Source: Hayashiya 1933

Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. “Zui dai kyōroku ni kansuru kenkyū 隋代經錄に關する研究.” In Bukkyō ronsō: Tokiwa Daijō kanreki kinen 佛教論叢　常盤博士還暦記念, edited by Miyamoto Shōson 宮本正尊, 231-316. Tokyo: Kōbundō shobō, 1933.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Hayashiya gives the Table of Contents of Fashang's catalogue, compiled 570-576, as known from KYL. He claims (as for e.g. Li Kuo's catalogue) that it is cited frequently in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146 [but I cannot find any explicit indication that this is true --- MR.]

Edit

247-248

 Hayashiya gives the Table of Contents of Fashang's catalogue, compiled 570-576, as known from KYL. He claims (as for e.g. Li Kuo's catalogue) that it is cited frequently in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146 [but I cannot find any explicit indication that this is true --- MR.] Fashang 法上 Fashang's catalogue 法上錄; Qi shi zhongjing mulu 齊世眾經目錄; Gao Qi zhongjing mulu 高齊眾經目錄

The contents of Ruan Xiaoxu's Fo fa lu, which catalogued the contents of his private collection of Buddhist texts, is known from the Guang hongming ji [see T2103 (LII) 108c6-109c27]. Unusually, he divided texts according to the rubric of śīla, samādhi, prajñā.

Edit

243-244

 The contents of Ruan Xiaoxu's Fo fa lu, which catalogued the contents of his private collection of Buddhist texts, is known from the Guang hongming ji [see T2103 (LII) 108c6-109c27]. Unusually, he divided texts according to the rubric of sila, samadhi, prajna. Ruan Xiaoxu 阮孝緒 Fo fa lu 佛法錄

Hayashiya discusses what is known about Li Kuo's catalogue of Northern Wei texts. LDSBJ contains conflicting information suggesting two different dates of composition, either 508-511 or 532-533. Hayashiya holds that the later date is more plausible, adn the earlier date can be accounted for as a copyist's error; the later date is followed by DTNDL, KYL etc. The catalogue was composed for the construction of a monastic library, in order to determine what texts needed to be obtained. He gives the Table of Contents according to LDSBJ and KYL. He also claims that it is cited in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146, in addition to LDSBJ. [However, I can find no direct evidence in Fajing that it uses Li Kuo's catalogue --- MR.]

Edit

242-243

 Hayashiya discusses what is known about Li Kuo's catalogue of Northern Wei texts. LDSBJ contains conflicting information suggesting two different dates of composition, either 508-511 or 532-533. Hayashiya holds that the later date is more plausible, adn the earlier date can be accounted for as a copyist's error; the later date is followed by DTNDL, KYL etc. The catalogue was composed for the construction of a monastic library, in order to determine what texts needed to be obtained. He gives the Table of Contents according to LDSBJ and KYL. He also claims that it is cited in Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146, in addition to LDSBJ. [However, I can find no direct evidence in Fajing that it uses Li Kuo's catalogue --- MR.] Yuan Wei zhongjing lumu 元魏眾經錄目; Li Kuo's catalogue 李廓錄; Wei shi zhongjing lumu 魏世眾經錄目

Hayashiya says that in Dao'an's time, many texts in circulation did not bear titles or bylines (ascriptions etc.) on the manuscript; this means that Dao'an had to ascertain these details for himself (235). He also asserts that Dao'ans original catalogue gave no information about the length or date of texts; all such information attached to Dao'an's notices as transmitted in CSZJJ was added by Sengyou (238).

Edit

235, 238

 Hayashiya says that in Dao'an's time, many texts in circulation did not bear titles or bylines (ascriptions etc.) on the manuscript; this means that Dao'an had to ascertain these details for himself (235). He also asserts that Dao'ans original catalogue gave no information about the length or date of texts; all such information attached to Dao'an's notices as transmitted in CSZJJ was added by Sengyou (238). Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

Hayashiya discusses the contents of the Song shi zhongjing bielu ("separate catalogue/catalogue by categories of the scriptures of the Song era"), he says based upon information in DTNDL and KYL (see T2149 [LV] 337a14-20). He says that Tang catalogues give additional information about this catalogue (he does not specify what or where), and that this should mean that it was still extant under the Tang. [Note, however, that the ToC itself repeats information at LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125b24-c16, and therefore this information alone cannot be taken as independent evidence that the Song catalogue was still extant in Daoxuan's or Zhisheng's time --- MR.] He notes that the fact that it included a section on lost texts allows us to infer that the remainder of the work was, in its basic character, a catalogue of extant texts. He also discusses briefly the potential implications of the structure of the catalogue for the history of panjiao thought.

Edit

241-242

 Hayashiya discusses the contents of the Song shi zhongjing bielu ("separate catalogue/catalogue by categories of the scriptures of the Song era"), he says based upon information in DTNDL and KYL (see T2149 [LV] 337a14-20). He says that Tang catalogues give additional information about this catalogue (he does not specify what or where), and that this should mean that it was still extant under the Tang. [Note, however, that the ToC itself repeats information at LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125b24-c16, and therefore this information alone cannot be taken as independent evidence that the Song catalogue was still extant in Daoxuan's or Zhisheng's time --- MR.] He notes that the fact that it included a section on lost texts allows us to infer that the remainder of the work was, in its basic character, a catalogue of extant texts. He also discusses briefly the potential implications of the structure of the catalogue for the history of panjiao thought. Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄

Hayashiya discusses Baochang's catalogue, which was composed in conjunction with the composition of JLYX T2121, including circumstances behind its composition, and its contents as known from KYL.

Edit

244-247

 Hayashiya discusses Baochang's catalogue, which was composed in conjunction with the composition of JLYX T2121, including circumstances behind its composition, and its contents as known from KYL. Baochang, 寶唱 Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄; Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄

Hayashiya points out that CSZJJ had a more limited goal than Dao'an's catalogue --- where Dao'an's aim was to gather the fullest information possible about all texts that existed in his time, and to that end, Dao'an traveled and made great efforts to recover texts, Sengyou (he suggests) was more content to confine himself to what was already to hand in his context at the time (Jiankang).

Edit

239

 Hayashiya points out that CSZJJ had a more limited goal than Dao'an's catalogue --- where Dao'an's aim was to gather the fullest information possible about all texts that existed in his time, and to that end, Dao'an traveled and made great efforts to recover texts, Sengyou (he suggests) was more content to confine himself to what was already to hand in his context at the time (Jiankang). T2145; 出三藏記集

Hayashiya discusses at length Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146, the circumstances of its composition, and its contents. This catalogue was composed very quickly (in under three months). He also suggests, by contrast to Yancong's T2147, that it was handicapped by the fact that the Sui had still not yet had sufficient time to gather such texts as existed from all corners of the empire. Given these two facts, Hayashiya believes that T2146 was composed as an "armchair exercise", as a kind of synthesis of the information in various old catalogues, without any direct consultation or examination of the real texts, and for this reason, can contain errors or misleading information. The section on "dubious" texts 疑 is unique in the criteria applied in selecting its contents, and therefore needs to be handled with caution: it includes not only texts themselves thought to be of dubious authenticity, but also perfectly legitimate texts about which the authors of the catalogue found conflicting information on attributions only, which they felt unable to decide in the time available to them --- that is, it contains both "dubious texts" and "[legitimate] texts of dubious attribution" (259). Many of these texts of uncertain authorship/translatorship are moved to other sections of the canon in Yancong's catalogue, which was composed upon the basis of better information and more time (260). Hayashiya gives a potentially very useful table of items newly found in Fajing that do not appear in CSZJJ, and conversely, items from CSZJJ missing in Fajing (262-271).

[This table has a peculiar feature --- Hayashiya claims that he can identify several earlier lost catalogues --- Shixing, Zhu Daozu, Baochang, Nie Daozhen --- as the sources of some of these new attributions in Fajing. However, so far as I can determine, interlinear notes in Fajing usually cite other catalogues in a vague manner: “(the/an?) ancient catalogue(s)” 古錄, T2146 (LV) 122a4, 133b17, 138c13; “various catalogues” 眾錄, 126c1, 138b9, 139a26; “(a/the?) old catalogue(s)” 舊錄, 126c28, 138c7, 138c25, 140a3; “biographies and catalogues” (?) 傳錄, 127a9, 138b1; or “the catalogues” 諸錄, 141a1, 141a5. The only cases in which it is certain notes refer to individual, specific catalogues are “the catalogues of Dao’an, Sengyou and others” 道安僧祐等錄, 126c7; “Sengyou’s catalogue” 僧祐錄, 127b10, 138c5; and “the Paramārtha catalogue” 真諦錄, 142a16, 143c25. It is therefore unclear how Hayashiya concludes that Fajing's information derives from these lost sources. This point has potentially broader significance, because this might constitute independent evidence that these catalogues were indeed extant and available in Chang'an at the time, apart from citations in LDSBJ. Indeed, even Hayashiya himself states that the Zhu Daozu catalogue --- the single catalogue to which he claims to trace most of this information --- was in fact already lost under the Sui, and was being cited via some unknown intermediate source --- MR.]

