tibetan lexicographical tradition

Buddhist Texts

And

Traditions

Selected papers

International Conference on Buddhist Texts and

Traditions

21-23 December, 2009

Organized by

Department of Pali, Savitribai Phule Pune

University, Pune,

Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda

And

Central University of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath

Edited by

Prof. Mahesh A. Deokar Prof. Pradeep Gokhale

Dr. Lata M. Deokar

Buddhist Texts And Traditions

Selected papers

International Conference on Buddhist Texts and

Traditions

21-23 December, 2009

Organized by

Department of Pali, Savitribai Phule Pune University,

Pune, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda

And


Edited by

Prof. Mahesh A. Deokar

Prof Pradeep Gokhale

Dr. Lata M. Deokar

Jointly Published by Department of Pali, Savitribai

Phule Pune University, Pune

And


Printed by

Press, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune

ISBN- 978-81-929697-0-1

Price: Rs. 1000/-

Copyright © Editors

First Edition – October 2014, Pune

Foreword

We are happy to present to the scholarly world the selected papers of the International Seminar on “Buddhist Texts and Traditions” jointly organized by the Department of Pali, Savitribai Phule Pune University (formerly known as the University of Pune), the Central University of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath and the Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, from 21st to 23rd December, 2009. The Seminar focussed on the interrelation between Buddhist texts and different Buddhist traditions. Twenty nine scholars from the different parts of the world participated in this Seminar. Due to some unfavourable technical and human conditions, the publication of this volume has been extra-ordinarily delayed. However, we are sure that in spite of this delay, the scholarly community will appreciate our humble efforts in bringing out this volume. Although we have tried our best to present the text accurately, we have restrained ourselves from making changes in terms of the content, style, bibliography etc. of the authors.

We are thankful to all those scholars who participated in the Seminar and have made their papers available for publication. The editorial board would hereby like to express its condolences over the sad demise of three of our contributors Prof. Mrs. Shobhana Gokhale, Prof. Dr. K. Sankarnarayan, and Mr. Sanjay Tambagade.

We are extremely grateful to the Central University of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, for providing full financial support for bringing out this publication. Our thanks are also due to the Savitribai Phule Pune University Press for printing this volume neatly and beautifully.

Mahesh A. Deokar Pradeep Gokhale Lata Deokar

Members of the Editorial Board

Prof. Mahesh A. Deokar,

Professor and Head,

Department of Pali,

University of Pune

Prof. Pradeep Gokhale,

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Research Professor,

Central University of Tibetan Studies,

Sarnath

Dr. Lata Deokar

Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow,

Germany

CONTENTS

1. Tibetan Buddhist Texts and Traditions 1-15

—Tashi Tsering 2. Explaining the Absence of One Single Revered Text in Theravada 16-28

—Asanga Tilakaratne

3. A Comparative Study of Kathāvatthu and Milindapañho 29-36

—Bimalendra Kumar

4. Pariyatti and PaŃipatti in the Pāli Tradition 37-45 —B. Labh

5. Buddhist Text, Tradition and Its Analytic Method with Special Reference to Visuddhimaggo 46-58

—Avinash Kumar Srivastava

6. Other Meaning of the Name ‘Vessantara’ 59-67

—Sombat Mangmeesukhsiri

7. Tibetan TripiŃaka and Its Development 68-83 —Penpa Dorjee

8. Mahākarmavibha#gasūtra– A Brief Critical Analysis 84-94

—Mrs. K. Sankarnarayan

9. The Bodhisattva’s Path in the Mahāyānasa&graha 95-140

—Chikafumi Watanabe

10. The Buddha's First Sermon in the Upāyakauśalya Chapter of the Saddharmapu*+arīkasūtra 141-160

—Yumi Katayama

11. Text, Path and Practice: Meditation and Scholasticism in Indian Buddhism During the Period of the Early Śāstras 161-199

