👻 dhāraṇīpiṭaka

I contend that dhāraṇīpiṭaka is a ghost Sanskrit word. The term vidyādharapiṭaka, however, is well-attested. We shall have to trace the term mantrapiṭaka (gsang sngags kyi sde snod) in Sanskrit sources.

🤔 ādibhava/ādibhūta?

One of the aims of those of us behind the Indo-Tibetan Lexical Resource (ITLR) [https://www.itlr.net and then go to “Viewer (Beta Version)”] is to constantly maximize the accuracy and reliability of the entries. Ideally the entry must be attested in classical Indic (mainly Sanskrit) sources where it is actually used in specific contexts and not simply listed in lexicographic sources without any context. But often we struggle when we encounter Tibetan translation of certain Indic word or name for which we have no idea what could have been the word or name in Sanskrit. Does anyone happen to know what would be the Sanskrit name for “Ye-srid-pa” (found in the Tibetan translation of Śāntarakṣita’s Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛti and Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā)? Contextually, the view of “Ye-srid-pa” should be a Śaiva view. Ichigo 1985 offers no suggestion. I am clueless!  One FB friend (Sabera Sherpa) suggests ādhibhava. The word as such is attested but we need a source which confirms our required context. We also find Ādibhavānī and she is supposed to be “the Śakti of Parama-puruṣa” (MW, s.v.). If the consort of Paramapuruṣa (i.e. Īśvara) is called Ādibhavānī, could Paramapuruṣa be referred to as Ādibhava somewhere? If this were the case, indeed Sabera Sherpa’s suggestion would seem plausible. But I cannot find any source that confirms this speculation. Or what about ādibhūta (“primordial element”)? If someone comes up with a convincing Sanskrit source that would fit the above context of the Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛti and Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā), we would gratefully put it in the Indo-Tibetan Lexical Resource (ITLR) and offer due credit for the contribution.

⚠️ trisvabhāva

The situation of trisvabhāva is a bit tricky. I was told (by Schmithausen) that the term trisvabhāva does not occur (or perhaps hardly occurs) by itself but only as a part of a larger compound. Should we consider such words “ghost words”? In order to avoid risk using unattested words, one may perhaps avoid using trisvabhāva and instead use “three svabhāvas.”

👻 Bāhyānumeyavāda?

Are Bāhyānumeyavāda and Bāhyapratyakṣavāda Ghost Words?