the behest of Empress Kōmyō’s 光明皇后御願經”, also known as the “Scriptures/Canon [with the Imperial Wish Text dated] on the first day of the fifth month [of the twelfth year of the Tenpyō 天平 era (740)] Gogatsutsuitachikyō 五月一日經”, transcribed between the fifth year of the Tenpyō era (733) and the eighth year of the Tenpyō Shōhō 天平勝寶 era (756). The second is the “Scriptures/Canon [copied] at the behest of Emperor Shōtoku稱徳天皇御願經”, also known as the “Jingo-Keiun Canon 神護景雲經”, which was transcribed between the second year of the Tenpyō Hōji 天平寶字 era (758) and the third year of the Jingo-keiun 神護景雲 era (770)15. Notably, in these two imperial canons that served as the foundation for the Japanese manuscript canon, the texts of the Shisong lü feature the Lüxu (Scrolls 55–57) positioned at the end of the “Ninth Recitation” and before the “Tenth Recitation”. This arrangement is a distinctive characteristic of the “Preface Pre-Placed” type. In history, although such editions remained popular until the Kaiyuan era of the Tang Dynasty, they gradually disappeared from China by the end of the Tang Dynasty and the beginning of the Five Dynasties period. Consequently, Japanese manuscripts are a crucial supplement to the Chinese editions by preserving variations and traditions no longer available in their country of origin16. Coming back to the first scroll of the Lüxu, although it is missing in the May 1st Canon collection (Scroll 55), a manuscript from the Jingo-Keiun Canon collection (hereinafter referred to as the “Jingo version”) is preserved at the Ishiyama-dera 石山寺 Temple in Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The Jingo version is complete, clearly handwritten, and well-preserved. It consists of 28 sheets, each containing 24 columns with 17 characters per column. Notably, the scroll concludes with an “Imperial Wish Text” dated May 13th of the second year of the Jingo-Keiun era (768), which significantly enhances its historical textual value.

Finally, we turn our attention to the woodblock editions of the Buddhist canons. Produced in the Song, Jin, and Yuan Dynasties (including Goryeo), these canons are categorized into three main lineages. The Central Plains lineage comprises the Kaibao Canon 開寶藏, the Goryeo Canons 高麗藏 (both the first and second editions), and the Jin Canon 金藏. The Northern lineage includes the Khitan Canon 契丹藏, while the Southern lineage features the Fuzhou Canons 福州藏 (including the Dongchan 東禪and Kaiyuan 開元 editions), the Sixi Canon 思溪藏, the Qisha Canon 磧砂藏, and the Puning Canon 普寧藏 (see Chikusa 2000, pp. 281–89). Among them, the Khitan Canon, which represents the Northern lineage, has long been lost. Nevertheless, by referencing the records in Xin zan yiqiejing yuanpin cilu 新纘一切經源品次錄 from the end of the Tang Dynasty and the Xin ji zangjing yinyi suihan lu 新集藏經音義隨函錄 from the Five Dynasties, we can infer the internal structure of the Khitan edition, including the Shisong lü. This edition likely represented a mature 61-scroll Lüxu houzhi type, consisting of 58 scrolls of the “Ten Recitations” and 3 scrolls of the “Preface to the Vinaya” (see Chi 2021). Not only did it adhere to the ideal form revered by the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu, but it also represented the mainstream text in the Northern region during the late Tang and Five Dynasties periods.

Within the Central Plains lineage, several editions of the Shisong lü are preserved: the Kaibao edition, of which only 1 scroll (Scroll 46) has survived (see Fang and Li 2010); the Goryeo Initial edition, with 15 scrolls remaining (Scrolls 12–15, 18–19, 42–45, and 48–52)17, the Goryeo Re-carved edition, which is complete with 61 scrolls18; and the Jin edition, preserved with 54 scrolls (Scrolls 1–2, 4–7, 9–20, 22–36, 39–43, 45, and 47–61)19. This lineage also exemplifies a 61-scroll Lüxu houzhi type, consisting of 59 scrolls of the “Ten Recitations” and 2 scrolls of the “Preface to the Vinaya”, which significantly differs in structure from the Northern lineage previously mentioned. Notably, there are minor variations in the first six recitations of the “Ten Recitations”, with only one notable difference occurring in the “First Recitation” (at the boundary between Scrolls 3 and 4). However, the differences become pronounced in the last four recitations. For example, the Central Plains editions include an additional scroll in the “Seventh Recitation” (Scrolls 42–47), compared to the Northern edition (Scrolls 42–46). This additional scroll causes a shift in the numbering of scrolls starting from the “Eighth Recitation” onwards. Apart from a few exceptions (Scrolls 50–52), the division of scrolls also varies across these editions. Additionally, in the Central Plains editions, the three scrolls of the Lüxu are compressed into two scrolls: the first scroll is incorporated into Scroll 60, while the second and third scrolls are combined into Scroll 61.

Lastly, the Shisong lü within the woodblock canons from the Southern lineage is remarkably well-preserved, notably in the earliest Fuzhou Dongchan edition (Kunai-chō shoryō-bu shūzō kanseki shūra n.d.). This edition also adheres to the 61-scroll “Preface Post-Placed” type, comprising 58 scrolls of the “Ten Recitations” and 3 scrolls of the “Preface to the Vinaya”. In this version, the Lüxu is divided into the first, second, and third scrolls, which are simply annotated as “Nine”, “Ten”, and “Eleven” (corresponding to scrolls 59, 60, and 61, respectively). Compared to the Northern edition, the Dongchan edition exhibits only minor differences in the division of scrolls for the “Third Recitation” (at the boundary between Scrolls 19 and 20), the “Ninth Recitation” (at the boundary between Scrolls 53 and 54), and the “Tenth Recitation” (at the boundary between Scrolls 55 and 56). The division of other scrolls is mostly consistent. In conclusion, while all versions of the Shisong lü in the woodblock canons all represent a 61-scroll Lüxu houzhi type, each edition displays unique characteristics. Consequently, this paper selects the Dongchan, Jin, and Goryeo Re-carved editions of the first scroll of the Lüxu (hereinafter referred to as the “Dongchan version”, “Jin version”, and “Goryeo version”) for comparative analysis with the two manuscripts, the “Liang version” and “Jingo version”.

3. Comparative Study on the First Scroll of the Lüxu

For a long time, scholars have had two major concerns in their discussions on the Shisong lü text: the relationship between the Northern and Southern lineages and the evolution of the Southern lineage. For the relationship, scholars have achieved preliminary progress through comparative studies between Dunhuang manuscripts and canonical versions. Regarding the second issue, given that previous studies have primarily focused on structural changes, textual variations need further analysis. Against this backdrop, centering on the first scroll of the Lüxu, especially the Liang version, and through detailed comparisons with representative texts from different periods, including the Jingo version, the Dongchan version, the Jin version, and the Goryeo version, hopefully, we can trace the trajectory of the Southern lineage’s evolution.

3.1. The Chronological Order of the Textual Sources

To identify the patterns of textual evolution, it is essential to first establish the chronological order of the textual sources. We shall begin by considering the dates of copying or carving various texts. The dating inscription indicates the Liang version was copied in 523, making it the earliest extant manuscript of the Lüxu. The Jingo version lacks a dating inscription, but since the Jingo-keiun Canon was copied around 758–769, it should be second in antiquity after the Liang version. The Dongchan version includes an engraving inscription dated the fifth year of the Shaosheng 紹聖 era (1098), making it the oldest extant woodblock edition of the Lüxu. The Jin version and Goryeo version do not have dating inscriptions, but judging from the era of the Canon’s carving, the former likely dates between 1149 and 1173 and the latter between 1233 and 1248. While the Liang version and Jingo version are manuscripts reflecting the text feature of their times, determining the textual basis of the woodblock editions is more complex due to the absence of direct sources. Thus, a comparison of textual content across these versions is crucial to ascertain the chronological order of their sources.

The earliest recorded notice of discrepancies between woodblock editions was made by Sugi 守其 (fl. 1247) and others responsible for collating the Re-carved Edition of the Goryeo Canon. They documented these differences in the 20th scroll of their Collation Supplementary Records 校正別錄, highlighting variations in Scroll 5 of the Shisong lü between the Khitan edition 丹本 and the Goryeo Initial edition 國本 and the Kaibao edition 宋本20.

Notably, The Khitan edition contained three additional large passages:

• Where the Goryeo and Song editions contained only the phrase “up to the thirtieth day all as above mentioned 乃至三十日皆如上説”, with 9 characters, the Khitan edition expanded this to 1269 characters.
• For the section spanning “from the twelfth day to the thirtieth day also as above mentioned 十二日乃至三十日亦如上説”, the Goryeo and Song editions had only 12 characters, while the Khitan edition again extended this to 1269 characters.
• In another instance, while the Goryeo and Song editions repeated the same 12 characters as before, the Khitan edition expanded this to 1341 characters.

These three substantial additions found in the Khitan edition were incorporated into the Goryeo Re-carved edition.

This collation note highlights two significant facts:

• There are at least three discrepancies between the Kaibao and Khitan editions. The Kaibao edition simplifies the text by using only a few characters for each of the three instances, thereby avoiding repetition. In contrast, the Khitan edition includes full repetitions of the text without omissions.
• There was a shift in editorial attitudes between the Initial and Re-carved editions of the Goryeo Canon. The Initial edition favored the concise style of the Kaibao edition, while the Re-carved edition aligned more closely with the comprehensive detailing found in the Khitan edition.

Scroll 5 of the Jin Canon reveals that the three passages abovementioned are also presented in abbreviated form, which appears to be a characteristic of the Central Plains lineage. Turning our attention to the Jiangnan editions, the Dongchan edition serves as a pertinent example. It not only abbreviates the aforementioned three passages but also shortens two additional passages to 12 characters each. In contrast, these two passages contain 1349 characters and 1021 characters in the Jin and the Re-carved Goryeo editions, respectively. This pattern suggests that the Jiangnan editions characteristically abbreviate all five passages. Thus, comparisons of Scroll 5 reveal that, among the woodblock editions, the Jiangnan edition is the most concise, followed by the Central Plains edition, while the Northern edition is the most complete. From this comparison, several inferences can be drawn:

• The content of the Northern edition is the most complete, probably because it relied on Northern manuscripts from the late Tang and Five Dynasties periods.
• The Jiangnan edition is the most concise and shows the greatest deviation from the Northern edition, suggesting that its source manuscripts from the Jiangnan region are the earliest.
• The Central Plains edition occupies a middle ground in terms of text complexity, indicating that its source manuscripts from Yizhou 益州 are older than those of the Northern edition but more recent than those of the Jiangnan edition.

Upon examining the Central Plains edition of the Lüxu, it is evident that both the Jin version and the Goryeo version exhibit signs of modification. In particular, the Jin version displays localized alterations on the existing wooden blocks, whereas the Goryeo version has undergone a more extensive re-typesetting process, resulting in significantly more modifications. Differences between the two editions include variations in formatting elements such as head titles, subtitles, and translator names, and there are 62 textual differences between them. These discrepancies are likely due to the Goryeo version’s reliance on the Khitan edition.

When these versions are compared with the Jiangnan edition, represented by the Dongchan version, only 6 out of the 62 identified textual differences are common between the Goryeo version and the Dongchan version. In contrast, a substantial 49 differences align with the Jin version and the Dongchan version. This pattern indicates that the Goryeo version, influenced by the Khitan edition, not only diverges from the Central Plains tradition but also significantly distances itself from the Dongchan version. Positioned between the Central Plains and Northern editions, the Goryeo version thus represents a relatively newer textual form, reflecting a distinct evolutionary path in the manuscript tradition.21

To decide whether the Donchan edition or the Jin edition is older, a direct comparison with the Liang version is effective. The findings are as follows:

• Between the Liang version and the Dongchan version, there are 74 differences, with 56 of them unique to the Liang version.
• Between the Liang version and the Jin version, there are 178 differences, with 86 unique to the Jin version.
• Additionally, there are only 16 common differences between the Liang and Jin versions.

