Dear David,

Thank you for sending me the two pdf about the Lalitavistara. I have checked Hokazono Koichi's edition, which corresponds to Woepcke's interpretation in Journal Asiatique, March-April 1863, p.262, and differs from Foucaux's. Actually, Woepcke allegedly asked Foucaux to check in "the Tibetan version", and Foucaux acknowledged Woepcke's interpretation, but apparently didn't incorporate it in his translation. Woepcke's 'correction' of the wrong number given by the LV, which should correspond to 710.12.2.4.1000.4, is rather convincing : he argues that some interpolations have been made in order to increase that number (and the prestige of the Buddha), and shows how to reduce it by deleting three factors 7, some zeros and interverting two figures. Compared to Hokazono Koichi's edition, one notes that Woepcke also proposes to change a 22 into a 24. Hokazono Koichi's edition has 32, but points to 22 as a variant. So, I think we can accept Woepcke's interpretation.
The other problem, i.e. how to reconcile a multiplication by ten (sand of one Ganga to ten Ganga) with a scale of five or six successive (supposed) powers of ten enumerated as units in the LV, and just after that to reconcile a multiplication by 100 millions (sand of ten Ganga to a hundred kotis of Ganga) with a scale of only two powers of ten is not yet solved, because the different editions have the same units and disposition. But it is probably, as in Woepcke's interpretation above, the result of other interpolations.

Thank you again, and best regards,

Jean Michel

Le dim. 9 avr. 2023 à 21:52, David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> a écrit :

I was wondering if there is a critical edition of the Sūrya-siddhānta. I could not find one. However, there is something very close to one, although it is not called a critical edition. It is Kripa Shankar Shukla's edition, The Sūrya-siddhānta with the Commentary of Paramesvara. Lucknow University: Department of Mathematics and Astronomy, 1957. For the text of the Sūrya-siddhānta, he gives full variant readings from manuscripts of the text as commented on by Mallikārjuna Sūri (1178 CE), Yallaya (1472 CE), and Rāmakṛṣṇa Ārādhya (1472 CE), besides from the printed edition of Raṅganātha's commentary edited by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara. He says that he also consulted the commentaries by Bhūdhara (1572 CE) and Tamma Yajvā (1599 CE) for deciding between certain readings. Of course, the text is based on the commentary by Parameśvara (1432 CE), which predates the commonly used commentary by Raṅganātha (1603 CE) by nearly two centuries. When he has chosen a reading different from Parameśvara's, he cites Parameśvara's reading as mū. pustake, for mūla-pustake.

 

I did not find a digital copy of Shukla's edition online, but I have scanned the photocopy I made of it. Happy to send it to anyone who wants it. Perhaps someone who knows how can upload it to the web.


Best regards,

 

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology