CC BY
42
LINES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE TIBETAN EDITIONS OF GZUNGS BSDUS COLLECTION FIRST PRINTED IN THE RTAG BRTAN MONASTERY FOUNDED BY TARANATHA
A.V. Zorin
The Department of Manuscripts and Documents the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaya emb., 18, St Petersburg, Russia, 191186
The paper is devoted to the collection of canonical, apocryphic and post-canonical texts known under the brief title Gzungs bsdus which was first printed at the Rtag brtan monastery founded by the famous figure of Tibetan Buddhism Taranatha in 1619 as a monastic center of Jonangpa school later converted to Dge lugs pa and renamed to Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling after Jonangpa was crushed by the government of the Fifth Dalai Lama in the mid of the 17th century. The paper is based on an unique collection of various editions of Gzungs bsdus kept at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, the Russian Academy of Sciences. The author discovered some editions which had never been introduced to the academic work, including the possibly oldest one printed in Mongolia and most close to the original edition (non-available) and two early Beijing editions, one of which is also close to the Rtag brtan edition while the other one was probably made right before the first official edition made in 1674 in Beijing for Kangxi, the Manchu Emperor of China. Some other sources, primarily later Tibetan editions of Gzungs bsdus available at the TBRC e-library, were also used. On the basis of comparison of all the editions found, from the earliest ones to the last Lhasa edition made in 1947, the author could present the first rather valid, from textological point of view, picture of development of this colelction of texts with two major lines clearly ascertained — the Original Tibetan one and the Imperial Beijing one.
Key words: Tibetan Buddhist literature, Buddhist Canon, Gzungs bsdus, Taranatha, Rtag brtan Monastery, Tubetan Buddhism in Beijing, book printing, textology.
(1) The subject of my paper is the well-known Gzungs bsdus, or Gzungs 'dus, collection of minor canonical, apocryphic and post-canonical Buddhist texts which is generally attributed to the famous Tibetan Buddhist teacher and thinker Taranatha (1575—1634). It was Taranatha who founded the Rtag brtan dam pa'i chos kyi gling monastery near Shigatse, which was the major center of the Jo nang pa school of Tibetan Buddhism from its foundation in 1615 [20. P. 2330] right up to its convertion to Dge lugs pa by the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1650, which followed with its renaming to Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling, in 1658. This attribution does not mean though that Taranatha himself was the editor and publisher of the entire collection, rather he only compiled the core of the collection that was later enlarged with some other texts, apparently after he passed away.
The size of the initial corpus is not totally certain. It cannot be excluded that it was limited to the greater part of the first section of the collection entitled Gzungs mdo. This term translates the Sanskrit Dharani-sutra meaning the subgenre of Sutra literature that contains powerful dharani prayers. Apart from the texts of this kind, such as SarvatathagatosnTsavijaya-nama-dharanT-kalpasahita (De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnampar rgyal ba zhes bya ba'i gzungs rtogpa dang bcaspa), etc., and a number of dharani prayers given without any narrative frame, the Gzungs mdo section
contains some other important texts considered to have magical powers, including its very first text, the famous Arya-manjusrrnamasamgrti ('Phags pa 'jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa). The texts or groups of related texts of the collection are enumerated with Tibetan letters, from Ka to A, then Ki, Ku, Ke, Ko, etc., usually up to Pho. The end of the part edited by Taranatha himself is clearly found after the pt. Co as thereafter a colophon is given — This Dharanr-sutra [Section] was edited by Great Vajradhara Taranatha, hence totally correct (2), or a slightly different version used in a certain branch of the development of the collection, This Dharani-sutra [Section] was copied from the edition by Great Vajradhara Taranatha (3). Several more texts were added to this section later, possibly together with the second section entitled Mdo phran, Minor Sutras, containing a number of important texts such as Arya-vajracchedika-nama-prajnaparamita-mahayana-sutra ('Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa rdo rje gcod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo) or Arya-sagaranagarajapariprccha-nama-mahayana-sutra ('Phags pa klu'i rgyal po rgya mtshos zhus pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo.) There are also a number of other texts, mostly apocrypha, belonging to Gter ma literature and closely associated with the figure of Padmasambhava (8th century).
The second section has no special colophon naming Taranatha as its compiler, though some texts of this section as well as the majority of texts from the first section are completed with the verdicts zhus dag, "edited", or dag, "correct", and auspicious formulae, but it is not clear if we should consider them all as Taranatha's own words. Moreover, according to the Dkar chag of the late 18th century edition made in Labrang Monastery of Amdo, although there were many dharani collections compiled by many wise men who appeared here in the Land of Snow during the early and later periods [of the Dharma dissemination] [we] re-edited the edition of Gzungs bsdus made in the Rtag brtan phun tshogs gling monastery that [consisted of] Dharani-sutras and Minor Sutras [Sections] checked by Great Noble Taranatha to which some treasury texts, etc., that had become famous in Tibet, were added (4). If we can trust the publishers of this edition, made a century and a half after the death of Taranatha, the core of the collection compiled by him did include also the second section — but without any Gter ma texts.
