“Buddhism and the Creation of Canons” Lewis Lancaster

The issue of canonicity within Buddhism is a complex one, since there are several
recognized canons based on language and doctrine. In South and Southeast Asia, the
Theravada canon in what is now called the Pali language is accepted and preserved in a
number of national scripts. In East Asia, the Chinese Buddhist canon is used in one of its
several configurations by all groups. And finally among the Central Asian communities, we
find the various editions of the Tibetan language canon, made up for the main of translations
from Sanskrit with a few texts that were taken from the Chinese. Along side this Tibetan
canon, is the scripture in Mongolian translations made from the Tibetan. Later, the
Manchu people also constructed a canon copied from the Chinese one. India and Nepal still
preserve some copies of Sanskrit Buddhist texts, but no complete copy of a canon can be
found among these fragmentary palm leaf and paper copies. Each canon has its own history
and development and each deserves more attention as an integral part of the research in this
field. It may be that a study of the Chinese Buddhist canon is somewhat premature, since
so many problems remain unsolved with regard to the various canons that make up the
totality of Buddhist literature and scripture. But the Chinese created their own form of the
canon, often with limited knowledge of the history or origins of the texts being included in it.
The story that follows is not intended to be a definitive study of Buddhist scripture, it is
focused on the situation which existed in China. It was the Chinese Buddhist community that
over the years designated a particular sets of texts as official and arranged them and
disseminated them by techniques and scribal patterns which were peculiar to China.

When the first translations of Buddhist texts were made into Chinese in the second century,
the teachings of the faith had been a part of Indian culture for some centuries. The
transmission of these teachings through Central Asia into China was one of the remarkable
moments in the spread of culture from one society to another. The earliest references to the
teachings in India appear in inscriptions at sites such as Sanci, Karli, Bharhut, and there we
have the picture of an oral tradition being carried on by monks who were called bhanaka or
reciters. By the second century B.C.E. Brahmi inscriptions carry the term tripitika implying
that the Buddhist writings had been sorted into three types with teachers who were
specialized in the three. At this early stage it is probably incorrect to assume that the word
tripitaka meant the Buddhist canon, since it was but one of a group of schemes that classified
texts according to their characteristics. Having the classifications did not mean that these
were closed categories,since new materials could and were added when known and available.
On the other hand, the recognized texts in Indian Buddhism were not free from judgment
regarding the authenticity and nature of the teachings contained in them. We hear in words
attributed to the Buddha himself the idea that even though questionable, new texts might be
adopted as authentic, while the older ones, closer to the original message of the Buddha
could sink into oblivion:

1
 "The sutras promulgated by the Tathagata, which are profound in meaning,
supramundane, and which teach emptiness, will not be listened to with faith, no one
will lend an ear, nor recognize them as true- - but the sutras composed by poets, which
are poetic, artistic in syllables and phonemes, exoteric, promulgated by the disciples,
will be believed- - thus sutras in the first category will disappear."

The Dipavamsa speaks of those who introduced changes and thus make the original text
no longer valid. During the time of Asoka, the records claim that Mahadeva tried to get the
writings of the Mahayana included in the list of accepted scripture. Indian Buddhist had the
fear that newly composed texts or textual corruption would make it more difficult to
determine the true teachings. Thus, when we speak of the importance of pseudographs in
China and the problems presented by those early Buddhist texts composed within China and
constituting new cultural patterns for the religion's literature, it should not be thought that the
problem of canonicity and recently composed texts was absent in India. When the Chinese
first came into contact with Buddhist texts either in the original Indic form or in the
translations, it would have been impossible for them to determine the canonicity of those
materials. There was no list of texts, universally recognized by the arriving missionary
monks, that could be used by the early Chinese Buddhist community as a formal canon.
While the Indian Buddhist writings were classified under the three headings of Sutra, Vinaya
and Abhidharma, there was no closure in any of the categories as far as the Chinese were
concerned. Every year brought new and unheard of texts from the Western regions and who
was to say which were authentic and which suspect. While tradition holds that the first
Buddhist Council was called soon after the Nirvana of the Buddha for the express purpose of
determining the canon, no such urkanon was provided to the Chinese. Whatever the form of
the teachings that might have been presented at the Council, it is generally accepted that they
were transmitted orally and the accounts of the meeting make no mention of any scribes
writing down the texts.

India also had controversy over the contents of the three categories. For example, under the Sutra
classification, a fifth division had to be added, beyond the well known four agamas. This fifth was a
miscellaneous collection of texts which did not fall easily into any of the arrangements of the first
four categories. There has always remained a question about whether this fifth ksudraka section
belonged to the tripitaka. During the fourth century, the Chinese had available in the capital a text
which defined the canon as the tripitaka plus the ksudraka. This meant that for some Buddhists the
ksudraka texts did not belong to the Sutra part of the tripitaka but constituted an entirely new type of
scripture. This fourth century document, which so defined the canon, also provides an explanation
for the appearance of new material, by saying that the teachings of Buddhism are not only those of
the Buddha but are also the words of the Arhats, gods and other divine beings. While the Sutra
category may be preserved as referring only to the words of the Buddha, clearly other beings have
uttered words that are worthy of preservation and study. This same idea of a variety of teachers is
seen in the Fen pieh kung te lun where the ksudraka is said to be the words of the Buddha, disciples
and the gods. Etienne Lamotte makes the point that the schools of Buddhism based on Sanskrit texts,
could give the miscellaneous texts a place in the categories of scripture, but they were not able to
achieve a concensus among themselves over the exact texts to be included. It was the Theravada
tradition among the Sinhalese that first gave a standard closed list for the miscellaneous category of
texts. Since the Chinese received only the Sanskrit based texts and not the tradition of the Theravada,
they were faced with the problem of having no clear picture of the number of acceptable titles for this
part of the canon.

2
3
 Even though the agama category was established in the Indian schools, early Chinese
translators received copies of the four divisions of the texts from different schools, which
purported to be the actual words of the Buddha. Thus we find in the Chinese translations that
the texts of the Madhyamagama and the Samyuktagama belonged to the Sarvastivadin school,
while the Dirghamagama was part of the texts from the Dharmguptaka school and the
Ekottarakagama is now considered to have come from the Mahasanghikas. This heterogenious
mix of basic texts such as the agamas, coming from a variety of Indian schools is an example of
the way in which the Chinese received the texts of Buddhism. There was no one school, no
systematic transmission of a canonic list. No one Indian school can be identified as the primary
source for canonic materials in the Chinese translation bureaus and no one list of texts,belonging
to some Indian tradition where consensus had been achieve about the canon, provided the model
for the organization and content of the Chinese Buddhist canon.

