ས་བཅད། / sa bcad

The term sa bcad is often translated as “outline” and it is the name of a Tibetan literary genre. Steinkellner has suggested that the origin of sa bcad could have been China and not India. See Ernst Steinkellner, “Who is Byaṅ chub rdzu ’phrul?” Berliner Indologische Studien 4/5, Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen, Reinbek 1989, pp. 229–251. The commentary on Bodhicittabhāvanā ascribed to one Mañjiśrīmitra seems to contain what may be called a sa bcad. If Steinkellner is right, the commentary on Bodhicittabhāvanā cannot be Mañjiśrīmitra’s but if the commentary on Bodhicittabhāvanā is an Indian work, Steinkellner’s suggestion may be questioned. Having said that sa bcad occasionally seems to render the Sanskrit term ṭipppaṇī although the Sanskrit–Tibetan correspondence remains very much doubtful. A few points may be made here about the genre. First, let us see how the Tibetans lexicographers have understood sa bcad. The Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v.) gives two meanings of sa bcad, namely, (a) “compendium of text of a treatise” (gzhung tshig gi sdom) and “chronological [list of] of a program” (las don gyi go rim). The second meaning seems to be recent and secondary just as the modern idiomatic phrase sa bcad ma stongs tsam meaning literally “merely [to avoid being] empty-handed” and it expresses a certain sense of humility when offering or presenting something to someone. The sa bcad in question should be explained by the first meaning. However, the meaning “compendium of text of a treatise” is quite vague and can well include also sdom byang (synoptic verses) and other forms of summaries and compendia. Hence, the defining characteristics of a sa bcad has not been successfully expressed. It may be worthwhile to look into the intransitive-heteronomous form of sa bcad, that is, sa chod, which is described as “the capacity to [cover a distance and] arrive [at a destination]” (thon slebs che chung gi nus shugs sa chod pa) and “capable of traversing and arriving [at a destination]” (bgrod thub pa’am slebs thub pa). However, what is important here is the element of covering or “cutting” (gcod) the distance or length or “ground” (sa) “by leaps and bounds” and not by scrawling or striding normally. This is aptly expressed by the analogy of lioness’ or tigress’ leap. Thus sa bcad can be seen as a kind of “milestone” or “signpost” that marks the ground one is traversing. The strategic or crucial points on the path or “ground” (sa) are thus marked or “cut” (bcad) by leaps and bounds. Second, the origin of sa bcad requires further investigation. One venue of exploration seems to the Tantric exegetical concept of the “five ligatures” (chings lnga). See the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v.) and Mi-pham’s bKa’ brgyad rnam bshad (pp. 17–18). Of the five, what seems relevant is the sa bcad rnam ’byed kyi chings or sa gcod tshom gyi chings. In this context, sa bcad seems to be an aid or technique of obtaining an overview of the entire content and structure of a work. It is indeed an “outline” of a work as opposed to, for example, what may be called a “syllabic commentary” (’bru ’grel). In order to obtain an overview of the work, one should leap like a tigress and not crawl like a snail or tortoise. This comparison or contrast is made in the exegetical context. I have not checked the text but yet I may refer to the following citation from sMin-gling-lo-chen’s gSang bdag zhal lung (vol. Gi (E), pp. 145ff.): vya ghri mchongs pa de bzhin du || tantra’i tshig don dum bur gcod || ces pa ste | ji ltar stag mchongs pa’i tshe | bgrod bya’i sa tshig dum bur bcad nas mchongs pa bzhin du | rnam par dbye ba’i tshig don gyi dmigs so sor phye nas ming ’dogs gsal ston pa’o || gsum  pa spyi don sdud pa’i tshig sdud pa’i tshig seng ge’i mchongs pa lta bu ni | de nyid las | seng ge mchongs pa’i chos gcig ltar || rnam grangs tshig lam don gcig sdud || ji ltar seng ge mchongs pa’i tshe | sa tshigs du ma khog ’og tu chud pa bzhin du | tshig don gyi rnam grangs du ma rnam spyi don bsdu ba'i tshig gis don gyi ngo bo gcig tu sdud pa’o ||. I think he is citing and commenting on two verse lines from the Thugs thugs ascribed Vimalamitra. But this needs to be checked. See also what the Ri chos sa bcad (p. 443) has to say: sa bcad ces pa gzhung don tshan tshan du || bsdus nas ’byed pa sdong chen lta bu yin || de yi yal ga so sor gyes pa la || yi ge grangs mnyam dgos zhes mkhas rnams bzhed ||. Third, there seems to be an overlapping between sa bcad and don bsdus or bsdus don. See, for example, Jackson 1994: 3–4, n. 14 (i.e. Introduction to rNgog’s rGyud bla’i bsdus don or don bsdus). For example, some of Klong-chen-pa’s works that are called bsdus don turn out to be sa bcad. Fourth, a few features of sa bcad may be mentioned. (a) A good sa bcad is even equivalent to or better than some commentaries. (b) How an author writes a sa bcad may depend on how he understands or analyses the text. Hence two authors may write completely different sa bcad to the one and the same text. (c) A commentator may adopt an already existing sa bcad when writing a commentary on a treatise. (d) A sa bcad may be embedded in the main commentary or exist independently. (e) Not all forms of commentaries may be woven with a sa bcad. For example, mchan ’grel would not have a sa bcad embedded into it. (f) Different types of sa bcad may vary in their detail and scope. (g) A sa bcad would have its primary and tertiary parts. Elaborateness of a sa bcad usually depends on the details of the tertiary parts. One cannot normally dispense with the rtsa ba’i sa bcad.  (h) A sa bcad can be that of a Indian or Tibetan treatise one is commenting upon; of someone else’s work or one’s own work. (i) Physically a sa bcad may occur in the form of a mchan. It is even possible that originally a sa bcad was a kind of mchan which gradually came to be integrated into the main text. It is also conceivable that historically speaking sa bcad was developed from such “lecture notes” made by a teacher and used while giving oral exposition. And later came to be used when writing commentaries. (j) The sa bcad of a commentary and the commentary itself (although both attributed to the same author) may not be written by the same author. For examples, some of the sa bcads in Mi-pham’s commentaries of were inserted by the compilers of Mi-pham’s writings. (k) A sa bcad can be also written in verses. Mi pham’s sa bcad to the Pramāṇavartika is the only sa bcad I have seen written in verse. Fifth and finally, one of the first things a monk or nun in a bshad grwa learns while reading a commentarial work is to follow the sa bcad. Following a sa bcad of a text can be quite tedious and time-consuming especially if the text is long and sa bcad detailed. A pedantic teacher may never skip repeating all the preceding sa bcad even for the nth time. Students when asked to explain a text is required to do the same. In order to save time for the actual reading, only the basic (rtsa ba’i sa bcad) may be followed. Being able to follow the sa bcad is thus seen as being able to follow the text.

