Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:07:36.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Oṃ Maṇi Padme Hūṃ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1195 note 1 For the orthodox explanation see page 1 of Dri-med-kun-lden's Namthar in English, translated by Paul, K. Sumdhon, in the Journal of the Department of Letters of Calcutta University, vol. 25.Google Scholar

page 1195 note 2 Chan-re-si is the phonetic spelling of Spyan-ras-gzigs, i.e. AvalokiteśVara.

page 1195 note 3 Probably to be corrected to Namaḥ samantabhadrāṇi, on the analogy of bhāvānī, rudrāṇī, etc.

page 1195 note 4 Read -santarani.

page 1195 note 5 Read bhū.

page 1195 note 6 Read hrī.

page 1195 note 7 Read padmadzvale.

page 1195 note 8 Read padmalotsane.

page 1195 note 9 Read padmoṣṇīṣavimale.

page 1196 note 1 On Lokeśvara, Samantabhadra see Sādhanamālā, ed. Bhattacharyya, B., p. 183.Google Scholar

page 1196 note 2 Sādhanamālā, p. 180.Google Scholar

page 1196 note 3 Sādhanamālā, p. 33.Google Scholar

page 1196 note 4 Sādhanamālā, p 35.Google Scholar

page 1196 note 5 I have to thank Mr. G. R. Driver (Oxford) for advice on various points of Babylonian philology.

page 1196 note 6 See a recent discussion of Kassite by Mironov, N. D., Ada Orientcdia, xi, 142 ff., where references to further literature will be found.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 1 Scheftelowitz, J., Zeitschrift filr vergleichende Sprachforschung, xxxviii, 261, suggests that the u is due to the influence of the preceding labial, but this view has not found general acceptance.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 2 The Kassite material is presented in a convenient form by Pinches, T. G., Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1917,101114 Google Scholar (cf. particularly the “ King-List ”, pp. 106–7, and the “ Vocabulary ”, pp. 102–5); see also Delitzsch, F., Die Sprache der Kossāer.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 3 Walde, A. and Pokorny, J., Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, ii, 155 ff.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 4 Bezold, C., Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, ix, 377.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 5 The form ubryaš, which is apparently equivalent to buryaš (cf. Vocabulary 6 ub-ri-ia-aš ‗ ilu Addu, Rammānu “ Hadad, Rimmon ”), is obscure. For such a“ metathesis ”—whatever its explanation—we may perhaps compare Ug-ba-ru(? ‗ normal Gu-ba-ru); see Smith, S., Babylonian historical texts relating to the capture and downfall of Babylon, pp. 121–2.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 5 See Charpentier, J., Indogermanische Forschungen, xxix, 378–9. The exact relation of the Kassite and Greek suffixes is not clear.Google Scholar

page 1197 note 7 Walde-Pokorny, , op. cit., ii, 128.Google Scholar

page 1198 note 1 On b or bh see Charpentier, loc. cit.

page 1198 note 2 We have no evidence to determine the date at which this Ind.-Ir. change took place. The parallel change of IndE. ě, ē > Ind.-Ir. ă, ā certainly took place after the Ind.-Ir. palatalization of the gutturals before front vowels (J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, § 119 ff.), but, even if we assume that this latter change was contemporary with the change under discussion, this can afford us no more than a relative date. It should also be note d here that, despite the position maintained by H. Jacobsohn (who follows Andreas) in his Arier und Ugrofinnen, the lexicographical correspondences between Primitive Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European, often regarded as due to “ Pre-Aryan” loans in Primitive Finno-Ugrian cannot afford us any assistance indetermining the date of the change of IndE. ŏ to Ind.-Ir. ă. See B., Collinder, Indouralisches Sprachgut Google Scholar and Ross, A. S. C., BSOS., viii, 1, pp. 227234, 1935.Google Scholar