A.Introduction.

[Contents]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་དངོས་མདོ་རྒྱལ་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 wordsལ་are changed intoགྱི་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’[2]When the monks meet forགསོལ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed intoམཆོད་, ‘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 calledཡབ་‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three calledརྒྱལ་. The expressionཡབ་has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just likeཕ་means ‘parents.’From thisདགེ་a small poem in praise of his teachers, theཡབ་, has come to us, which we now publish. Ofམཁས་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 workཆོས་(‘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 titleཆོས་is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, likeམདོ་(as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXIa), a religious miscellany. The particularཆོས་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་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 theཡབ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—དམིགས་དྲི་བདུད་གངས་བློ་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་༌༎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 calledདགའ་, 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 wordsགྲགས་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:Openinga ceremony:ཞབས་Closinga,,ceremony,,:ཞབས་Beforetea:ཞལ་(orདུ་)མཆོད་Aftertea,,:nothing at all is said.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 areའཇམ་andབློ་.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 theཡབ་, 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་= 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]

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་དངོས་མདོ་རྒྱལ་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 wordsལ་are changed intoགྱི་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’[2]When the monks meet forགསོལ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed intoམཆོད་, ‘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 calledཡབ་‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three calledརྒྱལ་. The expressionཡབ་has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just likeཕ་means ‘parents.’From thisདགེ་a small poem in praise of his teachers, theཡབ་, has come to us, which we now publish. Ofམཁས་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 workཆོས་(‘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 titleཆོས་is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, likeམདོ་(as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXIa), a religious miscellany. The particularཆོས་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་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 theཡབ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—དམིགས་དྲི་བདུད་གངས་བློ་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་༌༎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 calledདགའ་, 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 wordsགྲགས་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:Openinga ceremony:ཞབས་Closinga,,ceremony,,:ཞབས་Beforetea:ཞལ་(orདུ་)མཆོད་Aftertea,,:nothing at all is said.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 areའཇམ་andབློ་.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 theཡབ་, 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་= 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]

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་དངོས་མདོ་རྒྱལ་

གངས་

དངོས་

མདོ་

རྒྱལ་

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!

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 wordsལ་are changed intoགྱི་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’[2]

When the monks meet forགསོལ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed intoམཆོད་, ‘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 calledཡབ་‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three calledརྒྱལ་. The expressionཡབ་has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just likeཕ་means ‘parents.’

From thisདགེ་a small poem in praise of his teachers, theཡབ་, has come to us, which we now publish. Ofམཁས་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 workཆོས་(‘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 titleཆོས་is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, likeམདོ་(as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXIa), a religious miscellany. The particularཆོས་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་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 theཡབ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—

དམིགས་དྲི་བདུད་གངས་བློ་

དམིགས་

དྲི་

བདུད་

གངས་

བློ་

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.

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་༌༎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 calledདགའ་, 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 wordsགྲགས་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:

Openinga ceremony:ཞབས་Closinga,,ceremony,,:ཞབས་Beforetea:ཞལ་(orདུ་)མཆོད་Aftertea,,:nothing at all is said.

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 areའཇམ་andབློ་.

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 theཡབ་, 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་= 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]

Back to Index Next