In any case, I think the quotations presented are eloquent enough to correct the idea expressed in some Beijing editions that Taranatha ordered the printing of Gzungs bsdus (5), since the final formation of the collection, not to say its printing, obviously took place after his death.
What follows the rather long introductory part of this paper is aimed at showing how the first edition of the Gzungs bsdus collection, based upon the initital corpus compiled by Taranatha, developed over time in a widespread territory including Central and Eastern Tibet, China, Mongolia, Buryatia and Ladakh. This paper will be limited by editions in Tibetan, the Mongolian translations of Gzungs bsdus deserving special research.
My privilege of working at the Tibetan library kept at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one so rich in many respects, is the only reason why my study could go further than that of my predecessors, the German
scholars M. Taube and R.O. Meisezahl, who tried to discover the key to understanding how the editions of Gzungs bsdus available to them were related to each other. Their papers on the subject were published 45 years ago together, in the same volume of the journal Zentralasiatische Studien. M. Taube scrutinized four editions of Gzungs bsdus kept in various Eastern German libraries and museums and tried to reconstruct their 'genealogical tree', for which purpose he used also data on some other Tibetan and Mongolian editions kept in Paris, catalogued and described by M. Lalou and L. Ligeti respectively. This attempt resulted in rather a chaotic scheme [27. S. 64] showing clearly the defects of mechanic textological comparison (6).
In his paper, R.O. Meisezahl scrutinized more editions of Gzungs bsdus than were available to M. Taube. He divided them into two groups such as
1) those belonging to the Rtag brtan redaction, namely three editions that are not dated but contain the name of Rtag brtan monastery and do not have anything Chinese in their outlook, hence their combination into one group, and
2) those belonging to the Beijing redaction, namely four editions, from 1691, 1729 (two different ones), and 1731, acc. to their colophons [25. S. 82—124].
We should notice though, just as R.O. Meisezahl did, that the latter edition, made in 1731, also mentions Rtag brtan monastery in its colophon, hence it seems slightly inappropriate that it was not included into the first group. R.O. Meisezahl noticed also another important fact, that the colophon of the second edition made in 1729 repeats the colophon of the former edition made in 1674, and so he had to remark that only after this edition could be discovered could the whole picture of development of Gzungs bsdus be clarified [25. S. 124].
V. Uspensky, who worked at the IOM Tibetan library for several years, was first to find the 1674 edition there and describe it briefly, in 1996 [28. P. 176]. A more detailed information on this edition illustrated with a fragment of a folio from one of its three block print copies kept at the IOM RAS, the one being probably the biggest Tibetan block print worldwide (size — 89,5 x 34,7 cm), was published later, in 2011, in his monograph on Tibetan Buddhism in Beijing [30. P. 269—270]. This important discovery, however, proved sufficient in answering only a few questions.
In 2007, I initiated a long project aimed at the thorough processing and cataloguing of the IOM Tibetan library. My colleague, Dr Svetlana Sabrukova, who joined me a year later, and I started with the editions of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon and separate texts from it. In 2009, all the editions of Gzungs bsdus found at the library were initially brought together and described (7). They were also given new library numbers. As is clear now these numbers do not reflect the right chronological order of the editions and, as often happens, one of the less inspiring editions, numbered Tib.177-3 [16], turned out to be a major key for their proper ordering. This is a block print of clearly nonChinese appearance with the colophon stating that it was produced in accordance with the edition made in Rtag brtan monastery, in the great northern land of Mongolia by the order of the Descendent of Heavenly Appointed Genghis Khan, Pa thur hung tha'i ci named Siddhi (8). Initially, it was very tempting to identify this person with the founder of the Zunghar Khanate Erdenebaatar Khong Tayiji, who ruled during 1634—1653,
since this edition seemed to reflect the original edition (OE) of Gzungs bsdus. The problem is that Erdenebaatar Khong Tayiji did not belong or claimed to belong to the line of direct descendants of Genghis Khan. Moreover, Siddhi is not attested as his personal name. Thanks to generous help by V. Uspensky a more appropriate "candidate" was found, namely the younger brother of the first Bogd Gegen of Mongolia, Zanabazar (1635—1723), Sidisiri, who had first the title of Khong Tayiji but was given the title of Jasak by the Manchu Emperor, in 1686, and then, in 1691, that of Beile. If this identification is true the block print must have been produced before 1686 and, surely, could be made rather long before this year, back to late 1650s.
It is also worth mentioning that, according to the colophon, the edition was printed at this Great Central Camp Exalted With Many Auspicious Signs (the name?) near the great residence of Dpal Ri bo dge rgyas gling [monastery] (9). This name inevitably reminds us about the Ri bo dge rgyas dga' ldan bshad sgrub gling monastery founded by Zanabazar in 1654 and later ruined by the Junghars, in late 1680s. The monastery and the camp around it (Urga) were afterwards re-established at a different place where the capital of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, is now located. Since Zanabazar was considered to be a reincarnation of Taranatha it is tempting to draw a link between him and the first Mongolian edition of Gzungs bsdus thus supporting our identification.
According to the colophon the edition contains 135 texts in pts. Ka - Pho but they are in fact supplied with four additional parts that have no numbering letters but are put in the volume right after pt. Co which is the end of the original Gzungs mdo Section compiled by Taranatha (10). These parts are named briefly Tare (The Hymn in 21 Homages), Dkon mchog (The Recollection of Jewels), Tshigs su bcad pa (One, Two, Four Gathas) and Dam bcas (two dharanIs related to Maitreya and Manjusrl; this part is expanded with three additional texts in later editions). The colophon does not mention the year when the edition was printed, but the list of the texts included, the shortest one of all those found, prove that this edition must have been made very close to the time when the original edition was produced and appears to be its closest copy (11). There remains the question though as to whether the OE included the abovemen-tioned four additional parts or if there was a slightly enlarged later version with them.
The IOM RAS has a Chinese block print, Tib.171 [8], that has exactly the same texts arranged in the same order as the Mongolian edition except for the abovemen-tioned four pts. that are added to the end of the collection as the continuation of the final part Pho and in a different internal order — Bo, Bu, Be, Bi resp., with The Hymn in 21 Homages completing the volume. Unfortunately, the first and fourth (last?) ff. of the Dkar chag are missing so it is hard to ascertain when exactly this copy of the OE was produced. Although, as will be shown later, an early Tibetan edition could have been reproduced in Bejing even in the 18th century, I find it more likely that it is in fact the first Chinese edition, made before 1674, since I can find no other traces of this edition in any catalogues of Tibetan libraries worldwide or descriptions of editions in Mongolian translation, and so it must be a rare block print which is more likely to be found among texts produced at the earlier period. On the other hand, it is important to
stress that the general outer features of this volume resemble very much those of the edition made in Beijing in 1674, which is a result of serious textological work aimed at making an enlarged version of Gzungs bsdus for imperial use, so I cannot believe Tib.171 could have been produced by the end of the 17th century after this official edition was printed. These considerations will remain hypothetical though until a copy of this edition supplied with the Dkar chag can be found in some Tibetan library in Mongolia, China or elsewhere.
Apart from these two editions following closely the OE, I was lucky enough to discover at the IOM Tibetan library OE's slightly enlarged version, the volume numbered Tib.177-2 [15]. The paper of the volume is clearly not Chinese and there are no Chinese marginalia so I think we should believe its colophon stating that it was produced in Dpal Rtag brtan dam pa'i chos kyi gling [15, Dkar chag, F. 2a1-2] — just like the colophon of the well-known Chinese edition made in 1731 (Tib. 177 at the IOM RAS [14]) which turns out to be nothing else but a very close copy of the edition represented with Tib.177-2 (12). Thus, it simply repeats the old name of the monastery that had been renamed to Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling about 75 years before this Chinese print was made. The indigenous enlarged version then must have been prepared at least before 1658, and probably even earlier, before the conversion of the monastery to Dge lugs pa. This edition absorbs the three of four additional parts mentioned above by giving them stable positions inside the structure fixed in the colophon, though only one of these positions was carried on by the later editions, namely Tare placed as the pt. Ja (the second one with this number), while the fourth additional part, Tshigs su bcadpa, is not mentioned in its colophon although it is printed with the numbering letter Gi. In Tib.177-2 it is found in the very end of the volume, right before the Dkar chag while the Chinese copy fixes its position in the very beginning of the second volume (some editions are divided into two volumes) before pt. Ju. The other two of the four additional pts. and three more pts. were put in the end of the entire collection and marked with numbering letters Bi—Mi.
The next step in the development of the collection is found in the block print H.3680 kept in Stockholm and fully described by H. Eimer [21; 22]. Its colophon uses, for the first time, the Dge lugs pa name of the monastery, so it is surely later than Tib.177-2, although in some respects regarding the additional texts H.3680 does not follow Tib.177-2 (13). Otherwise, H.3680 is nothing but a replica of Tib.177-2, repeating even its number of ff. for each part and the way the texts are arranged there. It shares also the above-cited second version of the colophon to the Gzungs mdo section first attested in Tib.177-2 and then repeated in all later Tibetan editions of Gzungs bsdus, while all the Chinese editions except for the one made in 1731 follow the OE in this respect. At the same time, these Chinese editions are closer to H.3680 than to Tib.177-2 in respect of a few differences between them, some of which have been mentioned. So I think it is very probable that they were generally based on H.3680, maybe with a limited use of some copy of the OE, rather on the first Chinese edition hypothetically discovered in the IOM Tib.171.
It seems that H.3680 was not the final version of Gzungs bsdus made in the Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling monastery. From the paper by H. Eimer, we learn about Gzungs bsdus made there around 1694 and consisting of 865 ff. [22. S. 168— 169], the number significantly exceeding that of H.3680's 813 ff. I think there existed an enlarged version of H.3680, since the above-cited Labrang ed. made in 1785 is said to be a copy of Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs edition but it contains several additional texts and consists of 864 ff., almost the same number as in the edition made around 1694.
Moreover, my analysis of the contents of Gzungs bsdus printed in Lhasa, probably, in late 19th century (14) which is, according to its colophon, a copy of the Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling edition and of a Ladakh copy of the edition made in Bkra shis lhun po monastery [6], which itself is in fact a copy of the Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling edition, shows that several additional texts were inserted. For this reason, I think there could be one or two (if some minor differences between the Lhasa and Bkra shis lhun po / Ladakh editions reflect two stages of textual development) later revisions of the Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling edition. The Lhasa edition was later seriously enlarged and printed in 1947. This edition [3] represents the final stage of the development of Gzungs bsdus that had started more than three centuries before as a collection of texts compiled by Taranatha whose role, eloquently enough, was finally eliminated, since the colophon to the initial Gzungs mdo section mentioning his name was not reproduced here — maybe, for the first time though, in order to prove it, I need to check all the other Tibetan editions that were printed in various Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. For instance, there was an edition made in Derge in the first third of the 18th century, but I could only check its Dkar chag compiled by the famous Tshul khrims rin chen (1694—1774), a major figure in publishing the Derge edition of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon [5]. Although this edition obviously reflects some general local as well as personal religious interests of the Derge clergymen, the Dkar chag shows definitely that it was based upon the Rtag brtan / Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling edition, the version found in Stockholm H.3680. I should note that it may be a matter of a special academic importance to study the Gzungs 'dus section of the Derge edition of Bka' 'gyur, the first part of the Buddhist Canon [19. P. 142—180], in comparison with Gzungs bsdus as the independent collection of texts discussed in this paper.
What has been said so far concerns mainly the most developed and variegated branch of development of Gzungs bsdus that can be roughly called the original Tibetan line. Let us turn now to the revised Beijing line that consists of five editions, basically identical and different only in few minor aspects. Four of them have been properly introduced by M. Taube, R.O. Meisezahl, and V. Uspensky, but the entire picture could not be complete without another one which I had the fortune to find at the IOM Tibetan library — the volume numbered Tib.176 [13].
Its structure and repertoire are almost identical with the edition made in 1674, numbered Tib.170 [7] at the IOM collection, save for just two exceptions, since
1) Tib.176 does not have the internal colophon 'Gyur byang included into the pt. Pho completing the volume of Tib.170, and
2) both editions put in the end three mantras, those of Avalokitesvara (the famous six-syllabled one), Vajrasattva (the 100-syllabled one) and Pratltya-samutpada, so that in Tib. 176 they complete the volume while in Tib. 170 they precede 'Gyur byang, although Tib.176 has them 3, 1 and 1 times printed resp. while Tib.170 repeats them 98, 7 and 7 times resp.
These two features of difference are found also in three well-known later Beijing editions. Thus, the edition made in 1691 for Kangxi Emperor, Tib.178 at the IOM [17], and then copied with some insignificant changes in 1729 at the time of rule of Yongzheng Emperor, Tib.175 [12], clearly follows Tib.176 while the edition made in 1729 specifically for Yongzheng Emperor, Tib.173 [10], follows Tib.170. The latter edition, made in 1729, was used by one of the Buryat monasteries to produce its almost exact replica in the 19th century, this edition being numbered Tib.174 in the IOM collection [11]. There is also a manuscript copy of the same edition, numbered Tib.178-2 [18], which was most probably made in Buryatia in the 19th century or early 20th century. The importance of these Buryat editions is not in any textological value but in showing that Gzungs bsdus was well-known to the Buddhists of the Russian Empire.
