1
00:00:14,310 --> 00:00:18,990
Hello, everybody, and welcome to the 50 decisive interview time.

2
00:00:19,770 --> 00:00:27,360
And today we are very, very fortunate to have a son and children present her research today.

3
00:00:28,050 --> 00:00:36,420
And since Sharon is a Ph.D. student in Tibetan studies at the University of Hamburg and originally from Britain,

4
00:00:36,900 --> 00:00:43,680
and her current research focuses on the general presentation of tension by Chen and Chen sanctions.

5
00:00:43,950 --> 00:00:53,160
And today she's going to talk about her current research on this quite early text attributed to in China Centre on the Judiciary.

6
00:00:53,820 --> 00:00:59,370
So without further ado, please, if you could share your screen.

7
00:01:00,310 --> 00:01:09,160
And begin the presentation. Q Thank you, Jake, and thank you to Texas for this wonderful opportunity.

8
00:01:09,940 --> 00:01:22,490
Let me share my screen. Before I start my actual talk, let me briefly introduce the work that I'm carrying on now.

9
00:01:23,540 --> 00:01:28,610
This tradition, which is the topic of my dissertation, is attributed to the Children's Chancellor,

10
00:01:28,880 --> 00:01:34,820
who is a renowned translator during the early part of the later spread of Buddhism in Tibet.

11
00:01:36,710 --> 00:01:45,290
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.

12
00:01:45,950 --> 00:01:52,609
What is known in Tibetan Buddhism as the new tantric Buddhism, as opposed to the ancient tantric Buddhism,

13
00:01:52,610 --> 00:01:57,860
can be said to have been triggered mainly through his translation and composition activities.

14
00:01:59,030 --> 00:02:04,519
While several Indian works transmitted by him have been transmitted in the Tibetan Buddhist canon,

15
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:09,950
Wolf is composed or believed to have been composed by him, have been rare or rarely accessible.

16
00:02:10,730 --> 00:02:21,260
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,

17
00:02:21,260 --> 00:02:29,239
which is of course the title may be rendered in English as a presentation of the tantric systems in general,

18
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:32,690
adorned by the ornaments of two noble, authoritative sources.

19
00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:39,590
This work explains the practices of the initiation into external and internal mandalas.

20
00:02:39,890 --> 00:02:48,620
It introduces the view the meditation conducts and fruition of each tantric systems such as of kriya, sharia and yoga.

21
00:02:49,010 --> 00:02:57,590
It also explains how and why various tantric doctrines were taught to different students of various capacities in different venues.

22
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:08,250
However, the two days actual talk will be not on the work itself, but mostly on the need.

23
00:03:08,290 --> 00:03:15,299
The authoritative sources, as the title says, are done by the elements of China to enable authoritative sources.

24
00:03:15,300 --> 00:03:25,110
My work in detail like several sources cited from different works, so today's would be on the water,

25
00:03:25,110 --> 00:03:30,710
his authoritative sources and how author employs authoritative sources.

26
00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:40,830
The affinity between the citations and the canonical sources and the reception of the traditional though also has consulted 83 different works.

27
00:03:41,190 --> 00:03:47,910
He cites several kinds of authoritative sources from works belonging to Sutras, just Rosen, mostly from Dhanteras.

28
00:03:48,420 --> 00:03:53,879
However, he does not cite any Tibetan sources from 83 different works.

29
00:03:53,880 --> 00:04:04,140
He cites 220 citations. The highest number of citation is from one mentioned Cholo, where the author cites 29 different citations without repetition,

30
00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:11,400
followed by Vajra Tantra, from which the author cites 20 citations from Duterte, May-June and.

31
00:04:13,100 --> 00:04:20,420
He cites nine different citations and the author cites eight times each from the deposition BG and the Quasar, which in the tantra.

32
00:04:21,830 --> 00:04:26,120
From the sample to tantra and acquire some jerky side seven each.

33
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:31,879
And from 12 different sources.

34
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:36,230
He cites two different editions each and from 50 different sources.

35
00:04:36,230 --> 00:04:41,840
He cites once editions from each of these 50 different sources.

36
00:04:45,650 --> 00:04:51,889
Although our also does not mention how authoritative his sources are, she does cite numerous scriptures,

37
00:04:51,890 --> 00:04:58,219
mainly for the following three purposes as the Tibetans see born some interpretation of the

38
00:04:58,220 --> 00:05:04,370
position of others in support of his own position and in response to the supposed criticism.

39
00:05:06,540 --> 00:05:15,340
Besides attributing the authority in support of his own position, our author also cites the authorities in a refutation to others position.

40
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:22,379
For example, while presenting the identification of the nature of the stage,

41
00:05:22,380 --> 00:05:27,630
the author first presents three strong points of others, which he does not agree.

42
00:05:28,050 --> 00:05:31,860
And then, in their refutation and in support of his own position,

43
00:05:31,860 --> 00:05:37,260
he relies on his teacher and others scriptures as an authority as he have cited here.

44
00:05:42,150 --> 00:05:48,050
And. No wonder that the title of this work and linking it to of.

45
00:05:50,090 --> 00:05:58,490
Indeed. The author cites numerous scriptures in support of almost every one of his explanation at times, even for figures he just cites.

46
00:05:58,850 --> 00:06:05,980
So this, for example, while explaining the cause of the deterioration of the Tantric Plague, our author simply cites the following.

47
00:06:06,500 --> 00:06:15,070
He said, Number two lost on this Jew than in the source allegedly took this condom model individually.

48
00:06:15,350 --> 00:06:20,120
Mischa Barton by me, the new London will get them genuine demand.

49
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:22,700
We still want them to be Jews.

50
00:06:22,730 --> 00:06:32,540
And so these are his explanation, just he simply cites these sources and then he have no further explanation of his position.

51
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:47,540
In certain occasions. The author also attributes the authority to the Scriptures as an evidence to the supposed criticism on his position.

52
00:06:47,550 --> 00:06:51,320
For example, after his detailed explanation on the indecision.

53
00:06:51,810 --> 00:06:57,450
He cites the following scriptures on his as his supposed objection to his supposed objection.

54
00:07:00,270 --> 00:07:03,270
And then in what manner does he employ his sources?

55
00:07:03,930 --> 00:07:13,500
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.

56
00:07:13,740 --> 00:07:18,660
And then at times he had this sense of an adverbial weasel sighting.

57
00:07:18,660 --> 00:07:22,560
And then sometimes he cites the citation just as an explanation.

58
00:07:23,100 --> 00:07:30,660
And then when he cites sometimes he indicates that the sources, but at times he does not indicate the sources at all.

59
00:07:31,560 --> 00:07:40,370
So. Among 220 citations, our author repeats like.

60
00:07:46,220 --> 00:07:50,240
From five different sources, which are some partial and some exit ful sources,

61
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:55,220
where he attributes the authority to some force in support of his two different explanations.

62
00:07:55,610 --> 00:08:00,170
For example, he cites the following first in support of his two different explanations.

63
00:08:00,950 --> 00:08:11,599
Here in in this, he cites this the first in support of the explanation on the precepts where the law positive

64
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:15,739
aspects of the precepts of the big shoes are being included in the higher aspects,

65
00:08:15,740 --> 00:08:19,240
he said. He says. You're in danger.

66
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:23,379
Dennis Also turbulent in some regions, you simply don't burden loss,

67
00:08:23,380 --> 00:08:28,570
challenge yourself, but simply continually malleable because simply don't like them.

68
00:08:28,570 --> 00:08:39,420
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.

69
00:08:40,810 --> 00:08:45,850
Later he cites the same first in support of his explanation on the benefit of the initiations,

70
00:08:45,850 --> 00:08:55,150
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.

71
00:08:55,180 --> 00:08:59,200
Here again, he says, pinning the needle is this.

72
00:08:59,320 --> 00:09:04,540
Here he's talking about the initiation, the pin, the benefits of the initiation.

73
00:09:04,540 --> 00:09:11,529
And he says, pinning the needle in a capsule, digital open video, a puncture one, which at this point you actually, again,

74
00:09:11,530 --> 00:09:17,650
the same source and he cites the same first while some juvenile jerk like a little trouble somebody did some jiggle source.

75
00:09:20,780 --> 00:09:29,330
Sometimes he cites only some, but he's sometimes he also cites literally, for example, while presenting the nature of developing stage,

76
00:09:29,750 --> 00:09:35,690
which he presents as any liberating part of Vajrayana that refutes grasping at the stable world and the

77
00:09:35,690 --> 00:09:41,720
wavering sentient beings and that which is different from the self distinguished of the completion stage.

78
00:09:42,020 --> 00:09:46,350
The author cites the following as a. He said did that actually.

79
00:09:46,730 --> 00:09:50,730
He said nubile member, you give this girl one, then get your own use.

80
00:09:50,900 --> 00:09:55,280
How? And then.

81
00:09:56,430 --> 00:10:02,399
While presenting the seven distinctions through which the Buddhist teachings transcends the known Buddhist teachings,

82
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:09,930
he first listed seven distinctions, namely the view, the object of refugee, the object of veneration, the practices,

83
00:10:09,930 --> 00:10:14,729
the literal logical results, the philosophical systems, and the excellent Dharma.

84
00:10:14,730 --> 00:10:19,340
And then he cited the following citations. Theatre potential Doubleday.

85
00:10:20,360 --> 00:10:26,720
But what you need sugar cane sugar to go to become them to lasso them Bernie sun chin them Cuban pogs.

86
00:10:28,550 --> 00:10:35,990
So here it is very literal. Occasionally.

87
00:10:35,990 --> 00:10:40,490
Our author also does not even bother to explain his point.

88
00:10:40,490 --> 00:10:44,240
He's simply citing sources instead of any further explanation.

89
00:10:44,780 --> 00:10:52,969
For example, while presenting the stages of the process of purification of the developing stage for the explanation on the visualisation,

90
00:10:52,970 --> 00:10:56,330
he simply cites the following sources.

