180 Nilmani Mukerjea — On Ekotibhava. [July, 



author. I have also been assured by my friend that he has found the 

 word spelt with a long i in other Sanskrit works of Tibetan origin. 

 Dr. Mitra contends that as the Tibetan alphabet has no long £, the word 

 in question cannot be written with a long i. But the question, whether 

 the Tibetan alphabet has a long i or not, has nothing to do with the word 

 ekotibhava, inasmuch as it is found in Sanskrit books compiled by 

 Tibetan authors, and written with a long i in the Devanagari characters. 



Now ekotibhava with a long i will most appropriately convey the 

 two meanings stated above. I would therefore analyse the word into 

 eka, uta,* chvi, and bhava. The effect of the suffix chvi on the base 

 uta according to the well-known rule of Sanskrit grammar, would be 

 the changing its final vowel into a long i ; and the whole compound 

 word would thus mean the state of being woven into one. 



Dr. Mitra contends that the suffix chvi means abhuta-tadbhava 

 (occurrence of a thing that did not exist before), and that it cannot be 

 a component part of ekotibhava, which has nothing of that idea in it. 

 With due deference to the learned doctor, I must take the liberty to 

 differ from him. When ekotibhava is used in the sense of meditation, 

 it clearly means concentration of attention on one object and thereby 

 connotes a state of mind which did not exist before. Similarly when 

 ekotibhava signifies the succession of a Tibetan pontiff, it as clearly 

 points to the happening of an event which was not in existence before. 



Dr. Mitra also objects to the insertion of the suffix chvi after 

 " uta " on the ground that it is preceded by " eka," maintaining that it 

 cannot be said of one single object that it has come to pass and did not 

 exist before. But surely it would not be too much to attribute abhuta- 

 tadbhava to the installation of a new pontiff who thereby becomes a 

 member of the Tibetan Lamahood. 



The learned doctor takes exception to the etymology of " uta,' 

 given in S. C. Das note. Uta is derived from t and ffjf, but Dr. Mitra 

 derives it from ^q and %• Now the verb ^J means going, not 

 weaving ; and though ^ is changed into ^T in the second preterite 

 ( ft^ )> ^ can never take that form before the affix ffjf .f 



* Uta has another form uta, but it matters little, which form is used. 



f In the Sanskrit explanation of the phrase ekotibhava inserted in Babu 

 Sarat Chandra's note, I have said, ^hH^ *&"=! TjfarT'? I Dr. Mitra objects to my 

 Sanskrit, remarking that instead of sutre the locative form, sutrena the instrument- 

 al form should be substituted. But I have used the locative form advisedly, because 

 the idea of instrumentality is kept in the background, and prominence is given to 

 that of something ( ^l*TTT ) containing something else. I would cite here only 

 one parallel passage from the Kadambari, p. 14, G. C. Vidyaratna's edition, Uttara- 



bhaga-' ufa^N t^ «nfw«%." 



