| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Jiu lu 舊錄 [Fei 597] |
| Date | 495-515 [Tan 1991] |
| 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. — 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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 231-233 |
The Jiu jing lu 舊經錄 in 1 juan is also called the Jiu lu 舊錄. According to Hayashiya, LDSBJ records that this appeared to be a catalogue of texts that Liu Xiang 劉向 of the former Han period had seen among [books] searched out from places of hiding(? see below) 似前漢劉向搜集藏書所見經録, T2034 (XLIX) 127c1. The Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 repeats this report, adding that the catalogue recorded the scriptures that had been found hidden inside the wall of the house of the Confucius clan, or hidden among the people, at the time of the book-burning in the Qin period 似是前漢劉向挍書天閣。往往多見佛經。斯即往古藏經録。謂孔壁所藏。或秦政焚書人中所藏者, T2149 (LV) 336b15. KYL and the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄 followed DTNDL. Thus, the Jiu lu was first reported by LDSBJ, followed by DTNDL, KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue. This is the same pattern seen for the Gu lu 古錄. Hayashiya maintains that this legend, that Liu Xiang found scriptures hidden inside the wall of the Confucius family home which had thereby survived Qin book burning, was already widely known in Sengyou’s time. As support for this view, Hayashiya quotes some lines from CSZJJ and the Ming fo lun 明佛論 by Zong Bing 宗炳 (included in the Hong ming ji 弘明集 compiled by Sengyou): CSZJJ: 竊尋兩漢之季世構亂離。西京蕩覆墳典皆散。東都播遷載籍多亡。子政所覩其文雖沒。而顯宗所寫厥篇猶存, T2145 (LV) 5b21-23. 明佛論: 東方朔對漢武劫燒之説劉向列仙叙七十四人在佛經 學者之管窺於斯又非漢明而始也, T2102 (LII) 12c8-10. Thus, Hayashiya infers that Fei’s report about the Jiu lu may well be based upon some materials mentioning such a legend. However, as the story of Liu Xiang’s retrieval of these lost scriptures is not mentioned at all in the Liu xiang ji 劉向集 of the Sui shu 隋書, Hayashiya claims that it is most likely to have been considered as a mythical story even early on, and hence the Jiu lu should also be considered a “legendary” catalogue. Hayashiya adds that the Jiu lu discussed here is completely different from the Jiu lu 舊錄 cited in the notes in catalogues such as CSZJJ and LDSBJ (the situations is the same regarding the 古錄 recorded as a catalogue and the 古録 in the notes in those catalogues). Hayashiya states that he analyses the characteristics of the Jiu lu 舊錄 that appears in the notes in Part 4 and 5 of the same work, Kyōrokukenkyū. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 221-231 |
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 33-48 |
The title (or category?) of Jiulu 舊錄 is first attested in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, without any indication of the authorship or dates of the text in question. After Sengyou, Fei Zhangfang was the first to venture an explanation of the origin of the Jiulu, claiming that it was a catalogue of texts discovered by Liu Xiang 劉向 (77 BCE—6 CE) during his search for books 似前漢劉向搜集藏書所見經録. Daoxuan repeated this thesis in his DTNDL. However, like some scholars before him such as Yao Mingda, Tan thoroughly rejects this claim as false and baseless. At the same time, he cautions that the falsity of this myth itself does not necessarily mean that the catalogue itself did not exist. Since it was first cited in CSZJJ without the taint of this myth, the next logical task at hand is to check all entries there involving the Jiulu and deduce from them the terminus ante quem and terminus post quem of the catalogue. Tan first summarizes the various theories proposed by previous Chinese scholars (33-34) 1) Jiulu = Zhi Mindu’s catalogue (proposed by Liang Qichao, adopted by Lü Cheng, Hu Shi, and Tang Yongtong. 2) Yao Mingda: the Jiulu was most likely compiled sometime between 341 and 370. But the entries citing Jiulu as a source in LDSBJ stretch to dates as late as the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 from the S. Qi, making it almost contemporary with CSZJJ. [This of course is already a glaring inconsistency with Fei’s proposed provenance of the Jiulu--SC] 3) Refutation of 1). Liang Qichao was the first to propose this theory, overturning his own earlier theory. He commented that the name “old catalogue” from Sengyou’s perspective does not require a date prior to Dao’an, as assumed by Fei but could be any catalogue before Sengyou’s own time. Zhang Dejun shares this view, arguing that Sengyou never laid eyes on Zhi Mindu’s catalogue. 4) Based on the entry for the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 in LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 96b9, Feng Chengjun thinks that the Jiulu was a “fake catalogue” 偽錄 dating after the fifth century. Rejecting 1) completely, Tan reassesses the other three theories on the basis of his own findings. Step by step, he eventually arrives at the conclusion that the Jiulu could not have been compiled before 495. A. The Jiulu must date later than Dao’an’s main catalogue. As evidenced in notes involving the Jiulu and Dao’an’s catalogue, both catalogues recorded the dates and names of translators when available, but Sengyou famously credited Dao’an as the first cataloguer to register the dates and translators of texts. By this logic, the Jiulu must have postdated Dao’an. The Jiulu also tends to record the titles in their entirety (in contrast to Dao’an’s frequent abbreviation) and the number of fascicles, which Dao’an never provided. B. Sengyou relied on Dao’an’s catalogue(s) as his basis in the following catalogues, and supplemented in each case the following