332 karénina kollmar-paulenz
century in China and as far as Turfan, Khotan and North West India”.^51
She argues that these texts were probably translated at an early time
into Tibetan (probably from the Chinese) and also played a role in the
debate of bSam-yas, because they are referred to in the Dunhuang
Chinese records as well as in the Bhvankrama of the Indian scholar
Kamalala. According to Scherrer-Schaub,^52 who is one of the lead-
ing authorities on the issue, the examination of the textual tradition
of the sGra-sbyor-sgam-po-gnyis-pa of which, apart from the canonical
bsTan-’gyur version, a Dunhuang manuscript exists and recently text
fragments were discovered at Tabo in Western Tibet, reveals the exis-
tence of a rst authoritative decision which was already laid down in
763 AD or a little later. It was deemed necessary on the occasion of
translating the above mentioned Ratnamegha and La kvatra and led to
the preparation of word-lists which were later probably incorporated
in the Mahvyutpatti. This rst attempt to regulate the translations of
Buddhist texts was carried out by a joint committee of translators and
scholars in the presence of the bTsan-po. The date 763 also applies to
the compilation of the rst of the three vyutpattis,^53 the Svalpavyutpatti
(“small repertory”). A second authoritative decision was issued by the
emperor Khri-srong-lde-btsan and the council of ministers in 783 AD.
The second decision can be considered a further step on the formalisa-
tion of the translation procedures, because now
a special chancery procedure for creating Tibetan terms was instituted
under the authority of the Commissioner of the Bhagavat (bcom ldan ’das
ri lugs) of ciating in the college of translators (dar ma bsgyur ba’i lo ts ba’i
grar), who had to refer to the supreme authority (btsan po).^54The process of laying down the authoritative rules and principles for
translation ultimately culminated in the third decision of 814 and at
the same time in the compilation of the Mahvyutpatti. In this latest step
towards a xed Buddhist terminology the extent of the formalisation
becomes evident in the elaborated chancery procedure. The Commis-
sioner of the Bhagavat is now accompanied by a committee (mdun-sa)
and by a “college for proposals of great revision... of Buddhist texts
(^51) Scherrer-Schaub 2002, p. 298.
(^52) In the following I rely on Scherrer-Schaub 2002, pp. 263–340, whose argumenta-
tion and discussion of the relevant documents appears extremely convincing to me.
(^53) These are bilingual, Sanskrit-Tibetan, terminological word-lists respectively
dictionaries.
(^54) Scherrer-Schaub 2002, pp. 314–315.