Fragments of the "Testament of Ba" from Dunhuang

Fragments of the "Testament of Ba" from DunhuangAuthor(s): Sam van Schaik and Kazushi IwaoSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 128, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2008), pp. 477-487Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25608407 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 17:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:26:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25608407?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Fragments of the Testament ofBa from Dunhuang

Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao

British Library

1. INTRODUCTION

Tibetan historical literature may be conveniently divided into two groups. The first group

comprises the Tibetan historical texts recovered from the library cave at Dunhuang, dating from the Tibetan occupation of Dunhuang in the late eighth century to the sealing of the cave in the early eleventh century.1 Foremost among this group are the royal records known as the Old Tibetan Annals and the Old Tibetan Chronicle. The second and much more sub stantial group comprises the histories preserved in Tibet in manuscripts and printed books,

dating from the eleventh century through to the twentieth-century histories composed by Tibetan scholars still working in the traditional idiom.2

It so happens that there is almost no chronological overlap between these two groups. This must be understood in light of the period of disruption that ensued after the collapse of the Tibetan dynasty and the empire that it had ruled over in the mid-ninth century. During this

"period of fragmentation" (sil bu'i dus) as it is traditionally known, many of the records of the imperial period seem to have been lost.3

Although some of the historical works from the second group are traditionally considered to have been preserved from the Tibetan imperial period, and thus might be counted as having survived through the period of fragmentation, modern historians have not been able to date them to any earlier than the eleventh century. Even the surviving history that is usually con sidered to be the earliest, the Testament ofBa, is of uncertain provenance. The Testament of Ba presents itself as a royal discourse (bka' mchid), and the core of the historical narrative is the story of the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet during the reign of the king Khri

srong lde btsan (c. 754-797). These events are supposed to have been recorded by one of the

figures at the king's court, Dba' Gsal snang. Though often thought to contain elements stem

ming from the imperial period, it has previously been thought to date back to the eleventh

century at the earliest.4

The only convincing evidence for the existence of the Testament ofBa before the eleventh

century would be its appearance in the first group of historical works, those from the Dun

huang cave. Its presence there would show that these two eras of historical literature do

overlap, and that there was significant continuity through the period of fragmentation. It is the purpose of this article to announce the discovery of two fragments of the Testament of

1. The manuscripts in this group have been enumerated and discussed in Uray 1979. 2. Over seven hundred such works have been catalogued in Dan Martin's invaluable Tibetan Histories (Martin

1997). 3. Not all such records were lost. In particular, the stone inscriptions from the Imperial period survived through

to the twentieth century. However, only a very few Tibetan historians ever thought to make use of these as his torical sources; foremost among these was Dpa'bo Gtsug lag phreng ba, whose Scholar's Feast contains many older sources (see Uray 1972).

4. Pasang and Diemberger: xiv (Per S0renson's introduction) and 8. Throughout this article we use the title Tes tament ofBa to refer to the text in all its different versions. Specific versions are referred to by their Tibetan titles, e.g., Dba' bzhed.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.3 (2008) 477



478 Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.3 (2008)

Ba in the Duniwang manuscript collections. The fragments were identified by the authors while cataloging the sequence of Chinese Dunhuang manuscripts originally kept in the British Museum. While it was known that this sequence also contained some Tibetan

manuscripts, not all of them had been identified. Thus these particular fragments had gone unnoticed for nearly a century.

2. THE DUNHUANG FRAGMENTS

The fragments comprise two manuscripts: Or.8210/S.9498(A) and Or.8210/S. 13683(C). The first of these is the larger part, being 9.4 cm in height and 24.0 cm in width at the top, reduced to 6.4 cm in width at the bottom. The recto side contains six lines of Tibetan, written in black ink with red guidelines, while the verso is blank. The smaller fragment, Or.8210/ S. 13683(C), is 2.5 cm in height and 14.2 cm in width. It contains only one short line of text, but it can clearly be placed at the bottom of the larger fragment, as part of that fragment's sixth line of text.5 A blank space and straight bottom edge after the sixth line suggests that

this was a page in the traditional Tibetan pecha (dpe cha) format. The writing on the frag ments is in dbu can script containing most of the archaic orthographic features found in the

Dunhuang manuscripts, including the inverse gi gu, the da drag, the upper hook on the a chung, and the ya btags under the ma. The handwriting is very accomplished, and clearly the work of a practiced scribe.

The fragments are from the Stein Collection at the British Library. This collection derives from the three expeditions undertaken by Marc Aurel Stein in Central Asia in the early twentieth century. The most famous manuscripts from this collection are those taken from

the so-called "library cave" at Dunhuang. The manuscripts from the cave can be dated from

before the cave was closed in the early eleventh century. They are written, and occasionally

printed, in many languages, including Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Khotanese, Tangut, and

Uighur. The Tibetan manuscripts, which are the most numerous after the Chinese, date from

the late eighth century to the end of the tenth.

Originally the Tibetan manuscripts acquired by Stein (along with the Khotanese and

Sanskrit manuscripts) were sent to the India Office Library, whereas the Chinese manuscripts were sent to the British Museum. This distinction was not entirely thorough, and some

Tibetan fragments did end up in the British Museum as well. The fragments we are con

sidering here were among the latter. They were placed in the British Museum pressmark range Or.8210/S, which contains most of the Chinese manuscripts acquired by Stein from

Dunhuang during his second expedition. Though both the British Museum and India Office

Library collections are now housed together at the British Library, the Tibetan manuscripts that ended up in the British Museum have still not been thoroughly catalogued. The frag

ments have only recently been discovered during the authors' compilation of a catalogue of

the Tibetan manuscripts from the British Museum collection.

The date of the manuscript cannot be determined exactly, but it is unlikely to be earlier

than the Tibetan conquest of Dunhuang in 786, and can be no later than the very beginning of

5. Both of our manuscripts are catalogued along with other fragments, suggesting that they were pasted, rolled,

or bound together with these other fragments when they were originally brought to the British Museum. Or.8210/

S.9498(A) is catalogued along with three other pieces of paper (B-D); (B) is a woodblock print with a decorative

motif, and the others are blank. Or.8210/S. 13683(C) also shares its number with three other items: (A) being a frag ment of a Chinese letter, (B) a blank sheet, and (D) a wooden stick that was probably a scroll roller. Clearly there is

no obvious connection between these items beyond their being catalogued together in this way.



van Schaik and IvvAO: Fragments of the Testament of Ba 479

The two fragments: Or.821G7 S.9498(A) at the top; Or.8210/ S. 13683(C) at the bottom. ? The British

Library.

the eleventh century, when the Dunhuang library cave was sealed. Thus we assign a general date to the manuscript of the ninth or tenth century. Unfortunately the text is fragmentary, with the beginning, end, and both sides missing. Nevertheless, it is clear that this fragment is

part of the story of S?ntaraksita's journey to Tibet, which is found throughout the Tibetan

religious historical tradition. The earliest Tibetan religious history is thought to be the Testa ment ofBa, and the text of the Dunhuang fragments is closer to this version of the story than to any other we know.

3. the testament of ba

The Testament ofBa exists in several different versions. This is due to its specific history: never published in a printed version in Tibet, it was copied and recopied in manuscript form,

leading to a plurality of versions differing from each other in more or less substantial ways. A number of recent scholars have addressed the problem of dating these versions; we will

merely summarize their conclusions here. The version that is generally thought to be the earliest is the Dba' bzhed (its title distin

guished by the 4d* prefix to the clan name). This version appears in a recently discovered

manuscript, which was published in the year 2000 in facsimile, translated by Pasang Wangdu and Hildegarde Diemberger. The authors argue that this version dates back to the eleventh

century at the earliest, although the manuscript they published is, they say, a revised copy of that early version.6

The version that is generally considered to be the next earliest is the Sba bzhed, edited

by Gonpo Gyaltsen from three manuscripts and published in Beijing in 1980. At least one of the three sources for this publication is considered to date back to the twelfth century. The latest version is known as the Sba bzhed zhabs brtags pa, the Supplemented Testament of Ba, designated as such by Tibetan historians because it contains substantial additions to the earlier versions. It is thought to date from the mid-fourteenth century. R. A. Stein published

6. On the dating of the various versions, see Pasang and Diemberger: pp. xiv (Per S0renson's introduction), 8, 11-14.




a hand-copy of this manuscript in 1961 in facsimile along with a summary for each page, and later a printed version of the manuscript was published in Dharamsala in 1968.

The importance of the Testament ofBa was recognized by Tibetan historians, and passages from the work are found scattered throughout later Tibetan historical works. Of these, the one that quotes Testament ofBa most extensively is the Scholar's Feast (Mkhas pa'i dga' ston) of Dpa'bo Gtsug lag 'phreng ba. This author quotes from several different versions of the Testament ofBa, which he calls the genuine {Rba bzhed khungs ma), the impure {Rba bzhed lhad can), the large {Rba bzhed che ba), the medium {Rba bzhed 'bring ba). Usually, however, he refers to the text simply as the Rba bzhed. Therefore we will use that name here to refer to the versions that are drawn from the Scholar 's Feast.