91
00:10:56,750 --> 00:11:01,280
He says, then, linearly, things you just used in company build.

92
00:11:01,460 --> 00:11:05,480
Funnily, numpy comes above us on issue number one.

93
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:14,459
Kaluza mentioning in jitter report. Gen Z the pandemic in the luncheon bowls here for the visualisation event.

94
00:11:14,460 --> 00:11:19,740
He just cites the dissociates and then he doesn't have any further explanation.

95
00:11:22,490 --> 00:11:27,170
In most of the time, the author explicitly states the title of the source.

96
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:35,450
However, in certain occasions, the author simply cites Gourlay or Ritchie, and at times he simply did the wrong and then cites the first.

97
00:11:35,930 --> 00:11:41,300
And in a few occasion, the author simply say differs without even any indication of the source.

98
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:45,260
For example, he said the evidence in the Chukchi this.

99
00:11:46,820 --> 00:11:52,370
So we thought you should meet Julius al-Bashir, Abuja. Here he does not even cite the source at all.

100
00:11:52,400 --> 00:11:56,740
But later I realise actually it is the citation from.

101
00:11:56,960 --> 00:12:06,770
But this. So when he explicitly specifies the authoritative sources.

102
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,310
Is it always accurate? In most occasions.

103
00:12:11,970 --> 00:12:15,180
The author explicitly specifies the authoritative sources.

104
00:12:15,570 --> 00:12:22,380
Around seven citations are how we were located in different worlds than the sources that our author has attributed to.

105
00:12:22,950 --> 00:12:30,570
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.

106
00:12:31,110 --> 00:12:36,840
It is likely that our author quoted directly from the Sanskrit text, which was not translated yet,

107
00:12:37,260 --> 00:12:42,360
and it was translated into Tibetan only later after him by Katara and me.

108
00:12:42,960 --> 00:12:48,660
So the title he renders here, and the title that we have in the canonical sources differ.

109
00:12:51,810 --> 00:12:57,360
But this is the only one example. He has similar cases with a few other citations as well.

110
00:12:58,940 --> 00:13:04,669
EMIL 220 citations, 32 citations from 23 different sources,

111
00:13:04,670 --> 00:13:11,990
some problematic besides the issues with regard to the source title, such as those citations that are found in other works,

112
00:13:12,710 --> 00:13:19,430
instead of what the author has cited and the identification of the sources which are not identified by the author in his text,

113
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:24,469
the following three Sims worth discussing which I have categorised as the

114
00:13:24,470 --> 00:13:30,620
untraceable versus the untraceable sources and and no information within reach.

115
00:13:34,050 --> 00:13:43,080
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.

116
00:13:44,210 --> 00:13:51,590
However, Fyfe was cited from the following three different sources could not be traced in both the cited source and the other sources.

117
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:58,280
Moreover, one could also come across the nature scholars, citing the same post from the very same source.

118
00:13:58,550 --> 00:14:02,300
It is, however, difficult to trace this clause in the canonical sources.

119
00:14:02,780 --> 00:14:08,240
I am not certain if this exist in any other works with similar titles, which I am not aware of.

120
00:14:11,270 --> 00:14:15,470
And for 14 cited forces from 12 different sources.

121
00:14:16,580 --> 00:14:26,629
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,

122
00:14:26,630 --> 00:14:31,100
either the exit cited first or similar cited first from the very same source.

123
00:14:32,050 --> 00:14:36,330
Occasionally some modern or pre-modern scholars such as within reach.

124
00:14:36,340 --> 00:14:40,110
Andrew Norton, but that are not to one in public.

125
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:47,710
They, Tinubu, etc. They either discuss the issue or cite similar citations from the same source in their works.

126
00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:53,030
For example, our author cites the following first from Don by John Paul.

127
00:14:53,870 --> 00:14:57,169
He cites popular media once in the Georgie London.

128
00:14:57,170 --> 00:15:02,510
Bonnie how we were neither the first nor decided source could be traced so far.

129
00:15:02,570 --> 00:15:07,190
Apparently the cited source called Don't Budget is a problematic issue here.

130
00:15:07,580 --> 00:15:16,520
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.

131
00:15:17,810 --> 00:15:22,130
But one should remember that in ancient Burma, he cites Dunbar.

132
00:15:22,160 --> 00:15:24,470
Don't be jumped on. Not too much on you.

133
00:15:25,010 --> 00:15:32,060
And all of these words cites different verses from the legend to G, which are found only in that particular book and nowhere else.

134
00:15:32,810 --> 00:15:41,330
The guild called Don't Be Choke. The Culloden McGillicuddy trouble story is attributed to Dunbar John as well.

135
00:15:41,780 --> 00:15:49,159
For example, in Negro Mosque in College, Georgia, it states that the only thing is in one Woolwich, Georgia.

136
00:15:49,160 --> 00:15:52,640
You she could document you read the legends of Charlie Rose.

137
00:15:53,300 --> 00:15:56,930
So here one can assume that the legends did.

138
00:15:56,930 --> 00:16:00,740
You could be existing in Sanskrit and not yet translated into Tibetan.

139
00:16:01,460 --> 00:16:10,150
However, another seems to be refuting on the basis of Dunbar, Jones and not being reliable that another in his Guildhall tutor.

140
00:16:10,460 --> 00:16:13,640
He states somewhat underneath the legendary Tula.

141
00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:19,099
She was she this and she would be low. But you don't but jump to GJ.

142
00:16:19,100 --> 00:16:23,550
But then, Noble Gilder, you can deny, deny indeed.

143
00:16:23,570 --> 00:16:26,840
Then be low multiple number to use.

144
00:16:27,080 --> 00:16:30,680
So he cautions here against. And similar.

145
00:16:30,740 --> 00:16:37,580
Similarly, there are other citations as well that other scholars discussing about the problem, sometimes citing the same phrases.

146
00:16:37,580 --> 00:16:41,630
But because of the limited time, I didn't include all of here.

147
00:16:42,080 --> 00:16:48,650
And to go to the last one, the no information, we didn't reach these 13 citations.

148
00:16:50,600 --> 00:16:56,360
From this 13 citations I did from this 11 different sources which I have presented here,

149
00:16:56,360 --> 00:17:01,490
this is very ambiguous because I could not trace any information on them thus far.

150
00:17:01,970 --> 00:17:05,920
Besides not being able to identify both its sources and institutions,

151
00:17:05,930 --> 00:17:12,049
it was not even possible to find any parallel sources that could indicate any sort of association

152
00:17:12,050 --> 00:17:17,750
with this edition or trace any Tibetan or Western scholars discussing about this from them.

153
00:17:18,500 --> 00:17:23,030
So I would really appreciate it in later in the feedbacks or comments.

154
00:17:23,030 --> 00:17:32,150
If someone have any ideas of these sources, this works which I could not manage to find any information thus far.

155
00:17:32,990 --> 00:17:36,620
So I'll first cited from the work of the opinion building.

156
00:17:36,620 --> 00:17:45,680
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.

157
00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:54,710
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.

158
00:17:55,190 --> 00:17:59,870
So here you could see here in this text. It is a paradox here.

159
00:17:59,870 --> 00:18:05,870
I don't know if you could see my cursor here. So that was the citations cited in my texts.

160
00:18:06,080 --> 00:18:13,040
But then actually I found it as a borrowed text and it was not in the cited sources.

161
00:18:13,430 --> 00:18:19,490
And I also realise actually this particular supplement, it is also not transmitted in degree edition of The Danger.

162
00:18:22,940 --> 00:18:27,140
Besides, the ball's 23 works, which I could not trace it anywhere.

163
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:34,099
33 works on extend in Sanskrit and 29 works extend in Tibetan.

164
00:18:34,100 --> 00:18:39,110
Translations from the cited works. Those from my author.

165
00:18:43,040 --> 00:18:46,670
So does all authority can be a similar message.

166
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:56,490
Although all those 220 citations cited by our author, we are all either in support of his position or to present others position.

167
00:18:57,000 --> 00:19:04,530
However, if one explore further in the sources he authorised, not all sources seem to convey the similar message as our author.

168
00:19:05,310 --> 00:19:11,160
One such example is the following citation, which she cites from the last chapter of the Quiet Summer Tantra.

169
00:19:11,170 --> 00:19:19,200
While presenting the classification of the initiation, he states the following Evolution is the digital open.

170
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:25,230
When we one balance, only 110 BCG will go along as she goes stealing the big money.

171
00:19:25,500 --> 00:19:30,450
We will go Dumbo the nimbus and we will go shut up. He she is somebody sugar daddy.

172
00:19:30,450 --> 00:19:37,920
She knows. So our author clearly cites this for as a textual evidence for the existence of the food initiation,

173
00:19:38,550 --> 00:19:44,850
though he not only classifies the initiation into four types, but also lists the fourth initiation as the fourth.

174
00:19:45,750 --> 00:19:49,350
On the other hand, as pointed out by Professor Isaacson,

175
00:19:49,350 --> 00:19:57,060
the source that texts itself to acquire somebody a tantra explicitly states the initiation to be of three fold.

176
00:19:58,370 --> 00:20:05,840
Moreover, according to Isaacson, the debate and the very idea of the food in this issue involving the prisoner, Juliana Abu Shaker,

177
00:20:06,290 --> 00:20:10,519
and the controversy concerning what this cryptic line she wrote,

178
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:16,820
the English know the food is that again in the same way might mean stunted from this very first.

179
00:20:17,580 --> 00:20:20,989
Here it seems that in order to support his own explanation,

180
00:20:20,990 --> 00:20:28,370
our author intentionally skipped the first line from the Quiet Samaritan, which reads [INAUDIBLE] in one lump sum.

181
00:20:28,370 --> 00:20:29,840
The Jew, Delaney wrote to the.

182
00:20:35,390 --> 00:20:44,290
So now the affinity between the citations in the genome and the canonical sources, I thought of discussing the affinity between these two.

183
00:20:44,300 --> 00:20:48,470
But before we discuss this, let me briefly.

184
00:20:50,820 --> 00:20:54,990
Present you the assessment of the textual witnesses.

185
00:20:56,510 --> 00:21:00,020
So I might have to rush a little bit here because of the limited time.

186
00:21:00,740 --> 00:21:06,440
So here, the critical edition of my prediction is based on true textual witnesses,

187
00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:13,610
which I call A, B and C is a manuscript written in cursive script and contains 55 folios.

188
00:21:13,970 --> 00:21:17,930
It was found in the Library of International Buddhist Academy, Kathmandu.

189
00:21:19,580 --> 00:21:24,950
To tell you, this text actually took me three years to get hold of this manuscript.

190
00:21:25,580 --> 00:21:29,270
It was only later I learned about it. And for that,

191
00:21:29,270 --> 00:21:38,360
I am really deeply grateful to Alexander and Rich and Ginger for locating this in Katmandu and also to Campbell Jordan for

192
00:21:38,360 --> 00:21:46,550
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.

193
00:21:48,350 --> 00:21:55,370
And also after discovering this witness, I must say that my studies became more exciting.

194
00:21:57,390 --> 00:22:03,420
And so, needless to say, this witness, be it is a computerised copy of manuscript.

195
00:22:03,870 --> 00:22:08,520
It was included in the collection of the government was written by the earliest masters,

196
00:22:08,880 --> 00:22:13,500
which was published in 2007 in Katmandu and now available in DRC.

197
00:22:14,100 --> 00:22:20,370
Would the styles of the lines in every folder and the manner in which the annotations inserted are very similar?

198
00:22:20,700 --> 00:22:29,340
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.

199
00:22:30,380 --> 00:22:35,960
Moreover, some of the annotations of the witness e are included as the main text in b.

200
00:22:36,260 --> 00:22:40,760
I have thus decided to include B as one of the textual witnesses.

201
00:22:42,420 --> 00:22:47,670
Caesar recently published one which is included in the collected works of Lucian Winston's on.

202
00:22:48,330 --> 00:22:53,160
It is the computerised edition published in the form of a book in 2018 in CASA.

203
00:22:53,700 --> 00:23:00,720
Since the editorial introduction makes no mention of the manuscripts at all, one can only surmise two possibilities.

204
00:23:01,350 --> 00:23:07,679
It is either based on E where the revises updated and possibly over edited it,

205
00:23:07,680 --> 00:23:15,480
or it is based completely on a manuscript different copy which could which could be earlier than manuscript a.

206
00:23:17,530 --> 00:23:21,610
I doubt that she was based on Eve for the following three reasons.

207
00:23:23,010 --> 00:23:27,810
First the title and the column form the goal of fantasy reads.

208
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:29,879
As you see here,

209
00:23:29,880 --> 00:23:40,050
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,

210
00:23:40,050 --> 00:23:48,190
it's a little bit difficult to read. And also the title witness, April White's full title.

211
00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:51,900
The name of the author is mentioned in the petition in the Witness H.

212
00:23:52,450 --> 00:23:56,260
See how we will provide a short title together with the name of the author.

213
00:23:56,490 --> 00:23:59,200
Here it gives room for one to speculate.

214
00:23:59,210 --> 00:24:08,920
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.

215
00:24:09,280 --> 00:24:15,940
I speculate this because usually the author would not merge his own name together with the title of his work.

216
00:24:16,030 --> 00:24:21,070
Moreover, the full name of the author is already clearly mentioned in the code often.

217
00:24:21,310 --> 00:24:25,450
Hence one would not see the need of author's name to be included in the title.

218
00:24:25,810 --> 00:24:31,960
The name of the author is usually merged with the title of the book if it is discussed by a second person.

219
00:24:32,590 --> 00:24:40,330
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.

220
00:24:41,500 --> 00:24:48,129
Furthermore, in the call of all of witness C, the title of the author is merely included as Guilherme with the last name.

221
00:24:48,130 --> 00:24:54,520
So while the call of all of Witness E not only provides the full title and the full name of the author,

222
00:24:54,520 --> 00:25:00,370
but also the location where this particular work was composed and other names of the author.

223
00:25:04,140 --> 00:25:10,650
The inclusion. The one of the most significant evidence of this is the inclusion of the notations of witness.

224
00:25:13,900 --> 00:25:18,520
In. Bin types of the first tool.

225
00:25:20,300 --> 00:25:23,780
Now with the plus sign as I have it here.

226
00:25:24,620 --> 00:25:28,820
And then the second one is also in a non-coercive form.

227
00:25:29,240 --> 00:25:37,700
But with this dot science, the annotations and the third ones are with the dot ones, but they are in the cursive style.

228
00:25:37,700 --> 00:25:45,680
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.

229
00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:55,000
The first and second type of annotations seem to be authors annotation and it fits best as the main text.

230
00:25:55,630 --> 00:26:00,670
Both of these annotations are already included as the main text in which is B and C.

231
00:26:00,970 --> 00:26:04,959
The remaining two types of the annotations which are in cursive style,

232
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:11,680
namely this third and fourth, in fact seem to have been added later, perhaps by the later devices.

