Charlyn Edwards
My dissertation is an edition and translation of selected chapters
and a detailed study of the Cakraśaṃvaravivṛti by Bhavabhaṭṭa
(floruit tenth-eleventh century, active in the great eastern Indian mahāvihāra
Vikramaśīla). This work is a commentary on the Laghuśaṃvara
or Śrīherukābhidhāna, a major Tantra of the Yoginītantra class.
Alexis Sanderson (2009) has shown that in the Laghuśaṃvara there
is evident incorporation, with often only superficial revision, of lengthy
text- passages from the Śaiva Vidyāpīṭha -- a third or more of the
whole Tantra. As such, the Laghuśaṃvara presented challenges to
Buddhist exegetes including Bhavabhaṭṭa and his immediate
precursor Jayabhadra.
I also began a multi-disciplinary research project, especially
inscriptions, on Indian mahāvihāra culture under Professor Richard
Salomon at University of Washington which I am continuing here in
Hamburg under Professor Isaacson.
Supervisors: Harunaga Isaacson
Address: Hamburg, Germany
and a detailed study of the Cakraśaṃvaravivṛti by Bhavabhaṭṭa
(floruit tenth-eleventh century, active in the great eastern Indian mahāvihāra
Vikramaśīla). This work is a commentary on the Laghuśaṃvara
or Śrīherukābhidhāna, a major Tantra of the Yoginītantra class.
Alexis Sanderson (2009) has shown that in the Laghuśaṃvara there
is evident incorporation, with often only superficial revision, of lengthy
text- passages from the Śaiva Vidyāpīṭha -- a third or more of the
whole Tantra. As such, the Laghuśaṃvara presented challenges to
Buddhist exegetes including Bhavabhaṭṭa and his immediate
precursor Jayabhadra.
I also began a multi-disciplinary research project, especially
inscriptions, on Indian mahāvihāra culture under Professor Richard
Salomon at University of Washington which I am continuing here in
Hamburg under Professor Isaacson.
Supervisors: Harunaga Isaacson
Address: Hamburg, Germany
less
InterestsView All (18)
Uploads
Papers by Charlyn Edwards
Conference Presentations by Charlyn Edwards
In this presentation I will examine the relationship between strictly grammatical texts and the grammatical text of commentarial conventions. I explore this vast topic through the lens of a single but illustrative commentary. My choice of a Buddhist tantric commentary may surprise, however, I find it representative because the direct models and sources of Buddhist tantric commentarial literature were mainly the earlier Buddhist (non-tantric) traditions of commentary together with what Isaacson and Sferra have called the "more or less standard, shared (across religious traditions), style of commenting on technical literature, including scriptural literature."
I propose that is possible to examine in some detail, and of interest to non-Sanskritist, some of the principles of the relationship between Indian grammatical tradition and the grammatical text which is evident in commentary. It also essential to examine the wider context of the commentarial grammatical text because it always is deployed in an explanation of something else. And, without that something else, I would argue, it is not possible to fully understand the details of the grammatical text. The commentarial grammar has a vast context which at present we divide into philosophy, religion, social context, and other areas of study. And in that context the authors of commentary deploy grammar polemically. Moreover, that the grammatical detail expressed so concisely in commentaries only is found in such a context may be the principle challenge of editing grammatical texts in ancient languages.
In this presentation I will examine the relationship between strictly grammatical texts and the grammatical text of commentarial conventions. I explore this vast topic through the lens of a single but illustrative commentary. My choice of a Buddhist tantric commentary may surprise, however, I find it representative because the direct models and sources of Buddhist tantric commentarial literature were mainly the earlier Buddhist (non-tantric) traditions of commentary together with what Isaacson and Sferra have called the "more or less standard, shared (across religious traditions), style of commenting on technical literature, including scriptural literature."
I propose that is possible to examine in some detail, and of interest to non-Sanskritist, some of the principles of the relationship between Indian grammatical tradition and the grammatical text which is evident in commentary. It also essential to examine the wider context of the commentarial grammatical text because it always is deployed in an explanation of something else. And, without that something else, I would argue, it is not possible to fully understand the details of the grammatical text. The commentarial grammar has a vast context which at present we divide into philosophy, religion, social context, and other areas of study. And in that context the authors of commentary deploy grammar polemically. Moreover, that the grammatical detail expressed so concisely in commentaries only is found in such a context may be the principle challenge of editing grammatical texts in ancient languages.