Text: Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄 [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. — 305-325	Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經	The full title of the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 1 juan (lost) is 東晋沙門支敏度經論都錄 (“Complete catalogue of the sūtras and śāstras [by] the Eastern Jin śramaṇera Zhi Mindu”). It is also called the the Jing lun dou lun 經論都錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is mentioned in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳. Although this catalogue was still extant at the time of Huijiao 慧皎, it went missing by the Sui period. As such, LDSBJ classified the Zhi Mindu catalogue as one of the unseen catalogues 未見經錄 and did not mention its content. However, Daoxuan 道宣 states in the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 that there was a Bie lu 別錄, also compiled by Zhi Mindu, separate from the Dou lu 都錄. KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 followed the Da Tang neidian lu in that regard. (305-306) Hayashiya maintains that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was a reliable catalogue. This is because the ascriptions of most of the fifteen titles for which it is cited in LDSBJ (listed 316-318) coincide with titles given in Dao’an’s catalogue, and the ascriptions of the rest are either included in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, or regarded by Hayashiya as probably correct. Hayashiya also infers that the Zhi Mindu catalogue listed many more titles than the titles for which it was cited in extant catalogues, including anonymous and missing scriptures, because the catalogue was missing by the Sui period, and all citations of it in extant catalogues are based on some another missing catalogue as an intermediate source. (316-320) Hayashiya’s major claims about the Zhi Mindu catalogue are: - It was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. [Note: Hayashiya's only evidence for Zhi Mindu's catalogue in CSZJJ appears to be mentions of Zhi Mindu's own synoptic sūtras, ascriptions which he thinks it safe to presume were taken from Zhi Mindu's catalogue itself, 319. See further below. --- MR.] Fei thought that it was produced at the end of W. JIn period, due to his confusion between Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period and Shengjian 聖堅 who was active under the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦; - The Zhi Mindu catalogue was probably divided into a part for ascribed scriptures (bie lu 別錄) and one for anonymous scriptures, and the word Dou lu 都錄 was used to refer to the catalogue as a whole; and - Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya’s arguments can be summarizes as follows: The date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue Hayashiya examines the issue of the date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue and argues that the catalogue was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. A later date suggested by LDSBJ and other catalogues is incorrect, and stems from the confusion of Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period with Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦. According to Hayashiya, the GSZ description and notes transmitted by Sengyou’s in CSZJJ for the synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩詰經 and the synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 合首楞嚴經 are our most reliable sources about the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Those materials indicate that Zhi Mindu was active at the time of Huidi 惠帝 of the W. Jin (291-306CE) and Chengdi 成帝 of the E. Jin (326-342CE). However, LDSBJ and the catalogues that followed it treat the Zhi Mindu catalogue as slightly younger. Hayashiya presents the chronological order of the catalogues as given in the Da Tang neidian lu and KYL (308). There, the Zhi Mindu catalogue is located between the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄 and the Wang Zong catalogue 王宗錄, which means that the Zhi Mindu catalogue is regarded as compiled near the end of the W. Jin. According to Hayashiya, one plausible reason for Zhisheng and Daoxuan to assume that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was produced around that time is the fact that LDSBJ records that some works of Shengjian of the Qifu Qin, namely, the Tong Jieye jie nan jing 僮迦葉解難經 and the Qi nü ben jing 七女本經 (cf. T556), were included in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, However, Shengjian is said to have worked in the Taichu 太初 era of the Qifu Qin (388-401 CE). Hayashiya points out that this date is practically incompatible with the one given by GSZ and CSZJJ. (307-310) Hayashiya consequently argues that Fei was mistaken in thinking that the the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing mentioned in the Zhi Mindu catalogue were translated in the time of the Qifu Qin, because Fei mistook two different translators, Fajian and Shengjiang, for the same person: - Shengjian of the Qifu Qin is recorded already in CSZJJ by Sengyou. - While LDSBJ and other catalogues following it regarded Fajian and Shengjian as one and the same person, Fajing considered the two to be different persons. - Fajing presents Fajian as active in the Jin period and Shengjian as active under the Qifu Qin. Fajing lists 5 titles ascribed to Fajian and 3 titles to Shengjian (Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 in 1 juan T492 to Fajian 法堅 of the Qifu Qin in Fajing must be a simple mistake by someone among