CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Indian and Buddhist StudiesClassical Studies and PhilologyChinese history and philosophy

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 45 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Fei Changfang's Treatment of Sengyou's Anonymous Texts

Open access
Radich, Michael·2021·Journal of the American Oriental Society
DOI 10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.4.0819
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The catalogue entitled Lidai sanbao ji T2034, completed in 598, exerted a profound influence on the shape of the Chinese Buddhist canon. It also features a large number of new ascriptions for canonical texts. Subsequent tradition and modern scholarship have repeatedly found these ascriptions profoundly problematic. Scholarly opinion has been divided about whether the author, Fei Changfang, faithfully reported these suspect ascriptions from other sources (subsequently lost), or was himself their originator. This study analyzes three highly suspect patterns in the treatment of new ascriptions in the Lidai sanbao ji: 1) New ascriptions to the same supposed translator are arbitrarily assigned in batches to titles appearing in delimited, contiguous portions of much longer lists of anonymous texts in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji. 2) Contradictory information is repeatedly given about the same titles in different parts of the work. 3) Information about titles affected by these two problems is ascribed to an implausibly wide range of earlier catalogues. These three patterns affect numerous separate portions of the Lidai sanbao ji. The Lidai sanbao ji, and not its putative earlier sources, is therefore the common denominator—the bottleneck where these problems collect. The most economical and plausible interpretation is that Fei himself was falsifying his information, whether deliberately or by a rather extreme scholarly negligence. These findings make it all the more imperative to critically evaluate all ascriptions appearing for the first time in the Lidai sanbao ji, including a large number of ascriptions still followed in the canon as it is used today.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.4.0819

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 45 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    After removing those 32 Fajing-attributed texts from the 193 extant texts on Sengyou's list, 161 titles remain without attribution in Fajing.

    “Subtracting these 32 texts for which Fajing gives ascriptions from the 193 extant texts on Sengyou's original list, there remain 161 titles for which Fajing gives no attribution .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Fei Changfang's Treatment of Sengyou's Anonymous Texts michael RaDich

    For titles affected by the first two problems, the LDSBJ attributes information to an implausibly broad set of earlier catalogues.

    “Information about titles affected by these two problems is ascribed to an implausibly wide range of earlier catalogues .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For Guṇabhadra, the clusters account for more than half of the total list, 41 titles.

    “We see the following clusters, again accounting for more than half the total list (41 titles):”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fei gives new ascriptions, absent from Fajing, for 129 extant texts in Sengyou's list.

    “Fei Changfang gives new ascriptions (that is, ascriptions not found in Fajing either) for 129 of the texts in Sengyou's list that are still extant .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § Fei Changfang's Treatment of Sengyou's Anonymous Texts michael RaDich

    The Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ), completed in 598, contains many new ascriptions for canonical texts.

    “It also features a large number of new ascriptions for canonical texts .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 62
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    For Faju, the LDSBJ lists 132 titles, while the CSZJJ has only 4.

    “For Faju 法炬, for example, the LDSBJ notoriously lists 132 titles, in contrast to only 4 in the CSZJJ .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    A further 11 texts anonymous in the CSZJJ remain anonymous in the present Taishō but have bylines indicating Eastern Han dating.

    “As Appendix 1 shows, a further 11 texts regarded as anonymous in the CSZJJ are still regarded as anonymous in the present Taishō, but carry bylines that indicate that they date to the Eastern Han .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    For Huijian, the LDSBJ gives 25 titles, while the CSZJJ has only one.

    “For Huijian 慧簡, the LDSBJ gives 25 titles, 22 where the CSZJJ has only one .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    For Tanwulan, the LDSBJ adds 108 new attributions and credits him with 110 translations in total, whereas earlier catalogues listed only two.

    “For Tanwulan 曇無蘭, the LDSBJ equally notoriously introduces 108 new attributions, crediting him with a total of 110 translations, where previous catalogues had only listed two .20”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Among those 193 texts, only 30 (15.5%) are anonymous in the present canon, so the other 163 (84.5%) gained attributions after Sengyou.

    “Of those 193 texts, however, only 30 (15 .5%)are regarded as anonymous in the present canon, which means that the remaining 163 (84 .5%)have acquired attributions since the time of Sengyou .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The LDSBJ assigns 54 titles in total to Nie Daozhen, citing a/the bie lu as its basis in the general note.