Edit

250-274

 Hayashiya discusses at length Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146, the circumstances of its composition, and its contents. This catalogue was composed very quickly (in under three months). He also suggests, by contrast to Yancong's T2147, that it was handicapped by the fact that the Sui had still not yet had sufficient time to gather such texts as existed from all corners of the empire. Given these two facts, Hayashiya believes that T2146 was composed as an "armchair exercise", as a kind of synthesis of the information in various old catalogues, without any direct consultation or examination of the real texts, and for this reason, can contain errors or misleading information. The section on "dubious" texts 疑 is unique in the criteria applied in selecting its contents, and therefore needs to be handled with caution: it includes not only texts themselves thought to be of dubious authenticity, but also perfectly legitimate texts about which the authors of the catalogue found conflicting information on attributions only, which they felt unable to decide in the time available to them --- that is, it contains both "dubious texts" and "[legitimate] texts of dubious attribution" (259). Many of these texts of uncertain authorship/translatorship are moved to other sections of the canon in Yancong's catalogue, which was composed upon the basis of better information and more time (260). Hayashiya gives a potentially very useful table of items newly found in Fajing that do not appear in CSZJJ, and conversely, items from CSZJJ missing in Fajing (262-271). [This table has a peculiar feature --- Hayashiya claims that he can identify several earlier lost catalogues --- Shixing, Zhu Daozu, Baochang, Nie Daozhen --- as the sources of some of these new attributions in Fajing. However, so far as I can determine, interlinear notes in Fajing usually cite other catalogues in a vague manner: “(the/an?) ancient catalogue(s)” 古錄, T2146 (LV) 122a4, 133b17, 138c13; “various catalogues” 眾錄, 126c1, 138b9, 139a26; “(a/the?) old catalogue(s)” 舊錄, 126c28, 138c7, 138c25, 140a3; “biographies and catalogues” (?) 傳錄, 127a9, 138b1; or “the catalogues” 諸錄, 141a1, 141a5. The only cases in which it is certain notes refer to individual, specific catalogues are “the catalogues of Dao’an, Sengyou and others” 道安僧祐等錄, 126c7; “Sengyou’s catalogue” 僧祐錄, 127b10, 138c5; and “the Paramartha catalogue” 真諦錄, 142a16, 143c25. It is therefore unclear how Hayashiya concludes that Fajing's information derives from these lost sources. This point has potentially broader significance, because this might constitute independent evidence that these catalogues were indeed extant and available in Chang'an at the time, apart from citations in LDSBJ. Indeed, even Hayashiya himself states that the Zhu Daozu catalogue --- the single catalogue to which he claims to trace most of this information --- was in fact already lost under the Sui, and was being cited via some unknown intermediate source --- MR.] T2146; 眾經目錄

Hayashiya discusses LDSBJ at length. Hayashiya is in places highly critical of aspects of LDSBJ, at the same time as he wants ultimately to defend its use as an historical and bibliographical source, if it is used carefully.

Hayashiya is particularly scathing about the ruzangmu 入藏目 (Fascicles 13-14). He says that it only usually lists one version of a text, where multiple versions with the same title existed, producing ambiguity and confusion (279). He also says that Fei originally intended to produce only the dailu 代錄 (Fascicles 4-12), which Hayashiya regards as the heart of LDSBJ; the stimulus of Fajing's T2146 made it seem a requirement of a catalogue that it should also include a ruzangmu/ruzanglu section (280). Hayashiya thinks that this explains the standard of the ruzanglu (which Hayashiya regards as extremely poor). The completely different layout and logic of the ruzang section (divided into Mahāyāna/hīnayāna, and sūtra/śāstra/vinaya) required that all the texts treated in the dailu be assigned to new categories, which produced errors. Moreover, Hayashiya believes that Fei, like Fajing, composed his catalogue on the basis of comparison and coordination of the information in older catalogues, rather than direct examination of the texts themselves; but this meant that in assigning texts to these different categories, Fei often made errors. It also meant, further, that Fei merely replicated the assignments and other information of Fajing's own ruzang portion, even at the cost of considerable inconsistency with his own judgements in the dailu (280-281). For example, the entire “Mahāyāna Vinaya” section of Fei’s ruzangmu is identical in content and order to Fajing's section on the same material; the same is largely true of the “Mahāyāna Abhidharma” section. Hayashiya also shows that Fei even copies an error made by Fajing in the treatment of Paramārtha’s 律二十二明了論 T1461 (281); that the 遺教經論 T1529 redundantly appears in two entries, because one is copied from Fajing; and that the “Mahāyāna sūtra” section of Fei's ruzangmu contains texts that do not appear in his own dailu, but do appear in Fajing's ruzanglu --- all of this evidence again showing that information was obviously copied uncritically from Fajing (281-282). More than once, Hayashiya describes the results of this working process as "laughable" (滑稽), and holds that it means that Fei's ruzanglu is not to be regarded at all as constituting an independent work; and, moreover, judges that it is a "complete failure" (282, 302) and "useless for all practical purposes" (283).

