[INDOLOGY] Pramāṇavārttikam, Svārthānumāna chapter, Gnoli edition

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Many thanks to Evgeniya Desnitskaya, and to Raffaele Torella, for sending
me a PDF scan of Gnoli's edition.

Thank you very much, Vincent, for pointing out that the reading "syāt" from
the second manuscript is indeed reported in Gnoli's edition, in the
"Additional Notes" at the back. I had missed this.

As Raffaele wrote to me, the quality of Gnoli's edition is so good that,
after sixty years, only some minor details could be improved. This is the
view he got from Dharmakīrti specialists Ernst Steinkellner, Eli Franco,
and Vincent Eltschinger.

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 4:12 PM Eltschinger, Vincent <
Vincent.Eltschinger at oeaw.ac.at> wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> Please have a look at p. 185 of Gnoli's edition, where the MS B's reading
> is reported (MS A was not available for this passage). Pp. 177-187 contain
> "additional notes" of textual criticism. Most of them were compiled by Muni
> Jambuvijayaji, as Raniero Gnoli himself explains in pp. xxx-xxxi of his
> introduction.
>
> With best regards,
>
> 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
> David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 21:40
> *An:* Indology
> *Betreff:* [INDOLOGY] Pramāṇavārttikam, Svārthānumāna chapter, Gnoli
> edition
>
> A request and a question. I have the physical book, but need either an
> electronic version or another hard copy for some friends. If someone has
> already scanned it, that would save me the time to scan my copy. Thanks.
>
> Gnoli's edition (1960) seems to be highly regarded, and would be superior
> to Malvaniya's nearly contemporaneous edition (1959), because Gnoli had an
> additional manuscript to use, and also compared the Tibetan translation. I
> have not noticed any critical review of Gnoli's edition that might offer
> some corrections to it.
>
> By chance I checked verse 254 and noticed that in 254c the word "hi" in
> Gnoli's edition is "syāt" in other editions, including Malvaniya's (verse
> 258a in this edition). The manuscript that Malvaniya used is one of the two
> manuscripts that Gnoli used. Yet, there is no mention of this as a variant
> reading in Gnoli's edition. I wonder why.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Reigle
> Colorado, U.S.A.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20211204/2a4b4dd7/attachment.htm>