I had pointed out that the final verses in Tib. indeed give the name, in transcription not translation, as Thagana, which may now be taken as a confirmation.

Your summary covers all the main points. Just note that, at the beginning of this thread, I had pointed out that the final verses in Tib. indeed give the name, in transcription not translation, as Thagana, which may now be taken as a confirmation.

Thanks to all for a bit of good collaborative fun.

Matthew

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

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago

---

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Andrey Klebanov via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:13 AM
To: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Cc: Madhu K Parameshwaran <madhusukrutham@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Date of Candranandana

 

Dear all, 

thanks so much for this collective effort! Twiddling with Tibetan translations seems like a lot of fun that I’ve been missing out on so far!

Summarizing your suggestions, it appears the easiest, perhaps, to go with Snar-Thang’s (and Peking’s) “sgrib byed” (thanks Peter and Paul!), and to think of it as a translation of non-Sanskrit Thakkana (thanks Roland and Matthew!) Given that, for example, sgrib cing is an attested rendering of Skt sthagita- (p. 724 in Lokesh Chandra’s Skt-Tib Dictionary), Roland’s suggestion to connect √sgrib with √sthag and to assume an intermediate step — that is, Sthagana, a Sanskritized form of Thakkana — appears very likely. 

In any case, the reading seems to strengthen our initial hypothesis (also pointed out by Matthew) that śrīmacchakuna- is indeed a corruption of śrīmatthakkana-. 

I think *śrīmatthakkana- is more likely than *śrīmatsthagana-, because in Śāradā (and in many other scripts) kka->ku is easier than ga-> ku, and because a corruption of a “meaningless” non-Sanskrit form is much easier to explain than a corruption of a “meaningless” Sanskrit one. Anyway, I hope that we will be able to consult Sanskrit MSS soon. 

best,
Andrey

On Oct 14, 2019 04:07 +0900, Paul Hackett via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>, wrote:

Dear all,

  If you check the reading found in the Snar-thang recension of the text, it confirms Peter's speculation; it does, in fact, read:

dpal ldan sgrib byed lha yis ni / ...

In general, Snar-thang presents far more accurate readings (assessed in terms of agreement with extant Sanskrit text) than the Sde-dge recension (whose "revised" readings are often corrupt).

Regards,

Paul Hackett

On Oct 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Péter-Dániel Szántó via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Dear friends, 

Since sthagana means concealment/cover, that part corresponds to sgrib, so I suspect that originally the Tibetan had sgrib byed, not sgrib med. 

Best,

Peter

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 5:24 PM Andrey Klebanov via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)