| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Bielu 別錄 [Fei 597] |
| Date | Liang [Naitō 1967] |
| Compiler 編集 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Naitō 1967] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [P 3747] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 125b24; passim. |
In LDSBJ, Fei frequently claims to based his ascriptions upon a so-called Bielu 別錄, for which he states that the author was unknown, but which appeared to date to the [Liu] Song 眾經別錄二卷(未詳作者似宋時述); 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. — 329-331 |
Sakaino argues that the so-called Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄 reported by Fei Changfang was actually a catalogue of the works of Dharmarakṣa 竺法護錄 compiled by Nie Daozhen. Fei Changfang mistakenly understood that a “Nie Daozhen catalogue” separate from the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” existed, and then fabricated fifty-four entries for which he cited the authority of this supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, assuming that Nie Daozhen must have translated scriptures if there was a catalogue of his works. However, Sakaino claims that in fact, Nie probably did not translate any scriptures at all, as neither Dao’an or Sengyou recorded any of his works. Perversely enough, further, the source that Fei actually cites as the source for these fifty-four fabricated entries is the Bie lu 別錄, not the supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, a fact which Sakaino claims shows that neither the Nie Daozhen catalogue n or the Bie lu as cited by Fei are at all reliable. Sakaino states that the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” was probably, in fact, a simple list made by Nie Daozhen to record the works of his master Dharmarakṣa. [This suggestion might affect our view of the reliability not only of LDSBJ itself, and these various catalogues upon which it in these cases claims to base its ascriptions, but also the reliability of all ascriptions to Nie Daozhen still carried in T, viz., T188, T282, T463, T483 and T1502, and this record therefore lists all of those texts --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. |
CSZJJ cites a/the Bie lu for the following texts. Sengyou frequently states explicitly in these notes that Dao'an does not list the titles and ascriptions that he draws from the Bie lu. Lokakṣema: Zhi Qian: Bo Yan 白延: Dharmarakṣa: Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭: Faju 法炬: *Dharmakṣema 曇摩讖: Anon: Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — 241-242 |
Hayashiya discusses the contents of the Song shi zhongjing bielu ("separate catalogue/catalogue by categories of the scriptures of the Song era"), he says based upon information in DTNDL and KYL (see T2149 [LV] 337a14-20). He says that Tang catalogues give additional information about this catalogue (he does not specify what or where), and that this should mean that it was still extant under the Tang. [Note, however, that the ToC itself repeats information at LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125b24-c16, and therefore this information alone cannot be taken as independent evidence that the Song catalogue was still extant in Daoxuan's or Zhisheng's time --- MR.] He notes that the fact that it included a section on lost texts allows us to infer that the remainder of the work was, in its basic character, a catalogue of extant texts. He also discusses briefly the potential implications of the structure of the catalogue for the history of panjiao thought. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1968] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Tonkō Perio 3848 gō zankan kyōten mokuroku ni tsuite 敦煌ペリオ本三八四八号残欠経典目録について." IBK 18, no. 2 (1968): 320-323. |
Naitō studies Pelliot 3848, which preserves a portion of a scripture catalogue. A note on the manuscript says that it appears to be part of the Liu Song "Bie lu", but Naitō argues that this is wrong. The manuscript is 109 lines long, and lists 14 sūtras plus one more possible text (difficult to identify, it seems). It also includes 解題 portions, and, in red, sections giving the 總義 for the content of the texts listed. The texts listed include those now ascribed to Kumārajīva, Guṇabhadra, Nie Chengyuan, Dharmamitra, Dharmayaśas, and *Mandrasena (Naitō himself provisionally adds ascriptions for the purposes of analysis; the ms does not include them). Naitō gives a list of all texts. As Naitō points out, it is not possible that such a text would be from the Liu Song, because it includes works by *Mandrasena, which would be anachronistic. The format and style of the text also differs entirely from the Bie lu that was a source for Sengyou's CSZJJ (which is usually dated to the Liu Song on the basis of LJSBJ, though Naitō argues elsewhere that it must in fact date to the early Liang). Naitō characterises the catalogue seen here as selective, and intended to serve as a kind of introduction or instruction in the contents of the canon. This was a style pioneered by Daoxuan under the Tang. For each work, only one translation is selected, and moreover, the catalogue presents only a selection of works, intended to cover a range of basic topics, rather than a full listing of texts. [In this sense, it might be said to define a "mini-canon" --- MR.] Further, it gives a new type of 解題, intended to give a simple summary of the main point of the text, citing actual content from the text, and often, selecting only one element for focus from a complex range of content. The 總義 simplifies further, presenting a kind of take-away message from the 解題. Naitō discusses ways that the catalogue, further, twists the content of the texts it presents to polemical ends, attacking Pure Land and "Chan sectarian" ideas and practices, even where the texts catalogued and characterised in fact present little basis for this use. In the polemic against the Pure Land, he believes he finds a key clue to the actual date of the text. Amitābha's vows are numbered 36, rather than 38, which he says is only possible on the basis of the 大乘無量壽莊嚴經 T363, a translation produced in 991 by Faxian 法賢. He suggests on this basis that the catalogue must date between the production of this translation, and the conquest of Dunhuang by the Xixia in the early eleventh century. Entry author: Michael Radich |
