To Edit or Not to Edit

The following is a brief summaryof a series of lectures held at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in March 2015. They aimed at explaining the rationale for editing unknown Sanskrit texts by adducing as concrete examples some ongoing editions at Philipps-Universität Marburg. Another aim was to provide an overview of the historical and current editorial principles as well as indological attempts at solving the problems involved in editing

Sāhib Kaul's Presentation of Pratyabhijñā Philosophy in his Devīnamavilāsa

The Pratyabhijñā system is situated on the border between a more or less sect-neutral philosophy, described as such in the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha, and one segment of sectarian Śaiva religion that is represented by the nondualist Kashmirian Śaiva cults, of which the Trika and the Krama are the most prominent. The Śrīvidvā originated on the fringe of the same canon of heterodox scriptures, but radically changed its religious affiliation through the course of centuries into a Veda-congruent type of Tantrism that is still practised as part of the non-sectarian Smārta tradition

A Pandit’s Journey: Peri Sarveshvara Sharma in Germany

The following pages are devoted to one aspect of Sanskrit Studies in Germany, which has remained mostly undocumented, that is, the presence of traditional Indian scholars of Sanskrit in many Indological Institutes in Germany during the second half of the 20th century. Such a collaboration with Indian “lecturers”, employed often for modern Indian languages, but working at the same time in Sanskrit Studies, was a feature so much taken for granted that now, with that system falling away through the radical downsizing of most departments of Indology in Germany, one is slowly realising the unique working environment it had provided to all who had the advantage of studying in it

Śaiva Tantric Material in the Yogavāsiṣṭha

The Yogavāsiṣṭha (YV) has for a long time been overlooked by historians of Indian literature, and despite a monograph by Glasenapp published in 1951 that drew some attention to it and the work of Thomi it is only through the 'discovery' of its Kashmirian version (Mokṣopāya) and an analysis of the various recensions made by Walter Slaje that this fascinating work can now be made the subject of closer investigation

Introduction

In fact, both translating and editing are something most Indologists have learned in a pragmatic way through examples from within the field, and some have managed to become quite good at it. And even if this acknowledgement may deter the reader from continuing, in most cases this approach is sufficient. The reason is that many, perhaps most, decisions in textual criticism are made through selecting the “better reading”, a reading that is within the reach of the editor who knows the most about the author, his times, the literary conventions of his time and so forth, but not necessarily arrived at by the one who has read widely on textual criticism. There are, however, two reasons for combining theory and practice: first, not all texts can be treated with the pragmatic approach; and second, without background, we are unable to understand the wider implications of editorial decisions, or explain the method’s rationale when it is criticized from a theoretical angle

The Mokṣopāyasaṅgraha

When I first received copies of this manuscript during editing the Utpattiprakaraṇa, it looked at first sight very promising, because it seemed to transmit the text of the MU, merely lacking some of the doubtful and even problematic verses. For instance, the awkward set of verses that start this Prakaraṇa (3.1.1–4) is missing and the Prakaraṇa is, as would be expected, introduced by the pratisandhiśloka. Further comparison showed that the manuscript contained in the beginning of the Utpattiprakaraṇa an almost complete text and one was left wondering about its self-designation as saṅgraha

To Edit or Not to Edit

The following is a brief summary of a series of lectures held at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in March 2015. They aimed at explaining the rationale for editing unknown Sanskrit texts by adducing as concrete examples some ongoing editions at Philipps-Universität Marburg. Another aim was to provide an overview of the historical and current editorial principles as well as indological attempts at solving the problems involved in editing

Some common errors concerning water-lilies and lotuses

The terminology for translating the omnipresent names for lotuses and water-lilies in Sanskrit literature continues to prove problematic for various reasons. Some attempts to deal with the problem suffer from unclear botanical terminology; others use more trustworthy sources, but mixed with outdated works. Fortunately, the well-known and widely quoted article by Wilhelm Rau, the standard reference when dealing with the Sanskrit names of lotuses and water-lilies, provides a clear, but succinct orientation

The Yogavāsiṣṭha and its Kashmirian Recension, The Mokṣopāya - Notes on their Textual Quality

The Yogavāsiṣṭha (YV) has been the subject of quite a few studies and despite the fact that much remains to be studied in this voluminous work it does not, at first sight, seem to be a text more problematic than others

Pretence and Prejudice

In the early 19th century, many of the academic subjects of our time had not taken shape. Then, to be a polymath, was a difficult ideal, but still we tend to think that some succeeded. Now, after two centuries with its growth, differentiation and shifts of academic subjects things have changed dramatically. Subjects characterized by a prolonged professional training as well as sustained practical experience are almost sealed off to academics from other fields. This is especially so in the natural sciences, where someone trained in physics would not think of venturing into, for instance, pharmacy, where he has no training. The demands and standards of one discipline cannot be passed by and interdisciplinarity here invariably means to cooperate with experts than to dabble into the other field oneself