Reassembling Discipline: Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Collection of Incidents Involving Nuns from the Vinaya (ʼDul ba dge slong maʼi gleng ʼbum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores consistency problems in sources for nuns in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya preserved in Tibetan, and one fourteenth-century exegete’s solutions to those problems. If one looks closely at the canonical recitation text of nuns’ rules, the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa-sūtra, alongside the ostensibly matching canonical explanatory text, the Bhikṣuṇī-vinaya-vibhaṅga, significant discrepancies of order and content appear in the minor rules, particularly in the pāyantikā section. In 1352, the Sa skya polymath Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1364) developed a digest of narratives about nuns, the ʼDul ba dge slong maʼi gleng ʼbum or Collection of Incidents Involving Nuns from the Vinaya, which remediated the discrepancies he saw in these sources. He took the recitation text to be authoritatively Mūlasarvāstivādin, rejected the explanatory text as belonging to another sect, and relied on the Indian exegete Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra and its autocommentary (fifth–seventh century) as guides. He supplemented narratives from the Ārya-sarvāstivādi-mūla-bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa-sūtra-vṛtti, a source grouped as commentary, which he attributed to yet another sect. This dissertation argues that in the process of remediating the code’s inconsistencies, Bu ston created a new set of rules in certain sections, in some cases drawing on commentarial works to make sense of rules and narratives for which texts with the authority of buddhavacana—the status of buddha-speech, or canonicity—were readily available. In other words, the rules he compiled match no other extant list in full, including the list given in the canonical recitation text itself. In addition to this central claim about Bu ston’s use of sources, this dissertation demonstrates that Bu ston drew extensively on narrative supplements and past-life narratives (avadānas), to the extent of favoring narrative richness over brevity. A brief look at the writing of the thirteenth-/fourteenth-century monastic legal authority mTsho sna ba Shes rab bzang po also shows that Bu ston was not the first to give attention to discrepancies about the nuns’ rules. This dissertation underlines the lasting effects of Bu ston’s digesting practices on the circulation of vinaya narrative literature in Tibet, largely through its impact on the digest produced by Dalai Lama I dGe ’dun grub. Finally, this dissertation raises questions about what, if anything, Bu ston’s grappling with nuns’ rules tells us about the status of nuns in Tibet during his time, and what values his digest embodies in terms of norms for organizational consistency and information management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".