འཕགས་པ་ཚ་དང་ཡ་ཤས་དཔག་ཏ་མད་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད intro.32

intro.32

Thirdly, an early period translation of the “two oṁ” version is the target of some openly dismissive remarks made in several works by later Sakya scholars, including Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo and his disciple Kunga Lekrin in the fifteenth century, and Amé Zhab Ngawang Kunga Sönam in the seventeenth century. Both the latter authors discuss the various theories raised to account for the existence of the two versions, and go on to confirm the validity only of the later translation, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674. Following a leading statement attributed by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo to his own teachers,¹⁶ they are both scathingly critical of the “two oṁ” version, and of the “earlier translators” responsible for it, whom they accuse of deliberately omitting part of the dhāraṇī to express dissatisfaction with their stipend. Such comments have to be seen in the context of arguments regarding authenticity between proponents of the “late” versus the “early” translation traditions (which concerned principally the tantras rather than any of the other canonical genres), but they do at least confirm that the “two oṁ” version of the text was widely recognized as having been translated in the early, imperial period.