Comments on: Buddhism and Bön II: What is tsuglag? http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/ Notes, thoughts and fragments of research on the history of Tibet Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:21:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: earlytibet http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-520 earlytibet Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:02:50 +0000 http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-520 Very interesting. This would also be a possible route into dating some of the manuscripts. I suspected in any case that this particular manuscript (IOL Tib J 339) was no earlier than the 10th century, and it may of course be as late as the early 11th century. The manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese characters is IOL Tib J 754. The manuscript contains a series of Tibetan letters of passage written for a Chinese pilgrim, and the pilgrim's own notes recording Tibetan names in Chinese characters. I have nearly finished a long article on this manuscript (co-authored with Imre Galambos). Very interesting. This would also be a possible route into dating some of the manuscripts. I suspected in any case that this particular manuscript (IOL Tib J 339) was no earlier than the 10th century, and it may of course be as late as the early 11th century.

The manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese characters is IOL Tib J 754. The manuscript contains a series of Tibetan letters of passage written for a Chinese pilgrim, and the pilgrim’s own notes recording Tibetan names in Chinese characters. I have nearly finished a long article on this manuscript (co-authored with Imre Galambos).

]]> By: Andrew West http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-513 Andrew West Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:34:19 +0000 http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-513 I agree entirely with what you say about dating. The fact that the Tibetan reading in the manuscript accords with Yuan dynasty Chinese pronunciation does not mean that the manuscript must date to the Yuan dynasty. The problem is that "standard" Chinese during the Tang and Song dynasties was based on a southern dialect, but when the Mongols conquered China they promoted a northern, proto-Mandarin dialect as the national standard, so it sometimes appears from Chinese phonetic sources as if the language everyone spoke suddenly changed. Of course that is not the case, and the Yuan dynasty proto-Mandarin dialect must have been around before it gained prominence during the 13th century, just that we know little about it before this time. It seems quite plausible that the proto-Mandarin dialect of the Yuan dynasty would have been spoken in the area of Dunhuang prior to the 13th century (i.e. during the Song dynasty), which would explain why the Tibetan author transliterated Chinese the way he did, although I would be suprised if this dialect went back as far as the Tang dynasty. It would certainly be an interesting area of further study. What is the manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese characters that you are working on? It is just the sort of thing that would interst me. I agree entirely with what you say about dating. The fact that the Tibetan reading in the manuscript accords with Yuan dynasty Chinese pronunciation does not mean that the manuscript must date to the Yuan dynasty. The problem is that “standard” Chinese during the Tang and Song dynasties was based on a southern dialect, but when the Mongols conquered China they promoted a northern, proto-Mandarin dialect as the national standard, so it sometimes appears from Chinese phonetic sources as if the language everyone spoke suddenly changed. Of course that is not the case, and the Yuan dynasty proto-Mandarin dialect must have been around before it gained prominence during the 13th century, just that we know little about it before this time. It seems quite plausible that the proto-Mandarin dialect of the Yuan dynasty would have been spoken in the area of Dunhuang prior to the 13th century (i.e. during the Song dynasty), which would explain why the Tibetan author transliterated Chinese the way he did, although I would be suprised if this dialect went back as far as the Tang dynasty. It would certainly be an interesting area of further study.

What is the manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese characters that you are working on? It is just the sort of thing that would interst me.

]]> By: earlytibet http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-512 earlytibet Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:22:34 +0000 http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-512 Thanks for that very interesting comment. I think you must be right about li ri 曆日. It fits the context perfectly. I would not rush to revise the date of this manuscript (and thus the closing of the Dunhuang cave) though. I have been working on a Dunhuang manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese script (dated to the 960s), in which some pronunciations of the Chinese characters are surprising, and some are indeed what would be expected in the Yuan period. (This by the way isn't my opinion but that of the two Sinologists I've been working with on the manuscript.) So perhaps we need to refine the idea of 'standard Chinese' to deal with these regional manuscript sources? Since I don't read Chinese, I only offer this as a humble suggestion! Thanks for that very interesting comment. I think you must be right about li ri 曆日. It fits the context perfectly. I would not rush to revise the date of this manuscript (and thus the closing of the Dunhuang cave) though. I have been working on a Dunhuang manuscript with Tibetan written in Chinese script (dated to the 960s), in which some pronunciations of the Chinese characters are surprising, and some are indeed what would be expected in the Yuan period. (This by the way isn’t my opinion but that of the two Sinologists I’ve been working with on the manuscript.) So perhaps we need to refine the idea of ‘standard Chinese’ to deal with these regional manuscript sources? Since I don’t read Chinese, I only offer this as a humble suggestion!

]]> By: Andrew West http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-507 Andrew West Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:39:49 +0000 http://earlytibet.com/2007/07/31/buddhism-and-bon-ii/#comment-507 The mention of <i>li zhi</i>in the text is very interesting, and I think you are right that it is a transliteration of a Chinese term, although there is no way that Tibetan <i>zhi</i> could represent Chinese <i>qi</i> 氣. It immediately struck me that <i>li zhi</i> must be a transliteration of the Chinese word <i>li ri</i> 曆日 "astrological almanac", which is a common term for almanacs during this period. For example, the title of the almanac for the year 978 on the recto of <a href="http://idp.bl.uk/database/oo_loader.a4d?pm=Or.8210/S.612" rel="nofollow">Or.8210/S.612</a> is <i>Da Song Guo guanben kanding daben liri</i> 大宋國官本勘定大本曆日. The Yuan dynasty (13th century) spelling of <i>li ri</i> 曆日 in the Phags-pa script is <i>li zhi</i>, which is a perfect match with <i>li zhi</i> in your manuscript. However, this would imply a relatively late date for the manuscript, as prior to the Yuan dynasty the pronunciation of 日 in standard Chinese would have had a final -t. The mention of li zhiin the text is very interesting, and I think you are right that it is a transliteration of a Chinese term, although there is no way that Tibetan zhi could represent Chinese qi 氣.

It immediately struck me that li zhi must be a transliteration of the Chinese word li ri 曆日 “astrological almanac”, which is a common term for almanacs during this period. For example, the title of the almanac for the year 978 on the recto of Or.8210/S.612 is Da Song Guo guanben kanding daben liri 大宋國官本勘定大本曆日. The Yuan dynasty (13th century) spelling of li ri 曆日 in the Phags-pa script is li zhi, which is a perfect match with li zhi in your manuscript. However, this would imply a relatively late date for the manuscript, as prior to the Yuan dynasty the pronunciation of 日 in standard Chinese would have had a final -t.

]]>