The Sorting And Research Of Dunhuang Tibetan Manuscript DKon Mchog Sprin

The dKon mchog sprin has a prominent position in the history of Tibetan translation,but its translators and translation sources have different records.The discovery of the Dunhuang version provides new clues to solve these problems.At present,the Dunhuang dKon mchog sprin manuscripts are written in Tibetan and Chinese.After preliminary reading,these manuscripts are classified and ordered according to the contents of the current Tibetan sutra,which can form a general collation plan and restoreoriginal appearance of the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscript dKon mchog sprin,and collated with the Chinese manuscript.Among them,although ITJ 164 is only an abbreviated copy of the scriptures,the main body and the commentary content are coherent as a whole,which is more convenient for research.Therefore,the full text is recorded,transcribed,and translated into Chinese,and is compared with the sDe dge version of dKon mchog sprin and Foshuobaoyu Jing about the Dazheng buddhist scriptures are carefully collated.It was found that the manuscript had the following characteristics:Judging from the paper,the manuscript should have been copied in the Dunhuang area.Judging from its writing style,vocabulary use,and grammatical rules,it is close to the style of the Tibetan period,and should be copied during the Tibetan rule of Dunhuang(786-848).Its content is Pa rol du pyInd pa bcu nyI tse log,which has a strong sense of righteousness and should be copied by monks or laymen with a certain degree of Buddhist knowledge.Judging from the comparison with ITJ 162,its informal scripture copying belongs to the category of study notes.In summary,ITJ 164 should be a study note written by a monk or layman with a high level of Buddhist education in Dunhuang during the Tibet rule.According to the results of the collation between ITJ 164 and the sDe dge edition of dKon mchog sprin and sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa,related historical records and scholars' research results,it can be known that the dKon mchog sprin represented by ITJ 164 was formed in the 9th century.After the first translation of the dKon mchog sprin,Dharmatasila and others wrote it during the second translation of the translation,which resulted in a revised version represented by the sDe dge version of the dKon mchog sprin,but this One conclusion has yet to be supported by other evidence.In addition,the naming of part of the written volume has always been controversial.According to research,P.t.824 should be named "Gdthadvayavydkhydna and the annotation(Tshigs su bcad pa gnyis pa 'i 'grel pa 'grel)";ITJ 163 should be named"'Phags pa dkon mchog sprin ces bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo,Miscellaneous(cha zhes pa'i yig'bri mang po)".As for ITJ.VOL.29.6(105-80)and ITJ.VOL.29.6(105-92),the content contained in the leaf scrolls is not the dKon mchog sprin,and its naming is obviously wrong,but the specifics have yet to be verified.