‘THE TIBETAN TRANSLATIONS OF THE PRAMANAVARTTIKA ‘AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSLATION METHODS FROM SANSKRIT TO TIBETAN’ ty Franco, Bundoora afr faced an fon which has beon revised several” Fen nto Tibstan sever repazed by an iknow hand in the 9b century. Acco ed ab a work jn progress. Devendrabuddh's commentary fub-commentary, This translation of the Pamivaviitika wes revise Bp Blo Idan Ses rab o Nog Tot ba, wiyarja A fy Sakyadebhade, was accepted by later ger jon ofthe Prminavtite is inka. Sog lo si ba 2nd Bhavyarsia ‘evised by Zais dha lo eh ba and Kumi, I (ehas “kha 1076, 1. The tlationship between the different versions of the Pramig it [As mentioned above, Tibetan canon, F cal version oe ial version, an the only one used. However, dein the direct commentaries tothe verses, na supa and Ravigupa. (Hereafter I shall ref tnd R espesively.)pian naa ee ‘el cnthat de ono versions are almost the same. To iy sifeent fom D aK, version ofthe ki version knew of an erie ver. to answer these questions, 1 somewhere, myThe Titan oon ote amine 2s es the deviation from D i smal novgh not to preclude ‘emit between Rand K. These cases ‘verion of D and availabe to i reqreseated by table 6a version is prepared by a certain translator it ‘of afew verses cde te ep ee sand ‘ropsin dietan wer tar yo cede pain n “ay Fee inka of Pea D version of the “This second esterion may sound crcl, oro now that aida was not changed presup- ses thatthe ass already known. This, however, pears unchanged in ater version, Into two or thee pratt, or even if the ese. Rather, once a i ier version events broken 1 prose ofthe commentary. For-rem to make no di ot very numerous, whic,284 Fee ninLioGRAPHY "in Ga, 180, e APPENDIX 1 (Cases where Rand K are identical, but different from D sab i as (ren phy Kana Rb lst fren pa phy udder deh gal teinD 3 sa Sle ‘di even rp Sanskrit; consequently the preceding de pod na zyur ad tobe reduced by ones thee by yer: K and om ro kK and R: yd med dg le ten med pir Therefore the only tel agreement reat Such an agreement may be reachtu (Sanskrit ap) Comment: The identity between and K hee smi for apis translated by R pa dag, Ss ssanexpletve Comment: bya tan doce problemge a the mavaity of the verb in R ‘commen 5 ive wt ml was no exp jer in Ka compound is clearly misunderstood and bath R and K’ sem to be a step backwards compared to D, ‘or ore precisely wv, 114115: the evo verses have to ide tnd even taken lone fer to maintains puely femal-PENDIX. 1 Pramipavirtita verses Ina conver ‘rere as id bestia tba py as es dsp espa di vid ces thie {go skabs med pa’ py (1600) es bya ba dt. 21600) ba py as so yu kg sy aa (Ka) bad mar gs (Kp i sj oa pb CE ath even tone in. 2 ate,vi l VAEA LONI