233
00:26:14,180 --> 00:26:18,530
So Witness C actually completely omits this annotations.

234
00:26:20,710 --> 00:26:28,040
The first, the first and the second annotations in two occasions how able one would come across this annotations of witness E,

235
00:26:28,060 --> 00:26:32,320
particularly the third one being included as the main text in Witness C.

236
00:26:33,630 --> 00:26:41,850
This here, as you might see, I have underlined in the red, but you just in the cursive style but with the dot ones.

237
00:26:41,850 --> 00:26:47,819
So those are it seem to be, as I mentioned earlier, from the little devices,

238
00:26:47,820 --> 00:26:52,410
the annotations from little devices which the CE actually completely omits.

239
00:26:52,890 --> 00:26:59,280
But here in one occasion, it has inserted the whole annotation as the main text in C.

240
00:27:03,090 --> 00:27:10,790
So. This makes one wonder that see completely almost the introduction of the devices.

241
00:27:10,810 --> 00:27:16,300
However few annotations being included unintentionally perhaps due to skip of I.

242
00:27:18,770 --> 00:27:25,729
Only this part and overall the inclusion of the three types of annotations or witness e as the main text in Witness

243
00:27:25,730 --> 00:27:34,760
C is already a very strong support of my speculation of this textual Witness E being closest to the author.

244
00:27:37,450 --> 00:27:44,500
And the common error. Another evidence could be the citation from the gruesome video in this paragraph.

245
00:27:44,860 --> 00:27:51,850
Unlike Witness C often seems to have polish it citations where it reads almost parallel to the canonical sources.

246
00:27:52,180 --> 00:28:02,290
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.

247
00:28:07,450 --> 00:28:17,349
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

248
00:28:17,350 --> 00:28:26,470
to correct it revise it later and it has e has a retort without stop and c actually it is always well polished.

249
00:28:26,770 --> 00:28:39,100
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.

250
00:28:40,970 --> 00:28:48,770
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,

251
00:28:48,770 --> 00:28:52,850
perhaps the closest manuscript which could not be located yet.

252
00:28:53,300 --> 00:28:57,320
I hold this position to be plausible because of the following three reasons.

253
00:28:57,320 --> 00:29:06,320
Again. And sorry, the four reasons the absence of textual interpolation, the attribution of citation to the correct sources,

254
00:29:06,320 --> 00:29:10,430
the smooth reading and difference in the style of this sentence correction.

255
00:29:13,980 --> 00:29:20,640
In some occasions, rudeness appears odd, which I doubt is the textual interpolation by literary places.

256
00:29:21,390 --> 00:29:26,700
It suddenly cites something which is out of context. For example, in this paragraph,

257
00:29:26,700 --> 00:29:31,799
when explaining the nature or precepts of one person being transformed in taking

258
00:29:31,800 --> 00:29:38,890
one identical nature is suddenly cites second citation from the juggler somewhere,

259
00:29:38,890 --> 00:29:45,209
a quiet gentleman through which actually explains the distinctive superiority of the vehicle of the others,

260
00:29:45,210 --> 00:29:51,120
which I believe does not support the author's explanation on the nature of precept at all.

261
00:29:51,570 --> 00:29:55,630
The one with the green highlighted one is the one that one could see in the.

262
00:30:00,500 --> 00:30:08,750
Moreover, for the next edition of the paragraph, the author simply cites the middle, which means from the same tax rate, and which,

263
00:30:08,750 --> 00:30:16,850
according to it, should be actually the chapter somewhat acquiescent the contra and to see should be the Assad watching the tundra.

264
00:30:17,210 --> 00:30:25,700
The citation is located in Gaia. So in the tundra that very first being cited from the preceding source of the witness see

265
00:30:25,700 --> 00:30:31,790
also supports my doubt of the foremost edition to be the text interpolation in Witness E!

266
00:30:35,870 --> 00:30:44,240
At times is simply cite citation without indicating any source, while C attributes the same citation to the correct sources.

267
00:30:44,540 --> 00:30:52,520
Moreover, the citations in C reads more parallel to the canonical sources and makes more sense with the context of the author's statement.

268
00:30:52,940 --> 00:30:59,719
For example, in the citation from the gear switch in the tundra in this paragraph e amidst the

269
00:30:59,720 --> 00:31:06,170
second line of the first Gibson be nailed you in which C includes in its citation,

270
00:31:06,170 --> 00:31:09,230
the canonical sources actually includes this line as well.

271
00:31:12,250 --> 00:31:19,840
A similar example would be the citation from the he was written translated in another paragraph which we are witnessing.

272
00:31:19,940 --> 00:31:27,249
It's exactly like the canonical sources. While couple of simpletons just read different in e yet again,

273
00:31:27,250 --> 00:31:31,719
one can speculate that the witness C to be either based on different manuscript

274
00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:36,790
instead of E or the witness C is the result of the excessive editorial work.

275
00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:44,559
I claim this because Witness C not only indicates the correct source of the citation, but also cites the lines of the citations,

276
00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:52,000
which makes perfect sense to support the context of all the statement and also reach parallel with the canonical sources.

