Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus: Texts and Contexts

Paul K. Nietupski
John Carroll University

Abstract: This essay is a study of the corpus of texts associated with the Vinayastra, written by ninth-century Indian scholar Guaprabha, and included in the Tibetan Bstan gyur. The essay begins with consideration of the stra format of the texts, the myths associated with the author, and continues to examine the Indian and Chinese Vinayas available to the Tibetans and their choice of the Mlasarvstivda and Guaprabhas Vinayastra corpus. These are followed with a brief discussion of the problems of manuscript availability and translation into Tibetan. The essay concludes with a brief review of the texts and their translators. The Tibetans choice of these texts as core documents for Tibetan Buddhism is relevant to the study of canon formation, to the institutionalization of monasticism, the place of monastic life in Tibetan Buddhism in relation to philosophical inquiry and tantric ritual, and to the Tibetans preference for Indian sources.

Introduction
This essay introduces Guaprabhas Vinayastra and the corpus of derived Indian texts in Sanskrit fragments and in Tibetan translations, a total of six scriptures. The entire corpus is included in the Tibetan Bstan gyur, a stra corpus among the stras.1 That is, the lexical format of his work is modeled on ancient Indian texts written in short aphorisms or stras, likely for ease of memorization and for pedagogical purposes. The text is nonetheless included in the commentarial section of the Tibetan canon, or the stras. This apparently innocuous detail raises questions about canon classification in India and Tibet. How was this text regarded
1 For this study I compared versions of Guaprabhas works in the Sde dge, Peking, and Co ne Bstan gyurs and in the existing Sanskrit versions and fragments. I have not compared the Mongolian versions of Guaprabhas works. In addition, I have not been able to gain access (not for lack of trying) to the Sanskrit edition in Tibetan script of the Vinayastra and Autocommentary from Zha lu Monastery in western Tibet, the original currently in the possession of the China Tibetology Research Institute in Beijing, and studied and issued in facsimile by Taisho University in Japan. The incomplete reference data I have for the latter text, studies, and facsimile are: Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University, 25 (2003); 26 (2004); and 27 (2005). The facsimile edition was published by Taisho University in 2001.

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): 1-19. http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5698. 1550-6363/2009/5/T5698. 2009 by Paul K. Nietupski, Tibetan and Himalayan Library, and International Association of Tibetan Studies. Distributed under the THL Digital Text License.

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

in India? How was it presented to the Tibetans, and why did they choose to include it in the Bstan gyur? Guaprabhas text seems to imitate the style of many Indian non-Buddhist stra texts. Pinis (ca. fourth century BCE) Adhyy begins with the statement atha abdnuasanam, Patajalis (ca. 200) Yogadaranam begins with atha yognuasanam, Bdaryanas (ca. second century BCE) Brahmastra and akaras (788-820) Bhya begin with atha brahmnuasanam. These begin with a uniform lexical convention, atha, followed by a short statement of the contents of the work, and continue with the body of the text in short aphorisms. Guaprabha likewise begins the Vinayastra with atha niryavttam, which all commentators explain in great detail, and goes on to compose the text in the Indian stra style. This may be because he was educated in that tradition, perhaps because he felt that his subject matter was of the same order of importance as the other great Indian works, or he may have felt that his Vinayastra was more properly regarded as a Buddhist stra, not at all a commentarial work. Regardless of Guaprabhas intentions, priorities, and the Indian canonical classifications, the Tibetans understood Guaprabhas text corpus as a commentarial work, a stra, and included it in the Bstan gyur. Indian and Tibetan styles and canonical formulations aside, the Vinayastra texts were eventually selected to serve as the core Tibetan monastic documents. This was a late choice; the verifiable early ninth-century translation of one of Guaprabhas texts came near the end of the Tibetan Imperial period, so it is not likely that Guaprabhas texts were circulated in A mdos eastern Vinaya, which played an important role in the late tenth-century re-establishment of monasticism in central Tibet. Even so, A mdo Vinaya was in the Mlasarvstivda tradition, likely based on the only Vinaya in Tibetan language. This made the canonization of Guaprabhas Mlasarvstivda-derived corpus an acceptable choice. Guaprabhas Vinayastra with its Autocommentary was named as one of the Five Scriptures (Po ti lnga) and was the subject of detailed commentaries by Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba (ca. thirteenth century), Dge dun grub pa, and Bu ston rin chen grub. The importance of the text and tradition were maintained in the Tibetan grouping, but the importance of the texts in India, even if marked by the use of the stra style, remains unclear.

Who Was Guaprabha?


