འཕགས་པ་ལགས་ཉས་ཀྱ་རྒྱ་དང་འབྲས་བ་བསྟན་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད intro.4

intro.4

These two sūtras differ not in terms of content but in terms of language; Toh 354, translated here, employs an Indo-Tibetan lexicon, whereas Toh 355 uses a Sino-Tibetan lexicon.² The Indo-Tibetan lexicon refers to a body of terminology constructed in the likeness of Sanskrit and implemented during the early ninth century in order to imbue translations with a more Indic flavor, while the Sino-Tibetan lexicon leans toward a more indigenous, and presumably more archaic, range of Tibetan terminology that emerged out of interaction with Chinese texts.³ This suggests that Toh 355 is the earlier of the two translations, given that the Sino-Tibetan encounter predates the cultural sway that Indian Buddhism would later have over the Tibetan empire and subsequent Tibetan Buddhist traditions.⁴ Nevertheless, its title is absent in the Denkarma (Tib. ldan/lhan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (Tib. ’phang thang ma) catalogs of the early ninth century.