[976] Analysis of the Dulva, etc., four parts in Asiatic Researches, vol. XX. 1836, by A. Csoma Körösi. Translated into French by Feer, Annales du Musée Guimet, tome 2me, 1881. Index des Kanjur, herausgegeben von I.J. Schmidt (in Tibetan), 1845. Huth, Verzeichnis der in Tibetischen Tanjur, Abtheilung mDo, erhaltenen Werke in Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad. 1895. P. Cordier, Catalogue du fonds Tibétain de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Beckh, Verzeichnis der tibetischen Handscriften der K. Bibliothek zu Berlin, 1 Abth., Kanjur, 1914. This is an analysis of the edition in 108 volumes, whereas Csoma de Körösi and Feer analyzed the edition in 100 volumes. The arrangement of the two editions is not quite the same. See too Pelliot's review of Beckh's catalogue in J.A. 1914, II. pp. 111 ff. See also Waddell, "Tibetan Manuscripts and Books" in Asiatic Quarterly, July, 1912, pp. 80-113, which, though not an analysis of the Canon, incidentally gives much information.
[977] E.g. Udâna ( = Dhammapada) by Rockhill, 1892 (transl.), and Beckh (text 1911) Madhyamakâvatâra: de la Vallée Poussin, 1912, Madyamika-śâstra: Max Walleser, 1911 (transl.), Citralakshana, ed. and trans. Laufer, 1913; Feer, Fragments extraits du Kanjur, Annales du Musée Guimet, tome 5me, 1883.
[978] It is also sometimes divided into three Pitakas. When this is done, the Dulva is the Vinaya P., the Śer-chin is the Abhidharma P., and all the other works whether Sûtras or Tantras are classed together as the Sûtra P.
[979] hDul-ba.
[980] See Nanjio, Nos. 1115-1119, 1122, 1132-4. Rockhill, Prâtimoksha Sûtra selon la version Tibétaine, 1884. Huth, Tibetische Version der Naihsargikaprâyaccittikadharmâs, 1891. Finot and Hüber, "Le Prâtimoksa des Sarvâstivadins," J.A. 1913, II. p. 465.
[981] Strictly Śer-phyin.
[982] Waddell in Asiatic Quarterly, 1912, XXXIV. p. 98, renders the title as Vata sangha, which probably represents Avataṃsaka. Sarat Chandra Das, sub voce, says Phal-chen-sde-pa = Mahâsanghika.
[983] The statements of Nanjio as to "deest in Tibetan" are not quite accurate as regards the edition in 108 volumes. Compare his catalogue with Beckh's.
[984] This statement made by such scholars as Feer (Anal. du Kanjour, p. 288) and Rockhill (Udâna, p. x) is of great weight, but I have not found in their works any quotation from the Tibetan translation saying that the original language was not Sanskrit and the titles given by Peer are in Sanskrit not in Pali. I presume it is not meant that the Tibetan text is a translation from a Sanskrit text which corresponds with the Pali text known to us. In Beckh's catalogue of the edition in 108 volumes the same titles occur in the Prajñâ-pâramitâ section, but without any statement that the works are translated from Pali. See Beckh, p. 12, and Feer, pp. 288 ff.
[985] Life of the Buddha, p. 224, and J.R.A.S. 1899, p. 422.