Hello, everybody, and welcome to the 50 decisive interview time.
And today we are very, very fortunate to have a son and children present her research today.
And since Sharon is a Ph.D. student in Tibetan studies at the University of Hamburg and originally from Britain,
and her current research focuses on the general presentation of tension by Chen and Chen sanctions.
And today she's going to talk about her current research on this quite early text attributed to in China Centre on the Judiciary.
So without further ado, please, if you could share your screen.
And begin the presentation. Q Thank you, Jake, and thank you to Texas for this wonderful opportunity.
Let me share my screen. Before I start my actual talk, let me briefly introduce the work that I'm carrying on now.
This tradition, which is the topic of my dissertation, is attributed to the Children's Chancellor,
who is a renowned translator during the early part of the later spread of Buddhism in Tibet.
He's, in fact, known as the first Tibetan translator of the new period or the period of the later dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet.
What is known in Tibetan Buddhism as the new tantric Buddhism, as opposed to the ancient tantric Buddhism,
can be said to have been triggered mainly through his translation and composition activities.
While several Indian works transmitted by him have been transmitted in the Tibetan Buddhist canon,
Wolf is composed or believed to have been composed by him, have been rare or rarely accessible.
But recently, however, a work with the full title GDP number shall but he didn't look inevitable has surfaced, which is attributed to religion,
which is of course the title may be rendered in English as a presentation of the tantric systems in general,
adorned by the ornaments of two noble, authoritative sources.
This work explains the practices of the initiation into external and internal mandalas.
It introduces the view the meditation conducts and fruition of each tantric systems such as of kriya, sharia and yoga.
It also explains how and why various tantric doctrines were taught to different students of various capacities in different venues.
However, the two days actual talk will be not on the work itself, but mostly on the need.
The authoritative sources, as the title says, are done by the elements of China to enable authoritative sources.
My work in detail like several sources cited from different works, so today's would be on the water,
his authoritative sources and how author employs authoritative sources.
The affinity between the citations and the canonical sources and the reception of the traditional though also has consulted 83 different works.
He cites several kinds of authoritative sources from works belonging to Sutras, just Rosen, mostly from Dhanteras.
However, he does not cite any Tibetan sources from 83 different works.
He cites 220 citations. The highest number of citation is from one mentioned Cholo, where the author cites 29 different citations without repetition,
followed by Vajra Tantra, from which the author cites 20 citations from Duterte, May-June and.
He cites nine different citations and the author cites eight times each from the deposition BG and the Quasar, which in the tantra.
From the sample to tantra and acquire some jerky side seven each.
And from 12 different sources.
He cites two different editions each and from 50 different sources.
He cites once editions from each of these 50 different sources.
Although our also does not mention how authoritative his sources are, she does cite numerous scriptures,
mainly for the following three purposes as the Tibetans see born some interpretation of the
position of others in support of his own position and in response to the supposed criticism.
Besides attributing the authority in support of his own position, our author also cites the authorities in a refutation to others position.
For example, while presenting the identification of the nature of the stage,
the author first presents three strong points of others, which he does not agree.
And then, in their refutation and in support of his own position,
he relies on his teacher and others scriptures as an authority as he have cited here.
And. No wonder that the title of this work and linking it to of.
Indeed. The author cites numerous scriptures in support of almost every one of his explanation at times, even for figures he just cites.
So this, for example, while explaining the cause of the deterioration of the Tantric Plague, our author simply cites the following.
He said, Number two lost on this Jew than in the source allegedly took this condom model individually.
Mischa Barton by me, the new London will get them genuine demand.
We still want them to be Jews.
And so these are his explanation, just he simply cites these sources and then he have no further explanation of his position.
In certain occasions. The author also attributes the authority to the Scriptures as an evidence to the supposed criticism on his position.
For example, after his detailed explanation on the indecision.
He cites the following scriptures on his as his supposed objection to his supposed objection.
And then in what manner does he employ his sources?
So he has these four different men is that he cites his sources one the same citation he cites in support of one and more purposes.
And then at times he had this sense of an adverbial weasel sighting.
And then sometimes he cites the citation just as an explanation.
And then when he cites sometimes he indicates that the sources, but at times he does not indicate the sources at all.
