Thapa - Dharmagupta's Unfinished Translation of the Vajrachhedika

8/9/2019 Thapa - Dharmagupta's Unfinished Translation of the Vajrachhedika

1/17


2/17

DHARMAGUPTA'S N}INISHED TRANSLATIONOFTHE DIAMOND-(;lHAVERVAJRACEDI>-PRAJNAPA-SUTRA) 1

BYSTEFANOZACCHETTIUniversitadegli Studi di Venezia-CaFoscari

Listof AbbreviationsJGNDJ = Dharmagupta (transl.), JingangnengduanbanruoboluomijingiWldzl*nXtt , T. 238 (vol. VIIIp. 766c-771c)S = EdwardConze's edition of the Vafracchedika-Prajnaparamita-sutra(in: Conze 1957 p. 27-63)tr = EdwardConze's translationof the Vajracchedika-Prajnaparamita-sutra in: Conze 1957 p. 65-92)CSZiJ= Sengyou f$, Chu anzangiji, th=i P T. 2 145KYL= Zhisheng tZ, Kaiyuan hijiao u,W3Xwtk; T. 2154XGSZ= Daoxuan An, Xu gaosengzhuan,Hfz; T. 2060T = J. Takakusuand K. Watanabe (eds.), Taishoshinshudaizokyo,Tokyo, 1922-1933AdEfrfXiPartI: The technique f ChineseBuddhist ranslations: n outlineof itsevolutionromthesecond o theseventh enturyA.D.

One of the most interesting aspects of the history of ChineseBuddhism is the progressive development of a highly specializedtechnique of translation.Since the earliest pioneering translations of the Late Han dy-nasty, through the whole history of Chinese Buddhism, the ren-dering of Buddhist scriptures was due to the collective work oftranslationteams.21 I want to express my sincerest gratitude to Professor Tilmann Vetter andProfessor Erik Zurcher of Leiden University,who took the care of reading thefirst draft of the present article, suggesting many corrections and improvements.This article is a development of a part of my graduate thesis, The ChineseTransta-

tions of the Diamond Sutra (in Italian), Universita degli Studi di Venezia, unpub-lished thesis, academic year 1992-1993. Research in the Netherlands during the19961995 academic yearwas made possible by a grant from Venice University.

2 See Zurcher1959, p. 31.T'oungPao LXXX:1IC) J. Brill,Leiden, 1996


3/17

138 STEFANO ZACCHETTIThe first documents describing one of these teams are two an-cient colophons3 dating back to the Late Han dynasty.The most detailed of the two4 says:As far as we can induce from the sources we possess (especiallycolophons and prefaces collected in chapters VI-IX of CSZJJ),thistri-functional structure of translation teams (i.e. 1. the main trans-mitter who recited the original text; 2. the interpreter, who orallytranslated it; 3. the scribes, who wrote down the translation)7,3 1)Colophon of the Dao xingjing Ait (T. 224; the earliest Chinese transla-tion of Astasahasrzka-Prajnaparamitauitra); n CSZIJ p. 47c 5-9. 2) Colophon of the

Banzhou sanmei jing Q4 $`If (T. 417/418; the earliest Chinese translation ofPratyutpanna-samaidhi utra); in CSZIJ p. 48c 10-15. The two translations wereprobably carried out at the same time by the same team of translators, led byLokaksema and Zhu Shuofo *M4 (see Zurcher 1959, n. 67 p. 330). The twodocuments contained in CSZJJare in fact later copies of Han originals (the firstdates back to 255 A.D., the second to 208 A.D.; see Zurcher 1959, ibidem).4 CSZJJp. 48c 10-13. In quoting this passage, I follow the text emended andpunctuated by Tang Yongtong (1938 p. 68). The colophon also mentions twolater revisions of the text, carried out in 198 and 208 A.D. The other colophonhardly differs from this one. See also Paul Harrison, TheSamadhiof DirectEncounterwith theBuddhas of the Present:An AnnotatedEnglish Translation of thePratyutpanna-Bud-

dha-Sammukhavasthita-Samadhi-Suitra,okyo, 1990, p. 259-260.5 The term "Bodhisattva" was widely used as an honorific title in early Chi-nese Buddhism, especially referring to foreign translators. See Tang Yongtong1938 p. 102.6 Indoscythian.7 A main variant of this scheme happened when the main transmitter's com-mand of Chinese enabled him directly to supply the translation (see Fuchs 1930

p. 87). The first explicit mention of this way of translating can be found in KangSenghui's t* preface to the Fa jing jing 9,W- (T. 322), which was translatedduring the Han dynasty by An Xuan Wt and Yan Fotiao BR (see CSZJJp. 46c5-6). Many great transmitters used to translate without resorting to a translator:such as Dharmaraksa (see Zurcher 1959 p. 69; a list of sources on Dharmaraksa'stranslations can be found in Zurcher 1959, n. 221 p. 343; actually for the first textproduced by him Dharmaraksa had to resort to a translator: see below, note 8,item 1); Sanighadeva (see CSZIJ p. 72b 23-24; p. 73a 23-24); Kumarajiva (see hisbiography, CSZIJ p. lOlb 17; Sengrui's 1R85preface to Da pin jing *


4/17

DHARMAGUPTA S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 139hardly changed in the three centuries following the Han dynasty.8Such a persistence of this particularorganization is not mean-ingless: surprisinglyenough, in this early phase of Buddhist trans-

CSZiJp. 53b 5); Buddhabhadra(CSZiJp. 61a 65; but compare with note 8 below,item 14); Dharmaksema (CSZiJp. 59c 22-23; p. 64c 27-28); and Paramartha (see,for instance, the preface of Abhidharmakosa. 1559, vol. 29, p. 161b 12).8 The following are the other documents (prefaces and colophons) of CSZtJin which this organization of translation teams is mentioned (I shall list the dateof each translation, its title, the names of the main translator and that of the in-terpreter;page numbers only refer to the passages of these documents which spe-cificallydeal with the subject.)1) 266 AtD. Xa zherl tiarlzi jing gkt) Biqiani dafie H6fi:figt.t,;Dharmadhl; Zhu Fonian ,;;three documents (an initial 'inote9') colophon and a final colophon); p. 81c 21-22 (compare withCSZiJp. lOa2S29).5) 382 A.D. (?) Si Ahan muchaoE3Wt4g;; Kumarabodhi; Zhu Fonian andBuddharak,sa;nonymouspreface p. 64c 13-15 (see TangYongtong 1938 p. 224).Dao An's A:t preface p. 52b 19-20.7) 383 A.D. Abhidharmazzibhasa;anghabhadra, Dharmanandin (who wrotedown the Sanskrit ext); Buddharaks.; Dao An's preface p. 73c 3-8.8) 383 A.D. Abhidharmasara;anghadesra;Zhu Fonian; Dao An's preface p.72a 27-29.9) 384 A.D. Poxami i gtt; Sanghabhadra7Dharmanandin and Sang-hadeva;Zhu Fonian7anonymous preface p. 71c 28-72a 5.10) 384 A.D. Ekottaragama;harmanandin; Zhu Fonian; I)ao An's prefacep. 64b 10-14 (see also colophon of Sengiialuochai p. 71c 1-2).11 384 A.D. Sengyialuoshai bgRt; Sanghabhadra;Buddharaks,; colo-phon p. 71b 25-271 here is also an anonymous preface p. 71b 17-20 (slightly dis-cordant: it statesthat Zhu Fonian wasinterpreter).12) 397 A.D. Madhyamagama;angharaksa;Sanghadeva;Daocils XEM refacep. 64a 13-15^13) 413 A.D. Dirghagama;uddhayasas;Zhu Fonian;Sengzhao's * prefacep. 63c 16-18.14) 417 A.D. Mahaparanirvanaiitra;Buddhabhadra;Baoyun t; colophonp. 60b 9-11.15) 434 A.D. Za Apitanxin tk*.b; Sanghavarman;Baoyun; Jiaojing'spostface p. 74c 5-7.16) 436 A.D. Sramaladevasimhanadaitra; Gunabhadra; Baoyun; Huiguan'spreface p. 67b 2-5.


5/17

140 STEFANO ZACCHETTIlations, command of both languages (that of the Indian original,and Chinese) does not seem to have been an essential require-ment for the main transmitters (those names normally attached tothe translated texts in bibliographical sources). Instead, what re-ally was deemed crucial was their doctrinal insight into the texts tobe translated. In fact, from the very beginning of the Sui dynasty,exegesis played an important role in the work of translation, dur-ing which the texts were normally commented upon by the for-eign master presiding over the team.9

From the beginning of the fifth century A.D., particularly withthe great Indo-kuchean master Kumarajiva (350-413 A.D.), trans-lation teams greatly increased in size, turning into assemblies thatwere attended by great numbers of monks and lay devotees,10 andBuddhist scriptures, before being translated, were deeply anal-yzed and debated.11However, toward the beginning of the sixth century A.D., theregradually emerged the tendency to establish small-sized teams ofselected translators, under the direct control of the imperialcourt. This phenomenon, which in some respects anticipated thestructure of Tang dynasty teams, was particularly evident in thetranslations produced in the last decades of the Northern Wei dy-

9 See Tang Yongtong 1938 p. 296; Wang Wenyan 1984 p. 131-139; Zurcher1959 p. 31.10 Starting with Kumarajiva, the sources quite regularly record the number ofpersons assisting the translations, and during the fifth century it is said often to

have reached several hundreds, and sometimes thousands; see for instance CSZIJp. 58a 9; 58b 12-13; 79c 2.1 See Cao Shibang 1990 p. 100. The sources dealing with fifth-century transla-tions sometimes mention this kind of group exegesis. See, for example,Dharmaksema's biography (CSZJJ p. 103b 1-2), which states that during his trans-lations "... Several hundred monks and laymen raised all kind of questions ..."; inHuiguan's preface to the Fahua zongyao ing MY' 0;- (CSZJJp. 57b 6-8), it is saidthat "... In the Great Temple of Chang'an gathered more than two thousandsramanas experts in exegesis from the four directions ..." to assist Kumarajiva'stranslation of Saddharmapundarikasitra, which was "carefully scrutinized [byKumarajiva] with all [the present]" (yu zhong xiang jiu ORP). It seems thatthose debates had the very important function of establishing (ding 2, a term of-ten occurring in these sources) the definitive text of the translation, as we canclearly see in Huiguan's preface to Srimazladevisimhanadauitra (CSZJJ p. 67b 3-5):"... The foreign sramana Gunabhadra, holding in his hands the Sanskrit correcttext, recited the Sanskrit sounds ... Shi Baoyun and other monks of straight con-duct, more than one hundred, checked the sounds and investigated the meaningsin order to establish the text [of the translation] (kao yin xiang yi yi ding jue went~ H--i tA 2m 3)


6/17

DHARMAGUPTA'S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 141nasty (386-534 A.D.),12 when Buddhism had become the state reli-gion.With the rise of the Sui dynasty in 581 A.D. the imperial controlof the Buddhist church increased. This was also reflected in theorganization of translations: translation teams were directly associ-ated with the imperial court, and the assistants of foreign masterswere carefully selected.13 Also the internal organization of theteams apears to have evolved further in Sui times: the sources be-gan to record a somewhat more complex division of labour14which, after further improvement, became the distinctive featureof Tang dynasty "new translations".15

12 The most representative among Northern Wei translators were Bodhiruci,Buddhasanta and Ratnamati (see Bagchi 1927 p. 246-260), all active during thefirst half of the sixth century A.D.. As Wang Wenyan (1984, p. 149) says, it is note-worthy that in some cases the translators worked inside the imperial palace,which very probably means that only a few specialists (monks or high-ranking offi-cials) were admitted to do the work of translation. In fact, according to somesources, as Cuiguan's preface to the DasabhuLmikasutra Adstra translated in 508-511by Bodhiruci, Ratnamati and Buddhasanta), T. 1522, vol. 26 p. 123b 1-5, and Tan-ning's preface to the Samdhinirmocana itra (translated in 514 by Bodhiruci), T.675, vol. 16 p. 655a 16-b4, only "about ten persons" took part in the work of trans-lation. Some translations carried out almost during the same period in SouthernChina also share these features. See, for instance, the biography of Safighabhara(active in 506-524 A.D. during the Liang dynasty), in XGSZ p. 426a 15-16.

13 When Yangdi (605-617 A.D.), the second Sui emperor, moved his capital toLuoyang, he also founded, inside the "Park of the Upper Grove" (Shanglin yuanj:t9), an "Office for translating the sutras" (Fan jing guan A ), "... selectingpersons of outstanding talent" (souju qiaoxiu4* ). See Dharmagupta's biogra-phy in XGSZ p. 435c 7-8. See also Wang Wenyan 1984 p. 150-151; Cao Shibang1990 p. 105.14 The most detailed description of Sui translation work is reported in

Jinagupta's (or, more probably, Jianagupta's) biography, XGSZ p. 434 a 26-b3(see also E. Chavannes, 'Jinagupta (528-605 ap.J.C.)", in: T'oungPao 6, 1905, p.332-356; part. p. 349-351). Jnianagupta himself acted as the main transmitter("principal specialist" 7jG ), assisted by Dharmagupta; two brothers, the laymenGao Tiannu and Gao Heren, were translators; ten eminent monks "supervised thework of translation and examined the original meaning"; two other monks,Mingmu and Yancong, "compared again [the translation with] the Sanskrit text(chong duifan ben14*)".

15 On Tang translation teams, see Cao Shibang 1990 p. 105-107. For example,in the team led by Xuanzang in 645 A.D. (see his biography by Huili andYancong, Da ci'en si sanzangfashi zhuan ., b+ 1f4 T. 2053, vol. 50, p. 253c19-254a 5) there were: 1) twelve monks in charge of "checking the meaning [ofthe translated text]" (zhengyi ); 2) nine who "composed the text [of the trans-lation]" (zhui wen g&l); 3) one expert in the "study of [Chinese] characters"


7/17

142 STEFANO ZACCHETTIThe Sui dynastythus was a crucial point in the history of trans-ation technique. What we can ascertain about this evolution isainly based upon external sources (biographies, colophonstc.). There is, however, a notable exception - a document whichllowsus a closer look at this subject.Part II: Dharmagupta'sJGNDJ

The translaiion of Vafracchedika-Prajnaparamita-sutray Dhar-aguptal6(JGNDJ)17s generally considered the most literall8mongthe six Chinese versions19of this Mahayanatext. In fact itoes ar beyond the normal concept of literal translation:it fairlyesembles n interlinear version of the Sanskrittext. Bywayof in-roduction, short quotation will bear evidence to this statement:

(ziuet): 4) one who checked that the original Sanskrittext wascorrect (zhenganyufanwentR.). The main functions were the firsttwo,and the translationasarriedout through the continuous cooperation of these twogroups.6 Dharmagupta's biography is in XGSZ p. 434c 23-435c 16. See alsohavannes903, p. 439-440;and Bagchi 1938 p. 464-467;Ui Hakuju1979, p. 112-22.17In KYL p. 552b 26) this translationis quoted with a different title:Jinganguangeantuoboruomiing iNlJ*JX t@gt E.18Conze (1957 p. 4) says that"... Dharmagupta's Chinese translation ... setsuto reproduce the Sanskrit text with great literal fidelity". See also Guyougault,Les paradoxes de la Vajracchedika:une connexion qui opere uneoupure",ahiersd'etudes hinoises,8 (1989), p. 45-63;see p. 45.9Dharmagupta'stranslation is the fourth in chronological order, precededyhosef Kumarajlva T. 235), Bodhiruci (T. 236), Paramartha(T. 237), andollowedy those of Xuanzang (T. 220 IX) and Yljing (T.239). From the textualointf view, JGNDJ represents a late, rather expanded recension of theafracchedika.or instance, inJGNDJa puzzling passage, not present in the earlierersionsf the Sutra,can alreadybe found, which states,among other things, thatheathagatas a synonymof dharmocchedaJGNDJp. 770 a 9-12;S p. 48; it is alsoresentn Xuanzang's translationT. 220 p. 983c 27-29). It is interesting to notehatonze,n his edition of Vafracchedika,mitted this phrase, holding that it wasaaterddition which has crept into the text after 800 AD" (Conze 1957, p. 6;eelsoome critical remarksby Schopen, in L.O. Gomez andJ.A. Silk 1989, p.7). Inact,JGNDJprovidesa much earlier terminusantequemof this addition.


8/17

DHARMAGUPTA'S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 143(Sanskrit text)20 (JGNDJ)Sacet Subhuiteif o Subhutitesam bodhisattvanammof these Bodhisattvasmahasattvanam __1Mahasattvasdharma-samjnadpravarteta 2dharma-notion could take placesa eva tesamthat indeed of thematma-graho bhavet ... 23self-seizing would be

Without the Sanskrit text it would probably be impossible todecipher this puzzling translation. Moreover, this by no meansseems to have been Dharmagupta's usual style of translating.24The explanation of the peculiar features of JGNDJ is to befound in biographical and bibliographical sources: no cataloguequotes Vajracchedika-Prajiinparamita-sutramong Dharmagupta'stranslations,25 and its first mention, in KYL (not in the catalogue

20 The Sanskrit text is quoted in E. Conze's edition (Conze 1957 p. 27-63;hereafter S); page and line number are indicated. From this work (p. 65-92) Ihave borrowed the translation of the quoted passages given in the footnotes. Ihave also added to the Sanskrit examples a word-for-word translation which, Ihope, will help readers to checkJGNDJ quotations.21 This straightforward rendering of pravrt-(here: "to take place", "to occur"),clearly based on the fundamental meaning of the root vrt- ("to turn" etc.), is actu-ally not peculiar to Dharmagupta alone. See for instance the corresponding pas-sage in the Xuanzang translation (T. 220 p. 980c 22-23).22 S p. 31, 20-22 (tr. p. 69: "If, o Subhuti, in these Bodhi-beings, these great be-ings, a perception of a dharma could take place, that would be with them a seiz-ing on a self ...")23 767b 26-28.24 KYL (p. 551b 21-c5) attributes nine translations to Dharmagupta: T. 310(vol. 11 p. 571b-592c; part of the Maharatnakuta-suitra); T. 415 (vol. 13, p. 830a-871c); T. 716 (vol. 16, p. 830-837); T. 449 (vol. 14, p. 401-404); T. 1510 (vol. 25, p.766b-781a); T. 1660 (vol. 32, p. 517a-541b); T. 1596 (vol. 31, p. 271a-321a); T. 1652(vol. 32, p. 482-486); T. 25 (vol. 1, p. 365a-420a). Though rather literal, all these

texts basically are written in the standard language of Buddhist translations.25 See Da Tang neidian lu ;k*p T. 2149, p. 280a; KYL p. 551b-c; Da Zhoukanding zhongjingmulu *MU5ItIgA T. 2153 p. 382a-b. See also Ono Gemmyo(ed.), Bussho kaisetsu daijiten, Tokyo 1968-1975 (2d ed.), vol. III p. 499b; Bagchi1938 p. 467.


9/17

144 STEFANO ZACCHETTIbllt in the short biographyof Oharmagupta, . 552b 26-28), says:';PreviouslyDharma] upta translated he Laf acGhedika-Prajnapara-mita-sutra,one juanand Pule in$26 fifteen juan, [which] could notbe polished.27At the time of the Zheng usurpers28the two trans-lations] were abandoned,and there was not sufficient itne to re-sTisehem. Nowadays heir variouspartsare preserved n the capi-tal5'.29JGNDJ thus is an unfinished translation30 hich by a rarechance, has been included into the BuddhistCanon and handeddownto the presentday.If we take a closer look at this unique documentS omparing twith the Sanskrit riginaltext7we can perceive, n spite of its ap-parent incoherence, an underlyingrigorous ormativeprinciple:almostwithout exception, every single word of the Sanskrit exthas been translated nto Chinese,31 et strictlykeeping the same

26 In a note following the biograph,v p. 552b 29-cl), Zhisheng, the author ofKYL, tates that this Pa le jing was a translation of the Lalatasistara,which alreadyhad been translated into Chinese by Dharmaraksa n 308 A.D. (see CSZDp. 48b28; Pu yao jirtgi T. 186) and, later, in 683 A.D., during the Tang dynastyf wastranslated once more by Divakara (Fangdeng da z11uangyaning t#XZgk T. 187;see Bagchi 1938 p. 50+505).

27 Lian fu **; perhaps 4;polished"s too vague, and fu must be taken in thesense of 4'toreverse [the text]", i.e. to arrange the syntax of the translation ac-cording to Chinese grammar (see below).28 WeiZheng^ refers to the ephemeral dynasty ounded at Luoyang by M;rangShichong X.1:3E ?-621 A.D.) after the fall of the Sui empire, and suppressed bythe Tang army in 621 A.D. See Sui shu 85 (ed. Zhonghua shuju, Beijing 1973, vol.3, p. 1898);Jiu Tangshu 1 (ed. Zhonghua shuju, Beijing 1975, vol. 1, p. 11-12).'i9 t1 X.+SiP9IJ*Jtkt # > NciE tE > X* ' ^zi +

N:1$> #gtE\. It is noteworthy that this passage is quoted s7erbatim romDharmagupta'sbiography in XGSZ (p. 435c 17-18), the only difference being thatin the latter no mention is made of the ltafracchedika, ut only of the Lalitavistara.Since Luoyang was the center of the Zheng dynasty, this passage of KYL its inwith an anonymous note following the title of JGNDJ in the Taisho edition (p.766c), urhichstates that this translation dates back to the Daye era (605-617 A.D.)of the Sui dynasty, ust when Dharmagupta was active at Luoyang (see XGSZ p.435cSand Chavannes 1902, p. 440).30 See also BTangWenyan 1984, p. 333. For a general description of JGNDJ,see Ui Hakuju 1979>p. 122-127.31 Generally speaking, the terminology of the JGDNJ is not too far from that

of the former translations of the Vayrac(;hedika.evertheless it shows a certain ten-dency to make larger use of translation rather than of phonetic transcription ofSanskrit terms. Thus sometimes we find in JGDNJ odd renderings of words forSrarasta (p. 766c 1), probably based on an etymology deris7ed rom the root sru-


10/17

DHARMAGUPTA S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 145position as in the Sanskrit phrase. This way of translating has pro-duced an odd, obscure mixture of Chinese vocabulary and San-skrit syntax. On the other hand, no word without an exact corre-spondence in the Sanskrit text was added to the translation. Thus,in order to maintain some basic distinctions expressed in the San-skrit text, Dharmagupta sometimes had to use Chinese mor-phemes as postpositional affixes (suffixes or even endings). In thefollowing examples I shall confine myself to some regularly recur-ring phenomena.32

a) The form verb + ying 1E is systematically used in JGNDJ totranslate Sanskrit gerundives.33Examples1) ... Na sa Subhitte

not that o SubhutiBodhisattvoBodhisattvavaktavyah .. 34 35is to be called

2) ... Na aksana-sampadaa . .not from mark-accomplishment

Tathagato[the] Tathagata

(see M. Monier Williams, A Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary, Oxford University Press,1899, p. 1098). It is interesting to note that Dharmagupta himself, in other "nor-mal" translations, made use of a transcription to render Sravasti (Sheluoboxidit-MERtf); see for example T. 716 (p. 830b 1), which was translated byDharmagupta and his team at Luoyang in 606-607 A.D. (see its preface, p. 837b10-12), more or less at the same time asJGNDJ. See also Ui Hakuju 1979 p. 125.

32 I shall not mention other usages in JGNDJ which, while probably based onthe same principle, normally occur in Chinese Buddhist translations, like -deng Wused as a pronominal plural ending (See Zurcher 1977, p. 184-185 and n. 24) or -yi E in post-verbal position as a rendering of Sanskrit past participles or gerunds.See Zhu Qingzhi, "Hanyi Fodian yuwen zhong de yuandian yingxiang chutan"&&itmbtl3gFwiM1g, Zhongguoyuwen,1993/5, p. 379-385; see p. 381-382 andp. 380.33 See: p. 767a 3-4; 767a 8-9; 767a 10; 767a 14; 767a 16-17; 767a 19-21; 767b 1-3;767b 6; 768a 25-27; 768c 7-8; 769a 16-22; 769b 14; 769c 16-23; 770a 24; 770a 29;770c 3-4; 770c 7-8; 771a 9; 771a 16-17; 771a 19-20; 771a 23; 771a 27; 771b 4; 771c 3-4.

34 S p. 29, 5-6 (tr. p. 66: "... He is not to be called a Bodhi-being...").35 767a 17.


11/17

146 STEFANO ZACCHETTIdrastavyah ...36 37is to be seen

b) In a similar way, Sanskrit verbs in the future tense are mostlyrendered by the form verb + dang a .38Examples3) ... Eka-citta-prasadampi

One-thought-faith evenpratilapsyante ...39 40[they] will obtain

4) ... Tearibhphtaa...They despised

bhavisyanti ... 41 42will be

c) One of the most striking features of JGNDJ is the use of thepersonal pronoun woR after verbs, as a first person singular end-ing.43Examples5) ... Kathamcainam

How this toodhrayami . . . 45[I] bear [in mind]

36 S p. 30, 8-9 (tr. p. 67: "... Not by the possession of his marks can theTathagata be seen").37 767b 2-3.38 See: 767a 7-8; 767b 21; 767b 23; 768b 20-21; 768c 19-20; 768c 23-27; 769a 3;769b 3-4; 768b 6; 769b 15-16; 769b 18-19; 769b 25-29; 769c 1; 769c 7-8; 769c 14;770a 3; 770a 7. Sometimes, however, we can find in JGNDJ dang ' in its normalpreverbal position; see S p. 30, 16: ... kecitsattva bhavisyanti .. ("... There will besome beings ..."), andJGNDJ p. 767b 7-8: po youzhongshengdangyou M4*CR4.39 S p. 31, 9-10 (tr. p. 68: "... Will find even one single thought of serenefaith40 767b 21.41 S p. 45, 1 (tr. p. 80: "... they will be humbled ...").42 769b 28-29.43 See: 767c 6; 768a 22; 768b 7; 768b 24; 768c 22; 770a 23; 771a 17; 771a 23.44 S p. 37, 21-24 (tr. p. 74: "... How should I bear it in mind?").45 768b 24.


12/17

DHARMAGUPTA S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 1476) ...AhamIksetravyuthadnfield-arrangements

46~ ~~~~4ni.spadayi.sya-mi-iti...... 46X7will accomplish unquote

It seems that no attempt has been made to render other end-ings of Sanskrit conjugation in this way, using postponed pro-nouns, except for one phrase:48

7) ... Yathavadasi ...49Y, &50as you say

d) Sanskrit locatives, even absolute, are often (though not regu-larly) translated as substantive + -zhong 43,51 without any preposi-tion.Examples8) ... Tasu Ganiganadasu.52 53in those Ganges rivers9) ... Imesv

theseevamrfupesufutrantapadesuof such a form sutra-wordsbh&syama-nesu.. 54.?55being spoken46 S p. 35, 22 (tr. p. 72: "... I will create harmonious Buddha-fields ...").47 768a 22. Note that in this case the future tense has not been rendered into

Chinese.48 This phrase also occurs one more time in the Sanskrit text (S p. 28, 8) with-

out correspondence inJGNDJ, and another time in the latter (769a 2) but not inthe former.49 S p. 56, 8 (tr. p. 88: "... As you say...").50 771a 18.51 See: 766c 1; 766c 6; 767b 9-10; 767b 12-13; 767b 15-16; 767b 20-21; 768b 4-5;768b 6; 768b 17; 768b 21; 768c 20; 768c 22; 769a 3; 769a 9-12; 769a 14; 769c 6-7;

769c 13-14; 770b 17; 770b 19; 770c 17; 771b 7.52 S p. 36, 19 ("... In those Ganges rivers ...").53 768b 7-8.54 S p. 30, 18-20 (tr. p. 68: "... When these very words of the sultra are being

taught ...").55 767b 9-10.


13/17

148 STEFANO ZACCHETTIe) In rendering verbs of saying, the indirect object is regularlydenoted by noun + bian&56 as in:10) ... Bhagavan

The Lordayusmantam Subhutimto "Life-possessing" Subhutietad avocat ...57 g58in this manner said

f) Adjective + guo A functions as a rendering of Sanskrit compa-ratives.59Examples11) ... bahutaramr

More abundantpunya-skandham ... 0 61merit-amount

12) ... AsamkhyeyaihkalpairDuring incalculable aeons

asamkhyeyataraih . .62 63more incalculable

Other peculiarities ofJGNDJ are due to the fact that apparentlyall words of the Sanskrit text must have a corresponding term inthe translation. Thus some Chinese words are used in a quite unu-sual way. Very common (recurring almost in every line) is, for in-stance, the curious use of ruo X to translate (besides, more nor-mally, sacetand va-)the relative pronoun yah.

