[INDOLOGY] aja as ajaya?

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Getting the names of the kings of Śambhala correct is very important for
the Jonang order of Tibetan Buddhism, which has specialized in the
Kālacakra/Śambhala teachings. So the Jonangpa lama Khentrul Rinpoche asked
me if I could check with other Sanskritists to confirm that the name *aja*
cannot mean “inconquerable” or “unconquered” in accordance with the rules
of Sanskrit grammar. Since the many learned Sanskritists on this list have
not responded with a way to derive this meaning in the three days since the
question was posted, I take this as confirmed. This is a difficult problem,
because a thousand years ago two different Indian Sanskrit pandits, working
with two different Tibetan translators, apparently did take *aja* in this
meaning. Unlike with the name *harivikrama*, we cannot trace how the error
with *aja* arose (if it is an error).


The case of *harivikrama* is comparatively simple. This name occurs with
another name in this anuṣṭubh pāda: śrīpalo harivikramaḥ. Sanskrit verses
had to be translated into Tibetan verses with a fixed number of syllables,
seven for a pāda in the śloka or anuṣṭubh meter. So the eight syllables of
this anuṣṭubh pāda were translated into these seven Tibetan syllables: dpal
skyong seng ge rnam par gnon. Because the number of Tibetan syllables was
limited by the meter, the syllables giving necessary grammatical
information were omitted, leaving no way to know where the names divide. At
some point, annotations were added, dividing this pāda into three names
rather than two. So the Tibetan tradition got two kings, *hari* and
*vikrama*, for one, *harivikrama*. All eight Sanskrit manuscripts that I
used 31 years ago have *harivikramaḥ* (not *harir vikramaḥ*), as do the two
that have become available to me since then. These ten include six old
palm-leaf manuscripts, two of which had been used in Tibet, as seen by the
Tibetan handwriting on their opening leaves.


The case of *aja* is more complex. Even though the pāda of the śloka that
*ajaḥ* occurs in lacks a syllable, samudravijayo 'jaḥ, all ten Sanskrit
manuscripts have *ajaḥ*, not *ajayaḥ*. This name occurs again in prose in
the *Vimalaprabhā* commentary on 1.27, three times, so the form *aja* is
there confirmed. Yet the canonical Tibetan translation by the Indian pandit
Somanātha and the Tibetan translator 'Bro Shes rab grags, revised by Shong
ston, has *rgyal dka'*. Similarly, the Tibetan translation by the Indian
pandit Samantaśrī and the Tibetan translator Rwa Chos rab has *ma pham pa*,
as reported by Bu ston in his annotated edition of the *Vimalaprabhā*. Both
mean “unconquerable” or “unconquered.” Here we do not have an error that is
traceable to the transmission process, as we do with *harivikrama*, but
rather a discrepancy in the translation itself.


In the last few years two other old Tibetan translations of the
*Vimalaprabhā* that had recently been recovered were published, and part of
a third. The translation by Tsa mi Sangs rgyas grags, said to be the only
Tibetan ever to become abbot of Nālandā university in India, has
transliterated the name into Tibetan characters (*a dza*) rather than
translated it. The first ever Tibetan translation, by the Indian pandit
Bhadrabodhi and the Tibetan translator Gyi jo Zla ba'i 'od zer and his
students, has the incomprehensible *nyi ma'i*, “of the sun,” at the end of
the pāda in the list of kings (probably a scribal error in the one
manuscript we have), and *chu skyes*, “water-born,” in the three
occurrences in the commentary on 1.27. A third translation, of which we
have only the first chapter (so we do not know who made it), has *rgyal ba*,
“conqueror,” in the list of kings (probably a scribal error for *rgyal dka'*
in the one manuscript we have), and *rgyal dka'*, “unconquerable,” in the
three occurrences at 1.27.


The question now is whether the name *aja* could stand for *ajaya* in some
Prakrit or even vernacular language, probably from northeastern India. If
we reject Gyi jo’s *chu skyes*, “water-born,” as an erroneous translation,
a simple mistake, we are left with figuring out how three translators took
*aja* as “unconquerable” or “unconquered.” Is this, too, just an erroneous
translation? Significantly, Tsa mi did not translate the name but only
transliterated it. This indicates that he did not take it as
“unconquerable” or “unconquered,” but neither did he take it as “unborn,”
as we might have expected. My apologies for the long post, but this is
important to me and to Khentrul Rinpoche, and I wanted to provide enough
background information to possibly lead to a solution to this problem.


Best regards,


David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.



On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:51 PM, David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle at gmail.com>
wrote:

> A question to all,
>
>
> The name *aja* occurs in a listing of the kings of Śambhala quoted in the
> *Vimalaprabhā* commentary on the *Kālacakra-tantra*. As the name of a
> bodhisattva king I have not taken *aja* in its meaning “goat,” but rather
> in its meaning “unborn.” However, two different pairs of early translators
> have translated it into Tibetan as “unconquerable” or “unconquered” (*rgyal
> dka’*, *ma pham pa*), as if the word was *ajaya* (or *ajita*) rather than
> *aja*. This, of course, is a more appropriate meaning for the name of a
> king; but the form *aja* is unanimously confirmed in multiple witnesses
> and also in a different location in the *Vimalaprabhā*. So the question
> is: Is there any way to derive *aja* from the root *ji*, “to conquer,”
> rather than from the root *jan*, “to be born,” in accordance with the
> rules of Sanskrit grammar, whether the *Aṣṭādhyāyī* of Pāṇini, the
> *Cāndra-vyākaraṇa*, the *Kātantra*, the *Sārasvata-vyākaraṇa*, or any
> other Sanskrit grammar?
>
>
> Details: The full listing can be found in “The Lost Kālacakra Mūla Tantra
> on the Kings of Śambhala,” where *ajaḥ* occurs in the verse that I have
> arbitrarily numbered 17 for convenience of reference:
> https://www.academia.edu/6423778/The_Lost_Kalacakra_
> Mula_Tantra_on_the_Kings_of_Sambhala.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> David Reigle
>
> Colorado, U.S.A.
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160823/6365d029/attachment.htm>