Dear Andrey,

It is very puzzling. I can attempt a partial explanation, but something still eludes me.

First, I suspect that the Skt. should be emended to
śrīmatthakkanadevena
although that may introduce a metrical problem, and I don't much like editing against the text if that can be avoided.

Next step, in the spirit of the "etymological" games that we sometimes find in Tibetan translations, I would read
thakka-na
taking 'na' as a negation - 'not thakka.'

Then, of the several MIA meanings of thakka, I'd suggest 'fatigued,' as we find in several NIA languages (Hindi, Nepali, etc.): thAk-

And if all of that is not fanciful enough, we must then assume the Tibetan translator rendered thakka, 'fatigued,' in paraphrase as sgrib, "in the shadows, obscured," or as we sometimes say when speaking of the mind, "clouded." In that case we would have sgrib med "unobscured" as a rough way of saying "unfatigued."

I'm not quite happy with it, but nothing better comes to mind so far.

Perhaps it's a start.

best,
Matthew

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

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
From: andra.kleb@gmail.com <andra.kleb@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 10:23 AM
To: indology@list.indology.info <indology@list.indology.info>; steiner@staff.uni-marburg.de <steiner@staff.uni-marburg.de>; Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana
 
Dear all, 

I was looking at the Tibetan translation of Candranandana’s introductory verses:
praṇamya devadeveśaṃ hariṃ vāṅnidhim akṣaram/
padārthacandrikāṃ ṭīkāṃ śubhrāṃ sarvahitāvahām//1//
'phrog byed mi zad tshig gi gter // lha yi lha dbaṅ rab btud de  //
rgyas bshad tshig don zla ba'i zer // kun la phan gsal bdag gis ni //

śrīmacchakunadevena prerito hṛdaye sphuțam/
buddhyā kariṣyāmi guroḥ saṃsmṛtya caraṇāmbujam//2//
dpal ldan sgrib med (D1b4) lha yis ni // sñiṅ ni rnam par draṅs pas na //
bla ma'i luṅ ni yaṅ dag ñid // gsal bar rtogs nas brtsam par bya //

As you can see, instead of expected *Tha ga na (or, at least, smth. connected to Śakuna), we find Sgrib med (*Nirāvaraṇa ?!).

I am really puzzled by this find and would be very grateful if anyone could suggest what I could do in order to try understanding this oddity (I am not a Tibetologist, so apologies for this, perhaps, very basic question). Are there any Tibetan lists of Indian rulers or personal names in general? Could one think of any plausible explanation for this translation given that the original could have read smth. like “Thakkana/ Śakuna”?

Thanks very much in advance!

best,
Andrey
On Oct 9, 2019 02:41 +0900, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu>, wrote:
As I see it, it is crucial that also Kalhaṇa mentions a ruler named 
Thakkana (RT 6.230, 231, 236) as an adversary of Abhimanyu (ruled 
958-972).

That is certainly correct, Roland - he must be the Tha ga na of the concluding verse.

Matthew

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 12:31 PM
To: Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu>
Cc: andra.kleb@gmail.com <andra.kleb@gmail.com>; indology@list.indology.info <indology@list.indology.info>; Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana
 
Dear Mathew,

I am sure you are right, but it may be worthwhile to look at some of 
the many references he has given.

As I see it, it is crucial that also Kalhaṇa mentions a ruler named 
Thakkana (RT 6.230, 231, 236) as an adversary of Abhimanyu (ruled 
958-972).

Best,
Roland