Early Zen Buddhism and its Pure Land ideology were profoundly influenced by Guanjing. According to Kōtatsu (1985), with regard to the Sui and Song dynasties, this sutra was notably interpreted in more than 40 texts, and the vast majority of commentaries predate 800 AD. By the end of the Qing Dynasty and by the beginning of the Chinese Republic, 57 commentary books existed (Fukuhara Ryuzen 2017:16). The majority of the authors were the direct founders of various sects or prominent figures within those sects, which indicates the level of influence that Guanjing exhibits.

Historically, the Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha represents a certain stage in the development of Chinese Buddhism. Moreover, it reflects the process pertaining to the acceptance and selection of Indian Buddhism by Chinese Buddhist monks. It is clear that the Guanjing is a Buddhist text that incorporates elements of Indian and Central Asian thought and culture, and this text has significantly influenced Chinese culture. From the Silk Road to China, the Guanjing has immensely facilitated the spread of civilisation; the text linked the cultural, religious and artistic concepts of India and Central Asia to Chinese culture.

Since the introduction of Buddhism into China, the study pertaining to the Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha has evolved. ‘Doubtful’疑 indicates a doubt pertaining to the authenticity of the sutras, whereas ‘pseudo’ 偽 indicates that the sutras were created by the Chinese. The term ‘Nijing’ 擬經 is utilised by some Japanese scholars to refer to unresolved sutras. Because of the discovery of the Dunhuang manuscripts, which were retrieved from the ancient temple manuscripts that are located in Japan and Korea, the ancient temple manuscripts have become a prominent field of study in Buddhist studies. The discovery of ancient temple manuscripts has also contributed to the discovery of novel scriptures. The authenticity of Guanjing, which is discussed herein, has been debated for more than half a century, and multiple approaches, including linguistics, regional studies and edition studies, have been utilised. In comparison with the Dasheng Qixinlun大乘起信論 [Skt. Mahāyāna ‘śraddhotpāda], which is associated with China, this scenario is somewhat different. It should be noted that the Dasheng Qixinlun was categorised under the ‘Doubtful Section’ of Fajing lu 法經錄 [Zhongjing mulu眾經目錄, Catalog of Scriptures], and with regard to both the earliest Dao’an lu道安錄 [Zongli zhongjing mulu綜理衆經目錄, Comprehensive Catalog of Scriptures] and Chu sanzang jiji出三藏記集 [Compilation of Notes on the Translation of the Tripiṭaka], it was categorised as a ‘translator’s anecdote’. Although researchers suspect that the sutra was not translated from a complete text, it was probably obtained from India or one of the larger Buddhist texts that have been widely circulated.

Medieval Chinese scholars applied the translators’ processing and understanding of the Indian Buddhist texts to the Jiejing解經 [interpretation of the scriptures] process. After individually studying Chinese culture, these foreign monks analysed Indian Buddhism in relation to Chinese culture; thus, the initial means of communication between Chinese and Indian civilisations was initiated.

We attempt to answer the following research questions: Were the Chinese concepts that were documented in the early texts derived from the results of Geyi格義 [categorising concepts] or were they obtained from India? If they were originally obtained from India, the aforementioned texts should be correlated with other Indian Buddhist texts. However, if a text was not originally obtained from India, did it emerge during the transmission process? Did the idea originate from Central Asia or did it originate from India?

In the transmission of the texts, they are constantly integrated with local cultures, and this is particularly important since they were transmitted to China. As a foreign culture, foreign cultures to develop in China, they must adapt to the local culture. Additionally, local civilisations must absorb and accept foreign cultures; thus, cultural exchange is a necessity. The following research question is intriguing: Did the Chinese countenance Guanjing, or were they attracted by the manner in which the text was integrated by Chinese monks?

With regard to the authenticity of Guanjing, the ancient scholars did not doubt its authenticity. However, after its translation, monks who were affiliated with various schools were eager to offer commentaries, and thus, they stated: the sutra was exclusively spoken by Buddha.

