Source: CSZJJ

Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145.

Palumbo (2003): 197 n. 87, argues that the biographies in CSZJJ are earlier than other portions of the text, on the following grounds: glosses are explained with reference to the "language of Qi" 齊言; the latest date in this portion of the text falls around 502-503. He promises to treat this problem in more detail in a study entitled "Forgeries in the Chu sanzang ji ji" (forthcoming). He also refers to Naitō (1958). Storch (2014, passim) argues at length that Sengyou's catalogue was an ideological project. She characterises him as a self-styled guardian of orthodoxy, and the inquiries he conducted into such affairs as the fabrication of scriptures by Sengfa 僧法 and Miaoguang 妙光 as "inquisitions". She regards Sengyou's bibliographic enterprise as part of the same overall project and pattern. In keeping with this hypothesis, she suggests that Sengyou knew of other catalogues before him than that of Dao'an, which he refers to generically as jiu lu 舊錄 or gu lu 古錄, but that he suppressed mention of these catalogues in order to give additional authority to the orthodoxy he aimed to construct. Storch believes that Sengyou succeeded so well in this constructive and normative enterprise that he has led modern scholarship by the nose, and as a result, the default understanding is that Dao'an was the oldest catalogue of Buddhist texts, and after him, Sengyou was virtually the next thing to happen. In the overall structure of Storch's argument, these claims are complemented by an attempt to rehabilitate Fei Changfang as possibly a more reliable bibliographer than modern scholarship has usually thought, on the basis of the hypothesis that his work built upon precisely the catalogues that were also Sengyou's disavowed sources. One key assumption upon which Storch's argument rests is that "[i]t is a well-known fact that Chinese Buddhists regularly traveled throughout the politically divided country, and almost all the scriptures known in the north were also known in the south"; thus, she presumes that Sengyou must have had access to roughly the same texts and catalogues as Fei, or approximately all texts produced up to his time. Storch suggests that the seven categories of Sengyou's catalogue were intended to echo the sevenfold classification of Liu Xiang's 劉向 Bie lu 別錄 ("Catalogue by Categories"), which was foundational for the Chinese bibliographic tradition as a whole. Sengyou is supposed to have compiled CSZJJ at the command of Liang Wudi, but the result was judged wanting, and Liang Wudi therefore subsequently commanded Sengshao 僧紹 and then Baochang 寶唱 to compile their catalogues to make up for its shortcomings. Storch reads this as showing that Sengyou was espousing a monastic perspective that was in some senses opposed to the imperial political agenda. In support of this hypothesis, she argues that Baochang was "rewarded" by being given charge of the imperial library, while "no such rewards were bestowed upon Sengyou" (53-55). Storch gives an outline of the structure of this catalogue (Table 4, Table 5, 72-74). Zacchetti (2005): 76 notes as an instance of "a potentially very misleading lack of information on the part of the Taishō's editors" that the apparatus for T2145 does not record variants in the Kunaishō 宮内省 edition, "which consists of two Fuzhou editions of the Song period". If this indicated, as it appeared, that this addition always agreed with the Korean (the base text), it would have been extraordinary: "an exception worthy of an article". Zacchetti states that he later consulted the microfilm of the Kunaishō edition, and it does indeed contain a full exemplar of CSZJJ, which moreover "has some apparently single readings of considerable interest". See also Link, Arthur E. “Shih Seng-yu and His Writings.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 80, no. 1 (1960): 17-43. Link translates in full Sengyou's "Preface" to the whole work.

Assertions