Where can I find Sayadri Khandha)" -Ed. Dr. Jarson D. Kunha, Marathi version Ed. By Gajanan Shastri Gaytonde. Published by Shree Katyani Publication, Mumbai
Rupali Mokashi

On 09-Aug-2014 9:32 pm, <indology-request@list.indology.info> wrote:

Send INDOLOGY mailing list submissions to
        indology@list.indology.info

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        indology-request@list.indology.info

You can reach the person managing the list at
        indology-owner@list.indology.info

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of INDOLOGY digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Pali question (Gleb Sharygin)
   2. Puloman (Howard Resnick)
   3. Re: Pali question (Chris Clark)
   4. Calukya/Caulukya, etc. (Martin Gansten)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 00:42:16 +0400
From: Gleb Sharygin <gleb.sharygin@gmail.com>
To: indology@list.indology.info
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question
Message-ID:
        <CALPiqitPSNyt=DJG=-c_wVqZrvr1r2q14fErvKNJxhYSL0KOiw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Dr. Walser,

"-tv?" is perfectly grammatical and standard, while "-tva" isn't (must be a
typo. Most PTS editions were made on a basis of only a few MSS.) See
Geiger's "A P?li grammar", ?? 209-210.

With best regards,
Gleb Sharygin

> I was using the CSCD Pali canon and noticed that in the Sutta Nipata, the
> > fourth verse of the Upasivamanavapuccha has the line: ?ki?ca??a? nissito
> > hitv? ma??a?. The PTS has, ?ki?ca??a? nissito hitva ma??a?;
> >
> > Is  hitv? (long a) a legitimate variant that appears in the Burmese
> > version or the Thai version, or is it a typo?
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -j
> >
> > Joseph Walser
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Religion
> > Tufts University
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
> http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/attachments/20140809/85fef018/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 19:17:00 -0400
From: Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu>
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Puloman
Message-ID: <4272141E-4C0C-4850-9702-3C5D22903EBA@ivs.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

It is said that Indra killed his father-in-law Puloman. Could anyone kindly explain the circumstances of that slaying? Thanks!

Howard


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:56:04 -0800
From: Chris Clark <chris.clark@inbox.com>
To: indology@list.indology.info
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question
Message-ID: <13864889B60.00000D50chris.clark@inbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Dear Gleb,

While hitv? is standard P?li, in this verse hitva is m.c. for hitv?, as pointed out by Norman (2006: 391) in his translation and study of Sn (?The Group of Discourses?). Based on the critical apparatus of the PTS edition, it appears that hitva was the reading found in the editors' Sinhala script manuscript witnesses, while hitv? was the reading found in their Burmese script manuscript witnesses. Neither reading is erroneous.

Regards,
Chris Clark
PhD candidate
University of Sydney

---

Dear Dr. Walser,

"-tv?" is perfectly grammatical and standard, while "-tva" isn't (must be a typo. Most PTS editions were made on a basis of only a few MSS.) See Geiger's "A P?li grammar", ?? 209-210.

With best regards,
Gleb Sharygin

> I was using the CSCD Pali canon and noticed that in the Sutta Nipata, the
> fourth verse of the Upasivamanavapuccha has the line: ?ki?ca??a? nissito
> hitv? ma??a?. The PTS has, ?ki?ca??a? nissito hitva ma??a?;
>
> Is ?hitv? (long a) a legitimate variant that appears in the Burmese
> version or the Thai version, or is it a typo?
> Thanks!
>
> -j
>
> Joseph Walser
> Associate Professor
> Department of Religion
> Tufts University





------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:22:16 +0200
From: Martin Gansten <martin.gansten@pbhome.se>
To: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Calukya/Caulukya, etc.
Message-ID: <53E62088.7030404@pbhome.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

I?d be grateful for some elucidation on the following from list members
knowledgeable about royal dynasties in medieval India, particularly the
northwest:

In his Daivaj??la?k?ti (1336 CE), the author Teja?si?ha, apparently of
Gujarat and belonging to a family of (former?) royal ministers
(mantrin), extols the Pr?gv??a dynasty (va??a) in general and speaks
particularly of a certain Vikrama, apparently standing in some sort of
feudatory relationship to ?the glorious King ??ra?gadeva, whose fame had
become the head-ornament of the kings born in the illustrious C?lukya
dynasty? (sph?rjac-c?lukya-va??odbhava-n?pati-?irobh??a??-bh?ta-k?rte?
?r?mac-ch?ra?gadev?hvaya-puru?apate??). My questions are:

1. I had understood the C?lukyas and Caulukyas to be two different
dynasties, the C?lukyas being earlier and primarily ruling in the South,
whereas the Caulukyas ruled in the northwest. Is there any way that
?C?lukya? could be anything other than a scribal error here? (I have
access only to a single MS of the text, but Pingree?s CESS [A3 89],
based on a different MS, gives the same reading, without comment.)

2. Teja?si?ha doesn?t quite call ??ra?gadeva a C?lukya/Caulukya, but
almost. I?m assuming that this is the Vaghela king ??ra?gadeva, which
would fit the time frame. Are the Vaghelas typically (or at least
sometimes) considered C?lukyas/Caulukyas?

3. Is the Vikrama associated with ??ra?gadeva known from any other sources?

As always, many thanks in advance for any help!

Martin Gansten



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info


------------------------------

End of INDOLOGY Digest, Vol 19, Issue 9
***************************************

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info