    “the LDSBJ ascribes a total of 54 titles to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, citing as his basis, in the general note at the end of the list of ascriptions, a/the bie lu 別錄”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    Many of Fei's new ascriptions and dates were accepted by later cataloguers, and the canon in current use still shows his deep influence.

    “many of Fei's new ascriptions and dates were accepted by subsequent cataloguers, and the canon as it is used today still bears the deep imprint of his influence .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    For An Shigao, clustering is less prominent, but there are at least clear clusters totaling 56 titles.

    “As for Dharmarakṣa, clustering is less prominent in this list, but we still find at least the following clear clusters (56 titles):”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Eight Sengyou titles either do not appear in Fajing or cannot be confidently matched to a Fajing title, leaving 153 titles that Fajing clearly treats as anonymous.

    “However, 8 of Sengyou's titles do not seem to appear in Fajing, or at least, cannot be identified confidently with a title in Fajing .12 This still leaves 153 titles that are clearly treated as anonymous by Fajing, like Sengyou before him .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Fei claims to have discovered ascription and date information for a very large number of texts that had previously lacked attribution.

    “Fei claims to have found information about the ascriptions and dates for a huge number of previously unattributed texts”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    The LDSBJ's fascicles 1-12 are organized chronologically, and fascicle 4 covers the Eastern Han.

    “As is well known, the bulk of the LDSBJ (fascicles 1-12) is organized on chronological lines, and fascicle 4 treats the Eastern Han .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Clusters of titles in Sengyou's list have repeatedly been given the same new ascription in the LDSBJ, and this pattern appears in many LDSBJ ascriptions to several major translators.

    “Repeatedly, clusters of titles in Sengyou's list have predominantly been assigned the same new ascription in the LDSBJ, and this pattern is seen in a large number of the LDSBJ's ascriptions to several major translators .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    Where the CSZJJ (like Fajing's T2146) usually knows only one text under a given title, the LDSBJ often has more than one notice for the same title, and these notices give apparently contradictory information.

    “Where the CSZJJ (like Fajing's T2146) generally knows only a single text under a given title, the LDSBJ often features more than one notice for the same title, and these various notices give apparently contradictory information .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    A book on the history of Chinese Buddhist bibliography can entirely omit Hayashiya's Iyaku kyōrui kenkyū and does not cite Kyōroku kenkyū, and it shows a similar lack of engagement with key works by Ui, Tokiwa, and others.

    “For instance, it is telling-and remarkable-that a book on the history of Chinese Buddhist bibliography can entirely omit from its bibliography one of Hayashiya's two major works (Iyaku kyōrui kenkyū), and although it lists the other (Kyōroku kenkyū), does not, so far as I can find, cite it even once; the book evinces a similar lack of serious engagement with key works by Ui, Tokiwa, and others .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Storch rarely mentions and does not seriously engage with the nature, extent, and implications of the numerous problems already pointed out in the LDSBJ by earlier scholars.

    “Storch's positive attempts to realize this agenda are complemented by an equally striking silence, since she rarely mentions, and certainly does not seriously engage with, the nature, extent, and implications of the numerous problems already pointed out in the LDSBJ by earlier scholars”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    T330 has four inconsistent listings in the LDSBJ: one among Eastern Han anonymous texts, one ascribed to Bo Yan citing the Shixing catalogue, one ascribed to Bo Fazu, and one in fascicle 13 still listed as anonymous.

    “For the Zhangzhe Weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 T330, Fei has one listing among the Eastern Han anonymous texts; a second ascribing the text to Bo Yan 白延, citing the Shixing”
    • Also stated in: § intRoDuction · plain
      “a third ascribing it to Bo Fazu 白法祖; and a fourth entry in fascicle 13 still incongruously listing the text as anonymous .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The Eastern Jin list has two clusters that overlap almost perfectly with the Eastern Han list in order and content: E.Jin nos. 6-14 = E.Han nos. 15-23 (perfect match); E.Jin nos. 15-25 ≈ E.Han nos. 38-47.

    “In addition, the Eastern Jin list features two clusters which overlap almost perfectly with the Eastern Han list in order and content: 1 .E .Jin nos .6-14 = E .Han nos .15-23 (perfect match); 29 2 .E .Jin nos .15-25 ≈ E .Han nos .38-47 . 30”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [30]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    With very few exceptions, the titles in the LDSBJ's Eastern Han anonymous list follow exactly the same order as the first part of Sengyou's list (CSZJJ #1-#841), but they are spread throughout rather than clustered.

