FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS PRESERVED IN TABO

MONASTERY*

HORST LASIC (VIENNA)

Of the huge number of manuscripts extant at Tabo monastery in

Himachal Pradesh, which have been investigated in situ, registered
and to a certain extent also filmed mainly between 19911 and 1998, I
would like to draw attention to a certain group, namely Tibetan trans-
lations of Sanskrit texts dealing primarily with logic and epistemol-
ogy. Up to now we have been able to identify the following texts:

Dharmak¥rti’s Pramåˆavårttika,
his own V®tti on the anumåna chapter,
Íåkyabuddhi’s commentary Pramåˆavårttika†¥kå,
Dharmak¥rti’s Sambandhapar¥k!å together with his own V®tti
thereon,
Vin¥tadeva’s Sambandhapar¥k!冥kå,2
Vin¥tadeva’s Nyåyabindu†¥kå,
and Dharmottara’s commentary with the same title.

None of these texts is extant as a complete manuscript in Tabo. On the

contrary, with the exception of the Sambandhapar¥k!å which is al-
most complete, all the texts are represented rather fragmentarily. Again
with the exception of the Sambandhapar¥k!å, none of the manuscripts
mentions the title of the text.
When, with the purpose of attesting their identity, I cursorily read
through the fragments,3 those registered with the reel numbers 48/13
to 48/16 and 89/29 to 89/32 immediately aroused my special interest.

__________
* I would like to express my thanks to Cynthia Peck-Kubaczek who kindly im-
proved the English text of this article.
1 Cf. Steinkellner 1994: 116f.
2 Cf. Tauscher 1994.
3 I am grateful to both Cristina Scherrer-Schaub for putting Xerox copies of
photos of these materials at my disposal and Helmut Tauscher for the computer
scans that he provided.
64 HORST LASIC

These fragments are the remainders of two manuscripts of Dhar-

mottara’s Nyåyabindu†¥kå, a text which was not only very influential
in Western scholars’ approach to Buddhist logic and epistemology,
but which was also of great importance for the adaptation of the In-
dian Buddhist pramåˆa tradition in Tibet, as its early translation into
Tibetan, confirmed by its inclusion in the Lhan kar catalogue, shows.
What makes the Tabo fragments of this text really outstanding is the
great number of important divergences from the canonical versions.
Of the two manuscripts, which I call A and B, manuscript A con-
sists of three folios—folios 3, 5, and 9—with seven lines to each
page. Each line contains on average 60 syllables. Manuscript B also
consists of three folios—folios 5, 7, and 9—with six lines to each
page. Each line contains on average 64 syllables. As for their dimen-
sions, material, colour and so on, I would like to refer the reader to
the catalogue being prepared by Prof. Cristina Scherrer-Schaub and
Prof. Paul Harrison.
Both manuscripts are written in fine dbu can script. As for palaeo-
graphic peculiarities, inverted gi gu (ï) occurs in Ms. A,4 but not in
Ms. B; the combinations st and sp are written vertically in Ms. A, but
horizontally in Ms. B.
mi and me are palatalised without exception in both manuscripts.
The use of da drag can also be observed in both manuscripts, but in
Ms. B it occurs much more often than in Ms. A. Of special interest is
the occurrence of dond in Ms. B 7a5. In his study of the Sambandha-
par¥k!å, Helmut Tauscher has presumed that the use of the da drag
with don, lan and yin “might be an indication of a manneristic use of
an archaic feature without being quite familiar with the correct appli-
cation”.5 However, understanding ‘manneristic’ as ‘bizarre’, ‘stylised’
or ‘individualised’, I am sceptical whether we should use this term to
describe this usage of the da drag with don, nor do I see it as strictly
incorrect. First, the abundant occurrence of the phrase ces don to as
equivalent to ity artha˙ in the canonical block prints of many trans-
lations seems to indicate that the da drag was widely accepted as an
original part of the word. Second, the fact that in manuscript B dond

