the equivalent for bodhimaṇḍa, and though Foucaux in the alphabetical index to his translation of the Lalita Vistāra gives only the form without ཀྱི་, yet in his text, in the places I verified (p. 239, five times), there is the ཀྱི་ as with Rockhill. In mentioning the word རྡོ་རྗེ་གདན་ a special reference must be made to the element གདན་, commonly translated as bolster, cushion, seat, rug, etc. J. is very detailed about it. He has: ‘a bolster, or seat composed of several quilts or cushions, put one upon the other (five for common people, nine for people of quality).’ Desg. simply ‘stuffed cushion.’ S. Ch. D. more general ‘a low seat, a divan, cushion, a bolster.’ As to J.’s definition my authorities declare that this may be so perhaps ‘on the Ladakh side,’ but is certainly not so in Tibet and in the Darjeeling district. They do not know about the details of five and nine cushions. They take the meaning far wider than bolster or cushion. They say that anything used to support anything or to seat anybody may be called གདན་, it may be a sheet of cloth, a carpet, a blanket, a cushion, a bolster, a seat in general, anything used for lying or sitting down on. The word has a meaning exactly opposite to the English ‘cover’ and can consequently be used in as many varied senses as the latter. Etymologically—if the root of གདན་, as seems probable, means ‘to support’—the word would mean something like ‘bearer,’ ‘basis,’ ‘bed,’ ‘floor,’ ‘upholder.’ We might think of ‘underwear,’ though in English that particular word is used with quite another association of ideas. In typography there is a word ‘underlay’ which corresponds exactly to the meaning of གདན་. The word ‘bedplate’, used in engineering, comes also near to it. It will be easily seen how an applied meaning as ‘cushion, bolster,’ if given as the general sense of the word, would in many cases be totally inadequate. The line of associations to which ‘cushion’ belongs, and the line of associations to which ‘seat, support, underlay’ belong, intersect at only one point and for the rest have nothing in common. A table-cloth may be called གདན་ because the food rests on it (ལྟོ་གདན་ is used in this sense; lit. something like ‘food-sheet, that on which the food rests’). In a ritual it is prescribed that the གདན་ for the offerings should be a spotless piece of white cotton or other cloth, called མཆོད་གདན་, ‘offering sheet,’ ‘that on which the offerings rest.’ Bell has ས་གདན་ for ‘carpet’; small cushion, placed on chair ཁ་གདན་; large cushion on ground འབོལ་གདན་. This is a most interesting example illustrating the fact that it is strictly necessary first to find out the root-idea of a Tibetan word before translating it by words representing the incidental applications of that root-idea. Whoever has handled Chinese dictionaries knows how specially necessary this is in studying Indo-Chinese languages. The Sanskrit equivalent, āsana, is derived from the root ās, to sit or lie, but the Tib. root seems different.