Abstract
This paper studies the Tangut translation of Dharmakīrti’s Nyāyabindu. The Tangut translation of the treatise from the Tibetan text provides opportunities for us to pursue two objectives: it is a source that allows us to probe into the history of the rise of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism in the Tangut State; it also enables us to make sense of the Tangut Buddhist language used to translate Tibetan Buddhist doctrinal and philosophical texts. The paper argues that the Tangut translation was based on the Tibetan version, either translated or revised in the late eleventh century by Rngog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab (ca. 1059–1109). The translation embodies an effort by the Tibetans to introduce a monastic curriculum of presumably Gsang phu ne’u thog monastery in the Tangut State around the twelfth century. A part of the paper is a textual-critical study of the Tangut translation and the Tibetan original, which reveals certain connections between the Tangut and Tibetan Buddhist scholastic languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
See Sect. 2 for a discussion of why it is certain that the Tangut text was a translation from Tibetan, not Sanskrit.
“A particular product…” is my translation of Nishida’s Chinese translation of the Tangut title. Nishida’s Chinese translation represents a typical “character-to-character” translation of Tangut. It makes little sense even in Chinese because it ignores the internal logic of the Tangut Buddhist language used to translate Tibetan.
For example, in Tang. 768, a Tangut translation of a Tibetan version of the Heart Sutra,
is used to translate rab tu zhi bar byed (Nie, 2005, pp. 27–28).For readers who are not familiar with the format of Tangut manuscripts, it might be worth adding here a few words. Tangut manuscripts were written in general, like Chinese, vertically from right to left on scrolls. Further, scrolls usually consist of several papers since one paper is not long enough. These papers were often glued together to make a long scroll to accommodate as many characters as possible. Therefore, scrolls extending several meters are not uncommon. However, there is a problem here in the case of the Nyāyabindu. See the following discussion.
The fragment has been published in facsimile in YCMS (p. 352). A frame of this fragment is also available on the International Dunhuang Project website.
Having several translations of one work is not uncommon for the Tanguts. For example, there are two known Tangut translations of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā from Tibetan (Duan, 2014, pp. 83–94).
“Textual tradition” here is defined as a group of different redactorial products from the same Work (the theoretical “zero-point” of a product of an author/translator/editor) transmitted stemmatically throughout history. An earlier or later version of a text is thus not viewed as from a different textual tradition if they are from the same Work.
A fundamental problem with Gaimaben’s study, however, is that he concluded (p. 95) that the manuscript was made after 1312, which is virtually impossible in every aspect.
For discussions on this work, see Hugon (2013). The work has two available versions at present: a manuscript (Rngog1) and a retyped version (Rngog2).
My thanks to an anonymous reviewer of this paper for pointing out this point and identifying these quotations. These quotations include the parts or wholes of I.1, I.9, I.12–17, and I.21 of the Nyāyabindu.
I.12, 13, 15 all appear twice in Rngog lo tsā ba’s work. Their first appearances (Rngog1, f.11b1, 2, 4; Rngog2, p. 27.14–15, 17–18, p.28.1) completely match the canonical version. Their second appearances (Rngog1, f.11b5, 7, 8; Rngog2, p. 28.7, 13–14, 19–20) all have small variants. I.12 ends with do instead of de; I.13 lacks the plural marker dag between nye ba and las; I.15 is without kho na. However, it is better to accredit their first appearances because Rngog lo tsā ba cites clearly the source as rtsa ba, “basic text,” for their first appearances. Further, the readings in Rngog1 and Rngog2 are the same if we ignore the distinct orthographical features in Rngog1.
An example here is Phag mo gru pa Rdo rje rgyal po (1110–1170), a student of Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109–1169).
For Phya pa’s works and their position in Tibetan Buddhist intellectual history, see Hugon and Stoltz (2019).
Personal communication, November 2020.
Namely #826, #861, #863, and #5022. See Hui and Duan (2014, pp. 212–213).
Solonin (2015b, p. 447, and note 3 on the same page) briefly discusses this work and regards the identification of this work proposed in Nishida (1977, p. 45) as “highly probable.” However, Nishida’s identification, which takes this work as the translation of Jinamitra’s Nyāyabindupiṇḍārtha, is incorrect. It is clear that the work is a Tibetan indigenous product because of the Tibetan personal names cited, and its length significantly exceeds that of the Nyāyabindupiṇḍārtha.
is in general a bound morpheme as it is usually a quotative marker. However, in some cases, it can serve as a verb meaning “to say,” thus turning it into a free morpheme.
