Text: Gu lu 古錄

No

• Gu lu 古錄

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

Edit

No

• Gu lu 古錄

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, for the information he gives about actual texts.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: Gu lu 古錄
• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (forger)

No

• Gu lu 古錄
• Jiu lu 舊錄

Hayashiya studies the so-called Gu lu as it appears in LDSBJ.

The Gu jing lu 古經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Gu lu 古錄. According to Hayashiya, four catalogues, namely LDSBJ, the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, state that this catalogue was brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and seventeen other scholars as part of their tribute to Emperor Qin Shihuang. However, Hayashiya points out that DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue just follow LDSBJ in reporting this tradition, and neither Daoxuan 道宣, Zhisheng, nor Yuanzhao 圓照, nor any other scholars, based their information about this catalogue on any evidence found by their own research on older records. Thus, the existence or non-existence of the Gu lu must be judged entirely according to the reliability of LDSBJ’s report.

However, Fei does not cite any sources in support of his description of the Gu lu, so that it is not possible even to evaluate his sources. Furthermore, although Fei reports elsewhere an anecdote about a supernatural incident that occurred when Shi Lifang 釋利房 and his seventeen companions visited Emperor Qin Shihuang, in that context, he does not mention at all the existence of a catalogue of scriptures. Hayashiya maintains that it is as though Fei did not regard the historical record of the Gu lu as important, even though he himself provided it.

Hayashiya’s view is that the Gu lu might have existed, but even if it did, its content would have been so peculiar that the catalogue could not have influenced the catalogues known today. Thus, he claims that the Gu lu can be regarded as one of “legendary” catalogues and can safely be ignored in the study of scriptures and catalogues. Hayashiya also argues that the Gu lu described by LDSBJ and other catalogues is not the same text as the text they actually cite under the same title, Gu lu (and likewise for the Jiu lu). Hayashiya’s argument can be summarized as follows:

Hayashiya maintains that it remains indeterminate whether the story of introduction of Buddhism to China by Shi Lifang 釋利房 is true or not, as some support exists for each possibility, but we have no decisive evidence either way. Thus, Hayashiya disagrees with quite a few scholars who utterly rejects the introduction of Buddhism by Shi Lifang as a myth. Then Hayashiya goes on to hypothesize that a catalogue in a foreign language, rather than Chinese, might have been compiled if Shi Lifang brought scriptures to China. This catalogue should have been in some Indic language (the original language of the scriptures in question), because the scriptures themselves would not yet have been translated. Such a catalogue would be recorded orally or written on palm leaves 貝葉, as paper only started to be used in the Wei 魏 period. Hayashiya further suggests that the catalogue is more likely to have had an udāna 優陀那頌 for each title to make the content easier to remember or keep organized, as materials recorded in those forms often did. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that the existence of such a catalogue is just a speculative possibility, posited on the hypothesis that Buddhism was indeed introduced to China by Shi Lifang. Hayashiya also points out that, since this catalogue of scriptures brought by Shi Lifang must have listed untranslated scriptures in the original language, it would not have influenced later catalogues written in Chinese. Because we cannot be sure it even existed, Hayashiya claims that it is safe to treat the Gu lu as one of the “legendary” catalogues, and to ignore it (224-225).

Hayashiya then argues that the Gu lu cited in LDSBJ is the same catalogue as the Gu lu cited in CSZJJ, since among the seven scriptures for which Fei cites the Gu lu, three are also listed in CSZJJ, citing the Gu lu. Likewise, Hayashiya claims that the Jiu lu cited in LDSBJ and the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ are also the same, because almost all of more than 130 titles for which Fei cites the Jiu lu are in CSZJJ also citing the same name. (225-227)

However, LDSBJ contains no separate record or description of the Gu lu nor the the Jiu lu as cited in the entries, not those “legendary” ones. Hayashiya claims that this is not because Fei regards these catalogues as insignificant, citing passages that indicate their importance for Fei, and pointing out the fact that Fei cites the Jiu lu more than 130 times. Hayashiya also maintains that it is not because Fei regards the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, because they are too different to be conflated, and the titles for which the Gu lu or the Jiu lu are cited include relatively new translation works, some of which even have in their titles words used only after Kumārajīva (227-228).

Hayashiya infers that the reason that Fei does not to give any independent description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he actually cites is that he treats them as identical with the “legendary” catalogues, under the supposition that those legendary catalogues may be cited as a source for scriptures translated after them . Hayashiya cites Fei’s statement on An Shigao’s translation works as one indication that Fei made such supposition. Hayashiya claims that, on this basis of such an interpretation, the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu can be cited as a source for any translation works produced after them. Thus, for Fei it is not necessary to provide the description of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu he cites as sources separately from the “legendary” Gu lu and Jiu lu.

Hayashiya states that it would require further research to determine why Fei took such a view. Nonethless, Hayashiya believes that Fei’s view is not worth taking seriously, and asserts that the identification of the legendary Gu lu and Jiu lu with the Gu lu and Jiu lu actually cited is clearly incorrect. (228-230)

(As for the nature of the Gu lu and the Jiu lu actually cited, Hayashiya states that the Jiu lu cited in CSZJJ is the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄, 367. He mentions that he will discuss this identification in detail in Part 4 and 5 of Kyōroku kenkyū, but the book ends with Part 3. Likewise, Hayashiya states that he will examine the nature of the Gu lu actually cited in CSZJJ in the non-existent Part 5, 230.)

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• Gu lu 古錄
• Han catalogue of Buddhist scriptures 漢時佛經目錄
• Jiu lu 舊錄
• T2034; 歷代三寶紀

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

Edit