| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Zhao catalogue 趙錄 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Date | [None] |
| 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. — 326-330 |
The “Zhao catalogue” 趙錄 in 1 juan (lost) is also called the catalogue of the two Zhao (kingdoms) 二趙經錄. Hayashiya points out that a brief description of this catalogue is given by LDSBJ and the Da Tang neidian lu 大唐内典錄, which were used by Zhisheng and Yuanzhao 圓照. According to those descriptions, the Zhao catalogue was an anonymous catalogue of scriptures that were popular in the region of the two Zhao kingdoms. (326) Hayashiya hypothesizes that if there was a catalogue of popular scriptures in the two Zhao periods, it would have a strong influence on catalogues such as Dao’an’s and Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度, because scriptural translation was pursued very actively during those periods (from the end of the W. Jin to the beginning of the E. Jin). For example, Dharmarakṣa was most active at the beginning of the Former Zhao, and An Faqin 安法欽 and Bo Fazu 帛法祖 were also producing their works in that period. (326) However, Hayashiya maintains that the Zhao catalogue did not provide ascriptions for the scriptures it listed. His argument can be summarized as follows. First, Hayashiya offers a list of ten titles for which the Zhao catalogue is cited in LDSBJ (Hayashiya also notes which other catalogues are cited): 佛開解梵志阿颰經 1 juan (T20): ascribed to Shi Fayong, 釋法勇 citing only theZhao catalogue; Hayashiya states that these ten scriptures are not very important, but argues that there is a possibility that this was just a portion of the content of the Zhao catalogue, since reference to that catalogue might have been omitted when other catalogues such as Dao’an’s listed the same titles with more detail than the Zhao catalogue. Hayashiya also points out that the Zhao catalogue and the Shixing catalogue had gone missing by the Sui period. In LDSBJ , the Zhao catalogue is always cited together with either or both of the Fashang catalogue or the Shixing catalogue (except for the case of the Fo kaijie fanzhi Aba jing 佛開解梵志阿颰經 T20). Therefore, it is probable that the Shixing catalogue cited the Zhao catalogue first, the Fashang catalogue then cited the Shixing catalogue citing the Zhao catalogue, and LDSBJ referred to the Fashang catalogue, which survived until the Tang period. (326-328) Subsequently, Hayashiya investigates whether the ascriptions for which LDSBJ cites the Zhao catalogue were really provided by the Zhao catalogue or not. Hayashiya compares how Fajing (and CSZJJ) record the same titles, since Fajing must also have consulted the Zhao catalogue, and the ascriptions in LDSBJ should therefore be in Fajing as well. Hayashiya presents this comparison as follows: 佛開解梵志阿颰經,釋法勇 (LDSBJ) = 梵志阿颰經 anonymous (Fajing) = anonymous (CSZJJ) Nine of the ten titles above are classified as anonymous by Fajing, and therefore, Hayashiya reasons, the ascriptions of them in LDSBJ were not included in the Fashang catalogue, but added by Fei himself. Hayashiya also argues that even the only exception, the Yuedeng sanmei jing 月燈三昧經 (T639), was probably ascribed to Xian gong by the Fashang catalogue but not by the Zhao catalogue. This is because in the entry for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, Fei refers only to the Zhao catalogue and the Fashang catalogue, but not to the Shixing catalogue, and it is thus more reasonable to assume that the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong was not in the Shixing catalogue, and hence actually not in the Zhao catalogue either. Hayashiya concludes that since the Fashang catalogue did not provide ascriptions for any scripture that was not in the Shixing catalogue, except for the Yuedeng sanmei jing, it is safe to assume that the Shixing catalogue, and accordingly the Zhao catalogue as well, did not give ascriptions for scriptures at all. As such, the ascriptions of the nine titles other than the Yuedeng sanmei jing must have been added by Fei himself, and should not be regarded as very reliable (Hayashiya adds that the credibility of the ascription of the Yuedeng sanmei jing to Xian gong should be determined separately, by evaluating the quality of the Fashan catalogue). (328-330) 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. — 331-332 |
The Zhao catalogue 趙錄 is cited by LDSBJ only for texts ascribed to Songgong 嵩公 [to whom no extant texts are today ascribed], Fayong 法勇 (*Dharmodgata) [to whom, again, no ascriptions survive in T], and Shengjian 聖堅 of the Qifu W. Qin 乞伏西秦 (regarding the Pusa suosheng di jing 菩薩所生地經 [a text which appears no longer to be extant]). Sakaino regards those citations are highly dubious and states that, even if the Zhao lu was reliable, it is not an important catalogue, since Fei cites it only three times. 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. — 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 |
|