| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄; Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 [Hayashiya 1933] |
| Date | 516 [XGSZ; Palumbo 2013] |
| Author | Baochang, 寶唱 [Hayashiya 1933] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Feng 2011] Feng Guodong 冯国栋. "Gu yi Fojiao jinglu kaobian 古佚佛教经录考辨." Wenshi 文史 (2011) no. 3: 147-164. |
Tan Shibao (1991; see separately entry) had argued that Fei Changfang's reports about Baochang's catalogue in LDSBJ were fabricated. Feng suggests that Tan has misunderstood some of the records in LDSBJ, and we cannot be certain that the entries cited from Baochang in LDSBJ are false. Tan argued that LDSBJ was implausible when it suggested that Sengshao's 僧紹 Hualin Fodian zhongjingmu 華林佛殿眾經目 was based upon Sengyou. Feng suggests that this statement probably merely means that Sengshao’s work followed Sengyou’s four divisions in CSZJJ: 撰缘 、銓名錄、總經序、述列傳. In addition, the Qi lu was likely a source for the Sui shu jingji zhi 隋書 經籍志, which takes it as a catalogue of the collections of the Hualin yuan library. But this cannot be taken as proof that the Qi lu itself was in fact a catalogue for the Hualin yuan collections (159-160). By analogy, this means that even if Fei made an error in his characterisation of the relation of Sengshao's catalogue to the Hualin yuan library, it does not necessarily mean that he was forging the information. Tan also argued that Fei was probably forging his information, because he placed Baochang's catalogue incorrectly in the chronological sequence of Baochang's works. Against this argument, Feng cites an example from the LDSBJ to show that Fei does not always list works in a chronological order. Another of Tan's arguments was that LDSBJ gives inconsistent information about the structure of Baochang's catalogues. Against this argument, Feng cites Yao Mingda (source not given), and suggests that the inconsistency in the number of divisions may have been caused by a mistake in one of the records in question. Finally, Tan had also argued that Fei interprets Fei's characterisation of Baochang's catalogue as 覼縷 to mean that he judged it to be poor in quality, but this does not fit with the high praise Daoxuan devotes to Baochang. Feng argues that Tan misunderstood 覼縷, which actually means “meticulous”, and is a term of praise rather than a criticism. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 174-185 |
Tan argues that probably Fei Changfang did not see Baochang's catalogue, and the entries that he claims to cite from it in the LDSBJ were likely made up. Tan lists the following proofs: 1. In the list of Baochang’s works in LDSBJ, which should ostensibly be in chronological order, Baochang’s catalogue appears to be in the wrong position. Thus, Fei was likely not certain when the Baochang catalogue was composed, and perhaps Fei never saw the Baocahng catalogue at all. [This argument seems weak --- LQ] 2. The structure and content of the Baochang catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ appears suspicious: (1) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Baochang’s catalogue has 17 divisions, but LDSBJ fascicle 15 says that it has 20 divisions. (2) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Sengshao’s 僧紹 catalogue, the Hualin Fodian [zhong]jingmu 華林佛殿眾經目, which was the predecessor of LDSBJ, was based on Sengyou’s catalogue with some modifications. But Sengshao’s catalogue was supposed to be a catalogue of the royal library collections, thus it should not, and could not possibly be based on Sengyou’s catalogue, which was a general catalogue. Furthermore, Ruan Xiaoxu’s 阮孝緒 (479－536) Qi lu 七錄 contains a catalogue of Buddhist texts, which, according to Tang Yongtong, should be a catalogue of the collections in the Hualin library. Baochang’s catalogue contains far fewer texts than the Qi lu, and is thus unlikely to be based on Sengshao’s catalogue. (3) Fei characterises Baochang’s catalogue as poor in quality 覼縷, but this is at odds with the praises lavished upon Baochang by Daoxuan. 3. Problems in the LDSBJ entries supposedly citing from Baochang: (1) LDSBJ says that Baochang’s catalogue contains records of Sengshao’s catalogue and Baochang’s Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳. But these two texts could nowhere be fitted into the divisions of Baochang’s catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ. These records must therefore be fabricated by Fei. (2) LDSBJ fasc. 4 assigns the 禪行三十七品經 to An Shigao, and says that records of this text can be found in both Baochang’s and Sengyou’s catalogues. But this title is not in Sengyou’s catalogue of An Shigao’s works. Thus, this record must also have been invented by Fei. (3) Fei assigns a 修行道地經 to An Shigao and claims that the record is from Baochang and Bie lu 別錄. But according to Dao’an and Sengyou this text was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Also, in the chronology section of the LDSBJ, under 永康元年, Fei says that Zhi Mindu’s catalogue records that An Shigao translated this text, without mentioning Baochang and the Bie lu. (4) The dates given for records of *Saṅghabhara's 僧伽婆羅 works, allegedly from Baochang, do not make any sense. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1933] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. “Zui dai kyōroku ni kansuru kenkyū 隋代經錄に關する研究.” In Bukkyō ronsō: Tokiwa Daijō kanreki kinen 佛教論叢 常盤博士還暦記念, edited by Miyamoto Shōson 宮本正尊, 231-316. Tokyo: Kōbundō shobō, 1933. — 244-247 |
Hayashiya discusses Baochang's catalogue, which was composed in conjunction with the composition of JLYX T2121, including circumstances behind its composition, and its contents as known from KYL. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[XGSZ] Daoxuan 道宣. Xu gao seng zhuan 續高僧傳. T2060.
|
Palumbo dates Baochang's catalogue to 516. He bases himself on the Xu gaoseng zhuan. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|