|
|
Tokiwa considers the characteristics of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue朱士行錄 of Han texts, and argues that it was referred to not only by Fei Changfang, but also by Huijiao 慧皎 and Baochang 寶唱, while it was extant only for approximately eighty years and lost by the time of Fei.
1. Basic characterization
Tokiwa asserts that the Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄 (Zhu Shixing catalogue 朱士行錄 of Han texts) is not the work of Zhu Shixing, because there is no record that he ever compiled a catalogue. Tokiwa also maintains that it was not produced in the Three Kingdoms period 三国時代 either, as there was no need for catalogues yet in that time. As Fei Changfang clearly states, the Zhu Shixing Han lu was lost by the time he compiled LDSBJ. Nonetheless, Tokiwa believes that the catalogue did exist (73-74).
2.How Zhu Shixing Han lu was used by the catalogues:
2.1 Sengyou did not see the Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa maintains that the Zhu Shixing Han lu did not exist when Sengyou compiled CSZJJ. Tokiwa gives number of reasons, including that there are some texts not included in CSZJJ which are added in LDSBJ citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu as the source (77-79). Tokiwa considers the possibility that Sengyou’s Jiu lu 舊錄 might have been the Zhu Shixing lu cited by LDSBJ, only to reject it, because it appears that all of the LDSBJ citations of the Jiu lu are via CSZJJ, but there are further additional entries in which LDSBJ cites the Zhu Shixing lu, but content differs from anything cited in CSZJJ under the head of the Jiu lu.
2.2 Judging from LDSBJ, Zhu Shixing Han lu was one of Huijiao’s sources
Subsequently, Tokiwa examines which scriptures of the Han period were included in the Huijiao’s Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳 (GSZ), and argues that the Zhu Shixing Han lu existed at the time of Huijiao. The support Tokiwa provides for this view can be summarized as follows:
Tokiwa claims that, although Huijiao does not explicitly cite the Zhu Shixing Han lu as one of his source materials, and further, although the biography of Zhu Shixing himself in GSZ does not mention any supposed catalogue, that does not mean that Huijiao did not see it, because the purpose of GSZ is not to record the attributions of scriptures and, as such, it might not cite all of materials it used. Thus, whether Huijiao actually saw the Zhu Shixing Han lu or not should be determined indirectly — which means, Tokiwa claims, to seek for the basis of Huijiao’s ascriptions in LDSBJ.
GSZ lists 25 scriptures by 10 translators of the Han period (listed 76-77), without showing its sources. Among them, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 is also included in LDSBJ, citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu. The Shishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰 is also recorded in LDSBJ as an ascription based mainly on Zhu Shixing, with CSZJJ as an additional support; the Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨 [or could Kangju be a toponym, "The Sogdian"? --- MR], which is not included in CSZJJ, is recorded in LDSBJ citing Zhu Shixing. Tokiwa maintains that probably Huijiao referred to the Zhu Shixing catalogue in listing these three titles, like LDSBJ.
Tokiwa also infers that the following 6 titles among the 25 scriptures were probably listed in the GSZ on the basis of Zhu Shixing Han lu: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (LDSBJ cites the Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 as its source); the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔; the Xiao benqi jing 小本起經 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜 (LDSBJ cites GSZ 高僧傳 as its source); the Da shi’er men jing 大十二門經, Xiao shi’er men jing 小十二門經 and Dao di jing 道地經 (Yogācārabhūmi, T607) ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 (LDSBJ cites the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 as its source). According to Tokiwa, it is likely that the sources cited, i.e., GSZ, Ming seng zhuan and the Baochang catalogue, based their ascriptions directly on the Zhu Shixing Han lu, or indirectly, via the Baochang catalogue. This is because in this context, the Zhu Shixing Han lu and the Baochang catalogue are the only possible origins of those ascriptions. Thus, Tokiwa thinks that, among the 25 scriptures of the Han period recorded in GSZ, the ascriptions of three of them were probably taken directly from the Zhu Shixing Han lu, while another six were taken from it directly or indirectly. On this basis, Tokiwa maintains that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was extant at the time of Huijiao (80-81).
2.3 The Baochang catalogue was Fei’s source for citations of the Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa also points out that LDSBJ included 25 titles for the ascription of which Fei cited Zhu Shixing Han lu (listed 75-76). Since Fei asserts that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was lost by his time, Tokiwa tries to identify the basis upon which Fei cited the Zhu Shixing catalogue, and infers that Fei relied on Huijiao or on some material used in common by Fei and Huijiao. This is because Fei so often uses Huijiao as a source, and records from the Zhu Shixing Han lu catalogue first appear in LDSBJ in any detailed manner. Tokiwa then argues that, among six earlier catalogues extant at the time of Fei, the Baochang catalogue must be the one that provided Fei with the information about the Zhu Shixing Han lu, because the other five catalogues must be excluded for various reasons (81-82); for example, the Zhongjing bie lu 眾經別錄 is said to by Fei to be a catalogue of the (Liu) Song, but that is incompatible with Tokiwa’s other findings about the date of the Zhu Shixing Han lu; or the Fashang catalogue is already cited on other occasions by LDSBJ for content incompatible with its account of the Zhu Shixing Han lu.
3. Chronological considerations
On this basis, Tokiwa offers a possible period in which the Zhu Shixing Han lu was extant: It did not exist when CSZJJ was compiled (494-515 CE), but probably was available in 518-519, since it was used by Huijiao in compiling the GSZ (and Tokiwa dates GSZ to that period); and it was lost by 597, when LDSBJ was compiled. This being the case, as the Baochang catalogue is likely to be the source that Fei used in citing Zhu Shixing Han lu in (and Huijiao used for the 25 titles of the Han period in GSZ), Zhu Shixing Han lu should have been available in 518-519, when the Baochang catalogue was compiled. This means that the Zhu Shixing catalogue was compiled just a few years after the compilation of CSZJJ was completed (82).
