Text: P. 3848; Pelliot 3848

Summary

Identifier	P. 3848 [Naitō 1968]
Title	Pelliot 3848 [Naitō 1968]
Date	991 to conquest of Dunhuang by Xixia [Naitō 1968]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
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.	P. 3848; Pelliot 3848	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Pelliot 3848 Identifier: P. 3848
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.	P. 3848; Pelliot 3848 Song shi zhongjing bielu 宋時眾經別錄; Bielu 別錄; Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄	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 Edit	Date: 991 to conquest of Dunhuang by Xixia

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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.

P. 3848; Pelliot 3848

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Pelliot 3848
Identifier: P. 3848

[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

Edit

Date: 991 to conquest of Dunhuang by Xixia