Thank you very much, Jonathan, I didn't find anything in this article about the numerations, but it leads to Burnouf's Lotus de la bonne loi, where I found that the great French indologist dared to assign values to the units listed after the *tallakṣaṇa*. Unhappily, this doesn't solve the other problems yet. The article also points to Hokazono Koichi's modern edition of the Lalitavistara, which could be very useful. I tried to find his volume I (containing chapter XII) on Internet, but couldn't (at least on Google). Do you know how to find it online ?
Best regards, Jean Michel Le lun. 10 avr. 2023 à 12:09, Jonathan Silk <[email protected]> a écrit : > Dear Colleague > > I cannot pretend to the slightest knowledge of mathematics (Indian or > otherwise), but concerning the *Lalitavistara* and its Sanskrit text, I > might dare refer you to > https://www.academia.edu/83898564/Recent_Scholarship_on_the_Lalitavistara > > Best, Jonathan Silk > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jean Michel DELIRE via INDOLOGY < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you very much, Lubomir, for uploading this edition, and David, for >> pointing to the book, which I will certainly use for my course on History >> of Indian mathematics (and astronomy). >> Also for this course, I am nowadays struggling with a part of the >> Lalitavistara, where the Buddha is showing his ability in numbers. His >> enumeration of powers of 10, from the *koṭi *to the *tallakṣaṇa*, is >> very clear. But things become obscure when he continues his enumeration >> with other (supposed) powers of 10. The problem is that he says that the >> next one, the *dhvajāgravatī*, is able to count all the sand of the Gaṅgā, >> while the sixth one, the *sarvanikṣepa*, is able to count all the sand >> of ten Gaṅgā. How is it possible if every unit equals the previous one >> multiplied by ten (and what else could it be) ? Apart from noting that this >> kind of enumeration and its use for counting the sand reminds very much >> Archimede's Sandreckoner, I must add that there are discrepancies between >> the two translations I know (de Foucaux 1988 (1884) and Goswami 2001) and >> also with the 'sanskrit' text of Śāntibhikṣu Śāstrī 1984. After this >> enumeration, comes a scale which rely the last unit, the >> *paramāṇurajaḥpraveśānugata*, to the yojana, by multiplying it by 7 ten >> times, and then again by 12, 2, 4, 1000 and 4, so that a yojana equals 7 >> 10.12.2.4.1000.4 *paramāṇurajaḥpraveśānugatas*. And, of course, the >> Buddha asks if somebody can tell how many *paramāṇurajaḥpraveśānugatas* would >> contain a bowl of 1 yojana. Here again, the answer seems awkward for it >> amounts to 1028 while it should be more than 1041. Does anyone have an >> explanation for these mistakes, or know of a paper or a book which >> discusses these problems ? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jean Michel >> >> *Jean Michel DELIRE* >> *Lecturer on History of mathematics - IHEB (ULB)* >> *Lecturer on **Science and civilisation of India - Sanskrit Texts - IHEB >> (ULB)* >> *Member of the Centre National d'Histoire des Sciences (KBR, Bruxelles)* >> *Member of the Société Asiatique (Paris)* >> >> Le lun. 10 avr. 2023 à 10:37, Lubomír Ondračka via INDOLOGY < >> [email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> I just uploaded the pdf of the book that David sent me: >>> https://archive.org/details/suryasiddhanta-shukla >>> >>> If anyone have the pdf of Sumatitantram that David writes about in the >>> next email, please send it to me, I would be happy to upload it on >>> archive.org as well. >>> >>> Best >>> Lubomir >>> >>> >>> On 09.04.2023 21:51, David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY wrote: >>> > 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 >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> INDOLOGY mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >> > > > -- > Prof. dr. J.A. Silk > Leiden University > Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, LIAS > Matthias de Vrieshof 3, Room 0.05b > 2311 BZ Leiden > > website: www.OpenPhilology.eu > copies of my publications may be found at > https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/JASilk >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