The Vinaya classification, relating to the rules of conduct, was as ill defined for the Chinese
as the Sutra one. A variety of Sanskrit based schools were represented by the manuals of conduct
that came into China. There were the Vinayas of the Sarvastivadins, Dharmaguptas,
Mahasamghika, Mahisasakas and Mulasarvastivadins. By the fifth century, the Chinese monks
and scholars were aware of these varied descriptions of the correct rules of conduct thought to
have been passed down from the Buddha. Having before them an array of choices, the Chinese
had to make a decision about the nature of these texts and they did this in a typical fashion for
their own culture. Upagupta was held to be the disciple of the Buddha who transmitted the rules
of conduct and thus the autograph for the Vinaya would be his words or teachings. Since there
were five major Vinayas before them for consideration, the monks and nuns of China
determined that after Upagupta's death the lineage of transmission of the vinaya had passed to
five of his disciples. The result of these lineages was, naturally enough, different interpretations.
While there might be five interpretations, there could be no doubt in the minds of the Chinese
Buddhist monastic dwellers that there had once been a single Vinaya, which was being
transmitted through five lineages. During the seventh century, Tao-hsuan founded a school for
the study of the Vinaya and he used the Dharmagupta version that had been translated in the
early fifth century by Buddhayasas and Cho Fo-nien. This Vinaya School was a minor part of
the Buddhist scholastic community and its choice of one text from an Indian school did not mean
that all other vinaya codes were removed from the canon. All of the available Vinaya texts were
kept and given equal treatment. The building of the Chinese Buddhist canon had less to do with
rejecting texts than it did with developing a rationale for inclusion.

The Abhidharma, the "special" teaching made up of treatises, questions and answers and
numerical listings was the third category to be considered by the Chinese as they tried to
construct the canon. Even in this scholastic material, they found that there was no universal
acceptance of it in India, either regarding its structure or importance. Some schools rejected the
Abhidharma altogether, most notably the Sautrantikas, and some only made use of one part of it,
as in the case of the Mahasamghikas. This category and its importance to the Chinese,
regardless of how Indian schools considered such texts, was given consideration because of the
esteem the translator/missionary monks were given in China. The fact that Kumarajiva, most
famous of all the holy men who came from the Western regions, made a translation of an

4
Abhidharma text assured such material an honored place in the Chinese Buddhist canon.

The greatest challenge of all came when the Chinese had to consider the place of the
Mahayana texts as opposed to those of the Sanskrit based schools which were negatively called
"hinayana" (lower) teachings. Since the Mahayana texts taught that they were superior to these
other Buddhist teachings, the problem of canonicity became ever more pressing in East Asia.
Did the words of the Buddha appear in both divisions and if so how could one be judged
superior to the other? One of the great figures in this appraisal of the place of conflicting
teachings within the canonic literature was Chih I and his approach to the problem was to be
important for the classifications and arrangements of the canon long after his death in 597. Chih
I and others held that the teachings of the Buddha had occured over some fifty years of his
lifetime and should thus be arranged in chronological order. There were times when the Buddha
in his compassion taught people who had little background or understanding and after giving
them the initial "hinayana" teaching, he later took them into the more advanced studies of
Mahayana. Since the Chinese came to consider the Mahayana teachings as the most superior, it
is conceivable that they could have constructed a canon made up only of the texts from this
school. Instead under the leadership of those who held that all the Sutras, whether of the
superior or lower rank in terms of doctrine, belonged to the Buddha, the Chinese put together
their Buddhist canon with both types of texts included in it. While various schools in India
struggled to produce some list of accepted writings and to separate themselves from schools that
had opted for other choices, there was no clear pattern for the Chinese to inherit. Receiving texts
from every corner of the Buddhist sphere, the Chinese translated them all and from these
translations created a canon, unlike anything which had ever existed in India.

Without guidance, since there was so much conflicting information coming from India and
Central Asia regarding the teachings, the Chinese turned to their own traditions for the method
of creating and defining the limits of authentic Buddhist writings. They had before them a
model for canonicity which was universal for their culture and had a well established structure
for transmission and standardization. The model was the statecraft texts which were used for the
examination system throughout the land. These texts were called ching, often translated as
"classic." The earliest canon of these so called Confucian texts was composed of the five ching.
Standard readings of these ching existed in manuscript copies wherever the examinations were
used for the selection of government officials. Answers had to be based on some standard so
that judgement of the examination could be made wherever it was administered. Because of the
importance of maintaining a standard reading for the ching, the court established the official
copy in the capital and had it engraved on stone stelae. There are references to scandals that
brought into question the authenticity of the standard texts preserved either on bamboo slips or
on silk scrolls. Some, accused scribes of changing those manuscripts so that errors which
occured in the answers of favored individuals taking the civil examination would appear to be
correct. One solution to the problem of having the standard text in manuscript on surfaces that
could be erased or changed, was to engrave the standard readings on stones. Once incised, these
stones could hardly be changed, and could be a common source for the determination of the
correct form of the texts. Only scribes of the highest position were allowed to enter the area of
the stelae and make manuscript copies directly from the stones. These precious copies from the

5
court scribes were taken to provincial copy centers where large numbers of manuscripts were
prepared and distributed. It was this system of maintaining a standard and having highly trained
scribes produce official copies of it, that was to become the model for the Buddhists.
At the end of the 5th century, the growing corpus of translations of Buddhist texts from
Sanskrit and Prakrit into Chinese had reached sizable proportions. It was at this point that the
collected translations came to be considered as an entity and were called "All the ching",( i
ch'ieh ching). One extant example, from Dunhuang, of a portion of this set of the i ch'ieh ching
has the date of 479, along with the biography of the official who had paid to have ten complete
sets made of the collection. Thus, as early as the 5th century, the set of translations known under
the title "All of the Ching", was the object of a copying project at Dunhuang. This Buddhist
center, a long distance from the capital, was but one of many provincial copying centers, but the
fact that such copying was being done provides us with the information that the Buddhist canon
was being recopied in exactly the fashion that the copies of the ching of the statecraft canon
were produced and disseminated. When we compare the Buddhist developments regarding
copying with that of the Taoists, we note that similar methods were employed by both religions.
The manuscript tradition of Taoism continued for a longer period than for Buddhism. While the
Buddhist canon was being printed in the 10th century, it was not until 1119 that the Taoist Sung
canon was carved on printing blocks. The pattern of distribution of the Taoist canon while
similar in kind to that of Buddhism was done at a much later date. For example, while we find
examples of the official copying of the I ch'ieh ching as early as 479, the Taoist were still calling
for some pattern of copying as late as 1064, when Ch'iu Cheng-tsung and Teng Tzu-ho
complained:

"The books of Buddhism are found in every prefecture and county, but what we Taoists have
recorded is scattered and incomplete. We wish to go to the capital and obtain an official
copy in order to transmit it widely." (Van der Loon 96)

Van der Loon points out that as early as the T'ang, specifically in the words attributed to
Hsuan-tung in 749, we have an idea of copying which was both a reflection of the statecraft
procedure as well as the Buddhist approach,

"Now, we are issuing from the palace the Complete Taoist Scriptures. Let the Institutte of
Taoist Studies prepare manuscripts forthwith and distribute them to the inspecting
commissioners of the circuits, so that the prefectures within their jurisdiction can make their
own copies. The official set shall then remain in one large temple in theprefecture which is
the seat of the commissioner, for regular recitation."

