I was asked on Tumblr if I was familiar with Shi Pantuo (石槃陀/石盤陀/石磐陀; fig. 1), a historical figure suggested to be one of several influences on Sun Wukong. [1] He is known for serving as a temporary guide to the historical monk Xuanzang (玄奘, 602–664), on whom the literary Tripitaka is based. According to Hansen (2012), Shi was a Sogdian, an Iranic people active in Central Asia and China:

The guide’s last name, Shi, indicated that his family had originally come from the region of Kesh, or Shahrisabz, outside Samarkand, Uzbekistan, while his given name, Pantuo, was the Chinese transcription of Vandak, a common Sogdian name meaning “servant” of a given deity (p. 85). [2]

In this article, I will quote Shi’s full story appearing in A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery (Da Tang Daci’en si Sanzang Fashi Zhuan, 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳, 7th-century; T2053), a journal of Xuanzang’s travels written by his disciple Huili (慧立). I will also discuss why he is believed to have been an inspiration for the Monkey King.

On a related note, please see my past article about the historical monk Wukong (悟空).

Fig. 1 – Statues of Xuanzang (left) and Shi Pantuo (right) from the Xuanzang Procures the Scriptures Museum (Xuanzang qujing bowuguan, 玄奘取经博物馆) in Guazhou County, Gansu Province, China (larger version). Image found here.

1. Historical Record

Determined to procure Buddhist scriptures from India, Xuanzang ignored a royal prohibition against leaving China by traveling in secret towards the western reaches of the country. He was initially worried about traversing the border, which was heavily guarded by the military, but then his horse died, making matters worse. Then he was shocked to find that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. All of this weighed heavily on the monk (Huili & Shi, 1995, pp. 20-21). It was shortly thereafter that he met Shi Pantuo:

Now the Master worried all the more. Of the two junior monks [who had recently joined him in Liangzhou], Daozheng had already gone to Dunhuang, and only Huilin remained with him. Knowing that he could not stand the hardships of the long journey ahead, the Master dismissed him and let him go home. He bought a horse, but the trouble was that he had nobody to be his guide. Before the image of Maitreya Bodhisattva of the monastery [in Guazhou (fig. 2)] in which he was staying, he prayed for a man who might guide him through the pass. That night a monk of the Hu [胡, i.e. “barbarian“] tribe, named Dharma, of that monastery dreamed that the Master was sitting on a lotus flower going west. Dharma felt it strange and in the following morning he came to tell his dream to the Master, who was delighted in his mind, knowing that this was a good omen indicating the possibility of continuing his journey. But he said to Dharma, “A dream is but a fancy and is not worth mentioning.”

He again entered the shrine hall to pray. Before long a man of the Hu tribe came to pay homage to the image of the Buddha. He worshipped the Master by circumambulating him two or three … (Huili & Shi, 1995, p. 21)

… times. Being asked his name, the man said that he was named Pantuo with the surname of Shi (emphasis added). He begged for the conferment of the Precepts and was given the Five Precepts. Greatly delighted, the Hu man went away and returned in a moment with cakes and fruits. Seeing that the man was intelligent and strong with a reverential manner, the Master told him about his intention of taking the journey. The Hu man consented to send him across the five watchtowers, and this greatly pleased the Master. He bought some clothes and a horse for the man and made an appointment with him.

On the following day, when the sun was about to set, the Master went to a bushland where he waited for the man. Before long he arrived together with an old man of the Hu tribe, riding on an aged lean horse of reddish color. At this sight the Master felt displeased. But the young man said, “This old man knows the route to the West perfectly well. He has travelled to and from Yiwu for more than thirty times. I have brought him along in the hope that he might give you some counsel.” Then the old Hu man said, “The road to the West is perilous and the Sha River is an obstacle on the long way. There are demons and hot wind. Whoever encounters them cannot be spared from death. Even if you travel together with a large group of companions, you might go astray or be lost. How can you, reverend teacher, try to go all alone? I ask you to consider the matter carefully and not gamble with your life.”

