Ústav Dálného Východu

Filozofická fakulta

Univerzita Karlova v Praze

Zuzana Daňková

Diplomová práce Kumarajiva the Translator

His Place in the History of Translating Buddhist Scriptures into Chinese

Vedoucí práce: Doc. PhDr. Olga Lomová, CSc.

Praha 2006 Prohlášení

Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně a uvedla v ní předepsaným způsobem všechnu použitou literaturu.

V Praze dne 18.9.2006

Zuzana Daňková Tahle of Contents

1. Early Chinese - Historical Sources and Their Character ...... 5 1 2. Translating Buddhist Scriptures from the 2nd to the 4 h century AD ...... tO Late Han ...... 13 Three Kingdoms ...... 22 Western Jin ...... 26 Eastem Jin- South ...... 32 Eastem Jin- North ...... 33 3. The Life ofKumarajiva ...... 40 Studies in and ...... 40 Captivity at Liangzhou ...... 42 Kumarajiva in Chang'an ...... 47 Kumarajiva's Chinese disciples and collaborators ...... 51 Kumarajiva and Buddhabhadra ...... 55 Kumarajiva and ...... 57 Kumarajiva's Death ...... 58 4. Kumarajiva' s Princip les of Translation ...... 60

Emphasis on polished/refined language :ffiff~Jtfrtí ...... 60

Kumarajiva's use of omissions and additions !mUII!tr, ±~** (~~~á"JimU*ffi) .. 71 Correcting terms U li. i'; 't' ...... 74 5. Dao'an's Principles ofTranslation...... 77 6. 's Princi ples of Translation ...... 84 Appendix 1 - Vimalakirtinirdesa ...... 91 Appendix 2 - ...... 93 Bibliography ...... 96

3 4 1. Early - Historical Sources and Their Character

The biography in the section of "Translators", Yi jing ll**~' in the Li ves ofEminent

Monks, Gaoseng Zhuan ~1tif1W 1 (hereinafter GSZ) along with additional remarks found in other biographies of the same compendium, represents the main source of information about Kumarajiva's life. The GSZ was compiled around 530 AD by the

Liang dynasty monk Huijiao (497-554 AD) and it is a valuable source of information on the first phase of Buddhism in and on the personalities who played their roles in the process of establishing Buddhism in China. As Arthur Wright argues in his article "Biography and Hagiography, Huijiao's Lives of Eminent Monks",

Huijiao's purpose in writing the GSZ was an ambivalent one. On one hand, Huijiao's aim was to put down a comprehensive and reliable record of the li ves of the religious personalities who played important roles during the initial five centuries of Buddhism in China ( 67 - 519 AD). On the other hand, he also wished to present the Buddhist monastic figures in such a light as to integrate them in to the milieu of the Chinese

intellectual elite. 2

To fulfil the first of hi s purposes- that of presenting a comprehensive account of the

li ves of the monks - Huij iao gathered the biographical information from numerous

sources available to him, such as previously written biographies and biographical

1 Huijiao Yá3(:. "Yijing" 8~*!1~. in Gaoseng Zhuan IB'J{~{~. In TaishO Shinshii Daiz8ky8 ::fclE!fJT~~::fc~ *~ [Taisho Tripitaka], vol.SO, no.2059. The biography ofKumarajiva is the first entry in the second se roll of the "Yi )ing" chapter (yi )ing zhong 8~*~cp). The whole chapter is divided into three scrolls, shang, zhong, __C,cp,T. The first chapter of the GSZ, "Yi )ing" (Translators), was translated in to Russian by Yermakov in:Yermakov. Zhizneopisania dostoinykh monakhov. "Razdel 1: Perevodchiki." Moscow: Nauka, 1991.

2 Wright, Arthur F., "Biography and Hagiography, Huijiao's Li ves of Eminent Monks", in Studies in Chinese Buddhism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990, p 75.

5 compendia, chronicles and histories, miscellaneous accounts, inscriptions and doctrinal treatises and discussions. Out of all the major sources that Huijiao used for his compendium only a single item has survived intact until this day: the Chu sanzang jiji ( Collection ojNotes on the Translation oj the Tripitaka) by Huijiao's older contemporary, a master Sengyu (435-518). 3 The CSZJJ is a description of the formation of the Chinese Tripitaka, in which Sengyu draws on older bibliographies, mainly the now lost catalogue of translated scriptures Zongli zhongjing mulu *~~lll:L'0(*~ § ~ compiled by Dao'an (314-385) in 374.4 The CSZJJ contains various prefaces xu ff and colophonsji ~[.to the individua! translations, as well as 32 biographies of monks, mainly translators and exegetes. Among these biographies we also find the biography ofKumarajiva, which bears great resemblance to Kumarajiva's biography in the GSZ. It seems that Huijiao has taken over the biography from CSZJJ and then supplemented it from additional sources.5

Most historians also agree that another important, perhaps principal, source used by

Huijiao has been the Mingseng Zhuan (MSZ) written in the years 510-519 by another ol der contemporary of Huij iao' s, the Liang monk Baochang. 6 The original has long been lost and only a few excerpts were compiled by a Japanese monk Shiish6 of the

3 Chu sanzangjiji ,'::1::\~Jii§c~ (Collection oj Notes on the Translation ofthe Tripitaka). Taish6 Tripitaka, vol. 55, no. 2145. Hereinafter CSZJJ. 4 Ziircher E. The Buddhist Conquest ofChina. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1959.Conquest, p. 10. 5 According to Wright this has been a standard method used by Huijiao. In certain other biographies he would actually go as far as copying the text from CSZJJ verbatim, like for example in the biography of Bo'yuan. (Wright, "Biography and Hagiography", p. 105-106). Furthermore, this method oftaking over whole bod ies of text has been a long established practice in the tradition of Chi nese . Moreover the overal! forma! organization of Huijiao's work is very much in keeping with traditional works of . The biographies are grouped according to the dominant activity oftheir subjects. Huijiao also makes use of subordinate biographiesfu llít. Each of the individua! sections is preceded by a lun §ii!i and concluded by a zan W. Whenever he makes a comment of hi s own, he ma k es it clear, and he also specifies whenever he repeats an oral tradition or legend. (lbid.) 6 For different scholars discussing the Mingseng Zhuan as Huijiao's potentially principle source for the GSZ, see for example Zenryu. History, p. 484; Wright. "Biography and Hagiography", p. 78, 95-98; Ziircher. Conquest, p. ll.

6 Kasagi monastery in 1235 and essentials ofthe prologue and epilogue are reproduced

in the Xu gaoseng zhuan.7 From these fragments we know that Baochang's

compendium contained 425 biographies altogether. In his preface to the GSZ Huijiao

seems to criticise Baochang indirectly for being too prolix and erratic. Accordingly,

Huijiao reduced the number ofbiographies included in his GSZ to 257. By comparing

the table of contents of the two compendia ( Gaoseng Zhuan and Mingseng Zhuan ), it

seems that Huijiao has substantially drawn on this source both in terms of form and

content. The Mingseng Zhuan also divided the biographies to categories based on

dominant activity of the subj ects and many of the categories are very similar or

identical with those employed by Huijiao and there are some other formal

resemblances as well. As for the contents, out of the 257 major biographies in GSZ,

216 had been the subjects ofbiographies in the Mingseng Zhuan. 8 Andjudging from

the few excerpts compiled by Shiish6, the wording is very similar and at places even

identical with that found in the GSZ.

To fulfil his second purpose, that of advancing the naturalization of Buddhist

in Chinese history and society, Huijiao emphasizes such values in the

li ves of the monks which were likely to appeal to the members of the Chinese

educated class, such as the literary accomplishments of the monks. He often

emphasizes that the monks were well versed in the , that they were

able to memorize texts upon reading them only once etc. He also pays great attention

to the interaction between the monks and the Chinese men of letters and describes in

great detail all the gifts and homage which the monks would receive from members of

7 Xu gaoseng zhuan *i~{~{$ [Continuation ofthe Li ves oj Eminent Monks]. Aiso called Tang gaoseng zhuan f@f~{~{$:. Compiled ca. 645 by ill'§. In TaishO Tripitaka, vol.50. 8 See Yamanouchi Shinkyo. "Kosoden no kenkyu" ["A Study of Huijiao's Li ves of Eminent Monks] in Shina Bukkyoshi no Kenkyu [Studies in the History ofChinese Buddhism]. Kyoto: Bukkyo daigaku shuppanpu, 1921. p.1 7-27 for comparative tab les of contents of the two works.

7 the aristocracy and intellectual elite.9 The amount of instances of such contacts and friendships by far exceed any such references in the secular histories of the time. In the case of Kumarajiva's biography we find that apart from his broad leaming and literary talents, great emphasis is also given to his close connection to kings and rulers of practically a ll the countries he had lived in throughout his life. 10

Apart from the ambivalence in Huijiao's motivation to compose the GSZ, there is also another factor worth considering while reading the GSZ. It is the fact that as a devout

Buddhist monk himself, Huijiao might have been inclined to be rather uncritical with certain accounts glorifying the subjects of his biographies. Indeed it is true that the biographies of GSZ often speak of miraculous events, but as Wright points out, "the miracles punctuate but do not dominate the sequences of events in the biographies" .11

Wright also makes a comment to the effect that in medieval China miraculous events were often present in secular biographies as well, and that in this respect, the instances of miracles in Huijiao's GSZ is no more frequent that in secular histories of the time.

In fact if we compare the biographies from GSZ to accounts of the same personalities

found in the secular history of the , the Jin Shu, it tums out that the secular biographies emphasise the miraculous, supematural or eccentric aspects much more

9 Wright. "Biography and Hagiography", p. 77. 10 An outline of the rulers who ha ve in one way or another been in cl ose contact with Kumarajiva would look as follows: First of a ll Kumarajiva was born as a son of a younger sister ofthe ruler of . Later when his outstanding abilities started to reveal themselves from Kumarajiva's early age, he i s said to ha ve received homage and privileges from the ruler of Kashmir and subsequently Kashgar. ln fact based on the Kashgar ruler's veneration of Kumarajiva Kashgar was able to win the long sought friendship of K ucha, since the ruler of Kucha also held Kumarajiva in the highest esteem. Stilllater the ruler ofTibetan origin ruling in northern China from 379 sent his general Lu Guang to conquer Kucha and bring Kumarajiva back with him. However Fu Jian's kingdom was defeated by the Yao clan before Lu Guang's return. Lu Guang in turn started an independent state of his own in the area where he kept Kumarajiva for 17 years as a hostage. Lu Guang has never converted to Buddhism, but he is said to have been using Kumarajiva's advice in his government. Most ofthis advice as described in the GSZ has to do with Kumarajiva's ability to predict the future and other such skills. Fina !ly the state of Later Liang founded by Lu Guang was defeated and Kumarajiva was received by the Late Qin ruler Yao Xing in Chang'an. The biography in GSZ then contains a number of passages discussing Yao Xing's veneration for Kumarajiva, and their cl ose relationship. Yao Xing is even said to ha ve personally participated in the translations. 11 Wright. "Biography and Hagiography", p.76.

8 than the GSZ. At the same time, the biographies in Jin Shu do not pay any attention to

literary accomplishments of the Buddhist monks which are described so thoroughly by Huijiao. 12

Finally, for of all the undeniable qualities of the GSZ, if one is to regard the

compendium as a comprehensive account of the development of the early Chinese

Buddhist Community, there is one relative weakness which should be keep in mind:

namely, that the GSZ emphasises the developments in the South much more, while it

provides often only scanty and inaccurate accounts of northem Buddhism. In this

sense the overall picture provided by the compendium is not geographically balanced.

12 Yermakov in Zhizneopisania dostoinykh monakhov points out that there are 5 biographies of Buddhist monks present in Jin Shu. Four ofthem are biographies ofmonks who belong to the category of 'Chudotvortsy' in GSZ. The fifth biography is the biography of Kumarajiva. Yermakov argues that this choice of biographies of Buddhists to be included in the Jin Shu reflects the tendency of its authors to portray the Buddhists as exotic charlatans and untrustworthy eccentrics. lt i s agreed by most scholars that these accounts in the Jin Shu are either based on the same source as those in GSZ or that they are based on the GSZ itself. However the biographies in Jin Shu are much shorter than those in GSZ and they seem to be abbreviated in such a way as to Iea ve out a! most all historical data and keep only the miraculous deeds and fantastic episodes from the li ves of their subjects. In particular, all accounts regarding the literary accomplishments of the monks are left out. As for the biography of Kumarajiva found in QS, it lacks many of the data about hi s studies in Kashmir and Kashgar, and about his trans lati on activities after arriving at Changan. At the same time the Jin Shu biography supplements two episod es not found in the GSZ which both ha ve to do with the sensitive issue of Kumarajiva's alleged involvement with women. (Yermakov, 51-55)

9 2. Translating Buddhist Scriptures from the 2nd to the 4th century AD

In the Middle of a Daoist revival Buddhism was introduced to China. For the .first time the Chinese were to meet with a way of thought completely independent of their own tradition, yet not inferior to it. This was a shock to which they reacted instinctively, by assimilating Buddhism to Daoism. A long period of incubation was necessary before they were to face the Indian doctrine for what it really was.

Paul Demieville 13

At the wake of the Western Christian Era, there started a fascinating process of interaction between two major Asian cultures - India and China. Indeed it was a rather one sided exchange during which Indian Buddhism was literally exported to

China, and during which China has over many centuries moulded the foreign creed and philosophical system to its own liking.

There were obviously several stages of the penetration of Buddhism in to China.

14 Different scholars find different ways ofperiodization ofthe process , yet while do ing so, most of them sti ll refer to the periods defined by successive ruling dynasties

13 Demieville, Paul. "Philosophy and Religion from Han to Sui" in The Cambridge History ofChina, vol I. Cambridge University Press: 1986, p 820. 14 Cf Wright, Arthur. "Buddhism and Chinese Cul ture: Phases of Interaction" in The Journal ojAsian Studies", vol XVII, no.1!1957. p 17-42. Wright defines four phases of interaction between Buddhism and Chi nese cul ture: Period of Preparation (65-317), Period of Domestication (317-589), Period of Acceptance and lndependent Growth (589-900), Period of Appropriation (900 to the present). Also cf. Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest ofChina. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1959, p. 72. Zurcher argues that: "One could easily suggest several key dat es in the periodization of Early Chinese Buddhism: the introduction of scriptures at the end of the second cen tury; the activities of Dao-an in Ch'angan (379-385), or the arrival ofKumarajiva at Ch'angan and the subsequent introduction of Madhyamika scholastic literature (402). However such schemes would result from a purely philological approach which treats the history of a religion as a history of texts. I f we attempt to describe the development of early Chinese Buddhism as one aspect ofthe social and cultural history of medieval China, we cannot but conclude that the years around 300 AD constitute the tuming point par excel!ence. The penetration ofthe doctrine into the highest gentry circles virtually determined the course which Chinese Buddhism was to follow in the next decades: it paved the way to the victory of Buddhism in its conquest of China." Nevertheless in hi s treatment of early Chinese Buddhism Zurcher himselfrefers to the periods defined by successive dynasties and kingdoms.

10 and kingdoms. 15 In this chapter which is tracing the development of the translation activities from the second to the fourth century we will also, for the sake of simplicity, refer to the periods defined by successive ruling dynasties and kingdoms.

In the process of penetration of Buddhism in to China the translation of texts expounding the Buddhist doctrine undoubtedly played an essential role. Y et for the process of translating the scriptures to take place, three basic preconditions had to be present. First there had to be established some contact between the land of the scriptures' origin and the Chinese territory. Secondly, by virtue of such contact, there had to arise certain interest on the Chinese side and a subsequent demand for translation of the scriptures. Thirdly, there had to be persons who knew both the language of the originals (hu ben M4)and Chinese and who were able to make the translations.

As for the first precondition, mutual traffic and exchange between China and India was enabled by the established by Qian's expedition commissioned by Han Wudi in the latter half of the second century BC. Although the expedition didn't succeed in its original goal- that ofwinning an alliance with the against the , the fact that was able to open the route between China and the Western Regions was of immense historical importance. In this way, western artefacts started making their way into China through the northern and southern route of the continental Silk Road. Indian artefacts followed soon after and with them also

15 Cf. Zenryu, Tsukamoto, A History oj Early Chinese Buddhism. Also cf. Tang Yongtong 151m m, Hanwei /iangjin nanbeichaofojiao shi ~~lJ:!t;!'Nl"tm~tlj!JH!ll~X~. Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1998. Also cf. Ren Jiyu 11#-~.lÍ\. Zhongguo Fojiao Shi J:j:1 !!®f1Jlqr1(~. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1985.

ll Indian Buddhism, which was initially travelling to China from the Western Regions, where by the second century BC it has been established as a widely practiced religion.

There is no factual historical evidence indicating when exactly Buddhism entered

China for the first time. lt is assumed that it must have been some time between the

first half of the 1st century BC when China managed to consolidate its power in the

W es tem Regions and the middle of the 1st century AD when the presence of

Buddhism in China is already attested. 16

As for the second precondition- interest in the new doctrine and demand for it to be

translated: even before the first translations of Buddhist scriptures in to Chinese were

made, there are already accounts proving a presence of certain knowledge about the

Indian religion. The Buddha was venerated as a superhuman sylph shenxian t$fúJ on a

par with the Huangdi and , and certain basic Buddhist rituals were performed on

Chinese soil by foreign shramanas. Bellow we will discuss the presence of Buddhism

on the court of king Ying of Chu as early as mid 1st century AD. From such a

background there naturally arose a demand for a more specific understanding of the

new doctrine, hence for Chinese translations of the scriptures.

Once the process of translating begins, it usually also has a number of stages. As a

rule the very first translations are very rudimentary, and texts need to be retranslated

again and again. During this proces s, the quality of the translations changes, usually

for the better, as the translators' knowledge of the subject matter a s well as the

languages broadens. But not only that, as was the case with the translation activities of

Kumarajiva, the quality of his translations was to a large extent brought about by the

16 Cf. Zi.ircher, Conquest, p. 23.

12 fact that he had at hi s disposal a team of hundreds of first rate Chinese scholars and translators, and that his translation projects were sponsored by the court. On the other band, the support of the court was brought about by the intense demand for accurate translations which in tum was caused by the fact, that people important enough to matter to the court were acquainted with the previous translations, and also that they were dissatisfied with their quality. Thus it tums out that the seemingly purely

intellectual activity of translating Buddhist scriptures into Chinese needs in fact to be

seen as a part of a very organic interaction between processes simultaneously taking place on the intellectual, spiritual, social and even politicallevel.

In the following sections of this chapter we will attempt to provide a historical

overview of the translating activities starting from the very first translations of the

latter half of the 2nd century AD up to the translation activities taking place in

Chang'an in late 4th century. By covering this time span we will be able to see the

developments in the filed of scriptural translation prior to the arrival of Kumarajiva at

the beginning of the 5th century. The overview will be presented with reference to

Kumarajiva's activities, so that we can see in what ways Kumarajiva's work has been

a culmination of previous trends.

Late Han

Translation activities at in the second half oj the 2nd century.

As Tsukamoto points out, it is most likely that Buddhist conversion had taken place

on the Chinese territory even before there were any translations of scriptures available,

by word of mouth and example. 17 W e do not know an exact date when Buddhism had

17 Tsukamoto. History, p.72.

13 entered China for the fist time, yet from scanty historical sources we know that by the middle of the first century AD, Buddhism had penetrated as far as the region north of the Huai, in Eastem Henan, Southem Shandong and Northem Jiangsu- an area with many foreign groups and with its most important city Pengcheng being a flourishing centre of commerce situated on the raute from Luoyang to the South-East, which was in fact an extension of the continental Silk Road. In the Hou Han Shu we read about the king Ying of Chu ~3:.* (king since 41-71 AD) who was deeply interested in the teaching of Huang-Lao and at the same time observed fasting and performed sacrifices to the Buddha. This record in the Hou Han Shu is the first allusion to

Buddhism in Chinese historical litera ture and king Ying, half brother of emperor

Ming, 18 is thus the first known Chinese Buddhist. 19 When king Ying was later expelled from Chu and went South of the Yangzi accompanied by all his followers, it allowed Buddhism to spread further South.

lt is quite certain that there has been a continuous presence of Buddhism in China ever since the second half of the first cen tury AD, pro bab ly continually increasing with more and more foreigners coming to Chinese soil: merchants and ,

18 ln the historical sources we also find a legend about Emperor Ming's dream. According to the legend, emperor Ming of Late Han (58-75 AD) had a dream, in which he saw a golden figure of the Buddha. Based on this dream the emperor sent an embassy to India in quest of the . As a result two monks, Kashyapa Matanga .l!i!!i\iilt H~ and Dharmaratna A~Jtd'./ii, came to Luoyang where they translated scriptures in a monastery tJ .~c;'f(also known as r./ii:crc;'f) built for the purpose. This story is mentioned in the Hou Han li fti:tJI:~~ without quoting a specified source, in the Hou Han Shu t3t11Ji; ;li: it i s preceded by the phrase "in the world it i s said". Further it i s mentioned in the CSZJJ and given final form by Huijiao in the GSZ. By Dong Jin times in Buddhist church both north and south it was regarded as a fact that Buddhism brought to China by imperial quest based on a dream. Being included in Record of rhe Lauer Han and Book ofthe Lauer Han- historical works highly trusted in Chi nese intellectual society, and in Li ves ofEminent Monks, the story became accepted as official authoritative history of introduction of Buddhism to Ch in a, although it i s self evident that it is not history. It wasn't until Henri Maspero 's meticulous study, that the lack of historicity of the story of Emperor Ming's dream was proved. Nevertheless even though the story has been proved anachronistic, it does not mean that there was no presence of Buddhism in Chi na during the time of Emperor Ming. Cf. Tsukamoto. History, p. 43-50. Zurcher, Conquest, p. 19-23.

