1

History of Tangut Buddhism1

K. Solonin (Renmin University of China) Hou Haoran (Tsinghua University)

Methodological Considerations

Composing an encyclopedia entry on the Tangut history is an arduous endeavor since the
established facts are scarce, and many conclusions belong to the realm of hypothesis and guesswork,
better or worse informed. Therefore, a few words on our methodology are due. Although scholarship
agrees on the existence of two mainstreams in Tangut Buddhism, represented by the texts of Sinitic and
Tibetan origin or subject matter, we consider Tangut Buddhism as a coherent system, incorporating
elements of various provenances into a complex, which we label “Sino-Tibetan Buddhism” (Solonin,
2022a, in print). During nearly two hundred years of its history Tangut state, known as the Western Xia
(西夏) or the Great State of White and High (大白高國) created a Buddhist tradition, crucial for the
development of Buddhism in East Asia. Its understanding is imperative for the research of both Sinitic
and Tibetan Buddhism during the 11-14 centuries.
Despite the obvious importance of Buddhism for the history of the Tangut state, writing the history
of Tangut Buddhism is complicated by the absence of a comprehensive narrative covering the process
of Buddhadharma transmission among the Tangut population. Although Tangut clergy had a concept of
the “Dharma transmission” chos ’byung or “transmission of the Lamp” chuan deng 傳燈 and
composed at least one exposition on the spread of the “True Teaching”, only its title and one quotation
from it are known so far (Solonin, 2021: 1-8). Chinese Buddhist histories of the Yuan-Ming periods
mention the Western Xia only occasionally, and generally reproduce the records from the “standard
histories”, whereas Tibetan materials, although more numerous and informative, are composed of
varying “sectarian” perspectives. Therefore they deal with specific tantric transmissions and activities
of individual masters in Xixia，and thus provide only glimpses of knowledge.
The absence of a historical narrative dictates scholarly attempts to extract historical information
from the texts, which originally were not intended to provide it. One has to search both canonical and
extra-canonical texts to obtain fragments of historical data (e.g., Dunnell 2009: 41-78). The main
sources for “extraction” of historical data are the indexes and translations of the colophons to the
publications of the Buddhist texts included into the Catalog of the Tangut Buddhist Texts from the
Collection of IOM RAS (Kychanov, 1999), or published within the Brief History of Tangut Buddhism
by Shi Jinbo (Shi 1988). Kychanov’s Catalog is in many respects a continuation of the preliminary list
of texts composed by Nishida Tatsuo (Nishida 1975-77). Colophons, votive paragraphs, and prefaces to
the Buddhist texts are generic in terms of their subject matter and concentrate on the matters of
publications and distribution of the texts and merits generated thereby.
Turning to contents of the texts themselves, one observes that texts of Tibetan origin or subject
matter include transmission lineages for tantric instructions or doctrinal teachings with the names of
Indian and Tibetan holders of specific traditions. Some of the lineage records extend as late as the
Tangut period, allowing certain historical observations. Parts of this heritage are available in both
Tangut and Chinese within the Yuan-Ming compilation Dacheng Yaodao miji 大乘要道密集 and as
separate texts discovered in Khara-Khoto and elsewhere (Shen and Hou 2016; Shen 2020: 265-309).
However, most information is in Tangut. The nature of the texts belonging to the Sinitic register of
Tangut is such, that the texts do not contain information on the translators, or notes on transmission.
Therefore, while the evolution of Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia can be reconstructed at least in its most
generalized form, the history of Sinitic Buddhism among the Tanguts resists systematic scrutiny.
Generally, scholarship has a limited chance of reconstructing the course of events (i.e. Buddhist
travels, pilgrimages, construction of temples, etc.) in Tangut Buddhist history, but has an opportunity to
identify basic tendencies in the development of Buddhism in Xixia. That is, although the factual side
might remain obscure until new texts are recovered, the scholarship can reconstruct evolution and
dissemination of doctrines and instruction lineages imported from both the Central Plains and Tibet, or
of the ones transmitted locally. These tendencies are represented by the texts, which should be thus

For the sake of expedience we chose not to include Tangut characters into this chapter. This would not add
anything to the contents, but would considerably complicate typographic process.
 2

considered not from the perspective of historical information which they might or might not contain,
but in their entirety, including their doctrinal subject matter, affiliation with parental traditions, etc.
That is, the history of juxtaposed against their parental traditions, which might further reveal the
features Tangut Buddhism held in common with the major traditions of Sinitic and Tibetan Buddhism,
and indicate independent developments of Buddhism in Xixia. Thus, considering the texts in their
entirety, and the combination of both “historical data” in the colophons, prefaces, votive paragraphs,
etc., with actual subject matter of the texts, is a more correct and comprehensive approach, returning
more substantial research output.
This further means that Tangut Buddhist history can only be understood from the perspective of
both major traditions of East Asian Buddhism, i.e., Sinitic and Tibetan. As soon as Tangut Buddhist
texts are located within a broader historical framework, their historical significance will be revealed,
and the history of Tangut Buddhism will be adequately presented to the extent allowed by the sources.
Therefore, it will be correct to assume that the history of Tangut Buddhism is the history of textual
transmission and production, and is in many respects a philological rather than purely historical
endeavor.

State of the Field

The scholarly study of Tangut language and culture began as the research into the Tangut Buddhist
monuments, including the famous stele commemorating the restoration of the Gantong Stūpa from the
State Protection Monastery in Liangzhou 重修涼州護國寺感通塔銘, (Deveria 1899; Dunnell 1996;
Keping 1998; reproduction of the text: Li 2005) and the study of the Jüyongguan 居庸关 inscription,
initiated by E. Chavannes. This was later followed by the publication of the Tangut text of the Lotus
Sūtra by M. G. Morisse (Morisse 1902). The study of Tangut texts was further continued by N. A.
Nevskij (1892-1937), Wang Jingru 王静如, (1903-1990), and other scholars. In a series of papers
written during the 1930-s, Nevskij was able to establish the existence of Tibetan and Sinitic registers in
Tangut Buddhist corpus, identified the Tangut versions of the names of several Indian and Tibetan
masters, discussed certain aspects of Buddhist faith in Xixia (Nevskij 1960, vol.1: 52-139). Wang
Jingru discovered that Tangut versions of Buddhist texts, previously believed to be have been based on
Chinese originals, in fact, depend on Tibetan versions, discussed the nature of the Tangut Buddhist
Canon and continuity of Tangut Buddhism during the Yuan. Wang suggested that elements of the Tang
Buddhism survived in Xixia, provided translations of a series of colophons to the Buddhist texts (Wang
1932, vol. 1: 1-15; 181-251; 265-275).
During the 1970-s the study of the Tangut history remained within research focus of Nishida Tatsuo
西田龍雄 (1928-2012), who included historical observations into his study of the Tangut version of
the Avataṃsaka sūtra. Nishida 1999 is a further development of his research, including new materials
on Tibetan Buddhist texts in Xixia with attempted translations. Nishida concluded that Tangut Buddhist
complex consisted on Sinitic and Tibetan constituents, the latter became dominant during the last years
of Xixia. At the same time, there were substantial Sinitic elements in the Tangut Buddhist corpus,
including materials pertaining to Chan Buddhism. Nishida observed that translations of basic
Mahāyāna scriptures were based on the Chinese versions, and the initial translations had been
completed during the reign of Xixia Huizong Bingchang 惠宗秉常（1061-1086）, i.e. at the end of 11th
century. The later period saw revisions of earlier translations, which continued throughout the last years
of Xixia, and included adaptation of new transcription principles for Sanskrit mantras, which reflected
growing familiarity with Tibetan (probably Sanskrit materials) and changes in Tangut phonology.
Nishida continued this line of research in his final studies of the Tangut Lotus sūtra (Nishida 2012：
189-98 et passim), where he compared old and new versions of the Tangut translation of the text and
determined some editorial principles employed therein. Nishida’s observations were accepted by Shi
Jinbo 史金波, who published his Brief History of Tangut Buddhism in 1988. In this work, Shi utilized
all Buddhist materials available at the moment, and attempted a systematic survey of Tangut Buddhism.
Shi concentrated on the process of translation, temple building, study of colophons and prefaces to the
Tangut Buddhist publications and the history of the publication of Tangut Buddhist Canon as well as
the Tangut Buddhist art. Discussing the subject matter of Tangut Buddhism, Shi concentrated on Sinitic
texts and applied traditional division into “schools” zong 宗. This created an impression that Buddhism
in Xixia was a replica of Sinitic Buddhism. Notwithstanding the invalidity of such an approach, Shi
was able to present a systematic survey of Tangut Buddhism, which retains some importance until now.
Publication of the Ecang Heishui cheng wenxian 俄藏黑水城文獻 initiated in 1996 facilitated the
research into Tangut Buddhism. However, the research generally concentrated on parallel readings of
 3

Tangut and Chinese texts, which returned a tremendous amount of scholarly publications of varying
quality, whereas historical issues per se remained somewhat neglected. However, certain advances have
been made in the study of the “imperial preceptor” dishi 帝師, hybrid Buddhist vocabulary (Nie 2012:
240-56), the value of Sanskrit transcriptions as dating tools for Tangut texts (Sun, 2010). Problems
pertaining to Huayan Buddhism in Xixia were discussed in Solonin 2007 and Solonin 2005 (Solonin
2005: 57-104), which have demonstrated the Huayan connection of Tangut Buddhism. These early
publications established the domination of Huayan Chan Buddhism in version of Guifeng Zongmi 圭
峰宗密 （780-841）in Tangut Buddhism (Solonin 2022b in print; Arakawa 2015). Reasons for such a
situation remained unknown until Tangut translations of the works by the Liao Buddhist masters
Yuantong Daochen 圓通道㲀 （1056？-1114？）and Tongli Hengce 通理恆策 (1048—1098) were
identified in the Tangut collections (Solonin 2012: 137-187; Solonin 2020b: 249-360). Together with
several other compositions of possible Liao origin, these works constitute one coherent circle of
Huayan works in Tangut (Solonin 2013: 171-219). Alternative hypothesis tends to connect certain
aspects of Sinitic Buddhism in Khara-Khoto with the White Cloud sect 白雲宗 （Sun 2019: 176-186;
Sun 2011.2: 146-157）. Thus the dates for the spread of Huayan Buddhism in Xixia are postponed to the
period after the demise of Xixia. We generally treat this particular hypothesis as unsubstantiated,
whereas the connection of Tangut Buddhism with the White Cloud sect, in general, is accepted, but
probably was of an earlier origin. In general, during the last decade, the scholarship was able to
establish that the basis for the Tangut translation of the Huayan and Huayan Chan texts were the
publications from the Northern Song, datable to the late 11th century (Nie and Sun 2018), whereas some
compositions represent local developments of the Tangut Buddhism, or Buddhism of Northern China
from the 11th-12th centuries (Solonin 2022b, in print).
During the last decades’ research on the Tibetan register of Tangut Buddhism yielded some
important results. A close study of the Chinese texts from Khara-Khoto revealed the proximity of their
subject matter with the so-called “Six Yogas of Nāropa” (Shen 2021: 181-96). Further research lead to
an increase of the number of such texts, available in both Tangut and Chinese, and demonstrated the
substantial presence of esoteric instructions generally associated with the Bka’ brgyud transmissions
(Shen 2020: 265-283; Solonin 2022c, in print; a collection of the texts in Sun and Nie 2018). Parts of
this plethora of texts exist in both Chinese and Tangut versions. In general, Tangut texts are more
numerous, and from a subjective perspective are better translated than the Chinese versions. Certain
peculiarities in the “separative errors” in the Chinese and Tangut texts allow suggesting that the
Chinese texts might be translations from Tangut, but the evidence is scarce (Yu 2022, in print). Many
compositions pertaining to the Mahāmudrā cycle are discovered in the Yuan Ming compilation
Dacheng Yaodao Miji 大乘要道密集 (Solonin 2013: 236-243; Shen and Hou 2016: 326-403; Sun and
Nie 2018). While the Mahāmudrā instructions discovered in the Dacheng Yaodao Miji generally
originate from Maitrīpa lineage, their more direct source was the instructions of Sgam po pa Bsod nams
Rin chen (1079-1153), as becomes obvious a closer research into the Tangut and relevant Tibetan texts.
Fragments of Gampopa instructions as well as an early version of his biography were identified within
the Tangut collections (Yang Jie 2020: 54-63 ； Solonin 2022c; Du and Sun 2021: 366-372).
Simultaneously, scholarship identified an independent Mahāmudrā lineage, originating from a Tangut
State Preceptor Dehui 德慧 . Despite claiming origin from Maitrīpa, the subject matter of the
Mahāmudrā instructions transmitted by Dehui is independent from the one represented in the texts
associated with Gampopa, and reveals a substantial degree of sinification, especially in the commentary
tradition (Solonin 2009; Solonin 2020b: 135-42). Parallel studies have indicated that other tantric
transmission lineages, including both the texts and related commentaries to and sādhanas of the
Hevajra tantra, Saṃpuṭa tantra, and Vajrapañjara tantra are traceable to the instruction lineage of
Marpa Chokyi Lodro through the mediation of Rngog Chos rdor (1036—1102), his son Zhe sdang Rdo
rje and relatively obscure lineage of Ram Klu gong (d. u.; Hou 2017: 355-76; Solonin 2022a). The
latter is well represented among the Tangut materials, whereas is almost obsolete in mainstream
Tibetan Buddhism. That is, these lineages again demonstrate affiliation with various Tibetan
transmissions which can be brought together under the rubric of Bka’ brgyud. Finally, the scholarship
was able to identify several important groups of texts, gravitating around the Satyadvayāvatāra by
Atiśa (Solonin 2015b: 425-51; Solonin and Liu 2017: 121-62) and another group of “valid cognition”
compositions (Ma 2021: 779-825). Finally, the scholarship was able to determine the substantial
presence of the texts associated with the period of “early translations” in Tibetan Buddhism: Tangut
translations of the five early of the sems phyogs (mind class) Rdzogs chen tantras were identified in the
Tangut collections. The translations of the root texts are accompanied by a systematic set of
commentaries, “exposition of tenets” (grub mtha’), and a historical narrative (Solonin and Yu
 4

2020:173-89).
Studies of the translation techniques and transmission of texts in Tangut have not advanced much
further during the last decade and continue to remain on the “parallel reading” phase. However, the
new generation of scholars will develop this field further. At this moment, scholarship has established
that some basic texts, such as Mañjuśrīnāmasamgīti and Bodhicaryāvatāra circulated in at least two
Tangut translations (Zhang 2022 in print; Solonin and Xie 2021: 2-12). Tangut translations demonstrate
complex relationships between each other and the available Tibetan translations and Sanskrit originals.
The same is true for the Chinese translation of the Mañjuśrīnāmasamgīti. This further allows separating
the texts into genetically connected clusters, which reflect peculiarities of the transmission of these
texts in Xixia. However, if these clusters are genetically related, remains a problem for further research.
Similarly, for Sinitic Buddhism: texts of shared subject matter demonstrate varying vocabulary for
translating similar terms. This allows suggesting that despite the texts can be grouped according to their
subject matter, they are genetically unrelated, and their pathways into Xixia might have been different
(Solonin 2022c, in print). The above observations need further elaboration and interpretation from a
historical perspective. Thus, they can only be accepted only as a working hypothesis.
Currently, the scholarship possesses a relatively clear understanding of the nature of the Tangut
collections, the repertoire of surviving texts, and was able to arrange the texts into several clusters, as
presented above. However, the aforementioned textual repertoire as reconstructed by the scholarship
represents a synchronic picture of Tangut Buddhism from the latter half of the 12th and early 13th
centuries. This means, that there is little possibility to trace the inner dynamics of the evolution of
Tangut Buddhism. In general, the history of Tangut Buddhism as of chain of events cannot be
reconstructed based on available materials. At the same time, the texts provide the basis for tracing
several textual trajectories within the plethora of Tangut Buddhist texts. These trajectories can currently
be equated with the history of Tangut Buddhism.

Early Spread of Buddhism among the Tanguts, Buddhist Translations

The area around Helan 賀蘭 mountains, where elements of the dangxiang 党項 tribes were
resettled by the mid-8th century, had an established Buddhist tradition. Famous Chan master Baotang
Wuzhu 保唐無住 (713-774) was known to have practiced there, and there are indications that the
“sudden Dharma” of Bodhidharma was known in the area (Solonin 2022a). This implies a possibility of
early familiarity with some form of Buddhism from the local Chinese population. However, the current
state of research reveals no indications of the continuity of the Tang Chan Buddhism in Xixia.
A further expanse of the Tangut tribes westward brought them within the vicinity of Liangzhou 涼
州 (modern Wuwei，武威, Gansu province), an ancient Buddhist center on the Silk Road. By the
10-11th centuries the Liangzhou area contained a noticeable Tibetan-speaking population, which is
known to have professed Buddhism. Around 1047, Dunhuang 敦煌 was captured, while Shazhou 沙
洲 and Ganzhou 甘州, i.e., the domains of West Uighurs, had been incorporated into the Tangut realm
a little earlier. Further expanse westward towards Qinghai lake brought Tanguts into direct contact with
the Mdo smad area (modern Qinghai province 青海) sometime around the 1130s. Growing activities
on the Tangut western border attested in the Tangut legislation, involved, among other things, travels of
Buddhist monks to and from Xixia.
Available sources are unanimous in declaring Eastern Tibetan tribes from Hexi 河西 as Buddhist.
Domination of Buddhism in Eastern Tibet is reflected in the political structure of the Tibetan tribes in
the area, which sometimes were headed by Buddhist monks, or claimed Buddhist legitimation. Their
largest confederation finally defeated by the Tanguts, was headed by Gusiluo 唃厮羅, i.e., rgyal sras,
translated as “the son of Buddha”. However, the Chinese sources remain silent about the nature of the
Buddhist faith shared by Tibetans in Hexi (Iwasaki, 1998: 17-37). Buddhist centers at Dunhuang,
Liangzhou, and Mt. Wutai 五台山 located in the Northern Song 北宋 domain, necessarily influenced
the Tanguts, but the exact degree of these impacts is hard to document. We know of a replica of Mt.
Wutai constructed by the third (actually first) Tangut emperor Jingzong 景宗（Li Yuanhao 李元昊
1003-1048） in the Helan shan area (Shi 1988: 118), but the essence of this endeavor was probably
political, intended to imitate the construction of the Northern Mt. Wutai by the Liao dynasty. From the
early days of their statehood, the Tanguts shared reverence towards Mt. Wutai, and the Tangut official
petitions for pilgrimage are well attested in the historical records. The Song authorities remained
reluctant about the nature of the Tangut pilgrimages to Mt. Wutai, suspecting these to be military
reconnaissance missions.
Further north from the Tangut realm, the Great Kitan state, or the Great Liao 大遼 controlled vast
 5

areas with both Han and non-Han populations. Tanguts had broad relations with the Liao state, which
included cultural and religious exchange. The Liao influence on Tangut Buddhism is one of few
documented cases in the history of Tangut Buddhism. However, documented Buddhist exchange
between the Liao and Xixia did not occur until the late 11th century, and probably even later.
Chinese sources on Tanguts generally agree that Tangut ruling elite including the third Tangut
emperor Yuanhao and his father Deming 德明 (981-1032) shared some kind of Buddhist faith even
before the Tangut state was proclaimed in 1048. The early spread of Buddhism among the Tangut elite
is well documented by the surviving Tangut epigraphy, devoted to the temple building, śarira cult, etc.
(Solonin 2020: 129-35) Necessity to translate Buddhist sūtras was probably one of the reasons behind
the invention of the Tangut script: actual prefaces and colophons to the Tangut publications of the
Buddhist scriptures that the translation project was initiated by the “Wind-Horn Emperor” 風角皇帝,
who is identified with Yuanhao (Solonin 2020: 136-138).
Tangut lexicography also indicates that the Buddhist teachings were crucial among the “genres” of
Tangut literature, and “written signs” were believed one of the major media to transmit Buddhist
heritage (Solonin 2020: 129-35). The translation project continued through the successive reigns of
Yizong Liangzuo 毅宗諒祚(1047-1068) and Huizong Bingchang 惠宗秉常 （1061-1086）and
Chongzong Qianshun 崇宗乾順 (1086-1139). The scriptural basis of the emerging Tangut Buddhist
Canon attested in some capacity during the reign of Chongzong Qianshun 崇宗乾順（Kychanov 1999:
45）was formed by the versions of the scriptures imported from the Northern Song (Wang Jingru 1932:
12-3). Tangut texts confirm that during the period from 1038 to 1090 the number of translated
scriptures reached 3579 juan (Shi 1988: 321-2). The first mention of the Buddhist Canon in Tangut
language belongs to the reign of Chongzong: a new translation of the Chang Ahan jing 長阿含經 was
added to the already existing “Great Collection of the Scriptures in the Fan Language” by empress
Liang, mother of the ruling emperor (Kychanov 1999: 47). Initial translations included basic Mahāyāna
scriptures and ritual compositions, which were later added by the translations of Tibetan works,
including several Prajñāpāramitā works, texts on “valid cognition”, works by Atiśa, Śāntideva, and
Jitāri, as well as series of tantric commentaries, Mahāmudrā instructions and esoteric sādhanas (Solonin
2015: 844-59). Sinitic Buddhism was represented by the texts of Huayan Buddhism, Pure Land etc.
During the long reign of Renzong Renxiao 仁宗仁孝 （1139-1193, also known as Hucheng
huangdi 護城皇帝）new translations of canonical scriptures continued to emerge, but the focus shifted
to a revision of earlier translations. Most of the surviving textual material belongs to the “new
translations”, however in certain cases both “old” and “new versions”, allowing a comparison between
the texts (e.g. Nishida 2012: 189-199; 307-335). Research indicates that translation practices were
standardized from the beginning, therefore there is little lexical or grammatical variation in the
translations of the basic scriptures, whereas the compositions belonging to various “schools” of
Buddhism were translated independently, and include alternative versions of translation of standard
terms and phrases (Solonin 2022c, in print). The early translations were based on the Chinese texts;
therefore the Tangut translations of the dhāraṇī and mantras were in fact the Tangut transcriptions of
the Chinese transcriptions. During Renzong period new techniques, including a combination of
characters to render consonant clusters, specific signs for consonant endings, and final nasals were
developed. The transcriptions in the “new” versions of the texts reflected also the changes in Tangut
phonetics, e.g. merger of voiced and unvoiced consonants, drop of nasal endings, etc. (Sun 2010)
Revisions in syntax and vocabulary are less numerous. In some cases, the principles of revisions
remain unclear. Scholarship again suggests that the “revision” project was triggered by the inflow of
the Tibetan texts which followed the expanse of the Tangut westward in the Amdo area, but again there
are no specific textual indications to this effect. However, one obvious reason for bringing of the
transcriptions closer to actual Sanskrit sounds is the arrival of a Kashmiri Paṇḍita Jayānanda with the
retinue of Tibetan disciples in 1140-s. Another instance is the arrival of another Indian translator
Sumatikīrti into Xixia sometime in the late 11th century (Wei 2013: 317-8). Revisions of the basic
scriptures chronologically coincided with the publications of the Tangut lexicographical works, editions
of Tangut poetry, revisions of the Tangut law, etc., implying that the revisions of the sūtras were not an
independent process, but a part of a broader project of codifying Tangut written heritage in general.
As far as the scholarship is aware, the principles of translation were never clearly formulated by the
Tangut clergy. The introduction of Tibetan materials in the mid-11th century resulted in the emergence
of new vocabulary adapted to the render Tibetan terminology. This resulted in the emergence of
alternative translations for the same Sanskrit term: one based on the Sinitic, and the other based on the
Tibetan version of the term. Certain number of backformations, combining elements of Tibetan and
Sinitic terminology is also observable in Tangut Buddhist vocabulary (Nie 2012: 253-6; Nishida 2012:
 6

210-20). Such philological evidence should be treated as an indication of a historical tendency to

converge Sinitic and Tibetan Buddhism into a coherent whole, which might be labeled as “Sino-Tibetan”
Buddhism.
Texts specify that the collation was based on the comparison between the “Northern and Southern
sūtras”. Here the “Southern sūtras” probably imply Kaibao zang 開寶藏 edition, whereas “Northern”
indicates the Liao zang 遼藏，but there are no specific textual indications to this effect. Most of the
Chinese texts available in the Tangut collections are of local production, whereas traces of the Kaibao
zang have not yet been identified. Unlike the case of Western Uighurs, there are no indications of
circulation of the Liao zang in Xixia. At the same time, some available Chinese texts from
Khara-Khoto contain specific Liao variant characters. The collation of various versions of the sūtras
included not only a comparison of the Tangut translations, but also implies extensive use of other
textual evidence, including various versions of texts in various editions of the canon, exegetical works,
and original Indian texts, where available (Solonin 2015: 846-848). To further complicate the situation,
many engravings on the front pages of the Tangut editions are traceable to the Southern Song
publications (Huang Shishan 2014: 129-82).
The translation and collation work culminated in the publication of the Newly Translated Tripiṭaka
of the Great State of White and High (Solonin 2020: 136-7), the timeline for it remains unspecified.
After the collapse of the Tangut state, the publication of Buddhist texts in Tangut was continued by the
monks of Tangut descent, occupying various posts in the Yuan Buddhist administration. The
publication was completed in Zhiyuan 7 至元（1271）in the Wanshou si 萬壽寺 in Hangzhou by
senglu 僧錄 Guanzhuba 管主八 (d.u.)， a monk of Tangut background. Several Buddhist compositions
important for Tangut Buddhism were published independently by Chan master Li Huiyue 李慧月,
another Yuan monk of the Tangut descent during the Yuan. Scholarship tends to connect these
publications with the Chinese Puning Tripiṭaka 普寧藏 (Wang Jingru 1931: 8-9) . The above indicates
that the spread of Buddhism through translation and publication was one of the major tendencies in the
Tangut culture, and its continuity did not cease with the collapse of the Tangut state in 1227.

Buddhism and State in Xixia

Legal regulations for monastic communities. Xixia Buddhism was a multidimensional

phenomenon. According to Tangut native sources, “the Teaching of Buddha” was in a complementary
relationship with the “Teaching (law) of the Kings” (Solonin 2020: 126-9). Buddhism functioned as
one of the constituents of the so-called “Tangut institutions” (fanli 番禮), which were complementary
with the “Han rituals” (Hanyi 漢儀) as the sources of Tangut identity (Solonin 2020: 135-8). In general,
one can speculate that Buddhism was one of the sources of legitimation for the Tangut state. Thus, one
of the functions of Buddhism was the “protection of the state”. Ritual activities included stūpa worship
and the cult of śarira, as well as the “recitation of the Great Collection of Scriptures”, as is mentioned
in the Ganying stele text and monuments of Tangut epigraphy. The importance of Buddhism for the
state, as well as economic privileges granted to the Buddhist communities, dictated the necessity of
official state control over the activities of the saṁgha, including the procedure of monastic ordination
and actual qualifications of clergy (Kychanov 2010: 173-4). Thus, the Tangut Tiansheng Law Code
promulgated in the mid-12th century, enforced regulations on monastic life and activities, including
registration of monks, monastic travels, change of residential monasteries, etc. Unauthorized
missionary activities had also been forbidden (Kychanov 2010: 174). Articles involving Buddhist
matters amount to over 20 in various chapters of the Tiansheng Law Code (An 2016: 21-2) and the
so-called New Laws. As mentioned before (Solonin 2015: 848-9), Tangut law prescribed texts for the
recitation by the Buddhist communities, as well as categories of Buddhist learning mandatory for the
monastic promotion (Solonin 2015: 848), which included “Prajñā”, “Middle Way”, “Vijñānavāda”,
“Hundred Dharmas”, “Huayan”, “Awakening of Faith ”. This stipulation was intended to secure that
the clergy, especially promoted to higher positions in the hierarchy was qualified to perform ritual
duties and preach the teaching. The list of texts prescribed for monastic study by the Tangut law is
representative of the “state protection” function of Tangut Buddhism (Solonin 2015: 848-9). The exact
meaning of the categories specified by the Tangut law is not exactly clear. However, parts of the
existing Tangut textual repertoire can be distributed among these rubrics, although not necessarily in
the manner implied by the Tangut legislators.
Tangut law contained stipulations concerning the hierarchy of the Buddhist masters, recognized by
the state. The hierarchy was headed by the “State Preceptor” (guoshi 國師), whose position ranked
among the officials of the “supreme” (shang pin 上品) rank. The institution of the “Imperial Preceptor”
 7

