ལས་ཀྱ་རྣམ་པར་འགྱར་བ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་ཆས་ཀྱ་གཞང notes.31

notes.31

31. Mr. Yi Ding states the following in two emails to the translator: “Based on my impression, I don’t think that anyone in Japan has raised the question whether D 339 [the las kyi rnam par ’gyur ba zhes bya ba’i chos kyi gzhung] is a translation from China, which might indicate that there are no obvious giveaways. Also, Ch-1, Ch-2 and Ch-3 are too different from D 339; Ch-4 and Ch-6 were translated into Chinese at a very late stage when there was virtually no known cultural exchange between Tibet and China,” (May 29, 2017), and “[…] among the Chinese translations, Taishō no. 80 is the closest to D 339 but not close enough for a direct relationship. And I totally agree that D 339’s language is pre-reform and very idiosyncratic,” (June 1, 2017). For a complete list of the Chinese translations, see Kudo 2004, Bibliography, p. xx. We are very grateful to Mr. Yi Ding (Stanford University) for providing us with his comments and information about the Chinese translations as well as the Japanese scholarly literature on the group of (Mahā-)Karma­vibhaṅga texts, in particular the works written in Japanese by Noriyuki Kudo (see bibliography).