At the same time, however, Hayashiya wants to salvage at least the dailu, and claim that with critical use, it might serve as a valuable source of information from older catalogues now lost. He recognises that the dailu also has many problems, but seems to hold that they stem from inconsistencies in the various sources Fei used, and the fact that Fei's catalogue was composed upon the basis of those sources only, without directly examining the texts themselves (284).

Even as he tries to defend it, Hayashiya also uncovers an important inconsistency in Fei's handling of anonymous texts in the dailu. Fei assigns anonymous texts to various dynasties, listing them at the end of the catalogue for the dynasty in question. However, Fei shows that all the anonymous texts Fei assigns to the Eastern Han or the Jin periods were listed before him by Sengyou, in CSZJJ, as "available" (Sengyou had access to the actual texts); whereas all the texts that Fei assigns to the Wei-Wu period were not available to Sengyou (300-301). As Hayashiya points out, it is impossible that it just so happened that all texts from one period were unavailable to Sengyou in this fashion, while all texts from other periods were available; something is wrong with this information. Similarly, Hayashiya also shows that in the lists of anonymous texts for the Western and Eastern Jin, we find groups of texts which also appear in the list for the Eastern Han --- that is to say, not just single texts, but whole groups, are assigned to two different periods at once (301). Again, something is wrong --- and Hayashiya also points out that if Fei never saw the actual texts (which should be true if his catalogue was composed based upon other catalogues), he would have had no way of determining the period of these texts based upon their stylistic characteristics (302).

Based upon Fei's own testimony [執筆暇隙寢食敢忘。十餘年來, T2034 (XLIX) 120c12-13], Hayashiya states that LDSBJ took over ten years to write, which means that it should already have been well along the way when Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146 was composed in 592.

Hayashiya notes that a potentially misleading peculiarity of LDSBJ is that when it cites Dao'an or CSZJJ in an interlinear note, it means only that the text under discussion is listed there, and not that any of the other information Fei gives in his interlinear notes is derived from that source (300). [We might wonder what this means for Fei's more general citation practice, and the very many cases in which it naturally appears that he is citing lost sources for various details about the texts, but we have no way of independently checking those lost sources, as we do with CSZJJ and Dao'an via CSZJJ --- MR.]

