Numbers 5 and 6 are the subscribed forms of the letters ‘y’ ( ྱ ) and ‘r’ ( ྲ ).
Number 7, the tseg, or tsheg, is the dot that divides one syllable from the next ( ་ ), while number 8 is the vertical line ( ། ) that follows sentences or clauses, or individual items in a series.
Number 9 must be an abbreviated form of thig-le, meaning (in the context of the writing system) the small circle or dot placed above the letter ( ༚ ) to represent a subsequent nasal, called anusvāra in Sanskrit.
Number 10 must be a mistake for thig-’dzer, which must represent the Sanskrit visarga, which follows vowels (generally but not always at the ends of words) and is represented by two small circles or dots, one above the other ( ཿ ). Numbers 9 and 10 are not necessary in the Tibetan writing system (even if the anusvāra may be used for abbreviations) except when transcribing words from Indian languages. In
p. 102
any case, 5 through 7 are peculiar to the Tibetan writing system.[xxxiii] Thus it would seem to be sufficiently settled that this passage was written by a Tibetan, and could not be a translation. Or perhaps it could have been a translation. It has sometimes been said that one characteristic of the (pre-Later Spread) old translations, is that they were better at delivering the message to Tibetans than the new translations which kept a slavish adherence to the texts and conventional (one might say ‘automatic’) renderings for terms, characteristics that have much endeared them to the hearts of Indologists. As Zhe-chen Rgyal-tshab wrote, reflecting in part the words of Rog Bande Shes-rab-’od which we translate later on, but commenting on a formulation of the eleventh century Rong-zom-pa Chos-kyi-bzang-po, ‘The Six Superiorities of the Old Translations’, this one being the superiority of the old translators:
These scriptures were translated by the old translators Vairocana, Ska, Cog and Zhang, as well as Rma, Gnyags and Gnubs, etc. They are quite unlike the translations of those who now call themselves ‘translators’ after they have acquainted themselves with a few parts of the glossaries (brda-sprod), spending their summers in Mang-yul and their winters in the Nepal valley.[xxxiv]
and:
p. 103
Since the translators of the past were Emanation Bodies, they set down [their translations] according to the meaning. Hence [their translations] are easy to understand and achieve great power in their use of the etymological strata.[xxxv] Later translators were incapable of translating according to the meaning, so they translated word for word in [the original] order of the Indian text, making them literal (tshig grim) and difficult to understand. In their use of the etymological strata there is little power.[xxxvi]
My purpose in making these citations is partly to show that there are two sides to the argument that the New or Old Translations are more ‘true’ to the Indian texts, depending on whether we find ‘truth’ in glossaries or in the communicative power of real language usage. Many scholars of both Tibet and contemporary cosmopolitan academia have preferred adherence to the ‘literal’, the more slavish for that reason all the more ‘defensible’. Not everyone did or does agree with this. Another purpose more closely relevant to the present context is to show that there are grounds for an argument that the earlier translators were more interested in delivering the message of the texts (whatever the language from which they were translated) to Tibetans than in ‘scientific’ translation. Therefore we
p. 104
cannot necessarily assume that the presence of Tibetan metaphors and cultural items in these translations is a sure sign of their composition in Tibet. It may be a sure sign of the translator’s desire to communicate the meaning of the text to a Tibetan audience, and one way to facilitate communication might be to substitute things specific to Indian culture with analogous items in Tibetan culture.[xxxvii] To give just one example, before moving on to another subject, the old translations (both Rnying-ma and Bon) frequently employ the term la zlo-ba (usually appearing in the past form la bzla-ba; Bon texts also employ the synonym la dor-ba) which means literally ‘passing over the pass’. The new translation equivalent is thag gcod-pa, literally, ‘cutting the rope’. Both appear to be perfectly valid metaphorical expressions for translating Sanskrit niyama, in its possible meanings of ‘decisive’ or ‘definitive’.[xxxviii] The old translation in this case certainly would have the greater metaphorical immediacy for inhabitants of the Tibetan plateau, but its use in a text is no proof that it was written by a Tibetan. * * *
With the second group of texts we are in a little better position simply because they are of a manageable length and parallels could therefore be traced more easily. The similarities between the Chos and Bon texts begin with the title. The text of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti (’Jam‑dpal‑gyi Mtshan Yang‑dag‑par Brjod‑pa) has been edited in Tibetan as
p. 105
well as Sanskrit several times and has been twice translated into English.[xxxix] The Bon text seems to have never been noticed, and therefore requires some comment. It is one of the twenty‑two or twenty-three texts collected together in the Twenty‑one Minor Mdo[xl] anthology which was among the gter‑mas collectively called Shel‑brag‑ma made by Gnyan‑ston Shes‑rab‑rdo‑rje (=Shes‑rab‑seng‑ge)[xli] in 1067, according to one chronology.[xlii] The title of the Bon text is given both in Tibetan as Gshen‑lha-’od‑dkar‑gyi Mtshan Yang‑dag‑par Brjod‑pa, and in Ka‑pi‑ta[xliii] language as Du par ta cu ya na ti. The title alone already presents us with a problem. According to the Dgongs‑gcig anti-Bon polemic (discussed and translated below), Gshen‑lha‑’od‑dkar is the Bon counterpart of Vairocana, while it is usual to identify ’Jam‑dpal (Mañjuśrī) with the Bon lha Smra‑ba’i‑seng‑ge.[xliv] Thus we might be led to search for a *“Vairocananāmasaṅgīti,” although so far as I know, no such text exists.
