{"id":1688,"date":"2018-08-19T16:33:06","date_gmt":"2018-08-19T16:33:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=1688"},"modified":"2020-04-07T17:04:44","modified_gmt":"2020-04-07T17:04:44","slug":"studies-in-the-jonang-revised-translation-of-the-kalacakra-tantra-1-1-1-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/studies-in-the-jonang-revised-translation-of-the-kalacakra-tantra-1-1-1-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Studies in the Jonang Revised Translation of the K\u0101lacakra-tantra: 1.1-1.3"},"content":{"rendered":"

There was much interest in the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> when it appeared in India about a thousand years ago. So when it was brought to Tibet a short time later, it was translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan several times. The translation that would become standard was the one by the Sanskrit pa\u1e47\u1e0dita Soman\u0101tha and the Tibetan translator ‘Bro Shes rab grags. This translation was at some point revised by Shong ston Rdo rje rgyal mtshan, and it is only this revised version that we have. This revised Shong version was again revised when the Jonang teacher Dolpopa asked Blo gros rgyal mtshan and Blo gros dpal bzang po to do so. Shong ston says in his colophon that he used two Sanskrit manuscripts when making his revision, and the two Jonang translators say in their colophon that they used many (mang po<\/em>) Sanskrit manuscripts when making their revison. So the Jonang revised translation of the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> is a revision of the Shong ston revision of the translation by Soman\u0101tha and ‘Bro lo ts\u0101 ba (Dro lotsawa).<\/p>\n

The K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> is a text of unusual difficulty, not only because of its arcane subject matter, but especially because it is written entirely in the sragdhar\u0101<\/em> meter. In this long meter every syllable is regulated as to its length, long or short. So the writer cannot just say things as he would in prose, but must make every syllable fit the meter. The Tibetan translation, too, is regulated by meter, in this case by the total number of syllables allowed per line. This means that syllables giving important grammatical information often had to be omitted to fit the meter. Soman\u0101tha and ‘Bro lo ts\u0101 ba when making their translation had to fit the meaning into the required number of Tibetan syllables. Likewise, when Shong ston and the two Jonang translators were making their revisions, they could not just say what they thought was meant, but rather had to somehow fit this into the meter.<\/p>\n

As already said, the unrevised translation of the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> by Soman\u0101tha and ‘Bro lo ts\u0101 ba is no longer available. The revision of it by Shong ston is found in several editions or recensions of the Kangyur, including the Lithang, Narthang, Der-ge, Co-ne, Urga, and Lhasa blockprint recensions, and also in a blockprint with annotations by Bu ston. The Jonang revision of the Shong revision is found in the Yunglo and Peking blockprint recensions of the Kangyur, and also in a modern typeset edition with annotations by Phyogs las rnam rgyal. All of the editions or recensions have a number of typographical errors. This must be carefully taken into account when trying to ascertain the differences between the Shong version and the Jonang version. Sometimes even the differences between two or more recensions of the same version, such as the Narthang and Der-ge recensions of the Shong version, are such that the correct reading can only be ascertained by comparision with the original Sanskrit. Once the texts are established, it is only by comparison with the original Sanskrit that we can try to determine what the Jonang revisers were attempting to clarify or correct.<\/p>\n

Here follows the edited and corrected Sanskrit text, an English translation (by myself), the edited and corrected Tibetan text as revised by Shong ston, and the edited and corrected Tibetan text as revised by the two Jonang translators. The differences between the Shong and Jonang versions are underlined. Some comments on these are then given. For access to the eight blockprint recensions mentioned above, I have used the comparative Bka’ ‘gyur<\/em> published in China, vol. 77 (2008). Six of these give the Shong version and two of these give the Jonang version. Since two textual witnesses for the Jonang version are not sufficient, I have used the edition with annotations by Phyogs las rnam rgyal published in the Jonang Publication Series, vol. 17 (2008), and the manuscript with annotations by Phyogs las rnam rgyal reproduced in Dus ‘khor ‘grel mchan phyogs bsgrigs<\/em>, vol. 4 (2007). This same manuscript was also reproduced in Dus ‘khor phyogs bsgrigs chen mo<\/em>, vol. 25 (2014).<\/p>\n

sarva-j\u00f1a\u1e43 j\u00f1\u0101na-k\u0101ya\u1e43 dina-kara-vapu\u1e63a\u1e43 padma-patr\u00e2yat\u00e2k\u1e63a\u1e43<\/p>\n