When the Dunhuang fragments are compared with the equivalent passages from all of the above versions of the Testament of Ba, there is no doubt that they are closer to the

Dba' bzhed than to any of the other versions. This fact seems to confirm the opinion of

Pasang and Diemberger that the Dba' bzhed is earlier than any of the other versions of the Testament ofBa.1

The passage in our fragments (and in the Dba' bzhed) concerns the arrival in Lhasa of the abbot S?ntaraksita, known here only by the title of "abbot" {mkhan po) or the honorific name of "Bodhisattva." The abbot, residing in Nepal, has received an invitation from the Tibetan king, Khri strong lde btsan, and travelled to Lhasa. On his arrival he stays at the Pe har temple in Lhasa, and sends a messenger to the king to ask if he should proceed to meet him. The king appears to have second thoughts about the abbot, and puts off the meeting. In stead he orders three of his ministers to go and see the abbot, talk to him, and try to ascertain whether there is any danger of foreign black magic or evil spirits from the abbot.

The ministers proceed to the temple, but are unable to talk to the abbot without a trans lator. So a search is undertaken in the local marketplaces, and finally a translator is found, the son of a criminal who has been exiled from his homeland, Kashmir. Fortunately this person, called ?nanda, is a brahman, and is well educated enough to act as a translator for the abbot. Here the Dunhuang fragments end, but the story continues in the Testament ofBa with a two month interview of the abbot, in which he explains the doctrine through his translator to the

ministers, until they are satisfied that he is a genuine monk and that there is no danger to the king from foreign black magic and evil spirits.

4. COMPARING THE DUNHUANG FRAGMENTS WITH THE DBA' BZHED

We can now compare the version of this story as it appears in our Dunhuang fragments with the Dba' bzhed version. Below the six lines of the fragments are placed above the cor

responding passages from the Dba' bzhed. The passages in the Dba' bzhed that overlap with the fragment are underlined. As we can see here, the major part of the text is almost identical with the Dba' bzhed. The extent of the correspondence clearly indicates that these Dunhuang fragments must be equivalent to one of the original sources of the Dba' bzhed (or at least this part of the Dba' bzhed) and also confirms the status of Dba' bzhed as the earliest ex tant Tibetan Buddhist history.

* * *

Dunhuang fragments: (1. 1) [. ..][.. .'1] lags gtol ma mchls / ra saT beng gang du bzhag //

zhang Ion chen po rgyal sgra legs [. ..] (1. 2) [.. .] du bcugs na / lha bal gyl ngan sngags dang /

'phra men lta bu yod dam myed // thugs phrl[g] [. . .]

7. See Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 11-14.



van Schaik and IwAo: Fragments of the Testament of Ba 481

Dba' bzhed: (7b 1)... mkhan po lta kho na mjal ba ru ci lags gtol ma mchis te / ra sa pe (7b2) har du cung zhig bzhugs su gsol / lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men dag yod par thugs 'phrig bzhes nas / zhang blon chen po sprang rgyal sbra logs gzigs dang / seng 'go lha lung gzigs dang / 'ba' (7b3) sang shi dang gsum la bka' stsal pa / blon po khyed gsum ra se pe har du song la / Aatsardya bo dhi sa tva'i zhal sngar phyag 'tshal zhing mjal nas / lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men lta bu yod daM med (7b4) thugs 'phrin bzhes dgos sam mi dgos khyed kyis rtogs shig ces bka' stsal nas / de gsuM gyis ra sa pe har du mchis te /

* * *

Dunhuang fragments: (1. 3) [. . .] [l]o ts[a] [pa] [m]a mchis te // tshong dus kha drug du / kha che dang yang II lo tsa pa 'tshal [.. .]

Dba' bzhed: lo tsa ba ma mchis te tsong 'dus kha drug tu kha che dang yang le'i lo tsa (7b5) ba 'tshal ba su mchis zhes tshong dpon so sor rmas nas / ras sa'i tshong 'dus nas

* * *

Dunhuang fragments: (1. 4) [. . .]e [sby]In che chung gnyis dang // kha che Aa nan ta dang gsum rnyed me [. . .]

Dba' bzhed: kha che lhas byin che chung dang gnyis dang / kha che Aa nan ta dang gsum rnyed pa las / lhas byin che chung gnyis kyis ni tshong gi lo tsa ba (7b6) tsam las rngo ma thog /

* * *

Dunhuang fragments: (1. 5) [. . .] bram ze skyes bzang kha che yul na / stson rngams po che

[. Ju[. . .]

