[[Contents]]

[[Contents]]

BIBLIOTHECA INDICA:
A
Collection of Oriental Works

PUBLISHED BY THE
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
New Series, No. 1426.

MINOR TIBETAN TEXTS.

I.—THE SONG OF THE EASTERN SNOW-MOUNTAIN.

BY
JOHAN VAN MANEN.

CALCUTTA:
PRINTED AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS,
AND PUBLISHED BY THE
ASIATIC SOCIETY, 1, PARK STREET.
1919.

[[Contents]]

[[iii]]

[[Contents]]

PREFATORY NOTE.

Lewin, in his ‘Manual of Tibetan,’ 1879, preface, states: “Tibet and its language are still comparatively unknown … the familiar tongue of the people, their folk-lore, songs and ballads are all unknown.”

Far from contradicting this saying, Jäschke, the greatest Tibetan scholar of his time, stated two years later, in 1881, in the preface to the third edition of his Tibetan Dictionary: “(To) the student who has for immediate object to learn how to read and write the Tibetan language … existing dictionaries (are) almost if not quite useless.”

Since Jäschke’s third edition, two new Tibetan dictionaries have appeared. Walsh in an article in the J.A.S.B., Vol. 72, Pt. 1, n. 2, 1903, reviewing the last one of these, the one by Sarat Chandra Das, says, p. 78: “Although the present Dictionary has fulfilled what it purposed to be, namely, a complete Dictionary of literary Tibetan, so far as our present sources of knowledge go, it does not fulfil the requirements of a standard dictionary of the entire language, and the standard dictionary of the modern and current Tibetan language has yet to be written.”

Laufer, ‘Roman einer Tibetischen Königin,’ 1911, p. 27 et seq., says: “We have here to open a road through the jungles, unaided and by ourselves; we have to work through text after text and note down expressions and idioms as we meet them,” etc.

Grünwedel in ‘Padmasambhava und Verwandtes,’ 1912, pp. 9–10, endorses Laufer’s remarks and adds about the difficulty of translating from Tibetan: “Ignorance regarding the subject-matter, mistakes and misunderstandings in the text itself, and, finally, the insufficiently explored idiomatic element of the language, of which the history is as yet poorly known, these are the main shoals.… Of all the dictionaries only Jäschke’s has really achieved something in the matter of idiom.”

As a matter of fact the printed materials available for the home student do not at present enable him, if without the help of a native teacher, to translate, accurately and without skipping the difficulties, any modern Tibetan book (not even the so-called Tibetan Primers in use in Darjeeling) if such books do not happen to belong to those excerpted in the existing dictionaries. Jäschke’s, which is the best from this point of view, mentions only 25 titles of texts used as his sources. Comparing this with the more than 1000 titles quoted by Skeat as the sources for the material for his Etymological Dictionary of the [[iv]]English language we at once see the inadequacy of such material in the case of Tibetan.

It is true that at present more showy results can be obtained by the wholesale translation of texts (more with a view to making known their general contents, than to the furnishing of a precise philological, lexicographical and grammatical analysis), and it is certain that the results of such work of translation would be more attractive and interesting to the wider public. Yet one of the most valuable contributions towards laying a sound basis for future Tibetan scholarship is the painstaking, laborious and to a certain extent inglorious and humdrum drudging away at small texts with scrupulous attention to the smallest minutiae, for a secure fixing of illustrative examples by co-ordinating correctness of text, full discussion of meanings, sharp formulation of definitions and subtle analysis of all questions and problems involved.

The following essay is a first contribution towards an attempt to serve such an ideal. [[v]]

[[Contents]]

ABBREVIATIONS.

[[1]]

MINOR TIBETAN TEXTS.

Primarily Lexicographically Treated.

By Johan Van Manen.

[[Contents]]

I. THE SONG OF THE EASTERN SNOW MOUNTAIN.

[a]Contents]]

A. Introduction.

In his ‘Mythologie des Buddhismus,’ Grünwedel gives on p. 59 the figures of a triad of famous reformers of lamaism; Rje Rin po chʽe, better known as Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and his two pupils, Rgyal tsʽab rje and Mkʽas grub rje. On pp. 70–72 he gives biographical notes concerning the three, and indicates their place and historical importance in lamaism. Günther Schulemann, in ‘Die Geschichte der Dalailamas,’ gives in chapters II and III a complete compilation of what is known about these three.

In the modern Dge lugs pa sect their historical importance has never been lost sight of and their memory is kept green by a universal prayer or invocation, still in daily use, opening and closing every ceremony in a Dge lugs pa monastery. In preceding a ceremony it runs as follows:—

གངས་

དངོས་

མདོ་

རྒྱལ་

To the repairer of the Tibetan vehicle, Tsoṅ kʽa pa (the Onionlander),

To the true, strong, wise Lord Rgyal tsʽab rje (Noble Throne-prince),

To the sūtra and mantra teaching master Mkʽas grub rje (Noble Cleverness-perfection)

To these three victorious (illustrious) Father and Sons (Family of three), obeisance!

In closing the ceremony the words ལ་ are changed into གྱི་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’ [[2]]

When the monks meet for གསོལ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed into མཆོད་, ‘we give our offering,’ said before drinking the first cup and whilst sprinkling a few drops in libation with two fingers, the thumb and fourth finger of the right hand. At the termination of tea drinking nothing is said at all. Except for these changes the formula remains the same for all occasions.

Another pupil of Tsoṅ kʽa pa was his own nephew Dge ḥdun grub, about whom further particulars are given in the same passages of the two works cited above, and who may be called the first Dalai Lama, though not known by that title but by that of Rgyal ba, or conqueror. Yet it will be seen from the above formula that the three who are together called ཡབ་ ‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three called རྒྱལ་. The expression ཡབ་ has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just like ཕ་ means ‘parents.’

From this དགེ་ a small poem in praise of his teachers, the ཡབ་, has come to us, which we now publish. Of མཁས་ it is said that he founded a formal cult of his teacher Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and it may be that his devotional attitude found a reflection in this poem, showing the attitude taken by his own pupil towards him and his two other teachers in his turn.