buddha\u1e43 si\u1e43h\u00e2sana-stha\u1e43 sura-vara-namita\u1e43 mastakena pra\u1e47amya |<\/p>\n

p\u1e5bcched r\u0101j\u0101 sucandra\u1e25 kara-kamala-pu\u1e6da\u1e43 sth\u0101payitv\u00f4ttam\u00e2\u1e45ge<\/p>\n

yoga\u1e43 \u015br\u012b-k\u0101lacakre kali-yug-a-samaye mukti-hetor nar\u0101\u1e47\u0101m || 1 ||<\/p>\n

Having bowed with his head to the omniscient Buddha, who is the primordial wisdom body, which is the body of the sun, whose eyes are long like lotus petals, who is seated on a lion throne, who is bowed to by the best of gods, King Suchandra, having placed his joined lotus-hands on his head, asked for the yoga in the glorious K\u0101lachakra, which latter is the group of vowels together with the consonants, for the sake of the liberation of human beings.<\/p>\n

thams cad mkhyen pa ye shes sku dang nyin mor byed pa’i sku ste padma’i ‘dab ma rgyas pa’i spyan | |<\/p>\n

sangs rgyas seng ge’i khri la bzhugs pa lha mchog rnams kyis<\/u> btud la rgyal po zla ba bzang po yis | |<\/p>\n

mgo bos rab tu phyag ‘tshal lag pa’i padma sbyar ba yan lag mchog la bzhag nas zhus pa ni | |<\/p>\n

rnal ‘byor dpal ldan dus ‘khor ka phreng ldan pa’i a ‘dus la<\/u> ste mi rnams dgrol ba’i don du’o | 1 | Shong<\/p>\n

thams cad mkhyen pa ye shes sku dang nyin mor byed pa’i sku ste pad ma’i ‘dab ma rgyas pa’i spyan | |<\/p>\n

sangs rgyas seng ge’i khri la bzhugs lha’i mchog rnams kyis ni<\/u> btud la rgyal po zla ba bzang po yis | |<\/p>\n

mgo bos rab tu phyag ‘tshal lag pa’i pad ma sbyar ba yan lag mchog la bzhag nas zhus pa ni | |<\/p>\n

rnal ‘byor dpal ldan dus ‘khor ka phreng ldan pa’i a ‘dus su<\/u> ste mi rnams dgrol ba’i don du’o | 1 | Jonang<\/p>\n

Here the Jonang revisers have omitted the \u201cpa\u201d in \u201cbzhugs pa,\u201d \u201cseated,\u201d in order to make room for a newly added syllable, \u201cni\u201d after \u201ckyis.\u201d The final \u201cpa\u201d in Tibetan words is often omitted in verse, and this does not usually create misunderstanding. The syllable \u201cni\u201d typically marks where the subject is set off from the predicate. Here it sets off the subject, \u201cby the best of gods,\u201d \u201clha’i mchog rnams kyis,\u201d from the predicate, \u201cis bowed to,\u201d \u201cbtud,\u201d in this short subordinate clause. This short phrase is in the passive construction, which is the norm in Tibetan, and is also common in Sanskrit. In English, we would not regard \u201cby the best of gods\u201d as the subject, but in Sanskrit it is so regarded in passive phrases, and also in Tibetan. This whole phrase, \u201cis bowed to by the best of gods,\u201d is only a part of the longer description of what King Suchandra has bowed to, which takes up most of the first two lines of this verse. Hence it is one of the objects of the verbal, \u201chaving bowed to,\u201d Sanskrit \u201cpra\u1e47amya,\u201d Tibetan \u201crab tu phyag ‘tshal.\u201d In the Sanskrit, all of these objects of this verbal are individually declined in the accusative case. In the Tibetan, it is only the \u201cla\u201d after \u201cbtud\u201d that shows the accusative for the several preceding objects of this verbal. This is common in Tibetan translations of Sanskrit verse, where economy as to the total number of syllables must be achieved. By adding \u201cni\u201d before \u201cbtud,\u201d perhaps the Jonang revisers wished to help avoid possible confusion regarding the larger function of the \u201cla\u201d after \u201cbtud.\u201d They also changed \u201clha\u201d to \u201clha’i,\u201d adding the genitive \u201c’i.\u201d This spelled out the \u201cof\u201d in the \u201cbest of gods,\u201d which otherwise was only implied, and it did so without adding a syllable.<\/p>\n

