Text: Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

No

• Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

In a concise tour de force rich enough to comprise a full study in its own right, Zacchetti retrieves some of the remarks made by Dao'an in his catalogue about the structure of the canon from citations in CSZJJ. More than sixty such glosses are marked 安公云. Zacchetti groups these glosses into six types: scriptural classification; attribution of translations; identification of retranslations; identification of abridgements 抄; recording alternative titles; and other. Focusing in particular on evidence for Dao'an's incorporation of Mahayana works into this structure, Zacchetti argues for a new vision of the significance of Dao'an's project: "If my interpretation...is correct, then we can say that it had lasting effects and was to play a crucial historical function. In a sense, the categories adopted by Daoan can be seen as the main limbs of a certain kind of canon in a nutshell, which prefigured the definitive configuration of the Chinese Buddhist canon, tripiṭaka-structured...and yet capable of integrating both Mahayana and non-Mahayana scriptures into a single textual body."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄
• People: Dao'an 道安 (author)

No

• Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

The earliest references we have to Dao'an's work(s) refer to it by such names (or descriptions) as 錄, 名錄, 經錄, 安錄, as well as the title usually encountered in modern scholarship, Zongli zhongjing mulu 總理眾經目錄. The title Zongli zhongjing mulu is first encountered in LDSBJ. However, Fei Zhangfang and his successors did not in fact see Dao'an's work. Tan argues that this title (or description) of Dao'an's work was based upon a line in which Dao'an himself describes his project, as preserved in CSZJJ: 此土眾經出不一時。自孝靈光和已來。迄今晉康寧二年。近二百載。值殘出殘遇全出全。非是一人難卒綜理。為之錄一卷, T2145 (LV) 40a1-3.

Immediately before he records this catalogue, Sengyou also lists another catalogue by Dao'an, for which he gives Dao'an's own preface: 三界諸天混然淆雜。安為錄一卷, 39c29. After several other titles, Sengyou then refers back to these two works:

三界諸天混然淆雜。安為錄一卷(今有)。
此土眾經出不一時 .... 為之錄一卷(今有)。
答沙汰難二卷
答法將難一卷
西域志一卷
凡二十七卷其諸天錄經錄。及答沙汰難至西域志。雖非注經。今依安舊錄附之于末, 39c29-40a8.

Tan points out that Sengyou's reference separately to 諸天錄 and 經錄 shows that Dao'an must have compiled at least two catalogues, both of which Sengyou saw. (He also points out that Sengyou is here, for the other titles in the list, following the order of Dao'an's catalogue.)

Tan also points out that the way these two catalogues are described is not in keeping with information we have about Dao'an's work in respect of some other texts. The phrases 難卒綜理 and 混然淆雜 indicate that these were both miscellanies, listing works that were difficult to subsume under other categorisations --- and hence they are appended to the end of other lists 附之于末. Elsewhere, Sengyou describes the main body of Dao'an's work by saying, 自漢暨晉。經來稍多。而傳經之人名字弗記。後人追尋莫測年代。安乃總集名目表其時人銓品新舊撰為經錄。眾經有據實由其功, T2145 (LV) 108a18-21. This indicates, by contrast, a very orderly collection, and it shows that the title most commonly applied to Dao'an's work, 總理眾經目錄, which is, rather, fitting for the miscellanies, is entirely a misnomer as a description of the main part of his work.

Tan goes on to point out that it is commonly asserted in modern scholarship that Dao'an authored one catalogue in one juan, but this, too, is a misconception originating with Fei's LDSBJ. He argues that this means that the attempts of Liang Qichao, Tokiwa and Hayashiya to "restore" Dao'an's (supposedly singular) "original catalogue" are all flawed. Tan himself makes a fresh attempt to reconstruct Dao'an's catalogues, which arrives at different results. He argues that prior scholars typically ordered "the" catalogue in the same order as its component parts are presented in CSZJJ, which for him is an error. He argues that in fact, careful examination of the remnants of Dao'an's catalogues and information about them in CSZJJ leads to the conclusion that Dao'an wrote a total of five catalogues in eight juan, at various times and in various places (71-74).

Tan also discusses the likely dates and places at which these five catalogues were compiled (74-79). He summarises the views of previous scholars, including later pre-modern bibliographers like Fei Zhangfang and Daoxuan, all of which were predicated on the view, for Tan false, that Dao'an authored a single catalogue. In this summary, I have bundled Tan's theories about date and place of composition together with each of the texts concerned.

1. A catalogue referred to by Sengyou as 本錄, 大錄, or 安公舊錄 (71-72), in order to distinguish it from smaller, later catalogues also composed by Dao'an. E.g. 新集安公失譯經錄: 祐校安公舊錄。其經有譯名則繼錄上卷。無譯名者則條目于下 .... 安公大[本SYM]錄訖於此, T2145 (LV) 16c8-18b16 (i.e. the intervening five registers should principally be taken from Dao'an's da/benlu); 其安公時抄。悉附本錄, 37c8; 其諸天錄經錄。及答沙汰難至西域志。雖非注經。今依安舊錄附之于末, 40a7-8. Tan notes that the first of these citations establishes that the catalogue had two juan: 則繼錄上卷...則條目于下, which were dedicated to texts with known translators and anonymous texts respectively. Previous scholars treated only the first of these two juan as the benlu, which is incorrect. When scholars elsewhere refer to Dao'an's catalogue as the 名錄 or 銓名錄, this is also incorrect --- it is an incorrect extension of a name Sengyou gives for part of his own work in his preface to his work: 名曰出三藏記集。一撰緣記。二銓名錄。三總經序。四述列傳。緣記撰則原始之本克昭。名錄銓則年代之目不墜, 1b7-10. He also points out that the title given to the first set of titles excerpted (mainly) from Dao'an in CSZJJ, 經律論錄, is anachronistic from Dao'an's point of view, and does not date back to him. In various attempts at restoration, counts of the number of titles in the first fascicle have also varied (247, 245, 244). Tan himself agrees with Lü Cheng's count of 244. Tan takes the second fascicle to be incorporated the catalogue of Dao'an's anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ fascicle 5. He cites Sengyou: 尋安錄。自修行本起訖於和達。凡一百有三十四經, 16c9-10, but states that if we count the titles, we get 131, not 134. Finally, Tan also states that this catalogue had an appendix with three of Dao'an's own works, the above-named 答沙汰難, 答法將難, 西域志.

Tan places the composition of this catalogue in the fourteen years 335-349, when Dao'an was a disciple of Fotudeng. Tan's basis for this is in part the fact that the titles listed in the first fascicle of the catalogue are no later than texts translated by Fali under Emperor Huai of the Jin 晉懷帝 (r. 306-313). [This reasoning may be flawed, since we have no solid evidence that any texts were translated between that time and the late 370s --- MR.] Tan's terminus ad quem is the 后赵内乱 (348-349, leading to the downfall of Shi Hu 石虎), based upon a remark quoted by Sengyou (in his notes to the works of Dharmarakṣa): 安公云。遭亂錄散小小錯涉, T2145 (LV) 9c3. [The context is that Sengyou is saying he discovered, by scouring "the catalogues", four further works of Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an had not recorded, and wishes to explain how Dao'an could have missed those works: 安錄先闕。今條入錄中。安公云。遭亂錄散小小錯涉。故知今之所獲審是護出也.] He also cites a line from Dao'an's biography in CSZJJ: 安乃總集名目表其時人銓品新舊撰為經錄 .... 及石氏之亂。乃謂其眾曰..., 108a20-23. He also refers to what he holds to be the principle governing Dao'an's bibliography: to record all he saw, and only what he saw; and notes that this catalogue includes none of the texts that Dao'an saw in his later phase at Xiangyang, such as texts that Sengyou had to supplement, for which Dao'an himself later wrote prefaces. (In this connection, Tan notes that a portion of Dao'an's biography is moved in error by Huijiao in GSZ from its original location describing this phase of Dao'an's career to the later portion of the biography treating the phase after the move to Xiangyang.)

(2) 雜經目錄, two versions in two fascicles. Sengyou calls these 諸天錄 and 經錄 (see above). The name and contents of these catalogues cannot be determined, but based on the descriptions of them, Tan surmises that the first contained various texts about heavens/gods, and the second various texts spanning the period from the Guanghe 光和 reign period (178-184) to 康寧二年 (374? see below), which were either complete or fragmentary, but could not be subsumed under other categories governing Dao'an's bibliographic project. Tan believes that these two catalogues listed texts Dao'an had seen during his time at Xiangyang 襄陽.

On the basis of the phrase 康寧二年, Tan dates this catalogue to 寧康二年 (374). Some scholars (e.g. Ono Genmyō) have proposed is an error for 興寧二年 (364). He points out that Dao'an only arrived in Xiangyang (Jin territory) the next year, 365, and so it would not make sense for him to write "until now, under the Jin" 迄今晉 before that year; this makes 374 the more likely date. He also points out that he speaks of "nearly two hundred years" since the Guanghe reign period.

(3) 偽經目錄. This is the list of texts reproduced in CSZJJ under the title 新集安公疑經錄, along with Dao'an's own original preface. This list contains 26 texts. [Note that the notion that this was a text of so-called 偽經 is Tan's own inference; this word never appears in Dao'an's own writings, though Sengyou uses it once to describe Dao'an's list, T2145 (LV) 38c23 --- MR.] Tan himself states that it is difficult to determine the original title of this small catalogue (73).

Tan argues that this catalogue was written during the years between 365 and 379, during Dao'an's Xiangyang phase. In his preface, Dao'an writes 經至晉土其年未遠; he would not have written of the Jin (which must here refer to the E. Jin, since the W. Jin was too early) while under the patronage of the Latter Zhao (Shi Le) or the Former Qin (as he was in Chang'an). In addition, the last text listed is the 覓歷所傳大比丘尼戒. Mili 覓歷 was a disciple of *Śrīmitra, who came to China during the Yongjia 永賀 reign period (307-313), then moved to the Jiangdong, and died between 335 and 342. Mili's texts should have been written in this period, and it is appropriate for Dao'an to say that this last text was composed "not long ago, under the Jin". Tan also adduces the line 昔安法師摘出偽經二十六部。又指慧達道人以為深戒 from Sengyou's preface to his own list of false scriptures, 38c23-24. He interprets the second phrase to refer to an incident in which Dao'an accused Huida of making false claims to have witnessed miraculous lights and discovered relics, which took place in Ningkang/Kangning 2 (374).

(4) A catalogue of his own commentaries to sūtras, as reproduced in CSZJJ under the title 新集安公注經及雜經志錄. This text also carried a preface by Dao'an, which has been transmitted. The wording of that preface indicates that the catalogue was exclusively devoted to such works: 輒以洒掃之餘暇。注眾經如左, 39b25-26. Tan also suggests that this catalogue included eleven anonymous scriptures, which Sengyou extracted and listed in his section dedicated to anonymous texts.

Tan argues that this catalogue was also written in Dao'an's Xiangyang period, between 376 and 379. He bases this claim in part on the phrase 抱瓫於漢陰 in Dao'an's preface to the catalogue, 39b19, showing that Dao'an was then living on the southern shore of the Han River, i.e. in Xiangyang. The catalogue includes two texts related to the Guang zan jing 光讚經 T222: the 光讚折中解 and the 光讚抄解. The Guangzang jing is recorded as having arrived in Xiangyang in 376.

(5) A late catalogue of anonymous texts. This catalogue, Tan suggests, comprised three sections (or "daughter catalogues" 子錄), which are the titles presented in CSZJJ as 新集安公古異經錄, 新集安公涼土異經錄, and 新集安公關中異經錄 --- thus, this catalogue was organised in part according to geographic region. Tan cites Sengyou's preface to the first of these catalogues: 安公覿其古異編之於末。祐推其歲遠列之于首; he argues that this shows that these lists were appended to the end of some other catalogue. He refers to the fact that the anonymous section of the first of the catalogues [viz. the benlu, discussed above] ends with the 和達經一卷, and suggests that these lists could not have been appended to that catalogue.

Tan argues that this catalogue includes works from the Guanzhong and Liangtu regions, and should thus have been compiled after Dao'an moved to Chang'an in 379, i.e. in the period 380-385.

