monastic law (Vinaya); Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya; nuns (bhikṣuṇīs); Tibet; Bhutan; Guṇaprabha (c. 5th–7th cents.); Bu sTon rin chen grub (1290–1364); Kanjur; sTog Palace manuscript; Bhutanese recension
摘要
On the basis of an examination of twenty-seven textual witnesses of the section on nuns’ conduct (Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga) in the monastic law code (Vinaya) of the influential north Indian Buddhist school known as the Mūlasarvāstivāda (Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya), I argue that a distinct Bhutanese recension is discernible. Found in six of the twentyseven witnesses—sTog and Shey Palace manuscripts, and four Bhutanese manuscripts (Chizhi, Dongkarla, Gangteng, and Neyphug)—this recension resolves many of the inconsistencies present in the most commonly consulted editions of the Tibetan translation of the Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga. The discrepancies between these two recensions are of considerable interest and importance given that these recensions differ significantly in terms of the presence and absence of certain rules, frame stories, and legal analyses for nuns. The present article is divided into eight sections. In the first section, I discuss a number of characteristics that make the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya unique among the corpus of extant Buddhist monastic law codes: its linguistic diversity, the sheer volume of canonical texts, the enormous number of commentarial treatises, and the sometimes seemingly insurmountable philological challenges. In the second section, I provide a brief overview of the corpus of canonical Tibetan Buddhist texts devoted to rules for nuns (Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga, Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa, and Ɩryasarvāstivādi-mūla-bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa-sūtra-vṛtti). Here too I discuss the unique position of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya as the only monastic law code preserving frame stories and canonical legal analyses—wordcommentaries, casuistries, exception clauses, and discussion of mitigating and aggravating factors—for nuns’ rules which are common to both female and male monastic orders. I also briefly discuss the unique situation of the lack of correspondence between the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇīvinayavibhaṅga and the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa, first noted by the Tibetan polymath Bu sTon rin chen grub (1290–1364). In the third section, I outline the sources used in the present study, and discuss their historical relationships. In the fourth section, I provide an overview of the idiosyncratic numbering system employed in the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga. I also outline one of the key inconsistencies in this text: the fact that the section said to contain 180 pāyantikā rules for nuns contains considerably more than the stated number. In the fifth section, I cite a number of examples of differences between what are ostensibly the same rules in the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga and the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa. In the sixth section, I examine a number of irregularities related to the 72 shared pāyantikā rules for monks and nuns in order to demonstrate the existence of a distinct Bhutanese recension, one which is considerably closer to the normative Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition of the Indian disciplinarian Guṇaprabha (c. 5th–7th cents.) than the text found in other manuscripts and xylographs that are regularly consulted in the study of Indian and Tibetan female monasticism. The conclusion (seventh section) is followed by an Appendix (eighth section) listing details of the twenty-seven witnesses of the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇīvinayavibhaṅga surveyed herein.
目次
Abstract 199 Introduction 200 The Corpus of Rules for Nuns 207 The Sources 214 Rule Numbering 225 Differences in Wording between Rules in the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga and Their Counterparts in the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa: Select Examples 234 Irregularities in the Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī-vinayavibhaṅga 238 Conclusion 268 Abbreviations and Acronyms 273 Appendix 273 Acknowledgements 282 Conventions 282 References 282
