Mistakes in translation from Sanskrit by Natalia S. Yakhontova
I will start not with mistakes but with a short description of the texts - the sources for this work.
It is well-known that a lot of works were translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan and then into Mongolian. Special dictionaries were composed to support the work of translators. One of them is multi-lingual famous terminological Mahāvyutpatti dictionary. It has text in three languages Sanskrit, Tibetan and Mongolian dealing with both Buddhist terms and common words but the religious terms prevail. It seems to be a perfect work and only occasional mistakes can be noticed there.
Yet there existed another tradition traced back to Indian sources, as well. That is lexicons – a special kind of dictionaries which being examples of poetical pieces themselves aim to be a source of inspiration and a kind of a poetical reference book for other poets. Lexicons are written in verse, they include so called poetical names (or poetical words or synonyms or epithets or sub-names or allegories – there exist different ways of naming them) which correspond to a variety of referents – mythological characters, natural phenomena, plants, animals, people, etc. but there are no special religious terms. Nevertheless names of Buddha and some Bodhisattvas are included.
To explain what a poetical name is here is one example composed just for illustration: “When the one with seven horses was rising the one with feathers was sitting in the one drinking with its feet”. This sentence consists of three poetical names, naming the sun, a bird and a tree. In not poetical language it means: “When the sun was rising a bird was sitting in a tree”.
Two the most well-known Indian authors of such dictionaries are Amarasimha who wrote the Amarakośa dictionary (AK) (8th century) and Hemacandra the author of Abhihānacintāmani dictionary (12th century). 
Both dictionaries are organized in the subject order. AK dictionary begins with the words for paradise, Jina and Buddha, gods in general and different gods personally with their close relatives and fasces: Brahmā, Viṣṇu (his father Vasudeva, his brother Balarāma, his son Kāmadeva, his spouse Lakṣmī, his weapons – discus and conch, his vehicle Garuḍa), Śiva and Indra (both with corresponding relatives and fasces), demigods: kinnaras, apsaras, gandharvas and others, Agni – the god of fire, Yama, Varuṇa – the god of waters, Vāyu – the god of wind. Then come natural phenomena, first those dealing with the sky – the sky, a cloud, lightning, thunder, a rainbow, a rain, kinds of rain, drought, frost, a star, a planet, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn, Rāhu and Ketu, different constellations, Sun, its rays, its light, Moon. In the third part there are parts of the day (morning, daytime, evening, night), lunar phases, seasons, months, a year, kalpa. Several next parts include epithets for crime and virtue, happiness and fate, senses and character, different words dealing with language and speech, music and dances. Next parts have words for disasters, nagas, snakes and poisons, hell and its inhabitants. A rather big part includes words dealing with water – a sea, water, a shore, an island, a boat, an oar, a sail, a fish, a fishing rod, a hook, different kinds of fish, water animals, a crocodile, a shell, a lake, a river, Gangga, Yamuna and other rivers, a water-lily, a lotus. The largest part has words for land including not only types of soil, landscape (e.g. mountain and forest) and dwellings but everything that grows and lives on Earth: different kinds of animals (from insects to tiger), birds (including tail and wings), plants, trees (leaves and trunk, as well) and herbs. There are a lot of words dealing with a man, relatives, social groups and professions, tools and implements, domestic animals, medicine and clothes, weapons and military structures, and a lot of other things. The number of words for each referent ranges from two (e.g. for planets) to thirty (e.g. for the Sun, gods, Śiva).
The AK dictionary was translated into Tibetan in the 13th century . 
Later the dictionaries of this kind were written in Tibetan the most well-known one among them is Mkhas pa’i rna rgyan “The Decoration of the Wise Man’s Ears” dictionary (MRR). Its structure and subject matter are the same as those of Sanskrit lexicons, Buddhist influence, however, is easily seen. It begins with words for Vajradhara, Kālacakra, Hevajra, Śaṁbara and then comes Buddha, bodhisattvas in general and personally – Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, Avalokitekeśvara, Vajrapāṇi, a pratyeka-buddha, a śrāvaka, and only then comes a deity and Indian mythological characters and others following up to the end the pattern of the AK dictionary.
From Tibet this Indian tradition came to Mongolia. A good number of poetical words from AK and MRR dictionaries are found in the Tibetan-Mongolian dictionary by Sumatiratna (SR). Sumatiratna is the name of a Buriat scholar Rinchen Nomtoev who worked at the end of 19th century. The poetical names in his dictionary are given in alphabetic order along with ordinary words. A few of them are provided with their Sanskrit equivalents written in Tibetan and comments.