19 Zurcher. Conquest, p.26.

14 lay believers as well as monastics. However, up until the middle of the second century

AD we do not find any records about any translation activities or translated texts. 20

The first period of intense translation activities attested in historical sources is the time from the middle of the second century to the first decade of the third century.

The beginning of this period i s marked by the arrival of two foreign translators at

Luoyang - An Shigao and Lokaksema - who were both active in Luoyang during the reign of emperors Huan (147-167) and Ling (168-188). An Shigao came from Parthia,

Lokaksema from the Yuezhi. An Shigao translated scriptures, Lokaksema specialized in the Mahayana. The activity of these translators in Luoyang coincides with the time when the two streams of Buddhism - Hinayana and Mahayana - were at the height of mutual rivalry in India. Interestingly enough, in China the teachings of both streams were being accepted simultaneously as one amalgam, and as such they were studied and practiced virtually until the arrival ofKumarajiva at the beginning of the fifth century AD, who was the first to draw a clear distinction between the two streams, explicitly favouring the Great Vehicle.

An Shigao

An Shigao is not only the first translator of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, but, as

Ziircher argues, he is also the first undoubtedly historical personality in Chinese

Buddhism?1 Nevertheless the truly historical information available about him is scarce, as is the case with most of the early translators. According to a very early and

20 The only exception is the emergence ofthe Sutra in Forty-two Sections, probably in late first or early second cen tury AD. As Ziircher points out, this text is commonly regarded as the first Buddhist scripture in , however it i s not clear whether it is a translation from a original or a Chinese compilation. According to a late tradition- the same one which talks about the dream of emperor Ming - it was brought to Luoyang by Kashyapa Matanga and Dharmaratna, and translated by the latter in 67 AD. The text is a short work consisting of 42 chapters. See Ziircher, Conquest, p. 29-30. Also cf. Tsukamoto, History. p 79. Also cf. Tang Yongtong, Fojiao shi, p. 31-46. '''''·' shnuld mcntion that considt:rcd a l~tlsitical<:'! 21 Zurcher, Conquest, p 32.

15 hence perhaps a more reliable tradition, An Shigao has been a crown prince of Parthia, who has given up the throne in order to devote himself to a life of a religious renunciate. Having travelled to the East, he arrived at Luoyang in 148 AD and he stayed there for 20 years. From the few historical sources available (mainly the GSZ and the CSZJ J) we know that Luoyang in the second half of the second cen tury AD was a centre of intense translation activity of Buddhist scriptures. Unfortunately apart from the information conceming the translation activities, we do not know much more about the life of the Luoyang Buddhist community in the second half of the second cen tury. The reason for this is that secular sources do not mention the existence of a

Buddhist Community at all, and the Buddhist sources teem with hagiographical

information, which has to be treated rather cautiously. Apart from that, we are left

with colophons and introductions from CSZJJ which are thus the only source of early

or even contemporary biographical information?2

As for An Shigao's methods oftranslation, some early colophons contain information

conceming the translation process which seems to have been a common practice not

only for An Shigao, but also for other translators active in Luoyang in the late second

and early third century, namely Lokaksema, An Xuan and others. Ziircher presents the

following summary of information about the translation process which can be found

in the early colophons:

"The master either had a manuscript of the original text at his disposal or he recited it from memory. Ifhe had enough knowledge ofChinese (which was seldom the case)

22 The two main sources of information about the li ves ofthe early translators, the GSZ and CSZJJ, both contain stories about An Shigao's travelling through Southem China, but there i s no evidence to support these. There has also never been found any Parthian prince in the occidental sources who could be identified with An Shigao. Yet since Parthia under the Arsacides (ca 250 BC- 224 AD) was not a unified state but a conglomeration of petty kingdoms, An Shigao might ha ve been a member of a ruling fami ly in one ofthese kingdoms. See Maspero in "Essay sur le Taoisme", Mel. Posth., vol. II, p. 189. Quoted acc. to Zurcher, Conquest, p 33.

16 he gave an oral translation (kou shou Df~), otherwise the preliminary translation was made, "transmitted" by a bilingual intermediary (chuan yi {$~:$). Chinese assistants­ monks as well as laymen- noted down the translation (bi shou $~), after which the text was subjected to a final revision (zheng yi 1E~,jiao ding ,f;Z)E). During the work of translation, and perhaps also on other occasions, the master gave oral explanations (koujie O~~) conceming the contents ofthe scriptures translated. Explanations of this kind often appear to have crept into the text. ... The material funds for the work of translation were fumished by laymen who "encouraged and helped" (quan zhu zhe liJWJ~)."23

This team work, for the first time attested to have been adopted during the translation activities in Luoyang in the latter half of the second cen tury AD remained the normal method of translating scriptures throughout the in China.

Dao'an's catalogue, the Zong li zhongjing /u *-*l!.)~U~§~ from 374 AD ascribes 34 titles to An Shigao. Out of these only nineteen have survived to the present day and sixteen of these can be ascribed to An Shigao with some degree of certainty since they form a relatively homogenous body of texts with distinctive linguistic and stylistic features. In the article A New Look at the Earliest Chinese

Buddhist Texts Ziircher presents the findings that have come out of an analysis of a body of 29 Han translations made at Luoyang by five different translators teams between 150 and 220 AD?4 Among these there are also those 16 titles by An Shigao produced most likely between 150-170 AD. Ziircher defines the language ofthese translations as "erratic, crude and full of vulgarisms. Often chaotic to the point of unintelligibility."25 As for the style of the translations, it is rather un-Chinese, there is no trace of having been influenced by the Chinese literary taste: no attempt to use the four-syllable prosodic pattem si yan ju IJ] §{i_], which was to become a characteristic feature of the Chinese Buddhist translations by the time of the third century, and

23 Zi.ircher. Conquest. p 31. 24 Zi.ircher. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese " in From Benares to Beijing, Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Re/igion. Edited by Kiochi Shinohara, Gregory Schopen, Oakville: MOSAIC PRESS, 1991. pp 277-304 25 lbid. p 283.

17 which had been a dominating feature of secular classic litera ture of the period. We also do not find any syntactic parallelism in An Shigao's translations. Neither is there any use of typical wenyan elements. Versified passages are rendered in prase and there is no trace of a prosimetric form - this new stylistic device inspired by the

Indian literary style- which was also to become a characteristic feature of Chinese

Buddhist translations?6 Instead An Shigao renders the gathas - the verse passages - in prase, sometimes with an opening line saying: "The following is said in giitiis (jie f~). Furthermore, in the translations ascribed to An Shigao technical terms are usually translated, whereas foreign proper names are transcribed.

From the point ofview of contents, An Shigao's translations deal mainly with two subjects both belonging to the Hinayana stream ofBuddhism: the system ofmental and respiratory exercises commonly called dhyiina (chan ffr~) and classifications and numerical categories (s hu ~) of the A hi dharma (such as the six ayatanas, the five skamlhas etc.). As for the subject matter of dhyana, certain scholars, among them

Tsukamoto, argue that the dhyana practices appealed to the Chinese because of the similarity with certain Daoist practices. Namely, Tsukamoto compares the Scripture ojAnapana (Anpan s hou yi )ing ~m§ť~~*JíD to certain mental exercises practiced by the Daoists, pointing out certain terminological borrowings.27 Contrary to that, Zurcher argues that

"the use of Daoist terminology in this context has been generally overestimated, since terms of undoubtedly Daoist provenance actually form only a small percentage of Chinese archaic Buddhist terminology, the bulk of which consists of terms which

26 The term "prosimetric form" has been used for the first time by V. Hrdličková. "The first translations of Buddhist in Chi nese literature and their place in the development of story-telling". Archiv Orientální 26, 1958. pp 114-144. see also Kumarajiva's explanation about the difference between the Indian and Chinese literary styles in Chapter 3 "The Life of Kumarajiva". 27 Tsukamoto, Hisotry, p 306-307.

18 cannot be traced to any Chinese source and which probably have been improvised by the earliest translators. "28

Elsewhere Ziircher explains, that the similarity between the dhyana practices and

Daoist exercises is merely superficial. Furthermore he argues that the main appeal of

Buddhism in the initial stages of its presence in China was not its familiarity but rather its novelty, mainly the emphasis on , which has become a particularly attractive concept at a time of the collapse of the and with it the disintegration of the traditional valu es it was built on. 29

Dao 'an, the compiler of the Zongli zhong }ing mulu, praises An Shigao highly referring to his translations as to masterpieces and classical examples of the art of translations. Y et judging from the poor quality of the translations themselves ~ often no more than free paraphrases or highly chaotic extracts form the original texts ~ it was probably rather Dao'an's expression of the Chinese traditional veneration for the ancients. 30

Lokaksema

Lokaksema is the sanskritised name of an Indo-Scythian translator Zhiloujiachan x

m::i!1!l~1l, sometimes also known as Zhi Chan )d1l. 31 He arrived at Luoyang at the end

of the reign of Emperor Huan (146-168 AD) and produced his translations under

Emperor Ling (168-189 AD). Lokaksema is generally credited with the introduction

of the Mahayana teaching in to China. Different catalogues differ in the number of

28 Ziircher, Conquest. pp 33-34. 29 Ziircher, "A New Look at Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts," p. 291-293. 3° For detailed treatment ofthe comments by Dao'an about An Shigao's translations see Chapter 5: "Translation Princip les of Dao'an". 31 The syllable Zhi J( stands for Da Yuezhi :k~ 3Z: (sometimes also :k~ _R) (K ucha), the place ofthe translator's origin. Similarly in other names An stands for Anxi (Parthia), Zhu stands for Tianzhu (India). Later there developed a custom among the Chinese Buddhists oftaking on the ethnikon of one's teacher, eg. Dhannaraksha , Zhu Fahu, who was not an Indian yet used the ethnikon Zhu after his master Zhu Gaozuo.

19 translations ascribed to Lokaksema. Namely the CSZJJ attributes 14 texts to

Lokaksema, while the Zongli zhongjing mulu ofDao'an mentions only twelve texts, nine of which are marked as only hypothetical attributions. Of the remaining three, only two have been preserved till the present day. These are the

Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita (Daoxding boru o jing ;i_~Jrm~l5*~), 32 and the

Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhisutra (Banzhou sanmei )ing m~f& _:::::

B**~i 3 . Along with the Suramgamasamadhisutra (Shoulengyan sanmei jing ~f"HJ5 iJ.

:-:-#~) also ascribed to Lokaksema, yet by a later and hence not entirely reliable

source, these scriptures constitute the basic scriptures of Mahayana litera ture. 34

As in the case of An Shigao's translations, Ziircher subjected a body of seven

translations by Lokaksema to an analysis of its linguistic and stylistic features. He

concludes that the language is more natural and intelligible than that of An Shigao,

sometimes with abundant vemacular elements. On the other hand, Lokaksema's

rendering s are characterized by transcriptions of both proper names and technical

terms which can sometimes be up to 12 syllables long. These transcriptions tend to

significantly obstruct the flow of the narrative and hinder the intelligibility of the text.

Lokaksema's translations are the first to contain a certain amount ofunrhymed

Buddhist verse of 5, 6 and 7 syllables, although Lokaksema uses this device rather

unsystematically and some metrical passages are stili translated in prose. Nevertheless

by using this device he introduces a feature which was to become o ne of the

32 T 08, no.224. 33 T 13, no.417.

34 The dates of these translations of Lokaksema also pro vide the first fixed date as to the emergence and presence of the Mahayana literature, since no concrete dates have survived about the emergence of the Mahayana litera ture in India. See Harrison, Paul. "The Earliest Chinese Translations ofMahayana Sutras: Some Notes on the Works of Lokaksema". In Buddhist Studi es Review, Vol I O, 2. 1993

20 characteristic features of Chinese scriptural style- the so called prosimetric form, also known as the Buddhist bianwen, which in tum became an instrumental influence on later Chinese popular litera ture. 35

Together with An Shigao and Lokaksema, there were about a dozen translators working in Luoyang during the years preceding the collapse of the Han Empire in 220

AD. They were a mixed group ofParthians, Sogdians, Indians and Indo-Scythians.

Among them there was for example An Xuan, who arrived at Luoyang in 181 AD. An

Xuan was a rich merchant from Parthia, who later even obtained the Chinese military title of cavalry commander and who at the same time considered affairs of Buddhist religion as hi s duty. 36 He translated the Scripture of the Dharma-Mirror, a Mahayana scripture for a -. In his translation he does not use the term dacheng :A* yet for Mahayana, instead he uses dadao :A@. An Xuan also collaborated with the first historically known ethnically Chinese monk Yan Fodiao JMi f~~Jj'ij. In An Xuan's translations all technical terms as well as proper names were translated and there is also a certain amount of wenyan elements employed.

The development of the scripturallanguage and style under the Han pro bab ly

culminates in the Chinese version of the Lije of the Buddha translated in two parts: as

Xiuxing benqi }ing ~~1::Y::zis:illi*~ 37 , and the Zhong benqi }ing cp::zis:Jlli*~ 38 by the

Sogdian Kang Mengxiang and the Indians Zhu Dali and Zhu ·ranguo. There is a

marked literary influence in their translation with frequent use of wenyan and stylistic

35 Zurcher. "A New Look at Early Translations," p. 287. Cf also Hrdličková, .,The First translations of the Buddhist Sutras". 36 Tsukamoto. "History," p.93-97. See also Ma Zuyi ,li!~W&l~. Zhongguo fanyijianshi tp~~~:$~'ij§:.. p. 18-19. 37 T 03, no.l84. 38 T 04, no. 96.

21 embellishment, parallelism and the four syllable prosodic pattern. Gathas are rendered in unrhymed verse of varying lengths. On the level of terminology, the translators apply what Ziircher calls terminological syncretism where "foreign names and terms are rendered by means of a mixed vocabulary borrowed from various earlier translators, resulting in a great variety of forms that serves a double purpose: to avoid monotony, and to enable the translator to conform to the four-syllable pattern by choosing a prosodically suitable rendering." 39 From the literary point of view these two Buddha biographies represent the most sophisticated product of Han Buddhism, in which we can already clearly distinguish the characteristic features which by the end of the third century would become a norm for Chinese Buddhist scriptural style.

On the level of terminology this is a unified terminology consisting partly of translations and partly of transliterations, while on the level of style and composition it is the use of the four-syllable prosodic pattern, parallelism, the prosimetric form, and predominantly five syllable verse form.

Three Kingdoms

After the collapse of the Han dynasty in 220 AD, there continued a certain amount of

Buddhist activity in Luoyang under the state ofWei (220-265 AD), but it can't be compared to the intensity of translation and activities under the Han. In the third cen tury the centres of Buddhist activities ha ve shifted, first to Jianye in the state of Wu and later to Chang'an. Let us first look at the activities going on in Jianye, the capital ofWu since 229 AD. There are certain fundamental differences between the

Buddhism of Luoyang in the latter half of second century and the Buddhism in Wu in the third century. One of these is reflected in the main figures of Wu Buddhism: Zhi

39 Zi.ircher, "A New Look At Early Translations", p 284.

22 Qian 2ci:lft and !3J.Hi~. These foreigners bom on Chinese soil- an

Indo-scythian and Sogdian respectively - were completely naturalized and have obtained a Chinese literary education along with solid training in the Buddhist scriptures. They were even in contact with the ruling family of Wu. This is indeed a whole different background compared to the culturally isolated translators of Luoyang, who had no training in the Chinese tradition and only a rudimentary knowledge of the language. Out of the two representative figures of Buddshism in Wu- and

Kang Senghui - the former was a more prominent translator than the latter and as such is of more interest for our present study. Let us look at his activity and translation work more dosely.

Zhi Qian

Zhi Qian (died between 252-257) was a grandson of an Indo-Scythian who came to

Luoyang under emperor Ming (168-188 AD). At Luoyang Zhi Qian, so we are told, leamed six foreign languages, studied Buddhist scriptures and became a disciple of

Zhi Laing, himself a disciple of Lokaksema.40 Thus he continued in the predominantly

Mahayana tradition brought to Luoyang by the foreigners from Yuezhi. Shortly before

220 Zhi Qian went to Wuchang, and later when the Wu capital was moved to Jianye,

he moved there too. In the biographies of Zhi Qian in the CSZJJ and the GSZ we read

that the translator was invited for an audience with the Wu ruler . The ruler

was apparently so impressed with Zhi Qian's penetrating exposition of some obscure

passages in the classics, that he granted him the title boshi t:W± and appointed him

the tutor ofthe crown prince.41 After the death ofthe prince in 241 AD, Zhi Qian is

40 see the biography of Zhi Qian in CSZJJ. T55n2145 __p0097b13(00) - T55n2145 _p0097c18(00) 41 lbid. See also Tang Yongtong. Han wei liang }in nanbei chao fojiao s hi, p 131, where he specifies that the crown prince in question was Sun Deng t%~ who held the status from 229 to his death in 241.

23 said to have left the capital and retired to the Qiong 'a i s han ~~LlJ where he died some time between the years 252-257.42

As for Zhi Qian's activities as a translator, Ziircher considers him the only important translator in Southem China before the late fourth century.43 The CSZJJ attributes 36 works to him, out of which 23 ha ve been preserved. Most of these are Mahayana scriptures, among them such influential works like the Vimalakirtinirdesasutra

(Weimojiejing Mr!2J§a*~) which was translated to Chinese for the first time by Zhi

Qian. He was also the first to translate the Sukhavativiuha (Amituo jing JrrlJ5ft~B*~).

Zhi Qian i s also the author of a translation of the s tory of the first part of the Buddha' s life, the Taizi ruiying benqijing /tŤJiMl!*im#& 44 , which is another version of the above mentioned work produced by Kang Mengxiang of the Late Han. Zhi Qian's rendering of the text has remained the most popular version until present day.

Ziircher summarizes the stylistic and linguistic qualities f Zhi Qian's translations in the following way:

"Zhi Qian's translations are very free. All sources stress the mastery of his language and the elegance of his style, but more often than not, there is an undertone of criticism directed against his habit of adding stylistic omaments, or translating every word ( including proper names) in to Chinese, and of summarizing the wording of the original texts with their long-winded narratives and endless repetitions."45

Zhi Qian's emphasis on rendering the scriptures in elegant literary language also lead him to make new versions of several texts previously already translated into Chinese, among these the Suramgamasamadhisutra (Shoulengyan sanmei jing ~i(tjj /ll · B;1d~) and the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita (Daoxding boruo jing ilit::Ym§t:E=*~) translated

42 1bid.pl31. 43 Zurcher. Conquest. p 50. 44 T 03, no.l85. 45 Zlircher. Conquest. p 50. ln a note to this passage Zurcher names all the sources containing judgements on Zhi Qian's translations by personalities like Zhi Mindu, Dao'an, and Huirui.

24 by Lokaksema and the Dharmapada (Fajujing 1!-bJMiD translated previously by the

Indian translator.

The CSZJJ contains a preface to the Darmapada (Fajujing xu r!t]~\[rf) which does not indicate a name of its author, however Tang Yongtong argues that it was most likely written by Zhi Qian himself.46 In the preface we find an interesting discussion of the problems arising during translating the Indian originals into Chinese. It shows that already at the third century the translators were facing the basic dilemma: whether to produce faithful and literal translations which are crude and difficult to understand, or whether to sacrifice faithfulness and literariness to accord with the

Chinese literary taste and produce stylistically refined and polished translations.

Throughout the prefaces and colophons of the CSZJJ we find Chinese critics discussing this dilemma in terms of the traditional Chinese dichotomy of zhi ~ and wen )(_. 47 One section of the preface is particularly interesting- it is a discussion between the author of the preface (presumably Zhi Qian himself) and Vighna, which

clearly reveals the opposing outlook at translation of the Indian translator and his

Chinese counterpart:

T55n2145_p0050a13(02) ll f~tJJ~ft~f/f':ftL ,~'ffii!UW:Fl o T55n2145 _p0050a14(07) ll H1r;'i1:&Jt~/f'ffi ~'r!i o ItXJtr!/f' l;J,Ji&Jt1$ o T55n2145 _p0050a15(08) ll ~\li::;"í~4' ~8JtÍ7J ~!JX~o :fi'J~IJ~~o ~ 9=J ~ Flo ~ t\: tflL

46 Tang Yongtong. p. 131

47 Zhi means "susbstance, crude material". lt implies simplicity and sincerity, but also coarseness and boorishness. Wen means "culture" or "that which is refined", "that which has a pattem". lt implies elegance and forma[ attractiveness. As Zurcher points out in Conquest, p. 334, note 121, the dichotomy of z hi and wen i s present already in Confucius, see Lun Yu ~ífB§g VI.l6: -=fS: r m~tUl.IIY. :>QlnlfE, :>ťm1~~ ~To J Confucius said: "lfraw substance dominates refinement, you will be coarse. lfrefinement dominates raw substance, you will be like a court historian. When refinement and raw qualities are well blended, you will be a gentleman."

