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’.

Thankyou,
Sam@sealevel.ca

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)

I’ve noticed one use as a ‘sealing expression’ in the Zhijé Collection of kha tham.

I do see a possible problem in reading the tham (or tham-kha or tham-ga) as meaning ‘seal’ since, if I’m not mistaken, it ought to be borrowed from Mongolian, right? (I’m asking.) The text where it occurs, at the very end, ought to be pre-Mongol period. Of course we also find the spelling .tam, with the Tibetanizing spelling dam (or dam-kha) also occurring with some frequency. Does this term for ‘seal’ ever appear in your O.T. docs? I just tried the different spellings in OTDO (http://otdo.aa.tufs.ac.jp/) and didn’t find it. Perhaps I’ll stop listening to my dreams? Don’t think so, but then, you know…

Oh, I just checked and located the seals in the published version, at vol. 1, page 148.

The ‘entrustment seal’ (gtad rgya) at least must sound very familiar to Nyingmapaists, I’d expect.

The 7 seals were originally on the enshrined box containing the holy book in the Ashta, described in the Tibetan like this: khang pa brtsegs pa de’i dbus su rin po che sna bdun las byas pa’i khri bzhi btsugs te de’i steng du rin po che’i sgrom bzhi bzhag nas de’i nang du shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa gser gyi glegs bam la bee d’au rya bzhu bas bris pa bcug ste.

The jeweled box on the seven-jeweled throne ring any bells? Written in lapis on gold? Yes?

S.

I have another idea, that it’s one of a set of seven “sealing” expressions… (7 because of the 7 seals of the Prajnaparamita that Conze thought entered into the 7 seals of the apocalypse!)… Where “tham” (not thim), like rgya, means the ‘chop’ of a seal. But I’m not completely sure of it, since it could be Indic for something like dhatima? Not that I know of any such word. I don’t.

PDSz, where do DO RE MI FA SO LA TI DO come from? I’m favoring its Arabic origins, personally. You may be on the right track here. But even if we come up with the true answer, maybe we shouldn’t announce it to the whole world just yet. You think? ; >

yes, it does seem inconsistant, and you might be right about the blurred meaning. and just to create more confusion: if the Tibetan who first came up with sgrub thabs knew good Sanskrit, then _perhaps_ he interpreted the suffix -na in sādhana as ‘thabs’. this makes sense, since such words are usually interpreted as: sādhyate anena iti sādhanam (with sandhi: sādhyata aneneti sādhanam: ‘Sādhana is [something] by which one accomplishes (- sādh)’), that is to say ‘-na’ creates a word which signifies something that is instrumental, able, or fit to do the action expressed in the root.

as for nopāyikā, I’m in the dark. I am not aware of such precedents in India.

p.