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.MatthewMatthew 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 CandranandanaDear 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,
AndreyOn 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/'phrog byed mi zad tshig gi gter // lha yi lha dbaṅ rab btud de //
padārthacandrikāṃ ṭīkāṃ śubhrāṃ sarvahitāvahām//1//rgyas bshad tshig don zla ba'i zer // kun la phan gsal bdag gis ni //
śrīmacchakunadevena prerito hṛdaye sphuțam/dpal ldan sgrib med (D1b4) lha yis ni // sñiṅ ni rnam par draṅs pas na //buddhyā kariṣyāmi guroḥ saṃsmṛtya caraṇāmbujam//2//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,
AndreyOn 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.MatthewMatthew 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 CandranandanaDear 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)