Guaprabha, like many Indian Buddhist authors, is a mysterious figure. It is difficult to assess what of Guaprabhas biographical data is factual and what is embellishment invented to endow him with a high level Buddhist pedigree. The inherited tradition describes him as an erudite monk and later an abbot from a brahmin family, who lived and worked in Mathur.2 He is called a student of
See L. Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya, trans., Taranathas History of Buddhism in India (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970), 176; S. A. Banerji, Traces of Buddhism in South India:
2

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

fourth-century Vasubandhu, mentor to seventh-century King Hara, and a contemporary of one Ratnasiha (ca. 649).3 His sectarian affiliations are likewise expansive, as he writes of Vinaya, is associated with Vaibhikas, is called a bodhisattva,4 is credited with authorship of commentaries on two Mahyna stras,5 his monastic texts and commentaries include language suggestive of Mahyna concerns,6 and he is said to have had audiences with the Buddha Maitreya in the course of his many sojourns to Tuita, Maitreyas heaven. The biographical details are uncertain, and beyond the suggestions in his writings it may well be that the authorities sought to authenticate Guaprabha by associating him with pre-eminent Buddhist figures and circumstances. The Tibetans heard these messages and revered Guaprabha in the list of the famous masters of Indian Buddhism, the Six Ornaments and Two Superiors.7 If Guaprabhas pedigree is a matter of embellishment for religious ends, one might well also ask if, instead of his reputation, were the Indian Guaprabhas compositions and the Tibetans adoption of the Vinayastra corpus expressive of a modified, reduced size of
700-1600 A. D. (Calcutta: Scientific Book Agency, 1970), 95; D. K. Barua, Vihras in Ancient India: A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries (Calcutta: Indian Publications, 1969), 89.
3 Guaprabha, Vinayastra and Autocommentary on the Same by Guaprabha, ed. P. V. Bapat and V. V. Gokhale (Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1982), xxii states that this mention of Ratnasiha may be a marginal remark of some later reader of the text. The Vinayastra and Autocommentary, xxii, quotes J. Takakusu, A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago, AD 671-695. 2nd Edition (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982), LVIII, 184: I-tsing mentions one Ratnasiha as living then at Nland at about 649 A.D. 4 5

In the opening of the Vinayastra Autocommentary.

Guaprabha, Byang chub sems pai sai grel pa [*Bodhisattvabhmivtti] and Byang chub sems pai tshul khrims kyi leui bshad pa [*Bodhisattvalaparivartabhya], in The Tibetan Tripiaka: Peking Edition, Vol. 112, ed. D. T. Suzuki (Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955).
6 Guaprabha, Vinayastra, xliv remarks: There is a reference to vajropamsampatti (stra 1) before attaining sopadhieanirva. This may well indicate the authors Mahynism. See the passage even those endowed with compassion amongst those in this world with human bodies in fortunate circumstances have many numbers of impurities, obstacles, and ugliness: anukampakai di [T. ka] sapanne ca manuyatve bahavo tra, Guaprabha, *Vinayastravttyabhidhnasvavykhynam (Guaprabha, Vinayastra and Autocommentary, 13.3); thugs brtse ba dang ldan pa rnams kyis dal byor phun sum tshogs pai mii lus nyid di la/, Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, in the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, vol. 161, no. 12, zhu (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986), 12b.6. See references to various types of bodhi in the closing pages of the *Vinayastravtti attributed to Guaprabha. See Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, in the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, volume 165, no. 16, lu (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986), 343a.3 ff: sangs rgyas kyi sku/; see the discussions of la and samdhi (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 21); see Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 16b.5: dgra bcom pa dang rang sangs rgyas la mi byao bla la med pai sangs rgyas pas na yang dag rab mkhyen [ce]s so/; see The First Dalai Lama, Dge dun grub pa, Legs par gsungs pai dam pai chos dul ba mtha dag gi snying poi don legs par bshad pa rin po che phreng ba, in The Collected Works of the First Dalai Lama dge dun grub pa, vol. 1 (Gangtok: Dodrup Lama Sangye, Deorali Chorten, 1981), 55b.6: brtul zhugs can gyis bla ma bas/; see Shes rab bzang po, Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba, Dul ba mdo rtsai rnam bshad nyi mai od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho (Karnataka: Drepung Losel Ling, n.d.), 62a.3: brtul gshug can/. See Shes rab bzang po, Dul ba mdo rtsai rnam bshad for extensive comments on Mahyna themes, for example phags pai tshul khrims (Shes rab bzang po, Dul ba mdo rtsai rnam bshad nyi mai od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho, 73b.1 ff). See Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 9a.4: snying rje che ba/. 7 Ngrjuna, ryadeva, Asaga, Vasubandhu, Dignga, and Dharmakrti (fl. ca. seventh century) are the Six Ornaments. kyaprabha and Guaprabha are the Two Superiors.

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

medieval Indian Buddhist monasticism, perhaps the unappealing and cumbersome detail of the older and larger Mlasarvstivda Vinaya, and even a reduced concern with classical Vinaya and monastic concerns?8 If this was the case in India, were the Tibetan motives for adopting the corpus as Davidson suggests, namely that monastic concerns were less of a priority in Tibet? The study of Guaprabha and his texts along with the recent studies on early Tibetan Buddhism can shed some light on the nature of Indian and Tibetan religions and institutional development.

What Vinayas Were Available to the Tibetans?