25 T55n2145 _p0050a16(03) 11-Jt;=r:~Hl§ o 11§-:=i/f'~L 1rr ~3]\ ~o ~/f'.iíl8 o T55n2145_p0050a17(03) 11-;':;'/HfB:~o ~}j]!JLA~1*~1!\Ii~]o

Ziircher renders the passage in the following translation:

"At first I objected against the wording (ofthis translation) as being unrefined. (To this), Vighna replied: "As to the words of the Buddha, we are concemed with their meaning, and do not need to adom them; the grasping of the doctrine they ( contain) is not effected by adding embellishment. Those who transmit the scriptures (in another language) must make them easy to understand, and the meaning must not be lost - (only) then the work is well done." All those present said: "Laozi has said: 'Beautiful 48 words are not reliable, reliable words are not beautiful' . Likewise, Confucius has said: 'Writing does not completely express speech, nor does speech completely 49 express the idea' . This (correspondence) clearly shows the unfathomable depth of the Saint' s thoughts" ... "50

This passage is particularly interesting because it seems to embody in a way the basic dilemma of all translators of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. We will find that

Kumarajiva was concemed with the same issue, as well as Dao'an and Xuanzang.

Western Jin

Dharmaraksha

Previously it has been said that after the fall of the Han, the centre of Buddhist activities on Chinese soil shifted from Luoyang to Wuchang and Jianye (the successive capitals ofWu during the period ofthe Three Kingdoms), and then to

Chang'an during the Western Jin. The most influential and representative figure of

Western Jin was undoubtedly the translator Dharmaraksha (Zhu Fahu ~1~~~), a

Yuezhi boru in Dunhunag. In the CSZJJ we find a relative wealth of information about Fahu in prefaces and colophons to his translations. The biography of

Dharmaraksha in the CSZJJ seems to have been put together based on these comments adjoined to the translations and also preserved in the CSZJJ. The GSZ

48 Dao De Jing. chapter 81. 49 Yijing, "Xizi". part I. 50 Zlircher. Conquest. p. 48

26 biography, as if often the case, bears great resemblance to the CSZJJ biography which most likely served as its principal source. In both biographies we read that

Dharmaraksha (active ca. 266-308) was boru around 230 AD in into a

Yuezhi family which has been living in Dunhuang for generations. He became a monk and studied with the master Zhu Gaozuo !cft ťi5Jg[. He is said to have committed a large vol ume of texts to memory. Later, disillusioned with the state of Buddhism in

China, with its opulently decorated viharas and statues, yet lacking in the most essential - the sacred texts - he set out to the Western countries in a quest for

Buddhist scriptures. On his way he is said to have acquired the knowledge of 36 language which is probably just a way of saying that he was able to leam some of the languages of the Centra! Asian countries traditionally referred to as the Thirty-six

Western Regions (San s hi yu -=:: +7\"E§±~). On his way back, via Dunhuang to

Chang'an, Dharmaraksha was translating the scriptures as he went, and after his arrival at Chang'an, he continued translating and teaching, gathering thousands of students and followers, both foreign and Chinese, monastic and lay. His most outstanding Chinese collaborator was a layman Nie Chengyuan, who figures in a number of colophons as the person who was noting down the translation (bi shou *

~). According to the biographies Dharmaraksha left Chang'an in the year 304 with his disciples and died of illness a few years later at the age of 77.

In both the CSZJJ and the GSZ biographies Dharmaraksha is spoken of with the highest respect and he i s even granted the honour of having contributed more than

27 anyone else to the conversion of China to Buddhism. 51 In connection with this statement Ziircher makes the following comment:

"This might be an overstatement, but it is undoubtedly true that it was he who made from the hitherto rather insignificant Buddhist community at Chang'an the major Buddhist centre in northem China, thus laying the foundations of the work which, some seventy years after his death, would be resumed by Dao'an and completed by Kumarajiva and his school".52

In addition to this, the intense activity which Dharmaraksha stimulated in Chang'an and the translations which were produced there must have been a major influence and inspiration for the Buddhism53 which flourished in the South throughout the fourth century.

As for Dharmaraksha 's reputation as the greatest translator prior to Kumarajiva, it seems he might ha ve eamed it due to the choice of texts he translated rather than to the quality ofthe translations themselves. Generally, Dharmaraksha's translations are very literal, and therefore rather difficult to read. Y et to be sure, his translations mark a distinctive progress from the literal translations of An Shigao. After all, unlike An

Shigao who had only a rudimentary knowledge of the Chinese language,

Dharmaraksha was bilingual, and since youth a recipient of traditional Chinese education. Compared to the Han translations, Dharmaraksha's work is characterized by greater conformity to Chinese grammatical and stylistic standards and also by a comprehensive and expanded system of technical Buddhist vocabulary. 54

51 Zi.ircher, Conquest, p. 343. CSZJJ XIII. 98.1.3. = GSZ I. 326.3.45: fi't1tJ'Jrl;J,fl1f1JrUp'ljiC:fí. :ii.L.tJtl!.. 52 Zi.ircher. Conquest, p. 66. 53 Xuanxue Buddhism is a term used by Zi.ircher in Conquest referring to the study of Buddhism in the South during the time of Eastern J in, where the revival of Daoist ideas known as xuanxue was taking place among men of letters. Some ofthese intellectuals aiso took interest in the Buddhist teachings, and they would often use the Daoist concepts to interpret . For more detailed treatment ofthis trend see section "Eastern Jin- South". Cf. also Zi.ircher, Conquest pp 81-109, and Tang Yongtong, Fojiao shi, chapter "xuanfeng zhi nandu z!.®.Z.~y§t" p.168-173, and Demieville. "Philosophy and Religion from Han to Sui". p 809-859. 54 Tsukamoto, History, p. 193-229, 1126-1129.

28 According to Dao'an's catalogue, Dharmaraksha produced an ouvre of 154

translations, in CSZJJ the number rises to 159 entries. Little less than a half of the

works have been preserved. The vast amount ofDharmaraksha's translations testify to

the man's enormous activity and dedication, in particular given the fact that all of the

translations were produced in the most turbulent of times, surrounded by virtually

constant warfare. Y et precisely because the translations were made under the

uninterrupted warfare that plagued the Chang'an and Luoyang areas and since his

death was almost immediately followed by the collapse of the W es tem Jin, many of

his works were totally or partially lost relatively early after being produced.

Among the translated scriptures there are five which stand out in particular as

scriptures which were about to exert substantial influence on the development of early

Chinese Buddhist thought. These were the five (four of them being

retranslations): in 25,000 Lines

(Paiicavimsatisahasrikaprajnaparamita sutra, Guang zan borzw }ing :JťiflU§ť:;f§=*~),

Suramgamasamadhisutra (Shoulengyan sanmei }ing iLHJf fil -- B;fi:f.:~),

Vimalakirtinirdesasutra ( Weimojie }ing *ffii'J§a*~ ), Saddharmapundarikasutra

(Zhengfa hua }ing TE1~**~), Sukhavativyuhasutra (Wuliang qingjing pingdengjiie

·z·ng JHf:-=---·;=·ic+k '=-_,.." <«) - } )1\\_miFJi-JA' EJ ·~ '"' -f"'"'~Ji';i.!'.::C. "'"*- SS

The numerous prefaces and colophons in the CSZJJ contain some valuable

information about the process of Dharmaraksha 's translation work as well as about

the conditions under which it was taking place. In an anonymous colophon in the

CSZJJ we read:

55 For a comprehensive list of Dharmaraksha 's translations see Tsukamoto, History, p. 207-211.

29 "In Tai shi 2, [226, Dharmaraksha being 35 at the time], in the eleventh month on the eighth day, in Chang'an within the Green Gate (qing men fl§F~), inside the White Horse Monastery (Baima si Él Ji~~), the Indian bodhisattva Dharmaraksha pronounced it orally. At the time, those who passed the words on were An W enhui Ji: X~ and Bo Yuanxin m:JC{E3 [a Parthina and a Kucheanjudging from their ethnikons]. Those who took it down by hand were Nie Chengyuan íl;it\~, Zhang Xuanbo 51ti:r18 and Sun Xiuda j%{;f;il, on the thirteenth day, at the hour of the ram [some time early in 267], it was finished."56

According to Leon Hurvitz, this passage can be taken to mean that the Kuchean and

Parthian laymen either recited from memory or read out loud the Sanskrit original, which was then orally rendered into Chinese by Dharmaraksha, upon which the three

Chinese took it down in writing, converting it from the colloquial idiom into the

. 57 11terary.

The sheer amount of translations produced by Dharmaraksha under the turbulent circumstances of his time has incited a certain confusion among scholars as to whether the dates provided are really reliable and whether such bulk of work could possibly have been performed by a single individua!. Tsukamoto suggests the

following explanation: Many of the translations produced by Dharmaraksha might not

be translations in the "narrow sense of the term". Rather it might often have been the

case that Dharmaraksha would have committed certain scriptures to memory during

his studies at Dunhuang, and later he would explain them directly in Chinese, without

going through the process of comparing the original and the orally rendered Chinese

version. The Chinese assistants would then write down these oral expositions of

Dharmaraksha. This, according to Tsukamoto, might explain why it was possible for

56CSZJJ vol. 7. Quoted according to Tsukamoto, History, p 197-198. 57 Tsukamoto, History, note j. (note by Leon Hurvitz), p. 549.

30 the man to produce several translations within a year, sometimes even within only a month. 58

Tsukamoto also makes the observation that there has been a major difference between the translation work of Dharmaraksha and the work of Kumarajiva and later yet

Xuanzang. He points out that the latter two had state-sponsored translation projects with all necessary background and organization at their disposal, while Dharmaraksha could only rely on the support and dedication ofhis fellow believers, not to mention the acute instability and violence ofhis time.

In his History ofChinese Buddhism Ren Jiyu makes an interesting comparison between Dharmaraksha and Kumarajiva. He regards both of them as essential exponents of Mahayana Buddhism in China, whose activity was instrumental for the development of Chinese Buddhism in the Mahayana direction. However, he says that while Kumarajiva's lies in expounding clearly the philosophical doctrine of emptiness, and by making a clear distinction between the understanding of emptiness within the Hinayana and the Mahayana, Dharmaraksha 's main emphasis was on the actual application of the teaching of emptiness - the Mahayana teaching of universal compassion, the intention to liberate a ll sentient beings from suffering. 59

As has already been mentioned, Dharmaraksha's activity at Chang'an was in fact a setting of ground for the activity of Dao 'an and hi s disciples who were to come some seventy years later. However, before we look at the Dao'an and his circle more

58 lbid. p. 211-213. 59 Ren J iyu {f~~- Zhongguo Fojiao Shi cp lllll{:IMJ:si:.'.. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1985.

31 dosely, let us comment briefly on another noteworthy development in the field of scriptural studies which was meanwhile taking place in the South.

Eastern Jin - South

Zhi Mindu

Already since the third century there was taking place a strong philosophical revival among Chinese intellectuals known as the xuan xue :Z~' usually translated as neo­ daoism. Many men of letters were withdrawing from active participation in political affairs, and engaging in the pure talks qing tan 1f!rgit In the first wave of the neo- daoist movement, He Yan and Wang Bi interpreted Confucian classics in Daoist terms. One generation later, scholars like Xiang Xiu and Guo Xiang proceeded to interpret Zhuangzi in Confucian terms. And at such a time, Buddhism started to enter the Chinese intellectual scene. Particularly after the loss of the North and the sack of

Luoyang in 311, large numbers of the aristocratic intellectuals escaped to the South, where they remained - bereft of their former active engagement in the affairs of the state - waiting for their time to retum back to the North. Meanwhile many of them took to discussing the mysteries among themselves, and gradually more and more often also with Buddhist monks educated in Chinese culture.60 An example of such a scholar-monk is Zhi Mindu, who is known as an independent thinker and in fact a founder of one of the so called "schools" of Early Chinese Buddhism. He is also known to ha ve compiled a catalogue of early Chinese translations of the scriptures, which however, like Dao'an's catalogue, has been 1ost. Furthermore, Zhi Mindu is known as an author of the synoptic editions heben 15-::z!s: of certain important

Mahayana scriptures, ie. the Vimalakirtinirdesa and the Suramgamasamadhisutra. As

6°Cf. Demieville. "Philosophy and Religion from Han to Sui". p 809-859.

32 Ziircher points out, such works were not undertaken for philological reasons. They were the best attempt at exegesis by those Chinese Buddhists who did not know the language of the originals. Without a guidance of a foreign master, the Chinese exegetes could only try to get as near as possible to the original meaning by critically comparing the various existing Chinese translations of a certain scripture. They would treat one text as the "mother" (mu m) to which the other texts or "sons" (zi Ť) were appended sentence by sentence wherever there was a major deviation in meaning.

None of these works have survived, but the early catalogues mention several other compilations ofthis kind composed by other clerical intellectuals. 61

Eastern Jin- North

Translation and exegesis in the style of f~~.

In allliterature dealing with the first centuries of Chinese Buddhism we find the term geyi. lt is usually associated with a method of exegesis of the Buddhist scriptures in

1 terms of Chinese philosophical categories, which developed during the 4 h century.

Y et different researchers differ in how broad they understand the meaning of geyi to be. For example Tsukamoto expands the meaning to a general approach of interpretati on of the Buddhist doctrine in China. Indeed he goes as far as to apply the term to certain interpretations made by An Shigao and Lokaksema, even though at their time the term geyi had not even existed yet. 62 Kenneth Ch'en also presents a rather broad understanding of the term when he says: "The practice of the Buddhists of searching through Chinese literature, mainly Daoist, for expressions to explain

61 Ziircher. Conquest, p 100. 62 Tsukamoto. History. pp 306.

33 their own ideas is known as geyi, or the method ofmatching the meaning."63 Ziircher on the other hand presents the term geyi in a more specific and narrow sense, as a method of exegesis used by Zhu Faya and Kang Falang, and later also by Dao'an and

Zhu Fatai. He explains that the method consisted of taking the numerical categories s hi s hu ~%i)(, probably of dhyana and Abidharma, and matching these with terms from secular literature, and therefore it came to be known as "matching the meaning", geyi. Yet regardless of how broadly or narrowly we understand the term geyi, it is primarily a method of translation in which the Buddhist terms and concepts were matched to concepts already existing in the Chinese tradition. The word ge ř'lr means

"a box- a standardized part of a whole system or a grid", the word yi ~ stands for "a meaning". Thus the translation method of geyi consisted of finding an appropriate box within the existing system of Chinese thought which would best match the meaning of the Sanskrit word or concept.

In the GSZ biography of Zhu Faya, we read about how the term geyi came to existence in the first place:

"Zhu Faya was a man from Hejian ... In his youth he excelled in secular studies (wai xue )!}~ ), and when he grew up he became well-versed in the tenets of Buddhism; young members of gentry families (yiguan she z i t\Jútffr±ř) all adhered to him for information and instruction. Since at that time the disciples who followed Faya were all well-versed in the secular canons, but had not yet become conversant with the princip les of Buddhism, Faya together with Kang Falang and others then took the numerical categories (s hi s hu lJJl&) of the sutras and matched these with [ terms from] secular literature, as a method to make them understand; this was called matching meanings (geyi f~~)." 64

63 Ch'en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China, A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. p 68. 64 GSZ IV. Biography of Zhu Faya. p 347.1. The English translation by Zi.ircher, in Conquest, p.l84.

34 Prom this extract we leam that geyi was indeed a method of interpretation of Buddhist numerical categories by means of terms from the Chinese tradition. Zurcher makes an interesting observation saying that here the "matching of meanings" cannot refer to equasions like bodhi= dao )]!, = zhenren ~A, = wuwei ~~etc., since these translation devices ha ve become characteristic of already the earliest

Chinese Buddhist translations. Furthermore these could not even be recognized as equations by someone like Zhu Faya who did not know the language of the ongma. . 1s. 65

Later in the same biography we also read that Dao'an used the geyi method to explain the Buddhist scriptures in the beginning of his career. Later, however, he tumed away from it resolutely, and after Kumarajiva's arrival at Chan'an, the method has been abandoned altogether.

lt seems worthwhile to briefly mention Tsukamoto's understanding ofthe term geyi as well. For one, he is not the only researcher who interprets geyi in the more general sense. Secondly, while introducing the concept of geyi, Tsukamoto touches upon certain tendencies within the history of early Chinese Buddhism relevant to our present discussion. In a general summary of the process of acceptance of Buddhism in

China, Tsukamoto says that at first - even before the first translations were made- the

Buddha was accepted as a superhuman sylph (shenxian t$1W), on the same level as

Huangdi and Laozi. In late second century came the first translations of Buddhist

scriptures, and with them exegesis.

"Luckily for Buddhism," says Tsukamoto, "the apotheosis of Confucianism, which it had obtained under the Han, had declined somewhat under the Wei and Jin and the era of xuan xue came first to flourish, then to overwhelm the exegetical oriented Confucianism, and ushered in a mood of human liberation and freedom of thought.

65 Ziircher. Conquest. p 184.

35 Y et even so, the exegetical approach to the study of the classics - and not only the Confucian classics - bound as these latter were to a long-established veneration of antiquity, was something not easy to eradicate from the consciousness of the mte. ll"tgentsia . ... "66

Tsukamoto further suggests that at this point, the only way how the Chinese men of letters could become interested in Buddhism was by presenting the new doctrine by a method of traditional Chinese exegesis. And that is when the method of geyi comes into play. While in a general sense this is certainly true, we should not forget that by the time Zhu Falan, Dao'an and others were beginning to use the geyi method of exegesis in the North, there was already present a thriving tradition of interpreting the

Buddhist concepts in terms of the philosophy of xuan xue in the South. The qing tan of the South resulting in various contradictory interpretations of the Prajnaparamita philosophy have developed independently from the geyi method in the sense of interpreting the Buddhist numerical categories. Y et Tsukamoto seems to view the leamed discussions and pure talks of the Chinese men of letters and scholar-clerics and the geyi method as practically the same thing, or at least an expression of the same tendency in the Chinese acceptance of Buddhism. He even says that "the propagation of Buddhism in keeping with xuan xue is just another name for geyi

Buddhism."67

Dao'an lt is true that from a certain point of view we may understand the participation of

Buddhist scholar-clerics in the qing tan discussions as a very original and fertile way of one philosophical system (Indian Buddhism) inspiring and enriching another (the

66 Tsukamoto. Historv. p 293. Translation by Leon Hurvitz. As an example ofhow geyi was used by Zhu Faya, Tsukamoto mentions the matching ofthe , pancasila, wujie against the Five Norms wu chang. For detailed explanations ofthese ten concepts see Tsukamoto. Historv. Note bw, p 575. 67 Tsukamoto. History, p 299.

36 Chinese xuan xue). And it is also trne that it was largely dueto the notable co incidence in time - which allowed the meeting of the Indian Prajnaparamita philosophy with the revival of the daoist thought in China - that the Chinese intellectual elite started to take interest in the foreign creed through finding certain common denominators of the two systems of thought. Y et on the other hand we cannot but see that the similarities between the two thought systems are rather superficial and, more importantly, that in the period of the vogue of the qing tan and xuanxue, most of the assumptions made by the Chinese intellectuals about

Prajnaparamita philosophy were based on insufficient understanding, which was in tum caused by lack of information, since translations were scarce and full of errors.

Thus by the middle of the fourth century we can see that there ha ve emerged a host of

"Chinese schools of prajnaparamita philosophy" holding strongly to their dogmas and quarrelling with each other, while virtually all of them were only based on insufficient understanding of the philosophy in the original form. 68 Furthermore foreign masters who would know the language of the original and who could give accurate

explanations of them were rare, particularly in the South where the various qing tan

interpretations of the Mahayana philosophy were most rampant. And even if there

were foreign missionaries, their Chinese language ability and familiarity with the

indigenous culture and philosophy would usually not be enough to allow them to

make much sense of the pure discussions. Leon Hurvitz describes the situation quite

aptly as one of mutual misunderstanding: the foreign missionaries believed that they

were able to get their message across to the Chinese, while the Chinese were thinking

that they understood correctly. In actual fact however, the foreigners and the Chinese

constituted two isolated groups and their mutual understanding was far from thorough.

68 For detailed treatment ofthe Chinese Prajnaparamita scholarship prior to Kumarajiva, see Tsukamoto, Historv, chapters "Pure Talkers and Dark Leamers"and "Doctrinal Disputes and the Advance of Prajnaparamita Study".

37 Of course there was the exception of the foreigners bom on Chinese soil69 and as we have seen throughout this chapter, these naturalized foreigners were truly most instrumental in translating and transmitting the teachings.

The first Chinese cleric to realize how unsatisfactory the understanding was of the

Chinese Buddhists, and how misleading was the habit of qing tan and method of geyi was Dao'an (312-385). Dao'an was bom in the present province in a family of

Confucian scholars. He took his first monastic vows at the age of 12. Later he travelled to Ye where he studied under Fo Tuteng. According to Dao'an's biography in the CSZJJ, ever since young age he was convinced that even though the Buddha had passed away long ago, it was possible to seek after the authentic meaning of his teaching by reading as widely as possible and studying with as many teachers as one could. In 379 Dao'an was summoned to come to Chang'an by Fu Jian, a ruler of

Tib etan origin who had established the state of Qin in the North in 3 79. Fu Jian i s described as a patron of leaming and a devout Buddhist. Until his death in 385 Dao'an remained the dean ofthe Buddhist hierarchy ofChang'an. Dao'an indeed had the vision of a religious reformer, which can be most markedly attested by the following three facts: He was the first one to clearly dismiss the pseudo-Buddist parlour conversations (i.e. the qing tan) as misleading and harmful to correct understanding of the doctrine. He was devoted to the orthodox monastic discipline as well as to the study of dhyana and the Abidharma. Lastly he understood the importance of obtaining faithful correct translations, and although ignorant of the language of the original scriptures, he sponsored and collaborated with a number of translators.

69 Hurvitz, Leon. "Chi h-l (538-597) An lntroduction to the Life and ldeas of a Chi nese Buddhist Monk". In Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol XII. Bruxelles: Institute Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1980. p 56.

38 Y et it was precisely the lack of knowledge of the language of the original scriptures that prevented Dao'an from carrying his reform ofChinese Buddhist scholarship successfully to the end. Although his exegesis of the prajnaparamita was the closest to the authentic meaning of all the various Chinese interpretations, it was stili not free of the influence of the Chi nese classics and geyi. It was only twenty years after Dao'an's death, when Kumarajiva arrived at Chang'an that the Chinese Buddhists were to receive a comprehensive expalanation of the prajnaparamita. In the same way in which Dharmaraksha prepared the ground of Buddhism in Chang'an for the arrival of

Dao'an, Dao'an in tum prepared the community for the arrival ofKumarajiva. Many ofKumarajiva's Chinese assistants in translation- most prominent ofwhom was

Sengrui- were in fact disciples of Dao'an.

39 3. The Life of Kumarajiva

In a accordance with what has been said in the chapter discussing the historical sources on Early Chinese Buddhism, this biographical sketch is going to be based on the principle ofthe sources available- Huijiao's GSZ. At the same time, we will try to incorporate the information on Kumarajiva's life found in other sources as well.

Additional information from other sources as well as comments by modem researchers will be specified.

Studies in India and Central Asia

According to the GSZ Kumarajiva was bom in the year 350 AD in Kucha to parents of noble descent. His father, Kumarayana, was bom in India as a son of an important official. Kumarayana himself renounced his carrier and became a monk. Then he travelled across Pamir until he arrived at the kingdom of Kucha. As we read in the

GSZ, the King of Kucha felt great respect for Kumarayana and appointed him the state preceptor (gzwshi ~@/1i) in his kingdom. Later Kumarayana must apparently have given back his monastic vows since we read that he married the king's younger sister Jiva, who was endowed with exceptional wisdom and intellectual abilities. As we read in the GSZ, the birth of their son Kumarajiva70 was preceded by various auspicious signs. Shortly after Kumarajiva's birth his mother became a nun and left to

live in a monastery together with her seven year old son. Eventually they left Kucha for Kashmir, where Kumarajiva studied the doctrine under the guidance

of Bandhudatta. When Kumarajiva was twelve years old, his mother had decided to

7° Kumarajiva's name is a combination ofthe name ofboth ofhis parents, Kumarayana and Jiva. Huijiao explains in the biography that this method of giving names was a custom in the non-Chinese countries of the time. At the same time the meaning of the name i s "A Child destined to ha ve a long life". The name is transcribed to Chi nese as Jiumoluoshi ~~/f-i{t, or occasionally also translated as tongshou :i:~~ a child of long life. Hurvitz. "Chih-1", p. 64.

40 retum to Kucha. On the way they passed through Kashgar. By that time Kumarajiva's exceptional talent had already become well known and the king of Kashgar had asked

Kumarajiva to stay in his country and teach the monks. At the same time the king also hoped to gain the friendship of the kingdom of Kucha by paying respects to

Kumarajiva, in which he succeeded. The historicity ofthis passage cannot be proveď, however it is clearly one of the examples characterizing the biography of Kumarajiva

- the fact that Kumarajiva was considered a valuable asset by the kings and rulers throughout his life. Indeed, in this passage he was merely a boy of twelve years, and yet we read that respect paid to him was enough of a reason to win an alliance of another country.

While in Kashgar, Kumarajiva encountered for the first time the teachings ofthe

Mahayana, which were presented to him by a teacher called Surjasom, a prince of

Yarkand, who had given up his post and became a monk. 71 Kumarajiva studied

Mahayana very thoroughly and at the same time compared it to the Sarvsastivada teachings he had received earlier. In the end he came to a conclusion that the

Mahayana teachings were superior and since then concentrated wholeheartedly on them.

In between teaching and studying the Buddhist doctrine, we read that Kumarajiva also studied Indian sacred scriptures of other than Buddhist doctrines. At the same time he also explored Indian literary forms, the art of composition, the art of debate etc. His fame as a great master and scholar continued to spread far and wide, and soon it reached the far o ff land of China.

71 Y crmakov. /hi:neopisania /)os/ojnych /'v!onaclwv. vol I. iv!uscuw: N:lllka. 1991.

41 After several years Kumarajiva retumed to Kucha, accepting an invitation made personally by the king. At the age oftwenty, Kumarajiva took the monk's ordination at the royal palace of Kucha. 72 He then stayed in Kucha in the King's New Monastery

:=E!tJT-~ where he continued to study the Mahayana sutras and shastras. According to the GSZ, Bandhudatta, Kumarajiva's former teacher of the Sarvastivada, came to

Kucha at this time to receive the Mahayana teachings from his former student. After he had accepted the doctrine of the Great Vehicle, Bandhudatta made this remark about Kumarajiva and himslef: 'This monk ismy teacher of the Mahayana. And I am his teacher of the Hinayana."73

In the GSZ biography there follows a passage discussing Kumarajiva's mother's departure from Kucha to India. Before leaving she explained that the kingdom of

Kucha will soon be destroyed. She urged Kumarajiva to leave with her, but he decided to stay. In her last words before leaving, the mother wams her son that expounding the Mahayana teachings in the lands of the East i s beyond the powers of

Kumarajiva alone. Kumarajiva answers that if it is his fate to preach the law, then he w1'll not regret anyt h'mg. 74

Captivity at Liangzhou

Meanwhile in northem China the ethnically Tibetan ruler Fu Jian had established his kingdom in 379 in the region Between the Passes (Guan Zhong fi~cp) making plans n Tsukamoto explains in the "Dates of Kuamrajiva and Sengzhao Re-examined" that it used to be a norma[ practice for the monks to ta ke fu ll ordination at the age of twenty, and becoming bikshus. Until that age, they were shramaneras, p 581. 73 CiSZ. T 50. no. 2()5C). p. :131 b()()(OI) ,·1 1'11 [·.)Lfk}"*ll11i. :[k.),~ ,fil [·_;J';'l~l'lljí;;:~.

74 Hurvitz dismisses this passage as a clear example ofhagiographical embellishment, and argues that if it was not for Fu Jian's ambition to become the Son of Heaven and therefore to conquer the western regions, Kumarajiva might as well ha ve finished out his days in his native Kucha as a Mahayana scholar. Hurvitz. "Chih-1", p. 65.

42 for a further expansion to the west. Fu Jian was a Buddhist ruler and apparently a patron of leaming. By that time the fame of Kumarajiva had already reached northem

China and Fu Jian was eager to welcome the outstanding scholar and master in

Chang'an. He sent the general Li.i Guang to conquer Kucha, instructing him to dispatch fast messengers to bring Kumarajiva to Chang'an as soon as Kucha is defeated. The GSZ biography presents Fu Jian's conquest ofKucha in such a light as if obtaining Kumarajiva was its principle purpose. This is obviously doubtful and the passage is most likely another example of the hagiographic character of the GSZ. In this case it is not Kumarajiva however, but Fu Jian who is presented in a more favourable and acceptable light as a wise and devout ruler with noble motives.

The conquest of Kucha was successfully carried out by Li.i Guang in 3 84 AD and Li.i

Guang set on a joumey bac k with Kumarajiva as a "valuable piece of boo ty". 75 When they arrived at Liang Zhou, the news reached them that Fu Jian's kingdom was defeated by the Yao clan and Fu Jian himselfwas killed by Yao Chang. Upon hearing the news Li.i Guang arrested his joumey in present day Gansu and promptly founded an independent state there, which he named the Later Liang. General Li.i Guang, now the self-appointed ruler of the Later Liang, had no appreciation whatsoever neither for literacy and leaming nor for the Buddhadharma. Yet he kept Kuamarajiva as a captive at his court for seventeen long years, using him as an advisor for political and military affairs and also as an object of many uncouth jokes, as we read in the GSZ. For example, after the defeat of Kucha in 3 84, Li.i Guang would amuse himself by insisting on making Kumarajiva break the vows of monastic discipline by getting him drunk and closing him in one room with the Kuchean princess. This account seems to

75 Ziircher. Conquest, p. 226.

43 be anticipated within the GSZ biography by a curious passage describing how on his way back to Kucha from northem India, Kumarajiva had encountered a certain arhat who said the following to the young shramanera's mother:

"If this child li ves to the age of thirty-five without violating his vows, he shall be as great a servant of the Buddha and saviour of souls as Upagupta; if, however, he does violate his vows, he shall be a highly leamed dharmacarya, but no more."

In his article "The Dates of Kumarajiva and Sengzhao Re-examined" Tsukamoto argues that the tale about the arhat was probably invented later by the Chinese

Buddhist community in order to justify the first violation ofKumarajiva's vows. 76

As Zurcher puts it in his Buddhist Conquest of China, there is practically nothing known about the seventeen years ofKumarajiva's life at Liangzhou"77 One cannot but agree with this statement, in spite of the fact that we find a rather long passage in the

GSZ biography dealing with this period of Kumarajiva's life. But virtually all of this information in GSZ consists of different instances of Kumarajiva giving advice to Ui

Guang, and to his sons who succeeded him on the throne. In all these instances, we read about Kumarajiva using his ability to predict the future and to read the meaning of various natural signs like sudden strong winds, or supematural signs, like the appearance of dragons etc. As has been said while discussing the character of historical sources, such instances are by no means specific to Buddhist historiography of early medieval China. On the contrary, they are a very frequent phenomenon

76 Tsukamoto. "Dates", p. 577-588. Tsukamoto further mentions the fact that after Kumarajiva had arrived at Chang'an, he was once again forced by the ruJer to Jeave the monk's quarters and to Jive in a paJace with a harem often. Tsukamoto then makes the following comment: "His [Kumarajiva's] vioJation ofthe vows (Jeaving aside the circumstances that gave rise to it) seems to have been a fact. And it was an embarrassing fact to the Chinese monastic community that had recorded him in its annaJs as a great and famous monk. The Chinese Buddhist Community, which had come to Jook upon Kumarajiva's transJations and ideas as authoritative, probabJy invented the taJe ofthe arhat in order to justify the first vioJation of hi s vows since hi s ordination as unavoidabJe, something not to be condemned out of hand." ln hi s study, Tsukamoto uses the story of the arhat as evidence supporting his re-statement ofthe dates of Kumarajiva's life, arguing that regardJess of its factuaJ truth of faJsity, the passage impJies that Kumarajiva was 35 in the year 384. 77 Zi.ircher. Conquest, p. 226.

44 present in the secular writings throughout Chinese history. Other than such accounts, however, the biography provides us with hardly any more substantial information on

Kumarajiva's life in Liangzhou.

The only thing that seems to be certain about this period of Kuamrajiva's life is that neither Ui Guang nor his sons have expressed any interest in the teachings for which

Kumarajiva was so renowned, let alone converted to them. "Although Kumarajiva's wisdom grew even deeper," states Huijiao, "he didn't find any use for it."78 Based on

this brief comment, there seems to have arisen a generally acknowledged vague

assumption that the seventeen years in Liangzhou, from Kumarajiva's 35 to 49 years

of age, were the time of maturing of his own understanding of the Buddhist ideas

which he studied prior to 384 AD. 79

One might be tempted to assume that these seventeen years were also the time when

Kumarajiva came to master the Chinese language which he later put to use in the

translation activities during the eight remaining years of his life after arriving at

Chang'an in 401. 80 This assumption, however logical it might seem, can be proveď

false by the following evidence according to which Kumarajiva had only a very basic

knowledge of Chinese when he arrived at Chang'an in 401 AD. The evidence consists

of a number of comments on the subject of Kumarajiva's Chinese made by his

disciples in the prefaces to the various translations. Wang Wenyan presents some of

78 Y crmakov. /.hi::.neopisania, p.l3lJ. 79 cf. Tsukamoto, "Dates", p 579. Tsukamoto also points out that during these seventeen years Kumarajiva probably did not ha ve access to the newer schools of Mahayana thought which were forming in India while he was kept captive in Gansu. 80 Wang Wenyan í.'X:~J[. Fodian hanyi zhi yanjiu {~:!J$..~Ji~~ZlitfJ'C.Tianhua foxue congkan zhi 21. Wang states the date of Kumarajiva's arrivat at Chang'an is 401. Zurcher says it was early 402. (Zurcher. Conquest.)

45 these extracts in his Study ofTranslating Buddhist Scriptures into Chinese. 81 We will discuss these in detail in the chapter on Kumarajiva's principles oftranslation. For the moment let us only note that two ofKumarajiva's most influential disciples, Sengmi and Sengzhao, both mention in their prefaces written in 402 AD that at that time

Kumarajiva didn 't ha ve a sufficient command of the Chinese language. 82 These and other similar comments allow us to assume that Kumarajiva probably didn't undertake any extensive study of the Chinese language while at Liangzhou. Another piece of evidence supporting the assumption that Kumarajiva's command ofChinese upon his arrival at Chang'an was probably less perfect than one would be inclined to judge from the seamless translations he had produced, can be found in his letters to

Huiyuan. In one of the letters Kumarajiva says: "In expressing my feeling and in communicating my friendship (to you), I have to transmit my ideas by means of translation; how can I ever express them fully!" 83 This is a rather striking statement coming from the most celebrated translator of Chinese history at a time when he was at the height of the translation activity, translating several sutras and shastras every year, i.e. some time between 405 and 409. 84 It is also an indication that Kumarajiva's

elegant and smooth translations must owe a great deal to his Chinese collaborators.

Again, we will discuss this point in detail in the chapter on Kumarajiva's Principles of

Translation.

81 lbid. p. 221-222. 82 see Chapter 5 for details. 83 T 1856. Dasheng Da Yizhang -**-*~l'if (var. Jiumoluoshifashi dayi ~I~Mf11t1!@ffi:*~). The entry contains 18 letters exchanged between Kumarajiva and between the years 405-409. The English translation ofthe quoted excerpl was taken from Zi.ircher's Conquest, p 247. 84 Zi.ircher makes the following comment: "J:.-S1~!1J!1g . 1'itJt~g~ ; an important remark, which shows that Kumarajiva, in spite of what i s commonly told about him, was stili having considerable difficulties with the Chinese language, and that he stili probably ma de use of interpreters in hi s correspondence with Chinese like Huiyuan or Wang Mi." (Zi.ircher. Conquest, p. 409).

46 Kumarajiva in Chang'an

State sponsored translation projects.

The GSZ mentions that while Kumarajiva was stili at Liangzhou, the ruler of the

Later Qin Yao Chang had repeatedly invited him to come to Chang'an, but the Lii rulers wouldn't let go offtheir valuable advisor. 85 It was not until401 AD when the

Yao clan defeated the Later Liang that Kumarajiva was received in Chang'an as the preceptor ofthe state by Yao Chang's son and successor on the throne Yao Xing. In the GSZ we read about Yao Xing that "he had underlined his knowledge of the

Buddhist scriptures with good deeds". 86 He provided Kumarajiva with all the facilities necessary for scriptural translation as a state project, in which he personally participated. Yao Xing's reign (394-416) is regarded as a climax ofthe imperial sponsorship of Buddhism which came band in hand with unprecedented flourishing of the religion in northem China. The generous sponsorship and the fervent activity caused many monks from both China and abroad to come to Chan'an and take part in the teaching and translating activities. Yao Xing's era was also a rare period of time without wars, during which Chang'an enjoyed political security, peace and prosperity.

When Kumarajiva arrived at Chang'an in 401, all the favourable conditions he found there were in fact a culmination of a process which had started already in 379 AD when Fu Jian invited Dao'an to come to Chang'an from Xiangyang. lt was the same

Fu Jian who also ordered Lii Guang to bring Kumarajiva to Chang'an from Kucha but who never met with the Kuchean master in his life. Ziircher explains that it was already with Dao'an's arrival at Chang'an that there started a new chapter in the history of northem Buddhism, characterized by a renewed influx of missionaries, scriptures and ideas from Central Asia and India, huge translation projects, state

85 Leon Hurvitz points out that Tsukamoto speculates that behind these repeated requests must have laid the petitions ofsome ofthe disciples ofDao'an such as Sengrui. Hurvitz. "Chih-1", p. 66. 86 Y crmakov. /.hi:::neupisania. p. 140.

47 patronage and supervision, and the emergence of a body of scriptural and scholastic literature (both Hinayana and Mahayana) together with a new method of exegesis and a new translation technique. 87 The eight years ofKumarajiva's activity at Chang'an present a culmination of this period of northem Chinese Buddhism.

1 As we have seen in the chapter "Translating Buddhist Scriptures from 2nd to 4 h century AD" the various conditions which contributed to the accomplishment of

Kumarajiva's work were a result ofthe activities ofhis numerous predecessors

coupled with political developments in northem China. We saw that from his predecessors on the Chinese soil, Kumarajiva had inherited a large number of previously translated scriptures along with a whole body of Chinese interpretations of

these as well as the state patronage over religious activities and particularly over the

translation projects established under the foreign rulers of northem China. With all

these preconditions present, Kumarajiva was able to produce in the short period of

eight years between 401 to 409 more then 300 scrolls of translations. 88 The biography

ofKumarajiva in the CSZJJ contains the following passage about Yao Xing's

establishing, sponsoring and participating at the translation projects headed by

Kumarajiva in at the Garden ofWhimsical Wanderings by the Bright Western Tower

(Xi mingge xiaoyao yuan ® l!)j ~Jl!í~~):

Ever since the reign of the Han emperor Mingdi ( 5 8-7 5) when the Great Law had entered the East, and later under the Wei (220-264) and Jin (265-420) dynasties, many sutras were translated. But the texts translated by men from Yuezhi and India were all made using the principle of zhiwen geyi 1fffJtt.t~ (getting lost in the words and matching the meaning). [Y ao] Xing, a s a young man, venerated the Three J ewels and sharpened hi s ambition to be involved in exegesis and collation [of scriptures]. Once Kumarajiva arrived, he

87 Ziircher. Conquest. p. 114. 88 This is according to GSZ. According to Pfl:lG~ it was a total of 74 volumes of scriptures in 383 juans, according to tti~f< it was 35 vol um es in 294 juan.

48 asked him to enter the Garden of Whimsical Wonderings by the Bright W es tem Tower xi ming ge xiao yao yuan, there to produce translations of a multitude of scriptures. Kumarajiva had committed most ofthem to memory, and there was nothing his understanding did not penetrate. He would convert them into Chinese words, the oral translation being both fluent and to the point. He had a good command of the language of the Jin, and the translations were fluent. Once he examined the old scriptures [in Chinese translation, he understood that] at many places the meaning was twisted, that the translators often missed the point, and the translations were not in accord with the originals. Thereupon Xing had the shramanas Sengzhao, Sengliie, Sengmao, and others, more than eight hundred in all, conferred with Kumarajiva to get his meaning, and then to reissue the Scripture ofthe Great Chapters (da pin* 89 r:flr:J) , i.e., the Pancavismatis. p.p. Kumarajiva took the foreign text in hand, while Xing held the older translation of the scripture, so that they could compare both. The new translation differed from the old one at many places, and it expressed the true meaning of the sutra with precision." 90

T55n2145 _pOl Ol bl4(01) 1113 :A:~!:~Offi:~€J;JN~ll)j o !HWl~ B'*~futjfft.$ o

T55n2145 _pOl O1 b 15(01) ll TfrJ _:k 'YU1fi tl] .$11\'t)(~~ o T55n2145_p010lbl6(08) ll ~Y~ · · .. ~;ť;;fi~W:o 1f~5t~lL T55n2145 _po 101 h17(12) II1JJ~rr A 1ffi ll}j ~iliiffi~~* tiJ **~o 1t$.$ oo~m 1!tr--r.:ft:

:li o

T55n2145 _pOl Ol bl8(07) ll ijWJ~~B'ri ~-~*t;fL;fU o ~;t';:~*~~.$~6~. i§' dJ 7'd*~ ~ S o T55n2145_p010lbl9(02) ll /1~5U!M4:t§JJ!L T55n2145_p010lb20(12) ll ~~J!!1~1Y~~1~~1~1B!1~~~)\ Ef~~A6~5ť1t ~ ~4- tlj :A r1"1 o T55n2145_p010lb21(03) ll1tt~M4:~~)l~~~o lj,f§t;iíS(o Jt*JTX~lii!t o T55n2145_p010lb22(02) ll ~i§'JI]j!JL 91

It is obviously impossible for us to know, whether Yao Xing would really personally participate in the translation sessions as described above or whether his participation was rather more symbolic. But even if it was merely symbolic, it is quite

89 :*:6'1:1 here refers to the Pancavimsatisahasrika prajnaparamitasutra (The Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 lines). For classification of the various prajnaparamita sutras see Conze, Edward. The Prajnaparamita Literature. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1978. p 31-74. 90 With some changes, we use the translation made by Leon Hurvitz and presented in Tsukamoto, History, p. 581. 91 CSZJJ. T55, no.2145, p. 0101b14(01)- p. 0101b22(02) This passage is almost identical with a passage from GSZ. T50, no.2059, p.0332a20(01)- p.0332b13(10). The two versions differ in only a few words, such as when Huijiao uses ~ Fi for Chinese in the GSZ version, whereas Sengyu uses B' ~­ in the CSZJJ. This close similarity is a clear illustration of the fact that Huijiao used the biographies from CSZJJ as his basic source material, and that sometimes he would even copy certain passages verbatim.

49 understandable that the Buddhist historians would be more than eager to include such a fact in their and attach great importance to it.

Prom the passage just quoted, as well as from certain other prefaces, we can assume

that the translation work was taking place in the midst of large gatherings. 92 But it is

unlikely that all of the hundreds, sometimes thousands of men present would directly

participate in the translation work. lt rather seems that these gatherings were

conceived as teachings given by Kumarajiva to the gathered , on which

occasions the translations were made as part of the process. Kumarajiva would

probably make a first rough oral translation, which was written down by his Chinese

assistants and further polished, until a smooth Chinese rendering was achieved.

The GSZ contains one revealing passage which concems Kumarajiva's attitude to the

difference between the Indian and Chinese literary styles. The passage is presented as

an explanation which Kumarajiva gave to his close Chinese collaborator, and former

disciple of Dao'an, Sengrui: ln this passage, quoted in full within the chapter on

Kumarajiva's Principles ofTranslation, Kumarajiva expresses his fundamental stance

on the impossibility of a litera! translation from Sanskrit into Chinese due to the great

difference between the literary styl es of both languages. 93 This clear and rad i cal

stance toward translating from Sanskrit into Chinese can be regarded as the pivot of

92 Tang Yongtong points out the following quotes on this topic from various prefaces: "Sengrui says that when Kumarajiva was translating the Prajnaparamita in 25,000 fines (Da pin), there were over 500 people present. According to Huiguan, there were over 2000 learned shramanas from a ll directions present at the translation ofthe , Sengrui says that there have gathered over 800 monks to hear and understand, and that they were all men of outstanding talent. During the translation ofthe Siyijing .I"Gttrit*~· says Sengrui, there were over 2000 men conferring over the translation. Sengrui also says that there were 1200 men present at the translation ofthe Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra. The CSZJJ says: at the time learned shramanas from all the directions didn't consider ten thousand miles too far." Tang Yongtong. Fojiao Shi. p. 249.

93 For the quotation see Chapter 4 "Kumarajiva's Principles ofTranslation," p.59.

50 Kumarajiva's theory oftranslation. (To be discussed more extensively in

"Kumarajiva's Principles ofTranslation").

Kumarajiva's Chinese disciples and collaborators

As has been said earlier, Kumarajiva's translations could probably never be what they are, had it not been for the many Chinese assistants, who worked on the translations with him. These were men who have either been in Chang'an already before

Kumarajiva's arrival, or who have arrived there especially to take part in

Kumarajiva's activities. Sengzhao was Kumarajiva's closest disciple. When he was in his twenties and while Kumarajiva was still held captive at Liangzhou, Sengzhao went to that distant land to become his disciple. He was convinced that there were errors in the elder scholars' understanding ofBuddhism and wanted to improve his understanding by studying with Kumarajiva. When Kumarajiva was received at

Chan'an, Sengzhao accompanied him. In Chang'an he then assisted his master in the work of translation together with his seniors such as Sengrui. After the translation of the Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 li nes was completed in 404, Sengzhao composed a commentary to it, the Banruo wu z hi lun fN;ff ~ J;p ~jtr, and presented it to

Kumarajiva. Kumarajiva, so it is said, had praised its accuracy.94

Another important disciple and collaborator ofKumarajiva was Sengrui, a former student ofDao'an. In 382 Dao'an left Chagn'an for the city ofYeh, where he participated in a translation project in which the foreign expert was Kumarabudhi.

94 Tsukamoto. "Dates", p. 580.

51 Sengrui was one of the copyists at that project.95 As well as his master Dao'an,

Sengrui is known for his disenchantment with the method of translation and exegesis

known as geyi. But unlike his master, Sengrui was able to participate personally in

Kumarajiva's translating activities, which provided a solution and an altemative to the misleading method of geyi. He had arrived at Chang'an in 402 AD, probably from

Mount Lu, the newly emerged centre of Buddhism headed by Huiyuan, a leading

disciple ofDao'an. In the biography ofDaosheng in the GSZ we read that a group of

monks from Lu Shan, including one Huirui of the Shixing temple96 left Lu Shan

together to make their way to Chang'an to study under the famous Kumarajiva. The

fact that Sengrui was a regular participant of the translation activities headed by

Kumarajiva is amply attested by his prefaces as well as his biography in the GSZ. As

for the prefaces, they are to be found in the CSZJJ. He wrote prefaces to

commentaries (lun ~ífa) like the Da zhi du lun ::1\:WJ!r§ffil and Shi er men lun +=F5§ffil,

as well as to the translations ofthe following sutras: Da pin ::1\:d"r:J, Xiao pin ;J\ťfr:J, Fa

hua 1=*'1J. Wei ma *-lltf, Si yi JGI,:~. 97 lt i s these prefaces that are a valuable source of

information on Kumarajiva's translation theory and methodology. Kumarajiva

himself was very fond of Sengrui. In the GSZ we read that Kumarajiva once asked

Sengrui to explain a certain text, the wording of which was rather obscure at certain

places. Sengrui was able to elucidate even the most subtle and difficult points

precisely in accord with the correct interpretations. Delighted with Sengrui,

95 lnformation on this translation project can be found in the preface to Si a han mu chao xu VW l~iiJ jfi; n tY ff (Excerpts from the four agamas), CSZJJ 9: T vol.49, no.2034. The preface was probably written by Dao'an himself. 96 For the discussion of Huirui's and Sengrui's identity see Wright, "Sengrui alias Hui Rui". Wright argues that although these two are ascribed two different biographies in the GSZ, they are actually one and the same person. The confusion might ha ve come from the monk's activities in the north and in the south seen as activities oftwo different persons. Wright, Arthur F. "Seng-Jui Alias Hui-Jui: A Biographical Bisection in the Kao-Seng Chuan" in Sino-lndian Studies, 5. 97 For bibliographical references ofthese prefaces see lbid. p. 276 and 293.

52 Kumarajiva exclaimed: "In translating the Sutra and shastra I have been able to meet you; indeed there is nothing in my life to regret!"98

Another important collaborator ofKumarajiva was , who came to Chang'an from together with Sengrui and others. The GSZ says that he would come to seek Kumarajiva's advice "whenever he felt that he might be mistaken in the words". He directly participated in the translation of the Vimalakirtinirdesa and the

Saddharmapundarika. Having benefited from this experience and from Kumarajiva's

instruction, he retumed to the south in 409, where he later became a rather controversial figure due to his radical interpretation of the Mahaparinirvanasutra. 99

Another important Chinese monk who made contact with Kumarajiva was Huiyuan

of Mount Lu. Due to the geographical conditions and his obligations at Lu Shan,

Huiyuan was not able to meet with Kumarajiva in person. But as soon as he leamt of

Kumarajiva's presence in Chang'an, he wrote him a letter expressing his friendship

and delight over the fact that Kumarajiva had come to China. Kumarajiva answered

him with a letter containing the curious remark about having to rely on translators and

interpreters for the communication which was quoted above. There followed a series

of 18 letters exchanged between the two masters, in which Huiyuan requested

Kumarajiva to resolve his doubts about certain passages and aspects ofthe Mahayana

doctrine and Kumarajiva answered, mainly using quotations from scriptural texts.

These letters have been collected into a document called Dasheng da yi zhang ***

98 GSZ. T vol.50, no.2059. Quoted according to Wright. "Seng-rui alias Hui-rui."p.276 99 Tsukamoto. History, 458.

53 ~~ 100 After Kumarajiva had completed the translation of the Dazhi dulun :*:~f:lt§íffl

(A Large Commentary on the Prajnaparamita in 25.000 Line s, attributed to

Nagarjuna), Yao Xing requested Huiyuan to write a preface to it. Huiyuan's

biography in the GSZ contains the following quotation from Yao Xing's letter of

request:

"The translation of the da z hi(duJ lun has been just completed. Since it i s a work of , and, moreover, a guide to the Vaipulya (sutra, c.q. the 25 000 p 'p '), it is fitting that a preface should be written to it in order to elucidate the (basic) ideas of the author. However, all these monks here urge each other on but refuse to do it (themselves), and none ofthem dares to undertake this task. Ma(' you, Master ofthe Doctrine, compose a preface for the benefit of later students!" 10

Subsequently, accepting the request, Huiyuan copied the most important passages of

the treatise and made an extract of it in 20 juans. 102

Thanks to the close connection maintained between Kumarajiva's fellowship and

Huiyuan's community on Mount Lu, Kumarajiva's translations, and doctrines

explained in them, rapidly made their way to Mount Lu, which at the time enjoyed

highest respect throughout the lands ofthe Eastem Jin. Many elements ofNorthem

Buddhism and the new development in the Prajnaparamita scholarship became known

in the South. 103

100 T4411851_008. In a chapter "Reform from without- Kumarajiva" of hi s "Chih-1" Leon Hurvitz suggests that Kumarajiva 's letters to Huiyuan can be seen as the on ly extant source material on what Kumarajiva thought himself, along with his remarks preserved by Sengzhao in his preface to the translation of Vima/akirtinirdesa. Unlike Hurvitz, Tang Yongtong tends to minimize the importance of the Da sheng da yi zhang as an index to Kumarajiva's ideas, because it merely repeats and recapitulates scriptural texts and theories of others.

101 GSZ, Biography of Huiyuan. 360.2.1. 102 Most scholars agree, that the authorship of the Dazhi dulun, usually ascribed to Nagarjuna, is doubtful to say the least. For a discussion ofthis topic see Demieville. "Sur la Traite de la grande vertu de sagesse traduit par E.Lamotte, t.2 (1950) in Choix ďetudes bouddhiques (1929-1970). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. p.4 70. See also a letter of Alex Wayman quoted by Hurvitz in "Chih-!," p. 67. 103 Ziircher. Conquest, p 114.

54 Kumarajiva and Buddhabhadra

Apart from Kumarajiva, there were also other foreign teachers present in the capital, personalities such as Buddhabhadra, Buddhayashas, Dharmayashas, Dharmagupta and others. Sengzhao says that "it was as if the intense preaching and teaching that to ok place on the Vulture Peak during the venerable Shakya's own time had moved to

Chang'an." 104 Tsukamoto also talks ofthis period as of

"the unprecedented hour of glory of Chang'an, where scriptures were being translated by a group whose centra! figure was Kumarajiva, there were groups of visiting monks from Kashmir and elsewhere, the Chinese pilgrims to Centra! Asia were retuming, and there was large-scale translation and propagation of Buddhist scriptures, monastic codes, and treatises of both vehicles, the Greater and the Lesser." 105

Although Kumarajiva's biography in the GSZ doesn't mention his interaction with

Buddhabhadra (359-429), master of dhyanadharma invited to Chang'an by a Zhiye, 106 certain other sources do talk about it, among them Buddhabhadra's biography in the

GSZ. It seems appropriate to mention the interaction between these two masters in this comprehensive account ofKumarajiva's life, as it happens to give us some idea ofthe position ofKumarajiva's fellowship within the Buddhist community of

Chang'an, as well as on the intellectual and spiritual climate of the era. According to the biography of Buddhabhadra in GSZ, the two masters did discuss Buddhist matters and help each other to a certain extent. For example there is an account of a discussion between the two on their difference of view on the existence of indivisible partie. 1es versus t h e nature o f emptmess. . 107

104 quoted according to Tsukamoto. History, p. 874. 105 Tsukamoto. History, p. 453. 106 Zhiye set out for Centra! Asia together with . Later he left Faxian and studied dhyanadharma under Buddhasena. When he heard, that Buddhabhadra was the best teacher in this discipline, he supplicated him to come to China. 107 Biography of Buddhabhadra in the GSZ. T50, no.2059, p.334b.

55 While Kumarajiva's focal activity was translating sutras, Buddhabhadra was predominantly a teacher of dhyana meditation. Also from the accounts available it seems that Buddhabhadra condemned Kumarajiva's mode oflife as an upper-class priest in Chang'an, working mostly on translations and relying on the might of the king as un-Buddhist. Buddhabhadra himself on the contrary was a firm believer in and practitioner of the dhyana as the course for all devout, practicing religions. 108

After Kumarajiva's death, we read in the GSZ, Buddhabhadra and his disciples were banished from Chang'an by Sengliie and Daoheng, both senior members of

Kumarajiva's school and both clerical officials (sengguan {~fff), on account of a violation of the monastic discipline by one of Buddhabhadra's followers. Although the GSZ obligingly explains that the banishment was basically a misunderstanding, it appears from these accounts that there must have existed a certain rivalry between the two communities. Tsukamoto explains in the following words:

"While the monks ofKumarajiva's school had the run ofthe palace, being appointed to ecclesiastical offices and enjoying worldly honour and glory, Buddhabhadra, being fundamentally at odds with Kumarajiva on pints of doctrine, and being, in particular, a person who had come to China to give concrete, practical guidance on , parted company with Kumarajiva's school and, as a teacher and head of a community of strict practitioners of that meditation, was resfgected and admired by large numbers of seriously, religiously committed monks." 1 9

Y et along with the banishment of Buddhabhadra, and the differences between the two masters and their schools, we also find accounts of Kumarajiva and his students expressing respect for Buddhabhadra. Namely in Buddhabhadra's biography we read that Kumarajiva rejoiced in Buddhabhadra's coming to Chang'an and that he would seek his advice wherever he had doubts. There also exists a letter written by

108 Tsukamoto. "Dates", p. 571. 109 Tsukamoto. Historv, p. 453.

56 Kumarajiva's closest disciple Sengzhao to Liu Yimin on Lu Shan in 409, in which

Sengzhao makes a respectful reference to the fact that Buddhabhadra had given instruction in dhyana to several hundred pupils at the Waguansi ]L'§~, and that all had pursued their practice in eamest both day and night. 110

Thus we cannot get a definite picture ofwhat the stance ofKumarajiva himselfwas toward Buddhabhadra and his school, or how it developed over time. However

Buddhabhadra's case illustrates the fact that Kumarajiva was not the only influential foreign master in Chang'an and that along with the doctrines he had brought, there were others, also receiving great attention from the Chinese Buddhist community.

Kumarajiva and Y a o Xing

Kumarajiva 's arrival at Chang'an was initiated by the invitation of the ruler of Later

Qin Yao Xing. Upon Kumarajiva's arrival, Yao Xing welcomed him as the preceptor of the state and provided him with a thoroughly equipped translation institution as well as with hundreds of first rate Buddhist scholars as assistants. Furthermore, as we ha ve seen earlier, according to the bibliographies of Kumarajiva in both the GSZ and the CSZJJ, Yao Xing took active part in Kumarajiva's translation sessions. We can see that the relation between the master and the king must have been very close. To be sure, Yao Xing was providing support to other Buddhist teachers and communities as well. However, as has been mentioned in connection with Buddhabhadra, Kumarajiva and his students were probably the most favoured.

110 Quoted by Tsukamoto in "Dates", p.571.

57 According to the GSZ, Y a o Xing was concemed that such an exceptional master as

Kumarajiva should leave the world without posterity. Therefore, so it is said in the biography, he forced Kumarajiva to leave the monk' quarters and live in a house provided by the ruler, with a barem of ten and a generous regular pension. From this passage it seems that Tsukamoto i s right in saying that Kumaraj iva' s violation of the monastic vows was probably a fact, leaving aside the motives which gave rise to it.

The GSZ continues to quote Kumarajiva's words, which he would say to anyone who came to seek him in his new home to ask for advice: "My words are like a lotus growing in a stinking swamp. Pluck the lotus, but do not touch the swamp."

Kumarajiva's Death

The GSZ contains the following passage as Kumarajiva's last words addressed to the monastic community before his death:

"I have met with you all as the Law had ordered. However, not all of my intentions were fulfilled. Now that I am leaving this life, how can I express my grief? An ignoramus, I have engaged in the mission of translating scriptures. I have translated three hundred scrolls of sutras and shastras. There is only one text, the Sarvastivadavinaya, which has not gone through the final editing. If you tum to the meaning of the sutras, you will find no errors nor omissions. " 111

The question of omissions in Kumarajiva's translation's actually represents one ofthe central topics of the discussion of his principles of translation. As will be seen bellow

Kumarajiva advocated omissions in translations of the Indian originals in to Chinese.

But as is obvious from the quoted passage, he was convinced that while leaving out words or sometimes whole passages of the text, he could guarantee that no ne of the true meaning of the scriptures would be lost.

111 Kumarajiva's biography in the GSZ.T50, no.2059, p.332c-333a.

58 The GSZ mentions that before dying, Kumarajiva made an oath saying that if there are no errors in his translations, then after his body is bumt, the tongue will remain intact. And so it really happened- the tongue remained intact, says the GSZ.

Having recapitulated the life and activities ofKumarajiva, it might seem surprising that although Kumarajiva is considered to be the most influential translator of

Buddhist scriptures in to Chinese of all ages, along with the translator

Xuanzang, he has on ly spent a very short period of hi s life translating - mere eight years starting from 401 AD when he arrived to Chang'an and ending by his death in

409 AD. Let alone the fact that it was only in this short period of time that he gradually became proficient in Chinese.

59 4. Kumarajiva's Principles of Translation

Kumarajiva himselfhas never composed any comprehensive theory oftranslation.

However from various comments preserved in the prefaces and colophons written by

Kamarajiva's students and collaborators, it is possible to reconstruct a set ofbasic principles guiding Kumarajiva's translation work. 112

Based on the different accounts recorded in prefaces and biographies, Wang W enyan suggests that Kumarajiva's translation principles can be summarized into three main points:

1. emphasis on polished/refined language mffrW. Jtfi'rtí

2. use of omissions and additions lllJ-U~, ±mfffi

3. correcting terms *Tii:ť;f(

Obviously when these principles are examined against the actual translations, one finds that they are all applied simultaneously, and therefore it doesn't seem appropriate to try to force out representative examples. However, pointing out the limitations of the approach, Wang Wenyan stili proceeds to deal with these princip les sequentially.

Emphasis on polished/refined language Iff~Jttifp

This first principle can be very clearly attested by the quality of Kumarajiva's translations themselves. Indeed, if Kumarajiva's translations stand out among the

112 ln this section of the Thesi s we will amply draw on the findings made by professor Wan Wenyan in his Fodian Hany i :chi yanjiu f?t ~lli'J;i~'f.{_ 1i}f'1{(Study ofthe Chinese Translations oj Buddhist Scriptures), where he presents a comprehensive summary ofthe theoretical principles behind Kumarajiva's translation work.

60 various Chinese versions of Buddhist scriptures, it is precisely because of the smooth and flowing quality of their language, the elegance of the words.

In his biography in the GSZ, we find a passage in which Kumarajiva discusses the difference between the Indian and Chinese literary styles with Sengrui.

fJJ1;_l,>F~11'f~;z::t~xf%BJj o !0~1t111JM o From the beginning, Sengrui, a shramana of great talent and wisdom, followed Kumarajiva and wrote down his words. ff~m~~~~mm~~~~~o~~~m~m~o Kumarajiva discussed with Seng about the similarity and difference ofthe language and style of the West. In India litera ture is valued highly.

~g~mM~A~m~oR~~E~~-~ 0 The tones (harmonies) (gong and shang are tones in the old 5 tone system), styles and rhymes sound best when accompanied by stringed instruments [of the land of India]. Everyone who presents himself before the monarch has to praise his virtue.

~mz~o~~~mWo~$m~~~~fuo In the ritual of beholding the Buddha, the song i s used to praise and admire. The gathas and sl o kas of the sutras are of the same style.

S:Jlr:i'*é~ 1+-.jt'W-++- !i!{f:/.El +=

~{l;ZD~!WWA o;;lló{/E~P;K o7'J4J"D~D~fu o [Otherwise] it would be like people pre-chewed food, which loses the original taste, and might even lead to vomiting. 113

From the above quotation we can clearly see that for Kumarajiva the difference between the literary styl es of India and China was of great concem indeed. It also suggests, that Kumarajiva certainly preferred a comprehensive approach to translating, taking into account both the meaning and the form. In other words, he would not be

113 GS/.: CBFTA: T50n2059 _p0332b23(04)- T50n2059 _p0332b29(02), GSZ 3326:

61 satisfied with a literal translation, however exact it may be, and he would continue to search for a rendering which would be at the same time exact and pleasing to the ear.

The following quote from the GSZ biography of Sengrui can serve as another fitting illustration of Kumaraj iva' s attitude.

1lJi!fllm#&o #XMw i[ o Jui collaborated in perfecting the sacred texts which Kumarajiva translated.

Long before, Dharmaraksha had translated the Sadharmapundarikasutra. In the Shoujue (Predictions of future enlightenment) there is the passage which reads, "Gods look at men and men look at gods."

Kumarajiva, in translating the sutra, reached this point and said. This passage agrees in meaning with the Serindian, but it is too crude and literal ~ 114 in its wording."

#JR o l~~~A:K3(t~l>W1~t§5L 1t%R o Jui said, "Would it not be better to render it, 'Men and gods are interrelated, and the two can see each other'?" Kumarajiva was pleased and said,

"This is exactly right." Manifestation of his commanding insight and his exemplary quality were all of this kind. 116

Dharmaraksha's 7(~A , A ~7( is already smooth enough, argues Wang Wenyan.

But Sengrui's rendering _A7(~~ ' j}.f;\jf~;f§~ seemed more adequate to Kumarajiva because it accorded with the four-syllable prosodic pattem, which has gradually

114 For discussion of the terms zhi and wen, see footnote no.47 on page 25. 115 GSZ: CBETA: T50n2059_p0364b02(09)- T50n2059_p0364b06(01). 116 Translating tian as gods or devas is appropriate bere. The passage is a part of description of the , in which the beings who were receiving Buddha' s prediction are going to be bom once they reach enlightenment. ln that pure land, the world ofhuman world and the world ofthe gods (two ofthe six realms of ) will be so cl ose, that "gods and men will be interrelated, and they will be able to see each other." Kumarajiva's translation ofthe Lotus Sutra (Miaofa lianhuajing ftj>$fi* ~Ji':), T 09, no.262, p. 1cl2-62bl. "J...)!(xt#!i: , jí.jj,jj~,f§J!"- p.27c25.

62 become one of the characteristic features of Chinese scripturallanguage117 and the additional two characters :).(~ make the whole image easier to understand.

However, although Kumarajiva did emphasize the refined and polished language of

the translations, the texts which were the outcome of his translation activities were

obviously not products of only Kumarajiva's own skill and effort. Kumarajiva- a

non-native speaker of Chinese - would hardly be able to achieve such a level of

refinement and fluency of the translations, had it not been for his many Chinese

collaborators. Indeed, as can be seen from a number of remarks in various prefaces

and colophons, Kumarajiva's Chinese was not particularly good when he arrived at

Chang'an. According to Wang Wenyan, Kumarajiva was barely able to be fluent in

spoken Chinese of everyday use. This fact can be supported by the following quotes

from various prefaces in the CSZJJ.

5.Mil-4- (401) 201h day of lih month Kumarajiva enters Chang'an.

5.MilJ[91f. (402) *{íffl*i3 has not mastered the language ofQin yet (CSZJJ, juan 8, Jst.táMí~Jf by Sengrui)

5.Mil[J]'if. (402) :ft§'ri!fJi!g~ ' fíij:1Ji3*VM! Although he made the translations himself, he did not have a full command of the locallanguage.(CSZJJ,juan ll, B§íÍffff by Sengzhao)

Prom these two remarks by Sengrui and Sengzhao we can assume that even though

Kumarajiva spent 17 years in Liang Zhou, he has not mastered the Chinese language

117 Interestingly enough, the prosodic four-syllable pattern had been widely used for Buddhist translations since late Han. Ziircher in his "A New look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts" points out, that the use of the prosodic four-syllable pattern- a stylistic convention that played a dominating role in secular classic literature of the period- i s the most striking example of certain features of Chinese literary style which were gradually introduced in the Buddhist translations. He further explains that the stages of introduction of this pattern in to the translations are very clear: total absence in the works of An Shigao and Lokaksema, occasional appearance in the eighties ofthe second century (An Xuan, T 322), universa! application in the !atest Han translations. Then it was to remain dominant in all Jater Chinese Buddhist scriptures. cf. Ziircher, "A New Look ... ", p 286

63 during these years. It rather seems that he started seriously leaming the languages

only after his arrival at Chang'an.

5L~f!iJ\if. (406) f!3ť~$cp ' 51...~15§ Having been exposed to the environment, he became proficient in the locallanguage (CSZJJ,juan 8, *~~~a*~r.f by Sengrui)

This quote seems to testify to the fact that by his sixth year in Chang'an, Kumarajiva

was already very proficient in the language.

Indeed Sengrui' s remark from the preface to the Da z hi s hi lun :*:~f~§ífa from the

year 405 seems to describe the state of Kumarajiva's Chinese most accurately: 1!@ffi

a general understanding of the language of the Qin, therefore his translation were only

general. His knowledge of the locallanguage was not sufficient, and therefore he

couldn't understand those places, which were charged with deep meaning). This

means that by the year 405 Kumarajiva was already fluent in Chinese of everyday use,

and he was able to explain the meaning of the sutras using this basic spoken language,

but when it came to places in the texts charged with deep meaning, he didn't have the

skill and proficiency to express them accurately in Chinese.

From these quotes about the state ofKumarajiva's Chinese we can clearly see to

what extant Kumarajiva was indebted to his Chinese collaborators. Furthermore,

while trying to define the "theory of translation" behind Kumaraj iva' s work, there i s

another factor which we should keep in mind. Namely, it is the fact that

Kumarajiva's Chinese collaborators and students had their own view ofthe topic of

scriptural translation and therefore that the translations produced were not necessarily

entirely representative of Kumarajiva's translation princip les alone.

64

i. When Kumarajiva's assistants were noting down the translations, they were not necessarily always in complete agreement with Kumarajiva's opinions, as can be seen from CSZJJ juan 8, preface to :lcrfr:~*~ by Sengrui:

"While writing [ the translations] down, I was contemplating the instructions of my late teacher [Dao'an] ofli9(:&' ~/f~. And I was worrying greatly, and tried to be alert and strict, because although there was a certain rendering of the depth [in the translations], the understanding was not sufficient". 118

Sengrui was a disciple ofDao'an and his outlook on translation ofsutras was identical with Dao'an's. In his later years, Dao'an's view was that the translation should be zhi

~ as opposed to wen -x_, ie. simple and literal rather then elegant and polished. 119

After Dao'an's death, Sengrui found himselfamong the followers ofKumarajiva.

Kumarajiva's and Dao'an's opinion was almost opposite when it came to the dichotomy of zhi and wen, and Sengrui was locked in between. No wonder he says that upon remembering the instructions of his late master he was worrying greatly.

However, Sengrui gradually understood that the meaning is not being compromised in

Kumarajiva's translations. Then he no longer held the preconceived notion of zhi versus wen, and he also worried no longer about the fact that the language was only approximate. After all, even Dao'an's views on wen and zhi were flexible as long as the objective, mubiao- accurate rendering of the meaning, was not compromised. 120

Sengzhao, another close collaborator of Kumarajiva, says in the same volume in a

~ h 83 +H:«< pre1ace to t e s·zyl) ... mg ;~'lrrtíf=:

118 CSZJJ scroll 8. Preface to The Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 Unes (Dapinjing xu :AJtf.\'tif) T55 no.2145, p 52c27 119 As has been mentioned in footnote no.47 on page 25, the dichotomy ofthe terms zhi and wen was present in the Chinese intellectual tradition way before the introduction of Buddhism. The original meaning of z hi can be defined as "raw matter" or "substance", of wen as "cul ture", "that which i s refined". When these terms are used in the context of an approach to trans lati on, it can be argued that the "raw matter or substance" of z hi would i mp ly literalness and simplicity, while wen would i mp ly refinement and elegance of style. 120 See chapter 5: "Principles ofTranslation of Dao'an"

65 "The respectful and famous previous translations are of considerably beautiful words, but they confuse the meaning. In them, beautiful surface is allowed to distort the words. The taste i s diluted because of the omaments. [The previous translators] were able to accomplish something, yet the trne meaning remained unrevealed. The meaning for the most part remains buried under the words." 121

In the same volume, in a preface to the Vimalakirtisutra, Sengzhao criticizes Zhi Qian and Zhu Fahu for using the terminology of the xuanxue ::Z~ and for getting caught in the words zhiwen 1Wtx.

Both Sengrui and Sengzhao were extremely dissatisfied with the translations of Zhi

Qian and Zhu Fahu and others. They blame them for using flowery omate language which hinders the expression of the meaning. 122 Therefore, while assisting

Kumarajiva, they were obviously careful not to follow the same tracks. Therefore, even though Kumarajiva held the principle of polished and refined language in great esteem, there were hi s cautious assistants making sure that overly omate style of the translations do es not begin to hinder the clarity of the meaning.

Wang concludes that the outcome ofKumarajiva's collaboration with his Chinese assistants were translations the quality of which can be summarised in to two points:

H)j Él ~~p~, 1*/\1~ til (clear and unobstructed, profound meaning explained in simple language.) 123

121 CSZJJ scroll 8. Preface to The Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 Lines (Dapinjing xu :k~fo.\'Hf) T55 no.2145. 122 This joint criticism seems somewhat unjustified given the fact that Zhu Fahu's (i.e. Dharmaraksa's) translations are known to be very litera!, whereas Zhi Qian's translations represent an extreme offree translation within the history of early translation of scriptures in China. 123 Wang. Fodian Hanyi Yanjiu, p 220.

66 To illustrate the fluency and clarity ofKumarajiva's translations Xi Xiu124 makes an interesting comparison of a translation of an extract from the Vimalakirtinirdesa made

125 by Zhi Qian (222-253AD), Kumarajiva (401-409 AD) and Xuanzang (600-664) .

Let us briefly examine Xi Xiu's findings, as it may help to illustrate what is meant by

Kumarajiva's emphasis on a polished and refined language.

One point which can be illustrated by comparing the three versions (see Appendix 2) of the exchange between Vimalakirti and Mahakashyapa is that Kumarajiva's translations tend to be briefer, or les s wordy, than those of the other translators. Let us for example look at the second sentence of the respective excerpts, in which the

Buddha tells Mahakashyapa to go to Viamalakirti and inquire about his illness. In this case Kumarajiva's translation is identical with Zhi Qian's, which implies that

Kumarajiva was pro bab ly satisfied with earlier Zhi Qian's rendering of this particular phrase in eight syllables and decided to keep it in his translation. On the contrary

Xuanzang uses 12 syllables to translate the same sentence, although the meaning conveyed is identical, i.e. Go and cal! on Vimalakirti to inquire about his illness.

124 Xi Xiu. "Luoshi yanjiu" in Xiandai Fojiao xueshu conggan. 125 Excerpt from the Viamalakirtinirdesa sutra, chapter 3, The Disciples. For the versions translated by the three respective translators see appendix 2.

67 Another examp1e illustrating Kuamrajiva's tendency to use briefpregnant 1anguage is

Mahakashyapa's answer, which can be rendered in Eng1ish as: I remember one day, when I was in the street of the poor beggingfor my food, the Licchavi Vimalakirti came along and said to me.

From this examp1e we can see again that the renderings made by Kumarajiva and Zhi

Qian are nearly identical. This seems to illustrate what we read in various prefaces about how meticu1ous1y Kumarajiva was correcting the previous trans1ations. Another examp1e of Kumarajiva's approach to previous trans1ation is his discussion with Seng

Rui about the wording of a phrase in the chapter Shou jue 3t1Ř (Predictions of Fu ture

Enlightenrnet) of the Miaofa lianhua jing ~'.Nii.3.J/l(H3Ii (Lotus Sutra), where

Kumarajiva refused to preserve the wording of the o1d trans1ation and rep1aced it with a new rendering. 126 Indeed the process of Kumarajiva's trans1ation work seems to have been 1argely based on editing o1der versions, wherever a given text had been prevwus. 1y trans 1ate d.mto Ch'mese. P?-

Xuanzang's trans1ation of the given phrase, on the other hand, differs from the other two. This time not on1y in number of characters, but a1so in meaning. His rendering of

126 See page 62. 127 Cfthe excerpt from GSZ which describes Kumarajiva's and Yao Xing's cooperation on translating the Prajnaparamita sutras. (Chapter 3, p. 48-49).

68 Mahakashyapa's answer includes two facts which are not present in either of the two previous translations. Namely, Mahakashyapa's specifies that the city where he had encountered Vimalakirti was Vaisali. Also, in Xuanzang's rendering Vimalakirti actually kowtows to Mahakashyapa before he begins to talk to him. The Sanskrit original of the has long been lost, and therefore it is impossible to verify whether this additional information was indeed present in the original text.

However from Xuanzang's meticulous approach to translating the scriptures, we can assume that he would not permit himself to insert any additional information in to hi s translation. (See chapter Xuanzang's Princip les of Translation).

Xi Xiu then proceeds to illustrate the flowing quality ofKumarajiva's language by a comparison of Viamalakirti' s first remark made to Mahakashyapa:

Zhi Qian: :tzP ~1'í1f:A-Rt~:A~H)t ~'Z o (A virtuous man who has great pity, and yet avoids the houses of the wealthy and begs alms among the poor.)

You have compassion and yet are not able to apply it universally, when you shun the wealthy and beg alms among the poor.)

In this case, Kumarajiva probably found the rendering of the previous translation insufficiently fluent. The effect of the change Kumarajiva made to the sentence is that its purport is clearer upon first hearing. We also see the application of the four

t' c syllable prosodic pattem in Kumarajiva's translation- flttjc;lti!L_!i"~~;t:;~t' rm/f~~~~- even without the use of punctuation, this section naturally falls into three four syllable

69 units, followed by a unit ofsix syllables: ti%~~1{t~,Z. Compared to the translation of Zhi Qian which is not segmented in any way, Kumarajiva's version seems much more suitable for recitation.

Interestingly enough, we also see that in this case Xuanzang ended up using an almost identical phrase in his translation of the sutra which in tum pro ves that just as

Kumarajiva, Xuanzang also examined the previous translations, editing and correcting them, in order to produce smoother and more exact renderings. In the chapter

"Xuanzang's Principles ofTranslation" we will present more examples ofthis type, illustrating that while Xuanzang was very critical of certain aspects ofKumarajiva's translations, he had at the same adopted large sections ofKumarajiva's versions with only minimum changes.

Using the same excerpt from the Vimalakirti Sutra, Xi Xiu also points out that

Kumarajiva achieves a sense of a natural flowing speech by means of inserting Wei,

Dajiaye! rJtt,jcJJm~ (Ah, Mahakasyapa!), when Vimalakirti addresses Mahakashyapa.

Kumarajiva uses this form of addressing four times throughout the exchange between

Vimalakirti and Mahakashyapa. In Zhi Qian's version this form of addressing is not present at all and instead Vimalakirti addresses Mahakashyapa twice using the term xianzhe ~%- (virtuous man). As for Xuanzang's translations, almost every Jiaye :i!1!l

~ (Kasyapa) is preceded by zunzhe :@:~- (reverend). Again it is most likely that

Xuanzang's rendering is more trne to the original, yet we cannot but agree with Xi

Xiu who argues, that the use of:@::=g does diminish to a certain extant the sense of a lively natural conversation.

70 Similar examples ofKumarajiva's language being brief and clear at the same time can be found in virtually all of his translations. And all such examples allow us to conclude that for Kumarajiva, the emphasis on an elegant, smooth and unobstructed language was indeed one of the most important princip les guiding his work. Indeed, as we have seen from Kumarajiva's explanation ofthe differences between Sanskrit and Chinese to Sengrui, he considered this principle often more important than faithfulness to the original.

Kumarajiva's use of omissions and additions fllřtl~, :ft *"I (~AB

Wang Wenyan explains, that there were three main motivations leading Kumarajiva to make omissions and additions in the translations of scriptures:

1. making the style of the translations more in accordance with the originals

2. judging how much detail was appropriate for the Chinese audience/readership

3. making the translations more fluent and easy to understand

The first motivation, the effort to make the style of the translation more true to the original, has to do with the fact that many of the older translations were made from versions of the scriptures in various Central Asian languages, not necessarily Sanskrit.

While comparing the older translations with the Sanskrit originals, Kumarajiva would identify places which did not accord with the original due to discrepancies in the intermediate Centra! Asian versions. In such cases, he would edit the translations by making omissions, additions and other changes so that the translation would accord with the original Sanskrit versions. Such a process is described for example in

Sengrui's preface to the Prajnaparamitasutra in 25,000 Lines (Dapinjing xu :*:r:fr:J*~

Ff): "The old translation contained the preface, a chapter called Avaivartika (JíilJf~N),(:

71 ~Jz:rfo), and a chapter called the (rirfo). The remaining sections were only indicated by numbers. Since Kumarajiva considered that these names were not given by the Buddha, he only kept the preface, and left out the other two items." 128

The second reason which lead Kumarajiva to make omissions and additions- ~{jllj~~"/A '\

lihé"Ji'ffl!?.fHIU~- judging how much detail was necessary for the Chinese and

subsequent simplification- concerns mainly translations of commentaries rather than

translations of sutras.

In the Da zhi lun ji 7\~~Íff!~c (Colophon to the Da zhi du lun 7\~kf~Íffl) 129 Sengrui

says that Kumaraj iva translated the first chapter of the Da z hi du lun 7\~ J:fjjÍffJ

(Mahaprajnaparamita-upadesa-sastra) in its entirety. As for the remaining two

chapters, Kumarajiva made substantial omissions and translated only their gist. He

only translated the introductory explanations, but didn't proceed to translate the

subsequent extensi ve explanations. 130 W ang W enyan argues that o ne of the reasons

for such omissions was Kumarajiva's belief that the Chinese had a liking for terseness

(qin ren hao jian *AHFJJ). Wishing to attune to the literary taste of the Chinese,

128 Wang. Fodian Hanyi, p 225. Quote from CSZJJ scrolliO, T55, no.2145., :kr'FJJk~Ff. 129 CSZJJ scroll 10, T55, no.2145. 130 Edward Conze says about the same text in The Prajnaparamita Literature: , p 93: "Only the first chapter, parivarta, is translated in full, in the first 34juan . ... ofthe remaining 89 chapters, only an abstract is given." :k~}jt§ífij, Mahaprajnaparamita-upadesa-sastra, is a gigantic commentary written during the first two centuries ofthe Christian era, presumably on the version of Prajnaparamita in 25 000 fines. The commentary is ascribed to Nagarjuna and it reflects the attitude ofthe Madhyamaika school. The Sanskrit original ofthe commentary is completely lost. There exists no Tibetan translation ofthe scripture either, which leads most scholars to the assumption that the Sanskrit original had already been lost by 800 AD, since it is difficult to imagine that the Tibetan translators wouldn't make a translation of such a major PP commentary had it been available to them. Kumarajiva's trans lati on made between the years 402 (404?) and 406 is therefore the only extant version ofthe text. And even this is not complete. Kumarajiva's translation has 90 chapters in 100 scrolls, whereas a complete trans lati on of the alleged I 00 000 slo kas would ha ve to comprise I 000 scrolls. Cf. E.Conze. The Prajnaparamita Literature. Munshiram Maniharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1978. p 93

72 Kumarajiva tried as much as possible to convey the essential meaning in concise words.

The third reason for omissions and editions - making the translations more fluent and easy to understand - was brought about by the fact that the authors of commentaries to sutras were men of various degrees of literary accomplishment. Therefore the style and level of literary refinement of these differs significantly. In order to spare the

Chinese reader the difficulty, Kumarajiva would make omissions and additions so that in the final translations were smooth and easy to read.

In his Tongshou yuman lunfanwen canben ba :!i[5it:OifrJ:W§ffif:l'it3t71:;;t~Jt, ChenYinke

~_jff§Í['['í?r 131 presents a number of examples comparing Sanskrit originals with Chinese translations. These examples clearly illustrate how Kumarajiva would make omission where he found the original too cumbersome, how he did not strictly adhere to the literary form of the original, and how he made changes in the original. Let us briefly mention three of the examples presented by :

The first example concems the translation of the Sutralankarasastra by Asvagosha.

Chen Yinke shows that the last section of the last chapter of seroU 1O of the sastra has not been translated completed, and instead Kumarajiva made an abbreviation of the section. Similarly the last section of the first chapter of vol ume ll has not been translated, but is only presented as a brief summary in the Chinese version. This is an example ofKumarajiva's omissions and abbreviations. The second example concems the fact that Kumarajiva often didn't adhere to the literary form ofthe original.

131 Chen Yinke !í*Ji:l:'['g.. Tongshouyumanlunfanwen canben ba Q'(~IJíj,j~AAij:J\t)Clj~Jt;:Ji,&:, published in Qinghua xuebao 4:2 (December 1927), 1337-1341.

73 Namely, when the original was composed of altemating passages in prase and verse, he would freely change the two, sometimes translating verse by prase, and vice versa.

Thirdly, Chen Yinke presents clear examples of how Kumarajiva sometimes intentionally changed the original. One example is that while the original talks of a particular Indian hermit of the name Kanva, Kumarajiva considered that this proper name would not be intelligible to the Chinese anyway, and therefore translated it instead by the common noun zhu xian ~{Úl, thus also changing it from singular to plural. Another similar example is when Kumarajiva uses the name Xunmi IIW!SI, i.e. mount Sumeru, for various Indian names of different mountains, like Mandara and

Vindhya. Here too, Kumarajiva probably assumed that the different names would not mean anything to the Chinese anyway. As we will see in the chapter "Xuanzang's

Principles ofTranslation", it was precisely these inaccuracies ofKumarajiva's translations that Xuanzang would criticise so much.

Correcting terms liT iE-1'5.

Wang Wenyan continues to explain that apart from the above mentioned, Kumarajiva made a substantial contribution to the work of translating Buddhist scriptures in to

Chinese by revising the terminology which was currently in use. Before Kumarajiva's arrival, the Chinese Buddhist scholarship was dominated by the geyi approach, also known as matching the meaning. This approach arose from the belief, that the best way to explain the Buddhist ideas to people raised in Chinese culture is by means of

analogy. An important protagonist of this approach was Zhu Faya ~1:!!1i. In the Wei

shu ~if, seroU 114, we find the following explanation in the geyi style made by Zhu

Faya:

74 "The practitioner relies on the Three Jewels (san bao -Jr), Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, which are like the three things that a gentleman fears/respects (san wei - ~ of the junzi :B -1'- ). The practitioner also has five things to abandon ( wu jie 1itlX;): killing (sha ~~), stealing (dao ~), licentiousness (yin~), lying (wang yan)~§ and intoxication (yin jiu)ax1Jm. Broadly speaking, these are like the Five Norms (wu chang Em): humanity (ren {-), righteousness (yi ~), propriety (li m~), wisdom (zhi 9§1), trustworthiness (xin {§)."132

Although the quoted example of geyi makes an analogy between Buddhist concepts and Confucian terms, most of the geyi analogies were made in connection with the philosophy of xuanxue, using terminology from the Yijing, Laozi and Zhuangzi. A representative example of a Buddhist meaning matched with a neodaoist term is wu m~ (the neodaoist "inexistence, non-being"), or ben wu *~ ("the original non- being"), which was widely used to translate the concept of sunyata of the prajnaparamita philosophy (kong ~). Similarly, the daoist term wuwei ~~ was matched to the Buddhist nirvana, and the dialectical relation between "action" (dong

!b) and "quiescence" (i ing jl@) of the daoist philosophy was equated to the two truths of Buddhism: the conventional truth (sudi {~§\%) and the ultimate truth (zhendi ~

Dao'an, Zhu Faya, Zhu Fatai and others were using the method of geyi widely in the mid third century. However, later in his career Dao'an realized the harmful consequences of the method. Dao 'an began to understand, that by assuming that the

Buddhist categories and concepts must reflect those present in the Chinese traditional philosophy, Chinese intellectuals were preventing themselves from understanding the

Buddhist philosophy for what it really was. Thus before even acquainting themselves

132 Wei s hu~~. scroll 114. Quoted according to Wang Wenyan, Fodian hanyi zhi yanjiu, p. 231. 133 See Demiéville, Paul. "Philosophy and Religion from Han to Sui." p 838.

