Zhu Daozu 竺道租. "Daozu catalogue."
Tradition reports that this catalogue was compiled at Lushan 廬山. It was begun by Qian Daoliu 遷道流, and completed after his death by Zhu Daozu 竺道租. Palumbo (2013) suggests many times in passing that this catalogue was "apocryphal", a "Liang forgery" (68 n. 140, 75, 148, 150). Palumbo cites Tan (1991): 111-120; Palumbo (2003): 180 n. 31 gives further detail. He notes that Fei Changfang mentions various separate (subordinate?) dynastic catalogues ascribed to Daozu (魏世錄目, 吳世錄目, 晉世雜錄, 河西錄目...T2034:49.74a2-6; Han lu 漢錄 49.34a11). Palumbo argues that Huijiao, in the Gao zeng zhuan, got his “information” about *Dharmakāla, Kang Sengkai, *Dharmasatya, and Bo Yan from Zhu Daozu’s catalogue(s), and Huijiao in turn was then Fei Changfang’s source in LDSBJ. Palumbo argues further: “Tan Shibao 譚世保 has showed convincingly that [the] entries [cited from the various Zhu Daozu catalogues cited by Fei Changfang in LDSBJ] do not stand close scrutiny, for they teem with inconsistencies, anachronisms, and outright blunders; the logical conclusion is that the catalogues ascribed to Zhu Daozu are sheer forgeries [citing Tan, Han Tang Foshi tanzhen (1990), 111-120)]. But Fei Zhangfang should not be criticised for all this. If what has been said above is true, the forgeries must have been in the making during the latter years of Sengyou’s life (roughly between 514 and 518), as appears from the fact that Baochang (in 514) seemingly ignores *Dharmakāla and the others, and Sengyou himself only knows of Bo Yan from bibliographical sources (the monk and his translations are briefly mentioned in the biographical section of the [CSZJJ] 13.96a27-28) and a vaguely named ‘separate catalogue’. On the other hand, the fake catalogues must have been circulating by AD 529, when the Gaoseng zhuan had been completed.”
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|