Source: Feng 2011

Tan Shibao (1991; see separately entry) had argued that Fei Changfang's reports about Baochang's catalogue in LDSBJ were fabricated. Feng suggests that Tan has misunderstood some of the records in LDSBJ, and we cannot be certain that the entries cited from Baochang in LDSBJ are false.

Tan argued that LDSBJ was implausible when it suggested that Sengshao's 僧紹 Hualin Fodian zhongjingmu 華林佛殿眾經目 was based upon Sengyou. Feng suggests that this statement probably merely means that Sengshao’s work followed Sengyou’s four divisions in CSZJJ: 撰缘 、銓名錄、總經序、述列傳.

In addition, the Qi lu was likely a source for the Sui shu jingji zhi 隋書 經籍志, which takes it as a catalogue of the collections of the Hualin yuan library. But this cannot be taken as proof that the Qi lu itself was in fact a catalogue for the Hualin yuan collections (159-160). By analogy, this means that even if Fei made an error in his characterisation of the relation of Sengshao's catalogue to the Hualin yuan library, it does not necessarily mean that he was forging the information.

Tan also argued that Fei was probably forging his information, because he placed Baochang's catalogue incorrectly in the chronological sequence of Baochang's works. Against this argument, Feng cites an example from the LDSBJ to show that Fei does not always list works in a chronological order.

Another of Tan's arguments was that LDSBJ gives inconsistent information about the structure of Baochang's catalogues. Against this argument, Feng cites Yao Mingda (source not given), and suggests that the inconsistency in the number of divisions may have been caused by a mistake in one of the records in question.

Finally, Tan had also argued that Fei interprets Fei's characterisation of Baochang's catalogue as 覼縷 to mean that he judged it to be poor in quality, but this does not fit with the high praise Daoxuan devotes to Baochang. Feng argues that Tan misunderstood 覼縷, which actually means “meticulous”, and is a term of praise rather than a criticism.

Edit