—Daniel M. Stuart

12. Texts on Vipassanā and the Tradition of Practicing It in the U. Ba Khin Way 200-214

—Angraj Chaudhary

13. Buddhist Ma*+ala: The Text for Visualization and the Tradition of Drawing 215-229

—S. S. Bahulkar

14. Jwøg_mOVÝÌ Ed§ CgH$s naånamE 230-237 -~Zmagrbmb 15. Early Buddhist Art - Problems in Interpretation

238-247 — Manjiri Bhalerao

16. Changes in the Literary and Art Traditions 248-268

—Meena Talim

17. The Buddhist Literary Traditions as Reflected in the Inscriptions and Architecture of Buddhist Caves at Nasik and Pitalkhora 269-275

—Shobhana Gokhale

18. The Story of Pūrṇa: Text and Context 276-290 —Suraj A. Pandit

19. Reflection of the Changing Traditions on the Buddhist Architecture 291-308 —Yojana Bhagat

20. A Study on the Development and the Sequence of the Porch Cells of Vākaṭāka Caves at Ajanta 309-326

—Yaguchi Naomichi 21. AmMm ©̀ [XL ²ZmJ Am¡a CZH$s naånam 327-332

- am_e§H>a {ÌnmR>r 22. The Buddha and His Dhamma: A Text of Navayāna

333-337 —Sanjay Tambagade

23. Tibetan Lexicographical Tradition 338-350 —Lata Deokar

TIBETAN LEXICOGRAPHICAL TRADITION

—Lata Deokar

The Buddha believed in refuge in meaning and not in letters and therefore used several languages for his teachings.1 He also allowed his disciples to capture the core spirit of his teachings through their own dialects. This historic decision went a long way to widen the range of his following. As a result, Buddhism spread in Asian countries within a few centuries from its inception and the Buddha’s teachings were translated into languages of those countries. Thus, we have his teachings preserved not only in Pali, but also many other Asian languages such as Sinhalese, Chinese, Tibetan and Burmese.

Amongst these, the Pali Tipiṭaka represents the scriptures of Early Buddhism. Theravādins believe that this Pali Tipiṭaka has been transmitted without change from the Third Council held at Vaiśālī in the reign of Emperor Aśoka up to the present day and was written down in the first century B.C.E. Since the Buddha’s teachings are exegetical in nature, there did not emerge a need for a Pali lexicon explaining typically Buddhist vocabulary. Still we do come across a single Pali lexicon viz. the Abhidhānappadīpikā (= AP) of Moggallāna (towards the end of the 12th century C.E.). Modeled after the Amarakośa (AK), the AP was composed with a view to understanding the Words of the Buddha.2 Moggallāna therefore, on the one hand omitted those

1 The Mahāyāna tradition believes that the Buddha turned the Wheel

of Dharma thrice: first at Sarnath when he gave away the teachings of the Śrāvakayāna; the second at Gṛdhrakūṭa and simultaneously at Śrīdhānyakaṭaka where he gave away the teachings of the Pāramitā Yāna / Madhyamaka School and the Mantrayāna / the Tantric school respectively and the third at Vaiśālī where he gave away the teachings of Cittamātrin i.e. of the Yogācāra school. Out of these, the teachings of the Śrāvakayāna are preserved in Pali / Māgadhī by the Sthaviravādins whereas the rest are preserved in what is popularly known as the Buddhist Sanskrit.

2 nāmali�gesu kosallam atthanicchayakāra�am / yato mahabbalam

Tibetan Lexicoraphical Tradition 339

words from the AK that were not significant from the Buddhist point of view and on the other he tried to incorporate a good many terms of Buddhist flavour.1 This lexicon, however, did not give rise to a Pali lexicographical tradition.

In case of Tibet, however, the situation was different, chiefly because Tibet had neither a fully developed language system nor even a script, when Buddhism was introduced there in the 7th century C.E. This necessitated creation of a whole new language - the Classical Tibetan - having a new vocabulary that can express new philosophical concepts, words related to Indian culture in general together with personal names, place names etc. When the Buddhist scriptures were being translated into Tibetan, there arose a need to standardize the vocabulary used for these translations. This resulted in the compilation of the Mahāvyutpatti (= Mhvy), the first Sanskrit-Tibetan lexicon (9th century CE).

Against this background, an attempt was made in this paper to find out whether the Tibetan lexicons starting from the Mhvy, could retain their Buddhist nature in the long run.

Translation Activity in Tibet

It is a well-established fact that Buddhism was introduced to Tibet in the 7th century C.E. in the reign of king Srong btsan sgam po. It was established as the State religion in the reign of Khri srong lde btsan (755–797 C.E.), the fifth successor of Srong btsan sgam po. With the help of royal patronage, Śāntarakṣita of the Nālandā University initiated a systematic translation of Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit into Tibetan in collaboration with Indian and Tibetan monk-scholars. Padmasambhava, and Śāntarakṣita’s disciple Kamalaśīla together with their disciples

buddhavacane pā avatthinam // nāmali�gānyato buddhabhāsitassā-

rahānaham / dassayanto pakāsissam abhidhānappadīpikam // 1 These include: samatha “tranquillity”, dhīti “steadfastness,”viriya

“right effort” etc.

Lata Deokar 340

joined Śāntarakṣita in this activity, which continued till about the end of the 12th century C.E.

Since in the early period of the translation activity (7th–8th century C.E.), Tibetan was merely a dialect, rendering Sanskrit texts into Tibetan proved to be an extremely difficult task. The second difficulty, which the translators faced, was the translators’ use of various Tibetan translations of a single Sanskrit word. Thus, lack of proper vocabulary and lack of uniformity in translations were the chief difficulties encountered while translating Sanskrit texts into Tibetan.

In order to provide a solution for both these difficulties, king Khri lde srong b(r)stsan Sad na legs (799–815 C.E.) formed a central committee of translators. It consisted of both Indian and Tibetan scholars such as: Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Śīlendra-bodhi, Dānaśīla and Bodhimitra of India, Ratnarakṣita, Dharmatāśīla of Tibet and translators (lo-tsā-bas) Jñānasena, Jayarakṣita, Mañjuśrīvarman, and Ratnendraśīla. This committee was authorized to revise old and new translations in order to attain uniformity in terminology as well as in translation techniques. The members of this central committee compiled two lexicographical works: the Bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa [Vyutpatti / Mahāvyutpatti] and its commentary the Sgra sbyor

bam po gnyis pa [Madhyavyutpatti / Nigha� u]. These works were completed under the successor of Sad na legs viz. Khri gtsug lde btsan alias Ral pa can (815–836 C.E.). The compilation of these two works led to the standardization and codification of the terminology employed in the Tibetan translations of the Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist texts. These two lexico-graphical works were followed by an uninterrupted tradition of lexicons, either bilingual or monolingual, up to the 20th century.

Mahāvyutpatti

The Mhvy is arranged according to 283 chapters dealing with various semantic categories. Being compiled as an aid to the translators in translating Buddhist texts, prime importance is


given to the Buddhist matters. Thus, out of forty five chapters in all, chapters three to twenty-one deal with various qualities and states associated with the Buddha. Chapters twenty-four to thirty-four deal with various qualities and states associated with Bodhisattvas. Chapter 35 deals with the Pratyekabuddhas. Chapters thirty-six to forty-one deal with the Buddha’s disciples and things associated with them. Apart from these, the lexicon includes many more Buddhist philosophical terms in various other chapters. Proper names such as names and epithets of the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas and Śrāvakas are dealt in detail in various chapters. Thus chapters one and two deal with epithets of the Tathāgata and names of individual Tathāgatas. Chapters seventeen and eighteen include thirty-two major and eighty minor characteristics of a Great Being. Chapters twenty-two, twenty-three and thirty-seven deal with the epithets of a Bodhisattva, names of individual Bodhisattvas, and names of the Buddha’s disciples. This covers a major portion of the personal names occurring in the Buddhist literature. These Buddhist philosophical terms and personal names are mainly culled from various Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharmakośa together with the Bhā(ya, the Lalitavistara etc.

