Dear Dominik,
I was also hoping that someone might have one or both of these texts typed up. But after three days without a reply, I must assume not. Many years ago I input the
Kālacakra-tantra. This was done in a long since discontinued program (Pagemaker 4 for Mac), before the days of unicode, in a custom diacritic font made by a friend. I was able to transfer the files into a Word document, move it to a PC, and do search-and-replace for the diacritic letters to make them unicode. However, it has never been proofread. This would require many days.
Perhaps your specific interest is in the second chapter, which has a lot pertaining to medicine. If so, I could try to proofread that chapter and hopefully send it to you in maybe a week. If you need to check something sooner, I could try to search it for you.
For the
Kālacakra-tantra itself, the 1985 edition by Biswanath Banerjee is often better than the tantra as included in the Vimalaprabhā edition, with the caveat that Banerjee's edition has a lot of misprints. The first volume of the
Vimalaprabhā edition, including chapters 1 and 2, was published in 1986. This volume was done before Banerjee's edition came out. So Jagannatha Upadhyaya adopted the text of the tantra from a paper manuscript (his ms. ka), a very good paper manuscript, but not as good as some of the old palm-leaf manuscripts used by Banerjee. By the way, a better scan of this
Vimalaprabhā
volume is here:
The other two volumes of the
Vimalaprabhā edition seem sometimes to have adopted Banerjee's readings for the tantra, and sometimes not. There are quite a few errors in the edition of the
Vimalaprabhā commentary itself. Leaving aside the ever-present typos, most of the errors resulted from adopting readings from the later paper manuscripts against those of the two old palm-leaf manuscripts they used, which latter were normally supported by the Tibetan translation. So if you see a variant reading in the footnotes saying that such and such is in mss. ga and ca, the two old palm-leaf manuscripts, that reading is almost always the correct one; especially when it is supported by the Tibetan translation, as it usually is (designated as bho). The same institute that published this edition of the
Vimalaprabhā
is preparing a new edition, which will likely correct these errors, since they now have more palm-leaf manuscripts to collate.
Lastly, the first ever publication of the
Kālacakra-tantra, by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra in 1966, still has some value. Those two editors just wanted to make the text available, so they did not take the time to compare it with the Tibetan translation that they published along with it (as long ago noted by Helmut Hoffmann). Occasionally it has the correct reading when the other two editions do not (e.g., aṇutanuja in 1.25c, rather than anutanuja). Sometimes all three editions are wrong (e.g. guror in 1.2d, rather than guro). I have posted only this edition of the tantra, because at the time, Banerjee's edition was still in print. It can be found here:
Best regards,
David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.