Examples13) Evam vastu-patitoSo object-fallen

56 See: 766c 11; 767a 4; 767a 9; 767b 4; 767b 7; 767c 4; 768b 23; 768b 25; 768c16; 769a 1; 769c 17; 769c 26; 770c 15; 771a 22.57 S p. 28, 7 (tr. p. 66: "... The lord said to the venerable Subhuiti ...").58 767c 3-4.59 See: 767c 21; 768b 16; 768c 14; 769b 10; 769c 2; 769c 3; 771b 8; 771c 10.60 S 58, 10-11 (tr p. 90: "... A greater heap of merit ...").61 771b 8.62 S p. 45, 7-8 (tr p. 81: "... During incalculable, quite incalculable aeons...").63 769c 2.


14/17

DHARMAGUPTA S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 149Bodhisattvo drastavyoBodhisattva is to be seenyowhovastu-patito64[having been] object-fallendanam parityajati65 66a gift gives

14) ... Na-asti dharmothere is not a dharma

yaswhichTathagatena desitah ... 68by the Tathagata has been taught

Besides the features listed above (those which occur fre-quently) no other "suffixes" or "endings" can actually be detectedin JGNDJ. This suggests that Dharmagupta is very unlikely to havehad the intention of systematically representing Sanskrit morphol-ogy in Chinese. Those strange phenomena ofJGNDJ seem, on thecontrary, to have a more practical function: in fact he tried totranslate in this way only those morphological features whichmutatis mutandis (i.e. arranging the text according Chinese stand-ard syntax) were normally represented in Chinese Buddhist trans-

64 This expression, which has been translated by Conze as "fallen amongthings", is actually rather obscure. The translations by Kumarajiva (T. 235 p. 750b29c 1) and Bodhiruci (T. 236, p. 754c 18; verbatim followed by Yijing T. 239, p.773c 9), and Paramartha's more interpretative translation point at agnoseological meaning of vastu (= "object of perception"). Bodhiruci renders thisphrase as tj It& : a ffifT$ ("The Bodhisattva [who] devotes himself to givinggifts, having his mind based on objects").

65 S p. 42, 15-17 (tr. p. 78: 'just so should be viewed a Bodhisattva who hasfallen among things, and who, fallen among things, renounces a gift"). It shouldbe noticed that all the Chinese translators of Vajracchedikahere interpret danamparityajati as "[the Bodhisattva] gives a gift". In fact parityaj- seems to involve, inthis context, the idea of "renouncing (some goods in order to give) a gift". I amindebted to Prof. Vetter for this suggestion.66 769a 28-29.67 S p. 32, 13-14 (tr. p. 69: "... There is no dharma which has been demon-strated by the Tathagata .68 767c 7-8.


15/17

150 STEFANO ZACCHETTIlations. This is the case with ying f and dang X, which are oftenused, in the normal pre-verbal position, to render the Sanskrit ge-rundive and future tense.69 Hence "suffixes" and "endings" ofJGNDJ only had the very practical aim of preserving some linguis-tic distinctions with respect to the final version of the translation.Perhaps this could explain why no use of the "ending" -woR hasbeen made, when the Sanskrit text itself has a first person pro-noun, thus allowing Dharmagupta to insert R in its normalpreverbal position, without sacrificing the principle of word-to-word translation (though with some exceptions: see above, exam-ple n. 6: but compare p. 770a 29).

For example:15) ... TesamOf them

ahamnanabhazvamitta-dharamthe various thought-streamsprajanami 70 71know

Another possible instance of "economy" of linguistic distinc-tions made by JGNDJ is the use of shi UI and shi tit, which, when69 See, for example, S p. 28, 3-5: the gerundive ... katham ... statavyam...

How ... should stay ...") is translated inJGNDJ (p. 767a 2-3) as ... yunhe ... zhuying...( fl and asing.unhe zhu ( fIW ) by all other Chinese translators ofVajracchedika (see: T. 235 p. 749c 9, T. 239 p. 752c 12-13; T. 237 p. 762a 15; T.220 p. 980a 15; T. 239 (p. 772a 5-6).

70 S p. 51, 17 (tr. p. 85: " ... Of them I know, in my wisdom, the manyfoldtrends of thought").71 770b 20. Theoretically one cannot exclude that, in this case, the absence

of the -wo R ending is due to variant reading in the original Sanskrit text ofJGNDJ: in fact the Gilgit manuscript of the Vajracchedika t this point has a wrongvariant reading (Jadnyas,which does not agree with the subject aham, instead ofPrajeanami;ee G. Schopen, "The Manuscript of Vajracchedika found at Gilgit", inL.O. Gomez and J.A. Silk 1989, p. 103 and n. 17 p. 138) which, if it was alsopresent in Dharmagupta's own original text, given his way of translating theJGNDJ, would have resulted in this rendering zhi 0. But this seems unlikely to bethe case: JGNDJ is based on an original text which often diverges from the Gilgitmanuscript (see also above, n. 19), and it is thus hard to believe that it couldshare with the Gilgit manuscript a reading which, as Schopen says, is "clearlywrong". After all translation, no matter how mechanical, always is a somehowmore conscious action than mere textual transmission.


