WSTB 21

WIENER STUDIEN
ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
ERNST STEINKELLNER

HEFT 21

W I E N 1989

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN

UNIVERSITÄT WIEN
A G E N T S A N D A C T I O N S IN C L A S S I C A L TIBETAN

THE INDIGENOUS GRAMMARIANS

O N BDAG A N D GZAN AND

BYA BYED LAS GSUM

BY

T O M J . F. T I L L E M A N S

AND

D E R E K D. H E R F O R T H

W I E N 1989

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN

UNIVERSITÄT WIEN
Preis: OS 1 5 0 , -

zu beziehen von:

Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

Maria T h e r e s i e n - S t r a ß e 3 / 4 / 2 6 , 1090 Wien, Austria
 V

PREFACE

The translations and studies contained here are the result of several years'
intermittent work by the authors, together and separately, on the indigenous
grammatical scholarship of Tibet. The translations in Chapter II were drafted and
polished in reading sessions with Prof. KATSURA Shöryü in the Department of Indian
Philosophy, Hiroshima University, during the years 1984-1985. Three papers on this and
related material have been presented orally to the scholarly community: one by
TILLEMANS at the International Association of Tibetan Studies Conference in Munich
1985 (appeared as TILLEMANS 1988); another by HERFORTH at the International Conference
on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics in Bangkok 1985 and a third by HERFORTH
at the National Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in Seattle 1986.
In 1987 Prof. KATSURA authored a research report to the Japanese Ministry of
Education which contains an annotated Japanese translation with Tibetan text of the
treatise of dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros to be found in our Chapter IL Prof. KATSURA'S
report includes a systematic presentation of the topical outlines (sa bead) to Si tu Pan
chen's commentary on the rTags kyi 'jug pa.
The present contribution is divided into three chapters. In the first essay,
TILLEMANS presents the principal notions and currents of thought in Tibetan gram-
marians' treatment of verbal forms, actions and agents in their language. Chapter II, a
joint effort on the part of the two authors, contains translations and editions of the
texts by dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros and Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi 'byun gnas which
constitute the starting-point for our own analyses. In Chapter III, HERFORTH examines
the notions transitivity and voice in Classical Tibetan, incorporating some of the insights
of the native grammarians and interpreting them in the vocabulary of late 20th-century
typological linguistics.
The problems treated here are, by common consent both East and West, among
the most recalcitrant in the study of Tibetan grammar. The reader need only refer to
the title of dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros treatise, "The difficult points of the rTags kyi
'jug pa"y to realize that the Tibetans themselves consider this area a formidable
challenge. R. A MILLER speaks of an "impenetrable tangle" created by earlier scholars;
NISHIDA Tatsuo, while recognizing the importance of the perspective provided by
indigenous Tibetan grammatical categories, cautions that they are "virtually un-
fathomable for the uninitiated"/ Needless to say, we approach these problems with
some diffidence, but encouraged in the belief that progress toward solutions can best
be made through cooperation between Tibetanists and linguists.
It is probably fair to say that grosso modo the motivating problem of this study
was thlt of the applicability of the active-passive distinction to Tibetan and the
connection between this distinction and the indigenous grammarians' classifications in

1
MILLER (1976) p. 113b. NISHIDA (1987) p. 156: "nôsho kante? toyobareru hanchü... wa gaibu no mono
ni totte, nakanaka bunseki shinikui ga, Chibettogo no kôzô o rikai sum ue de jüyö na mikata de wa aru.
vi

terms of "self (bdag) and "other" (gzan). Certain contemporary writers, such as M.
HAHN, have spoken of the voice-neutrality of Tibetan verbs. Speaking of verbal forms
ending in pa/ba, he writes :

"Sie kann gemäss der impersonalen Nature des tibetischen Verbs, das keine
Unterscheidung von Aktiv und Passiv kennt (...) aktivisch — 'ein Sehender' —
und passivisch — 'einer, der gesehen wird' — interpretiert werden." (HAHN 1985,
p. 28)

And further on (p. 58) we find:

"Es ist zu betonen, dass es im Tibetischen bei ein und demselben Verb keinen
Genuswechsel gibt, selbst wenn man diesen in der Übersetzung gelegentlich aus
stilistischen Gründen vornehmen wird. So lautet z.B. der Satz rgyalpos dgra bo
gsod do in genauer Wiedergabe 'Es findet ein Feind-Töten statt durch den
König (als den Urheber der Verbalhandlung).', die man dann mit gleicher
Berechtigung in 'Der König tötet den Feind.' und 'Der Feind wird vom König
getötet.' umformen kann."

Other writers, such as BACOT and REGAMEY have invoked the traditional Tibetan
grammatical notions of bdag and gzan in order to justify a position which to quite a
degree seems to involve the same voice-neutrality. Our problem thus took on several
aspects: How did the Tibetan grammarians themselves view bdag and gzan? How well did
BACOT understand the theories of these grammarians? Given a revised understanding of bdag
and gzan, do the Tibetan grammarians use these notions to make a distinction of some sort
between active and passive? The first two questions are treated in Chapters I and II. To
answer the third question it was advantageous to see the Tibetan language in its proper
place as an ergative language and thus reformulate things in an alternative set of terms
which are arguably closer to bdag and gzan — agent-prominence and patient-
prominence. A result of our investigations, however, is that it seems clear that the
complete active-passive neutrality of which HAHN speaks is not borne out by Tibetan
grammarians' analyses of their language. In effect, to take HAHN'S example where the
verb gsod pa is in the present tense, the rendering 'Der König tötet den Feind' is
preferable, and not for stylistic reasons, but rather because the present tense form gsod
pa is indeed exclusively agent-prominent, or bdag, just as the grammarians unanimously
say it is. Had the verb been gsad pa or gsad par bya instead of gsod pa, a passive
rendering would have been more in keeping with the fact that future forms seem to be
patient-prominent, or gzan, according to the grammarians. Nor is there probably much
reason to suppose with HAHN and REGAMEY that the voice-neutral nominalized version,
'Es findet ein Feind-Töten statt durch den König (als den Urheber der Verbal-
handlung)', is somehow or another the most accurate rendering. At least in the case of
REGAMEY, a good part of the motivation for such a position seems to have come from
 vii

the ill-fated theories of BACOT on bdag and gzan. However, the general problem of the
noun/verb distinction in Tibetan cannot be taken up in any detail here. iö
Finally, two cautionary notes are in order, one for the specialist in Sanskrit
grammar, one for the philosopher studying Madhyamaka Buddhist argumentation.
We have occasionally supplied Sanskrit terms when it seemed clear that the
Tibetans were borrowing or alluding to Sanskrit notions. Strictly speaking, it is
somewhat odd to speak of equivalences at all in that the texts we are dealing with are
indigenous Tibetan works and not translations from Sanskrit. Nonetheless, in certain
cases of patent concept-borrowing, we no doubt can give the original Sanskrit notions,
the best example being the triad bya byed las gsum (kriyâ, kartr, karman; "action, agent,
object"), a bona fide Indian-based set of terms which Tibetan writers (such as dByans
can dga' ba'i bio gros) associated with bdag and gzan and then interpreted for their own
purposes. But, as is the case for most Tibetan grammatical terms, they have to be
understood primarily in their Tibetan contexts. To take another example, byed pa po la
yodpa'i bya ba ("action pertaining to the agent") would, prima facie at least, seem to
be the equivalent of kartrsthakriya(ka)y a term to be found in e.g. Patanjali's Mahä-
bhäsya where it refers to roots such as GAM ("to go") whose action is found in the
agent. {PAC ["to cook"] on the other hand, is an example of a root which is karmastha-
kriya(ka)9 because the action functions in the object in the sense that it produces a
change there. See e.g. ABHYANKAR 1977 p. 109, 112.) If, however, we look at how the
Tibetan term is actually used, then inspite of the fact that byed pa po la yodpa'i bya ba
seems to be a direct translation of kartrsthakriya(ka), the Tibetan term is used very
differently: firstly, it is not applied to roots (as in Sanskrit), but is related primarily to
certain specific tenses; secondly, in Tibetan the term byed pa po la yodpa'i bya ba refers
to the effort or exertion (rtsol ba) of an agent, rather than a type of action (such as
"going") which is found functioning in the agent; thirdly, the Tibetan verbs like "to go"
('gro ba) are not classified as byed pa po la yod paï bya ba. Another point worth
bearing in mind when one takes up the problem of finding Sanskrit equivalences is that
the Tibetan grammatical vocabulary seems to be more limited than that of Sanskrit, so
that the Tibetan terms are often highly ambiguous, doing double or triple duty for
possible Sanskrit notions. In short, the relationship between Sanskrit Vyäkarana and
Tibetan grammar is generally complex and very indirect. No doubt it needs to be
studied, but at least at the present state of the research on bdag and gzan and related
notions, the enterprise of searching for influences from Sanskrit is by and large
inconclusive.
A cautionary remark for philosophers. It should be noted that we have treated
bya byed las gsum simply as a Tibetan grammatical schema which comes up in passing
in discussions on bdag and gzan. While we are aware that the same terms have
considerable philosophical importance (in eg. Madhyamaka Buddhist argumentation),
we were naturally unable to analyse such uses of the schema in any detail. That would

la
See the lucid discussion in HAHN (1985) pp. 57-58: "Dennoch gibt es formale
Kriterien, die einen Verbalstamm von einem Nominalstamm unterscheiden ..."
Vlll
be a project of a different nature and scope. True, it is not unlikely that the rather
modest discussion of bya byed las gsum which one finds in Tibetan grammatical texts
does make some contribution to clarifying the philosophers' uses of the triad in their
commentaries on Buddhist texts. But here too caution is in order. Notably, to take an
example, while terms such as 'gro ba po ("goer") figure as "agents" (byed pa po; kartr)
in Madhyamaka analyses of "goers", "going" and "the gone over", they are not, properly
speaking, "distinct agents" in the grammatical context of bdag and gzan — "distinct
agent" in that latter context is only applicable when the verb is transitive. Other
discrepancies are also to be found, and one should not assume that the discussion of
bya byed las gsum in Tibetan grammatical texts is 100% transferable to Indo-Tibetan
philosophical contexts.
In general, the philosopher seeking insight into Madhyamaka argumentation
would probably do well to bear in mind that in indigenous Tibetan philosophical works,
grammatical schemata — borrowed or not — do not occupy anything approaching the
pivotal role that they have in Indian philosophical contexts. Certainly, as K.
BHATTACHARYA has convincingly pointed out in his 1980, 1980-81 and 1986 articles,
the argumentation concerning motion, actions, etc. in chapters II and VIII in
Nägärjuna's Madhyamakakärikäs and Candrakïrti's Prasannapadä does have to be
understood in terms of Sanskrit grammarians' views on kriyâ, kartr, karman and other
such notions. And, of course, Tibetan commentators were at least obliged to make use
of these terms. But, equally, it is probably safe to say that most (if not all) Tibetan
commentators on Madhyamaka did not have much more than a superfical sensitivity to
the Sanskrit grammatical underpinnings of the sort which BHATTACHARYA brings out
— understandably, commentators like Tson kha pa or mKhas grub rje, who knew no
Sanskrit, had to find the nerve of these arguments elsewhere, primarily in metaphysical
considerations about svabhâva ("own nature").
It remains for us to record our gratitude to various individuals and institutions.
In adddition to Prof. KATSURA'S steady encouragement over the years, a number of
other scholars and friends have contributed to this project along the way, notably the
late Jânos SZERB whose recent death is a tragedy for all who knew him and a real loss
for Tibetan Studies. He took an interest in these grammatical problems and supplied
us with important textual material. Thanks also go to Prof. E. STEINKELLNER, who
kindly agreed to publish this work in his series. During the period of these studies, fi-
nancial assistance was generously provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education, the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fonds national
suisse de la recherche scientifique.

Tom J.F. TILLEMANS

(University of Lausanne)
Derek HERFORTH
(Suzugamine Women's College,
Hiroshima)

La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland
 xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE V
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TIBETAN WORKS xii
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES xvii
ABBREVIATIONS xxiii

I. INTRODUCTION: TRADITIONAL TIBETAN GRAMMAR ON

BDAG9 GZAN AND RELATED NOTIONS 1

A. The basic notions at stake 3

B. Some historical remarks on pre-Si tu developments 8
C. A survey of some of the post-Si tu literature on
self and other 13
D. Si tu's dictum on act-qua-doing being in
the present, etc. 19
E. Appendixes 27
1. Contemporary developments: autonomous and
other-dependent verbs 27
2. Tshe ten tabs drun's list of the major
commentaries on the Sum cu pa and rTags kyi 'jug pa 29

II. TRANSLATIONS AND TIBETAN TEXTS 37

Tibetan text and English translation of the rTags kyi

jugpaï dka' gnas bdag gzan dan bya byed las gsum
gyi khyad par üb tu phye ba nun gsal 'phrul gyi Ide mig
by A kya Yons 'dzin dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros 39

Tibetan text and English translation of an excerpt

on bdag and gzan from Si tu Pan chen's commentary on
the Sum cu pa and rTags kyi jug pa entitled the mKhas
pa'i mgul rgyan mu tig phren mdzes 61

Notes to the translations 71

XÜ TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE: THE PERSPECTIVE FROM TIBET 75

1. Introduction 75
2. Case-marking 77
2.1 Transitive vs. intransitive clauses 78
3. Tense/aspect and "argument prominence" 80
3.1 The data 82
4. The futures and other periphrastic forms Z%
4.1 Agreement in terms of prominence 89
5. The Tibetan labelling of arguments 90
6. Conclusions and unsolved problems 91

Appendix: A note on the ergative split in classical

Tibetan 93

Table: The vocabulary of traditional Tibetan grammatical

analysis 97

IV. GLOSSARIES AND INDEXES 99

Glossary of Tibetan technical terms 101

Glossary of the principal linguistic terms used 105

Index of proper names 107

Index of terms 111

 xiii

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TIBETAN WORKS

A khu rin po ehe âes rab rgya mtsho (1803-1875). Thoyig = dPe rgyun dkonpa 'ga' zig
gi tho yig don gneryid kyi kun da bzad pa'i zla }od 'bum gyi sne ma. In LOKESH
CHANDRA (1963 / reprint. 1981) pp. 503-601.

A kya Yons 'dzin dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros (18th-19thC). rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dka'
gnas bdag gzan dan bya byed las gsum gyi khyad par zib tu phye ba nun gsal
'phrul gyi Ide mig. In Collected Works of A kya Yons 'dzin, Vol. kha, pp.434-443.
New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva, 1971. Also in Blan dor gsal bar ston pa 'i draft thig
dwahs Éel me Ion, pp. 223-233. Dolanji 1979. See sDe srid Sans rgyas rgya
mtsho.

rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dgofts 'grel rab gsal snaft ba. In Collected Works, Vol. kha, and
Blan dor gsal bar ston pa'i draft thig dwahs sel me loft, pp.171-207.

A lag Sa (= shan) Nag dban bstan dar (1759-1840). Sum cu pa daft rtags 'jug gi don go
sla bar bsdus pa'i bsadpa skal Idan yid kyi pad ma 'byed pa'i snan ba'i mdzod
In Collected gSuft 'bum of bsTan dar lha ram of A lag sa, Vol. kha, pp. 155-
214. New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva, 1971.

bKa' chen pad ma (19th-20thC). rTags 'jug dka' gnad gsal ba'i me loft gi grel pa rigs lam
gser gyi Ide mig. See dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje.

bKra Sis dban 'dus (contemporary). rTags kyi 'jugpa'i snift po dka' gnad gsal ba'i me
loft gi slob deb (Zangwen wenfa jiangyi). Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1983.

Bio mthun bsam gtan et al. (contemporary). Dag yig gsar bsgrigs (Xinbian zangwen
zidian). Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1979.

Bod kyi bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan byaft dri med Êel dka' phreft ba (Zangwen dianji
yaomu). Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1985. = "Qinghai catalogue".

Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Zang Han da cidian). See Secondary Sources s.v. ZHANG
Yisun.

Bra ti (= Phra ti; Bra sti) dge bées Rin chen don grub (17th-18thC). rTags kyi jugpa'i
dgofts grel sal bar bsad pa. See sDe srid Sans rgya mtsho et al., pp. 171-207.

dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje (1809-1887). rTags kyi jug pa'i snift po'i mdo tsam brjod
pa dka' gnad gsal ba'i me loft. Included along with dNul chu Dharmabhadra's
Si tu'i zal luft, his dGag Idan tshafts pa'i thig gi spun zla, dByans can grub pa'i
rdo rje's Legs bead Ijon dban and commentary, bKa' chen pad ma's rTags jug
XiV TIBETAN WORKS

gi 'grelpa and other works in mKhas mchog dNul chu yab sras kyis mdzadpaï
bod brda sum rtags kyi skor dan I 'ju mi pham I bstan dar lhar ram gnis kyi gsun
sa mtha'i mam dbye bcas phyogs bsdebs pad dkar chuh po. Dharamsala (H.P.)
India: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 197?.

dNul chu Dharmabhadra (1772-1851). Yul gans can gyi skad kyi brda sprod pafi bstan
bcos sum cu pa dan rtags kyi jug pa'i rnam bsad mkhas mchog si tu'i zal lun.
See dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje. References to Dharamsala edition. Text and
Japanese translation in INABA (1986).

Go ram(s) pa bsod nams sen ge (1429-1489). rTags 'jug gi tlkä. Text in Sa skya bka'
'bum, vol. 11, pp. 24-27, ff. 1-7.

gSer tog sku phren Ina pa Bio bzan tshul khrims rgya mtsho (1845-1915). Bod kyi brda'
sprod pa sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jugpa'i mchan 'grel mdor bsdus te brjodpa ho
mtshar 'phrul gyi Ide mig Beijing: Minzu chubanshe 1957, reprinted Lanzhou
1981.

'Jam mgon kon sprul Bio gros mtha' yas (1813-1899). Ses bya Join khyab = Thegpa'i
sgo Jam las bltus pa gsun rab rin po che'i mdzod bslab pa gsum legs par ston pa'i
bstan bcos ses bya kun khyab. 3 volumes. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1982.

ICan skya Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717-1786). Sum cu pa dan rtags 'jug gi don nun nur bsad
pa bio Idan dga' bskyed. Blockprint of Chinese origin. Date unknown. Tranlated
SCHUBERT (1937).

mKhyen rab 'od gsal (contemporary). rTags kyi 'jug pa'i dka' 'grel gnad kyi sgron me
(Zangwen dongci shinan). Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1979.

Mi rigs dpe mdzod khan gi dpe tho las gsun 'bum skor gyi dkar chag ses bya'i gter mdzod
(Zangwen dianji mulu). Compiled by TANG Chi an et al. Chengdu: Sichuan
minzu chubanshe, 1984.

Sa skya bka' 'bum. The complete works of the great masters of the Sa skya pa sect of
Tibetan Buddhism. sDe dge edition. Compiled by Bsod nams rgya mtsho. 15
volumes. Tokyo: The Töyö Bunko, 1968-69.

sDe srid Sans rgyas rgya mtsho et al. Blah dor gsal bar ston pa'i drah thig dwans sel me
Ion. A treatise on the sixteen fundamental principles of Tibetan administrative law
by Sde-siid Sans-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, with 16 other prints of works on Tibetan
grammar and orthography from 20th century Lhasa New Zhol blocks. Dolanji,
India, 1979.
 TIBETAN WORKS XV

Ses bya 'i gter mdzod. See Mi rigs dpe mdzod khan gi dpe tho las gsuh 'bum skor gyi dkar
chag ses bya'i gter mdzod

Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi 'byuri gnas (gTsug lag chos kyi snan ba) (1699-1774). Yul gah
can pa'i brda yah dag par sbyar ba'i bstan bcos kyi bye brag sum cu pa dan rtags
kyi }jug pa'i gzun gi mam par bsad pa mkhas pa'i mgul rgyan mu tigphren mazes.
Editions consulted: Dharamsala, Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 1979; sDe dge
edition kept in the Töyö Bunko Collection; the edition of S.C. DAS (1915).

sKal bzan 'gyur med (contemporary). Bod kyi brda sprod rig pa'i khrid rgyun rab gsal me
Ion (Zangwen wenfa jiaocheng). Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1981.

Thon mi Sambhota. Sum cu pa and rTags kyi 'jug pa. Numerous editions. See eg. the
above-mentioned edition of gSer tog, which includes Thon mi's texts.

Tshe ten zabs drun (20th Century). Gans can bod kyi brda sprod pa'i bstan bcos sum cu
pa dan rtags 'jugs gi mam gzag rgya cher bsad pa thon mi'i zal lun {Zangwen
wenfa). Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1981.

Tson kha pa Bio bzan grags pa (1357-1419). rTsa ses tlk chen = rTsa ba'i tshig le'ur
byaspa ses rab ces bya ba'i mam bsad rigs pa'i rgya mtsho. Sarnath (U.P.) India:
Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1973.

Yons 'dzin Phur bu lcog Byams pa tshul khrims rgya mtsho (1825-1901). Yohs 'dzin bio
rigs = Tshad ma'i gzun don 'byedpa'i bsdus grwa'i mam Mag rigs lam 'phrul gyi
Ide mig ces bya ba las rigs lam ehe ba yul yul can dan bio rigs gi mam par bsad
pa. Text in T. KELSANG and S. ONODA (1985).
 xvii

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES

ABHYANKAR, K.V. (1977). A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda, India: Oriental

Institute. [First edition: 1961. Second edition revised by J.M. Shukla: 1972.]

ANDERSON, Stephen (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Charles

N. Li (ed.) Subject and topic, 1-23. New York: Academic Press.

BACOT, Jacques (1946/1981). Grammaire du tibétain littéraire. [Tome I et IL Index

morphologique (langue littéraire et langue parlée)]. Paris: Librairie d'Amérique
et d'Orient. [I originally published in 1946, II in 1949; reprinted in 1981.]

BHATTACHARYA, Kamaleswar (1980). Nägärjuna's arguments against motion: their

grammatical basis. In A.L. Basham et al. (eds.) A corpus of Indian studies. Essays
in honour of Professor Gaurinath Sastri, 85-95. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak
Bhandar.

BHATTACHARYA, Kamaleswar (1980-81). The grammatical basis of Nägärjuna's

arguments: some further considerations. Indologica Taurinensia (Dr. Ludwig
Sternbach Commemoration Volume) 8-9.35-43.

BHATTACHARYA, Kamaleswar (1986). Notes bouddhiques. Journal Asiatique 3-4.291-

300.

CARDONA, George (1974). Pänini's kärakas: Agency, animation and identity. Journal of
Indian Philosophy 2231-306.

COMRIE, Bernard (1978). Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.) Syntactic typology:

studies in the phenomenology of language, 329-394. Austin: University of Texas
Press.

DAS, Sarat Chandra (1902). Tibetan-English Dictionary. Calcutta: Bengal Secretarial

Book Department. [1972 reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.]

(1915). An introduction to the grammar of the Tibetan language with the texts of
Situ Sum-tag, Dag je sal wai me long and Situi Shal lung. Darjeeling. [1972
reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.]

DELANCEY, Scott (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns.

Language 57.626-657.

DIXON, R.M.W. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55.59-138.

XVÜi SECONDARY SOURCES

DURR, Jacques A. (1950). Deux traités grammaticaux tibétains. [Bibliothek der

allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, dritte Reihe]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
Universitätsverlag.

(1950a). Morphologie du verbe tibétain. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Univer-

sitätsverlag.

FOLEY, William and Robert D. Van Valin (1984). Functional syntax and universal
grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HAHN, Michael (1985). Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache, mit Lesestücken
und Glossar [Indica et Tibetica, Band 10]. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.
[First edition 1974.]

HOPPER, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (1980). Transitivity in grammar and

discourse. Language 56.251-299.

INABA Shöju. (1955). Koten chibettogo no döshi ni taisuru shiken — Shö'nyühö

daijünige o chüshin to shite. Yamaguchi Susumu hakase kanreki kinen indogaku
bukkyögaku ronshüt 213-220. Kyoto: Hözökan.

(1986). Chibettogo koten bunpögaku, zöhohan. Kyoto: Hözökan. [1st ed. 1954].

JACOBSEN, William H., Jr. (1985). The analog of the passive transformation in ergative-
type languages. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar
inside and outside the clause: some approaches to theory from the field, 176-193.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

JÄSCHKE, H.A (1954). Tibetan grammar: supplement of readings with vocabulary by John
L. Mish. New York: Frederick Ungar. [Second printing, 1966].

KATSURA Shöryü (1987). Koten chibettogo döshi közö no kenkyû. Research report to the
Japanese Ministry of Education #60510262. 50 pages.

KEENAN, Edward L. (1985). Passive in the world's languages. In Timothy Shopen (ed.)
Language typology and linguistic description, 1: Clause structurey 243-281.
Cambridge: The University Press.

KUHN, T.S (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University
Press [First edition published in 1962].
 SECONDARY SOURCES Xix

LAKATOS, Imre (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research

programmes. In J. Worrie and G. Currie (eds.) Imre Lakatos, The methodology
of scientific research programmes. Philosophical papers volume I, 8-101.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LALOU, Marcelle (1950). Manuel élémentaire de tibétain classique. Paris: Adrien

Maisonneuve.

LAUFER, B. (1898). Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft der Tibeter, Zamatog. Sitzungsberichte

der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Klasse der Lb. Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu München. 1.519-594.

Lo Bingfen and An Shixing. (1981). Qiantan lishi shang Zangwen zhengzifa de xiuding.
[Basic facts about the history of Tibetan orthographic reform]. Minzu yuwen
2.27-35.

LOKESH CHANDRA (1981). Materials for a history of Tibetan literature. [First published in
Satapkaka Series 28-30, 3 volumes. Reprinted by Rinsen Co. in one volume.]
Kyoto: Rinsen.

MARANTZ, Alec P. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

MAY, Jacques. (1959). Candrakirti Prasannapadä Madhyamakawtti. Collection Jean

Przyluski tome II. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.

MILLER, Roy A. (1976). Studies in the grammatical tradition in Tibet. [Amsterdam studies
in the theory and history of linguistic science, III: Studies in the history of
linguistics, v. 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(1983). Thon mi Sambhota and his grammatical treatises reconsidered. In E.

Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (eds.) Contributions on Tibetan language, history
and culture, 183-205. Vienna: Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismus-
kunde.

(1988). The first two Tibetan grammatical treatises as known to the Sa skya
Pandita. In H. Uebach and J. Panglung (eds.) Tibetan Studies [Studia Tibetica,
Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexikographie, Band II], 263-278. Munich:
Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.

MIMAKI Katsumi (1982). Bio gsal grub mtha\ Kyoto: Zinbun Kagaku Kenkyüsyo.
XX SECONDARY SOURCES

NISHIDA Tatsuo (1957). Chibettogo döshi közö no kenkyû. Gengo kenkyü 33.21-50.

(1987). Chibettogo no hensen to moji. In Nagano Yasuhiko and Tachikawa

Musashi (eds.) Kitamura Hajime kyöju taikan kinen ronbunshü. Tokyo: Töjusha.

PARFIONOVICH, YU. M. (1970). Tibetskiî pis'mennyi jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.

PLANCK, Frans (ed.) (1979). Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. New
York: Academic Press.

Qu Aitang (1985). Zangyu dongci quxixingtai de jiegou ji qi yanbian [The structure and
evolution of Tibetan verbal morphology]. Minzu yuwen 1.1-15.

REGAMEY, Constantin (1946-47). Considérations sur le système morphologique du

tibétain littéraire. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 6.26-46.

(1954). A propos de la «construction ergative» en indo-aryen moderne.

Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung: Festschrift Albert Debrunner, 363-381. Bern:
Francke.

RENOU, Louis (1957). Terminologie grammaticale du sanskrit. Paris: Champion. [First

published in 1942.]

SCHUBERT, J. (1937). Tibetische Nationalgrammatik. Leipzig.

SEELEY, Johnathan (1977). An ergative historiography. Historiographia Linguistica IV:

Z191-206.

SHIMADA Masahiko. (1979). Kokugo ni okeru jidöshi to tadöshi [Transitive and

intransitive verbs in Japanese]. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.

SILVERSTEIN, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.)
Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112-171. [Linguistic series no.
22: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra]. New Jersey, USA:
Humanities Press.

STCHERBATSKY, T. (1970). The central conception of Buddhism and the meaning of the word
"dharma". Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Originally published in 1923.]

TACHIKAWA Musashi, T. Kelsang and S. Onoda (1983). A catalogue of the United States
Library of Congress collection of Tibetan literature in microfiche. Tokyo: The
International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
 SECONDARY SOURCES

TCHEKHOFF, C. (1979). From ergative to accusative in Tongan: an example of synchronie

dynamics. In Planck (1979), 407-418.

TILLEMANS, Tom. (1988). On bdag, gzan and other related notions of Tibetan grammar.
In H. Uebach and J. Panglung (eds.) Tibetan Studies [Studia Tibetica, Quellen
und Studien zur tibetischen Lexikographie, Band II], 491-502. Munich:
Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.

VAN DER KUIJP, Leonard W. J. (1983). Contributions to the development of Tibetan Buddhist
epistemology: from the eleventh to the thirteenth century. [Alt- und Neu-Indische
Studien 26]. Wiebaden: Franz Steiner.

VOSTRIKOV, A.I. (1970). Tibetan historical literature. [Translated from the original Russian
by Harish C. Gupta, Soviet Indology Series no. 4]. Calcutta: Indian Studies, Past
and Present.

WATANABE Akihiro and Kitamura Hajime (1972). Chibettogo. In Ichikawa Sanki and
Hattori Shirö (eds.) Sekai gengo gaisetsu, gekan [An introduction to the
languages of the world, v. II, 6th ed., 2nd pr.], 951-1000. Tokyo: Kenkyüsha.

YAMAGUCHI Zuihö. Chibettogo bunpö [Tibetan grammar]. Manuscript.

YIP, Moira, Joan Maling and Ray Jackendoff (1987). Case in tiers. Language 63.217-
250.

ZHANG Yisun (ed.) (1985). Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Zang Han da cidian).
[Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary in three volumes]. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe.
 xxiii

ABBREVIATIONS

A = agent.
AB = ablative.
ABS = absolutive.
AL = allative.
CT = classical Tibetan.
CW = Collected Works of A kya Yons 'dzin.
D = sDe dge edition.
Das = S.C. DAS* edition of Si tu.
ed. = editor; edited.
Ego = our own proposed reading, one which is not found in the editions which
we possess.
en. = note, i.e. endnote. See Notes to the Translations.
ER = ergative.
F = future.
GE = genitive.
HO = honorific.
I = imperative.
IL = illative.
intr. = intransitive.
IP = imperative particle.
MS = masculine suffix.
n. = note, i.e. footnote.
NF = non-final particle.
NS = nominalizing suffix
P = patient.
p , pp. = page(s).
PE = perfect (often referred to as "past").
PN = proper noun.
S = Ses rig phar khan edition.
s.v. = sub voce, sub vocibus.
SF = sentence-final particle.
Skt. = Sanskrit.
T = theme.
trans. = transitive.
V = verb.
Z = Lhasa new Zol edition.
 I. I N T R O D U C T I O N :

TRADITIONAL TIBETAN GRAMMAR ON

BDAG, GZAN AND RELATED NOTIONS

By Tom J.F. Tillemans

ci phyir jug par byed ce na II

pho ni 'das dan gzan bsgrub phyir II
ma nin gnis ka da Itar ched II
mo ni bdag dan ma yons phyir II
sin tu mo ni mnam phyir ro II

"Why are [the prefixes] applied?

The masculine [prefix b-] is for establishing the past and other;
The neutral [prefixes g- and d-] are for both [self and other] [and] the present;
The feminine [prefix 'a-] is for self and the future;
The extremely feminine [prefix m-\ is for [self, other and the three tenses] all
alike."