Edit

274-303

 Hayashiya discusses LDSBJ at length. Hayashiya is in places highly critical of aspects of LDSBJ, at the same time as he wants ultimately to defend its use as an historical and bibliographical source, if it is used carefully. Hayashiya is particularly scathing about the ruzangmu 入藏目 (Fascicles 13-14). He says that it only usually lists one version of a text, where multiple versions with the same title existed, producing ambiguity and confusion (279). He also says that Fei originally intended to produce only the dailu 代錄 (Fascicles 4-12), which Hayashiya regards as the heart of LDSBJ; the stimulus of Fajing's T2146 made it seem a requirement of a catalogue that it should also include a ruzangmu/ruzanglu section (280). Hayashiya thinks that this explains the standard of the ruzanglu (which Hayashiya regards as extremely poor). The completely different layout and logic of the ruzang section (divided into Mahayana/hinayana, and sutra/sastra/vinaya) required that all the texts treated in the dailu be assigned to new categories, which produced errors. Moreover, Hayashiya believes that Fei, like Fajing, composed his catalogue on the basis of comparison and coordination of the information in older catalogues, rather than direct examination of the texts themselves; but this meant that in assigning texts to these different categories, Fei often made errors. It also meant, further, that Fei merely replicated the assignments and other information of Fajing's own ruzang portion, even at the cost of considerable inconsistency with his own judgements in the dailu (280-281). For example, the entire “Mahayana Vinaya” section of Fei’s ruzangmu is identical in content and order to Fajing's section on the same material; the same is largely true of the “Mahayana Abhidharma” section. Hayashiya also shows that Fei even copies an error made by Fajing in the treatment of Paramartha’s 律二十二明了論 T1461 (281); that the 遺教經論 T1529 redundantly appears in two entries, because one is copied from Fajing; and that the “Mahayana sutra” section of Fei's ruzangmu contains texts that do not appear in his own dailu, but do appear in Fajing's ruzanglu --- all of this evidence again showing that information was obviously copied uncritically from Fajing (281-282). More than once, Hayashiya describes the results of this working process as "laughable" (滑稽), and holds that it means that Fei's ruzanglu is not to be regarded at all as constituting an independent work; and, moreover, judges that it is a "complete failure" (282, 302) and "useless for all practical purposes" (283). At the same time, however, Hayashiya wants to salvage at least the dailu, and claim that with critical use, it might serve as a valuable source of information from older catalogues now lost. He recognises that the dailu also has many problems, but seems to hold that they stem from inconsistencies in the various sources Fei used, and the fact that Fei's catalogue was composed upon the basis of those sources only, without directly examining the texts themselves (284). Even as he tries to defend it, Hayashiya also uncovers an important inconsistency in Fei's handling of anonymous texts in the dailu. Fei assigns anonymous texts to various dynasties, listing them at the end of the catalogue for the dynasty in question. However, Fei shows that all the anonymous texts Fei assigns to the Eastern Han or the Jin periods were listed before him by Sengyou, in CSZJJ, as "available" (Sengyou had access to the actual texts); whereas all the texts that Fei assigns to the Wei-Wu period were not available to Sengyou (300-301). As Hayashiya points out, it is impossible that it just so happened that all texts from one period were unavailable to Sengyou in this fashion, while all texts from other periods were available; something is wrong with this information. Similarly, Hayashiya also shows that in the lists of anonymous texts for the Western and Eastern Jin, we find groups of texts which also appear in the list for the Eastern Han --- that is to say, not just single texts, but whole groups, are assigned to two different periods at once (301). Again, something is wrong --- and Hayashiya also points out that if Fei never saw the actual texts (which should be true if his catalogue was composed based upon other catalogues), he would have had no way of determining the period of these texts based upon their stylistic characteristics (302). Based upon Fei's own testimony [執筆暇隙寢食敢忘。十餘年來, T2034 (XLIX) 120c12-13], Hayashiya states that LDSBJ took over ten years to write, which means that it should already have been well along the way when Fajing's Zhongjing mulu T2146 was composed in 592. Hayashiya notes that a potentially misleading peculiarity of LDSBJ is that when it cites Dao'an or CSZJJ in an interlinear note, it means only that the text under discussion is listed there, and not that any of the other information Fei gives in his interlinear notes is derived from that source (300). [We might wonder what this means for Fei's more general citation practice, and the very many cases in which it naturally appears that he is citing lost sources for various details about the texts, but we have no way of independently checking those lost sources, as we do with CSZJJ and Dao'an via CSZJJ --- MR.] T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Hayashiya discusses Yancong's Zhongjing mulu at some length. He states that the catalogue was composed to bring up to date Fajing's catalogue of the same name, composed a decade earlier in 592, when a greater number of texts had been collected from the various parts of the Sui empire. Jingtai's Zhongjing mulu T2148 was a further attempt to update Yancong in turn, and added 20 more texts that had been rediscovered since Yancong's time (listed 206-307). Aside from these additions, Jingtai's catalogue is based very closely upon Yancong's --- so much so, in fact, that in the Shukusatsu canon, it was not thought necessary to print Yancong's catalogue separately, and the version of Yancong carried in the Taishō was extracted from Jingtai (309).

Edit

303-314

 Hayashiya discusses Yancong's Zhongjing mulu at some length. He states that the catalogue was composed to bring up to date Fajing's catalogue of the same name, composed a decade earlier in 592, when a greater number of texts had been collected from the various parts of the Sui empire. Jingtai's Zhongjing mulu T2148 was a further attempt to update Yancong in turn, and added 20 more texts that had been rediscovered since Yancong's time (listed 206-307). Aside from these additions, Jingtai's catalogue is based very closely upon Yancong's --- so much so, in fact, that in the Shukusatsu canon, it was not thought necessary to print Yancong's catalogue separately, and the version of Yancong carried in the Taisho was extracted from Jingtai (309). T2147; 眾經目錄 T2148; 眾經目錄