On the Xixia Version of the Lotus Sutra1

Tatsuo Nishida
Xixia Studies and the Lotus SutraI

T is widely known that M. G. Morisse made a great contribution to
Xixia language studies at the beginning of the 20th century with his
study of the Xixia Lotus Sutra, Contribution préliminaire à l’étude del’écriture et de la langue Si-hia, Paris, 1904. He obtained in Beijing
three volumes of the Lotus Sutra, which became the object of his study.
They were part of a fine manuscript of chrysography on blue paper.
While modern persons first found good Xixia material in wall inscriptions at Juyong-guan 居庸關, it was in this text of the Lotus Sutra thatthey encountered a considerable amount of scripture. It was three years
before P. K. Kozlov excavated a great wealth of Xixia documents at
Khara-Khoto. Thus, Morisse’s encounter with the Lotus Sutra has greatsignificance in the history of Xixia studies. It should also be noted why
studies of the Xixia Lotus Sutra have shown little progress ever since
Luo Fucheng’s 羅福成 study, the Xixia yi Lianhua jing kaoshi《西夏譯0華經考釋》(Study of the Xixia Translation of the Lotus Sutra Annotatedwith the Chinese Text), (Kyoto, 1914), was published. One reason is that
the Xixia version of the Lotus Sutra has difficult linguistic features
which must be deciphered in reference to the Chinese version. In short,compared to other sutras, the Xixia Lotus Sutra is more difficult tounderstand and contains many grammatical expressions that are not easily analyzed. Fortunately, however, today such difficulties are being
solved and experts are able to engage in the study of this text. Incidentally, a total of eight volumes of the text including the three that wereformerly owned by Morisse are now separately kept at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (juan 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7) and the Musée National des Arts
Asiatiques Guimet in Paris (juan 2, 6 and 8).
The Creation of Xixia Characters and the Establishmentof the Written Xixia Language
The public authorization of Xixia characters in 1036 is recorded in the
Chinese history books, including Songshi Xiaguo chuan《宋史夏國傳》,
133

134

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

and is well-known in the academic world. While the promulgation of
Xixia characters of course deserves consideration, I would like to pay
more attention to the fact that the written Xixia language (language for
writing) was established.
Li Yuanhao 李元昊, the first emperor of the Xixia, declared in 1036
that the nation would write the Xixia language in Xixia characters,
replacing the Chinese language written in Chinese characters. It can beunderstood that he first authorized Xixia as the official language of the
Xixia state, and then created Xixia characters to write the Xixia language replacing Chinese characters. This suggests an important changeof perspective for contemporary Xixia scholars, from an emphasis on
the creation of new characters to that of a new written language. In actuality, the Xixia people celebrated the birth of a new written language
rather than simply that of their new characters.
Which Tangut dialect became the prototypal basis for the written
Xixia language? And which dialect became the standard of the language? There are no simple answers to these questions. It can be surmised that the letter form of Xixia characters registered in the lexicons
in the lineage of the Tongyin《同音》(or its prototype) was recognized as
the standard. I first assumed that, as the Xixia was a multiethnic state
and was inhabited by many kinds of ethnic groups, they createdideograms that describe semantic units transcending the difference of
these ethnic languages, and thus they initiated their written languagewith their new ideograms. As the realities of the Xixia language werebeing clarified, I decided that my assumption was incorrect and that
Xixia must have been a written language based on colloquialisms of the
Mi and, in some cases, of the Minyak that were major ethnic groups
composing the Xixia state. The most convincing evidence for thisassumption is the fact that there are distinctions between level-tone andrising-tone characters. It can be surmised that the written Xixia language
was created based on these colloquialisms owing to the fact that the contrast between the two (level and rising) tones plays a great role in determining how the character is written. I briefly explain how level-tone andrising-tone characters are distinguished according to various conditions.
s (level) andtha (level) and*written Tibetans (rising) interrogative pronoun “who”
WrT* sutha (rising) demonstrative pronoun “it, that” WrT de

