♦ Пещерные и скальные храмы и монастыри

9. Примечания к гл.3

Дэвидсон Р. М. «Индийский эзотерический буддизм: социальная история тантрического движения»
<< К оглавлению
  1. Manjusrimulakalpa, XXXVII.933–935:

pravrajya dhruvam asthaya sakyapravacane tada |

sasanartham karisyanti mantravadasadaratah || 933

astamgate munivare lokaikragrasucaksuse |

tesam kumara vaksyami srnusvaikamanas tada || 934

yugante naste loke sastupravacane bhuvi |

bhavisyanti na sandeho yatayo rajyavrttinah || 935

Jayaswal (1934) publishes 935a as “cesta” for “naste”; emendation based on To. 543, fol. 325a6: ston pa’i gsung rab sa steng du | dus mthar ‘jig rten nyams pa na | sdom brtson rgyal po’i tshul gyis ni | ‘byung bar ‘gyur bar the tshom med |. Note that the Tibetan translators read “rajavrttinah.”

  1. Pollock (1996) has called this the transculturation of the Sanskrit cosmopolis, a very stimulating formulation. However, as seen in the question of regional Sanskrit next chapter, Pollock sidesteps the issue of varieties of Sanskrit (1996, p. 201), a position to which he returns (1998, pp. 14–19).
  2. Please note particularly the statement found in Brahmasutrabhasya to 2.2.32, p. 479: “Alternatively, we see that the Buddha had such animosity to humans that he thought, ‘It’s possible that they could be deluded by this teaching that has all these internal contradictions!’ ” (pradveso va prajasu viruddharthapratipattya vimuhyeyur imah praja iti |).
  3. For now classic discussions of the symbiotic relationships between the Samgha and the guilds, see Ray 1986, with relatively weak evidence, and Liu 1988. Much more could be said, however, and, for some of it, see Gernet 1995 and Schopen 1994.
  4. See Basak 1919–20, p. 131.
  5. See the material collected in Jettmar 1989, 1993.
  6. The Kuchean (Tokharian B) Buddhist material has been best studied by French and German scholars; see Thomas 1964, 2:72, XXXII.
  7. Humbach 1980, p. 109.
  8. Gandavyuha, Suzuki and Idzumi 1949, pp. 225–226.
  9. Ray 1994, pp. 153–154.
  10. Dasabhumika, Kondo 1936, pp. 28–29; Varnarhavarnastotra, Hartmann 1987, p. 109; Bodhicaryavatara I:11 (Buddha), III.30–32 (bodhisattva vow), Vaidya 1960, pp. 8–9, 43. Further references in T. Lewis 1993, pp. 138–142.
  11. Gernet: “The needs of the Buddhist communities and laity favored certain businesses—especially those related to construction, the timber trade, dyeing products, and others—and gave rise to or developed certain trades: builders, architects, sculptors, painters, goldsmiths, and copyists all benefited from the religious movement at the same time that agriculture suffered from the requisitioning or hiring of peasants from the great Buddhist construction works” (1995, p. 14).
  12. E.g., Dhammapadatthakatha, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 239–248; Apadana, 1:58–59; Manoratha-purani (Anguttara-nikaya Atthakatha), vol. 1, part i, pp. 209–220; Paramattha-dipani (Theragatha-atthakatha), 2:213–216, 236–242.
  13. Divyavadana, pp. 427–428.
  14. Pollock 1996, Hinuber 1989, and Salomon 1989 discuss some of the issues of medieval Sanskrit.
  15. Gernet 1995, pp. 158–178; Schopen 1994. For the Gandhari materials, we must rely on the Niya documents, studied by Agrawala (1955) and, more recently, by Atwood (1991). It may be that the new discoveries in Gandhari manuscripts will assist us in understanding patronage issues; see Salomon 1999.
  16. E.g., RajataraNgini IV.628; Nitisara V.82–86; MDS VII.123.
  17. Deyel 1990, pp. 23–43; cf. Shrimali 1991.
  18. Brhatkathaslokasamgraha XVIII.203; Lorenzen 1978.
  19. Yadzani 1960, 1: 433–436; Gupta 1983–84; Abraham 1988. Indians were apparently poor at handling and breeding horses. Because two of the branches of warfare (cavalry and chariot) required the regular replacement of horses, the horse trade became an intense part of North Indian trade.
  20. Jain 1990, p. 181; Jain notes that the guilds at this time became solidified as subcastes and identified as prakrti-s, that is, they fit into a recognized governmental structure (p. 61). When we do find traders (vanik) mentioned elsewhere in India, most frequently they are not identified as a formal corporate guild, as in the Anjaneri Plates of Bhogasakti; Mirashi 1955, pt. 1, I.146–159.
  21. Jain 1990, pp. 182–184.
  22. Yazdani 1960, 1:433–436; Abraham 1988; Fleet 1881.
  23. Summarized by Lin 1935, p. 93.
  24. This material is taken from Emmerick 1983.
  25. Frye 1984, pp. 341–357;
  26. Frye 1975, p. 95.
  27. See the essays contained in Asimov and Bosworth 1998, especially pp. 30–94.
  28. For a discussion of the importance of the Sogdians and the Sasanian coin finds in the reconstruction of the changing economics of Turfan in the eighth century, see Skaff 1998, pp. 99–104.
  29. Mackerras 1990, p. 330.
  30. Mackerras suggests others did so, but they remain unspecified (1990, p. 331); he shows the spread of Manichaeism into China principally as a result of Uyghur influence (1972, pp. 42–43). The Manichaeans were also included in the Wu-tsung suppression of Buddhism (840–846 c.e).
  31. Elliot and Dowson 1867–77, 1:4; Wink tries unsuccessfully to extend this point into an economic argument (1990, pp. 303–307).
  32. Simkin 1968, p. 84.
  33. Hourani 1951, pp. 76–77.
  34. H. Sastri 1942, pp. 92–102; Barua 1981, pp. 62–64.
  35. Beckwith 1977.
  36. Evinced by the movement of statuary, Banerji-Sastri (1940) and in inscriptions recorded in Huntington (1984, pp. 203–250) and Fleet 1881.
  37. Sardulakarnavadana, Mukhopadhyaya 1954, esp. pp. 10–12.
  38. Inden 1978, pp. 48–49; Inden is, unfortunately, less than completely clear on the evidence for this.
  39. Hultzsch 1886, l. 39.
  40. See the appendix for Pasupata temple affiliation.
  41. Bhattacharya 1955.
  42. See Shah, “Lakulisa: Saivite Saint,” and Mitra, “Lakulisa and Early Saiva

