________________
E. Steinkellner
Samdhinirmocanasūtra
and interpreting. This is however the only place where Mu tig's work is mentioned and nothing else is known of it.
10. b a'yan dag pa'i tshad ma mdor bstan pa (NISHIOKA 2909).
This is a summary in 1 bam po of the work attributed to king Khri Sron Ide btsan. TUCCI refers to the two works with the same title as "two redactions".54 It is listed immediately after the list of works "commissioned" (bkas bcad pa) by the king 55 Nothing else is known.
IV.
In concluding this survey I would like to point out some aspects of significance of this material for the history of early Tibetan Buddhism.
of the ten works to be found either in the Tanjur or in various catalogues56 nine had already been dealt with in the oldest lists of Tibetan litera
54 TUCCI 1958, p. 148. In this he follows dPa' bo gtsug lag phren ba who starts his
list of the king's works with these two works, one in 7, the other in 1 bam po
(KhGT, Ja, 124a7). 55 But the following notice that it was given to the king by the acārya Vairocana
raksita" does not refer to it (TUCCI 1958, p. 151, n. 1) but to the following title
(NISHIOKA 2910). 56 The lHan kar catalogue has another work that is a separate extract from a
"Samdhinirmocana-chapter" from the Yogācārabhumi (LALOU 623: Nal sbyor spyod pa'i sa las dGons pa nes par 'grel pa'i le'u ni tshe bśad pas logs su phyun ba, 365 śloka). L. SCHMITHAL'SEN, Hamburg, referred me to a quotation of the complete text (except for the introduction) of the Samdhinirmocanasūtra in the Viniscayasamgrahani of the Yogacarabhūmi. The text of the Sūtra to be found there (P 5539, Hi, 47b7 - 10868) corresponds almost literally to the text as transmitted in the Kanjur (P 774). The fact that LALOU 623 is in 365 śloka, while the Sūtra's translation listed under LALOU 117 is in 1.120 sloka, clearly shows - what is already indicated by the very title of the work - that LALOU 623 cannot refer to the whole Sūtra as incorporated into the Yogācārabhūmi but only to one of its chapters.
SCHMITHAUSEN suggested (letter of 6.9.1987) that this extract from the Sutra in the Yogācārabhūmi might have been part of that text that served as the basis of the version which is actually transmitted in the Kanjur in addition to the version from Tun-huang (cf. HAKAMAYA XORIAKI, The Old and New Tibetan Trans
246