the “twenty eminent scholars” 二十大徳 who compiled the catalogue, and should be understood to refer to Shengjian instead of Fajian) (the list is on 312-313). - Among the 5 titles ascribed to Fajian by Fajing, 4 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scripture, so it is safe to say that those titles ascribed to Fajian were indeed translated in the W. Jin or earlier (and thus not under the Qifu Qin). - None of the three titles ascribed to Shengjian was included in Dao’an [which suggests that they were translated after Dao’an’s time]. In addition, one of the three titles, the *Ākāśagarbhaparipṛcchā 虚空藏所問經 (cf. T404), is ascribed to Shengjian by Sengyou. - Fajian 法堅 and Shengjian cannot be the same person, since they are too far apart in time. - The fourteen titles that Fei lists as Shengjian’s translation include works of more than one person. For example, the Luomojie jing 羅摩伽經 T294 translated under the Qifu Qin, the Taizi Xudamo jing 太子須大拏經 T171 and Shanzi jing 睒子經 T171 of the W. Jin differ greatly in both vocabulary and style. Hence, Fei’s list of Shengjian’s translations does not consist of the works of only one person. (310-314) As for the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing, Hayashiya claims that they should be re-ascribed to Fajian, although their dates are difficult to determine, since the texts are lost and not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. This is because, 1) the Zhi Mindu catalogue, as reported by the two intermediate sources, is reliable; and; 2) Fei’s ascription is incorrect, and based upon his confusion of Fajiang with Shengjian. (314-315) Dou lu and Bie lu Although the Zhi Mindu catalogue went missing before the time of Daoxuan’s DTNDL, he is honest in recording information, and might have had some sources stating that there were two Zhi Mindu catalogues. Hayashiya supposes that the Dou lu 都錄 was a general catalogue and the Bie lu 別錄a catalogue of scriptures with ascriptions, sorted by translator, as the names suggests. (305-307). Hayashiya presents three possibilities regarding the Dou lu and Bie lu: 1) Zhi Mindu might have recorded scriptures as he found them, over time, and details might have been added to the manuscript later. With this method, the division into Dou lu and Bie lu would not be needed; 2) While working as described in 1, Zhi Mindu might also have compiled a separate section consisting only of ascribed scriptures. In this case, the comprehensive part (1) would be called Dou lu, and the separate part for ascribed scriptures be called the Bie lu; 3) Zhi Mindu might have separated entirely the part for ascribed scriptures and that for anonymous scriptures. In such a case, the catalogue as a whole would be called Dou lu and the part of scriptures with ascriptions Bie lu. (320-321) Hayashiya favours (3). Only that option explains peculiarities in the way the Zhi Mindu catalogue is referred to or described in later catalogues: Daoxuan asserts that there was indeed a Bie lu; Fei seems unaware of or indifferent to the existence of two separate portions of the catalogue; Fei records a Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 in 1 juan. (321-322) The relation of Zhi Mindu’s catalogue to Dao’an Hayashiya ends his examination on the Zhi Mindu catalogue by discussing its possible relation to Dao’an’s catalogues. He argues that, although Zhi Mindu and Dao’an were not far apart geographically, Dao’an did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Hayashiya first finds that out of twenty or so scriptures known to have been in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, six are not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. Hayashiya claims that, even though Dao’an did not include scriptures that he did not directly see in his catalogue, the non-inclusion of six titles out of 20 or so is too significant to suppose that Dao’an actually saw the Zhi Mindu catalogue. (323-324) Subsequently, Hayashiya explains that Zhi Mindu compiled his catalogue in a region not far from Dao’an: Based on a passage in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in GSZ, Hayashiya infers that Zhi Mindu probably lived near Yuzhang shan 豫章山, south of the Lu shan 廬山 region, because Sengyuan settled there and Zhi Mindu accompanied him (at least to the Yangzi 揚子 river). Dao’an lived in Xiangyang 襄陽, not far away. Hayashiya claims that Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue because the two scholars belonged to different lineages 學系, and Zhi Mindu had a very small number of disciples, unlike Dao’an (324-325). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	Title: Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄
No	[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 20	"Dao'an's catalogue" 道安錄 Daozu lu 道祖錄 Er Qin lu 二秦錄 Gu lu 古錄 Jiu lu 舊錄 Song Qi lu 宋齊錄 T2034; 歷代三寶紀 Zhao catalogue 趙錄 Zhi Mindu dou lu 支敏度都錄 Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經 Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄	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 - 舊錄 - 支敏度錄 - 支敏度都錄 - 竺道祖錄 - 趙錄 - 二秦錄 - 宋齊錄 - 道安錄 Entry author: Sharon Chi Edit
No	[GSZ] Huijiao 慧晈. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳. — T2059 (L) 347a6-7	Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經	A passing comment in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 states that a catalogue by Zhi Mindu, referred to as Yi jing lu 譯經錄, was extant at the time GSZ was compiled. 敏度亦聰哲有譽。著[＋傳SYM]譯經錄今行於世. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Yi jing lu 譯經