16/17

DHARMAGUPTA S UNFINISHED TRANSLATION 151they directly involve a certain idea of temporal location, are nor-mally used without a -zhong+ ending,72 even when they renderSanskrit locatives, as in:

16) ... ekasmin amaye .. 73 74at one time

Many features of JGNDJ, odd as they may seem, are explained,as Wang Wenyan has pointed out,75 by a passage of the Buddhistchronicle Fozu tongji ieE76 T 2035 (p. 398b; see also Fuchs1930, p. 101-102), which describes the organization of the Songdynasty "Translation Bureau" (yi jing yuan glg-),77 actually a di-rect offshoot of the Sui and Tang translation teams.78After having listed 1) the "director of translation" (yizhu 4t),2) those who "checked the meaning [of the Sanskrit text]" (zhengyi 1), 3) those who "checked the [Sanskrit] text" (zheng weni), and 4) those who "transliterated [the Sanskrit text into Chi-nese characters]" (shu zi), the text says:

fifth were the scribes (bi shou1), [who] translated Sanskrittranscriptions into Chinese words;sixth [those who] composed thetext (zhui wenMSC),79 turning the Chinese characters in order toform meaningful sentences ....80A following note provides a further explanation:

"For instance, [the text drawn up by] scribes would say: zhaojianwuyun bi zixing kong jian ci 8 Now [i.e.72 See: p. 766c 3-4; 766c 7; 766c 9; 767b 8; 767b 12; 767b 14; 769a 8-9; 769a 11-

13; 769b 7-8; 769c 2; 769c 6; 770a 4; 770a 7. Some exceptions (mostly absolutelocatives) are: 767b 9; 769c 6-7; 769c 14; 770c 17.73 Sp. 27, 1.74 766c. 1.75 Wang Wenyan 1984, p. 333.76 By Zhipan , (13th century A.D.).77 See T. 2035 p. 398a. The 0M was established in 982 A.D. at the capitalKaifeng.78 See Fuchs 1930 p. 103, and Cao Shibang 1990, p. 106-107.79 Fuchs 1930 p. 101 renders it as "Textzusammensetzer".80 T. 2035 p. 398b 12-14. L:EJh EMM1Of* M91-CP a81 Quotation from Prajnaparamitd-sitra; very likely renders the phrase:vyavalokayatisma pancaskandhas tamsca svabhzvasunyan pasyati sma (quoted from E.Conze, Thirty years of Buddhist studies, London 1967, p. 150); "He [i.e.Avalokitesvara] examined the five skandhas and saw they were empty of own-be-ing". Note how this sentence resembles those of JGNDJ!


17/17

152 STEFANO ZACCHETTIafter having been composed] it says: zEaojian wayun jie kong> %i:M*a. On the wholeSthe Sanskritword order is often inver-ed [in comparison with Chinese] ... so characters and sentenceseed to be reversedin order to be in accordance with Chinese lan-uage".82JGNDJclearly proves that this technique of translation was al-eady ully developed as early as in the Sui dynasty.The transla-ionhas been stopped exactly at the stage which in Fozu tongi isalledbi shou ;S2. Therefore the Sanskrit terminology has beenotallytranslated into Chinese (even to a larger extent than inormalcompleted translations,see above, n. 31), while the syntaxstill that of the original text.Rather than a deliberately superliteral translation,JGNDJthusonstitutes unique document for the history of Chinese Bud-histtranslationtechnique.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBagchi.C. 1927, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, tome Ier,Parisagshi.C. 1938, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, tome IIeme, arisaohibangWH:g 990, Zhongguo Fojiao yijing shi lunji @g"FEt - , Taibeihavannes. 1903, ;'Notesur divers ouvrages relatifs a l'Inde qui furent publiesn Chine avantl'epoque T'ang",B.E.F.E.O. 3, p. 430-441onze. 1957

Vajracchedika-Prajnaparamita-sutra edited and translated with intro-duction and glossawy, Roma, ISMEO,Serie orientale vol. XIIIdgerton. 1953, Buddhist HSb77d Sanshrit Grammar and Dictionary, 2 vols., NewavenFuchs1930 "Zur technischen Organisation der Ubersetzungen Buddhis-ischerSchriftenins Chinesische",Asia Major 6^ p. 8s103omes.O andJ.A. Silk (eds) 1989, Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle: ThreeMahayana Buddhist Texts, Ann ArborTangYongtongj%,lb 1938, Han Wei liangJin nanbei chao Fofiao shi, iwF#1k#JFt, ShanghaiUiakujutSbX 1979, Daijo Butten no Kenkyu y 1993, Fodian wenxian yuyan Ct

Thapa - Dharmagupta's Unfinished Translation of the Vajrachhedika

Documents

Transcript of Thapa - Dharmagupta's Unfinished Translation of the Vajrachhedika