|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
チベット史における漢文史料の誤伝=The distortion of Chinese historical sources in Tibetan history |
|
|
|
| Author |
山口瑞鳳 (著)=Yamaguchi, Zuiho (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
東洋学報=Journal of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko=トウヨウ ガクホウ
|
|---|
| Volume | v.66 n.1/2/3/4 創立60周年記念特集号 |
|---|
| Date | 1985.03.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 481 - 513 |
|---|
| Publisher | 東洋協會調査部 |
|---|
| Location | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 日文=Japanese |
|---|
| Keyword | チベット; チベット史; カクルマ; マニ・カムブム; 王統明示鏡; 学者の宴; 新赤冊史; 青冊史; 赤冊史; 通鑑唐紀; 唐書吐蕃伝; 仏祖統紀 |
|---|
| Abstract | The utilization of Chinese historical sources by Tibetan historians in their accounts of early Tibetan history has resulted in no little confusion and error. Buddhist historians made no attempt to rectify these errors; rather, they give the impression of having devoted their efforts to producing tales thought useful for the propagation of Buddhism on the basis of these erroneous accounts.
For example, the Hu-lan-beb-ther, the first work in which Chinese materials are utilized, states that the Chinese army occupied Lhasa around 670. In the rGyal-rabs-gSal-ba’i-me-long the Chinese invasion is described as if it had been undertaken for the purpose of carrying off to China the gilt bronze image of Śākyamuni enshrined in ‘Phrul-snang Temple. Yet in Bu-ston’s History of Buddhism, composed a little earlier than the above two works but dating from the same 14th century and uninfluenced by Chinese materials, there is no reference whatsoever to this important event.
A re-examination of the Chinese materials, corroborated by the T’ufan Chronicles 吐番編年紀 from Tun-huang, reveals that the T’u-fan army defeated the Chinese forces at the Ta-fei River 大非川, and that the Chinese had in this same year given up all hopes for a restoration of T’u-yü-hun 吐谷輝. Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever of the Chinese having invaded Lhasa. There is also, of course, no reason why they should have mobilized a large army simply for the sake of acquiring a single Buddhist image.
It seems probable that Princess Wên-ch’êng 文成 had brought this gilt bronze image of Śākyamuni from China in 646 and had enshrined it in Ra-mo-che Temple, from where it was later transferred to ‘Phrul-snang Temple. Princess Wên-ch’êng remarried the father of her deceased husband, and by the 14th century this historical fact was already being mistakenly linked with Princess Ching-ch’êng. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Princess Wên-ch’êng’s request for a Buddhist image from China in memory of her deceased husband should have been distorted in an unexpected manner, resulting in the assertion that this image had been hidden in the ‘Phrul-snang Temple in order to protect it from the depredations of the Chinese army and that Princess Chin-ch’êng later rediscovered it.
In order to justify this story, it was maintained that the hidden image had been presented to Princess Wên-ch’êng by the Chinese emperor T’ai.tsung 太宗 upon her departure for Tibet, and that it had been the emperor’s most highly prized Buddhist image. This latter point was further substantiated by the claim that this image had reached China from India and dated from the time of Śākyamuni, having been consecrated by the Buddha himself.
In summing up, it would appear that the explanation of the origins of this image represents a fusion of the historical account of the arrival of a margosa Buddhist image from India during the reign of Emperor Wu of Liang and the legends relating to the production of the first image of Śākyamuni by the king of Udayana and the invitation of Kumārajīva to China.
|
|---|
| ISSN | 03869067 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 360 |
|---|
| Created date | 1998.04.28; 2002.09.30
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2020.08.03 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