For nearly a century, American, European and Japanese scholars have debated the authenticity of Guanjing. Some scholars, such as Daoyuan 道元 (1885), Kenryu (1971) and Kōtatsu (1985), believe that the Sixteen Visions are derived from the wuliangshoujing無量壽經 [Skt.Sukhāvatī-vyūha-sūtra; Sutra of Immeasurable Life]; Blum (1984) and Fukubara Ryoim (1984) discuss the translator’s other translations, and they consider the role of compilation. The scholars who identify the Indian source using etymological attribution Qingjignyechu清淨業處 [state of pure karma] and Hirakawa Akira (1984) cite Guanjing; however, Kōtatsu (1985) and Fumihiko (1986) oppose the text, and they link it to Abhidharma. Using a parallel Jain text, Jonathan (1997) attempts to ascertain the Indian origin of Guanjing.

Antonino Forte (1984) presents a clear understanding of the Chinese tradition:

This also illustrates the point that the question of whether a sutra has a Sanskrit text or not is not entirely a criterion for judging the question of its authenticity.

Buswell’s (Robert Buswell 1990:149–174) book, Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, provides a historical overview pertaining to the research on the authenticity of the Guanjing. F. Kōtatsu, in this book, analyses the authenticity of the Guanjing. Subsequently, Professor Jonathan Silk (1997:234) and Professor Ji yun (2016:79–86) presented articles that contained the details pertaining to the authenticity of the text. Herein, we examine this research problem, and we adopt a multi-civilisational exchange perspective. The lack of a Sanskrit text was the initial cause for questioning the authenticity of the Guanjing and the place where the sutra was compiled, and the Chinese cultural elements that appear in its contents have all become a source of discussion on the question of its authenticity. So far, these case studies have been confined to sects, texts or Buddhism itself, without placing the object of study in the context of the development of social history and the history of thought in order to consider the issue. Cultural exchange is an important link in integrating different cultures, and previous studies have provided a basis for this study. This paper attempts to reinterpret the issue of authenticity from the perspective of cultural exchange, rather than simply defining the Guanjing in terms of authenticity or falsity. The cultural value of the Guanjing and its influence on Chinese society is much greater than the debate over its authenticity.

The story of the Weishengyuan未生怨 [skt.Ajātaśatru], which is recounted in the Guanjing, is associated with the entire sutra and the creation of the Sixteen Views, and it focuses on King Ajātaśatru’s father, King Bimbisāra頻婆娑羅王 [monarch of the ancient Indian kingdom of Magadha]. It states that King Bimbisāra, fearing that there would be no one to inherit the throne after his death, asked a magician to perform divination. According to the warlock, a practitioner would reincarnate after the death of King Bimbisāra. To ensure that the prince would inherit the throne sooner, the king assigned someone the task of going to the mountain and killing the practitioner, after which he reincarnated the practitioner in the womb of the queen. This is the origin of the Weishengyuan,¹ which was formed even before birth. Besides Guanjing, this story has appeared in the following texts:

We observed that the storyline appears in 25 Buddhist texts, and although the specific plot may differ slightly, the main plot remains constant. There are three kinds of sutras in these above texts. Herein, three types of texts are included: sutras, vinaya and discourse, which range temporally from the period in which the early Buddhist classical texts were written to the period pertaining to the compilation of the Mahayana Buddhist texts. It is worth noting that karmas such as killing one’s father with poison were regarded as unrepentant; however, withregard to the Mahayana period, the sutras began to emphasise the repentability of evil karmas and the importance of repentance. With regard to structure and content, the Guanjing is closely correlated with the Jain texts that were obtained from northwest India; thus states Professor Silk, who analysed the elements of various stories, which were obtained from Buddhist and Jain texts. Therefore, it is apparent that the prologue [the story of Weishengyuan)] is directly derived from Jain literature (Silk 1997:181–256). With regard to determining whether the story that is documented in the Guanjing is derived from these ancient texts, neither the early parallel texts pertaining to Buddhism nor the Jain texts can be utilised.

Although the texts may have been written during a later period, they may contain ancient concepts. With regard to India, Jainism and Buddhism emerged as non-orthodox sects, and they emerged within the same period; furthermore, their mutual influence is evident, and they naturally absorbed ideas and literature from the Brahmins who predated them, which indicates that they may share a common textual source that predates both Jainism and Buddhism. This phenomenon is evidenced by many parallel texts pertaining to Jainism and Buddhism, of which numerous examples can be obtained. ‘Weishengyuan’, which is an alias, refers to Ajātaśatru rather than to Buddhism or Jainism, but rather to Yudhisthira (or ‘invincible’) from the earlier Indian religious literature by Mahābhārata. Additionally, Max Müller (1879) notes that the name Ajātaśatru also appears in the Upanishads.

It is also probable that similar concepts may be obtained from the Indian Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhist texts as well as in the Guanjing. With regard to the visualisation Guanjing pertaining to the Shangpinshangsheng上品上升 [highest of the highest stage], there are three types of sentient beings who can be reincarnated by Liunian六念 [six kinds of mindfulness]. The Buddha-viewing meditation that is documented in the Guanjing, which focuses on the Buddha’s majesty and the Western Pure Land of pristine virtue, is conceptually similar to the Nianfo念佛 [Buddha-recollection] concept that is documented in the Liunian of early Buddhism. The following examples provide a comprehensive depiction of the aforementioned observation.

Furthermore, sentient beings who perform evil deeds, speak evil words and harbour evil thoughts can, if they die, contemplate the merits and virtues of the Buddha and be liberated from the San equ三惡趣 [three evil paths]; thus, they can ascend to heaven by contemplating the merits and virtues of the Buddha. This provision enables the Ji e極惡[sinful] person to be destined for heaven as well, which constitutes the sixth merit and virtue of the Buddha.複次,眾生身、口、意行惡,彼若命終,憶如來功德,離三惡趣,得生天上; 正使極惡之人,得生天上,是謂第六如來功德.²

The Guanjing states that if sentient beings perform wrong actions, express wrong words and harbour wrong thoughts, at the end of their lives, if they remember the merits and virtues of the Buddha, they will not fall into the San e qu三惡趣 [three evil destinies, Skt. durgati]; thus, they will be reincarnated in heaven. By reciting Buddha’s merits in early Buddhism, Buddha’s merits can be recalled. The text states that the Ji e person can be reborn in heaven if he remembers Buddha’s merits, and it states that the lowest class of people can create bad karmas, and that if they recite Buddha’s merits at the end of their lives, they can be reborn.

The Guanfo觀佛 [meditate upon or visualise the Buddha] appearance, the Pure Land and rebirth in the West concepts, which are documented in the Guanjing, permeate Indian Buddhist literature. Many of these scriptures state that one can enter Guanfo samādhi through performing Guanfo. Early Chanjing禪經 [meditation sutra] advocate Guanfo as a form of repentance and meditation, and it is believed that one first needs to perform Guanfo. For example, two-thirds of Shiqin’s世親 (i.e., Vasubandhu) that are documented in Wangshenglun往生論 [Skt. SukhāvatīvyūhôpadeśaTreatise on Rebirth] are dedicated to Buddha-viewing and the Pure Land. Texts such as Dachengbaoyiyaolun大乘宝要义论 [Skt. Sūtrasamuccaya; A Collection of Sutras and Sermons on the Practice of Mahayana Buddhism], Pusabenshengmanlun 菩萨本生鬘论[Skt.Jātakamālā; The one who praises the austerities of the Buddha’s previous life.], Shizhupiposhalun 十住毗婆沙论 [Skt.Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā; A commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra] and the Dazhidulun大智度论 [Skt.Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra; a commentary on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra] highlight the importance of Guanfo in Bodhisattva practice. In addition, the Guanjing contains references to the Vedic texts that are associated with ancient Indian religions, which indicates that the text may be associated with India. Moreover, with regard to this context, the discussions, both domestic and foreign, pertaining to the Qingjignyechu that is documented in the Guanjing are varied. Because of word-count limitations, we will not be able to discuss this topic further.

Apart from the aforementioned Indian concepts, the Guanjing also exhibits Central Asian ideals. Translators who have been associated with other visualisation scriptures (e.g., the Guanjing) originated from Central Asia, and they include Jiumoluoshi 鸠摩罗什 [Skt.Kumārajīva] and Tanmomiduo昙摩密多 [Skt.Dharmamitra]. Guanjing states the following:

Zhuyinluo諸瓔珞 [all the accessories] holding grape pulp, give it to the king in secret.諸瓔珞中盛葡萄漿,密以上王.³

Generally, the Asian custom of drinking grape pulp or wine was influenced by the Mediterranean-style civilisation which was introduced following the conquest of Asia by the Greek King ‘Alexander’ in 329–323 BC. The ancient historical Chinese books indicate that wine was mainly produced in regions that are located in North India and Central Asia, such as Xiyuzhuan西域傳 [Chronicle of Western Regions] in the Book of Hanshu 漢書⁴ written by Ban Gu 班固.

Images of meditation Buddhas in the 10 directions can also be viewed in the Kaklak Caves of Central Asia, and these images are associated with Guanfo. Mahayana Guanfo scriptures,⁵ which are documented in the Guanjing, discuss Mahayana meditation and the contemplation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Academics believe that these texts originated from Central Asia. With regard to meditation, one of the most common forms entails meditating on the Buddhas of the ten directions. Thus, one can deepen their meditation, expel sins, and even become reborn into the Western Pure Land.

The existence of a musical instrument known as the Bichao筚篥 is also mentioned in the Dunhuang Guanjing bianxiang 觀經變相, and numerous caves that are located in Xinjiang depict the Bichao. Traditionally, this instrument has been an integral part of Qiuci龜茲 music. Via the historical Silk Road, which passed through Central Asia, Hu胡 music [e.g., Guzi music) was introduced.

To understand the concept of text, researchers must transcend the rational that pertains to the text. To effectively understand the communication differences that existed between civilisations, the text must be restored to its original state, which reflects the original culture.

The history of Chinese culture has witnessed the emergence of numerous different schools of thought, which became prominent after the Chunqiu春秋 Dynasties, and these schools of thoughts have permeated dynasties such as the Han Dynasty, the Wei-Jin and Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties. Foreign cultures were constantly introduced, and the different cultures and concepts permeated native worldviews. The concepts were constantly clashing, merging and evolving; although some concepts persisted, others waned or became absorbed.

Because some of the concepts that are documented in the Guanjing are compatible with traditional Chinese values, the text gained popularity in China. Firstly, with regard to the Guanjing, there are three blessings of Jingye, one of which is ‘Xiaoyangfumu孝養父母 [Honouring one’s mother and father] and Shifengshizhang侍奉師長 [respecting one’s elders]’. According to Guanjing, this Jingye is Sanshizhufo jingyezhengyin三世諸佛淨業正因 [pure karma direct cause of Buddhas of the three times]. With regard to traditional Chinese culture, elements of filial piety and rituals exist, and these elements can be observed in both Confucian and Taoist cultures. With regard to Confucianism, we can observe:

Teaching three types of ethical behavior: first, filial piety, which entails honoring your parents; second, friendship, which enables one to honor the virtuous; third, obedience, which enables individuals to serve their teachers and elders.

教三行,一曰孝行,以親父母;二曰友行,以尊賢良;三曰順行,以事師長.⁶ With regard to Taoism, we can observe the following: ‘Filial piety is the most significant thing in the world’. 天下之事,孝為上第一⁷. ‘The first commandment entails obeying parents, teachers and elders, and disobedience is unfiliality’. 第一戒者,不得違戾父母師長,反逆不孝.⁸

Secondly, the Guanjing also mentions that individuals who indulge in Wuni五逆 [five heinous crimes] can be reborn in the Western Pure Land and become saints. With regard to the traditional Chinese culture, everyone can be Yao堯 and Shun舜. Pro. Phyllis Granoff and Shinohara (2012:203–204) state the following: Although King Ajātaśatru was a vicious sinner who killed both his father and the Buddha, he was glorified as the most devout follower of the Buddha. Because of his deep faith in the Buddha, his ministers attempted to prevent him from dying of grief when he heard of the Buddha’s nirvana.

Thirdly, the Guanjing mentions that Shixinshifo Shixinzuofo是心是佛,是心作佛 [the mind is Buddha; the mind becomes a Buddha]. Consequently, this statement is consistent with the tendency of the traditional Chinese patriarchal system to turn from the Way of Heaven to the Way of Humanity. With respect to traditional Chinese culture, humanity is defined by the phrase ‘everyone can be Yao and Shun’, which emphasises human initiative and the value of each individual. With regard to Guanjing philosophy, Shixinshifo Shixinzuofo represents a crucial concept, and the teachers who lived during the Sui and Tang dynasties interpreted this statement as follows: the human heart and the Buddha’s heart are one. Consequently, the Chinese belief system acquired a humanistic and Confucian character.

With respect to China, following the introduction of Guanjing, its authenticity was not questioned; however, the text received widespread attention, and it immensely permeated the Chinese society. Because Chinese and Indian worldviews exhibited were highly correlated, the text was generally accepted despite the differences pertaining to the two worldviews. Throughout the period in which the Chinese and Indian civilisations were in conflict, the method that was utilised by Chinese civilisation was, firstly, the early translation and interpretation of classical texts (e.g., comparisons and geyi), and, The content of the Guanjing reflects these two aspects. One is that many commentaries on the Guanjing were produced in medieval China. The second is that a number of conceptual expressions representing local Chinese culture also appear in the Guanjing.

Guanjing is the short-form of the word Guan wuliangshoufo jing, and this Chinese translation is also known as Wuliangshoujing. Generally, it is believed that Jinliangyeshe畺良耶舍 translated the sutra during the Liu Song Dynasty. These 16 teachings primarily focused on meditation and specific rebirth practices. No Sanskrit or Tibetan version of the sutra (Tachibana Zuicho 1921:21–41) exists; only a reduced version that was obtained from a remnant Uighur script has been discovered.

Despite being translated into Chinese and becoming a fundamental classical text pertaining to Pure Land Buddhism, the Guanjing was closely related to Dachenchan大乘禪 [great vehicle meditation]. Furthermore, this text was particularly associated with a form of meditation that is known as Guanfo, which was widely practiced by early Zen monks, and this form of meditation was classified under a separate category along with the five gates or approaches to dhyāna (wumen chan五門禪) which characterised early Chanjing. The details pertaining to the aforementioned claim are described in the previous article. The existing literature states that Jinliang Yeshe may not have translated this sutra for the first time. By the end of the Western Jin Dynasty, the sutra had already been in circulation. Ven.Sengxian 釋僧顯, who is mentioned in the Gaosengzhuan高僧傳 (i.e., the biography of an eminent monk), practiced meditation in his early days; however, upon recovering from illness, he began to contemplate the Western Pure Land and Buddha. The Jintu wangsheng zhuan 淨土往生傳 [Biography of rebirth in the Pure Land] by Song Ven.Jiezhu戒珠directly refers to the Guanjing as the source of Sengxian’s contemplation.

With regard to previous studies, a number of problems have been identified: (1) inadequate research has been conducted on the Jinglu經錄[scripture catalogue]; (2) less attention has been directed towards the Xu序[preface] and Zan讚([praise]; (3) with regard to historical sources such as the Gaosengzhuan, not enough attention has been directed towards the documents that are associated with the Guanjing. With regard to the examination pertaining to the Jinglu, which considers different eras, several historical accounts that consider the translator and the translation location of the Guanjing are presented. Additionally, with regard to the transcription process, confusion and misjudgement pertaining to the translation location, translator and name of the sutra were prevalent. However, an examination of the Jinglu reveals no doubts pertaining to Guanjing’s authenticity. It should be noted that with regard to the Angong yiji lu安公疑經錄 [Ven.Daoan Doubtful Scriptures of Contents], which is included in the ‘Chu sanzang jiji’, Sengyou僧祐 did not include the Guanjing; however, the author included it in the ‘Shiyi’ 失譯 [translator unknown], and no details pertaining to the date and translator are included.