The two level-tone characters bear the function of nominative and theother two rising-tone characters the function of oblique. This phenomenon corresponds to that of the Tibeto-Burman languages (e.g.,
Burmese2). I named these characters with similar forms bearing different

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

135

grammatical functions “twin characters” 雙生字. I proposed this in mypaper presented at the Japan-China Joint Writing Culture Conference 日
中合同文字文化研討會 in Shenyang in 1997.3 Among Xixia ideograms aremany twin characters that were created in consideration of close semantic and functional relationships between the twins. Even “double twin
characters” (quadruple characters) were created (e.g., “to acquire” and“to hate”). Some twin characters with different tones bear the contrast
between noun and verb. Examples:?y (level) “saying”
ʁi (level) “boots”ndr (level) “enemy”žu (level) “shackles”?y (rising) “to say”
ʁi (rising) “to put on boots”ndr (rising) “to compete”žu (rising) “to shackle”

There are not a few sets of Xixia-Chinese twin characters in which one
is indigenous words and the other borrowed words. Example:nd (level) “to know”

tši (rising) “to know” (borrowing from Chinese)

The contrast between the tones helps distinguish the difference of meaning as in the following case:ndɔ (level) “snake poison”

ndɔ (rising) “grass poison”

In the Lotus Sutra, the latter is solely used.
Translation of Buddhist Scriptures: Simple Style and Complex Style
With the promulgation of Xixia characters, the written Xixia language
was devised. Soon afterward, Li Yuanhao started the project of translating Buddhist scriptures. This written language would be elaborated on
for the next 200 years, and to that process the translation of Buddhist
scriptures and Chinese classics contributed greatly. There is great variation in the writing style of extant Xixia documents, and so judging thestandard style is difficult. I tentatively classified the documents into two
main groups, which I named “simple style” and “complex style.” The
Huayan jing《華嚴經》(Avataµsaka-sËtra) is a representative of the former and the Lotus Sutra the latter.
On the Preface of the Lotus Sutra
Two kinds of preface of the Xixia version of the Lotus Sutra are extant.
One is the Miaofa lianhua jing hongchuan xu 妙法0華經弘傳序 in the
text from the Morisse collection, which is a very faithful translation of
the Chinese preface to the Song version [of the Chinese text], though nota word-for-word translation. The other is the preface to the text from the

136

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

Kozlov collection, which is an original writing by a Tangut author.
Besides these two, there is the preface [in Chinese] to the Hexi versionof the [Xixia] Lotus Sutra《河西本法華經》, which was not translated into
Xixia.
From the preface to the Kozlov collection text we know the following:(1) In the reign of the Emperor Fengjiaocheng 風2城皇帝 (Li Yuanhao), Xixia characters were created and a great many scriptures weretranslated.
(2) The Lotus Sutra was not included among the Xixia versions of
the scriptures translated in the earliest period.
(3) The Lotus Sutra belongs to the next stage of the translation project.
(4) The Lotus Sutra was translated at the wish of “the present Sacred
Mother and Child” 聖母子 (Empress Dowager and Emperor) who succeeded the throne and believed in Buddhism.
(5) The printing of the Lotus Sutra was soon completed and copies
were distributed in the country.
“The present Sacred Mother and Child” are probably Hui Zong 惠宗and the Empress Dowager, née Liang 皇太后梁氏, whose names accord
with those of the translators at the beginning of the printed edition in the
Kozlov collection (juan 1–8). Roughly speaking, this Lotus Sutra can besupposed to have been translated into Xixia in the middle of the 11th
century (1068–1085),4 as the Empress Dowager died in 1085. As the
Xixia manuscript (juan 6) from the Kozlov collection has the descriptionof “edited by Ren Zong” 仁宗, it must have been copied about the middle of the 12th century, a little later than the edition in the 11th century.
The extant Xixia versions of the Lotus Sutra, both from Morisse andKozlov collections, are retranslations from the Miaofa lianhua jing《妙法0華經》 by Kumåraj¥va 鳩摩羅什 ; they are not translations from the
Tianpin Miaofa lianhua jing《添品妙法0華經》.5
Collation of the Texts and the Characteristics of Morisse’s Text
Future studies of Xixia Buddhist scriptures require, first of all, the collation of the extant texts. Concerning the Lotus Sutra, we need to carryout a detailed collation of Kozlov’s and Morisse’s texts. Morisse’s text is
clearly a copy from a later period. As I have no copy of it at hand, I was
unable to collate them. However, from the notes I had taken previously
it is apparent that there are considerable differences in the transliterationof dhåraˆ¥s. In general, Morisse’s text reflects phonetic changes of
Xixia itself and tries to imitate the original Sanskrit sound (probably inON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

