| Identifier | T2145 [T] |
| Title | 出三藏記集 [T] |
| Date | 516 [Naitō 1971] |
| Author | Sengyou, 僧祐 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
長安叡法師 + 釋僧叡作 + 釋僧衛作 + 釋道安作 + 康僧會 + 支慜度三經謝敷合注共四卷 + 釋僧叡法師 + 王僧孺撰 + 沙門竺曇無蘭抄 + 出論後 + 釋慧觀 + 支恭明作 + 釋僧祐新撰 + 僧祐撰 + 釋道慈 + 道安法師 + 新撰 + 釋慧遠法師 + 釋慧遠 + 釋道摽 + 焦鏡法師 + 出律前記 + 釋僧叡 + 大梁皇帝 + 釋僧祐撰 + 釋道安法師 + 支敏度作 + 長安釋僧叡 + 沙門竺曇無蘭撰 + 慧觀法師 + 涼州釋道朗作 + 釋慧遠作 + 慈法師 + 出經後 + 釋弘充作 + 梁建初寺沙門釋僧祐撰 + 僧叡法師 + 釋僧肇 + 竺曇無蘭 + 竺佛念造 + 江陵玄暢作 + 釋道安 + 康法邃造 + 周顒作 + 安法師造 + 出智猛遊外國傳 + 釋僧肇作 + 出經後記 + 釋慧觀作 + 未詳作者 + 出經前記 + 釋僧馥 + 荊州隱士劉虬作 + 嚴阿祇梨浮調所造 + 影法師 + 謝敷作 + 釋道梴作 + 支道林作 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2003] Palumbo, Antonello. “Dharmarakṣa and Kaṇṭhaka: White Horse Monasteries in Early Medieval China.” In Buddhist Asia: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, 168-216. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian, Studies, 2003. — 197 n. 87 |
Palumbo argues that the biographies in CSZJJ are earlier than other portions of the text, on the following grounds: glosses are explained with reference to the "language of Qi" 齊言; the latest date in this portion of the text falls around 502-503. He promises to treat this problem in more detail in a study entitled "Forgeries in the Chu sanzang ji ji" (forthcoming). He also refers to Naitō (1958). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 50 |
Citing "an as yet unpublished study on the textual history" (his own) of CSZJJ T2145, Palumbo says, "This source has a rather complex textual history, and the received text...appears to merge two different editions of the book, which Sengyou issued in respectively ca. 503 and ca. 515 A.D. The first edition included a biographical section, whereas the second edition was entirely bibliographical. In the interval between the two, Sengyou gathered new but not always reliable information, stemming especially from the Buddhist bibliographers at the court of Liang Wudi....The thirty-two biographies of monks involved in translation...seem to go back mostly to the first redaction. In a few cases, however, the biographies show traces of revision." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zacchetti 2005] Zacchetti, Stefano. In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing 光讚經, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology – Soka University. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica VIII. Tokyo 2005. — 76 n. 10 |
Zacchetti notes that although general information about the collation undertaken during the compilation of T might ordinarily lead us to believe that the "Palace" 宮内省 edition was consulted wherever possible, in fact, it was not consulted in compiling the apparatus for CSZJJ T2145. This fact is nowhere noted. This could be particularly misleading, given that the apparatus is negative, that is, it indicates agreement with the base text only by giving no note whatsoever. Thus, the fact that no variants are noted with P = 宮 could lead us to infer that it is always in agreement with K; but given that P belongs to the Southern line (Chikusa's group 3) in the print transmission of the canon, this would be a startling development ("worthy of an article"). "In the case of a text as the CSZJJ, so rich in variants, and where important issues such as dates etc. often depend on the reading of few characters...this is far from being an insignificant matter." 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. — 239 |
Hayashiya points out that CSZJJ had a more limited goal than Dao'an's catalogue --- where Dao'an's aim was to gather the fullest information possible about all texts that existed in his time, and to that end, Dao'an traveled and made great efforts to recover texts, Sengyou (he suggests) was more content to confine himself to what was already to hand in his context at the time (Jiankang). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1971] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄 . "Sōyū no chosaku katsudō 僧祐の著作活動." IBK 20, no. 1 (1971): 284-287. |
As part of a larger article considering Sengyou's oeuvre and its characteristics in general, Naitō argues that Sengyou was in the habit of continually revising his own works until very late in his life. Sengyou also gave to his own works a very explicit order [T2145 (LV) 87b9-16 --- MR]. There is no reason to suspect that this order is governed by the length or genre of the work, and Naitō proposes that it may be chronological, in order of composition. This suspicion is further confirmed by the fact that the preface to the last work on the list, the 法集雜記傳銘, speaks of already having composed seven (other) works. [CSZJJ is third on the list, after the Shijia pu 釋迦譜 and the Shijie ji 世界記 --- MR.] On this basis, Naitō proposes: Shijia pu 釋迦譜 and the Shijie ji 世界記 should date before (the first version of) CSZJJ, i.e. to the late S. Qi. The ten fascicle version of CSZJJ T2145 was completed in Tianjian 天監 3 (504). The latest material included in the revised (extant) version is from Tianjian 14 (515). [Presumably Naitō here refers to 以歲次協洽月旅黃鍾天監之十四年十月二十三日, in the 慧印三昧及濟方等學二經序讚 of Wang Sengru 王僧孺 (465-522), T2145 (LV) 50c3-4 --- MR.] Some propose that there is material included from Tianjian 16, but Naitō is not persuaded. 薩婆多部相承傳: around Tianjian 2-3 (503-504), based upon the dates of the events to which it relates. 法苑集: begun around Tianjian 3-4 (504-505), and expanded until around Tianjian 8-9 (509-510). 法苑集: Tianjian 3-6 (504-507). 十誦義記: first composed around forty years after Sengyou's ordination, so about 499; but this date is referred to as "in the past" within the work itself, so probably revised around Tianjian 8 (509). 法集雜記傳銘: around Tianjian 8-9 (509-510). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1967a] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Dō'an roku no mokurokugakuteki kenkyū 道安錄の目録学的研究." IBK 16, no. 1 (1967): 387-390. |
Naitō considers the place of Dao'an's catalogue in the history of traditional Chinese bibliography, particularly in relation to the development of classification schema. He argues that Dao'an compiled his catalogue as part of a broader attempt to recover bibliographic resources from losses resulting from political chaos. Because this was a "private" catalogue, restricted to one particular class of books, rather than an official or court project, it enjoyed greater freedom to experiment. Dao'an's concern with the authentification of texts, and his historicist attention to the circumstances under which they were produced, are both innovations against the backdrop of the bibliographic tradition prior to him, and clear results of these circumstances. As Ōchō E'nichi had already observed, Dao'an did not use classification schemas that were later to become standard, such as the "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (sūtra, śāstra, vinaya), nor the "two vehicles" (Mahāyāna, "hīnayāna"), probably because during his years in Xiangyang, when the catalogue was composed, he had still not attained the necessary overview of canonical materials. His schema, then, was based rather on the characteristics of the translations themselves, rather than the underlying source texts: particularly the circumstances of their production in Chinese, namely, the person(s), time and place associated with the translation. This mode of classification evinces a new type of historicisation of bibliography. Another dimension of this schema was that it required a category of anonymous texts, i.e. texts for which the identity of the translator was not known. These anonymous texts Dao'an further divided into broad periods (ancient, and more recent), and according to the broad geographic region in which they were produced. The place of these developments in Chinese bibliographic history was also remarked upon by Liang Qichao. Dao'an's framework was to have a far-reaching influence, and eventually led, via the (Liu) Song cataloguer Wang Jian 王儉 and CSZJJ, to the annalistic approach of Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ. The "tripiṭaka" 三藏 division (經論律, sūtra, śāstra, vinaya) was introduced by Sengyou (in CSZJJ). This makes it difficult to discern the extent to which his work preserves the form of Dao'an's earlier work, upon which he built. In addition, Sengyou's format of listing all works of a single translator and then discussing them all in a single 解題 (總結文) was probably not inherited from Dao'an, according to Naitō, but rather, was probably Sengyou's innovation. One type of detail that allows us to draw this inference is that these summary notes sometimes mention Dao'an by name in reporting his judgments (安公云...), which would not be usual if the wording was Dao'an's own. Naitō believes that Dao'an's catalogue was, rather, most probably organised by titles annotated one by one with such information about title, length, date, translator, and any other supplemental notes as Dao'an had to hand. This format had been common practice from the Han, which means Dao'an would just have been following precedent. It is possible that the titles were indeed grouped by translator, where the translator was known, but it is unlikely that there were any summary comments of the sort seen in CSZJJ. Co-translations, Naitō believes, were probably listed only once, rather than duplicated in separate lists for each of the translators, as later became the norm. Naitō argues that when attributions for co-translations were later reduplicated for inclusion in separate lists for each of the co-translators, it sometimes had the effect of creating ghost texts and even ghost translators, as in the instance where 竺法護 and 曇摩羅察 --- both, in his view, referring to Dharmarakṣa --- were treated as separate individuals [see CSZJJ notice for the 須真天子 T588, T2145 (LV) 9c9-11]. He argues that a similar process is behind confusion about whether or not Nie Chengyuan 聶承遠 really produced a truly independent version of the 超日明三昧經 T638. Naitō remarks that if this is correct, it renders implausible the ascription to Dao'an of a remark recorded in GSZ: 案釋道安經錄云。安世高以漢桓帝建和二年至靈帝建寧中二十餘年譯出三十餘部經, T2059 (L) 324a8-10. This remarks appears to be a comment on a list of the CSZJJ type, which Naitō believes was not the form of Dao'an's catalogue; moreover, this remark is not reported at the relevant point in CSZJJ, which we would expect if it had indeed been in Dao'an's catalogue as used by Sengyou. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970a] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Shutsu sanzō ki shū no mokurokugakuteki kenkyū 『出三藏記集』の目録学的研究." IBK 18, no. 2 (1970): 808-811. |
Naitō considers the place of Sengyou's CSZJJ in the development of methods in Chinese Buddhist bibliography and Chinese bibliography more broadly. Sengyou inherited from Dao'an an historicist approach, focused upon the circumstances of the production of the canon, but he extended it further. He considered the production of the texts in India, as well as their translations in China. He added new categories, such as "alternate translations" 異出經 and excerpted sūtras 抄經. He added new notes on the circumstances of the translations of the sūtras, and on occasion critically assessed the evidence. He also recorded works that were lost [or at least, which he himself had been unable to see], rather than just cataloguing extant works present in a single collection, which gave his work a new dimension of ambition in recording the history of Buddhist textual production in China. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tan 1991] Tan Shibao 譚世保. Han Tang Foshi tanzhen 漢唐佛史探真. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991. — 146-164 |
By comparing the records in Sengyou’s own works and later catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ and KYL), Tan concludes that each of Sengyou’s texts Shi jia pu 釋迦譜 T2040, Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102 and CSZJJ existed in a shorter and a longer version. The main evidence from Sengyou himself is the preface and table of contents of his Faji 法集, preserved under the heading 釋僧祐法集總目錄序 in the present CSZJJ. Shi jia pu, Hong ming ji, and CSZJJ are three of the eight works by Sengyou that make up the Faji, and in the table of contents for Faji, Sengyou indicates the length of Shi jia pu as 5 fascicles, Hong ming ji as 10 fascicles, and CSZJJ as 10 fascicles. While it is true that the extant Shi jia pu is 5 fascicles long, the extant Hong ming ji and CSZJJ are 14 and 15 fascicles respectively. Looking beyond evidence within Sengyou’s own corpus, we find that the entries for both CSZJJ and Hong ming ji in KYL concur with the extant longer versions though Zhisheng also notes that Sengyou’s own catalogue (You lu 祐錄) gives a different length of 10 fascicles for both works. On the other hand, while the length of the extant Shi jia pu agrees with the length given by Sengyou in Faji, Zhisheng apparently based his entry in KYL on a longer version of 10 fascicles. Similar to his entries of CSZJJ and Hong ming ji, he again notes the existence of a shorter version, which in this case consists of 5 fascicles just like our extant Shi jia pu 別有五卷本與此廣略異. Based on these records, Tan deduces that Sengyou produced two versions for each of these three works. Furthermore, because Sengyou reproduces the tables of contents for all of the works collected in the Faji except CSZJJ right after the table of contents of the Faji itself, Tan reasons that Sengyou must have omitted the table of content of the shorter CSZJJ [hereafter CSZJJ-10f] because he must have already incorporated it in the longer CSZJJ [CSZJJ-15f] that now also encloses the tables of contents of the Faji. This then also follows that CSZJJ-15f must postdate CSZJJ-10f (146-147). Tan then deals with a series of subsequent confusions surrounding these two versions of CSZJJ in later catalogues. Although Fei Zhangfang is responsible for most of the later misinformation, he inherits two of his most glaring mistakes from Fajing: naming the work 出三藏集記 instead of 出三藏記集, and reporting the work as 16 fascicles long instead of 15 (148). Another main point of confusion concerns the names You lu, CSZJJ, and CSZJJ lu 出三藏記集錄. Tan emphatically reserves the two titles ending in lu for the catalogue section of CSZJJ, while insisting that the title CSZJJ (without –lu) can only refer to the entire CSZJJ-15f. Because Sengyou introduces the shorter CSZJJ-10f as a pure catalogue in his preface to the Faji 訂正經譯，故編三藏之錄, Tan thinks it would also be correct to refer to CSZJJ-10f as either You lu or CSZJJ lu. In contrast, because Sengyou describes the later, longer CSZJJ-15f as a much more diverse work containing an account of the canon’s history, catalogues, prefaces, biographies一撰緣記，二銓名錄，三總經序，四述列傳, Tan argues that the word lu would strictly speaking only accuratedly describe only one fourth of the work, were it applied to this larger collection of materials. Tan is quite adamant about this distinction, because Fei’s sloppy treatment of these titles spawned further outright erroneous confusion in DTNDL. In fascicle 12 of LDSBJ Fei notes the length of CSZJJ as 16 fascicles, but in fascicle 15 he presents presumably the same work again, but calls it CSZJJ lu (for both entries he miswrites CSZJJ as出三藏集記). Without noting the number of fascicles, Fei also lists the names of the daughter catalogues within CSZJJ, but leaves out 5 of the 17 catalogues for no apparent reason. In DTNDL, Daoxuan then not only inherits the miswritten title 出三藏集記 and the incorrect length of 16 fascicles, but further muddies the water by simultaneously also reporting elsewhere that the same work is 12 fascicles long. Since he also reproduces Fei’s shortened inventory of 12 daughter catalogues, we can assume the misleading 12 fascicles sprang from a careless conflation of catalogues with fascicles. As mentioned above, Zhisheng’s KYL at least corrected most of these mistakes (149-156). [It should be noted, however, that while Sengyou himself employs the name CSZJJ lu in his catalogue section, the earliest attestation of the title You lu is in Fajing. In other words, in all likelihood, it was but a shorthand invented by later cataloguers without any basis in Sengyou’s own practice, and as such, theoretically it could be used to refer to any catalogue by Sengyou rather than a specific work. --- SC] Regarding the dates of CSZJJ, Tan theorizes that Fei Zhangfang gave the misleading date of the 2nd year of Jianwu 建武二年 (495) only because it was the year for the last two entries in Sengyou’s main catalogue 新集撰出經律論錄. He then lists a series of much later dates in CSZJJ itself as evidence for a much later terminus ante quem. Based on the dates in the catalogues, Tan opines that CSZJJ could not have been finished before Tianjian 9 (510). For the prefaces, the latest date recorded is Tianjian 14 (515) found in慧印三昧及濟方等學二經序. Based on the content of the 雜錄序 in fasc. 12, Tan suggests a terminus ante quem as late as Tianjian 16 (517), which is however based on the supposed date for 婆利國獻真金像記 [I cannot find further information on this supposition either in Tan’s work or elsewhere --- SC]. To Tan, this also suggests that CSZJJ was most likely finished sometime between Tianjian 16 and Sengyou’s death in Tianjian 17 at Jianchu Temple 建初寺 in Yangzhou. In response to Yao Mingda’s theory that Liu Xie 劉勰 (465-522) might have been responsible for the actual compilation of the catalogues (on the basis of his biography in the Liang shu 梁書, which attributes the catalogue of Dinglin Temple to him 依沙門僧祐 ，與之居處，積十餘年，遂博通經論，因區別部類，錄而序之。今定林寺經藏，勰所定也), Tan gives a long list of commentarial notes in CSZJJ that detail several of the searches and examinations undertaken by Sengyou himself and thus prove him as the main editor of CSZJJ both in name and in fact (159-164). Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1958] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Shutsu sanzō ki shū no senshū nenji ni tsuite 『出三藏記集』の撰集年次について.” IBK 7, no. 1 (1958): 162-163. |
Naitō notes that various theories have been espoused about the date of CSZJJ. LDSBJ reports that it was composed in the Jianwu 建武 era of the S. Qi (494-498); DTNDL dates it to the late Qi or early Liang; in modern scholarship, it has variously been proposed that it dates after Tianjian 天監 9 (510), after Tianjian 14 (515), or after Tianjian 16 (517). All these theories have some evidential basis, but each may only hold for part of the catalogue, rather than the whole. Naitō's own view is that the four main sections of the work may have been composed separately, but if so, they must have been compiled together into a single work not later than Tianjian 3 (504). [This large concention is a natural inference following from the specific points Naitō argues in the remainder of his article --- MR.] Naitō notes evidence in the GSZ biography of Sengyou that Liu Xie 劉勰 collaborated with Sengyou