[INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī

Hartmut Buescher buescherhartmut at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 22:57:57 EST 2020


Dear followers of this thread,



although there may have been several Aśvaghoṣas (as in the cases of
Nāgārjuna,

Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, etc.), including a Tantric *siddhācārya*, the one
previously

referred to as our point of departure in this context, is of course the one
dated to

the 1st–2nd century CE, who “is widely acknowledged as one of the earliest
and

greatest representatives of Indian *kāvya* literature” (Eltschinger, JIP 41
[2013]: 167),

and who lived around the same time that has been estimated by Olivelle
(“probably

in the middle of the second century CE”, in *Hindu **Law*, 2018: 24) to be
likewise that

of the composition of the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.



For various reasons, I stumbled over *Vajrasūcī*, verse 12, which in the
commentary

(2nd ed. Mukhopadhyaya, 1960: 3) is introduced as having actually been
uttered

(*uktaṃ hi mānave dharme*) in this *Mānavadharmaśāstra* (MDh):



          *ākāśagāmino viprāḥ patanti māṃsabhakṣaṇāt |*

*          viprāṇāṃ patanaṃ dṛṣṭvā tato māṃsāni varjayet ||12||*



          Due to consuming meat, the space-walking seers do fall.

          Hence, observing the seers’ fall one should abandon meats.



Although not being a direct quotation, the reference to MDh 5.48

is clear enough, especially in consideration of VS 12d and MDh 5.48d

(quoting Olivelle’s ed & tr in the following):



          *nākṛtvā prāṇināṃ hiṃsāṃ māṃsam utpadyate kvacit |*

*          na ca prāṇivadhaḥ svargyas tasmān māṃsaṃ vivarjayet || 48 ||*



          One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living beings,

          and killing living beings is an impediment to heaven; he should,

          therefore, abstain from meat.



While this reference may be considered as providing sufficient philological

evidence for historically assuming VS to be later than MDh, the fact that
the

notion of an *ākāśagāmin* corresponds to that of a *khecara* would at least
not

contradict the assumption that the author of the *Vajrasūcī* may in fact
have

been associated with the social sphere of the *siddhācārya*s, being also the

sphere of Vajrayāna.



Another twist of the story is provided by the respective arguments for

abstaining from consuming pieces of flesh from the corpses of brutally

slaughtered animals, given particularly in Mahāyāna, prior to the
antinomian

Vajrayāna practice of ritually consuming flesh, the main Buddhist reason

for not harming any living beings has been compassion (cf., e.g., the
concise

outline in Schmithausen’s “The Case of Vegetarianism – A Buddhist

Perspective” [https://tinyurl.com/qqxhvrf]). – Comparing the two verses
quoted

above, it is in MDh 5.48, where compassion is appealed to. The *Vajrasūcī*,

contrary to what we might expect, is not doing so. How to historically
account

for this evidence? Could it be that, while likewise casting a side-glance
at his

space-walking colleagues, *siddhācārya *Aśvaghoṣa’s intention has been to
also

include them in his critique of animal corpse consumers?



Best wishes,

Hartmut Buescher

.



On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:52 AM Hartmut Buescher <buescherhartmut at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear followers of this thread,
>
>
>
> although there may have been several Aśvaghoṣas (as in the cases of
> Nāgārjuna,
>
> Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, etc.), including a Tantric *siddhācārya*, the one
> previously
>
> referred to as our point of departure in this context, is of course the
> one dated to
>
> the 1st–2nd century CE, who “is widely acknowledged as one of the
> earliest and
>
> greatest representatives of Indian *kāvya* literature” (Eltschinger, JIP
> 41 [2013]: 167),
>
> and who lived around the same time as that which has been estimated by
> Olivelle
>
> (“probably in the middle of the second century CE”, in *Hindu **Law*,
> 2018: 24) to be
>
> likewise that of the composition of the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.
>
>
>
> For various reasons, I stumbled over *Vajrasūcī*, verse 12, which in the
> commentary
>
> (2nd ed. Mukhopadhyaya, 1960: 3) is introduced as having actually been
> uttered
>
> (*uktaṃ hi mānave dharme*) in this *Mānavadharmaśāstra* (MDh):
>
>
>
>           *ākāśagāmino viprāḥ patanti māṃsabhakṣaṇāt |*
>
> *          viprāṇāṃ patanaṃ dṛṣṭvā tato māṃsāni varjayet ||12||*
>
>
>
>           Due to consuming meat, the space-walking seers do fall.
>
>           Hence, observing the seers’ fall one should abandon meats.
>
>
>
> Although not being a direct quotation, the reference to MDh 5.48
>
> is clear enough, especially in consideration of VS 12d and MDh 5.48d
>
> (quoting Olivelle’s ed & tr in the following):
>
>
>
>           *nākṛtvā prāṇināṃ hiṃsāṃ māṃsam utpadyate kvacit |*
>
> *          na ca prāṇivadhaḥ svargyas tasmān māṃsaṃ vivarjayet || 48 ||*
>
>
>
>           One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living
> beings,
>
>           and killing living beings is an impediment to heaven; he
> should,
>
>           therefore, abstain from meat.
>
>
>
> While this reference may be considered as providing sufficient
> philological
>
> evidence for historically assuming VS to be later than MDh, the fact that
> the
>
> notion of an *ākāśagāmin* corresponds to that of a *khecara* would at
> least not
>
> contradict the assumption that the author of the *Vajrasūcī* may in fact
> have
>
> been associated with the social sphere of the *siddhācārya*s, being also
> the
>
> sphere of Vajrayāna.
>
>
>
> Another twist of the story is provided by the respective arguments for
>
> abstaining from consuming pieces of flesh from the corpses of brutally
>
> slaughtered animals, given particularly in Mahāyāna, prior to the
> antinomian
>
> Vajrayāna practice of ritually consuming flesh, the main Buddhist reason
>
> for not harming any living beings has been compassion (cf., e.g., the
> concise
>
> outline in Schmithausen’s “The Case of Vegetarianism – A Buddhist
>
> Perspective” [https://tinyurl.com/qqxhvrf]). – Comparing the two verses
> quoted
>
> above, it is in MDh 5.48, where compassion is appealed to. The *Vajrasūcī*,
>
>
> contrary to what we might expect, is not doing so. How to historically
> account
>
> for this evidence? Could it be that, while likewise casting a side-glance
> at his
>
> space-walking colleagues, *siddhācārya *Aśvaghoṣa’s intention has been to
> also
>
> include them in his critique of animal corpse consumers?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hartmut Buescher
>
> .
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:41 AM Dan Lusthaus via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear Vincent,
>>
>> Thank you for your further comments.
>>
>> I didn’t mean to suggest that the yukta pramāṇa described in the Caraka
>> Saṃhitā was the same as the dharmārthayuktaṃ vacanaṃ pramāṇam of the
>> Vajrasūcī. Only that a pramāṇa explicitly based on yukta (however one
>> parses that phrase) is something seen early on, and then it disappears. The
>> yukta-pramāṇa of the Caraka is a fascinating thing whose loss probably was
>> a loss for the entire Indian philosophical enterprise. Farmers and doctors
>> shared a common concern, which is that to get from initial cause to actual
>> fruition involves a process in time of multiple causes, with multiple
>> stages, any of which can effect or nullify the outcome: planting a crop and
>> being able to harvest; pregnancy making it to term; etc. Taking all
>> relevant factors into account and calculating the probabilities of a
>> successful final outcome was what yukta pramāṇa was designed to accomplish.
>> In some ways, that is closer to the probabalistic reasoning that has
>> displaced causal thinking in western philosophy (and some sciences) since
>> the early 20th c than the more mechanistic cause and invariant effect
>> reasoning more prevalent in Indian thought. Obviously, the Caraka’s yukta
>> pramāṇa is not the same thing as drawing knowledge through discourse
>> employing reasoning based on dharma and artha (or the meaning/purpose of
>> dharma).
>>
>> The idea of prototypical ideas that emerge later under the rubric of
>> Mīmāṃsā is intriguing. The Yogācārabhūmi is an often ignored treasure trove
>> of ideas circulating in India earlier than is often recognized (as is the
>> Tattvasiddhi, though not adequately captured in Sastri’s translations, in
>> which many of the stock arguments repeated in pramāṇavāda texts are already
>> found). Squeamishness about sacrifices is quite early — Jains and even
>> Sāṃkhyans express those ideas, and one can see some reaction against that
>> even in the Bhagavad Gītā (whether one dates that to 200 BCE or 200 CE).
>> Dignāga does deal with Mīmāṃsā in PS, for which there is no (available)
>> Chinese translation. (There is a hint that a one fascicle translation was
>> made, but no evidence of it aside from a mention of its title in a
>> catalogue of translations).
>>
>> The Chinese sources frequently cite a school by its founder’s name
>> instead of the name of the school. Typically:
>> Kapila 迦毘羅, the founder of Sāṃkhya 數論; Ulūka 優樓佉 (a.k.a. Kaṇâda 食米齋),
>> the founder of Vaiśeṣika 勝論宗, and Ṛṣabha 勒沙婆, the founder of the
>> Nirgranthas.
>>
>> As far as I can find, there is no Chinese version of Jaimini’s name.
>> Again, I would be happy to learn otherwise.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 8:11 PM, Eltschinger, Vincent <
>> Vincent.Eltschinger at oeaw.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dan,
>> My impression is that the Buddhists became aware of Mīmāṃsā as a distinct
>> religio-philosophical school (and not just as a purely intra-Brahmanical
>> type of “theological/exegetical” inquiry) some time during the fourth
>> century CE (or perhaps in the early fifth), even though the term may not
>> occur, at least not regularly, before Dignāga (480-540). It is also around
>> the fourth century CE that certain Buddhists started arguing against ideas
>> that are close to those known to us from later Mīmāṃsaka sources (e.g., on
>> sacrificial violence, the caste-classes, etc.), even though several among
>> these ideas find interesting prototypes in the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.
>> This is especially the case in the so-called *paravāda* section of the
>> *Yogācārabhūmi*. Hundreds of pages could be written on these topics.
>> The stanza you quote is arguably the most important in the *Vajrasūcī*,
>> for it spells out the philosophical-polemical program of the entire work. A
>> rough translation might be: “The Vedas are authoritative (*pramāṇa*);
>> the Smṛtis are authoritative; [any] speech/discourse endowed/connected (
>> *yukta*) with *dharma *and *artha *is authoritative. A [person] for whom
>> a [previously acknowledged] *pramāṇa* would cease (*na bhavet*) to be a
>> *pramāṇa *[because it contradicts his/her position on the issue of the
>> caste-classes], who [on earth] would take his/her speech/discourse to be a
>>  *pramāṇa*/authoritative?” One can certainly discuss the exact structure
>> and meaning of the compound *dharmārthayukta*, but seriously doubt that
>> *yukta* here has anything to do with the *pramāṇa* the medical tradition
>> refers to as *yukti *(see articles by Filliozat, Steinkellner, and
>> others). Or did I miss the point?
>> I entirely agree with you as regards Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika: from the 1st
>> -2nd to the 5th century, these traditions/schools are the most frequent
>> targets of the Buddhist controversialists. The Nyāya (works by [the
>> pseudo?]Nāgārjuna) and the Mīmāṃsā play a comparatively minor role, as do
>> the Jains (targeted as early as Āryadeva’s *Catuḥśataka*, and more
>> frequently from the *Yogācārabhūmi *onwards).
>> Very best,
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>> Directeur d'études
>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>> ------------------------------
>> *Von:* Dan Lusthaus <yogacara at gmail.com>
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 23:52:30
>> *An:* Eltschinger, Vincent
>> *Cc:* Matthew Kapstein; Olivelle, J P; indology at list.indology.info
>> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Just to comment quickly, though I haven’t studied the Vajrasūcī in any
>> depth, the same passage that Vincent highlighted, naming the Vedas,
>> Grammarians, et al. is also the one that caught my attention, especially
>> the mention of Mīmāṃsikas. As far as I can tell, while the others do get
>> mentioned in Chinese translations of Buddhist texts, the only text
>> preserved in Chinese that mentions Mīmāṃsikas is Xuanzang’s translation of
>> Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa, which mentions them twice in close proximity:
>>
>> 《般若燈論釋》卷13〈22 觀如來品〉:「復有彌息伽外道言。佛家所說十二部經[1]者。非一切智人所說。有作者故。譬如鞞世師等論。」(CBETA,
>> T30, no. 1566, p. 119, b15-17)
>> [1]者=有【宮】。
>> [1]者=有【宮】。
>> “Again there are the non-Buddhist (tīrthika) Mīmāmsikas who say: ‘What
>> is said by Buddhists In the twelve divisions of the their sūtras (canon),
>> is that no person is omniscient, because they are conditioned (saṃskṭra),
>> just as is stated in treatises by the Vaiśeṣikas, and so on.”
>>
>> 《般若燈論釋》卷13〈22 觀如來品〉:「如彌息伽外道所計韋陀聲是常者」(CBETA, T30, no. 1566, p. 119, c5-6)
>> “This like the non-Buddhist Mīmāmsikas who imagine that the Word of the
>> Vedas is eternal.”
>>
>> I have found no other mention of Mīmāṃsā in any other Chinese sources (if
>> anyone has information on discussions I might have missed, please let me
>> know). Bhāviveka, of course, devoted an entire chapter in his
>> Madhyamakahṛdaya to Mīmāṃsā, but his description of their doctrines
>> suggests they differed in several ways from the versions we are more
>> familiar with post Prābhākara and Kumārila. It is the latter’s
>> *Ślokavarttika*, of course, that made Mīmāṃsā hard to ignore for
>> subsequent Buddhists.
>>
>> Harivarman’s *Tattvasiddhi* (translated by Kumārajīva at the beginning
>> of the 5th c) identifies (among others) Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, and
>> Jains as pūrvapakṣins. More generally in Buddhist literature preserved in
>> Chinese prior to the middle of the seventh century, the most commonly cited
>> opponents are Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya. Nyāya is mentioned infrequently, as
>> are Jains.
>>
>> As for the pramāṇa issue mentioned by Matthew, the Vajrasūrī verse
>> identifies what serve as authorities for non-Buddhists (the following verse
>> turns to lineage):
>>
>> vedāḥ pramāṇaṃ smṛtayaḥ pramāṇaṃ dharmārthayuktaṃ vacanaṃ pramāṇam |
>> yasya pramāṇaṃ na bhavetpramāṇaṃ kastasya kuryādvacanaṃ pramāṇam || 2 ||
>>
>> Which are more or less equivalent to śruti, smṛti, and āpti-pramāṇa, and
>> analogous to “scripture and reason” (āgama, yukti) that was the established
>> criteria for validity for Buddhists, even into the pramāṇavāda era. And, as
>> I wrote elsewhere:
>>
>> *"Pramāṇa*-theory rst appears in the eleventh chapter of the first
>> part (*Sūtra-sthāna*) of the *CS *[Caraka-saṃhitā]. Here the *CS *intriguingly
>> proposes, along with the three *pramāṇas *one would expect
>> (perception, inference, and authori- tative testimony), a fourth not found
>> anywhere else: synthetic inductive reasoning (*yukta-pramāṇa*).
>> Discussion of *pramāṇa *occurs in two other parts of the *CS*: part 3,
>> *Vimāna-sthāna*, chap. 4 and chap. 8, but the unique *yukta-pramāṇa *is
>> absent from those discussions, a sign of the strati ed nature of the text.”
>> So a yukta pramāṇa suggest to me a possibly early date for that category.
>>
>> Has anyone considered whether it is possible that the verses may have
>> been written by Aśvaghoṣa or someone relatively early while the prose
>> exposition may have been added by a later hand?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Eltschinger, Vincent via INDOLOGY <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Matthew,
>> I was referring to *most *of the elements of the list I quoted, of
>> course, not to the entire *Vajrasūcī*. But you are right, Matthew: the
>> *Mahābhārata *plays an important role in the *Vajrasūcī*, as does… Manu
>> – which may be the reason for Patrick’s query. It is well known that the
>> *Vajrasūcī *attributes several verses to Manu that cannot be traced in
>> the extant *Mānavadharmaśāstra *(if I remember well, this is the reason
>> why some scholars tentatively attributed them to a lost Mānava
>> *Dharmasūtra*). Whatever the case may be, we might perhaps agree that the
>>  *Vajrasūcī* is unlikely to have been composed before the 3rd-4th
>> century CE. I am inclined to believe that it is even younger.
>> Very best,
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>> Directeur d'études
>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *Von:* Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 22:13:42
>> *An:* Eltschinger, Vincent; Olivelle, J P; indology at list.indology.info
>> *Betreff:* Re: Vajrasūcī
>>
>> Not wishing to differ with my learned colleague Vincent Eltschinger's
>> remarks (which are surely based on a deeper engagement with this corpus
>> than my own), I tend nevertheless to think it not quite plausible that "most
>> of its individual elements could have been known around 100 CE."