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. — 305-325

Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經

The full title of the Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 1 juan (lost) is 東晋沙門支敏度經論都錄 (“Complete catalogue of the sūtras and śāstras [by] the Eastern Jin śramaṇera Zhi Mindu”). It is also called the the Jing lun dou lun 經論都錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is mentioned in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳. Although this catalogue was still extant at the time of Huijiao 慧皎, it went missing by the Sui period. As such, LDSBJ classified the Zhi Mindu catalogue as one of the unseen catalogues 未見經錄 and did not mention its content. However, Daoxuan 道宣 states in the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄 that there was a Bie lu 別錄, also compiled by Zhi Mindu, separate from the Dou lu 都錄. KYL and the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄 followed the Da Tang neidian lu in that regard. (305-306)

Hayashiya maintains that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was a reliable catalogue. This is because the ascriptions of most of the fifteen titles for which it is cited in LDSBJ (listed 316-318) coincide with titles given in Dao’an’s catalogue, and the ascriptions of the rest are either included in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, or regarded by Hayashiya as probably correct. Hayashiya also infers that the Zhi Mindu catalogue listed many more titles than the titles for which it was cited in extant catalogues, including anonymous and missing scriptures, because the catalogue was missing by the Sui period, and all citations of it in extant catalogues are based on some another missing catalogue as an intermediate source. (316-320)

Hayashiya’s major claims about the Zhi Mindu catalogue are:

- It was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. [Note: Hayashiya's only evidence for Zhi Mindu's catalogue in CSZJJ appears to be mentions of Zhi Mindu's own synoptic sūtras, ascriptions which he thinks it safe to presume were taken from Zhi Mindu's catalogue itself, 319. See further below. --- MR.] Fei thought that it was produced at the end of W. JIn period, due to his confusion between Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period and Shengjian 聖堅 who was active under the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦;

- The Zhi Mindu catalogue was probably divided into a part for ascribed scriptures (bie lu 別錄) and one for anonymous scriptures, and the word Dou lu 都錄 was used to refer to the catalogue as a whole; and

- Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue.

Hayashiya’s arguments can be summarizes as follows:

The date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue

Hayashiya examines the issue of the date of the Zhi Mindu catalogue and argues that the catalogue was compiled in the E. Jin period, as indicated by GSZ and CSZJJ. A later date suggested by LDSBJ and other catalogues is incorrect, and stems from the confusion of Fajian 法堅 of the Jin period with Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu Qin 乞伏秦.

According to Hayashiya, the GSZ description and notes transmitted by Sengyou’s in CSZJJ for the synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩詰經 and the synoptic Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 合首楞嚴經 are our most reliable sources about the Zhi Mindu catalogue. Those materials indicate that Zhi Mindu was active at the time of Huidi 惠帝 of the W. Jin (291-306CE) and Chengdi 成帝 of the E. Jin (326-342CE). However, LDSBJ and the catalogues that followed it treat the Zhi Mindu catalogue as slightly younger. Hayashiya presents the chronological order of the catalogues as given in the Da Tang neidian lu and KYL (308). There, the Zhi Mindu catalogue is located between the Zhu Daozu catalogue 竺道祖錄 and the Wang Zong catalogue 王宗錄, which means that the Zhi Mindu catalogue is regarded as compiled near the end of the W. Jin. According to Hayashiya, one plausible reason for Zhisheng and Daoxuan to assume that the Zhi Mindu catalogue was produced around that time is the fact that LDSBJ records that some works of Shengjian of the Qifu Qin, namely, the Tong Jieye jie nan jing 僮迦葉解難經 and the Qi nü ben jing 七女本經 (cf. T556), were included in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, However, Shengjian is said to have worked in the Taichu 太初 era of the Qifu Qin (388-401 CE). Hayashiya points out that this date is practically incompatible with the one given by GSZ and CSZJJ. (307-310)

Hayashiya consequently argues that Fei was mistaken in thinking that the the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing mentioned in the Zhi Mindu catalogue were translated in the time of the Qifu Qin, because Fei mistook two different translators, Fajian and Shengjiang, for the same person:

- Shengjian of the Qifu Qin is recorded already in CSZJJ by Sengyou.

- While LDSBJ and other catalogues following it regarded Fajian and Shengjian as one and the same person, Fajing considered the two to be different persons.

- Fajing presents Fajian as active in the Jin period and Shengjian as active under the Qifu Qin. Fajing lists 5 titles ascribed to Fajian and 3 titles to Shengjian (Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 in 1 juan T492 to Fajian 法堅 of the Qifu Qin in Fajing must be a simple mistake by someone among the “twenty eminent scholars” 二十大徳 who compiled the catalogue, and should be understood to refer to Shengjian instead of Fajian) (the list is on 312-313).