Dba' bzhed: Aa nan ta ni phra bram ze skyes bzang bya ba geig kha che'i yul du nyes pa rngam chen zhig by as pa las lho bal kha che'i chos lugs kyis bram ze dgum du mi rung nas / bod yul du (7b7) spyugs pa'i

* * *

Dunhuang fragments: (1. 6) [. . .] [b]u lags st[e] / [/]bram ze T [g]tsug lag dang / smrang lugs da[ng] [.. .] bu lags te bram ze'i gtsug lag dang sga dang sman bslabs pas chos sgyur ba'i rngo thog nas /

5. differences between the two versions

In spite of the striking similarity between the Dunhuang fragments and the Dba' bzhed, certain significant differences emerge from this close comparison. The most substantial dif ferences appear mainly in 11. 1-2, which relate the treatment of S?ntaraksita when he arrives in Lhasa. Our text runs

He was uncertain whether [. . .] was placed in the Ra sa Beng khang. To the minister Rgyal sgra

legs [. . .] he ordered: "Investigate whether there are any foreign evil spirits or black magic."

In the Dunhuang fragments the account appears quite straightforward: S?ntaraksita is sent to wait for the king at the Beng khang, but the king, rather than go immediately to meet him, asks the minister Rgyal sgra legs to investigate whether S?ntaraksita brings with him any danger of foreign black magic or evil spirits. The relevant passage in Dba' bzhed has a

slightly more complicated version of the same event:

[S?ntaraksita was] asked: "Please, stay at Pe har for a while." The bTsan po suspected that there

could be some black magic and evil spirits (phra men) from lHo bal [in the doctrine of the mKhan po]. Then [the bTsan po] ordered Zhang blon chen po sBrang rGya sbra (sgra) legs gzigs, Seng 'go lHa lung gzigs, and 'Ba' Sang shi, "You three ministers, go to Ra sa Pe har




(vihara) to meet A tsa rya Bo dhi sa twa and prostrate in front of him. Then investigate whether

I need to suspect the presence of black magic and evil spirits from lHo bal or not."8

Let us compare the two versions in detail:

(i) The fragments have: "[S?ntaraksita] was placed in the Ra sa Beng khang," whereas the Dba' hzhed has "[S?ntaraksita] was asked: 'Please, stay at Pe har for a while.'" This

change may have been made to replace the forceful "was placed" (bzhag) with a weaker and more respectful request to stay (bzhugs su gsol).9

(ii) The name of the temple in which S?ntaraksita stays is different in the two versions. In fact, the name of this temple varies in every version of the Testament ofBa, as follows:

Ra sa beng khang (the Dunhuang fragments) Ra sa pe har (Dba' bzhed) Lha sa dpe dkar [annotation: hen khang dpe dkar kyang zer] (Sba bzhed) Hen khang bi har / Ra sa bi har (Rba bzhed) Stong khang dpe har (Sba bzhed zhab btags ma)

The name Pe har in the Dba' bzhed must be a phonetic rendering of the Sanskrit vih?ra, as

Pasang and Diemberger (2000: 45) have pointed out. This is also the case with Bi har in the Rba bzhed. Equally, Dpe har in the Sba bzhed zhab btags ma and Dpe dkar in the Sba bzhed are clearly variants of Pe har in which the phonetic rendering has been further Tibetanized. Thus Ra sa pe har in the Dba' bzhed and Lha sa dpe dkar in the Sba bzhed indicate the same place.

As for Beng khang, the name of the temple in our fragments, this appears to be preserved in a corrupted form as Stong khang in the Sba bzhed zhab rtags ma. It is also preserved in

the Rba bzhed, which has Hen khang, and in an interlinear annotation in the Sba bzhed, which states "[Lha sa dpe dkar] is also called Heng khang dpe dkar." The similarity between

Hen(g) khang in the Rba bzhed and Sba bzhed and Beng khang in the Dunhuang fragments suggests that they refer to the same temple.

So what was the Beng/Heng khang? The Scholar 's Feast states that the Jo khang temple in Lhasa was constructed based on the rgya'i hen khang bi har, that is, the Hen khang Vih?ra

in India.10 This implies that hen khang or beng khang was the name by which the Tibetans

knew the Indian temple that was used as a model for the Jo khang. By association, the Ra sa

beng khang was also one of the names of the Jo khang temple in Lhasa, long since forgotten. (iii) In the Dunhuang fragments the king simply orders the minister to investigate S?n

taraksita, whereas in the Dba' bzhed the king's motivation is also related. It is worth noting that in the Dba' bzhed the words in which this motivation is phrased are almost identical with

those of the order to the ministers that follow it. This introduces a redundancy into the

8. Translation in Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 43-45.

9. Note that this passage is further weakened in the Sba bzhed, where the order to investigate S?ntaraksita

comes not from the king, but from his ministers instead. This version of the story is the one found in Bu ston's in

fluential history. See Szerb 1990: 23 (140b.8-9). 10. See Scholar's Feast: 234. Normally rgya in Tibetan can mean both China (Rgya nag) and India {Rgya gar),

but in this case it must be the latter. For other Tibetan sources confirming that the Jo khang was constructed on the

model of Indian monasteries, see Alexander 2006: 132 n. 22. Recent investigations have clearly shown that the

main chapel of the Jo khang is based on the layout and design of contemporary Indian vih?ras (Alexander 2005:

35-36). The etymology of Beng / Hen khang is still unknown. Matthew Kapstein has suggested that the term hen

khang was derived from the Chinese fan 'barbarian' and Tibetan khang 'house' (Kapstein 2000: 221 n. 10). Given

that Beng / Hen khang seems originally to have been the Tibetan name for a famous Indian monastery, the question remains open.



van Schaik and Iwao: Fragments of the Testament of Ba 483

Dba' bzhed that might be attributed either to scribal error or to an attempt by a later redactor to make the motivation behind the king's order more apparent.

(iv) There is a significant difference in the gap between lines 1 and 2 of the Dunhuang

fragments, and the length of the corresponding text in the Dba' bzhed. The gap in question in our fragments corresponds with a section of forty-two syllables in the Dba' bzhed. By com

parison, the gap between the next two lines of the fragments (2 and 3) corresponds to a

section of only twenty-three syllables in the Dba' bzhed. Even if we take into account that there are three fewer syllables at the left of line 3 of the fragments, there is still a difference

of sixteen syllables. Thus the Dba' bzhed contains a considerable amount of extra text at

the point corresponding to the enumeration of ministers entrusted with the task of going to see S?ntaraksita. In the translation, this comprises the following section:

... Seng 'go lHa lung gzigs, and 'Ba' Sang shi, "You three ministers, go to Ra sa Pe har (vih?ra) to meet A tsa rya Bo dhi sa twa and prostrate in front of him."11

We cannot know which part of this text might have been omitted in the original manuscript represented by our fragments, but there is a good possibility that it was in the enumeration of ministers. In fact the names of the second and third ministers in the Dba' bzhed and the

phrase "you three ministers" contain exactly sixteen syllables. Thus is it possible that in the earlier version of this story represented in the Dunhuang fragments only one minister, Rgyal sgra legs, was sent to investigate S?ntaraksita.

The names of the ministers entrusted with the task of investigating S?ntaraksita differ in each of the versions of the Testament of Ba, though in every case three ministers are in volved.12 The high level of variation in the enumeration of the ministers' names may be due to the insertion and alteration of names by later redactors of the Testament ofBa. If the second and third ministers in Dba' bzhed are additions that postdate the version of the story in the Dunhuang fragments, it is interesting that one of them is Dba' Sang shi. This name also

appears in the statement that concludes the main part of the Dba' bzhed: that Buddhism was established in Tibet by the king Khri srong lde btsan, the abbot S?ntaraksita, Ye shes

dbang po, and Dba' Sang shi.13 Though the Dunhuang fragments are by no means sufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion, it seems possible that names such as that of Dba' Sang shi may have been inserted into the narrative at a number of points in order to raise their

profile in the narratives of this crucial period. It may even be that earlier versions of the

narrative, such as that represented in our Dunhuang fragments, did not specially feature the

representatives of the Dba' clan at all.

(v) Besides the four points of differences appearing in 11. 1-2 discussed above, one other

significant difference appears in the final line (1. 6) of the fragment. This line relates the education of the brahman ?nanda in "sacred scriptures and the tradition of ritual exposition" (gtsug lag dang/smrang lugs dang). Here the Dba' bzhed inserts the syllable sgra and has sman bslabs in the place of smrang lags. The word sgra ('grammar') may be an insertion intended to present the brahman as well suited to the task of translation. The term smrang survives in the Tibetan Bon tradition, where it signifies what Samten Karmay calls the "ar

chetypal exposition": the first half of the gto ritual in which the priest chants the mythical context for the ritual.14 This later Bon connotation of the term smrang lugs may explain why it was amended to sman bslabs, meaning simply medical training.

11. Translation in Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 44-45. 12. These are listed in Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 44 n. 99. 13. Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 7-8.

14. See Karmay 1986: 246.




6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The correspondence between these two Dunhuang fragments and the Testament of Ba

(by which we now mean the Dba' bzhed) is so close that we must consider them variants of the same text. The intriguing question remains: how much of the original manuscript represented by these fragments would have corresponded to the Testament of Bal Though merely fragments, it is clear that they were once part of a well-prepared and finely written

manuscript, probably of much greater length. Considering how close the surviving fragments are to the Testament ofBa, it is likely that what has been lost of the manuscript also corre

sponded to some larger part of the text, conceivably as much as the entire core narrative re

lating the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet during the reign of Khri srong lde btsan. Yet this must remain a speculation.

