| Identifier | T2146 [T] |
| Title | 眾經目錄 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Fajing, 法經 [T] |
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 |
[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. |
隋沙門法經等撰 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. — 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 |
[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). — 47-49 |
Tokiwa argues that scholars contemporary or subsequent to Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 法經錄 T2146 did not value the catalogue so highly, unlike many modern scholars, based on the fact that it was hardly cited by LDSBJ and KYL. LDSBJ never cites it, although Fei lists it as one of six extant catalogues; KYL cites it only once. Tokiwa thinks that LDSBJ and KYL did not regard Fajing’s catalogue as important because it was not useful in establishing ascriptions and dates of translation, although it did contain much new information of other kinds. Tokiwa argues that three apparent problems in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu reduced its use to Fei and Zhisheng. First, as described in LDSBJ, Fajing’s catalogue did not examine actual texts themselves, although it was compiled by the twenty great scholars of the time referring to more than ten catalogues. Second, if only six catalogues were extant in Fei’s time, as he claims, the ten-plus catalogues used by Fajing must include some that were referred to only indirectly via some other catalogue(s), probably Baochang’s catalogue 寶唱錄. Third, Fajing did not record the sources he used, which Tokiwa holds is a weakness in comparison with LDSBJ, which cited its sources clearly. However, in other respects, Tokiwa acknowledges the significance of Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu. For example, while Fei did not include 86 titles of extant anonymous scriptures recorded in CSZJJ, Fajing recorded 77 of those 86 titles, adding new information (such as the number of scrolls) to 43 of them. 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. — 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 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.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
|