137

reference to Tibetan monks’ readings), thus improving the transliteration. The following are examples of the texts’ characteristics.
thoNlɔˆi(1) Skt. dhåraˆ¥ 陀羅尼 Kozlov’s text
Morisse’s textnda long rarni
While the translated form of the word in Kozlov’s text is a fixed term
appearing in many scriptures, the form in Morisse’s text has an indication of long vowel.
(2) Skt. dharma 達磨
Kozlov’s textthɑmɔ
Morisse’s textndarrma
While the translated form of the word in Kozlov’s text is a fixed term
like in Zen/Chan scriptures, in Morrise’s text a portion of character indicating by -r- is inserted.
(3) In Morisse’s text, each of the final consonants of Sanskrit words,-ŋ -n -k, is described with a Xixia character. Every syllable of the Xixia
language at the time ends with a vowel and final consonants disappear
or are assimilated with the precedent vowel by nasalization. In Morisse’s
text, the final consonant is indicated by one particular character.
羶 shan僧 saµ (gha)目 mukKozlov’s textšı̌aNsəN
mbɔw

Morisse’s textšı̌a-nsa-ŋ
mu-k(4) As the double consonant k∑- in Sanskrit is transliterated into Chinese as one character beginning with the consonant tsh- or kh-, Kozlov’s
text follows the same method. On the other hand, in Morisse’s text two
characters are applied to describe the sound of the original.
k∑a 叉
k∑i 耆

Kozlov’s text
tšha
khi

Morisse’s textkh-šı̌akh-ši

In the same manner, Morisse’s text usestrar for t®- in Sanskrit. The
method of transliteration in Morisse’s text almost accords with that in
the Jinguangming zuishengwang jing《 金 光 明 最 勝 王 經 》 (suvarˆaprabhåsa-sËtra) and Yuan-period wall inscriptions at Juyong-guan. This
indicates that an innovation was undertaken to transliterate Sanskrit
sounds more precisely in the process of Xixia translation.
Incidentally, while Kumåraj¥va 鳩摩羅什 , the translator of the Lotus
Sutra in Chinese, is transliterated askı̌əwmɔlɔšr in both
Kozlov’s and Morisse’s texts, in the preface to Morisse’s text, namely
the “Miaofa lianhua jing hongchuan xu” 妙 法 0華 經 弘 傳 序 (by Tang
Zhongnanshan Shi Daoxuan, 唐 終 南 山 釋 道 宣 述 ), it was rendered as
亀茲沙門 kı̌amalı̌ašilı̌a.

138

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRAOn the Xixia Version of the Lotus Sutra
Though the Xixia version of the Lotus Sutra is a faithful translation of
the Chinese version, it has been rendered nonliterally, in a way appropriate to an understanding of the content. On close observation, one finds
many differences between the Chinese and the Xixia versions. For
example, the Chinese version of “The Life Span of the Thus Come One”
chapter 如来壽量品 (16) of juan 6 has the passage of four characters “導利衆生” ([I have] led and benefited living beings), but it is rendered with
12 characters in the Xixia version.
B[living beings] [have led, taught] [benefit and gain] [have made] [I](I have led [and] taught living beings [and] made [their] benefit and gain.)

The Chinese dao 導 and li 利 are respectively translated into two-syllable
Xixia words, corresponding to the Chinese equivalents daojiao 導教 andliyi 利益. The main verb “make” has a B-stem form and this passage isan agent’s view sentence with a first-person pronominal affix. (To be
discussed in detail later. See pp. 117–118.) Because such sentences are
frequently used, the text is classified as “complex style.” Two prefixes
precede verb stems. One of them may be a superfluous letter.6
Another example is a passage from “Simile and Parable” chapter 譬喩
品 (3) of juan 2:
生受楚毒 死被瓦石(in life undergoing torment and hardship, in death buried beneath tiles and stones)[during life time] [undergoing torment] [on the corpse others do harm](during life time undergoing torment, on the corpse others do harm)Though each version is a four-character two-phrase verse, the Xixia version is described in a different manner from the Chinese and is easier tounderstand than the other. In the same [chapter and] juan, the Chinesephrase 或時致死 (sometimes to the point of death) is translated as(or reaching [the point of] death), which is a case of literal translation.
Besides this, there is another rendering of(or reaching [thepoint of] life), which is a well-considered rendering.
Xixia Translation of Buddhist Terms
The study of Buddhist terms in Xixia has not been undertaken satisfactorily. It is still very much in its infancy. Lexicons equivalent to the
Fanyi mingyi ji《 翻 譯 名 義 集 》 (Mahåvyutpatti) have not been edited.

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

139

Regarding Xixia Buddhist vocabularies, words of literal and nonliteraltranslation from Chinese are dominant, supplemented by those of literaland nonliteral translation from Tibetan. Though the national authority incharge of translation was established, it is surmised that it did not
attempt to standardize translated terms. Therefore, for(shizun 世尊)
is used as a translation from the Chinese version, and(壞有渡bcom-ldan-’das) is used from the Tibetan. For biqiu 比丘,
phikhı̌əw
andnı̌ew-šo (善起 dge-slong) are used respectively. If one sees thetranslated word, it is apparent whether the original text was Chinese or
Tibetan.
However, even if a certain text is a translation from Chinese, the Buddhist terms included are not necessarily standardized. Regarding theterm biqiu 比丘, in the Fo benxing ji jing《佛本行集經》and other scripturesphitšı̌u 2 is used, reflecting a variant pronunciation in Chi?
nese. The word yecha 夜叉 (Skt. yak∑a) is transliterated asyekha?
in the Lotus Sutra; andı̌atsha in the Huayan jing《華嚴經》. (In the?
Fo benxing ji jing,ı̌akha is used. Regarding luocha 羅刹 (Skt.
råk∑asa), in the Fo benxing ji jing it is transliterated asrɑrkha,and in the Lotus Sutra aslɔtšha.) On the other hand, as is thecase of the word rulai 如来, literally translated words from Tibetan
are adopted as fixed terms and commonly used in texts translated from
Chinese. This word is transliterated from yang-dag gsheg-pa, a term thatappears in the old Tibetan translations.7 Though further study isrequired, the translation vocabulary in the Lotus Sutra may be regarded
as one of the standardized terminologies.
Distinction between Common and Buddhist Terms
It can be said that, despite the difficulty of the teachings, expressions in
Buddhist scriptures were translated so as to be understandable to thecommon people, and thus the Xixia version of the Lotus Sutra has somecolloquial forms. The problem is how to distinguish colloquial forms
from others. I would like to assume that the vocabulary registered in the
Fanhan heshi zhangzhong zhu《番漢合時掌中珠》, a collection of XixiaChinese words and phrase examples, is basically colloquial. And it may
be thought that word forms in the Tongyin《同音》lexicon were generally used. I assume that concordance with the vocabularies in these twobooks is a criterion for colloquialism. For example, let me take an example of the word xiedai 懈怠 (Skt. kaus¥dya). The Lotus Sutra’s juan 4(chapter 8) has an example in the passage “雖 小 欲 懈 怠 ” (limited inaspiration, lazy and indolent though [the multitudes are]), which istranslated in Xixia as “
” (slightly lazy and indolent though

140

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA[the multitudes are]). The two last Xixia characterslon- ε areequivalent to the Chinese xiedai 懈怠. The same character form appears
in other parts of the Lotus Sutra, such as chapter 1 (Introduction) and in
the Qifo bapusa tuoluoni jing《七佛八菩薩陀羅尼經》. However, in the Da
Baoji jing《大寶積經》a different form,
lon-li , is used, which is avariant translation of xiedai 懈怠. If one consults with the Fanhan heshi
zhangzhong zhu《番漢合時掌中珠》 and the Tongyin《同音》 lexicon, theentry islon-li , so lon-li may have been regarded as a common
term and colloquial. Thus, lon- ε is assumed to have been a Buddhist
term. (Cf., WrT: snyom-las, le-lo)
When one see names of things like musical instruments, Xixia equivalents for the Chinese jinse 琴瑟, konghou 箜篌 and xiaodi 蕭笛 appearing in the Lotus Sutra are different from those in the Fanhan heshi
zhangzhong zhu. In a nutshell, this case shows that these examples in the
Lotus Sutra do not accord with colloquial forms.
琴瑟
Lotus Sutra
Zhangzhong zhu

(琴)

箜篌

蕭
(鶴琴)

笛
(管)

The word konghou 箜篌 in the Lotus Sutra is translated as the Xixia
equivalent of the Chinese word liuxian 六 絃 in the Fanhan heshi
zhangzhong zhu. This suggests that the translator might have employed
the name of the then-fashionable musical instrument. The Xixia equivalent of the Chinese xiao 蕭 in the Lotus Sutra can be literally translated
as “long flute”; and that of di 笛 as “transverse flute.” However, Xixia
words for konghou 箜篌 and xiaodi 蕭笛 in the Lotus Sutra, juan 6 (chapter 17), are phonetic copies from the Chinese:
蕭笛 (xiaodi)
箜篌 (konghou)səwthikhonxəw

Incidentally, in the Fanhan heshi zhangzhong zhu, xiao 蕭 is interpretedas(parallel flute).
With regard to the seven treasures, the Lotus Sutra and the Fanhan heshi
zhangzhong zhu have same Xixia translations for jin 金 (gold), yin 銀(silver), liuli 瑠 璃 (lapis lazuli), shanhu 珊 瑚 (coral) and hupo 琥 珀(amber), but they are different for manao 瑪瑙 (agate):
Lotus Sutra
Zhangzhong zhu

The Lotus Sutra’s ni k (speckled gem) is a nonliteral translation

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

141

while the Zhangzhong zhu’s ŋ enɔ is a combination of Xixia, ŋ e(horse’s), and a phonetic representation of the Chinese equivalent, nɔ(瑙 nao).
Agent’s View Sentence and Patient-beneficiary’s View Sentence
I would like to explain the two sentence patterns I propose: the agent’sview sentence and the patient-beneficiary’s view sentence. I had longreferred to this idea, and I formally named these sentence patterns in
1998.8 I think that this is not only to a problem concerning sentence patterns of the Lotus Sutra but also an important issue for the progress of
Xixia studies as a whole.
Earlier, I gave an example of the agent’s view sentence (see p. 114),
and will present some examples of the patient-beneficiary’s view sentence:A□[whatever wants] [to me] [give] [saying] (Saying, “Give me whatever wants.”)(Affix pronoun’s corresponding case “to me” is not specified.)A[me] [from the great fear] [make liberate] [me] (Make liberate from the great fear,[make] me [liberate].)(Affix pronoun’s corresponding case “me” is specified.)

Xixia verbs have inflection. A-form (basic stem) and B-form (inflectingstem) verbal stems determine the case, namely the corresponding case,of the affix pronoun that follows at the end of the sentence. Though
there is no other Tibeto-Burman language today that has exactly thesame pattern of corresponding relation as this, an example of one very
proximal has been recently reported. It is the Yelong dialect of the
Tibetan language. The following are examples:q ŋə55 ji55 ai55 -ti33 γdo-ŋ55[I] [him] [strike] [I] (I strike him, I)

w ni55 ji55 ŋo55 γdo-ŋ33[you] [me] [strike] [me] (Affix pronoun’s corresponding case “me” is specified.)

q is a agent’s view sentence while w is a patient-beneficiary’s view
sentence. q and w are distinguished regarding the following two points:
that in q the object has -ti33 attached and in w the object has nothing

142

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

attached; and that in q the tone of the affix pronoun is type 55 and in w
type 33. Though the verbal stems of q and w are now the same form
γdo- (a word derived from the same origin with WrT rdung-pa “tostrike”), I am inclined to think that the Yelong verb might have inflected
as the Xixia.9
The Yelong dialect is exactly a form of Tibetan that lost the distinction between A- and B-forms of verbal stems. Therefore, it can be said
that Xixia represents a stage of development of the Tibeto-Burman languages, as it records the distinction between the two forms of verbal
stems.
Forms of Xixia Verbs
Before the 11th century, Xixia verbs had the same inflection system as
Tibetan (three tenses and one mood). Toward the beginning of the 11th
century, verbal stem forms had disappeared (the estimated percentage isapproximately 20 percent) except for verbs holding A- and B-forms. But
I think it is possible to restore verbal forms of the earlier stages. For
example, it may be surmised that each of the following sets was memberof the respective verbs’ inflections:10
ž andžr “to wash”;
kr andkiə r “to steal”;“to throw away”; ands andsi “to die”ph andphi

Secrets of the Xixia Language behind Xixia Characters
Due to its description in Xixia characters, the morphology of the Xixia
language had long been hidden behind the ideographic enigma. As its
phonetic system has been restored, gradually it has become apparent
that this is a language of many variations. But its real aspects still
remain difficult to grasp. For example,nd?yar “to be tired from”
andndr?yar “to feel weary of” are used in the Lotus Sutra. Eitherof the first syllabic main verbs must be a variant.
Also,dze- “another country” (余 国 ) andtsε- “othercountry” (他 国 ) are examples indicating that the difference between
voiced and voiceless initial consonants bears particular meanings. Thus,
when detailed examination of the Lotus Sutra text is carried out, onewill find that the text addresses many of the problems in Xixia studies
and should be considered extensively.
Notes
This paper is a revised edition of the draft I delivered at the St. Petersburg Branchof the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, on September 18,
1

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

143

2001. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Prof. E. I. Kychanov, [then]director of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Prof. Y. A. Petrosyan, Dr. E. A. Rezvan, Dr. M. I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya and Dr. Yoichi Kawada,
director of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy, Mr. Yoshinori Miyagawa and Ms. Yuko
Sato.
2
See Tatsuo Nishida, “Seika moji shinkØ”「西夏文字新考」 (A New Study of the
Xixia Writing System), TØhØ Gakkai sØritsu gojusshËnen kinen TØhØgaku ronshË 『東方学会創立五十周年記念 東方学論集』(Eastern Studies: Fiftieth Anniversary Volume),
The TØhØ Gakkai, 1997.
3
Nishida, “Seika moji no tokusei—sono moji soshiki no kenkyË”「西夏文字の特性─
その文字組織の研究」(Characteristics of Xixia Scripts—A Study of the Xixia Writing
System),『 日 中 合 同 文 字 文 化 研 討 會 發 表 論 文 集 』 (Collected Papers Presented at theJapan-China Joint Writing Culture Conference), Moji Bunka Kenkyusho 文字文化研究
所 and Liaoning Museum 1寧4物館, 1998.
4
Prof. Shi Jinbo, a Xixia scholar in China, presumes that this Lotus Sutra text wascompleted in 1049–1069, the reign of Yi Zong 毅宗, the second Xixia emperor. (Xixia
Fojiao shilüe《西夏佛教史略》[A Brief History of Xixia Buddhism], 1988). However,regarding the specified name in the printed Xixia edition (juan 2–6) of Daming Huangdi
大明皇帝 as Hui Zong 惠宗, I would presume that this Xixia Lotus Sutra text was completed in the reign of Hui Zong, the third Xixia emperor, and his mother, the Empress
Dowager, née Liang 皇太后梁氏, which roughly falls upon 1068–1085.
5
Regarding Xixia Buddhist scriptures, see Nishida, “Seikago Butten mokuroku hensan jØ no shomondai”「西夏語仏典目録編纂上の諸問題」(Problems of Compiling Catalogues of Xixia Buddhist Scriptures), Introduction, E. I. Kychanov, Katalog Tangutskikh
Buddyiiskikh Pamyatnikov, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, 1999.
6
Afterward, as I found it occurs not a few times, I came to think of this not as asuperfluous letter but a newly revived prefix that indicates direction. See Nishida, “Seikago kenkyË no shin ryØiki”「西夏語研究の新領域」(New Developments in the Studyof Xixia Language), TØhØgaku『東方学』(Eastern Studies), no. 104, 2002.
7
See Nishida’s paper referred to in note 5.
8
Nishida, “Seikago kenkyË zakkØ”「西夏語研究雑考」(A Miscellaneous Study of the
Xixia Language), Seikago kenkyË shinron『西夏語研究新論』(New Studies of the Xixia
Language), ed., Koki Kinen-kai 古稀記念会 (Society for the Commemoration of the 70th
Birthday of Prof T. Nishida), 1998.
9This language is now spoken by 450 persons in Zhoushan qu, Abazhou Jinchuan
xian, Sichuan sheng 四川省阿7州金川縣周山區, and has been authorized as a dialect ofTibetan. My reference to the forms of the Yelong dialect is from Yin Weibin 尹蔚彬,
“Yelong yu gaikuang” 業隆語概況 (Outline of the Yelong Language), Minzu yuwen《民族語文》(Minority Languages of China), 6 qi, 2000.
10
Though many examples of this kind can be found, sufficient consideration isrequired in the future because it is surmised that the regular sound correspondence ofthem may reflect the contrast among tribal languages. (It may lead to the possibility thatthe minute sound distinction referred to as “level 97 rhymes—rising 86 rhymes” 平声97
韻─上声86韻 in Wenhai《文海》and Wenhai zalei《文海雜類》may include the contrast
among tribal languages.)

