Tony Duff, The Illuminator, Tibetan-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary

(Edition 5.00), Nepal, Kathmandu: Padma Karpo Translation

Committee, 2004. 1 CD-ROM. $ 59.
Tools of the Trade: Basic Linguistic Requirements in Digitized Format
In recent years, a number of digital bilingual Tibetan-English dictionaries of quite
different quality have been published or circulated. This review will focus on The
Illuminator: Tibetan-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary (edition 5.00 of July 2004)
published by the Padma Karpo Translation Committee under the guidance of Tony
Duff. It is the only one among them that deserves to be regarded a dictionary, since
unlike the other ones it makes a real effort to present itself as an example of that
genre. In theory, one could formulate a great number of requirements and standards
for a Tibetan-English dictionary, depending on whether one aims for e.g. a historical,
etymological or a primarily semantical dictionary. In practice, however, a few
standards would sufficeif adhered toto in fact achieve a considerable contribution
to Tibetan Studies. These are, certainly, in each entry a differentiation of the parts of
speech (i.e. noun, adjective, adverb and verb) and semantical fields, a clear definition,
and instances of the use of a word with source references. I mention this trivialities
since if we just take a single example from a dictionary that unfortunately is very
popular among students, namely the so-called Rangjung Yeshe Dictionary (Rangyung
Yeshe Publications, Kathmandu), we can immediately see that not even a single of
these minimum requirements has been accomplished. Consider, for example, the
following entry for sdom pa:
rite, discipline, commitment, restraint, control, obligations, self-control, tie up,
bind up, tie, fasten, vow, precepts, bind, stanch, stop, cause to cease, make morally
firm, confirm, add together, cash up, sum up, engagement, duty, sum
The entry, which is quite typical for this product, does neither differentiate between
the parts of speech (tie, fasten, vow, precepts ...) or semantical fields (vow, sum,
rite ... fasten, sum up, control), nor does it provide a definition or instances of use or
any reference. In addition to that, it contains questionable elements such as cause to
cease and stanch(?). The Rangjung Yeshe Dictionary is therefore at best an inhouse word list for the translation group around Eric Pema Hein. Nevertheless, an
online version of the Rangjung Yeshe Dictionary continues to occur itself or as a link
on several internet pages of Western academic institutions.
Fortunately, the Illuminator outshines the former example by far. The edition under
review comprises almost 24,000 entries, with each entry marked as a part of speech.
According to the Illuminators introduction (version history), such distinctions (as
into parts of speech) have never been made in a Tibetan-English dictionary before.
This is not quite true because one of the first dictionaries, i.e. the Jschke (publ.
1881!)linguistically certainly the most reliable of the early bilingual dictionaries
always differentiates in its main entries into verb and substantive and also marks
adverbs, adjectives and compounds. In the Illuminator, for each verb, the standard
orthography of the stem-forms is provided, largely based on the verb list of the Bod
rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (BG), and its status as being transitive or intransitive

138 TIBET JOURNAL

(following BG) is mentioned. Links are not only provided to the matching transitive
or intransitive forms, but often also to opposite or related verbs. The definitions of
the verbs, too, are often based on BG, but frequently go beyond it, both in breaking
down the meaning into different categories and in the detail of the explanation. In
addition to BG, the Illuminator makes also extensive use of four glossaries popular
in Tibet. These are:
DGT (494 entries) i.e. dKon-mchog-jigs-med-dbang-pos Enumeration of
Dharmas found in many Sutras, Tantras, and Shastras: A Festival for Intelligent
Minds, (mDo rgyud bstan bcos du ma nasbyung bai chos kyi rnam grangs shes
ldan yid kyi dga ston, translated by Tony Duff). This is a text of the enumerations
of dharmas genre chos kyi rnam grangs), which presents religious terminology
occurring in groups of one, two, three and so forth, often together with a generic term
and further explanations. One example would be sde snod gsum, i.e. three piakas,
which is explained according to DGT as dul bai sde snod (vinaya-piaka), mdo
sdei sde snod (stra-piaka), and chos mngon pai sde snod (abhidharma-piaka).
Such collections of terms have been variously produced in Tibet and their inclusion
into modern dictionaries is certainly desirable.
LGK (906 entries) i.e. the House of Cloves (Lishii gur khang), which is a text
written in 1476 by sKyogs-ston Lots-ba Rin-chen-bkra-shis (also translated by Tony
Duff.). It informs us about changes that occurred within the Tibetan language during
the earlier revisions of the language and about words that were incorporated into the
Tibetan language from other languages. Examples are terms such as skyos pa (new:
nyams pa) and tres sam (from Zhang-zhung language, a Tibetan equivalent would be
phye ma). Such a text is likewise a desirable source and the large number of entries
shows how substantial such collections can contribute to the compilation of
dictionaries.
MVP (272 entries) i.e. the MahAvyutpatti as published by Alexander Csoma Koros.
These are technical terms of the Sanskrit language for which the MVP provided
standard translations such as kun dga bo (Skr. nanda) or yid kyi khams (Skr.
manodhAtu). From the number of entries occurring in the Illuminator, however, it
occurs that by far not all standardized terms have been incorporated.
NDS (676 entries, often with multiple sub-entries) i.e. the Dharmasagraha, a
collection of Buddhist terms ascribed to Ngrjuna (Central Institute of Higher Tibetan
Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, India, 1993). In all of the entries of this source and of the
DGT and MVP, Duff mentions the Sanskrit (as offered in his source).
Other sources (as far as they are mentioned or further specified) are private
communications from interpreters of Tibetan Lamas and various Western scholars,
Sanskrit-English and Tibetan-English dictionaries (Edgerton, Sarat Chandra Das,
Rangjung Yeshe, Goldstein, Tsepag Rigdzin), a Tibetan-Tibetan dictionary (Sog-po
dGe-shes Chos-grags), translations of Tibetan classics or English works by Tibetan
masters (Dudjom Rinpoches Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism, Tsongkhapas
Lam rim chen mo, The Practice of Dzogchen by Tulku Thondup and parts of Kongspruls Shes bya kun khyab mdzod) and several translations prepared by Tony Duff.
Among the latter, there is a significant concentration on certain genres or subjects,
namely of works pertaining to rituals, Mahmudr, rDzogs-chen, gTer-ma literature,
various aspects of indigenous Tibetan grammar, Indo-Tibetan philosophical genres,
gZhan-stong and a few standard works or compilations of indigenous Tibetan masters