Chapters two hundred one to two hundred six deal with the non-Buddhist philosophical terms belonging to six Indian schools of philosophy that occur in Buddhist texts. In addition to this, the Mhvy also includes names of important personalities belonging to Indian culture such as names of important non-Buddhist teachers, names of five sons of King Pāṇḍu etc.

Thus, right from the arrangement of various semantic categories, which differs from the traditional arrangement of sections related to the Heaven, the Earth and miscellaneous found in most of the Classical Sanskrit lexicons, the Mhvy does not show any influence of any Classical Sanskrit lexicon including the AK. Non-Buddhist vocabulary too does not show much influence of the AK. In fact, in Mhvy, we come across such words, which were missing in the AK, though they were

Lata Deokar 342

found in the pre-Amara Buddhist as well as Classical texts. Some such words are: naimittika, vaipañcika

1, mau( ika

2,

mahalla3, vidū(aka, gaulmika

4, śaulkika

5, karmāntika

6etc.Thus, in the Mhvy, utmost importance is given to the Buddhist matters and they are kept in focus. Non-Buddhist matters, though included, are restricted to those attested in the Buddhist litera-ture. Thus, they are kept on the periphery and the influence of the Classical Sanskrit lexicons including the AK is next to negligible.

Tibetan Translations of Classical Sanskrit Lexicons

At the beginning of the translation activity, translation of Buddhist terms was need of the hour. These terms were to be found in the Buddhist literature itself, as not a single Sanskrit lexicon including the AK dealt with it. 7 However, as the translation activity progressed, translators focused their attention on non-Buddhist secular texts as well. These include texts related to Āyurveda, Poetics, Prosody, Śilpaśāstra etc. For this, there arose a need of translation of secular vocabulary. This need of secular vocabulary must have led to the first translation of the AK, together with its commentary the Kāmadhenu by Subhūti-candra (second half of 11th century C.E.) in the 13th century by

1 naimittikair vaipañcikaiś ca vyāk,tam abhūt – ma�galadvāre�a

bodhisattvo ’bhini(krami(yatīti, Lalitavistara 165. 2 na ca tai/ sārdha0 sa0stava0 karoti / na ca�1ālān na mau( ikān

Saddharmapu�1arīkasūtra 166. 3 mahallena bhūtvā pañca sārdhavihāri�ā0 śatāni upasthāpitāni

Avadānaśataka 236; anyatamena mahallena ... ko arayavā/

paribhuktā/ Vinayavastu I.32; paśyate tatra sa�gharāma-

nivāsinam / mahallam Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa 462. 4 a single soldier of a troop, MBh.; the chief of a troop, inscr. (10th

cent.) (MW 370) 5 a superintendent of tolls or customs, Yajn. (MW 1093). 6 a labourer, an artisan, R. (MW 259) 7 See Lata Deokar, 2012.


Kīrticandra and Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1242–1346 CE)1. The exhaustive nature of these two lexicographical works together with the fact that authors of both these works were Buddhist by faith must have played an important role in the selection of these two texts.2 Both these translations were later revised in the 15th century by Chos skyong bzang po and in the 18th century by Si tu paṇ chen (1700–1774).

In addition to the translations mentioned above, we have a partial Tibetan translation of the AK in the form of the Mngon

brjod tshig gi gter by Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182–1251 C.E.). According to Lho pa Kun mkhyen Rin chen dpal, one of Sa skya Paṇḍita’s students and biographers, the former had studied the entire text of the AK and the Viśva-

prakāśa with the west Indian scholar Sugataśrī in the first decade of the thirteenth century. The Tshig gi gter constitutes the very beginning of the Mngon par brjod pa [or Mngon brjod] genre of Tibetan lexicography.