Unfortunately, Tib.176 lacks the Dkar chag and again, as with Tib.171, I cannot say for sure when it was produced. Its general outlook is very similar to that of Tib.170 and Tib.171, and three of them (Tib.170, Tib.171, Tib.176) are not divided into two parts like the editions made from the late 17th century through the first third of the 18th century. That I have no evidences for the existence of such an edition in other collections may be a sign of its rarity, though I do hope it can be found, together with the Dkar chag, in some less explored Asian collections. Finally, if Tib.176 was produced after Tib.170 we shall have to explain why 'Gyur byang written for the official imperial version of Gzungs bsdus was omitted. Given all these facts, I am almost sure that Tib.176 had to be prepared before Tib.170, hence by 1674, perhaps as a draft version (15).
I understand very well that all the data presented above should better be tested against the tables of texts I compiled for each edition and concordances I compiled for all groups of editions, but it would be impossible to include them in this short publication. I hope that the tables showing the two major lines of textual development of Gzungs bsdus in the course of time given below can facilitate the reader's apprehension.
To conclude I would like to say that this paper has not touched at all upon some important issues, such as the actual genesis of the Gzungs bsdus collection which is to be found probably in earlier collections of minor canonical texts such as those described in papers by P. Harrison [23, 1996] and R.O. Meisezahl [25. S. 68—82], or the possible connection of the Rtag brtan Gzungs bsdus with other collections of texts of this kind including the 'correct' Dge lugs pa version printed in Beijing in the 18th century. Nor have I dealt with its place in the history of the formation of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon although, as was said before, it was surely known and used by Tshul khrims rin chen, one of the main editors of the Derge redaction of the Canon. These issues will hopefully be studied in the near future.
Fig. 1. The original Tibetan line
Fig. 2. The Imperial Beijing line
FOOTNOTES
(1) The study was supported with a grant for young scholars from the Government of St Petersburg, the Committee for Science and Higher Education, 2013. I would like to thank Dr. Simon Wick-ham-Smith for his English proofreading and Prof. V. Uspensky for his generous help and valuable remarks.
(2) Gzungs mdo 'di ni rdo rje 'chang chen po rje btsun tä ra nä thas zhus dag gnang nas shin tu dag pa yod do [16, Pt. Co, F. 3a5; etc.].
(3) Gzungs mdo 'di ni rdo rje 'chang chen po rje btsun tä ra nä thas zhus dag gnang ba'i dpe las bris ba'o [15, Pt. Co, F. 4a2-3; etc.].
(4) De yang gangs can gyi Ijongs 'dir snga phyir byon pa'i mkhas pa du mas bsgrigs pa'i gzungs bsdus mang du mchis na 'ang | 'dir rje btsun chen po t'a ra n'a thas zhus dag mdzad pa'i mdo phran dang gzungs phran rnams kyi steng du | bod na grags che ba'i gter ma sogs 'ga' zhig bsnan nas | rtag brtan phun tshogs gling du brkos pa'i gzungs bsdus par ma phyi mor byas te par gsar bskrun la bzhugspa... [9, Pt. Dkar chag, F. 2a5-2b3; etc.].
(5) Gangs can rtag brtan du ta ra na taspar du bzhengspa [7, Pt. Dkar chag, F. 1b6; etc.].
(6) In the former USSR, such kind of methodology had been criticized by Acad. D. Likhachev in his opus magnum on textology [24] and consequently refuted.
(7) Except for one volume belonging to the famous collection of G. Tsybikov brought by him from Lhasa in 1902; this collection is kept as an unit and will be processed as such in 2014.
(8) Byang phyogs chen po hor gyi sa yi char\ | gnam bskos ching gis rigs las mi yi dbang\ \... siddhi 'i mtshan can pa thur hung tha'i ci [16, Pt. Dkar chag, F. 1a3].
(9) Dpal ri bo dge rgyas gling gi gnas gzhi chen po'i nye 'dabs\ \dge mtshan du mas mngonpar mtho ba'i dkyil sgar chen po 'dir... [16, Pt. Dkar chag, F. 1a5-6].
(10) The number of texts is often put right after the list of texts in Dkar chag but never corresponds with the actual number of texts included since there are always some minor texts not mentioned there. In Bibliography both the number of texts acc. to Dkar chag lists and actual number of them (including mantras if they are separated clearly from other texts) are given for the editions kept at the IOM RAS and H.3680, while two editions available at TBRC (Lhasa 1947 and La-dakh editions) claim to be checked again for calculating the correct actual number of texts. Moreover, concerning the editions processed so far, I have to confess that in some cases I was not quite sure which minor fragments shall be considered as independent texts, hence the actual number can be corrected after a more profound study of the entire collection. The list of texts in Bibliography is also supplied with some other data that can prove helpful for identifying doublets of the editions in other libraries and museums, but I did not include there the printed area size of block prints since I do not find this information really important for this purpose. The entire description of each volume is to be issued in the first part of the catalogue of the IOM Tibetan collection which is currently being prepared.
