Xuěguān héshàng yǔlù 雪關和尚語錄
Recorded Sayings of Venerable Xuě-guān by 智誾 (說), 傳善 (輯)
About the work
Six-juan reconstruction-recension yǔlù of Xuěguān Zhìyín 智誾 雪關智誾 (1585–1637) — a separate, shorter, and independently-edited recension of the same master’s sayings as KR6q0418 《雪關禪師語錄》 (13 juan, J27 B198). This volume is Jiāxīng Canon J27 B199. Edited (jí 輯) by the attendant Chuánshàn 傳善 傳善 as a post-fire reconstruction: per Chuánshàn’s own postface dated 丙申仲春中浣 (= Shùnzhì 13 / 1656 2nd lunar month middle decade), the Bóshān scripture-hall burned down in 戊子 1648 spring with the original blocks of the earlier recension destroyed, and Chuánshàn undertook this 6-juan reconstruction from scattered manuscript materials, organizing the content into “nine thematic categories in six juan” (fēn wèi lèi zhě jiǔ, wèi juǎn zhě liù 分為類者九為卷者六”). The present text is therefore not a simple abridgement of the 13-juan KR6q0418 but a parallel recension deriving from a different editorial pathway with overlapping but non-identical content. Non-commentary; commentedTextid omitted.
Abstract
Author. For the full biography of Zhìyín see KR6q0418 Abstract and the person-note at 智誾. The same 曹學佺 Cáo Xuéquán zhuàn 傳 that appears at KR6q0418 juan 13 is here transposed to the front of juan 1 (after the untranscribed calligraphy-preface). The closing line of Cáo’s zhuàn in this recension reads “yǒu yǔlù liù juǎn 有語錄六卷” (“has recorded sayings in six juan”), confirming that Cáo’s zhuàn was originally composed for the 6-juan edition. The 13-juan recension’s corresponding closing line was modified to the more generic “yǔlù ruògān juǎn 語錄若干卷” — indicating that the 6-juan recension’s Cáo-zhuàn is the earlier witness to the text’s prefatorial frame.
Compositional history. Chuánshàn’s postface — one of the most revealing cutting-history statements in the entire J26–J27 Chán cluster — recounts: (1) bǐngzǐ 丙子 winter 1636 he emerged from the mountains to serve at Zhìyín’s side; (2) fǎyuán karma-fate was meager — Chuánshàn attended Zhìyín for only “yī hánshǔ 一寒暑” (one season) before the master’s dīngchǒu 1637.10.11 death; (3) at that time Chuánshàn saw Zhìyín’s yǔlù manuscripts “sǎnmàn 散漫” (scattered) and wished to edit them but lacked resources; (4) by wùzǐ 戊子 1648 spring, he heard that the Bóshān scripture-hall had suffered a fire, with the woodblocks all turned to ash (“Bóshān jīngfáng yǐ lí huílù, bǎn jìn huà yú huījìn 博山經房㔾罹回祿板盡化于灰燼”); (5) “until now, nine years [later], [the blocks are] still unrepaired” (“zhì jīn jiǔ zǎi wèi yǒu xiūfù 至今九載未有修復” — an approximation; strictly 1648 → 1656 = eight years, but this is a rough count); (6) therefore Chuánshàn assembled the surviving material into the present 6-juan reconstruction “fēn wèi lèi zhě jiǔ, wèi juǎn zhě liù 分為類者九為卷者六” (nine categories, six juan). Signed shìzhě 侍者 Chuánshàn at 丙申仲春中浣 = Shùnzhì 13 / 1656 spring. The parallel KR6q0418 13-juan recension, edited by the later Kāixuàn 開詗 (a fǎsūn 法孫 of Zhìyín), was presumably cut from a different surviving manuscript base and at a different date — the two editions’ relationship is textually complicated and should be studied comparatively for text-critical reconstruction of Zhìyín’s yǔlù corpus.
notBefore = 1629 (崇禎己巳 = Yíngshān 初住院 shàngtáng, the earliest datable content). notAfter = 1656 (Chuánshàn hòubá).