( dishi 帝師) was probably an extraordinary position outside the Tangut official system (Nie 2012:
250-1), and thus unrelated to the Yuan dynasty “Imperial Preceptor”, who was endowed with a seal of
office. Despite being an extraordinary office, “Imperial Preceptor” enjoyed high prestige in Xixia, and
had a temple assigned to him (Kychanov 2013: 227).
The highest offices for Buddhist administration in Xixia were two “Offices of Virtue” (gongde si
功德司)， headed by “directors” (zheng 正, this office was probably occupied by the “State
Preceptors”) and their deputies (fu 副). The agencies included several other minor officials. “Offices of
Virtue” ranked second in the Tangut administrative system, indicative of their high prestige. Tangut
legislation discriminated between “Office of Merit and Virtue for the saṁgha” (sengzhong gongde si
僧眾功德司) and “Office of Merit and Virtue for those who abandon their families” (chujia gongde si
出家功德司). However, the difference between the two agencies is not clear from the sources,
especially given that the law sometimes mentions “Office of Merit and Virtue for those who stay in
their families” (zaijia gongde si 在家功德司；Shi 1988: 151). This division of offices might be
connected with the well attested fact that some Xixia monks retained their secular surnames (“stayed in
family”), while others did not. Publications of the texts do not fail to mention that the translator or
“transmitter” of a certain text hold a post in one of these agencies. The procedure of monastic
ordination was under the state control and included a background check on the applicant, in terms of
his/ her previous behavior and presence of a criminal record. This was accompanied by an examination
in Buddhist matters, including the ability of an applicant to pronounce sounds of Sanskrit. Those
seeking monastic promotion were also supposed to be in full command of “phonology” (yinyun 音韻)
as well as with one of the categories of Buddhist learning specified by the law. So far, there are no
indications as to which vinaya lineage was preferred for the monastic ordination: Tangut texts seem to
indicate in the direction of the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, whereas Chinese texts are related to the
Dharmaguptaka vinaya. Surviving texts of the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya are translations from Chinese,
therefore there is little possibility to distribute vinaya orders between Tibetan and Sinitic mainstreams
of Tangut Buddhism.
Tangut legislation originally recognized two types of monastic communities, depending on the
language affiliation: i.e. Chinese and Tangut-Tibetan speaking communities. Later the
“Tanguto-Tibetan communities” disappear from the legal regulations. Tangut New Laws only mention
Tanguto-Chinese, Chinese, and Tibetan communities in this stead (Kychanov 2013: 227-8).
Considering proximity between the lists of texts determined by the law for mandatory study by both
Chinese and Tanguto-Tibetan communities, one can suggest that the division reflected the linguistic
distribution of the Xixia population and not the doctrinal deviations between Tibetan and Sinitic
Buddhism (Solonin 2015: 849).
Temple Economy. The economic basis of the Tangut Buddhist community was guaranteed by
continuing state support, and private donations, as well as by the revenue generated through the
provision of religious services and economic activities of monasteries themselves. Generally,
monasteries were provided with land grants by the state, together with the so-called “permanently
living” (chang zhu 常住) families. During the early period of Xixia, both peasant and nomadic
families assigned to monasteries were exempt from state taxation. This practice was abandoned in the
mid-12th century, following the increase in the arable lands donated to the temples. According to the
Tangut accounts monasteries Huguo si 護國寺 and Shengrong si 聖容寺 possessed over 835 mu of
arable land. Although probably only two thirds of land was taxed, Huguo si provided 584950 copper
coins (qian 錢) in tax payments (Kychanov 2010: 175). The New Laws contain detailed information
about the size of the arable land granted to the several temples and the number of tax payments due
from these lands (Kychanov 2013: 224-5). Law indicated that monasteries remained partially exempt
from the taxation system, and enjoyed lower taxation rates, determined by imperial decrees (Kychanov
2013: 227). Alongside this, the monks and monasteries were actively involved in the land trade and
provided interest loans for the local population (Cui 2008: 99-103), and in horse trade along the
western border. Property of the monastic institutions was under legal protection but also was subject to
state supervision, especially metal objects. However, elements of monastic property of religious
purport (e.g. Dharma utensils, images, etc.) were protected from rekindling into copper money
(Kychanov 2013: 134).
Official and Popular Buddhism. Publication of Buddhist texts was generally under the state
supervision, therefore the majority of the texts published as woodblocks are of government issue,
published and distributed for the occasions of nationwide Dharma assemblies organized by the
authorities several times throughout the 11-12th centuries. Although there are attempts to distribute
Tangut printed Buddhist materials among the categories of “official and private publications” as well as
 8

publications sponsored by monasteries and temples (Nishida 2012: 379-96), criteria for such
classification remain arbitrary. Publication of a standardized Tangut Tripiṭaka must have been an
official enterprise, whereas we can only speculate on the nature of the printed texts in our collections:
while some of the texts belong to the official publications distributed by the imperial court, others
might as well have been published through a variety of alternative venues. The names of temples
mentioned in the colophons to the publications (such as Dadu min si 大度民寺，Xiansheng wuming
jingshe 顯生五明精舍) are generally interpreted as the indications of affiliation of the translators, and
not as places of actual publications.
The doctrinal rubrics from the Tiansheng Law Code do not fully cover the existing plethora of
Tangut Buddhist texts. This leads to a suggestion that Tangut Buddhism performed in two capacities:
the so-called “official Buddhism” reflected in the Tangut legislation and represented by canonical texts
of Sinitic origin and works of Huayan Buddhism. Another aspect was “popular Buddhism”, represented
by numerous manuscripts of various esoteric works (Solonin 2013: 22-39). The role of Tibetan
Buddhism increased during the last years of Xixia, therefore one might suggest that more elements of
Tibetan esoteric practices were incorporated into Tangut “official Buddhism”. This observation is
confirmed that several surviving texts of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, including commentaries to the
Hevajra tantra and the Bodhicaryāvatāra had been translated by the “head of Tangut translation
[bureau, yizhu 譯主]”. This tendency was not reflected in the Tiansheng Law Code classification,
which belongs to the mid-12th century. Another aspect is the cult of Maitreya which enjoyed wide
popularity in Xixia. The sūtras associated with this cult are not among those officially listed by the law
but were widely published and distributed during nationwide Dharma assemblies. Judging from the
colophons to these publications one can speculate that Maitreya worship was specifically targeted for
the well-being and good rebirths of the members of the royal family. If this is correct, one can further
speculate of three dimensions of Tangut Buddhism: “official”, “popular” and the specific “royal cult of
Maitreya” (Solonin 2013: 22-39).
Temple Building. Temple building in the Tangut state began with the inauguration of the state itself.
The earliest temple to be erected was probably Gaotai si 高臺寺 (1047), in the vicinity of the Tangut
capital Xingqing. This was later followed by Chengtian si 承天寺 (1055), also in the capital area.
Other datable temples include Huoguo si in Liangzhou (repaired in 1093) and Wofo si 臥佛寺 (1098),
built by Chongzong Qianshun in modern Zhangye (Gansu province). Exact number of Buddhist
temples in Xixia is hard to establish. Original estimate included 27 temples (Shi, 1988: 117-22), most
of which only emerge in the colophons to the Tangut publications of the sūtras, and are otherwise not
attested. To this number Tangut period cave temples in Dunhuang, Yulin and Shanzui gou 山嘴溝
should be added. These can be distributed among five “centers” of monastic activities: 1) Capital area;
2) Helan shan area; 3) Liangzhou area; 4) Ganzhou area; 5) Heishui cheng area (Shi, 1988: 122-4). The
New Laws mention that by early 13th century there were altogether over a hundred “monastic
communities” with about ten thousand members, and their number was supposed to further increase to
secure the well-being of the state. The list of monastic communities contained in the New Laws
mentions fifty communities in the area of the “Southern Wang” (Nan wang 南王), i.e. supposedly in
the Southern part of the Tangut State. The list in the New Laws is congruent with neither the
information provided by the colophons to the Tangut publications nor with the list composed by Shi
Jinbo (Kychanov 2013: 240-1). Official status of the monasteries is not clear, however, colophons
allow suggesting that at least some of the temples received imperial sanction. This is demonstrated by
the inclusion of the name of the Tangut state (i.e., 大白高國) into the name of a monastery, e.g., the
full title of one important Tangut temple reads: “The Great Saṁghārāma “Altar of Virtue for the Great
Deliverance of the Nation” of the Great State of White and High” (大白高國德台大度民眾宮, Nie
2012: 262). The monasteries mentioned in the New Laws might be distributed between categories of
saṁghārāma (眾宮)，caitya (剎), “precious stūpa” (baota 寶塔) etc.; other texts also mention such
terms as “Spiritual Abode” (shengong 神宮), derivative from the Tibetan term lha khang. Currently
there are no indications as to the meaningfulness of these categories. At least two of the temple names
in the New Laws contain the place name Mt. Wutai, indicative of their affiliation with the Tangut
replica of Mt. Wutai in the Helan shan area, i.e., the so-called “Northern Mt. Wutai” as it emerges in
the Chinese sources.

