A Re-appraisal of Zhisheng, the Tang Dynasty Compiler of Buddhist Catalogues
Open accessAbstract
Semantic Scholar extracted view of "A Re-appraisal of Zhisheng, the Tang Dynasty Compiler of Buddhist Catalogues" by Min‐Lin Lin
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingcitation§ 3.1
Japanese old manuscript editions of the Shurangama Sutra (A system) differ greatly in volume 7 from printed Tripitaka and Dunhuang manuscript lineage.
“金剛寺本・興聖寺本・中尊寺経本など日本古写経本(A 系統) 『首楞 厳経』は第七巻において刊本大蔵経本や敦煌写本系と大きく相違している 8) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data§ 3.1
The Dunhuang manuscripts and various printed editions of the Shurangama Sutra basically belong to the same lineage (current/B system).
“これらの敦煌写本や諸刊本は基本的に同じ系統(現行本・B 系統)に属 しているが”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 3.2
Recent surveys of Nara, Heian, and Kamakura old manuscripts show that many sutra manuscript texts differ markedly from printed Tripitaka texts.
“近年，奈良，平安，鎌倉時代の 古写経調査の過程において，多くの経典の写本テキストとその刊本大蔵経テキス トとの間には顕著な相異が存在している事実がわかってきた．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation§ 3.1
The content differences between Japanese old manuscripts and the current edition of the Shurangama Sutra are limited to five points: character count, length, seal marks, presence/absence of gathas, and number of deity names.
“日本古写経本と現行本の内容の相違は， 「字数の不同」 9) ・ 「広略の相異」 10) ・ 「契印の有無」 11) ・ 「偈頌の存欠」 12) ・ 「神名の多少」 13) の五点に絞られる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data§ 4
Based on the Japanese old manuscript Xu tuji, the content of the 'Huaidi biography' recorded there is almost the same as that in the Kaiyuan lu.
“一方，日本古写経本『続図紀』に基づくな らば，そこに記されている「懐迪伝」の内容は， 『開元録』のそれとはほぼ同じも のである．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingreasoning§ 4
An example is that the Huaidi-related description in the manuscript Xu tuji was intentionally changed to the 'Balamidi biography' in the printed Xu tuji.
“その一例として，写本系統本『続図紀』における懐迪の関連記述は，刊本 系統本になると「般剌蜜帝伝」に差し替えられたという意図的な変更が挙げられ よう．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4
The differences between the manuscript and printed Xu tuji are mostly concentrated in descriptions related to the Chinese translation of the Shurangama Sutra.
“『続図紀』の写本系統本と刊本系統本との相違は，ほ とんど『首楞厳経』の漢訳に関連する記述に集中している傾向が明らかになって きた．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.2
The editing and revision of the Shurangama Sutra was likely carried out not by Yixing alone but systematically by a group centered on him.
“『首楞厳経』の編集 改訂は，一行禅師その人ではなく，彼を中心とする集団によって組織的に行われ たものであろう．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ 3.1
Around 727, Yixing separated pure esoteric from mixed esoteric, as seen in the Darijing shu and Darijing yishi.
“なぜなら，727 年頃， 純密を雑密から分離したのは一行禅師であることが『大日経疏』や『大日経義釈』 に窺えるからである．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.1
The alteration of the Shurangama text likely had as its most important background a shift from mixed esoteric to pure esoteric.
“その改変の背景には，雑 密 17) から純密 18) への傾向の変化という最も重要な要素が考えられ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 3.1
Yixing very likely revised the Shurangama text from the Japanese old manuscript version to the current edition.
“よって，一行禅師が『首楞厳経』のテキストを日本古写経 本から現行本へ改訂した可能性が極めて高いのである 19) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 3.2
There was some relation between textual alteration of esoteric scriptures and the shift from mixed to pure esoteric.
“密教経典のテキスト改変と，雑密から純密へ の移行との間には，何らかの関連性があったと考えられる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.2
Not limited to the Shurangama Sutra, Buddhist scriptures of the time, especially esoteric texts with multiple translation versions, were very likely systematically edited and revised.
“さらに， 『首楞厳経』にとどまらず，当時の仏教経典，特に複数 の翻訳バージョンがある密教経典文献を対象として，計画的に編集改訂の作業が 行われた，という可能性が極めて高い．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation§ 3.2
One reason for organized sutra revision was to end the mixed situation of mixed and pure esoteric in esoteric scriptures and clearly distinguish them.
“組織的な経典改訂が行われた理由の一つ は，密教経典における「雑密」と「純密」の混在する状況を終結させ，両者を明 確に区別するというものである 22) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationnone given§ 3.2
Another reason for organized sutra revision was the Tang rulers' policy of using and controlling Buddhism.
“もう一つの理由は， 唐代当時の統治者における仏教の「利用」 ，また「制御」政策である．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Tang rulers, including Xuanzong, Daizong, and Dezong, pursued active policies of using and controlling Buddhism, including interference with the Tripitaka.
- Premisecitation§ 3.2
The existence of such a group at least until the late 9th century Tang Daizong and Dezong era has been partially proven by recent research.
“このような集団の実体が，少なくとも 9 世紀末の唐代の代宗，徳宗の時代まで存在していたことは，最近の研究成果 21) に おいてすでに部分的に証明されている．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3
The replacement of Huaidi by Balamidi when Xu tuji changed from the manuscript to the printed lineage reflects a shift from valuing the Kaiyuan lu to gradually valuing the Zhenyuan lu.
“『続図紀』が写本系統から刊本系統へと改変された際に起こった， 「釈 懐迪」から「般剌蜜帝」への交替から垣間見えるのは，やはり『開元録』を重視 する姿勢から徐々に『貞元録』を重要視する姿勢に変わっていくという時代背景 である．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3
Therefore, when Xu tuji changed from the old manuscript lineage to the printed lineage, the purpose of adjusting the order was related to the Chinese translation of the Shurangama Sutra.
“したがって， 『続図紀』の古写経系統本から刊本系統に変遷した時に，配列順を調整した目的は やはり『首楞厳経』の漢訳と関わっていたということになるだろう 30) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3
The changes in the printed lineage inevitably produce discrepancies between the printed Xu tuji and the Kaiyuan lu.
“しかしながら，ここでも不可避的に生じてくるのは，刊本系統本の改変 によって引き起こされる，刊本系統本『続図紀』と『開元録』との記載上の齟齬 である．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ 3.3
Among these, the two points 'order' and 'corrections' reveal intent.
“このうち「順番」と「添削」の二点には，その意図が現れている．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ 3.3
According to the author's recent research, extant Xu tuji transmissions are broadly divided into a printed lineage (B: Goryeo, Song, Yuan, Ming) and a Japanese old manuscript lineage (A: Koshoji etc.).
“筆者の近年の研究 24) によれば『続図紀』の現存伝本はおおむね，高麗蔵や宋・ 元・明版等の刊本系統本(B 系統)と興聖寺本等の日本古写経系統本(A 系統)と の二種類に分けられ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3
From the content of the corrections, the purpose was likely to maintain the authority and status of the ten-fascicle Shurangama Sutra.
“次に，添削の内容からみれば，十巻本『首楞厳経』の権威と地位を維持するた めであろう．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4
Conclusion 1: The source of the contradictory descriptions in the Kaiyuan lu and Xu tuji, both composed by Zhisheng in 730, is matters concerning the translation of the Shurangama Sutra.
“第一に，智昇が 730 年に撰述した『開元録』と『続図紀』の相矛盾する記述の 源泉は， 『首楞厳経』の伝訳の諸問題に関することが判明した．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4
Conclusion 2: The differences in records among various catalogues concerning the Chinese translation of the Shurangama Sutra are not grounds for the theory that the sutra is apocryphal.
“第二に，それによって，逆に『首楞厳経』の漢訳をめぐる諸経録の記載の相違 は同経の偽撰説の根拠にはならないということになる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3
The long-standing discrepancies between Xu tuji and Kaiyuan lu concerning the Shurangama Sutra were caused by later human falsification or alteration of Xu tuji's text, not by Zhisheng.
“したがって，長い間研究者を悩ましてきた， 『続図紀』と『開元録』との 間に存在する記述上の齟齬は， 『続図紀』のテキストの改竄か改変によってもたら されたものと認められる．”
- Also stated in: § 3.3 · plain
“つまり， 『続図紀』と『開元録』との間に存在する記述 上の齟齬は，智昇本人によるものではない 31) ．”
- Also stated in: § 4 · boosted
“一部の研究者が指摘した両書の矛盾は，智昇本人の手 によるものではなく，あくまで『続図紀』のテキスト変遷の過程において後世の 人為的な改竄によって生じてしまった事態だったのである．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 3.3 · plain
- Interpretationreasoning§ 4
Zhisheng received unjust criticism for a thousand years.
“智昇が千年の 不当な非難と批判を受けてきたことが明らかとなり”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4
The long-standing discrepancy in records about the Shurangama translation in Zhisheng's Kaiyuan lu and Xu tuji has been clarified.
“長い間仏教者たちを悩ましてきた智昇撰『開元録』と『続図 紀』における『首楞厳経』の漢訳をめぐる記載の相違が解明され”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 3.2
One means was altering the text of Zhisheng's Xu tuji, especially the part concerning the Shurangama translation, from the old manuscript to the current edition.
“そのうち， 一つの手段としては，智昇の撰述した『続図紀』のテキスト，特に『首楞厳経』 伝訳に関わった部分を古写経本から現行本に改変したと思われる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 12
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 5
May combine two claims.
Findingcitation§ 3.1The 203 extant Dunhuang manuscripts of the Shurangama Sutra can be divided into three periods but all belong to one lineage.
“現存する 203 点にも上る敦煌写本 7) は三つの時代に区分できる が，いずれも同一の系統に属していることが判明した．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 3.1The 26 Tripitaka editions, hundreds of printed editions, and the Fangshan stone sutra edition of the Shurangama Sutra differ but belong to the same lineage.
“また，26 種の大蔵経本や 百数種類の刊本や房山石経本の間には差異があるものの，同系統のものであると わかった．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 3.3Both Shi Huaidi and Balamidi are taken up in the Zhenyuan lu as persons involved in translating the ten-fascicle Shurangama Sutra; the Kaiyuan lu includes only Huaidi and has no record of Balamidi.
“「釈懐迪」 と「般剌蜜帝」はいずれも十巻本『首楞厳経』の翻訳に関わる人物として， 『貞元 録』に取り上げられているが， 『開元録』に取り上げられているのは「釈懐迪」だ けであり， 「般剌蜜帝」に関する記録は一切みられない．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 3.3According to the printed lineage of Xu tuji, the Shurangama Sutra is said to have been translated in 705, so Balamidi must be placed before Jingangzhi (B21) and Shanwuwei (B20), and before B19 Shamen Shizhiyan.
“『続図紀』 の刊本系統によれば， 『首楞厳経』は 705 年に訳されたとされているので， 「金剛 智」 (B21)と「善無畏」 (B20)の前，さらに，B19 番の「沙門釈智厳」の前に「般 剌蜜帝」を置かなければならないのである”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe Kaiyuan lu and Xu tuji, both composed by Zhisheng in 730, contain contradictory descriptions; the largest difference between them is the translator and date of the ten-fascicle Shurangama Sutra.
“相矛盾するような記述を残していることである．すなわち，智昇の 730 年に撰述 した『開元録』 3) と『続図紀』において，両者間の最も大きな相違は十巻本『首 楞厳経』の翻訳者とその年代である 4) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThere are two competing theories about the Chinese translation of the Shurangama Sutra: a two-translation theory and a one-translation theory.
“さらに， 『首楞厳経』の漢訳二本説に対立 するものとして漢訳一本説がある 5) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 3.1The A-system Shurangama text existed in China by around 718 and was transmitted to Japan before 739.
“A 系統本は 718 年 頃の中国には既に存在し，それが日本に伝わったのは 739 年以前に遡る 14) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 3.1The B-system Shurangama text existed in China before 727 and was transmitted to Japan before 753.
“B 系統本は，727 年以前から中国に存在し，日本に伝来されたのは 753 年以 前に遡ることができる 15) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Interpretationcitation§ 3.2Because the Tang dynasty valued the Shurangama Sutra highly, it had to adopt various means to maintain its fixed position.
“唐王朝は『首楞厳経』 を十分に重要視していたから 23) ， 『首楞厳経』の不動の位置を維持するため，い ろいろな手段を採用しなければならなかったということも考えられる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe reason for the contradictory descriptions has long been unresolved, and this led to criticism of Zhisheng.
“この相矛盾する記述はいかなる理由による ものなのかは長い間解明されていない問題であり，それによって，作者智昇に対 する非難と批判がなされた 6) ．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 3.1The A-system is older than the B-system, so the influence relation likely developed from A to B.
“A 系統本は B 系統本より起源が古いため，両者の影響関係は A 系統本 から B 系統本へと発展した蓋然性が高いと思われる．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 3.2Emperors Xuanzong, Daizong, and Dezong took active Buddhist purification policies, as background for altering the Shurangama from the Japanese old manuscript to the current form.
“つまり，日 本古写経本から現行本の形に改変する背景として玄宗・代宗・徳宗など皇帝が積 極な仏教粛正政策を取ったことがある．”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Tang rulers, including Xuanzong, Daizong, and Dezong, pursued active policies of using and controlling Buddhism, including interference with the Tripitaka.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4Conclusion 3: The criticism directed at Zhisheng as author of the Kaiyuan lu and Xu tuji is not justified; one can restore the image of Zhisheng as a sincere, cautious, and objective Buddhist.
“第三に，それに関して『開元録』と『続図紀』の作者智昇に対する非難と批判 は不当なものと言え，誠実であって，慎重かつ客観的な仏教者としての智昇の姿 を取り戻し得よう．”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationreasoning§ 4Zhisheng can be restored as occupying a great contribution and immovable position in the history of Buddhist catalogue compilation.
“仏典目録編纂史上に偉大な る貢献と不動の地位を占める智昇の姿を取り戻すことが出来たと言えよう．”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The Tang rulers, including Xuanzong, Daizong, and Dezong, pursued active policies of using and controlling Buddhism, including interference with the Tripitaka.
“玄宗・代宗・徳宗など皇帝が積 極な仏教粛正政策を取ったことがある．”
- Authors
- LIN, M.
- Corresponding author
- LIN, Min
- Venue
- Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu)
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 955-949
- ISSN
- 0019-4344 (ISSN-L)
- 1884-0051
- OpenAlex
- W2784192763
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- JOURNAL OF INDIAN AND BUDDHIST STUDIES (INDOGAKU BUKKYOGAKU KENKYU) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Chinese history and philosophy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Vietnamese History and Culture Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Keywords
- Tang dynasty, Buddhist scriptures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-04.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