So. Among 220 citations, our author repeats like.
From five different sources, which are some partial and some exit ful sources,
where he attributes the authority to some force in support of his two different explanations.
For example, he cites the following first in support of his two different explanations.
Here in in this, he cites this the first in support of the explanation on the precepts where the law positive
aspects of the precepts of the big shoes are being included in the higher aspects,
he said. He says. You're in danger.
Dennis Also turbulent in some regions, you simply don't burden loss,
challenge yourself, but simply continually malleable because simply don't like them.
But these. Then you let. While some juvenile like a long chunk of somebody these punctuate your songs here it is in support of the presents and then.
Later he cites the same first in support of his explanation on the benefit of the initiations,
where he claims that the immediate benefit of the initiation is the initiation of this thing, the authority to carry out the activities of the area.
Here again, he says, pinning the needle is this.
Here he's talking about the initiation, the pin, the benefits of the initiation.
And he says, pinning the needle in a capsule, digital open video, a puncture one, which at this point you actually, again,
the same source and he cites the same first while some juvenile jerk like a little trouble somebody did some jiggle source.
Sometimes he cites only some, but he's sometimes he also cites literally, for example, while presenting the nature of developing stage,
which he presents as any liberating part of Vajrayana that refutes grasping at the stable world and the
wavering sentient beings and that which is different from the self distinguished of the completion stage.
The author cites the following as a. He said did that actually.
He said nubile member, you give this girl one, then get your own use.
How? And then.
While presenting the seven distinctions through which the Buddhist teachings transcends the known Buddhist teachings,
he first listed seven distinctions, namely the view, the object of refugee, the object of veneration, the practices,
the literal logical results, the philosophical systems, and the excellent Dharma.
And then he cited the following citations. Theatre potential Doubleday.
But what you need sugar cane sugar to go to become them to lasso them Bernie sun chin them Cuban pogs.
So here it is very literal. Occasionally.
Our author also does not even bother to explain his point.
He's simply citing sources instead of any further explanation.
For example, while presenting the stages of the process of purification of the developing stage for the explanation on the visualisation,
he simply cites the following sources.
He says, then, linearly, things you just used in company build.
Funnily, numpy comes above us on issue number one.
Kaluza mentioning in jitter report. Gen Z the pandemic in the luncheon bowls here for the visualisation event.
He just cites the dissociates and then he doesn't have any further explanation.
In most of the time, the author explicitly states the title of the source.
However, in certain occasions, the author simply cites Gourlay or Ritchie, and at times he simply did the wrong and then cites the first.
And in a few occasion, the author simply say differs without even any indication of the source.
For example, he said the evidence in the Chukchi this.
So we thought you should meet Julius al-Bashir, Abuja. Here he does not even cite the source at all.
But later I realise actually it is the citation from.
But this. So when he explicitly specifies the authoritative sources.
Is it always accurate? In most occasions.
The author explicitly specifies the authoritative sources.
Around seven citations are how we were located in different worlds than the sources that our author has attributed to.
For example, he cites this source called The Dogecoin Andrew the Dogecoin to his name of the title of the chapter in Sample the Tundra.
It is likely that our author quoted directly from the Sanskrit text, which was not translated yet,
and it was translated into Tibetan only later after him by Katara and me.
So the title he renders here, and the title that we have in the canonical sources differ.
But this is the only one example. He has similar cases with a few other citations as well.
EMIL 220 citations, 32 citations from 23 different sources,
some problematic besides the issues with regard to the source title, such as those citations that are found in other works,
instead of what the author has cited and the identification of the sources which are not identified by the author in his text,
the following three Sims worth discussing which I have categorised as the
untraceable versus the untraceable sources and and no information within reach.
Most of the force is cited from the following sources are allocated this from this three digit small you should ruba and that would be true.
However, Fyfe was cited from the following three different sources could not be traced in both the cited source and the other sources.
Moreover, one could also come across the nature scholars, citing the same post from the very same source.
It is, however, difficult to trace this clause in the canonical sources.
I am not certain if this exist in any other works with similar titles, which I am not aware of.
And for 14 cited forces from 12 different sources.
Both the first and the source titles cited by our author could not be located anywhere except finding the two scholars citing in their works,
either the exit cited first or similar cited first from the very same source.