- Among the 5 titles ascribed to Fajian by Fajing, 4 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scripture, so it is safe to say that those titles ascribed to Fajian were indeed translated in the W. Jin or earlier (and thus not under the Qifu Qin).

- None of the three titles ascribed to Shengjian was included in Dao’an [which suggests that they were translated after Dao’an’s time]. In addition, one of the three titles, the *Ākāśagarbhaparipṛcchā 虚空藏所問經 (cf. T404), is ascribed to Shengjian by Sengyou.

- Fajian 法堅 and Shengjian cannot be the same person, since they are too far apart in time.

- The fourteen titles that Fei lists as Shengjian’s translation include works of more than one person. For example, the Luomojie jing 羅摩伽經 T294 translated under the Qifu Qin, the Taizi Xudamo jing 太子須大拏經 T171 and Shanzi jing 睒子經 T171 of the W. Jin differ greatly in both vocabulary and style. Hence, Fei’s list of Shengjian’s translations does not consist of the works of only one person. (310-314)

As for the Tong Jieye jie nan jing and the Qi nü ben jing, Hayashiya claims that they should be re-ascribed to Fajian, although their dates are difficult to determine, since the texts are lost and not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. This is because, 1) the Zhi Mindu catalogue, as reported by the two intermediate sources, is reliable; and; 2) Fei’s ascription is incorrect, and based upon his confusion of Fajiang with Shengjian. (314-315)

Dou lu and Bie lu

Although the Zhi Mindu catalogue went missing before the time of Daoxuan’s DTNDL, he is honest in recording information, and might have had some sources stating that there were two Zhi Mindu catalogues. Hayashiya supposes that the Dou lu 都錄 was a general catalogue and the Bie lu 別錄a catalogue of scriptures with ascriptions, sorted by translator, as the names suggests. (305-307).

Hayashiya presents three possibilities regarding the Dou lu and Bie lu:

1) Zhi Mindu might have recorded scriptures as he found them, over time, and details might have been added to the manuscript later. With this method, the division into Dou lu and Bie lu would not be needed;

2) While working as described in 1, Zhi Mindu might also have compiled a separate section consisting only of ascribed scriptures. In this case, the comprehensive part (1) would be called Dou lu, and the separate part for ascribed scriptures be called the Bie lu;

3) Zhi Mindu might have separated entirely the part for ascribed scriptures and that for anonymous scriptures. In such a case, the catalogue as a whole would be called Dou lu and the part of scriptures with ascriptions Bie lu. (320-321)

Hayashiya favours (3). Only that option explains peculiarities in the way the Zhi Mindu catalogue is referred to or described in later catalogues: Daoxuan asserts that there was indeed a Bie lu; Fei seems unaware of or indifferent to the existence of two separate portions of the catalogue; Fei records a Zhi Mindu catalogue 支敏度錄 in 1 juan. (321-322)

The relation of Zhi Mindu’s catalogue to Dao’an

Hayashiya ends his examination on the Zhi Mindu catalogue by discussing its possible relation to Dao’an’s catalogues. He argues that, although Zhi Mindu and Dao’an were not far apart geographically, Dao’an did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue.

Hayashiya first finds that out of twenty or so scriptures known to have been in the Zhi Mindu catalogue, six are not included in Dao’an’s catalogue. Hayashiya claims that, even though Dao’an did not include scriptures that he did not directly see in his catalogue, the non-inclusion of six titles out of 20 or so is too significant to suppose that Dao’an actually saw the Zhi Mindu catalogue. (323-324)

Subsequently, Hayashiya explains that Zhi Mindu compiled his catalogue in a region not far from Dao’an: Based on a passage in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 in GSZ, Hayashiya infers that Zhi Mindu probably lived near Yuzhang shan 豫章山, south of the Lu shan 廬山 region, because Sengyuan settled there and Zhi Mindu accompanied him (at least to the Yangzi 揚子 river). Dao’an lived in Xiangyang 襄陽, not far away.

Hayashiya claims that Dao’an probably did not see the Zhi Mindu catalogue because the two scholars belonged to different lineages 學系, and Zhi Mindu had a very small number of disciples, unlike Dao’an (324-325).

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

Title: Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄

[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
- 舊錄
- 支敏度錄
- 支敏度都錄
- 竺道祖錄
- 趙錄
- 二秦錄
- 宋齊錄
- 道安錄

Entry author: Sharon Chi

Edit

[GSZ] Huijiao 慧晈. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳. — T2059 (L) 347a6-7

Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經

A passing comment in the biography of Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 states that a catalogue by Zhi Mindu, referred to as Yi jing lu 譯經錄, was extant at the time GSZ was compiled.

敏度亦聰哲有譽。著[＋傳SYM]譯經錄今行於世.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Yi jing lu 譯經