Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp is a Professor of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies with the Departments of South Asian Studies and East Asian Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. His research interests focus on Indo-Tibetan Buddhist intellectual history, Tibetan Buddhist intellectual history, and TibetanMongol relations during the Yuan Dynasty. In recent years, he has increasingly become interested in the Tibetan astral sciences and their Indic and Chinese background. Recent publications include: “Studies in the Life and Thought of Mkhas grub rje II: Notes on Poetry, Poetics and Other Things in Mkhas grub rje’s Oeuvre,” Journal of Tibetan Literature 1 (2022), 75–110; (with Ning Tien) “A Bout with Smallpox in Beijing: Personal Accounts of the Tibetan Stateman Dga’ bzhi pa Bsod nams bstan ’dzin dpal ’byor (1761-after 1810) and his Struggle with Smallpox,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 2022a (no. 63), 5–48; From Khyung lung to Lhasa: Festschrift for Dan Martin, co-edited with Jonathan Silk. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 64 (2022), pp. 735.
關鍵詞
Karṇakagomin; Btsun pa Ston Gzhon; Sa skya Paṇḍita; ‘U yug pa Rigs pa’i seng ge; eva-kho na-nyid
摘要
Two incomplete manuscripts, one only slightly and the other much more so, of Karṇakagomin’s (fl. 9th-10th)1 Pramāṇavārttikavṛttiṭīkā (hereafter pvvṭ) were discovered in Sa skya monastery, Central Tibet, in the early 1930s. The pvvṭ is a study of the Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti (hereafter pvsv), Dharmakīrti’s (early 7th cen.) autocommentary on the first chapter of his Pramāṇavārttika (hereafter pv), the one that deals with inference. No Tibetan translation of this work is known ever to have been prepared. In the late thirteenth century, an indication of a work by someone whose name is given as either Ka lu ka or Ka lu ka mi tra surfaces in the relevant Tibetan literature. This man is said to have been the author of an exegesis of the pvsv. The name Ka lu ka resurfaces in several fifteenth century Tibetan literary sources as having been the author of a substantial commentary on the pvsv. To my knowledge, Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s study of Dharmakīrti’s pv of most probably 1297 is so far the only Tibetan work in which a certain Ka lu ka go mi is cited. The citation occurs in his comments on pv, IV: 191c-192, the contents of which Dharmakīrti prefigured in pvsv ad pv, I: 1, and in pv, IV: 37-39. Remarkably, the relevant passage in Karṇakagomin’s pvvṭ ad pvsv ad pv, I: 1 is identical with the wording in Arcaṭa’s (8th cen.) Hetubinduṭīkā (hereafter hbṭ) ad Dharmakīrti’s Hetubindu (hereafter hb) 2.2-4. However, it is quite at odds with the quotation Btsun pa Ston gzhon attributed to Ka lu ka go mi! Hence, I therefore strongly suspect that Ka lu ka go mi and Karṇakagomin are not the same person. The question that now remains is who was this Ka lu ka or Ka lu ka go mi/mi tra?