There is one dictionary of this kind written in the Oirat language. The Oirats is the name of West-Mongols, whose written language is close enough to Mongolian though they used a modified Mongolian script. The existing differences between Mongolian and Oirat are irrelevant for us here.
The manuscript of Oirat dictionaryis a comparatively small text, there only are about one thousand words or word combinations. There is no title but in the colophon it is said: Arya burxan terigöüten-i nereyin züyiliyin dokō ‘Collection of names for holy Buddha and others’ (f. 17r). The name of the translator is Zaya Pandita – a prominent person due to whose activities the Oirats have their own script – so called “clear script” (todo bičig). The Oirat dictionary is surely a translation from Tibetan but not of one text but a kind of compilation from different works. The words found there are Oirat translations of Tibetan words from AK and MRR and still from other Tibetan works unknown for me. Their Sanskrit originals can be found in the AK dictionary and in one more Sanskrit dictionary – Abhidhānacintāmaṇi written by Hemachandra in the 12th century.
Now we are getting closer to mistakes. It is important to take into consideration that the group of poetical names or epithets (or whatever we call them) is a closed group though rather big (in Sanskrit there are thousands of words, in Tibetan and Mongolian hundreds of them). That means that when a word with a strange meaning appears on Mongolian or Oirat list of epithets its Tibetan and Sanskrit originals should be looked for among a limited choice.
A certain Sanskrit epithet underwent two stage translation: first from Sanskrit into Tibetan and then from Tibetan into Oirat or Mongolian (or both). When the words in these four languages referring to one referent are compared it appears that among a prevailing number of well translated words (it’s only surprising how translators managed so well-done translations centuries ago without any spell-checkers available for them) there is discrepancy due either to accidental mistakes or to deliberate creative translations and in most cases it is impossible to tell one from the other. When the translator came across a word with obscure meaning he could suspect a mistake or misprint or a slip of pen (while there was none) and translated it as it seemed more logical or sensible for him. As the translation was made in two stages some Oirat or Mongolian translations could combine mistakes made on both stages. The main reasons for discrepancy or mistakes were the following: the absence of the context, word-for-word translation often based on popular etymology, a lot of alien cultural phenomena (such as names of mythological characters), choice of the wrong meaning of the word, misreading or mishearing of closely written or pronounced words. When combined these reasons led to appearing in the Mongolian part of SR’s dictionary and in the Oirat dictionary translations which were rather far from their Sanskrit originals.
A kind of classification of mistakes is suggested but it can’t be strict because different mistakes on the two levels are sometimes combined.
Before we proceed to examples some short remarks should be made.
All Sanskrit words come from the AK dictionary, for their English translation I used the Sanskrit-English dictionary by M. Monier-Williams.
The Tibetan words are either from the AK or from SR’s dictionaries.
The Mongolian words are from Sumatiratna’s dictionary and Oirat are from the manuscript Oirat dictionary.
The first group is Sanskrit proper names which were translated word-for-word in Tibetan and this translation was then repeated in Mongolian or Oirat plus the second translation sometimes added misreading on its level.
I.1. In the AK dictionary Garuda – Vishnu’s vahana – is called by a Sanskrit epithet tārkṣya. This word has no clear etymology and its Tibetan translation was based on a doubtful etymology: Skr. tārа ‘star’, akṣa ‘eye’, –ya ‘coming from’, which made Tib. skar mig bu ‘star eyes’ son’, Oir. odun nidüni köböün id. In the MRR dictionary there is a comment saying that Garuda was the son of a hermit who was called Star-eyed, which is a fantasy.
I.2. One of Vishnu’s names is Skr. vaikuṇṭha ‘[lord] of Vaikuntha’ (vaikuṇṭha is the name of Vishnu’s heaven). There are two wrong translations of this name both based on popular etymology: the Tibetan translator saw Sanskrit word stem kuṇṭha ‘foolish’ and prefix vai- ‘coming from’ and the result was Tietan rtul mo’i bu ‘son of a silly-she’. The translator into Oirat probably didn’t like the idea of a “foolish woman” being Vishnu’s mother and he preferred to see Tib. rdul ‘dust’ instead of Tib. rtul and his translation was Oir. tōsun emeyin köböün ‘son of a dusty woman’. It often happens that some widely used names of mythological characters which are composed of their spouses’ names lost this meaning on Mongolian level as the result of their literally translation into Tibetan. It is shown in the following two examples.