144

ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

Additional Notes
1. In this paper, I referred to the writing style of the Huayan jing《華嚴經》“simple
style.” Its writing style is not only pseudo-Chinese but also a representative of literaltranslations close to the early word-to-word rendering style. On the other hand, the“complex style” of the Lotus Sutra is much more elaborate, written in an age of development approaching its height. I assume that the style contains ample agent’s view sentences, fully reflecting colloquialism. The written Xixia language had developed remarkably some 30 years after the promulgation of Xixia characters in 1036.
2. Recently, I decided to refer to all tribal colloquialisms before the establishment of
the Xixia language as Tangut (党項羌語 [Dangxiang Qiang yu], 西番語 [Xifan yu] (?)),
and I came to think that Xixia characters were devised to impartially describe the characteristics of each tribe’s language. (See Nishida, Ajia kodai moji no kaidoku『アジア古代文字の解読』 (Deciphering Asia’s Ancient Scripts), ChËkØ Bunko 中公文庫 , B7–20,
2002, fuki 付記 (postscript).
*The Chinese text of Kumåraj¥va’s translation of the Lotus Sutra herein referred to isfrom Yukio Sakamoto and Yutaka Iwamoto, translated and annotated, HokekyØ『法華経』
vols. 1–3, Iwanami Bunko 岩波文庫 and its English translation from Burton Watson,
The Lotus Sutra, Columbia University Press, 1993.
†Xixia characters herein used are the fonts created by the Mojikyo Institute.

