[Contents]C.The Variants.The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
[Contents]C.The Variants.The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
[Contents]C.The Variants.The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
[Contents]C.The Variants.The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
[Contents]C.The Variants.The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
C.The Variants.
The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.
The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.
On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use ofབ་forཔ་(7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter[11]in connection with the badly printedཔའི་in l. 13 (which looks also likeབའི་) and also aཔ་likeབ་in l. 23. Inversely there is a clearཔ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and aབོར་forཔོར་in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook inརྩ(20,24) and the naroོin lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.
In 5 B writesལྡིང་forབའི་asauthorizedby the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.
Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2སྙེག་is the present tense as against the past formབསྙེག་in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The finalས་inསོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the formསྦྱོངས་;ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.
འཁྲུགས་in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The formཁྲུག་(without an initialའ་) as in B is not recorded, thoughའཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well.འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initialའ་. The substitution ofའཆད་forབཤད་(38) seems to lack sufficient urgency,[12]though J. records aའཆད་‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. Aའཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., notཕུང་of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.
In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B.པར་(10) is correct, notཔ་B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18,པར་, and 22,བར་, equally so. In 24པར་is a terminative dependent onབགྱིད་.
The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.
In 7,དྲིན་, very kind, is as good asརིན་, very precious; in 17དུས་means practically the same asདུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19གཞན་‘in another’ seems even a trifle better thanགཞན་‘from another.’གྱིས་seems better in 32 thanཀྱང་in B, ‘even, indeed!’བྱེད་‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good asབསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. formབསྒྲུབས་or pr.སྒྲུབ་.In l. 40གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good asསྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the articleཔ་means the same as pluralརྣམས་B. In 44,བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted forཉོན་,[13]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49ཀུན་‘all,’ forརྣམས་‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult constructionལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easierལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’
All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes exceptངེས་andངས་l. 16, andདྲིན་andརིན་in l. 7.
In l. 26 we find an erroneousཅིང་forཞིང་.
The two༈at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a༈after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.
It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word isབཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have writtenབཞུགས་without prejudice to the question whether the formབཞུགས་is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a༎theསོ་is required.
The only reading taken from B isངེས་for the incomprehensibleངས་of A 1 and 2, in line 16.
It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual[14]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.