དན་རྣམ་པར་ངས་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་ཆས་ཀྱ་རྣམ་གྲངས intro.20

intro.20

In 1971, N. H. Samtani offered a much-improved and complete edition, including the first edition of the Nibandhana commentary, based on the photographs taken by Rahul Sankrityayan of a palm-leaf manuscript from Ngor monastery.⁹ Samtani’s edition, based as it is on the photographs of the oldest-available complete manuscript, is particularly valuable, and we have used it as the primary reference for the Sanskrit. However, all the above Sanskrit versions differ, in various respects, from the Kangyur version, and the Nepalese manuscripts edited by Ferrari, although not comparably old, contain sections that match the Tibetan translation more closely. Overall, the hypothetical Sanskrit original of (almost all) the Tibetan translation can be evinced by comparing the existing Sanskrit versions and looking at parallel passages in other Sanskrit and Pāli texts. This is extremely helpful, for it can greatly clarify the intended syntax of the Tibetan and, in a few cases, show how some obscure expression may be due to a mistake (even a printing mistake) in the transmission of the Tibetan.