Chindian Myth of Mulian Rescuing His Mother – On Indic Origins of the Yulanpen Sūtra by Xiaohuan Zhao

The Yulanpen Jing or the Yulanpen Sūtra Expounded by the Buddha (Fo shuo Yulanpen jing), dated no later than the mid-fourth century, is the earliest known Buddhist scripture, depicting Maudgalyāyana/Mulian, one of the foremost disciples of Buddha, as a filial son who ventured into Hell to rescue his mother. The significance of this scripture extends beyond the realm of Buddhist canonical texts and rituals. With its core message of filial piety, it served as the scriptural foundation for the widely disseminated Mulian myth and theatrical performances in Chinese folklore, as well as the Zhongyuan/Ghost Festival, which continues to be observed in China and in diasporic Chinese communities. As Victor H. Mair points out, “From the time of its appearance in Chinese literature, the story of Mulian rescuing his mother, constituted an important point of reconciliation and unification for major religious traditions in China: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism” (p. 36).¹

Despite extensive research on this scripture, the question of its origin still remains unresolved, with two main conflicting perspectives: Chinese origin versus foreign origins (Indian or Central Asian). This book presents another carefully conducted investigation that argues for the Indic origins of the Yulanpen Sūtra, offering a valuable contribution to this enduring scholarly debate.

In addition to an introduction and a conclusion, the main body of the book consists of four chapters, presenting the major arguments and evidence of the Chinese-origin perspective and then providing “a point-by-point refutation and rebuttal of them based on both internal and external evidence” (p. xii).

In the introduction, Zhao outlines the central objectives of the book and clarifies the definitions of two key terms—apocrypha and translation—within the historical context of Chinese Buddhist scriptures. These concepts are pivotal to the debate over the origin of the Yulanpen Sūtra. Zhao challenges the Chinese-origin perspective, which views the Yulanpen Sūtra as an indigenous Buddhist composition or an apocryphal text, by arguing that it is “most likely a Chinese creative translation” of Indic sources (p. 4). By “creative translation” or “the reader-oriented localization,” Zhao highlights the process of using “the idiomatic, indigenous, idiosyncratic, and sometimes culturally specific expressions in the target (Sinitic) language to translate conceptually equivalent expressions in the source (Indic) language” for “a target readership” (p. 5).

Zhao further discusses this process in chapter 4 through the concept of “dynamic equivalence” between the source text and the target text, a strategy commonly employed in historical Buddhist translations. He stresses that some culturally distinctive Chinese terms and expressions in the Yulanpen Sūtra, often cited as key evidence of its apocryphal nature, are in fact the products of this translation approach to make the scripture more accessible and acceptable to Chinese audiences while retaining its Indic core.

In the following two chapters, Zhao presents an English translation of the Yulanpen Sūtra and analyzes the portrayal of Mulian/Maudgalyāyana in Indian Buddhist literature, along with the etymologies of the terms Yulan, Pen, and Yulanpen. While highlighting the parallels between the Chinese and Indic sources regarding Mulian’s identity and attributes—suggesting these elements were not original to the Yulanpen Sūtra, Zhao underscores that most scholarship agrees on the Indic or Iranian origins of these key terms.

Chapter 3 provides a meticulous review of the textual history of the Yulanpen Sūtra in late medieval Chinese Buddhist catalogues. This analysis allows Zhao to convincingly argue two critical points related to the origin question. First, considering the common practice of orally and collaboratively translating Indic Buddhist texts in medieval China and the inconsistencies in historical records, Zhao contends that it is inconclusive to attribute the translation of the Yulanpen Sūtra to the Indo-Scythian translator Dharmarakṣa (also known as Zhu Fahu, d. 308), a widely accepted view in academia.

Second, although no corresponding Buddhist scripture exists in any known Indic sources, the Yulanpen Sūtra was never labeled as “apocryphal” in these catalogues. Instead, it was consistently treated as “an authentic text translated from an Indic original text and thus ‘admitted to the Buddhist canon’ (ruzang)” (p. 35). While the absence of the text in Indic sources is the most direct evidence to question the authenticity of the Yulanpen Sūtra, Zhao notes that a considerable amount of early Indian Buddhist texts did not survive before being recorded as written artifacts. Many of them did not survive in their South Asian forms but have persisted in the Chinese translations. Thus, Zhao cautions against confusing “the absence of evidence” with “evidence of absence” (p. 50).

Along the same line but more comprehensively, Zhao addresses the most representative criticisms of the Yulanpen Sūtra’s authenticity in contemporary scholarship through both textual and contextual evidence in chapter 4—the backbone of the book. Beyond highlighting the indirect motif and thematic connections between the Yulanpen Sūtra and ancient Indic Buddhist literature, Zhao provides an in-depth analysis of what he identifies as “the most common and compelling evidence” (p. 56) against the authenticity of the Yulanpen Sūtra: its core message of filial piety in close association with ancestor worship. Scholars have long argued that filial piety and ancestor worship, central to Confucianism, “are somewhat peripheral, if not entirely alien, to Indian culture” (p. 56).

Zhao, however, counters this argument with scriptural narratives, archaeological evidence, and living rituals, demonstrating that filial ethics and ancestor worship were an important and integral part of social and religious life in Indian culture. In fact, this evidence suggests that Buddhist belief and practice had come under the influence of Indian filial ethics well before Buddhism spread to China. To further substantiate his argument, Zhao traces the ritual origins of the Yulanpen Festival—directly inspired by the Yulanpen Sūtra—back to Buddhist India. By analyzing travel accounts and Buddhist records by eminent monks, Zhao identifies a historical link between the ancient Buddhist Lafo (offering sacrifice to Buddha) ceremony, the Pavarāṇā ceremony, and the Kathina robe-offering ritual. These practices have persisted for centuries within the cultural sphere of Indian Buddhism (e.g., Southeast Asian Theravāda regions).

In the “Conclusion,” Zhao concisely summarizes the major points of contention discussed throughout the book and reaffirms his position that, contrary to one of the most prevailing perspectives in the century-long debate over the text’s origins, the Yulanpen Sūtra is “most probably” a Chinese creative translation of Indic scriptures.

As Zhao acknowledges at the outset of the book, the argument for the Indic origins of the Yulanpen Sūtra, along with some of the points and evidence presented in this book, is not something new. However, one of the most compelling aspects of Zhao’s work is his thorough, meticulous, and comprehensive study of this question, drawing on both textual and contextual evidence to construct a persuasive argument. This strength is further enhanced by his multidisciplinary approach, which skillfully integrates historical documents, ancient literature, translation practices, etymology, and living rituals. Zhao’s fresh insights into the religious, linguistic, and ritualistic dimensions of the Yulanpen Sūtra, the Yulanpen/Ghost Festival, and the Mulian myth help to expand our understanding of their Indic roots and illuminate the complex interplay between Indian and Chinese cultural spheres.

Zhao is also notably cautious in drawing conclusions on this complex issue. While his argument is compelling, the absence of Mulian/Maudgalyāyana as a filial son—the essence of his identity in the Yulanpen Sūtra and Chinese culture—from any Indic historical, literary, or religious documents continues to pose some uncertainty. Given his significant status and influence within Indian cultural spheres, it seems almost unfathomable or illogical that, while all other attributes and deeds (including his unfilial actions in previous lives) are documented, his filial act of rescuing his mother from Hell is completely absent from Indic sources. As Hong Chen notes, new historical and archaeological discoveries are needed to provide a definitive answer to the origin debate.²

With its rigorous scholarship and multidisciplinary scope, Chindian Myth of Mulian Rescuing His Mother – On Indic Origins of the Yulanpen Sūtra is a valuable addition to the century-long scholarly discourse on one of the most debated issues in Buddhist studies. It is also an indispensable resource for scholars working in Chinese religions, Mulian myth and theater studies, and the history of Sino-Indian exchanges.