| Identifier | T2034 [T] |
| Title | 歷代三寶紀 [T] |
| Date | 598 [Palumbo 2017] |
| Author | Fei Changfang/Zhangfang, 費長房 [T] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Forger | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 318-319, 322-324 |
The Daozu catalogue 道祖錄 is mentioned in the biography of Daozu 道祖 in GSZ. LDSBJ lists the Daozu catalogue in its catalogue of texts not seen 未見經錄, but Fei Changfang mentions it in other places in LDSBJ as if he had seen it directly it (for example, Fei writes in the note to the Fahua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 [cf. T269 ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴] ascribed to Zhiliangjiangjie 支梁彊接 [支彊梁接?]: 祐云失譯。房檢及見竺道祖魏世錄及始興, T2034 [XLIX] 56c22-23). In fact, Sakaino notes that the Daozu catalogue is the source to which Fei refers most often. This indicates, Sakaino claims, that LDSBJ’s records referring to the 道祖錄 are unreliable . Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
翻經學士臣費長房上 + 開皇十七年翻經學士臣費長房上 + 開皇十七年十二月二十三日。大興善寺翻 經學士臣成都費長房上 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 322-324 |
According to Sakaino, Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, alleges that the following eight catalogues existed before Dao’an: the Gu lu 古錄, the Jiu lu 舊錄, the catalogue of Buddhist scriptures of the Han 漢時佛經目錄, Zhu Shixing’s catalogue of the Han 朱士行漢錄, the Dharmarakṣa catalogue 竺法護錄, the Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄, the Zhao catalogue 趙錄, and the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄, Sakaino claims that of those eight, the existence of the Gu lu, Jiu lu, and the Han catalogue can easily be refuted, since it would have made no sense to compile catalogues when there existed so few scriptures to be included in them. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 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 *Lokakṣema 支讖 of the latter Han period. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 324-329 |
Sakaino lists all titles for which Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, cited the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 (324-325): - a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰; - a Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭; - thirteen titles, including a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema); - Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokakṣema; - an Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛; - the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經] T630, (still today) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜; - a Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨; and - a Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩經 ascribed to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調. Sakaino then discusses each title in detail. T784, Sakaino holds, is already known to be an apocryphon. The Shi di duan jie jing is not listed in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, so it would be odd if it were later rediscovered in the Zhu Shixing catalogue, as Fei claims. The name Zhu Falan does not appear in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes a variety of titles to him, such as this Shi di duan jie jing, a Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, a Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, a Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經, and an Erbailiushi juan [sic] heyi 二百六十卷 合異. Sakaino claims that Fei, who did not have enough knowledge to analyse and evaluate scriptures, just gathered those titles and ascribed them to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 without any basis in evidence. The Erbailiushi juan heyi , for instance, should be an erroneous record of the Erbailiushi jie sanbu heyi 二百六十戒三部合異 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. This scripture compared three different versions of the 260 prohibitions of the Prātimokṣa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Prātimokṣa rules were yet available. It is clear that Fei Changfang made this ascription due to confusion between the names Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (Sakaino sees a possible reason for this error in the fact that, as he surmises, both represent *Dharmarakṣa). The Fo bensheng jing and Fo benxing jing are probably the same text listed twice; some catalogue probably mis-transcribed 本行 as 本生, and Fei then took the resulting title to be a different text. The Fo benxing jing is likely to actually refer to the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 ascribed to Tanwulan, another mistake resulting from the same confusion of names. Sakaino also suspects that the entry on the Shi di duan jie jing is based upon the ascription of a Shi di yiqie zhi de jing 十地一切智德經 ascribed to another Dharmarakṣa, viz., 竺法護, and thus also be based upon a similar confusion of names. Likewise, Sakaino speculates that the Fo fa hai zang jing could be an error for the Bao zang jing寶藏經 [文殊師利現寶藏經 T461] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahāyāna text while all the works of An Shigao are “hīnayāna.