Occasionally some modern or pre-modern scholars such as within reach.
Andrew Norton, but that are not to one in public.
They, Tinubu, etc. They either discuss the issue or cite similar citations from the same source in their works.
For example, our author cites the following first from Don by John Paul.
He cites popular media once in the Georgie London.
Bonnie how we were neither the first nor decided source could be traced so far.
Apparently the cited source called Don't Budget is a problematic issue here.
Yet other works such as the kid bigot in the Mingus, Ginger Domi and the sunken Belmont, they also discuss insights distant but generally true.
But one should remember that in ancient Burma, he cites Dunbar.
Don't be jumped on. Not too much on you.
And all of these words cites different verses from the legend to G, which are found only in that particular book and nowhere else.
The guild called Don't Be Choke. The Culloden McGillicuddy trouble story is attributed to Dunbar John as well.
For example, in Negro Mosque in College, Georgia, it states that the only thing is in one Woolwich, Georgia.
You she could document you read the legends of Charlie Rose.
So here one can assume that the legends did.
You could be existing in Sanskrit and not yet translated into Tibetan.
However, another seems to be refuting on the basis of Dunbar, Jones and not being reliable that another in his Guildhall tutor.
He states somewhat underneath the legendary Tula.
She was she this and she would be low. But you don't but jump to GJ.
But then, Noble Gilder, you can deny, deny indeed.
Then be low multiple number to use.
So he cautions here against. And similar.
Similarly, there are other citations as well that other scholars discussing about the problem, sometimes citing the same phrases.
But because of the limited time, I didn't include all of here.
And to go to the last one, the no information, we didn't reach these 13 citations.
From this 13 citations I did from this 11 different sources which I have presented here,
this is very ambiguous because I could not trace any information on them thus far.
Besides not being able to identify both its sources and institutions,
it was not even possible to find any parallel sources that could indicate any sort of association
with this edition or trace any Tibetan or Western scholars discussing about this from them.
So I would really appreciate it in later in the feedbacks or comments.
If someone have any ideas of these sources, this works which I could not manage to find any information thus far.
So I'll first cited from the work of the opinion building.
Maybe G is a special case. The source could not be traced, nor could one find any scholars citing or mentioning anything about this work.
On the other hand, this first is found in the server tunnel Vitara Saldanha, but as a parrot text at the end of the work.
So here you could see here in this text. It is a paradox here.
I don't know if you could see my cursor here. So that was the citations cited in my texts.
But then actually I found it as a borrowed text and it was not in the cited sources.
And I also realise actually this particular supplement, it is also not transmitted in degree edition of The Danger.
Besides, the ball's 23 works, which I could not trace it anywhere.
33 works on extend in Sanskrit and 29 works extend in Tibetan.
Translations from the cited works. Those from my author.
So does all authority can be a similar message.
Although all those 220 citations cited by our author, we are all either in support of his position or to present others position.
However, if one explore further in the sources he authorised, not all sources seem to convey the similar message as our author.
One such example is the following citation, which she cites from the last chapter of the Quiet Summer Tantra.
While presenting the classification of the initiation, he states the following Evolution is the digital open.
When we one balance, only 110 BCG will go along as she goes stealing the big money.
We will go Dumbo the nimbus and we will go shut up. He she is somebody sugar daddy.
She knows. So our author clearly cites this for as a textual evidence for the existence of the food initiation,
though he not only classifies the initiation into four types, but also lists the fourth initiation as the fourth.
On the other hand, as pointed out by Professor Isaacson,
the source that texts itself to acquire somebody a tantra explicitly states the initiation to be of three fold.
Moreover, according to Isaacson, the debate and the very idea of the food in this issue involving the prisoner, Juliana Abu Shaker,
and the controversy concerning what this cryptic line she wrote,
the English know the food is that again in the same way might mean stunted from this very first.
Here it seems that in order to support his own explanation,
our author intentionally skipped the first line from the Quiet Samaritan, which reads [INAUDIBLE] in one lump sum.
The Jew, Delaney wrote to the.
So now the affinity between the citations in the genome and the canonical sources, I thought of discussing the affinity between these two.
But before we discuss this, let me briefly.
Present you the assessment of the textual witnesses.
So I might have to rush a little bit here because of the limited time.
So here, the critical edition of my prediction is based on true textual witnesses,
which I call A, B and C is a manuscript written in cursive script and contains 55 folios.
It was found in the Library of International Buddhist Academy, Kathmandu.
To tell you, this text actually took me three years to get hold of this manuscript.
It was only later I learned about it. And for that,
I am really deeply grateful to Alexander and Rich and Ginger for locating this in Katmandu and also to Campbell Jordan for
kindly sparing his time and scanning this text for me so that I don't have to go all the way to Nepal as planned initially.
And also after discovering this witness, I must say that my studies became more exciting.
And so, needless to say, this witness, be it is a computerised copy of manuscript.
It was included in the collection of the government was written by the earliest masters,
which was published in 2007 in Katmandu and now available in DRC.
Would the styles of the lines in every folder and the manner in which the annotations inserted are very similar?
If one how able compare closely, one could often come across some typos and at times even some lines of witness e being omitted in witness b.
Moreover, some of the annotations of the witness e are included as the main text in b.
I have thus decided to include B as one of the textual witnesses.
Caesar recently published one which is included in the collected works of Lucian Winston's on.
It is the computerised edition published in the form of a book in 2018 in CASA.
Since the editorial introduction makes no mention of the manuscripts at all, one can only surmise two possibilities.
It is either based on E where the revises updated and possibly over edited it,
or it is based completely on a manuscript different copy which could which could be earlier than manuscript a.
I doubt that she was based on Eve for the following three reasons.
First the title and the column form the goal of fantasy reads.
As you see here,
I have mentioned in the under the the text and the witness eight in the C I try to copy the call on here because I thought if I put the picture here,
it's a little bit difficult to read. And also the title witness, April White's full title.
The name of the author is mentioned in the petition in the Witness H.
See how we will provide a short title together with the name of the author.
Here it gives room for one to speculate.
The textual witness is a is more archaic, which is also closer to author and perhaps also the main manuscript on which other witnesses are based.
I speculate this because usually the author would not merge his own name together with the title of his work.
Moreover, the full name of the author is already clearly mentioned in the code often.
Hence one would not see the need of author's name to be included in the title.
The name of the author is usually merged with the title of the book if it is discussed by a second person.
In such a case, one may speculate that C must have added the name of the author simply from the in addition of from of the E.
Furthermore, in the call of all of witness C, the title of the author is merely included as Guilherme with the last name.
So while the call of all of Witness E not only provides the full title and the full name of the author,
but also the location where this particular work was composed and other names of the author.
The inclusion. The one of the most significant evidence of this is the inclusion of the notations of witness.
In. Bin types of the first tool.
Now with the plus sign as I have it here.
And then the second one is also in a non-coercive form.
But with this dot science, the annotations and the third ones are with the dot ones, but they are in the cursive style.
And then the fourth one again in cursive style, but without any kind of signs simply inserted next to the lines or in between the lines.
The first and second type of annotations seem to be authors annotation and it fits best as the main text.
Both of these annotations are already included as the main text in which is B and C.
The remaining two types of the annotations which are in cursive style,
namely this third and fourth, in fact seem to have been added later, perhaps by the later devices.
So Witness C actually completely omits this annotations.
The first, the first and the second annotations in two occasions how able one would come across this annotations of witness E,
particularly the third one being included as the main text in Witness C.
This here, as you might see, I have underlined in the red, but you just in the cursive style but with the dot ones.
So those are it seem to be, as I mentioned earlier, from the little devices,
the annotations from little devices which the CE actually completely omits.
But here in one occasion, it has inserted the whole annotation as the main text in C.
So. This makes one wonder that see completely almost the introduction of the devices.
However few annotations being included unintentionally perhaps due to skip of I.
Only this part and overall the inclusion of the three types of annotations or witness e as the main text in Witness
C is already a very strong support of my speculation of this textual Witness E being closest to the author.
And the common error. Another evidence could be the citation from the gruesome video in this paragraph.
Unlike Witness C often seems to have polish it citations where it reads almost parallel to the canonical sources.
On the other hand, for this particular citation, it seems that Witness C made the same error of recording this rebuttal up on the talk with SA.
