Re: [INDOLOGY] Kālacakra etexts?

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Dominik,

I was also hoping that someone might have one or both of these texts typed
up. But after three days without a reply, I must assume not. Many years ago
I input the *Kālacakra-tantra*. This was done in a long since discontinued
program (Pagemaker 4 for Mac), before the days of unicode, in a custom
diacritic font made by a friend. I was able to transfer the files into a
Word document, move it to a PC, and do search-and-replace for the diacritic
letters to make them unicode. However, it has never been proofread. This
would require many days.

Perhaps your specific interest is in the second chapter, which has a lot
pertaining to medicine. If so, I could try to proofread that chapter and
hopefully send it to you in maybe a week. If you need to check something
sooner, I could try to search it for you.

For the *Kālacakra-tantra* itself, the 1985 edition by Biswanath Banerjee
is often better than the tantra as included in the *Vimalaprabhā* edition,
with the caveat that Banerjee's edition has a lot of misprints. The first
volume of the *Vimalaprabhā* edition, including chapters 1 and 2, was
published in 1986. This volume was done before Banerjee's edition came out.
So Jagannatha Upadhyaya adopted the text of the tantra from a paper
manuscript (his ms. ka), a very good paper manuscript, but not as good as
some of the old palm-leaf manuscripts used by Banerjee. By the way, a
better scan of this *Vimalaprabhā* volume is here:

http://www.downloads.prajnaquest.fr/BookofDzyan/Sanskrit%20Buddhist%20Texts/vimalaprabha_tika_vol_1_1986.pdf

The other two volumes of the *Vimalaprabhā* edition seem sometimes to have
adopted Banerjee's readings for the tantra, and sometimes not. There are
quite a few errors in the edition of the *Vimalaprabhā* commentary itself.
Leaving aside the ever-present typos, most of the errors resulted from
adopting readings from the later paper manuscripts against those of the two
old palm-leaf manuscripts they used, which latter were normally supported
by the Tibetan translation. So if you see a variant reading in the
footnotes saying that such and such is in mss. ga and ca, the two old
palm-leaf manuscripts, that reading is almost always the correct one;
especially when it is supported by the Tibetan translation, as it usually
is (designated as bho). The same institute that published this edition of
the *Vimalaprabhā* is preparing a new edition, which will likely correct
these errors, since they now have more palm-leaf manuscripts to collate.

Lastly, the first ever publication of the *Kālacakra-tantra*, by Raghu Vira
and Lokesh Chandra in 1966, still has some value. Those two editors just
wanted to make the text available, so they did not take the time to compare
it with the Tibetan translation that they published along with it (as long
ago noted by Helmut Hoffmann). Occasionally it has the correct reading when
the other two editions do not (e.g., aṇutanuja in 1.25c, rather than
anutanuja). Sometimes all three editions are wrong (e.g. guror in 1.2d,
rather than guro). I have posted only this edition of the tantra, because
at the time, Banerjee's edition was still in print. It can be found here:

http://www.downloads.prajnaquest.fr/BookofDzyan/Sanskrit%20Buddhist%20Texts/kalacakra_tantra_1966.pdf

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Has anyone typed up some or all of the *Kālacakratantra* and/or the
> *Vimalaprabhā* commentary?  Ideally from the
>
>  Upādhyāya, J.; Rinpoche, S.; Dvivedī, V. & Bahulakar, S. S. (Eds.),  *Śrimañjuśrīyaśoviracitasya
> paramādibuddhoddhṛtasya ŚrīLaghukālacakratantrarājasya Kalkinā
> Śrīpuṇḍarīkeṇa viracitā ṭīkā Vimalaprabhā = Vimalaprabhāṭīkā of Kalkin
> Śrīpuṇḍarīka on Śrīlaghukālacakratantrarāja by Śrīmañjuśrīyaśas
> <http://n2t.net/ark:/13960/t7vm96773>*, 1986-1994, 3v.
>
> edition.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> --
> Professor Dominik Wujastyk
> <https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/about/people-collection/dominik-wujastyk>
> ,
>
> Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
> ,
>
> Department of History and Classics
> <http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/>
> ,
> University of Alberta, Canada
> .
>
> South Asia at the U of A:
>
> sas.ualberta.ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200404/06b869f5/attachment.htm>