I.3. Vishnu’s spouse is called Skr. śrī (which has the literally meaning ‘glory’). His name is Skr. śrī-pati ‘Shri’s husband’ (literally “master”), and it was translated into Tibetan as dpal gyi bdag po id. (lit. ‘master of glory’). The Oirat translation has the same meaning as the Tibetan one: cogiyin ezen ‘master of glory’ but it has only the literary meaning with no reference to the name of Vishnu’s spouce.
I.4. Kama’s spouse’ name is Skr. rati (lit.‘pleasure’), correspondingly Kama’s name is Skr. rati-nāyaka ‘rati’s husband’, Tib. dga’ rab dbang phyug id., Oir. bayasxulang-du maši erkešiqči ‘very mighty in happiness’. The Oirat version matches the image of the god of love but has lost the original meaning.
I.5. The loss of the connection with the original can be seen in the two stage translation of Kubera’s name – Skr. puṇyajaneśvara ‘the puniajana’s lord’. Skr. puṇyajanas is the name of a class of supernatural beings which literally means ‘good people’. In the AK dictionary it was translated as Tib. bsod nams skye bo’i dbang po ‘meritorious people’s lord’. Skr. puṇya has both meanings “good” and “meritorious”, Skr. jana can be translated as “a person” or as “born”. In SR’s dictionary the second part of the Tibetan name (dbang po) was lost and Kubera’s name became Tib. bsod nams skye bo ‘born from merits’, Mong. buyan-ača törögsen id. Rather far from the original meaning.
I.6. In the АК dictionary “a deity (in general)” is called Skr. aditi-nandana ‘Aditi’s son’. Aditi is the name of a mythological character who is considered to be the mother of deities. Skr. aditi-nandana was literally translated into Tibetan as Tib. mi sbyin dga’ ‘not-giving’s joy’ basing on Sanskrit a- negative prefix, diti ‘giving’, nandana ‘joy’ (the latter word has two meanings “son” and “joy”). But in SR’s dictionary we have Tib. me sbyin dga’ ‘rejoicing fire oblation’, Mong. γal öglige-tü bayasqu id. which originally is the translation of the same Sanskrit aditi-nandana which appeared because Tibetan negative particle mi was misread as me ‘fire’.
I.7. Actually these two Tibetan words (mi and me) were often mixed. SR’s dictionary has two Tibetan epithets for “a bird (in general)”: Tib. mi’i mgrin ‘a human’s throat’, Mong. kümün-ü qoγolai id. and Tib. me’i mgrin ‘a fire throat’, Mong. γal-un qoγolai id. The existence of these two similar in writing but very different in meaning epithets for one referent makes us doubt their accuracy. Neither of the two seems to be correct because neither has a prototype in Sanskrit. Most probably they both are the result of a “creative” translation of Skr. śakunta ‘a bird’ which was not translated but written in the AK dictionary in Tibetan script as sha-ku-nta. It could have been interpreted as Skr. *a-kaṇṭha ‘without a throat’ and translated in Tibetan as mi mgrin id. The Tibetan negative mi has the second meaning “a person” that is why the whole name was translated into Mogolian as “a human throat”. The second name (“the fire throat”) appeared when Tibetan mi was misread as me ‘fire’.
The second group combines those cases where the improper meaning of a poly-semantic Sanskrit word was chosen for the Tibetan translation. The most mistranslated word among the epithets is Skr. hari which has several meanings itself (yellow, green, to take away) and is mixed with Skr. hārin (stealing, having a necklace). In the following examples the Tibetan translation chose the meaning different from the Sanskrit original, and the Mongolian and the Oirat ones followed Tibetan.
II.1. The lion is called Skr. haryakśa ‘yellow-eyed’, Tib. ‘phrog byed mig ‘robbing eyes’, Oir. bulān üyiledüqči nidün id.
II.2. The Sun is Skr. harid-aśva ‘with light red horses’, Tib. rta ljang can ‘with green horses’, Oir. noōn mori-tu id.
II.3. The cuckoo is Skr. hāri-kaṇṭha ‘with a necklace on its neck’, Tib. ’phrog byed gtam can ‘with robbing words’ (Skr. kaṇṭha ‘a neck’, ‘a voice,’ ‘a sound’), Oir. bulān üyiledüqči ügetü id. In some cases one Sanskrit word which has two meanings was translated into Tibetan twice and each time in a different way.
II.4. In the AK dictionary there is an epithet for a deity (in general) Skr. gīr-vāṇa ‘whose arrow is speech’. The two different translations of the AK dictionary present two different ways of its Tibetan translation. The first is tshig mda’ can ‘one possessing words-arrows’ and the second is ngag gi mda’ can ‘one possessing tongue-arrows’. Both can be found in SR’s dictionary. The first was left intact and was translated into Mongolian as üge-yin sumutan ‘possessing words-arrows’ while the second underwent further modifications and was changed into Tibetan ngag gi mtsho cha ‘tongue sword’ and provided with the Mongolian translation kelen-ü mese id.
II.5. There are two following Tibetan expressions and their Mongolian translations for a deity (in general) in SR’s dictionary: the first one is Tib. sbyin sreg za ‘one who eats burnt oblation’, Mong. öglige tülesi idegči id. The other is Tib. sbyin sreg lag pa ‘the hand burning oblation’, Mong. öglige tülegči-yin γar ‘the hand of the one who is burning oblation’. They both correspond to one Sanskrit epithet yajña-bhuj ‘one who eats burnt oblation’. The first Tibetan is the correct translation while the second instead of translating Skr. bhuj ‘eat’ translated Skr. bhuja ‘a hand’.
In the AK dictionary Sanskrit words were sometimes not translated into Tibetan but written in Tibetan script and that sometimes led away from their original meaning because they were misread or misunderstood.
III.1. Maheshvara’s name Skr. gaṅgādhara ‘holding Ganga’ was correctly half written half translated into Tibetan as ganggā ‘dzin id. At the same time in Oyirat there appeared an epithet for Maheshvara xongorcoq bariqči ‘holding a pod’. The reason for such a rather strange translation was the likeliness in writing of two Tibetan words ganggā ‘Ganga’ and gang bu ‘a pod’. It shows that the translator wasn’t aware of a story from the Indian mythology telling how Shiva (Maheshvara) saved the Earth from destruction by holding the Ganga river over his head and preventing it from falling down in one huge stream.
III.2. In SR’s dictionary one can find two obviously Sanskrit words written in Tibetan script as ska rka ṭa and ka ka ru. Both of them correspond to one Sanskrit word karkaṭa ‘a crab’. But they both are translated in Mongolian as kilinčetü qorqoi ‘a scorpion’. The Sanskrit “crab” was transformed into the Mongolian “scorpion” because of the translation in the АК dictionary. where there are two Sanskrit words for “a crab” – kulīra and karkaṭa placed one after another. The first was translated into Tibetan as sdig pa ‘a scorpion’ instead of more appropriate sdig srin ‘a crab’. The second word was not translated but written as Tib. ka rka ṭa. From the point of view of those who knew Tibetan but didn’t know Sanskrit the second word should have the same meaning as the first one namely “a scorpion.
That was not the only transformation of the Sanskrit words for “crab” in the SR’s dictionary. There are two other obviously Sanskrit words written in Tibetan script: ku la ra and ka rka ṭa which can be easily identified as the two above mentioned Sanskrit words for “a crab” (kulīra and karkaṭa). But their meaning in the SR’s dictionary is not “a crab” but “a tortoise”, which is clear from their Mongolian translations: the first was translated as menekei ‘a tortoise’ and the second as yeke menekei ‘a large tortoise’. The reason for this transformation is again in the AK dictionary where these two Sanskrit words for “a crab” precede the beginning of the list of words for “a tortoise” and could have been mixed since there are no any marks showing the boundaries between different referents’ lists.
There is no contradiction between the first transformation (“a crab” into “a scorpion”) and the second (“a crab” into “a tortoise”) though the same Sanskrit words were engaged. Between the AK dictionary and SR’s dictionary there is a huge time distance and the author of the latter could have used a number of other texts but not necessarily the AK itself.
Two neighbouring separate Sanskrit words were sometimes read and translated into Tibetan as one compound word.
In the AK dictionary there are epithets for Shiva’s spouse Parvati who is commonly called Uma in Mongolian tradition. Among many others there are two adjacent ones which were translated as one word. The first is Skr. śivā ‘Shiva-she’ (the feminine gender is indicated by a long vowel), its Tibetan translation is zhi ma id. (the feminine gender is indicated by ma), its literally meaning is ‘favourable-she’. The second epithet is Skr. bhavānī, (Tib. srid ma) which is the feminine for another Shiva’s name (bhava lit. ‘existence’, ‘world’) and has a literary meaning ‘world -she’. In SR’s dictionary there are two Tibetan epithets for Uma Tib. srid pa ma ‘world -she’, Mong. sangsar eke ‘the world mother’ which clearly correspond to Skr. bhavānī and Tib. shi ba’i sring mo ‘the favourable’s sister’, Mong. amurlingγui-yin ikneči ‘the favourable’s elder sister’. The second one appeared as the result of translating of two Sanskrit words together: śivā and bhavānī and changing of the Tibetan word srid ma ‘world-she’ into sring mo ‘the (elder) sister’. The new combination has more common sense than each word separately but this sense is far away from the original.
In the Oyirat manuscript dictionary there are not a few mistakes that originated from the misreading or mishearing of a Tibetan word.
V.1. The tiger has a Sanskrit epithet vana-śvan ‘a forest dog’, its Tibetan translation being nags kyi shva na id. But in Oyirat it was turned into šuuyin yeke maxan ‘large forest meat’ because the Tibetan word shva na ‘a dog’ was mistaken for sha ‘meat’.
V.2.The asura in Sanskrit is called śukra-śisya ‘Venus’s desciple’, Tib. ba sangs slob ma id., while in Oirat it became pasangs oyutu ‘one who has Venus’s wit’ because instead of Tibetan slob ma ‘desciple’ the word blo ‘wit’ was translated into Oirat.
V.3.The bee is Skr. dvirepha ‘[the one having] two [letters] ra’, Tib. ra yig gnyis pa ‘[the one having] two letters ra’ while in Oirat it was translated as xoyor eber üzüqtü ‘[the one] having a letter with two horns’ because Tibetan ra was mistaken for rva ‘horn’.
V.4. The famous Indra’s weapon – vajra is called in Sanskrit svara ‘full of noise’, Tib. sgra ldan id., but the Oirat translation was dayisun tögüsüqsen ‘full of enemies’. The Tibetan words sgra ‘voice’ and dgra ‘enemy’ are pronounced in the same way. The new incorrect epithet seemed to match better the deadly Indra’s weapon. This is an example of mishearing the word, which proves that the practice of oral translation existed.
V.5. The next example shows how from a name of the Moon – Skr. osadhīśa ‘the lord of herbs’ – an Oyirat name šime kümüni erketü ‘the lord of a juice man’ appeared. There are three Tibetan translations of this name: Tib. rtsa yi bdag po ‘the lord of herbs’ (Tib. rtsa ‘a herb’), Tib. rtsi’i dbang phyug ‘the lord of juice’ (Tib. rtsi ‘medicine’, ‘juice’) and Tib. bdud rtsi’i dbang po ‘the lord of nectar’ (Tib. bdud rtsi ‘nectar’). Each of the three Tibetan translations has a different word with the meaning “lord” and the same meaning is expressed in Sanskrit and in Oirat by proper words. So the last component is adequate in all translations. The first word is “a herb” in Sanskrit, while in Tibetan there are variants (“a herb”, “juice” and “nectar”). The development of “a herb” into “juice” happened on the Tibetan level and was further translated into Oirat. But the Oirat translation has an extra word “a man” while there is no such word either in the Sanskrit or in Tibetan expressions. It must have appeared in the Oirat translation when the Tibetan Genitive particle ‘i was misread as the word mi ‘a man’.
Besides lexical transformations there is one grammar peculiarity that is typical for the structure of some epithets in Sanskrit which led to the change in their meaning when translated into Tibetan. A lot of Sanskrit epithets belong to the class of so-called composita (compound words) which do not have any formal grammar markers showing grammar relations between two stems though these relations exist. The translation of these words can either follow its formal structure or show grammar relations between stems. When the first way is chosen the wrong meaning of the whole compound word can appear. Among composita several groups are distinguished and here are two structurally identical words that both belong to one group. The first, Skr. padmapāṇi, looks like just a combination of two words “a lotus” and “a hand” but it should be translated as ‘the one with a lotus in his hand’ (an epithet for Avalokiteshvara) and the second, Skr. cakrapāṇi, ‘the one with a chakra (a wheel) in his hand’ (an epithet for Vishnu) differs from the first only by the first part. They were translated into Tibetan in two different ways. In the translation of the first epithet the Tibetan Locative particle na indicates grammar relations between the words: phyag na pad ma ‘with a lotus in [his] hand’ and it is the correct rendering of the meaning. The Genitive particle (‘i) was used in the Tibetan translation of the second epithet: ‘khor lo’i phyag ‘a wheeled hand’ (or it may be “wheeled hands”, as well), which is a wrong interpretation of the meaning of the second Sanskrit epithet.
