西藏的佛教

佛教传入西藏,是在七世纪吐蕃王朝松赞干布时代。其后,经赤松德赞、赤祖德赞两代赞普的大力支持,创造传布条件,制订发展措施,但由于阻力很大,两百年间并未站稳脚跟。九世纪中叶,西藏的原始宗教本教反佛,本教徒杀赤祖德赞拥立朗达玛,进行“灭佛”运动,以后朗达玛又见杀于佛教徒,吐蕃王朝随之崩溃,佛教也受这一挫折衰落了大约一百年。     

象雄王朝在青藏高原西北部的终结与在东南部的延续

通过对象雄与嘉绒的族源关系、嘉绒口语中的象雄语活态词汇,以及象雄文化在藏青藏高原东南部边沿遗存等诸多事实的考察发现,象雄十八王国作为象雄文化的标志性符号之一,其历史在青藏高原西北部被终结的同时,在青藏高原东南部得到了延续,最显著标志史称嘉绒十八王国。象雄王国的空间地理范围,尽管各个历史时期文献记载不尽一致,然而有一条是非常清楚的,那就是无论象雄王朝的历史有多么悠久多么漫长,无论象雄王朝涉及的疆域有多广变化有多大,给人的整体印象是象雄王国历史舞台的中心始终在青藏高原,其历史舞剧的影响力时而远及青藏高原西北部边缘的广泛地区,时而远及青藏高原东南部边缘的岷江上游地区。今天的藏东嘉绒地区、岷江上游,乃至于成都平原的广汉三星堆和金沙遗址,仍然有不少远古象雄文化的印记。一句话,象雄文化最能反映藏文化的整体性特点。     

赞蒙赛玛噶之歌

文章利用学界在古藏文释读方面的进步,重新译注P.T.1287第儿节中赞蒙赛玛噶所吟之歌。赞蒙之歌共4首,其中第408—412行为第一首歌,描述赞蒙在象雄的凄苦生活;第412—416行为第二首歌,赞蒙以围猎野牦牛为比喻,暗示其兄赞普应联合与吐蕃王朝结盟的各个氏族部落,对象雄发起进攻;第416—419行为第三首歌,赞蒙以钓鱼为比喻,暗示赞普莫错过时机,尽快去消灭象雄;第419—424行为第四首歌,赞蒙表达对故乡的思念。     

西藏西部新发现《吐蕃铁券文书》之“结辛”(■)家族考略

有关吐蕃历史方面的史料，主要有敦煌本吐蕃历史文书、吐蕃石刻碑文、简牍以及后期的历史典籍等，鲜有其他。近来西藏西部阿里一带发现民间传抄之《吐蕃铁券文书》一份，内容涉及吐蕃赞普赤松德赞为其家臣结辛·赤旺觉布支拉珂家族授予的敕文，以及该敕文后期在其家族的传承情况。敕文虽提及吐蕃赞普达日聂斯、囊日松赞、松赞干布及赤松德赞时期，该家族的历史人物及其相关事迹，然此等事件未见于其他史料，不便随意揣测。     

人之历史与历史之人——评《我的阿爸多吉巴桑(苏永和)》一书

<正>引言在高山峡谷、四面环山的嘉绒地区,以嘉绒十八土司为主,形成了极具特色的文化体系。从作为象雄文明符号的琼鸟信仰,到墨尔朵神山崇拜,从赞普赤松德赞(755-783)时期的毗卢遮那大师流放到嘉绒,到11世纪从阿里邀请赞普后裔统治嘉绒,这一藏文明的边缘地区始终保持着极具特色的文化属性。因其独特的地理条件及人文环境,嘉绒文化多元,教派齐全,开放包容。在历史发展的长河中,这一特色从象雄的琼部落迁     

《韦协》译注(二)

《韦协》是首部系统记载佛教传入西藏的早期重要史籍,记述了8世纪后半叶吐蕃赞普赤松德赞的重臣韦·赛囊迎请寂护和莲花生两位大师入蕃传法、修建桑耶寺等重大历史事件。其主要内容有5部分。(1)有关吐蕃赞普拉脱托日年赞至赤德祖赞时期佛教在西藏最初的传播情形的记述。(2)有关吐蕃赞普赤松德赞派使者赴唐朝引入佛经和从印度迎请菩提和莲花生大师前来吐蕃传播佛法的记载;记述8世纪赤松德赞时期西藏第一座佛、法、僧俱全的寺院桑耶寺建寺过程和佛经翻译以及佛法在吐蕃传播过程中与苯教的斗争;(3)记述印度佛教中观渐门派和唐朝禅宗顿门派之争。(4)一小段增补的内容,极其简略的语言记述了9世纪上半叶赤祖德赞时期的宏法业绩;(5)另一段增补的内容,是9世纪初牟尼赞普时期的佛苯之争的一段记述。翻译《韦协》,并附上较为详细的注释,目的是为国内藏学界,尤其是为吐蕃史研究者和藏传佛教史研究者提供这一部史学名著的汉译文,以弥补《韦协》只有英译本而无汉译本的缺憾。     

《韦协》译注(一)

<韦协>是首部系统记载佛教传入西藏的早期重要史籍,记述了8世纪后半叶吐蕃赞普赤松德赞的重臣韦,赛囊迎请寂护和连花生两位大师入蕃传法、修建桑耶寺等重大历史事件.其主要内容有5部分.(1)有关吐蕃赞普拉脱托日年赞至赤德祖赞时期佛教在西藏最初的传播情形的记述.(2)有关吐蕃赞普赤松德赞派使者赴唐朝引入佛经和从印度迎请菩提和莲花生大师前来吐蕃传播佛法的记载;记述8世纪赤松德赞时期西藏第一座佛、法、僧俱全的寺院桑耶寺建寺过程和佛经翻译以及佛法在吐蕃传播过程中与苯教的斗争;(3)记述印度佛教中观渐门派和唐朝禅宗顿门派之争.(4)一小段增补的内容,极其筒略的语言记述了9世纪上半叶赤祖德赞时期的宏法业绩;(5)另一段增补的内容,是9世纪初牟尼赞普时期的佛苯之争的一段记述.翻译<韦协>,并附上较为详细的注释,目的是为国内藏学界,尤其是为吐蕃史研究者和藏传佛教史研究者提供这一部史学名著的汉译文,弥补<韦协>只有英译本、无汉译本的缺憾.     

小考吐蕃798～804年历史

关于赤松德赞有几位王子、他们的姓名和长幼顺序以及赤松德赞去世后的王位继承等情况在许多史料中众说纷纭,甚至自相矛盾。虽然这些是难以解决的棘手问题,但是史学界无需回避,若能作出一些定论,对吐蕃历史研究具有重要的现实和理论意义。文章对798～804年之间的吐蕃王位继承情况及赤德松赞的年龄等作了分析。     

古象雄的"鸟图腾"与西藏的"鸟葬"

西藏古代岩画目前可以肯定为古象雄人的文化遗存,其地理、年代、经济形态、明确的尚武性格,尤其是突出的象雄苯教文化的内涵,都说明西藏岩画的创作族群应当是生活在藏北(阿里、那曲)的古象雄部族。苯教文献记载,古象雄人是神鸟"穹"的后裔,古象雄的神鸟穹崇拜反映到西藏岩画里,便是西藏岩画中期(距今2000年前后)以后凸显出来的"鸟图腾"文化特征,岩画中后期大量出现的塔祭坛图形还显示出"鸟图腾"与古象雄的葬俗之间的密切联系。鸟葬形成的时期并不很早,其流行时期在11世纪以后,这也反映出北部象雄苯教文化对西藏民俗文化深入而潜移默化的影响力。     

再探古老的象雄文明

本文用详实的考证说明了祆教作为近邻大食的一个强势文化对古象雄苯教形成的影响,论证了象雄的地理位置及其著名的象雄十八王国,用珍贵的手抄本资料阐释了作为古象雄穹部落后裔东迁的曲折历史和传说,作为比较研究结果提出沃摩隆仁是藏族先民对中亚历史地理的整体记忆,是象雄中部的地理地貌和佛家西方极乐世界的启示相结合的产物,是古代中亚各民族文化交流的结果在藏族苯教文化中的深层积淀的崭新的学术观点.     

苯教的现状及其与社会的文化融合

作者在多年实地调查的基础上叙述了苯教的现状、苯教寺院的分布及其历史和文化原因。重点阐释了佛苯两教在显宗方面的融合,尤其是在内道关键教义上的融合完成了这两个宗教在教义上的最终合流,提出了苯教这种与传统藏族社会的主要意识形态的融合和顺应实际上减少了不同文化传统和思想流派之间的摩擦,起到了积极的社会效应的学术观点。     

三星堆青铜纵目面具与铜兽首冠人像的藏文化解读

This article is the fourth article re-lated to the research of “Zhangzhung·rGyalron· Sanxingdui and Jinsha”—Tibetan cultural interpre-tations of relics unearthed in Sanxingdui and Jin-sha. The main focus of the article is Tibetan cul-tural interpretations of the vertical-eyed bronze mask and the copper statue of a man with an ani-mal head crown in Sanxingdui Museum. 1 . Vertical-eyed bronze mask and Miwo Lon-glong The bronze cultural relics unearthed in Sanx-ingdui or even Jinsha have broad and deep links to ancient Tibetan culture. The vertical-eyed bronze mask is the most typical of the numerous bronze objects depicting human heads. In the following discussion, we would like to give an interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the bronze objects de-picting human heads. In order to draw inferences about other cases from one instance, we would like to choose two typical cases: choosing the vertical-eyed bronze mask as our model of cultural relic, and choosing langshi jiazu ( the Lang family clan) as our model of Tibetan ancient literature. It is generally stated that the eyes of the verti-cal-eyed bronze mask kept in Sanxingdui museum roughly meets the appearance of the Shu people ’ s ancestors, the Cancong, who are recorded as hav-ing “vertical eyes” in the historical books. Some people also believe that “vertical eyes” means“upright eyes”, just like the eye in the forehead of the God Erlang in Chinese ancient myth, so the image might be a statue of an ancestor god. Addi-tionally, some connect it with the frontlet of kuilong ( a sacred dragon in Chinese myth ) , and believe that it is related to zhulong( another sacred dragon in Chinese myth) who has a human head, a dragon ( snake) body, and “upright eyes”. Langshi Jiazu is an important document for studying the political and religious unification sys-tem in Tibetan areas during the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, meanwhile, it is also an essential material for the study of the Gesar Epic. Langshi Jiazu was published by Xizang renmin chubanshe ( Tibet People ’ s Publishing House ) for the first time in May, 1986, and the whole book is com-posed of three parts. From the perspective of the ancient Indian centralism and Tibetan centralism, Langshi Jiazu has many unique parts, and its con-tent has an unusual connection with rGyarong in the southeastern part of Tibetan areas. For in-stance , the content of the fist part is very similar to shengniao xiongqiongwang zhuang ( Biography of the Sacred Bird Garuda) recently discovered in the rGyarong area. There is a myth in Langshi Jiazu, and the sto-ry is very common in Bon literature. The academic circle calls it the Bon religion’ s view on the crea-tion of world—the universe is oviparous. Most scholars believe that the view of oviparous creation of the world in Bon religion might be Tibetan peo-ple’ s own cognition. We provide translations to some content included in the Langshi Jiazu, and compare them with the vertical-eyed bronze mask, and notice some information which has been ig-
nored by the current academic circle. For in-stance, the vertical-eyed bronze mask symbolizes“”, Chinese phonetic translation Miwo Longlong, which means “may all your wishes be-come truth”. 2 . Copper statue of a man with an animal head crown in the Bon Religion The copper statue of a man with an animal head crown kept in Sanxingdui Museum is not com-plete, with only the upper part of the body remai-ning. The statue wears an animal head crown. On the two sides of the top crown, there stands two an-imal ears, in between of which there is a curly decoration which looks like an elephant ’ s nose. Apart from the previously-mentioned characteris-tics of the sacred bird Gaguda, the copper statue of a man with an animal head crown also has several other outstanding features, for instance, its crown and posture. The crown is not only high, but also has a rectangular hole, on the top of which there are three long strips. The statue is posed in a grasping gesture. This paper gives firstly an overall interpreta-tion of the copper statue of a man with an animal head crown according to the shengniao xiongqiong-wang zhuang, then gives a Tibetan cultural inter-pretation of the details of the statue. Concerning the knowledge of the three long strips on the crown of the copper statue, this article finds some clues from the angle of philology and archaeology, and proves that the origin of this crown is the sacred hat in Bon religion of Tibet. Moreover, this article also discusses the reason why the crown has these three strips on top of it. The author mentions that it is related to the sacred bird Garuda, and the three strips respectively represent the two wings and horn of the bird. In other words, the strips on the right and left side symbolizes the bird opening its wings and viewing the world, while the strip in the mid-
dle symbolizes that the sacred bird is male, not fe-male. From one aspect, the head dress of adult women in the rGyarong area symbolizes the sacred bird Garuda, and from another aspect, in Tibetan culture, including rGyarong culture, only the sa-cred male bird Garuda has the horn. That means the sacred bird Garuda with a horn must be a male one. Concerning the vertical-eyed bronze mask and the copper statue of a man with an animal head crown unearthed in Sanxingdui, there are still many details that need to be explored, and also we feel that it could be differently interpreted. Howev-er, due to the limitations of space, we will not do a long discussion here, but we do hope that from the examples provided in this article, one can draw inferences about other cases from this one in-stance.     

西方学人反思西藏认知的研究述评

当代许多西方人关注的是一个虚拟的西藏,一个不曾有过的精神乌托邦。一些西方西藏研究者在萨义德的东方学理论影响下,对西方人的西藏认知进行了深刻的反思和批判。批判和反思神话西藏的西方学者只是解构了西藏形象的神秘性和虚幻性,却从未解构西藏的独立国形象。对于西方国家涉藏问题的研究,我们不能仅仅局限于政治和历史的角度,还应该关注西方人的社会文化和心理认知,关注西方人观念中的西藏。     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

澄清傣族早期历史研究中的一个讹误--"达光王国"真相还原

有学者根据傣族文献的记载认为,傣族在公元前5世纪时曾建立过一个地跨云南西部和缅甸的“达光王国”,并把“达光王国”写进了有关傣族历史的论著之中。本文作者根据其掌握的资料对“达光王国”进行了考证后指出,傣族文献中有关“达光王国”的记载,实际上是流传到傣族地区并被“傣化”后写进了傣族文献的一些缅甸史籍中关于缅甸历史上的“太公王国”的传说故事,不足为信。     

科学引领 积极推动——张声震对布洛陀文化研究的引领与推动

20多年来,张声震研究员以深厚的民族情结、自强不息的钻研精神,一直致力于广西少数民族古籍的抢救和整理,其主持整理出版的《布洛陀经诗》、《壮族麽经布洛陀影印译注》(八卷),为开展布洛陀文化研究提供了坚实的基础。自2005年以来,由其提议、指导的布洛陀文化学术研讨会,已连续在田阳召开了四次,国内外专家学者踊跃参加,极大地深化、拓展和提升了布洛陀文化研究。     

儒家思想文化之超道德性

今人屡言,整理国故。然,屡屡未尽其根。于儒家思想更是评价不一,虽如此,但却有一共同之观点,即儒家之说实为“伦理道德之说”。诚然,此种观点可谓中肯,但笔者却认为不能仅停留于此,而是应当在此等基础上更深挖掘其思想之根基,以期达到对儒家思想更深之理解与体会。本文先通过对儒家思想之核心——“仁”的阐述,来说明儒家关心的确实是社会的伦理道德;并通过对儒家思想之内在的超越现实而又回归现实的“精神境界”的阐述,来说明儒家思想的“超道德性”。笔者希望通过这样的分析阐述,能对中国优秀传统文化进行更好的继承。     

藏族棋文化的见证——关于在强巴敏久林宫遗址发现的藏族石刻棋盘的学术报告

文章是作者赴墨竹工卡县甲玛乡吐蕃赞普松赞干布出生地强巴敏久林宫遗址,对亲眼所见的藏族石刻棋盘进行调查研究的一篇报告文章。作者通过对藏棋的名称、规则、判定输赢的方法等作的介绍,以及对这块石刻棋盘和有关的藏族历史所作的研究,认为早在佛教传入西藏之前,藏围棋已在藏区广泛流传,是藏区喜闻乐见的一种娱乐活动,并且传播到中国西藏周边国家和地区,具有鲜明的藏民族特点。最后,作者呼吁学者加强对藏棋的研究,并殷切希望各级文物管理部门,加强对珍贵文物的保护,以免这些珍贵文物被倒卖和毁坏。