དན་རྣམ་པར་ངས་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་ཆས་ཀྱ་རྣམ་གྲངས intro.23

intro.23

We could add the version commented on in the anonymous don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i ’grel pa (Artha­viniścaya­ṭīkā, Toh 4365), an elaborate commentary that survives only in its Tibetan translation. This commentary follows a different scheme than the one adopted by the Nibandhana. It is worth noting that the Tibetan terminology differs, to some extent, from the one employed in the Kangyur version of the sūtra. For example, the very title of the sūtra (Distinctly Ascertaining the Meanings) is translated as don rnam par gdon mi za ba rather than don rnam par nges pa; this is significant, considering also that the Mahāvyutpatti has an entry rendering arthaviniścaya with don rnam par nges pa. Similarly, śrāvastī is translated as mnyan du yod pa, rather than just mnyan yod as in the Kangyur translation of the sūtra, even when the term appears as a quote of the root text. Alfonsa Ferrari described this commentary as “very long but pedestrian and attached to the letter,”¹¹ comparing it unfavorably to the Nibandhana, which she describes as “shorter and juicier.”¹² We are not sure whether this is a fair assessment, but “juicy” may be a very good way to speak of the rewards of reading Vīryaśrīdatta’s comments, some of which will be found in the notes and in the glossary, so as to offer at least glimpses of what one may be missing by not reading the Nibandhana. The Mahāvyutpatti explicitly relied on Vasubandhu’s work, and so does Vīryaśrīdatta in explaining the contents of this sūtra. His glosses thus offer some keys to the subtlety, greatness, and extraordinary dedication of the ancient translators from Sanskrit into Tibetan.