ཕ་, 8. ‘Father.’ It is not clear why in the same line the same person is referred to by the ordinary ཕ་ and then by the honorific ཡབ་, unless ཡབ་ is a standard expression which cannot be changed whilst the first ཕ་ is used for the sake of variety in expression.
The same double use of the honorific and ordinary terms for father occurs in Laufer’s ‘Ein Sühngedicht der Bonpo’, line 41.
ཕྱོགས་, 5. In expressions like ལྡིང་ the བའི་ is explained as equivalent to སའི་, ‘of the place where.’ So the phrase མི་ should be understood as ‘towards where the man has gone, to the place where the man has gone,’ འགྲོ་. [[58]]
ཕྱོགས་, 14. Here verb, infinitive, connected with Gendundub in instrumental (agentive) or genitival relation: to turn, move towards, to tend to.
ཕྱོགས་, 46. Lit. ‘to fall aside,’ but here, as applied to the mind (ཡིད་), simply to be deflected, to go astray, to fall, sin (mentally), to deviate from the right path (religion, the right), to lapse (from virtue), etc.
འཕུང་, 29. ‘To wish the ruin, the undoing, destruction of, to be bent on the perdition of, to wish evil to’ = མེད་.
བྱང་, 17. The bodhimaṇḍa, according to the Dicts. historically and geographically Gaya, where the Buddha attained nirvāṇa. Here, however, it means rather the state implied by the locality, ‘illumination, the essence of purification, final sainthood’ literally ‘the quintessence of bodhi.’ In Christian language Golgotha (or the Cross) is similarly used in a metaphorical sense. In living Tibetan བྱང་ (bodhi) is not understood as ‘wisdom’ but as ‘saintliness, purity.’ There is, it seems, a confusion in the group of Tibetan [and Chinese!] renderings of bodhimaṇḍa (bodhi-essence) and bodhi-maṇḍala (bodhi-round), and their synonyms, a confusion which may already have its origin in India itself. The treatment of these words in the Dicts. is not satisfactory. J. and S. Ch. D. give s.v. བྱང་ this word as synonymous with རྡོ་, Vajrāsana, but under སྙིང་ S. Ch. D. has the entry: ‘བྱང་, the spirit of the Bodhisattva, i.e. Buddhahood.’ This is the sense meant in our passage, though it may be doubted whether བྱང་ really stands here for བྱང་ as S. Ch. D. interprets it instead of only for bodhi. The Mahāvyutpatti (A.S.B., p. 44) has Bodhimaṇḍa = བྱང་, and Cs. translates, ‘the essence of sanctity [[59]]or holiness (name of the holy place at Gaya).’ I yet believe that here a confusion of maṇḍa and maṇḍala must be thought of. J. has, s.v. སྙིང་ (p. 198b) ‘snyiṅ-po-byaṅ c̀ʽúb- (or byaṅ-c̀ʽub-snyiṅ-po)-la mc̀ʽís-pa, to become Buddha Thgy.’ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, p. 35, mentions the form byang-tchub-kyi-snying-po as the equivalent for bodhimaṇḍa, and though Foucaux in the alphabetical index to his translation of the Lalita Vistāra gives only the form without ཀྱི་, yet in his text, in the places I verified (p. 239, five times), there is the ཀྱི་ as with Rockhill.
In mentioning the word རྡོ་ a special reference must be made to the element གདན་, commonly translated as bolster, cushion, seat, rug, etc. J. is very detailed about it. He has: ‘a bolster, or seat composed of several quilts or cushions, put one upon the other (five for common people, nine for people of quality).’ Desg. simply ‘stuffed cushion.’ S. Ch. D. more general ‘a low seat, a divan, cushion, a bolster.’ As to J.’s definition my authorities declare that this may be so perhaps ‘on the Ladakh side,’ but is certainly not so in Tibet and in the Darjeeling district. They do not know about the details of five and nine cushions. They take the meaning far wider than bolster or cushion. They say that anything used to support anything or to seat anybody may be called གདན་, it may be a sheet of cloth, a carpet, a blanket, a cushion, a bolster, a seat in general, anything used for lying or sitting down on. The word has a meaning exactly opposite to the English ‘cover’ and can consequently be used in as many varied senses as the latter. Etymologically—if the root of གདན་, as seems probable, means ‘to support’—the word would mean something like ‘bearer,’ ‘basis,’ ‘bed,’ ‘floor,’ ‘upholder.’ We might think of ‘underwear,’ though in English that particular word is used with quite another association of ideas. In typography there is a word ‘underlay’ which corresponds exactly to the meaning of གདན་. The word ‘bedplate’, used in engineering, comes also near to it. It will be easily seen how an applied meaning as ‘cushion, bolster,’ if given as the general sense of the word, would in many cases be totally inadequate. The line of associations to which ‘cushion’ belongs, and the line of associations to which ‘seat, support, underlay’ belong, intersect at only one [[60]]point and for the rest have nothing in common. A table-cloth may be called གདན་ because the food rests on it (ལྟོ་ is used in this sense; lit. something like ‘food-sheet, that on which the food rests’). In a ritual it is prescribed that the གདན་ for the offerings should be a spotless piece of white cotton or other cloth, called མཆོད་, ‘offering sheet,’ ‘that on which the offerings rest.’ Bell has ས་ for ‘carpet’; small cushion, placed on chair ཁ་; large cushion on ground འབོལ་. This is a most interesting example illustrating the fact that it is strictly necessary first to find out the root-idea of a Tibetan word before translating it by words representing the incidental applications of that root-idea. Whoever has handled Chinese dictionaries knows how specially necessary this is in studying Indo-Chinese languages. The Sanskrit equivalent, āsana, is derived from the root ās, to sit or lie, but the Tib. root seems different.
Further notes on གདན་. Cf. J. མ་ (pr. magdàn), ground, basis, foundation, p. 409a. Bell, apron པང་. Cs., Grammar, p. 170, l. 10, translates གདན་ as couch (stuffed seat). Lewin, Manual, p. 123, first word last line: ‘mat, seat’, in the same sentence taken over from Cs.’s Grammar. Two synonyms for J.’s མ་, quoted above, are རྨང་ and གཞི་. Bell also has ‘mat.’
བྱམས་, 50. Seems simply an amplified form for ‘love.’ Difficult to be translated exactly, Sk. maitrīkaruṇā, may be treated as a compound, loving-kindness, love and kindness, or pity. On the question of karuṇā, especially, the learned have descanted profusely.