    “With very few exceptions, 28 the titles in the LDSBJ's Eastern Han anonymous list appear in exactly the same order as in the first portion of Sengyou's list, in which Sengyou lists texts he regards as extant (CSZJJ #1-#841); but the titles in the LDSBJ's Eastern Han list are spread throughout this portion of Sengyou's list, rather than clustered in one place .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Among the texts under study, Fei refers to only a small number of catalogues for three or more translation groups, and even then almost always for only one text in each group.

    “Thus, among the texts here under study, Fei refers to only a small number of catalogues for three or more translation groups, and even then, almost always for only one text in each group .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Despite the many sources, many translators have no specific source cited for a single reascription, and Fei gives specific references for only a fraction of his new ascriptions.

    “However, despite this apparent embarrassment of riches, there remain a large number of translators for whom Fei never cites such a specific source for a single reascription; 51 and more generally, Fei provides such specific references for only a fraction of the many new ascriptions he provides .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    For each of the five titles, only one text survives today, and it carries the ascription recorded in the other CSZJJ entry.

    “In each case, we have only one extant text, which bears the ascription found in the alternate CSZJJ entry .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The CSZJJ elsewhere attributes the same title to Juqu Jingsheng, and Fajing does likewise.

    “In the CSZJJ, the same title is elsewhere ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, T2145 (LV) 13a12-15; and Fajing follows suit, T2146 (LV) 129b11 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation

    This title is unusually complicated in the LDSBJ.

    “Matters are unusually complicated with respect to this title in the LDSBJ .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The LDSBJ lists two very similar titles, 阿彌陀佛偈經 and 後出阿彌陀佛偈經, among Han anonymous texts, and fascicle 13 lists both as anonymous again.

    “Two very similar titles, 阿彌陀佛偈經 and 後出阿彌陀佛偈經, are listed among Han anonymous texts in the LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 55b24-25 . Both are listed again as anonymous in fascicle 13, 113b7-8 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation

    Hung demonstrated that T611 and T732 are largely identical.

    “Hung has shown that T611 is largely identical with T732 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hung

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Beyond the Nie Chengyuan ascription, Fei assigns the variant title 曰難經 to Shi Songgong/Gaogong; a third note gives the same title to Guṇabhadra; and fascicle 14 treats it as anonymous.

    “In addition to the ascrip- tion to Nie Chengyuan, Fei also ascribes the variant title 曰難經 to Shi Songgong/Gaogong 釋嵩公/高公, T2034 (XLIX) 72a13 . A third note ascribes the same title (giving both variant readings) to Guṇabhadra, 91c12 . Finally, the same title is incongruously treated as anonymous in fascicle 14, 117b20 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation

    Strickmann demonstrated that T1331's eighth 'book', itself a Chinese compilation, comes from T1393.

    “Strickmann has shown that the eighth”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strickmann

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Zhisheng's Kaiyuan Shijiao lu equates the two titles and lists the text as extant among Kumārajīva's works.

    “Then, in Kaiyuan Shijiao lu, Zhisheng identifies the two titles with one another, and lists the text as extant, among the works of Kumārajīva:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given

    Possible confusion with 舍頭諫太子二十八宿經 T1301 complicates this case.

    “This case is complicated by possible confusion with 舍頭諫太子二十八宿經 T1301 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The phrases Hung identifies are often too long to serve as stylistic markers, and he ignores context.

    “However, the phrases he identifies are often too long to count as stylistic markers, and he pays no attention to context .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    牧牛經 also appears among Sengyou's anonymous texts, yet no such text survives.

    “The title 牧牛經 also appears in Sengyou's list of anonymous texts, T2145 (LV) 27b26; but no 牧牛經 is extant .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given

    Fei makes an odd remark at this point, concerning the anonymous-scripture lists for every dynasty through the Jin.

    “Fei makes a peculiar remark at this point, which pertains to the lists of anonymous scriptures for all dynasties down to the Jin .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Da Tang neidian lu lists 牧牛經, but not 放牛經, among Kumārajīva's translations, as do the Gu jin yijing tuji and Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu.