277
00:31:56,310 --> 00:32:04,380
With regard to the context or the content with Mrs. Moore smooth and easy to understand, for example, this paragraph.

278
00:32:06,980 --> 00:32:13,309
And one you poo poo poo pooh here the witness eases the wounded down come the kimchee last of the

279
00:32:13,310 --> 00:32:21,020
double chin engaged in them in these is in the seizes Jeong Jeong she pummelled the incumbent kimchi.

280
00:32:21,020 --> 00:32:24,470
LAH So what do we do this? SIMKIN Dunk. G dunk.

281
00:32:24,890 --> 00:32:28,610
Can Kim Lasley Do we change it in the mean days?

282
00:32:29,360 --> 00:32:39,439
So here the witness amidst chance of the sentence is right to use and jindong until somebody B was C actually interested also.

283
00:32:39,440 --> 00:32:42,530
In fact, this sentence is in the sea. It makes more sense.

284
00:32:42,530 --> 00:32:46,520
With this, I cited citations together to support his statement.

285
00:32:49,530 --> 00:32:55,409
One of the most significant evidence to claim that the witness C is based on another

286
00:32:55,410 --> 00:33:01,210
source is perhaps would be the reading in the sub in these two separate paragraphs.

287
00:33:01,230 --> 00:33:05,220
The reading in this paragraph is not only a strong evidence.

288
00:33:06,390 --> 00:33:12,660
You claim that witness sees based on another source, but also the existence of another manuscript to E?

289
00:33:13,050 --> 00:33:21,570
Unless one may convince oneself that the author perhaps tried to change his style and simply attributed the source after this edition,

290
00:33:21,840 --> 00:33:26,610
the sentence Construction does not correspond to the actual style of our author at all.

291
00:33:27,390 --> 00:33:30,719
Our author usually employs three different ways of sighting.

292
00:33:30,720 --> 00:33:36,030
Namely, he indicates the source of his citation first and then cites and the second.

293
00:33:36,030 --> 00:33:39,050
He does not indicate the source and simply cites this edition.

294
00:33:39,060 --> 00:33:42,120
However, it is indicated by the concluding phrase here.

295
00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:49,650
So this and the third, he does not indicate the source at all and also is not indicated by the concluding phrase.

296
00:33:49,680 --> 00:33:53,070
However, the source are sometimes identified in the notations.

297
00:33:53,850 --> 00:34:01,290
The reading in this paragraph is a special case. The two source titles are indicated after this edition in the style of annotation.

298
00:34:01,590 --> 00:34:07,049
However, it is here as the main text. In this case, though, it is modern notation.

299
00:34:07,050 --> 00:34:11,400
But the main text I assume this to be a notation belonging to the third case.

300
00:34:12,150 --> 00:34:15,450
Third case where the author does not indicate the source at all.

301
00:34:15,780 --> 00:34:21,480
Neither indicated by the concluding phrase how we would have those titles identified in the invitation.

302
00:34:22,810 --> 00:34:29,920
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.

303
00:34:29,950 --> 00:34:36,909
Later in the witness a the omission of these two souls titles in Witness C also supports my assumption that

304
00:34:36,910 --> 00:34:43,870
Witness C is based on another source because usually it is the C who actually gives the correct attributions.

305
00:34:44,270 --> 00:34:50,680
Q This so some get mixed up by the judgements and B Denon assuming in this one is it really looks like.

306
00:34:50,790 --> 00:34:55,809
In addition, I think it must be the annotations later, but which became the main text.

307
00:34:55,810 --> 00:35:03,640
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.

308
00:35:06,520 --> 00:35:14,050
So over all the orthography, the styles and the use of terms, both witnesses are not consistent.

309
00:35:14,170 --> 00:35:19,420
Since the readings found in this, two witnesses, A and C are not completely identical.

310
00:35:19,750 --> 00:35:26,230
One may assume that copy that served as the original of the witness c was either a copy of manuscript E,

311
00:35:26,590 --> 00:35:31,180
in which case the witness and the parts of the rearrangements in the reading

312
00:35:31,180 --> 00:35:35,860
could be the result of scribal error or deliberate changes by the editors,

313
00:35:36,430 --> 00:35:39,880
whether it is based on a manuscript E or a different one.

314
00:35:40,450 --> 00:35:44,230
C indeed seemed to be a product of an excessive editorial work.

315
00:35:45,010 --> 00:35:53,980
Although C often corrects the syntactical forms, meanings and orthography at times, C really seemed to have over edited the text as well.

316
00:35:54,460 --> 00:36:02,410
In any case, to address the possibility of the existence of yet another witness or manuscript would go beyond the scope of this work.

317
00:36:02,860 --> 00:36:10,450
Nonetheless, I am certainly confronted here with the question as to which witness can be justifiably be called as the earliest one.

318
00:36:11,840 --> 00:36:14,270
The question will have to remain unanswered here.

319
00:36:14,690 --> 00:36:22,489
However, for the sake of my quest for the affinity between this edition's industry, the genome and the canonical sources I have proposed,

320
00:36:22,490 --> 00:36:34,850
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.