This analysis reveals that the textual content of the Dongchan version is closer to that of the Liang version, which is the oldest extant Lüxu. This suggests that the Dongchan version and its source manuscripts from the Jiangnan region are quite early. In contrast, the Jin version shows more divergence from the Liang version, indicating that the Central Plains edition, from which the Jin edition is derived, is slightly later. Furthermore, the textual source of the Goryeo version, heavily influenced by the Khitan edition and its Northern origins, is presumably even later.

Regarding the Jingo version, in addition to the 52 unique differences found in the Liang version, there are 106 textual differences between the two manuscripts. Of these 28 differences are unique to the Jingo version, 2 are shared with the Dongchan version, and the remaining 76 are shared exclusively with the Jin version. Notably, these 76 shared differences between the Jingo version and Jin version are the same as those shared between the Liang and Dongchan editions.

This analysis shows that the Dongchan version is more closely aligned with the Liang version than the Jingo version. Conversely, the Jingo version is closer to the Jin version than to the Dongchan version. Consequently, tracing the textual lineage from the oldest extant version, the Liang version, the sequence is as follows: the Dongchan version is the next closest, followed by the Jingo version, with the Jin version’s source coming later. The sources of the Khitan edition and the Goryeo version are the most recent in this lineage.

3.2. The Changes in the Textual Content of the Lüxu

After having determined the chronological order of the textual origin among the five texts on the first scroll of the Lüxu—the Liang version, the Dongchan version, the Jingo version, the Jin version, and the Goryeo version—we now turn to structural changes across these texts. Let us first list and compare the head titles, translator names, subtitles, and end titles of each version (see

Table 1. Structural Changes between the Five Versions of the Lüxu.

	Liang Version	Dongchan Version	Jingo Version	Jin Version	Goryeo Version
Head title	(missing)	十誦律毗尼序卷上(九) The First Scroll of the Vinaya Preface to the Shisong lü (Nine)	十誦律卷第五十五 The Fifty-Fifth Scroll of the Shisong lü	十誦律善誦毗尼序卷上第六十 The Sixtith and the First Scroll of the Vinaya Preface to the Virtuous Recitation of the Shisong lü	十誦律卷第六十善誦毗尼序卷上 The Sixtith Scroll of the Shisong lü, the First Scroll of the Vinaya Preface to the Virtuous Recitation
Translator	(missing)	東晉三藏卑摩羅叉續譯 Extended Translation by Tripiṭaka Master Vimalākṣa of the Eastern Jin Dynasty	(none)	五百比丘結集三藏法品第一 Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus, First. 三藏卑摩羅叉續譯 Extended Translation by Tripiṭaka Master Vimalākṣa	東晉罽賓三藏卑摩羅叉續譯 Extended Translation by Tripiṭaka Master Vimalākṣa from Kashmir during the Eastern Jin Dynasty
Subtitle 1	(missing)	五百比丘集滅善法 Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus	毗尼序五百比丘集三藏法(善誦) Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus, the Virtuous Recitation	(none)	五百比丘結集三藏法品第一 Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus, First
Subtitle 2	七百比丘集滅惡法第二 Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second	七百比丘集滅惡法第二 Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second	七百比丘集滅惡法第二 Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second	七百比丘結集滅惡法第二 Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second	七百比丘集滅惡法品第二之二 Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second
End title	律序卷第上 The First Scroll of the lüxu	十誦律毗尼序卷上(九) The First Scroll of the Vinaya Preface to the Shisong lü (Nine)	十誦律第九誦卷第五十五 The Fifty-Fifth Scroll, the Nineth Recitation of the Shisong lü	十誦律卷第六十 The Sixtith Scroll of the Shisong lü	十誦律卷第六十 The Sixtith Scroll of the Shisong lü

).