Then in the last line the Jonang revisers changed \u201cla\u201d to \u201csu\u201d after \u201c’dus,\u201d \u201cgroup.\u201d This may be regarded as a formal correction. Of the seven \u201cla don\u201d particles, namely, \u201csu, ru, ra, du, na, la, tu,\u201d all having the same function of showing the accusative, dative, or locative case, \u201csu\u201d is supposed to be used after final \u201cs.\u201d But, of course, the rules are not always followed. The Sanskrit \u201csamaye\u201d shows that the locative case is intended here.<\/p>\n

\u015b\u016bnya\u1e43 j\u00f1\u0101na\u1e43 ca bindu\u1e43 vara-kuli\u015ba-dhara\u1e43 buddha-dev\u00e2sur\u0101\u1e43\u015b ca<\/p>\n

b\u0101hye dehe pare ca prak\u1e5bti\u1e63u puru\u1e63a\u1e43 pa\u00f1ca-vi\u1e43\u015b\u00e2tmaka\u1e43 ca |<\/p>\n

dehe vi\u015bvasya m\u0101na\u1e43 tri-bhuvana-racan\u0101\u1e43 bhukti dev\u00e2sur\u0101\u1e47\u0101m<\/p>\n

etad vy\u0101khy\u0101hi samyak tri-da\u015ba-nara-guro ma\u1e47\u1e0dala\u1e43 c\u00e2bhi\u1e63ekam || 2 ||<\/p>\n

The empty, primordial wisdom, the drop, the best and the holder of the thunderbolt, buddhas, gods, and demons, in the outer, in the body, and in the other, spirit among the substances consisting of the twenty-fifth, the measure of the cosmos in the body, the arrangement of the three worlds, the enjoyment of the gods and of the demons, the ma\u1e47\u1e0dala, and the initiation; O teacher of gods and men, please explain this completely.<\/p>\n

stong pa ye shes kyang ste thig le mchog mchog<\/u> rdo rje ‘dzin pa sangs rgyas lha dang lha min yang | |<\/p>\n

phyi dang lus dang gzhan la yang ste rang bzhin rnams la<\/u> skyes bu nyi shu lnga pa’i bdag nyid dang | |<\/p>\n

lus la sna tshogs tshad dang srid pa gsum gyi bkod pa lha dang lha min rnams kyi longs spyod dang | |<\/p>\n

dkyil ‘khor dang ni dbang ste skabs gsum pa dang mi yi bla mas ‘di dag<\/u> yang dag bshad du gsol | 2 | Shong<\/p>\n

stong pa ye shes kyang ste thig le mchog dang<\/u> rdo rje ‘dzin pa sangs rgyas lha dang lha min yang | |<\/p>\n

phyi dang lus dang gzhan la yang ste rang bzhin rnams dang<\/u> skyes bu nyi shu lnga pa’i bdag nyid dang | |<\/p>\n

lus la sna tshogs tshad dang srid pa gsum gyi bkod pa lha dang lha min rnams kyi longs spyod dang | |<\/p>\n

dkyil ‘khor dang ni dbang ste skabs gsum pa dang mi yi bla ma ‘di rnams<\/u> yang dag bshad du gsol | 2 | Jonang<\/p>\n

In the Shong version of this verse we have the phrase \u201cmchog mchog rdo rje ‘dzin pa,\u201d corresponding to the Sanskrit \u201cvara-kuli\u015ba-dhara\u1e43.\u201d The Tibetan word \u201cmchog\u201d translates the Sanskrit word \u201cvara,\u201d meaning \u201cbest.\u201d As may be seen, there is only one \u201cvara\u201d in the Sanskrit, while there are two \u201cmchog\u201ds in the Tibetan. This is because the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> commentary explains this compound as an \u201ceka-dvandva\u201d (Jagannatha Upadhyaya Sanskrit edition, p. 48). More fully, this is an \u201ceka-\u015be\u1e63a,\u201d \u201cthe remainder of one,\u201d \u201c-dvandva,\u201d \u201cdual.\u201d This is a rare type of dual compound in which one of the members is not stated, but only implied, and only the other one remains. An example of this is \u201cv\u1e5bk\u1e63au,\u201d the word \u201cv\u1e5bk\u1e63a,\u201d \u201ctree,\u201d declined in the dual, meaning \u201cv\u1e5bk\u1e63a and v\u1e5bk\u1e63a,\u201d \u201ctree and tree.\u201d The Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> construes this compound as \u201cvara\u015b ca vara\u015b ca kuli\u015ba-dhara\u015b ca vara-kuli\u015ba-dharam,\u201d meaning \u201cbest and best and holder of the thunderbolt.\u201d This is how the translation \u201cmchog mchog rdo rje ‘dzin pa,\u201d in the Shong version was intended to be understood, as if the three terms were joined by \u201cdang,\u201d \u201cand,\u201d in between them. However, the additional \u201cvara\u201d is not found in the verse itself. So in keeping with the strict literal accuracy that characterizes the Tibetan translations of Sanskrit texts, the Jonang revisers removed the second \u201cmchog\u201d that was only implied, and replaced it with \u201cdang,\u201d showing that this phrase is to be understood as a dual compound, \u201cthe best and the holder of the thunderbolt.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the second line of this verse, the syllable \u201cla\u201d after \u201crang bzhin rnams\u201d in the Shong version was replaced by \u201cdang\u201d in the Jonang version. The \u201cla\u201d intended the locative case, as seen in the Sanskrit \u201cprak\u1e5bti\u1e63u,\u201d \u201camong the substances.\u201d The \u201cdang,\u201d \u201cand,\u201d was presumably intended to show that \u201cpuru\u1e63a,\u201d \u201cspirit,\u201d is not among the twenty-four substances posited in the S\u0101\u1e43khya system. Rather, as the twenty-fifth principle, it forms a category of its own outside the substances. So unlike in the first line, where the Jonang version became a more literal translation, here in the second line it became a less literal translation.<\/p>\n

In the last line, the last three syllables of the phrase \u201cskabs gsum pa dang mi yi bla mas ‘di dag\u201d in the Shong version have been changed to \u201cma ‘di rnams\u201d in the Jonang version. The first of these three syllables in the Shong version, \u201cmas,\u201d has the instrumental ending \u201cs,\u201d \u201cby,\u201d yielding \u201cby the teacher of gods and men.\u201d Since Tibetan sentences are usually passive, the instrumental ending usually marks the subject. Something is done \u201cby\u201d the subject. This is with verbs other than imperatives, as we have here, Sanskrit \u201cvy\u0101khy\u0101hi,\u201d Tibetan \u201cyang dag bshad du gsol,\u201d \u201cplease explain.\u201d With an imperative verb, when not the implied \u201cyou,\u201d the subject would normally be in the vocative case, \u201cO teacher of gods and men,\u201d and would not have the intrumental ending. The change from \u201cmas\u201d to \u201cma\u201d in the Jonang version has deleted the instrumental ending, allowing this to be understood as a vocative.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the corresponding Sanskrit phrase as found in all three printed editions, \u201ctri-da\u015ba-nara-guror,\u201d is not in the vocative case. It is in the ablative or genitive case. Here, followed by \u201cma\u1e47\u1e0dala\u1e43,\u201d the natural reading would be \u201cthe ma\u1e47\u1e0dala of the teacher of gods and men.\u201d The early Tibetan translations clearly did not read it this way. This discrepancy must be explained. The obvious answer is that the Sanskrit manuscripts that they translated from must have had the vocative, \u201cguro,\u201d rather than the ablative\/genitive, \u201cguror.\u201d The difference is only a single letter, and in this combination it is merely a mark above the following Sanskrit letter. But the evidence of the printed Sanskrit editions is weighty, since in their aggregate they used several old palm-leaf manuscripts, and no variant reading is reported for this. This phrase is repeated verbatim in the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> commentary, bringing in additional manuscript evidence. Again, no variant reading is reported here (Upadhyaya edition, p. 51). So which reading is correct? Fortunately, we now have access to at least three old Sanskrit manuscripts that were used in Tibet, and these can be checked. In 1971 Lokesh Chandra published a facsimile of a K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> manuscript from Narthang monastery in Sanskrit Manuscripts from Tibet<\/em>. Here the letters are slightly indistinct, but it appears to read \u201cguror.\u201d Another old palm-leaf manuscript that formed the primary basis for the edition of the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra (1966) and also the edition by Biswanath Banerjee (1985) has now become available online. It is from Nepal, and is now in the Cambridge University Library. As may be seen, https:\/\/cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk\/view\/MS-ADD-01364\/4<\/a>, it clearly reads \u201cguror.\u201d Two other palm-leaf manuscripts used by Banerjee, which were photographed in Tibet, are not accessible to me to verify that they in fact read \u201cguror\u201d as in his edition. The printed edition of the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> that is included in the printed edition of the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> was largely based, in volume 1 edited by Jagannatha Upadhyaya (1986), on a later but carefully written paper manuscript. I was able to check this manuscript from a microfiche of it made by the Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions (MBB I-24). Contrary to the printed edition, it reads \u201cguro\u201d in both the K\u0101lacakra-tantra<\/em> verse (folio 29B, line 9) and also in the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> commentary (folio 32B, line 11). An old palm-leaf manuscript of the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> that was used in Tibet is held in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta (G 10766). It reads \u201cguro,\u201d as I was able to see from a microfilm of it (folio 20B, line 7). Another such Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> manuscript was reproduced by Lokesh Chandra in 2010 in Sanskrit Manuscripts from Tibet<\/em>. It clearly reads \u201cguro\u201d (folio 23B, p. 20, the fourth folio side on that page, line 4). I then checked my microfilm of another palm-leaf manuscript of the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> that was not used in the printed edition, from the Asiatic Society of Bengal (G 4727). It, too, reads \u201cguro\u201d (folio 37A, line 5). So despite every printed edition reading the ablative\/genitive \u201cguror\u201d with no variant reading reported, and although \u201cguror\u201d appears even in some early Sanskrit manuscripts, the correct reading is clearly the vocative \u201cguro.\u201d This agrees with the early Tibetan translations, and is what would be expected with an imperative verb as we have here.<\/p>\n

The last of the three-syllable phrase in the Shong version, \u201cdag\u201d after \u201c’di,\u201d \u201cthis,\u201d was changed to \u201crnams\u201d in the Jonang version. Since both of these show the plural, turning \u201cthis\u201d into \u201cthese,\u201d this can be regarded as a formal change. However, \u201crnams\u201d is unambiguously a plural marker, while \u201cdag\u201d can specifically translate the Sanskrit dual number. Since this line of the Tibetan translation begins with two items, the ma\u1e47\u1e0dala and the initiation, \u201c’di dag\u201d could be understood to only refer to these two, while \u201c’di rnams\u201d clearly refers to all the preceding.<\/p>\n

tu\u1e63\u1e6do \u2018ha\u1e43 te sucandra pravara-sura-narai r\u0101k\u1e63asair daitya-n\u0101gair<\/p>\n

na j\u00f1\u0101ta\u1e43 v\u012bta-r\u0101gai\u1e25 parama-muni-kulair yat tvay\u0101 p\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6dam etat |<\/p>\n

nirv\u0101\u1e47\u00e2dya\u1e43 dhar\u00e2nta\u1e43 pada-gati-sahita\u1e43 deha-madhye samasta\u1e43<\/p>\n

yoga\u1e43 vy\u0101khy\u0101yam\u0101na\u1e43 \u015b\u1e5b\u1e47u su-nara-pate ma\u1e47\u1e0dala\u1e43 c\u00e2bhi\u1e63ekam || 3 ||<\/p>\n

I am pleased with you, Suchandra. By the best gods and men, by r\u0101kshasas, daityas, and n\u0101gas, by those whose passions are gone, by the lineages of the highest sages, this that was asked by you is not known. The entire yoga, beginning with nirv\u0101\u1e47a and ending with the earth, together with the paths of words [i.e., the classes of letters], inside the body, and the ma\u1e47\u1e0dala and the initiation are about to be explained. Listen, good king!<\/p>\n

zla ba bzang po khyod la bdag mgu gang zhig khyod kyis dris pa ‘di ni rab mchog lha rnams dang | |<\/p>\n

mi dang srin po lha min klu dang chags bral thub mchog rigs rnams dag gis shes pa min pas so | |<\/p>\n

mya ngan ‘das pa la sogs ‘dzin ma’i mthar thug tshig gi bgrod pa dang bcas sbyor ba mtha’ dag ni | |<\/p>\n

lus dbus su ste dkyil ‘khor dag dang dbang ni bshad par bya yis mi yi bdag po bzang po nyon | 3 | Shong and Jonang<\/p>\n

The Jonang version of this verse is the same as the Shong version.<\/p>\n

So far, we have not seen any doctrinal changes in the Jonang version, but only clarifications of the meaning, primarily by means of the grammar.<\/p>\n

Notes on the English Translation and the Sanskrit Text:<\/p>\n

verse 1:<\/p>\n

\u201csun,\u201d dina-kara, literally, \u201cday-maker.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cwhose eyes are long like lotus petals,\u201d padma-patr\u00e2yat\u00e2k\u1e63a\u1e43. This is a bahuvr\u012bhi or possessive compound, \u201che whose eyes are long like lotus petals.\u201d Long or large eyes are a mark of beauty in India. The Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> in explaining this compound uses \u201cd\u012brgha,\u201d meaning \u201clong,\u201d a synonym of \u201c\u0101yata\u201d in this compound.<\/p>\n

\u201con his head,\u201d uttam\u00e2\u1e45ge, literally, \u201con [his] highest limb.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cthe group of vowels together with the consonants,\u201d kali-yug-a-samaye. The natural reading would be kali-yuga-samaye, \u201cat the time of the age of strife.\u201d The Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> commentary, however, does not even notice such a reading, giving instead the interpretation as translated. Note that the word \u201csamaya\u201d in the meaning \u201cgroup,\u201d Tibetan \u201c’dus,\u201d is found only in Buddhist Sanskrit and in Pali, not in classical Sanskrit.<\/p>\n

verse 2:<\/p>\n

\u201cenjoyment of the gods and of the demons,\u201d bhukti dev\u00e2sur\u0101\u1e47\u0101m. The word \u201cbhukti\u201d cannot really stand alone like this, without being declined. Nor can it really form part of a compound with the following \u201cdev\u00e2sur\u0101\u1e47\u0101m.\u201d It stands in this way because of the meter, which requires a short syllable here. The editor of this volume of the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em>, Jagannatha Upadhyaya, has put \u201cbhukti(r)dev\u00e2sur\u0101\u1e47\u0101m\u201d to call attention to this problem, adding the declensional ending \u201cr\u201d in parentheses. Of course, it cannot actually be added, because it would make the syllable long.<\/p>\n

\u201cgods,\u201d tri-da\u015ba (in the phrase, \u201cO teacher of gods and men,\u201d tri-da\u015ba-nara-guro), literally, \u201cthe thirty.\u201d This is a common short form of \u201cthe thirty-three,\u201d which a standard term for the thirty-three main gods in Hinduism.<\/p>\n

verse 3:<\/p>\n

\u201ctogether with the paths of words,\u201d pada-gati-sahita\u1e43, explained in the Vimalaprabh\u0101<\/em> commentary as the classes of letters, i.e., the groups of gutturals, palatals, labials, etc. This is a good example of how words must be used unusually in order to fit the meter, especially here in the seven-syllable middle segment of a twenty-one syllable line, where the syllables must be six short followed by one long.<\/p>\n

\u201cabout to be explained,\u201d vy\u0101khy\u0101yam\u0101na\u1e43. This is a present passive participle, meaning \u201cbeing explained,\u201d not \u201cabout to be explained.\u201d It so happens that this present passive participle exactly fits the meter, so it was apparently used in place of the future passive participle. Since the Buddha has not yet begun his explanations, and therefore these things are not yet \u201cbeing explained,\u201d the intended meaning would be that of the future passive participle, \u201cabout to be explained.\u201d None of the three possible forms of the future passive participle, neither the usual one, vy\u0101khy\u0101tavyam, nor the other two possibilities, vy\u0101khyeyam or vy\u0101khy\u0101n\u012byam, would fit the meter.<\/p>\n

\u201cgood king,\u201d su-nara-pate, \u201cking\u201d is literally \u201cruler of men.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There was much interest in the K\u0101lacakra-tantra when it appeared in India about a thousand years ago. So when it was brought to Tibet a short time later, it was translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan several times. The translation that would become standard was the one by the Sanskrit pa\u1e47\u1e0dita Soman\u0101tha and the Tibetan translator […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,136,138],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jonangpa","category-kalacakra","category-vimalaprabha"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1688"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1825,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688\/revisions\/1825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}