Tibetan Translation of the Sadhanamala: A Reply
By K. S. Ramaswami Sastri
Summary
The article "Tibetan Translation of the Sadhanamala: A Reply" responds to Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya's critique of the Sadhanamala edition. The author argues that while the Tibetan Tangyur translation preserves some accurate readings, it is generally less reliable than the Sanskrit manuscripts, which date closer to the original composition (c. 1100 CE). The Sanskrit manuscripts, including 40 others from the 13th century, predate the Tibetan translation, making them more authoritative. The critic's overreliance on the Tibetan version is challenged, as most of its readings are deemed unreliable compared to the printed Sanskrit text and manuscripts. The author refutes claims about unintelligible Sanskrit terms, citing Buddhist grammatical exceptions and referencing commentaries like the Vimalaprabha. They also correct the critic's misunderstanding of titles, noting that "Sadhanamali" is the justified title over "Sadhanamalika" due to differing manuscript arrangements. Specific Tibetan errors (e.g., "Jagafdm" for "Jaga#i") are dismissed as immaterial. A printer’s hyphen error in verse 3 is acknowledged. The author emphasizes editorial principles, stating that editors should not arbitrarily alter manuscript readings without justification or footnotes. In verse 1, the Tibetan "asamina" is defended as a valid interpretation of Sanskrit "asamanta," linked to "ananta" in verse 3. The critique of the Sanskrit text's metre is dismissed as irrelevant, given Buddhist disregard for rigid grammatical norms. The article concludes by urging reconsideration of the Tibetan readings' foundations and reaffirming the Sanskrit text's reliability.
Conclusion
This conclusion underscores the critical tension between prioritizing Tibetan translations and Sanskrit manuscripts in determining textual authenticity. While Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya's analysis highlights the Tibetan Tangyur's potential to preserve accurate readings, the response emphasizes the chronological proximity of the earliest Sanskrit manuscripts (dating to c. 1165 CE) to the original composition, suggesting their greater reliability. The critique challenges the overvaluation of Tibetan translations, which often contain unreliable or nonsensical variations, and reaffirms the importance of considering all available Sanskrit evidence. The debate ultimately calls for a balanced approach, acknowledging the Tibetan version's role while maintaining the primacy of the Sanskrit text as the foundational authority. This exchange contributes to a nuanced understanding of textual transmission and the complexities of cross-referencing multilingual sources in Buddhist scholarship.