on a peking edition of the tibetan kangyur which seems to be unknown in the west

8/13/2019 On a Peking Edition of the Tibetan Kangyur Which Seems to Be Unknown in the West

1/36

Journal of the International Association ofBuddhist StudiesVolume 22 Number1 1999

JINHUA CHENOne Name, Three Monks:Tw o Northern Chan M asters Emergefrom the Shadow of Their Contemporary,the Tiantai Master Zhanran^B (711-782) 1J6R6M E DUCORShandao et Honen, a propos du livrede Julian F. Pas:Visions ofSukhavatT 93ULRICH PAGELThreeBodh isattvapitakaFragments from Tabo:Observations on a West Tibetan Manuscript Tradition 165Introduction toAlexander von Stael-Holstein's Article"On a Peking Edition of the Tibetan KanjurWhich Seem s to be Unknown in the West"Edited for publication by JONATHAN A. SILK 211JER6ME DUCORShandao and Honen. AproposofJulian F. Pas's bookVisions ofSukhavatT(English summary) 251


2/36

OnaPeking EditionoftheTibetan Kanjurwhich Seems to be Unknowninthe Westby BaronA vonStael-HolsteinInthewritingsofmodern scholars onlytwoprinted Peking editionsofthe Tibetan Kanjur have,as far as Iknow, been described.One ofthemwas published in A. D. 1410, and theotherone in A. D. 1700'\ThePrussian State Library possesses thirtysix volumes belongingto the A.D. 1410 edition2),but nocomplete copyof it isdefinitely knowntohavesurvived anywhere.

0

a. This statementis nowknownto be inaccurateonboth counts.Thevolumeswhich wereinthe Prussian State Library (they were destroyed during the SecondWorld War) seem[orseemedto mepreviously]tohave belongedto the 1606Wan-li print,not the 1410Yung-lo,and at leasttwocomplete copiesof theYung-lo doinfact survive. Seemy"Notes on the HistoryoftheYongle Kanjur,"inM.Hahn,R.Steiner,and J.-U.Hartmann,eds.,Suhrllekhah: FestgabefiirHelmut Eimer. IndicaetTibetica28 (Swisttal-Odendorf, Germany: IndicaetTibetica Verlag 1996): 153-200.See nowalso OCHI Junji MWtfc, "Sera-ji,EirakubantoDepun-ji, Ritanbanni tsuite" -fe^^r" flfi.^Wib^f'f^^ ' \)$ V WiZ.-O^X [The Sera Yung-loand theDrepungLithang],Nihon ChibettoGakkai Kaihd r 3 * / & ^ & & & 41-42(1997): 23-32.In addition, 1regretthatinpreparing my 1996 paper I overlooked another publication on the Yung-lothe contentsofwhich, however,do notappearto add towhatIhave published.SeeUEDAChitoshiiiffl^f^, "Chibetto DaizdkyS ShohannoKeifu (1):Eirakuban Kangyurunikanshite" M ^ M H ^ & i t (1): fcftf&lJ > * MZ.USL T [Lineagesof Various Printingsof theTibetan Canon 1: TheYung-loKanjur],Bukkyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kiyo H$fc ; fc#; fc#K$2II 22(1994):1-17. (I should note thatnow, in lettersof 24Sept.and 12 Oct., 1998, DrHelmut Eimer informsmethatatleast oneofthe volumesin thePrussian StateLibrarydidnot,infact, come fromtheWan-li, sinceit isprintedinred.Hewillpublish some research resultsofhis studyofthis materialinthe near future.)I take this opportunitytolista fewcorrectionsto my1996 article, someofthem courtesyofmy friend Karashima Seishi ^WMfrife: 163,n.33,and175,1.8 fromthebottom& ->JS; 175, last line,and176 first line:ffli-> &; 186,1.4f rom bo t tonr i -> II; 175, 1. 3,punctuate ... it^UMo ...; line6,punctuate$c lit. . .; 186,1.7,punctuate ... f o MirM ....Several othercorrectionscan bemadeon thebasisof aphotocopyof thefirsttwopagesofthe original Chinese textof theYii-chih tsang-ching ch'ih-yii W&MK&lfaWlkindly sent meby Prof.Ochi;186,1.3 : deleteffl;1.7:^P-* f; 1.16: - > < * .These two pagesend atline 18;there must beathird page, the originalofwhichI havenot seen. Also correct: 158, n. 16: the listingof the leaves withtheYung-loisOchi's error, clarifiedin his1997 paper,p. 24;192,1.1:Hakuyu>HakuyG; Hadano 1974b seemsnot toexist,or atleastthereference iswrong.


3/36

JIABS22.1 216The Yung Ho Kung ($lfP IT) lamasery of Peking has all the 106 volumes

forming the A. D. 1700 edition, a catalogue of which by Mr. B. Sakurabe,has lately (1930-1932) been published by the Otani Daigaku Library ( ^

The document reproduced on plate II below proves that another editionof the Tibetan Kanjur was completed in Peking in A. D. 1692.1 suggestthe following translation of the Tibetan text3)of the document.0

Thanks toProf. Akamatsu Akihiko ijfc$;VM&, I have now seen a copyofManasarowara (soread) 1, the only number ever published, which howeverdoes notcontain anyarticleon the Yung-lo Kanjur. Mostof this privatelydistributed journal, published by the Chibetto Butten Kenkyukai?-


4/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 217This[isthe] Kanjur [composed]ofsutras- rice-grainsofan auspicious goldenear, which have developed because an uninterrupted Sits river ofprayersflowingina greatrow of wonderful mercy-waves from a lake arisenout of merit[acquiredin] former [existences]has irrigated (literally: flown into)themostexcellent Punyaksetra4)oftheKaliyuga.Maythepurityof theintentions [adhyaiayaiuddhi]of thecommunityofmasters and pupils headedbySbyinpargya mtsho [DSnasagara?]aDge slong[Bhiksu, attached] to the illustrious 'Phags pa [Lama's] temple, the Ch'ung KuoSsu5), serve to keep the gold-born6)Emperor K'ang Hsi, Sumeru-like in firmness[sitting] on his golden throne.May the good [deed whichIhave doneinediting the Kanjur] liberate measwell as the other benefactors connected with this matter(i.e.the Kanjur edition),andall theliving beingsofthesixclasses, firstof all [my] parents, fromthefetters of sin7',and may [we all,owingto the good deed] soon beborninBuddha fields.May the powerful realmofthe venerable patriarch8', who governs Buddhism(thub bstan)in general and the church of Maftjunatha Tsong kha pa [in particular],be extended to the limits [oftheworld] and may it enjoy happiness and well-being.[The editionofthe Kanjur] was begun on thechupho khyi rgyal(male water2 dog victory)day ofthesnrulmonthofthechupho sprel(male water ape)year [which coincides with]the31st yearofthe K'ang Hsi period [A.D. 1692]of theTaCh 'ing dynasty,and[the editionofthe Kanjur] was well finishedonthesa pho stagdga'ba(male earth tiger joy)day ofthem on gru9)month[ofthe same year?].

Several copies of this document were found in different volumes of myown almost complete copy of the Tibetan Kanjur, and I have no doubtthat the volumes which I possess were printed in A. D. 1692. The SungChu Ssfl (rIS&TF) lamasery of Peking possesses a set of the A. D. 1692Kanjur, which seems10)to be quite complete, and we are therefore able tocompare the two editions (A. D. 1692 and A. D. 1700).

The volumes of the A. D. 1692 edition are numbered as follows: KA-A(30 volumes), KSA (1 volume), KM (30 volumes), KU-U (30 volumes),and KE-PHE (14 volumes), altogether 105 volumes.10In the A. D. 1700edition too we find volumes marked KA-A, KSA, KI-I, KU-U, and KE-PHE, but the A. D. 1700 editors considered the inclusion of theRal pagyen brdzes kyi rgyud,]2) which fills an entire volume in the Kanjur,necessary, and added one volume to the 105 volumes of the A. D. 1692edition. As a result of this addition the A. D. 1700 Kanjur has 106volumes.13) For some reason the A. D. 1700 editors thought that theproper place for the newly added volume was between the volumes ZHAand 'A. Therefore they marked the volume containing theRal pa gyenbrdzes kyi rgyudwith the character ZA.14)The work (Bu ston's collectionof dharanls), which occupied the volume ZA in the A. D. 1692 ed. is


5/36

JIABS22.1 218marked OM in the A. D. 1700 ed. and regarded as the superior first ($& ) volume of the Rgyud division of the Kanjur.15) On plate III belowpage 55a of Bu ston's collection as it appears in the A. D. 1692 and in theA. D. 1700 Kanjurs is reproduced. The A. D. 1692 edition of the page ismarkedRgyudZAngaIngagongand J f e f c ^ ^ r + r ^ J t S + S : , whilethe A. D. 1700 edition of the page bears the following marks: Rgyud OMnga Inga gong and S H g l t t B + . 1 6 >

As far as I can see, the same blocks were used for printing the twoeditions of the volume, and I believe that the markings at the sides of thepages were changed by a process, which the old style printers of Pekingstill apply w hen correcting their blocks. The faulty parts of the blocks areremoved and new pieces of wood 17 ) for the emendations are fitted intothe resulting cavities. In the same way thousands of corrections seem tohave been effected in other volumes of the A. D. 1700 ed. 18 )On line 8 ofpage 12b of volume CHU, for instance, the A. D. 1700 ed. hasnyi ma zlaba sgron ma instead of the syllablesnyi ma ma mtsho na ma (?), whichwe find in the A. D . 1692 edition. The Sk t. text of the Saddharmapunda-rikasutra (ed. by Kern and Nanjio, Bibl. Buddhica X, page 25, line l)dhas candrarkadlpa0 in the corresponding verse and supports the A. D.1700 emendation.19 ) The following readings of the A. D. 1700 editionlikewise agree with the Skt. version of the sutra published in the B ibliothecaBuddhica.20 ) CHU 120a 7:rgyalpo'i zhabs ring(Skt., 3 page 279 , line1: rajapurusah, A. D. 1692: rgyalpo'i zham rim).e CHU 145a 3: sposmar gyi mar m e dag gis(Skt., page 337, line 7:gandhatailapradipair, A.D. 1692:spos mar gyi m e dag gis). CHU 145a 8:mtshan nyid du rig parbya'o (Skt., page 338, 1:laksanam veditavyam,A. D. 1692:mtsham nyid

d. HendrikKERNand BunyiuNANJIO,SaddharmapundarTka.Bibliotheca Buddhica10 (St. P&ersbourg: Imperial Academy 1908-12. Reprint: OsnabrUck, BiblioVerlag 1970).e. According to the Tibetan texts edited by NAKAMURA Zuiryu ^ft fl & l^ et al.,C 'Chibetto-yaku Hokekyo" f ^ y M R & ^ f e , Hokke Bunka Kenkyu \kMX\tW4l 2 [1976] and following. Page numbers equal those of the Sanskritedition ofKERN NANJIO1908-12), Cone, Derge, Lhasa and Narthang [denoted

by NAKAMURA C,D,L, N]readzhabs'bring. (It may be worthwhile mentioningthat while NAKAMURA1s edition of "th e" Tibetan of the Lotus Sutra - whichtakes as its base the highly problematic Peking edition, and records variantsfrom only Cone, Derge, Narthang and Lhasa - is convenient, from a text-criticalpoint of view it is of extremely limited utility. It is a real shame that, even forsuch an important sutra, we still have no reliable account oftheTibetan tradition'stransmission ofthetext.).
http://tw4l/http://tw4l/http://tw4l/


6/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 219du rig par bya'o).CHU 150a 6-7:rigs kyi bu 'am rigs kyi bu mo la las ...smras (Skt., page 350, lines 1-2: kaicid eva kulaputro va kuladuhitd va... vaded, A. D. 1692:bu mo lasinstead ofbu mo la las).CHU 154a 5:rnam par rgyal ba'i khangbzang na (Skt., page 361, line 4:Vaijayanteprdsdde, A. D. 1692: gang instead of khang).CHU 157a 1: de bzhingshegs pas ji skad gsungs pa bzhin du yang dag pa ji ha ba bzhin(Skt.,page 367, line 17:yathdbhutam yathoktam tathagatena,A. D. 1692: om.the syllablesyang dag pa ji Ita ba bzhin, see pi. VII).f CHU 173a 4:yang dag par rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas nyi zla dri ma medpa'i 'od dpalgyi(Skt., page408, line11:C andrasuryavimalaprabhdsas'riyas... samyak-sambuddhasya,A. D . 1692: om. the syllablessangs rgyas).A number of emendations, which we find on pages 100b-138a of vol.'I oftheA. D . 1700 Kanjur (Tibetan translation oftheKaJyapaparivarta),are equally supported )by the corresponding Skt. text (comp. my editionof it which appeared at Shanghai in 1926).g 'I 103b 5: med (Skt., page18,line 4:nisiparyutthdno),A. D . 1692:byed). '1122a 5:sdugpar (Skt.,page 137, line 16: s'ubha0,A. D. 1692: sdug bsngal). 'I 125a 4: dgesbyong(Skt., page 154, line 7:Sramana0,A. D. 1692:dge slong). 'I 132a7:mospa mimangba dag gis(Skt. page 201, line25:anadhimuktibahule,A. D. 1692:mospa mi mn ga' ba dag gis). 'I 133b 5:snyomspar 'jugpa(Skt,, page 2 09, line21: samapatti,A. D. 1692:semspar jug pa).h

The A. D. 1700 editors have not confined their efforts to correctingmistakes like these in their version of volume 'I, but have added an entiresutra, the Bhadrapalairesthipariprccha (A. D. 1700 ed., vol 'I, pages50b-73b) not found in the A. D. 1692 edition to it.22 ) Another work,which is m issing in the A. D. 1692 edition is the Vidyutpraptapariprcchd(A. D. 1700 ed., vol. ZHI, pages 333b-350a). Both sutras belong to theMaharatnakutadharmaparyaya, a collection containing 49 (in the A. D.1692 ed.: 47) works.' The inclusion of the Vidyutpraptapariprcchdand

f. According toNAKAMURA,CDLN read de bzhin gshegs pas ji skad gsungs pabzhin yang dagpaji Itababzhindu.

g. The Kagyapaparivarta:AMahay&nasutraofthe RatnakUta Class: Edited intheOriginal Sanskrit in Tibetan and in Chinese(Shanghai: Commercial Press 1926).

h. These are all confirmed by the sTog Palace Kanjur,d kon brtsegs,cha:8, sTog207a2; 94, sTog 229b5; 105, sTog 233a3; 139, sTog 241b2; 144, sTog243a3.i. See note 98 of my "Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur." Both texts arealso missing from the copy of the Y ung-lo Kanjur of which Tada Tokan &EHUM listed the contents in Sera monastery in 1924 (for which see note 17 of thearticle just mentioned). However, a number of other texts are also missing


7/36

JIABS22.1 220of the BhadrapdMresthipariprcchd, which are absent from the A. D .1692 ecL, in the A. D. 1700 ed. necessitated the addition of 17 leaves tovolume ZHI (A. D. 1692: 333 leaves, A. D. 1700: 350 leaves) and of 23leaves to volume 'I (A. D. 1692: 288 leaves, A. D. 1700: 311 leaves). 23)On plate VIII below page 50b of volume 'I is reproduced as it appears inthe two editions. In the A. D. 1692 edition we find the end of theSarva-buddhamahdrahasyaupdyakauialyajndnottarabodhisattvapariprcchdparivartd and the beginning of the DarikavimalaSraddhapariprccha onpage 'I 50b. In the A. D. 1700 edition, however, the beginning of theBhadrapdlaSresthipariprcchd takes the place, which the beginning of theDarikavimalaSraddhdpariprccha occupied in the A. D. 1692 edition.4

The Berlin manuscript and the A. D. 1692 xylograph are the onlyKanjurs known to me which omit the Vidyutprdptapariprcchd as well astheBhadrapdlaSresthipariprcchd.The A. D. 1692 edition has many otherfeatures in com mo n with the volumes described by Beckh, and thesimilarity of the two collections may some day help to solve the mystery,which still surrounds the Berlin manuscript Kanjur.26)5Notes to the articleOn a Peking Edition of the TibetanKanjur which Seems to be U nknown in the W est

Note 1.Prince H (Fu Ch'iian) occupies the first place among the members ofa committee whom the Emperor had ordered to prepare a complemented(fflj) edition of the Tibetan Kanjur.1 Comp, the document dated K'angHsi 39 [=A.D. 1700] which is reprinted on pages 10-11 of the Otani cat.

(dkon brtsegs7, 11,20, 33, 39 ,42) , and since Tada did not list folio numbers, itis impossible to be certain what was lost and what was not included at all. I amvery grateful toProf.Kitamura Hajime ftttft, Director of the Tdyo Bunko,for kindly sending me a photocopy of Tada 's handwritten list.hasyaupSyashould be writtenhasya-upaya\it does not indicate the dipthong.

k. Hermann BECKH,VerzeichnisderTibetischen Handschriften derKoniglichenBibliothekzu Berlin: Erste Abteilung: Kanjur (bkah-hgyur), Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Vierundzwanzigster Band(Berlin: Behrend & Co. 1914).1. On Fu Ch'uan, see Arthur William HUMMEL,Em inent Chinese oftheCh'ing

Period, 1644-1912 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office1943): 251-52, which, however, mentions only his military and political career.


8/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 221introd. It should be noted that the scholar who was at the head of theA.D. 1692 Kanjur committee, the Dge slong [Bhiksu] Sbyin pa rgyamtsho [Danasagara?], is not mentioned in the document among the numerous collaborators ofthePrince. This omission probably means that Sbyinpa rgya mtsho's work as chief editor was not approved by the court.Prince Fu Ch'uan would hardly have ignored his predecessor's editorialactivities, if the latter had simply disappeared without incurring Imperialdisfavour.

Ipossess a xylograph oftheMongolian version of the document publishedin Chinese on pages 10-11 oftheOtani cat. introd. The M ongolian versionsays: The editor in chief of the Kanjur, Prince Fu Ch'uan and (herefollow the names of over thirty collaborators) have according to the[Imperial] command "complement [the Kanjur] and engrave [the blocksfor printing the Kanjur]" completed the engraving [of the blocks for theKanjur] on a lucky day of the first summer month of the 39th year ofK'ang Hsi (Jarliyiyar niikujiiseyilkemeksen ganjurnom i kiiliyen ujejiiiiyiledgegiilugsen jasay un elbeg cin wangtuSimelfuciuwan .. . engkeamuyulang un yucin yisiiduger onu Junu terigiin sara yin sayin ediirseyilejii tegiisgebe). I am entirely ignorant of the Mongolian language,and I owe this information as well as practically everything else I knowabout Mongolian documents to the kindness of Mr. B. I.Pankratoff.1

In the Tibetan version of the A.D. 1700 (K'ang Hsi 39) document(xylograph belonging to the National Library of Peking) par bzhengstwice corresponds to the Mongolianseyilwhichcan only mean toengrave[the texts on the blocks forprinting]" in this connection. The expressiondpar bzhengs,which we find in the document quoted in note 11 below,must have the same meaningaspar bzhen gs.Ihave not foundtheexpressionpar bzhengs(ordparbzhengs) in my dictionaries, and I am not quite sureas to what it really means: "to print" or "to engrave." According toJaeschke (diet., page 484)bzheng (pf. and imp.bzhengs)alone, withoutpar,means i.a.: "to print."nm. As I am also entirely ignorant of the Mongolian language, I leave StaSl-Holstein'stranscription exactly as it is.n. Heinrich August JASCHKE,ATibetan-English Dictionary (London: Routledge& Kegan Paul 1881). The complications raised by compounds with the termbzhengshave been discussed byHADANOHakuyu$|ffllH6K, "Chibetto daizo-ky5 engi: 'Sono ichi' - Nartan daigakumonji no senkuteki jigyo o m egutte",^-

T , [A history of the compiling and editing of the Tibetan Buddhist Scriptures,"Bkah-hgyur and Bstan-hgyur": part 1: the pioneering work of Narthang monas-


9/36

JIABS22.1 222In transliterating the Tibetan characters I use the system adopted in theBibliotheca Buddhica, vol. XV, page XI.06

Note 2.Comp. Griinwedel'sM ythologie,page 74.pTwo block-printed documentsin my possession, which were evidently printed with M ing dynasty blocks,refer to the Tibetan Kanjur. One of them is a postface composed by theEmperor Yung Le in Tibetan and in Chinese, and the other one is an odein which the same Emperor sings the Kanjur's praises in the two languages.Both documents are dated. The postface bears only one date: the 9 lhdayof the 3rdmonth of the 8thyear (A.D. 1410) of Yung Le, but on the lastpage of the Chinese version of the ode we find two dates: the Yung Ledate just mentioned and a note, from which we learn that the Kanjur (orperhaps the Imperial ode only) had been re-engraved (Hflj) during thereign of the Emperor Wan Li, who died in A.D. 1620. q The Tibetanversion of the ode om its the Wan Li note. Comp. plate I below.On page 41 of his l&WM&WMl (Commercial Press, Shanghai, 1933)Mr. Lu ( ) takes it for granted that a Wan Li edition (feMWi) of the

Kanjur did (or does) exist, without, however, indicating the source of hisinformation/ I am indebted to Mr. Yu (^rilt^) for having drawn myattention to Mr. Lii's book.8

tery],Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan KenkyuNenpoifr*-^#Bta$r2E ^I8 3 (1966):43-44.HADANOalso draws our attention to WalterSIMON: "Tibetanpar, dpar,spar,and cognate words,"Bulletinofthe SchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies25 (1962): 72-80.

o. As stated in the Introduction, I have modified this system,p. Albert GRONWEDEL, Mythologie des Buddhism us in Tibet und der Mong olei(Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus 1900).

q. For a detailed discussion of the Yung-lo edition, refer to my "Notes on theHistory of the Yongle Kanjur." Note that Stagl-Holstein has m isunderstood theterm jHfJ. It here means reprint, not re-engraving. See, however, the sameexpression in my paper, note 38, where the meaning is as Staefl-Holstein hereunderstood it.

r. LU Ch 'eng B $ t Hsi-tsangfo-hsiieh yiian-lun #i$}^ICffc (Shanghai: Shang-wu yin-shu-kuan fl^SfrlilFH 1933). See now also the edition published inTaipei by Lao-ku ch'u-pan-she tr J J i& tt 1978: 54.

s. YUTao-ch'Uan was a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism who published such worksas the Love Songs of the Sixth Dalai Lama (Peking: Academia Sinica 1930).SeeBibliographie Bouddhique /V-V (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve 1934): 125(p.52).


10/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 223Note 3.The Tibetan text is preceded by the Sanskrit syllablesothsvasti pradzabhyih(read:pradzabhyah),orh hail to [all] creatures. On the sixth line we find

another Sanskrit expression:dza yantu,may they be victorious. The eighthline of our document is in Chinese.1It states that Sbyin pa rgya mtsho, aDge slong [attached] to the Peking Q H I P , the capital) Ch'ung Kuo Ssfl,having resolved [to become a Buddha] printed, or engraved the blocksfor printing (frlja) [the Kanjur] on the first day of the second summer[month] of the 31st year of the K'ang Hsi [period] of the Ta Ch'ing[dynasty].The expression f H I $ l & which is the usual rendering of Skt.bodhicittotpada etc. is very frequently shortened to H ' k in ChineseBuddhist books. Comp. page 37 of my edition of the commentary to theKa&yapaparivarta* where %&>& corresponds to byang chub kyi sems(b)skyed de [bodhicittam utpddayati]. f&fcflJjBI could of course alsomean: he formed the resolve to print, or to engrave the blocks for printing.I do not adopt this translation of the four characters here because we aredealing with a postface containing a typically Buddhisticparinamana,ordedication of religious merit. The fact that the Emperor is mentioned inthe first dedicating stanza of our document suggests that the A.D. 1692ed., like the A.D. 1700 ed., was issued under Imperial auspices. I learnfrom Professor Y. K. Tschen that the expression ffc& frequently occursin Buddhistic colophons. Comp. pages 449b and 514a of the f& f|$tft$ iedited in 1931 by the Academia Sinica.v 7

t.The Chinese reads xm*te*^*wumu*mmnttntimm.Qciku. ACommentarytotheK &gyapaparivarta:Edited in TibetanandChinese(Peking:The National Library of Peking and the National Tsinghua U niversity 1933).v. Ch'en Yuan IKS,Tun-huang chieh-yUlu$C * #J f& ^ [An analytical list of theTun-huang manuscripts in the National Library of Pei-ping].Kuo-li Chung-yang

yen-chiu-yUan li-shih yU-yen yen-chiu-so chuan-k'an ^^L^-^M^t^M^MW :0f^5R)T^f,J 4 (Pei-p 'ing: Kuo-li Chung-yang yen-chiu-yiian li-shih yli-yenyen-chiu-so iA ^ i W ^ S & i g W i F & H / r 1931). This was recently reprinted in volumes 3 and 4 of Huang Yung-wu H^


11/36

JIABS22.1 224Note 4.Com p. note N o 14 on page 11 of my article "On a Tibetan text translatedinto Sanskrit under Ch'ien Lung (XVIII cent.) and into Chinese under

Tao Kuang (XIX cent.)," Bulletin of the National Library of Peiping,July-August 1932.wThe word Punyaksetra(bsod namszhing)may evidently be used in thesense of aholy field" (which is irrigated by the waters ofariver)as wellas in the sense of "a saint" (who is moved by the prayers of the pious).Rice{'bras) fields have to be more copiously irrigated, than most otherfields. The sutra-rice grains may therefore be regarded as having developedbecause(I readbabs pas instead of bobs pa7)the prayer-river has flowninto the Punyaksetra.The poet evidently suggests that the Kanjur is comparable to an earcontaining many grains (which in the case of the Kanjur are representedby sutras, the contents of the Kanjur).According to S. C. Das (diet., page 1268) SitS (read: Sita) is "theSanskrit name of the great river of Tibet." x According to Bohtlingk(diet., vol. VI, page 130) Sita is a "Beiname" of the Ganges. y In anycase the name designates a mighty stream.According to the Mahdparinirvdnasutra, the eight great rivers (A^CPi, chuklung chenpo brgyad)are: (1) 1 fM , in the Tib. text:gang ga.(2)Mfcm , yam pa la. (3)jiff, sal (orsa /a?). (4)m& mSM Bi, a la la barta .(5) fcffi, maha.(6) ^ fig , sindu.(7) W%, bag(orpag)sha.(8) ,si ta.Com p. Taisho Trip. XII 381 b, and the A. D . 1692 Kanjur, vol. JU,page 45b.z This Tibetan translation of the Mahaparinirvanasutra is

w. The paper may also be found under the Chinese title of the journal, Kuo -lipei-p'ing t'u-shu-kuan kuan-k'an K & t t ^ f l l f l t t t ^ 6.4 (1932): 508-489[sic],with seventeen plates.x. Rai Sarat Chandra DAS, A Tibetan-English Dictionary (Calcutta: BengalSecretariat Book Depot 1902).y. Otto VONBOHTLINGKSanskrit-Wdrterbuch in ktinerer Fassung(St. Petersburg:Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften 1879-1889), in reference to thecompoundSitasita.The same is found in Monier MONIER-WILLIAMS,ASanskrit-English Dictionary: EtymologicallyandPhilologically Arranged withSpecial

ReferencetoCognate Indo-European Languages(Oxford: The Clarendon Press1899):1214c, according to whichSitasita,in the dual, refers to the Ganges andJumna rivers at Prayaga.z. The text is Peking (Otani) 787; the Chinese text is found at T. 374 (XII)381b26-29. These river names have been discussed by SHIMODA Masahiro Tffl]E&, Zdbun Wayaku "Daijd Nehangyo" /&;fcft}iR I T ^ f i ^ i & J ( I):An


12/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 225based upon a Chinese version, not upon a Skt. original. Comp. the Otanicatalogue, page 287 and Pelliot's Notes a propos d'un catalogue du Kanjur(Journ. As., Juillet-Aout 1914, page 130).aaThe Chinese translation wasmade under the Pei Liang dynasty (397-439), comp. Nanjio No . 113.Another Tibetan version of theM ahaparinirvanasutra, which is basedupon a Sanskrit original gives us the names of four great rivers (Gariga,YamunS, Sarayu and Hingula) only in the corresponding passage. Comp.the A.D. 1692 Kanjur, vol. TU, page 42a, line 8.According to Boehdingk and Roth's dictionary Slta (long I) frequentlyoccurs as the name ofariverntheM ahabharata,etc.abFrom theWt%HM we learn that the fflfc (= Slta or Slta) river flowsout of the mouth ofahorse's head (made ofvaidurya,3S$I) fixed to thewestern part of the Anavatapta lake. Comp. the Taisho Trip.vol. 37, page43b, line 2.acComp. also page 377c (line 25) of volume 35 of the TaishoTrip.adMr. Pankratoff tells me that the Mongolian translation of our document(reproduced on plate II below) is, on the whole, not quite satisfactory. Insome cases, however, I have accepted the Mongolian translator's interpretations. He rendersbskal 8 bzang by saying Zubitu (meaning: auspi-

Annotated Japanese Translationofthe Tibetan Versiono fthe MahdydnaMaha~-parinirv&nasutra (I). Bibliotheca Indologica et Buddhologica 4 (Tokyo: TheSankibo Press 1993): 229-30, note 70 . SHIMODA suggests *Ganga, * Yamuna,Sarayu, *AciravatI, *Mahi, *Sindhu, *Bhojya, and *Stda\ The last is evidentlyan error forSlt5.aa Paul PELLIOT: "Notes a propos d'un catalogue du Kanjur,"JournalAsiatique,1914,Onzieme Serie, Tome4: 111-150.ab. Otto BOHTLINGK and Rudolph ROTH, Sanskrit-Worterbuch. 7 volumes (St.Petersburg: Kaiserlichen Akadem ie der Wissenschaften 1855-75): VII. 1014,top.Whilethename occurs in theYogac&rabhOmiin the form SM (Vidhushekhara

BHATTACHARYA: TheYogacarabhQmi ofAc&ryaAsahga:The Sanksrit TextCompared withtheTibetan Version [Calcutta: The University of Calcutta 1957]:41.2), in theAbhidharmakoiabhdsya it has the form Sita (Prahlad PRADHAN:Abhidharmakoiabh&syamofVasubandhu.Tibetan Sanskrit Works 8 [Patna: K.P.Jayaswal Research Institute 1975]: 162.23 =111.57cy.).ac. TheShing-manpao-k'u &UHB is a 6th-7th century commentary on the rf-maladevT-sutraby the great San-lun scholar Chi-tsang~^W in which we findT. 1744 (XXXVII) 43b2-3 the following: ftftMMffiMP fWfcMPfc ;* :^ .ad. TheHua-yen chingt'an-hsiian chi^f&M.%&tiL is a work of the famousseventh century monk Fa-tsang &*B. According to Ono Genmyo's /M?>Bussho Kaisetsu Daijiten B&ffrHfcJZ$fc$k(Tokyo: DaitO shuppansha ^C^fcriJKtt, 1932-35: 3.26d), it dates to 687-695. There we read T. 1733 (XXXV)2 7 7 c 2 5 : f f i J g 3 * n f t M .


13/36

JIABS 22.1 226cious), which, according to the dictionaries, is an equivalent ofskalbzang(subhaga),not ofbskalbzang{bhadrakalpa).Ithink he is right in ignoringthe prefixed b, which w e find in our document, and I follow his examplein this case.The Tanjur codices, which Beckh used for this edition oftheM eghaduta,toohavebskal bzang(notskal bzang)forsubhagain at least two passages.Comp. Die Tibetische Obersetzung von Kaliddsas Meghaduta vonHermann Beckh, Berlin, 1907, pages 30 and 33.

Note 5.We learn from the Chinese line in our document that the Dge slong (fatl) Sbyin pa rgya mtsho (frJDEl^fe) of the temple called Ch'ung KuoSsti (y^M^f) was responsible for the A. D . 1692 Kanjur. Sbyin pa rgyamtsho himself is evidently the author of the stanzas translated above(page 1), and this may account for the fact that he appears as a mereBhiksu in the A.D . 1692 document. In an A.D . 1734 document issued bythe Panchen Lama Bio bzang ye shes dpal bzang po the latter is alsodesignated as a mere Bhiksu. Comp. my article "Notes sur un d6cret duPan-chen Lama date" de 1734," which appeared in thePolitique de Pikin(1925).ae Sbyin pa rgya mtsho must have been an important personage,but I have not succeeded in finding his name in the Chinese or Tibetanbooks, which I have examined with the help of numerous Chinese andTibetan friends. A part of the manuscript K'ang Hsi records, which usedto be stored in the Forbidden City of Peking, are now in Shanghai. Assoon as these Shanghai manuscripts become accessible (which they arenot at present), I shall examine them, and continue my efforts to learnmore about Sbyin pa rgya mtsho.a

ae. The article is found on pp. 300-302 of the journal. My thanks are due J.-L.Taffarelli, Librarian of the Ecole Fran^aise d'Extr&ne-Oriem, for kindly sendingme a copy. The phrase to which Stael-Hoistein refers is:shakya'i dge slong biobzangye shesdpal bzangpo.af. Zahiruddin AHMAD,Sino-Tibetan Relations in theSeventeenth Century.SerieOrientale Roma 40 (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente1970):305 refers to a Mkhan po Sbyin pa rgya mtsho based on a document of

1696.Thanks to the very kind information of Gene Smith, I can now add thefollowing:The author of the postface must be the famed Bka' 'gyur Bla ma Sbyin pargya mtsho (1629-1695), the 46th Khri of Dga' ldan (1692-1695). [See RudolfKASCHEWSKY: "Die Abte von Dga'-ldan,"ZentralasiatischeStudien4 (1970):


14/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 227The Tibetan syllablesKhrungs gau siare evidently a transliteration ofthe Chinese characters ^ H I T F (Ch'ung Kuo Ssfi). Comp. above note 3.None of the Chinese sources whichIhave consulted connects the illustrious

'Phags pa with a Peking (M#&, capital) temple called Ch'ung Kuo Ssti.There seem to have been several temples in Peking which at a time oranother bore that name. One of them is the present ^ c F ^ # ^ ^ ^ (aLama temple), which according to the53rdchapter of the $fc/ii B T U f S3f" was repaired during the reign of the Emperor Khubilai (M7C).agAccording to Koppen'sReligion des Buddha(II, 97),ah 'Phags pa (bornin A. D. 1233)aiwas recognized as the head of Lamaism by Khubilai. Inthe 6thchapter of the / V F # J M F @ we find the statement that the KB T # f f l h was written in the39thyear of Ch'ien Lung.aj

Note 6.I suppose thatgsermngalis used here forgsermngalcan,which accordingto S. C. Das (diet., page 1311) is an equivalent of Skt,h iranyagarbha.This word is an 9 epithet of the god Brahma, who is said to have beenborn from a golden egg. Mallinatha's commentary to line 1 of canto 1 ofthe Siiupala-vadha says: hiranyasya garbho hiranyagarbho brahmabrahmandaprabhavatvat.

263:zhe drug pa spyin pa rgya mtsho ni/ bka' 'gyur lung tshang ma dar barmdzadpas bka' 'gyur pa zhes grags /.] He was from Qinghai and had closerelations with the M anchu. Bsam bio is one of his many titles derived from hiscollege affiliation; he is also called Ngag dbang dpal bzang, and Bka' 'gyurSbyin pa rgya mtsho. The fact that he is called Bka' 'gyur ba makes a strongcase that it was this Dga' ldan Khri who was responsible for the carving of thisPeking edition. Probably Sbyin pa rgya mtsho was in Peking until 1692 whenhe was named to the throne of Dga' ldan. He was then replaced by the SecondLcang skya in Peking in 1693. See the chronology in theB odrgya tshigmdzodchen mo (Zhang Yisun 3H&3& [Peking: Min-tsu ch'u-pan-shS Ri&fcHJiSfct1985):3271: 1692:Chosrje bka' 'gyur ba sbyinpargya mtshodga' ldan khrirphebs,and 1693:Gongmakhangshis lcang skya ngagdbangchosldan pe tindugdan drangs.]

ag. Reprinted inTaipei:Kuang-wen shu-chUfttXWfn) 1968.ah. Carl FriedrichKOEPPEN: DieReligiondes Buddha: DieLamaische Hierarchieund Kirche(Volume 2 ofthework) (Berlin: Ferdinand Schneider 1859).ai. The correct date is 1235.aj. In the standard edition of 1923 the reference is on page 7a ofchiian6 (&&, i&mm.


15/36

JIABS22.1 228Note 7.According to theM ahavyutpatti(Sakaki ed ., No 8424 and No 8473)gnasngan len - dusthula.ak This Sanskrit word means "ein arges Vergehen,"

according to Schmidt's "Nachtrage zum Sanskrit-Worterbuch," page214.alNote 8.The venerable patriarch mentioned here is probably the Great Fifth(Ingapachenpo) Dalai Lama, who was supposed to be still alive in 1692, butwho had actually died in 1682. Comp. Koppen,die Religion des Buddh a,vol. II, pages 173, 174 and 185. On a Tibetan document (No 245 of my

collection) issued by the XIII Dalai Lama in 1909{sa bya)we find a sealimpression with legends in four languages (Mongolian, Manchu, Tibetan,and Chinese). The Tibetan and Chinese legends read as follows: Nubphyogs mchog tu dgeba 'izhing gi rgyal dbang sa steng gi rgyal bstanyongsfcyibdag po thams cadmkhyen pa badzra dha ra ta la'ibla m a'itham ga ttw&&im&xi:m&w&Kmmm&Mmmz i. These legends prove that the XIII Dalai Lama like the patriarch of theA.D. 1692 document claimed to be the master of universal (not onlyTibetan) Buddhism. This claim which has certainly never been recognizedby the majority of Singhalese, Burmese, Siamese, Annamite, Corean andJapanese Buddhists was evidently supported by the Peking court. In theheading of the 1909 document(Gongma 'i lunggisnubphyogs mchog tudge ba'/*zhing gi rgyal dbang sa steng gi rgyal bstan yongs kyi bdag pothams cadmkyenpa badzra dha ra ta [sic]la 'ibla m ar 'bod pa'igtam)the XIII Dalai Lama affirms that it is by Imperial command that he bearsthe title engraved on h is seal. According to the 15thchapter of the ffift?&jfe, the Emperor in 1724 (Yung Cheng 2) granted the Dalai Lama a sealbearing the following inscription in Manchu, Mongolian, Chinese, andTangut ( # ; ) : B ^ S f c f t l M ^ T f l l M K l B [sic] ^ftifiU flJii

ak. SAKAKI Ryosaburo J$$iHfil$ ,Mahavyutpatti (Kyoto: Ky6to Teikoku DaigakuBunka Daigaku Sosho 3fc3Rfl?H*4kfc*4;*:M HIF 3, 1916. Numerous reprints.) See the long article on this word in Franklin EDGERTON, BuddhistHybrid Sanskrit Dictionary(New Haven: Yale University Press 1953), s.v.

al. Richard SCHMIDT:Nachtrage zum Sanskrit-Worterbuch inkiirzerer FassungvonOtto Bohtlingk(Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz 1928. Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyukai 1983).


16/36

STAfiL-HOLSTEIN 229H $ W / . P . Only the Chinese text of the inscription is given in the WeiTsang Tung Chih.amThe name of the great reformer is spelt Tsong kha pa here as well as inmany other Tibetan documents. There are, however, some authors, whocall him Btsong kha pa. Comp. pages 4 and 10 of my article quoted innote 4 above.

Note 9.In the Mongolian version ofourdocumentmulcorresponds to the syllablesnrulof the Tibetan version.M ulis evidently a corruption of Skt.mu la,and mula (mulam) 10 is, according to the Vyutpatti (Sakaki edM No3203), a name of the 17th naksatra. The Tibetan name of the naksatracalled mula in Skt. is snrubs (notsnrul),comp. the Vyutp. 1. c , S. C.Das, diet., page 772, and the Skt.-Tib. diet. ed. by Bacot, page 99b.anIhave not found the syllablesnrulin any ofmydictionaries. In the Mongolianversion of our document satabiscorresponds to the syllables mon gruofthe Tibetan version. According to the Vyutp. (Sakaki ed., No 3208 andNo 3209),iatabhisa (Tib.m on gre ormondre) is the22ndnaksatra, anddhanistha (Tib. mon gru) the 23rd naksatra. According to S. C. Das,however,mon gru= tothabhisa,andm on dre =dhanistha.The Skt.-Tib.diet, published by Bacot (page 131b) and the IZgiKhnft^it (chapter I,page 5b)a0 agree with the Vyutp. as to the Skt. equivalents of mon gru(dhanistha, danista) and mon gre (iatabhisa, sa tabis)?9 Copies of theam. TheWei-tsangt'ung-chih% fflfi&.l&,printed in 1896, was reprinted by Li YU-shu&%t$ (Taipei: Wen-hai ch 'u- pan-she Jcft tf if& 1965), in the series Chung-kuo pien-chiang ts'ung-shu: ti1 chi jf tH lf cS ^ $ t1 5 . The cited passageis found inchiian15, lb (my punctuation); U l E l I ^ o foffiW&W?%&M&*%%u, &ftBMm?iTn&MBft&mmmMzo fitan. Jacques BACOT: Dictionnaire Tibitain-Sanskrit par Tse-ring-ouang-gyal.Buddhica, Deuxieme sene, Documents, Tome 2 (Paris: Librairie OrientalistePaul Geuthner 1930).ao. I do not have access to the cited work, but in the Wu-t'i Ch'ing-win-chienedited inGotaiShinbunkanYakkai Hf&ffi'XfSiiMffl (Tamura Jitsuz5 EH^tflfj&, Imanishi Shunju ^#l *C and Sato Hisashi # t i m , eds., Kyoto: KyotoDaigaku Bungakubu Nairiku Ajia Kenkyujo &$JsXffi\H&T vTW9iHft 1966), mon gru is found as item 92 and mon gre as item 93, with theMongolian equivalents cited by Stafcl-Holstein. Note also that snrubsis foundas item 87 .ap.The new, critical edition of theMah avyutpatti,Yumiko 1SH1HAMA and YoichiFUKUDA, A New Critical Edition of the Mahavyutpatti. Studia Tibetica 16.


17/36

JIABS 22.1 230Ssu T'i Ho Pi Wen Chien are available in the libraries of St. Petersburgand Paris. Comp. P. G. von Mollendorff s Essay on Manchu Literature,Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series,vol.XX IV, Shanghai 1890, page 14.aqI have not met with the Tibetan and Mongolian designations of themonths and days, which we find in our document, before. My Lamafriends are also not acquainted with them , and I have tried in vain to findthe regular equivalents of these unusual expressions with the help of thebooks available in Peking.

Note 10.I have not been able to examine the entire Sung Chu Ssu Kanjur myself,but one of my Lama friends, who has the entree of the Sung Chu Ssulibrary, tells me that the copy is complete and that it shows all thecharacteristics of the A.D. 1692 edition. The few volumes of the SungChu SsCi Kanjur which I have seen confirm my Lama friend's statements.Com p. my edition of theKa syapaparivarta, Shanghai 1926, page XX.

Note 11.24 (KA-YA) volumes of the A. D. 1692 edition belong to the Tantradivision, the various collections of the Prajnaparamita class fill 24 (RA-A,KSA , and KI-TSI) volumes, the Maharatnakuta 6 (TS HI-'I), the B uddha-vatamsaka 6 (Y I-HI), the miscellaneous sutras, Mdo sna tshogs, 32 (I-KE),and the Vinaya 13 (KHE-PHE). The printed Mongolian Kanjur has 108volumes. Com p. the IN&JKtii,page 282.arAccording to a Chinese tableof contents (xylograph belonging to Harvard University), which agreeswith the Tibetan table of contents (xylograph belonging to myself), 25volumes (which include a volume containing Bu ston's collection ofdharanis, and another volume containing the Ral pa gyen brdzes kyirgyud)of the printed M ongolian Kanjur belong to the Tantra division, the

Materials for Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionaries1 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko 1989),reads onlymongrefortatabhisa.However the readingm on dredoes appear inseveral dictionaries, for example theD gebshes chosky igragspasbrtsamspa'/brda dag m ing tshig gsal babzhugsso(Peking: Min-tsu ch'u-pan-she K ^ f Hti$k 1981): 650. Note that theBo d rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (see note af,above),p . 2123 , identifiesmon gruwiths'atabhisd,andmon grewithdhanistha.P. G. MOLLENDORFF, "Essay on Manchu Literature,"Journal of theChinaBranchofthe Royal AsiaticSociety fortheyear 1889-90,New Series 24 (1890):1-45.Ihave been unable to identify this work.

aq.

ar.


18/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 231various collections of the Prajnaparamita 11 class fill 22 volumes, theMaharatnakuta 6, the Buddhavatamsaka 6, the miscellaneous sutras 33,and the Vinaya 16.

The Tibetan table of contents mentioned above is preceded by a lengthyintroduction, w hich is missing in the Chinese version. We learn from thisintroduction that the editors oftheMongolian Kanjur, who were appointedby the Emperor K'ang Hsi, knew only of manuscript copies of theMongolian Kanjur(sog yig bka' 'gyur),and we have no reason to believethat they were wrong in regarding the edition which they published as thefirst printed edition of the Mongolian Kanjur.An important date mentioned in the introduction is the 19' day of 3 rmonth of the 56 thyear after the accession of His Majesty [K'ang Hsi] tothe throne which governs the universe (literally: all regions,khyon thamscad).On that day the Emperor K'ang Hsi ordered one of his officers toannounce to the venerable monks (bla ma ser mo ba), the MongolianPrinces(sogpo'i dbang),Dukes etc. that the M ongolian Kanjur would beengraved on blocks [for printing](dpar bzhengs).Upon hearing the goodnews everybody rejoiced as if he had obtainedacintamaniorphilosophers'stone(thams cad ky is yidbzhingyi nor bu rnyedpa Ita bu 'idga' bas rjessu yi rangs).The introduction goes on to say that in accordance with theEmperor's orders the existing hand-written Mongolian Kanjur was com pared with the Tibetan Kanjur, and that the Mongolian text was revised(zhu dag)by noted scholars, who spoke both languages (skad gnyis smraba). My xylograph does not tell us when the editing work was finished,but it mentions the Mongolian Kanjur as well engraved (dpar legs pargrub pa) at the end oftheintroduction. This proves that the cutting of theblocks for the Mongolian Kanjur must have been completed not laterthan the 3rdmonth of the 59th year of K'ang Hsi [A. D. 1720], which isthe date of my xylograph (page 34b, line 5). The latter adds the cyclicaldesignation of the year (IcagsbyUiron m ouse) to the Chinese date forgreater precision. According to Kowalewski's Mongolian Chrestomathy(vol. I, page 264) a Mongolian Kanjur was revised in Peking under YungCheng (1723-1736) and printed during thefirsthalf oftheXVIII century.asComp. Kazakevich's Russian translation of Laufer'sSkizze der mongoli-schen Literatur,page 54.aas. The work mentioned is theMongolskaia khrestomatiia of Osip Mikhailovich

KOVALEVSKU (K azan: V Universitetskoi tipografii 1836). I have not been ableto locate a copy ofthiswork.a t I do not have access to the Russian translation, but the German original is to be


19/36

JIABS22.1 232Note 12.Different titles are ascribed to this work in the Tibetan index (Dkarchag), at the beginning of the text, and in the colophon which says: Ral

pa gyen brdzes kyi rgyud phyi ma rdzogs so. Dr. Laufer (Bulletin deVAcademie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg 1909, page 571)mentions this work,au and refers his readers to line 2 of page 9a of theXX volume of the Rgyud division of the A. D. 1700 Kanjur, which hesaw at Hsi An. The w ordsralpa gyen brdzesdo appear on line 2 of pagela of the XXII (ZA in Tibetan and Z l + Z l in Chinese) volume of theRgyud division 12 in the A. D. 1700 Kanjur which the Yung Ho Kunglamasery possesses (not on XX. 9a 2). Comp. page 157 of the Otanicatalogue, according to which theRal pa gyen brdzes kyi rtog pa chen pooccup ies vol. ZA ( i M M ^ ^ - f ^ l ) , and p la te IV below, on which thefirst and the last page of the Ral pa g yen brdzes kyi rgyud(as they appearin the A. D. 1700 Kanjur) are reproduced.

The difference between XX 9a 2 and XXII la 2 may be due to misprints,but Dr. Laufer's (page 570) statement that merely 31 (not 32) volumes ofthe Hsi An Kanjur are occupied by the Mdo sna tshogs, can not beexplained by assum ing a typographical error (Dr. Laufer gives 105 as thetotal number of volumes in the Hsi An Kanjur). Dr. Laufer bases histable of contents on a Tibetan Dkar chag containing 21 leaves. TheTibetan Dkar chag which I possess has also 21 leaves (not counting theamen ded copy of leaf No 1, com p. note 15 below), and it enum erates 32(not 31) Mdo sna tshogs volumes (I-KE), as does the Otani catalogue(pages 267-393). The Yung Ho Kung copy of the A.D. 1700 Kanjur hascertainly 32 Mdo sna tshogs volumes (I-KE). Shall we assume that twoTibetan Kanjur editions were published in A. D. 1700, one of which had

found in Berthold LAUFER: "Skizze der Mongolischen Literatur,"KeletiSzemle/Revue Orientate pourlesEtudes ouralo-altai'ques8 (1907): 165-261. ReprintedinKleinere Schriften von BertholdLaufer. Teil 1, pt. 2: Publikationen aus derZeit von 1894 bis 1910, Sinologica Coloniensia Bd. 2. Hartmut W alravens, ed.(Wiesbaden: Franz-Steiner Verlag 1976): 1120-1216. On the Mongol Kanjur,see now WaltherHEISS1G:BeitrdgezurObersetzungsgeschichtedesMongolischenBuddhistischenKanons.Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaftenin Gttttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 50. Gtittingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht 1962.au. Berthold LAUFER, "Die Kanjur-Ausgabe des Kaisers K'ang-hsi"IzvestijaImper-atorskojAkademiiNauk, 1909: 567-74. Reprinted in KleinereSchriften vonBertholdLaufer.Teil 1, pt. 2: Publikationen aus der Zeit von 1894 bis 1910,Sinologica ColoniensiaBd.2. Hartmut W alravens, ed. (Wiesbaden: Franz-SteinerVerlag 1976): 1352-59.


20/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 23332M do sna tshogsvolum es, while the other one had merely 31? I regardthe hypothesis, that the distinguished orientalist, who had to work underrather unfavourable conditions when he prepared his table of contents atHsi An, erred in his calculations, as preferable.On page 574 of his article Dr. Laufer states that "der von roten Linieneingerahmte rechteckige Schriftsatz" measures 58.9 x 15 cm. This agreesfairly well with my observations: the "rechteckige Schriftsatz" on theleaves (except the first leaves of the volumes) of the Tibetan K'ang HsiKanjurs, which I have seen, is of about the same size. The latter varies,however, to a certain extent, and on some leaves, which I have examined,the "rechteckige Schriftsatz" is over 60 cm. long. My own copy of theA .D. 1692 edition as well as the Sung Chu SsiS copy of the A. D. 1692edition, and the Yung Ho Kung copy of the A. D. 1700 edition areprinted with red ink. Another (incomplete) copy oftheA. D . 1700 Kanjur,of which I possess a number of leaves, is, however, printed with blackink.

Note 13.In an A. D. 1724 document (comp. Cordier's Catalogue dufonds tib.rvol. Ill, page 535) we find the statement that a Kanjur consisting of 106volumes was published by order of the Emperor K'ang Hsi.avTh is statement evidently refers to the A. D. 1700 edition. Comp. also the #&lfc]fe#,vol. Ill (completed in the 3rd year of Taisho), page 364,aw All thevolumes describedin theOtani catalogue are marked with Tibetan numerals(the ordinary numerals KA-PHE and the "extra" numerals OM and KSA ),except the 107th volume which contains the Dkar chag. This seems toprove that the Dkar chag (21 leaves) was not regarded as a volume of the

av. PalniyrCORDIER; CatalogueduFondsTibitain de laBibliothtqueNa tionale.Troisieme Partie, Index du Bstan-hgyur (Tib&ain 180-332) (Paris: ImprimerieNationale 1915): 535. The reference is to the Tanjur dkar chag (Bstan bcos'gyur ro cog gi dkarchag'Jig rtengsum gyi bdeskyidpad tshalbzhadpa'inyid byed ces bya ba).CORDlER's is a catalogue of the Peking Tanjur. Someremarks about the dating of the publication of the Peking Tanjur were offeredbyJ.W.DE JONGin areviewof Claus Vogel'sVdgbhata 's Astangahrdayasamhita(Abhandlungen ftir die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37.2,Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner1965),Indo-lranian Journal10.4 (1968): 296.aw. TERAMOTO Enga# ^ # 5 9 1 , "Chibetto DaizokyS Somokuroku Hensan ni tsuite"' nm^Umm^mWtkKWiX [On the compilation of the catalogue of theTibetan Tripitaka],B ukkyd Shigaku $&&.& 3.5 (Aug. 1914): 350-65; 3.6(Sept. 1914): 454-60.


21/36

JIABS22.1 234Kanjur. The Imperial 13 Tanjur Dkar chag (204 leaves), a much morevoluminous compilation, ismarked with a numeral (TSO) and is regardedas one of the 225 volumes of the Imperial Tibetan Tanjur. Com p. Cordier,op. cit., Ill, 534. The different treatment of the two Dkar chags may bedue to the fact that a much higher degree of sanctity is attached to theKanjur than to the Tanjur, and that a mere table of contents could not becoordinated with the sacred scriptures composing the Kanjur. On page570 of his article quoted above (note 12) Dr. Laufer mentions a KanjurDkar chag, and does evidently not regard it as one of the volumes of theKanjur.ax

Note 14.It is a significant fact that in the A. D. 1700 edition the Ral pa gyenbrdzes kyi rgyud follows immediately after the 'Jig rten mchod bstodsgrub pa rtsa ba7 rgyud, which, according to Csoma-Feer, is the lastwork of the Rgyud division in the [Narthang] Kanjur. Comp. Ann. duMusee Guimet,vol. II, page348.ayNote 15.There is a Chinese catalogue of the Kanjur which reflects the state ofthings (as far as the division Rgyud is concerned) which must haveexisted in A. D. 1692.1 mean the b$MMMMBk, which we find onpages 1040-1053 of the first volume of the H3fP&ttiig&|. a z This

ax. Already in 1932 in his catalogue, mentioned above in noteb,SAKURABE(111:422,note (-)) expressed his doubt about the inclusion ofthedkar chagin the numberingof the Kanjur proper. Moreover, it is clear that the Peking d kar chagis to beattached to the very first volume of the Rgyud section, with which the Kanjurbegins. (I am grateful to Dr Eimer for his clarification of this issue in his lettersof2D ec , 1998 and 11 March, 1999.)

ay. I have at hand only a copy ofCSOMADE KOROS's original English "Analysisof the Sher-chin-P'hal-ch'hen-Dkon-s6ks-Do-d6-Ny6ng-dis-and Gyut; beingthe 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Divisions of the Tibetan Work, entitled theKah-gyur." Reprinted inA nalysis oftheKanjur.Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica 2(Delhi: Sri Satguru 1982). This of course contains the same indication at theend oftheRgyudasdoes Leon FEER's French re-working of CSOMA'Scatalogue,Analyse du Kandjour, recueil des livres sacris au Tibet. Annales du MuseGuimet 2 (Paris: E. Leroux 1881). The'Jig rten mchod bstod sgrubpa rtsa ba'irgyudis the last work in volumezhaofthePekingRgyud.

az. SeeSAKURABEBunkyo ^HpU^t^, "Nyorai daizokyo somokuroku ni tsuite" di\jf c ^ J& M S BftfefcgfcT [On theJu-laicatalogue to the Tibetan canon], ShukyoKenkyum&Wtt (n.s.) 7.1 (1930): 139-148. TheShowa Hobo Somokuroku Hfl


22/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 235catalogue does not mention theRal pa gyen brdzes kyi rgyudand statesthat the22nd[ZA]volume oftheKanjur is occupied by Bu ston's collectionof dharamsmu^%^mmM:^m^%mt^jtmR-mmmm b.aI possess another (undated xylograph) edition of the t^^MMW^^.which differs somewhat from the edition published in the HSfB&flfflfeii|. In my block-print, of which pages la and 8a are reproduced on plateVI below, Bu ston's collection ofdharanlsis stated to occupy the superiorfirst {.1 ) volume and theRalpa gyen brdzes kyi rgyud( [ ^ ] $H$IIiL% etc) the 22nd volume (i.e. the23rd volume if we consider the % volume as No1and the ^ volume as No 2 etc.).A complete Tibetan Dkar chag in my possession, which resembles theK'ang Hsi Kanjurs in outward appearance, does not agree with either ofthe Chinese catalogues just m entioned. It ignores Bu ston's collection ofdharanls and affirms that the Ral pa gyen brdzes kyi rgyud occupiesvolume ZA (22). To the 21 uniform block-printed leaves of this Dkarchag a slightly larger leaf has been added, on which an amended editionof the first page is printed. On plate V below the two versions of the firstpage are reproduced, and we find that only the later edition of the firstpage mentions Bu ston's collection of dharanls at the top of the list ascontained in the "extra" volume OM which takes precedence over volumeNo1(KA ). Bu ston's collection ofdharanlshas probably been the objectof scholastic discussions between the various 14 editors, because itsright to form part of the Kanjur is indeed questionable. The collection,though composed of words ascribed to the Buddha, is admittedly nothingbutakind of anthology compiled byamere man, who lived about eighteencenturies after the Nirvana.

The Mongolian translation of the Tibetan Kanjur Dkar chag (undatedxylograph) whichIpossess also show s the puzzling peculiarities mentionedabove. The first page only is found in it in two editions (one without thevolum e O M, and the other one with it), and it affirms that the volum e ZAcontains theRalpa g yen brdzes kyirgyud.

frj&JW &S^ is a collection of catalogues and other sources, published as anappendix to the Taisho edition oftheChinese canon,ba. The reference is found in Showa HoboSomokurokufl9ftI&SW&B$fcI (text18): 1045c29-1046al.


23/36

JIABS22.1 236Baron Schilling von Canstadt's Kanjur index withJ.J. Schmidt's preface

is unfortunately not available in Peking.bbMr. Jacques Bacot, directeurd'ettides a l'cole des Hautes tudes, has given us some biographicaldata about the author of this Kanjur index, who seems to have broughtthe first considerable collection ofTibetanbooks to Europe. Comp.JournalAsiatique,Octobre-Decembre 1924, pages 321-348.bc

Note 16.Theprintedemendations which we find in the A. D. 1700 edition have invery many cases been inserted into my copy of the A. D. 1692 edition bythehandof an unknown scribe. The latter has, however, ignored the factthat not only the Tibetan but also the Chinese markings on the pages ofBu ston's collection had been changed by the A. D. 1700 editors. Theunknown scribe'shandhas written OM over the printed ZA (which is,

bb. The referenceis to the posthumously published catalogueof the Derge Kanjurprepared by SCHILLING VONCANSTADT andpublished by the Imperial Academyof Sciences, withaforward by Isaak Jacob SCHMIDT: ^ T V ^ - g ^ * &^ 0derDer IndexdesKanjur. St.-Petersburg 1845. Printed inLeipzig by LeopoldVoss. Thishas a"Vorwort" in German,and is followed by ahandwrittenTibetan catalogue.Italso hasan"Alphabetischer Index." SCHILLINGVON / D ECANSTADT also had compiled anIndexduGandjour. Imprimd dans le Couventde Goumboum dans le Tubet[sic).Compose* par Le Baron Schilling de Canstadt.Kiakhta, 1831. (Kiakhtais theMongolian citynow more commonly spelledKyakhta, located very nearto Altan Bulag.) Thisis handwritten entirelyinTibetandbucan, savefor the title page,the notation "Index systematique"before thedkar chagproper,and"Index alphabetique" beforethealphabeticallisting (in Tibetan alphabetical order)of the contents. Accordingto thejustpublished The Brief Cataloguesto theNarthangand theLhasa Kanjurs:ASynoptic Editionof the ' H * ' * * ^ ' andthe $vifr*jv


24/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 237however, still clearly distinguishable) on page 55a ofBuston's collection,but he has left the Chinese number of the volume (H~tZL) unchanged.Comp. plate III below.

Note 17.Pages 161b-175b of volume TSI contain a Tibetan version of the Vajra-cchedikd. On page 169a (line 1) of the A. D. 1700 ed. an empty spacebetween the wordsbsod nams kyi andphung po (which corresponds toSkt.punyaskandham,page 15, line 3 of Max M uller's edition) attractsour attention.1*1 The A. D. 1692 ed. hasbsod nams kyis phung po, andthe A. D. 1700 engraver must have simply obliterated the faulty characterrepresenting s.In order to close the resulting gap a rearrangement of thecorrect characters, and consequently the insertion of a piece of wood,would have been necessary. In this as well as in many similar cases theinsertion has, however, been dispensed with, and as a result of theseomissions unexpected gaps abound in the A. D. 1700 edition. On line 3of page 174a of vol. TSI the A. D. 1692 edition omits the word tshe,which corresponds to Skt. velayam (page 25, line 4, of Max MUller'sedition), and the A. D . 1700 edition has it. On line 8 of page 174b of thesame volume the A. D . 1692 ed. hastshogs mang ba yin nam,and the A.D. 15 1700 ed.:tshogs de mang ba yin nam (de,the Tib. equivalent ofSkt.sais required here, comp. page 26, line 15 of M ax M uller's edition).In these cases the A. D. 1700 engraver must have applied the processdescribed above (page 2).

Note 18.On lines 3-4 of page 99a of volume JU the A. D . 1700 ed. hasnga rgyalgyi dban g du gyur pa ma yin te / 'tholthing bshags pa'iphyir ro(in theA. D. 1692 ed. the important wordsmayinare m issing).The words in question occur in one of the Tibetan translations of theMahaparinirvanasutra,and the Pei Liang translation of the work (fromSanskrit into C hinese) proves that the A . D . 1700 ed. has the better read-

bd. F. MAX MtJLLER:Buddhist Textsfrom Japan. AnecdotaOxoniensia, Texts,Documents, andExtracts, chiefly fromManuscripts inthe Bodleian andotherOxfordLibraries.Aryan Series, vol. I - Part 1 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press1881).Note that for some reason Stael-Holstein has counted the actual pages ofthe text of the Vajracchedika, which begins on page 19 of MAX MOLLER'sbooklet. The references therefore correspond to pages 33,43 and 44 as printedon the pages oftheedition.


25/36

JIABS22.1 238ing. The Chinese characters 11$M1f fjH1C, which the Pei Liangversion has, have the same meaning as the Tibetan phrase, which we findin the A. D. 1700 edition. Comp. the Taisho Trip. vol. XII, page 400c,lines 7-8.The following emendation found in the A. D. 1700 ed. is likewisesupported by the Pei Liang version: nub par 'gyur bar rig par bya'o(A.D. 1692 ed.: nub par 'gyur bar bya'o, Pei Liang: | n ... H#M, com p.JU 308a 7 and Taisho XII 472a 15-16). The A. D. 1700 reading found onJU 316a 8(me dang rlung dang sdug bsngal dang) is also preferable tothe A. D. 1692 reading: me dang sdug bsngal dang. Comp. Taisho XII474c 23: 'XM.^.It does not seem probable that the A. D. 1700 emendations are theresults of comparative Sino-Tibetan or Indo-Tibetan studies. The textswere probably amended with the help of Tanjur texts only, but I am notin a position to indicate the particular written or printed authorities, onwhich the A. D. 1700 editors relied.

Note 19.The Chinese translations oftheSaddharmapundarikasutraby Dharmaraksa( 0 ft Bf) and KumarajTva ( 0MiH2)also agree with the A. D. 1700 Tibetanversion. Com p. the Taisho Trip., vol. IX, page 67a, line 12, and vol IX,page 4c, line 26.

Note 20.Not all the emendations which we find in the A. D. 1700 text of the Tib.Saddharmapundarikasutra can be regarded as improvements. The A. D.1692 line {dge slong dag sangs rgyas kyi spy an gyis ngas), for instance,which corresponds to the w ordsaharhbhiksava buddhacaksusa (Skt. texted. page 145, line 7), is surely to be preferred to the "amended" A. D.1700 (CHU 63a 7) line:dge slong khyad (notkhyed) dag sangs rgyas kyispyan gyis ngas (ten instead of the nine syllables, which the metrerequires).1* 16

On page 195b, l ine 3, the A. D. 1700 edi tors have changed 'khor lassras (A. D. 1692 ed.) into 'khor los sras. The sy l lab les occur in the

be. According to NAKAMURA, "Chibetto-yaku Hokekyo," CLD read the linedgeslong khyed dag sangs rgyas spyan gyis ngas, which is metrical. I have notbeen able to check any of the so-called Western Kanjurs, such as the sTogPalace Kanjur, the Toyo Bunko manuscript or the London manuscript. It wouldbe very interesting to determine their readings ofthisline.


26/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 239Tibetan translation of the wordsrajnah Subhavyuhasydntahpurdscatur-aiitirantahpurikasahasrany asya Saddharmapundarlkasyadharmaparyd-yasya bhdjanabhutdnyabhuvan,which Kern(S. B.E.XXI.424) translatesas follows:bfNowat that juncture, young men of good family, the eighty-four thousand women of the harem of the king Subhavyuha becameworthy of being receptacles of this Dharmaparyaya of the Lotus of theTrue Law. The correct Tibetan translation of the words antahpurdscaturaitir antahpurikasahasrany would be:btsun mo'i 'khor lasslasbrgyadkhri bzhistong.The A. D. 1700 editors have retained the faultysras (meaning: son) of the A. D. 1692 edition and further debased thecorrupt translation by changinglasintolos(probably under the influenceof the well-known expression 'khor lossgyur ba 'i rgyal po 'i btsun mo,comp.my ed. of the Kdsyapaparivarta,page 122, line 1). According toJaeschke (diet., page586)slas= wives and servants. Some oftheemendations, which we find in the A. D. 1700 ed., are only partly correct. Onpage CHU 201a 5-6, for instance, the A. D. 1700 ed. has: sarvasatva-rutal kotolyakausalydnugate(A.D.1692:sarvasatvaruta Ikotolyanagate,the Skt. text of the Lotus sutra, page 477: sarvasattvarutakauialydnu-gate)** The A. D. 1700 editor has evidently forgotten to obliterate thefaulty syllableskofalya.bhKumarajlvatransliteratesthedhdrani,in whichthe expression(Hk& M ffll&tisffi


27/36

JIABS22.1 240On page 186 of the Skt. text of the Lotus sutra we find the adjectiveadhimuktisaram (CHU 82b 1: mos pa snying por byed pa), which isfollowed by the adjectivesunyadharmagatimgatdrh (stongpa'ichos rtogs

par khong du chud pa). The A. D. 1700 ed. inserts the syllables stongpa'i chos rtogs par byed pa,which are missing in the A. D. 1692 ed. andhave no equivalent in the Skt. version, between the two expressions.JNeither in Dharmaraksa's nor in Kumarajlva's translation do we findanything corresponding to the additional adjective. Comp. the TaishoTrip.,vo l. IX, page 92b , line 19, and vo l. IX, page 25c, line 2 1 .Note 21.

On page 171 of my edition of the Kaiyapaparivarta we find four Tibetanlines which are not represented in the Indian and Chinese versions of thework. These lines are missing in the A. D. 1692 Kanjur, but the A. D.1700 edition as well as the Narthang (Snar thang) edition have them. Inat least two cases the readings of the 17 A. D. 1700 Tibetan version ofthe Kaiyapaparivarta are certainly wrong. 'I 123a 2: sems can yongs sutshol ba'i brtson 'grus so,Skt., page 142, lines 21-22: cittaparigavesatayevTryam, A. D. 1692: sems yongs su etc. 'I 123a 8: 'jig cing jug pa'o,Skt., page 144, line 10:bhagnavilina, A.D. 1692: jig cing ju ba'o. Inboth ca ses the Skt. text proves the A. D. 1692 readings to be correct.

TheChinese reference isCh 'ing-chu Ts 'ai Yuan-p'ei Hsien-sheng Liu-shih-wu-suiLun-wen-chi:(Kuo-li) chung-yang yen-chiu-yiian li-shih yii-yen yen-chiu-sochi-k'an: Wa i-pien 1 A Jgfcftl7ni5fcA-f &$tfa%% ' ( H ) * * f l F f t l & 8 i

bj. The Sanskrit is found on 186.10. No additional term is found either in theKashgar (Hirofumi TODA: SaddharmapundarTkasutra: Central Asian Manuscripts,Rom anizedText [Tokushima: Kyoiku Shuppan Center 1981]) or Gilgit(Shoko WATANABESaddharmapundarika Manuscripts Found inGilgit.PartTwo:Rom anized Text [Tokyo: The Reiyukai 1975]) texts. The T ibetan text ofPeking printed by NAKAMURA, however, while verycramped, indicating therewas some correction made on the blocks to accomodate the extra text, cites novariants from CDLN. The so-called Western Kanjurs, sTog, London, ToyoBunko, should definitely be checked.

bk. Both are confirmed by the sTog Palace Kanjur, dkon brtsegs, cha:97, sTog230b4;98,sTog231a3.


28/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 241Note 22.Mademoiselle Lalou(JournalAsiatique, Octobre-D6cembre 1927, pages256 and 238)bl has already pointed out that the Bhadrapalatresthipari-

prccha is missing in the Berlin manuscript Kanjur and that there is amistake connected with it in the "table des matieres du Kanjur de Pekin,"which is probablyacopy oftheblock-printed TibetanDkarchag mentionedabove (pages 12 and 13). In this Dkar chag (page 14a, line 5) theBhadra-pdlairesthipariprcchd appears as the lag bzangs kyi[s] zhus pa (1 omitthe Tibetan equivalents ofdrya, of ndma,and of mahaydnasutra).Thistitle is a translation of Skt.Subahupariprccha. In the Chinese block-printedDkar chag or catalogue mentioned above (page 15) and in the ChineseDkar chag published in the B i S f P ^ l f l l l S ^ we also find the equivalentof Subahu ($>#) where we would expect to find the equivalent ofBhadrapala. The Bhadrapdlairesthipariprcchd is referred to in theseChinese Dkar chags with the characters j |^ J I# fj N S I (I omit the Chineseequivalent of mahaydnasutra,com p. the BSffl etc ., vol. I, page 1049c,line 7 ). The con- fusion of the names Subahu and Bhadrapala ( resthin=tshong dpon= j | # is an unimportant part ofthetitle) would not surpriseus, if the Chinese version of the Dkar chag of the Tibetan Kanjur couldnot be regarded as the original version, because &J>TP (Miao Shou, apossible equivalent of Bhadrapala) might very easily be mixed up withits homophone PJ?^- (Miao Shou, which actually renders Subahu in theMahavyutpatti, Sakaki edition, No. 3242) by a Chinese scribe. But theChinese version cannot be the original, because there are too many obviousTibetanisms in it.

