[INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

Mon Oct 14 09:30:37 UTC 2019

yes, Thagana is taken to be MIA for Skt. sthagana....

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
________________________________
From: andra.kleb at gmail.com <andra.kleb at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:29 AM
To: Indology <indology at list.indology.info>; Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>
Cc: madhusukrutham at gmail.com <madhusukrutham at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

I had pointed out that the final verses in Tib. indeed give the name, in transcription not translation, as Thagana, which may now be taken as a confirmation.
yes, I do remember this very well (this is, indeed, how Noudou’s note about Thakkana in the Rājataraṅgiṇī connects to the available textual data concerning Candranandana). Well… I guess *sthagana- still remains a possibility.

best,
Andrey
On Oct 14, 2019 18:19 +0900, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>, wrote:

Your summary covers all the main points. Just note that, at the beginning of this thread, I had pointed out that the final verses in Tib. indeed give the name, in transcription not translation, as Thagana, which may now be taken as a confirmation.

Thanks to all for a bit of good collaborative fun.

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 Andrey Klebanov via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:13 AM
To: Indology <indology at list.indology.info>
Cc: Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

Dear all,

thanks so much for this collective effort! Twiddling with Tibetan translations seems like a lot of fun that I’ve been missing out on so far!

Summarizing your suggestions, it appears the easiest, perhaps, to go with Snar-Thang’s (and Peking’s) “sgrib byed” (thanks Peter and Paul!), and to think of it as a translation of non-Sanskrit Thakkana (thanks Roland and Matthew!) Given that, for example, sgrib cing is an attested rendering of Skt sthagita- (p. 724 in Lokesh Chandra’s Skt-Tib Dictionary), Roland’s suggestion to connect √sgrib with √sthag and to assume an intermediate step — that is, Sthagana, a Sanskritized form of Thakkana — appears very likely.

In any case, the reading seems to strengthen our initial hypothesis (also pointed out by Matthew) that śrīmacchakuna- is indeed a corruption of śrīmatthakkana-.
I think *śrīmatthakkana- is more likely than *śrīmatsthagana-, because in Śāradā (and in many other scripts) kka->ku is easier than ga-> ku, and because a corruption of a “meaningless” non-Sanskrit form is much easier to explain than a corruption of a “meaningless” Sanskrit one. Anyway, I hope that we will be able to consult Sanskrit MSS soon.

best,
Andrey
On Oct 14, 2019 04:07 +0900, Paul Hackett via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>, wrote:
Dear all,

  If you check the reading found in the Snar-thang recension of the text, it confirms Peter's speculation; it does, in fact, read:

dpal ldan sgrib byed lha yis ni / ...

In general, Snar-thang presents far more accurate readings (assessed in terms of agreement with extant Sanskrit text) than the Sde-dge recension (whose "revised" readings are often corrupt).

Regards,

Paul Hackett

On Oct 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Péter-Dániel Szántó via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:

Dear friends,

Since sthagana means concealment/cover, that part corresponds to sgrib, so I suspect that originally the Tibetan had sgrib byed, not sgrib med.

Best,
Peter

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 5:24 PM Andrey Klebanov via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
Dear all,

I was looking at the Tibetan translation of Candranandana’s introductory verses:
praṇamya devadeveśaṃ hariṃ vāṅnidhim akṣaram/
padārthacandrikāṃ ṭīkāṃ śubhrāṃ sarvahitāvahām//1//
'phrog byed mi zad tshig gi gter // lha yi lha dbaṅ rab btud de  //
rgyas bshad tshig don zla ba'i zer // kun la phan gsal bdag gis ni //

śrīmacchakunadevena prerito hṛdaye sphuțam/
buddhyā kariṣyāmi guroḥ saṃsmṛtya caraṇāmbujam//2//
dpal ldan sgrib med (D1b4) lha yis ni // sñiṅ ni rnam par draṅs pas na //
bla ma'i luṅ ni yaṅ dag ñid // gsal bar rtogs nas brtsam par bya //

As you can see, instead of expected *Tha ga na (or, at least, smth. connected to Śakuna), we find Sgrib med (*Nirāvaraṇa ?!).

I am really puzzled by this find and would be very grateful if anyone could suggest what I could do in order to try understanding this oddity (I am not a Tibetologist, so apologies for this, perhaps, very basic question). Are there any Tibetan lists of Indian rulers or personal names in general? Could one think of any plausible explanation for this translation given that the original could have read smth. like “Thakkana/ Śakuna”?

Thanks very much in advance!

best,
Andrey
On Oct 9, 2019 02:41 +0900, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu<mailto:mkapstei at uchicago.edu>>, wrote:
As I see it, it is crucial that also Kalhaṇa mentions a ruler named
Thakkana (RT 6.230, 231, 236) as an adversary of Abhimanyu (ruled
958-972).

That is certainly correct, Roland - he must be the Tha ga na of the concluding verse.

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
________________________________
From: Roland Steiner <steiner at staff.uni-marburg.de<mailto:steiner at staff.uni-marburg.de>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:31 PM
To: Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu<mailto:mkapstei at uchicago.edu>>
Cc: andra.kleb at gmail.com<mailto:andra.kleb at gmail.com> <andra.kleb at gmail.com<mailto:andra.kleb at gmail.com>>; indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info> <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>; Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham at gmail.com<mailto:madhusukrutham at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

Dear Mathew,

I am sure you are right, but it may be worthwhile to look at some of
the many references he has given.

As I see it, it is crucial that also Kalhaṇa mentions a ruler named
Thakkana (RT 6.230, 231, 236) as an adversary of Abhimanyu (ruled
958-972).

Best,
Roland

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
indology-owner at list.indology.info<mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info<http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info<mailto: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: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20191014/0ecf4cc2/attachment.htm>