According to Witness City. While the preferable reading is with here with this subtle and actually the b read so which I think the editors try
to correct it revise it later and it has e has a retort without stop and c actually it is always well polished.
One could see the spellings, the the sources are always but in the C but here it seems C have kind of made the similar error from the E while copy.
On the other hand, the second one, the one also cannot rule out the possibility that the textual witness C might be based on another source,
perhaps the closest manuscript which could not be located yet.
I hold this position to be plausible because of the following three reasons.
Again. And sorry, the four reasons the absence of textual interpolation, the attribution of citation to the correct sources,
the smooth reading and difference in the style of this sentence correction.
In some occasions, rudeness appears odd, which I doubt is the textual interpolation by literary places.
It suddenly cites something which is out of context. For example, in this paragraph,
when explaining the nature or precepts of one person being transformed in taking
one identical nature is suddenly cites second citation from the juggler somewhere,
a quiet gentleman through which actually explains the distinctive superiority of the vehicle of the others,
which I believe does not support the author's explanation on the nature of precept at all.
The one with the green highlighted one is the one that one could see in the.
Moreover, for the next edition of the paragraph, the author simply cites the middle, which means from the same tax rate, and which,
according to it, should be actually the chapter somewhat acquiescent the contra and to see should be the Assad watching the tundra.
The citation is located in Gaia. So in the tundra that very first being cited from the preceding source of the witness see
also supports my doubt of the foremost edition to be the text interpolation in Witness E!
At times is simply cite citation without indicating any source, while C attributes the same citation to the correct sources.
Moreover, the citations in C reads more parallel to the canonical sources and makes more sense with the context of the author's statement.
For example, in the citation from the gear switch in the tundra in this paragraph e amidst the
second line of the first Gibson be nailed you in which C includes in its citation,
the canonical sources actually includes this line as well.
A similar example would be the citation from the he was written translated in another paragraph which we are witnessing.
It's exactly like the canonical sources. While couple of simpletons just read different in e yet again,
one can speculate that the witness C to be either based on different manuscript
instead of E or the witness C is the result of the excessive editorial work.
I claim this because Witness C not only indicates the correct source of the citation, but also cites the lines of the citations,
which makes perfect sense to support the context of all the statement and also reach parallel with the canonical sources.
With regard to the context or the content with Mrs. Moore smooth and easy to understand, for example, this paragraph.
And one you poo poo poo pooh here the witness eases the wounded down come the kimchee last of the
double chin engaged in them in these is in the seizes Jeong Jeong she pummelled the incumbent kimchi.
LAH So what do we do this? SIMKIN Dunk. G dunk.
Can Kim Lasley Do we change it in the mean days?
So here the witness amidst chance of the sentence is right to use and jindong until somebody B was C actually interested also.
In fact, this sentence is in the sea. It makes more sense.
With this, I cited citations together to support his statement.
One of the most significant evidence to claim that the witness C is based on another
source is perhaps would be the reading in the sub in these two separate paragraphs.
The reading in this paragraph is not only a strong evidence.
You claim that witness sees based on another source, but also the existence of another manuscript to E?
Unless one may convince oneself that the author perhaps tried to change his style and simply attributed the source after this edition,
the sentence Construction does not correspond to the actual style of our author at all.
Our author usually employs three different ways of sighting.
Namely, he indicates the source of his citation first and then cites and the second.
He does not indicate the source and simply cites this edition.
However, it is indicated by the concluding phrase here.
So this and the third, he does not indicate the source at all and also is not indicated by the concluding phrase.
However, the source are sometimes identified in the notations.
The reading in this paragraph is a special case. The two source titles are indicated after this edition in the style of annotation.
However, it is here as the main text. In this case, though, it is modern notation.
But the main text I assume this to be a notation belonging to the third case.
Third case where the author does not indicate the source at all.
Neither indicated by the concluding phrase how we would have those titles identified in the invitation.
One can assume the dual source titles to be ended by the need to revise this as an addition which God integrated in the main text.
Later in the witness a the omission of these two souls titles in Witness C also supports my assumption that
Witness C is based on another source because usually it is the C who actually gives the correct attributions.
Q This so some get mixed up by the judgements and B Denon assuming in this one is it really looks like.
