© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2015 BEB, vol. IAlso available online – www.brill

in the National Library of China (Zhongguo guo-jia tushu guan [中國國家圖書館]), the National Palace Museum, and the Library of Beijing Univer-sity. Other materials belonging to the Tangut textual heritage are scattered around numerous provincial libraries in China (Du Jianlu, 2007, 23–39; Nie Hon-gyin, 2014, 37–65). Minor repositories of Tangut texts are to be found in libraries and collections in Japan, Sweden, Germany, the United States, and France. Recent important discoveries were made in the Buddhist caves of Shanzui gou (山嘴溝; see Shanzui gou Xixia shiku, 2007) and in the basement of the Square Pagoda (Fangta [方塔]) in Baisi gou (拜寺溝; see Baisi gou Xixia Fangta, 2005), both in the present-day Ningxia Autonomous Region.

Findings from Ningxia-Hui, Baisi gou, and Shan-zui gou are generally datable to the Xixia period (the time span covered by the colophons of the Khara-Khoto texts is from 1084 to 1225; Kychanov, 1999, 23–27), though some texts probably belong to the early Yuan. Despite the discovery of presumably early Tangut texts in Dunhuang (e.g. the Tangut translation of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patri-arch, roughly datable to the 1070s; Solonin, 2008, 64–127) the majority of textual discoveries at loca-tions other than Khara-Khoto, Baisi gou, and Shan-zui gou belong to the Yuan period. Another deserted Tangut city, known as Lücheng (綠城), not far from Khara-Khoto, might still reveal some more texts of the Xixia period. The absolute majority of the dis-covered texts are various Buddhist compositions.

During the early 1930s, N.A. Nevskij started the first inventory of the Tangut texts in Saint Peters-burg and made initial observations concerning the composite Sino-Tibetan nature of the Tangut collec-tion (Nevskij, 1960). His work was continued later by Z. Gorbacheva and E.I. Kychanov (1963) and by Nishida Tatsuo (1975–1977; 1999). The first catalogue of Tangut Buddhist texts from Saint Petersburg was published in 1999 (Kychanov, 1999). The first cata-logues of Tangut Buddhist texts preserved in China were prepared by Zhou Shujia (1932, 323–325) and Luo Fucheng (Xixia studies 6, 2007, 373–398). The Chinese-language Khara-Khoto texts held in Saint Petersburg were catalogued by L.N. Men’šikov (1984).

In 1038, Nangxiao (曩霄) of the Weiming (嵬名; Ŋwe2 mji1 [鼠邑]) clan of the Dangxiang (党項) tribe, other - wise known as Li Yuanhao (李元昊; 1003–1048), offi-cially accepted the imperial insignia and proclaimed the establishment of the Tangut Empire. “The Great State of White and High” (Phiow1 bjij2 lhjij2 tha2 [偃鴕且棒]; Da baigao guo [大白高國]; or Great Xia/Daxia [大夏]) as the Tanguts themselves called their empire, or the Western Xia (Xixia [西夏]) as it emerges from the Chinese sources, existed until 1227, when Tangut power was overwhelmed by the Mongols during the second Tangut raid of Genghis Khan (1162[?]–1227). At the zenith of its power, the Tangut Empire occupied the areas of the modern Chinese provinces of Ningxia, Gansu, eastern Qin-ghai, northern Shanxi, northeastern Xinjiang and southwestern Inner Mongolia, as well as the south-ernmost region of Outer Mongolia. Despite the short time span of the empire, Tangut civilization had a lasting impact on other Central Asian nations. One of the major dimensions through which the Tangut heritage demonstrated its vitality was Buddhism. The continued publication of Buddhist texts in the Tangut language and script after the fall of the Tangut Empire is one testimony to this prolonged influence.

The Discovery and Cataloguing of Tangut Buddhist Texts

The field of Tangut studies remained on the margins of Sinology until Colonel P.K. Kozlov’s expedition to Khara-Khoto in 1908–1909 uncovered a vast trove of various texts and fragments of mostly but not exclu-sively Buddhist nature written in the Tangut script. These findings are now kept in the Institute of Ori-ental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. As news of Colonel Kozlov’s dis-coveries spread, others went to Khara-Khoto, such as Sir Aurel Stein, who sent back a rich cache of Tangut materials that is now housed in the British Library.

Other discoveries of Tangut texts were made in 1917 in Lingwu (靈武) county in Ningxia (寧夏); as well as in Dunhuang during the first decades of the 20th century; the findings are currently housed

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 845

The total number of Buddhist texts in the Tangut language worldwide is not easy to determine. The Khara-Khoto collection in Saint Petersburg amounts to 374 independent titles under 768 call numbers as catalogued by E.I. Kychanov (1999, 730–738), which covers around half of the extant texts and fragments. If other titles as well as duplicates and variant ver-sions of texts available from both Khara-Khoto and other repositories are considered, then the total number of texts and fragments would approach or even exceed ten thousand.

Historical Setting

The Tangut Empire occupied the areas in the loop of the Yellow River and extended as far as Dun-huang and Liangzhou (涼州; modern-day Wuwei [武威]) in the west. The eastern neighbors of the Tangut state were the powerful empires of the Kitan Liao (遼; 916–1123) and Jurchen Jin (金; 1123–1234). Before the demise of the Liao, with which the Tang-uts maintained a close relationship and which was largely Buddhist (Fujiwara, 2015; Solonin, 2013, 171–219), the Tangut Empire bordered the Northern Song. Tangut-Chinese relations collapsed when the Jin occupation of Shaanxi severed direct commu-nication between the Tangut lands and the Song. Beginning in the 1130s, the Tangut Empire incorpo-rated the territories around Lake Qinghai, known as Amdo and Khams (Xixia Tongshi, 2005, 282–288).

The unique historical and geographical settings of the Tangut Empire in many ways determined the unique outlook of Tangut Buddhism and the Tangut Buddhist literature. The Hexi (河西) area in general and Liangzhou and Dunhuang in particular had been major hubs of Sinitic Buddhism since at least the 4th century CE. The Tangut heartland in the Helan Mountains (賀蘭山) was a well-known Bud-dhist center where Chan Buddhism had flourished at least since the 8th century CE; this area attracted famous monks such as Baotang Wuzhu (保唐無著; 714–774 CE). In the east, Wutaishan (五台山) pro-vided a major source of Buddhist inspiration: Chi-nese sources mention the numerous requests for permission to make pilgrimages to Wutaishan by Tangut authorities before the official establishment of the Tangut state. Tangut reverence for Wutaishan culminated in the establishment of their own ver-sion of the sacred site, in the vicinity of their capital Xingqing (興慶; modern-day Yinchuan [銀川]; see Shi Jinbo, 1988, 118–119). The position of the Tangut

lands en route to Wutaishan included the empire into the Buddhist pilgrimage network and made the Tanguts open to a variety of Buddhist influences.

The ethnic composition of the Tangut Empire included Uighurs, Tibetans, Chinese, the Kitan, and elements of the once powerful Tuyuhun (吐谷渾) tribe, and the languages of these people were spo-ken in the empire. The Tanguts maintained contacts with Khotan and other Central Asian states. Almost every nation living in and around Xixia developed its own script, and the Tanguts themselves were no exception. Despite its visual similarity with the Chinese characters, the Tangut script was designed to render the morphology and syntax of a Tibeto -Burman language very different from Chinese.

To the southwest from Xixia, the 10th to the 12th centuries were a period of rekindling Buddhism in Tibet. This process was at least partially initiated in the Tangut lands shortly before the Tangut Empire was proclaimed (’Gos lo tsā ba, 2001, 57–58). After the demise of the Liao and the Jin conquest of the former Chinese-Tangut borderland, the focus of Tangut imperial politics shifted toward expan-sion to the west, into the then fertile lands around Lake Qinghai and the areas of eastern Tibet, whose Tibetan population was also Buddhist (Iwasaki, 1993, 17–37). Thus the westward advancement of Tangut in the early 12th century encountered the opposite eastward vector of Tibetan Buddhism, which, as the sources in a variety languages indi-cate, was emerging as a major form of Buddhism in Central Asia during the 12th–13th centuries (Shen Weirong, 2013a, 43–93).

While both Sinitic and Tibetan mainstreams are easily discernible within the Tangut Buddhist heri-tage, Buddhism in Xixia developed along its own lines and thus is an independent object of scholarly attention. Systematic study of Tangut Buddhism is only beginning, and therefore many hypotheses that seem highly probable still need verification, and many observations concerning the nature of Tangut Buddhism are now being reevaluated.

Buddhist Translations and Buddhist Policy in Xixia

The texts recovered from former Tangut territory are written in three languages: the most numerous are the texts in Tangut, followed by texts in Chi-nese, while the least numerous are those in Tibetan. This multilingual textual production reflected the

846 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

multiethnic composition of the population of the Tangut Empire. Historical circumstances deter-mined the division of the Tangut Buddhist texts into two major groups: those translated from Chinese and those translated from Tibetan originals. The Tangut texts of Sinitic Buddhism generally relied on written source texts, whereas the compositions of Tibetan subject matter (especially various liturgical and ritual writings) were sometimes based on “oral transmissions” by various Tibetan masters. Thus, these texts were originally composed in the Tangut language alone or sometimes in both Tangut and Chinese (Suo Luoning, 2013, 243–247; see below); the exact Tibetan originals of such texts probably will never be found. Texts composed in Xixia by Tangut Buddhists also belong to the realms of Sin-itic or Tibetan Buddhism; therefore they are not easily discerned from the translations of hitherto unknown originals.

The present article concentrates on the texts in Tangut. In discussing specific texts, the Tangut ver-sion of a text’s title is provided, together with its tran-scription based on the phonetic reconstruction by Hwang cherng Gong (龔煌城); titles of Sanskrit, Chi-nese, or Tibetan originals are cited together with the numbers from Taishō Tripiṭaka (T), Beijing (P), and Derge (D) editions of the Tibetan Buddhist canon; for well-known texts, the Tangut titles are omitted. Numbers according to E.I. Kychanov (Kych) are pro-vided for all Tangut texts. In cases in which the title of the Chinese or Tibetan original is unknown (or if it is an original Tangut work), the title is translated. The following exposition is based on the textual rep-ertoire available from Khara-Khoto with occasional references to other repositories of the Tangut texts.

Tangut Practices of TranslationThe stele inscription Daxia guo zang sheli jieming (大夏國葬舍利碣銘; Great Xia Inscription on Bury-ing Śarīra [i.e. Buddhist Relics]; dated 1038) speaks of the first Tangut emperor Yuanhao as one who “reveres with folded palms and protects the pre-cious realm of the Vajrayāna, [and] majestically reveres the way of the Buddha.” The stele also calls the emperor “the inventor of the fan [番; i.e. Tangut] script” (see Xixia Studies, 2007, 87; Dunnell, 1995, 39). This record reveals the close relationship between the invention of the Tangut script and the initial propagation of Buddhism in the Tangut Empire. All the available sources are unequivocal in stating that the Tangut emperors were vigorous supporters of Buddhism and promoted large-scale Buddhist

activities in their empire, including publication of the Tangut, Chinese, and Tibetan version of various compositions under imperial supervision.

Examples of privately produced texts and of the texts published (or commissioned) by the temples are also numerous in the Tangut collections; manu-script copying of sūtras was a widespread practice among the Tanguts as well (Nishida, 2012a, 371–397).

Generally, the history of the Buddhist transla-tions in the Tangut Empire can be divided into three periods: the initial translation during the 11th century, followed by a period of revision and new translations during the 12th century, and the final years of Xixia, when the Buddhist translations and publications became even more associated with the “state-protection” policy in the wake of the second Mongol offensive, as one can indirectly infer from the preface to the revised edition of the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra (Golden-Light Sūtra) from 1214 (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 48–49, 230–231).

Colophons and prefaces to surviving Tangut publications are the basic sources concerning the translation and distribution of Buddhist texts in the Tangut Empire. Two of the most informative are the Tangut texts of the Miaofa lianhua jing xu (妙法蓮華經序; Preface to the Sūtra of the Lotus of the Good Law), dated to the period of 1049–1069 (Nishida, 2012b, 191–192; Shi Jinbo, 1988, 234–236), and the preface to the Tangut translation of the Guoqu zhuangyan jie qian foming jing (過去莊嚴劫

千佛名經; T. 446a–b) published in 1312 (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 316–324), that is, after the demise of the Tangut state. Other important sources include the afore-mentioned preface to the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra from 1214 and another preface to the same text by Yixing Huijue (一行慧覺; ?–1314[?]), an important Tangut monk active during the Yuan. This preface is dated to 1247, that is, also after the fall of Xixia (Shi Jinbo, 306–309). One more important source is the so called “Preface to the Five sūtras” found in the Tangut edition of the Mahāsāhasrapramardanasūtra.

All sources agree that the project of translating Buddhist texts into Tangut was initiated by the first Tangut emperor, Yuanhao. The preface to the Guoqu zhuanyan jie qian foming jing states that the emperor appointed a group of 32 translators super-vised by the state preceptor Phie1 Tsjiir1 dźiej2 (圓蝴

由; 白法信; *Bai Faxin; the first syllable is a phonetic transcription, whereas the last two are the monastic name *Dharmaśraddha) and by the monk Sjij2bji1 (樣犧; 智光; *Zhiguang [智光]; *Prajñāprabha). The surname Bai (白) often indicates Uighur ethnicity (Yang Fuxue & Chen Aifeng, 2011, 156–166), thus

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 847

the information from the preface accords with the epigraphical sources, which mention that Uighur monks originally were in charge of translating Chinese texts into Tangut. The translation project was initially carried out in the Gaotai si (高台寺), established in 1047 (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 316–324), and the Chengtian si (承天寺). Apart from the imperial family itself, Buddhism in Xixia was promoted by two major clans, the Mozang (沒藏) and the Liang (梁); these were the clans of empresses dowagers who controlled Tangut politics during the reign of the young emperors Liangzuo (諒祚; 1047–1067) and Bingchang (秉常; r. 1068–1086; see Xixia Tongshi, 2005, 220–240).

The preface to the Guoqu zhuangyan jie qian fom­ing jing further indicates that during the 53 years following the year 1038, 3579 juan (fascicles) of Bud-dhist texts belonging to both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna were produced (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 322). The texts were later corrected on the basis of the so-called Northern and Southern sūtras (probably meaning the Liao and Chinese editions of the Bud-dhist canon) during the rule of the “City-Protecting Emperor” (Hu cheng di [護城帝]; wejr1 we1 dzjwɨ2 [泄後賽]) – this title in all probability represents the fifth emperor, Renxiao (仁孝; 1139–1193).

The imperial patronage of Buddhist translations manifests in editorial remarks such as “imperi-ally translated” (mee2 lhej2 [撤倆]; i.e. yuyi [御譯]), “imperially revised” (mee2 njar1 [撤瓷]; i.e. yujiao [御校]), or “translated by the imperial order” (zur2 bju1 lhej2 [碟呈倆]; i.e. fengzhao yi [奉詔譯]) found on the printed Buddhist texts in both Tangut and Chinese. Manuscript copies made from the wood-block prints also reproduced these remarks.

Although one might doubt the actual participa-tion of the emperors in the daily translation rou-tine, there is evidence that at least the third Tangut emperor, Bingchang, and his mother, Empress Dow-ager Liang, symbolically supervised the translation process. The famous Tangut engraving known as Translation of the Sūtras (yijing tu [譯經圖]), now in the National Library of China (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 307, 311), contains images of them both taking part in a translation session (yijing chang [譯經場]) supervised by the monk Sjij2bji1 (see above). This evidence is corroborated by the text of the preface to the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra from 1247, in which Bingchang and his mother are mentioned as the chief translators of the text.

Judging from the available evidence, two types of translation procedures were employed in the Tangut translation project. As the engraving Translation of

the Sūtras implies, in translating Chinese scriptures, the Tanguts adopted the Chinese practice of transla-tion sessions, in which a translation was produced through the collective effort of several experts. This is probably one of the reasons that Tangut transla-tions from the Chinese are in most cases anony-mous. One such translation session is described in the preface to the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra. The text indicates that due to the inadequacy of previous translations, a new “translation session” (lhej2 ·io1 [倆鉸]; i.e. yichang [譯場]) was established under the guidance of the State Preceptor, “expert in Tangut and Chinese Dharma,” the “head of Tangut translations” (mji2 lhej2 ·wə1 [隘倆蕙]; fanyi zhu [番

譯主]), and others (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 280–283; there is some ambiguity concerning the identity of the figures involved). The translation was completed on the basis of a careful comparison of previous Tangut versions, Chinese versions, and commentaries.

In most cases, however, the colophons to the Tangut publications only mention the names of the translators of the text into Chinese, such as Kumārajīva (343–413 CE) or Xuanzang (玄奘; 602–664 CE); such titles as Master of Chinese Sūtras (Zar1 tshji2 rejr2 u2 tsjiir1 dzjiij2 [廣繁舂芝蝴伻]; Han qijing zang fashi [漢契經法師]) occur in reference to the transla-tors of the Chinese source texts and not the Tangut translators (e.g. Kychanov, 1999, 45).

The penetration of Tibetan Buddhism into Xixia initiated the introduction of a new translation pro-cedure that implied cooperation between a certain master and a translator (or group of translators), as was the normal practice in Tibet. The master “trans-mitted” (deej1 [鵲]; chuan [傳]), “collected” (śioo1 [蚌]; ji [集]), or sometimes “composed” a text that was then translated into Tangut by a specific disciple or a group of disciples. Tibetan and Indian masters were often identified as “experts in the five Indian wisdoms” (lji mə1 ŋwe1 bju1 [出彌剛挽];*Xitian wum­ing [西天五明]) or experts in the “Tibetan Tripiṭaka” (lji1 phə2 gu2 ljij2 so1 u2 [出穠輜且匚芝]; Xifan Zhong­guo Sanzang [西番中國三藏]) or “translators” (lu2 tśja1 wa1 [傷均鎂]; lo tsā ba). Sometimes the Indi-ans and Tibetans bear Tangut official titles of state preceptors or imperial preceptors, whereas their Tangut collaborators emerge under a variety of hon-orary and official titles. In many cases different titles in fact indicate various stages of the career of a single person (Dunnell, 2009, 41–78).

The Tangut practice of translating Buddhist scriptures included the official certification of the correctness of a translation; when available, the texts were checked against their Sanskrit originals.

848 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

The certification was carried out by the members of the Tangut Buddhist administration (the so-called Office of Virtue, the Gongde si [功德司]; see Shi Jinbo, 2014, 139–157): such titles as Head of Tangut Translations and Verifier of the Meaning of Trans-lated Sūtras (Lwər2 rejr2 lhej2 wo2 lja1 [吭舂倆損囌]; yijing zhengyi [譯經證義]; Kychanov, 1999, 688) are often accompanied by an indication that the hold-ers of these titles were officials in the Gongde si. Sometimes the translation procedure implied dou-ble translation, from Sanskrit to Tibetan and then into Tangut, or a translation based on the Tibetan version and the Sanskrit original. The most famous Indian in the Tangut Empire, Jayānanda (fl. mid-12th cent.), verified his translations before authorizing them. The Tangut translation of the Śjɨj2 buu2 zjɨr1 tjij1 rewr2 njɨ2 tśhja2 ioow1 ljɨ1 śjoo1 ljaa1 [鈿釙羈陡醮

酬開矓濺蚌估]; Prajñāpāramitāratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā; ’Phags pa shes rab pha rol tu phyin pa sdud pa tshigs su bcad pa; Kych 371–379; D 13/P 735; see Duan Yuquan, 2014) mentions that it was personally checked by Jayānanda according to the Sanskrit text (Kychanov, 1999, 483). Another version of the same text indicates that it was retranslated on the basis of an “Indian commentary.”

As mentioned above, some of the texts imported from Tibet were also translated into Chinese (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 56–57). One well-known example is Tha1 tshjij1 śjɨj2 tha2 ·u2 so1 bju1 tji1 lwər2 rejr2 (菜鍍鈿棒羌匚呈硿吭舂; i.e. the translation of Triśaraṇagamana; Gsum la skyabs su ’gro ba; D 225/ P 891), which was also translated into Chinese (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 55–56). This practice applied not only to the sūtras but also to the liturgical and ritual compositions, such as an esoteric scripture trans-lated from Tibetan as Upadeśa of All Tathāgatas in the Hundred Syllables (Mjor1 ljij2 ŋowr2 ŋowr2 jij1 ·jir2 dji2 tshji1 ŋwuu1 [助秀夙夙柝躍凌遵爬]; *Rulai yiqie zhi bai zi yaoyu [如來一切之百字要門]; Kych 292). According to the colophon, this text was transmit-ted by the imperial preceptor Dwewr2 swew1 (鈾挺; Jueming [覺明]) – probably identical with *Chos kyi seng ge (see below) – and others, then translated from Sanskrit (into Tibetan?), and finally translated into both Tangut and Chinese. Such examples can be multiplied.

