Dear Peter,

I, too, am not familiar with the manuscript history of this text. 
Since the author originates from Kashmir, the assumption of a Śāradā 
tradition seemed at least natural.

> while ccha and stha are clearly different, they are not _that_ different

But it's about the possible confusion of the ligatures -ttha- (of an 
assumed *śrīmatthakkana-) and -cch- (of śrīmacchakuna), isn't it? 
Would you say that ttha and ccha can also be confused in your 11th c. 
Śāradā ms.?

As fas as the Tibetan variants sgrib byed/med are concerned, I merely 
thought that someone might have considered sgrib byed for a 
"suspicious" name (= possibly corrupted in the course of the Tibetan 
tradition) and corrected it to sgrib med (think of the tendency of 
Sde-dge recension to "revise" readings). But I agree: it could also be
"nothing more than a psychological slip", which amounts to the same 
result (the original reading would be sgrib byed).

Be that as it may: sgrib byed corresponds to thakkana, whereas sgrib 
med corresponds neither to thakkana nor to śakuna, which suggests that 
the Tibetans originally translated something like thakkana with sgrib 
byed.


Best wishes,
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)