This poem occurs in a miscellaneous collection of religious matter (said to comprise about 150 leaves), in a work ཆོས་ (‘Religious Practice’), leaves 59, 60. I have not been able to see a complete copy of this work. In this edition the text is fairly correct and clearly legible. A small edition, complete in itself, of which I possess two copies (not quite so legible), offers several different readings which nearly all seem quite as good, and some decidedly better, than those of the larger edition. The differences shown by the two texts are, relatively to the size of the poem, so numerous and of such a nature as to preclude the idea that mere copying can have led to them. One is led to the conclusion that one of the two texts was produced [[3]]from memory and not by actual copying. We shall note the variants furnished by the larger edition, marking them B., whilst following for our own text, with one exception, duly noted, the smaller edition A. My two copies of the smaller edition would seem to be prints from the same blocks but for some difference in the last page. Whether the other pages are printed from the same blocks, whilst only this one last block has been, for one reason or another, renewed (and changed in the process) may be left undiscussed for the moment. Enough to make the general statement that great care should always be exercised before pronouncing Tibetan prints as made or not made from the same blocks, and that, indeed, interesting observations may be made on Tibetan typographical practices.

The title ཆོས་ is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, like མདོ་ (as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXI a), a religious miscellany. The particular ཆོས་ from which our poem is taken is said to be one of the text-books which the Tashilhunpo tapas are required to learn by heart. The book with the same title which Laufer (Verzeichniss der Tib. Handschr. etc. zu Dresden, Z.D.M.G., 1901, p. 123, n. 135) mentions, might or might not be the same. As I have not been able to examine the title pages and final pages of the book, I cannot give any further information about it. ཆོས་ is the marginal short title.

Another Gelukpa prayer of almost equal popularity and frequency as those of the one quoted above, is the following which may be used as an alternative to the former one. It is distinguished from it in that not the ཡབ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—

དམིགས་

དྲི་

བདུད་

གངས་

བློ་

To the unfathomable great treasury of love, the Down-Looking-One (Chenresi, Avalokiteshvara), [[4]]

To the immaculate Lord of knowledge, Sweet-voice (Jamyang, Mañjughosha),

To the subduer of the hosts of devils without exception, the Master of Mysteries (Chanadorje, Vajrapāṇi),

To that crown-jewel of Tibetan sages, Tsoṅ kʽa pa,

To the feet of that (or: thee, o!) Famous Goodheart (Lozangtakpa, Sumatikīrti), we pray.

The chief difference between the use of the two prayers is that the latter is more in private use, whilst the former is more favoured in what may be called official meetings and collective acts of worship. The latter prayer is often used in a manner like the ‘Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ’ formula, and cases in which a devotee vowed to recite this prayer once or more times a 100,000 times are known. The practical purpose of the latter prayer was thus defined by a Tibetan: ཚེ་༌ ༎ To ensure (bring, ask for) in (this present, earthly) life: health, happiness, absence of sickness, and longevity—and at the time of death a happy mind and a firm hold on (grasp of) religion.

The above form of the prayer is the printed one which is used by the monks to read aloud, mechanically and repeatedly, as a sort of prayer-litany, together with other similar matter, for the benefit of their clients, or also to ensure their own salvation. It is said to occur in a prayer-book called དགའ་, which I have not seen myself and about which I have no further details.

This prayer has also some variations in its final line (after the words གྲགས་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:

It is interesting to note that one of my informants interprets the above formula as indicating that Tsoṅ kʽa pa is the [[5]]simultaneous incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, Mañjughosha and Vajrapāṇi, and that these persons invoked in the prayer are not referred to as a consecutive series of separate entities, but as all embodied in the one Tsoṅ kʽa pa. My informant was very insistent about it that this is the general and orthodox interpretation of this prayer. The other two names of Tsoṅ kʽa pa are འཇམ་ and བློ་.

The closing verse of our poem is also a prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. It is also in use elsewhere than in connection with the present booklet and occurs elsewhere in print as well. My informant ascribes it to Gendundub himself and thinks that its wider use has spread from this booklet, though he cannot definitely assure that Gendundub himself did not appropriate it for the closing lines of his poem, taking an already current prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. The latter theory is plausible inasmuch as the last verse is seven-footed as against the eight-footed lines of the rest of the poem. Anyhow, the statement that this prayer also refers to Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone, and is as such used and understood by all Gelukpa monks, settles a doubt we might otherwise entertain as to whether it is not addressed to the ཡབ་, in which case its final line would have to be translated in the plural.

As to the edition, in the original the verses are not marked; they are evidently four-lined. The small edition has no divisions at all, except marking the lines, but the larger edition has in addition a ༈ (སྦྲུལ་ = snake head) after lines 16 and 48. In my own text and translation I have by typographical disposition and by the introduction of title headings indicated my conception of the clever and very logical inner structure of the poem.

The text is followed by a short discussion of the variants in it, next by a translation, and then, my main business, by a full lexicographical discussion, in alphabetical order. This embodies in the first place all the new material, supplementing, amplifying, modifying, or even only questioning, the data in Jäschke’s Dictionary, 3rd edition. For this Dictionary is, as far as lexicographical method is concerned, still superior to all other, even subsequent, Tibetan dictionaries, however much valuable and additional matter may be contained in the two latter. Jäschke’s dictionary is as yet the proper starting point for all future lexicographical research. In this glossary I have also drawn special attention to contradictions in these three current dictionaries, those of Jäschke, Desgodins and Sarat Chandra Das, even to such points for which I myself have not been able to suggest a solution or about which I could not bring [[6]]new material. For the good of future lexicographical work in the Tibetan field, it is very necessary to point out as many as possible of the numerous existing discrepancies and uncertainties (especially relating to finer shades of discrimination and precision) so as to focus the attention of investigators on them. It is unavoidable that most of this work can only be suitably undertaken on the spot in consultation with educated, intelligent Tibetans, and not in European closets. The number of those in a position to undertake such research will, for a long time to come, remain limited enough. As indicated in the sub-title of this essay my own main object in writing it is primarily a lexicographical one. For this reason I have also incorporated in my glossary notes on side-issues and all sorts of incidental idiomatic ‘catches’ which cropped up in the discussion of our text, though not immediately connected with the poem itself.

As it seemed the handiest way to present all the results of my investigation I have also embodied all commentatorial matter, the philological notes as distinct from the lexicographical ones, under the same alphabet. The few syntactical remarks have also been wedged in in this list, though in their case the ‘Stichwort’ had to be chosen more or less at haphazard.

In the matter of oral information and illustrative examples embodied in this paper, my authorities are nearly exclusively my two Tibetan teachers Skarma Bsam Gtan Paul and Pʽun Tsʽogs Lung Rtogs. The first is a native of Ghoom, though of pure Tibetan extraction (Kʽams). He has resided for nearly a year in Lhasa, for another 3 months in Tashilhunpo (where he was Tibetan interpreter between the Tashi Lama and Capt. R. Steen, I.M.S.), and for 4 years in Gyangtse. The second is a native of Lhasa, where he resided till his 18th year, after which he spent 3 years in Tashilhunpo as a tapa. Then he wandered for 12 years through Tibet, Sikkhim and Nepal, after which he settled in Ghoom since about 1914. Until recently he was there schoolmaster (dge rgan) in the local Tibetan monastery.

Both these intelligent men have given me the greatest help in long, patient and painstaking discussions concerning the lexicographical and other problems presented by this present text, as well as by several others, which I hope I will be able to publish and discuss from time to time in the future. [[7]]

[a]Contents]]

B. Text.

༄༅ ། ། གསུད་
བཞུགས་

ན་

I

I 1 ཤར་

2 སྤྲིན་[*]འདྲ་

3 དེ་

4 དྲིན་

II 5 སྤྲིན་[*]ཤར་

6 འབྲོག་

7 མཚན་[*]དཀའ་[**]པོ་

8 ཕ་

III 9 ལམ་

10 ཆོས་[*]གསུངས ༎

11 བོད་

12 མགོན་

II

IV 13 སྒོས་

14 བློ་[[8]]

15 རྗེ་

16 དྲིན་[*]སོ་[**] ༎

V 17 དུས་[*]ནས་

18 རྗེ་[*] ༎

19 སྐྱབས་[*]མི་

20 ཐུགས་[*]བའི་

VI 21 དྲིན་

22 སེམས་[*] ༎

23 མགོན་

24 དུས་[*]པར་[**]བགྱིད་

III

VII 25 ལར་

26 རང་[*] ༎

27 གཞན་

28 ཚུལ་

VIII 29 གཞན་[*]བར་[**]དང་ ༎

30 རྒྱུད་[[9]]

31 ལམ་

32 འདི་[*]ཁྲེལ་[**]བའི་

IX 33 ལམ་

34 ཆོས་[*]པའི་

35 རྒྱུད་[*]པའི་

36 གདོན་

IV

X 37 དགྲ་[*]མི་

38 གཤགས་[*]ཉན་

39 འདྲེ་

40 གླུད་[*]བ་[*]དོན་

XI 41 དོན་[*] ༎

42 སྤྱིར་[*] ༎

43 སྒོས་[*] ༎

44 དགྲ་[*]མོངས་[*]འདུལ[**] ༎

XII 45 མི་[*]རྣམས[*] ༎

46 ཡིད་[*]མ་[*]འཆང་[*]བར[*] ༎[[10]]

47 བློ་[*]གཟུ་

48 ལམ་[*]ཞུགས་[*]

V

XIII 49 གཏམ་[*] ༎

50 བྱམས་

51 དབྱིངས་

52 དཔལ་

VI

XIV 53 སྐུ་

54 གསུང་

55 ཐུགས་

56 དཔལ་

ཅེས་[*]མཁྱེན་
པོས་[*]དབྱངས་
བཀྲ་

Textual Notes

[*]l. 2 B སྙག་ [*]l. 5 B པའི་ [*]l. 7 A 1 and 2 བར་ [**]l. 7 B དྲིན་ [*]l. 10 B པ་ [*]l. 16 A 1 and 2 both ངས་. Text from B [**]l. 16 B closes the line with a ༈ instead of ༎ [*]l. 17 B དེང་ [*]l. 18 B པ་ [*]l. 19 B ནས་ [*]l. 20 A 2 བརྩ་ [*]l. 22 B བས་ [*]l. 24 A 1 and 2 བཙོན་ [**]l. 24 B པ་ [*]l. 26 B ཅིང་ [*]l. 29 B ཕུང་ [**]l. 29 A 2 སླང་ [*]l. 32 B ཀྱང་ [**]l. 32 B འཁྲལ་ [*]l. 34 B བསྒྲུབ་ [*]l. 35 B ཁྲུག་ [*]l. 37 A 1 and 2 ཐཔས་ [*]l. 38 B འཆད་ [*]l. 40 B སྐྱེལ་ instead of གཏོང་ [*]l. 41 B རྣམས་ [*]l. 42 B སོམས་ [*]l. 43 B སྦྱོངས་ [*]l. 44 B last three words in B བདག་ [*]l. 45 A 1 and B བོ་ [*]l. 45 B ཀུན་ [*]l. 46 last four words in B བར་ [*]l. 47 A 2 བླ་ [*]l. 48 4 2 བོར་ [*]l. 48 B has ༈ at the end of the line instead of ༎ [*]l. 49 B ཀུན་ [*]Colophon, A 2 has no ཅད་ after ཐམས་, and has a final ས་ to གདུངས་. B has a different colophon འདི་

[a]Contents]]

C. The Variants.

The texts used were two small blockprints, nearly identical A 1 and A 2, and a large blockprint B.

On the whole A furnishes a good text and it may be used as the basis for the edition. Two curious cases of the use of བ་ for པ་ (7. 45) seem more than mere negligence of the wood-cutter [[11]]in connection with the badly printed པའི་ in l. 13 (which looks also like བའི་) and also a པ་ like བ་ in l. 23. Inversely there is a clear པ་—ཐཔས—in l. 37 and a བོར་ for པོར་ in l. 48. A 2 twice lacks the hook in རྩ (20, 24) and the naro ོ in lines 29, 47. These two latter variants may be due to deterioration in the blocks or the roughness of the paper, or defective inking. Otherwise A 1 and A 2 are practically identical, and except for the last pages (the last two of A 1 are condensed into a single one in A 2) the two copies may have been printed from the same blocks.

In 5 B writes ལྡིང་ for བའི་ as authorized by the Dicts. But the question of final particles is still far from being satisfactorily settled. The Dicts. are on the whole much at variance on this point. Desg. gives as a rule a greater variety of them than J.

Some differences in the tenses of the verb are presented by the two copies of A on one side and B on the other. In l. 2 སྙེག་ is the present tense as against the past form བསྙེག་ in A. As to the sense both would do, and though the past form in Tibetan is better rendered in English by the present we may understand the past form as ‘has begun to rise.’ In verse XI B gives imp. forms, making the sense one of command whereas A has present forms giving a mere statement. The final ས་ in སོམས་, however, is not recorded in the Dicts., nor the form སྦྱོངས་; ཐུལ་, however, is a regularly recognised imp. form.

འཁྲུགས་ in l. 35 is a correct past tense. The form ཁྲུག་ (without an initial འ་) as in B is not recorded, though འཁྲུག་, present, might do equally well. འཁྲེལ་, l. 32, is not authorized by the Dicts. which all omit the initial འ་. The substitution of འཆད་ for བཤད་ (38) seems to lack sufficient urgency, [[12]]though J. records a འཆད་ ‘to listen to an explanation’ from Sch. A འཕུང་, l. 29, is correct according to the Dicts., not ཕུང་ of B, though J. and S. Ch. D. give the alternative spelling.

In the treatment of grammatical particles A is superior to B. པར་ (10) is correct, not པ་ B. It is an adverbial construction. In 18, པར་, and 22, བར་, equally so. In 24 པར་ is a terminative dependent on བགྱིད་.

The remaining variants are all in the nature of equivalents for or against which nothing (or the same!) can be said, and which would do as well as the readings we have adopted. Many of them are, however, curious for this reason, that they are not homonymous variants at all and consequently substitutions for, not corruptions of, the text. We have to leave the question alone whether those in A or in B are likely to be the original ones.

In 7, དྲིན་, very kind, is as good as རིན་, very precious; in 17 དུས་ means practically the same as དུས་, ‘from this moment’, and ‘from this very day.’ In 19 གཞན་ ‘in another’ seems even a trifle better than གཞན་ ‘from another.’ གྱིས་ seems better in 32 than ཀྱང་ in B, ‘even, indeed!’ བྱེད་ ‘to perform,’ in l. 34, is as good as བསྒྲུབ་, also ‘to perform, accomplish,’ and the future form of the latter would be better if changed into a pf. form བསྒྲུབས་ or pr. སྒྲུབ་. In l. 40 གཏོང་, ‘the sending, throwing,’ seems as good as སྐྱེལ་, ‘(as silly) as the conveying.’ In 41 the article པ་ means the same as plural རྣམས་ B. In 44, བདག་, ‘egotism, selfishness,’ is substituted for ཉོན་, [[13]]‘sin’; similarly in 45 and 49 ཀུན་ ‘all,’ for རྣམས་ ‘many.’ Lastly, the difficult construction ལྷུང་, in 46, is replaced in B by the easier ལྷུང་, ‘not allowing (letting, making) it [the soul] (to) fall’ instead of ‘letting it remain fallen when once it has done so.’

All these examples seem to point out that one of the blockprints (probably the larger one) was derived from a version which was not actually copied from the original but rather written down from memory. The variants are no cutting or copying mistakes except ངེས་ and ངས་ l. 16, and དྲིན་ and རིན་ in l. 7.

In l. 26 we find an erroneous ཅིང་ for ཞིང་.

The two ༈ at the end of lines 16 and 48 in B (or rather at the beginning of the following lines, for that is where they must be put if the Tibetan text is printed line for line like English verse) do not agree with my conception of the structure of the poem as indicated by my typographical arrangement of it. I would not have expected a ༈ after line 16 but after lines 12, 24, 36 and 48. The occurrence of the sign after line 48 may, however, be taken to indicate that the next two verses have to be regarded as appendices to the body of the poem proper.

It must be mentioned that in the title, in both copies of A., the final word is བཞུགས་. In B., as the poem occurs in the body of the volume, there is no equivalent title. I have written བཞུགས་ without prejudice to the question whether the form བཞུགས་ is legitimate or not. My teachers say that before a ༎ the སོ་ is required.

The only reading taken from B is ངེས་ for the incomprehensible ངས་ of A 1 and 2, in line 16.

It may be, finally, remarked that the three copies from which this edition was prepared, show once more that textual [[14]]correctness and perfection of typographical execution are not necessarily related in Tibet. The two small prints which are, but for the single omission of a dengbu in line 16, quite correct, are small, badly printed on bad paper, and not carefully or neatly cut. The larger copy is neat, well printed on good paper, very legible, but not nearly so satisfactory as a text.

[a]Contents]]

D. Translation.

The Song of the Eastern Snow Mountain.

OBEISANCE TO THE TEACHER.

I. (His Teachers).

1. On the peak of the white snow mountain in the East

A white cloud seems to be rising towards the sky.

At the instant of beholding it I remember my teacher

And, pondering over his kindness, faith stirs in me.

2. To the East of where that cloud is floating,

In that entirely victorious Virtue Solitude,

There resided the precious ones, difficult to be invoked,

Father Famous Goodheart, the Sire with (his two spiritual) sons.

3. The yoga and other (teachings) of the two stages of the road

Relating to the profound Doctrine, they preached most fully.

To the pious of snowy Tibet

Your grace, O protectors, was ineffable.

II. (Himself).

4. Especially that this ease-loving Clergy-Perfection

Has turned his mind a little towards the Doctrine

Is (thanks to) the kindness of these noble father and sons.

Truly your kindness is great, O father and sons.

5. From now onward till (I reach) the heart of saintship,

Whilst, except in you, noble father and sons,

I will not place my hope for protection in anyone else,

I pray you to drag me along with your mercy-hook.

6. Though I cannot repay you in proportion to whatever your favours have been,

I pray that, with my soul not enslaved by attraction or repulsion,[[15]]

I may hold fast to your teaching, O protectors,

And may always put my best energy into the endeavour.

III. (His Contemporaries).

7. However, nowadays, in this snow mountain solitude,

(There are those who) whilst promising to follow the teaching themselves,

Regard others, who (equally) follow the teaching, as their veriest enemies.

Such conduct calls forth the deepest sorrow.

8. With thoughts wishing the ruin of others

And with souls fettered by fierce ambition,

They nevertheless promise to dwell on the high road.

If we consider this (carefully) it is a matter of shame for all concerned.

9. These malignant beings,

Angry because they find themselves in their old age in the wrong road,

And raging from the bottom of their hearts

Against those persons who have (duly) acted conform to the Doctrine,

Has not a demon entered their minds?

IV. (His Pupils).

10. Not to take steps to conquer the enemy, sin,

But yet after mere reproach to flare up in reply,

That is as silly as,

When an evil spirit is at the Eastern door,

To throw the ransom towards the Western door.

11. Those virtue-friends who understand that this is so,

Think of all embodied beings in general with kindness,

But saintly thoughts especially of all who devote themselves to the Doctrine.

And they subdue the enemy residing within, sin.

12. O, my followers and friends,

Whilst not letting your souls remain fallen after a lapse,

But whilst examining (yourselves constantly) whether your minds keep to righteousness,

To remain on the straight road, that surely is good.

V. (Final Prayer).

13. May all those who believe in these words,

With a mind bent on the drawing on of all beings by means of love and mercy,[[16]]

Through the (direct) vision of the actionless state of (pure) knowledge,

Speedily obtain (that) glorious, supreme saintship.

VI. (Final Blessing).

14. He, whose body blazes with the marks and beauties (as of a Buddha),

Whose speech is adorned with the sixty branches of melody,

Whose deep and wide mind, indeed, is a treasury of omniscient love,

May that glorious teacher’s blessing be on us.

The above was composed by the Great Omniscient Clergy Perfection Good-Glory as a song in loving memory.

Blessing.

[a]Contents]]

E. Glossary and Notes.

(Lexicographical, Syntactical and Material.)

ཀུག་ see ཀྱུ་.

ཀུན་, 32. Not so much ‘a matter of shame to all’ (= all the people who look at or into the matter, the beholders, the general public, or even humanity in general), but rather ‘a matter of all (of them) being ashamed,’ i.e. the people doing the shameful acts, the people concerned, engaged in this conduct, not the public in general.

ཀུན་, 29. Here thought, conception, wish (cf. D. opwelling). (Desg. ‘all-enveloping,’ i.e. ‘natural corruption or sin,’ p. 8b, but ཀུན་ = ཉོན་, ‘excitement of passion’ on p. 1044a). See also S. Ch. D., p. 29b, समुत्पाद, but Schroeter, p. 2b, ‘approbation, assent, the consenting to any proposition.’

ཀོ་ see གླུད་. [[17]]

ཀྱང་, 30. Here equal to ཡིན་, ‘yet, however, nevertheless.’

ཀྱུ་, 20. Not as a separate word in J., who gives ཀུག་ and ཀྱོ་, the latter after Schmidt. This is the word occurring in the compound ཞབས་ the Tibetan u-vowel, the ‘foot-hook’ (not merely honorific of ཀྱུ་ as Hannah seems to suggest in his Grammar of the Tibetan Language, p. 4), which J. has under ཞབས་, on p. 472a, together with a queried meaning ‘spur’ (of the foot: ‘ein Sporn’), taken from Csoma. This latter meaning is unknown to my informants. Bell gives: hook ཀུག་; fishhook ཉ་, but iron hook ལྕགས་. Henderson gives both ཁུག་ and ཀྱུ་ for hook, and also ལྕགས་ alone for iron hook. My informants deny the correctness of ཁུག་. Desg. knows ཀུག་ (པ་) only as a verb, not as a subst.; he mentions ཀྱུ་ as a separate word, subst. hook, and does not mention ཀྱོ་. The various articles in the three Dicts. sub ཁུག་ are interesting but the meaning hook is not given in any of them. S. Ch. D. translates ཀྱོ་ with ‘अङ्कुश, a pointed iron hook, a large pin to pierce with,’ whilst Macdonell in his Sk. dict. translates the Sk. word as ‘hook, goad, stimulus, remedy.’ (See below s.v. འདྲེན་.) J. under ཀུག་ gives also ལྕགས་, an iron hook, and ཉ་, a fishing hook, but my informants say that the colloquial for fish hook is rather ཉ་ (or པའི་) ལྕགས་ or simply ཉ་ (pr. nyendzin), just as a meat hook (to hang up meat on) is ཤ་ (pr. shendzin). The ཡ་ in [[18]]the above represents the pronunciation of the more illiterate people.

One of my informants is, however, of opinion that ལྕགས་ does not mean an iron hook at all, but hook in general even though it might be made of silver, copper, gold, etc. He compares it with the word wall, ལྕགས་, which is not necessarily made of iron, and though of stone or earth is still called ‘iron-mountain.’ Women’s ornaments such as earrings, chains, or necklaces (སྐེ་, pr. kenthang, not in the Dicts. or Bell. As a colloquial word the dengbu might perhaps be left out in writing) may have golden or silver hooks, གསེར་ or དངུལ་. Example: སྐྱེ་, this woman has a very fine necklace which has four golden and silver hooks (or clasps). Schroeter’s dict., p. 361b, already gives ལྕགས་ as hook only. The expression ལྕགས་ in the sense of mineral, given by Desg., 307a, would make us think that ལྕགས་ might perhaps mean metal hook, but see below. S. Ch. D. adds to the confusion. Under ལྕགས་ he gives: (1) iron pin to guide and punish elephants; fish-hook; (2) name of a plant. (His next entry seems improbable, elephant driving and elephant driver for one and the same word). But under ཀྱུ་ he defines ལྕགས་ as ‘iron hook, an angle, a fishing-hook.’ J. has ལྕགས་ under ལྕགས་ and gives ‘an iron hook, esp. fishing-hook, angle; often fig.’ and in his illustration he translates ཆོས་ simply as ‘hook of grace.’ [[19]]He marks the word as belonging to the book language. It is curious to note that Schlagintweit in his Rgyal-rabs (title, or introductory verse) translates the word ལྕགས་ with ‘eisernen Hacken’ (p. 25), whilst Schiefner renders the same word correctly on the next page by ‘Hacken’ alone. But in his new translation of the Rgyal-rabs, H. A. Francke (J.P.A.S.B., Vol. VI, n. 8, p. 397) writes again ‘Iron Hook.’

There is still another compound with ཀྱུ་, namely མཐེབ་, the name for a component part of the elaborate torma cake structure. It indicates a small piece of dough in the form of the top of the thumb. From all these examples it might be hazarded that the element ཀྱུ་ means primarily ‘curve, curved’ or ‘curvature,’ and has no substantial meaning like ‘hook’ or the like. My teachers, however, think that ཀྱུ་ by itself is a substantive ‘hook.’ So it is not clear whether J. is right as against the other Dicts. in not entering the word separately. The above discussion is in any case better entered under the word ཀྱུ་, whether this is really an independent word or not. The fact that S. Ch. D. gives a Sk. equivalent for ཀྱུ་ alone, pleads for its separate existence.

My teachers opine that ཀྱུ་ as a separate word may occur alone, but their nearest approach to framing a sentence illustrating such a use was one in which they spoke of a wooden hook (made by a jungleman to fish or hunt with) as ཤིང་ or more briefly ཤིང་. So the example was not decisive.

Additional Note—Cf. the example in Csoma’s Grammar, p 109: གསེར་, golden fetters or chains, lit.: golden iron ropes. See also Ramsay, ‘Western Tibet’, p. 62:

‘To hook—ngiákuk táng ches, properly applicable only to a fish caught with a hook, but also used generally’, and:

‘Hook—ngiákuk (fish hook), kuk kuk (a hook of any kind).…’ [[20]]

Query: Is the use of ལྕགས་ merely conventional in several words, as in ལྕགས་, cage (Bell, Walsh ‘Tromowa Dialect’), ལྕགས་ (iron) bridge, etc.? And is the use of ལྕགས་ perhaps analogous to that of honorific prefixes? Cf. the Dutch guilder (gulden) which is made of silver, though its name is derived from ‘gold.’

ཀྱོ་ see ཀྱུ་.

དཀའ་, 7. Difficult, but here rather with some of the meaning of the English ‘hard’ (hard lines?), the French ‘dur’, perhaps L. ‘arduus.’ The meaning is somewhat that the invocation should not be undertaken lightly (God’s name should not be spoken ‘in vain’). Conceptions like: grave, serious, weighty, not lighthearted, or commonplace, or flippant, suggest themselves here. It is ‘a serious matter’ to invoke these teachers.

བཀའ་, 42. To think with kindness of or towards, or about (ལ་).

སྐལ་, 11. We have taken this word in the general sense given by J. ‘the pious,’ though it may equally well be rendered by ‘the fortunate ones,’ i.e. those who were fortunate enough to hear Tsoṅ kʽa pa’s preaching or that of his two pupils. One of my informants suggests, however, that སྐལ་ should here be taken more literally as ‘sharers’, ‘share-havers’ in Tsoṅ kʽa pa’s message and consequently should here be understood as his ‘followers.’

སྐུ་ see གླུད་.

སྐེ་ see ཀྱུ་.

སྐྱབས་, 19. May either be taken as two separate words ‘protection and hope’ or as a compound ‘hope for protection,’ ‘protection-hope.’ More accurately ‘the spot (place = persons in this case) in whom I place my hope for protection, to whom I resort or go, in whom I trust, for protection.’ (cf. D. heul, toeverlaat). [[21]]

སྐྱིད་ see མགུར་.

སྐྱེ་ see སྒོ་.

སྐྱེ་, 4. This is an illustration of the meaning of སྐྱེ་ under J.’s 4th sub-heading, 1st division. དད་ ‘faith has been born,’ but here rather ‘becomes active,’ ‘sprouts,’ ‘waxes strong,’ or ‘grows, flames up, intensifies, awakens, arises, stirs.’ The idea is not, as in a case of Christian conversion, of a state of previously non-existent faith, suddenly arising, but of an existing faith becoming strongly energised, leaping up (‘an outburst of faith’). The colloquial དད་ can be suitably translated by ‘to inspire faith to.’ For instance བླ་ (མི་) འདུག་, that lama inspires me with (no) faith. A free translation of དད་ is consequently ‘to have faith in,’ but in our passage the additional meaning of ‘renewed’ is implied. Therefore we may also render ‘they call up my faith’ or ‘renewed faith comes up in me.’ See the use of this expression in the Tibetan Primer III, p. 7, 1. 8. དེ་ (read ཁོས་) རྒྱལ་ Then he, recognising that the king was very good, and having gained faith in him, and having prostrated himself numberless times, (asked) how can I request (i.e. take, accept) such (gifts) given by the king.

སྐྱེད་ see སྒོ་.

སྐྱེད་, 50. To generate, the generation, production. སེམས་ ‘that which has been produced in the soul,’ ‘the (completed) productions of the soul’; with དང་ = with; ‘with thoughts of, assuming, observing an attitude of, with a mental attitude of or disposition to.’ འགྲོ་[[22]]པའི་ (དང་) is one elaborate substantive, a ‘the-beings-with-kindness-having-drawn-soul-disposition.’

སྐྱོ་, 28. Here not in J.’s sense ‘to be weary,’ but as Desg. and S. Ch. D. have it ‘sadness, grief, sorrow,’ or adj. ‘sad’, etc. In seeing a half-naked beggar, it may be said: མི་. Here the word is adjective: ‘that unhappy (unfortunate, wretched, miserable) man has not even a coat.’ [དུག་ (Bell) = J. དུག་ = གོས་ = ཆུ་ = Desg. ཆོ་, coat, garment, dress; not alone ‘man’s coat,’ as J. has it, but for both sexes—J. s.v. ཆུ་. ཆུ་ and ཆོ་ both missing in S. Ch. D. གོས་ is pronounced both golak and gölak. Walsh, Vocabulary Tromowa Dialect, s.v. coat ‘go’ and ‘golag.’ My teachers do not know a word དུག་ for coat in Tibetan. Desg. has a དུགས་, overcoat. S. Ch. D. དུག་༌ or དུག་ ‘old coat or garment patched up and mended.’]

ག་ see གདན་.

ཁ་ see གཤགས་.

ཁ་ see གཤགས་.

ཁུག་ see ཀྱུ་.

ཁོ་, 45. My followers and friends (cf. citizens and compatriots), i.e. followers who are also my friends; the same people under two qualifications, not two different groups of people, the friends and the followers. See རྗེས་.

ཁོ་ see གླུད་. [[23]]

ཁྱེད་ 18, ཁྱོད་ 12, 23. The difference in form is not accidental. མགོན་ is a stereotyped ལབ་, manner of speech, expression. ཡབ་༌, l. 18, is a normal honorific form. The form ཁྱོད་ was described to me as one of intimacy, of utter confidence, as distinct from familiarity and lack of respect. This seems an almost exact parallel to the use of (thou), tu, du in (English), French and German in addressing parents, God, and relations. The following example was given, a quotation from the བླ་, a little ritual gelukpa book, leaf 12a: ཁྱོད་ ‘As thou art our lama, our yi-dam, our ḍākinī, our dharmapāla …’ (prayer addressed to Tsoṅ kʽa pa). Likewise, in the little prayerbook རྗེ་ (to Tārā) we find a few cases of ཁྱོད་ (e.g. p. 5b) amidst many cases of ཁྱེད་. In the term ཡབ་ the hon. form of the first two syllables of course determines the hon. form of the last. The ‘intimate’ form ཁྱོད་ was further described as ‘the language of religious transport, ardour, fervour,’ དད་.

ཁྲེལ་ (རྒྱབ་) see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲེལ་ see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲེལ་, 32. According to the Dicts. ‘to be ashamed.’ Desg. and S. Ch. D. do not support J.’s meaning ‘piety’ and his third meaning ‘disgust, aversion.’ My oral information rejects these second and third meanings, yet see below. ཀུན་, freely translated ‘is a matter of (cause for) shame to all,’ literally ‘a-by-all-shame-feeling-cause,’ i.e. all should feel ashamed. The shame, it should be understood, must be felt, not by all who behold the bad behaviour, but by all who [[24]]are guilty of it. The exact meaning of the root ཁྲེལ་ from which the verb is derived is not yet satisfactorily dealt with in the Dicts. which are supplementary as well as contradictory in their data. The compounds exhibit a great variety of shades of meaning. That of ཁྲེལ་, for instance, may perhaps cover so wide a range as ‘shameless, impudent, self-willed, stubborn, stiff-necked, arrogant, insolent, ungrateful, loveless, heartless, harsh, cruel, wanton, ruchlos, frech.’ Some of the compounds and applications clearly indicate that ཁྲེལ་ must also mean ‘sexual modesty, chastity,’ others that it must mean ‘bashfulness, shyness, timidity’ (in this sense ཁྲེལ་ ‘brazen, forward, unabashed, saucy, bold, audacious’). ཁྲེལ་ seems to come very near to the D. ‘schroom’ which is more ‘diffidence’ than ‘scruple,’ but ཁྲེལ་ may in some cases mean ‘unscrupulous’ or ‘without a conscience.’ In this sense it comes near to ‘impious.’ The German subst. ‘Scheu’ may be also compared. It is also averred that in certain combinations a positive statement with ཁྲེལ་ is practically identical with the English exclamation: how dare you! how can you!

A compound, difficult to define exactly, is ཁྲེལ་ in which གཞུང་ has the meaning, not given in the Dicts. of straight, straightforward, honest, true, dependable, the French ‘droit’ (cf. rectitude). The whole expression may mean ‘abandoned,’ or simply ཁྲེལ་. Example ཁྲེལ་, ‘the lives of these abandoned (shameless, etc.) men are useless.’ An old sweetheart who has cast off her lover may be called ཁྲེལ་ ‘the brazen, perfidious girl.’ Desg. gives གཞུང་ in this sense as equal to བཟང་, ‘good, just, generous.’ This may be Schmidt’s གཞུངས་ ‘sincere, orderly.’ In the sentence ཕ་[[25]]པ་, ‘to render your parents kindness in this way shows a lack of gratitude,’ my teachers explain the word as ‘ungrateful, loveless, harsh.’

As far as the further meanings of ཁྲེལ་, as given in J. (see above), are concerned, Pʽun Tsʽogs maintains that ཁྲེལ་ = ཆོས་, ‘pious,’ but Karma denies it, and the former also states that ཁྲེལ་ = ཞེན་, which latter expression Desg. and S. Ch. D. know as ‘to be disgusted with.’ But J. and the others render the former expression with ཁྲེལ་, as ‘chaste’ or ‘modest,’ or as ‘to be chaste,’ etc. Both of my teachers are at one about the expression ཞེ་ ‘to be weary, tired, sick of.’ Examples: ལྟོ་, I am tired of this food. (ལྟོ་, pr. tobché, see Henderson’s Manual, Voc., p. 48, s.v. food; there written ལྟོབ་.) མི་, ‘I have got tired of this man.’ The sentence ཆོས་ was explained to me as: Having understood the doctrine, and having been delivered (saved), I am now weary of the world, have renounced the world, know the world for vanity, have turned away from it. For J.’s ཁྲེལ་, ‘scornful laughter’, the synonym ཁྲེལ་ was given to me, as well as the explanation ‘a laugh to make the other feel ashamed,’ ‘to make another feel small.’ We may therefore think of ironic, sarcastic, malicious laughter, or of derision and Schadenfreude. ཁྲེལ་, to laugh at another, at the expense of another, in order to make him ridiculous. This word ཁྲེལ་ furnishes a very striking test of the present state of Tibetan lexicography, the word གདན་ will furnish another. [[26]]

For words like these a comprehensive collection of authentic illustrations is imperative before finer shades and the exact range of meanings can be fixed. ངོ་, commonly translated as ‘shame,’ a synonym for ཁྲེལ་, is a similarly uncertain word. Compare the translations in J. and S. Ch. D. of this same sentence: ཁྲེལ་, J.: ‘he has no shame nor dread’; S. Ch. D.: ‘he has no shame or modesty.’

ཁྲེལ་ see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲེལ་ see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲེལ་ see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲེལ་ see ཁྲེལ་.

ཁྲོད་ see གངས་ and འབྲོག་.

མཁྱེན་ see མཁྱེན་.

མཁྱེན་, 55. J.’s queried མཁྱེན་, quoted from Gyal-rabs: ‘prob.: omniscient-merciful,’ cannot with any certainty be decided from this passage.

Desg. has མཁྱེན་༌ = ཐུགས་ = ‘knowledge of the heart, i.e. pity, mercy.’

S. Ch. D. ‘omniscient mercy.’

According to my teachers these are two different words here, knowledge and mercy; not a compound. མཁྱེན་ is here hon. form of ཤེས་ to know. But a subst. མཁྱེན་ is not recorded in the Dicts. Desg. has a མཁྱེན་ = ཤེས་ = རིག་ ‘science, knowledge,’ and S. Ch. D. also gives མཁྱེན་ as ‘knowledge.’ In compounds མཁྱེན་ has usually the verbal value of ‘knowing.’ The entries s.v. མཁྱེན་ in the Dicts. need careful comparison and deserve close study. [[27]]

མཁྱེན་ is often used in an emphatic sense, to know all, to know through and through, to know with supernatural knowledge (as, for instance, to know what happens from a distance), cf. the English adj. ‘knowing.’

The shades of meaning: wise, learned, intelligent, sensible, careful, cautious, clever, need further analysis.

འཁྲུག་, 35. The value of this word is clear from the Dicts., but there is a difficulty in choosing suitable English words to fit each case in rendering. Such words as the following may be found useful under various circumstances: to be disturbed, upset, disordered (cf. disordered brain), unbalanced, deranged, convulsed, in turmoil, tumultuous (a soul in tumult), in revolt, turbulent, wild, seething, in uproar, in the throes of (passion, etc.).

And even so none of the above expressions furnishes an easy, idiomatic and close rendering for རྒྱུད་, the man whose very character is an utter chaos.

འཁུར་, 21. Ordinarily to carry, but here to carry back, i.e. to repay, render, return.

Example: ཕ་, You must render your parents their kindness. The verb འཇལ་, primarily ‘to weigh’, is equally so used; see J. s.v. 4. For the above example the word ལན་ would ordinarily be inserted, ཕ་, but this would lessen the force of the illustration for our purpose as ལན་ means here ‘return,’ and དྲིན་༌, ‘a kindness in return.’ The above sentence can be expressed in three ways: ཕ་ (with or without ལན་), འཁུར་ (or འཇལ་, or ལོག་), དགོས་.

གངས་, title. Mother Snow Mountain. The affixes to རི་ are according to J. བོ་ and ག་; Desg. adds ངོ་; S. Ch. [[28]]D. only བོ་; Bell and Henderson no affix. Of these བོ་ gives a definite sense of greatness to the mountain. (See S. Ch. D., Grammar, Introduction, p. 18). Here the particle མ་ is not an inherent part of the substantive, but is added to give a feminine sense to the word, which here means something like ‘Mother Mountain,’ the big mountain being as it were the mother of all smaller hills and heights around it. My informants were definitely of opinion that, here, ‘Mother Mountain’ and not ‘Lady Mountain’ was meant. So we should not understand the expression as ‘Her Majesty or Ladyship the Snow Mountain.’ The meaning though grammatically important remains better neglected in the translation.

གངས་, 25. In this snow-mountain-mass, i.e. monastery. རི་ as monastery in J. s.v. རི་ but not s.v. ཁྲོད་. Bell has རི་ as ‘cell (of hermit).’

Here the expression seems rather to indicate Gendundub’s own monastery (be it Daipung, Tashilhunpo or Namgyalchöde) than Galdan, spoken of in the second verse. See Schulemann, Gesch. der Dalailamas, pp. 92 fll. See འབྲོག་ and ཤར་.

གོ་ see སྐྱོ་.

གོལ་, 33. J. འགོལ་, error, mistake. In Desg. འགོལ་ or འགོལ་, solitary spot (s.v. འགོལ་) and ལམ་ (s.v. གོལ་), ‘has lost his way’; and also འགོལ་ to put apart; འགོལ་, a separate road, a side road (route détournée). According to Desg. only the past form of འགོལ་, i.e. གོལ་, means to have erred, gone astray, both physically and morally. S. Ch. D. copies J., but adds to J.’s འགོལ་, the place where two roads separate: ‘so as to create doubt in the mind regarding the right path.’ Schroeter (p. 451a) has two entries འགོལ་, ‘remote,’ and འགོལ་, ‘a closet.’ J. has the latter expression as ‘a hermitage,’ [[29]]and Desg., as above, ‘solitary spot.’ In our passage ལམ་ does not mean ‘the mistake as to the road,’ or Anglice ‘the error of his ways.’

In our passage ལམ་ has to be taken together in the sense of ལོག་ = ལམ་ = ལམ་, the wrong road (in a religious sense, in contrast to the ལམ་ of l. 31). ལམ་ is here to be understood as a ‘wrong-road-place,’ as the spot or place (ས་ = ས་) which is, or proves to be, the wrong road, i.e. the place where one realizes that the road on which one is, is the wrong road, or, perhaps better, that the road is a wrong road (= place) to be in, a wrong-road-spot, indeed.

The meanings, recorded in the Dicts. for compounds with or without initial འ་ of འགོལ་, seem logical, as one who has separated himself from the road, is astray, is mistaken, is (in moral or intellectual matters) in the wrong, in error.

Note this example of the use of the verb: ལན་, answer very carefully otherwise you will make a mistake.

[རིག་, ‘having twisted, squeezed, screwed up your brains??’ = adv., carefully, attentively.]

གོས་ see སྐྱོ་.

གླུ་ see མགུར་.

གླུད་, 40. Ransom. Is here rather གླུད་, well defined by S. Ch. D., s.v. The meaning of གླུད་ is probably ‘the ransom (which is thrown to the evil spirit) as a substitute for, representative of (the person on whose behalf the offering is made),’ J.’s མི་ ‘a man’s image which in his stead is cast [[30]]away in the གཏོར་༌,’ a ransom in effigy. There are, however, uses of གླུད་ in which the primary sense is perhaps rather ‘effigy’ than ‘ransom.’ In a ritual describing the construction of the torma cake it is said that the སྐུ་ (together with many other moulds) must be imprinted on the dough or paste. Here the word seems to mean no more than ‘a mould constituting an effigy of the body.’ Though all the torma-cake material is thrown away after it has served its purpose, these imprinted effigies do not seem to serve specially as ransoms like the གླུད་ and མི་ quoted above.

As to J.’s queried ཁོ་ (and the slightly different མི་), this is explained as follows. The first phrase means: he is a lü in human form (a man-lü, cf. werwolf; D. een lü in menschenvorm, menschelijke gedaante). མི་ means ‘that man, there (with a pointing out by word or finger).’ For instance: that man John, that king ཀོ་. ‘That man’ alone would be མི་. But the second phrase would mean: ‘that man so-and-so is a very devil.’ J.’s rendering of the first phrase as ‘he is a curse, an anathema, one deserving to be cursed’ seems too strong. Rather ‘an unmitigated nuisance,’ for, though harsh, it may be said by a mother of her own child when it is naughty and unruly. The sense seems to be ‘devil’ (as may also be applied to children or wicked grown-ups in English ‘they are true devils,’ D. ‘een paar baarlijke duivels’) and seems to be a case of meaning-shifting from result to cause (pale death!), the lü being the ransom thrown to the evil spirit, Anglice devil. The association does not seem to be that of worthlessness, hatefulness, something good for nothing, only fit to be thrown away like a lü.

As to the above King Koko, this is a facetious name applied (something like thingumbob) to such Tibetans as ape Chinese manners in dress and in other ways. ཀོ་ is said to be a Chinese word for Tib. ཨ་ or ཇོ་, elder brother. A Tibetan, strutting about in Darjeeling with Chinese cap and [[31]]coat may hear the sarcasm addressed to him: ཀོ་ ‘Well Mr. Chinaman (or John Ch., Uncle Ch.) where are you going to?’ (‘Mossioo’ of the mid-Victorian Punch and music hall ditties).

གླུད་ see གླུད་.