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)


---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
From: Gleb Sharygin <gleb.sharygin@gmail.com>
To: indology@list.indology.info
Cc: 
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 00:42:16 +0400
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question

Dear Dr. Walser,

"-tvā" 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 Pāli 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: Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito
> hitvā maññaṃ. The PTS has, Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito hitva maññaṃ;
>
> Is  hitvā (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

---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
From: Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu>
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Cc: 
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 19:17:00 -0400
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Puloman
It is said that Indra killed his father-in-law Puloman. Could anyone kindly explain the circumstances of that slaying? Thanks!

Howard



---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
From: Chris Clark <chris.clark@inbox.com>
To: indology@list.indology.info
Cc: 
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:56:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question
Dear Gleb,

While hitvā is standard Pāli, in this verse hitva is m.c. for hitvā, 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 hitvā 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,

"-tvā" 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 Pāli 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: Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito
> hitvā maññaṃ. The PTS has, Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito hitva maññaṃ;
>
> Is  hitvā (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






---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
From: Martin Gansten <martin.gansten@pbhome.se>
To: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Cc: 
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:22:16 +0200
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Calukya/Caulukya, etc.
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 Daivajñālaṃkṛti (1336 CE), the author Tejaḥsiṃha, apparently of Gujarat and belonging to a family of (former?) royal ministers (mantrin), extols the Prāgvāṭa dynasty (vaṃśa) in general and speaks particularly of a certain Vikrama, apparently standing in some sort of feudatory relationship to ‘the glorious King Śāraṅgadeva, whose fame had become the head-ornament of the kings born in the illustrious Cālukya dynasty’ (sphūrjac-cālukya-vaṃśodbhava-nṛpati-śirobhūṣaṇī-bhūta-kīrteḥ śrīmac-chāraṅgadevāhvaya-puruṣapateḥ…). My questions are:

1. I had understood the Cālukyas and Caulukyas to be two different dynasties, the Cālukyas being earlier and primarily ruling in the South, whereas the Caulukyas ruled in the northwest. Is there any way that ‘Cālukya’ 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. Tejaḥsiṃha doesn’t quite call Śāraṅgadeva a Cālukya/Caulukya, but almost. I’m assuming that this is the Vaghela king Śāraṅgadeva, which would fit the time frame. Are the Vaghelas typically (or at least sometimes) considered Cālukyas/Caulukyas?

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

As always, many thanks in advance for any help!

Martin Gansten



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