Unfortunately, Meulenbeld gives far too much credit to the legendary accounts of the Tibetan G.yu-thog-pa tradition, which, so far as I can see, are without historical value in the matter we are considering.

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

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago

From: Roland Steiner <steiner@staff.uni-marburg.de>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:01 PM
To: andra.kleb@gmail.com <andra.kleb@gmail.com>
Cc: indology@list.indology.info <indology@list.indology.info>; Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu>; Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

Dear Andrey,

> Anyway, given the overall quality of the available Sanskrit text, it
> is entirely possible (and very likely, i think) that
> śrīmacchakunadevena (see my previous email) is a corruption
> (possibly, deliberate “improvement”) of the
> original śrīmatthakkanadevena.

Very possible, seems to me. In Śāradā, the two akṣaras tha and ṣa are
semi-homograph. One could, therefore, speculate whether Thakkana was
first misread to Ṣakkana/Ṣakuna and then improved to Śakuna. But it's
just speculation, not more.

Nevertheless, it is also worth reading the section on Candranandana in
Meulenbeld's "History of Indian Medicine" (see attachment).

Best wishes,
Roland