Firstly, the Liang version lacks the beginning portion, approximately one sheet, making unclear its head title and Subtitle 1. An examination of its content reveals that the first half comprises the “Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus”, while the latter half includes the “Dharma of Eliminating Evils Collected by Seven Hundred Bhikṣus, Second”. This structure aligns with other versions. The end title is labeled as the “First Scroll of the lüxu”, notably omitting the phrase “Ten Recitations”. This absence indicates that it is a standalone volume, not part of a sequentially numbered series, reflecting the characteristic “Preface Independently Placed” type found in sources from the Southern Dynasties.

Next, although the content structure of the Dongchan version is consistent with other versions, its head and end titles, the “First scroll of the Vinaya Preface to the Shisong lü (Nine) 十誦律毗尼序卷上(九)”, are somewhat unusual. The character “Nine” likely corresponds to the generic scroll number “Fifty-Nine”, suggesting a specific adjustment made in the Dongchan edition. I speculate that the textual source of the Dongchan edition of the Lüxu may be quite old, possibly originating from a “Preface Independently Placed” text akin to the Liang version. Nonetheless, the Dongchan edition appears to have modified the title. Particularly, the term “Vinaya Preface 毗尼序” in the titles may have been added by the Dongchan editors, given that the term “Vinaya Preface” did not appear before the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu and that the textual content of the Dongchan version suggests its source could be traced back to the Southern Dynasties.

Furthermore, the Jingo version is labeled as the “Fifty-Fifth Scroll of the Shisong lü”, and its end title reads the “Fifty-Fifth Scroll of the Shisong lü, the Ninth Recitation”. This title reflects that ancient Japanese scripture’s classification under the “Preface Pre-placed” type from the Kaiyuan era of the Tang Dynasty, where the first scroll of the Lüxu is typically numbered fifty-five. This titling provides critical information: while Tang-era scripture catalogs only mention that the “Preface Pre-placed” type includes this preface in Scrolls fifty-five to fifty-seven at the end of the “Ninth Recitation” and before the “Tenth Recitation”, the Jingo version explicitly confirms that “Preface Pre-placed” type has indeed incorporated the Lüxu into the “Ninth Recitation”.

Additionally, the use of the term “Virtuous Recitation” in the subtitle of the Jingo version supports the notion that the “Preface Post-placed” type predates the occurrence of the “Preface Pre-placed” type. Not only does the latter, as mentioned in the scripture catalogs, place the Lüxu at the end of the “Tenth Recitation”, but it also integrates the Lüxu with the “Tenth Recitation” into the final section of the Shisong lü, termed the “Virtuous Recitation”. This explains why, even after attributing the Lüxu to the “Ninth Recitation”, the term “Virtuous Recitation” was still being used.

Finally, while the Jin version and the Goryeo version exhibit characteristics of the “Preface Post-Placed” type, they adopt a distinct practice of positioning the first scroll of the Lüxu on scroll sixty. The Jin version bears obvious signs of modification, notably with the phrase “The Vinaya Preface to the Virtuous Recitation” and the subtitle “Dharma of Tripiṭakas Collected by Five Hundred Bhikṣus, Section One” being minutely carved, likely during a re-carving of the original text. From this, it can be inferred that the early Central Plains editions might have used the same title for both the head and tail, referred to as “The Sixtieth Scroll of the Shisong lü”.

The Jin version, the Goryeo version, and their inherited Central Plains versions reflect a slightly later development of the Lüxu houzhi type. This version definitely positions the Lüxu after the “Tenth Recitation”, severing its previous association with any specific recitations. This evolution confirms a restoration of the Lüxu houzhi type but with notable differences from the early Tang version. While the early Tang version treated the Lüxu as equivalent to the sections of the “Ten Recitations”, often collectively referred to as the “Virtuous Recitation”, or simply as the “Vinaya Recitation”, the mid-Tang period and later versions adopted the terms “Vinaya Preface” or “Vinaya Preface to the Virtuous Recitation”, shifting the designation from “recitation” back to “preface”.

