Source: Naitō 1958

For the 撰出經論 section of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports 30 texts/66 fascicles less than our extant CSZJJ. Naitō cannot account for all these differences, but suggests that in part, they should be accounted for by five texts/31 fascicles at the end of the 詮名錄 in our received CSZJJ. [T2145 (LV) 13c9-20 --- MR.] This list of five texts is messy, and inconsistent with what precedes it. Preceding items are grouped chronologically, but this list jumps around in time. Three items on the list appear to interrupt a listing of the works of *Guṇavr̥ddha 求那毘陀, after which the section in question returns to him and adds two more lists to his name. Naitō suggests that this list is a later addition, and that Fei Zhangfang saw a version of CSZJJ without it. The five texts include the 教戒比丘尼法, dated to Tianjian 3 (504), and so the revision should have occurred after that year; the two texts ascribed to Guṇavr̥ddha among the presumed additions are dated to Jianwu 建武 2 (495), and so the text preceding the revision should have covered texts down to that year at the latest. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 教戒比丘尼法, 大智論抄, 虛空藏經, 十二因緣經, and 須達長者經 (cf.T73).

Edit

Naitō notes that various theories have been espoused about the date of CSZJJ. LDSBJ reports that it was composed in the Jianwu 建武 era of the S. Qi (494-498); DTNDL dates it to the late Qi or early Liang; in modern scholarship, it has variously been proposed that it dates after Tianjian 天監 9 (510), after Tianjian 14 (515), or after Tianjian 16 (517). All these theories have some evidential basis, but each may only hold for part of the catalogue, rather than the whole. Naitō's own view is that the four main sections of the work may have been composed separately, but if so, they must have been compiled together into a single work not later than Tianjian 3 (504). [This large concention is a natural inference following from the specific points Naitō argues in the remainder of his article --- MR.]

Naitō notes evidence in the GSZ biography of Sengyou that Liu Xie 劉勰 collaborated with Sengyou in establishing the library/collection of Dinglin si 定林寺. At the beginning of the Tianjian 天監 era (the beginning of the Liang, 502 onward), Liu Xie entered the employ of the Prince of Linchuan 臨川王, and Naitō argues that the period of collaboration between Liu Xie and Sengyou must have preceded this date. Naitō also cites the line 金並有其本悉在經藏 from the end of Sengyou's treatment of anonymous sūtra translations, T2145 (LV) 32a1-2, and suggests that here, "the repository of scriptures" 經藏 means the Dinglin si library. On the basis of these circumstances, Naitō proposes that the catalogue portion of CSZJJ was composed primarily during this period, at the end of the Qi.

Naitō adduces further proof evidence in favour of such a date in the biographies/hagiographies, in which notes give glosses with reference to the "language of the Qi" 齊言　[Naitō's article is in the highly abbreviated form typical of IBK, without references, but see T2145 (LV) 98b10, 100a24, 102a15, 102b3, 102c22, 103b28, 104b1, 104c6, 105a1, 105b18, 114a10; note that CSZJJ also contains two other such references: also 無量義經序, 荊州隱士劉虬作 68b6; one interlinear note, 13b17 --- MR.] Although this evidence only holds for the biographies, Naitō aims to show that a similar date holds for the bibliographic portions of the work. This would mean that Fei Zhangfang (LDSBJ) here communicates accurate information to us, despite the fact that he makes so many other baseless statements.

Naitō examines closely the information given in LDSBJ about the catalogues by translators/groups 詮名錄 section of CSZJJ. The version of CSZJJ seen by Fei had the same four divisions as our present CSZJJ, and the same preface. However, discrepancies in total numbers of texts and fascicles reported for different parts of the work suggest that there must have been differences in exact content. [LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8, which gives a table of contents for CSZJJ --- MR.] Naito focuses principally on such differences in numbering for two sections: (1) 撰出經論; (2) 異出經緣.

(1) For the 撰出經論, LDSBJ reports 30 texts/66 fascicles less than our extant CSZJJ. Naitō cannot account for all these differences, but suggests that in part, they should be accounted for by five texts/31 fascicles at the end of the 詮名錄 in our received CSZJJ. [T2145 (LV) 13c9-20 --- MR.] This list of five texts is messy, and inconsistent with what precedes it. Preceding items are grouped chronologically, but this list jumps around in time. Three items on the list appear to interrupt a listing of the works of *Guṇavr̥ddha 求那毘陀, after which the section in question returns to him and adds two more lists to his name. Naitō suggests that this list is a later addition, and that Fei Zhangfang saw a version of CSZJJ without it. The five texts include the 教戒比丘尼法, dated to Tianjian 3 (504), and so the revision should have occurred after that year; the two texts ascribed to Guṇavr̥ddha among the presumed additions are dated to Jianwu 建武 2 (495), and so the text preceding the revision should have covered texts down to that year at the latest.

(2) For the 異出經緣, Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] Again, the element Naitō suspects of being tacked on differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also contains the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, also included in the section of the 撰出經論 that he suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as the section discussed above, so after 504.

Naitō also considers probable dates for other sections. The 雜經志錄 contains the 僧法尼所誦出經入疑錄 [T2145 (LV) 40a9-b23 --- MR]. Naitō holds that this document sits strangely in its present location it the collection. In these documents, Tianjian 9 (510) is referred to as "that year", and so these two documents must date from 511 or later. From the content, it should be Sengyou's own report. It is linked closely to the report about Miaoguang 妙光 immediately following it, which should also be Sengyou's own work.

The 疑經偽撰雜錄, 38c18 ff., includes the 眾經要攬法偈二十一首一卷 ascribed to Daohuan in 503 梁天監二年。比丘釋道歡撰, but the overall number of texts etc. is the same as in LDSBJ. This means that the texts indicated on this list as "seen" or extant were probably collected before 503.

Naitō concludes: (1) Fei saw a version of CSZJJ dating to 502/503 or earlier. The text was later revised. (2) The 詮名錄 overall (like the biographies) should be understood as a work of the Jianwu era (S. Qi). (3) The revisions are not so meticulous, but it would be odd to regard them as the work of anyone other than Sengyou himself.

Edit