Additional Remarks
I recently heard that the Xixia text of the Lotus Sutra once kept at the Staatsbibliothek
zu Berlin had now been lost. If that is the case, it is very regrettable. Fortunately, however, as I have photographs of the beginning portion of each juan of the text formerly
owned by Morisse, I would like to introduce the outline of each (i.e., chapter 1, juan 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).
Before the title of chapter 1 is a four-fold illustration of Buddha’s sermon, on theextreme right of which is written the general title, “Illustrations of the Lotus Sutra of the
Wonderful Law” (妙法蓮華經變相 ), in outline-style Xixia characters. (This form isn't
used in other documents except for chiran mapai 勅燃馬牌, the copper-passes of horserider messengers.)
In the illustration of Buddha’s sermon, the center is occupied by Íåkyamuni Buddha,
and symmetrically arrayed on either side are the Buddhas of the ten directions, the Four
Heavenly Kings and the Eight Dragon Kings. In addition, on the right are Bodhisattva
Mañjußr¥, Bodhisattva Gadgadasvara and kiµnaras, and on the left are Bodhisattva
Samantabhadra, Brahmadevaputra and garu∂as. At the top on the extreme left stands the
Many Treasured Stupa. Attached to each is a label in Xixia characters outlined by a border. Juan 2 and the following juan are each preceded by two-fold drawings, the first foldof which is identical. At the top right of the second folio in juan 2 is a caption that reads,“the second illustration” (第二變相); other juan are labeled “the third illustration” (第三變相) to “the eighth illustration” (第八變相), respectively; each caption is positioned at
the top right of the first fold and outlined by a border (those in juan 4, 7 and 8 have double-line borders).
In chapter 1, after the title, “Introduction to the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law”
(妙法蓮華經序) is written the following [translated literally from Xixia into Chinese by
the present writer]:ON THE XIXIA VERSION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA

145

樞密西攝大恒8院正賜藝広武孝恭敬
東南姓官上國柱王長信 造*

Shumi (primary [government] council [minister]), Xishe, Daheng li yuan (department), Zhengci Yiguang Wuxiao gongjing
dongnan xingguan shangguozhu (status), Wang Changxin (name) madeThe title of each juan is followed by two lines of Xixia characters [translated literally
from Xixia into Chinese by the present writer]:
姚秦三蔵法師
鳩摩羅什
今上皇帝
奉詔
再校正

漢譯

Yao Qin Tripi†aka Dharma Master Kumåraj¥va translated into Chinese,
His Majesty the Present Emperor issued an imperial edict to proofread again
Each juan has an identical format, but there are no clues as to which emperor the“Present Emperor” (Jinshang Huangdi, 今上皇帝) indicates. The date of the production
seems to be during a late period.
*The translation into Chinese follows Shi Jinbo 史 金 波 except for several points
which I revised. Xishe (西攝) is one of Xixia’s six Shumi (枢密; primary [government]
council ministers). The fifth, sixth and seventh characters can be literally translated as“Liben si” (礼本司) or “Ligen si” (礼根司), but the Fanhan heshi zhangzhong zhu《番漢合時掌中珠》gives the translation of “Daheng li yuan” (大恒8院), which I have adopted.
The Daheng li yuan is listed as one of the four Zhongdeng si (中等司 , middle-classdepartments) in the Tiansheng jiugai xinding lüling《天盛舊改新定律令》 juan 10, but
the details about what kind of office this was are unclear. Shi Jinbo translates this as“Dianli si” (典礼司, ceremony department), which I do not adopt as it is uncertain. 《西(夏佛教史》 p. 236). It corresponds to the rank described as “(Wen) Wugong dongnan
xingguan shangguozhu” ((文)武恭東南姓官上国柱) in the Guanje fenghao biao (官階封號表, official rank list) of the Xixia state. (See 史金波 “西夏文《官階封號表》考釋” p. 262;
《中國民族古文字研究》(第三輯), 天津古籍出版社, 1991).
Though Shi Jinbo reads the name appearing at the end as “Wang Puxin” (旺普信), I
revise it as “Wang Changxin made” (王長信 造). The second character is not phı̌u(上声三韻) but
rzir (上声七十二韻). Incidentally, according to the Tiansheng jiugai
xinding lüling《天盛舊改新定律令》, there were five classifications of official rank in the
Xixia state during the Tiansheng era (天盛年間): Shangdeng (上等, first class), Cideng(次等 , second class), Zhongdeng (中等 , middle class), Xiadeng (下等 , low class) andModeng (末等, lowest class); and Shumi (樞密) belonged to the first-class departments
and Daheng li yuan (大恒8院) to the middle-class departments. (史金波、聶鴻音、白浜譯注《中華傳世法典〈天盛改舊新定律令〉》北京・法律出版社, 2000).