KN IV: 133,12f. reads santi tu himavati parvatarāje catasra oṣadhayaḥ “on the contrary, there are four herbs on the snowy mountain, the king of the mountains”. The meaning of the sentence is easy to understand. However, KN’s footnote states “A. W. add saṃvidyaṃte. Cb. adds vidyaṃte. O. asti.”
The Gilgit manuscript and many Nepalese manuscripts read as santi (tu) … oṣadhayaḥ or santi tu … oṣadhayaḥ saṃvidyante, but C5’s asti tu … oṣadhayo vidyante and Kashgar’s asti tu … auṣadhyau vidyanti are almost identical, beyond the difference between Nepalese and Central Asian recensions. Which is the correct reading?
If we refer to the usage of Pāli atthi nāma and BHS asti, the usage of asti tu seems to be the most likely. The form (°)vidyanti is commonly attested in the Kashgar manuscript (e.g. Kashg IV: 109b7 saṃvidya(ṃ)ti). In conclusion, I believe that the reading of the Kashgar ms. is the original one. If I were to re-edit the KN, I would adopt the C5 reading as compromise.
This paper is one of a series of small attempts to collect material for a future re-edition of the Lotus Sutra.