In Edward Conze's translation we read:What has been taught by the Tathagata as the possession of marks, that is truly a no-possession of no-marks.
Apparently, only Conze translates this part with a double negation, i.e. a "no-possession of no-marks", instead of the usual "possession of no-marks" (single negation).
The chapter ends with:The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.
This is the text in Sanskrit, though I can't tell if this is the original text that Conze used, nor can I read Sanskrit:Tat kim manyase Subhute laksana-sampada Tathagato drastavyah? Subhutir aha: No hidam Bhagavan, na laksana-sampada Tathagato drastavyah. Tat kasya hetoh? Ya sa Bhagavan laksana-sampat Tathagatena bhasita saiva-alaksana-sampat. Evam ukte Bhagavan ayusmantam Subhutim etad avocat: Yavat Subhute laksana-sampat tavan mrsa, yavad alaksana-sampat tavan na mrseti hi laksana-alaksanatas Tathagato drastavyah.
And here's the whole text:http://www.stiltij.nl/meditatie/verdiep ... utra-conze
Could anyone provide a comment as to why Conze translated this part differently?