, which translates don dam pa, is a “character-to-character” translation of Chinese 勝義. Further,
(<Chin. 勝義諦) translates don dam bden pa (Solonin & Liu, 2017, p. 134).nus pa] NP; mtshan nyid CD.
means “except that,” which is slightly different from the gzhan, “others” here. While gzhan is directly addresses the subject, 
implies it indirectly.The usual combination of the two characters
, which translates de nyid, is separated here to form the phrase 
, thus indicating the noun phrase in between is qualifying 
.
translates here ngo bo kho na. Kho na is rendered by 
, which is different from the 
that normally renders it.
, meaning “true” or “real,” translates nyid here. It is more of a translation of the meaning rather than the morpheme.A major difference occurs in this line between the Tibetan text and the Tangut translation. The Tibetan rang gi don gyi rjes su dpag par bya ba treats “inference for oneself” as one segment. However, the Tangut has merely
, “for the benefit of oneself,” as the subject and puts 
, “the inferred object,” as a separate noun phrase. Having compared with the Sanskrit original tatra svārthaṃ trirūpāl liṅgād yad anumeye jñānaṃ tad anumānam, it seems the Tangut translation has a better understanding. It is very likely that the Tibetan text originally had ni instead gyi after rang gi don. Then, the ni was mistakenly spelled as gyi during the editorial process. Vinītadeva’s commentary, which has rang gi don ni rjes su dpag par (’Dul ’grel, p. 21), can greatly substantiate this assumption.The Tanguts distinguish
from 
, though both translate Tibetan nges pa. While the latter means “certain” or “definite” (Li, 2012, p. 342), the former means “true” or “real” (Li, 2012, p. 126). That the Tangut translation varies means the Tibetan word was understood differently by the Tanguts in different contexts. It seems, too, that the two different understandings of the term nges pa can be somehow mapped on the two main uses of the term in Phya pa’s philosophical system (Hugon & Stoltz, 2019, pp. 101–103). While 
seems to represent the “determinate awareness” that excludes doubts (the first use of phya pa), 
seems to translate the meaning “ascertain” (the second use of Phya pa).’grub pa yang] NP; sgrub kyang CD.
Unlike the Tibetan text but similar to the Sanskrit dvandva compound deśakālasvabhāva, these three items in the Tangut translation—“place,” “time,” “nature”—are not joined by conjunctions.
means “not having seen,” which is expressed differently from the Tibetan log, “mistaken.”kyis] NP; kyi CD.
The Tanguts distinguish in pramāṇa texts a cause from a logical reason, just as the Tibetans.
is used strictly for translating rgyu (kāraṇa), “cause.” In Chinese pramāṇa texts, however, 因 is used to translate both “cause” and “logical reason.”
sjɨ2 śja1 pja1 is a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit śiṃśapā, which is rendered by Tibetan as shing sha pa.’gal bas] NP; ’gal ba CD.
] T2; 
T1.rgyu] NP; rgyu’i CD.
] T2; 
T1.
, which means “extreme heat,” renders Tibetan gdung ba here.dag] NP; CD om.
] T2; 
T1.
, which literally means “based on what is walked through,” here translates brgyud pa’i sgo nas. The word order is altered.
, “the feature in which something is absent,” cannot match the corresponding Tibetan phrase in any Tibetan canonical edition. While NP have rjes su dpag pa la sogs pa’i mtshan nyid, CD have rjes su dpag pa’i mtshan nyid. No edition gives the meaning “absence” here. Based on the Sanskrit nivṛttilakṣaṇā, we can confirm the Tangut text has the right translation. Having compared this line with II.48, we can deduce that 
translates Tibetan log. Therefore, the original Tibetan translation might be log pa’i mtshan nyid. This accounts for the phrase in NP, which might be a misreading of log pa’i mtshan nyid. This assumption is further confirmed by the Tibetan translation of Vinītadeva’s commentary, which has log pa’i mtshan nyid in this line (’Dul grel, p. 43).pa log pa’i] ’Dul grel; pa la sogs pa’i NP; pa’i CD.
thigs] NP; thig CD.
] T1; 
T2.
has the meanings “to select,” “to choose” (Li, 2012, p. 684). This led ECMS to translate the title of the third chapter in #832 as “The Chapter for the Purpose of Selection” (抉擇利量品). In fact, 
tsji̱r1 is likely a phonetic loan of 
tsjij1, “other.” For phonetic loans in Tangut, see Sun Y. (2015).
] T2; 
T1. 
, *brjod pa[’i] sgra, “the term meaning expressing…”
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.bya ba] NP; bya ba de CD.
byed pa’i] NP; bya ba’i CD.
pa] NP; pa’o CD.
The Tangut translation swapped the positions of the two phrases brtsal ma thag tu byung ba and rkyen gyi bye brag gis tha dad pa can nyid.
The Tibetan text has the finite verb blta bar bya here, which translates the Sanskrit draṣṭavyāḥ, “one should observe.” However, the Tangut text uses
to translate the verb, which means “one should know.”rang gi] NP; rang gi ngo bo CD.
] T1; 
T2.
and 
are both used to translate gtan tshigs (hetu), the “logical reason.” The specific difference between the two characters remains unclear. They seem to be used interchangeably at least in this text.
] T1; 
T2.na] NP; na ni CD.
yod] NP; yod pa CD.
There is a major difference between the Tibetan original and the Tangut translation here. While the Tibetan text faithfully rendered the Sanskrit kāraṇe sādhye as rgyu bsgrub par bya ba la, the Tangut does not translate the bsgrub par bya ba into
, “subject to be proved,” as we expect. Instead, the text has 
, “the proofing agent,” which normally translates Tibetan sgrub pa and Sanskrit sādhana. But the Tangut text can still make sense in another way. A translation of 
would then be “with respect to the cause, the proofing agent is expressed as the logical reason, which is the result.” Despite the different expression, the meaning of the clause stays more or less the same.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T2; 
T1.la] NP; CD om.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2. 
and 
are synonyms, they can both mean “face,” “appearance.” In particular, ˑjow2 is a Chinese loan word of 容 rong. The expression 
here thus seems to also echo the Chinese expression 不容 bu rong, “to not allow.” However, “to not allow” is bit strong here. It is better for us to understand the expression as meaning “to be unnecessary.”
] T2; 
T1.ma] NP; CD om.
] T2; 
T1.The Tanguts clearly distinguish
from 
in philosophical texts, though both characters may be translated as “desire” (Li, 2012, pp. 404, 582) and correspond Tibetan ’dod. While the latter means a wish, the former means a [philosophical] claim.bsal bas] NP; bstsal bar CD.
here is different from 
, the normal translation of ’dod pa. Although we can regard 
as a translation of ’dod pa, the particle 
cannot accommodate the la don particle -r well in this context. 
appears to be a Chinese-inspired expression, 之謂, “to be said to be.”It seems better to supply here
after 
. T1 did originally write 
. However, it was later painted over.nar] NP; na CD.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2; T1 om.The function of particle
in this text is not entirely clear. We may, in a loose sense, take the combination 
as a translation of the Tibetan zin, which indicates an established statement. The same construction with the same function also appears in the Tangut translation of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā (Duan, 2014, p. 281). It seems in these cases 
is used to form the subjunctive mood, which implies a state that is not the reality.ni] NP; na CD.
ni] NP; CD om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.The fact that “pot” is used in this passage as an example in both the Tangut translation and the Tibetan canonical translation of the Nyāyabindu bespeaks their closer relationship to Vinītadeva’s commentary (Dul ’grel, p. 59) than to Dharmottara’s, which uses “sound” (śabda) as an example here. For details see section 3.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; 
T1.bya ba de la] NP; smras pa de las CD.
ka la] NP; las CD.
] T2; 
T1.bam] NP; pa’am CD.
na] NP; nas CD.
, which literally means “arguing for numbers,” is a “character-to-character” translation of Chinese 數論, Sāṃkhya.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1. Why the Tangut translation uses 
instead of the usual 
to translate Tibetan dmigs in this line and in III.70 is unclear. In any case we cannot rule out the possibility that the Tangut translator originally saw mthong instead of dmigs in these places, as somehow suggested by the 
and mthong in III.71 and III.114.
] T1; T2 om.
, which generally means “to change,” is used here to translate ldog. This translation is different from the usual rendering 
. However, since the ldog here means specifically “be opposite to,” the rendering is understandable. According to Li (2012, p. 696), can also mean “be opposite to,” thus conforming the meaning here.nyid] NP; nyid gnyis CD.
mi] NP; CD om.
The Tangut translation expresses this clause in a slightly different way from the Tibetan. The Tibetan text literally means “things such as desire and things such as language are not established as the nature of cause and effect.” The Tangut translation simply uses the copula
to express the former is not the latter. This is partly because using the copula sounds more natural in Tangut.tshig] NP; tshigs CD.
gnyis] NP; gnyis kyi CD.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; T2 om.byed] NP; byed pa nyid CD.
The expression of the Tangut text is slightly different from the Tibetan text. While the Tibetan means “that is not different from these two,” the Tangut means “that is not something other than these two.”
] T1; 
T2.bu’o] NP; bu ste CD.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; 
? T1.na] NP; pa ni CD.
gsum po] NP; gsum po de CD.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; T2 om.
] T1; T2 om. It seems better, however, to have 
here instead of 
.bu dang] NP; bu’am CD.
’gal ba] NP; ’gal ba mi ’khrul pa can CD.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.cig car du] NP; gcig pur CD.
na] NP; la CD.
mkha’] NP; mkha’ la sogs pa CD.
na gnas] NP; CD om.
In contrast to the case in III.112, here,
seems to better accord the rang bzhin rather than 
.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T1T3; 
T2.kyis] NP; CD om.
] T1T3; 
T2.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.
, which normally translates rgyu, is used here to translate yan lag (avayava). Apart from the meaning “cause,” another important meaning of 
is “causal factor” (Li, 2012, p. 399). 
applies to yan lag in this sense.
] T1; 
T2; 
T3. An important observation here is that T1 originally wrote 
just as T3 did. But it was later corrected.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; 
T2T3.
] T1; 
T2T3.ni] NP; kyi CD.
mkha’] NP; mkha’ dag CD.
] T1T2. T3 om.dang] NP; dag CD.
] T2; T1T3 om.
] T1T3; 
T2.
, “Gray-yellow,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan ser skya, “Kapila.” Interestingly, the positions of the two morphemes are swapped.
] T1T2; 
T3. T1 originally had 
but was later painted over.
, “Flock-supreme,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan khyu mchog, “Ṛṣabha.”
, “Tree-design,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan sdong ris, “Vardhamāṇa.”la] NP; las CD.
pa] NP; pa nyid CD.
] T1T2; T3 om.
pho1 lo1 mẽ1. is a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit brahmaṇa. It derived likely from Chinese 婆羅門 po luo men
as mẽ1 is a Chinese loanword of 門 men. The first two characters in the Tangut word are not consistent across Tangut Buddhist translations. For example, the phonetic transcription is rendered as 
bə1 rar1 mẽ1 in the Tangut translation of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā (Duan, 2014, p. 326).
] T1T3; 
T2. Both characters are pronounced as mja1. 
gji̱w1 tã1 mja1 is, like the Tibetan gau ta ma, a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit gautama.
] T1T3; 
T2.ze] NP; zes CD.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T1T2; 
T3.The order of the components of this sentence is slightly altered.
, which means “the example of dissimilar property,” is put at the end of the quotation.phyir] NP; CD om.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T3; T1T2 om. It seems T1 originally had 
but it was later painted over.
] T1; T2T3 om.
] T2T3; T1 om.bsgrub pa’i skyon] NP; bsgrub pa’i rkyen C; sgrub pa’i rkyen D.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T2; 
T3.
] T1T3; T2 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T3; T2 om.
] T2; 
T3; T1 om. 
and 
both mean “proofread.” However, while 
is commonly seen in colophons of xylographs of Tangut Buddhist texts translated from Chinese, 
no doubt has a Tibetan origin since the second character
, which normally means “pure,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of the Tibetan dag, which seems to be a part of zhu dag in this context.This line seems to represent the title of the whole text, but the last character
is redundant.For a discussion of this line, see Sect. 2.
is used to translate rab tu zhi bar byed (Nie, 
is in general a bound morpheme as it is usually a quotative marker. However, in some cases, it can serve as a verb meaning “to say,” thus turning it into a free morpheme.
, which translates don dam pa, is a “character-to-character” translation of Chinese 勝義. Further,
(<Chin. 勝義諦) translates don dam bden pa (Solonin & Liu, 
means “except that,” which is slightly different from the gzhan, “others” here. While gzhan is directly addresses the subject, 
implies it indirectly.
, which translates de nyid, is separated here to form the phrase 
, thus indicating the noun phrase in between is qualifying 
.
translates here ngo bo kho na. Kho na is rendered by 
, which is different from the 
that normally renders it.
, meaning “true” or “real,” translates nyid here. It is more of a translation of the meaning rather than the morpheme.
, “for the benefit of oneself,” as the subject and puts 
, “the inferred object,” as a separate noun phrase. Having compared with the Sanskrit original tatra svārthaṃ trirūpāl liṅgād yad anumeye jñānaṃ tad anumānam, it seems the Tangut translation has a better understanding. It is very likely that the Tibetan text originally had ni instead gyi after rang gi don. Then, the ni was mistakenly spelled as gyi during the editorial process. Vinītadeva’s commentary, which has rang gi don ni rjes su dpag par (’Dul ’grel, p. 21), can greatly substantiate this assumption.
from 
, though both translate Tibetan nges pa. While the latter means “certain” or “definite” (Li, 
seems to represent the “determinate awareness” that excludes doubts (the first use of phya pa), 
seems to translate the meaning “ascertain” (the second use of Phya pa).
means “not having seen,” which is expressed differently from the Tibetan log, “mistaken.”
is used strictly for translating rgyu (kāraṇa), “cause.” In Chinese pramāṇa texts, however, 因 is used to translate both “cause” and “logical reason.”
sjɨ2 śja1 pja1 is a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit śiṃśapā, which is rendered by Tibetan as shing sha pa.
] T2; 
T1.
] T2; 
T1.
, which means “extreme heat,” renders Tibetan gdung ba here.
] T2; 
T1.
, which literally means “based on what is walked through,” here translates brgyud pa’i sgo nas. The word order is altered.
, “the feature in which something is absent,” cannot match the corresponding Tibetan phrase in any Tibetan canonical edition. While NP have rjes su dpag pa la sogs pa’i mtshan nyid, CD have rjes su dpag pa’i mtshan nyid. No edition gives the meaning “absence” here. Based on the Sanskrit nivṛttilakṣaṇā, we can confirm the Tangut text has the right translation. Having compared this line with II.48, we can deduce that 
translates Tibetan log. Therefore, the original Tibetan translation might be log pa’i mtshan nyid. This accounts for the phrase in NP, which might be a misreading of log pa’i mtshan nyid. This assumption is further confirmed by the Tibetan translation of Vinītadeva’s commentary, which has log pa’i mtshan nyid in this line (’Dul grel, p. 43).
] T1; 
T2.
has the meanings “to select,” “to choose” (Li, 
tsji̱r1 is likely a phonetic loan of 
tsjij1, “other.” For phonetic loans in Tangut, see Sun Y. (
] T2; 
T1. 
, *brjod pa[’i] sgra, “the term meaning expressing…”
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
to translate the verb, which means “one should know.”
] T1; 
T2.
and 
are both used to translate gtan tshigs (hetu), the “logical reason.” The specific difference between the two characters remains unclear. They seem to be used interchangeably at least in this text.
] T1; 
T2.
, “subject to be proved,” as we expect. Instead, the text has 
, “the proofing agent,” which normally translates Tibetan sgrub pa and Sanskrit sādhana. But the Tangut text can still make sense in another way. A translation of 
would then be “with respect to the cause, the proofing agent is expressed as the logical reason, which is the result.” Despite the different expression, the meaning of the clause stays more or less the same.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2. 
and 
are synonyms, they can both mean “face,” “appearance.” In particular, ˑjow2 is a Chinese loan word of 容 rong. The expression 
here thus seems to also echo the Chinese expression 不容 bu rong, “to not allow.” However, “to not allow” is bit strong here. It is better for us to understand the expression as meaning “to be unnecessary.”
] T2; 
T1.
] T2; 
T1.
from 
in philosophical texts, though both characters may be translated as “desire” (Li, 
here is different from 
, the normal translation of ’dod pa. Although we can regard 
as a translation of ’dod pa, the particle 
cannot accommodate the la don particle -r well in this context. 
appears to be a Chinese-inspired expression, 之謂, “to be said to be.”
after 
. T1 did originally write 
. However, it was later painted over.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2; T1 om.
in this text is not entirely clear. We may, in a loose sense, take the combination 
as a translation of the Tibetan zin, which indicates an established statement. The same construction with the same function also appears in the Tangut translation of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā (Duan, 
is used to form the subjunctive mood, which implies a state that is not the reality.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; 
T1.
] T2; 
T1.
, which literally means “arguing for numbers,” is a “character-to-character” translation of Chinese 數論, Sāṃkhya.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; T1 om.
] T2; 
T1. Why the Tangut translation uses 
instead of the usual 
to translate Tibetan dmigs in this line and in III.70 is unclear. In any case we cannot rule out the possibility that the Tangut translator originally saw mthong instead of dmigs in these places, as somehow suggested by the 
and mthong in III.71 and III.114.
] T1; T2 om.
, which generally means “to change,” is used here to translate ldog. This translation is different from the usual rendering 
. However, since the ldog here means specifically “be opposite to,” the rendering is understandable. According to Li (
to express the former is not the latter. This is partly because using the copula sounds more natural in Tangut.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; T2 om.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; 
T2.
] T2; 
? T1.
] T2; 
T1.
] T1; T2 om.
] T1; T2 om. It seems better, however, to have 
here instead of 
.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; T2 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.
seems to better accord the rang bzhin rather than 
.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T1T3; 
T2.
] T1T3; 
T2.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.
, which normally translates rgyu, is used here to translate yan lag (avayava). Apart from the meaning “cause,” another important meaning of 
is “causal factor” (Li, 
applies to yan lag in this sense.
] T1; 
T2; 
T3. An important observation here is that T1 originally wrote 
just as T3 did. But it was later corrected.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T1; 
T2.
] T1; 
T2T3.
] T1; 
T2T3.
] T1T2. T3 om.
] T2; T1T3 om.
] T1T3; 
T2.
, “Gray-yellow,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan ser skya, “Kapila.” Interestingly, the positions of the two morphemes are swapped.
] T1T2; 
T3. T1 originally had 
but was later painted over.
, “Flock-supreme,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan khyu mchog, “Ṛṣabha.”
, “Tree-design,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of Tibetan sdong ris, “Vardhamāṇa.”
] T1T2; T3 om.
pho1 lo1 mẽ1. is a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit brahmaṇa. It derived likely from Chinese 婆羅門 po luo men
as mẽ1 is a Chinese loanword of 門 men. The first two characters in the Tangut word are not consistent across Tangut Buddhist translations. For example, the phonetic transcription is rendered as 
bə1 rar1 mẽ1 in the Tangut translation of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā (Duan, 
] T1T3; 
T2. Both characters are pronounced as mja1. 
gji̱w1 tã1 mja1 is, like the Tibetan gau ta ma, a phonetic transcription of Sanskrit gautama.
] T1T3; 
T2.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T2; T3 om.
] T1T2; 
T3.
, which means “the example of dissimilar property,” is put at the end of the quotation.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T3; T1T2 om. It seems T1 originally had 
but it was later painted over.
] T1; T2T3 om.
] T2T3; T1 om.
] T1T2; 
T3.
] T2; 
T3.
] T1T3; T2 om.
] T2T3; 
T1.
] T1T3; T2 om.
] T2; 
T3; T1 om. 
and 
both mean “proofread.” However, while 
is commonly seen in colophons of xylographs of Tangut Buddhist texts translated from Chinese, 
no doubt has a Tibetan origin since the second character
, which normally means “pure,” is a “morpheme-to-morpheme” translation of the Tibetan dag, which seems to be a part of zhu dag in this context.
is redundant.References
Bibliographic Abbreviations
Chos ’grel Slob dpon Chos mchog. Rigs pa’i thigs pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa. In Dpe bsdur ma (Vol. 105, pp. 102–257).
’Dul ’grel Slob dpon ’Dul ba’i lha. Rigs pa’i thigs pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa. In Dpe bsdur ma (Vol. 105, pp. 3–101).
Dpe bsdur ma Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig zhib ’jug lte gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang. (Ed.). Bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma. 1994–2008: Krung go’i bod rig pa’i dpe skrun khang.
ECMS Eluosi kexueyuan dongfang yanjiusuo Sheng Bidebao fen suo, Zhongguo she hui ke xue yuan min zu yan jiu suo, & Shanghai guji chubanshe. (Eds.). Eluosi kexueyuan dongfang yanjiusuo Sheng Bidebao fen suo cang Heishuicheng wenxian 俄羅斯科學院東方研究所聖彼得堡分所藏黑水城文獻 [Khara-Khoto manuscripts collected in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences] (Vol. 28). 2019: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
NBDT Malvania, D. (Ed.). Paṇḍita Durveka Miśra’s “Dharmottarapradīpa” (2nd ed.). 2005: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna. (Reprinted from the 1971 edition)
NBVT Dwarikadas Shastri, S. (Ed.). “Nyāyabindu” of Acharya Dharmakirtti with the commentaries by Arya Vinitadeva & Dharmottara & “Dharmottar-Tika-Tippani.” 1994: Bauddha Bharati.
Rigs thigs Rigs pa’i thigs pa zhes bya ba’i rab tu byed pa. In Dpe bsdur ma (Vol. 97, pp. 812–831).
Rngog1 Rngog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab. Concise Guide to the Nyāyabinduṭīkā [Entitled Mtshan nyid kyi chos in the Tibetan text]. In Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang. (Ed.). Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs thengs dang po (Vol. 1, pp. 369–409 [42 folios]). 2006: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
Rngog2 Rngog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab. Concise Guide to the Nyāyabinduṭīkā [Entitled Mtshan nyid kyi chos in the Tibetan text]. In Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang. (Ed.). Rngog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab kyi gsung chos skor (pp. 1–52). 2009: Krung go’i bod rig pa’i dpe skrun khang.
YCMS Xibei dier minzu xueyuan, Shanghai guji chubanshe, & Yingguo guojia tushuguan. (Eds.). Yingguo guojia tushuguan cang Heishuicheng wenxian 英國國家圖書館藏黑水城文獻 [Documents from Khara-Khoto in the British Library] (Vol. 2). 2005: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Other References
Duan, Y. (2014). Xixia “Gongde bao ji ji” kua yuyan duikan yanjiu 西夏《功德寶集偈》跨語言對勘研究 [Textual critical study of the Tangut Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā]. Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Frauwallner, E. (1954). Die Reihenfolge und Entstehung der Werke Dharmakīrti’s. In J. Schubert & U. Schneider (Eds.), Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich Weller (pp. 142–154). Otto Harrassowitz.
Gaimaben. (2016). Tubo shiqi gu yindu yinming wenxian chu xi—Yi Dunhuang Zangwen canjuan P. T. 0123 wei li 吐蕃時期古印度因明文獻初析——以敦煌藏文殘卷P. T. 0123為例 [Analysis of Hetuvidya literature of Ancient India in Tubo period: A review of Tibetan Fragments of Dunhuang P. T. 0123]. Xizang yanjiu, 2016(3), 93–98.
Gong, H. (2003). Tangut. In G. Thurgood, & R, J. LaPolla (Eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (pp. 602–619). Routledge.
Gorbacheva, Z. I., & Kychanov, E. I. (1963). Taнгyтcкиe pyкoпиcи и кcилoгpaфы [Tangut manuscripts and xylographs]. Издaтeльcтвo вocтoчнoй литepaтypы.
Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives (pp. 249–267). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hugon, P. (2013). Tracing the early developments of Tibetan epistemological categories in Rngog Blo ldan shes rab’s (1059–1109) Concise Guide to the Nyāyabinduṭīkā. Zangxue Xuekan, 9, 194–234.
Hugon, P. (2016). Enclaves of learning, religious and intellectual communities in Tibet: The monastery of gSang phu neʼu thog in the early centuries of the Later Diffusion of Buddhism. In E. Hovden, C. Lutter, & W. Pohl (Eds.), Meanings of community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative approaches (pp. 289–308). Brill.
Hugon, P., Stoltz, J. (2019). The roar of a Tibetan lion: Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge’s theory of mind in philosophical and historical perspective. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Hui, H., & Duan, Y. (2015). Xixia wenxian jieti mulu 西夏文獻解題目錄 [A descriptive catalog of Tangut Literature]. Yangguang chubanshe.
Iuchi, M. (2016). An early text on the history of Rwa sgreng Monastery: The Rgyal ba’i dben gnas Rwa sgreng gi bshad pa nyi ma’i ’od zer of ’Brom Shes rab me lce. Harvard University.
van der Kuijp, L. W. J. (1989). An introduction to Gtsang-nag-pa’s “Tshad-ma-rnam-par nges-pa’i ṭi-ka legs-bshad bsdus-pa”: An ancient commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya. Rinsen Book Co.
Kychanov, E. I. (1999). Кaтaлoг Taнгyтcкиx бyддийcкиx пaмятникoв Инcтитyтa Bocтoкoвeдeния Poccийcкoй Aкaдeмии Hayк [Catalog of Tangut Buddhist texts, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences]. University of Kyoto Press.
Lasic, H. (2007a). Fragments of pramāṇa texts preserved in Tabo monastery. In D. Klimburg-Salter, K. Tropper, & C. Jahoda (Eds.), Text, image and song in transdisciplinary dialogue: PIATS 2003: Tibetan studies: Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003 (pp. 63–77). Brill.
Lasic, H. (2007b). Placing the Tabo tshad ma materials in the general development of tshad ma studies in Tibet, Part 1: The study of the Nyāyabindu. In B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M. T. Much, & H. Tauscher (Eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Vol. 1, pp. 483–495). Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.
La Vallée-Poussin, L. (1962). Catalogue of the Tibetan manuscripts from Tun-huang in the India Office Library. Oxford University Press.
Li, F. (2012). Jianming xiahan zidian 簡明夏漢字典 [A concise Tangut-Chinese dictionary]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.
Nakamura, H. (1981). Indo ronrigaku no rikai no tameni I: Darumakīruti Ronrigaku shōron [Towards understanding Indian logic I: Dharmakīrti’s Nyāyabindu]. Hokke Bunka Kenkyū, 7, 1–178.
Nishida, T. (1977). Seika yaku butten mokuroku 西夏譯佛典目錄 [A catalog of Tangut Buddhist scriptures]. In Seikabun Kegonkyō 西夏文華厳経 (Vol. 3, pp. 1–59). Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University.
Nie, H. (2002). E cang 5130 hao Xixiawen fojing tiji yanjiu 俄藏5130號西夏文佛經題記研究 [A study of the colophon of the Tangut Buddhist text #5130 preserved in Russia]. Zhongguo Zangxue, 2002(1), 50–54.
Nie, H. (2005). Xixiawen Zangchuan Banruo xinjing yanjiu 西夏文藏傳《般若心經》研究 [A study of the Tangut translation of the Tibetan Heart Sutra]. Minzu Yuwen, 2005(2), 22–29.
Nishizawa, F. (2014). gSang phu ne’u thog: Its contribution to the re-establishment and development of Tibetan Buddhism in the Later Diffusion (phyi dar) period. Journal of Research Institute, 51, 343–366.
Shen, W. (2010). Reconstructing the history of Buddhism in Central Eurasia (11th–14th centuries): An interdisciplinary and multilingual Approach to the Khara Khoto texts. In A. Chayet, C. Scherrer-Schaub, F. Robin, & J. Achard (Eds.), Edition, éditions l’écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir (pp. 337–362). Indus Verlag.
Shi, J. (1988). Xixia Fojiao shi lue 西夏佛教史略 [A concise history of Buddhism in Xixia]. Ningxia renmin chubanshe.
Shi, J. (2020). Tangut language and manuscripts: An introduction (H. Li, Trans.). Brill. (Original work published 2013.)
Silk, J. (2021). Editing without an Ur-text: Buddhist sūtras, Rabbinic text criticism, and the Open Philology Digital Humanities project. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 24, 147–163.
Solonin, K. (2013). “Xixia Fojiao zhi ‘xitong xing’ chu tan” 西夏佛教之“系統性”初探 [A preliminary study of the “systematic nature” of Buddhism in Xixia]. Shijie Zongjiao Yanjiu, 2013(4), 22–38.
Solonin, K. (2015a). Local literatures: Tangut/Xixia. In J. A. Silk, O. von Hinüber, V. Eltschinger (Eds.), Brill’s encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 1, pp. 844–859). Brill.
Solonin, K. (2015b). Dīpaṃkara in the Tangut context: An inquiry into the systematic nature of Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia (Part 1). Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 68(4), 425–451. https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2015.68.4.4
Solonin, K. (2016). Dīpaṃkara in the Tangut context: An inquiry into the systematic nature of Tibetan Buddhism in Xixia (Part 2). Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 69(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2016.69.1.1
Solonin, K. (in press). Dapeng zhanchi: Zangchuan xin jiu mizhou zai Xixia de chaunbo 大鵬展翅: 藏傳新舊密咒在西夏的傳播 [A phoenix spreading its wings: The transmission of old and new Tibetan mantras in Xixia]. Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Solonin, K., & Liu, K. (2017). Atiśa’s Satyadvayāvatāra (Bden pa gnyis la ’jug pa) in the Tangut translation: A preliminary study. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 45(1), 121–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-016-9301-3
Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1962). Buddhist logic (Vol. 2). Dover Publications. (Reprinted from Buddhist Logic [Vol. 2], 1932, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.)
Sun, B., & Nie, H. (2018). Xixiawen Zangchuan Fojiao shiliao: “Dashouyin” fa jingdian yanjiu 西夏文藏傳佛教史料: “大手印”法經典研究 [Tangut sources of Tibetan Buddhism: A study of Mahāmudra scriptures]. Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe.
Sun, C. (2015). Xixiawen “Jixiang bianzhi kouhe benxu” zhengli yanjiu 西夏文《吉祥遍至口合本續》整理研究 [An edition and study of the Tangut Saṃputatantra]. Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe.
Sun, Y. (2015b). Xixia wenxian zhong de tongjia 西夏文獻中的通假 [Phonetic loans in Tangut literature]. Ningxia Shehui Kexue, 2015(6), 152–154.
Wang, Y. (1999). Fa cang Dunhuang Zangwen wenxian jieti mulu 法藏敦煌藏文文獻解題目錄 [A descriptive catalog of Dunhuang Tibetan texts preserved in France]. Minzu chubanshe.
Funding
The research leading to these results received funding from the Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Dissertation Fellowships in Buddhist Studies 2020 under the project title “Inner Asian Buddhist Revolution: The Rise of Tibetan Buddhism in the Tangut Xia State.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Not applicable.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Tangut-Tibetan Glossary of Buddhist Epistemology as Seen in the Nyāyabindu
Appendix: Tangut-Tibetan Glossary of Buddhist Epistemology as Seen in the Nyāyabindu
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ma, Z. The Nyāyabindu in Tangut Translation. J Indian Philos 49, 779–825 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09479-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09479-w