[INDOLOGY] aja as ajaya?
David and Nancy Reigle
dnreigle at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 18:22:43 EDT 2016
The term *ārya* as a possibility for *aja* was also suggested off list by
Elena Bashir. What makes the Tibetan translations so useful for textual
criticism is that they are very literal, meaning that they follow the
Sanskrit text very closely, and they use standardized translation
equivalents for most technical terms. Thus, the word *ārya* is virtually
always translated into Tibetan as *'phags pa*. So even if *aja* is taken as
a MIA form of *ārya*, like *ajja* or *ayya*, as long as its meaning was
known to the Tibetan translator, he would have translated it as *'phags pa*.
Further, if this was an honorific added to the name, we would lose one of
the twenty-five kings, besides being the only name to have an honorific.
While the verses giving the listing of the kings of Śambhala are given in
my paper at the academia.edu link in my first post, I realized that it
would also be helpful to have access to the *Vimalaprabhā* commentary on
*Kālacakra-tantra* 1.27 where *aja* is found in prose three times. A
printed edition of the first two chapters of the *Vimalaprabhā* was
published in 1986, not long after my paper. There one can see the name *aja*
in the prose commentary on 1.27, p. 78, lines 15, 16, and 24. The verses
giving the list of kings are found in this edition on pp. 24-26. A scan of
this book has been posted by me on the web at:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Artur Karp <karp at uw.edu.pl> wrote:
> Dear Nancy and David,
> I do not know Tibetan, but - but, couldn't that mysterious -aja be a
> continuation of OIA ārya–, added to names/titles in its MIA/NIA forms?
> Look, please at my paper:
> Artur Karp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY