INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1
Special International Symposium on
Pure Land Buddhism
෋‫ם‬૙ƴ᧙ƢǔཎК‫׎‬ᨥǷȳȝǸǦȠ
4th August 2011
Otani University
┠ḟ㸭Table of Contents
KATSURA Shǀrynj
Foreword ··························································································· 1
᱇ ⤂㝯
๓ゝ ································································································· 3
Luis O. GÓMEZ
On Reading Literature Literally ········································································ 5
Dennis HIROTA
Response to On Reading Literature Literally, by Luis O. Gómez ········································· 31
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ ·························································· 35
ࢹࢽࢫ࣭ࣄࣟࢱ
ࢦ࣓ࢫࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣞࢫ࣏ࣥࢫ ························· 65
Paul HARRISON & Christian LUCZANITS
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele···················································· 69
MIYAJI Akira
Response to New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele, by Harrison and Luczanits ············· 128
࣏࣮࣭ࣝࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࢡࣜࢫࢳ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘 ························································ 131
ᐑ἞᫛
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶࠕࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣞࢫ࣏ࣥࢫ ···· 195
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates) ············································· 197
ᇳ➹⪅⤂௓ ···························································································· 209
FOREWORD
In April 2010, Ryukoku University established the Research Center for Buddhist Cultures in
Asia (BARC) in order to support “integrated studies of the diversity within Buddhism across
various regions of Asia, as well as of Buddhism’s contemporary potential,” within the
guidelines established for Projects for Strategic Research Base Formation Support at Private
Universities by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology. As it so
happens, the year 2011 marks the 800th anniversary of the passing of Honen, as well as the
750th anniversary of the passing of Shinran. In light of the fact that these two Buddhist masters
are the founders of the two major Pure Land schools in Japan, we decided to organize a
special international symposium on Pure Land Buddhism.
It was then that we discovered that the International Association of Shin Buddhist
Studies was going to hold its fifteenth biennial conference on August 5-6, 2011, at Otani
University. With the assistance of Prof. Takami Inoue, we obtained permission from the
president of the association, Prof. Kenneth Tanaka, to hold an international symposium the
day prior to the conference as a joint event hosted by our Center and the Association of Shin
Buddhist Studies. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two professors mentioned
above, as well as to the staff of the Association and Otani University.
As a guest speaker, I invited my old friend, Dr. Luis Gomez, Professor Emeritus of the
University of Michigan, who has published a complete English translation of the Three Pure
Land Snjtras (The Land of Bliss, Honolulu 1996). I asked him to speak about whatever
conclusions he might have reached during or after the long process of reading and translating
the Pure Land Snjtras. As a respondent, I asked Prof. Dennis Hirota of Ryukoku University to
comment upon Dr. Gomez’s paper based upon his own long and vast experience translating
Shinran’s works into English. The result was a fascinating dialogue between two great
scholar-translators.
I also invited Prof. Paul Harrison of Stanford University, well known for his meticulous
philological study of a group of MahƗyƗna Snjtras translated by Lokakৢema, to present a
synoptic analysis of different Chinese translations of the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha. Prof.
Harrison, however, instead proposed to present a joint paper with Dr. Christian Luczanits of
-- 11 --
the Ruben Museum of Arts, New York, on the famous Mohammad Nari Stele from Gandhara.
While this stele has generally been interpreted as a depiction of the “Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ,”
Profs. Harrison and Luczanits argue that it can be shown to represent AmitƗbha’s SukhƗvatƯ
based on both philological and art historical evidence. If this thesis is correct, it would have a
significant impact upon our understanding of the early development of the concept of
AmitƗbha’s SukhƗvatƯ. I therefore asked Dr. Noritoshi Aramaki, Professor Emeritus of Kyoto
University, and Prof. Akira Miyaji of Ryukoku University to comment upon their presentation.
Since Prof. Miyaji was unable to attend the symposium, Prof. Yasuko Fukuyama of Chubu
University read his comment on his behalf, and Dr. Takashi Koezuka, Professor Emeritus of
Osaka University, kindly agreed to make further comments.
Following the two presentations, we accepted questions and comments from the
audience, and hosted a lively discussion between the speakers and the commentators. I would
like to thank all of the speakers and commentators, as well as all those who attended the
symposium. It is my sincere hope that these Proceedings will provide new insights into the
study of Pure Land Buddhism and Buddhist Art.
Shǀrynj Katsura
Director, Research Center for Buddhist Cultures in Asia
Ryukoku University
-2-
๓ゝ
㱟㇂኱Ꮫࡣࠊ2010 ᖺ᫓ࡼࡾ࢔ࢪ࢔௖ᩍᩥ໬◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ࢆ❧ࡕୖࡆࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬⚾
❧኱Ꮫᡓ␎ⓗ◊✲ᇶ┙ᙧᡂᨭ᥼஦ᴗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࢔ࢪ࢔ㅖᆅᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖ᩍࡢከᵝᛶ࡜ࡑ
ࡢ⌧௦ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࡢ⥲ྜⓗ◊✲ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢸ࣮࣐࡛◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2011 ᖺࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟
࠾ࡅࡿίᅵᩍ⣔஧኱᐀ὴࡢ㛤♽࡛࠶ࡿἲ↛㸦1133-1212㸧ࡢ 800 ᅇᚷࠊぶ㮭㸦1173-1262㸧
ࡢ 750 ᅇᚷ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ ίᅵᩍࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᅜ㝿ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࢆ௻⏬ࡋࡓࠋ
ࡓࡲࡓࡲ 2011 ᖺ 8 ᭶ 5–6 ᪥࡟኱㇂኱Ꮫ࡛➨ 15 ᅇᅜ㝿┿᐀Ꮫ఍ࡀ㛤ദࡉࢀࡿࡢࢆ▱
ࡾࠊ኱㇂኱Ꮫࡢ஭ୖᑦᐇඛ⏕ࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ఍㛗ࡢṊⶶ㔝኱Ꮫࢣࢿࢫ⏣୰ᩍᤵࡢࡈ஢ゎ
ࢆᚓ࡚ࠊᏛ఍㛤ദࡢ๓᪥༗ᚋࠊᮏࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡜ᅜ㝿┿᐀Ꮫ఍ࡢඹദ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ίᅵᩍ࡟
㛵ࡍࡿ≉ูᅜ㝿ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࢆ㛤ദࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ୧ඛ⏕ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ኱㇂኱Ꮫ࡜
ᅜ㝿┿᐀Ꮫ఍ࡢ㛵ಀ⪅ྛ఩࡟ࡣࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ࠊ࠾♩ࢆࡶ࠺ࡋ࠶ࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ
ᾏእ࠿ࡽࡢᣍᚅㅮ₇⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎ⬻⿬࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇࡔࡢࡣࠊ࣑ࢩ࢞ࣥ኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵࡢ
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ༤ኈ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢦ࣓ࢫ༤ኈࡣⱝࡃࡋ࡚ࠗ⳹ཝ⤒ධἲ⏺ရ࠘ࡢᩥ⊩Ꮫⓗ
◊✲࡟ࡼࡾ࢖࢙࣮ࣝ኱Ꮫ࠿ࡽ༤ኈྕࢆྲྀᚓࡋࠊ
ࠗࢫࢵࢱ࡟ࣃ࣮ࢱ࠘࡞࡝ࡢึᮇ௖඾࠿ࡽࠊ
኱஌⤒඾ࠊࡉࡽ࡟኱஌௖ᩍ୰ほὴࡢဴᏛ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࠊᖜᗈ࠸◊✲㡿ᇦ࡛ά㌍ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ
໭⡿ࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿ௖ᩍᏛ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗘࠎ᮶᪥ࡋࠊ⮫῭⚙ࢆᐇ㊶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࡶ▱ࡽࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࢆྵࡵࡓࠊすὒࡢ▱ⓗఏ⤫࡟⢭㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ஦᝟࡛ࠕ⢭⚄⒪
ἲࠖ
㸦ࢧ࢖ࢥࢭࣛࣆ࣮㸧ࢆ⮬ࡽ࣐ࢫࢱ࣮ࡍࡿᚲせࢆឤࡌ࡚ࠊᚰ⌮Ꮫࢆຮᙉࡋࠊ༤ኈྕࡲ
࡛ྲྀᚓࡋࡓ⠜Ꮫࡢኈ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙼࡢ㏆ᖺࡢᴗ⦼࡜ࡋ࡚ᒧ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ┿
᐀኱㇂ὴࡢ౫㢗࡟ࡼࡾ᏶ᡂࡋࡓίᅵ୕㒊⤒ࡢⱥヂ㸦The Land of Bliss, Honolulu 1996㸧
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢦ࣓ࢫ༤ኈ࡜ࡣࠊ1968 ᖺ࡟ึࡵ࡚᮶᪥ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡁ௨᮶ࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⚾
⮬㌟ 1976 ᖺ᫓Ꮫᮇ࡟ࡣ࣑ࢩ࢞ࣥ኱Ꮫ࡟ᣍ⪸ㅮᖌ࡜ࡋ࡚ฟㅮࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏࢩ࣏ࣥ
ࢪ࣒࢘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ୕㒊⤒ⱥヂࡢ⤒㦂࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ᛮ࠺࡜ࡇࢁࢆヰࡋ࡚ḧࡋ࠸࡜
࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᛌㅙࡋ࡚㡬࠸ࡓࠋࢥ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊίᅵ┿᐀ࡢ⪷඾⩻ヂ
࡟㛗ࡽࡃ࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚ࡇࡽࢀࡓࠊ㱟㇂኱Ꮫࡢࢹࢽࢫᘅ⏣ᩍᤵ࡟࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡶ࠺୍ேࡢᣍᚅㅮ₇⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ᛮ࠸ࡘ࠸ࡓࡢࡣࠊࢫࢱࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢻ኱Ꮫࡢ࣏࣮࣭ࣝࣁࣜ
ࢯࣥᩍᤵ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࣁࣜࢯࣥᩍᤵࡣࠊ᭱ึᮇࡢ₎ヂ⪅ࡢ୍ே࡛࠶ࡿᨭ፝㏑ㆻࡢ◊✲⪅
࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ㏆ᖺࡣከࡃࡢ኱஌⤒඾ࡢ෗ᮏ࠿ࡽࡢᩥ⊩Ꮫⓗ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ᅜ❧኱Ꮫ࡛ࢻ࣭ࢗࣚࣥࢢᩍᤵࡢୗ࡛༤ኈྕࢆྲྀᚓᚋࠊ㛗࠸㛫ẕᅜ
-- 33 --
࡛࠶ࡿࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻࡢ࢝ࣥࢱ࣮࣋ࣜ኱Ꮫ࡛ᩍ㠴ࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊᩘᖺ๓࡟໭⡿࡟
⛣ືࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙼ࡜ึࡵ࡚఍ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ1980 ᖺ௦ᮎ࡟ᡂ⏣ᒣ᪂຾ᑎࡢ୺ദ࡛➨
㸳ᅇᅜ㝿ࢳ࣋ࢵࢺᏛ఍ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓ᫬࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᠓ぶ఍࡛ࠕ⚾ࡢඛ⏕ࡢඛ⏕ࠖ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿
ࡅ࡚ࡁࡓࡢࡣࠊᙼࡀ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔␃Ꮫ୰࡟ᣦᑟࢆཷࡅࡓࢢࣞࢦ࣮࣭ࣜࢩࣙ࣌ࣥ㸦⌧
࢝ࣜࣇ࢛ࣝࢽ࢔኱Ꮫࣟࢫ࢔ࣥࢪ࢙ࣝࢫᰯᩍᤵ㸧ࡀ࢝ࢼࢲࡢ࣐ࢡ࣐ࢫࢱ࣮኱Ꮫ࡛Ꮫࢇ࡛
࠸ࡓ㡭ࠊࢺࣟࣥࢺ኱Ꮫ࡟࠸ࡓ⚾ࡀྂ඾ࢳ࣋ࢵࢺㄒࡢᡭ࡯࡝ࡁࢆࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡓ
࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࣁࣜࢯࣥᩍᤵ࡟ࡣࠊίᅵ⤒඾ࡢ␗ヂࡢࢩࣀࣉࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࡞ศᯒࢆࡋ࡚࡯
ࡋ࠸࡜౫㢗ࡋࡓࡀࠊᮏே࠿ࡽࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛฟᅵࡢࠕࣔࣁ࣐ࣥࢻ࣭ࢼࣜ▼᙮ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ
ሗ࿌ࢆ⨾⾡ྐᐙࡢࢡࣜࢫࢳ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ༤ኈ㸦࣮ࣝࣅࣥ⨾⾡㤋ࠊࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚࢡ㸧
࡜୍⥴࡟ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺⏦ࡋฟࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋᚑ᮶ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࠖ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇࡢ
ᅗീࡀࠕ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢίᅵࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺᪂ゎ㔘ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋࢥ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘࡟㈶ྠࡉࢀࡿி㒔኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵࡢⲨ∾඾ಇඛ
⏕࡜ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ㈶ᡂࡉࢀ࡞࠸㱟㇂኱Ꮫࡢᐑ἞᫛ඛ⏕࡟࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓࠋᐑ἞ඛ⏕ࡣᙜ᪥ฟ
ᖍ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ୰㒊኱Ꮫࡢ⚟ᒣὈᏊඛ⏕࡟௦ㄞࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ኱㜰኱
Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵࡢ࢖ࣥࢻ⨾⾡ྐᐙ⫧ሯ㝯ඛ⏕࡟ࡶᛴ㑉ᙜ᪥ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶
ࡗࡓࠋ
࠾㝜ࡉࡲ࡛ࠊࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘࡟ࡣከࡃࡢཧຍ⪅ࢆᚓ࡚ࠊㅮ₇ࡸሗ࿌ࡢᚋ࡟ࡣ⇕ᚰ࡞ウ
ㄽࡶ⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋⓎ⾲ࡸࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓୖグࡢㅖẶࠊ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ウㄽ࡟ཧຍࡋ
࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓㅖẶ࡟ࡣᚰ࠿ࡽ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋᮏࣉࣟࢩ࣮ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࢫࡀࠊ௒ᚋࡢίᅵ
ᩍ◊✲࡜௖ᩍ⨾⾡◊✲ࡢᒎ㛤࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ኱࠸࡟ᮇᚅࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
᱇ ⤂㝯
㱟㇂኱Ꮫ࢔ࢪ࢔௖ᩍᩥ໬◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮࣭ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㛗
-4-
On Reading Literature Literally:
Concrete Imagery before Doctrine
Luis O. GÓMEZ
El Colegio de México
Prefatory Remarks1
This paper requires a short introduction, for, at least some of the issues I wish to explore are not
commonly explored in the academic study of Buddhism. The questions I address in this paper, and the
personal motivations behind this particular form of curiosity, may be expressed succinctly as follows:
1. What are the presuppositions of “Pure Land thought,” understood broadly as belief in the power of
a bodhisattva’s vow as it is realized in the “purification” of the bodhisattva’s buddha-field?
a. What implications does the belief in many lands and many bodhisattvas have for our
understanding of the nature and the function of the bodhisattva ideal?
b. What exactly is the nature of belief in multiple buddhas, bodhisattvas and buddha-fields 㸫a
belief at the heart of the mythology of the bodhisattvas in so many MahƗyƗna snjtras?
2. What would have made the existence of purified buddha-fields believable to an audience in
ancient India?
a. What would that belief look like if it were understood literally and not simply as a metaphor
for some philosophical or ethical conception?
b. How is the bodhisattva ideal related to the vague, but central conception of a space or
dimension known as the dharmadhƗtu,
c. and to the more concrete conception of purified world-realms?
These concerns were prompted, of course by more concrete or particular problems. For instance, and
more specifically, I have been puzzled for some time by the manner in which ĝƗkyamuni, as the voice of
authority in the SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha sutras, appeals in the Shorter SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha to the buddhas of the ten
cosmic directions for validation of his teachings on AmitƗbha’s Pure Land. We may dismiss this
important passage as hyperbole or as “legitimation,” but we still need to explain what would make such
an appeal cogent and effective. In other words, we need to understand what sort of presupposition would
render believable this particular claim to legitimation in the Shorter Snjtra.
In this instance, as in many other passages in the snjtras, we do not need more than a cursory reading
to realize that the first, or concrete, meaning (which we shall call “the literal” for lack of a better word)
seems to say something more (or something less —depending on your perspective) than what we
communicate to our students and audiences with our doctrinal, philosophic or normative
1
My thanks to Prof. Katsura Shǀryu of Ryukoku University for inviting me to participate in the symposium where an earlier
version of this paper was presented. I also thank Dennis Hirota, of the same institution, for his response to the paper, and to
those members of the audience who offered valuable comments and questions, especially James Dobbins of Oberlin College.
-5-
Luis O. Gómez
interpretations.2 We are, in some ways, despite our proffered methodological strategies, still entrapped
by the lure of Buddhist doctrinal subtleties. But, obviously, there is more to Buddhist texts than the
arguments, or, for that matter, the dogmatic enumerations of the scholastic tradition.3
Given the claims contained in them, my theoretical (hermeneutic) approach cannot be separated
from concrete issues of interpretation, from the particulars of the text. And, as I argue below, these
particulars raise a number of questions regarding the way we speak about MahƗyƗna, about buddhas and
about bodhisattvas. More specifically, I feel these texts show that we may still have a lot to learn from
the particulars of these individual texts, buddhas and bodhisattvas, despite our acquired insights into the
general or doctrinal interpretations that seem to underlie the grand narratives of the snjtras. I have felt, for
instance, that Western attempts to distinguish so-called celestial bodhisattvas from some other form of
bodhisattva (“Human”? “Earthly”?) are misguided and do not serve any heuristic purpose. If anything,
our nomenclature and exegetical discourse have prevented us from asking for the meaning and function
of the way bodhisattvas are depicted in the snjtras.4 In seems to me, moreover, that except for one paper
by Paul Harrison, we have not confronted the implications of this Western distinction.
I am, of course, also interested in question of “authorship.” and “origins,“ and questions about the
dating and the evolution of Buddhist texts and their ideas across time.5 However, I also raise the
question of what may have made change possible and, above all, acceptable to Buddhist individuals and
communities —across time, and at the various levels of potential meaning in these texts (doctrine,
mythology, ritual, ethos and habitus). That is to say, for me the investigation of history implies also an
investigation of the nature of religious discourse and human belief, and the way discourse and belief
becomes acceptable as truth or reality in a given cultural context.
This does not mean that the nature of belief can be used as historical evidence, or that understanding
belief in ancient texts can follow the same positive methodologies of textual history. But having at least
2
My use of “literal” does not presuppose any philosophical stance regarding the exact nature of the literal. It is simply a
short-hand for “taking the concrete imagery of our texts and face value, as if it represented an actual world that we can see,
hear, touch, and inhabit.” This way of reading is then contrasted with our need to find philosophical, ethical or existential
meanings, that is, our attempts to map the imaginal world of the text onto our own imaginal world (what we commonly call
the “reality of our existence”). I am well aware that the word “literal” itself is very much contested in linguistics, translation
theory and philosophy. The reader can start the exploration of these debates with the works by Cohen and Stern referenced
below in notes 8 and 9.
3
This is not the place to show that the scholastics were themselves very much immersed in the concrete and literal forms of the
foundational myths of their own doctrinal abstractions. I think this is generally speaking obvious, but it still needs to be
considered carefully. Furthermore, as I shall clarify presently, I am not in any way suggesting that scholastic schematism and
philosophical analysis are not relevant to the study of Buddhism.
4
P. Harrison, “MañjuĞrƯ and the Cult of the Celestial Bodhisattvas,” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 13.2(May 2000), 157-193. I
have followed a slightly different line of argument in a paper titled “AvalokiteĞvara’s Potala in the Avataূsaka,” to be
published by the Organizing Committee of the conference “Daejanggyeong: A Millennium Commemoration of the Tripitaka
Koreana” —Daegu, 2011.
5
Again, for the sake of brevity, I have not unpacked what I mean by “authorship.” Many of the texts that interest us are not
exactly amenable to analyses of authorship as one would apply in a historical environment in cultures where individual
authorship has been valued for centuries. I am also an advocate a conception of origins and authorship that incorporates at least
some of the insightful conclusions of Western criticism following post-structuralism. The concepts of “dating” and “evolution”
would also have to be fine-tuned in light of more contemporary concepts of transmission and reception.
-6-
On Reading Literature Literally
a theoretical understanding of belief can help understand the nature of change —in other words, it can
help understand how belief or ideation affect the evolution of doctrine, its reception, its acceptance, and
its transformations.
In the present paper in particular I am interested in (1) the evolution of a text (or rather, of a set of
ideas in that text), (2) in the way people may have understood this texts and its ideas, and (3) in the
presuppositions that can make texts such as this one believable and vital enough to warrant change and
growth in the interpretation of its doctrines.
Questions of Terminology: Reading and Interpreting
Our attention has been called more than once to our tendency to see mystery in the reality imagined
or lived by others. For instance, we call ritual, or even worse, “just a ritual,” those actions that, from our
own limited perspective, seem to have no effectiveness or function. This is a recalcitrant bias. Hence our
first impulse (after we have overcome the tendency to dismiss such phenomena as meaningless) is to get
rid of our puzzlement with a second order explanation: symbolism, meaning, doctrinal profundity, social
function, etc.
There is nothing inherently misguided about such attempts at understanding. But, some times we
jump to that second order of analysis before we have noted, first, the salient features of the concrete
object (ritual or literary, performative or imaginal), or before we have attempted to imagine how a
human being can actually live in his or her “foreign world” without sharing with us the kind of
meanings we seem to require to be able to understand our own world and world-views.
I do not wish to travel very far in a morass of interpretations laid over interpretations, of
methodological perspectives clashing with methodological perspectives. In this short paper, I only wish
to point towards one way in which we can perhaps engage in the activity of interpreting and
understanding beliefs (“doctrine,” “myth” and “ritual,” if you will) by looking at such beliefs and their
expression in the most literal sense I can imagine. This means, in part, that I will privilege the imaginal
over the symbolic,6 assuming provisionally that believers have the capacity to accept as real a world
populated by non-natural phenomena, without necessarily positing a symbolic or demythologized
meaning behind those phenomena. And assuming, moreover, that human beings can live in a world in
which not all phenomena are “natural” —in our contemporary sense of what is natural.
I would like to imagine a reading that attempts to understand how the concreteness of religious
imagery can provide enough meaning for believers to have no need to seek anything beyond that
concreteness, allowing them to live in that imaginal world without feeling the urge to build a symbolic
6
I use the word “imaginal” advisedly and in the technical sense now common in literary and religious studies: a world of
imagination that constitutes reality for a given human being or community of human beings. I am also borrowing from I. A.
Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York and London, Oxford University Press, 1936, and from I. A. Richards & C. K.
Ogden, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism,
London and New York, 1923. One should note one of my earliest sources, which also influenced Ogden: Hans Vaihinger, Die
Philosophie des Als Ob (reprint Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2007. First ed. 1911, tenth ed. 1927) — also online in
PDF format at: http://ia600609.us.archive.org/23/items/DiePhilosophieDesAlsOb/HansVaihinger_philosophieDesAlsOb.pdf
-- 77 --
Luis O. Gómez
theology. It is therefore, not a matter of looking for the real meaning or the original meaning, nor the
native meaning, but simply an attempt to clarify the concrete universe generated by the text and asking
whether that universe is habitable —whether someone can feel content with that concreteness, however
absurd or naïve it may seem to some of us. Needless to say, in doing so, I imply that such universes are
perhaps not so absurd or naïve as they may seem to someone standing outside of them.
As a foreshadowing of some of my conclusions, I should point to the origin of these reflections. In
reading and rereading “the Pure Land Sutras,” and other texts of a similar genre (from Ak‫܈‬obhya-snjtra
to MañjuĞrƯ-vyƗkara۬a, Avataۨsaka to VimalakƯrti-nirdeĞa) I have reached a point where my literary
imagination feels perfectly at home with the putatively fantastic universe(s) described in such texts.7 In
other words, I discovered in me the capacity to suspend disbelief to the point where I could feel not only
drawn into the text as literature or drama, but also eased into an empathic relationship with a believer
that would accept literally (that is, accept its imagery as reality), in the way that, for instance, many
Christian believers believe the Book of Revelation is not in any way “symbolic” or metaphoric, but a
description of the exact events we will live at the end of all time.
We could say that my basic assumption is that my imagination as reader can profit from a certain
empathic connection with what I can posit as the imaginal reality of the other. If our capacity to
understand one another depends on the ability to understand each other’s worlds, we need to understand
not only the thoughts of others, but the mental pictures and feelings that presumably accompany and
bolster those thoughts, we need to make them “our own,” even if we use these two words
metaphorically or as a provisional device for understanding.8
In fact, even the simple capacity to sustain my attention while I read a text requires a similar process
of identification or empathy, whereby I imagine the world represented by the text, and I imagine the
people who have read or will read it, heard it, heard of it, performed it, etc. We often attempt to achieve
some sort of connection with the other through historical and sociological understanding, but even
socio-historical reasoning depends on imagining real human beings and a real human world in some
ways accessible to my imagination. When we approach a text as a community’s construction of a
habitable world (in our case a world at the same time transcendent and immanent), the need to imagine
alternative worlds is even more crucial. We need a minimal capacity to affectively and metaphorically
transport ourselves to another world.9
7
“Fantastic” not in the sense of “being pure fantasy,” but in the sense of feeling counter-intuitive or against my culture-bound
sense of what can be real. I also take this not in the strongest sense (not in the strong, and most likely, correct interpretation of
the dictum that we are animals “suspended in webs of significance” we have spun ourselves —Geertz, Interpretation of
Cultures, Basic Books, 1973, p. 5), but as a middle of the road constructivist— to become real, the web of our narratives must
somehow affect human material and emotional survival.
8
This way of looking at the text was in part inspired by my personal spin on Ted Cohen’s notion of “the construction and
comprehension of metaphors,” which, he states, “require an ability that is the same as the human capacity for understanding
one another.” Cohen, Thinking of others: On the talent for metaphor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
Appropriately, Cohen opens his first chapter with an epigraphic quote from Josef Stern’s Metaphor in Context (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2000): “Nonetheless, I agree that there is a pictorial dimension to metaphor and that the perspective it
generates cannot be expressed propositionally.”
9
These and the following thoughts are in part inspired by my reading of two of Ted Cohen’s papers: “Metaphor, Feeling, and
-8-
On Reading Literature Literally
If skillfully accomplished, narrative and the depiction of a narrative’s setting (not that these two can
be separated so easily), will effect a state of receptivity or suggestibility in the expected
receptor-responder very similar to what I propose the reader attempts to achieve —many centuries and
kilometers away from the original site of production— in the enjoyment and understanding of texts of
the imagination.10
Hence, I contend, such a process would have operated when some of these snjtras were composed,
read, or recited (that is, recited and read with at least a minimal understanding of the imagery, since
ritual recitation may have had other functions and meanings).11 I also contend that a metaphoric,
symbolic or theological reading depends to a certain extent on an initial acceptance of the concrete
alternative world posited by the text.
Regarding the pure lands, and the buddhas and bodhisattvas that inhabit them, I wonder if it is
possible to understand the universe they occupy with a literalness that offers perhaps an insight into a
particular modality of Indian Buddhist belief: the belief in multiple buddhas and buddha-fields as the
true representation of an objective world —at least of our world seen as an embodiment of Buddhist
Dharma or as seen through the eyes of buddhas and bodhisattvas— an idea that is sometimes expressed
with the technical and mythic term DharmadhƗtu.
This ideal and abstract universe, the DharmadhƗtu, is occupied by multiple worlds that do not look
like ours, and is populated by beings like and and by others who are similar to us only in an ideal sense.
Narrative,” Philosophy and Literature, 21.2(1997), 223-244, and “Identifying with Metaphor: Metaphors of Personal
Identification,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57.4(1999), 399-409. Similar ideas are developed, of course, in
his book, referenced above in note 8, which incorporates much of the second of these two articles. I came to know of Cohen’s
work after I wrote my paper on miracles for the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, “On Buddhist
Wonders and Wonder-working,” (Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 33.1–2 [2010 (2011)],
pp.513–554). There is much to be gained by a closer look at Cohen in order to develop further the materials and arguments I
presented in the JIABS paper.
10
This is, perhaps, as good a place as any other to introduce an important aside on the term “narrative.” One need only skim
through a library catalogue to realize that the word has as many meanings as there are scholars using the term. It is also evident
that studies of narrative overlap with many other disciplines and analytic categories —the Encyclopaedia Universalis, for
instance, includes, in addition to the expected treatment under the heading “Récit” (a superb, and very French, survey by Louis
Marin and Jean Verrier), an interesting segment on narrativity under the topic of “Performance, Art” (written by Daniel
Charles). In addition to the multiple uses of the term, the matter is complicated by the nature of “narrative” in the texts that I
consider in this paper: the “stories” told are mostly (when they are not just a pretext for doctrinal expostulation) of the nature
of passing vistas, in which ideal characters interact with visionary panoramas. It is a kind of religious narrative unlike the
story-plot and chronicled history types more common in Christian scriptures. I use the term narrative, therefore, to describe
passages where a plot (usually a very loose one, and often without the kind of plot development and denouement we expect) is
used as a thread weaving together the other elements: isolated events and the setting (the space created in or by those events).
It is more like a string of miracles than a story proper. Another, more abstract, way of stating this point is to say that plot is
ritually repetitive and serves to highlight and embody the defining topoi of the tradition, but that the development of topoi in
this case can become, literally, the depiction of miraculous spaces or places (for some ideas of the use of place as literary topos,
see, Jean-Claude Anscombre, ed., Théorie des topoï, Paris: Kimé, 1995).
11
For the sake of brevity, I will henceforth use the word “read” as a place holder for the longer, more accurate phrases the
present context requires, such as, “recite, memorize, repeat, hear, write, read or perform.” Obviously, in the case of the texts
we are considering here, the question of their use, transmission, and Sitz im Leben (to say nothing of the existence of “a reader”
in our modern sense of the word) still remains, for the most part, open.
-- 99 --
Luis O. Gómez
Hence, to understand such a universe we are left with two main types of strategies: either we assume
that all of this is metaphoric (in some cases perhaps allegoric), and that a theological unpacking is
necessary, if not inevitable, or we jump in and ask ourselves what it would be like to inhabit that
universe.
Since this universe, the DharmadhƗtu, is supposed to be somehow coextensive or parallel to ours, we
can see it as either transcendent or immanent, or both. But, be that as it may, we will need to first
understand exactly is this universe, and the worlds within it, and the human-like beings that inhabit it.
We need to understand what it is, before we ask ourselves what it means.
In Buddhist Studies, we have been plagued by a tendency to read in light of “established” or
normative doctrinal interpretations (and this is a practice not only found among lay readers or in some of
our students, but even in some of our scholarly writing). An example of this is the facile use of the word
bodhisattva as if it were univocally and transparently an expression of a single doctrine —philosophical
and ethical. We continue to read and understand “bodhisattvas” through the lens of our summaries and
textbooks, and with the short-hand of doctrinal and interpretive terms that lack accuracy, or, at least,
terms the meanings of which are yet to be clarified.
In such readings we try to make the bodhisattva into our own image, still trying, even today to divest
the figure of the bodhisattva of any features that may seem to us a bit too fantastic, or may seem so
much in the realm of the superhuman that we fear (I believe mistakenly) that the figure of the
bodhisattva will lose its value as an ideal model for human action.
If we pay close attention to the concrete and specific images (iconic or narrative images) of a text,
we may begin to discern the many ways in which the text means or has meant. We may begin to
understand the manner in which the text constructs an imaginal world different from our own, and, at
times different from our assumed understanding of the world of the text (our “interpretive textus
receptus,” as it were). And we may understand how the text would have meant a lot more than what we
find in the schemata of doctrinal interpretations.
In general, this type of reading at a “literal level” can already be counted among the best practices of
good historian, because historians seek to understand the text’s diachronicity or to understand the
relations between different layers or archeological strata, and they do so precisely by focusing on the
text’s concreteness, beyond or behind, any doctrinal or normative reading. However, it is not only the
positive historian (the student of strata and social contexts) who stands to benefit from a literal reading
that takes the concrete image at face value. The literary interpreter, or the interpreter of religious
literature, as well as the translator and lexicographer, stand to gain from this approach.
I have elsewhere attempted such analyses with two well-known MahƗyƗna texts: AvalokiteĞvara’s
Litany in the 25th Chapter of the Lotus Snjtra (variously known in East Asia as the GuƗnsìyƯn-jƯng やୡ㡢
⥂, Kannon-gyǀ ほ㡢⤒ or Fumonbon ᬑ㛛ရ) and the corresponding Litany in Sudhana’s encounter
with AvalokiteĞvara in the Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha-snjtra.
I have argued that these two texts are literary renderings of living rituals that were incorporated into
larger, fully developed MahƗyƗna Snjtras —respectively the Lotus Sutra and the BuddhƗvataۨsaka—
possibly in an attempt to give folk belief a canonical or normative status, and that this process of
- 10 -
On Reading Literature Literally
canonization and absorption evidently occurred late in the development of the larger snjtras. When we
read them within this frame of reference, we begin to see how they represent particular beliefs that do
not always fit into the expectations we bring to these texts when we read them through the lens of
“normative” or accepted notions of what is or is not a a snjtra, a particular snjtra, a bodhisattva, a
particular bodhisattva, or what is or is not proper mahƗyƗna doctrine.
Both texts, Lotus and Avataۨsaka, present peculiar notions of what is or is not a bodhisattva and of
the relationship of the bodhisattva to the purified buddha-fields. One text can hardly be used as a
doctrinal clue to understanding the other. Yet we intuit some sort of connection —a connection that
reflects, in my view, habits of imagination, literary and religious.
The Lotus Litany also appears to have grown with the addition of other legitimizing elements, thus
showing that the impulse to create a normative or standard reading is also found in the history of
traditional constructions of meaning. This is evident particularly in the attempt to link AvalokiteĞvara to
what must have been a rising popular cult of AmitƗbha. In this last point I agree with Gregory Schopen
on the matter of the “generalized” acceptance of AmitƗbha to which many MahƗyƗna Snjtras bear
witness.12 In fact I would reword his conclusion more boldly by suggesting that there may have existed
a non-specific cult of AmitƗbha (paying lip service to AmitƗbha’s importance without necessarily
engaging in the exclusive worship of AmitƗbha).
However, as to the meaning of Schopen’s phrase “generalized belief system,” I part ways with him
on two counts. First in his assumption that this is a “belief system” (he seems to imagine belief as
separate from ritual practice and avoids the question of what he means by the phrase belief system).
Second, I hypothesize that a belief that becomes generalized is not necessarily watered down by this
generalization, but that it could be reinforced as a vehicle for legitimation or by being legitimize by
general acceptance. In other words, existence as a generalized belief does not preclude the existence of
cultic communities where a particular Buddha was paramount as object of worship.
Text and Function
I will not repeat the arguments I have developed elsewhere, but, the object of the present paper is an
example of a phenomenon similar to the one I believe bears witness to the success of the cult behind the
recitation of AvalokiteĞvara’s Litany. In the present, brief, analysis I wish to examine the final section of
the BuddhƗvataۨsaka, the Samantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗna-gƗthƗ (variously known as the
Fugengyǀgan ᬑ㈼⾜㢪, BhadracarƯ, etc.). It seems to me that this section of the Avataۨsaka collection
(henceforth abbreviated Av) reflects a process of growth and legitimation similar to that of the two
AvalokiteĞvara Litanies.
However, in the case of Samantabhadra’s vows in the Av, the process of canonization worked both
ways ̿legitimizing Samantabhadra even as his association with the liturgy of MahƗyƗna transferred its
legitimacy to the Snjtra— so that the rising figure of Samantabhadra appears to have absorbed the
12
See Gregory Schopen, “SukhƗvatƯ as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit MahƗyƗna Snjtra Literature,” Indo-Iranian
Journal, 19, (1977), pp. 177-210.
11 --- 11
Luis O. Gómez
general model of the MahƗyƗna liturgy, the saptavidhƗ anuttarƗ pnjjƗ, presenting its elements and
structure as if they were part of a revelation contained in Samantabhadra’s own, personal vows.13 The
liturgy was legitimized at the same time that it legitimized Samantabhadra, a bodhisattva that may have
arisen, not in the popular imagination, but as an abstract deity of monkish creation: the embodiment of
the perfectly virtuous conduct (samanta-bhadra-caryƗ). His final apotheosis evidently occurs in the
passage that has come to be known as the Samantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗn-gƗthƗ (henceforth
referenced simply as BhadracarƯ)
Our acceptance of the ending as a fitting ending is a good example of how our eagerness to read
doctrinal schemata into a text misleads us into overlooking the text and its history, particularly the
significance of its concrete imagery.
We are used to assuming, in the first place, that the meeting with Samantabhadra represents the most
appropriate, and the original, ending of the Sanskrit Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha (henceforth abbreviated as Gv), and
that, in turn, this final encounter culminated with the Vows of Samantabhadra as we know them —that is,
through their canonized versions in the Samantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗn-gƗthƗ (variously known as the
Fugengyǀgan ᬑ㈼⾜㢪, BhadracarƯ, etc.) preserved in Sanskrit in the Gv and in a number of Asian
languages, including, of course, the canonical Tibetan version, and Prajña’s Chinese translation —minor
variations notwithstanding.
And we conclude from the first assumption that this conveniently consecrated text constitutes the
key to understanding the rest of the Gv. This conclusion is then conflated with a second major
assumption: that the BhadracarƯ is primarily the expression of the bodhisattva ideal as a model for
human ethical behavior. Accordingly, we tend to interpret the Gv as a gradual pilgrimage culminating in
the vows of the life of the bodhisattva Samantabhadra, understanding these as the highest expression of
the ethical ideals of those human beings who seek to live the life of a bodhisattva.14
This consecrated key to the conclusion of the Gv and the Av allows us to reduce the text to a sort of
“ethical” teaching (however vague its formulation may be even in our own interpretations). This reading,
the favorite among contemporary readers in the West, presents the bodhisattva as a model for the ethical
behavior of practicing Buddhists, despite other possible readings of the myths of the bodhisattvas and of
the BhadracarƯ itself. These alternative readings are what I now call the literal reading, and which I will
13
The importance of these two processes may be reflected in the Chinese title of the Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha in Prajña’s translation, ධ୙ᛮ
㆟ゎ⬺ቃ⏺ᬑ㈼⾜㢪ရ (Taishǀ X, 293), where the first, presumably main or older title, ධ୙ᛮ㆟ゎ⬺ቃ⏺, corresponds to an
older version expressing one of the main themes of the collection, and the second, appositional subtitle, ᬑ㈼⾜㢪, represents a
new vision of the Snjtra as culminating in the vows. One need only remember that in Buddhabhadra and ĝikৢƗnanda’s versions
the final snjtra in the Av is called the ධἲ⏺ရ. Given the development of the Snjtra as a sequential (perhaps a gradually
intensifying) presentation of miraculous vimok‫܈‬as, the appropriate finale would have to be found in Maitreya’s knj‫ܒ‬ƗgƗra (as
the realization of the ධἲ⏺), followed by Samantabhadra’s reinforcement of the same idea, as I argue below.
14
This template or interpretive key has grown roots, so much so that we have, additionally, accepted the idea that the upper tier
of the reliefs at Barabuঌur are representations of the BhadracarƯ as we know it —despite the insurmountable problems that
this identification must face when the reliefs are compared to the text. Thus, F. D. K. Bosch (“De Bhadracari afgebeeld op den
Hoofdmuur der vierde Gaanderij van den Baraboedoer”, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Ned.-Indie, 97,
1938, pp.241-293) struggles, in my view unsuccessfully, to confront the doubts raised, many years earlier, by N. J. Krom
(Barabudur: Archaeological Description,The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1927).
- 12 -
On Reading Literature Literally
call later in this paper the narrative reading.
Parenthetically, but importantly, I should note that part of the problem is an artifact of Western biases.
After all, we are attempting to discover ethical thought of a Western modality in texts in which, arguably,
norms of human action fuse with the superhuman feats of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and with an
aspiration towards awakening, omniscience and liberation that is essentially expressed as a ritual, not as
a reflection on the ethical significance of this aspiration. I am not denying, of course, the presence of
ethical principles and aspirations, I only wish to note that the norms may be there, but one cannot
separate them easily from the ideal of a bodhisattva that both knows reality and can change reality, one
cannot separate easily the role of the bodhisattva as paradigmatic figure from his personality as
superhuman wonder-worker. Perhaps this particular Western bias is at the root of our confusion about so
called celestial bodhisattvas, as if they could be clearly distinguished from so-called human or earthly
bodhisattvas that, presumably, we normal humans would imagine capable of imitating.
I still think it is valid for us to ask ourselves exactly what is a bodhisattva and, more importantly in
the present context, what is the relevance of the figure of so-called mythical or celestial bodhisattvas as
objects of human emulation and aspiration. We shall presently return to this second question, but first let
me offer some cursory observations on the first question —whether we can find an analog to Western
notions of the ethical norm in the snjtras under consideration.
“Ethical,” Ethos, Ritual
An “ethical” interpretation of these texts is not totally off the mark.15 I only argue that it is hardly
the most prominent role of the bodhisattvas (including the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra), at the very least
in the Gv and in the Av as a whole Since I intend to discuss other, competing, understandings of the
significance of the bodhisattva figure, I should at least remind the reader that I am not denying the
existence of ethical meanings. I shall, therefore, begin with a short excursus on the bodhisattva as ethical
paradigm.
This idea is developed, in fact, in the so-called “Ten Vows of Samantabhadra” found in the prose
section preceding the BhadracarƯ verses in Prajña’s Chinese version. These ten vows in prose are,
unquestionably, a summary or interpretation of the BhadracarƯ and seem meant to lead the reader to the
mythic and the ritual dimensions of the text through an initial reflection on the ethical. They are, I would
argue, a self-referential commentary or interpretation of the verses that follow.
The prose passage on the Ten Vows (Taishǀ 293, 844b20-846c29) is summarized in its first lines
(Taishǀ 293, 844b20-28):
Then, after joyfully praising the sublime virtues of the TathƗgata, Samantabhadra, the
Bodhisattva MahƗsattva, addressed [Sudhana] the youth and all the bodhisattvas [that had
gathered there], saying:
15
One is reminded of the implicit tension in Western narrative theology between the narrative and the moral. See, for instance,
Paul Lauritzen, “Ethics and Experience: The Case of the Curious Response,” The Hastings Center Report, 26.1 (1996), 6-15
and Paul Lauritzen, “Is ‘Narrative’ Really a Panacea? The Use of ‘Narrative’ in the Work of Metz and Hauerwas,” The
Journal of Religion, 67.3(1987), 322-339.
13 --- 13
Luis O. Gómez
—Sudhana, the virtue and merit of the TathƗgata is such that even if all the buddhas of the ten
directions should speak during so many kalpas as there are particles of dust in the uncountable
numberless buddha-fields, they would not be able to ever finish describing [all that they contain].
If you wish to succeed in attaining and practicing those virtues ᡂᑵṈຌᚫ㛛, you should practice
ten great vows. Which ten?
(1) First, to pay homage ⚰ᩗ to all the buddhas; (2) second, to call upon and praise ✃ㆽ the
tathƗgatas; (3) third, worship them with abundant offerings ᘅಟ౪㣴; (4) fourth, to confess our
[evil] conduct, those actions that constitute an impediment, and to express repentance ᠲ᜼ᴗ㞀;
(5) fifth, to celebrate the merit and virtue 㞉႐ຌᚫ [of all beings]; (6) sixth, to request of [all
buddhas] that they turn the wheel of Dharma ㄳ㎈ἲ㍯; (7) seventh, to request of all buddhas that
they remain in [this] world ㄳషఫୡ; (8) eight, to follow constantly the teachings of the buddhas
ᖖ㞉షᏥ; (9) ninth, to adapt [one’s behavior to the needs] of sentient beings ᜏ㡰╓⏕; (10) tenth,
to dedicate [all of one’s] merit [to others] ᬑⓙ㏛ྥ.16
These are all aspirations that can be understood as advising a course of action that most human
beings could contemplate as goals within the reach of mere mortals. However, it is difficult to imagine
that the course of action contemplated is predominantly ethical. Vows 1-3, 6-7 and 10 refer to well
known ritual practices. The eighth vow can be understood perhaps as including ethical teachings, but
one wonders whether in the present context it does not refer to a confession of faith, more than to any
particular form of moral action. The fourth vow is, of course, part of the traditional MahƗyƗna ritual
—but, I would nonetheless concede that here ritual begins to overlap with moral reflection. However, it
is only in the ninth vow that we find the grounds for ethical reflection.
This ethical bent is especially clear in the prose explanation of this ninth vow, which reads, as
follows (845c24-846a28):
Moreover, Sudhana, when one speaks of adapting [oneself to the needs] of sentient beings, the
meaning is that [one will do so with respect to] the many different kinds of sentient beings that
exist in the oceans of fields in empty space in the ten direction of the universe, to the end of the
DharmadhƗtu. They may be born from an egg, or from a womb, from hot and humid places, or
miraculously born, and depend for their sustenance on earth, water, fire, or wind; they may live in
empty space, or among the plants and the trees, including all kinds of species or races, of diverse
types of bodies, distinct in color, shape and appearance, . . . They may differ in the depth of their
understanding and in their points of view and opinions, in their desires and joys, their thoughts
and their conduct, and in their customs, their manner of dress and in their eating habits.
There are beings who inhabit diverse types of villages, towns, cities and places of residence,
and there are also gods, nƗgas, . . . and there are also humans and non-humans. Some, lacking
extremities, crawl, whereas others walk on two feet, or on four feet, and others on many more
feet. Some have a bodily form, whereas others are incorporeal; some are fully conscious, others
unconscious, some have a minimal degree of consciousness, others are not totally unconscious.
16
Lit. «general dedication» [of merit]. One should note that in “vows” 5 and 10 one would be hard pressed to distinguish ritual
from ethics —but this is a topic for another occasion, important as it obviously is.
- 14 -
On Reading Literature Literally
And I intend to adapt myself to them, to care for this great diversity of living things, providing
them with all kinds of attentive care, service, goods and benefits. I will treat them all with the
same respect I show towards my parents, my teachers, my elders, and to the arhats, and even the
same respect I show to the buddhas. I will render service to them all, making no distinction
among them.
I will be a physician and a nurse towards those who are sick or incapacitated. I will show the way
to those who are lost. I will be a shining beacon for those who have gone astray in a dark night. And
I will lead the poor and the destitute to a place where they may discover abundant treasures.
This is the way a bodhisattva benefits all sentient beings with impartiality.
And why does he act in this way? If the bodhisattva adapts him or herself to sentient beings, he
is behaving in accordance and in harmony with all the buddhas; and in this way in fact the
bodhisattva presents his offerings to the buddhas. If the bodhisattva pays homage to and serves
sentient beings, he pays homage and serves the tathƗgatas. And if the bodhisattva brings joy and
happiness to sentient beings, he brings joy and happiness to the tathƗgatas.
And why? Because all the tathƗgatas adopt the mind and heart of great compassion, regarding
it with the utmost respect ㅖషዴ౗௨኱ᝒᚰ⪋Ⅽ㧓ᨾ. Their great compassion grows thanks to
sentient beings. From great compassion is born the thought of awakening, and it is through this
thought of awakening that they reach the highest, perfect, complete awakening.
It is like a king of all trees which, even when it grows in a rocky and sandy wasteland, will
grow roots that reach down and absorb water, so that its branches, its leaves and fruits will
prosper. It is the same with this king among the trees that grows in the wasteland of birth and
death.17 All sentient beings are its roots, the buddhas and the bodhisattvas are its flowers and
fruits. If we bestow upon all sentient beings the benefit of the water of our great compassion, we
will nourish the flowers and the fruits which are the wisdom ᬛ្ of buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Why? Because when they benefit sentient beings with the water of great compassion,
bodhisattvas reach the highest, perfect and complete awakening. This is why it is sentient beings
who have possession of awakening: without sentient beings, bodhisattvas would not be able to
reach the highest, perfect and complete awakening.
Sudhana, you should therefore understand that only when your thoughts are impartially equal
with regards to all sentient beings will you practice great compassion in its fullness and perfection.
By means of this thought of great compassion that adapts itself to all sentient beings and is in
harmony with their needs you will be able to present the most perfect offering, the offering of
Dharma, to all buddhas.
This is why a bodhisattva adapts himself to all sentient being and lives in harmony with them. (…)
This passage is surprisingly reminiscent of scholastic explanations of the bodhisattva’s compassion
as the ground for awakening (via the thought of awakening). An idea succinctly formulated in the
ĞƗstras —from MahƗyƗnasnjtrƗla۪kƗra to KamalaĞƯla’s BhƗvanƗkramas. Furthermore, the idea of the
interdependence between sentient beings as the ground for compassion and, therefore, as the ground for
awakening, is developed in the passage just quoted in ways that remind us of ĝƗntideva’s ingenious
17
The tree stands here for the totality of the salvific process, integrating, as it were, all the players into a single organism.
15 --- 15
Luis O. Gómez
arguments positing a dignity for sentient beings equal to the dignity of buddhas —arguments he
develops in connections with patience (BodhicaryƗvatƗra VI.112-123). There too, the dignity of
common sentient beings is guaranteed by the mere fact that they are the objects of the love buddhas feel
equally towards all sentient beings.
Having pointed to this passage, and reminding the reader that what is to follow in this paper is not
meant to render insignificant this dimensions of Buddhist religious life, I can now begin to present my
arguments for a different view of the position of the bodhisattva in the Buddhist imaginary.
The ethical interpretation is not the only way one can read the passage, and it is the one meaning that
tends to fade away in everything that preceded it in Prajña’s version, and, of course, in the BhadracarƯ
itself, where the text focuses once more on what we may call, for lack of a better word, myth and ritual:
the grand vision of the powers and cosmic actions of the bodhisattva, enacted in the text’s narrative.
A Preliminary Conclusion
Furthermore, the ethical theme is barely noticeable in other versions of this last chapter of the Gv
—those found in the earlier Chinese translations of the chapter. In fact, there is no equivalent to Prajña’s
prose discussion of these “Ten Vows” in any of these earlier versions, or, for that matter in the extant
Sanskrit version. I should also note that the prose introduction to Sudhana’s encounter with
Samantabhadra, which precedes the Ten Vows in Prajña’s version, is not substantially different from the
corresponding sections in the earlier Chinese translations of Buddhabhadra and ĝikৢƗnanda (the section
that introduces their own version of Samantabhadra’s verse conclusion to the snjtra). Except for Prajña’s
“Ten Vows” the Chinese versions are not significantly different from the prose that precedes and
introduces the BhadracarƯ in its Sanskrit version. Other than the “Ten Vows” the crucial difference is in
the concluding verses, to which we now must turn our attention.
The ending verses in the earlier versions of the Snjtra represent a stage in the history of Gv and Av
when the BhadracarƯ as we know it had not replaced an earlier ending. In these older versions we may
find elements of an ethical ideal (and of the ritual elements of the BhadracarƯ), but above all they ask us
to come to terms with another conception of the bodhisattvas and a different conception of their universe
(or, at least, a different aspect of the imaginal universe they inhabit in many MahƗyƗna snjtras).
The early history of the final section of the Gv can be divined from major differences among the
Chinese versions. The two older translations, those of Buddhabhadra (henceforth abbreviated as Bubhd)
and ĝikৢƗnanda (henceforth abbreviated as ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn), contrast significantly with the newer version found
in Prajña’s translation. But the two older versions also contrast with two independent versions of the
BhadracarƯ preserved in the Taishǀ Daizǀkyǀ, the first one titled “The Vows of MañjuĞrƯ,” ᩥṦᖌ฼ⓐ㢪
⥂ (Taishǀ X, 296, the translation of which is attributed to no one else but Buddhabhadra himself!!), the
second one attributed to Bùkǀng ୙✵, Amoghavajra (Taishǀ (X.297), and bearing a title that clearly
reflects the Indian title of SamantabhadracaryƗ-pra۬idhƗna-[gƗthƗ] ᬑ㈼⳶⸃⾜㢪ㆽ.18
18
Regarding the implied attribution of the vows to MañjuĞrƯ in Taishǀ 296, I am not sure of the actual direction of change,
influence or contamination, for there is a certain degree of confusion or conflation of roles in all of these texts as to the relative
- 16 -
On Reading Literature Literally
For expediency’s sake, I will focus my remarks primarily on a comparison between Bubhd and the
redaction preserved in Prajña’s translation, and to a lesser extent on the version in the extant Sanskrit
text of Gv.19 The other two late versions correspond in all essential points with the later stratum
represented by Prajña,20 And ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn does not differ radically from Bubhd.
However, the first point of note is that even in the gƗthƗs in Prajña’s translation the dominant
element is by no means ethical. Of the 62 stanzas in that version,21 only 4 can be regarded as expressing
explicit ethical injunctions (this is is of course an approximate calculation, since some gƗthƗs have
mixed messages or are not clearly leaning one way or the other), of the remaining stanzas, 11 have a
clear ritual message (essentially a description of the saptavidhƗ anuttarƗ pujƗ), and 27 stanzas refer to
what I consider the most important thematic component of the Gv, the theme that ties it clearly to the
rest of the Av: the miraculous liberating effect (the vimok‫܈‬a) of the virtues and wisdom of buddhas and
bodhisattvas —that is, their capacity to effect change in sentient beings and their universe by the mere
presence of the bodhisattva’s awesome power. These 27 stanzas include 9 that refer or allude to
AmitƗbha and his purified buddha-field.22
The remaining 20 stanzas are in a category that I call, for lack of a better word, «mixed» —these are
stanzas not fitting in any of the above categories or expressing messages that (giving traditional
interpretations the benefit of the doubt) could be interpreted as either ritual or ethical (e.g., dedication of
merit), or stanzas praising Samantabhadra or MañjuĞrƯ.23
In other words, the gƗthƗs can hardly be taken as expressions of the interpretation we have just
quoted from the introductory prose. This is also true, mutatis mutandis, of the 62 stanzas that constitute
the BhadracarƯ in the Sanskrit version of the Gv.
The point is further highlighted when we consider the gƗthƗ’s in Bubhd (I remind the reader that in
this version there is no equivalent to Prajña’s “Ten Vows”).
The gƗthƗs in Bubhd, differ significantly from those in Prajña’s translation (which, as already noted,
are essentially identical with those in Gv). The passage in fact serves a very different function and
importance of these two bodhisattvas.
19
ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn differs from Bubhd in interesting ways but mostly at the level of phrasing, the general purport of this section is
essentially the same in both versions.
20
One should note, however, two important points in need of clarification. First, if Taishǀ 296 is the work of Buddhabhadra,
then its existence shows that the BhadracarƯ in a form close to the one we now know existed independently and
contemporaneously with the earlier ending of the Av, and Gv. Second, Amoghavajra’s version is longer (62 stanzas), yet
contains rough equivalents to all the stanzas of the BhadracarƯ. The additional stanzas elaborate the theme of the BhadracarƯ
as a means to reach the Pure Land. Additionally, it includes a supplemental ritual passage of 20 stanzas, labeled as a separate
text, titled ඵ኱⳶⸃ㆽ. As the title shows, this is a stotra to the Eight Great Bodhisattvas (assuming that ㆽ is not a less
common translation of gƗthƗ). This places Samantabhadra in yet another mythical and ritual context.
21
Needless to say, Prajña’s version is essentially the same as the mixed Sanskrit version of the Gv —a point that I will not
belabor in what follows.
22
23
AmitƗbha also figures prominently in the conclusion to the “Ten Vows.”
Within the verses themselves the relative role of these bodhisattvas is not transparent. This is true in all version of the
BhadracarƯ under consideration in this paper: the Sanskrit, in Prajña, in Buddhabhadra’s independent translation (titled, as
already noted, The Vows of MañjuĞrƯ), and in Amoghavajra’s translation.
17 --- 17
Luis O. Gómez
contains no parallels to the verses in Prajña’s text. None of the 99 (!!) stanzas in Bubhd can be regarded
as suggesting any kind of ethical injunction, and none allude to the liturgy of the vow of the bodhisattva.
The theme of the bodhisattva’s miraculous powers pervades the poem, with, approximately 29 stanzas
focusing primarily on the power to perceive all buddhas in their buddha-fields or the power to project
one’s salvific activity into other worlds {theme A}. These are described mostly as effects of the vows
and conduct of Samantabhadra, yet approximately another 21 stanzas directly or indirectly link these
powers to the virtue and vows of Samantabhadra himself {theme B} (this estimate involves, of course,
much guess work, due to the scant use of personal pronouns in the Chinese text). Roughly 40 stanzas
{theme C} are devoted to the theme of the transcendent or preternatural character of the bodhisattva’s
accomplishments, mostly as they reflect the nature of reality itself —all things being, after all, mere
magical creations. And 7 stanzas {theme D} refer explicitly to the work of buddhas who are identified
by name and apparently presented as examples of the buddhas of the universe without any preference or
ranking.
I was at a loss as to how to classify 2 stanzas, and many of the above classifications exaggerate
thematic differences, for, in my view many stanzas refer to more than one of these themes, mixing some
of the themes that I have tried to separate somewhat artificially.
I would argue that the underlying dominant theme in this poem is the miraculous liberating effect
(the vimok‫܈‬a) of the virtues and wisdom of buddhas and bodhisattvas as embodied specifically in
Samantabhadra. This theme, parenthetically, allows for a seamless connection to Sudhana’s pilgrimage
and to much of what occurs elsewhere in Av. Eventually, but not in the early stages of our text, this
theme would also allow a shift from the world view of the Av to the world view of Pure Land thought:24
the merit of the buddhas is powerful, inherently powerful, powerful by itself, without the need for any
special effort on the part of sentient beings. But we shall return to this presently.
Let me first highlight some important elements in Buddhabhadra’s conclusion to the last chapter of Av,
that is to the snjtra that the Chinese tradition has called, appropriately, “Entry into the DharmadhƗtu.”
The poem is introduced as a clarification to the preceding prose passage. That prose passage, linking
Sudhana’s visit to Maitreya through an intervening meeting with MañjuĞrƯ, is in many ways close to the
extant Sanskrit text; but it runs a bit more smoothly, leading logically and seamlessly from, at one end,
the vision of Maitreya’s “tower” (more appropriately, his “storied mansion,” lóu, ᶂ = ᄫ῕⸝኱ᶂや =
Vairocana-vynjhƗlaۨkƗragarbha-mahƗknj‫ܒ‬ƗgƗra), representing the DharmadhƗtu as the locus of the
bodhisattva’s practice, power and wisdom, and, simultaneously, all of reality when properly perceived
for what it is, to, at the other end, its concluding end, the actual practice of one bodhisattva,
Samantabhadra, who embodies the aspirations that Sudhana will now take in earnest.
This setting already tells us something about the nature of the vow, as well as about what a
bodhisattva is in the conception of this text. The imaginal world embodied in this conception can be
outlined by quoting some of the most relevant phrases of the prose introduction to Sudhana’s encounter
with Samantabhadra:
24
I do not wish to imply that the BhadracarƯ can be shown to precede, chronologically, “Pure Land thought” in the more
restricted sense of the cultus of AmitƗbha and the hope for rebirth in SukhƗvatƯ.
- 18 -
On Reading Literature Literally
Guided by MañjuĞrƯ, who instructs him to visit Samantabhadra, Sudhana approaches the place
where this bodhisattva resides. There (784a9-15),
through the power of his own roots of virtue, assisted by the majestic power of the buddhas, and
moved by the power of all of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra’s roots of virtue, [Sudhana] perceived
ten auspicious signs [of what was to come].25 Which ten? These ten:
1. He saw in every purified field the fully adorned Tree of Awakening.
2. He saw that there were no evil ways of rebirth in those buddha-fields.
3. He saw that every purified field was like a lotus flower.
4. He saw that in every one of those buddha-fields the body and mind of sentient beings had
become gentle and pliable.
5. He saw that all those fields were adorned with countless splendid ornaments.
6. He saw that all the sentient beings in those buddha-fields bore upon their bodies the
thirty-two major marks.
7. He saw that all those buddha-fields were covered by clouds of splendid ornaments.
8. He saw that all the sentient beings in those buddha-fields had mastered the mind and heart of
benevolence ឿᚰ.
9. He saw in every purified field the fully adorned seat of awakening 㐨ሙ.
10. He saw that all the sentient beings in those buddha-fields practiced and cultivated perfectly
the samƗdhi of recollecting the buddhas ಟ⩦ᛕష୕᫕.26
Three details are significant. First, the purified buddha-fields represent a consistent and obligatory
backdrop, but they are not associated with any buddha in particular. Second, buddha-fields do not seem
to be rare places, they are constitutive of the imaginal universe of the text, standing out as an ubiquitous
feature of this universe. Third, these signs of the proximity of Samantabhadra suggest one important
aspect in the mythology of purified buddha-fields: their visionary and thaumaturgic dimensions
—bodhisattvas reveal them or, literally, can play with and among them, and in doing so they manifest
what is arguably the most important aspect of their vow. What is more, this cosmic wonder is not only a
manifestation of the power of bodhisattvas, it seems to be one of the (if not the) most characteristic
activities of bodhisattvas.
We are reminded of the context for this vision: the cosmic powers of the bodhisattva and the cosmic
vision that is the backdrop for most of the Av. This is the theme of the passage that follows immediately
after the one quoted above —visions of light announce the approaching bodhisattva (784a16-b2):
Furthermore, Sudhana saw ten different luminous portents:
1. Emanating from every single minute particle of dust in all of the DharmadhƗtu he could see
clouds woven with the rays of light shed by all the tathƗgatas.
2. And, emanating from every single minute particle of dust in all of the DharmadhƗtu he could
see orbs of many colored light completely illuminating the DharmadhƗtu, down to the
25
26
One should note, parenthetically, the importance of sharing karmic roots, of merit transference, a theme that is evidently an important
part of the “mythical logic” of Pure Land belief. It is also, as noted above, one of those points where ritual and ethics meet.
I have added italics to highlight the central importance of the theme of multiple buddha-fields.
19 --- 19
Luis O. Gómez
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
minutest particles of dust in every world in the universe.
Emanating from every minute particle of dust he saw the light of many clouds of precious
substances, completely illuminating every minute particle of dust in all the worlds in the
DharmadhƗtu.
Emanating from every minute particle of dust he saw clouds of orbs of the tathƗgatas’
flaming light completely illuminating the DharmadhƗtu.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw all the clouds of incense completely
pervading the DharmadhƗtu with the joyous praise of the bodhisattva conduct of
Samantabhadra in all the oceans containing all the virtues of the Great Vow.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw the clouds of the light of all suns and
moons, shedding the light of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, completely illuminating the
DharmadhƗtu.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw the clouds of the bodies of all kinds of
sentient beings, adorned with the major and the minor marks and shedding the light of a
Buddha, completely illuminating the DharmadhƗtu.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw the clouds of the bodies of all the
bodhisattvas, carrying out perfectly all the actions of bodhisattvas, filling completely the
DharmadhƗtu.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw the clouds of the figure and image [of
the buddhas], made of all the precious substances, filling completely the DharmadhƗtu in all
ten directions.
Emanating from each minute particle of dust he saw the clouds of the bodies of the
tathƗgatas, everywhere bringing down the rain of the ambrosia of all aspects of the Good
dharma in every minute particles of dust in all the worlds, filling the DharmadhƗtu.27
This passage highlights another important aspect of a bodhisattvas world: they live in, act within and
act upon something called the DharmadhƗtu —the cosmos as it really is in the eyes of buddhas and
bodhisattvas.
These are themes elaborated many times in the Gv and in other parts of the Av. The fact that they are
here signs of the approaching encounter with Samantabhadra is only a variant of trope seen in many
previous encounters of Sudhana with his kalyƗ۬a-mitras. The portents are used as a way to hint at the
characteristic activities and accomplishments of the bodhisattva.
The passage continues:
When Sudhana had seen these ten portents, he thought: “For sure I will see Samantabhadra
Bodhisattva. [The fruits of] my roots of virtue have matured, I will be able to understand the
sublime conduct of the bodhisattvas. I will see all the buddhas. Having seen Samantabhadra
Bodhisattva, I will be able to understand wisely, and in one moment of thought I will be able to
27
I have added italics to highlight the centrality of the DharmadhƗtu, as I did in the previous passage with reference to the Pure
Lands. Parenthetically, the parallel Sanskrit passage is, on the surface, slightly different, and much more prolix. But, if
anything, it tilts the balance even more in favor of the interpretation I propose: that the vow in Av and Gv is mostly about
vision and power, and only tangentially about ethical striving.
- 20 -
On Reading Literature Literally
pay him homage, even as I seek to see Samantabhadra Bodhisattva.
Notice, then, what announces the apparition of Samantabhadra: the effects of his extraordinary
powers. These portents are proof of his presence, hence the vision ensues immediately (784b2-10):
Then, Sudhana at once saw Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, in the vajragarbha bodhima۬‫ڲ‬a 㔠๛
28
⸝㐨ሙ, seated before the TathƗgata, who himself sat on the kusumatalagarbha siۨhƗsana,
surrounded by a large congregation, his mind like empty space, free from attachment to anything
impure, free of impediments, purifying his buddha-field, and filling the ten directions with the
Dharma, free of impediments, firmly established in wisdom, having entered into the
DharmadhƗtu.
Once more, notice the point of reference, or the backdrop: the apparition of miraculous phenomena
in a miraculous universe, the DharmadhƗtu —our universe as it would appear to buddhas and
bodhisattvas. Over this universe, bodhisattvas and buddhas have a special power: the power to manifest
and transform its many aspects, thereby revealing something about our world, and about their own
power.
This Sudhana soon realizes, as he sees that (784b15-20)
from every hair pore in Bodhisattva Samantabhadra’s body, emanated as many rays of light as
there are minute particles of dust in all the worlds in the universe, completely illuminating all the
worlds in empty space and in the DharmadhƗtu, dissolving all pain and suffering in all sentient
beings, in every way fostering in them the roots of virtue of the bodhisattvas. From each hair pore
issued as many clouds of flowers . . . as many clouds of perfumed trees as there are minute dust
particles of dust in all worlds in the universe, producing all sorts of sweet smells that adorned the
DharmadhƗtu . . .
We need not quote further or belabor the point; but the repetition is significant and worth
highlighting. for it appears to be a textual practice meant to create the canvas upon which the power and
virtue of the bodhisattva is depicted, the canvas of imaginal worlds: the DharmadhƗtu filled with worlds,
buddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddha-fields.
6. How Many Vows of Samantabhadra?
At this point, I would like to examine cursorily the gƗthƗs as they are found in the earlier versions of
Av. As I already announced, they have very little in common with the BhadracarƯ, representing a
separate, distinct recension. Although both recensions share a common language, common doctrinal
themes and some of their tropes, the Chinese translations of Bubhd and ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn present a picture of the
meaning of Samantabhadra’s vows. Among other things, they do not contain much that we may
consider ethical arguments or injunctions for proper behavior, nor do they outline the liturgy of the vow,
nor do they privilege MañjuĞrƯ or AmitƗbha —as is the case in the BhadracarƯ.
But what is more important the central theme in Bubhd and ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn is pretty much the central theme
28
We can safely assume that the Buddha is Vairocana.
21 --- 21
Luis O. Gómez
of the Gv: the wonderworking powers of the bodhisattva in a world that can only be described as
magical. We lack the space here to translate the complete passage, or to do a point by point comparison
between Bubhd and ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn, much less against the BhadracarƯ. I will limit myself to highlighting some
notable features using selected verses from Samantabhadra’s gƗthƗs at the end of Bubhd.
In explaining his vow (and the visions to which Sudhana has now gained access), Samantabhadra
offers an interpretation of the groundlessness of emptiness that we find throughout Gv: its meaning is
not ontological or metaphysical, rather it is an expression of the complete freedom of buddhas and
bodhisattvas. It is what allows them to know individual beings (not generic beings), giving them the
power to instruct and guide effectively. As stated in the verses,
(9) [786a22-23] The subtle wisdom of the buddhas is pure, like empty space;
although their mind understands the actions of all [sentient beings]
it dwells nowhere.29
(10) [786a24-25] In one instant of thought it understands completely all things
in the three times,
clearly knowing the capacity of every sentient being, it responds to them
and transforms itself accordingly 㞉඼ᡤ᠕໬.
(11) [786a26-27] The afflictions in the minds of all sentient beings, their actions,
good and bad,
it will easily understand, in order to instruct them in the True Dharma. . . .
These powers of the buddhas are precisely the powers to which one gains access through the vow.
Samantabhadra himself is able to see and understand the buddhas and their powers, in fact, as repeated
so many times throughout the Gv, the bodhisattva is able to see the activity of all other buddhas and
bodhisattvas throughout time, and in all parts of the universe:
(13) [786b1-2] [I]30 can see the first arising of the aspiration to awakening,
which leaves delusions far behind,
and the cultivation of the practice of the bodhisattvas, lasting for
countless numberless kalpas.31
(13ab) [786b3] And I can hear the sweet voice of the Victors, as they fully
expound the Dharma . . .
Notice that particular buddhas and buddha-fields are not privileged, they are all instances of the
29
Needless to say, emphasis is the translator’s. The subject in these stanzas is, I assume, the mind of the Buddhas, although
other interpretations are possible. The expression in the original, ඼ᚰ↓ᡤⴭ, is reminiscent of the famous line from
KumƗrajƯva’s translation of the VajracchedikƗ: ᠕↓ᡤఫ⪋⏕඼ᚰ (Taishǀ, VIII, 235, 749c23).
30
In the gƗthƗs, the pronoun w΅ ᡃ appears only in stanza 29 of Bubhd; and in stanzas 21 and 61 of ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn. My use of the
pronouns is therefore interpretive, based on the fact that it is Samantabhadra speaking about his vow and its effects. In most
stanzas, one could easily translate impersonally (e.g., “one can see”), which would be more neutral, but not necessarily the best
English rendering. Perhaps a compromise would be the impersonal or universal “you”: “you [(Sudhana/or the receptor
audience of the text/ as well as Samantabhadra) can] see.”
31
I take it to mean that he and Sudhana can see the full panorama of the career and activities of buddhas and bodhisattvas, a
common theme in Av and especially central to the Maitreya-vimok‫܈‬a.
- 22 -
On Reading Literature Literally
same phenomenon. As the verses describe the vision of these buddhas and their fields, one can see that
they are presented on the same plane, without a clear hierarchy among them:
(16) [786b7-8] And [I] can see Vairocana ├⯊㑣, as he, during countless
numberless kalpas
adorns and purifies his own world, and in the end attains the highest,
most perfect awakening.
(17) [786b9-10] And [I] can see the Buddha BhadraĞrƯ ㈼㤳ష,
with Samantabhadra the Great Bodhisattva ᬑ㈼኱⳶⸃,
bringing to perfection and filling with lotus flowers their sublime buddha-field
of splendid qualities.32
(18) [786b11-12] And [I] can see Amita 㜿ᙗ㝀,
with Avalokitasvara やୡ㡢 the Bodhisattva,
as he receives the consecration and the prediction,
filling all the worlds in the ten directions.33
(19) [786b13-14] And [I] can see the Buddha Akৢobhya 㜿㛹ష, with
Gandhahastin the Great Bodhisattva 㤶㇟኱⳶⸃,
as they completely pervaded their pure adorned buddha field
Abhirati ጁᵹᄫ῕็.34
(20) [786b15] And [I] can see the Buddha Candramati ᭶្ష,35 with
Vajradhvaja the Great Bodhisattva 㔠ᖮ኱⳶⸃,
as they completely pervaded their splendid pure buddha-field,
called Radiant Clear Mirror ᫂῕㙾ጁ็.
(21) [786b17-18] And [I] can see the Buddha Snjryagarbha ᪥⸝ష,
with PrajñƗbhiৢeka the Great Bodhisattva ᬛ℺኱⳶⸃,
as they completely pervaded their pure buddha-field,
called Radiant Ύ῕ග᫂็. . . .
It is impossible to know the extent to which all of these buddhas were individual or particular
objects of worship when this poem was composed. I assume that some of them probably were
—consider, at least, the obvious, Amita, Akৢobhya, AvalokiteĞvara.36 What seems to me clear is that
32
Elsewhere in the Gv and the Av, BhadraĞrƯ’s field is said to be in the East, but there is no hint of this here, or in the
corresponding stanza in ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn (stanza 9, 443a1-2). It is not clear to me if the last phrase describes or names their buddha-field.
33
Correcting the last half verse in Bubhd (඘⁹ㅖἲ⏺) in light of ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn (stanza 10, 443a3-4): ᡈ᭷ぢష↓㔞ኖ / や⮬ᅾ➼ᡤᅩ㑃
// ᜳᕬఫ᪊℺㡬ᆅ / ඘⁹༑᪉ㅖୡ⏺ // Notice that the Buddha called Amita, 㜿ᙗ㝀, in Bubhd is called in ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn AmitƗyus ↓
㔞ኖ, and the Bodhisattva’s name has already changed to AvalokiteĞvara や⮬ᅾ. Parenthetically, Buddhabhadra’s independent
translation of the BhadracarƯ also reads 㜿ᙗ㝀, but Amoghavajra has ↓㔞ග —all of which probably reflects the ambiguity of
older prakritic forms.
34
The pairs of buddhas and bodhisattvas that follow are not attested elsewhere in Gv, although they are mentioned, with some
interesting variations, in the corresponding section in ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn.
35
36
Perhaps, “Candrabodhi” or “Candrabuddhi,“ judging from ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn 443a7, ᭶む.
A few stanzas further down Samantabhadra again mentions the buddhas he sees, mentioning two buddhas by name, Vairocana
[786b28] and ĝƗkyamuni [786c5], but it is not clear to me that this other passage is meant to be connected in any way with the one
quoted above. It reads (stanzas 26-29, 786b27c5): ᡈ῕ᡈᇈ✧ / ㅖ⾜ᴗᡤ㉳ // ᡈぢ├⯊㑣 / ᪊ᙼ㎈ἲ㍯ // 㢷⌧⮬ᅾຊ / ᪉౽ධᾖᵎ //
23 --- 23
Luis O. Gómez
—whether or not this passage is appealing to the beliefs of particular communities dedicated to the
cultus of one or more of these buddhas— there was a belief that the bodhisattva would be able to
perceive buddhas everywhere, buddha-fields everywhere, thereby gaining access to the highest and most
potent virtues of awakening (perhaps awakening is becoming that, and only that vision) from all
buddhas and bodhisattvas.
As the poem has Samantabhadra state immediately after the last stanzas,
(22) [786b19-20] . . . [I] can / could see all the buddhas in the worlds in the ten
directions shedding a brilliant light
that made the wheel of Dharma turn for all sentient beings,
dispelling the darkness of their delusions.
(23) [786b21-22] And [I] see / saw in each of their hair pores, buddha fields
beyond description,
with the splendid bodies of their buddhas, surrounded by assemblies of
the Sons of the Buddhas. . . .
(25) [786b25-26] During numberless millions of kalpas, [I] have cultivated
the practice of the bodhisattvas,
and in each particle of dust [I] can see clearly countless buddha-fields.
Note how the religious imagination expressed in the Snjtra places the buddha-fields everywhere and
within each and every particle of dust. Metaphoric readings of this notion abound, but I wonder to what
extent the symbolic reading is only possible against the backdrop of a literal acceptance of these notions
—or rather, against the backdrop of these depictions of the cosmos, or cosmic vistas.
I believe it unlikely that a symbolic understanding was the only way these passages were read in the
communities that produced these snjtras. But, even if it were, one must begin with a grasp of the literal
meaning and the concrete image. The cosmic vista of a snjtra is, after all, the world in which a
bodhisattva inhabits, and in that sense it defines the semantic field of words such as bodhisattva and
purified field. In a non-metaphoric sense these imaginal worlds set one crucial parameter for the range
of meaning of many important doctrinal concepts. Within these fields, the believer most likely navigated
between the general and the specific, the abstract and the concrete, between a single unifying theme or
image and a plurality of images.
An example of how these vistas are extended to include the figure of the bodhisattva as
extraordinary being (a concrete belief that I doubt was ever understood as merely symbolic in ancient
India) perhaps will drive the point home more clearly. Samantabhadra describes his own person as
actually sharing in the vastness and the preternatural order expressed in the cosmic narrative. He can
experience and manifest the panorama in which buddhahood is achieved and manifested:
(46) [787a9-10] And [I] have seen a light illuminating the DharmadhƗtu,
illuminating all the buddha-fields,
[buddhas] manifesting a lifespan of a hundred years, or up to a hundred
やᐹ╓⏕㢮 / ୍ษᴗ↹᝽ // 㢷⌧⮬ᅾຊ / ໬அ௧ゎ⬺ // ዴ᫝ㅖἲ⋤ / ༑᪉ୡ⏺୰ // 㢷⌧⮬ᅾຊ / ᡃ௒ㄝᑡศ // ᡈぢ㔚㏑ᩥ / ึᡂ➼ṇむ //
- 24 -
On Reading Literature Literally
million billion years,37
(47) [787a11-12] for numberless trillions of inconceivable kalpas,
with insight pure and unobstructed, knowing in one instant of thought
[all] the three times.
(48) [787a13-14] Understanding this according to conditioned arising, knowing
that in reality it all lacks any self nature,
in each buddha-field [they] achieve perfect awakening, and manifest it
completely in all worlds in the universe.38
(49) [787a15-16] [They] can appear in one [single] world, yet, [they] generate
countless buddha-fields;
manifesting these countless buddha-fields, they turn them into
one single world.39
One has to wonder if it is not implied here that Samantabhadra, with all his powers, while being part
of conditioned arising, participates in this awakening “in each buddha-field,” as he manifests this
awakening “in all worlds in the universe.” Hence his capacity to manifest more than one field, and to
manifest them all in a single world is simultaneously an expression of awakening, of the power of
awakening, and of Samantabhadra’s saving powers. In fact, at this juncture ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn speaks of the
awakening of sentient beings in the pure buddha-fields (443c11-12):
(ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn 43) [They] reach perfect awakening in one buddha-field, and they likewise
reach [awakening] in all buddha-fields;
they enter each and everyone of them, manifesting [awakening] in them all,
according to the [capacities of each and every] sentient being.40
There is no clear dividing line between miraculous apparitions, visions, vistas, and awakening itself.
This does not mean that the Snjtra’s imagery cannot be understood as a metaphor for more abstract
principles. The doctrinal, or, if you will philosophical, understanding of the imaginal world constructed
in the Snjtra is in some ways implied (or at least, it is not excluded by the doctrinal rhetoric underlying
much of the technical language and allusions in the text). But, the empty nature of these many worlds is
the reverse side of the miraculous backdrop: the DharmadhƗtu is the ground that is not a ground,
emptiness itself, but it is the concreteness of all things as they exist in emptiness.
And this concreteness is still an imaginal world populated by extraordinary worlds and extraordinary saviors.
The world of images is the expression or embodiment of a buddha’s awakened vision. As stated in Bubhd:
(84) [787c27-28] Like skillful master wonder-workers
who create many things by dint of their magic:
37
I translate this stanza in part in light of ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn’s parallel (443c7-8): ᡈぢషኖඵ༑ᖺ / ᡈኖⓒ༓ⴙ൨ṓ // ᡈఫ୙ྍᛮ㆟ຕ / ዴ᫝ᒎ㎈ಸ㐣Ṉ //
38
ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn’s parallel seems to say something very different (443c10-11): ⓙᚘᚰ㆑ᅉ⦕㉳ / ⏕⁛↓ᖖ↓⮬ᛶ // ᪊୍็୰ᡂṇむ / ୍ษ็
⹦ᜳ஼ᡂ // At any rate, I assume that here the stanzas describe the activity and experience of buddhas, not of Samantabhadra.
39
This is an ambiguous stanza that can be translated in several ways: ⬟⌧୍ୡ⏺ / ⪋స↓㔞็ // ♧⌧↓㔞็ / ⪋Ⅽ୍ୡ⏺ //
ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn is different in important ways: (443c12-13): ୍ษධ୍୍஼∞ / 㞉⾗⏕ᚰⓙ♧⌧ // ዴ౗ఫ᪊↓ୖ㐨 / ᡂᑵ༑ຊᅄ↓⏽ //
40
443c11-12: ᪊୍็୰ᡂṇむ / ୍ษ็⹦ᜳ஼ᡂ // ୍ษධ୍୍஼∞ / 㞉╓⏕ᚰⓙ♧⌧ //
25 --- 25
Luis O. Gómez
in order to transform sentient beings,
the buddhas manifest many bodies.
This is not only magic “as illusion” but magic “as power,” the power to be free and inalterable, yet
transform the world. In this imaginal world, bodhisattvas are free and inalterable, yet engaged and
adaptable:
(85) [787c29-788a1] Like the moon traversing the empty sky: we see it
wax and wane,
it is reflected in streams and ponds, yet even its reflection outshines
the light of the firefly.
(86) [788a02-3] The pure orb of the moon of the TathƗgata’s wisdom appears
to wax and wane,
and it is seen directly on the water of the mind, but even this reflection
eclipses the light of the two vehicles.41 . . .
The metaphor of the bodhisattva as magician has been noted before, but this is not the main thrust of
these verses. As can be seen from the second and the third stanza in this passage, the point is that even
the faintest glimpse of buddhahood contains all of buddhahood, and that buddhahood is somehow
present in its (only apparently) illusory reflections.
Here I want to underscore the literary and religious importance of what, on the surface, seems to be
poetical hyperbole, that is, the importance of this grandeur of vision. For this empty world is also a
world of many marvels. And the sweeping vista of this world, the DharmadhƗtu, is perhaps the most
important accomplishment of the bodhisattvas in the Gv. It is the vista of the Av, which I take to be an
attempt at depicting, rather than explaining, the paradox of sameness in emptiness, allowing for a
recognition of the equality of all sentient beings in their unique particularity.
This point is implicit in the following simile for the imaginal world of the DharmadhƗtu:
(87) [788a4-5] It is like the great and deep ocean, filled with inexhaustible,
rare treasures,
for in it appear sentient beings of many different
physical appearances.
(88) [788a6-7] In the deep ocean of cause and effect, the treasures of merit
are inexhaustible:
in the pure DharmakƗya, it is not only the formless
that is manifested.42
(89) [788a8-9] It is like the pure shining orb of the sun, shedding light on
41
A comparison with ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn may be useful (444c2-5): ㆜ዴ῕᭶ᅾ⹬✵ / ௧ୡ╓⏕ぢቔῶ // ୍ษἙụ⌧ᙳീ / ᡤ᭷ᫍᐟዣගⰍ //
ዴ౗ᬛ᭶ฟୡ㛫 / ஼௨᪉౽♧ቔῶ / ⳶⸃ᚰỈ⌧඼ᙳ / ⫆⪺ᫍᐟ↓ගⰍ // Unfortunately, without an original, it is not possible to
know which of the two translations is interpretive and which is trying to be literal, or if they simply reflect different originals.
42
The parallel in ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn is phrased significantly different, and the meaning of the stanza seems to me more transparent,
signaling a blurring of the distinction between the body of the Buddha (the person of the buddhas?), their merit, the
DharmadhƗtu, and the sentient beings who have access to the vision of the DharmadhƗtu —(44c8-9) ష㌟ຌᚫᾏ஼∞ / ↓ᇈ↓
⃮↓㑔㝿 // ஀⮳ἲ⏺ㅖ╓⏕ / 㠂୙᪊୰⌧඼ᙳ //
- 26 -
On Reading Literature Literally
the darkness of the world:
the pure sun of the TathƗgata’s wisdom, dissolves darkness
everywhere in the three worlds . . .
(90) [788a10-11] Like the nƗgas raise bountiful clouds, bringing rain to
all things everywhere —
their bodies and minds, without losing any of their own humidity,
extinguish heat and bring refreshing coolness—
(91) [788a12-13] the TathƗgata likewise raises the clouds of great compassion,
bringing down the rain of ambrosial dharma everywhere,
extinguishing the fire of the three poisons.43 . . .
This vista of a world of many worlds, of many buddhas and many buddha-fields, of a world that is
not the world we (in our day and age) consider the natural world, seems to have served as a spring-board
for various belief systems. These systems, with the passing of time (or perhaps even at its time of origin)
became competing systems. But the prestige and influence of the basic model cannot be denied.
By Way of a Conclusion
I hypothesize that at some point in the history of the Gv, and perhaps the Av, the prestige of the text
was such, that some Buddhists felt something could be gained by inserting the BhadracarƯ as a new
ending to the Snjtra. This allowed, in the first place, to legitimize MahƗyƗna ritual, and perhaps the ritual
use of parts of the Snjtra. Subsequently, it also allowed for a cross legitimation between the prestige of
the Snjtra and belief in a particular pure buddha-field and its presiding buddha: SukhƗvatƯ and AmitƗbha
Buddha —a process the final stages of which are preserved in the extant Sanskrit and in Prajña’s
version.
Be that as it may, the conclusion of the Av in the versions of Bubhd and ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn preserves a different
stage in the development of the families of beliefs we now call, retrospectively, the Buddhism of the
Pure Lands, or, in the singular, the Pure Land. The text in these early forms preserves a belief in
generalized buddhahood, in which several bodhisattvas and buddhas compete for the attention of the
believer, coexisting in manners reminiscent of similar phenomena in Indian religion.
But, repeating a point I have made before regarding the Gv,44 the system contained in these texts is
an example of one important dimension of religiosity in need of the attention of students of Buddhism
—that is, Buddhism as a religion of narrative. I do not intend to say, of course, that it is exclusively or
primarily “a religion of narrative.” I only wish to call the attention of students of Buddhist snjtras, and of
Buddhism generally, to the importance of narrative in Buddhist discourse and, by extension, in Buddhist
belief and practice.
Furthermore, I do not speak about the importance of narrative in religious thought in the sense in
43
In ĝik‫܈‬Ɨn, the first of the two stanzas seems more clear (and richer) (444c12-13): ㆜ዴ㱟⋤㝆኱㞵 / ୙ᚘ㌟ฟཬᚰฟ / ⪋⬟㟏έ
ᜳ࿘㐢 / ⁡㝖⅖⇕౑Ύᾴ // The second (444c14-15), however, seems to lose part of the sustained metaphor: ዴ౗ἲ㞵஼᚟↛ /
୙ᚘ᪊ష㌟ᚰฟ // ⪋⬟㛤ᝅ୍ษ╓ / ᬑ౑⁛㝖୕ẘⅆ //
44
See my JIABS paper mentioned earlier in footnote 9.
27 --- 27
Luis O. Gómez
which Christian theologians have advocated a “narrative theology.”45 In the first place, my statements in
this paper are not meant as theological reflections (although I can see how they could be construed in
that sense or used to further Buddhist “theology” or “constructive thought,” if you prefer).46 In the
second place, what I call narrative, the “narrative of vistas,” is different from the scriptural and
biographic materials in use in Western theological reflection. Lastly, I would say that, despite obvious
differences among the many exponents of narrative theology,47 Western theologians privilege story as
history or life event, whereas in the texts considered here the emphasis is in the creation of alternative
world. If I understand what is most significant for Christian theologies of salvation, there is an implicit
point of departure in the identification or overlap between narrative as story-telling and history, that is
the actual history of revelation and salvation, or the actual lives of saints and paradigmatic figures.
Stories become the enactment, if not the embodiment, of the progress of salvation.
In the Buddhist context under examination here, on the other hand, narrative and the literary
imagination are the means by which believers are able to cross over from the trap of repeated birth and
death to the freedom of the world as seen by buddhas and bodhisattvas —or, to use more technical
Buddhist language, from the mundane into the supramundane world of the DharmadhƗtu. This is the case,
I argue at least in the Gv and the Av. At this point, I would be reluctant to generalize beyond this material.
Theoretically or as a heuristic device, we may say that the story of salvation and of liberation is a
narrative means to liberation. It is analogous to the narrative construction of individual lives so
thoroughly studied in Western fields like psychoanalysis or the study of autobiography. But it is in many
respects different from the telling of individual lives. The telling itself is the miracle, and its power is in
its setting beyond anything having to do with individual lives.48
Furthermore, we may distinguish the surface of the narrative, its meaning within the tradition
(traditional ways of understanding the narrative), and our theoretical interpretation, which considers
narrative vistas as a mode of thinking religiously (and here, perhaps, there is significant overlap with
particular forms of North American narrative theology —but that is for christian theologians to judge).
I think our texts touch on a slightly different dimension, hinted at in Ronald L. Grimes critique of the
uses of narrative for the study of religion, when he concludes:49
And it occurs to me that most theological treatments of narrative fail to distinguish between
reading (or hearing) and rereading (or hearing again). When we hear again, we are less likely to
45
46
47
Again, a term that is by no means univocal. It is also a term with a long history, starting even before the phrase “narrative
theology” was invented. See, in addition to the articles referenced above in notes 9 and 15, Gary L. Comstock, “Two Types of
Narrative Theology,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 55.4 (1987), 687-717, and Julian Hartt, “Theological
Investments in Story: Some Comments on Recent Developments and Some Proposals,” Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, 52(1984), 117-130. Comstock and Grimes offer interesting typologies of North American narrative theology. I refer
the reader to their descriptions for a better sense of how the present project differs from the narrative theology.
I would welcome such reflections. I am just not ready, personally, to go in that direction at this point in my reflection.
On different ways of doing narrative theology, see Ronald L. Grimes, “Of Words the Speaker, Of Deeds the Doer,” Journal
of Religion, 66 (1986), 1-17, and the article by Comstock referenced in note 45, above.
48
More on this in my above-mentioned JIABS paper on miracles.
49
See p. 16 in the article referenced above, note 47.
- 28 -
On Reading Literature Literally
be sitting on the edge of our seats… A phenomenology of “narrative repetition” (Ricoeur’s
term) would take us much more decisively to the bridge between myth and ritual.
There is, in fact some of this bridging in the repetitive the narrative events in Gv and Av —and we
can hypothesize, with an ethnohistoric leap, that these texts were in fact chanted and repeated, like so
many other snjtras today, until “we are less likely to be sitting on the edge of our seats.” Yet, that does not
exclude an other probable use: the recitation and exposition in commentary and preaching of the basic
myth and the telling of the narrative vistas. And I think both modalities —ritual repetition and
expository retelling— can serve as a bridge between certain modes or genres of religiosity. But,
narrative of this sort is something more than a bridge, it is an additional mode or genre.
Cognitive theorist have suggested two axes along which one may explain the spectrum of forms
expressing the human drive towards religious belief, and our capacity to accept belief. Two particularly
successful models, one formulated by Whitehouse (2000 and 2004),50 the other by Sørensen (2005,
2007),51 posit, respectively, a distinction (or, as I would prefer to call it, an axis) between ‘arguments
and icons,” and a distinction between “magical interpretations” and “symbolic interpretations.” I see in
many Buddhist texts, and in the interface between these texts and Buddhist practices and interpretations,
analogous sets of axes. However, these texts often they straddle a religious discourse or process that
suggests to me yet another way of viewing our experience, explaining in part why we are naturally
susceptible to have religious beliefs that bridge the ritual and the magical, the iconic and the discursive.
This process I call, borrowing an idea from (Bruner),52 the narrative construction of the world.
Furthermore, one should note that, applying his model to ritual, Sørensen distinguishes between
two approaches or responses to ritual which he calls “magical interpretation” and “symbolic
interpretation” (emphasis mine). Similarly to Lawson and McCauley,53 Sørensen argues that, “being
actions,” rituals have functions: they are generally performed in order to change some aspect of the
world. As such, rituals involve what Sørensen calls “magical agency.” I am proposing here, first, to
separate “narrative” from “symbolic” (or at least to subsume symbolic under narrative), and second, that
narrative has an agency of its own, that narratives, particularly, in the form of what I call “vistas,” have
the effect of creating a concrete imaginal world, not a symbolic world, not an interpretation of the world,
but a constructed world without which the symbolic and ritual functions would lack much of their force.
To place this in the context of our discourse about Buddhist texts, what I am saying is that texts such
as the ones discussed in this paper can be understood as concrete descriptions of what believers regarded
50
Whitehouse, Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, and Modes of
Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004.
51
Sørensen, “Charisma, Tradition and Ritual: A Cognitive Approach to Magical Agency,” in Whitehouse and McCauley, eds.,
Mind and Religion, AltaMira Press, 2005 and A Cognitive Theory of Magic, AltaMira Press, 2007.
52
E.g., Bruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985, and Acts of Meaning,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. The “Afterword” to the first of these two volumes (pp. 151-160) is still one
of the most concise, clear and level-headed defenses of the constructionist position. Despite the dates of these works, and all
that has happened since then, his insights, and the foundation of his theorizing on solid empirical observation as a
developmental psychologist, remain relevant today.
53
E. T. Lawson & R. N. McCauley, Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990),
and McCauley & Lawson, Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
29 --- 29
Luis O. Gómez
as the real world, a world constructed through the discourse of the narrative or the depiction of a vista
through a text. More specifically, symbolic and ritual, as well as ethical or normative uses of the basic
concepts of buddha, bodhisattva, and buddha-field depend on a certain acceptance of the reality of the
vision of the DharmadhƗtu as the only or the true or the actual state of things. And, yet, at the same time,
a certain awareness of the gap between this world and the world in which the believer lives is
fundamental: this awareness makes narrative at the same time necessary and effective.
Our text shows yet one more example of the many meanings of the concept of the purified field and
the inherently pure world. Both concepts can be expressed by a wide range of beliefs and narratives,
whether it be through ritual as in Chinese Pure Land, through aspiration and personal surrender as in
some Chinese and Japanese understandings of the hope of rebirth in a Pure Land, or, also doctrinally
(insofar as these concepts generate theological arguments and debates), and, last, but not least,
mythically, insofar as they represent preternatural realms that become real “imaginally” (as a construct
that constitutes an alternative reality).
I have here argued that we must add to these evidently vital and valid forms of reading the snjtras a
dimension that, for lack of a better word, I have called narrative vistas. Worlds can be constructed
narratively in such a way that the believer begins to have a clear view, a vista (and, perhaps, a “vision”)
that, despite its apparent unnaturalness, constitutes a reality that become natural by virtue of narrative
power —because it is in our own nature to live in narrative realities, and religion is not an exception to
this rule.
- 30 -
Response to On Reading Literature Literally:
Concrete Imagery before Doctrine by Luis O. Gómez
Dennis Hirota
Ryukoku University
There is much, I think, for students and practitioners of Pure Land Buddhist traditions to reflect on in
Prof. Gómez’s very intricate and learned paper.
He raises fundamental issues regarding the reading and interpretive practices that many of us bring
to the MahƗyƗna sutras, and challenges in particular the modern tendency to understand the expositions
of countless buddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddha-fields symbolically or in ethical terms, thereby reducing
the text to doctrinal content. He asks whether, in such readings, a more immediate and primary level of
meaning—a concrete, literal, “imaginal” or imagistic meaning—is not being dismissed out of hand.
Such doctrinally-framed readings, he implies, may obscure resources in the texts for considering critical
questions about the origins of the MahƗyƗna, and specifically, the shifts in MahƗyƗna apperception from
the historical Buddha to cosmological buddhas and buddha-fields filling the universe, and further, from
the numberless celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas to a focus on particular figures and lands.
At the same time that he poses these broad questions, Prof. Gómez offers an example of a reading
attentive to imagistic detail, one that provides a corrective to understandings based on commonly
accepted presuppositions about bodhisattvas as ethical models. He outlines a comparative consideration
of the section on Samantabhadra and his vows at the close of the Kegongyǀ in two Chinese versions.
I think three closely interrelated strata or concentric circles of concern may be distinguished in the
paper.
The core is the comparative reading of the gƗthƗ treating Samantabhadra in the Buddhabhadra
translation (c. 420), together with the corresponding prose and verse passages from Prajña’s translation
of the Ga৆ঌavynjha three and a half centuries later (c. 798). Taking these up in reverse chronological
order, Prof. Gómez first points out the passages in Prajña’s version with “ethical” import —the notion of
Samantabhadra as a viable model of conduct in the bodhisattva path for MahƗyƗna practitioners—
particularly in the prefatory prose exposition of Samantabhadra’s vows.
He then turns to the earlier Buddhabhadra translation, in which the prose exposition of the vows is
not present, and shows both that the ethical thrust is absent, and that the dominant theme in the gƗthƗ is
the depiction of the miraculous power of the virtues and wisdom embodied by Samantabhadra.
Prof. Gómez’s central points are, I think, that the Buddhabhadra translation more closely represents
the original close of the Kegongyǀ corpus; that the gƗthƗ of Samantabhadra there represents the
incorporation of an originally independent litany or ritual verse, which both gained legitimacy from, and
imparted legitimacy to, the Kegongyǀ scripture; and that the Prajña version, particularly in its ethical
- 31 -
Dennis Hirota
motifs, represents an interpretive—more doctrinally-oriented—shift from the ritual, one that leads
toward the widespread modern philosophical understanding of the Ga৆ঌavynjha as a whole as
culminating in Samantabhadra’s vows and practice as an ethical model.
Prof. Gómez’s interests, however, do not stop at what might appear to be a species of form criticism.
He points out, as a further difference between the two Chinese translations, that while the Prajña version
gives prominence to the Pure Land of Amida, the earlier Buddhabhadra translation conveys a more
generalized vision of the universe filled in every particle with myriads of buddhas and buddha-fields.
Here Prof. Gómez is probing, I think, the origins of the Pure Land traditions, moving back beyond
specific cultic practices toward a broader, “visionary,” religiosity. This constitutes perhaps a second
concentric circle of concern. It is a call to a reading practice that ceases to impose from the outset
predominantly doctrinal frameworks, with their tendency toward symbolic or metaphorical
interpretations, and to engage directly the concrete and “imaginal” in the text.
But there is one further layer of interest. That is to explore what it is that enables “Pure Land”
thinking or belief in its broad sense in the first place. Here, Prof. Gómez employs some of the concepts
and structures developed in recent cognitive studies of religion. These studies, often broadly
anthropological, propose a general, widely inclusive definition of religious phenomena. Harvey
Whitehouse, whom Prof. Gómez refers to, speaks of religion as “any set of beliefs and actions appealing
to supernatural agency.” Agency here is seen as a basic category in human awareness. Fundamental
questions for any specific religious tradition, then, concern its origins and transmission, and these topics
provide a framework for the major issues Prof. Gómez raises regarding Pure Land traditions.
Concerning origins, Prof. Gómez asks: “What are the presuppositions of ‘Pure Land
thought’—understood broadly as belief in the power of a bodhisattva’s vows as embodied in a purified
buddha-field?” And concerning transmission—the key to any staying power and development—he asks:
“What would have made the existence of purified buddha-fields believable to an audience in ancient
India?”
The argument in Prof. Gómez’s paper moves first inward, from his extremely broad concerns with
human religiosity to his detailed comparative textual analysis, then back outward, to suggestions of a
“belief in generalized buddhahood,” depicted, rather than explained, in a “Buddhism as a religion of
narrative.” Here, there is a “grandeur of vision”—a dimension of the texts perhaps overlooked in a
preoccupation with doctrine, but representing an early stage of the Pure Land traditions.
Finally, Prof. Gómez goes on to propose that a concept of narrative agency—of “a world constructed
through the discourse of the narrative or the depiction of a vista through a text”—may be employed to
understand the evocation of reality in the passages he has discussed. He suggests that such a concept
might be broadly useful in the cognitive study of religiosity.
Prof. Gómez’s paper is of great significance for students of Pure Land traditions, for he seeks to
develop methods for tracing back the early, nascent strands of MahƗyƗna thinking and impulse that
enabled the emergence, formulation, and transmission of Pure Land thought, including its notion of the
transformative power of the bodhisattva.
In this way, he offers a corrective to heavily ethical and philosophical readings of MahƗyƗna
- 32 -
Response to Gómez
tradition. Only ten years ago, scholars of religious studies and Buddhist studies could assert that Pure
Land traditions, particularly in Japan, failed to be genuine MahƗyƗna because they did not assert “the
doctrine of emptiness.”
At the same time, bringing various aspects of the cognitive study of religion to bear on Pure Land
traditions is highly suggestive, both in terms of origins and transmission. Just as Japan has functioned as
a virtual laboratory for researchers in religious studies, Shin traditions might be a textbook example of a
doctrinal mode of religiosity—the annual angǀ sessions of summer study that have just ended, for
example, a template of routinized repetition.
In Prof. Gómez’s paper, the term “belief” is adopted as a basic category, perhaps from cognitive
study, so that Pure Land thought is defined as belief in the power of a bodhisattva’s vow. At the same
time, the term “practice” in the sense religious praxis occurs in the translated sutra passages with some
frequency, but appears to be avoided in Prof. Gómez’s commentary, perhaps to circumvent any quick
leap to an ethical or doctrinal interpretation. If I am correct in seeing, in Prof. Gómez’s proposal of a
“Buddhism of narrative,” a concept of reading itself, or engagement with text and language itself, as an
alternate form of praxis, then I think it opens up an especially valuable avenue for exploring the roots of
the Pure Land Buddhist path. Here, narrative itself possesses an agency at work in and upon the engaged
participant. Further, exploring precisely how such narrative functions, and toward what ends, may open
up a way to enrich or move beyond ordinary notions of belief in the study of religion.
33 --- 33
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
̿ ᩍ⌮௨๓ࡢලయⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ ̿
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
࢚࣭ࣝࢥࣞࣄ࣭࢜ࢹ࣭࣓ࣄࢥ኱Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ
㸦டᒣ㝯ᙪ ヂࠊ᱇⤂㝯 ┘ಟ㸧
ᗎㄽ1
ࡇࡢㄽᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ▷࠸๓⨨ࡁࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ⚾ࡀࡇࡇ࡛⪃✲ࡋࡼ࠺࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࿨㢟
ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞௖ᩍ◊✲ࡢ㡿ᇦ୍࡛⯡ⓗ࡟᳨ウࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄽᩥࡢෆ࡛ࠊ⚾ࡀ᳨ウࡍࡿ␲ၥ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ≉␗࡞ዲወᚰࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡗ࡚⚾ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࡶࡢ
ࡣࠊ⡆₩࡟ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡼ࠺ࠋ
1.
⳶⸃⮬ࡽࡢ௖ᅵࡢࠕί໬ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠊ⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࡢຊ࡬ࡢಙ௮࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃ⌮
ゎࡉࢀࡿࠕίᅵᛮ᝿ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊఱࡀࠊࡑࡢᛮ᝿ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
a. ከ✀ከᵝࡢ௖ᅵ࡜⳶⸃࡬ࡢಙ௮ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ⌮᝿ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ാࡁ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᡃࠎࡢ⌮ゎ࡟࡜
ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
b. ṇ☜࡞࡜ࡇࢁࠊከᵝ࡞௖ࡸ⳶⸃ࠊࡑࡋ࡚௖ᅵ࡬ࡢಙ௮ࡢ≉ᚩࡣఱ࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠊከࡃࡢ኱஌⤒඾୰࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ⚄ヰࡢ᰾ᚰ࡟࠶ࡿಙ௮ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.
ಙࡌࡉࡏࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ఱࡀࠊྂ௦࢖ࣥࢻࡢ⫈⾗㐩ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊί໬ࡉࢀࡓ௖ᅵࠊίᅵࡢᏑᅾࢆಙ
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟⌮ゎ
a. ࡑࡢಙ௮ࡀࠊ༢࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢဴᏛⓗࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ほᛕࡢᬯ႘➼࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥ
ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡣࡓࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
b. ⳶⸃ࡢ⌮᝿ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊἲ⏺࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀࡿ✵㛫ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊḟඖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ
᭕᫕࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ほᛕ࡜㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
c. ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊί໬ࡉࢀࡓୡ⏺ࡢࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞ほᛕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊἲ⏺ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ᚰࡈ࡜ࡣࠊゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡼࡾලయⓗࠊ࡞࠸ࡋಶูⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊಁࡉࢀࡓ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊලయⓗ࡟ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠗ㜿ᘺ㝀⤒࠘ࢆྵࡵࡓ↓㔞ᑑ⤒⩌࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶒጾ
ࡢኌ࡛࠶ࡿ㔘㏑∹ᑽࡀࠗ㜿ᘺ㝀⤒࠘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ίᅵ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⮬㌟ࡢᩍ࠼ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ༑᪉ࡢ௖
1
᭱ึ࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡢཎᆺ࡜࡞ࡿཎ✏ࡀⓎ⾲ࡉࢀࡓࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘࡬ᣍᚅ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㱟㇂኱Ꮫࡢ᱇⤂㝯ᩍ
ᤵ࡟ឤㅰࡢゝࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏཎ✏ࡢᛂ⟅ࢆົࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠊྠ኱Ꮫࡢࢹࢽࢫ࣭ࣄࣟࢱ Dennis HIROTA
ᩍᤵࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠊ㉁ၥࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓฟᖍ⪅ࡢ᪉ࠎࠊ≉࡟ࠊ࢜ࣂ࣮ࣜࣥ኱Ꮫ Oberlin College ࡢࢪ࢙
࢖࣒ࢬ࣭ࢻࣅࣥࢬ James DOBBINS Ặ࡟ࡶㅰ㎡ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
- 35 -
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
㝀㐩࡬ッ࠼ࡿ㝿ࡢࡸࡾ᪉࡟ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊᖖࠎᙜᝨࡉࡏࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ㔜኱࡞୍ᩥࢆ㄂ᙇ⾲⌧ࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠊ
ࠕṇ⤫໬ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⡆༢࡟∦࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ࡞࠾ࠊ࡝࠺ࡍࢀࡤ㔘㏑ࡢッ࠼ࡀࠊㄝᚓ
ຊࡀ࠶ࡾࠊຠᯝⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ๓ᥦ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࡇࡢࠊ
ࠗ㜿ᘺ㝀⤒࠘࡟࠾ࡅࡿṇ⤫໬ࡢ୺ᙇࡀࠊಙࡌࡿ࡟㊊ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ྠ⤒඾⩌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௚ࡢከࡃࡢᩥ⠇࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊࡇࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢ➨୍ࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊලయⓗ
࡞ព࿡㸦ࡼࡾ㐺ษ࡞ㄒࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࠖ
㸦the literal㸧࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢ㸧ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀࠊ
ᩍ⌮ⓗࠊဴᏛⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊつ⠊ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊ⏕ᚐࡸ⫈⾗࡟ఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ௨ୖ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣࠊぢ᪉࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨ୗࡢఱ࠿㸧ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡢ࡟ࡣࠊࡊࡗ࡜ㄞ
ࡵࡤ༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿ2ࠋ᪉ἲㄽⓗ࡞ᡓ␎ࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊᡃࠎࡣ௒ࡶ࡞࠾ࠊ௖ᩍᩍ⌮ࡢࡶࡘ⢭⦓ࡉࠊ
㟋ጁࡉࡢ㨩ຊࡢ࡜ࡾࡇ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡢࡣࠊ௖ᩍᩥ⊩ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡣࠊ㆟ㄽࡸࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡞ࡽࠊᏛၥⓗఏ⤫ࡢᩍ⌮ࡢᯛᣲ௨ୖࡢࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ3ࠋ
ࡑࢀࡽ௖ᩍᩥ⊩࡟࠾ࡉࡵࡽࢀࡿ୺ᙇࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ㸦ゎ㔘Ꮫⓗ㸧࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊゎ
㔘ࢆ⾜࠺ලయⓗ࡞࿨㢟ࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡑࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢヲ⣽࠿ࡽษࡾศࡅࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
௨ୗ࡟㆟ㄽࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀࠊ኱஌ࡸ௖㝀ࠊ⳶⸃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ㝿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ
࡚ࠊᩘከࡃࡢ␲ၥࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ලయⓗ࡟࠸࠺࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ⤒඾ࡢ⥲యⓗ࡞≀ㄒ
㸦grand narrative㸧ࡢᇶ♏ࢆ࡞ࡍ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ୍⯡ⓗࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࡣᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡬ࡢὝᐹࢆᡭ࡟ධࢀࡓࡀࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽಶูࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠊ௖㝀ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢヲ⣽࠿ࡽᏛࡪࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ࡞࠾ከࠎᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿኳ⏺ࡢ⳶⸃ࢆࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ⳶⸃㸦
ࠕேࠖ㸽ࠕᆅୖࡢࠖ㸽㸧࠿ࡽ༊ูࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺す
ὒேࡢヨࡳࡣࠊぢᙜ㐪࠸ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊேࠎࡢ⯆࿡ࢆ่⃭ࡋࠊ◊✲ࢆ㐍ᒎࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺┠
ⓗ࡟ఱࡽᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࠊ⚾ࡣឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡴࡋࢁࠊᡃࠎࡢᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ࡜㔘⩏Ꮫⓗ࡞ゝㄝࡀࠊ
⤒඾ࡢ୰࡟࠾࠸࡚⳶⸃ࡀᥥࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ᪉ἲࡢព࿡࡜ࡣࡓࡽࡁ࡬ࡢၥ࠸࠿ࡅࢆጉࡆ࡚ࡁࡓ4ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
࣏࣮ࣝ͌ࣁࣜࢯࣥ Paul HARRISON ࡢ࠶ࡿㄽᩥࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢすὒⓗ༊ูࡢᣢࡘព࿡࡟┤㠃ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡞
2
⚾ࡢࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࠖ
㸦literal㸧ࡢㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊliteral ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢཝᐦ࡞ᛶ㉁࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊఱࡽࡢဴᏛⓗ࡞❧ሙࢆࡶ๓ᥦ
࡜ࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕᡃࠎࡀぢࠊ⪺ࡁࠊゐࢀࠊ࠿ࡘఫࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢฟ᮶ࡿ⌧ᐇࡢୡ⏺ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᡃࠎ
ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢලయⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ㢠㠃㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖࡢ┬␎⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢㄞゎ
ࡢ᪉ἲࡣࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢࠊဴᏛⓗࠊ೔⌮ⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᏑᅾㄽⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿᚲせᛶࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ
᝿ീࡢୡ⏺ࢆࠊᡃࠎࡢ᝿ീୡ⏺㸦ᡃࠎࡀࠊඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕᡃࠎࡢᏑᅾࡢ⌧ᐇࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢ㸧ࡢୖ࡟㓄⨨ࡍࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳ࡜ᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ
ࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊゝㄒᏛࠊ⩻ヂ⌮ㄽࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊဴᏛࡢ㡿㔝࡛ࡶ⃭ࡋࡃ
㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ༑ศ࡟⮬ぬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄞ⪅ࡣࠊ௨ୗࠊ⬮ὀ 8 ࡜ 9 ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ Cohen ࡜ Stern ࡢ௙
஦࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ㆟ㄽࡢ᥈ồ࡟஌ࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
3
ࡇࡇࡣࠊ
㸦࢔ࣅࢲ࣐ࣝࡢ㸧Ꮫ⪅㐩ࡀࠊලయⓗࠊ࠿ࡘᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢᙧᘧࢆࡋࡓࠊᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࡢᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ᢳ㇟ᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᰿
ᮏⓗ࡞⚄ヰࡢෆ࡟ࠊ༑஧ศ࡟ᾐࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍሙᡤ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᴫࡋ࡚ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
࡞࠾ࠊὀព῝ࡃ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࡯࡝࡞ࡃ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ
㸦࢔ࣅࢲ࣐ࣝࡢ㸧Ꮫၥయ⣔ࠊ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊဴᏛⓗ࡞ศᯒࡀࠊ௖ᩍ◊✲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿⅬ࡛ࡶᥦ㉳ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
4
P. Harrison “MañjuĞrƯ and the Cult of the Celestial Bodhisattvas”㸦Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, vol. 13.2 (May 2000), pp.
157-193㸧
ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊthe Organizing Committee of the Conference “Daejanggyeong: A Millennium Commemoration of the
Tripitaka Koreana” 㸦Daegu, 2011㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ฟ∧ࡉࢀࡓ“AvalokiteĞvara’s Potala in the Avataূsaka”࡜㢟ࡋࡓㄽᩥ࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࠊᑡࡋ㐪࠺㆟ㄽࡢ➽ࢆࡓ࡝ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
- 36 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ⚾ࡶࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕⴭ⪅ࠖࡸࠕ㉳※ࠖ࡬ࡢ␲ၥࠊ௖ᩍᩥ⊩࡜ࡑࡢ୰࡟ㄝ࠿ࢀࡿ✀ࠎࡢほᛕࡀ
᫬௦ࢆ㉸࠼࡚㐍Ṍࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᖺ௦≉ᐃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ␲ၥ࡟⯆࿡ࡣ࠶ࡿ5ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⚾
ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢኚ໬ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡋࡓཎᅉࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊࡣࡓࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ
࢟ࢫࢺ࡟₯ᅾࡍࡿព࿡ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ㸦ᩍ⩏ࠊ⚄ヰࠊ൤ᘧࠊ࢚࣮ࢺࢫ࡜ࣁࣅࢺࢗࢫ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ಶேࡢ௖ᩍಙ⪅ࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡑࡢඹྠయ࡟ኚ໬ࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡋࡓཎᅉ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ␲ၥࢆ
ᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⚾࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊṔྐࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍⓗゝㄝ࡜ே㛫ࡢಙ௮ࡢ≉
ᚩࡢ᥈ồࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄝࠊ࡞࠸ࡋಙ௮ࡀࠊ┿ᐇ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࡢୗ࡛ཷࡅ
ධࢀࡽࢀࡿᵝ࡟࡞ࡿ௙᪉ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡶྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊಙ௮ࡢ≉ᚩࡀṔྐⓗ࡞ドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊྂ௦ᩥ⊩࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡓಙ௮
ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᩥ⊩ྐ࡜ྠࡌ☜ᅛ࡜ࡋࡓ᪉ἲㄽ࡟ᚑ࠸࠺ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊಙ௮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌮ㄽⓗ⌮ゎࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣࠊኚ໬ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿຓࡅ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋゝ
࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊಙ௮ࡸほᛕ໬ࡀࠊᩍ⌮ࡢ㐍໬ࡸࠊࡑࡢཷᐜࠊᢎㄆࠊኚᐜ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ⌮
ゎࡍࡿຓࡅ࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࡜ࡃ࡟㸦1㸧ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㐍Ṍ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ୰ࡢ୍㐃ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ
㐍Ṍ㸧
㸦2㸧ேࠎࡀࠊࡇࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡑࡢ୰ࡢほᛕࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ᪉ἲ㸦3㸧ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸ࢟
ࢫࢺࢆࠊࡑࡢᩍ⌮ゎ㔘࡟࠾ࡅࡿኚ໬࡜ᡂ㛗ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ࡟㊊ࡿࡔࡅಙࡌࡽࢀ୙ྍḞ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿ๓
ᥦ࡟㛵ᚰࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
⏝ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ␲ၥ̿ㄞゎ࡜ゎ㔘
௚⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡁࡽࢀࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ᝿ീࡉࢀࡓ⌧ᐇ࡟ᅔᝨࢆឤࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡃࠎࡢഴྥ࡟ࠊ୍ᗘ࡞
ࡽࡎࠊὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢ㝈ࡽࢀࡓどⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊఱࡽࡢຠᯝࡶᶵ⬟ࡶᣢࡓ࡞
࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆᣦࡋ࡚ࠊ൤♩ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᝏࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ༢࡞ࡿ൤♩ࠖ࡜࿧⛠ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊᚚࡋࡀࡓ࠸೫ぢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ
㸦ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆ↓ព࿡࡞ࡶࡢ࡜㏥ࡅࡿᛶྥࢆඞ᭹ࡋ
ࡓᚋ࡟㸧
ᡃࠎࡀ᭱ึ࡟ᢪࡃ⾪ື࡜ࡣࠊ
⮬ࡽࡢᅔᝨࢆࠊ
஧ḟⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡛ྲྀࡾ㝖ࡁࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㇟ᚩⓗ⾲⌧ࠊព࿡ࠊᩍ⌮ⓗ῝ࡉࠊ♫఍ⓗᶵ⬟࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢࢆ⏝࠸ࡿゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌮ゎࡢヨࡳࡀࠊ᰿ᮏⓗ࡟ぢᙜ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᫬ᢡࠊලయⓗ࡞ᑐ
㇟࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ㸦൤♩࡟ࡏࡼࠊᩥ⊩࡟ࡏࡼࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ㐙⾜ⓗ࡟ࡏࡼࠊ᝿ീୖ࡟ࡏࡼ㸧࡟ࡲ
ࡎẼࡀࡘࡃ௨๓࡟ࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊ
࠶ࡿ✀ࡢࠊ
ᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢୡ⏺࡜ୡ⏺ほࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛ᚲせ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿព࿡ࢆࠊ
5
෌ᗘࠊ⡆₩ࡉࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡀࠕⴭ⪅ࠖ
㸦authorship㸧ࡢㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢࢆࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚
ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋಶேࡢⴭ⪅࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀࠊఱୡ⣖࡟ࡶࢃࡓࡗ࡚ᑛ㔜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓᩥ໬ࡢṔྐⓗ࡞⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊேࡀ⏝
࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠕⴭ⪅ࠖࡢほᛕࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᡃࠎ࡟⯆࿡ࢆᢪ࠿ࡏࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢከࡃࡣࠊ☜࠿࡟ᚚࡋࡸ
ࡍ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊ࣏ࢫࢺᵓ㐀୺⩏࡟⥆ࡃすὒࡢᢈุࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊࡑࡢὝᐹ࡟‶ࡕࡓ⤖ㄽࡢ࠸ࡃ
ࡤࡃ࠿ࢆ⤌ࡳධࢀࡓ㉳※ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊⴭ⪅ࡢほᛕࢆ᥎⸀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᖺ௦Ỵᐃࠖࡸࠕ㐍໬ࠖࡢほᛕࡶࠊఏ᧛ࡸ
ཷᐜ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ⌧௦ⓗ࡞ほᛕ࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ࠊᚤㄪᩚࡉࢀࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
37 --- 37
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ᡃࠎ࡜ඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊே㛫ࡀࠊ࠸࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊᙼ࡞࠸ࡋࠊᙼዪࡢࠕ␗ୡ⏺ࠖࡢෆ࡟ࠊᐇ㝿࡟⏕ࡁ
࠺ࡿ࠿ࢆ᝿ീࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ௨๓࡟ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஧ḟⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡬୍㊊㣕ࡧ࡟㣕㌍ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
⚾⮬㌟ࡣࠊゎ㔘ࡢୖ࡟ゎ㔘ࡀ㔜ࡡࡽࢀࠊ࠶ࡿ᪉ἲㄽⓗどᗙ࡜ูࡢ᪉ἲㄽⓗどᗙࡀࡪࡘ࠿ࡾ࠶࠺Ἶ
἟ⓗ࡞≧ἣࡢ୰ࢆࡎࡗ࡜ඛࡲ࡛㐍ࡳࡓ࠸࡜ᮃࢇ࡛ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ▷࠸ㄽᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ⚾ࡀ᝿
ീࡋ࠺ࡿࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡㸦literal sense㸧࡛ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ಙ௮࡜ࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ═ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
ࡾࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊಙ௮㸦ࡶࡋᮃࡴࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕᩍ⌮ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ⚄ヰࠖ
ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ൤♩ࠖ
㸧ࢆゎ㔘ࡋࠊ⌮ゎࡍ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵୚ࡋ࠺ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ᪉ἲࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᮃࡴࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟ࡣࠊಙ
௮⪅㐩ࡢ᭷ࡍࡿḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⬟ຊࢆᬻᐃⓗ࡟๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ㇟ᚩⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ௨ୖ࡟᝿ീⓗ
࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ≉ูࡢᆅ఩ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ6ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊಙ௮⪅㐩ࡣࠊ⮬↛
ࡢ⌮࡟⫼ࡃ⌧㇟ࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ㇟ᚩⓗࠊ㠀⚄ヰⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᤣ࠼࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟࡛ᙧ
ᡂࡉࢀࡿୡ⏺ࢆ⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅ࠸ࢀࡿ⬟ຊࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ඲࡚ࡢ⌧㇟ࡀࠊᡃࠎࡢ⌧௦ⓗ࡞
ព࿡࡛඲ࡃࠕ⮬↛࡛ࠖ࡞࠸ୡ⏺ࡢෆ࡟ࡶࠊே㛫ࡣ⏕ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ಙ௮⪅㐩ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ≉࡟㇟ᚩ⌮ㄽࢆᡴࡕ❧࡚ࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺⾪ືࢆᢪ࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲࠊ᝿
ീࡉࢀࡓୡ⏺ࡢෆ࡟⏕ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢලయᛶࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢලయ
ᛶࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖࡢఱ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡋồࡵࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸࡯࡝ࡢ༑ศ࡞ព࿡ࢆಙ௮⪅㐩࡟ᥦ౪ࡋ࠺ࡿࡢ
ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ୍ࡘࡢㄞࡳ᪉ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ
ࢀࡣࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ┿ᐇࡢព࿡ࡸᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࠊࡑࡢඖࠎࡢព࿡ࢆ᥈ࡋồࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡶ
ࡗࡥࡽࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡓලయⓗ࡞Ᏹᐂࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᏱᐂࡀேࡢ
ఫࡴࡢ࡟㐺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸࠿࡟୙ྜ⌮ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ༢⣧⣲ᮔ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜
ᛮࢃࢀࡼ࠺࡜ࡶࠊࡑࡢලయᛶ࡟‶㊊࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑ࠺
ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞Ᏹᐂࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊࡑࡢእ࡟࠸ࡿ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᛮࢃࢀࡿ࡯࡝࡟ࡣࠊ୙
ྜ⌮࡛ࡶ༢⣧⣲ᮔ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ពࡶྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
⤖ㄽࢆ࠸ࡃࡤࡃ࠿ᬯ♧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᛮ᱌ࡢ㉳※ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠕίᅵ⣔
ࠗ⳹ཝ⤒࠘
ࠊ
⤒඾ࠖ
ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊྠᵝࡢศ㔝࡟ᒓࡍ௚ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㸦
ࠗ㜿㛹⤒࠘࠿ࡽ MañjuĞrƯ-vyƗkara۬aࠊ
ࠗ⥔ᦶ⤒࠘ࡲ࡛㸧ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋㄞゎࡍࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᩥᏛⓗ࡞᝿ീຊࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫ
ࢺ୰࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀࡿࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽ✵᝿ⓗ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ㅖ㸧Ᏹᐂ࡛᏶඲࡟ᒃᚰᆅࡼࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ࡜
6
⚾ࡣࠊព㆑ⓗ࡟ࠊ௒᪥ᩥᏛ◊✲ࡸ᐀ᩍ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ඹ㏻ࡢᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊࡇࡢࠕ᝿ീⓗ࡞ࠖ
㸦imaginal㸧ࡢㄒࢆ⏝࠸
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୍ᐃࡢே㛫Ꮡᅾࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡑࡢே㛫ࡢඹྠయ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ⌧ᐇࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ᝿ീࡢୡ⏺࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௨ୗࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽ೉ࡾ࡚࠸ࡿࠋI. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric㸦New York and London, Oxford University
Press, 1936㸧
ࠊI. A. Richards & C. K. Ogden, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of
the Science of Symbolism㸦London and New York, 1923㸧
ࠋ⚾ࡀ⏝࠸ࡿ᭱ࡶึᮇࡢཧ⪃㈨ᩱࡣࠊ࢜ࢢࢹࣥ Ogden ࡟ࡶᙳ㡪ࢆ
୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿḟࡢ᭩࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡶグࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋHans Vaihinger, Die Philosophie des Als Ob㸦reprint Saarbrücken:
VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2007 ࠝfirst ed. 1911, tenth ed. 1927ࠞ
㸧
ࠋ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥୖ PDF ᙧᘧࡣࠊḟࡢ࢙࢘ࣈࢧ࢖ࢺࢆཧ↷̿
http://ia600609.us.archive.org/23/items/DiePhilosophieDesAlsOb/HansVaihinger_philosophieDesAlsOb.pdf
- 38 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡇࢁࡲ࡛฿㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ7ࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊᩥᏛࡸࢻ࣐ࣛ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ᘬࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡿࡔ
ࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊከࡃࡢ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍಙ⪅ࡣࠊ
ࠗࣚࣁࢿࡢ㯲♧㘓࠘ࡀࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿⅬ࡛ࡶ㇟ᚩⓗࠊᬯ
႘ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ඲࡚ࡢ᫬㛫ࡢ⤊ᮎ࡟ࠊᡃࠎࡀ⏕ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ṇ☜࡞ฟ᮶஦ࡢグ㏙
࡜ಙࡌࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆཷࡅ࠸ࢀࡿ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⤒඾࡟ⴭࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮
ࢪࢆ⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅ࠸ࢀࡿ㸧ಙ⪅࡟ඹឤⓗ㛵ಀࢆࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡜⤖ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃ࡜ࡶឤࡌࡽࢀᡤࡲ࡛᠜␲ࢆ
ಖ␃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ⬟ຊࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆⓎぢࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
⚾ࡀᇶᮏⓗ࡟๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢ᝿ീୖࡢ⌧ᐇ࡜⚾ࡀ௬ᐃࡋ࠺ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ඹឤⓗ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊㄞ
ࡳᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬ࡽࡢ᝿ീຊࡣ฼ࡍࡿᡤࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࠾஫࠸ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࠶࠺
࡜࠸࠺ᡃࠎࡢ⬟ຊࡀࠊࡑࡢ஫࠸ࡢୡ⏺ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ⬟ຊḟ➨࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௚⪅ࡢᛮ᝿ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽᛮ᝿࡟క࠸ࠊᨭ᥼ࡍࡿឤ᝟ࡸࠊᚰⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ
࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡽࢆࠊ
ࠕᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢࡶࡢࠖ࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࠊࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺ࠕᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢ
ࡶࡢࠖࡢㄒࢆᬯ႘ⓗ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⌮ゎࡢࡓࡵࡢ௬ࡢ㐨ල࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ࡛࠶ࡿ8ࠋ
஦ᐇࠊ⚾ࡀࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊὀពࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ༢⣧࡞⬟ຊ࡛ࡉ࠼ࠊྠࡌᵝ࡞ྠ୍どࠊඹឤࡢࣉࣟ
ࢭࢫࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ୰࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓୡ⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᝿ീࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࡁࡓ
ேࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽㄞࡴࡔࢁ࠺ேࠊࡑࢀࢆ⪺࠸ࡓேࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊఏ࠼⪺࠸ࡓேࠊࡲࡓࠊᐇ㊶ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓே➼࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚᝿ീࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊṔྐⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗ࡞⌮ゎࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢ⧅
ࡀࡾࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊࡑࡢࠊ♫఍̿Ṕྐⓗ࡞᥎ㄽ࡛ࡍࡽࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ௙᪉࡛⚾ࡢ᝿ീ࡛
ࡁࡿࠊ⌧ᐇࡢே㛫Ꮡᅾࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ⌧ᐇࡢே㛫ࡢୡ⏺ࢆ᝿ീࡍࡿ⾜࠸࡟㢗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඹྠయࡢసࡾฟࡋ
ࡓࠊࡑࡢෆ࡟ఫࡴࡢࡀዲࡲࡋ࠸ୡ⏺㸦ᡃࠎࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣࠊ㉸㉺ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊෆᅾⓗ࡞ୡ⏺㸧ࡢゎ
㔘࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ௒୍ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࢆ᝿ീࡍࡿᚲせᛶࡣࠊࡶࡗ࡜Ỵᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜
࡞ࡿࠋ᭱ప㝈ࠊឤ᝟ⓗࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊᬯ႘ⓗ࡟ࠊ⮬ࡽࢆ௚⏺࡬⛣㏦ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ9ࠋ
7
ࠕ✵᝿ⓗࠖ
㸦fantastic㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕ඲ࡃࡢ✵᝿࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ཯̿┤ほⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡢ
ᩥ໬࡟ᣊ᮰ࡉࢀࡓࠊ⌧ᐇ࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿឤぬ࡟཯ࡍࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᙉ࠸ព࿡
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡀ⣳࠸ࡔࠕព⩏ࡢࢡࣔࡢᕢ࡟ᐂ࡙ࡾ࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖື≀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᱁ゝࡢࠊᙉຊ࡞ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽ
ࡃࡶࡗ࡜ࡶṇࡋࡑ࠺࡞ゎ㔘࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ̿Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, 1973, p. 5㸧୰ᗤࡢゎ㔘⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆྲྀࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢ≀ㄒࡢࢡࣔࡢᕢࡀࠊே㛫ࡢ≀㉁ⓗࠊឤ᝟ⓗ࡞⏕Ꮡ࡟ࠊ
࠸ࡃࡪࢇ࠿ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
8
ࡇࡢࠊᩥ⊩ࢆ═ࡵࡿ㝿ࡢ᪉ἲࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࢸࢵࢻ࣭ࢥ࣮࢚ࣥ Ted COHEN ࡢࠕ㞃႘ࡢᵓ⠏࡜⌮ゎࠖࡢほᛕ࡟㛵
ࡍࡿࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ⚾ಶேࡢゎ㔘࡟╔᝿ࢆᚓࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠほᛕࡣࠊࢥ࣮࢚ࣥࡀࠊ
ࠕ࠾஫࠸ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢே㛫ࡢ
⌮ゎຊ࡜ྠᵝࡢࠊ▱ⓗ⬟ຊࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋCohen, Thinking of others: On the talent for metaphor
㸦Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008㸧
ࠋ㐺ษ࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊࢥ࣮࢚ࣥࡣࠊࡑࡢ᭱ึࡢ❶ࢆ㛤♧ࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࢪࣙࢭࣇ࣭ࢫࢱ࣮ࣥࢬ Josef STERN ࡢ Metaphor in Context㸦Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000㸧ࡢ “Nonetheless, I agree
that there is a pictorial dimension to metaphor and that the perspective it generates cannot be expressed propositionally.” ࡜࠸
࠺୍ᩥࡢ㢟㎡ⓗ࡞ᘬ⏝ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
9
ࡇࢀ࡜ࠊ⥆ࡃ⪃࠼ࡣࠊࢥ࣮࢚ࣥࡢ஧ࡘࡢㄽᩥࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࠊ╔᝿ࢆᚓࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ“Metaphor, Feeling, and Narrative”
㸦Philosophy and Literature, vol. 21.2, 1997, pp223-244㸧
ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ“Identifying with Metaphor: Metaphors of Personal
Identification,” 㸦The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57.4, 1999, pp. 399-409㸧
ࠋྠᵝࡢほᛕࡣࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ
⬮ὀࡢ 8 ࡛ཧ↷ࡋࡓᙼࡢⴭసࡢෆ࡛ࡶⓎᒎࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊୖグࡢ➨஧ㄽᩥࡢከࡃࡢ㒊ศࢆໟྵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ᣋ✏ “On Buddhist Wonders and Wonder-working”㸦Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 33.1–2
39 --- 39
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࡶࡋࠊᕦࡳ࡟㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡞ࡽࠊ≀ㄒ㸦narrative㸧࡜ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᥥ෗㸦ࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡀࠊ
ࡑ࠺ᐜ᫆ࡃศ๭ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸㸧ࡣࠊᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿཷᐜ⪅̿ᛂ⟅⪅ࡢෆࡢཷᐜᛶࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ⿕ᬯ♧
ᛶࡢ≧ែ࡟ࡶᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⚾ࡀࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡓᮏ᮶ࡢሙᡤ࠿ࡽఱୡ⣖ࡶࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊఱ੊ࡶ㞳ࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡀḼࡧࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᝿ീⓗ࡞ෆᐜࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ
⾜Ⅽࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟㐩ᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࠊᴟࡵ࡚ఝ㏻ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ10ࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤒඾ࡢᗄࡘ࠿ࡀసᡂࡉࢀࠊㄞࡲࢀࠊᛕㄙࡉࢀࡿ᫬࡟㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ
࡜ࡶࠊ⤒඾୰ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭱ప㝈ᗘࡢ⌮ゎࢆࡶࡗ࡚ᛕㄙࡉࢀࠊㄞࡲࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ൤
♩ⓗ࡞ᛕㄙ࡟ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᶵ⬟ࡸព࿡ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ㸧ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡢ
ࡔࢁ࠺ࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿ11ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊᬯ႘ⓗࠊ㇟ᚩⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⚄Ꮫⓗ࡞ㄞࡳࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢලయⓗ࡞ୡ⏺ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ཷࡅᐜࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ౫Ꮡࡍࡿ࡜ࡶ୺ᙇࡍ
ࡿࠋ
ίᅵ࡜ࡑࡇ࡟ఫࡲ࠺௖ࡸ⳶⸃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᙼࡽࡀ༨᭷ࡍࡿᏱᐂࢆࠊ࢖ࣥࢻ௖ᩍࡢ≉ᐃࡢಙ௮ᵝᘧ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿὝᐹࢆ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡣࡓࡋ࡚ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋࡑࡢಙ
௮࡜ࡣࠊㅖ௖࡜ㅖ௖ᅜᅵࢆᑐ㇟ୡ⏺ࡢ┿ᐇࡢᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ಙࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ௖ἲࡢල⌧໬
࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊㅖ௖࡜ㅖ⳶⸃ࡢ┠ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡓᡃࠎࡢୡ⏺ࡢ┿ᐇࡢᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ಙࡌࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢୡ⏺ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊἲ⏺DharmadhƗtu࡜࠸࠺ᑓ㛛ⓗࠊ⚄ヰⓗ࡞⏝ㄒ࡛ࠊ᫬࡟ࡣ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ
[2010 (2011)], pp.513–554㸧ࡣࠊወ㊧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢࡔࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ᭩ࡁ⤊࠼࡚ᚋ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊࢥ࣮࢚ࣥࡢⴭ㏙ࢆ▱
ࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ⚾ࡀࠊୖグࡢ JIABS ࡢཎ✏୰࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ㢟ᮦ࡜㆟ㄽ࡜ࢆࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࢥ࣮࢚ࣥ
ࡢⴭసࡢ⥥ᐦ࡞᳨ウ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊከ኱࡞฼┈ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࠋ
10
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࠖ
㸦narrative㸧࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞ᤄヰࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࡢࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ㐺ᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢ⏝ㄒ
ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿᏛ⪅ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡜ྠࡌࡔࡅࠊྠㄒࡀከࡃࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᅗ᭩㤋ࡢ࢝ࢱࣟࢢࢆࡊࡗ
࡜ㄪ࡭ࡿࡔࡅ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ≀ㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀࠊ௚ࡢከࡃࡢ◊✲ศ㔝ࠊศᯒࡢ⠊␪࡜ࡶ㔜࡞ࡾ࠶࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊEncyclopaedia Universalis ࡣࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࠖ
㸦Récit㸧ࡢ㡯┠࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿྲྀࡾᢅ࠸
㸦ࣝ࢖࣭࣐ࣛࣥ Louis MARIN ࡜ࢪ࣭ࣦ࢙࢚ࣕࣥࣜ Jean VERRIER ࡟ࡼࡿࠊ⣲ᬕࡽࡋࡃ❧ὴ࡛ࠊᴟࡵ࡚ࣇࣛࣥࢫⓗ࡞ᴫ
ㄝ㸧࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ
ࠕࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࠊ࢔࣮ࢺࠖ
㸦Performance, Art㸧ࡢヰ㢟ࡢ୍㒊࡟ࠊ≀ㄒᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⯆࿡῝࠸グ㏙ࢆ
ࠋ⏝ㄒࡢከ✀ከᵝ࡞౑⏝࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊၥ㢟ࡣࠊᮏㄽ࡟࠾࠸
ྵࡴ㸦ࢲࢽ࢚࣭ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢬ Daniel CHARLES ࡢᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ㸧
࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ≀ㄒࠖࡢᛶ㉁࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟」㞧࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋヰࡉࢀࡓࠕ≀ㄒࠖ
㸦the “stories”㸧
ࡣࠊ࠾࠾࠿ࡓ㸦ࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽࠊᩍ⌮ⓗカᡄࡢཱྀᐇ࡛࡞࠸࡜ࡁࡣ㸧
ࠊࡑࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ⌮᝿ⓗ࡞ே≀㐩ࡀࠊᗁ᝿ࡢ
ࣃࣀ࣐ࣛ࡜┦஫࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࠶࠺✵㛫ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࡢ⪷඾ࡢ㛫࡛ࡼࡾඹ㏻ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠊ➽
᭩ࡁࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊᖺ௦グⓗ࡞Ṕྐࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠊ୍✀ࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ➽㸦㏻ᖖࠊ඲ࡃ
࣮ࣝࢬ࡞ࡶࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡢᮇᚅࡍࡿ㐍ᒎ࡜㠀㞴࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㢮ࡢ➽ࢆḞ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡀࠊ௚ࡢせ⣲ࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓฟ᮶
஦࡜⫼ᬒ㸦ࡑࢀࡽࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢෆ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚సࡽࢀࡓ✵㛫㸧ࢆࠊ୍ࡘ࡟⦅ࡳୖࡆࡿ⣒࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸
ࡽࢀࡿᩥ❶ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ≀ㄒ㸦narrative㸧࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊཝᐦ࡞≀ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ୍⥆
ࡁࡢወ㊧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋูࡢࠊࡇࡢㄽⅬࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊࡼࡾᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞᪉ἲࡣࠊヰࡢ➽ࡀࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡟⧞
ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࠊఏ⤫࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢỴᐃⓗ࡞ࢺ࣏ࢫࢆᙉㄪࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆලయ໬ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ാࡃࡀࠊࢺ࣏ࢫࡢᒎ㛤ࡣࠊࡇࡢሙ
ྜᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࠊወ㊧ⓗ࡞✵㛫ࡸሙᡤࡢᥥ෗࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢࢺ࣏ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕሙᡤࠖࡢ౑
⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Jean-Claude Anscombre, ed., Théorie des topoï, Paris: Kimé, 1995 ࢆཧ↷㸧
ࠋ
11
⡆₩ࡉࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௒ᚋࡣࠕㄞࡴࠖࡢㄒࢆࠊ⌧᫬ࡢᩥ⬦ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠊ
ࠕၐ࠼ࡿࠊグ᠈ࡍࡿࠊ཯᚟ࡍࡿࠊ⪺ࡃࠊ᭩ࡃࠊ
ㄞゎࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⾜࠺ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊࡼࡾ㛗ࡃࠊࡼࡾṇ☜࡞ྃ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ௦⌮࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ⪃ᐹࡍ
ࡿᩥ⊩ࡢሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౑⏝ࠊఏ㐩ࠊSitz im Leben㸦⌧௦ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊ
ࠕㄞ⪅ࠖࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡶゝࢃ࡞࠸㸧ࡣࠊ
኱㒊ศ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ௒࡞࠾ᮍゎỴ࡞ࡲࡲṧࡿࠋ
- 40 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡿほᛕ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢἲ⏺࡜࠸࠺ࠊ⌮᝿ⓗ࡛ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᏱᐂࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢᏱᐂࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡣఝ࡚࠸࡞࠸ከ✀ከᵝ࡞ୡ⏺࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚༨ࡵࡽࢀࠊࡲࡓࠊᡃࠎࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪅ࡸ⌮᝿ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࡢࡳᡃࠎ࡟ఝ㏻࠺௚⪅ࡢࡍࡲ࠺ሙ࡛ࡶ࠶
ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᵝ࡞Ᏹᐂࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ஧✀ࡢ୺せ࡞ᡓ␎ࡀṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇ
ࡢ඲࡚ࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊᬯ႘ⓗ㸦࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢሙྜࠊᐯពⓗ㸧࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⚄Ꮫⓗ࡟ࡑࡢព࿡ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ୙ྍ㑊࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᚲせ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡀࡑࡇ࡟㣕ࡧ㎸ࢇ࡛ࠊࡑࡢᏱᐂ࡟
ఫࡲ࠺࡞ࡽࠊᯝࡓࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆࠊ⮬ࡽ࡟ၥ࠺࠿ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᏱᐂࠊἲ⏺ࡀࠊᡃࠎࡢᏱᐂ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྠᘏࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୪⾜ⓗ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ
ἲ⏺ࢆ㉸㉺ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠊࡣࡓࡲࡓࠊෆᅾⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୧᪉࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᡃࠎ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢᏱᐂ࡜ࡑࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿୡ⏺ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡑࡇ࡟ఫࡲ࠺
ே㛫ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮡᅾࢆṇ☜࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ➨୍࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀఱࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆࡳࡎ࠿
ࡽ࡟ࡓࡎࡡࡿ๓࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௖ᩍᏛࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡣࠕ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓࠖ
ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᶆ‽ⓗ࡞ᩍ⌮ゎ㔘࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ
ㄞࡴഴྥ࡟ࠊ⤯࠼ࡎⱞࡋࡵࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୍⯡ㄞ⪅ࡸᏛ⏕ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᏛ✲ⓗ
࡞ⴭస࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸧
ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡢ౛࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡀࠊࡑࡢㄒࡀ୍⩏ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᫂ⓑ࡟༢୍ࡢဴᏛⓗࠊ
೔⌮ⓗᩍ⌮ࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ
ࠕ⳶⸃ࠖࡢㄒࡢᏳ᫆࡞౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊ᱾ᴫࡸᩍ⛉᭩࡜
࠸࠺ࣞࣥࢬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊཝᐦࡉࢆḞࡃᩍ⌮ࠊゎ㔘ⓗ࡞」ᩘࡢ⏝ㄒࡢ␎グࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ౫
↛࡜ࡋ࡚᫂☜࡟ࡉࢀࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ」ᩘࡢ⏝ㄒࡢ␎グ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ⳶⸃ࠖࡢㄒࢆㄞゎࡋ⥆ࡅࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊ⌮ゎࡋ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄞゎࢆ⾜࠺࡞࠿࡛ࠊ௒࡞࠾ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢീ࠿ࡽࠊᡃࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣⱝᖸᗁ᝿ⓗ࡟ࡍࡂࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿ≉ᚩࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢീࡀࠊே㛫ࡢ⾜࠸ࡢ⌮᝿ࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౯್ࢆኻ࠺࡜ᜍࢀࡿ࡯
࡝࡟㸦ㄗࡗ࡚ᜍࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ⚾ࡣಙࡌࡿ㸧
ࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟㉸ே㛫ⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ≉ᚩࢆ
ࡣࡂ࡜ࡿヨࡳࢆ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࢆᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢෆ࡬࡜࠾࡜ࡋࡇࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
௬࡟ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢලయⓗࠊ࡞࠸ࡋಶูⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪ㸦ᅗീⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ㸧࡬࡜
⥥ᐦ࡞ὀពࢆྥࡅࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀពᅗࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊពᅗࡋ࡚ࡁࡓከࡃࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᡃࠎ
ࡶ⌮ゎࡋࡣࡌࡵࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢୡ⏺࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢୡ
⏺࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᡃࠎࡢ᝿ᐃୖࡢ⌮ゎ㸦࠸ࢃࡤࠕゎ㔘ⓗ࡞බㄆᮏᩥ㸦textus receptus㸧
ࠖ
㸧࡜ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠊ᝿ീ
ࡢୡ⏺ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢᵝᘧࢆࡶ⌮ゎࡋࡣࡌࡵࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⌮ⓗゎ㔘࡜࠸࠺ᅗᘧࡢ࡞࠿࡛
ᡃࠎࡀぢ࠸ࡔࡍࡶࡢࡼࡾࡉࡽ࡟ከࡃࡢࡶࡢࢆࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ࠸࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ
⌮ゎࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
୍⯡࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡜࠸࠺࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࠖࡢㄞゎࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࠊⰋ㉁ࡢṔྐᐙࡢ᭱Ⰻࡢᐇ㊶
ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊṔྐᐙࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㏻᫬ᛶࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺ࠊࡲࡓࠊ␗࡞
ࡿᒙࠊ⪃ྂᏛⓗ࡞ᒙࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿ㛵ಀࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᩍ⌮ⓗࠊᶆ‽ⓗ࡞ㄞゎ
ࡢྥࡇ࠺ഃࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢලయᛶ࡬࡜↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊṇ☜࡟
41 --- 41
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࡑࢀࢆ⾜࠺࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㢠㠃㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡛ලయⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆゎࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢㄞ
ゎ࠿ࡽ฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽࠊᐇ㝿ⓗ࡞Ṕྐᐙ㸦␗࡞ࡿᒙ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ♫఍ⓗ
ᩥ⬦࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲⪅㸧ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩥᏛసရࡢゎ㔘⪅ࠊ᐀ᩍᩥ⊩ࡢゎ㔘⪅ࠊྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⩻ヂᐙࡸ㎡
᭩ࡢᇳ➹⪅ࡶࠊࡇࡢᵝ࡞ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ᪉ࡼࡾ฼┈ࢆᚓࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊ௚ࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࠊࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓ஧ࡘࡢ኱஌௖ᩍࡢᩥ⊩ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
஧ࡘࡢᩥ⊩࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ
㸦ᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔࡛ࡣࠊほୡ㡢㦢⥂ࠊほ㡢⤒ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᬑ㛛ရ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡟
▱ࡽࢀࡿ㸧
ࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘ࡢ➨஧༑஬ရ࡟࠶ࡿࠕほ㡢⳶⸃ࡢ೦㡴ࠖ࡜ࠊGa۬‫ڲ‬avynjha-snjtra㸦
ࠗ⳹ཝ⤒࠘
ࠕධ
ἲ⏺ရࠖ
㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚ࡜ほ㡢⳶⸃ࡢฟ఍࠸ࡢ⟠ᡤ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ㢮ఝࡢ೦㡴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢᩥ⊩ࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊẸ㛫ಙ௮࡟⪷඾ⓗࠊᶆ‽ⓗᆅ఩ࢆ୚࠼ࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳ
ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘࡜ࠗ኱᪉ᗈ௖⳹ཝ⤒࠘࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ኱ࡁࡃࠊ༑ศ࡟Ⓨᒎࡋࡓ኱஌⤒
඾୰࡟⤌ࡳධࢀࡽࢀࡓ⏕ࡁࡓ൤♩ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆࠊᩥᏐ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ⪷඾໬࡜⤫ྜ
ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞⤒඾ࡀⓎᒎࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㐜࠸᫬ᮇ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆㄞゎࡍࡿ᫬ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ಶูࡢಙ
௮ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡣࡌࡵࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋಶูࡢಙ௮ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ⤒඾ࠊ⳶⸃ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ⳶⸃
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఱࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊఱࡀࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊఱࡀ㐺ษ࡞኱஌ࡢᩍ⌮࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊఱ
ࡀࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࠕᶆ‽ⓗࠖ
ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᢎㄆࡉࢀࡓほᛕࡢࣞࣥࢬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆㄞࡴ᫬
࡟ࠊᡃࠎࡀࡑࢀࡽ࡟ᐤࡏࡿᮇᚅ࡜ࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࡨࡗࡓࡾ࡜ྜ࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘࡜ࠗ⳹ཝ⤒࠘࡜࠸࠺୧ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣࠊఱࡀ⳶⸃࡛ࠊఱࡀࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ
࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢί௖ᅵ࡬ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ≉␗࡞ほᛕࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ
ࡀࠊ௚᪉ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛ࡢࠊᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞⣒ཱྀ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊ
ᡃࠎࡣࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࢆ┤ほࡍࡿࠋࡍࢃࡕࠊ⚾ࡢぢゎ࡛ࡣࠊᩥᏛⓗࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞᝿ീຊࡢᛶྥࢆ
཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘ࡢ೦㡴ࡶࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࠊṇ⤫໬ࡍࡿせ⣲ࡢ௜ຍ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊቑᗈࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟
ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢゎ㔘ࡢṔྐࡢ୰࡟ࡶࠊつ⠊ⓗ࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᶆ‽ⓗ
࡞ㄞゎࢆ๰㐀ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺⾪ືࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᪂⯆ࡢࠊẸ㛫࡟ὶ
ᕸࡍࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀ಙ௮࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ほ㡢⳶⸃ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳࡢෆ࡟ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ぢ
࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ᭱ᚋࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊከࡃࡢ኱஌⤒඾ࡀドゝࡍࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࠖཷᐜࡢၥ㢟࡟
㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⚾ࡣࠊࢢࣞࢦ࣮࣭ࣜࢩࣙ࣌ࣥ Gregory SCHOPEN ࡟㈶ྠࡍࡿ12ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ≉␗ⓗ࡛࡞࠸㜿ᘺ㝀
௖ᓫᣏ㸦ᚲࡎࡋࡶࠊ᤼௚ⓗ࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢࡳࢆಙ௮ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊྠ௖ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆゝ࠺ࡇ࡜㸧ࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓ
ࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࠊࢩࣙ࣌ࣥẶࡢ⤖ㄽࢆゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢩࣙ࣌ࣥࡢࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ಙ௮య⣔ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢⅬ࡛ࠊ
12
Gregory Schopen, “SukhƗvatƯ as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit MahƗyƗna Snjtra Literature,” (Indo-Iranian Journal,
19, 1977, pp.177-210) ࢆぢࡼࠋ
- 42 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
Ặ࡜ࡣ㐨ࢆศࡘࠋ➨୍࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡀࠕಙ௮య⣔࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ㸦ᙼࡣࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞ᐇ㊶࠿ࡽࡣศ㞳ࡉࢀࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊಙ௮ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊಙ௮య⣔࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᙼࡀఱࢆពᅗ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ␲ၥࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜࠸࠺ࢩࣙ࣌ࣥࡢ๓ᥦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࡣࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ
୍⯡ⓗ࡜࡞ࡗࡓಙ௮ࡀࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࠊࡑࡢ୍⯡໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⷧࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊṇ⤫໬
ࡢࡓࡵࡢ፹௓࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ཷᐜࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊṇ⤫࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࡑࡢಙ௮ࡣᙉࡵࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ࡜ࡶ᥎ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠸᪉ࢆኚ࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ಙ௮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᏑᅾࡀࠊ
≉ᐃࡢ௖㝀ࢆ᭱㧗ࡢᓫᣏࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠊ⇕≬ⓗ࡞ಙ௮ඹྠయࡢᏑᅾࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ᶵ⬟
௚ࡢㄽᩥ࡛ヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭ࡓ㆟ㄽࢆࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊᨵࡵ࡚⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊᮏ✏᳨࡛ウࡢᑐ
㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊほ㡢⳶⸃ࡢ೦㡴ࢆᬯၐࡍࡿ⫼ᚋ࡟ࠊ⇕Ⅿ࡞ಙ௮㞟ᅋࡢᡂຌࢆドゝࡍࡿ࡜ಙ
ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧㇟࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ⡆₩࡞ศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠗ኱᪉ᗈ௖⳹ཝ⤒࠘ࡢ᭱
⤊⠇࡛࠶ࡿ Samantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗna-gƗthƗ㸦
ࠕᬑ㈼⾜㢪ࠖࡸ BhadracarƯ ➼࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡟▱
ࡽࢀࡿ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⚾࡟ࡣࠊ⳹ཝ⤒㢮㸦௨ୗࠊAv ࡜␎グ㸧ࡢᙜヱ⟠ᡤࡣࠊ
ほ㡢⳶⸃࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஧✀ࡢ೦㡴࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓቑᗈ࡜ࠊṇ⤫໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊAv ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ㢪ࡢሙྜࠊ⪷඾໬ࡢస⏝ࡣࠊ୧᪉ྥ࡟ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡞
ࢃࡕࠊ⳶⸃⮬㌟ࡢ኱஌௖ᩍࡢ൤♩࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀࠊࡑࡢṇᙜᛶࢆ⤒඾ࡢ᪉࡟⛣ࡋ࠿࠼ࡓ㝿࡟ࡍࡽࠊ
ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆṇ⤫໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᪂ࡋࡃ⯆㉳ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠊ൤♩ࡢせ⣲࡜ᵓ㐀ࡀࠊ
ࡲࡿ࡛ࠊ⳶⸃⮬㌟ࡢಶேⓗ࡞ㄋ㢪࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿၨ♧ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ኱஌
௖ᩍࡢ൤♩ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣔࢹࣝࠊsaptavidhƗ anuttarƗ pnjjƗ㸦୐✀ࡢ⮳ୖࡢ౪㣴㸧ࢆࠊࡑࡢෆ࡟ྲྀࡾࡇࢇ
࡛࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ13ࠋ኱஌௖ᩍࡢ൤♩ࡀࠊ୍⯡኱⾗ࡢ᝿ീຊ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊൔ౶ࡢ⏕ࡳฟࡋ
ࡓᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᑛ᱁࡜ࡋ࡚⯆㉳ࡋࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆṇ⤫࡜᫝ㄆࡍࡿ᫬ࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊ൤♩ࡶࠊṇ⤫࡜
ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣࠊ᏶඲࡟᭷ᚨ࡞⾜࠸㸦samanta-bhadra-caryƗ㸧ࡢయ⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼ
ࡢ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞⚄⪷໬ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠊSamantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗn-gƗthƗ㸦௨ୗࠊ༢࡟ BhadracarƯ ࡜ゝ
ཬࡉࢀࡿ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓᩥ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢ⤖ࡧࡀࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸⤖ࡧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅ࠸ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡇࡑࡀࠊᡃࠎࡀࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢෆ
࡟ᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ᅗᘧࢆㄞࡳ㎸ࡳࡓ࠸࡜⇕ᮃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡑࡢṔྐࠊ
13
ࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢ㐣⛬ࡢ㔜せᛶࡣࠊ⯡ⱝヂࡢ Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊධ୙ᛮ㆟ゎ⬺ቃ⏺ᬑ㈼⾜㢪ရ㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ᪂⬶኱ⶶ⤒࠘
㸦௨ୗࠗ኱ṇ࠘
㸧10 ᕳࠊ295㸧࡜࠸࠺₎ヂ㢟࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ➨୍ࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽ
ࡃࡣ୺せ࡞ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸㢟┠࡛࠶ࡿධ୙ᛮ㆟ゎ⬺ቃ⏺ࡀࠊྠ⤒඾㢮ࡢ୺㢟ࡢ୍ࡘࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸ࣦ
࢓࣮ࢪࣙࣥࢆࠊ➨஧ࡢࠊ௜ຍⓗ࡞๪㢟࡛࠶ࡿᬑ㈼⾜㢪ࡀࠊㄋ㢪࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱㧗₻ࢆ㏄࠼ࡿࠊྠ⤒඾ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣦ࢕ࢪ
ࣙࣥࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢ₎ヂ࡛ࡣࠊAv ࡢ᭱ᚋࡢ⤒ࡣࠊධἲ⏺ရ࡜࿧⛠ࡉࢀࡿࡢࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿ
ࡔࡅ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤒඾ࡢᒎ㛤ࢆࠊወ㊧ⓗ࡞ vimok‫܈‬a㸦ゎ⬺㸧ࡢࠊ㡰ḟⓗ࡞㸦࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊᚎࠎ࡟ᙉࡲࡿ㸧ᥦ♧࡜
⪃࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ㐺ษ࡞᭱⤊ሙ㠃ࡣࠊᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢ knj‫ܒ‬ƗgƗra㸦ᴥ㛶㸧
㸦ධἲ⏺ࡢᐇ⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㸧ࡢෆ࡟ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡡࡤ࡞
ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᚋ࡟ㄽࡎࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡟ࡼࡿྠࡌ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ⿵ᙉࡀ௜㝶ࡍࡿࠋ
43 --- 43
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
࡜ࡃ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟グࡉࢀࡓලయⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢព࿡ࢆぢ㐣ࡈࡍ᪉ྥ࡬࡜ㄗࡗ࡚ᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍ
ዲ౛࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ᡃࠎࡣࠊࡲࡎ➨୍࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡜ࡢฟ఍࠸ࡀࠊࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏࡢ Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha-snjtra㸦௨ୗ Gv
࡜┬␎ࡍࡿ㸧ࡢ᭱ࡶ㐺ษ࡞ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ᮶ⓗ࡞⤖ࡧࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊᑠࡉ࡞␗࡞ࡾࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ฟ఍࠸ࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪࡛᭱㧗₻ࢆ㏄࠼ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡟័ࢀぶࡋࢇ࡛
࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ኱ⶶ⤒࡟཰ࡵࡽࢀࡓࢳ࣋ࢵࢺヂ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂࡶྵࡴࠊከࡃࡢ
࢔ ࢪ ࢔ ゝ ㄒ ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ࠗ ⳹ ཝ ⤒ ࠘ࠊ ࠾ ࡼ ࡧ ࠊ ࢧ ࣥ ࢫ ࢡ ࣜ ࢵ ࢺ ᮏ ࡢ Gv ࡢ ෆ ࡟ ࠾ ࡉ ࡵ ࡽ ࢀ ࡓ
Samantabhadra-caryƗpra۬idhƗn-gƗthƗ㸦ᬑ㈼⾜㢪ࡸ BhadracarƯ ➼࡜ࡋ࡚ᵝࠎ࡟▱ࡽࢀࡿ㸧୰ࡢࠊ⪷඾໬
ࡉࢀࡓࠕᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࠖࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᡃࠎࡀ▱ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ➨୍ࡢ௬ᐃ࠿ࡽࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊࡇࡢ㒔ྜⰋࡃ⪷໬ࡉࢀࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀࠊGv ࡢṧࡾࡢ㒊ศ
ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛ࡢ㘽࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤖ㄽࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ➨஧ࡢ୺せ࡞௬ᐃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕᬑ㈼⾜㢪ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊே㛫ࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࡢᶍ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ⌮᝿ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୍ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ⏕ࢆ⏕ࡁࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿே㛫ࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞⌮᝿
ࢆ᭱㧗ࡢᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢㄋ㢪࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱㧗₻ࢆ
㏄࠼ࡿẁ㝵ⓗ࡞ᕠ♩ࡢ᪑࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊGv ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ14ࠋ
ࡇࡢࠊGv ࡜ Av ࡢ⤖ㄽ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ⪷໬ࡉࢀࡓ㘽ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ୍✀ࡢࠕ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࠖ
ᩍ࠼࡟㑏ඖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡞ࡽࡋࡵࡿ㸦ᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐃᘧ໬ࡀ࠸࠿࡟ࡰࢇ
ࡸࡾ࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸧
ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄞゎࡣࠊ⌧௦ࡢすὒࡢㄞ⪅࡟ዲࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
⳶⸃ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㊶ⓗ࡞௖ᩍ⪅ࡢ೔⌮ⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡸ BhadracarƯ ࡑࡢࡶ
ࡢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⚄ヰ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ௚ࡢㄞࡳࡀ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢㄞࡳࡇࡑ
ࡀࠊ⚾ࡀࡇࡇ࡛ࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢㄞࡳࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࡢ
ㄞࡳࠖ
㸦narrative reading㸧࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊࡔࡅ࡝㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣࠊၥ㢟ࡢ୍㒊ࡀすὒேࡢ೫ぢࡢᡤ⏘࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶグࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭
ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⤖ᒁࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ௖ᩍᩥ⊩ࡢෆ࡟すὒᆺࡢ೔⌮ᛮ᝿ࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡑ࠺࡜ヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ㆟ㄽࡢవᆅࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊே㛫ࡢ⾜ືࡢつ⠊ࡀࠊ௖㝀࡜⳶⸃ࡢ㉸ே㛫ⓗ࡞⾜࠸࡜⼥
ྜࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞൤♩࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠊぬࡾ࡜඲▱࡜ゎ⬺࡬ࡢ⇕ᮃ࡜ࡶ⼥ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ
ࡶࡢࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ព⩏࡟㛵ࡍࡿỿᛮ࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ཎ⌮࡜㢪ᮃࡢᏑᅾ
14
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊㄝ᫂࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ㘽࡜ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᰿ࢆᢲࡋࡦࢁࡆ࡚ࠊ࣎ࣟࣈࢻ࣮ࢗࣝ࡟࠶ࡿᾋ
ࡁ᙮ࡾࡢୖ᪉ࡢᒙࡀࠊᡃࠎࡀࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚▱ࡿ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᬑ㈼⾜㢪ࠖࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢ⪃࠼ࢆࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࠊ௜
ຍⓗ࡟ཷࡅ࠸ࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡯࡝ࡲ࡛࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡜ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢྠ୍どࡣࠊỴࡋ
͆De Bhadracari afgebeeld
࡚ᡴ◚࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ၥ㢟࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ࠊF. D. K. BOSCH㸦
op den Hoofdmuur der vierde Gaanderij van den Baraboedoer,” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van
Ned.-Indie, 97, 1938, pp. 241-293㸧ࡣࠊ⚾ࡢぢゎ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠊ୙ᡂຌ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊఱᖺࡶ௨๓࡟ࠊN. J. KROM
ࡢ Barabudur: Archaeological Description㸦The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1927㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ㉳ࡉࢀࡓ␲࠸࡜ᑐỴࡏࢇ࡜ዧ
㜚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
- 44 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࠊつ⠊ࡣࡑࡇ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊㄡࡶࠊࡑࡢつ⠊ࢆࠊ⌧ᐇ
ࢆ▱ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⌧ᐇࢆኚ࠼࠺ࡿࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ⌮᝿࠿ࡽᐜ᫆࡟ษࡾ㞳ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊࡲࡓࠊᶍ⠊ⓗ࡞ே≀
ീ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢᙺ๭ࢆࠊᙼࡢ㉸ே㛫ⓗ࡛ࠊ㦫␗ⓗ࡞⾜࠸ࢆ࡞ࡍᏑᅾ࡜࠸࠺ᛶ᱁࠿ࡽࠊ⡆༢࡟ษࡾ
㞳ࡍࡇ࡜ࡶฟ᮶࡞࠸࡜ὀពࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊࡇࡢすὒே࡟⊂≉ࡢ೫ぢࡣࠊ
ᡃࠎᬑ㏻ࡢே㛫ࡀᶍೌࡋ࠺ࡿ࡜᝿ീࡍࡿ࠸ࢃࡺࡿே㛫ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᆅୖࡢ⳶⸃࠿ࡽࠊ᫂☜࡟ࠊ࠸ࢃ
ࡺࡿኳୖࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ༊ูࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ΰ஘ࡢ᰿ඖ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡀࠊཝᐦ࡟ఱࡀ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢᩥ⬦࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࠊே㛫ࡢᶍೌ࡜⇕ᮃࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⚄ヰⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣኳୖࡢ⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺ീ࡟ࠊ࡝
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᡃࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭷ຠ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡣ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡯
࡝࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢ➨஧ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟㑏ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊࡲࡎࡣ➨୍ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠾࠾ࡊࡗࡥ࡛ࡣ
࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡃࡤࡃ࠿ࡢ᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ┠ୗ⪃៖୰ࡢ⤒඾ࡢෆ࡟ࠊすὒࡢ೔⌮ⓗ
࡞つ⠊ࡢ㢮ఝ≀ࡀࠊࡣࡓࡋ࡚Ⓨぢࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ೔⌮ⓗࠖ
ࠊ࢚࣮ࢺࢫࠊ൤♩
ࡇࢀࡽ⤒඾ࡢࠕ೔⌮ⓗࠖ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀࠊ඲ࡃⓗእࢀ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸15ࠋࡓࡔࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ Gv ࡸ Av
ࡢ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊୖ࡟ゝ࠺೔⌮ⓗ࡞つ⠊ࡀࠊ
㸦ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡶྵࡴ㸧⳶⸃ࡢ᭱ࡶ༟㉺ࡋࡓᙺ๭࡜࠸࠺ࢃ
ࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⚾⮬㌟ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢീࡢព⩏࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢࠊ
➇ྜࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ㆟ㄽࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶㄞ⪅࡟ࡣࠊ⚾ࡀ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢᏑᅾࢆྰ
ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊὀពࡋ࡚࠾࠿ࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ᶍ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▷࠸⿵ㄝ࠿ࡽࠊヰࢆࡣࡌࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ᐇࡣࠊࡇࡢ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡣࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂ୰࡛ࡣ BhadracarƯ㸦ᬑ㈼⾜㢪㸧ࡢ㡩ᩥ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩓᩥ⟠ᡤ
࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ༑ࡢㄋ㢪ࠖࡢ୰࡟࠾࠸࡚ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࠊᩓᩥ୰ࡢ༑ࡢㄋ
㢪ࠊBhadracarƯ ࡢせ⣙ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡣ␲࠸࡞ࡃࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭱ึࡢ⪃ᐹ
ࢆ፹௓࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࡶࡘ⚄ヰⓗࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞ḟඖ࡬ࠊㄞ⪅ࢆ᱌ෆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ពᅗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ
࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ⚾⮬㌟ࠊࡑࡢ༑ࡢㄋ㢪࡜ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ㡩ᩥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿὀ㔘ࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࡣࠊゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
༑ࡢㄋ㢪࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩓᩥ㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ᪂⬶኱ⶶ⤒࠘
㸦௨ୗࠗ኱ṇ࠘
㸧293࣭844 㡫୰࣭20 ⾜̿846 㡫ୗ࣭29
⾜㸧ࡣࠊ᭱ึࡢ୍⾜㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ࠘293࣭844 㡫୰࣭20 ⾜̿28 ⾜㸧ࡢෆ࡟せ⣙ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊ႐ࡧ࡟‶ࡕ࠶ࡩࢀ࡚ࠊዴ᮶ࡢᓫ㧗࡞ຌᚨࢆ⛠ᥭࡋࡓᚋࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࠊᦶヅ⸃ࡣࠊ
ࠝၿ
㈈ࠞ❺Ꮚ࡜ࠝࡑࡇ࡟㞟ࡲࡗࡓࠞࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⳶⸃࡟ࠊ࿌ࡆࡓࠋ
ࠕၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡼࠊዴ᮶ࡢᚨ࡜ຌᚨࡣࠊ
15
࠶ࡿேࡣࠊすὒࡢࠕ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࠖࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡿࠊ≀ㄒ࡜೔⌮ࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿ₯ᅾⓗ࡞⥭ᙇࢆᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡓ
࡜࠼ࡤࠊPaul Lauritzen “Ethics and Experience: The Case of the Curious Response”㸦The Hastings Center Report, vol. 26.1
(1996), pp. 6-15㸧
ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊPaul Lauritzen “Is ‘Narrative’ Really a Panacea? The Use of ‘Narrative’ in the Work of Metz and
Hauerwas”㸦The Journal of Religion, vol. 67.3 (1987), pp.322-339㸧ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
45 --- 45
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࠊ༑᪉ࡢ௖㝀ࡢ඲࡚ࡀࠊ↓ᩘࠊ↓㔞ࡢ௖ᅵࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟࠶ࡿᚤሻ
࡜ྠࡌᩘࡢከຕ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ㏙࡭ࡓ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊ
ࠝᙼࡽࡀᣢࡕ࠺ࡿ඲࡚ࢆࠞ㏙࡭
ࡘࡃࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊฟ᮶࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢຌᚨࢆᡂᑵࡋࠊಟࡋࡓ࠸࡜㢪࠺ࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
༑ࡢ኱㢪ࢆಟࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋఱࡀ༑࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠋ➨୍࡟ࡣ♩ᩗࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖࡟♩ᣏࡋࠊ࠿ࡘᩗ
࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࡣ⛠㈶ࠊዴ᮶ࢆồࡵࠊ⛠ㆭࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୕࡟ࡣᗈಟ౪㣴ࠊ༑ศ
࡞౪≀࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ᙼࡽࢆᓫᩗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ᅄ࡟ࡣᠲ᜼ᴗ㞀ࠊᡃࠎࡢᝏࡋࡁ⾜࠸ࠊ㞀࡜࡞
ࡿ⾜࠸ࢆ࿌ⓑࡋࠊᠭ᜼ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨஬ࡣ㝶႐ຌᚨࠊ
ࠝ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᏑᅾࡢࠞ฼┈࡜ຌᚨࢆ⚃
࠸ࠊ〔ࡵㆭ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨භࡣㄳ㌿ἲ㍯ࠊ
ࠝ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖㝀࡟ࠊ
ࠞἲ㍯ࢆ㌿ࡎࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡜ㄳ
࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୐ࡣㄳ௖ఫୡࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿష㝀࡟ࠊ
ࠝࡇࡢࠞୡ⏺࡟ఫࡲ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ㄳ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ➨ඵࡣᖖ㝶௖Ꮫࠊᖖ࡟௖ࡢᩍ࠼࡟㏣ᚑࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨஑ࡣᜏ㡰⾗⏕ࠊ⾗⏕ࡢࠝồࡵ
࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࢆࠞ㡰ࡎࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨༑ࡣᬑⓙᘔྥࠊ
ࠝ⮬ศࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࠞࡢຌᚨࢆࠝ௚
࡬࡜ࠞᘔྥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ16ࠖ࡜ࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺ㄋ㢪࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࠊ኱㒊ศࡢே㛫ࡀࠊ༢࡞ࡿே㛫ࡢ฿㐩࡛ࡁࡿ⠊ᅖෆ࡟࠶ࡿ┠
ᶆ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ⾜ࢆ່ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠊᙉ࠸⇕ᮃࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜ࡀࠊ≉࡟೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡀࡓ࠸ࠋ➨୍࠿ࡽ୕ࠊභ࠿ࡽ୐ࠊࡑࡋ࡚༑␒┠
ࡢ㢪ࡣࠊࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓ൤♩⾜Ⅽ࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ඵࡢ㢪ࡣࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ᩍ࠼ࢆྵࡴㄋ㢪࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊேࡣࠊࡇࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢᙧᘧࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞⾜࠸௨ୖ
࡟ಙ௮ࡢ࿌ⓑ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ㢪ࡀゝཬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ➨ᅄࡢㄋ㢪ࡣࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊఏ⤫
ⓗ࡞኱஌௖ᩍࡢ൤♩ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡣゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ൤♩ࡀ㐨ᚨୖࡢᛮ⣴࡜㔜࡞ࡾࡣ
ࡌࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊㄆࡵࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᡃࠎࡀࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡢᇶ┙ࢆぢ࡚࡜ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊ၏୍ࠊ➨஑ࡢㄋ㢪࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ഴྥࡣࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ➨஑ࡢㄋ㢪ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓᩓᩥ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠶ࡿ
㸦845 ୗ࣭24 ⾜̿846 ୖ࣭28 ⾜㸧
ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡼࠊ࠶ࡿேࡀࠊ⾗⏕ࡢࠝồࡵ࡟⮬ࡽࢆࠞ㡰ᛂࡉࡏࡿ࡜ヰࡍ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࡢព
࿡ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊἲ⏺ࡢࡣ࡚ࡲ࡛ࠊ༑᪉Ᏹᐂࡢ⹫✵ࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡿ⭾኱࡞ᅜᅵ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠊከࡃࡢ␗
࡞ࡿ⾗⏕ࠝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜࠺ࠞ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾗⏕ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ༸
ࡼࡾ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣᏊᐑࡼࡾ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࡃ‵ࡗࡓ
ᅵᆅࡼࡾ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋወ㊧ⓗ࡟⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⾗⏕ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⏕࿨ࢆ⥔ᣢ
ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᆅࠊỈࠊⅆࠊࡑࡋ࡚㢼࡟㢗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ✀᪘ࡸရ✀ࠊࡲ
ࡓࠊከᵝ࡞ᙧࡢ㌟యࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢࠊ␗࡞ࡿⰍࡸᙧࠊぢࡓ┠ࡢࡶࡢࡶྵࢇ࡛ࠊ⹫✵࡟ఫࡲ࠺ࡶࡢ
ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ᳜≀ࠊⲡᮌࡢ㛫࡟࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧ᙼࡽࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌮ゎࡢ῝ࡉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡲ
16
➨஬࡜༑ࡢ㢪࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊேࡣࠊ೔⌮࠿ࡽ൤♩ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ཝࡋࡃࡏࡁ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆὀពࡍ࡭ࡁ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ࠶ࡁࡽ࠿࡟㔜せ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ௚ࡢᶵ఍ࡢࡓࡵࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
- 46 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡓࠊࡑࡢどᗙ࡜ពぢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᮃࡳ࡜႐ࡧࠊᛮ⪃࡜⾜Ⅽࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ࡞ࡽࢃࡋࠊ
⾰᭹ࡢᵝᘧ࡜㣗ࡢ⩦័࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ᵝࠎ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᮧࠊ⏫ࠊ㒔ᕷࠊᒃᡤ࡟ࡍࡲ࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⚄ࠎࡸ㱟ࡀ࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡓࠊே࡜ே࡞ࡽࡊࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠸ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊᅄ⫥ࢆḞ࠸࡚ࠊࡣࡗ࡚㐍ࡴࡀࠊࡑ
ࢀ௨እࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ஧Ṍ㊊࠿ᅄᮏ㊊࡛Ṍࡴࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊከ㊊࡛ࡶࡗ࡚Ṍࡴࠋ
࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ㌟యⓗ࡞ᙧែࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊ௚ࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ↓ᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ᏶඲࡟ព㆑ࢆ
ᣢࡕࠊ௚ࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊព㆑ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ᭱ᑠ㝈ᗘࡢព㆑ࢆᣢࡕࠊ௚ࡢࡶࡢ
ࡣࠊ᏶඲࡟ព㆑ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ㢮ࡢ୎ᑀ࡞Ẽ㓄ࡾ࡜ዊ௙ࠊရ≀ࠊࡑࡋ࡚฼┈ࢆ౪⤥ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢ㠀ᖖ
࡟ከᵝ࡞᭷᝟ࡢୡヰࢆ⾜ࢃࢇࡀࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆᙼࡽ࡟⼥ྜࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⚾ࡣࠊ
୧ぶࠊᩍᖌࠊᖺ㛗⪅ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㜿⨶₎࡟ぢࡏࡿࡢ࡜ྠࡌᩗព࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௖㝀࡟ྥ࠿
ࡗ࡚ぢࡏࡿࡢ࡜ྠࡌᩗព࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊᙼࡽࢆྲྀࡾᢅ࠺ࠋᙼࡽࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽࡢ༊ูࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ
࡞ࡃࠊᙼࡽࡢ඲࡚࡟ዊ௙ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
⑓Ẽࢆᝈ࠸ࠊ⾜ື⬟ຊࢆዣࢃࢀࡓ⾗⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣ་⪅࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊ┳ㆤே࡜ࡶ࡞ࢁ
࠺ࠋ㐨ࢆぢኻࡗࡓࡶࡢ㐩࡟ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢ⾜ࡃ࡭ࡁ㐨ࢆぢࡏࡿࠋ㜌ኪ࡟㐨࡟㏞࠺⪅࡟ࡣࠊ࠿ࡀࡸ
ࡃⅉⅆ࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㈋ࡋ࠸⪅ࡸᴟ㈋ࡢ⪅ࢆࠊ㇏ᐩ࡞ᐩࡀぢฟࡉࢀࡿሙᡤ࡟ࡲ࡛ᑟࡇ࠺ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡇࡑࠊ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ࠶ࡲࡡࡃබᖹ࡟⾗⏕ࢆ฼┈ࡍࡿ㐨࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙼࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞௙᪉࡛᣺ࡿ⯙࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ
ᙼࠊ࡞࠸ࡋᙼዪ⮬㌟ࢆ⾗⏕࡟㐺ྜࡉࡏࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖㝀࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊㄪ࿴ࡋ
࡚ࠊ㐺ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞௙᪉࡛ࠊᐇ㝿࡟⳶⸃ࡣ౪≀ࢆ௖㝀࡟ᤝࡆ
ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡀ⾗⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩗពࢆࡣࡽ࠸ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ⾗⏕࡟ዊ௙ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢ
⳶⸃ࡣዴ᮶࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩗពࢆࡣࡽ࠸ࠊ࠿ࡘࠊዊ௙ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ⾗⏕࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚႐ࡧ࡜ᖾ⚟ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊዴ᮶࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ႐ࡧ࡜ᖾ⚟ࢆࡶࡓ
ࡽࡍࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿዴ᮶ࡀࠊ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡢᚰࢆࠊࡇࡢୖ࡞࠸ᩗព
ࢆࡶࡗ࡚ࠊཷධࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ㅖషዴ౗௨኱ᝒᚰ⪋Ⅽ㧓ᨾ㸧
ࠋᙼࡽࡢ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡣࠊ⾗⏕
ࡢ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛ቑ኱ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒᚰ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ⳶ᥦᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡀࠊ᭱ࡶ
㧗ࡃࠊ᏶඲࡛᏶⎍࡞ᝅࡾ࡬฿㐩ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢ⳶ᥦᚰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡣࠊᒾ࡜◁ࡔࡽࡅࡢ୙ẟ࡞ᅵᆅ࡟Ⓨ⫱ࡍࡿ᫬࡛ࡶࠊỈࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ᒆ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ
྾཰࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅࡢ᰿ࢆᡂ⫱ࡋࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᯞࠊⴥࠊᯝᐇࢆ⦾ⱱࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠊ࠶
ࡽࡺࡿᮌࠎࡢ⋤ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⏕࡜ṚࡢⲨ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚⫱ࡘᮌࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶࡇ
ࡢ⋤ࡣྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ17ࠋ⾗⏕ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᰿࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௖㝀࡜⳶⸃ࡣࠊࡑࡢⰼ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊᯝᐇ࡛࠶
17
Ⓩሙࡋࡓ࠶ࡽࡺࡿཧຍ⪅ࢆࠊ࠸ࢃࡤࠊ༢୍ࡢ᭷ᶵయ࡬࡜⤫ྜࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᮌࡣࠊᩆ῭ࡢ㐣⛬ࡢ඲యᛶࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇ
ࡇ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
47 --- 47
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡀࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡢỈࡢ฼┈ࢆศࡅ୚࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
ᡃࠎࡣࠊ௖㝀࡜⳶⸃ࡢᬛ្࡛࠶ࡿⰼ࡜ᯝᐇࢆ⫱ࡴࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
࠸࠿࡞ࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡢỈ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚⾗⏕ࢆ฼┈ࡍࡿ᫬
࡟ࠊᙼࡽࡣࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊ᏶඲࡛᏶⎍࡞ᝅࡾ࡟฿㐩ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ⾗⏕ࡣ⳶ᥦ
ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾗⏕ࡀ࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡶࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊ᏶඲࡛᏶⎍࡞ᝅࡾ࡬⮳
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣฟ᮶࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡼࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᛮ⪃ࡀ࠿ࡓࡼࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃᖹ➼࡛࠶
ࡿ᫬࡟ࡢࡳࠊ඘ศ࠿ࡘ᏶඲࡞࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࢆᐇ㊶࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ
ࢀ⮬㌟ࢆ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕࡟㡰ᛂࡉࡏࠊࡲࡓࠊᙼࡽࡢせồ࡜ࡶㄪ࿴ࡋࡓ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡢᚰ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ௖㝀࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ᏶඲࡞౪㣴ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊἲࡢ౪㣴ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡇࡑࠊ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࢆ⾗⏕࡟㡰ᛂࡉࡏࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᙼࡽ࡜ㄪ࿴ࡋ࡚⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡃ⌮⏤࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ
㸦ᚋ␎㸧
ࡇࡢ୍ᩥࡣࠊ㦫ࡃࡇ࡜࡟㸦⳶ᥦᚰࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ࡢ㸧⳶ᥦࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢឿᝒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᏛၥⓗ࡞
ゎㄝࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࠊᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿࠋ
ࠗ኱஌Ⲯཝ⤒ㄽ࠘࠿ࡽࠊ࣐࢝ࣛࢩ࣮ࣛࡢ BhƗvanƗkrama ࡲ࡛ࡢ௖ᩍ
ㄽ᭩ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⡆᫂࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓ⪃࠼࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡓࡗࡓ௒ᘬ⏝ࡉࢀࡓᩥ❶୰࡛ࡣࠊឿᝒࡢᇶ┙
࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊᝅࡾࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡶ࡞ࡿ⾗⏕㛫࡛ࡢ┦஫౫Ꮡ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࡣࠊ⾗⏕ࡢᑛࡉࢆ
௖㝀ࡢᑛࡉ࡟➼ࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿࢩ࣮ࣕࣥࢸ࢕ࢹ࣮ࣦ࢓ࡢ⊂๰ⓗ࡞㆟ㄽࢆᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿࡸࡾ᪉࡛ᒎ㛤
ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢩ࣮ࣕࣥࢸ࢕ࢹ࣮ࣦ࢓ࡀࠊᚸ㎯࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᒎ㛤ࡋࡓ㆟ㄽࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ
㸦BodhicaryƗvatƗra VI.112-123㸧
ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊྡࡶ఩ࡶ࡞࠸⾗⏕ࡢᑛࡉࡀࠊ௖㝀ࡀ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗
⏕࡟➼ࡋࡃᢪࡃឡࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡢࡳಖドࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ୍ᩥࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊㄞ⪅࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡛㏣ồࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ௖ᩍᚐࡢ᐀ᩍ⏕άࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ᒁ㠃ࢆ↓ព࿡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊ௒ࡸ௖ᩍᚐࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⳶
⸃ࡢ఩⨨࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿぢゎࡢㄽᣐࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
೔⌮ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡣࠊࡇࡢᩥࢆㄞࡳ࠺ࡿ၏୍ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ௒୍ᗘࠊࡼࡾࡼ࠸
ゝⴥࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
⚄ヰࡸ൤♩࡜࿧ࡪࡶࡢ࡟↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃࡏࡿሙྜࠊ
⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂࠊ
࠾ࡼࡧࠊ
BhadracarƯ
ࡑࢀ⮬యࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࡶࡢࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⤒඾ࡢ≀ㄒࡢ୰࡛෌₇ࡉࢀ
ࡿࠊ⳶⸃ࡢຊ࡜Ᏹᐂⓗ࡞⾜࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿኊ኱࡞ᗁど㸦vision㸧ࡢ๓࡛ࠊᙳࡀⷧࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ୍ࡘ
ࡢព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᬻᐃⓗ࡞⤖ㄽ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊGv ᭱⤊❶ࡢ௚ࡢࣦ࢓࣮ࢪࣙࣥࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ⯡ⱝ௨๓ࡢྠ❶ࡢ₎ヂ୰࡟ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞୺㢟ࡀ
┠❧ࡘࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ஦ᐇࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂ࡟࠶ࡿࠊ
ࠕ༑ࡢㄋ㢪ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩓᩥࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟┦ᙜ
- 48 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽึᮇࡢ₎ヂࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ୰࡟ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜ
ࢵࢺᮏࡢ୰࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ⩻ヂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ༑ࡢㄋ㢪࡟ඛࢇࡌ࡚グࡉࢀࡿࠊၿ㈈
❺Ꮚ࡜ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ㐼㐝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩓᩥࡢ๓⨨ࡁࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿᐇཫ㞴㝀ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢ₎ヂࡢ
ᑐᛂ⟠ᡤ㸦஧ヂࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡟ࡼࡿ㡩ᩥ࡛ࡢ⤒඾ࡢ⤖ࡧ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᑟධ࡜࡞ࡿ୍⠇㸧࡜ࠊ኱
య࡟࠾࠸࡚㐪ࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶグࡋ࡚࠾࠿ࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⯡ⱝヂ࡛ࡢࠕ༑ࡢㄋ㢪ࠖࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ₎ヂࡢグ
㏙ࡣࠊࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ୰࡛ BhadracarƯ ࡟ඛ⾜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆᑟධࡍࡿᙺ┠ࢆᢸࡗࡓᩓᩥ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀ࡯
࡝㝿❧ࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ༑ࡢㄋ㢪௨እ࡛ࡣࠊ⤖ࡧࡢ㡩ᩥࡢ୰࡟ࠊỴᐃⓗ࡞┦㐪ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ
௒ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ὀពࢆྥࡅࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠗ⳹ཝ⤒࠘ࡢึᮇࡢ₎ヂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖ࡧࡢ㡩ᩥࡣࠊGv ࡜ Av ࡢṔྐࡢ୰࡛ࠊᡃࠎࡀ▱ࡿ BhadracarƯ
ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡼࡾྂ࠸⤖ᮎ࡟ࡲࡔྲྀࡗ࡚௦ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ẁ㝵ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ᪩࠸᫬ᮇࡢヂ࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞⌮᝿ࡢせ⣲㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊBhadracarƯ ࡢ൤♩ࡢせ⣲㸧ࢆぢฟࡍ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
࡜ࡃ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡣࠊ⳶⸃࡟㛵ࡍࡿูࡢほᛕ࡜ᙼࡽࡢᏱᐂ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡗࡓほᛕ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊከࡃࡢ኱஌⤒඾୰࡛ࠊ⳶⸃㐩ࡀఫࡲ࠺᝿ീᏱᐂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ␗࡞ࡗࡓഃ㠃㸧࡜ᢡࡾ
ྜ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᡃࠎ࡟ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Gv ᭱⤊⠇ࡢึᮇࡢṔྐࡣࠊྠ⤒ࡢ₎ヂ㛫࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ୺せ࡞ᕪ␗࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸஧ࡘࡢ⩻ヂࡣࠊࡑࡢᚋࡢ⯡ⱝヂᮏ୰ࡢグ㏙࡜ⴭࡋ࠸ᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢ஧ࡘࡢྂ࠸⩻ヂࡣࠊ
ࠗ኱ṇ኱ⶶ⤒࠘࡟࠾ࡉࡵࡽࢀࡿࠊ஧✀ࡢ BhadracarƯ ༢⊂
ࡢ⩻ヂ࡜ࡶᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋࡑࡢ୍ࡘࡀࠊ
ࠗᩥṦᖌ฼Ⓨ㢪⤒࠘
㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ࠘ᕳ 10࣭296ࠋ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡑࡢே
࡟ᖐࡏࡽࢀࡿ㸧࡜㢟ࡉࢀࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࡣࠊ୙✵ࢆ⩻ヂ⪅࡜ࡍࡿ㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ࠘ᕳ 10࣭297㸧
ࠊ
SamantabhadracaryƗ-pra۬idhƗna-[gƗthƗ]࡜࠸࠺ࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺࡢ㢟ྡࢆࡁࢀ࠸࡟཯ᫎࡋࡓࠊ
ࠗᬑ㈼⳶
⸃⾜㢪ㆽ࠘࡜࠸࠺㢟ࢆ᭷ࡍࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ18ࠋ
౽ᐅⓗ࡟ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂᮏࡢグ㏙࡜ࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂ୰࡟ಖᏑࡉࢀࡓಟṇ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡟ࠊࡶ
ࡗࡥࡽࠊὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡇࡲ࡛࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿ Gv ࡢࢧࣥ
ࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ୰ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡶὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸19ࠋࡑࡢ௚ࠊᚋ௦ࡢ஧✀ࡢヂᮏࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᮏ㉁
ⓗ࡞Ⅼ࡛ࠊ⯡ⱝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼࡾ᪂ࡋ࠸ᒙ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿ20ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢヂࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙
18
኱ṇ 296 ࡛ࠊᬯ㯲ࡢෆ࡟ࠊㄋ㢪ࢆᩥṦ⳶⸃࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢኚ໬ࡢഴྥࡀᙳ㡪࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ
ࡣࡓࡲࡓለⴠ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ☜ಙࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ஧ேࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ┦ᑐⓗ࡞㔜せᗘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀ
ࡽ඲࡚ࡢᩥ⊩࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡢΰ஘ࠊ࡞࠸ࡋΰྜ➼ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
19
⯆࿡῝࠸Ⅼ࡛ࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢヂࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢヂ࡜␗࡞ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊ኱㒊ศࡀࠊゝ࠸ࡲࢃࡋࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࡶࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇ࡢ඲⯡ⓗ࡞┠ⓗࡣࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ࠊ୧᪉ࡢ⩻ヂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠࡌࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
20
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊゎ᫂ࡢᚲせࡢ࠶ࡿࠊ஧ࡘࡢ㔜኱࡞ၥ㢟Ⅼࡢࡇ࡜ࢆグࡋ࡚࠾࠿ࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊ኱ṇ 296 ࡀࠊ
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ௙஦࡞ࡢࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢᩥ⊩ࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊGv ࡜ Av ࡢࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸ᙧែࡢ⤖ࡧࡀグࡉࢀࡓࡢ
࡜ྠ᫬௦࡟ࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡣ⊂❧ࡋ࡚ࠊ௒᪥ࠊᡃࠎࡢ▱ࡿࡶࡢ࡟㏆࠸ᙧࢆࡋࡓ BhadracarƯ ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧ࡍࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ୙✵ࡀ⩻ヂࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣࠊリ⠇ࡣࡼࡾ㛗࠸ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡾ㸦62 ࡢリ⠇࡜࡞ࡿ㸧
ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࠾࠾ࡊࡗࡥ࡟
࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ BhadracarƯ ࡢリ⠇࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿグ㏙ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓリ⠇࡛ࡣࠊίᅵ࡟ࡓ࡝ࡾ╔ࡃ
ᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ BhadracarƯ ࡜࠸࠺୺㢟ࢆࠊヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊඵ኱⳶⸃ㆭ࡜ྡ௜ࡅࡽࢀࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ูಶࡢᩥ⊩࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠊ20 ࡢリ⠇࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ⿵㑇ⓗ࡞൤♩ࡢᩥࢆࡶྵࡴࠋ㢟ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕඵேࡢ೧኱
49 --- 49
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
㝀⨶࡜኱ࡁࡃࡣ␗࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᭱ึ࡟ὀពࡋ࡚࠾ࡃⅬࡣࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ₎ヂ୰ࡢ㡩ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡍࡽࠊ᭱ࡶ᭷ຊ࡞せ⣲ࡣ
೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ₎ヂ୰ࡢ 62 ࡢリ⠇ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ21ࠊᅄࡘࡢࡳࡀࠊ᫂ⓑ
࡟ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞່࿌ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ㸦ࡇࢀࡣࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑࡢィ⟬࡛ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ
࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ೦ࡣࠊ㞧ከ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡟ഴ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧
ࠋ
ṧࡗࡓリ⠇ࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ11 ࡀࠊ᫂☜࡞൤♩ⓗ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊsaptavidhƗ anuttarƗ
pnjjƗ㸦୐✀ࡢ⮳ୖࡢ౪㣴㸧ࡢグ㏙࡛࠶ࡿ㸧
ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ27 ࡢリ⠇ࡣࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ Gv ࡢ୺㢟
࡟㛵ࡍࡿᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡾࠊAv ࡢṧࡾࡢ㒊ศ࡬ࠊGv ࢆ᫂☜࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ୺㢟࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ゝཬࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ௖ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢᬛ្࡜ຌᚨࡢࠊወ㊧ⓗ࡞ゎᨺ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝ㸦vimok‫܈‬a㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠊࡓࡔࡓࡔࠊᙼࡽࡢጾ⚄ຊࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⾗⏕࡜ࠊᙼࡽࡢᏱᐂ࡟ኚ໬ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ
௖࡜⳶⸃ࡢ⬟ຊࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ27 ࡢリ⠇࡟ࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀࡜ᙼࡢί໬ࡉࢀࡓ௖ᅵ࡬ゝཬࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ࡯
ࡢࡵ࠿ࡋࡓ 9 ࡢリ⠇ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ22ࠋ
ṧࡗࡓ 20 ࡢリ㡴ࡣࠊࡼࡾ┦ᛂࡋ࠸ゝⴥࢆḞࡃࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ
ࠓ✀ࠎ㞧ከࠔ➼࡜࿧ࡪศ㢮ࡢෆ
࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊୖグศ㢮ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡶ㐺ྜࡋ࡞࠸リ⠇࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ
㸦ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊၿ
ពࡢゎ㔘ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤ㸧൤♩ⓗࠊ೔⌮ⓗࡢఱࢀ࠿࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦౛
࠼ࡤࠊຌᚨࡢᘔྥ㸧
ࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࠿ࠊᩥṦᖌ฼⳶⸃ࢆ⛠ᥭࡍࡿリ⠇࡛࠶ࡿ23ࠋ
᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ೦㸦gƗthƗ㸧ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀᑟධࡢᩓᩥ࠿ࡽ┤๓࡟ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡣࠊ
࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ཷࡅ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ኚ᭦ࢆຍ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊGv ࡢࢧࣥ
ࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ࡛ࠊBhadracarƯ ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ 62 ࡢリ⠇࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡟ࡼࡿ₎ヂ୰ࡢ೦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿ㝿࡟㸦ㄞ⪅ㅖẶ࡟ࡣࠊ⯡ⱝࡢヂ୰࡟Ꮡᅾࡋࡓࠕ༑ࡢ
ㄋ㢪ࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀࠊࡇࡢ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸㸧
ࠊၥ㢟
ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋ
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂࡢ೦ࡣࠊ⯡ⱝヂ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦᪤࡟グࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᚋ
⪅ࡣ Gv ୰ࡢࡑࢀࡽ࡜ࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠ୍ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧
ࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢ೦ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞
ࡗࡓᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⯡ⱝヂࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ㡩ᩥ࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆࠊ඲ࡃྵࢇ࡛ࡣ࠸࡞
࠸ࠋ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢヂ࡟࠶ࡿ 99㸦!!㸧ࡢリ⠇ࡢ୰࡛ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞カ♧ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡏ
ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ୍ࡘࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊリ⠇ࡢఱࢀ࠿ࡀࠊ⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪࡟㛵ࡍࡿ൤♩ࢆᬯ࡟ព࿡ࡍࡿࡇ
࡞⳶⸃ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈶ḷ㸦stotra㸧࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ㆭࡢᏐࡣࠊ
ࠕ೦ࠖ
㸦gƗthƗ㸧ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⩻ヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜᥎ ࡍࡿ㸧
ࠋࡇࡢ㈶
ḷࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ูࡢ⚄ヰⓗࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡟㓄⨨ࡍࡿࠋ
21
22
23
ゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ⯡ⱝヂࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ✀ࠎ㞧ከ࡛ከ⩏ⓗ࡞ Gv ࡢࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊ㛗ࠎ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ༑ࡢㄋ㢪ࠖ࡬ࡢ⤖ࡧ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ┠❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㡩ᩥࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⳶⸃ࡢᣢࡘ┦ᑐⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࡣࠊ᫂ⓑ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏࠊ⯡
ⱝࡢ₎ヂࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡟ࡼࡿ༢⊂ࡢ₎ヂ㸦ඛ࡟グࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥṦ⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪࡜㢟ࡉࢀࡿ㸧
ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙✵ࡢ₎ヂ
࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊᮏ✏᳨࡛ウࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ BhadracarƯ ࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ
- 50 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
࡜ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ⳶⸃⮬㌟ࡢࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ௖ᅵ࡟࠸ࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖㝀ࢆ▱ぬࡍࡿຊࡸࠊᩆ῭άືࢆ௚ୡ⏺࡟
ࡲ࡛ᢞᑕࡍࡿຊ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡿ⣙ 29 ࡢリ⠇࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ᭷ࡍࡿወ㊧ⓗ࡞ຊ࡜࠸࠺୺㢟ࡀࠊリ࡟
ᶓ⁄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㹹୺㢟 A㹻
ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ኱㒊ศࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪࡜⾜ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ
ୖࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ 21 ࡢリ⠇࡛ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢຊࡣࠊ┤᥋ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀࠊᬑ㈼⳶
⸃ࡑࡢேࡢຌᚨ࡜ㄋ㢪࡬࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿ㹹୺㢟 B㹻
㸦₎ヂࡢᩥ⊩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௦ྡモࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ౑
⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢぢ✚ࡶࡾ࡟ࡣࠊࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊከࡃࡢᙜ࡚᥎㔞ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ㸧
ࠋࡊࡗ࡜ぢ
࡚ࠊ40 ࡢリ⠇ࡀࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ㐩ᡂࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ㉸㉺ⓗࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞≉㉁࡜࠸࠺୺㢟^C`࡟࠶࡚
ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ㐩ᡂࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᐇᅾࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ
࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⤖ᒁࡍ࡭࡚ࡣࠊ㉸ᖖⓗ࡞ຊࡢ⿕㐀≀࡛ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୐ࡘࡢリ⠇
ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟௖㐩ࡢ⾜࠸࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ^୺㢟D`ࠋ௖㐩ࡣࠊࡑࡢྡ๓࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊぢࡓ࡜
ࡇࢁ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᏱᐂ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ௖㐩ࡢ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡳ࡛ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ௖㝀࡬ࡢ೫ዲࡀぢࡽࢀ
ࡓࡾࠊ௖㝀㛫࡛ࡢ఩௜ࡅࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢリ⠇ࢆ࡝ࡇ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᅔᝨࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋୖグࡢศ㢮ࡢከࡃࡣࠊ୺㢟࡟㛵
ࡍࡿᕪ␗ࢆ㄂ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ⚾ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠊ኱༙ࡢリ⠇ࡣࠊ࠸ࡃࡪࢇ࠿ேⅭⓗ
࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ୺㢟ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࢆΰࡐ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ࠊ୍ࡘ௨ୖࡢ୺㢟࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊࡇࡢリ࡟࠾࠸࡚᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿᨭ㓄ⓗ࡞୺㢟࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢෆ࡟ල⌧໬ࡉ
ࢀࡿࠊ௖࡜⳶⸃ࡢ᭷ࡍࡿຌᚨ࡜ᬛ្ࡢወ㊧ⓗ࡞ゎᨺ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝ㸦vimok‫܈‬a㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢ୺㢟ࡣࠊᤄධⓗ࡟ၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡢᕠ♩ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊAv ୰ࡢ௚ࡢ⟠ᡤ࡛㉳ࡇࡿࡶࡢࡢ኱༙࡬࡜ࠊ⥅┠
࡞ࡃ⧅ࡀࡗ࡚⾜ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆぢ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ⤖ᒁࡢᡤࠊᡃࠎࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢึᮇẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢ୺㢟ࡣࠊAv ࡢୡ⏺ほ࠿ࡽࠊίᅵᛮ᝿ࡢୡ⏺ほ࡬ࡢ㌿᥮ࡶᐜㄆࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺24ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௖㝀ࡢຌ
ᚨࡣࠊ⾗⏕ࡢഃࡢఱࡽ≉ู࡞ດຊࡶᚲせ࡜ࡣࡋ࡞࠸࡯࡝ࠊᙉຊ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ᙉຊࠊࡑࢀ⮬య
ᙉຊ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊ࡯࡝࡞ࡃࡇࡢㄽⅬ࡟ᡠࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
Av ࡢ᭱⤊❶ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୰ᅜࡢఏ⤫࡛ࡣࠊ㐺ษ࡟ࡶࠕධἲ⏺ရࠖ࡜⛠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ⤒࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊ
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂࡢ⤖ࡧ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿㔜せ࡞せ⣲࡟┠ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
リ㡴ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩓᩥࡢᩥ❶ࡢㄝ᫂࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟධࡉࢀࡿࠋၿ㈈❺Ꮚ࡟ࡼࡿᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢゼၥࢆࠊ௓ᅾࡍࡿ
❺ᏊࡢᩥṦ⳶⸃࡜ࡢฟ఍࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢᩓᩥࡢ୍⠇ࡣࠊከࡃࡢⅬ࡛⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࢧࣥ
ࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ࡟㏆࠸ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏࡣࠊࡶ࠺ᑡࡋࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟㐍ࢇ࡛ࠊ
୍᪉ࡢ⤊➃࡛࠶ࡿᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢሪࡢᗁど㸦ࡼࡾ㐺ᙜ࡟ࡣࠊᘺີࡢ」ᩘ㝵ᒙࡢᘓ⠏≀ࠊ
ࠕᶂࠖ= ཝίⶶ኱
ᶂほ㸻Vairocana-vynjhƗlaۨkƗragarbha-mahƗknj‫ܒ‬ƗgƗra㸧࠿ࡽࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢ⤊➃࡛࠶ࡿᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢᐇ㊶⾜
࡬࡜ࠊㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ࠊ⥅┠࡞ࡃࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ๓⪅ࡢࠊᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢࠕᶂࠖࡢᗁどࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢᐇ㊶ࠊຊࠊ
ᬛ្ࡢሙ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢἲ⏺ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊṇࡋࡃ࠶ࡿࡀࡲࡲ࡟▱ぬࡉࢀࡿ᫬ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᐇᅾࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ୍
24
⚾ࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀࡬ࡢ⇕≬ⓗ࡞ಙ௮࡜ࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡬ࡢ ⏕㢪ᮃ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾཝᐦ࡞ព࿡࡛ࡢࠕίᅵᛮ᝿ࠖ࡟ࠊBhadracarƯ
ࡀࠊᖺ௦ⓗ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᬯ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
51 --- 51
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
᪉ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡀࠊ௒ᮏᚰ࠿ࡽ࠸ࡔ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ኱ᚿࢆල⌧໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⫼ᬒࡀࠊㄋ㢪ࡢᛶ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢᵓ᝿࡛ࡣ⳶⸃ࡀఱࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ᪤࡟ఱ࠿ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤒඾ࡢᵓ᝿ࡢෆ࡟ල⌧໬ࡉࢀࡓ᝿ീࡢୡ⏺ࡣࠊၿ㈈❺
Ꮚ࡜ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢฟ఍࠸࡬ࡢᩓᩥࡢᑟධ㒊ศࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㐺ษ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿྃࢆᗄࡘ࠿ᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ᴫㄝࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ
ၿ㈈❺Ꮚ࡟ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆゼࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡜ᣦᑟࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊᩥṦ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᑟࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊၿ
㈈❺Ꮚࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢఫࡲ࠺ሙᡤ࡬࡜㉱ࡃࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ㸦784 ୖ࣭9̿15㸧
ࠊ
ᙼ⮬㌟ࡢၿ᰿ࡢຊࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊㅖ௖ࡢጾ⚄ຊ࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿၿ᰿ࡢຊ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ື࠿ࡉࢀ࡚ࠊ
ࠝၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡣࠞ
ࠊ
ࠝ᮶ࡿ࡭ࡁࠞ༑ࡢ⍞┦ࢆ▱ぬࡋࡓ25ࠋ༑࡜ࡣ࡞ࢇ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
௨ୗࡀࠊࡑࡢ༑࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠊࠊ
1.
ᙼࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢίᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ༑ศ࡟Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓ⳶ᥦᶞࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
2.
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ௖ᅵ࡟ࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿᝏ㐨ࡶ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
3.
ᙼࡣࠊίᅵࡢ඲࡚ࡀࠊⶈ⳹ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
4.
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ௖ᅵࡢ୍ࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⾗⏕ࡢᚰ࡜㌟యࡀࠊ✜ࡸ࠿࡛ࠊᰂ㌾࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࠋ
5.
6.
ࠊ ࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ඲࡚ࡢࠝ௖ࠞᅵࡀࠊ↓ᩘࡢ㇦⳹࡞⿦㣭ရ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚Ⲯཝࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ௖ᅵ࡟ఫࡲ࠺⾗⏕ࡢ඲࡚ࡀࠊࡑࡢ㌟యࡢୖ࡟୕༑஧ࡢ┦ዲࢆᖏࡧ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
ࢆぢࡓࠋ
7.
8.
9.
10.
ࠊࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊ㇦⳹࡞ከࡃࡢ⿦㣭ရ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ௖ᅵࡀࡍ࡭࡚そࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ௖ᅵ࡟ఫࡲ࠺⾗⏕ࡀࡳ࡞ࠊឿᝒࡢᚰ㸦ឿᚰ㸧ࢆ⩦ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿίᅵ࡛ࠊ༑ศ࡟㣭ࡾ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡓ⳶ᥦࡢᗙ㸦㐨ሙ㸧ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ௖ᅵࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕ࡀࠊㅖ௖ࢆ㏣᠈ࡍࡿ୕᫕㸦ಟ⩦ᛕ௖୕᫕㸧ࢆ᏶඲࡟ಟ
⩦ࡋࠊᑓᛕࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓ26ࠋ
୕ࡘࡢヲ⣽ࡀࠊ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊίᅵࡣࠊ୙ኚ࠿ࡘ୙ྍḞࡢ⫼ᬒࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑ
ࢀࡽࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ௖㝀࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ௖ᅵࡣࠊᕼ᭷࡞ሙᡤ࡜ࡣᛮࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑ
ࢀࡽࡣࠊࡇࡢᏱᐂࡢ⮳ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢤࡁࢇ࡛࡚࠸ࡿࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ᝿ീᏱᐂࡢᮏ㉁
ⓗ࡞ᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୕࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ᥋㏆ࡢࡇࢀࡽࡢ඙ೃࡀࠊίᅵࡢ⚄ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ㔜኱࡞ᛶ
㉁ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡑࢀࡽ௖ᅵࡢᣢࡘᗁどⓗࠊ㨱⾡ⓗ࡞ᛶ᱁࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⳶⸃㐩ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽᗁどⓗࠊ㨱⾡
ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࢀࡽ࡟ᅖࡲࢀ࡚
㐟ࡧᡙࢀࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ⳶⸃㐩ࡣࠊ㛫㐪࠸࡞ࡃࠊᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࡢㄋ㢪ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ᭱ࡶ㔜せ
25
26
ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊίᅵಙ௮ࡢࠕ⚄ヰⓗ࡞ㄽ⌮ࠖࡢࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟᭱ࡶ㔜኱࡞㒊ศࢆᢸ࠺୺㢟ࠊᴗᅉࡢඹ᭷࡜ࠊຌᚨࡢᘔྥࡢ㔜
せᛶࢆὀពࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊඛ࡟グࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ൤♩࡜೔⌮ࡢฟ఍࠺ᒁ㠃ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ከᵝ࡞௖ᅵ࡜࠸࠺୺㢟ࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞㔜せᛶࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᅪⅬࢆ௜ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
- 52 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢࢆ㢧⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡲࡅ࡟ࠊࡇࡢᏱᐂつᶍ࡛ࡢወ㊧ࡀࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽࠊ⳶⸃ࡢຊࡢ㢧
⌧࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ㸦᭱ࡶ≉ᚩⓗ࡞άືࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸧
ࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ
≉ᚩⓗ࡞άືࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ᡃࠎࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᗁどࡢ⫼ᬒࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᏱᐂつᶍ࡛ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢຊ࡜ࠊAv
ࡢከࡃࡢ㒊ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⫼ᬒ࡜࡞ࡿࠊᏱᐂⓗ࡞ᗁどࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀࠊඛ࡟ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓᩥࡢࠊࡍࡄ
࠶࡜࡟⥆ࡃᩥࡢ୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㏆࡙ࡁࡘࡘ࠶ࡿ⳶⸃ࡢ฿╔ࢆ࿌ࡆࡿගࡢࣦ࢕ࢪ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿ
㸦784 ୖ࣭16̿୰࣭2㸧
ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡣࠊ༑✀ࡢ␗࡞ࡿගࡢ┦ࢆ┠࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
1.
ἲ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⟠ᡤ࡛ࠊ୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ඲࡚࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᙼ࡟ࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿዴ᮶
2.
ࡢ↷ᑕࡋࡓග⥺࡛⦅ࡳୖࡆࡽࢀࡓ㞼ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊἲ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⟠ᡤ࡛ࠊ୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ඲࡚࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᙼ࡟ࡣࠊᵝࠎ
࡞Ⰽࡢගࢆᨺࡘᐆ⌔ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࠋගࡣࠊᏱᐂ࡟࠶ࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿୡ⏺ࡢ୰ࡢࠊ᭱ࡶ
ࠊࠊ
⣽࠿࡞ᚤሻ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࠊἲ⏺ࢆ᏶඲࡟↷ࡽࡋࡘࡃࡍࠋ
3.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ඲࡚࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᙼࡣࠊከࡃࡢࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟㈗࠸≀㉁ࡢ㞼ࡢගࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ࡑࡢගࡣࠊἲ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿୡ⏺ࡢࠊ୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ඲࡚ࢆ࠶ࡲࡡࡃ↷ࡽࡋࡘࡃࡍࠋ
4.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ඲࡚࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠊዴ᮶ࡢࠊ⇞࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ගࢆᨺࡘᐆ⌔ࡢ㞼
ࠊࠊ
ࢆぢࡓࠋࡑࡢ⇞࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ගࡣࠊἲ⏺ࢆ࠶ࡲࡡࡃ↷ࡽࡋࡘࡃࡍࠋ
5.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠊ኱㢪ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿຌᚨࢆ࠾ࡉࡵࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᾏὒ୰࡛ࠊ
ࠊࠊ
ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ⳶⸃⾜࡬ࡢḼࡧ࡟ᶓ⁄ࡍࡿ㈹Ⴣ࡛ࠊἲ⏺ࢆ࠶ࡲࡡࡃࡳࡓࡍࠊ୍ษࡢ㤶ࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢගࢆᨺࡕࠊ࠶ࡲࡡࡃἲ⏺ࢆ↷ࡽࡍࠊ୍ษࡢ
6.
ኴ㝧࡜᭶ࡢගࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓࠋ
7.
8.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠊ┦ዲ࡜㝶┦ዲ࡜࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ௖ࡢගࢆ
ࠊࠊ
ᨺࡕࠊ࠶ࡲࡡࡃἲ⏺ࢆ↷ࡽࡍࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ✀㢮ࡢ⾗⏕ࡢ㌟యࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ࠊࠊ
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠊ⳶⸃⾜ࢆ᏶඲࡟ᐇ⾜ࡋ࡚ࠊἲ⏺ࢆ᏶඲࡟‶ࡓࡍࠊ
࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⳶⸃ࡢ㌟యࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓࠋ
9.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ㈗㔜࡞≀㉁࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊ࠶ࡲࡡࡃ༑
ࠊࠊ
᪉ྥ࡟ἲ⏺ࢆ᏶඲࡟‶ࡓࡍࠊ
ࠝ௖ࡢࠞጼ࡜ീࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓࠋ
10.
୍ࠎࡢᚤሻ࠿ࡽⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡣ඲࡚ࡢୡ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᚤሻ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୍ษࡢṇἲ
ࠊࠊ
ࡢ⏑㟢ࡢ㞵ࢆ࠸ࡓࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟㝆ࡽࡏࠊἲ⏺ࢆ‶ࡓࡍዴ᮶ࡢ㌟యࡢ㞼ࢆぢࡓ27ࠋ
ࡇࡢ୍ᩥࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢୡ⏺ࡢูࡢ㔜኱࡞≉㉁࡟ගࢆ࠶࡚ࡿࠋ⳶⸃㐩ࡣࠊఱ࠿ἲ⏺࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡟ఫ
27
ίᅵ࡬ࡢゝཬ࡛ࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ୰࡛ࡶ⾜ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊἲ⏺ࡢ୰ᚰᛶࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࢖ࢱࣜࢵࢡࢆ௜ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺࡢᩥࡣࠊ⾲㠃ୖࡣࠊࢃࡎ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࡎࡗ࡜෕㛗࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ⚾ࡢᥦ᱌ࡍࡿゎ㔘࡟᭷฼࡟ࠊࡑࡢ㔮ࡾྜ࠸ࢆഴࡅࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊAv ࡜ Gv
࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄋ㢪ࡣࠊ኱㒊ศࡣࠊᗁど࡜ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ດຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢃࡎ࠿࡟ゐࢀࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
53 --- 53
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࡲ࠸ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡑࡢୖ࡛⾜ືࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ௖㝀࡜⳶⸃ࡢ┠࠿ࡽぢࡓ࠶ࡿࡀࡲࡲࡢᏱ
ᐂࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊGvࠊࡲࡓ Av ࡢูࡢ⟠ᡤ࡛ᗄᗘࡶヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୺㢟
ࡀࠊ㏆࡙ࡁࡘࡘ࠶ࡿᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡜ࡢ㐼㐝ࡢ඙ೃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨๓ࡢၿ㈈❺Ꮚ࡜ၿ▱㆑
㸦kalyƗ۬a-mitra㸧㐩࡜ࡢከࡃࡢฟ఍࠸࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᩥᙬࡢ␗✀࡛ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ඙ೃࡣࠊ⳶⸃⊂≉ࡢάື
࡜ᡂᯝࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᪉㏵࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
୍ᩥࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⥆ࡃࠋ
ၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ༑ࡢ඙ೃࢆぢࡓ᫬ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡓࠋ
ࠕࡲࡎ☜ᐇ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡟఍࠼
ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⚾ࡢၿ᰿ࠝࡢᯝࠞࡣ⇍ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ௒࡞ࡽࠊ⳶⸃ࡢࡍࡤࡽࡋ࠸⾜ࢆࡶ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖࡜ࡶฟ఍࠺ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡟఍࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬࡛ࡉ࠼ࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃࡟ࡲࡳ࠼
ࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ㈼᫂࡟⌮ゎࡋࠊ୍ᚰ็㑣ࡢෆ࡟ࠊᙼࢆ♩ᣏࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜ࠋ
ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢணᮇࡏࡠฟ⌧ࢆ▱ࡽࡏࡿࡶࡢࠊᙼࡢ㉸ᖖⓗ࡞ຊࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡶὀពࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸
ࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ඙ೃࡣࠊᙼࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢド࡛᫂࠶ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᗁどࡀ⥆࠸࡚༶ᗙ࡟㉳ࡇࡿࠋ
㸦784
୰࣭2̿10㸧
ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡣࠊ┤ࡕ࡟ࠊ㔠๛ⶶ㐨ሙࡢෆ࡟ࠊዴ᮶ࢆ๓࡟ࡋ࡚ᗙࡋࡓᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆぢࡓࠋ
ዴ᮶⮬㌟ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ⶶᖌᏊᗙ㸦kusumatalagarbha-siۨhƗsana㸧࡟28ࠊ኱⾗࡟ᅖࡲࢀ࡚ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࡑࡢᚰࡣࠊ⹫✵ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ୙ί࡞ࡶࡢ࡬ࡢᇳ╔࠿ࡽࡶ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ
㞀ࡾࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ௖ᅵࢆίࡵࠊἲ࡛༑᪉ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࠊ㞀ࡾࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᬛ្ࡣሀᅛ࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࠊ
ἲ⏺࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
௒୍ᗘࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⫼ᬒ࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࢀࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊ௖ࡸ
⳶⸃࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠊᡃࠎࡢᏱᐂࠊἲ⏺࡜࠸࠺㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞Ᏹᐂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿወ㊧ⓗ࡞⌧㇟ࡢฟ⌧࡟ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᏱᐂ࡟ࠊ⳶⸃ࡸ௖ࡣࠊ≉ู࡞ຊࢆᣢࡘࠋࡑࡢከࡃࡢ≉㉁ࢆ㢧⌧ࡉࡏࠊኚᐜࡉࡏࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ᡃࠎࡢୡ⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࡢຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఱ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿຊࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ༶ᗙ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿ㸦784 ୰࣭15̿20㸧
ࠋ
ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ㌟య୰ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿẟ✰࠿ࡽࠊᏱᐂ࡟࠶ࡿ୍ษࡢୡ⏺࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿᚤሻ࡜➼ࡋ࠸ᩘࡢࠊ
ከࡃࡢග⥺ࢆᨺࡗ࡚ࠊ⹫✵࡜ࠊἲ⏺ࡢෆࡢ୍ษࡢୡ⏺ࢆ᏶඲࡟↷ࡽࡋࠊ⾗⏕୍ே୍ேࡢෆ࡟
࠶ࡿࠊ୍ษࡢ③ࡳ࡜ⱞࡋࡳࢆゎᾘࡋࠊᙼࡽࡢෆ࡟ࠊᜳࡃࠊ⳶⸃ࡢၿ᰿ࢆ㣴⫱ࡍࡿࠋ୍ࠎࡢẟ
✰࠿ࡽࡣࠊᏱᐂ࡟࠶ࡿ୍ษࡢୡ⏺ෆ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿᚤሻ࡜➼ࡋ࠸ᩘࡢࠊከࡃࡢⰼࡢ㞼ࢆ㸦୰␎㸧
Ᏹᐂ࡟࠶ࡿ୍ษࡢୡ⏺ෆ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿᚤሻ࡜➼ࡋ࠸ᩘࡢࠊከࡃࡢ㤶ᮌࡢ㞼ࢆᨺฟࡋࠊἲ⏺ࢆⲮ
ཝࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡾ࡜࠶ࡽࡺࡿ✀㢮ࡢ⏑࠸㤶ࡾࢆసࡾฟࡋࡓࠋ
28
ᡃࠎࡣࠊࡇࡢ௖㝀ࡀẝ├㐽㑣௖࡛࠶ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚ᕪࡋᨭ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
- 54 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ᡃࠎ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀ௨ୖࡢᘬ⏝ࢆ⾜࠺ᚲせࡶࠊၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ㛗ࠎ࡜㏙࡭ࡿᚲせࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢ཯᚟
⮬యࡣࠊ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙉㄪࡍࡿ౯್ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢ཯᚟ࡣࠊࡑࡢୖ࡟ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢຊ࡜ຌᚨࡀ
ᥥ࠿ࢀࡿ࢟ࣕࣥࣂࢫࠊ᝿ീࡢୡ⏺ࡢ࢟ࣕࣥࣂࢫࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᵝࠎ࡞ୡ⏺ࠊ௖㝀ࠊ⳶⸃ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ௖
ᅵ࡛඘ࡓࡉࢀࡓἲ⏺ࢆసࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀពᅗࡉࢀࡓࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺୖࡢ⩦័࡜ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࡞ࡢ࠿㸽
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡊࡗ࡜࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊAv ࡢ᭱ึᮇࡢࣦ࢓࣮ࢪࣙࣥࡢ୰࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ೦㸦gƗthƗ㸧࡟
ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ᪤࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ BhadracarƯ ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊඹ㏻Ⅼࡣ࡯ࡰᏑᅾ
ࡏࡎࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓࠊูಶࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢఏ⤫㸦recension㸧ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ஧ࡘࡢఏ⤫ࡣࠊඹ࡟ࠊྠࡌゝ
ㄒࠊྠࡌᩍ⌮ⓗࢸ࣮࣐ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊྠࡌᩥ㣭ࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀࡟ࡼࡿ
₎ヂࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࡢព࿡ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀ೔⌮ⓗ࡞୺ᙇࠊ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ≉᭷ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⚗Ṇ࿨௧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚ᕪࡋᨭ࠼࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢆࠊྵࡴࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊㄋ㢪
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ൤♩ࡢせ⥘ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊBhadracarƯ ࡢሙྜࡢᵝ࡟ࠊᩥṦ⳶⸃ࡸ㜿ᘺ㝀
௖࡟ᑐࡋࠊ≉ู࡞ᆅ఩ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢ⩻ヂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾ㔜せ࡛ࠊࡲࡓࠊ୰ᚰⓗ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࢸ࣮࣐ࡣࠊ
࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ Gv ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ࢸ࣮࣐࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡗࡥࡽ୙ᛮ㆟࡜ࡢࡳグ㏙ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿୡ⏺ࡢ୰࡛
ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢወ㊧ⓗ࡞ຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡃࠎ࡟ࡣࠊᩥ❶ࡢ඲యࢆ⩻ヂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⣬ᖜࡶ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡲࡓࠊ௖㥏
㊙㝀⨶ࡢヂ࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢヂࢆ㏲୍ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࡾࠊ࠸ࢃࢇࡸࠊBhadracarƯ ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⣬ᖜ
ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂࡢᮎᑿ࡟࠶ࡿᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ೦࠿ࡽࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࢆ㑅ࡧฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ⏝
࠸࡚ࠊὀ┠࡟್ࡍࡿ≉Ⰽࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡟␃ࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
⮬ࡽࡢㄋ㢪㸦ཬࡧࠊၿ㈈❺Ꮚࡀࠊ᪤࡟฿㐩ࡋࡓᗁど㸧ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀ Gv
ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠊ✵ࡢ↓᰿ᣐᛶ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡣࠊᏑᅾㄽⓗ࡞ࡶ
ࡢ࡛ࡶࠊᙧ⪋ୖⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊ௖ࡸ⳶⸃ࡢ᏶඲࡞⮬⏤ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡇ
ࡑࠊ௖ࡸ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ
㸦✀࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸧ಶࠎࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⾗⏕ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡾࠊᙼࡽࡀࠊ⾗⏕ࢆᩍ࠼ࠊ
ຠᯝⓗ࡟ᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵࡢຊࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㡩ᩥ୰࡟ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊ
(9)㹙786 ୖ࣭22̿23㹛௖㝀ࡢጁ࡞ࡿᬛ្ࡣࠊ⹫✵ࡢዴࡃࠊΎί࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢᚰࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺ
ࡿࠝ⾗⏕ࠞࡢ⾜࠸ࢆぬ▱ࡍࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊఱฎ࠿࡟␃ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸29ࠋ
ࠊࠊࠊ
(10)㹙786 ୖ࣭24̿25㹛୍ᚰ็㑣ࡢෆ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ୕ୡ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ≀஦ࢆ᏶඲࡟⌮ゎࡍ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
ࡿࠋ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕ಶࠎࡢᶵ᰿ࢆ᫂☜࡟▱ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᙼࡽ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡶࡢ⮬
ࠊ
㌟ࢆኚ໬ࡍࡿ㸦㝶඼ᡤᛂ໬㸧
ࠋ
29
ゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᙉㄪࡣࠊ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚ࡢゎ㔘ࡶྍ⬟࡛ࡣ࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽリ⠇ࡣࠊ௖
ࡢᚰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡶࡢ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕ඼ᚰ↓ᡤⴭࠖ࡜࠸࠺ཎ඾ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ㬀ᦶ⨶ொ࡟ࡼࡿ VajracchedikƗ ࡢ₎ヂ୰
࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠊ
ࠕ᠕↓ᡤఫ⪋⏕඼ᚰࠖ
㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ࠘8 ᕳ࣭235࣭749 㡫ୗ࣭23㸧࡜࠸࠺Ⰻࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓ୍⠇ࢆᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿࠋ
55 --- 55
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࠊࠊ
(11)㹙786 ୖ࣭26̿27㹛ࡑࢀࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕ࡢᚰࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡿⱞ③ࠊᙼࡽࡢ⾜࠸ࢆၿࡶᝏࡶᐜ
᫆࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋ⾗⏕࡟ṇἲࢆᩍ࠼ࢇࡀࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㅖ௖ࡢࡇࢀࡽࡢຊࡣࠊṇ☜࡟ࡣࠊㄋ㢪ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚฿㐩ࡍࡿຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᬑ㈼⳶⸃⮬㌟ࡣࠊㅖ௖࡜ࡑࡢ
ຊࢆぢ࡚ࠊ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ஦ᐇࠊGv ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᗄᗘࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣࠊ
᫬ࡢጞࡵ࠿ࡽ⤊ࢃࡾࡲ࡛ࠊᏱᐂࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤ࡛⧞ࡾᗈࡆࡽࢀࡿࠊ௚ࡢ࠶ࡾ࡜࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖࡜ࠊ⳶⸃
ࡢάືࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(13)㹙786 ୰࣭1̿2㹛
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠞ30ࠊᝨ࠸ࡸ㏞ዶࢆᚋ᪉࡟⨨ࡁཤࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⳶ᥦᚰࡀ᭱ึ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࠊ
ᩘ࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ຕࡢ㛫ࠊỌ㐲࡟⥆ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ⳶⸃⾜ࡢಟ⩦ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ31ࠋ
(13ab)㹙786 ୰࣭3㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ௖ἲࢆ༑ศ࡟ㄝ♧ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊ຾⪅㐩ࡢᛌ࠸ኌࢆ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ
ฟ᮶ࡿ㸦ᚋ␎㸧
ࠋ
≉ᐃࡢ௖ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ௖ᅵࡀࠊ≉ูᢅ࠸ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ඲࡚ྠࡌ⌧㇟ࡢ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ὀពࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡢリ㡴ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ௖࡜ࡑࡢ௖ᅵࡢගᬒࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
᫂☜࡞ࣄ࢚࣮ࣛࣝ࢟ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊྠ୍ᖹ㠃ୖ࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
(16)㹙786 ୰࣭7̿8㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ㔞ࡾࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ↓ᩘࡢຕࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢࠝ௖ࠞᅵࢆⲮ
ཝࠊί໬ࡋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㧗఩ࡢࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ᏶඲࡞ᝅࡾࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ├⯊㑣௖ࢆ┠࡟ࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
(17)㹙786 ୰࣭9̿10㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ㍤࠿ࡋ࠸≉ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᓫ㧗࡞௖ᅵ࡟ࠊ᏶⎍ࡉ
ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࠊⶈⰼ࡛඘ࡓࡍ㈼㤳௖࡜ࠊᬑ㈼኱⳶⸃࡜ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ32ࠋ
(18)㹙786 ୰࣭11̿12㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ⪷ู࡜ணゝࢆᤵࡅࡽࢀࡓほୡ㡢⳶⸃㸦AvalokiteĞvara㸧
࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ༑᪉ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿୡ⏺࡟඘‶ࡍࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ33ࠋ
30
೦ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ
ࠕᡃࠖ
㸦w΅㸧࡜࠸࠺௦ྡモࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ஧஑␒┠ࡢリ⠇࡟ࡢࡳ࠶ࡽࢃࢀࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ࡛
ࡣࠊ➨஧୍࡜භ୍␒┠ࡢリ⠇࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡢ௦ྡモࡢ౑⏝ἲࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡀࠊ
⮬ࡽࡢㄋ㢪࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠊከศ࡟ゎ㔘ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋリ⠇ࡢ
ከࡃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᐜ᫆࡟ࠊ㠀ே⛠ⓗ࡟⩻ヂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶฟ᮶ࡓࡔࢁ࠺㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕone can seeࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᵝ࡞㸧
ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ
ࡼࡾ୰❧ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࠊ᭱Ⰻࡢ⩻ヂ࡛࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢᢡ⾺᱌࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊ㠀ே⛠ⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓ㸦ၿ㈈❺
Ꮚࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࢆཷᐜࡍࡿ⫈⾗ࠊྠᵝ࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃㸧ࡣࠊ┠࡟ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᵝ࡟ヂࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
31
⚾ࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡜ၿ㈈❺Ꮚ࡜ࡀࠊAv ࡟ඹ㏻࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊMaitreya-vimok‫܈‬a ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠊㅖ
௖࡜⳶⸃ࡢ⤒Ṕ࡜άືࡢ᏶඲࡞඲ᬒࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊࡇࡢ೦ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
32
Gv ࡜ Av ୰ࡢ௚ࡢᡤ࡛ࡣࠊ㈼㤳௖ࡢ௖ᅵࡣࠊᮾ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ୰ࡢᑐᛂࡍࡿリ⠇㸦リ⠇ 9ࠊ443 ୖ࣭1̿2㸧࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ⚾࡟ࡣࠊ᭱ᚋࡢྃࡀࠊᙼࡽࡢ
௖ᅵࡢྡࢆグࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࡶࠊ᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
33
௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᚋ༙ࡢ㡩ᩥ㸦඘‶ㅖἲ⏺㸧ࢆࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂࡢࠕᡈ᭷ぢ௖↓㔞ᑑࠋ ほ⮬ᅾ➼ᡤᅩ㑃ࠋᜳᕬఫ
᪊℺㡬ᆅࠋ඘‶༑᪉ㅖୡ⏺ࠖ
㸦リ⠇ 10ࠊ443 ୖ࣭3̿4㸧࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ゞṇࡍࡿࠋ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡛ࡣ㜿ᘺ㝀࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ
௖ࡀࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ࡛ࡣ↓㔞ᑑ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⳶⸃ࡢྡ๓ࡀࠊ᪤࡟ほ⮬ᅾ࡜ᨵࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀព
ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶࡟ࡼࡿ BhadracarƯ ༢⊂ࡢ⩻ヂ࡛ࡶࠊࡲࡓࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୙✵ヂ
ࡣࠊ↓㔞ග࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸ࣉ࣮ࣛࢡࣜࢵࢺㄒᙧࡢ᭕᫕ࡉࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
- 56 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
(19)㹙786 ୰࣭13̿14㹛
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ
Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓࠊ
ᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࡢΎί࡞௖ᅵࠊ
ጁᴦཝίᅵ
㸦Abhirati㸧
ࢆ㐢ࡃ‶ࡓࡍ㜿㛹௖࡜ࠊ㤶㇟኱⳶⸃࡜ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ34ࠋ
(20)㹙786 ୰࣭15㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞගࡾ㍤ࡃΎ⃈࡞㙾࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠊⲮཝࡉࢀࡓࠊΎί࡞ࡿ௖
ᅵ㸦᫂ί㙾ጁ็㸧ࢆ㐢ࡃ‶ࡓࡍ᭶្௖35࡜㔠ᖮ኱⳶⸃࡜ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
(21)㹙786 ୰࣭17̿18㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞග᫂࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠊΎίࡢ௖ᅵ㸦Ύίග᫂็㸧ࢆ㐢ࡃ
‶ࡓࡍ᪥ⶶ௖࡜ࠊᬛ℺኱⳶⸃࡜ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢリᩥࡢ᭩࠿ࢀࡓᙜ᫬࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽ௖ࡢ඲࡚ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀಶูⓗ࡟ࠊ≉ᐃࡢಙ௮ࡢᑐ
㇟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ௖ࡸ⳶⸃ࡢෆࡢ࠶ࡿ⪅ࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࠋᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡸ㜿㛹ࠊほ㡢ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓ
࡜⪃࠼ࡿ36ࠋ⚾࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢ㒊ศࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ௖ࡢ୰ࡢ୍ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖ
ࡢ௖࡬ࡢ⇕≬ⓗ࡞ಙ௮࡟ᤝࡆࡽࢀࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢඹྠయࡢಙ௮࡟ッ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣู
࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤࡢ௖ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤࡢ௖ᅵࡢᏑᅾࢆ▱ぬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖͌⳶⸃࠿ࡽࡢࠊ᭱ࡶ㧗఩࡛ࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ᭱ࡶඃࢀࡓᝅࡾࡢຌᚨ㸦࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊᝅࡾ࡜
ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡑࡢࣦ࢕ࢪ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿ㸧࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠊ࡜࠸࠺ಙ௮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖᘬࡢ
リ⠇ࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(22)㹙786 ୰࣭19̿20㹛
㸦๓␎㸧
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ༑᪉ࡢୡ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௖ࡀࠊࡍࡤࡽࡋ࠸ගࢆᨺࡕࠊ
ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⾗⏕ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ἲ㍯ࢆ㌿ࡌࠊᙼࡽࡢ㏞ዶࡢ㜌ࢆྲྀࡾ㝖ࡃࡢࢆ┠࡟ࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ㸭ฟ᮶ࡓࠋ
(23)㹙786 ୰࣭21̿22㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞᙼࡽࡢẟᏍࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘ࡟ࠊᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢฟ᮶࡞࠸
௖ᅵ࡜ࠊ௖Ꮚࡢ㞟ࡲࡾ࡟ᅖࡲࢀࡓࠊㅖ௖ࡢኊ㯇࡞㌟యࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿ㸭┠࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
(25)㹙786 ୰࣭25̿26㹛↓ᩘࡢຕࡢෆ࡟ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞ⳶⸃⾜ࢆಟ⩦ࡋࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୍ࠎࡢᚤሻࡢ୰
࡟ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜↓㔞ࡢ௖ᅵࡢᏑᅾࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
⤒඾୰࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞᝿ീຊࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤ࡟ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᚤሻࡢ୍ࠎ
඲࡚ࡢෆ࡟ࠊ௖ᅵࢆ㓄⨨ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㞃႘ⓗ࡞ㄞࡳࡣࠊ㇏ᐩ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽ⪃࠼ࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢཷᐜ㸦literal acceptance㸧࡜࠸࠺⫼ᬒࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊయ⣔ⓗ࡞ᏱᐂࠊᏱᐂⓗ࡞ᒎᮃࡢグ㏙࡜࠸࠺⫼ᬒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㇟ᚩⓗ࡞ㄞゎࡀࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬
34
35
36
⥆ࡃ௖㝀࡜⳶⸃ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡣࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸ኚᙧࢆక࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂࡢᑐᛂࡍࡿ⟠ᡤ࡛ゝཬࡉ
ࢀࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊGv ࡢ௚ࡢሙᡤ࡛ࡣ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ୰ࡢࠕ᭶ぬࠖ
㸦443 ୖ࣭7㸧࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕCandrabodhiࠖ࠿ࠕChandrabuddhi࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
᭦࡟ᑡࡋୗࡢリ⠇࡛ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡣࠊ├⯊㑣௖㹙786 ୰࣭28㹛࡜㔘㏑㹙786 ୗ࣭5㹛࡜࠸࠺ࠊ஧ேࡢ௖㝀࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ࠊ෌ᗘࠊ⮬ࡽࡢぢࡓ௖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⚾࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢᩥࡀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛ࠊඛ࡟ᘬ⏝
ࡋࡓᩥ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕᡈίᡈᇈ✧ࠋㅖ⾜ᴗᡤ㉳ࠋᡈぢ├
⯊㑣ࠋ᪊ᙼ㌿ἲ㍯ࠋ㢧⌧⮬ᅾຊࠋ᪉౽ධᾖᵎࠋほᐹ⾗⏕㢮ࠋ୍ษᴗ↹ᝎࠋ㢧⌧⮬ᅾຊࠋ໬அ௧ゎ⬺ࠋዴ᫝ㅖἲ⋤ࠋ༑
᪉ୡ⏺୰ࠋ㢧⌧⮬ᅾຊࠋᡃ௒ㄝᑡศࠋᡈぢ㔘㏑ᩥࠋึᡂ➼ṇぬࠖ
㸦リ⠇ 26ʊ29ࠊ786 ୰࣭27 ୗ࣭5㸧࡜࠶ࡿࠋ
57 --- 57
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ᗘࡲ࡛၏୍ྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ␲ࢃࡋࡃᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤒඾ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࡓඹྠయ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⤒඾ࡢෆᐜࢆ㇟ᚩⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆㄞ
ࡴୖ࡛ࡢ၏୍ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡣࠊ⚾࡟ࡣಙࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ౛࠼ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࡶࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡜ࠊලయⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢᢕᥱ࠿ࡽጞࡵ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⤒඾ࡢᏱᐂⓗ࡞ᒎᮃ
࡜ࡣࠊ⤖ᒁࡣࠊࡑࡢෆ࡟⳶⸃ࡀఫࡲ࠺ୡ⏺࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡸίᅵ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡢ
ព࿡ࡢ㡿㔝ࢆᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㠀㞃႘ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽ᝿ീࡢୡ⏺ࡀࠊከࡃࡢ㔜኱࡞ᩍ⌮ᴫ
ᛕࡢព࿡ࡢ⠊ᅖ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ୍ࡘࡢỴᐃⓗ࡞ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ㡿㔝ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ
ಙ௮⪅㐩ࡣࠊ࡝࠺ࡸࡽࠊ୍⯡࡜≉Ṧࡢ㛫ࠊᢳ㇟࡜ල㇟ࡢ㛫ࠊ༢୍ࡢ⤫ྜࡉࢀࡓ୺㢟ࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ࠊ
」ᩘࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ㛫ࢆ⾜ࡁ᮶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦ྂ௦࢖ࣥࢻ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊලయⓗಙ௮ࡀࡶࡗࡥࡽ㇟ᚩⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ␲ࢃࡋ
࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࡀ㸧㉸⮬↛ⓗᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺Ꮡᅾࢆࡑࡢෆ࡬ྵࡴࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᒎᮃࡀࠊ࡝ࡢ
ᵝ࡟ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡢ஦౛ࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ࠊၥ㢟ࢆ⣡ᚓࡋ࠺ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᬑ㈼
⳶⸃ࡣࠊᏱᐂⓗ࡞≀ㄒࡢෆ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿᗈ኱ࡉ࡜ᑜᖖ࡞ࡽࡊࡿ⛛ᗎ࡜ࢆࠊᐇ㝿࡟ඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ
࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆᥥࡁฟࡍࠋᙼࡣࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊᝅࡾࡢቃᆅࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࠊ㢧⌧ࡉࢀࡿࣃࣀ࣐ࣛࢆ⤒㦂
ࡋࠊ㢧♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
(46)㹙787 ୖ࣭9̿10㹛ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝ⚾ࡣࠊ
ࠞぢࡓࠋගࡀࠊἲ⏺ࢆ↷ࡽࡋࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ௖ᅵࢆ↷ࡽࡍ
ࡢࢆࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠝㅖ௖ࡀࠊ
ࠞⓒṓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊⓒ༓୓൨ṓ࡟㐩ࡍࡿᑑ࿨ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ37ࠊ
(47)㹙787 ୖ࣭11̿12㹛ᩘ࠼ษࢀ࡞࠸ఱ඙ࡶࡢࠊᛮ㆟ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓຕࡢ㛫࡟ࠊΎί࡛ጉࡆࡢ࡞࠸Ὕ
ᐹ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ࠊ୍ᚰ็㑣ࡢෆ࡟ࠊ୕ୡࠝ඲࡚ࠞࢆ▱ࡾࠊ
(48)㹙787 ୖ࣭13̿14㹛᝿㉳࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ඲࡚ࡀࠊఱࡽࡢ⮬
ᛶࢆࡶḞࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ௖ᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠝㅖ௖ࡣࠊ
ࠞ᏶඲࡞ࡿᝅࡾࢆ㐩ᡂࡋࠊࡇࡢ
Ᏹᐂࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿୡ⏺࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ᏶⎍࡟㢧⌧ࡍࡿࡢࢆ38ࠋ
(49)㹙787 ୖ࣭15̿16㹛
ࠝㅖ௖ࡣࠊ
୍ࠞࡘࠝ༢⊂ࠞࡢୡ⏺ࡢෆ࡟⌧ࢀฟࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠝᙼ
ࡽࡣࠊ
ࠞ↓㔞ࡢ௖ᅵࢆࡶ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽ↓㔞ࡢ௖ᅵࢆ♧⌧ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ୍ࡘࡢ༢⊂
ࡢୡ⏺࡟ኚ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ39ࠋ
ᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡀࠊ
ࠕᏱᐂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿୡ⏺࡟ࠖࡇࡢᝅࡾࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ᫬ࠊ⳶⸃⮬㌟ࡀࠊᅉ⦕ࡼࡾ⏕
㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢຊ࡛ࠕ୍ࠎࡢ௖ᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠖࡇࡢᝅࡾ࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
37
⚾ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᡈぢ௖ᑑඵ༑ᖺࠋᡈᑑⓒ༓୓൨ṓࠋᡈఫ୙ྍᛮ㆟ຕࠋዴ᫝ᒎ㌿ಸ㐣Ṉࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢᑐᛂ
⟠ᡤ㸦443 ୗ࣭7̿8㸧࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢリ⠇ࢆ⩻ヂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
38
ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢᑐᛂ⟠ᡤࡣࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿ஦ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㸦443 ୗ࣭10̿11㸧
ࠋ
ࠕⓙᚘᚰ㆑ᅉ⦕㉳ࠋ
⏕⁛↓ᖖ↓⮬ᛶࠋ᪊୍็୰ᡂṇむࠋ୍ษ็⹦ᜳ஼ᡂࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࠋ࡜࡟࠿ࡃࠊ⚾ࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛リ⠇ࡣࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊㅖ௖ࡢάື࡜⤒㦂ࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
39
ࡇࢀࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࡸࡾ᪉࡛⩻ヂࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠊከ⩏ⓗ࡞リ⠇࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕ⬟⌧୍ୡ⏺ࠋ⪋స↓㔞็ࠋ♧⌧↓㔞็ࠋ
⪋Ⅽ୍ୡ⏺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢヂࡣࠊ⫢ᚰ࡞Ⅼ࡛␗࡞ࡿ㸦443 ୗ࣭12̿13㸧
ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕ୍ษ
ධ୍୍஼∞ࠋ㞉⾗⏕ᚰⓙ♧⌧ࠋዴ౗ఫ᪊↓ୖ㐨ࠋᡂᑵ༑ຊᅄ↓⏽ࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࠋ
- 58 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
࡜ࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࠊ␲ࢃࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍ࡘ௨ୖࡢ௖ᅵࢆ
㢧⌧ࡋࠊ༢୍ࡢୡ⏺ࡢෆ࡟ࡑࢀࡽࡢ඲࡚ࢆ㢧⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⬟ຊࡣࠊᝅࡾࠊᝅࡾࡢຊࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᬑ㈼
⳶⸃ࡢᩆ῭ࡢຊࢆྠ᫬࡟⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࠊࡇࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂࡣࠊΎί࡞
ࡿ௖ᅵ࡛ࡢ⾗⏕ࡢᝅࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦443 ୗ࣭11̿12㸧
ࠋ
㸦ᐇཫ㞴㝀ࠊ43㸧
ࠝᙼࡽࡣࠊ
୍ࠞࡘࡢ௖ᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᏶඲࡞ᝅࡾ࡟฿㐩ࡋࠊྠᵝ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ
௖ᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠝᝅࡾ࡟ࠞ฿㐩ࡍࡿࠋᙼࡽࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽ௖ᅵࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ඲࡚࡟
ධࡾࠊ
୍ࠝே୍ேࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ඲࡚ࡢࠞ⾗⏕ࡢࠝ⬟ຊࠞ࡟㝶㡰ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࠝࡢ௖ᅵࡢࠞ඲࡚
࡛ᝅࡾࢆ㢧⌧ࡍࡿ40ࠋ
ወ㊧ⓗ࡞ฟ⌧ࠊᗁどࠊᒎᮃࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᝅࡾࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ᫂☜࡞ศ๭⥺ࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⤒඾୰ࡢ✀ࠎࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀࠊࡼࡾᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ཎ⌮ࡢᬯ႘࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀ࠼࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⤒඾ࡢෆ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓ᝿ീࡢୡ⏺࡬ࡢᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᮃࡴ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤဴᏛⓗ࡞⌮ゎࡶࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ௙᪉࡛ࠊྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊࢸ࢟ࢫ
ࢺࡢᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ゝㄒࡸࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ゝཬࡢከࡃࡢᇶ♏ࢆᡂࡍᩍ⩏ୖࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢ⌮ゎࡀࠊ
᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸㸧
ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽከࡃࡢୡ⏺ࡢ✵ᛶ࡜ࡣࠊࡕࡻ࠺࡝ࠊ㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࡢ⿬
㏉ࡋ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋἲ⏺ࡣࠊᇶ┙࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᇶ┙ࠊ✵ᛶࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊከࡃࡢࡶࡢࡀ✵ᛶࡢෆ࡟Ꮡᅾ
ࡍࡿᨾ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢࡶࡢࡢලయᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢලయᛶࡣࠊ࡞࠾ࠊ㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞ୡ⏺࡜ࠊ㉸ᖖⓗ࡞ᩆ῭⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿ᝿ീୡ⏺
࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗁ᝿ࡢୡ⏺ࡣࠊ௖ࡢᝅࡾࡢࣦ࢕ࢪࣙࣥࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊලయ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢヂ࡟ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝࢃࢀࡿࠋ
(84)㹙787 ୗ࣭27̿28㹛ࡑࢀࡣ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ㨱⾡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ከࡃࡢࡶࡢࢆసࡾฟࡍࠊ㦫␗ࡢ
⾜࠸ࢆࡍࡿ⇍⦎ࡢྡᕤࡀ࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠝࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ࠊ
ࠞ⾗⏕ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㅖ௖
ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ㌟యࢆ㢧⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕᗁᙳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠖ㨱⾡࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⮬⏤࡛ࠊ୙ኚ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ
ୡ⏺ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊ
ࠕຊ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠖ㨱⾡࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᝿ീୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊ⳶⸃࡜ࡣࠊఱࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࡶ
⮬⏤࡛ࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ୙ኚ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᛁࡋࡃάⓎ࡟ືࡁᅇࡾࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⎔ቃ࡟㡰ᛂࡋ࠺ࡿᏑ
ᅾ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(85)㹙787 ୗ࣭29̿788 ୖ࣭1㹛ࡲࡿ࡛ࠊ⹫✵ࢆ ᮶ࡍࡿ᭶ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ‶ࡕ
Ḟࡅࡍࡿࡢࢆぢࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊὶࢀࡿᕝࡸࠊࡲࡓࠊụࡢ୰࡟ᫎࡋฟࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ཯ᫎࡍࡽࠊ⺯
ࡢගࡼࡾࡶ᫂ࡿࡃࠊගᙬࢆᨺࡘࠋ
(86)㹙788 ୖ࣭2̿3㹛ዴ᮶ࡢᬛ្࡜࠸࠺᭶ࡢΎί࡞ᐆ⌔ࡣࠊ‶ࡕḞࡅࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
40
443 ୗ࣭11̿12ࠋ
ࠕ᪊୍็୰ᡂṇぬࠋ୍ษ็ฎᜳ஼ᡂࠋ୍ษධ୍୍஼∞ࠋ㝶⾗⏕ᚰⓙ♧⌧ࠖ
ࠋ
59 --- 59
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡣࠊᚰࡢỈࡢୖ࡟┤᥋࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ཯࡛ᫎࡍࡽࠊ஧஌ࡢගࢆ෽㥙ࡋࠊࡑࡢ
㍤ࡁࢆኻࢃࡏࡿ41ࠋ
㨱⾡ᖌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺ᬯ႘ࡣࠊඛ࡟᪤࡟ὀពࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢㅖ⠇ࡢ୺ࡓࡿ║┠࡜࠸
࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢᩥ୰ࡢ➨஧ࠊ➨୕リ⠇࠿ࡽࡶぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ௖ࡢᝅࡾࡢࡶ
ࡗ࡜ࡶᚤ࠿࡞ගࡢ୰࡟ࡍࡽࠊࡑࡢᝅࡾࡢ඲࡚ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ௖ࡢᝅࡾࡣࠊ
㸦ࡶࡗࡥࡽእぢୖࡔ
ࡅ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸧ᐇయࡢ࡞࠸཯ᫎࡢ୰࡟ࡶዴఱ࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࠿Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ⾲㠃ୖࡣࠊリⓗ࡞㄂ᙇ⾲⌧࡜ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢᩥᏛⓗࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞㔜せᛶࠊࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠊࡇࡢᗁどࡢ㞝኱ࡉࡢ㔜せᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡇࡢ✵࡞ࡿୡ⏺
ࡣࠊࡲࡓࠊከࡃࡢ㦫␗ࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࡔࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢୡ⏺ࡢࡉࡗ࡜ᣑࡀࡿᒎᮃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ἲ⏺ࡇࡑࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊGv ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⳶⸃ࡢࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㔜せ࡞ᡂᑵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡇࡑࠊᅛ᭷ࡢ≉ᛶࢆ
㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡓࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⾗⏕ࡢᖹ➼ᛶࡢㄆ㆑ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࠊ✵࡟࠾ࡅࡿྠ୍ᛶࡢࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࢆࠊㄝ᫂
ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊᥥ෗ࡍࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⚾ࡀ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠊAv ࡢᒎᮃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡣࠊἲ⏺࡜࠸࠺᝿ീୡ⏺࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞┤႘⾲⌧ࡢෆ࡟ࠊゝእ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(87)㹙788 ୖ࣭4̿5㹛ࡑࢀࡣࠊᑾࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠸⌋ࡋ࠸ᐆ≀࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓࠊ኱ࡁࡃ῝࠸኱ὒࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟ࠊከ✀ࡢࠊ␗࡞ࡿ㌟యⓗ࡞እぢࢆᣢࡘ⾗⏕ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(88)㹙788 ୖ࣭6̿7㹛ᅉ⦕ࡢ῝࠸ᾏࡢ୰࡛ࠊຌᚨࡢᐆࡣᑾࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊΎί࡞ἲ㌟ࡢෆ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㢧⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽ↓ᙧࡢࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸42ࠋ
(89)㹙788 ୖ࣭8̿9㹛ࡑࢀࡣࠊୡ⏺ࡢ㜌ࡢୖ࡟ගࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿࠊΎί࡟㍤ࡃኴ㝧ࡢᐆ⌔ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୕⏺ࡢ⮳ࡿᡤ࡟࠶ࡿ㜌ࢆゎᾘࡍࡿࠊዴ᮶ࡢᬛ្࡜࠸࠺Ύί࡞ኴ㝧
࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᚋ␎㸧
ࠋ
(90)㹙788 ୖ࣭10̿11㹛㱟⚄ࡀࠊ㇏࠿࡞㞼ࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤࡢࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿࡶࡢ࡬࡜㞵ࢆ
ࡶࡓࡽࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࡢ‵Ẽࢆ඲ࡃኻ࠺ࡇ࡜࡞ࡋ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ㌟య࡜ᚰࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ⇕ࢆࡉࡲ
ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊᚰ㌟ࢆ∝ᛌ࡟ࡍࡿᾴẼࢆᚓࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
(91)㹙788 ୖ࣭12̿13㹛ዴ᮶ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ኱࠸࡞ࡿឿᝒࡢ㞼ࢆ࠾ࡇࡋࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙᡤ࡬࡜ࠊࡇ
ࡢୖ࡞ࡃ⨾࿡ⰾ㤶ࡢἲ㞵ࢆ㝆ࡽࡏ࡚ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୕ẘࡢ⇕ࢆ෭ࡲࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᚋ␎㸧43ࠋ
41
ࠕ㆜ዴί᭶ᅾ⹫✵ࠋ௧ୡ⾗⏕ぢቑῶࠋ୍ษἙụ⌧ᙳീࠋᡤ᭷ᫍᐟዣගⰍࠋዴ᮶ᬛ᭶ฟୡ㛫ࠋ஼௨᪉౽♧ቑῶࠋ⳶
⸃ᚰỈ⌧඼ᙳࠋ⫆⪺ᫍᐟ↓ගⰍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᐇཫ㞴㝀ࡢヂ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࡀ᭷⏝࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸦444 ୗ࣭2̿5㸧
ࠋ୙㐠࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊ
ཎ඾ࡀ↓ࡅࢀࡤࠊ஧ヂࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡀࠊゎ㔘ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡀࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠊ༢࡟␗࡞ࡿཎ඾ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
42
ᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ୰ࡢᑐᛂ⟠ᡤࡣࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊリ⠇ࡢព࿡ࡶࠊ௖ࡢ㌟య㸦ㅖ௖ࡢ࣌ࣝࢯࢼ㸽㸧
ࠊᙼࡽࡢᚨࠊἲ
⏺ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊἲ⏺ࡢᗁど࡛ࡁࡿ⾗⏕ࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࡢࡪࢀࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⚾࡟ࡣࠊࡼࡾ᫂ᛌ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ௖㌟
ຌᚨᾏ஼∞ࠋ↓ᇈ↓⃮↓㑔㝿ࠋ஀⮳ἲ⏺ㅖ⾗⏕ࠋ㠂୙᪊୰⌧඼ᙳࠖ
㸦444 ୗ࣭8̿9㸧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
43
ᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂ࡛ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢリ⠇ࡢ࡞࠿ࡢ᭱ึࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊࡼࡾ᫂☜㸦࠿ࡘព࿡ࡀ㇏࠿㸧࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㸦444 ୗ࣭12̿13㸧
ࠋ
ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕ㆜ዴ㱟⋤㝆኱㞵ࠋ୙ᚑ㌟ฟཬᚰฟࠋ⪋⬟㟏έᜳ࿘㐢ࠋ⁡㝖⅖⇕౑Ύᾴ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ➨஧ࡢࡶࡢ㸦444 ୗ࣭
- 60 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡇࡢࠊከࡃࡢୡ⏺ࡢ୰ࡢ୍ୡ⏺ࠊከࡃࡢ௖࡜ከࡃࡢ௖ᅵࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡀࠊ
㸦௒᪥ࠊᡃࠎࡢ᫬௦
࡟࠾࠸࡚㸧⮬↛࡞ୡ⏺࡜⪃࠼࡞࠸ୡ⏺ࡢᒎᮃࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ಙ௮ࡢయ⣔࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ฟⓎⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚
ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢయ⣔ࡣࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡜ඹ࡟㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡑࡢ᰿※ࡢ᫬࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡍࡽ㸧
ࠊ➇ྜࡋ࠶࠺య⣔࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᇶᮏ࡜࡞ࡿࣔࢹࣝࡢᶒጾ࡜ᙳ㡪ࡣྰᐃ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠋ
⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚
⚾ࡣࠊGv ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣ Av ࡢṔྐࡢ࠶ࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢྡኌࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ௖ᩍᚐࡀࠊ
⤒ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞⤖ࡧ࡜ࡋ࡚ BhadracarƯ ࢆᤄධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊఱ࠿⋓ᚓࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡿ
࡯࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ➨୍࡟ࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢ൤♩࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊࡑࡢ⤒
ࡢ㒊ศࠎࠎࢆ൤♩ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࡓࠋ⥆࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡀࠊ⤒඾ࡢྡኌ࡜ࠊ
ᴟᴦίᅵ࡜㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡜࠸࠺≉ᐃࡢίᅵ࡜ࡑࡇ࡟ఫࡲ࠺௖࡬ࡢಙ௮࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࠊ┦஫ṇᙜ໬ࢆࡶྍ⬟࡜
ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ࡜ࠊ⯡ⱝ࡟ࡼࡿ₎ヂ࡟ࡑࡢ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ẁ㝵ࡀಖᏑࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿ㐣⛬ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡀ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡜ᐇཫ㞴㝀ヂࡢ Av ࡢ⤖ࡧ࡟ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀ௒᪥ࠊㅖίᅵࡢࠊ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ
༢ᩘᙧ࡛ࠊ
ίᅵࡢ௖ᩍ࡜ࠊ
ᅇ㢳ⓗ࡟࿧ࡪಙ௮ࡢ㞟ᅋࡢⓎᒎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␗࡞ࡿẁ㝵ࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣࠊึᮇࡢᙧែ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ࡢᝅࡾ࡬ࡢಙ௮ࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ✀ࠎࡢ⳶⸃ࡸ௖
ࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢻ᐀ᩍ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྠᵝࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛ඹᏑࡋࠊಙ⪅࠿ࡽࡢὀ┠ࢆồࡵ࡚➇࠸ྜ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊGv ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡀࡍ࡛࡟ㄽࡌࡓⅬࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍ࡞ࡽࡤ44ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡇࡑࡀࠊ௖ᩍ◊✲⪅࠿ࡽࡢὀពࢆせࡍࡿࠊ᐀ᩍᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ୍ࡘࡢ㔜኱࡞ḟඖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ≀
ㄒࡢ᐀ᩍ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ௖ᩍࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ௖ᩍࡀࠊඖ᮶ࠕ≀ㄒࡢ᐀ᩍ࡛ࠖࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠸
ࡓ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡓࡔࠊ௖ᩍ⤒඾ࡢ◊✲⪅ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟௖ᩍ◊✲⪅࡟ࠊ௖ᩍࡢゝ
ㄝࠊᣑ኱ࡍࢀࡤ௖ᩍࡢಙ௮࡜൤♩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≀ㄒࡢ㔜せᛶ࡬ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ಁࡋࡓ࠸ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࡢ⚄Ꮫ⪅ࡀࠕ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࠖࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚ࡁࡓព࿡࡛ࠊ᐀ᩍᛮ᝿࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
≀ㄒࡢ㔜せᛶࢆゝࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸45ࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⚾ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ⚄Ꮫⓗ࡞ᛮ⣴࡜ࡋ࡚ពᅗࡉ
14̿15㸧ࡣࠊࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᣢ⥆ࡉࢀࡓᬯ႘ࡢࡺࡿࡸ࠿࡞୍㒊࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕዴ᮶ἲ㞵஼᚟↛ࠋ୙ᚑ᪊
௖㌟ᚰฟࠋ⪋⬟㛤ᝅ୍ษ⾗ࠋᬑ౑⁛㝖୕ẘⅆ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
44
45
ト 9 ࡟࠶ࡆࡓ JIABS ᥖ㍕ࡢᣋ✏ “On Buddhist Wonders and Wonder-working” ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
௒୍ᗘࠊỴࡋ୍࡚⩏ⓗ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡿ௨๓࡟ጞࡲࡿࠊ
㛗࠸Ṕྐࢆకࡗࡓ⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛࡢ⬮ὀࡢ 9 ࡜ 15 ࡛ゝཬࡋࡓㄽᩥ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊGary L. COMSTOCK “Two Types of
Narrative Theology”㸦Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 55.4 (1987), pp. 687-717㸧
ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊJulian Hartt
“Theological Investments in Story: Some Comments on Recent Developments and Some Proposals”㸦Journal of the American
Academy of Religion, vol. 52(1984), pp. 117-130㸧ཧ↷ࠋࢥ࣒ࢫࢺࢵࢡ Comstock ࡜ࢢࣛ࢖࣒ࢫ Grimes ࡣࠊ໭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝
࡛ࡢ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸㢮ᆺㄽࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⚾ࡢ௻ᅗࡀࠊ࡝ࡢᵝ࡞࠿ࡓࡕ࡛≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫ࡜
␗࡞ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾⰋ࠸⌮ゎࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄞ⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊᙼࡽࡢ◊✲࡬ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ಁࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
61 --- 61
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
ࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦⚾ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୺ᙇࡀࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓ௖ᩍࡢࠕ⚄Ꮫࠖ
ࠊ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡀዲࡴࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࠖࢆඛ࡬࡜㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࠿ࡓࡕ࡛
⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ࠿⌮ゎฟ᮶ࡿࡢࡔࡀ㸧46ࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ⚾ࡀࠊ≀ㄒࡸࠕᒎᮃ㸭ᗈࡀࡾࡢ≀ㄒࠖnarrative of vistas)
࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢࡶࠊすὒࡢ⚄Ꮫⓗᛮ⣴࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⪷඾㈨ᩱࠊྠࡌࡃࠊఏグ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࢆゎㄝࡍࡿከࡃࡢேࡢ㛫࡟ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ᕪ␗ࡣ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ47ࠊすὒࡢ⚄
Ꮫ⪅ࡣࠊṔྐࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊே⏕ࡢฟ᮶஦࡜ࡋ࡚≀ㄒࢆ≉ูᢅ࠸ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡇࡇ࡛⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࢸ࢟ࢫ
ࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ␗ୡ⏺ࡢ๰㐀ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ⚾ࡀ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟
ࠊࠊ
ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࡢᩆ῭ࡢ⚄Ꮫ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡶࡢࡣࠊ࠾ヰࡋ㸦story-telling㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≀ㄒ
ࠊࠊ
㸦narrative㸧࡜ࠊṔྐࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊၨ♧࡜ᩆ῭ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⪷⪅ࡸࠊᶍ⠊ⓗ࡞ே≀ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ⏕ᾭࡢ
ᐇ㝿ࡢṔྐ࡜ࡢྠ୍どࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ㔜」ࡢෆ࡟ࠊᬯ㯲ࡢฟⓎⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ≀ㄒࡀࠊᩆ῭ࡢ㐍⾜ࡢල⌧໬
࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࢆ₇ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
௚᪉ࠊࡇࡇ᳨࡛ウ୰ࡢ௖ᩍࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ≀ㄒ࡜ᩥᏛⓗ࡞᝿ീຊࡣࠊಙ௮⪅㐩ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ
ࡿ⏕࡜Ṛࡢ⨜࠿ࡽ㏨ࢀ࡚ࠊ௖ࡸ⳶⸃࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ୡ⏺ࡢ⮬⏤࡬࡜㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ
ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡼࡾᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞௖ᩍࡢゝⴥࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊୡ㛫࠿ࡽ㏨ࢀฟ࡚ࠊἲ⏺࡜࠸࠺ฟୡ
㛫ࡢୡ⏺࡬㉺࠼Ώࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊGv ࡜ Av ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ⚾ࡣ୺ᙇࡍ
ࡿࠋ௒ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ㈨ᩱࢆ㉺࠼୍࡚⯡໬ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ⓗぢᆅ࠿ࡽࠊᩆ῭࡜ゎ⬺࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≀ㄒࡣࠊゎ⬺࡬࡜ᑟࡃࠊ≀ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ
ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶᕪࡋᨭ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊすὒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⢭⚄ศᯒᏛࡸࠊ⮬ླྀఏ◊✲࡜࠸ࡗࡓ
ศ㔝࡛⥥ᐦ࡟◊✲ࡉࢀࡿࠊಶேࡢே⏕ࡢࠊ≀ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿᵓ⠏࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊከࡃ
ࡢⅬ࡛ࠊಶேࡢே⏕ࡢ≀ㄒࢆㄒࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡶ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄒࡿࡇ࡜ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀወ㊧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⫼
ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀᣢࡘຊࡣࠊಶேࡢே⏕࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿࡶࡢࢆ㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡿ48ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⾲ᒙࠊఏ⤫㸦≀ㄒࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿఏ⤫ⓗ࡞᪉ἲ㸧ࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡿࡑࡢព࿡ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ≀ㄒ
ࡢᒎᮃࢆ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞ᛮ⣴ἲ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍᡃࠎࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡜ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚ࡶᕪࡋᨭ࠼࡞࠸㸦ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡇ
࡛ࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ໭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢࠕ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࠖࡢ≉ᐃࡢᙧ࡜ࡢࠊ㔜኱࡞㔜」ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࡑࢀࡣࠊ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࡢ⚄Ꮫ⪅ࡢุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸧
ࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢᢅ࠺ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣࠊࣟࢼࣝࢻ࣭ࢢࣛ࢖࣒ࢫ Ronald L. GRIMES ࡀ⤖ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᐀ᩍ◊
✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢ≀ㄒࡢ౑⏝ࢆᢈุࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊゝእ࡟࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡍ49ࠊࢃࡎ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡿഃ㠃࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
46
⚾ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛮ⣴ࢆࠊ႐ࢇ࡛㏄࠼ධࢀࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡓࡔಶேⓗ࡟ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᛮ⣴࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊ
ࡑࡢ᪉ྥ࡬࡜㐍ࡴ‽ഛࡀฟ᮶࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
47
≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫࢆᢅ࠺㝿ࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊRonald L. Grimes “Of Words the Speaker, Of Deeds the Doer”㸦Journal
of Religion vol. 66(1986), pp. 1-17㸧
ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊඛࡢ⬮ὀ 45 ࡛ㄽཬࡍࡿࠊࢥ࣒ࢫࢺࢵࢡ࡟ࡼࡿㄽᩥࢆཧ↷ࠋ
48
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ௨ୖࡣࠊወ㊧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ JIABS ᥖ㍕ࡢᣋ✏ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
49
ඛࡢࠊ⬮ὀ 47 ࡛ゝཬࡋࡓㄽᩥࡢ 16 㡫࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
- 62 -
ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⚄Ꮫⓗᢅ࠸ࡢከࡃࡀࠊㄞࡴࡇ࡜㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ෌ࡧ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜㸧࡜ࠊ෌ㄞࡍࡿࡇ࡜
㸦෌ࡧ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜㸧࡜ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ෌ࡧ⪺ࡃ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊᡃࠎࡀᡭ࡟ờࢆᥱࡗ࡚ࠊክ
୰࡛ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡑ࠺࡟ࡣ࡞࠸㸦୰␎㸧
ࠋ
ࠕ≀ㄒࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠖ
㸦ࣜࢡ࣮ࣝ Ricoeur ࡢ⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࡢ
⌧㇟Ꮫࡀࠊࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ࠊ⚄ヰ࡜൤♩ࡢ㛫࡟ᯫࡅࡽࢀࡓᶫ࡬࡜ᡃࠎࢆᑟࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᐇ㝿ࠊGv ࡜ Av ୰ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࠾ࡇࡿ≀ㄒࡢฟ᮶஦࡟ࡣᯫᶫࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊẸ
᪘ṔྐᏛⓗ࡟㣕㌍ࡍࢀࡤࠕᡃࠎࡀᡭ࡟ờࢆᥱࡗ࡚ࠊክ୰࡛ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡑ࠺࡟ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠖࡲ࡛ࠊ௒᪥
௚ࡢ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃࡢ⤒඾ࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿᵝ࡟ࠊGv ࡸ Av ࡜࠸࠺ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡶၐ࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡲࡓࠊ཯᚟ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡓ࡜௬ㄝࡋ࠺ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ࠶ࡾ࠼ࡑ࠺࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ౑⏝ࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕト㔘୰ࡢᘬ⏝࡜ゎㄝࠊᇶᮏ⚄ヰࡢㄝᩍࠊ≀ㄒⓗ࡞ᒎᮃࡢㄒࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾
ࡣࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞཯᚟࡜ゎㄝⓗ࡟෌ࡧヰࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ୧ᙧᘧࡀࠊ᐀ᩍᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᵝᘧ㛫ࡢࠊศ㔝㛫ࡢᯫᶫ࡜
ࡋ࡚ᙺ❧ࡕ࠺ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ≀ㄒࡣࠊᯫᶫ௨ୖࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㏣ຍⓗ࡞ᙧᘧࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊศ㔝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄆ▱⌮ㄽࡢ◊✲⪅ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍಙ௮࡬࡜ྥ࠿࠺ே㛫ࡢ⾪ືࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿᵝᘧࡸࠊಙ௮ࢆཷࡅ࠸ࢀࡿ⬟ຊ
ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿᵝᘧࡢ⠊ᅖࢆゎㄝࡋ࠺ࡿ஧ࡘࡢ㍈ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊࣁ࣮ࣦ࢙࢖࣭࣍࣡࢖ࢺࣁ࢘
ࢫ Harvey WHITEHOUSE㸦2000 ࡜ 2004㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ50ࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊ࢖࢙ࢫࣃ࣭ࢧ࢔࢔
ࣥࢫࣥ Jesper SØRENSEN㸦2005 ࡜ 2007㸧࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡣ51ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࡼࡃฟ᮶ࡓࣔࢹ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀ
ࡒࢀࠊ
ࠕㄽ⌮㸦arguments㸧࡜അീ㸦icons㸧
ࠖ㛫ࡢ༊ู㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⚾ࡣࠊ୰ᚰ㍈࡜࿧ࡪ᪉ࢆዲࡴࡔ
ࢁ࠺㸧࡜ࠊ
ࠕ㨱⾡ⓗゎ㔘ࠖ࡜ࠕ㇟ᚩⓗゎ㔘ࠖ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⚾ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ௖ᩍᩥ⊩
ࡢෆ࡟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜௖ᩍᚐࡢᐇ㊶ࡸࠊゎ㔘ࡢቃ⏺㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㢮ఝࡍࡿ㍈ࢆぢฟࡍࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊ᐀ᩍⓗゝㄝࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟ࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠊ㨱
⾡ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠊഅീⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ㄽ㏙ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࢆᶫΏࡋࡍࡿ᐀ᩍಙ௮ࢆࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡀఱᨾᣢࡘ
࡟⮳ࡿ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊࡉࡽ࡟ูࡢࠊ⤒㦂ほᐹἲࢆ⚾࡟ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡶࡲࡓࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ≀
ࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠊ⚾ࡣࠊࢪ࢙࣮࣒࣭ࣟࣈ࣮ࣝࢼ࣮ Jerome BRUNER ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆᣏ೉ࡋ࡚52ࠊ
ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿୡ⏺ࡢᵓ⠏ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ࠊࠊ
ࠊ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢࣔࢹࣝࢆ൤♩࡟㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢧ࢔࢔ࣥࢫࣥࡣࠊ
ࠕ㨱⾡ⓗゎ㔘ࠖ࡜ࠕ㇟ᚩⓗゎ
ࠊ
㔘ࠖ
㸦ᙉㄪࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
㸧࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࠊ൤♩࡟ᑐࡍࡿ஧✀ࡢ◊✲ἲࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ཯ᛂࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࠋ
50
Whitehouse, Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) ࠾ࡼࡧࠊModes
of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004)ࠋ
51
Sørensen, “Charisma, Tradition and Ritual: A Cognitive Approach to Magical Agency,” in Whitehouse and McCauley, eds.,
Mind and Religion (AltaMira Press, 2005) ࡜ A Cognitive Theory of Magic (AltaMira Press, 2007) ࠋ
52
౛࠼ࡤࠊBruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985)ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ Acts of Meaning
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)ࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧෉ࡢ᭩≀ࡢࠕᚋグࠖ
㸦151-160 㡫㸧ࡣࠊ௒࡞࠾ࠊᵓᡂ୺⩏
ⓗ࡞❧ሙ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ⡆₩࠿ࡘ᫂░࡛ࠊࡲࡓࠊ෭㟼࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ᧦ㆤㄽࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢⴭసࡢᖺ௦ࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀ௨㝆࡟㉳ࡇࡗࡓ࠶ࡽࡺࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᙼࡢὝᐹ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊⓎ㐩ᚰ⌮Ꮫ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊሀᐇ࡞
⤒㦂ⓗㄪᰝࢆ⌮ㄽ໬ࡍࡿᇶ♏ࡣࠊ௒᪥࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᭷ព⩏࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
63 --- 63
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
㹃㸬ࢺ࣮࣐ࢫ࣭࣮ࣟࢯࣥ E. Thomas LAWSON ࡜ࣟࣂ࣮ࢺ࣭࣐ࢵࢥ࣮ࣜ Robert N. McCAULEY ࡜ྠࡌࡼ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠖࠊ൤♩ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
࠺࡟53ࠊࢧ࢔࢔ࣥࢫࣥࡣࠊ
൤♩ࡣࠊᴫࡋ࡚ࠊୡ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡿᒁ㠃ࢆኚ໬ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ൤♩ࡣࠊ
ࢧ࢔࢔ࣥࢫࣥࡀࠕ㨱⾡ⓗస⏝ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢࡶྵࡴࠋ⚾ࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ➨୍࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㇟ᚩⓗ࡛ࠖ
࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕ≀ㄒࠖࢆศ㞳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ㇟ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ≀ㄒࡢୗ࡟ໟ
ྵࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜㸧
ࠊ➨஧࡟ࠊ≀ㄒࡀࡑࢀ⮬㌟ࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ⚾ࡀࠕᒎᮃ㸭ᗈࡀࡾ
㸦vista㸧
ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪᙧ࡛ࠊ≀ㄒࡀࠊ㇟ᚩⓗ࡞ୡ⏺ࡸࠊࡑࡢୡ⏺ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀ࡞ࡃࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㇟
ᚩࡸࠊ൤♩ࡢᶵ⬟ࡶࡑࡢຊࡢ኱༙ࢆኻࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓୡ⏺ࠊලయⓗ࡞᝿ീୡ⏺ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍຠ
⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࢆࠊ௖ᩍᩥ⊩࡟㛵ࡍࡿᡃࠎࡢゝㄝࡢෆ࡟࠾ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⚾ࡀゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛㆟ㄽࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢゝㄝࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡿᒎᮃࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
ࡿୡ⏺ࠊಙ௮⪅ࡀࠊ⌧ᐇࡢୡ⏺࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡢලయⓗ࡞グ㏙࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡼࡾලయⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ௖ࡢࠊ⳶⸃ࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ௖ᅵࡢ㇟ᚩⓗࠊ൤♩ⓗࠊࡲࡓ೔⌮ⓗࠊつ⠊ⓗ࡞౑⏝
ࡣࠊ≀஦ࡢ၏୍ࠊ┿ᐇࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ἲ⏺ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ⌧ᐇᛶࢆࠊ☜ᐇ࡟ᐜㄆࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࠋࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡇࡢୡ⏺࡜ಙ௮⪅㐩ࡢ⏕ࡁࡿୡ⏺࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ㝸ࡓࡾࡢㄆ㆑ࡣࠊ
᰿※ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄆ㆑ࡇࡑࠊ≀ㄒࢆࡋ࡚ࠊྠ᫬࡟ᚲせ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡶࠊຠᯝⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡶࡍࡿ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᡃࠎࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣࠊί໬ࡉࢀࡓᅜᅵࡸࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ίࡽ࠿࡞ᅜᅵ࡜࠸࠺ほᛕࡀ᭷ࡍࡿከࡃࡢព࿡ࡢ஦
౛ࢆࠊࡉࡽ࡟୍ࡘᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ୧ほᛕࡣࠊᖜᗈ࠸⠊ᅖࡢಙ௮࡜≀ㄒࠊ୰ᅜίᅵᩍ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡈ࡜ࡃࠊ൤
♩ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊࡲࡓࠊίᅵ ⏕࡬ࡢᮇᚅ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ୍㒊୰ᅜே࡜᪥ᮏேࡢ⌮ゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡈ࡜ࡃࠊᙉ࠸㢪
ᮃ࡜⮬ᕫᨺᲠࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊࡲࡓࠊ
㸦ほᛕࡀࠊ⚄Ꮫⓗ࡞㆟ㄽࠊウㄽࢆ๰ฟࡍࡿ㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸧ᩍ⌮ⓗ
࡟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᭱ࡶ㔜せᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽほᛕࡀࠊ
㸦ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ⌧ᐇ
ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿᵓ㐀≀࡜ࡋ࡚㸧
ࠕ᝿ീୖ࡛ࠖ⌧ᐇ࡜࡞ࡿࠊᑜᖖ࡞ࡽࡊࡿ㡿ᇦࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿ࡂࡾ࡛ࠊ⚄ヰ
ⓗ࡟ࡶ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࡇࢀࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟୺せ࡛ࠊጇᙜ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࠊࡼࡾⰋ࠸ゝⴥ
ࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ≀ㄒࡢᒎᮃ࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢぢ᪉ࢆ௜ຍࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࠋୡ
⏺ࡣࠊಙ௮⪅㐩ࡀ᫂░࡞═ᮃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟୙⮬↛࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ≀ㄒࡢຊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬
↛࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿ⌧ᐇࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿᒎᮃ㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊ
ࠕᗁどࠖ
㸧ࢆᣢࡕጞࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟≀ㄒⓗ࡟
ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⌧ᐇࡢෆ࡟⏕ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᡃࠎ⮬㌟ࡢᛶ㉁ࡢෆ࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ
᐀ᩍࡶࠊࡇࡢỴࡲࡾ஦ࡢ౛እ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
53
E. T. Lawson & R. N. McCauley, Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1990), and McCauley & Lawson, Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2002).
- 64 -
ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾ࡟ᩥ⊩ࢆㄞゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
̿ ᩍ⌮௨๓ࡢලయⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ ̿ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣞࢫ࣏ࣥࢫ
ࢹࢽࢫ࣭ࣄࣟࢱ
㱟㇂኱Ꮫᩍᤵ
⚾ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿ࡟ࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢ㠀ᖖ࡟ධᛕ࡛ࠊ༤Ꮫ࡞ᮏ✏࡟ࡣࠊίᅵ௖ᩍࡢఏ⤫ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿேࠊ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢఏ⤫࡟ᒓࡍࡿᐇ㊶⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ⇍៖ࡍ࡭ࡁከࡃࡢ஦᯶ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢ኱༙ࡀࠊ኱஌௖ᩍ⤒඾࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜࡞࠺ㄞゎࠊ࡞࠸ࡋゎ㔘ࡢᐇ㊶࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᰿
ᮏⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆᥦ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ↓ᩘࡢ௖ࡸ⳶⸃ࠊࡑࡋ࡚௖ᅵࢆࠊ㇟ᚩⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸
ࡣ೔⌮ⓗ࡞⏝ㄒ࡛⌮ゎࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆࠊᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ෆᐜ࡬㑏ඖࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺⌧௦ࡢ
ഴྥ࡟ᣮᡓࡍࡿࠋᙼࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄞゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢព࿡ࠊ
ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕලయⓗ࡛ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢࠕ᝿ീୖࡢࠖ
ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ෗㇟୺⩏ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀࠊᡭ࡟వࡗ࡚㏥ࡅࡽࢀ
࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿࡜ၥ࠺ࠋᙼࡀព࿡ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢ㉳※ࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊṔྐⓗ࡞௖㝀࠿ࡽᏱᐂⓗ࡞
௖㝀ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᏱᐂࢆᇙࡵᑾࡃࡍ௖ᅵ࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡢ㌿᥮ࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢඛ࡟࠶ࡿࠊ↓ᩘࡢኳୖࡢ௖ࡸ⳶
⸃࠿ࡽࠊ≉ᐃࡢ௖ࠊ⳶⸃ࠊ௖ᅵ࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࡢ㞟୰࡬ࡢ኱஌௖ᩍࡢㄆ㆑࡟㉳ࡇࡿ㌿᥮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿
ࡢᢈุⓗ࡞␲ၥࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛ᚲせ࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ᝟ሗ※ࢆࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⌮ⓗ࡟ᅗᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡓㄞゎࡀࠊ
そ࠸࠿ࡃࡍ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽᖜᗈ࠸␲ၥࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ෗㇟୺⩏ⓗ࡞⣽㒊࡟ὀពࢆᡶࡗࡓㄞゎࠊ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞⌮᝿ീ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊ⳶⸃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊୡ㛫୍⯡࡟ཷᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ๓ᥦ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⌮ゎ࡟
ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᫝ṇ⟇ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿㄞゎࡢ஦౛ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡣࠊ஧✀ࡢ₎ヂࠗ⳹ཝ⤒࠘ࡑࢀ
ࡒࢀࡢ⤖ㄽ㒊࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡜ᙼࡢㄋ㢪࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㒊ศࢆẚ㍑⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࡢ኱せࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ
⚾ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿ࡟ࠊ୕✀ࡢ⥭ᐦ࡟㛵ಀࡋࡓᒙࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ㛵ᚰࡢྠᚰ෇ࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୰࡛ࡣ༊ูࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ
୰᰾࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢ⩻ヂ㸦420 ᖺ㡭㸧୰ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࢆྲྀࡾᢅࡗࡓ೦࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡼࡾ 3 ୡ
⣖༙ࡢᚋ࡟᏶ᡂࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ⯡ⱝ࡟ࡼࡿ Ga۬‫ڲ‬avynjha ࡢ⩻ヂ㸦798 ᖺ㡭㸧୰ࡢᑐᛂࡍࡿ㡩ᩥ࠾ࡼࡧ
ᩓᩥ࡜ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿㄞゎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࢆ᫬⣔ิ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ྲྀࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⯡ⱝࡢ
⩻ヂࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᗎᩥⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘᩓᩥࡢゎㄝ୰࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ
⠇ࡀࠊ
ࠕ೔⌮ⓗࠖ࡞㔜኱ᛶࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢᐇ㊶⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊᐇ⾜ྍ⬟࡞⳶⸃㐨࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜
ືࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺ほᛕࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ➨୍࡟ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ᙼࡣࠊࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊㄋ㢪࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩓᩥࡢㄝ᫂ࢆḞ࠸ࡓࠊࡼࡾึᮇࡢࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢ⩻ヂ࡬࡜㌿ࡌ࡚ࠊ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ೔⌮ⓗ࡞┠ⓗࡀ୙ᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ೦ࢆᨭ㓄ࡍࡿ୺㢟ࡀࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃࡟ࡼࡾල⌧
- 65 -
ࢹࢽࢫ࣭ࣄࣟࢱ
໬ࡉࢀࡓࠊຌᚨ࡜ᬛ្ࡢወ㊧ⓗ࡞ຊࡢグ㏙࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
⚾ࡣࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ㄽⅬ࡜ࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ࡢ⩻ヂࡢ᪉ࡀࠊࡼࡾཝᐦ࡟ࠊ⳹ཝ⤒඾⩌ࡢᮏ
᮶ࡢ⤖ㄽࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ೦ࡣࠊ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂ࡛ࡣࠊ
ඖ᮶ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓ൤♩ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡞㡩ᩥࡀ⦅ධࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ೦ࡢ
⦅ධࡣࠊ⳹ཝ⤒඾ࡀṇᙜᛶࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊྠ⤒඾࡬ࠊࡑࡢṇᙜᛶࢆศ୚ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⯡ⱝヂࡣࠊ≉࡟ࡑࡢ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࣔࢳ࣮ࣇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾᩍ⌮ⓗ࡟᪉ྥ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠊ൤♩࠿ࡽ
ࡢゎ㔘ⓗ࡞㌿᥮ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ᶍ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᬑ㈼⳶⸃ࡢ㢪࡜⾜࡛ࡶࡗ࡚᭱㧗₻ࢆ㏄࠼ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࠊ୍⯡࡟ࡶᗈࡲࡗࡓࠊGa۬‫ڲ‬avynjha ඲య࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌧௦ⓗࠊ࡞࠸ࡋဴᏛⓗ࡞⌮ゎ࡬࡜ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸
ࡃ㌿᥮ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢ㛵ᚰࡣࠊࡇࡢࠊᵝᘧᢈホࡢ୍✀࡜ࡶぢ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᩍᤵࡣࠊ஧✀ࡢ₎ヂ㛫ࡢ࡞࠾୍ᒙࡢ┦㐪࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⯡ⱝ࡛ࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢίᅵ࡟㔜せᛶࢆ୚࠼ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
ࡑࢀ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ௖㥏㊙㝀⨶ヂࡀࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᚤሻࡀࠊ↓ᩘࡢ௖࡜௖ᅵ࡛‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓᏱᐂ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ
୍⯡ⓗ࡞Ᏹᐂࡢࣦ࢕ࢪࣙࣥࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ୍㒊⇕≬ⓗ࡞ಙዊ⪅࡟ࡢࡳᨭᣢࡉࢀࡓᐇ㊶ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊࡼࡾᖜᗈ࠸
ࠕᗁ᝿ⓗ࡞ࠖ᐀ᩍᛶ࡬࡜㐍ࡴࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫ࡢ㉳※ࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⚾࡟ࡣ⪃࠼
ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊ㛵ᚰࡢྠᚰ෇ࡢ➨஧ࡢࡶࡢࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚
ᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟ࠊᙼࡽࡢ㇟ᚩⓗࠊᬯ႘ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡬࡜ྥ࠿࠺ഴྥࢆࠊ᭱ึ࠿ࡽᙉ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡏࡎࠊ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊලయⓗ࠿ࡘࠕ᝿ീୖࡢࠖࡶࡢ࡜ࢆࠊ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ᑐᓖࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ㄞ
ゎ࡬ࡢᣍࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ㛵ᚰࡢᒙࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᗈ࠸ព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕίᅵࠖࡢᛮ᝿ࡸಙ௮
ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀఱ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ㏆ᖺࡢ᐀ᩍࡢㄆ▱ⓗ
◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡽࢀࡓᴫᛕ࡜ᵓ㐀ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊᗈࡃ
ࡣே㢮Ꮫⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᐀ᩍ⌧㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡ⓗࠊ࠿ࡘࠊᗈࡃໟᣓⓗ࡞ᐃ⩏ࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵ
ࡶゝཬࡍࡿࣁ࣮ࣦ࢙࢖࣭࣍࣡࢖ࢺࣁ࢘ࢫࡣࠊ᐀ᩍ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞స⏝㸦agency㸧࡬࡜ッ࠼
࠿ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡜ಙ௮ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㞟ྜయࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊస⏝ࡣࠊே㛫ࡢㄆ㆑࡟࠾ࡅࡿᇶᮏ
ⓗ࡞⠊␪࡜ࡋ࡚஢ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋఱࡽ࠿ࡢ≉ᐃࡢ᐀ᩍఏ⤫࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ᰿ᮏⓗ࡞␲ၥ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㉳※
࡜ఏᢎ࡜࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄢ㢟ࡣࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵ⮬㌟ࡀࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᥦ㉳ࡍ
ࡿ୺せ࡞ၥ㢟࡟࡜ࡗ୍࡚ࡘࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㉳※࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ၥ࠺ࠋ
ࠕίᅵᛮ᝿ࡣࠊίࡵࡽࢀࡓ௖ᅵࡢ୰࡛ලయ໬
ࠊࠊ
ࡉࢀࡿࠊ⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࡢຊ࡬ࡢಙ௮࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡀࠋఱࡀࠊࡑࡢίᅵᛮ᝿ࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ
ࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⪏ஂຊ࡜ᒎ㛤࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㘽࡛࠶ࡿఏᢎ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ၥ࠺ࠋ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊࠊ
ࠕྂ௦࢖ࣥࢻ࡟⏕ࡁࡓ⫈⾗࡟ίࡵࡽࢀࡓ௖ᅵࡢᏑᅾࢆಙࡌࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣࠊ୍యࠊఱࡔࡗࡓࡢࡔࢁ
࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢㄽ⪃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽࡣࠊ᭱ึࡣࠊே㛫ࡢ᐀ᩍᛶ࡬࡜ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࠊᴟࡵ࡚ᖜࡢᗈ࠸㛵ᚰ
- 66 -
ࢦ࣓ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣞࢫ࣏ࣥࢫ
࠿ࡽࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿヲ⣽࡞ศᯒ࡬࡜ࠊゝࢃࡤ୰ᚰ࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚㐍ࡳࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࡢ᐀ᩍ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ௖ᩍࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ
ࠕᮍࡔศ໬ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊ
௖ࡢᝅࡾ࡬ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ಙ௮ࠖࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡬࡜ࠊ෌ᗘࠊእ࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᖐࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࡣࠊᩍ
⌮࡬ࡢἐ㢌ࡢ୰࡛ぢⴠ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓᩥ⊩ࡢ୍ḟඖࡔࡀࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫ࡢึᮇⓗẁ㝵ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᗁどࡢ
㞝኱ࡉࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢస⏝࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ
ࠕ≀ㄒࡢゝㄝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡢᒎᮃ㸦vista㸧ࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿୡ⏺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡣࠊᙼࡀㄽࡌࡿࢸ࢟
ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ⌧ᐇᛶࡢႏ㉳ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ࡟฿ࡿࠋᙼࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ᴫᛕࡀࠊ᐀ᩍࡢㄆ▱ⓗ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᗈࡃ᭷⏝࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸࡜♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢㄽ⪃ࡣࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫ࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ㔜኱࡞ព⩏ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋఱᨾ
࡞ࡽࠊίᅵᛮ᝿ࡢⓏሙࠊᙧᡂ࡜ఏᢎࢆࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ≀஦ࢆኚ໬ࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺⳶⸃ࡢຊࡢほᛕࢆࡶྵ
ࡵࠊ඲࡚ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡋࡓ኱஌௖ᩍࡢᛮ₻࡜᥎㐍ຊࡢࠊึᮇࡢࠊⓎ⏕ᮇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵓᡂせ⣲࡬ࡉ࠿ࡢࡰࡿ
ࡓࡵࡢ᪉ἲࢆࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊᒎ㛤ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡣࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢఏ⤫࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊᴟࡵ࡚೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊဴᏛⓗ࡞
ㄞゎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᫝ṇ⟇ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡗࡓ༑ᖺ๓ࡢࡇ࡜ࡔࡀࠊ᐀ᩍ◊✲࡟ᦠࢃࡿᏛ⪅ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
௖ᩍ◊✲࡟ᦠࢃࡿᏛ⪅ࡣࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡑࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ✵ࡢᩍ࠼ࠖࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡞
࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┿ṇ࡞኱஌௖ᩍ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶฟ᮶ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ྠ᫬࡟ࠊίᅵᩍࡢఏ⤫࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᐀ᩍࡢㄆ▱ⓗ◊✲ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ᒁ㠃ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㉳
※࡜ఏᢎࡢ୧᪉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᴟࡵ࡚♧၀࡟ᐩࡴࠋࡕࡻ࠺࡝ࠊ᐀ᩍ◊✲࡟ᦠࢃࡿ◊✲⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏ
ࡀ௬᝿◊✲ᐊ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊίᅵ┿᐀ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍᛶࡢᩍ⌮ୖࡢᵝᘧࡢࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞஦౛࡛
࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡕࡻ࠺࡝⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢ㸦ͤ2011 ᖺ 8 ᭶ 4 ᪥ᙜ᫬㸧
ࠊẖᖺ୍ᅇࠊኟᮇ࡟ᣲ
⾜ࡉࢀࡿ◊✲㞟఍࡛࠶ࡿࠕᏳᒃࠖࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊつ๎໬ࡉࢀࡓ཯᚟⾜Ⅽࡢࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢㄽ⪃࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕಙࠖ
㸦ಙ௮ࠊbelief㸧࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊㄆ▱ⓗ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ
ᇶ♏ⓗ࡞⠊␪࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊίᅵᛮ᝿࡜ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢㄋ㢪ࡢຊ࡬ࡢಙ࡜ࡋ࡚
ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ᐀ᩍⓗᐇ㊶࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢࠕ⾜ࠖ
㸦practice㸧ࡢㄒࡀࠊ⩻ヂ⤒඾ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊ
࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ぢ࠸ࡔࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢト㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⾜ࡢㄒࡣࠊᩗ㐲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ
࠺࡟ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣࠊ೔⌮ⓗࠊ࡞࠸ࡋᩍ⌮ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡬࡜ࠊᣋ㏿࡟㣕㌍ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㑊
ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࠊࢦ࣓ࢫᩍᤵࡢࠕ≀ㄒࡢ௖ᩍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᐇ㊶ࡢࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢᙧᘧ
ࠊࠊࠊࠊ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄞゎࡑࡢࡶࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡸゝㄒ࡬ࡢ㛵୚ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆぢࡿࡢࡀࠊṇࡋ
࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡇࡑࡀࠊίᅵࡢ௖㐨ࡢ᰿※ࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿୖ࡛ࠊ᭱ࡶ᭷┈࡞ᡭẁࢆษࡾ㛤ࡃ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼
ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ≀ㄒࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊἐ㢌ࡍࡿཧ୚⪅࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ാࡃస⏝ࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞≀ㄒࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ാࡃ࠿ࠊࡑࢀࡶࠊ⤊஢࡬࡜ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸࠿࡟ാࡃ࠿ࢆṇ☜࡟᥈ồࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢࠊ᐀ᩍ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿಙࡢほᛕࢆ㇏࠿࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡋࠊ㏻ᖖࡢಙࡢほᛕࢆ㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵࡢ᪉
㏵ࢆษࡾ㛤ࡃ࠿ࡶ▱ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
67 --- 67
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele1
Paul Harrison
Stanford University
Christian Luczanits
Rubin Museum of Art, New York
1. Introduction: Locating the Muhammad Nari Stele
The Muhammad Nari stele of the Lahore Museum is without doubt one of the most remarkable
pieces of GandhƗran art, and the best known example of a significant number of sculptured panels of
considerable complexity unique to this school (Figure 1). Such works have justly been referred to as
“complex steles,” a term used in this paper as well. While in fact a number of steles and stele fragments
of this type were found near the village of Muhammad Nari—and these will also be referred to in this
study—the almost immaculate state of preservation of the Lahore specimen has resulted in its being
called “the Muhammad Nari stele,” as if it were the only one.2
The stele in question is made of light grey schist, measures 119 x 97 x 28 cm, and is distinguished
by the impressive intricacy and depth of its carving. It is dominated by a teaching Buddha seated on a
large lotus in the centre, beneath the branches of a fanciful tree and various beings, two of whom hover
in mid-air above his head in the act of crowning him with a wreath. The lotus has a large number of
fleshy petals and a bejewelled stem. The stem is flanked by a standing couple and the upper bodies of
four more figures rising out of two lotuses which float upon the waters of the lotus pond that forms the
1
This is a revised version of the paper that formed the basis of our presentation in the Special International Symposium on Pure
Land Buddhism held at Otani University, Kyoto, on 4 August 2011. We would like to express our gratitude to Shǀrynj Katsura,
the organizer of the symposium, whose kind invitation to speak at this event galvanized us into writing up our ideas, and we
also thank the scholars who kindly agreed to act as respondents, Akira Miyaji, Noritoshi Aramaki and Takashi Koezuka, for
their searching and constructive comments on our work. We must also mention here the participants in the seminar “Buddhist
Visions of Paradise” held at Stanford during the winter quarter of 2010 with whom much of the material in this paper was first
discussed (Norihisa Baba, Heawon Choi, Charles DiSimone, Chen Li, Anna Pawlowski, Trent Walker, and Nicholas
Witkowski), and record our thanks as well to others who have from time to time favoured one or both of us with information,
images, references, or a critical ear, including Stefan Baums, Osmund Bopearachchi, Oskar von Hinüber, Anna-Maria
Quagliotti, Juhyung Rhi, Elizabeth Rosen Stone, and Joanna Williams. Last but not least, the foundation for the art-historical
work on which a good part of this article is based was laid during a fellowship at the Lumbini International Research Institute,
Nepal. The work continues, and eventually we hope to present this research in a more extended and comprehensive form, but
for the time being this paper should be taken as a kind of “interim report.”
2
This village (in fact, now a town) in the Charsadda district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan is spelt “Muhammad
NƗrƯ” on the government maps, and we use a simplified form of this (without diacritics) here (as also used in, e.g., Rosenfield
1967). Also attested in the literature on the finds from this site are the spellings Muhammad Nârî (e.g. Grünwedel 1920),
Mohamed Nârî (e.g. Foucher 1909/1917), Mohamed-Nari (e.g. Rhi 1991), Mohammad Nari (e.g. Rhi 2011b) and Mohammed
Nari (e.g. Huntington 1980, Quagliotti 1996a, Rhi 2008, Bautze-Picron 2010).
- 69 -
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
base of the composition. The central Buddha is surrounded by numerous bodhisattvas engaged in
different activities, several of them grouped together. In the upper area there are also solitary
bodhisattvas seated within their own pavilions, and in the top corners two meditating Buddhas emanate
further standing ones. Since all the details of the stele will be discussed in the course of this paper, this
general description will suffice for now.
It is still unclear to us when this remarkable work of art was discovered. It is, however, recorded that
another relevant stele (Stele 10 in our list below) was excavated from a mound near the village of
Muhammad Nari by an engineer by the name of Dempster working for Swat Canals.3 This stele was
subsequently published by Henry Hardy Cole, initially as a sketch in Cole (1883: pl. 1) and then, using a
photograph which had been taken by M. Serrot in that same year, in Cole (1885) as Plate 1 of Appendix
I, “Illustrations of Graeco-Buddhist sculptures from the Yusufzai District,” which occupies pp.
cviii–cxvii of that volume. 4 At present, we can only assume that other sculpture attributed to
Muhammad Nari was found in the same mound around the same time or slightly later. The objects from
this site eventually reached the Lahore Museum, and the Muhammad Nari stele has remained there until
the present. There it was accessioned under the number 1135, an inventory number that was
subsequently changed at least twice, to I-255 and then to the present G-155. Other important objects
from the same site, among them the stele photographed and published in 1883 referred to above, were
later moved to the Chandigarh Government Museum and Art Gallery after the partition of India and
Pakistan. Within the GandhƗran galleries of the Lahore Museum, the Muhammad Nari stele is
appropriately displayed in the central case on one of the side walls opposite the famous image of the
fasting SiddhƗrtha from Sikri. Although certainly to be ranked at the same level of cultural, historical
and artistic importance with that iconic specimen of GandhƗran sculpture, it has not received anything
like the same level of popular attention. Indeed, the two pieces convey the most dramatic contrast: one a
powerful image of the solitude and self-denial of a single gaunt ascetic, the other a depiction of the glory
of a Buddha enthroned in state and surrounded by a bejewelled host.
The stele was apparently found in near-perfect condition (with the notable exception of the broken
nose of its central Buddha), but has since its discovery suffered some minor but not insignificant
damage, in consequence of accidents during transport, or as a result of deliberate modifications made in
order to mount the piece. This is clear from a comparison of its present condition with a historic
photograph taken considerably before 1905, which already shows the symmetrical cut-outs near the
bottom corners where the lower halves of two seated bodhisattvas were removed to provide bracket
mounts (Figure 2). The cut-out on the right was then also used to write the acquisition number, no. 1135,
on the piece. Two other early photographs already bear witness to further damage; in both of them the
number now appears on the left-hand cut-out. The shot taken in 1905 by Count Adrien van der Berght5
may be the older of the two: in it the bottom left-hand corner seems largely intact, but the books held by
bodhisattvas on both sides have been broken, that on the right having disappeared almost entirely. The
3
Burgess (1897: 8, description of pl. 112).
4
For Cole’s description see p. cx. This is virtually identical to the description in Cole (1883: 7–8). For the image see also British
Library, http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/s/zoomify59137.html
5
See Taddei (1987/2003: fig. 3) and Quagliotti (1996a: fig. 1).
- 70 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
photographic print of roughly the same time (showing the stele in the same case of the Lahore Museum)
preserved at the Warburg Institute in London reveals the same damage to the books, but one can also see
that the bottom left-hand corner—the left end of the pond—has split off, even though it remains
attached to the stele. In more recent photographs that piece is lost altogether, and with it the hood of a
nƗga and the three lotus blossoms it bore. Comparison of the historical photographs with current images
reveals other damage as well, e.g., the partial loss of the parasol above the Buddha in the upper right
corner, two petals of the originally perfect lotus snapped off, and so on.
2. Competing Interpretations
Naturally, the amazing number of details on the stele have over time provoked a large literature with
various significantly different interpretations of the piece’s content, interpretations that can only be
summarized here.6 The shared concern of all of them is with identification, in particular of the Buddha
enthroned in the centre of the composition.
The initial (and standard) identification for steles of this type was put forward by the pioneer
GandhƗran scholar Alfred Foucher, who saw in them an elaborate representation of the Great Miracle of
ĝrƗvastƯ.7 Told in numerous different versions, the ĝrƗvastƯ episode actually contains several distinctive
miracles, of which the “Multiplication Miracle” or simply the “Great Miracle” is the most important for
the interpretation of the stele. In this miracle the Buddha, taking his seat on a thousand-petaled
bejewelled lotus created by a pair of nƗgas, magically creates doubles of himself in different postures on
lotuses filling the sky.8 Multiple Buddhas and the nƗgas generating a lotus are both seen as the
characteristic features that identify a scene as the Great Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ. However, this reading of the
Muhammad Nari stele has almost no support in terms of the visuals of the piece itself, apart from the
multiplications shown in the upper corners—and even those show the Buddha in the standing position
only. In fact, such an identification can only be justified if one assumes a successive development of
steles of increasing complexity that came to be more and more removed from the original representation
of the event. Nevertheless, despite being questioned almost from the start,9 Foucher’s interpretation still
enjoys a following, and even in recent scholarship by Schlingloff and others it is favoured over other
ones.10 It assumes that steles of this type represent an event in the life of the historical Buddha, as
6
More extensive summaries of previous research on the stele are found in Quagliotti (1996a: 281–282, n. 7), Rhi (1991: 5–9,
316–323) and Miyaji (2002).
7
Foucher (1909; 1917). Before that the stele was already published in Burgess (1900: pl. 7, fig. 2) and Foucher (1905: fig. 79).
Foucher is followed in his interpretation by Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 121–25, pl. 255) and Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 395),
among others. Kurita follows Foucher in assigning nearly all complex steles to the Great Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ.
8
See now Rotman (2008: 253–287) for a translation of the PrƗtihƗryasnjtra in the DivyƗvadƗna, the most commonly cited
version of the story. Brown (1984) provides a useful review of the different miracles performed at ĝrƗvastƯ as they relate to the
art-historical record.
9
Besides being queried by those advancing alternative interpretations, this identification of the GandhƗran complex steles was
also questioned by van Lohuizen-de Leeuw (1949: 124-138) and Williams (1975: 182–183).
10
See Schlingloff (1991) and (2000: I, 488–515; II, 102–105) as well as Ali & Qazi (2008: 139–143). Note in particular the wide
range of imagery apparent in the line drawings of Schlingloff (2000: II, 102–105) interpreted as representing the same event,
which the author explains on the basis of the many textual variants of this miracle.
71 --- 71
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
indeed most of GandhƗran art does, and thus identifies the central teaching Buddha seated on the lotus
as ĝƗkyamuni.
Another interpretation put forward, for example, by Japanese scholars such as Nakao Odani (1967)
and Akira Miyaji (1985a, 1993, 2002, 2005), also identifies the central figure as ĝƗkyamuni, but
ĝƗkyamuni in the glorious and radiant form he displays before teaching such MahƗyƗna snjtras as the
Saddharmapu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka, the Sandhinirmocana, the TathƗgatagarbha and so on. Miyaji (e.g. 1993: 252)
refers to this event as the “Miracle of Great Light.” Considering the Muhammad Nari stele only, one
could say that this identification has the advantage of accounting for both the teaching gesture and the
massive presence of bodhisattvas surrounding the Buddha. In addition, miracle working at the event
could explain some of the other details of the stele. This interpretation shades into a vaguer and less
specific reading of the stele as a MahƗyƗna “theophany,” as advanced by John Rosenfield (1967:
235–238, fig. 90). This is the position towards which Juhyung Rhi most inclines (1991: 148; 2003:
174–175; 2006: 171), even though in his most recent publications he remains cautiously non-committal,
seeing some merit in nearly every explanation (except that which invokes the Great Miracle of
ĝrƗvastƯ).11
It was John Huntington who in 1980 first persuasively argued that the Muhammad Nari stele
represents the Buddha AmitƗbha or AmitƗyus in SukhƗvatƯ.12 In a long and comprehensive paper he
examined many of the stele’s details and compared them to the textual descriptions available to him, in
particular those of the Sanskrit text of the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha. Although he certainly provided the
most compelling interpretation until then, Huntington’s identification did not find a large following for a
number of reasons. It was objected that many of the textual details that can be related to the stele are of a
rather generic nature and occur in many texts, there is no detail in the stele that could be taken as an
unmistakable reference to the text, and there are a number of details that appear to have no relationship
to the text at all. Last but not least, at that time Huntington’s treatment of this topic appeared to go
against the grain of studies of GandhƗran art, which tended to explain that art entirely in terms of
Mainstream Buddhism. Consequently, some scholars dismissed his reading of the stele, along with the
earlier ones.13
Nevertheless, Huntington’s hypothesis cleared the ground for a new interpretative approach to the
stele. Anna Maria Quagliotti (1996a) came to largely the same conclusion, while Gérard Fussman
(1987:73) first accepted Huntington’s view, but later distanced himself somewhat in favour of a more
generic Buddha-field (1999: 548–551). In the same vein, more recent scholarship interprets the stele as a
generic, but not strictly identifiable, Buddha-field for which the known steles only represent examples
11
For example, Rhi (2011b: 115) writes: “... the Mohammad Nari stele can be best understood as a grand vision of a Buddha
(Shakyamuni or a generic Buddha without a specific name or potentially with diverse names) who has been elevated to the
status of a supramundane being. It is possible that the stele is a recreation of a wondrous vision that a practitioner experienced
or was anticipated to experience in a visualization practice, which is attested to in early Mahayana scriptures as constituting an
important concern of Mahayana.”
12
In the West this hypothesis had previously been advanced—without any discussion—by Benjamin Rowland (1938: 79, n. 2),
but before him the Japanese scholar Toyomune Minamoto had in the 1920s argued for it on the basis of similarities with East
Asian depictions of the Pure Land (see Minamoto 1925, 1926).
13
E.g. Brown (1984: 80–82).
- 72 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
(Rhi 2008, 2011a, 2011b). Christian Luczanits (2008: 49–51) emphasized the visionary aspect of the
stele as the field is revealed by a Buddha to a disciple at a place in the wilderness and in the presence of
VajrapƗ৆i (Figure 3). Other scholars put forward slightly different interpretations. Gregory Schopen
(1987: 130-31, n. 50 = 2005: 273–74, n. 50) would favour Abhirati over SukhƗvatƯ, if he thought the
stele represented either of them (see below). Finally, associating the stele with later textual sources,
Jacques Giès and Monique Cohen (1996: 341–344) even see the Buddha Vairocana, as a superior
manifestation of ĝƗkyamuni, in the central image of the stele.
Among all these interpretations, some are more plausible than others, but none of them is entirely
satisfactory, the main problem being that none really explains all the major features found on the stele.
Regardless of how detailed they are, nearly all previous interpretations suffer, to a lesser or greater
extent, from a failure to deal adequately with four issues:14
1:
2:
3:
4:
The full range of textual traditions possibly relevant to the interpretation of the stele has not
been taken into account.
From an art-historical point of view the stele has not been adequately analyzed in relation to
similar pieces and the light they might throw upon the features it shares with them and upon its
idiosyncrasies.
The relationship between text and image has not been reflected upon in sufficient depth or
detail.
Finally, so far no wider interpretative framework incorporating textual, art-historical and
buddhological considerations has been offered for the complex steles as a general class of
GandhƗran sculpture.
The following account, while attempting to address all four of these issues, cannot cover them in their
entirety. Instead, by focusing on key elements we hope to offer a new perspective on the interpretation
of the stele which has a greater potential to solve the question of its identity than any previous attempt.
We begin with a consideration of some of the textual sources describing Buddha-fields, since it appears
to us that several of the more persuasive and detailed discussions of the Muhammad Nari stele in recent
times focus on the possibility that it is in fact a representation of such a realm. Our concern here, then, is
with establishing what a Buddha-field might look like, and what might be the features which an artist
could reasonably be expected to incorporate in the very limited space of something like this stele.
3. Domains of the Awakened Ones: Two Paradigmatic Buddha-fields
MahƗyƗna snjtras abound in descriptions of Buddha-fields, or, following Davidson (2002: 132–133),
“Buddha domains” (Skt. buddhak‫܈‬etra), descriptions which range from the long and prolix to the short
and sketchy. Their frequency is not surprising, since the domain of a Buddha is a natural consequence of
the pursuit of the bodhisattva path, and the site of its culmination. Indeed, the bodhisattva path itself is
often conceptualized as the “purification” of a Buddha domain. Two of these ideal worlds stand out as
being the subject of more detailed treatments: SukhƗvatƯ, the western domain of AmitƗbha, and Abhirati,
the eastern domain of Akৢobhya.
14
The notable exception is Rhi (1991). See especially his comments on pp. 11ff., which raise similar issues.
73 --- 73
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
AmitƗbha’s SukhƗvatƯ
The cult of AmitƗbha and SukhƗvatƯ certainly triumphed historically, especially in later East Asian
Buddhism, so it is natural that some have tried to see our stele as an early Indian depiction of what
would later be considered the Pure Land par excellence. To do this they have had recourse to three texts
devoted to its description, which are:
(1) The Larger (or Longer) SukhƗvatƯvynjha (LSukh)
(2) The Smaller (or Shorter) SukhƗvatƯvynjha (SSukh)
(3) The Guan wuliangshoufo jing (Guan jing or Visualization Snjtra)
Of these three, it is the LSukh which provides the most detailed description with the surest Indian
pedigree, 15 hence scholars assessing the Muhammad Nari stele have generally looked to it for
inspiration. However, they have worked from the Sanskrit version,16 and this has been somewhat
problematic, in view of the complicated textual history of the work. Looking at the five surviving
Chinese translations, one can distinguish two recensions of the text, as follows:
Chinese Translations of the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha
Early Recension
(1) Fo shuo amituo-sanyesanfo-saloufotan guodu rendao jing ష䃚㜿ᙗ㝀୕⪨୕ష⸃ᶂష᷄㐣
ᗘே㐨⥂, by the Han Dynasty translator Lokakৢema (fl. c. 170–190 C.E.), although
attributed to Zhi Qian ᨭㅬ (fl. c. 220–257): T 362.
(2) Fo shuo wuliangqingjing pingdengjue jing ష䃚↓㔞Ύ῕ᖹ➼む⥂, a revised version of (1)
by the Wu Dynasty translator Zhi Qian, although attributed to Lokakৢema: T 361.17
Later Recension
(3) Fo shuo wuliangshou jing ష䃚↓㔞ኖ⥂ , attributed to the Wei Dynasty (220–265)
translator Kang Sengkai ᗣൔ㙚 or Saৄghavarman, but probably by Buddhabhadra
(359–429) and Baoyun ᑌ㞼 and dating from 421: T 360.18
(4) Dabaoji jing wuliangshou rulai hui ኱ᑌ✚⥂↓㔞ኖዴ౗᭳, produced during the period
706–713 by Bodhiruci (fl. 693–713): T 310 (5).19
15
The Guan jing is commonly thought to be a Central Asian or Chinese compilation, albeit one put together using Indian
materials. On this question see especially Fujita (1990) and Silk (1997). English translations of the Guan jing may be found in
Takakusu (1894) and Inagaki (1995).
16
The edition of choice is that of Ashikaga (1965), and that is the one we refer to here, even though it has now been superseded
by Fujita (2011). Since this has just been published and is not yet widely known, we do not cite it. For English translations of
the LSukh and the SSukh see F. Max Müller (1894a & b) and Gómez (1996).
17
For an extended discussion of the authorship of T 361 and T 362, and for the hypothesis that the translators’ names have been
switched, see Harrison (n.d.); cf. Nattier (2008: 86–87); see also Harrison, Hartmann & Matsuda (2002). Not all scholars
accept this view. Fujita, for example, continues to maintain that T 362 is “almost certainly by Zhi Qian,” while holding that T
361 is “most likely” by Bo Yan, and dated 258 C.E. (see Fujita 2011: xvi). The important thing to note is that T 361 and T 362
are not independent texts, but two different versions of the first Chinese translation of the LSukh. Whether we date that
translation to the late 2nd century (Lokakৢema) or to the first half of the 3rd century (Zhi Qian) does not significantly affect the
arguments of this paper.
18
English translations in Inagaki (1995: 19–89) and Gómez (1996: 153–222). Although this version is generally aligned with the
Later Recension, it is not solely reflective of it: the text is significantly contaminated by the older Chinese translation.
- 74 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
(5) Fo shuo dasheng wuliangshou zhuangyan jing ష䃚኱஍↓㔞ኖⳁᄫ⥂, dated 991 and
attributed to the Song Dynasty translator Faxian ἲ㈼ or Dharmabhadra, otherwise known
as Tianxizai ኳᜥ⅏ (fl. 980–1000): T 363.
The Sanskrit version, like the Tibetan translation, belongs to the Later Recension (LR), and this is
what scholars have worked from, where they have not also looked at the later Chinese translations,
English versions of two of them being available. Unfortunately, there is as yet no translation of the Early
Recension (ER) text into a modern Western language.20 One consequence of this is that previous
discussions of the Muhammad Nari stele have tended to overlook it.21 This is unfortunate, since the
description of SukhƗvatƯ (and of AmitƗbha) in the ER is significantly different, in ways which are
arguably relevant to the question of any relationship between the LSukh and the Muhammad Nari stele.
Focussing particularly on these relevant features, we might note the following points:
1. Those reborn in SukhƗvatƯ are all males. While this is a theme in the LR, it is more trenchantly
expressed in the ER, which does not blur the issue the way the LR does (i.e. there are no apsarases in
the SukhƗvatƯ of the ER). On this subject see Harrison (1998). It is in consequence of this that all
those reborn in SukhƗvatƯ simply have to be reborn in lotuses, or by some other miraculous means.
For example, the second vow in the ER runs as follows:
Vow No. 2: When I become a Buddha, may there be no women in my realm. If women
wish to come and be born in my realm, then they will turn straightaway into men. All the
innumerable gods and humans and even small flying and wriggling things who take rebirth
in my realm will all be born magically within lotus flowers in pools of the seven treasures.
They will grow up and all become bodhisattvas and arhats22 totally beyond numbering. If
I fulfill this vow then I shall become a Buddha. If I do not fulfill this vow I will never
become a Buddha. (T 362, 12: 301a27–b3; no equivalent in T 361)
2. SukhƗvatƯ’s population includes ĞrƗvakas (“arhats”) alongside bodhisattvas. The presence of ĞrƗvakas
in SukhƗvatƯ is virtually elided in the LR, but is a prominent feature of the ER. However, while
providing for these two different spiritual orientations, the text is concerned to emphasize the
absence of any physical distinction between these two groups of salvation-seekers (or, for that matter,
between humans and gods). Everybody looks the same, although there is a difference in the
brightness of their haloes (see next).
Vow No. 9: When I become a Buddha, may all the bodhisattvas and arhats [i.e. ĞrƗvakas]
in my realm have appearances which are handsome, pure and excellent, may they all share
the one colour and all be of the same type, just like the people of the sixth heaven [i.e.
ParanirmitavaĞavartins]. If I fulfil this vow then I shall become a Buddha. If I do not fulfil
this vow I will never become a Buddha. (T 362, 12: 301c10–13; cf. T 361, 12: 281a20–21
[Vow 3])23
19
Translated, with omissions, in Chang (1983: 339–360).
20
Indeed, such a translation would be premature until the text of Lokakৢema’s translation is reconstructed (to the degree that this
is possible) on the basis of T 362 and T 361. For a fuller discussion of the text-critical problems see Harrison (n.d.). On the
general significance of this material see Nattier (2003).
21
Again, the exception is Rhi (1991).
22
Note that (a)luohan is Lokakৢema’s standard rendition for ĞrƗvaka.
23
See also T 362, 12: 303c12–15; cf. T 361, 12: 283a24–27.
75 --- 75
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
The absence of any visible distinction between humans and gods remains a strong theme in the LR
as well (Ashikaga 1965: 11 [Vow 4], 37–39), although the division of the humans into ĞrƗvakas and
bodhisattvas has been elided.
3. The two chief bodhisattvas, AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta, are given slightly greater
prominence. For example, the text states:
“The bodhisattvas and arhats [= ĞrƗvakas] all have their own haloes, which have different
illumination ranges. Among the bodhisattvas, there are two bodhisattvas who are most
revered, always seated to the left and right of the Buddha, attending upon him in the
discussion of the truth [?]. The Buddha is always seated facing these two bodhisattvas,
discussing matters past, present and future in all eight directions, up above and down
below. If he wishes to have these two bodhisattvas go to the countless Buddhas in all eight
directions, up above and down below, then they fly off right away, arriving wherever they
wish to go. Their flight is as swift as the Buddha’s, their valour is peerless. One of the
bodhisattvas is called AvalokiteĞvara, one of the bodhisattvas is called
MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta.24 Their radiance and insight is supreme, their haloes illuminate the
thousand-Sumeru Buddha-realms in other directions, so that they are always brightly lit.
The [other] bodhisattvas’ haloes each illuminate a thousand million myriad li, the arhats’
haloes each illuminate seven zhang.”
The Buddha said: “If the people of the world, be they good men or good women, should be
in dire straits and in fear of the actions of officials, they have only to take refuge in these
bodhisattvas AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta and they will all be saved, without
exception.” (T 362, 12: 308b9–22; cf. T 361, 12: 290a12–28)
4. The eventual parinirvƗ৆a of AmitƗbha is foreshadowed, to be followed by the succession, in turn, of
the bodhisattvas AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta to his teaching throne:
The Buddha said, “When the Buddha AmitƗbha subsequently undergoes parinirvƗ৆a, the
bodhisattva AvalokiteĞvara will then become a Buddha, in command of the wisdom of the
way, master of the teaching. The gods, humans and species that flit and wriggle that he
liberates in the world, the eight directions, above and below, will all be made to attain the
way of nirvƗ৆a of the Buddha. His excellences and merits will again be like the great
teacher, the Buddha AmitƗbha’s, and he will remain for innumerable kalpas, for kalpas
more incalculable than innumerable kalpas, on the same model as the great teacher [?], and
only then will he undergo parinirvƗ৆a. In his turn the bodhisattva MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta will
then become a Buddha, in command of the wisdom of the way, master of the teaching.
Those he liberates and his merits will again be like the great teacher, the Buddha
AmitƗbha’s, and he will remain for innumerable kalpas, and still not undergo parinirvƗ৆a,
transmitting from one to the other in succession the exceedingly bright way of the
scriptures (dharma) and the most excellent realm, his [their?] dharma being in this way
forever uninterrupted and boundless.” (T 362, 12: 309a14–24; cf. T 361, 12: 291a3–13)
24
Here we give the names in their regular Sanskrit forms. Lokakৢema’s transcriptions (or what remains of them) suggest
something different. He(?; variant: Gai)louxuan ᓵ(⵹)ᶂர (cf. the transcription of LokeĞvararƗja: Louyixuanluo ᶂዀர⨶)
suggests something like the GƗndhƗrƯ form Olo’iĞpara. However, the problem of the Indic forms of AvalokiteĞvara’s name(s)
and their rendition in Chinese is a jungle we shall not enter here. Mohenabo ᦶヅ㑣⨆ suggests MahƗnapatta or something
similar for MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta, but it is possible that a character has been omitted.
- 76 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
This material is entirely absent from the LR.
5. More attention is given to the way in which the inhabitants of SukhƗvatƯ interact with each other,
rather than AmitƗbha being the sole focus of their attention:
All the countless gods and human beings ... who have achieved rebirth in the Buddha
AmitƗbha’s realm gather together in a great assembly, coming together amid the waters of
the pools of the seven treasures. Each and every person sits atop a single large lotus
blossom. They all declare their own merits and virtuous practices. Each person tells what
precepts he kept or good dharmas he practised when pursuing the way in the past, during
his former lives, and the details of whence he came to be born, the scriptures which he
delighted in, his wisdom and knowledge of the scriptures, and the merit from his
practices. ... The host regard each other with decorum and harmony. Happy and jubilant
one and all, in wisdom and valour they are all a match for each other. (T 362, 12:
311b14–24; cf. T 361: 12: 293b2–12).
6. There is a much more systematic tripartite classification of those reborn in SukhƗvatƯ, with different
practice requirements for each of the three classes. In brief—because the relevant passages are far
too long to give here—the distinctions are as follows:
1st class: Renunciants (members of the Sa۪gha)
Requirements: bodhisattva status (i.e., following the MahƗyƗna), upholding MahƗyƗna
snjtras, moral purity, plus singleminded aspiration to SukhƗvatƯ (no minimum time period
specified)
Results: vision of AmitƗbha in dreams; at death, encounter with AmitƗbha in person and
lotus rebirth in SukhƗvatƯ in close proximity to AmitƗbha
Apparently no problems with doubt in this class.
2nd class: Laypeople
Requirements: merit-making (mostly forms of gift-giving and pnjjƗ), moral purity, plus
singleminded aspiration (for at least 1 day & night)
Results: vision of AmitƗbha in dreams; at death, vision of a nirmƗ۬a of AmitƗbha, lotus
rebirth in SukhƗvatƯ
Those in this class who fall prey to doubt, however, must endure 500 years in a jewelled
borderland city or fortress after their lotus birth before being able to join AmitƗbha’s
congregation.
3rd class: Laypeople
Requirements: moral purity, plus singleminded aspiration (for at least 10 days & nights)
Results: vision of SukhƗvatƯ in dream at death, lotus rebirth in SukhƗvatƯ
Those in this class who fall prey to doubt must also endure 500 years of imprisonment.25
Without going into all the details, it can be seen that this schema envisages a hierarchy of blessings,
with status being marked by access to AmitƗbha himself. Also of interest is the relevance of the
25
We give here a simplified summary of some very long passages in the original. The relevant passages are to be found in the
Vow Section (T 362, 12: 301b14–c5 [Vows 5–7]; cf. T 361, 12: 281c2–9 [Vows 18–19, no close match]) and the Description
Section (T 362, 12: 309c24–311a17; cf. T 361, 12: 291c14–293a6).
77 --- 77
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
renunciant-lay divide, and the distinction even within the laity between those with the resources for
merit-making and those lacking them.
In the LR this system has broken down and its distinctions have almost entirely disappeared.
7. There is a stronger centre-periphery motif in the ER, which is related to the fate of the doubters in the
2nd and 3rd classes. Imprisoned in their cities or fortresses (Chinese cheng ᇛ) on the borders of
SukhƗvatƯ, they are unable to join the congregation in the centre, and must wait 500 years before
their vimƗnas are able to take off and give them the freedom of movement enjoyed by the other
inhabitants (for the references see above, under Point 6). At the same time, however, it is emphasized
that SukhƗvatƯ is perfectly flat. There is no Mt Meru, to say nothing of any lesser mountains or hills.
In fact, the ER makes no mention at all of AmitƗbha’s Bodhi tree, although it appears in the LR.
8. There is more emphasis on light. We have already seen this in connection with the details about the
haloes of the bodhisattvas and ĞrƗvakas, but it is also apparent in the considerably more expansive
section on the radiance of AmitƗbha, with which the description of SukhƗvatƯ begins in the text (T
362, 12: 302b20–303a2; cf. T 361, 12: 281c27–282b11).26
Later in this paper we will consider the Muhammad Nari stele in the light of these distinctive
features of the ER of the LSukh, concentrating particularly on elements which have not been adequately
addressed previously. But what of other possibilities? What of the contention advanced by Schopen
when he says, contra Huntington, that “[t]here is, in fact, probably more “evidence” to suggest that it
[the stele] represents Abhirati than there is to suggest that it represents SukhƗvatƯ.”27 To assess this
claim we need to know what Abhirati might look like.
Akৢobhya’s Abhirati
For a description of Abhirati we must consult in the first instance the primary source text for the early
cult (if we can call it that) of Akৢobhya, the Ak‫܈‬obhyatathƗgatasyavynjha, extant in two Chinese versions
and one Tibetan translation:
(1) Fo shuo achufo guo jing ష䃚㜿㛹షᅧ⥂, attributed to Lokakৢema (fl. c. 170–190 C.E.): T
313.28
(2) Dabaoji jing budong rulai hui ኱ᑌ✚⥂୙ືዴ౗᭳, produced during the period 706-713 by
Bodhiruci (fl. 693–713): T 310.6.29
(3) ’Phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa mi ’khrugs pa’i bkod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo,
by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi and Ye shes sde, early 9th century.
Again, this is not the place for an exhaustive treatment of the textual accounts of Akৢobhya and his
domain Abhirati,30 but if we single out those elements which can be compared with the features of
26
One can get a dramatic impression of this from the relevant pages (172–173) in Kagawa 1984, where all the versions are set
side by side.
27
See Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50; 2005: 262, n. 50).
28
The attribution to Lokakৢema is not without its problems, but can be upheld, as long as one recognises that there is also
evidence of considerable later revision, possibly sometime early in the 3rd century. Cf. Nattier (2008: 85–86).
29
An English translation, with the omission of many substantial passages (not all of them marked), appears in Chang (1983).
Dantinne (1983) presents a copiously annotated French translation of the first three chapters, with reference also to the Tibetan.
- 78 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
SukhƗvatƯ listed above, arranging them under the same rubrics, we find some notable differences, and
some similarities.
1. There are women in Abhirati, whose superior qualities are described, as is their ready access to
jewellery and clothing growing on trees. Consequently, birth is through the womb, even though it is
painless (T 313, 11: 755c28–756a2, 756b3–15; T 310, 11: 105b23–27, 105c18–24 [cf. Chang 1983:
323, with omissions]).31 There is no rebirth from lotuses, and no description of anyone sitting upon a
lotus, even Akৢobhya himself, although it is said that wherever he stands or walks, thousand-petalled
lotuses spring up under his feet, even when he enters people’s houses. When he sends nirmƗ۬as to
other worlds, the same lotuses also appear beneath their feet (T 313, 11: 756c7–22; T 310, 11:
106a11–26 [cf. Chang 1983: 324]).
2. There are ĞrƗvakas in Abhirati, alongside the bodhisattvas. In this respect the AkTV and the LSukh
(ER) are similar, but the presence of the ĞrƗvakas in Abhirati is emphasized to a far greater degree.
In fact it is a motif which runs throughout the entire text, so that it would be tedious to give precise
references to all the relevant passages, but see especially T 313, 11: 756c24–758a15; T 310, 11:
106a28–107a6 [cf. Chang 1983: 325–326]. Exactly how the ĞrƗvakas were pictured by the authors of
the text is not clear, but we imagine that they were thought to be bhik‫܈‬us (and perhaps bhik‫܈‬u۬Ưs?).
Interestingly, at one point the text states that even the bodhisattvas of Abhirati are mostly renunciants
(pravrajitas), only a few of them being householders (T 313, 11: 758b27–c9; T 310, 11: 107b16–24
[cf. Chang 1983: 328]). Nowhere is it said that the ĞrƗvakas and the bodhisattvas are
indistinguishable or that they look different, so we do not have firm grounds to draw a conclusion (cf.
Point 6 below).
3. Akৢobhya does not have two chief bodhisattvas.
4. The future parinirvƗ৆a of Akৢobhya and the events which follow it are described in great detail, but
there is no succession scenario of the sort we find in the LSukh. However, before he passes away,
Akৢobhya will predict the awakening of the bodhisattva Gandhahastin, whose domain will be similar
to Abhirati (T 313, 11: 760b20–761b24; T 310, 11: 109a7–c22 [cf. Chang 1983: 330–332]). This is
the only occurrence of this bodhisattva’s name in the text (cf. Point 3).
5. Interaction between the inhabitants of Abhirati is not thematized in any way. All attention is
supposedly focussed on Akৢobhya.
6. There are no class divisions among those who are reborn. Gods and human beings enjoy similar
delights (clothing, food and drink, adornment), to the point where humans do not envy the gods, to
whom they are not inferior in any way (T 313, 11: 755b26–c4; T 310, 11: 105c1–2 [cf. Chang 1983:
323]; 108b13–16 [cf. Chang 1983: 330], 112b15–19 [omitted in Chang 1983]). Again, it is not made
clear whether gods and human beings are indistinguishable in appearance.
7. The spatial arrangements of Abhirati are rather different from those of SukhƗvatƯ. Abhirati is not flat,
but has mountains, including Meru. In addition, there is a gigantic Bodhi tree, under which
30
For an illuminating discussion of this material and its place in the history of Buddhism, see Nattier (2000). The work of Kwan
(1985) is also useful.
31
In this version of the paper we give references for the Chinese versions only.
79 --- 79
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Akৢobhya achieved awakening, and under which he now presumably teaches,32 which, according to
the Chinese versions, has some kind of stepped platform or railing around it (T 313, 11: 755b26–c4;
T 310, 11: 105a28–b4 [cf. Chang 1983: 322]). In T 313 the term for this is lanshun ḍᴙ, probably
Sanskrit vedikƗ. This massive structure is 4 yojanas or 560 Chinese li in circumference. However,
the most conspicuous physical feature is a gigantic triple staircase connecting the world of the gods
and the human plane (T 313, 11: 757a28–b14; T 310, 11: 106c1–15 [cf. Chang 1983: 325–326]).33
8. There is far less emphasis on the light of the Buddha Akৢobhya, although brief mention of it is made
at a couple of points (e.g. T 313, 11: 755b26–c4; T 310, 11: 110a4–7 [cf. Chang 1983: 332]).
An excellent summary description of the features of Abhirati is found in the VimalakƯrtinirdeĞa:34
There and then, the Licchavi VimalakƯrti thought, “What if, sitting right here, without
leaving my seat, I were to take hold of this Abhirati world, all of it —with its hundreds of
thousands of bodhisattvas; its resident gods, serpent-deities, forest-spirits, celestial
musicians, and asuras; its encircling CakravƗঌa mountains; its rivers, pools, fountains,
lakes, and encircling oceans; with its Mount Meru, mountain peaks and hills; with its sun,
moon and stars; with the abodes of its gods, serpent-deities, forest-spirits, and celestial
musicians; with its palaces of the BrahmƗ gods and their retinue; with the men of the
villages, towns, cities, provinces, kingdoms; with its women’s apartments; its assemblies
of bodhisattvas and accomplished ĞrƗvakas; with the tree of awakening of Akৢobhya, the
Realized One, and with the Realized One Akৢobhya himself teaching the Dharma seated
amidst an assembly, vast as the sea; and the lotuses that carry out the Buddha’s work for
living beings in the ten directions;35 and with those three stairways of the Abhirati world,
each made of a different precious substance, reaching from the continent of JambnjdvƯpa to
the Heaven of the Thirty-Three Gods in the world Abhirati, so that the gods of that heaven
can descend to that continent in order to see the Realized One, honour him with praises,
attend to him, and hear the Dharma, stairways by which, in turn, human beings ascend to
the Heaven of the Thirty-Three Gods in order to see those gods—what if, with my right
hand, I take the whole Abhirati world, furnished with immeasurable marvellous qualities
such as these, and taking all of it from the watery depths up to the palaces of the Akaniৢ৬ha
heaven, and what if, having dislodged it as a potter separates his wheel from its base, I
were to hold it like a garland of flowers, bring it into this world and show it to the whole
assembly?”
This passage in the VkN is all the more valuable for highlighting what were obviously believed to be the
essential features of Abhirati, among which we might note the diversity of the audience, the presence of
32
This is not stated explicitly anywhere in the text, but it is difficult to imagine that this would not be the case.
33
The triple staircase is, of course, another powerful motif deriving from a miracle in the Buddha’s life, the Buddha’s descent
from the Heaven of the Thirty-Three Gods (TrayastriূĞa) after teaching his mother there.
34
The following passage comes from Chapter 11 of the Sanskrit text (Study Group 2006: 112–113). The translation is based
upon the draft prepared by the Mangalam Translation Group, currently being edited for publication by Luis Gómez and
myself.
35
These are presumably the lotuses which appear beneath the feet of the nirmƗ۬as with which Akৢobhya projects himself into
other worlds (see Point 1 above).
- 80 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
women, the unevenness of the terrain, the giant Bodhi tree at the centre, and the architectural detail of
the triple staircase.36
We shall return to these descriptions later in this paper. Suffice it to note here how influential they
were historically. As Schopen has demonstrated (1977), both SukhƗvatƯ and Abhirati came to be
paradigmatic Buddha-fields. Once we acknowledge the force of these two paradigms, we begin to see
that the problem of determining what the Muhammad Nari stele depicts cannot be solved in isolation,
but requires a comprehensive approach, not only to the textual sources relating to SukhƗvatƯ and
Abhirati, but also to the archaeological record, that is, to other complex steles, their contents and artistic
conventions. Let us look at these aspects of the subject before returning to the text/image problem.
4. Artistic Conventions
The substantial fluidity and diversity which close analysis reveals in the development of the textual
sources surveyed are also features of the visual evidence. Most importantly, the Muhammad Nari stele
cannot be interpreted in isolation, as it incorporates numerous artistic conventions deriving from
different sources that need to be accounted for.
Buddhas on Lotuses
The most obvious feature of the Muhammad Nari stele and many related works is the prominent lotus
blossom, a symbol for the purity and the miraculous power of the Buddha. In GandhƗra, the earliest
depictions of the Buddha are without lotuses, regardless of whether the Buddha sits or stands. Equally,
lotuses do not occur in depictions of the Buddha from MathurƗ during the KuৢƗ৆a period, and are even
rare in Gupta art.37 Their occurrence is better documented in the art of Andhra, i.e. AmarƗvatƯ,
NƗgƗrjunako৆ঌa and related sites, where lotuses appear to arise with the earliest anthropomorphic
representations of the Buddha, which in this region do not predate the late second or early third century.
In addition, in this art school the lotus predominately appears with the standing Buddha,38 while
Buddhas seated on lotuses are rare.39 In addition, an unusual abundance of lotus bases is found at site 9
36
A feature, by the way, that makes it more likely that any depictions of Abhirati, if they could be found, might have more
affinities with the Descent from TrayastriূĞa than they would with the Great Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ. It seems quite possible that
the iconography of this episode had an impact on descriptions of Abhirati. Further, the giant vedikƗ around Abhirati’s Bodhi
tree also reflects contemporary iconographical and architectural conventions deriving from the demarcation of sacred trees in
early Indian religious practice.
37
Examples are Buddha depictions from Devnimori (early 5th century) and some SƗrnƗth Buddhas from the 5th century (see,
for example, Williams, 1983: figs. 57, 90, 92).
38
E.g. Stone (1994: figs. 22, 112, 115, 145, 152, 153). The lotus for the standing image is to be linked to the pedestals of the
Buddha’s footprints (buddhapƗda), which were originally square (e.g., all examples in Knox 1992) but also became lotuses
(e.g., Stone 1994: figs. 91, 92), and narrative scenes in which the Buddha’s feet are venerated (see e.g. Knox 1992: nos. 12, 70,
72 and Stone 1994: figs. 176, 177). It is noteworthy that on two drum slabs of the British Museum (Knox 1992: nos.70 and 72)
the central Buddha image on a lotus is linked to the Saundarananda story represented on the dome, in one scene of which the
Buddha again stands on lotuses (second scene to the left of the Ɨyaka pillars on both; see also Sivaramamurti 1942: pl. lxiii, 2).
39
The distinction made between seated and standing Buddhas is also evidenced by the newly excavated site of Kanganhalli,
where the seven Buddhas of the past and Maitreya (we owe the identification of these images to Oskar von Hinüber’s reading
of the inscriptions on them) are seated on thrones, but the two standing images were placed on lotus pedestals.
81 --- 81
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
of NƗgƗrjunako৆ঌa, where even the stnjpas consistently have double lotus bases as well, which may well
provide a chronological threshold for the popular emergence of this imagery. As Stone (1994: 37–58)
has shown, this site, along with the related site 6, began to flourish in the second quarter of the third
century. Incidentally, the two early Buddha images seated on crude lotuses published in Stone (1994:
figs. 100, 118) are to be associated with these two sites. Thus, if NƗgƗrjuna’s RatnƗvalƯ (III.31–32),
which makes specific reference to the construction of Buddha images upon lotuses, is indeed to be
associated with popular practice in this region, as Joseph Walser (2002: 250–62; 2005: 79–87) maintains,
this text would have to be attributed to the second quarter of the third century at the earliest.40
Furthermore, Rhi (2003: 166–171) was able to show that, according to a series of MahƗyƗna texts
translated into the Chinese by Dharmarakৢa in the late third century, the donation of a Buddha sitting on
a lotus flower is listed as something a bodhisattva ought to do, presumably reflecting contemporary
practice (see below for further remarks on the significance of these passages).
It may well be that the prominent position given to the lotus seat created by the two nƗgas Nanda
and Upananda in the Great Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ is related to or even the source of this practice, but it is
also the case that a lotus flanked by two nƗgas is not necessarily an indicator of this miracle. However
the process of development may be, the imaginative image of two nƗgas (beings who are naturally
associated with water) creating a miraculously precious lotus seat for the Buddha to sit on turned out to
be extremely powerful, and eventually was taken up in other contexts as well. From an art-historical
perspective it is a major mistake to use such a minor detail as a basis for identification. It also
underestimates the power exemplary imagery has in the development of art. In fact, the two nƗgas
shown in the Muhammad Nari stele cannot be the two nƗga kings of the Great Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ, since
they are a couple, the female being placed on the right side of the stem with her back towards the viewer
(Figure 4). Further, they are engaged in throwing lotus flowers towards the Buddha and do not appear to
have a close connection with the bejewelled lotus stem. Instead the stem is touched by another male to
its immediate right, possibly meant to represent a yakৢa and responsible for the jewels that cover the
stem, who also holds what appears to be a rhyton in his right hand. His female partner is shown on the
opposite site and her hands folded in front of her breast in veneration are now lost.41
Certainly more significant for an interpretation of the Muhammad Nari stele is the lotus pond from
which the main lotus and many minor ones grow. In fact, the pond takes up the whole width of the base
of the stele and lotuses grow all along its surface. It is inhabited by ducks, fish and a second couple of
nƗgas. Closer inspection of the stele further reveals that in fact all but one compositional element on the
40
Of course this depends entirely on the dating of NƗgƗrjuna. We find Walser’s attempts to determine the date of the RatnƗvalƯ
with reference to the dates of the SƗtavƗhana kings on the basis of the existence of lotus-pedestal images of the Buddha
unconvincing, along with his attribution of the occurrence of this motive to the time of Yajña ĝrƯ SƗtakar৆i, which he infers
from a tenuous relationship of one panel with a Buddha depiction on a lotus to another panel with an inscription mentioning a
king of this name.
41
Her hands are perfectly preserved on the earlier photographs referred to above (see Figure 2).
- 82 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
stele, the Buddha revealing the Buddha-field, actually have lotus bases and thus conceptually derive
from and are supported by this pond.42
The pond at the bottom of a stele is commonly accompanied by a rather peculiar tree shading the
central Buddha. Clearly distinguished from the Bodhi tree with its heart-shaped petals and botanically
not identifiable, the tree is mainly made up of large blossoms (or sprays of lobate leaves radiating out
from a central ring) from which sprout either garlands of pearls or the upper bodies of figures holding
offerings and garlands for the Buddha (Figure 5). In the latter case the petals or leaves form a kind of
skirt.43 In this paper we refer to such a tree as a jewel tree. This type of tree appears to be integral part of
steles with ponds, but it also occurs on steles without the pond as well as more simple triads of a Buddha
flanked by two bodhisattvas and a few additional figures only (see, e.g., Figure 6). In rare instances,
secondary figures of a complex stele are seated under a figureless variant of the jewel tree (e.g., in Stele
no. 3).
Triadic Compositions
Triadic compositions of a Buddha flanked by two standing figures are found with the earliest depictions
of the Buddha and remain relevant into esoteric Buddhism. In the MathurƗ school of art, early Buddha
depictions are flanked by two attendants brandishing fly-whisks. The earliest Buddha representations of
GandhƗran art, in contrast, are flanked by BrahmƗ and Indra. It is this composition that also informs
later GandhƗran triads showing the Buddha flanked by two bodhisattvas, as these still retain a reference
to the two Indian gods by consistently representing the bodhisattvas in two types, a brƗhma৆a type with
loosely tied-up (but uncovered) hair and a kৢatriya type wearing a turban.44 It is likely that triadic
compositions showing a teaching Buddha on a fleshy lotus flanked by two standing bodhisattvas
represent simpler and possibly earlier versions of the complex steles, since they share a number of their
characteristics. The triad of the year five, the well known Brussels or Marteau Collection Triad of the
year five (today in the Agonshnj collection in Japan), is certainly key to both the chronology of such
representations45 and the interrelationship of these two bodhisattva types (Figure 6). This triad shows
the upper bodies of BrahmƗ and Indra between the Buddha and the two flanking bodhisattvas, each
deity iconographically related to one of the bodhisattvas.
42
This is clearer in comparable steles, in particular the lotus pond stele from Sahri Bahlol in the Peshawar Museum, where the
stems of the lotuses are carved as well. Although it might appear then that the lotuses at the top of any stele of this kind must
have very long stems to reach down to the water, this is simply a consequence of perspective: if we were to flatten out the
composition, all the stems would be the same length, except perhaps the one supporting the Buddha’s lotus.
43
Ingholt (Lyons & Ingholt 1957: figs. 366, 368) identifies these figures as kinnaras, and the flowers they sprout from as lotuses.
While there is no support for the latter identification, there seems to be some warrant for kinnaras wearing skirts of leaves. See
Zin (2003: 1, 189–197). Note, however, that, contra Zin (esp. p. 195, n. 56), there is no support in the LSukh for kinnaras in
SukhƗvatƯ (the two mentions in the text refer to beings located outside AmitƗbha’s domain) and that only in GandhƗran
complex steles do these beings appear with haloes. Be that as it may, Miyaji ( (1993: 254) also identifies these beings as
kinnaras.
44
On later GandhƗran triads and the identity of the flanking bodhisattvas see in particular Rhi (2006) and Miyaji (2008).
45
The year five likely refers to the KuৢƗ৆a era and conforms to 232 C.E. or—in the third century of the KuৢƗ৆a era—332 C.E.
Fussman (1999: 546) even considers a date to the first KuৢƗ৆a century possible for this stele. On the inscription and its
publication see http://gandhari.org/, inscription number CKI0232.
83 --- 83
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
In complex steles, this basic triadic composition is retained, as the Buddha is always flanked by two
more prominently represented standing bodhisattvas of the two types. While in some steles these
bodhisattvas are shown in an iconography comparable to that in the triads, in others they are garland
holders attending the Buddha, as is also the case in the Muhammad Nari stele. Both the less prominent
size and placement of the flanking bodhisattvas on this stele and their lack of distinctive attributes or
mudrƗs indicate that they cannot be identified individually unless the topic of the stele itself suggests an
identification for them.
Regarding the bodhisattvas that have distinctive attributes, their possible identifications can be
summarized as follows. The brƗhma৆a type certainly derives from the iconography of Maitreya, the
future Buddha, which was already established shortly after the first Buddha images were made. He is
consistently represented with the loosely tied long hair and a flask, both signs of his last rebirth as a
brƗhma৆a. As Taddei (1969/2003) has shown most convincingly, Maitreya shares these characteristics
with BrahmƗ. In the Brussels Triad (Figure 6) Maitreya—or perhaps we should say, the brƗhma৆a
type—is shown on the Buddha’s right, with BrahmƗ immediately behind him at the Buddha’s
shoulder.46
The possible identity of the second kৢatriya-type bodhisattva, who is associated with Indra/ĝakra, is
more open, since more than one bodhisattva is known to be of this type. In the earliest Buddhist art of
GandhƗra the turbaned bodhisattva, commonly without attribute, making the gesture of fearlessness
(abhayamudrƗ) with his right hand and resting his left hand on the hip, represents SiddhƗrtha, who also
occurs in narrative scenes in this form.47 In the Brussels Triad (Figure 6) the turbaned bodhisattva is of
this iconography, but has a seated Buddha in the crest of his turban. He is shown on the Buddha’s left,
with Indra behind him, wearing his peculiar crown (kirƯ‫ܒ‬a).
In other triadic compositions the turbaned bodhisattva most commonly holds a wreath in his pendant
left hand. The identity of this bodhisattva is contested and there seems to be no conclusive evidence for
determining it. It is clear, however, that the wreath often has a central blossom at its bottom and that this
bodhisattva eventually gets replaced by a flower-holding bodhisattva, who may be identified as
PadmapƗ৆i or AvalokiteĞvara.48
In terms of the relative position of the bodhisattvas in the triads Maitreya—or the brƗhma৆a-type
bodhisattva—is often represented in the more prominent position on the Buddha’s right. This is also
BrahmƗ’s position in early GandhƗran reliefs, and it may thus well be that triadic compositions with
Maitreya—or the brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattva—on the Buddha’s right hand are on average slightly
earlier. In the Brussels Triad (Figure 6) both BrahmƗ and the brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattva are represented
in this position, on the viewer’s left. Some (later?) steles show the wreath- or flower-holding bodhisattva
in the more prominent position on the right hand of the Buddha previously occupied the brƗhma৆a-type
bodhisattva. This exchange of positions may well indicate that Maitreya as an individual bodhisattva
46
For a statistical analysis of this bodhisattva type see also Miyaji (2008: 127–131).
47
In fact, this particular type of representation of ĝƗkyamuni may derive from a narrative event prior to his first vow to become a
Buddha in front of DƯpaূkara, an identification that still needs to be worked out properly.
48
For a statistical analysis of the turbaned bodhisattva in GandhƗran reliefs see Miyaji (2008: 131–139), where the wreath- and
lotus-holder are not distinguished.
- 84 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
loses prominence in later Gandharan art, however, it may also have to do with triads that show the upper
bodies of BrahmƗ and Indra between the Buddha and the two bodhisattvas, each of them
iconographically mirroring the bodhisattva on the opposite side (see Figure 14).
This certainly is a grossly simplified picture, and the chronological issues associated with it have not
even been touched, but it does demonstrate that triadic compositions in GandhƗra consistently balance
the two bodhisattva types. What is more, in the Muhammad Nari stele the complementary nature of the
brƗhma৆a- and kৢatriya-type bodhisattvas permeates the whole stele, with the two types represented
alternately throughout, regardless of the attribute they hold.49 Indeed, the more one becomes aware of
the sculptor’s strong concern for symmetry and balance, the more one realizes the dangers of rushing to
identification.
Bodhisattvas and Buddhas
In general, it is important to keep in mind that the identification of individual figures in early Buddhist
art is more the result of scholarly conventions than solidly established facts and this is, of course, true
for GandhƗran art as well. Concerning the iconographic types of bodhisattvas summarized above, only
the identifications of Maitreya and ĝƗkyamuni can be considered fairly solid. Their identity can not only
be concluded from the context of some of their representations, but it is also corroborated by rare
inscriptions on coins and roughly contemporaneous MathurƗ school representations. 50 These two
bodhisattvas and their caste affiliation can also be considered the foundation for the differentiation of the
two bodhisattva types.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattva depicted in later
Gandharan art, that is, in triadic compositions and complex steles, is necessarily to be identified as
Maitreya. In the Brussels Triad (Figure 6), for example, the two bodhisattvas may on the basis of their
iconography conventionally be identified as representing Maitreya and SiddhƗrtha, but it is equally
possible, and in many respects more likely, that the two bodhisattvas on the stele actually represent a
more general concept, whatever that may be.51 Such a more general interpretation is suggested by triads
and complex steles in which the two bodhisattvas are represented without identifying attributes, as is
also the case with the Muhammad Nari stele. As mentioned above, this has the consequence that the two
bodhisattvas in the stele can only be identified on the basis of its general topic.
The same is, of course, true for the Buddha representation. In this respect it has to be noted that the
conventional identification of almost all Buddha images as the Buddha ĝƗkyamuni may grossly
underestimate the importance of the Seven Buddhas of the Past for early Buddhist art, not to mention
the importance of the Buddhas of the present, as established with the emergence of the concept of a
Buddha-field. There is relatively little evidence, however, which would enable us to assess the
49
The balance in this regard was also seen by Huntington (1980: 664–665).
50
This refers to numerous scenes of the Buddha’s life that corroborate the iconography of the bodhisattva SiddhƗrtha and to the
identification of Maitreya as proven by the copper coins issued by Kaniৢka I identifying the figure as “MƝtrago Boudo” (see,
e.g., Cribb, 1980, 1999; Huntington 1993; Tanabe 1993) and by the famous Ahicchatra image on which Maitreya is mentioned
by name (see, e.g., Rosenfield 1967: 231).
51
At this stage, we refrain from suggesting any such general concept, since this would require a study of its own.
85 --- 85
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
importance of ĝƗkyamuni’s six predecessors in GandhƗra. Certainly, there are a few representations
showing the Seven Buddhas of the Past together with the bodhisattva Maitreya (see the bottom of Figure
10 for one example). None of these representations belongs to the earliest phase of GandhƗran art, but
the depiction of the Buddhas makes it clear that they can only be distinguished individually on the basis
of their succession. Given the importance of the past Buddhas in Bharhut and Sanchi, it may well be
assumed that in GandhƗra, too, they were much more often represented as individual figures than is
apparent now. For example, at the late GandhƗran site of JauliƗn, Taxila, two Buddha images on stnjpa
D1 were identified as representing the Buddha KƗĞyapa, and a third as representing ĝƗkyamuni.52
Among the textual sources the AnavataptagƗthƗ, “Songs of Lake Anavatapta,”53 is of particular
relevance in this context, since it has been found in a Kharoৢ৬hƯ version as well. In this text, the monk
Kusuma explains his present condition as a disciple of the Buddha as the result of offering a flower to
the stnjpa of the Buddha VipaĞyin.54 We should also bear in mind the frequent representations of
ĝƗkyamuni’s vow in front of the Buddha DƯpaূkara, which turned into iconic imagery as well.55 Most
importantly, there is also an inscribed image of the Buddha AmitƗbha from MathurƗ, which is dated to
year 26 in the reign of Huviৢka, which today is interpreted as referring to 153 C.E.56 Of this image, only
the base with the feet of the standing Buddha and an attendant to his left are preserved. This is enough
evidence to conclude that ĝƗkyamuni was certainly not the only Buddha represented in GandhƗran art.
Returning to the Muhammad Nari stele, the central Buddha clearly cannot be identified on the basis
of his iconographic features. What is important, however, is his teaching gesture, since it tells us about
his primary activity. It also relates the central Buddha to the remarkably lively assembly of seated and
standing figures surrounding him, the formal characteristics of which can be summarized as follows. In
general, the stele conveys a strong sense of communication and interrelation, by combining groups of
figures into what Stella Kramrisch (1983) has called magical boxes in the case of the Ajanta paintings.
Analyzing the composition in terms of the interrelationship of its figures, there is a large central
assembly flanked by many smaller ones. The further up one moves on the stele, there is also an increase
of solitary figures not related to others. This fact and the forms of interaction of the secondary figures
communicate that the figures lower on the stele are closer to the Buddha than those further up. Those in
the upper row could even be taken as inhabiting remote areas, which offers one possible explanation for
the Buddhas emanating images of themselves in the upper corners (see below). The spatial location and
the degree of engagement of the bodhisattvas depicted are closely correlated: those in the lower area and
in the vicinity of the central Buddha are occupied with discussion and veneration, while those in the
upper half of the stele are engaged in solitary meditation, reflection and teaching.
52
Konow (1929: 96–97), Marshall (1951: 374–75) and http://gandhari.org/, inscriptions CKI0082, CKI0084 and CKI0085.
53
The text contains the recitations of 36 disciples of the Buddha narrating their own past lives.
54
Salomon (1999: 30–33).
55
On the unusually high frequency of depictions of the DƯpaۨkara-jƗtaka in GandhƗra and their possible connection with
MahƗyƗna Buddhism, see Rhi (2003: 157–158).
56
The inscription on this base has been studied by Schopen (1987/2005). Another alleged reference to the Buddha AmitƗbha on
a fragment of a GandhƗran triadic composition first suggested by Brough (1982) has in the meantime been refuted by Salomon
& Schopen (2002).
- 86 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
The subtle way in which artistic conventions are combined here contributes to the complexity of the
stele. Its composition thus successfully conveys the notion of the various qualities of Buddhas and
bodhisattvas—or different notions of Buddhahood and bodhisattvahood—by depicting different aspects
or phases of their activity. Further, the appearance—often in pairs—of bodhisattvas with the same
attributes, gestures or sitting postures indicates that the main concern was to create an impression of a
multiplicity of bodhisattvas and not to represent specific figures with definite identities.
Sacred and Divine Architecture
Complex steles often contain depictions of architecture. In the stele in question we see two types of
single-storied, free-standing pavilions. Other complex steles, in contrast, have a single structure framing
all images. No doubt, these are idealised buildings, but they are based on and reflect actual sacred
architecture. In GandhƗra, two types of sacred structures were known, the stupa and the sanctuary.57
GandhƗran stnjpas were placed on a podium, which appears systematically from the first century C.E.,
and occasionally four lion columns were placed at its corners (see the top stnjpas on Stele no. 11 and
Stele no. 12).
The GandhƗran sanctuary shares many of the elements of the stnjpa, especially its elevated
placement. In its simplest form the sanctuary is a single-celled and single-storied structure with a domed
roof, its shape deriving from the grass hut. A developed GandhƗran sanctuary, in contrast, is a two-story
building with a more or less square ground plan, a tapered dome-shaped roof on top of the upper story
and a circumferential roof projection shaped in a quarter circle for the lower story.58 This latter type of
building was of special importance in GandhƗra and was reproduced in art in a multitude of examples.
Of particular importance is that the shape of a decorative false gable of a stupa corresponds to a section
cut through such a sanctuary building. False gables of this typical GandhƗran type were also used for the
sanctuary itself, either on the side of the entrance alone or on all sides, as is the case with the
cross-shaped pavilions depicted in the Muhammad Nari stele.
In the complex steles we have a number of sanctuary variants represented, most commonly in the
form of a section cut. The simplest form are the single-celled, single-storied pavilions with a pointed
arch on top. They are represented as an arch on two pillars and are commonly occupied by a single
figure. Single-celled structures may also be double-storied, in this case the upper storey is represented
from the front (see the pavilions on Stele no. 2). Single- or double-storey cross-shaped pavilions have
three bays, a large one for the central figure and two smaller ones at the side used for attending figures.
They are usually represented as four-pillared structures with the central arch shown frontally and the
side ones from the side. A railing at the roof level may indicate that this structure is actually meant to be
two-storied. While the arches are most often round on the inside and pointed on top, a trapezoid shape is
occasionally found as well. This shape is often found in the lower storey of multi-storied buildings,
expanding the central bay in height, and may well derive from such representations (see Figure 10 and
Figure 12).
57
In the special language relating to GandhƗran art, such buildings are called vihƗra, a term usually reserved for monks’ living
quarters and thus avoided here.
58
One such building is still preserved at Gumbat in the Swat valley (see, e.g., Olivieri 2008: 296, fig. 5).
87 --- 87
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
The double-storied cross-shaped pavilion also provides the base for the multi-storied architecture
seen on some complex steles. In this case, the Buddha occupies the higher main bay and the flanking
bodhisattvas of the basic triad the side bays, above which are balconies (Figure 10). The main bay may
have a false gable arch, or a trapezoid arch with the false gable arch then represented above it. If the
structure is conceived as multi-storied, the upper stories are commonly made up of rows of single cells
(Figure 11). This relationship of a large main building with successive stories above it reflects the most
complex western Indian caitya cave facades, such as those of Bhaja, Bedsa, Karli and Pitalkhora.59 As
such, the architecture on a complex stele represents the idealised architecture of a royal or even divine
palace, certainly a suitable abode for a Buddha and those who follow in his footsteps.60
The idealised nature of the depicted buildings is also visible in the details, such as the complex and
varied Persepolitan columns, the abundance of lion consoles, the occasional elephant console, as well as
the ribbons, streamers and banners that decorate the uppermost or projecting structures. Most commonly
the roofs of such buildings are embellished with birds, parrots and peacocks seeming to be especially
popular.61 It is quite conceivable that this artistic convention later impacted on the textual tradition,
when it was found necessary to account for birds in SukhƗvatƯ and other similar Buddha-fields which
supposedly lacked animals altogether. This question is in fact explicitly addressed in the SSukh, as if it
were a problem demanding a solution.62 Birds are also found in front of the railings of balconies, which
are only occupied by women, a convention that derives from the depiction of royal palaces in early
Indian narrative art. In GandhƗran narrative scenes, such balconies alone are sufficient to indicate royal
or divine architecture.
5. Lotus Ponds, Palaces and Emanations: Three Types of Complex Stele
If one analyses the complex steles from Gandhara as a whole, whether preserved intact or in fragments,
it becomes clear that there are two principal types with a teaching Buddha in the centre, a lotus pond
type and a palace type. The Muhammad Nari stele belongs to the lotus pond type, which have water
indicated at the bottom from which theoretically grow the lotuses upon which all the images or pavilions
sit. The palace-type stele, examples of which have also been found in Muhammad Nari, differs from the
first type in using a more or less complex style of architecture to frame most of the figures depicted. In
the following the most important examples of these two types are described in some detail, before they
are related to a third type that has a meditating Buddha in the centre.63
It should be noted that the following selection does not include all complex steles attributed to
GandhƗra to date, but only those with a reasonably well-established provenance and/or a record of
59
In the case of Pitalkhora only a few windows of the original facade remain high up in the rocks.
60
See also the remarks in Rhi (1991: 154–155).
61
For comments on the birds in these steles see, e.g., Huntington (1980: 661).
62
That solution is that the birds are not real animals, but apparitions conjured up (nirmita) by the Realized One. Without going
into the details here, it should be noted that the ER of the LSukh contains not a single mention of birds in SukhƗvatƯ. In the
Sanskrit text of the LR, by contrast, there are four mentions, three of which deem it necessary to specify that the birds are
conjured up by the Realized One (tathƗgatƗbhinirmita)—another indication that the SSukh was composed after the ER of the
LSukh, and probably before the LR assumed its final shape.
63
A similar classification is found in Miyaji (2002: 23–24; 2008: 124), with the triads seen as a fourth group.
- 88 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
documentation preceding the last decades. We are aware that there are numerous other steles and
fragments that have become known more recently, but since the authenticity of many of them is
contested we have decided not to include them in this study.64
Lotus pond-type Steles
Stele no. 1: Our main stele from Muhammad Nari; Lahore Museum, Inv. no. G 155 (old 1135, I-255)
(Figure 1)
Light grey schist; 119 x 97 x 28 cm
Archival photos: Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast and Central Asian Art, Berlin;
Warburg Institute, London.
Burgess (1900: 32; pl. 7, 2); Vogel (1906: 256–257); Foucher (1905: fig. 79; 1909: 74, pl. xvi;
1917: pl. xxvii, 1; 1918: 206; 1922: 534–37, 848); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 121–23, fig. 25565);
Rosenfield (1967: 236, fig. 90); Miyaji (1971: 57, fig.; 1985a: 79 & 83, figs. 12 & 14; 1993: 253,
fig. 10; 1996: 361, fig. 8; 2002: 10, fig. 1); Huntington (1980); Bussagli (1984: 140); Brown (1984:
79–84, fig. 4); Huntington (1985: 145–46, fig. 8.24); Schopen (1987: 130–31, n. 50); Taddei
(1987/2003: fig. 3); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 395); Schlingloff (1991: 127–28, n. 77, fig. 43,
tracing); Rhi (1991: 95–100, 147, pl. 3); Giès & Cohen (1996: 341–344, no. 253bis); Quagliotti
(1996a); Bautze-Picron (2010: 14–17, figs. 18a, 18b).
Stele no. 2: Stele with lotus pond-type Buddha-field in centre and Maitreya in top panel; possibly from
Muhammad Nari66; Chandigarh Government Museum and Art Gallery, no. 572 (Figure 7)67
Stele with three scenes one on top of the other, the central one of which is of the lotus pond type.
The top scene shows a prominent Maitreya with a large round hair knot in the centre, seated on a
conventional throne and flanked by divine attendants. The one with hair loop sitting to his left is in
an attitude of conversation but turned away from the main image. In the small bottom scene, a
pƗtra on a throne is venerated.
In the central panel the large teaching Buddha is surrounded by a multitude of bodhisattvas in four
tiers. The Buddha is seated on a large lotus blossom flanked by two figures who appear to be
throwing flowers towards him. The two are likely meant to be nƗgas, but their snake hoods are not
preserved. Above the Buddha’s head is a jewel tree of three blossoms, and immediately beneath it
hover two rather fat putti68 holding a wreath. At arm level, the Buddha is flanked by two turbaned
64
Since modern forgeries often combine motifs from different sources, and are thus liable to undermine the typology of complex
steles we are advancing, it is essential to the argument of the paper that no risks are taken in terms of the selection of examples.
Consequently, whenever steles are included in the list despite a less well-established record of provenance, the question of
authenticity is briefly discussed in a footnote.
65
In this picture the stele is only partly represented and from an angle.
66
In the latest Chandigarh Government Museum and Art Gallery catalogue the attribution of this stele to Muhammad Nari is put
in doubt, on the basis of style and type of stone used (Bhattacharyya 2002: 97). Foucher (1917: pl. xxvii) explicitly states that
the origin of the stele is unknown, but he does not know the origin of the main stele either (pl. xxviii).
67
68
Formerly Lahore Museum with the same inventory number.
We prefer to call these flying beings putti for two main reasons: first, there is no doubt that in their function and appearance as
they occur in GandhƗran art, they are of Western derivation; second, their exact status, e.g., secular or divine, and function
within the GandhƗran reliefs themselves remain unclear. Thus, we prefer the more general terms putto/putti to the more
89 --- 89
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
and haloed bodhisattvas holding garlands. At head level, there are two further flanking figures,
presumably deities; both have haloes. The one on the left is a bearded man holding a large vajra,
looking more like more Zeus than Indra or VajrapƗ৆i. On the right a goddess with cylindrical
crown, possibly a city goddess, holds her hands folded.69
The assembly around the main group is represented in four tiers. In the bottom row, of which only
the right side is preserved, are two seated bodhisattvas of the two types, the inner one looking up to
the Buddha and conversing with him. In the next row, one of the four (or five?) bodhisattvas on
lotuses is of the pensive type and turbaned and holds a large flower. Although both bodhisattva
types are used, the turbaned type takes the inner position on both sides. The third row from the
bottom has two pavilions, which appear not to be set on lotuses, with meditating bodhisattvas in
them seated on lotuses. On the outer side sit two more bodhisattvas on lotuses, their heads damaged,
the left one holding a large flower. On the right side, between the goddess and the pavilion, is
another standing bodhisattva of the brƗhma৆a type.
The uppermost level occupies the narrowest band and has a single meditating bodhisattva seated on
a lotus against a circular mandorla on the left side. On the right side, a Buddha seated on a rock (or
cloud?) under a tree reveals the Buddha-field to a kneeling monk with hands in añjali. The upper
body of a figure behind the monk is preserved in traces only. In the corners are figures which may
be horses (?), possibly standing for sun and moon, a feature not found elsewhere.
Neither the bottom attendants nor the pavilions with the meditating bodhisattvas are supported by
lotus blossoms (although the bodhisattvas are seated on lotuses within the pavilions), and there is
no notion of a pond, since the tier below is used for another scene. All figures except the monk in
the revelation scene and the pair at the base of the lotus are haloed.
Bluish grey schist; 85 x 47 cm.
Archival photos: Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast and Central Asian Art, Berlin;
Collection P. & G. Bautze70
Burgess (1900: pl. 8-1); Foucher (1917: pl. xxvii); Foucher (1918: fig. 459); Rosenfield (1967:
236–37, fig. 91); Paul (1986: 171, no. 572); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 399); Rhi (1991: pl. 54);
Schlingloff (1991: figs. 41, tracing); Bhattacharyya (2002: no. 153); Schlingloff (2000: II, 102, no.
16, tracing); Miyaji (2002: 21, fig. 2).
Stele no. 3: Large, fragmentary lotus pond stele; from Sahri Bahlol (Exc. 1939)71; Peshawar Museum,
inv. no. 2785 (old 2016)72 (Figure 8)
Large stele with teaching Buddha on an enormous lotus surrounded by secondary figures of
different sizes. Certainly the most complex and sophisticated representation of the lotus pond
theme besides the Muhammad Nari stele. Many of the figures on this stele have mustaches and the
specific cherub/cherubim, the rather generic genie/genii (as, e.g., used by Zin 2003: 141–152), or the specific Indian
vidyƗdhara, as they have been called in Huntington 1980 (on these see Zin 2003: 163–172).
69
This is the only instance where a female figure is represented within the main body of a lotus pond-type representation.
70
Published in Bautze (2008: fig. 2).
71
The provenance is mentioned on the museum label but curiously not in Ali & Qazi (2008: 176).
72
This piece and the preceding one, the two most significant comparable steles of this type, have already been utilized in
Quagliotti (1996a).
- 90 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Buddha has wide open eyes, both indicators that this stele is earlier than many others.
The teaching Buddha, his large lotus and the jewel tree above him occupy more than half of the
stele’s surface. From the tree on top no details survive, but the type is still recognizable. Unusually,
a considerable portion of the Buddha’s halo is occupied by smaller haloed figures kneeling on
lotuses. Of the four small ones above one is holding a garland, while the other are showing
veneration. Underneath them larger figures appear to bow towards the Buddha’s head.
At the bottom, the lotus has a plain stem. It is flanked by four figures, the outer ones possibly a
couple throwing flowers, while the inner ones seem to point towards the Buddha. Unlike the
equivalent figures in the Muhammad Nari stele, they rise directly out of the water of the large pond
which constitutes the lower border. In the centre of this, among lotus blossoms, several small
figures can be recognized. Two male figures attend an incense burner in the centre. These are
flanked by three figures on each side, only some of them preserved, who are slightly larger and
face up towards the Buddha.
The entourage of the Buddha is represented in a rather complex interaction of larger and smaller
figures. At the height of the arms the Buddha is flanked by two larger standing bodhisattvas who
likely once held garlands. The right one of these is of the brƗhma৆a type. Especially large are also
the two seated bodhisattvas to the sides of the central lotus, their thrones placed on fleshy lotuses
with downturned petals. Both are turbaned and in direct communication with the Buddha. The
remaining bodhisattvas on the stele are of similar size. In the bottom corners groups of two
bodhisattvas are seated under trees and converse with each other. At the level of the knee there are
groups of two as well, with the inner bodhisattvas also directed towards the Buddha. The leftmost
bodhisattva is turbaned and meditates, the rightmost one has his arm raised above his head (now
lost). Two further seated bodhisattvas engaged in conversation with the Buddha are represented
behind the standing bodhisattvas.
Of the upper area only the right half is preserved. There are three solitary bodhisattvas seated on
thrones within different-shaped pavilions, two of which appear to be mounted on lotuses. The
lower bodhisattva is of the pensive type, the middle one is meditating, and the upper one is
teaching and has his legs crossed at the ankles. Just to the right of the lower bodhisattva’s throne is
the scene where a Buddha, seated in the wilderness under a tree in the presence of VajrapƗ৆i,
reveals the Buddha-field to a disciple, of whom only the lower section is preserved.
Grey schist; 149.95 x 116.92 cm.
Archival photo: Warburg Institute, London.
Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 402); Rhi (1991: pl. 6); Ali & Qazi (2008: 176).
Stele no. 4: Central part of a lotus pond stele with teaching Buddha; origin unknown; Karachi, National
Museum of Pakistan, Inv. No. 374
In this relatively flat stele fragment the large central teaching Buddha sits on a rather narrow and
flatly carved lotus, his knees projecting well beyond its edges. The Buddha’s body is elongated and
massive and the legs and feet appear slightly too small for it. His large circular halo almost reaches
his shoulders. Above the Buddha is an elaborate jewel tree, with the upper body of a figure holding
a garland projecting forward from the top central blossom. Underneath two large flying putti with
wings hold a circular wreath above the Buddha’s head. It is certainly wide enough to fit around his
91 --- 91
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
u‫۬܈‬Ư‫܈‬a. To the sides of the Buddha’s arms stand small haloed figures, likely representing Indra on
the left side, and BrahmƗ on the right side. Indra wears a cylindrical crown and holds a vajra
upright in his left hand. BrahmƗ, looking rather youthful, has his right hand raised towards the
shoulder and holds a flask in the left. Of the flanking bodhisattvas only the one on BrahmƗ’s side is
preserved, he is of the kৢatriya type and has his right hand in the gesture of fearlessness
(abhayamudrƗ), while the left arm is broken at the elbow. He stands on a broad flat lotus.
At the bottom of the stele, the lotus grows out of a pond filled with ducks and fish. There are four
figures at its sides, two standing on lotuses and two with their upper bodies projecting from lotus
blossoms as well. The standing figures are a lay couple, the man to the left and the woman, with
distinctive headdress and coiffeur, to the right. The half figures are possibly a couple as well, the
left figure being turbaned and the right one having the hair uncovered. They may also represent the
two bodhisattva types. All figures around the lotus have their hands raised in añjali; the hands of
the standing figure touch its petals.
Grey schist; height 112 cm
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 35, 124, pl. XVI, 373); Taddei (1969/2003: figs. 13, 14); Miyaji (1985b: pl.
VII, 1); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 406); Bautze-Picron (2010: fig. 19, detail of the tree and putti
with wreath).
Stele no. 5: Fragment of a lotus pond stele with only the lower part preserved; from Sahri Bahlol (Exc.
of the A.D.F.C 1911–12); Peshawar Museum, inv. no. 1121
From this stele essentially only the lower tier is preserved with much of the body of the central
Buddha, but this section is still very informative.
As with the other Sahri Bahlol stele, the lotus on which the Buddha sits is enormous. There is an
emphasis on the lotus pond underneath and all figures above it are on lotuses, for two of which, on
which once stood figures flanking the Buddha, the stems are visible as well. The lotus is also
flanked by standing figures, haloed bodhisattvas who touch its upper petals. Underneath, flanking
the bejeweled stem, the upper bodies of a male and a female rise out of lotuses in the water and
throw flowers. It is unclear if they are nƗgas. On each side are three more seated figures, the outer
ones of which are meditating facing the centre. Of the two inner bodhisattvas the left one is
offering something, while the right one is shown in a pensive attitude. The middle bodhisattvas
appear to be engaged in discussion. Because of damage to the heads the bodhisattva types can no
longer be discerned.
The pond itself has a few fish and a couple of ducks represented in the swirling water. Further there
are two kneeling adorers, possibly a couple, who essentially have to be read as being placed in
front of the Buddha-field and thus outside it.
Grey schist; 48.29 x 48.29 cm.
Archival photo: Warburg Institute, London.
Ali & Qazi (2008: 161).
73
In this illustration, only the central part of this stele with the Buddha is shown.
- 92 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Stele no. 6: Lotus pond stele with squarish figures; from Sahri Bahlol mound C74; (formerly?) Peshawar
Museum75
The stele is of a rather flat and squarish style with the central Buddha taking up more than half of
the stele’s surface. Haloed, he sits on a throne set upon a flat lotus growing out of the pond that
once occupied the entire width of the stele but is now largely lost. The jewel tree above the Buddha
has an upper body of a figure holding a garland on the middle blossom. Two flying putti
immediately beneath the tree hold a wreath above the Buddha. At arm level haloed bodhisattvas of
the two types hold garlands. At the level of the head two haloed meditating bodhisattvas of the two
types are seated against circular mandorlas.
At the top of the stele, the jewel tree is flanked by two different scenes. In the upper left corner, a
haloed meditating Buddha seated on a square throne under a parasol emanates six standing
Buddhas, while two kneeling figures venerate him. In the upper right corner, a Buddha seated in
the wilderness on a square stone or throne reveals the Buddha-field to a monk kneeling to his left
side and a standing figure immediately behind him, who may also be a monk. To the right of the
Buddha is an elderly, bearded VajrapƗ৆i, more Zeus than Heracles. Apart from the Buddha, no
figure in this scene is haloed. The thrones of these two Buddhas in the upper register appear to lack
the lotuses with downturned petals used for all other secondary images on the stele.
The rest of the Buddha’s entourage is represented in three tiers of two figures on each side. Among
them the brƗhma৆a type dominates. All are haloed. The bodhisattvas are engaged in discussion and
other practices. In the top row, the two figures on the left are both looking upwards and have their
right hands raised in a gesture of blessing (the index and middle fingers outstretched), the one on
the outside possibly holding a book. On the middle level, all bodhisattvas are of the brƗhma৆a type
and two of them are meditating, the rightmost one with his legs crossed at the ankles. The first
figure to the right raises his arm above the head, as does the leftmost figure in the bottom row,
possibly to shield the eyes against the light. It would seem that in the bottom row the two
bodhisattvas closest to the throne were facing away from the Buddha.
Material and size unknown.
Marshall (1960: pl. 110, fig. 151); Rhi (1991: pl. 65); Schlingloff (1991: fig. 42, tracing);
Schlingloff (2000: II, 102, no. 29, tracing).
Stele no. 7: Lotus pond stele; origin unknown76; formerly in the Peshawar Museum77 (Figure 9)
A rather unusual flatly carved stele broken into two parts with a comparatively small central
Buddha. The stele consists of two main sections, the actual lotus field and an upper palace frieze
that seemingly is set off but contentwise clearly belongs to the main theme. This composition is a
good argument for the interpretation that certain parts of a stele of this type have to be read as
outside or beyond the principal field.
The teaching Buddha is seated on a relatively simple and low lotus with a bejewelled stem and no
74
This origin is provided by Rhi (1991: pl. 65).
75
The stele is not recorded in Ali & Qazi (2008).
76
We note, however, that this stele is stylistically similar to our Stele No. 16, from Takht-i-bahi (excavated 1908).
77
As shown by the Warburg photo of 1913–14. Its present location is unknown.
93 --- 93
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
figures relating to it. The lotus petals are uniquely shaped with their points differentiated from an
inner part with a semi-circular end. Above the Buddha the jewel tree is combined with a parasol
adorned with a crescent, the shaft of which seems to be held by the two flying putti underneath,
who also hold a wreath around it. Otherwise the tree has the usual blossoms, two of them bearing
the upper bodies of turbaned figures with their hands joined in veneration. The frontal blossom
underneath the tree on the left side bearing the upper body of a figure holding a garland may also
be part of the tree. Presumably there was a matching figure on the right.
The composition of the attending figures in the main area of the field has three distinct levels, the
tree level, the Buddha level and the level underneath the Buddha. At the central level the Buddha is
flanked by two frontally represented bodhisattvas. The left bodhisattva is of the brƗhma৆a type,
performs the gesture of fearlessness (abhayamudrƗ) and holds a flask, an iconography deriving
from depictions of Maitreya. The bodhisattva on the right probably once held a wreath, but his
head and right hand are lost. To their sides are two seated pairs of bodhisattvas, one above the other,
the upper pair on the right being lost, engaged in different activities. None is focussed on the
Buddha. Such pairs are also to the side of the tree in the top row: only the pair on the left is intact,
the outer bodhisattva kneeling in adoration, the inner one raising a flower to throw at the Buddha.
The pair on the right may have mirrored them. In the bottom row are seven more similarly engaged
bodhisattvas, only the central one of which is standing. Throughout the stele, the brƗhma৆a type
and the kৢatriya type are difficult to differentiate, as even the former has a chain of pearls with a
central ornament in his hair. All bodhisattvas are on lotuses.
In the top frieze five architectural frames with trapezoidal or semi-circular arches house five scenes.
In the centre, a meditating Buddha is emanating four more standing ones. On either side of him we
see two teaching Buddhas, the one to the left seated cross-legged and the one to the right seated in
the regular lotus-posture. On the far left is a brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattva emanating different deities,
including a Buddha. On the far right is another Buddha apparently indicating the Buddha-field to
two adorers, possibly a monk on the left and a bodhisattva on the right. In this case, their adoration
is clearly directed towards the Buddha-field. On this stele all central figures of the upper row are
seated on lotus thrones with downturned petals.
Schist; size unknown.
Archival photo: Warburg Institute, London.
Stele no. 8: Lotus pond stele with large pavilions in upper corners; from Sahri Bahlol, mound D78;
Karachi, National Museum of Pakistan Museum
This rather unusual lotus pond stele has a rather simplified composition and a row of seated
bodhisattvas underneath the Buddha with donors adjacent to them.
The central teaching Buddha sits under a parasol79 on an unusually small lotus. Above his head the
traces of two flying putti holding a wreath can still be recognized. The lotus with its rather flat and
78
Provenance given by Rhi (1991). Kurita, who apparently was the first to publish this stele, attributes it to Taxila (2003: I, pl.
401). The stele bears a number of features that makes us doubt its authenticity. However, the clear re-carving of the bottom of
the stele and the convincing damage to it speak in its favour.
79
The narrow space there makes it impossible that this stele had a jewel tree.
- 94 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
simple petals, two of the three rows being downturned, is flanked by two figures kneeling on the
ground in veneration, now headless, but presumably monks (they are male and wear no jewellery).
The Buddha is flanked by bodhisattvas of the two types standing on high lotuses. The left one has
loosely tied hair, performs the gesture of deference with the right hand and holds a flask in the left,
in the manner normally associated with Maitreya. The right bodhisattva likely was turbaned and
appears to have held a wreath. To their sides are four seated bodhisattvas, of whom the lower left
probably held a flower and the upper right a book. The lower right bodhisattva has an arm raised
above the head. All figures except for the putative monks and the seated bodhisattva in the bottom
corners are on lotuses and all but the monks are haloed.
In the upper corners are the remains of two ornate pavilions with meditating Buddhas on lotus
thrones, each flanked by two adoring figures, possibly bodhisattvas.
The bottom row is likely to be a later re-carving that continues the main subject, which is indicated
by the curved background of the carved space there, the sharp edge partly undercutting details of
the central panel where it joins this section, and the style. It features a row of six haloed
bodhisattvas, the central four of whom look up towards the Buddha. Of these, two hold flowers,
one shows a gesture of discussion and one has his hands folded in veneration. The two outer
bodhisattvas face away from the centre and are in communication with the standing donors
represented in the corners. On the left two males venerate a bodhisattva holding a flask in his left
hand. On the right are two females with offerings and a bodhisattva who probably once held a
wreath.
Grey schist; size unknown.
Photo: C. Luczanits 2007.
Miyaji (1985b: pl. VIII, 2); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 401); Rhi (1991: pl. 40).
Stele no. 9: Lotus pond stele from YƗkubi, Swabi80; Peshawar Museum, inv. no. 3110 (old 280)81
This rather small stele is composed in two separate parts, an upper part based on the lotus pond
type with secondary bodhisattvas seated in pavilions flanking the main lotus (assuming a
symmetrical composition), and a separate band of figures underneath centred on a meditating
bodhisattva. This stele probably represents a later type comparable with the emanation-type steles
described below.
The central Buddha is teaching and sits on a moderately sized lotus, his knees projecting
considerably beyond its edges. At the height of his arms, he would have been flanked by two
haloed bodhisattvas standing on lotuses, but only one survives, and even he is badly damaged. The
lotus is flanked by two garland-holders kneeling directly on the ground, bodhisattvas of the
brƗhma৆a and kৢatriya types. In the bottom left corner, a bodhisattva sits inside a pavilion on a
rattan chair with legs crossed at the ankles and the feet supported by a lotus-footstool. He is of the
brƗhma৆a type and holds a book as if about to open it. There are two more bodhisattvas of different
sizes on lotuses above the pavilion. The smaller lower figure kneels. The larger upper figure is a
80
According to Spooner (1912: 129), it was found by Mr. Wilson-Johnson in a stream. Swabi is the district immediately to the
north of the confluence of the Kabul and Indus rivers.
81
Donated by Col. Wilson Johnstone [sic], I.C.I (Ali & Qazi 2008: 160–61).
95 --- 95
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattva, who sits in a relaxed pose and has his right arm raised, probably
throwing an offering towards the Buddha. Further above are two more figures, a seated meditating
bodhisattva in a pavilion and another one seated at the height of the Buddha’s u‫۬܈‬Ư‫܈‬a, both of the
brƗhma৆a type. The one in the pavilion sits on a lotus, and his pavilion is supported by a lotus as
well; the seat of the other has been obliterated. All secondary figures on this stele are directed
towards the main Buddha image, and only for those on lotuses is a halo discernible.
In the bottom frieze a turbaned bodhisattva meditating under a tree and seated on a low seat or mat
occupies the centre. He is is flanked by two more bodhisattvas seated with their knees wide apart
and feet close together (exceptionally the legs are not crossed at the ankles) on somewhat higher
seats (there are no lotus seats on this level) and engaged in conversation with the smaller standing
figures to their sides. On the left are three lay followers, the first holding a flower and the other two
with their hands in añjali. The only figure preserved on the right side is a monk who is turned away
from the bodhisattva.
There is a donation inscription on the lower band.82
Grey schist; 59.73 x 36.85 cm.
Spooner (1912: 129-32, pl. xlvii); Coomaraswamy (1927: fig. 54); Zimmer (1954: II, 64a); Lyons
& Ingholt (1957: 123–124, fig. 256); von Mitterwallner (1987: fig. 3); Rhi (1991: pl. 43);
Schlingloff (1991: fig. 40, tracing); Schlingloff (2000: II, 102, no. 22, tracing); Ali & Qazi (2008:
160–61).
Palace-type Steles
Stele no. 10: Palace-type stele with Seven Buddhas and Maitreya; from Muhammad Nari83; Chandigarh
Government Museum and Art Gallery, Inv. no. 113484 (Figure 10)
Stele showing an elaborate palace of fascinating architectural details that is essentially divided into
three tiers. While the top tier is part of the main scene, the bottom tier is strictly separate.
The central triad consists of a teaching Buddha flanked by two bodhisattvas standing on the ground.
The Buddha is seated on a large lotus with a jewel stem flanked by two kneeling figures touching
its petals. The bodhisattvas are not individually recognizable, since both have lost their heads.
Presumably they held garlands only. The arch above the bodhisattva on the right has a Buddha
seated in meditation on a lotus, and a similar Buddha probably occupied the other arch too. The
balconies between these arches and the main Buddha’s head are filled with three figures each, the
central one broken on both sides and the remaining ones all female, without haloes. There is a
82
See the “YƗkubi image inscription,” CKI0139, on http://gandhari.org/ for the reading and publication references. The
significance of the inscription is discussed by Brown (1984: 82), Fussman (1987: 74, n. 38), von Mitterwallner (1987:
227–228) and Rhi (1991: 109, n. 28), among others, but a satisfactory conclusion has not yet been reached. We are grateful to
Stefan Baums for his current attempts to read and interpret the inscription. That work is still in progress, but at present it is
fairly certain that the reading jinakumaro is unsupported, and therefore there is no epigraphic basis for asserting that this must
be an image of ĝƗkyamuni.
83
This stele was excavated from a mound near the village of Muhammad Nari by Mr Dempster, C.E., of Swat Canals (see
Burgess 1897: 8, description of pl. 112).
84
Formerly Lahore Museum with the same inventory number.
- 96 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
fourth woman on the outside corner at the right; of the one on the left little survives.
In the upper section the gable of the main palace is flanked by two cross-shaped pavilions. In the
one on the left a haloed bodhisattva sits on throne and footstool with his legs crossed at the ankles.
On the right sits a pensive bodhisattva holding a wreath, also haloed, with his right foot up on the
footstool. Both are flanked by standing bodhisattvas in attitudes of reverence, only partly preserved.
In the central gable two scenes of the Great Departure are represented, remarkably in reverse
succession from bottom to top, probably to emphasize the actual departure. In the top scene, the
haloed Bodhisattva rides frontally out of the arch, and to the left of him is a figure in KuৢƗ৆a dress.
In the lower scene the haloed Bodhisattva has just risen from the bed, his hand stretched towards
the groom kneeling to the left of it. Two sleeping women can be recognized in the side corners. On
the roof-level balconies we again find women, originally two on each side of each pavilion.
The bottom frieze features the Seven Buddhas and Maitreya, who is represented to the right of the
Buddhas. All eight are haloed, and there is considerable variance in their depiction. Remarkably,
the figures at each end of this line-up are turned towards the flanking adorers. On the left we have
three adults and a child with their hands joined in veneration. On the right a monk guide introduces
Maitreya to a couple. All figures on this level stand upon the ground.
Grey schist; 105 x 77 cm.
Archival photos: Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast and Central Asian Art, Berlin;
British Library85.
Cole (1883: pl. 1 (sketch); 1885: pl. 1); Burgess (1897: pl. 112); Foucher (1905: 193, fig. 77);
Foucher (1917: pl. xxvi, 1); Grünwedel (1920: fig. 63, tracing); Marshall (1960: fig. 123); Miyaji
(1985a: 88, fig. 17; 1985b: pl. IX, 2; 2002: 24, fig. 3); Paul (1986: 171, no. 1134); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 397); Rhi (1991: pl. 45); Bhattacharyya (2002: no. 340, “AmitƗbha preaching in
SukhƗvatƯ”).
Stele no. 11: Upper part of a multi-storied palace stele; from Muhammad Nari; Chandigarh Government
Museum and Art Gallery, Inv. no. 113786
Of this once very large stele only the upper part is preserved, showing rows of figures in three tiers,
the lowest tier at the same level as the central arch under which the central image once sat.
In the top row a stnjpa in the centre is flanked by a Buddha and a bodhisattva, both of them
emanating other figures. The stnjpa stands on a capital, has three base rings and four niches housing
Buddhas on the dome. Its massive parasols, at least seven, are supported by posts from the dome
and from them trail large ribbons. In the corners are four lion columns. To the left the meditating
Buddha seated under a parasol on a lotus with downturned petals emanates six more standing
Buddhas. In an identical composition the meditating bodhisattva on the right emanates six deities.
Of these only the ones on the left are preserved, the middle one of them identifiable as Skanda.87
To the sides of the lotuses of these two figures crouch two bodhisattvas with loosened hair in a
85
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/s/019pho000001003u01099000.html
86
Formerly Lahore Museum with the same inventory number.
87
The top figure has been identified as Kubera (Bhattacharyya 2002: 112), but his attributes, an elongated pointed object held
hanging from the right hand in front of the legs and a bag in the left hand, are not entirely clear.
97 --- 97
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
position reminiscent of ĝƗkyamuni’s primary vow in front of the Buddha DƯpaূkara.
On the middle level, just above the tip of the arch, are five single-celled pavilions separated by
columns. In the central building sits a Buddha on a lotus making the gesture of fearlessness
(abhayamudrƗ). The two bodhisattvas in the flanking pavilions are directed towards him. The
bodhisattvas in the outer pavilions face away from him, indicating that considerable portions are
lost at the sides as well (there were at least seven pavilions on this level, cf. Stele no. 12 below). All
the bodhisattvas on this level sit on thrones, not lotuses.
Flanking the central arch with peacocks on its roof are four pavilions (originally at least six). The
two inner ones each house a bodhisattva kneeling on the ground and facing towards the arch and
thus the central Buddha. The outer building, preserved only on the right, houses a teaching Buddha
upon a lotus. Enough remains of the next level down to establish the presence of six arched alcoves.
Grey schist; 76 x 95 cm.
Foucher (1905: fig. 78); Paul (1986: 171, no. 1137); Taddei (1987/2003: fig. 4); Rhi (1991: pl. 49);
Schlingloff (1991: fig. 45, tracing); Schlingloff (2000: II, 103, no. 19, tracing); Bhattacharyya
(2002: no. 341).
Stele no. 12: Multistoried palace-type stele; from Sahri Bahlol, Mound D (Exc. 1911–12); Peshawar
Museum, inv. no. 2771 (old nos. 1554, 60)
Stele found in parts and reassembled with substantial losses at the bottom. The composition is
divided into three tiers, the bottom composition with the main triad occupying almost two thirds of
the stele, a row of arches above it, and three separate structures at the top.
The central Buddha sits under a caitya arch on a rather simple lotus with elephants underneath,
which once offered lotuses with their trunks. Separated from him by Persepolitan columns two
attendant bodhisattvas, haloed, stand on lotuses with downturned petals. The bodhisattva to the left
with turban, the gesture of fearlessness (abhayamudrƗ) and lotus could be read as AvalokiteĞvara,
the one to the right with open hair, the gesture of giving (varadamudrƗ) and flask as Maitreya. The
quarter circles of the lower arch were occupied by two tiny haloed bodhisattvas perched on
elephant heads and venerating the Buddha (only the one on the left has survived), outside the lower
arch are balconies on each of which stand three women, without haloes but elaborately coiffeured.
Under the top of the arch two putti once held garlands above the Buddha’s head, but only one of
them is preserved. The top of the arch is flanked by two Buddha triads, a teaching Buddha
(obliterated on the right, but preserved on the left) flanked by a pair of meditating ones facing him,
all six seated on lotuses.
Similar arches (seven of them) house images on the next level up, where the centre is again taken
by a Buddha with abhayamudrƗ and holding the end of his dress. He is flanked by two Buddhas,
the one on the left meditating, the one on the right, only partly preserved, teaching. All three are
seated on lotuses. At each end are two bodhisattvas, the inner ones with loosely tied hair and sitting
cross-legged, the outer ones turbaned and in pensive posture. All of these sit on thrones, not on
lotuses.
The top row has a stnjpa in the centre flanked by two narrative episodes of the Buddha’s life, the
offering of dust and the vow in front of DƯpaূkara, both resulting in a prediction made by the
respective Buddha. In the outer corners bodhisattvas of the two types are shown teaching in
- 98 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
separate pavilions, seated on thrones with legs crossed at the ankles. Figures offering garlands
stand to either side and hover in the air above them.
Grey schist; 114.37 x 71.17 cm.
Hargreaves (1930: 98-99); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 125–26, fig. 257); Miyaji (1985b: pl. VI, 1–3;
2008: figs. 1, 5 and 7); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 396); Rhi (1991: pl. 39; 2006: fig. 7.14);
Schlingloff (1991: fig. 44, tracing; 2000: II, 102, no. 25, tracing); Ali & Qazi (2008: 150–51).
Stele no. 13: Palace-type stele on lotus stand; from Loriyan Tangai88; Indian Museum, Calcutta, inv. no.
A 23484 (old 5090) (Figure 12)
Less complex palace-type stele with a teaching Buddha flanked by two bodhisattvas, originally
mounted on a lotus with downturned petals that was also found.89 Unusual is the projection on top
of the stele that once may have supported a parasol. The stele itself has essentially three tiers, the
central palace room with the main figures, the roof area flanked by two pavilions, and the lower
frieze.
The large central palace room has three spaces, with the central area housing the Buddha taking up
the full height. The Buddha makes the dharmacakramudrƗ and sits on a double-petalled lotus with
elephants underneath. Above his head a twisted garland is flanked by ribbons. Separated from him
by Persepolitan columns are two seated bodhisattvas. The bodhisattva on the left sits with his legs
crossed at the ankles, holds the left hand in a gesture of communication towards the Buddha and
has the right one on the lap, where an outline of the flask he held is still visible. Presumably he is of
the brƗhma৆a type, as is indicated by his bare feet in relation to the sandaled ones of the second
bodhisattva. This figure is turbaned, of the pensive type—seated in royal ease (lalitƗsana) with his
head supported by his right hand—and holds a wreath in his lap. Both bodhisattvas sit on thrones
set on the floor, but the one on the left has a lotus for a footstool. Above each bodhisattva is a
balcony occupied by two females holding flower offerings.
The arch in the shape of a false gable in the centre of the top area is dedicated to the veneration of
the Buddha. In the top arch a standing Buddha is flanked by two adoring figures, while in the
extension below a couple of meditating Buddhas, their flat seats not clearly recognizable, are
flanked by kneeling adorers. Meditating Buddhas seated on lotus thrones also occupy the
single-celled, double-roofed side pavilions on this level. The central arch has a large finial above it,
with flying streamers preserved on the left side.
In the bottom frieze five putti carry an immense garland and at each end kneel two more figures in
añjali. The one on the left is a monk, while the one on the right is female.
Dark grey schist; 85.5 x 40.5 x 12.2 cm; height of c. one meter including the lotus base.90
Archival photos: Warburg Institute, London; Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast
and Central Asian Art, Berlin.
88
This attribution is given in Marshall (1960: fig. 122), while the photograph used in the thumb has a paper glued to the stele
saying it is from the Swat valley. In the early literature Loriyan Tangai is considered part of Swat.
89
An old photograph showing the stele mounted on the lotus is also preserved. It shows that the top decoration of streamers and
birds was fully intact when the piece was discovered.
90
Foucher (1917: description for pl. xxv, 1).
99 --- 99
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Burgess (1900: fig. 25); Foucher (1905: 192, fig. 76; 1917: pl. xxv, 1)91; Majumdar (1937: 67–68,
pl. ix, c); Marshall (1960: 94–95, fig. 122); Miyaji (1985a: 90, fig. 18; 1985b: pl. IX, 1); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 398); Nehru (1989: pl. 17); Rhi (1991: pl. 42); Schlingloff (1991: fig. 47,
tracing); Klimburg-Salter (1995: no. 133).
Stele no. 14: Fragmentary palace-type stele with a teaching Buddha and the Seven Buddhas and
Maitreya at the base; of unknown origin; private collection, Japan92
Fragmentary stele of a Buddha-field emphasising the palace architecture with a large teaching
Buddha in the centre. The flanking bodhisattvas are broken away; only the remains of their feet can
be seen.
In the arch above, a haloed kৢatriya-type bodhisattva with his right hand in abhayamudrƗ and the
left hand at the hip is surrounded by four figures, two of them turbaned but none with haloes. In the
centre the teaching Buddha sits on a rather crude double lotus flanked by male and female donors
kneeling on the ground; the male is a monk. On either side of the Buddha’s head haloed
bodhisattvas of the two types, or rather BrahmƗ and Indra, kneel under the arch with their hands
joined in veneration. Flying putti place a garland in front of the Buddha’s u‫۬܈‬Ư‫܈‬a. Remarkable are
the complex columns and the many animals and putti.
On the lower register the row of the Seven Buddhas and Maitreya is flanked by two females, the
one on the right holding blossoms in a cloth. All eight central figures are haloed, their haloes
bending like leaves behind their head. They are similarly depicted, but there is considerable
variation in their hairstyle and in the position of the hands. Maitreya makes the gesture of
fearlessness (abhayamudrƗ) and holds a flask.
Schist; 70 x 45 cm.
Exhibit (1985: no. 37); Kurita (1990/2003[II]: pl. 294), where the stele is attributed to the Swabi
region.
Stele no. 15: Section of a palace-type stele with the palace growing out of a pond; of unknown origin
and location93
Of this rather flat stele with prominent architectural features in a composition similar to Stele no.
12, only the main section with the Buddha and one of the flanking bodhisattvas is preserved. The
elaborate palace is combined with the pond on which the palace stands, their relationship being
essentially undefined. The pond is filled with buds and beings, two of them underneath the inner
pillars, but none of these is discernible in details. The flanking bodhisattva stands on a lotus
blossom growing from the pond.
The squat teaching Buddha is stylistically unusual, a particularly strange feature being the
undulating hair line on the forehead. He sits under the remains of a false gable arch on a relatively
narrow lotus with downturned petals, his knees projecting considerably beyond its edges.
91
In this photograph the stele does not yet show the present damage!
92
There certainly remains some doubt with regard to the authenticity of this stele, but none of its unusual elements can be
qualified as entirely impossible.
93
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 35) refers to this piece as “once on the art market in London”. Stylistically, this stele is very unusual,
but its condition and wear are strong indicators that it is indeed an authentic piece of GandhƗran art.
- 100 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Underneath the lotus are the heads of three elephants, one frontal and two at the sides. The
elephants on the side carry lotus flowers with kneeling and haloed devotees on them, presumably
bodhisattvas. 94 Persepolitan columns separate the Buddha’s space from that of the flanking
bodhisattvas. Here only the bodhisattva on the right is preserved, with his right hand in the gesture
of giving (varadamudrƗ) but oddly turned, and holding a flask in his left hand by its neck in an
unusual manner and higher than normal, at the height of the belly. His voluminous coiffure, with
parallel ridges on the large hair knot, is unusual as well. Above the bodhisattva an elaborate
balcony houses two women with offerings in separate compartments. In front of the balcony’s
railing are two birds.
Material and size unknown.
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xvi, 4).
Two Types in Comparison
As this short survey of relevant steles shows, most of the sophisticated complex steles come from only
two sites, Muhammad Nari and Sahri Bahlol. An analysis of the two types of steles from these two sites
reveals a number of significant differences:
•
The lotus pond-type stele always includes what could be called a revelation scene, i.e. a scene in
which a Buddha outside the actual Buddha-field and not seated on a lotus appears to be bringing
the content of the stele to the attention of a kneeling figure. This revelation invariably takes place
in the wilderness.
•
With the exception of this wilderness scene, all other elements of a lotus pond stele, including
the pavilions,95 are placed on lotus blossoms that theoretically grow out of the pond at the
bottom of the stele.
•
The audience of a lotus pond stele consists predominantly of bodhisattvas engaged in different
activities. Besides the veneration of the main Buddha, there is an emphasis on discourse and
communication. Solitary bodhisattvas may also be present, engaged in reflection, meditation and
teaching.
•
On a lotus pond stele additional Buddhas are found only on the periphery and not in the main
assembly.
•
Palace-type steles, by contrast, have additional Buddhas among the secondary figures
represented in direct relation to bodhisattvas.
•
In palace-type steles Buddhas sit on lotuses while bodhisattvas sit on seats or thrones or stand on
the ground.
•
Palace-type steles do not emphasize dialogue but solitary practice. There are no gestures of
dialogue between bodhisattvas. Each figure occupies his own architectural space.
94
But according to Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 128), Lnjhasudatta and his wife.
95
An exception is Stele no 2, in which the pavilions are not standing on lotuses, nor are any of the figures at the bottom of the
main scene.
101 --- 101
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
•
Only palace-type steles show scenes of the Buddha’s life on them. Also the connection to the
seven Buddhas on the past only occurs with palace-type steles.
•
Only palace-type steles have balconies, and these are invariably occupied by women without
halos.
Comparable steles of unknown origin or from other sites (or fragments of them) seldom reach the same
sophistication, but in many instances share the main differentiating characteristics listed here. While in
part obscuring the differentiation between the two types, they occasionally also help to understand the
relationship of the different elements on such steles. For example, steles with the revelation scene on the
level of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas emanating other beings, e.g. Stele no. 6 and Stele no. 7, may
indicate that those scenes are thought to lie beyond the actual Buddha-field as well.
If all steles considered so far, those from the two main sites and the comparable ones, are taken into
account the above characteristics are certainly statistically supported, even more so as it seems clear that
steles in which different elements are merged are commonly of a later manufacture than the steles from
the two main sites. Despite the differences visible in the two types, it is rather likely that the palace-type
stele is associated with water as well. This is not only indicated by the unusual Stele no. 15, which
literally has the palace standing on a pond, but also by the lotuses that support the Buddhas and
bodhisattvas on these steles as well. In addition, the elephants that occasionally appear as the supports of
the lotus are also associated with water. Last but not least, the whole palace may stand on a lotus (Stele
no. 13, Figure 12), distinguishing the divine from the royal.96
The blurring of the two types recognisable in some of the steles (e.g., Stele no. 9, which is unusually
small) may have been supported by the presence of a third type of complex stele focused on a
meditating Buddha emanating other standing Buddhas, typically eight of them, fanning out on either
side of his body. The main steles of this type are described here as well, under the rubric “emanation
type”.97
Emanation-type Steles
Stele no. 16: Lotus pond-type stele with emanating Buddha; from Takht-i-Bahi (exc. 1908); formerly
Peshawar Museum (Figure 13)
The stele centres on a meditating Buddha seated on a throne and under a parasol ornamented with a
crescent moon; in this and other respects it is similar to Stele no. 7. The Buddha is haloed and
emanates eight Buddhas standing on lotus blossoms, four on each side. To the sides, two haloed
bodhisattvas stand on lotuses holding garlands. They appear to be of the two types but the
headdress of the bodhisattva on the right is not recognizable as a turban.
Above the parasol is the foliage of a jewel tree with three additional haloed Buddhas, a teaching
one flanked by two with their right arms in their monastic robe and the left holding an end of it.
96
This conforms to Chinese depictions of Buddha-fields, which tend to emphasize the water, although they are more
architecturally explicit and often have the palaces on piles in the water. In the case of the palace-type steles, it is also possible
that the ponds at the bottom reflect general Indian cosmological notions about the earth resting on a base of water.
97
Rhi (1991) uses the term “multiplication” to denote this type.
- 102 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Two haloed meditating Buddhas flank the parasol. All five of these Buddhas sit on lotuses.
The lower area is considerably damaged, and it is unclear if once a lotus supported the principal
Buddha’s throne. At the level of the throne he is flanked by two seated bodhisattvas directed
towards him. The lefthand bodhisattva is of the brƗhma৆a type and appears to hold an offering, the
bodhisattva on the right is of the kৢatriya type and holds a lotus blossom in the right hand.
Material and size unknown.
Archival photo: Warburg Institute, London.
Spooner (1911: pl. xliv, c); Foucher (1922: fig. 484); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xxi, 2); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 391); Rhi (1991: pl. 46); Schlingloff (1991: figs. 37 and 38, tracing; 2000: II,
102, no. 14, tracing).
Stele no. 17: Unfinished lotus pond-type stele with emanating Buddha; from Takht-i-Bahi; remains at
site (?)98
This unfinished stele has a meditating Buddha in the centre and is cut off on the left side, with the
loss of the outermost figures. The Buddha is seated below a parasol on a double lotus supported by
elephants. The material left to the sides of the Buddha’s body was likely meant for emanating
Buddha figures (see the previous example). On each side of the lotus a standing figure (the right
one turbaned) raises an arm, presumably throwing an offering, while holding a garland in the left
hand. Further, a seated bodhisattva in the bottom right corner raises his arm to protect his eyes.
Two figures, represented as upper bodies only, flank the parasol, the left throwing flowers, the right
venerating. Above the central parasol, a jewel tree is flanked by two Buddhas seated on lotuses
under their own parasols, both with the gesture of fearlessness (abhayamudrƗ).
Grey schist; height 119.4 cm.
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: no. 263); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 394).
Stele no. 18: Lotus pond stele with emanating Buddha; from Sahri Bahlol, Mound C99; Karachi,
National Museum of Pakistan, Inv. no. 1734100
Stele with two clearly separated tiers, a large Buddha emanating smaller Buddhas in the upper part
and a bottom row with seated bodhisattvas in conversation.
The large meditating Buddha sits on a double lotus supported by elephants, the two at the sides
holding lotus flowers in their trunks that bear haloed figures kneeling with their hands extended in
veneration towards the Buddha. Above the Buddha are three blossoms of a jewel tree, beneath
which two flying putti101 hold a large parasol. The Buddha emanates standing Buddhas on lotuses,
four on each side, only the ones on the left being preserved. To the sides of the upper standing
Buddhas, two bodhisattva throw flowers towards the Buddha. Two more meditating Buddhas
seated on lotuses under parasols flank the jewel tree on top. On either side of the principal
Buddha’s lotus were two seated bodhisattvas, only the one on the left being preserved. He sits on a
98
According to Rhi (1991: 157 & n. 46), at that time only broken fragments remained in a storage building at the site.
99
This provenance is provided by Rhi (1991: pl. 5) and supported by Schlingloff (2000: I, 493). Higuchi (1984: no. I-9) gives the
provenance as Mardan.
100
Formerly Peshawar Museum, as shown by the Warburg photo of 1913–14.
101
These putti, like those of the Muhammad Nari stele, are winged.
103 --- 103
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
throne.
In the bottom frieze seven bodhisattvas seated side by side and engaged in conversation with each
other are flanked by two monks. Behind them we see two standing attendants and traces of a third.
Both types of bodhisattvas are equally represented, all are haloed and sit on thrones that stand on
lotuses deriving from a common pool. Of the bodhisattvas one sits in meditation, one holds a flask
and a third one a book. Among the others three share very similar gestures, raising one hand in the
direction of the principal Buddha above them and having the other hand palm up on the thigh.
Grey schist; 83 x 54 cm.
Archival photo: Warburg Institute, London.
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xx, 2); Bussagli (1984: 188); Higuchi (1984: no. I-9); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 393); Rhi (1991: pl. 5); Schlingloff (1991: figs. 39, tracing; 2000: II, 102, no. 11,
tracing).
Stele no. 19: Fragment of a lotus pond stele with emanating Buddha; of unknown origin; Government
Museum, Madras
The middle and bottom left corner section of a lotus pond-type stele. In the centre a now headless
meditating Buddha is seated on a lotus with large petals growing out of a pond on a bejewelled
stem. The Buddha once emanated five Buddhas standing on lotuses on each side, but only parts of
the group on the left survive. To the left of the lotus a smaller standing lay personage or bodhisattva
of the brƗhma৆a type has his hands raised in veneration. Behind him, a seated bodhisattva looks
towards the central Buddha, a flying putto holding a crown above his head. Both secondary figures
are on lotuses deriving from the common pond.
Material and size unknown.
Taddei (1969/2003: fig. 31, with caption referencing another piece; 1987/2003: fig. 2).
Compared with the two types characterized above, these steles are clearly less complex and distinctive,
but their details are closer to the lotus pond type. In addition, we have seen that an emanation scene
appears as a subordinate element more frequently in the lotus pond steles. Nevertheless, in none of the
examples found so far (i.e., in which the emanation is centre stage) is a revelation scene depicted. All
examples have a parasol immediately above the Buddha, in one case carried by putti. The Buddha is
always in dhyƗnamudrƗ. Emanation type steles usually do not have larger flanking bodhisattvas, and if
there are any (as with the two steles from Takht-i-Bahi), they are less pronounced than with the other
types. Further, all secondary figures in the respective section of the stele are directed towards the central
emanating Buddha. The secondary Buddhas found in the tree area are not emanating any further
Buddhas and are often of varying types. If any of the complex steles is to be associated with the Great
Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ, it is this type. But here too the absence of a clear marker of this narrative and the
presence of attending bodhisattvas speaks against such an identification.
- 104 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Steles, Fragments and Triads
We have reviewed almost 20 pieces, but the number of complex steles documented in GandhƗran art is
considerably higher than this.102 Besides the fairly complete steles we have inventoried in this paper,
numerous fragments of such steles have been documented, and these easily triple the number of
surviving examples. While we have been unable to include these fragments in this study, we did use the
most informative of them to develop our typology and conclusions. Further, some of these fragments
indicate that the topic at hand was not only represented in the form of single steles, but likely also by
combining a number of stone panels into a larger composition, as has been done with larger false
window gables.
Further, it is important to keep in mind that the three types distinguished here are also represented in
simpler formats, the first two types in the form of triadic compositions, and the latter in the form of the
meditating Buddha emanating further Buddhas on lotuses. At present the exact relationship of these
triadic compositions to the complex steles in terms of chronology and succession is still unclear to us. It
is nevertheless useful to point out examples for each type and characterise their frequency and variation.
Among the triads, those of the lotus pond type are by far the most frequent, and Figure 6 can be
taken as an example of them, even if no water is indicated at the bottom of the stele. Other triads of this
type clearly reference the pond, such as Figure 14, which shows a similar composition with the gods in
the background exchanged. A number of them show additional bodhisattvas and Buddhas. All of the
triads share the jewel tree, some of them with figures in it, but none has putti crowning the Buddha with
a wreath, even if some of them are very close, such as a well known triad from Sahri Bahlol today in the
Peshawar Museum (Figure 15).103
Palace-type triads are comparatively rare and less closely associated with the complex steles of this
type. Due to the architecture they also lack the reference to BrahmƗ and Indra so frequently found with
lotus pond-type triads. An interesting example for such a triad, today in the Lahore Museum, shows the
teaching Buddha inside a pavilion flanked by two much smaller bodhisattvas (Figure 16). To the left is
the wreath-holding bodhisattva and to the right a bodhisattva of the brƗhma৆a type. All three are placed
on lotuses, the stems of the flanking bodhisattvas deriving from the main lotus. Between the figures,
immediately in front of the pillars, kneel two figures, a monk to the left and a female lay follower to the
right. As this rather unusual example indicates, the few palace-type triads preserved also vary
considerably. Another interesting example shows the Buddha flanked by two pensive bodhisattvas, the
102
Adding the triads, Rhi (1991: 5–6) arrives at a figure of around 130. See his list of images in Appendix 1 (pp. 194–206). Rhi’s
list includes some works whose authenticity might be doubted (see his comments in n. 8 on p. 3), but even if we exclude these,
the number is still high.
103
Buddha triad stele; from Sahri Bahlol (exc. 1906–07); Peshawar Museum, Inv. no. PM-2770 [old 158]: triad of a seated
teaching Buddha flanked by two large standing bodhisattvas; Buddha seated in meditation on a large lotus flower and under a
fanciful tree with a haloed garland-holder and, at least originally, two teaching bodhisattvas emerging from it; the bodhisattva
standing to the Buddha’s right with turban and wreath, the one to his left is of the Maitreya type, with loosely tied hair and
gesture of deference, the left arm holding the flask broken off; the busts of the gods BrahmƗ and Indra projecting from the
background at shoulder level, BrahmƗ on the left with gesture of deference and flask, Indra on the right with kirƯ‫ܒ‬a and
thunderbolt; two meditating bodhisattvas in pavilions above. Grey schist, 57 x 49 x 11 cm. Previously published in, e.g., Lyons
& Ingholt (1957: fig. 254); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 403; Exhibit (2008: no. 203); Miyaji (2008: figs. 2, 4 and 6).
105 --- 105
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
left one holding a book, the right one a bunch of flowers (Figure 17). The Buddha’s lotus seat is flanked
by what appear to be two figures, an older man with a rhyton along his arm, just as in the Muhammad
Nari stele, and a corpulent being possibly holding a snake and representing a nƗga. Further a monk and a
woman are kneeling in veneration of the Buddha behind them.104
Simpler forms of emanation-type steles are not triadic compositions, but panels showing the
emanating Buddha (Figure 18). From Peshawar Museum alone eight such representations are known.105
In most cases these were originally part of larger compositions, and are thus generally to be counted
among the fragments of complex steles.
To conclude, art-historically three types of complex steles have to be differentiated, for all of which
simpler formats also exist. While these three types are clearly distinguished, their dependence on artistic
conventions also makes them share numerous elements. This picture can, of course, be refined still
further by looking at all the steles and the fragments available in relation to the sites where they were
found and in their chronological development and interrelation. This remains a future task. The
following discussion of the evidence can thus only be taken as preliminary and mainly considers the
larger phenomenon represented by these steles.
6. Discussion of the Evidence
In the following discussion we can only address a limited number of the issues raised above at the
end of our survey of previous studies of the Muhammad Nari stele. Taking full account of existing
descriptions of the Buddha domains SukhƗvatƯ and Abhirati, including the as yet untranslated Earlier
Recension of the LSukh, we will explore the possible relationships between these texts and the three
types of complex stele we have isolated. The considerable variation between the types and even within
each type and the many different motifs they share with each other and with the textual sources indicate
that we cannot expect a close text-image relationship with a one-to-one correspondence. On the contrary,
it may well be that much of what is shown in a stele is not reflected as such in any text, and vice versa:
textual and visual tropes differ considerably from each other, since much of what a text describes may
be impossible to depict and, as has been shown already, depictions follow their own conventions, which
have, in a sense, a life of their own. At the same time an identification may conceivably be possible on
the basis of a single distinctive feature alone. It is time, therefore, to embark on a general analysis of the
steles’ main topics and themes.
Before doing so, we should make it clear that at this point we can infer very little about the contents
of any of the complex steles from their provenance or their date. In a later version of this paper we hope
to address these questions more systematically. Suffice it to say here that most of the steles appear to be
104
This triad from Loriyan Tangai is in the Indian Museum, Kolkata, and apparently has in the meantime lost most of the figures
flanking the lotus (see Miyaji 1985b: pl. XI, 1; 2008: fig. 17; Rhi 2006: fig. 7.15). For other palace-type triads see, e.g.,
Schlingloff (1991: fig. 44, tracing), showing a palace-type triad with two additional meditating Buddhas of unknown origin
recorded from the Gai Collection, Peshawar.
105
Ali & Qazi (2008: 166–173). There are more on these pages, since the authors do not differentiate between emanating
Buddhas and emanating bodhisattvas.
- 106 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
products of the later period of GandhƗran art in stone,106 and that, where we do know their provenance,
most of them come from a fairly narrow range of sites: Muhammad Nari, Sahri Bahlol, Takht-i-Bahi and
Mardan (these four are very close together, Sahri Bahlol being one kilometre from Takht-i-Bahi), with
just a few outliers from Loriyan Tangai and YƗkubi (Swabi). That is to say that there is a significant
concentration in the Peshawar Basin north of the Kabul River.107 It is too early to say what this means,
but one thing is obvious: a considerable degree of wealth would have been required to pay the artists
who produced such a large array of complex and ornate pieces, some of which may have taken months
to complete, and their workshops would have required a handsome infrastructure. It is perhaps not
surprising that the donors would have wanted their own images put into the picture, but in any case,
from a technical and thematic point of view, these are hardly the sort of works that would have been
produced by solitary artists working in remote locations. They indicate a thriving artistic milieu with
high levels of patronage. But even if we accept this, it does not help us to determine what these pieces
mean: for that we have no alternative but to look at the steles themselves, as we have tried to do.
Other Buddhas, Other Worlds
What all three stele types have in common is that they depict a situation which is not of this world,
which is extraordinary, even supernatural, in particular by virtue of the multiplication of their main
protagonists, but in each type this is achieved by different means with different, although
complementary, implications.
For the lotus pond steles, the display or revelation motif is a crucial element in this regard, insofar as
it marks the difference between two worlds explicitly. In a majority of the examples, somewhere in the
upper right-hand region of the stele, we find a small narrative scene, showing a Buddha in conversation
with a monk in an attitude of reverence.108 This Buddha gestures towards the larger Buddha in the
centre of the stele, revealing him and his entourage to the monk, and at the same time indicating to us a
qualitative distinction of buddhahood between this revealing Buddha and the main Buddha. The contrast
between the two types of buddhahood is further emphasized by the presence of VajrapƗ৆i109 in the
revelation scene, while divinities or bodhisattvas flank the Buddha in the main area, and it is also
underscored by the locale of the revelation. While the revealing Buddha sits more or less on the ground
or on a grass-strewn seat in a natural environment, commonly with an indication that this is the
wilderness,110 the main Buddha is enthroned on high in an unnatural but auspicious environment.111
106
Rhi (1991: 10) puts most of them in the period from the mid-3rd to the early 5th centuries, a span of little more than 150 years
(see also ibid. p. 4, n. 10).
107
For more detailed comments on the distribution of these pieces and its possibly historical significance see Rhi (2003:
179–185). Rhi (1991: 156–159) also presents some interesting reflections on the possible physical context of the complex
steles at the relevant sites.
108
In most cases this figure is damaged, but Stele no. 2 shows clearly that he is a bhik‫܈‬u.
109
VajrapƗ৆i generally functions in GandhƗran art as an iconographical marker of ĝƗkyamuni, and is seldom found with other
Buddhas.
110
In the case of the Muhammad Nari stele, this takes the form of two animals in caves in the rock-face beneath the Buddha’s
seat. Here the sculptor appears to have borrowed a convention from the IndraĞailaguhƗ depictions (see, e.g., Lyons & Ingholt
1957: fig. 129, and Marshall 1960: fig. 118) to indicate, as Huntington suggests, the G৚dhraknj৬a, the site of the preaching of the
LSukh.
107 --- 107
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
There can be no doubt that these two Buddha representations are an expression of two different types of
buddhahood, that of a nirmƗ۬akƗya Buddha active in this world and that of a more exalted
Buddha-manifestation beyond our common world, whether one chooses to call it saۨbhogakƗya or not.
The representation on lotus pond steles of additional emanating Buddhas adds further force to the
distinction between the two types.112
In emanation-type steles a different form of buddhahood is already implicit in the main image and
his emanations (nirmƗ۬a). Obviously, there is a qualitative difference between the main meditating
Buddha and his standing emanations, radiating from him like rays of light, the perfect visual trope to
represent the concept of nirmƗ۬a. Besides the emanations, this type of stele commonly also has
additional Buddhas represented in the upper area. Since these are shown above the parasol honouring
the main Buddha, they might be considered as being outside his actual domain, but it is also possible to
think of them as further manifestations, perhaps at a greater distance, of the central figure. No attempt is
made, however, to link these Buddhas visually or conceptually to the main Buddha.
In the Muhammad Nari stele, the two smaller emanating Buddhas in the top corners can be seen as
indicating the central Buddha’s activity directed outwards. We do not believe that Huntington’s reading
(1980: 659–660), which links them with AmitƗbha’s emission of light, is the only possible one or even
the most plausible, since the ER of the LSukh also makes it quite clear that AmitƗbha will send
nirmƗ۬as of himself to those devotees who lack the prerequisites for a personal visitation and reception
at the time of death, and he will also send visions of himself into the dreams of those less fortunate (see
above, under Point 6).113
Multiple Buddhas are also present in the palace-type steles: besides the main Buddha in the main
niche, additional Buddhas, often with their own flanking bodhisattvas, occur on all levels of these steles.
Again, it is not clear what their relationship is to the central figure. The Buddha active in this world is
here represented through the narrative scenes from the Buddha’s life and the row of the Seven Buddhas
and Maitreya found on two of these steles.
Since there can be no two Buddhas in the same world at the same time, the additional Buddhas
represented on complex steles that are not clearly to be interpreted as nirmƗ۬as of the central figure have
to be of a different world. Complex steles thus represent more a matrix of Buddha domains, than a
single one. This type of multiplicity therefore has to be understood spatially rather than in quality or
temporally.114 Such a spatial relationship is also hinted at by the peripheral location for additional
111
Rhi (2008: 259) makes the point that the lotus throne of AmitƗbha is mentioned neither in the LSukh or in the SSukh,
although it is prominent in the Guan jing. This is true, but one could say that protocol demands that AmitƗbha should sit higher
than his followers, and not on the ground.
112
It may be significant that, as far as we know, there are no absolutely indisputable examples of emanating Buddhas who are
not seated on lotuses. Two doubtful cases included in this study are Stele no. 6 (smaller figure on upper left) and Stele no. 16
(central Buddha).
113
Huntington’s argument has been quite rightly called in question by Quagliotti (1996a: 284, 287), but in our view the problem
is that he is referring to the wrong part of the text (and to the wrong recension of it). Quagliotti’s attempt to see this as an
allusion to ĝrƗvastƯ strikes us as somewhat forced.
114
As the representations of the Seven Buddhas and Maitreya in a row indicate, the temporal relationship between Buddhas is
expressed by showing them in a row.
- 108 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Buddhas on lotus pond steles, and the multistoried composition of the palace-type steles with their
references to divine architecture (see above). Thus, while lotus pond-type and emanation-type steles are
clearly the domain of a single Buddha, with any reference to other domains in their upper areas,
palace-type steles need to be read as a multiplicity of domains, the central one emphasised. They are in a
way cosmic palaces.
The spatial relationship embedded in the multiplication of Buddhas also implies that not everything
represented on a stele is to be understood spatially as actually part of the main subject, the Buddha and
his domain. This is particularly relevant in the interpretation of the adoring figures at the bottom of some
lotus pond steles. Here often a distinction is made between haloed figures and those without haloes, the
latter to be interpreted as not fully part of the main scene even though they too may be represented on
lotuses.
It may well be that all three types assume the pond and/or the lotus as the seat of everything
represented within a Buddha’s domain. We have already noted that the palace-type steles are also
associated with water, as indicated by the unusual Stele no. 15 and the elephants that occasionally
support the main Buddha’s lotus. The stnjpas in the top centre of some palace steles are themselves
represented on lotuses or acanthus leaves. These are vegetal indicators of the supernatural, as is the sheer
size and shape of some of the lotuses on which the main Buddha is seated, with their bejewelled stems
and many layers of petals. In simpler versions the fleshy lotus is commonly replaced by a flatter one
with down-turned petals.
Returning to the revelation motif, it is fair to say that this was the lynchpin of Huntington’s attempt
to link the Muhammad Nari stele with the SukhƗvatƯ tradition, and with the LSukh in particular
(Huntington 1980: 658). Quagliotti saw it differently, as a reference to the IndraĞailaguhƗ episode, but
still recognised in it the revelation of a different order of reality (1996a: 282–285). While it is possible
that the artist borrowed the detail of the animals in caves from depictions of that episode (see above), we
find Quagliotti’s reading unconvincing (and in the end impossible to follow), chiefly because the
Buddha is not in a cave, and the figure with the vajra whom she reads as Indra appears only as an
attendant: the Buddha’s interlocutor is the monk.
Somewhat more cogent alternative explanations have been offered by Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50;
2005: 262, n. 50) and, following him, by Rhi (2003: 173–174; 2008: 256), pointing to other texts where
ĝƗkyamuni shows Abhirati to Ɩnanda or ĝƗriputra. These counter-arguments would be much more
convincing if the contents of the stele tallied in any way with the textual descriptions of Abhirati, but
they do not (see below). We might also add that what ĝƗriputra is shown in the Ak‫܈‬obhyavynjha,
according, e.g., to T 313 (11: 759c6ff), is the Buddha Akৢobhya surrounded by all his disciples, i.e.
ĞrƗvakas, who in this context would have to be monks. It is a similar situation with the vision of Abhirati
shown to Ɩnanda and the rest of the audience in the PrajñƗpƗramitƗ texts: they see Akৢobhya with his
assemblies of bhik‫܈‬us and bodhisattvas (bhik‫܈‬usaۨghapariv‫܀‬taۨ bodhisattvaga۬apurask‫܀‬taۨ), and this
is made quite clear even in Lokakৢema’s translation of the A‫ܒ܈‬asƗhasrikƗ (see T 224, 8: 469a18–22).
Furthermore, Schopen’s point about VajrapƗ৆i having a connection with Akৢobhya and not with
AmitƗbha is irrelevant, since VajrapƗ৆i is not with the central Buddha in any case. Finally, the presence
of female figures in the foreground has already been accounted for, at least to our satisfaction. All this
109 --- 109
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
means that Schopen’s claim that “[t]here is, in fact, probably more ”evidence” to suggest that it [the
stele] represents Abhirati than there is to suggest that it represents SukhƗvatƯ” cannot be substantiated,
and that Huntington’s linking of the stele’s revelation scene with the display episode in the LSukh
remains the most plausible explanation so far.
Domains of Activity
The main Buddhas in the steles are always active in some sense, either teaching or generating
emanations out of their meditative state. Secondary Buddhas are less engaged if they are not revealing
the main Buddha to a disciple (only on lotus pond-type steles) or emanating smaller Buddhas standing
on lotuses themselves. Besides these main types of seated Buddhas and their standing emanations,
palace- and emanation-type steles may also show standing Buddhas in the group of the seven Buddhas
of the past (see Steles nos. 10 and 14), or in key scenes of the Buddha’s life (see Steles nos. 12 and 13).
These do not stand on lotuses and their context implies that they are nirmƗ۬akƗya representations. In
groups of standing Buddhas the hands of the individual figures are held in different ways but there is no
obvious iconographic meaning attached to these postures. Palace- and emanation-type steles may also
show additional seated Buddhas with the gesture of fearlessness (abhayamudrƗ) or with their right
hands in their robes (see Stele no. 16).115 In all our examples there is not one case where the main
Buddha is not seated on a lotus (except for Stele no. 16, where the throne is lost). This is also true for the
smaller Buddhas, with the singular exception of the revelation scenes. Further, all Buddhas are haloed.
The main Buddha is clearly set into a miraculous environment, his lotus is bejewelled, the tree
shading him carries large pearl garlands and half-bodied beings holding symbols of royal status above
him. At times, elephants support the lotus and offer lotus blossoms with their trunks. Further, winged or
wingless flying putti hold a parasol above the Buddha or crown him with a wreath. This latter motif
clearly derives from Western precedents, not only because of the putti themselves, but also in terms of
the wreath and the crowning motif, which were new to South Asia at that stage. This motif is most
frequently found on lotus pond steles, occurs occasionally on lotus-type triads and on palace-type steles
as well. The classical Western connotation of the wreath on the head is victory and/or kingship, but it
may also signify the qualification to teach the dharma.116
Only in lotus pond steles is there also a clear reference to the splendour of the Buddha, the light he
emits. Characteristically it is a bodhisattva in the bottom row close to the Buddha who raises his arm in
front of his eyes. On the Muhammad Nari stele, the same gesture is even depicted a second time in the
upper left corner with a bodhisattva gazing towards the emanating Buddha in the corner there. This
double usage may be read as supporting the idea that the emanating Buddhas in the corners actually
115
This seems to be a seated variant of a depiction more common with standing Buddha images and deriving from the way the
Roman toga is sometimes depicted.
116
The crowning motif of the teaching Buddha flanked by a pair of brƗhma৆a- and kৢatriya-type bodhisattvas also mimics the
arrangement of a royal court, where the king would sit between his two chief ministers, who may be either brƗhma৆as or
kৢatriyas. However, this is arguably mimicry of mimicry, since what we are seeing here may well reflect Indian notions about
the rulers of the gods and their celestial palaces, which themselves derive from earthly models. Bautze-Picron (2010: 14–17),
who discusses the motif in some detail, with the Muhammad Nari stele as a key example, interprets the wreath as a reference
to the Buddha’s glorification. Cf. also Huntington (1980: 668–669).
- 110 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
represent separate Buddha domains. However, an alternative reading would be to link this bodhisattva to
the revelation scene on the other side, which he balances, and to read him as reacting to the light which
the central Buddha radiates outwards as a result of Ɩnanda’s request to ĝƗkyamuni—not the primary
and constant radiance, as with the bodhisattva closer to the Buddha, but a specific beam in response to
an external need, similar in nature to the emanating Buddhas above.117
Also the bodhisattvas represented in complex steles are active in many ways. While usually the
focus of their activity is either directed towards a Buddha or they are solitary, on lotus pond-type
depictions the bodhisattvas are also engaged with each other in various ways, even though, in line with
the passage of the LSukh (ER) which we cited above, each sits or stands atop his own lotus, with few
exceptions in which a lotus is shared. We have already looked at the more general aspects of this
interaction in the section on artistic conventions. It thus suffices here to focus on some of the more
interesting details of their activities. The most common bodhisattva activities are adoration, raising the
hands in añjali, and offering something to the Buddha. Bodhisattvas in the lower area of a lotus
pond-type stele are further engaged in discussion with the Buddha and with each other, the latter
expressed in many variants. Prominent among the bodhisattvas engaged in discussion with fellow
bodhisattvas—and usually not focussing on the Buddha at all—are those holding a book. On the
Muhammad Nari stele large books are—or were—held by two brƗhma৆a-type bodhisattvas in the
second row from the bottom, both engaged in conversation with their immediate neighbour, who
appears to be listening.118 We could say that this is much more consistent with the ER of the LSukh,
describing as it does the “horizontal interaction” of many of the bodhisattvas in AmitƗbha’s assembly,
even to the extent of their discussing the snjtras they have read (see above, Point 5). However, not all
book-holding bodhisattvas on comparable steles are engaged in conversation. 119 Further, many
bodhisattvas on lotus pond steles hold lotus flowers, some of them as if poised to make offerings of
them.
The isolated bodhisattvas in the upper area of lotus pond steles represent the activities of meditation,
reflection and teaching, which occur on other stele types as well. Of these the meditating bodhisattvas
are the least frequent. On lotus pond steles isolated meditating bodhisattvas occur not far from the main
Buddha’s head, while others may be represented at the edge of the assembly facing in. On some steles,
both of the lotus pond type (Stele no. 7) and of the palace type (Stele no. 11), meditating bodhisattvas
117
By this reading—admittedly speculative—the bodhisattva is looking upwards at the emanation scene, rather than towards the
central Buddha, to indicate his response to the miracle of light sent out of the domain by the Buddha in a meditative state (in
the same way that the nirmƗ۬a forms are sent out) .
118
This feature is obscured somewhat by the damage to the stele, but the intact books are still visible in the historical
photographs (see above). Books certainly were represented on other steles of this type as well, but have broken off in most
cases. E.g. on Stele no. 2 the outer bodhisattvas in the second row from the bottom may have held books, and on Stele no. 3
book-holding bodhisattvas may have been in the bottom corners.
119
In our view it is the concomitance of holding a book and being in conversation which is significant here. However, in the
Musée Guimet fragment of a lotus pond-type stele from Mardan the book-holding bodhisattva appears not to be relating to any
other figure.
111 --- 111
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
emanate different high beings, Buddhas as well as Hindu gods. In this occupation they almost equal a
Buddha and in the steles they are represented at the same level as the emanating Buddha.120
Teaching bodhisattvas equally presuppose an exalted notion of a bodhisattva’s activity. While it can
be assumed that the first bodhisattva depicted teaching was the future Buddha Maitreya, this imagery
only developed at a stage of GandhƗran art that is practically contemporary with the complex steles. In
the steles, the teaching bodhisattvas are rather types than distinctive individuals, as nicely demonstrated
by the Muhammad Nari stele, which has a teaching bodhisattva of both the brƗhma৆a and kৢatriya types.
Each is enthroned within his own pavilion and attended by a pair of bodhisattvas. This might be
interpreted as a kind of “flash-forward” representation of the future teaching careers of AvalokiteĞvara
and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta, who, as we have seen, play a slightly larger part in the ER of the LSukh (see
above, Point 4), and these two may also be intended by the matched pair of bodhisattvas flanking the
Buddha.121 That the teaching bodhisattvas are much smaller than the majority of the figures and located
to the sides may indicate that they are “out-of-frame” elements of the composition, although the sculptor
has still taken care to set them upon lotuses, to indicate that they belong to this realm or level of reality
too.
Pensive bodhisattvas are clearly most frequent on complex steles. They occur not only alone in
single-celled pavilions near the top of the composition, but also among the larger crowd on the lotus
pond steles. These two variants of pensive bodhisattvas may actually have different meanings.122 While
the bodhisattva in the crowd is clearly in a mood of reflection, those in separate pavilions may be
conveying an entirely different mood when interpreted in the light of the description of SukhƗvatƯ in the
ER of the LSukh. The two bodhisattvas sitting within pavilions in the top register of the Muhammad
Nari stele, in the “pensive pose” but holding offerings in the hand not placed against the cheek, may
conceivably be interpreted as representations of the doubters of classes 2 and 3, temporarily confined in
an otherworldly form of house arrest (see above, Point 6). Certainly their placement is suggestive, both
if we interpret the top as the most distant from the conceptual centre, and if we observe their proximity
to the images of the Buddha emanating nirmƗ۬as of himself (to those of class 2, who have fulfilled less
stringent requirements?). Equally suggestive is the fact that of all the figures in the stele they are the
most conspicuously self-absorbed and isolated. We might therefore read the pensive pose in this context
as indicating dejection rather than deep thought: these bodhisattvas have offerings, but immured in their
palaces remote from the centre where the action is taking place, they cannot yet present them to the
Buddha.123
120
It is an interesting but puzzling fact that in GandhƗran depictions Buddhas only emanate Buddhas but bodhisattvas always
emanate a variety of high beings including one Buddha and a number of Hindu gods.
121
Cf. Huntington (1980: 666–667), who is forced to conclude that the stele “does not belong to a tradition of SukhƗvatƯ in
which the two Bodhisattvas were emphasized.”
122
Much hinges on how we read the so-called “pensive pose” itself. Does it show deep reflection or dejection? On this subject
see, e.g., Miyaji (1985a), Quagliotti (1996b).
123
Cf. Huntington (1980: 663) for a different reading. The ER of the LSukh is quite clear that everybody in SukhƗvatƯ is reborn
in a lotus, including those sentenced to a term of solitary confinement.
- 112 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Other types of figures in the steles are engaged in acts of devotion. Women on balconies (palace type
only) and figures flanking the lotus stem throw flowers at the Buddha or hold offerings ready to present.
On lotus pond steles in front of the water, and thus certainly meant as outside the picture proper,
devotees are attending to incense burners and additional nƗgas are engaged in adoration.
Women generally occur in peripheral, marginalized positions only. On lotus pond-type steles they
occur among the couples to the sides of the lotuses. These figures are invariably without haloes and thus
can be read as actually outside the domain represented on the stele or just about to be reborn into it. The
only exception to this is Stele no. 2, where a haloed city goddess is depicted among the gods flanking
the main Buddha. On palace-type steles, women also populate the balconies within the stele, a position
traditionally occupied by them. There, too, the women are represented without halos and thus do not
have the same status as the other exalted beings represented.
Across all three types we notice a pattern: where the stele is divided into two or more separate panels,
female donors tend to be confined to the lowest panel, although there are exceptions. Where, however,
the stele is single-panel, these women have to be accommodated near the bottom of it.
Here too we might well reason that the sculptors of the lotus pond-type steles have tried as best they
could to remain true to the idea of SukhƗvatƯ as a paradigmatically all-male domain. Once we rise from
the base, we find there are no women in the main assembly: all the bodhisattvas are male, and even the
tree beings and the putti are male (cf. Point 1 above). Indeed, except for the putti and their wings, all
these beings look similar, exactly as promised in the LSukh, which asserts that everybody in SukhƗvatƯ
looks the same, and that there is no distinction, except in name, between gods and human beings. In the
ER this absence of distinction is explicitly affirmed between ĞrƗvakas (whom one might normally
expect to be depicted as monks) and bodhisattvas.
If, then, we had a mind to follow Huntington, Fussman and Quagliotti in seeing the Muhammad
Nari stele (and others like it) as a depiction of SukhƗvatƯ, then we could say that there is an even better
fit between it and the ER of the text. But what of other possibilities? What of Schopen's contention that
“[t]here is, in fact, probably more ”evidence” to suggest that it [the stele] represents Abhirati than there
is to suggest that it represents SukhƗvatƯ. But in truth it probably represents neither.”124 Here, as we
have already suggested, we need to pay closer attention to the descriptions of Abhirati in the
Ak‫܈‬obhyatathƗgatasyavynjha and elsewhere, reviewed above, and ask ourselves whether any of the
features most typical of that Buddha-field appear: the women, the triple staircase, the congregation of
ĞrƗvakas, the Bodhi tree with its vedikƗ. They are indeed conspicuous by their absence. There is a tree in
the stele, but it does not look like a Bodhi tree.
It is thus arguably not the case that there is more evidence to suggest that the Muhammad Nari stele
depicts Abhirati, and so Schopen’s first claim must be rejected.125 As to his second assertion (“But in
truth it probably represents neither”), the question then arises, if neither, then what else? If no other
124
See Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50/2005: 262, n. 50).
125
He makes much of the presence of the two female figures at the base of the stele, but, as we have indicated previously, this
question has been adequately addressed by both Huntington and Fussman, who both argue that they stand outside the main
frame of the composition.
113 --- 113
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
specific Buddha-field has been proposed as a candidate, one is left with the hypothesis of a “generic
Buddha-field,” whatever that may mean. However, as Schopen’s own work has demonstrated (Schopen
1977), both SukhƗvatƯ and Abhirati came to be paradigmatic Buddha-fields, the former paradigmatically
all-male and flat, the latter with women and the more conventional topography.126 This would mean not
only that any field like SukhƗvatƯ or like Abhirati would be indistinguishable from them, unless
explicitly labelled—the textual descriptions would be the same, so too, presumably, the artistic
representations—but that the notion of a generic Buddha-field is in effect unsustainable: we could only
have a generic SukhƗvatƯ-style Buddha-field and a generic Abhirati-style Buddha-field. And it is hard to
avoid the conclusion that the SukhƗvatƯ-style Buddha-field would look very like our lotus pond type. It
may not follow, however, that the palace type is a depiction of Abhirati, but that is something requiring
further consideration.
7. Conclusion
It is plain enough that we are far from fully understanding this aspect of GandhƗran sculpture, but
we hope that by taking a more comprehensive approach to the complex steles, some things are clearer
than before. Although our focal point has been the Muhammad Nari stele, by isolating the lotus pond
type we have tried to sharpen our perception of its contents, which, when set against those of the palace
type, stand out more clearly. Moving beyond a concern with a specific text-image relationship, to say
nothing of distinguishing particular characters on the basis of their attributes, we have to ask what a
depiction of a Buddha enthroned on a lotus surrounded by a host of male bodhisattvas, also on lotuses,
might be, if not firstly, a reflection of MahƗyƗna Buddhism, and secondly, a depiction of AmitƗbha in
SukhƗvatƯ, the paradigmatic all-male environment, the ideal world for hearing the Dharma and making
offerings to the Buddha? To counter that this is an epiphany of ĝƗkyamuni, or the “Miracle of Great
Light,” whether based on the Saddharmapu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka or any other MahƗyƗna snjtra, is of course to accept
that we have here a product of the MahƗyƗna, but beyond that is not particularly convincing. If we take
the epiphany to imply a vision of the Buddha about to preach the Lotus, for example, then where are the
other members of the audience, especially the ĞrƗvakas, who always appear as bhik‫܈‬us? With the
exception of the solitary monk in the revelation scene, bhik‫܈‬us are singularly absent from all our steles,
except occasionally in donor position, to say nothing of bhik‫܈‬u۬Ưs. If we go on to examine the
descriptions of the wonders the Buddha performs at the beginning of many MahƗyƗna snjtras, we will
find that they do not after all tally very well with what the Muhammad Nari stele shows us either.127 To
postulate, on the other hand, that the stele portrays a generic Buddha-field does not take us very far
either, since we have already seen that it has too many specific features suggestive of SukhƗvatƯ, and at
the same time it lacks one of the defining features of Abhirati, which is women in their quarters,
something we see in the very centre of the palace-type steles, which in this respect contrast very sharply
with the lotus pond type, and indicate a deliberate avoidance of this feature by the artists who produced
126
A telling illustration of the paradigmatic function of Abhirati recently surfaced in the fragments of a MahƗyƗna snjtra in the
GƗndhƗrƯ language and Kharoৢ৬hƯ script from Bajaur currently being worked on by Ingo Strauch. See, e.g., Strauch (2010).
127
Conspicuously absent are the myriad Buddhas of the cosmos seated on lotuses and teaching the Dharma (as in the case of the
Saddharmapu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka). One might also ask why, if this is an epiphany or a miracle, are so many figures in the composition
paying no attention.
- 114 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
the lotus ponds. In addition, it is only the palace type that is associated with different scenes of the life of
the Buddha, thus possibly indicating that the represented domain is somehow more closely connected
with this world than the lotus type. However, we do not on that basis draw the conclusion that the palace
type is Abhirati, since apart from the presence of women the steles lack the specific details which might
support this.
Similar considerations apply to the triads, which we have suggested are simpler versions, and the
earliest of them possible predecessors, of the complex steles. Here again one’s presuppositions tend to
determine the outcome. If we read the Buddha as ĝƗkyamuni, and the flask-bearing brƗhma৆a-type
bodhisattva to one side as Maitreya, then the kৢatriya-type bodhisattva on the other side may be
identified as SiddhƗrtha, at least if he shows abhayamudrƗ with the right hand and has his left hand on
his hip, and we come out with a linear schema of past-present-future to explain what all three are doing
together. But even in a very optimistic assessment, only a small minority of the triads could be
interpreted that way,128 and there is considerable variation in them, especially with the kৢatriya-type
bodhisattva. If this bodhisattva has a garland or a blossom, he tends to be read as AvalokiteĞvara, which
makes the composition difficult to explain in terms of the interrelationship of the represented
individuals.129 We therefore presume that even though the bodhisattva representations in the triads are
of fairly consistent iconographic types that do suggest individual identities,130 triadic compositions have
to be interpreted in ways that do not solely depend on the individual identification of the bodhisattvas
but also consider their more general meaning as representatives of the two bodhisattva types. Given the
importance of succession and the continuity of Buddhist teaching permeating the literature (for example
the ER analysed above) and art (such as the representation of successive Buddhas and the Seven
Buddhas of the Past and Maitreya) of the first centuries of our era, it is likely that the flanking
bodhisattvas have to be interpreted in this way as well. Maitreya’s presence certainly stands for the
continuation of Buddhism in our world, and the Buddha following him would be of the kৢatriya class as
well. If the bodhisattva types are reversed—and assuming that the wreath- or lotus-holder is indeed to be
interpreted as AvalokiteĞvara—we have the succession scenario of a world like AmitƗbha’s SukhƗvatƯ,
where the kৢatriya-type bodhisattva is the immediate successor and the brƗhma৆a type follows. This
would conform to the succession scenario described in the ER. If this interpretation is right there is no
reason why a triad should not represent AmitƗbha with AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta, or
indeed some other Buddha with his lieutenants, the bodhisattvas being merely depicted in accordance
with artistic convention as being of the two types, reflective of the two highest classes in Indian society,
which together constitute, one supposes, the most suitable pool for future Buddhas. Especially when all
three are mounted on lotuses, why should this not indicate another order of reality, or a different level of
Buddhahood?131
128
Among the 47 examples Miyaji (2008) analysed only two clearly represent the SiddhƗrtha type.
129
For an example of this way of reading such triads, leading to the conclusion that, given the presence of Maitreya, the Buddha
must be ĝƗkyamuni, and is “hardly identifiable as AmitƗbha,” see Rhi (2003: 166–167).
130
In his 2006 article, Rhi clearly stakes out his position (p. 151, n. 5): “Unlike Buddha images, representations of bodhisattvas
carried clearly readable iconographic signs that revealed their identity.”
131
We set aside here the issue of whether Buddhists during the period these works were made and used may in their ritual
practice have been rather more relaxed and loose about the identity of their images than we tend to be, and may not have cared
115 --- 115
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Thus, in our interpretation, not every flask-bearer in a subordinate position is necessarily Maitreya,
but his depiction carries the significance of Maitreya as the future Buddha of the brƗhma৆a caste.
Similarly, not every bodhisattva with a book necessarily represents MañjuĞrƯ, and not every one with a
lotus needs to be AvalokiteĞvara, but their iconography carries some of the meanings for which these
bodhisattvas stand.
Looking at the problem from another angle, any GandhƗran sculptor faced with the challenge of
representing AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta as the chief attendants of AmitƗbha would have had
little option but to cast them in familiar terms and in accordance with the succession conventions. In
addition, the kৢatriya-type bodhisattva needed to be distinguished from the all too familiar image of
SiddhƗrtha, and thus received an attribute, the wreath, held in a way very similar to Maitreya’s flask. In
this scenario the wreath can be explained as a symbol of succession and the new image carries the
significance of the future Buddha from the kৢatriya class. Its replacement by the lotus and the depiction
of the Buddha in the turban are to be seen as further developments.132 This suggests that it is not the
bodhisattvas’ individual characteristics alone which are are decisive in identifying AvalokiteĞvara and
MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta when they flank the Buddha in SukhƗvatƯ, but it is their combination and the
composition of the triad that suggest one identification or another.
Here we turn back to the MahƗyƗna snjtras first translated into Chinese by Dharmarakৢa, which Rhi
(2003: 167–170) first adduces primarily as evidence for the practice of making Buddha images seated
on lotuses, specifically the SumatidƗrikƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ and the VimaladattƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ. There are some
minor difficulties with the interpretation of the Chinese versions, which we will not go into here,133 but
the Tibetan translations of both texts make it clear that the significance of these passages goes beyond
the making of such images to include also their purpose, which is miraculous rebirth on a lotus in front
of the Buddhas (plural!). E.g. the Derge version of the SumatidƗrikƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ (dKon brtsegs Ca
217a6–b1) reads:
bu mo byang chub sems dpa' chos bzhi dang ldan na | sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das rnams
kyi thad du rin po che chen po’i padma las rdzus te skye bar ’gyur te | bzhi gang zhe na
| ’di lta ste | phye ma ’am | me tog ud pa la ’am | padma ’am | ku mu da ’am | padma dkar
pos lag pa bkang ste | de bzhin gshegs pa’i sku gzugs sam | de bzhin gshegs pa’i mchod
rten la ’bul ba dang | gzhan dag la yang gnod sems mi skyed pa dang | de bzhin gshegs pa’i
sku gzugs padma’i gdan la bzhugs pa byed du ’jug pa dang | sangs rgyas kyi byang chub la
nges pa rgya cher mos pa ste | bu mo byang chub sems dpa’ chos bzhi po de dag dang ldan
na sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das rnams kyi thad du rin po che chen po’i padma las rdzus te
skye bar ’gyur ro ||
particularly whether the Buddha they saw in front of them was AmitƗbha or Akৢobhya or ĝƗkyamuni. This issue is also
touched on in several places by Rhi (2003: 163–164; 2008: 259).
132
The explanation scenario outlined here will be further developed in an expanded version of this study. Interestingly
AvalokiteĞvara eventually assimilates the iconography of Maitreya entirely and becomes an ascetic type holding a flask as well.
The description of the two bodhisattvas in the Guan jing has AvalokiteĞvara wearing a crown (i.e., a turban?) with an image of
AmitƗbha on it, and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta with a vase in his headdress, possibly reflecting the ubiquity of these two types as a
matching pair.
133
Except to point out that the translation quoted in n. 49 is not by Harrison, as indicated by Rhi.
- 116 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
With four things, young lady, a bodhisattva is reborn miraculously from a great jewel lotus
in the presence of the Buddhas and Blessed Ones. What are the four? They are filling one’s
hands with powder or blue lilies (utpala) or lotuses (padma) or night lilies (kumuda) or
white lotuses (pu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka) and offering them to the image of a Realized One (tathƗgata) or
to the stnjpa of a Realized One; having no malice towards others; commissioning an image
of a Realized One seated on a lotus throne; being firmly convinced about the awakening of
the Buddha. With those four things, young lady, a bodhisattva is reborn miraculously from
a great jewel lotus in the presence of the Buddhas and Blessed Ones.134
In our view the full significance of these passages is that they indicate a strong link between the practice
of making Buddha images on lotus thrones and the aspiration to be reborn on a lotus oneself, in front of
another Buddha, in another Buddha-field.135 Even though there is no mention in these texts of AmitƗbha,
the implication presumably is that he could be one of the Buddhas intended, and that the intended rebirth
is in a domain of the SukhƗvatƯ type.136 This kind of passage could well have encouraged the making of
the lotus triads and also the lotus pond steles, in some of which, as we have seen, the donors even had
themselves depicted in the act of being miraculously reborn. It is also an interesting example of
sympathetic magic, that the other ritual practice enjoined is the offering of various kinds of lotuses and
similar flowers—or, as is clearer in the Chinese versions, grinding them up to make a powder which is
then offered—to Buddha images and stnjpas, so as to cause one’s own birth-lotus to arise in the other
world in the presence of Buddhas.137
We submit, therefore, that the complex steles must represent visions of other worlds, in a universe
characterized by the simultaneous presence of multiple Buddhas, or multiple bodhisattvas, or both.
Accounting for the multiple bodhisattvas is not difficult, whether we go by the descriptions of the
LSukh or not,138 but interpreting the multiple Buddhas, especially in the palace-type steles, is less
straightforward. Are they Buddhas from different realms, sending their emanations to the realm of the
central Buddha or somehow opening up the space between their buddhak‫܈‬etras to enable
communication, as happens often enough in MahƗyƗna snjtras? Or are they secondary forms of the
134
A verse follows, summarizing the content of the prose. The corresponding passage in the VimaladattƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ (Ca
255a2–7) differs in some respects, but is consistent on those aspects bearing on this study. The last line of the two following
gƗthƗs again makes it clear that rebirth is in the presence of Buddhas (plural), and not ĝƗkyamuni: there is no question of
rebirth “in front of me” (cf. Rhi 2003: 169, n. 49).
135
See also the Tibetan text of the *DƗrikƗvimalaĞraddhƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ (Derge dKon brtsegs Cha 100a5–b5) for a very similar
passage. Rhi’s reference (170) to the related passage from the BodhisaۨbhƗra(ka) attributed to NƗgƗrjuna needs to be
amplified. In fact only the verses are attributed to NƗgƗrjuna, and they simply advocate the construction of lotus-throne images
of the Buddha (see Lindtner 1982: 241, v. 113); it is the otherwise unknown commentator ƮĞvara who points out that the
purpose of doing this is to achieve rebirth as an aupapƗduka, and to obtain the body of a Buddha (T 1660, 32:536c21–22).
136
If one followed the text of the Ak‫܈‬obhyavynjha to the letter, one would hardly do this to be reborn in Abhirati, since its
inhabitants arrive by more conventional means, through the birth canal.
137
As we have seen, the Tibetan translations of these passages make the plural clear, which goes some way towards resolving the
question raised by Rhi (2003: 177–178, esp. n. 77).
138
We must also recognise that we do not have access to all the texts that may have been circulating in GandhƗra at this time.
The recent emergence of a hitherto unknown MahƗyƗna snjtra from Bajaur (see above) shows how incomplete our record may
be. This means we may not possess certain texts which would enable a more precise identification of our steles or
interpretation of their contents.
117 --- 117
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
central teaching Buddha, in meditation and other postures, doing his work in all directions? Do the
palace-type steles represent one Buddha active in many ways in his one world, or many Buddhas active
in many ways in their many worlds? At this stage we see no basis for solving these questions. However,
what seems to be important about the complex steles, especially those of the palace type, is precisely
their complexity: they may indeed be an attempt to represent the unrepresentable, a world with Buddhas
and bodhisattvas in all directions. It is a fact not often commented upon that one of the most common
words in MahƗyƗna snjtras is the word “all” (chiefly Sanskrit sarva, but other words do similar service),
and that these texts betray a pervasive concern for and interest in totality. It is perhaps this aspect of
MahƗyƗna that finds expression in the complex steles.139 The palace type arranges all these Buddhas
and bodhisattvas to impressive effect, each in his own architecturally defined space, whereas the lotus
type, being more clearly devoted to a single Buddha, disposes its bodhisattvas more freely around him
in the same space. Perhaps this feature, more than anything else, suggests that the palace-type steles are
images of a cosmos which extends beyond a single Buddha-field.
We end this paper by admitting that a certain and unequivocal text-image linkage cannot be
established between the Muhammad Nari stele and the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha—i.e. this is hardly
something which could ever be proved—but that it is nevertheless highly likely that it is (and steles like
it are) a depiction of AmitƗbha in SukhƗvatƯ, flanked by AvalokiteĞvara and MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta. It is
therefore also likely to be connected in some way with the forerunners to East Asian images of
SukhƗvatƯ, as we see for example in Cave 332 at Dunhuang,140 and as Minamoto argued as far back as
1926. We also find compelling an explanation of other complex steles, especially those of the palace
type, in terms of MahƗyƗna Buddhism, and must therefore conclude that the assertion that there is little
or no archaeological evidence for the presence of MahƗyƗna Buddhism in India before the 5th and 6th
centuries is no longer tenable, if it ever was. This view has already been undermined by recent
manuscript discoveries from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and should now be modified, if not abandoned
altogether. Indeed, the type of Buddhism which produced these impressive and sophisticated
masterpieces can hardly have been marginal, still less non-existent.
List of Works Cited
Ali, Ihsan & Qazi, Muhammad Naeem
2008
Gandharan Sculptures in the Peshawar Museum (Life Story of the Buddha), (Mansehra:
Hazara University Mansehra NWFP – Pakistan).
Ashikaga Atsuuji
1965
SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha (Kyoto: Hǀzǀkan).
139
We find a similar impulse in the depictions of the thousand Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa, although the relation of this
iconographical practice (as indeed of the Bhadrakalpikasnjtra) to MahƗyƗna Buddhism is not so clear.
140
For an image see, e.g., Rhi (2008: 257, fig 4). Rhi (ibid., p. 255) points out the similarities, but expresses reservations about
their significance.
- 118 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Bautze, Joachim K.
2008
“The Discovery of Gandhara,” ed., Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan.
Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und
Ausstellungshalle der BRD), pp. 44–49.
Bautze-Picron, Claudine
2010
The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma. New Considerations (New Delhi: India
Sanctum Books).
Bhattacharyya, Dipak Chandra, ed.
2002
GandhƗra sculpture in the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh, in the light
of the international colloquium held in 1998 at Chandigarh, (Chandigarh: Govt. Museum
and Art Gallery).
Brough, John
1982
“AmitƗbha and AvalokiteĞvara in an inscribed GandhƗran Sculpture,” Indologica Taurinensia,
Vol. 10, pp. 65–70. Reprinted in: Minoru Hara & J. C. Wright, eds., John Brough Collected
Papers (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1996), pp. 469–474).
Brown, Robert L.
1984
“The ĝrƗvastƯ Miracles in the Art of India and DvƗravatƯ,” Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 37,
pp. 79-95.
Burgess, James
1897
Ancient Monuments of India (London).
1900
“The Gandhâra sculptures,” The Journal of Indian Art, Vol. VIII, No. 61–69, pp. 23–40 +
27 pls.
Bussagli, M.,
1984
L’arte del GandhƗra (Torino).
Chang, Garma C.C., ed.
1983
A Treasury of MahƗyƗna Snjtras: Selections from the MahƗratnaknj‫ܒ‬a Snjtra (University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).
Cole, Henry Hardy
1883
Preservation of National Monuments, Panjab: Memorandum on ancient monuments in
Eusofzai, with a description of the explorations undertaken from the 4th February to the
16th April 1883, and suggestions for the disposal of the sculptures (Simla: Government
Central Branch Press).
1885
Preservation of National Monuments: Third Report of the Curator of National Monuments
in India for the Year 1883–84 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India).
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K.
1927
“The Origin of the Buddha Image,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 287–329.
Cribb, Joe
1980
1999
“Kaniৢka’s Buddha Coins - The Official Iconography of ĝƗkyamuni and Maitreya,”
Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 79–88.
“Kanishka’s Buddha image coins revisited,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology, Vol. 6,
Papers in honour of Francine Tissot, pp. 151–189.
119 --- 119
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Dantinne, Jean
1983
La splendeur de l’Inébranlable, Tome I (Université Catholique de Louvain Institut
Orientaliste, Louvain-la-Neuve).
Davidson, Ronald M.
2002
Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Exhibit
1985
2008
GandƗra no chǀkoku : Tǀyǀ no kotenteki ningenzǀ no genrynj : kaikan 25-shnjnen kinen
tokubetsuten (Gandhara sculpture from Japanese collection: special exhibition of
celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Museum Yamato Bunkakan, 1985 9/6-10/6)
(Nara-shi: Yamato Bunkakan).
Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise
(Mainz, Bonn: Zabern–Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der BRD).
Foucher, Alfred
1905
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome I (Vol. 1–2) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1909
“Le ‘grande miracle’ du Buddha à ÇrƗvastƯ,” Journal Asiatique, pp. 5–78.
1917
“The Great Miracle at Çrâvastî,” in A. Foucher, ed., The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and
other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology (revised repr. edn.) (New Delhi:
Asian Educational Services), pp. 147-184, pls. xix-xxviii [= an English translation of
Foucher 1909 by L. A. & F. W. Thomas].
1918
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II (Vol. 3) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1922
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II, fasc. 2 (Vol. 4) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1951
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II, fasc. 3 (Vol. 5) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
Fujita Kǀtatsu
1990
“The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure
Land Buddhism,” in Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press), pp. 149–173.
2011
The Larger and Smaller SukhƗvatƯvynjha Snjtras: Edited With Introductory Remarks and
Word Indexes to the Two Snjtras (Kyoto: Hǀzǀkan)
Fussman, Gérard
1987
“Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the Chronology of Early Gandharan Art,” in
Yaldiz, Marianne & Lobo, Wibke, eds., Investigating Indian Art (Veröffentlichungen des
Museums für Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst), pp. 67-88.
1999
“La place des SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha dans le bouddhisme indien,” Journal asiatique, 287, 2,
pp.523–586.
Giès, Jacques & Cohen, Monique (eds.)
1996
Sérinde, Terre de Bouddha: Dix siècles d’art sur la Route de la Soie, Paris: Éditions de la
Réunion des musées nationaux).
Gómez, Luis
1996
The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light: Sanskrit and Chinese
Versions of the SukhƗvatƯvynjha Sutras (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, and Kyoto:
Higashi Honganji Shinshnj ƿtani-ha).
- 120 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Grünwedel, Albert
1920
Buddhistische Kunst in Indien (2nd edn.) (Berlin & Leipzig: De Gruyter).
Hargreaves, H.
1930
Handbook to the Sculptures in the Peshawar Museum (Rev. edn.) (Calcutta: Government
of India).
Harrison, Paul
1998
“Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources,” Journal of Indian
Philosophy, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 553–572.
n.d.
“On the Authorship of the Oldest Chinese Translation of the Larger
SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha-snjtra,” unpublished paper presented at the conference of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, Lausanne, August 1999.
Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann & Kazunobu Matsuda
2002
“Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjhasnjtra,” in Jens Braarvig, ed., Manuscripts in the Schøyen
Collection III: Buddhist Manuscripts, Volume II (Oslo: Hermes Publishing), pp. 179–214.
Higuchi, Takayasu (ed.)
1984
Pakisutan GandƗra bijutsu ten / The Exhibition of Gandhara Art of Pakistan (Tokyo:
Nihon Hǀsǀ Kyǀkai).
Huntington, John C.,
1980
“A GandhƗran Image of AmitƗyus’ SukhƗvatƯ,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale
di Napoli, Vol. 40, pp. 651–672.
1993
“A Re-examination of a Kaniৢka Period Tetradrachm Coin Type with an Image of
MƝtrago/Maitreya on the Reverse (Göbl 793.1) and a Brief Notice on the Importance of the
Inscription Relative to Bactro-GandhƗran Buddhist Iconography of the Period,” Journal of
the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 355–387.
Huntington, Susan L.
1985
The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain (New York, Tokyo: Weatherhill).
Inagaki, Hisao
1995
The Three Pure Land Sutras (BDK English Tripi‫ܒ‬aka 12-II, III, IV) (Berkeley: Numata
Center for Buddhist Translation and Research).
Kagawa Takao 㤶ᕝᏕ㞝
1984
Muryǀjukyǀ no shohon taishǀ kenkynj ↓㔞ᑑ⤒ࡢㅖᮏᑐ↷◊✲ [A Comparative Study of
the Texts of the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha-snjtra] (Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodo).
Klimburg-Salter, Deborah E.
1995
Buddha in Indien: Die frühindische Skulptur von König AĞoka bis zur Guptazeit (Milano:
Skira).
Knox, Robert
1992
Amaravati, Buddhist Sculpture from the Great Stnjpa (London: British Museum Press).
Konow, Sten
1929
Kharosh‫ܒ‬hƯ inscriptions, with the exception of those of AĞoka (Corpus Inscriptionum
Indicarum, Vol. 2, pt. 1) (Calcutta: Government of India Central publication branch).
121 --- 121
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Kramrisch, Stella
1983
“Ajanta,” in Stoler Miller, Barbara, ed., Exploring India’s Sacred Art: Selected Writings of
Stella Kramrisch (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), pp. 273–307.
Kurita, Isao
1988
GandhƗran Art I. The Buddha’s life story (Ancient Buddhist art Series) (Tokyo: Nigensha).
1990
GandhƗran Art II. The world of the Buddha (Ancient Buddhist Art Series) (Tokyo:
Nigensha).
2003
GandhƗran Art 2 Vols.: I. The Buddha’s life story, II. The world of the Buddha (Revised
and enlarged edn., Ancient Buddhist Art Series) (Tokyo: Nigensha).
Kwan, Tai-wo
1985
“A Study of the Teaching Regarding the Pure Land of Aksobhya Buddha in Early
Mahayana” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
Lindtner, Christian
1982
Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of NƗgƗrjuna (Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag).
van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J. E.
1949
The “Scythian” Period. An approach to the history, art, epigraphy and palaeography of
north India from the 1st century B.C. to the 3rd century. A.D (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina,
Vol. 2) (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Luczanits, Christian
2008
“Buddhism in a Cosmopolitan Environment: The Art of Gandhara,” Orientations, Vol. 39,
No. 7, pp. 46–52.
2008a
“Gandhara and Its Art,” in Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Legends,
Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der
BRD), pp. 16–26.
Lyons, Islay & Harald Ingholt
1957
GandhƗran Art in Pakistan (New York: Pantheon Books).
Majumdar, Nani Gopal
1937
A Guide to the Sculptures of the Indian Museum. Part I: Early Indian Schools, Part II: The
Graeco-Buddhist School of GandhƗra 2 vols. (Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India).
Marshall, Sir John
1951
Taxila: An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations carried out at Taxila
[1913-1934] 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press).
1960
The Buddhist Art of GandhƗra. The story of the early school, its birth, growth and decline
(Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan, 1) (London: Cambridge
University Press).
Minamoto Toyomune
1925
“Shaeijǀ no shinben (The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ),” Bukkyǀ bijutsu 3: 51.
1926
“Jǀdohen no keishiki (The form of the representation of the Pure Land),” Bukkyǀ
bijutsu 7: 60–73.
- 122 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
von Mitterwallner, Gritli
1987
“The Brussels Buddha from Gandhara of the Year 5,” in Yaldiz, Marianne & Lobo, Wibke,
eds., Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Symposium on the development of early
Buddhist and Hindu Iconography held at the Museum of Indian Art Berlin in May 1986
(Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin: Museum für
Indische Kunst), pp. 213–47.
Miyaji, Akira
1971
“Shaeijǀ no shinben (Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ),” Tǀkai bukkyǀ 16, pp. 40–60.
1985a
“GandƗra ni okeru hanka-shiizǀ no zuzǀ: hanka-shiizǀ no shutsugen, (Half-crosslegged pensive
images in GandhƗra: The emergence of half-crosslegged pensive images)” in Enchǀ Tamura
and Suyong Hwang, eds., Hanka-shiizǀ no kenkynj (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kǀbunkan), pp. 61–114.
1985b
“Iconography of two flanking Bodhisattvas in GandhƗran Buddhist Triads,” in Akira
Miyaji, ed., Iconographical Study of Buddhist Art in India and Pakistan (Hirosaki:
Hirosaki University), pp. 3–13 (English version).
1993
“Uchnjnushi to shite no shakabutsu: indo kara chnjǀ ajia, chnjgoku e (ĝƗkyamuni as the lord
of the universe: From India to Central Asia and China),” in Musashi Tachikawa, ed.,
Mandara to rinne : sono shisǀ to bijutsu ᭭ⲷ⨶࡜㍯ᘔ㸸ࡑࡢᛮ᝿࡜⨾⾡ (Ma۬‫ڲ‬ala and
SaۨsƗra: Their Philosophy and Art) (Tokyo: Kǀsei Shuppansha), pp. 235–269.
1996
“Ren no ikonorojƯ: tanjǀ, jǀdo, mandara no shinborizumu (The Iconology of the Lotus: The
Symbolism of birth, pure land and ma৆ঌala,” in Musashi Tachikawa, ed., Mandara
uchnjron (Kyoto: Hǀzǀkan), pp. 349–396.
2002
“‘Shaeijǀ no shinben’ to daijǀ bukkyǀ bijutsu no kigen (“The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ” and the
Origin of MahƗyƗna Buddhist Art),” Bigaku bijutsushi kenkynj ronshnj 20, pp. 1–27.
2005
“GandƗra bijutsu to daijǀ bukkyǀ (GandhƗran Art and MahƗyƗna Buddhism),” Bukkyǀgaku
seminar 81, pp. 52–74.
2008
“Iconography of the Two Flanking Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist Triads from GandhƗra.
Bodhisattvas SiddhƗrtha, Maitreya and AvalokiteĞvara,” East and West, Vol. 58, Nos. 1–4,
pp. 123–156.
Müller, F. Max
1894a
“The Larger Sukhâvatî-vyûha,” in Cowell, E.B., Max Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans.,
Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), pp. 1–85.
1894b
“The Smaller Sukhâvatî-vyûha,” in Cowell, E.B., Max Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans.,
Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), pp. 89–107.
Nattier, Jan
2000
“The Realm of Akৢobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism,”
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 71–102.
2003
“The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of
the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha,” Pacific World, Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies ,
Third Series, 5, pp. 179–201.
2008
A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han ᮾ₎ and Three
Kingdoms ୕ᅧ Periods (Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced
Buddhology Soka University).
Nehru, Lolita
1989
Origins of the GandhƗran Style: A Study of Contributory Influences (Delhi: Oxford
University Press).
123 --- 123
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Odani Nakao
1967
“GandƗra bukkyǀ bijutsu no tenkai (The Evolution of Buddhist Art in GandhƗra),” Shirin,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 88–104.
Olivieri, Luca Maria
2008
“The Swat Case Study: Barikot and Its Environs,” in Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of
Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und
Ausstellungshalle der BRD), pp. 294–297.
Paul, Suwarcha
1986
Gandhara Sculptures in Chandigarh Museum (Chandigarh: Chandigarh Museum).
Quagliotti, Anna Maria
1996a
“Another Look at the Mohammed Nari Stele with the So-called “Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ”,”
Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Vol. 56, pp. 274–289.
1996b
“‘Pensive’ Bodhisattvas on ‘Narrative’ Gandharan Reliefs: A Note on a Recent Study and
Related Problems,” East and West, 46, Nos. 1–2, pp. 97–115.
Rhi, Juhyung
1991
GandhƗran Images of the ĝrƗvastƯ Miracle: An iconographic reassessment. Dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley.
2003
“Early MahƗyƗna and GandhƗran Buddhism: An Assessment of the Visual Evidence,” The
Eastern Buddhist 35, nos. 1 & 2, pp. 152–190 + 16 figs.
2006
“Bodhisattvas in GandhƗran Art: An Aspect of MahƗyƗna in GandhƗran Buddhism,” in Pia
Brancaccio & Kurt Behrendt, eds., GandhƗran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts
(Vancouver: UBC Press), pp. 151–182.
2008
“Complex Steles: Great Miracle, Paradise, or Theophany?” in Gandhara – The Buddhist
Heritage of Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern –
Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der BRD), pp. 254–259.
2011a
Reprint: “Complex Steles: Great Miracle, Paradise, or Theophany?,” in Adriana, Proser,
ed., The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Art of Gandhara (New York: Asia Society
Museum), pp. 65–72.
2011b
“Wondrous Visions: The Mohammad Nari Stele from Gandhara,” Orientations, Vol. 42,
No. 2, pp. 112–115.
Rosenfield, John M.
1967
The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California
Press).
Rotman, Andy
2008
Divine Stories: DivyƗvadƗna, Part I (Boston: Wisdom Publications).
Rowland, Benjamin
1938
“Buddha and the Sun God,” Zalmoxis: Revue des études religieuses, Vol. 1, pp. 69–84,
plus Plates I–IX.
Salomon, Richard
1999
Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara: the British Library Kharo‫ܒ܈‬hƯ fragments
(London: British Library).
- 124 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
Salomon, Richard & Gregory Schopen
2002
“On an alleged reference to AmitƗbha in a Kharoৢ৬hƯ Inscription on a GandhƗran Relief,”
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 3–31.
Schlingloff, Dieter
1991
“YamakaprƗtihƗrya und Buddhapi৆ঌƯ in der altbuddhistischen Kunst,” Berliner
Indologische Studien, Vol. 6, pp. 109–136 (plus 4 pp. addendum).
2000
Ajanta – Handbuch der Malereien / Handbook of Painting 1: Erzählende Wandmalereien /
Narrative Wall-paintings, 3 Vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
Schopen, Gregory
1977
“SukhƗvatƯ as a generalized religious goal in Sanskrit MahƗyƗna Snjtra Literature,”
Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 177–210 (Reprinted in Schopen 2005, Figments and
Fragments, pp. 154–189.
1987
“The Inscription on the KuৢƗn Image of AmitƗbha and the Character of the Early
MahƗyƗna in India,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 10,
No. 2, pp. 99–136 (Reprinted in Schopen 2005, Figments and Fragments, pp. 247–277.
2005
Figments and Fragments of MahƗyƗna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers
(Honolulu; University of Hawai‘i Press).
Silk, Jonathan
1997
“The Composition of the Guan wuliangshoufo-jing: Some Buddhist and Jaina Parallels to
its Narrative Frame,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 25, pp. 181–256.
Sivaramamurti, Calambur
1942
Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum (repr. 1998 edn., Bulletin of the
Chennai Government Museum, Vol. IV) (Chennai: Chennai Government Museum).
Spooner, D.B.
1911
“Excavations at Takht-i-BƗhƯ,” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1907-08
(Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India), pp. 132–148 & pls. xl–xlix.
1912
“An Inscribed Sculpture in the Peshawar Museum,” in Vogel, J. Ph., ed., Archaeological
Survey of India, Annual Report 1908–09 (Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing,
India), pp. 130–32 + pl. xlvii.
Stone, Elizabeth Rosen
The Buddhist Art of NƗgƗrjunako۬‫ڲ‬a (Buddhist Tradition Series, vol. 25) (Delhi: Motilal
1994
Banarsidass).
Strauch, Ingo
2010
“More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for Akৢobhya and
Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sutra from GandhƗra,” The Eastern Buddhist, New Series,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 23–66.
Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature
2006
VimalakƯrtinirdeĞa: A Sanskrit Edition Based upon the Manuscript Newly Found at the
Potala Palace (Tokyo: Taisho University Press).
Taddei, Maurizio
1969/2003 “Harpocrates-BrahmƗ-Maitreya: A Tentative Interpretation of a Gandharan Relief from
SwƗt,” Dialoghi di Archeologia, Vol. 3, pp. 364-390.
125 --- 125
Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Repr. in Verardi, Giovanni & Filigenzi, Anna, eds., Maurizio Taddei on GandhƗra,
Collected Articles (Collana “Collectanea” III, 1) (Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli
“L’Orientale”), pp. 131–157.
1987/2003 “Non-Buddhist Deities in Gandharan Art - Some New Evidence,” in Yaldiz, Marianne &
Lobo, Wibke, eds., Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Symposium on the
development of early Buddhist and Hindu Iconography held at the Museum of Indian Art
Berlin in May 1986 (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin:
Museum für Indische Kunst), pp. 349-62, 15 figs.
Repr. in Verardi, Giovanni & Filigenzi, Anna, eds., Maurizio Taddei on GandhƗra,
Collected Articles (Collana “Collectanea” III, 1) (Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli
“L’Orientale”), pp. 271–84.
Takakusu Junjirǀ
1894
“Amitâyur-dhyâna-sûtra, The Sûtra of the Meditation on Amitâyus,” in Cowell, E.B., Max
Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans., Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East,
Vol. XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965),
pp.159–204.
Tanabe, Katsumi
1993
Silk Road Coins. The Hirayama Collection (British Museum Publication, London)
(Kamakura: The Institute of Silk Road Studies).
Vogel, J. Ph.
1906
“Inscribed GandhƗra Sculpture,” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1903–04
(Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India), pp. 244–260 & pl. lxvi–lxx.
Walser, Joseph
2002
“NƗgƗrjuna and the RatnƗvalƯ: new ways to date an old philosopher,” Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, pp. 209–262.
2005
NƗgƗrjuna in Context: MahƗyƗna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Williams, Joanna
1975
“SƗrnƗth Gupta Steles of the Buddha’s Life,” Ars Orientalis, Vol. 10, pp. 171–192.
1983
The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province (New Delhi: Heritage Publishers).
Zimmer, Heinrich
1954
The Art of Indian Asia, its Mythology and Transformations 2 vols. (Bollingen Series, Vol.
39) (New York: Pantheon Books).
Zin, Monika
2003
Ajanta – Handbuch der Malereien / Handbook of the Paintings 2: Devotionale und
ornamentale Malereien, 2 Vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
- 126 -
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele
List of Figures
Figure 1:
The Muhammad Nari stele as it is today in full view; photo C. Luczanits 2009.
Figure 2: One of the old photos of the stele; photo Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast
and Central Asian Art, Berlin
Figure 3:
Detail of the revelation scene; photo C. Luczanits 2007.
Figure 4:
Detail of the lotus flanked by the nƗga couple; photo C. Luczanits 2007.
Figure 5: Jewel tree fragment of the Sahri Bahlol excavation (1906-07), Peshawar Museum, Inv. No
2997 (old 170); Grey schist, 16.5 x 30.5 cm; photo C. Luczanits 2007.
Figure 6: Brussels triad of the year five (today in the Agonshnj collection, Japan); after Kurita (2003:
P3-viii).
Figure 7: Stele with lotus pond-type Buddha-field and Maitreya in top panel; possibly from
Muhammad Nari; Chandigarh Government Museum and Art Gallery, no. 572; photo C.
Luczanits.
Figure 8: Large, fragmentary lotus pond-type stele from Sahri Bahlol (Exc. 1939); Peshawar Museum,
inv. no. 2785; photo Warburg Institute, London.
Figure 9: Lotus pond-type stele of unknown origin; formerly in the Peshawar Museum; photo
Warburg Institute, London.
Figure 10: Palace-type stele with Seven Buddhas and Maitreya from Muhammad Nari; Chandigarh
Government Museum and Art Gallery, Inv. no. 1134; photo C. Luczanits 2009.
Figure 11: Palace-types stele with multi-storied building from Sahri Bahlol (Mound D); Peshawar
Museum, inv. no. 2771; photo C. Luczanits 2007.
Figure 12: Palace-type stele on lotus stand from Loriyan Tangai; Indian Museum, Calcutta, inv. no. A
23484 (old 5090); photo C. Luczanits 2006.
Figure 13: Lotus pond-type stele with emanating Buddha from Takht-i-Bahi (exc. 1908); formerly
Peshawar Museum; photo Warburg Institute, London.
Figure 14: Triad of teaching Buddha flanked by two bodhisattvas; photo Warburg Institute, London.
Figure 15: Triad of the Peshawar museum with two meditating bodhisattvas and scenes of the
Buddha’s life; photo C. Luczanits 2009.
Figure 16: Palace-type triad of the Lahore Museum; photo Warburg Institute, London.
Figure 17: Palace-type triad with pensive bodhisattvas from Loriyan Tangai, Indian Museum Kolkata;
photo Asian Art Museum, Collection of South, Southeast and Central Asian Art, Berlin.
Figure 18: Emanating Buddha panel from Takht-i-Bahi (Exc. 1908-09), Peshawar Museum, Inv. no.
3109; Schist, 22.9 x 24.2 cm; after Higuchi (1984: I-10).
127 --- 127
Response to New Light on (and from) the
Mohammand Nari by Paul Harrison & Christian Luczanits
Miyaji Akira
Ryukoku University
I am interested in the identification and interpretation of GandhƗran reliefs from the viewpoint of
Buddhist art history. Generally speaking, there is a tendency to think that art works (icons) were
produced based upon texts (snjtras). Certainly, in the area of Esoteric Buddhist Art and Buddhist scrolls
and paintings (kyǀhenga ⤒ኚ⏬)during the Tang Dynasty in China, art works and texts show a close
relationship. However, it does not mean that these art works reflect the precisely what is described in
texts. Furthermore, at the initial stage of Buddhist art history (from the 2nd century BC to the 6th
century AD), there is a prominent distance between art works and texts. It is questionable whether or not
the artisans (artists) truly read the snjtras before modeling their artwork. The artisans were probably
illiterate, and thus modeled the reliefs based on what they had heard from monks. The artisans probably
tried to combine the textual information from the snjtras they heard with past iconographical expressions.
Modifications were then made and new inspirations added. I wish we had knowledge about both what
and how the artisans heard from the monks, but this is something we can only imagine based on the
existing Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, or Chinese texts.
Regarding the Mohammand Nari stele (hereafter abbreviated as M.N.S.), the main theme for this
presentation, various identifications and analyses were made in past. However, we scholars never reached
an agreement. In past years, studies were done based on clues from the specific text which this stele might
be based on. As a result, DivyƗvadƗna (Chapter 12, PrƗtihƗrya-snjtra), Lotus Snjtra, The Larger and
Smaller SukhƗvatƯvynjha snjtras, A‫܈‬obhyatathƗgatasyavynjha, etc. were suggested as the sources for these
art works, and respective studies followed. Although the M.N.S. composition corresponds to these snjtras
partially, there was no indication for the complete match.
Concerning these matters, Harrison and Luczanits’ paper suggests that we reconsider past
approaches to the M.N.S., especially those in which scholars tended to rely on a single textual source or
specific snjtra. This is a call for philologists and art historians to realize and acknowledge that we need to
work together in order to develop analyses on textual and iconographic aspects. Their conclusions are
based upon careful examination of both these aspects, as they determine the correspondence between
specific textual contents and art motifs or elements. In this sense, this paper was very successful and
presented notable achievements. Such collaborative research process should be highly valued and this
method recognized. I strongly believe a neutral attitude and collaborative approaches are keys for
achieving further success in deciphering GandhƗran reliefs. (cf. my article “Shaeijǀ no shinpen to daijǀ
bukkyǀ bijutsu no kigen” ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡜኱஌௖ᩍ⨾⾡ࡢ㉳※ [The Miracles at ĝrƗvastƯ and the Origin
of MahƗyƗna Buddhist Art] in Bigaku Bijutsushi Kenkynj Ronshnj ⨾Ꮫ⨾⾡ྐ◊✲ㄽ㞟, 20), published in
2002. A revised version of this article can be found in my book Indo bukkyď bijutsu shiron ࢖ࣥࢻ௖ᩍ⨾
⾡ྐㄽ [Essays on Buddhist Art History in India], published in 2010. The speakers pointed out the
characteristic motifs or elements from the group of steles related to M.N.S.: 1. Buddha on lotus, 2.
- 128 -
Response to Harrison & Luczanits
Triadic composition, 3. Many Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, and 4. Sacred and divine architecture. They
also categorized these steles into three types.
(1) Lotus pond type steles
(2) Palace type steles
(3) Emanation type steles (Meditating Buddha and Bodhisattva showing dyƗna mudrƗ emanate
Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Devas)
In their paper, each of the above types is carefully studied. Variations among the descriptions
presented in The Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha, The Smaller SukhƗvatƯvynjha, and the Ak‫܈‬obhya’s Snjtra are
also examined. The authors then conclude that the steles in question represent the Buddha-field,
especially in relation to the images presented in The Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha. They point out that we can
also observe depictions related to the idea of BuddhakƗya in MahƗyƗna Buddhism.
The group of GandhƗran reliefs titled “The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ”, which since Alfred A. Foucher
(1865-1952) has been considered in relation to early Buddhist sectarian schools, was, in this paper,
nearly determined to have developed in deep connection with MahƗyƗna worship. Iconographical
elements and textual information were well-analyzed and classified. But there is just one thought that I
cannot give up. I still feel that it is necessary to re-evaluate whether these steles are the product of the
worship of AmitƗbha Buddha. There are two reasons for that.
First, there are more than forty specimens of Buddhist Triads existing in GandhƗra. Most of the
flanking Bodhisattvas are Bodhisattvas Maitreya (with the topknot hairstyle and water flask in hand)
and AvalokiteĞvara (wearing a turban and carrying a lotus flower or a garland), and some are Maitreya
and SiddhƗrtha. After the Gupta period, this Triad type, ĝƗkyamuni Buddha, Maitreya and
AvalokiteĞvara, became very popular in India. So I identify the center Buddha of these GandhƗran
Buddhist Triads as ĝƗkyamuni Buddha, however not as the historical Buddha but as the eternal Buddha
of MahƗyƗna Buddhism. (cf. my “Iconography of the Two Flanking Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist Triads
from GandhƗra: Bodhisattva SiddhƗrta, Maitreya and AvalokiteĞvara”, East and West, vol. 58, nos. 1-4,
2008).
Second, the stele at Chandigarh Government Museum and Art Gallery depicts the Bodhisattva
Maitreya in Tuৢita in the upper division and the worship of Buddha’s bowl in the lower one. Thus the
Buddha appears in the middle division of this lotus pond type stele, and is more likely ĝƗkyamuni
because the Buddha’s bowl symbolizes the succession of the dharma, in this case from ĝƗkyamuni to
Bodhisattva Maitreya. Furthermore, some of the palace type steles depict the ĝƗkyamuni’s narrative
scenes.
For these reasons, I believe that both the lotus pond type and the palace type steles are based on the
BuddhakƗya concept, thus reflecting MahƗyƗna Buddhism. In relation to the MahƗyƗna snjtra, I see a
strong connection to the descriptions from these particular snjtras as follows: Chapter one of the Lotus
Snjtra (Ch. F΁huá jƯng xù p΃n, Jp. Hokkekyǀ jobon ἲ⳹⤒ᗎရ), TathƗgatotpattisaۨbhavanirdeĞa (Ch.
Huáyán jƯng rúlái xìngq΃ p΃n; Jp. Kegon kyǀ nyorai shǀki bon ⳹ཝ⤒ዴ᮶ᛶ㉳ရ), TathƗgatagarbha
Snjtra (Ch. Rúláizàng jƯng; Jp. Nyoraizǀ kyǀ ዴ᮶ⶶ⤒), and Saۨdhinirmocana Snjtra (Ch. JiČ shƝnmì
jƯng; Jp. Gejinmikkyǀ ゎ῝ᐦ⤒). Therefore, when ĝƗkyamuni is in deep meditation (samƗdhi), the great
129 --- 129
Miyaji Akira
ray of light is emitted from the tuft of white hair between his eyebrows (njr۬Ɨ). The light emitted by
ĝƗkyamuni illuminated countless Buddha-fields and turned into innumerable lotus flowers, where
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas manifested. Bodhisattvas, Devas and worshippers are all filled with joy,
admiration and wonder. Surrounded by joyous crowds, the Buddha revealed the dharma of the
MahƗyƗna. I feel that this is the scene artisans aimed to sculpt. At this point, I reached the tentative
conclusion that the Buddha sitting on a lotus throne represents ĝƗkyamuni as an infinite being, as the
DharmakƗya. However, this theory still needs to be further verified.
In many ways, I believe that collaborative research between philologists and art historians may
ensure more accurate analyses in the future. In this manner, this paper is a valuable, highly productive,
and suggestive contribution.
- 130 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
࣏࣮࣭ࣝࣁࣜࢯࣥ
ࢫࢱࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢻ኱Ꮫ
ࢡࣜࢫࢳ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࣮ࣝࣅࣥ⨾⾡㤋
㸦ୖᯞ࠸࡙ࡳ࣭ᑿⓑᝆ⣖࣭ྜྷᒸឿᩥヂࠊᐑ἞᫛࣭⚟ᒣὈᏊ┘ಟ㸧
1. ᗎㄽ㸸ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢᡤᅾ1
࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶࡢࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ㸦Muhammad Nari㸧ฟᅵᾋ᙮㸦ᅗ1㸧ࡀࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ
⨾⾡ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶⓑ┱ࡢᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣゝࢆಗࡓ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏస౛ࡣᴟࡵ࡚」㞧࡞ᵓᡂࢆ≉ᚩ࡜
ࡋࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢᩘ࡟ࡢࡰࡿྠᵝࡢస౛ࡢ࡞࠿࡛᭱ࡶ᭷ྡ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛⩌ࡣࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆ
ཷࡅ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ౑⏝ࡍࡿ⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮㸦complex steles㸧࡜⛠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊከࡃࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡸࡑࡢ᩿∦ʊࡑࢀࡽࡢస౛ࡶᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄽཬࡍࡿʊ
ࡣࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᮧ㏆㑹࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶࡢస౛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝
Ḟᦆࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ≧ែࡀⰋዲ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀࡀ၏୍ࡢస౛࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ
࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࠖ࡜࿧⛠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ2ࠋ
ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿᾋ᙮ࡣῐ⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ〇࡛ࠊ኱ࡁࡉࡣ119 × 97 ×28 cm࠶ࡾࠊⲮཝ࡞ࡲ࡛ࡢ」㞧⢭⦓࡞⾲⌧
࡜ዟ⾜ࡁࡢ࠶ࡿ㧗ᾋ᙮࡛௚ࢆᅽಽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᾋ᙮୰ኸ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ୍యࡢㄝἲ༳௖㝀ࡀ
⾲ࡉࢀࠊ௖㝀ୖ᪉࡟ࡣᯫ✵ࡢᶞᮌ࡜ᵝࠎ࡞ே≀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ࠺ࡕ஧ேࡣ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ⰼ⥘ࢆ
ᤝࡆᣢࡕࠊ௖㝀࡟ᡝෙࡍࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௙ⲡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ኱ⶈ⳹ࡣከࡃࡢᗄከࡶࡢ⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁ࡜ࡋࡓⰼᘚ࡜
1
ᮏ✏ࡣ 2011 ᖺ 8 ᭶ 4 ᪥࡟ி㒔ࡢ኱㇂኱Ꮫ࡛㛤ദࡉࢀࡓࠕίᅵᩍ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉ูᅜ㝿ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ
⾲ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ᨵゞࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘୺ദ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊᡃࠎ࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡢᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࠊཎ✏໬ࢆಁࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ
ࡓ᱇⤂㝯Ặ࡟ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ᡃࠎࡢⓎ⾲࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆᘬࡁཷࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡓᐑ἞᫛ࠊⲨ∾
඾ಇࠊ⫧ሯ㝯Ặࡢᐤࡏ࡚ࡃࢀࡓ㗦ࡃᘓタⓗ࡞ពぢ࡟ࡶឤㅰࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ2010 ᖺࡢ෤Ꮫᮇ࡟ࢫࢱࣥࣇ࢛࣮ࢻ኱Ꮫ࡛
㛤ദࡉࢀࡓࠕ௖ᩍᚐࡢᴦᅬ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ㸸Buddhist Visions of Paradiseࠖ఍㆟ࡢฟᖍ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ึࡵ࡚㆟ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ Norihisa Baba, Heawon Choi, Charles DiSimone, Chen Li, Anna Pawlowski, Trent Walker, Nicholas
Witkowski ࡢㅖẶࡢྡࡶࡇࡇ࡟ᣲࡆ࡚࠾࠿ࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊᡃࠎࡢࡓࡵ࡟᝟ሗࠊᅗ∧ࠊཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࡢᥦ౪
࠾ࡼࡧᢈホࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚᫬㛫ࢆ๭࠸࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠊStefan Baums, Osmund Bopearachchi, Oskar von Hinüber, Anna-Maria
Quagliotti, Juhyung Rhi, Elizabeth Rosen Stone, Joanna Williams ㅖẶ࡟ࡶࡇࡢሙ࡛ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ
ᮏ✏ࡢ኱㒊ศࢆ༨ࡵࡿ⨾⾡ྐⓗ◊✲ࡣࢿࣃ࣮࣭ࣝࣝࣥࣅࢽ࣮ᅜ㝿◊✲ᡤࡢ◊✲ຓᡂ࡟౫ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ᮏ◊✲ࡣ⌧ᅾࡶ
⥅⥆୰࡛ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗࡣࡶࡗ࡜ᗈỗ࡛ໟᣓⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡉࡋ࠶ࡓࡾ௒ᅇࡣ୰㛫ሗ࿌ࡢ
ᙧࢆ࡜ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2
ࣃ࢟ࢫࢱࣥࡢ࢝࢖ࣂ࣭ࣝࣃࢡࢺࢗࣥࢡ࣡ᕞࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢧࢲ࡟࠶ࡿࡇࡢᮧ (⌧ᅾࡣ⏫) ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᨻᗓබหᆅᅗ࡛ࡣ
“Muhammad NƗrƯ” ࡜⾲グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ(Ⓨ㡢グྕࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ)⡆᫆࡞⾲グࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ(౛࠼ࡤ Rosenfield 1967
➼࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⾲グ࡟ྠࡌ)ࠋ
௚࡟ࡇࡢᆅ࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓ㑇≀࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⊩࡛ࡣMuhammad Nârî (౛. Grünwedel 1920)ࠊ
Mohamed Nârî (౛. Foucher 1909/1917)ࠊMohamed-Nari (౛. Rhi 1991)ࠊMohammad Nari(౛. Rhi 2011b)ࠊMohammed Nari
(౛. Huntington 1980, Quagliotti 1996a, Rhi 2008, Bautze-Picron 2010) ࡞࡝ࡢ⾲グࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
- 131 -
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᐆ▼࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⶈⱼ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋⶈⱼࡢ୧ഃ࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ୍⤌ࡢ⏨ዪࡀ❧ࡘࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᾋ᙮ୗ㒊ࢆ༨
ࡵࡿⶈụ࡟ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟༙㌟ࢆ⾲ࡍᅄேࡢே≀ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢ௖㝀ࡢ࿘ᅖ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ጼែࡢከࡃࡢ⳶⸃ࡽࡀྲྀࡾᅖࡳࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕఱయ࠿ࡢ⳶⸃ࡽࡣ୍㞟ᅋࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᾋ
᙮ୖ᪉࡛ࡣࠊᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⳶⸃ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋᕥྑୖ㒊㝮࡟ࡣࠊ஧యࡢᐃ༳ࡢ௖㝀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ
࠸ࡎࢀࡶ࿘ᅖ࡟❧ീࡢ໬௖ࢆⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢ⣽㒊ࡣᮏ✏࡛㡰ḟㄽཬࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ
࡛ࡣ௨ୖࡢ୍⯡ⓗゎㄝ࡟␃ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ༟㉺ࡋࡓస౛ࡀ࠸ࡘⓎぢࡉࢀࡓࡢ࠿ࡣ௒ࡶ࡞࠾୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊグ㘓࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ
ྠᵝࡢᾋ᙮㸦ᮏ✏ࣜࢫࢺ୰ࡢᾋ᙮10㸧ࡀࠊࢫ࣮࣡ࢺ㐠Ἑᕤ஦࡟ᚑ஦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓDempster࡜࠸࠺ྡࡢ࢚
ࣥࢪࢽ࢔࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᮧ㏆㑹ࡢୣ㝠࠿ࡽⓎぢࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠶ࡿ3ࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࡑࡢᚋ
Henry Hardy Coleࡢⴭ᭩ (1883: pl. 1) ࡟ࡑࡢࢫࢣࢵࢳࡀᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ྠᖺM. Serrot࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᧜ᙳ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓྠస౛ࡢ෗┿ࡀ Cole (1885) ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊcviii–cxvii࣮࣌ࢪࢆ༨ࡵࡿAppendix I ࠕࣘࢫࣇࢨ࢖
ᆅ᪉ฟᅵࡢࢠࣜࢩ࢔ᘧ௖ᩍ᙮้ᅗ∧ Illustrations of Graeco-Buddhist sculptures from the Yusufzai
Districtࠖ4ࡢ࠺ࡕᅗ∧1࡜ࡋ࡚බหࡉࢀࡓࠋ௒ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᡃࠎࡀ᫂ゝ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼࣜ
࣮࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓ௚ࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠࡌ࣐࢘ࣥࢻ࡛ࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡜ྠ᫬ᮇ࠿ࡸࡸᚋ࡟Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㑇㊧࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓ㑇≀ࡣ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋࡟㏦ࡽࢀࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ
࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡣ⌧ᅾ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛཰ⶶရ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋࡛ࡣ1135␒࡜ࡋ࡚཰ⶶࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡑࡢ཰ⶶ␒ྕࡣࡑࡢᚋI-255࠿ࡽ⌧ᅾࡢG-155ࡲ࡛ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ2ᅇࡣኚ᭦ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ๓㏙ࡢ1883ᖺ࡟
᧜ᙳࡉࢀฟ∧ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆྵࡴࠊྠ㑇㊧࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓ௚ࡢ㈗㔜࡞㑇≀ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻ࣭ࣃ࢟ࢫࢱࣥศ㞳
⊂❧ᚋ࡟ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋࡟⛣⟶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࢠࣕࣛࣜ
࣮ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊᙜࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡣ᭷ྡ࡞ࢩࢡࣜฟᅵࡢ㔘㏑ⱞ⾜ീ࡜ᑐ㠃ࡍࡿቨ㠃ࡢ୰ኸࢣ
࣮ࢫ࡟ࠊࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ᙧ࡛ᒎ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ᙮้ࡢ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ᅗീ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥ໬ⓗࠊ
Ṕྐⓗࠊ⨾⾡ⓗ࡞㔜せᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠ➼ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆᣢࡘ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞㛵ᚰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣྠ
ࡌ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ඲ࡃぢࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ஧ࡘࡢస౛ࡣࠊ୍᪉ࡣ୍ேࡢ⑭ࡏࡇࡅࡓⱞ⾜⪅ࡢࠊᏙ⊂
࡛⚗ḧⓗ࡞㏕ຊࡢ࠶ࡿീ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ୍᪉ࡣ⿦㌟ලࢆ㌟࡟╔ࡅࡓ⩌ീ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྲྀࡾᕳ࠿ࢀࠊ⢔
↛࡜ᓫࡵࡽࢀࡓ௖㝀ࡢᰤගࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊᴟࡵ࡚๻ⓗ࡞ᑐ↷ࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢ୺ᑛࡢ㰯ࡢⴭࡋ࠸Ḟᦆࡣ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ୍ぢ࡯ࡰ᏶Ꮡࡋࡓ≧ែ࡛Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊࡑ
ࢀ௨᮶ࠊ㍺㏦୰ࡢ஦ᨾࡸࠊᒎ♧఩⨨ࡢኚ᭦సᴗ࡟ࡼࡾከᑡࡢᦆയࢆⵚࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣ⌧ᅾࡢస
౛࡜1905ᖺ࡟᧜ᙳࡉࢀࡓ෗┿ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࢀࡤ᫂░࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡛࡟ࡑࡢ෗┿ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊ⏬㠃ୗ᪉୧㝮ࡢ
ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ⳶⸃ീࡢୗ༙㌟ࡀ㔠ලࢆྲྀࡾ௜ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᑐ⛠ⓗ࡟ษ᩿ࡉࢀࡓ㊧ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᅗ2㸧ࠋ
ྑഃࡢษ᩿㠃࡟ࡣࡑࡢ᫬ࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟no.1135࡜࠸࠺ᡤⶶ␒ྕࡀグࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟௚ࡢ஧ᯛࡢึᮇ
ࡢ෗┿࡛ࡣࠊᕥഃࡢษ᩿㠃࡟ࡶ␒ྕࡀグࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋAdrien van der Berght ఑࡟
3
4
Burgess (1897: 8, pl. 112 ࡢㄝ᫂) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
Cole ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Cole (1883:p. cx) ཧ↷ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Cole (1883: 7–8) ࡢグ㏙࡜࡯ࡰྠࡌ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋᅗ∧࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣ኱ⱥᅗ᭩㤋࢙࢘ࣈࢧ࢖ࢺ http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/s/zoomify59137.html ࡶཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
- 132 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡼࡾ1905ᖺ࡟᧜ᙳࡉࢀࡓ෗┿5ࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡑࡢ஧ᯛࡼࡾࡶྂ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋྑ㝮㒊ศࡣ࡯ࡰṧࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୧➃ࡢ⳶⸃ࡀᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ⤒඾ࡣᦆയࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅྑഃ࡛ࡣ᏶඲࡟Ḟᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࣟࣥࢻࣥࡢࣦ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤࡢ࡯ࡰྠ᫬௦ࡢ෗┿ࣉࣜࣥࢺ㸦ࡍ࡛࡟࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ࡢྠ
ࡌࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࢆ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ㸧ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ⤒඾࡟ྠࡌᦆയࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᇶቭࡢᕥ㝮ࠊࡘࡲࡾ
ụࡢᕥ➃ࡢ㒊ศࡣ๭ࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊࡑࢀࢆ⥅࠸࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࡢ෗┿ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊᙜヱ⟠ᡤ
ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ኻࢃࢀࠊࢼ࣮࢞ࡢ㱟⵹࡜࡜ⶈ⳹ࡢⰼᘚࡶḞᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࡢᅗ∧࡜ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㐣ཤࡢ෗┿
࡜ࢆẚ࡭࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿᦆയࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୺ᑛୖ㒊ࡢച⵹ࡢ㒊ศⓗ࡞Ḟᦆࡸࠊ
ᙜึ᏶Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡓⶈ⳹ࡢⰼᘚࡢ࠺ࡕ஧ᯛࡀᢡࢀ࡚ኻࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞ゎ㔘
ᙜ↛࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢᩘከࡃࡢ⣽㒊⾲⌧ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ከᩘࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊព
⩏῝࠸୺㢟ẚᐃࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡑࡢせ᪨ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿ࡟࡜࡝ࡵࡓ࠸6ࠋࡑࢀࡽࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ
◊✲ᡂᯝ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ㛵ᚰ஦ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୺㢟ẚᐃ࡜ࡶ㛵ࢃࡾࠊ≉࡟ᾋ᙮୰ኸ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ࡢᑛྡẚᐃ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୺㢟ẚᐃࡢ➃⥴㸦ࡑࡋ࡚⌧ᅾ࡛ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘㸧ࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ◊✲
ࡢඛ㥑⪅࡛࠶ࡿAlfred Foucher࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡞ࡉࢀࠊᙼࡣࡇࢀࡽࢆ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࡢኊ㯇࡞ࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡳࡓ7ࠋ
⯋⾨ᇛࡢ࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࡣࠊᐇ࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ࣦ࢓࣮ࢪࣙࣥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ≉ᚩⓗ࡞⚄ኚࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠕ༓௖໬⌧ࠖࠊ࡞࠸ࡋࠕ኱⚄ኚࠖࡣࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⚄ኚ࡛ࡣࠊ௖㝀ࡣࠊ஧㱟⋤࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡘࡃࡾฟࡉࢀࡓ༓ᯛࡢⰼᘚ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿⲮཝࡉࢀࡓⶈ⳹࡟ᆘࡋࠊ
⚄㏻ຊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⶈ⳹ୖ࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ጼໃࢆ࡜ࡿ໬௖ࢆⓎࡋ࡚⹫✵࡟㐢‶ࡉࡏࡿ8ࠋⶈ⳹ࢆࡘࡃࡾฟࡍ
㱟⋤࡜」ᩘࡢ௖㝀ࡣࠊ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡜ẚᐃࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ≉ᚩⓗᅗീ࡜ぢࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࣔ
ࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ୖ㒊㝮ࡢ໬௖ࢆⓎࡍࡿ௖㝀࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ㔘ࢆ㝖ࡁʊ
ణࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ໬௖ࡣ❧ീࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿʊࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ⣽㒊⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⿬௜ࡅࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝
ᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢ୺㢟ẚᐃࡣࠊ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞⾲⌧࠿ࡽᚎࠎ࡟஋㞳ࡋ࡚ࠊ」㞧
ᛶࢆቑࡋⓎᒎࡋࡓᾋ᙮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ㤳⫯ࡋࡀࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡲࡓࠊᙜ
ึ࠿ࡽ␲ၥどࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ9 ࠊFoucherࡢẚᐃࡣ⌧ᅾࡶ᰿ᙉࡃࠊ㏆ᖺࡢSchlingloff࡞࡝
5
Taddei (1987/2003: fig. 3) ཬࡧ Quagliotti (1996a: fig. 1) ཧ↷ࠋ
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡢࡼࡾヲࡋ࠸ᴫせ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
Quagliotti (1996a: 281–282, n. 7)ࠊ
Rhi (1991: 5–9, 316–323)ࠊ
Miyaji (2002) ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
7
Foucher (1909; 1917). ࡇࢀ௨๓࡟ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ᅗ∧ࡣ Burgess (1900: pl. 7, fig. 2) ཬࡧ Foucher (1905: fig. 79) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚බ
หࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋFoucher ࡢ୺㢟ẚᐃࡣࡑࡢᚋࠊ౛࠼ࡤ Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 121–25, pl. 255) ࡸᰩ⏣(Kurita
1988/2003[I]: pl. 395) ࡟ᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᰩ⏣ࡣ Foucher ㄝ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ኱༙ࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࢆ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡜ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8
DivyƗvadƗna ࡢ PrƗtihƗryasnjtra ᡤ཰ࡢࡶࡢࡀ୍⯡࡟ᘬ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊྠⱥヂࡣ Rotman (2008: 253̽287) ࢆཧ↷ࠋBrown
(1984) ࡣࡇࡢㄝヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞⚄ኚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⨾⾡స౛࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠿ࡽ෌᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
9
Foucher ࡢ୺㢟ẚᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡟ぢࡓ⤒඾ࡢグ㏙࡜ࡢ㱈㱒࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡎࡿ␲ၥࡢ௚࡟ࠊvan Lohuizen-de Leeuw
(1949: 124-138) ࡸ Williams (1975: 182̽183) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ␲ၥࡀ࿊ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
6
133 --- 133
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ௚ࡢㅖㄝࡼࡾࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ10ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ
⨾⾡ࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟Ṕྐⓗ࡞௖㝀ࡢ⏕ᾭ࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟ᮶஦ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊᚑ
ࡗ࡚୰ኸ࡛ㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡧⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ࢆ㔘㏑௖࡜ẚᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣᑠ㇂௰⏨ (1967) ࡸᐑ἞᫛ (1985a, 1993, 2002, 2005) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୰ኸࡢ௖㝀ࢆ㔘
㏑௖࡜ぢࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࠗἲ⳹⤒ Saddharmapu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka࠘ࡸࠗゎ῝ᐦ⤒ Sandhinirmocana࠘ࠊࠗዴ᮶ⶶ⤒
TathƗgatagarbha࠘ࡢࡼ࠺࡞኱஌⤒඾ࢆㄝࡃ๓࡟♧⌧ࡉࢀࡿ㔘㏑ࡢኊ㯇࡛⇲↛࡜ගࡾ㍤ࡃጼ࡜ࡍࡿゎ
㔘ࡶᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐑ἞᫛ࡣࡇࡢฟ᮶஦ࢆࠕ኱ග᫂ࡢ⚄ኚࠖ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ (e.g. Miyaji 1993: 252)ࠋ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢࡳࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢ୺㢟ẚᐃࡣ୺ᑛࡢㄝἲ༳࡜୺ᑛࢆྲྀࡾᅖࡴᩘ
ከࡢ⳶⸃ീ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅗീゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣጇᙜᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡇࡢฟ᮶஦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⚄ኚࡣᾋ᙮ࡢ
⣽㒊⾲⌧ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゎ㔘ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊJohn Rosenfield (1967: 235–238,
fig. 90) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢࠕ㢧⌧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ᭕᫕࡛₍↛࡜ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࡢ⠊␪࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣᮤᰕ஽ (Juhyung Rhi 1991:148; 2003: 174–175; 2006: 171) ࡀ᭱ࡶഴಽࡍࡿぢゎ࡛ࠊᙼࡢ᭱㏆ࡢ
ⴭస࡛ࡣ㸦⯋⾨ᇛࡢ኱⚄ኚ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸧࡯ࡰࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゎ㔘࡟࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢホ౯ࢆ୚࠼ࡘࡘࡶࠊ
⤖ㄽ࡟ࡣៅ㔜࡞ጼໃࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ11ࠋ
ࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡀᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᭱ึ
࡟ㄝᚓຊࢆࡶࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡢࡣ1980ᖺࠊJohn Huntington࡛࠶ࡗࡓ12ࠋࡑࡢ኱㒊࠿ࡘໟᣓⓗ࡞ㄽᩥ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ᙼࡣከࡃࡢᾋ᙮ࡢ⣽㒊ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᩥ⊩ࡢグ㏙ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠗ↓㔞ᑑ⤒ Larger
SukhƗvatƯvynjha࠘ࡢグ㏙࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋ☜࠿࡟ᚑ᮶ࡢㅖㄝࡼࡾࡶㄝᚓຊࡢ࠶ࡿ୺㢟ẚᐃ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
ᙼࡢゎ㔘ࡣᵝࠎ࡞⌮⏤࠿ࡽ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ᨭᣢࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚ゝཬࡉࢀࡓ
ᩥ⊩グ㏙ࡢከࡃࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁ୍⯡ⓗෆᐜ࡛ࠊ௚ࡢከࡃࡢᩥ⊩࡟ぢฟࡋ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊ☜ᐇ࡟ࠗ↓㔞
ᑑ⤒࠘ࡢグ㏙࡟ྜ⮴ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞⣽㒊⾲⌧ࡀᾋ᙮࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ୖグࡢᩥ⊩࡛ࡣㄝ᫂ࡋ
ᚓ࡞࠸⣽㒊⾲⌧ࡀከᩘ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ཯ㄽࢆཷࡅࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟௜ゝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᙜ᫬ࡇࡢ୺㢟࡟㛵ࡍ
ࡿHuntingtonࡢㄽドࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽ኱஌௖ᩍ௨๓ࡢ௖ᩍᛮ᝿࡟༶ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮
ࣛ⨾⾡◊✲ࡢ₻ὶ࡟㏫ࡽ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡍࡿᙼࡢゎ㔘ࡣࡑࢀ௨๓ࡢㄝࡶྵࡵࠊ
◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ඲ࡃཷࡅධࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ13ࠋ
10
Schlingloff (1991)ࠊ(2000: I, 488̽515; II, 102̽105)ࠊࡲࡓ Ali & Qazi (2008: 139̽143)ཧ↷ࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ Schlingloff (2000: II,
102̽105) ࡢ⥺ᅗ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ᅗീࡀ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࢆᥥ࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊSchlingloff ࡣࡑࢀࢆྠ୺
㢟ࡢ⤒඾ࡈ࡜ࡢࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࡢ཯ᫎࡔ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
11
౛࠼ࡤࠊRhi (2011b: 115) ࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ(๓␎)ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࢆ㉸㉺ࡋ
ࡓ௖㝀(㔘㏑ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ≉ᐃࡢྡࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸௖㝀࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡶࡋ࠿ࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡃࡘࡶࡢྡࢆᣢࡘ௖㝀) ࡢኊ㯇࡞㢧
⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ᭱ࡶ㐺ᙜ࡞⌮ゎࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ⇍㐩ࡋࡓಟ⾜⪅ࡢᗁどࢆ᙮้࡜ࡋ࡚෗ࡋྲྀࡗࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊึᮇ኱஌⤒඾࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せどࡉࢀࡓほ᝿ࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢ୍ຓ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺ไసࡉࢀࡓࡢ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠋ
12
ࡇࡢ௬ㄝࡣ Benjamin Rowland (1938: 79, n. 2)࡟ࡼࡾᥦၐࡉࢀࡓࡀḢ⡿ࡢᏛ⏺࡛ࡣ᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ
Rowland ௨๓ࠊ1920 ᖺ௦࡟ࡍ࡛࡟᪥ᮏࡢ◊✲⪅ࠊ※㇏᐀ࡀᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿίᅵࡢᅗീ࡜ࡢ㢮ఝࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿ(Minamoto 1925, 1926)ࠋ
13
౛࠼ࡤ Brown (1984: 80–82)ࠋ
- 134 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊHuntingtonࡢ௬ㄝࡣ᪂ࡓ࡞ゎ㔘ࡢᆅᖹࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋAnna Maria Quagliotti (1996a) ࡣ
࡯ࡰྠᵝࡢ⤖ㄽ࡟㐩ࡋࠊ୍᪉ࠊGérard Fussman (1987:73) ࡣᙜึࡣHuntingtonࡢぢゎࢆཷࡅධࢀ࡞ࡀ
ࡽࡶࠊᚋ࡟ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡸࡸ␗࡞ࡿ❧ሙࢆ࡜ࡗ
ࡓ (Fussman 1999: 548–551)ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ㏆ᖺࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࢆ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵ࡜ࡋලయⓗ࡞ẚᐃ
࡟ࡣ࠸ࡓࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿస౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ௖ᅜᅵࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (Rhi
2008, 2011a, 2011b)ࠋChristian Luczanits (2008: 49–51) ࡣࡑࡢ௖ᅜᅵࢆࠊ㔝እ࡛௖㝀ࡀᇳ㔠๛⚄㸦ࣦ
࢓ࢪࣗࣛࣃ࣮ࢽ VajrapƗ৆i㸧㸦ᅗ3㸧ࡢ㠃๓࡛ᘵᏊࡢࡓࡵ࡟♧⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋࠊᾋ᙮ࡢどぬ
ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ௚ࡸࡸ␗࡞ࡿゎ㔘ࡶᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋGregory Schopen (1987: 130-31,
n. 50 = 2005: 273–74, n. 50) ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴟᴦίᅵ࡜ࡶ㜿㛹௖ࡢጁ႐ୡ⏺࡜ࡶ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࡀ
㸦ᚋ㏙㸧ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤࠊᚋ⪅ࡢጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟Jacques Giès and
Monique Cohen (1996: 341–344) ࡣࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࢆᚋ௦ࡢ㛵㐃ᩥ⊩࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࠊ⏬㠃୰ኸࡢ୺ᑛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
㔘㏑௖ࡢᬑ㐢ⓗ㢧⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢẝ├㐽㑣௖࡜ࡳࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢゎ㔘ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ௚࡜ẚ࡭࡚㤳⫯ࡋ࠺ࡿぢゎࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ඘ศ࡟⣡ᚓࡋ࠺ࡿࡶࡢࡣࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶୖグࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ◊✲⪅ࡶᾋ᙮࡟┳ྲྀࡉࢀࡿ୺せ࡞ᅗീⓗ≉ᚩࢆ⥙⨶ⓗ࡟ࡣ
ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸࠿࡟ヲ⣽࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾
࠸࡚ከ࠿ࢀᑡ࡞࠿ࢀࠊ௨ୗࡢᅄࡘࡢⅬࡀ༑ศ࡟ྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸14ࠋ
1:
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ᩥ⊩ྐᩱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ໟᣓⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
2:
⨾⾡ྐࡢほⅬ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡜㢮ఝࡍࡿస౛ࢆ඘ศ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡽࡎࠊᅗീⓗ≉ᚩࡢ
ඹ㏻Ⅼࡸ≉␗ᛶࢆࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
3:
ᩥ⊩ྐᩱ࡜ᅗീ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡀᚭᗏⓗ࡟㏣✲ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
4:
⤖ᒁࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ᙮้ࡢᇶ‽స࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡇࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᩥ⊩Ꮫࠊ⨾⾡ྐࠊ௖
ᩍᏛࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⤫ྜࡋࡓࠊࡼࡾᗈ⠊࡞ゎ㔘ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୗࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽᅄࡘࡢⅬ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࡀࠊ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ㄽཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞
࠸ࠋࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾࠊ㔜せ࡞せ⣲࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡼࡾࡶࡼࡾྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ୺㢟ẚ
ᐃ࡟ྥࡅ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞᪉ྥᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࡣ௖ᅜᅵࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓᩥ⊩ྐᩱࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࡣࡌࡵࡿࠋ࡜
࠸࠺ࡢࡶ㏆ᖺࡢࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄝᚓຊࡢ࠶ࡿヲ⣽࡞㆟ㄽࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮
ࡣᐇ㝿࡟௖ᅜᅵࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢḟ࡟ࠊ௖ᅜᅵࡢᵝ┦ࢆ
᫂☜࡟ࡋࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᕤேࡀࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㝈ࡽࢀࡓ✵㛫࡟ࠊ㐀ᙧⓗ࡟ලయ໬ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ≉ᚩࡀዴ
ఱ࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
14
Rhi (1991) ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ౛እ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟ྠᵝࡢၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ p.11 ௨㝆
ࡢᙼࡢぢゎࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
135 --- 135
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
3. ௖㝀ࡢቃᇦ㸸௖ᅜᅵࡢ஧⣔⤫
኱஌⤒඾ࡣࠊࠕ௖ᅜᅵࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣDavidson (2002:132-133)ࡢゝⴥࢆ೉ࡾࡿ࡞ࡽࠕ௖㝀ࡢቃᇦࠖ㸦Skt.
Buddhakৢetra㸧ࡢᥥ෗࡟ᐩࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢグ㏙ࡣ෕㛗࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽ⡆᫂࡞ᥥ෗ࡲ࡛ከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௖ᅜ
ᅵࡣ⳶⸃㐨ࡢ㏣ཬࡢᙜ↛ࡢᖐ⤖࡛࠶ࡾࠊ✲ᴟⓗቃᆅ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ㢖⦾࡟ᥥ෗ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㦫ࡃ࡟ࡣ
࠶ࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿࡟⳶⸃㐨ࡑࢀ⮬యࡀࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ௖㝀ࡢቃᇦࡢࠕί໬ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽ⌮᝿ⓗୡ⏺ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅヲ⣽࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀࠊす᪉ࡢ㜿ᘺ㝀௖㸦AmitƗbha㸧ࡢᅜᅵࡓ
ࡿࠕᴟᴦίᅵ SukhƗvatƯࠖࠊᮾ᪉ࡢ㜿㛹௖ Akৢobhya ࡢᅜᅵࡓࡿࠕጁ႐ୡ⏺ Abhirati࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢᴟᴦίᅵ
Ṕྐⓗ࡟ࡳ࡚ࠊ
㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡜ᴟᴦίᅵࡢಙ௮ࡣࠊ
࡜ࡾࢃࡅᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔௖ᩍ࡟࠾࠸࡚㝯┒ࢆࡳࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀᨾࠊ
ᮏᾋ᙮ࡀᗄே࠿ࡢ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
༟㉺ࡋࡓᴟᴦίᅵࡢཎᆺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢึᮇ࢖ࣥࢻ⨾⾡ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉ
ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ㢔ࡅࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊίᅵࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ୕ࡘࡢᩥ⊩ࡀ඾ᣐ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
(1) ࠗ↓㔞ᑑ⤒࠘ The Larger㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣ Longer㸧SukhƗvatƯvynjha (LSukh)
(2) ࠗ㜿ᘺ㝀⤒࠘ The Smaller㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣ Shorter㸧SukhƗvatƯvynjha (SSukh)
(3) ࠗほ↓㔞ᑑ⤒࠘㸦ࠗほ⤒࠘ࡶࡋࡃࡣ Visualization Snjtra㸧
ࡇࡢ୕ࡘᩥ⊩ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ၏୍࢖ࣥࢻ᧝㏙࡛࠶ࡾ᭱ࡶヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀ↓㔞ᑑ⤒㢮㸦LSukh㸧
࡛࠶ࡿ15ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊゎ㔘ࡢࡓࡵᮏ⤒ࡀ౑⏝
ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ୺࡟ࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᩥ⊩ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ16ࠊᮏ⤒ࡢ」㞧࡞⤒඾ᡂ
❧ࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟↷ࡽࡍ࡜ࠊ࠸ࡉࡉ࠿ၥ㢟ࢆࡣࡽࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋᮏ⤒ࡢ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿ₎ヂ5⤒ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢ஧
⣔⤫࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋ
↓㔞ᑑ⤒₎ヂㅖᮏ
ึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ
(1)ࠗష茢㜿ᙗ㝀୕⪨୕ష⸃ᶂష᷄㐣ᗘே㐨⥂࠘̿ ᨭㅬ㸦220–257ᖺ㸧ヂ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊᚋ
₎ࡢᨭ፝㏑ㆻ㸦Lokakৢema. 170–190 ᖺ㸧ヂ㸸 T 362
(2)ࠗష茢↓㔞Ύ῕ᖹ➼む⥂࠘
㸸ᨭ፝㏑ㆻヂ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ࿋ࡢᨭㅬ࡟ࡼࡿ (1) ࡢᨵヂ㸸T 361.17
15
ࠗほ⤒࠘ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻⓗ࡞⣲ᮦࢆ⏝࠸࡚⦅㞟ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୍⯡࡟୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡶࡋࡃࡣ୰ᅜ᧝㏙࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⸨⏣(1990)࡜ Silk (1997) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࠗほ⤒࠘ࡢⱥヂࡣ Takakusu (1894) ࡜ Inagaki (1995) ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
16
⌧ᅾࡣ⸨⏣ (Fujita 2011) ࡢᰯゞᮏࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㊊฼(Ashikaga1965)ᮏࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋFujita (2011)ࡣฟ∧ࡉࢀࡓ
ࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛ࠊᮍࡔᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿࠋLSukh ࡜ SSukh ࡢⱥヂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ F. Max Müller (1894a
& b)ࠊGómez (1996) ཧ↷ࠋ
17
ࠗ௖ㄝ㜿ᙗ㝀୕⪨୕ష⸃ᶂష᷄㐣ᗘே㐨⥂࠘࡜ࠗ௖ㄝ↓㔞Ύ῕ᖹ➼む⥂࠘ࡢヂ⪅ࡢၥ㢟ࠊヂ⪅ྡࡢኚ᭦࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡣࠊHarrison (n.d.) ࢆཧ↷ࠋNattier (2008:86-87) ࠊࡲࡓ Harrison, Hartmann, Matsuda (2002) ࡶཧ↷ࠋHarrison(n.d.)ࢆ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ◊✲⪅ࡀᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ⸨⏣ࡣࠗ௖ㄝ㜿ᙗ㝀୕⪨୕ష⸃ᶂష᷄㐣ᗘே㐨⥂࠘࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࠕ࡯ࡰ☜ᐇ࡟ᨭㅬヂࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
ࠗ௖ㄝ↓㔞Ύ῕ᖹ➼む⥂࠘ࡢࠕ᭱ࡶྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠖヂ⪅ࡣⓑᘏ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
258 ᖺヂ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⸨⏣ (2011) xvi ཧ↷ࠋ≉➹ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊࡇࡢ 2 ⤒ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓᩥ⊩࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊLSukh ࡢ
᭱ึᮇࡢ₎ヂࡢ␗ヂᮏ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヂฟᖺ௦ࡀ 2 ୡ⣖ᚋ༙(ᨭ፝㏑ㆻ)࠿ 3 ୡ⣖๓༙ (ᨭㅬ) ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ
㢟ࡣᮏ✏ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
- 136 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ
(3)ࠗష茢↓㔞ኖ⥂࠘̿ 㨯㸦359㸫429ᖺ㸧ࡢᗣൔ㙚㸦Saৄghavarman㸧ヂ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ421
ᖺ࡟ష㥏㊙㝀⨶㸦359㸫429ᖺ㸧࡜ᑌ㞼࡟ࡼࡿヂฟࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࠶ࡾ: T 360.18
(4)ࠗ኱ᑌ✚⥂࠘ࠕ↓㔞ኖዴ౗᭳ࠖ̿ ⳶ᥦὶᨭ㸦693㸫713ᖺ㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚706㸫713ᖺࡢ㛫
࡟ヂฟ: T 310 (5).19
(5)ࠗష茢኱஍↓㔞ኖⳁᄫ⥂࠘̿ 991ᖺヂฟࠋᏵࡢヂ⤒ൔἲ㈼㸦Dharmabhadra㸧ヂ࡜ࡉࢀ
ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡃࡣኳᜥ⅏㸦980㸫1000ᖺ㸧ヂ࡜ࡍࡿㄝ࠶ࡾ: T 363.
ඛ⾜◊✲࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏࡣࢳ࣋ࢵࢺㄒヂ࡜ྠᵝᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ
ࡔࡀࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ₎ヂᩥ⊩ࡣྲྀࡾᢅࢃࢀࡎࠊཧ↷ࡀᐜ᫆࡞ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ2⤒ࡢⱥ
ヂࡀᑓࡽ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽ⌧≧࡛ࡣึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟㛵ࡍࡿḢ⡿ࡢ⩻ヂࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸20ࠋ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㸦ER㸧ࡀ┳㐣ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶
ࡗࡓ୍ᅉ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺21ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᴟᴦίᅵ࡟㸦ࡑࡋ࡚㜿ᘺ
㝀࡟㸧㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙࡟ࡣࠊLSukh࡜ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡢㄽ㆟࡟☜࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠊᚋᮇ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ㔜せ࡞ᕪ␗ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ௨ୖࠊ㑇᠍࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶
ࡿㅖ≉ᚩ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
1. ᴟᴦίᅵ࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿࡢࡣࡍ࡭࡚⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶
ࡿࡀࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࡼࡾ᫂☜࡞⾲⌧ࡀ࡜ࡽࢀࠊᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࡼ࠺࡟ၥ㢟ࢆ᭕᫕࡟ࡋ࡚࠸
࡞࠸ 㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢᴟᴦίᅵ࡟ኳዪ࢔ࣉࢧࣛࢫࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣHarrison (1998) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴟᴦίᅵ࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿ⪅ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ⶈ⳹࡟໬⏕
ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ௚ࡢ㉸⮬↛ⓗ࡞᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡾ෌⏕ࡍࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡳࡽ
ࢀࡿ➨஧㢪ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
➨஧㢪㸸⚾ࡀ௖࡜࡞ࡗࡓ᫬ࠊ⚾ࡢᅜ࡟ዪேࡀ࠾ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡼ࠺࡟ࠋࡶࡋዪேࡀ⚾ࡢᅜ࡟
⏕ࡲࢀࡓ࠸࡜㢪࠺࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡓࡔࡕ࡟⏨Ꮚ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋᩘ࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸࡯࡝ࡢኳࠊ
ே࠾ࡼࡧ⻚㣕ࠊ⽸ືࡢ㢮ࡣࡍ࡭࡚୐ᐆỈụࡢⶈ⳹࡟໬⏕ࡍࡿ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋᡂ㛗ࡋ࡚⳶⸃ࠊ
㜿⨶₎22࡜࡞ࡿ⪅ࡢ඲యࡣᩘ࠼ୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡋ⚾ࡀࡇࡢ㢪ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࡞ࡽ
ࡤࠊࡑࡢ᫬࡟௖࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࡇࡢ㢪ࢆ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸࡞ࡽࡤࠊỴࡋ࡚௖࡜ࡣ࡞ࡿࡲ࠸ (T
362, 12: 301a27–b3; T 361࡟ᑐᛂᩥ࡞ࡋ)ࠋ
18
Inagaki (1995㸸19-89) ࡜ Gómez (1996㸸153-222) ࡢⱥヂࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣᚋᮇ↓㔞ᑑ⤒㢮࡜ᴫࡡ୍⮴ࡍࡿࡀࠊ
༢⣧࡟ᚋᮇ↓㔞ᑑ⤒㢮ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ྂ࠸₎ヂࡢΰᅾࡀ࠿࡞ࡾㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
19
Chang (1983: 339–360) ࡟ᢒヂ࠶ࡾࠋ
20
ᐇ㝿ࠊᨭ፝㏑ㆻࡢヂฟᮏࡀ T362 ཬࡧ T361 ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚෌ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࡲ࡛ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⩻ヂࡣ᪩ᛴ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡼࡾヲ
⣽࡞ᩥ⊩ᰯゞࡢၥ㢟ࡣ Harrison (n.d.) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫㄽࡣ Nattier (2003) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
21
⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡀࠊRhi (1991) ࡣ౛እ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
22
ᨭ፝㏑ㆻࡢࠕ(㜿)⨶₎(a)luohanࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᶆ‽ⓗ࡞ヂㄒࡣࠊ
ࠕኌ⪺ࠖࡢព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
137 --- 137
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
2. ᴟᴦίᅵࡢᵓᡂဨ࡟ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡓࡕ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ኌ⪺ࡓࡕ㸦ĞrƗvakas㸧㸦“arhats” 㜿⨶₎ࡓࡕ㸧ࡶྵࡲ
ࢀࡿࠋᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿኌ⪺ࡢᏑᅾࡣᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ஦ᐇୖ㝖࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࠊึᮇ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽ஧㏻ࡾࡢ␗࡞ࡿ⢭⚄ⓗ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ⪅ࢆ
ㄆࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ୍᪉࡛ࡇࢀࡽ⳶ᥦࢆồࡵࡿ஧ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣே㛫࡜⚄ࠎ㸧ࡢ㌟యⓗ༊
ูࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆດࡵ࡚ᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋගࡢ᫂ࡿࡉ࡟ࡣᕪ␗ࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊⓙ୍ᵝࡢእぢ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦௨ୗࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ
➨஑㢪㸸⚾ࡀ௖࡜࡞ࡗࡓ᫬ࠊ⚾ࡢᅜࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ࠊ㜿⨶₎ࠝࡇࡇ࡛ࡣኌ⪺ࢆᣦࡍࠞࠊ
ࢱ࢖ࣉ
➃ṇࠊΎࡽ࠿࡛⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸ጼࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡍ࡭࡚ࡀྠࡌⰍࠊྠࡌ ጼ ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶ➨භኳࠝParanirmitavaĞavartinsࠞࡢ⚄ࠎࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠋࡶࡋ⚾ࡀࡇ
ࡢ㢪ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢ᫬࡟௖࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࡇࡢ㢪ࢆ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸࡞ࡽࡤࠊỴࡋ࡚
௖࡜ࡣ࡞ࡿࡲ࠸ (T 362, 12: 301c10–13; cf. T 361, 12: 281a20–21 [➨୕㢪])ࠋ23
ே㛫࡜⚄ࠎ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟࠸࠿࡞ࡿどぬⓗ༊ูࡶ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᙉ࠸㛵ᚰ஦
࡛࠶ࡿ (Ashikaga 1965㸸11 [➨ᅄ㢪], 37-39) ࡀࠊே㛫࡟ኌ⪺࡜⳶⸃ࡢ༊ศࡀ࠶ࡿⅬࡣྲྀࡾཤࡽࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ほ㡢㸦AvalokiteĞvara㸧࡜ໃ⮳㸦MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta㸧ࡢ୺せ࡞஧⳶⸃ࡣᑡࡋࡤ࠿ࡾ೧኱࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ
࡚ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤḟࡢࡈ࡜ࡃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⳶⸃࡜㜿⨶₎ࠝ㸻ኌ⪺ࠞࡣⓙࡑࢀࡒࢀ↷ࡽࡍ⠊ᅖࡢ␗࡞ࡿග᫂ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡢ
࠺ࡕ᭱ࡶᑛ࠸ࡢࡣ஧⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡣᖖ࡟௖ࡢᕥྑ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ┿ᐇࡢㄽ㆟㸦㸽㸧࡟ຍ
ࢃࡾ௖࡟ౝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖ࡣᖖ࡟ࡇࡢ஧⳶⸃࡟┦ᑐࡋ࡚ᆘࡋࠊඵ᪉࡜ୖ᪉࣭ୗ᪉ࡢ༑᪉
ୡ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ㐣ཤࠊ⌧ᅾࠊᮍ᮶ࡢ஦᯶ࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋ௖ࡀࡇࡢ஧⳶⸃ࢆࡋ࡚༑
᪉࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓ᩘࡢ௖ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟⾜࠿ࡏࡼ࠺࡜ᮃࡵࡤࠊᙼࡽࡣࡓࡔࡕ࡟㣕⾜ࡋ࡚ࠊᙼࡽ
ࡀᮃࡴ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟㎺ࡾࡘࡃ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᙼࡽࡢ㣕⾜ࡢ㏿ࡁࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶ௖ࡢዴࡃ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊຬ⊛࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ୪ࡪࡶࡢࡀ↓࠸ࠋ⳶⸃ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍ேࡣほ㡢ࠊࡶ࠺୍ேࡢ⳶⸃ࡣໃ⮳
࡛࠶ࡿ24ࠋᙼࡽࡢග᫂࡜ᬛ្ࡣ᭱㧗࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᚋගࡣ௚᪉ࡢ༓ࡢ㡲ᘺᒣࡢ௖ᅜᅵࢆ
↷ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵᖖ࡟᫂ࡿ࠸ࠋ
ࠝ௚ࡢࠞㅖ⳶⸃ࡢᚋගࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ༓ⓒ୓൨㔛ࢆ↷ࡽࡋࠊ
㜿⨶₎ࡢᚋගࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ୐୔ࢆ↷ࡽࡍࠋ
௖࠸ࢃࡃࠊࠕࡶࡋୡ⏺ࡢேࠎࠊၿ⏨Ꮚ࡛࠶ࢀࠊၿዪே࡛࠶ࢀࠊⱞቃ࡟࠶ࡾࠊᐁྣࡢ
⾜࠸࡟ᜍࢀࢆ࡞ࡍ⪅ࠊᙼࡽࡀほ㡢⳶⸃࡜ໃ⮳⳶⸃࡟ᖐ౫ࡋࡉ࠼ࡍࢀࡤࠊ౛እ࡞ࡃⓙࠊ
ᩆࢃࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠖࠋ(T 362, 12: 308b9–22; cf. T 361, 12: 290a12–28)
23
24
T 362, 12: 303c12–15; cf. T 361, 12: 283a24–27 ࡶཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㏻ᖖࡢࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᙧࡢྡ⛠ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᨭ፝㏑ㆻ࡟ࡼࡿ㡢෗ (ࡶࡋࡃࡣࡑࢀࡽࡢ⑞㊧) ࡣࡸࡸ␗࡞ࡿᙧ࡛
࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⹭(⵹)ᶂர (cf. LokeĞvararƗja ࡢ㡢෗ᙧ࡛࠶ࡿᶂዀர⨶) ࡣࠊ࣮࢞ࣥࢲ࣮࣮ࣜᙧࡢ
Olo’iĞpara ࡢࡈ࡜ࡁᙧࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋほ㡢⳶⸃ࡢྡ⛠ࡢ࢖ࣥࢻㄒᙧ࡜ࡑࡢ₎ㄒᙧࡢၥ㢟ࡣ」㞧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ
࡛ࡣ❧ࡕධࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᦶヅ㑣⨆(Mohenabo)ࡣ MahƗnapatta ࡶࡋࡃࡣ MahƗsthƗmaprƗpta ࡟㏆ࡋ࠸ᙧࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢሙྜࡣ୍ᩥᏐḞⴠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
- 138 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
4. ᮶ࡿ࡭ࡁ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ⯡ᾖᵎࡣࠊほ㡢⳶⸃࡜ໃ⮳⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺ᚋ⥅⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㡰࡟ἲᗙࡀ⥅ᢎࡉࢀ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண඙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸸
௖࠸ࢃࡃࠊࠕ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡀᚋ࡟⯡ᾖᵎ࡟⮳ࡿ᫬ࠊほ㡢⳶⸃ࡀḟ࡟௖࡜࡞ࡾࠊ㐨ᬛࢆ㡿ᑟ
ࡋࠊᩍ࠼ࡢᖌ࡜࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋୡ⏺ࡑࡋ࡚ඵ᪉ࠊୖୗ࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ᩆ῭ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡢኳேࠊ
⻚㣕ࠊ⽸ືࡢ㢮ࡣⓙ௖ࡢᾖᵎ㐨ࢆᚓࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢၿ࡜⚟ᚨࡣࡲࡓ೧኱࡞ࡿᖌࠊ㜿
ᘺ㝀௖ࡢࡈ࡜ࡃ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᙼࡣ↓㔞ຕࡢ㛫ࠊ↓㔞ຕࡼࡾࡶࡉࡽ࡟ᩘ࠼ୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜
ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸᫬㛫࡟Ώࡗ࡚኱ᖌ࡜ྠࡌつ⠊㸦㸽㸧࡟␃ࡲࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ᫬ᙼࡣ
⯡ᾖᵎ࡟ධࡿࠋࡑࡢḟ࡟ᦶヅ㑣㖊㸦ໃ⮳㸧⳶⸃ࡀ௖࡜࡞ࡾ㸪㐨ᬛࢆ㡿ᑟࡋࠊᩍ࠼ࡢᖌ
࡜࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᙼࡀᩆ῭ࡍࡿேࠎ࡜ᙼࡢ⚟ᚨࡶࡲࡓ኱ᖌ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢࡈ࡜ࡃ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪
↓㔞ຕࡢ㛫㸪⯡ᾖᵎࡏࡎ࡟⤒඾㸦ࢲ࣐ࣝ㸧ࡢᴟࡵ࡚᫂ࡿ࠸㐨ࠊᴟࡵ࡚ၿ࡞ࡿᅜᅵࢆ㐃
⥥࡜஫࠸࡟ᢎཷࡋࠊᙼࠝᙼࡽ㸽ࠞࡢἲࡶࡲࡓࡇࡢ㐨࡟࠶ࡗ࡚Ọ㐲࡟㏵⤯࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ
ᴟࡲࡾࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ(T 362, 12: 309a14–24; cf. T 361, 12: 291a3–13)
ࡇࡢ㒊ศࡣᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡣ඲ࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
5. ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡟ఫࡍࡿேࠎࡀᙼࡽ၏୍ࡢ㛵ᚰᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡼࡾࡶࡴࡋࢁࠊᙼ
ࡽࡀ┦஫࡟஺ὶࢆࡶࡘⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢᅜᅵ࡟෌⏕ࡋࡓ୍ษࡢ↓ᩘࡢኳேࡓࡕࡣࠊ…኱㞟᭳ࢆ࡞ࡋࠊ୐ᐆụ࡟࠾࠸࡚
᮶㞟ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢேࠎࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ኱ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟ᆘࡍࠋᙼࡽࡣ⮬ࡽࡢ⚟ᚨ࡜ၿ⾜
ࢆ㝞࡭ࡿࠋྛ⮬ࡀ๓ୡࡢᐟ࿨࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ồ㐨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ᫬࡟ಖࡗ࡚࠸ࡓᡄ࡜⾜ࡗࡓၿἲࠊ౫ࡗ
࡚᮶ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࠊឡዲࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ⤒඾ࠊ⤒඾ࡢᬛ្࡜ࡑࡢ⾜ࡢຌᚨࢆㄝࡃࠋ… ேࠎࡣ஫࠸࡟♩
൤࡜࿴㡰ࢆ௨࡚ぢྜ࠸ࠊㄡࡶࡀ႐ࡧ࡟‶ࡕ࠶ࡩࢀࠊᬛ្࡜ຬẼࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ஫࠸࡟㐺ᛂࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ (T 362, 12: 311b14–24; cf. T 361: 12: 293b2–12).
6. ᴟᴦίᅵ࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿ⪅࡟ࡣࠊࡼࡾయ⣔ⓗ࡞୕ࡘࡢ༊ศࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ༊ศ࡟༶ࡋ࡚␗࡞ࡿ
⾜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཎᩥࡣࡇࡇ࡟ᘬ⏝ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ㛗ᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௒ࡇࡇ࡟せ⣙ࡍࢀࡤࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ
࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
➨୍㢮㸸 ฟᐙ⪅㸦ࢧࣥ࢞ࡢ୍ဨ㸧
᮲௳㸸㸦኱஌࡟ᚑ࠺㸧⳶⸃ࡢ఩ࠊ኱஌⤒ࢆཷᣢࡋࠊᩪᡄΎί࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊᴟᴦίᅵࠝ෌⏕ࠞ
࡟ᑓᚰࡍࡿ㸦࡜ࡃ࡟᫬㛫ⓗไ㝈ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࡝ࢀࡔࡅ▷ࡃ࡜ࡶࡼ࠸㸧ࠋ
⤖ᯝ㸸ክ୰࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࢆほࡌࠊ⮫⤊᫬࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡜ᑐ㠃ࡋࠊᴟᴦࡢ㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡟㏆ࡋ࠸ⶈ⳹
୰࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⠊␪࡟ᒓࡍࡿ⪅ࡀࠊ␲ᛕ࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
➨஧㢮㸸 ᅾᐙ⪅
᮲௳㸸ຌᚨࢆ✚ࡳ㸦ࡑࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡣᕸ᪋ࠊ౪㣴㸧ࠊᩪᡄΎί࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠝᴟᴦ࡬
ࡢ෌⏕࡟ࠞᑓᚰࡍࡿ㸦ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍᪥୍ኪ㸧ࠋ
139 --- 139
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
⤖ᯝ㸸ክ୰࡟࠾࠸࡚㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࢆほࡌࠊ⮫⤊᫬࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ໬㌟࡜ᑐ㠃ࡋࠊᴟᴦࡢⶈ⳹୰࡟
෌⏕ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⠊␪࡟ᒓࡍࡿ⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ␲ᛕ࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀࡓ⪅ࡣࠊⶈ⳹୰࡟෌⏕ࡋࡓᚋࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢ
௖ฎ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛500ᖺࡢ࠶࠸ࡔ୐ᐆ࡟Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓ㒔ᕷࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣᇛ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆవ
൤࡞ࡃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
➨୕㢮: ᅾᐙ⪅
᮲௳㸸ᩪᡄΎί࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠝᴟᴦ࡬ࡢ෌⏕࡟ࠞᑓᚰࡍࡿ㸦ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ᫨ኪ༑᪥ࡢ㛫㸧
ࠋ
⤖ᯝ㸸⮫⤊࡟㝿ࡋክ୰࡟ᴟᴦίᅵࢆほࡌࠊᴟᴦࡢⶈ⳹୰࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⠊␪࡟ᒓࡍࡿ⪅ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊ␲ᛕ࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀࡓ⪅ࡣࠊࡸࡣࡾ500ᖺࡢ㛫ࠊᗃ㛢ࢆవ
൤࡞ࡃࡉࢀࡿ25ࠋ
⣽㒊ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢ⣔⤫ࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡟ࡲࡳ࠼ࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᚩ࡙ࡅ
ࡽࢀࡿᆅ఩࠿ࡽࠊᜠᜨࡢࣄ࢚࣮ࣛࣝ࢟ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓฟᐙ⪅࡜ᅾ಑ಙ⪅
ࡢ༊ูࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡸࠊࡑࡋ࡚ྠࡌᅾ಑ಙ⪅࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶຌᚨࡢ㈨⣊ࢆᣢࡘ⪅࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸⪅࡜࡛ᕪู໬
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋ
ᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣ◚⥢ࡋࠊࡑࡢᕪู໬ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ኻࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
7. ึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ୰ᚰ࡜࿘⦕ᆅᇦࡢၥ㢟ࡀࡼࡾᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣ➨஧ࠊ➨୕㢮ࡢ␲࠸
ࢆᣢࡘ⪅ࡓࡕࡢ㐠࿨࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿࠋᴟᴦίᅵࡢ࿘⦕ࡢ㒔ᕷ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣせሰ㸦₎ヂ࡛ࡣࠕᇛࠖ㸧࡟ᅃ
ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࠊᴟᴦίᅵࡢ୰ᚰࡢ௖ฎ࡟⮳ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྔࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ500ᖺࢆ⤒ࡓᚋࠊ㍍᜼ࡢᚰ㸦vimƗnas㸧
ࡀྲྀࡾ㝖࠿ࢀ࡚ࡣࡌࡵ࡚ࠊ௚ࡢఫேࡢாཷࡍࡿ⛣ືࡢ⮬⏤ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ㸦ୖᥖࡢ6Ⅼ┠ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋྠ᫬࡟ࠊίᅵࡀ඲ࡃࡢᖹᆅ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣓࣮ࣝᒣࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ࠸࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ
࡞ࡃప࠸ᒣࠎࡸୣࡍࡽᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢୖࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ⳶ᥦᶞ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ఱࡽゝཬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ⳶ᥦᶞࡢᏑᅾࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8. ග᫂ࡀࡼࡾ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ⳶⸃࡜ኌ⪺ࡢᚋගࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡍ࡛࡟ヲࡋࡃゐࢀ
ࡓࡀࠊග᫂ࡢ㔜どࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢᨺග࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡀᗈ⠊ᅖ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊᴟᴦίᅵࡢᥥ෗ࡣ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢᨺගࢆࡶࡗ࡚ጞࡲࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ (T 362, 12:
302b20–303a2; cf. T 361, 12: 281c27–282b11)
26
ࠋ
25
ཎ඾࡛ࡣ㛗࠸ᩥ❶ࢆࡇࡇ࡛ࡣせ⣙ࡋ࡚♧ࡋࡓࠋཎ඾ࡢᑐᛂ㒊ศࡣࠕㄋ㢪ࠖࡢẁ( 362, 12: 301b14–c5 [➨ 5–7 㢪]; cf. T
361, 12: 281c2–9 [➨ 18–19 㢪ࡣᑐᛂࡋ࡞࠸]࡜ ࠕᡤ⾜ ⏕ࠖࢆ᫂࠿ࡍẁ(T 362, 12: 309c24–311a17; cf. T 361, 12:
291c14–293a6)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
26
㤶ᕝ (1984) pp.172-173 ࡢ㛵㐃㒊ศ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢻ࣐ࣛࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࡞༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿேࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᮏᩥ⊩࡛ࡣㅖᮏࡍ࡭࡚ࡀ
ᑐ↷୪⨨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
- 140 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ᮏ✏ࡢᚋ༙࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊLSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅඛ⾜◊✲࡛┳㐣ࡉ
ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓせ⣲࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡓࡔࠊ௚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡘࡲࡾSchopenࡀHuntingtonㄝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ၐ࠼ࡓࠊࠕᐇ㝿ࠊࡑࢀࠝࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭
ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࠞࡣ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢᴟᴦίᅵࡼࡾࡶጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ㺀ドᣐ㺁ࡣከ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺୺ᙇࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿27ࠋࡇࡢ୺ᙇࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣጁ႐ୡ⏺࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡶ▱ࡿᚲせࡀ
࠶ࡿࠋ
㜿㛹௖ࡢጁ႐ୡ⏺
ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㜿㛹௖ࡢ㸦ᩒ࠼࡚࿧ࡪ࡞ࡽࡤ㸧ึᮇಙ௮ࡢཎึࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠗ㜿
㛹షᅧ⥂ Ak‫܈‬obhyatathƗgatasyavynjha࠘ࢆཧ↷ࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡣ₎ヂ2✀࡜ࢳ࣋ࢵࢺヂ1✀ࡀ
⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋ
(1)ࠗష茢㜿㛹షᅧ⥂࠘ᨭ፝㏑ㆻ㸦Lokakৢema: 170–190ᖺ࡟ά㌍㸧ヂ: T 313.28
(2)ࠗ኱ᑌ✚⥂࠘
ࠕ୙ືዴ౗᭳ࠖ706-713ᖺ ⳶ᥦὶᨭ㸦Bodhiruci 693–713ᖺ࡟ά㌍㸧: T 310.6.29
(3) ’Phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa mi ’khrugs pa’i bkod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo 9ୡ
⣖ึ㢌 Jinamitra㸦຾཭㸧ࠊSurendrabodhi㸦ၿᖇむ㸧ࠊYe shes sdeヂ
⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㜿㛹௖࡜ࡑࡢቃᇦ࡛࠶ࡿጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᩥ⊩ࡢグ㏙ࢆ⥙⨶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃ30ࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ୖ㏙ࡋࡓ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢίᅵࡢㅖ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྠࡌᇶ‽ࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽẚ㍑᳨ウࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡛཮᪉ࡢ㢧ⴭ࡞ඹ㏻Ⅼࠊ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
1. ጁ႐ୡ⏺࡛ࡣዪᛶࡀ࠾ࡾࠊᶞᮌ࠿ࡽᐆ▼ࡸ⾰ࢆᛮ࠸ࡢࡲࡲ࡟ᡭ࡟ධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ≉㉁ࢆᣢ
ࡗ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᏊᐑࡼࡾㄌ⏕ࡍࡿࡀࠊ඲ࡃⱞࡋࡲ࡞࠸ (T 313, 11: 755c28–756a2,
756b3–15; T 310, 11: 105b23–27, 105c18–24 [cf. Chang 1983: 323, ┬␎㒊ศ࠶ࡾ])
31
ࠋ㜿㛹௖ࡀ❧ࡕ
ୖࡀࡗࡓࡾṌ࠸ࡓࡾࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡣ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶࠊࡲࡓேࠎࡢᐙ࡟ධࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࡶ㊊チ࠿ࡽ༓ᯛࡢⶈࡀἛ
ࡁฟ࡛ࡿ࡜グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡇࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣⶈ⳹໬⏕ࡣࡳࡽࢀࡎࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࡿ⪅ࡶ
グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㜿㛹௖ࡀ௚⏺࡟໬⌧ࡋࡓ㝿ࡶྠᵝ࡟ⶈࡀ㊊ඖ࠿ࡽ⌧ฟࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ (T 313,
11: 756c7–22; T 310, 11: 106a11–26 [cf. Chang 1983: 324]) ࠋ
2. ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⳶⸃࡜ඹ࡟ኌ⪺ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ AkTV ࡜LSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺࡛ࡣኌ⪺ࡢᏑᅾࡣࡉࡽ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛㔜どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡴࡋࢁࡇࢀࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢸ
27
Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50; 2005: 262, n. 50) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
ᨭ፝㏑ㆻヂฟ࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀṧࡿࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ 3 ୡ⣖ึ㢌࡟ᨵゞࡉࢀࡓ㒊ศࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ
㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾࡣᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋNattier (2008: 85̽86)ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
29
Chang (1983)ࡢⱥヂࡣࠊከࡃࡢ㔜せ⟠ᡤࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(ࡲࡓ┬␎㒊ศࡢ඲࡚ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸)ࠋ
Dantinne (1983) ࡣࢳ࣋ࢵࢺヂࢆᑐ↷ࡋࠊヲ⣽࡞ὀ㔘ࢆ௜ࡋࡓෑ㢌ࡢ 3 ❶ࡢࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒヂࢆࡋࡓࠋ
30
㜿㛹௖࡜ࡑࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤒඾ࡢグ㏙࡜ࡑࡢ௖ᩍྐୖ࡛ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿㄽ⪃࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ Nattier (2000)ࠋ
Kwan (1985) ࡶ᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
31
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ₎ヂࡢࡳࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿࠋ
28
141 --- 141
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿグ㏙ࡍ࡭࡚࡟௘⣽࡞ㄽཬࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣ
෕㛗࡟࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ≉࡟T 313, 11: 756c24–758a15; T 310, 11: 106a28–107a6 [cf. Chang
1983: 325–326] ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺస⪅ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኌ⪺ീࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ
࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᐃ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃẚୣ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣẚୣᑽ࠿㸧࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜᝿ീࡉࢀࡿࠋ
⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࡑࡢከࡃࡀฟᐙ㐟⾜⪅㸦pravrajitas㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ⟠ᡤ
ࡶぢཷࡅࡽࢀࠊ࡞࠿࡟ࡣᐙᗞࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢࡶ࠸ࡿ (T 313, 11: 758b27–c9; T 310, 11: 107b16–24 [cf.
Chang 1983: 328]) ࠋኌ⪺࡜⳶⸃ࡢඹ㏻ᛶࡸ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣグ㏙ࡀࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⤖ㄽࢆୗ
ࡍ࡟㊊ࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸦cf. ௨ୗ6Ⅼ┠㸧ࠋ
3. 㜿㛹௖࡟ࡣ୧⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
4. 㜿㛹௖ࡢ⯡ᾖᵎ๓ᚋ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊLSukh࡛☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡞㐃⥆
ࡋࡓ➽᭩ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㜿㛹௖ࡣ⯡ᾖᵎࡍࡿ๓࡟㤶㇟㸦Gandhahastin㸧⳶⸃࡟ᙼࡢ
ቃᇦࡣጁ႐ୡ⏺࡜ྠᵝ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᤵグࢆᤵࡅࡿ (T 313, 11: 760b20–761b24; T 310, 11:
109a7–c22 [cf. Chang 1983: 330–332]) ࠋࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡢྡ๓ࡀᩥ⊩ୖ࡛⾲ࢀࡿࡢࡣࡇࡢ⟠ᡤࡢࡳ࡛࠶
ࡿ㸦cf. 3Ⅼ┠㸧ࠋ
5. ጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟ఫࡍࡿ⪅ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࡣయ⣔໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㛵ᚰࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ㜿㛹௖࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6. ෌⏕ࡋࡓ⚄ࠎ࡜ேࠎࡢ㛫࡟༊ูࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⚄ࠎ࡜ேࠎࡣྠᵝࡢ႐ࡧ㸦⾰㢮ࠊ㣧㣗≀ࠊ⿦㣭ရ㸧ࢆ
ாཷࡋࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡛ேࠎࡣ⚄ࠎࢆ⩎ࡴࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ⚄ࠎࡼࡾຎࡗࡓᏑᅾ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ (T 313, 11:
755b26–c4; T 310, 11: 105c1–2 [cf. Chang 1983: 323]; 108b13–16 [cf. Chang 1983: 330], 112b15–19
[Chang 1983࡛ࡣ┬␎]) ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊእぢୖࠊ⚄ࠎ࡜ேࠎ࡟᫂☜࡞༊ูࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
7. ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ✵㛫㓄⨨ࡣᴟᴦίᅵࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ࠿ࡅ㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡣᖹᆠ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
㡲ᘺᒣࢆࡩࡃࡵ࡚ᵝࠎ࡞ᒣࡀ࠶ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊ㜿㛹௖ࡀࡑࡢୗ࡛ᝅࡾࢆ㛤ࡁࠊ௒⌧ᅾࡶㄝἲࢆ⾜
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿᕧ኱࡞⳶ᥦᶞࡀ࠶ࡾ32ࠊ₎ヂࡢグ㏙࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ㝵ẁ≧ࡢࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢ࿘ᅖ࡟࠶ࡿ
(T 313, 11: 755b26–c4; T 310, 11: 105a28–b4 [cf. Chang 1983: 322]) ࠋT 313࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀ࡟ࠕḍᴙࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺㄒvedikƗࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢᕧ኱࡞ᵓ㐀≀ࡣࡑࡢ࿘
ᅖࡀ4࣮ࣚࢪࣕࢼࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ560㔛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭱ࡶ㢧ⴭ࡞ᙧ⪋ୗࡢ≉ᚩࡣ⚄ࠎࡢୡ⏺࡜ே㛫
⏺ࢆ⤖ࡪᕧ኱࡞୕ࡘࡢ㝵ẁࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ(T 313, 11: 757a28–b14; T 310, 11: 106c1–15 [cf.
Chang 1983: 325–326])
33
ࠋ
8. ጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㜿㛹௖ࡢග᫂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᗄᗘ࠿⡆༢࡟ゝཬࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚
ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ (e.g. T 313, 11: 755b26–c4; T 310, 11: 110a4–7 [cf. Chang 1983: 332]) ࠋ
32
33
ࡇࡢⅬࡣᙜヱࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟᫂☜࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ☜ᐃⓗ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡇࡢ୕➽ࡢ㝵ẁࡣࠊゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃ௖ఏ࡟Ⓩሙࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞ࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢወ㊧㆓࡜ࡣࠊ㔘㏑ࡀ୕༑୕
ኳ(TrayastriূĞa)࡛ẕ࡟ㄝἲࡋࡓᚋࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ㝆ୗࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ୕㐨ᐆ㝵㝆ୗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
- 142 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࠗ⥔ᦶ⤒࠘࡟ࡣጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢㅖ≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᱾ᴫࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ34ࠋ
ࡑࡢ࡜ࡁࠊࣜࢵࢳࣦࣕ࢕ࡢࣦ࢕࣐࣮ࣛ࢟ࣝࢸ࢕ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࡗࡓࠋ㺀ࡇࡇ࡟ᆘࡋࡓࡲ
ࡲ࡛ࠊᆘࢆ❧ࡘࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ࠿ࡢጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ㢧⌧ࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋⓒ༓ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࠊኳࠊ㱟ࠊ
᳃ࡢ㟋㸦ࣖࢡࢩࣕ㸧ࠊ ࢞ࣥࢲࣦࣝ࢓ࠊ࢔ࢫࣛࡀఫࡳࠊࡑࡇࡣ㕲ᅖᒣ࡟ᅖࡲࢀࠊᕝࠊụࠊ
ἨࠊἙࠊᾏ⁁ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࣓࣮ࣝᒣࡢᓠࡸୣࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥᭶ᫍ㎮ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊኳࠊ㱟ࠊ᳃ࡢ㟋ࠊ
࢞ࣥࢲࣦࣝ࢓ࡢᐑẊ࠶ࡾࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮⚄ࡢᐑẊ࡜╍ᒓࡀ࠾ࡾࠊᮧ࣭⏫࣭ᕷ࣭ᅜ࣭ᅜᅵ
ࡢேࠎࡀ࠾ࡾࠊዪࡢ㤋ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⳶⸃ࠊኌ⪺㸦ĞrƗvakas㸧ࡓࡕࡢ㞟఍ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᝅࡗࡓ᪉ࠊ
㜿㛹௖ࡢ⳶ᥦᶞࢆࠊࡲࡓࠊᾏࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ࡁ࡞㞟఍࡟ᆘࡋ࡚ἲࢆㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㜿㛹௖ࢆࠊ
ࡲࡓ༑᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚⾗⏕ࡓࡕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚௖㝀ࡢാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢⶈ⳹ࢆ35ࠊࡲࡓ㜅ᾋᥦ
࠿ࡽ୕༑୕ኳࡢᐑẊࡲ࡛᥃ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ୕ࡘࡢᐆ▼࠿ࡽᡂࡿᲓᏊࢆࠋࡑࡢᲓᏊ࡟ࡼࡾ⚄ࠎ
ࡀᝅࡗࡓ᪉࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ♩ᣏࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⤥௙ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㝆ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋᑐࡋ࡚ே
㛫ࡓࡕࡀ୕༑୕ኳࡢ⚄ࠎ࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᲓᏊࢆୖࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⚾ࡢྑᡭ࡛ࠊィࡾ▱ࢀ࡞
࠸ຌᚨࢆഛ࠼ࡓ඲ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆỈ㠃࠿ࡽ࢔࢝ࢽࢩࣗࢱኳࡢᐑẊࡲ࡛ࠊ㝡ⱁᐙࡀྎ࠿ࡽ㎆
㎜ࢆ㞳ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ษࡾྲྀࡗ࡚ࠊࡲࡿ࡛⳹㨆ࢆࡉࡉࡆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢୡ⏺࡟⨨࠸࡚ࠊࡇ
ࡢ㞟఍ࡢⓙ࡟ࡳࡏ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
Კᩥࠗ⥔ᦶ⤒࠘(VkN) ࡢࡇࡢグ㏙ࡣࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡀ࠸࠿࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ
㔜せ⟠ᡤࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍ᒙ᭷⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠿࡛ࡶ⫈⾗ࡢከᵝᛶࠊዪᛶࡢᏑᅾࠊᖹᆠ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
ᆅໃࠊ୰ኸ࡟࠶ࡿᕧ኱࡞⳶ᥦᶞࠊ୕㐨ᐆ㝵ࡢᵓ㐀ୖࡢヲ⣽࡟ࡣ␃ពࡋࡓ࠸36ࠋ
ጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᚋ࡯࡝෌ᗘゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡀṔྐⓗ࡟ࡳ࡚࠸
࠿࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡟␃ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋSchopen (1977) ࡀ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡜ጁ႐ୡ
⏺ࡣ඾ᆺⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢࣃࣛࢲ࢖࣒ࡢᙳ㡪ຊࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ
ᾋ᙮ࡀ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀࡓࡔࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣゎỴࡋᚓࡎࠊᴟᴦίᅵࡸጁ႐
ୡ⏺࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓᩥ⊩ⓗ඾ᣐ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ⪃ྂᏛⓗぢᆅࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௚ࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢᅗീ࡜㐀ᙧୖࡢ⾲⌧
ఏ⤫ࢆໟᣓࡋࡓ⥲ྜⓗぢᆅ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡳ࠼࡚ࡃࡿࠋᩥ⊩/ᅗീࡢၥ㢟࡟ᡠࡿ๓
࡟ࠊᾋ᙮⾲⌧ࡢㅖ┦ࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺ࠋ
34
௨ୗࡢグ㏙ࡣࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ 11 ❶ (Study Group 2006: 112–113) ࡟ࡼࡿࠋⱥヂࡣ Mangalam Translation Group ࡟ࡼ
ࡿⲡ᱌࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋࡇࡢⲡ᱌ࡣ⌧ᅾ Luis Gómez ࡜➹⪅࡜࡛ฟ∧࡟ྥࡅ࡚⦅㞟୰࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
35
ࡇࡇ࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⶈ⳹ࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ㜿㛹௖ࡀ௚ࡢୡ⏺࡟໬⌧ࡍࡿ㝿࡟㊊チ࡟⏕ࡌࡿⶈ⳹࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ (ᮏᩥୖ㏙ࡢ
1 ࢆཧ↷)ࠋ
36
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡣḟࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ୍ᒙጇᙜ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡝ࡢᥥ෗ࡶࠊ⯋
⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ௨ୖ࡟ࠊ୕㐨ᐆ㝵㝆ୗ࡜ࡼࡾከࡃࡢඹ㏻Ⅼࢆᣢࡘࠋ㝆ୗࡢ࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࡢᅗീࡀጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢᥥ෗࡟኱ࡁ
࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ༑ศ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ⳶ᥦᶞࢆྲྀࡾᅖࡴᕧ኱࡞ḍᴙ(vedikƗ )ࡣࠊึ
ᮇ࢖ࣥࢻࡢ᐀ᩍ൤♩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪷ᶞࡢ⪷ᇦࢆ♧ࡍቃ⏺࡟⏤᮶ࡋࠊ࠿ࡘᙜ᫬ࡢᅗീⓗ࠾ࡼࡧᘓ⠏ⓗ⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆࡶ♧ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
143 --- 143
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
4. 㐀ᙧୖࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟᳨ウࡋࡓᩥ⊩ྐᩱࡢⓎ㐩ࡢ࡞࠿࡛⥥ᐦ࡞ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓ࠿࡞ࡾࡢྍኚᛶ
࡜ከᵝᛶࡣࠊྠᵝ࡟どぬⓗ࡞㐀ᙧ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼࣜ
࣮ᾋ᙮ࡀከᵝ࡞⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢどⅬࡢࡳ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆᵓ
ᡂࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞せ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ཬࡧࡑࡢከࡃࡢ㛵㐃ࡍࡿస౛ࡢ᭱ࡶ㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩࡣࠊኊ㯇࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ⾲⌧
࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௖㝀ࡢΎίᛶ࡜ወ㊧ⓗ࡞ຊࢆ㇟ᚩࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭱ึᮇࡢ௖ീ⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊ
ᆘീࠊ❧ീ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡣࢡࢩ࣮ࣕࣥᮅୗࡢ࣐ࢺࢗ
࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖ീ࡟ࡶぢฟࡉࢀࡎࠊࢢࣉࢱᮅ⨾⾡࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛ࡉ࠼⛥࡛࠶ࡿ37ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ࢔࣮
ࣥࢻࣛ⨾⾡ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࢔࣐࣮ࣦࣛ࢓ࢸ࢕࣮㸦AmarƗvatƯ㸧ࡸࢼ࣮࣮࢞ࣝࢪࣗࢼࢥࣥࢲ㸦NƗgƗrjunako৆ঌa㸧ࠊ
࿘㎶ࡢ㑇㊧࡟ከࡃࡳࡽࢀࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡣࡇࡢᆅᇦ࡛ࡣ2ୡ⣖࠿3ୡ⣖ึ㢌௨㝆ࡢࠊே㛫ࡢጼࢆ࡜ࡗࡓ᭱ึ
ᮇࡢ௖ീࡢฟ⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡇࡢ࢔࣮ࣥࢻࣛᆅ᪉࡛ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࡣ୺࡟❧ീࡢሙྜ࡟
ࡳࡽࢀ38ࠊ୍᪉ࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࡓ௖ീࡣ⛥࡛࠶ࡿ39ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢼ࣮࣮࢞ࣝࢪࣗࢼࢥࣥࢲ➨9ᆎ࡛ࡣኰ
ࡋ࠸ᩘࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡀⓎぢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࡑࡢୖࠊࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃ࡛ࡉ࠼ࠊ୍㈏ࡋ࡚஧㔜ࡢⶈྎࢆ᭷
ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢᅗീⓗ≉ᚩࡀ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡿᖺ௦ࢆ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋStone (1994: 37–58) ࡀ
ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ➨9ᆎࡣࠊ㛵㐃ࡍࡿ➨6ᆎ࡜ྠᵝ࡟3ୡ⣖ࡢ➨2ᅄ༙ᮇ࡟㝯┒ࡋጞࡵࡓ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊStone (1994: figs. 100, 118) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚බหࡉࢀࡓ⢒㞧࡞⾲⌧ࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࡓ஧యࡢ௖ീ
ࡶࡇࡢ2ᆎ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊJoseph Walser (2002: 250–62; 2005: 79–87)ࡀ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟௖ീࢆ㓄ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂グࡍࡿ㱟ᶞ㸦NƗgƗrjuna㸧ࡢࠗᐆ⾜⋤ṇㄽ RatnƗvalƯ࠘(III.31–32)
ࡀࠊࡶࡋᐇ㝿࡟ࡇࡢᆅ᪉࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡜㛵ಀࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢᩥ⊩ࡶ᪩ࡃ࡚ࡶ3ୡ⣖ࡢ➨2
ᅄ༙ᮇ࡟ᖐࡏࡽࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺40ࠋ
37
Devnimori ฟᅵࡢ௖ീ (5 ୡ⣖ึ㢌) ࡸ 5 ୡ⣖ࡢࢧ࣮ࣝࢼ࣮ࢺ௖࡟ྠᵝࡢ౛ࡀぢฟࡏࡿ (౛࠼ࡤ Williams, 1983: figs.
57, 90, 92 ࢆཧ↷)ࠋ
38
౛࠼ࡤ Stone (1994: figs. 22, 112, 115, 145, 152, 153) ࠋ❧ീࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡣ௖㊊▼(buddhapƗda) ࡢ㊊㍕ࡏྎ࡜㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㊊㍕ࡏྎࡣᮏ᮶ṇ᪉ᙧࡔࡗࡓࡀ(e.g., all examples in Knox 1992) ⶈ⳹ࡢᙧ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿ(e.g., Stone 1994: figs. 91, 92)ࠋࡑࡋ
࡚௖ఏᅗ࡛ࡣ௖㊊▼ࡀ♩ᣏࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(e.g. Knox 1992: nos. 12, 70, 72 ࡸ Stone 1994: figs. 176, 177 ࢆཧ↷) ࡇ࡜࡜ࡶ
㛵㐃ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ኱ⱥ༤≀㤋ⶶࡢ஧ࡘࡢ௖ሪᾋ᙮(drum slabs)࡛ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢⶈྎୖࡢ௖ീࡣそ㖊㒊࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓࠕ➃ṇ࡞
ࡿࢼࣥࢲ(Saundarananda)ࠖ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྠㄝヰᅗࡢ୍ሙ㠃୰࡟ࡶⶈྎ࡟❧ࡘ௖㝀ࡢጼࡀ┳ྲྀࡉࢀࡿ(࢔࣮ࣖ࢝
࣮ᰕࡢᕥ᪉஧ࡘ┠ࡢሙ㠃㸸Sivaramamurti 1942: pl. lxiii, 2 ࡶཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸) ࠋ
39
ᆘീ࡜❧ീࡢᕪ␗ࡣ᭱㏆Ⓨ᥀ࡉࢀࡓ࢝ࣥ࢞ࣥࣁࣜ㑇㊧࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓస౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢస౛࡛ࡣ
㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ᘺີ(ࡇࡢẚᐃࡣྠస౛࡟้ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㖭ᩥࡢ Oskar von Hinüber ࡟ࡼࡿゎㄞ࡟㈇࠺) ࡣ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࡀࠊ஧యࡢ❧ീࡣⶈྎୖ࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
40
ᙜ↛ࡇࢀࡣ඲ࡃࢼ࣮࣮࢞ࣝࢪࣗࢼࡢᖺ௦࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋWalser ࡣࠊ௖㝀ീ࡟ⶈྎࡀకࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊࢧ࣮
ࢱࣦ࢓࣮ࣁࢼᮅࡢࣖࢪࣗࢼ࣭ࢩ࣮࣭ࣗࣜࢩ࣮ࣕࢱ࢝ࣝࢽ⋤࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ㖭ᩥࡢ้ࡲࢀࡓูࡢࣃࢿࣝࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊྠ⋤
ࡢ἞ୡ࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ⶈྎ㸭ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ๰ጞࢆᖺ௦௜ࡅࠊ
ࠗᐆ⾜⋤ṇㄽ࠘ࡢᖺ௦ࢆ≉ᐃࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ୧ࣃࢿࣝ
ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡣᕼ࡛ⷧ࠶ࡾࠊWalser ࡢ᳨ウࡣㄝᚓຊ࡟Ḟࡅࡿࠋ
- 144 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊRhi (2003: 166–171) ࡀ♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ3ୡ⣖ᚋ༙࡟➊ἲㆤ㸦Dharmarakৢa㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚₎ヂ
ࡉࢀࡓ୍㐃ࡢ኱஌௖඾ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ௖ീࡢᐤ㐍ࡣࠊ⳶⸃⾜ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟ᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡑࡢᙜ᫬ࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸦ࡇࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡉࡽ࡞ࡿᣦ᦬࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸㸧ࠋ
⯋⾨ᇛࡢ኱⚄ኚ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧㱟⋤ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࢼࣥࢲ࡜࢘ࣃࢼࣥࢲ࡟ࡼࡾ๰ࡽࢀࡓⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀ
ࡓ㸦ࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡢ㸧ඃ఩ᛶࡣࠊࡇࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟㛵㐃ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࡑࡢ※ὶ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ
ࡀࠊ஧㱟⋤ࡀ୧⬥࡟ౝࡍࡿⶈ⳹ᗙࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶࡇࡢ⚄ኚࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶࡲࡓ
஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⓎᒎ㐣⛬࡛࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ௖㝀ࡀᆘࡍኊ㯇࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙࢆወ㊧ⓗ࡟๰ࡾฟࡍ஧
㱟⋤ࡢࠊ᝿ീຊ࡟ᐩࢇࡔᅗീࡣᴟࡵ࡚᭷ពᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟௚ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ
ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ⨾⾡ྐࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ࠸࠼ࡤࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣽㒊ࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟୺㢟ẚᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ㄗ
ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㐀ᙧࡢⓎᒎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶዲ౛࡜࡞ࡿᅗീࡀᣢࡘຊࡶࡲࡓࠊ㐣ᑠホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵ
ࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ஧ேࡢࢼ࣮࢞ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ୍⤌ࡢ⏨ዪ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ⫼㠃ほ࡛ⶈⱼࡢྑഃ࡟
㓄ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀዪᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ㸦ᅗ4㸧࠿ࡽࠊ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧㱟⋤࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࡲࡓࠊᙼࡽࡣ௖㝀࡟ⶈ⳹ࡢⰼࢆᩓ⳹ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᐆ▼࡛㣭ࡽࢀࡓⶈⱼ࡜ᐦ᥋࡞㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟
ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁⶈⱼ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣᙼࡢࡍࡄྑ࡟࠸ࡿࡶ࠺୍ேࡢ⏨ᛶ࡛ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᙼࡣⶈ
ⱼࢆⲮཝࡍࡿᐆ▼࡜㛵㐃ࡢ࠶ࡿࣖࢡࢩࣕ㸦yakৢa㸧࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋྑᡭ࡟ࣜࣗࢺࣥ≧ࡢࡶࡢࢆᇳࡿᙧ࡛
⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᑐᑛ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢዪᛶࡀ཯ᑐഃ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ⬚๓࡛ྜᤸ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺ᡭࡣ⌧ᅾḞᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ41ࠋ
࠸࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡾ㔜せ࡞ࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢⶈ
⳹࡜ᗄከࡢᑠ᣺ࡾࡢⶈ⳹ࡀ⦾ⱱࡍࡿⶈụ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⶈụࡣᾋ᙮ᇶቭ඲ᇦࢆ༨ࡵࠊⶈ⳹ࡣࡑࡢ඲య࡟ࢃ
ࡓࡗ࡚⩌⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠿࡟ࡣ࢔ࣄࣝࡸ㨶ࠊࡶ࠺୍⤌ࡢ㱟⵹ࢆࡶࡘ⏨ዪࡢጼࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡼ
ࡃほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿᵓᡂせ⣲ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௖ᅜᅵࢆ㢧⌧ࡍࡿྑ᪉ࡢ௖㝀ࢆ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚㝖ࡅࡤࠊࡍ
࡭࡚࡟࠾࠸࡚௖㝀ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᴫᛕⓗ࡟ࡣࡇࡢⶈụ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜
ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ42ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᾋ᙮ᇶቭ࡟ⶈụࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣ㏻ᖖࠊ୰ኸࡢ୺ᑛࡢ㢌ୖ࡟࠿ࡊࡍ≉Ṧ࡞ᶞᮌࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࣁ࣮ࢺᆺࡢⰼᘚࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⳶ᥦᶞ࡜ࡶ␗࡞ࡾࠊ᳜≀Ꮫⓗ࡟㆑ูࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢᶞ
ᮌࡣ኱㒊ศࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ⰼᘚ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣ୰ኸࡢ⎔࠿ࡽᨺᑕୖ࡟ᘏࡧࡿⴥ≧ࡢᑠᯞ㸧࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ┿⌔ࡢ⎔ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ௖㝀࡟ⰼ⥘ࡸ౪≀ࢆᤝࡆᣢࡘே≀ࡀୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᅗ5㸧ࠋᚋ
⪅ࡢሙྜࠊⰼᘚࡶࡋࡃࡣᯞⴥࡣࢫ࣮࢝ࢺࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ43ࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶞᮌ
41
๓㏙ࡋࡓึᮇࡢ෗┿࡛ࡣࠊᙼዪࡢ୧ᡭࡀ᏶Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿ (ᅗ 2 ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸) ࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊ≉࡟ྠᵝࡢࠊⶈⱼ࡟ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞᙮้ࡀ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࠊࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝฟᅵࡢ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶⶈụ
ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࢆࡳࢀࡤࠊࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ᾋ᙮ୖ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿⶈ⳹ࡣỈ㠃ࡲ࡛ఙࡧࡿ࠿࡞ࡾ
㛗࠸ⱼ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ༢⣧࡟㐲㏆ἲࡢᡤ௨࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋᵓᅗࢆỈᖹ࡟ࡍࢀࡤࠊ୺ᑛ
ࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࢆᨭ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ௚ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢⱼࡣྠࡌ㛗ࡉ࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
43
Ingholt (Lyons & Ingholt 1957: figs. 366, 368) ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢⰼᘚ࠿ࡽୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧ࡍே≀ീࢆ࢟ࣥࢼࣛ (kinnaras) ࡜ゎ㔘
42
145 --- 145
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࢆᐆᶞ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᶞᮌࡣⶈụ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᾋ᙮࡟ࡣ୙ྍḞࡢせ⣲࡛࠶
ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊ୧⬥ౝ࡟⳶⸃ീࢆ㓄ࡋࡓ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖୕ᑛീࠊస౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࡇࢀࡽ࡟๪ḟⓗ࡞ே≀
ࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞௖୕ᑛീ࡟ࡶࡇࡢᶞᮌࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࠊⶈụࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡶୖ
㒊࡟ᶞᮌࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦e.g., ᅗ6ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟స౛ࡣᴟࡵ࡚ᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ
᙮ࡢ࡞࠿ࡢ๪ḟⓗ࡞ே≀ࡀࠊඛ㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ே≀ീࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ᐆᶞࡢୗ࡛ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦e.g.,
ᾋ᙮2㸧ࠋ
୕ᑛᙧᘧࡢᵓᡂ
୺ᑛࡀᕥྑ࡟❧ീࡢ⬥ౝࢆక࠺୕ᑛᙧᘧࡣࠊึᮇࡢ௖ീ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࡳࡽࢀࠊᚋୡࡢᐦᩍ࡟ࡶᘬࡁ⥅
ࡀࢀࡿࠋ࣐ࢺ࣮ࢗࣛ㸦MathurƗ㸧⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿึᮇࡢ௖ീ࡛ࡣࠊᕥྑ࡟ᡶᏊࢆ࡜ࡿ஧ேࡢᚑ⪅ࡀ⾲
ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࡢ᭱ึᮇࡢ௖ീ࡛ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࡜࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡀᕥྑ࡟㓄ࡉ
ࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᡂࡣᚋࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟ࡳࡿᕥྑ࡟⳶⸃ࢆ㓄ࡍࡿ୕ᑛᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ
஧⳶⸃ࡣࠊḟࡢ஧⣔⤫ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㧥ࢆ8ࡢᏐ≧࡟⤖ࡪ㸦ᐆෙ࡞࡝ఱࡶᡝ࠿࡞࠸㸧ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖
ࣉ࡜ࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ᖖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊඛ㏙ࡢ࢖ࣥࢻ⏤᮶ࡢ2⚄࡜ࡢ㛵
㐃ᛶࡀ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳࡽࢀࡿ44ࠋ⫗ཌࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ୧⬥ౝ࡟❧ീࡢ⳶⸃ࢆ㓄ࡍࡿㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീ࡜
࠸࠺୕ᑛᙧᘧࡢᵓᡂࡣࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢࡼࡾ⡆⣲࡞ࣦ࢓࣮ࢪࣙࣥ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢึᮇⓗ࡞ᅗീࢆ♧
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୕ᑛᙧᘧࡇࡑከࡃࡢ≉ᚩࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࿘▱ࡢࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝࡢᪧ࣐ࣝࢺ࣮ಶேⶶࡢ5ᖺᅾ㖭௖୕ᑛീ㸦⌧᪥ᮏ࣭㜿ྵ᐀ⶶ㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㢮ࡢ୕
ᑛᙧᘧ45ࡢᖺ௦࡜஧⳶⸃ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᅗ6㸧ࠋࡇࡢ௖୕ᑛീ࡛ࡣࠊ୺ᑛ
࡜୧⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ㛫࡟࢖ࣥࢻࣛ࡜ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡀୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧ࡋࡓጼ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
⳶⸃ീࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿୍᪉࡜ᅗീⓗ࡞㛵㐃ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞୕ᑛᙧᘧࡣಖᣢࡉࢀࠊ୺ᑛࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣᖖ࡟ඛ㏙ࡢ஧⣔⤫ࡢ
⳶⸃❧ീࡀ኱ࡁࡃ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ⳶⸃ീࡣ୕ᑛᙧᘧ࡟ࡳࡓᅗീ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿᾋ᙮స౛ࡶ
࠶ࢀࡤࠊ୍᪉ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡿ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚௖㝀࡟ౝࡍᵝ┦ࡢᾋ᙮ࡶࡳ
ࡋࠊᙼࡽࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿⰼࠎࢆⶈ⳹࡜ࡳࡓࠋࡇࡢⰼࠎࡢẚᐃ࡟ࡣ⿬௜ࡅࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࢟ࣥࢼࣛࡀᮌࡢⴥࡢࢫ࣮࢝
ࢺࢆ╔ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࡑࢀ࡞ࡾ࡟᰿ᣐࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࠋZin (2003: 1, 189–197) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ
LSukh ࡣ࢟ࣥࢼࣛࡀᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣㄒࡽ࡞࠸Ⅼ (LSukh ୰ࡢ࢟ࣥࢼࣛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ 2 ⟠ᡤࡢグ㏙࡛ࡣࠊᙼ➼ࡣ㜿
ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ௖ᅜᅵࡢእ࡟࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ) ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊྠ✀ࡢே≀ീࡀ㢌ගࢆకࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ」ྜᆺ
ᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡣ Zin (esp. p. 195, n. 56) ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ド࡜ࡋ࡚␃ពࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋఱࢀ
࡟ࡏࡼࠊᐑ἞ (Miyaji 1993: 254) ࡶᙼ➼ࢆ࢟ࣥࢼࣛ࡟ẚᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
44
ᚋᮇ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ௖୕ᑛീ࠾ࡼࡧ୧⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡢẚᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ≉࡟ Rhi (2006) ཬࡧ Miyaji (2008)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ
࠸ࠋ
45
ࡇࡢࠕ5 ᖺ㖭ࠖࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࢡࢩ࣮ࣕࣥᮅᮇ࡟ᒓࡋࠊすᬺ 232 ᖺ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ̿ࢡࢩ࣮ࣕࣥᮅᮇࡢ 3 ୡ⣖୰̿すᬺ 332
ᖺ࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋ
Fussman (1999: 546) ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢡࢩ࣮ࣕࣥᮅࡢ᭱ึࡢ 100 ᖺ㛫࡟㐳ࡾᚓࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㖭ᩥ࠾ࡼࡧ㛵㐃ᩥ⊩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ http://gandhari.org/, inscription number CKI0232 ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
- 146 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣ୧⬥ౝࡣ኱ࡁࡉࠊ㓄⨨࡜ࡶ࡟ࡑࢀ࡯࡝┠❧ࡓࡎࠊ≉ᐃࡢᣢ≀ࡸ༳┦ࡶ♧ࡉ࡞
࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮⮬యࡢ୺㢟࠿ࡽᑛྡࢆ᥎ᐹࡋ࡞࠸࠿ࡂࡾࠊಶࠎ࡟ẚᐃࡍࡿࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
≉ᐃࡢᣢ≀ࢆࡶࡘ⳶⸃ീ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᑛྡẚᐃࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࣈࣛࣇ
࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊึᮇࡢ௖ീࡢㄌ⏕௨㝆ࡲࡶ࡞ࡃࡋ࡚ᅗീࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓࠊᮍ᮶௖࡛࠶ࡿᘺີ
㸦Maitreya㸧ࡢᅗീ࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࠊᘺີࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚㛗࠸㢌㧥ࢆ⦆ࡃ᮰ࡡࠊỈ⎼ࢆᣢࡘ
ጼ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᅗീⓗ≉ᚩࡣࣂ࡛ࣛࣔࣥ࠶ࡗࡓᙼࡢ᭱ᚋ⏕ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋTaddei
(1969/2003) ࡀᴟࡵ࡚ㄝᚓຊࢆࡶࡗ࡚♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᘺີ⳶⸃ࡣࡑࡢᅗീ⾲⌧ࢆࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࡜ඹ᭷
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᪧࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝಶேⶶࡢ୕ᑛീ㸦ᅗ6㸧࡛ࡣࠊᘺີࡣ㸫࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜
ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࡀ㸫୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡢྑ⬥ౝ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟௖㝀ࡢ⫪ࡢ㎶ࡾࠊ࠿ࡘᘺີࡢࡍࡄ⫼
ᚋ࡟ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡶ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ46ࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࣛ㸭ࢩࣕࢡࣛ࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ2✀௨
ୖࡢ⳶⸃ࡀࡇࡢ⣔⤫࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍ᒙẚᐃࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ᭱ึᮇࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ௖ᩍ
⨾⾡࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ㏻ᖖᣢ≀ࢆᣢࡓࡎࠊྑᡭࢆ᪋↓⏽༳㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧࡜ࡋࠊᕥ
ᡭࢆ⭜࡟࠶࡚ࡿጼែ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㔘㏑⳶⸃࡜ࡳࡽࢀࠊ௖ఏᅗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡇࡢጼ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿ47ࠋᪧࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝಶேⶶࡢ௖୕ᑛീ㸦ᅗ6㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ
ࡇࡢ⣔⤫࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥࡢ๓❧࡟ᆘ௖ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ୺ᑛࡢᕥഃ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟
ࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ࠊ⊂≉ࡢᐆෙ㸦kirƯ‫ܒ‬a㸧ࢆᡝ࠸ࡓ࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ௚ࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡢᵓᡂࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣᆶୗࡋࡓᕥᡭ࡟ⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡿࡢࡀ୍⯡ⓗ
࡛ࠊࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡢẚᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣㅖㄝ⣮ࠎ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮍࡔỴ╔ࢆࡳ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⰼ⥘ࡢ
࡞࠿࡟ࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤୗ㒊࡟୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡿⰼࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊᚋ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡀⶈ⳹ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ࠊࣃࢻ࣐ࣃ࣮ࢽ
㸦PadmapƗ৆iࠊᇳⶈ⳹㸧ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕほ㡢⳶⸃࡟ẚᐃࡉࢀ࠺ࡿᑛ᱁࡬࡜ᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿ48ࠋ
௖୕ᑛീ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧⳶⸃ࡢ┦ᑐⓗ఩⨨௜ࡅ࠿ࡽࡳࡿ࡜ࠊᘺີ—ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶
⸃ീ—ࡣ୺ᑛࡢྑഃ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ㔜せ࡞఩⨨࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣึᮇࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ᙮้࡟
࠾ࡅࡿࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡢ఩⨨࡛ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᘺີࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࢆ୺ᑛࡢ
ྑഃ࡟㓄ࡍࡿ୕ᑛᙧᘧࡀࡸࡸ᪩ᮇ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᪧࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝಶேⶶ㸦ᅗ6㸧࡛ࡣࠊࣈࣛ
ࣇ࣐࣮࡜ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀྠᾋ᙮ෆࡢࠊ୺ᑛࡢྑഃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕほ⪅ࡢᕥ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋᾋ᙮ (ᚋᮇ࠿) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ୺ᑛࡢྑഃࡢࡼࡾ㔜
せ࡞఩⨨࡟ⰼ⥘࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⰼࢆࡶࡗࡓ⳶⸃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⳶⸃ࡢ㓄⨨ࢆࡵࡄࡿ
㌿᥮ࡣࠊᚋᮇࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᘺີࡀ୍⳶⸃࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢඃ㉺ᛶࢆኻࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍ
46
ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ⤫ィⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊMiyaji (2008: 127–131) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
㔘㏑⳶⸃ࡢࡇࡢ⊂≉࡞⾲⌧ࡣࠊ☜࠿࡟⇞⇠௖ᤵグ࡟ඛࡔࡘ௖ఏሙ㠃࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡢẚᐃ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋヲ⣽࡞᳨ウࡀಗࡓࢀࡿࠋ
48
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ⤫ィⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Miyaji (2008: 131–139) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽྠ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⰼ⥘࡜ⶈ⳹ࡢู࡟ࡼࡿศ㢮ࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
47
147 --- 147
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୺ᑛ࡜୧⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ീ㛫࡟ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡢୖ༙㌟ࢆ⾲ࡍ୕ᑛᙧ
ᘧ࡜ࡶఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⚄ࡀᅗീᏛⓗ࡟ᑐ⛠ⓗ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ⳶⸃ീࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ㸦ᅗ14ཧ↷㸧ࠋ
௨ୖࠊᴟࡵ࡚኱ࡲ࠿࡞඲యീࡢ⌮ゎ࡛ࠊᖺ௦ㄽ࡟ࡶ㋃ࡳ㎸ࡲ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖
୕ᑛീࡀ୍㈏ࡋ࡚஧⳶⸃ࢆ➼ࡋࡃ㓄ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡛
ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ┦⿵ⓗᛶ᱁ࡀࠊࡇࡢ஧⣔⤫ࡀᣢ
≀࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ஺஫࡟඲య࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶᾋ᙮඲ᇦࢆそࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ
࠿ࡿ49ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ⏬㠃ࡢᑐ⛠ᛶࡸᆒᩚ࡬ࡢᕤேࡢᙉ࠸㛵ᚰ࡟Ẽ௜࠿ࡉࢀࡿ࡯࡝࡟ࠊᛶᛴ࡞୺㢟ẚᐃ࡟
ࡣ༴㝤ᛶࡀక࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⳶⸃࡜௖
ᴫࡋ࡚ࠊึᮇ௖ᩍ⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿಶࠎࡢᑛྡẚᐃࡣࠊ☜ᅛ࡜ࡋࡓᐇド౛ࡼࡾࡶ◊✲⪅㛫ࡢ័⩦ⓗぢ
᪉࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚࠾࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠ
ࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ࡟ᴫほࡋࡓ⳶⸃ࡢᅗീ⣔⤫ࢆ㚷ࡳࢀࡤࠊᘺີ⳶⸃࡜㔘㏑⳶⸃ࡢẚᐃࡢࡳࡣ☜ᐃⓗ࡜࠸
ࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢẚᐃࡣ⾲⌧ୖࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡋ࠺ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⛥ᑡ࡞ࢥ࢖ࣥ
ࡢ้㖭ࡸ࡯ࡰྠ᫬௦ࡢ࣐ࢺ࣮ࢗࣛ⨾⾡ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ50ࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧⳶⸃ീ࠾ࡼࡧࡑ
ࢀࡒࢀࡢᖐᒓ㝵⣭ࡶ஧⣔⤫ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ༊ูࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢぢ᪉࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊᚋᮇ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௖୕ᑛീࡸ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟⾲
⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀྠᵝ࡟ᘺີ⳶⸃࡜ࡋ࡚ᚲࡎࡋࡶẚᐃࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព
࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤᪧࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝಶேⶶࡢ௖୕ᑛീ㸦ᅗ6㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ୧⬥ౝࡢ஧⳶
⸃ࡣ័⩦ⓗ࡟ࡣࡑࡢᅗീ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᘺີ⳶⸃࡜㔘㏑⳶⸃ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࠶ࡽࡺ
ࡿⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ஧⳶⸃ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ㸫ࡑࢀࡀఱ࡛࠶ࢀ㸫ࡢ⾲ࢀ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿ51ࠋ ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࡀࠊ୧⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃࡟≉ᐃࡢᣢ≀ࡀ
ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸௖୕ᑛീࡸ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊࡼࡾࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍⯡ⓗゎ㔘ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋୖ㏙ࡋࡓ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡣᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡿ஧⳶⸃ࡢẚᐃࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞୺㢟࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡢࡳྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⤖
ᯝⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ࠸࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃ௖ീࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࠊ࡯ࡰࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ௖ീࢆ㔘㏑௖࡜ࡋ
࡚ẚᐃࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢぢゎࡣึᮇ௖ᩍ⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐣ཤ୐௖ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ㐣ᑠホ౯ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊ௖
ᅜᅵࡢᴫᛕࡢฟ⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟సࡽࢀࡓ⌧ᅾ௖ࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ␃ពࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞
ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
49
୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ┦⿵ⓗ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Huntington (1980: 664–665)ࡶ╔┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㔘㏑⳶⸃ࡢᅗീẚᐃࡣከࡃࡢ௖ఏᅗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓᘺີࡢẚᐃࢆ❧ドࡍࡿࡢࡣ“MƝtrago Boudo”࡜グ
ࡉࢀࡿ࢝ࢽࢩࣗ࢝ 1 ୡⓎ⾜ࡢ㖡㈌ (Cribb, 1980, 1999; Huntington 1993; Tanabe 1993 ➼ཧ↷) ࡸ㖭ᩥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘺີ࡛
࠶ࡿ࡜᫂グࡉࢀࡓ࢔ࣄࢳࣕࢺ࣮ࣛฟᅵࡢ᭷ྡ࡞⳶⸃ീ࡛࠶ࡿ (Rosenfield 1967: 231 ➼)ࠋ
51
ࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᑓ㛛ⓗ◊✲ࡀಗࡓࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ୍⯡ⓗᴫᛕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡇࢀ௨ୖ㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡣ㑊ࡅࡿࠋ
50
- 148 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
⿬௜ࡅࡿ㈨ᩱࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㔘㏑௖௨๓ࡢභேࡢ㐣ཤ௖ࡢస౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡑ
ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ≀ㄒࡽࡏࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ඹ࡟ᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ࡣᩘ౛ࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦౛࠼ࡤᅗ10
ࡢᇶቭ㒊ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ᭱ึᮇࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢ௖ീ⾲⌧ࡣᙼࡽࡢ୪ࡧࢆᇶ‽࡟ಶࠎ࡟ุูࡍࡿࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣂ࣮ࣝࣇࢵࢺࡸ
ࢧ࣮ࣥࢳ࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐣ཤ௖⾲⌧ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⌧ᅾㄆ㆑ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼࡾࡶከᩘࡢࠊ㐣ཤ୐௖ࡀಶࠎ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜⪃࠼࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢱ࢟ࢩ
ࣛ㸦Taxila㸧ࡢࢪࣗࣜ࢔࣮ࣥ㸦JauliƗn㸧ࡢᚋᮇ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ㑇㊧࡛ࡣࠊD1 ሪࡢ஧యࡢ௖ീࡣ࣮࢝ࢩࣕ
ࣃ௖࡜ࠊ୕య┠ࡣ㔘㏑௖࡜ẚᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ52ࠋ ᩥ⊩ྐᩱࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠊࠗ㜿⪡㐩ụ㸦↓⇕ᝎụ㸧೦
㡴 AnavataptagƗthƗ࠘53 ࡣࠊ࣮࢝ࣟࢩࣗࢸ࢕࣮ᮏࡀⓎぢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊࡇࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
࡟࠾࠸࡚࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᩥ⊩࡛ࡣࠊࢡࢫ࣐࡜࠸࠺ൔࡀࠊᙼࡀ௖ᘵᏊ࡜࠸࠺⌧ᅾࢆᚓࡓࡢࡣ
ࣦ࢕ࣃࢵࢩࣥ௖ࡢ௖ሪ࡟⳹ࢆ౪㣴ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ54ࠋ ᡃࠎࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
㔘㏑௖ࡢࠊ⇞⇠௖ࡢ㠃๓࡛ࡢㄋ㢪ࡀ㢖⦾࡟⾲ࡉࢀࠊᅗീ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ55࡟ࡶ␃ពࡋ࡞ࡅࢀ࡞࡞ࡽ
࡞࠸ࠋ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞Ⅼࡣࠊ࣐ࢺ࣮࡛ࢗࣛࡣグᖺ㖭ࡢ࠶ࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ീࡀฟᅵࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡣࣇ࢕ࣦ
࢕ࢩࣗ࢝㸦Huviৢka㸧ࡢ26ᖺ࡜グࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡣ⌧ᅾࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ⣖ඖ153ᖺ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ
56
ࠋࡇࡢീࡣᇶቭࡢࡳ࡛❧ീࡢ௖㝀࡜ᕥ⬥ౝࡢ㊊㒊ศࡀ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓ௖㝀ࡣ㔘㏑௖ࡢࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ༑ศ࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ヰࢆᡠࡍࡀࠊ୺ᑛࡣᅗീᏛⓗ≉ᚩࡢࡳ࡛ࡣ᫂☜࡟ẚᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㔜せ࡞Ⅼࡣࠊࡑࡢ➨୍⩏ࡢάືࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄝἲࡢጼែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡲࡓ୺
ᑛ࡜ࠊ୺ᑛࢆྲྀࡾᅖࡴᆘീࡸ❧ീࡢࠊᐇ࡟⏕ࡁ⏕ࡁ࡜⾲ࡉࢀࡓ఍⾗ࢆ㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᙧᘧⓗ
࡞≉ᚩࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᴫࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊStella Kramrisch (1983) ࡀ࢔ࢪ
ࣕࣥࢱ࣮ቨ⏬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࣐ࢪ࢝ࣝ࣎ࢵࢡࢫ࡜࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡶࡢ࡟୍⩌ࡢᅗീࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┦஫
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡸ┦஫㛵ಀࡀ୍ᒙᙉࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋே≀ീࡢ┦஫㛵ಀ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࢆศ
ᯒࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊ⬥࡟ᩘከࡢᑠࡉ࡞⩌ീࢆ㓄⨨ࡋࠊ୰ኸࡢ኱఍ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟┠ࢆୖ᪉
࡟⛣ࡍ࡜ࠊ௚࡜㛵ಀᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸༢⊂ࡢᅗീࡀᚎࠎ࡟ቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࡜๪ḟ
ⓗ࡞ே≀ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍጼែ࠿ࡽࡣୗ఩࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿᅗീࡣࡑࢀࡽୖ᪉࡟࠶ࡿᅗീࡼࡾࡶ௖㝀ീ
࡟㏆ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ᪉ࡢே≀⩌ࡣ㐲ࡃ㞳ࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࠊࡑ
ࢀࡣ௖㝀ࡀୖ᪉ࡢ㝮࡟࠶ࡿࡑࢀࡽࡢീࢆⓎฟࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦௨ୗࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ
✵㛫ⓗ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆᣢࡘ఩⨨࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⳶⸃ࡢάືࡢẁ㝵ࡣᐦ᥋࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᑛ࡟㏆ࡋ
52
Konow (1929: 96–97), Marshall (1951: 374–75). ࠾ࡼࡧ http://gandhari.org/ ෆࡢ☃㖭 CKI0082ࠊCKI0084ࠊCKI0085 ࢆ
ཧ↷ࠋ
53
ᮏࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣ 36 ேࡢ௖ᘵᏊࡀ⮬ࡽࡢ๓ୡࢆ≀ㄒࡿ೦㡴ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
54
Salomon (1999: 30–33).
55
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⇞⇠௖ᤵグᮏ⏕ᅗࡢస౛ࡢከࡉ࡜኱஌௖ᩍ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊRhi (2003: 157–158)
ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
56
ྠᇶቭࡢ㖭ᩥࡣ Schopen (1987/2005) ࡟ࡼࡾ⪃ᐹࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡶ࠺୍౛ࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ௖୕ᑛീ࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ
⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ Brough (1982) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡀࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣ Salomon & Schopen (2002) ࡟ࡼࡾྰᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
149 --- 149
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࠸ୗẁࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ㆟ㄽࡸ♩ᣏ࡟ᛁࡋ࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᾋ᙮ࡢୖ༙ศ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ༢
⊂࡛⚙ᐃࡸỿᛮࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄝἲࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆ」㞧࡟࠾ࡾࡲࡐࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ୍ᒙࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ」㞧ᛶࢆቑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼
࡟ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢάືࡢ␗࡞ࡿഃ㠃ࡸẁ㝵ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௖㝀ࡸ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡀ᭷ࡍࡿ≉㉁ࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ௖㝀ࡸ⳶⸃ࡢᝅࡾࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᴫᛕࢆᕦࡳ࡟ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊྠᵝࡢᣢ≀ࠊ௙ⲡࡸᆘ
ໃࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ࡓࡧࡓࡧ୍ᑐ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⳶⸃ീࡢᏑᅾ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ᫂☜࡟ẚᐃࡋᚓࡿ
≉ᐃࡢᑛ᱁ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊከᩘࡢ⳶⸃࡜࠸࠺༳㇟ࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡼ࠺ࠋ
⚄⪷࡞ࡿ᐀ᩍᘓ⠏
」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤᘓ㐀≀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ௜㝶ࡍࡿࠋၥ㢟ࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡣ୍ᒙࡢࡳࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓᘓ㐀≀
ࡀ஧⣔⤫ࠊ┳ྲྀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᑛീࢆ༢୍ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢ࡞࠿࡟㓄ࡋࡓ」ྜⓗᾋ
᙮ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡀ⌮᝿໬ࡉࢀࡓᘓ㐀≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣᙜ௦࡟ᐇᅾ
ࡋࡓ᐀ᩍᘓ㐀≀ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ព໶໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍᘓ㐀≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫࢺࢗ
࣮ࣃ࡜ൔ㝔ࡢ஧⣔⤫ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ57ࠋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡣᇶቭୖ࡟㐀❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᇶቭ
௜ࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡣ⣖ඖᚋ1ୡ⣖㡭࡟ࡣ⣔⤫ⓗ࡟Ⓩሙࡋࠊᅄ㝮࡟⊺Ꮚᰕࢆ㓄ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᾋ᙮
11࠾ࡼࡧᾋ᙮12ࡢ᭱ୖẁࡢࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸㸧ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢൔ㝔ࡣ≉࡟୍ẁ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓᇶቭࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࠊࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃ࡜ከࡃࡢせ⣲ࢆඹ
᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ࡶ⡆⣲࡞ᙧࠊൔ㝔ࡣ༢୍ࡢᡣᐊ࡛ࢻ࣮࣒ᆺࡢᒇ᰿ࡢ࠶ࡿ୍ᒙᵓ㐀ࢆ࿊ࡋࠊࡑࡢᙧࡣ
ⲡᗡ࡟⏤᮶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ࡟Ⓨᒎࡋࡓ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛൔ㝔ࡣࠊᴫࡋ࡚᪉ᙧࣉࣛࣥ
ࡢ஧ᒙᵓ㐀࡛ࠊୖᒙ࡟ࡣඛࡢᑤࡗࡓࢻ࣮࣒ᆺࡢᒇ᰿ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢᒇ᰿ࡀ‴᭤ࡋ࡚ୗ᪉࡟ࡉࡽ࡟ᅄ
ศࡢ୍࡯࡝㸦ᅄศ෇ࡢ࠿ࡓࡕ࡛㸧እഃ࡬✺ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ58ࠋᚋ⪅ࡢ⣔⤫ࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᴟࡵ
࡚㔜せ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ㐀ᙧ⨾⾡࡟ᗄᗘ࡜࡞ࡃ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟␃ពࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡢ◚㢼ᆺ
⿦㣭ࡢᙧែࡀࠊൔ㝔ᘓ⠏ࢆ༊ษࡿ༊⏬࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ
ࡢ◚㢼ᆺ⿦㣭ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ൔ㝔ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢධཱྀ࡟ࡶ᥇⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡛ࡣ༑Ꮠ
ᙧᘓ㐀≀࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ධཱྀࡦ࡜ࡘࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ᅄ᪉ྥࡍ࡭࡚ࡢධཱྀ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ࡣࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓൔ㝔ࡀከᩘ࠶ࡾࠊᴫࡡ༊⏬࡟༊ษࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⡆⣲
࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ༢୍ᡣᐊ࠿ࡘ୍ᒙᵓ㐀࡛࢔࣮ࢳࡢඛ➃ࡀᑤࡗࡓୖ㒊ᵓ㐀ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
ࢀࡽࡣ஧ᮏࡢิᰕ࡟࢔࣮ࢳࡀ㍕ࡏࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ୍⯡࡟୰࡟ࡣᑛീࡀ୍య⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ༢୍ᡣᐊࡢሙ
ྜ࡛ࡶ஧ᒙᵓ㐀ࢆᇳࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊୖ㝵ࡣṇ㠃ほ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᾋ᙮2ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ୍ᒙ࡛࠶ࢀ
஧ᒙ࡛࠶ࢀࠊ༑Ꮠᙧᘓ㐀≀࡛ࡣࠊ୕ࡘࡢᰕ㛫ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୰ኸࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ᰕ㛫࡟ࡣ୺ᑛࡀࠊᕥྑࡢࡸࡸᑠ
57
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࡢᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᘓ≀ࢆ vihƗra ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢㄒࡣ୍⯡࡟ࠊൔ౶ࡀ⏕άࡍࡿൔ
ᡣࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ౑⏝ࢆ㑊ࡅࡓ࠸ࠋ
58
౛࠼ࡤࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᘓ⠏ࡢ౛ࡣࢫ࣮࣡ࢺ῱㇂ࡢ Gumbat ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ (Olivieri 2008: 296, ᅗ 5) ࠋ
- 150 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡉ࡞ᰕ㛫࡟ࡣ⬥ౝࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㏻ᖖࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ࡟ࡣᅄᮏࡢิᰕࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ୰ኸ࡟ṇ㠃ほࡢ࢔࣮ࢳࠊࡑࡢ
ᕥྑ࡟ഃ㠃ほࡢ࢔࣮ࢳࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋᒇୖ㝵ࡢḍᴙࡣࠊࡇࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡀᮏ᮶ࡣ஧ᒙᵓ㐀ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ࢔࣮ࢳࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡟࠾࠸࡚ෆഃࢆ୸ࡃࡋࠊඛ➃ࡀᑤࡗࡓᙧ࡛⾲
ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊྎᙧࡢࡶࡢࡶࡋࡤࡋࡤࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᙧែࡣ㔜ᒙᵓ㐀ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢୗᒙ㝵࡟ぢฟࡔࡏࠊ୰
ኸࡢᰕ㛫ࡀ⦪㛗࡟ᣑᙇࡍࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡇࢀࡶࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓᐇ㝿ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ
㸦ᅗ10ࠊᅗ12㸧ࠋ஧ᒙᵓ㐀ࡢ༑Ꮠᙧᘓ㐀≀ࡶࡲࡓࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶ㔜ᒙᵓ㐀ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢᇶቭ
࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ୰ᚰࡢ⦪㛗ࡢᰕ㛫࡟௖㝀ࠊᕥྑࡢᰕ㛫࡟୕ᑛᙧ
ᘧ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୧⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࠊᕥྑ༊⏬ୖ᪉࡟ࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᅗ10㸧ࠋ୰ኸࡢᰕ㛫
࡟ࡣ◚㢼ᆺ࢔࣮ࢳࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣྎᙧ࢔࣮ࢳ࡛࠿ࡘࡑࡢୖ࡟◚㢼ᆺ࢔࣮ࢳࢆ㍕ࡏࡓᵓ㐀ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᵓ㐀ⓗ
࡟ከᒙᵓ㐀࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊୖᒙ㝵ࡣ୍⯡࡟ᶓ୪ࡧࡢ༢୍ᡣᐊ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᅗ11㸧ࠋ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡿ኱ࡁ
࡞ᘓ㐀≀࡜ࡑࡢୖ࡟㐃⥆ࡍࡿᨵ⿦㝵ᒙࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊࣂ࣮ࢪ࣮ࣕ㸦Bhaja㸧ࡸ࣋ࢻࢗࢧ࣮㸦Bedsa㸧ࠊ࣮࢝
࣮ࣝࣜ㸦Karli㸧ࠊࣆࢱࣝࢥ࣮࣮ࣛ㸦Pitalkhora㸧▼❍࡜࠸ࡗࡓす࢖ࣥࢻࡢࢳࣕ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣖ❍ࡢ᭱ࡶ」㞧
࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆ᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿ59ࠋ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡣࠊ௖㝀ࡸࡑࡢṌࡳ࡟ᚑ࠺⪅ࡓࡕࡢఫฎ࡜ࡋ࡚┦ᛂࡋ࠸
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊጾཝ࡟ᐩࢇࡔࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡴࡋࢁ⚄ࠎࡢᐑẊࢆ⌮᝿໬ࡋࡓᘓ㐀≀࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ60ࠋ
㐀ᙧ໬ࡉࢀࡓᘓ㐀≀ࡢ⌮᝿໬ࡉࢀࡓ≉ᚩ⟠ᡤࡣࠊ⣽㒊࡟ぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ᭱ୖ㒊
ࡸᕥྑ࡟ᙇࡾฟࡋࡓ㒊ศࢆⲮཝࡍࡿࣜ࣎ࣥࡸᖮᖭࡣࡶࡕࢁࢇࡢࡇ࡜ࠊ」㞧࡛ከᵝ࡞࣌ࣝࢭ࣏ࣜࢫᰕࠊ
ࡋࡤࡋࡤ㇟ࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊከࡃࡣ⊺Ꮚࡢᣢࡕ㏦ࡾ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓᘓ㐀≀ࡢᒇ᰿࡟
ࡣ≉࡟࣒࢜࢘ࡸࢡࢪࣕࢡ࡞࡝୍⯡࡟▱ࡽࢀࡓ㫽ࡀ࡜ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ61ࠋࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ㐀ᙧୖࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࡣࠊ
ᘓ๓࡛ࡣື≀ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡣࡎࡢᴟᴦίᅵࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡟㫽ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ
ᚋ࡟ᩥ⊩ࡢఏ⤫࡟ࡶᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡣSSukh࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶゎỴࡍ࡭ࡁၥ㢟
࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠶࠿ࡽࡉࡲ࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ62ࠋ㫽ࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡢḍᴙࡢᡭ๓࡟ࡶ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡇ
ࡣዪᛶࡋ࠿⾲ࡉࢀࡎࠊ࢖ࣥࢻึᮇㄝヰ⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐑẊᥥ෗࡟ྲྀᮦࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ
ࡢㄝヰᅗ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡢࡳ࡛༑ศ⋤ᐑࡸ⚄ࠎࡢఫࡴᘓ㐀≀ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
5. 」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ୕⣔⤫㸸ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊⓎฟࢱ࢖ࣉ
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛฟᅵࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࢆ᏶Ꮡࠊ᩿∦ࡢዴఱ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊໟᣓⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᴫࡡ஧ࡘ
ࡢ⣔⤫࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୰ኸࡢㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡀⶈụ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⣔⤫ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᴥ㛶
59
ࣆࢱࣝࢥ࣮࣮ࣛ▼❍࡛ࡣࠊᙜึࡢࣇ࢓ࢧ࣮ࢻࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ୍㒊ࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ❆ࡋ࠿⌧Ꮡࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ
Rhi (1991: 154–155)ࡢᣦ᦬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
61
ࡇࢀࡽࡢᾋ᙮࡟┳ྲྀࡉࢀࡿ㫽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Huntington (1980: 661) ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
62
㫽ࡣᐇᅾࡢ㫽࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊዴ᮶࡟ࡼࡗ࡚໬స (nirmita) ࡉࢀࡓᗁᙳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヲ⣽ࢆ
ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊLSukh ࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣᴟᴦίᅵ࡟㫽ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୍෌࡞ࡽࡎㄝ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐࡋ࡚
ᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺᮏ࡛ࡣ 4 ᅇࠊ࠺ࡕ 3 ᅇࡣࠊ㫽ࡀぬ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚໬సࡉࢀࡓ (tathƗgatƗbhinirmita) ࡜᫂
☜໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ SSukh ࡀ LSukh ࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡼࡾࡶᚋ࡟ᡂ❧
ࡋࠊࡑࡋ࡚࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣ᭱⤊ᙧ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿᚋᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡼࡾࡶ๓࡟ᡂ❧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
60
151 --- 151
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᘓ⠏࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⣔⤫ࡢ஧ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡣࠊⶈụ⣔⤫࡟ᒓࡋࠊᇶቭ㒊࡟⾲ࡉࢀ
ࡓỈ࠿ࡽⶈ⳹ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࡑࡢୖ࡟࠶ࡽࡺࡿᑛീࡸᴥ㛶ᘓ⠏ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᴥ㛶ᘓ⠏ࡢ⣔⤫ࡣࠊࣔࣁ
࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜฟᅵࡢᾋ᙮స౛࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ」ྜⓗ࡞ᙧᘧࡢᘓ㐀≀ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᑛീࡢከࡃࢆᯟ
ྲྀࡿⅬ࡛๓⪅ࡢ⣔⤫࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢ⣔⤫ࡢ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ฟᅵస౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲ㏙
ࡋࠊࡑࡢᚋ୰ኸ࡟⚙ᐃࡍࡿ௖㝀ࢆ⾲ࡍ୕ࡘࡵࡢ⣔⤫࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡎࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿ63ࠋ
࡞࠾ࠊ௨ୗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿస౛ࡣࠊ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛฟᅵ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ඲స౛ࢆྵ
ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊฟᅵᆅࡀ༑ศ᫂☜࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ㐣ཤᩘ༑ᖺ࡟ࢻ࣓࢟ࣗࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ࡞
ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢࡳ࡟㝈ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ␃ពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ㏆ᖺࠊ᪂㈨ᩱࡢᾋ᙮ࡸ⣽㒊᩿∦ࡀከᩘᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ
࡜ࡣ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢከࡃࡀ┿㉚ၥ㢟ࢆᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡣྵࡵ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓ64ࠋ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ
ᾋ᙮1: ᮏ✏ࡢ୺║࡛࠶ࡿࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜฟᅵࡢᾋ᙮; ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ G 155 (ᪧ
1135, I-255) 㸦ᅗ1㸧
᫂⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 119 x 97 x 28 cm
グ㘓෗┿: ࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ ࠊࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ
࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
Burgess (1900: 32; pl. 7, 2); Vogel (1906: 256–257); Foucher (1905: fig. 79; 1909: 74, pl. xvi; 1917: pl.
xxvii, 1; 1918: 206; 1922: 534–37, 848); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 121–23, fig. 25565); Rosenfield (1967:
236, fig. 90); Miyaji (1971: 57, fig.; 1985a: 79 & 83, figs. 12 & 14; 1993: 253, fig. 10; 1996: 361, fig. 8;
2002: 10, fig. 1); Huntington (1980); Bussagli (1984: 140); Brown (1984: 79–84, fig. 4); Huntington
(1985: 145–46, fig. 8.24); Schopen (1987: 130–31, n. 50); Taddei (1987/2003: fig. 3); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 395); Schlingloff (1991: 127–28, n. 77, fig. 43, ⥺ᅗ); Rhi (1991: 95–100, 147, pl. 3);
Giès & Cohen (1996: 341–344, no. 253bis); Quagliotti (1996a); Bautze-Picron (2010: 14–17, figs. 18a,
18b).
ᾋ᙮ 2: ୰ኸ࡟ⶈ⳹ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖ᅜᅵࠊୖ㒊༊⏬࡟ᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆ⾲ࡍᾋ᙮;࠾ࡑࡽࡃࣔࣁ࣓ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ
ฟᅵ66; ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ 572 㸦ᅗ 7㸧67
63
Miyaji (2002: 23–24; 2008: 124) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠᵝࡢศ㢮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ௖୕ᑛീࢆᅄࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡍ
ࡿࠋ
64
⌧௦ࡢ㉚సࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤ࠶ࡽࡺࡿస౛ࡢᅗീࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚ไసࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽㄽཬࡍࡿ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ㢮ᆺ
ㄽࡢᐇドᛶࡀኻࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚┿㉚ၥ㢟ࡢ࡞࠸స౛ࡢ㑅ᢥࡣᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢᾋ᙮
࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ฟᅵᆅࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ☜࠿࡛࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⬮ὀ࡟࡚┿㉚ၥ㢟ࢆ⡆₩࡟ㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
65
෗┿࡛ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡣ඲యࡢ୍㒊࠿ࡘ୍᪉ྥ࠿ࡽࡢࡳࡢ᧜ᙳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
66
ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ࡢ᭱᪂ࡢ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡀࣔࣁ࣓ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋࠊᵝᘧ
ࡸ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ▼ᮦࡢ✀㢮ࢆ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚␲⩏ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Bhattacharyya 2002: 97)ࠋFoucher (1917: pl. xxvii) ࡣࡇ
ࡢᾋ᙮ࡢฟᅵᆅࡀ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࡜᫂グࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᙼࡣᮏ✏ࡢ୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶฟᅵᆅࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸
(pl. xxviii) ࠋ
- 152 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
⦪࡟୕ࡘࡢሙ㠃ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿᾋ᙮࡛ࠊ࠺ࡕ୰ኸ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡀⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖẁ
࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞㧳ࢆ⤖ࡗࡓᘺີ⳶⸃ࡀౝ⪅ࢆకࡗ࡚ᵝᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡓ⋤ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥ࡟
ᆘࡍ㢌㧥ࢆ⎔≧࡟ࡋࡓே≀ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢ࡯࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㏫᪉ྥࢆྥ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡍࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱
ୗ㒊ࡢᑠࡉ࡞༊⏬࡟ࡣࠊྎᗙୖࡢ௖㖊㸦pƗtra㸧ࢆ♩ᣏࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ኸ༊⏬࡟ࡣࠊ
኱ࡁࡃㄝἲ༳௖ᆘീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊᅄẁ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ከࡃࡢ⳶⸃⾗ࡀࡑࡢ࿘ᅖࢆᅖࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡣ
኱ࡁ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧ഃ࡟ࡣ஧యࡢே≀ࡀᩓ⳹ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࢼ࣮
࡛࢞࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ㱟⵹ࡣ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ࡣࠊⰼࢆ୕ࡘ௜ࡅࡓᐆᶞࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢࡍ
ࡄୗ࡟ࡣࡸࡸᑠኴࡾࡢ㣕ኳ㸦putti㸧68 ࡀ࣮ࣜࢫ≧ࡢⰼ⎔ࢆ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ᤝࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀
ࡢ⭎ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡟ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ㢌㣭ࢆ㡬ࡁࠊ㢌ගࢆకࡗࡓ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ࡀⰼ⥘ࢆࡶࡗ࡚௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟
ౝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㢌㒊ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡟ࡣࠊᕥྑ࡟ࡉࡽ࡟஧ே≀ࡀࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⚄ࠎ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺ࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㢌ගࢆకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥ᪉ࡣ㧨ࢆࡓࡃࢃ࠼ࠊࣦ࢓ࢪࣗࣛࢆᇳࡿጼ࠿ࡽࠊ࢖
ࣥࢻࣛࡸࣦ࢓ࢪࣗࣛࣃ࣮ࢽ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁࢮ࢘ࢫ࡟㏆࠸ᵝ┦࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ෇⟄ᆺࡢᐆ
ෙࢆ㡬࠸ࡓዪ⚄ࡣࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ᡭࢆ⤌ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ㒔ᇛࡢዪ⚄࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿ69ࠋ
୺せ࡞ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ࿘ᅖ࡟ཧ㞟ࡍࡿ⪷⾗ࡣࠊᅄẁ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ᭱ୗ㒊ࡣྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ྑ
ഃࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡࡋࠊ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ᆘീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊෆഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ௖㝀ࢆぢୖࡆࠊ௖㝀࡟ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡿᵝᏊ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஧ẁ┠࡟ࡣࠊᅄయ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ஬యࡢⶈ⳹ᗙୖࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ࠺ࡕࡦ࡜ࡾࡣ≀ᛮ࠸࡟ࡩ
ࡅࡿጼែ࡛ࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ㢌㣭ࢆ㡬ࡁࠊᡭ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ⰼࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡶ
࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࢱ࣮ࣂࣥᙧᘧࡢே≀ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶෆഃ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ࠿ࡽ୕ẁ┠࡛ࡣࠊ
஧ࡘࡢᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᘓ⠏⮬యࠊⶈ⳹࡟ࡣ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛ࠊࡑࡢ࡞࠿࡛ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘ
ࡋ࡚⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢእഃ࡟ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ᆘࡋࡓ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ㢌㒊ࡣḞᦆࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᕥഃࡢே≀ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ⰼࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ୍᪉཯ᑐഃ࡟ࡣࠊዪ⚄࡜ᴥ㛶࡜ࡢ
㛫࡟ࠊࡲࡓࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ❧ീࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᭱ୖ㒊ࡣࠊ᭱ࡶᖜࡀ⊃ࡃࠊᕥഃ࡟ࡣ෇ᙧග⫼ࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟ࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࡀ୍
యࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋྑഃ࡟ࡣᶞୗࡢᒾ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㞼?㸧ୖ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ㊭ᆘࡋྜᤸࡍࡿẚୣ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚௖ᅜᅵࢆ♧ࡍᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋẚୣࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠸ࡿே≀ࡢୖ༙㌟ࡣࠊࡑࡢᙧ㊧ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㝮࡟ࡣࠊ㤿㸦㸽㸧ࡽࡋࡁീࡀࡳ࠼ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃኴ㝧࡜᭶ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௚࡟౛
ࢆࡳ࡞࠸ࠋ
ୗ᪉ࡢౝ⪅ࡶࠊ⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࢆ㓄ࡋࡓᴥ㛶ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ࡣ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸦⳶⸃ീ
67
ྠࡌᡤⶶ␒ྕ࡟࡚࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ᪧⶶࠋ
ࡇࡢ㣕⩧ࡍࡿே≀ീࢆࣉࢵࢺ࡜࿧ࡪࡢ࡟ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟ࡳࡿᙼࡽࡢᙺ๭࡜ᐜጼ
ࡀࠊす᪉㉳※࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟␲ၥࡢవᆅࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ➨ 2 ࡟ࠊᙼࡽࡢ᫂☜࡞ᆅ఩ࠊࡘࡲࡾ⪷࠿಑࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ
ࡢᾋ᙮ࡑࢀ⮬య࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙼࡽࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࡲࡔ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ cherub/cherubim ࡸ⥲⛠࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡢ genie/genii(Zin 2003: 141–152 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ)ࡸࠊHuntington 1980 ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢧࣥࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺࡢ
ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ vidyƗdhara (Zin 2003: 163–172 ཧ↷)࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞࿧⛠ࡢ putto/putti ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
69
ࡇࡢ౛ࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮⾲⌧୺せ㒊࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ၏୍ࡢዪᛶே≀ീࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
68
153 --- 153
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
⮬యࡣᴥ㛶ෆ࡛ⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ᆘࡍࡀ㸧
ࠊ᭱ୗ㒊ࡢ༊⏬ࡣูࡢሙ㠃ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⶈụࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ
ࡣ඲ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋẚୣ࡜ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥྑ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ஧ே≀ࢆ㝖ࡃࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᑛീ࡟ࡣࠊ㢌ගࡀぢཷࡅࡽ
ࢀࡿࠋ
㟷⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 85 × 47 cm.
グ㘓෗┿: ࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥࠊP. & G. Bautze
Ặⶶ70
Burgess (1900: pl. 8-1); Foucher (1917: pl. xxvii); Foucher (1918: fig. 459); Rosenfield (1967: 236–37,
fig. 91); Paul (1986: 171, no. 572); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 399); Rhi (1991: pl. 54); Schlingloff (1991:
figs. 41, ⥺ᅗ); Bhattacharyya (2002: no. 153); Schlingloff (2000: II, 102, no. 16, ⥺ᅗ); Miyaji (2002:
21, fig. 2).
ᾋ᙮ 3: ኱ᵓᅗࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮᩿∦; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ㸦Sahri Bahlol ,1939 ᖺⓎ᥀㸧ฟᅵ71; ࣌ࢩ
࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ 2785 (ᪧ 2016)72㸦ᅗ 8㸧
኱ⶈ⳹࡟ᆘࡍㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ኱つᶍ࡞ᾋ᙮࡛ࠊ௖㝀ࡢ࿘ᅖ࡟ࡣࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞኱ࡁࡉࡢ⪷
⾗ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡜୪ࢇ࡛᭱ࡶ」㞧࡛ࠊὙ⦎ࡉࢀࡓⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ
᙮⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ☜࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿே≀ീ࡟㧨ࢆࡓࡃࢃ࠼ࡓ⪅ࡀከᩘ
ࡳࡽࢀࠊࡲࡓ௖㝀ࡢ┠ࡀぢ㛤࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௚ࡢస౛ࡼࡾࡶᖺ௦ⓗ࡟㐳ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ࠊ኱ⶈ⳹ࡉࡽ࡟௖㝀㢌ୖࡢᐆᶞ࡛ᾋ᙮඲యࡢ༙ศ௨ୖࡀ༨ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᐆᶞࡢୖ᪉
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⣽㒊ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡣุ᩿ࡋ࠺ࡿࠋ㏻ᖖ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㢌ගࡢ኱㒊ศࢆࠊ
ⶈྎ࡟㊭ᆘࡍࡿᑠࡉ࡞㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓே≀⩌ࡀ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅄయࡢᑠே≀ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࡦ࡜ࡾࡣⰼ⥘
ࢆࡶࡕࠊ୍᪉ࡣ♩ᣏࡍࡿ௙ⲡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢୗ᪉࡟ࡣࠊࡸࡸ኱ࡁࡃ⾲ࡉࢀࡓே≀ࡀ௖㝀࡟ྥ࠿
ࡗ࡚㢌ࢆᆶࢀࡿᵝᏊ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⏬㠃ୗ᪉ࡢⶈ⳹ࡣ㣭ࡾࡢ࡞࠸ⶈⱼࢆ᭷ࡋࠊᅄேࡢே≀ࡀࡑࡢ⬥࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋእഃࡢ⏨ዪ
ࡣᩓ⳹ࡋࠊෆഃࡢ஧ேࡣ௖㝀ࡢ᪉ࢆᣦᕪࡍࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟࠾ࡅࡿྠᵝ
ࡢே≀࡜␗࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊ᭱ୗ㒊ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ኱ࡁ࡞ⶈụ࠿ࡽ┤᥋⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⶈụࡢⶈ⳹ࡢ
㛫࡟ࡶᩘయࡢே≀ീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢ஧ேࡢ⏨ᛶே≀ࡣࠊᡭ࡟᯶㤶⅔ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ஧ே≀ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ྛ୕ேࡢே≀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠿࡟ࡣࠊಖᏑ≧ែࡢࡼ࠸ീࡶഹ
࠿࡟Ꮡᅾࡋࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࡸࡸ኱ࡁࡃ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ௖㝀ࡢ᪉ࢆぢୖࡆࡿᵝᏊ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௖㝀ࢆᅖࡴ⪷⾗ࡓࡕࡣࠊ኱ᑠࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞኱ࡁࡉ࡛」㞧࡞ᵓᡂࢆࡶࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ
⭎ࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࡣࠊ஧యࡢ኱ࡁ࡞⳶⸃❧ീࡀ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣⰼ⥘ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ
࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ྑ᪉ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟኱ࡁࡃ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠊ୰
70
Bautze (2008: fig. 2) ࡟ᅗ∧ᥖ㍕ࠋ
ฟᅵᆅࡣ༤≀㤋ࡢసရࣛ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡣ᫂グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊAli & Qazi (2008: 176)࡟ࡣࡑࡢグ㍕ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
72
ᮏ౛࡜ඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ౛ࡣࠊྠࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ẚ㍑స౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡍ࡛࡟ Quagliotti (1996a) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶㄽཬࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ
71
- 154 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ኸࡢⶈྎࡢᕥྑ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ஧యࡢᆘീࡢ⳶⸃࡛ࠊྎᗙࡣ⫗ཌ࡞㏉ⰼࡢⶈྎୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࠸ࡎࢀࡶࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ㢌㣭࡛ࠊ௖㝀࡜┤᥋࡟ᑐヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡯࠿ࡢ⳶⸃⾗ࡣࠊ࡯ࡰ
ྠࡌ኱ࡁࡉ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥྑ㝮࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀ⾲ࡉࢀࡓ 2 ⳶⸃ࡣࠊᶞୗ࡛஫࠸࡟ᑐヰࡍࡿᵝᏊ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ⭸࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࡶ஧యࡢ⳶⸃⾗ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠶ࡾࠊෆഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ௖㝀ࢆぢୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᕥ➃ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ㢌㣭࡛⚙ᐃࢆ⾜࠺ᵝᏊ࡛ࠊྑ➃ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣḞᦆࡋࡓ㢌㒊ୖ᪉࡟ᡭࢆୖࡆ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟௖㝀࡜ゝⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ᆘീࡣ❧ീࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟⾲
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ୖ᪉ࡣࠊྑ༙ศࡢࡳࡀṧᏑࡍࡿࠋ୕యࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓ⳶⸃ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿᵝ┦ࡢᴥ
㛶ෆࡢྎᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࠋ࠺ࡕ஧ࡘࡢᘓ⠏ࡣⶈ⳹ୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ᪉ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣᛮᝳ࡟⪮ࡿጼ࡛ࠊ
୰ኸࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ⚙ᐃࠊୖ᪉ࡢ஺⬮ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣᩍ࠼ࢆㄝࡃᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୗ᪉ࡢ⳶⸃ࡢྎᗙࡍࡄྑ᪉࡟
ࡣࠊ௖㝀ࡀ㔝እ࡛ࣦ࢓ࢪࣗࣛࣃ࣮ࢽࡶ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ୰࡛ᶞୗ࡟ᆘࡋࠊୗ༙㌟ࡢࡳࡋ࠿⌧Ꮡࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
௖ᘵᏊ࡟௖ᅜᅵࡢጼࢆ♧⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 149.95 ×116.92 cm.
グ㘓෗┿: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 402); Rhi (1991: pl. 6); Ali & Qazi (2008: 176).
ᾋ᙮4: ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࢆྵࡴⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮୰ኸ㒊ศ; ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂; ࢝ࣛࢳᅜ❧༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒
ྕ374
ẚ㍑ⓗᖹᯈ࡞ᾋ᙮᩿∦࡛ࠊ୰ኸ࡟኱ࡁࡃㄝἲ༳ࡢ௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ⶈ⳹ᗙࡣࡴ
ࡋࢁ⊃ᑠ࠿ࡘᖹᯈ࡞᙮ࡾ࡛ࠊ௖㝀ࡢ⭸ࡀⶈ⳹ࡢᶓᖜࡼࡾ࠿࡞ࡾ✺ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢయ㌣ࡣ⦪
㛗࡛኱ࡁࡃࠊ⬮㒊ࡀࡸࡸᑠࡉࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ኱ࡁ࡞෇ᙧ㢌ගࡣ⫪࠶ࡓࡾࡲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ
࡟ࡣࠊ⢭ᕦ࡞⾲⌧ࡢᐆᶞࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢୖ㒊୰ኸࡢⰼ࠿ࡽࡣⰼ⥘ࢆࡶࡘே≀ࡀୖ༙㌟ࢆ๓᪉࡟ྥ
࠿ࡗ࡚⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢୗ᪉࡛ࡣࠊ஧ேࡢ኱ࡁ࡞᭷⩼ࡢࣉࢵࢺࡀ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟෇ᙧࡢⰼ⎔ࢆᥖ
ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⫗㧳࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᖜᗈ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ⭎ࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࡣࠊᑠࡉ࡞㢌ගࢆక࠺ᑛീ
ࡀ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᕥࡀ࢖ࣥࢻࣛࠊྑࡀࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡣ෇⟄ᙧࡢᐆෙࢆ
ࡘࡅࠊᕥᡭ࡟ࣦ࢓ࢪࣗࣛࢆᇳࡿࠋࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡣࡸࡸⱝࠎࡋࡃぢ࠼ࠊྑᡭࡣᒅ⮎ࡋ࡚⫪㎶ࡾࡲ࡛
ୖࡆࠊᕥᡭ࡟Ỉ⎼ࢆᇳࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ⬥ౝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ၏୍ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡢഐࡽࡢ⳶⸃ࡢࡳࡀṧᏑࡋ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ྑᡭࢆ᪋↓⏽༳㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧࡟ࡋࠊᕥᡭࡣ⫝࠿ࡽඛࢆḞᦆ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࠊᖜᗈࡢᖹᯈ࡞ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᾋ᙮ࡢୗ㒊࡟ࡣࠊ㬾㫽ࡸ㨶ࡢ⾲ࡉࢀࡓụࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡟ⶈ⳹ࡀ⏕࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥྑ࡟ᅄయࡢ
ே≀ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ࠺ࡕ஧ேࡣⶈ⳹ୖ࡟❧ࡕࠊṧࡾ஧ேࡣⶈ⳹࠿ࡽ໬⏕ࡋࠊୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
❧ീࡢே≀ࡣ⏨ዪࡢᅾ಑ಙ⪅࡛ࠊᕥ࡟⏨ᛶࠊྑ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞㢌㣭࡜㧥ᙧࡢዪᛶࢆ㓄ࡍࡿࠋୖ༙㌟
ࡢࡳࡢே≀ࡶ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᑐᑛ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࠊᕥࡢே≀ࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ㢌㣭࡛ࠊྑࡢே≀ࡣ㢌㧥࡟ఱࡶ㡬࠿
࡞࠸ࠋᙼࡽࡶ஧⣔⤫ࡢ⳶⸃ീࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋⶈ⳹࿘㎶ࡢᑛീࡣࡳ࡞ࠊᡭࢆྜᤸ༳
࡟ࡋࠊ❧ീࡣⶈࡢⰼᘚ࡟ᡭࢆゐࢀࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
155 --- 155
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 㧗112 cm
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 35, 124, pl. XVI, 373); Taddei (1969/2003: figs. 13, 14); Miyaji (1985b: pl. VII,
1); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 406); Bautze-Picron (2010: fig. 19, ᶞᮌ࡜ⰼ㍯ࢆᣢࡘࣉࢵࢺࡢ⣽㒊).
ᾋ᙮5: ⶈᆅࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮᩿∦㸦ୗ᪉ࡢࡳ㸧; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ㸦A.D.F.C࡟ࡼࡿ1911–12ᖺࡢⓎ᥀㸧
ฟᅵ; ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ1121
ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣᙜึࡢᾋ᙮ࡢୗ᪉ࡢࡳࡀ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࡀࠊ୺ᑛࡢయ㌣ࡢ኱༙ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ༑ศ᭷
ព⩏࡞᝟ሗࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
௚ࡢࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝฟᅵࡢᾋ᙮ྠᵝࠊ௖㝀ࡀᆘࡍⶈ⳹ᗙࡣᕧ኱࡛࠶ࡿࠋୗ㒊ࡢⶈụࡢ⾲⌧
࡟㔜ࡁࡀ࠾࠿ࢀࠊⶈụୖࡢᑛീࡣࡳ࡞ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ஧ᮏࡢⶈ⳹ࡣⶈⱼࡶ☜
ㄆ࡛ࡁࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟ౝࡍ஧యࡢᑛീࡀࡑࡢୖ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋⶈ⳹ࡢᕥྑ࡟
ࡣ㢌ගࡢ࠶ࡿ⳶⸃ീࡀ❧ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊୖ᪉ࡢⶈᘚ࡟ᡭࢆゐࢀࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢୗ᪉࡛ࡣࠊᐆ▼
࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⶈⱼࢆᅖࢇ࡛ᕥྑ࡟⏨ዪࡀୖ༙㌟ࢆⶈụ࡟⏕ࡌࡓⶈ࠿ࡽ⾲ࡋࠊᩓ⳹ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢ⏨ዪࡀࢼ࣮࢞࠿ྰ࠿ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᕥྑ࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ୕ேࡢᆘീࡢே≀ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
እഃࡢே≀ࡣ୰ኸ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚⚙ᐃࡍࡿጼໃ࡛ࠊෆഃࡢ2⳶⸃ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ౪≀
ࢆᤝࡆࠊྑࡢ⳶⸃ࡣᛮᝳࡍࡿጼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┿ࢇ୰ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㢌㒊ࢆ
ᦆയࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⳶⸃ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣุู࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ⶈụ࡟ࡣࠊ ᕳࡃỈὶࡢ୰࡟ᩘ༉ࡢ㨶࡜ᩘ⩚ࡢ࢔ࣄࣝࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ኵ፬࡛࠶ࢁ࠺
࠿ࠊ஧యࡢ㊭ᆘࡍࡿ♩ᣏ⪅ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ᮶࡞ࡽࡤ௖ᅜᅵࢆ๓࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௖ᅜᅵࡢእ࡟
㓄⨨ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ㄞࡳྲྀࡽࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊⶈụ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 48.29 × 48.29 cm.
グ㘓෗┿: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
Ali & Qazi (2008: 161).
ᾋ᙮6: ே≀ീࡢ⾲ࡉࢀࡓⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᅄゅᙇࡗࡓᾋ᙮; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝࠊ࣐࢘ࣥࢻCฟᅵ74ࠊ࣌
ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋 (ᪧ?) ⶶ75
ᮏᾋ᙮ࡣᖹᯈ࡞᙮ࡾ࡛᪉ᙧࢆ࿊ࡋࠊ୺ᑛࡀᾋ᙮඲యࡢ༙ศ௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢌ගࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ
ⶈụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓᖹࡽ࡞ⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓྎᗙࡢୖ࡟ᆘࡍࠋⶈụࡣ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣᾋ᙮ࡢᖜ඲య࡟⾲
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡣࡎࡔࡀࠊ⌧ᅾࡣ኱㒊ศࢆḞᦆࡍࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖࡢᐆᶞ࡟ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢⰼ࠿ࡽⰼ⥘ࢆ
ᣢࡗ࡚ୖ༙㌟ࢆな࠿ࡏࡿே≀ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᐆᶞࡢࡍࡄୗ࡟ࡣⰼ⥘ࢆᣢࡘ஧యࡢࣉࢵࢺࡀ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ
࡟ⰼ⎔ࢆࡉࡉࡆᣢࡕࠊ㣕⩧ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ௖㝀ࡢ㢌㒊࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࡣࠊ஧⣔⤫ࡢ஧యࡢ⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀ
෇ᙧࡢ㢌ග࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᾋ᙮ୖ㒊࡟ࡣࠊᐆᶞࡢ୧⬥࡟஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿሙ㠃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋᕥୖ㝮࡟ࡣ㢌ගࢆకࡗࡓ⚙ᐃ༳
73
ࡇࡢᅗ∧ࡣࠊ௖㝀ീࡢ࠶ࡿᾋ᙮୰ኸࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ฟᅵᆅࡣ Rhi (1991: pl. 65) ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
75
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ Ali & Qazi (2008) ࡟グ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
74
- 156 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡢ௖㝀ࡀച⵹ࡢୗࡢ᪉ᙧࡢ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊභయࡢ❧ീࡢ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ஧యࡢ㊭ᆘ
ࡍࡿே≀ࡀ௖㝀ࢆ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ᪉ྑ㝮࡟ࡣ௖㝀ࡀ㔝እ࡛᪉ᙧࡢ▼ᯈࡶࡋࡃࡣ⋢ᗙࡢୖ࡟ᆘ
ࡋࠊᙼࡢᕥഃ࡛㊭ᆘࡍࡿẚୣ࡜ࡍࡄᚋࢁ࡟❧ࡘẚୣ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿே≀࡟௖ᅜᅵࢆ♧⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௖㝀ࡢྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ྑഃࡢே≀ࡣ⪁ᖺ࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠊ㢡㨈ࢆ⵳࠼ࡓᇳ㔠๛⚄࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࣊ࣛࢡࣞࢫ࡜࠸
࠺ࡼࡾࡶࢮ࢘ࢫࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࢆ㝖ࡅࡤ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓᑛീࡣࡇࡢሙ㠃࡟ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ୖ᪉ࡢࡇࢀࡽ஧యࡢ௖㝀ࡢ⋢ᗙࡣࠊ๪ḟⓗ࡞ീ࡟㏻ᖖకࢃࢀࡿ㏉ⰼࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ࡯࠿ࡢ௖㝀ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ⩌ീ⾲⌧ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟୕ẁ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀ஧యࡎ
ࡘᑛീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀከᩘࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢീࡀ㢌ග
ࢆకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ㆟ㄽࡋࡓࡾࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᐇ㊶ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ୖẁ࡟ࡣࠊᕥഃ࡟
஧యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶୖ᪉ࢆྥࡁࠊྑᡭࢆᣲࡆ࡚㸦ேᣦࡋᣦ࡜୰ᣦࢆఙࡤࡋ㸧ㆭჃ
ࡍࡿࡋࡄࡉࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠺ࡕእഃࡢ୍ேࡣ⤒඾ࢆᡭ࡟ᇳࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୰ẁࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࡍ࡭࡚
ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊ࠺ࡕ஧యࡣ⚙ᐃ༳࡛ࠊྑ➃ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ஺⬮࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྑ࠿ࡽ୍
␒┠ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࠊ᭱ୗẁᕥ➃ࡢ⳶⸃࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⭎ࢆ㢌ࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ᣲࡆࠊ┠࡟ගࡀධࡿࡢࢆ㐽ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ୗẁ࡛⋢ᗙ࡟᭱ࡶ㏆࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ⳶⸃ീ஧యࡣࠊ௖㝀࠿ࡽ㢦ࢆࡑࡴࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮦ㉁ἲ㔞୙᫂ࠋ
Marshall (1960: pl. 110, fig. 151); Rhi (1991: pl. 65); Schlingloff (1991: fig. 42, ⥺ᅗ); Schlingloff
(2000: II, 102, no. 29, ⥺ᅗ).
ᾋ᙮7: ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂76; ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ᪧⶶ77㸦ᅗ9㸧
௚ࡢస౛࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࡸࡸᖹᯈ࡞ᾋ᙮࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⌧≧࡛ࡣ஧ࡘ࡟๭ࢀ࡚◚ᦆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୰ኸ࡟
ࡣࡸࡸᑠࡉࡃ୺ᑛࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ୺࡟஧ࡘࡢ㒊ศ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊⶈ
⳹ୡ⏺࡜ୖ᪉ࡢᴥ㛶ᘓ⠏ࡢ㒊ศ࡛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣูಶ࡟ูࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࡀࠊෆᐜ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟୺㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ᵓᡂࡣࠊࡇࡢ⣔⤫ࡢᾋ᙮ࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ୺㢟࡟㛵ࢃ
ࡿ௖ୡ⏺ࡢ⠊␪࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ぢࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡼ࠸ซ౛࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡣࠊᐆ▼࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⶈⱼࡢ࠶ࡿẚ㍑ⓗ⡆⣲࡛పࡃࡵࡢⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ᆘࡍࡀࠊࡇ
ࡢⶈ⳹࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿே≀ീࡣぢཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋⶈᘚࡣෆഃࡢ༙෇ࡢ㒊ศ࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ⴥࡢඛ➃㒊ศࢆ
ᑤࡽࡏ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⊂≉ࡢᙧែࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢୖ᪉࡟ࡣࠊᐆᶞ࡜୕᪥᭶ᆺࡢ⿦㣭ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࡓ
ച⵹ࡀ୍⥴࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊച⵹ࡢ᯶ࡣࠊࡑࡢୗ᪉࡛ⰼ⎔ࢆࡉࡉࡆ࡚㣕⩧ࡍࡿ஧ேࡢࣉࢵࢺ࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡯࠿ࠊᐆᶞ࡟ࡣྠᵝࡢⰼࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࠺
ࡕ஧యࡢே≀ࡀࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛ୖ༙㌟ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊྜᤸ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐆᶞࡢᕥୗ᪉࡟࠶ࡿṇ㠃ほ
ࡢⰼ࡟ࡣࠊⰼ⥘ࢆࡉࡉࡆࡶࡘୖ༙㌟ീࡢே≀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡶᐆᶞࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊྑഃ࡟ࡶ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣᑐᛂࡍࡿே≀ീࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
76
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣᵝᘧⓗ࡟ࠊࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ (excavated 1908) ฟᅵࡢᮏ✏ᾋ᙮ 16 ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
77
ᮏࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ 1913–14 ᖺࡢࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤⶶグ㘓෗┿࡟ࡼࡿࠋ⌧ᅾࡢᡤᅾᆅࡣ୙᫂ࠋ
157 --- 157
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
୰ኸࡢ௖ୡ⏺࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⪷⾗ࡽࡢᵓᡂࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ᫂☜࡟୕ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᐆᶞ
ࡢ࠶ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ௖㝀ീࡢ࠶ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝࠊࡑࡋ࡚௖㝀ࡼࡾୗ᪉ࡢ୕ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୰ẁ࡛ࡣ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ
࡟ṇ㠃ほࡢ⳶⸃ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ୍య⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊ᪋↓⏽༳
㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧ࢆ⤖ࡧࠊỈ⎼ࢆᇳࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣᅗീⓗ࡟ࡣᘺີࡢ⾲⌧࡟౫ࡿࠋྑࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ࠿ࡘ
࡚ⰼ⥘ࢆᡭ࡟ᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺ࡔࡀࠊ㢌㒊࡜ྑᡭࡣḞᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡢ୧ഃ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ஧
ே୍⤌ࡢ⳶⸃ᆘീࡀୖୗ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓ⳶⸃ࡣྑ᪉ࡢ୍⤌ࢆḞ࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⳶⸃
ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿጼែࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢ⳶⸃ࡶ௖㝀ࡢ᪉ࢆྥ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞஧ே୍
⤌ࡣࠊୖẁࡢᐆᶞࡢഐࡽ࡟ࡶ㓄ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊᕥࡢ୍⤌ࡔࡅࡀ᏶Ꮡࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊእഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ㊭ᆘࡋ
࡚♩ᣏࡢጼໃࢆ࡜ࡾࠊ୍᪉ෆഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ௖㝀࡟ᩓ⳹ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྑഃ࡟࠶ࡗࡓ୍⤌ࡶ㢮ఝࡢᅗീ
࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋୗẁ࡛ࡣ┦஫࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ୐యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୰ኸࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ
ࡳ❧ീ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᾋ᙮඲యࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢุูࡣࠊ๓
⪅ࡀ㢌㧥ࡢ୰ᚰⓗ⿦㣭࡟┿⌔ࡢ㐃⌔㣭ࡾࢆ╔ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ⳶⸃ࡣ
ࡳ࡞ⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᭱ୖẁࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢬ࡟ࡣࠊྎᙧࡶࡋࡃࡣ༙෇࢔࣮ࢳ≧࡛༊ษࡽࢀࡓ஬ࡘࡢᘓ⠏≀ࡢ༊⏬ෆ࡟஬ࡘ
ࡢሙ㠃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ኸ࡟ࡣ⚙ᐃࡢ௖㝀ീࡀࠊᅄࡶࡋࡃࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖࡢ௖❧ീࢆⓎฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ୰ኸࡢ௖㝀ࡢ୧ഃ࡟ࡣࠊㄝἲ༳௖㝀ᆘീࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡣ㊊ࢆ஺⬮ࡋࠊྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ྑࡣ
㏻ᖖࡢⶈྎ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥ➃ࡣࠊࣈ࣮ࣛࣇ࣐ࢼ࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᕥྑ࡟௖㝀ࢆྵࡴࡉ
ࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᑛീࢆⓎฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྑ➃ࡢ௖㝀ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟௖ᅜᅵࢆᕥྑࡢ♩ᣏ⪅࡟♧⌧ࡍࡿᵝᏊ࡛ࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣᕥࡣẚୣࠊྑࡣ⳶⸃ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࡳࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ♩ᣏ⪅ࡢど⥺ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟௖ᅜ
ᅵ࡟ὀࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊୖẁࡢ୺ᑛࡣࡳ࡞㏉ⰼࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
∦ᒾ; ἲ㔞୙᫂.
グ㘓෗┿: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
ᾋ᙮8: ୖ㒊࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᘓ㐀≀ࢆ㓄ࡋࡓⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝࠊ࣐࢘ࣥࢻ D78ฟᅵ; ࢝
ࣛࢳᅜ❧༤≀㤋ⶶ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ⛥࡞స౛࡛ࠊࡼࡾ⡆␎໬ࡉࢀࡓᵓᡂ࡛ࠊ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ୗ᪉࡟ࡣ౪㣴
⪅ࢆకࡗ࡚⳶⸃ᆘീࡀ୍ิ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୺ᑛࡢㄝἲ༳௖㝀ࡣച⵹ࡢࡶ࡜79ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾᑠࡉ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ࡣࠊⰼ
⎔ࢆࡉࡉࡆࡶࡗ࡚㣕⩧ࡍࡿ஧యࡢࣉࢵࢺࡢ⑞㊧ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋⶈᘚࡣ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤᖹᯈ࠿
ࡘ⡆⣲࡛ࠊ୕㔜࠶ࡿⰼᘚࡢ࠺ࡕ஧㔜ࡣ㏉ⰼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⶈ⳹ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣᆅ㠃࡟㊭ᆘࡋ࡚♩ᣏࡍࡿ஧
యࡢே≀ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ⌧≧࡛㢌㒊ࢆḞᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃẚୣ㸦࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⏨ᛶ࡛⿦㌟ල
78
ฟᅵᆅࡣ Rhi (1991)࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
ᮏస౛ࢆึබหࡋࡓࡢࡣᰩ⏣࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ᙼࡣࡇࢀࢆ Taxila ฟᅵ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(Kurita 2003:
I, pl. 401)ࠋᮏᾋ᙮࡟ࡣ┿㉚ࢆ␲࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᾋ᙮ᇶቭࡢ᫂☜࡞㏣้ࡸಙ៰ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ
ᦆയ࠿ࡽᨭᣢࡋᚓࡿࠋ
79
⊃ᑠࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡺ࠼࡟ࠊᾋ᙮࡟ᐆᶞࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ
- 158 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊ㧗ࡉࡢ࠶ࡿⶈ⳹࡟஧⣔⤫ࡢ⳶⸃ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ
❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ᮰㧥࡛ࠊྑᡭࢆᜤ㡰ࡢ௙ⲡࢆ♧ࡋࠊᕥᡭ࡟Ỉ⎼ࢆᇳࡿࠋࡑࡢ
ࡓࡵࠊᘺີ࡟ẚᐃࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋྑࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛ࠊⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣᅄయࡢ
⳶⸃ࡀᆘࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᕥୗࡢ⳶⸃ࡣⰼࢆᣢࡕࠊྑୖࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋྑୗࡢ⳶⸃
ࡣ⭎ࢆ㢌ୖ࡟ᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋẚୣ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿே≀࡜ᕥྑୗ᪉ࡢ⳶⸃ᆘീࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊࡳ࡞ࡀⶈ⳹ୖ
࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓẚୣ௨እࡣࡍ࡭࡚㢌ගࢆక࠺ࠋ
ୖẁᕥྑ㝮࡟ࡣࠊኊ㯇࡞ᘓ㐀≀ࡀ஧ࡘ┳ྲྀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡛⚙ᐃࡍࡿ௖
㝀࡜ࠊࡑࡢ୧⬥ౝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⳶⸃࡜ᛮࡋࡁ஧యࡢྜᤸീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗẁࡣࠊୖ᪉ࡢ୺㢟࡟
ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᚋ௦࡟㏣้ࡉࢀࡓ㒊ศ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ᙮้ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡢ‴᭤ࡋࡓ⫼ᬒ㒊ศࡸࠊᾋ᙮
୰ኸ㒊ศ࡜ୗẁ㒊ศࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ㒊ศ࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࡸࡸᢔࡿࡼ࠺࡞㗦࠸࢚ࢵࢪࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᵝᘧⓗ┦㐪࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࢀ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࡣࠊ୍ิ࡟භయࡢ㢌ගࢆࡶࡘ⳶⸃ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢ
ᅄయࡣ௖㝀ࢆぢୖࡆ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠺ࡕࡢ஧యࡣᡭ࡟ⰼࢆࡉࡉࡆᣢࡕࠊ୍యࡣఱ࠿ㄽࡎࡿᵝᏊ࡛ࠊࡶ
࠺୍యࡣྜᤸ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋእഃࡢ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ୰ኸࡢ௖㝀࠿ࡽ㢦ࢆࡑࡴࡅࠊ୧➃࡟❧ࡘᐤ㐍
⪅ࡓࡕ࡜ゝⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋᕥࡢ⏨ᛶ஧ேࡣࠊᕥᡭ࡟Ỉ⎼ࢆᣢࡘ⳶⸃ࢆ♩ᣏࡋ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊྑ᪉࡟ࡣ౪≀ࢆᦠ࠼ࡓዪᛶ஧ே࡜ᙜึⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿ⳶⸃ࡀ┳ྲྀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; ἲ㔞୙᫂
ᅗ∧: C. Luczanits 2007.
Miyaji (1985b: pl. VIII, 2); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 401); Rhi (1991: pl. 40).
ᾋ᙮9: ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮;ࢫ࣡ࣅ㸦Swabi㸧ࡢ࣮ࣖࢡࣅ㸦YƗkubi㸧80 ฟᅵ ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊ
ᡤⶶ␒ྕ3110 (ᪧ 280)81
ࡸࡸᑠ᣺ࡾࡢࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ஧ࡘࡢ㒊ศ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋୖẁࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᚰ
ࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥྑ࡟㸦ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ᵓᡂ࡜ࡍࢀࡤ㸧ࠊᘓ㐀≀࡟ᆘࡍ๪ḟⓗ࡞⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ୗẁࡣࠊ⚙ᐃ༳ࡢ⳶⸃ീࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ୍࡚ิ࡟」ᩘࡢே≀ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊᚋ㏙
ࡍࡿࠕⓎฟࢱ࢖ࣉࠖࡢᾋ᙮࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᚋࡢ᫬௦࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୺ᑛࡣㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡧࠊ㐺ᗘ࡞኱ࡁࡉࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ୧⭸ࡣⶈ⳹ࡢ➃࠿ࡽ࠿࡞ࡾ✺ฟࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋᙜึࡣ⭎ࡢ㧗ࡉࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࠊ㢌ගࡢ࠶ࡿ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀⶈ⳹࡟❧ࡕࠊ௖㝀࡟ౝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜
ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ⌧≧࡛ࡣ୍యࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡࡋࠊࡑࢀࡶ࠿࡞ࡾᦆയࡀⴭࡋ࠸ࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊⰼ⥘
ࢆᣢࡘ஧ே≀ࡀᆅ㠃࡟㊭ᆘࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
⳶⸃ീ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋୖẁࡢᕥୗ࡟ࡣࠊᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰࡟ᚋ⬮ࡢጼໃ࡛⡢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ⳶⸃ࡀࡳ࠼ࠊ㊊ࢆ
ⶈ⳹࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ௒࡟ࡶ㛤࠿ࢇ࡜
ࡍࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋᘓ㐀≀ࡢୖ᪉࡟ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟኱ࡁࡉࡢ␗࡞ࡿูࡢ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀࡳࡽ
80
Spooner (1912: 129) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊWilson-Johnson Ặ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᑠᕝ࠿ࡽⓎぢࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࢫ࣡ࣅࡣ࣮࢝ࣈࣝἙ࡜࢖
ࣥࢲࢫἙࡢྜὶᆅⅬࡢࡍࡄ໭࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࠋ
81
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ Wilson Johnstone I.C.I ኱బࡢᐤ㉗࡛࠶ࡿ (Ali & Qazi 2008: 160–61)ࠋ
159 --- 159
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࢀࡿࠋୗࡢᑠࡉ࠸⳶⸃ࡣ㊭ᆘࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊୖࡢ኱ࡁ࡞⳶⸃ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃࡛ࠊ㐟ᡙ
ᆘ࡛ࠊྑ⭎ࢆୖ᪉࡟ᣲࡆࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ௖㝀࡟౪≀ࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢୖ࡟
ࡣࡶ࠺஧యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰࡟ᆘࡋ࡚⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃࡜ࠊ௖㝀ࡢ⫗㧳
ࡢ㧗ࡉ࡛ᆘࡍ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ
ᘓ㐀≀⮬యࡀⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶ࠺୍ேࡢྎᗙࡣࡍ࡛࡟Ḟᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢ๪
ḟⓗ࡞ᑛീࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࠊ୺ᑛ࡛࠶ࡿ௖㝀࡟ど⥺ࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⶈ⳹ୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⪅ࡢࡳ㢌ග
ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ୗẁ༊⏬࡛ࡣࠊ୰ኸ࡟ࠊᶞୗ࡛⚙ᐃࡍࡿࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ⳶⸃ࡀప࠸ྎᗙ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩜ≀ࡢୖ࡟
ᆘࡍࡢࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟஧యࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⭸ࢆᗈࡃ㛤
࠸࡚஺⬮㸦౛እⓗ࡟ࡃࡿࡪࡋࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛஺ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࡢጼໃࢆ࡜ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡸࡸ㧗ࡵࡢྎ
ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ㸦ࡇࡢୗ㒊༊⏬࡟ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸㸧ࠊᙼࡽࡢഐࡽ࡟❧ࡘࡸࡸᑠࡉ࡞ே≀⩌࡜ゝ
ⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡍࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥഃ࡟ࡣ୕ேࡢᅾ಑ಙ⪅ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ⳶⸃࡟㏆࠸ே≀ࡣⰼࢆᡭ
࡟ࡋࠊ௚ࡢ஧ேࡣྜᤸ♩ᣏࡍࡿࠋྑഃࡢ၏୍ṧᏑࡍࡿே≀ീࡣẚୣ࡛ࠊ⳶⸃࡛ࡣ࡞࠸᪉ྥࢆྥ
࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࡞࠾ࠊୗẁୗ㒊࡟ࡣᐤ㐍㖭ᩥࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ82ࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 59.73 × 36.85 cm.
Spooner (1912: 129-32, pl. xlvii); Coomaraswamy (1927: fig. 54); Zimmer (1954: II, 64a); Lyons &
Ingholt (1957: 123–124, fig. 256); von Mitterwallner (1987: fig. 3); Rhi (1991: pl. 43); Schlingloff
(1991: fig. 40, ⥺ᅗ); Schlingloff (2000: II, 102, no. 22, ⥺ᅗ); Ali & Qazi (2008: 160–61).
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ
ᾋ᙮10: 㐣ཤ୐௖࠾ࡼࡧᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆక࠺ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ ฟᅵ83; ࢳࣕࣥࢹ
࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ113484 㸦ᅗ10㸧
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ୕ẁ࡟༊ศࡉࢀࠊ኱ኚ⣲⢭ᕦ࡞ᘓ⠏⣽㒊ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿኊ㯇࡞ᴥ㛶ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᾋ
᙮ୖẁࡣ୰ኸሙ㠃ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊୗẁࡣ☜ᐇ࡟ูಶࡢ୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୰ኸࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡣࠊㄝἲ༳௖㝀࡜ࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟ౝࡍᆅ㠃࡟ࡓࡘ஧యࡢ⳶⸃࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋ୺ᑛࡣᐆ
▼࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⶈⱼࢆక࠺኱ࡁ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊⶈⱼࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣⶈᘚ࡟ᡭࢆゐࢀࡿ㊭ᆘീࡢே
82
ࡇࡢ㖭ᩥࡢゎㄞ࡜ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢙࢘ࣈࢧ࢖ࢺ (http://gandhari.org/) ࡢ“YƗkubi image inscription,” CKI0139
ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋྠ㖭ᩥࡢ㔜せᛶࡣ Brown (1984: 82), Fussman (1987: 74, n. 38), von Mitterwallner (1987: 227–228), Rhi
(1991: 109, n. 28) ㅖẶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ༑ศ࡞⤖ㄽ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᡃࠎࡣࡇࡢሙࢆ࠿ࡾ࡚
Stefan Baums Ặ࡟ㅰពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋẶࡣ⌧ᅾࡇࡢ㖭ᩥࡢゎㄞ࡜ゎ㔘࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋẶࡢ◊✲ࡣ࡞࠾㐍⾜୰࡛࠶
ࡿࡀࠊ⌧ẁ㝵࡛ jinakumaro ࡜࠸࠺ㄞࡳࡀᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ☜ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ୺ᑛࡀ㔘㏑∹
ᑽീ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ㖭ᩥࡢ᰿ᣐࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
83
ᮏ౛ࡣࢫ࣮࣡ࢺ㐠Ἑᕤ஦୺௵(C.E) Dempster Ặ࡟ࡼࡾࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜࡢᮧࡢ㏆㑹ࡢ࣐࢘ࣥࢻ࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓ
( Burgess 1897: 8, pl. 112 ࡢグ㏙ࢆཧ↷)ࠋ
84
ྠࡌ཰ⶶ␒ྕ࡟࡚࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ᪧⶶࠋ
- 160 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
≀ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㢌㒊ࢆḞᦆࡋࠊಶࠎ࡟ุูࡋࡀࡓ࠸ࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊᙼࡽࡣⰼ⥘
ࡢࡳࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ྑࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢ㢌ୖࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ࡟ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࡓ⚙ᐃ
༳ࡢ௖㝀ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࠊྠᵝࡢ௖㝀ࡀ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᕥࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ࡟ࡶᙜึࡣ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ࡜୺ᑛࡢ㢌㒊ࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ୕ேࡢே≀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࡼ࠺࡛ࠊᕥྑ࡜ࡶ୰ኸࡢே≀ീࡣḞᦆࡍࡿࡀࠊ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿே≀ീࡣࡳ࡞ዪᛶ࡛ࠊ㢌ගࡣࡳࡽࢀ
࡞࠸ࠋྑ➃࡟ࡣࠊᅄே┠ࡢዪᛶീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊᕥ➃ࡢே≀ീࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᙧࢆ࡜࡝ࡵ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋ
ᾋ᙮ୖ㒊࡛ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢᴥ㛶ᘓ⠏ࡢ◚㢼ᙧ⿦㣭ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࠊ༑Ꮠᙧ≧ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᕥഃࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ⳶⸃ࡀ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ஺⬮࡟ࡋ࡚㊊ࢆྎᗙ࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ྑഃࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟ࡣࠊⰼ⥘ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚ᛮᝳࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋඛࡢ⳶⸃࡜ྠᵝ࡟㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࠊ
ྑ㊊ࢆྎᗙ࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊᕥྑ࡟ྜᤸ♩ᣏࡍࡿ⳶⸃❧ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ㒊ศⓗ
࡟ṧᏑࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୰ኸࡢ◚㢼ᙧ⿦㣭࡟ࡣࠊฟᐙ㋒ᇛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝヰᅗࡀ2ሙ㠃࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊୗ࠿ࡽୖ࡬࡜
࠸࠺㏻ᖖ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ㏫ࡢሙ㠃ᒎ㛤ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃฟᇛሙ㠃ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿពᅗ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺ࠋୖࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ⳶⸃ࡀṇ㠃ほ࡛࢔࣮ࢳࡢእ࡬஌ࡾฟࡍᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢᕥ
࡟ࡣࠊࢡࢩ࣮ࣕࢼ᪘ࡢ⾰᭹ࢆ㌟࡟ࡲ࡜ࡗࡓே≀ീࡀࡳ࠼ࡿࠋୗࡢሙ㠃ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ⳶⸃ࡀ
ᐷྎ࠿ࡽ㉳ࡁୖࡀࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊᕥഃ࡛㊭ࡃᚚ⪅࡟ᡭࢆࡢࡤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ஧ேࡢ╀ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔዪᛶࡶ
୧➃࡟☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡢᒇୖ㝵࡟ࡣࠊඛ㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ዪᛶീࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ
࡜࠿ࡽࠊᙜึࡣྛᴥ㛶ࡢᕥྑ࡟୍ேࡎࡘ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᾋ᙮ᇶቭ࡟ࡣ㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ࡑࡢྑഃ࡟ᘺີ⳶⸃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඵయࡍ࡭࡚࡟㢌ගࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡢ┦㐪ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋពእ࡟ࡶࠊࡇࡢ௖࣭⳶⸃ࡢ୧➃ࡢᑛീࡣࠊࡍࡄഐ
ࡽ࡟࠸ࡿ♩ᣏ⪅࡟㢦ࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥ࡟ࡣ୕ேࡢᡂே࡜Ꮚ౪ࡀྜᤸࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྑഃ࡛
ࡣࠊẚୣࡀ୍⤌ࡢ⏨ዪ࡟ᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆᘬࡁྜࢃࡏࡿ࠿ࡢࡈ࡜ࡃ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᇶቭ㒊ࡢᑛീࠊே
≀ീ࡜ࡶ࡟ࡳ࡞ᆅ㠃࡟㉳❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ㸹 105×77 cm.
グ㘓ᅗ∧: ࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ; ኱ⱥᅗ᭩㤋85.
Cole (1883: pl. 1 (sketch); 1885: pl. 1); Burgess (1897: pl. 112); Foucher (1905: 193, fig. 77); Foucher
(1917: pl. xxvi, 1); Grünwedel (1920: fig. 63, ⥺ᅗ); Marshall (1960: fig. 123); Miyaji (1985a: 88, fig.
17; 1985b: pl. IX, 2; 2002: 24, fig. 3); Paul (1986: 171, no. 1134); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 397); Rhi
(1991: pl. 45); Bhattacharyya (2002: no. 340, “ᴟᴦίᅵ࡛ㄝἲࡍࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖”).
ᾋ᙮11: 㔜ᒙᘓ⠏ࡢᴥ㛶ࢆ⾲ࡍᾋ᙮ୖ㒊᩿∦; ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ⶶࠊ཰ⶶ␒ྕ113786
ᙜึࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ኱ᆺ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿᾋ᙮ࡢୖ㒊ࡢࡳࡀ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋ୕ẁ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ே≀ീࢆ
85
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/s/019pho000001003u01099000.html
86
ྠࡌ཰ⶶ␒ྕ࡟࡚࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ᪧⶶࠋ
161 --- 161
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
୍ิ࡟㓄ࡍࡿࠋୗẁࡣ୰ኸࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ࡜ྠࡌ㧗ࡉ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ࢔࣮ࢳࡢୗ࡟୺ᑛࡀᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡳࡽ
ࢀࡿࠋ
ୖẁ୰ኸ࡟ࡣࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡀ1ᇶ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ໬௖ࢆⓎࡍࡿ௖㝀ീ࡜
⳶⸃ീࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᰕ㢌ⓗ⿦㣭ᇶቭࡢୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓ୰ኸࡢࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡣࠊ୕ᒙࡢ෇ᙧ⬗㒊࡜ࠊ
そ㖊㒊ศ࡟௖㝀ീࢆ࠾ࡉࡵࡓᅄࡘࡢ௖㱥ࢆල࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᕧ኱࡞ച⵹ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୐ᒙ࠶ࡾࠊ
そ㖊࠿ࡽᨭᰕࡀఙࡧ࡚ച⵹ࢆᨭ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ኱ࡁ࡞ᖮᖭࡶࡓ࡞ࡧ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋᇶቭ
ࡢᅄ㝮࡟ࡣ⊺Ꮚᰕ㢌ࢆࡶࡘᰕࡀ࠶ࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥ࡟ࡣ⚙ᐃ༳ࡢ௖㝀ീࡀച⵹ࡢࡶ࡜࡛㏉ⰼࡢⶈ
⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊᕥྑ࡟භయ௨ୖࡢ໬௖❧ീࢆⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠࡌᵓᅗ࡛ྑഃࡢ⳶⸃ീࡶභయࡢᑛീ
ࢆᕥྑ࡟Ⓨࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕᕥഃࡢࡳࡀ᏶Ꮡࡋࠊ୰ኸࡢ୍యࡣࢫ࢝ࣥࢲ㸦Skanda㸧⚄࡟ẚᐃ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ87ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊࡕࡻ࠺࡝⇞⇠௖ࡢ๓࡛ࡢ๓⏕ࡢ㔘㏑∹ᑽࡀㄋ㢪ࢆ
⾜ࡗࡓ㝿ࡢࡈ࡜ࡃࠊ㌟ࢆᒅࡵ࡚ప㢌ࡍࡿ᮰㧥ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ஧యぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
୰ẁࡣ࢔࣮ࢳࡢࡍࡄୖ࡟࠶ࡾࠊᰕ࡟༊ษࡽࢀࡓ஬ࡘࡢ༢ᒙࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟ࡼࡾᡂࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢᘓ㐀
≀࡛ࡣ᪋↓⏽༳㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧ࢆ⤖ࡪ௖ᆘീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧⬥ࡢ஧ࡘࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟ᆘࡍ⳶
⸃ീࡣ୰ኸࡢ௖ᆘീ࡟ࡲࡗࡍࡄ㢦ࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢእഃࡢᘓ㐀≀ෆ࡛ᆘࡍ⳶⸃ീࡣ㢦ࢆእ࡟
ྥࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୧➃ࡢ࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㒊ศࡀኻࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡇࡢẁ࡟ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୐
ࡘࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋcf. ௨ୗࡢᾋ᙮12㸧ࠋࡇࡢ୰ẁࡢิࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣⶈ⳹ᗙ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ
⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᒇ᰿࡟Ꮝ㞛ࡀ࡜ࡲࡿ୰ኸࡢ࢔࣮ࢳࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊᅄࡘࡢᘓ⠏≀ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ᙜึᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ
භࡘᏑᅾࡋࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸧ࠋෆഃࡢᘓ⠏≀ෆ࡟ࡣᆅ㠃࡟㊭ࡁࠊ୰ኸࡢ࢔࣮ࢳࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ୺ᑛࡢ᪉
ࢆྥࡃ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋእഃࡢᘓ≀ࡣྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥഃ㸦ヂὀ㸧ࡢࡳࡀ⌧Ꮡࡋࠊ࡞࠿࡟ⶈ⳹ᗙ
࡟ᆘࡍㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡍࡄୗࡢẁࡣࠊ⌧≧࡛࢔࣮ࢳ௜㱥ࡀභࡘᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ
ࡀ༑ศ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 76 × 95 cm.
Foucher (1905: fig. 78); Paul (1986: 171, no. 1137); Taddei (1987/2003: fig. 4); Rhi (1991: pl. 49);
Schlingloff (1991: fig. 45, ⥺ᅗ); Schlingloff (2000: II, 103, no. 19, ⥺ᅗ); Bhattacharyya (2002: no. 341).
ᾋ᙮12: 㔜ᒙᘓ⠏ࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝࠊ࣐࢘ࣥࢻDฟᅵ㸦1911–12ᖺⓎ᥀㸧;
࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊ཰ⶶ␒ྕ2771 (ᪧ1554, 60)
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ᩿∦࡛Ⓨぢࡉࢀࠊ෌ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊᇶቭ㒊ࡣ኱㒊ศࡀḞᦆࡍࡿࠋᾋ᙮ࡢᵓᡂ
ࡣ୕ẁ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ୺ࡓࡿ௖୕ᑛീࢆྵࡴୗẁࡣᾋ᙮඲యࡢ3ศࡢ2ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡟࢔࣮
ࢳࡢิࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᭱ୖ㒊࡟ࡣ୕ࡘࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୰ኸࡢ௖㝀ീࡣࢳࣕ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣖᆺ࢔࣮ࢳࡢୗ࡛ࡸࡸ⡆⣲࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡢୗ࡟ࡣ㇟ࡀ
87
᭱ୖ㒊ࡢே≀ࡣࢡ࣮࣋ࣛ (Kubera) ⚄࡟ẚᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ(Bhattacharyya 2002: 112)ࠊ㊊ࡢ๓࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠊ⣽㛗ࡃඛ➃
ࡢᑤࡗࡓᲬ≧ࡢᣢ≀ࢆྑᡭ࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ᣢࡕࠊᕥᡭ࡟⿄ࢆᥦࡆࡿ࡜࠶ࡿࡀࠊ༑ศ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ヂὀ
ྑഃ㸽
- 162 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
┳ྲྀ࡛ࡁࠊᙜึࡣࡑࡢ㰯࡛ⶈ⳹ࢆᤝࡆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑࡣ࣌ࣝࢭ࣏ࣜࢫᘧิ
ᰕ࡛༊ษࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢᕥྑ༊⏬࡟ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡀ㏉ⰼࡢⶈ⳹ୖ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥࡢ
⳶⸃ീࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࢆࡘࡅࠊ᪋↓⏽༳㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧ࢆ♧ࡋࠊⶈࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽほ㡢
⳶⸃࡜ࡳࡽࢀࠊෙ㣭ࢆࡘࡅ࡞࠸ྑഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ୚㢪༳㸦varadamudrƗ㸧࡜Ỉ⎼࠿ࡽᘺີ⳶⸃࡜
ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢔࣮ࢳୗẁࡢᡪᙧ㒊ศ࡟ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓᑠࡉ࡞⳶⸃ീࡀ㇟ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ௖
㝀ࢆ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡢ୍యࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡ㸧ࠋ࢔࣮ࢳୗẁࡢእഃ࡟ࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡑࢀࡒࢀ୕ேࡢዪᛶࡀ❧ീ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㢌ගࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ⣽ࡸ࠿࡟ᩚ࠼ࡽࢀࡓ㢌㧥ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠋ࢔࣮ࢳ᭱ୖ㒊࡟ࡣࠊᙜึ஧యࡢࣉࢵࢺࡀ௖㝀ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ⰼ⥘ࢆᤝࡆ࡚࠸ࡓࡣࡎࡔࡀࠊ௒ࡣ࠺
ࡕ୍యࡀ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔࣮ࢳ᭱ୖ㒊ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣࠊ௖୕ᑛീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᚰ࡟ㄝ
ἲ༳௖㝀ീ㸦ྑഃࡣḞᦆࡍࡿࡶࠊᕥഃࡣ⌧Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜ࠊࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟୍ᑐࡢࠊඛࡢ௖㝀ീ࡟
య㌣ࢆྥࡅ࡚⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽභయࡢ௖㝀ീࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ḟࡢẁ࡟ࡶࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶྠᵝࡢᙧࢆ࿊ࡋࡓ࢔࣮ࢳ㸦ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୐ࡘ㸧≧ࡢ㱥ෆ࡟ᑛീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ୰ኸ࡟᪋↓⏽༳ࢆ⤖ࡧࠊ⾰➃ࢆᇳࡿ௖㝀ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡶ஧యࡢ
௖㝀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡢ௖㝀ࡣ⚙ᐃࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍᪉ྑ᪉ࡣ᩿∦࡞ࡀࡽࠊㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡪ
ࡢࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ୕య࡜ࡶⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᕥྑ୧⬥࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ஧యࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ㓄ࡉ
ࢀࠊ࠺ࡕෆഃࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ᮰㧥࡛㊊ࢆ஺⬮࡟ࡋࠊእഃࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛ᛮᝳࡍࡿᵝᏊ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ⳶⸃⾗ࡣࡳ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ୖẁࡣࠊࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࢆ୰ኸ࡟㓄ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୧⬥࡟ࠊ௖ఏሙ㠃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ࢔ࢩ
࣮ࣙ࢝⋤᪋ᅵ࡜⇞⇠௖ᤵグ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ௖㝀࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤵグࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿㄝヰ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ୧➃࡟ࡣ஧⣔⤫ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀูಶࡢᘓ㐀≀ෆ࡛ㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡧࠊࡃ
ࡿࡪࡋࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡛㊊ࢆ஺⬮࡟ࡋࠊ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣⰼ⥘ࢆࡶࡗ࡚౪㣴ࡍࡿே
≀ീࡀ❧ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢୖ᪉࡟ࡣ✵୰࡟ᾋ࠿ࡪே≀ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 114.37 × 71.17 cm.
Hargreaves (1930: 98-99); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 125–26, fig. 257); Miyaji (1985b: pl. VI, 1–3; 2008:
fig. 1, 5 ཬࡧ 7); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 396); Rhi (1991: pl. 39; 2006: fig. 7.14); Schlingloff (1991:
fig. 44, ⥺ᅗ; 2000: II, 102, no. 25, ⥺ᅗ); Ali & Qazi (2008: 150–51).
ᾋ᙮13: ⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ (Loriyan Tangai) ฟᅵ88; ࢥࣝ
࢝ࢱ࣭࢖ࣥࢻ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕA 23484 (ᪧ5090) 㸦ᅗ12㸧
ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീ࡜୧⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡓࡸࡸ⡆⣲࡞ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࠊᙜึࡣ㏉ⰼࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ
ୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛ࠊࡑࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡶูಶ࡟ฟᅵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ89ࠋ⊂≉࡞ࡢࡣࠊᾋ᙮㡬㒊ࡢ✺㉳
88
ࡇࡢฟᅵᆅࡢ᝟ሗࡣ Marshall (1960: fig. 122)࡟ࡼࡿࠋྠ᭩ࡢ⦰ᑠ෗┿࡟ࡣࠊࢫ࣮࣡ࢺ῱㇂ᑗ᮶࡜࠸࠺⣬ࡀᾋ᙮࡟㈞
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࡳ࠼ࡿࠋึᮇࡢᩥ⊩࡛ࡣ࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ࡣࢫ࣮࣡ࢺࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
89
ⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ෗ࡍྂ࠸グ㘓෗┿ࡶṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣᖮᖭࡸ㫽࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⿦㣭ࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡶ↓
യ࡛ࠊస౛ࡀⓎぢࡉࢀࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣ᏶Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
163 --- 163
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
㒊ศ࡛ࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚ച⵹ࢆᨭ࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᾋ᙮ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟୕ẁ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊ
௖୕ᑛീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࡓ୰ኸࡢᴥ㛶ࠊᕥྑ࡟ᘓ㐀≀ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࡓᒇ᰿࿘㎶ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ᭱ୗẁࡢࣇࣜ
࣮ࢬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୰ኸࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ᴥ㛶࡟ࡣ୕ࡘࡢ㱥ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୰ኸࡢ㱥࡟ࡣ⦪ᖜ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸࡟୺ᑛࡓࡿ௖㝀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡣ㎈ἲ㍯༳㸦dharmacakramudrƗ㸧ࢆ⤖ࡧࠊ㇟ࡀᨭ࠼ࡿ஧㔜ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࠋ௖㝀ࡢ
㢌ୖ࡟ࡣࡡࡌࢀࡓⰼ⥘࡜ࡑࡢᕥྑ࠿ࡽࣜ࣎ࣥࡀࡓ࡞ࡧࡃࠋ࣌ࣝࢭ࣏ࣜࢫᘧᰕ࡛༊ษࡽࢀࡓ༊⏬
࡟୧⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡀᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ஺⬮ᆘീ࡛ࠊ ᕥᡭࢆ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀࡜ᑐヰࡍࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ᡭ᣺ࡾ࡛♧ࡋࠊྑᡭࢆ⭸࡟࠾ࡃࡀࠊ⭸࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ᙼࡀᇳࡿỈ⎼ࡢ㍯㒌ࡀ࡞࠾☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࠾
ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡇࡢീࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊḟ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿྑࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀࢧࣥ
ࢲࣝࢆ╔⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ〄㊊࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᥎ᐹ࡛ࡁࡿࠋྑࡢ⳶
⸃ࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛ᛮᝳᙧࢆ࿊ࡍࠋ㐟ᡙᆘ㸦lalitƗsana㸧࡛ࠊྑᡭࢆ㢌࡟ῧ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞௙ⲡ࡛ࠊ
ᕥᡭࡣ⭸ࡢ࠶ࡓࡾ࡛⳹⶝ࢆᇳࡿࠋ୧⳶⸃࡜ࡶᆅ㠃࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡓ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࡀࠊᕥഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ㊊ࢆ
ⶈ⳹࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ୧⳶⸃ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ౪≀ࡢⰼࢆᡭ࡟ࡋࡓ஧ேࡢዪ
ᛶീࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᭱ୖ㒊ࡢ◚㢼ᙧ࢔࣮ࢳࡣ௖♩ᣏᅗ࡟๭࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢔࣮ࢳෆୖ㒊࡟ࡣ௖❧ീ࡜ᕥྑ࡟୍ᑐࡢ
౪㣴⪅ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࠊ୍᪉ࡑࡢୗ࡟⥆ࡃ㒊ศ࡟ࡣࠊྎᗙࡣᖹᯈ࡛ࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍ᑐࡢ
⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീ࡜ࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟㊭ࡃ౪㣴⪅ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡣ༢
୍ᡣᐊ࡛ࠊ஧ᒙࡢᒇ᰿ࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟ࡶぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢ࢔࣮ࢳୖ᪉࡟ࡣ㡬⳹ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᕥഃ࡟ࡣ
ࡓ࡞ࡧࡃᖮᖭࡀ௒ࡶṧࡿࠋ
ᇶቭ㒊ࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢬ࡟ࡣ஬ேࡢࣉࢵࢺࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ⰼ⥘ࢆ࠿࠿࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣇ࣮ࣜࢬࡢᕥྑ୧➃࡟ࡣ
ྜᤸࡍࡿே≀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠺ࡕᕥࡣẚୣ࡛࠶ࡾࠊྑࡣዪᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᬯ⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 85.5×40.5×12.2 cm; 1mࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢ㧗ࡉࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࡶྵࡴ90
グ㘓ᅗ∧: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ; ࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ
࢔⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ
Burgess (1900: fig. 25); Foucher (1905: 192, fig. 76; 1917: pl. xxv, 1)91; Majumdar (1937: 67–68, pl. ix,
c); Marshall (1960: 94–95, fig. 122); Miyaji (1985a: 90, fig. 18; 1985b: pl. IX, 1); Kurita (1988/2003[I]:
pl. 398); Nehru (1989: pl. 17); Rhi (1991: pl. 42); Schlingloff (1991: fig. 47,⥺ᅗ); Klimburg-Salter
(1995: no. 133).
ᾋ᙮14: ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീ࡜ᇶቭ㒊࡟୐௖࠾ࡼࡧᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮᩿∦; ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂;
᪥ᮏಶேⶶ92
୰ኸ࡟ࡦ࡜㝿኱ࡁ࡞ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࢆ㓄ࡋᴥ㛶ᵓ㐀ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡓ௖ᅜᅵࢆ⾲ࡍᾋ᙮᩿∦ࠋ୧⬥
90
Foucher (1917: pl. xxv, 1 ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙).
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ෗┿ᅗ∧ࢆࡳࡿ࡜⌧ᅾࡢᦆቯࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸㸟
92
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ┿㉚ၥ㢟ࡶၥࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ≉␗࡞せ⣲ࡍ࡭࡚࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྰᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
91
- 164 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ౝ⳶⸃ࡣḞᦆࡍࡿࡀࠊ㊊ࡢ୍㒊ࡢࡳ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ୖ᪉ࡢ࢔࣮ࢳ࡟ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࠊྑᡭࢆ᪋↓⏽༳࡟ࡋࠊᕥᡭࢆ⭜࡟࠶࡚ࡓࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ
࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࡀᅄேࡢே≀࡟ྲྀࡾᅖࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ஧ேࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࢆࡘࡅࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ
ᅄே࡜ࡶ࡟㢌ගࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୰ኸ࡟ࡣࠊㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡀࡸࡸ⢒㞧࡞సࡾࡢ஧㔜ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ
ࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟ࡣ⏨ዪࡢ౪㣴⪅ࡀ㊭ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⏨ᛶࡣൔᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ㢌㒊ᕥྑ࡟ࡣ஧ࢱ࢖ࣉ
ࡢ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ⳶⸃ീ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡀ࢔࣮ࢳࡢୗ࡛㊭ࡁࠊྜᤸ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㣕⩧ࡍࡿࣉࢵࢺࡀ௖㝀ࡢ⫗㧳ࡢ๓㠃࡟ⰼ⥘ࢆ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ」㞧࡞ิᰕ࡜ከࡃ
ࡢື≀ࡸࣉࢵࢺࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ୗࡢ༊⏬࡟ࡣࠊ㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ᘺີ⳶⸃ࡀ୍ิ࡟୪ࡧࠊࡑࡢ୧⬥࡟ዪᛶീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ
࠺ࡕྑഃࡢዪᛶࡣᕸࡢ࡞࠿࡟ⰼࢆໟᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢඵయࡍ࡭࡚࡟㢌ගࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㢌ගࡣྛᑛ
ീࡢ㢌㒊ࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ⴥࡗࡥࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠾࠾࠸࠿ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶྠᵝࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ࡜ࡿ
ࡶࡢࡢࠊ㧥ᆺࡸᡭࡢ఩⨨࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡢࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᘺີ⳶⸃ࡣ᪋↓⏽༳ࢆ♧
ࡋỈ⏃ࢆᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
∦ᒾ; 70 x 45 cm.
Exhibit (1985: no. 37); Kurita (1990/2003[II]: pl. 294) ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡀࢫ࣡ࣅᆅᇦฟᅵ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ
ᾋ᙮15: ⶈụ࡟ᴥ㛶ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮᩿∦; ฟᅵᆅཬࡧᡤⶶඛ୙᫂93
ᾋ᙮12࡜ྠᵝࡢᵓᡂࢆ࿊ࡋࠊ⢭ᕦ࡞ᘓ⠏≀ࡢ≉ᚩࡀ㝿❧ࡘẚ㍑ⓗᖹᯈ࡞ᾋ᙮ࠋ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀࡜
୧⬥ౝࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡢ୺せ㒊ࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋኊ㯇࡞ᴥ㛶ࡣⶈụ࡜㐃⤖ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᴥ㛶ࡑࢀ⮬యࠊ
ⶈụࡢୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊỴࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ୧⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࡣ᫂☜࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋⶈụ࡟ࡣⶈࡢⷣ࡜
ே≀ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠺ࡕ஧ேࡣෆഃࡢิᰕࡢୗ᪉࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⣽㒊ࡲ࡛ࡣุู࡛
ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ࡣụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓⶈ⳹ୖ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⤖㊜㊎ᆘࡢㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡣᵝᘧⓗ࡟≉␗࡛ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㢠ࡢ㧥㝿ࡣἼᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡣ᩿∦
ⓗ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ◚㢼ᙧ࢔࣮ࢳࡢୗ࡛ࠊẚ㍑ⓗ⣽㛗࠸ⰼᘚࡢ㏉ⰼࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ⭸ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧
➃࠿ࡽ࠿࡞ࡾ✺ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡢୗ࡟ࡣ3㢌ࡢ㇟ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ1㢌ࡣṇ㠃ほ࡛ࠊ2㢌ࡣഃ㠃ほ
࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧⬥ࡢ㇟ࡣ㰯࡟ⶈ⳹ࢆᇳࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢⶈ⳹ୖ࡟ࡣ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ㊭ᆘࡍࡿ౪㣴⪅ࠊ
࠾ࡑࡽࡃ⳶⸃࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿᑛീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ94ࠋ୺ᑛ࡜⬥ౝࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ࣌ࣝࢭ࣏ࣜࢫᘧᰕ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚༊ษࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣྑഃࡢ⳶⸃ീࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋྑᡭࡣ୚㢪༳㸦varadamudrƗ㸧ࢆ
♧ࡍࡶࡢࡢࠊወጁ࡞௙ⲡ࡛ᡭࡢࡦࡽࢆ㌿ࡌ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᕥᡭࡣỈ⎼ࢆᇳࡿࡀࠊ㏻ᖖࡼࡾ㧗࠸఩⨨ࡢ
⭡㒊࠶ࡓࡾ࡛ࠊࡲࡓỈ⎼ࡢ㤳ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡓࡗ࡫ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓ㧥ᆺࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㧳࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ
93
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 35) ࡟ࡣᮏస౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ࠿ࡘ࡚ࣟࣥࢻࣥࡢ⨾⾡ᕷሙୖ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࠖ࡜グࡍࠋᵝᘧⓗ࡟ࡣࡇࡢ
ᾋ᙮ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ≉␗࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ≧ែ࡜ᦶ⁛ࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࡢ┿ṇࡢస౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇ࡟ᙉࡃ♧၀ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ
94
ࡋ࠿ࡋ Lyons & Ingholt (1957: 128)ࡣࠊLnjhasudatta ࡜ࡑࡢጔ࡟ゎࡍࡿࠋ
165 --- 165
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᖹ⾜࡟㉮ࡿ࠺ࡡࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉Ṧᛶࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ⳶⸃ീࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ࡣ⢭⦓࡞ࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉ
ࢀࠊྛ༊⏬࡟஧ேࡢዪᛶࡀ౪≀ࢆᡭ࡟ࡍࡿࡢࡀࡳ࠼ࡿࠋࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡢ㶸ᚠ๓㠃࡟ࡣ2⩚ࡢ㫽ࡀ
┳ྲྀࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ᮦ㉁ࠊἲ㔞୙᫂
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xvi, 4).
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢẚ㍑
௨ୖࠊ㛵㐃ᾋ᙮ࡢᴫほ࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⢭⦓࡞」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ኱㒊ศࡣ஧ࡘࡢ㑇㊧ࡢࡳࠊࡍ࡞
ࢃࡕࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜ࠾ࡼࡧࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ࠿ࡽࡢࡳฟᅵࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧㑇㊧ฟᅵ
ࡢ஧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࡿ㔜せ࡞┦㐪Ⅼࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ
•
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣᚲࡎ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ௖㝀ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢ௖ᅜᅵࡢእഃ
࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ㊭ᆘࡍࡿே≀࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᾋ᙮࡟♧ࡉࢀࡓෆᐜ࡟ど⥺ࢆ࠺
࡞ࡀࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㢧♧ࡣᖖ࡟㔝እ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ࡇࡢ㔝እࡢሙ㠃ࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊᘓ㐀≀ࢆࡩࡃࡴⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡿせ⣲95ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟
⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࡇࢀࡽⶈ⳹ࡣᾋ᙮ᇶቭ㒊࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ఍⾗ࡢ኱㒊ศࡣ⳶⸃ീ࡛ᵝࠎ࡞⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᑛ࡬ࡢ♩ᣏࡢ࡯࠿ࠊࡑ
ࡇ࡛ࡣ㆟ㄽࡸ┦஫ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ༢⊂ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢሙྜࠊỿᛮࠊ⚙ᐃࠊㄝἲࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺ᑛ௨እࡢ௖㝀ീࡣ୺せ࡞఍⾗㒊ศ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࿘㎶ࡢࡳ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
•
ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺ᑛ௨እࡢ௖㝀ീࡣ⳶⸃ീ࡜୪ࢇ࡛๪ḟⓗ࡞ᑛീ
ࡢ୰࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣࠊ௖㝀ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊ୍᪉⳶⸃ീࡣᆅ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓྎᗙ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࠋ
•
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣ஧⪅㛫ࡢᑐヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍ே࡛ࡢ⾜࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⳶⸃㛫࡟ᑐヰ
ࡢጼໃࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓᑛീࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᘓ㐀≀ࡢ㱥ෆ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡢࡳ௖ఏሙ㠃ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊ㐣ཤ୐௖ࡶᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡢࡳ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
•
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊᚲࡎ㢌ගࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ዪᛶࡀ୰࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂ࡶࡋࡃࡣ௚ᆅᇦࡢస౛㸦ࡲࡓࡑࢀࡽࡢ᩿∦㸧ࡢẚ㍑స౛ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢ஧㑇㊧ฟᅵࡢస౛
࡯࡝ࡢ⢭⦓ࡉࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊከࡃࡢస౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ඛ㏙ࡋࡓ୺せ࡞㆑ูࡋ࠺ࡿ≉ᚩࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ㛫ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡟᭕᫕࡞࡜ࡇࢁࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣࠊᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ␗࡞ࡿせ⣲
ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
95
౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚ᾋ᙮ 2 ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᘓ㐀≀ࡣࡑࡢୗ࡟ⶈ⳹ࢆకࢃࡎࠊᾋ᙮୺せ㒊ศࡢୗẁ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿே≀ࡶࡲࡓⶈ
⳹ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ
- 166 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
౛࠼ࡤࠊᾋ᙮6ࡸ7࡟ࡳࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௖㝀ࡸ⳶⸃ࡀ໬௖ࡸ⚄ࠎ࡞࡝ࢆ㢧♧ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡜ྠࡌ㧗ࡉ࡟ࠊ௖
ᅜᅵࡢ♧⌧ሙ㠃ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᐇ㝿ࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡛ࡑࢀࡽࡢሙ㠃ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
஧ࡘࡢ㑇㊧࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋࡓస౛࡜ࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࡶࡢࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᾋ᙮ࢆྵࡵ࡚ࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡋࠊୖグࡢ
≉ᚩࡀࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ᐇドࡉࢀࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᵝࠎ࡞せ⣲ࡀΰᅾࡍࡿᾋ᙮ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊ஧㑇㊧ฟᅵࡢస౛ࡼ
ࡾࡶ᫬௦ࡢୗࡿไస࡟࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࡶࡼࡾ☜࠿࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ஧ࢱ࢖ࣉ㛫࡟ࡣ᫂☜࡞ᕪ␗ࡣ࠶ࡿ
ࡀࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡶỈ࡜㛵㐃ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋỈ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡣⶈụࡢୖ࡟ᘓࡘᴥ㛶ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ≉␗࡞ᾋ
᙮15ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ௖㝀ࠊ⳶⸃ࡀⶈ⳹ୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࢆᨭ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡋࡤࡋࡤ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㇟ࡶࡲࡓỈ࡜㛵ࢃࡾࢆᣢࡘᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟㔜せ࡞Ⅼࢆ௜ゝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᴥ㛶ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟࠶ࡾ㸦ᾋ᙮13; ᅗ12㸧ࠊ⋤ᐑࡢ
ᴥ㛶࡜௖ࡓࡕࡢࡑࢀࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ96ࠋ
࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᾋ᙮㸦౛;ᾋ᙮9 ᮏ౛ࡣⴭࡋࡃᑠࡉ࠸㸧࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ஧ࢱ࢖ࣉ㛫ࡢ㐪࠸ࡢ᭕᫕ࡉࡣࠊ
⚙ᐃ༳ࡢ௖㝀ീࡀ໬௖㸫㏻ᖖࠊ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟ᅄయࡎࡘ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㸫ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠊ」ྜᆺ
ᾋ᙮ࡢ➨3ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚௨ୗࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୺せ࡞ᾋ᙮
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠕⓎฟࢱ࢖ࣉࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫほࡍࡿ97ࠋ
Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉ
ᾋ᙮16: ໬௖ࢆⓎࡍࡿ௖㝀ീࢆక࠺ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖㸦1908ᖺⓎ᥀㸧ฟᅵ; ᪧ
࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ㸦ᅗ13㸧
୰ኸ࡟ࡣࠊ୕᪥᭶⿦㣭ࡢ࠶ࡿച⵹ࡢୗ࡛⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࡓ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᾋ᙮
ࡣࡇࡢⅬࢆྵࡵࠊ௚ࡢ㛵㐃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᾋ᙮7࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ീࡣ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࠊ୧⬥࡟ᅄ
యࡎࡘࠊィඵయࡢⶈ⳹ᗙୖࡢ௖❧ീࢆⓎฟࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡛ࡣࠊ㢌ගࢆక࠺⳶⸃ീࡀ
ⰼ⥘ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ౝ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࡀࠊྑഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ㢌
㣭ࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡟ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ച⵹ࡢୖࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟୕యࡢ㢌ගࢆࡘࡅࡓ௖㝀ീ࡜ᐆᶞࡢᯞⴥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡪ୍యࡢ
୧⬥࡟ࠊྑᡭࢆൔ⾰࡟ໟࡳ㎸ࡳࠊᕥᡭ࡛⾰➃ࢆࡘ࠿ࡴ௖㝀ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋച⵹ࡢ୧⬥࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀ㢌ගࡢ࠶ࡿ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡀ┳ྲྀࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ஬యࡢ௖㝀ീࡣࡍ࡭࡚ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ୗᒙ㒊ࡣᦆയࡀⴭࡋࡃࠊ୺ᑛࡢ⋢ᗙࡢୖ࡟ᙜึⶈ⳹ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ
⋢ᗙࡢ㧗ࡉ࡟ࡣࠊ୺ᑛࡢ᪉ࢆྥ࠸࡚ᆘࡍ⳶⸃ീࡀᕥྑ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕥࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐
96
ࡇࢀࡣ୰ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖ᅜᅵࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡶ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ୰ᅜࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࡣࡼࡾᘓ⠏ⓗ✵㛫ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࠊࡋࡤ
ࡋࡤᴥ㛶ࡶỈ୰ࡢᮺࡢୖ࡟ᘓタࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡸࡣࡾỈࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡢሙྜࠊᇶቭ㒊ࡢ
ụ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ኱ᆅࡣỈࡢୖ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࢖ࣥࢻࡢᏱᐂㄽⓗᴫᛕࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡼ
࠺ࠋ
97
Rhi (1991) ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆࠕቑṪ(multiplication)ࠖࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
167 --- 167
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛౪≀ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࠊྑࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ྑᡭ࡟ⶈ⳹ࡢ
ⷣࢆᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮦ㉁࠾ࡼࡧἲ㔞୙᫂
グ㘓ᅗ∧: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
Spooner (1911: pl. xliv, c); Foucher (1922: fig. 484); Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xxi, 2); Kurita
(1988/2003[I]: pl. 391); Rhi (1991: pl. 46); Schlingloff (1991: ᅗ37 ࠾ࡼࡧᅗ38ࠊ⥺ᅗ; 2000: II, 102,
no. 14, ⥺ᅗ).
ᾋ᙮17: ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ീࢆక࠺ᮍ᏶ࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ฟᅵ; ⌧ᆅ㸦㸽㸧98
୰ኸ࡟⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࢆ㓄ࡋࡓࡇࡢᮍ᏶ᾋ᙮ࡣᕥഃࡀษ᩿ࡉࢀ࡚ࠊ᭱ࡶእഃࡢே≀ീࡶḞᦆࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡣച⵹ࡢࡶ࡜ࠊ㇟࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ஧㔜ⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ᆘࡍࠋ௖㝀ࡢయࡢ୧ഃ࡟ṧ
ࡿ▼ᮦࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃⓎฟࡉࢀࡿ໬௖ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸦๓౛ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧ഃ࡟ࡣ
❧ീࡢே≀ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ㸦ྑഃࡢ❧ീࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠊ⭎ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡣ౪≀ࢆᩓ
ࡌࠊ୍᪉ᕥᡭ࡟ⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᇶቭ㒊ࡢྑ㝮࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⳶⸃ീࡣ┠ࢆそ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡢྑ
ᡭࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋച⵹ࡢ୧ഃ࡟༙㌟ࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋࡓே≀ീࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊᕥഃࡣᩓ⳹ࡋࠊྑഃࡣ♩ᣏ
ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୰ኸࡢച⵹ࡢୖ࡟ࡣᐆᶞࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ୧ഃ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢച⵹ࡢୗ࡛ⶈ
⳹ᗙࡢୖ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ᪋↓⏽༳ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 㧗 119.4 cm.
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: no. 263); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 394).
ᾋ᙮18: ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡉࡏࡿ௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡍⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝࠊ࣐࢘ࣥࢻCฟᅵ99;
࢝ࣛࢳᅜ❧༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ 1734100
᫂☜࡟஧ࡘࡢẁ࡟༊ศࡉࢀࡿᾋ᙮࡛࠶ࡾࠊୖ㒊࡛ࡣ኱ᆺࡢ௖㝀ࡀ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᇶ
ቭ㒊ࡣ୍ิ࡟஫࠸࡟ゝⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡍ⳶⸃ᆘീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
኱ࡁࡃ⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡣࠊ㇟࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀࡓ஧㔜ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࠋᕥྑࡢ2༉ࡢ㇟ࡣࡑࡢ
㰯࡛ⶈ⳹ࢆዊᣢࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟௖㝀࡟ྥ࠸ࠊྜᤸ♩ᣏࡍࡿே≀㊭ᆘീࡀࡳ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௖㝀ീࡢ㢌ୖ࡟ࡣᐆᶞࡢ୕ࡘࡢⰼࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡢୗ࡟ࡣ㣕⩧ࡍࡿ஧ேࡢࣉࢵࢺ101ࡀ
኱ࡁ࡞ച⵹ࢆᣢࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᑛࡣⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୧ഃ࡟ᅄయࡎࡘ࡜
ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᕥࡢ㒊ศࡢ໬௖ࡢࡳ⌧Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ᪉ࡢ໬௖ࡢ୧ഃࡣࠊ⳶⸃ീࡀ௖㝀࡟ᑐࡋᩓ
⳹ࢆ⾜࠺ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ୖ㒊ࡢᐆᶞࡢᕥྑ࡜ࡶച⵹ࡢୗ࡛ⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋ୺ᑛࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧⬥࡟ࡶ⳶⸃ᆘീࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕᕥ⬥ౝࡢ୍యࡀ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ
98
Rhi (1991: 157 & n. 46) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᙜ᫬ࡢ⌧ᆅࡢ཰ⶶᗜ࡟ࡣ◚ᦆࡋࡓ᩿∦ࡢࡳᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ࡇࡢฟᅵᆅࡣ Rhi (1991: pl. 5) ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋSchlingloff (2000: I, 493) ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ೌ࠺ࠋHiguchi (1984: no. I-9) ࡣ࣐ࣝࢲ࣮
ࣥ (Mardan) ᑗ᮶࡜グࡍࠋ
100
ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤᡤⶶࡢ 1913–14 ᖺᗘࡢグ㘓෗┿࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ࡛
࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
101
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢࣉࢵࢺࡣ᭷⩼࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
99
- 168 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᇶቭࣇ࣮ࣜࢬ࡛ࡣ୐ேࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ୪ࢇ࡛ᆘࡋࠊ஫࠸࡟ゝⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧➃࡟ࡣẚୣࡀ⾲
ࡉࢀࠊ⳶⸃ീࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟௜ࡁῧ࠺஧యࡢே≀❧ീ࡜୕య┠ࡢ⑞㊧ࢆ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
⳶⸃ീࡀᆒ➼࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢീࡣ⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⋢ᗙࡣྠࡌⶈụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓⶈ⳹ୖ
࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡢ୍ேࡣ⚙ᐃ༳ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ୍ேࡣỈ⏃ࢆᇳࡾࠊ୕ே┠ࡣ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௚ࡢ୕యࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㢮ఝࡋࡓ௙ⲡ࡛ࠊ∦ᡭࢆ୺ᑛࡢ᪉ྥ࡟ᣲࡆࠊ∦ᡭࢆ኱⭣㒊ୖ࡟࠾ࡃࠋ
⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ; 83 × 54 cm.
グ㘓ᅗ∧: ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
Lyons & Ingholt (1957: pl. xx, 2); Bussagli (1984: 188); Higuchi (1984: no. I-9); Kurita (1988/2003[I]:
pl. 393); Rhi (1991: pl. 5); Schlingloff (1991: figs. 39, ⥺ᅗ; 2000: II, 102, no. 11, ⥺ᅗ).
ᾋ᙮19: ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ീࢆక࠺ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮᩿∦; ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂; ࢳ࢙ࣥࢼ࢖㸦࣐ࢻࣛࢫ㸧
ᕞ❧༤≀㤋ⶶ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮୰ኸ࡜ᕥ㝮㒊ศࠋᾋ᙮୰ኸ࡛ࡣ⌧ᅾ㢌㒊ࢆḞᦆࡍࡿ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡀⶈ⳹ᗙ
࡟ᆘࡍࡢࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡣᐆ▼࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⱼୖ࡟࠶ࡾࠊụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓ኱ࡁ࡞ⰼᘚࢆࡶࡘࠋ
ⶈ⳹ᗙୖࡢ୺ᑛࡣᙜึࡣࡑࡢᕥྑ࡟஬యࡎࡘࡢⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟ᆘࡍ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡣࡎࡔ
ࡀࠊ⌧ᅾࡣᕥഃࡢ୍㒊ศࡢࡳࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥഃ࡟ࡣࠊྜᤸࡍࡿᅾᐙࡢே≀࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ
ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᑠࡉ࡞⳶⸃❧ീࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢᕥ࡟ࠊ୺ᑛࡢ᪉ࢆ௮ࡂࡳࡿ⳶⸃ᆘീ
ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㣕⩧ࡍࡿࣉࢵࢺࡀࡑࡢ㢌ୖ࡟⋤ෙࢆ࠿࠿ࡆࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ๪ḟⓗ࡞ே≀ീ
ࡶྠࡌụ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓⶈ⳹ୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮦ㉁ࠊἲ㔞୙᫂ࠋ
Taddei (1969/2003: fig. 31ࠊ௚ࡢస౛࡟ゝཬࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࡀຍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ; 1987/2003: fig. 2).
ୖグ࡟㏙࡭ࡓ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ」㞧ᛶࡸ≉Ṧᛶࡣࡑࢀ࡯࡝ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸
ࡀࠊࡑࡢ⣽㒊⾲⌧ࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㏆࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡣ๪ḟⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚㢖⦾࡟
Ⓨฟࡢሙ㠃ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ࡳࡓⓎฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢస౛࡛ࡣ㸦ࡍ࡞
ࢃࡕࠊⓎฟࡢሙ㠃ࡀ୰ኸ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿస౛㸧ࠊ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃ࡣ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢస౛ࢆ࡜࠾
ࡋ࡚୺ᑛࡢ㢌㒊ࡢࡍࡄୖ࡟ࡣച⵹ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ࠶ࡿ౛࡛ࡣࣉࢵࢺࡀࡑࢀࢆᤝᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᑛࡣᚲࡎ
⚙ᐃ༳㸦dhyƗnamudrƗ㸧ࢆ⤖ࡪࠋⓎฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣ⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ⾲ࡉࡎࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸࡚ࡶ㸦ࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ฟᅵࡢ஧ࡘࡢᾋ᙮ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸧ࠊ௚ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ẚ࡭࡚┠❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᾋ᙮ࡢྛ㒊ศ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓ๪ḟⓗ࡞ே≀ീࡶ୰ኸࡢⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ࡢ᪉ࢆྥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᶞᮌࡢഐࡽ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ๪ḟⓗ࡞௖㝀ീࡣࠊ໬௖ࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⚄ࠎࢆⓎฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮
ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀࠊ
ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࠖㄝヰ࡜㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢㄝヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᫂☜࡞᰿ᣐࡶ࡞ࡃࠊຍ࠼࡚⳶⸃ࡢᏑᅾࡶࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓẚᐃࡀ㐺ᙜ࡛ࡣ
࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
169 --- 169
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᾋ᙮ࠊ᩿∦ࠊ௖୕ᑛീ
௨ୖࠊ⣙ 20 స౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡜ࡋ࡚ሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ
ᩘࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖ࡛࠶ࡿ102ࠋᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ᏶Ꮡ౛ࡢᾋ᙮ࡢ࡯࠿ࠊከᩘࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᾋ᙮᩿∦ࡀሗ࿌
ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢᩘࡣ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿస౛ࡢඃ࡟ 3 ಸ࡟ࡢࡰࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ᩿∦⩌ࡲ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⤫ྜⓗ࡟
ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ࠺ࡕ᭱ࡶ᭷ព⩏࡞స౛ࢆᢅࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㢮ᆺ࡜⤖ㄽ
࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࢀࡽ᩿∦ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ୺㢟ࡀ༢⊂ࡢᾋ᙮
࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ኱ᆺࡢ◚㢼ᙧ⿦㣭࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊከࡃࡢᾋ᙮ࣃࢿࣝࢆ⤌ࡳ
ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࡼࡾ኱ᵓᅗ࡜ࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡛ศ㢮ࡋࡓ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊࡼࡾ༢⣧࡞ᵓᡂ࡛ࡶ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࠊึࡵࡢ஧ࡘࡣ௖୕ᑛീ
ࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࠊṧࡿࡦ࡜ࡘࡣⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟࠾࠸࡚໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࡢᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⌧ᅾࡢ
࡜ࡇࢁࡇࢀࡽ௖୕ᑛീࡢᙧᘧ࡜」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ᫂☜࡞㛵㐃ᛶࡣࠊᖺ௦ࡸᅗീࡢ⣔⤫࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚
࡞࠾୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྛࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࢆྲྀࡾᣲࡆࠊ⾲⌧ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡜ከᵝᛶࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣព
⩏ࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
௖୕ᑛീࡣࠊ≉࡟ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㢖⦾࡟ぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠋᾋ᙮ᇶቭ࡟Ỉࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡎ࡜ࡶࠊᅗ6ࡣ
ࡑࡢ௦⾲ⓗస౛࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ⫼ᚋࡢ⚄ࠎࡀ஺௦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛㢮ఝࡢᵓᡂࢆ࿊ࡍࡿᅗ14ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡇ
ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௚ࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡣࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ụࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ๪ḟⓗ࡞௖࣭⳶⸃ീࡢ⾲⌧
ࢆక࠺ࠋ௖୕ᑛീࡢࡍ࡭࡚࡟ᐆᶞࡢ⾲⌧ࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ࡞࠿࡟ࡣᐆᶞ࡟ே≀ീࢆ♧ࡍࡶ
ࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ୺ᑛ࡟ⰼ⎔ࢆᡝ࠿ࡏࡿࣉࢵࢺࡢᅗീ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ౛࠼ࡤࢧ࣮
࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝฟᅵࡢ⌧࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶࡢ࿘▱ࡢస౛㸦ᅗ15㸧103ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊẚ㍑ⓗ㏆࠸఩⨨
࡟⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡣẚ㍑ⓗ⛥࡛ࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡣᕼ࡛ⷧ࠶ࡿࠋᘓ⠏ᵓ
㐀ࡺ࠼࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛࡛ࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㢖⦾࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡓࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࡜࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡢ⾲⌧ࡶࡳࡽࢀ࡞
࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞௖୕ᑛീࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸స౛ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࡢస౛࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᘓ㐀≀ࡢ࡞
࠿࡟ㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊᕥྑ࡟࠿࡞ࡾᑠࡉ࡞⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡀ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᅗ16㸧ࠋྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᕥࡣ
ⰼ⥘ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ീࠊྑࡣࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୕యࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶⶈ⳹ࡢୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࠊ
⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡢⶈ⳹ࡢⱼࡣ୰ᚰࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋே≀ീࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊᰕࡢࡍࡄ๓࡟஧ேࡢ㊭ᆘࡍ
102
Rhi (1991㸸5㸫6) ࡛ࡣࠊ௖୕ᑛീࢆຍ࠼ࠊ⣙ 130 ౛࡟㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRhi (1991) Appendix 1 (pp. 194-206) ࡢస౛ࣜࢫ
ࢺࢆཧ↷ࠋRhi ࡢࣜࢫࢺ࡟ࡣ┿㉚ࡢ␲ࢃࢀࡿస౛ࡶ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ(p.3ࠊὀ 8 ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆཧ↷) ࠊࡑࢀ
ࡽࢆ㝖እࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⥲ᩘࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ከ࠸ࠋ
103
௖୕ᑛീᾋ᙮; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ (1906–07 ᖺⓎ᥀) ฟᅵ; ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ PM-2770 [ᪧ 158]: ㄝ
ἲ༳௖ᆘീ࡜኱ᆺࡢ୧⬥ౝ⳶⸃࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ௖୕ᑛീ; ୺ᑛࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢୖ࡛ㄝἲ༳ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ᆘࡋࠊࡑࡢୖ᪉࡟ࡣ
㢌ගࢆక࠸ⰼ⥘ࢆ࡜ࡿே≀ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ✵᝿ⓗ࡞ᶞᮌࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᶞᮌ࠿ࡽ஧యࡢㄝἲࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࡶ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୺ᑛ࠿ࡽぢ࡚ྑഃ࡟❧ࡘ⳶⸃ീࡣࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭࡛ⰼ⥘ࢆ࡜ࡾࠊᕥࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣᘺີ⳶⸃ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊ᮰㧥࡛ᜤၨࢆ♧
ࡋࠊᕥᡭ࡟Ỉ⏃ࢆᇳࡿࡀ◚ᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖㝀ࡢ⫪ࡢ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ㧗ࡉ࡟ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࡜࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡀୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋᕥࡢࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮ࡶᜤᩗࡢ㌟᣺ࡾ࡛Ỉ⏃ࢆᇳࡾࠊྑഃࡢ࢖ࣥࢻࣛࡣ⋤ෙ(kirƯ‫ܒ‬a) ࢆᡝࡁࠊ㞾(㔠๛ᯂ)ࢆᇳࡿࠋ
ୖ᪉ࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢ࡞࠿࡟ࡣ⚙ᐃ༳ࢆ⤖ࡪ⳶⸃ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾ 57 ×49 ×11 cm. ᪤ฟ඾; ౛ Lyons &
Ingholt (1957: fig. 254); Kurita (1988/2003[I]: pl. 403; Exhibit (2008: no. 203); Miyaji (2008: figs. 2, 4 ཬࡧ 6) ࠋ
- 170 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡿே≀ീࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᕥࡣẚୣࠊྑࡣዪᛶᅾᐙ⪅࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡴࡋࢁ≉␗࡞౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ᑡᩘὴࡢᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡶ࠿࡞ࡾࡢከᵝᛶࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ࡯࠿࡟⯆࿡῝࠸స౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ᑛࡢ୧⬥ౝ
⳶⸃࡟ᛮᝳീࡢࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᕥഃࡣ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡾࠊྑഃࡣ୍ᡣࡢⰼࢆᇳࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ᅗ17㸧ࠋ୺ᑛࡢ
ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢᕥྑ࡟ே≀ീࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊྑࡢ⪁ᖺࡢே≀ീࡣࡕࡻ࠺࡝ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ࡶࡳ
ࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟⭎࡟ࣜࣗࢺࣥࢆᢪࡁࠊᕥࡢࡸࡸ⫧‶ᙧࡢே≀ീࡣᆘࡋࠊ⺬ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࢼ࣮࢞ࢆ
♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟ࡣẚୣ࠾ࡼࡧዪᛶࡀ㊭ࡁ୺ᑛ࡟ᑐࡋ♩ᣏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ104ࠋ
Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡿࡼࡾ༢⣧࡞ᙧᘧࡣࠊ௖୕ᑛീࡢᙧᘧ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᅗ18㸧ࠋ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ࡔࡅ࡛ࡶࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆ࡜ࡿస౛ࡀ8౛ࡶ▱ࡽࢀࡿ105ࠋ
ࡓ࠸࡚࠸ࡢሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ኱ᵓᅗࡢ୍㒊ศ࡛ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ᩿∦࡜ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ⨾⾡ྐⓗ࡟ࡣ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⡆⣲࡞ᙧᘧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ༊ูࡉ
ࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡋ࠺ࡿ୍᪉ࠊ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊከ
ࡃࡢせ⣲ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࡇࡇ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ⌮ゎࡣࠊྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᾋ᙮࡜ࡑࡢ᩿
∦ࢆᑗ᮶ࡉࢀࡓ㑇㊧࠾ࡼࡧࠊᖺ௦ⓗ࡞Ⓨᒎࡸ┦஫ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾὙ⦎ࡉ
ࢀࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋḟ࡟඾ᣐ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡣணഛⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ୺࡟ࡇࢀ
ࡽᾋ᙮࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
6. ඾ᣐࢆᕠࡿၥ㢟
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᴫㄝࡢ⥾ࡵࡃࡃࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ᣲࡀ
ࡗࡓၥ㢟ࡢ࠺ࡕ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࡟⤠ࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᴟᴦίᅵࡸጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮍࡔ⩻ヂࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸LSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡶྵࡵࠊ⌧Ꮡࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢグ㏙ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ୖ࡛༊
ศࡋࡓ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ㛫࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠊࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୰࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡞ࡾࡢࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࠾ࡼࡧᩥ
⊩ࡢグ㏙ࡀඹ᭷ࡍࡿከࡃࡢ␗࡞ࡿࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊᅗീ࡜ᩥ⊩ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿᐦ᥋࡞┦஫㛵
ಀ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡝ࡇࢁ࠿ࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᾋ᙮࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦
᯶ࡢከࡃࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⊩グ㏙ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ㏫ࡶࡋ࠿ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥ⊩࠾ࡼ
ࡧどぬⓗ࡞ẚ႘ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ࠿࡞ࡾ┦㐪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽᩥ⊩グ㏙ࡢከࡃࡣどぬⓗ࡟⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ୙
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⾲⌧ࡣ⾲⌧ࡢఏ⤫࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡣ⾲⌧ࡑࢀ⮬యࡢ࿨ࠊ
104
࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ฟᅵࡢࡇࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡣࢥࣝ࢝ࢱ࣭࢖ࣥࢻ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶ࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾࡣⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧⬥࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡓே≀ീࡢከࡃࡀḞᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ (Miyaji 1985b: pl. XI, 1; 2008: fig. 17; Rhi 2006: fig. 7.15 ཧ↷) ࠋࡑࡢ௚
ࡢᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖୕ᑛീ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ Schlingloff (1991: fig. 44ࠊ⥺ᅗ) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ஧యࡢ⚙
ᐃ༳௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖୕ᑛീࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋฟᅵᆅࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝࡢ࢞࢖࣭ࢥࣞࢡࢩ
ࣙࣥ (the Gai Collection, Peshawar) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
105
Ali & Qazi (2008: 166–173) ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣⓎฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ௖㝀ീ࡜⳶⸃ീࡢ༊ูࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡉࡽ࡟ከᩘࡢ
స౛ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
171 --- 171
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣṔྐࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊ᫂☜࡞၏୍ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃゎ㔘ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࠾ࡼࡧ୰ᚰⓗ୺㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆጞࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࡓࡔࠊࡑࡢ๓࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊฟᅵᆅ࡜ไసᖺ௦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱝᖸ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
᥎ ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ௜ゝࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋู✏࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡣࡼࡾయ⣔ⓗ࡟ᢅ࠺ணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶᚋᮇ࡟ᒓࡋ106ࠊ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢฟᅵᆅ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢస౛ࡀࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜࠊࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝࠊࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ ࠾ࡼࡧ࣐
ࣝࢲ࣮ࣥ㸦ࡇࢀࡽࡢ㑇㊧ࡣ࠾஫࠸࡟㏆᥋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ ࡣࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖࠿ࡽഹ
࠿1kmࡢᆅⅬ࡟࠶ࡿ㸧࡜࠸࠺ࠊ࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ࡸ࣮ࣖࢡࣅ㸦ࢫ࣡ࣅ㸧࠿ࡽഹ࠿࡟እࢀࡓ఩⨨ࡢࠊ
࠿࡞ࡾ⊃࠸⠊ᅖ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ㑇㊧⩌࠿ࡽฟᅵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢࡳ࡛඘ศ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽࡣ࣮࢝ࣈࣝἙࡢ໭ࠊ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ┅ᆅ࡟࠿࡞ࡾ㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ107ࠋࡇࢀࡀఱࢆព࿡ࡍ
ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ᫬ᮇᑦ᪩࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡦ࡜ࡘ᫂☜࡞Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ᵓᅗ࠿ࡘ」
㞧࡞㓄ิ࡛⢭⦓࡞⿦㣭ࢆ᪋ࡋࡓᾋ᙮ࢆไసࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ࡞࠿࡟ࡣ᏶ᡂࡲ࡛࡟ᩘ࢝᭶ࡶ᭷ࡍࡿᾋ᙮
ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊࡑࡢᑐ౯ࢆᕤே࡟ᨭᡶ࠺࡟ࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢᐩ㈈ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋࠊࡲ
ࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᕤᡣࡶࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓ⤒῭ᇶ┙ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᐤ㐍⪅ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢጼࢆ⏬㠃ࡢ
࡞࠿࡟⤌ࡳධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮃࢇࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡏࡼࠊᢏ⾡ⓗ࠿ࡘ
୺㢟ⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࠊ୍ேࡢᕤேࡀே㔛㞳ࢀࡓሙᡤ࡛ไసࡋࠊ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡞సရ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾ
࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ㧗Ỉ‽ࡢᗊㆤ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱁ⾡ⓗ⎔ቃࡢ⦾ᰤࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡓ
࡜࠼ࠊࡑ࠺ࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛ࡀ࠸ࡗࡓ࠸ఱࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡢ≉ᐃ࡟ࡣ⮳ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ
ࡺ࠼ࠊ๓㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟᪂ࡓ࡞ㄝ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᾋ᙮ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆほᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
௚᪉ࡢ௖㝀ࡓࡕࠊ௚᪉ࡢୡ⏺
୕ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡍ࡭࡚࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢᥥࡁฟࡍୡ⏺ࡀ⌧ୡⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㠀᪥ᖖⓗ࡛㉸
⮬↛ⓗ࡛ࡉ࠼࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡔࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ୺せ࡞Ⓩሙே≀ࡢቑṪ࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡋ࠿
ࡋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢቑṪࡣ┦⿵ⓗ࡞ྵពࢆ௨࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡞᪉ἲ࡛ᡂࡋ㐙ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ㛤♧㸦display㸧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㢧♧㸦revelation㸧ࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡣࠊ᫂
ⓑ࡟஧ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࡢ㛫ࡢ┦㐪ࢆ♧ࡍⅬ࡛Ỵᐃⓗせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢస౛ࡢ኱༙࡟ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡢྑୖ᪉ࡢ࡝
ࡇ࠿࡟ࠊᜤᩗࡢጼໃࢆ࡜ࡿ୍ேࡢẚୣ࡜ࠊࡇࢀ࡜ᑐヰࡍࡿ୍యࡢ௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ⡆␎࡞ㄝヰⓗሙ㠃
ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ108ࠋࡇࡢ௖㝀ࡣࠊᡭࢆᾋ᙮୰ኸ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ኱ࡁ࡞୺ᑛ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀࡜ࡑࡢ࿘ᅖ
ࡢ⪷⾗ࡢᏑᅾࢆࡑࡢẚୣ࡟▱ࡽࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㢧♧ࢆ࡞ࡍ௖࡜୺ᑛ㸦୰ኸ࡟఩⨨
106
Rhi (1991: 10) ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢస౛ࢆࠊ
3 ୡ⣖୰ⴥ࠿ࡽ 5 ୡ⣖ึᮇ࡜࠸࠺ 150 ᖺᙅࡢᮇ㛫࡟ᖐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid. p. 4, n. 10
ࡶཧ↷) ࠋ
107
ࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛ࡢศᕸࡸṔྐⓗព⩏࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞㆟ㄽࡣ Rhi (2003: 179–185) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋRhi (1991:
156–159) ࡣ㛵㐃㑇㊧ࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࢆࡵࡄࡿᙧ⪋ୗࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⯆࿡῝࠸⪃ᐹࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
108
࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢస౛࡟࠾࠸࡚௖㝀ࡢഐࡽࡢே≀ീࡣᦆയࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᾋ᙮ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ᙼࡀẚୣ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿
ࡿࠋ
- 172 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡍࡿ௖㸧࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ௖ᛶ㸦buddhahood㸧ࡀ㉁ⓗ࡟␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⚾ࡓࡕ࡟♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௖ࡢᛶ㉁࡟㛵
ࡍࡿ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᑐẚࡣࠊ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿᇳ㔠๛⚄109ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾ୍ᒙᙉㄪࡉࢀࠊ୍᪉ࠊ୰
ኸࡢ௖㝀ࡢᕥྑ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ⚄ࠎࡸ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊୖࡢ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢧♧ࡍࡿ
௖㝀ീࡣ࠾࠾ࡼࡑࠊ⮬↛ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ᆅ㠃࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⲡᩜࡁࡢᗙ࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡇࡀ㔝እ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿ110ࠋ୍᪉ࡢ୺ᑛࡣࠊ⮬↛ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃྜྷ⚈࡞⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚㧗఩࡟╔ᆘࡍࡿ111ࠋࡇࢀࡽ
஧ேࡢ௖㝀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖ࡢᛶ㉁ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⌧ᅾୡ࡛௖ࡀάືࡍࡿጼ࡛࠶ࡿ
໬㌟㸦nirmƗ۬akƗya㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ௖ࡢᛶ㉁࡜ࠊᡃࠎࡢ୍⯡ୡ⏺ࢆ㉸㉺ࡋࡓࡼࡾ㧗఩ࡢ௖ࡢ㢧⌧࡛࠶ࡿ
௖ࡢᛶ㉁̿ሗ㌟㸦sa‫ۦ‬bhogakƗya㸧̿ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ໬㌟ࢆⓎ
ฟࡍࡿ௜㝶ⓗ࡞௖㝀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࡇࡢ୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ௖㝀ࡢ༊ู࡟ຠຊࢆຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ112ࠋ
Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊ௖ࡢᛶ㉁ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᙧែࡀࠊ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀࡜ࡑࡢ໬㌟㸦nirmƗ۬a㸧ࡢ୰࡟ࡍ࡛
࡟ᬯ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ୺ᑛ࡜ࠊග⥺ࡢࡈ࡜ࡃ୺ᑛ࠿ࡽⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ❧ീࡢ໬㌟̿ࡇࢀࡣ໬㌟
㸦nirmƗ۬a㸧ࡢほᛕࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿୖ࡛᏶⎍࡞どぬⓗẚ႘࡛࠶ࡿࡀ̿࡟ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞໬㌟࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡣ㏻ᖖࠊᾋ᙮ୖ㒊࡟๪ḟⓗ࡞௖㝀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡶࡳ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ୺ᑛࢆㆭ࠼ࡿച⵹ࡢୖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ୺ᑛࡢቃᇦ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡢᏑᅾ
࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡋ࠺ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࡇࢀࡽࡢ௖㝀ࡣࠊ୺ᑛ࠿ࡽ㐲ࡃ㞳ࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ᑛࡢ♧ࡋࡓࡉࡽ
࡞ࡿ㢧⌧࡜ࡶᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ௖ࡓࡕࢆどぬⓗ࣭ᴫᛕⓗ࡟୺ᑛ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ
ヨࡳࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡢᕥྑୖ㝮࡟ࠊ໬㌟ࢆⓎࡍࡿᑠࡉ࡞௖㝀ീࡀ஧యㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ
ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢ௖㝀ࡀእ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚⮬ࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡋ࠺ࡿࠋHuntingtonࡢゎ
㔘ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢᨺග࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࡿㄝࡔࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀ၏୍ྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶጇᙜ࡞ゎ㔘࡜
ࡣ࠸࠸ࡀࡓ࠸ࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊLSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡶࡲࡓࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡀࠊ⮫⤊᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᮶㏄࡟㝿
ࡋ࡚‽ഛࢆḞࡃಙ⪅ࡓࡕ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ໬㌟㸦nirmƗ۬a㸧ࡓࡕࢆ㐵ࢃࡏࠊࡲࡓࠊᖾᑡ࡞ࡁேࠎࡢ
ክ୰࡟ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᙳീࢆ㏦ࡾࡶࡍࡿ㸦ୖ㏙ࡢ6Ⅼ┠௨ୗࢆཧ↷㸧ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ113ࠋ
109
ᇳ㔠๛⚄ࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㔘㏑௖ࡢᅗീⓗᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௚ࡢ௖㝀࡜࡜ࡶ࡟
ぢฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ
110
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣࠊ௖㝀ࡢྎᗙୗࡢὝ❍ᒾ㠃࡟ 2 㢌ࡢ㔝⋇ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿᙧᘧࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
Huntington ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᕤேࡣࠊLSukh ࡢㄝἲሙᡤ࡛࠶ࡿ㟋㮖ᒣ (G৚dhraknj৬a) ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᖇ㔘❍
ㄝἲࠖ(IndraĞailaguhƗ; e.g., Lyons & Ingholt 1957: fig. 129 ཬࡧ Marshall 1960: fig. 118 ཧ↷)ࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫ࢆ೉⏝ࡋࡓ࡜ࡳ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
111
Rhi (2008: 259) ࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣほ⤒࡟㢧ⴭ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊLSukh ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ SSukh ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡶゝཬࡀ࡞࠸Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ ࡣᙜ↛ᆅୖ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊಙ⪅ࡓࡕࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸఩
⨨࡟ᆘࡍ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠊ ࠊ ࠊ ࠊ
112
⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾࠊ㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍࡇ࡜࡞ࡃⓎฟࢆ⾜࠺௖㝀ࡣ඲ࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡟ྵࡲࢀ
ࡿ஧ࡘࡢ␲ࢃࡋ࠸స౛ࡣᾋ᙮ 6 (ᕥୖ᪉ࡢᑠࡉ࡞ീ) ࡜ᾋ᙮ 16 (୺ᑛ) ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
113
Huntington ࡢ୺ᙇࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊQuagliotti(1996a: 284, 287)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␲⩏ࡀ࿊ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᡃࠎ࠿ࡽࡳࢀ
ࡤࠊၥ㢟ࡣᙼࡀࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢㄗࡗࡓ⟠ᡤ(࠾ࡼࡧㄗࡗࡓᰯゞᮏ)࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࢀࢆ⯋⾨ᇛࡢᬯ♧
࡜ࡍࡿ Quagliotti ࡢぢゎࡶࡸࡸᙉᘬ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
173 --- 173
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ከᩘࡢ௖㝀ࡣᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୰ኸࡢ௖㱥ࡢ࡞࠿ࡢ୺ᑛ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ
๪ḟⓗ࡞௖㝀ࡀࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ⳶⸃ࢆ୧⬥ౝ࡜ࡋ࡚క࠺ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢẁ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᒙ
࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ୺ᑛ࡜ࡑࢀࡽ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊ᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢୡ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖㝀ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ
௖ఏሙ㠃࠾ࡼࡧࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮ࡢ࠺ࡕ2౛࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ୍㐃ࡢ㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ྠ᫬࡟ࠊྠࡌୡ⏺࡟஧ேࡢ௖㝀ࡣᏑᅾࡋᚓ࡞࠸௨ୖࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓ๪ḟⓗ௖㝀ࡣᚲࡎࡋ
ࡶ୺ᑛࡢ໬㌟㸦nirmƗ۬a㸧࡜ゎࡋ࠼ࡎࠊูୡ⏺ࡢᏑᅾ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿࡦ
࡜ࡘࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ」ᩘࡢ௖ᅜᅵࡢ࣐ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢫࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢከ㔜
ᛶࡣࠊ㉁ⓗ࣭᫬㛫ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ✵㛫ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜⌮ゎࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺114ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞✵㛫ⓗ
㛵ಀࡣࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ㅖ௖ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿᾋ᙮࿘⦕࡜࠸࠺㓄⨨ࡸࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾
ࡅࡿ௖ࡓࡕࡢఫࡍࡿᘓ㐀≀࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓ㔜ᒙᵓ㐀࡞࡝࠿ࡽࡶᬯ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦๓❶ཧ↷㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ
࡚ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ୖ㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚௚ࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡬ࡢ㛵㐃ࢆ♧ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ୍ேࡢ௖㝀ࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ୺ᑛࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊከ
㔜ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵ࡜⌮ゎࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ࠶ࡿព࿡ࠊᏱᐂⓗ࡞ᴥ㛶࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௖㝀ࡢ໬⌧࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ✵㛫ⓗ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡲࡓࠊᾋ᙮ୖ࡟ࡍ࡭࡚ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜
ࡀࠊ௖࡜ࡑࡢᅜᅵ࡜࠸࠺୺㢟ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚✵㛫ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ࡜
ࡾࢃࡅࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡢᇶቭ㒊࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿ♩ᣏ⪅ࢆ࠸࠿࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ࡃ
ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊ㢌ගࡢ࠶ࡿே≀࡜࡞࠸ே≀࡟ࡣ᫂☜࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࡓ࡜࠼ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟
⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊỴࡋ࡚୰ᚰࡢ୺せሙ㠃ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
୕ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ௖ᅜᅵࡢ࡞࠿࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⪷⾗ࡢᗙ࡜ࡋ࡚ụ࠾ࡼࡧⶈ⳹ࡢ཮᪉ࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣụ࡜ⶈ⳹ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡛࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡣࠊ≉␗࡞ᅗീ
ࢆ࿊ࡍࡿᾋ᙮ 15 ࡸࠊ㇟ࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤ୺ᑛࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅗീࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊỈ࡜ࡶᐦ᥋࡟
㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮୰ኸୖ᪉࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃࡣࠊ┤࡟ⶈ⳹ࡸ࢔࢝ࣥ
ࢧࢫⴥࡢୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᐆ▼࡛Ⲯཝࡉࢀࡓⶈⱼࡸᗄ㔜ࡶࡢⰼᘚࢆࡶࡘࠊ୺ᑛࡀᆘࡍ
ⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡸᙧ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ୙ྍᛮ㆟࡞ࡿ஦㇟ࢆ♧ࡍ᳜≀ࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⫗ཌ࡞ⶈᘚ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓⶈ⳹ᗙࡣࠊࡼࡾ⡆⣲࡞ᾋ᙮స౛࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⥲ࡌ࡚ࠊ㏉ࡾⰼࡢࡼࡾᖹᯈ࡞⾲⌧࡛῭ࡲࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙ㠃ࡣࡲࡉ࡟ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࢆᴟᴦίᅵ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿ
ㄝࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊLSukh ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ Huntington ࡢヨㄽ (Huntington 1980: 658)ࡢせ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ
࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊQuagliotti ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᖇ㔘❍ㄝἲࡢ࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ⌧ᐇ
ୡ⏺ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᵝ┦ࢆ㢧♧ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡜ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿ (1996a: 282-285) ࠋᕤேࡀࠊὝ❍ෆࡢື≀ࡓࡕࡢ⣽㒊
ᥥ෗ࢆࠊᖇ㔘❍ㄝἲᅗ࠿ࡽ೉⏝ࡋࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸦ୖグࢆཧ↷㸧
ࠊQuagliotti ࡢゎ㔘ࡣ௨ୗࡢ
⌮⏤࠿ࡽㄝᚓຊࢆḞࡃ㸦ࡲࡓࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣ㤳⫯࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸧
ࠋࡲࡎࠊ௖ࡀὝ❍ෆ࡟࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
114
㐣ཤ୐௖࡜ᘺີ⳶⸃ࢆ୍ิ࡟㓄ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௖㝀㛫ࡢ᫬㛫㍈࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵ಀࢆ୍ิ࡟⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡛⾲⌧ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
- 174 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ Quagliotti ࡀ࢖ࣥࢻࣛ࡜ࡍࡿ㔠๛ᯂࢆᇳࡿே≀ࡣࠊ༢࡟ᚑ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ࡑࡋ࡚௖㝀࡜ゝⴥࢆ஺ࢃࡍே≀ࡣẚୣ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50: 2005: 262, n. 50) ࡸᙼࡢぢゎࢆཷࡅ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵࡓ Rhi (2003: 173-174;
2008: 256) ࡣࠊ㔘㏑ࡀ㜿㞴ࡸ⯋฼ᘮ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ♧ࡍ௚ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡘࡘࠊᚑ᮶ࡢㄝ
ࡼࡾࡶㄝᚓຊࡢ࠶ࡿぢゎࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡽࡢ཯ㄽࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡢෆᐜࡀᩥ⊩୰ࡢጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢグ㏙࡜ዴఱ
ᵝ࡞ࡾ࡜ࡶྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࢀࡤࠊࡣࡿ࠿࡟⣡ᚓࡢࡺࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦௨
ୗࢆཧ↷㸧
ࠋ௜ゝࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
ࠗ㜿㛹௖ᅜ⤒࠘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⯋฼ᘮࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡣࠊT 313㸦
ࠗ኱ṇ᪂
⬶኱ⶶ⤒࠘➨ 11 ᕳ: 759c6ff㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㜿㛹௖ࡀᘵᏊࡓࡕ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕኌ⪺ ĞrƗvakas㸧࡟ᅖࡲࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢኌ⪺ࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࠊẚୣ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⯡ⱝ⤒⣔ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
㜿㞴࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⫈⾗࡟᫂࠿ࡉࢀࡿጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢගᬒ࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᙼࡽࡣࠊẚୣ
⾗࡜⳶⸃⾗ࢆక࠺㜿㛹ࢆほᐹࡍࡿ㸦bhikৢusaীghapariv৚taী bodhisattvaga৆apurask৚taী㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇ
ࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᨭ፝㏑ㆻヂࠗඵ༓㡴⯡ⱝ⤒ A‫ܒ܈‬asƗhasrikƗ࠘ (T 224, 8: 469a18-22 ཧ↷) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᫂♧ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᇳ㔠๛⚄ࡀࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㜿㛹௖࡜⧅ࡀࡾࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ Schopen ࡢᣦ
᦬ࡶࠊᇳ㔠๛⚄ࡀỴࡋ࡚୺ᑛ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊぢᙜእࢀ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᾋ᙮ࡢࡶ
ࡗ࡜ࡶ┠❧ࡘ఩⨨࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿዪᛶീࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ゐࢀࡓࡢ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
Schopen ࡀࠕᐇ㝿ࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡀࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡼࡾከࡃ
ࡢドᣐࡀ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᏑᅾࡍࡿࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࠊࡑࢀࡣᐇドࡉࢀ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊHuntington
࡟ࡼࡿࡇࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃࡜ LSukh ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛤♧ࡢሙ㠃ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿぢ᪉ࡀࠊ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛
ࡣ᭱ࡶྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ
άືࡢ㡿ᇦ
ᾋ᙮ࡢ୺ᑛࡣࠊㄝἲࢆࡋࡓࡾࠊ⚙ᐃ≧ែ࠿ࡽ໬㌟ࢆⓎฟࡋࡓࡾ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ᖖ࡟⬟ືⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚๪ḟⓗ࡞௖㝀ࡣࠊᘵᏊ࡟୺ᑛࡓࡿ௖㝀ࢆ㛤♧ࡍࡿ㸦ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࡳ㸧ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⶈ⳹
ୖ࡟❧ࡘᑠ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿⅬࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊఱ࠿࡟ᚑ஦ࡍࡿᵝᏊ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᆘ௖࡜❧ീࡢ໬㌟ࢆ⾲ࡍ୺
せ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊ❧ീࡢ௖㝀ࡣࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊ㐣ཤ୐௖㸦ᾋ᙮10࠾ࡼ
ࡧ14ཧ↷㸧ࡢ⩌ീࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ୺せ࡞௖ఏሙ㠃㸦ᾋ᙮12ཬࡧ13ཧ↷㸧࡟ぢฟࡏࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣⶈ⳹ୖ
࡟❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡀ໬㌟㸦nirmƗ۬akƗya㸧ࡢ㢧⌧ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㐣ཤ୐௖ࡢ❧ീࡢ௖㝀࡛ࡣࠊྛീࡣᡭࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡗࡓ࠿ࡓࡕࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽᡭࡢ࠿ࡓࡕ࡟ࡣࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋࡓᅗീᏛⓗព࿡࡙ࡅࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮
࡟ࡣࠊ๪ḟⓗ࡞ᆘീࡢ௖㝀࡜ࡋ࡚᪋↓⏽༳㸦abhayamudrƗ㸧ࡢࡶࡢࡸࠊ⾰ࡢ୰࡟ྑᡭࢆධࢀࡓࡶࡢ
㸦ᾋ᙮16ཧ↷㸧ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ115ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᢅࡗࡓస౛ࡍ࡭࡚࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺ᑛࡀⶈ⳹࡟ᆘࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢ
ࡣࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚࡞࠸㸦ᾋ᙮16࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⋢ᗙ㒊ศࡀ◚ᦆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ㝖ࡃ㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㢧♧ࡢ
115
ࡇࢀࡣࠊ❧ീ࡟୍⯡࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡢኚᙧࣂ࣮ࢪ࡛ࣙࣥࠊࡲࡓ࣮࣐ࣟ᫬௦ࡢࢺ࣮࢞ࡢ⾲⌧࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࠋ
175 --- 175
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ሙ㠃࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࢆ၏୍ࡢ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚㝖ࡅࡤࠊᑠࡉ࡞௖㝀ࡓࡕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௖㝀ീࡣࡳ࡞㢌ගࢆకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ወ㊧ⓗ≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡾࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡣᐆ▼࡛㣭ࡽࢀࠊ㢌ୖ࡟⩸ࡿᐆᶞ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞┿
⌔ࡢ㐃⌔㣭ࡾࡀᆶࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣጾཝࢆ♧ࡍࢩࣥ࣎ࣝࢆ௖㝀࡟ᥖࡆࡿୖ༙㌟ࡢே≀࡞࡝ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ㇟ࡀⶈ⳹ᗙࢆᨭ࠼ࡓࡾࠊࡑࡢ㰯࡛ⶈ⳹ࡢⰼࢆᤝࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᭷⩼
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ↓⩼ࡢࣉࢵࢺࡀ௖ࡢ㢌ୖ࡟㣕⩧ࡋࠊച⵹ࢆ࠿ࡊࡋࡓࡾࠊⰼ⎔ࢆ௖࡟ᡝࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ
ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋᚋ⪅ࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࣉࢵࢺࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊⰼ⎔ࡸࡑࡢᡝෙࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡶ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟す᪉ࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊᙜ௦࡟࡞ࡗ࡚༡࢔ࢪ࢔࡟᪂ࡓ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡣࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ㢖⦾࡟ぢฟࡉࢀࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊⶈụࢱ
࢖ࣉࡢ௖୕ᑛീࡸᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡶぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠋྂ௦すὒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㢌ୖࡢⰼ⎔ࡀᣢࡘព࿡ࡣࠊ
຾฼ࡸ⋤ᶒࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢ୧᪉࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀࠊἲ㸦dharma㸧ࢆᩍ♧ࡍࡿ⪅࡟┦ᛂࡋ࠸
ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺116ࠋ
၏୍ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳࠊ୺ᑛࡢᨺࡘගࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ௖ࡢග㍤ࢆ♧ࡍ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ᥥ෗ࡀ
ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡢࡣࠊᾋ᙮ୗ᪉࡟㓄ࡉࢀࠊ࠿ࡘ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡢ㏆ࡃ࡟࠶ࡿ⳶⸃࡛ࠊ⮬ศࡢ┠ࡢ
๓࡟ᡭࢆ࠿ࡊࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ࡣࠊࡶ࠺୍ࣨᡤࠊᾋ᙮ୖ᪉ࡢ
ᕥ㝮࡟ࡶ෌ࡧྠࡌ௙ⲡࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀ┳ྲྀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿࡍࡄୖ᪉ࡢ௖㝀ࡢ᪉ࢆぢୖ
ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛2ᗘࡶྠࡌᅗᵝࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊᾋ᙮୧㝮࡛໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ࡀ࠸ࡎ
ࢀࡶࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊูࡢ௖ᅜᅵࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊูࡢぢ᪉ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࢆࠊࡇࢀ࡜ᑐ⛠ⓗ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃࡜⤖ࡧࡘ
ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡲࡓࠊ㜿㞴㸦Ɩnanda㸧ࡢ㔘㏑࡬ࡢ᠓ㄳ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡀእ࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ᨺගࡍࡿࡢ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ཯ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢගࡣࠊ௖㝀࡟㏆࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ⳶
⸃ࡀࡳࡿࡼ࠺࡞᰿ᮏⓗ࡞୙ኚ୙᩿ࡢග㍤࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊእⓗ࡞せồ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᨺࡓࢀࡓ≉Ṧ࡞ග⥺࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ୖ᪉ࡢ༊⏬࡛໬㌟ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ௖࡜ᛶ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ117ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡶࡲࡓࠊከᵝ࡞ጼែ࡛ఱ࠿ࡋࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽ
ࡢືࡁࡣ㏻ᖖࠊ༢⊂࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣ௖㝀࡟ࡴ࠿ࡗ࡚࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
ᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ㞄ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ᵝࠎ࡟ㄒࡾྜ࠺ᵝᏊ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪤㏙ࡢLSukh ึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫ
ࢺ࡟ࡣࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢⶈ⳹ࢆ」ᩘࡢ⳶⸃࡛ඹ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺౛እࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊྛࠎࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡦ࡜ࡘࡢⶈ⳹
116
ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ஧⳶⸃ࢆ⬥ౝ࡜ࡍࡿࠊㄝἲ༳௖㝀ീࡢᡝෙࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇࡶࡲࡓࠊ
⋤ࡀࠊࣂࣛࣔࣥ࡜ࢡࢩࣕࢺࣜࣖ㝵⣭࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ 2 ኱⮧ࡢ㛫࡟ᆘࡍ࡜࠸࠺ᐇ㝿ࡢ⋤ᐑ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㓄⨨࡟ೌࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣ஧㔜ࡢᶍೌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡛☜ㄆࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࡲࡓࠊ⚄ࠎࡢ⋤ࡓࡕࡸࡑࡢኳୖࡢᐑẊ࡟㛵
ࡍࡿ࢖ࣥࢻⓗほᛕࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡶୡ಑ⓗ࡞ࣔࢹࣝࡢὴ⏕࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᡝෙࡢࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ヲ⣽࡞⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡣ Bautze-Picron (2010: 14–17) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ
࡛ࡣࠊⰼ⎔ࡣ௖㝀ࡢㆭ⨾࡜㛵㐃ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋHuntington (1980: 668–669)ࡶཧ↷ࠋ
117
᥎ ࡢᇦࢆฟ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢぢ᪉ࢆ࡜ࡿ࡜ࠊ୺ᑛࡢ᪉ࡼࡾࡶࠊⓎฟࡢሙ㠃ࢆぢୖࡆࡿ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ(໬㌟ࡀⓎฟࡉࢀࡿ
ࡢ࡜ྠᵝ࡟)▂᝿ⓗቃᆅ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖㝀࡟ࡼࡾࡑࡢቃᇦ࠿ࡽⓎࡏࡽࢀࡓග᫂ࡢ⚄ኚ࡟ᛂࡌࡿᵝᏊࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ
࠼ࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋ
- 176 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
࡟ᆘࡋࡓࡾࠊ❧ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⾲⌧࡜ࡶྜ⮴ࡍࡿࠋᵝࠎ࡞㐀ᙧୖࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡳࡓ㝿࡟ࠊ┦஫㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ୍⯡ⓗㅖ┦ࢆᴫほࡋࡓࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢືࡁࡢ࡞
࠿࠿ࡽࠊࡼࡾ⯆࿡῝࠸Ⅼࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿⤠ࡗ࡚ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ⳶⸃ࡢጼែࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ୍
⯡ⓗ࡞ࡢࡀࠊᓫᣏࢆ♧ࡍືࡁ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡣᡭࢆྜᤸ༳࡟ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊఱ࠿౪≀ࢆ௖㝀࡟᪋୚ࡍࡿ௙ⲡ࡛ࡳ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡢୗ᪉࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀࡜ࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࠊ⳶⸃ྠኈ࡛㆟ㄽ
ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ᚋ⪅ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࡀぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ⳶⸃ྠኈ࡛㆟ㄽࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ
௖㝀ࡢ᪉࡟ࡣ┠ࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࡞࠿࡛ࡶከ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ⤒඾ࢆᦠ࠼ࡓ⳶⸃ࡓࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵ
ࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊୗ࠿ࡽ஧␒┠ࡢẁࡢᕥྑ࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ⤒඾ࢆᦠ࠼࡚
࠸ࡿ㸦ᦠ࠼࡚࠸ࡓ㸧ࡢࡀࠊ୍ேࡎࡘ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࡑࡢ┤ࡄ㞄ࡢே≀࡜఍ヰࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࠊ
㞄ࡢ⳶⸃ࡣ⪥ࢆഴࡅ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿ118ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢ௖ᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡢከࡃࡀࠊ⮬ศ
ࡓࡕࡀㄞࢇࡔ⤒඾࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࢆ⾜࠺ࠕᑐ➼࡞ᑐヰࠖࢆᥥࡃLSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜࠿࡞ࡾྜ⮴ࡍ
ࡿ 㸦ୖグࡢ5Ⅼ┠ཧ↷㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⤒඾ࢆᣢࡘ⳶⸃ࡀࡳ࡞ࠊഐࡽࡢ⳶⸃࡜఍ヰࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ
࡞࠸119ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ୖࡢከࡃࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊᡭ࡟ⶈ⳹ࢆᇳࡾࠊ࡞࠿࡟ࡣࡑࢀࢆᕸ᪋
ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ௙ⲡࡢ⳶⸃ࡶࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ୖ᪉࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ༢⊂ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊ⚙ᐃࠊᛮᝳࠊᩍ♧ࡢጼែࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௚
ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡶྠᵝ࡟ぢฟࡏࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢෆࠊ⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ㢖ᗘࡋ࡚ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊ༢⊂࡛⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ୺ᑛࡢ㢌㒊࠿ࡽࡑࢀ࡯࡝㐲ࡃ࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ぢฟࡏࠊ
୍᪉ࠊ௚ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ௖ᡤࡢ⦕࠶ࡓࡾ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᾋ᙮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ᾋ᙮7㸧࡜ᴥ
㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ᾋ᙮11㸧ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡶࠊ⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀࠊࣄࣥࢻ࣮ࢗࡢ⚄ࠎࡣࡶࡕࢁࢇ௖ࡓࡕ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ
ᓫ㧗࡞ࡿᏑᅾࢆⓎฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙼࡽࡣ௖㝀࡜࡯࡜ࢇ࡝➼ࡋࡃࠊᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ᙼࡽࡣ໬㌟ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ௖㝀ീ࡜ྠࡌ㧗ࡉ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ120ࠋ
ᩍ♧ࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡶࠊྠᵝ࡟⳶⸃ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㧗㑌࡞ほᛕࢆᖖ࡟๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕᩍ♧ࠖࢆ
⾲⌧ࡍࡿ᭱ึࡢ⳶⸃ࡣࠊᮍ᮶௖ࡓࡿᘺີ⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜᥎ᐹࡋ࠺ࡿࡀࠊᘺີࡢᅗീࡣ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾
⾡ࡢࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡜ྠ᫬௦ࡢᡈࡿẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨᒎࡋࡓ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࠋᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩍ
♧ࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡣࠊࡴࡋࢁಶࠎ࡟≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡴࡋࢁࢱ࢖ࣉู࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜࡢᾋ᙮ࡣዲ౛࡛ࠊᩍ♧ࡍࡿ⳶⸃࡟ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࢡࢩࣕࢺࣜ
࣭ࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୧᪉ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀಶࠎࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢ୰࡛⋢ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊᕥྑ࡟ࡣ⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡀ㓄
118
ࡇࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊᾋ᙮ࡢᦆയ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡸࡸ୙᫂░࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㐣ཤࡢグ㘓෗┿࡛ࡣ↓യࡢ⤒඾ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ(ඛ㏙)ࠋ
⤒඾ࡣࠊྠࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࡯࠿ࡢᾋ᙮࡟ࡶᙜึࡣࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡣࡎࡔࡀࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢస౛࡟࠾࠸࡚Ḟᦆࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᾋ᙮ 2 ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊᇶቭ࠿ࡽ஧ẁ┠ࡢእഃࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋࠊᾋ᙮ 3 ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ࡀᇶቭ୧㝮࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
119
ᡃࠎࡢぢ᪉࡛ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࡢಖᣢ࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛㔜どࡋࡓ఍ヰࢆ஺ࢃࡍ≧ែࡣ┦కⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢠ࣓ᮾὒ⨾
⾡㤋ᡤⶶ࡛࣐ࣝࢲ࣮ࣥᑗ᮶ࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮᩿∦࡛ࡣࠊ⤒඾ࢆᦠ࠼ࡿ⳶⸃ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢே≀࡜ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚
࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
120
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖㝀ࡣ௖㝀ࡢࡳࢆⓎฟࡋࠊ⳶⸃ീࡣᖖ࡟௖㝀ࡸࣄࣥࢻ࣮ࢗᩍࡢ⚄ࠎࢆྵࡴᵝࠎ࡞㧗㈗࡞
ᏑᅾࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᐇ౛ࡣ⯆࿡῝ࡃࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ㞴ゎ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
177 --- 177
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊほ㡢⳶⸃࡜ໃ⮳⳶⸃࡟ࡼࡿᮍ᮶ࡢᩍᑟ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ୍✀ࡢᮍ᮶࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࢆ
ᤄධࡋࡓ⾲⌧㸦flash-forward㸧࡜ゎࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡛࡟ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢ୧⳶⸃ࡢᩍᑟࡣࠊ
LSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸦ୖ㏙ࡢ4Ⅼ┠ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ୧
⳶⸃ࡣࠊ୺ᑛࡢ௖㝀ࡢࡕࡻ࠺࡝ᕥྑ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㓄⨨࠿ࡽࡶ᥎ᐹࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ121ࠋᩍ♧ࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ୺せ࡞⳶⸃ࡓࡕ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ᑠࡉࡃ⾲ࡉࢀࠊ࠿ࡘᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ➃࡟㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿
ࡽࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ᵓᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢ㒊ศࡀࠕᯟእࠖࡢせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊᕤேࡣࠊᩍ♧ࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡀࡇࡢୡ⏺ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⌧ᐇࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࢆⶈ⳹ୖ࡟㓄ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡇࡔࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᛮᝳࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ㢖ฟࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⳶⸃ീࡣࠊᾋ᙮᭱ୖ㒊࡟
㏆࠸఩⨨࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓ༢ᒙࡢᘓ㐀≀ࡢ࡞࠿࡟ࡶ༢⊂࡛ぢฟࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⩌⾗
ࡢ࡞࠿࡟ࡶぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠋᛮᝳࡍࡿ⳶⸃࡟ࡳࡿࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࠊ␗࡞ࡿព࿡ࢆ
᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ122ࠋ⩌⾗ࡢ୰࡟࠸ࡿ⳶⸃ീࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠊỿᛮࡢ㞺ᅖẼ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉ࠊಶู
ࡢᘓ㐀≀࡟༢⊂࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊLSukhࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᴟᴦίᅵࡢグ㏙࡟ᑐ↷ࡋ࡚ゎ
ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿ㞺ᅖẼࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮᭱ୖ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ
ᘓ㐀≀ෆ࡛ᆘࡍ஧ேࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣࠊࠕᛮᝳࡍࡿጼែ࡛ࠖࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㢋᮫ࢆࡘ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ᡭ࡟౪≀ࢆᣢ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍᫬ⓗ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿูୡ⏺ⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛ࡢ㌾⚗ୗ࡟࠶ࡿ㸦ୖ㏙ࡢ6Ⅼ┠ࢆཧ↷㸧➨஧㢮࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣ➨୕㢮㸦ୖグࡢ➨஧㢮ࠊ➨୕㢮ཧ↷㸧࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ᠜␲୺⩏⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋᚓࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᾋ᙮ࡢୖ㒊࡜࠸࠺఩⨨ࢆᛮ᝿ⓗ࡞୰ᚰ࠿ࡽ᭱ࡶ㐲㊥㞳࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ໬㌟ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ
௖ࡓࡕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᛮᝳࡍࡿ⳶⸃ࡀ㊥㞳ⓗ࡟㏆࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᾋ᙮ෆ࡛ࡢ㓄⨨
ࡣ♧၀࡟ᐩࡴࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋྠࡌࡃ♧၀ⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᾋ᙮࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᑛീࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡇࡢᛮᝳ
ࡍࡿጼໃࡢ஧⳶⸃ࡀ᭱ࡶ⮬ᕫ᏶⤖ⓗ࡛Ꮩ⊂࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡣࡇࡢࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᛮᝳࡍࡿጼໃࢆ⇍⪃࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊࡴࡋࢁⴠ⫹ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋࡓ
࠸ࠋ
ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ౪≀ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
୰ኸ࠿ࡽ㐲ࡃ㞳ࢀࡓᴥ㛶࡟㛢ࡌࡇࡵࡽࢀࠊ
ᙼࡽࡣᮍࡔࡑࢀࡽࢆ௖࡟᪋୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡛࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺123ࠋ
ᾋ᙮࡟ࡳࡿࡇࡢ࡯࠿ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢே≀ࡶ౪㣴ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮࡟࠸ࡿዪᛶ㸦ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
ࡳ㸧ࡸࠊⶈ⳹ࡢⱼࡢ୧ഃ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡓே≀ࡣࠊ௖㝀࡟ᩓ⳹ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᡭ࡟౪≀ࢆᇳࡾࠊᕸ᪋ࡋ
ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊỈࡢ๓㠃࡟ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ㓄⨨ࡣࡑ
ࡢගᬒࡢእഃ࡟࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ౪㣴⪅ࡓࡕࡣ㤶⅔ࢆᇳࡾࠊຍ࠼࡚ࢼ࣮࢞ࡓࡕࡶ♩ᣏࢆ
⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
121
Huntington (1980: 666-667)ࡣࠊࡑࡢᾋ᙮ࡀࠕ஧ேࡢ⳶⸃ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡓᴟᴦίᅵࡢఏᢎ࡟ࡣᒓࡉ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅ
ࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋ
122
ၥ㢟ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕᛮᝳࡍࡿጼែࠖࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆ࡝࠺ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡣ⇍⪃ࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࠿ࠊⴠ⫹ࢆ
♧ࡍࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊMiyaji (1985a)ࠊQuagliotti (1996b) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
123
Cf. Huntington (1980: 663) ࡣ␗࡞ࡿゎ㔘ࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLSukh ࡢึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣᴟᴦίᅵࡢ඲࡚ࡢ⪅ࡣࠊ⊂ᒃᡣ
ࡢฮᮇᮇ㛫ࡶྵࡵ࡚ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂☜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
- 178 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊዪᛶീࡣࠊ࿘⦕㒊ࡸ࠶ࡲࡾ㔜せ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⟠ᡤࡢࡳ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮
࡛ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡢ୧⬥ࡢ୍ᑐࡢ⏨ዪീ࡟ぢฟࡏࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢே≀ീࡣ౛እ࡞ࡃ㢌ගࢆḞࡁࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ᐇ㝿ࡣࠊࡑࡢᾋ᙮࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓቃᇦࡢእഃ࡟࠶ࡿᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟ࡑࡇ
࡟෌⏕ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋ၏୍ࡢ౛እࡣᾋ᙮2ࡢస౛࡛ࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ㢌ගࢆࡘ
ࡅࡓ㒔ᕷࡢዪ⚄ࡀࠊ୺ᑛࡢ୧⬥࡟ౝࡿ⚄ࠎࡢ୍ே࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊ
ዪᛶീࡣࣂࣝࢥࢽ࣮࡟ࡳࡽࢀࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡑࡢ఩⨨ࡣఏ⤫ⓗ࡟ዪᛶࡀ㓄ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛
ࡶዪᛶീ࡟ࡣ㢌ගࡀࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᙼዪࡓࡕࡣࠊ௚࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㧗఩ࡢᏑᅾ࡜ࡣ␗࡞
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡍ࡭࡚ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᾋ᙮ࡀ஧ࡘ஀⮳ࡑࢀ௨ୖ
ࡢ༊⏬࡟ศ๭ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ౛እࡶ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊዪᛶᐤ㐍⪅ࡣ᭱ୗᒙࡢ༊⏬࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟
࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᾋ᙮ࡀ༢୍༊⏬ࢆ࿊ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢዪᛶീࡣᇶቭ㒊࡟㏆࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ᚲࡎ㓄
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡛ࡣࠊᕤேࡀࠊྍ⬟࡞࠿ࡂࡾ⏨ᛶࡢࡳࡢᶍ⠊ⓗቃᇦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᴟᴦί
ᅵࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᛅᐇ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ࡜᥎ᐹ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᇶቭ㒊࠿ࡽୖ᪉࡬┠ࢆ⛣ࡋ࡚ࡺࡃ࡜ࠊ୰ኸࡢ௖ᡤࡢ
࠶ࡓࡾ࡟ࡣዪᛶീࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡣ⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐆᶞ࠿ࡽୖ༙㌟ࢆ⌧
ࡍே≀ࡸࣉࢵࢺࡲ࡛ࡶ⏨ᛶ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ୖ㏙1Ⅼ┠ཧ↷㸧ࠋᐇ࡟ࠊࣉࢵࢺ࡜ࡑࡢ᭷⩼ࢆ㝖ࡁࠊࡍ࡭
࡚ࡢᏑᅾࡣ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡛ࡣ඲࡚ࡀྠࡌᵝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊྡ๓ࢆ㝖ࡁࠊ⚄࡜ே࡜
ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ༊ูࡀ↓࠸࡜᩿ゝࡍࡿLSukh࡟࠾࠸࡚ṇ࡟つᐃࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾
࠸࡚┦㐪ࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊኌ⪺㸦ĞrƗvakas㸧ࡓࡕ㸦㏻ᖖࡣẚୣ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ෗ࡉࢀࡿ㸧࡜⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡢ㛫࡛
ࡣ᫂☜࡟つᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓస౛㸧ࢆᴟᴦίᅵࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳࡿHuntington
ࡸFussmanࠊQuagliottiࡢぢゎ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊᾋ᙮࡜LSukhึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㛫࡟ࡼࡾ┦ᛂࡢᑐ↷ᛶ
ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࠕᐇ㝿ࠊࡑࢀ㸦㸻ᾋ᙮㸧
ࡀᴟᴦίᅵࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇドࡍࡿᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࡼࡾࡶࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠊࡼࡾከࡃ
ࡢࠗドᣐ࠘ࡀ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ┿┦࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࢆࡶ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿ124 ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿSchopenࡢ୺ᙇࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡍ࡛࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᡃࠎࡣࡇࢀࡲ
࡛࡟᳨ウࡋࡓࠗ㜿㛹௖ᅜ⤒࠘ࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⤒඾࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢグ㏙ࢆࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡍࡿᚲせ
ࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᾋ᙮࡟ጁ႐ୡ⏺࡜࠸࠺௖ᅵࡢ᭱ࡶ඾ᆺⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡀఱ࠿ࡋࡽ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࢆၥ
࠸┤ࡍᚲせࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊዪᛶࡓࡕࠊ୕㐨ᐆ㝵ࠊኌ⪺ࡓࡕࡢ㞟఍ࠊḍᴙ㸦vedikƗ㸧ࢆకࡗࡓ⳶
ᥦᶞ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࣔࢸ࢕࣮ࣇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᾋ᙮࡟ࡣᐆᶞࡣ☜
ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࢆ⳶ᥦᶞ࡜ࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
124
Schopen (1987: 117, n. 50/2005: 262, n. 50) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
179 --- 179
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ࡣጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࢆ⿵ᙉࡋ࠺ࡿࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ
ドᣐࡣ඲ࡃ࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟Schopenࡢ➨୍ࡢ୺ᙇࡣཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀ࡞࠸125ࠋᙼࡢ➨2ࡢ୺ᙇ㸦ࠕࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
┿┦࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸࡞ࡽࡤࠊ௚ࡢ
ఱ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡶࠊ௚ࡢ≉ู࡞௖ᅜᅵࡀೃ⿵࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸
࡞ࡽࡤࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵࠖࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࡀṧࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊSchopen⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ (Schopen 1977) ࠊᴟᴦίᅵ࡜ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ୧⪅ࡣ඾ᆺ
ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ๓⪅ࡣࠊつ⠊ⓗ࡟⏨ᛶࡢࡳ࡛ᖹࡽ࡞ᆅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣዪᛶࡓࡕࢆྵࡳࠊࡼࡾᆺ
ࠊ ࠊ ࠊ
࡟ࡣࡲࡗࡓᆅᙧࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ126ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ᫂☜࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࠿ࡂࡾࠊᴟᴦίᅵࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸
ࠊ ࠊ ࠊ
ࡣࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௖ᅜᅵࡶ༊ูࡋ㞴ࡃࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺୖࡢᥥ෗ࡶྠᵝ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㐀ᙧ⾲⌧ࡶ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ
ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵࡢᴫᛕ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ஦ᐇୖࠊᣢ⥆୙ྍ⬟࡜࡞
ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡶព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᴟᴦίᅵᆺࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡜ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ጁ႐ୡ⏺
ᆺࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢕᥱࡍࡿࡋ࠿ᡃࠎ࡟ࡣ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊᴟᴦίᅵᆺࡢ௖ᅜᅵࡀࡇ
ࡇ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢస౛࡟㠀ᖖ࡟ࡼࡃఝ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⤖ㄽࡶ↓どࡋࡀࡓ࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ୍᪉ࠊ
ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࡶጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴ࡃࠊࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ᳨ウࢆせࡍࡿ࡜
࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
7. ⤖ㄽ
࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ᙮้ࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᵝ┦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚඘ศ࡞⌮ゎ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢⅬࡣ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃ
ࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮ࢆ⊂❧ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢃࢀࢃࢀࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ㗦ᩄ࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢస౛
࡜ᑐ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡼࡾ᫂░࡜࡞ࡿࠋᩥ⊩࡜ᅗീࡢ≉ᐃࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡟␃ࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ
ࡲࡓᣢ≀࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ಶࠎࡢⓏሙே≀ࢆ㆑ูࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ㞳ࢀ࡚ࠊᡃࠎࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ၥ࠺࡭ࡁ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊྠࡌࡃⶈ⳹ୖ࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡓከࡃࡢ⏨ᛶ⳶⸃⾗࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅖ⧑ࡉࢀࡓ௖㝀ࡣఱࢆ⾲
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤࠊ➨1࡟ࠊ኱஌௖ᩍࡢᩍ࠼ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠊ➨2࡟ࠊ⏨ᛶࡔࡅࡢ
ᶍ⠊ⓗ࡞⎔ቃࠊㄝἲࢆཷࡅࠊࡲࡓ௖࡬ࡢᕸ᪋ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢ⌮᝿ୡ⏺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㜿ᘺ
㝀௖ࡢᥥ෗࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඾ᣐࡀࠗἲ⳹⤒࡛࠘࠶ࡿ࡟ࡏࡼࠊ௚ࡢ኱஌⤒඾࡛࠶ࡿ
࡟ࡏࡼࠊࡇࢀࡀ㔘㏑ࡢᡂ㐨ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ኱ග᫂ࡢ⚄ኚ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ␌❵ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᾋ᙮
ࡀ኱஌௖ᩍࡢᡤ⏘ࡔ࡜ㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖ࡟≉ู࡞ㄝᚓຊࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡋࠊࡇࢀࢆ௖㝀ࡀࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘ࢆㄝἲࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿ㢧⌧ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡳࡿ࡞
125
Schopen ࡣᾋ᙮ᇶቭ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ஧ேࡢዪᛶࡢᏑᅾࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊඛ࡟♧၀ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ዪᛶࡢᏑᅾࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ
Huntington ࡜ Fussman ࡟ࡼࡾ༑ศ࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୧ྡ࡜ࡶࠊዪᛶࡓࡕࢆ⏬㠃ࡢ୺࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓᏑᅾ࡛
࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
126
㏆ᖺ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓ࣮࢞ࣥࢲ࣮࣮ࣜㄒࡢ኱஌⤒඾᩿∦࠾ࡼࡧࠊBajaur ฟᅵࡢ࣮࢝ࣟࢩࣗࢸ࢕࣮ᩥ᭩ࡀఏ࠼ࡿጁ႐
ୡ⏺ࡢᶍ⠊ⓗᶵ⬟ࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊIngo Strauch ࡢ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋStrauch (2010) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
- 180 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡽࡤࠊ௚ࡢ⫈⾗ࡓࡕࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㏻ᖖࡣẚୣ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓩሙࡍࡿኌ⪺ࡓࡕࡣࠊఱฎ࡟࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ㢧
♧ࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡢ༢⊂ࡢẚୣീࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅࡗࡓࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᾋ᙮࡟࠾࠸࡚ẚୣࡢጼࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊẚୣࡀ౪㣴⪅ࡢ఩⨨࡟࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺౛እࡣぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊẚୣᑽࡣゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࠊከࡃࡢ኱஌⤒඾⩌ࡢෑ㢌࡟࠾࠸࡚௖ࡀ⾜࠺ወ㋱ࡢグ㏙ࢆ⢭ᰝࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⤖ᒁࡣࠊ
ࡑࢀࡽࡣࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣྜ⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺127ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࡇࡢᾋ᙮ࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞௖ᅜᅵࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡏࡤࠊ୍ᒙ⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮ࡣᴟᴦίᅵࢆ㐃᝿ࡉࡏࡿ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ከࡃࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺
ࢆᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࡿỴᐃⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࢆḞ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍ࡛࡟☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ
ࢀࡣࠊᖖ࡟ᐃ఩⨨࡟㓄ࡉࢀࡿዪᛶࡓࡕࡢᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮࡛࠶ࢀࡤṇ࡟୰ᚰ࡟఩⨨ࡋ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡜ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࢆไసࡋ
ࡓᕤேࡀពᅗⓗ࡟ࡇࡢ㓄⨨ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㑊ࡅࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡔࡅࡀࠊ
௖ࡢ⏕ᾭࡢᵝࠎ࡞ሙ㠃࡜㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ⾲㇟ࡉࢀࡓቃᇦࡀࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡼࡾࡶ⌧ᐇୡ⏺
࡜ᙉࡃ⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢⅬࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ
ࡣጁ႐ୡ⏺ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࡣ⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋዪᛶ௨እ࡟ࠊᾋ᙮࡟ࡣࡇࡢ⤖ㄽࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ≉ᚩࡀぢฟࡏ
࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ྠᵝࡢ⪃ᐹࡣࠊ௖୕ᑛീ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ௖୕ᑛീࡣࠊࡇࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡢ⡆␎໬ࡉࢀࡓࣦ࢓࣮ࢪ
࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡾࠊඛ⾜౛ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ᭱ึᮇࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࡍ࡛࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ࠶
ࡿ๓ᥦ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊ⤖ㄽࡣỴᐃࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡶࡋࡶࠊ௖㝀ീࢆ㔘㏑௖࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࠊ୧⬥ౝࡢ࠺ࡕỈ⎼
ࢆᇳࡿ୍᪉ࡢࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࢆᘺີ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീࡣࠊ
ྑᡭ࡛᪋↓⏽༳ࢆ♧ࡋࠊᕥᡭࢆ⭜࡟⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᜳ㐩ኴᏊ㸦SiddhƗrtha㸧࡜ẚᐃࡉࢀࡿ
࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ㐣ཤ࣭⌧ᅾ࣭ᮍ᮶࡜࠸࠺┤⥺ⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ
ࡽ୕⪅ࡀ༠ാࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᴟࡵ࡚ᴦほⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆࡍࡿ
࡟ࡏࡼࠊࡑ࠺ゎ㔘ࡉࢀᚓࡿࡢࡣ௖୕ᑛീࡢഹ࠿࡞స౛ࡢࡳ࡛128ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾࡢከᵝᛶࡀ
࠶ࡾࠊṦ࡟ࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⳶⸃ീࡀⰼ⥘ࡸⶈ⳹ࢆᇳࡿሙ
ྜ࡟ࡣほ㡢⳶⸃࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௖୕ᑛീ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓᑛീࡢ┦஫ࡢ
㛵㐃ᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢᾋ᙮ᵓᡂࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᅔ㞴࡜࡞ࡿ129ࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊࡑࡢ௖୕ᑛീ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ྛ⳶⸃ീࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊಶࠎࡢᑛ᱁ẚᐃࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ࠿࡞ࡾ☜ᅛࡓࡿᅗീᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ130ࠊ୕ᑛ
ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⳶⸃ࡢಶࠎࡢẚᐃ࡟ࡢࡳ㢗ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࡢ඾ᆺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ୍⯡ⓗព
127
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡋࠊἲࢆㄝࡃ↓ᩘࡢᏱᐂ௖(ࠗἲ⳹⤒࠘࡟ㄝ࠿ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞)ࡢⓙ↓࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡇࢀࡀ࡜࠶ࡿ
ᡂ㐨ࡸ⚄ኚ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᾋ᙮⏬㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃࡢே≀ࡀ(୰ኸ࡟)ὀពࢆᡶ࠺ᵝᏊࢆࡳࡏ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࠿␲
ၥࢆ࿊ࡍࡿྥࡁࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
128
ᐑ἞ (2008) ࡣࠊ47 స౛୰ࠊ2 స౛ࡢࡳࡀᜳ㐩ኴᏊࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
129
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞௖୕ᑛീ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ㔘ࡢ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡶࡋࡶᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢᏑᅾࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢሙྜࡢ୺ᑛࡣ
㔘㏑௖࡟㐪࠸࡞ࡃࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡜ࡣࡳ࡞ࡋ㞴࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ㄽࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋRhi (2003: 166–167)ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
130
Rhi ࡣ 2006 ᖺࡢㄽᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ❧ሙࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (p. 151, n. 5) ࠋ
ࠕ௖ീ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ⳶⸃ീ
ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣᑛ᱁ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᅗീᏛⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠋ
181 --- 181
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
࿡ࡶ᳨ウࡋࠊゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⣖ඖᚋ୍ୡ⣖ࡢᩥ⊩㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊࡍ࡛࡟᳨ウࡋࡓึᮇࢸ࢟
ࢫࢺ㸧ࡸ㐀ᙧ⨾⾡㸦㐣ཤ௖ࡸ㐣ཤ୐௖ࡑࡋ࡚ᘺີ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧㸧ࡢࡑࡇࡇࡇ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ௖ἲࡢ⥅⥆
ᛶࡸ⥅ᢎࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ㢳ࡳࢀࡤࠊ୧⬥ౝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᘺີࡢᏑᅾࡣ☜࠿
࡟ᡃࠎࡢୡ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௖ᩍࡢ⥅⥆ᛶࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᙼࡢᚋ⥅࡛࠶ࡿ௖㝀ࡶࡲࡓࢡࢩࣕࢺࣜࣖ㝵⣭
ࡢฟ㌟࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡶࡋࡶࠊ୧⬥ౝࡢᕥྑࡀධࢀ᭰ࢃࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊⰼ⥘ࡸⶈ⳹ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ࡀᐇ㝿࡟ほ
㡢⳶⸃࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀ࡢᴟᴦίᅵࡢࡼ࠺࡞௖ἲ⥅ᢎࡢ➽᭩ࡁࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ࡀ┤㏆ࡢᚋ⥅⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣈࣛࣇ࣐࣮࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀࡇࢀ࡟⥆ࡃࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊึᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚グ㏙ࡉࢀࡓ⥅ᢎࡢࢩࢼࣜ࢜࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡶࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡀṇࡋ
࠸࡞ࡽࠊ௖୕ᑛീ࡟ࡣࠊほ㡢⳶⸃ࡸໃ⮳⳶⸃ࢆకࡗࡓ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊ⬥ౝࢆక࠺ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ௖࡛ࡶࡼ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⬥ౝࡣࡓࡔ㐀ᙧୖࡢ⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟๎ࡗ࡚⾲
⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊᮍ᮶௖ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ࡟᭱ࡶࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ࠊ࢖ࣥࢻ♫఍ࡢୖ఩஧㝵⣭ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ
ࡢ⳶⸃࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ୕ᑛࡍ࡭࡚ࡀⶈ⳹࡟஌ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ⌧ᐇ࡜ࡣ␗࡞
ࡿࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ⛛ᗎࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ␗࡞ࡿḟඖࡢ௖㝀ࡢᏑᅾࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿131ࠋ
࠿ࡃࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣᚑᒓⓗ࡞఩⨨࡛Ỉ⎼ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ീࡍ࡭࡚ࡀᘺີ࡛࠶ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࡑࡢጼࡣࣂࣛࣔࣥ㝵⣭ฟ㌟ࡢᮍ᮶௖࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡢᘺີࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ
⤒඾ࢆᇳࡿ⳶⸃ീࡍ࡭࡚ࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶᩥṦ⳶⸃㸦MañjuĞrƯ㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡋࠊⶈ⳹ࢆᇳ
ࡿ⳶⸃ീࡀᖖ࡟ほ㡢⳶⸃࡛࠶ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁࡑࡢᅗീࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡀ᭷ࡍࡿ㔜せ
ᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ูࡢゅᗘ࠿ࡽࡑࡢၥ㢟ࢆ═ࡵ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢᕤேࡀࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ⬥ౝ࡛࠶ࡿほ㡢⳶⸃ࡸ
ໃ⮳⳶⸃ࢆᥥࡃ࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳ࡟┤㠃ࡋࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟㌟㏆࡞⾲⌧
࡜⾲⌧ఏ⤫࡟๎ࡗ࡚ࠊᙼࡽࡢጼࢆ๰ฟࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺ࣭ࣜࣖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⳶⸃ീ
ࡣࠊᜳ㐩ኴᏊ࡜ࡋ࡚ぶࡋࡲࢀ࡚ࡁࡓᅗീ࡜ᕪู໬ࡍࡿᚲせࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ࠿ࡃࡋ࡚ࠊᘺີࡀỈ⎼ࢆᇳࡿࡢ
࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⰼ⥘࡜࠸࠺ᣢ≀ࢆᣢࡘ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊⰼ⥘ࡣ㸦௖ἲ㸧⥅ᢎࡢ㇟
ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ᅗീࡣࠊࢡࢩࣕࢺࣜࣖ㝵⣭ฟ㌟ࡢᮍ᮶௖ࡢព⩏ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ
࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋⰼ⥘ࡢⶈ⳹࡬ࡢ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡜ࢱ࣮ࣂࣥෙ㣭ࡢ໬௖ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿᒎ㛤࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ132ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊほ㡢࣭ໃ⮳୧⳶⸃ࡀᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠾࠸࡚௖㝀࡟୧ౝࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊᑛ᱁ẚᐃࡢỴ
ᐃせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣ⳶⸃ࡢಶࠎࡢᶆ㆑࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྛࠎ␗࡞ࡗࡓゎ㔘ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࠺ࡿ௖୕ᑛീࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃ
ࡏ࡜ᵓᡂ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
131
ࡇࢀࡽࡢస౛ࡀไసࡉࢀ൤♩ⓗᐇ㊶࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᙜ᫬࡟ࠊ௖ᩍᚐࡀࡑࢀࡽࡢീࡀㄡࢆᣦࡍࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ᡃࠎ௨ୖ࡟ᐶᐜ࡛୙ṇ☜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᙼࡽࡀࠊ║๓ࡢ௖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀࠿㜿
㛹௖࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㔘㏑௖࠿ࢆ≉࡟Ẽ࡟ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡣࡦ࡜ࡲࡎゐࢀ࡞࠸࡛࠾ࡃࠋࡇࡢ
ၥ㢟࡟ࡣࠊRhi (2003: 163–164; 2008: 259) ࡀᗄᗘ࠿ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
132
௒ᅇ኱ᯟࢆ♧ࡋࡓ➽᭩ࡁࡢゎ㔘ࡣᮏ✏ࡢᣑ኱∧࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊほ㡢⳶⸃ࡣ⤖
ᒁᘺີ⳶⸃ࡢᅗീ࡜᏶඲࡟ྠ໬ࡋࠊỈ⎼ࢆᇳࡿⱞ⾜⪅ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ኚㇺࡍࡿࠋほ⤒࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡑࢀࡽ୧⳶⸃ࡢグ㏙࡛ࡣࠊ
ほ㡢⳶⸃ࡀ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ീࢆᡝࡃ⋤ෙ (༶ࡕࢱ࣮ࣂࣥ࠿?) ࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࠊໃ⮳⳶⸃ࡣ㢌㣭ࡾ࡟ᐆ⎼ࢆᡝࡃࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ
ᆒ⾮ࡢྲྀࢀࡓ୍⤌࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡇࢀࡽ୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ೫ᅾᛶࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
- 182 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣࠊ➊ἲㆤ㸦Dharmarakৢa㸧ࡀ᭱ึ࡟₎ヂࡋࡓ኱஌⤒඾⩌࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ࡍࡿࠋRhi (2003: 167–170) ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ീࢆไసࡍࡿᐇ㊶ࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ≉࡟ࠗጁ្❺ዪ
⤒ SumatidƗrikƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ࠘࡜ࠗ㞳ᇈ᪋ዪ⤒ VimaladattƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ࠘ࢆ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࠋ₎ヂ⤒
඾ࡢ⩻ヂ࡟ࡣ࠸ࡉࡉ࠿ࡢ㞴Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ❧ࡕධࡽ࡞࠸133ࡀࠊ୧ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࢳ࣋ࢵࢺヂࡣࠊࡑ
ࡢグ㏙ࡢ㔜せᛶࡀࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ീࡢไస࡟␃ࡲࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡿ┠ⓗࢆෆໟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟
࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠿࠿ࡿ┠ⓗ࡜ࡣࠊ௖ࡓࡕ㸦」ᩘᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀព㸧ࡢ㠃๓࡟࠾
ࡅࡿⶈ⳹ୖ࡛ࡢወ㊧ⓗ࡞෌⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠗጁ្❺ዪ⤒ SumatidƗrikƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ࠘ࡢࢹࣝࢤ∧
(dKon brtsegs Ca 217a6–b1) ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
bu mo byang chub sems dpa' chos bzhi dang ldan na | sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das rnams kyi
thad du rin po che chen po’i padma las rdzus te skye bar ’gyur te | bzhi gang zhe na | ’di lta ste |
phye ma ’am | me tog ud pa la ’am | padma ’am | ku mu da ’am | padma dkar pos lag pa bkang
ste | de bzhin gshegs pa’i sku gzugs sam | de bzhin gshegs pa’i mchod rten la ’bul ba dang |
gzhan dag la yang gnod sems mi skyed pa dang | de bzhin gshegs pa’i sku gzugs padma’i gdan
la bzhugs pa byed du ’jug pa dang | sangs rgyas kyi byang chub la nges pa rgya cher mos pa ste
| bu mo byang chub sems dpa’ chos bzhi po de dag dang ldan na sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das
rnams kyi thad du rin po che chen po’i padma las rdzus te skye bar ’gyur ro ||
࠺ࡽⱝࡁዪᛶࡼࠊ⳶⸃ࡣࠊᅄࡘࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ೧኱࡞ᐆ▼ࡢⶈ⳹ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࡢ໬⏕ࢆ
࣭
ㅖ௖ୡᑛࡢ㠃๓࡛ᯝࡓࡍࠋࡑࡢᅄࡘ࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠋձᙼࡽࡀ⮬ࡽࡢᡭࢆ⢊ࡸ㟷ⶈ⳹㸦utpala㸧
⣚ⶈ⳹㸦padma㸧࣭㯤ⶈ⳹㸦kumuda㸧࣭ⓑⶈ⳹㸦pu۬‫ڲ‬arƯka㸧࡛‶ࡓࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆዴ᮶
㸦tathƗgata㸧ࡸዴ᮶ࡢࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃ࡬ᕸ᪋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋղ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㑧࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ᭷ࡉ࡞
࠸ࡇ࡜ࠋճⶈ⳹ᗙ࡟ᆘࡍዴ᮶ീࡢ㐀ീࢆ࿨ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࠋմ௖ࡢᡂ㐨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሀࡃಙࡌ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ࠺ࡽⱝࡁዪᛶࡼࠊ⳶⸃ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽᅄࡘࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ೧኱࡞ᐆ▼ࡢⶈ⳹ࡢ୰
࠿ࡽࡢ໬⏕ࢆㅖ௖ୡᑛࡢ㠃๓࡛ᯝࡓࡍ134ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢグ㏙ࡢ㔜せᛶࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙୖࡢ௖㝀ീࡢไస࡜ࠊูࡢ௖ᅜᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿูࡢ௖㝀ࡢ㠃๓࡛ࡢ
ⶈ⳹ୖ࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄋ㢪࡜ࡢᙉ࠸⤖ࡧࡘࡁࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟࠶ࡿ135ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟
ࢫࢺ࡟㜿ᘺ㝀௖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬࡀⓙ↓࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡣ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓ௖ࡓࡕࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍
133
ࡓࡔࠊRhi ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊn. 49 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᘬ⏝ヂᩥࡣ Harrison ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
ᩓᩥࡢෆᐜࢆせ⣙ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟೦ᩥࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠗ㞳ᇈ᪋ዪ⤒࠘
VimaladattƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ (Ca 255a2–7)࡜ࡢᑐᛂ⟠ᡤ࡛ࡣࠊ
ᗄࡘ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ஧ࡘࡢ೦ࡢ᭱ᚋࡢ⾜࡛ࡣࠊ
෌⏕ࡀ㔘㏑௖࡛ࡣ࡞࠸௖ࡓࡕ (」ᩘ) ࡢ㠃๓࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕ⚾ࡢ㠃๓࡛ࠖࡢ෌⏕ࡀ␲࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ෌ࡧ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(cf. Rhi 2003: 169, n. 49) ࠋ
135
㠀ᖖ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓグ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊDƗrikƗvimalaĞraddhƗparip‫܀‬cchƗ (Derge dKon brtsegs Cha 100a5–b5) ࡢࢳ࣋ࢵࢺㄒࢸ࢟
ࢫࢺࡶཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ㱟ᶞ (NƗgƗrjuna) ࡟ᖐࡏࡽࢀࡿࠗ⳶ᥦ㈨⣊ㄽ(BodhisaۨbhƗra(ka))࠘⏤᮶ࡢ㛵㐃㒊ศ࡟࠿࠿ࢃ
ࡿ Rhi (170) ࡢゝཬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᭦࡟ᩜᘏࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ೦ᩥࡢࡳࡀ㱟ᶞ(NƗgƗrjuna) ࡟ᖐࡏ
ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ೦ᩥ࡛ࡣ௖㝀ࡢⶈ⳹ᗙࡢไసࢆᥦၐࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ ( Lindtner 1982: 241, v. 113 ࢆཧ↷) ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ↓ྡࡢ
ὀ㔘⪅ ƮĞvara ࡣࠊⶈ⳹ᗙไసࡢ┠ⓗࡀ໬⏕ (aupapƗduka)࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ෌⏕ࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ௖ࡢ㌟యࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ (T 1660, 32:536c21–22) ࠋ
134
183 --- 183
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ே࡛࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓ෌⏕ࡀᴟᴦίᅵ࡟㢮ࡍࡿ௖ᅜᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊྵព
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡼ࠺136ࠋࡇࡢ✀ࡢグ㏙ࡣࠊⶈ⳹୕ᑛ㸦lotus triads㸧ࡸⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮ࡢไసࢆࠝ㜿ᘺ㝀୕
ᑛ࣭㜿ᘺ㝀ίᅵ࡜ࡋ࡚̿ヂὀࠞ⛠ᥭࡋࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢస౛࡛ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ぢࡓࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊ౪㣴⪅ࡓࡕࡀ⮬ࡽࡢወ㊧ⓗ෌⏕ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࡜ࡇࢁࢆᥥ࠿ࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ௚࡟ㄢࡉࢀࡿ൤
♩ᐇ㊶࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ௖ീࡸࢫࢺ࣮ࢗࣃ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ᵝࠎ࡞✀㢮ࡢⶈ⳹ࡸⶈ⳹࡟ఝࡓⰼࠎࢆዊࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ₎ヂ࡛ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆࡍࡾ₽ࡋ࡚⢊࡟ࡋ࡚ዊࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ෌⏕ࡍࡿⶈ⳹ࢆࠊㅖ௖ࡢ㠃๓ู࡛ࡢୡ⏺୰࡟⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡍ
ࡿ137ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᚰ᝟࡟ッ࠼࠿ࡅࡿ൤♩ࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸஦౛࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ࠊ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮ࡣࠊከ௖ࠊከ⳶⸃ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢ୧⪅ࡢྠ᫬Ꮡᅾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ
ࡿᏱᐂࡢ࡞࠿ࡢࠊ␗ୡ⏺ࡢගᬒࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟┦㐪࡞࠸ࠋ」ᩘࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠊ
LSukhࡢグ㏙ࢆぢ㐣ࡈࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ㞴ࡋࡃࡣ࡞࠸138ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ≉࡟ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮࡟ぢฟࡉࢀࡿࠊ
ከᩘࡢ௖㝀ࡢᏑᅾࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୍➽⦖࡛ࡣ࠸࠿࡞࠸ࠋᙼࡽࡣࠊ␗ୡ⏺࡟ฟ⮬ࢆᣢࡘ௖ࡓࡕ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊ໬㌟ࡓࡕࢆ୺ᑛࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㏦ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ኱஌⤒඾⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡋࡤࡋࡤ㉳ࡇ
ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊྛࠎࡢ௖ᅜᅵ㸦buddhak‫܈‬etra㸧ࡢ㛫࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆྍ⬟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ✵
㛫ࢆ㛤♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡪ୺ᑛࡀࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ᪉ゅ࡟࠾࠸࡚⮬ࡽ
ࡢ㈐ົࢆᯝࡓࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏕ࡳฟࡋࡓࠊ⚙ᐃࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢጼໃࡢ๪ḟⓗ࡞ጼ࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ
ᾋ᙮ࡣࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡢ୍ேࡢ௖ࡢᵝࠎ࡞άືࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࠊㅖ௖ࡀㅖୡ⏺࡟࠾࠸
࡚⾜࠺άືࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿㄽᣐࢆᣢࡕ
ྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㔜せ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟ࡑࢀࡽࡢ」㞧ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣࠊ⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢆࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ᪉ゅ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㅖ௖࡜ㅖ⳶⸃ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡦ࡜ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ኱஌⤒඾⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄒࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡀࠕࡍ࡭࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸦୺࡟ࢧࣥ
ࢫࢡࣜࢵࢺㄒ࡛ࡣsarva ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ௚ࡢㄒ⩌ࡶྠᵝࡢാࡁࢆ⾜࠺㸧ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ⩌
ࡀࠊ᏶඲ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㛵ᚰ࡜⯆࿡ࢆྤ㟢ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡲࡾゝཬࡉࢀ࡞࠸஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊ
኱஌௖ᩍࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഃ㠃ࡀ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲⌧࡟ぢฟࡉࢀࡿ139࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊᘓ⠏
Ꮫⓗ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡢ୰࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ௖࣭⳶⸃ࢆ㓄ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ༳㇟ⓗ࡞ຠᯝࢆᮇᚅࡋ
136
ࠗ㜿㛹௖ᅜ⤒࠘࡟౫ࡿ⪅ࡣࠊጁ႐ୡ⏺࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⶈ⳹ᗙࡢไసࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ጁ႐ୡ⏺ࡢఫேࡓࡕࡣࠊࡼࡾୡ಑ⓗ࡞ᡭẁࠊ⏘㐨ࢆ㏻ࡗ࡚฿㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
137
ࡍ࡛࡟ࡳࡓ࡜࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢᩥゝࡢࢳ࣋ࢵࢺヂࡣ」ᩘᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊRhi (2003: 177–178, esp. n. 77) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ᥦ㉳ࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ࡢゎỴࡢ⣒ཱྀ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
138
ᙜ᫬ࡢ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᩥ⊩ࢆ฼⏝࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀ
ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋBajaur ฟᅵࡢᮍ▱࡞ࡿ኱஌⤒඾(๓㏙)ࡢ᪂Ⓨぢࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ☜ドࡀ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝୙᏶඲࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࢆ♧ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅࡗࡓᾋ᙮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾ᫂☜࡞ẚᐃ࡜ෆໟࡉࢀࡿෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ㔘ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࠺ࡿ☜
ᅛࡓࡿᩥ⊩ࡀ௚࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
139
㈼ຕ༓௖ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ㢮ఝࡋࡓഴྥࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ(ᐇ㝿࡟ࠗ㈼ຕ⤒࠘(Bhadrakalpikasnjtra)࡟ࡳࡽ
ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞) ᅗീࡢᐇ㊶࡜኱஌௖ᩍ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡣࡉ࡯࡝᫂░࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
- 184 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ୍᪉ࠊⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊ୍యࡢ௖㝀࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྠࡌ✵㛫ࡢ୰
࡛ࡶࠊࡼࡾ⮬⏤࡟ᙼࡢ࿘ᅖ࡟ࡑࡢ⳶⸃ࡓࡕࢆ㓄⨨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡇࡢ≉ᚩࡣᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ
᙮⩌ࡀ༢୍ࡢ௖ᅜᅵࢆ㉸࠼࡚ᗈࡲࡿᏱᐂࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊᩥ⊩ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ᅗീ࡜ࡢ☜ᅛࡓࡿࠊࡑࡋ࡚᫂ⓑ࡞㛵ಀࡣࠊࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡜ࠗ↓
㔞ᑑ⤒࠘㸦Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha㸧㛫࡛ࡣᵓ⠏ࡋ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭࡚ࠊᮏ✏ࢆ⥾ࡵࡃࡃࡾࡓ࠸ࠋࡍ
࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࡢⅬࡣᐜ᫆࡟ࡣゎỴࡉࢀᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᮏస౛㸦࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㢮ࡍࡿᾋ᙮⩌㸧ࡀࠊほ㡢⳶⸃࡜ໃ⮳⳶⸃ࢆ⬥ౝ࡜ࡍࡿᴟᴦίᅵ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀௖ࡢ
⾲⌧࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ኱࠸࡟࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ౛࠼ࡤᩔ↥➨332❍ࡢస౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟140ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ※
ࡀ1926ᖺ࡜࠸࠺ ᫬࡟ㄽࡌࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ඛ⾜౛ࡀࠊᴟᴦίᅵࡢᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔ⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ
࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ௚ࡢ」ྜᆺᾋ᙮⩌ࠊ≉࡟ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢస౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ኱஌௖ᩍ࡜
㛵㐃ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࢆ↓⌮ᙉ࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶẼ࡙࠿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊ5ࠊ6ୡ⣖௨๓ࡢ࢖ࣥࢻࡢ
኱஌௖ᩍࡢᙳ㡪ຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ྂᏛⓗドᣐࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⓙ↓࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡣࡶࡣࡸᨭᣢ
ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢぢゎࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ࣃ࢟ࢫࢱࣥ࡜࢔ࣇ࢞ࢽࢫࢱ࡛ࣥ᭱㏆Ⓨぢ
ࡉࢀࡓ෗ᮏ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྰᐃࡉࢀࠊ┤ࡕ࡟࠶ࡽࡓࡵࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ༳㇟ⓗ࡛Ὑ⦎ࡉࢀࡓ
ഔస⩌ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࡓ௖ᩍࡢ⣔⤫ࡣࠊ㎶ቃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡋ࡚ࡸᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡞࡝࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ
࠶ࡾᚓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
140
౛࡜ࡋ࡚ Rhi (2008: 257, fig 4) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ
Rhi (ibid., p. 255) ࡣᩔ↥➨ 332 ❍࡜ࡢ㢮ఝᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡀࠊ
ព⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ␃ಖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
185 --- 185
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩୍ぴ
Ali, Ihsan & Qazi, Muhammad Naeem
2008
Gandharan Sculptures in the Peshawar Museum (Life Story of the Buddha), (Mansehra: Hazara
University Mansehra NWFP – Pakistan).
Ashikaga Atsuuji ㊊฼ᩔẶ
1965
SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha (Kyoto: Hǀzǀkan).
Bautze, Joachim K.
2008
“The Discovery of Gandhara,” ed., Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Legends,
Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der BRD),
pp. 44–49.
Bautze-Picron, Claudine
2010
The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma. New Considerations (New Delhi: India
Sanctum Books).
Bhattacharyya, Dipak Chandra, ed.
2002
GandhƗra sculpture in the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh, in the light of
the international colloquium held in 1998 at Chandigarh, (Chandigarh: Govt. Museum and Art
Gallery).
Brough, John
1982
“AmitƗbha and AvalokiteĞvara in an inscribed GandhƗran Sculpture,” Indologica Taurinensia,
Vol. 10, pp. 65–70. Reprinted in: Minoru Hara & J. C. Wright, eds., John Brough Collected
Papers (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1996), pp. 469–474).
Brown, Robert L.
1984
“The ĝrƗvastƯ Miracles in the Art of India and DvƗravatƯ,” Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 37, pp.
79-95.
Burgess, James
1897
Ancient Monuments of India (London).
1900
“The Gandhâra sculptures,” The Journal of Indian Art, Vol. VIII, No. 61–69, pp. 23–40 + 27
pls.
Bussagli, M.,
1984
L’arte del GandhƗra (Torino).
Chang, Garma C.C., ed.
1983
A Treasury of MahƗyƗna Snjtras: Selections from the MahƗratnaknj‫ܒ‬a Snjtra (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press).
Cole, Henry Hardy
Preservation of National Monuments, Panjab: Memorandum on ancient monuments in
1883
Eusofzai, with a description of the explorations undertaken from the 4th February to the 16th
April 1883, and suggestions for the disposal of the sculptures (Simla: Government Central
Branch Press).
1885
Preservation of National Monuments: Third Report of the Curator of National Monuments in
India for the Year 1883–84 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India).
- 186 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K.
1927
“The Origin of the Buddha Image,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 287–329.
Cribb, Joe
1980
1999
“Kaniৢka’s Buddha Coins - The Official Iconography of ĝƗkyamuni and Maitreya,” Journal of
the International Association for Buddhist Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 79–88.
“Kanishka’s Buddha image coins revisited,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology, Vol. 6, Papers in
honour of Francine Tissot, pp. 151–189.
Dantinne, Jean
1983
La splendeur de l’Inébranlable, Tome I (Université Catholique de Louvain Institut Orientaliste,
Louvain-la-Neuve).
Davidson, Ronald M.
2002
Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement (New York: Columbia
University Press).
Exhibit
1985
2008
ࠗ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ᙮้: ᮾὒࡢྂ඾ⓗே㛫ീࡢ※ὶ: 㛤㤋25࿘ᖺグᛕ≉ูᒎ Gandhara sculpture
from Japanese collection: special exhibition of celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Museum
Yamato Bunkakan, 1985 9/6-10/6࠘ (ዉⰋ: ኱࿴ᩥ⳹㤋).
Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz,
Bonn: Zabern–Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der BRD).
Foucher, Alfred
1905
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome I (Vol. 1–2) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1909
“Le ‘grande miracle’ du Buddha à ÇrƗvastƯ,” Journal Asiatique, pp. 5–78.
1917
“The Great Miracle at Çrâvastî,” in A. Foucher, ed., The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and other
Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology (revised repr. edn.) (New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services), pp. 147-184, pls. xix-xxviii [= an English translation of Foucher 1909 by
L. A. & F. W. Thomas].
1918
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II (Vol. 3) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1922
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II, fasc. 2 (Vol. 4) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
1951
L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du GandhƗra. Tome II, fasc. 3 (Vol. 5) (Paris: Imprimerie National).
Fujita Kǀtatsu ⸨⏣ᏹ㐩
1990
“The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure Land
Buddhism,” in Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University
of Hawai‘i Press), pp. 149–173.
2011
The Larger and Smaller SukhƗvatƯvynjha Snjtras: Edited With Introductory Remarks and Word
Indexes to the Two Snjtras (Kyoto: Hǀzǀkan)
Fussman, Gérard
1987
“Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the Chronology of Early Gandharan Art,” in Yaldiz,
Marianne & Lobo, Wibke, eds., Investigating Indian Art (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für
Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst), pp. 67-88.
1999
“La place des SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha dans le bouddhisme indien,” Journal asiatique, 287, 2, pp.
523–586.
187 --- 187
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
Giès, Jacques & Cohen, Monique (eds.)
1996
Sérinde, Terre de Bouddha: Dix siècles d’art sur la Route de la Soie, Paris: Éditions de la
Réunion des musées nationaux).
Gómez, Luis
1996
The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light: Sanskrit and Chinese
Versions of the SukhƗvatƯvynjha Sutras (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, and Kyoto:
Higashi Honganji Shinshnj ƿtani-ha).
Grünwedel, Albert
1920
Buddhistische Kunst in Indien (2nd edn.) (Berlin & Leipzig: De Gruyter).
Hargreaves, H.
1930
Handbook to the Sculptures in the Peshawar Museum (Rev. edn.) (Calcutta: Government of
India).
Harrison, Paul
1998
“Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources,” Journal of Indian
Philosophy, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 553–572.
n.d.
“On the Authorship of the Oldest Chinese Translation of the Larger SukhƗvatƯ-vynjha-snjtra,”
unpublished paper presented at the conference of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies, Lausanne, August 1999.
Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann & Kazunobu Matsuda ᯇ⏣࿴ಙ
2002
“Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjhasnjtra,” in Jens Braarvig, ed., Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection III:
Buddhist Manuscripts, Volume II (Oslo: Hermes Publishing), pp. 179–214.
Higuchi, Takayasu (ed.) ᵽཱྀ㝯ᗣ ⦅
ࠗࣃ࢟ࢫࢱ࣭ࣥ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ᒎ The Exhibition of Gandhara Art of Pakistan࠘ (ᮾி: ᪥ᮏᨺ㏦
1984
༠఍)
Huntington, John C.,
1980
“A GandhƗran Image of AmitƗyus’ SukhƗvatƯ,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di
Napoli, Vol. 40, pp. 651–672.
1993
“A Re-examination of a Kaniৢka Period Tetradrachm Coin Type with an Image of
MƝtrago/Maitreya on the Reverse (Göbl 793.1) and a Brief Notice on the Importance of the
Inscription Relative to Bactro-GandhƗran Buddhist Iconography of the Period,” Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 355–387.
Huntington, Susan L.
1985
The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain (New York, Tokyo: Weatherhill).
Inagaki, Hisao
1995
The Three Pure Land Sutras (BDK English Tripi‫ܒ‬aka 12-II, III, IV) (Berkeley: Numata Center
for Buddhist Translation and Research).
Kagawa Takao 㤶ᕝᏕ㞝
ࠗ↓㔞ᑑ⤒ࡢㅖᮏᑐ↷◊✲ A Comparative Study of the Texts of the Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha-snjtra࠘
1984
(ி㒔: Ọ⏣ᩥᫀᇽ).
- 188 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
Klimburg-Salter, Deborah E.
1995
Buddha in Indien: Die frühindische Skulptur von König AĞoka bis zur Guptazeit (Milano:
Skira).
Knox, Robert
1992
Amaravati, Buddhist Sculpture from the Great Stnjpa (London: British Museum Press).
Konow, Sten
1929
Kharosh‫ܒ‬hƯ inscriptions, with the exception of those of AĞoka (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,
Vol. 2, pt. 1) (Calcutta: Government of India Central publication branch).
Kramrisch, Stella
1983
“Ajanta,” in Stoler Miller, Barbara, ed., Exploring India’s Sacred Art: Selected Writings of
Stella Kramrisch (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), pp. 273–307.
Kurita, Isao ᰩ⏣ ຌ
1988
ࠗྂ௦௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྀห ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡I షఏ࠘ GandhƗran Art I. The Buddha’s life story (Ancient
Buddhist art Series) 1 (ᮾி: ஧⋞♫)
1990
ࠗྂ௦௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྀห ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡II ష㝀ࡢୡ⏺࠘(GandhƗran Art II. The world of the
Buddha (Ancient Buddhist Art Series) (ᮾி: ஧⋞♫).
2003
ࠗᨵゞቑ⿵∧ ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡ 2vols: I. ష㝀ࡢୡ⏺ II. షఏ࠘ (GandhƗran Art 2 Vols.: I. The
Buddha’s life story, II. The world of the Buddha (Revised and enlarged edn., Ancient Buddhist
Art Series) (ᮾி: ஧⋞♫).
Kwan, Tai-wo
1985
“A Study of the Teaching Regarding the Pure Land of Aksobhya Buddha in Early Mahayana”
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
Lindtner, Christian
1982
Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of NƗgƗrjuna (Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag).
van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J. E.
1949
The “Scythian” Period. An approach to the history, art, epigraphy and palaeography of north
India from the 1st century B.C. to the 3rd century. A.D (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina, Vol. 2)
(Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Luczanits, Christian
2008
“Buddhism in a Cosmopolitan Environment: The Art of Gandhara,” Orientations, Vol. 39, No.
7, pp. 46–52.
2008a
“Gandhara and Its Art,” in Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Legends,
Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der BRD),
pp. 16–26.
Lyons, Islay & Harald Ingholt
1957
GandhƗran Art in Pakistan (New York: Pantheon Books).
Majumdar, Nani Gopal
1937
A Guide to the Sculptures of the Indian Museum. Part I: Early Indian Schools, Part II: The
Graeco-Buddhist School of GandhƗra 2 vols. (Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India).
189 --- 189
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
Marshall, Sir John
1951
Taxila: An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations carried out at Taxila
[1913-1934] 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press).
1960
The Buddhist Art of GandhƗra. The story of the early school, its birth, growth and decline
(Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan, 1) (London: Cambridge University
Press).
Minamoto Toyomune ※㇏᐀
1925
ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࠖ(The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ)ࠗషᩍ⨾⾡࠘3: 51.
1926
ࠕίᅵኚࡢᙧᘧࠖ(The form of the representation of the Pure Land)ࠗషᩍ⨾⾡࠘7: 60–73.
von Mitterwallner, Gritli
1987
“The Brussels Buddha from Gandhara of the Year 5,” in Yaldiz, Marianne & Lobo, Wibke,
eds., Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Symposium on the development of early
Buddhist and Hindu Iconography held at the Museum of Indian Art Berlin in May 1986
(Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin: Museum für Indische
Kunst), pp. 213–47.
Miyaji, Akira ᐑ἞᫛
ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࠖ(The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ)ࠖࠗᮾᾏ௖ᩍ࠘pp. 40–60.
1971
1985a
ࠕ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༙㊜ᛮᝳീࡢᅗീ༙̿㊜ᛮᝳീࡢฟ⌧ࠖ(Half-crosslegged pensive images
in GandhƗra: The emergence of half-crosslegged pensive images) ⏣ᮧᅭ⃈࣭㯤ᑑỌඹ⦅༙ࠗ㊜
ᛮᝳീࡢ◊✲࠘(ᮾி: ྜྷᕝᘯᩥ㤋) pp. 61–114.
1985b
“Iconography of two flanking Bodhisattvas in GandhƗran Buddhist Triads,” in Miyaji, Akira
ed., Iconographical Study of Buddhist Art in India and Pakistan (Hirosaki: Hirosaki University),
pp. 3–13.
1993
ࠕᏱᐂ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㔘㏑௖̿࢖ࣥࢻ࠿ࡽ୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔ࠊ୰ᅜ࡬ࠖ (ĝƗkyamuni as the lord of the
universe: From India to Central Asia and China)ࠖ❧ᕝṊⶶ⦅ࠗ᭭ⲷ⨶࡜㍯ᘔ̿ࡑࡢᛮ᝿࡜⨾
⾡࠘(Ma۬‫ڲ‬ala and SaۨsƗra: Their Philosophy and Art) (ᮾி: ౎ᡂฟ∧♫), pp. 235–269.
1996
ࠕⶈࡢ࢖ࢥࣀࣟࢪ࣮̿ㄌ⏕ࠊίᅵࠊ࣐ࣥࢲࣛࡢࢩࣥ࣎ࣜࢬ࣒ࠖ(The Iconology of the Lotus: The
Symbolism of birth, pure land and ma৆ঌala) ❧ᕝṊⶶ⦅࣐ࠗࣥࢲࣛᏱᐂㄽ࠘(ி㒔: ἲⶶ㤋), pp.
349–396.
ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡜኱஌௖ᩍ⨾⾡ࡢ㉳※ࠖ(“The Miracle at ĝrƗvastƯ” and the Origin of MahƗyƗna
2002
Buddhist Art)ࠗ⨾Ꮫ⨾⾡ྐ◊✲ㄽ㞟࠘20, pp. 1–27.
ࠕ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ⨾⾡࡜኱஌௖ᩍࠖ
(GandhƗran Art and MahƗyƗna Buddhism)ࠗ௖ᩍᏛࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮࠘81, pp.
2005
52–74.
2008
“Iconography of the Two Flanking Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist Triads from GandhƗra.
Bodhisattvas SiddhƗrtha, Maitreya and AvalokiteĞvara,” East and West, Vol. 58, Nos. 1–4, pp.
123–156.
Müller, F. Max
1894a
“The Larger Sukhâvatî-vyûha,” in Cowell, E.B., Max Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans.,
Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), pp. 1–85.
1894b
“The Smaller Sukhâvatî-vyûha,” in Cowell, E.B., Max Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans.,
Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), pp. 89–107.
Nattier, Jan
2000
“The Realm of Akৢobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism,” Journal of
the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 71–102.
- 190 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
2003
2008
“The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the
Larger SukhƗvatƯvynjha,” Pacific World, Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies , Third
Series, 5, pp. 179–201.
A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han ᮾ₎ and Three
Kingdoms ୕ᅧ Periods (ᮾி: ๰౯኱Ꮫ࣭ᅜ㝿௖ᩍᏛ㧗➼◊✲ᡤ).
Nehru, Lolita
1989
Origins of the GandhƗran Style: A Study of Contributory Influences (Delhi: Oxford University
Press).
Odani Nakao ᑠ㇂௰⏨
1967
ࠕ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ௖ᩍ⨾⾡ࡢᒎ㛤ࠖ(The Evolution of Buddhist Art in GandhƗra)ࠗྐᯘ࠘ vol. 50, no.
1, pp. 88–104.
Olivieri, Luca Maria
2008
“The Swat Case Study: Barikot and Its Environs,” in Gandhara – The Buddhist Heritage of
Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und
Ausstellungshalle der BRD), pp. 294–297.
Paul, Suwarcha
1986
Gandhara Sculptures in Chandigarh Museum (Chandigarh: Chandigarh Museum).
Quagliotti, Anna Maria
1996a
“Another Look at the Mohammed Nari Stele with the So-called “Miracle of ĝrƗvastƯ”,” Annali
dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Vol. 56, pp. 274–289.
1996b
“‘Pensive’ Bodhisattvas on ‘Narrative’ Gandharan Reliefs: A Note on a Recent Study and
Related Problems,” East and West, 46, Nos. 1–2, pp. 97–115.
Rhi, Juhyung ᮤᰕ஽
1991
GandhƗran Images of the ĝrƗvastƯ Miracle: An iconographic reassessment. Dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley.
2003
“Early MahƗyƗna and GandhƗran Buddhism: An Assessment of the Visual Evidence,” The
Eastern Buddhist 35, nos. 1 & 2, pp. 152–190 + 16 figs.
2006
“Bodhisattvas in GandhƗran Art: An Aspect of MahƗyƗna in GandhƗran Buddhism,” in Pia
Brancaccio & Kurt Behrendt, eds., GandhƗran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts (Vancouver:
UBC Press), pp. 151–182.
2008
“Complex Steles: Great Miracle, Paradise, or Theophany?” in Gandhara – The Buddhist
Heritage of Pakistan. Legends, Monasteries and Paradise (Mainz – Bonn: Zabern – Kunst- und
Ausstellungshalle der BRD), pp. 254–259.
2011a
Reprint: “Complex Steles: Great Miracle, Paradise, or Theophany?,” in Adriana, Proser, ed.,
The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan. Art of Gandhara (New York: Asia Society Museum), pp.
65–72.
2011b
“Wondrous Visions: The Mohammad Nari Stele from Gandhara,” Orientations, Vol. 42, No. 2,
pp. 112–115.
Rosenfield, John M.
1967
The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Rotman, Andy
2008
Divine Stories: DivyƗvadƗna, Part I (Boston: Wisdom Publications).
191 --- 191
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
Rowland, Benjamin
1938
“Buddha and the Sun God,” Zalmoxis: Revue des études religieuses, Vol. 1, pp. 69–84, plus
Plates I–IX.
Salomon, Richard
1999
Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara: the British Library Kharo‫ܒ܈‬hƯ fragments (London:
British Library).
Salomon, Richard & Gregory Schopen
2002
“On an alleged reference to AmitƗbha in a Kharoৢ৬hƯ Inscription on a GandhƗran Relief,”
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 3–31.
Schlingloff, Dieter
1991
“YamakaprƗtihƗrya und Buddhapi৆ঌƯ in der altbuddhistischen Kunst,” Berliner Indologische
Studien, Vol. 6, pp. 109–136 (plus 4 pp. addendum).
2000
Ajanta – Handbuch der Malereien / Handbook of Painting 1: Erzählende Wandmalereien /
Narrative Wall-paintings, 3 Vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
Schopen, Gregory
1977
“SukhƗvatƯ as a generalized religious goal in Sanskrit MahƗyƗna Snjtra Literature,”
Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 177–210 (Reprinted in Schopen 2005, Figments and
Fragments, pp. 154–189.
1987
“The Inscription on the KuৢƗn Image of AmitƗbha and the Character of the Early MahƗyƗna in
India,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 99–136
(Reprinted in Schopen 2005, Figments and Fragments, pp. 247–277.
2005
Figments and Fragments of MahƗyƗna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers
(Honolulu; University of Hawai‘i Press).
Silk, Jonathan
1997
“The Composition of the Guan wuliangshoufo-jing: Some Buddhist and Jaina Parallels to its
Narrative Frame,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 25, pp. 181–256.
Sivaramamurti, Calambur
1942
Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum (repr. 1998 edn., Bulletin of the
Chennai Government Museum, Vol. IV) (Chennai: Chennai Government Museum).
Spooner, D.B.
1911
“Excavations at Takht-i-BƗhƯ,” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1907-08
(Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India), pp. 132–148 & pls. xl–xlix.
1912
“An Inscribed Sculpture in the Peshawar Museum,” in Vogel, J. Ph., ed., Archaeological
Survey of India, Annual Report 1908–09 (Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India),
pp. 130–32 + pl. xlvii.
Stone, Elizabeth Rosen
1994
The Buddhist Art of NƗgƗrjunako۬‫ڲ‬a (Buddhist Tradition Series, vol. 25) (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass).
Strauch, Ingo
2010
“More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for Akৢobhya and
Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sutra from GandhƗra,” The Eastern Buddhist, New Series, Vol.
41, No. 1, pp. 23–66.
- 192 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘
Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature
2006
VimalakƯrtinirdeĞa: A Sanskrit Edition Based upon the Manuscript Newly Found at the Potala
Palace (Tokyo: Taisho University Press).
Taddei, Maurizio
1969/2003 “Harpocrates-BrahmƗ-Maitreya: A Tentative Interpretation of a Gandharan Relief from SwƗt,”
Dialoghi di Archeologia, Vol. 3, pp. 364-390.
Repr. in Verardi, Giovanni & Filigenzi, Anna, eds., Maurizio Taddei on GandhƗra, Collected
Articles (Collana “Collectanea” III, 1) (Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”),
pp. 131–157.
1987/2003 “Non-Buddhist Deities in Gandharan Art - Some New Evidence,” in Yaldiz, Marianne & Lobo,
Wibke, eds., Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Symposium on the development of early
Buddhist and Hindu Iconography held at the Museum of Indian Art Berlin in May 1986
(Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst, Vol. 8) (Berlin: Museum für Indische
Kunst), pp. 349-62, 15 figs.
Repr. in Verardi, Giovanni & Filigenzi, Anna, eds., Maurizio Taddei on GandhƗra, Collected
Articles (Collana “Collectanea” III, 1) (Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”),
pp. 271–84.
Takakusu Junjirǀ 㧗ᴋ㡰ḟ㑻
1894
“Amitâyur-dhyâna-sûtra, The Sûtra of the Meditation on Amitâyus,” in Cowell, E.B., Max
Müller, F., & Takakusu J., trans., Buddhist MahƗyƗna Texts (The Sacred Books of the East, Vol.
XLIX) (Oxford: Oxford University Press; reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), pp.
159–204.
Tanabe, Katsumi ⏣㎶຾⨾
1993
ࠗᖹᒣ㑳ኵࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ ࢩࣝࢡ࣮ࣟࢻࡢࢥ࢖ࣥ࠘(Silk Road Coins. The Hirayama Collection)
(British Museum Publication, London) (㙊಴: ࢩࣝࢡ࣮ࣟࢻ◊✲ᡤ).
Vogel, J. Ph.
1906
“Inscribed GandhƗra Sculpture,” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1903–04
(Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India), pp. 244–260 & pl. lxvi–lxx.
Walser, Joseph
2002
“NƗgƗrjuna and the RatnƗvalƯ: new ways to date an old philosopher,” Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, pp. 209–262.
2005
NƗgƗrjuna in Context: MahƗyƗna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture (New York: Columbia
University Press).
Williams, Joanna
1975
“SƗrnƗth Gupta Steles of the Buddha’s Life,” Ars Orientalis, Vol. 10, pp. 171–192.
1983
The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province (New Delhi: Heritage Publishers).
Zimmer, Heinrich
1954
The Art of Indian Asia, its Mythology and Transformations 2 vols. (Bollingen Series, Vol. 39)
(New York: Pantheon Books).
Zin, Monika
2003
Ajanta – Handbuch der Malereien / Handbook of the Paintings 2: Devotionale und
ornamentale Malereien, 2 Vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
193 --- 193
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
ᅗ∧୍ぴ
ᅗ1.
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2009ᖺ)
ᅗ2.
ᅗ1ࡢྂ࠸グ㘓෗┿ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍ᯛ; ᥦ౪ ࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔
⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ
ᅗ3.
ᅗ1㒊ศࠊ㢧♧ࡢሙ㠃; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2007ᖺ)
ᅗ4.
ᅗ1㒊ศࠊⶈ⳹ᗙ࡜୧⬥ࡢࢼ࣮࢞⏨ዪീ; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2007ᖺ)
ᅗ5.
ᐆᶞࡢᾋ᙮᩿∦; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ ฟᅵ (1906-07ᖺⓎ᥀);࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒
ྕ2997 (ᪧ170); ⅊Ⰽ∦ᒾࠊ16.5 × 30.5 cm; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2007ᖺ)
ᅗ6.
5ᖺ㖭グࡢ࠶ࡿࣈࣜࣗࢵࢭࣝ௖୕ᑛീ (⌧ᅾࡣ᪥ᮏࡢ㜿ྵ᐀ⶶ); Kurita (2003: P3-viii)ࡼࡾ㌿㍕
ᅗ7.
௖ᅜᅵ࡜ᘺີࢆ᭱ୖ㒊࡟⾲ࡍⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮; ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜฟᅵ; ࢳࣕࣥ
ࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ࠊno. 572; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits
ᅗ8.
኱ᆺࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮᩿∦; ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ ฟᅵ(1939ᖺⓎ᥀); ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊ
ᡤⶶ␒ྕ2785; ᥦ౪ ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
ᅗ9.
ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮;ฟᅵᆅ୙᫂; ᪧ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ; ᥦ౪ ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ
◊✲ᡤ
ᅗ10. ୐௖࡜ᘺີࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᾋ᙮;ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜฟᅵ; ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝᕞ❧༤≀㤋ࠊ
ᡤⶶ␒ྕ1134; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2009ᖺ)
ᅗ11. 㔜ᒙᘓ⠏ࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮;ࢧ࣮࣭ࣜࣂ࣮ࣟࣝ ฟᅵ(࣐࢘ࣥࢻ D); ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋
ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒ྕ2771; ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2007ᖺ)
ᅗ12. ⶈ⳹ᗙୖ࡟♧ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ฟᅵ; ࢥࣝ࢝ࢱ࣭࢖ࣥࢻ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊ
ᡤⶶ␒ྕA 23484 (ᪧ5090); ᧜ᙳ C. Luczanits (2006ᖺ)
ᅗ13. ໬௖ࢆⓎฟࡉࡏࡿ௖㝀ീࢆ⾲ࡍⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ฟᅵ (1908ᖺⓎ᥀); ᪧ
࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ; ᥦ౪ ࣦ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ࣭ࣟࣥࢻࣥ
ᅗ14. ᕥྑ࡟⳶⸃ࢆ㓄ࡋㄝἲ༳ࢆ⤖ࡪ௖㝀ീࢆ♧ࡍ௖୕ᑛീ; ᥦ౪ ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊
✲ᡤ
ᅗ15. ௖ఏࡢሙ㠃ཬࡧ ஧యࡢ⚙ᐃࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࢆ⾲ࡍ௖୕ᑛീ;࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ; ᧜ᙳ C.
Luczanits (2009ᖺ)
ᅗ16. ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ࣮ࣛ࣍ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶ; ᥦ౪ ࣟࣥࢻ࣭ࣦࣥ࢓࣮ࣝࣈࣝࢢ◊✲ᡤ
ᅗ17. ᛮᝳࡍࡿ⳶⸃ീࢆ⾲ࡍᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ࣭ࣟࣜࣖࣥࢱࣥ࢞࢖ฟᅵ; ࢥࣝ࢝ࢱ࣭࢖ࣥࢻ༤≀㤋
ⶶ; ᥦ౪࣭࣋ࣝࣜࣥ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡㤋ࠊ༡࣭ᮾ༡࣭୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔⨾⾡ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ
ᅗ18. Ⓨฟࢱ࢖ࣉᾋ᙮; ࢱࣇࢸ࢕࣭ࣂ࣮࢖ ฟᅵ(1908-09ᖺⓎ᥀), ࣌ࢩ࣮ࣕ࣡ࣝ༤≀㤋ⶶࠊᡤⶶ␒
ྕ3109; ∦ᒾࠊ22.9 x 24.2 cm; Higuchi (1984: I-10)ࡼࡾ㌿㍕
- 194 -
ࣁࣜࢯࣥ㸤ࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶࠕࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣞࢫ࣏ࣥࢫ
ᐑ἞ ᫛
㱟㇂኱Ꮫᩍᤵ
⯆࿡῝ࡃࠊ࠿ࡘ่⃭ⓗ࡛ࠊ♧၀࡟ᐩࢇࡔࡈⓎ⾲ࢆ㡬ࡁࠊ᭷㞴࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ⚾ࡣࠊᮏ᪥ࡣᛴ࡟㑊
ࡅ㞴࠸ᡤ⏝ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ┤᥋࠾┠࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡈⓎ⾲ࢆ࠾⪺ࡁ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆṧᛕ࡟ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ஦๓
࡟࠾㏦ࡾ㡬࠸ࡓࡈㄽᩥⲡ✏ࢆᣏぢࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ⱝᖸࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡉࡏ࡚㡬ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
⚾ࡣ௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྐࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢᾋ᙮ᅗീࡢྠᐃࠊゎ㔘࡟㛵ᚰࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ୍⯡࡟⨾
⾡సရ㸦ᅗീ㸧ࡣᩥ⊩㸦⤒඾㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ไసࡉࢀࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡀࡕ࡛ࡍࠋ☜࠿࡟ᐦᩍ⨾⾡ࡸ୰ᅜ၈௦ࡢ
⤒ኚ⏬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩥ⊩࡜సရࡣ㏆࠸㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶᩥ⊩࡟グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࡑࡢࡲࡲ㐀ᙧ໬ࡉࢀࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྐࡢึᮇࡢẁ㝵
㸦๓㸰ୡ⣖㹼ᚋ㸴ୡ⣖㡭㸧
࡛ࡣࠊసရ࡜ᩥ⊩ࡢ㊥㞳ࡣ኱ࡁ࠸࡛ࡍࠋࡑࡶࡑࡶᕤே㸦సᐙ㸧ࡣ⤒඾ࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࢆ㐀ᙧ໬ࡋࡓ࡜
ࡣ⪃࠼㞴࠸࡛ࡍࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃᕤேࡣᏐࡣㄞࡵࡎࠊൔ࠿ࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ⤒඾࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡩࡉ
ࢃࡋ࠸ࠊࡑࢀ௨๓࠿ࡽఏᢎࡉࢀࡓᵝࠎ࡞ᅗീఏᢎࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡾࠊᨵኚࡋࡓࡾࠊࡲࡓ᪂ࡓ࡟๰ฟࡋࡓࡾࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ᾋ᙮᙮้ࢆไసࡋࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡲࡍࠋᕤேࡀൔ࠿ࡽ⪺࠸ࡓ⤒඾࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࡣࠊSkt, PƗli, Tibet, ₎ヂㅖᮏ࡞࡝⌧Ꮡᩥ⊩࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡍࡿ௚ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
௒ᅇࠊ୰ᚰⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡓ the Mohammad Nari Stele㸦௨ୗ M.N.S ࡜␎ࡍ㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒㎾࡟
࠸ࡃࡘࡶࡢྠᐃࠊゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊᮍࡔ◊✲⪅ࡢぢゎࡀศ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ࡝
ࡢᩥ⊩
㸦⤒඾㸧
࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡇࡢ▼ᯈ᙮้ࡀ㐀ࡽࢀࡓ࠿ࠊ
࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࡢࡶ࡜࡟ゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊDivyƗvadƗna ➨ 12 ❶ prƗtihƗrya-snjtra, ἲ⳹⤒ᗎရࠊ↓㔞ᑑ⤒࣭㜿ᘺ㝀⤒ࠊ㜿㛹௖ᅜ⤒࡞
࡝ࡀࡑࡢ඾ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿ⤒඾࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ㉳ࡉࢀࠊ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊM.N.S ࡢᾋ᙮ᅗീࡣࠊ
ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⤒඾ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡣᑐᛂࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊ࡝ࢀࡶ᏶඲࡞ᙧ࡛඲యⓗ࡟↷ྜࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
௒ᅇࡢࡈⓎ⾲ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊM.N.S ࡀ࠶ࡿࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ≉ᐃࡢ⤒඾࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ᚑ᮶ࡢ᪉ἲࢆぢ┤ࡋࠊ
ᩥ⊩Ꮫ⪅࡜⨾⾡ྐᐙࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀᩥ⊩ࡢఏᢎ࡜ᅗീࡢఏᢎࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ
ᩥ⊩࡜ᅗീࡀ┦஫࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟↷ྜࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ
ᴟࡵ࡚ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ◊✲᪉ἲࢆᥦ♧
ࡋࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ᡂᯝࢆᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜⚾ࡣホ౯ࡋࡲࡍࠋ⚾⮬㌟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞どⅬ࡜᪉ἲࡇࡑࠊM.N.S ࠾ࡼ
ࡧࡑࢀ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ୍⩌ࡢ኱஌௖ᩍ࡜㛵ࢃࡿ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ᙮้ࢆṇࡋࡃゎ㔘ࡍࡿୖ࡛ᚲ㡲ࡢࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼
࡚࠸ࡲࡍ㸦cf. ᣋ✏ࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚ࡜኱஌௖ᩍ⨾⾡ࡢ㉳※ࠖ
ࠗ⨾Ꮫ⨾⾡ྐ◊✲ㄽ㞟࠘ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉⨾Ꮫ⨾⾡ྐ◊✲ᐊࠊ➨ 20 ྕࠊ2002 ᖺࠊ
ࠗ࢖ࣥࢻ௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྐㄽ࠘⿵ゞ཰㘓ࠊ୰ኸබㄽ⨾⾡
ฟ∧ࠊ2010 ᖺ㸧
ࠋ
M.N.S ཬࡧࡑࢀ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ୍⩌ࡢ▼ᯈ᙮้ࡢ≉ᚩⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ⶈ⳹ᗙୖࡢ௖㝀
㸦Buddha on lotus㸧
ࠊ
௖୕ᑛീ㸦Triadic composition㸧
ࠊከࡃࡢ௖࣭⳶⸃ീ㸦many Bodhisattvas and Buddhas㸧
ࠊ⪷࡞ࡿᘓ⠏⾲⌧㸦Sacred
- 195 -
ᐑ἞᫛
and divine architecture㸧ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ᙮้ࢆ௨ୗࡢ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) Lotus pond type steles ⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ
(2) Palace-type steles ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉ
(3) Emanation type steles Ⓨฟ㸦⚙ᐃ༳௖㝀ࡶࡋࡃࡣ⳶⸃ࡀ௖࣭⳶⸃࣭⚄ࢆⓎฟࡍࡿ㸧ࢱ࢖ࣉ
ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᅗീࢆヲࡋࡃ᳨ウࡋࠊ୍᪉ࠊ↓㔞ᑑ⤒࣭㜿ᘺ㝀⤒࠾ࡼࡧ㜿㛹௖ᅜ⤒ࡢከࡃࡢ
version ࢆヲࡋࡃ᳨ウࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊⓎ⾲⪅ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ▼ᯈᾋ᙮ࡀ௖ᅜᅵࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ↓㔞ᑑ
⤒࡟ㄝ࠿ࢀࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜㛵ࢃࡾࡢ῝࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓ኱஌ࡢ௖㌟ほ㸦ᛂ㌟௖࣭ሗ㌟௖㸧࡜ࡶ㛵ಀࡍࡿ⾲⌧
ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆලయⓗ࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࣇ࣮ࢩ࢙㸦A. Foucher㸧௨᮶ࠊ㒊ὴ௖
ᩍࡢࠕ⯋⾨ᇛࡢ⚄ኚࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠊM.N.S ࢆጞࡵ࡜ࡍࡿ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ୍⩌ࡢ᙮้ࡀࠊ኱஌௖ᩍ
ࡢಙ௮࡜῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡯ࡰ☜ᐃⓗ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡓࡔࠊ⚾⮬㌟ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ᙮้ࡀ↓
㔞ᑑ⤒ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ㜿ᘺ㝀ಙ௮ࡢᡤ⏘࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
࡞࠾᳨ウࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠸
ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚஧ࡘࡢⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
➨ 1 ࡣࠊ࢞ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛࡢ 40 ౛௨ୖ࠶ࡿ௖୕ᑛീࡢ୧⬥ౝ⳶⸃ࡣࠊᘺີ⳶⸃㸦᮰㧥࡟⤖࠸ࠊᡭ࡟Ỉ⎼
ࢆᣢࡘ㸧࡜ほ㡢⳶⸃㸦ࢱ࣮ࣂࣥࢆࡘࡅࠊᡭ࡟ⶈ⳹ࡶࡋࡃࡣⰼ⥘ࢆᣢࡘ㸧ࡀ኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵ㸦ࡑࢀ௨እ࡟ࡣ
ᘺີ⳶⸃࡜ᜳ㐩⳶⸃㸧
ࠊࡋ࠿ࡶࢢࣉࢱᮅ௨㝆ࠊ࢖ࣥࢻ࡛ࡣ㔘㏑࣭ᘺີ࣭ほ㡢ࡢ୕ᑛീࡀ᭱ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡜
࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚ࠊ୰ᑛࡣἲ㌟ⓗ࡞㔘㏑௖࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜㸦cf. A. Miyaji, “Iconography of the Two
Flanking Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist Triads from GandhƗra: Bodhisattva SiddhƗrtha, Maitreya and
AvalokiteĞvara”, East and West, vol.58, nos.1-4, 2008㸧
ࠋ
➨ 2 ࡣࠊࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶࡢ▼ᯈ᙮้࡟ࡣࠊୖࡢ༊⏬࡟ࠕණ⋡ኳୖࡢᘺີ⳶⸃ࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ
ୗ➃࡟ࠕ௖㖊౪㣴ࠖࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽࠊ୰ኸࡢ༊⏬ࡢⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦Lotus pond type stele㸧ࡢ⏬
㠃ࡣࠊ㔘㏑௖ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜㸦࢞ࣥࢲ࣮࡛ࣛࡣ௖㖊ࡣ㔘㏑࠿ࡽᘺີ࡬ࡢఏἲࡢ㇟ᚩ࡜ࡉ
ࢀࡿ㸧
ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ▼ᯈᾋ᙮㸦ࢳࣕࣥࢹ࢕࢞ࣝ༤≀㤋ᡤⶶ➼㸧࡟ࡣࠊ௖ఏሙ㠃ࡀ
⾲ࢃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ
⚾ࡣⶈụࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ᴥ㛶ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୺ᑛࡣ኱஌ⓗ࡞௖㌟ほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㔘㏑௖ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ
࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚኱஌⤒඾࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠗἲ⳹⤒ᗎရ࠘ࡸࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠗ⳹ཝ⤒ዴ᮶
ᛶ㉳ရ࠘
ࠗዴ᮶ⶶ⤒࠘
ࠗゎ῝ᐦ⤒࠘࡞࡝ࡀグࡍ࠶ࡾᵝ࡜㛵ಀࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡲࡍࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊୡᑛࡀ῝࠸୕
᫕࡟ධࡗ࡚኱ග᫂ࢆⓎࡋࠊᗈ኱࡞௖ᅜᅵࢆᬑࡃ↷ࡽࡋࠊࡑࡢගࡣ໬ࡋ࡚↓ᩘࡢⶈ⳹࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ
௖࣭⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡀጼࢆ⌧ࡍࠋ㦫Ⴣࡋࠊ኱႐ࡧࡋࠊࡲࡓ୙ᛮ㆟࡟ᛮ࠺⳶⸃ࡓࡕࡸ⚄ࠎ࣭ேࠎ࡟ᑐࡋࠊୡᑛ
ࡣ೧኱࡞┿ᐇࡢㄝἲࢆ࡞ࡍࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ኱஌௖ᩍࡢㄝἲࡢගᬒࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ኱ⶈ⳹
࡟ᆘࡍ௖㝀ࡣࠊỌ㐲Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢἲ㌟ⓗ࡞㔘㏑௖ࢆពᅗࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࢁ࠺࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ⚾ࡢ⌧
ᅾࡢ⪃࠼࡛ࡍࡀࠊᮍࡔ༑ศ࡞᳨ド࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡋࡲࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ௒ᚋࠊᩥ⊩Ꮫ⪅࡜⨾⾡ྐᐙࡢඹྠ◊✲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ☜ᐇ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞
ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡲࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࠊᮏ᪥ࡢඛ⏕ࡢࡈⓎ⾲ࡣ኱ኚ᭷ព⩏࡛ࠊ♧၀࡟ᐩࡴࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ῝ࡃឤㅰࡢ
ពࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
- 196 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 1
ᅗ1
197 --- 197
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates)
Figure 2
ᅗ2
- 198 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 3
ᅗ3
Figure 4
ᅗ4
199 --- 199
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates)
Figure 5
ᅗ5
Figure 6
ᅗ6
- 200 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 7
ᅗ7
201 --- 201
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates)
Figure 8
ᅗ8
- 202 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 9
ᅗ9
203 --- 203
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates)
Figure 10
ᅗ 10
Figure 11
ᅗ 11
- 204 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 12
ᅗ 12
Figure 13
ᅗ 13
205 --- 205
New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele (plates)
Figure 15
ᅗ 15
Figure 14
ᅗ 14
- 206 -
ࣔࣁ࣐ࢵࢻ࣭ࢼ࣮ࣜᾋ᙮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ゎ㔘㸦ᅗ∧㸧
Figure 16
ᅗ 16
Figure 17
ᅗ 17
Figure 18
ᅗ 18
207 --- 207
ᇳ➹⪅⤂௓㸭CONTRIBUTORS
KATSURA Shǀrynj ᱇⤂㝯
Professor, Faculty of Letters, Ryukoku University; Director, Research Center for Buddhist
Cultures in Asia (BARC), Ryukoku University. M.A. (Kyoto University), 1968; Ph.D.
(Toronto University), 1974; D.Litt (Kyoto University), 1987. His publications include
Indojin no ronrigaku ࢖ࣥࢻேࡢㄽ⌮Ꮫ (Chnjǀ Kǀronsha, 1998) and numerous other papers
in English and Japanese. In 2010 he was awarded the 20th Hajime Nakamura Eastern
Academic Award, for his lifelong research on Indian and Buddhist logic.
Luis O. GÓMEZ ࣝ࢖ࢫ࣭ࢦ࣓ࢫ
Academic Director of Mangalam Research Center, Berkeley; Former Charles O. Hucker
Professor of Buddhist Studies, Dept. of Asian Languages and Cultures; Adjunct Professor
of Psychology, Dept. of Psychology, University of Michigan (emeritus). B.A. (University
of Puerto Rico), 1963; Ph.D. Yale University, 1967; M.A. University of Michigan, 1991
(Psychology); Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1998 (Psychology). He is the author of The
Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light (Honolulu: University of
Hawai‫ޏ‬i Press and Kyoto: Higashi Honganji Shinshnj ƿtani-ha, 1996), a translation of the
SukhƗvatƯvynjha sutras.
Dennis HIROTA ࢹࢽࢫ࣭ࣄࣟࢱ
Professor, Faculty of Letters, Ryukoku University. B.A. (UC Berkeley), 1967; M.A. (UC
Berkeley), 1969; Ph.D. (Nagoya University), 1996. He is the author of No abode: The
Record of Ippen (Ryukoku University, 1986), Shinran: shnjkyǀ gengo no kakumeisha ぶ㮭
ʊ᐀ᩍゝㄒࡢ㠉࿨⪅ (Hǀzǀkan, 1998) and Asura’s Harp: Engagement with Language as
Buddhist Path (Universitätsverlag Winter, 2006).
Paul HARRISON ࣏࣮࣭ࣝࣁࣜࢯࣥ
George Edwin Burnell Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford University. M.A. (University of
Auckland, New Zealand), 1976; Ph.D. (Australian National University), 1980. Before this
current position, Professor Harrison taught at the University of Canterbury for twenty-two years,
209 --- 209
until 2007. He edited and published several annotated translations of classic texts, including
The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, translated by Lokak‫܈‬ema (Numata Center, 1998),
Druma-kinnara-rƗja-parip‫܀‬cchƗ-snjtra: a critical edition of the Tibetan text (recension A)
based on eight editions of the Kanjur and the Dunhuang manuscript fragment (International
Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1992) and The SamƗdhi of direct encounter with the Buddhas of
the present: an annotated English Translation of the Tibetan Version of the
Pratyutpanna-Buddha-saۨmukhƗvasthita-samƗdhi-snjtra with several appendices relating to
the history of the text (International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990).
Christian LUCZANITS ࢡࣜࢫࢳ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࢡࢨࢽࢵࢶ
Curator, Rubin Museum of Art, New York. Magister (University of Vienna), 1994; Ph.D.
(University of Vienna), 1998. He has taught as Visiting Professor in several institutions,
including Stanford University and UC Berkeley. His publications include Buddhist
Sculpture in Clay: Early Western Himalayan Art, Late 10th to Early 13th Centuries
(Serindia, 2004) and “Siddhas, Hierarchs and Lineages: Three Examples for Dating Tibetan
Art.”(In Mirror of the Buddha, Early Portraits from Tibet, edited by David Paul Jackson.
Rubin Museum of Art, 2011) among numerous other articles.
MIYAJI Akira ᐑ἞᫛
Professor, Faculty of Letters, Ryukoku University; Director, Ryukoku Museum. Emeritus
Professor, Nagoya University. B.A. (Nagoya University), 1968; M.A. (Nagoya University),
1971; D.Litt (Nagoya University), 1991. In 2011 he was awarded the Chnjnichi Prize, for
his outstanding contributions to the field of Indian and Buddhist art History. His
publications include Indo Bijutsushi ࢖ࣥࢻ⨾⾡ྐ (Yoshikawa Kǀbunkan, 1981 [revised
and enlarged edition published in 2009]), Nehan to Miroku no Zuzǀgaku ᾖᵎ࡜ᘺີࡢᅗീ
Ꮫ (Yoshikawa Kǀbunkan, 1992) and Indo Bukkyǀ Bijutsushi Ron ࢖ࣥࢻ௖ᩍ⨾⾡ྐㄽ
(Chnjǀ kǀron bijutsu shuppan, 2010), among other works.
- 210 -
本報告書は、文部科学省私立大学戦略的研究基盤形成支援事業「アジア諸地域における仏教の
多様性とその現代的可能性の総合的研究」（2010 ∼ 2014 年度）による研究助成を受けた。
龍谷大学アジア仏教文化研究センター
発 行 2012 年 3 月 1 日
発行者 龍谷大学アジア仏教文化研究センター
住 所 〒600-8268 京都市下京区七条通大宮東入大工町 125 番地の 1 龍谷大学大宮キャンパス 白亜館 2 階
電 話 075-343-3803 FAX 075-343-3804
E-mail barc@ad.ryukoku.ac.jp（代表） URL http://barc.ryukoku.ac.jp

Śākyamuni Buddha as “An Awakened One”

HikaritheLight - Buddhist Temple of Southern Alberta

March - Living The Dharma As A Sangha Of Foolish Beings

WHEEL OF DHARMA - Buddhist Churches of America

Bodhgaya Travel guide in PDF format

Cnty Seller Property Address City St Zip Purchaser Purchaser

Readings in Eastern Religions - SIMBI

NARI NEWS - Kansas City NARI

WHEEL OF DHARMA - Buddhist Churches of America