In conclusion I’d like to say that all above mentioned examples show that in the field of epithets there is, on the one hand, a clear connection with the Sanskrit lexicons, though, on the other hand, a lot of links were lost or unrecognizably transformed. In the latter case the question of their relation to the Sanskrit originals is more of etymological interest than of the restoration of their lost meaning because this new meaning was accepted and used on the Tibetan and Mongolian levels for this new meaning sometimes made more sense than just literally translation of a Sanskrit word.
Thank you for your patience. I hope that this information can be at least typologically useful for those who deal with any kind of translations, which all of us do both in our studies and in our everyday life.
- For mistakes in its Mongolian translations see notes in Alice Sárkӧzi. A Buddhist Terminological dictionary. The Mongolian Mahāvyutpatti edited by Alice Sárközi. Académiai Kiadó. Budapest. 1995.
- Both texts were published. Amarakoсha ou Vocabulairé d’Amarasinha publié en Sanskrit avec une traduction française, des notes et un index par A.Loiseleur Deslongchamps. Paris, 1839. Hemak’andra’s Abhihānak’intāmani ein systematisch angeordnetes synomische Lexicon St.Petersburg, 1847. Herausgegeben, überzetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von Otto Böhtlingk und Charles Rieu. The words from lexicons can be found in different Sanskrit dictionaries the most complete in this respect being the M. Monier-Williams dictionary. (M. Monier-Williams. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford. 1899). The words in the latter are given in the alphabetic order and those of them which are rare and can be found only in lexicons are marked with letter L.
- Three Tibetan translations of AK were used in this work. First is a Sanskrit text with the Tibetan translation: Amarakośaḥ, a metrical dictionary of the Sanskrit language with Tibetan version. Edited by Mahāmahopādhyāya Satis Chandra Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Calcutta, 1911. The second is a xylograph from the Tibetan manuscript collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), call number В 8927/1. It consists of a Sanskrit text in Tibetan script and its Tibetan translation. The third is The Amarakosa in Tibet being a new Tibetan version by the great grammarian Si-tu edited by Dr.Lokesh Chandra. Śata-Piṭaka series. Indo-Asian Literature. Volume 38. New Delhi, 1965.
- Its full Tibetan name is mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos mkhas pa’i rna rgyan zhes bya bshugs so ‘Shastra of clear sayings named «The decoration of Wise Men’s Ears»’. The author’s name is Ngag dbang ’jig rten dbang phyug grags pa’i rdo rje (16th century). We used a xylograph from the Tibetan manuscript collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), call number В 10437/1. The work by D.Burnee, D.Enkhtor. Tobd mongol ilt oguulekh neriyin toli. Ulaanbaatar. 2003 is based on this dictionary. Entries from the MRR can be found in modern dictionaries such as S.Ch.Das. A Tibetan-English dictionary. Calcutta, 1902; Yu.N. Roerih, Tibetsko-russko-angliskiy slovar s sanskritskimi parallelami. Vypusk 1-10. Moskva, 1984-1987; Three volume Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary (bod-rgya tshig mdzod chen-mo), edited by Chzan Isun, Peking, 1986.
- Sumatiratn-a. Bod hor kyi brda yig min chig don gsum gsal bar byed pa mun sel skron me. Töbed mongγol-un dokiyan-u bičig: ner-e üge udqa γurban-i toduraγulun qaranqγui-yi arilγaγči jula: Corpus Scriptorum Mongolorum. Tomus. VI. Ulsyn hevlel. Ulaanbaatar. 1959. The publication D.Burnee, D.Enkhtor. Tobd mongol toli. Ulaanbaatar, 2001. is based on Sumatiratna’s dictionary.
- The Mongolian manuscript collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), call number C 311.
- Hemak’andra’s Abhidhānak’intāmani ein systematisch angeordnetes synomische Lexicon. St.Petersburg, 1847. Herausgegeben, überzetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von Otto Böhtlingk und Charles Rieu.