チベットにおける『カーヴィア・アーダルシャ』の受容 : 第2章第8・9詩節に関するカムトゥル4世の解釈

The Kāvyādarśa (Tib. Snyan ngag me long), a treatise on Sanskrit poetic theory authored by Daṇḍin during the seventh to eighth century, was transmitted to Tibet in the thirteenth century. It had a significant impact on Tibetan literature, giving rise to a distinctive commentarial tradition that differs from the Indian tradition. This paper delves into the commentary by Khams sprul bstan ’dzin chos kyi nyi ma (1730–1779), providing a Japanese translation of the commentary on verses 8 to 9 of chapter 2, and aims to evaluate the significance of his commentary in the context of Tibetan literature.
Khams sprul was a scholar monk of the Bka’ brgyud pa and was active in Khams district of Tibet in the eighteenth century. During that time, he studied the Bka’ brgyud pa’s doctrine, Sanskrit grammar, poetic theory, and more under the guidance of Si tu paṇ chen chos kyi ’byung gnas (1699-1774), known as a great grammarian and scholar of poetry. Having received instruction from Si tu paṇ chen, Khams sprul deeply realized that there were many problems in the Tibetan translation of the Kāvyādarśa. At the age of twenty-five, he wrote the first draft of his commentary on the Kāvyādarśa, entitled Dbyangs can ngag gi rol mtsho. Over the next sixteen years, Khams sprul revised it while adding comments criticizing preceding Tibetan interpretations based on his own reading of the Sanskrit commentaries. Finally, at the age of forty-one, he completed his outstanding commentary, characterized by its insightful analysis and innovative perspectives on the Kāvyādarśa.
In regard to Kāvyādarśa 2.8–9, which addresses “the description of nature” (svabhāvokti, rang bzhin brjod pa), Khams sprul endeavors to convey the exact meaning of the Sanskrit original text as accurately as possible. According to Khams sprul, the description of nature is equivalent to that of a species. This entails, when describing a certain entity x, elucidating the diverse attributes it possesses. Through this portrayal, elements other than x are excluded, thus highlighting x as the possessor of those attributes. In explicating the description of nature or species, the concept of “exclusion of others” (anyāpoha, gzhan sel), originating in Buddhist epistemology, is effectively employed.
Concerning the third case markers found in the Sanskrit text of Kāvyādarśa 2.9, Khams sprul interprets them as indicating a qualifier (viśeṣaṇa, khyad par), based on the preceding Tibetan Commentary by Rin spungs pa and the grammatical rule cited therein from the Kātantra. It is noteworthy that his understanding aligns with Ratnaśrījñāna’s interpretation. Given that the Tibetan translation of the same verse lacks an expression of the third case, most Tibetan commentators who do not consider the Sanskrit original text are unlikely to engage in such a grammatical discussion. In the temporal and geographical context of eighteenth-century Eastern Tibet, where the tradition of translating Sanskrit texts into Tibetan had been discontinued, Khams sprul’s attempt to revive the ideas of the Sanskrit original text deserves high praise.