    “In Da Tang neidian lu, 牧牛經 is listed among Kumārajīva's translations, T2149 (LV) 253b17 (and 放牛經 is not), as in the Gu jin yijing tuji 古今譯經圖紀 T2151 (LV) 359b17-18, and Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄 T2153 (LV) 423c11 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Guang Xing holds T684 to be authentic, yet offers no support for its attribution to An Shigao.

    “Guang Xing argues that T684 is”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guang Xing

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    T2149, T2154, and T2157 record this catalogue as existing or once existing, but say nothing else about it.

    “T2149, T2154, and T2157 dutifully list this catalogue as a work that exists (or once did), but otherwise do not mention it .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Fei cites this catalogue only here, though fascicle 15 lists it among the catalogues he claims to use, including ones he never saw.

    “This is the only time Fei cites this catalogue, though he lists it in fascicle 15 among the catalogues he says he draws upon (including catalogues he did not see) .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation

    Five titles in Sengyou's list of anonymous scriptures pose particular difficulties.

    “As noted in n .10, five titles in Sengyou's list of anonymous scriptures present particular difficulties (references to CSZJJ T2145 [LV]):”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Besides attributing this title to Huijian, the LDSBJ also assigns it to Juqu Jingsheng.

    “In addition to the ascription to Huijian, the LDSBJ also follows these earlier cata- logues in featuring an ascription of this title to Juqu Jingsheng, T2034 (XLIX) 93a8-9 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    For each of the five titles, the CSZJJ has at least two entries: one among the anonymous texts of fascicle 4, and a separate entry outside fascicle 4 that gives an ascription for the same or a related title.

    “In each case, the CSZJJ contains at least two entries: 1) an entry among the present list of anonymous texts in fascicle 4; 2) a separate entry (outside fascicle 4) giving an ascription for an identical title, or a title identified as pertaining to the same text .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The LDSBJ gives 優填王作佛形像經 and 作像因緣經 as alternate titles of the 作佛形像, placing it among Han anonymous texts.

    “The LDSBJ also lists 優填王作佛形像經 and 作像因緣經 as alternate titles for the 作佛形像, which it treats among Han anonymous texts; T2034 (XLIX) 54c2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The LDSBJ carries an interlinear gloss on 阿耨風經 that, though it contains 'Jin', occurs only in the catalogues.

    “The LDSBJ here features an interesting interlinear gloss on the title: 阿耨風經一卷 (阿耨風晉言依次) (interlinear note missing in P) . This interlinear gloss, despite the fact that it has”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    The LDSBJ further attributes this title to the obscure Jianglianglouzhi, and a third time to 興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang.

    “Treatment of this title is particularly complicated in the LDSBJ, which also features an ascription to the even more obscure Jianglianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 (*Kalyāṇaruci?), T2034 (XLIX) 65a8-11; and a third ascription to 興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 54b2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data

    This title's treatment in the LDSBJ is particularly complicated.

    “Treatment of this title is particularly complicated in the LDSBJ, which also features an ascription to the even more obscure Jianglianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 (*Kalyāṇaruci?), T2034 (XLIX) 65a8-11; and a third ascription to 興起行經 T197, Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 54b2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    The LDSBJ lists the exact Taishō title only once, as anonymous.

    “The exact title as in the Taishō is listed only once in the LDSBJ, and treated as anonymous, T2034 (XLIX)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Guṇabhadra receives a supposed second translation; *Saṅghabhara also receives a very similar title, 八吉祥經; yet fascicle 13 lists the same title as anonymous.

    “A supposed second translation is ascribed to Guṇabhadra, 91b19-20 . A very similar title, 八吉祥經, is also ascribed to *Saṅghabhara, 98b20; see T430 . But the same title is also listed as anonymous in fascicle 13, 113a5 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Placing those texts in fascicle 4 implies an Eastern Han date, and this is the most likely ultimate source for the dates given to the 11 Taishō texts.

    “The inclusion of these texts in this fascicle implies that they date to the Eastern Han, and this is therefore the most likely ultimate source of the dates indicated for the 11 texts in question in the Taishō .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    The clustering pattern is pervasive in the LDSBJ, and the examples given are enough to show this.

    “This pattern surely extends beyond the examples shown above, but these examples alone suffice to show that the pattern is pervasive in the LDSBJ .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    The LDSBJ's Dharmarakṣa listings differ considerably from the corpora above, perhaps partly because Fei inherited more sound ascriptions.