The size of the set of Chinese Buddhist texts gives us some idea of the funding necessary to
make copies. When Tao-an made a catalogue of all the Buddhist manuscripts available to him at
the end of the fourth century, he could account for 1464 scrolls. His contemporary, Kumarajiva,
added to that total 427 new scrolls from his translation effort. The Wei shu lists 1919 scrolls and
the now missing catalogue of Li Kuo apparently had 2053 in its listings. From these records, we
can surmise that by the end of the Northern Wei, the number of Buddhist texts in Chinese
numbered more than 400 contained on some 2000 scrolls. Later, the size of the i ch'ieh ching

6
would continue to expand. After the account of the Northern Wei set appeared in the Sui shu,
the famed translator Hsuan-tsang returned from India with a sizable number of Sanskrit
manuscripts collected during his stay in the homeland of the Buddha. During the remainder of
his life he dedicated himself to the translation of these documents and today we have more than
1000 scrolls attributed to him, including the 600 scrolls of the Prajnaparamita. By the time of
the Sung dynasty the canon would grow to more than 6000 scrolls or 90,000 sheets of paper.

When the Chinese Buddhists referred to their scripture as "All of the ching", the question
arises as to how they defined that term which had been for so long applied only to the classics of
the ancient sages of China. When we see in the fifth century colophon the expression "All of
the ching", it is tempting to translate the word ching as the equivalent for the Sanskrit word
"sutra". However, if we take note of the list of texts included among the Buddhist ching, it is
obvious that this category included all of the translations whether Sutra, Vinaya or Abhidharma.
As mentioned above, the model for the Chinese canonicity was not that of India, it was their own
secular approach. Just as ching was a designation for the texts which contained the teachings of
the ancient sages of China, so the early Buddhists took the term to mean the teachings of the
ancients of India, especially Buddha. They did not assume that all ching were the words of the
Buddha since texts attributed to Nagarjuna and other great masters were given the same
designation. While the Chinese do use the word ching where the Sanskrit term "sutra" appears,
the use of the term in the catalogues and in the name for the canon of Buddhism retains its
Chinese meaning. We can say that ching means a recognized book, an authentic expression of a
sage, a text worthy of preservation and coping. Since ching referred only to the writings which
reproduced the ancient teachings, it was not a term that could be applied to a newly written work
by a contemporary author. But without the term ching being used in the title, a work was not a
recognized Buddhist text and could not be included in the canon. It was this restriction on the
use of the word ching that resulted in the much discussed pseudographs, writings that purported
to be translations from Sanskrit but which were clearly the product of the Chinese environment.
The use of ching for official books or scripture was not limited to the Confucian or Buddhist
traditions; later the Taoists, Christians and Manichaens also used the term to provide legitimacy
to their scriptures.

The prevalence of the word ching for the Buddhist texts can be seen when we look at the
catalogues that appeared in the sixth and seventh centuries. The oldest one by Seng-yu does not
use the term ching in the title but rather refers to the san tsang, the tripitaka. We might translate
his title of Chu san tsang chi chi as "A Compilation of the Records regarding the Tripitaka
appearing (in Chinese translations)." In his use of the term chu, it would seem that he is
referring to the Sanskrit texts which have "come out" or "appeared" in Chinese; the emphasis
being on the Indic nature of the texts rather than the translation. After Seng-yu's time the
cataloguers changed the way in which they referred to the canon and put the focus on the
translations. Fa-ching in 594 calls his work "A Catalogue of the Many ching"; Tao-shih in 659
uses the title "A Compilation of a Summary of all the ching." Ching-mai called his work "A
History of the Publication of the Translated ching in Ancient and Contemporary times." In this
latter title, we note that Ching-mai understands ching to be a word for the Chinese translations
made of the Indic texts. Hsuan-ying in his great study of the vocabulary of the Chinese Buddhist

7
canon, used the title "Meanings and Pronunciations (of the vocabulary) of All the ching." By the
time of Chih-sheng in 730, the catalogue was seen as a much larger study and he gave the title
"A Record of Buddhism in the K'ai Yuan Era." For Chih-sheng the catalogue had evolved into a
historical document.

To this point, we have dealt only with the first designation of the canonic list under its
identification as "all the ching". Later, the name for the canon was changed to the ta tsang ching
(literally "the great collection of ching). Here again we are faced with the problem of the word
ching. Since the term ta tsang ching is used, even today, for the entire set of Buddhist texts,
whether translated from Sanskrit or written in China and East Asia, we know that the word
ching in that compound cannot mean "sutra" and that the translation used by some scholars "the
great collection of sutras" is incorrect. Even the term tsang raises questions. What does it really
mean? One solution is to turn to the Sanskrit and to India for the answer, since tsang is the
equivalent for the word pitaka, a "basket", a "storehouse" hence perhaps a "collection". It might
be argued that the term ta tsang is a shorten form of the Sanskrit maha(tri)pitaka, but there is
little force in an argument that claims abbreviation when only one character is omitted. A
review of the history of this phrase as it applies to the canon can perhaps give us some new
insights about the meaning of the words that have come to mean the Buddhist canon for all East
Asians. Some have suggested that the two terms i ch'ieh ching and ta tsang ching were used in
different regions of China as the official names for the canon.

The i ch'ieh ching was, according to this school of thought, the expression used in the south
while ta tsang ching belonged to the north. A close reading of the literature suggests that the use
of the two terms was not geographical but rather reflects chronological usage. The first term for
the Buddhist canon was i ch'ieh ching and this lasted until the Northern Sung dynasty when the
new expression ta tsang ching was first introduced. Against the chronological arrangement
which places the date of this term in the tenth century, there is the argument that we find the
term ta tsang ching in one of the Sui catalogues as it now appears in our printed editions. The
occurance of this phrase in a document dating from the Sui time is a puzzle. Ta tsang ching as a
compound was never used in the Sui shu. In that official history and in all the Tang official
records, we find only the title i ch'ieh ching. Additional evidence of the exclusive use of i ch'ieh
ching in East Asia prior to the Northern Sung introduction of the new expression ta tsang ching,
can be found in the fact that the Japanese references from the seventh to the tenth centuries all
follow the Tang precedent and never refer to the ta tsang ching. This raises doubts about the
appearance of the term ta tsang ching in the Sui catalogue and leaves us with the possible
explanation that the single example is a later scribal change and is not the first use of this name
for the canon. With this in mind, the search for the meaning of the words ta tsang ching takes us
to the Sung court which made use of the term. There are references which point to an earlier
Tang dynasty use of the expression. When the court ordered block prints to be made of the
canon in the tenth century, the historical account says the emperor wanted the ta tsang ching to
be copied, he did not say the i ch'ieh ching.

In the Sung historical documents, the term ta tsang appears by itself. We are told that the
officials or the king gave orders for the construction of a ta tsang on the grounds of the

8
monasteries. It may be assumed that this meant the construction of a library building, a structure
which was specifically commissioned to hold the official ching or books. Given this information
we should then translate the term Ta tsang ching as "The ching of the Library", that is the ching
that have been officially placed in the library as a recognition of their worth or their canonicity.
It should be noted that the use of tsang as a building appears in the Taoist tradition where the
name for the library building or structure was Tao tsang or tsang tien.