The corpus available in the Tangut language includes all the basic categories of Buddhist litera-ture. However, evidence suggests that the first to have been translated into Tangut were fundamental Mahāyāna sūtras and Sinitic repentance rituals (Suo Luoning, 2014, 22–39). Due to chronological priority, basic Mahāyāna terminology found in the Tangut

translations of Buddhist texts is based on the Sinitic Buddhist vocabulary. Some Tangut terms are pho-netic reproductions of the Chinese transcriptions of Indic words, whereas others are translations of Sinitic terms into Tangut. Translations from Tibetan in many cases use this terminology as well.

Tangut Legal Regulations and Formation of the Buddhist CorpusTangut legislation contains several stipulations that have determined the composition of surviving Tangut Buddhist literature. The Tangut Revised and Newly Promulgated Law Code of Tiansheng Reign Period (1150) preserves important information on the textual and doctrinal repertoire of Tangut Buddhism. According to this code, the level of monastic com-petence was assessed by the office of the prime min-ister (zhongshu [中書]; Arakawa, 2014, 62–64).

The Tiansheng Code discriminated between Tangut-Tibetan and Chinese-speaking monastic communities. The Code stipulates that candidates for the leading positions in monastic communi-ties (Chinese or Tangut-Tibetan-speaking) were required to be able to explain the doctrines of “Prajñāpāramitā (pa2 żja2 [潰儳], bore [般若]),” “Vijñānavāda (lew2 sjij2 [煥懦], weishi [唯識]),” “Mādhyamaka (gu2 tśja1 輜噥, zhongdao [中道]” and the “Hundred Dharmas” (·jir2 tsjiir1 躍蝴, baifa [百法] i.e., Abhidharma). Other teachings included the Buddhāvataṃsaka (wja1 ljuu2 塢衡, Huayan [華嚴]) and The Awakening of Faith (tha2 ·u 2 dźiej2 śjwo1 ljɨ1 棒羌由囝肜, *qi xin 起信). This doctrinal repertoire fully emerges among the available Tangut texts translated from either Chinese or Tibetan (see below). This division resembles the structure of the Buddhist canon and applies to both the Chinese and Tibetan Collections of Buddhist texts. Of spe-cial interest here is the category of the “Awakening of Faith,” which probably was introduced by the Tanguts for the texts dealing with generation of the bodhicitta: texts of this category are widely repre-sented in the Tangut collections worldwide.

The list of texts mandatory for members of both the Tangut-Tibetan and the Chinese Buddhist com-munities numbered 11 texts for each type of com-munity; seven of these texts overlap. The list of texts includes the [Sūtra] of the Humane King for State Protection (dźjwu1mjɨ1·wejr2 lhjij2 [蕊咱泄且]; Renwang Huguo [仁王護國]; Kych 65–67; T. 246), Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti (ma1 śju1 źjɨr1 ɣiej1 [軒駟感掬

沮]; Wenshu Zhenshi ming [文殊真實名]; Lin, 2006), “Chapter on the Vows of Samantabhadra” (njɨ2 mee2 dźjɨ tji1 tjiij1 [酬撤帊汀錄]; Puxian Xingyuan pin [普賢

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 849

行願品], available in a variety of copies), “Scripture on the 35 Buddhas” (so1 ɣa2 ŋwə1 tha1 [匚蚩剛菜], a title with which several texts may be identified), and a text referred to as Śjɨj2 tha1 mja1 [鈿菜齒]; Sheng fo mu [聖佛母]). The latter title probably indicates the Tangut translation of Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā based on the Chinese text of Foshuo Fomu chusheng san fazang bore boluomiduo jing (佛說佛母出生三

法藏般若波羅蜜多經; T. 228; Kych 22–31) translated by Shihu (施護) during the Northern Song and its Tibetan counterpart (P 734/D 13). Other mandatory texts include the Mahāsāhasrapramardanasūtra (Stong chen po rab tu 'joms pa; D 558 = 1059/P 177; Kych 214–230), as well several other scriptures generally associated with the ideology of “state- protection.”

Other texts include the “Gāthā of State Protec-tion” (lhjij2 ·wejr2 tśju1 gjuu2 rjur1 ljaa1 [且泄諜聳芅

估]; currently unidentified), “Chapter on the Uni-versal Gate of Avalokiteśvara” (rjur1 ɣie2 bioo njɨ2 lu1 tjiij1 [矩胱狁酬曬錄]; Guanshiyin Pumen pin [觀

世音普門品]; available in a variety of copies), the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā with verses (Kych 634–635), and Uṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī (tha1 tśjiw2 pju1 zji2·jiij1 [菜壁吧解痳]; Foding Zunsheng tuoluoni [佛頂尊勝陀羅尼]; Kych 335–340; T. 967, 968, etc.) as well as not easily identifiable texts such as the “Laudation for Śākyamuni” and the “Great Ritual” (tha2 tshwew1 kju1 [棒鴃物]; da gongyang [大供養]; Arakawa, 2014, 4–55, 62–65). The above doctrinal and textual repertoire emerges almost completely in the Khara-Khoto findings. Since the title of the Tian sheng code states that it was “revised and newly promulgated,” one may infer that the list of manda-tory texts existed at least throughout the 12th cen-tury and the Buddhist teachings mentioned therein circulated in the Tangut state at the same time.

Another major factor that determined the char-acter of extant Tangut Buddhist literature was the Buddhist faith of the Tangut imperial family. Colophons indicate that during major national Dharma assemblies (the biggest one probably took place in 1189 for the 50th anniversary of Renxiao’s enthronement), such texts as the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuai tian jing (觀彌勒菩薩上生兜

率天經; T. 452), the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, the “Vows of Samantabhadra,” and the Sūtra of the Humane Kings were published in Tangut, Chinese, and Tibetan in thousands of copies for distribution among the participants in order to generate merit for the deceased members of the imperial clan and secure the well-being of the empire (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 40–41; Suo Luoning, 2014, 22–39). These texts, found

in multiple copies, constitute a substantial part of the Khara-Khoto collection (esp. in Chinese).

Extant Tangut texts belong to a variety of catego-ries of Buddhist literature including sūtras; Vinaya; and various types of commentaries, exegetical trea-tises, liturgical manuals, and contemplation guides. Unlike the sūtras that circulated both as printed texts and as manuscripts, the majority of commen-tarial and liturgical literature is in manuscript form; there are only a few examples of printed publica-tions of these genres.

In what follows I specify a category of fundamen-tal scriptures, which includes the translations of the basic sūtras; Vinaya texts are also included into this group. A second category, of nonscriptural sources, covers major exegetical treatises and commen-taries. A third category includes texts associated with various “schools” or “traditions” of Sinitic and Tibetan Buddhism. Finally I briefly introduce lit-erature on rituals, practices of contemplation, and yoga. This division is purely expediential. The sur-vey concludes with a short discussion of the Tangut Buddhist canon.

Fundamental Scriptures

Scriptures Translated from ChineseChinese sources indicate six occasions on which a Great Collection of Sūtras (i.e. Dazang jing [大藏

經], presumably a version of the Kaibao zang [開寶藏], published from 971 to 983 CE) was presented by the Song court in response to Tangut requests during the period of 1031–1073 (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 63, 335–336). Therefore it seems highly probable that in their translations of Buddhist texts from Chinese, the Tanguts were motivated by a notion of a Dazang jing. This is also suggested in their use of a specific term, mji2 tha2 ·u2 lwər2 rejr2 (隘棒芝吭舂; i.e. Fan Dazang qijing [番大藏契經]; The Great Collection of Sūtras in the Tangut [Mi] Language). This term is attested on the imperial seal attached to the text of the Tangut translation of Dīrghāgama (Chang ahan jing [長阿含經]; T. 1; Kychanov, 1999; 45; Kych 1; see also below).

Taken at face value, the Tangut data presented above means that before the end of the 11th century, important Mahāyāna scriptures were already trans-lated into Tangut from Chinese. This observation is in line with the internal evidence derived from the Tangut publications: most of the texts attrib-uted to Bingchang’s and part of those attributed to

850 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

Qianshun’s reigns bear the mark “translated” (lhej [倆]; yi [譯]), whereas sūtras from later reigns, espe-cially Renxiao’s, are in many cases labeled “edited” or “revised” (njar2 [瓷]; jiao [校]; Kychanov, 1999, 15–18).

The repertoire of the texts translated during Bingchang’s era includes basic Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra (Da Boruo boluomiduo jing [大般若波羅蜜多經]; Xuan-zang’s version), Lotus Sūtra (妙法蓮華經; gen-erally based on Kumārajīva’s version, the text apparently was edited several times in Tangut imperial history; Kych 8–19; Nishida, 2012c, 307–333, Nishida, 2005); other versions of the text are also available; Vimalakīrtinirdeśa (Weimojie suo shuo jing [維摩詰所說經]; Kumārajīva’s version; Kych 159–164), Buddhāvataṃsaka (Da fangguang fohuayan jing [大方廣佛華嚴經] in 80 chapters; Śikṣānanda’s version; Kych 84–90), Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (Da banniepan jing [大般涅槃經]; Dharmakṣema’s version; Kych 110–117), Mahāratnakūṭasūtra (Dao Baoji jing [大寶積

經]; Kych 97–102), and the Diamond Sūtra. This list covers only texts with relatively clearly established dates; in reality, the repertoire of the sūtras trans-lated during the 11th century might have been much broader.

Although Tangut Buddhism can be generally identified as Mahāyāna, the idea of the Tripiṭaka motivated the Tanguts to translate all categories of scriptures. Versions of Hīnayāna texts translated from Chinese and probably from Tibetan include the Dīrghāgama, Fo Benxing ji jing (佛本行集經; T. 190; Kych 6), and Tha1 tshjij1 wee1 lja1 lwər2 rejr2 (菜鍍韓把吭舂; *Fo shuo shenglai jing [佛說生來

經]; Kych 343–345; probably a translation of the Tibetan version of Jātakanidāna, Skyes pa rabs kyi gleng gzhi’i bstan pa; D 32/ P 748).

The Tanguts also translated esoteric scriptures imported from the Northern Song. One such exam-ple is the Tha1 tshjij1 śjɨj 2 gjij1 mja1 thow1 lo1 dzji1 lwər2 rejr2 (菜鍍鈿儔齒巴疹豎吭舂), which corre-sponds to the Foshuo shengyaomu tuoluoni jing (佛說聖曜母陀羅尼經; T. 1303; Kych 259–267, originally translated into Chinese by Fatian [法天]). The texts devoted to the cult of celestial bodies formed a spe-cific group of cultic compositions, which apparently was very influential in the Tangut Buddhism.

The repertoire of Vinaya texts available in Tangut seems to be limited to the translation of the Chinese versions of Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (e.g. Mūlasarvāstivāda Ekaśatakarman, Genben shuo yiqie you bu bai yi jiemo [根本說一切有部百一

羯磨]; T. 1453; Kych 289) and the Mūlasarvāstivāda (Nidāna)mātrikā, Genben shuo yiqie you bu (nidana) mudejia (根本說一切有部目得迦; T. 1452; Kych 288), produced originally by Yijing (義凈; 635–713 CE) dur-ing the Tang. This does not exhaust the Vinaya cor-pus known to the Tanguts: fragments of a variety of compositions on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya circu-lated in Chinese.

Scriptures Translated from TibetanBeginning in the 1130s, the connections between Xixia and Tibet intensified just as the Tangut emper-ors became well-known as the patrons of Buddhism. The Tangut Empire turned into a major destination for Tibetan monks. The most prominent figures who made their way to Xixia include the Indian paṇḍita Jayānanda (Dzja1 ja1 a nja2 djaa1 [琍蓉崇肇遽; 拶也

阿難捺]; mid-12th cent.; known as the first Tangut Imperial Preceptor; van der Kuijp, 1993, 188–197) and Sumatikīrti (Sju1 mja1 tji1 kji2 rji2 tji1 [恆奘豬伂球

豬]; Wei Wen, 2013, 301–331). Contacts with Tibet led to a revision of the pre-

viously existing versions of Buddhist scriptures. Sūtras “revised” during Renxiao’s reign include the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Mahāmayūrividyārājadhāraṇī, and Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, among other important scriptures originally translated during Bingchang’s time. In some cases, the new transla-tions and revisions from Renxiao’s period betray growing dependence on the Tibetan and Sanskrit versions of the scriptures (Sun Bojun, 2010a, 8–15, 26–27). The revisions included changes in the usage of transcription rules for the dhāraṇīs and different usage of the personal pronouns, as has been dem-onstrated by Nishida Tatsuo for the Tangut transla-tions of the Lotus Sūtra (e.g. Nishida, 2012b, 192–194).

The list of sūtras translated from Tibetan includes such works as Mahāsāhasrapramardanasūtra (Stong chen po rab tu ’joms pa; D 558 [= 1059]/P 177; Kych 214–230), Mahāpratisarāvidyārājñī (’Phags pa rig sngags kyi rgyal mo so sor ’brang ba chen mo; P 179/ D 561; Kych 239–252), Vajracchedikā (’Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa rdo rje gcod pa; P 739/D 16; Kych 380), and Triśaraṇamgamana (Kych 382–383; Nishida, 2012a, 390–393).

In some cases, we have editions which combine translations made from Tibetan and Chinese origi-nals under one cover. One such example is the Tha1 tshjij1 ·a mji1 thow1 lwər2 rejr2 (菜鍍崇疙巴吭舂; Fo shuo Amituo jing [佛說阿彌陀經]; T. 366). Among six available copies of the Tangut translation, one bears the mark of “imperial translation” of Bingchang and Empress Dowager Liang, the colophon to another

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 851

text mentions the “imperial translation” by Renxiao, the colophon to the third version informs that it was printed and edited in. One publication contains not only a copy of the sūtra text, but also a copy of a Pure Land sādhanā, prepared with the cooperation of the famous Kashmiri Imperial Preceptor Jayānanda and a prolific Tangut translator Dehui (Tśhja2 źjir1 [開

羈]; *Dehui 德慧; Kychanov, 1999; 354–356).Translations of tantras are underrepresented in

the Tangut collections. Although some Tangut texts mention the “four types of tantra” (ljɨɨr1 mə2 mər2 twe1 [嫌鏑袁縫]) as well as the two basic classes of tantras, namely pha rgyud (so2 mər2 twe1 [愁袁

縫]) and ma rgyud (de1 mər2 twe2 [諫袁縫]), and their transmission lineages (Solonin, forthcom-ing; Nishida, 1999, xl), none of these texts has been located so far. Titles and quotations from various tantras also emerge in the Tangut-period composi-tions in Chinese included in the Yuan-Ming collec-tion of Buddhist texts Dasheng yaodao miji (大乘要

道密集; Dasheng, 1983, 367–428).Apart from quotations in various texts, a

unique version of the Tangut translation of the Saṃpuṭatantra (Gjuu2 rjur1 zji2 njɨ2 ŋwu2 phjoo2 mǝr2 twe1 [聳芅圳酬奔抏袁縫]; *Rgyud thams cad kyi gleng gzhi dang gsang chen dpal kun tu kha sbyor zhes bya ba’i rgyud kyi rgyal po; D 1199/P 2329) is available from the finds in Baisi gou (Shen Weirong, 2010, 407–417). The cycle of Cakrasaṃvaratantra in Tangut is represented by a variety of ritual manuals, whereas the root tantra has not yet been identified. The same is true for the texts of the Hevajra cycle (see below).

Nonscriptural Sources

The Tangut Buddhist heritage includes a selection of texts that belong to various traditions of Sinitic and Tibetan Buddhism. A brief introduction to these texts might allow a better insight into the multifac-eted nature of Tangut Buddhism. The genres identi-fied within the corpus of Sinitic texts include gjɨɨ2 (劣; shu [疏]; “expanded commentary”), bjij2 (渲; zhu [註]; “commentary”), phie1 (擾; jie [解]; “expla-nation”), la1 (璧; ji [記]; “notes”), and ka2 (肓), which represents the Chinese genre of kepan (科判; “ schematic commentary”; see below; see also Nishida, 1999, xi–xii).

Fundamental Commentaries Translated from ChineseTanguts translated fundamental exegetical com-positions from both Chinese and Tibetan; however these translations are not numerous. One major text pertaining to the realm of Chinese Prajñāpāramitā commentarial literature in Tangut translation is the Da Zhidu lun (大智度論; tha1 sjij1 gju1 mər2 mja1 [棒樣怛袁齒]; *Da Zhidu benmu [大智度本母]; here and in the examples below, the Tangut translators used mər2 mja1 [“袁齒”; benmu (本母)] instead of ljɨ1 [肜], which translates Chinese lun [論]; T. 1509; Kych 290). This text was popular in Xixia: its frag-ments have been retrieved from a variety of loca-tions throughout the former Xixia territory (Peng Xianqian, 2007, 110–114).

The majority of exegetical treatises translated from Chinese pertain to the Vijnanavada and Abhidharma subject matter. Currently identified texts include the translation of the Yogācārabhūmi (original title Yujia shi di lun [瑜伽師地論]; T. 1579; ·juu1 khja2 dzjiij2 ljɨ mər2 mja1 [蟾靼伻嘛袁齒]; Kych 293), the Abhidharmasamuccaya (tha2 ·u2 a phji1 tha1 mo2 śioo1 mər2 mja1 [棒羌崇冗蛞瓔蚌袁

齒]; Dasheng Apidamo jilun [大乘阿毘達磨集論]; T. 1605; Kych 295), and A phji1 tha1 mo2 tśhja2 ·wo2 rjir2 bju1 mər2 mja1 (崇冗蛞瓔開損泌呈袁齒; i.e. Xuanzang’s translation of Abhidharmanyāyānusāra, Abidamo shun zhengli lun [阿毘達磨順正理論]; T. 1572; Kych 291) by Saṅghabhadra (Zhongxian [眾

賢]). One more text in this category is The Clarifica­tion of the Sacred Teaching (Śjɨj2 tsjiir1 dżju1 wejr1 mər2 mja1 [鈿蝴娘紋袁齒]; i.e. the translation of Asaṅga’s Xianyang shengjiao lun [顯揚聖教論]; T. 1602; Kych 294). The above list is indicative of a general inclina-tion toward texts translated by Xuanzang (Na1 tha1 [芬棒]; “The Great Profound”).

The aforementioned texts remain undated. The date on the manuscript of the Yogācārabhūmi indi-cates that it was copied during 1215–1224, but no indications on the date of the original translation are available. Importantly, many of these texts sur-vive as manuscripts written in highly cursive script; sometimes the texts contain interlinear notes and comments, probably by the reader. The overall impression is that the texts in this category were not intended for wide distribution. The circulation of these texts was probably limited to the monastic community in Khara-Khoto.

852 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

Fundamental Commentaries Translated from TibetanScriptures devoted to Prajñāpāramitā and Mādhyamaka (Dbu ma) form an important group within the Tangut textual heritage; however the provenance of only several texts has been properly established so far. Some external evidence allows suggesting Tangut familiarity with the six basic treatises of Nāgārjuna; but no identified versions of these texts are available so far. Currently it appears that the Tangut understanding of the “Middle Way” was determined by the Tibetan Bka’ gdams curricu-lum (see below; Solonin, forthcoming).

Apart from that, one important work of Prajñā-pāramitā subject matter widespread in Xixia was the translation of Haribhadra’s commentary (vṛtti) on Maitreyanātha’s Abhisamayālaṃkāra (Śjɨj2 buu2 zjɨr1 tjij1 rewr2 njɨ2 tshji1 ŋwuu1 dzjiij2 ɣiew1 mjor1 ·ju2 wo2 ljuu2 tshjij2 ljɨ1 dźju1 ljaa1 [釙羈陡醮酬遵爬佤鈸

助啜損衡豌肜娘別]; Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan ces bya ba’i ’grel pa; D 3786/P 5191; Kych 393–399). The Tangut translation is based on the revised Tibetan version by Rngog lotsā ba Blo ldan shes rab and Go mi ’chi med, which was compared with the Sanskrit text and translated for Renxiao under the supervision of the state preceptor and finally per-sonally revised by the emperor. The text circulated as both manuscript and woodblock print.

Other popular texts such as the aforementioned Prajñāpāramitāratnaguṇasañcayagāthā (12 copies) as well a few other compositions (e.g. Kych 654–658) were produced by Jayānanda’s circle around 1149; their popularity was secured by the high esteem of the translator. A Tangut version of the Bodhicaryāvatāra (Po2 tjɨj2 kjir1 sjij1 jij1 dźjɨ kha1 ·o2 śjij1 [檮變屨懦柝

帊慝槳謂]; Kych 400–402; Kych 402 seems to be an “official translation” of the text; D 3871/P 5272) together with a currently unidentified commentary called Notes to the Bodhicaryāvatāra (Po2 tjɨj2 kjir1 sjij1 jij1 dźjɨ kha1 ·o2 śjij1la1 [檮變屨懦柝帊慝槳謂璧]; Kych 403–404）and the Śikṣāsamuccaya (ɣiew1 lew2 zji2 sjoo1 jij1 ljaa1 ljɨ1 [鈸暘圳蚌柝估肜]; Kych 439) by Śāntideva (fl. 7–8 cents.; Śja1 tja1 thew1 wa1 [連羲楣

鎂]) are indicative of the Tangut attempts to create an integrated systematic Buddhist worldview. The Bodhicaryāvatāra appears to have been a widely studied text in the Tangut Empire: it circulated in both printed and manuscript formats and at least in two translations; whereas the Śikṣāsamuccaya is currently extant only as a fragmented manuscript (Nishida, 2012a, 393–396).

Currently no translations from Tibetan Vinaya or Abhidharma have been identified. This is likely because the prestige of Xuanzang’s and Yijing’s translations was well established by the time of the considerable inflow of Tibetan texts into Xixia. Some Vijñānavāda texts might still turn out to have been translated from Tibetan or composed in Xixia on the basis of Tibetan expositions of the doctrine, though at present the provenance of these texts has not yet been properly established.

Judging from the above, in translating both funda-mental scriptures from Chinese or from Tibetan, the Tangut Buddhists chose not the fundamental texts such as Mūlamadhyamikakārikā or the root tantras but instead the detailed commentaries and exegeti-cal (supporting) treatises. At the same time, some of the originals of important Mahāyāna śāstras were available in Chinese or Tibetan versions. The nature of the Tangut appropriation of Buddhism should be the subject of future studies.

Texts of Buddhist Schools in the Tangut Translations

In general, both Sinitic and Tibetan parts of the Tangut Buddhist corpus are dominated by the genres related to the realm of Buddhist practice rather than doctrine: out of 768 entries catalogued by E.I. Kychanov, about 170 titles belong to various doctrinal compositions (sūtras, śāstras, fundamen-tal commentaries, etc.), whereas the rest of the col-lection consists of different types of dhāraṇī texts and ritual and meditation guides. As surviving colo-phons indicate, the majority of the texts that expli-cate the teachings of the so-called schools (zong [宗]) of Sinitic Buddhism as well as Tangut local compositions of this type came into wide circu-lation probably starting from around 1168–1189. A similar time frame applies to the datable texts translated from Tibetan.

Texts of Sinitic Buddhist Schools (zong)The earliest attempt to introduce a systematic under-standing of Buddhism based on the Sinitic model is again dated to Bingchang’s period: the encyclopedia Jinglü yixiang (經律異相; lwər2 dzjɨj1 do2 jij1 [吭蛹製

銜]; T. 2121; Xixia Studies, 2007, 390–391; originally commissioned by Liang Wudi (梁武帝; 464–549 CE), was translated into Tangut and published under the patronage of Bingchang and his royal mother.

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 853

The subject matter of the Sinitic textual corpus in Xixia that can be related to the “schools” of Chinese Buddhism is quite uniform and gravitates toward the teaching provisionally identified as Huayan Chan (華嚴禪) or, in a broader sense, a specific ver-sion of Huayan teaching developed by Qingliang Chengguan (清涼澄觀; 737–838 CE; gji1 bioo1 [潭狁]) and Guifeng Zongmi (圭峰宗密; 740–841 CE; kjwi1 xjow2 [頻劂]) during the late 8th-mid-9th centuries. This version of Huayan enjoyed a certain popular-ity in the Northern Song and was widespread in the Liao (Solonin, 2013, 171–219).

The Huayan tradition is represented by frag-ments of the Tangut translation of Chengguan’s Notes to the Expanded Commentary to the Buddhā­vataṃsakasūtra (Tha2 tśhja2 wa2 tha2 wja2 ljuu1 lwər2 rejr1 gjɨɨj1 bju1 wo2 śja2 bjij1 [棲開槌菜塢衡吭

舂劣呈損連渲]; a translation of a version of T. 1736; Da Fangguang Fo Huayan jing suishu yan yi ji [大方廣

佛華嚴經隨疏演義記]; Kych 491). The possibility of identifying other compositions based on the Cheng-guan's Commentary still survives.

The repertoire of Zongmi’s texts in Tangut trans-lations is much broader and includes his famous Zhu shuo Chan yuan zhuquan jidu xu (諸說禪源諸

詮集都序; T. 2015; Kych 321–323, 646, 625, 626, 749; Nie Hongyin, 2001, 3–22; 2011, 35–57) in a number of copies, accompanied by a variety of commentaries not available in Chinese (they were probably native Tangut compilations). Another important text by Zongmi is the ·Io1 dwewr2 gjɨɨj2 jij1 zjɨɨr1 ljɨ1 lew1 tsew2 phju1 khwə1 (鉸鈾劣柝胡俐一赴溴箴; Yuanjue jing shu zhi luebu diyi shangban [圓覺經疏之略補第

一上半]; i.e. Yuanjue jing lueshu chao [圓覺經略疏

鈔]; T. 248), which was discovered in Shanzui gou (see Shanzui gou, vol. I, 2007, 56–62; Solonin, 2014, 157–184). Importantly, most of these texts survived as woodblock prints, which attests to their wide cir-culation.

The text in the greatest quantity in the Sinitic portion of the Tangut Buddhist corpus is Twenty­Five Questions and Answers on Buddhist Principles by the State Preceptor Zhong while He Was Staying in the Guangzhai Monastery (Thow1 tśhjow1 lhjij2 dzjiij2 Bji1 pju2 ‘jim1 mjii1 u2 dzjiij1 tśhjɨ1 dzjɨj1 ‘ji1 dzjwo2 tha2 wo2 dja1 ·jɨr1 njɨɨ 1 ɣa2 ŋwe1 ·jɨr1 hu2 [巴舟且伻犧�

箸試倡投絕妞禍試戊菜損愉鈉流蚩剛鈉坷]; *Tang Zhong Guoshi zhu Guangzhai si zhongren wen foli ershiwu wenda [唐忠國師住光宅寺爾時眾人問佛

理二十五問答]; Kych 719–734; another two cop-ies were located recently), the Tangut translation of an otherwise unknown “recorded saying” (yulu

[語錄]) of a once prominent Tang-dynasty Chan master, Nanyang Huizhong (南陽惠忠; ?–775 CE; Solonin, 2012b, 267–347). The general tenor of this text connects it with the Huayan Chan system. The text exists in about 20 copies from Khara-Khoto alone, which makes it probably one of the most popular Buddhist texts in Xixia. The text with the second most numerous copies is the Tangut transla-tion of the Jingtu Shi yi lun (淨土十疑論; T. 1961; Sun & Han, 2012, 98–107; Kych 436–438) by Tiantai Zhiyi (天台智顗; 538–597 CE).

Other components of the Huayan repertoire include the Golden Lion of Huayan (Wja1 tshjij2 kie1 ka2 tśjij2 dzwə1 [塢衡劓鋤夕饗]; Kych 304; Huayan Jin shizi zhang [華嚴金獅子章]; T. 1880; Sun Bojun, 2010b, 67–74) and Contemplation on Returning to the Source (ɤjow1 lhjwo2 bioo1 [鋒阱狁] ; Xiu Huayan aozhi wangjin huanyuan guan [修華嚴奧旨妄盡

還源觀]; T. 1876;) by Xianshou Fazang (賢首法藏; 636–712 CE) edited by Jinshui Jingyuan (晉水凈源; 1011–1088; Sun Bojun, 2010c, 57–69). Another impor-tant example is the unique text Bjij2 Wja1 tshjij2 tsjiir1 kiej2 bioo1 ɤa1 na1 thwuu1 la1 (渲塢衡蝴玆狁曬芬紡

璧; Zhu Huayan fajie guan men tongxuan ji [注華嚴

法界觀門通玄記]; Kych 306; Chinese version avail-able in fragments) by a little-known Huayan master from the Northern Song, Guangzhi Bensong (廣智

本嵩; fl. mid-11th cent.), who was important in the Tangut State (Nie Hongyin, 2011a, 118–123). Gener-ally, these Huayan works are representative of the Huayan repertoire as it emerged during the North-ern Song. Again, foundational compositions of the Tang-period Huayan have not yet been located within the Tangut corpus.

Some Huayan or Huayan Chan texts were imported from the Liao and translated into Tangut. Here one should mention the Meaning of the Per­fect Luminous Mind According to the Ultimate One Vehicle (Dzjɨ1 dźjwa1 lew1 io1 swew1 njiij1 wo2 [志遘一

羌鉸挺項損]; *Jiujing yicheng yuanming xinyi [究

竟一乘圓明心義]) and other texts by the Liao Bud-dhist master Tongli Hengce (通理恒策; 1049–1099; wo2 dar1 [損機]; Solonin, 2014; Kych 501; Chinese version available in fragments from Khara-Khoto). Another example is the Tjɨj1跡 (jing [鏡]; Kych 752), a translation of the Jing xin lu (鏡心錄), a work of the famous Liao master Yuantong Daoshen (圓通道㲀; 1056?–1114[?]; Solonin, 2012a, 137–188) existing only in Tangut.

The Chan heritage is represented by fragments of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (Solonin, 2008, 163–185), Treatise on the Contemplation of Mind

854 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

(Tha1 mo2 tha2 dzjiij2 bioo2 njiij1 mər2 mja1 [蛞瓔棲伻

項狁袁齒], and *Damo dashi guanxin lun [達摩大師

關心論]; i.e. Damo poxiang lun [達摩破相論]; T. 1220; a work by Shenxiu [神秀; 606–706 CE]; Sun Bojun, 2012, 266–303). The Tanguts were aware of the genre of the Chan-Buddhist hagiography, as is testified by the discovery of The Most Important of the Lamp: Part Three (Tjij1 tshji1 so1 [址遵匚]; *Deng yao san [燈要

三]; Kych 756), a fragment of the Tangut translation of an abridged version of the Jingde Chuandeng lu (景德傳燈錄; T. 2076).

Such texts as Mirror of the Perfect Mind (Io1 njiij1 tjɨj1 [鉸項跡]; *Yuanxin jing [圓心鏡]), Illuminating Mind of the True Way (ɤiej1 tśja1 njiij1 swew1 [沮噥項

晁]; *Zhen dao xin zhao [真道心照]), and Teachings and Ritual of the Hongzhou School (Xu1 tśjiw2 mər2 dzjiij2 dzju1 tjɨj1 [尐妍袁伻嚨災]; *Hongzhou zongshi jiaoyi [洪州宗師教儀]), together with its commen-tary devoted to the exposition of the Chan teaching of Mazu Daoyi (馬祖道一; 709–788 CE), are all writ-ten in the Huayan Chan paradigm (Solonin, 2014, 203–245). No Chinese originals of these texts have been discovered so far; these texts are provisionally identified as local Xixia compositions.

Apart from the aforementioned texts, the Tangut Abhidharma curriculum includes several exposi-tions of the Hundred Dharmas of Mahāyāna (tha1 u1 ·jir2 tsjiir1 [棒羌躍蝴]; Dasheng baifa [大乘百

法]; Kych 296, 502, 300), which are of questionable identity. One text, A Brief Exposition of the Treatise on the Hundred Dharmas of Mahāyāna (tha1 u1 ·jir2 tsjiir1 swew1 ɣa1 mər2 mja1 ljow2 śja2 [棒羌躍蝴挺曬

袁齒胡連]; Dasheng baifa mingmen lun lueshi [大

乘百法明門論略釋]; Kych 300) is currently identi-fied as the translation of the Dasheng baifa ming­men lun (大乘百法明門論; T. 1836) by Puguang (普光). Another text, The Bright Mirror: Collection of the Hundred Dharmas of Mahāyāna (tha1 u1 ·jir2 tsjiir1 swew1 tjɨj2 śioo1 [棒羌躍蝴挺跡蚌]; Dasheng bai fa mingjing ji [大乘百法明鏡集]; Kych 296), was origi-nally identified as T. 1614, that is Baifa Mingmen lun (百法明門論). As it appears now, the Vijñānavāda curriculum is represented by just one text, The Notes to the 20 Verses on the Mind­Only (Njɨɨ1 ɤa2 lew1 sjij1 la1 [流蚩搭懦璧]), which was originally identified as the translation of the Weishi ershi lun shuji (唯識

二十論述記) by Kuiji (窺基; T. 1834; Kych 298–299). The present survey provisionally includes them into the category of doctrinal writings translated from Chinese; however, they should be subjected to a more serious scrutiny before their affiliation can be properly established.

Texts of Tibetan Buddhist Schools Among the Tibetan compositions devoted to the exposition of the doctrine translated into Tangut, the most noticeable are the texts revolving around the translation of the Satyadvayāvatāra (Njii1 dźji2 ‘o2 śjij1 [流車丌槳謂]; Kych 405–408; Bden pa gnyis la ’jug pa; D 3902/ P 5298) by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982–1054). Currently, two versions of the Tangut transla-tion have been identified. About six commentaries to this text have been so far discovered in the Tangut collection in Khara-Khoto, and several fragments of a similar subject matter were discovered in Shanzui gou. Among these The Exposition of the Two Truths According to Rngog lo tsā ba (Ŋwə1 lu1 tśja1 wa2 tschjii1 tjɨj2 njii1 dźji2 wo2 la1 [扠傷均鎂鍍災流車損璧]; Kych 633) is identified as a composition by Rngog lotsā ba Blo Ldan shes rab (1059–1105) or by a member of his circle. Another important text in this category is The Explanation of the Meaning of the Treatise on the Entry into the Two Truths (Njɨɨ1 dźji2 ɤa2 ‘o2 sjij1 mər2 mja1 jij1 wo2 phie1 la1 [流車丌槳謂袁齒柝損擾

璧]; Kych 619) by Po2tjɨj2 ka1 tśjij2 (檮變鋤夕; *菩提

獅子; *Byang chub seng ge; Solonin, forthcoming). The existence of so many texts belonging to this group indicates the intensive relationship that once existed between the Tangut Empire and early Bka’ gdams masters (Iuchi, 2012, 58–62). However, no Tangut translation of another fundamental text by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, the Bodhipathapradīpa, has yet been identified.

In the Khara-Khoto collection, one can discern a noticeable presence of Tangut translations of texts on “valid cognition” based on Tibetan origi-nals. External evidence indicates that the Tang-uts had an awareness of the “seven treatises” of Dharmakīrti. However, only the Tśhja2 wo1 gjiwr2 rjar1 gjij 1ɣjɨr1 (開辱丳褐簷辣), a translation of the Nyāyabinduprakarāṇa (Rigs pa’i thigs pa shes bya ba’i rab tu byed pa; D 4212/P 5711; Kych 423–424) has been identified. Among the texts within this cluster, one can also note the Tśhja2 wo1 gjiwr2 jij1 gjwi1 wo1 dzju1 śja2 (開辱丳柝萎損娘砭; Elucidation of the Meanings of the Phrases of Nyāyabindu) composed by Źjɨr1 ɣwie1 (羈戳; Jinamitra); this text is probably a translation of the Rigs pa’i thigs pa’i don bsdus pa (D 4233/P 5732; Nyāyabindupiṇḍārtha; Kych 426–429), however, more detailed study is needed. Other texts that mention “valid cognition” in their titles need to be researched before their identity can be confirmed.

Apart from the above, several Tangut texts seem to form a specific cluster revolving around impor-

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 855

tant Mādhyamaka topics, such as the prāsaṇgika/svātantrika debate and the nature of the relation-ship between the two truths. The identification of these texts and their origins is a task for the future.

Ritual and Meditation Texts

The textual repertoire of Tangut Buddhism is domi-nated by texts pertaining to various aspects of Bud-dhist practice. Thus such specific categories as tshji1 ŋwuu1 (遵爬; man ngag [upadeśa] or gdams ngag [āmnāya]), tsjiir1 da2 (蝴霏; fashi [法事]; cho ga [vidhi]), kju1 śjij1 (鴉謂) or wji1 śjij1 (賒謂; sādhanā; sgrub thabs; or krama, rim pa) are especially numer-ous in the Tangut collections. Other genres include śja1 djɨj2 (侍材; chanding [禪定]) or lə düjɨj2 (邢材; nianding [念定]; contemplation manual). The most numerous are the texts in the man ngag genre (Kychanov lists about 60 independent titles devoted to a variety of subjects).

The Sinitic segment of the liturgical scriptures in Tangut is dominated by the Njij2 wjuu1 rejr2 lhjoor1 dźjar2 rewr2 tsjiir1 (舌盃舂瀰蘸挖蝴; i.e. the Repen­tance Ritual of Liang Wudi [Cibei daochang chanfa; 慈悲道場懺法]; T. 1909; Kych 307–316), which also dates to Bingchang’s reign. The translation and publication of this work were part of a system of measures to propagate Buddhism by the Empress Dowager Liang, just as was the publication of the Jinglü Yixiang mentioned above. This text is one of the most numerous in the Khara-Khoto collection and elsewhere; its copies are widely represented in other Tangut collections (Yang Zhigao, 2011, 99–103; Kych 307–316); the text was republished within the Tangut Buddhist canon during the Yuan (Wang Han, 2005, 111–118).

Another popular ritual text whose position in the Tangut Buddhism can be clearly established is The Ordinary Rituals for [Attainment] of Bodhicitta (Po2 tjɨj2 njij1 ljɨ1 ‘ju2 wji2 lew2 tsiir1 da1 [檮變項厏娟賒暘

蝴霏]; Byang chub kyi sems bskyed pa dang yi dam blang pa’i cho ga; Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi; D 4493/P 5406; Kych 411–420) by Jitāri (originally translated by Sumatikīrti and Blo ldan shes rab). This work is available in several copies in both manuscript and woodblock print format. This ritual manual was included among the chos chung (small teachings) of Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, thus one can sug-gest a connection between the Bka’ gdams teaching in the Tangut Empire and the popularity of Jetāri’s composition.

Tangut ritual and meditational texts (not nec-essarily tantric) of Tibetan origin are distributed among several yogic systems, namely those of the lam ’bras, Vajravarahī, Cakrasaṃvara, Mahāmudrā, Avalokiteśvara, and Hevajra. The rituals of the 35 buddhas, food-offering ceremonies, and so forth, which were popular in the Tangut Empire, later resurfaced in the Yuan-and Ming-period ritual compositions.

As far as esoteric texts are concerned, the Heva­jratantra cycle in Tangut is represented by a com-mentarial fragment on the root tantra Lhju1 ɤjɨ1 njij2 mǝr1 twe2 jij1 la1 (屆汝咱袁縫柝璧; Notes on the Hevajratantra; Kych 354, 355) and a ritual manual whose title is tentatively translated as The Ritual of Consecration on the Hevajra Maṇḍala of the Nine Buddhas (Lhju1 ɤjɨ1 njij2 gjɨɨ1 tha1 gu2 tśjɨ1bju1 dzju2 lhjij tśjɨ1 [呀汝咱舒菜輜鴒呈蕙煨藏]; Kych 327). Both the ritual manual and the commentary are provisionally identified as belonging to the tradition of Rngog Chos rdor (1036–1102; Solonin, forthcoming; based on D. Martin’s suggestion). One more Hevajra sādhanā was identified within the collection known as The Light of Amṛita: Two Texts by the “Vajra Born from the Sea” (Tsə1 bji1 ŋjow2 tshjij2 ɤjɨ1 njij2·jwɨr2 gu2 njij2 [瘍犧歪韓汝咱拗

流矢]). This collection, attributed to Saroruhavajra (歪韓汝咱; *海生金剛; Mtsho skyes rdo rje), contains a text that Nishida identifies as Dgyes pa’i rdo rje’i sgrub thabs (D 4115/ P 1218; Kych 711; the Tangut text attributes the collection to Ḍombi Heruka; Nishida, 2012a, 395).

Lam ’bras texts are represented by several com-positions, out of which one is found in a large num-ber of copies. The text Precious Torch Elucidating the Bodhisattva Study of Fruit and Path as One­Practice (Po2 tjɨj2 kjir 1 sjij2 ɤiew1 lew2 tśja2 ljɨ1 mja2 rjir1 ja2 śjij1 dzju1 śja2 ljɨ1 zjur2 [檮變屨懦鈸暘噥厏筐泌閂謂娘

連濺掘]) is available in 27 copies (Kych 458–486). Together with the “recorded sayings” of Huizhong, it is one of the two most popular texts in Xixia. The author of this work is Ljɨ1 ka1 tśjij2 (濺鋤夕; *Bao shizi [寶獅子]; *Dkon mchog seng ge; ?–1219), that is, the Tangut imperial preceptor and first Karma pa Dus gsum mkhyen pa’s (1110–1193) disciple sent to the Tangut state (Sperling, 1987, 32–50). In general, the titles of lam ’bras texts from the Khara-Khoto collection resemble those preserved within the Dasheng yaodao miji. However, textual compari-son demonstrates substantial deviations between the Tangut and Chinese versions (Sun Bojun, 2014, 111–123).