The Master replied, “I started on my journey to the West for the purpose of seeking the Great Dharma. I shall not return to the East before I reach the Brahmanic countries. I shall not regret it even if I die on the way.”

The old man said, “If you insist on going, you had better ride my horse. This horse of mine has travelled to Yiwu fifteen times. It is sound and knows the way well. Yours is too young to travel such a long distance.”

Then the Master recalled that when he was about to start on his journey to the West from Chang’an, there was a sorcerer, named He Hongda, whose witchcraft and divination were usually effective. The Master had asked him to foretell the events of his … (Huili & Shi, 1995, p. 22)

… forthcoming journey. The sorcerer said, “You will be able to go, and it seems that you will be riding on an aged, lean horse of a reddish color, equipped with a varnished saddle with a piece of iron at the front.” On seeing that the Hu man’s horse was lean and reddish in color and that the varnished saddle had a piece of iron, the Master deemed it appropriate to take it, and so he changed his horse for that of the old Hu man, who was quite pleased and went away after due salutation.

After having packed his outfit, the Master started on the journey with the young Hu man. At about the third watch, they reached the river and saw the Yumen Pass at a distance. They went up the stream for about ten li [3.10 mi or 5 km] from the pass and came to a place where the banks of the river were over ten [Chinese] feet apart [10.43 ft or 3.18 m], beside which there was a wood of tamarisks. The Hu man cut some branches and built a bridge, on which he spread grass and paved it with sand. Then they drove their horses across [fig. 3].

The Master was glad to have crossed the river, and he unsaddled his horse to take rest at a place more than fifty paces from the Hu man. They spread their quilts on the ground to sleep. After a little while the Hu man got up, unsheathed his knife, and slowly advanced toward the Master, but he retreated at a distance of about ten paces. Not knowing what he had in his mind and suspecting that he might have an evil intent, the Master got up and recited scriptures and repeated the name of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva [i.e. Guanyin], whereupon the Hu man lay down and slept. [3]

When it was nearly daybreak, the Master wakened the man to fetch some water for a wash. At the moment when they were about to continue the journey after having taken breakfast, the Hu man said, “Your disciple considers that the journey ahead is long and dangerous with neither water nor grass on the way. As water can be obtained only at the five towers, we have to reach them at night to steal water and pass along. But once discovered we shall be dead men. So it is safer to turn back.”

But the Master was determined not to go back, and so the Hu man proceeded with reluctance. He took out his sword and drew his bow, ordering the Master to go before him, but the Master … (Huili & Shi, 1995, p. 23)

… refused to precede him. When they had gone a few li, the man stopped and said, ‘Your disciple cannot go any more. I have a big family to support, and moreover I dare not trespass against the law.” The Master knew his mind and let him go back. The Hu man said, “You will certainly not be able to reach your destination. What shall I do if you are arrested and I am involved in the matter?” The Master replied, “Even if I am cut to pieces, I will never implicate you in my affair.” He then took a solemn oath and the man was satisfied. The Master presented him with a horse out of gratitude for his service, and they parted (Huili & Shi, 1995, p. 23).

___________________________

(I’m presenting two Chinese versions of the text here because I’ve noticed some differences.)

CBETA:

自是益增憂惘。所從二小僧，道整先向燉煌，唯惠琳在，知其不堪遠涉，亦放還。遂貿易得馬一匹，但苦無人相引。即於所停寺彌勒像前啟請，願得一人相引渡關。

其夜，寺有胡僧達摩，夢法師坐一蓮華向西而去。達摩私怪，旦而來白。法師心喜為得行之徵，然語達摩云：「夢為虛妄，何足涉言。」更入道場禮請。俄有一胡人來入禮佛，逐法師行二三匝。問其姓名，云姓石，字槃陀。此胡即請受戒，乃為授五戒。胡甚喜，辭還。少時齎餅菓更來。法師見其明健，貌又恭肅，遂告行意。胡人許諾言，送師過五烽。法師大喜，乃更貿衣資為買馬而期焉。

明日日欲下，遂入草間，須臾彼胡更與一胡老翁乘一瘦老赤馬相逐而至。法師心不懌，少胡曰：「此翁極諳西路，來去伊吾三十餘反，故共俱來，望有平章耳。」胡公因說：「西路險惡，沙河阻遠，鬼魅熱風，過無達者。徒侶眾多，猶數迷失，況師單獨，如何可行？願自斟量，勿輕身命。」法師報曰：「貧道為求大法，發趣西方，若不至婆羅門國，終不東歸。縱死中途，非所悔也。」胡翁曰：「師必去，可乘我此馬。此馬往反伊吾已十五度。健而知道。師馬少，不堪遠涉。」

法師乃竊念，在長安將發志西方日，有術人何弘達者，誦呪占觀，多有所中。法師令占行事，達曰：「師得去。去狀似乘一老赤瘦馬，漆鞍橋前有鐵。」既覩胡人所乘馬瘦赤，鞍漆有鐵，與何言合，心以為當，遂換馬。胡翁歡喜，禮敬而別。於是裝束，與少胡夜發。三更許到河，遙見玉關。去關上流十里許，兩岸可闊丈餘，傍有胡椒樹叢。胡乃斬木為橋，布草填沙，驅馬而過。

法師既渡而喜，因解駕停憩，與胡人相去可五十餘步，各下褥而眠。少時，胡人乃拔刀而起，徐向法師，未到十步許又迴，不知何意，疑有異心。即起誦經，念觀音菩薩。胡人見已，還臥遂眠。天欲明，法師喚令起取水𣹉漱，解齋訖欲發，胡人曰：「弟子將前途險遠，又無水草，唯五烽下有水，必須夜到偷水而過，但一處被覺，即是死人。不如歸還，用為安隱。」法師確然不迴，乃俛仰而進，露刃張弓，命法師前行。法師不肯居前，胡人自行數里而住，曰：「弟子不能去。家累既大而王法不可干也。」法師知其意，遂任還。胡人曰：「師必不達。如被擒捉，相引奈何？」法師報曰：「縱使切割此身如微塵者，終不相引。」為陳重誓，其意乃止。與馬一匹，勞謝而別。(Source)

Wikisource:

自是益增憂惘。所從二小僧，道整先向燉煌，唯慧琳在，知其不堪遠涉，亦放還。遂貿易得馬一疋，但苦無人相引。即於所停寺彌勒像前啟請，願得一人相引渡關。其夜，寺有胡僧達磨夢法師坐一蓮華向西而去。達磨私怪，旦而來白。法師心喜為得行之徵，然語達磨云：「夢為虛妄，何足涉言。」更入道場禮請，俄有一胡人來入禮佛，逐法師行二三幣。問其姓名，雲姓石字盤陀。此胡即請受戒，乃為授五戒。胡甚喜，辭還。少時齋餅果更來。法師見其明健，貌又恭肅，遂告行意。胡人許諾，言送師過五烽。法師大喜，乃更貿衣資為買馬而期焉。明日日欲下，遂入草間，須臾彼胡更與一胡老翁乘一瘦老赤馬相逐而至，法師心不懌。少胡曰：「此翁極諳西路，來去伊吾三十餘返，故共俱來，望有平章耳。」胡公因說西路險惡，沙河阻遠，鬼魅熱風，遇無免者。徒侶眾多，猶數迷失，況師單獨，如何可行？願自料量，勿輕身命。法師報曰：「貧道為求大法，發趣西方，若不至婆羅門國，終不東歸。縱死中途，非所悔也。」胡翁曰：「師必去，可乘我馬。此馬往返伊吾已有十五度，健而知道。師馬少，不堪遠涉。」法師乃竊念在長安將發誌西方日，有術人何弘達者，誦咒占觀，多有所中。法師令占行事，達曰：「師得去。去狀似乘一老赤瘦馬，漆鞍橋前有鐵。」既睹胡人所乘馬瘦赤，漆鞍有鐵，與何言合，心以為當，遂即換馬。胡翁歡喜，禮敬而別。