The appearance of a Buddhist library or a recognized set of ching outside of the imperial
context was an event of no small significance. Given this approval by the northern dynasties to
have ching and to collect these ching in buildings built for the purpose of housing them, the
Buddhists began to occupy an important place in the literary culture of China. The formation of
the canon was in one sense the result of the way in which libraries were created, not just housing
for books but recognition of the nature of those books. The only official libraries permitted
prior to the Buddhist ones was that of the imperial household. It was called bishu. This term in
present parlance in China and Japan has the meaning of a secretary who has access to secret and
important documents. While bishu has the implication of a "secret document", at the same time it
meant "book." The hostility of the Chin emperor toward scholars, and private collections of
books may not be an exact description of the events of the pre Buddhist era, but the story
certainly tells us that books and the ownership of books was a privilege that the court did not
easily share with others in the society. While the emperor is said to have burned books in
private collections and even killed the scholars who had gathered the documents, he maintained
his own library in the palace which contained the books necessary for state craft. The Chin court
may well have been faced with a new feature in Chinese life, that is the situation where books
and copies of the ancient ching were kept as private books. With the advent of more widespread
dissemination of these books, scholars could question the actions of the court by giving direct
quotes from the sages. One way to control these criticisms of the interpretation of the court was
to remove copies of privately held books, while still retaining copies in the imperial library. In
the years that followed this attempt to keep tight control over the written word, technology and
learning did continue to develop. In 136 B.C.E. there was report of the "recovery" of classical
texts and by 53 B.C.E., the beginning of systematic study of them. By the end of the Han
dynasty, silk scrolls had replaced the earlier bamboo slips and the invention of paper in the
second century opened the way for the expansion of manuscript copying. Such was the growth
of this enterprise that in the Han shu, an entire section was given to the description of literature
and the holdings of the royal house.

In the second and third centuries, when Buddhism was beginning to produce ching based on
the teachings of the Indian sages, upheavals in China proved to be destructive to the archival
collections of the court. In the Later Han when the capital was returned to Loyang, there were
some 2000 carts of books and papers to be moved, but in 190 C.E. riots broke out and the
archives were badly damaged by people who took the silk scrolls for use as cloth. When the
scrolls of the court were once again on the road as the capital was shifted to Ch'ang-an, they
could be contained in seventy carts and at least half of these loads were destroyed in the ensuing
events. Later records would express dismay over the loss which this massive destruction of
books brought about. One record bemoans the fact that by 240 C.E. only ten scribes were left

9
who could compose texts among all of the officials.

The creation of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts at a time when scribal authority and
expertise had reached a low ebb, provided China with a new type of literature and scholars who
had control over material which had no counterpart in the history of the nation. The monasteries
treasured their scriptural texts produced in manuscript form and followed the library model of
the emperor. A special building was constructed to house this growing corpus of manuscripts.
More complete and later histories of the Tang dynasty provide the information that the library in
the palace grounds was the place where ministers could come to confer with the Emperor on
matters of state. Some royal family members maintained a private library apart from the one in
the central court, for example in the case of the crown prince who had his own collection of
books. New books were presented to the central imperial library, there to be recognized,
sometimes copied and recorded in the histories. The act of the presentation of a work to the
library was tantamount to official recognition. When the Buddhists started to translate and write
their own texts and were given permission to collect and store these volumes in their
monasteries, they followed the secular idea that "entering" the library was a crucial step in the
authorship or translation process. Hsuan-tsang's translation efforts followed this pattern.
Returning from India with a large number of Sanskrit texts, he set up a bureau of scholar monks
who made Chinese versions of these scriptures. In the colophons, we are told that the work was
done at the behest of the Emperor, and when the work was completed, a copy, perhaps the
original, was presented to the central library of the court. The copy at the palace library became
the standard text and scribes of the highest attainment were allowed to go to the palace and make
copies which were sent out to the various monasteries and copy centers around the nation. That
is the background for the Dunhuang texts which have in their colophons the information that
they were copied at the capital before being sent to the center in Western China.

In the Northern Sung account of ancient Patriarchs, there is the story of the invention of the
revolving book case in the 6th century. Fu-hi (?) is said to have designed a large multi sided
shelving, large enough to contain all of the ching. This large revolving structure was placed
inside a building in the monastic grounds and in the same principle as the prayer wheel of Tibet,
causing the shelves to move produced as much merit as the reading of the entire canon. This
practice of achieving merit by having a movable canon was also part of the Taoist tradition.
"Turning the repository (chuang tsang) still survives today in a ritual to deliver from the Lake of
Blood the souls of those who have died from unnatural causes." By putting the Buddhist canon
in its own structure and providing great merit to lay people who could visit those housed books,
even though they did not read them or make use of the content, the library became an important
part of the religious practice. In other words, the creation of the library, the library structure, the
presentation of new works to the collection, the establishment of a standard copy in the capital
city, distribution of copies made by highly trained and selected scribes, are all procedures
followed by the Buddhists which had long been used by the Chinese court for the state classics.
The veneration of these particular texts and the ritual use of them was a particular development
within the Buddhist tradition.
Another force in the construction of the Chinese Buddhist canon were those scholars who
began to make lists of ching. Every canon is, in the final analysis, a list of accepted texts or

10
teachings in whatever form they occur. The idea of making lists of scriptural manuscripts as a
crucial exercise in the spread and knowledge of Buddhism was not something that the Indian and
Central Asian missionaries brought with them. To be sure, there were the classification schemes
of the teachings in India and lists of types of texts, but we have yet to discover documents which
record only the titles and relevant information about them. Here too, the Buddhists in China
found a model within the secular system. The royal libraries maintained shelf lists for the titles
included in them and when dynastic histories were written in later years, these documents were
found in the archives and were given a specific place in the accounts of the royal household.
Having a library and in one sense a catalogue of the collection was a tradition firmly in place
when Buddhism came to China. As the new religion created its own texts and were allowed to
have monastic libraries, it was natural that some form of cataloging would occur.

The role of the catalogue and of bibliographical practices had been important in China
before the arrival of Buddhism. Tradition says that in 6 B.C.E. Liu Hsin compiled the Ch'i lueh,
a catalogue of the library of the court. Some parts of this pioneering work have been preserved
in the Han shu. This pattern of recording the titles in the royal collection, classifying them in
seven categories was continued in some degree by all subsequent catalogues, be they secular or
religious. Many of these compilations of the holdings of the libraries of the governments are lost
and we can only reconstruct them in part from the dynastic histories and later catalogues. The
sixth century work of Juan Hsiao-hsu, now lost, was influential in the structure of the
bibliographical section of the Sui shu. Later in the Sung, the activity continued with such works
as Cheng Ch'iao's Ch'un shu hui chi. Just as we have seen the Buddhist following the secular
practices with regard to names and to the idea of canonicity, so too the bibliographical enterprise
that produced catalogues, was firmed based on imperial patterns of record keeping with regard to
titles and other information about the books housed in the imperial libraries.

Buddhist books were not overlooked by the compilers of the histories. One section of the
dynastic accounts from the Sui dynasty onward, was reserved for the listing of the titles of
Buddhist ching that were held in the palace library. The Buddhist monks had made their own
lists as early as the last decade of the 4th century. Our knowledge of the titles, length, and
number of scrolls of Buddhist manuscripts in China comes to us from these two sources, the
dynastic histories and the Buddhist catalogues. Just as the archival studies made by those who
wrote the secular histories involved all types of information regarding events, dates, names,
places and source references, so too the Buddhist catalogues contained more than just the list of
titles. These compilations held much of the recorded data regarding the history of the
introduction and spread of Buddhism in China. Titles, names of translators, biographical
sketches of authors and translators, year of translation, size of the manuscript, place of
translation were all put together in the creation of the catalogues. These are usually the earliest
sources for information about Chinese Buddhism. The fact that catalogues were primarily
historical documents is another way in which the Chinese Buddhist canonic structure can be
traced within secular life of China.

Since we have both Buddhist catalogues of the texts and the dynastic reports of those
manuscripts housed in the imperial library, it is possible for us to have independent witnesses

11
regarding the identification of Buddhist canonic works. One of the earliest dynastic records can
be found in the Sui shu, prepared during the early years of the T'ang dynasty by those who used
the documents of the past Sui dynasty. In the Sui shu we can find some titles and information
that are not found in extant Buddhist catalogues. From the Sui shu comes evidence that there
were a variety of listings of the Buddhist ching being circulated. This is borne out by the section
at the end of the Zhou chuan which lists Buddhist catalogues, many of them no longer in
existence. Since many of the notations in the Sui shu do not accord with those found in the
extant group of catalogues, we can see that there is value in comparing the dynastic histories
with these catalogues. It is probable that some of the data contained in those lost catalogues
regarding titles and length of manuscripts, is only available in the Sui shu. While dynastic
histories are notorious for self serving documents of the court under which they were written,
Buddhist study of the development of the canon cannot overlook the potential of this type of
data as one of the oldest accounts of the Buddhist ching which were available and considered to
be of importance.

The first collection of Buddhist texts to be collected and housed apart from the other books in
the palace library seems to have been during the time of Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty.
According to the Sui shu his collection amounted to more than 5000 scrolls and he had a
catalogue made for this library in 518 by the scholar monk Pao-kan. Unfortunately, no copy of
that inventory survives. In 534, a second imperial collection of Buddhist books was catalogued,
this time under the patronage of Emperor Hsiao-wu of the Northern Wei dynasty. He had more
than 2000 scrolls in the palace library; his list of works has also disappeared.

The oldest extant catalogue is that of monk Seng-yu who made a list of Buddhist works as a
private endeavor. There is no statement that it was done under imperial order. Since he lived
during the time of Emperor Wu, we can assume that this Ch'u san tsang chi chi represented in
its listings many of the titles in the 518 imperial catalogue of Pao-kan. We know that palace
collections of Buddhist books continued to be of great importance and in the Ta-yeh period
(605-616) the Buddhist holdings of the library within the palace precincts were catalogued.

Even though our oldest records refer back to the 6th century imperial libraries, there is
evidence that the courts were involved in the process of housing, cataloguing and copying long
before that time. The catalogue effort of Tao-an at the end of the 4th century, the copying of the
i ch'ieh ching at Dunhuang in 479 are indications of the construction and recognition of the
Buddhist canon as a set at an earlier date than the Liang dynasty.

12
 The process of cataloging the Buddhist ching met with several problems. By the end of
the fourth century when Tao-an set about the task of making a list of titles of Buddhist texts
in Chinese, political divisions had made it difficult to communicate between regions. While it
is true that Tao-an was a traveller and had visited a number of monasteries, sometimes
crossing the political boundaries, his cataloging work was done at Hsiang-yang where he
lived for fifteen years. We can imagine that he had knowledge of texts in other locales and
knew of titles that were not found in the library at Hsiang-yang. This strategically important
city on the Han River in Northern Hupei remained a regional headquarters for many
centuries and because of its location had a flow of travellers from the Western regions,
making it a likely spot for the appearance of new Sanskrit texts coming into China and for
Chinese translations that were being copied and carried from place to place. Arthur Wright
indicates the importance of this center during the Sui when he identifies it as a city situated
on "established land and water routes." Using the local collections and perhaps information
about scrolls in the more distant areas, Tao-an managed to put together a fairly
comprehensive list of texts. We now reconstruct the Tao-an version by using the, the Chu san
tsang chi chi.

The early cataloguers had several task before them, not the least being the necessity of
identifying whether there existed more than one translation of the same text. This was made
difficult by the fact that some translations became known by several different titles. Further
depth of cataloguing then required that the names of all translators be included wherever
possible as one more step toward definitive identification. Following this, was the notation
concerning the number of scrolls used in the translation.

The oldest catalogue the Chu tsang san chi chi of the sixth century divided the canon
into the Indian classification scheme with one additional unit added for the works of China.

I. Sutra
(a) Mahayana
(b) Hinayana
II. Vinaya
(a) Mahayana
(b) Hinayana
III. Abhidharma
(a) Mahayana
(b) Hinayana
IV. Miscellaneous
(a) Additional works originating in India
(b) Chinese work

The cataloguing of the canonic collections was a major undertaking since the size of the
corpus of texts was so large. Far larger than the state craft canon, the Chinese Buddhist canon
required years of effort for every cataloguer. No small part of the task was the attempt to
determine the content of each text, the judgment of whether it was worthy of being included
in the scriptural "library."

At the unification of China under the Sui dynasty, cataloguing of the Buddhist texts
increased under royal patronage. The Chung ching mu lu (Chúng kinh Mục Lục) was
compiled by Fa-ching and others during the years of K'ai Huang and was completed in the
summer of 594. The first emperor of the Sui Wen-ti had continued the practices of the Liang
and Northern Wei rulers and collected a set of Buddhist scrolls and commissioned scholar
monks to make a catalogue of them. Wen-ti's reign was marked by an attempt to collect and
salvage literary works that had been scattered and damaged during times of turmoil. Niu
Hung sent a memorial to the court arguing that there had been five times in the past when the
ching of the state craft tradition of Confucius had been endangered by events of history.
Each time the past rulers had attempted to reassemble the libraries and to use them as sources
for the essential learning necessary for the orderly running of the country. Niu brings to the
attention of the emperor that while many books had disappeared in the royal libraries, they
had survived in the private collections. In order to get copies of these ancient manuscripts,
the court offered to give every owner a roll of silk in exchange for the privilege of making a
copy of their old texts. This offer of a payment for allowing the government to copy texts,
resulted in the creation of forgeries. The most important case being that of the scholar Liu
Cho who made a hundred scrolls in order to collect the government grants.

While the work of Sui court to preserve and to disseminate the state craft texts was a
worthwhile endeavor and succeeded in many ways, there was a dark side to the story. The
court extended its power over books to include a proscription against texts that could be
considered as dangerous to the power of the emperor. At the very time when the Buddhist
books were being catalogued, there was an edict against individuals who had in their hands
so called "apocrypha and prognostic texts that had often be used to inspire rebellion"
(Wright: 124).

"As early as 583, Wen- ti felt obliged to execute an old friend and supporter who was
alleged to harbor imperial ambitions based on the prognostic texts and on the
predictions of physiognomist. Later Wen- ti was to proscribe certain Buddhist and
Taoist works as subversive. His whole reign was marked by suspicion and unrelenting
vigilance over the written word."

By the time of the compilation of the Chung ching mu lu in the Tang dynasty with
reference back to the collections of books made in the Sui, we note that a major category of
this catalogue is devoted to works which are questionable or considered to be pseudographs
and not to be given a full place in the canon. The question about legitimacy was as great for
the Buddhists as it was for Wen-ti and the court. This fear of the pollution of the canon by
false texts can be traced to similar attitudes among the Chinese secular tradition, yet another
example of how this factor continued to influence the formation and study of the Buddhist
scriptures. Some of these same issues arose with regard to Taoist texts and the official to the
court Fan Tsu-yu in 1091 could still say that "Taoist book, with the exception of Lao-tzu,
Chuang tzu and ieh tzu. are mostly false and unorthodox." Buddhist pseudographs were
constantly being identified and criticized by the cataloguers, a sure sign that the writing of
such material was going forward. When Tao an started his cataloguing in the fourth century,
there were twenty six texts that he considered problematic but by the eighth century the list
has grown to more than 400.

While there have been many catalogues of the Chinese Buddhist canon, perhaps none has
been as influential as the K'ai yuan shih chiao lu compiled in 730 by Chih-sheng during the
reign years of K'ai yuan. The organization of this catalogue was to become the model for the
printed editions of the canon. With the publication of the K'ai yuan shih chiao lu, a great age
of cataloguing came to an end. From the Tao-an work at the end of the 4th century, followed
by a period lasting until 730, one catalogue followed another as translations continued to be
made and the royal house gave it support to Buddhism. The list of extant catalogues of this
period include:

Ch'u san tsang chi chi 502- 557

Chung ching mu lu (594)
Li Tai san pao chi (597)
Chung ching mu lu (663- 665)
Ta t'ang nei tien lu (664)
Ku chin i ching t'u chi (664- 665)
Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu (695)
Hsu ku chin i ching t'u chi (730)
K'ai yuan shih chiao lu (730)

It is not until the 13th century that catalogues were once again being compiled:
N. 1612 (1286- 87)
N. 1611 (1306)
N. 1662 (1402- 1424)

In the process of constructing the canon, the cataloguers played a major role. By the 9th
century the list of the ching included in the manuscript canon was established and did not
change until the new translation period of the Northern Sung.

The first catalogue of the Chinese Buddhist materials to be translated into English was
done by Prof. Nanjio when he studied in Europe. While Nanjio used the catalogue of the
Ming Edition for his translation, the classification and arrangement of the texts hardly varies
from that of the K'ai yuan shih chiao lu. Nanjio's catalogue breaks the canon into four
sections: the tripitaka and the ksudraka. He calls the ksudraka another name using the
Sanskrit term samyukta-pitaka which is confusing since the term Samyukta rightly belongs
to the agama portion and is not appropriate for naming the miscellaneous portion of the
canon. The first division of Sutra is divided in the following manner:

SUTRA
I. Mahayana Sutra
(a) Prajnaparamita
(b) Ratnakuta
(c) Mahasannipata
(d) Avatamsaka
(e) Nirvana
(f) Additional translations of sutra listed in
the preceeding groups
(g) Miscellaneous sutra not included in any of
the above.

II. Hinayana Sutra

(a) Agama
(b) Miscellaneous sutra not included in the
above.
 III. Sutra translations made in Sung and Yuan dynasties

VINAYA
I. Mahayana
II. Hinayana

ABHIDHARMA
I. Mahayana
II. Hinayana
III. Abhidharma translations made in Sung and Yuan dynasties

KSUDRAKA
I. Miscellaneous works from Indian sources
II. Chinese Buddhist texts
III. Additional texts added from Southern Ming sources.

The Nanjio catalogue is difficult to use because of its outmoded romanization scheme but it
still preserves a great deal of information about the development of the canon and its
structure. When we look at the classification of the Ming text used by Nanjio, we see the old
arrangement of Mahayana sutras in the first section followed by the "hinayana" one. Since,
the cataloguers tried to make a division which could be somewhat applicable to the old
Indian notion of three divisions, each of the sections related to Sutra, Vinaya and Sastra (an
expanded concept of the Abhidharma category of the Indian tripitaka) were seen as being
either Mahayana or "hinayana". This sequence in the catalogues and in the printed editions
of the Chinese canon remained in force until the Tokyo Buddhist canon changed the system
for the first time. This Tokyo Edition was started in 1881, twelve hundred years after the
K'ai yuan lu.

In the Showa hobo (Vol 3: 74), Ou-yi chih-hsu, a Tendai priest changed the five major
classes of texts as outlined in the K'ai yuan lu. In his categories we find the texts listed in the
following order:

(1) Avatamsakasutra
(2) Fang- teng
(3) Prajnaparamitasutra

The Fang-teng divisions does not appear in the K'ai yuan lu. The Yuen tsang chih chin
classified all the sutras into five classes. In the description of the Tokyo canon compilation,
we read that it was divided into five major sections, with twenty-five subdivisions in accord
with the Yueh tsang chih chin. It was this Yueh tsang chih chin which first attempted to
change the arrangement of the K'ai yuan lu.

The Taisho Edition had an arrangement which was independent of either the Tokyo
Edition or that of the K'ai yuan lu. The Taisho editors choose to put the "Hinayana" sutras
first, dividing them into the Agama and the Avadana. The Mahayana sutras follow, and they
were also put into divisions: Prajnaparamita, Avatamsaka, Ratnakuta, Mahaparinirvana, and
Mahasamnipata, These six divisions of the sutras were followed by a section for
miscellaneous sutra translations. There was also a section for Tantra which includes a large
number of texts. The Vinaya and Sastra sections are not divided into Mahayana or
Hinayana". All commentarial literature was placed in this section. After the canonic
portions of the Taisho, we find from Vol. 56 onward, an appendix of collected works that
were excluded from the canons used by the editors. In addition, there are volumes which
deal with Buddhist iconography. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Taisho is there
is any explanation for the classification of texts. Even such detailed works as Bussho
kaisetsu jiten only gives the listing of the contents of the Taisho Edition but never discusses
the arrangement or its method. It may be said that the Taisho Edition is arranged
chronologically, that is that the Agamas are considered to be the oldest parts of the canon and
thus come first followed by the later Mahayana sutras. Thus, in one sense it might be said to
be an attempt to make a scientific arrangement of the canonic text complete independent of
any of the older traditional methods of arrangement. It is also an echo of the ancient attempt
of Chih I to classify the teachings of the Buddha, by establishing a chronological order
within his lifetime.

The content of the Chinese Buddhist canon is still in process of being established. With
each modern publication in Taiwan or China, texts not found in other editions are included.
Thus in one sense, we can say that the Chinese Buddhist canon is still "open." The long
history of defining the canon indicates the large number of problems that the Chinese faced
when they attempted to make translations of all the Buddhist teachings and to create a
standard list of these translations. The result of these centuries of work is the remarkable
collection of texts available today under the title of Ta tsang ching. The questions of how to
evaluate and arrange these thousands of texts remain and it is not possible to say that we have
finally arrived at a concensus on how to answer these many questions. As we begin to put the
Buddhist materials into electronic data bases, there is no limitation to the inclusion of texts.
It is probable that the electronic data bases will expand the canon beyond any of the current
editions in terms of size and types of materials included.

(大藏經目錄) Sách chuyên chia loại, sắp xếp tên các kinh, luật, luận và những tác phẩm chú
sớ trong Đại tạng kinh Hán văn trải qua các đời. Cũng gọi Chúng kinh mục lục, Nhất thiết
kinh mục lục, Tạng kinh mục lục, Kinh lục.
Ở Trung quốc, việc phiên dịch kinh điển từ đời Hậu Hán đến đời Nguyên, khoảng hơn một
nghìn năm, những kinh, luật, luận được dịch ra có tới mấy nghìn quyển. Thời kì đầu, các
kinh được dịch ra rất ít, lại tản mạn ở nhiều nơi, nên chưa có mục lục nhất định. Từ đời Tiền
Tần trở về sau, các kinh dần dần được sưu tập và biên soạn thành mục lục, sau lại lần lượt
được bổ sung thêm, nên có tới vài chục loại. Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ quyển 15 có ghi 24 bản
mục lục, nhưng đến đời Tùy, hầu hết những bản lục này đều đã thất lạc. Trong đó, có bộ
Tông lí chúng kinh mục lục (cũng gọi Thích đạo an lục) do ngài Đạo an biên tập vào thời
Đông Tấn mà Xuất tam tạng kí tập có thu chép những mục trọng yếu. Ngoài những bộ mục
lục kể trên, Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ quyển 15 còn nêu ra những bộ kinh lục của sáu tác giả,
nhưng hiện nay chỉ còn Xuất tam tạng kí tập và Đại tùy chúng kinh mục lục mà thôi.
Ngoài ra, Lương cao tăng truyện quyển 7 có nêu ra Kinh mục của ngài Đàm tông đời Lưu
Tống, Quảng hoằng minh tập quyển 3 có nêu Phật pháp lục 3 quyển của ông Nguyễn hiếu
tự đời Lương, nhưng các bộ Kinh lục này đều không còn. Do mục đích soạn thuật bất đồng,
nên nội dung kinh lục cũng có những sắc thái riêng, có loại theo các triều vua trước sau mà
ghi chép thời đại dịch kinh (mục lục đại lục), có loại chú trọng việc chia loại Đại thừa,
Tiểu thừa, kinh, luật, luận, đơn dịch, trùng dịch (Tiêu chuẩn nhập tạng lục, Phân loại chỉnh lí
mục lục), có loại làm mục lục của các kinh hiện còn ở các chùa viện để đưa vào Đại tạng
(hiện tàng nhập tạng mục lục); cũng có loại tổ hợp các loại nói trên thành nhóm, hoặc tổng
hợp toàn thể (mục lục tổng hợp). Những bộ kinh lục chủ yếu hiện còn như sau:

1. Xuất tam tạng kí tập, 15 quyển, do ngài Tăng hựu biên tập vào đời Lương. Bản lục này
liệt kê 2.211 bộ kinh, gồm 4.251 quyển. Đây là bộ kinh lục xưa nhất hiện còn, mức độ khả
tín rất cao, được biên tập tiếp theo sau bộ lục của ngài Đạo an đời Đông Tấn; cho nên, phàm
có liên quan đến các kinh được phiên dịch vào các thời đại Hậu Hán, Tam Quốc, Tây Tấn,
Đông Tấn... đều lấy nó làm tư liệu tham khảo chủ yếu trước tiên.
2. Chúng kinh mục lục, 7 quyển, cũng gọi Pháp kinh lục, do ngài Pháp kinh vâng mệnh
vua soạn tập vào năm Khai hoàng thứ 4 (594) đời Tùy. Nội dung thu tập 2.257 bộ, 5.310
quyển. Bản lục này có ghi chép tư liệu dịch kinh của Bắc triều mà Xuất tam tạng kí tập đã
không ghi.
3. Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ, 15 quyển, do Phí trường phòng vâng mệnh vua soạn tập vào năm
Khai hoàng 17 đời Tùy. Bản lục này thu tập 1.076 bộ, 3.292 quyển, đối với việc dịch kinh ở
Bắc triều và ở đời Tùy, là tư liệu có giá trị, nhưng đối với các kinh dịch từ trước đó thì rất
lộn xộn.
4. Chúng kinh mục lục, 5 quyển. Cũng gọi Tùy nhân thọ niên nội điển lục, Nhân thọ lục,
do ngài Ngạn tông vâng mệnh vua soạn tập vào năm Nhân thọ thứ 2 (602). Nội dung thu
chép 2.109 bộ, 5.058 quyển. Bản lục này chủ yếu sưu tập những kinh điển hiện còn ở đời
Tùy.
5. Đại đường nội điển lục, 10 quyển, do ngài Đạo tuyên soạn vào niên hiệu Lân đức năm
đầu (664) đời Đường, gồm thu 800 bộ, 3.361 quyển.
6. Tục đại đường nội điển lục, 1 quyển, do ngài Đạo tuyên soạn. Nội dung bản này chỉ ghi
chép phần kinh dịch ở đời Hậu Hán.
7. Đại đường đông kinh Đại kính ái tự nhất thiết kinh luận mục lục, 5 quyển. Cũng gọi
Chúng kinh mục lục, Tĩnh thái lục, do ngài Tĩnh thái vâng mệnh vua soạn tập trong năm
Lân đức (664 - 665) đời Đường. Nội dung gồm 2219 bộ, 6994 quyển. Bản lục này căn cứ
vào Đại tạng kinh ở chùa Đại kính ái tại Lạc dương mà soạn thành.
8. Cổ kim dịch kinh đồ kỉ, 4 quyển, do ngài Tĩnh mại soạn tập vào đời Đường, liệt kê 2020
bộ, hơn 6180 quyển. Phần Cổ đại dịch kinh chịu rất nhiều ảnh hưởng về sự lộn xộn của
Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ.
9. Đại chu san định chúng sinh mục lục, 15 quyển, do ngài Minh thuyên phụng sắc soạn
tập vào niên hiệu Thiên sách vạn tuế năm đầu (695) đời Vũ chu, thu chép 860 bộ, 3929
quyển. Vì bản lục này sử dụng những ghi chép trong Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ một cách rộng rãi,
nên giá trị tư liệu không cao.
10. Tục cổ kim dịch kinh đồ kỉ, 1 quyển, do ngài Trí thăng soạn tập vào năm Khai nguyên
18 (730) đời Đường. Nội dung thu tập 160 bộ, hơn 640 quyển kinh được phiên dịch từ Cổ
kim dịch kinh đồ kỉ trở về sau để bổ túc cho nó.

11. Khai nguyên thích giáo lục, 20 quyển, do ngài Trí thăng soạn tập vào năm Khai
nguyên 18 (730) đời Đường. Nội dung gồm 1.076 bộ, 5.048 quyển. Nói một cách đại thể,
bản mục lục này hoàn bị, ghi chép chính xác, chia loại hợp lí, đồng thời, chính thức đưa các
tác phẩm Trung quốc vào tạng. Hơn nữa, thời xưa thường dùng từ ngữ Nhất thiết kinh ngũ
thiên dư quyển (Tất cả có hơn 5.000 quyển kinh) để gọi thay cho Đại tạng kinh, cũng đã bắt
nguồn từ bản lục này.
12. Khai nguyên thích giáo lục lược xuất, 4 quyển, do ngài Trí thăng soạn tập vào năm
Khai nguyên 18 (730) đời Đường. Bản lục này là do lấy riêng phần Nhập tạng lục trong
Khai nguyên thích giáo lục mà thành, cũng thu 1.076 bộ, 5.048 quyển.
13. Đại đường trinh nguyên tục khai nguyên thích giáo lục, 3 quyển, do ngài Viên chiếu
soạn tập vào năm Trinh nguyên thứ 10 (794) đời Đường, gồm thu 34 quyển mà Khai nguyên
thích giáo lục đã bỏ sót để bổ sung và những kinh luận mới dịch về sau. 14. Trinh nguyên
tân định thích giáo mục lục, 30 quyển, do ngài Vân chiếu vâng mệnh vua soạn tập vào năm
Trinh nguyên 16 đời Đường. Nội dung thu chép 1.258 bộ, 5.390 quyển.
15. Đại đường bảo đại Ất tị tuế tục trinh nguyên thích giáo lục, 1 quyển, do ngài Hằng
an soạn tập vào năm Bảo đại thứ 3 (945) đời Nam đường. Nội dung ghi chép 137 bộ, 343
quyển kinh mới dịch sau mà Khai nguyên và Trinh nguyên hoặc bỏ sót, hoặc chưa thu.
16. Đại trung tường phù pháp bảo lục, 33 quyển, do nhóm các ông Dương ức vâng sắc chỉ
của vua soạn tập vào năm Đại trung tường phù thứ 6 (1013) đời Bắc Tống. Bản lục này thu
200 bộ, 384 quyển kinh điển mới dịch trong khoảng 29 năm từ năm Thái bình hưng quốc thứ
7 (982) đến năm Đại trung tường phù thứ 4 đời Bắc Tống.
17. Thiên thánh thích giáo lục, 3 tập, do ngài Duy tịnh biên soạn vào năm Thiên thánh thứ
5 (1027) đời Bắc Tống, thu 6197 quyển. 18. Cảnh hựu tân tu pháp bảo lục, 21 quyển, do
nhóm các ông Lữ di giản vâng mệnh vua soạn tập vào năm Cảnh hựu thứ 3 (1036) đời Bắc
Tống. Bản lục này thu 19 bộ, 150 quyển được dịch trong khoảng 27 năm từ năm Đại trung
tường phù thứ 4 đến năm Cảnh hựu thứ 4.
19. Chí nguyên pháp bảo khám đồng tổng lục (tức là mục lục Hoằng pháp tạng bản đời
Nguyên), 10 quyển, do các ngài Khánh cát tường v.v... phụng sắc soạn tập vào năm Chí
nguyên 26 (1289) đời Nguyên. Nội dung thu tập 1.644 bộ. Bản lục này đối chiếu các kinh
điển giữa bản Hán dịch và Tây tạng dịch, đó là một đặc điểm mà chưa một bản kinh lục nào
làm từ trước đến nay. Trong 19 bản kinh lục kể trên đây, 15 bản trước được đưa vào Đại
chính tạng tập 49 và tập 55. Ba bản kế tiếp được thu vào Tống tạng di trân. Riêng Chí
nguyên pháp bảo khám đồng tổng lục cũng được xếp vào Đại chính tạng Pháp bảo tổng
mục lục quyển 2. [X. Lịch đại tam bảo kỉ Q.7, Q.9; Pháp uyển châu lâm Q.100; Khai
nguyên thích giáo lục Q.10; Đại chu san định chúng kinh mục lục Q.1, Q.3, Q.4, Q.6;
Tùng thư kinh tịch chí thứ 30; Đường thư nghệ văn chí thứ 49].
What is the Kangyur?
The meaning of “Kangyur” is “the translated words (of the Buddha)”. It is the entire
collection of texts regarded as buddhavacana or “Buddha-word”, translated into Tibetan.
The texts considered to be “Buddha-word” are the records not only of the Buddha’s own
discourses, but also of teachings and explanations given by others––often by his close
disciples with his approval, or by other enlightened beings. Also included are systematic
compilations of the Buddha’s pronouncements on particular topics, e.g. the rules of monastic
discipline in the Vinaya texts.The Kangyur is the principal collection of the Buddhist
scriptures in Tibetan.
What is the Tengyur?

The meaning of “Tengyur” is “the translated treatises”. It is comprised of the Tibetan

translations of works written by Indian Buddhist masters, explaining and elaborating on the
words of the Buddha.

Depending upon the edition, the Kangyur comprises 101-120 volumes, and the Tengyur 220-
250 volumes.
Kangyur 1,169 texts
(words of the Buddha): containing 70,000 pages*

Tengyur
4,093 texts containing
(commentaries by
161,800 pages.
Indian masters):

Đại Tạng Kangyur và Tengyur: bao gồm hơn 300 bộ kinh luận được dịch từ Sanskrit. Kinh
tạng Kangyur ghi lại những thuyết giảng của Đức Phật bao gồm luôn cả giới luật, gồm 92 bộ
với 1055 bài. Luận tạng Tangyur bao gồm các bộ luận của các bậc Luận sư Phật giáo Ấn Độ,
gồm 224 bộ với 3626 bài. Điều đáng lưu ý là trên thực tế có nhiều kinh điển được đọc tụng,
nghiên cứu, giảng dạy hơn là số lượng đã được in trong Đại tạng. Có thể vì mất bản gốc
Sanskrit nên một số lớn các bản dịch trước đây trong thời kỳ đầu của Phật giáo Tây Tạng
không được chính thức thừa nhận. Mãi đến thế kỷ 11, mới có kế hoạch xét lại các bản dịch
và cho vào mục lục Đại Tạng Kinh. Tuy vậy vẫn còn một số lớn nằm ngoài. Được dịch trực
tiếp từ nguyên bản Sanskrit ở giai đoạn khá sớm nên Đại Tạng Kinh Tây Tạng được các học
giả đánh giá là nguồn tư liệu trung thực và quan trọng.

The genres or categories of texts contained within the Kangyur include:

 Vinaya (dealing mainly with monastic discipline)
 Prajñaparamita (the texts on the “transcendent perfection of wisdom”)

 Avatamsaka (the “Flower-Ornament” collection of related sutras)

 Ratnakuta (the “Heap of Jewels” class of sutras)

 Other sutras
 Tantra (the texts of the Vajrayana or “adamantine vehicle”)

 Nyingma Tantra (the tantras brought to Tibet in the early translation period)
  Dharani (short texts based on formulae for recitation)

 Kalacakra (tantras belonging to the “Wheel of Time” class)

The genres or categories of texts contained within the Tengyur include:

 Praises

 Tantra (Vajrayana treatises)

 Prajñaparamita (treatises on the “transcendent perfection of wisdom”)

 Madhyamaka (treatises based on Nagarjuna’s “middle way” philosophy)

 Sutra-commentary (general treatises on sutra topics)

 Cittamatra (treatises related to the “mind-only” views or to some of Asanga’s works)

 Abhidharma (summaries and systematic compilations of doctrine)

 Vinaya (treatises dealing mainly with monastic discipline)

 Jataka (the stories of the Buddha’s previous lives as a bodhisattva)

 Epistles
 Logic

 Language
 Medicine

 Crafts
 Mundane Treatises

A version of the Kangyur and Tengyur, the Nyingma Edition, was published in the US and
distributed to institutions world-wide in 1977-1983. It is based mainly on the Degé versions and
accompanied by a useful 8-volume research catalogue and bibliography.

A remarkable recent edition of the whole of the Kangyur and Tengyur, published by the Ka-ten Pe-
dur Khang in China (and sometimes referred to as the “Pedurma” or “comparative edition”), is based
on the Degé versions but notes and lists all the text variants in seven other different versions of the
Kangyur (the Yonglé, Lithang, Kangxi, Chone, Narthang, Urga, and Lhasa editions) and three other
versions of the Tengyur (the Beijing, Narthang, and Choné editions).