75 with the Buddhist categories properly, they projected their own concepts on them. In this way, we can see how, by the second half ofthe fourth century, there were already flourishing six Chinese "schools" ofPrajnaparamita scholarship, arguing vehemently with one another. 134 Even though Dao'an was aware of the inaccuracies and misunderstandings brought about by geyi and he tried to abandon it completely, he was greatly disadvantaged by the fact that he did not know Sanskrit himself.

Therefore he was not able to completely free himself from the old habit. Kumarajiva himself was greatly troubled by the habit of geyi and put great effort in revising and systematizing the terminology confused previously by geyi. lt is interesting to see that two and a half centuries later, Xuanzang would become equally troubled by the inaccuracies which Kumarajiva made in his translations. This simply proves that the emergence of systematized and comprehensive translations of the Buddhist scriptures in Chinese was a long process of continuous revisions stretching over many centuries.

134 For a detailed discussion ofthe Prajnaparamita scholarship in the spirit of geyi exegesis, prior to Kumarajiva 's arrival, see Tsukamoto. History. "Doctrinal Disputes and the Advance of Prajnaparamita Study." p 361-384.

76 5. Dao'an's Principles of Translation

In most litera ture discussing or even merely touching on the topic of the early

Buddhist translations into Chinese, whenever it comes to Dao'an, one reads about his famous eight principles, the so called wu shi ben san bu yi 1L~4: -- /1'~, i.e. five deviations and three difficulties. Furthermore one reads that these have become extremely influential guidelines for the work of later translators. To Dao'an's contemporaries as well as to many contemporary researches, such a set of clearly formulated principles certainly seemed very appealing. Even more so given the fact that it i s the only clearly formulated "theory" of scriptural translation into Chinese.

Y et let us not be misguided by the compact and clear formulation of the eight principles, since equally important as their formulation is also the fact that late in his life Dao'an made a radical revaluation ofhis outlook, as a result ofwhich he dismissed most of the eight princip les he had previously adhered to.

In this section we will therefore first discuss these eight principles, but later we will also describe how, later in life, Dao'an came to dismiss these same principles.

135 Dao'an's .li~~ · /F~ : (The English translation bellow was made by Leon

Hurvitz. 136 We have decided o use his translation for the purpose of this chapter, although it is rather a free one, because it clearly captures the essence ofDao'an's concems which we are discussing. However not to lose track of the literal meaning we also provide the excerpt from the original text, as found in CSZJJ scroll 8.)

135 CSZJJ scroll 8. T 55 no.2145. p52b-c. 136 Hurvitz. "Chih-I", p 62.

77 Five deviations li~-4:

1. ~::títJ3~ttiH1f~fí01~fjé*o ~~4:illo i.e. alteration ofword order 2. =1'f(i}j?,;~MjJ!io *A~f)(o 1$PJ~JC,\~~)(/f;;ifo jl:JT=~*illo i.e. embellishment of verbiage on the Chinese translation in order to please the sensibilities of the sophisticated Chinese reader 3. ·1'fM~~~~~~~oT·&~o~-~~o~~~~omJ~~fro · ~ 4: ill o i. e. omission in the Chinese translation of repetitious phrases which occur ad nauseam in the Indian Buddhist scriptures 4. ~ 1'f 15~ ~ ~ gc:iE 1U, tmL ~f. o .ey. g}llwHl§ )( f!\U2U'iL ~ T 1i s >

The three difficulties · /f~ ~

1. ~:16, ~ D#D"if11t~ ~o ff0111Jij5f!Et!l::J.:@~D-;J o ~ /f~~ ill o i.e. translating the scriptures in such a way as to make them seem applicable to the translator's time 2. m~~~~A.lli~o~~~T~~k-~o-~irTII~T*mo=~

~ ill o i.e. translating them in such a way as to make these scriptures, originally composed for the saints of yore, intelligible for the fools of today 3. ~-ili~L~*~o#*~~~niTA~~~~mo~~T~rm~ili~ ASo~~R~~~~~~o~~~AffO~~~~o~~~~~1'f~ fo jl:JT · · /f~ ~ ill o i. e. taking care that these scriptures, that even Ananda and Kashyapa pronounced with trepidation, lest they misrepresent the Buddha's word in any way, are transmitted without error.

In the Zhongguo Jany i jianshi Ma Zuyi provides a more litera! explanation of

Dao'an's five deviations in the following way:

"While translating the sutras from Sanskrit, there are five kinds of circumstances in which the outer form of the translation differs from the original, and three criteria which are difficult to adhere to. As for the five deviations, they are: 1. The word order in the language of the original is often opposite than in Chinese. In such cases it i s necessary to adjust it to the Chinese grammatical structure. 2. The Sanskrit of the sutras is simple and straightforward (zhi), while the Chinese have a fondness for ornament and embellishment. If the translation i s to satisfy the reader in this respect, certain polishing of the language is required. 3. In the Sanskrit sutras, one and the

78 same meaning is often repeated as much as three times in a row. In translation these repetitions need to be omitted. 4. At the end of a section in the Sanskrit scriptures there follows a summary and commentary on the previous section, often in as many as one thousand or five hundred words. These sections also need to be omitted in the translation. 5. When one section ends in the Sanskrit original and another one is about to begin, there is always inserted yet another summary of the previous part. These summaries should also be omitted in translation." 137

Ma Zuyi then continues to explain the three difficulties:

"As for the three difficulties: 1. The Buddha was teaching with respect to the customs and circumstances ofhis time, yet the customs ofthe past were different from those of today. To translate in such a way that the customs of old can be adapted to modem times, that is the first difficulty. 2. To transmit the profound meaning of the subtle words of the sages of the past to beings of shallow knowledge of our times, that is the second difficulty. 3. After the death of Shakyamuni, when Ananda was repeating the sutras, he was extremely cautious. Yet today it is up to common ordinary people to transmit the teachings, and this is the third difficulty." 138

Looking at the deviations from the original and three difficulties of Dao 'an, it is

obvious that Dao 'an too, like so many of his predecessors and successors, was

concemed with the basic dilemma of translation: whether to lean more on the side of a

faithfulliteral translation which is necessarily less palatable to the reader, or whether

to sacrifice faithfulness in order to produce a smooth and elegant rendering in the

target language. Again these two poles can be related to the traditional Chinese

dichotomy of zhi (substance, raw matter) and wen (culture, that which is refined),

which in the context of an approach to translation imply literalness and simplicity on

one band, and refinement and omamentality on the other.

Basically all scholars agree that these eight points defined by Dao'an have become an

influential tool to generations of Chinese translators and in most litera ture dealing

with the topic we find references to accounts of later translators who were quoting

137 Ma Zuyi ,~m!l.~Jl:. Zhongguofanyijianshi cp~~§$f.,l~. Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chuban gongsi, 1984. pp 31-32. 138 lbid.

79 Dao'an's principles as their guideline. 139 Wang Wenyan summarizes the five deviations and three difficulties into four basic principles, which can be seen as an expression of Dao 'an' s outlook on scriptural translation as such:

1. grammatical structure must be adapted to the Chinese language 2. the language of the Chinese translation must be pleasing and easy to read 3. repetitions should be omitted to various degrees 4. under no circumstances should the meaning be lost140

Analyzing the points further, Wang concludes that points 1., 2. and 3. concem the method (j'angfa 111'!.), whereas point 4. concems the objective (mubiao § f~). Wang further observes that for Dao'an, the mubiao remains essential throughout his career,

Whereas as concems the method, his statements in various forewords and epilogues seem to be contradictory. To get a better understanding as to why would Dao'an's comments on the method seem contradictory, let us take a closer look at how Dao'an was gradually introduced into the difficulties and contradictions connected with translation of scriptures.

As Dao'an didn't know Sanskrit, when studying the Prajnaparamita he had to rely on

Chinese translations. Therefore he started examining different translations of the

Prajnaparamita sutras, namely the Prajnaparamita in 25.000 Lines. When he was comparing the Fangguang 15'5<.-Jf.t 141 to the Daoxini42 (since at the time it was thought these were made from an identical original), he discovered that there were omissions made in the Fangguang version and he considered it very beneficial: he concluded

139 As for scholars discussing the topic see: Ma Zuyu, 1984, pp 29-33. Wang Wenyan, pp 204. 140 Wang Wenyan, Fodian Hanyi, p. 204, 205. 141 The Fangguangjing/J'J.JY:J!Ii(The Scripture ofthe Emission ofRays) is a Chinese version ofthe Prajnaparamita in 25,000 fines, produced in 291 AD by the Kothanese Moksala ~.YZJi and the sinicized Indian Zhu Shulan ""'",r,;zr~. 142 The Daoxin boruo )ing iif:í:1iiíťl:;E'*~' Prajnaparamita in 25,000 Lines translated in to Chi nese by Lokaksema in late second century AD.

80 that after making the omissions the text became much more fluent and the language unobstructed, and therefore more straightforward and easier to understand. Yet when he compared the Guangzan 143 and the Fangguang versions, he leamed that the omissions made in the Fangguang version were not entirely justified. He came to understand that the Fangguang version left out too many words as a result ofwhich part o f th e essentla. 1 meamng . was 1ost. 144

In this way, Dao'an's understanding ofthe complexities ofscriptural translation

developed gradually. As Wang Wenyan145 points out, the year 382 became a breaking point in the development ofDao'an's outlook at scriptural translation. It is the year when Dao'an wrote the preface to the Combined Prajnaparamita }1t~nJffi"tm:&i1Uii:

#~1Yrf, in which he also mentions the 8 principles we have discussed above. Yet

while he mentions these in the preface, it is only to illustrate the major change which

his theory of translation had undergone. As Dao'an explains, the change was brought

about by the fact, that after many years of studying the PP from Chinese translations,

he was now finally able to understand ~ with the help of the translators with whom he

was closely cooperating in Chang'an- the word for word meaning ofthe Sanskrit

original. This experience lead Dao 'an to a co mp lete revaluation of his outlook at

scriptural translation. While until the year 382, the five deviations and three

difficulties discussed above constituted the basic principles Dao'an adhered to, from

382 on, he became a determined supporter of zhi against wen as far as translations

were concemed. Whereas previously he considered the translations of An Shigao and

Lokaksema too litera! and crude and as such detrimental to correct understanding,

143 Guangzan boruo }ing 7\:;~~:E'Ml~, Prajnaparamita in 25,000 Lines translated into Chinese by Dharmaraksa in 286AD. 144 Lu Wei I Ma Zuyu p 31 145 Wang Wenyan. p 214-218.

81 now he came to regard the work of these early translators as "carefully rendered

originals, setting a high standard for the future translators to follow" (1if1~ M4:, Jtt

t.i:%'íill). From the same year also comes Dao'an's preface to the Vinaya (biqiu dajie xu !:~ Fr.-A:ffiUf:), in which he speaks resolutely against the omissions and

embellishments in translations by which he clearly dismisses the five deviations he

was previously advocating.

Without realizing the change in Dao'an's outlook which occurred in 382, the various

remarks about scriptural translation we find in prefaces and colophons of the CSZJJ

may indeed make one conclude that Dao'an was rather inconsistent in his opinions

regarding this matter. But even ifwe acknowledge the change ofDao'an's position

ever since 382, we may find out that in one respect, Dao'an remains consistent both

before and after 382. To demonstrate this, let us use Wang Wenyan's terminology

which divides Dao'an's principles intofangfa and mubiao. lt is possible to say that

between the two-fangfa and mubiao- Dao'an had only changed his view regarding

the method, while with regard to the objective he remained equally uncompromising

before as well as after 382. As for the method, Dao'an's opinion has gradually shifted

from a slight preference for wen to a resolute preference for zhi.

Let us now briefly remind ourselves of the basic princip les which were applied in the

translation work ofKumarajiva. A mere glance at the three major rules behind

Kumarjaiva's work allows one to see how different they are from Dao'an's:

emphasis on polished/refined language í!tt~ )(if'rji use of omissions and additions lllJrj~, ±~fffi correcting terms fiT ii1'; Jr

82 The first two points in fact seem like a summary of the jive deviations dismissed by

Dao'an in the later years ofhis life. No wonder Sengrui, while noting down

Kumarajiva's translations was remembering the instructions ofhis late master and worrying greatly. 146 The third point- correcting terminology- refers to Kumarajiva's effort to divorce the scripturallanguage from the misleading remains of the geyi method. In this respect, Kumarajiva's work can be seen as a direct continuation of

Dao 'an' s effort and indeed as a fulfilment of the latter' s wish to purify Chinese

Buddhism from the pseudo-Buddhist interpretations of geyi.

146 For a detailed account of Sengrui 's collaboration with Kumarajiva, hi s doubts about Kumarajiva's method and their subsequent dispelling, see chapter 4: "Kumarajiva's Principles ofTranslation."

83 6. Xuanzang's Principles of Translation

Even though the Tang dynasty translator Xuanzang (600-664) was active some 200 years after Kumarajiva, in a certain sense his translation work represents a culmination or continuation of that Kumarajiva's. Therefore let us present a brief overview of his translation activity and the princip les which guided his translation work. 147 W e believe that such an overview might shed some interesting light on the career ofKumarajiva since it will allow us to see Kumarajiva's work not only as a culminations of previous trends, but also as a part of a centuries long process which continued even after Kumarajiva's death. Like Kumarajiva's translations, Xuanzang's translation work also represents an important milestone, if not the most important o ne, in the history of Chinese Buddhist scriptural translation.

Xuanzang's translation career can be divided into three periods. In each period

Xuanzang focused on the translation of scriptures of a particular thematic area:

1. 645-650 - Yogacarya-bhumi-sastra 2. 651-660 - Abidharma Kosha 3. 659-664- Extensive Prajnaparamita

During these three periods spanning over nineteen years Xuanzang translated 75 volumes of scriptures, consisting of 1335 scrolls altogether. Prior to these periods,

Xuanzang travelled to India to study with Indian masters and to fetch the originals of the scriptures. In India he studied at the then renowned University, where he had eamed deep respect of the Indian scholars and practitioners for his outstanding un d erstan dmg. an d d"l"1 tgence. 148

147 For this brief overview we will also draw on some ofthe observations made by Wang Wenyan in Fodian hanyi zhi yanjiu, pp 248-270. 148 Ma Zuyu. Zhongguo Fanyi Jianshi. pp 53-66

84 Wang Wenyan summarizes Xuanzang's main concems with regard to scriptural translation to the following thee points:

1. He strived to make the translations complete. 2. Translations had to be absolutely true to the original. 3. There were five things not to be translated.

As for the first point, Xuanzang was aware that many previous translators of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese would freely make omissions in them. Xuanzang found this fact disconcerting and he insisted on retranslating and completing the old translations.

Even the Tang Emperor [gr'i''b* himself urged Xuanzang to focus on translating those texts which did not yet exist in Chinese translation instead of retranslating scriptures which have already existed in a Chinese version. But Xuanzang insisted on retranslating the old ones, which he was gravely dissatisfied with. 149 In the :lc;t;}~t~

- ffi1t:@ffl{f we read that Xuanzang would even have nightmares about the incomplete translations made by Kumarajiva (referring to them in words like tiD*I{t pfrflm , ~*~~m, ie. like the translations of Kumarajiva, in which so much is omitted that the essence is lost).

As for the second point - the uncompromising faithfulness to the originals: Upon comparing Xuanzang' s rendering of the same text to an earlier translation o ne may be surprised that the changes made were not all that radical. In fact when we talk about

Xuanzang's retranslating (chongyi m~~) the scriptures, we cannot imagine that he would make entirely new renderings, radically different from the old version. In fact it might almost be more accurate to refer to chong yi as 'editing of old versions' rather than 'retranslating' them. In Xuanzang's case this 'editing work' consisted ofusing

149 A.~.lfE,.!i' --~li.Vtnffl1W. T50. No. 2053. Quoted according to Wang Wenyan, p 250.

85 minor adjustments in order to make even more correct those parts in the old translations which were more or less correct already, but not entirely. Secondly it consisted of amending those parts which were incorrect or confused. Thirdly, it consisted of filling in all those parts which were omitted in the old translations and leaving out those which were added although not present in the originals.

All these types of amendments can be illustrated by looking at Xuanzang's translation of the Heart Sutra and comparing it to a translation made some 200 years earlier by

Kumarajiva. 15°First of all, the titles of the two versions differ. 151 Secondly, unlike

Kumarajiva's version, Xuanzang's version contains the introduction starting with

"thus ha ve I heard" ÝQ ~ JJG litl and specifying the time and place of where the sutra was transmitted. This illustrates the determination to translate every detail on

Xuanzang's part, and contrary to that the liberty with which Kumarajiva would randomly decide how much factual detail was necessary for the Chinese audience and how much was cumbersome. The rest of Xuanzang's translation is practically identical with Kumarajiva's with only a few exceptions. It uses a different term for (Kumaraj iva use s yin ~. Xuanzang yun *i.), leaves out two additions

150 for the Chinese originals see appendix 3 151 Kumarajiva's translation: T08 No. 250 [Nos. 251-255, 257] J:lfKnJf.ťt;ff~~~:;k:ll)j%~~ Xuanzang's trans lati on: T08 No. 253 [Nos. 250-252, 254, 255, 257] f.ťt;ff~~ ~ ::t'lAi'l:

86 152 inserted by Kumarajiva , and omits the words mahamantro A l:l}j n which is not found in any of the Nepalese manuscripts or Tibetan translations either. 153

Let us now quote the example of the title of the translated by

Kumarajiva, and retranslated by Xuanzang to better understand the nature of

Xuanzang's corrections ofthe old translations. Kumarajiva translated the name ofthe sutra as Jinggang banruo boluomijing ±~1JJN:t'f1ffi:~1ff,;~ (Scripture ofthe

Prajnaparamita which is like a diamond) .154 Xuanzang translates it as A.JN~1Bz~ 1f

~?.;~, ~tlVr~~Ht (Scripture of the Great Prajnaparamita, the part which can cut

155 even the diamond) . In the s utra, the are compared to a diamond, while the wisdom of prajnaparamita is described as that which can cut even the diamond-like

(ie. extremely hard and solid) kleshas. This meaning is however slightly blurred when

Kumarajiva compares the wisdom of prajnaparamita to the diamond in the title. In

Xuanzang's biography we find a section describing a discussion between Xuanzang and the Tang Emperor r'§J * in which Xuanzang explains the radical distortion of the meaning of the original brought about by the fact that Kumarajiva leaves out the two words neng duan ~~!Wf:

152 The first insertion consists ofthe words: ~;fljiJlj! 5~i\"JUWd~l~,fA, jl:~i\"J:,W,jl:,fA, fJ:!S':i\"J:,W, );UfA, {j'?i\"J:J!\fd'HR, ~ll!l?.i\"J:,W,~1Ao 1nJ!j[\"!(? afterwhichthetextcontinueswith~;fljiJlj! ~~~ ~~'~~~'~5o 5llPJl~~, ~~~[lPJl5o jl:, fJ:!, :ff, ~ijij)\~Q;}Io Xuanzang's rendering does not contain the inserted part, instead, after addressing Shariputra, it proceeds directly with: 5:f~'?, '?:f~5o 5llPJl~, ~llPR:5o jl:, fJ:!, 11< ~l"lXiJH!t!mJl. The second insertion consists of: Jl'?tt, ~~~*' ~~;f:Jk, ~~IJ/.{1:, which is not found in Xuanzang's translation at all.

153 Conze. The Prajnaparamita Literature, p. 22. 154 TOS No. 235 [Nos. 220(9), 236-239]1=:fiř;JrjfJl:!:-ň~K~ í~U~ 155 T07n0220_p0980a03(13) ll J.:fJJZ-ň$J.t~ 1f ~ i\'t{t:~ n. B {:;-!·{:; T07n0220_p09Soaoscoo)ll ~~Y!nijj~;~t,; Mn~ T07n0220_p0980a06(00) ll~ h ~glliJT:;(,::[iř;Jú -5t

87 "The merit and value of this sutra can be compared to an imperial edict. The men of the West hold it in equal veneration. Yet if we look at the old translations, we find they leave out the essence. For example, the Sanskrit original says: "Prajna which can cut even the diamond" (~~IWT~IlfiliJf.J)t::ff). The old translations only say: "Diamond prajna I Prajna which is like a diamond" (~llfiJUf.ťZ:#). The bodhisattva Subuthi (Yuming tiXI:l}j) explains that separation )t]Jij itself equals kleshas ;l:~·t~l. Furthermore, the confusion caused by separation is as solid/firm/hard 1M as a diamond. Only the essence explained in this s utra - the wisdom oj no-separation ~ 7t JJIJ ~- can cut it through. Thaťs why it says: prajna which can cut the diamond. Yet the old translations leave out the first two characters can cut ~~IWT." 156

The third major aspect of Xuanzang's translation work is the definition of five things not to be translated (wu zhong bufan 1i1'i+m~):

1. esoteric language, ( dharanis, etc.)

