. taishō volumes – 29
(1639–1702), and Shinjō (1719–1802), it is still not entirely con-
sistent in that it mixes content-based categories with categories based
on formal characteristics. This means that works dealing with the same
subject matter are sometimes found scattered among several catego-
ries. To give just one example, no. 1170 (§10), no. 1241 (§13), and no.
1401 (§14) are all concerned with Vajragāndhārī and should, properly
speaking, be grouped together. This example also illustrates the fact
that the classification of texts is not only inconsistent, but sometimes
also mistaken, for no. 1241 has been included in §13 on the basis of
the erroneous assumption that it is associated with Ātavaka. There are ̣
also instances in which different versions of the same work have been
placed in different categories (e.g., no. 1147 in §10 and nos. 1333 and
1334 in §14).
Be that as it may, vols. 18–21 of the Taishō edition constitute the
most comprehensive collection of tantric scriptures preserved in Chi-
nese and provide the basis for any study of tantric or esoteric Bud-
dhism in East Asia. While a good number of the 573 works contained
in these volumes have also been preserved in Tibetan translation and,
in some cases, in the original Sanskrit, many of them are unique to
the Chinese Buddhist canon, and so they provide valuable material
for elucidating tantric Buddhism as a whole. That greater use of them
for this purpose has not been made is perhaps partly due to the fact
that their content is not widely known. This makes a detailed descrip-
tive catalogue of these volumes all the more desirable, and as a first
step towards that end a brief overview of the works included in each
of the fourteen categories listed above has been given below together
with references to translations and studies in Western languages when
appropriate.^1 References are given at the end of each section in abbre-
viated form (and in chronological order when there are two or more
references dealing with the same text), preceded by the number of the
corresponding text in brackets; for full details, the reader is referred to
the main bibliography at the end of this volume. When appropriate,
Sanskrit titles have also been given, with a double dagger (‡) indicat-
ing that the Sanskrit title has been taken from the Tibetan translation
and an asterisk indicating that the Sanskrit title has been reconstructed
on the basis of the Tibetan or Chinese translation (although the word
(^1) A brief overview by Paul Demiéville can be found in Renou and Filliozat 1996,
439–440.