SOURCES OF THE RGYUD-BZI
By R. E. Emmerick, Hamburg
Rgyud-bzi 'Four Tantras' is the short title of a Tibetan treatise on medicine
divided into four books. This work has always been regarded as the most
authoritative treatise on Tibetan medicine even though it was not admitted into
the canonical collections of the Bstan-hgyur and Bkah-hgyur.
The full title of the work is in Tibetan bdud-rci snih-po yan-Iag brgyad-pa
gsan-ba man-hag-gi rgyud. In the blockprints of the text that I have seen this
title is preceded by the title rgya-gar skad-du ' in Indian language' : 'a-mri-ta
]jri-da-ya 'ahga 'asta gufaya 'u-pa-de-sa ta-ntra . This Sanskrit title has the
Sanskrit words exactly in the Tibetan order. In some occurrences of the title
Sanskrit sandhi has been introduced: 'a-mri-ta-ljri-da-y ähgäst a-gufayopadesa-
tantra . This must be a secondary display of learning as Sanskrit would have to
have among other things agtähga - not ahgägta - .
|jri-da-ya 'ahga 'asta reminds us at once, as it is no doubt intended to, of
the Sanskrit title Agtähga-hrdaya , the name of Vägbhata' s famous medical
compendium. The Sanskrit order is, however, correctly maintained in the title
contained in the Tibetan translation of Vägbhata' s work: 'astäm-ga-bri-da-
ya-sam-bi-tta. This translation was admitted into the Bstan-hgyur.
The question has naturally been asked what relationship, if any, exists
between the Rgyud-bzi and Vägbhata. Similarities in terminology and in
medical doctrine have often been pointed out, but the question has otherwise
remained unanswered.
It has often been stated that the Rgyud-bzi was translated from a no longer
extant Sanskrit medical work, but others have advised caution and pointed
out that the fact that the text has been provided with a Sanskrit title should
not be held to prove anything more than that it was fashionable to provide
texts with Sanskrit titles. The Rgyud-bzi is not a direct translation of an
extant text of Vägbhaja but could be a translation of a text that was used by
Vägbhata.
One may be forgiven for feeling a little surprised that such a voluminous
and important Sanskrit medical text as the Indian original of the Rgyud-bzi
must have been, if there was one, should not only have disappeared without
trace in India but should not even have been mentioned in the vast body of
Indian medical tradition. Nevertheless, even the unlikely always remains
possible until the contrary is demonstrated.
A glance at the Rgyud-bzi reveals, in addition to a solid core of Indian
medical doctrine, a certain amount of Chinese influence. This is clearest
in the case of the numerous Chinese plant names but can be seen in other
items also that have been taken over from Indian medicine. Thus, the body
organs (Sanskrit kosthähgäni ) are in Indian medical literature simply listed
in various ways (see Meulenbeld pp. 457-8), whereas they are classified
into five solid (Tibetan don lha ) and six hollow (Tibetan snod drug ) organs in
the Rgyud-bzi in exact agreement with the Chinese system of classification
of yin and yang organs {1).
In the case of the Rgyud-bzi we have to do therefore with a composite work,
a work that incorporates elements of Chinese medicine within a framework
of Indian medicine. We may accordingly expect to find that Indian sources have
been used but not that an Indian work as such has been translated.
The text of the Rgyud-bzi is firmly linked in Tibetan medical tradition with
the G-yu thog-pa family. We are now able to read the Tibetan biography of
the Elder G-yu thog-pa in a convenient English translation (2). The biography
provides us with the genealogy of the G-yu thog-pa family and we learn that
the Elder G-yu thog-pa lived 125 years and was the chief physician of king
Khri-sron Ide-bcan and his father Mes-'ag-chom (3). It is generally agreed
that Khri-sroh Ide-bcan lived in the second half of the eighth century so
that we can assign the Elder G-yu thog-pa to the eighth century. Elsewhere
they are said to have been of the same age (4), in which case both may have
been born in AD 742.
At the age of 25 G-yu thog-pa decided to go to India and on his way he met
in Nepal the physician Dänaslla (5). This DänasTla may well have been the
Dänasila who collaborated with Jinamitra in translating Sanskrit texts into
Tibetan at the beginning of the ninth century (6). The same Dänasila it may
have been who took part in the transmission of the cult of Tärä founded in
Kashmir by Ravigupta, who may or may not have been the same Ravigupta
as the author of the Sanskrit medical text Siddhasära, that was translated by
Dänasila' s colleague Jinamitra into Tibetan (7).
On the border between Nepal and India G-yu thog-pa met the translator
Vairocana, who claimed to have received the Rgyud-bzi from Candradeva.
In the same passage and elsewhere Vairocana is said to be the translator of
the Rgyud-bzi. Then G-yu thog-pa visited Candradeva himself and received
instruction (8).
G-yu thog-pa was familiar with Chinese medicine as we learn from the
biography, and it is probable that he himself was responsible for those
chapters of the Rgyud-bzi that betray Chinese influence. Thus, 2T20 deals
with the properties of plants and contains a large number of Chinese plant
names. It has nothing in common with Vägbhata except that the properties
of the plants are described in accordance with the Indian system. Sde-srid
sahs-rgyas rgya-mcho, the author of the Vaidürya shon-po, the famous
commentary on the Rgyud-bzi, says (9) that this chapter deals with the plants
in the four Tantras ' in agreement with an old book written with an iron pen
and composed by G-yu thog-pa' .
The Candradeva from whom G-yu thog-pa received medical instruction may
be the same as the Candranandana who wrote the Padärthacandrikä, a com¬
mentary on Vägbhata's Agtähgahfdayasarphitä. This commentary was trans¬
lated into Tibetan with the title chig-gi don-gyi zla-zer by Rin-chen bzah-po
between AD 1013 and 1055 and is constantly quoted by later medical writers.
If Vägbhata's A§tähgah{-dayasaiphitä is correctly dated (lO) to about AD 600,
then a date of ca. AD 750 is conceivable for the date of composition of the
Padärthacandrikä. At any rate, this possibility also points in the direction
of the Astähgahrdayasamhitä as a likely source of the Rgyud-bzi.
We are forced to consider more closely the relationship between the Rgyud-
bzi on the one hand and Vägbhata's Astähgahrdayasamhitä and its Tibetan
translation as found in the Bstan-hgyur on the other hand, when attention is
drawn to the following fact, which seems not to have been noticed before.
That fact is that at least one stanza of the Rgyud-bzi is absolutely identical
with the corresponding passage in the Tibetan translation of Vägbhata. The
stanza occurring in Vägbhata, Ah., Sü. 16.46, consists of four lines each
containing eleven syllables. The metre is indravajrä ( upendravajrä ) . The
stanza occurs at the end of a chapter otherwise written in slokas. It reads:
diptäntarägnih parisuddha-kogthah
pratyagra-dhätur bala-varpa-yuktah
drdhendriyo manda-jarab satäyuh
snehopasevi purugab pradigjab
and is rendered by Hilgenberg and Kirfel: 'Ein Mensch, der Fettmittel re¬
gelmäßig anwendet, besitzt, wie man lehrt, gute Verdauung, reinen Leib,
frische Körperelemente, Kraft und Farbe und kräftige Sinnesorgane, er
altert langsam und lebt hundert Jahre' .
The Tibetan rendering in the Bstan-hgyur (Peking 55 b 2) is identical with
Rgyud-bzi 2T16121-4:
skyes-bu snum-la brten-par byed-pa-rnams //
nah-gi drod hbar khoh-pa dag-pa dan //
lus-zuhs hphral brtas stobs dah mdog bzah ldan //
dbah brtan rgas sra lo brgya thub- par bsad //
The Tibetan verses consist of nine syllables per line. They constitute verses
121-4 out of a chapter containing 236 nine-syllable lines in the case of the
Rgyud-bzi, whereas in the case of the Vägbhata translation they conclude a
chapter that otherwise contains 178 seven-syllable lines and no other nine-
syllable lines. The change from seven syllables to nine in the Vägbhata
translation is clearly intended to reflect the change of metre in the Sanskrit
original. It is the usual practice of the translators of this text.
The verses in question occur in Vägbhata at the end of a chapter devoted
to sneha - (Tibetan snum) and they likewise conclude that section of Rgyud-
bzi 2T16 that deals with snum (beginning snum ni ' as for oils' in 2T16100).
They fit equally satisfactorily into their contexts in both works.