856 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

In many cases the upadeśas (man ngag) and vid­his (cho ga) of the Vajravarahī and Six Yogas systems are anonymous. However, the most prolific author and “transmitter” of these teachings was Tsjiir1 ka1 tśjij2 (蝴鋤夕; *Chos kyi seng ge; otherwise known as Yar lungs pa [ja1 ljow2 sjɨ2 pja1(蓉洌撲綿)]; Dun-nell, 2009, 41–78; Sperling, 2005, 1–26; this charac-ter emerges in the texts under a variety of names and titles). The texts that he transmitted in Xixia, among others, include the Ritual for Contempla­tion of Vajravarahī (ɣjɨ1 njij2 mjɨ2 lheew2 mja1 jij1 lə djɨj2 wji1 śjij1 [汝咱狅嫉齒柝邢材賒謂]; Kych 542), the Attainment of the Four Consecrations through Dhāraṇī (ka ·jiij1 ŋwu2 ljɨr1 dzju2 lhjij śjij1 [縞痳嬌嫌

蕙煨謂]; Kych 547), and several compositions on the Six Yogas. So far, no Tibetan originals for the works transmitted by Yar lungs pa in the Tangut state have been discovered, and therefore his teaching might have circulated only in Xixia and the Tsong kha area. Thus, these works are provisionally included in the category of Tangut native Buddhist literature.

Other basic Six Yogas texts, attributed by their colophons to Nāropa, include the Upadeśa on the Essence of the Six Dharmas (Tśhjiw1 tsjiir1 ·jij1 kwər1 tshji1 ŋwuu1 [閏蝴珊朸遵爬]; Kych 605–607) and a composition with a title that provisionally may be translated as Upadeśa for the Unity of Desire and Joy (Kiej2 rejr2 ·io1 lwu1 phji1 sjij1 tshji1 ŋwuu1 [源髮鉸姓酒

謂遵爬]; Kych 593, 594; Solonin, forthcoming).A cluster of Mahāmudrā texts available from the

Tangut collections is almost completely duplicated in the Dasheng yaodao miji (Suo Luoning, 2013, 237–243); these texts are generally identified as the compositions associated with the Bka’ brgyud tra-dition. The most popular Mahāmudrā text in Xixia was the Tha1 dźiej2 njɨ2 dźjwa1 tshji1 sjoo1 (棲爨酬遘

遵蚌; Ultimate Upadeśa on the Great Seal; Kych 661–665) found together with several commentaries also available in Tangut. This text is a Tangut native com-pilation by a Tangut Buddhist leader Dehui (Tśhja2 źjir1 [開羈]; Dehui[德慧]; Solonin, 2013, 263–264; Nishida, 1999, xlii-xliv); one of the commentaries to the text recorded the actual procedure of an oral transmission that Dehui received from a Tibetan master. This text was one of the few upadeśas to have circulated in printed form, probably also due to the high standing of its author, who occupied a number of prestigious posts in the Tangut Buddhist administration.

The currently available grub mtha’ repertoire (e.g. so1 lju2 gjɨɨ1·u2 dźju1 śja2 [匚忡舒羌娘連]; *Sku gsum theg pa dgu’i ’grel pa; Kych 493) reveals that the Rny-

ing ma doctrinal taxonomy of nine vehicles was well-known in the Tangut state. As is the case with other Rnying ma compositions, these texts include expo-sitions of four types of yoga (i.e. [1] a tji2 ·jo2 ŋwər1 [崇豬訛采; atiyoga], [2] a njuu2 ·jo2 ŋwər1 [崇利訛采; anuyoga; rnal ’byor rgyud], [3] mja1 xa1 ·jo2 ŋwər1 [奘燉訛采; mahāyoga); etc.) as well as of other vehicles (Solonin, forthcoming). Another text, known as the Introduction into the Five Parts of Dharmadhātu: Final Part (Tsjiir1 kiej2 ŋwe1 djij1 gu2 bu1 [蝴玆剛矢

媼誌]; Kych 709), is a translation of a previously unknown account of Berotsana’s (Pji rjo tshaw nja [扭睥均]; i.e. Vairocana, one of the “seven chosen” [sad mi mi bdun] from the period of first propaga-tion of the dharma in Tibet) travel to India in search of the supreme dharma of liberation during the time of Khri srong de’u btsan (790–844 CE). This text resembles the famous biography of Vairocana known as ’Dra ’bag chen mo (Solonin, forthcoming).

One more specific category of Buddhist litera-ture to be mentioned here is the translations from Tibetan into Chinese made in the Tangut state. Here one can mention the recently discovered Xi jingang kongxing mu wangjin lüe ji da mi benxu (喜金剛空行母網禁略集大密本續; Shen Weirong, 2013b, 142–175), which is a Xixia translation of the Hevajratantra; another text is Zui sheng shangle ji benxu xianshi ji (最勝上樂集本續顯釋記), dated to the Huangjian (皇建) years of Xixia (1210–1211), a translation of a hitherto unknown commentary on the Cakrasaṃvaratantra (Wei Wen, 2013, 301–331). So far, no Tangut versions of these compositions have been identified.

The Tangut Buddhist Canon

Unlike the Kitan or Jurchen, the Tangut Empire never undertook the publication a Buddhist canon in Chinese (Li Jining, 2003, 470–481; however comp. Shi Jinbo, 1988, 98–100). However, the Tangut Bud-dhists were well aware of what a Buddhist canon is; relevant vocabulary and system of numeration for the multivolume compositions also existed in the Tangut language. The Tangut text of the Imperial Preface to the Newly Translated Tangut Tripiṭaka (Phiow1 bjij2 lhjij tha2 sjiw1 lhej1 so1 u2 śjɨj2 dzjiij1 bu1 [偃鴕且棒辰倆匚芝鈿佤誌]; i.e. Da Baigao guo xinyi Sanzang shengjiao xu [大白高國新譯三藏聖教序]; Nishida, vol. II, 1975–1977, 6–7; Shi, 1988, 283–285) seems to demonstrate the existence of a Tangut Buddhist canon as early as the Tangut imperial

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 857

period. However, no data on the time and place of the publication of canon is available from this text.

The imperial seal on the translation of the Dīrghāgama mentions that the text was origi-nally prepared under the supervision of the fourth emperor Qianshun, edited by Renxiao, and added to the Tangut Tripiṭaka housed in the monastery ŋwər1 lhji2 ljwu2 tshja2 (朹商頰族; “Retribution for Joy of All Under Heaven”; 天下慶報) by Renxiao’s wife, Empress Luo. The name of the monastery indicates that it was built in the Tianqing (天慶) reign period (1194–1206). These dates indicate the time frame for the existence of this Buddhist canon. The text on the seal may be interpreted as indicating that there existed a catalogue or registry of the Tangut Bud-dhist canon, in which the text was recorded. Cur-rently there is no other information on this original Buddhist canon. However, its structure is probably revealed in the aforementioned paragraph of the Tiansheng Law Code.

The growing importance of Tangut monks in the Yuan period allowed Buddhist leaders of Tangut origin, such as Yixing Huijue (一行慧覺; ?–1314[?]) and Guanzhuba (管主八; fl. mid-14th cent.), monk- registrar (senglu [僧錄]) in Hangzhou (杭州), to col-lect Tangut texts and republish them as a Tripiṭaka. Yixing Huijue collected available texts, and in 1270 the collection was published (Shi Jinbo, 1988, 317–318). This initial publication was later enhanced by Guanzhuba, who published a Tangut-language version of the Buddhist canon in the Wanshou si (萬壽寺) in Hangzhou from 1293 to 1306 (Duan, 2006, 125–127; Wang Jingru, 1932, 1–15; Shi Jinbo, 2005, 298–312, 312–331, 347–370; Wang Han, 2005). This publication was probably undertaken within a larger project of systematizing of the Buddhist canon, which was carried out during the Yuan. Guanzhuba’s publication amounted to 50 copies, which were distributed in the former Tangut lands. The information about this publication is found in a variety of sources in both Chinese and Tangut, therefore there is no reason to doubt its veracity. Although fragments of the Tangut publications bearing Guanzhuba’s office seal have survived (e.g. a copy of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra held in Prince-ton University), which corroborates the source data on Guanzhuba’s publication activities, the surviv-ing Tangut Buddhist textual corpus lacks editorial uniformity, which impedes judgment on the actual structure and repertoire on the Tangut Buddhist canon.

Bibliography

Arakawa Shintarō (荒川慎太郎), Seikabun Kongōkyō no kenkyū (西夏文金剛經の研究), Tokyo, 2014.

Dasheng yaodao miji (大乘要道密集), Taipei, 1983. Du Jianlu (杜建錄), Zhongguo cang Xixia wenxian yanjiu

(中國藏西夏文獻研究), Shanghai, 2012.Du Jianlu (杜建錄), “Zhong guo cang Xixia wenxian gailun”

(中國藏西夏文獻概論), XS 2, 2007, 23–39.Duan Yuquan (段玉泉), Xixia “Gongde Baoji jie” kua yuyan

duikan yanjiu(西夏《功德宝集偈》跨语言对勘研究), Shanghai, 2014.

Duan Yuquan (段玉泉), “Yuankan Xixia Dazangjing de jige wenti” (元刊西夏文大藏經的幾個問題), in: Du Jianlu (杜建錄), ed., Xixia xue lunji (西夏學論集), Shang-hai, 2012.

Duan Yuquan (段玉泉), “Guanzhuba shiyin Hexi Dazang jing xintan” (管主八施印《河西大藏經》新探), XS 1, 2006, 125–131.

Dunnell, R., “Translating History from Tangut Buddhist texts,” AM 22/1, 2009, 41–78.

Dunnell, R., The Great State of White and High: Buddhism and the State Formation in Eleventh­Century Xia, Honolulu, 1996.

Fujiwara Takato (藤原崇人), Kittan Bukkyōshi no kenkyū (契丹佛教史の研究), Tokyo, 2015.

Gorbačeva, Z.I., Kyčanov, E.I., Список отождествлённых и определённых тангутских рукописей и ксилографов коллекции Института народов Азии АН СССР [Reper-toire of Identified Tangut Manuscripts and Woodblocks from the Collection of the Asian Institute, Academy of Sciences, USSR], Moscow, 1963.

’Gos lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, Голубые Анналы [The Blue Annals], Saint Petersburg, 2001.

