| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Date | 518-597 [Tokiwa 1938] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Tokiwa 1938] |
| Forger | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| 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. — 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 |
[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 |
[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). — 73-86 |
Tokiwa considers the characteristics of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue朱士行錄 of Han texts, and argues that it was referred to not only by Fei Changfang, but also by Huijiao 慧皎 and Baochang 寶唱, while it was extant only for approximately eighty years and lost by the time of Fei. 1. Basic characterization 2.How Zhu Shixing Han lu was used by the catalogues: 2.2 Judging from LDSBJ, Zhu Shixing Han lu was one of Huijiao’s sources Tokiwa claims that, although Huijiao does not explicitly cite the Zhu Shixing Han lu as one of his source materials, and further, although the biography of Zhu Shixing himself in GSZ does not mention any supposed catalogue, that does not mean that Huijiao did not see it, because the purpose of GSZ is not to record the attributions of scriptures and, as such, it might not cite all of materials it used. Thus, whether Huijiao actually saw the Zhu Shixing Han lu or not should be determined indirectly — which means, Tokiwa claims, to seek for the basis of Huijiao’s ascriptions in LDSBJ. GSZ lists 25 scriptures by 10 translators of the Han period (listed 76-77), without showing its sources. Among them, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 is also included in LDSBJ, citing the Zhu Shixing Han lu. The Shishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to *Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰 is also recorded in LDSBJ as an ascription based mainly on Zhu Shixing, with CSZJJ as an additional support; the Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨 [or could Kangju be a toponym, "The Sogdian"? --- MR], which is not included in CSZJJ, is recorded in LDSBJ citing Zhu Shixing. Tokiwa maintains that probably Huijiao referred to the Zhu Shixing catalogue in listing these three titles, like LDSBJ. Tokiwa also infers that the following 6 titles among the 25 scriptures were probably listed in the GSZ on the basis of Zhu Shixing Han lu: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (LDSBJ cites the Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳 as its source); the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔; the Xiao benqi jing 小本起經 ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜 (LDSBJ cites GSZ 高僧傳 as its source); the Da shi’er men jing 大十二門經, Xiao shi’er men jing 小十二門經 and Dao di jing 道地經 (Yogācārabhūmi, T607) ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 (LDSBJ cites the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 as its source). According to Tokiwa, it is likely that the sources cited, i.e., GSZ, Ming seng zhuan and the Baochang catalogue, based their ascriptions directly on the Zhu Shixing Han lu, or indirectly, via the Baochang catalogue. This is because in this context, the Zhu Shixing Han lu and the Baochang catalogue are the only possible origins of those ascriptions. Thus, Tokiwa thinks that, among the 25 scriptures of the Han period recorded in GSZ, the ascriptions of three of them were probably taken directly from the Zhu Shixing Han lu, while another six were taken from it directly or indirectly. On this basis, Tokiwa maintains that the Zhu Shixing Han lu was extant at the time of Huijiao (80-81). 3. Chronological considerations 4. Motivation for the composition Zhu Shixing Han lu a) To record the works of Kāśyapa Mātaṅga and Zhu Falan: the Zhu Shixing Han lu was compiled for the purpose of recording the first translations of Buddhist scriptures (for example, in LDSBJ, the Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 is ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 on the basis of the Zhu Shixing Han lu, and in addition, Huijiao ascribed three more titles to Zhu Falan: the Fo Bensheng jing 佛本生經, the Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, and the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經. Tokiwa believes that Huijiao also based these ascriptions on the Zhu Shixing Han lu). b) To record translation dates in detail: In LDSBJ, there are eight titles the translation year of which is stated precisely on the basis of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (seven of which were not even included in CSZJJ). Several more titles are shown with the translation year, but without citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue. Tokiwa thinks that the Zhu Shixing catalogue is the source for these ascriptions too. Dao’an did not indicate translation dates in this manner, and probably, this new type of information was consciously introduced by the author of Zhu Shixing Han lu. c) To supplement Dao’an’s catalogue: According to Tokiwa, LDSBJ includes five titles not included in Dao’an’s catalogue, citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue as the source. Tokiwa claims that, apart from their possible inaccuracy, those entries represent the intention of the author of the Zhu Shixing to supplement Dao’an’s catalogue (83-86). 5. Value of Zhu Shixing Han lu Entry author: Michael Radich |
|