Summarising his arguments about these different works, Tan emphasises that a clear overall pattern emerges, showing that Dao'an compiled these different catalogues as different texts came available to him, through the combination of his own movements (and the political reach of the different regimes he worked under), and, late in his career, the influx of new texts.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0588; 佛說須真天子經; Suvikrāntacintā devaputra paripṛcchā
• T0638; 佛說超日明三昧經
• T2059; 高僧傳
• T2145; 出三藏記集
• Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

Naitō considers the place of Dao'an's catalogue in the history of traditional Chinese bibliography, particularly in relation to the development of classification schema. He argues that Dao'an compiled his catalogue as part of a broader attempt to recover bibliographic resources from losses resulting from political chaos. Because this was a "private" catalogue, restricted to one particular class of books, rather than an official or court project, it enjoyed greater freedom to experiment. Dao'an's concern with the authentification of texts, and his historicist attention to the circumstances under which they were produced, are both innovations against the backdrop of the bibliographic tradition prior to him, and clear results of these circumstances.

As Ōchō E'nichi had already observed, Dao'an did not use classification schemas that were later to become standard, such as the "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (sūtra, śāstra, vinaya), nor the "two vehicles" (Mahāyāna, "hīnayāna"), probably because during his years in Xiangyang, when the catalogue was composed, he had still not attained the necessary overview of canonical materials. His schema, then, was based rather on the characteristics of the translations themselves, rather than the underlying source texts: particularly the circumstances of their production in Chinese, namely, the person(s), time and place associated with the translation. This mode of classification evinces a new type of historicisation of bibliography. Another dimension of this schema was that it required a category of anonymous texts, i.e. texts for which the identity of the translator was not known. These anonymous texts Dao'an further divided into broad periods (ancient, and more recent), and according to the broad geographic region in which they were produced. The place of these developments in Chinese bibliographic history was also remarked upon by Liang Qichao. Dao'an's framework was to have a far-reaching influence, and eventually led, via the (Liu) Song cataloguer Wang Jian 王儉 and CSZJJ, to the annalistic approach of Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ.

The "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (經論律, sūtra, śāstra, vinaya) was introduced by Sengyou (in CSZJJ). This makes it difficult to discern the extent to which his work preserves the form of Dao'an's earlier work, upon which he built. In addition, Sengyou's format of listing all works of a single translator and then discussing them all in a single 解題 (總結文) was probably not inherited from Dao'an, according to Naitō, but rather, was probably Sengyou's innovation. One type of detail that allows us to draw this inference is that these summary notes sometimes mention Dao'an by name in reporting his judgments (安公云...), which would not be usual if the wording was Dao'an's own.

Naitō believes that Dao'an's catalogue was, rather, most probably organised by titles annotated one by one with such information about title, length, date, translator, and any other supplemental notes as Dao'an had to hand. This format had been common practice from the Han, which means Dao'an would just have been following precedent. It is possible that the titles were indeed grouped by translator, where the translator was known, but it is unlikely that there were any summary comments of the sort seen in CSZJJ. Co-translations, Naitō believes, were probably listed only once, rather than duplicated in separate lists for each of the translators, as later became the norm. Naitō argues that when attributions for co-translations were later reduplicated for inclusion in separate lists for each of the co-translators, it sometimes had the effect of creating ghost texts and even ghost translators, as in the instance where 竺法護 and 曇摩羅察 --- both, in his view, referring to Dharmarakṣa --- were treated as separate individuals [see CSZJJ notice for the 須真天子 T588, T2145 (LV) 9c9-11]. He argues that a similar process is behind confusion about whether or not Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠 really produced a truly independent version of the 超日明三昧經 T638.

Naitō remarks that if this is correct, it renders implausible the ascription to Dao'an of a remark recorded in GSZ: 案釋道安經錄云。安世高以漢桓帝建和二年至靈帝建寧中二十餘年譯出三十餘部經, T2059 (L) 324a8-10. This remarks appears to be a comment on a list of the CSZJJ type, which Naitō believes was not the form of Dao'an's catalogue; moreover, this remark is not reported at the relevant point in CSZJJ, which we would expect if it had indeed been in Dao'an's catalogue as used by Sengyou.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit