PREFATORY NOTE.

Lewin, in his ‘Manual of Tibetan,’ 1879, preface, states: “Tibet and its language are still comparatively unknown … the familiar tongue of the people, their folk-lore, songs and ballads are all unknown.”

Far from contradicting this saying, Jäschke, the greatest Tibetan scholar of his time, stated two years later, in 1881, in the preface to the third edition of his Tibetan Dictionary: “(To) the student who has for immediate object to learn how to read and write the Tibetan language … existing dictionaries (are) almost if not quite useless.”

Since Jäschke’s third edition, two new Tibetan dictionaries have appeared. Walsh in an article in the J.A.S.B., Vol. 72, Pt. 1, n. 2, 1903, reviewing the last one of these, the one by Sarat Chandra Das, says, p. 78: “Although the present Dictionary has fulfilled what it purposed to be, namely, a complete Dictionary of literary Tibetan, so far as our present sources of knowledge go, it does not fulfil the requirements of a standard dictionary of the entire language, and the standard dictionary of the modern and current Tibetan language has yet to be written.”

Laufer, ‘Roman einer Tibetischen Königin,’ 1911, p. 27 et seq., says: “We have here to open a road through the jungles, unaided and by ourselves; we have to work through text after text and note down expressions and idioms as we meet them,” etc.

Grünwedel in ‘Padmasambhava und Verwandtes,’ 1912, pp. 9–10, endorses Laufer’s remarks and adds about the difficulty of translating from Tibetan: “Ignorance regarding the subject-matter, mistakes and misunderstandings in the text itself, and, finally, the insufficiently explored idiomatic element of the language, of which the history is as yet poorly known, these are the main shoals.… Of all the dictionaries only Jäschke’s has really achieved something in the matter of idiom.”

As a matter of fact the printed materials available for the home student do not at present enable him, if without the help of a native teacher, to translate, accurately and without skipping the difficulties, any modern Tibetan book (not even the so-called Tibetan Primers in use in Darjeeling) if such books do not happen to belong to those excerpted in the existing dictionaries. Jäschke’s, which is the best from this point of view, mentions only 25 titles of texts used as his sources. Comparing this with the more than 1000 titles quoted by Skeat as the sources for the material for his Etymological Dictionary of the [iv]English language we at once see the inadequacy of such material in the case of Tibetan.

It is true that at present more showy results can be obtained by the wholesale translation of texts (more with a view to making known their general contents, than to the furnishing of a precise philological, lexicographical and grammatical analysis), and it is certain that the results of such work of translation would be more attractive and interesting to the wider public. Yet one of the most valuable contributions towards laying a sound basis for future Tibetan scholarship is the painstaking, laborious and to a certain extent inglorious and humdrum drudging away at small texts with scrupulous attention to the smallest minutiae, for a secure fixing of illustrative examples by co-ordinating correctness of text, full discussion of meanings, sharp formulation of definitions and subtle analysis of all questions and problems involved.

The following essay is a first contribution towards an attempt to serve such an ideal. [v]

ABBREVIATIONS.

[1]

Primarily Lexicographically Treated.

By Johan Van Manen.

I. THE SONG OF THE EASTERN SNOW MOUNTAIN.

A. Introduction.

In his ‘Mythologie des Buddhismus,’ Grünwedel gives on p. 59 the figures of a triad of famous reformers of lamaism; Rje Rin po chʽe, better known as Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and his two pupils, Rgyal tsʽab rje and Mkʽas grub rje. On pp. 70–72 he gives biographical notes concerning the three, and indicates their place and historical importance in lamaism. Günther Schulemann, in ‘Die Geschichte der Dalailamas,’ gives in chapters II and III a complete compilation of what is known about these three.

In the modern Dge lugs pa sect their historical importance has never been lost sight of and their memory is kept green by a universal prayer or invocation, still in daily use, opening and closing every ceremony in a Dge lugs pa monastery. In preceding a ceremony it runs as follows:—

གངས་ཅན་ཤིང་རྟའི་སྲོལ་འབྱེད་ཙོང་ཁ་པ ༎

དངོས་སྟོབས་རིག་པའི་དབང་ཕྱུག་རྒྱལ་ཚབ་རྗེ ༎

མདོ་སྔགས་བསྟན་པའི་བདག་པོ་མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེ ༎

རྒྱལ་བ་ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ ༎

To the repairer of the Tibetan vehicle, Tsoṅ kʽa pa (the Onionlander),

To the true, strong, wise Lord Rgyal tsʽab rje (Noble Throne-prince),

To the sūtra and mantra teaching master Mkʽas grub rje (Noble Cleverness-perfection)

To these three victorious (illustrious) Father and Sons (Family of three), obeisance!

In closing the ceremony the words ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ་ are changed into གྱི་བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཤོག་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’ [2]

When the monks meet for གསོལ་ཇ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed into མཆོད་པ་འབུལ་, ‘we give our offering,’ said before drinking the first cup and whilst sprinkling a few drops in libation with two fingers, the thumb and fourth finger of the right hand. At the termination of tea drinking nothing is said at all. Except for these changes the formula remains the same for all occasions.

Another pupil of Tsoṅ kʽa pa was his own nephew Dge ḥdun grub, about whom further particulars are given in the same passages of the two works cited above, and who may be called the first Dalai Lama, though not known by that title but by that of Rgyal ba, or conqueror. Yet it will be seen from the above formula that the three who are together called ཡབ་སྲས་ ‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three called རྒྱལ་བ་. The expression ཡབ་སྲས་ has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just like ཕ་མ་ means ‘parents.’

From this དགེ་འདུན་གྲུབ་ a small poem in praise of his teachers, the ཡབ་སྲས་, has come to us, which we now publish. Of མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེ་ it is said that he founded a formal cult of his teacher Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and it may be that his devotional attitude found a reflection in this poem, showing the attitude taken by his own pupil towards him and his two other teachers in his turn.

This poem occurs in a miscellaneous collection of religious matter (said to comprise about 150 leaves), in a work ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ (‘Religious Practice’), leaves 59, 60. I have not been able to see a complete copy of this work. In this edition the text is fairly correct and clearly legible. A small edition, complete in itself, of which I possess two copies (not quite so legible), offers several different readings which nearly all seem quite as good, and some decidedly better, than those of the larger edition. The differences shown by the two texts are, relatively to the size of the poem, so numerous and of such a nature as to preclude the idea that mere copying can have led to them. One is led to the conclusion that one of the two texts was produced [3]from memory and not by actual copying. We shall note the variants furnished by the larger edition, marking them B., whilst following for our own text, with one exception, duly noted, the smaller edition A. My two copies of the smaller edition would seem

to be prints from the same blocks but for some difference in the last page. Whether the other pages are printed from the same blocks, whilst only this one last block has been, for one reason or another, renewed (and changed in the process) may be left undiscussed for the moment. Enough to make the general statement that great care should always be exercised before pronouncing Tibetan prints as made or not made from the same blocks, and that, indeed, interesting observations may be made on Tibetan typographical practices.

The title ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, like མདོ་མང་ (as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXI a), a religious miscellany. The particular ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ from which our poem is taken is said to be one of the text-books which the Tashilhunpo tapas are required to learn by heart. The book with the same title which Laufer (Verzeichniss der Tib. Handschr. etc. zu Dresden, Z.D.M.G., 1901, p. 123, n. 135) mentions, might or might not be the same. As I have not been able to examine the title pages and final pages of the book, I cannot give any further information about it. ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ is the marginal short title.

Another Gelukpa prayer of almost equal popularity and frequency as those of the one quoted above, is the following which may be used as an alternative to the former one. It is distinguished from it in that not the ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—

དམིགས་མེད་བརྩེ་བའི་གཏེར་ཆེན་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས ༎

དྲི་མེད་མཁྱེན་པའི་དབང་པོ་འཇམ་པའི་དབྱངས ༎

བདུད་དཔུང་མ་ལུས་འཇོམས་མཛད་གསང་བའི་བདག །

གངས་ཅན་མཁས་པའི་གཙུག་རྒྱན་ཙོང་ཁ་པ ༎

བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པའི་ཞབས་ལ་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས ༎

To the unfathomable great treasury of love, the Down-Looking-One (Chenresi, Avalokiteshvara), [4]

To the immaculate Lord of knowledge, Sweet-voice (Jamyang, Mañjughosha),

To the subduer of the hosts of devils without exception, the Master of Mysteries (Chanadorje, Vajrapāṇi),

To that crown-jewel of Tibetan sages, Tsoṅ kʽa pa,

To the feet of that (or: thee, o!) Famous Goodheart (Lozangtakpa, Sumatikīrti), we pray.

The chief difference between the use of the two prayers is that the latter is more in private use, whilst the former is more favoured in what may be called official meetings and collective acts of worship. The latter prayer is often used in a manner like the ‘Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ’ formula, and cases in which a devotee vowed to recite this prayer once or more times a 100,000 times are known. The practical purpose of the latter prayer was thus defined by a Tibetan: ཚེ་འདི་ལ་གཟུགས་པོ་སྐྱིད་པོ་ན་ཚ་མི་ཡོང་བ་ཚེ་རིང་པོ་ཡོང་བ་དང་ ། ཤི་བའི་དུས་ལ་ཡིད་དགའ་ཆོས་འཛིན་ལ་འཁྲིད་རོགས་གནང༌ ༎ To ensure (bring, ask for) in (this present, earthly) life: health, happiness, absence of sickness, and longevity—and at the time of death a happy mind and a firm hold on (grasp of) religion.

The above form of the prayer is the printed one which is used by the monks to read aloud, mechanically and repeatedly, as a sort of prayer-litany, together with other similar matter, for the benefit of their clients, or also to ensure their own salvation. It is said to occur in a prayer-book called དགའ་ལྡན་ལྷ་བརྒྱ་མ་, which I have not seen myself and about which I have no further details.

This prayer has also some variations in its final line (after the words གྲགས་པའི་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:

It is interesting to note that one of my informants interprets the above formula as indicating that Tsoṅ kʽa pa is the [5]simultaneous incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, Mañjughosha and Vajrapāṇi, and that these persons invoked in the prayer are not referred to as a consecutive series of separate entities, but as all embodied in the one Tsoṅ kʽa pa. My informant was very insistent about it that this is the general and orthodox interpretation of this prayer. The other two names of Tsoṅ kʽa pa are འཇམ་མགོན་བླ་མ་ and བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པ་.

The closing verse of our poem is also a prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. It is also in use elsewhere than in connection with the present booklet and occurs elsewhere in print as well. My informant ascribes it to Gendundub himself and thinks that its wider use has spread from this booklet, though he cannot definitely assure that Gendundub himself did not appropriate it for the closing lines of his poem, taking an already current prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. The latter theory is plausible inasmuch as the last verse is seven-footed as against the eight-footed lines of the rest of the poem. Anyhow, the statement that this prayer also refers to Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone, and is as such used and understood by all Gelukpa monks, settles a doubt we might otherwise entertain as to whether it is not addressed to the ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་, in which case its final line would have to be translated in the plural.

As to the edition, in the original the verses are not marked; they are evidently four-lined. The small edition has no divisions at all, except marking the lines, but the larger edition has in addition a ༈ (སྦྲུལ་མགོ་ = snake head) after lines 16 and 48. In my own text and translation I have by typographical disposition and by the introduction of title headings indicated my conception of the clever and very logical inner structure of the poem.

The text is followed by a short discussion of the variants in it, next by a translation, and then, my main business, by a full lexicographical discussion, in alphabetical order. This embodies in the first place all the new material, supplementing, amplifying, modifying, or even only questioning, the data in Jäschke’s Dictionary, 3rd edition. For this Dictionary is, as far as lexicographical method is concerned, still superior to all other, even subsequent, Tibetan dictionaries, however much valuable and additional matter may be contained in the two latter. Jäschke’s dictionary is as yet the proper starting point for all future lexicographical research. In this glossary I have also drawn special attention to contradictions in these three current dictionaries, those of Jäschke, Desgodins and Sarat Chandra Das, even to such points for which I myself have not been able to suggest a solution or about which I could not bring [6]new material. For the good of future lexicographical work in the Tibetan field, it

is very necessary to point out as many as possible of the numerous existing discrepancies and uncertainties (especially relating to finer shades of discrimination and precision) so as to focus the attention of investigators on them. It is unavoidable that most of this work can only be suitably undertaken on the spot in consultation with educated, intelligent Tibetans, and not in European closets. The number of those in a position to undertake such research will, for a long time to come, remain limited enough. As indicated in the sub-title of this essay my own main object in writing it is primarily a lexicographical one. For this reason I have also incorporated in my glossary notes on side-issues and all sorts of incidental idiomatic ‘catches’ which cropped up in the discussion of our text, though not immediately connected with the poem itself.