After having conducted these comparisons, we now move further to examine the variations in wording, expression, and terminology among the different versions of the text. In addition to individual errors unique to each version, notable differences include variant characters, phonetic loan characters, and homophones (e.g., 燃＝然, 伎＝妓, 惠＝慧, 曼＝蔓, 坐＝座, 胡＝䠒, 申＝伸, and 壇＝檀). These variations not only affect the text’s readability but also its interpretation, reflecting shifts in translation strategies over time. An analysis of these differences reveals that the wording and vocabulary of the Liang version and the Dongchan version are relatively similar, suggesting a close textural kinship. In contrast, the Jingo version appears to be transitioning toward the linguistic characteristics of the Jin version, indicating a shift in language and style.

As far as the main differences among different versions are concerned, we can illustrate them with specific examples. First comes the differences between handwritten and engraved versions. There are a total of 20 differences between the Liang and Jingo versions, and the Dongchan and Jin versions, most involving variant characters or characters that are similar in shape or sound. Among them, the following two differences are the most significant and warrant particular attention (see

Table 2. The Most Significant Content Differences between the Five Versions of the Lüxu.

Texts	The First Instance	The Second Instance
Liang version and Jingo version	三菩伽言：“大德梨婆多！不益縷邊尼師檀淨，實淨不？” 答：“不淨”.	憍陳如得已，故名阿若憍陳如。
Dongchan version	三菩伽言：“大德梨婆多！不益縷邊尼師檀 *1淨，實淨不？” 還問：“云何不益縷邊尼師檀？” 答：“毘耶離諸比丘作不益縷邊尼師檀。” 言 *2：“是事淨為淨不？” 答：“不淨。”	憍陳如得已，以初得故，故名阿若憍陳如。
Jin version		憍陳如得以初得故已，故名阿若憍陳如。

Notes: *¹ In the Dongchan version, all instances of the character “檀” (typically meaning sandalwood) are replaced with “壇” (which usually means platform or altar). *² The character “言” (meaning “to speak” or “words”) is absent in the Jin version.

).

Regarding the first instance, the Liang and Jingo versions include only the first question and its answer, whereas the Dongchan and Jin versions intersperse an additional second question, a second answer, and a third question between them. These additions essentially decompose the first question into two distinct queries, providing individual answers to each. Evidently, this modification is to clarify and elaborate on the original content. As for the second instance, the Liang and Jingo versions only state “憍陳如得已，故名阿若憍陳如” (Kauṇḍinya has attained; therefore, he was named Ājñāta-kauṇḍinya). In contrast, both the Dongchan version and the Jin version each inserted the phrase “以初得故” (since initially attained) after “已” (already). This modification provides a smoother narrative transition that enhances the flow and contextual understanding of the text.

Finally, we shall examine the differences in terminology among the various versions. This issue is not only present in the Lüxu but also extends throughout the text of the Shisong lü, particularly within the Southern lineage, where there is notable inconsistency in the terminology of proper nouns. A comparative analysis of the Lüxu reveals that the earlier a text is the more pronounced inconsistency it displays in the translation of proper nouns and that later texts made efforts to correct or standardize the terminology. Six examples can be found below:

• Translation of vinaya: In the Liang version, vinaya is rendered as “比尼” in 24 instances and “毗尼” in 20 instances. The Dongchan version, however, contains discrepancies, where “比尼” is mistakenly rendered as “比丘” in one instance and as “毗壇” in another, with the remaining instances correctly rendered as “毗尼”. Both the Jingo version and the Jin version modified one occurrence of “比尼” to “阿毗壇” (corresponding to “毗壇” in the Dongchan version), while consistently rendering the rest as “毗尼”.
• Translation of prāyaścittika: In both the Liang version and the Dongchan version, prāyaścittika is rendered as “波夜提” in 10 instances and as “波逸提” in 3 instances. In the Jingo version, two occurrences of “波夜提” are altered to “波逸提”, while the Jin version changes one additional instance of “波夜提” to “波逸提”. This coexistence of both “波夜提” and “波逸提” within the Shisong lü has been noted by Hirakawa Akira. He points out that the original Shisong lü predominantly used “波夜提” (corresponding to the Sanskrit term prāyaścittika), whereas “波逸提” was the translation initially used in the Sifen lü, and the amalgamation of these two translations likely resulted from later textual revisions (Hirakawa 1960, p. 182). This example illustrates a key factor influencing changes in terminology in the Southern lineage of the Shisong lü: the reverse influence of later Chinese-translated Vinaya texts, such as the Sifen lü. Such influences indicate a complex intertextual dynamic that shaped the development of Buddhist canonical texts in China.
• Translation of nirvāṇa: In both the Liang version and the Dongchan version, nirvāṇa is translated as “涅槃” in 11 instances and as “泥洹” in 1 case. The Jingo version incorrectly changes this single “泥洹” to “涅泥”, while the Jin version standardizes all 12 occurrences to “涅槃”.
• Translation of Kālodāyī: In the Liang version and the Dongchan version, Kālodāyī is translated as “黑憂陀耶” in one case and as “迦樓陀夷” in two. The Jingo version maintains “黑憂陀耶” but changes “迦樓陀夷” to “迦留陀夷”. Conversely, The Jin version standardizes all occurrences as “迦留陀夷”. It is worth noting that “黑憂陀耶” is a rare translation for Kālodāyī.
• Translation of Mahākāśyapa: In the Liang version, Dongchan version, and the Jingo version, Mahākāśyapa is rendered as “摩訶迦葉” in 40 instances and as “大迦葉” in 14 instances. The Jin version modifies 4 occurrences of “摩訶迦葉” to “大迦葉”.
• Translation of kṣama: In the Liang version, the Dongchan version, and the Jingo version, kṣama is rendered as “懺悔” in 9 instances and “悔過” in 4 instances. In both the Jin version and the Goryeo version, three occurrences of “悔過” are changed to “懺悔”, with one instance remaining as “悔過”.

4. Concluding Remarks

This study of the Shisong lü has significantly deepened our understanding of its evolution within the extensive corpus of Chinese Buddhist texts. It makes full use of two previously underexamined manuscripts of the Southern lineage of the Vinaya text. Specifically, by focusing on content changes in the “Preface to Vinaya” (Lüxu) and through extensive comparisons with woodblock editions, manuscripts from the Dunhuang collection, and ancient Japanese hand-copied scriptures, this study successfully traces the textual evolution of the Southern lineage, revealing its developmental stages, and identifying patterns of textual transformations from the 6th to the 13th centuries. Furthermore, it provides valuable insights into the relationship of the two lineages of the Shisong lü and their corresponding impact on Buddhist practice.

Although this case study is confined to a single scroll, it has made significant contributions to the textual criticism of the Vinaya and has prompted deeper philosophical inquiries. It emphasizes the importance of revisiting and unifying translations from Sanskrit, highlighting how subsequent translations can retroactively influence earlier Vinaya texts. These findings underscore the urgency for further exploration of the Vinayas’ evolution. Future research should delve deeper into the interrelationships between different versions and their translation techniques. As the field of Buddhist textual studies evolves, a thorough understanding of the texts’ characteristics, origins, and interconnectedness becomes increasingly paramount.

Methodologically, this study of the Shisong lü underscores the critical role of diverse textual resources and the necessity of understanding their historical, geographical, and lineage-specific characteristics. Through meticulous investigations and comparative analyses, it has not only enriched our understanding of a singular Buddhist text but has also significantly advanced the broader discourse on textual transmission, evolution, and interpretation within Buddhist studies. Specifically, it draws attention to the intricate processes behind the adaptation and transformation of religious texts, the dynamic interaction between different textual traditions, and their impact on the development of Buddhist thought and practice across Asia.