    “The LDSBJ listings for Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 23 are quite different from the above corpora, perhaps in part because Fei Changfang inherited a larger number of sound ascriptions .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Recent scholarship has attempted to revise evaluations of Fei, arguing that his poor reputation as a cataloguer led scholars to overlook his contributions to Chinese historiography and his role in shifting notions of canonicity.

    “Recent scholarship has seen attempts to revise our evaluations of Fei .In part, scholars have argued that Fei's poor reputation as a cataloguer has led us to overlook his important contributions to the development of Chinese historiography, and his role in shifting notions of canonicity so that Chinese imperial imprimatur became the deciding authority for admission to the canon .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    A later quantitative study confirmed that this group of texts probably has a common author.

    “and a later quantitative study of Mizuno's proposed alternate Madhyamāgama confirmed that this group of texts probably has a common author .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Mizuno argued that some individually transmitted texts originally belonged to two larger collections, alternate translations of the Ekottarikāgama and the Madhyamāgama.

    “Mizuno Kōgen argued that a number of texts transmitted individually originally formed part of two larger collections, alternate translations of the *Ekottarikāgama and the Madhyamāgama respectively;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mizuno

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If Mizuno's groups were produced together by one translator, the scattered attributions in the present canon are nonsensical; 35 of Mizuno's texts are among those studied here.

    “But this would mean that all the texts in each group were produced together, by the same translator, making a nonsense of the scattered attributions they now bear in the present canon; and in this light, it is sobering to note that 35 of Mizuno's texts are among those studied here .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The LDSBJ is the bottleneck where all these problems gather, so the most economical explanation is that Fei himself deliberately falsified information.

    “The LDSBJ is the bottleneck where all these problems gather, and therefore the most economical explanation for the evidence reviewed above is that Fei himself is deliberately falsifying information .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Many of Fei's supposed sources predate the CSZJJ.
    • Rests on an assumption: Baochang's catalogue postdates most of the supposed translators and catalogues at issue.
    • Rests on an assumption: Chronological organization by dynasties was Fei's own innovation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Storch also attempts to cast doubt on the reliability of Dao'an.

    “She also attempts to cast doubt upon the reliability of Dao'an; pp .31-32, 146-47 and n .16 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Storch

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If Storch succeeded and scholars became more trusting of Fei's attributions, it would be a retrograde step with disastrous consequences for the study of many questions.

    “The findings of the present study show that were Storch to succeed in this aim, and were scholars to become more trusting, not less, of Fei Changfang's attributions, it would be a retrograde step that could bring disastrous consequences for the study of many questions .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Previous scholarship has regularly found the new ascriptions in the LDSBJ highly dubious, and the new ascriptions under study have been among the most glaring problems.

    “It comes as no surprise, then, that previous scholarship has regularly found highly dubious the new ascriptions in the LDSBJ, and indeed, that precisely the new ascriptions here under study have featured prominently among the most glaring problems .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    One important historical function of the LDSBJ is as a catalogue, and the present canon has been profoundly shaped by Fei's influence in attributions and dates.

    “is, as a source of attributions and dates-and as the sample in Appendix 1 amply shows, our present canon has been profoundly shaped by Fei's influence in this regard .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Okabe studied 40 new ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa that first appear in the LDSBJ and argued that none is trustworthy.

    “Okabe studied 40 new ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa appearing for the first time in the LDSBJ, and argued that none is to be trusted .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Okabe

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Hayashiya rejects many of the ascriptions listed in Appendix 1.

    “For example, Hayashiya rejects many of the ascriptions listed in Appendix 1 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayashiya

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    None of the An Shigao ascriptions under study is regarded as genuine in Zacchetti's survey of research on An Shigao.

    “Similarly, none of the An Shigao ascriptions under study here is regarded as genuine in Zacchetti's survey of the state of research on An Shigao;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zacchetti

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Sengyou's list is only a somewhat arbitrary sample of canonical texts at large, and problematic ascriptions introduced by the LDSBJ are certainly more numerous.

    “However, Sengyou's list is obviously only a somewhat arbitrary sample of canonical texts at large, and problematic ascriptions introduced to the tradition by the LDSBJ are certainly more numerous .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Ui argues against many LDSBJ ascriptions to An Shigao, including many of the ascriptions under study.

    “Ui argues against many of the LDSBJ ascriptions to An Shigao, including many of the ascriptions under study here .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ui

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Scholars have long recognized that the LDSBJ contains many implausible ascriptions; opinion is divided on whether they originated with Fei, and some have argued that he acted in good faith as a conduit for inaccurate information in his sources.