Unlike other Tibetan lexicons, which are in prose, the Tshig

gter is composed in a metrical style and has three broad sections: the first one deals with the epithets of the Buddha, the second one with the words related to the Heaven (= AK I.1–I.7) and the third one with those related to hell (= AK I.8–I.11). Within each section, the sequence of semantic categories is the same as that of the AK. The Kalāpavyākara�a, the Sarasvatīka� hābhara�a, the Kāvyādarśa, works related to astrology, prosody, medicine and Śilpaśāstra form some of the important sources of this

1 L.W.J. van der Kuijp 2009: 17. 2 Cf. van der Kuijp 2009: 41: “... so that at least in theory, no śāstra-

treatise could be included in the Tanjur for which Indo-Tibetan or Tibetan Buddhist scholarship could not marshall (sic marshal) some sliver of evidence that its author was a Buddhist and that, by extension, his work was an extension of his persuasion.” For Subhuticandra's affiliation to the Buddhist faith, see Lata Mahesh Deokar, “Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu Commentary on theAmarakośa,” forthcoming.

Lata Deokar 344

lexicon. Being an adaptation of the AK, the lexicon does not provide any Buddhist vocabulary as such. In addition to the epithets of the Buddha found in the AK it includes some more supplied from other sources.

The Tshig gter was commented upon by Snye thang Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa (?–ca. 1460). The name of his commentary is Don gsal. The author mentions an anonymous commentary on the AK as one of its sources. Surprisingly, at many places, the explanation found in the Don gsal is parallel to the one found in the Tibetan translations of the Kāmadhenu. However, such common portions are missing in Sanskrit manuscripts of the Kāmadhenu.

The Abhidhānaviśvalocana of Śrīdharasena

A third lexicographical work that was translated into Tibetan was the Abhidhānaviśvalocana of Śrīdharasena (some time before or in the 13th century) by Chos skyong bzang po (1441–1528 C.E.). Though Śrīdharasena was a Jain by faith, there are numerous references to the Buddha in this lexicon and a sheer absence of the word Vardhamāna in the sense of the 24th Tīrtha[kara of the Jains. This partially Buddhist orientation of this lexicon as Vogel (1979: 348) puts it, made it to be included in the Tanjur.

Sanskrit Sources of Tibetan Lexicons

Apart from the Kāmadhenu commentary on the AK, there were two more commentaries of the AK that were used by later Tibetan lexicographers. These are: the Padacandrikā by Rāyamuku a (1431 C.E.), and the Vyākhyāsudhā / Rāmāśramī commentary by Bhānujī Dīkṣita, son of the celebrated grammarian Bhaṭṭojī Dīkṣita (between 1620 and 1640 C.E.). Si tu Paṇ chen mentions one more commentary by one Śiva-svāmin. 1 However, we do not find any such commentary by

1 ne pā la’i yul du ’grel pa’i rgya dpe’i rigs btsal bar / su bhū ti’i

’grel pa ’dod ’jo ’di dang / bram ze’i pa �1i ta’i ’grel pa rnam


Śivasvāmin either in Vogel (1979) or Patkar (1981).While composing a Tibetan commentary on the AK, Si tu used two more sources: the Medinīkośa of Medinīkara and the Viśvaprakāśa of Maheśvara.1

All these lexicographical works became important sources for later Tibetan lexicons. A few such lexicons are described below:

1. Mkhas pa'i rna rgyan

This monolingual Tibetan lexicon was compiled by Nag dbang ’jig rten dbang phyug grags pa’i rdo rje in 1641 C.E. The lexicon is divided into four vargas. The first three deal with heaven, nether world and the earth. The fourth varga is miscellaneous and is subdivided into two prakara�as: the sa0kīr�avarga and the nānārthavarga. This reminds us of the division of the AK. The sources of this lexicon are: the AK along with its commentary the Kāmadhenu, the Viśvalocana, Tshig gi

gter and its commentary Don gsal by Blo gros brtan pa. The lexicon begins with the synonyms of the famous Tantric deities such as Vajradhara, Kālacakra, Hevajra and Sa\vara, qualities of the Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas etc. This is followed by the synonyms of heaven, gods, various gods and goddesses.

2. Ngo mtshar nor bu’i do shal

This Tibetan-Sanskrit lexicon of about 15,000 alpha-betically arranged words was compiled by Tshe ring dbang rgyal

bshad bdud rtsi dang / tshig gi zla ’od dang / zhi ba’i rje’i ’grel pa

dang / dka’ ’grel sogs ’ga’ zhig lag tu song cing / “As I was searching for the kinds of Indian commentarial texts in Nepal, some fell into my hands, such as Subhūti's commentary the Kāmadhenu and Brahmin Paṇḍit's commentary the Vyākhyāsudhā, the Padacandrikā, Śivasvāmin's commentary and some extensive commentaries”. (Collected Works, Vol. CA, fol. 211b)

1 sgra gcig gis don du ma la ’jug pa gsal bar ston pa’i bstan bcos me

di nã ka ra dang / sna tshogs gsal ba gnyis kyi rgya dpe ’ang sug

ban son pas de dag la'ng legs par bltas pa dang /...

Lata Deokar 346

(1697–1763 C.E.). Its sources are: the Mhvy, the Madhya-

vyutpatti, the AK, the Kāmadhenu, the Abhidhāna-muktāmālā and a number of non-lexicographical works such as the Avadānakalpalatā, the Kāvyādarśa, the Chandoratnākara, the Prakriyākaumudī etc.

3. Legs par sbyar ba lha’i skad gangs can pa’i brda’ shan

sbyar ba: dri bral nor bu’i me long

This lexicon, popularly known as Prajñā, was complied by Sa skya lama Bstan ’dzin rgyal mtshan (1771 C.E.). It includes words selected from the Mhvy, the AK, the Abhidhāna-

viśvalocana and the grammatical texts such as the commentaries on the A( ādhyāyī, the Kalāpavyākara�a, commentary on the U�ādisūtras of Candragomin etc.

4. Skad gnyis shan sbyar rab gsal nor bu’i me long

This bilingual lexicon was composed by Mi pham Rinpoche (1846–1912). This is the latest among the bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan lexicons. This is the biggest lexicon ever compiled by a Tibetan scholar. As in the Mhvy, in this lexicon too words are arranged subject-wise. Mi pham Rinpoche has recorded almost all the important words related to Buddhism making it an encyclopaedic dictionary where we get brief information about all the major branches of Buddhist studies. He has also tried to include non-Buddhist philosophical as well as secular terms that are found in the Buddhist literature. Mi pham Rinpoche has made extensive use of the Vyākhyāsudhā alias Rāmāśramī commentary of the AK by Bhānujī Dīkṣita (between 1620 and 1640 C.E.) and the previous lexicons quoted therein. For instance, while listing the synonyms of Nāgakesara, he has reproduced all the synonyms from the AK and has then added a few more from the Rabhasakośa quoted in the Vyākhyāsudhā.Mi 1 nā ga ke sa ra/ glang po’i gser te nag ge sar gyi ming / cā mpe ya/

ca mpa skyes dang / gser ming / kāñcanāhvaya/ / klu ming

sarpākhya/ / glang ming ibhākhya/ / rkang drug (a padapriya/

dga’ yang zer / Cf. AK II.4.65: cāmpeya/ kesaro nāgakesara/


pham Rinpoche has also made use of the Tibetan commentary on the AK by Si tu Paṇ chen (1700–1774) as well as that of the Kāmadhenu commentary by Subhūticandra (second half of 11th century C.E.). Non-lexicographical sources of Mi pham’s lexicon are: the Kāvyādarśa, the Chandoratnākara etc.

Mi pham Rinpoche’s lexicon begins with the epithets of the Buddha and other Buddhist matters. Then it goes on to include terms from the AK, though not always in the same sequence. It appears that Mi pham Rinpoche has incorporated almost all of the AK in his lexicon. In the Mhvy, we find only those epithets of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva that are found in the Buddhist literature. However, Mi pham includes almost all of them. Thus, out of thirty-nine epithets of Viṣṇu found in the AK, Mi pham has listed twenty-seven.

Concluding Remarks

The main purpose of compiling the Mhvy was to standardize the vocabulary of the newly translated Buddhist texts and thereby achieving uniformity in those translations. The compilers of the Mhvy, therefore, culled words from Sanskrit Buddhist sources, keeping Sanskrit lexicons on its periphery. Having important Buddhist texts translated into Tibetan, later generations of Tibetan scholars translated non-Buddhist texts into Tibetan. This in turn contributed to the tendency of compiling more and more comprehensive lexicons, rather than compiling typically Buddhist lexicons. During this process, the Tibetans returned to their Indian roots, from where Buddhism had gone to their country. For this, their natural choice was the lexicographical works composed by Indian Buddhist authors. This, however, resulted in changing the nature of these lexicons. They became more and more comprehensive rather than

kāñcanāhvaya/ / Cf. the Vyākhyāsudhā on the same: svar�ebha-

sarpākhyo nāgakesara/ (a padapriya/ rabhasakośa ...

Lata Deokar 348

specialized Buddhist lexicons unlike the pioneering lexicon the Mahavyutpatti, the first bilingual lexicon.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1. Abhidhānappadīpikā: A Study of the Text and Its Commentary. (2001). Ed. by Bhikkhu Medagama Nandawansa, Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

2. Abhidhānaviśvalocana of Śrīdharasena. (1994). Translated by Alex Wayman, Tokyo: Naritasan Shinshoji.

3. Amarakośa in Tibet. (1965). Ed. by Lokesh Candra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.

4. Collected Works of The Great Ta’i Si Tu Pa Kun mKhyen Chos kyi Byuï gNas bsTan Pa’i Nyin byed, Vol. V, Kangra: Palpung sungrab Nyamso Khang, Sherab-ling Institute of Buddhist Studies, Himachal Pradesh.

5. Lalitavistara (1987). Ed. by Shridhar Tripathi, Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning (First Edition: 1958).

6. Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (1964). Ed. by P. L. Vaidya, Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning (First Edition: 1958).

7. Prajñā (1961). Lexicon / Dictionary portions of the Sanskrit-Tibetan Thesaurus - cum - grammar, Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology.

8. Prakaṭaratnādarśo nāma Dvibhāṣāśabdakośaḥ, (2006). Ed. by Tashi Topgyal: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis sub-


mitted to the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi.

9. Rāmāśramī of Bhānujī Dīkṣita. (1970). Ed. byHaragovinda Shastri, Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Bhavan.

10. Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (1960). Ed. by P. L. Vaidya, Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning (First Edition: 1958).

11. Vinayavastu (2000). Ed. by S. Bagchi, Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning (First Edition: 1958).

Secondary Sources

1. van der Kuijp, L. W. J. (Dec. 2009). “On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra's Kāmadhenu

Commentary on the Amarakośa in Tibet”. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5.

2. Deokar, Lata (2012). “Some Observations on Buddhism and Lexicography”, Sa\skṛta-sādhutā Goodness of Sanskrit, Studies in Honour of Professor Ashok N. Aklujkar, Edited by Chikafumi Watanabe, Michele Desmarais, Yoshichika Honda. DK Printworld, New Delhi.

3. --------------- (2014). Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu Commentary on the Amarakośa, Marburg/Delhi: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, Germany.

4. Mishra, K. N. (1997). (Ed.) Glimpses of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature (Vol. I), Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath.

5. Patkar, M. M. (1981). History of Sanskrit Lexicography, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Lata Deokar 350

6. Vogel C. (1979). Indian Lexicography, History of Indian

Literature, Vol. V, No. 4, Ed. by Jan Gonda, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

7. Williams, Monier-Williams (1979). Sanskrit English Dictionary, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

��

tibetan lexicographical tradition

Documents