ཟིན་བྲིས། / zin bris

The term zin bris is said to be a synonym of zin thun, brjed byang, and reg zig. See the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.vv.). Probably the word zin bris in terms of relative chronology is later than reg zig and brjed byang.

ཟིན་ཐུན། / zin thun

The term zin thun is said to be a synonym of brjed byang, reg zig, and zin bris. See the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.vv.). Probably zin tho is also another word for zin thun and zin bris.

བརྗེད་བྱང་། / brjed byang

The term brjed byang (“memorandum”) is defined by the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v.) as “notes written for the sake of not forgetting” (mi brjed pa’i phyir bris pa’i tho yig). A brjed byang may be seen as a sub-genre of ’grel pa (“commentary”). Although Negi, relying on the catalogue of the Tibetan canon, gives ṭippaṇī as the Sanskrit word for brjed byang, it would require further verification. The question is whether ṭippaṇī and brjed byang refer to the same referent. Some of the synonyms of brjed byang are said to be bsnyel byang, reg zig, zin thun, and zin bris. The word brjed byang occurs already in the two oldest catalogues, namely, the ’Phang thang ma and lDan dkar ma. The brjed byang type of commentaries seem to be the some of the oldest types of commentaries that the autochthonous Tibetan scholars composed.

རེག་ཟིག། / reg zig

The term reg zig (also reg zeg and reg zin) seems to be an old one. It is, for example, attested once in Pelliot tibétain 1111 (OTDO) and also in the colophon of the Madhyavyutpatti (aka the sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa). See, for example, gNya’-gong dKon-mchog-tshe-brtan, brDa rnying yig cha’i tshig don kun khrol. Lanzhou: Kan-su’u-mi-rigs-dpe-dkrun-khang, 2010, p. 200.  According to the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.vv. reg zig, reg zin, zin thun), reg zig or reg zin is supposed to be “notes” (zin bris = zin thun =  brjed byang) (i.e. Krang-dbyi-sun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1993). But as is often the case in Tibetan sources, dpe cha (or yig cha) as an “abstract” text or work, for example, is conflated with dpe cha in the sense of a “concrete” (physical) book. It is for the same reason why it is not quite easy to decide whether a certain term is a name of a literary genre or name of a physical book. In Pad-ma-bkra-shis’s Bod yig gna’ dpe (p. 33), the word reg zeg (which is how the word is spelled there) seems to refer to the physical book, for it talks about reg zeg sngon po (“Blue Notes”) and reg zeg sngo dmar gnyis (“Two Notes: Blue and Red”). But here, we shall treat reg zig as a name of a genre insofar as it is equated with zin bris and brjed byang and explain it as a type of literary work that does not claim to have higher literary style and standard but one that constitutes of “notes” or “remarks” or “afterword” about a certain topic. The word reg zig and its orthographic variants seems to have become obsolete and have been apparently replaced by brjed byang, zin bris, and zin thun.

བོད་ཀྱི་རྩོམ་རིགས། / bod kyi rtsom rigs

There are already some published works out there that deal with Tibetan literary genre (e.g. José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson,  Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre. Ithaca, Snow Lion, 1996) but just because we have a volume dedicated to a topic does not necessarily mean that the topic has been dealt systematically and comprehensively. Actually it appears that we have barely scratched the surface of the topic. We also find some autochthonous Tibetan works dealing with Tibetan literary genre (e.g. Klu-tshang rDo-rje-rin-chen, Bod kyi rtsom rigs rnam bzhag. Bejing: Mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 2004) but the approach, purpose, and scope of such enterprises seem different. This blog intends to collect, document, and explain different Tibetan terms that express various Tibetan literary genres and subgenres. Tibetan sources would often mention a certain term that could refer to a physical book as well as to a literary genre. Those terms that deal with physical books are being documented and discussed in the Khyentse Center’s gSung-rten project. Because I could not include terms dealing with Tibetan literary genres and subgenres in the gSung-rten database, I thought it may not be a bad idea to have a personal blog dedicated to the collection, documentation, and explanation of Tibetan terms that refer to certain Tibetan literary genres or subgenres. As indicated above, the Tibetan term for “Tibetan literary genre” may be bod kyi rtsom rigs. But this seems to be certainly a neologism. In Tibetan, it would be important to clearly distinguish rtsom rig as “literature” from rtsom rigs as “genre.” It may be mentioned in general that (a) Tibetan literary genre is very rich, diverse, and differentiated, (b) the principal criteria for distinguishing one literary genre from another seem to be the subject matter and topic (i.e. fields of knowledge), style, structure, scope, size, function, and the like of the literary work.