Text: T2145; 出三藏記集

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

• Title: 出三藏記集
• People: Sengyou, 僧祐 (author)
• Identifier: T2145

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• T0150B; 九橫經; 雜阿含三十章
• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

No

• Fa yuan ji 法苑集
• Faji zaji zhuanming 法集雜記傳銘
• Sapoduo bu xiancheng zhuan 薩婆多部相承傳
• Shi song yi ji 十誦義記
• Shijie ji 世界記
• T2040; 釋迦譜
• T2102; 弘明集
• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit

• Date: 516

No

• T0588; 佛說須真天子經; Suvikrāntacintā devaputra paripṛcchā
• T0638; 佛說超日明三昧經
• T2059; 高僧傳
• T2145; 出三藏記集
• Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

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

Edit

No

• T2145; 出三藏記集

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

Edit