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hīnayāna” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic. Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokakṣema, except for the so-called Dun zhen tuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, were already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. In CSZJJ, Sengyou first listed the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 T624, citing the Jiu lu 舊錄. However, Dun zhentuoluo 伅眞陀羅 is a transliteration of Druma-kinnara[raja], and has nothing to do with *dhāraṇī 陀羅尼, as Fei’s record of this title would appear to suggest. According to Sakaino, it is not known at which point the title was mistaken for 伅眞陀羅尼 --- in the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue, in LDSBJ, or by a later scribal error. Sakaino states that he explained earlier that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā ascribed to Zhu Shuofo is probably the result of a misunderstanding on Sengyou’s part [see separate note on 253-257]. T630 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. The Wen diyu shi jing ascribed to Kang Ju appears first in GSZ, but too little is known about Kang Ju to make discussion worthwhile. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa ascribed to Yan Fotiao does not appear in CSZJJ. It was not included among the three versions of the text (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經. [Sakaino apparently implies that hence the version ascribed to to Yan Fotiao is spurious --- AI.] In sum, Sakaino maintains that most of the major entries for which Fei Changfang claims the support of the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue are problematic, and that it is clear that his reports about the content of this catalogue are not reliable. Sakaino infers that the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 was composed sometime in the 550s or 560s, between the end of the Liang 梁 and the beginning of the Sui. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Storch 2014] Storch, Tanya. The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripiṭaka. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2014. |
A considerable portion of the overall aim of Storch (2014, passim) is to rehabilitate Fei Changfang, to some degree, from the bad reputation he has among modern scholars. Storch argues that Sengyou's catalogue was an ideological project, part of a larger pattern in Sengyou's activity that reveals him as a self-styled guardian of orthodoxy. In keeping with this hypothesis, she suggests that Sengyou knew of other catalogues before him than that of Dao'an, which he refers to generically as jiu lu 舊錄 or gu lu 古錄, but that he suppressed mention of these catalogues in order to give additional authority to the orthodoxy he aimed to construct. Storch believes that Sengyou succeeded so well in this constructive and normative enterprise that he has led modern scholarship by the nose, and as a result, the default understanding is that Dao'an was the oldest catalogue of Buddhist texts, and after him, Sengyou was virtually the next thing to happen. In the overall structure of Storch's argument, these claims are complemented by an attempt to rehabilitate Fei Changfang as possibly a more reliable bibliographer than modern scholarship has usually thought, on the basis of the hypothesis that his work built upon precisely the catalogues that were also Sengyou's disavowed sources. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 241-281 |
LDSBJ is the first source in our record for the claim that Zhu Shixing authored a catalogue of Han texts (the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄), and all later catalogues that discuss this text clearly derive from LDSBJ. Early biographical sources for Zhu Shixing do not mention any catalogue. Hayashiya argues that we should separate for purposes of analysis two questions: 1) Did Zhu Shixing ever author a catalogue? 2) What is the nature and provenance of the supposed Zhu Shixing Han lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts? 1. Hayashiya sees no reason to disbelieve that Zhu Shixing may in fact have compiled some sort of catalogue. In fact, he argues at several points that it is more likely that some tradition circulated that Zhu Shixing did compile a catalogue, because that would have made the forgery of the later catalogue under the same name more plausible (he alludes several times to the assumption that forgers and fraudsters often work with grains of truth). Conversely, it is otherwise harder to account for the fact that a forger might have hung the forgery on Zhu Shixing’s name. In this sense, Hayashiya even suggests that the existence of a later forgery might provide incidental proof that an original catalogue by the same author and title did in fact exist. In this, Hayashiya argues against some other modern scholars (he names Sakaino and Tokiwa), who not only thought that the later catalogue was a forgery, but even thought that the original catalogue never existed (244-246; citing Sakaino, Shina Bukkyō shi kōwa 155, Tokiwa Yakkyō sōroku 73). 