(Verse twelve of the rTags kyi 'jug pa)

 TJ.F. TTLLEMANS

While most discussions in the vast corpus of grammatical literature in Tibetan

must in some way or another refer back to the two seminal treatises attributed to Thon
mi Sambhota, viz. the Sum cu pa and the rTags kyi 'jug pa,2 it is useful to divide this
mass of exegesis on Thon mi into two basic periods. For a rough-and-ready idea we
could follow some modern Tibetan grammarians and speak of "earlier" (srïon) and
"later" (phyi) grammar3, but in fact the division is better represented if we speak of
"pre-Si tu" grammarians on the one hand and Si tu and "post-Si tu" grammarians on
the other, thus highlighting the enormous contribution of Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi
'byun gnas (gTsug lag chos kyi snan ba) (1699-1774).
Now, it is probably fair to say that the situation in indigenous Tibetan
grammatical theorizing resembles somewhat the development of epistemology (tshad
ma) and Madhyamaka (dbu ma) thought before and after Tson kha pa (1357-1419). Just
as there is a marked difference between the tentative, formative character of philosophy
before Tson kha pa and the more rigid scholastic which ensued, so too, in grammatical
literature we see a similar revolutionary break and problem-shift with the advent of Si
tu's theories on self, other, and verb tenses: subsequent thinkers would try to modify
or amplify his views, or, what is more tedious, simply repeat them verbatim/ but now
that a paradigm had finally been constituted whose importance no-one could ignore or
disregard, the problems and anomalies facing future writers were inevitably those which
arose in the context of the conceptual framework and terminology of Si tu's theories.
In fact, it is revealing that after Si tu it became almost de rigueur for a commentator
to stress the difficulty, importance, etc. of Si tu's chapter on verse twelve of the rTags
kyi 'jugpa, and indeed there even came to be a genre of grammatical commentaries (of
which the text of dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros translated below is an example) which
routinely bear the title "The difficult points of the rTags kyi 'jug pa'1 (rtags kyi jug pa'i
dka' gnad I gnas), and which usually devote a good-sized chapter to the explanation of
verse twelve as seen via the perspective of Si tu Pan chen. In short, to put things in
the currently widely used (and abused) terminology of the history of science, Si tu was

For the question of the historicity of Thon mi (7th C?) and his authorship of the Sum cu pa and rTags
kyi 'jugpa, see MILLER (1976), (1983) and (1984). The latter two articles are essentially a polemical debate
with Z. YAMAGUCHI; references to Prof. YAMAGUCHFs articles are found therein.
Cf. eg. Tshe ten 2abs drun's list of grammatical works which we have included as an appendix.
See eg. 'Jam mgon koh sprul's Ées bya kun khyab (bar cha), pp. 215-216, where a large passage from
Si tu is cited as the accepted doctrine on bdag an&gtan.
 INTRODUCTION

the first grammarian to give a well-defined paradigm; after him we had a type of
grammar whose character is not far off from what Thomas KUHN and Imre LAKATOS
would respectively term a "normal science" or "science within a research program", i.e.
theorizing within the context of a commonly recognized achievement which serves as
a direction-giving model.5
Our approach will be to concentrate on Si tu and post-Si tu writers. There are
a number of reasons for this restriction, some valid and some dictated by limitations
of resources, time and space. First of all, there is the non-negligible advantage of
clarity: post-Si tu writers, to some degree because of their orthodoxy, present a
"package" of ideas which can serve as a point of departure for historical and linguistic
studies. Secondly, this post-Si tu period is far from over: contemporary Tibetan
grammarians are making numerous contributions to the study of their language by using
much of the terminology and conceptual framework developed by Si tu. (We shall
briefly look at some of these contributions in an Appendix.) Thirdly, as can be seen by
consulting the list of indigenous grammatical works which we have appended many of
the important early works are lost or unavailable. Most of the early works which we
have listed have been marked with an asterisk (*) showing that they figure in A khu
rin po che's Tho yig, a list of books which were already rare in the nineteenth century.
Although a thorough study on the theories of early Tibetan grammarians is clearly a
desideratum, this will be very difficult to undertake both because of the probably
insurmountable difficulties in acquiring the necessary materials and because of the
diversity and complexity of the concepts involved in this pre-paradigmatic period where
no one theory had yet emerged as a unifying model.

A. The basic notions at stake

Now, before we proceed any further it is necessary to have a rudimentary grasp

of the ideas of the "Si tu and post-Si tu" position, all the more so because these ideas
have often been hopelessly misrepresented by certain contemporary writers. Let us begin
by citing an oft-repeated or oft-paraphrased passage where Si tu states his definition of
the terms "self (bdag) and "other" (gzan) in rTags kyi 'jug pa's verse twelve:

5
See KUHN (1970) and LAKATOS (1978).
 TJ.F. ULLEMANS

las gan zig byedpa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel baï dban du byas nas I byedpa po'i
dnos po de nid dan deï byedpa dan bcas la ni bdag ces bya zih I des bsgrub par
bya ba'i yul gyi dnos po bya ba dan bcas pa la ni gzan zes bya'o II

Our translation:

"Given some act directly related with a distinct agent (byed pa po gzan), then
that very entity (dnospo) which is the agent and its 'doing' (deï byedpa) are
termed 'self. The entity which is the focus (yul) to be established by that
[agent] as well as that thing which is to be done (bya ba) are termed 'other'."6

Now, the first line makes reference to a fundamental classificational schema

which needs to be understood if we are to make any sense at all of Si tu's position: in
Tibetan, byedpa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel baï las — "an act which is directly (dnos su)
related with a distinct agent" — and byed pa po gzan daiï dnos su ma ybrel baï las —"an
act which is not directly related with a distinct agent". In the first case, which roughly
could be termed "transitive", the agent must be distinct from its object. (Indeed, as we
shall see in a passage from Si tu which we translate below, another very common way
of characterizing such verbs is bya byed tha dad pa, "[verbs whose] object and agent are

6
In TILLEMANS (1988) one finds reasons for rejecting B ACOT and DURR's translation of this and similar
passages. See also KATSURA (1987), a 4 for a discussion of the translation in BACOT, DURR and YAMAGUCHL The
main problem is how to interpret the words byed pa po gtan, viz. whether gtan is to be taken as a simple
adjective modifying byed pa po (as we take it), or as the technical term gtan in the pair bdag / gtan. We find
ample discussion in Si tu of verbs which are, byedpa po gtan dan dnos su ma 'brel ba = bya byed tha mi dad
pa, i.e. ones which have a byed pa po which is not distinct (gtan; tha dad) from what it acts upon — eg. in
"I am going" the byed pa po is I and the object which undergoes the action of going is also I. See n. 8 below.
In short not only does the interpretation of BACOT et al. often fail syntactically (see TILLEMANS 1988 pp. 495-
496), but there is more than enough contextual evidence to show that gtan in this context means no more than
the adjective tha dad, in other words, "distinct agent" Cf. the translation of byed pa po gtan in INABA (1986):
ta naru köishutai. This would seem to correspond syntactically to our rendering in that ta ("other") is taken
as modifying köishutai ("agent"). However, INABA's frequent use oijudô ("passive") as a parenthetical gloss to
the otherwise correct translations, ta naru köishutai I no sakusha, is highly misleading.
 INTRODUCTION 5

different".7) Lacking such a distinct agent, the verb is intransitive. In fact, Tibetan
sentences show this distinction between transitive or intransitive verbs by the presence
or absence of the so-called byed sgra (lit. "agentive expression"), kyis, gyis> gis, etc., or
in our terms, the ergative ending: the agents of transitive verbs must take this ending,
whereas the themes of intransitive verbs have no ending at all/ 0
Now, the important point to note is that the first line in Si tu's definition
makes it clear that self and other apply only when the action has a distinct agent.5 In

In the case of the second type of verbs, or intransitives, Si tu characterizes them as expressing acts
"appearing to occur spontaneously" {ran gi nan gis 'grub par snan ba): the object and agent are not different
{bya byed tha mi dad pa). As Si tu puts it: "when iron by its own nature changes into gold, both the changer
{'gyur byed) and the thing which will undergo change {'gyur bya) are not apprehended as being [anything]
other than the iron itself." P. 206: Icags ran biin gyis gser du 'gyur ies par 'gyur byed dan 'gyur bya gni ga I
nid las gtan du mi dmigs pa ha bu ...
The reason why Si tu speaks of the act as being "directly" related to the distinct agent is that he wishes
to specify that in the case of intransitives there may very well have been a distinct agentive force at sometime
or another, but it is not explicitly mentioned in the proposition. See our remarks in Notes to the Translations,
en. 15.
For a succinct formulation of what an ergative language is, see COMRIE (1978) p. 329: "Ergativity is a
term used in traditional descriptive typological linguistics to refer to a system of nominal case-marking where
the subject of an intransitive verb has the same morphological marker as a direct object, and a different
morphological marker from the subject of a transitive verb." Tibetan satisfies this criterion: it marks the agent
of a transitive verb and does not mark the subject of an intransitive, nor does it mark the direct object. The
agent is thus said to be in the ergative case, while the subject of an intransitve and the direct object are in
the absolutive. See HERFORTH Chapter III in this volume for an extensive analysis.
8
See Si tu'i ial lun pp. 50-51, (Japanese translation in INABA 1986 p.369; text p.444):
de yan byed pa po gtan mi snan ies pas I dper na I bdag 'gro'o Ha bu'i tshe I 'gro ba de bya tshig yin kya
'gro bya 'gro byed gßis ka bdag yin pas / 'gro bya las gtan pa'i 'gfo byed med pas na 'di la bdag gtan gy
ba'an mi byed pa yin no / "Now, when [Si tu] says 'A distinct agent does not appear', [he means that] in cases
such as 'I am going', although 'to go' is an action-word [i.e. verb], that which undergoes [the action of] going
{'gro bya) and the goer {'gro byed) are both I, and thus there is no goer distinct from that which undergoes
[the action of] going. Therefore, in such a case, the division in terms of self and other (bdag gtan gyi dbye
ba) is not made."
See also sKal bzan 'gyur med, pp. 360-361, who clearly summarizes the position of Si tu and post-Si tu
grammarians: bdagforphogs'gro gnam nas char pa 'bab I Ita bur cha mtshon na I 'gro ba po bdag yin zer c
kyan de la Itos pa'i 'gro bya gtan med pa dan / 'bab rgyu char pa yin yah de la Itos pa'i 'bab pa po gtan
nos yod mi srid pa de'i thog nas bya tshig 'gro dan 'bab gnis bya byed tha mi dad pa yin par gsal por 'p
pa red / rgyu mtshan de'i dban gis bya byed tha mi dad pa'i bya tshig de rigs la gon dan mi *dra bar d
bdag gtan gyi dbye ba med la I de biin 'gro ba po bdag dan 'bab rgyu char pa gnis ka la'an rnam dbye'i
gan yan sbyar du mi run / "If one considers [examples] such as 'I am going to the East' or 'Rain is falling from
the sky', then although one can say that the goer is 'self {bdag), there is no other object relative to that [goer]
which undergoes the going. And although the rain is what is to fall, there can never be an other faller relative
to that [rain]. Thus, it is clearly ascertained that verbs [such as] "to go" or "to fall" are ones where the object
and agent are not different. For this reason, contrary to the previous [type of verb, viz. transitives], the class
 TJ.F. TUJLEMANS

practical terms, this means that self, other and the two sorts of acts will only make
sense when the verb is transitive: intransitives cannot be analysed in this way. This
latter point is worth stressing to avoid the needless confusions engendered when certain
modern authors, such as J. BACOT and M. LALOU, give "examples" of intransitives which
are supposedly classified as bdag.9
Si tu's definition, in effect, specifies that given a transitive verb, there are two
sort of things which can be termed "self: the agent(s) of the action and his activity or
"doing". In the classic example of a woodcutter cutting wood with an axe, "agent" refers
to the woodcutter himself as well as the axe. (Note that in Indian and Tibetan gram-
matical discussions, "agent" [byed pa po = kartr] can span both the animate being
responsible for the action — i.e. the so-called "principal" or "primary" agent [byed pa po
gtso bo = Skt pradhänakartr] — as well as the typically inanimate instrument {byed pa
= Skt. karana) by which this action is accomplished. The latter is known as the "secon-
dary agent" [byed pa po phal ba = gunakartr]: in the woodcutter example this means
the axe/ 0 ) The agent's doing means his effort (rtsol ba) in cutting the wood. "Other"
in Si tu's definition spans both the focus, or object, of the action (eg. the wood) and
the action which that object undergoes, the "thing to be done" (bya ba), eg. the fact of
the wood's having been cut into bits (sin dum bur bead pa'i cha).
We see, then, that Si tu specifies complex rubrics for self and other: both
include entities (dnos po), viz. the agent(s) and the object, and different aspects of the
action. These two aspects of the action are usually known as "act-qua-doing" (byed pa 'i
las) and "act-qua-thing-(to be) done" (bya ba'i las), and could be said to represent ap-
proximate analogues of active and passive voices. To keep our explanation relatively

of verbs where the object and agent are not different does not have any divisions in terms of the entities self
and other. Similarly, one cannot join any case-endings [such as the ergative, kyis, gis and gyis] to the goer, i.e.
oneself, and that which is to fall, i.e. the rain." Cf. ibid. p. 381: bya byed thad par ma gtogs tha mi dad par
dnos po bdag gtan gyi dbye ba med "It is only when the object and agent are different [that self and other
apply], but when they are not different there is no division into the entities, self and other."
9
BACOT (1946) p. 52: "'khor-lo 'khor-bar gyurd to. La roue a fini de tourner (bdag, intransitif). Na 'kord
son. J'ai tourné. Je me suis retourné (bdag, voix moyenne)." Cf. also LALOU (1950) p. 54 who gives na 'gum
pa ("je meurs" = "I die"; "I am dying") as an example of the "passive" or "subjective" (= bdag) voice! LALOU's
examples are discussed in detail in our n. 47 below.
10
For pradhänakartr and gunakartr, see CARDONA (1974) p. 237. For the Tibetan use of such notions,
see the text of dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros and also bKa' chen pad ma pp. 156-157: gcod pa po ein gcod
mkhan gan zag de gtso bo yin I gcod byed sta re ni phal ba yin /.
It is worth noting that in our presentation we have taken dnos po in the definition of self and other
as referring only to the agent(s) and objects. Here we have followed dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros* approach,
which has the merit of simplicity. There are, however, some terminological divergences in other texts which
deserve mention. Dharmabhadra speaks of the tenses and acts as also being bdag gi dnos po or gtan gyi dnos
po. sKal bzah 'gyur med (p. 378) states: "that very entity which is the agent (byed pa po'i dnos po de nid), his
instrument (de'i byed pa) and the present act-qua-doing which is related to that [agent] are said to be 'dnos
 INTRODUCTION

bias-free, however, we have found it preferable to translate terms as literally as pos-

sible; thus we have opted for somewhat unwieldy hyphenated renditions which do, none-
theless, have the merit of capturing the two principal senses of the English words "act"
and "action", viz. a process, or doing, and a result or thing done 22 ; the Tibetan terms
byedpa'i las and bya ba'i las (and their numerous synonyms) are in effect bringing out
a similar duality in the term las ("act"; Skt. karman).13
For the sake of clarity let us represent Si tu and post-Si tu grammarians' basic
position by means of the following table:

I. Verbs which are directly related to distinct agents (byedpa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel
ba'i las tshig) = Verbs where the agent and object are different (bya byed tha dadpa'i
las tshig), eg. sgrub.
A. Self (bdag)
1. entity (dnos po)

po bdag\ the entity which is the focus to be established by the agent (byed pa pos bsgrub par bya ba'i yul gyi
dnos po), the entity which is the object (las kyi dnos po) as well as the future act-qua-thing-done related to
that [object] are termed 'dnos po gtan'. byed pa po'i dnos po de nid dan I de'i byed pa I de dan 'brel ba'i byed
las da lia ba bcas la dnos po bdag ces bya tin I byed pa pos bsgrub par bya ba'i yul gyi dnos po dan I las
dnos po I de dan 'brel ba'i bya las ma 'ons pa bcas la dnos po gtan tes bya'o . This is quite close to gSer tog,
who also speaks about acts as being dnos po bdag I gtan and uses the term las kyi dnos po for the object of
the action. Cf. gSer tog p. 139: btsal bya'i nor ni I bya ba bsgrub pa'i yul yin pas bdag gtan gnis las dnos po
gtan dan I bya byed las gsum las las kyi dnos po tes bya la. In short the various authors certainly agree that
act-qua-doing and act-qua-thing-done are to be included under bdag and gtan respectively, but there seems
to be some ambiguity as to whether we can say that the acts are dnos po bdag or dnos po gtan. dByafis can
dga' ba'i bio gros, in giving examples of dnos po bdag and dnos po gtan always gives agents (eg. gcod pa po)
and objects (eg. gcad bya) respectively. Let us say, then, that in our table below we are using "entity" (dnos
po) in much the same sense as sKal bzah 'gyur med et al. speak of byed pa po'i dnos po or byedpa pos bsgrub
par bya ba'i yul gyi dnos po. When it comes to the rubrics bdag and gtan, however, we are deliberately
simplifying things by not using the term dnos po bdag, etc., but just simply bdag.
Cf. The Concise Oxford Dictionary p. 11: "action 1. n. Process of acting, exertion of energy or
influence...2. Thing done"; "act n. 1. Thing done, deed...2. Process of doing, operation".
The term las — karman has two quite different senses which both frequently come up in grammatical
and philosophical contexts. It can mean "act" but also frequently means the "object of the act". Cf. RENOU
(1957), ABHYANKAR (1977); MAY (1959) n. 413 shows how in philosophical contexts (viz. chapter VIII of the
Prasannapadä) there is frequently a fluctuation between the two senses of karman, viz. "acte" and "objet-
direct"; see also BHATTACHARYA (1980-81) p. 39. In the latter sense, las is also a technical term in Sanskrit
grammar, defined in Pânini's Astâdhyâyï 1.4.49 as kartur îpsitatamam ("what the agent aims at most"). Finally
note that it is the latter sense ("object") which is at stake in the frequently invoked triad, bya byed las gsum
("action, agent, object"; Skt. kriyà) kartr, karman), a schema which not only occurs in grammatical texts, but
also occupies a major role in philosophical analyses. Cf. eg. Tsoh kha pa's rTsa ées ük chen (on Madhya-
makakârikâ II) p. 92 where we find such headings (sa bead) as las dan byed pa po la bya ba so sor dgag I las
dan byed pa po la bya ba thun mon du dgag pa 'o /. See also Glossary, s.v. las.
 TJ.F. TEJLEMANS

a. primary agent (byed pa po gtso bo), eg. the woodcutter.

b. secondary agent (byed pa po phal ba) = instrument (byed
pa), eg. the axe.
2. act (las).
a. act-qua-doing (byed pa'i las) = the act pertaining to the
agent (byed pa po layodpa'i las) etc., eg. the agent's effort in
cutting the wood with the axe.
B. Other (gzan)
1. entity (dnos po)
a. object (las) = focus of the action (bya ba'iyul), etc., eg. the
wood.
2. act (las)
a. act-qua-thing-done (bya ba'i las) = the act pertaining to the
focus of the action (bya ba'iyul layodpa'i las), etc. eg. the fact
of the wood's having been cut into bits.24

II. Verbs which are not directly related to distinct agents (byed pa po gzan dan dnos su
ma 'brel ba'i las tshig) = Verbs where the agent and object are not different (bya byed
tha mi dad pa 'i las tshig), eg. grub.
Self and other do not apply.

B. Some historical remarks on pre-Si tu developments

Now, what can we say about the situation before Si tu, as it is obviously
important to have at least some ideas on this subject if we are to be able to appre-
ciate Si tu's own contribution? Perhaps the easiest way to get an inkling of what Si tu
was reacting against is to look at his own descriptions of his adversaries.
Si tu diagnoses the problems of his predecessors as follows:

"Moreover, all the previous commentators in this context failed to make the
distinction between verbs (las kyi tshig) which are related with distinct agents
and those which are not related. This was extremely pernicious, for when they
did not know that, then they did not recognize verbs as being [of| hetero-
geneous [types] when the agent (byed po) and [focus of] the action (bya ba)
were different and when they were not different. And because that went
unrecognized, they did not know how to apply properly the terms "self and
"other" which were being taught there [in Thon mi's verse], and like those who

bya ba'i yul la yodpa'i las - bya ba'i gä la yodpa'i las — bya ba la yodpa'i las — gtan dan 'brel ba
las, "the act related with what is other". We also find that byed pa po layodpa'i las = bdag dan 'brel ba'i las,
"the act related to the agent".
 INTRODUCTION

depend upon blindmen, [so too] much completely unfounded nonsense seems
to have ensued."75

Clearly, then, Si tu thought that this was a general problem amongst Tibetan
grammarians, and he seems to have thought that he was the first to have made a clear
distinction between verbs which have a distinct agent and those which do not. Si tu also
characterized the specific positions of his adversaries, but unfortunately for the his-
torian, he did not mention any names, restricting himself instead to the formula "some
people say ('ga'ziggisy. The rTags 'juggi selgyi me Ion commentary on Si tu, however,
does mention the views of the sixteenth century writers Rab 'byams smra ba chos rgyal,
'Ol pa rab 'byams pa (= 'Ol phrug Kar ma rab rgyas), rJe zur mkhar ba (= Zur mkhar
ba Bio gros rgyal po [1509-?]), as well as the positions of gSer mdog Pan chen Sâkya
mchog ldan (1428-1507), dBus pa bio gsal (= dBus pa bio gsal Byan chub ye £es [14th
C.])1 , Zwa lu lo tsâ ba (= Zwa lu lo tsâ ba Chos skyon bzan po [1441-1527]77) and
rNam glin Pan chen (= rNam glifi Pan chen dKon mchog chos grags whose work on
grammar was supposedly written in 1683).
To quote the Sel gyi me Ion commentary:

"Now, with regard to the remaining points, most of the earlier writers adhered
to [a position] which explained that the masculine letter ba- is applied to the
past tense and to other, i.e. the [act-qua-]thing-done (bya ba). Rab 'byams smra
ba chos rgyal, 'Ol pa rab 'byams pa, rJe Zur mkhar ba and others constituted
one point of view (lugs) which did not accept [that] 'entities' (dnos po) [had to
be included under the rubrics of self and other]. Furthermore, gSer can pa Pan
chen Sâk mchog adhered [to a point of view] which stated that on the one
hand tenses (dus), entities (drïospo), nouns (min) and [acts-qua-]thing-done (bya
ba) are separately classified, but entities too are [classified according to] self
and other [and] self is [act-qua-]doing (byedpa) while other is [act-qua-] thing-
done (bya ba). [Along with Säkya mchog ldan] the great scholars of the
intermediate period, such as Si tu, dNul [chu Dharmabhadra] (1772-1851), [Ri
bo mdans can] mKhan [rin po ehe], [mKhas dban rtog ldan] lHag [bsam] also
constituted one point of view which held that both self and others had entities.
And [finally] dBus pa bio gsal, the great Zwa lu lo tsâ ba, rNam glin Pan chen

Si tu p. 205: yan 'grel byed sna ma thams cad kyis 'di skabs las kyi tshig la byed pa po gfan dan d
su 'brel ma 'brel gyi mam dbye ma mdzad pa ni êin tu mi legs te I de ma ées na byed po dan bya ba tha da
pa dan tha mi dad pa'i las kyi tshig so sor nos mi zin ein l de ma zin pas 'dir bstan bdag gtan gyi tha shad
la 'jugpa tshul biin ma nogs par lorï ba'i 'khar ba biin gar 'dzugs med pa'i cal col man po byun bar snan
II.
16
See MIMAKI (1982) p. 12 et seq. and note 26. Tshe tan 2abs drun situates him as earlier.
17
The dates are those to be found in Tshe tan fabs druh's Thon mVi ial lun p. 191. Cf. LAUFER (1898)
p. 524 et seq. for some remarks on the life of Éwa lu lo tsâ ba. LAUFER gives 1439-1525 as dates.
10 TJ.F. TTLLEMANS

and others, who did not accept an entity with regard to [acts-qua-]doing (byed
pa), but did accept an entity with regard to [acts-qua-]thing-done (bya ba), con-
stituted one point of view. Thus there seem to have been three [standpoints]."25

Essentially, it would seem that a major cause of the various divergent views was
that Thon mi's verse twelve lacked any mention of "entities" {dnos po) being included
under the rubrics self and other29; as a result a plethora of positions grew up around
this question of exactly what was to be counted as self and other, with some writers
holding that self and other just meant the types of actions, others holding more
complex positions.
Another curious position which seems to have been quite frequent among the
earlier writers was the idea that simple nouns, outside the context of a specific sentence
where they might express the agent or object, could nonetheless be classifed in terms
of self and other. It is understandable that such a position would arise, for it is far
from clear in Thon mi as to whether nouns which have prefixes are to be included in
his analysis schema in verse twelve. At any rate it does seem to be corroborated that
many of the earlier writers did hold that simple nouns (min rkyah) were also classi-
fiable in terms of self and other. ICan skya Rol pa'i rdo rje's (1717-1786) Sum cu pa
dan nags 'jug gi don nun nur bsad pa, which according to its colophon is supposed to
represent the views of the influential Zwa lu lo tsâ ba, has the extraordinary statement

18
Cf. Sel gyi me Ion, ff. 34b-35a (DURR 1950 p. 79). As DURR's text and translation is muddled, we have
altered the punctuation and retranslated the text.
da ni 'phros don la sha rabs kyi mkhas man phal cher gyispho'i yi ge ba ni dus 'daspa dan I géan bya
bsgrub pa la 'jug ces gsuhs pa'i rjes 'bran I rab 'byams smra ba chos rgyal I 'olpa rob 'byams pa rje zur
ba sogs dnos po ies mi bied pa'i lugs gcig I yah gser can pa pan chen êâk mchog gis yah na dus dan dnos
dan I min dan bya ba so sor dbye I dnos po la yah bdag dan gtan I bdag ni byed pa gtan bya ba / ies gsu
pa'i rjes su 'brans te I bar skabs kyi mkhas pa chen po lain mkhyen si dhul mkhan lhag rnams kyah bda
gnis kar dnos po bied pa'i lugs gcig I yah dbus pa bio gsal dan I iwa lu lo chen I mam glih pan chen sogs
pa la dnos po mi bied ein I bya ba la dnos po bied pa'i lugs gcig bcas gsum du snah bas /...
Note that DURR, translating the colophon, said that this text was written in 1737 by a certain Don 'grub.
This date is impossible as we see clearly that the author mentions dNul chu yab sras (f. 30b; see DURR's p. 45:
"dNul chu père et fils"): the author, whoever he was, must have been at least after the middle of the 19th
Century in that dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje (the "son" of dNul chu Dharmabhadra) wrote his works in 1841
and 1843. DURRfindsmention of the twelfth cycle in the colophon, but in fact there is nothing of the sort in
the Tibetan. We only find mention of the Fire-dragon year (me 'brug), which could be either 1856 or 1916.
As for the mysterious Don 'grub, the colophon states: slar yah don 'grub ces pa sa mo lug lor bio gsar gton
nu 'ga' iig la sum rtags don 'khrid sprod skabs... "When again, in the Earth-female-sheep year called Don
'gpub, I taught grammar to some young beginners..." Now, sa mo lug is the spor than way (spor than gi lugs)
of representing the year; in the stod 'grel way (stod 'grel gyi lugs) sa mo lug = don grub, i.e. in this case 1859
or 1919. See the tables in Dagyig gsar bsgrigs pp. 880-885. (Note that spor than is more commonly known as
nag rtsis, "black" astrology coming from Chinese sources, stod 'grel gyi lugs comes from the Kälacakratantra.)
The conclusion of all this is simple: we don't know who wrote this text which DURR attributed to Don 'grub.

The Eel gyi me loh also mentions this point.

 INTRODUCTION 11

that "the right [side]" (g.yas) and "the left [side]" (g-yon) are instances where the ga-
prefix applies to both self and other! 20 And Si tu himself laments — probably, with
justification — that some of his predecessors thought that nouns such as "carnivor"
(gcan gzan) and "the animal, the [Himalayan] sheep" {dud 'gro gnan) were examples of
the prefix ga- being applied to "acts which belong to the object of the action" (bya ba
gzi la yod pa'i las)\21
Indeed, if one looks at an early text such as the rTags 'jug gi tïkâ of Go ram
pa bSod nams sen ge (1429-1489), it becomes immediately apparent that all the
distinctions between agents, objects, simple nouns and actions were badly blurred. Now,
Si tu himself is quite strict in making these distinctions: the examples which he gives
for entities which are agents end in the so-called bdag sgra, po, (eg. gcodpapo "cutter")
or in byedy which shows the instrument (eg. good byed "the means for cutting"); the
entities which are objects end in bya + a noun (eg. gcad byaï sin; "the wood which is
to be cut"). But both Go ram pa and ICan skya give morphologically indistinguishable
examples for the different categories of self, other and the tenses. To take an example,
Go ram pa (f. 3a) gives gsol ba btab ("requested") as an example of b- being used for
the past, gtor ma Mes ("took the [ceremonial] cake-offering") as an example of "other"
and finally s ems bskyed ("gave rise to the mind [of enlightenment]") as [act-qua-] thing-
done {bya ba). It is indeed very difficult to see what kind of difference he might have
been trying to illustrate.22
One final conundrum concerning the pre-Si tu background needs to be
mentioned, although a "solution" seems unlikely. The question naturally arises as to why
the Tibetans chose the terms "self and "other", and which Indian terms, if any, these
correspond to. Modern Tibetan grammarians stress the obvious point that "self and
"other" in this context do not have their ordinary senses, but they give no reasons for
Thon mi's choice of these particular terms. However, some of the first Western writers
on Tibetan grammar, such as B. LAUFER, saw in "self and "other" the Sanskrit voices
ätmanepada (viz. the middle voice) and parasmaipada (viz. the active voice), an
observation which deserves to be examined a bit more closely.

P. 12a: g.yas I g.yon ies pa ha bu gas 'phul bdag gtan gnis ka la 'jug pa dan /.
See Si tu p. 207: ga yig bya ba gti la yod pa'i las la 'jugpa'i dper yan / gcan gzan I la gcan pa I sgra
gcan I rus kyi gnos / dud 'gro gnan sogs phal eher min rkyan kho nar bkodpa .. "They just present for the mo
part simple nouns as examples of the letter ga- being applied to acts which belong to the object of the action:
"carnivor", "toll collector for a [mountain] pass" (la gcan pa), "[the demon] Râhu (sgfa gcan)*", "clan", "the
animal, the [Himalayan] sheep" and so forth. *The equivalence is attested in Mahävyutpatti 3392. Râhu is an
asura responsible for eclipses; hence the term can also mean "an eclipse". Cf. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo,
s.v. la gcan pa (= la'i to gam pa ste la khral sdud mkhan) and sgra gcan.

It was Jânos SZERB who, during a late-night walk in the woods in 1985, impressed upon TILLEMANS the
oddity of Go ram pa's positions.
23
LAUFER (1898) p. 543. See TILLEMANS (1988) pp. 494-495.
12 TJ.F. TDULEMANS

First of all, if we wish to speculate on what Thon mi himself, as opposed to

his commentators, might have meant, we easily run the risk of meaninglessness and
vacuity. Unfortunately, as there is just one verse in Thon mi's works which concerns self
and other, the data is too meager for us to be able to proceed solely on the basis of
the internal consistency of Thon mi's own statements, and it is hardly probative to
advance a priori types of arguments along the lines of "Thon mi must have meant
ätmanepada and parasmaipada because he must have known Sanskrit well after having
spent such a long time in India", or "The correspondence between the words bdag =
ätman and gzan = para is just too strong to be a coincidence".24 The first type of
argument becomes all the weaker if we keep at least a healthy scepticism about Tibetan
accounts of Thon mi's life and achievements; should one go so far as to accept Roy
A. MILLER'S point of view that Thon mi was not the author of the Sum cu pa and
rTags kyi }jug pa at all, the argument will have no force whatsoever. As for the second
type of argument, there is little one can reply except that there are also other cases
where indigenous grammarians used the equivalents of bdag = ätman and gzan = para
to classify verbs, but where there is no obvious relation with Sanskrit grammar either.
Consider the Japanese grammarians' use of the terms jidöshi È |j||3 (lit. "self-verb";
i.e. roughly "intransitive") and tadöshi f i | ] ^ (lit. "other-verb"; i.e. roughly "transi-
tive"), terms first applied systematically to Classical Japanese verb morphology by
25
MOTO'ORI Nobunaga in 1792.

The late H. ZIMMERMANN in sometimes polemical, but never uninteresting, personal communications
to TILLEMANS repeatedly urged this line of defense of LAUFER.
25
D. HERFORTH adds the following note: "The opposition of;/, 'self to ta, 'other' (to refer to the concepts
in their Japanese phonetic garb) may possibly have originated in the early Indian epistemological distinction
between self and non-self that was disseminated throughout East Asia as part of Buddhist conceptual
schemata. That the technical use of 'self/ 'other' to refer to medio-passive vs. active verbal voice in Sanskrit
was exported and directly applied to non-Indie languages is rather less certain. Before the late eighteenth
century the terms ji ('self) and ta ('other') seem to have been used in Japanese poetics to refer to several
interrelated poeto-linguistic categories. These did not include the (in)transitive opposition, which, as far as we
know, had yet to be formulated. (SHIMADA1979 pp. 1-35 cites and discusses these 'pre-sytematic' uses of/7 and
ta, the earliest extant text dating from 1676). The first clear use of ji and ta to refer to transitivity is found
in Nobunaga's treatise on stylistics, the Tama'arare of 1792. (Relevant passages with discussion in SHIMADA pp.
36-45.) Nobunaga's son Haruniwa developed and extended his father's ideas on transitivity in the classical
language, presenting the first comprehensive exposition of the notion in his grammatical treatise Kotoba no
kayoimichi of 1828 (SHIMADA, pp. 54-101). There is no evidence known to us that either Nobunaga or
Haruniwa were trained in Sanskrit or had knowledge of the Indian grammatical tradition. It seems simpler to
assume that Nobunaga merely adopted a pair of terms used rather loosely in literary discussions by his
contemporaries and, by restricting their reference, gave them a specific, technical sense. Any hypothesis of the
direct influence of Sanskrit ätman I para on the use of ji / ta in Japanese linguistics would have to account
for the gap of approximately one thousand years between the introduction of Sanskrit studies into Japan in
the late eighth century and Nobunaga's explicit use of ji I ta to refer to (in)transitivity."
 INTRODUCTION 13

The result is that while it is seductive to speculate on Thon mi's own thought
processes, we really have almost nothing to go on: it is impossible to conveniently side-
step the commentarial interpretations on this matter. The question therefore has to be
reformulated as to the correspondance between some particular commentator's inter-
pretation of Thon mi's use of bdag and gzan and the actual use of the Sanskrit terms
ätmanepada and parasmaipada. Now, if we take Si tu and post-Si tu grammarians, their
use of bdag and gzan does not show much correspondence with the Sanskrit terms at
all. In the first place, for Si tu et al, self and other can only apply when the verb is
transitive, i.e. when it has a distinct agent;26 in Sanskrit, however, intransitive
(akarmaka) verbs are in principle ätmanepada. (If we take an intransitive form such as
sidhyate ["it succeeds"; "it is established"], the Tibetan counterpart grub cannot be classi-
fied in terms of self and other.)
Secondly, act-qua-doing (byedpaï las), which in Si tu's system is to be classified
as self, corresponds better to the active voice rather than the middle (ätmanepada); act-
qua-thing-done (bya ba'i las), which is classifiable as other, corresponds more to a
passive than to a Sanskrit active (parasmaipada).
Obviously, if we take one of the pre-Si tu commentators who supposedly did
not distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs, our first argument will be less
telling. And indeed it may very well be possible that bdag and gzan seen through the
perspective of some earlier commentator(s) do exhibit more resemblances to the
Sanskrit terms. Following this scenario we might even end up with the hypothesis that
Thon mi and the earlier commentators were influenced by the Sanskrit, but that later
grammarians, such as Si tu et al., revised these notions so that their Sanskrit origins are
now obscure. But this remains pure speculation until we have a much more compre-
hensive picture of the earlier stages of Tibetan grammatical thought. As things stand
now, it seems to us that a prudent position would be that of INABA (1986) p. 148, who
notes that while Thon mi may have been influenced by the mere words ätmanepada and
parasmaipada in Sanskrit grammatical terminology, his own use of bdag and gzan bears
little resemblance to the actual ätmanepada and parasmaipada in Sanskrit grammar.

C. A survey of some of the post-Si tu literature on self and other.

Turning now to the developments concerning self, other, verb tenses, etc. in
Tibetan grammar after Si tu Pan chen, there are a number of major figures and
currents which especially need to be singled out. First of all, we find what is commonly

26
See n. 8. But cf. BACOPs examples in our n. 9. Frankly, one cannot help feeling that one of the major
reasons people persist in thinking that bdag — ätmanepada is a fairly uncritical acceptance of BACOT: his
pseudo-examples of intransitive and "middle" verbs which he terms bdag naturally make this equation all the
more tempting.
14 TJ.F. TILLEMANS

referred to as dNul chu yab sras, literally, "the father dNul chu and the son(s)M, in other
words, dNul chu Dharmabhadra (1772-1851), dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje (1809-1887),
and judging from a recent edition of the works of dNul chu yab sras where dKa' chen
pad ma's (19th - 20th C.) works are also included, this latter grammarian, a monk
from bKra £is lhun po, must also be reckoned as belonging to this lineage.
dNul chu Dharmabhadra's principal work is his commentary on Si tu, the Si
tu'i zal tun, which has received a certain amount of investigation by Western and
Japanese scholars,27 but it is worth mentioning that he also authored a treatise
consisting of replies to objections on difficult points, entitled the Sum nags kyi mam
bsad nor bu ke ta kafi do sal du 'bod pa'i dgag Ian tshans pa'i thig gi spun zla. As for
dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje, besides his relatively well-known commentary on the Sum
cu pa, the Legs bsad Ijon dban, he also wrote a commentary in verse on the difficult
points of the rTags kyi 'jug pa as seen via the perspective of Si tu and dNul chu, viz.
the rTags kyi 'jugpa'i snin po'i don mdo tsam brjodpa dka' gnad gsal ba'i me Ion ; dKa'
chen pad ma's commentary, the rTags jug dka ' gnad gsal ba 'i me Ion gi }grel pa rig(s)
lam gser gyi Ide migf is as its title suggests a subcommentary on dByans can grub pa'i
rdo rje.
Next we have A kya Yons 'dzin dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros, who wrote the
rTags jug dka' gnas bdag gzan dan bya byed las gsum commentary which we have
translated, and was in addition the author of a general commentary on the rTags kyi jug
pa> the rTags jug 'grel ba rab gsal snan ba. He also wrote a commentary devoted to the
analysis of the triad "actions", "agents" and "objects" (bya byed las gsum), a subject which
is usually included in discussions of self and other.
Unfortunately we possess no biography of this writer, but the Mongolian
scholar, T. DAMDINSÜREN, gleaning bits of information from the colophons of dByans
can dga' ba' bio gros' works, comes to the conclusion that "dByans can dga' ba'i bio
gros lived between the end of the 18th and the middle of the 19th century and [that]

27
Translated in INABA (1986).
•JO
We might remark in passing that it was this text which BACOT (1946) p. 65 cited without identification
in providing a definition of bdag and gtan, a definition which is almost verbatim that of Si tu. BACOTs
translation, which has the same defects as the translation of the passage from Si tu in DURR (1950), has been
criticized in TILLEMANS (1988) pp. 495-496.
29
MILLER (1965) follows S.C. DAS in dating dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros as "fl. circa 1588-1615", but
this is completely impossible. According to Tshe ten z"abs drun, dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros, a Tibetan born
in "Zan khron la kya", composed his work on bdag gtan bya byed las gsum in the first part of the fourteenth
cycle (rab byun bcu bii ba'i stod tsam la brtsams), in other words sometime during the first two decades of
the 19th century. Furthermore, not only does dGa' ba'i bio gros give a definition of bdag and gtan which is
clearly patterned after that of Si tu, but he also criticizes Bra ti dge bées Rin chen don grub, who wrote in
the beginning part of the twelfth cycle (i.e. 1687 - ca.1700). DAS' dates, therefore, must be wrong.
 INTRODUCTION 15

he wrote most of his works between 1809-1830. "30 As his title "A kya Yons 'dzin"
shows, he was the tutor of an A kya incarnation in sKu 'bum monastery in Qinghai,
and indeed in Mongolia, where he is a well-known writer, he seems to be generally
known by this name, although in his works he frequently referred to himself as Bio
bzan don grub, Suddhi arthasiddhi, Don yod rdo rje and dByans can dga' ba'i bio
gros. 5i
At any rate, dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros seems to have had a considerable
influence, both in Tibet and in Mongolia. He was the teacher of a number of important
scholars including A lag Sa Nag dban bstan dar (1759-1840) (whom we will discuss
below) and the Urga corje Nag dban dpal ldan (1797-1894). Although his longest and
most famous work is a commentary on Pan chen bSod nams grags pa's (1478-1554) dGe
ldan legs bsad, entitled dGe ldan legs bsad pad ma dkarpo'i chunpo'i 'grelpa ni maï 'od
zer, he did also write various lexicographical works, commentaries on the "Blue Annals",
Lam rim, and so forth, as well as textbooks and mnemonic summaries (sdom tshig)
which were frequently used by students in the major dGe lugs monasteries. In fact, it
seems that his two works on bdag gzan and bya byed las gsum were of this latter sort.
As for his ideas on self, other, etc., we see some fundamental differences from
the position of Si tu and dNul chu yab sras. If we look at Si tu's list of examples of
"expressions for the [agent's] doing" (deï byed pa'i tshig), then it is clear that only
present forms such as sgrub par byed and sgrub bo figure there. Similarly among the
expressions for the thing-done to the [object] (de'i bya ba'i tshig), we find only future
forms such as bsgmb par bya and bsgrub bo. Past forms are excluded from both lists,
and so are also present continuatives ending in bzin pa and future forms ending in
'gyur. In fact, Si tu seems to include as act-qua-doing or act-qua-thing-done only those
forms which do not rely on the various auxiliaries (tshig grogs) bzin pa, ...yin 'dug, ...gyin
snan, etc.
In dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros' text, however, we find numerous periphrastic
forms with the auxiliaries bzin pa and 'gyur being classified as act-qua-doing. Moreover
we also find the interesting statement:

"The past and future of the [verb forms] both belong to act-qua-thing-done,
while the present and imperative belong to act-qua-doing. When analyzing in
terms of the pair self and other, the agent(s) (byed pa po), the doing (byed pa)
and the act-qua-doing (byed pa 'i las) are all included under the category self,

30
See DAMDINSÜREN's forthcoming article in the Proceedings of the 1984 Csoma de Körös Symposium,
"On an outstanding Tibetan scholar, dByangs can dga' ba'i bio gros."
31
Cf. L. VAN DER KUDP quoted in H. EIMER (1986) p. 50: 'The author...styles himself...'Dbyangs-can-dga'-
ba'i-blo- gros' which is his nom de plume for the original 'Blo-bzang don- grub', otherwise known as the tutor
of one of the A-kyâ embodiments (A-kyâ Yongs-'dzin) of Sku-'bum monsastery." There is, however, some
question as to which A kya sprul sku was his disciple. VAN DER KUIJP hypothesizes that it was A kya Ye ées skal
bzan mkhas grub rgya mtsho (1817-1869), whereas DAMDINSÜREN opts for Bio bzang 'jam dbyahs rgya mtsho
(1768-1816). Our thanks to Dr. EIMER for providing us with his article.
16 TJ.F. TÏLLEMANS

whereas the object {las), 'that which is to be done' (bya ba) and the act-qua-
thing-done (bya ba'i las) are all included under that of other."52

So, we see that this author had no compunctions about including past forms
as act-qua-thing-done (bya ba'i las), and hence as other; in addition he clearly specifies
that tîie imperative is to be understood as showing act-qua-doing. In both these respects
he was followed by another major figure, the Fifth gSer tog, Bio bzan tshul khrims rgya
mtsho (1845-1915) of sKu 'bum monastery in A mdo, who wrote a Sum cu pa dan rtags
kyi 'jug pa'i mchan 'grel, where he discusses the views of dNul chu yab sras, dByans can
dga' ba'i bio gros, A lag £a Nag dban bstan dar as well as a number of earlier writers.
The work has received a preliminary study by MILLER (1965), and besides the obvious
interest of gSer tog's commentary in showing which currents and figures were
considered important at the time, it also exhibits a certain original position on self and
other in spite of its clear dependence on Si tu for the definitions of these terms. The
differences and similarities with Si tu and dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros, which concern
basically the acceptance or rejection of certain verbal forms under the rubrics of act-
qua-doing and act-qua-thing-done, are too complicated to explain here — in TILLEMANS
(1988) one finds an appended table showing the classificational schemata of these three
authors.
Finally, the Mongolian lama, A lag £a Nag dban bstan dar (1759-1840), also
known as bsTan dar lha ram pa, is the author of the Sum cu pa dan rtags 'jug gi don
go sla bar bsdus pa'i bsadpa skal Idan yid kyi pad ma 'byedpa'i snan ba'i mdzod, a work
whose views on self and other clearly were meant to accord with those of Si tu, but
which adds many important precisions to the difficult points in Si tu's interpretation.
For example, as we shall see below, Nag dban bstan dar has an interesting explanation
of Si tu's laconic assertion that act-qua-doing is included in the present and act-qua-
thing-done is in the future. Furthermore, he clearly specifies the forms which "were not
directly mentioned [by Thon mi], but are obtained by implication" (dnos su ma bstan
kyan don gyis thob pa). To cite ftag dban bstan dar on the prefix b~:

"Although it is not directly stated in this text [viz. the rTags kyi 'jug pa], there
are applications [of ba-] to the future, as in eg. ras de sah hin bkru bar bya 'o
('that cloth is to be washed tomorrow'), yi ge de da dun bklag par bya'o ('that
letter is still to be read') and so forth.

This point is worth investigating before we proceed any further.

How are we to interpret the tense specifications in verse twelve? Si tu and
dNul chu seem to have taken the specifications of tense and those of self and other

32
See our translation p. 54, §21.
P. 186: gtun 'dir dnos su ma bstan kyan ma 'ons pa la 'jug pa ni I dper na I ras de san fan bkru bar
bya'o I yi ge de da dun bklagpar bya'o sogs so II.
 INTRODUCTION 17

mentioned in verse twelve as being non-overlapping. In other words, b- shows the past,
which is neither self nor other^, (eg. chus bkan, gos bkab, etc.55) plus gzan forms such
as the object of the action (eg. bkan byaï lag pa) as well as future forms (eg. bklagpar
bya and bklag go).36 The essential point (as we see in the passage of Si tu which we
have translated in Chapter II) is that Thon mi supposedly gave the specifications of the
three tenses to cover only the remaining (lhag ma) uses of the prefixes which were not
covered by self and other, viz. intransitives and forms using auxiliaries.57
One can thus credibly maintain that following Si tu's interpretation, certain
forms are not explicitly mentioned in Thon mi, but are "obtained by implication". In the
case of b-, the future forms fit this bill: they are "obtained by implication" in that they
come under the rubric, gzan. In short, there is no explicit reference to "future" in pho
ni 'das dan gzan bsgrub phyir, simply because the tense specification, 'das ("past"), refers
to all and only those b- prefixed forms which are not included under gzan ("other").
The b- prefixed futures are, however, gzan, because they show act-qua-thing-done {bya

See our translation of Si tu on our p. 62, §4.

35
Si tu p. 209.
Si tu p. 218: ba yig gtan bya ba'i yul bsgrub pa'i phyir 'jug pa ni I dper na I bkan bya'i lag pa /... Pp
224-225: de bûn du ba yig dnos po gtan bya ba'i yul dan 'brel ba'i bya ba nid la 'jugpa ni I bkal bar bya'o
... bklag par bya j bklag go II.
37
See our p. 62, §4 and en. 13. Cf. Si tu (pp. 226-235) and Dharmabhadra's (pp. 47-48) explanation
of the second line of verse twelve. "Both [self and other]" encompasses agents, both primary (eg. gcodpa po)
and secondary (eg. gcod byed), present act-qua-doing (eg. good par byed; good do), objects (eg. gcad bya; gcad
par bya ba; gcad bya'i êin) and future acts-qua-thing-done (eg. gcad par bya; gcad do). "Present" refers to only
those ga- or da- prefixed forms which are present, but are neither self nor othen viz. those like gcod kyin 'dug,
gcod btin pa'o or dkri yin 'dug go and dkri btin pa'o which, according to Dharmabhadra, are "expressions
illustrating act-qua-doing which have been modified by auxiliaries, (tshig grogs)" Cf. Si tu p. 226-227: snon 'jug
gi ma nin ga da gnis ni dnos po bdag dan gtan gnis ga la 'jugpa dan I der ma gtogs pa'i dus gsum las da I
ba ston pa'i phyir 'jug go /. "The two neutral prefixes ga- and da- apply to both self and other and they are
applied for showing the present [tense] from among the three tenses not included there [i.e. among self and
other]." Dharmabhadra (p. 48): der ma gtogs pa'i dus gsum las I gcod kyin 'dug I gcod btin pa'o I dgag gin 'd
I dgag biin pa'o Ita bu byed pa po gtan datï dnos su 'brel ba'i bya ba byed biin pa da Itar ba bsgrub pa'i
du 'jug ste I da Itar ba ni I byed las gsal byed kyi sgra nid tshig grogs kyis bsgyur ba'o II "[The neutral pre
are applied to establish present performances-in-process of actions which are directly related to a distinct
agent, [actions] such as gcod kyin 'dug... and the like [to be taken] from among the three tenses not included
there [amongst self and other]. The present [forms] are expressions illustrating act-qua-doing which have been
modified by auxiliaries."
Finally note that BACOT (1946) had cited something like the above passage from Si tu (pp. 66, n. 1):
snon 'jug gi ma nin ga da gnis dnos su bdag dan gtan gfiis ka la 'jugpa dan der ma gtogs pa'i da Itar ba st
pa'i ched du 'jug che'o. He translated: "les préfixes neutres ga et da sont usités pour bdag et gtan, et de plus
ils marquent le présent." Unfortunately "de plus" is not at all an adequate translation of the phrase der ma
gtogs pa'i da Itar ba found in Bacot's text. If he had translated this phrase, his theory of verbs would have had
to be quite different. Cf. TILLEMANS (1988) n. 37.
18 TJ.F. TDLLEMANS

ba'i las). As such they are not mentioned separately, and this line of verse twelve does
not contain the tense specification, ma 'ons pa ("future").
Here then is A lag £a Nag dban bstan dar's summary of Si tu's position on the
prefixes:

"In sum, the letter ba- is applied [in the following way]: 1) to both the past and
the future from among the three tenses; 2) to other from among self and other;
3) it is never applied to the present or to self, ga- and da- are applied to: 1)
both the present and the future from among the three tenses; 2) both self and
other; 3) it is not applied to the past. The letter }a~ is applied to: 1) both the
present and the future from among the three tenses; 2) to self from among self
and other; 3) it is not applied to the past and other."55

Actually, it should be apparent by now to the reader that Thon mi's verse
twelve was extremely difficult to comment upon and necessitated some very complex
manoeuvers in order to accomodate the phenomena of the Tibetan language, man-
oeuvers such as appeals to numerous "implied" forms which Thon mi never mentioned,
but nonetheless implicitly intended.59 Ultimately it can, we think, be argued that
nobody, inspite of their sophisticated manipulations, succeeded fully in fitting these
phenomena into the straitjacket of Thon mi's verse. A revealing fact is that many
commentators felt so uncomfortable with Thon mi's description that they had to change
the wording of the verse to fit the data and their theories. dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros
did not do that, as far as we can tell, but he offered us the somewhat lame solution
that Thon mi was just talking about the "principal uses" of the prefixes, as if the other
uses were in some mysterious sense secondary. Si tu and Nag dban bstan dar, however,
felt constrained to change the third line from mo ni bdag dan ma 'ons phyir to mo ni
bdag da ma 'ons phyir ("the feminine prefix ['a~] is for self, present [and] future."). gSer
tog, finally, proposed that the verse would have to be amended even further and would
have to read as follows, "if one corrected the text in accordance with the thought
behind the two commentaries [viz. those of Si tu and Nag dban bstan dar]":

P. 188: mdor na ba yig ni dus gsum gyi nan nas 'das pa dan ma 'ons pa gfiis ka dan I bdag gtan gn
kyi nan nas gtan 'phul tin I da Itar ba dan bdag gnis ka gtan nas mi 'phul lo // ga da gnis ni dus gsum gyi
nas da Itar ba dun ma 'ons pa gnis ka dan I bdag gtan gnis ka 'phul tin 'das pa mi 'phul I 'a yig ni dus gs
gyi nan nas da Itar ba dan ma 'ons pa gnis ka dan bdag gtan gyi nan nas bdag 'phul tin 'das pa dan gta
ka mi 'phul lo //.
INABA (1955) makes the valid observation that simplex forms such as blta, which are classified as
"future" in Tibetan grammar, frequently show a passive (i.e. gtan) sense where the temporal distinction is
simply non-past. See n. 73 below. It is not infrequent that such forms have a present passive sense or are
translations of a present passive in Sanskrit. (See INABA 1986, p.151, paragraph 4). He then argues that Thon
mi, in saying pho ni 'das dan gtan bsgrub phyir, meant to include "future" forms such as blta under the rubric,
gtan. While it is unclear to us as to how INABA would have extended his analysis to the rest of verse twelve,
his analysis of the first line is not essentially different from that of Si tu.
 INTRODUCTION 19

pho ni 'das gzan bsg?ub ma 'ons II

ma nin gnis ka da ma 'ons II
mo ni bdag gzan da ma 'ons II
(The last line presumably remains as is.)
"The masculine [ba-] establishes the past, other [and is for] future;
The neutral [ga- and da-] are [for] both [self and other] present [and] future;
The feminine ['a-] is [for] self, other, present [and] future."40

One might be tempted to say that this constitutes a virtual reductio ad absurdum
of the ensemble of Si tu and post-Si tu grammarians' theories on Tibetan prefixes in
that in the end these theories seem to have little or nothing to do with the actual
words which we find in Thon mi's verse twelve.^ Probably the conclusion to draw,
however, is that we, in focusing primarily on a later stage of the language, should basi-
cally deal with post-Si tu theories in their own right and independently of the problem
as to how well they do or do not accord with Thon mi. In short, Si tu, Nag dbarï bstan
dar, dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros and gSer tog were unable to satisfactorily force their
data and theories into line with Thon mi: for us, however, that is a relatively minor
problem; their theoretical insights concerning the Tibetan language of their time are
probably of much more consequence than their exegetical infidelities.

D. Si tu's dictum on act-qua-doing being in the present, etc.

While all the grammarians who follow Si tu's tradition agree on the principle
that self and other includes both the entities and acts as described above, it is more dif-
ficult to understand why the term "self, whose basic meaning seems to be the agent,
is also applied to the action. The same problem arises, mutatis mutandis, for the term
"other". Si tu gives a somewhat obscure answer to the effect that act-qua-doing and act-
qua-thing-done are also, in the process (far las), categorized as self and other
respectively because the "expressions for the [agent'] doing" (de'i byedpa'i tshig) have
the "same force" (sed mtshuns pa) as the agent, while the "expressions for the thing
done to the [object]" {de'i bya ba'i tshig) have the same force as the object itself. There

40
gSer tog p. 152.
A possible reconciliation would be to say that Thon mi's Sum cu pa and rTags kyi 'jug pa were, in
general, describing a much older state of the Tibetan language, and that with the modifications in the language
over the course of time it, therefore, became harder to accord the grammatical data with Thon mi's original
descriptions. This approach would necessitate a thorough research on older Tibetan forms such as we find in
Dunhuang manuscripts. While that may well be a fertile tack to pursue, it is, unfortunately, beyond the scope
of this work.
20 TJ.F. TTLLEMANS

is little explanation in the commentarial littérature as to what exactly this means, but
we do get a rough and ready understanding when certain contemporary Tibetan
grammarians explain that verbs such as sgrub par byed or sgrub bo ("establishes") are
"essentially similar" (no bo gcig) to the expression for the agent, viz. sgrub pa po ("es-
tablisher"), in that they all express an activity in process, an effort to establish
something or another, while bsgnib par bya ("is to be established") and bsgnib bo ("is
/ will be established") are similar to bsgrub bya ("that which is to be established") in
that they too express a process to be undergone/ 2
The truly difficult point in explaining Tibetan grammarians' views on bdag and
gzan, however, comes with Si tu's quasi-Delphic pronouncement that "act-qua-doing is
included in the present and act-qua-thing-done is included in the future", on which dNul
chu Dharmabhadra comments: "all acts-qua-thing-done are future and all acts-qua-doing
are present"/ 3 This statement of Si tu and dNul chu, which we shall from now on refer
to as "Si tu's dictum", has no clear relation whatsoever with the specifications for the
uses of the prefixes as found in Thon mi's verse twelve.
Our first retort will probably be that they cannot literally mean what they say,
for a quick glance at a text such as that of dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros would reveal
numerous exceptions. This is, however, a somewhat sophomoric initial reaction in that
Si tu, dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros and others did not at all agree on which forms
were to be counted as being bdag and gzan — in particular, there was, as we saw above,
a fair amount of controversy about the past tense, periphrastics and the imperative. But
if we look at the forms which Si tu actually did accept, then it is true that he only
accepted present forms under act-qua-doing and future under act-qua-thing-done. But
why? Amongst Tibetan grammarians we seem to find two approaches to the problem,
one on the basis of morphological considerations, the second involving a philosophical
perspective.
The first approach is well explained by the contemporary grammarian, sKal
bzan 'gyur med, in his Bod kyi brday sprod rigpaï khrid rgyun rab gsal me Ion, and turns
on this author's explanation of the byed tshig ("words for doing") and bya tshig ("words
for thing-done") associated with the agent(s) and object. For sKal bzan 'gyur med, the
byed tshig is a form which ends in ...par byed, while the bya tshig is one ending in ...par
bya, eg. good par byed and gcad par bya are respectively the verbal counterparts
associated with the agentive forms good pa po and gcod byed and the objective form gcad
bya. It follows immediately that no past forms or imperatives could ever be admitted

Here we basically follow the explanation of mKhyen rab 'od gsal (p. 27) who maintains that the
different byed tshig are in essence not other than just act-qua-doing (no bo byed las kJio na las ma 'das pa yin).
Similarly for the bya tshig. HERFORTH in Chapter III (p. 90 et seq.) analyzes this correlation between agents
and objects and their respective acts in an ergative language, but for the moment, let us try to get some idea
as to what Tibetan grammarians themselves say in their own terms.
Si tu'i ial lun, pp. 49-50: ...bya ba'i las thams cad ma 'om pa dan I byed pa'i las thams cad da Itar
yin pas so II.
 INTRODUCTION 21

into the categories of bdag and gzan because they could never be construed as byed
tshig or bya tshig. Nothing but present forms could ever take par byed, and nothing but
future takes par bya. To cite sKal bzari 'gyur med's own examples, Tibetan does not
have past self forms like *bcad byed, parallel to which we could construct *bcad par
byed, or imperative self or other forms like *chodpar byed, *chod bya or *chodpar bya,
nor can we find future self forms like *gcad byed or a present other form like *gcod
bya. The result of examining Tibetan morphology is clear and neat: only present forms
are byed tshig and are hence self; only future forms can be bya tshig and hence other.
In effect, the requirements of being able to be made into a byed tshig and bya tshig are
being used to single out the simplex present and future forms
While this explanation is elegant and no doubt empirically well-founded, it does
not explain why quite a number of obviously intelligent grammarians, who were more
than competent in Tibetan, would come to the seemingly incoherent conclusion that
past forms were to be classified as other, imperatives were self and that there existed
a periphrastic future self form, "future act-qua-doing" (byed las ma 'ons pa), using the
auxiliary 'gyur. Now, a writer such as gSer tog, while accepting virtually the whole gamut
of such forms, still also seemed to adhere to Si tu's dictum — we find the following
pregnant passage from gSer tog which deserves some meditation on our part:

"Now, when a pauper earnestly seeks wealth, then in terms of the two [aspects]
which pertain to the act [of wealth-seeking] in question at that time, — i.e. the
act which is to be done (bya rgyu'i las) and the act which one is doing (byed
Min paï las) — , the act of seeking the wealth is [classifiable as] the act which
he [i.e. the pauper] is doing. Thus, in terms of self and other it is [classified
under] 'the entity self and is termed 'the act which pertains to the agent', 'the
present act' (da ha baï las) and 'the act of seeking'. But seeking and then

sKal bzan 'gyur med pp. 380 et seq. mKhyen rab 'od gsal also seems to invoke this sort of
morphologically based argument saying that the past, imperatives, and negative imperatives do not show an
actual act (las dnos), viz. act-qua-doing and act-qua-thing-done, because such forms as *bcad par bya, *bcad
par byed, *chod par bya, *chod par byed, *ma gcod par bya and *ma gcod par byed are all impossible. P
33: üb tu brtags na tshogs gsiim gyi nan nas bya ba 'i tshig gam las kyi tshig ces pa ni bya ba 'i las sam b
las gnis gan rim tig gis ston dgos pa las / 'das tshig dan / skid tshig I dgag sgra 'i skid tshig bcas kyis n
ston pa'i nus pa med de / dper na bead par bya dan I bead par byed I chod par bya d.ah / chod par byed s
'das skul gnis la bya las dan byed las gsal byed kyi sgra la don gyi rnam dbye mi 'jugpa dan / dgag s
tshig kyan min gi thog mar dgag sgra fugs tshe I ma gcod par bya I ma gcod par byed Ita bu 'jug mi srid
tshig gam las tshig dnos ni bya las dan byed las gnis gan run gis ston dgos pa yin /. "If we examine closely,
the so-called 'verbs' (bya ba'i tshig) or 'action-words' (las kyi tshig) in the three groups would have to show
either act-qua-thing-done or act-qua-doing, but the past, the imperative and the negative imperative cannot
[in fact] show any actual act. Eg. * bead par bya, *bcadpar byed, * chod par bya, *chodpar byed, etc. — the
words expressing act-qua-thing-done and act-qua-doing with regard to the past and imperative do not apply
to any division in meaning. Also in the case of the negative imperative, when one prefixes a negative particle
before the word, *ma gcod par bya, *ma gcod par byed, and the like are impossible. So the actual verb or
action-word would have to show one of either act-qua-thing-done or act-qua-doing."
22 TJ.F. TBLLEMANS

finding the wealth is the act which is to be done, and thus in terms of self and
other, it is [classified under] 'the entity other', and is termed 'the act which
pertains to the focus of the action', 'the future act which will be accomplished'
{bya 'gyur ma 'ons pa'i las) and 'the act of being sought'."*5

This also seems to have been the line of attack of A lag £a Nag dban bstan
dar*6, a "solution" which is dominated by a certain philosophical analysis of what occurs
in an action, and not by morphological considerations particular to the Tibetan lan-
guage, such as those which sKal bzan 'gyur med invokes. As such, it may very well be
that gSer tog et al do not mean that every verbal form showing act-qua-doing is present
or that every form showing act-qua-thing-done is future, as dNul chu had explained
things, but rather, that in a typical action (such as seeking wealth), the doing is
occurring at that moment (and is in that sense present), whereas the completed action,
or the transformation to be undergone, is something which will occur. In the end,
however, it is unclear as to how far this latter approach to Si tu's dictum is to be
developed if we stay within the context of the explanations offered by the traditional
Tibetan grammarians themselves: the Tibetan literature often simply restates Si tu's
dictum, or offers explanations which are too brief for our purposes. What does seem
clear, though, is that Si tu's correlation between act-qua-doing and the present and act-
qua-thing-done and the future — however it is to be explained scholasticalty — does embody
an important observation about the Tibetan language: the present simplex form and its
periphrastic use in byed las ma 'ons pa are arguably closer to an "active" (or in
HERFORTH'S terms are agent-prominent), while the future and its periphrastics are

gSer tog, p. 139: de yan 'bul pos 'bad pas nor btsal ba na I nor 'tshol biin pa'i las ni I skabs 'di'i las
la bya rgyu'i las dan byed bün pa'i las gnis yod pa las I byed bun pa'i las yin pas I de la bdag gtan gnis ky
nas dnos po bdag ces pa dan I byed pa po la yod pa'i las dan I da ha ba'i las dan I 'tshol bar byed pa'i las
bya ba yin la / nor 'tshol ba na rned pa de bya rgyu'i las yin pas I de la bdag gtan gnis kyi nan nas dnos po
gtan iespa dan / bya ba yul la yod pa'i las dan I bya 'gyur ma 'ons pa'i las dan I btsal bya'i las tes bya b
no II.

Cf. also A lag s'a Nag dban bstan dar pp. 185-186: des na de Ita bu byed pa (po?) la bdag dan las la
gtan gyi tha snad byed pa yin pas de'i skabs kyi las la bya rgyu'i las dan byed biin pa'i las gnis yod de I
na sta res éin good pa na ein dum bur son ba bead pa'i las dan I ein la sta re(s) rgyab biin pa'i good pa'
gnis yod pas dan po la bya 'gyur ma 'ons pa'i las dan gcad bya'i las dan bya ba yul la yod pa'i las dan g
ies byatinI gnis pa la byed btin da Itar ba'i las dan byed pa'i las dan byed pa po la yod pa'i las bdag ces
ba ... "So, in this fashion the agent is termed 'self and the object is termed 'other', and therefore the act in
question is twofold, viz. the act to be done (bya rgyu'i las) and the act which one is doing (byed btin pa'i las).
Eg. if one cuts wood with an axe, there is both the wood's going into bits, [which is] the act of being cut, and
the act of cutting, which is the axe hitting the wood. Thus, the first can be said to be the 'future act which
will be accomplished' (bya 'gyur ma 'onspa'i las), the 'act of being cut' (gcad bya'i las), the 'act pertaining to
the focus of the action (bya ba yul la yod pa'i las)' or 'other*. The second is termed the 'present act which
one is doing' (byed biin da Itar ba'i las), the 'act-qua-doing' (byed pa'i las), the 'act which pertains to the
agent* (byed pa po la yod pa'i las) or 'self..."
 INTRODUCTION 23

more "passive" (or patient-prominent). HERFORTH will examine this observation in

detail in Chapter III.
One final remark which needs to be made. We might at this point be tempted
to think of the theories of BACOT (and those of DURR, LALOU, and perhaps REGAMEY,
which are heavily dependent on BACOT). BACOT argued for a so-called double-faced
("deux aspects ou deux faces") Tibetan verb, one which admits of two different
interpretations depending on whether we understand it in terms of self, viz. the agent's
action, or in terms of other, viz. the action which is undergone by the object/ This
however is not the point which gSer tog et al. were making, and in fact it is not cogent
at all. BACOT'S (1946) Grammaire du tibétain littéraire, which is so useful on most other
subjects, came up with a disappointing muddle on bdag and gzan which deserves to be
laid to rest. Let us translate some key passages:

47
Sœ BACOT (1946), the introduction to DURR (1950) and REGAMEY (1947) and (1954). BACOT (1946), p.
50: "Par sa forme, le verbe transitif est tout autant l'action agie par l'agent que subie par l'objet. L'action agie
par l'agent et cet agent sont dits en tibétain bdag, personnels ou subjectifs. L'action subie par l'objet et cet
objet sont dits gtan, extérieurs ou objectifs. Le verbe a deux aspects ou deux faces, mais il reste le centre
autour duquel gravitent les deux termes satellites, agent et objet." REGAMEY repeatedly cites BACOTs theories
on this subject and acknowledges his esteem for BACOTs work. Cf. (1947) p. 29 and p. 39: "...le verbe transitif
a deux faces {bdag et gtan)" In all fairness, though, it is not really clear as to how far REGAMEY shared BACOTs
idea of one and the same form varying between bdag and gtan depending on the verb tense.
As for M. LALOU (see LALOU 1950 p. 54), she seems to borrow BACOTs terminology of "objective" and
"subjective" voices, which is clearly connected with the Tibetan grammatical terminology, but paradoxically
seems to reverse things: she speaks of voix active ou objective and voix passive ou subjective — as if gtan were
the active! She informs us that "la voix active ou passive se reconnaît par des indices extérieurs au verbe" (p.
54) and proceeds to give the same verbal forms in examples of both voices. To cite one of her examples: she
gives nas chos la noms su blans pa yin ("j'ai compris la Loi") as an example of voix active ou objective and fias
chos noms su blans pa yin ("la Loi est comprise par moi") as voix passive ou subjective, as if everything just
turned on the presence or absence of the particle la after chos. Unfortunately, if the "objective"/ "subjective"
distinction is supposed to be gtan and bdag, no post-Si tu grammarian would say that noms su blans pa yin
shows bdag or byed pa'i las. This point is further discussed in n. 49 below. Another example which she gives
on p. 54 is: nas 'gum pa ("je tue : je fais mourir") for the "active"/ "objective" and fia 'gum pa ("je meurs") as
the "passive" / "subjective". Now, 'gum pa can be one of two things: 1) it is the future of 'gums pa ("to kill");
2) it is an intransitive (tha mi dad pa; byed med las tshig) — "to die". So when LALOU cites nas 'gum pa, this
cannot be translated as "I kill": that would have to be the present form 'gums pa. (What she gave is strange,
but would have to be something similar to nas 'gum par bya "...is lojbe killed by me".) Her fia 'gum pa is
correct in itself and does mean "I die", but it obviously cannot be called a "passive" in any comprehensible and
non-Pic1 ickian use of that term. Presumably, when LALOU gave examples of voix passive ou subjective she
thought that some of her examples were genuine passives while others, like fia 'gum pa, were "subjective": in
other words she took "subjective" (= bdag) as applying to intransitives. Indeed, as Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen
mo s.v. 'gum pa points out, the verb means 'chi ba ("to die") and is tha mi dad pa (= intransitive). But, as
we discussed earlier, from the point of view of traditional grammar, the action of dying has no distinct agent,
and thus we cannot speak of 'self and 'other' applying to 'gum pa taken in its tha mi dad pa use. Cf. our n.
8,9.
24 TJ.F. TELLEMANS

"The special feature of the Tibetan verb is, to a large degree, to take into
account the relationship which exists in reality between voice and tense and
then to deduce the latter from the former. Indeed, a verb which expresses the
past action of the agent [also] simultaneously expresses the object's present and
permanent state (as does our past participle). And the verb which expresses the
present action of the agent expresses at the same time the future state of the
object. One and the same form, then, can present two logical interpretations
and two concomitant aspects of the same action. For one and the same form,
the tense will vary according to which term, self or other, is being considered.
The tense is, in part, a function of the voice, i.e. a function of which term is
being envisaged, self or other.
The morphology of verbs, then, must consist in specifying a tense for
a particular voice or vice versa... It is in this fashion that the prefix b- indicates
the past of the active action of the agent and the permanent state, be it present
or future, of the object."'*5

Now, first of all "one and same form" (une même forme) cannot present two
different interpretations of the same action. gSer tog's point was that act-qua-doing was
(in some sense) present and that act-qua-thing-done was future, but not that a present
tense verb could also itself be future, or that each verbal form in Tibetan admitted of
two different classifications. No grammarian held that. Indeed, if we actually look at
Tibetan grammatical texts we see no shortage of examples of self, other, act-qua-doing,
act-qua-thing-done, present, past, future, etc., and at least in the case of Si tu, there is
never any intersection of these classes. In the case of other grammarians, too, verbs are
classified as one thing or another, but they never have the kind of dual character of
both self and other which BACOT imagined.
The obvious and essential question to ask is, "Where did BACOT get his ideas?"
As he placed great store on Thon mi, Si tu and other Tibetan grammarians, he most
likely thought that this was their point of view. In fact, the heart of BACOT'S theory is
his claim that Tibetan grammarians presented "correspondences" between self and other
and verb tenses/ 9

48
BACOT p. 50. Cf. the discussion in TILLEMANS (1988) pp. 497-498.
We should immediately become suspicious that something may very well be afoul with these
"correspondences" when BACOT glibly speaks of "past actions of the agent" ("l'action passée de l'agent") in the
context of self and other: this supposed byed pa'i las 'daspa or byedpa po la yodpa'i las 'daspa is certainly
not admitted by Si tu, nor is it explicitly admitted by anyone else that we know of. In fact, the question as to
how to understand the past tense from the point of view of traditional Tibetan grammarians is a tricky point.
If we follow dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros and gSer tog, then past transitive forms show bya ba'i las, act-
qua-thing-done, and are hence other. For Si tu, however, past forms are neither self nor other. So, even
though there is a problem on this score, it is extremely strange on BACOTs part to introduce out of the blue
a supposed byed pa'i las 'das pa. The closest thing to postulating a byed pa'i las 'das pa that we can think of
is the fertile, but unorthodox, suggestion of the contemporary grammarian, bKra éis dbah 'dus (p. 13), who
 INTRODUCTION 25

One begins to get suspicious about BACOT'S sources when we see him citing
certain pasages from Si tu which supposedly show the "correspondence" between, on the
one hand, "present active" and "future passive" and "present passive" and "past active"
on the other. These passages do not show anything of the sort: BACOT mistranslated
them. Here is a key passage from BACOT (1946), untranslated this time to ensure
fairness:

"La correspondance des temps est formulée comme suit dans le commentaire:
dus gsum gyi dban gis byed las da lia dan [/] bya las ma ons par 'du. Par rapport
aux trois temps, le présent actif coirespond au futur passif [BACOT'S italics.] De
même, par rétroaction, le présent passif correspond au passé actif."50

In fact what BACOT has translated is the problematic passage from Si tu which
we just discussed and which we had termed "Si tu's dictum", viz. "in terms of the three
times, act-qua-doing is included in the present and act-qua-thing-done is included in the
future." Had BACOT translated the simple word dan plus the sad (/) which he
disregarded, his result might have been different. The word ydu, which means "include"
rather than "correspond", has to be translated twice, once for the passage before the dan
(where, as often happens, the Tibetan verb was dropped by ellipsis), and once for what
follows dan.
Let us hope, then, that it is clear that Si tu is not at all expressing "cor-
respondences" as BACOT would have them. As for BACOT'S own addition that "de
même, par rétroaction, le présent passif correspond au passé actif, this is also little
more than a pipedream. One gets the inescapable impression that there were two
sources of confusion for BACOT: the first was probably his interpretation of Thon mi's
verse twelve, where BACOT thought that the uses of the prefixes for the tenses somehow
coincided or corresponded to their uses as bdag and gzan; the second consisted in a few
grossly misunderstood key passages from Si tu. At any rate, suffice to say that one
Tibetan verb has only one "face": whatever Si tu might have meant by including

argues that a past form can be categorized as self or other according to context: 'das tshig de dnos po bdag
gtan gan du gtogs ie na I rdo bzo bas brtsigs ha bu byed pa po dan 'brel nos bead na dnos po bdag gi k
dan I so phag brtsigs ha bu bya ba 'i yul gyi dnos po 'am las dan 'brel nos bead na dtïos po géan gyi khofi
so /. "Does a verb in the past tense belong to the entity self or other? If one says something like, 'The stone
mason has laid [them]' where there is a relation with the agent, then [the action] is in the category of the
entity, self. And if one says something like, 'The bricks have been laid', where there is a relation with the
entity which is the focus of the action, or [in other words] with the object (las), then [the action] is included
in the category of the entity which is other." HERFORTH further analyzes the relationship between word order
and A-and P-prominent perfects in Chapter III, p. 83 et seq.
50
Bacot p. 66, n. 1.
26 TJ.F. TDUUEMANS

act-qua-doing in the present and act-qua-thing-done in the future, there must be two
different verb forms at stake here; we cannot say with BACOT that "le verbe qui exprime
Faction présente de l'agent, exprime en même temps l'état futur de l'objet."51

51
BACOT p. 50.
 INTRODUCTION 27

E. Appendixes

1. Contemporary developments: autonomous and other-dependent verbs.

Besides the substantial amount of work being done in Chinese on questions of

Tibetan linguistics52, we also find a continuation and further development of the
traditional approach to Tibetan grammar in the form of various new commentaries on
the Sum cu pa and rTags kyi 'jug pa, some of which, it is true, are simply for the
pedagogical purpose of providing a basic understanding of Thon mi and Si tu, but
others do givQ significant new insights into grammatical questions all the while staying
within the general framework of post-Si tu grammar.53 A good example of the latter
type of innovation is a classificational schema in terms of "autonomous verbs" (bya tshig
ran dban can) and "other-dependent verbs (bya tshig gzan dban can) to be found in sKal
bzan 'gyur med's Bod kyi brda sprod rig pafi khrid rgyun.
This schema can serve as a complement to the traditional grammarians'
classifications of verbs which have or do not have distinct agents (or what comes to the
same, verbs whose object and agent are different and verbs where these are not
different). The traditional schema serves, inter alia, to explain linguistic phenomena such
as when the ergative ending (byed sgra) will or will not be used in Tibetan — the
ergative will be used when there is a distinct agent — , but 'Gyur med's classification
in terms of "autonomy" and "other-dependence" has the advantage of explaining the use
of certain personal verbal endings as well as the existence or inexistence of an
imperative form. Let us translate sKal bzan 'gyur med's definition:

Some of the contributors in this area are: ZHANG Liansheng, QU Aitang; LO Bingfen, AN Shixing and
GESHANG Rumian (=sKal bzan 'gyur med).
Let us mention the works of mKhyen rab 'od gsal (rTags kyi jugpa'i dka' tyel gnad kyi sgron me),
Tshe ten 2abs drun (Sum cu pa dan rtags 'jug gi mam gtag rgya cher bead pa thon mi'i ial lun), dMu dge
bsam gtan (Bod kyi yi ge'i spyi rnam bio gsal 'jug nogs), bKra éis dban 'dus (rTags kyi jug pa'i snin po dka
gnad gsal ba'i me Ion gi slob deb), rDo rje rgyal po (Sum rtags kyi dper brjod ran blo'i rtsi bcud as well as
rtags kyi snin 'grel legs bead 'dren pa'i pho no), bsTan pa rgya mtsho (Sum rtags las la don gyi gp,ad don
éas). For details, consult the bibliography. It is worthwhile to note that contemporary Tibetan-Tibetan
dictionaries, such as the Dag yig gsar bsgrigs, do systematically use the traditional schemata of byed 'brel las
tshig and byed med las tshig in classifying verbs. The Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen po uses the equivalent pair
of (traditional) terms, bya tshig tha dad pa and tha mi dad pa.
54
sKal bzan 'gyur med, pp. 364-377.
28 TJ.F. TILLEMANS

"Whether [the verb] is one where the object and agent are different or not,
when the agent who effectuates the action can of his own accord direct that
action, this type [of verb] is an 'autonomous verb'."55

In the case of an "other-dependent" verb the first clause of the definition is the same,
however, the action is not directed by the agent's own will, but rather through some
other causes and conditions. ("Other" in the term "other-dependent" simply has its
ordinary sense and not that of the technical term "other" which we find in the context
of bdag and gzan.)
An example of the first type is bHas pa ("to look"), whereas mthon ba ("to see")
or ses pa ("to know") would be an other-dependent verb. In the first case the ending
yin will have to be used in the first person of the past (eg. "nas bltas pa yin"), whereas
in the second case one must use byun (eg. "nas mthon byun" and not "*nas mthon ba
yin"). Egually, endings such as yod (present) and yin (in the future) will not be possible
for other-dependent verbs, eg. "*nas ses kyi yod", "*nas ses kyi yin" are anomalous and
should rather be "nas ses kyi 'dug", "fias ses kyi red". Furthermore, the imperative exists
for the verb bltas pa, but not for mthon ba, i.e. "*khyod kyis mthon zig" is anomalous.
Note that, as 'Gyur med points out, the classifications of autonomous and other-
dependent verbs both can include verbs which have distinct agents and those which do
not: bltas pa ("to look"; autonomous) and mthon ba ("to see"; other-dependent) are both
verbs which have distinct agents; 'gr*o ba ("to go"; autonomous) and slebs pa ("to arrive";
other-dependent) are both without distinct agents. Finally it is possible to find
compound verbs where the first member is other-dependent and the second is
autonomous, i.e. "verbs which have both aspects" (cha nis Idan gyi bya tshig). This
typically yields a causative construction like gnid khug par byed ("to make him sleep"),
go bar byed ("to make him understand").

P. 365: bya byed tha dad dan mi dad gan yan run I bya ba sgrub mkhan byed pa pos ran dban gi
nas bya ba'i kha lo sgyur thub pa de rigs ni ran dban can gyi bya tshig yin.
 INTRODUCIION 29

2 Tshe ten zabs dnin's list of the major commentaries on the Sum cu pa and
rTags kyi 'jug pa

In what follows we have tried to give some bibliographical indications on the

vast corpus of Tibetan grammatical literature by presenting the titles of the Sum cu pa
and rTags kyi 'jug pa (sum rtags) commentaries as found in chapter III of Tshe ten £abs
drun's Gans can bod kyi brda sprodpa'i bstan bcos sum cu pa dan rtags jug gi rnam gzag
rgya cher bsad pa thon miï zal tun. The chapter bears the title: "Some renowned older
and modern commentaries on the Sum [cu pa and] rtags [kyi jug pay.
We have also translated Tshe ten zabs drun's remarks and added some of our
own. Remarks in small print and dates given in square brackets are our own doing —
the other dates are those found in Tshe ten zabs drun. An asterisk (*) followed by a
number gives the reference-number of the work in the Sum rtags section50 of A khu
rin po ehe Ses rab rgya mtsho's (1803-1875) Thoyig, his catalogue of books which were,
at his time, already rare or of extraordinary value. (Full title: dPe rgyun dkon pa 'gay zig
gi tho yig don gner yid kyi kun da bzad pa'i zla fod 'bum gyi sne ma.) For comparison,
and in the hope of getting more detailed titles, we have also consulted the extensive list
of works in the Sum rtags section57 of the catalogue of Tibetan treatises which was pub-
lished in 1985 in Qinghai province. (Full title: Bod kyi bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan
byaii dri med sel dkaf phren ba.) We also give references, where possible, to the gsun
'bum volume numbers (which we have prefixed with a "#") in the "Catalogue of
Collected Works (gsun 'bum) in the Minorities Libraries", published in 1984 in Tibetan
and Chinese in Chengdu, viz. the Ses bya'i gter mdzod (Zangwen dianji mulu).
Noteworthy is the fact that this catalogue also gives fairly extensive biographical
information for its entries, information which can often be profitably supplemented by
consulting mKhas btsun bzan po's "Biographical Dictionary". Finally, where possible, we
give the microfiche number in the collection of the Institute for the Advanced Studies
of World Religions (IASWR) and the Library of Congress Catalogue number. These
are prefixed by "R-" and "I-Tib" respectively; see TACHIKAWA et al. (1983).

I. Concerning the older commentaries of the earlier [period]

1. Some chapters such as the commentary, in verse, on the meaning of the Sum
rtags, the Yi ge'i sbyor ba, composed by Sa skya Pan chen Kun dga' rgya mtshan (1182-
1251).
See Sa skya bha* 'bum Vol. 5. pp. 122-124. See also MILLER (1988). There are other short
grammatical works of Sa pan, such as the sGra la 'jug pa (pp. 111-116); see also the grammatical

56
Pp. 578-580 in LOKESH CHANDRA (1963 / reprint. 1981).
57
Pp. 60-65.
30 TJ.F. TDULEMANS

discussions occurring here and there in the first chapter (rtsom pa "composition") of the mKhas pa
la 'jugpa'i sgo (pp. 81-111).

2. The commentary on the Sum nags composed by dBus pa bio gsal Byan chub
ye Ses, who was a disciple of bCom ldan rigs pa'i ral gri [13th-early 14th C.].
A khu rin po ehe gives two entries: *12911 and *12912. Note that Tshe ten labs druh has "4th
cycle; 12th C", which must be an error. The fourth cycle (rab byun bii pà) goes from 1207 to 1266.
Cf. MIMAKI (1982), p. 12: "L'auteur ... dBus pa bio gsal appartenait à la secte bKa' gdams pa et
vécut dans la première moitié du 14e siècle." For bCom ldan rigs pa'i ral gri, see VAN DER KUIJP
(1983) n. 61.

3. The commentary on the Sum nags, the bsTan pa'i sgron me [* 12915],
composed by Nam mkha' bzan po (6th cycle; 14th C), who was the chief disciple (bu
chen)58 of Lo [tsâ ba] chen [po] Byan chub rtse mo [13037-1380]. The Sum nags mchan
'grel [* 12913] composed by sNar than Samgha érï (7th cycle; 14th C.).5P

4. The commentary on the Sum nags, the Rin po cheï za ma tog [* 12927],
composed by Yar 'brog pa Rin chen tog (5th cycle; 13th C).

5. The commentary on the Sum nags [i.e. Sum nags gitïkâ, *12937] composed
by Go bo rab 'byams pa bSod nams sen ge [= Go ram pa bSod nams sen ge] (1429-
1489).
While A khu rin po ehe includes this text in his Tho yig, the rTags 'jug gj. tïkâ is available in the
Sa skya bka' 'bum. The colophon reads: Vyâkarana'i rtags kyi 'jugpa'i rnam 'gjrel tshig nun im do
gsal bar ston pa. Ses bya'i gier mdzod: #000378 (ka). See also Bibliography.

6. The Sum nags commentary, M ma'i 'od zer [* 12925], composed by dGe ye
ba Tshul khrims sen ge.

7. The Sum rtags commentary composed by [gSer mdog] Pan chen Säkya mchog
ldan (1428-1507).

8. The Sum nags commentary, rNam par gsal bafi legs Mad [* 12918], composed
in the earlier part of his life by Zwa lu lo tsâ ba Chos skyon bzan po (1441-1527).
For Zwa lu lo tsä ba, LAUFER (1898) gives 1439-1525; VAN DER KUIJP (1982) n. 247 has 1441-1528.

9. The Sum nags commentary of Pan chen gser mdog can pa [= #7 above].

58
Cf. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. bu chen: slob ma gjtso bo.
For sNar than lo tsâ ba Samgha Sri, A khu rin po ehe has the title Sum rtags mchan 'grel rta Ijan rol
pa.
 INTRODUCTION 31

10. The Sum rtags commentary, gSal byed sgron me [*12930], of dPa' bo gstug
lag phren ba (1504-1566).

11. The Sum rtags commentary, mKhas pa'i dga' ston [*12931], composed by
Zur mkhar ba Bio gros rgyal po (1509-?).

12. The Sum rtags commentary, Bio gsal mgul rgyan [* 12932], composed by Rab
'byams smra ba chos rgyal.

13. The Sum rtags commentary, mKhas pa'i rgyan [*12933], composed by 'Ol
phrug Karma rab rgyas.

14. The Sum rtags commentary, Zun 'jug snah byed yid kyi sin rta [*12935],
composed by sMan lun pa Bio mchog rdo rje (1595-1671).

15. The Sum rtags commentary, mKhas pa'i yid 'phrog [*12926], composed by
Zwa lu ba Chos legs.

16. The Sum rtags commentary, gSal ba'i sgron me [*12934], composed by gTin
skyes tshogs gsog pa Bio bzan chos grags. These [above-mentioned works] are commen-
taries on both Sum [cu pa and] rtags [kyi 'jug pa].

There were numerous [commentaries] which arose from the lineage of Thon
mi, such as the commentary on the Sum cu pa, the Zib mo rnam 'thag [*12928], which
was composed by Pan chen Byams pa glin (1400-1475)*50, but nowadays, apart from a
few [of them which remain], the majority of these texts seem to be rare.

II. Concerning modern commentaries of the later [period]

17. The Sum rtags commentary, Legs bsad snah byed nor bu, composed by rNam
glin Pan chen dKon mchog chos grags (written in 1683).

18. The Sum cupa commentary, Kun tu bzanpo'i dgons rgyan, and the rTags 'jug
bsad sbyar tshigs bead ma composed by Bra (s)ti dge bées Rin chen don grub (written
in the beginning of the twelfth cycle; [i.e. ca. 1690-1700]).
Full title of the first text: Bod kyi brda'i bstan bcos sum cu pa tes bya ba'i rnam bead kun tu bzan
po'i dgons pa rab tu gsal bar byed ba'i rgyan. R-231; I-Tib-537, 71-904912. See bibliography. Full title
of the second text: flap kyi 'jug pa'i dgons 'grel gsal bar bead pa. Also known as rTa$p 'jug bead
sbyar and indeed written in verse (tshig bead). See Bibliography.

60
A khu rin po ehe speaks of the Sum nap 'grel ba composed by Pan chen Byams pa glin pa bSod nams
rnam rgyal. VOSTRIKOV (1970) pp. 86, n. 283 gives the date of birth of Pan chen Byams pa glin pa bSod nams
rnam par rgyal ba, the compiler of the chronicle of the line of Yar rgyab pa, as 1400 / 1401.
32 TJLF. TDULEMANS

19. The Sum rtags commentary, Tshig don gsal byed snan ba, composed by Co
ne Grags pa bead sgrub (1675-1748).
Ses bya'i gter mdzod #003686 (ja) gives full title: Sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jugpa'i tshig don gsal ba
byedpa'i snan ba. On this author and his Collected Works see also VOSTRIKOV (1970) pp. 126-127,
n. 373, 374.

20. The great commentary on the Sum rtags, the mKhas pa'i mgul rgyan mu tig
phren mdzes, composed (in the Wood-mouse [sin byi] year of the twelfth cycle [i.e.
1744]) by Karma Si tu gTsug lag chos kyi snan ba [= Si tu Pan chen] (1700-1774).
Full title: Yul gans can pa'i brda yah dag par sbyor ba'i bstan bcos kyi bye brag sum cu pa dan r
kyi 'jug pa'i gtun gi rnam par bead pa mkhas pa'i mgul rgyan mu tig phren mdzes. R-837; I-Tib-131
See Bibliography.

21. The Sum rtags commentary, Bio grospadmo 'byedpa'i snan ba, composed
(in the Fire-snake year [1737]) by A kya Bio bzan bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan (1708-1768).
On the author's Collected Works conserved in Leningrad see VOSTRIKOV (1970) p. 87, n. 288. VOSTRIKOV
n. 606 also gives the date of birth as 1708.

22. The Sum rtags commentary, Bio Idan dga'skyed, composed by ICan skya Rol
pa'i rdo rje (1717-1786).
Full title: Sum cu pa dan rtags 'jug gi don nun nur bead pa bio Idan dga' bskyed. Ses bya'i gter
mdzod: #000761 (kha). See Bibliography.

23. The Sum rtags commentary, Legs bsad snan ba, composed by Karma sMon
lam 'od zer.
Qinghai catalogue: Sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jug pa nun nu'i tshig gis go sla bar bkral ba legs bead
snan ba.

24. The commentary on the Sum cu pa, the dGohs gsal nor bu'i me loh
composed by bSam gtan don grub.
Qinghai catalogue: Sum cu pa'i tshig don mam bead mkhas pa'i dgons gsal me Ion.

25. The rTags 'jug commentary, dGohs gsal me loh, composed by mDzod dge
Bio bzan dkon mchog (1742-?).

26. The Sum rtags commentary, Bio Idan dgaf skyed, composed by rNa rgod Nam
mkha' sen ge (1712-1780).
Ses bya'i gter mdzod, #000818 (kha). Full title: Sum rtags kyi 'grel ba nun gsal bio Idan dga' bsk

27. The rTags 'jug commentaries, Rab gsal snan ba and rNam dbye bya byed sogs
kyi dkaf gnad gsal ba'i me loh and bDag gzan bya byed las sum nun gsal 'phrul gyi Ide
 INTRODUCTION 33

mig, composed (in the beginning part of the fourteenth cycle [ca. 1810-1820]) by A kya
Yons 'dzin dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros, who originated from Zan khron lä kya.
Full titles: rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dgons 'grel rab gsal snan ba\ rNam dbye brgyad dan bya byed la
kyi khyadpar mdo tsam brjodpa dka' gnad gsal ba'i me Ion; rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dka' gnas bdagg
dan bya byed las gsum gyi khyad par üb tu phye ba nun gsal 'phrul gyi Ide mig (translated below)
Included in Collected Works, R-699 /700; I-Tib-836, 74926906. See Bibliography.

28. The commentary on the meaning of the Sum rtags, the Me togphren mdzes
and its supplement (zur 'debs), by Rwa rgya dGe 'dun £es rab (written in 1818).

29. The Sum rtags commentary, Si tuï ial lun, composed by dNul chu
Dharmabhadra (written in 1806). [Tshe ten zabs drun gives 1866.]
Full title: Yul gans can gyi skad kyi brda sprodpa'i bstan bcos sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jugpa'i r
bead mkhas mchog si tu'i ial lun. Collected Works R-1740, R-2048, R-2077a; I-Tib, 73-901181. Si
tu'i ial lun R-1641; I(Sik)-Tib-91, 72-905748. Ses bya'i gter mdzod: #001046 (ca). Notably absent
in Tshe ten 2abs drun's list is the other grammar work of dNul chu Dharmabhadra, the Sum rtags
kyi rnam bead nor bu ke ta ka'i do êal. (#001046 ca.) See Bibliography. Tshe ten £abs drun's date
for the writing of the Si tu'i ial lun is improbable. The colophon of dNul chu's text states that he
wrote it in the Fire-tiger year when he was thirty-five years old. Now the Fire-tiger year of the 13th
cycle is 1806; that of the fourteenth is 1866. Moreover, the dates for dNul chu given in TACHIKAWA
et al. (1983) and Ses bya'i gter mdzod are 1772-1851. Tshe ten 2abs drun situated him one cycle too
late.

30. The Sum cu pa'i snin po legs bsad Ijon dban and the rTags 'jug gi dka' gnad
gsal ba'i me Ion written by the nephew of dNul chu [Dharmabhadra], dByans can grub
pa'i rdo rje.
The Legs bead Ijon dban has a root text and an autocommentary. Full titles: Thon mi'i legs bead sum
cu pa'i shin po Ijon pa'i dban po and Sum cu pa'i snin po'i don gsal byed legs bead Ijon pa'i dba
po. R-852-mid and R-439; I-Tib-942, 73-916941. Full title of rTags jug dka' gnad: rTags kyi jug pa'i
snin po'i don mdo tsam brjod pa dka' gnad gsal ba'i me Ion. Ses bya'i gter mdzod: #001016 (ga). S
Bibliography. Tshe ten Zabs drun states that the first text was written in 1901 and the second in
1903, but here again he is one cycle too late. More reasonable are 1841 and 1843 respectively.
TACHIKAWA et Û/.(1983) and Ses bya 7 gter mdzod give 1809-1887 as the dates for dByans can grub
pa'i rdo rje.

31. The Sum cu pa commentary, Nin mo'i snan ba, and the rTags 'jug
commentary, Nor bu'i rgyunphren, written (respectively in 1836 and 1835) by gTsos gser
khri Bio bzan rgyal mtshan sen ge (1757-1849).

dbon po, "nephew". Cf. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: pha rgyud bu spun gyi spyi'i min. Indeed, Se
bya'i gter mdzod p. 405 states that his father and mother were respectively Dharmabhadra's (= dNul chu
Dharmabhadra) younger brother (gcun), bKra éis, and Tshe rin sri chod.
34 TJ.F. TDULEMANS

32. The Sum rtags commentary, Tambura'i sgra dbyans, of bDe than mkhan po
Bio bzan 'jam dbyans.
Qinghai catalogue gives: Sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jugpa'i mam bead tambura'i sgra dbyans.

33. The Sum rtags commentary, sKal Idan yid kyipadma 'byedpa'i snan mdzod,
composed by A la[g] Sa Nag dban bstan dar [1759-1840].
Full title: Sum cupa dan rtags 'juggi don go sla bar bsdus pa'i bead pa skal Idan yid kyipadma 'b
pa'i snan ba'i mdzod. Included in Collected Works. R-603, 604; I-Tib-792, 79-923628. See
Bibliography.

34. The Sum rtags commentary, Utpalaï rna rgyan, written (in 1810) by dGa'
bzi ba rdo rin bSod nams bstan 'dzin dpal 'byor tshe rin.
Qinghai catalogue: Bod kyi brda sprod sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jug pa g/iis kyi tyel ba legs par bead
pa tshig nun don bzan utpala'i ma rgyan.

35. The Sum rtags commentary, No mtshar 'phrul gyi Ide mig, composed (in
1891) by gSer tog Bio bzan tshul khrim rgya mtsho (1845-1915).
Full title: Bod kyi brda' sprod pa sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jug pa'i mchan 'grel mdor bsdus te br
pa no mtshar 'phrul gyi Ide mig. See MILLER (1965) and Bibliography.

36. The Sum cu pa commentary, Legs bsad rin chen rgyud mans, composed (in
1928) by Mer gen mkhan po Se ra ba Ye £es rnam rgyal.

37. The Sum cu pa commentary, Mu tigphreh ba, composed by Nag dban thub
bstan.
Qinghai catalogue: brDa' sprod pa'i bstan bcos sum cu pa'i mam bead mu tig 'phren ba. Ées bya'i
gter mdzod: #000884 (ka). Ibid, gives the full name of this Mongolian from Khu re as Nag dban
ye ées thub bstan, but gives no dates apart from saying that he was a "person of the nineteenth
century" .

38. The Bra stiï kun bzan dgohs rgyan gyi dgons pa gsal byed sgron me composed
by Mer gen chos rje.
For Bra (s)ti dge bées Rin chen don grub's Kun bzan dgons rgyan, see # 18 above.

39. The Sum rtags commentary, Bio Idan dgay skyed, composed by rNa rgod nam
sen. [= #26]

40. The Sum cu pa commentary, Rin chen Me mig, composed by Ear Sul tshan.

41. The Sum rtags commentary, rMons mun 'jomspaï ni 'od, composed by dMe
Sul chos 'phel.
 INTRODUCTION 35

42. The rTags jug commentary, bDud rtsVi 'o rgyun, composed by Nag dban
mkhas btsun.

43. The rTags 'jug commentary, mThon ba don ldany composed by bSod nams
rgya mtsho.
Qinghai catalogue: rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dka' gnad gsal bar byedpa mthon ba don Idan.

44. The Sum rtags commentary, Thrul [gyi] Ide [mig], composed by sPans lun
pa Kun bzan 'jigs med rgya mtsho.
Qinghai catalogue: Sum cu pa dan rtags kyi 'jug pa'i 'bru 'grel 'phrul gyi Ide mig.

There are inumerable such [commentaries].

 37

IL T R A N S L A T I O N S A N D T I B E T A N T E X T S

A) The rTags kyi 'jug pa 'i dka ' gnas bdag gzan dan bya byed las gsum gyi khyad
par lib tu phye ba nun gsal 'phrul gyi Ide mig of A kya yons 'dzin dByaris can dga' ba'i
blo gros (18-19th C).

Two editions of this text were consulted: 1) CW, the Collected Works of A kya
Yons 'dzin; 2) Z, the edition printed from "20th Century Lhasa New Zhol blocks"
reproduced in Blah dor gsal bar ston pa 'i draft thig dwans sel me Ion, A treatise on the
sixteen fundamental principles of Tibetan administrative law, with 16 other prints of works
on Tibetan grammar and orthography. See Bibliography under sDe srid sans rgyas rgya
mtsho for further details. Our page and line references in square brackets "[ ]" refer to
CW; those in "< >" refer to Z. The cross-references in the translation are to CW.

B) An excerpt from the mKhas pa'i mgul rgyan mu tigphren mazes of Si tu pan
chen Chos kyi 'byun gnas (1699-1774).

The excerpt comprises approximately one third of the section which Si tu

consacrâtes to explaining Thon mi's verse twelve and gives a "general explanation of
self, other and the three tenses as taught here [in Thon mi's verse twelve]" ('dir bstan
bdag gzan dan dus gsum spyir bsad pa). Three editions consulted: 1) D, the sDe dge
edition; 2) S, a good edition printed by the Tibetan Cultural Printing Press (Ses rig par
khan) in Dharamsala; 3) Das, the edition published by S.C. DAS in his An Introduction
to the Grammar of the Tibetan Language. Unfortunately this edition, while readily
available, is rather unreliable. We have not collated here the text in DURR (1950) as it
is the same as that of DAS with the exception of some "corrections" made by DURR
himself, most of which are misleading. See Bibliography for further details. Page and line
cross-references in the translation are to sDe dge.
38

In the footnotes to the Tibetan texts, we have indicated the accepted and the
rejected readings in the usual manner, i.e. the reading before the colon is accepted,
while those after the colon are to be rejected. Some explanatory remarks on the
translations are given in the form of endnotes in Notes to the Translations. To avoid
confusion with footnotes, we have placed the numerals for our endnotes in parentheses.
Finally, the following abbreviations have been used in the text, translations and notes:

CW = Collected Works of A kya Yons 'dzin.

D = sDe dge edition.
Das = S.C. DAS' edition of Si tu.
Ego = our own proposed reading, one which is not found in the editions which
we possess.
en. = note, i.e. endnote. See Notes to the Translations
HO = honorific,
intr. = intransitive,
n. = note, i.e. footnote.
S = Ses rig phar khan edition,
trans. = transitive.
Z = Lhasa new Zol edition.
TIBETAN TEXT A N D ENGLISH TRANSLATION

O F T H E RTAGS KYI 'JUG PA'IDKA' GNAS

 40 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

434 §1. Herein is contained [the work] called "The magical key concisely elucidating
the precise analysis of the distinctions between self and other and between action, agent
and object, the difficult points of the rTags kyi jug pa".
435.1 §2. Homage to ManjuM!
I bow at the feet of Thon mi, the illustrious leader
Who, by the dawn of giving rise to the excellent mind [of enlightenment],
Brought to day the Victor's doctrine in the skies of Tibet.

435.2 The knots of hard pith in his treatises on grammar,

Supreme science well-derived
From the oceanic wisdom of his immaculate mind,
Will be disentangled by the fingers of discrimination.

§3. Now when the rTags kyi 'jug pa states,

435.3 "The masculine [prefix b-] is for establishing past and other" and so
the points referred to in this verse are the following distinctions: [those] between self
(bdag) and other (gzan), between action (bya), agent (byed) and object (las) and
between past ('das), present (da ha ba) and future (ma 'ons). [These distinctions] are
difficult to understand and their precise analysis is of great importance, so let me give
435.4 a condensed explanation of them.
§4. The agent (byed pa po) of an act will be called self and the focus of action
(bya ba'iyul) other.
§5. When analyzing in terms of the three distinctions, action, agent and object,
both the primary and secondary agents (byed pa po gtso phal gnis) will be termed agents,
436.1 the focus of action will be termed object and the performance of an act by an agent
will be called action/2^
§6. Action which has already be done is assigned to the past, that which is in
process to the present and that which will be done to the future.
436:2 §7. Expounding now upon a single specific example, when a woodsman cuts
wood with an axe, the woodsman is the primary agent and the axe the secondary agent.
In terms of the pair self and other, both of these [agents] are self; in terms of the
436.3 triad action, agents and object, they are agents. The wood, on the other hand, is the
object and, in terms of self and other, belongs to other. The wood being struck by the
axe, or the axe cutting the wood is the action. With regard to this [action], there are
two [types]: action pertaining to the agent (byed pa po la yod pa'i bya ba) and action
436.4 pertaining to the focus of action (bya ba yul la yod pa'i bya ba). Eg. the exertion of
cutting the wood with the axe (sta res sin gcodpa'i rtsol ba) pertains to the agent, the
woodsman, while the fact of the wood's having been cut into bits (sin dum bur bead pa ï
cha) pertains to the focus of the action, the wood. The former is also termed "act-qua-
doing" (byed pa'i las) or "act related to self (bdag dan 'brel ba'i las) and the latter,
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA* GNAS 41

§1. [CW 434] < Z 223> rtags kyi 'jug pa'i dka' gnas bdag gzan dan bya byed
las gsum gyi khyad par zib tu phye ba nun gsal 'phrul gyi Ide mig ces bya ba bzugs so
//
§2. [435.1] <224> // namo ManjuSriye' /
rmad byun thugs bskyed skya rens kyis //
bho ta'i yul ljons mkha' dbyins su //
rgyal bstan nin mor byed pa'i dpal //
'dren mdzad Thon ma'i £abs la 'dud //

[435.2] gan thugs dri bral mkhyen mtsho las //

legs 'ons gtsug lag phyi mo mchog //
brda sprod gzun gi dka' gnad mdud //
rnam dpyod sor mos dgrol2 bar bya //

§3. de yan rTags kyi Jug pa las //

pho ni 'das dan [435.3] gzan bsgrub phyir //
£es sogs tshigs su bead pa'i brjod bya'i don bdag gzan gnis dan / bya byed las gsum dan
/ 'das ma 'ons 3 da ltar gsum gyi khyad par rnams rtogs dka' zin zib tu phye ba gal ehe
bas don [435.4] nun nur dril te brjod na /
§4. las gan dan gan gi byed pa po la bdag dan / gan bya ba'i yul de la gzan
zes bya la /
§5. bya byed las gsum du phye ba'i tshe byed pa po gtso phal gnis la byed pa
dan / bya ba'i yul la las dan / byed [436.1] pa pos las de bgyi ba la bya ba ies bya'o //
§6. bya ba de byas zin pa ni 'das pa dan / byed bzin pa ni da lta ba dan / byed
'gyur la ma 'ons par 'jog pa yin no //
§7. de yan gzi geig gi sten du dper brjod [436.2] na / Sin mkhan gyis sta res
Sin gcod pa'i tshe 4 / Sin mkhan ni byed pa po gtso bo dan / sta re ni byed pa phal ba
yin te / de gnis bdag gzan gnis las bdag dan / bya byed las gsum gyi nan nas byed pa
yin no // [436.3] éin ni las daii / <225> de bdag gzan gnis gyi nan nas gzan yin zin /
Sin la sta res brdeg pa'am sta res Sin gcod pa 5 ni bya ba yin te / 'di la byed pa po la
yod pa'i bya ba dan / bya ba yul la yod pa'i bya ba gnis yod de / sta res Sin gcod
[436.4] pa'i rtsol ba ni byed pa po Sin mkhan la yod ein / Sin dum bur bead pa'i cha
ni bya yul Sin gi sten du yod pa bzin no // dan po 'di la byed pa'i las sam bdag dan

CW manjus'riye: Z manjus'nye.
2
CW dgrol: Z dkrol.
Z ma 'ons: CW ma 'on. CW often reads ma 'oh and ma 'oh ba, but on occasion does read ma 'ons;
we have systematically corrected to ma 'ons and ma 'ohs pa following Z.
4
CW tshe: Z ehe.
Z gcod pa (= present): CW gcad pa (= future). It would seem likely that CW simply omitted the vowel
sign, a frequent type of error in Tibetan texts.
 42 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

437.1 "act-qua-thing-done" (bya ba'i las) or "act related to other" (gfan dan 'brel ba'i
§8. All cases of relation with an object and agent (bya byed dan 'brel bd) [i.e.
transitive verbs] are to be understood in this way. For instance, the person is the
appropriator of the five aggregates of appropriation (fie bar len pa'i phuh po = Skt.
437.2 upädäna skandha) and is [thus] self. The five aggregates are the object and [hence]
other. The fact that the five aggregates of appropriation will be appropriated by the
person [constitutes] the action.™ When one looks at a form with one's eyes, then both
the looker (ha ba po), i.e. the person, and the means of looking (Ita byed), i.e. the eyes,
are agents. The focus [of perception], the form, is the object and looking at the form
with one's eyes is the action — this much should be understood. When these points
437.3 have been consciously ascertained, the examples in the various commentaries will
readily be understood.
§9. Now, to present a few brief, clarifying examples: first, the masculine prefix
b- referring to past act-qua-thing-done.
nor bsgrubs - "wealth has been established"
lha bsgoms - "a god has been meditated upon"
chos bsgrags - "the Dharma has been promulgated"
yid la beans - "it has been borne in mind"
437.4 sgro 'dogs bead - "illusions have been eliminated"
bdud bcom - "Mâra has been subdued"
sbyin pa btan - "alms have been given"
chos bstand par byas - "the Dharma has been taught"
chos bsgyurd zin - "the Dharma has already been translated"
bka1 bstsald to - "it has been spoken" (HO)
tshul khrims bsruns - "morality has been guarded", etc.
Since these are all states of affairs which have already been established or that have
been made to be established, etc., they indicate past time.
437.5 §10. Examples of b- referring to the entity other:
bsgmb bya - "that to be established"
bsgom bya - "that to be meditated upon"
bsgrag bya - "that to be promulgated"
bstan bya - "that to be taught"
bsgyur bya - "that to be translated"
bsgral bya - "that to be saved"
bsrun bya - "that to be guarded"
btsal bya - "that to be sought".
Furthermore, with regard to [verbs] such as
bsgrub par bya - "is to be established"
bsgom par bya - "is to be meditated upon"
bsgrag par bya - "is to be promulgated"
bstan par bya - "is to be taught"
437.6 the great translator of £wa lu [Monastery, i.e. Chos skyon bzan p o , ] ^ and others assert
that when [the auxiliary] bya is added [to b- prefixed verbs as in bsgrub par
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 43

'brel ba'i las dan / phyi ma la bya ba'i las [437.1] sam gzan dan 'brel ba'i las zes kyan
bya'o //
§8. de bzin du bya byed dan 'brel ba thams cad la £es par bya ste / gan zag ni
fie bar len pa'i phun po Ina len pa po ste bdag dan / phun po Ina ni las te gzan dan
/ gan zag ne bar len pa'i phun po Ina [437.2] blan bar bya ba ni bya ba'o // mig gis
gzugs la lta ba'i tshe / lta ba po gan zag dan lta byed mig ni byed pa dan / yul gzugs
ni las / mig gis gzugs blta ba ni bya ba yin par Ses par bya'o // don de rnams blo yul
du nés par byas na 'grel pa rnams [437.3] kyi dper brjod bde blag tu go bar 'gyur ro
//
§9. 'dir yan nun gsal gyi dper brjod curï zad 'god pa la / snon 'jug gi pho ba
yig bya ba'i las 'das pa la 'jug pa ni / dper na /
nor bsgrubs I lha bsgoms I chos bsgrags I yid la bcansl sgro 'dogs [437.4]
bead I bdud bcom I sbyin pa btan I chos bstand par byas I chos <226>
bsgyurd zin I bka ' bstsald to II tshul khrims bsnins I
zes pa lta bu ste / de rnams ni bsgrubs zin pa daii bsgrubs par byas pa sogs kyi don yin
pas dus 'das pa ston no //
§10. drios [437.5] po gzan la 'jug pa dper na /
bsgtzib bya / bsgom bya / bsgrag bya I bstan bya I bsgyur bya I bsgral bya
I bsmn bya / btsal bya I
zes pa lta bu dan /
bsgitib par bya / bsgom par bya / bsgrag par bya / bstah par bya I
zes sogs bya tshig sbyar na bya ba'i las ma 'ons [437.6] pa la 'jug par Za lu lo chen
sogs bzed la / {Bra ti dge b£es}^ / mkhas pa 'ga' zig de la bya ba'i las da lta ba zes

A scribe's note which is found in CW and Z. Z Bra ti: CW Pra ti. "Bra ti" seems to be more usual.
Cf. TACHIKAWA et al (1983) s.v. Bra ti dge bées Rin chen don grub.
 44 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

bya, etc.], they refer to future act-qua-thing-done. On the other hand, some scholars^
maintain that these [b- prefixed verbs] refer to present act-qua-thing-done. However,
according to the auxiliary [used], [a form] like bsgrub can refer to either the future or
the present. It is obvious that bsgrub par bya ("is to be established") refers to a future
438.1 act-qua-thing-done while bsgrub bzin pa ("is being established") and bsgom bzin pa ("is
being meditated upon"), etc. refer to a present thing-done (bya ba da ha ba).
§11. B- prefixed [verbs] do not refer to the entity self derived by the aid of the
[forms in question], such as [the primary agents]
nor sgrub pa po - "establisher of wealth"
lha sgom pa po - "meditator on a god"
sgrog pa po - "promulgator"
ston pa po - "teacher"
sgyur pa po - "changer, translator"
srun ba po - "guardian",
438.2 and secondary agents such as
sgrub byed - "means of establishing"
sgom byed - "means of meditating"
srun byed - "means of guarding"
ston byed - "means of teaching".
[Verbs] such as
sgrub par byed - "establishes"
sgom par byed - "meditates"
ston par byed - "teaches"
srun bar byed - "guards"
are acts related to an agent and refer to present time while
sgrub par 'gyur - "will establish"
sgom par 'gyur - "will meditate"
438.3 srun bar 'gyur - "will guard",
etc. refer to future act-qua-doing (byed las ma 'ons pa).
§12. Thus, in general, [a form like] bsgrubs with both the b- prefix and the
supplementary suffix (yan 'jug) [~s] refers to a past state of affairs which has already
been established. [Forms] like bsgrub and bsgom, which have the prefix b- but lack the
438.4 supplementary suffix, refer to the entity other and states of affairs [characterized by]
either future or present act-qua-thing done. And it should be understood how [forms]
438.5 lacking the b- prefix like sgrub and sgom [can] refer, on [varying] occasions, to any of
the following: 1) the entity self, i.e. the agent or instrument (byed pa), 2) a future act-
qua-doing or 3) a present act-qua-doing.
§13. The imperative lacks the b- prefix but takes a supplementary suffix. Thus:
nor sgrubs sig - "Establish wealth!"
lha sgoms sig - "Meditate on the god!"
chos sgrogs sig - "Promulgate the Dharma!"
yid la chons tig - "Bear it in mind!"
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 45

bzed do // 'on kyan bsgrub Ita bu tshig grogs kyi dbarï gis ma 'ons pa dan da lta ba
gnis kar 'jug run ste / bsgrub par bya zes pa bya las ma 'ons pa dan / [438.1] bsgrub
bzin pa I bsgom bzin pa sogs bya ba da lta ba la 'jug par gsal lo //
§11. de dag gi zlas drans pa'i dnos po bdag la bas 'phul mi 'jug ste /
nor sgrub pa po / lha sgom pa po I sgrogpa po I ston pa po Isgyur pa po
I srun ba po I
zes pa lta [438.2] bu dan /
sgrub byed I sgom byed I srun byed I ston byed
sogs byed pa po phal ba dan /
sgrub par byed I sgom par byed I ston par byed I srun bar byed
sogs byed pa po 7 dan 'brel ba'i las yin te / dus da lta ba la 'jug ein /
sgrub par 'gyur / sgom par Jgyur I srun [438.3] bar ;gyur /
zes sogs byed las ma 'ons pa la 'jug go //
§12. des na spyir btan bas 'phul dan yarï 'jug kyan <227> yod pa'i bsgrub s I
zes pa bsgrubs zin 'das pa'i don du 'jug pa darï / bas 'phul yod la yan 'jug med pa'i
bsgrub dan / bsgom sogs ni [438.4] dnos po g£an darï / bya las ma 'ons pa dan da ita
ba ci rigs pa'i don la 'jug ein / bas 'phul med pa'i sgrub dan / sgom sogs ni dnos po
bdag gam byed pa po dan / byed pa dan / byed las ma 'ons pa dan da lta ba thams cad
la skabs thob kyis 'jug [438.5] tshul Ses par bya'o //
§13. bskul tshig la bas 'phul med ein yarï 'jug 'thob ste /
nor sgrubs sig I lha sgoms sig I chos sgrogs sig I yid la chohs sig I

CW byed pa po: Z byed pa 'o.

 46 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA* GNAS

sgro 'dogs chod cig - "Eliminate illusion!"

baud choms sig - "Subdue Mâra!"
sbyin pa thons sig - "Give alms!"
chos stond cig - "Teach the Dharma!"
438.6 dban skurd cig - "Confer the initiation!"
bka' stsold cig - "Speak!" (HO)
dge ba snos sig - "Dedicate the merit!"
mig gis Itos sig - "Look with your eyes!"
and likewise
skyons sig - "Rule!" rtsoms sig - "Compose!"
sruns sig - "Guard!" soms sig - "Think!"
rjod cig - "Speak!" slobs sig - "Learn!"
and many others.
§14. As for the way in which the supplementary suffixes are used, -s is affixed
439.1 to the four [finals] -g, -n, -b, and -m while -d is affixed to the three [finals] -n, -r, and
-/. Even though in revised translational language (skad gsar beady7) one does not
explicitly use the da drag [i.e. the supplementary suffix -d]y one should, however, use
the case endings, particles and so forth after the -«, -r, and -/ of the past and of the
imperative as if the da drag were there/^
439.2 §15. As for the neuter prefixes g- and d-, they refer principally to both entities,
self and other, and to the present.
1) G- prefix referring to
a) self
gcod pa po - "cutter" gton ba po - "sender"
gnon pa po - "presser" gsod pa po - "killer".
b) other
gcad bya - "that to be cut"
gtan bya - "that to be sent"
gnan bya - "that to be pressed"
gsad bya - "that to be killed"
gzom bya - "that to be vanquished"
439.3 gdul bya - "that to be disciplined"
gzun bya - "that to be grasped" and the like.
c) present act-qua-doing
gcod par byed - "cuts"
gton bar byed - "sends"
gnod par byed - "harms", etc.
d) future act-qua-doing
gcod par 'gyur - "will cut"
gton bar 'gyur - "will send", etc.
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 47

sgro 'dogs chod cig I bdud choms sig I sbyin pa thons sig I chos stond cig
I [438.6] dban skurd cig / bka ' stsold cig I dge ba snos sig I mig gis Itos
sig I
de bzin du
skyons sig I rtsoms sig I sruns sig I soms sig I rjod cig / slobs sig
sogs man no //
§14. yan 'jug 'thob tshul ni / ga na ba ma bzi'i mthar [439.1] sa dan / na ra
la gsum gyi mthar da yig 'jug la / 'on kyaii skad gsar bead la da drag dnos su mi sbyor
yan 'das tshig dan bskul tshig gi na ra la gsum gyi mthar rnam dbye dan phrad sogs da
drag thob pa bzin sbyar bar bya'o //
§15. snon 'jug gi ma nin ga dan da ni [439.2] dnos po bdag gzan gnis dan /
dus da lta ba la 'jug pa gtso ehe ste / ga yig bdag la 'jug pa dper na / <228>
gcod pa po I gton ba po I gnon pa po I gsod pa po I
zes dan / dnos po gzan la 'jug pa ni /
gcad bya I gtan bya I gnan bya / gsad bya / gzom bya / gdul [439.3] bya
I gzun bya I
zes pa la sogs pa'o //
gcod par byed / gton bar byed / gnod par byed /
sogs byed pa'i las da lta ba dan /
gcod par 'gyiir / gton bar 'gyur
sogs ni byed las ma 'ons pa'o //
 48 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA* GNAS

439.4 e) future act-qua-thing done

gcad par bya - "will be cut"
gtan bar bya - "will be sent", etc.
f) present act-qua-thing-done
gcad bzin pa - "is being cut"
gtan bzin pa - "is being sent"
gzom bzin pa - "is being vanquished", etc.
§16. D- prefix referring to
a) self
dpyod pa po - "analyzer"
dpog pa po - "measurer"
dgyes byed - "means of enjoyment" (HO)
dga' byed - "means of delight", etc.
b) other
dpyad bya - "that to be analyzed"
dpag bya - "that to be measured"
439.5 dbyun bya - "that to be cast out"
dgag bya - "that to be stopped"
dgod bya - "that to be presented"
gtan la dbab bya - "that to be ascertained", and the like.
c) present act-qua-doing
dpyod par byed - "analyzes"
dpog par byed - "measures"
dga' bar byed - "rejoices", etc.
If we add 'gyur [instead of byed to these same verb forms], they become future acts-
439.6 qua-doing, while if the word bya is added, [the forms] then refer to future acts-qua-
thing-done. So, the explicit statement in the root [text, i.e. the rTags kyi 'jug pa] that
g- and d- both refer to only the present is [just] aimed at the principal use [of the
prefixes]. Thus, although the lord of scholars, Bra ti dge b£es Rin chen don grub says,
"The neutral [prefix] d- does not refer to the entity self or to acts
440.1 related to self'/ 9j
it is easily seen that this is incoherent.
§17. The feminine prefix }a- refers to
a) the entity self
'god pa po - "presenter"
'dogs pa po - "binder"
'dzin pa po - "grasper"
'did mkhan - "tamer"
'gro mkhan - "goer"
440.2 'joms mkhan - "vanquisher"
'jal byed - "means of measuring"
'jog byed - "means of putting down"
'jug pa po - "enterer", etc. and clearly also to
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA* GNAS 49

gcad par bya I gtan bar bya

sogs bya ba'i las ma 'ons [439.4] pa dan /
gcad bzin pa I gtan bzin pa / gzom bzin pa
sogs bya las da lta ba la 'jug go //
§16. da yig bdag la 'jug pa dper na /
dpyod pa po I dpog pa po I dgyes byed I dga ' byed I
ces sogs dan / dnos po gzan la 'jug pa ni /
dpyad bya I dpag bya / [439.5] dbyun bya I dgag bya I dgod bya I gtan la
dbab bya
zes pa la sogs pa ste /
dpyod par byed I dpog par byed I dga ' bar byed
sogs byed las da lta ba dan / de dag la 'gyur zes sbyar na byed las ma 'ons pa yin zin
/
dpyad par bya / dbyun bar bya /
zes sogs bya [439.6] tshig sbyar na bya las ma 'ons pa la 'jug pas na / rtsa bar ga dan
da gnis dnos su da lta ba tsam la 'jug par gsuns pa gtso ehe ba la dgons pa'o // des na
mkhas pa'i dban po Bra ti dge b£es Rin chen don grab7 kyis /
ma niri da ni bdag dnos dan //
bdag dan [440.1] 'brel ba'i las mi 'jug I2
<229> ces gsuns pa'an mi 'thad par rtogs sla'o //
§17. snon 'jug gi mo 'a yig ni / dnos po bdag la 'jug pa 4per na /
'god pa po I 'dogs pa po I 'dzin pa po I 'did mkhan I 'gro mkhan I 'joms
[440.2] mkhan I 'jal byed / 'jog byed I 'jug pa po I
lta bu dan / dnos po gzan la'an 'jug par gsal te / dper na /

1
Z Bra ti: CW Pra ti.
From Bra ti dge bées, rTags kyi 'jug pa'i dgons 'grel gsal bar bead pa, p.169 (f.6a), line 2.
 50 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

b) the entity other

'khor bya - "that which is to be turned"
'khrid bya - "that which is to be led"
'dod bya - "that to be desired"
jug bya - "that to be entered" and the like,
c) the future
'god par 'gyiir - "will present"
'grel par 'gyur - "will comment on"
'chad par 'gyur - "will explain",
440.3 and similarly
'byun no - "will happen"
'dzad do - "will run out"
'grub bo - "will be established"
'chi'o - "will die"
'gyur ro - "will become"
'jig go - "will perish", etc.
d) the present
'god par byed - "presents"
'dogs par byed - "binds"
'jigs par byed - "frightens"
'dul byed - "means of taming"
'dzin byed - "means of grasping", and others like these.
440.4 In the root text [i.e. the rTags kyi 'jug pa], only self and future are found explicitly
[mentioned], but [there the author, Thon mi,] aimed at the principal uses [of 'a-].
§18. The very feminine prefix m- refers impartially and equally to all: the
entities self and other as well as the three tenses — past, present and future — etc.
440.5 a) the entity self
mkhas pa po - "one who becomes learned"
mchod pa po - "one who offers"
mthon ba po - "one who sees"
mda' mkhan - "archer"
mtshon byed - "means of showing", etc.
b) the entity other
mkhas bya'i chos - "the Dharma in which one ought to be learned"
mchod bya'i lha - "the god to whom an offering is to be made"
mdzad bya - "that which is to be performed"
mtshon bya - "that to be shown", and the like,
c) the past
mkhas par byas - "has become learned"
440.6 'og tu mnan - "has been suppressed"
duh khas mnar - "has been afflicted with suffering"
sdom pa mnos - "the oath has been received"
mchod zin - "has already been offered", and so forth,
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 51

'khor bya I 'khrid bya I 'dod bya I jug bya I

lta bu'o // ma 'ons pa la 'jug pa ni /
'god par 'gyur I 'grel par 'gyur I 'chad par 'gyur I
de bzin [440.3] du /
'byun no // 'dzad do II 'grub bo II 'chi'o II 'gyur ro II 'jig go II
zes pa dan / da lta ba la 'jug pa ni /
'god par byed I 'dogs par byed I jigs par byed I 'did byed / 'dzin byed /
ces pa la sogs pa lta bu'o // gzun rtsa bar dnos su dnos po bdag [440.4] dan ma 'ons
pa tsam las ma byun yan gtso ehe ba la dgons pa'o //
§18. snon 'jug gi 6in tu mo ma yig ni / dnos po bdag gzan gnis daii / dus 'das
ma 'ons da lta gsum sogs thams cad la phyogs ris7 med par rnnam par 'jug ste / dnos
po bdag [440.5] la 'jug pa ni /
mkhas pa po I mchodpa po I mthon ba po I mda' mkhan I mtshon byed
I
ces sogs dan / dnos po gzan la 'jug pa ni /
mkhas bya 'i chos I mchod bya ï lha / mdzad bya I mtshon bya I
lta bu'o // <230> 'das pa la 'jug pa /
mkhas par byas I 'og tu [440.6] mnan I duh khas mnar I sdom pa mnos
I mchod zin /
zes pa lta bu dan /

Z phyogs ris: CW phyogs res.

 52 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

d) the present
mkhas par byed - "makes [someone] learned"
mthon bzin pa - "is seeing"
mchod par mdzad - "is making an offering", and the like,
e) the future
mkhas par 'gyur - "will be learned"
mtshon par 'gyur - "will show"
mtshuns par 'gyur ro - "will be similar".
441.1 Such [constructions] should be known and understood on the basis of the auxiliaries
[used].
§19. There are also [verbs, i.e. intransitives] where the action is not directly
related with an object, an agent, etc. (bya byed sogs dan dnos su ma 'brel ba). For
instance:
a) referring to the past
grab - "has been established"
byuft - "has happened"
gyur - "has become"
byan - "has been purified"
babs - "has descended"
b) referring to the future
'grub - "will be established"
'byun - "will happen"
'gyur - "will become"
'byan - "will be purified"
'bab - "will descend", etc.
441.2 As for their meanings, they indicate that some quality is, by itself, without direct
reliance on an agent or the like, already established (grub zin pa) or sure to be es-
tablished ('grub nes).
§20. Next we present a number of important examples of self and other, the
three temporal [distinctions] and so forth:
bsgrubs - "has been established"
sgrub byed - "means of establishing"
bsgrub bya - "that which is to be established"
sgrubs - "Establish!"
441.3 bsgoms - "has been meditated upon"
sgom byed - "means of meditating"
bsgom bya - "that which is to be meditated upon"
sgoms - "Meditate!"
... [The text continues with similar paradigms for 50 additional
442.5 verbs.]
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 53

da lta ba ni /
mkhas par byed I mthon bzin pa / mchod par mdzad I
ces pa dan / ma 'ons pa la 'jug pa ni /
mkhas par 'gyur / mtshon par 'gyur / mtshuns par 'gyur ro II
zes sogs [441.1] lta bu ste tshig grogs las dpag ste Ses par bya'o //
§19. bya byed sogs dan dnos su ma 'brel ba yan yod de / dper na /
gnib / byun I gyur I byan / bobs /
lta bu 'das pa dan /
'grub I 'byun I 'gyur I 'byan1 / 'bab I
ces sogs lta bu ma 'ons pa la 'jug ste / de dag [441.2] gi don ni chos de byed pa po
sogs la dnos su ma ltos par ran nid grub zin pa dan 'grub nes kyi don no //
§20. gzan yan2 bdag gzan dan dus gsum sogs kyi dper brjod gnad ehe ba 'ga'
zig 'god pa ni /
b sgrub s dan sgrub byed bsgrub bya sgrubs II
[441.3] bsgoms dan sgom byed bsgom bya sgoms II
bskans dan skoh byed bskan bya skons H
bsgral zin sgrol byed bsgral bya sgrol II
bstan zin ston byed bstan bya ston //
bsruns dan srun dan bsnin bya sruns II
bskyans dan skyon dan bskyan bya skyons II
bsnos [441.4] dan sno byed bsno bya snos II
bead dan gcod byed gcad bya chod II
bcal dan 'jal byed gzal bya jol II
btan dan gton dan gtan bya thons II
bans dan 'din dan gain bya thins II
btags dan 'dogs dan gdags bya <231 > thogs II
btab dan 'debs dan [441.5] gdab bya thob II
btul dan 'dul ba3 gdul bya thul II
btegs dan 'degs byed gdegs bya thegs II
bton dan 'don dan gdon bya thon II
mnan dan gnon dan gnan bya non //
boom dan 'joms byed gzom bya choms II
bkas dan 'gas byed dgas [441.6] bya khos II
bsad zin 'chad byed bsad bya sod II
bzag dan 'jog byed gzag bya logs II
beug dan jug byed gzug bya chugs II

1
CW 'byan: Z 'gyan.
2
CW yan: Z Ian.
3
CW 'dul ba: Z 'dul bya.
CW bton dan 'don: Z bten dan 'den.
 54 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

[SEE THE TIBETAN TEXT FOR THE

VERB PARADIGMS]

These [forms] refer to the past, present, future and imperative in that order. Thus,
using the different letters [i.e. the affixes] correctly is important, for if a letter is incor-
rect, the sense becomes wrong.
442.6 §21. The past and future of these [verb forms] both belong to act-qua-thing-
done, while the present and imperative belong to act-qua-doing. When analyzing in
terms of the pair self and other, the agents (byed pa po)y the "doing" (byedpa) and the
act-qua-doing (byedpa'i las) are all included under the category self, whereas the object
(las), the "thing-done" (bya ba) and the act-qua-thing-done (bya ba'i las) are all
included under that of other/7°^
443.1 §22. So it has been said that if words, i.e. the means of expression, are
immaculate, then the expressed meaning will be free of error, and that one who is well-
versed in language will therefore be unconfused about meanings. For this reason, those
endowed with intelligence should train well in the grammatical treatises.
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 55

btsug dan 'dzug byed gzugs bya tshugs II

bzuh dan 'dzin dan gain bya zuns II
bsad dan gsod dan [442.1] gsad bya sod II
bkan dan 'gen dan dgan bya khens II
bkag dan 'gog dan dgag bya khogs II
bkram dan 'grem byed dgram bya khroms II
bkrol dan 'grol byed dgrol bya khrol II
bkiig dan 'gug byed dgiig bya khug II
[442.2] bkoé dan 'god dan dgod bya khod II
phul zin 'dbul dan dbul bya phul II
phab zin 'bebs dan dbab bya phob II
phug zin 'bigs dan dbug bya phugs II
phrogs zin 'phrog byed dphrog bya phrogs II
phye zin 'byed byed dbye bya phye II
brjod zin rjod byed brjod [442.3] bya rjod II
sbyans dan sbyon dan sbyan bya sbyons II
spans dan spon byed span bya spons II
brlabs dan dob byed brlab bya dobs II
bslah dan slon byed bslan bya slons II
bslab dan slob byed bslab bya slobs II
brtags dan nog byed brtag bya <232> rtogs II
brtsams [442.4] dan rtsom byed brtsam bya rtsoms II
brtsad zin rtsod byed brtsad bya rtsod II
spyad zin spyod byed spyad bya spyod II
bklags dan klog byed bklag bya klogs II
bzlas dan zlo byed bzla bya zlos II
bltas dan lta byed blta bya Itos II
bsregs dan sreg byed bsreg bya sregs II
[442.5] bsams dan sems byed bsam bya soms II
zes pa la sogs pa lta bu ste de rnams rim pa bzin 'das pa dan da lta ba dan ma 'ons
pa dan bskul tshig la 'jug pas so so'i yi ge ma nor ba gal ehe ste / yi ge nor na don log
pa'i phyir ro //
§21. 'di'i 'das pa dan ma [442.6] 'ons pa gnis bya ba'i las dan // da lta ba dan
bskul tshig gnis byed pa'i las su gtogs la / bdag gzan gnis su phye ba'i tshe byed pa po
dan / byed pa dan / byed pa'i las rnams bdag dan / las dan bya ba dan bya ba'i las
rnams ni gzan gyi khons su 'dus so //
§22. [443.1] des na rjod byed kyi tshig rnam par dag pa zig byun na / brjod
bya'i don ma nor ba zig yon bas sgra Ses na don la mi rmons zes pa'ah de la zer bas
/ bio gros dan Idan pa rnams kyis brda sprod pa'i gzun la legs par bslab par bya'o //

Ego bkod: CW bgod; Z 'god. See Dag yig gsar bsgrigs, s.v. bkod. bkod = past; 'god = present; dgod
= future; khod = imperative.
 56 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS

§23. [Colophon:]
443.2 As one should seek non-erroneous meanings by relying on the usage of letters,
scholarship in the immaculate textual tradition of grammar is extremely precious.

Even one meaningful phrase shows many meanings to those who have [ability in]
investigation. But although all the fine explanations of numerous scholars might be
collected, it is difficult to [make them] bring benefit to inferior minds.

443.3 So, this brief and clear key simultaneously unlocks the door to a hundred treatises. Not
penetrating the crux of the matter causes confusion, even if [one gives] many series of
examples.

Accordingly, when appealed to by [my] spiritual master (bses gnen = dge ba'i bses gnen9
i.e. kalyänamitra), who has the sharp eye of analytical knowledge [and] rests his two
lotus feet on the crown ornament of impartiality (gzur gnas),

443.4 then to fulfill his wishes, I, dByans ca dga' [ba'i] bio [gros], have offered this splendid
present, a jewel of fine explanation, which is brief in words and thoroughly clarifies the
points in question.

May the moon [light] which shows the fine accomplishments of those who have strived
in this [subject, viz. grammar] dispel all dullness and agitation of mind and cause a host
443.5 of jasmine pleasure gardens of investigation to blossom everywhere.

§24. [Scribe's note:] In keeping with the appeal by the spiritual master who has
a supremely extensive command of analytical knowledge in the vast textual tradition of
the throne-holders (khri zur) of U ü Monastery, Tibetans have hand-written this [text]
for dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros.
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 57

§23. smras pa /
yi ge'i brda la brten [443.2] nas ni //
ma nor don rnams 'tshol dgos phyir //
rnam dag brda sprod gzurï lugs la //
mkhas par sbyans pa éin tu gees //

don ldan tshig7 ni geig gis kyarï //

rnam dpyod can la don man ston //
mkhas man legs bead kun 'dus kyan //
bio dman dag la <233> phan pa 2 dka' //

de phyir nun [443.3] gsal lde mig 'di //

gzurï brgya'i sgo 'phar cig car 'byed //
gnad 'gag ma phigs dper brjod phren //
man yarï mgo bo 'khor ba'i rgyu //

tshul 'di gzur gnas gtsug rgyan du //

zabs zun padmo nal bso ba //
mkhyen dpyod spyan ras rab bkra ba'i //
bées gnen gsun gis bskul ba'i tshe //

[443.4] garï de'i thugs bzed bskan slad du //

tshig fiurï gnad don rab gsal ba'i //
legs bead nor gyi skyes bzan 'di //
dByans can dga' bio bdag gis phul //

'dir 'bad legs byas ston zla yis //

bio mun rgud pa kun sel te //
rnam dpyod kun da'i skyed tshal tshogs //
cir yari bzad pa'i rgyur [443.5] gyur cig //

§24. ces pa 'di yan U £i'i dgon pa'i^ khri zur gzun lugs rab 'byams la mkhyen
dpyod kyi 'jug pa mchog tu yans pa'i Mes gnen gan de'i gsun gis bskul ba ltar / dByans
can dga' ba'i bio gros su bod pas sug bris su bgyis pa'o //

1 Z tshig: CW chig.
2 Z phan pa: CW phan ba.
3 Z 'phar: CW phar.
4 CW u sï'i: Z u sVi.
58 TRANSLATION OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA* GNAS

§25. [What follows are two dedicatory verses by the patrons who sponsored the
printing of the text, viz. the Bhiksu, Nag dban bstan 'dzin of Khal kha (CW) and the
merchant dGe legß of Uan (Z)].
 TIBETAN TEXT OF RTAGS 'JUG DKA' GNAS 59

§25. [In CW only:]

om sva sti /
tshul 'di Khal kha jo nan pe se'i éog //
dpyod ldan dGe slon Nag [443.6] dban bstan 'dzin gyis //
chos sbyin rgya eher spei ba'i lhag bsam gyis //
mthun rkyen sbyar te par du legs par bsgrubs //

legs byas 'di mtshon dus gsum dge ba'i mthus //

tshe rabs kun tu dal 'byor rten brgyud de //
dpal ldan bla mas rjes bzin rjes bzun nas //
smin grol lam bzan myur du mthar phyin £og //

[In Z only:]
Uan tsha tshon dpon dGe legs nas //
par gyi 'du byed 'di bskrun pas //
skye kun 'jam dgon bstan pa dan //
mi 'bral bio gros mchog thob Sog //
 61

TIBETAN TEXT A N D ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF A N EXCERPT

O N BDAG A N D GZAN F R O M SI T U P A N C H E N ' S C O M M E N T A R Y ,

T H E MKHAS PA'I MGUL RGYAN

 62 TRANSLATION OF AN EXCERPT FROM SI TU'S COMMENTARY

62al §1. "The masculine [prefix b-] is for extablishing the past and other."
To achieve a thorough understanding of the sense of this and the rest [of verse twelve
in the rTags gyi jug pa], one must first be aware of the following: Given some act
62a2 directly related with a distinct agent (byed pa po gzan), then that very entity (dnos po)
which is the agent and its "doing" (deï byed pa) are termed "self. The entity which is
the focus (yul) to be established by that [agent] as well as that thing which is to be
done (bya ba) are termed "other"/ ^
62a3 §2. Likewise, whether or not related to a distinct agent, an action which has
already been done is in the past, an action which is going to be done is in the future
and an action which is being done is in the present.
62a4 §3. Moreover, the two-fold division of verbs into either act-qua-doing (byedpaï
las) or act-qua-thing-done (bya ba'i las) is also included in these [above-mentioned
categories, viz. self and other and the three tenses]. [The inclusion is as follows:] 1) in
terms of the three tenses, act-qua-doing is included in the present and act-qua-thing-
62a5 done is included in the future; 2) in terms of self and other, a "doing" (byed pa) directly
related with a distinct agent is self and a "thing done" (bya ba) is other, as has just
been explained.
§4. For this reason, while the three temporal distinctions pervade all uses of
sentences which involve act-qua-doing [and act-qua-thing-done] ^ \ the distinction
62a6 self/other is not pervasive to that extent [i.e. it does not pervade all uses of the three
temporal distinctions]. In this work [i.e. the rTags kyi 'jug pa], however, in order to
include the words for agents (byed pa po) and focuses of action (bya ba'i yul), [the
author] made a separate division in terms of self and other. In the process [of
62b 1 providing for the agent and the focus of the action], he also included [in the categories
self/other] those words expressing [acts-qua-] thing-done and [acts-qua-] doing (bya byed
kyi tshig), which are related to self and other and which have the same force [as self
and other]. Therefore, when explaining [the passage] in this work [i.e. in verse 12 of
Thon mi's rTags kyi jug pa], "Why are [the prefixes] applied?", we should understand
that his specifications in terms of the three-fold temporal division are meant to include
the remaining things not pervaded by the self/other division/7"^
62b2 §5. Having thus ascertained these things, one should understand without any
confusion when below we explain examples of these divisions in extenso J14* However,
for ease of understanding, we will now present a few clarifying examples:
62b3 1) words expressing the entity self, i.e. the agent:
sgtïib pa po - "established
ston pa po - "shower"
good pa po - "cutter"
'byin pa po - "expeller"
sgrub byed - "means of establishing"
ston byed - "means of showing"
 TIBETAN TEXT OF THE EXCERPT 63

§1. p . f.62al] [S.193] p a s 43]

pho ni 'das dan g2an bsgrub phyir //
zes sogs kyi go don dpyis phyin par byed pa la / thog mar 'di Ses dgos te / las gan zig
byed pa po p.62a2] gzan dan dnos su 'brel ba'i dban du byas nas / byed pa po'i dnos
po de nid dan de'i byed pa dan bcas pa la ni bdag ces bya zin / des bsgrub par bya ba'i
yul gyi dnos po bya ba dan bcas pa la ni gzan zes bya'o //
§2. de bzin du p.62a3] byed pa po1 gzan dan dnos su 'brel ma 'brel ji ltar
yan run bya ba byas zin pa ni dus 'das pa dan / bya ba byed par 'gyur ba ni dus ma
'ons pa dan / bya ba byed bzin pa ni dus da lta ba yin no //
§3. gzan du byed pa'i las dan p.62a4] bya ba'i las zes las kyi tshig la gnis su
dbye [S.194] ba'an dbye ba de dag tu 'dus te dus gsum gyi dban gis byed pa'i las ni dus
da lta ba dan / bya ba'i las ni dus ma 'ons par 'du zin bdag gzan gyi dban gis byed po
g£an p.62a5] dan dnos su 'brel ba'i byed pa bdag dan bya ba gzan yin pa bead ma
thag pa ltar ro //
§4. rgyu mtshan 'dis dus gsum gyi dbye bas ni byed las dan 'brel ba'i nag gi
sbyor ba thams cad la khyab ein / bdag gzan gyi dbye bas ni de tsam p.62a6] du khyab
pa ma yin yan / gzun 'dir byed pa po dan bya ba'i yul gyi sgra rnams bsdu ba'i phyir
bdag gzan gyi dbye ba zur du mdzad pa yin zin / de'i zar las bdag gzan dan 'brel ba'i
bya byed kyi tshig phan tshun éed mtshuns pa p.62bl] rnams kyan bsdus pa yin no //
des na ci phyir 'jug2 gi gzun 'di 'chad pa'i skabs su dus gsum gyi dbye bas b£ad pa
rnams ni / bdag gzan gyi dbye bas ma khyab pa'i lhag ma rnams bsdu ba'i don du blta
bar bya'o //
§5. de ltar p.62b2] nés par byas nas dbye ba de [S.195] dag gi dper brjod
rgyas par géam du 'chad 'gyur rnams ma 'dzins par rtogs par bya dgos mod kyi / 'dir
yan go bde ba'i phyir rnam gsal gyi dper brjod cun zad 'god na / byed pa po bdag gi
p.62b3] dnos po'i sgra ni /
sgmb pa po I ston pa po I geod pa po / 'byin pa po I sgrub byed / ston byed I

DS byed pa po: Das byed pa.

DS ci phyir 'jug: Das ci phyir rtags 'jug.
 64 TRANSLATION OF AN EXCERPT FROM SÏ TU'S COMMENTARY

gcod byed - "means of cutting"

'byin byed - "means of expelling", etc.
2) Illustrations of words expressing the [agentj's doing (deï byed pa'i tshig):
sgrub par byed - "establishes"
ston par byed - "shows"
gcod par byed - "cuts"
62b4 'byin par byed - "expels"
sgrub bo - "establishes"
ston to - "shows"
gcod do - "cuts"
'byin no - "expels", and the like.
3) words expressing the entity other, i.e. the focus of the action:
bsgmb par bya ba - "that which will be established"
bstan par bya ba - "that which will be shown"
gcad par bya ba - "that which will be cut"
dbyun bar bya ba - "that which will be expelled"
bsgmb bya - "that to be established"
bstan bya - "that to be shown"
gcad bya - "that to be cut"
dbyun bya - "that to be expelled", and the like.
62b5 4) words expressing the thing done to the [other] (deï bya baï tshig):
bsgtub par bya - "is to be established"
bstan par bya - "is to be shown"
gcad par bya - "is to be cut"
dbyun bar bya - "is to be expelled"
bsgmb bo - "will be established"
bstan no - "will be shown"
gcad do - "will be cut"
dbyun no - "will be expelled", and the like.
Here follow examples from among the three tenses which are not included in the two
fold division [i.e. self/other].
62b6 5) words expressing the past, i.e. what has already been done:
bsgmbs - "has been established"
bstand - "has been shown"
bead - "has been cut"
phyun - "has been expelled"
gmb - "has been established" (The Tibetan verb is
intransitive.)
chad - "has split" (intr.)
byun - "has emerged"; "has happened" (intr.), and so on.
6) words expressing the present, i.e. on-going action:
 TIBETAN TEXT OF THE EXCERPT 65

gcod byed I 'byin byed

lta bu dan / de'i byed pa'i tshig gsal bar byed pa /
sgnib par byed / ston par byed I gcod par byed I [D.62b4] 'byin par byed
I sgrub bo I ston to I gcod do1 I }byin no I
lta bu dan / bya ba'i yul gzan gyi dnos po'i sgra ni /
bsgrub par bya ba I bstan par bya ba / gcad par bya ba2 I dbyun bar bya
ba I bsgriib bya / bstan bya / gcad bya I dbyun bya P
lta bu dan / p.62b5] de'i bya ba'i tshig
bsgriib par bya / bstan par bya I gcad par bya4 I dbyun bar bya I bsgf%ib
bo5 I bstan no I gcad do6 I dbyun no I
lta bu dan / dbye ba de gnis su ma 'dus pa'i dus gsum las byas zin [S.196] 'das pa'i sgra
ni / p.62b6]
bsgrubs I bstand I bead / phyun / grub I chad I byun I
lta bu dan / byed bzin da lta ba'i sgra ni /

S Das gcod do: D gco do.

D Das gcad par bya ba: S gcod par bya ba.
DS gcad bya / dbyun bya /: Das gcad par bya / dbyun bar bya.
DS gcad par bya: Das omits.
DS bsgrub bo: Das sgrub bo.
Das gcad do: DS gcod do. (gcad = future, gcod = present.)
 66 TRANSLATION OF AN EXCERPT FROM SI TU'S COMMENTARY

da Ita sgrub bzin pa - "is now establishing"

ston bzin pa - "is showing"
gcod bzin pa - "is cutting"
'byin bzin pa - "is expelling"
'grub par byed - "makes established" {'grub = intr.)
'chad par byed - "makes [something] split"
al 'byun bar byed - "makes emerge"
}
grub bzin pa - "is being established" (intr.)
'chad bzin pa - "[something] is splitting" (intr.)
'byuiï bzin pa - "is emerging" (intr.), and the like.
7) words expressing the future, i.e. action to be accomplished:
'grub par 'gyur - "will be established" (intr.)
'chad par 'gyur - "[something] will split" (intr.)
'byufi bar 'gyur - "will emerge" (intr.)
'grub bo - "will be established" (intr.)
'chad do - "[something] will split" (intr.)
'byun no - "will emerge" (intr.)
*a2 'grub par bya - "is to be established" (intr.)
'byun bar bya - "is to emerge" (intr.), and the like.
Now that we have illustrated [the specifications in verse twelve] by means of these
[examples], all [other cases] are to be treated comparably.
§6. Now when we say "directly related or not directly related to a distinct
3a3 agent", we mean the following: when a distinct agent directly establishes some [or
another] act in some entity, then this is an "act directly related to a distinct agent"
(byedpa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel ba'i las). [This type of act] should be understood in
terms of the three-fold temporal division as in the following examples:
Icags gser du bsgyur zin - "The iron has been changed into gold."
bsgyur bar bya - "is to be changed" (transitive)
sgyur bar byed - "[someone] changes [something]" (trans.)
sin bead zin - "the wood has been cut"
gcad par bya - "is to be cut"
gcod par byed - "cuts"
>3a4 'byun khuns nas phyun zin - "has been expelled from [his] place of origin"
dbyun bar bya - "is to be expelled"
'byin par byed - "expels", and so forth.
§7. When in some [or another] entity some act seems to come about by itself,
>3a5 without directly having a distinct agent, this is an "act not directly related to a distinct
agent" {byedpa po gzan dan dnos su ma 'brel ba'i las), [This latter type of act] will be
understood when one compares the following examples:
Icags gser da gyurd zin - "The iron has changed into gold."
'gyur bzin pa - "[something] is changing" (intr.)
'gyur bar 'gyur ro - "will change" (intr.)
 TIBETAN TEXT OF THE EXCERPT 67

da Ita sgttib bzin pa I ston bzin pa I gcod bzin pa I 'byin bzin pa / 'grub
par byed I 'chad par byed I 'byun bar [D.63al] byed / 'grub bzin pa /
'chad bzin pa / 'byun bzin pa
Ita bu dan / [Das 44] bya 'gyur ma 'ons pa'i sgra ni /
'grub par 'gyur / 'chad par 'gyur / 'byun bar 'gyur / 'gtïib bo I 'chad do I
'byun no I [D.63a2] 'grub par bya I 'byun bar bya
Ita bu ste / 'di dag gis mtshon nas kun la bsgre bar bya'o //
§6. 'dir byed pa po gzan dan drïos su 'brel ma 'brel zes smos pa ni / dnos po
gan zig la las gan zig byed pa po gzan [D.63a3] gyis drïos su sgrub2 par byed pa de
ni byed pa po gzan dan drïos su 'brel ba'i las te / dper na
Icags gser du bsgyur zin I bsgyur bar bya I sgyur bar byed I sin3 bead zin
I gcad par bya / gcod par byed5 / [S.197] 'byun [D.63a4] khuns nas
phyun zin I dbyun bar bya I 'byin par byed
Ita bu dus gsum gyi dbye bas £es par bya zin /
§7. dnos po gan zig la las gan zig byed po gzan dnos su med par ran gi6 nan
gis 'grub par 7 snan ba 'di ni byed [D.63a5] pa po gzan dan dnos su ma 'brel ba'i las
te / dper na
Icags gser du gyurd zin I 'gyur bzin pa I 'gyur bar 'gyur ro I

DS 'grub par bya / 'byun bar bya: Das 'grub par 'byun bar bya.
2
DS sgrub: Das grub.
3
D Das sïh: S San.
DS gcad par bya: Das bead par bya.
Das S gcod par byed: D gced par byed.
6
DS gi: Das gis.
DS 'grub par: Das grub par.
 68 TRANSLATION OF AN EXCERPT FROM SI TU'S COMMENTARY

sin chad zin - "the wood has split"

'chad bzin pa - "is splitting" (intr.)
'chad par 'gyur ro - "will split" (intr.)
gnas nas byun - "emerged from a place"
'byun bzin pa - "is emerging"
63a6 'byun bat 'gyur ro - "will emerge"
§8. The former state of affairs [i.e. an act directly related to an agent] is easily
understood; but as for the latter [i.e. acts not directly related to agents], we can explain
them as follows: For instance, when a lump of iron in front of some individual changes
63bl into gold by its own nature (ran bzin gyis), it changes in this way due to the activity of
the elements ('byun ba mams) which are present in the iron itself and not due to the
action of something distinct [from the iron]. While it is so that [the iron] became like
this through the merit (bsod nams = Skt punya) of that individual [who perceived it]
and that the merit itself is therefore a distinct agent, [the merit] does not appear
directly (dhos su] [and in that sense, the act of changing is not directly related to a
63b2 distinct agent]P^ Also, when an individual of his own accord leaves a place without
someone expelling [ h i m ] ^ from that place, he himself is certainly the agent, but there
is no distinct agent (byedpa po gzan)ß * Now that we have illustrated [acts not directly
related to a distinct agent] by means of the above examples, [the nature of such acts]
should be ascertained by those of subtle mind.
 TIBETAN TEXT OF THE EXCERPT 69

sin chad zin / 'chad Min pa1 I 'chad par 'gyur ro II gnas nas byun / 'byuii
bzin pa I 'byun bar [D.63a6] 'gyur ro II
zes sogs kyis bsgres nas rtogs par bya'o //
§8. de las sna ma'i don ni rtogs sla la phyi ma ni dper na skyes bu zig gi
mdun du lcags gon ran bzin gyis gser du gyur pa'i tshe / Icags rah nid la yod pa'i 'byun
ba [D.63bl] rnams kyi byed pas de bzin du gyur2 kyan gzan gyi ma yin la / skyes bu
de yi bsod nams kyis de bzin du grub pas bsod nams fiid byed pa po gzan yin mod kyi
de ni dnos su mi snah ba Ita bu dan / [S.198] skyes bu gan zig gnas nas [D.63b2] 'byin
pa po med par ran nid gnas nas 'byun ba'i tshe ran fiid byed pa po yin mod kyi byed
pa po gzan med pa sogs kyis mtshon nas zib mo'i bios hes par bya'o //

D Das bfin pa: S hnti pa.

DS gyur: Das 'gyur.
 71

NOTES TO THE TRANSLATIONS

(1) Verse twelve of the rTags kyi 'jugpa. See p. 1 for translation and Tibetan text
of the entire verse.
(2) The term bya ba ("action"; Skt. kriyä) seems to have two uses. Here it is being
used in a neutral sense spanning both A- and P- prominent actions. It is also very
frequently used (as in Si tu's definition, see p. 62, § 3 and p. 4 ) to mean the P-
prominent action, the "thing-done", especially when it is contrasted with byed pa, the
"doing". Cf. Bra ti dge bées, rTags kyi jug pa 'i dgohs 'grel> p. 162 (f. 2b): las ni bya ba
byed pa gnis I "The act is of two sorts: thing-done and doing." Finally note that KATSURA
translates bya ba by fjfjj: and byed pa by |jj j£ . Japanese scholars of traditional
Tibetan grammar, however, do not generally use a different translation for bya ba in
its neutral sense of "action", but retain Jjfjf in all contexts.
(3) See pp. 6-7.
(4) An example based on the Buddhist principle that five psycho-physical
aggregates (skandha) constitute the parts making up a person. The person himself is
the "appropriator" of these aggregates in that a) he can control them, or more exactly,
he has the illusion of being separate from them and able to control them; b) he is the
"whole" designated on the basis of parts; c) he "grasps" at the aggregates in that he is
emotionally attached to them and fears losing them at death. Cf. STCHERBATSKY (1970)
p. 48, n. 3 & p. 98 , MAY (1959) n. 693.
(5) See pp. 9, 10, 30.
(6) A scribe seems to have written "Bra ti dge bées" onto the text here. However,
after examining the rTags kyi jugpaï dgons 'grel of this author (which is probably the
logical place to look), we find no evidence that Bra ti dge bées actually said anything
like that. In short, for the moment we are unable to say who held this position.
(7) This term refers to the linguistic reforms which resulted from royally
authorized orthographic and lexical policies proposed in the early 9th Century by
committees of scholar-monks. See Lo and A N (1981).
(8) The mKhas pa'i dgaf ston records the decision to abolish the supplementary
suffix -d after -n, -r and -/. See Lo and A N (1981) p. 27. This stipulated that the
orthography of an Old Tibetan form such as bsgyurd (i.e. the past of sgyur "change
something") be revised to bsgyur, though the abolished -d continued to have sandhi
72

effect on the initial of the following syllable; thus, in sentence-final position, bsgyur to
rather than *bsgyur ro.
(9) For Bra ti dge bées's approximate dates and grammatical oeuvre, see p. 31.
In the case of the d- prefix, he asserts that it applies to the entity other, acts-qua-thing-
done related to other and finally, to the present. See his rTags 'jug kyi dgohs 'grel gsal
bar bsad pa, p. 169 (f. 6a): dgag bya dgan bya dbyun bya dan // dgug bya la sogs dnos
gzan dan II dgag dan dgan dan dbyun ba sogs II gzan dan 'brel ba}i bya ba 'i las II de nid
da Ita ba yah yin //. For the identification of the quotation, see the corresponding note
to the Tibetan text.
(10) A version of what we have been terming "Si tu's dictum" — see our p. 19 et
seq. Cf. Si tu's and dNu chu Dharmabhadra's formulations on our p. 20 and n. 43.
(11) See our Introduction: The basic notions at stake, pp. 3-8.
(12) See dNul chu Dharmabhadra's commentary, Si tuï sal Inn pp. 49-50: de yah
dus gsum gyi dbye bas ni bya byed kyi las dan 'brel ba'i hag gi sbyor ba thams cad la khyab
ste I bya ba 'i las thams cad ma 'ohs pa dan / byed pa ï las thams cad da Itar ba yin pas
so II "The three temporal distinctions pervade all uses of sentences which involve act-
qua-doing and act-qua-thing-done, because all acts-qua-thing-done are future and all
acts-qua-doing are present."
(13) Si tu's reasoning is as follows: 1) If a sentence P has a verb which involves
either of the two acts and is hence included in self or other, the verb in P is in one of
the three tenses. The converse, however, does not hold: there are verbs, such as in-
transitives, past forms or forms using auxiliaries, which are in one of the three tenses,
but are neither self (bdag) nor other (gzan), 2) Thon mi, in verse 12, introduced the
terms "self and "other" primarily to account for agents (such as sgrub pa po, "es-
tablisher") and objects (such as bsgrub par bya, "that to be established"). He derivatively
includes the two acts under these categories, because of their "similarity" with agents
and objects. 3) The verb tense specifications in verse twelve are meant to capture what
is not covered by the rubrics self and other. In other words, to take the example of the
prefix b-, "other" covers the use of b- prefixed forms which refer to objects and acts-
qua-thing-done, but the tense specification, "past" refers to all the other b- prefixed verb
forms which are left over, i.e. past forms such as bsgiubs, etc. See also our pp. 16-19
and n. 37, as well as TILLEMANS (1988), n. 37.
(14) After the general explanation which we have translated, Si tu goes on to
refute a number of opposing views on the matter and then concludes the section on
bdag and gzan with an extremely extensive list of examples.
(15) The example is not at all one of an alchemist transforming iron into gold,
as it might perhaps appear to be at first reading. Rather, what is at stake is the
Buddhist notion that all experiences are ultimately dependent upon karma accumulated
in past lives; the physical action of the elements plays a role, but only as a contributing
cause (pratyaya). Thus it is fundamentally due to the good karma of the perceiver that
 73

the lump of iron changes into gold. Nonetheless, while this meritorious karma is the
agent, it does not "directly appear" in that it is not mentioned in the proposition "The
iron changed into gold."
(16) Lit. "without an expeller" Çbyin pa po).
(17) I.e. he acts on himself. A "distinct agent" is one which is different from its
object. Further on in the section on bdag and gzan, Si tu discusses the case of
intransitive verbs like "I am going", where the goer ('gro ba po) and "that which
undergoes the action of going" {'gro bar bya) are not different: in both cases it is simply
the theme, I. sDe dge f.66a2-3; S. pp.205-206: dper na I bdag 'gro'o / zes pa'i fgro baï
sgra de bya ba 'i las kyi tshig yin yah byed pa po dan bya ba 'i gzi tha dad du med de 'gro
bar byed pa po'ah bdag yin zih 'gro bar bya ba'an bdag nid yin pa dan /. See our p. 5, n.
8, and also TILLEMANS (1988) pp. 495-496 on BACOT'S and DURR'S understanding of the
term byed pa po gzan.
 75

HL TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE:

THE PERSPECTIVE FROM TIBET

By Derek D. Herforth

1. Introduction: As in many other fields of inquiry, progress in linguistics often begins

with the noting of some odd phenomenon whose existence seems prima facie to call
into question one or more of the basic categorizations underlying analytical procedure
in the discipline. A period of intensive empirical study typically follows in which the
anomalous data are described and submitted to analyses of various kinds. Progress can
be said to have been made when the initially bizarre phenomenon, through repeated
handling, sheds its strangeness and is finally subsumed within a series of revised
generalizations and categorizations which attempt to account both for long-familiar facts
and for the more recently.uncovered data.
The investigation of ergative languages by western linguists over the past
century or so has conformed to this general pattern. This encounter with ergativity has
done much to deparochialize our knowledge of case-assignment patterns, raise questions
about the universality of oppositions in verbal voice and, in general, enrich our insight
into the cluster of features associated with transitivity. To be sure, many fundamental
questions remain about just how ergative structure is to be accomodated in a theory
of universal grammar; at the very least, however, linguists in the late 1980's have access
to a greatly enriched data-base on ergative languages (see, inter alia, PLANCK 1979) and
significant cross-language generalizations based on this data have begun to emerge
(SlLVERSTEIN 1976, COMRIE 1978, DlXON 1979, DELANCEY 1981).
In the history of the encounter between European linguistics and ergativity, the
literary language of Tibet has played an important, if not always widely recognized, role.
Together with Basque and some of the better-known languages of the Caucasus, literary
Tibetan was one of the first ergative languages to attract the attention of European
linguists. As has long been recognized, the study of both phonology and grammar held
a prominent place within the intellectual paradigm that moved north from the Indian
subcontinent and came to exert a pervasive influence on Tibetan monastic culture.
76 D. HERFORTH

Under this influence, the Tibetans developed a tradition of linguistic scholarship in and
about their own language, a tradition whose importance has not gone unrecognized in
the West where studies and translations of native Tibetan linguistic treatises have been
produced since the earliest stages of European Tibetology (LAUFER 1891, BACOT 1928,
SCHUBERT 1937, DURR 1950).
The ergative structure of the language, however, proved a stumbling block to
these pioneer Tibetanists, none of whom can be said to have gotten the basic facts
about the language quite right.62 Perhaps the principal reason for this is that accurate
generalizations about ergative structure require considerable objectivity about
grammatical categories long assumed (tacitly) by European linguists to be basic to the
structure of all languages, e.g. i) a "subject case" on the pattern of, say, the Latin
nominative and, by implication, ii) a minimal two-way voice opposition, active vs.
passive, reflected both in verb morphology and in rules of case-assignment. Ergative
languages are organized on principles which, while coherent in themselves, are systema-
tically "out of phase" with such familiar Indo-European categories. One could offer a
rough characterization of ergativity by pointing out that the semantic role AGENT
constitutes a basic notion in the structure of ergative languages. In so-called "accusative
languages" like those of western Europe, AGENT assumes much less importance in basic
clause structure than the category SUBJECT. The choice of either of these two organi-
zational primes, AGENT or SUBJECT, will tend to have certain repercussions throughout
the grammar, as we will see below. Because of the complexity of these issues, the
period of adjustment of Western descriptive linguistics to ergative structure has lasted
several decades and the assimilation of the ergative paradigm into theoretical linguistics
is still very much in progress.63
Given the wide-spread interest in ergativity among contemporary linguists, as
well as perhaps some curiosity among philologically-oriented Tibetanists about how
linguists treat ergativity across languages, it seems useful to attempt here an exposition
of the conceptual framework within which the native Tibetan grammarians discussed the
structure of their own language. The questions we will address are these: 'How did the
linguistically sophisticated Tibetan pandit conceptualize the structure of his own idiom?
What were his basic categories and how did he relate them to each other?'. While the
indirect and somewhat schematic treatment of these questions found in the two texts
translated above is at once too concise and too general to advance our knowledge of
ergativity per se, still, the conceptualization of such categories as case, transitivity and

For criticisms of BACOT's and DURR's understanding of some of the basic definitions and concepts in the
native grammatical texts, see TILLEMANS (1988) pp. 497-498 and this volume, pp. 23-26 and passim.
In contrast to earlier studies which concentrated on the surface marking of arguments in basic clauses
in ergative languages, more recent work has sought to integrate ergative patterning into the broader theoretical
concerns of autonomous syntax (ANDERSON 1976, MARANTZ1984, YIP et al. 1987) and discourse structure (DU
BOIS 1987). For some historical background on the treatment of ergativity in western linguistics, see SEELEY
1977.
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 77

voice by the native speakers of an ergative language surely deserves notice in a history
of non-Western linguistic thought.
The questions which occupied the grammarians of Tibet certainly did not
include the problem of developing a definitive analysis of ergative structure and then
drawing explicit contrasts between it and the accusative pattern (as represented by
Sanskrit, for example). Quite the contrary, a considerable portion of the Tibetan
linguistic tradition focuses on the formulation of what are in effect spelling rules.
(Syntax, as that field is understood in 20th-century western linguistics, seems to have
been almost totally neglected by the Tibetans.) The burden of the grammatical treatises
we have examined is to propose and counter-propose regular correspondences between
the moribund affixal morphology of the verb and grammatical categories of tense/aspect
and voice. As TILLEMANS' introductory essay on the historical background of this
tradition makes clear, the treatises we have translated are relatively well-known and
particularly lucid examples, dating from the 18th and 19th centuries, of commentaries
to the much earlier rTags kyi jug pa, 'Introduction to the grammatical markers',
traditionally attributed to Thon mi Sambhota. This early "root text" (rtsa ba) is terse
in the extreme, and in the later commentaries to it we can frequently observe a conflict
between the traditional authority of Thon mi's gnomic formulations and the exegete-
grammarian's instinct for a degree of empirical accuracy far beyond that attainable
within the confines of Thon mi's brief verses.6^ What is of special interest to us today
are the Tibetan scholars' definitions of the verbal and ultimately clause-level categories
which form the framework for their claims about the affixal alternations in their
language. Some of the basic categories in this framework already figure in the rTags
kyi 'jug pa as primitive, undefined notions; however, in order to elucidate what they
took to be Thon mi's meaning, the exegetes were obliged to formulate explicit defini-
tions for these categories. It it is these definitions which reflect quite plainly the
ergative structure of the Tibetan language.
We will begin by making some general observations about case-marking in
classical Tibetan (CT), statements which will be found to hold, in varying degrees, for
many other ergative languages.

Z Case-marking: CT is a verb-final language in which cases are marked by' postposi-

tions. The marking of the three core arguments involved in (in)transitive clauses
adheres to the canonical ergative pattern. For clarity of exposition, we will distinguish
in terms of semantic roles between these three arguments: the single argument
contracted by an intransitive predicate will be designated 'theme' (T). In a transitive
clause, the typically animate, effecting participant will be referred to as 'agent' (A) and
the affected participant as 'patient' (P). Describing CT case-marking in this way allows
us to avoid using the highly ambiguous term "subject". In the present discussion,
"subject" will be used exclusively to refer to the capacious syntactic category familiar

For discussion of the conflict between Thon mi's canonical authority and the exegete's desire for
empirical accuracy, see above, Chap. I, pp. 16-19, and TILLEMANS (1988) n. 37.
78 D. HERFORTH

from English and other western European languages. In this connection, note simply
that an English-type subject case can accomodate each of the three semantic roles we
have distinguished for the description of CT case-marking, as well as the beneficiary
role (B).

(1) a) subject = T, as in Gwen awoke

M
b) A, as in Ben woke Gwen
c) " P, as in Gwen was awakened by Ben
and d) " B, as in Gwen was awarded the prize

The important point to keep in mind is that CT, like other ergative languages, has no
case corresponding to the English subject in its capacity for these several, divergent
semantic roles.65
In CT, T and P typically receive no postpositional marking and are said to be
in the absolutive (ABS) case. A is assigned the marked ergative (ER) case (allomorphs
kyiSy gyis, gisy -s). As in many other ergative languages, the ergative case also accom-
odates the instrument, a typically inanimate, co-effecting, non-core argument of a
transitive.

2.1. Intransitive vs. transitive clauses: In an accusative language like English, one can
point to the presence of an object to distinguish a clause with a transitive verb from
one with an intransitive. Thus, in the following clauses,

(2) a) The mirror broke

b) Gwen broke the mirror

only the verb in (2b) Hakes an object', i.e. is transitive. In (2a) the noun phrase the
mirror assumes the role T, while in (2b) the same noun phrase has assumed the role
P. In the grammar of English, the difference between T and P in plain active clauses
always correlates very clearly with distinct positions in the sentence: T always precedes
and P always follows a verb like break. In a language like Tibetan where T and P both
receive identical case-marking and occur in pre-verbal position, we cannot point to the
presence of a P as distinguishing a transitive from an intransitive clause. Consider the
CT versions of (2).

In generative linguistics the term "subject" is often used to refer to a syntactic category which corres-
ponds quite closely to the traditional notion "subject of the verb" in English and related languages.
Syntactically considered, subjects are the locus of such operations as equi-NP deletion, raising with verbs like
"seem", conjunction reduction and the interpretation of most, if not all, reflexives. (Other frameworks
distinguish between the traditional "subject of the verb" and the more recent "syntactic subject" by using the
term "pivot" for the latter; cf. FOLEY and VAN VALIN [1984] pp. 107-134.) Since we are concerned exclusively with
Tibetan notions of basic clause organization (i.e. verb morphology and its relation to case marking), the inter-
clausal syntactic properties of T, A and P in CT will not be treated here.
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 79

(3) a) me Ion chag go

mirror break S F 6 6
The mirror broke.

b) Tshe vin gis me Ion bcag go

PN ER mirror breakPE SF
Tshe rirï broke the mirror.

Clearly the presence of me loh does not distinguish (3b) from (3a) since the same
word in the same case is found immediately preceding the verb in both clauses. What
distinguishes (3b) from (3a) is the presence in the former of a noun in the ergative
case, an agent like Tshe rih gis_. It will be noted that, unlike the English 'break', the
verbs in these Tibetan sentences are distinct: chag is intransitive 'break', while bcag is
the perfective of gcog, transitive 'break'. The definitions formulated by the Tibetans to
characterize the distribution of the prefixes in verbal paradigms like $chag / gcog I bcag
stipulate the obligatory presence of an agent in clauses in which the form gcog may
appear. (The correlation between argument structure and the perfect of transitive verbs
is rather more complicated, as we will see below.)
A transitive clause is defined by the Tibetans as referring to "an act directly
related to a distinct agent" (byedpa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel ba'i las). Intransitives,
on the other hand, are defined negatively as indicating that "some quality is by itself
already established or is sure to be established without direct reliance on an agent or the
like" (byed pa po sogs la dnos su ma Itos).68 The Tibetan notion of transitivity thus
reflects the pattern of case-assignment in a language which, lacking a subject-case,
marks agentive nominals (A) distinctly from non-agents [T/P]. In comparing intransitive
with transitive clauses in ergative languages, the identically marked, non-agentive
argument [T/P] is the constant; in terms of argument structure, the feature TRANSITIVE
is acquired by the introduction into the clause of an agent. This change in argument
structure correlates with the marking of transitivity on the verb: bcag (intr.) -> gcog
(trans,). In the more familiar accusative pattern of languages like English, it is the
subject-case which, insensitive to the semantic distinction agent/non-agent, is necessarily
in evidence, accomodating either a T (in an intransitive clause) or an A (in a

Abbreviations used: A = agent, AB = ablative, ABS = absolutive, AL = aîlative, CT = classical

Tibetan, ER = ergative, F = future, GE = genitive, I = imperative, IL = illative, IP = imperative particle,
MS = masculine suffix, NF = non-final particle, NS = nominalizing suffix, P = patient, PE = perfect (often
referred to as "past"), PN = proper noun, SF = sentence-final particle, T = theme, V = verb.
See our text and translation of Si tu's commentary, §6, pp. 66-67 in this volume.
See rTags kyi 'jugpa'i dka' gnas, §19, pp. 52-53 in this volume.
80 D. HERFORTH

transitive). Thus, in such languages it is the occurrence of a "distinct P" that distin-
guishes transitives from intransitives.
After characterizing transitivity in this (to us) novel fashion, the Tibetan gram-
marians lay T and the intransitives aside to devote their attention to the problems of
specifying the correlation between the inflectional forms of transitive verbs and the
kind of arguments, P or [A+P], with which those forms may occur. Since intransitives
cannot occur with either P or A, as a class they are plainly extrinsic to a distinction
drawn in terms of possible co-occurrence with these arguments.7^ This distinction in
the argument structure of the forms of transitive verbs is referred to in Tibetan gram-
mar by the terms bdag ('self) and gzan ('other'). The distinction is in some, but
emphatically not all, senses analogous to our active/passive opposition. Since to adopt
ad hoc "active" and "passive" as equivalents for bdag and gzan would prejudice (and ul-
timately subvert) our attempt to understand the Tibetan distinction, we will suggest
more neutral equivalents for these two terms below.

3. Tense/aspect and "argument prominence": One of the major problems encountered by

Western linguists working on ergativity involves the question of whether there exists
sufficient evidence for describing such languages in terms of a voice opposition analo-
gous to the familiar active/passive distinction in accusative languages. It is clear why
this question must occur to an analyst studying an ergative language from the per-
spective of an accusative language. In accusative languages, the difference between an
active and a passive clause is typically encoded in two ways. First, a passive verb will
typically be marked as distinct from an active one through morphological modification
and/or the presence of special auxiliaries. Secondly, the arguments of an active clause
will be reassigned to a different set of cases in a passive clause. The following obliga-
tory changes can be observed in the pair of English sentences: Gwen broke the mirror
vs. The minor was broken by Gwen.

It is not only in English and other familiar European languages that the presence of an object is
traditionally held to be criterial in distinguishing transitives from intransitives. In any language in which T and
P are distinguished, by means of either case-marking or word order, the intransitive-transitive dichotomy can
be drawn in precisely the same way. Compare the Sanskrit terms for intransitive, akarmaka lit. 'without an
object' (read "argument in the accusative") and transitive, sakarmaka 'with an object'. In Chinese where, as
in English, P is ordinarily distinguished from [T/A] only by position, intransitive verbs are referred to as
bujiwu dow&cjif+i - I Alvlw 'verbs which do not extend to anything' and transitive verbs are called jiwu
dongci {\ipjj5vin *verbs which extend to something' (i.e. a post-verbal P). Thus, in languages in which
[T/A] and P are clearly distinguished by means of morphology and/or syntax, the difference between intransi-
tive and transitive verbs can be specified succinctly and naturally without reference to a semantic category like
"agent".

The most explicit statement of the exclusion of intransitives from the distinction drawn in terms of
co-occurrence with P or A is made by dNul chu Dharmabhadra (1809-1887) in his commentary on Si tu. See
n. 8 to Chapter I. See also Notes to the Translations, en. 17 for Si tu's own explanations on this point.
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 81

(4) a) active 'broke' -> passive 'was broken'

b) active object 'mirror' -> passive subject;
active subject 'Gwen' -> passive oblique 'by Gwen'

We have found no need for "subject" in our description of CT clause structure; rule
(4b) is thus plainly inapplicable to CT because it is stated in terms of an uninstantiated
category. Since in CT an agent (both 'Gwen' and 'by Gwen' in our example of
active/passive) is invariably marked by the ergative case and a patient ('the mirror' in
both sentences) by the absolutive, no rule of case reassignment on the lines of (4b) can
be stated for the language. Thus, evidence for a "voice contrast" in the CT verb, should
such exist, will be less obvious than in a language where a rule like (4b) applies.
In generalizing about the patterns of co-occurrence of a given transitive verb-
form with a specific semantic role or roles, we will make use of the neutral expressions,
"A-prominence" (~ Tibetan bdag) and "P-prominence" (~ gzan). This will permit us
to characterize transitive clauses purely in terms of the foregrounding of one or the
other of the two arguments without at the same time implying obligatoiy changes in either
the verb or in case-assignment. A transitive verb-form which can occur with a P-
argument alone will be referred to as "P-prominent" (and will, of course, be reflected
in English translation as an agentless passive). Similarly, a transitive form which cannot
occur without an A will be referred to as "A-prominent", this feature of the form will
be reflected in English by use of the active voice.72 The problem is whether the
language makes a further distinction which lies between plain P- and plain A- promi-
nence. Is it possible to distinguish an A-prominent clause from a P-prominent clause
in which the A also appear si This latter sort of clause will naturally be reflected in
English as an agentive passive like 'The mirror was broken by Gwen'. In examining CT
clauses with verbs forms which can be either "P-" or "A-prominent", we will find that
the language in fact preserves all three distinctions: P-prominence, A-prominence, and
agentive P-prominence. However, given that CT has no recourse to case-reassignment,
the grammatical devices at its disposal for encoding these distinctions will naturally
differ from the double marking (on both the verb and its arguments) typical of the
active-passive contrast in accusative languages.

Many ergative languages do in fact show patteras of case-reassignment operating in conjunction with
morphological alternations in the verb. See JACOBSEN (1985) for an introduction to such "antipassives". We
have uncovered no evidence of such constructions in the CT texts known to us.
It is not difficult to uncover in texts examples of agent-less clauses whose main verb is in a form
designated "A-prominent" by the Tibetans. All such apparent exceptions to our formulation, however, are
instances of zero-anaphora in clause-chaining, i.e. contexts where a specifiable A-argument can be retrieved
from the immediately preceding discourse. Likewise, although the rubric "A-prominent" implies the appearance
in the clause of both an A and a P, the P may also be deleted under specifiable conditions, either discourse-
related (e.g. clause-chaining) or semantic (e.g. indefinite reference of the deleted P, analogous to English 'Ben
doesn't drink 0').
82 D. HERFORTH

3.1 The data: A canonical transitive in CT will typically have four inflectional forms,
usually referred to as 'present' (the citation form), 'perfect' or 'past'(PE), 'future'(F) and
'imperative'(I).7^ Two core arguments, an A and an P, are implicit in the meaning of
a prototypical transitive. These two arguments do not, however, share equal privilege
of occurrence with all four inflectional forms. This is best demonstrated by arranging
the forms in a scale of incremental transitivity, starting with the cognate intransitive.
(Discussion of the future and various periphrastic forms will be deferred to section 4
below.)

(5) Intransitive: 'chad, chad (PE) 'something falls off, decays, wears down'

a) sin dum bur chad do

wood bitIL fallPE SF
The wood has fallen to pieces [through some natural process].

(6) Transitive: gcod, bead (PE), gcad (F), chod (I) 'cut, discontinue something'

a) sin dum bur bead do

wood bitEL cutPE SF
The wood has been cut into pieces [by an unspecified agent].

73
We have followed the native terminology for these four inflectional forms, viz. da ha ba, 'das pa, ma
'ons pa and skid tshig (= bskid tshig) respectively. In the same vein, we translate dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros
and Si tu's examples of the CT simplex "future" (ma 'ons pa) by means of the English future in Chapter II
above. It should be noted, however, that the contextually-determined meaning in discourse of so-called "past"
and "future" forms often does not correlate with strict temporal reference. It seems fairly clear, for example,
that the label "perfect", adopted here for the second inflectional form (viz. Tibetan 'das pa), is more accurate
than "past". The so-called "future" is even more problematic, as INABA (1955) has insightfully shown. INABA
makes four points about the apparent irrelevance of the category FUTURE to the grammar of CT: 1) Sanskrit
futures are almost never translated by the CT "future" simplex form; the CT present, either simplex or peri-
phrastic, is the usual form for rendering Indie future tense. 2) Examples from dictionaries demonstrate that
the Tibetan present is often used with (English) future sense. 3) The CT "future", both the simplex and the
periphrastic in par bya, usually expresses "the passive voice". 4) In none of the languages most often supposed
to be genetically related to Tibetan (viz. Chinese, Burmese, Kachin, etc.) is FUTURE, or for that matter
TENSE, encoded by means of verb inflection. To these observations we will add further data in section 4
on the "future"-based periphrastics. In the organization of his tables (1955 p.219), INABA implies that "the
three tenses" of traditional description can be reduced to a binary aspectual opposition, imperfective/perfective,
with an inflectionally-marked voice contrast in the imperfective only: "present tense" = imperfective active and
"future tense" = imperfective passive. The perfect, alias "past tense", is ambivalent in terms of argument-
prominence, as we will see. INABA's hypothesis is an appealing one which, in substance, does not seem to
contradict Si tu's interpretation of Thon mi (cf. n. 39 above.) However, to substantiate INABA's theory would
require considerable empirical research of a kind different from that undertaken in the present study. One
would want, for instance, to look at the use of the verb forms in narrative texts composed, rather than merely
translated, by native Tibetans.
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 83

b) sin mkhan gyis sin dum bur bead do

woodsman ER
The woodsman has cut the wood into pieces.

c) sin sin mkhan gyis dum bur bead do

wood woodsman ER (marked word-order with P preposed)
The wood has been cut into pieces by the woodsman.

d) sin mkhan g}ds sta res sin dum bur gcod do

woodsman ER axe ER wood bitIL cut SF
The woodsman cuts the wood into pieces with an axe.

e) sin dum bur chod cig

cuti IP
Cut the wood into pieces!

Note that the perfect form bead may occur in three types of clauses (6a,b,e). These
may be described in terms of their English wanslations as: 1) a one-place agentless
passive (6a), 2) a two-place active (6b) and 3) a two-place agentive passive (6c). In
what follows we will provide justification in terms of CT structure for these descrip-
tions.
In its minimal valence, illustrated in (6a)y the perfect of this verb is clearly P-
prominent since it can occur without an A-argument. However, the same verb-form is
frequently attested with an A occurring either as the first (6b) or as the second
argument (6c) in the clause. Thus, the perfect is a truly ambi-valent form, both P- and
A-prominent, depending on the number of core arguments in its ambit.
The Tibetan grammarians seem to have been of two minds about how to
classify the perfect. In dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros' treatise we have translated in
Chapter II above, the perfect of transitive verbs is treated as P-prominent, perhaps
because the form in its minimal valence does not require an A argument.7^ For Si tu,
however, the perfect, like the intransitives, lies outside the distinction P-/A-prominent.
As we have just seen, the transitive perfect as a form is indeterminate with respect to
argument prominence and this ambi-valence is perhaps what prompted Si tu to treat
it as extrinsic to that distinction.75

"The past ... belongs to act-qua-thing-done; ... act-qua-thing-done ... is included under the category
other": di'i 'das pa ... bya ba'i las ... su gtogs la I ...bya ba'i las ... ni gtan gyi lâions su 'dus so (Chapter II, pp
54-55: §21, 442.6). The author unfortunately does not present explicit arguments for this categorization.
For Si tu's non-inclusion of PAST in bd-ag/géan, see Chapter II, pp. 64-65: §5, 62b 5-6. Among
contemporary grammarians, bKia £is dbah 'dus argues that the perfect is ambiguous with regard to A/P -
prominence. See n. 49. Many non-Tibetan scholars have also remarked on the ambi-valence of the CT perfect
in terms of voice and case-assignment in accusative languages. See, inter alia, BACOT (1981) pp. 50-51,
84 D. HERFORTH

For the student of ergative structure, there are two related points to note about
the GT perfect. The first deals with the ability of a single ù'ansitive verb-form in the
perfect to occur either with a P alone or with both a P and an A. Unlike the case
with the intransitive/transitive pair, chag/bcag 'break', illustrated in (3) above, here in
(6a,b) there is no change in the form of the verb to correspond to the change in the
number of instantiated arguments. An A-argument is added to (6a) to produce (6b),
but this increase in the number of overt arguments in the clause is not reflected in the
morphology of the verb.
CT is apparently not alone among ergative languages in having ambi-valent
perfective verb forms. In a recent discussion of passive typology, KEENAN cites a pair
of Tongan sentences in the perfective which, allowing for differencè^in Jbasic word
order, parallel (6a,b) very closely in that (7b) gains an A-argument over (7a) without
undergoing either case-reassignment or a morphological change in the verb.

(7) a) na'e tamate'i 'a Koliate

PAST kill P ABS Goliath
Goliath was killed.

b) na'e tamate'i 'e Tevita 'a Koliate

PAST kill P ER David ABS Goliath76
David killed Goliath.
[OR PERHAPS Goliath was killed by David ?]

I have supplied the tentative passive interpretation of (7b). KEENAN assumes (7b) is
active and comments about (7a): "it is not clear whether we want to consider such cases
... as a 'truncated' active, with perhaps a 3PL[ural] pronoun understood (note that
Tongan commonly 'pronominalizes by deletion' rather than using an overt pronoun) or
as some kind of morphologically degenerate passive in which the verb form is not
distinctly marked" (1985:248,255).
A solution which immediately suggests itself is tojnterpret (6a)rMnû (7a) as
agentless passives and (6b) and (7b)9 not as active, but as full, agentiv^tfss/ve)clauses,
the A-argument reflected as an oblique m l ? faithful English îfansTatToS: i n fact, this
is the sort of solution which has sometimes been proposed by speakers of accusative-
languages as a unified answer to the conundrum of ergative structure: namely, that

HAHN (1985) p. 58, YAMAGUCHI (manuscript) pp. 54-57. While such remarks are not inaccurate, there are
important patterns of word-order variation within CT clauses in the perfect which have not received sufficient
attention from Western and Japanese grammarians of the language. See below.
76
KEENAN's glosses have been slightly expanded in accordance with TCHEKHOFF (1979).
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 85

ergative languages are inherently passive.77 Note, however, that if we equate structures
like (6b) with the accusative-language passive voice, we are then without a familiar
category with which to characterize the distinction between (6b) and (6c).
The contrast between (6b) and (6c) is the second point to be noted about
perfective clauses in CT. Basic word-order in transitive clauses is APV. The fronting
of a P to clause-initial position (APV -> PAV) is, however, often attested in text.
Observe the following two examples.

(8) nu bo tha chun stag gis zos te

brother youngest tiger ER eatPE NF
The youngest brother had been eaten by the tiger and ...

(9) a) ... thai I gan zag gi bdag med mam mkhyen gyis
follows person GE selflessness omniscience ER

mnon sum du rtogs pa'i phyir te 1

direct DL perceive on account of NF

...follows because the selflessness of the person has been

directly perceived by the omniscient mind and

b) mam mkhyen gyis gan zag gi bdag med

omniscience ER person GE selflessness

mnon sum du rtogs pa'i phyir79

direct DL perceive on account of

[this, in turn, is] because the omniscient mind has directly

perceived the selflessness of the person.

In the narrative example (8), the P, 'youngest brother', is extraposed because

the expression refers to a mare topical entity than the A, 'tiger'. The context is as
follows: two brothers wait for their younger sibling on the edge of the jungle and
become concerned when he fails to appear. Deciding to look for him, they go back
into the jungle where they come upon a scene of carnage. The youngest brother has
been evoked repeatedly in the immediately preceding context and this makes him a

See DIXON (1979) p. 99 for mention of the treatment of ergativity as inherently passive by 19c.
European linguists and some contemporary generativists. Cf. also ANDERSON (1976) pp. 7, 17.
78
JASCHKE (1954) p. 101, 11. 5-6.
79
From Yons 'dzin bio rigs, f.I 3a, p. 47,
4' lines 4-5, in ed. of T. KELSANG and S. ONODA. Note that rtogs pa
is invariable in the three tenses. See Dag yig gsar bsgrigs, s.v. rtogs pa.
86 D. HERFORTH

much more likely candidate for topicalization than the tiger, last mentioned several
lines earlier in the text. This sort of discourse factor accounts for the use of a non-
basic word-order in the Tibetan and this ordering correlates with the agentive P-
prominence of the English agentive passive.
(9a,b) are consecutive clauses and form a semantically tautological minimal
pair. The example comes from an early 20th c. student manual on Buddhist epistemo-
logy and the discourse mode is thus second-order discursive, rather than the first-order
narrative of (8). Here again we see the use of word-order variation in CT to encode
a what is basically a functional contrast between A- and agentive P- prominence, an
opposition typically handled by voice in accusative languages.
Now allowing that the passive voice itself can be interpreted in functional
terms as a strategy for foregrounding the P of a transitive clause (cf. KEENAN 1985:
243-247), it would seem reasonable to reserve the label "full" or "agentive passive" for
sentences like, (6c), (8) and (9a) where we do in fact observe movement of the P-
argument into sentence-initial position ahead of the A-argument. This means that
(6b) can only be described as active, on analogy with the active present clause in
(6d)81
The lesson for ergative typology in all of this would seem to be the following.
Antipassive is the well-known ergative-language analog of the passive in accusative
languages. However, not all ergative languages have antipassive constructions. Erga-
tive languages which lack the antipassive (and CT seems to be one of them) will tend
to exploit word-order variation to encode the distinction between active and agentive-
passive clauses. There may well be ergative languages which show both an antipassive
and P-fronting, each of these strategies with its own specifiable functional domain.
Total lack of case-reassignment rules in a language, however, will imply a certain

on
T. TILLEMANS adds: 'The debate is typical of Tibetan manuals of eristics where the young student not
only learns religious and philosophical concepts — in this case the doctrine of the omniscience of the Buddha
—, but also develops his verbal abilities, such as, inter alia, the manipulation of differences in word-order. In
short, this quoted part of the student's debate would be absolutely pointless if there were to be no difference
between (9a) and (9b) stemming from word-order."
SI
Tongan data similar to that discussed here for CT might be found which would corroborate KEENAN's
characterization of (7b) as "active" (rather than as "agentive passive"); KEENAN's two examples, however, do not
alone constitute sufficient evidence for his labelling of (7b). Evidence of an antipassive or of word-order
variation in Tongan would suggest that full transitive clauses in the perfect have more than one possible form.
This would permit the characterization of a P-prominent clause-form which contrasts with (7b) as functional-
ly (if perhaps not morphologically) "passive" and, by implication, of (7b) as A-prominent or "active".
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 87

dependence on word-order variation, assuming that the opposition, A-prominent /

agentive P-prominent, occurs at all.
To return to the transitive paradigm in (6), there are two forms left to
consider, the present and the imperative, repeated here for convenience.

(6) d) sin mkhan gyis sta res sin dum bur gcod do
woodsman ER axe ER wood bitIL cut SF
The woodsman cuts the wood into pieces with an axe.

e) sin dum bur chod tig

cuti IP
Cut the wood into pieces!

The CT present (6d) is A-prominent in that the form can only be used in the context
of a specifiable A, the argument either in evidence in the clause or represented by
zero-anaphora in clause-chaining. The present of transitive verbs is described as bdag,
i.e. A-prominent, by all indigenous grammarians.^ A transitive act in the present can
also be encoded by means of a periphrastic constructed on the present simplex:
gcod par byed
cut NS.EL do
'cuts'.
Note that in this periphrastic both the base-form gcod and the auxiliary byed, 'do*, are
in the A-prominent present.

One might attempt to set these observations about A/P prominence in ergative languages in the larger
context of the strategies by which this fundamental opposition is instantiated across languages, ergative and
otherwise. In accusative languages generally, the opposition is encoded redundantly in the passive voice by
both verb morphology and modified case-marking. Some ergative languages have an antipassive rule which
correlates the opposition A-/P- prominent with an alternation in both case-assignment and verb morphology,
making the antipassive a close analog of the passive in accusative languages. In ergative languages without
an antipassive, no case-reassignment strategy is available and the opposition may correlate directly with the
morphology of tense/aspect. Thus, the CT present is exclusively A-prominent: P cannot occur alone with the
simplex present (6d), all apparent exceptions being cases of zero-anaphora in clause-chaining. In the ambi-
valent CT perfect, however, variation in word-order comes into play in order to preserve the opposition
between agentive P-prominent clauses and A-prominence: an P-prominent clause in which mention is made
of the A is distinguished from an A-prominent clause by the fronting of the P in the former. Finally, in
"contrastive word-order languages" with little or no verb morphology (e.g. Mandarin Chinese), agentive P-
prominence correlates with both P-fronting and with the use of special co-verbs (e.g. bèi, rang, gëi, etc.) to
mark the demoted A (i.e. case-reassignment). In agentless P-prominent clauses, however, the P is simply
fronted and the absence of a demoted A-argument will mean that, without reference to semantic and/or
discourse factors, P-prominence will be difficult to distinguish from topic-comment articulation.
83
See Chapter I, D.
 D. HERFORTH

The imperative (6e) is another unambiguous form, frequently categorized as A-

prominent by the Tibetans.54 Although there certainly are languages (e.g. Sanskrit)
with so-called "passive imperatives", the prototypical imperative of a transitive is by
definition A-prominent in that its perlocutionary force is to enjoin the addressee to
take the role of agent in the act named by the verb.55

4. The futures and other periphrastic forms: Transitive clauses traditionally labelled
"future" have three forms in CT, one with a monosyllabic verb (10a) and the other two
periphrastic expressions (10b,c). Periphrastic verbs in CT consist of a base form plus
either NS.EL + an auxiliary as in (10b,c), or an adverbial particle as in (11) below.

(10) a) sin dum bur gcad do

wood bitBL cutF SF
The wood will be cut into pieces.

b) sin dum bur gcad par bya o

wood bitEL cutF NS.IL doF SF
The wood is to be cut into pieces.

c) sin mkhan gyis sin dum bur gcod par 'gyur ro

woodsman ER wood bitBL cut NS.IL become SF
The woodsman will cut the wood into pieces.

The simplex future (10a) and the periphrastic in F + par bya [NS.BL doF]
(10b) are minimally P-prominent.56 Both of these forms, however, can accomodate
an A in the ergative, as in the case of the P-prominent perfect discussed in detail in
the previous section. There may be, in addition, word-order contrasts which distinguish
the agentive passive (with P in sentence-initial position) from the active reading of

TILLEMANS: "dByaris can dga' ba'i bio gros (see Chapter II, §21: 'the present and imperative belong
to act-qua-doing') and gSer tog classify it in this way. (gSer tog p. 155 speaks of byed las su gtogs pa'i bsfad
tshig 'the imperative, which is included in act-qua-doing'). However, the contemporary grammarian, sKal bzan
'gyur med, excludes both the past and the imperative from the categories self/other. See his p. 380: 'das tshig
dan skid tshig gnis ni bdag gtan sgrub byed du gtan nas mi 'jug. For his reasons, see our pp. 2O-21. See also
n. 44."
85
A-prominence is prototypical in transitive imperatives in the sense that any language with a "passive
imperative" will probably have an A-prominent form as well; the converse is plainly not the case. Thus, when
a language lacks a voice contrast in the transitive imperative, it is redundant to specify that the form is A-
prominent.
Note that the future in \par bya] encodes an additional deontic meaning, "is to be VP-ed", not present
in the purely temporal futures (10a) and (10c). The \par bya] future is often found in hortatory or homiletic
discourse: "is to be meditated upon" --> "One should meditate upon".
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 89

clauses in the future; unfortunately, we do not have any ready examples of this sort of
alternation.
A second periphrastic, formed on the present of the verb + par 'gyur [NS.IL
become] as in (10c), is A-prominent; it is not attested with P alone, except in clause-
chaining contexts where the reference of the "missing" A-argument is definite and
retrievable from the preceding discourse.57 Note that the base-form, gcod, of this A-
prominent periphrastic future is not the simplex future form of the verb, gcad, found
in the two P-prominent futures (10a,b). The A-prominent future is formed on the A-
prominent present.

4.1 Agreement in terms of prominence: The prominence of "present" and "future" verb
forms is determined by noting their patterns of co-occurrence with A and P in dis-
course. Once this prominence has been determined, it becomes clear that there exists
a direct correlation between it and the prominence of the periphrastic constructions in
which these simplex forms appear: the A-/P-prominence of a periphrastic is always
determined by the prominence of its base form. Consider the following pair of
periphrastics with present progressive meaning.

(11) a) gcad bzin

cutF thus = is being cut

b) gcod bzin
cut thus = is cutting55

In (lia) the so-called "future" gcad makes itself felt, not in terms of tense/aspect, but
in the P-prominence of the entire construction. Compare the A-prominent present
progressive (lib), formed on the A-prominent present.
Nominalizations provide further evidence of the argument prominence of the
simplex present and future.

R7
The Tibetan grammarians disagree about the proper categorization of this present-based future. dByans
can dga' ba'i bio gros (Chapter II, p. 46, §15, 439.3) treats it as referring to "future act-qua-doing" (byed las
ma 'ofis pa), i.e. to an act related to self, bd-ag, our A-prominence. Si tu, however, treats the agentive future
in the same way as the simplex past and the intransitives, excluding it from "the two-fold distinction", i.e. bdag
and gtan (dbye ba de gnis sii ma 'dus pa; Chapter II, pp. 64, 66, §5, D.62b5).
op
Though the A-prominent present progressive, e.g. gcod btin, is well attested, the P-prominent form,
e.g. gcad btin, is much less common. Nevertheless, dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros refers in passing to the
existence of such P-prominent progressive periphrastics (Chapter II, p. 48, §15, 439.4).
90 D. HERFORTH

(12) a) gcod pa po
cut NS MS = cutter

b) gcod byed
cut do = means of cutting

c) gcad bya
cutF doF = thing to be cut

Predictably, the agent and instrumental nominalizations (12a,b) are formed on the A-
prominent present, while the patient nominalization is based on the P-prominent future
with the auxiliary bya in the future as well. Thus, there seem to be no instances of A-
prominent periphrastics or nominalizations formed on the "future", or conversely, of P-
prominent constructions formed on the present. This sort of "agreement" in terms of
prominence appears to support INABA'S hypothesis that the CT "future" has, in fact,
nothing to do with tense, but is rather an "(imperfect) passive". (See again note 73
above.)

5. The Tibetan labelling of arguments: As we have seen, there is no rule of case-

reassignment in CT. The ergative case-marking pattern, [T/P] vs. A, is sensitive to
agenthood in a way that the accusative pattern, [T/A] vs. P, is not. This means that
in CT there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the prominence of a given
transitive verb-form and the surface case of the nominal argument, either P or A, given
prominence.
For any accusative language, one may surely claim with some cogency that the
active voice is prototypically "A-prominent"; however, as many of the rules of English
syntax make no overt distinction between A's and other kinds of subjects, it becomes
necessary to go a step further and distinguish agents (by means of purely semantic fea-
tures) from the several other semantic roles (patient, beneficiary, etc.) which may also
be accomodated by the subject case-frame in transitive clauses. This semantic indeter-
minacy of the subject-case is what makes it impossible to draw a single, direct
correlation between verbal voice and surface case. In accusative languages, voice
alternations involve obligatory case-reassignment.
The Tibetans, however, because of the structural properties of their language,
were free to use the same terminology both to

1) distinguish argument-prominence in the verb

and
2) label the argument given prominence.

Thus, not only are A-prominent verb-forms (the present and the imperative) referred
to as bdag, agent and instrument nouns are categorized in the same way. Similarly,
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 91

future and (for dByans can dga' ba'i bios gros) perfect verbs are gzan, but then so is
the unmarked P which may occur alone in clauses with these inflectional forms. And
so too is the P-prominent nominalization with the meaning 'thing to be VERB-ed\
As the accompanying diagram on p. 97 shows, the horizontal distinction
between bdag and gzan cuts clean across the vertical boundary between argument and
verb. Verb inflections are distinguished on the basis of their prominence, P or A, and
this distinction extends to the core arguments associated with the two prominences.
The bdag/gzan contrast is, in fact, no more than a +/-AGENTIVE distinction" which is
instantiated in both the morphology of the transitive verb and in the case-assignment
pattern of a consistently ergative language.
Observe how the Tibetan conceptual scheme is able to treat the imperative
mood and "secondary agents" (i.e. instrumentais) under the same rubric bdag, or
H-AGENTIVE. It is unlikely that the analyst of an accusative language would be struck
by the semantic affinity shared by these two grammatical categories; in the conceptual
scheme of traditional Western grammar, imperative mood and instrumental argument
have never been perceived as related categories. Reflecting on accusative-language
patterning from the ergative perspective provided by the Tibetan treatises reminds us
of the crucial role played by basic categories, such as SUBJECT or AGENTIVITY in
determining the conceptualization of linguistic structure.

6. Conclusions and unsolved problems: The ergative structure of CT influenced the

indigenous conceptualization of basic grammatical categories in the following ways:

1) a transitive clause was seen as distinguished from an intransitive by the

presence of an agent, rather than by the presence of an object.

2) both clauses and arguments were characterized as -f/-AGENTIVE. The term bdag
[4-A] or A-prominent was used of active clauses, active nominalizations, active
periphrastics, the imperative, the instrumental and the A argument itself.
Likewise, gzan, [-A] refers to P-prominence as instantiated in clauses, peri-
phrastics, nominalizations and in the P argument itself.

In the course of this study, we have made the following observations which will require
further testing in the analysis of narrative texts composed by Tibetans.

1) In the ambivalent "past tense" clauses of CT, word order variation appears to
encode the difference between active and agentive passive clauses. Does this
pattenTalso hold for clauses in the simplex and [+ par bya] futures?

2) The base form of CT periphrastics and nominalizations appears to determine

the voice of the construction as a whole.
92 D. HERFORTH

3) Following suggestions made by INABA, the "past tense" ('das pa) is in fact a
perfective, while the "future" (ma 'ons pa) has nothing to do with tense, but
is rather an imperfective passive.
 TRANSITIVITY AND VOICE 93

APPENDIX: A NOTE ON THE ERGATTVE SPLIT IN CLASSICAL TIBETAN

CT has been described as showing a split in case-marking conditioned by the

tense/aspect of the verb. Thus DIXON, citing REGAMEY (1954), claims ergative case-
marking occurs only in the "past tense" in Tibetan (1979 p.95). To set the record
straight, REGAMEY himself did not describe the split as determined by tense/aspect and
DIXON appears to have drawn his own conclusions from REGAMEY'S rather sparse data.
REGAMEY (p. 372) cites the following sentence in the perfective. (In these examples
from REGAMEY'S paper, we have supplied morpheme glosses and English translations.)

1. sans rgyas kyis chos bstan to

Buddha ER law showPE SF
Buddha has taught the law.

This same ergative pattern of case-assignment, however, occurs regularly with verbs in
the present, as we have shown in Chapter III above.

2. sin mkhan gyis sin dum bur gcod do

woodsman ER wood bitIL cut SF
The woodsman cuts the wood into pieces.

As an example of non-ergative marking correlating with what he refers to as "le

subjectif, REGAMEY (p. 372) provides the following sentence.

3. yon tan Idan pa yon tan la dga' o

excellence with NS excellence AL rejoice SF
Individuals of excellence rejoice in excellence.

REGAMEY'S rendering, les savants aiment la science, glosses over the crux here, namely
the (in)transitivity of dga' 'rejoice in'. dGa' is an uninflected, attitudinal predicate
which attributes an emotion or mental state to a T, not an A. The mere fact that this
verb does not contract an A would, by Tibetan criteria, suffice to assign it intransitive
status59, in spite of the fact that it can occur with two arguments, a T and an oblique
in the allative, marked by la. Compare rejoice (intr.) vs. rejoice in (quasi-trans.) and
other Indo-European equivalents of dga\ all of which contract their non-subject

on
TILLEMANS: "Cf. Dag yig gsar bsgrigs, s.v. dga' p. 134, which does indeed classify dga' as an
intransitive (i.e. byed med las tshig, lit. 'a verb which has no agent') which has one and the same form
throughout the three tenses. REGAMEY clearly followed BACOT in understanding le subjectif as being the
bdag of traditional grammar. Cf. REGAMEY (1946-47) pp. 38-39 where he approvingly quotes BACOTs
position on 'subjectif/ 'objectif. Like BACOT and LALOU, he too made the fatal error of ascribing bdag
= le subjectif to intransitives. See our footnotes 8, 9, 47 in Chapter I."
94 D. HERFORTH

argument in an oblique case: Latin p%ior + ablative, French se plaire à, German sich
fi'euen an, Russian radovat'sya + dative, etc. 90 dGa' in (3) lacks an ergative argument
not because it is non-past (there is no "past" form with which it contrasts), but because
it is low in transitivity.97
CT verbs like dga' with only one inflectional form (i.e. verbs unmarked for
tense/aspect or imperative mood) tend to cluster at the low end of the transitivity
scale, even though some of them do accomodate an A. Compare monoform mthon
'see' with ha, bltas, blta, has 'look at', the latter with its full complement of four inflec-
tions. Both verbs contract an A in the ergative, but they contrast in terms of
controllability or volitionality: Ita expresses a volitional and hence more transitive act.92
There are other two-place verbs which, like dga', are both uninflected for
tense/aspect and intransitive by Tibetan criteria.

4. rGyal ba'i byun gnus 'di yon tan thams cad gab nas
PN this excellence all hide AB

This rGyal ba'i byun gnas, having hid all his excellence, ... (DAS 1902 [1970]
s.v. gab pa)

The fully transitive counterpart of gab is 'gebs, bkab, dgab, khob 'cover, conceal'. Gab,
gob (I) is implicitly "middle voice", meaning 'hide (sc. oneself)'. In such medio-reflexive
predicates, the object is often not sharply distinct from the subject; note that the
"patient" in (4), yon tan, is interpreted as an inalienable part of the theme. Such verbs
are relatively low in transitivity, as HOPPER and THOMPSON have argued (1980 pp. 177-
178).
The situation may well be otherwise in modern Tibetan dialects, but in CT,
at least, the ergative marking of core arguments does not appear to correlate with
tense/aspect, but rather is conditioned by a [+AGENTIVE] feature in the semantic
structure of the verb or, in other words, relative transitivity.

on
yu
PARFIONOVICH (1970) pp.100-101 confirms that verbs of emotional attitude pattern as intransitives in
modern literary Tibetan as well.
91
Note that the Latin, French, German and Russian equivalents are all less than prototypically active
in form, i.e. either medio-passive (fruor) or reflexive, the latter-day reflex of the old Indo-European middle.
Even in English, where rejoice in is not overtly marked as non-active, the verb reveals its less-than-cardinal
transitivity through its infelicity when passivized: ^Excellence is rejoiced in by individuals of excellence. The
locus classicus for the componential analysis of transitivity assumed here is HOPPER and THOMPSON (1980).
For further examples of the monoform vs. multiform contrast in CT verbal paradigms and the clear
correlation of monoform verbs with low transitivity, see WATANABE and KTTAMURA (1972) p.986 and INABA (1986)
pp.137-138.
GZAN — 'OTHER' BDAG — 'SELF 97

p
CTO
a-• o i î
'S
Î ^3

i i
s a l 3O
O^ o
~ s I
>3
3
1

S.

81

3 «.

0^ &Q OQ &
QI
I•3
H i i n ^^
f I I d
i l
O c^- s i
er ° •-"•
8 Z ™
-• -• s
Q CTQ 5' TQÄes S» &
C3
S- 3 ^
"3 o
3 S

§
3
IV. GLOSSARIES A N D I N D E X E S
 101

GLOSSARY OF TIBETAN TECHNICAL TERMS

BDAG : SELF. The term refers primarily to both types of AGENTS (byed pa po) of the
action, but also includes the ACT-QUA-DOING (byedpa'i las).

BYA BA : [Skt. hiyä) 1) ACTION in the context of BYA byed las gsum. sin la sta res brdeg
pa'am sta res sin gcodpa ni BYA BA yin te "The wood being struck by the axe or
cutting the wood with an axe is the ACTION" (pp. 40-41, §7). Note that ACTION
= ACT (las) and can also be classified in terms of A- and P- prominence, e.g.
byed pa po la yod pa'i bya ba = BYED PA'I LAS and bya ba'i yul la yod paï bya
ba = BYA BA'I LAS (pp. 40-41, §7).
2) THING-DONE, the P-prominent action categorized as other (gzan) in Si tu's
definition.

BYA BA'I LAS: ACT-QUA-THING-DONE, the P-prominent action (= THING-DONE)

categorized as other (gzan). Synonyms: bya ba'i yul la yod pa'i las ("the act
pertaining to the focus of the action"), gzan dan 'brel ba'i las ("the act related
to the other"). Example: the "fact of the wood's having been cut into bits" (sin
dum bur bead pa'i cha).

BYA BA'I YUL : FOCUS OF THE ACTION, the OBJECT (las). See the first sense of LAS. Eg.
the wood (sin) which is chopped by the woodsman.

Note that some grammarians, such as sKal bzah 'gyur med (see his p. 381), draw a distinction
between bya ba'i yul and las ("object"), arguing that the former must be followed by some form
of the particle la (la don) whereas the latter is not. Thus in the sentence bzo pas 'phrul 'khor gyis
bzo grwar Icags brdun ("The worker, by means of a machine, forged the metal in the factory"), the
word bzo grwa ("factory") ends in the la don (AL) and is the bya ba'i yul. In short, following this
rendering, bya ba'i yul means the "place of the action", the place in which the action occurs, and
bya ba'i yul does not equal las. This however is not the way in which the majority of the
grammarians we have read understand the term. dByaiis can dga'i ba'i bio gros, for example, takes
it as equalling las ("object") and we have done likewise.

BYA BYED LAS GSUM : THE TRIAD, ACTIONS (BYA = BYA BA), AGENTS (BYED = BYED PA;
BYED PA PO) AND OBJECTS. Skt. kriyä, kartr, karman.

BYED (PA) : AGENT (Skt. kartr) in the context of bya BYED las gsum, a category
subsuming both primary agent and instrument. There are two other equivocal
uses of byed pa in the texts we have read:
1) in one context where it occurs in contrast with byed pa po 'agent', byed pa
must be understood as 'instrument' (Skt. karana): dhospo bdag gam byed pa po
dan BYED PA, "the entity self, i.e. agent or INSTRUMENT" (pp. 44-45, §12).
102 GLOSSARY OF TIBETAN TECHNICAL TERMS

2) in both texts translated here byed pa is occasionally used as an abstract

nominalization referring to the activity byed pa, i.e. [A-prominent] 'doing',
rather than to the arguments participating effectually in that activity: byed pa
po'i dnos po nid dan de'i BYED PA dan bcas pa la ni bdag ces bya tin "that very
entity which is the agent together with its DOING (i.e. what it does) are termed
'self " (pp. 62-63, §1). Cf. also Bra ti dge b£es Rin chen don grub (See our en.
2 in Notes to the Translations): las ni bya ba BYED PA gnis "acts are of two
sorts, thing-done and DOING."

BYED PA PO GTSO BO : [Skt. pradhänakartr] PRIMARY AGENT, the animate agent of the
action. Eg. the woodsman (sin mkhan) who cuts the wood.

BYED PA PO : [Skt. kartr] AGENT, the typically animate effector of action. A distinction
is often drawn between PRIMARY AGENT and SECONDARY AGENTS.

BYED PA PO GZAN DAN DNOS SU 'BREL BAI LAS : ACT WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO
A DISTINCT AGENT. I.e. the action shown by a transitive verb. Synonyms: bya
byed tha dadpa'i las tshig ("verb where the object and agent are different"), byed
y
brel las tshig ("verb where there is relation with an agent").

BYED PA PO GZAN DAN DNOS SU MA 'BREL BAI LAS : ACT WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY
RELATED TO A DISTINCT AGENT. I.e. an action shown by an intranstive verb.
Synonyms: bya byed tha mi dadpa'i las tshig ("verb where the object and agent
are not different"), byed med las tshig ("verb which has no agent").

BYED (PA) PO PHAL BA : [Skt. gunakartr] SECONDARY AGENT, the typically inanimate
instrument of the action. Eg. the axe used to cut the wood.

BYED PA'i LAS : ACT-QUA-DOING, the A-prominent action categorized as self (bdag).
(= DOING.) Synonyms: byed pa po la yod paï las ("the act pertaining to the
agent"), bdag dan 'brel ba7i las ("the act related to self). Example: "the exertion
of cutting the wood with an axe (sta res sin gcod pa'i rtsol ba).

BYED SGRA ERGATIVE ENDING, the particles kyis, gyis, gis, yis and -s which mark both
sorts of agents of the action, i.e. the PRIMARY AGENT (byed pa po gtso bo) and
the SECONDARY AGENT (byed pa po phal ba), i.e. INSTRUMENT (byed pa).

GZAN : OTHER, primarily the object of the action (bya ba; las) or in other words the
focus of the action (bya ba 'i yul). Eg. the wood which is cut by the woodsman.
The term also includes the P-prominent action or ACT-QUA-THING-DONE (bya
ba'i las).
 GLOSSARY OF TIBETAN TECHNICAL TERMS 103

LAS : [Skt. karman] 1) OBJECT in the triad bya byed LAS gsum, i.e. the direct object of
the verb.
2) ACT in such locutions as bya ba'i LAS and byedpa'i LAS. In the sense of ACT,
the term is equivalent to the first sense of bya ba, i.e. ACTION. Note that the
two uses of LAS correspond to the uses of the Skt. karman.
 105

GLOSSARY OF THE PRINCIPAL LINGUISTIC TERMS USED

ABSOLUTIVE: the name given to the ergative language case associated with both the
Theme (alias "subject") of an intransitive verb and the Patient (alias "object")
of a transitive. In most ergative languages, the absolutive is distinguished from
all other cases by its lack of overt marking.

ACCUSATIVE LANGUAGE: a language whose case-marking pattern distinguishes between

Subject (Agent+Theme, both in the nominative) and Object (Patient, in the
accusative). The familiar languages of Europe adhere to this pattern, even
those like English that exploit word order rather than case morphology to
mark syntactic relations. Cf. ERGATIVE LANGUAGE.

AGENT: the semantic role filled by the typically animate, effecting participant in the
action denoted by a transitive verb. In English there is a high degree of
correlation between this role and the traditional notion of "subject of the
clause". The Agent in CT, however, receives its own case-marking which does
not extend to "subjects of intransitive clauses". Cf. PATIENT, ERGATIVE,
ABSOLUTIVE.

A(GENT)-PROMINENT: label used in the present discussion for a CT transitive verb form
which typically does not occur in a clause without an Agent noun in the
ergative case. When the Agent is "missing" from the clause, its specific
reference is always retrievable from the immediate context. An A-prominent CT
clause will tend to be reflected in English in the active voice.

AGENTIVE P-PROMINENT: a label used here for a P-prominent clause in which mention
is made of the Agent. Such CT clauses will typically be reflected in English in
an agentive, "by" passive. We have suggested (see pp. 85-86, 91) that the
distinction between an A-Prominent clause and an agentive P-prominent clause
is made in CT by means of word order.

ANTIPASSIVE: a clause construction found in many ergative languages in which the

Agent appears in the absolutive case while the Patient is either absent or
assigned an oblique case. The verb in an antipassive clause typically receives
special marking as well. The construction has various sub-types across
languages. See JACOBSEN (1985) for helpful discussion. CT appears to be one
of the ergative languages that lacks this particular construction.

ERGATIVE: the name of a case which in languages like CT prototypically marks nouns
in the semantic role of Agent. The ergative is also found marking the
106 GLOSSARY OF LINGUISTIC TERMS

Instrument and some clauses of reason, etc. in multi-clausal sentences. Cf.

ABSOLUTIVE.

ERGATIVE LANGUAGE: a language whose case-marking system distinguishes between the

semantic roles Agent (ergative case) and Patient/Theme (absolutive case).
Accusative languages like Latin show another widely-attested case-marking
pattern: Agent/Theme (nominative) vs. Patient (accusative). Consult COMRIE
(1978) and DixoN (1979) for detailed discussion.

PATIENT: the semantic role filled by the "undergoer" or affected participant in the
action denoted by a transitive verb. In a language like Latin there is a high
degree of correlation between this role, the traditional notion "direct object of
the verb" and the accusative case. In CT and ergative languages generally,
however, the Patient shares the absolutive case with the Theme (alias "subject
of an intransitive").

P(ATIENT)-PROMINENT: label used in the present discussion for a CT transitive verb

form which may co-occur in a clause with a single noun in the absolutive case,
the Patient. Mention of the Agent with a P-prominent verb is possible, but not
obligatory. (Cf. AGENTIVE P-PROMINENT.) A P-prominent clause will tend to
be reflected in English by an agentless passive.

THEME: the single argument associated with an intransitive verb. In CT the Theme and
the Patient are both marked by the absolutive case. Cf. ABSOLUTIVE, AGENT,
PATIENT.

ZERO-ANAPHORA: a relation of co-reference obtaining between a noun "missing" from

a clause (often symbolized 0 ) and some overt noun in the preceding discourse.
E.g. Ben tripped and (j> smashed the mirror.

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
A khu rin po ehe 3, 29-31, n. 59, 60
A kya Bio bzan bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan
32
A kya Yons 'dzin dByans can dga' ba'i
bio gros. See dByans can dga' ba'i bio
gros.
A lag £a Nag dban bstan dar 15, 16,
18, 19, 22, 34, n. 46
ABHYANKAR, K.V. iii, 13, n. 7
ANDERSON, S. 76, 85, n. 63, 77
BACOT, J. ii, iii, 4, 6, 13, 14, 17, 23-26,
47-51, 73, 76, 83, 93, n. 6, 9, 26, 28, 37,
62, 75, 89, en. 17
bCom ldan rigs pa'i ral gri 30
bDe than mkhan po Bio bzan 'jam
dbyans 34
BHATTACHARYA, K. iv
bKa' chen pad ma 6, n. 10
bKra Sis dban 'dus 24, 27, 83, n. 49,
53, 75
Bra (s)ti dge bSes Rin chen don grub
14, 31, 34, 43, 48, 49, 71, 72, 102, n.
29, en. 2, 9
bSam gtan don grub 32
bSod nams rgya mtsho 35
107
Candrakirti iv
CARDONA, G. 6, n. 10
Co ne Grags pa bead sgrub 32
COMRIE, B. 5, 75, 106, n. 7a
DAMDINSÜREN, T. 14, 15, n. 30, 31
DAS, S.C. 1, 10, 14, 17-21, 24, 25, 37,
38, 82, 83, 88, 92, 94, n. 18, 29, 38, 39,
42, 44, 49, 73, 74, 84
dBus pa bio gsal 9, 10, 30, n. 18
dByans can dga' ba'i bio gros (a.k.a. A
kya Yons 'dzin, Bio bzan don grub,
Suddhi arthasiddhi, Don yod rdo rje.)
i, 2, 6, 7, 14-16, 18-20, 24, 33, 37, 56,
57, 82, 83, 88, 89, n. 10, 11, 29, 31, 49,
73, 84, 87, 88
dByans can grub pa'i rdo rje 10, 14,
33, n. 18
DELANCEY, S. 75
dGa' bzi ba rdo rin bSod nams bstan
'dzin dpal 'byor tshe rin 34
dGe legs (of Uah) 59, 60
dGe ye ba Tshul khrims sen ge 30
DlXON, R.M.W. 75, 85, 93, 106, n. 77
dMe Sul chos 'phel 34
108 INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

dNul chu Dharmabhadra 6, 10, 14, 20, JACOBSEN, W.H. 81, 105, n. 71
33, 72, 80, n. 11, 18, 61, 70, en. 10, 12
'Jam mgon kori sprul 2, n. 4
dNul chu yab sras 10, 14-16, n. 18
JÀSCHKE, H.A. 85, n. 78
Don 'grub 10, n. 18
Karma sMon lam 'od zer 32
dPa' bo gtsug lag phren ba 31
KATSURA, S. i, iv, 4, 71, n. 6, en. 2
Du Bois, J. 76, n. 63
KEENAN, E.L. 84, 86, n. 76, 81
DURR, J. 4, 10, 14, 23, 37, 73, 76, n. 6,
18, 28, 47, 62, en. 17 KELSANG, T. and S. Onoda 85, n. 79

FOLEY, W. and R.D. Van Valin 78, n. KUHN, T.S. 3, n. 5

65
LAKATOS, I. 3, n. 5
Go ram(s) pa bSod nams sen ge 11, 30,
n. 22 LALOU, M. 6, 23, 93, n. 9, 47, 89

gSer mdog Pan chen Sâkya mchog ldan LAUFER, B. 9, 11, 12, 30, 76, n. 17, 23,
9, 30
24
gSer tog Bio bzan tshul khrims rgya
mtsho 7, 16, 18, 19, 21-24, 34, 88, n. ICari skya Rol pa'i rdo rje 10, 11, 32
11, 40, 45, 49, 84
Lo Bingfen 27, n. 52
gTin skyes tshogs gsog pa Bio bzan
chos grags 31 Lo Bingfen and An Shixing 71, en. 7, 8
Lo tsâ ba chen po Byan chub rtse mo
gTsos gser khri Bio bzarï rgyal mtshan 30
serï ge 33
LOKESH CHANDRA 29, n. 56
HAHN, M. ii, iii, 84, n. la, 75
ManjuSrï 40, 41
HERFORTH, D. i, 5, 12, 20, 23, 25, 75
et seq., n. 25, 42, 49 MARANTZ, A.P. 76, n. 63

HOPPER, P. and S. Thompson 94, n. MAY, J. 7, 71, n. 13, en. 4

91
mDzod dge Bio bzan dkon mchog 32
INABA, S. 4, 5, 13, 14, 18, 82, 90, 92,
94, n. 6, 8, 27, 39, 73, 92 Mer gen chos rje 34
 INDEX OF PROPER NAMES 109

Mer gen mkhan po Se ra ba Ye ées Pan chen Byams pa glin = Pan chen
rnam rgyal 34 Byams pa glin pa bSod nams rnam
rgyal 31, n. 60
MILLER, R.A. i, 2, 12, 14, 16, 29, 34,
n. 1, 2, 29 Pânini 7, n. 13

MIMAKI, K. 9, 30, n. 16 PARFIONOVICH, Y.M. 94, n. 90

mKhas dban rtog ldan lHag bsam 9 Patanjali iii

mKhas grub rje iv PLANCK, F. 75

mKhyen rab 'od gsal 20, 21, 27, n. 42, Qu Aitang 27, n. 52.
44, 53
Rab 'byams smra ba chos rgyal 9, 10,
MOTO'ORI, Haruniwa 12, n. 25 31, n. 18

MOTO'ORI, Nobunaga 12, n. 25 REGAMEY, C. ii, 23, 93, n. 47, 89

Nag dban bstan dar (a.k.a. bsTan dar RENOU, L. 7, n. 13

Ina ram pa), see A lag sha Nag dban
bstan dar. Ri bo mdans can mKhan rin po ehe 9

Nag dbarï bstan 'dzin (of Khal kha) 59, rNa rgod Nam mkha' sen ge 32, 34
60
rNam glin Pan chen dKon mchog chos
Nag dban mkhas btsun 35 grags 9, 31

Nag dban thub bstan = Nag dban Ye Rwa rgya dGe 'dun Ses rab 33
Ses thub bstan 34
Sa skya Pandita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan
Nägärjuna iv 29

Nam mkha' bzari po 30 SCHUBERT, J. 76

NISHIDA, T. i, n. 1 SEELEY, J. 76, n. 63

'Ol phrug Kar ma rab rgyas 9, 31 SHIMADA, M. 12, n. 25

Pan chen bSod nams grags pa 15 Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi 'byun gnas
(gTsug lag chos kyi snan ba) i, 2, 3-9,
11, 13-25, 27, 32, 33, 37, 38, 61, 71-73,
79, 80, 82, 83, 89, 101, n. 4, 6-8, 15, 21,
110 INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

28, 29, 34-37, 39, 43, 47, 49, 67, 70, 73, VOSTRIKOV, A.I. 31, 32, n. 60
75, 87, en. 2, 10, 13, 14, 17
WATANABE, A. and H. Kitamura 94, n.
SlLVERSTEIN, M. 75 92

sKal bzan 'gyur med 5-7, 20-22, 27, 88, YAMAGUCHI, Z. 2, 4, 84, n. 2, 6, 75
101, n. 8, 11, 44, 52, 54, 84
Yar 'brog pa Rin chen tog 30
sMan lun pa Bio mchog rdo rje 31
YIP, M., J. Maling and R. Jackendoff
sNar than Sarpgha srï = sNar than lo 76, n. 63
tsä ba Samgha £ri 30, n. 59.
Zar Sul tshan 34
sParis lun pa Kun bzan 'jigs med rgya
mtsho 35 ZHANG Liansheng 27, n. 52.

STCHERBATSKY 71, en. 4 ZIMMERMANN, H. 12, n. 24

SZERB, J. iv, 11, n. 22 Zur mkhar ba Bio gros rgyal po 9, 10,

31, n. 18
TACHIKAWA, M. 29, 33, n. 1 on p. 43
Zwa lu ba Chos legs 31
TCHEKHOFF, C. 84, n. 76
Zwa lu lo tsä ba Chos skyon bzan po
Thon mi Sambhota 2, 8-13, 17-20, 24, 9, 10, 11, 30, 42, 43, n. 17, 18
25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 50, 62, 72, 77,
82, n. 2, 17, 39, 41, 53, 64, 73, en. 13

TlLLEMANS, T. i, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17,

24, 72, 73, 76, 77, 86, 88, 93, n. 6,
22-24, 28, 37, 48, 62, 64, 80, 84, 89, en.
13, 17

Tshe ten zabs drun 2, 14, 27, 29, 30,

33, n. 3, 29, 53

Tson kha pa iv, 2, 7, n. 13

U sYi dgon pa 56, 57

Urga corje Nag dban dpal ldan 15

VAN DER KUIJP, L.WJ. 15, 30, n. 31


INDEX OF TERMS
A-prominence (Agent-prominence) ii,
81, 83, 86-91, 101-102, 105, et passim.
absolutive 5, 78, 79, 81, 105, n. 7a, 66
accusative language 76, 78, 80, 85, 90,
91, 105, n. 75, 82
agent 76, 101, 102, 105
agentive P-prominence 81, 86, 87, 105,
n. 82
akarmaka 13, 80, n. 69
antipassive 86, 87, 105, n. 81, 82
âtman 11-13, n. 25
Gtmanepada 11-13, n. 26
bdag sgra 11
bdag ii, iii, iv, 1, 2-15, 17-25, 28, 32, 40,
72, 73, 80, 81, 83, 85, 87-91, 93, 101,
102, n. 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 26,
28, 29, 37, 38, 45-47, 49, 75, 84, 87, 89,
en. 13, 14, 17
bdag dan 'brel ba'i las 40, 102
Mes gnen = dge ba'i bses gnen, i.e. Skt.
kalyänamitra 56
bsod nams = Skt. punya 68
bujiwu dongci 80, n. 69
bu chen 30, n. 58
Ill
bya ba 4, 6-11, 13, 15-18, 20-22, 24,
25, 28, 31, 40, 42, 44, 54, 62, 64, 71-73,
83, 101, 102, n. 11, 13-15, 18, 21, 36,
37, 43-46, 49, 55, 74, en. 2, 12, 17
bya ba'i las 6-8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24,
42, 54, 62, 72, 73, 83, 101, 102, 103, n.
43, 44, 49, 74, en. 9, 12, 17
bya ba'i tshig 15, 20, 21, 64, n. 44
bya ba'iyul 4, 7, 8, 17, 25, 40, 62, 101,
102, n. 11, 14, 36, 49
bya ba('i) yul la yodpa'i bya ba 40, 101
bya ba'i yul la yod pa'i las 8, 101, n.
14
bya byed dan 'brel ba 42
bya byed las gsum iii, iv, 7, 14, 15, 32,
37, 40, 101, 103, n. 11, 13, 29
bya byed sogs dan dnos su ma 'brel ba
52
bya byed tha dad pa 4, 7, 102
bya byed tha mi dad pa 4, 5, 8, 102, n.
6-8
bya 'gyur ma 'ons pa'i las 22, n. 45, 46
bya rgyu'i las 21, 22, n. 45, 46
bya tshig 5, 20, 21, 27, 28, n. 8, 42, 44,
53, 55
bya tshig gzan dban can 27
112 INDEX OF TERMS
bya tshig rah dban can 27
byed bzin paï las 21, 22, n. 45, 46
byed med las tshig 93, 102, n. 89
byed las ma 'ons pa 21, 23, 44, 89, n.
87
byed pa 4, 6, 8, 44, 54, 71, 101, 102, n.
11, en. 2.
byed pa po iii, 4-9, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25,
40, 54, 62, 66, 68, 73, 79, 101, 102, n. 6,
8, 11, 13-15, 37, 45, 46, 49, en. 17
byed pa po gtso bo 6, 8, 40, 102
byed pa po gzan 4, 5, 68, 73, n. 6, 8, en.
17
byed pa po gzan dan dnos su 'brel ba
4, 7, 17, 66, 79, 102, n. 37
byed pa po gzan dan dnos su ma 'brel
ba 4, 8, 66, 102
byed pa po la yod pa 7 bya ba iii, 40, 101
byed pa po la yod pa 7 las 8, 22, 24,
102, n. 14, 45, 46, 49
byed pa po phal ba 6, 8, 40, 102
byedpa'i las 6-8, 13, 15, 20-25, 40, 54,
62, 72, 101, 102, 103, n. 43-47, 49, en.
12
byedpa'i tshig 15, 19, 64
byedpo 8, 9, n. 15
byed sgra 5, 27, 102
byed tshig 20, 21, n. 42
'byun ba mams 68, 73, en. 15
da drag 46, 71, en. 8
da Ita ba 7, 17, 22, 40, 44, 72, 82, n.
11, 37, 45, 73, en. 12
da Ita ba'i las 22, n. 45
'das pa 10, 18, 20, 24, 25, 40, 82, 83,
92, n. 18, 38, 42, 49, 73, 74
dbu ma 2
dnos po 4-10, 17, 22, 25, 62, 101, n. 8,
11, 18, 36, 37, 45, 49
dnos su 68
dus 9, 10, 17, 18, 25, 27, 37, 72, 83, 89,
n. 18, 37, 38, 49, 53, 74, 75, 87, en. 12
ergative, ergativity 5, 75 et seq., 78,
105, 106, n. 7a
ergative language(s) ii, 75-80, 84-86, 91,
106, n. 7a, n. 63, 71, 82
ergative split 93 et seq.
gunakartr 6, 97, 102, n. 10
gzan ii, iii, iv, 1-15, 17-25, 27, 28, 32,
37, 40, 42, 62, 66, 68, 72, 73, 79-81, 83,
88, 89, 91, 101, 102, n. 4, 6-8, 11, 14,
15, 18, 20, 21 28, 29, 36-39, 45-47, 49,
74, 75, 84, 87, en. 9, 13, 14, 17
gzan dun 'brel ba'i las 42, 101
imperfective 82, 92, n. 73
 INDEX OF TERMS 113

jidöshi 12, n. 25 no bo gcig 20

jiwu dongci 80, n. 69 normal science 2

katyänamitra 56 P-prominence (Patient-prominence) iii,

81, 83, S6y 87-91, 102, 106 et passim.
karana 6, 97, 101
para 12-13, n. 25
karman iii, iv, 7, 97, 103, n. 13
parasmaipada 11-13
karmasthakriya iii
patient 77, 79, 81, 90, 94, 106, n. 66
fazrfr iii, iv, 7, 97, 101, 102, n. 13
perfective 79, 82, 84, 85, 92, 93, n. 73
kartrsthakriya iii
periphrastic 82, 87-91, n. 73
kriyâ iii, iv, 7, 71, 97, 101, n. 13, en. 2
pradhänakartr 6, 102, n. 10
las 1, 4-9, 11, 13-25, 27, 32, 37, 40, 42,
54, 62, 66, 71-73, 79, 83, 88, 89, 93, pratyaya 73, en. 15
101-103, n. 7, 8, 11, 13-15, 21, 29, 37,
42-47, 49, 53, 74, 84, 87, 89, en. 2, 9, punya 68
12, 17
rah bzin gyis 68
las kyi tshig 8, 9, 21, n. 15, 44
rtsa ba 11
las tshig 7, 8, 21, 23, 27, 93, 102, n. 44,
47, 53, 89 rtsol ba iii, 6, 40, 102

lhag ma 17 sakarmaka 80, n. 69

ma 'onspa 7, 16, 18, 20-23, 40, 44, 72, sdom tshig 15

82, 89, 92, n. 11, 33, 38, 43, 45, 46, 73,
87, en. 12 sed mtshuns pa 20

madhyamaka, iv, 2 skad gsar bead 46, 71, en. 7

min 9-11, 21, 33, n. 18, 21, 44, 61 subject 76, 91, n. 65 et passim

min rkyan 10, 11, n. 21 subject case 76, 78, 90

fie bar len pa 7 phun po = Skt. upädäna svabhäva iv

skandha 42, 71, en. 4
114 INDEX OF TERMS

tadöshi 12, n. 25

theme 77, 79, 94, 106, n. 66

tshad ma 2

tshig grogs 15, 17, n. 37

upâdâna skandha 42, 71, en. 4

word-order 83-88, n. 75, 80-82

yan 'jug 44

yul 4, 7, 8, 17, 22, 25, 32, 33, 40, 62,

101, 102, n. 11, 14, 36, 45, 46, 49

zar las 19

zero anaphora 81, 87, 106, n. 72, 82

IMPRESSUM

Verleger: A r b e i t s k r e i s für T i b e t i s c h e u n d Buddhistische Studien

Maria T h e r e s i e n - S t r a ß e 3/4/26, 1090 Wien, Austria

H e r a u s g e b e r und für den I n h a l t v e r a n t w o r t l i c h :

Prof. E r n s t S t e i n k e l l n e r , R e i s n e r s t r a ß e 6, 1030 Wien

Druck: E r n s t Becvar Ges.m.b.H., Lichtgasse 10, 1150 Wien

 WIENER STUDIEN ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

1: Ernst Steinkellner, Verse-ïndex of DharmakïrtiJs Works (Tibetan Versions).

1977. XIV, 225 p. OS 200,-
2: Lobsang Dargyay, Die Legende von den Sieben Prinzessinnen (Saptakumärikä-
Avadäna). In der poetischen Fassung von Guhyadatta/Gopadatta aufgrund der
tibetischen Übersetzung herausgegeben, übersetzt und bearbeitet. 1978. X, 162
p. OS 200,-
3: Piotr Klafkowski, The Secret Deliverance of the Sixth Dalai Lama, as narrated
by Dharmatàla. Edited from the Hor Chos-'byuri and translated into English,
with an introduction and comments. 1979. VI, 93 p. OS 200,-
4: Gudrun Bühnemann, Der Allwissende Buddha. Ein Beweis und seine Probleme.
Ratnakîrtïs Sarvajnasiddhi. 1980. L, 175 p. OS 200,-
5: Helmut Tauscher, Candrakirti - Madhyamakävatärah undMadhyamakävatärabhä-
syam (Kapitel VI, Vers 166-226). 1981. XXVII, 214 p. OS 200,-
6: Lobsang Dargyay, Gun than dKon mchog bsTan pa'i sgron me'i rNam thar mdor
bsdus béugs. - A Concise Biography of Gun than dKon mchog bsTan pa*i sgron
me. 1981. VI, 45 p. OS 65,-
7: Ernst Steinkellner (Ed.), Gun than dKon mchog bsTan pa*i sgron me'i rNam thar
sgo gsum gyi mam béagpa Legs bead rgya mtsho'i rba rlabs. 1981.20p. OS 35, -
8: Gudrun Bühnemann, Jitäri: Kleine Texte. [Description of a manuscript from the
Bihar Research Society with 10 small texts of Jitäri, and the edition of the
following texts in Sanskrit: Vedäprämänyasiddhi, Sarvajnasiddhi, Nairätmya-
siddhi, Jâtinirâkrti, *ïsvaravâdimataparïksâ.] 1982. 2 1985. 48 p. OS 100,-
9: Josef Kolmaé, Ferdinand Stoliczka (1839-1874): The Life and Work of the Czech
Explorer in India and High Asia. 1982. XI, 58 p. OS 80,-
10: E. Steinkellner / H. Tauscher (Ed.), Contributions on Tibetan Language,
History and Culture. Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Symposium held at
Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, vol.1. 1983. XX, 479 p.OS 560,-
11: E. Steinkellner / H. Tauscher (Ed.), Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist
Religion and Philosophy. Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Symposium held at
Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, vol.2. 1983. XII, 334 pOS 270,-
12: Tilman Vetter, Der Buddha und seine Lehre in Dharmaklrtis Pramänavärttika.
Der Abschnitt über den Buddha und die vier Edlen Wahrheiten im Pramäna-
siddhi-KapiteL Eingeleitet, ediert und übersetzt. 1984. 1983 p. OS 230,-
13: Andrâs Röna-Tas, Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets.
1985. 397 p. OS 490,-
14: Michael Aris, Sources for the History of Bhutan. 1986. 203 p. OS 250,-
15: Ernst Steinkellner, Dharmottaras Paralokasiddhi. Nachweis der Wiedergeburt,
zugleich eine Widerlegung materialistischer Thesen zur Natur der Geistigkeit.
Tibetischer Text kritisch herausgegeben und übersetzt. 1986. 57 p.OS 80,-
16: Per K, Sorensen, Candrakirti - Trisaranasaptati. The Septuagint on the Three
Refuges. Edited, translated and annotated. 1986. 89 p. OS 120,-
17: David P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section HI). Sa-skya
Pandita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramèna and Philosophical Debate.
2 vols., 1987. 619 p. OS 620,-
18: Michael Torsten Much, A Visit to Rahula Sähkrtyäyana's Collection of
Negatives at the Bihar Research Society: Texts from the Buddhist Epistemo-
logical School. 1988. 35 p. OS 52,-
19: Andrâs Rôna-Tas, Mongolisches Lesebuch. Lesestücke in Uigur-Mongolischer
Schrift mit grammatikalischen Bemerkungen. 1988. 65 p. OS 100,-
20: Victor Van Bijlert, Epistemology and Spiritual Authority. The Development of
Epistemology and Logic in the Old Nyäya and the Buddhist School of Episte-
mology with an Annotated Translation of DharmakïrtVs Pramänavärttika H
(Pramänasiddhi) vv. 1-7. 1989. XIII, 191 p. ' OS 230,-