The Skt. word iatasdhasrika (Otani cat., page 230, line 3) appears as^f f (= 1.100, instead of H ^f = 100.000) in the Chinese Dkar chag(comp.the BSffl etc., vol. I, page 1049a, line 25). This is evidently due toa misinterpretation of the wordsstong phrag brgya (= 100.000), whichwe find in the Tibetan Dkar chag (page 13a, line 6). The Skt. nameSumati (Otani cat., page 248, line 15) appears asM IR (mati + su)in theChinese Dkar chag (comp. the 03ffl etc., vol. I, page 1049b, line 26).This is evidently due to a misinterpretation of the wordsbio gros bzangmos, which we find in the Tib. Dkar chag (page 14a, line 1). The Skt.name Susthitamati (Otani cat., page 250, line 18) appears as MHM>&{mati +susthita) in the Chinese Dkar chag (comp. the BSfP etc., vol. I,page 1049c, line 3). This is evidently due to a misinterpretation of the

bl. MarcelleLALOU:"La version tib&aine du Ratnakuta: Contribution a la bibliographic du Kanjur,"Journal Asiatique211.2 (1927): 233-59.


29/36

JIABS22.1 242wordsbio gros rab gnas kyis,which we find in the Tib. Dkar chag (page14a, line3).In a similar way the curious name jfcMffc&flq 18 [Dattavim ala,instead of Vimaladatta], which we find in the Chinese Dkar chag (comp.the BSfa etc., vol. I, page 1049b, line 29) can be explained. The Skt.name Gahgottara (Otani cat., page 248, line 25) appears as M B in theChinese Dkar chag (comp. the BSfO etc., vol. I, page 1049b, line 27).This is evidently due to a misinterpretation of the wordsgang ga7mchog,which we find in the Tib. Dkar chag (page 14a, line2).The Tibeto-Chinesetranslator has not recognized the name of the Indian river (Gari ga, sic)and faithfully translated the syllablegari(which is Indian, not Tibetan )into Chinese (ffl too means "full") as if it had been Tibetan. O n the otherhand, the Tibeto-Chinese translator of the Dkar chag transliterated theTibetan syllable gang (po) in a title where itshould have been renderedby $fi(or MM etc.) or by a transliteration of the Skt. name Purna. To theSkt. title Purnapramukha-avadanaiataka (Otani cat., page 390, line 9)the words gang po la sogs pa'i rtogs pa brjod pa brgya pa (Tib. Dkarchag, page 20a, lines 7-8) and I&ifTO^WIg M (comp. the BSftl etc .,vol. I, page 1052c, line 19) correspond in our Dkar chags.

Note 23.The A. D. 1692 volumes ZA (285 leaves, A. D. 1700: 332 1.), ZHI (3311.,A. D . 1700: 350 1.), and 'I (288 1., A. D . 1700: 3111 .) are the only oneswhich differ from the A. D. 1700 volumes (bearing the same Tibetanordinals) in the number of their leaves. The difference between the A. D.1692 volume ZA and the A. D. 1700 volume ZA is, of course, due to thefact that Bu ston's collection of dhdranis,which filled volume ZA in theA. D. 1692 edition, was transferred to the newly added volume OM in A.D.1700, and that theRal pa gyen brdzes kyi rgyud occupied the volumevacated by Bu ston's compilation. Comp. above pages 2 and 13.

Note 24.Page T 50b of the A. D. 1700 edition seems to have been printed with anewly prepared block (not with an A. D. 1692 block corrected by the A.D. 1700 editors). Nearly all the other blocks of the A. D. 1692 editionhave evidently been used by the A. D. 1700 editors (who amended aconsiderable part of them and added the blocks for the Ral pa gyenbrdzes kyi rgyud, the Vidyutprdptapariprcchd and the Bhadrapdlapari-prcchd to their number) for the A. D. 1700 Kanjur. Comp. above pages 2and 13. Owing to the insertion of the Bhadrapalapariprccha into the


30/36

STAEL-HOLSTEIN 243middleof volume 'I the great majority ofitsleaves had to be renumbered,and theKdsyapaparivarta,for instance, is found on pages 100b - 138a inthe A. D . 1700 edition (in the A. D. 1692 edition: on pages 77b - 115a).

The insertion of theVidyutprdptapariprcchacaused less trouble, becausethe 19 proper place of that work is after the Ugrapariprcchd,which isthelastsutra in the A. D. 1692 edition of volume ZHI.Note 25.A number of irregularities, which Beckh has discovered in the Berlinmanuscript Kanjur, are found equally in the A. D. 1692 edition. Bothcollections havevepullya(instead of vaipulya)in the Skt. title of the first

volume of theB uddhdvatamsaka.Comp. page 14 of Beckh'sV erzeichnisand the first page of volume YI oftheA. D . 1692 edition. Both co llectionsdesignate theV ydsapariprcchdas the 48l le 'uof theRatnakuta,and bothadd a note to the effect that it is the49thle'u.Comp. Beckh'sVerzeichnis,page 25. On page 288a of volume 'I of the A. D. 1692 edition we readthe following words: 'Phags pa dkon mchog brtsegs pa chen po'i choskyis[sic]mam grangsle 'ustong phrag brgya pa las /drangsrong rgyaspa 'izhuspa'i le 'u zhes bya ste bzhi bcu rtsa brgyad pa rdzogs sho /le 'ubzhi bcu dgu pa. TheVydsapariprcchais the 47thle'u of theRatnakuta(neither the 48thnor the49th le') in the Berlin manuscript Kanjur as wellas in the A. D. 1692 edition, both of which omit two le'u out of theregular 49 le'u.Comp. above pages 3 and 18.

Note 26.Beckh {Verzeichnis,page VI) regards the Berlin manuscript Kanjur as acopy of the Derge xylograph, and Pelliot{JournalAsiatique,Juillet-AoQt1914, page 115) says: Si on se rappelle en outre que cet exemplaire deBerlinatacquis a Pelcin, il apparaitra comme vraisemblable, malgre* sadivision en 108 volumes qui est celle de l'6dition du Derge, qu'il deriveen r6alite\ non pas de I'&tition du D erge, maisd'unerecension apparenteaux recensions p6kinoises et que je suis malheureusement horsd'6tatded6terminer.bmThe red Paris Kanjur quoted by M lle Lalou in the Journal Asiatiquecontains the two parts of theRatnakuta, which are missing in the A. D.bm. It may just be noted here that of course PELLIOTis correct; the real origins ofthe Berlin manuscript Kanjurwerepointed outalsoin1914by Berthold LAUFERin his review of Beckh's Verzeichnis (see note k, above), in Journal of theRoyal Asiatic Societyfor 1914: 1128-1130.


31/36

JIABS22.1 2441692 edition (comp. above page 3), and Pelliot (op. cit., page 114) isevidently right in regarding the red Paris Kanjur as an [incomplete?]copy ofthesame (A. D. 1700) edition, which Laufer saw at Hsi An.

I am not in a position to examine the "Imperial" Kanjur, which theAsiatic Museum of St. Petersburg possesses, but I took a manuscript ofthe Tibetan translation of the Kaiyapaparivarta with me to Peking in1917. This manuscript was copied from the "Imperial" Kanjur of St.Petersburg, and I have compared it with the version, which the Yung HoKung copy of the A. D. 1700 edition contains. The two texts are incomplete agreement, andIbelieve that the "Imperial" Kanjur of St. Petersburg too is a copy of the A. D. 1700 edition. Comp. page XX of myedition oftheKasyapaparivarta. 20At the last moment 1 learnt from Mr. T. L. Yuan, the director of thePeking National Library, that a considerable number of Tibetan Kanjurvolumes were still stored in the Forbidden City of Peking, and I examinedsome of them. All the volumes I saw there showed the characteristics ofthe A. D. 1692 edition, except the volume containing Bu ston's collectionofdharanls,which had evidently been printed with the A. D . 1692 blocksas corrected by the A. D. 1700 editors (comp. above page 3). In additionto these volumes I have years ago seen three evidently complete copiesoftheTibetan Kanjur in the Forbidden City, but they were all hand-written.The beautifully written manuscripts (golden letters on blue paper) haveshared the fate of most of the Peking Palace treasures, and repose atpresent in the vaults ofaShanghai bank.nPeking, January 14 ,h 1934.

bn. It is possible that this is a reference to the so-called Taipei manuscript Kanjur (Ido not know if there is more than one in the National Palace Museum, andapparently large parts of the collection still remain uncatalogued). As far as Iknow, the only listing for this Kanjur is that inSelectChineseRare Books andHistorical Documents inthe National Palace Museum(Taipei: National PalaceMuseum, 1971): #24 (Lung-tsang-ching Mtf&ffl.). A description is found onpage 70 (Chinese), p. 89 (Japanese), p. 108 (English). The descriptions in thethree languages differ slightly. Illustrated with one plate.According to a letter from Dr. Eimer (2 Dec , 1998), a catalogue of this Kanjur is in preparation, and he himself plans to publish some remarks on it soon.


32/36

SILKtaMMwri

4< +

4^


33/36

JIABS22. I 246

fj|l l

f-lf#fj jc f t f

f ten.;4

w3 g ^ ' J .

r l


34/36


35/36

JIABS22.1 248

JL .ET , r / ,

f t ^ d r

Q

I . . I I . . I , . . I I , ., , , . _M .

;/

$ f f fc^" "7* B7 c^es

;:/:

*


36/36

SILK

jjtegBlij jtafcg

i p t lLP-

,. 4

-i illtftfci

il rf If II f f l If t. .s^ s Ifr\Pfo^Ytift

^ i i

ISw cc oo

S ON

S -5

ft O H

03 1/3d *>*->a

y i r = -w 6oS T E TP7 ft?

4Tfc* a it-3 yp F=-Z J**

r K }-_i_. 5 ^

^ ^ W ^ i , 1 1 ^ 5 ^