The Chinese translations show that there were a number of Indian Vinaya collections available in the fifth century, some of which were also later available to the Tibetans (remembering for example that Atia [980-1054] was in the Mahsghika system). The Tibetans had contacts with the Chinese Buddhists in the seventh to eleventh centuries, and they did indeed translate a number of Chinese Buddhist texts, but they did not in general consider Chinese translations as sources for the Tibetan Buddhist canon, disregarding the extensive corpus of Vinaya materials in Chinese.9 This is made evident by the fact that the Chinese translated at least five Vinayas, four in the early fifth century,10 and a number of texts of Mlasarvstivdin in the late seventh or very early eighth century, by Yijing (ca. 635-713), all of which went unrecognized by the Tibetans. There is also no evidence that Guaprabhas texts were translated into Chinese. Given their importance in Tibet, and presumably in India, the absence of Guaprabhas Vinayastra texts, like some philosophical texts (of Candrakrti [fl. 600-650], Dharmakrti, and others, for example) is odd, but might be merely a matter of timing. Davidson suggests that the majority of Chinese pilgrims visited India before the development of those religious movements and that the philosophical and monastic texts not included in the Chinese canons had not yet been composed or at least not widely circulated.11 Otherwise, if there was a later stream of Chinese pilgrims, the lack of these materials in Chinese was a matter of

8 See Georges Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), where the author describes the relative marginalization of the Vinaya documents in modern Tibetan Buddhism; Vinaya texts do not represent modern Tibetan monastic practice. Davidson makes a similar assessment of Tibetan priorities and behavior in the ninth century and later, suggesting at times rather little concern for strict monastic discipline (Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture [New York: Columbia University Press, 2004], 120-122). Perhaps a similar scenario served as a motive for Guaprabhas abbreviated composition, and for its adoption by the Tibetans.

See the early lists of Chinese texts translated into Tibetan in Georgios Halkias, Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of phang thang, The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2 (2004): 66, 99-100.
10 E. Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Rome: Serie Orientale Roma, 1956), 1-2 lists the Vinayas in Chinese translations: the Sarvstivdin, Dharmaguptaka, Mahsaka, Mahsghika, [and the] Mlasarvstivdin. See Jan Nattier, A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods (Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008), 3. 11

Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 125.

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

accessibility, or because they were overlooked or ignored by the Chinese pilgrims and translators. The Tibetans only translated the Mlasarvstivda Vinaya, the longest Vinaya, in the eighth century, and Guaprabhas summary texts later. The early translation signals the Imperial adoption and later eastern Tibetan monastic preservation of the Mlasarvstivda system. The subsequent Tibetan choice of the Mlasarvstivda and later works by Guaprabha may have been a matter of sectarian popularity of that system in eastern Tibet and in India, to the intentional exclusion of other Indian systems and of the extensive Vinaya collections in Chinese. If so, the Tibetan exclusive translation and adoption of Mlasarvstivda and derived texts makes sense, and marks a consensus among Tibetan religious authorities. Alternatively, was the Tibetan adoption of Mlasarvstivda-derived texts more by circumstance, merely a matter of availability of canonical texts made popular in the places where they acquired their materials, less a matter of sectarian consensus among Tibetans? Frauwallner speculated that different Vinaya systems were based on the realities of distance between Buddhist missions, which may have had earlier common sources but over time developed monastic and doctrinal differences.12 If this was the case, the Tibetan selection of the Mlasarvstivda and later Guaprabhas corpus was not at all a conscious religious or doctrinal choice, but merely a matter of regional availability. The source places for early Tibetan Buddhist materials are generally known, for example, Nepal, Kashmir, and Bengal, but if regional availability was a determining factor, it indicates that Tibetan Buddhists were adopting a specific regional system or systems piecemeal, and not at all comparing, collating, or fully editing materials from a pan-Indian Buddhist tradition. This means that the choice of Mlasarvstivda was not as much of a choice as a matter of chance. In support of this, regional Vinaya traditions in India are noted by Frauwallner, who wrote that in addition to the Pli Vinaya in r Lak, [t]he Vinaya of the Mlasarvstivdin would be the Vinaya of Mathur, and that of the Sarvstivdin the Vinaya of Kamr and Gandhra. He further notes that the earliest translators of Vinaya texts of the Dharmaguptaka into Chinese were the Sogdian Kang Seng-kai and the Parthian Tan-ti,13 and Dutt speculates that the Mahsghika were based in Mathur or Kamr.14 These scholars make a case for the Mlasarvstivda and possibly the Mahsghika Vinaya being current in the places Tibetan translators searched for canonical documents. This argument is further corroborated somewhat by the facts that Guaprabhas legendary home was Mathur, and his important Autocommentary is also known as the Mathur

12 Frauwallner, Earliest Vinaya, 12. See Nalinaksha Dutt, The Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools (New Delhi: Rajesh Publications, 1980), 110-123. 13 14

Frauwallner, Earliest Vinaya, 1-23, 37 ff. Dutt, The Early History, 132-136.