As it seemed the handiest way to present all the results of my investigation I have also embodied all commentatorial matter, the philological notes as distinct from the lexicographical ones, under the same alphabet. The few syntactical remarks have also been wedged in in this list, though in their case the ‘Stichwort’ had to be chosen more or less at haphazard.

In the matter of oral information and illustrative examples embodied in this paper, my authorities are nearly exclusively my two Tibetan teachers Skarma Bsam Gtan Paul and Pʽun Tsʽogs Lung Rtogs. The first is a native of Ghoom, though of pure Tibetan extraction (Kʽams). He has resided for nearly a year in Lhasa, for another 3 months in Tashilhunpo (where he was Tibetan interpreter between the Tashi Lama and Capt. R. Steen, I.M.S.), and for 4 years in Gyangtse. The second is a native of Lhasa, where he resided till his 18th year, after which he spent 3 years in Tashilhunpo as a tapa. Then he wandered for 12 years through Tibet, Sikkhim and Nepal, after which he settled in Ghoom since about 1914. Until recently he was there schoolmaster (dge rgan) in the local Tibetan monastery.

Both these intelligent men have given me the greatest help in long, patient and painstaking discussions concerning the lexicographical and other problems presented by this present text, as well as by several others, which I hope I will be able to publish and discuss from time to time in the future. [7]

B. Text.

༄༅ ། ། གསུད་མགུར་ཤར་གདས་རི་མ་ བཞུགས་སོ ༎

ན་མོ་གུ་རུ །

I

I 1 ཤར་གངས་རི་དཀར་པོའི་རྩེ་མོ་ན ༎

2 སྤྲིན་དཀར་པོ་གནམ་ལ་བསྙེག་*འདྲ་བ ༎

3 དེ་མཐོང་བའི་མོད་ལ་བླ་མ་དྲན ༎

4 དྲིན་བསམས་ཤིང་བསམས་ཤིང་དད་པ་སྐྱེས ༎

II 5 སྤྲིན་དཀར་པོ་ལྡིང་བའི་*ཤར་ཕྱོགས་ན །

6 འབྲོག་དགེ་ལྡན་རྣམ་པར་རྒྱལ་བ་དེར ༎

7 མཚན་བརྗོད་པར་དཀའ་བའི་རིན*པོ་ཆེ ༎

8 ཕ་བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པ་ཡབ་སྲས་བཞུགས ༎

III 9 ལམ་རིམ་པ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་རྣལ་འབྱོར་སོགས ༎

10 ཆོས་ཟབ་ལ་ཤིན་ཏུ་རྒྱས་པར་*གསུངས ༎

11 བོད་ཁ་བ་ཅན་གྱི་སྐལ་ལྡན་ལ ༎

12 མགོན་ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་བཀའ་དྲིན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ ༎

II

IV 13 སྒོས་སྙོམས་ལས་འཛིན་པའི་དགེ་འདུན་གྲུབ །

14 བློ་ཅུང་ཟད་ཆོས་ལ་ཕྱོགས་པ་འདི ༎[8]

15 རྗེ་ཡབ་སྲས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་བཀའ་དྲིན་ཡིན ༎

16 དྲིན་ཆེ་བར་ངེས་སོ་ཡབ་སྲས་རྣམས* ༎

V 17 དུས་འདི་*ནས་བྱང་ཆུབ་སྙིང་པོའི་བར ༎

18 རྗེ་ཡབ་སྲས་ཁྱེད་རྣམས་མ་གཏོགས་པར* ༎

19 སྐྱབས་རེ་ས་གཞན་དུ་*མི་འཚོལ་བས ༎

20 ཐུགས་བརྩེ་*བའི་ལྕགས་ཀྱུས་དྲང་དུ་གསོལ ༎

VI 21 དྲིན་ཇི་བཞིན་འཁུར་བར་མ་ནུས་ཀྱང་ ༎

22 སེམས་ཆགས་སྡང་དབང་དུ་མ་སོང་བར* ༎

23 མགོན་ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་བསྟན་པ་འཛིན་པ་ལ ༎

24 དུས་ནམ་ཡང་བརྩོན་པར་*བགྱིད་པར་སྨོན ༎