__________
4 Of the 48 cases of inverted gi gu in Ms. A, there are only 4 that are not in the
phonetic ‘i-breaking’ context described by Miller (1981); they are dus kyï ngo bo
(3a5), phyogs kyï chos (5a2), tshig gï don (5a4), yul nï khong du (9b2).
5 Tauscher 1994: 176f.
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 65

occurs only once, whereas in all other cases don is written, does not
speak for a tendency of this scribe to use mannerisms. In this case a
more constant application would be expected. And finally, when par-
ticles with varying forms follow don, they appear in the form which
they usually have after da drag. So we find don tu (A 3b5, 5a3, 9b5;
B 5b3[twice]), don kyi (A 9b7, B 7b4), don ces (A 9b7), and don to
(A5b1). Another orthographic peculiarity is the indiscriminate use of
ci ltar and ji ltar in A.6 In my mind, both manuscripts manifest a
scribal style that shows diligence and patience—there are no omis-
sions or abbreviations—but does not aim at splendour. It is also char-
acterised by orthographical correctness—there are no cases of con-
fused prescripts or postscripts, no missing aspiration indicators,
etc.—although it does not aim at consistency.
When we arrange the folios of the two manuscripts according to
the text they contain, in order to compare them with the canonical
versions7 of the Nyåyabindu†¥kå, we arrive at the following sequence:
A3, B5, A5, B7, B9, A9. However, we do not arrive at a continuous,
uninterrupted text, except in the case of folios B5 and A5 where there
is an overlap of 5 lines.
__________
6 See the following table for the distribution of ci/ji:
Sanskrit NBÈ Ms. A Ms. B
katham 46,1 ji ltar 5b5
kuta˙ 49,1 ci ltar 7a4
yathå 25,3; 25,4; 25,6 ci ltar ... bzhin 3a2, 3a3, 3a4
40,1 ci ltar ... bzhin 5a3 ji ltar ... bzhin 5b3
67,4 ji ltar ... lta bu 9a1
yadi 39,1 ci ste 5a5
46,1 ji ste 5b5
48,8; 52,3; 63,2; ci ste 7a3, 7b4,
65,4 9b2, 9b5
7 I use G: Ganden (Xerox copies of the reprint of the so-called ‘Golden Tanjur’
published by the China Nationality Library, Beijing in 1988. I am thankful to Dr
Helga Rebhan from the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek for providing the copies, and to
Prof. Jens-Uwe Hartmann, who helped in locating the volumes, as there is no longer
a specialist at the library for the Tibetan collection since the retirement of Dr Günter
Grönbold); N: Narthang (digital photos of the Snar thang print kept in the Staatsbib-
liothek zu Berlin, for which I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Gerhard
Ehlers, who immediately responded to my request); Q: Peking (The Tibetan
Tripitaka, Peking Edition. Ed. D.T. Suzuki. Tokyo-Kyoto); C: Cone (Microfiche
Edition, The Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, New York); D:
Derge (Sde dge Tibetan Tripi†aka bstan ˙gyur – preserved at the Faculty of Letters,
University of Tokyo, ed. J. Takasaki, Z. Yamaguchi, Y. Ejima, Tokyo).
66 HORST LASIC

Before going into details, let us first consider some of the differ-
ences that might occur in two witnesses of a given text. There are the
common divergences resulting from mistakes during oral and scribal
transmission. These include: misreading, misunderstanding, scribal
errors, unintentional omissions, unintentional repetitions, incorrect in-
terpretation of abbreviations, etc. Then there are those resulting from
an attempt to repair such mistakes. We may add here the case of some-
one mistaking for an error something that is in fact correct, and of
altering the transmitted text with the aim of correcting it. Common to
all these manipulations is the fact that they alter the wording of the
text. Another source for differences is the application of different or-
thographic standards: the words remain the same, but their spelling
changes. Differences and correspondences in these aspects are useful
for establishing the relationship of the witnesses of a given text, thereby
reconstructing the lines of its transmission and diffusion.
Of a distinctly different kind are correspondences and divergences
between witnesses of various texts. This sounds obvious and might at
first glance not be considered worth mentioning, but as we are deal-
ing with translations it might be a good idea to keep this point in mind.
That two witnesses represent two different translations of the same
text might not always be obvious, especially when one translation is
heavily dependent on the other. In Tibet we have the special case that
many of the translations made in an early period underwent a revi-
sion at a later time. When this process was not restricted to the appli-
cation of a certain orthographic standard and, indeed, the wording
was altered, we are entitled or—more accurately—are obliged to con-
sider the result of the revision to be a new translation, albeit heavily
influenced by the older translation. Neglecting this differentiation dur-
ing an attempted constitution of a critical edition inevitably leads to
the production of a contaminated version of the text. This means that
the result might be more intelligible or it might correspond better with
the Sanskrit text, but it also means that it is of no historical value.
Used carefully, an earlier translation may be of help in making emen-
dations to a later translation, or may help to decide which of the extant
variant readings should be accepted. The later translation may, of
course, yield the same assistance with regard to the earlier translation.
The extent and nature of the differences between the Nyåya-
bindu†¥kå transmitted in the Tabo fragments on one hand, and the
corresponding parts of the canonical versions on the other hand, indi-
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 67

cate that we are indeed being confronted with two different Tibetan
translations. Since we know the standard translation of Blo ldan shes
rab (1059–1109) and Sumatik¥rti to be the revised version of an earlier
one produced by Dharmåloka with the help of Jñånagarbha in about
800,8 it is a natural guess that the Tabo fragments are the remainders
of this earlier translation.
In the following, I would like to give you some examples which to
my mind clearly show that the Tabo text is in fact Dharmåloka’s un-
revised translation. Some of these examples will also provide clues to
understanding how the revised translation was produced and how it
ended up in the form in which it is preserved in the main canonical
Tanjur collections.
I will furnish the Sanskrit texts of the Nyåyabindu†¥kå (NBÈ) and
the Nyåyabindu (NB) as they are printed in the edition prepared by
Dalsukhbhai Malvania (DhPr). Variants are given only if they have
any bearing on our discussion. Since the notation of the variants is
often ambiguous in this edition, I sometimes had to guess at what
was meant. The sigla are those used by Dalsukhbhai Malvania. As
for the two translations, that found in Tabo I will call T, and the
other, which is transmitted in the five collated Tanjurs, V(ulgata). As
for the canonical translation, I give the folio and line numbers of the
Derge edition. The English translations are based on the Sanskrit.

NBÈ 24,1: yac ca tena pradarßitam, tad eva tena1 pråpaˆ¥yam.

1
tad eva tena AB : tad eva CD
T (A 3a1): des bstand pa gang yin pa de ni des na phrad par ’gyur
ba yin no |
V (D 38a7): gang zhig des rab tu bstan pa de1 nyid des thob par
bya ba yin te |
1
de om. CD

(Translation:) And only that which is shown by this [cognition]

can be made obtainable through it.

If we compare the two Tibetan translations of this sentence, we ob-

serve the use of different terminology. T renders pradarßitam with
bstand pa, V with rab tu bstan pa. We meet the same situation in the
__________
8 Cf. Steinkellner and Much 1995: 68.
68 HORST LASIC

following sentence. Further, T renders pråpaˆ¥yam with phrad par

’gyur ba, V with thob par bya ba. In the extant material, we find sev-
eral cases in which derivations of pråp, referring to one of the main
concepts dealt with in this context, are rendered in T with ’phrad, but
in V with thob.9 The use of bya ba in thob par bya ba might perhaps
be understood as indicating that Blo ldan shes rab has understood
pråpaˆ¥yam in the causative sense, which would be an improvement
over Dharmåloka’s rendering. tena of the second clause, which is
found only in the manuscripts C and D, is rendered in T with des na,
presumably with the purpose of excluding the possibility of the cog-
nition being understood as the agent of ‘obtaining’. In V it is ren-
dered with des, which allows the cognition to be understood as the
agent of ‘making obtainable’.
Another difference between the two translations consists in the
different renderings of the relative clause. In T, gang is one of the
two patient participants of an equation construction, the other patient
participant being des bstand pa. In V, on the other hand, gang zhig
forms the patient participant of the event expressed by the transitive
verb (rab tu) bstan.10
We note further that the restrictive particle eva has no equivalent
in T, but is represented by nyid in V, whereas the sentence-connect-
ing ca is rendered in T by ni, but has no representation in V.
Finally, in T the passage closes with the final particle (rdzogs
tshig) no, whereas V uses the conjunction (lhag bcas) te, to connect
the passage to the following one. I should note here that T connects
the preceding sentence to this one with the help of te, whereas V uses
the final particle at that point. The connection of passages with a
conjunction in one version at a point where the other version con-
cludes with a final particle and vice versa occurs several times in the
extant material.

NBÈ 24,1: arthådhigamåtmakaµ hi pråpakam1 ity uktam.

1
arthådhigamåtmakaµ hi pråpakam : arthådhigamåtmakatvaµ hi pråpakatvam CD :

__________
9 pråpaˆ¥ya˙ (NBÈ 71,1; 71,3) is rendered in T with phrad pa (A 9b4, 9a5), but
in V with thob par bya ba (D 44b1); pråpakam (NBÈ 24,1) is rendered in T with
phrad par byed pa (A 3a1), but in V with thob par byed pa (38a7); pråpayitum
(NBÈ 71,3f.) is rendered in T with phrad pa (A 9b5), but in V with thob pa (D
44b2).
10 For the grammatical terminology, cf. Beyer 1993: 255ff.
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 69

arthakriyåsamarthavastvadhigamåtmakatvaµ hi pråpakatvam B : arthådhigamåtmakaµ hi

pråpaˆam N
T (A 3a1–2): don rtogs pa’i bdag nyid ni phrad par byed pa zhes
smras so |
V (D 38a7): de thob par byed1 pa nyid ni don rtogs pa’i2 bdag
nyid yin no zhes brjod pa zin pa yin no ||3
1
byed GNQD : bya C 2 don rtogs pa’i N : don thob pa rtogs pa’i QG: don thob pa rtogs pa
nyid ni don thob pa’i CD 3 || om. C

(Translation:) It is said that a [cognition] which causes [an object]

to be obtained has the character of a definite cognition of an object.

T seems to be a verbatim translation of the Sanskrit text as it is printed.

In V the word order is changed, clarifying that arthådhi-gamåtmaka-
(tva)m is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The de
in the beginning of the sentence has no equivalent in the Sanskrit. nyid
after thob par byed pa possibly indicates that the Sanskrit manuscript
used by Blo ldan shes rab had more correspondence to the manu-
scripts C and D than to the others. Note also the different renderings
of uktam in the two translations.

NBÈ 25,1–2: tatra pradarßitåd anyad vastu bhinnåkåram, bhinna-

deßam, bhinnakålaµ ca. viruddhadharmasaµsargåd dhy anyad vastu.
deßakålåkårabhedaß ca viruddhadharmasaµsarga˙.
T (A 3a2): der bstand pa las gzhan pa’i dngos po rnam pa tha dad
pa dang | yul tha dad pa dang | dus tha dad pa rnams ni myi ’thun
pa’i chos dang ’dre ba’i phyir yul dang | dus dang | rnam pa tha dad
pa’i dngos po gzhan dag ni myi ’thun pa’ï chos dang ’dre ba yin te |
V(D 38a7–38b1): de la yul tha dad pa dang1 | dus tha dad pa dang |
rnam pa tha dad pa ni rab tu bstan pa las dngos po gzhan nyid de ’di
ltar dngos po gzhan nyid ’gal ba’i chos dang ldan pa las yin la | yul
dang | dus dang | rnam pa tha dad pa yang ’gal ba’i chos dang ldan
pa yin no ||
1
tha dad pa dang NQCD : tha dad pa {dad} {pa}11 dang G

(Translation:) There, a thing different from the one shown [by this
cognition] is one which has a different shape, one which belongs to a
different place, or one which belongs to a different time. The thing is
__________
11 The curly brackets {} indicate three dots above the syllable.
70 HORST LASIC

namely different on account of its being connected with a property

(dharma) incompatible [with the other thing]. And a difference of
place, time and shape is a connection with an incompatible property.

In the Sanskrit we see here three distinct sentences. The first sentence
enumerates the kinds of things different from the one shown by the
cognition. The second gives a general explanation of what the differ-
ence consists of. Finally, the third sentence states that the enumerated
kinds of different things fall under this model. In T this structure is
not visible. I would understand rather:
“There, since the things different from the one shown, [namely]
those with a different shape, those belonging to different places, and
those belonging to different times, are connected with incompatible
qualities, the other things which are of a different place, time, and
form, are connected with incompatible qualities”.
In V the structure of the Sanskrit is once again easily discernible.
Although not each and every element of the Tibetan text has a corre-
sponding element in the Sanskrit text, it is beyond doubt that this ver-
sion could never have been produced solely following the earlier
translation with no reliance on the Sanskrit text.
The same is true for V’s phrad pa’i rgyu in the place of T’s phrad
pa. NBÈ 29,1 reads pråpti˙ in conformance with T. But V’s transla-
tion has its correspondence in manuscript C which reads pråptihetu˙.
The next example displays an interesting deviation in terminology.

NBÈ 27,2: kåraˆaßabdopådåne tu puru!årthasiddhe˙ såk!åtkåra-

ˆaµ gamyeta.
T (A 3a7): byed rgyu’i sgra smos na ni skyes bu’i don ’grub pa’i
mngon sum gyi rgyu yin par shes par ’gyur ro ||
V (D 38b6): rgyu’i sgra smos na ni skyes bu’i don ’grub pa’i
dngos kyi rgyu yin par shes par ’gyur ro ||

(Translation:) If [Dharmak¥rti] were to have used the word ‘cause’,

one would understand the direct cause for the fulfilment of a man’s
aim.
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 71

kåraˆa is rendered in T with byed rgyu, an expression identified in

the Mahåvyutpatti12 (Nr. 2269) with kåraˆahetu. V, however, uses
the more literal equivalent rgyu. såk!åtkåraˆa is rendered in T with
mngon sum gyi rgyu. V, on the other hand, renders it with dngos kyi
rgyu. We find the same diverging terminology in the rendering of
såk!åtkåraˆa of NBÈ 28,2 and of såk!åddhetu of NBÈ 28,4.

NBÈ 40,4f.: tatra tayo˙ pratyak!ånumånayor iti samudåyanirdeßa˙.

T (A 5a4; B 5b4): mngon sum dang rjes su dpag pa de gnyis la |
de la zhes spyir bstand1 nas |
1
bstand B : bstan A
V (D 40a6): de1 la ste mngon sum dang rjes su dpag pa de gnyis
la zhes tshogs pa bstan pa yin no ||
1
de GNQD : da C

(Translation:) ‘among those’ [means] ‘out of those, namely per-

ception and inference’. The whole group is indicated [by the expres-
sion ‘among those’].

Note the different renderings of samudåyanirdeßa in T and V. T

seems to emphasise that tatra refers to the more general concept of
valid cognition, which includes perception and inference. V’s ren-
dering is more literal. Note also the different syntactic solutions. T
places the paraphrase directly before the expression being para-
phrased. The advantage of this solution is that it puts the expression
“among those”, which is being explained, closer to “the whole group
is indicated”, which is the explanation of its function. V, on the other
hand, uses the more common manner of translating such phrases,
placing the paraphrase after the expression being paraphrased, in this
way following the word order of the Sanskrit more closely.

NBÈ 40,6f.: tatra pratyak!am1 anËdya kalpaˆåpo"hatvam abhrån-

tatvaµ ca vidh¥yate.
1
pratyak!am : pratyak!atvam BDPEHN
T (A 5a5; B 5b5): de la mngon sum nyid bstand zind1 nas | rtog pa
dang bral zhing ma2 ’khrul pa3 nyid brjod par bya ste |
1 2 3
bstand zind B : bstan zin A ma inserted under the line B pa A : pa’ plus a space and a
tsheg B
__________
12 Cf. Ishihama and Fukuda 1989.
72 HORST LASIC

V (D 40a7): de la mngon sum nyid rjes su brjod nas | rtog pa dang

bral zhing ma ’khrul pa nyid sgrub pa yin te |

(Translation:) Referring out of them to perception, [Dharmak¥rti]

attributes the [characteristics of] being free from conceptions and of
being unerroneous [to it].

Both translations seem to presuppose the reading pratyak!atvam. The

set expression x anËdya y vidh¥yate is rendered in T with rather non-
technical expressions. V on the other hand uses etymologically moti-
vated renderings.

NBÈ 41,1f.: kalpanåpoåhåbhråntatvaµ ced aprasiddham, kim an-

yat pratyak!asya jñånasya rËpam avaßi!yate, yat pratyak!aßabda-
våcyaµ sad anËdyeta.
T (A 5a6; B 5b6): rtog pa dang bral zhing ma ’khruld1pa nyid ma
grub pa yin na | mngon sum gyï 2 shes pa’i ngo bo gzhan ci zhig lus te |3
gang zhig mngon sum gyi sgra des brjod par bya ba yod do zhes stond4
par byed
1
’khruld B : ’khrul A 2
gyi B : gyï A 3
te | B : te A 4
stond B : ston A
V (D 40b1): rtog pa dang bral zhing ma ’khrul pa1 nyid ma grub
pa yin na mngon sum gyis shes pa’i ngo bo gzhan ci zhig lus te | gang
zhig mngon sum gyi sgras brjod par bya ba yin na rjes su2 brjod
1 2
pa GQCD : ba N rjes su GQCD : rjesu N

(Translation:) If the [characteristics of] being free from conceptions

and of being unerroneous are not established, which other characteristic
of the perceptual cognition is left, which, being expressible by the word
‘perception’, could be referred to [by the very word ‘perception’]?

Note the difference in the rendering of the participle phrase pratyak!a-

ßabdavåcyaµ sad which states the condition under which a charac-
teristic could be referred to by the word ‘perception’. T conveys the
condition with the help of the adverbial zhes. V on the other hand
integrates the condition via the particle na.
Besides yielding some glimpses of different stylistic and interpre-
tational approaches used by Tibetan translators, these examples may
suffice to show that we are indeed dealing with different translations.
Having accepted this, how shall we—without taking refuge in the ex-
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 73

planation of it being a case of mere coincidence—account for the fact

that at certain points T shares thought-provoking correspondences
with one or the other of the canonical versions. We find ’ba’ shig (B
5a6) in Tabo, Ganden, Narthang and Peking in contrast to ’ba’ zhig
of Cone and Derge. On the other hand we find rtog pa dang bcas pa’i
mtshan nyid in Tabo (A 5a1, B5b1), Cone and Derge in contrast to
’dra ba’i mtshan nyid13 of Ganden, Narthang and Peking. One solu-
tion would be to explain the correspondences in terms of later con-
taminations. But another explanation seems more reasonable to me.
These matching readings have their origin in the very manuscript of
the earlier translation used by Blo ldan shes rab while producing the
revised translation, and they survived by being reproduced into the
final fair copy. Eventually, some of them were corrected in one tra-
dition or the other. To corroborate this hypothesis we can refer to an-
other interesting passage.

NBÈ 25,3f.: tasmåd anyåkåravadvastugråhi1 nåkåråntaravati

vastuni pramåˆam, yathå p¥taßa#khagråhi ßukle ßa#khe.
1
anyåkåravastugråhi BCD
T (A 3a2–3): de bas na ci ltar dung dkar po la dung ser por ’dzin
pa bzhin du | rnam pa gzhan gyi dngos po ’dzin pa ni | rnam pa
gzhan dang ldan pa’i dngos po la tshad ma ma yin no ||
V (D 38b1–2): de’i phyir rnam pa gzhan dang ldan pa’i dngos po
’dzin pa ni rnam pa gzhan dang ldan pa’i dngos po la tshad ma ma1
yin te | dper na dung dkar po la ser por ’dzin pa bzhin no ||2
1
ma om. CD 2 bzhin no || NQ : bzhino || G : bzhin no || rnam pa gzhan gyi dngos po
’dzin pa ni | rnam pa gzhan dang ldan pa’i dngos po la tshad ma ma yin no || CD

(Translation:) Therefore, a [cognition] which grasps a thing of one

shape is not a valid cognition with respect to a thing of another shape,
as a [cognition] which grasps a yellow shell [is not a valid cognition]
with respect to a white shell.

A glance at the Tibetan translations shows that Blo ldan shes rab has
replaced Dharmåloka’s translation completely.14 Of particular interest
__________
13 Cf. sårËpyalak!aˆam NBÈ 39,5.
14 Note that rnam pa gzhan dang ldan pa’i dngos po ’dzin pa V corresponds with
anyåkåravadvastugråhi, and rnam pa gzhan gyi dngos po ’dzin pa T with anyåkåra-
vastugråhi BCD.
74 HORST LASIC

is the fact that Cone and Derge have preserved a part of the earlier
translation. This gives us a hint of the manner in which Blo ldan shes
rab executed his work. His changes must have been written directly
into a manuscript of the earlier translation. While copying this manu-
script with the changes made by Blo ldan shes rab in order to produce
a fair copy of the new translation, the old passage was included into
the new translation by mistake. In the same way, misreadings and
orthographic variants not corresponding to the standard were copied
from the working manuscript into the fair copy of the new transla-
tion. Some of these irregularities were then eliminated in the trans-
mission process which has led to the different canonical block prints.
Actually, the scribe of the fair copy very often happened to copy
not only a sentence as it was newly formulated by Blo ldan shes rab,
but together with it, copied a part of the older sentence that Blo ldan
shes rab intended to have replaced. This happened repeatedly in con-
nection with explanations of compounds. In his commentary, Dhar-
mottara makes use of conventional formulations in order to show
what kind of compound Dharmak¥rti has used in a given case. Trans-
lated into another language these explanations lose much of their in-
formation. In fact, translations that imitate the structure of the origi-
nal can be fully understood only by someone who is acquainted with
the specific style used by Sanskrit commentators.

NBÈ 58,4: sa sahakår¥ yasyendriyajñånasya tat tathoktam.

T (B 9a1): de ni dbang po’i rnam par shes pa gang yin pa dang |
lhan cig byed pa de la de skad ces bya’o ||
V (D 42b7–43a1): de ni dbang po’i rnam par shes pa gang yin pa
dang lhan cig byed pa de dbang po’i rnam par shes pa gang la yod
pa de la de skad ces bya’o ||

This is an explanation of the expression svavi!ayånantaravi!ayasaha-

kåriˆendriyajñånena (“by a sensual cognition which has the object
[phase] following immediately on its own object [phase] as a support”)
of NB 1.9.
The explanation says: “a sensual cognition, which has this as sup-
port, is called in that way”. T’s rendering makes good sense: “This is
said to a sensual cognition which is supported by this”. But the gram-
matical analysis of the Sanskrit original is lost. In V we have a sen-
tence that cannot be understood in the way it is transmitted. Evi-
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 75

dently, Blo ldan shes rab replaced part of the earlier translation with
his own rendering, the scribe incorporated this replacement, but did
not leave out the part which Blo ldan shes rab thought to replace. We
should therefore remove the part beginning with de ni and ending
with dang. The remaining lhan cig byed pa de dbang po’i rnam par
shes pa gang la yod pa de la de skad ces bya’o renders the sense and
the grammatical analysis of the original.

NBÈ 59,3f.: samaß cåsau jñånatvena, anantaraß cåsåv avyavahita-

tvena, sa cåsau pratyayaß ca hetutvåt samanantarapratyaya˙, tena ja-
nitam.
T (B 9a3–4): mtshungs pa ni shes pa nyid du’o | de ma thag pa ni
bar ma chod pa’o || de ni rkyend kyang yin te rgyu yin pa’i phyir
mtshungs pa de ma thag pa’i rkyend des bskyed pa’o ||
V (D 43a3): mtshungs pa ni shes pa nyid du’o || ’di ni1 shes
pa¥nyid kyis mtshungs pa yang yin la bar ma chod pas de ma thag pa
yang yin2 no || de’ang yin la rgyu nyid kyis na rkyen3 kyang yin pas4
de ma thag pa’i rkyen te des5 bskyed pa’o ||
1
ni shes pa nyid du’o || ’di ni GNQ : mi CD 2 yin : ma yin G 3
rkyen GNQD : skyon/
rkyon? C 4 pas NQD : pa’i CD 5 des GCD : nges Q (N is unreadable)

This is an explanation of the expression samanantarapratyayena

(by the homogeneous immediately preceding condition) of NB 1.9.
First samanantara- is explained by Dharmottara as being a karma-
dhåraya-compound15: “As a cognition it is homogeneous, and, as not
being separated, it is as well immediately preceding”. T’s rendering
gives only part of this information. It explains the way in which the
cognition under discussion is homogeneous and immediately pre-
ceding but no information is yielded as to which kind of compound
we are dealing with. V, on the other hand, yields the full information
of the Sanskrit original. Here again, we should remove mtshungs pa
ni shes pa nyid du’o, as it is part of the passage which Blo ldan shes
rab intended to replace.
Then, in the Sanskrit original, samanantarapratyaya˙ as a whole
is explained as being a karmadhåraya-compound: “It is so (lit.: this)
(namely a homogeneous immediately preceding one) and, because it

__________
15 sama° instead of the expected samå° is explained in DhPr 59,22f. with refer-
ence to Vårttika 4 on Påˆ 6.1.94 (cf. VyMBh 75,19).
76 HORST LASIC

is a cause, it is a condition as well”. T, again, omits the information

as to which kind of compound it is, stating simply: “Because it is a
cause, it is a condition as well”. V, on the other hand, gives the full
information as to the kind of compound it is, by clearly translating
the two nominal predicates as predicates: “it is so (lit.: this), and, be-
cause it is a cause, it is a condition as well”. In the Sanskrit text, the
expression samanantarapratyaya˙ is syntactically construed as an
apposition to its constituent parts used in the explanation. T seems to
imitate this. Through the use of phyir, V might well indicate that the
given explanation is the reason for this condition to be so named. But
since instead of the expected expression mtshungs pa de ma thag pa’i
only de ma thag pa’i is transmitted, we may wonder whether the first
scribe had again misunderstood Blo ldan shes rab’s notes. It could
well be that C and D preserve the older reading yin pa’i, being a re-
mainder of yin pa’i phyir mtshungs pa of the earlier translation. yin
pas of N and Q could then be explained as being an attempted cor-
rection.
Next in the Sanskrit text, the syntactic role of the expression sam-
anantarapratyaya in NB 1.9 is shown by tena: produced by this. T
renders this by placing des attributively after rkyen. V clarifies the
structure of the Sanskrit text by inserting the conjunction (lhag bcas)
te.
The cited samples give us an impression of how Blo ldan shes rab
executed his revisional work. He was apparently very concerned to
replace some of the termini technici used by Dharmåloka. The fact
that we find not all but only some instances of a certain terminus re-
placed might indicate that by making only some alterations Blo ldan
shes rab was indicating that this should be done throughout the text,
but that his assistants did not take the hint. Another aim was a more
lucid representation of the structure of the Sanskrit text. We know
from the colophon that Blo ldan shes rab used a Sanskrit manuscript
from Magadha and we have seen that this manuscript must have been
different in some readings from the one used by Dharmåloka.
The manner of executing the revisional work directly into a copy
of the earlier translation opened up a source for errors. An awareness
of this particular mode of producing revised translations might help
all those who, in their effort of establishing critical editions, reflect
on the possible genesis of corruptions in addition to their considera-
tions of the content.
 FRAGMENTS OF PRAMÓÔA TEXTS 77

The question of how and when the Nyåyabindu†¥kå manuscripts or

their antecedents came to Tabo is, at least at the moment, impossible
to answer. In any case, I would be inclined to suppose that any per-
son who intentionally brought a translation of a pramåˆa text to
Western Tibet, provided he had to choose between different transla-
tions, would have opted for that translation which was accepted as
the standard. My second guess is that Blo ldan shes rab’s translation
was already regarded as being the standard translation during his
lifetime. Further studies on the Tabo manuscripts may address ques-
tions of possible relationships of the Nyåyabindu†¥kå fragments to
other manuscripts, for instance, whether they are part of a collection
that was intentionally built up or whether they found their way to
Tabo per chance. Investigations of this kind will be greatly facilitated
as soon as the descriptive manuscript catalogue is available.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Beyer, S.V. 1993. The Classical Tibetan Language. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
DhPr Dalsukhbhai, M. (ed.) 1971 (2nd edn.). Paˆ"ita Durveka Mißra’s Dhar-
mottaraprad¥pa. [Being a sub-commentary on Dharmottara’s Nyåyabindu†¥kå,
a commentary on Dharmak¥rti’s Nyåyabindu]. Patna: Kashiprasad Jayaswal Re-
search Institute.
Ishihama, Y. and Fukuda, Y. (eds) 1989. A New Critical Edition of the Mahåvyut-
patti. Sanskrit-Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology. Tokyo:
The Toyo Bunko.
Miller, R.A. 1981. Phonemic theory and orthographic practice in Old Tibetan. The
Journal of the Tibet Society 1(1981), 45–62.
NBÈ Dharmottara’s Nyåyabindu†¥kå (cf. DhPr)
Steinkellner, E. 1994. A report on the ‘Kanjur’ of Ta pho. East and West 44(1), 115–36.
Steinkellner, E. and Much, M.T. 1995. Texte der erkenntnistheoretischen Schule des
Buddhismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tauscher, H. 1994. Tanjur fragments from the manuscript collection at Ta pho mon-
astery: Sambandhapar¥k!å with its commentaries V®tti and È¥kå. East and West
44(1), 173–84.
VyMBh Kielhorn, F. (ed.) 1972 (3rd edn.). The Vyåkaraˆa-Mahåbhå!ya of Patañjali.
Revised and furnished with additional readings, references, and select critical
notes by K.V. Abhyankar. Vol. 3. Poona: Bhandakar Oriental Research Institute.