ད་བཞན་གཤགས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱ་གཙག་ཏར་རྣམ་པར་རྒྱལ་བ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་གཟངས་རྟག་པ་དང་བཅས་པ notes.27

notes.27

27. The text here is corrupt and appears to have transmitted a line slip, where a line from slightly lower in the text made its way incongruously to a place where it does not belong, rendering this sentence nonsensical. The Sanskrit text and the parallel passage in Toh 598 both lack this error, confirming that it is a textual corruption. We have relied upon Hidas’ Sanskrit edition to repair the Tibetan text here. The Tibetan reads de rnams kyi phyir ’khor gyi dkyil ’khor la nye bar gzigs te/ kun du gzigs pa’i dpal gyi mtshan de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs ’di bcang ba dang / bklags pa dang / gzhan la rgya cher yang dag par ston pa ni tshe ring ba sgrub par byed pa’i ched du’o. The passage in bold has been incongruously lifted from its proper place several lines down in the text and added here. The Sanskrit passage lacks this error but also includes several additional words absent in the Tibetan. However, as the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts are not identical in other places in this parallel passage either, and since the Tibetan text makes perfect sense without these additional elements, we have not taken the liberty of adding them in the English translation. The Sanskrit passage, in Hidas’ edition (with the elements absent in the Tibetan text indicated in bold), reads teṣāṃ arthāya hitāya sukhāya imāṃ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣavijayā-nāma-dhāraṇīṃ dhārayed vācayed deśayet paryavāpnuyāt parebhyaś ca vistareṇa samprakāśayet | dīrghāyuṣkāṇām upādāyeti (Hidas 2020, p. 152). The passage in Toh 598 reads de rnams kyi don du tshe ring bar nye bar bsgrub par bya ba’i phyir/ de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ma zhes bya ba’i gzungs ’di gzung bar bya/ gzhan la rgya cher yang dag par bstan par bya’o.