Text: Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄 [Hayashiya 1941]
Date	[None]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 236-240	Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄
No	[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 236-240	Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄 Zhi Qian catalogue 支謙錄	Hayashiya states that the catalogues of translated scriptures 譯經目錄 of the works of Lokakṣema支婁迦讖 and Zhi Qian 支謙 are two of the most important catalogues that existed prior to Dao’an. According to Hayashiya, it remains uncertain whether Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian compiled those catalogues listing their works themselves, or it was done by someone else. Hayashiya claims that Dao’an must have referred to at least some of the catalogues extant in his time (although it is not known how many of them he actually saw), and that there must have been catalogues produced before Dao’an’s time other than those that Hayashiya discusses in Kyōroku kenkyū (although there is no way to know about such catalogues today, as they are lost without any record). Hayashiya asserts that these two catalogues existed on the basis of a certain section of the “Record of the Synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra” 合首楞嚴經記 by Zhi Mindu支慜/敏度. Hayashiya admits that it is not easy to understand precisely what this record says about the catalogues in question, because it is written in a terse style, and is mostly about the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself, only briefly mentioning records of this and other scriptures. However, Hayashiya maintains that part of the notice supports the existence of these two catalogues for the following reasons: the catalogue of Zhi Qian’s works must have existed, because Zhi Mindu states that “The scriptures translated by [Zhi Qian] between the Huangwu 黄武 era and the Jianguo 建興 era [came to] several dozen fascicles in total, there are separate transmission accounts, records and catalogues(?) [for them]” 從黄武至建興中。所出諸經凡數十卷。自有別傳記録. Hayashiya claims that the existence of the catalogue of Lokakṣema’s works should also be accepted, although it is not explicitly stated by Zhi Mindu that there was such a catalogue, because the pertinent section of Zhi Mindu’s “record” mentions a number of scriptures translated by Lokakṣema, including the Śūraṃgamasamādhi. However, Hayashiya does not think that a sentence at the end of the record reading “there is/are (a) catalogue(s) and/of records for each of these two ‘houses’ [translators, translation workshops]” 二家各有記録耳 unequivocally indicates the existence of the two catalogues, since in this context, the sentence could also mean that there are two separate records for the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself (the one ascribed to Lokakṣema and the other ascribed to Zhi Qian), despite the fact that the two texts were supposedly similar, because Zhi Qian revised on the basis of Lokakṣema. Hayashiya values highly the evidence in Zhi Mindu’s “record” for the catalogues of Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian, because Hayashiya regards Zhi Mindu as just as reliable as Dao’an. Hayashiya thinks that Dao’an also probably actually saw these two catalogues, or at least saw some catalogue(s) that recorded their content, because Dao’an’s catalogue ascribes as many as twelve scriptures to Lokakṣema, who was active more than two hundred years before Dao’an, and as many as thirty to Zhi Qian, who was active more than one hundred fifty years before Dao’an. He must have been helped by some catalogue(s) other than his own to have obtained this information. However, Hayashiya admits that it ultimately remains uncertain whether Dao’an saw these two catalogues, since Dao’an does not include the Drumakinnararāja-sūtra 屯眞陀羅王經 or the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in his catalogue. The former is one of the principal works of Lokakṣema mentioned by Zhi Mindu, while the latter is included in a “separately transmitted records [or ‘separate biographies, records...’? – MR] and catalogues of [the works of] Zhi Qian(??)” 支謙....別傳記錄. CSZJJ states of each of these two titles that “it is recorded in [these] other catalogues (bie lu 別録)” but not in Dao’an, and now the text is missing 別録所載安録無今闕.” This being the case, it seems as though Dao’an did not see the “other catalogues” or bie lu in question. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that one should also not conclude from the absence of these two titles in Dao’an’s catalogue that Dao’an definitely did not see this bie lu, because Dao’an included only the texts that he actually saw in his catalogue, and because, as Dao’an himself says, some parts of his catalogue went missing while he was moving from place to place to avoid wars. Thus, it ultimately remains uncertain if Dao’an directly saw the catalogues of Zhi Qian and Lokakṣema’s works, too. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 236-240

Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Lokakṣema catalogue 支讖錄

[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 236-240

Hayashiya states that the catalogues of translated scriptures 譯經目錄 of the works of *Lokakṣema支婁迦讖 and Zhi Qian 支謙 are two of the most important catalogues that existed prior to Dao’an. According to Hayashiya, it remains uncertain whether *Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian compiled those catalogues listing their works themselves, or it was done by someone else.

Hayashiya claims that Dao’an must have referred to at least some of the catalogues extant in his time (although it is not known how many of them he actually saw), and that there must have been catalogues produced before Dao’an’s time other than those that Hayashiya discusses in Kyōroku kenkyū (although there is no way to know about such catalogues today, as they are lost without any record).

Hayashiya asserts that these two catalogues existed on the basis of a certain section of the “Record of the Synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra” 合首楞嚴經記 by Zhi Mindu支慜/敏度. Hayashiya admits that it is not easy to understand precisely what this record says about the catalogues in question, because it is written in a terse style, and is mostly about the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself, only briefly mentioning records of this and other scriptures. However, Hayashiya maintains that part of the notice supports the existence of these two catalogues for the following reasons: the catalogue of Zhi Qian’s works must have existed, because Zhi Mindu states that “The scriptures translated by [Zhi Qian] between the Huangwu 黄武 era and the Jianguo 建興 era [came to] several dozen fascicles in total, there are separate transmission accounts, records and catalogues(?) [for them]” 從黄武至建興中。所出諸經凡數十卷。自有別傳記録. Hayashiya claims that the existence of the catalogue of *Lokakṣema’s works should also be accepted, although it is not explicitly stated by Zhi Mindu that there was such a catalogue, because the pertinent section of Zhi Mindu’s “record” mentions a number of scriptures translated by *Lokakṣema, including the Śūraṃgamasamādhi. However, Hayashiya does not think that a sentence at the end of the record reading “there is/are (a) catalogue(s) and/of records for each of these two ‘houses’ [translators, translation workshops]” 二家各有記録耳 unequivocally indicates the existence of the two catalogues, since in this context, the sentence could also mean that there are two separate records for the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra itself (the one ascribed to *Lokakṣema and the other ascribed to Zhi Qian), despite the fact that the two texts were supposedly similar, because Zhi Qian revised on the basis of *Lokakṣema. Hayashiya values highly the evidence in Zhi Mindu’s “record” for the catalogues of *Lokakṣema and Zhi Qian, because Hayashiya regards Zhi Mindu as just as reliable as Dao’an.

Hayashiya thinks that Dao’an also probably actually saw these two catalogues, or at least saw some catalogue(s) that recorded their content, because Dao’an’s catalogue ascribes as many as twelve scriptures to *Lokakṣema, who was active more than two hundred years before Dao’an, and as many as thirty to Zhi Qian, who was active more than one hundred fifty years before Dao’an. He must have been helped by some catalogue(s) other than his own to have obtained this information.

However, Hayashiya admits that it ultimately remains uncertain whether Dao’an saw these two catalogues, since Dao’an does not include the *Drumakinnararāja-sūtra 屯眞陀羅王經 or the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴經 in his catalogue. The former is one of the principal works of Lokakṣema mentioned by Zhi Mindu, while the latter is included in a “separately transmitted records [or ‘separate biographies, records...’? – MR] and catalogues of [the works of] Zhi Qian(??)” 支謙....別傳記錄. CSZJJ states of each of these two titles that “it is recorded in [these] other catalogues (bie lu 別録)” but not in Dao’an, and now the text is missing 別録所載安録無今闕.” This being the case, it seems as though Dao’an did not see the “other catalogues” or bie lu in question. However, Hayashiya emphasizes that one should also not conclude from the absence of these two titles in Dao’an’s catalogue that Dao’an definitely did not see this bie lu, because Dao’an included only the texts that he actually saw in his catalogue, and because, as Dao’an himself says, some parts of his catalogue went missing while he was moving from place to place to avoid wars. Thus, it ultimately remains uncertain if Dao’an directly saw the catalogues of Zhi Qian and *Lokakṣema’s works, too.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit