Still reflecting on ngam gyur. It seems there is no necessity for correction here. A friend of mine recognized this (very old) expression readily and pointed out it has very much the same meaning as zil gnon or rngam pa, ie. ‘surmounting’ or ‘overpowering’. ‘Outshining’ even. In Yisun Chang, I think, one can find support for that. In THDL there is a mention of ngam grog chen po as a ‘poetic name for Tibet’.

Thanks again!

http://tinyurl.com/4clbje

at the title of chapter 44, I think it was, where you can read “klong nas bkrol.”

As for the klung, I do agree that the alternative reading as space (cognate with klong) is a real possibility here. I chose the ‘valley’ reading here because Padmasambhava is chiefly associated in the Dunhuang manuscripts, including this text, with the Mahāyoga tantras, and the reading of ‘space’ seems to anticipate (perhaps inappropriately) the later association of Padmasambhava with Atiyoga. Still, I agree that either reading is possible.

As to this particular article, which I find very interesting indeed, I have, however, a question in mind, which doesn’t want to go away, namely the following:

The wording of the verse of S’ântigarbha is read in your article as… ‘jig rten ma gyur. In the romanised text of this manuscript it says, however …ngam gyur. I have been looking hard at the text available here online, and it actually seems to say …ngam gyur.

I would be thankful if you could comment on this particular point, and would like to hear how you would understand / translate the expression ngam gyur (if you consider it sensible) in this context.

This far I have not come across with any other instances of this particular word-combination. However, maybe just because of it, what comes to my mind here is the polarity of the notions of ye and ngam in the perspective (scope) of the old Tibetan world-view – as referred to by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu in his “Drung, Deu and Bön” (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives 1995).

Dan Martin has placed this entry in his lexical work: (DM) ” ngam ni nag phyogs bdud kyi phyogs. From Namdak, Bzo-rig 112. Discussed in Karmay, Arrow 256 ff.”

As to the other possible points of view, Ives Waldo has put forward the following: (IW) ” 1) color; 2) expression; 3) ? for word ending in {nga}; 4) ‘or’; 5) ravine, canyon ”

That much for ngam.

Then we have the …klung nas bkrol mdzad. Of course klung means ‘valley’ – (a ‘deep’ ) (a ‘course’) – which usually contains the idea of a riverbed – such as the river Swat / Suvastu etc.

However, again, in the work already mentioned, “Drung, Deu and Bön” , we have the word / notion of klung considered from another (‘even deeper’) point of view – in the context of the, so called, klung rta – as representing (among the other 4 animals) the fifth (‘omnipervasive’) element, namely ‘space’. (pp. 69-70)

Could it be that (in ‘deep-reading’ the text) this point of view could also open up a perspective for (the alternate reading) ngam ?

Yours, much obliged,
Ilkka Tanner