||
|
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). — 44 |
According to Tokiwa, the Zhongjing bielu 衆經別録 is one of six catalogues that Fei recorded as extant when he compiled LDSBJ. It was of anonymous authorship, and recorded 1089 titles (2596 scrolls) in ten categories. Fei stated that this catalogue was compiled in the Song period, but Tokiwa thinks that, judging from the number of texts contained, it was compiled in the Period of Northern and Southern Dynasties. According to Tokiwa, although Fei cites this catalogue very often, it is difficult to determine which citations were really based upon it directly, because most of these citations were apparently taken from CSZJJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[P 3747] Pelliot chinois no. 3747 |
The Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄 is only partially extant, as Pelliot chinois 3747 and Stein 2872. It is usually thought to date to the Southern Qi dynasty, slightly earlier than CSZJJ. Cf. Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Tonkō zanketsu bon Shūkyō betsu roku ni tsuite 敦煌残欠本「衆経別録」について." IBK 15, no. 2 (1967): 268-270. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1967] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Tonkō zankanbon Shū kyō betsu roku ni tsuite 敦煌残欠本「衆経別録」について." IBK 15, no. 2 (1967): 268-270. |
Naitō studies Pelliot 3747, which preserves remnants of a Zhong jing bie lu 眾經別錄. In LDSBJ juan 15, T2034 (XLIX) 125b25-c16, Fei Zhangfang mentions a "Bie lu" 別錄 in two fascicles, and gives an outline of its contents: 大乘經錄第一 Fei states that the catalogue listed a total of 1089 texts in 2595 fascicles. Fei also cites such a catalogue in numerous places in support of individual ascriptions. No catalogue after Fei mentions the text, and it was thought lost. Sengyou, in CSZJJ, also cites a "Bie lu" 19 times, for works by *Lokakṣema, Zhi Qian, Bo Yuan, and Dharmarakṣa. Naitō treats the Dunhuang manuscript as preserving an authentic fragment of that catalogue. P. 3747 is 96 lines long, and lists 78 sūtras. Based upon the comparison with the information given by Fei, Naitō determines that P.3747 should correspond to the middle of the first fascile of the text, spanning three sections, 大乘經錄 (13 titles), 三乘通教錄 (51 titles), 三乘中大乘 (14 titles). The format of the catalogue is that it lists title, length in juan (usually), sometimes but not always gives a brief one-phrase summary of the content of the text, describes its quality in terms of 文 "literal/translationese" or 質 "translation for the gist/meaning/essence", and for some texts only, gives an ascription. The classification schema reported by Fei corresponds to a kind of panjiao 判教 system current at the time of the compilation of the catalogue. Naitō characterises this classification as early and experimental, based upon the fact that it does not manage to classify some texts (大小乘不判錄), and that the assignment of some texts to categories is surprising, in comparison to norms that would later become general. Naitō argues that comparison with LDSBJ shows that Fei's use of information supposedly from the Bie lu is misleading. For instance, in P. 3747, a single text is ascribed to Zhi Qian, but Fei applies this ascription to three more titles preceding the title in question in the Bie lu, thus creating three new (and dubious) ascriptions. He suggests that ascriptions to Kang Senghui on the basis of the Bie lu show the same pattern, and argues that it is likely that ascriptions to Kumārajīva and Guṇabhadra are also affected. Naitō suggests that this pattern shows that Fei failed to understand the real organisational principle structuring the Bie lu --- that it organises texts according to class, not translator. Tokiwa Daijō was of the opinion that where CSZJJ refers to (a/the) "bie lu", it was merely a generic reference to "other catalogues" (e.g. that of the Wu dynasty, that of Zhi Mindu). Against Tokiwa, Naitō argues that these references are to a single catalogue, and this one. He points out that Tokiwa reasoned in the basis of comparison to references to the Bie lu in LDSBJ, but argues that his examination of LDSBJ use of the Bie lu shows that Fei cannot be assumed trustworthy on this score. He also argues that Sengyou cites the "jiu lu" 舊錄 (old catalogue/s) and Bie lu for clearly distinct purposes: the former for titles, but the latter as a supplement to Dao'an. This distinction shows that he is not applying these two labels indiscriminately to the same body of materials. He notes that there are no contradictions between the information attributed by Sengyou to the Bie lu and P. 3747, unlike the case of LDSJB. There are also parts of CSZJJ where Sengyou uses the same wording as the ms. All these considerations argue that we have in P. 3747 a fragment of the Bie lu used by Sengyou, and he used it accurately. However, Naitō argues that it is unlikely that the Bie lu, as represented by P. 3747, was composed under the Liu Song, as Fei asserts. This is because it includes two titles, 華嚴瑤珞經 and 般若得經, which are probably too late. In LDSBJ, these texts are treated as anonymous E. Han translations, but Fei inconsistently lists them elsewhere as dubious texts produced by (= through the mediumship of) Seng Fani 僧法尼. The Bie lu should therefore date after her time, i.e. to the Qi-Liang transition. Following Ōchō E'nichi, Naitō argues that the text was probably produced under the Liang. Yao Mingda has proposed that the Bie lu might have been compiled by Wang Zong 王宗, based upon a description of a catalogue with a roughly similar structure. However, Sengyou and Fei Zhangfang both treat the Bie lu and Wang's catalogue as two separate works, and Naitō therefore regards the compiler of the Bie lu as unknown. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|