2. Hayashiya then considers separately the problem of the nature of the so-called Zhu Shixing Han lu, as cited in LDSBJ in support of ascriptions and dates of individual texts. He argues that this catalogue is a later forgery. Hayashiya tabulates the 24 texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ (249-250). All these texts are indeed Han texts, fitting the supposed nature of the catalogue (Hayashiya points out that the LDSBJ note for one more anachronistic text, by Kang Daohe 康道和 of the E. Jin, actually says that the Zhu Shixing Han lu contains the title only with no ascription). However, at least two of the actual texts in question, the Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 and the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (lost; this attribution is a mistake for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 [*Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna]; see below), are anachronistic, since content shows these texts to be of the Jin 晉 or later (Hayashiya refers to his own Iyaku kyōrui for details). On these grounds, he agrees with Tokiwa and Sakaino insofar as he also concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu as cited in LDSBJ is a later forgery. Sakaino held that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was forged by Fei Changfang himself, whereas Tokiwa thought it was an earlier forgery merely used by Fei (Hayashiya 252). At the end of a very complex argument, Hayashiya agrees with Tokiwa. Hayashiya’s theories about the forgery of the catalogue are grounded in the assumption that its author was most likely motivated by a context of clashes with Daoism and attendant persecution of Buddhism. In such contexts, Hayashiya holds, Buddhist apologists strove to prove that Buddhism as a whole, and Buddhist texts, had the greatest antiqutiy possible, and greater antiquity than that claimed for Daoist rivals (271-274). In this connection, Hayashiya considers it significant that the Zhu Shixing Han lu is used extensively by Fei to give dates to An Shigao texts, which he says were entirely undated in Dao’an (273-275). On the basis of the various texts for which the Zhu Shixing Han lu is cited in LDSBJ, Hayashiya concludes that it must date between the Jin and the Sui (264). Hayashiya thinks he finds a hint of this polemical purpose behind the forgery in the use of the text by Falin 法琳 in his Po xie lun 破邪論 as support for the legend of Shi Lifang 釋利房, and in LDSBJ’s own use of the text to support the legend of Kāśyapa Mātaṅga. Hayashiya therefore supposes that within this period, the most likely immediate context for the composition of the catalogue was probably the persecutions of Buddhism under either the N. Wei or the N. Zhou (264-266). Of these two possibilities, Hayashiya regards it as most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution (in part because we can discern no influence of the text on CSZJJ). He notes that Fei Changfang, as one of the principal victims and opponents of that persecution, would have been intimately familiar with documents produced under those circumstances (266-267). Hayashiya considers the possibility that LDSBJ’s forged Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed by inserting fraudulent later information into an extant authentic Zhu Shixing text. He suggests that this would be consistent with Fei’s pattern of use of earlier texts, such as the Jiu lu (254-255). However, Hayashiya ultimately concludes that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was entirely a later forgery (278-279). Hayashiya thinks that Fei himself was not the forger of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but was working with material he had found elsewhere, because there are occasions on which it might be useful for Fei to ascribe some information to the Zhu Shixing Han lu, but he does not do so (256-257). Hayashiya also argues against Tokiwa’s conclusion that Fei knew of the Zhu Shixing Han lu via the Baochang lu 寶唱錄, on the following grounds (258-262): 1) If Baochang knew of this catalogue, he would naturally have regarded it as important, but no mention of the catalogue is made in GSZ; since Baochang’s (lost) Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 was one of the principal sources of GSZ, GSZ should mention the catalogue if MSZ did; the fact that GSZ does not mention the catalogue therefore suggests that MSZ did not mention it either, which suggests Baochang had no information about such a text. 2) The LDSBJ notices citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu do not cite the Baochang lu. Hayashiya admits that Fei Changfang often cites a catalogue without citing the proximate source via which he had knowledge of it (as e.g. in the case of Jiu lu via CSZJJ). However, he suggest that for such an important text, we should still expect to see Baochang cited alongside the Zhu Shixing Han lu at least some of the time, if Baochang was Fei’s proximate source. 