    “Although scholars have long recognized that the LDSBJ contains many implausible ascriptions, opinion has been divided on the question of whether they originated with Fei himself, and some scholars have argued that he merely acted in good faith, as a conduit for inaccurate information contained in some of his numerous sources .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The contradictions found so far represent only a small part of a larger problem.

    “These contradictions, moreover, are only the tip of an iceberg .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Iwamatsu argued that no ascriptions of extant texts to Bo Fazu are reliable, and that many of these ascriptions stem from the LDSBJ.

    “Iwamatsu has argued that no ascriptions of extant texts to Bo Fazu are reliable, and that many of these ascriptions stem from the LDSBJ .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iwamatsu

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    None of the same An Shigao ascriptions is regarded as genuine by Nattier.

    “and none of the same ascriptions is regarded as genuine by Nattier .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nattier

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Strickmann questioned whether Huijian was ever actually the translator of any texts, though he allowed that Huijian might have composed some texts.

    “Strickmann questioned whether Huijian was ever actually the translator of any texts at all (though he is willing to entertain the possibility that Huijian might have composed some texts) .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strickmann

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Nattier cites T621 as an instance of an ascription first appearing in the LDSBJ that is evidently impossible.

    “Nattier uses T621 as an example of ascriptions first found in the LDSBJ that are”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nattier

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For T283, T371, T590, and T1301, one cannot rule out that the surviving text is the one recorded as anonymous in fascicle 4 of the CSZJJ, and that the text ascribed elsewhere in the CSZJJ is the one that is lost.

    “For T283, T371, T590, and T1301, therefore, we cannot eliminate the possibility that our extant text is in fact the text listed as anonymous in CSZJJ fascicle 4, and it is the text listed with an ascription elsewhere in the CSZJJ that is lost (if indeed such a text existed) .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    For those catalogues, there is a chance that Fei was passing on real information.

    “This could mean that at least for those catalogues, there is a chance that Fei was conveying real information .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Palumbo argues T1507 was composed in Chang'an between 383 and 402, most likely 383-385.

    “T1507 has been very thoroughly studied by Palumbo, who argues that it was in fact composed in Chang'an between 383 and 402, but most probably between 383 and 385;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palumbo

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Palumbo suggests T188 is probably not a wholesale fabrication by the prince, and that its original may come from the fourth century in Central Asia.

    “However, Palumbo has suggested that it is”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palumbo

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    According to Hayashiya, concrete records show that at least the Liu Song bie lu, Fashang's, Baochang's, and Li Kuo's catalogues survived until Daoxuan's Da Tang neidian lu (T2149).

    “Further, according to Haya- shiya, we have concrete records indicating that at least the Liu Song bie lu, Fashang's catalogue, Baochang's cata- logue, and Li Kuo's catalogue were extant down to the time of Daoxuan's Da Tang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149; 248 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayashiya

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    No earlier source assigns such a title to Zhi Qian, so T427's present ascription probably comes ultimately from this LDSBJ notice.

    “Nonetheless, this is the first time such a title is ascribed to Zhi Qian, and the present ascription of T427 therefore probably derives ultimately from this LDSBJ notice .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Karashima considers T1502 more likely composed in China, influenced by the Dà āmítuó jīng and others.

    “Karashima regards T1502 as”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Karashima

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If T769's ascription rests on this LDSBJ entry, then two texts have received the same ascription from it.

    “If, then, as seems likely, the present LDSBJ entry is the basis for the ascription of T769, this means that two texts have been assigned the same ascription on its basis .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A shorter related title, 罪福報應經一卷, is attributed to Guṇabhadra, and this probably underlies T747b's received ascription.

    “However, a shorter, related title, 罪福報應經一卷, is ascribed to Guṇabhadra, 91c5 . This is the probable source of the received ascription of T747b .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Harrison observes that T111's wording is suspiciously close to that of the earlier T101(20).

    “Harrison notes that T111 is”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Harrison

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Hayashiya rejects the ascription of T123 to Kumārajīva.