Another intriguing but difficult question is the date of the fragments. Obviously they must date to the ninth or tenth century, but can we locate them any more specifically within these two centuries? A number of Dunhuang manuscripts can be proven to originate in the period of the Tibetan empire ending in the middle of the ninth century; many others can be shown to come from much later, as later as the end of the tenth century. Unfortunately we have found no evidence to date our manuscript any more specifically, and for now we must leave this

question to further investigations in codicology and paleography. What we can say, at least, is that the gap between the two groups of sources for Tibetan history has been closed a little

by the discovery of this fragment, giving a better sense of the continuities in the Tibetan historical tradition.

APPENDIX l:

A FULL TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION OF THE DUNHUANG FRAGMENTS

AND THE PARALLEL PASSAGE FROM THE DBA' BZHED

Or.8210/S.9498(A) 1: [. . .T] lags gtol ma mchls / ra saT beng gang du bzhag // zhang Ion chen po rgyal sgra legs [.. .] 2: [. . .] du bcugs na / lha bal gyl gnan sngags dang / 'phra men lta bu yod dam myed // thugs phrl[g] [. . .]

3: [...] [l]o ts[a] [pa] [m]a mchls te // tshong dus kha drug du / kha he dang yang II lo tsa pa 'tshal [.. .] 4: [. . .]e [sby]In che chung gnyis dang // kha che Aa nan ta dang gsum rnyed me ma [. . .]

5: [. . .] bram ze skyes bzang kha che yul na / stson rngams po che [. . .]u[. . .] 6: [...]* T [g]tsug lag dang / smrang lugs da[ng] [. . .]

Or.8210/S. 13683 (joined to S.9498 in 1. 6 in the position indicated by *) 1. [. . .]u lags st[e] I [/]bram z[e] '[...]

Translation

1: [...] He was uncertain whether [. . .] was placed in the Ra sa Beng khang. To the minister Rgyal

sgra legs [...]

2: [. . .] he ordered: "Investigate whether there are any foreign evil spirits or black magic." [...]

3: [...] there was no interpreter. [...] interpreters of Kashmir and Yang li at the six market-places [...]

4: [...] Three interpreters were found: the two [.. .]e sbyin brothers and A-nan-ta from Kashmir. [.. .]

5: [. . .] the son of the brahman Skyes bzang who was a serious convicted criminal in Kashmir. [. . .]

6: [. . .] sacred scriptures of the brahmans and the tradition of ritual exposition [. . .]

Dba'bzhed (7b) mkhan pos btsan po'i spyan sngar mjal zhing phyag 'tshal pa'i pho nya brjangs te snyan du gdas nas mkhan po lta kho na mjal ba ru ci lags gtol ma mchis te / ra sa pe (7b2) har du cung zhig bzhugs su

gsol / lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men dag yod par thugs 'phrig bzhes nas / zhang blon chen po




sbrang rgyal sbra logs gzigs dang / seng 'go lha lung gzigs dang / 'ba' (7b3) sang shi dang gsum la bka' stsal pa / blon po khyed gsum ra sa pe har du song la / Aatsardya bo dhi sa tva'i zhal sngar phyag 'tshal zhing mjal nas / lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men Its bu yod daM med (7b4) thugs 'phrin bzhes dgos sam mi dgos khyed kyis rtogs shig ces bka' stsalnas / de gsuM gyis ra sa pe har du mchis te / lo tsa ba ma mchis te tshong 'dus kha drug tu kha che dang yang le'i lo tsa (7b5) ba 'tshal ba su

mchis zhes tshong dpon so sor rmas nas / ra sa'i tshong 'dus nas kha che lhas byin che chung dang

gnyis dang / kha che Aa nan ta dang gsum rnyed pa las / lhas byin che chung gnyis kyis ni tshong gi lo tsa ba (7b6) tsam las rngo ma thog / Aa nan ta ni phra bram ze skyes bzang by a ba gcig kha che'i yul du nyes pa rngam chen zhig by as pa las lho bal kha che'i chos lugs kyis bram ze dgum du mi rung nas / bod yul du (7b7) spyugs pa'i bu lags te bram ze'i gtsug lag dang sga dang sman bslabs pas chos sgyur ba'i rngo thog nas /

