འཕགས་པ་ཆས་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱ་རང་བཞན་མཉམ་པ་ཉད་རྣམ་པར་སྤྲས་པ་ཏང་ང་འཛན་གྱ་རྒྱལ་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད intro.38

intro.38

Where there are significant discrepancies, the Tibetan has been favored in the translation wherever possible, as it probably represents a particular Sanskrit version that has not survived. In some instances, however, adhering to the Tibetan would have caused problems regarding the meaning of the text, and here the Sanskrit reading has been preferred. Consulting the other versions has also been indispensable in clearing up ambiguities, variations in the Tibetan between the different Kangyurs, and the occasional error in the Tibetan, the results of scribal corruption or adopting the wrong meaning of a word, such as the classical Sanskrit meaning instead of the BHS meaning. Also of great help has been clarification from the Chinese translation that Ling-Lung Chen has been able to provide. In one case, the Chinese preserves an uncorrupted version of a passage in which “nature” was later replaced by “past,” resulting in a peculiar set of verses with a peculiar meaning.