BOOK REVIEWS ...139

(Jig-rten-mgon-pos dGongs gcig, Jam-dbyang mKhyen-brtsei-dbang-pos collected
works, Kong-spruls Shes bya kun khyab mdzod, Dol-po-pas Ri chos nges don rgya
mtsho and Kong-spruls Rinchen gter dzod).
We may safely assume that this selection of genres and subjects reflects both Duffs
fields of interest and expertise. One could complain about the limitations of these
preferences and list the many genres of Tibetan writings that one would like to have
included within the sources of a dictionary, but as long as a dictionary is principally
compiled by a single person, such limitations cannot be avoided. But before I begin
with my critical remarks, I would like to make a few more observations about the
obvious qualities of the Illuminator.
The Illuminator is a digitized dictionary. That does not only mean that the entries
are offered in computerized form, its contents being searchable on ones computer.
To be sure, the Illuminator comes as a formidable database together with a number
of very powerful and indeed useful tools. As one can expect it, typing Tibetan text (in
Tibetan fonts or Wylie transliteration) into the main search box leads very quickly
(in fact, while you type), to the respective main entry of the dictionary. A search
through the whole text is also possible and one may also click at any time on any
Tibetan term within an entry and continue with a search of the highlighted word. Any
search string either of the main search box or of a full text search can be easily
edited. From anywhere in the dictionary it is also possible to leaf back through the
last thirty entries one has looked at. There are also several convenient ways to scroll
through the list of head words or the entries themselves and it is also possible to
leave bookmarks in the text of an entry and return to it later. The digitized format
also allows for hyperlinks which are provided within numerous entries. One of the
most useful devices is the select feature, through which one may select one part of
the whole dictionary (such as only the verbs or only the entries of one of the glossaries)
and then search or browse exclusively within that selection. One minor technical
disadvantage is that every time one places the cursor in the main search box to write
down a term to be searched, one first has to deleteletter by letterthe previous job.
In short, however, the digital features of the Illuminator are indeed very useful tools.
Let me now make a few critical observations, which are not intended to belittle the
many advantages and distinctions of the dictionary under review, but may serve as
indicators of the directions in which the Illuminator could be further refined in the
future. The most far-reaching betterment would be to provide more and better
references. Less than a fifth of the entries provide a reference. In the section references
cited, Duff provides eighty-one abbreviations for references (some of which I have
noted above). Some of these references, however, are curious, like KHN (any one of
a number of learned Tibetans), some are strange for other reasons, for example
CHR, which stands for Charles Ramble (who spent many years living in the East),
but it actually does not appear again in the body of the dictionary (and the same is
true for FPR, a Tibetan text). In other instances, mostly the first Tibetan letter Ka has
benefitted from the exploration of a source, but hardly any other part of the alphabet,
such as in the cases of GCD (brDa dag ming tshig gsal ba) and KBC
(BodhicaryAvatAra commentary by mKhan-po Kun-phel). Most of the sources have
contributed between one and fifteen entries and only a few texts seem to have been
explored thoroughly. Many of the Tibetan texts mentioned in the reference list,
however, are merely mentioned by their titles and a proper reference is lacking. But

140 TIBET JOURNAL

the most serious problem of the Illuminator is the overall lack of example sentences
(and when such samples are provided, they are often not referenced). A careful
documentation of the usage of words also with more than one example would be
desirable, for here the user could gain impressions where the term appears and what
its nuances are. In this respect it would also be desirable that not only the title and (if
known) author of the reference is provided as a rule, but also which edition was used,
from which page the example is taken and, if possible, an indication of the time
period in which the text had been composed. An ideal entry would then contain well
referenced examples for usage across several centuries. This is, without doubt, the
future of digitized dictionaries with modern memory capacities: the references can
be almost limitlessly detailed and thereby the dictionary turns also into a formidable
tool for research.
Having undergone a thorough education in one of the scholarly Tibetan traditions,
Duff has decided to rely in his presentation of Tibetan verbs on traditional learning.
Regarding the morphology of the verb, for example, he follows the presentation of
the BG, which was (in Duffs words) created by native Tibetan scholars who set
down the correct spellings. Elsewhere, however, he concedes that for example the
traditional Tibetan interpretation of letter gender, which is closely connected with
the morphology of the verb, is an extremely complex subject. It is regarded as the
most difficult subject of Tibetan grammar. Few Tibetans penetrate it, let alone penetrate
it well. Duff and the Tibetan indigenous grammatical tradition are following to this
day a prescriptive/normative system of orthography, for which one hardly finds two
persons who interpret it in the same way. Both would be better off if they would try
to develop a more critical and descriptive approach. For a thorough review of the
many problems involving Tibetan verbs one should read Bettina Zeislers excellent
review of Paul Hackets A Tibetan Verb Lexicon: Verbs, Classes, and Syntactic Frames
(Ithaca: Snow Lion Publication, 2003, in: The Tibet Journal 30.2: 69-92.).
And finally there are, despite of Duffs often somewhat excessively self-confident
statements, occasionally inaccuracies and mistakes in his entries. The term zhabs
brings, for example, is described in his entry in the following way:
One of many levels of attendant in Tibetan culture. A middle level attendant or
assistant. Not in the closest circle of attendants but not far away either.
The definition is already vague enough, but in addition to that one wonders (in
view of the lack of any evidence) about the classification middle level. It has been
noted often enough that Tibetan monastic terminology does not only vary from
tradition to tradition, but also of course according to region and period (not to mention
from monastery to monastery). This is therefore a good example for an entry that
needs to be enriched with references.
In explaining the verb gyes pa, Duff fails to recognize it as an intransitive verb
and translate his example sentence (shing pa sta re gyis shing bcad nas gyes pa) as
the woodsman cut the tree into pieces with his axe when in reality we have a
subject change: the woodsman cut the wood and it split. The term mched grogs is
primarily explained as a tantric term (vajra relatives and immediate relatives/
intimate friends on the path). This is certainly too narrow as the term also refers
simply to students of the same teacher (classmates). Sometimes Duffs explanations

BOOK REVIEWS ...141

appear to go in circles:
sgom pa - Translation of the Sanskrit bhavana which literally means to cultivate,
to bring forth. This has been traditionally translated as meditation even though
it is not really accurate in many contexts. The term is also regularly translated on
the one hand as to practice and the other as to contemplate / to ponder but
these words translate other terms better (e.g., nyams su len pa and bsam pa
respectively). These days translators have begun to use the more accurate term to
cultivate. E.g., snying rje sgom pa to cultivate compassion. Nonetheless, the
term does come to mean to meditate, to visualize etc., in the sense of saying
now cultivate that practice of meditation, visualization, etc., etc. whatever is being
discussed.
Such an explanation is based on an unfocused use of the problematic Western term
meditation, and, besides, in most cases practice (bhavana) would be quite right,
such as in practicing compassion.
Sometimes the definition of a term, which should always be at the beginning of an
entry, is buried in midst of the article:
dun pa - This verb does not have an exact equivalent in English but like the noun,
its precise meaning is important at least in Buddhist context where it is used very
precisely. It has the specific meaning of that act of mind which takes interest in
something and makes a decision to go towards it or to aim for it. Thus its meaning
is both to seek after that which is worthwhile and then to motivate oneself towards
what is found. It is similar to the English to aspire but that only corresponds to
the first part of the definition just given; it loses the sense that the mind is directed
towards and going after the things that is aspired to. It means being motivated
towards because of having seen as desirable / worthwhile / worth pursuing and in
fact, that is the sense that the Buddha used it in and which is found throughout
Buddhist literature. The closest in English is to be motivated towards. (...)
Here the discussion would also have benefitted from a few examples and references.
And finally there is obviously a difference (ignored or blurred by Duff) between old
and new spelling on the one hand (such as myed - med, kund - kun, dkon cog - dkon
mchog, gyurd to - gyur to, pha myes - pha mes) and old and new lexicographical usage
or terminology on the other (such as mthong kha - brang,khus pa - sbas pa, etc.).
Despite these points of critique it must be said that the Illuminator is an impressive
achievement, especially since it is largely the product of a single persons dedication.
For the future one can only advice the author to increase the circle of contributors
and editors and to try to enter into a cooperation also with scholars form the Western
academic tradition. And, as a last remark regarding the style of writing, a bit of
scholarly modesty would indeed be very becoming.
Jan-Ulrich Sobisch