Source: Naitō 1967

Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Tonkō zankanbon Shū kyō betsu roku ni tsuite 敦煌残欠本「衆経別録」について." IBK 15, no. 2 (1967): 268-270.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Naitō studies Pelliot 3747, which preserves remnants of a Zhong jing bie lu 眾經別錄. In LDSBJ juan 15, T2034 (XLIX) 125b25-c16, Fei Zhangfang mentions a "Bie lu" 別錄 in two fascicles, and gives an outline of its contents:

大乘經錄第一
三乘通教錄二
三乘中大乘錄三
小乘經錄
第五篇目本闕
大小乘不判錄六
疑經錄七
律錄八
數錄九
論錄十

Fei states that the catalogue listed a total of 1089 texts in 2595 fascicles. Fei also cites such a catalogue in numerous places in support of individual ascriptions. No catalogue after Fei mentions the text, and it was thought lost. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, also cites a "Bie lu" 19 times, for works by *Lokakṣema, Zhi Qian, Bo Yuan, and Dharmarakṣa. Naitō treats the Dunhuang manuscript as preserving an authentic fragment of that catalogue.

P. 3747 is 96 lines long, and lists 78 sūtras. Based upon the comparison with the information given by Fei, Naitō determines that P.3747 should correspond to the middle of the first fascile of the text, spanning three sections, 大乘經錄 (13 titles), 三乘通教錄 (51 titles), 三乘中大乘 (14 titles). The format of the catalogue is that it lists title, length in juan (usually), sometimes but not always gives a brief one-phrase summary of the content of the text, describes its quality in terms of 文 "literal/translationese" or 質 "translation for the gist/meaning/essence", and for some texts only, gives an ascription. The classification schema reported by Fei corresponds to a kind of panjiao 判教 system current at the time of the compilation of the catalogue. Naitō characterises this classification as early and experimental, based upon the fact that it does not manage to classify some texts (大小乘不判錄), and that the assignment of some texts to categories is surprising, in comparison to norms that would later become general.

Naitō argues that comparison with LDSBJ shows that Fei's use of information supposedly from the Bie lu is misleading. For instance, in P. 3747, a single text is ascribed to Zhi Qian, but Fei applies this ascription to three more titles preceding the title in question in the Bie lu, thus creating three new (and dubious) ascriptions. He suggests that ascriptions to Kang Senghui on the basis of the Bie lu show the same pattern, and argues that it is likely that ascriptions to Kumārajīva and Guṇabhadra are also affected. Naitō suggests that this pattern shows that Fei failed to understand the real organisational principle structuring the Bie lu --- that it organises texts according to class, not translator.

Tokiwa Daijō was of the opinion that where CSZJJ refers to (a/the) "bie lu", it was merely a generic reference to "other catalogues" (e.g. that of the Wu dynasty, that of Zhi Mindu). Against Tokiwa, Naitō argues that these references are to a single catalogue, and this one. He points out that Tokiwa reasoned in the basis of comparison to references to the Bie lu in LDSBJ, but argues that his examination of LDSBJ use of the Bie lu shows that Fei cannot be assumed trustworthy on this score. He also argues that Sengyou cites the "jiu lu" 舊錄 (old catalogue/s) and Bie lu for clearly distinct purposes: the former for titles, but the latter as a supplement to Dao'an. This distinction shows that he is not applying these two labels indiscriminately to the same body of materials. He notes that there are no contradictions between the information attributed by Sengyou to the Bie lu and P. 3747, unlike the case of LDSJB. There are also parts of CSZJJ where Sengyou uses the same wording as the ms. All these considerations argue that we have in P. 3747 a fragment of the Bie lu used by Sengyou, and he used it accurately.

However, Naitō argues that it is unlikely that the Bie lu, as represented by P. 3747, was composed under the Liu Song, as Fei asserts. This is because it includes two titles, 華嚴瑤珞經 and 般若得經, which are probably too late. In LDSBJ, these texts are treated as anonymous E. Han translations, but Fei inconsistently lists them elsewhere as dubious texts produced by (= through the mediumship of) Seng Fani 僧法尼. The Bie lu should therefore date after her time, i.e. to the Qi-Liang transition. Following Ōchō E'nichi, Naitō argues that the text was probably produced under the Liang.

Yao Mingda has proposed that the Bie lu might have been compiled by Wang Zong 王宗, based upon a description of a catalogue with a roughly similar structure. However, Sengyou and Fei Zhangfang both treat the Bie lu and Wang's catalogue as two separate works, and Naitō therefore regards the compiler of the Bie lu as unknown.

Edit

 Naito studies Pelliot 3747, which preserves remnants of a Zhong jing bie lu 眾經別錄. In LDSBJ juan 15, T2034 (XLIX) 125b25-c16, Fei Zhangfang mentions a "Bie lu" 別錄 in two fascicles, and gives an outline of its contents: 大乘經錄第一 三乘通教錄二 三乘中大乘錄三 小乘經錄 第五篇目本闕 大小乘不判錄六 疑經錄七 律錄八 數錄九 論錄十 Fei states that the catalogue listed a total of 1089 texts in 2595 fascicles. Fei also cites such a catalogue in numerous places in support of individual ascriptions. No catalogue after Fei mentions the text, and it was thought lost. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, also cites a "Bie lu" 19 times, for works by *Lokaksema, Zhi Qian, Bo Yuan, and Dharmaraksa. Naito treats the Dunhuang manuscript as preserving an authentic fragment of that catalogue. P. 3747 is 96 lines long, and lists 78 sutras. Based upon the comparison with the information given by Fei, Naito determines that P.3747 should correspond to the middle of the first fascile of the text, spanning three sections, 大乘經錄 (13 titles), 三乘通教錄 (51 titles), 三乘中大乘 (14 titles). The format of the catalogue is that it lists title, length in juan (usually), sometimes but not always gives a brief one-phrase summary of the content of the text, describes its quality in terms of 文 "literal/translationese" or 質 "translation for the gist/meaning/essence", and for some texts only, gives an ascription. The classification schema reported by Fei corresponds to a kind of panjiao 判教 system current at the time of the compilation of the catalogue. Naito characterises this classification as early and experimental, based upon the fact that it does not manage to classify some texts (大小乘不判錄), and that the assignment of some texts to categories is surprising, in comparison to norms that would later become general. Naito argues that comparison with LDSBJ shows that Fei's use of information supposedly from the Bie lu is misleading. For instance, in P. 3747, a single text is ascribed to Zhi Qian, but Fei applies this ascription to three more titles preceding the title in question in the Bie lu, thus creating three new (and dubious) ascriptions. He suggests that ascriptions to Kang Senghui on the basis of the Bie lu show the same pattern, and argues that it is likely that ascriptions to Kumarajiva and Gunabhadra are also affected. Naito suggests that this pattern shows that Fei failed to understand the real organisational principle structuring the Bie lu --- that it organises texts according to class, not translator. Tokiwa Daijo was of the opinion that where CSZJJ refers to (a/the) "bie lu", it was merely a generic reference to "other catalogues" (e.g. that of the Wu dynasty, that of Zhi Mindu). Against Tokiwa, Naito argues that these references are to a single catalogue, and this one. He points out that Tokiwa reasoned in the basis of comparison to references to the Bie lu in LDSBJ, but argues that his examination of LDSBJ use of the Bie lu shows that Fei cannot be assumed trustworthy on this score. He also argues that Sengyou cites the "jiu lu" 舊錄 (old catalogue/s) and Bie lu for clearly distinct purposes: the former for titles, but the latter as a supplement to Dao'an. This distinction shows that he is not applying these two labels indiscriminately to the same body of materials. He notes that there are no contradictions between the information attributed by Sengyou to the Bie lu and P. 3747, unlike the case of LDSJB. There are also parts of CSZJJ where Sengyou uses the same wording as the ms. All these considerations argue that we have in P. 3747 a fragment of the Bie lu used by Sengyou, and he used it accurately. However, Naito argues that it is unlikely that the Bie lu, as represented by P. 3747, was composed under the Liu Song, as Fei asserts. This is because it includes two titles, 華嚴瑤珞經 and 般若得經, which are probably too late. In LDSBJ, these texts are treated as anonymous E. Han translations, but Fei inconsistently lists them elsewhere as dubious texts produced by (= through the mediumship of) Seng Fani 僧法尼. The Bie lu should therefore date after her time, i.e. to the Qi-Liang transition. Following Ocho E'nichi, Naito argues that the text was probably produced under the Liang. Yao Mingda has proposed that the Bie lu might have been compiled by Wang Zong 王宗, based upon a description of a catalogue with a roughly similar structure. However, Sengyou and Fei Zhangfang both treat the Bie lu and Wang's catalogue as two separate works, and Naito therefore regards the compiler of the Bie lu as unknown. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