2.8. Примечания к гл. 2

Дэвидсон Р. М. «Индийский эзотерический буддизм: социальная история тантрического движения»

1. Fleet (1888, p. 146, line 2): avirbhutavalepair avinayapatubhir llanghitacaramarggair mmohad aidaMyuginair apasubharatibhih pidyamana [ksma] narendraih|.
2. Nitisara VIII.71: akirnam mandalam sarvam mitrair aribhir eva ca | sarvah svarthaparo lokah kuto madhyasthata kvacit ||
3. Lin Li-Kouang 1935, p. 84n; Chen yen tsung chiao shih i, T.2396.75.431a8–12.
4. This is the subtext behind Romila Thapar’s excellent studies of the Mauryas; see Thapar 1997; 1992, pp. 1–22; and 1990, pp. 3–5.
5. For a discussion of some of these issues, see Holden Furber, “The Theme of Imperialism and Colonialism in Modern Historical Writing on India,” in Philips 1961, pp. 332–343.
6. Chakrabarty 1992; and the essays on histories in modern colloquial languages collected in Phillips 1961, pp. 429–496.
7. See R. C. Majumdar’s “Nationalist Historians,” in Philips 1961, pp. 416–428. More recently, it is seen in writers, such as Char (1993), who carry on this tradition.
8. I am following Chattopadhyaya on both the problems and the utility of this nomenclature (1994, pp. 12–37).
9. The best early work on the Ephthalites has been by Enoki 1959; more recently, see Litvinsky et al. 1996, pp. 135–183.
10. Bhandarkar 1981, pp. 296–305. This conclusion is supported by Litvinsky, “The Hephthalite Empire” (in Litvinsky et al. 1996, p. 141), but has been challenged by Zeimal, “The Kidarite Kingdom in Central Asia” (ibid., pp. 123–124), who maintains that the “Huna” designation was used for all nomadic conquerors and the Kidarites were the most likely candidates at this time.
11. Agrawal 1989, pp. 243, 251.
12. Fleet 1888, p. 257; Agrawal 1989, pp. 239–249.
13. Bhandarkar 1981, pp. 360–364.
14. Sircar 1945, p. 70 n1.
15. Vakataka contributions to art and architecture have been reasserted by the welcome work of Bakker (1997, pp. 58–92).
16. This analysis is inspired by Kulke and Rothermund (1998, pp. 9–11), although it differs in details.
17. The following description of military events is taken largely from Sinha 1977, pp. 81–127; Yazdani 1960, 1:207–232; Agrawal 1989, pp. 250–269; Devahuti 1983, pp. 17–64.
18. The dates are reasonable temporal guideposts to active periods and not meant to indicate anything else.
19. Devahuti 1983, p. 18.
20. Fleet 1888, pp. 200–206.
21. Sircar 1945, p. 70 n5.
22. Stadtner 1976, pp. 32–40; Sinha 1977, pp. 128–137; Devahuti 1983, pp. 53–57.
23. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. xlv–xlvii.
24. Yazdani 1960, 1:208–209.
25. Devahuti 1983, p. 74.
26. Ibid., pp. 39–44; Sinha 1977, pp. 133–136.
27. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. xlvii.
28. The genealogy of the Vardhanas is primarily retained in Harsacarita (1918, p. 56), which closely matches the Banskhera Plate; see Bьhler 1896–97.
29. Harsacarita 1918, pp. 56–57.
30. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. xlvii; Yazdani 1960, 1:209–210.
31. Devahuti 1983, pp. 76–77.
32. Ibid., p. 34; cf. Sinha 1977, pp. 128–133.
33. The following material is abstracted from Devahuti 1983, pp. 37–53, 83–91; Sinha 1977, pp. 137–143.
34. Jayaswal 1934, p. 50, text p. 53 v. 723; the defeat of Sasanka was clearly exaggerated in the Manjusrimulakalpa.
35. Sasanka’s capital at Karnasuvarna has been discovered in the excavations at Rajbadidanga; see Das 1968. 36. Devahuti 1983, p. 57; we note that the sudden rise in the fortunes of Kharagraha I, siladitya I’s successor, after 609 may indicate that he was in charge of this expedition. Kharagraha I begins to issue separate grants in 616.
36. This is his Banskhera copperplate grant; see Buhler 1896–97.
37. Kielhorn 1900–1901a.
38. Yazdani 1960, 1:219.
39. Devahuti 1983, pp. 242–243.
40. Yazdani 1960, 1:221–224.
41. Ibid., pp. 226–228.
42. This episode is examined in detail, taking into account the T’ang sources, by Devahuti (1983, pp. 243–269), in an excellent discussion. Unlike many historians, Devahuti has exhibited an astute command of the Chinese texts. The name of the prince, *Arjuna, is one of the possible sources for the Chinese rendering of his name.
43. For the publishing history of Bhaskaravarman’s Nidhanpur Grant, see Morrison 1970, p. 161.
44. Sinha 1977, p. 160.
45. Ibid., p. 162; Yazdani 1960, 1:225–226.
46. Wink 1990, p. 201; Meister and Dhaky 1988–91, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 197.
47. Wink 1990, p. 202.
48. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. lvi; Puri 1986, p. 44; Wink 1990, p. 208.
49. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. 137–145.
50. Wink 1990, pp. 242–244.
51. Beckwith 1987, p. 82.
52. Ibid., p. 87; Wink 1990, pp. 242–243.
53. Thaplyal 1985, p. 78 n4; cf. Goetz 1969, pp. 16–19.
54. Gaьdavaho, vv. 414–439.
55. “Introduction,” in Rajatarangini, Stein 1900, 1:90–91; IV.211, 246–264; Goetz 1969, pp. 25–35, 47–65.
56. Rajatarangini, Stein 1892, 1900, IV.131–180; Goetz makes the claim that, since the names rendered in the Rajatarangini are sometimes authentic historical personages, the conquest must have been real, since Kalhana could not have invented them (1969, p. 12). He presumes that Kalhana’s sources were written by people who could not have fabricated a conquest of known parties, but this is clearly unsustainable. Kalhana has drawn from many dubious and highly mythologized sources, such as the Nilamatapurana, which ascribe fictional events to known persons. Wink uncritically affirmed Goetz’s analysis (1990, p. 243).
57. Goetz 1969, p. 21.
58. Mandan has pointed out that the Ellora area was doubtless the early region of the Rastrakuta power, since most of their early inscriptions come from there (1990, p. 33). Moreover, their early patronage of the great saiva rock-cut caves and temples of Ellora is in conformity with the idea of a prior homeland as a sacred site after the actual center of power has been moved. Similarly Yazdani 1960, 1:257.
59. Puri 1986, p. 52; Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, p. lvi.
60. Puri 1986, p. 53; Kielhorn 1907–8.
61. Mandan 1990, pp. 50–51; Yazdani 1960, 1:253–256.
62. Mandan 1990, pp. 51–57.
63. Konow 1913–14; Mandan has argued for the king’s name Nagavaloka of the Hansot plates to apply to Dantidurga, not to Nagabhata, primarily on the use of -avaloka as a terminal ending in Rastrakuta names (1990, pp. 51–54, 80 n79). Puri (1986, p. 71 n2), however, has already noted that Ojha (1917–18, p. 179 n3) cites the identification of Nagabhata II as Nagavaloka in the Jaina work Prabhavaka-carita. Nagavaloka seems to be an acceptable equivalent for Nagabhata and clearly the Rastrakutas had no proprietary use of the -avaloka designation. Moreover, Nagavaloka of the 861 Pathari Pillar Inscription of Parabala appears to identify Nagabhata I; see Kielhorn 1907–8, p. 250. Sinha appears to think this is Nagabhata II, however (1977, p. 182).
64. Yazdani 1960, 1:257–259.
65. Mandan 1990, pp. 61–67; Yazdani 1960, 1:258–261.
66. Kielhorn 1896–97, v. 1; in the Bhagalpur Plate of Narayanapala (Hultzsch 1886, v. 1) the matsyanyaya is replaced by kamakarin, acting on desires without conscience.
67. The Pala chronology proposed by Susan and John Huntington (1990, p. 542, chart 1) is used here, since it takes into account the existence of Mahendrapala, whose discovery was announced by Bhattacharya 1988, based on a copper charter.
68. Sinha 1977, p. 172; Majumdar 1971, pp. 96–99; Manjusrimulakalpa, Jayaswal 1934, v. 884.
69. Manjusrimulakalpa, Jayaswal 1934, LIII.884.
70. Mandan 1990, p. 91; RajataraNgini, Stein 1892, 1900, IV.471.
71. Yazdani 1960, 1:263; Sinha 1977, pp. 176–177.
72. Yazdani 1960, 1:262–264.
73. Ibid., 1:264–265; Mandan 1990.
74. This material is extracted from Mandan 1990, pp. 104–111; Yazdani 1960, 1:268–70; Sinha 1977, pp. 179–182; Puri 1986, pp. 67–70.
75. Yazdani 1960, 1:268–273; Mandan 1990, pp. 108–111.
76. Sinha 1977, p. 184.
77. Ibid., p. 186.
78. Mandan 1990, pp. 116–119; Yazdani 1960, 1:276–279.
79. Puri 1986, p. 86.
80. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. lxxii–iv.