Translation (from Pasang and Diemberger 2000) The mKhan po sent a messenger to prostrate in front of the bTsan po and to inquire about whether

he should meet him immediately. [He was] asked: "Please, stay at Pe har for a while." The bTsan po suspected that there could be some black magic and evil spirits (phra men) from lHo bal [in the doc trine of the mKhan po]." Then [the bTsan po] ordered Zhang blon chen po sBrang rGya sbra (sgra) legs gzigs, Seng 'go lHa lung gzigs and 'Ba' Sang shi, "You three ministers, go to Ra sa Pe har (vih?ra) to meet A tsa rya Bo dhi sa twa and prostrate in front of him. Then investigate whether I need to suspect the presence of black magic and evil spirits from lHo bal or not." The three arrived at Ra sa Pe har

(= vih?ra). There was no translator. So, in six market-places it was ordered that each chief merchant

(tshong dpon) had to search for a translator from Kashmir (Kha che) or Yang le. In the lHa sa market three people were found, namely, two Kashmiri lHa byin brothers and the Kashmiri A nan ta. The two

lHa byin brothers were unable to act as translators except for some language of trade. As far as A nan

ta is concerned: he was the son of the Brahman sKyes bzang who had committed a serious crime and

had been sent into exile in Tibet because according to the law of lHo bal Kashmir (lHo bal kha che) Brahmans could not be executed. [A nan ta] had studied the Brahman sacred scriptures (gtsug lag), grammar (sgra) and medicine, and was therefore able to translate the language of the doctrine.15

appendix 2: parallel passages from other versions

Sba bzhed (p. 12) mang yul na mkhan po mchis zhes gsol ba las / nang 'khor lang gro snang ra dang / snyer rtag btsan

lhong gzigs dang / sbrang rgyas legs gzigs dang gsum mang yul du bsur btang te / khyod gsum gyis rim gro bgyis la / lha sa dpe dkar [hen khang dpe dkar kyang zer] du chags phob cig ces bka' bstsal pa dang bka' las byung pa bzhin / blon po de dag gis bsus nas / zhabs 'bring by as te mchis nas / mkhan po dang nang 'khor lang gro snang ba ni lha sa dpe dkar du bzhag nas / btsan po'i zhal sngar phyag 'tshal du btsas bar ni da rung chos pa bzang ngan ci lags btol ma mchis nas / ra sa dpe dkar du bzhugs su gsol te / gsal snang ni pho brang du mchis te bsnyen bkur beug pa dang / zhang blon chen po dag gis gsol pa / lho bal gyi bandhe chos log pa dang / ngan sngags phra men gyi bag bgyid dam mi bgyid / dngos la rtogs su btang par gsol pa las / mchims mes lhas kyang zer / sba legs gzigs dang / seng rngo lha lung gzigs dang / sba sang shi gsum btang pas brtag na Aa tsa ra'i skad ma go / dar tshags sgo bseg gi tshong 'dus na / kha che skyes bzang gi bu Aa nanta lo tsaa slob 'phro la chad pa byung nas tshong byed pa la lo tsaa bcol nas Aa tsarya ci 'dra dris pas / spy od pa legs so cog la mi by a ba med / nyes so cog la mi btang ba med / lhar dkon mchog gsum mchod / gtso bor sems can la phan pa bya zer nas mchis / de rje la gsol nas spy od pa rgya chen por 'chad / thugs 'phrigs bzhes mi 'tshal zhes pa'am /

Rba bzhed?cited in the Scholar 's Feast (pp. 314-15) rba bzhed las ... mang yul du bzhugs nas mchis zhes gsol bas / nang 'khor ba lang gro snang ra dang / gnyer stag btsan gdong gzigs dang sbrang rgyas legs gzigs dang gsum mang yul du bsu bar btang ste

15. Pasang and Diemberger 2000: 43-45.




khyed gsum gyis rim gro gyis la hen khang bi har du phyags phob cig ces bka' las byung ba bzhin bsus nas mkhan po dang lang gro ra sa bi har du bzhugs su gsol / gsal snang pho brang du mchis te sku

gnyer khums par gsol ba dang / zhang blon chen po dag gis lho bal gyi bandhe chos log pa dang ngan sngags phra men gyi dag dgyid dam mi bgyid la rtog du gsol bas (p. 315) mchims me lha dang seng

mgo lha lung gzigs / sang shi dang gsum rtog du btang bas brtags na skad ma go dar chags sgo gseb kyi tshong dus na kha che sky es bzang gi bu Aa nanta lo ts'a slob 'phro la chad pa byung nas tshong byed pa de la lo ts'a bcol /

Sba bzhed zhabs rtag ma (version 1)?Stein 1960 (p. 16,11. 4-13) btsan po'i bka' sgrom bu phul nas Aa tsarya spy an drangs bar chad Aa tsarya mang yul nas dod do zhes

snyan du gsol bas / 'khor lang 'gro snang ra dang snyer btag btsan ldong gzigs dang / 'brang rgya ra

legs gzigs gsum mang yul du mkhan po bsur mchis nas / ston khang dpe har du phyag phebs par mchi /

lang 'gro snang ra dang / Aa tsarya der bzhag nas pho brang du rje la zhe sa phul bas / phyag by a ba'i

gtol ma mchis bar gsals nang gnyer bcum / zhang blon dag na re lho bal gyi mi ngang sngags dang / phra men gyi bag bgyid mi bgyid / dela rtog mi gtang mchi nas / sang shi dang seng 'gro lha lung gzigs dang / mchims me lha gsum btang bas Aa tsarya'i skad mgo / dar tshag sgong gseg gis tshong 'dus na / kha che skyes bzang gi bu Aa nan ta lo tstsha ba slob 'phro la tshad pa byung nas / tshong byed pa de la lo tstsha bcol nas / Aa tsarya ci'dra dris pas sbyodpalegssocog la mi by a ba med / nyes so cog la mi

btang ba med / lha dkon mchog gsum mchod / gtso bor sems can la phan ba bya zer nas mchi /

Sba bzhed zhabs rtag ma (version 2)?Dharamsala publication (pp. 31-32) btsan po'i bka' sgrom bu phul nas Aa tsarya spy an drangs par chad Aa tsarya mang yul na sdod do zhes

snyan du gsol pas / 'khor lang 'gro snang ra dang snyer btag btsan ldong gzigs dang / 'brang rgya ra

legs gzigs gsum mang yul du mkhan po bsur mchis nas / ston khang dpe har du phyag phebs par mchi /

lang 'gro snang ra dang / Aa tsarya der bzhag nas pho brang du rje la zhe sa phul bas / phyag bya ba'i

gtol ma mchis par gsal snang gnyer bcum / zhang blon dag na re lho bal gyi mi ngan sngags dang /

phra men gyi bag bgyid mi bgyid / de la rtog mi gtang mchi nas / sang shi dang / seng 'go lha lung gzigs dang mchims me lha gsum btang bas Aa tsa rya'i skad ma go / dar tshag sgong gseg gis tshong 'dus na / kha che skyes bzang gi bu Aa nan ta lo tstsha bslob 'phro la tshad pa byung nas / tshong byed pa de la lo tstsha bcol nas / Aa tsarya ci 'dra dris pas spy od pa legs so cog la mi bya ba med / nyes so cog la mi btang ba med / lha dkon mchog gsum mchod / gtse bor sems can la phan ba bya zer nas mchi /

REFERENCES

Primary sources

Dba' bzhed: Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger. The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing

of Buddha's Doctrine to Tibet. Vienna: Verlag der ?sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

2000. Scholar's Feast: Dpa'bo Gtsug lag phreng ba. Chos 'byung mkhaspa'i dga' ston. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe

skrung khang, 1986. 2 vols. Sba bzhed: Sba bzhed. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrung khang, 1980. Sba bzhed zhabs rtag ma: Stein, R. Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bzed. Paris: Institut des

Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1961.

Secondary sources

Alexander, Andre. 2005. The Temple of Lhasa: Tibetan Buddhist Architecture from the 7th to the 21st

Centuries. Chicago: Serindia Publications.

_. 2006. The Lhasa Jokhang?Is the World's Oldest Timber Frame Building in Tibet? Web

Journal on Cultural Patrimony 1: 123-54 (http://www.webjournal.unior.it/). Den wood, Phillip. 1990. Some Remarks on the Status and the Dating of the sBa bzhed. Tibet Journal

15: 135-58.




Kapstein, Matthew. 2000. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and

Memory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Karmay, Samten. 1986. The Appearance of the Little Black-Headed Man. Journal Asiatique 274:

79-138.

Martin, Dan. 1997. Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works. London:

Serindia Publications.

Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger. 2000. See Dba' bzhed in Primary Sources above.

Szerb, J?nos. 1990. Bu ston's History of Buddhism in Tibet. Vienna: Verlag der ?sterreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Uray, Geza. 1972. The Narrative of Legislation and Organization of the Mkhas-pa'i dga'-ston: The

Origins of the Traditions concerning sron-brcan sgam-po as First Legislator and Organizer of Tibet.

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26: 11-68.

_. 1979. The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia up to 751 a.D.: A Survey. In

Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, ed. J. Harmatta. Pp. 275

306. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad?.



Documents

Fragments of the "Testament of Ba" from Dunhuang