Spread of Sinitic Buddhism in Xixia

An overview of the Tangut texts of Sinitic Buddhism is provided in (Solonin 2015: 849-54 and in
Solonin 2014: 213-230), thus will not be reproduced here. As mentioned above, the history of Tangut
 9

Buddhism can only be reconstructed through the texts which originally are not historical narratives.
Thus we limit ourselves to some general observations concerning the tendencies of Sinitic Buddhism
among the Tanguts. As mentioned before, the Tanguts became first familiar with Buddhism through the
Chinese translations of canonical sources. Increasing familiarity with Tibetan and Sanskrit versions of
scriptures dictated editing of the original translations during the mid-12th century. Editing concentrated
on bringing the transcriptions of mantras and dhāraṇī closer to original Indic pronunciation, whereas
syntactic and lexical changes were less frequent. The exact nature of the editing procedure remains
partially obscure: while scholarship observes certain phonological regularities behind most of the new
transcriptions, some of the new versions demonstrate changes in orthographic conventions, and reflect
no phonological changes.
As is clear from the texts, Tanguts generally located themselves within the historical framework of
the “Buddhist conquest of China”. Imagined timeline stretched from the Zhou times to the Han dynasty
and then onwards to the present day (“Preface to Five Sūtras”, Nie 2016: 77). Such understanding grew
out of the initial familiarity with the canonical scriptures and ritual texts, which became first available
in Chinese translations. Importantly, since the “Five sūtras” were published by the authorities for
nationwide distribution, one can imagine that the “Preface” presented an official point of view on
Buddhist history. Interestingly enough, the repertoire of the early translations included basic Mahāyāna
scriptures, but the Lotus sūtra was not translated in the time of Yuanhao, but only during Bingchang’s
reign (Nie 2016: 7-8).
An alternative version of the Buddhist history is preserved in the form of the Tangut legend of
Kumārajīva, attached to a locally produced Tangut commentary to the Vajracchedikā sūtra (Solonin
2016: 93-101). The legend implies that Dignāga, Kamalaśīla and Kṛṣṇapada, i.e. three symbolic figures
for important dimensions of Tangut Buddhism (“valid cognition”, Madhayamaka, “esoteric
instruction”), are all alternative names of Kumārajīva during different stages of his career, which
stretched over India and Tibet. Only after completing his initial career, Kumārajīva travelled to the
Eastern lands for the sake of translating the scriptures, including the Diamond sūtra. The correct
understanding of this scripture was generated by Guifeng Zongmi 圭 峰 宗 密 (780-841), who
proceeded from the commentary by Vasubandhu. Thus Kumārajīva was grouped with Zongmi, who
enjoyed enormous prestige in the Tangut state (see below). Such an interpretational trajectory can be
labeled as “Sino-Tibetan”.
Generally, the study of canonical translations returns little value in terms of historical research,
whereas a closer study of the texts belonging to various “schools” of Buddhism, or of locally produced
and translated commentaries, reveals some details about the historical trajectory of Tangut Buddhism.
Despite their seeming variety, the Tangut texts belonging to the realm of Sinitic Buddhism can be
relatively easily grouped based on the shared subject matter. General rubric can be Huayan 華嚴 or
Huayan Chan 華 嚴 禪 texts, otherwise labeled “perfect teaching” (Solonin 2014: 222-30).
Understanding of Huayan as an independent lineage of Buddhist transmission remained characteristic
for Tangut Buddhism until the Yuan period, as is confirmed by Yixing Huijue 一行慧覺 (?-1319), a
Yuan Buddhist master of Tangut descent (Solonin 2012: 1-75). According to Huijue, the lineage of
“Huayan masters in the Eastern Lands” terminated with Guangzhi Bensong 廣智本嵩（fl. 1040-s）,
and later was continued in the Great Xia by a lineage of preceptors culminating in Yixing Huijue
himself, thus extending the Tangut Huayan lineage into the Yuan (Nie 2020: 258-9). Some members of
the Huayan lineage in Xixia hold titles of “imperial preceptors”. Collation of available material allows
locating the period of initial transmission of Huayan teaching in Xixia to the period of Huizong
Bingchang, of probably even earlier. The Tangut transmission gravitated around translation, publication,
and study of the Avataṃsaka scripture itself, and its commentaries, especially the ones by Qingliang
Chengguan 清涼澄觀 (737-838; Solonin 2015: 853).
Huayan compositions in Tangut translations include works by Xianshou Fazang (賢首法藏,
643-712), with The Golden Lion of Huayan and Contemplation of Returning to the Source. Tangut
versions of both texts originate from the versions of the compositions resurrected by Jinshui Jingyuan
晉水淨源 (1001-1088) in Hangzhou area during the Northern Song (Nie, Sun 2018: 4-5; Solonin 2015:
853). Since Guangzhi Bensong’s composition was discovered with the Tangut collections, scholarship
observes that the representation of Huayan lineage presented by Yixing Huijue is congruent with the
available textual materials, and therefore is trustworthy. Besong was active in the modern Kaifeng area,
and continued to remain known until the Jin and probably during the Yuan. However, his Tongxuan ji
通玄記，a commentary to Zongmi’s Zhu Huayan Fajie guanmen 註華嚴法界觀門, existing in Tangut
translation was not known in Central Plains. This allows suggesting an independent transmission of his
works in Xixia, which has to be corroborated by an in-depth textual research.
 10

Huayan Chan compositions in Tangut revolve around the so-called Chan Preface and Chan Chart
by Guifeng Zongmi, which generated substantial local commentarial literature (Solonin 2015: 853;
Solonin 2022a, in print). Adjacent to this are the compositions by the Liao Buddhist masters: The
Mirror of Mind 鏡心錄 Yuantong Daochen 圓通道㲀 （1056?-114?) and Complete Luminous
Essence of the Ultimate One-Vehicle 究竟一乘圓明心義 Tongli Hengce 通理恆策 (1049-1099;
Solonin 2015: 857). Several texts in Chinese and Tangut, including fragments of the Shi Moheyan lun
釋摩訶衍論 in both Chinese and in Tangut are indicative of close connections between the Liao and
Xixia. The works by Daochen and Tongli were not known to the Yuan editors of the Buddhist canon,
therefore their spread in Xixia occurred through direct association with the Liao, and during the Xixia
period. Exact dates are hard to establish, but proceeding from analogy with the Tangut publication of
the Damo dashi guanxin lun 達摩大師觀心論; i.e. Damo poxiang lun 達摩破相論, one can infer the
publication dateline within 1170-80s, or earlier. The earlier date is suggested by a preface to the
Chinese publication of Zongmi’s Zhu Huayan fajie guanmen kanding ji 注華嚴法界觀門刊定記 from
Khara-Khoto, which is dated to 1152 (Solonin and Zhang 2021: 8). This generally means that the
Huayan and Huayan Chan Buddhism in Xixia was generally representative of the Sinitic Buddhism
from the 11th-12th centuries as it developed in Northern China. Liao connection of Buddhism in Xixia is
one of few established facts in the history of Sinitic Buddhism in Xixia. The texts mentioned above
reveal proximity in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Although the typographic layout is diverse, from
the linguistic perspective the texts can be united into a specific cluster on philological grounds (Solonin
and Zhang 2021: 1-28).
Although the Platform Sūtra of the Six Patriarch is known in Tangut translation, problems are
identifying Chan Buddhism as an independent dimension of Tangut Buddhism (Solonin 2008: 163-85).
Given the aforementioned “Liao connection” of Tangut Buddhism, one can hypothesize that Tanguts
shared Liao suspicions concerning the dubious nature of the Platform scripture. In any event, the
manuscript of the Tangut translation was discovered in Dunhuang and probably represents a local
development rather than a part of the mainstream of Tangut Buddhism. Group of texts belonging to
Sinitic Chan Buddhism is adjacent in its subject matter to the Huayan and Huayan Chan compositions.
Here it is important to mention two manuscripts on the “Hongzhou school” 洪州宗 of Chan
Buddhism, i.e. the Chan lineage originating from Mazu Daoyi 馬祖道一 (709-788; Solonin 2015: 854;
Solonin 2022b, in print). The longer text is a commentary to a shorter one, the latter being a record of
Mazu’s encounters with the disciples. Both the titles of the texts and their contents are indicative of an
attempt to reconcile the teaching of Heze Chan school 荷澤宗, i.e. the Chan lineage of Guifeng Zongmi
with the tradition of Mazu Daoyi. Thus, the “Hongzhou texts” can be affiliated with the Huayan Chan
cluster from the perspective of their subject matter. The texts contain specific expressions suggesting
connection with Zongmi thought; however philological scrutiny reveals that “Hongzhou texts” utilize
different translation techniques and specific vocabulary, unattested in the Tangut translations of Zongmi
works. This means that the same words and phrases are translated differently in different texts. As long
as the translations of Zongmi texts and Liao Buddhist compilation are generally uniform, the
dichotomy between them and the “Hongzhou texts” dictates separation between the Huayan Chan
mainstream and “Hongzhou texts” on both doctrinal and philological grounds. That is, we suggest that
“Hongzhou texts” were translated and distributed by a community different from the one responsible
for the mainstream Huayan Chan compositions. Further considering that Huayan Chan mainstream
texts generally circulated as woodblock prints whereas “Hongzhou texts” exist as manuscripts, one can
further suggest an opposition between official publication and private circulation of these texts. On this
basis, one can speculate on a variety of pathways of Sinitic Buddhism and different groups who utilized
texts of diverse provenance.
A similar situation is observed in the case of the so-called Recorded Sayings of Nanyang Huizhong
南陽惠忠 (full title in Chinese translation: 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), discovered in two Tangut versions
(Solonin 2015: 853). A “short version” of this work is by far the most popular composition of Sinitic
Buddhism in Xixia, available in almost twenty copies. The comparison between both versions and
surviving fragments of Huizhong lore preserved in Chinese indicates that the two Tangut versions
deviate between each other to a degree which makes it impossible to affiliate them with the same
archetype, and none of the Tangut versions can be genetically connected with known Chinese
expositions of Huizhong’s life and teachings. Regardless of the situation with the Chinese originals,
one can again conclude that there were two independent transmissions of Huizhong’s lore in Xixia,
proceeding from independent Chinese originals. Although this observation remains open to
interpretation, it indicates a historical tendency in the development of Sinitic Buddhism in Xixia. The
 11

exact content of this trajectory has yet to be recovered. Still, other texts, such as Notes on Various
Occasions by Chan master *Bi Hang from China (in Chinese translation:支那 *比行禪師隨緣集)
suggest the familiarity with the Northern Song collections of “recorded sayings” of the Chan masters
from the “five houses” of the Tang-Song Chan Buddhism. However, for the moment we are unable to
establish their historical settings and identify Chinese originals (Solonin and Zhang 2021: 10-25).
Although the Tiansheng Law Code specified “hundred dharmas” (i.e. Mahāyāna Abhidharma) and
“consciousness only” as mandatory categories of monastic learning, and texts of these categories are
indeed discovered among the Khara-Khoto findings, little can be said of their history in Xixia.
Currently, we suggest that some of the texts, namely the ones gravitating around the Baifa mingmen lun
百法明門論, originally composed by Vasubandhu, might be of the Liao origin, but this suggestion
remains to be proven (Solonin 2016a: 294-303). Translation and editing of the Yogācaryabhūmi based
on Xuanzang Chinese translation continued until the demise of the Tangut state (Solonin 2015: 851).
In general, surviving Tangut textual heritage offers a synchronic image of Sinitic Buddhism in
Xixia, representative of the situation in the second half of the 12th century. Based on both external data
and subject matter of the actual texts, one can observe that the Sinitic constituent of Buddhism in Xixia
is a representation of some aspects of Sinitic Buddhism of the Northern Song as it emerged in the
mid-11th century. These include the “resurrected” Huayan teaching and Huayan Chan compositions
which circulated in Northern China, namely in the Liao. Such texts as the Notes on Various Occasions
by Chan master *Bi Heng from China allow suggesting an evolution of the Chan teachings from the
Northern-Southern scheme (nanbei zong 南北宗), based on the taxonomy developed by Zongmi
towards a broader inclusion of the Song period Chan Buddhist ideas and compositions. Although many
of the texts share some common subject matter, the practices of translation briefly addressed above
indicate that transmission of Sinitic Buddhism in Xixia was not a uniform process, but rather was based
on the efforts of several groups of devotees. These groups probably proceeded from different versions
of the texts. One can further speculate that some of the transmitted texts received official sanction
whereas others enjoyed limited circulation within specific communities. The historical position of the
compositions associated with the White Cloud teaching Baiyun zong 白雲宗 remains to be determined.

Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia

Tibetan Buddhism constituted another major aspect of Tangut Buddhism. An overview of the
Tangut texts of Tibetan Buddhism is provided in (Solonin 2015: 844-59) and will not be reproduced
here. The expanse in the studies of Tangut texts of Tibetan subject matter brings about permanent
reevaluations of the history of Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia, therefore definitely established facts are not
numerous. The New Laws indicate that by the early 13th century the Tangut western border was an area
of active communication between Tanguts, Chinese, Tibetans, Uighurs etc., and the communication
involved groups of monks, some of whom were engaged in horse trade (Kychanov 2013: 130).
Alternatively to the Tiansheng Law Code which mentions Chinese and Tanguto-Tibetan communities,
the New Laws mention Tanguto-Chinese and Tibetan communities. It is not clear if these alternations
represent the underlying historical process, or reflect the reality of the Southern part of the Tangut state.
Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia is better documented in Tibetan historical sources, than Sinitic Buddhism.
Tibetan sources include the Blue Annals, various biographies and historical narratives of the “schools”
of Tibetan Buddhism. Recent research by Tibetologists has shown that the teachings of the Bka’ gdams
pa, Bka’ brgyud pa and Sa skya pa sects were spread in the Xixia. Some monks of these sects served as
Imperial and State Preceptors in the Xixia court.
The inception of Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia should be dated to the early 12th century, roughly
coinciding with the period of incorporation of parts of the so-called Mdo smad area (Amdo and Kham,
modern Qinghai province of the PRC) into the Tangut realm. The Tibetan sources tell us that in
addition to the local Tibetan Buddhist monks and monasteries in the Mdo smad area, Tibetan Lamas
from Central Tibet frequently came to teach. Rga Lotsaba Gzhon nu dpal once sojourned in the eastern
part of Khams for six years, during which time he taught Lama Zhang (Zhang g.Yu brag pa
brTson ’grus grags pa, 1123–1193), the patriarch of the Tshal pa Bka’ brgyud pa school, the teachings
of Cakrasamvara and Mahākāla, etc. The latter served as the teacher of Tishi Repa, a member of
the ’Ba’ rom Bka’ brgyud pa sect, who was active in the Xixia court and used the magic of Mahākāla to
defend against the Mongol invasions. He played a key role in the establishment of the Mahākāla cult in
Xixia (Sperling 2004: 1–26). Today in the Khara-Khoto literature a considerable number of the
Mahākāla teachings derived from the lineage of Rga Lotsaba has been recovered (Hou 2021: 118–128;
Hou: in print).
 12

The earliest reliable date for Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia might be established around 1145 when the
translation and publication of Mañjuśrīnāmasamgīti in Tangut and Chinese are mentioned. Indian
paṇḍita Sumatikīrti sojourn into Xixia probably took place earlier, but the exact date is hard to establish
(Wei 2013: 317-8). Another relatively reliable date is 1152 when Tangut State Preceptor Dehui 德慧
(?- after 1185) travelled to Tsong kha area to meet a Tibetan master Brtson ’grus (d. u.) to receive the
transmission of the Ultimate Essence of Mahāmudrā. The encounter between the master Brtson ’grus
and Dehui was put together into a text known as Collection of the Ultimate Essence of Mahāmudrā,
which in turn generated Tangut commentarial literature (Solonin 2021a: 1-8; Solonin 2022a in print;
Chinese translation in Sun and Nie 2018: 295-335). Sometime before that, probably around 1140-s,
famous Kashmiri translator Jayānanda together with his retinue arrived at the Tangut realm. His
translations probably triggered revisions of the early versions of scriptures based on the Chinese
versions. One can suspect that these events were recorded in the “Notes on the True Dharma Entry”, a
Tangut Buddhist chronicle composed around the latter half of the 12th century, surviving only in one
quotation (Solonin 2021a: 1-8).
Similarly, with Sinitic Buddhist texts, texts of Tibetan subject matter can be grouped into several
clusters according to their subject matter. Two basic subgroups are the “esoteric” (tantric) compositions
contrasted with the “exoteric” texts. The latter group includes several obvious “central compositions”:
e.g. the Tangut translation of the Satyadvayāvatāra by Atiśa (982-1054; Solonin and Liu 2017:
121-162). The text is represented by two translations, which demonstrate mutual deviations. As in
similar cases with the Sinitic texts, we interpret this as an indication of the existence of multiple
pathways of the text into the Tangut realm. Another text in this category is the Bodhicaryāvatāra by
Śāntideva, which again circulated in two alternative translations. The study of this text is only in its
initial stage; therefore the conclusions are only preliminary. Both these texts generated substantial
commentarial literature, partially of local origin, especially in the case of the Satyadvayāvatāra
(Solonin 2016: 1-25). Tibetan records indicate transmission of the Bka’ gdams teachings from the
Rgwa sreng monastery into Xixia, which took place during 12th century (Maho 2012: 58-62). This
explains both the popularity of the Satyadvayāvatāra and its commentarial tradition in Xixia. The exact
background of the Bodhicaryāvatāra circulation in the Tangut realm is currently harder to explain. The
current hypothesis suggests that the ritual texts based on this composition, such as the
Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi by Jitāri (950-1000?), circulated within the broader framework of the
Bka’ gdams curriculum (Solonin and Xie 2021: 1-12). Other texts, such as Mañjuśrīnāmasamgīti also
circulated in a number of independent translations, indicative of their separate pathways into Xixia
(Zhang 2022, in print).
Some of the texts associated with the teachings of Atiśa contain transmission lineages originating
from the Indian master and stretching as far as the Tangut realm. That is, some names of the holders of
the teaching in Xixia are known, and at least in one case coincide with the names of the holders of
tantric lineages, including mysterious “Lama Unborn” (Skyes med; Solonin 2015: 425-51) which
allows suggesting the parallel spread of tantric and doctrinal teachings in Xixia (Solonin 2016: 4-6).
A cluster of texts on Buddhist epistemology and logic (Skt. pramāṇa, Tib. tshad ma) closely related
to the Gsang phu ne’u thog scholastic tradition was transmitted to Xixia. The Tangut translation of
the Nyāyabindu, translated from the Tibetan version revised by Rngog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab (ca.
1059–1109), seems to have served as the primary textbook for Tangut Buddhists’ training on
epistemology (Ma 2021a: 785–791). However, higher-level epistemological works were also studied.
For example, Tshad ma yid kyi mun sel, an epistemological treatise by Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge
(1109–1169), was translated into Tangut (Ma 2021b: 141–143). The spread of pramāṇa texts in Xixia
represents a complex historical reality: after a famous debate with Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge, his
opponent Jayānanda left Tibet and travelled to the Tangut realm to become an important translator.
However, Candrakīrti’s version of Madhyamaka thought is underrepresented among the Tangut texts:
Jayānanda opus Tarkamudgara, supposedly composed in Xixia, did not circulate among the Tanguts.
At the same time, an epistemological work of Rma bya Byang chub brtson ’grus (d. 1185), a student of
Phya pa, and supposedly of Jayānanda, was preserved in Tangut translation, though its Tibetan original
is not available (Ma, in press). Although we currently are not able to trace the pathways of Indian and
Tibetan pramāṇa literature into Xixia, but are certain that its history in Xixia represents aspects of the
doctrinal debate in Tibetan Buddhism of during the 11th-12th centuries. This situation obviously places
Tangut Buddhism into the framework of doctrinal debate in 11th -12th centuries Tibet: while Jayānanda
was an important translator in Xixia, he was not able to promote his pramāṇa agenda, which was taken
over by the circle of Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge.
Transmission of tantric instructions in Xixia appears distributed among several lineages. So far, the
 13

main problem of tantric transmission in Xixia is the availability of the Tangut translations of the
fundamental Anuttarayoga tantras: currently, we have the Tangut translation of Saṃpuṭa tantra and its
exegetical texts, transmitted in the lineage of Marpa lotsawa (1012-1097) through Rngog Chos rdor
（1036-1102）and his son Zhes sdang Rdo rje (Hou 2017: 355–376), which together with the
Vajrapañjara tantra is an “explanatory” (vivaraṇa) text for the Cakrasaṃvara and Hevajra tantras.
These three latter texts are not known in Tangut as independent texts, however, traces of extensive
commentarial literature for all of them survive in Tangut collections in both Tangut and Chinese (Wei,
2013: 301-330; Solonin 2022a, in print). Surviving Tangut commentaries to the Hevajra are currently
identified as belonging to the lineage of Ram Klugong, which again indicates the transmission of
Marpa and Rngog Chos rdor (Solonin 2022a, in print). Tibetan originals of these commentaries have
not yet been identified, which makes Tangut translations the only survivors from once-thriving Tibetan
lineage. Codicology implies that the known exemplars of the texts, together with Tangut translations of
Hevajra sādhanas by Saroruhavajra and Doṁbiheruka originate from one collection, which allows
suggesting systematic effort of propagating these teachings. Again, the timeline and historical
circumstance of the transmission of Ram lineage in Xixia remain obscure. However, as in the above
cases, evidence indicates that Tangut esoteric Buddhism was representative of the 11-12th century
Tibetan developments.
Among “esoteric instructions”, the best represented are various Mahāmudrā transmissions equally
claiming origin from Maitrīpa (1007-1078). So far best-documented lineage is the one generally
dependent on the circle of disciples of Zhang G.yu brag pa Brtson 'grus grags pa (1123-1193) and Dus
gsum Mkhyen pa (1110-1193). Zhang’s fundamental composition The Path of Ultimate Profundity
(Phyag chen lam mchog mthar thug) circulated in Tangut translation. Generally name of Zhang G.yu
brag pa is written in Tangut with different orthographic conventions, thus allowing a suggestion of
different transmission pathways. This remains to be proven. Tibetan lamas mentioned in the Tangut
texts, such as Yarlungs pa (d.u.; Sun and Nie 2018: 39-40) and Gtsang po pa Dkon mchog seng ge
(?-1218), or attested as having connections with the Tangut court, such as Tishri Ras pa Shes rab seng
ge (1164-1236), all belong to a group which can be loosely identified as Bka’ brgyud, originating from
Sgam po pa Bsod nams Rinchen (1070-1161). Fragments of Sgam po pa instructions in Tangut and
Chinese had been identified both in Tangut and in Chinese (Yang 2020), as well as a version of Sgam
po pa’s biography dictated to Dus gsum Mkhyen pa circulated in Tangut translation (Solonin 2022a).
This Bka’ brgyud lineage is generally responsible for the majority of esoteric sādhanas and “Six Yogas”
instructions available in Tangut and Chinese from Khara-Khoto (Sun and Nie: 2018; Yu 2022 in print).
An alternative version of Mahāmudrā originated from the master Brtson ’grus (d.u.) from the Tsong
kha area, who transmitted his teaching to the State Preceptor Dehui around 1152. Unlike the teachings
originating from Sgam po pa, in Xixia this lineage was transmitted by the Tanguts and not by Tibetans.
The main composition of this lineage was the Collection of the Ultimate Essence of Mahāmudrā, which
is known in a variety of copies, in both printed and manuscript formats. The commentarial tradition
demonstrates a substantial degree of Sinification, unlike the Sgam po pa texts, which retain much of
their Tibetan peculiarities, despite being translated into Tangut. Despite claiming origin from Maitrīpa,
the lineage of Dehui demonstrated substantial deviations from the mainstream Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā,
therefore can be considered as an independent transmission (Solonin 2021a: 1-8). The fact that only
texts of Sgam po pa lineage were translated into Chinese and collected into the Dacheng Yaodao Miji is
indicative of a decline of Dehui’s lineage and subsequent takeover by the members of Bka’ brgyud
group, who occupied the position of the Imperial Preceptor and carried out large scale “state protection”
rituals on the wake of Mongol invasion.
Finally, we have evidence that a group of texts known as “Five early translations” (sNga gyur lnga)
of the “Mind class” (Sems phyogs) of the Rdzogs chen system were circulating in Xixia. As in the case
with the Hevajra texts, codicology suggests a uniform source of this tradition. Again, we cannot
reconstruct the pathway of these texts into Xixia, or suggest their role in Tangut Buddhism. Tibetan
sources indicate in the direction of the influence of Zur Sha-kya-’byung-gnas (10-11th centuries), who
listed Memyag (Minyag, i.e. Tangut) ’Byung-grags among his disciples. Alternative sources imply the
influence of Kaḥthog monastery and accordingly of Dampa Bde gshegs (1122–1192) and his elder
brother (cousin) Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po (1110–1170). All choices appear plausible, but so far
none has been independently corroborated by reliable sources (Solonin and Yu 2020: 173-89).
In general, although the details of the spread of either Sinitic or Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia are in
many aspects obscure, one can observe that Tangut Buddhism can be firmly located within the
framework of East Asian Buddhism of the 11-12th centuries. Interplay between Sinitic and Tibetan
traditions and teachings resulted in the emergence of a heterogeneous tendency towards the so called
 14

“Sino-Tibetan Buddhism”, discovered in some of the Tangut texts of local production (Solonin 2022a,
Shen 2020: 265-309). This tendency is demonstrated by hybrid Sino-Tibetan vocabulary which
emerges in the text of various provenance, as well as in the combination of quotations from Sinitic and
Tibetan sources where their contents appear appropriate (Solonin 2012: 1-76). Surviving textual
evidence suggests that the fundamental framework for the Sino-Tibetan cohesion was provided by the
Huayan “all-embracing” (yuanrong 圓 融) doctrinal taxonomy, as demonstrated by the Huayan
repentance rituals composed by the monks of Tangut descent during the Yuan period. Thus, Tangut
Buddhism developed along a unique trajectory, which is only partially reconstructed.

Bibliography

An 2016: An Beijiang 安北江, “Xixia siyuan jingji yanjiu shulun” 西夏寺院經濟研究述論, Shanxi
Datong daxue xuebao 5 (2016): 21-3
Arakawa 2015: Arakawa Shintarō 荒川慎太郎, Seika bun Kongo kyō no kenkyū 西夏文金剛経の研
究 (Tokyo: Shoukadoh 2015)
Cui 2008: Cui Hongfen 崔紅芬, “Shi lun Xixia siyuan jingji de laiyuan” 試論西夏寺院經濟的來源,
Ningxia Shehui kexue 1 (2008): 99-103
Deveria 1902: G. Deveria, “L’écriture du royaume de Si-Hia ou Tangout”, Mémoires présentés par
divers savants à l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l'Institut de France. Première série,
Sujets divers d'érudition 1902. (11).1: 147-76
Du and Sun 2021: Du Xüchu 杜旭初 and Sun Penghao 孙鹏浩，”Heishui cheng wenxian suojian
*Lama rgya kao”黑水城文獻所見“■麻蘖”考, Zhonguo Wenhua 54.2 (2021): 366-72
Dunnell 2009: R. Dunnell, “Translating History from Tangut Buddhist Texts”, Asia Major 3rd series 1
(2009): 41-78
Dunnell 1996: R. Dunnell, The Great State of White and High: Buddhism and State Formation in 11th
century Xia (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1996).
Hou, Haoran 2017, “Notes on the Translation and Transmission of the Saṃpuṭa and Cakrasaṃvara
Tantras in the Xixia Period (1038-1227)”. In: Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar (eds.), Chinese and Tibetan
Esoteric Buddhism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017), 355–376.
Hou Haoran 侯浩然 2021, “Heishui cheng Suojian Zangchuan fojiao Tishen yigui Yanjiu”黑水城所见
藏传佛教替身仪轨研究, Zhongguo Zhexueshi 6 (2021):
Hou, Haoran, in print,“Mahākāla Literature Unearthed From Kara Khoto,” in Yukiyo Kasai and Henrik
H. Sørensen (eds.), Buddhism in Central Asia II: Practice and Rituals, Visual and Material Transfer.
Leiden: Leiden Brill.
Huang Shishan 2014: Huang Shishan, “Reassessing Printed Buddhist Frontispieces from Xi Xia”,
Zhejiang University Journal of Art and Archaeology 1 (2014): 129-182
Keping 1998: "The Famous Liangzhou Bilingual Stele: A New Study", T’oung Pao (1998) 4.5:
356-379
Iuchi, M. (2012). “A note on the relationship between the Bka’ gdams pa school and Mi nyag/ Xixia”，
Zangxue xuekan 8（2012） ：58–62
Iwasaki Tsutomu, “The Tibetan Tribes of Ho-hsi and Buddhism during the Northern Sung Period”,
Acta Asiatica: Bulletin of the Institute of the Eastern Culture 64 (1993): 17-37
Kychanov 2013: E. I. Kychanov, Novye Zakony Tangutskogo Gosudarstva, published and translated by
E. I. Kychanov (Moscow: GRVL 2013)
Kychanov 2010: E. I.克恰諾夫, “Xixia guo he senglü”西夏國和僧侶, Xixia yanjiu 5 (2010): 173-181
Kychanov 1999: E. I. Kychanov Katalog Tangutskikh Buddhyiskih Tekstov iz Sobraniya Instituta
Vostokoveniya RAN (Kyoto: University of Kyoto Press, 1999)
Ma Zhouyang 2021a: Ma Zhouyang, “The Nyāyabindu in Tangut Translation.” Journal of Indian
Philosophy, 49(5): 779–825
Ma Zhouyang 2021b: Ma Zhouyang, “Xixia yi Zhengli chu yi zhi an chu tan” 西夏译《正理除意之暗》
初探 [A Preliminary Analysis of the Tangut Translation of Tshad ma yid kyi mun sel]. Zhongguo
zangxue 2021(3): 138–145.
Ma Zhouyang. (in press): Ma Zhouyang, “Introduction to Speculative Thinking: An Unidentified Work
in Tangut Translation of Maja Jangchup Tsöndrü (d. 1185, Tib. rMa bya Byang chub brtson ’grus).”
BuddhistRoad Papers.
 15

Morisse 1904: G. Morisse, “Contribution préliminaire à l’étude de l’écriture et de la langue Si-Hia”,

Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l'Institut de
France. Première série, Sujets divers d'érudition (1904) 11.2: 313-79
Nevskij 1960: N. A. Nevskij, Tangutstkaya Filologia. Vol. 1-2 (Moscow: GRVL, 1960)
Nishida 1975-77: Nishida Tatsuo 西田龍雄, Seika bun no Kegon kyō 西夏文華厳経. Vol. 1-3 (Kyoto:
University of Kyoto Press 1975-1977)
Nie and Sun 2018: Nie Hongyin 聂鸿音 Sun Bojun 孙伯君, Xixia yi Huayan zong zhuzuo yanjiu 西
夏譯華嚴宗著作研究 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2018)
Nie 2016: Nie Hongyin 聶鴻音， Xixia fojing xüba yizhu 西夏佛經序跋譯注 (Shanghai: Shanghai
guji, 2016)
Nie 2012: Nie Hongyin 聶鴻音, Xixia wenxian lungao 西夏文獻論稿 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji,
2012)
Nishida 2012: Nishida Tatsuo，Seika go kenkyū sinron 西夏語研究新論 （Tokyo: Shoukadoh 2012）
Shen 2020: Shen Weirong 沈偉榮, “Lun Xixia Hanzag yu xianmi yuanrong” 論西夏漢藏與顯密圓融，
Zhonghua wenshi luncong 2020.1: 265-309
Shen 2021: Shen Weirong 沈偉榮, “Shi Zhuohuo huanlun Mimi daxile chanding he Yandieerfa” 釋拙
火幻輪、秘密大喜樂禪定和演揲兒法, Zhong guo wenhua 2021(Spring): 181–196.
Shen and Hou 2016: Shen Weirong 沈偉榮，侯浩然，Wenben yu lishi 文本與歷史 (Beijing: Zhonguo
zangxue 2016)
Shi Jinbo 1988: Shi Jinbo 史金波, Xixia Fojiao shilüe 西夏佛教疏略 (Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin,
1988)
Solonin 2022b (in print): Suoluoning 索羅寧, Xixia wen Hanchuan fodian yanjiu 西夏文漢傳佛典研
究 (Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua)
Solonin 2022c (in print): Suoluoning 索羅寧, Dapeng zhanchi: Zangchuan fojiao xinjiuyi mizhou zai
Xixia de chuanbo 大鵬展翅: 藏傳佛教新舊譯密咒在西夏的傳播（Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2022）
Solonin 2021: Suoluoning 索羅寧, “Xixia Dehui shangshi liangzhong chuanchenng yu Hanzang fojiao
yuanrong” 西夏德慧上師兩種傳承與漢藏佛教圓融,Zhongguo zangxue 2021.3: 130-7
Solonin and Xie 2021: Suoluoning 索 羅 寧, Xie Haoyue 謝 皓 月“Tangut Buddhism and the
Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi”Studies in Chinese Religions 6.1. (2021): 2-12
Solonin and Zhang 2021: K. Solonin, Zhang Yongfu, “The Tangut Text of Suiyuan ji and the History of
Chan Buddhism in Xixia”, Journal of Chan Buddhism 2 (2020): 1-28
Solonin 2020: K. Solonin, “THE GREAT MASTER TŌNGLI: THE TEXTS BY A LIÁO BUDDHIST
MASTER AMONG THE KHARA-KHOTO FINDINGS”, in. C. Anderl et al. eds., Chán Buddhism in
Dūnhuáng and beyond: a study of manuscripts, texts, and contexts in memory of John R. McRae
(Leiden: Brill, 2020): 249-360
Solonin 2020a: K. Solonin, “The Formation of Tangut Ideology: Buddhism and Confucianism” in: C.
Meinert et al eds., Buddhism in Central Asia I: Patronage, Legitimation, Sacred Space, and Pilgrimage.
(Leiden, Brill: 2020): 124-50
Solonin and Yu 2020: K. Solonin, Yu Xiaogang, “The Five Parts of the Dharma Realm”: Preliminary
Remarks on the Collection of the sems phyogs Texts in the Tangut Translation”, CAJ 63. 1-2 (2020):
173-90
Solonin and Liu 2017: K. Solonin and Kuowei Liu, “Atiśa’s Satyadvayāvatāra (Bden pa gnyis pa’i ’jug
pa) in the Tangut Translation: A Preliminary Study”, JIP 45. 1 (2017): 121-162
Solonin 2016: K. Solonin, “Dīpaṃkara in Tangut Conetext. Part 2”, AOH 69.1. (2016): 1-25
Solonin 2016a: Suoluoning 索羅寧, “Xixia Weishi zong ji Abidamo wenxian chutan”《西夏唯識宗及
阿毗達磨文獻初探》in: Xu Zhongwen，Rong Xinjiang eds., Make Boluo Yanzghou Sichou zhi lu 馬
可·波羅揚州絲綢之路（Beijing: Beiing Daxue chubanshe 2016）: 294-303
Solonin 2015a: K. Solonin, “Local Literatures: Tangut/Xixia”, in: J. Silk et al eds., Brill Encyclopedia
of Buddhism. Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill 2015): 844-59
Solonin 2015b: K. Solonin, “Dīpaṃkara in Tangut Context”, AOH 68.4 (2015): 425-451
Solonin 2014: K. Solonin, “Chan Contemplation” in the Tangut Buddhism”, FJHSS 7.2. (2014):
203-245
Solonin 2013: Suoluoning 索羅寧, “Xixia Dashou yin wenxian zakao” 西夏大手印文獻雜考， in：
Shen Weirong eds., Hanzang Fojiao yanjiu 漢 藏 佛 教 研 究 （ Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue
2013）:235-66
Solonin 2012: K. Solonin, “The Teaching of Daoshen in Tangut Translation: “The Mirror of Mind” in: I.
Hamar et al. eds., Avataṃsaka Buddhism in East Asia: Huayan, Kegon, Flower Ornament Buddhism.
Origins and Adaptation of a Visual Culture. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012): 137-187
 16

Solonin 2009: K. Solonin, “Mahāmudrā Texts in the Tangut Buddhism and the Doctrine of
"No-thought" in: Shen Weirong eds. Xiyu lishi yuyan yanjiu jikan 2009 （2） ：278-305
Solonin 2008: K. Solonin, “The Fragments of the Tangut Translation of the Platform Sutra of the Sixth
Patriarch Preserved in the Fu Ssu-nien Library, Academia Sinica”, BIHP 79.2 (2008): 163-185
Solonin 2007: Obretenie Ucheniya: Tradicia Huayan Chan v Buddizme Tangustksogo Gosudarstava
(SPb: St. Petersburg University Press, 2007)
Solonin 2005: K. Solonin, “Hongzhou Buddhism in Xixia and the Heritage of Zongmi (780-841): A
Tangut Source”. Asia Major (2003) 16.2, actually published in 2005: 57-104
Sperling 2004: Sperling, Eliot, “Further Remarks Apropos of the ’Ba’-rom-pa and the Tanguts,” Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Vol. 57, No. 1 (2004): 1–26
Sun and Nie 2018: Sun Bojun 孫伯君 Nie Hongyin 聶鴻音, Xixia wen Zangchuan fojiao shiliao 西
夏文藏傳佛教史料 (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue 2018)
Sun 2019: Sun Bojun 孫伯君，“Xixia wen Sanguan jiu man shuyao bukao”西夏文《三觀九門樞鑰》
補考，Ningxia shehui kexue 4（2019） ：176-186
Sun 2011: Sun Bojun 孫伯君，“Yuandai Baiyun zong yikan Xixia wen wenxian zongkao”元代白雲
宗譯刊西夏文文獻綜考，Wenxian 2 (2011)：146-157
Sun 2010: Sun Bojun 孫伯君, Xixia xinyi fojing tuoluoni de duyin yanjiu 西夏新譯佛經陀羅尼的對
音研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2010)
Wang 1932: Wang Jingru 王靜如，Si-Siah Studies 西夏研究. Vol. 1 (Beiping: Zhongyang Yanjiu yuan,
1932)
Wei 2013: Wei Wen 魏文，“Zui Shangle lun benxü xianshi ji yichuan yuanliu kao,jian lun Xixia
Shangle fu fa shanshi”最上樂輪本續顯示記》譯傳源流考—兼論西夏上樂付法上師, in: Shen
Weirong eds. Hanzang Foxue yanjiu
Yang Jie 楊傑, “Dacheng Yaodao miji suo shoulu bufen dashouyin wenben xiangguan wenti lüe xi”
《大乘要道密集》所收部分大手印文本相關問題略析, Zhongguo Zangxue 2 (2020): 180-190
Yu 2022 (in print): Yu Xiaogang 喻曉剛, “Hanzang Fojiao yu Ecang Heishuicheng wenxian Naro liu
fa lei wenxian—yi Xixia wen Liufa ziti yaomen wei zhongxin” 漢藏佛教與俄藏黑水城那若六法 (nā
ro chos drug)類文獻—以西夏文<六法自體要門>為中心, PhD. Thesis, Renmin University of China,
2022
Zeng 2020: Zeng Hanchen 曾漢晨, “Xixia Juezhao guoshi Fashizi zhi jiaofa laiyuan yu shenfen kao”
西夏覺照國師法獅子之教法來源與身份考, Zhongguo Zangxue 1 (2020)：180-186
Zhang 2022 (in print): Zhang Yongfu 張永富, “Zhenshi ming jing Xia Han Zang wenben duikan yu
yanjiu ” 《<真實名經>夏、藏、漢文本對勘與研究》 PhD. Thesis, Renmin University of China, 2022.