於是裝束，與少胡夜發。三更許到河，遙見玉門關。去關上流十里許，兩岸可闊丈餘，傍有梧桐樹叢。胡人乃斬木為橋，布草填沙，驅馬而過。法師既渡而喜，因解駕停，與胡人相去可五十餘步，各下褥而眠。少時胡人乃拔刀而起，徐向法師，未到十步許又回，不知何意，疑有異心。即起誦經，念觀音菩薩。胡人見已，還臥遂睡。天欲明，法師喚令起取水盥漱，解齋訖欲發，胡人曰：「弟子將前途險遠，又無水草，唯五烽下有水，必須夜到偷水而過，但一處被覺，即是死人。不如歸還，用為安穩。」法師確然不回。乃勉仰而進，露刀張弓，命法師前行。法師不肯居前，胡人自行數里而住，曰：「弟子不能去。家累既大而王法不可忤也。」法師知其意，遂任還。胡人曰：「師必不達。如被擒捉，相引奈何？」法師報曰：「縱使切割此身如微塵者，終不相引。」為陳重誓，其意乃止。與馬一疋，勞謝而別。(Source)

Fig. 2 (Top) – Xuanzang’s route to (red) and from (green) India. The black triangle indicates his starting point in the Chinese capital of Chang’an. The red arrow indicates Guazhou, where he met Shi Pantuo (larger version). Image found here. Fig. 3 (Bottom) – Xuanzang’s route from Guazhou towards the Yumen Pass. The bottom arrow indicates Guazhou, and the top arrow indicates where the monk and his guide passed the river and eventually parted ways (larger version). Image found here.

2. Connection to Sun Wukong

Zhang Jinchi (张锦池), a professor of Chinese Language and Literature at Harbin Normal University, has proposed five reasons for why Shi is a prototype of Sun Wukong:

1) Their functions as guides are similar; 2) their functions in resolving danger are comparable; 3) their identities as pilgrims are identical; 4) their delicate master-disciple relationships are similar; and 5) Shi Pantuo was a “barbarian monk” (huseng), and this is pronounced similarly to “macaque” (husun).

(1) 向导作用相类；(2) 解决危难作用相若；(3) 行者身份相同；(4) 师徒间微妙关系相似；(5) 石磐陀乃胡僧，胡僧与“猢狲”音近 (Chen, 2011, p. 50).

I’d like to provide context as a reminder of what we have already learned about Shi and what is known about Monkey from his story cycle. First, both obviously guide their masters, Shi past the Yumen Pass and Sun all the way to India. Second, both resolve danger in particular ways. Shi built a bridge, which helped them bypass a river blocking their path, and he also carried a sword and bow, which means he could have protected the monk from bandits if the need arose. Wukong of course uses his magic and martial skills to protect Tripitaka from all sorts of monsters and spirits. Third, the term “pilgrim” (xingzhe, 行者) refers to a “postulant,” a lay Buddhist acolyte who has yet to be ordained but lives as an untonsured monk, one expected to follow the Five Precepts against killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, and drinking alcohol (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, pp. 1011-1012). Therefore, both Shi and Monkey were/are essentially untrained, itinerant monks who travel(ed) with their masters on the road west. Fourth, the master-disciple relationship is delicate because both postulants threaten their masters’ lives. Shi attempted to assault Xuanzang with a knife in the night, and Sun attempts to kill Tripitaka with his staff when the cleric first uses the tight-fillet spell (Wu & Yu, 2012, vol. 1, p. 320). And of course we can’t forget the times when the Tang Monk kicks Wukong out of the pilgrimage (Wu & Yu, 2012, vol. 2, pp. 26-28; vol. 3, pp. 89-91). And fifth, huseng (胡僧, “barbarian monk,” i.e. Shi) and husun (猢猻, “macaque,” i.e. Monkey) sound similar, implying a connection. But this last point requires more explanation. Mair (2015) comments on the relationship between the word hu (胡), Hu-barbarians, and beards:

The earliest mention I know of for hú 胡 with the meaning of “non-Sinitic people from the west” is in the Zhōu lǐ 周礼 (Rituals of the Zhou), which is a Western Han (206 BC-9 AD) text, whereas the earliest occurrence of hú 胡 with the meaning “beard” that I’m aware of is considerably later, during the Liang period (502-587) of the Southern Dynasties.

This speaks to a stereotyped image of foreigners as bearded people (fig. 4). Most importantly, their association with body hair eventually gave rise to a new name for monkeys. The Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao gangmu, 本草綱目, 1596) states, “Since a monkey resembles a Hu-barbarian (Hu ren), he is also called ‘grandson of the barbarian’ (husun)” (猴形似胡人，故曰胡孫). This term is often used to refer to macaques. For example, even Sun’s first master references it in JTTW chapter one: “Though your features are not the most attractive, you do resemble a pignolia-eating macaque (husun)” (你身軀雖是鄙陋，卻像個食松果的猢猻) (based on Wu & Yu, 2012, vol. 1, p. 115). [4]

Therefore, all of these points combined make it easy to see how the concept of a Hu-barbarian monk traveling with Xuanzang could’ve helped give rise to stories about a husun (macaque) monk traveling with Tripitaka.

Fig. 4 – A 7th-century Chinese temple carving of a bearded Sogdian dancer (larger version).

Note:

1) This reminds me of “Euhemerism,” a philosophical interpretation of mythology where gods are suggested to have originally been deified historical figures.

2) A chart in Hansen (2005) shows that another variant of Pantuo (槃陀/盤陀/磐陀), a common Sogdian given name, is “畔陀” (p. 305).

3) Hansen (2012) questions if Shi approaching Xuanzang with a knife was a nightmare (p. 86).

A more sinical person might read the old Sogdian convincing Xuanzang to switch animals as a plot to cheat the monk out of a better quality horse. And Shi approaching him in the night with a knife could thus be read as the murderous finale of that plan. Afterall, the cleric wouldn’t be able to return to complain to the authorities about the bad trade if he was dead. But there are two problems with this theory: 1) Shi guided Xuanzang for a distance and even built a bridge to help bypass a river. That seems like way too much effort just to turn around and murder someone. Killing the monk just outside of town would have taken much less time and effort; and 2) the sorcerer He Hongda is said to have foretold the use of this skinny horse while the monk was still in Chang’an. However, a sinical person might counter that: 1) Shi was just scared to do the dirty deed too close to home; and 2) The “prophecy” was just a cover for the bad trade. I’ll let the reader decide.

4) The only difference between the old husun (胡孫) from the Materia Medica and the current husun (猢猻) is the addition of the dog radical (quan, 犭), thereby transforming the barbaric grandson into an animal.

Sources:

Buswell, R. E. , & Lopez, D. S. (2014). The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chen, M. (2011). Sun Wukong juese yanjiu jiqi yiyi tantao [An Investigation of the Research into Sun Wukong’s Role and Importance]. Journal of Xianning University, 31(11), 49-50. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20181220230540/http://lyglibrary.com/tsg/xyjwx/xyjyj/%E8%A5%BF%E6%B8%B8%E8%AE%B0%E8%AE%BA%E6%96%872011/%E5%AD%99%E6%82%9F%E7%A9%BA%E8%A7%92%E8%89%B2%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E5%8F%8A%E5%85%B6%E6%84%8F%E4%B9%89%E6%8E%A2%E8%AE%A8.pdf

Hansen, V. (2005). The Impact of the Silk Road Trade on Local Community: The Turfan Oasis, 500-800. In E. Trombert, & E. La Vaissière (Eds.), Les Sogdiens en Chine (pp. 283-310). Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient.

Hansen, V. (2012). The Silk Road: A New History. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huili, & Shi, Y. (1995). A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty (L. Rongxi Trans.). Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Retrieved from https://www.bdkamerica.org/product/a-biography-of-the-tripitaka-master-of-the-great-cien-monastery/.

Mair, V. (2015, August 26). The bearded barbarian. Language Log. Retrieved from https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20808