One of the challenges when dealing with Indo-Tibetan texts,
terms/titles/names, and ideas is verifying (a) whether a Sanskrit term/name
found in Indic sources has been translated into Tibetan; (b) whether what looks
like an Indic term/name in Tibetan translation can be found in Indic sources;
(c) whether the Sanskrit-Tibetan correspondence is secured; and (d) whether one
can plausibly explain when the Sanskrit-Tibetan correspondence is not
self-evident or when there is a discrepancy between Sanskrit and Tibetan.
Particularly with regard to the last case, the Sanskrit-Tibetan discrepancy may
have come about because the Tibetan term/name has become corrupted in course of
the textual transmission; the Tibetan translators might have had a different
Sanskrit reading before them; we no longer understand the Tibetan translation;
the Tibetan translators misunderstood the Sanskrit term/name and hence
translated it in a way that we cannot make sense of it; the Tibetan translators
interpreted the Sanskrit term/name in a way that may not be clear to us
straightaway; or the Tibetan translators did not translate the Sanskrit
word/name ad verbum but rather ad sensum. I think
I could convincingly show the last case on the basis of the Tibetan translation
of Umā as bKa’ bzlog ma. This entry is, however, not yet published in our ITLR
database (https://www.itlr.net). One or more of these factors might cause us to
make wrong judgments of the Tibetan translators and translations. One of our
obligations thus seems to be desisting from passing hasty and undue judgments
on the Tibetan translators and translations and rather trying to plausibly
explain what could have happened and on what account. Tibetan translators, like
all of us, were fallible mortals, and they, despite undeniable shortcomings and
under much more challenging circumstances, left behind a legacy in which we can
indulge today. Otherwise, we shall be, as Sa-paṇ, puts it (ad sensum),
“like monkeys who shit on the trees [from whose fruits they nourish].”
Apologies for the vulgarity of my language but it seems to be effectual in
driving home the point. The actual Tibetan text is: nags na gnas pa’i
spre ’u dag || ljon pa’i shing na mi gtsang ’dor ||. I am deviating from
the actual point I wanted to make in this blog article.
My
actual concern is the name “Thub rgyal nag po” and its Sanskrit correspondence
Prahlāda (or its variant Prahrāda). The word prahlādana is
recorded in the Mahāvyutpatti (no. 461), however, as a part of
a larger compound (i.e. kāyaprahlādanakarin: lus sim par byed pa).
It is understood as “fulfilling, satisfying,” which is also confirmed by the
meaning “joyful excitement, delight, joy, happiness” (MW). But our
present concern is Prahlāda (or Prahrāda) as a name of a person, which seems to
be translated as “Thub rgyal nag po.” See, however, Alexander Zorin, “A
Collection of Tantric Ritual Texts from an Ancient Tibetan Scroll Kept at the
Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences,” 2010, p.
74, n. 34: “Thub rgyal nag po; it can hardly be equivalent to the Indian name
of Hiraṇyakaśipuʼs son, Prahlāda.” Here, Prahlāda is a name of an epic figure.
To be sure, Prahlāda is also said to be names of several beings. According to
some Tibetan sources, “Thub rgyal nag po” is one of the pre-Buddhist names
of Mātṛceta (mentioned in Dan’s Tibskrit). See also Mi-pham (sKad
gnyis shan sbyar, p. 329) where Thub rgyal nag po is said to be Dignāga’s
opponent. Mi-pham, however, provides here no Sanskrit equivalent. By the way,
Prahlāda is also recorded as one of the 220 deities of the dharmadhātuvāgīśvaramaṇḍala in
the Vajrāvalī (Mori 2001: 258), where the name is translated
as “Rab tu sim byed.” This translation, let us say, poses no question. The
actual question is whether “Thub rgyal nag po” is at all possible as a Tibetan
rendering of Prahlāda/Prahrāda. Here is where my speculation begins.
Let
us first do away with the problem of the component “Nag po” in the name. Why
“Black”? Let us look again at the following information given in MW (s.v.):
“N. of a pious daitya (son of Hiraṇyakaśipu; he was
made king of the daitya by Viṣṇu, and was regent of one
of the divisions of pātāla; cf. prahrāda).” Here
Prahlāda is considered to be one of the regents of the sub-terrestrial regions
(pātāla: sa ’og). And in one of the Tibetan sources (via TBRC/BDRC
search), we encounter the following statement: lho sgor thub dga’ nag
po tho ba ’dzin pa. Here Prahlāda is allocated to the southern gate; his
implement is a “hammer/mallet” (tho ba), and importantly for us, his
color is black. But we might still think that “Black” is the component of his
name and not really his color. The description of other deities in the same
context reveals that each of the deities has been attributed with a color. So contextually,
it is clear that Prahlāda is considered black in color. Iconographic
representation of Prahlāda may confirm this. So I consider the problem of
“black” to be (re)solved for now.
We
now come to the more important problem. Why did Tibetan translators, if we
assume that Thub rgyal is indeed a translation of Prahlāda, translate
Prahlāda/Prahrāda as Thub rgyal? I speculate that the name Thub rgyal is a
transmissional corruption of Thub dga’. The phonetic proximity and similarity
between rgyal and dga’ might have contributed
to the initial confusion and error and gradually Thub rgyal seems to have
become common. We have also seen the expression lho sgor thub dga’ nag
po tho ba ’dzin pa, which supports our preference for Thub dga’, not to speak
of the Sanskrit hlāda, which means “refreshment, pleasure,
gladness, joy, delight” (MW). By how do we explain the next
component thub here? What could have been the Tibetan
translators’ understanding or interpretation behind the translation? I believe
to have found the answer. They must have interpreted the verbal prefix pra in
Prahlāda as a derivation from the verbal root √pṛ (MW, s.v. 1).
Indeed one of the meanings of pṛ given there is “to be able …
to get over, overcome, bring to an end … to resist, withstand, be a match for
(acc.) … to be capable of or able to (with an inf. which
after pāryate has a pass. sense” (MW). In conclusion,
Zorin’s statement above that “Thub rgyal nag po … can hardly be equivalent to
the Indian name of Hiraṇyakaśipuʼs son, Prahlāda” should be corrected partly
and Tibetan translators did translate Prahlāda as Thub dga’ (but not as Thub
rgyal).