p. 106
We might also wonder why a ‘tantric’ work should be classified as a mdo (“sūtra”), but this is not truly a problem since all the mdo of the Bon canon contain tantric elements on the one hand, and on the other, the text of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti never directly refers to itself as a tantra, although the colophon says it is an extract from one (a Rgyud‑chen Sgyu‑’phrul Dra‑ba, which no longer exists in its full form). Some Old Tibetan tantras, such as the Kun‑byed Rgyal‑po, as well as the Mahāvairocana Sūtra (also accepted by the New Tantra schools) do use the word Mdo, or Sūtra in their titles, even though they are indisputably tantric or ‘supra‑tantric’ (in the case of the Kun‑byed) scriptures.
I was able to trace several short parallel passages, the longest one in seven lines. For the seven line passage, which extols the transcendent qualities of the “unarticulated letter ‘A’,” I am able to supply three distinct versions[xlv] in Tibetan:
p. 107
rdzogs‑pa’i sangs‑rgyas a yig byung//
a yig yig ’bru kun‑gyi mchog/
don chen ’gyur‑med dam‑pa yin//
srog chen‑po‑ste skye‑ba med//
tshig‑tu brjod‑pa spangs‑pa‑ste//
rjod‑pa kun‑gyi rgyu‑yi mchog/
tshig kun rab‑tu gsal‑bar byed//
rdzogs‑pa’i sangs‑rgyas a las byung//
ā yig yig ’bru kun‑gyi mchog//
don chen yi‑ge dam‑pa yin//
khong nas ’byung‑ba skye‑ba med//
tshig‑tu brjod‑pa spangs‑pa‑ste//
brjod‑pa kun‑gyi rgyu‑yi mchog/
tshig kun rab‑tu gsal‑bar byed//
ma‑skyes sku‑ru thams‑cad bsdus//
a’i khyad‑par skye‑ba med//
tshig‑tu brjod‑pa spangs‑pa‑ste//
thams‑cad brjod‑med tshig‑med‑du//
ma‑skyes khong nas a byung‑bar//[xlvi] rdzogs sangs‑rgyas‑par kun‑rig‑du//
lha‑rnams thams‑cad phyag bgyid‑do//
Among the significant features to be noted is the one line identical in all three (tshig‑tu brjod‑pa spangs‑pa‑ste). The Bon and Old Translation versions both read khong nas ’byung‑ba (but with a significant syntactical difference) for the New Translation’s srog chen‑po‑ste. It has, I think wrongly, been inferred that the latter is the ‘correct’ rendition of
p. 108
Rin‑chen‑bzang‑po, while the former is a still later revision.[xlvii] The New Translation has ’gyur‑med for the Old Translation’s yi‑ge, which is quite understandable, since either may translate Sanskrit akṣara.[xlviii]It should be stressed that such parallels between Chos and Bon texts are not readily found. I performed computer word searches in order to compare the previously mentioned Bon sūtra, the Gser‑’od Nor‑bu ’Od‑’bar with the Gser‑’od Dam‑pa (Suvarṇaprabhāsa) and did not find a single significant match. More preliminary textual studies comparing the Bon tantra, the Gsang‑ba Bsen‑thub with the Gsang‑ba ’Dus‑pa (Guhyasamāja) and also with the Gsang‑ba Snying‑po (Guhyagarbha) Tantra were done in vain, and the same for comparisons of the Bon ‘vinaya’ texts, the ’Dul‑ba Rgyud Drug, with the text of the Vinaya Sūtra. Yet textual correspondences between Bon and Chos scriptures do exist, and these will be of considerable importance for future textual studies of Buddhist scriptures (when such studies escape their present Indocentrism).
To date, the most significant Bon‑Chos textual comparison is that of Karmay, who showed, in his monumental historical study of Rdzogs‑chen texts, that one text, the Gser‑gyi Rus‑sbal, exists in both Bon and Rnying‑ma versions, demonstrating by both historical and text critical means the priority of the Bon version. This transformation of the Bon text into a Chos text was accomplished by the simple process of substituting chos for bon and changing proper names and terms which have Bon associations into Chos names and terms. As he shows, the presence of an unaltered ‘residue’ of Bon text titles leaves no doubt about the direction of the
p. 109
transformation. So far as I know, the Gser‑gyi Rus‑sbal is the only example of an entire text that has been demonstrated to have been ‘processed’ in this manner. Karmay then showed that four lines of the Gser‑gyi Rus‑sbal were ‘lifted’ from the Sbas‑pa’i Rgum Chung, a Tun‑huang text closely associated with Rnying‑ma tradition.[xlix] Given this sort of evidence, however limited, although we are not permitted to make generalizations in face of the extremely vast amount of textual material and unsolved historical problems, we are in no position to support the idea of some of the critics of Bon, to whom we will turn in a short while, that the Bon scriptures are simply fabrications (or ‘transformations’, bsgyur) made on the basis of Chos scriptures. So far, the evidence from close textual studies has shown the ‘transformations’ or ‘plagiarism’ (with one just‑mentioned exception) going in the other direction, from Bon to Chos. If this is any indication, the source of Bon textual transmissions must be located elsewhere. I would like to bring this discussion to an end by underlining the often ambivalent use, in these contexts, of the Tibetan word bsgyur, which may mean both ‘transformation’ and ‘translation’.
[i]SNELLGROVE, Nine Ways. KVAERNE, ‘Aspects’.
[ii]SNELLGROVE, Indo-Tibetan.
[iii]It seems beyond dispute that the Shes‑rab‑kyi Pha‑rol‑tu Phyin‑pa texts, as found in the Tibetan Kanjur, very closely correspond to the available Sanskrit versions of the Prajñāpāramitā texts.
[iv]For those who might doubt the importance of these texts in Old Tibetan Buddhism, one may point to two Tibetan texts on the same piece of paper from the Tun‑huang collections, reproduced and transcribed/edited in SANGPO, Bod‑kyi Rgyal‑rabs, pp. 537-541. The first text (the first part is missing) is closely related to the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti, of which it appears to be an extract, rather than a translation, although we should not be too eager to make such assumptions before better knowing the history of the text. The second text is that dealt with in RICHARDSON, ‘The Dharma that Came Down’, where there is specific mention of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings which the Emperors Srong‑brtsan‑sgam‑po and Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan studied, accepted and made resolutions about (thugs‑dam bzhes), while pillar inscriptions were made (to the same effect). This same text makes reference to tantra (Rdo‑rje Theg). Richardson calls it “an eighth-century document.” See also STEIN, ‘Tibetica Antiqua IV’, pp. 173-183. It is also not completely irrelevant to note that the Prajñāpāramitā and Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti are the two scriptures singled out for the more elaborate and lavish productions of the book making arts in Tibet and elsewhere. In Sher‑’byung’s guide to the funerary chorten of ’Jig‑rten‑mgon‑po, to give just one historical example, is mention of a manuscript from Khitan (Khyi‑than) in gold letters with crystal binding-boards (’JIG‑RTEN‑MGON‑PO, Works, vol. 4, p. 83.1). ’Jig‑rten‑mgon‑po himself made a manuscript of the Hundred Thousand in gold letters on blue-grounded paper (mthing shog, ibid., vol. 3, p. 202.3).
[v]For some work of Conze’s successors and colleagues conveniently gathered into one volume, see LANCASTER, Prajñāpāramitā. It is rather remarkable that this large volume of studies, fully entitled, Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems, should have nothing to say about the Khams Brgyad literature, which is certainly a closely related system. One aim of the present discussion is to argue against this silence of the scholars, this docta ignorantia which considers the Bon texts unworthy of their interest.
[vi]See my unpublished paper, MARTIN, ‘Pearls from Bones’. THONDUP, Hidden Teachings, pp. 59-60, uses the Hundred Thousand Prajñāpāramitā itself as an example of a gter‑ma text.
[vii]A Hundred Thousand text was placed together with bodily relics in the funerary mchod‑rten of ’Jig‑rten‑mgon‑po (as noted below).
[viii]My primary source for the details in this paragraph is LOCKE, Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal, pp. 404 ff.
[ix]See NAS‑LUNG, Bal‑yul Mchod‑rten, folio 4r, line 2: “The Mother (Prajñāpāramitā) in sixteen volumes which was brought by Nāgārjuna from nāga land, written on lapis lazuli paper with gold from the stream of Jambu (’Dzam‑bu), is at Tham Bahil (Thang Bai‑dha‑ri).” The Khams‑sprul Rinpoche Bstan‑’dzin‑chos‑kyi‑snang‑ba (BAL‑YUL MCHOD‑RTEN RNAM GSUM, p. 200.1) did not agree. I had the opportunity to view a page from this manuscript during the annual display of relics in 1988.
[x]In the Dharmodgata chapter of the Eight Thousand Prājñāpāramitā, it is said that the Bodhisattva Dharmodgata placed the Prājñā Sūtra volume, written in liquid lapis lazuli on gold, in four jewelled boxes inside a ‘mansion’ (kūtāgāra) and sealed it with seven seals. Some Tibetan writers believe that this is the earliest example of a scripture used as an object of worship (i.e., the earliest ‘Speech receptacle’, or gsung rten).
[xi]See DPA’‑BO, Mkhas‑pa’i Dga’‑ston (1986), vol. 1, p. 431, where it is said that when middle-aged persons died they would read the Hundred Thousand, when young people died they read the Twenty‑five Thousand, and the Eight Thousand when children died.
[xii]For another version of the following information, see CRYSTAL MIRROR, vol. 5, pp. 157-158. The parenthetical material in the following translation is by the author Rong‑ston, or indicates Tibetan words or forms used by him. Material in square brackets has been added by myself for clarification.
[xiii]SANGPO, Bod‑kyi Rgyal‑rabs (p. 487), cites a Sher Phyin commentary by Tsong‑kha‑pa who in turn cites the no longer extant scripture catalog of ’Phang‑thang to the effect that an extensive commentary on the Hundred Thousand was “written by the King,” meaning Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan. [See also CONZE, Prajñāpāramitā, p. 34.] This deserves more investigation since, if proved authentic, it would demonstrate a considerable interest in religion on the part of the Emperor, even if the commentary was ‘ghosted’. Some of the Emperor’s other works are listed in SANGPO (op. cit.). It seems hardly credible that the Emperor actually composed such a necessarily lengthy work by his own hand. More likely he would have served as director or encourager in its production. The Phang‑thang catalog was a listing of the scriptures and commentaries in the library of the pillarless temple (ka med‑kyi gtsug‑lag‑khang) with the numbers of verses and volumes in each text (see SANGPO, pp. 519-520). For more Tun‑huang documentary evidence for the importance of Chos, or Buddhism (nang‑gi Chos, Sangs‑rgyas‑kyi Chos) in the time of Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan, see SANGPO (p. 437). The Phang‑thang ‘Mansion’ (Khang‑mo‑che) was located in the Yarlung Valley (SANGPO, p. 425). Since it is said that the palace of ’Phang‑thang was swept away in a flood in the time of Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan (as stated in ’GOS, Deb‑ther Sngon‑po, pp. 68-9), then the catalog must date from his time (although it could have been rebuilt). It is said that the ’Phang‑thang catalog was compiled in the time of Sad‑na‑legs, and that a third catalog, that of Mchims‑phu library, once existed (see CRYSTAL MIRROR, vol. 7, p. 321).
The Rgya‑cher Bshad‑pa commentary attributed to Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan would seem to be the one now included in the Tanjur as the work of Daṃṣṭasena (CONZE, Prajñāpāramitā, p. 33). A commentary on the Hundred Thousand is mentioned, along with the Bka’ Yang‑dag‑pa’i Tshad‑ma (on which see STEIN, ‘Un mention’), as written by the king based on instructions from Śāntarakṣita (see GU‑RU BKRA‑SHIS, Bstan‑pa’i Snying‑po, vol. 1, p. 444.2 and YAR‑LUNG JO‑BO, Chos‑’byung, p. 62). DPA’‑BO, Mkhas‑pa’i Dga’‑ston [1986], p. 401, says,
Although the catalog ’Phang‑thang‑ma speaks of a great commentary on the Hundred Thousand Mother in seventy‑eight fascicles as being made by Khri‑srong, since Allknowing Bu[‑ston] tells us that the catalogues Mchims‑phu‑ma and Ldan‑dkar‑ma both describe it as an Indian text, it is the Hundred Thousand commentary by Daṃṣṭasena [that is being referred to].
[xiv]This Khams‑pa Go‑cha is also important in the story of the first transmission of the ’Bum into Tibet as told in O‑RGYAN‑GLING‑PA, Bka’‑thang Sde Lnga, pp. 752‑754 (chapter 15 of the “Lo Paṇ Bka’i Thang‑yig”). He is listed among the first thirteen Tibetan Buddhist monks in LDE’U, Chos‑’byung, p. 358.
[xv]Ra Gzigs Dmar‑po. I read ‘Gzi’ for ‘Gzigs’, which might be translated ‘Red Splendid Goat’. The thirteenth century history by LDE’U (Chos‑’byung, p. 362) also tells the story of Ra Gzigs Dmar‑po, but places it, interestingly enough, in the reign of the later Emperor Ral‑pa‑can. A modern account (’BROG‑MI, “Gzhung‑chen Bka’ Pod”, p. 103) tells that the ink for this manuscript, called Reg‑zig Dmar‑po, was made from Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan’s ‘vermillion blood’ (mtshal) and the milk of a white goat. Reg‑zig is an Old Tibetan word for zin‑bris, ‘summary’ or ‘abridged presentation’ (See BLANG, p. 301.3). Thus it seems that the “Ra Gzigs” represents a later attempt to etymologize an obsolete term, and I have chosen my translation accordingly. The reading Reg‑zig is also found in ZHU‑CHEN, Chos‑’byung, p. 103.2; and KONG‑SPRUL, Shes‑bya Kun Khyab, vol. 1, p. 450.
[xvi]According to ’BROG‑MI, “Gzhung‑chen Pod Lnga” (p. 104), the ink for this manuscript was made from the Emperor’s ‘burnt hair indigo’ mixed with the milk of a white goat. (KONG‑SPRUL, Shes‑bya Kun Khyab, vol. 1, p. 450, agrees.)
[xvii]The text has Lcags Thur‑can. It may be that this bears some relation to the word khyung‑thur‑can, used in literary contexts to refer to armor or helmet. (CHANG, Dictionary, p. 266.) The word thur‑ma may mean ‘peg, rod, awl, spoon’ (among other meanings; ibid., p. 1177). We find mentioned a Lcags Phur‑can handed on to a younger son while the elder son received the abbacy of Smra‑bo‑lcog (an early Nyingma monastery belonging to the descendents of Nyang‑ral Nyi‑ma‑’od‑zer) from their father, Gsang‑bdag Bdud‑’dul. Nothing in the context tells us that Lcags Phur‑can is the name of a Sher Phyin manuscript, although I am at a loss to explain it otherwise. See GU‑RU BKRA‑SHIS, Bstan‑pa’i Snying‑po, vol. 3, p. 409.4.
[xviii]Thugs‑dam is a multi‑purpose high honorific word which covers all sorts of high intentions, resolutions and aspirations. One of Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan’s ‘resolutions’ was to build Samye. The word is also used in the Old Tibetan text cited in the preceding note number 4. SOG‑BZLOG‑PA, Bka’‑thang Yid‑kyi Mun Sel, p. 88.3, is a bit confusing, but he seems to call the twelve volume (poṭhi) version translated by Vairocana the Rgyal‑po’i Bla ’Bum Sha‑sgro‑can (compare the name of the version made under Ral‑pa‑can, according to Rong‑ston). ’BROG‑MI, “Gzhung‑chen Bka’ Pod” (p. 104) agrees, saying that this manuscript translation, which exists at Mchims‑phu, was known as Sha‑sgro‑can, i.e., the name of the manuscript that Rong‑ston attributes to the time of Ral‑pa‑can. KONG‑SPRUL, Shes‑bya Kun Khyab, vol. 1, p. 451, also calls the manuscript translation made by Vairocana the ’Bum Sha‑sgro‑can, but adds that it exists “even now” (i.e., about 1864) at Mchims‑phu.
[xix]According to ’BROG‑MI, ibid., p. 104, this translation was in sixteen parts.
[xx]’BROG‑MI, ibid., p. 105, says that Rngog Lo Blo‑ldan‑shes‑rab based his revision on a [Sanskrit] text found at Pham‑thing (modern Pharping?) in Nepal.
[xxi]Text in RONG‑STON, Shes‑rab‑kyi, pp. 5.1 ff. Check for comparison also MKHYEN‑RAB‑RGYA‑MTSHO, History [A], p. 194.2 ff, for history of Prajñāpāramitā translations. DZA-YA, Thob-yig, vol. 4, pp. 404 ff. are also of interest.
[xxii]Note the statement to this effect in RONG‑STON, Shes‑rab‑kyi, p. 9.4.
[xxiii]RONG‑STON, Shes‑rab‑kyi, p. 8.6. The imperial period temple at Khra‑’brug was a common site for textual excavations.
[xxiv]For example, in the funerary chorten of ’Jig‑rten‑mgon‑po (as mentioned in a previous note), a Hundred Thousand text, along with Vinaya texts which Atiśa had brought from India, and many relics, among them ’Jig‑rten‑mgon‑po’s own skull and brain (see KÖNCHOG GYALTSEN, Prayer Flags, p. 43) were enclosed. We might note also that most guides to the sacred objects at Samye Monastery mention the existence of Hundred Thousand manuscripts from the imperial period at the Aryapalo Ling Temple.
[xxv]It may be relevant here to bring forward the testimony of the Sba‑bzhed (STEIN, Chronique, p. 73), Nyang‑ral Nyi‑ma‑’od‑zer (MEISEZAHL, Grosse Geschichte, folio 453 verso) and Dpa‑bo II Gtsug‑lag‑phreng‑ba (DPA’‑BO, Mkhas‑pa’i Dga’‑ston [1986], vol. 1, p. 416). These tell of a proclamation by Emperor Ral‑pa‑can that all the Buddhist books should henceforth be translated from Indian language since the Buddha lived and taught in India, that in previous generations Buddhist books had been translated from other languages. According to the first and second named sources, these languages were those of China, India, Nepal and Orgyan. According to the third source, the languages were those of “China, Khotan (Li), Magadhā (Yul Dbus), Za‑hor, Kashmir (Kha‑che) and so forth.” The Bon traditions’ own accounts of the history of their scriptures have them undergoing triple or even quadruple translations between the language of origin and the present Tibetan versions. The triply translated (sum ’gyur) texts generally went from Tazig to Zhang‑zhung to Tibetan, while the quadruply translated texts generally went from ‘divine language’ (lha’i skad) to Sanskrit to Tazig to Zhang‑zhung to Tibetan (see, for examples, THREE SOURCES, p. 106; DPAL‑TSHUL, G.yung‑drung Bon‑gyi, vol. 1, p. 286; MARTIN, ‘Human Body’, p. 11).
[xxvi]In the twelfth century, the Nyingma gter‑ston Nyang‑ral Nyi‑ma‑’od‑zer excavated Prajñāpāramitā commentaries at Mchims‑phu (retreat place near Samye). See GU‑RU BKRA‑SHIS, Bstan‑pa’i Snying‑po, vol. 2, p. 495.5. In the sixteenth (?) century, Bde‑chen‑gling‑pa excavated an Indian text (Rgya dpe) of the Hundred Thousand (ibid., vol. 2, p. 692.6), while the fourteenth century gter‑ston Dri‑med‑lhun‑po excavated a manuscript written with the ‘nasal vermillion’ (shangs mtshal, i.e., nasal blood) of Padmasambhava, Khri‑srong‑lde‑brtsan, and Śāntarakṣita called the ’Bum Dmar‑ma (ibid., vol. 2, p. 748.6).
[xxvii]This and the following references are to volume four of KHAMS ’BRING.
[xxviii]The numbers are added by myself. The Tibetan text which follows each of the translated items is based on the first listing, with alternative readings, enclosed within [ ], and insertions, enclosed within / /, from the second list. A somewhat varying list may be found in a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century Bon work by one Nam‑mkha’‑dpal found in BONPO GRUB‑MTHA’ MATERIALS, pp. 24.4‑27.1, and the sources for this list are given as the Khams Brgyad and the Bdal ’Bum.
[xxix]Conze supplies a translation of the list from the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā in his work (CONZE, Large Sutra, p. 583-585) as well as the list from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā (ibid., p. 657 ff.). My numbers follow the latter list, although both lists are identical in content, and in an almost identical order. For the corresponding Tibetan texts, I have used TOG PALACE, vol. 47, pp. 404-405; and vol. 44, pp. 404-405 (it is a coincidence that the page numbers are identical!). Computer word searches were done on the Tibetan text passages, resulting in the chart of correspondences which appears below.
[xxx]But note that some of the approximately dozen items which do not occur in the Prajñāpāramitā lists of the thirty-two signs do occur in their lists of eighty subsidiary signs.
[xxxi]Although fairly inconsequential for the present arguments, we must remark about an extremely close parallel to the 32 signs of Lord Shenrab in the 32 signs of Padmasambhava in chapter 100 of the famous biography of Padmasambhava (O‑RGYAN‑GLING‑PA, Padma Bka’i Thang‑yig, pp. 519‑520; English translation in Life and Liberation, vol. 2, pp. 670-671). There Padmasambhava is praised as a ‘Second Buddha’ by his wife Mandāravā, with an enumeration of his bodily signs. These correspond almost entirely in their order and content (although not usually with the exact same wording) to the Bon list. It does seem significant that no. 28 of the Bon list is simply omitted, since the gshang bell is rather closely associated with Bon. This does appear to indicate that, if the two lists did not actually stem from a single prototype, the Rnying‑ma list must have simply been copied, with very minor changes, from the Bon list. It has already been demonstrated that large parts of another gter‑ma of O‑rgyan‑gling‑pa, the Bka’‑thang Sde Lnga, are based on Bon sources (see BLONDEAU, ‘Lha‑’dre Bka’‑thang’, pp. 45-47; KVAERNE, ‘Preliminary Study’). For the contrary view, that the Bon textual parallels were based on the Bka’‑thang Sde Lnga, see HOFFMANN, Handbook, pp. 220-221.
[xxxii]KHAMS ’BRING, vol. 4, p. 323.8.
[xxxiii]There is, actually, an analogous concept in Indian theories about the ‘generation’ of the thirty-two signs and eighty subsidiary signs from the sixteen vowels and thirty-four consonants. See WAYMAN, ‘Thirty-two Characteristics’, p. 259-260. The reader is referred to this article for more information and bibliographical citations relating to the subject of the thirty-two signs.
[xxxiv]ZHE‑CHEN, Chos‑’byung, p. 152.2. Part of the implication is that they were ‘fair weather’ translators. See ibid., p. 132.6, where the words of Rog Bande Shes‑rab‑’od are directly cited.
[xxxv]I have used the translation ‘etymological strata’ for byings, corresponding to one aspect of the multivalent Sanskrit word dhātu, which may mean the ‘roots’ from which words derive. The Tibetan word refers to the basic factors (of all types) that lie behind the form as well as the meaning of a particular word. To give a ‘meaning translation’ of this statement, the old translators are being praised for the ‘pregnant’ use of words in their translations.
[xxxvi]ZHE‑CHEN, Chos‑’byung, p. 153.3 (this history contains a fairly long discussion of the problems of translation starting at about p. 135, to which the interested reader is referred). For a parallel passage, see the Rgyud‑’bum Rtogs‑brjod (1797) of Dge‑rtse Paṇḍi‑ta in RNYING‑MA RGYUD‑’BUM (1973), vol. 36, p. 314.1.
[xxxvii]Similar cultural ‘linkages’ continue to be made wherever one culture seeks to familiarize itself with another.
[xxxix]CHANDRA, Kālacakra Tantra; WAYMAN, Chanting, DAVIDSON, ‘Litany’ (the last two including English translations). For a listing (with locations) of the four different translations into Chinese, see NAKAMURA, Indian Buddhism, p. 326, note 56.
[xl]These are called Mdo Phran Nyi‑shu‑rtsa‑gcig‑pa (see bibliography under MDO PHRAN). Some sources for the history of this anthology may be found in SFHB, pp. 680.3-.5, 738.5, 750.4. See also KARMAY, Treasury, p. 313.34. Their titles are listed also in KUN‑GROL‑GRAGS‑PA, Zab dang Rgya‑che, folio 79v.3 ff., but the title of the work now discussed is not mentioned among them.
[xli]Sometimes called Gnyan‑mthing, or Gnyan‑’theng Re‑ngan, etc. See KARMAY, Treasury, pp. 153-154.
[xlii]KVAERNE, ‘Chronological’, p. 230, no. 82.
[xliii]A language spoken in Kapīśa in what is now eastern Afghanistan, presumably. See HOFFMANN, Quellen, p. 222.
[xliv]Smra‑ba’i‑seng‑ge, ‘Lion of Speech’ is also an epithet of ’Jam‑dpal in Chos tradition. In Bon works this is often contracted to Smra‑seng.
[xlv]At least three Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti texts were preserved at Tun‑huang. See Poussin, Tibetan Manuscripts, no. 112 (pt. 2), no. 381, and no. 382. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to obtain copies of these texts.
[xlvi]Compare the statement in the Gsang‑ba Bsen‑thub (RTSA‑RGYUD CHEN‑PO GSANG‑BA BSEN‑THUB, vol. 1, p. 129.5), a ni skye med khong nas ’byung (The ‘A’ is unarticulated, emerging from [deep] inside).
[xlvii]See WAYMAN, ‘Tibetan Translation’, p. 295.
[xlviii]See WAYMAN, ‘Review’ of Hopkins, and HOPKINS, ‘Reply’.
[xlix]KARMAY, Great Perfection, pp. 219-223.
§§§ §§§ §§§
Postscript (2010 CE):
A lot could be done to bring this up to date, but first on my to do list would be to add in some considerations about the bodily marks of Laozi (or Lao-tzu if you prefer the old spelling as much as I do). Everything I know on this subject I learned from Livia Kohn’s article “The Looks of Laozi,” Asian Folklore Studies, vol. 55 (1996), pp. 193-236. Due to the blessings of open access you can go directly to its PDF incarnation here. I did already pursue the subject of the bodily marks of the Buddha (of both Lord Shenrab and Śākyamuni) being generated through alphabetic memory tools (dhāraṇī) simultaneous with scriptural texts in an article entitled “Devotional, Covenantal and Yogic: Three Episodes in the Religious Use of Alphabet and Letter from a Millennium of Great Vehicle Buddhism,” contained in: Sergio La Porta and David Shulman, eds., The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign, Brill (Leiden 2007), pp. 201-229. You may be able to get a peek at it at Googlebooks for free, here.
The ’Phang-thang-ma scripture catalog mentioned in note xiii, has meanwhile surfaced. See Georgios T. Halkias, “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of 'Phang thang,” The Eastern Buddhist, new series vol. 36, nos. 1-2 (2004), pp. 46-105.
There has been some work and progress in recent years on the textual comparison of Tibetan Buddhist with Tibetan Bon scriptures. Michael L. Walter has published a study closely comparing the above-mentioned Bon scripture Gser‑’od Nor‑bu ’Od‑’bar with the Gser‑’od Dam‑pa (Suvarṇaprabhāsa) — “Prolegomenon to a Study of the Gser-’od Nor-bu ’Od-’bar-gyi Mdo,” contained in: Per Kværne, ed., Tibetan Studies, The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture (Oslo 1994), pp. 930-938. Just to give one more good example, this time on a tantra text: Jean-Luc Achard’s Le Tantra des Vingt-Deux Perles de l’Esprit de Parfaite Pureté: un exemple d’intertextualité entre les traditions Bon po et rNying ma pa, Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie (Winter 2006), pp. 57-104. Before too long this ought to be made available here. I also published a comparison of the main Abhidharma-type science text of Bon, the Mdzod-phugs, with the Tibetan translations of the Abhidharmakośa, an article easily available directly online in PDF here, although I don't necessarily recommend it to anyone. Do I even need to repeat those words, Much remains to be done?