3) A notice for the Erbailiushi jie heiyi 二百六十戒合異 in LDSBJ ascribes the text to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 under the Han; T2034 (XLIX) 50a8. However, this misascription was corrected by Zhisheng in KYL, who showed it was an error for Tanwulan 曇無蘭; T2154 (LV) 649a9-15. This prompted Hayashiya to investigate other texts ascribed to Zhu Falan in LDSBJ. Hayashiya shows that the other four of these five texts all appear in the GSZ biography of Tanwulan, 十地斷結佛本生法海藏佛本行四十二章等五部, T2059 (L) 323a12-14; but this fact is not acknowledged by Fei Changfang. This means that all four texts should also be instances of the same error (Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 for Tanwulan 曇無蘭 = *Dharmaratna for *Dharmaratna). For the 十地斷結經 (variously 十住斷結經), which is among these texts, Fei Changfang cites the Zhu Shixing Han lu (十地斷結經四卷(或八卷見朱士行漢錄, T2034 (XLIX) 50a5). This casts further doubt on Fei’s use of this catalogue. Occasionally, for other information in GSZ that is not repeated in CSZJJ, we might assume that the source for GSZ was MSZ. However, this cannot be the case here either, as LDSBJ only cites MSZ as a source for one of these five texts. Hayashiya thus concludes that it is most likely that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was composed under the title of a lost catalogue known to the tradition, but was entirely a new fabrication, composed around the time of the N. Zhou persecution, and then introduced to the bibliographic tradition by LDSBJ itself (278-279). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 94-103 |
Tan Shibao assesses the use of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue朱士行錄 of Han texts in LDSBJ T2034, and argues that the text was a forgery made by Fei Changfang himself. Tan summarises a range of opinions among prior scholars on this catalogue (27, 94). Liang Qichao 梁啟超, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤, Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次 and Lü Cheng 呂澂all regarded the catalogue as fake, though they had varying opinions about its date and probable forger. Feng Chengjun 馮承鈞 and Yao Mingda 姚名達 treated it as reliable. Tan’s main arguments against the authenticity of this catalogue and information deriving form it are as follows: 1. The dates of Zhu Shixing’s activity make it impossible that he composed any catalogue (94-96). Daoan, the most reliable witness, says that Zhu Shixing ordained and departed for Khotan in the same year (260 CE). He would therefore, according to Tan, have been too young to have composed the catalogue before his departure. After his departure, he never returned, but it is implausible that he would have composed the catalogue in Khotan. 2. Information ascribed to this catalogue is incoherent and implausible. LDSBJ claims, on this basis, that *Lokakṣema translated the Akṣobhyavyūha in the year Jianhe 建和 1 of the Han emperor Huan 桓 (147 CE); but *Lokakṣema was not yet in the capital at that time. LDSBJ uses this catalogue to ascribe a內藏經 to An Shigao, but the wording of this notice is based upon a CSZJJ notice pertaining to an anonymous text, and neither Daoan nor Sengyou say anything about a version by An Shigao. Similarly, wording of notices about a十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭, anda 問地獄事經, ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨, are transparently based upon wording in passages of GSZ, and in the case of the Wen diyu shi jing, moreover, Tan thinks he discerns telltale details that show that Fei Changfang understood imperfectly the wording he was borrowing, resulting in gibberish and proving the direction of borrowing. LDSBJ also uses this catalogue to claim that there existed a “first” translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao. Tan dismisses this claim by noting that other, more authoritative earlier sources mention no such text—including GSZ, which Fei Changfang also cites as a source. 3. Other information is anachronistic for a Han catalogue. A notice about a益意經 ascribed to Kang Daohe 康道和 would mean that the catalogue would date to the E. Jin at the earliest. For Tan, notices about the 四十二章經, ascribed to the E. Han, and the 十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭 mean that the catalogue must have been even later, since he regards both those texts as apocrypha of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period. 4. Fei Changfang lists Zhu Shixing’s catalogue among a list of sources he himself explicitly says he had never seen. 5. Despite this, Fei also has a standard formula he uses when citing something via an intermediate source, e.g. 道安云, 舊錄云, 吳錄云. He never uses this wording in citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue. 6. Finally, Tan aims to consider all possible intermediate sources via which Fei might have known the content of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (since he says he never saw it), and believes that it is possible to logically eliminate all possibilities. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 25-32 |
