Source: Zacchetti 2005

Zacchetti mentions that Fang Guangchang published an article in 2002 in which he argues that this document is by Daoan. Zacchetti agrees. He cites as his principal reasons for this judgement: it displays significant similarities with Dao'an's Biqiu da jie 比丘大戒, and the content agrees in some specifics; it also displays agreement in wording, concerns and content with the Anonymous 漸備經十住胡名并書敘, which Zacchetti also regards as a work of Dao'an.

Edit

73 n. 108

Zacchetti discusses the authorship of this document, and related problems, in considerable detail, in part following or addressing earlier arguments by Zürcher, Hayashiya, Tan Shibao, and others, and personal communication with Antonello Palumbo. On the whole, Zacchetti agrees with the ascription of the document to Daoan, which has been proposed by several other scholars, but he also notes several problems. As possible arguments against the ascription, he notes that the document differs in style from Daoan’s usual work, coming across as “slipshod....rambling...[with] frequent repetitions, which almost give the impression that the author is mumbling or soliloquising”; and that the document refers to Daoan by name, with the surname Shi 釋道安, which is out of place with usage in the rest of Daoan’s corpus. In favour of the ascription, Zacchetti follows earlier scholars in noting that the author mentions a sojourn at Ye 鄴, had also lived in the North, and now lives in Xiangyang; the intense attention to details of bibliography and translation history; insistence on the important of monastic rule; and evidence of a relationship with Shi Huichang 釋慧常. To this, Zacchetti adds the use of the word hen 恨, which he observes is a favourite of Daoan’s. He also follows Hayashiya in considering three parallel passages in this document and Daoan’s He Fang guang Guang zan lüejie xu 合放光光讚略解序, describing the same events. Zacchetti points out that these passages contain the same, unusual use of the verb yin 因; and the use of the same verb, 展轉, to describe the roundabout process by which T222 found its way from Liangzhou to Chang’an. Zacchetti then considers the chronological relation between these two documents, by the same author (if this ascription is correct) and describing the same events, and suggests that the ...lüejie xu is later than the ...bing shuxu. He suggests that the “shuxu” is a sort of internal memo first jotted down by Daoan, with little stylistic elaboration, intended merely for internal circulation within his group, where the “lüejie xu” is a more “well-rounded ‘official’ preface” produced later on some of the same topics.

Edit

69-73

Zacchetti notes that although general information about the collation undertaken during the compilation of T might ordinarily lead us to believe that the "Palace" 宮内省 edition was consulted wherever possible, in fact, it was not consulted in compiling the apparatus for CSZJJ T2145. This fact is nowhere noted. This could be particularly misleading, given that the apparatus is negative, that is, it indicates agreement with the base text only by giving no note whatsoever. Thus, the fact that no variants are noted with P = 宮 could lead us to infer that it is always in agreement with K; but given that P belongs to the Southern line (Chikusa's group 3) in the print transmission of the canon, this would be a startling development ("worthy of an article"). "In the case of a text as the CSZJJ, so rich in variants, and where important issues such as dates etc. often depend on the reading of few characters...this is far from being an insignificant matter."

Edit

76 n. 10