It would have been impossible to present here the titles of all texts, they can be found in several papers and catalogues, e.g. the paper by R.O. Meisezahl which is supplied with an appendix containing a concordance table [25]; the identification of texts can be found in the description of the Mongolian Gzungs bsdus by V. Uspensky [29. P. 147—170].
(11) V. Uspensky who was kind enough to check this volume found its paleographic features resembling later Urga editions of Tibetan texts, dating from 19th century, though some other features can testify the possibility of earlier dating (especially, style of handwritten Mongolian equivalents of the titles found on the first folio of each section). To my mind, though, it would be rather strange if the earliest edition of Gzungs bsdus that was never reproduced anywhere else since the late 17th century could be printed in Urga at that time although such a possibility can not be excluded either. Theoretically, a copy of the OE could be used for this purpose and so Tib.177-3 can be its later reproduction — in the same way as Tib.174 is a later Buryat copy of Tib.173.
(12) It only adds a short additional colophon telling us that it was produced on the 9th year of rule of Yongzheng Emperor, i.e. 1731 [14, Pt. Mi, F. 7a7-8].
(13) E.g. H.3680 does not have at all the pt. Mi introduced there and does not give any numbering letter to the pt. Dkon mchog (Be in Tib.177-2), simply putting it between pts. Ti and Tu, corresponding to the place this pt. occupies in the much later Labrang edition.
(14) It was ordered by G. Tsybikov in Lhasa during his expedition to Central Tibet in 1899—1902, the current number of this volume at the IOM RAS is B-9906. It contains no data on the year of publication, unlike its later copy made in 1913 and supplied with an additional colophon where the year of printing is mentioned [4].
(15) Although this paper is not intended to cover editions of Gzungs bsdus in Mongolian translations I found it important to check, with the generous help of my colleague Alla Sizova, who works with the IOM collection of Mongolian texts, the contents of the manuscript edition K.6 produced in Beijing in 1673, that was first introduced by A.G. Sazykin in a brief paper [26] not supplied with the list of texts found in this version of Mongolian Gzungs bsdus. This turned
out to be an early version of the revised Beijing edition of Gzungs bsdus, enlarged with some additional texts found in Tib.170 such as a group of auspicious verses added to pt. Ji and briefly entitled Spyod 'jug, Thog mtha' 'bar, Bde ba can, Zhing mchog, Gsang 'dus smon lam. Others, however, are not found here, including the hymn to Avalokitesvara from the Ma ni bka' 'bum apocrypha attributed traditionally to the famous Tibetan King Srong btsan sgam po (7th century). Another peculiar feature of K.6 is found in the beginning of the final pt. Pho that starts, in all Tibetan editions, with three short hymnic texts such as De bzhin gshegs pa Inga'i bkra shis, De bzhin gshegs pa'i mdzad pa bcu'i bkra shis and Sangs rgyas dpa' bo bdun gyi bkra shis but K.6 omits the first text and interchanges the other two. Taking into consideration the fact that none of Tibetan editions except for the latest ones mention the first text, i.e. De bzhin gshegs pa Inga'i bkra shis, in their Dkar chags, I have a feeling that the editors of K.6 tried to follow, in some respects, the list of texts actually given in the original Dkar chag. This is strengthened by another example - a very short versified text called Shloka brgya lobs pa that is mentioned as completing the pt. Kho in all the Tibetan Dkar chags, though it always begins pt. Sha, is nonetheless put, in K.6, in its rightful place - in the end of pt. Kho. Anyway, it is very important to stress that before 1674 there were some draft versions of the imperial Gzungs bsdus, and both Tib. 171 and Tib. 176 could really have been produced before this year.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Sources
[1] B-9906 (No. 76 of Tsybikov's collection, IOM): Lhasa, late 19th century?; 1 title in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu, number of texts — 159 (col.), 214 (actual number) + concluding verses; 2 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, separate pagination for each pt., [409] + [408] ff. + Dkar chag, 5 ff.
[2] H.3680: Stockholm, Etnografiska Museet — 1 nearly complete copy (pt. Khe is missing); Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling monastery, after 1658?; 2 titles in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu and Byin rlabs gzi 'od 'phro ba 'i gsung rab rin chen gter, number of texts —135 (col.), 164 (actual number) + concluding verses; 1 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, separate pagination for each pt., [808?] ff. + Dkar chag, 5 ff.
[3] TBRC, W1KG12113: Lhasa, 1947; title (on the cover) — Mdo sngags gsung rab rgya mtsho 'i snyingpo mtshan gzungs mang bsdus, number of texts — 159 (col.); 2 vols., 310 and 311 ff. + Dkar chag, 9 ff.
