Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not; Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna)
"The Fundamental cause slept in the Space (of potentiality?) seven cycles. It was quiescent from the beginning."
Could the next phrase be All Ngo Wo sum??
Kon Chog not= No three jewels
Thyan-kam (no idea!)
La-chohan not- No deity something-or-other ("han" may refer to a stupor or state of stupor)
Tendrel Chu Nyi not= No dependent origination
Tgenchang - (no idea!)
Barnang= inner blazing?
ssa- No idea
Ngovonnyidj= possible Ngo Wo Nyid, or Essence Itself?
I dunno.....it's a mishmash, I think...
I again agree with conebeckham, now on his comment about Thyan-kam and Tgenchang: "no idea!" There may be some typographical error with these two words.
Some of the other identifications can, I think, be regarded as certain: Kon Chog, the three jewels; Tendrel Chu Nyi, dependent origination.
For "All Nyug bosom," it seems that "bosom" is the English word.
On "Ssa", I have seen the double "ss" used for initial "s" in some books on Tibetan and Mongolian subjects written in German by Isaac Jacob Schmidt and published in Russia in the early 1800s (e.g., Ssanang Ssetsen, Chungtai dschi, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen und ihres Fürstenhauses
, St. Petersburg, 1829). This German letter "ss", which cannot begin a German word, was apparently used back then to show an initial "s" sound that differed from the normal German "s" sound at the beginning of a word. So the word "ssa" is nothing more than "sa", meaning "earth". The phrase, "Barnang and Ssa," then, is just "sky and earth," where barnang is the word spelled bar snang, "sky, atmosphere, space."
For the whole phrase, "Barnang and Ssa in Ngovonyidj," we apparently have ngo bo nyid, one of the two standard Tibetan translations (along with rang bzhin) of the Sanskrit svabhāva, "inherent nature." Perhaps it would indeed be used in the sense of "essence" here. Otherwise it would be hard to make sense of this phrase.