Suppose you want to refer to n-translations or editions of the Rāmāyaṇa or of the Vigrahavyāvartanī, what would you do? I can think of two solutions
- You refer to only a couple of translations among the many texts you refer to. In these cases, I would order them (just like I do for all texts) according to the name of the editor–translator.
- You write a study specifically on a given text and need to quote many translations or editions. In these cases, I would suggest having a separate section of your bibliography dedicated to just that. Within the separate section, I would again order editions and translations according to the name of the editon, but one could also use the name of the author, if he is a historical person. I would strongly discourage from using the name of authors like Vyāsa for the alphabetical order.
What do readers do?
Speaking as the editor of a journal, I naturally respond, “the correct arrangement of materials is the arrangement that your editor asks you to comply with.” 🙂
Second, I have never subscribed to the idea of subdivided bibliographies. I want to make reference as easy as possible for my reader, and that is best achieved by putting all bibliographical items in a single list that is intelligently and obviously arranged. (Part of my reasoning here is also that I find the distinction into so-called “primary” and “secondary” sources to be based on fallacious thinking.)
Third, I do not believe in the bibliographical distinction between editor and author. I follow the Library of Congress and international library practice in identifying a “statement of responsibility.” I.e., who is responsible for this book? So I would cite the Mahabharata edition simply as “Sukthankar et al. (1933-1959).” As such, the bibliographical entry for this item can live in a single listing together with books, articles, websites, videos and whatever. Someone who wants to see what my citation refers to can just go to “S” in the alphabet and find it quickly.
If I want to *say* something about the multiple editions or translations I’ve used, then I would do so in a separate paragraph or chapter, and again use the same citation form. E.g., “The Poona edition of the Mahabharata (Sukthankar et al. 1933–1959) was used for references to the Moksadharma, but for the Bhagavadgita passages I used the Bombay edition (Krishnacharya and Vyasacharya 1906–1910).”