>> My sense is that the several epic and puranic parallels point to a
>> somewhat later period.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> Matthew Kapstein
>> Directeur d'études,
>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
>>
>> Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>> The University of Chicago
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Eltschinger, Vincent <Vincent.Eltschinger at oeaw.ac.at>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:00 AM
>> *To:* Olivelle, J P <jpo at austin.utexas.edu>; Matthew Kapstein <
>> mkapstei at uchicago.edu>; indology at list.indology.info <
>> indology at list.indology.info>
>> *Subject:* AW: Vajrasūcī
>>
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>> As you know, Aśvaghoṣa directed some arguments against the Brahmanical
>> understanding of the caste-classes in one of his dramas, the
>> *Śāriputraprakaraṇa*/*Śaradvatīputraprakaraṇa*, several fragments of
>> which have been preserved in Central Asian manuscripts and edited by
>> Heinrich Lüders around 1910. It is thus plausible that Aśvaghoṣa
>> dedicated an individual treatise to this topic. The style, the method and
>> the philosophical ressources of the *Vajrasūcī*, however, are very
>> different from the ones we know from Aśvaghoṣa’s genuine works, and may
>> presuppose Buddhist works such as the *Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna *if not
>> Kumāralāta’s *Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Dṛṣṭāntapaṅktiḥ*. Even if I am not aware
>> of any convincing argument against the attribution of the *Vajrasūcī* to
>> Aśvaghoṣa, I have always regarded the following statement as anachronistic:
>>  *dṛśyante ca kvacic chūdrā api
>> vedavyākaraṇamīmāṃsāsāṃkhyavaiśeṣikanagnā*jīvikādisarvaśāstrārthavidaḥ */.
>> “And one observes in some cases that even *śūdra*s know the meaning of
>> all *śāstra*s such as the Veda, Grammar, Mīmāṃsā, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika as
>> well as [those of] the Jainas and the Ājīvikas.” (*-*nagnā- *em. :
>> *lagnā- *Ed.) Although such a list is not *per se* impossible in
>> Aśvaghoṣa’s time, i.e., although most of its individual elements could have
>> been known around 100 CE, I do not believe that such an enumeration would
>> have been possible, *as a doxographic statement*, at that time, and even
>> less so under Aśvaghoṣa's "pen." (The absence of the Nyāya from the list
>> is intriguing.)
>> Another element possibly deserving some consideration is the Sanskrit
>> colophon in which Aśvaghoṣa is characterized as *siddhācārya *(*kṛtir
>> iyaṃ siddhācāryāśvaghoṣapādānām iti*), an expression the exact meaning
>> of which remains somewhat unclear to me.
>> I am looking forward to reading other opinions on this interesting topic.
>> Very best,
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>> Directeur d'études
>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *Von:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> im Auftrag von
>> Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 15:09:59
>> *An:* Indology List; Olivelle, J P
>> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> You'll find some discussion of it, inter alia, in Vincent Eltschinger, *"Caste"
>> et Philosophie Bouddhique *WSTB 47 (2000). As you no doubt know, the
>> Chinese translation is late - 10th c. if I recall correctly - and is
>> attributed to DharmakIrti. I rather doubt that the true authorship can be
>> established, given the available evidence. The emphasis on pramANa seems to
>> suggest that it was written during the second half of the first millennium,
>> not much before. But the way in which pramANa is used there does not
>> resonate closely with the Buddhist pramANa school. The precise milieu in
>> which it was composed remains a puzzle (at least to me!).
>>
>> all best,
>> Matthew
>>
>> Matthew Kapstein
>> Directeur d'études,
>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
>>
>> Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>> The University of Chicago
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of
>> Olivelle, J P via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2020 6:59 AM
>> *To:* Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>
>> *Subject:* [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>
>> Does anyone know of newer work on the identity and date of the author of
>> Vajrasūcī, often ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa? Any new ideas on its possible date?
>> With thanks and best wishes,
>>
>> Patrick Olivelle
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/attachments/20200126/754bf3df/attachment.html>


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list