To maintain their prominence, monks generally write a preface to accompany Buddhist scriptures that are more popular or significant. Ren Jiyu任繼愈 (2018) states the following: ‘During the Northern and Southern Dynasties, many sutra prefaces, which enabled readers to follow the original sutras, were developed; by contrast, the treatises were able to be referenced independently’. The preface to a sutra summarises the basic points of a particular sutra; however, owing to differences in understanding, some prefaces may not necessarily reflect the original purpose. Generally, sutra prefaces provide information pertaining to the Sanskrit sources, and they provide information pertaining to the translations. This offers a reference through which researchers can determine the authenticity of the texts. With regard to the Lotus Sutra, for instance, there is not only one imperial preface that applies to the entire text but also a separate imperial preface that can be utilised by the PuMenPin普門品 [Guanshiyin pusa pumen pin 觀世音菩薩普門品, One chapter of the Dharma Lotus Sutra]; thus, the significance of the text is exhibited. Furthermore, the famous preface, which was written by Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty, adopted the following title: ‘Preface to the holy teachings of the Tang Dynasty in the Tripitakatak Sutra.

Moreover, some sutras, such as the Boreboluo miduo jing般若波羅蜜多經 [skt. prajñā pāramitā; Sutra on the Perfection of Wisdom] and the Lanqie jing楞伽經 (skt. Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra), were prefaced by imperial authorities, and this occurrence may be occasioned by the Emperor’s preference. The following scenario is plausible: rulers, in an effort to consolidate their authority, gathered monks, compelled them to compose apocryphal sutras, and wrote prefaces to accompany the writings. The version that was translated by Jingliang Yeshe contains an imperial hymn that appears as a verse, and this hymn exhibits insufficient chronological or historical information. Furthermore, the end of the hymn is not signed. By observing the interaction between Emperor Wen and Jingliang Yeshe, and the importance that the emperor attached to the author, the aforementioned occurrence is probable. Although there is no evidence that clearly points to Emperor Wen of Song as the author of this zan, it is undeniable that the zan was written by (or falsely attributed to) one of the emperors. This all seems to add to the social acceptance of the zan from one point of view. A total of three prefaces to the Guanjing remain, namely the one that was written by Zhiyi智顗 (538–598), the one that was written by Jizang吉藏 (549–623) and the one that was written by Zongze宗賾. Zongze is the author of the Chanyuanqinggui禪苑清規 of the Song dynasty.

Although the preface to the Guanjing that was signed by Zhiyi is suspected to be a counterfeit, its content still interprets the contents of the Guanjingshu [it exhibits Tiantai philosophy]. Because the concepts that are contained in this preface to the sutra are not contrary to those contained in Zhiyi’s other writings, it is likely that the sutra was written by Zhiyi. Furthermore, Zhiyi wrote a commentary on the Guanjing, and this commentary is contained in the catalogue of Chuanjiao dashi jianglailu傳教大師將來錄 [Dengyō Daishi of Catalogue of Articles Obtained], which was written by Saichō最澄(767–822); furthermore, this commentary is recorded in the Dongyuchuandenglu東域傳燈錄(i.e., Record of the Transmission of the Lamp to the Eastern Regions), which was written by Yongchao永超. During the final moments of his life, Zhiyi recounted the Amitbha and Guanjing names in song, praised the beauty of the Western pure land and vowed to be reborn and meet the saints. The Dharma disciple, Zhi Li知禮 (960–1028), wrote a six-volume commentary on the commentary that was written by Zhiyi; thus, the extent to which the Tiantai disciples appreciated and recognised this usage of the commentary is demonstrated.

With regard to Jizang’s preface to the sutra, one of the reasons why the Guanjing is suspected of being a forgery entails the absence of any corresponding Sanskrit or Tibetan texts. Furthermore, scholars have observed that the sutra’s content is similar to that of other sutras, such as the wuliangshoujing and the guanfosanmeihaijing. Based on the Sanskrit meaning and the Chinese meaning, Jizzang frequently made conceptual distinctions and discernments in his writings. Sutra names were especially significant when explaining the meanings of the sutras. In several cases, Jizzang discussed these meanings.

The Preface to Jizang’s Guanjing states the following:

Both Hu and Chinese versions exist; therefore, the text is known as Foshuo Guanwuliangshoufo jing. 胡、漢兩存,故云《佛說觀無量壽佛經》.⁹

The word ‘Hu’ here refers to the Sanskrit text. Jizang, like other commentaries, restores the original Sanskrit meaning of the words when interpreting the sutra names. Both F. Kōtatsu (1990:168) and Jiyun紀赟 (2016:82) have restored the name of the sutra in their papers, and Jiyun indicates that the Sanskrit equivalent of ‘contemplation’ is Vipaśyanā; however, after restoration, the word Dhyāna is utilised. Since the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism, Buddha-viewing has been considered to be a form of meditation or a means of entering meditation, and this worldview is plausible. Because Jizang is a monk from central Asia who studied with Zhendi真諦(499–569), any writing (i.e., preface) and commentary on the Guanjing might also reflect his personal opinion. Apparently, Jizang read the Sanskrit text of the Guanjing, or he did not doubt its authenticity. While interpreting the sutras, he adopted the same interpretation that was contained in the other sutras. According to the preface to the sutra, Jizang clearly states that there is a Sanskrit version of the sutra. According to Zongze’s preface in Guanjing:

When the sutra arrived in China, few people circulated it, and fewer people were able to comprehend it. Only people such as Changshan Bhikkhu Qiongan長山比丘瓊安 promoted the sutra.經傳此土,人罕流通,不有圓機,誰陳法施,常山比丘瓊安等.¹⁰

The aforementioned observation is consistent with the scenario following the translation of the Guanjing by Jingliang Yeshe, who stated that the Guanjing did not initially receive considerable attention upon its arrival in China and that it was less widely possessed and circulated. This phenomenon was not occasioned by any shortcomings of the sutra; however, it was occasioned by the shortcomings of the Chinese population, namely that there were a limited number of highly enlightened people who had realised the importance of the sutra. Herein, the people who initially promoted the Guanjing included Changshan bhikshu Qiongan; however, his life is not available in the existing sutra records and monastic biographies. The basic attitude of the author can be deduced from the record that is referred to herein, and it is expressed by the following statement: the Guanjing emerged from India or Central Asia, and it was not written by Chinese monks. The anonymity of the Sanskrit texts is also evidenced by the records of the monks who travelled to India to seek Dharma. The Faxian 法顯 (418–423) records state the following:

Fa Xian originally sought the precepts; however, with regard to the Northern India Kingdoms, the precepts were orally transmitted by teachers, and there was no developed text. 法顯本求戒律,而北天竺諸國,皆師師口傳,無本可寫,是以遠涉乃至中天竺.¹¹

The precepts are also orally transmitted by the master, and not via writing. We can observe that during that period, Buddhist texts were transmitted throughout the region, and that different methods were utilised. For example, the monks that resided in northern India transmitted their teachings orally, without translation. Upon returning to China, the Chinese monks, in most scenarios, would transcribe and record their teachings in the Sanskrit. Consequently, with regard to the same period, even in India, the most critical precepts pertaining to Buddhism were not listed in any visible texts. In addition, an official Sanskrit transcription pertaining to all the classical texts was not feasible. As we have previously indicated, judging the authenticity of the classical texts solely on the basis of their anonymity is not plausible. According to an examination of the content that is contained in the Guanjing, many aspects of the storyline and concepts that are contained in the sutra also reflect some elements of Indianisation.

There is only one existing version of the Guanjing; Tibetan and Sanskrit versions do not exist. Thus, scholars have always attempted to establish the location in which the text originated, the period when it was recorded, as well as its authenticity. A comprehensive and detailed examination of Guanjing has been conducted by numerous scholars. Specifically, with regard to ideology, the concepts are presented in the sutra, and those pertaining to the parallel texts that have been discovered in China and India are highly correlated.

With regard to the preface of the sutra, the imperial praise, or other related documents that are contained in the Chinese context, the evidence for fabrication is not apparent. Chinese Buddhist scholars have considered the Guanjing since it was translated. From the Sui and Tang dynasties to the early stages pertaining to the Republic of China, extensive interpretive literature has been dedicated to the commentary pertaining to the Guanjing. During this period, its authenticity was never doubted. This notwithstanding, the debate pertaining to its authenticity permits us to reconstruct and comprehend the translation process that characterised the Middle Ages from various exegetical perspectives. For foreign civilisations to be successful in China, several factors are required, and these factors include adapting to the local culture, communicating with other cultures, integrating different cultures and developing selectively and innovatively.