The closing verse of our poem is also a prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. It is also in use elsewhere than in connection with the present booklet and occurs elsewhere in print as well. My informant ascribes it to Gendundub himself and thinks that its wider use has spread from this booklet, though he cannot definitely assure that Gendundub himself did not appropriate it for the closing lines of his poem, taking an already current prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. The latter theory is plausible inasmuch as the last verse is seven-footed as against the eight-footed lines of the rest of the poem. Anyhow, the statement that this prayer also refers to Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone, and is as such used and understood by all Gelukpa monks, settles a doubt we might otherwise entertain as to whether it is not addressed to the ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་, in which case its final line would have to be translated in the plural. As to the edition, in the original the verses are not marked; they are evidently four-lined. The small edition has no divisions at all, except marking the lines, but the larger edition has in addition a ༈ (སྦྲུལ་མགོ་ = snake head) after lines 16 and 48. In my own text and translation I have by typographical disposition and by the introduction of title headings indicated my conception of the clever and very logical inner structure of the poem. The text is followed by a short discussion of the variants in it, next by a translation, and then, my main business, by a full lexicographical discussion, in alphabetical order. This embodies in the first place all the new material, supplementing, amplifying, modifying, or even only questioning, the data in Jäschke’s Dictionary, 3rd edition. For this Dictionary is, as far as lexicographical method is concerned, still superior to all other, even subsequent, Tibetan dictionaries, however much valuable and additional matter may be contained in the two latter. Jäschke’s dictionary is as yet the proper starting point for all future lexicographical research. In this glossary I have also drawn special attention to contradictions in these three current dictionaries, those of Jäschke, Desgodins and Sarat Chandra Das, even to such points for which I myself have not been able to suggest a solution or about which I could not bring new material. For the good of future lexicographical work in the Tibetan field, it is very necessary to point out as many as possible of the numerous existing discrepancies and uncertainties (especially relating to finer shades of discrimination and precision) so as to focus the attention of investigators on them. It is unavoidable that most of this work can only be suitably undertaken on the spot in consultation with educated, intelligent Tibetans, and not in European closets. The number of those in a position to undertake such research will, for a long time to come, remain limited enough. As indicated in the sub-title of this essay my own main object in writing it is primarily a lexicographical one.