In addition, I think it must be the annotations later, but which became the main text.
But in this manuscript it is the mean it's inserted as a mean text, so one can only assume it to be the annotation.
So over all the orthography, the styles and the use of terms, both witnesses are not consistent.
Since the readings found in this, two witnesses, A and C are not completely identical.
One may assume that copy that served as the original of the witness c was either a copy of manuscript E,
in which case the witness and the parts of the rearrangements in the reading
could be the result of scribal error or deliberate changes by the editors,
whether it is based on a manuscript E or a different one.
C indeed seemed to be a product of an excessive editorial work.
Although C often corrects the syntactical forms, meanings and orthography at times, C really seemed to have over edited the text as well.
In any case, to address the possibility of the existence of yet another witness or manuscript would go beyond the scope of this work.
Nonetheless, I am certainly confronted here with the question as to which witness can be justifiably be called as the earliest one.
The question will have to remain unanswered here.
However, for the sake of my quest for the affinity between this edition's industry, the genome and the canonical sources I have proposed,
witness e is the closest to the author and hence the representative of this work merely on the basis of link to a different cell you would to witness.
It is still more difficult to read than witness C with this principle.
Indeed, witness is archaic and closer to the author.
Moreover, five of these editions, which are cited as an addition in with this e are omitted in witness c.
Hence I took a for the comparison of the canonical sources.
So for the comparison, I have recorded every small difference reading strictly even if one groundwork is reached differently,
I have recorded the books as reading differently.
Although the citations convey similar meaning, oftentimes one could look into different use terms,
sometimes small differences in also graphic and at times a slight shuffle of lines or words.
For those two, I have recorded them as different reading.
I have, however, intentionally ignored the missed lines of these editions because our author,
in order to fit his own explanation at times, he intentionally leaves some lines out while citing the first.
So this is the the comparison.
I tried to make this out of all the country resources.
And based on my observation among 29 works cited from Andrew Sources citations from
nine works with exactly as the reading of the country as found in the talk edition.
These are the ones I highlighted with green.
The green highlighted ones while more citations from three tundras, namely the high vajra tantra, the retina mala tantra and the Mazumdar Tantra.
It's more similar to the reading of the Peking edition, and these are the the yellow ones highlighted with the yellow.
The rest, as presented here, seem more chaotic. Oftentimes.
The two canonical sources which are similar to each other, while the GDP number is slightly different.
Sometimes both the two can only go sources and the GDP number is similar and at times all three rich slightly different in their own ways.
In Iraqis, two parts of this edition in the Judith genome follows the reading of the dog edition,
while few other parts of this edition of the Judith Genome Follow Speaking Edition overall for the resources,
most of the tantric scriptures cited in distributing them are actually closer to the talk edition of the conjurer,
hence following the compound of the lineage.
And finally, the reception of the date.
Thus far, I could not find enough evidences or just to be honest, that the GDP number was popular or that people have access to it.
The only textual witness in is the work of the polluted Yeltsin who lived in the 15th century.
Insulted by logic, Gelsinger replied to Carmack. Omega dodges doubt regarding the new mobile tradition titled We Won't Go.
Carmack Omega. DG urges some of Nimmo alumna do we have now we Delinda Delinda be dubbed the henceforth alluded to.
One could see not only citing Jones over Intel's explanation of also citing the same footage from the same source,
such as the Maya John, the Tundra and the the them.
Just so give it you go to which could not be located in the cited sources.
So relatively speaking, the canonical sources such as Biggie,
Captain Token and Baking Cartel are very recent editions, perhaps just 300 or 400 years old.
This particular work, however, is composed more than a millennium before.
Hence one can is you why? Most of his citations could not be traced in the canonical versions,
and perhaps that could also be the reason that the are often located in different works than the sources that our author has it rooted to.
As pointed out by Daniel, another reason could be due to the text discrepancies in the translation,
the corrupted manuscripts and the some dissimilarities of the Tibetan translations from the Sanskrit texts.
Moreover, for a great translator like regions the world,
there is also room to assume that she could have just made use of those Indian sources that he knew by heart without even referring to it.
Hence, one can expect slight differences in the readings.
So thank you very much and I look forward to your feedback.