A Comparative Study of the Earliest Bon and Buddhist Phur pa traditions

在西藏研究中，最大、最持久、最紧迫的难题之一是苯教的出现，它从最早的时候起就作为一个独立但充满活力的少数民族宗教与占多数的藏传佛教共存。虽然在西藏以外的任何地方都找不到苯教，但苯教肯定与真正的本土原始西藏宗教有些不同，有时会被错误地混淆，尤其是苯教本身。虽然最初的本土西藏宗教在很大程度上是一种祭祀崇拜，专注于崇拜西藏景观中的圣山和神灵以及西藏皇帝的人，但与此相反，苯教实际上是一种更具普遍性的信仰，其重要组成部分来自国外，并且似乎基本上模仿了印度密宗和僧侣制度。此外，就目前的证据而言，苯教最初在西藏兴起的历史时期与密宗佛教大致相同，而不是像他们所声称的那样，早了许多世纪。事实上，没有人知道苯教是如何兴起的，也没有人知道它的来源或前身是什么：但如果我们真的理解了这一点，我们不仅会更好地理解苯教，但我们也会更好地了解西藏宗教的形成过程，包括佛教在内，在重要方面仍然非常模糊。最终理解苯教的起源将极大地澄清西藏的其他许多问题。争论使情况变得复杂：苯教和佛教有着相当多的相似之处，但双方都将此归咎于对方的剽窃。这两种传统都声称比另一种更古老。也有对比鲜明的历史意识形态：佛教崇敬强大的西藏中部的雅隆王朝，苯教崇敬位于西藏西部的古老的象雄王国，它被雅隆王朝征服。简而言之，情况仍然相当混乱，没有人知道佛教、苯教和西藏原始的佛教前宗教最初是如何相互关联的，并在西藏宗教形成的关键早期几个世纪中相互塑造。通过广泛的总体概述或使用传统的历史资料来揭示这一最重要的历史时期的努力迄今为止一直受挫，尤其是因为随着时间的推移而形成的深层争论和意识形态。几年前，我们偶然发现了一个解决这个问题的具体方法。有一个密宗仪式周期称为Phur-pa，起源于印度的一个明显的小传统-但它迅速被苯教和佛教在西藏采用和扩展，这种热情使它成为（并仍然是）可能是两种传统中最受欢迎的周期。由此可见，佛巴是一个关键：它最初的热烈接受表明了它与原始土著宗教的独特密切关系，而苯教和佛教的独立但平行的轨迹使我们能够进行细致的比较研究。在我们早期的研究项目中，我们专注于最早的佛教佛巴传统，以及佛巴与原始土著宗教的显著密切关系。我们相信我们在这些领域取得了巨大进展。现在，我们想通过对最早的苯教巴教做一分钟的研究来填补这个难题的最后部分，看看它与我们的其他数据有什么关系。除了详细研究早期苯教文献外，我们还将绘制和索引这一大型文献的外部轮廓。还没有人研究过早期的苯教经文，如果没有我们通过AHRC最近三个关于最早的佛教经文的项目辛苦积累的专业先验知识，这些经文仍然是相当难以理解的。我们将分析相关的文本，仪式表演，神话，土著历史和教义，并在书籍，文章和网站上发表调查结果。

One of the greatest, most long-lasting, and most urgent puzzles in the study of Tibet is the emergence of the Bon religion, which has co-existed as a separate but vigorous minority religion alongside the majority Tibetan Buddhism since the earliest times. Although not found anywhere other than Tibet, Bon is nevertheless quite certainly somewhat different from the genuinely indigenous original Tibetan religion, with which it has sometimes been erroneously confused, not least by the Bon themselves. While the original indigenous Tibetan religion was in great part a sacrificial cult focussed on the worship of sacred mountains and spirits within the Tibetan landscape and on the person of the Tibetan emperor, Bon by contrast is in reality a more universalistic faith with significant components imported from abroad, and appears to be substantially modelled on Indian Tantrism and monasticism. Moreover, as far as current evidence shows, Bon first arose in Tibet within approximately the same historical period as Tantric Buddhism, and not, as they claim, a great many centuries earlier.In fact, no-one yet understands how Bon arose, nor what its sources or antecedents are: but if we did understand this, we would not only understand Bon better, but we would also have a very much better understanding indeed of the formative processes of Tibetan religion in general, Buddhism included, which still remains extremely obscure in important respects. To finally understand Bon origins would hugely clarify much else about Tibet.The situation is complicated by polemics: Bon and Buddhism share considerable similarities, but each attribute this to plagiarism by the other. Both traditions claim a much greater antiquity than the other. There are also contrasting historical ideologies: while Buddhism reveres and venerates the powerful Yar-lung Dynasty of Central Tibet, Bon reveres and venerates the old kingdom of Zhang-zhung based in Western Tibet, which was conquered by the Yar-lung Dynasty. In short, the situation remains quite confusing, and no one yet knows how Buddhism, Bon and the original pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet were originally inter-related and shaped one another in the crucial early formative centuries of Tibetan religion. Efforts to unravel this most significant of historical periods by taking broad general overviews, or by using conventional historical sources, have so far been frustrated, not least because of the deep layers of polemics and ideology built up over time. Some years ago, we hit on a specific method for unravelling the problem. There is a Tantric ritual cycle called Phur-pa that originated as a distinctly minor tradition in India - yet which was rapidly adopted and expanded by both Bon and Buddhism in Tibet with such enthusiasm that it became (and remains) probably the single most popular cycle for both traditions. This shows that Phur-pa is a key: its enthusiastic initial adoption indicates unique affinities with the original indigenous religion, while its separate but parallel Bon and Buddhist trajectories enable minute comparative studies.In our earlier Research Projects, we focused on the earliest Buddhist Phur-pa traditions, and on Phur-pa's remarkable affinities with the original indigenous religion. We believe we have made tremendous progress in these fields. Now we want to fill in the last parts of the puzzle by making a minute study of the earliest Bon Phur-pa, and seeing how it fits our other data. As well as minutely studying the early Bon texts, we will also map and index the outer contours of this large literature. No one has yet studied early Bon Phur-pa texts, which would remain quite impenetrable without the specialised prior knowledge that we have laboriously accumulated through our last three AHRC projects on earliest Buddhist Phur-pa. We will analyse the relevant texts, ritual performances, myths, indigenous histories, and doctrines alike, and publishing findings in books, articles and websites.