I have posted here that I have completed collated translations of the MPNS. Elsewhere I have also pointed out that the Tibetan translation by Jinamitra et al is based on a Central Asian exemplar (well, probably) which presents a conflated text which merges two Indic textual lineages, that underlying Faxian and that underlying Dharmaksema. As a result of this, this Tibetan version is often somewhat distorted, chaotic and duplicated. Upon reflection, it occurs to me that native Tibetan scholars would have been aware of this, because they never seem to quote from the Jinamitra version, but instead prefer to use the version translated into Tibetan by Wang Phan-zhun and his Sino-Tibetan team from the Chinese version of Dharmaksema. This certainly the case with Klong-chen-pa and Bu-ston. This is interesting, since Western scholars often seem to think that the Tibetan version is completely reliable and disdain use of either of the Chinese translations. This foolhardy choice is probably due to curtailed linguistic skills, although Radich and King make use of the Chinese Dharmaksema version as they both read medieval Chinese. Moreover, Dharmaksema was shaping up to be one of the greatest translators in China until his untimely death in his early 40s at the hands of his supposed patron., This situation speaks well of Tibetan textual scholarship.
One other small point here, perhaps of arcane interest to most people, concerns a matter of attribution. Normally Faxian is credited as the translator of the MPNS but this attribution only occurs in the later catalogues of Buddhist texts in China. The confusion probably occured because it was Faxian who obtained a ms of the MPNS in India at Pataliputra. But initially, Buddhabhadra and Bao-yun are mentioned as the translators. It is true that Buddhabhadra also did work with Faxian and was a good translator, whereas Bao-yun is little known but he was very proficient in Sanskrit and translated several works solo. Circumstantial evidence can be noted in the fact that just when he was supposed to be translating the MPNS, Faxian was also busy translating the very large Mahasanghika-vinaya – another text which he also obtained in Pataliputra.
I assume this means the MahaPariNibbana Sutta?
No. You probably did not read my earlier post in the tathagata-garbha thread. I am referring to the vast Mahayana Parinirvana Maha-sutra, a work with no connection to the Pali sutta beyond a similar title. Oddly enough, the MPNS (as we term it), despite its title, only covers the preliminaries to the Buddha’s parinirvana with the gathering of all and sundry bringing their last offerings and wood for the cremation, yet it does not include the actual passing. Instead the text presents extensive teachings on a wide range of topics that range from vinaya matters to the tathagata-garbha doctrine.
Maybe you can post a link so that it is easier for others to follow. 