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

Commentary.15 The choice or rather chance adoption of Mlasarvstivda and Guaprabha might indicate the prominence of Mathur over Kamr and Bengal as a primary source place for the Tibetan Vinaya, even in light of the well known importance of these latter sites in Tibetan Buddhist history.

Translations
The difficulties in terminology in the translated texts and the source manuscripts in Indian languages signal the fact that the texts are likely descriptive of an Indian monasticism of a past time, realities unfamiliar to the Tibetan translators, even their Indian mentors, and sometimes difficult to express in Tibetan language. Moreover, the then current Indian monasteries and their supporting communities were under increasing social, economic, and political pressure from the eighth to twelfth centuries and as a result the Buddhist monastic systems often fragmented or inconsistent. Finding a single, consistent, pan-Indian Buddhist monastic system in Mathur, Nepal, Kamr, and Bengal was likely impossible.16 Another difficulty was the availability of reliable texts. Many Indian manuscripts of the day were negatively impacted by scribal and copyist error, imperfect memory, poor editing of fragments, lack of sponsorship, and others. Further, the fact that the script of the available Sanskrit manuscript is not standard devanagari, difficult for modern scholars and as Davidson points out, likely difficult for early Tibetans faced with a large variety of texts in different scripts and even different languages.17 The language of the Vinayastra verses and the Autocommentary (the former complete in Sanskrit and Tibetan translations, the latter in Sanskrit fragments and complete Tibetan translation), the two texts considered the most important in the Tibetan Vinaya, are not in perfect grammatical Sanskrit. The unedited Sanskrit of the Autocommentary is anomalous, since the compositions are based on solid knowledge of ancient Vinaya documents, and the legends of Guaprabha refer to him as a brahmin, a master of Indian religion, philosophy, secular sciences, and likely Sanskrit language. His command of Buddhist and Indian literature is evident in the Autocommentary, as is his awareness of Indian Buddhist history. On many occasions he refers to other Buddhist texts, Brahmanical theories, technicalities of Sanskrit grammar, and different practices and procedures in the history of Buddhism. The anomalies in the language of the Autocommentary are a product of the chaotic trans-Himlayan translation environment. In addition to the difficulties of the classical stra and commentary style the Autocommentary shows problems of human error, perhaps different languages, scripts, and grammatical conventions.
15 Dul bai mdoi grel pa bcom brlag ma zhes bya ba [Mathur Commentary] (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.5).

Davidson has discussed the state of manuscripts and translations in detail. See Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 84-128.
17 The editors Bapat and Gokhale do not identify the script of the Autocommentary, perhaps a arada script. See Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 127-128.

16

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

For example the Autocommentary overuses the Sanskrit convention for quotations (iti). Does this indicate an oral commentary, or is the text complied from other sources, from versions of the Mlasarvstivdavinaya? Oral recitation might be marked by occasionally rough syntax, the overuse of the Sanskrit substantive suffixes -t and -tva, numerous references to what the Master said throughout the text, and prominently, the expression oral commentary at the beginning of the Vinayastra. If orally circulated, there may have been a small number of copies of his works, and a possible reason for the less than eloquent style and syntax, not to mention inaccurate classical sadhi rules. There are variant readings, and different passages in the versions of the Vinayastra and Autocommentary quoted in the Vtti that indicate that there may have been different versions of the Vinayastra available to different translators at different times and in different places, not a surprising scenario.18 In sum, it appears that the problems of language, manuscript availability, memory and others applied in the case of the Autocommentary, but less in the case of the ka. It seems however that the problems were more a case of Indian manuscripts and not the fault of the translators or other factors faced by ninth-century Jinamitra (fl. ca. 824) and Cog ro klui rgyal mtshan (ninth century; Vinayastra and ka) or of twelfth-century Alakradeva and Tshul khrims byung gnas sbas pa (ca. 1107-1190; Autocommentary), who are widely known for their accurate translations. We can see that they were faithful to the Sanskrit versions of the Vinayastra and Autocommentary, and by their reputations and readability of the texts, we can assume that their sources for the ka were in relatively better shape. The translators, source texts, translations and thus the degrees of accuracy of the Vtti and the Vykhyna are unknown.

Texts
Guaprabhas root text, the Vinayastra, is composed in stras or aphorisms, terse statements possibly designed to function as mnemonic devices; they are not written in any regular meter. The text is based on the Mlasarvstivda Vinaya, and includes many references to the specifics of the Prtimoka, Stravibhaga, Karmavcan, and Skandhaka from that system. The seventeen chapters of Guaprabhas work correspond to the seventeen topics of the Skandhaka. Bapat pointed out that Guaprabha chose the Vinayavastu as the framework for his Vinayastra, but his Vinayastra covers the whole field of Vinayathe

18 For example, in the first stra: atha niryavttam (Guaprabha, Vinayastra and Autocommentary, 3.6, 3.7, 3.19-20); de nas nges bar byung bai tshul khrims kyi dbang du byas te/ (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 1a.3). Guaprabha, *Vinayastravtti, 1a.1: gtogs pa nges par theg pai tshul te/ for atha niryavttam in the Vinayastra and Autocommentary Sanskrit edition. In Prajkara, Dul ba mdoi rnam par bshad pa, in the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, volume 164, #15, ru (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986): nges par theg pai tshul du gtogs pa ste/. These latter two texts use nges par theg pa for nirya, instead of the more common nges bar byung ba. There are also terms in the texts that do not appear in the Mahvyutpatti lexicon. See for example Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 12a.2, 12a.5, 12b.5: mur dug pa here and throughout for mu stegs pa; not in Mahvyutpatti.

