Page 196 [196]
OCR
EKATERINA SOBKOVYAK Being an integral part of the classical Western scholarship, and having developed within the European scientific paradigm, the Mongolian Kanjur studies naturally followed tendencies dominating the academy as a whole. The collection has had a longestablished tradition of being designated ‘the Mongolian Buddhist canon’ by scholars.’ The question of the appropriateness of such a designation, and the consequent classification of the Kanjur among texts which belong to different cultural traditions and religions but which were placed under the same generic category of ‘canon’, has only recently been raised by scholars working in the fields of Tibetan and Mongolian studies.’ One of the main problems of ascribing canonical status to the Kanjur, and therefore of applying the traditional methods of canonical studies to its investigation, is that scholarly focus has been concentrated chiefly on the collection’s textual features. The historical value of the information found in the colophons of the treatises included in the Mongolian Kanjur has been specially underlined by researchers.‘ In addition, the comparison of the colophons included in different redactions of the Kanjur has been used primarily in efforts to write the transmission history of the Kanjur. Of equal, or 2 See, for example, Buagumupuos, B. 41.: Pa6omer no numepamype moneonvckux Hapodos. BoctrouHat smtepatypa PAH, Mocksa 2003, pp. 65-68; Heissig, Walther: Beiträge zur Übersetzungsgeschichte des Mongolischen Buddhistischen Kanons. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1962; KacsaHenHxo, 3. K.: K Bonpocy OŐ HCTOPHH peJaKOHH MOHTONBCKOTO T’aHıpkypa. Mongolica. IIamamu arademura Bb. A. Bnaoumupyosa 1884-1931. Ed. A. H. KoHoHoß et al. Hayka, I 1aBHag peak BOCTOYHOH JIHTEPATYPBI, Mocksa 1986, pp. 252-264; KacbstHeHko, 3. K.: HoBble TAHHBIE 0 IEPBOH peJlaKIIHH GY/UIHÜCKOTO KaHOHa Ha MOHTOJIBCKOM asbIke. Mongolica. K 750-nemuro Coxposennoeo Crasanua. Ed. B. M. Comuuyes et al. BocToyHaa mTepartypa, MockBa 1993, pp. 201-219. See Skilling, Peter: From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ‘gyur and bsTan ‘gyur. In: Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7" Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Ed. Helmut Eimer. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1997, pp. 87-111; Eimer, Helmut: Kanjur and Tanjur Studies: Present State and Future Tasks. In: The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000. Ed. Helmut Eimer — David Germano. Brill, Leiden 2002, pp. 1-12; Kollmar-Paulenz, Karenina: The Transmission ofthe Mongolian Kanjur: a Preliminary Report. In: The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: PIATS 2000. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000. Ed. Helmut Eimer — David Germano. Brill, Leiden 2002, pp. 151-176; Kollmar-Paulenz, Karenina: Kanon und Kanonisierung in der buddhistischen Mongolei: zur Notwendigkeit einer Neubestimmung des Kanonbegriffs in der Religionswissenschaft. In: Kanonisierung und Kanonbildung in der asiatischen Religionsgeschichte, 820. Band. Ed. Max Deeg et al. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Wien 2011, pp. 379-420; Sobkovyak, Ekaterina: What Makes a Canon? Analysis ofthe Prätimoksasütra Tradition in Mongolia in the Context of Canonical Studies. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Bern to obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Self-publication. Bern 2017. Braxumupuo8, B. f.: Pabome no ucmopuu u amnoepadbuu MoH2oNBCKUX HAaP0006. BOcToyHaa „mreparypa PAH, Mocksa 2002, pp. 254-267; KacbaHeHko, 3. K.: HekoTOpbIe HCTODPHHECKHE CBEJEHHA B Ko1oboHax “TaHıpkypa”. Mongolica-IV . Ed. Kynpranek N. B. Ilerepôyprekoe BocrokoBerenne, Canxt-Ilerep6ypr 1998, pp. 20-22; Heissig, Walther: Zur Organization der Kandjur-Ubersetzung unter Ligdan-Khan (1628-1629). Zentralasiatische Studien No. 7 (1973), pp. 477-502; Heissig, W.: Beiträge zur Übersetzungsgeschichte..., pp. 5-4. 194