4. Motivation for the composition Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa thus holds that the Zhu Shixing lu appeared very shortly after the CSZJJ, and was in a sense inspired by it, meaning that its author wished to provide more detailed information (like dates of translation), after the model pioneered in CSZJJ by Sengyou, for earlier periods of the translation tradition (especially the Han). Tokiwa further speculates that the Zhu Shixing Han lu largely followed Dao’an’s catalogue, but added some additional contents. This is because LDSBJ included some titles not listed in Dao’an, citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu in so doing, while it is reasonable to assume that the Zhu Shixing Han lu also contained the titles included in Dao’an (even though often only Dao’an is cited by Fei). Based on this, Tokiwa suggests that the unknown author/s of the catalogue probably wanted to achieve the following three goals:
a) To record the works of Kāśyapa Mātaṅga and Zhu Falan: the Zhu Shixing Han lu was compiled for the purpose of recording the first translations of Buddhist scriptures (for example, in LDSBJ, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 is ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 on the basis of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, and in addition, Huijiao ascribed three more titles to Zhu Falan: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, and the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經. Tokiwa believes that Huijiao also based these ascriptions on the Zhu Shixing Han lu).
b) To record translation dates in detail: In LDSBJ, there are eight titles the translation year of which is stated precisely on the basis of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (seven of which were not even included in CSZJJ). Several more titles are shown with the translation year, but without citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue. Tokiwa thinks that the Zhu Shixing catalogue is the source for these ascriptions too. Dao’an did not indicate translation dates in this manner, and probably, this new type of information was consciously introduced by the author of Zhu Shixing Han lu.
c) To supplement Dao’an’s catalogue: According to Tokiwa, LDSBJ includes five titles not included in Dao’an’s catalogue, citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue as the source. Tokiwa claims that, apart from their possible inaccuracy, those entries represent the intention of the author of the Zhu Shixing to supplement Dao’an’s catalogue (83-86).
5. Value of Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa ends his discussion on the Zhu Shixing catalogue of Han texts with his overall evaluation of the value of the catalogue. Tokiwa maintains that, despite some problems, the Zhu Shixing Han lu contained much valuable information, and was probably compiled by a competent scholar in the Liang period (86).
Edit
|
73-86 |
Tokiwa considers the characteristics of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue朱士行錄 of Han texts, and argues that it was referred to not only by Fei Changfang, but also by Huijiao 慧皎 and Baochang 寶唱, while it was extant only for approximately eighty years and lost by the time of Fei.
1. Basic characterization
Tokiwa asserts that the Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄 (Zhu Shixing catalogue 朱士行錄 of Han texts) is not the work of Zhu Shixing, because there is no record that he ever compiled a catalogue. Tokiwa also maintains that it was not produced in the Three Kingdoms period 三国時代 either, as there was no need for catalogues yet in that time. As Fei Changfang clearly states, the Zhu Shixing Han lu was lost by the time he compiled LDSBJ. Nonetheless, Tokiwa believes that the catalogue did exist (73-74).
2.How Zhu Shixing Han lu was used by the catalogues:
2.1 Sengyou did not see the Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa maintains that the Zhu Shixing Han lu did not exist when Sengyou compiled CSZJJ. Tokiwa gives number of reasons, including that there are some texts not included in CSZJJ which are added in LDSBJ citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu as the source (77-79). Tokiwa considers the possibility that Sengyou’s Jiu lu 舊錄 might have been the Zhu Shixing lu cited by LDSBJ, only to reject it, because it appears that all of the LDSBJ citations of the Jiu lu are via CSZJJ, but there are further additional entries in which LDSBJ cites the Zhu Shixing lu, but content differs from anything cited in CSZJJ under the head of the Jiu lu.
2.2 Judging from LDSBJ, Zhu Shixing Han lu was one of Huijiao’s sources
Subsequently, Tokiwa examines which scriptures of the Han period were included in the Huijiao’s Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳 (GSZ), and argues that the Zhu Shixing Han lu existed at the time of Huijiao. The support Tokiwa provides for this view can be summarized as follows:
Tokiwa claims that, although Huijiao does not explicitly cite the Zhu Shixing Han lu as one of his source materials, and further, although the biography of Zhu Shixing himself in GSZ does not mention any supposed catalogue, that does not mean that Huijiao did not see it, because the purpose of GSZ is not to record the attributions of scriptures and, as such, it might not cite all of materials it used. Thus, whether Huijiao actually saw the Zhu Shixing Han lu or not should be determined indirectly — which means, Tokiwa claims, to seek for the basis of Huijiao’s ascriptions in LDSBJ.
GSZ lists 25 scriptures by 10 translators of the Han period (listed 76-77), without showing its sources. Among them, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 is also included in LDSBJ, citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu. The Shishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to *Kasyapa Matanga 迦葉摩騰 is also recorded in LDSBJ as an ascription based mainly on Zhu Shixing, with CSZJJ as an additional support; the Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨 [or could Kangju be a toponym, "The Sogdian"? --- MR], which is not included in CSZJJ, is recorded in LDSBJ citing Zhu Shixing. Tokiwa maintains that probably Huijiao referred to the Zhu Shixing catalogue in listing these three titles, like LDSBJ.
Tokiwa also infers that the following 6 titles among the 25 scriptures were probably listed in the GSZ on the basis of Zhu Shixing Han lu: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (LDSBJ cites the Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 as its source); the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi-sutra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔; the Xiao benqi jing 小本起經 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜 (LDSBJ cites GSZ 高僧傳 as its source); the Da shi’er men jing 大十二門經, Xiao shi’er men jing 小十二門經 and Dao di jing 道地經 (Yogacarabhumi, T607) ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 (LDSBJ cites the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 as its source). According to Tokiwa, it is likely that the sources cited, i.e., GSZ, Ming seng zhuan and the Baochang catalogue, based their ascriptions directly on the Zhu Shixing Han lu, or indirectly, via the Baochang catalogue. This is because in this context, the Zhu Shixing Han lu and the Baochang catalogue are the only possible origins of those ascriptions. Thus, Tokiwa thinks that, among the 25 scriptures of the Han period recorded in GSZ, the ascriptions of three of them were probably taken directly from the Zhu Shixing Han lu, while another six were taken from it directly or indirectly. On this basis, Tokiwa maintains that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was extant at the time of Huijiao (80-81).
2.3 The Baochang catalogue was Fei’s source for citations of the Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa also points out that LDSBJ included 25 titles for the ascription of which Fei cited Zhu Shixing Han lu (listed 75-76). Since Fei asserts that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was lost by his time, Tokiwa tries to identify the basis upon which Fei cited the Zhu Shixing catalogue, and infers that Fei relied on Huijiao or on some material used in common by Fei and Huijiao. This is because Fei so often uses Huijiao as a source, and records from the Zhu Shixing Han lu catalogue first appear in LDSBJ in any detailed manner. Tokiwa then argues that, among six earlier catalogues extant at the time of Fei, the Baochang catalogue must be the one that provided Fei with the information about the Zhu Shixing Han lu, because the other five catalogues must be excluded for various reasons (81-82); for example, the Zhongjing bie lu 眾經別錄 is said to by Fei to be a catalogue of the (Liu) Song, but that is incompatible with Tokiwa’s other findings about the date of the Zhu Shixing Han lu; or the Fashang catalogue is already cited on other occasions by LDSBJ for content incompatible with its account of the Zhu Shixing Han lu.
3. Chronological considerations
On this basis, Tokiwa offers a possible period in which the Zhu Shixing Han lu was extant: It did not exist when CSZJJ was compiled (494-515 CE), but probably was available in 518-519, since it was used by Huijiao in compiling the GSZ (and Tokiwa dates GSZ to that period); and it was lost by 597, when LDSBJ was compiled. This being the case, as the Baochang catalogue is likely to be the source that Fei used in citing Zhu Shixing Han lu in (and Huijiao used for the 25 titles of the Han period in GSZ), Zhu Shixing Han lu should have been available in 518-519, when the Baochang catalogue was compiled. This means that the Zhu Shixing catalogue was compiled just a few years after the compilation of CSZJJ was completed (82).
4. Motivation for the composition Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa thus holds that the Zhu Shixing lu appeared very shortly after the CSZJJ, and was in a sense inspired by it, meaning that its author wished to provide more detailed information (like dates of translation), after the model pioneered in CSZJJ by Sengyou, for earlier periods of the translation tradition (especially the Han). Tokiwa further speculates that the Zhu Shixing Han lu largely followed Dao’an’s catalogue, but added some additional contents. This is because LDSBJ included some titles not listed in Dao’an, citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu in so doing, while it is reasonable to assume that the Zhu Shixing Han lu also contained the titles included in Dao’an (even though often only Dao’an is cited by Fei). Based on this, Tokiwa suggests that the unknown author/s of the catalogue probably wanted to achieve the following three goals:
a) To record the works of Kasyapa Matanga and Zhu Falan: the Zhu Shixing Han lu was compiled for the purpose of recording the first translations of Buddhist scriptures (for example, in LDSBJ, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 is ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 on the basis of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, and in addition, Huijiao ascribed three more titles to Zhu Falan: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, and the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經. Tokiwa believes that Huijiao also based these ascriptions on the Zhu Shixing Han lu).
b) To record translation dates in detail: In LDSBJ, there are eight titles the translation year of which is stated precisely on the basis of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (seven of which were not even included in CSZJJ). Several more titles are shown with the translation year, but without citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue. Tokiwa thinks that the Zhu Shixing catalogue is the source for these ascriptions too. Dao’an did not indicate translation dates in this manner, and probably, this new type of information was consciously introduced by the author of Zhu Shixing Han lu.
c) To supplement Dao’an’s catalogue: According to Tokiwa, LDSBJ includes five titles not included in Dao’an’s catalogue, citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue as the source. Tokiwa claims that, apart from their possible inaccuracy, those entries represent the intention of the author of the Zhu Shixing to supplement Dao’an’s catalogue (83-86).
5. Value of Zhu Shixing Han lu
Tokiwa ends his discussion on the Zhu Shixing catalogue of Han texts with his overall evaluation of the value of the catalogue. Tokiwa maintains that, despite some problems, the Zhu Shixing Han lu contained much valuable information, and was probably compiled by a competent scholar in the Liang period (86). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄 |
|
|
Tokiwa argues that scholars contemporary or subsequent to Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 法經錄 T2146 did not value the catalogue so highly, unlike many modern scholars, based on the fact that it was hardly cited by LDSBJ and KYL. LDSBJ never cites it, although Fei lists it as one of six extant catalogues; KYL cites it only once. Tokiwa thinks that LDSBJ and KYL did not regard Fajing’s catalogue as important because it was not useful in establishing ascriptions and dates of translation, although it did contain much new information of other kinds.
Tokiwa argues that three apparent problems in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu reduced its use to Fei and Zhisheng. First, as described in LDSBJ, Fajing’s catalogue did not examine actual texts themselves, although it was compiled by the twenty great scholars of the time referring to more than ten catalogues. Second, if only six catalogues were extant in Fei’s time, as he claims, the ten-plus catalogues used by Fajing must include some that were referred to only indirectly via some other catalogue(s), probably Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄. Third, Fajing did not record the sources he used, which Tokiwa holds is a weakness in comparison with LDSBJ, which cited its sources clearly.
However, in other respects, Tokiwa acknowledges the significance of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu. For example, while Fei did not include 86 titles of extant anonymous scriptures recorded in CSZJJ, Fajing recorded 77 of those 86 titles, adding new information (such as the number of scrolls) to 43 of them.
Edit
|
47-49 |
Tokiwa argues that scholars contemporary or subsequent to Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 法經錄 T2146 did not value the catalogue so highly, unlike many modern scholars, based on the fact that it was hardly cited by LDSBJ and KYL. LDSBJ never cites it, although Fei lists it as one of six extant catalogues; KYL cites it only once. Tokiwa thinks that LDSBJ and KYL did not regard Fajing’s catalogue as important because it was not useful in establishing ascriptions and dates of translation, although it did contain much new information of other kinds.
Tokiwa argues that three apparent problems in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu reduced its use to Fei and Zhisheng. First, as described in LDSBJ, Fajing’s catalogue did not examine actual texts themselves, although it was compiled by the twenty great scholars of the time referring to more than ten catalogues. Second, if only six catalogues were extant in Fei’s time, as he claims, the ten-plus catalogues used by Fajing must include some that were referred to only indirectly via some other catalogue(s), probably Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄. Third, Fajing did not record the sources he used, which Tokiwa holds is a weakness in comparison with LDSBJ, which cited its sources clearly.
However, in other respects, Tokiwa acknowledges the significance of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu. For example, while Fei did not include 86 titles of extant anonymous scriptures recorded in CSZJJ, Fajing recorded 77 of those 86 titles, adding new information (such as the number of scrolls) to 43 of them.
T2146; 眾經目錄 |
|
|
According to Tokiwa, the Zhongjing bielu 衆經別録 is one of six catalogues that Fei recorded as extant when he compiled LDSBJ. It was of anonymous authorship, and recorded 1089 titles (2596 scrolls) in ten categories. Fei stated that this catalogue was compiled in the Song period, but Tokiwa thinks that, judging from the number of texts contained, it was compiled in the Period of Northern and Southern Dynasties. According to Tokiwa, although Fei cites this catalogue very often, it is difficult to determine which citations were really based upon it directly, because most of these citations were apparently taken from CSZJJ.
Edit
|
44 |
According to Tokiwa, the Zhongjing bielu 衆經別録 is one of six catalogues that Fei recorded as extant when he compiled LDSBJ. It was of anonymous authorship, and recorded 1089 titles (2596 scrolls) in ten categories. Fei stated that this catalogue was compiled in the Song period, but Tokiwa thinks that, judging from the number of texts contained, it was compiled in the Period of Northern and Southern Dynasties. According to Tokiwa, although Fei cites this catalogue very often, it is difficult to determine which citations were really based upon it directly, because most of these citations were apparently taken from CSZJJ. Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |
|
|
According to Tokiwa, the Wei era Zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄 is one of six catalogues that LDSBJ recorded as extant in its time. It recorded 427 titles (2053 scrolls) , including apocryphal scriptures, in ten categories. Fei cited this catalogue for 34 titles ascribed to eleven translators. Tokiwa suggests that this does not mean that those 34 cases were all recorded by the Wei era Zhongjing mulu, but rather, that it suggests that in those cases either there was no other record than the Wei era Zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄, or there were problems in other catalogues.
Edit
|
45 |
According to Tokiwa, the Wei era Zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄 is one of six catalogues that LDSBJ recorded as extant in its time. It recorded 427 titles (2053 scrolls) , including apocryphal scriptures, in ten categories. Fei cited this catalogue for 34 titles ascribed to eleven translators. Tokiwa suggests that this does not mean that those 34 cases were all recorded by the Wei era Zhongjing mulu, but rather, that it suggests that in those cases either there was no other record than the Wei era Zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄, or there were problems in other catalogues. T2034; 歷代三寶紀 Wei shi Zhongjing mulu 魏世衆經目錄 |
|
|
Tokiwa asserts that we must determine how the label Jiu lu 舊錄 is used in LDSBJ by examining CSZJJ, that is to say, no independent research on LDSBJ is necessary, since almost all cases where LDSBJ cites the Jiu lu are derived from CSZJJ.
Tokiwa points out that the Jiu lu 舊錄 is cited in LDSBJ as many as 100 times, and that in 98 cases out of those 100, the citations were just taken from CSZJJ. Tokiwa analyses the remaining 2 cases and concludes that in those cases, Jiu lu actually means CSZJJ. He then asserts that in CSZJJ, Jiu lu was not used rigidly to refer to any specific catalogue (although it often meant Dao’an’s catalogue), and that this label is most likely used in the same manner in LDSBJ as well. Although Fei states that the Jiu lu was seen by Liu Xiang 劉向 of the former Han period, Tokiwa claims that this does not make sense, because Fei himself uses Jiu lu as a source in listing a text ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支讖 of the latter Han period.
Edit
|
58-60 |
Tokiwa asserts that we must determine how the label Jiu lu 舊錄 is used in LDSBJ by examining CSZJJ, that is to say, no independent research on LDSBJ is necessary, since almost all cases where LDSBJ cites the Jiu lu are derived from CSZJJ.
Tokiwa points out that the Jiu lu 舊錄 is cited in LDSBJ as many as 100 times, and that in 98 cases out of those 100, the citations were just taken from CSZJJ. Tokiwa analyses the remaining 2 cases and concludes that in those cases, Jiu lu actually means CSZJJ. He then asserts that in CSZJJ, Jiu lu was not used rigidly to refer to any specific catalogue (although it often meant Dao’an’s catalogue), and that this label is most likely used in the same manner in LDSBJ as well. Although Fei states that the Jiu lu was seen by Liu Xiang 劉向 of the former Han period, Tokiwa claims that this does not make sense, because Fei himself uses Jiu lu as a source in listing a text ascribed to *Lokaksema 支讖 of the latter Han period.
Jiu lu 舊錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |
|
|
According to Tokiwa, the label Gu lu 古錄 is not used in LDSBJ to refer consistently to any particular catalogue, but rather, apparently refers to different catalogues according to the context, such as Dao’an’s catalogue, [Zhu] Daozu’s 道祖 Hexi catalogue 河西錄, and a catalogue compiled in the Southern Qi period. Tokiwa rejects Fei’s statement that the Gu lu had been brought to China by Shi Lifang 釋利防 in the Qin period, suspecting that Fei wanted to present Buddhism as having a longer history in China than it actually had.
Edit
|
60-63 |
According to Tokiwa, the label Gu lu 古錄 is not used in LDSBJ to refer consistently to any particular catalogue, but rather, apparently refers to different catalogues according to the context, such as Dao’an’s catalogue, [Zhu] Daozu’s 道祖 Hexi catalogue 河西錄, and a catalogue compiled in the Southern Qi period. Tokiwa rejects Fei’s statement that the Gu lu had been brought to China by Shi Lifang 釋利防 in the Qin period, suspecting that Fei wanted to present Buddhism as having a longer history in China than it actually had. Gu lu 古錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |
|
|
Tokiwa states that two of the most commonly cited reasons for claims that LDSBJ is unreliable are: it added 132 titles to Faju’s 法炬 works; and added 108 titles to Tanwulan’s 曇無蘭 works. However, Tokiwa argues that those ascriptions were first given not by LDSBJ, but by previous catalogues. Tokiwa quotes Fei’s words on Faju’s works, which state that titles not included in CSZJJ were actually recorded in some other catalogues, and Fei just collected those ascriptions so that their correctness could be evaluated later (Tokiwa also cites a similar statement by Fei on Tanwulan’s works, 64).
Tokiwa claims that the influence of unspecified lost catalogues is often reflected in LDSBJ and KYL. For example, Zhisheng 智昇states that the syllables pinpi 頻毗 in Pinpishaluo wang yi Fo gongyang jing 頻毗沙羅王詣佛供養經 T133 could be written pinpo 頻婆, and that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39 was also called Dingsheng wang jing 頂生王經. Zhisheng would not have made such comments, Tokiwa argues, if there had not existed some other catalogue(s) that used those alternate characters/titles. He also presents similar examples from the titles ascribed to Tanwulan in LDSBJ, including: the entry on the Huanshi Batuo shenzhou jing 幻師跋陀神呪經 T1378, which has a note stating that Batuo 跋陀 could also be written Potuo 波陀; another entry on the Jusa guo niao wang jing 拘薩國烏王經 with a note stating that character 羅 could be added; and on the Guhu niao jing 蟲狐鳥經 with a note stating that鳥 sometimes also reads 烏(63-64).
Edit
|
63-64 |
Tokiwa states that two of the most commonly cited reasons for claims that LDSBJ is unreliable are: it added 132 titles to Faju’s 法炬 works; and added 108 titles to Tanwulan’s 曇無蘭 works. However, Tokiwa argues that those ascriptions were first given not by LDSBJ, but by previous catalogues. Tokiwa quotes Fei’s words on Faju’s works, which state that titles not included in CSZJJ were actually recorded in some other catalogues, and Fei just collected those ascriptions so that their correctness could be evaluated later (Tokiwa also cites a similar statement by Fei on Tanwulan’s works, 64).
Tokiwa claims that the influence of unspecified lost catalogues is often reflected in LDSBJ and KYL. For example, Zhisheng 智昇states that the syllables pinpi 頻毗 in Pinpishaluo wang yi Fo gongyang jing 頻毗沙羅王詣佛供養經 T133 could be written pinpo 頻婆, and that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39 was also called Dingsheng wang jing 頂生王經. Zhisheng would not have made such comments, Tokiwa argues, if there had not existed some other catalogue(s) that used those alternate characters/titles. He also presents similar examples from the titles ascribed to Tanwulan in LDSBJ, including: the entry on the Huanshi Batuo shenzhou jing 幻師跋陀神呪經 T1378, which has a note stating that Batuo 跋陀 could also be written Potuo 波陀; another entry on the Jusa guo niao wang jing 拘薩國烏王經 with a note stating that character 羅 could be added; and on the Guhu niao jing 蟲狐鳥經 with a note stating that鳥 sometimes also reads 烏(63-64).
T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0133; 頻毘娑羅王詣佛供養經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T1378; 幻師颰陀神呪經; 佛說玄師颰陀所說神呪經 |
|
|
Tokiwa analyses the Lao nüren jing 老女人經 T559 to show that there are indeed cases in which LDSBJ added correct information, presumably by referring to previous catalogues. The Lao nüren jing is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, and was already included in Dao’an’s catalogue. LDSBJ added that according to the Wu catalogue 呉錄, it was also called the Lao nü jing 老女經 or Lao mu jing 老母經. Tokiwa points out that a Lao mu jing 老母經 (cf. T561) was included in CSZJJ with no ascription, and that both the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian and the anonymous Lao mu jing are extant today as separate texts in the Taishō (T559, T561 respectively). Tokiwa compares the two texts and judges that they are variant versions of the same text, with only minor differences produced during the process of transmission. This means that LDSBJ (and the Wu catalogue) were right in presenting Lao nüren jing and Lao mu jing as alternate titles for the same text, not different texts. Tokiwa then refers to a fragment of another version of the same text collected by Nakamura Fusetsu 中村不折, and maintains that the three versions clearly show how the text changed in its details over time. Tokiwa gives a list of differences between the three versions, with the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian as the oldest, followed chronologically by Nakamura’s version, and then by the anonymous Lao mu jing (65-69). Thus, there were (at least) three versions of the Lao nüren jing when the Wu catalogue was compiled, since that catalogue mentioned the newest one, the Lao mu jing. The Lao mu jing was listed without an ascription by Sengyou because it would have naturally been impossible to identify a translator, so long as Sengyou considered the Lao mu jing to be a different text from the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian.
Edit
|
65-69 |
Tokiwa analyses the Lao nuren jing 老女人經 T559 to show that there are indeed cases in which LDSBJ added correct information, presumably by referring to previous catalogues. The Lao nuren jing is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, and was already included in Dao’an’s catalogue. LDSBJ added that according to the Wu catalogue 呉錄, it was also called the Lao nu jing 老女經 or Lao mu jing 老母經. Tokiwa points out that a Lao mu jing 老母經 (cf. T561) was included in CSZJJ with no ascription, and that both the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian and the anonymous Lao mu jing are extant today as separate texts in the Taisho (T559, T561 respectively). Tokiwa compares the two texts and judges that they are variant versions of the same text, with only minor differences produced during the process of transmission. This means that LDSBJ (and the Wu catalogue) were right in presenting Lao nuren jing and Lao mu jing as alternate titles for the same text, not different texts. Tokiwa then refers to a fragment of another version of the same text collected by Nakamura Fusetsu 中村不折, and maintains that the three versions clearly show how the text changed in its details over time. Tokiwa gives a list of differences between the three versions, with the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian as the oldest, followed chronologically by Nakamura’s version, and then by the anonymous Lao mu jing (65-69). Thus, there were (at least) three versions of the Lao nuren jing when the Wu catalogue was compiled, since that catalogue mentioned the newest one, the Lao mu jing. The Lao mu jing was listed without an ascription by Sengyou because it would have naturally been impossible to identify a translator, so long as Sengyou considered the Lao mu jing to be a different text from the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0559; *Mahalalika-pariprccha-sutra, *Mahallika-pariprccha-sutra(?); 佛說老女人經 T0561; *Mahalalika-pariprccha-sutra, *Mahallika-pariprccha-sutra(?); 佛說老母經 |
|
|
Tokiwa presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ, regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕. Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing 目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect.
Edit
|
55-56 |
Tokiwa presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ, regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕. Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing 目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect. T0734; 佛說鬼問目連經 T0745; 佛說雜藏經 T0746; 餓鬼報應經 |
|
|
Tokiwa analyses LDSBJ’s relation to previous catalogues. On the whole, Tokiwa’s view of LDSBJ is positive. He claims that many mistakes in LDSBJ were originated in previous catalogues, and that we should not underestimate the use of LDSBJ as a historical source.
1. LDSBJ relied on 15 catalogues
Tokiwa maintains that LDSBJ records 6 extant and 24 lost catalogues in its time, and that, among those 30 catalogues, Fei mostly cites 15 in listing the titles of scriptures. Among these most frequent sources are 4 of the 6 extant catalogues, excluding Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 法經錄 and the Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄; and 11 of the 24 lost catalogues. The titles of those 15 main catalogues are as follows:
Extant (in Fei’s time):
CSZJJ
the Liang Zhongjing mulu (Baochang’s catalogue) 梁世衆經目錄（寶唱録）;
the Wei Zhongjing mulu (Li Kuo’s catalogue) 魏世衆經目錄（李廓錄）;
the Qi Zhongjing mulu (Fashang’s catalogue) 齊世衆經目錄（法上錄）;
Lost (in Fei’s time):
Dao’an’s catalogue 道安錄;
Zhu Shixing’s (“Han”) catalogue 朱士行錄;
Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄;
Dharmarakṣa’s catalogue 竺法護錄;
the Zhao catalogue 趙錄;
the catalogue of the two Qin (dynasties) 二秦錄;
Zhu Daozu’s catalogue 竺道祖錄;
Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄;
Wang Zong’s catalogue 王宗錄;
Daohui’s Song-Qi catalogue 道慧宋齊錄;
the Shixing catalogue 始興錄
Tokiwa presents a table with a list of all the catalogues cited in LDSBJ, with the number of times each of them is cited for different dynastic periods (50-51). Based on this table, Tokiwa points out that CSZJJ is cited most often in LDSBJ, followed by Daozu’s catalogue, while for specific periods, Fei relies heavily upon Zhu Shixing’s catalogue, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, the catalogue of the two Qin (dynasties), Dao’an’s catalogue, and Daohui’s Song-Qi catalogue. He adds that the Baochang catalogue, the Li Kuo catalogue, and the Fashang catalogue are cited relatively infrequently.
Tokiwa maintains that, overall, Fei cited those different catalogues in a reasonable manner (viz., catalogues were referred to for appropriate periods). An exception is the Daozu catalogue, which Tokiwa thinks was cited far more frequently than it should have been. However, Tokiwa infers that this apparently excessive reliance upon the Daozu catalogue derives from some previous catalogue, most likely from Baochang (49-56).
2. Baochang’s catalogue as the largest source of information from lost catalogues
As for the catalogues already lost when Fei compiled LDSBJ, Tokiwa infers that Fei obtained information from them via other catalogues extant in his time, especially Baochang’s catalogue（now lost）.
According to Tokiwa, the Baochang catalogue recorded 1433 titles (3741 scrolls), classified into ten categories. The number of titles included was thus the second largest of all the catalogues, next to CSZJJ. Fei cites Baochang for 103 titles ascribed to 52 translators (46-47).
Tokiwa’s main reason for thinking that Baochang was Fei’s main source of information from the catalogues already lost in Fei’s time is that Baochang records by far the largest number of titles among the candidate catalogues. Among the six catalogues extant in Fei’s time, three of them — Baochang, Li Kuo’s catalogue and Fashang’s catalogue — are possible sources for Fei’s information from lost catalogues. According to Fei, the number of titles included in each is: Baochang 1,433, Li Kuo 427, and Fashang 787. From this, Tokiwa infers that Fei relied most heavily on Baochang for this information. Although Fei explicitly cites Baochang in only 70 places, Tokiwa assumes that Fei relied on Baochang much more often (70-71).
Tokiwa also shows a number of cases where Fei cited an extant catalogue together with a lost one, claiming that in each case, Fei obtained the information from the lost catalogue through the extant one. For example, the expression “see the Shixing catalogue; also carried in Fashang’s catalogue” 見始興錄及法上錄亦載 means that Fei obtained the information in the Shixing catalogue via Fashang. Tokiwa infers that Fei also referred to the extant catalogues even when he only cited a lost catalogue (53-54; see below for more on Tokiwa’s analysis of the relation between LDSBJ and prior catalogues).
Tokiwa adds that Fei also relied on Baochang’s catalogue because it was valued highly in his time. According to Tokiwa, Baochang had free access to the scriptures kept in the Hualin Buddha hall 華林佛殿, which placed him in ideal conditions to compile a catalogue referring to actual texts, not only to previous catalogues. This access would have given Baochang’s works authority in his time. Tokiwa also has a high opinion of the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, of which Baochang was one of the compilers, claiming that it is another piece of work for which Baochang must have successfully utilized his access to the Hualin Buddha hall. The Jing lü yi xiang lists titles of scriptures without ascriptions, and Tokiwa argues that ascriptions must have been excised because they were already provided in Baochang’s catalogue already (69-70).
Tokiwa thinks that the ascriptions provided in Baochang’s catalogue must have contained incorrect information inherited from previous materials, such as the Zhongjing mulu and Zhu Daozu’s catalogue. Those incorrect ascriptions were preserved in turn in LDSBJ. Tokiwa argues that it is not entirely fair to blame Fei for those incorrect ascriptions taken from Baochang and other catalogues, because Baochang’s catalogue was regarded highly in Fei’s time, and because it was a common practice among scholars to record even suspicious ascriptions given by previous catalogues, unless they were obviously mistaken (70-71).
3 Examples of the influence of previous catalogues
Tokiwa shows a number of cases in which we see clearly the influence of previous catalogues on LDSBJ. Tokiwa’s general point is that Fei is a more reliable scholar than is often thought.
a. Possible influence of other catalogues on dubious ascriptions to Faju 法炬 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭
Tokiwa states that two of the most commonly cited reasons for claims that LDSBJ is unreliable are: it added 132 titles to Faju’s 法炬 works; and added 108 titles to Tanwulan’s 曇無蘭 works. However, Tokiwa argues that those ascriptions were first given not by LDSBJ, but by previous catalogues. Tokiwa quotes Fei’s words on Faju’s works, which state that titles not included in CSZJJ were actually recorded in some other catalogues, and Fei just collected those ascriptions so that their correctness could be evaluated later (Tokiwa also cites a similar statement by Fei on Tanwulan’s works, 64).
Tokiwa claims that the influence of unspecified lost catalogues is often reflected in LDSBJ and KYL. For example, Zhisheng 智昇states that the syllables pinpi 頻毗 in Pinpishaluo wang yi Fo gongyang jing 頻毗沙羅王詣佛供養經 T133 could be written pinpo 頻婆, and that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39 was also called Dingsheng wang jing 頂生王經. Zhisheng would not have made such comments, Tokiwa argues, if there had not existed some other catalogue(s) that used those alternate characters/titles. He also presents similar examples from the titles ascribed to Tanwulan in LDSBJ, including: the entry on the Huanshi Batuo shenzhou jing 幻師跋陀神呪經 T1378, which has a note stating that Batuo 跋陀 could also be written Potuo 波陀; another entry on the Jusa guo niao wang jing 拘薩國烏王經 with a note stating that character 羅 could be added; and on the Guhu niao jing 蟲狐鳥經 with a note stating that 鳥 sometimes also reads 烏(63-64).
b. Lao nüren jing 老女人經
Tokiwa also analyses the case of the Lao nüren jing 老女人經 T559 to show that there are indeed cases in which LDSBJ added correct information, presumably by referring to previous catalogues. The Lao nüren jing is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, and was already included in Dao’an’s catalogue. LDSBJ added that according to the Wu catalogue 呉錄, it was also called the Lao nü jing 老女經 or Lao mu jing 老母經. Tokiwa points out that a Lao mu jing 老母經 (cf. T561) was included in CSZJJ with no ascription, and that both the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian and the anonymous Lao mu jing are extant today as separate texts in the Taishō (T559, T561 respectively). Tokiwa compares the two texts and judges that they are variant versions of the same text, with only minor differences produced during the process of transmission. This means that LDSBJ (and the Wu catalogue) were right in presenting Lao nüren jing and Lao mu jing as alternate titles for the same text, not different texts. Tokiwa then refers to a fragment of another version of the same text collected by Nakamura Fusetsu 中村不折, and maintains that the three versions clearly show how the text changed in its details over time. Tokiwa gives a list of differences between the three versions, with the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian as the oldest, followed chronologically by Nakamura’s version, and then by the anonymous Lao mu jing (65-69). Thus, there were (at least) three versions of the Lao nüren jing when the Wu cataloguewas compiled, since that catalogue mentioned the newest one, the Lao mu jing. The Lao mu jing was listed without an ascription by Sengyou because it would have naturally been impossible to identify a translator, so long as Sengyou considered the Lao mu jing to be a different text from the Lao nüren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian.