A glance at the translation technique demonstrated by the Tibetan rendering
of this stanza shows at once that there can be no question of two translators
of the same Sanskrit original having by chance hit upon the same rendering.
The word order of the Tibetan is quite different from that of the Sanskrit and
some of the renderings of particular Sanskrit terms are unusual e. g. hphral
brtas for Sanskrit pratyagra - and rgas sra for Sanskrit manda-jarab.
It is, of course, arguable that this stanza is a late interpolation in the
Rgyud-bzi, but this possibility must be excluded when consideration is taken
of the fact that many chapters of the Rgyud-bzi correspond extremely closely
with the Tibetan translation of Vägbhata if allowance is made for the adjust¬
ment that is required to compare the nine-syllable lines of the Rgyud-bzi
with the seven-syllable lines of the Vägbhata translation. Thus, 2T14 com¬
pares closely with Vägbhata, Ah., Sü. 3 and 2T15 with Sü. 4 although the
sequence of the verses and the number of syllables per line differ in the
two texts.
To illustrate the relationship between the two texts we may compare 2T14^^~^^
with Vägbhata, Ah., Sü 3^~'^ (Vogel pp. 123-7). On the left I present the Tibetan
text of the Rgyud-bzi and on the right that of the Vägbhata translation.Underlined
words in the one text indicate that the same words occur in the other text. A
double line indicates the correspondence of synonyms.
de-la dgun-zla tha-chuh -la sogs-pa
ni-ma byah-du hgro -bahi dus-kyi che
sin-tu rno cha rcub-pahi no-bor hgyur
rluh dah ni-ma-dag-gi nus-stobs-kyis
zla-ba sa-yi yon-tan zad-par byed
hdir ni cha bska kha-ba hi ro stobs che
mi-rnams -kyi ni mthu -stobs nin-re hphrog
char-dus Ibo-phvogs hgro che slar stobs skyed
bsil-ba zla-ba hi stobs Idan ni-ma hbri
char bab s rlun -gis sa-steh cha-ba zi
skyur dah lan-cha mhar-bahi ro stobs skyed
de-la s dgun-zla tha-chun sogs
gsum ni byan- du hgro zes bya
de che mi-rnams nm-re-zih
mthu hphrog -pa zes bya-ba yin
de che sin-tu rno -zin cha
rcub-pahi lam-gyi ho-bo -nid
ni-ma rluh -gi zla-ba -yl
sa-yi yon-tan zad-par byed
hdir ni cha bska kha-ba- yi
ro-rnams stobs ni che -ba yin
de-bas me ni mthu-stobs hphrog
Ibo-phyogs -su ni hgro -bahi dus
dbyar -la sogs-pahi slar stobs skyed
hdi stobs slar ni bskyed-pas-na hdir ni bsil-ba s zla-ba ni
stobs dah Idan -pas ni-ma hbri
char hbab-pa dan rlun bsil-lDas sa-sten cha-ba zi-ba-na
hdir ni snum dah skyur lan-chv a
mnar-bahi ro -rnams mthu bskyed -d'
dgun che char dan cha dus-su
stobs chun lliag-ma-dag-la hbrih
dgun che sos dah dbyar chun ston dpy id hbrin
If we look at the slight differences between the two passages we can see that
scarcely anything of substance is omitted in either. Nevertheless, most of the
words contained in the Vägbhata translation, even though by themselves in¬
significant, have counterparts in the Sanskrit original. Thus, gsum renders
tribhis, zes bya tr. vidyäd, zes bya-ba yin is implied by the Sanskrit con¬
struction, lam tr. märga- , bsil-bas tr. sTtaih . and snum tr. snigdhäs . The
recapitulatory lines de-bas me ni mthu-stobs hphrog and hdi stobs slar ni
bskyed-pas-na also have their counterparts in the Sanskrit original. The former
renders the Sanskrit tasmäd ädänam ägneyam and the latter is an attempt, not
altogether felicitous, to reproduce the Sanskrit yad -clause. Note also that Hxag-
ma-dag-la corresponds exactly to the Sanskrit segayoh , whereas the Rgyud-bzi
has the more explicit and interpretative expression ston dpyid ' (in) autumn
(and in) spring' .
In many places the agreement between the two versions is striking. Note
for example that both versions have zla-ba(-yi) sa-yi yon-tan zad-par byed
rendering Sanskrit saumyän kgapayanti gupän bhuvah , while both use bsil-ba
to render the following saumyatväd of the Sanskrit.
If then it is agreed that we have to do with the adaptation of one translation
to meet the metrical requirements of another text, the question we will wish
to try to answer is, of course, which text is original and which text is the
later? Have the translators of Vägbhata added items to an older version in¬
corporated in the Rgyud-bzi in order to make their translation a more faith¬
ful rendering of the Sanskrit original? Or has the author of the Rgyud-bzi
collected relevant material from all parts of the Vägbhata translation and
moulded them into an artistic whole?
Applied to the present passage, this question would concern the differences
between the two versions as already mentioned. In particular, did the author
of the Rgyud-bzi simply not bother to render Sanskrit tasmäd ädänam agneyam
in verse 4 and the yad -clause in verse 5 since he was not concerned to make
a literal translation or did he decide not to take over from the Tibetan trans¬
lation of Vägbhata the apparently superfluous de-bas me ni mthu-stobs hphrog
and hdi stobs slar ni bskyed-pas-na on stylistic or other grounds?
Note now that the Tibetan translation of Vägbhata has two genitives that
seem stylistically awkward in the present passage. In verse 3 Ri-ma rlun-gi
ought to be instrumental as pointed out by Vogel, who appears to have great
faith that the MS tradition is not faulty and that we should not accordingly
simply emend to ni-ma rluh-gis . Here the Rgyud-bzi has with exemplary
clarity rluh dan ni-ma-dag-gi nus-stobs-kyis . Is this merely an improvement
made by the author of the Rgyud-bzi or did the translators of Vägbhata at this
point condense their version, omitting nus-stobs-kyis because the Sanskrit
contained nothing to correspond?
More disturbing is the genitive in verse 5. There, if dbyar-la sogs-pahi
is the agent, we must understand dus from the preceding line as pointed out
by Vogel. The lines in question:
Ifao-phyogs-su ni hgro-bahi dus
dbyar-la sogs-pahi slar stobs bskyed
are rendered by Vogel (pp. 124-5): 'The seasons of the southern course (of
the sun), (those) beginning with monsoon, re-create strength (in man). '
Corresponding to these two lines the Rgyud-bzi has but one line:
char-dus Iho-phyogs hgro che slar stobs skyed
'At the time when (the sun) goes in the southern direction in the rainy season,
strength (in man) is produced again.' Cf. V 327^: char hbab dus yin-cih / ni -
ma Ibo-phyogs-su hgro-bahi zla-ba drug-gi che slar yah mi-rnams-kyi mthu -
stobs nin-re bzin bskyed-par hgyur 'At the time of the six months of the sun
going in the southern direction, it being the season of rainfall, again the
strength of man is increased each day. '
The genitive of the Vägbhata translation may be removed simply by reading
sogs-par with NP instead of sogs-pahi with CD, but it is difficult to see how
either construction could have been chosen if the Rgyud-bzi version were the
original that was being adapted.
An instance of a transcription from the Sanskrit original that is common
to the Rgyud-bzi and to the Vägbhata translation is ba-ri-tra sa in 2T1726
and Peking 36 b 4 for Sü. 7^'* härita-mäm sam ' Fleisch von Columba Hariola' .
An interesting passage in 2T1929-30:
ro ni mhar skyur lan-cha kha cha bska
go- rim bzin-du hcho byed stobs chen yin
corresponds to Vägbhata, Sü. 114-5;
ro ni mhar skyur lan-chva dah
cha dan kha dah bska-ba-ste
rjas drug-la gnas de-rnams kyan
go- rim bzin-du stobs chen yin
'The flavours are sweet, sour, salt, bitter, pungent, and astringent; inherent
in six substances, they are also great in strength in (descending) order. '
(Vogel p. 58).
As Vogel points out, we expect in the Vägbhata translation kha ... cha
to correspond to Sanskrit tiktogana - and not cha ... kha as in the extant
blockprints. But he concludes: 'we dare not assume a change of word-order
in the present stanza' . Here the Bgyud-bzi has, however, just the order
expected. Moreover, it agrees in having stobs chen , which is an unusual
rendering of balävahäh and may indicate, as Vogel suggests, a variant
reading mahäbaläh . Knowing that the author of the Rgyud-bzi has made use
of the Vägbhata translation, we may use his text to establish a critical text
of the Vägbhata translation itself.
Following on 2T1712-4 ^^at correspond to Vägbhata, Ah., Sü. 7^2 occurs
a verse corresponding to Vägbhata, Sü 7l8, and it is in turn followed by a
verse corresponding to Vägbhata, Sü 729. The sequence in Vägbhata is the
more satisfactory. 2T1715 reads:
ses-nas kun-la gnod-par hgyur phyir dor
' If one knows (that food is poisoned), on account of the fact that all
(creatures) will be harmed (by it, one must) throw it away (under the
ground or elsewhere). ' Sde-srid sahs-rgyas rgya-mcho has evidently made
use of the Vägbhata translation to help explain the verse. Cf. V 1 3702-3;
de-ltar zib- tu ses-par byas-nas lus-can phra-mo dah bcas-pa kun-la gnod- ^
par hgyur-ba kho-na yin-pahi phyir dug-ldan-gyi bzah-btuh de-dag sa hog-la
sogs-pa gzan-du dor-baham Ifaag-ma med-pahi thabs-la nan-rtan byaho .
The verse corresponds to Peking 35 b 3-4:
de-ltar zas ni dug Idan-par
ses-sih ci-nas de-yi ni
srog-chags phra-mo yan-chad-la
gnod mi-hgyur-bar hbad-de dor ,
which is a close rendering of Vägbhata, Sü. 71^:
ity annam vigavaj jnätvä tyajed evam prayatnatah
yathä tena vipadyerann api na kgudra-jantavah .
The verse in the Rgyud-bzi is understandable as a condensation of the Väg¬
bhata translation, but it is difficult to see how it could otherwise have been
composed. On the other hand, the Vägbhata translation can hardly be an
expansion of the Rgyud-bzi verse.
Sheep flesh is said in Caraka (ll) and Ravigupta (12) to be cool, but
according to 2T16^1 it is hot: lug-sa ... dro and contrasts with goat flesh in
2T1673^ which is cool: ra-sa ... bsil . Here we do not have direct use of
the Vägbhata translation, but the discrepancy can nevertheless be traced to
the formulation found in Vägbhata. In Sü. 663-4 mäm sam äjam 'goat flesh'
is said (13) to be näti-slta- ' not very cool' , while ävikarp ' sheep (flesh) '
is said to be viparitam ' the opposite' . The Indian commentators differ in
their views concerning what the opposite of 'not very cool' could be. Ac¬
cording to Arunadatta the opposite of näti-slta - 'not very cool' is aty-ugpa -
'very hot' , while in the view of Hemädri its opposite is ati-sTta - 'very
cold' . Candranandana agrees with Hemädri. According to Candranandana
(Peking vol. 142 E 90 a 5): de-na rahi sa ni sin-tu bsil-ba ma-yin-la / hdi
ni sin-tu bsil-ba dah ' In that case, goat flesh not being very cold, the latter
is very cold. '
It is accordingly not very likely that Candranandana's commentary was
used by the author of the Rgyud-bzi although the Asjähgahrdayasaiphitä of
Vägbhata and Candranandana's commentary on it were both translated into
Tibetan by Rin-chen bzah-po and the Bstan-hgyur edition of the Tibetan
rendering of Candranandana' s commentary incorporates this translation
of the Astähgahrdayasamhitä.
There remain the following possibilities;
1) There may have been two Rin-chen bzah-pos (14), one living in the
eighth century and one in the eleventh, the former having translated Vag¬
bhata' s Astähgahrdayasamhitä and the latter Candranandana's commentary
on it. This would also account for the Tibetan tradition making Rin-chen
bzah-po contemporary with Jinamitra (l5), who collaborated with DänasTla
at the beginning of the ninth century. There is also a tradition recorded in
the Blue Annals (16) placing Rin-chen bzah-po before Dänasila in the suc¬
cession of transmission of the teachings of Ravigupta.
2) It may have been the Younger G-yu thog-pa, dated to the eleventh
century, who used Rin-chen bzah-po's translation of Vägbhata' s Astähga¬
hrdayasamhitä. Tibetan tradition may have confused the two G-yu thog-pas.
Candranandana may then have been the contemporary of King Abhimanyu II
of Kashmir (reigned AD 958-972) (l7).
3) The Elder G-yu thog-pa may have received Vairocana's translation
of Vägbhata's Astähgahrdayasamhitä as in the Tibetan tradition recorded
in his biography. In that case Rin-chen bzah-po must have taken over
Vairocana's translation more or less in its entirety. Nothing is known in
Indian tradition of Vairocana's translation.
Abbreviations Agtähgahrdayasarphitä
Meulenbeld, G.J., The Mädhavanidäna and its chief com ¬
mentary chapters 1-10 . Leiden 1974 (=Orientalia rheno-
traiectina XIX )
Rechung Rinpoche Jampal Kunzang, Tibetan medicine , London
1973 (=Publications of the Wellcome Institute of the History
of Medicine, new series vol. XXIV)
IT, 2T, 3T, 4T refer to the Four Tantras. the four books of
the Rgyud-bzi
Bai dür shon po , ed. T.Y. Tashigangpa, Leh 1973 (= Sman-
rtsis Shesrig Spendzod vols 51-4)
Glaus Vogel, Vägbhata's Agtähgahrdayasarphitä. the first five
chapters of its Tibetan version . Wiesbaden 196 5 (= Ab¬
handlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXXVII. 2)
Notes
1. See E. Finckh. Grundlagen tibetischer Heilkunde , Uelzen 1975, 74 and 94.
See also Asia Major . XIX. 2, 1975, 13 and for the Yin and Yang classifi¬
cation of the organs in Chinese medicine see M. Porkert, The theoretical
foundations of Chinese medicine. Systems of Correspondence , Cambridge
Mass. 1974, 117-162.
2. Rechung 141-327.
3. Rechung 182. India Office Library blockprint 33 b 4; khyuh-pohi rdo-rjehi
jo-mo rgya-sa-chos-sgron-la g-yu-thog yon-tan mgon-po hkhruhs-te dguh-
lo brgya dan ni-su-rca lha bzugs-nas rgyal-po khri-sroh Ide-bcan dah dehi
yab mes-'ag-chom gnis-kahi bla-sman mjad.
Ah.
Meulenbeld
Rechung
T
V
Vogel
4. Rechung 202. lOL blockprint 49 a 5: dguh-snih gcig-pas.
5. Rechung 209. lOL blockprint 55 b 3: de-nas bal-pohi sman-pa dha-na-
si-la-ha dah mjal-nas ' Then he met the Nepalese doctor Dänasila. '
6. On this Dänasila see J. Naudou, Les bouddhistes kasmlriens au moyen
age, Paris 1968, 86-90.
7. See my article on ' Ravigupta's place in Indian medical tradition' in:
Indologica Taurinensia III.
8. Rechung 209. lOL blockprint 55 b 5 ff.
9. V I 547.1-2: bsad-pahi rgyud-kyi sman-gyi nus-pa dan / rgyud gzan
gsum-gyi sman-rnams kha-skon-du mkhas-pa mi bzi dan / g-yu thog-pas
mjad-pahi hkhruhs-dpe rnih-pa Icags-smyug-gis bris-pa dah / sho-hbum
le-chan dah yah ho gah hphrod sprad- de bstan-pahi lehu-ste ni-su-paJio.
10. See Meulenbeld 423-5.
11. Caraka, Sü. 27.62: mämsam madhura-sTta-tväd guru brmhanam ävikam.
12. Siddhasära 3.20.2: sitam ävikam.
13. Vagbhata, Ah., Sü. 6.63cd - 64ab = Caraka, Sü, 27.61cd - 62ab:
näti-sTta-guru-snigdham märnsam äjam adosalam
sarlra-dhätu-sämänyäd anabhisyandi brmhanam.
14. So M. Lalou, Repertoire du Tanjur , Paris 1933, 211, but not accepted
by J. Naudou, Les bouddhistes kasmlriens au moyen age , Paris 1968,
14. Lalou put the translator of Vägbhata 'contemp. du roi Khri sroh
Ide'u bcan, 755-797 A.D. '
15. See G. Tucci, Indo-Tibetica II. Rin e'en bzah po e la rinascita del
buddhismo nel Tibet intorno al mille , Roma 1933, 52. According to
Tucci 'un mostruoso anacronismo; come ad esempio la menzione fra i
maestri di Rin e'en bzah po di Jinamitra e Sllendrabodhi ' .
16. English translation by G. Roerich, The Blue Annals, Part two. Calcutta
1953, 1051. Tibetan text ed. Lokesh Chandra, The Blue Annals . New
Delhi 1974, 932-3 (= Sata-pitaka Series Indo-Asian Literatures vol.
212).
17. So P. Cordier, Catalogue du fonds tibetain de la Bibliotheque nationale ,
iii, 472 according to Vogel 15 n.8.
SAYYID ABU L-HUDA, EIN VERTRAUTER ABDULHAMID'S II.
Notwendigkeit und Probleme einer kritischen Biographie
Von Werner Ende, Hamburg
Der letzte bedeutende osmanische Sultan, Abdülhamid II. (reg. 1876-1909),
hat bereits zu seinen Lebzeiten eine kaum übersehbare Masse von Literatur
über seine Person und Politik hervorgerufen (l). Der größte Teil dieser
Schriften - seien es solche in europäischen Sprachen oder solche in arabisch
oder türkisch - ist tendenziösen Inhalts. Seit Abdülhamid's Sturz durch die
Jungtürken (1909) überwiegt im türkischen Schriftum eindeutig die Sichtweise
seiner Gegner und Kritiker. Dasselbe gilt im wesentlichen auch für die ent¬
sprechende Literatur in arabischer Sprache. Die westlichen Autoren sind an
dieser Entwicklung ursächlich beteiligt, und zugleich von ihr beeinflußt.
Zu den Folgen der Durchsetzung eines bestimmten Urteils über Abdülhamid
gehört auch die Tatsache, daJ3 die Rolle der arabischen Beamten und Berater
am Hofe des Sultans bisher nicht genauer untersucht worden ist. Der Grund
ist klar: Weder für die türkischen noch für die arabischen Nationalisten ge¬
hören sie in die Heldengalerie der eigenen nationalen Bewegung. In der histo¬
rischen Literatur über das Zeitalter Abdülhamid's - die im arabischen wie im
türkischen Bereich seit Jahrzehnten überwiegend von der Sichtweise des Na¬
tionalismus geprägt ist - fehlt es daher an biographischen Studien über Per¬
sonen, die nach der übereinstimmenden Aussage vieler ihrer Zeitgenossen
erhebliches Gewicht am Hofe hatten, und die in der türkischen, arabischen
und westlichen Quellenliteratur entsprechend häufig genannt werden. Zu den
Männern aus der Umgebung Abdülhamid's, die ungeachtet ihrer fraglos be¬
deutenden Rolle nicht zum Gegenstand einer kritischen biographischen Unter¬
suchung gemacht worden sind, gehört der Religionsgelehrte Abü 1-Hudä
(Ebülhüda) as-SayyädT, ein Vertrauter Abdülhamid's.
Sein Name erscheint in europäischen Konsulatsberichten (2) wie in den
Memoiren europäischer Diplomaten (3) und arabischer (4) und türkischer (5)
Beamter und Politiker, in der zeitgenössischen westlichen Nahost-Publizi¬
stik (6) und in der orientalischen Presse (7), in den Schriften von Orienta¬
listen, die zum Problem des Panislamismus oder der jungtürkischen Revo¬
lution Stellung nehmen (8) ebenso wie in westlichen (9) und arabischen (lO)
Werken über die arabische Literatur- und Geistesgeschichte des 19. und 20.
Jahrhunderts.
Versucht man, sich aufgrund dieser verstreuten, meist nur kurzen Äuße¬
rungen ein Bild von der Persönlichkeit und Rolle Abü 1-Hudä' s zu machen,
so stößt man auf zahlreiche Widersprüche, wie sie in dieser Fülle und Schärfe
für historische Persönlichkeiten aus einem uns relativ nahen Zeitalter unge¬
wöhnlich sind. Die Widersprüche beziehen sich auf Abü 1-Hudä's soziale und
ethnische Herkunft, die Art bzw. den Grund seines Aufstieges, den Grad sei¬
nes Einflusses auf Abdülhamid und die Einstellung Abdülhamid's ihm gegen¬
über, das Maß seiner theologischen Bildung und seiner literarischen Fähig-
