Xuanzang was a Chinese Buddhist monk who performed a historic pilgrimage to India in search of “sutras”, “dharma” and the “sacred traces of the Buddha”. He undertook this journey at a most tumultuous time; when the Tang dynasty was at war with the Turks. Due to the restrictions on border crossing, his expedition to India in 629 A.D was very difficult. Xuanzang, however, did not experience a break in his resolve and successfully completed his journey.
Several decades after Xuanzang returned from India, his disciples Huili and Yanzong wrote his biography. Based on oral accounts from their “Dharma Master” and their own observations of his life and vocation in China, they constructed his experiences on paper. Since the primary source of the historical account is not Xuanzang but the deliberations of his disciples based on their own observations and memory of oral accounts, it is not readily reliable. The third person account of the feelings of Xuanzang thus cannot said to be original. Nevertheless, the conclusions which Huili and Yanzong have arrived at with regard to Xuanzang’s views cannot be completely overlooked. They may not be the ‘truth’ but they ring of the ‘truth’ or the truth which they have derived from the various sources they have used. Thus, the analysis of the documents will be done in light of derivative truth. The documents under consideration here narrate the encounter of the “Dharma Master” with the King of Gaochang and Yabgu Khan; a powerful Turk who held control of “the oasis towns of the desserts from the Chinese border to the Aral Sea” . The documents highlight the nature of his interactions with the two kings and his views of the culture of the Turks. It describes the ways in which the two kings showed their reverence and respect for the “Dharma Master”. The king of Gaochang provided considerable monetary, diplomatic and strategic support to Xuanzang’s journey and Yabgu Khan showed cultural sensitivity and respected Xuanzang despite the fact that he was a part of the Tang dynasty.
The account of Xuanzang’s interaction with the king of Gaochang suggests that Xuanzang’s impression of him was quite favorable. The king’s deference for the “Dharma Master” was prodigious and sincere, perhaps because he was a Buddhist himself. Powerful cultural symbols and images used in the account, such as the king holding the incense burner at the beginning of every lecture to meet Xuanzang, suggest that for the king Xuanzang’s welcome in Gaochang was not merely a show of hospitality; it held spiritual relevance as well. The king’s practice of kneeling down to assist the ascent of the “Dharma Master” also reveals the religious reverence in the king’s eyes. For a king, it is the absolute destruction of his earthly stature to kneel down before another and let him step on his back. Yet the king of Gaochang did it every day for an entire month. It may have meant more than just a demonstration of the degree of his respect for the Dharma Master. This act may also have held religious connotations as Buddhism advocates the rejection of materiality and greed. These cultural and religious practices attributed to the Xuanzang’s favorable impression of the king of Gaochang. It can be gleaned from the document that the “Dharma Master” considered the king to be generous and kind to his cause. Detailed descriptions of the monetary assistance are ascribed in the document including the number of horses and laborers, the amount of silk, liturgical clothes, gold and silver coins. The financial support is described as a “gift” which suggests that the King of Gaochang voluntarily and openheartedly presented these things to Xuanzang and he accepted them as support for his mission and expedition. The document also mentions that the king wrote twenty-four letters to other states to facilitate Xuanzang’s journey. A “special package of gifts” was prepared for Yabgu Khan. This suggests that Yabgu Khan held particular importance in the west and his permission and support were absolutely crucial. It may also perhaps allude to the fact that due to restrained relations, a special effort had to be made for the powerful Turk ruler. The letter which the king of Gaochang wrote for Yabgu Khan is particularly enlightening concerning the Chinese encounters with Central Asia. The king assumed a very modest position and exalted the powerful Turk. It’s interesting to note that he did not threaten the Turk of impending consequences which would arise if the “Dharma Master” were to be hurt. Nor did he exalt the position of the “Dharma Master”. He referred to himself as “your humble slave” , denoted Yabgu Khan as “your highness Khan” and pleaded for the protection of the “humble slave’s brother” in the “same way as you protect your humble slave” . The rhetoric employed by the king suggests that he respected the Turkish ruler very much and perhaps feared him a little too. It also sheds some light on the disposition of the Turk; perhaps Yabgu Khan required such appeasement and it kept him from being hostile as he didn’t perceive the other as a threat. Another important thing to note here is that the twenty four letters were “attached to a bolt of heavy damask” . In that particular period silk was considered very special and it represented wealth. The Chinese also used to use silks as “effective economic inducements when conducting diplomacy with nomadic people” (Silks and Religions in Eurasia, C. A.D. 600-1200). Yabgu Khan was presented with five hundred bolts of damask as a sign of goodwill.
