² Thus the seventh item under Ōfuchi on p. 278 should be under Fujiwara; the third item is in a Festschrift for which no publication details or characters are provided, the title of which is wrongly written; the text cited at n. 8, p. 130, is misattributed (Robinet has been led astray by the Harvard-Yenching Index); p. 99, n. 5, is apparently contradicted by p. 152, n. 2.

³ Rōshi densetsu no kenkyū , Tokyo, 1979.Google Scholar

⁴ For this work see the introduction to the Chi Yen Tsun Lao Tzu chu in the Lao-tzu chi-ch'eng series of Yeng Ling-feng Taipei, 1965. Yen collects together what he believes to be fragments of this commentary, though he notes that many of them may actually be from the Chih-kuei.Google Scholar

⁵ Tao-te chen-ching chin-kuei chu-chiao reprinted e.g. in the second series of the Lao-tzu chi-ch'eng, Taipei, 1970. T'ang's comments are in a final postface: the Tunhuang fragment (P. 2526) is printed on p. 2a of the first section of supplementary material: it corresponds to a section of the lost first half of the Chih-kuei to be found on p. 16b of Yen Ling-feng, “Pien Yen Tsun Tao-te chih-kuei lun fei wei-shu” preceding his reprintings of the text in the Lao-tzu chi-ch'eng, series one. Early attempts to identify the encyclopedia have been rejected by recent scholars.Google Scholar

⁶ Po-chün, Yang (ed.), Lieh-tzu chi-shih Shanghai, 1958, 179.Google Scholar

⁷ Tao-tsang vol. 572, no. 836, p. 1.4a.Google Scholar This is among the passages in this work which are also incorporated in the Chih-yen tsung, the significance of which is outlined in my earlier study. Tao-tsang references by volume number in the Shanghai, 1924–6 reprint and Harvard-Yenching Index number.

⁸ On pp. 185–6 of his “The Date and Composition of Liehtzyy”, Asia Major, VIII, 1960–1961, 139–98.Google Scholar

⁹ Chi Yen Tsun Lao Tzu chu, p. 3b (noted by Yen Ling-feng as probably from the Chih-kuei) and Yang, , Lieh-tzu chi-shih, 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Graham, , 198.Google Scholar

¹¹ Though probably somewhat older. See Chia-hsi, YüSsu-k'u t'i-yao pien-cheng Peking, 1958, 1141–3.Google Scholar

¹² Kusuyama's full evidence against the A.D. 243 reference was published earlier as an article: this is summarized on p. 127. On the following page he notes (n. 3) the most recent Japanese research to assign a date to the work. For the unsettled state of the text up to the T'ang, see pp. 128–33.

¹³ Kusuyama, , 111.Google Scholar

¹⁴ op. cit., pp. 1.1b–2a. It should be noted however that in this case there is no external evidence to show that this quotation was present in the earlier Yang-sheng yao-chi.

¹⁵ Kusuyama, , 260–8: earlier studies are reviewed on 239–41. The earliest text Kusuyama accepts as referring to the Hsiang Erh is the same work which he takes as the earliest evidence for Ho-shang Kung's commentary.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Chen-chung chi (Tao-tsang vol. 572, no. 836), p. 21a.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kusuyama, , 200, and for date of composition, 222–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ op. cit., pp. 1.6b, 2.5a, cf. Robinet, 50, and Kusuyama, 233–6. Both passages are attested by quotations in Japanese sources as having been in the Yang-sheng yao-chi.

¹⁹ Chūgoku Kegon shisōshi no kenkyū Tokyo, 1965, 276–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ op. cit., 1 (Taishō Canon vol. 24), p. 1015b.Google Scholar For the date of the work see e.g. Hōdō, ŌnoDaijō kaikyō no kenkyū , Tokyo, 1954, 165.Google Scholar

²¹ Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men 1 (Taishō Canon vol. 46), p. 632a.Google Scholar

²² See Morito, NinomiyaTendai no kyōgi to shinkō Tokyo, 1922, 101–2.Google Scholar

²³ See the portion of his commentary preserved in Dainihon Zokuzōkyō 61/3, p. 249a.Google Scholar

²⁴ For a standard Chinese definition of the “emptiness of emptiness” see Lamotte, E., Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse, IV, Louvain, 1976, 2064–7. K'ung-k'ung is sometimes expressed as ch'ung-k'ung “double emptiness”.Google Scholar

²⁵ Robinson, Richard, Early Mādhyamika in India and China, London, 1967, 301, n. 16.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ch'u San-tsang chi-chi 10 (Taishō Canon vol. 55), p. 1002b.Google Scholar

²⁷ The Indian equivalences described by Lamotte, , 2042, would probably have been unknown to Wŏnhyo, but see Pao-liang (444–509)Google Scholar, Ta-p'o nieh-p'an ching chichieh 38 (Taishō Canon vol. 37), p. 501b.Google Scholar

²⁸ This is evident throughout the latter portion of Robinet's study, but note in particular p. 110ff.

²⁹ Thus the identification on pp. 93–4 of the monk whose sermons were attended by the influential expositor Chou Hung-cheng is plainly erroneous: to judge by the monastery named in Robinet's source the preacher was Chih-tsang : cf. Hsü Kaoseng chuan 5 (Taishō Canon vol. 50), p. 466a.Google Scholar

³⁰ op. cit., p. 1.9b.

³¹ ibid., p. 1.3b.

³² cf. Yang, , Lieh-tzu chi-shih, 63, and 14–15.Google Scholar

³³ op. cit., p. 1.9a.

³⁴ ibid., p. 1.3a.

³⁵ It is perhaps worth noting that an apparent paraphrase of this quotation may be found in Chang's Lieh Tzu commentary: see Yang, , Lieh-tzu chi-shih, p. 64, col. 6.Google Scholar

³⁶ op. cit., pp. 1.3b (bis), 2.1a.

³⁷ The passage is listed twice under the full title Huang-lao hsüan-shih ching in Yoshitoyo's, Yoshioka index of quotations in this anthology,Google ScholarDōkyō keiten shiron Tokyo, 1955, 445,Google Scholar but both times it occurs in the midst of an anthology absorbed into the Yün-chi ch'i-ch'ien, once on its own and once as part of a yet larger anthology: it would be necessary to unravel this complex situation in order to begin to hazard a guess as to when the quotation was drawn from its source. Note however an apparent reference to the same text in the Pao-p'u-tzu, as listed by Yoshioka, , 55.Google Scholar

³⁸ For Yin's dates see the materials collected in Yang, , Lieh-tzu chi-shih, 182:Google Scholar Yin evidently quotes a text compiled in 819, yet his work survived into the Sung in a manuscript written by “Mo-hsi Tzu” himself a figure of the first half of the 9th century (as is made clear by Yü, , Ssu-k'u t'i-yao pien-cheng, 1194–5).Google Scholar Yin's commentary is included by Yang, in his reprinting of Chang's preface, 179.Google Scholar

³⁹ Kuang Hung-ming chi 30 (Taishō Canon, vol. 52), p. 350a,Google Scholar b, and Yoshioka, , Dōkyō keiten shiron, 199, 200.Google Scholar