👻 Bāhyānumeyavāda?

Are Bāhyānumeyavāda and Bāhyapratyakṣavāda Ghost Words?

🤔 Mahāpūrṇa?

So long as we have no independent sources (in Sanskrit) that confirm the occurrence of the Indian or Indic term for rdzogs pa chen po (or rdzogs chen), any explanation, speculation, or reconstruction of the Sanskrit word of it is bound to be doubtful. One possibility is that there was no Indian/Indic word for rdzogs chen (as opponents of rDzogs-chen would maintain). The rDzogs-chen proponents have suggested words such as mahāsaṃdhi. These seem hardly plausible. Also the idea that it could have been mahāsamādhi sounds equally unconvincing. Rong-zom-pa, without insisting that there was a Sanskrit word behind the Tibetan word, explained rdzogs pa chen po as rdzogs rim chen po. The existence of Sanskrit words for rdzogs rim or rdzogs pa’i rim pa is not an issue. Sanskritists would tell us that it is either utpannakrama or niṣpannakrama. But perhaps words such as *mahotpannakrama are not attested. Or are they? Although I know that it is not going to bring us any further, I would like to speculate further. (a) The word mahāsamāpta is attested as the name of a high number but the word *mahāsamāpti does not seem to be attested. Actually I would like to think that *mahāsamāpti would be the closest word to rdzogs pa chen po that we can think of. Take particularly note samāpti (sam+āpti), which is said to mean “complete acquisition (as of knowledge or learning),” “accomplishment, completion, perfection, conclusion, solution (of the body).” Or perhaps mahāsamāti (i.e. mahā+asamāti)?

In the mean time, I realize that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (Skt. p. 5.5; Tib. Y, p. 6.17) does incidentally contain the name rDzogs chen or rDzogs chen po (Ejima 1998: p. 224) and the Sanskrit is given as Mahāpūrṇa. Unfortunately, it is not the name of teaching or teaching system but rather “n. of a garuḍa prince: SP 5.5” (BHSD). I have already created an entry for Mahāpūrṇa in the Indo-Tibetan Lexical Resource (https://www.itlr.net) but is not yet published.

🤔 Amṛtanandākara?

Tibetan sources (such as the Co ne bstan dkar, p. 151.15–16) mention a certain Paṇḍi-ta bDud-rtsi-dga’-ba’i-’byung-gnas, which I would reconstruct as Amṛtanandākara* or Amṛtānandākara* (cf. Almogi 2009: 126). He is supposed to be from Bengal (Za-hor). Is such a paṇḍita known among the modern (Eastern and Western) paṇḍitas?

⚠️ Prahlāda

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).