Tan argues that the information cited from the Gu lu in LDSBJ T2034 is unreliable, and the Gu lu itself was probably a late forgery. 1) At the end of LDSBJ, Fei Changfang says that this catalogue “appears to be a catalogue of the scriptures brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and others at the time of the Qin 秦” (221-206 BCE). According to Yao Mingda, this claim is based upon Wang Zinian’s 王子年 (Wang Jia 王嘉) unreliable She yi ji 捨遺記. 2) Shi 釋 only came into use as a “surname” for monastics from the time of Daoan onwards, so that its use for a supposed Qin figure is anachronistic. 3) The Gu lu is used anachronistically, for a catalogue supposed to be so old, as evidence about a number of much later texts: A Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka ascribed to Daogong 道龔, who was active ca. 410-412; Sengyou cites the Bielu for the same ascription, but his tone is dubious, and he lists the text among works by *Dharmakṣema; a 八吉祥經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, where the same text is listed as anonymous in CSZJJ, and Zhi Qian would be too early for a text with such content (dhāraṇīs); and the Lalitavistara of Dharmarakṣa 普曜經. The Gu lu is also cited in evidence for the existence of a version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao, but Tan is dubious of this information on other grounds (see arguments about the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue). 4) Fei also cites the same catalogue in a general statement at the end of a long list of 125 texts, saying that his treatment of them is based upon CSZJJ’s report of the Gu lu (and Jiu lu). This statement does not match with the content of CSZJJ itself (29). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 222-231 |
Hayashiya separates two problems: 1) the supposed original Gu lu of Shi Lifang; 2) the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ notes on individual texts. 1. Did the supposed Gu lu of Shi Lifang 釋利房, composed under the Qin 秦 dynasty, even exist, and if so, could it have been transmitted and exerted an influence on later catalogues? Hayashiya thinks that there is no way to absolutely rule out the possibility that this catalogue did once exist, but even so, we would have to ask what sort of catalogue it could have been, and how it could have been transmitted. Outside China, the Qin (221-206 BCE) was a period before the recording of Buddhist texts in writing, and the catalogue would therefore have been an oral text. Hayashiya speculates that perhaps it would have been in uddāna (summary verse) format. In China, this period is too early for paper, so if the text was transmitted in writing, it would have been in another medium. Further, this was also supposed to be a period prior to the translation of any texts into Chinese, so we might wonder whether the texts the catalogue listed would have been in other languages, and if so, how Chinese people would have transmitted the catalogue (whether orally, or in writing), and understood it (especially in later generations), if it was in an Indic language. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that whether or not such a catalogue ever existed, it is largely incoherent to suppose that it was transmitted to be used as late as Fei Changfang. Traditions about this original text should therefore be set aside in the consideration of the Gu lu cited by LDSBJ. 2. Hayashiya asks: By what route could Fei Changfang have known the content of this Gu lu, and what was the nature of the text he cites? CSZJJ also cites a Gu lu, but for three of the texts on which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu, CSZJJ does not. Thus, Fei could not have known of the Gu lu exclusively via CSZJJ. However, for four other texts, the Gu lu is cited by both LDSBJ and CSZJJ, which Hayashiya thinks shows that the Gu lu at issue is roughly the same text—which should therefore be a common independent source for both catalogues. Hayashiya lists and analyses the texts for which LDSBJ cites the Gu lu (225-226). These seven texts include texts much later than the Qin (or even Han), and even some texts whose titles include post-Kumārajīva terminology (Hayashiya does not specify which texts he means). The Gu lu therefore cannot be the same catalogue ascribed by legend to Shi Lifang, even if such a text did exist. This dovetails with Hayashiya’s earlier point that even if the Shi Lifang’s Gu lu existed, it could not have been transmitted and used by Fei. And yet, there are passages in which Fei speaks as if he is identifying the two. For example, he refers to the Gu lu as a source in a biographical notice about An Shigao. Here, the confusion is compounded further by the fact that the Gu lu is not cited for a single An Shigao text in the notes on individual texts (229-230). Hayashiya also discusses the nature of this Gu lu in tandem with the nature of the Jiu lu 舊錄 (226-227). According to Fei’s overview of Buddhist bibliographic history in LDSBJ juan 15, a work referred to by the title Jiu lu was supposedly compiled by Liu Xiang 劉向 under the Han. Yet, as with the Gu lu, the pattern of use made of this source in the notes to individual texts shows that the Jiu lu actually cited cannot be the Han text. This then means, however, that Fei does not discuss in his juan 15 survey of bibliographic history the Gu lu and Jiu lu that he actually cites for individual texts—rather, he only discusses under these titles the supposed Shi Lifang and Liu Xiang catalogues. It does not make sense for Fei to omit these important catalogues from his discussion, given the extensive use he makes of them. Thus, for both the Gu lu and the Jiu lu, Fei appears to identify the sources cited as authority for individual texts and ascriptions with very early legendary catalogues of the Qin and Han dynasties, and gives no information about any other texts by the same titles; and yet, it is incoherent to think that he could indeed have been using such sources, even if they existed, from the information he gives about actual texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 329-331 |
Sakaino argues that the so-called Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄 reported by Fei Changfang was actually a catalogue of the works of Dharmarakṣa 竺法護錄 compiled by Nie Daozhen. Fei Changfang mistakenly understood that a “Nie Daozhen catalogue” separate from the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” existed, and then fabricated fifty-four entries for which he cited the authority of this supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, assuming that Nie Daozhen must have translated scriptures if there was a catalogue of his works. However, Sakaino claims that in fact, Nie probably did not translate any scriptures at all, as neither Dao’an or Sengyou recorded any of his works. Perversely enough, further, the source that Fei actually cites as the source for these fifty-four fabricated entries is the Bie lu 別錄, not the supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, a fact which Sakaino claims shows that neither the Nie Daozhen catalogue n or the Bie lu as cited by Fei are at all reliable. Sakaino states that the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” was probably, in fact, a simple list made by Nie Daozhen to record the works of his master Dharmarakṣa. [This suggestion might affect our view of the reliability not only of LDSBJ itself, and these various catalogues upon which it in these cases claims to base its ascriptions, but also the reliability of all ascriptions to Nie Daozhen still carried in T, viz., T188, T282, T463, T483 and T1502, and this record therefore lists all of those texts --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 663-664 |
Sakaino states that Fajing’s catalogue 法經錄 contains a number of entries evincing confusion between Bodhiruci 菩提流支 and *Prajnāruci 般若流支. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ discussing this confusion (T2034 [XLIX], 87a11-15). Sakaino adds that Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 was also included in this confusion, due to the element流支 –ruci, shared between all the names. For example, the Jinse wang jing 金色王經 (T162 ascribed to *Prajnāruci) is listed in Fajing with a note saying “translated by Ruci” 留支譯, apparently mistaking it as Bodhiruci’s work. In LDSBJ, this Jinse wang jing is not listed as Bodhiruci’s work, but listed among both the works of *Prajnāruci and those of Dharmaruci, with a note to that ascribed to Dharmaruci stating 法上錄云菩提流支後更重勘. KYL records the same. Sakaino claims that those records indicate that the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 listed a Jinse wang jing ascribed to Bodhiruci, stating 菩提流支再勘譯出, but Fei ascribed the title to the two other “Rucis” 流支, even while he copied over Fashang’s note. Sakaino lists the following five titles that are ascribed to Bodhiruci in Fajing but not in LDSBJ (Sakaino states that the ascriptions in Fajing are written simply 流支, but Sakaino tentatively assumes that it means Bodhiruci): 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經 [如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切諸佛境界經 T357 ascribed to *Dharmaruci], 如來師子吼經 co-translated with *Buddhaśānta (T835 ascribed to *Buddhaśānta), 聖善住意天子所問經 (T341, presently ascribed to *Vimokṣa Prajñārṣi and *Prajñāruci), 信力入印法門經 (T305 ascribed to Dharmaruci), and T162 (discussed above). In LDSBJ, ascriptions are given to the same five titles as follows: the T357, the T305 and T162 are ascribed to Dharmaruci; T835 is ascribed to *Buddhaśānta; and T341 is ascribed to *Prajnāruci. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — 45-46 |
