AW: Buddhacarita 1,1-7 and 25-40

[Christophe Vielle]

Yes, that I know, but the reconstructed text I am 
referring here is not at all the Am.rtaananda's 
one (about whom, cf. also C. Vogel, IIJ 14, 1972, 
pp. 214-217) included by S. Lévi and E.B. Cowell 
in their respective editions. I am talking here 
about the reconstructed text which has been made 
by "someone" on the basis of Johnston's work and 
the Tibetan version.
Christophe Vielle


>Claus Vogel, "On the first Canto of A"svagho.sa's Buddhacarita", in
>Indo-Iranian Journal IX,4 (1966), p. 267, fn.5: "What remains of the
>original Buddhacarita is preserved in a single palm-leaf manuscript (A)
>dating c. 1300 and once consisting of 55 folios (up to xiv, 31), the first,
>third, seventh, and eight being no longer extant. The Cambridge and Paris
>manuscripts (C, D, P) are merely copies of a revised and augmented
>transcript (beta) made in 1830 by Am.rtaananda, the Residency pundit of
>Kathmandu, directly from A. ."
>
>Philipp Maas
>
>
>
>>  -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>>  Von: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk]Im Auftrag von Christophe
>>  Vielle
>>  Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 11:59
>>  An: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>  Betreff: Buddhacarita 1,1-7 and 25-40
>>
>>
>>  [the title of this subject is borrowed from Michael Hahn's artice in
>>  IIJ 17, 1975]
>>
>>  Dear colleagues,
>>
>>  both in the electronic version by members of the Sanskrit Buddhist
>>  Input Project (available through GRETIL) and in Irma Schotsman's
>>  "edition" (Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series, 1995) of A/svagho.sa's
>>  work, the missing portion of the Sanskrit text of the Buddhacarita is
>>  fully completed in the same manner. These conjectures are partly
>>  based on Johnston's ones (at least for vv. 1-7, given in the
>>  footnotes of his translation). But who is the author of this full
>>  restaured text ? And is this conjectural text a "serious "
>>  reconstruction based on the Tibetan translation ? Thank you for your
>>  comments,
>>
>>  Christophe Vielle
>>