Fózǔ lìdài tōngzài 佛祖歷代通載

Comprehensive Record of the Buddhas and Patriarchs Through the Successive Dynasties

compiled by 念常 (Niànchang, 1282–after 1341, 集) of the Línjì 臨濟 Chán school

About the work

The major Yuán-dynasty Buddhist universal history, in twenty-two juan (the WYG and Taishō editions; the original print may have been thirty-six juan, with the surviving recension reorganised), compiled by the Línjì Chán monk 念常 (Niànchang) and presented in 1341 (Yuán Zhìzhèng 至正 1). It supplies a year-by-year chronicle of Sino-Indian Buddhist history from the antiquity of the Three Sovereigns down to the early Yuán, and is one of the few Buddhist works in the Sìkù quánshū (under category 子 子部·釋家類). It is the principal Yuán-period universal Buddhist history and a complement, from the Chán perspective, to 志磐’s Tiāntái-leaning KR6r0012.

Tiyao

The Sìkù tíyào notice (transmitted in WYG edition; English summary): “Fózǔ lìdài tōngzài, in twenty-two juan, by the Yuán monk 念常. The work supplies a chronological frame from the Pángǔ era of mythical antiquity, through the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, the Xià, Shāng, Zhōu and successive dynasties, down to the present, with each year recording the major Buddhist and secular events of that year. From the Hàn through the Yuán the entries become full chronicles. The compiler, of the Línjì Chán school, draws on more than a hundred earlier histories, lamp records, and biographical compendia. Its judgements are sometimes unbalanced — it is most reliable for matters within Chán transmission and less so for the doctrinal schools — but the chronological frame is comprehensive and the work serves as the standard chronological reference for Yuán-period Buddhist history. Of all the Buddhist universal histories, it is the only one to have been admitted to the Sìkù quánshū.”

Abstract

念常 was a Línjì Chán monk active in Sūzhōu and the Jiāngnán region. The frontmatter of the work names his preceptors and gives an autobiographical sketch. The composition window is fixed by the dated preface of 1333 (or 1341 in the imperial-presentation copy) and the latest events recorded in the chronicle; the standard bracket is 1333–1341.

The structure is a single continuous biānnián 編年 (“annalistic”) chronicle: each year-heading lists imperial events, Buddhist translations and ordinations, monk biographies, doctrinal disputes, and so on. The first juan covers cosmic and mythical antiquity (Buddhas of past kalpas, the early Indian patriarchs, the legendary Chinese sovereigns); from juan 2 onwards the entries follow the standard Chinese reign-year frame. 念常 draws on the Lìdài sānbǎo jì of 費長房 (KR6r0011), 志磐’s Fózǔ tǒngjì (KR6r0012), the Jǐngdé chuándēng lù (KR6q0003), and many other earlier sources, often quoting them at length. From the Chán point of view, 念常 is concerned to demonstrate the centrality of Chán transmission in Chinese Buddhist history.

The work was admitted to the Sìkù quánshū under the Shìjiā 釋家 sub-category of the zǐbù 子部, an exceptional accolade for a Buddhist text. The Taishō (T49 no. 2036) prints the recension transmitted in the Buddhist canon; the WYG transmits a closely related but not identical recension.

Translations and research

  • Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, Die Identität der buddhistischen Schulen und die Kompilation buddhistischer Universalgeschichten in China (Wiesbaden, 1982) — extensive treatment of 念常 alongside 志磐.
  • Thomas Jülch, “The Fozu lidai tongzai and the Yuan Dynasty,” in his Bodhisattva of the Frontier (forthcoming) — focused study of the work’s Yuán-period historiographical strategies.
  • Chen Yuan 陳垣, Yuán dài Zhōngguó fójiào shǐ — uses the Fózǔ lìdài tōngzài as a principal source for Yuán-period Buddhism.
  • No complete Western-language translation exists.

Other points of interest

The Fózǔ lìdài tōngzài is the only Buddhist universal history admitted to the Sìkù quánshū — a fact noted by the Sìkù editors themselves in their tíyào, who explained the choice on the grounds that the work was less sectarian and more comprehensive than 志磐’s Tiāntái-leaning Fózǔ tǒngjì. This Sìkù acceptance has given the work a special place in subsequent Chinese historiographical reference.