Contents by juan. (j.1) Yíngshān yǔlù 瀛山語錄 + Bóshān yǔlù 博山語錄 + Gǔshān yǔlù 鼓山語錄; (j.2) Hǔpáo yǔlù 虎跑語錄 + Miàoxíng yǔlù 妙行語錄; (j.3) niāngǔ 拈古 + sònggǔ 頌古 + zàn 贊 + jì 偈; (j.4) jì zhī yú 偈之餘; (j.5) chǐdú 尺牘 + shū 疏 + jìwén 祭文; (j.6) shī 詩. Followed by the Chuánshàn 1656 hòubá.
Note on material content overlap with KR6q0418: both editions preserve the five Yíngshān / Bóshān / Gǔshān / Hǔpáo / Miàoxíng shàngtáng blocks, but the selection of individual shàngtáng within each block differs. The 13-juan edition additionally preserves extensive 答問, 禪淨發隱, 歸雲夜話, 禪鏡語, 啟, 文/賦/記/序/題跋/疏說, 雜著, and the Huáng Duānbó tǎmíng that are absent from the 6-juan edition. The 6-juan edition preserves a simpler thematic ordering.
Tiyao
Not applicable — this is a Jiā-xīng-canon imprint (J27 B199), not a WYG text. The Cáo Xuéquán zhuàn 傳 at front and the Chuánshàn 1656 hòubá at back provide the compositional documentation summarized under Abstract.
Translations and research
- See KR6q0418 under Translations and research. All general scholarship on Zhì-yín applies equally here; the 6-juan / 13-juan editorial divergence has not yet received comparative scholarly treatment in either Chinese or Western-language literature. Any future philological edition of Zhì-yín’s yǔlù will need to collate these two Jiā-xīng recensions.
Other points of interest
- The 1648 Bóshān scripture-hall fire as textual-transmission datum. Chuánshàn’s postface is one of the very few surviving documents specifying a MíngQīng transition fire-destruction of Chán monastic woodblocks — the Bóshān jīngfáng 經房 fire of 1648 spring. This event is a key datum for the bibliographical history of the Shòuchāng sub-line: all pre-1648 Bóshān blocks (including presumably the earliest cuttings of Yuánlái’s and Zhìyín’s yǔlù) were destroyed, forcing the post-1648 reconstruction-layer of the surviving Jiāxīng texts. The KR6q0417 《博山無異大師語錄集要》 Yuánxián edition of 1643 at Gǔshān (Fújiàn) would have been unaffected since it was cut at Gǔshān rather than Bóshān — which may explain why Yuánxián’s jíyào rather than the full guǎnglù achieved canonical status in the Jiāxīng.
- Chuánshàn’s “one season” attendance (1636 winter – 1637 winter). The postface’s specific temporal frame — “only one cold/hot-season” of direct attendance — explains the editorial character of this recension: Chuánshàn was not a long-term intimate of Zhìyín and therefore undertook the 1656 reconstruction as an act of filial devotion from relatively limited personal-memory resources, supplemented by whatever manuscript materials he could gather. This is a significant contrast to the more comprehensive editorial role of Kāixuàn on the 13-juan recension, who was a generation further removed from Zhìyín but had broader documentary access. The two recensions reflect two distinct editorial sociologies — the attendant’s direct-memory reconstruction versus the dharma-grandson’s documentary-archaeological edition.
- Dual Jiāxīng Canon preservation of parallel recensions. That the Jiāxīng Canon preserves both recensions (J27 B198 and B199) as separate numbered items is itself a notable preservation-decision. The Jiāxīng editors evidently recognized them as distinct enough to warrant both being canonized — a practice that is not universally applied across the Jiāxīng (where overlapping recensions of the same master’s yǔlù are often consolidated). For a textual-critical scholar of seventeenth-century Chán literature, this dual preservation provides an unusually clear editorial-parallax case-study on how Chán yǔlù cuttings variously preserve and reorganize the underlying material.