[4] TBRC, W1KG5988: Lhasa, 1913, reproduced in Waranasi, 1994; a copy of B-9906.
[5] TBRC, W10347: Tshul khrims rin chen. Bka' nye bar mkho ba rnams gcig tu bsdebs pa'i glegs bam 'dod dgu 'jo ba'i bum bzang // Tshul khrims rin chen. Gsung 'bum, vol. A, pt. 6.
[6] TBRC, W4CZ1062: Ri dzong dgon pa (Ladakh) — a copy of a Bkra shis lhun po ed.; 1 title in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu, number of texts — 170 (col.); 1 vol., pts. Ka — Mi, separate pagination for each pt., [about 760] ff. + Dkar chag, 5? ff. (f. 5, the last one?, is missing).
[7] Tib.170: the IOM — 2 complete and 1 imcomplete (f. 1—113 are missing) copies; Beijing, 1674; 2 titles in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu and Byin rlabs gzi 'od 'phro ba'i gsung rab rin chen gter, number of texts — 165 (col.), 188 (actual number) + concluding verses, mantras and 'Gyur byang; 1 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, 591 ff. + Dkar chag in Tibetan, 5 ff., and in Mongolian, 7 ff.
[8] Tib.171: the IOM — 1 complete copy; Beijing, before 1674?; 2 titles in the col. (probably, the col. is incomplete) — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu and Byin rlabs gzi 'od 'phro ba 'i gsung rab rin chen gter, number of texts — 165 (col.), 164 (actual number) + concluding verses; 1 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, 394 ff. (395 acc. to the original pagination but numbers 302 and 303 are given to one f.) + Dkar chag, 4 ff.
[9] Tib. 172: the IOM — 1 complete and 1 incomplete (vol. 1 is missing) copies; Labrang, 1785; 1 title in the col. — Gzungs bsdus kyi glegs bam, number of texts — 167 (col.), 182 (actual number) + concluding verses; 2 vols., pts. Ka — Thu and The — Wo, separate pagination for each pt., [418] and [446] ff.
[10] Tib.173: the IOM — 4 complete and 1 incomplete (vol. 1 is missing) copies; Beijing, 1729 (2) — follows Tib.170; 2 vol., pts. Ka — Ji, Ju — Pho, 380 ff. (1—190 and 190—380, number 190 is dubbed) + Dkar chag, 4 ff.
[11] Tib.174: the IOM — 10 complete and 1 incomplete (vol. 2 is missing) copies; Buryatia, the 19th century? — a copy of Tib. 173.
[12] Tib. 175: the IOM — 18 complete copies; Beijing, 1729 (1) — follows Tib.178; 2 vol., pts. Ka — Ju, Ju — Pho, 197 and 188 ff. + Dkar chag, 5 ff.
[13] Tib.176: the IOM — 1 almost complete copy; Beijing, before 1674?; 2 titles in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu and Byin rlabs gzi 'od 'phro ba 'i gsung rab rin chen gter, number of texts — 165 (col., probably), 188 (actual number) + concluding verses and mantras; 1 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, 388 ff.
[14] Tib.177: the IOM — 1 complete and 1 incomplete (vol. 1 is missing) copies; Beijing, 1731 — a copy of Tib.177-2.
[15] Tib.177-2: the IOM — 1 complete and 1 incomplete (vol. 1 is missing) copies; Rtag brtan monastery, before 1658; 2 titles in the col. — Glegs bam yid bzhin nor bu and Byin rlabs gzi 'od 'phro ba'i gsung rab rin chen gter, number of texts — 135 (col., probably), 171 (actual number) + concluding verses; 2 vols., pts. Ka — Ji, Ju — Mi, Gi, separate pagination for each pt., [409] and [410] ff. + Dkar chag, 5 ff. + [Par byang], 2 ff.
[16] Tib.177-3: the IOM — 1 complete copy; Mongolia, before 1653; 2 titles in the col. — Bsam 'phelyid bzhin dbang gi rgyal and Byin rlabs gter gyurpa'i gsung rab rin chen glegs bam mchog, number of texts — 135 (col.), 164 (actual number) + concluding verses; 1 vol., pts. Ka — Pho, separate pagination for each pt., [536] ff.
[17] Tib.178: the IOM — 2 complete and 2 incomplete (1 — many ff. are missing, 2 — vol. 2 is missing) copies; Beijing, 1729 (1) — follows Tib.176; number of texts — 165 (col., probably), 167 (cover title), 188 (actual number) + concluding verses and mantras; 2 vol., pts. Ka — Ju, Je — Pho, 211 and 199 ff. + Dkar chag, 4 ff.
[18] Tib.178-2: the IOM — a ms copy of Tib.173; Buryatia, the 19th century?; 2 vol., pts. Ka — Ji, Ju — Pho, 389 and 380 ff. + Dkar chag, 6 ff.