Based on this case, Tokiwa asserts that it is not right to automatically discredit Fei’s information about other catalogues and their contents (65-69).
c. Mistakes taken from Baochang’s catalogue
Tokiwa also presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ. Regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕, Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect (55-56).
d. Not including many scriptures that Sengyou did not see
According to Tokiwa, among 460 titles that CSZJJ recorded as anonymous unseen scriptures, Fei included only 111 titles, excising the remaining 349 (among anonymous extant scriptures in CSZJJ, 86 out of 846 were excised). Tokiwa argues that this exclusion shows Fei to be a scrupulous scholar. If, as many modern scholars suspect, Fei merely fabricated ascriptions as he pleased, those anonymous unseen scriptures (and, to a lesser degree, the 86 anonymous extant scriptures that were also excised) should have been ideal material to work with, so since no counter-evidence could be found. Tokiwa maintains that this positive feature of LDSBJ has not been noticed because it is not an easy task to identify titles in CSZJJ that are not included in LDSBJ or KYL (71-73).
4 Tokiwa’s positive view of LDSBJ
Thus, despite problems with LDSBJ, Tokiwa also holds that it also has positive value. First, for Tokiwa, LDSBJ is an indispensable source of information about quite a few catalogues, not only the 24 catalogues already lost in its time, but also the 4 catalogues among the 6 then extant that subsequently were lost. Tokiwa argues that LDSBJ was already an essential source, especially regarding lost catalogues, by the early Tang period, since the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 follows LDSBJ almost completely. Tokiwa asserts that even today, LDSBJ is still extremely valuable for the wealth of information it contains and for its organized presentation, providing a tangible starting point for studies on lost catalogues (54-55). Second, LDSBJ also substantially reorganized the entries on anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ (71-72). Finally, as shown above, many pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were simply taken from previous catalogues, so that Fei himself is not to blame.
Edit
|
41-73 |
Tokiwa analyses LDSBJ’s relation to previous catalogues. On the whole, Tokiwa’s view of LDSBJ is positive. He claims that many mistakes in LDSBJ were originated in previous catalogues, and that we should not underestimate the use of LDSBJ as a historical source.
1. LDSBJ relied on 15 catalogues
Tokiwa maintains that LDSBJ records 6 extant and 24 lost catalogues in its time, and that, among those 30 catalogues, Fei mostly cites 15 in listing the titles of scriptures. Among these most frequent sources are 4 of the 6 extant catalogues, excluding Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 法經錄 and the Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄; and 11 of the 24 lost catalogues. The titles of those 15 main catalogues are as follows:
Extant (in Fei’s time):
CSZJJ
the Liang Zhongjing mulu (Baochang’s catalogue) 梁世衆經目錄(寶唱録);
the Wei Zhongjing mulu (Li Kuo’s catalogue) 魏世衆經目錄(李廓錄);
the Qi Zhongjing mulu (Fashang’s catalogue) 齊世衆經目錄(法上錄);
Lost (in Fei’s time):
Dao’an’s catalogue 道安錄;
Zhu Shixing’s (“Han”) catalogue 朱士行錄;
Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄;
Dharmaraksa’s catalogue 竺法護錄;
the Zhao catalogue 趙錄;
the catalogue of the two Qin (dynasties) 二秦錄;
Zhu Daozu’s catalogue 竺道祖錄;
Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄;
Wang Zong’s catalogue 王宗錄;
Daohui’s Song-Qi catalogue 道慧宋齊錄;
the Shixing catalogue 始興錄
Tokiwa presents a table with a list of all the catalogues cited in LDSBJ, with the number of times each of them is cited for different dynastic periods (50-51). Based on this table, Tokiwa points out that CSZJJ is cited most often in LDSBJ, followed by Daozu’s catalogue, while for specific periods, Fei relies heavily upon Zhu Shixing’s catalogue, Nie Daozhen’s catalogue, the catalogue of the two Qin (dynasties), Dao’an’s catalogue, and Daohui’s Song-Qi catalogue. He adds that the Baochang catalogue, the Li Kuo catalogue, and the Fashang catalogue are cited relatively infrequently.
Tokiwa maintains that, overall, Fei cited those different catalogues in a reasonable manner (viz., catalogues were referred to for appropriate periods). An exception is the Daozu catalogue, which Tokiwa thinks was cited far more frequently than it should have been. However, Tokiwa infers that this apparently excessive reliance upon the Daozu catalogue derives from some previous catalogue, most likely from Baochang (49-56).
2. Baochang’s catalogue as the largest source of information from lost catalogues
As for the catalogues already lost when Fei compiled LDSBJ, Tokiwa infers that Fei obtained information from them via other catalogues extant in his time, especially Baochang’s catalogue(now lost).
According to Tokiwa, the Baochang catalogue recorded 1433 titles (3741 scrolls), classified into ten categories. The number of titles included was thus the second largest of all the catalogues, next to CSZJJ. Fei cites Baochang for 103 titles ascribed to 52 translators (46-47).
Tokiwa’s main reason for thinking that Baochang was Fei’s main source of information from the catalogues already lost in Fei’s time is that Baochang records by far the largest number of titles among the candidate catalogues. Among the six catalogues extant in Fei’s time, three of them — Baochang, Li Kuo’s catalogue and Fashang’s catalogue — are possible sources for Fei’s information from lost catalogues. According to Fei, the number of titles included in each is: Baochang 1,433, Li Kuo 427, and Fashang 787. From this, Tokiwa infers that Fei relied most heavily on Baochang for this information. Although Fei explicitly cites Baochang in only 70 places, Tokiwa assumes that Fei relied on Baochang much more often (70-71).
Tokiwa also shows a number of cases where Fei cited an extant catalogue together with a lost one, claiming that in each case, Fei obtained the information from the lost catalogue through the extant one. For example, the expression “see the Shixing catalogue; also carried in Fashang’s catalogue” 見始興錄及法上錄亦載 means that Fei obtained the information in the Shixing catalogue via Fashang. Tokiwa infers that Fei also referred to the extant catalogues even when he only cited a lost catalogue (53-54; see below for more on Tokiwa’s analysis of the relation between LDSBJ and prior catalogues).
Tokiwa adds that Fei also relied on Baochang’s catalogue because it was valued highly in his time. According to Tokiwa, Baochang had free access to the scriptures kept in the Hualin Buddha hall 華林佛殿, which placed him in ideal conditions to compile a catalogue referring to actual texts, not only to previous catalogues. This access would have given Baochang’s works authority in his time. Tokiwa also has a high opinion of the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, of which Baochang was one of the compilers, claiming that it is another piece of work for which Baochang must have successfully utilized his access to the Hualin Buddha hall. The Jing lu yi xiang lists titles of scriptures without ascriptions, and Tokiwa argues that ascriptions must have been excised because they were already provided in Baochang’s catalogue already (69-70).
Tokiwa thinks that the ascriptions provided in Baochang’s catalogue must have contained incorrect information inherited from previous materials, such as the Zhongjing mulu and Zhu Daozu’s catalogue. Those incorrect ascriptions were preserved in turn in LDSBJ. Tokiwa argues that it is not entirely fair to blame Fei for those incorrect ascriptions taken from Baochang and other catalogues, because Baochang’s catalogue was regarded highly in Fei’s time, and because it was a common practice among scholars to record even suspicious ascriptions given by previous catalogues, unless they were obviously mistaken (70-71).
