I don't believe Eastern traditions (except perhaps Islamic) lend themselves to the idea of canons. The idea is a peculiar product of a historicist imagination coupled with religious homogeneity and technological leverage (Gutenberg) applied a certain way.

Asia is fundamentally polycentric. You can sort of construct a Chinese canon, but that would really represent the statist perspective, not a cultural one. In India, you could construct a Brahmin canon centered on the Vedas, but beyond Brahmin communities, that would be narrow legal canon imposed via oppression rather than a broad cultural one.

Pan-Asian? Forget it.

Certainly some works are more _famous_ than others, but often that's a consequence of what has been translated into European languages by early European scholars who wanted to see canonicity where none existed. And canonicity is about far more than fame. It is about the role of a work in a Grand Narrative. Dante in the Western canon is a specific chapter in the consensual story in a way the Bhagavad Gita is not. Because there _is_ no larger story there.

So I'd say, the Asian canon contains zero items, and that's probably a good thing. canonicity is the strength and weakness of the West. Poly centrism is the strength and weakness of the East.