Comments on: A Tibetan Book of Spells

By: mike dickman

mike dickman — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:47:39 +0000

for da thim i tend to use ‘the sign fades’…

By: Sabio Lantz

Sabio Lantz — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:49:41 +0000

Thank you for this post. Many Western Buddhists are unaware of the magic that fills much of the Buddhism on-the-ground. Eaves dropping on scholars of Tibetan and Sanskrit is very fun — an honor. Thanks

By: earlytibet

earlytibet — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:24:05 +0000

Interesting indeed! How about tha thim — “everything disolves [into equality]“?

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:36:15 +0000

Hmm, interesting! On p. 334 of the Khepa Deyu, you see a definition of dha thim by the very person who earlier pronounced the word. It says it means something like ‘all dharmas are equal (or even).’
I still for the life of me can’t think what could work for this in Sanskrit or Hindi. That drum syllable explanation is once again starting to look very attractive.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:06:03 +0000

On p. 333 of the longer Khepa Deyu history Vimalamitra repeats the dha thim twice. It’s indubitably intended to be Indic here, and so, even if I don’t know what the Indic form would be, it surely shouldn’t make sense to interpret in a Tibetanizing way, as in ‘symbol’s dissolved.’ Anyway, it’s all a little funny for us in light of the humorous story of how the three Tibetan lotsawas in India interpreted Vimala’s words a-ka-ma-sha-ni in three very very different ways (told on the page before, p. 332).

By: PDSz

PDSz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:35:44 +0000

I’m afraid I must insist that no pi ka is a corruption/fake re-sanskritization of upāyikā (cutting the compound Sādhanopāyikā in the wrong place for example). I just found three instances in Smṛtijñānakīrti’s commentary to the fourth chapter of the Catuṣpīṭha: there he cites from _the/a_ ‘no pi ka’, and a Guhyasamāja ‘no pi ka’. The first quote is found in the Maṇḍalopāyikā of Caryāvratīpāda, and the second in the highly influential initiation manual of Dīpaṃkarabhadra.

Althoug I must confess that I find it strange that Smṛti, who after all knew his Sanskrit, did not dismiss this strange word with a smile. Perhaps it is that in the region he was working it was already an accepted ‘Sanskritism’.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:54:09 +0000

Although – I might offer my own input as to the word. I’ve been told that Nopika is the practice of a group of practitioners attaining a higher state by studying together.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:52:44 +0000

Well, I google search ‘Nopika Enlightenment’ and this page is the first and only hit. Apparently google isn’t quite up on ancient Sanskrit texts yet. But I seem to’ve stumbled upon the right place. I am looking for the sanskrit text of the word, Nopika. Or No Pyi Ka, or which ever word seems most correct. I am working on a project, and an graphic of the original sanskrit or tibetan would be greatly appreciated.

Thankyou,
Sam@sealevel.ca

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:07:37 +0000

I had a new vision, just now, of the gi-gu, like an inch worm, inching its way over to the left until it settled on top of the ‘d’ in dhi. (Just visualize that backward and maybe that’s just what happened…) I swear this will be the last time I’ll ever be visiting that Kabbalah center. Scout’s honor. Even if a Madonna invites me.

By: earlytibet

earlytibet — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:12:04 +0000

Don't stop taking notice of your dreams, especially if Mañjusrî is involved! You are thinking dha thim dhi(ḥ) tham, yes? There are some interesting occurances in the Old Tibetan contracts. For example in PT1098, we have the phrase tham lag pa'i 'og tu, translated by Takeuchi as "After [the two parties] have thus reached an agreement...". The similar phrase 'di ltar thams pa las appears in Or.8210/S.2228, which Takeuchi translates in the same way. In a note, he says:

Tham or thams may be considered the perfect form of the verb 'tham-pa, "to unite" (Jäschke: 244; TLTD: 3:59).

The Tshig mdzod chen mo gives two definitions for 'tham pa, the first being "to surround with troops", and the second "to grasp firmly with the hand". Generally the term seems to imply, in the OT contracts, a handshake. And isn't that a kind of seal? (By the way, I'm referring to Takeuchi's Old Tibetan Contracts, p.267)