The account of Yabgu Khan’s interaction with Xuanzang reveals that his impression of Yabgu Khan was also very favorable. However, certain phrases employed by the authors allude to a disquieting unease experienced by the “Dharma Master”. The first instance of disapproval is mirrored in the phrase “The khan took another three days to return…” This, perhaps, suggests that the Dharma Master did not particularly enjoy waiting for Yabgu Khan and thought it inhospitable of a host to make his guest wait. Or, perhaps, this slight unease is not stemming from Xuanzang at all. It is possible that the narrators, the disciples, employed this particular tone to show their own displeasure at making their “Dharma Master” wait. This is where the narrator’s bias clouds the reliability of the text. It is also interesting to note that the authors have employed the use of the word “summoned” in the sentence, “… he summoned the Dharma Master to an audience” . The word summoned has several connotations. Firstly, it alludes to the fact that the “Dharma Master” was not requested to an audience; he was called on by Yabgu Khan and the “Dharma Master” could not have refused. Secondly, it suggests that Yabgu Khan had an authoritative nature which differentiated him from the king of Gaochang as far as interaction with Xuanzang was concerned. The second instance of unease can be seen in the description of the Khan’s tent. It was decorated with “golden ornaments” and “Its splendor was so dazzling that it caused people to wince” . This description suggests that Xuanzang did not find the extravagance of the tent particularly appealing. He was surprised by their lifestyle and lodgings. He noticed that the silk attire of the officials was “impressive” and even though the Turks were nomads their courts were “elegant”. This instance of culture shock indicates that there was not much interaction between the Turks and the Chinese and hence a lack of cultural familiarity. Perhaps, the Khan’s familiarity of Chinese culture is what urged the “Dharma Master” to espouse him in favorable light. Xuanzang was seated in an “iron cross-leg chair covered with cushions” since the Turks did not have wooden chairs and lounged on “heavy cushions”. He was served grape juice while the others indulged in wine and was served “special vegetarian food” instead of meat. The Khan’s respect for such cultural sensitivities perhaps earned the regard of the “Dharma Master”. So much so, that the “Dharma Master” noted that “even though the music was not Chinese, it was quite pleasing to the senses and feelings.” Yabgu Khan displayed respect for his guest by coming outside of the tent to meet him and also by “raising his hand to his forehead” in acknowledgement of teachings of the Dharma Master. It is also interesting to note that the narrators state that the Dharma Master was “asked” to deliver a lecture. This word has softer and more polite connotations than the word used earlier. This suggests that whatever tensions Xuanzang was feeling had been eased by the atmosphere and the good natured hospitality of the Turks. It is also important to note that before the proceedings in the tent began the khan “examined the gifts and was very pleased” . This, perhaps, set the mood for the entire event and it also highlights the importance of silk in diplomatic engagements during that period. Ultimately, Xuanzang had such a profound influence on Yabgu Khan that he insisted that he stay with him and not continue with his journey to India on the grounds that his body would not be able to take the heat. But Xuanzang remained determined. Therefore, the Khan himself, along with his ministers, trooped “more than ten li” to see the Dharma Master off. The Khan also presented him with a “liturgical robe made of red damask and fifty bolts of plain silk” . The Khan also wrote several state official letters to allow Xuanzang to pass through the region with relative ease. It is evident from the narrator’s tone that Yabgu Khan’s gestures of solidarity, respect and friendship were very much appreciated by Xuanzang.
In light of the document and the arguments made above, several deductions can be made. Firstly, Xuanzang’s impression of the King of Gaochang was favorable not only due to the religious reverence exhibited by him but also by the monetary and diplomatic help which he provided. Secondly, Xuanzang’s impression of Yabgu Khan was also very positive despite certain instances of unease in the beginning experienced by either or both Xuanzang and the narrators. Finally, it can be inferred that Chinese interactions with Central Asia were limited, respectful yet very calculated with a hint of fear of reproach. Furthermore, it can be assumed that silk served a very diplomatic purpose as a sign of goodwill for both the Turks and the Chinese.

Notes and Bibliograpghy

1. Liu, Xinru. The Silk Roads: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2012. Print.
2. LIu, Xinru. "Silks and Religions in Eurasia, C. A.D. 600-1200." Silks and Religions in Eurasia, C. A.D. 600-1200 6.1 (n.d.): 25-48. JSTOR. Web. 13 Oct. 2013. .