    “This is also the understanding of Hayashiya, Iyaku kyōrui, 366, 406 (Hayashiya rejects the ascription to Kumārajīva) .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayashiya, Iyaku kyōrui

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even for sources that may have existed in Fei's time and had genuine independent value, the very large amount of demonstrably unreliable information in the LDSBJ means the task is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    “However, even for such sources as may have existed in Fei's time and had real independent value, the problem that confronts us, given the very great quantity of demonstrably unreliable information in the LDSBJ, is to sort the wheat (if any) from the chaff .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In these cases, the ascriptions may be further erroneous ones going back to the CSZJJ or earlier, and given authority by the CSZJJ itself.

    “In other words, in these cases, we may be dealing with additional erroneous ascriptions dating back to the CSZJJ or before, and lent authority by the CSZJJ itself .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Terasaki suggests that *Kālodaka composed the text himself.

    “Terasaki has suggested that *Kālodaka himself composed the text;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Terasaki

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Palumbo argues that T188 likely predates T185, making it early.

    “Palumbo has argued that T188 probably predates T185, and is therefore early;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palumbo

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Nattier treats these attributions negatively: a work absent from her Appendix 1 is, given current knowledge, not regarded as genuine.

    “Nattier's presentation of these attributions is negative; that is to say, if a work is not listed in her Appendix 1,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nattier

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Nattier considers T730 an archaic translation whose author is unknown.

    “Nattier regards T730 as an”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nattier, Guide

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    T1470's exact title is anonymous, as is a supposed second translation; yet its present attribution to An Shigao probably goes back to the LDSBJ entry for 大僧威儀經四卷.

    “The exact title of T1470 is treated as anonymous, T2034 (XLIX) 119c3, as is a supposed second translation, 119c12 . But the present ascription of T1470 to An Shigao probably dates back to the LDSBJ entry for the title 大僧威儀經四卷, 50a23-24 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.
86 of 86

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many of Fei's supposed sources predate the CSZJJ.

    “For another, many of Fei's supposed sources predate the CSZJJ, which would make such use of the CSZJJ list on their part anachronistic .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Baochang's catalogue postdates most of the supposed translators and catalogues at issue.

    “The strongest candidate for such a proximate source would be Baochang's catalogue, because it postdates most of the supposed translators and catalogues at issue here; and is supposed also have been sufficiently global in scope to have been a proximate source for such a wide range of attributions”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chronological organization by dynasties was Fei's own innovation.

    “nor, since chronological organization by dynasties was Fei's own innovation, for the presence of similarly clumsy batch-processing, and consequent redundancy, in the lists of anonymous texts for the Eastern Han, Eastern Jin, and Western Jin periods .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The CSZJJ faithfully preserves Sengyou's catalogue entries, including its anonymous list and its ascriptions.

    “In each case, the CSZJJ contains at least two entries: 1) an entry among the present list of anonymous texts in fascicle 4; 2) a separate entry (outside fascicle 4) giving an ascription for an identical title, or a title identified as pertaining to the same text .”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Nie Daozhen range contains 66 positions, not 65

    Minor

    Counting both endpoints, positions 63 through 128 comprise 66 texts, not the stated 65.

