[INDOLOGY] aja as ajaya?

[David and Nancy Reigle]

A question to all,


The name *aja* occurs in a listing of the kings of Śambhala quoted in the
*Vimalaprabhā* commentary on the *Kālacakra-tantra*. As the name of a
bodhisattva king I have not taken *aja* in its meaning “goat,” but rather
in its meaning “unborn.” However, two different pairs of early translators
have translated it into Tibetan as “unconquerable” or “unconquered” (*rgyal
dka’*, *ma pham pa*), as if the word was *ajaya* (or *ajita*) rather than
*aja*. This, of course, is a more appropriate meaning for the name of a
king; but the form *aja* is unanimously confirmed in multiple witnesses and
also in a different location in the *Vimalaprabhā*. So the question is: Is
there any way to derive *aja* from the root *ji*, “to conquer,” rather than
from the root *jan*, “to be born,” in accordance with the rules of Sanskrit
grammar, whether the *Aṣṭādhyāyī* of Pāṇini, the *Cāndra-vyākaraṇa*, the
*Kātantra*, the *Sārasvata-vyākaraṇa*, or any other Sanskrit grammar?


Details: The full listing can be found in “The Lost Kālacakra Mūla Tantra
on the Kings of Śambhala,” where *ajaḥ* occurs in the verse that I have
arbitrarily numbered 17 for convenience of reference:
https://www.academia.edu/6423778/The_Lost_Kalacakra_Mula_Tantra_on_the_Kings_of_Sambhala.



Best regards,


David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160820/b9917124/attachment.htm>