81. Puri 1986, pp. 90–92.
82. Mandan 1990, pp. 124–125; Yazdani 1960, 1:282–284, 476–480; Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, p. lxxii. Bhima was Vijayaditya’s nephew, not his son.
83. We have records indicating that these three kings claim to have taken control following Devapala: Majumdar 1971, pp. 119–122; Sinha 1977, pp. 188–190; Bhattacharya 1988. Their claims ignore each other, and Sinha has postulated divided rule for surapala and Vigrahapala (1977, p. 191). Mahendrapala and surapala were brothers, while Vigrahapala was the son of Jayapala, whose line did not pass through Dharmapala and Devapala, but by another line to Gopala.
84. Mandan 1990, p. 126.
85. Puri 1986, p. 103.
86. Mandan 1990, pp. 130–132.
87. Yazdani 1960, 2:481. Previously, virtually all historians maintained that Mahendrapala invaded Bengal and Bihar and ruled over the Pala domains as a conqueror. This judgment was based on a series of grants found in these areas identifying the ruler as one Mahendrapala. This scenario is seriously called into question by Bhattacharya’s decifering the plate of the Pala emperor Mahendrapala (Bhattacharya 1988). A casual perusal of the grants of “Mahendrapala,” in fact, reveals that two chronologies are employed: one that is normative for the Kanauj state, and one that is normative for the Pala dynasty. Grants employing the former pertain to lands in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and west, while grants using the Pala chronology denote lands in Bihar and Bengal. These disparate chronologies seem to separate these figures, one following the Gurjara-Pratihara system, the other the Pala chronology. See Puri for a list of Mahendrapala’s grants (1986, pp. 221–223).
88. Puri 1986, p. 122; Mandan details an alternative scenario (1990, pp. 128–129).
89. Puri 1986, p. 132.
90. These events are discussed extensively in Mandan 1990, pp. 136–141.
91. Yazdani 1960, 1:288–289.
92. Ibid., pp. 481–487.
93. Puri 1986, pp. 133–148.
94. Yazdani 1960, 1:289–293; Mandan 1990, pp. 141–148.
95. Yazdani 1960, 1:293–297; Mandan 1990, pp. 149–161.
96. Yazdani 1960, 1:297; Mandan 1990, p. 160.
97. Majumdar 1971, pp. 125–126, 205.
98. Ibid., pp. 131, 166–169, 199–206; Sinha 1977, p. 195.
99. Opinions on the origins of the Kambojas are discussed in Majumdar 1971, pp. 172–173.
100. Sinha 1977, pp. 195–197; Majumdar 1971, p. 172.
101. Sinha 1977, pp. 199–201; Majumdar 1971, pp. 131–137.
102. The history of the Chalukyas of Kalyani is recounted in Yazdani 1960, 1:315–454.
103. Chattopadhyaya discusses some of the inscriptions concerning the Cahamanas and Guhilas (1994, pp. 57–88); he provides a bibliography on the Agnikula origin myth (p. 57 n1).
104. Raizul Islam and C. E. Bosworth, “The Delhi Sultanate,” in Asimov and Bosworth 1998, pp. 269–291; see also Deyell 1990, pp. 195–219.
105. Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, pp. lxxxix–c.
106. Sinha 1977, pp. 211–243; Majumdar 1971, pp. 199–218.
107. Majumdar 1971, pp. 219–253.
108. Banerji 1963.
109. MDS VII.89: ahavesu mitho ‘nyonyam jighamsanto mahiksitah |yudhyamanah param saktya svargam yanty aparanmukhah ||
110. Scharfe 1993, p. 231; Lingat 1973, pp. 123–132; the Mahabharata is more difficult, but many scholars would agree that the bulk of the current text was completed by 500 c.e.
111. See, for example, Aiyangar’s “Introduction” to Krtyakalpataru, vol. 11 (1943). Rajadharma-kanda, in which all unchivalrous behavior is attributed to Muslims, the East India Company, or His Majesty’s Army (pp. 70–72).
112. Brunt 1983, 2:339; cf. Jones 1930, 7:69.
113. In Tibet of the eleventh century, several Indian panditas were accused of representing themselves in a manner lacking honesty; see Davidson (2002a, forthcoming a, and forthcoming b).
114. Jones 1930, 7:95–99.
115. Keegan 1993, pp. 29, 301.
116. The classic statement by Sharma discusses this in detail (1987, pp. 37, 46, 50, 60, 63, 65, 68, 79, 86, 178–185).
117. Keegan 1993, p. 301.
118. Compare ibid., pp. 139–45, with Nitisara IV.57–61; 7.12.3; cf. Prasad 1989, p. 108.
119. Varady 1979.
120. Nitisara XIX.54–71, passim; cf. Nitisara XVI.
121. Arthasastra XII.1.19–2.18, 4.4–23.
122. E.g., Chattopadhyaya 1990, p. 71;1994, p. 62.
123. Contamine 1984, pp. 15, 275–276; this effect was clearly evident in medieval Europe.
124. Andrew: “Donald Pearce, a subaltern in the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, recalled how individual battle experiences were just that. ‘No one else has really been in the same places as anyone else’ he wrote ‘and I refuse to play the game of comparing experiences. The whole war seems to be a quite private experience; I mean for everyone. Each man talks about a quite different war from mine, and ultimately everyone is separated from everyone by layers of privacy or egoism’” (1992, p. 58).
125. Mookerji 1928/1972, pp. 162, 233.
126. Hira Lal 1909–10, p. 26.
127. Siddhaikaviramahatantra, p. 3; p. 5.1–4: esa mantrarajah sarvakalikalahavivadopasargavidhuresu japtah santim karoti | tusahomena ca sarvasantir bhavati | yathalabdhakusumani mantram uccarya udake pravahayet | sarvasantim vijayaс ca prapnoti na samsayah | nagaradahe ‘gnisammukham sthitva saptaсjalim abhimantrya ksipet | yasya grhasya raksitukamas tasya raksam karoti |
128. Nitisara X.3–5 enumerates nineteen reasons for a king to go to war.
129. Kielhorn 1907–8, pp. 253, 255 (verse 15).
130. Willis 1995; 1997, p. 24.
131. Nitisara XVI.3–43.
132. Thakur and Jha 1994, pp. 302–312; see also Sharma 1987, pp. 178–185.
133. Rajatarangini IV.628. Cf. MDs VII.123 on the corruption of a king’s officials.
134. For a discussion of piracy, see Gopal 1965, pp. 127–130.
135. Chattopadhyaya lists six characteristics of early medieval India: political decentralization, the emergence of landed intermediaries, a change to self-sufficient villages as units of production, the subjection of the peasantry and the proliferation of castes (1994, pp. 10–12).
136. Keegan 1993, p. 142. While we do not have a thorough discussion of this problem in the early medieval period, R. S. Sharma has made a beginning in “Appendix II—Fortified Settlements Under the Palas and Candellas” (1965/1987, pp. 287–292).
137. Mahabharata 12.74: striyam hatva brahmanam vapi papah sabhayam yatra labhate ‘nuvadam | rajсah sakase na bibheti capi tato bhayam jayate ksatriyasya || 16 papaih pape kriyamane ‘tivelam tato rudro jayate deva esah | papaih papah samjanayanti rudram tatah sarvan sadhvasadhun hinasti || 17 . . . atma rudro hradaye manavanam svam svam deham paradeham ca hanti | vatotpataih sadrsam rudram ahur davair jimutaih sadrsam rupam asya || 19 I thank Phyllis Granoff for reining in my imagination on this material.
138. Keegan 1993, pp. 3–60, 386–392.
139. Nitisara, X.3–30.
140. Granoff (1984) has made a strong case for the similarity between hagiographies of saints and biographies (hagiographies?) of kings in the medieval period.
141. Fleet 1888, pp. 1–17.
142. Ibid., no. 1, lines 6, 16, and 27.
143. Compare the rather prosaic discussion of the songs and adulation (gita,stuti) generated by vandanajana (panegyrists) in line 14 of the Bhitari Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta (Fleet 1888, pp. 52–56). The inscription itself does not provide these verses or songs, but only mentions them in passing; nor does it indicate the identity of the vandanajana, who were presumably too insignificant to be so named.
144. Ibid., pp. 79–88.
145. Ibid., pp. 142–150.
146. Ibid., pp. 150–158, line 14.
147. Kielhorn 1900–1901a, v. 5: laksmir bhavitachapalapi cha krta sauryena yenatmasadrajasij Jayasimhavallabha. Translation Kiehhorn’s.
148. Kielhorn 1900–1901a, vv. 14–18.
149. Salomon 1996; Mirashi 1955, 1:89, 215–224, etc.; see the discussion in chapter 3.
150. Kielhorn 1900–1901a.
151. Mirashi 1955, 1:224.
152. Huizinga 1950/1955, pp. 89–104.
153. Datta 1989, p. 225.
154. Singh 1993, pp. 294–303.
155. Kulke and Rothermund 1998, pp. 122, 136–138.
156. Williams 1982, pp. 157–158, 174.
157. See Chattopadhyaya 1994, p. 151.
158. Rao indicates that it was probably built by either Chalukya Bhima I (r. 892–921) or Danarnava (r. 971–73), and Rao prefers the former as its royal builder (1, p. 1).
159. Li 1993 and Berkemer 1992.