number of entries with information from the Jiulu: 新集經論錄(fascicle 2): 49 Many previous scholars, including Yao Mingda, only focused on the entries in 新集經論錄 and took the last entry there, 譬喻經, as proof that the Jiulu must have been compiled between Emperors Cheng 成帝 (r. 325-342) and Fei 廢帝 (r. 365-372) of the (Eastern) Jin 晉 (34). Looking further, Tan quickly finds proof for much later dates. First, in the 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, the entry for the Ba sui shami xiang waidai jing 八歲沙彌降外道經 gives a note stating that it is excerpted from the Udānavarga of Zhu Fonian T212: 抄出曜，舊錄云八歲沙彌折外異學經. If it were excerpted from T212, which was translated at the beginning of Later Qin, this text could not have predated 399. For the same reason, the Jiulu must have been later too. Another entry in this catalogue, for the Shi'er yinyuan zhang jing 十二因緣章經 pushes the terminus post quem of the Jiulu forward even further. At the same time as he in one locus refers to the Jiulu for information about the text (舊錄云十二因緣經, T2145 [LV] 30b8-9), Sengyou elsewhere dates the Shi'er yinyuan zhang jing ] to [南齊]建武二年, i.e. 495 CE (13c18). Further evidence for the Jiulu recording works as late as the fifth century includes Sengyou’s preface 菩薩善戒菩薩地持二經記 (f.9) and 大集虛空藏無盡意三經記 (f.9) (35-36). Based on the date of CSZJJ (510-515 CE), Tan suggests that the Jiulu must have been compiled sometime between 495 and 515 (36). C. Turning to references of the Jiulu in LDSBJ, Tan points to several dubious entries, including some that outright contradict the the Jiulu entries in CSZJJ. Among these is the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 mentioned earlier, which was recorded in CSZJJ without any mention of the Jiulu (36-37). [Tan compiles a list that cross-examines all the Jiulu entries in LDSBJ against those in CSZJJ.] In short, Tan concludes that the entries in CSZJJ give no reason for us to doubt the existence or validity of the Jiulu, whereas all the mistakes and signs of fabrication first appeared in LDSBJ, suggesting that Fei, not the Jiulu itself, initiated all that was dubious about the “old catalogue.” Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 5-6 |
Su Jinren points out that CSZJJ cites the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information more than 110 titles. The latest title for which it is cited dates from the E. Jin. On this basis, Su suggests that the catalogue itself dated to the late 4- early 5c. Su rejects the traditional view that this title referred to a Han catalogue by Liu Xiang 劉向. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of ancient alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄 Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 數練意章一卷, 15b22-23 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous translations 新集安公失譯經錄 Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 修行本起經二卷, 16c18 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經錄 Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 須耶越國貧人經一卷, 18c10 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of alternate translations from the Guanzhong region 新集安公關中異經 Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 阿難為蠱道呪經一, 19b10 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
|
In his catalogue of anonymous texts in Facicle 4 of CSZJJ, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for 110 titles, including items he states are extant, and also items he marks "presently missing". This shows that each such title, being listed in the Jiu lu, was extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. Texts among these which appear to possibly be extant are as follows, here listed alongside the ascriptions given in the present Taishō to the possibly corresponding texts (note that this comparison serves in several cases mainly to show how tenuous the T ascriptions must be, if the texts in question are indeed those listed in CSZJJ 4): 沙曷比丘功德[v.l. 德經SYM]一卷(舊錄云沙曷比丘經) T501, Faju Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of excerpted sūtras 新集抄經錄 Sengyou notes that a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 carries the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 睒抄經一卷, 38a27 (cf. T174, T175) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
In his report on Dao'an's catalogue of dubious sūtras 新集安公疑經錄 Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the following titles. This shows that these titles, being listed in the Jiu lu, were extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. 薩和菩薩[-SYM]經一卷, 38b22 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 62c22-63a20 |
In his note on the 菩薩善戒 and 菩薩地持 sūtras, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 for the information that the "Bodhisattva precepts sūtra" was translated by Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 (cf. T1487) during the time of Emperor Wen of the (Liu) Song 宋文帝 (r. 424-452). This implies that the Jiu lu was composed during or later than the first half of the fifth century. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 63a21-b12 |
In his note on the Gagaṇagañja in the *Mahāsaṃnipāta and three versions of the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 大集虛空藏無盡意三經記, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for the date of a text by *Dharmakṣema 曇摩懺. This implies that the Jiu lu was at composed at least as late as the 410s, and possibly even the 420s (depending upon the date we take for the start of Dharmakṣema's translation activity). 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. — 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 |
|