  • Both counts for the Dharmarakṣa cluster are one too low

    Minor

    The stated ranges contain 21 LDSBJ positions (143-163) and 50 CSZJJ positions (525-574), not 20 and 49 respectively.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Stefano Zacchetti, "Defining An Shigao's 安世高 Translation Corpus: The State of the Art in Relevant Research," in Xiyu lishi yuyan yanjiu jikan 西域歷史語言研究集刊 / Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions no . 3, ed . Shen Weirong 沈衛榮 (Beijing: Science Press, 2010), 249-70 .
  2. Okabe Kazuo 岡部和雄, "Jiku Hōgo no yakkyō ni tsuite" 竺法護の訳経について, IBK 11 .1 (1963): 148-49 .
  3. Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫, "Nehan gyō shōhon no hon'yakusha" 涅槃経小本の翻訳者, IBK 25 .1 (1976): 245 .
  4. Robert E . Buswell, Jr . (Honolulu: Univ . of Hawai'i Press, 1990), 75-118 .
  5. Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元, "Kan'yaku Chū agon to Zōichi agon to no yakushutsu ni tsuite" 漢譯『中阿 含』と『増一阿含』との譯出について, Ōkurayama gakuin kiyō 大倉山学院紀要 2 (1956): 41-90 (L); idem, "Chū agon kyō kaidai" 中阿含経解題, Kokuyaku issaikyō 国訳一切経, Agon bu 阿含部 6 (rev . ed ., 1969), 403-11;
  6. idem, "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō" 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』, Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教 研究 18 (1989): 1-42 (L), Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing" 漢譯《中阿含經》 與《増一阿含經》, in Mizuno Kōgen, Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji, vol . 1 佛教文獻研 究：水野弘元著作選集 (一), tr . Xu Yangzhu 許洋主 (Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003), 509-79 .
  7. Michael Radich, "External Evidence Relating to Works Ascribed to Paramārtha, with a Focus on Traditional Chinese Catalogues," in Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha], ed . Funayama Tōru 船山徹 (Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo /Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto Univ ., 2012), esp . 93-94; idem, "Tibetan Evidence for the Sources of Chapters of the Synoptic Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra T664 Ascribed to Paramārtha," Buddhist Studies Review 32 .2 (2015): 263-64 and esp . n . 57 .
  8. Naitō Ryūo 内藤龍雄, "Dai hōben Butsu hō'on kyō ni tsuite" 大方便佛報恩經について, IBK 3 .2 (1955): 313-15;
  9. Funayama Tōru 船山徹, Butten wa dō Kan'yaku sareta no ka: Sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はど う漢訳されたのか：スートラが経典になるとき (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013), 138-39; idem, "Da fangbian Fo bao'en jing bianzuan suoyinyong di Hanyi jingdian 《大方便佛報恩經》編纂所引用的漢譯經典," tr . Wang Zhaoguo 王招國, Fojiao wenxian yanjiu 佛教文獻研究 2 (2016): 175-202 .
  10. Palumbo has argued that T188 probably predates T185, and is therefore early; Antonello Palumbo, "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, ed .
  11. Giovanni Verardi and Silvio Vita (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2003), 205-7 . See also Matsuda Yūko 松田裕子, "Chinese Versions of the Buddha's Biography," IBK 37 .1 (1988): 24-33 .
  12. Two very similar titles, 阿彌陀佛偈經 and 後出阿彌陀佛偈經, are listed among Han anonymous texts in the LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 55b24-25 . Both are listed again as anonymous in fascicle 13, 113b7-8 . It is likely that T373 was composed in China . See Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信, "Kōshutsu Amida Butsu ge ni tsuite" 後出阿 彌陀佛偈について, Jōdoshūgaku kenkyū 浄土宗学研究 32 (2005): 50-51; idem, "Kōshutsu Amida-Butsu ge to sono yōto" 『後出阿弥陀仏偈』とその用途, Bukkyō daigaku sōgō kenkyūjo kiyō bessatsu "Jōdokyō tenseki no kenkyū" 仏教大学総合研究所紀要別冊「浄土教典籍の研究」 1 (2006): 11-29; Nattier, Guide, 118 nn . 20, 21 . 75 . See n . 92 .
  13. See Wu Juan, "From Perdition to Awakening: A Study of Legends of the Salvation of the Patricide Ajātaśatru in Indian Buddhism" (PhD dissertation, Cardiff Univ ., 2012), 38-39, 157 .
  14. Hung has shown that T611 is largely identical with T732 . Hung argues, implausibly, that T732 and T611 are by An Shigao, on the basis of "stylistic" considerations . However, the phrases he identifies are often too long to count as stylistic markers, and he pays no attention to context . It can in fact be shown that some passages also have extended parallels in An Shigao's T602 and Kang Senghui's 康僧會 T152(76) . See Hung Hunglung 果暉法 師, "Continued Study of An Shigao's Works: The Terminology of the Mayi jing T732 and the Faguan jing T611," IBK 55 .3 (2007): 122-27(L) .
  15. Robert E . Buswell, Jr . (Honolulu: Univ . of Hawai'i Press, 1990), 83 .
  16. Carol Altman Bromberg, Timothy J . Lenz, and Jason Neelis; Bulletin of the Asian Institute, New Series 23 (2009): 125 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Radich, M.
Corresponding author
Radich, Michael
ORCID
Radich, Michael
Venue
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Publisher
American Oriental Society
Published
2021-09-19
Volume
139
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0003-0279 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-2289
DOI
10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.4.0819
OpenAlex
W2995263412
Semantic Scholar
a147eed43b7940cc2d82bdffeac5f75471c48a9d
Cited by
2
References
6
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of the American Oriental Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Classical Studies and Philology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
Keywords
Buddhist scriptures, anonymous texts, textual transmission, authorship attribution, textual criticism

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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