3 Examples of the influence of previous catalogues
Tokiwa shows a number of cases in which we see clearly the influence of previous catalogues on LDSBJ. Tokiwa’s general point is that Fei is a more reliable scholar than is often thought.
a. Possible influence of other catalogues on dubious ascriptions to Faju 法炬 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭
Tokiwa states that two of the most commonly cited reasons for claims that LDSBJ is unreliable are: it added 132 titles to Faju’s 法炬 works; and added 108 titles to Tanwulan’s 曇無蘭 works. However, Tokiwa argues that those ascriptions were first given not by LDSBJ, but by previous catalogues. Tokiwa quotes Fei’s words on Faju’s works, which state that titles not included in CSZJJ were actually recorded in some other catalogues, and Fei just collected those ascriptions so that their correctness could be evaluated later (Tokiwa also cites a similar statement by Fei on Tanwulan’s works, 64).
Tokiwa claims that the influence of unspecified lost catalogues is often reflected in LDSBJ and KYL. For example, Zhisheng 智昇states that the syllables pinpi 頻毗 in Pinpishaluo wang yi Fo gongyang jing 頻毗沙羅王詣佛供養經 T133 could be written pinpo 頻婆, and that the Dingsheng wang gushi jing 頂生王故事經 T39 was also called Dingsheng wang jing 頂生王經. Zhisheng would not have made such comments, Tokiwa argues, if there had not existed some other catalogue(s) that used those alternate characters/titles. He also presents similar examples from the titles ascribed to Tanwulan in LDSBJ, including: the entry on the Huanshi Batuo shenzhou jing 幻師跋陀神呪經 T1378, which has a note stating that Batuo 跋陀 could also be written Potuo 波陀; another entry on the Jusa guo niao wang jing 拘薩國烏王經 with a note stating that character 羅 could be added; and on the Guhu niao jing 蟲狐鳥經 with a note stating that 鳥 sometimes also reads 烏(63-64).
b. Lao nuren jing 老女人經
Tokiwa also analyses the case of the Lao nuren jing 老女人經 T559 to show that there are indeed cases in which LDSBJ added correct information, presumably by referring to previous catalogues. The Lao nuren jing is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, and was already included in Dao’an’s catalogue. LDSBJ added that according to the Wu catalogue 呉錄, it was also called the Lao nu jing 老女經 or Lao mu jing 老母經. Tokiwa points out that a Lao mu jing 老母經 (cf. T561) was included in CSZJJ with no ascription, and that both the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian and the anonymous Lao mu jing are extant today as separate texts in the Taisho (T559, T561 respectively). Tokiwa compares the two texts and judges that they are variant versions of the same text, with only minor differences produced during the process of transmission. This means that LDSBJ (and the Wu catalogue) were right in presenting Lao nuren jing and Lao mu jing as alternate titles for the same text, not different texts. Tokiwa then refers to a fragment of another version of the same text collected by Nakamura Fusetsu 中村不折, and maintains that the three versions clearly show how the text changed in its details over time. Tokiwa gives a list of differences between the three versions, with the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian as the oldest, followed chronologically by Nakamura’s version, and then by the anonymous Lao mu jing (65-69). Thus, there were (at least) three versions of the Lao nuren jing when the Wu cataloguewas compiled, since that catalogue mentioned the newest one, the Lao mu jing. The Lao mu jing was listed without an ascription by Sengyou because it would have naturally been impossible to identify a translator, so long as Sengyou considered the Lao mu jing to be a different text from the Lao nuren jing ascribed to Zhi Qian.
Based on this case, Tokiwa asserts that it is not right to automatically discredit Fei’s information about other catalogues and their contents (65-69).
c. Mistakes taken from Baochang’s catalogue
Tokiwa also presents an example of a mistake apparently made by Baochang and recorded in LDSBJ. Regarding the Za zang jing 雜藏經 T745 ascribed to Faxian 法顕, Fei, citing Baochang, adds that there exist four alternate translations, viz., the Gui wen Mulian jing 鬼問目連經 T734, the Egui baoying jing 餓鬼報應經 T746, the Mulian shuo diyu jing目連説地獄經, and the Egui yinyuan jing 餓鬼因縁經. Tokiwa claims that it is highly plausible that Fei really obtained this information from Baochang. According to Tokiwa, KYL pointed out three mistakes in this statement: 1) The Egui baoying jing is incorrectly classified as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period; 2) the Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing 目連説地獄餓鬼因縁經 is actually one title, but is presented as two titles; and 3) although Mulian shuo diyu egui yinyuan jing is just an alternate title of the Egui baoying jing, it is presented as the title of different text. Tokiwa maintains that these mistakes were included in LDSBJ because the information was taken from Baochang without correction. He infers that many other pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were taken from Baochang in this manner, and claims further that if Fei recorded what previous catalogues stated even when that information is suspicious, it is possible to regard that habit as a virtue rather than a defect (55-56).
d. Not including many scriptures that Sengyou did not see
According to Tokiwa, among 460 titles that CSZJJ recorded as anonymous unseen scriptures, Fei included only 111 titles, excising the remaining 349 (among anonymous extant scriptures in CSZJJ, 86 out of 846 were excised). Tokiwa argues that this exclusion shows Fei to be a scrupulous scholar. If, as many modern scholars suspect, Fei merely fabricated ascriptions as he pleased, those anonymous unseen scriptures (and, to a lesser degree, the 86 anonymous extant scriptures that were also excised) should have been ideal material to work with, so since no counter-evidence could be found. Tokiwa maintains that this positive feature of LDSBJ has not been noticed because it is not an easy task to identify titles in CSZJJ that are not included in LDSBJ or KYL (71-73).
4 Tokiwa’s positive view of LDSBJ
Thus, despite problems with LDSBJ, Tokiwa also holds that it also has positive value. First, for Tokiwa, LDSBJ is an indispensable source of information about quite a few catalogues, not only the 24 catalogues already lost in its time, but also the 4 catalogues among the 6 then extant that subsequently were lost. Tokiwa argues that LDSBJ was already an essential source, especially regarding lost catalogues, by the early Tang period, since the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 follows LDSBJ almost completely. Tokiwa asserts that even today, LDSBJ is still extremely valuable for the wealth of information it contains and for its organized presentation, providing a tangible starting point for studies on lost catalogues (54-55). Second, LDSBJ also substantially reorganized the entries on anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ (71-72). Finally, as shown above, many pieces of incorrect information in LDSBJ were simply taken from previous catalogues, so that Fei himself is not to blame.
T2034; 歷代三寶紀 |