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

Prtimoka, along with its commentary, Vibhaga, and the Khandakas.19 For example, in the Renunciation Section (pravrajyvastu) of the Vinayastra, stra 76, Guaprabha included the penalties for violations of Community Meeting rules from the Mlasarvstivda Prtimoka/stravibhaga.20 The extent and sources of numerous inclusions are discussed in the Introduction to Bapat and Gokhales edition of the Vinayastra and the Autocommentary.21 This shows that Guaprabhas texts can be understood as an abbreviated version of the Mlasarvstivda Vinaya, reflecting what were considered essential elements of the earlier text. There is a complete Sanskrit version of this text, identical or at least very close to the versions embedded in the extant Sanskrit fragments and translated Tibetan commentaries.22 Guaprabhas own commentary on his Vinayastra is the Autocommentary (Vinayastravttyabhidhnasvavykhyna). The colophon of the Autocommentary records that the text was translated into Tibetan by the twelfth-century translators Alakradeva and Tshul khrims byung gnas sbas pa. It was composed in the Dpal sa nyi Palace,23 and translated in Dben tsha Temple24 in a dharma center25 at the base of Dpal sgyeu Mountain. The Autocommentary is often terse, but can often be clarified by reference to Dharmamitras ka. The Vinayastra and the Autocommentary are similar in style. The two texts flow together well, the commentary following the sequence of the stras. The Autocommentary is however a difficult text. The authors mastery of the language and concepts are evident throughout, but the comments are sometimes terse, and editing of the available manuscript is poor. The third text in the Vinayastra series, *Vinayastravtti, is attributed to Guaprabha, though the colophon suggests that it was a compilation of several scholars.26 It is interesting to speculate what this means and how the composition
19

P. V. Bapat, Discovery of a Sanskrit Text: Vinaya Stra, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, January 4-10, Vol. 3, Part 1 (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1969), 343.
20 Guaprabha, Vinayastra and Autocommentary, 14.15-17; Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 14a.5. 21 22

Guaprabha, Vinayastra and Autocommentary, xxiii-xxv.

Guaprabha, Vinayastra of Bhadanta Guaprabha, ed. Rahul Sankrityayana (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1981).
23 Dpal sa nyii gtsug lag khang chen por/ (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.6-7). The next passage has a long epithet, not uncommon among Indian kings: rje btsun dam pa rgyal po chen poi yang chen po dbang phyug dam pa dpal tshul khrims nyi mai lha rab tu rgyas par gyur pa rnam par rgyal bai rgyal srid kyi lo la bris pa yin no/ (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.7). 24 Dben tshai gtsug lag khang / (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 274a.7). 25 Chos skor/ (Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 274a.7). 26 Also called the Grel chung in Tibetan. The translators of this commentary, the *Vinayastravtti, are not specified in the colophon of the text. See Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 344a.7: dul bai mdoi rtsa bai grel pa chung ba slob dpon mang du thos shing yon tan dang ldan pa yon tan gyi od thams cad yod par smra ba pas byas pao/.

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

of the text took place. The Vtti is very different in style than the above two texts, the Vinayastra and the Autocommentary. It is wordy and explicit, unlike the terse and sometimes technical language of Guaprabhas other texts. In addition, the general vocabulary of the Vtti is different from that in Guaprabhas other texts and Dharmamitras ka. For example, it contains Buddhist terms not found in Guaprabhas other works or in Dharmamitras ka.27 My conclusion is that this text, while attributed to him, and definitely unpacking the subtleties of the Vinayastra, is probably a compilation of teachings on the Vinayastra, and prepared by disciples or translators. The Vtti is stylistically different from the other two Vinayastra texts attributed to Guaprabha, but is stylistically similar to Prajkaras Vinayastravykhyna.28 Both of these commentaries are in straightforward prose, clear and concise, and easy in style, giving insightful interpretations of Guaprabhas works. The Vykhyna is a valuable commentary in its own right, though little is known of Prajkara or his text. Both of these texts, the Vtti and the Vykhyna do not reproduce the Vinayastra and Autocommentary in their entirety, but follow the line of reasoning closely, giving paraphrases of the original. Of all the commentaries, Dharmamitras ka 29 follows the Vinayastra and Autocommentary the closest. Dharmamitra was possibly a Tokhrian scholar and reputedly a student of Guaprabha, though there is no corroborating evidence for this claim. He is identified in the colophon as a Vaibhika Master of a place called Tho gar. The colophon goes on to state that his ka was translated into Tibetan at the request of Dpal lha btsan po, as noted above, by the crya, Jinamitra, and the Tibetan translator, Cog ro klui rgyal mtshan. Though the ka omits passages from time to time, it follows the Vinayastra and Autocommentary closely, offering in-depth explanations of key points. The version of the stras in the earlier (ninth century) translated ka is identical to the later-translated (twelfth century) Vinayastra and Autocommentary. The language of the ka is very refined, with accurate grammar and correct usage of semantic devices. It contains a wealth of information. Its style resembles that of the Vinayastra and Autocommentary, unlike that of the Vtti and the Vykhyna. The translation sequence of these texts is itself odd. Even though the Autocommentary is regarded as the core document for Tibetan Buddhist monasticism, as is shown in the native Tibetan commentaries, Guaprabhas Vinayastra and Dharmamitras ka were translated into Tibetan first by Jinamitra,30 a Kamri expert in Mlasarvstivda Vinaya, and Cog ro klui rgyal
27 28

See above and also Guaprabha, Dul bai mdoi grel pa, 342b.1-344a.7. The colophon in this text makes no mention of its translators from Sanskrit to Tibetan.

29 Phags pa gzhi thams cad yod par smra bai dul ba kun las btus pai rgya cher grel pa/, Dharmamitra, Dul bai mdoi rgya cher grel pa, in the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, 162, 13, u (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986), 390a.5.

See A. Kaul, Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their Contributions Abroad (Srinagar: Utpal Publications, 1987), 33-5, 69-70. For Cog ro klui rgyal mtshan, see David S. Ruegg, The Literature

30

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

10

Mtshan, in the early ninth century. The more important to the Tibetans Autocommentary was translated later, in the twelfth century, by Alakradeva and Tshul khrims byung gnas sbas pa.31 The sequence of translation as we have it before us does not correspond to the prominence given to the Autocommentary by the Tibetans, or it may signal the evolution of monasticism in Tibet, as the more important text was not translated until the twelfth century. The last known32 commentarial text on the Vinayastra is the Vinayakrik (also known as ryamlasarvstivdavinayakrik Pupamlnma) by Vikhadeva, a disciple of Saghadsa, who was said to be a contemporary of Vasubandhu.33 This association with Vasubandhu creates the same problem as for Guaprabha. If Guaprabha lived in the Post Gupta Dynasty Vikhadeva could hardly have written about his text. There is little data for the precise dating of Vikhadeva. This text, the Pupaml, is included in the list of commentaries on the Vinayastra, but is in fact not a commentary but a krik summary of the contents of the Vinayastra. Though useful in its own right as an independent treatise, the Pupaml is of little use for understanding the Vinayastra texts and commentaries.34

Conclusion
Guaprabhas three texts, Dharmamitras ka and Prajkaras Vinayastravykhyna make up the core of the Vinayastra corpus. They were evidently translated at different times and places, suggesting that not all of these texts were available to the Tibetans at the same time. The texts are nonetheless a coherent collection and represent a collective attempt to define Tibetan monasticism.

of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 69n, 85n, 86n.
31 These dates are tentative, though the translators were most likely active in the twelfth century. See Grags pa byung gnas, Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Kan suu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1992), 767-769. 32 Priya S. Singh, The Vinayastra of Guaprabha: A Historical Note, in Buddhist Studies: The Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies 10 (New Delhi: University of Delhi, March, 1986). 33 Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, Taranathas History, 150; it was translated into Tibetan by Jayakara, Prajkrti (Taranatha says that Prajkrti was from Snyel tsor, 197, n.10-12), Vnaratna, and Rong ston.

The modern Tibetan tradition describes the Vinayastra text history, with comments on other Vinaya materials: The Master Guaprabha composed the actual nine-sectioned Vinayastra, and second, the nine-sectioned Karmaata. His disciple was the Master Dharmamitra, who composed the *Vinayastraka in seventy sections. Furthermore, Guaprabha is credited with the Vtti of that very stra, the Short Commentary. There are [also] the Indian texts composed by Prajkara, the short commentary composed by Vimalamitra, and one composed by kyaprabha Kalyamitra composed a commentary on the vastus (lung gzhi) and points of inquiry (zhu bai grel pa). Vimalamitra [composed] a commentary on the Prtimokastra in fifty sections, [and] in particular, Mitra [composed] the So sor bsdus grel. Vinitadeva composed a commentary on the Vibhaga, and laplita composed a commentary on the Kudraka. Bsod nams grags pa, Dul bai chos byung [History of Vinaya] (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1975), 18.4-24.4.

34

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

11

The answers the texts provide are intriguing, and yet the texts raise further interesting questions. Monasticism was a part of Buddhism in Tibet, but it was only gradually institutionalized, signaled by the adoption of Guaprabhas summaries, and their gradual rise in importance. The exact nature and extent of ninth to twelfth-century Indian and Tibetan Buddhist monasticism remain topics for further research. There are reports of monastic ordinations and evidence of monks and monasteries in Tibet, but routine rituals were likely not exactly similar to those described in Guaprabhas texts, suggesting that Indian monasticism as represented in the literature only gradually evolved into a distinctively Tibetan institution.

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

12

Glossary
Note: these glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entries list the following information in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliteration of the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, the Sanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolian or Latin, associated dates, and the type of term.
Ka Wylie kan suu mi rigs dpe skrun khang Phonetics Kensu Mirik Petrnkhang ca. 13th century English Other Dates Type Publisher

kun mkhyen mtsho sna Knkhyen Tsonawa ba Ga Wylie Phonetics English Other

Person

Dates

Type Text

gangs can mkhas grub Gangchen Khedrup rim byon Rimjn Mingdz ming mdzod grags pa byung gnas Drakpa Jungn dge dun grup pa dge dun grub pa grel chung Ca Wylie co ne cog ro klui rgyal mtshan Nya Wylie snyel tsor Ta Wylie bstan gyur Tha Wylie tho gar Da Wylie dul ba mdo rtsai rnam bshad nyi mai od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho dul ba mdoi rnam par bshad pa Phonetics Dlwa Do Ts Namsh Nyim zer Leksh Lunggi Gyamtso Dlwa D Nampar Shepa San. *Vinayastravykhyna English Other Dates Phonetics Togar English Other Dates Phonetics Tengyur English Other Dates Phonetics Nyeltsor English Other Dates Phonetics Chon Chokro L Gyentsen ninth century English Other Dates Gendn Druppa Gendn Druppa Drelchung The First Dalai Lama

Author 1391-1475 Person Author Text

Type Place Person

Type Place

Type Title collection

Type Place

Type Text

Text

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

13

dul bai chos byung Dlw Chnjung dul bai mdoi grel pa Dlw D Drelpa

History of Vinaya San. *Vinayastravtti San. *Vinayastravttyabhidhnasvavykhynam

Text Text Text

dul bai Dlw D Drelpa mdoi grel pa mngon Ngnpar Jpa Ranggi par brjod pa rang gi Nampar Shepa rnam par bshad pa dul bai mdoi grel pa bcom brlag ma zhes bya ba dul bai mdoi rgya cher grel pa sde dge sde dge bstan gyur Pa Wylie po ti lnga dpal sgyeu dpal sa nyi dpal lha btsan po Pha Wylie phags pai tshul khrims Ba Wylie Phonetics English Phonetics pakp tsltrim English Phonetics Poti Nga Pel Gyeu Pel Sanyi Pellha Tsenpo English Five Scriptures Mathur Dlw D Drelpa Chomlakma Zhejawa Commentary

Text

Dlw D Gyacher Drelpa Deg Deg Tengyur

San. *Vinayastraka

Text

Place Collection

Other

Dates

Type Textual Group Mountain Building Person

Other

Dates

Type Term

Other

Dates

Type

bu ston rin chen grub Butn Rinchen Drup byang chub sems pai Jangchup Semp Tsltrimkyi Le Shepa tshul khrims kyi leui bshad pa byang chub sems pai Jangchup Semp S sai grel Drelpa pa dben tsha Tsha Wylie tshul khrims byung gnas sbas pa Zha Wylie zha lu zhu bai grel pa Ra Wylie rong ston Phonetics Rongtn English Other Phonetics Zhalu zhuw drelpa point of inquiry English Other Phonetics Tsltrim Jungn Bepa English Other Wentsa San. *Bodhisattvalaparivartabhya San. *Bodhisattvabhmivtti

1290-1364 Person Text

Text

Building

Dates

Type

ca. Person 1107-1190

Dates

Type Monastery Term

Dates

Type Person

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

14

La Wylie lung gzhi legs par gsungs pai dam pai chos dul ba mtha dag gi snying poi don legs par bshad pa rin po che phreng ba Sha Wylie shes rab bzang po Sa Wylie so sor bsdus grel bsod nams grags pa A Wylie a mdo Sanskrit Wylie Phonetics English Sanskrit crya Alakradeva anuasanam ryadeva ryamlasarvstivdavinayakrik pupamlnma Asaga Adhyy atha Atia Bdaryana twelfth century Dates Type Term Person Term Person Text Phonetics Amdo English Other Dates Type Place Phonetics Sosor Dndrel Snam Drakpa English Other Dates Type Text Author Phonetics Sherap Zangpo English Other Dates Type Author Phonetics lungzhi Lekpar Sungp Damp Ch Dlwa Tadakgi Nyingp Dn Lekpar Shepa Rinpoch Trengwa English Other San. vastu Dates Type Term Text

Person Text Term 980-1054 Person ca. second Person century BCE Text Term Term Non-buddhist deity Term Text Term fl. 600-650 Person Term

Bhya bodhi bodhisattva Brahma brahmnuasanam Brahmastra brahmin Candrakrti devanagari

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

15

Dharmaguptaka Dharmakrti Dharmamitra Dignga Gandhra Guaprabha Hara ca. seventh century

Doxographical Category fl. ca. 7th Person century Author Person Place Person Person

iti Jayakara Jinamitra Kalyamitra krik Karmaata Karmavcan Kamr Khandaka Miscellaneous Topics Kudraka Mahsghika Mahvyutpatti Mahyna Mahsaka Maitreya Mathur Mitra Mlasarvstivda Mlasarvstivdin Ngrjuna Nland nirya niryavttam Pli Pini

Term Person fl. ca. 824 Person Person Term Text Text Place Text Text Doxographical Category Text Doxographical Category Doxographical Category Buddhist deity Place Person Doxographical Category Doxographical Category Person Monastery Term Term Ethnicity ca. fourth Person century BCE ca. 200 Person Author Text

Patajali Prajkara Prtimoka

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

16

Prtimokastra Renunciation Section Pravrajyvastu Pupaml Ratnasiha abda kyaprabha samdhi sadhi Saghadsa akara arada Sarvstivdin stra la laplita Skandhaka sopadhieanirva r Lak stra Stravibhaga Taranatha ka Tuita Vaibhika vajropamsampatti Vnaratna Vasubandhu Vibhaga Vimalamitra Vinaya Vinayakrik Vinayastra Autocommentary Vinayastravttyabhidhnasvavykhyna Vinayastravykhyna Vinitadeva Vikhadeva vttam Vtti 788-820 ca. 649

Text Text Text Person Term Person Term Term Person Person Term Doxographical Category Term Term Person Text Term Place Term Text Person Text Place Doxographical Category Term Person ca. fourth Person century Text Person Collection Text Text Text

Text Person Person Term Text

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

17

Vykhyna yoga Yogadaranam yognuasanam Chinese Wylie Phonetics English Chinese Kang Seng-kai Lanzhou Tan-ti Yijing ca. 635-713 Dates

Text Term Text Term

Type Person Publication Place Person Person

Nietupski: Guaprabhas Vinayastra Corpus

18

Bibliography
Sources in Tibetan and Sanskrit Bsod nams grags pa. Dul bai chos byung [History of Vinaya]. Dharmasala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1975. Dge dun grub pa, The First Dalai Lama. Legs par gsungs pai dam pai chos dul ba mtha dag gi snying poi don legs par bshad pa rin po che phreng ba. In The Collected Works of the First Dalai Lama Dge dun grub pa. Vol. 1. Gangtok: Dodrup Lama Sangye, Deorali Chorten, 1981. Dharmamitra. Dul bai mdoi rgya cher grel pa [*Vinayastraka]. In the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, 162, 13, u. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986. Grags pa byung gnas. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod. Lanzhou: Kan suu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1992. Guaprabha. Byang chub sems pai sai grel pa [*Bodhisattvabhmivtti]. In The Tibetan Tripiaka: Peking Edition, volume 112, edited by D. T. Suzuki. Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955. . Byang chub sems pai tshul khrims kyi leui bshad pa [*Bodhisattvalaparivartabhya]. In The Tibetan Tripiaka: Peking Edition, volume 112, edited by D. T. Suzuki. Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955. . Dul bai mdoi grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa [*Vinayastravttyabhidhnasvavykhynam]. In the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, volume 161, no. 12, zhu. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986. . Vinayastra and Autocommentary on the Same by Guaprabha. Edited by P. V. Bapat and V. V. Gokhale. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1982. . Vinayastra of Bhadanta Guaprabha. Edited by Rahul Sankrityayana. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1981. . Dul bai mdoi grel pa [*Vinayastravtti]. In the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, volume 165, no. 16, lu. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986. Prajkara. Dul ba mdoi rnam par bshad pa [*Vinayastravykhyna]. In the Sde dge Bstan gyur Series, volume 164, #15, ru. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986. Shes rab bzang po, Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba. Dul ba mdo rtsai rnam bshad nyi mai od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho. Karnataka: Drepung Losel Ling, n.d.

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

19

Secondary Sources Banerji, S. A. Traces of Buddhism in South India: 700-1600 A. D. Calcutta: Scientific Book Agency, 1970. Bapat, P. V. Discovery of a Sanskrit Text: Vinaya Stra, in the Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, January 4-10, Volume 3, Part 1, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1969, 343. Barua, D. K. Vihras in Ancient India: A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries. Calcutta: Indian Publications, 1969. Chimpa, L. and A. Chattopadhyaya, trans. Taranathas History of Buddhism in India. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970. Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Dreyfus, Georges B. J. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Dutt, Nalinaksha. The Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools. New Delhi: Rajesh Publications, 1980. Frauwallner, E. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature. Rome: Serie Orientale Roma, 1956. Halkias, Georgios. Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of phang thang. The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2 (2004): 46-105. Kaul, A. Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their Contributions Abroad. Srinagar: Utpal Publications, 1987. Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. Ruegg, David S. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981. Singh, Priya S. The Vinayastra of Guaprabha: A Historical Note. Buddhist Studies: The Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies, no. 10 (1986). Takakusu, J. A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago, AD 671-695. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982.

Вам также может понравиться