Vol. XI, Nos. 3 & 4.] So-sor-thar-pa. 31 
[V.S.] 
Po-lo-ti-mo-ca was a translation of a Sanskrit work called 
Pratimoksa which is now lost. Evidently this Sanskrit work 
was not identical with the one on which the Tibetan So-sor- 
thar-pa was based as the former is said to have belonged to 
the school of Dharma Gupta. Pratimoksa, the Sanskrit origi- 
nal of the Po-lo-ti-mo-ca, was included in the ‘ Caturvarga- 
vinaya-pitaka,’’ otherwise known as ‘‘ Dharmagupta Vinaya’’ 
which appears from No. 1117 of Bunyiu Nanjio’s catalogue 
to have been translated into Chinese in 405 a.p. The school of 
tespectively based. An English translation of the Patimokkha 
was published by Rev. Dr. Gogerly in the Journal of the 
Roy al Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland in 1862, 
while @ revised translation of the work made by Dr. T. 
Rhys Davids and Dr. H. Oldenberg was published in the S.B.E. 
Series in 1881. The Pali Patimokkha is reputed to have 
belonged to the Theravada school founded by Buddha himself 
ae t 500 B.C. It passed through the three Buddhist Councils 
until it was reduced to writing in Ceylon in the reign of 
Vattagamani (104-76 B.c.). 
€ So-sor-thar-pa contains 258 rules while the Po-lo-ti- 
digg, omtains 250 and the Patimokkha 227 only. These 
tj erences are due to the section on ‘‘ sins which require expla- 
on” containing 92 rules in Pali and 90 in Chinese and Tibetan, 
the section on ‘‘many rules which must be learnt’’! 
The alning 75 rules in Pali, 100 in Chinese and 108 in Tibetan. 
in a tion ”’ in Tibetan is a little different from that 
what dre and Pali, while the rules themselves are also some- 
ivergent in the three works. 
I fr preparing my translation of the Tibetan So-sor-thar-pa 
pubithe consulted the translation of the Pali Patimokkha 
Shed in the E. series already referred to. I have 
my translation as literal as possible in order 
he special features of the Tibetan treatise may be clearly 
In translating difficult passages I have relied on 
ae ® rules contained in the section on ‘‘ many rules which must be 
wh stated at the resumé to be 112 in number though by actual 
four ru] on they are found to be 108 only. The discrepancy 18 due to the 
di 9 to 72 being counted twice, viz. as four rules relating 
the iding, ete. and as included in the ten rules (69-78) relating to 
in the ie wi . According to the summaries the total ro ; 
“ounted there, will be 107 only as the five rules from 59 to 63 are no 
