SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL CHINA: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO A LONGSTANDING MISREADING OF A KEYWORD IN THE EARLIEST EXTANT BUDDHIST CATALOGUE IN EAST ASIA PAR JINHUA CHEN As is implied by its title, Sengyou’s (445-518) monumental bio- bibliographical work, the Chu sanzang ji ji (Collection of records concerning the issuing of the Three Storehouses; fifteen juan; ini- tially compiled in 515), concerns the “issuing” or “production” (chu ) of various texts that were later compiled into the immense body of Bud- dhist literature known as Tripi†aka (sanzang , “Threefold Canon”). In the main text of this work, Sengyou also frequently uses the expres- sion chu or yichu (almost as an interchangeable term of chu) to describe the translation of a Buddhist text. While the meaning of this expression is rather clear in the title of the Chu sanzang ji ji, the same cannot be said of the usages of chu/yichu in the main text1. This article aims to investigate the usage of this expression in the second juan of the 1 Rao Zongyi (Jao Tsung-i) , however, has reminded us of the various ways that the texts catalogued in the Chu sanzang ji ji were “issued” (“produced”): (i) yichu (“translated”), (ii) zhuanchu (“composed”), (iii) chaochu (“extracted [as a redaction]”), (iv) xuanchu (or songchu ) (“enunciated,” “recited”), or (v) yanchu (“expounding” [on something] as a thesis). See Rao, “Lun Sengyou” (On Sengyou), Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo nianbao (Journal of Chinese Studies) (new Series), 6 (1997), p. 410 (the article itself in pp. 405-415). It is certainly to Rao’s credit that he has reminded us of the ambivalence of the expression chu in the Chu sanzang ji ji. However, on the other hand, as Funayama Toru suggested to me, “the real intention of Sengyou’s compiling the Chu sanzang ji ji did not lie in in general but in the special form of (translation), judging from the fact the he was not so enthusiastic in the commentaries composed by Chinese monks.” (Funayama personal communication: July 29, 2004). Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 604 JINHUA CHEN Chu sanzang ji ji, where is provided an extensive list of 4462 Buddhist translations that had been made by the time of Sengyou. Although this is apparently a purely lexical exercise, this investigation will cover much more than the meaning of certain words. As a matter fact, the meanings of chu/yichu in early Chinese Buddhist sources are so elu- sive that scholars have carried on a prolonged series of debates. As early as 1957, Authur Waley, in his review of a classic study compiled by the leading Japanese scholar Tsukamoto Zenryu (1898-1980), pro- poses a distinction between chu and yi , with one term referring to an oral translation, and the other to a written one. Such a distinction has been drawn even more fine by Richard Robinson who, on the basis of several instances that he gleaned from Chinese sources, argues that chu denotes the recital, rather than translation (no matter whether oral or writ- ten), of an Indic text3. On the other hand, there are also scholars who have tended to simplify the situation. Arthur Link, for example, equates chu (which he understands as an abbreviation of the “technical Buddhist compound” yichu) with what the word yi or the compound fanyi indicate nowadays (“to translate”), saying that chu/yichu merely “means ‘translated [with the result that a book] is issued,’ or more simply, ‘trans- late.’”4 Recently, Daniel Boucher has rightly challenged the different definitions offered by these scholars. He believes that to “issue” an Indic text generally required at least two steps: one is to recite the original text aloud, and the other to have the “enounced” and “decoded” text glossed in Chinese. While an early translator like DharmarakÒa (var. Zhu Fahu , Tanmoluocha , Tanmoluocha , fl. 265-308), 2 Although Sengyou gives the number as 450, the entries included in the current Taisho edition of the Chu sanzang ji ji (based on the Korean edition) count 446. See Chu san- zang ji ji, in Taisho shinshu daizokyo (eds. Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaigyoku , et al.; Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai , 1924-1932; 100 vols; hereafter T), no. 2145, vol. 55, 2.5b-13c. 3 Waley, “Review of Zenryu Tsukamoto (sic), Choron kenkyu”(Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 [1957]: 195-196), p. 196; Robinson, Early Madhya- maka in India and China (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), p. 298, n. 28. This view of Robinson is echoed by Robert Shih, Biographies des moines éminents (Kao seng tchouan) de Houei-kiao (Louvain: Université de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1968), p. 168. 4 Link, “Shih Seng-yu and His Writings” (Journal of the American Oriental Society 80 [1960]: 17-43), p. 30. Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 605 the subject of Boucher’s 1996 dissertation, might have both recited an Indic text and “explained it in at least general terms for his Chinese assis- tants,” it is still hard to understand chu as “to translate” in the way that we now use the word5. The prudence that Boucher has shown in dealing with the meaning of chu/yichu is to be commended. It is true that as it is used in early Chi- nese Buddhist sources, chu/yichu appears rather ambiguous, denoting as it does a range of meanings including those listed by these scholars that Boucher has reviewed. It would be wrong to narrow down its complicated usage to any of these meanings, nor simply to equate it with “trans- lating.” I myself have been drawn into this pool of murky water by my obsession with another chief missionary-cum-translator in this period — DharmakÒema (Ch. Tanmochen [var. Damochen ], 385-433). In discussing the date of his arrival in Guzang (present-day Wuwei , Gansu), then the capital city of a regional regime known as the Northern Liang (r. 397-439), I have encountered a crucial point in an interlinear note attached to an entry on a translation by DharmakÒema — the Da banniepan jing (Skt. Mahaparinirva∞a Sutra). This interlinear note consists in a specific date (Xuanshi 10.10.23 — Decem- ber 3, 421) plus the mystifying character chu6. It seems that Buddhist sources starting from the Gaoseng zhuan have understood this interlinear note as “[the translation of the Da banniepan jing] was completed on December 3, 421,” interpreting as they did chu as the “successful issuing (or production) of a text.”7 To construe it this way, however, goes against what is unambiguously asserted in a preface that one of DharmakÒema’s assistants wrote for the translation — that is, that 5 Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third-century China: A Study of Dhar- marakÒa and His Translation Idiom (Ph. D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996), p. 93; idem, “Gandhari and the Early Chinese Buddhist Translation reconsidered: The Case of the Saddarmapu∞∂arikasutra” (Journal of the American Oriental Society 118.4 [1998]: 471-506), p. 487, n. 73. 6 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11b11. See Jinhua Chen, “The Indian Buddhist Missionary Dhar- makÒema (385-433): A New Dating of His Arrival in Guzang and His Translations,” T’oung P’ao 90.4-5 (2004): 215-263. 7 Gaoseng zhuan (Biographies of Eminent Monks, 14 juan, initially completed by Hui- jiao [497-554] sometime between 519 and 522 [final version probably completed ca. 530]) (T no. 2059, vol. 55) 2.336b5-6. Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 606 JINHUA CHEN the translation was started, rather than completed, on that date8. It seems logical to assume that, at least in this record of the Chu sanzang ji ji, the expression chu must be understood as “[the translation] was started.” Then our question is, “Can such an interpretation be supported by the internal evidence of the Chu sanzang ji ji?” In juan 2, Sengyou lists Buddhist translations (including sutras, sas- tras and vinaya texts) under the names of their translators. For each trans- lator (sometimes also with their chief assistants), the translations (in some cases, there is only one) attributed to him are first listed one by one; then Sengyou follows up this individual translation-list with a general account, explaining how many translations (in how many juan) were made and under which emperor’s reign the individual translator arrived in China (in the case of foreigners) and/or was active. Let us here have a look at two such general accounts, which contain respectively the expressions chu and yichu. First is a general account of the only translation that was made by the monk Shengjian (d.u.): , , 9 One text listed to the right (i.e., above), eight juan in total, was issued by srama∞a Shengjian at the time of Qifo (i.e. Qifu Zhipan [r. 412-428] of the Western Qin [385-431])10 of the Henan Kingdom, under the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 420-422) of the Song dynasty (420-479). 8 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.59c15-22. 9 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13c16-17. 10 The western Qin regime was successively ruled by Qifu Guoren (r. 385- 388), Qifu Qiangui (r. 388-412), Qifu Zhipan (r. 412-428) and Qifu Mumo (r. 428-431). Sengyou does not tell us under which king Shengjian was active, only mentioning that he flourished in a period corresponding to the reign of Emperor Wu of the Jin, which lasted from 420 to 422. Of the four Western Qin kings, only Zhipan’s reign overlapped Song Wudi’s. Thus, Sengyou here means Qifu Zhipan, which is, how- ever, not supported by other Buddhist cataloguers.