Source: Storch 2014

Storch, Tanya. The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripiṭaka. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2014.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T2063; 比丘尼傳	Storch reports that de Rauw (2005) questions the attribution of this text to Baochang 寶唱. Edit	165 n. 3	Storch reports that de Rauw (2005) questions the attribution of this text to Baochang 寶唱. T2063; 比丘尼傳
Texts: T2034; 歷代三寶紀	A considerable portion of the overall aim of Storch (2014, passim) is to rehabilitate Fei Changfang, to some degree, from the bad reputation he has among modern scholars. Storch argues that Sengyou's catalogue was an ideological project, part of a larger pattern in Sengyou's activity that reveals him as a self-styled guardian of orthodoxy. 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. Edit		A considerable portion of the overall aim of Storch (2014, passim) is to rehabilitate Fei Changfang, to some degree, from the bad reputation he has among modern scholars. Storch argues that Sengyou's catalogue was an ideological project, part of a larger pattern in Sengyou's activity that reveals him as a self-styled guardian of orthodoxy. 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. T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T2063; 比丘尼傳

Storch reports that de Rauw (2005) questions the attribution of this text to Baochang 寶唱.

Edit

165 n. 3

Texts: T2034; 歷代三寶紀

A considerable portion of the overall aim of Storch (2014, passim) is to rehabilitate Fei Changfang, to some degree, from the bad reputation he has among modern scholars. Storch argues that Sengyou's catalogue was an ideological project, part of a larger pattern in Sengyou's activity that reveals him as a self-styled guardian of orthodoxy. 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.

Edit