According to Tokiwa, the Qi era Zhongjing mulu 齊世衆經目錄 is one of six catalogues that LDSBJ recorded as extant in its time. It recorded 787 titles (2334 scrolls), including apocryphal scriptures, in eight categories. Fei cited this catalogue for 27 titles ascribed to eighteen translators. Tokiwa assumes that it does not mean that those 27 cases were all recorded by Song era Zhongjing mulu 齊世衆經目錄. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[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. — 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 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.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Palumbo 2017] Palumbo, Antonello. Review of Storch (2014). H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. April 2017. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=47011. — n. 4 |
LDSBJ is commonly dated in the literature to 597, but as Palumbo has pointed out, the exact date upon which Fei submitted it to the throne (Kaihuang 開皇 17.12.23) corresponds to February 4, 598; T2034 (XLIX) 120b10 (the date is carried only in the Korean version of the canon, which formed the basis for the Taishō, and is missing in SYMP; but it is still the most precise information we have on this date). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tokiwa 1938] Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. Gokan yori Sō Sei ni itaru yakukyo sōroku 後漢より宋斉に至る訳経総錄. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1938 (reprinted 1973). — 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 Extant (in Fei’s time): CSZJJ Lost (in Fei’s time): Dao’an’s catalogue 道安錄; 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. 2. Baochang’s catalogue as the largest source of information from lost catalogues 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 a. Possible influence of other catalogues on dubious ascriptions to Faju 法炬 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 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 c. Mistakes taken from Baochang’s catalogue d. Not including many scriptures that Sengyou did not see 4 Tokiwa’s positive view of LDSBJ Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 332-336 |
Sakaino claims that the Jiu lu 舊錄, Bie lu 別錄, and Gu lu 古錄 as they are cited in LDSBJ and CSZJJ are unreliable. For example, CSZJJ cites the Jiu lu in listing the Sishi´er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784. LDSBJ cites the Jiu lu for some scriptures for which CSZJJ did not cite it, e.g., four titles ascribed to Zhi Qian; the *Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sutra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, the Analü ba nian jing 阿那律八念經 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜; and so on. The latest figure among those for which the Jiu lu is cited in LDSBJ is Tanwulan 曇無蘭. It is not known whether the Jiu lu (“old catalogue/s”) was a single catalogue, or whether it is a generic term referring to different catalogues. It is plausible in any case that the Jiu lu was/were compiled after Dao’an. According to Sakaino, the Bie lu is cited in CSZJJ for the following entries: some of *Lokakṣema’s works, including the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 and the Guangming sanmei jing 光明三昧經; once in the section on Bo Yan 白延; four times in the section on Zhi Qian; once in the section on Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭; and twice in the section on *Dharmakṣema. Sakaino points out that LDSBJ cites the Bie lu for many entries in addition to those that were already included in CSZJJ, many of them ascriptions that were newly introduced by Fei. Quite a few of these titles were actually taken from lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ (a pattern Sakaino also observes elsewhere in his monograph). Thus, Sakaino claims that probably Fei used just the name Bie lu for entries he fabricated without any factual basis. Fei lists a Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄 as one of the catalogues he directly consulted, but Sakaino does not think this Zhongjing bie lu 衆經別錄 could have been the same Bie lu 別録 that Fei cites throughout LDSBJ. Sakaino also mentions that there is still a possibility that a real source/s answering to the label "Bie lu" actually existed, but even if it did, it was not a proper catalogue, but just a term used to refer to miscellaneous records. For example, Fei cites a (or several?) Bie za lu 別雜錄 in his description of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, and there, this term apparently refers to miscellaneous non-catalogue materials. Sakaino asserts that, in any case, the source/s cited as Bie lu [in LDSBJ] is/are even more unreliable than the Jiu lu. Sakaino conjectures that the Gu lu was compiled well after Dao’an’s time. CSZJJ apparently cites it in two places: in a note for the Fanzhi Shesun jing 梵志闍孫經 (古錄云梵志闍遜經), and in a note for the Pin nü ting jing she nie mingzhong jing 貧女聽經蛇齧命終經 in the group of unseen missing scriptures (古錄貧女聽經蛇齧命終生天經). LDSBJ cites the Gu lu three times, latest for a work ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. This Gu lu, as it includes such a late work, must be different from the Gu lu listed at the end of LDSBJ. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 80-86 |
|
Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include: - “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經; Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82). Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82). For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.] In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list: 23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha. 24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles. 17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.] The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 659-661 |
Sakaino states that it is odd that LDSBJ cites the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄 only once in entries on Bodhiruci’s works, viz, in a note on the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522, while by contrast, it frequently cites instead the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 or Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄. [Sakaino thinks that Li Kuo’s catalogue must have included Bodhiruci’s works, because of their chronological and geographic proximity.] Sakaino conjectures that maybe Fei did not see the Li Kuo catalogue directly, and just quoted it via other catalogues such as Baochang 寶唱錄; and that probably Fei wrote the note on T1522 referring to the preface of the scripture, not to Li Kuo’s catalogue. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents. Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234]. Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous. Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 174-185 |
Tan argues that probably Fei Changfang did not see Baochang's catalogue, and the entries that he claims to cite from it in the LDSBJ were likely made up. Tan lists the following proofs: 1. In the list of Baochang’s works in LDSBJ, which should ostensibly be in chronological order, Baochang’s catalogue appears to be in the wrong position. Thus, Fei was likely not certain when the Baochang catalogue was composed, and perhaps Fei never saw the Baocahng catalogue at all. [This argument seems weak --- LQ] 2. The structure and content of the Baochang catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ appears suspicious: (1) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Baochang’s catalogue has 17 divisions, but LDSBJ fascicle 15 says that it has 20 divisions. (2) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Sengshao’s 僧紹 catalogue, the Hualin Fodian [zhong]jingmu 華林佛殿眾經目, which was the predecessor of LDSBJ, was based on Sengyou’s catalogue with some modifications. But Sengshao’s catalogue was supposed to be a catalogue of the royal library collections, thus it should not, and could not possibly be based on Sengyou’s catalogue, which was a general catalogue. Furthermore, Ruan Xiaoxu’s 阮孝緒 (479－536) Qi lu 七錄 contains a catalogue of Buddhist texts, which, according to Tang Yongtong, should be a catalogue of the collections in the Hualin library. Baochang’s catalogue contains far fewer texts than the Qi lu, and is thus unlikely to be based on Sengshao’s catalogue. (3) Fei characterises Baochang’s catalogue as poor in quality 覼縷, but this is at odds with the praises lavished upon Baochang by Daoxuan. 3. Problems in the LDSBJ entries supposedly citing from Baochang: (1) LDSBJ says that Baochang’s catalogue contains records of Sengshao’s catalogue and Baochang’s Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳. But these two texts could nowhere be fitted into the divisions of Baochang’s catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ. These records must therefore be fabricated by Fei. (2) LDSBJ fasc. 4 assigns the 禪行三十七品經 to An Shigao, and says that records of this text can be found in both Baochang’s and Sengyou’s catalogues. But this title is not in Sengyou’s catalogue of An Shigao’s works. Thus, this record must also have been invented by Fei. (3) Fei assigns a 修行道地經 to An Shigao and claims that the record is from Baochang and Bie lu 別錄. But according to Dao’an and Sengyou this text was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Also, in the chronology section of the LDSBJ, under 永康元年, Fei says that Zhi Mindu’s catalogue records that An Shigao translated this text, without mentioning Baochang and the Bie lu. (4) The dates given for records of *Saṅghabhara's 僧伽婆羅 works, allegedly from Baochang, do not make any sense. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
No |
[Feng 2011] Feng Guodong 冯国栋. "Gu yi Fojiao jinglu kaobian 古佚佛教经录考辨." Wenshi 文史 (2011) no. 3: 147-164. |
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. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 20 |
Tan reports that several catalogues cited by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ are supposed to have been compiled at a date earlier than the translation dates of the scriptures they recorded. Appealing on this basis to one of the principles that Liang Qichao proposed for recognizing forgeries, Tan thus questions the authenticity of the following catalogues: - 古錄 Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|