Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Tonkō Perio 3848 gō zankan kyōten mokuroku ni tsuite 敦煌ペリオ本三八四八号残欠経典目録について." IBK 18, no. 2 (1968): 320-323.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
P. 3848; Pelliot 3848 | ||
|
Naitō studies Pelliot 3848, which preserves a portion of a scripture catalogue. A note on the manuscript says that it appears to be part of the Liu Song "Bie lu", but Naitō argues that this is wrong. The manuscript is 109 lines long, and lists 14 sūtras plus one more possible text (difficult to identify, it seems). It also includes 解題 portions, and, in red, sections giving the 總義 for the content of the texts listed. The texts listed include those now ascribed to Kumārajīva, Guṇabhadra, Nie Chengyuan, Dharmamitra, Dharmayaśas, and *Mandrasena (Naitō himself provisionally adds ascriptions for the purposes of analysis; the ms does not include them). Naitō gives a list of all texts. As Naitō points out, it is not possible that such a text would be from the Liu Song, because it includes works by *Mandrasena, which would be anachronistic. The format and style of the text also differs entirely from the Bie lu that was a source for Sengyou's CSZJJ (which is usually dated to the Liu Song on the basis of LJSBJ, though Naitō argues elsewhere that it must in fact date to the early Liang). Naitō characterises the catalogue seen here as selective, and intended to serve as a kind of introduction or instruction in the contents of the canon. This was a style pioneered by Daoxuan under the Tang. For each work, only one translation is selected, and moreover, the catalogue presents only a selection of works, intended to cover a range of basic topics, rather than a full listing of texts. [In this sense, it might be said to define a "mini-canon" --- MR.] Further, it gives a new type of 解題, intended to give a simple summary of the main point of the text, citing actual content from the text, and often, selecting only one element for focus from a complex range of content. The 總義 simplifies further, presenting a kind of take-away message from the 解題. Naitō discusses ways that the catalogue, further, twists the content of the texts it presents to polemical ends, attacking Pure Land and "Chan sectarian" ideas and practices, even where the texts catalogued and characterised in fact present little basis for this use. In the polemic against the Pure Land, he believes he finds a key clue to the actual date of the text. Amitābha's vows are numbered 36, rather than 38, which he says is only possible on the basis of the 大乘無量壽莊嚴經 T363, a translation produced in 991 by Faxian 法賢. He suggests on this basis that the catalogue must date between the production of this translation, and the conquest of Dunhuang by the Xixia in the early eleventh century. |
Naito studies Pelliot 3848, which preserves a portion of a scripture catalogue. A note on the manuscript says that it appears to be part of the Liu Song "Bie lu", but Naito argues that this is wrong. The manuscript is 109 lines long, and lists 14 sutras plus one more possible text (difficult to identify, it seems). It also includes 解題 portions, and, in red, sections giving the 總義 for the content of the texts listed. The texts listed include those now ascribed to Kumarajiva, Gunabhadra, Nie Chengyuan, Dharmamitra, Dharmayasas, and *Mandrasena (Naito himself provisionally adds ascriptions for the purposes of analysis; the ms does not include them). Naito gives a list of all texts. As Naito points out, it is not possible that such a text would be from the Liu Song, because it includes works by *Mandrasena, which would be anachronistic. The format and style of the text also differs entirely from the Bie lu that was a source for Sengyou's CSZJJ (which is usually dated to the Liu Song on the basis of LJSBJ, though Naito argues elsewhere that it must in fact date to the early Liang). Naito characterises the catalogue seen here as selective, and intended to serve as a kind of introduction or instruction in the contents of the canon. This was a style pioneered by Daoxuan under the Tang. For each work, only one translation is selected, and moreover, the catalogue presents only a selection of works, intended to cover a range of basic topics, rather than a full listing of texts. [In this sense, it might be said to define a "mini-canon" --- MR.] Further, it gives a new type of 解題, intended to give a simple summary of the main point of the text, citing actual content from the text, and often, selecting only one element for focus from a complex range of content. The 總義 simplifies further, presenting a kind of take-away message from the 解題. Naito discusses ways that the catalogue, further, twists the content of the texts it presents to polemical ends, attacking Pure Land and "Chan sectarian" ideas and practices, even where the texts catalogued and characterised in fact present little basis for this use. In the polemic against the Pure Land, he believes he finds a key clue to the actual date of the text. Amitabha's vows are numbered 36, rather than 38, which he says is only possible on the basis of the 大乘無量壽莊嚴經 T363, a translation produced in 991 by Faxian 法賢. He suggests on this basis that the catalogue must date between the production of this translation, and the conquest of Dunhuang by the Xixia in the early eleventh century. P. 3848; Pelliot 3848 Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄 |