What is left of the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄

ABSTRACT

Studies have not only established that fragments P.3737 and S.2872 belong to the Zhongjing bielu referenced in the Lidai sanbao ji but also addressed the dating of work. This article reviews the dating of the Zhongjing bielu to support the traditional view that it was a work of the fifth century. Additionally, it compiles a comprehensive list of scripture titles that were referred to or quoted from this work by other catalogues. It is hoped that the resulting organized list of titles will serve as a valuable resource for scholars of Chinese Buddhism, providing an additional, albeit incomplete, Buddhist catalogue for the study of Chinese Buddhist texts produced during and prior to the fifth century.

KEYWORDS:

• Zhongjing bielu
• Chinese Buddhist catalogue
• Chinese Buddhist text
• Chu sanzang jiji
• Lidai sanbao ji
• Dunhuang Buddhist manuscript

Acknowledgments

I thank the two reviewers of this journal for their helpful criticism and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Rao, ‘Lun Sengyou’; Chen, Dazangjing zongmu tiyao, 14.

2. T no. 2034, 49: 337a14. 述 means ‘to relate or record’, see Wang, Wang Li gu hanyu da zidian, 1424.

3. Wang, Dunhuang guji xulu, 265. Cf. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 14.

4. Cited in Greene, ‘The Decline’, 128, note 12.

5. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 14–25. Also see Pan, ‘Dunhuang xieben Zhongjing bielu zhi faxian’, 69–88.

6. Tan, Han Tang Foshi tanzhen, 49, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 215–217, 218.

7. Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, vol. 1, 11, idem, ‘Guanyu Jiang Mi nüzi Sengfa songchu jing’, 386–388. The manuscript is also dated to the sixth century. See Greene, ‘The Decline’, 128, note 12.

8. Storch, History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography, 38–39; idem, ‘Fei Changfang’, 114.

9. Greene, ‘The Decline’, 128, 146–148.

10. T no. 2103, 52: 217b01. A similar usage is found in the Fayuan zhulin, T no. 2122, 53: 604a14; Chenguan’s 澄觀 (737–838) Da fangguang fo huayan jing yanyi chao, T no. 1736, 36: 114a13–a19; and Fozu Tongji, T no. 2035, 49: 438a28.

11. Luo, Hanyu da cidian, vol. 2, 633.

12. In the general context of Chinese texts, the noun bielu also means ‘a list of gifts’. See Luo, Hanyu da cidian, vol. 2, 633.

13. T no. 2034, 49: 56a12–a14. Cf. 105c16; 126a27.

14. Xuanze’s 玄則 (fl. 659–665) Chanlin miaoji houji xu, T no. 2103, 52: 246a10–a11: ‘Although the essence of profound teachings has been previously cultivated, the extensive and comprehensive texts ultimately require separate records’ 雖要妙之旨已具前修, 而博贍之文終 資別錄.

15. ‘All as in other accounts’ 並如別錄, T no. 2060, 50: 700b04.

16. Storch, The History, 17–18.

17. T no. 2146, 55: 148c11. Cf. LDSBJ, T no. 2034, 49: 105c04–c10.

18. T no. 2034, 49: 126a22–a27.

19. See, for instance, Guang hongming ji, T no. 2103, 52: 109b05–b08. Liu Xiang was charged with the responsibility to organise and record the books stored in the imperial library, the resulting work was called Bielu from which his son Liu Xin made a bibliography called Qilue 七略 whose derivative is the ‘Yiwen zhi’ in the Han shu. See Yao, Zhongguo muluxue shi, 38–39.

20. This usage should not be mistaken as an abbreviated form of biesheng lu 別生錄 (a record of excerpted scriptures), a term that is found in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2154, 55: 501b01–a28, 569a27–a28. Cf. Xu gujin yijing tuji, T no. 2152, 55: 371a11.

21. T no. 2149, 55: 336c25.

22. This is how the bielu part of the Kaiyuan shijiao lu is actually structured. See Su, Hanwen foji mulu, 2009, 62–63.

23. T no. 2154, 55: 574a21–a22.

24. Cf. Tan, Han Tang, 53–54. In the index (索引, 32) of their edition of the CSZJJ, Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi listed nine pages on which bielu is referred to, whereas it should be 10 pages. Namely, they missed page 53.

25. In fact, even jiulu can only be singular, i.e., a certain old catalogue. For instance, title two of P.3747 is Pusaxing wushi yuan shen jing 菩薩行五十緣身經. It is ‘Wushi yuan shenxing jing one scroll (an old catalogue states that Pusa yuan shen wushishi jing, or [others] say [it is] Pusa xing wushi yuan shen jing)’ 五十緣身行經一卷 (舊錄云菩薩緣身五十事經, 或云菩薩行五十緣身經) in the CSZJJ. Clearly, jiulu can only refers to a certain old catalogue, while huo 或 stands for the Zhongjing bielu which is attested by P.3747.

26. T no. 2145, 55: 5c04: ‘my own observations are attached as new records. At the same time [I also] widely searched and consulted other catalogues’ 管見接為新錄, 兼廣訪別目. And the LDSBJ states, ‘[I, Fei Zhang]fang collated Zhi Mindu’s catalogue and the translation colophons [collected] in the Gaoseng zhuan as well as miscellaneous catalogues’ 房審校勘支敏度錄及高僧傳出經後記諸雜別目等. T no. 2034, 49: 65b14–b15. Cf. Datang neidian lu, T no. 2149, 55: 236b15.

27. Yao, Zhongguo muluxue shi, 240.

28. See pages 239 to 242, quoted in Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 14.

29. For a discussion of the identification of the two manuscripts, see, Greene, ‘The Decline’, 145–146.

30. T no. 2146, 55: 126b08–b09.

31. Dapin youyi, T no. 1696, 33: 66c28, 67a04, etc.; Jingang banruo shu, T no. 1698, 33: 76a12, etc.

32. The title of many Chinese Buddhist scriptures starts with the phrase Fo shuo, which is a unique characteristic among all the existing Buddhist canons. For a study on this, see Pu, ‘Fo shuo’.

33. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 24. Cf. Pan, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 69–88.

34. 緣 is missing in the Taishō Canon, but in the Song edition of the canon, Cf. LDSBJ, T no. 2034, 29: 74a27, 74c15–c18.

35. A scripture titled Fo shuo weiceng you jing was written in black ink on a cave wall dated between 420 and 430. See Zhang, ‘Xiqin Fo shuo weicengyou jing lujing jiaowen’, 109–110.

36. T no. 1464, 24: 851a20; LDSBJ, T no. 2034, 49: 77a16.

37. T no. 2060, 50: 462a04–a06.

38. Greene, ‘The Decline’, 145–148.

39. T no. 2130, 54: 990b13, 1011c01.

40. Nanqi shu, juan 55, 985.

41. As for the practice of writing Prajñā 般若 as 波若, it can be seen in Kumārajīva’s translation, the Fo shuo huashou jing, T no. 657, 16: 182b16.

42. Tatsuo, ‘Tonkō zanketsuhon Shukyō betsuroku ni tsuite’, 744.

43. T no. 2034, 49: 55b01, 55c09–c10. The Taishō edition changed 花 to 華, whereas in the Second Korean edition, it is still 花. See, K no. 1055.

44. For instance, in the CSZJJ, there are 《十四意經》一卷 (舊錄云: 菩薩十四意經. 今闕) (6a23), 《本業經》一卷 (或云《菩薩本業經》) (6c19) and 《須賴經》一卷 (或云《須賴菩薩經》) (6c21). In the LDSBJ: 《寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經》一卷 (亦云《遺日寶積三昧文殊師利問法身經》) (52b10–b11), 《慧上菩薩問大善權經》二卷 (或無菩薩字, 亦一卷) (54a17) and 《阿惟越致菩薩戒經》一卷 (舊錄云: 《阿惟越致戒經》) (60b20).

45. Ren et al., eds., Zhonghua dazang jing, vol. 54, 195.

46. Liangshu, 710.

47. The latest dated title in the fragments is the Xianyu jing 賢愚經 translated in 445. See Fang, Dunhuang, vol. 1, 9–25.

48. Literally, ‘安錄先缺’ could be understood as ‘an earlier version of Dao’an’s catalogue’. But then that would mean Sengyou could access to different versions of Dao’an’s work, which is unlikely. Therefore, the phrase has been understood that in early part of Dao’an’s work, some early translations were not in his knowledge but later he came to know about them and added their titles later.

49. T no. 2121, 53: 14b07–b20)

50. Cf. Pu, ‘Fo shuo’, note 151.

51. Cf. Tan, Han Tang, 55–59.

52. This apparent discrepancy is also inherited by the Da Tang neidian lu, T no. 2149, 55: 235b19.

53. T no. 2034, 49: 68a7–a11.

54. I.e., Sanshi qi pin jing 三十七品經 (69b9) and Xianjie qianfoming jing 賢劫千佛名經 (69b10).

55. T no. 2034, 49: 70b18–b22.

56. Ren, Zhonghua dazang jing, vol. 54, 234.

57. Ibid., 242.

58. Pu, ‘Fo shuo’.

59. See Anan sishi jing 阿難四事經 (57b19) andBo chaojing 孛抄經 (57c02).

60. Greene, ‘The Decline’, esp. 134–141.

61. Ibid., 146, note 79.

62. See, for instance, Appendix 4 has 69 《胡音偈本》一卷, 70 《後出阿彌陀佛偈》一卷, 72 《詠瑞應偈》一卷, 73 《讃七佛偈》一卷, 74 《怛總尼百句》一卷, 75《阿彌陀偈》一卷.

63. See note 27 above.

64. The Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu (897c6–c22) again was copied from the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu.

65. For a brief discussion of 三乘中大乘, see Greene, ‘The Decline’, 146, note 75.

66. Ibid., 145, note 74, notes, ‘The Sixi (宋), Puning (元), Jiaxing (明) and Fuzhou (宮) editions as cited in the Taishō, as well as the Jin 金 edition (Zhonghua dazangjing, 54.358), read: “the fifth section was, from the first, missing” 第五篇本闕. The Second Koryo edition (the main Taishō text) reads: “the title of the fifth section [or: the fifth catalog] was, from the first, missing” 第五篇目本闕. The Da tang neidian lu, citing this table of contents seemingly from LDSBJ, gives the rather different: “Number five, the catalog of missing texts” 篇目闕本錄第五.’ I have adopted Daoxuan’s version.

67. Also see, Tan, Han Tang foshi tanzhen, 53–66.

68. 尼 may be an erroneous addition resulted from mistaking 陀羅 having something to do with dhāranī 陀羅尼.

69. Originally it is 元 in CBETA.

70. The Taishō edition has no 又.

71. Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T no. 2154, 494b14–b15, states, ‘Shunquan fangbian jing, two scrolls (one name [is] Zhuan nüshen pusa jing, or [one title has] weiquan. An old catalogue states that [it is] Shunquan nü jing, also called Suiquan nü jing. This is the second translation. [Some sources] say [it is] one scroll. It is seen in Daozhen’s and Sengyou’s catalogues. Sengyou’s and Fei Zhangfang’s catalogues further list Suiquan nü jing, which is mistaken)’ 順權方便經二卷 (一名轉女身菩薩經, 或作惟權. 舊錄云順權 女經, 亦云隨權女經. 第二出. 或一卷. 見道真僧祐二錄. 祐房二錄別存隨權女經, 誤也).

72. CBETA changed 錄 to 緣 based on the Khitan edition of the Chinese Buddhist Canon. See Ren et al., eds., Zhonghua dazang jing, vol. 53, 855.

73. Cf. Datang neidian lu, T no. 2149, 55: 235c01: Duolan ben jing, one scroll (seen in the Bielu. It is said that it is a different translation) 惰藍本經一卷 (見別錄, 云是異出維藍) … 242c28: Suilan ben jing (seen in the Bielu. It is said that it is a different translation of the Weilan jing) 隨藍本經 (見別錄, 云是異出維藍經); Xinji zangjing yinyi suihan lu 新集藏經音義隨函錄 (K no 1257, 35: 431b07): ‘Duolan (The pronunciation of the first is sui. It is said that it is also ‘Weilan’ or others said it is ‘pilan’, which is Sanskrit. That is incorrect.)’ 墯藍 (上音隨. 或云維藍或云毗嵐, 梵言. 訛.)

74. Originally it is 文殊師利與離意女論義極似維摩經, I changed it according to Kaiyuan shijiao lu (T no. 2154, 55: b33c20).

75. It is 法 in the Taishō edition.

76. As being clear from its counterpart in the CSZJJ, it is not a doubtful text.

77. Those that are seen in the catalogues other than the Bielu have been eliminated from this table.

78. It is 檀 in the Taishō edition.

79. It is 持 in LDSBJ (123a21).

80. The character inside [] in the Taishō edition is 卷.

81. It is 十三 in the Taishō edition.

82. It is 生 in the Taishō edition.

83. Ibid.

84. For the transcribed text of the fragment manuscripts P.3747 and S.2872, see, Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 17–21. For the identification between the titles listed in the Bielu and their counterparts in the CSZJJ, see ‘Tables 1-4’ in Greene, ‘The Decline’, 131–133.

85. Pan suggested based on the colophon of the Wenshushili jingl jing chujing houji 文殊師利淨律經記第十八出經後記 in the CSZJJ (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 1).

86. It is 亰 in the fragment.

87. Originally it is 家, Changed by Pan (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 1).

88. It is 大 in the fragment.

89. In the whole document, it looks more like 經.

90. Pan took it as 日, Bai changed it to 月 according to the Datang neidian lu (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 2).

91. The original is 大, changed according to CSZJJ (7c19).

92. It is 定, and Pan changed it to 足 according to the Datang neidian lu (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 3).

93. Originally it is 帝. Pan changed it (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 6).

94. It is 約, Pan changed it (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 7).

95. Originally it is 住.

96. Originally it is 逞薗.

97. Originally it is .

98. Originally it is 虫.

99. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, took it as 曰.

100. Pan pointed out it is 佛遺日摩尼寶經一卷 in the CSZJJ (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 9).

101. Originally it is 冈.

102. It is 尚 in the fragment, but 常 in CSZJJ (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 10).

103. It is 帝, Pan changed it (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 20, note 11).

104. This character may be redundant.

105. Wei Mingdi 魏明帝 reigned between 226 and 239.

106. It is 雲寶 in the fragment and there is ‘Z’ symbol beside 雲.

107. 惒 is a popular variant of 和. See Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 21, note 12.

108. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 21, note 13 changed it to 誦.

109. Originally it was 蜜, Bai Huawen changed it. Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 21, note 14.

110. It is 迹 in the fragment.

111. 一毛放 is missing in the fragment. Pan restored it according to CSZJJ (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 21, note 15).

112. Originally there was a 萨 between 菩提, which was cancelled by the scriber with three leaning lines (Bai, ‘Dunhuang xieben’, 21–22, note 1).