Iuchi Maho, “A Note on the Relationship between the Bka’ gdams pa School and Mi nyag/Xixia,” ZX 8, 2012, 58–62.

Iwasaki Tsutomu, “The Tibetan Tribes of Ho-hsi and Buddhism during the Northern Sung Period,” AcAs 64, 1993, 17–37.

Kyčanov, E.I., Каталог тангутских буддийских памятников Института востоковедения Российской Академии наук (Сatalogue of the Tangut Buddhist Texts from the Collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences), Kyoto, 1999.

Kuijp, L. van der, “Jayānanda: A Twelfth Century Guoshi from Kashmir among the Tangut,” in: CAJ 37/3–4, 1993, 188–197.

Li Fanwen (李範文), ed., Xixia Studies (西夏研究), vol. VI, Beijing, 2007.

Li Fanwen (李範文), ed., Xixia Tongshi (西夏通史), Yinch-uan, 2005.

Li Jining (李際寧), “Guanyu ‘Xixia kan Hanwen ban Dazangjing’” (關於西夏刊汉韓文版大藏經), in: Yang Zengwen (楊曾文) & Fang Guangchang (方廣錩), eds., Fojiao lishi wenhua (佛教歷史文化), Beijing, 2003, 470–481.

Lin Yingchin (林英津), Xixia yuyi Zhenshi mingjing shiwen yanjiu (西夏語譯《真實名經》釋文研究), Taipei, 2005.

858 Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia

Men’šikov, L.N., Каталог китайской части фонда П.К. Козлова из Хара­Хото (Catalogue of the Chinese Part of P.K. Kozlov’s Collection from Khara-Khoto), Moscow, 1984.

Nevskij, N.A., Тангутская филология (Tangut Philology), vols. I–II, Moscow, 1960.

Nie Hongyin (聂鸿音), Dakai Xixia wenzi zhi men (打開西夏文字之門), Beijing, 2014.

Nie Hongyin (聶鴻音), Xixia wenxian lungao (西夏文獻論稿), Shanghai, 2012.

Nie Hongyin (聶鴻音), “ ‘Xixia wen Chan yuan Zhuquan jidu xu yizheng,’ xia” (西夏文《禪源諸詮集都序》 譯證，下), XY 2, 2011a, 35–57.

Nie Hongyin (聶鴻音), “Xixia wen Zhu Huayan fajie guan men tongxuan ji chu tan,” (西夏文《注華嚴法界門通門玄記》初探), MDWY 8, Beijing, 2011b, 118–123.

Nie Hongyin (聶鴻音), “ ‘Xixia wen Chan yuan Zhuquan jidu xu yizheng,’ shang” (西夏文《禪源諸詮集都序》譯證，上), XY 1, 2001, 3–22.

Ningxia wenwu kaogu yanjiu suo (寧夏文物考古研究所), eds., Shanzui gou Xixia shiku (山嘴溝西夏石窟), vols. I–II, Beijing, 2007.

Ningxia wenwu kaogu yanjiu suo (寧夏文物考古研究所), eds., Baisi gou Xixia Fangta (拜寺溝西夏方塔), Beijing, 2005.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), “Seika go kenkyū to Hokkekyō (III): Seika bun shahon to kanbon ni tsuite” (西夏語研究と法華經 [III]: 西夏文寫本と刊本について), in: Nishida Tatsuo hakushi ronshū kankō iinkai (西田龍雄博士論集刊行委員會), eds., Seika go kenkyū shinron (西夏語研究新論), Kyoto, 2012a, 361–399.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), “Seika go yaku Hokkekyō ni tsuite” (西夏語譯法華經について), in: Nishida Tatsuo hakushi ronshū kankō iinkai (西田龍雄博士論集刊行委員會), eds., Seika go kenkyū shinron (西夏語研究新論), Kyoto, 2012b, 189–195.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), “Seika go kenkyū to Hōkkekyō (I),” in: Nishida Tatsuo hakushi ronshū kankō iinkai (西田龍雄博士論集刊行委員會), eds., Seika go kenkyū shin­ron (西夏語研究新論), Kyoto, 2012c, 307–333.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), Roshia Kagaku akademī Tōyōgaku kenkyūshō Sankto­Peteruburugu shibe shozō Seika bun <Myōhō rengekyō> (コシア科學アカデミ-東洋學研究所サンクトペテルブルグ支部所藏西夏文 《妙法蓮華經》; Xixia Version of the Lotus Sūtra from the Saint Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences), Tokyo, 2005.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), “Preface,” in: E.I. Kyčanov, Каталог тангутских буддийских памятников Инсти­тута востоковедения Российской Академии наук (Сatalogue of the Tangut Buddhist Texts from the Collec-tion of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences), 1999, Kyoto, 1999, i–xlvii.

Nishida Tatsuo (西田龍雄), Seikabun Kegonkyō (西夏文華嚴經), vols. I–III, Kyoto, 1975–1977.

Peng Xiangqian (彭向前), “Zhongguo cang Xixia wen Da Zhidu lun juan si kaobu” (中國藏西夏文《大智度論》 卷四考補), XS 2, 2007, 110–114.

Shen Weirong (沈衛榮), “Wenben duikan yu lishi jiangou: Zangchuan Fojiao yu Xiyu he Zhongyuan chuanbo lishi

yanjiu daolun” (文本對勘與歷史建構：藏傳佛教與西域和中原傳播歷史導論), Wenshi 4, 2013a, 43–93.

Shen Weirong (沈衛榮), “Song, Xixia, Ming san zhong Hanyi Jixiang Xi Jingang benxu bijiao yanjiu” (宋西夏明三種漢譯《吉祥喜金剛本續》比較研究), in: Shen Weirong (沈衛榮), ed., Han Zang Foxue yanjiu (漢藏佛學研究), Beijing, 2013b, 142–175.

Shen Weirong (沈衛榮), “Xixia wen Zangchuan xüdian Jixiang bianzhi kouhe bexu yuanliu, miyi kaoshu” (西夏文藏傳續典 《吉祥遍至口合本續》 源流, 密意考述), in: Xizang lishi he Fojiao yuwenxue yanjiu (西藏和佛教語文學研究), Shanghai, 2010, 407–417.

Shi Jinbo (史金波), “Buddhism and Confucianism in the Tangut State,” CAJ 57, 2014, 139–157.

Shi Jinbo (史金波), Shi Jinbo lunji (史金波論集), Shanghai, 2005.

Shi Jinbo (史金波), Xixia Fojiao shilüe (西夏佛教史略), Yinchuan, 1988.

Solonin, K., “Dīpaṃkara in Tangut Context,” AOH, forthcoming.Solonin, K., “ ‘Chan Contemplation’ in the Tangut Buddhism,”

FJHSS 7/2, 2014, 203–245.Solonin, K., “Buddhist Connections between the Liao and

Xixia: Preliminary Considerations,” JSYS 43, 2013, 171–219.Solonin, K., “The Teaching of Daoshen in Tangut Translation:

The Mirror of Mind,” in: R. Gimello, Fr. Girard & I. Hamar, eds., Avataṃsaka Buddhism in East Asia: Huayan, Kegon, Flower Ornament Buddhism: Origins and Adaptation of a Visual Culture, Wiesbaden, 2012a, 132–178.

Solonin K., “The Chan Teaching of Nanyang Huizhong (?–775) in Tangut Translation,” in: N.W. Hill, ed., Medieval Tibeto­Burman Languages IV, Leiden, 2012b, 267–347.

Solonin, K., “The Glimpses of Tangut Buddhism,” CAJ 58/1, 64–127.

Sun Bojun (孫伯君), “Further Reflections on the Relation between Dasheng Yaodao miji and Its Tangut Equiva-lents,” CAJ 57, 2014, 111–123.

Sun Bojun (孫伯君) & Han Xiaorui (韓潇銳), “Heishui cheng chutu Xixia wen Xifang jingtu shi yi lun lüe zhu ben kaoshi” (黑水城出土西夏文《西方淨土十疑論》略註本考釋), NSK 2, 2012, 98–107.

Sun Bojun (孫伯君), Xixia xinyi fojing tuoluoni de duiyin yan­jiu (西夏新譯佛經陀羅尼的對音研究), Beijing, 2010a.

Sun Bojun (孫伯君), “Heishui cheng chutu Xixia wen ‘Jin shizi zhang yunjian leijie’ kaoshi” (黑水城出土西夏文 《金獅子章雲間類解》考釋), XY 10, 2010b, 67–74.

Sun Bojun (孫伯君), “Xixia wen Xiu Huayan aozhi wangjin huanyuan guan kaoshi” (西夏文《修華嚴奧旨妄盡還源觀》考釋), XS 6, 2010c, 57–69.

Suo Luoning (索羅寧), “Xixia wen Dashou yin wenxian zakao” (西夏文大手印文獻雜考), in: Shen Weirong, ed., Han Zang Foxue yanjiu, Beijing, 2013a, 235–267.

Suo Luoning (索羅寧), “Xixia Fojiao zhi xitongxing chutan” (西夏佛教之系統性初探), SWR 4, 2013b, 22–39.

Sperling E., “Further Remarks apropos of the ’Ba’ rom pa and Tanguts,” AOH 57/1, 2005, 1–26.

Sperling E., “Lama to the King of Hsia,” JTibS 7, 1987, 32–50.Wang Han (王菡), “Yuandai Hangzhou diqu ke Dazang jing

yu Xixia de guanxi” (元代杭州地區刻大藏經與西夏關係), Wenxian 5, 2011, 111–118.

Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia 859

Wang Jingru (王靜如), “Hexizi Zangjing diaoban kao” (河西字藏經雕版考), XS 1, 1932, 1–15.

Wei Wen (魏文), “Zuishang le ji benxu xianshi ji yichuan yuanliu kao” (《最上樂集本續顯釋記》譯傳源流考), in: Shen Weirong, ed., Han Zang Fojiao Yanjiu, 2013, 301–331.

Yang Fuxue (楊富學) & Chen Aifeng (陳愛峰), Xixia yu zhoubian guanxi yanjiu (西夏與周邊關係研究), Lanzhou, 2011.

Yang Zhigao (楊志高), “Tushuguan cang Xixia wen Cibei Daochang Chanfa xu yakao” (圖書館藏西夏文《慈悲道場懺法序》譯考), XS 8, 2011, 99–103.

Zhou Shujia (周叔迦), “Guancang Xixia wen jingdian mulu” (館藏西夏文經典目錄), BNLP 4/3, 1932, 323–325.

Kirill Solonin