in establishing the library/collection of Dinglin si 定林寺. At the beginning of the Tianjian 天監 era (the beginning of the Liang, 502 onward), Liu Xie entered the employ of the Prince of Linchuan 臨川王, and Naitō argues that the period of collaboration between Liu Xie and Sengyou must have preceded this date. Naitō also cites the line 金並有其本悉在經藏 from the end of Sengyou's treatment of anonymous sūtra translations, T2145 (LV) 32a1-2, and suggests that here, "the repository of scriptures" 經藏 means the Dinglin si library. On the basis of these circumstances, Naitō proposes that the catalogue portion of CSZJJ was composed primarily during this period, at the end of the Qi. Naitō adduces further proof evidence in favour of such a date in the biographies/hagiographies, in which notes give glosses with reference to the "language of the Qi" 齊言 [Naitō's article is in the highly abbreviated form typical of IBK, without references, but see T2145 (LV) 98b10, 100a24, 102a15, 102b3, 102c22, 103b28, 104b1, 104c6, 105a1, 105b18, 114a10; note that CSZJJ also contains two other such references: also 無量義經序, 荊州隱士劉虬作 68b6; one interlinear note, 13b17 --- MR.] Although this evidence only holds for the biographies, Naitō aims to show that a similar date holds for the bibliographic portions of the work. This would mean that Fei Zhangfang (LDSBJ) here communicates accurate information to us, despite the fact that he makes so many other baseless statements. Naitō examines closely the information given in LDSBJ about the catalogues by translators/groups 詮名錄 section of CSZJJ. The version of CSZJJ seen by Fei had the same four divisions as our present CSZJJ, and the same preface. However, discrepancies in total numbers of texts and fascicles reported for different parts of the work suggest that there must have been differences in exact content. [LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8, which gives a table of contents for CSZJJ --- MR.] Naito focuses principally on such differences in numbering for two sections: (1) 撰出經論; (2) 異出經緣. (1) For the 撰出經論, LDSBJ reports 30 texts/66 fascicles less than our extant CSZJJ. Naitō cannot account for all these differences, but suggests that in part, they should be accounted for by five texts/31 fascicles at the end of the 詮名錄 in our received CSZJJ. [T2145 (LV) 13c9-20 --- MR.] This list of five texts is messy, and inconsistent with what precedes it. Preceding items are grouped chronologically, but this list jumps around in time. Three items on the list appear to interrupt a listing of the works of *Guṇavr̥ddha 求那毘陀, after which the section in question returns to him and adds two more lists to his name. Naitō suggests that this list is a later addition, and that Fei Zhangfang saw a version of CSZJJ without it. The five texts include the 教戒比丘尼法, dated to Tianjian 3 (504), and so the revision should have occurred after that year; the two texts ascribed to Guṇavr̥ddha among the presumed additions are dated to Jianwu 建武 2 (495), and so the text preceding the revision should have covered texts down to that year at the latest. (2) For the 異出經緣, Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] Again, the element Naitō suspects of being tacked on differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also contains the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, also included in the section of the 撰出經論 that he suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as the section discussed above, so after 504. Naitō also considers probable dates for other sections. The 雜經志錄 contains the 僧法尼所誦出經入疑錄 [T2145 (LV) 40a9-b23 --- MR]. Naitō holds that this document sits strangely in its present location it the collection. In these documents, Tianjian 9 (510) is referred to as "that year", and so these two documents must date from 511 or later. From the content, it should be Sengyou's own report. It is linked closely to the report about Miaoguang 妙光 immediately following it, which should also be Sengyou's own work. The 疑經偽撰雜錄, 38c18 ff., includes the 眾經要攬法偈二十一首一卷 ascribed to Daohuan in 503 梁天監二年。比丘釋道歡撰, but the overall number of texts etc. is the same as in LDSBJ. This means that the texts indicated on this list as "seen" or extant were probably collected before 503. Naitō concludes: (1) Fei saw a version of CSZJJ dating to 502/503 or earlier. The text was later revised. (2) The 詮名錄 overall (like the biographies) should be understood as a work of the Jianwu era (S. Qi). (3) The revisions are not so meticulous, but it would be odd to regard them as the work of anyone other than Sengyou himself. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Rao 1997] Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤. "Lun Sengyou" 論僧祐. Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo xuebao 中國文化研究所學報 6 (1997): 405-416. — 407, 411-412, 414 |
In the course of a somewhat wide-ranging discussion of Sengyou's activities, Rao takes issue with the theory espoused by unidentified foils [he probably has in mind Kōzen Hiroshi 興膳宏 --- MR] that CSZJJ T2145 might have been authored (in whole or in part?) by Liu Xie 劉勰. The main points Rao makes against this theory, and to uphold the ascription of the entire work to Sengyou, are (1) at numerous places in the text, including the prefaces to various sections, Sengyou refers to himself directly (as 祐). (2) The author of CSZJJ obviously places great importance on the preface 序 as a genre, but Liu Xie's Wen xin diao long 文心雕龍 does not treat the genre. (3) Rao also simply asserts, on the basis of a subjective assessment of the general style of CSZJJ, that it is not at all like that of Wen xin diao long, Liu Xie's representative work (411-412). Rao also examines external historical sources, and argues that they present circumstances that do not accord with the possibility that Liu Xie composed the work. He dates CSZJJ itself [as a whole --- he never entertains the possibility that different parts might have different dates --- MR] to 508-512 or later, on the basis that it contains an account of the composition of Liang Wudi's commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom, which, according to various sources disagreeing with one another, occurred between Tianjian 7 (508) and Tianjian 14 (515) (407, 414). He argues that biographical details about Liu Xie's activities indicate that by this time, he had moved on into various posts in the civil administration (under two successive princes), and that this would make it implausible that he could have busied himself composing the CSZJJ. Rao also adduces bylines in [the main modern edition of] CSZJJ, which from fascicle 11 onward specify that Sengyou was associated with Jianchu si 健初寺. He suggests that this might mean that fascicles 1-10 were composed in Dinglin si 定林寺, and the remainder later, after a move to Jianchu si. [However, these bylines do not uniformly all appear in this form in all extant editions of the text; the pattern differs, for example, in the version from the first Korean canon, and the Nanatsudera manuscript version --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kōzen 1982] Kōzen Hiroshi 興膳宏. "Bun shin chō ryū to Shutsu sanzō ki shū" 文心雕竜と出三蔵記集. In Chūgoku chūsei no shūkyō to bunka 中国中世の宗教と文化, edited by Fukunaga Mitsuji 福永光司, 127-238. Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo 京都大学人文科学研究所, 1982. |
As part of a longer and more complex examination of the relation between Liu Xie 劉勰 and his masterwork the Wen xin diao long 文心雕龍, and the CSZJJ, Kōzen argues that Liu Xie probably had a hand in authoring at least parts of CSZJJ itself. His argument focuses primarily on two sections of CSZJJ fascicle 1, namely, the "Preface" 序 to the entire work, and the essay on differences between languages and problems of translation entitled 胡漢譯經音義同異記. Of the Preface, Kōzen argues more specifically that it is possible to discern two different styles in different parts of the text, and that the first part (which features a number of special or even technical Buddhist terms) is more likely to be Sengyou's own work, while in the second (where this Buddhist colouring disappears), it is possible to clearly discern the presence of Liu Xie. The argument for Liu Xie's hand in the text is based primarily upon three main types of evidence. First, in the second part of the preface, Kōzen argues that in a short space, a number of relatively words and turns of phrase occur, which are shared with Wen xin diao long: 銓貫, 本源, 牽課, 沿/㳂(sic)波討源, 原始, 司南, 信史, 燕石不亂於楚玉, and 井識管窺 (the match in the last two turns of phrase is approximate rather than verbatim) (144-145). Second, in relation to both essays, Kōzen argues that the expository or argumentative machinery is similar to that characteristic of Wen xin diao long. Kōzen has in mind here particularly the application of numbered rubrics, and the use of rather strict formal parallelisms in the structuring (and prosody) of the text. Third, Kōzen examines the details of the exposition of linguistic differences in CSZJJ against the chapter on the same topic in Wen xin diao long, and holds that they have significant similarities (based in part upon ideas that he traces to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 18 |
Su Jinren suggests that the entirety of Fascicle 12 may be a later addition to CSZJJ. He bases this view on the fact that it is odd for a catalogue to come at this point in the structure of CSZJJ as a whole, i.e. after the "Prefaces" section, and away from the other fascicles containing catalogues; and the fact that the works treated here are largely either Sengyou's works, or works produced under the auspices of Xiao Ziliang 蕭子良. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 18 |
Su Jinren argues that the independent biography of Zhu Fonian in CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 111b7-25 is likely to be a later addition. His reason for this contention is that another biographical notice about Zhu Fonian is also appended to the biography of *Dharmanandin 曇摩難提 at T2145 (LV) 99b24-27. He speculates that the independent biography was added after Sengyou obtained more information, and he omitted to excise the smaller notice appended to the Dharmanandin biography. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 18, 89 n. 9 |
At the end of the list of An Shigao works in fasc. 2, the present (T) version of CSZJJ counts 34 works in 40 fascicles 右三十四部。凡四十卷. However, Su Jinren points out that in present text. the list in fact features 35 texts in 41 fascicles. LDSBJ agrees with CSZJJ. This shows that one item on the list in the present CSZJJ was added later. He notes further that in LDSBJ, 34 of the 35 texts in question have a note referring to CSZJJ as the source of the ascription, but such a note does not appear for the 九橫經. He argues on this basis that the 九橫經 is the title later added to the list. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 19 |
At the end of the list of Buddhabhadra texts in Fascicle 2, CSZJJ explicitly counts ten texts 十部。凡六十七, T2145 (LV) 11c22. However, Su Jinren points out that there are in fact 11 texts on the list. He points out that Zhisheng in KYL refers to CSZJJ for all but on of the titles on the list, namely, the 菩薩十住經, 11c16. On this basis, he proposes that this title was added to the list later. (Cf. T283, T284.) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 19 |
Su Jinren points out that the last item recorded in LDSBJ and DTNDL for the Qi dynasty is 毘跋律 the by 釋法度. On the basis of Fajing, who says it was a forgery by Fadu, Zhisheng in KYL excises the text from the canon. This text does appear in CSZJJ: 毘跋律一卷 右一部。凡一卷。齊[＋武SYM]帝時。沙門釋法度出, T2145 (LV) 13c7-8. On this basis, Su suggests that this line is a probable later addition to CSZJJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 19-20 |
At the end of the section on Qi texts, CSZJJ features a somewhat jumbled list of five texts, T2145 (LV) 13c9-20. Like Naitō (whom he does not cite), Su Jinren, "Intro" 19-20, regards this list as a later addition. He points out that the texts are not presented in chronological order, like other texts preceding them in the same section. LDSBJ does not cite CSZJJ as a source for these five texts. In fact, Zhisheng, in KYL, is the first to report them on the basis of CSZJJ. Su believes that this list must have been added to CSZJJ by a later hand. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 164-168 |
Palumbo suggests that the portion of CSZJJ treating anonymous texts is most likely based upon the holdings of the Liang imperial library in Hualin yuan 華林園, rather that the holdings of Dinglin si 定林寺. He bases this suggestion on the following factors: (1) Sengyou's preface critiques nameless monks tasked with compiling official catalogues [which should refer to events of 508 or thereafter at the earliest]. (2) This work included the compilation of the 眾經要抄 in 88 fascicles (lost), i.e. excerpts from the scriptures, and Sengyou's list includes numerous titles of 抄經. Sengyou himself was critical of the practice of making such excerpts and circulating them as separate texts, making it unlikely that the library of his own monastery, Dinglin si, would include such texts in large numbers. (3) At the end of the list of texts that are available, he says that they were "newly collected" 新集. Palumbo suggests that this refers to the Dinglin si collection. By contrast, titles listed in the second text are "missing" and "not seen", and the list is based upon examination of various catalogues. A final note to the catalogue says that the available texts have "been copied" 已寫 and are "in the repository" 在藏, while the others "have not yet been copied" 未寫 and are "currently missing" 今闕. Palumbo suggests that this means that the "missing" titles were at another library, and in the process of being copied. (4) Many of the texts, including those noted as "missing" or apocryphal, are cited in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121, which was based upon the imperial collection. Thus, Palumbo believes that there was "a process of cross-acquisition between the two libraries". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|