Buddhacarita 1,1-7 and 25-40

[Christophe Vielle]

Thank you very much, dear Andrea Schlosser,
for what indeed seems to point to the author of 
the reconstructed part given by Schotsman and in 
the electronic version by the Sanskrit Buddhist 
Input Project. This Chaudharii's edition 
(A/svagho.sa-k.rta Buddhacaritam, with Hindi 
Translation - I have not it at hand) appears to 
have been reprinted several times in India (1953, 
1955, etc.), even very recently, which, due to 
such a popularity, may explain how its 
reconstructed text has been reproduced at least 
twice. Maybe somebody else could tell us if the 
pandit Suryanaaraaya.na Chaudharii was a Tibetan 
scholar, or was simply relying on Johnston's 
translation.
Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle




>Dear Christophe Vielle,
>
>unfortunately i'm not allowed to post messages into the list.
>therefore i'm sending you this email directly.
>
>Irma Schotsman, A/svagho.sa's Buddhacarita, 1995, p.ii,
>referring to 1,1-10, 25-40; 2.1-35:
>“Regarding canto I, /slokas 1-10 and 25-40: the 
>ones that are printed in this book are derived 
>from the Tibetan by Mr. Suryanaaraaya.na 
>Chaudharii, who published a Hindi translation of 
>the Buddhacarita in 1942. For canto II, /slokas 
>1-35 are copied from E.B. Cowell's text."
>
>If this reconstruction is serious i can't tell.
>
>In Johnston's edition both 1,1-7 and 25-40 are missing.
>
>Hope this has helped you.
>Kind regards,
>
>Andrea Schlosser
>
>--
>Andrea Schlosser | Studentische Hilfskraft 
>Institut für die Sprachen und Kulturen Südasiens
Königin-Luise-Str. 34 a | 14195 Berlin www.fu-berlin.de/bajaur-collection

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