321
00:36:34,850 --> 00:36:39,709
It is still more difficult to read than witness C with this principle.

322
00:36:39,710 --> 00:36:43,040
Indeed, witness is archaic and closer to the author.

323
00:36:43,430 --> 00:36:49,729
Moreover, five of these editions, which are cited as an addition in with this e are omitted in witness c.

324
00:36:49,730 --> 00:36:54,710
Hence I took a for the comparison of the canonical sources.

325
00:36:59,770 --> 00:37:07,270
So for the comparison, I have recorded every small difference reading strictly even if one groundwork is reached differently,

326
00:37:07,270 --> 00:37:10,330
I have recorded the books as reading differently.

327
00:37:10,660 --> 00:37:15,639
Although the citations convey similar meaning, oftentimes one could look into different use terms,

328
00:37:15,640 --> 00:37:21,550
sometimes small differences in also graphic and at times a slight shuffle of lines or words.

329
00:37:22,030 --> 00:37:25,030
For those two, I have recorded them as different reading.

330
00:37:26,230 --> 00:37:32,139
I have, however, intentionally ignored the missed lines of these editions because our author,

331
00:37:32,140 --> 00:37:39,310
in order to fit his own explanation at times, he intentionally leaves some lines out while citing the first.

332
00:37:42,510 --> 00:37:45,989
So this is the the comparison.

333
00:37:45,990 --> 00:37:49,530
I tried to make this out of all the country resources.

334
00:37:50,040 --> 00:37:56,909
And based on my observation among 29 works cited from Andrew Sources citations from

335
00:37:56,910 --> 00:38:01,610
nine works with exactly as the reading of the country as found in the talk edition.

336
00:38:01,620 --> 00:38:04,030
These are the ones I highlighted with green.

337
00:38:04,140 --> 00:38:13,650
The green highlighted ones while more citations from three tundras, namely the high vajra tantra, the retina mala tantra and the Mazumdar Tantra.

338
00:38:13,770 --> 00:38:20,330
It's more similar to the reading of the Peking edition, and these are the the yellow ones highlighted with the yellow.

339
00:38:22,000 --> 00:38:26,170
The rest, as presented here, seem more chaotic. Oftentimes.

340
00:38:27,800 --> 00:38:33,380
The two canonical sources which are similar to each other, while the GDP number is slightly different.

341
00:38:35,320 --> 00:38:42,940
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.

342
00:38:43,330 --> 00:38:49,030
In Iraqis, two parts of this edition in the Judith genome follows the reading of the dog edition,

343
00:38:49,360 --> 00:38:55,959
while few other parts of this edition of the Judith Genome Follow Speaking Edition overall for the resources,

344
00:38:55,960 --> 00:39:02,350
most of the tantric scriptures cited in distributing them are actually closer to the talk edition of the conjurer,

345
00:39:02,650 --> 00:39:06,310
hence following the compound of the lineage.

346
00:39:10,110 --> 00:39:13,560
And finally, the reception of the date.

347
00:39:15,670 --> 00:39:23,950
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.

348
00:39:24,400 --> 00:39:30,850
The only textual witness in is the work of the polluted Yeltsin who lived in the 15th century.

349
00:39:32,410 --> 00:39:40,540
Insulted by logic, Gelsinger replied to Carmack. Omega dodges doubt regarding the new mobile tradition titled We Won't Go.

350
00:39:40,540 --> 00:39:52,300
Carmack Omega. DG urges some of Nimmo alumna do we have now we Delinda Delinda be dubbed the henceforth alluded to.

351
00:39:52,960 --> 00:40:01,210
One could see not only citing Jones over Intel's explanation of also citing the same footage from the same source,

352
00:40:02,380 --> 00:40:05,610
such as the Maya John, the Tundra and the the them.

353
00:40:05,620 --> 00:40:10,450
Just so give it you go to which could not be located in the cited sources.

354
00:40:11,680 --> 00:40:15,069
So relatively speaking, the canonical sources such as Biggie,

355
00:40:15,070 --> 00:40:21,490
Captain Token and Baking Cartel are very recent editions, perhaps just 300 or 400 years old.

356
00:40:22,060 --> 00:40:26,050
This particular work, however, is composed more than a millennium before.

357
00:40:26,440 --> 00:40:31,629
Hence one can is you why? Most of his citations could not be traced in the canonical versions,

358
00:40:31,630 --> 00:40:39,940
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.

359
00:40:40,720 --> 00:40:47,709
As pointed out by Daniel, another reason could be due to the text discrepancies in the translation,

360
00:40:47,710 --> 00:40:54,610
the corrupted manuscripts and the some dissimilarities of the Tibetan translations from the Sanskrit texts.

361
00:40:55,000 --> 00:40:57,920
Moreover, for a great translator like regions the world,

362
00:40:57,970 --> 00:41:06,730
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.

363
00:41:07,090 --> 00:41:10,330
Hence, one can expect slight differences in the readings.

364
00:41:11,080 --> 00:41:15,160
So thank you very much and I look forward to your feedback.