Padmasambhava — the one true spelling, and the forms that fail it
Evidence dossier 372 — Padmasambhava. Every exhibit catalogued, every ruling stated with its grounds.
At a Glance
- Canonical form: Padmasambhava
- Original script: पद्मसम्भव
- Pantheon: Buddhist
- Convention: the tradition’s own scholarly transliteration standard
- False forms on record: 1
- Contested forms: none attested
- Series: The Canonical Register, No. 372 of 542
The Evidence
Exhibit 1 — the attestation. The name is attested as पद्मसम्भव. On the evidence, it means "'Lotus-born' (padma 'lotus' + sambhava 'born, arisen'), 'Guru Rinpoche', the tantric master revered as the founder-figure of Tibetan Buddhism.". The canonical transliteration is Padmasambhava.
Exhibit 2 — the flattened form. The plain form padmasambhava differs from the canonical Padmasambhava only by convention of display — case, not content. It is acceptable everywhere: in legacy systems, in plain-text citation, in the DNS itself. What is not acceptable is what follows in the register: respellings that change the letters, not just their case.
Exhibit 3 — struck from the record: padmasambava. Origin: the anglicized respelling — the name written the way English guesses it sounds. Grounds: rewrites attested consonant clusters to fit English spelling habits; every cluster simplified this way erases a letter the sources write.
Exhibit 4 — the continuing record. Padmasambhava remains a touchstone for understanding buddhist religion, art, and identity.
The Convention's Own History
Every tradition in this register has its own scholarly transliteration standard, built by its own specialists over decades or centuries, and the register follows each on its own terms: the tradition’s own standard. The principle that unifies them is the one the whole project stands on: a name is evidence, and evidence is not negotiable — not for keyboards, not for convenience, not for anyone.
The Protocol's Position
Can the canonical form live in the address bar? Almost always, yes. IDNA 2008 admits every mark this register defends — the DNS stores them as `xn--` punycode and modern browsers render them natively. The real frictions are practical, not legal: some registrars stock only part of the IDN space, so a theoretically valid name can be temporarily unbuyable; and stacked combinations (an acute riding a macron) remain awkward to type on mobile keyboards even where the protocol accepts them.
The project's answer is a ranked ladder, not a compromise: the full restoration first, then attested fallbacks in descending order of completeness. The ladder's lowest rung, plain ASCII, is a vehicle for legacy systems — sanctioned, but never presented as the scholarly form.
The Verdict
Case closed on Padmasambhava: canonical, cited, and defended. The keyboard form padmasambhava is the same name in another register of display — always acceptable. The register's files remain open: if a source surfaces that changes any line of this entry, the entry changes. Until then, the temple at /padmasambhava/ holds the canonical form.
The docket for this ruling: 1 false form ruled against, padmasambava first on the docket; no contested forms attested.
The Register Continues
Entry 372 of 542 in the Canonical Register. Around it: the temple's founding dispatch, the Restoration File on the marks themselves, the Resonance File on the archetype at work, and the Rulebook behind all of it.
Continue the register — previous entry: Pachamama (read it) · next entry: Pān (read it).
The Canonical Register is written from the same canonical record as the lexicon itself. If a false form is missing from this page, it is because the evidence does not support calling it false — or because we have not seen it yet. Show us, with a citation, and the register will answer.