2. words with several meanings, (eg. bhagavan- ~1nojt which has six levels of

meaning which couldn't possibly be preserved in a Chinese translation)

3. words without an equivalent in Chinese (eg. Jambu tree)

4. terms which ha ve already been established in Chinese for centuries( eg. j)PJ;OO

~fh!:, annutara samyak sambhodi)

5. WOrds which SOUnd less impressive when translated (eg. m~:;g: VS :9§1~, i.e.

prajna vs wisdom).

By clearly defining these five categories, Xuanzang has made one step further in the systematisation of the Chinese Buddhist terminology. The process of systematisation has been going on virtually ever since the time of the first translations during the late

Han, when the two extremes of either translating all terms and names or transliterating them were syncretised into a first system of Chinese Buddhist terminology. 157 This system was then gradually upgraded by later translators, most importantly by

156 .A::~tJ~t,'f- ~liV!ňijjf~Ltr-t:;, T50. No. 2053. 157 See chapter 2: "Translating Buddhist Scriptures from 2"d to 4'h Century AD."

88 Kumarajiva, whose revised the terminology so as to divorce it from the anachronisms of geyi.

In the same way, Xuanzang's retranslations or new redactions of old translations can

also be seen as a continuation of a centuries long process of ever increasing

refinement of the translations. The most outstanding quality of the translations made

by Kumarajiva's team is undoubtedly the natural flow and elegance oftheir language.

While Xuanzang was able to retain this smooth and natural quality of the translations,

his major contribution to the process of refining the Chinese Buddhist translations was

in the uncompromising determination to make the translations as faithful to the

originals as possible, not permitting any changes, omissions and additions. Y et

Xuanzang was able to focus on refining the details and correcting inaccuracies to a

great extent thanks to the fact, that there already existed the translations of

Kumarajiva. And the quality ofKumarajiva's translations was such, that Xuanzang

didn't have to retranslate the whole texts, but rather he could focus on fintuning the

details. Therefore, even though the most widely known and popular version of eg. the

Hreart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra in Chinese is the version produced by Xuanzang,

we have seen that the bulk ofthese texts is actually a result ofthe team ofKumarajiva

and his collaborators, which was later completed by the final touch of Xuanzang.

Then there are certain other scriptures, like for example the Lotus Sutra and the

Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra, which have remained until this day in precisely the form in

which they were produced by Kumarajiva's team oftranslators in the fifth century.

Both of these scriptures ha ve become exceptionally influential not only within

Chinese Buddhism but they also influenced many Chinese artists, poets and

89 philosophers throughout the centuries. In this way, Kumarajiva's translations have become an integral part of the Chinese literary and cultural heritage.

90 Appendix 1 - Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra

Excerpts from the Vimalakiritnirdesa, Chapter 3, The Disciples. Dialog between Vimalakirti and Mahakashyapa. (As analyzed in Chapter 4: "Kumarajiva's Principles of Translation").

Translation by Zhi Qian.

T14n0474_p0522a08(00) ll 1~M5tl:%tkj}JQ~ o &i'Jil§*i•§aF~5* o

Tl4n0474_p0522a09(02) j}JQ~á{~§ o fj(;/ff~{f:il§1ElF~5* o pffJ;)~{iiJ o

Tl4n0474_p0522al0(02) ·[:l~fJGff~~j!~ffTii'JZ: o B~Ht•ila*~~fJG§ o

Tl4n04 74_p0522all(O 1) ~Otl~~::*:-Rfl§:::*:fri.if:Éj!z o

Tl4n0474_p0522al2(06) 'i"~08~$J]ffiffillM~?JTi'J o e~g/fít-Ri!&if:Éz o

Tl4n0474_p0522al3(04) ~0/fJ;)§::fi{í~~ o pJT/\.~cpi§J\JJt~:P: o

Tl4n0474_p0522al4(05) ?ff A.fJI1ZE3~0;l=l;fmfri. o M8§~%?JTi'JZ: o ~~M'ii!M,?JT§t o

Tl4n0474_p0522al5(01) ;fiJ!ě~O~~ o pJT!ifJV~OW~ o pJTD*~~OJJ1,~ o

Tl4n0474_p0522al6(00) ?JTitO-*/fj;)§f!H~ o *-ffifFtM,]l!~ o ~~~i!~O.íJ o

Tl4n0474_p0522al7(00) ~0~~48~/\!f~ o

Tl4n0474_p0522al8(09) J\~~IE§ttJIEk~!f~:g o J;J:Jl!::?JTZ:WI:--!;7JA. o Jj\J;J*WI:

M'i{~tl~ o

Tl4n0474_p0522al9(00) ll ~1&Elít o ~O:ll!::ít~m3-f:A'

Tl4n0474_p0522a20(00) ll /f~:g~Jj\M,pjf:ť[ o /f:ff±37E/f1!~~N o

Tl4n0474_p0522a21(01) ll ~Otl~ít?JTZ:W~ o m3-f:M,ti1J\3-f:::*:t~ o

Tl4n0474_p0522a22(02) ll m3-f:lti~1J\3-f:~trd: o

Tl4n0474_p0522a2301) ll :ll!::miE1~1~~/f1~:ffi-TZ~ o tl~~o:ll!::m/ftJ~*ít~ cp)jffio

Tl4n04 74 _pO S22a24(03) ll seyfJ(;iiJ::@: o lifJ ;l=l;ě.ft:ll!::~*W~ --I:JJ~ili 'i"mfFffr~ o

Translation by Kumarajiva:

Tl4n0475_p0540a25(02) 1~5::*:j}JQ~ o &i'J8§*-t•ilaF~5* o j}JQ~áfijjj§ o

Tl4n0475_p0540a26(00) iit:@: o fj(;/ff~{f:8§1ElF~5* o pJT~~~{iiJ o

Tl4n0475_p0540a27(02) ·f:l~fJGff~~j!JErm:f=rZ: o sey*t•ila*~~fJG§ o

Tl4n0475_p0540a28(00) Oi::*:j}JQ~ o ~1cE1J{j,rm/f~g{f o

Tl4n0475_p0540a29(04) fl§:~~if:Éj!z o j}JQ~ o f.=t.zr:~i:t~:::J:::f'JZ:ít o

Tl4n0475_p0540b01(02) m/fíti!&~i'JZ:ít o

Tl4n0475_p0540b02(09) m±~ffO-E!if§i!&~lf.SZtffiít o m/f§ti!&~3t1Elit o

Tl4n0475_p0540b03(06) I tJ~~;tJ!A.~~~m o ?JTJ!ě!M~~ o ?JTMVWW~ o

Tl4n0475_p0540b04(02) ll pJTD*~!MJJ1,~ o ?JTitO-*/f:5:1JllJ o

Tl4n0475_p0540b05(05) ll §t:~~fl/~0~§~ o ~OM'ii!~O.íJ;f§M,E!tiM,{lliti o

Tl4n0475_p0540b06(02) ll *E!/f~~~JjM,j~ o j}JQ~ o

Tl4n0475_p0540b07(08) ll ;G~g/fťi§'J\!f~A.J\~~~ft o J;)!f~if§A.IEi! o J;)-it)]ffi-

91 1J)o Tl4n0475_p0540b08(01) 111;J:HJ~f~&%

Translation by Xuanzang:

Tl4n0476_p056lc29(00) ll 'mB~t!t#-é-ill!.!~1& o Tl4n0476_p0562a01(08) ll &H!1!8§íM-t6f~?JTF~=~5~~* o *ill!.!~1&á 8 o t!t# o Tl4n0476_p0562a02(04) ll JJ<:::f±iH:f8§í1EžF~=~5* o?JTtJ1!§-1PJ o ·f:iťtfJ<:tfJ]~--B~Fs, o Tl4n0476_p0562a03(00) ll A.JJiM:±m~~~~~rm~z~ o Tl4n0476_p0562a04(04) ll B~M,±,tif~*1U1Ež?JT o f~§JJ<:JE.rmfF'~s o Oi*ill!.!~ o Tl4n0476_p0562a05(00) ll ~l~~1~rm::f~g=a o ~~'i'{tf~z o Tl4n0476_p0562a06(00) ll #1!§-ill!.!~ o {1:zts:~1!!!!*1'Tz~ o Tl4n0476_p0562a07(03) ll ~::f~i&H!i'Tz~ o Tl4n0476_p0562a08(11) ll ~~'X±!1&JJ~~~Jii&H!1'Tz ~ o ~~'X'3t1lli?JTJ1ffi~i&H!1'Tz ~o

Tl4n0476_p0562a09(03) ll tJ@~f~A.n~~m o ~~J\ft\Glí:A~:ft*;J\ o Tl4n0476_p0562a10(03) ll

Tl4n0476_p0562all(l8) ll A.~±mE'!.~1~*r~8§íz~*~::f'3ti&H!'3t1&~ o ?JTY!ě

W~~ o ?JTiíflVWm~ o Tl4n0476_p0562a12(02) ll pJTOffi!WWNR~ o ?JT~O*::f:5t55U o '3t~flltzo~n~ o Tl4n0476_p0562al3(00) ll ~D~1!tzOíJf§ o M-E"H1M-1llit1 o Tl4n0476_p0562al4(02) ll ~~~U~~M,~?~ o #1!§-ill!.!~ o Tl4n0476_p0562al5(07) ll :;g:~g::f~J\;f~A./\~~~jt o J;);f~zts:~A.IEzts:~ o Tl4n0476_p0562al6(05) ll tJ--:t,~JJffir--111 o 1:tHl~1%&%

92 Appendix 2- Heart Sutra

(Analyzed in Chapter 6: "Xuanzang's Principles ofTranslation")

Translation by Kumarajiva:

T08n0250_p0847c06(00) ll No. 250 [Nos. 251-255, 257] T08n0250_p0847c07(00) ll J*§ilJffi)ť~rEUi~::kfjJ§'J-EMí~ T08n0250_p0847c08(00) ll T08n0250_p0847c09(00) ll fr:Jt*7Z~ ~ ~~J*a1t§~ T08n0250_p0847cl0(00) ll T08n0250_p0847cll(l9) lllltltif~l\i · i'Ti~ffi)ť~r~m~sey · ~.~.%1i~~ · N-W '@f~o T08n0250_p0847cl2(14) ll T08n0250_p0847cl3(34) ll 1 %fU9t ! ě~i&~'['~±!;f§ ' ~~;!&~~i'§ ' f~~ti~

~~Di'§ ' i'J~i&~fFi'§ · §~~i&~W:i'§ o

T08n0250_p0847cl4(14) ll fPJtJ;f&? %fiJ9t ! ~Fě~~ ' ~F~~ě o ě~P:;!ik~ ' ~ ~P:;!ikě o ~ , f~ , i'J ,

T08n0250_p0847cl5(02) ll ~?Ď\~D:;!ik o T08n0250_p0847cl6(19) ll 1 %fU9t ! :;!ik§ti1!~i'§ ' /f~/f1~ ' /f±_6/f1' ' /f±~

/fi~ o :;!ik~r! · ~F:~:=E , ~F:** , ~F:rJl:f± o T08n0250_p0847cl7(00) ll :;!ik;l&~cp~ťg ' ~~ ' f~ ' i'J ' ~ ' ~§N ' 1} ' •' 15,~, T08n0250_p0847cl8(00) ll ~ ' ~tg ' V ' ~ ' ~ ' Ml ' T08n0250_p0847cl9(12) ll T08n0250_p0847c20(31) lir! · ~§NWJJ~~~~W · ~~S)jzfr\~~fjJ§3'1 · JJ~~ ~~~~~*•~~'~'~'~'~~~~fflo --t::J/Lin,,t/U.1±:tť. /1\\ D ~ i/~ J..t:i "" B ~j\11\\ r'-J 1 T08n0250_p0847c21(09) ll .L-~~?M~i& · ~l\i11Xffi)ť~1~a~i& · ,~,~~W o T08n0250_p0847c22(07) ll ~~Wi& · ~i'f!~'[Ttl · /W--f;JJi'rri1lU~f~'5'['~ · '1C3t1."E

T08n0250_p0847c23(02) ll

T08n0250_p0847c24(20) 11 ~ tttM!119'1H:t

T08n0250_p0847c26(03) ll i&~ffi)ť~1Ela~'J-E o J ~P§~'J-EEJ : 1 T08n0250_p0847c27(00) 11 ~~w ~~w 1~m~~w 1Ela11W~~w ~m T08n0250_p0847c28(00) ll {1f§/OOJ J T08n0250_p0847c29(00) ll J*§ilJffi)ť~1Ela~::kBA'J-E*~

93 Translation by Xuanzang:

T08n0253_p0849b22(00) No. 253 [Nos. 250-252, 254, 255, 257] T08n0253_p0849b23(00) m~~i&Vf-tHf~{"*~ T08n0253_p0849b24(00) T08n0253_p0849b25(00) mm~~- iU~~~;ru §~ll! T08n0253_p0849b26(00) PD~í'<:tifJ : T08n0253_p0849b27(14) ~s~1~:tt:t~±m~~m!tťLL!cf1 , W::*:ttrrJ:K.&~líiJ:K

1~ o

T08n0253_p0849b28(10) ll B~1~t!t~~PA.=e* , i;JJ[::;k:g:~~ o

T08n0253_p0849b29(14) ll ms~J;Kcpi'f~Jíi~§ilJ]li , iSiilE!:fr o

T08n0253_p0849c01(18) lli'J{~m~~i&Vf-i~~B~ , ~.~5!11]~~@ , m~ňB o T08n0253_p0849c02(15) ll T08n0253_p0849c03(35) ll ~PB~~5f1J9t7]\{~&JG:1J , illt$~ á lil E! :fr~Jíi~§ilJJíi §: r~~~!~i'J~~:g:~~~~-~~fi~,~W~fi?J~~~Bo T08n0253_p0849c04(00) ll T08n0253 _p0849c05( 18) ll mB~Iil E! :fr~Jíi~§ilJ]li~ J'ta~5fiJ9t § : r ~jflj~ ! ;fi ~~~'

T08n0253_p0849c06(10) ll ~ft_;\J=y:g:~~m~:fiiWR~~i::YB~ , ~lil1ii#iti@ o

T08n0253_p0849c07(09) ll ~5FIJ~ ! 5~~@ , @~~5 o 5~P~@ , @~P~5 o

T08n0253_p0849c08(02) ll ~1J\1![PD~ o ~5FIJ~ ! ~~i!@:f§ , ~~~1~ ,

T08n0253_p0849c09(02) ll ~±)§~~ ' ~j;~~i~ o ~rf&@cp~5 ' ~§t ' ;fl'! ' i::Y ' T08n0253_p0849cl0(02) ll ~ , ~§N , ~ , w , [5 , Jt , ~ , ~5 , Ti , ~ , ~* , ill' T08n0253_p0849cll(05) 111! , ~§NJí!.JJ~~~~Jí!. o

T08n0253_p0849cl2(12) ll ~~BJI;Jj\~~BJI~ , ]J~~~JE;Jj\~~JE~ o ~=@f , :ft:. ' 0~ ' ~§ , 1Hf9glf"r\1Hf:f!h o _.... T...... ifhX.i .A.!;::!. ~~~" ~ VJ',,\, r'-J T08n0253_p0849cl3(00) ll

T08n0253_p0849cl4(18) ll tJ~?M~t&, ~m!:Jíir~IH:t

T08n0253_p0849cl505) 11 ~~Wttz: , ~i'f~~'f:ffi , ~mmHiU~rl'! , J'Gj[;13!~ o

T08n0253_p0849cl603) 11 -t!t~1~1:t

1f~~~5'E o ~g~;F~VJ=@f , ~-~lillf o

T08n0253_p0849cl9(07) ll rf&§3tm~:fi1WR~~5'E o J ~P§tl5'EEJ : T08n0253_p0849c20(00) ll r [ft/(líoJ- PJ +~)/*]§$ [ftl(líoJ- PJ +~)/*]§$ 1WR[ ft l

94 1 !ll§ : :g~ , :g~ ! :§:~T- ! tzo~ , tzo~ ! tzo&?JT§)'ť; o

T08n0253__p0849c26(00) ll ~~~m5ť::S1W&~~1'J , JJ!tzD~1'J o

T08n0253__p0849c27(05) ll tzD~1'JB'if , ~tJJtzo*~~lí.l1rg o J T08n0253__p0849c28(10) ll T08n0253__p0849c29(28) ll ~B'ift!t#§)'ť;~§R8 , ~-~tiJ9t-}(~3't~ , 15:!§1±~ Jli-~Jli~*-~o~~~~~·A·~~&• T08n0253__p0850a01(06) ll ~~~~ ' tifJ{51jjpfT§)t ' ~*-~ ,{§-3t*=1'T o T08n0253__p0850a02(00) ll m5ť::51W&~~~~,*~

95 Bibliography

Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra. Le canon bouddhique en Chine: Les traducteurs et les traductions. 2 vols. Paris: P.Guethner,1927, 1938.

Chan, Sin-wai. Pollard, David. An Encyclopaedia ofTranslation. Chinese-English, English-Cinese. The Chinese Uni. ofHong-kong. 1995, 2001.

Ch'en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China, A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Conze, Edward. The Prajnaparamita Literature. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1978.

Demiéville, Paul. "Philosophy and Religion from Han to Sui" in The Cambridge History ofChina, vol I. Cambridge University Press: 1986.

------. "La penetration du Bouddhisme dans la tradition philosophique chinoise." Cahiers ďhistorie mondiale 3 (1956): 19-38.

------. Demieville. "Sur la Traite de la grande vertu de sagesse traduit par E.Lamotte", in Choix ďetudes bouddhiques (1929-1970). Leiden: E.J.Brill. 1973. pp.470.

Harrison, Paul. "The Earliest Chinese Translations of Mahayana Sutras: Some Notes on the Works ofLokaksema". In Review, vol10, 2, 1993.

Hrdličková, V. "The first translations ofBuddhist sutras in Chinese literature and their place in the development of story-telling" in Archiv Orientální 26, 1958.

Hurvitz, Leon. "Chih-1 (538-597) An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk". In Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol XII. Bruxelles: Institute Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1980.

Kolmaš, Josef. Buddhistická svatá písma. Praha: Práh,1995.

Ma Zuyi ,~fflll~. Zhongguo fanyijianshi cp~~~~FJ33!::.. Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chuban gongsi, 1984.

Maspero, Henri. "Essay sur le Taoisme", Mel. Posth., vol. II, p.189.

Ren Jiyu {:Hifimt. Zhongguo Fojiao Shi cp~{.,IMJ<:3!::.. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1985.

96 ~ang Yongtong ~JtHJJ, Hanwei liangjin nanbeichao jojiao shi 11~~~-wJ::fc!I!JH~ ~)(3t. Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1998.

Tsukamoto, Zenryu. A History ojEarly Chinese Buddhism. From Its Introduction to the Death ojHui-yuan. : Kodansha Intemational Ltd., 1985.

Tsukamoto, Zenryu. "Dates of Kuamrajiva and Seng Chao Re-examined"

Wang Wenyan .í)O~J[. Fodian Hanyi zhi yanjiu {~~1i§~~titfJE.Tianhua foxue yekan zhi 21, 1984.

Wang Wenyan .í:X~J[. Fodian chongyijing yanjiu yu kaolu {~~m§~*~tiHJ"CW~~;R. Taipei: Wen shi zhichubanshe, 1993.

Wright, Arthur. "Buddhism and Chinese Culture: Phases of Interaction" in The Journal ojAsian Studie:/', vol XVII, no.1/1957.

------. "Biography and Hagiography, Huijiao's Li ves of Eminent Monks", in Studies in Chinese Buddhism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.

------. "Seng-Jui Alias Hui-Jui: A Biographical Bisection in the Kao-Seng Chuan" in Sino-Indian Studies, 5.

------. "Fo-ťu-teng: A Biography." Harward Journal ojAsiatic Studies II, nos. 3-4 (Dec 1948): 321-71.

Waley, Arthur. Three ways o.fThought in Ancient China. New York: Macmillan, 1939.

Xi Xiu E§~§:. "Luoshi yanjiu mfttitfJE" in Xiandai Fojiao xueshu conggan 13.

Yamanouchi Shinkyo. "Kosoden no kenkyu" ["A Study ofHuijiao's Lives ofEminent Monks] in Shina Bukkyoshi no Kenkyu [Studies in the History of Chinese Buddhism]. Kyoto: Bukkyo daigaku shuppanpu, 1921.

Yang Bojin T~{áill3?.. Lun Yu Yizhu §#H§R§~i.1. Zhonghua shuju, 1999.

Yermakov M.E. Zhizneopisania Dostojnykh Monakhov, vol I. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.

Ziircher, E. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts" in From Benares to Beijing, Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion. Edited by Kiochi Shinohara, Gregory Schopen, Oakville: MOSAIC PRESS, 1991. pp 277-304

------. The Buddhist Conquest oj China. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1959.

------. "Late Han Vemacular Elements in the Earliest Buddhist Translations" ...

97 Buddhist Scriptures in Chinese and other languages

TaishO Shinshu Daizokyo ::klE!fJT~~::kiU~ [Taish6 Tripitaka]. Ed. Takukasu Junjir6 and Watanabe Kaigyoku. 55 vols. CBETA ii-T{~~~g\Z. CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripitaka Collection. version 2006. Taish6 Tripitaka Vol. 1-55&85 and the Shinshan Zokuzokyo (Xuzangjing) Vol. 54-88.

The Vimalakirti Sutra. Translated by Burton Watson (from the Chinese version by Kumarajiva). New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

The Lotus Sutra. Translated by Kubo Tsugunari and Yuyama Akira (from the Chinese ofKumarajiva) Berkekley: Bukkyo Dend6 Kyokai and Numata Centre for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1993.

Scripture o.fthe Lotus Blossom o.fthe Fine Dharma. Translated by Leon Hurvitz (from the Chinese ofKumarajiva). New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

98