འཕགས་པ་དགངས་པ་ངས་པར་འགྲལ་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད notes.81

notes.81

81. This entire paragraph is problematic in D: blo gros shin tu rnam dag gang gi phyir bden pa mthong ba rnams ’du byed kyi mtshan ma dang bral ba ma yin gyi/ bral ba kho na yin pa dang / bden pa mthong ba mtshan ma’i ’ching ba las rnam par grol ba ma yin gyi/ rnam par grol ba yin pa dang / bden pa mthong ba gnas ngan len gyi ’ching ba las rnam par grol ba ma yin gyi/ rnam par grol ba dang / ’ching ba de gnyi ga las rnam par grol na grub pa dang / bde pa bla na [F.8.a] med pa’i phyir mya ngan las ’das pa ’thob par ’gyur ba dang / bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub mngon par rdzogs par ’tshang rgya bar yang ’gyur ba. However, Lamotte, Keenan, and Cleary translate the phrases in bold with a double negation. If we look at the same paragraph in F, folio 10.a, we find an interesting textual variant in which the expected double negation is found: ma bral ba’ang ma yin te and ma grol ba’ang ma yin te, just like in Xuanzang’s translation (由此道理當知一切非如理行 不如正理善清淨慧。由於今時非見諦者。於諸行相不能除遣。然能除遣非見諦者。Cbeta, Taishō 676). Powers chose to translate this passage without proceeding to any emendation, which makes little sense from the perspective of the argument expounded in this section of the text: “Su­viśuddha­mati, it is not the case that seers of truth are free from the signs of the compounded; they are simply free. Moreover, seers of truth are not liberated from the bondage of signs, but they are liberated. Seers of truth are not liberated from the bondage of errant tendencies, but they are liberated.” (Powers 1995, p. 41).