2. Catalogues, papers, reference books
[19] A complete catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist canons (Bkah-hgyur and Bstan-hgyur) / Ed. by Hakuju Ui, Munetada Suzuki, Yensho Kanakura, Tokan Tada. Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University, 1934.
[20] Dung dkar tshig mdzod chen mo, 2002: Mkhas dbang dung dkar blo bzang 'phrin las mchog gis mdzad pa'i bod rig pa'i tshig mdzod chen mo shes bya rab gsal. Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2002.
[21] Eimer H. Tibetica Stockholmiensia. Handliste der tibetischen Texte der Sven-Hedin-Stiftung und des Ethnographischen Museums zu Stockholm" // Zentralasiatische Studien 6, 1972. S. 603—682; 7, 1973. S. 301—351; 8, 1974. S. 179—240; 9, 1975. S. 37—86; 10, 1976. S. 625—674; 11, 1977. S. 507—554; 12, 1978. S. 315—358.
[22] Eimer H. Die Ausgabe des Gzungs 'dus aus Dga' ldan phun tshogs gling // Jaina-itihasa-ratna. Festschrift für Gustav Roth zum 90. Geburtstag. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2006. S. 163—177.
[23] Harrison P. Preliminary Notes on a gZungs 'dus Manuscript from Tabo // Suhrllekhah. Festgabe für Helmut Eimer. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1996. P. 49—68.
[24] Likhachev D.S. Tekstologiya (na materiale russkoy literatury X—XVII vv. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962.
[25] Meisezahl R.O. Über zwei mDo-man Redaktionen und ihre Editionen in Tibet und China // Zentralasiatische Studien 2. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Otto Harrassowitz, 1968. S. 67—150.
[26] Sazykin A. A Mongolian Manuscript 'Sungdui' // Manuscripta Orientalia. Vol. 5, No 3, September 1999. P. 62—69.
[27] Taube M. Zur Textgeschichte einiger gZuns-bsdus-Ausgaben // Zentralasiatische Studien 2. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Otto Harrassowitz, 1968. S. 55—66.
[28] Uspensky V. Old Tibetan and Mongolian Collections in the Libraries of St. Petersburg // Asian Research Trends, 1996, No. 6. P. 173—184.
[29] Uspensky V. Catalogue of the Mongolian Manuscripts and Xylographs in the St. Petersburg State University Library. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999.
[30] Uspensky V. Tibetskiy buddizm v Pekine. St Petersburg, 2011.
ЛИНИИ РАЗВИТИЯ ТИБЕТОЯЗЫЧНЫХ ИЗДАНИЙ СБОРНИКА «СУНГДУЙ», ВПЕРВЫЕ НАПЕЧАТАННОГО В МОНАСТЫРЕ ТАКТЭН, ОСНОВАННОМ ТАРАНАТХОЙ
А.В. Зорин
Отдел рукописей и документов Институт восточных рукописей РАН Дворцовая наб., 18, Санкт-Петербург, Россия, 191186
Статья посвящена сборнику канонических, апокрифических и постканонических буддийских текстов, известному под кратким наименованием «Сунгдуй» и впервые напечатанному в монастыре тибетской школы чжонанг Тактэн, который был основан знаменитым деятелем тибетского буддизма Таранатхой в 1619 г. и который, после разгрома школы чжонанг правительством Пятого Далай-ламы в середине XVII в., перешел в ведение школы гэлук и получил новое название Гадэн-пунцок-линг. Статья основана на уникальном собрании различных изданий «Сунгдуя», хранящихся в Институте восточных рукописей РАН. Автором впервые были выявлены несколько изданий, до сего момента неизвестных мировой науке, в том числе, по-видимому, старейшее из известных изданий, наиболее близкое исходному (напечатано в Монголии), а также два наиболее ранних пекинских издания, одно из которых близко оригинальному изданию монастыря Тактэн, а второе, вероятно, непосредственно предшествовало появлению первого официального издания 1674 г., созданного в Пекине для маньчжурского императора Китая Канси. К работе были привлечены также некоторые другие источники, которых нет в коллекции ИВР РАН, прежде всего более поздние тибетские издания «Сунгдуя», доступные в электронной библиотеке тибетских текстов TBRC. На основании сравнения всех изданий, начиная с самых ранних и заканчивая последним лхасским 1947 г., автору впервые удалось представить достаточно надежную текстологически картину развития памятника, в которой отчетливо выделяются две основные линии: «оригинальная тибетская» и «императорская пекинская».
Ключевые слова: тибетская буддийская литература, буддийский канон, «Сунгдуй», Таранатха, монастырь Тактэн, тибетский буддизм в Пекине, книгопечатание, текстология.