Temples in Orissa,” in Meister 1984.

  1. Manjusrimulakalpa, LIII.680–690, LIII.883; Sastri 1920, pp. 631–632, 647. The verse numbering is from Jayaswal 1934.
  2. H. Sastri 1942, p. 91; translation abbreviated with some changes.
  3. Mirashi 1955, 1:218; translation abbreviated with some changes; Kielhorn (1888–92b).
  4. H. Sastri 1942, pp. 100, 102, v. 33: samasta-satru-vanita-vaidhavya-diksa-gurum krtva.
  5. Hultzsch 1886, pp. 305–306, 308, v. 13; I thank Phyllis Granoff for pointing out the pun on having drunk blood (pitalohitah) in the text: bhayad aratibhir yasya ranamurddhani visphuran | asir indivarasyamo dadrse pitalohitah ||.
  6. Wogihara 1930–36, pp. 165–166; Demiйville, “Le bouddhisme de la guerre,” reprinted in Demiйville 1973, pp. 261–299, esp. 293; Tatz 1986, pp. 70–71.
  7. We note that the phrase used, tasmad rajyaisvaryadhipatyac cyavayati (Wogihara 1930–36, p. 166.16–17), could be used to define the murder of the individual, although it is not interpreted in that sense. See Tatz 1986, p. 215.
  8. Ta t’ang hsi yu chi, T.2087.893c–894b; Beal 1869, pp. 210–234.
  9. Fleet 1888, pp. 52–56.
  10. Kielhorn 1892, p. 81: kalah kule vidvisam.
  11. Cf. Banerji 1919–20 and Misra 1934, pp. 40–51.
  12. Kielhorn 1892, p. 58; same language in the Nalanda copperplate, but untranslated by H. Sastri (1942, p. 97, v. 12).
  13. Harsacarita, Kane 1918, p. 133.
  14. Rice 1886, pp. 172, 175, l. 15: tribhuvana-madhya-varttinam praninam paramakarunakathaya bodhisatvopamanasya. I do not follow Rice in reading paramakarunikataya.
  15. Manjusrimulakalpa, Jayaswal 1934, vv. 534–535, provides a life in hell for the king “Gomi,” whom Jayaswal identifies as Pusyamitra, vs. a future as a cakravartin for Baladitya (v. 668).
  16. Mitra provides a survey of the more important sites (1971, pp. 198–222).
  17. See Das (1993, passim) for a site-by-site analysis of decline; Sharma 1987, pp. 95–100. Amaravati is anomalous in that some sculptures were carved but no inscriptions or inhabitation appear during the eighth to eleventh centuries; see Knox 1992, for images. It experienced a slight resurgence from the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, but it is unclear that occupation was continuous. I thank Himanshu Ray for calling attention to the sculpture, even though we disagree on its significance.
  18. Fleet 1881 and 1889.
  19. Gross 1993, pp. 18–24, 90–93; Shaw employs the phrase “androcentric selectivity” in the documents (1994, pp. 12–14, 75–78), dismissing all quantitative evidence as “absurd” and articulates theoretical structures admitting of an uncritical verification of hagiographical sources about women (ibid., p. 78). The kind of careful philological and historical investigation found in Hindu studies, such as Feldhaus 1995, Orr 2000, and Jamison 1996, are all too rare in Buddhist studies, gratifying exceptions include Paul 1980 and Nattier 1991, pp. 28–33.
  20. Fischer 1970, pp. 74–78.
  21. Orr has presented a model of how such evidence may be assessed (2000, pp. 161–180).
  22. An inadequate survey of this material is in Law (1939–40).
  23. One only need review Luders (1912, passim) for entries too numerous to list. An example of the many records that have come to light since Luders’ publication is cited in note 67.
  24. Luders 1961, p. 166:

(maharajasya) [d](e)vaputrasa Huv[i]skasya sa[m] 30 9 va 3 di 5 etasya[m] purva[

y](am) bh[i]khuniye Pusaha[th]iniye [a](mtevasi)ni[y](e) bh[i]khuniye Budhadevaye

Bodhisatvo pratithapito saha matapitihi sarvasat[v]ahitasukh[a].

Translation is Luders’s, with minor changes.

  1. Buhler 1894, pp. 113–115, 403–407.
  2. Buhler’s tabulation may actually be an underassessment of women’s participation. My own (very rough) evaluation of the much larger body of Saсci inscriptions in Marshall and Foucher (1940, 1: 301–383) yields a monks to nuns ratio of 168 : 156 and a laymen to laywomen ration of 208 : 190, or about 52S men to 48S women in both cases. This suggests virtual gender parity at this pre-Gupta site. See also Schopen for an affirmation that early nuns’ resources were well reported (1996, pp. 563–565).
  3. Falk 1979; unfortunately, Falk’s data is insufficient to illustrate this point, since it is drawn almost exclusively from literature.
  4. Huntington 1984, appendix, no. 2 (description to fig. 5), pp. 203–204.
  5. Ibid., appendix, nos. 7, 8, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 43, 45, 55, 60.
  6. Banerji-Sastri 1940; by women, inscriptions nos. 4, 20, 22, 53, 56, 58, 59, 84, and 88; by all men, inscriptions nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 43, 49, 51, 52, 55, 63, 67, 69, 70, 81, 83, 85, 87, 90, 91, and 92. Monks are found in inscriptions nos. 2, 6, 18, 23, 31, 32, 51, 52, 90, 91, and perhaps 69 from the language. While nos. 31 and 32 are perhaps by the same man, the same could be speculated of the women’s names in nos. 20 and 56.
  7. H. Sastri 1942, pp. 58–64.
  8. Ibid., p. 112, no. 78, the name as read by the editor, Chakravarti; Sastri read Karaluka and was uncertain of the reading.
  9. Ibid., p. 62.
  10. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, T.2125.54.216b11–24; translation Takakusu 1896, p. 80.
  11. Quoted in Sawyer 1993, pp. 159 and 178 n2.
  12. Miller and Wertz 1976, pp. 11 and 142.
  13. Parry 1985, pp. 56 and 73 n11.
  14. Denton 1991, pp. 212 n1, 220–225.
  15. Sawyer 1993, p. 178 n3.
  16. Barrow 1893, p. 224.
  17. Ibid., p. 239.
  18. Respectively, Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i gsol ‘debs (To. 3758); *Caturasitisiddhabhisamaya (To. 4317); Grub thob lnga bcu’i rtogs pa brjod pa thig le ‘od kyi phreng ba (To. 2444); dPal u rgyan du tshogs ‘khor byas pa’i dus su rnal ‘byor pa grub pa thob pa bzhi bcus rdo rje’i mgur bzhengs pa nyams kyi man ngag thig le gser gyi phreng ba, (To. 2449); *Caturasitisiddhapravrtti (Pe. 5091); and *Caturasitisiddhasambodhihrdaya (To. 2292).
  19. Ye shes kyi mkha’ ‘gro ma sum cu rtsa lnga’i rtogs pa brjod pa (To. 2450). These Zha-ma lo-tsa-ba materials are discussed in Davidson 2002a.
  20. Respectively, the Cittaguhyadoha (To. 2443); the *Sarvayogatattvalokavikalavajragiti (To. 2453).
  21. gZґuN bshad klog skya ma, p. 444.
  22. I thank Douglas Brooks for a similar observation concerning Saiva texts; personal communication, April 1996.
  23. Shaw 1994, p. 182.
  24. Vyaktabhavanugata-tattva-siddhi, pp. 169–172, 176.11.
  25. On the problems of extending Western feminist formulae to non-European societies, see Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse,” in Mongia 1996, pp. 172–197.
  26. Lйvi 1937, p. 232; Konow 1907–8.
  27. Misra 1934, pp. 40–50; this assumes, with Rajaguru (1955–76), that the Bhauma era began in 739 c.e., a date not universally accepted; Sircar’s 831 period inauguration has been accepted by Salomon (1998, pp. 190–191), although I cannot follow him in this opinion.
  28. Joan W. Scott has maintained that there are two fundamental fantasies found in feminist histories: the orator and the mother (2001, pp. 293–304). By this she does not mean that these are false, but that feminist historians tend to place themselves as subjects within history. For her, feminist fantasy “is rather the designation of a set of psychic operations by which certain categories of identity are made to elide historical differences and create apparent continuity” (p. 304). I would have framed this somewhat differently, but the process of projecting self into history seems to be the crux of the matter.
  29. On the problems associated with resistance studies, see Florencia E. Mallon, “The Promise and Dilemma of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History,” in Dirlik et al. 2000, pp. 191–217.
  30. Harsacarita, Kane 1918, p. 140.
  31. Sardulakarnavadana, pp. 11 ff.
  32. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fol. 121a2–3: ‘dzum shing ‘gro la smra shing zur mig can | yan lang thams cad yid ‘phrog byed pa’i gzugs | bu med gzugs ni mtshon cha ‘jebs ‘dra bas | skye pa’i sems ni mngon du ‘phrog par byed ||. This section corresponds to T. 895.18.721c9.
  33. See Vigrahavyavartani, Johnston and Kunst 1978, pt. 1, pp. 21–24, pt. 2, pp. 27–30.
  34. Mulamadhyamakakarika, La Vallйe Poussin 1903–13, which includes the Prasannapada, p. 494; Vigrahavyavartani, Johnston and Kunst 1978, pt. 1, p. 24n.
  35. See Groarke 1990, for a nuanced discussion of both the doctrines and problems of skepticism. The extraordinary similarities between Greek skepticism and the Madhymaka position have yet to be thoroughly explored.
  36. Madhyamakavatara, pp. 288–301; Huntington 1989, pp. 177–179; Mulamadhyamakakarika, La Vallйe Poussin 1903–13, pp. 73–74.
  37. SatyadvayavibhaNga, Eckel 1987, pp. 137–138.
  38. RajataraNgini III.11–12. The chronology represented here is questionable. The preceptor of the father of her contemporary, Amrtaprabha, was evidently a Tibetan named Lo-ston-pa, the teacher of Lo. This is probably gLo-bo, the Tibetan title for Mustang, suggesting a later chronology. As Stein points out (1892, 1:73 n9) a monastery attributed to Amrtaprabha was known to the Chinese monk O-k’ung, who took precepts in the valley in 749.
  39. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa ch’uan; the translation from Takakusu 1896, p. 51 and cf. p. 52; corresponds to T. 2125.54.211c14–19, 212a5–6; we note that a later discussion of this point (Takakusu 1896, p. 93; 218b25–6) is about specifically Chinese monks, but the earlier quotation does not seem to represent a specifically Chinese position; rather, a pitfall of the unexamined concentration on emptiness.
  40. For a more recent discussion of the meaning of Sakya Bhiksu, see Cohen 2000.
  41. Brahmasutrabhasya to atas canupapanno vainasikatantravyavaharah |.
  42. Nagarjuna’s entire discussion of the vindication of his “non assumption of a proposition” is done in the context of the ascertainment of valid sources of reasoning. See Vigrahavyavartani, passim.
  43. Wayman 1958.
  44. Cf. Abhidharmasamuccaya, pp. 104–106.
  45. Yogacarabhumi, Bhattacharya 1957, pp. 118–160; these are placed in the text for the purpose of recognizing incorrect mental application, ayonisomanskara.
  46. Abhidharmasamuccaya, p. 106.4–5: api khalu svahitasukhakamena vadesv abhijnatum pravarttitavyam na paraih vivadam karttum |. This is followed by a lengthy quotation from the seminal Mahayanabhidharmasutra verifying his position; cf. Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhasyam, p. 154; and Jinaputra’s Abhidharmasamuccayavyakhya, Peking 5555, TTP vol.
  47. Lamotte 1949, pp. 359–361; Davidson 1990, p. 302.
  48. For these standards of authenticity, see Davidson 1990.
  49. See the analysis by Snellgrove 1958.
  50. Dreyfus 1997, p. 15.
  51. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, p. 205a24–b1; Takakusu 1896, pp. 7–8.
  52. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, p. 206c1; Takakusu 1896, p. 20. The relative periods of composition of the various Vinayas is a disputed matter.
  53. A good summary of the introduction of the Vinaya into Tibet is in the Bod rje lha btsan po’i gdung rabs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 82–85; cf. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, 1: 465–506, for an extended discussion.
  54. I thank Gregory Schopen for this latter observation.
  55. Ta t’ang hsi yu chi, T. 2087.51.923c19; Beal 1869, 2:170.
  56. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, pp. 214a4, 227a25–26; Takakusu 1896, pp. 65, 154; Ta t’ang hsi yu ch’iu fa kao seng chuan, T.2066.51.6b20; Lahiri 1986, p. 51.
  57. See Bhattacharya 1985 and Stewart 1989 for discussions of the site. While I know of no one yet definitively identifying Stupa 3 as the mulagandha-kuti, I have little hesitation in making that identification.
  58. Ta t’ang hsi yu ch’iu fa kao seng chuan, T.2066.51.5c15, 6a29; Lahiri 1986, pp. 53, 58; in this latter place, Lahiri mistranslates the Chinese, which does not read “if you see one, you have seen all the seven,” but “if you have seen one, the other seven are similar.”
  59. Ta t’ang hsi yu ch’iu fa kao seng chuan, T.2066.51.5b27; Lahiri 1986, p. 51.
  60. Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, Sayanasanavastu, Gnoli 1978, p. 11; cf. Schopen 1994, pp. 529–531; Schopen’s attempt to problematize the significance of pura : rtsegs is in error. The significance of rtsegs as a Tibetan building term is well established, meaning “story,” as embodied in the gSum-brtsegs at Alchi or in the descriptions of other Tibetan buildings. We also note that the Sayanasanavastu’s allowance of a seven-story Perfumed Chamber (saptapura gandhakutih) with the five-story monks’ chambers is that which we might expect at Nalanda, given the respective site remains and footprints of Stupa 3 and Monastery 1.
  61. Ta t’ang hsi yu ch’iu fa kao seng chuan, T.2066.51.5b23; Lahiri 1986, p. 51.
  62. Sastri 1942, pp. 81, 91, 102, etc.
  63. Ibid., passim.
  64. Ibid., pp. 103–105.
  65. Clearly spelled out in Dutta 1995, pp. 98–114.
  66. Nitisara X.4, 8; Davis 1997, pp. 51–87.
  67. sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, Stein 1961, pp. 52–53; sBa bzhed, 1980, p. 62; dBa’ bzhed, Wangdu and Diemberger 2000, p. 90.
  68. sBa bzhed, 1980, p. 50: ma ga dha’i rgyal po’i khab kyi sgo mdun na dha ru rtse do bya ba’i mchod rten gcig gi nang na rgyal po ma skyes dgra’i skal ba |; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma indicates that the purpose is entirely different, for the caitya contains “the fortune of the essence of the embodied king”: rgyal po gzugs can snying

po’i bskal ba, which constitute one Indian measure of the Buddha’s relics and bones (Stein 1961, p. 42). dBa’ bzhed does not contain this material.

<< К оглавлению
script type="text/javascript"> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); Web Analytics