Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation

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; initially 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 expression 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 written), 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, ‘translate.’”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 sanzang 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 assistants,” 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 “translating.” 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 translator (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, however, not supported by other Buddhist cataloguers. For examples, Fei Zhangfang (?-598†), who attributes to Shengjian fourteen translations, believes that he lived in West- ern Qin in a period corresponding to the reign of Emperor Xiaowu of the Jin (r. 372-396) (overlapping with those of Qifu Guoren and Qifu Qiangui), while Zhisheng (?-740†) tells us that Shengjian translated fifteen texts for Qifu Qiangui. See Lidai sanbao ji (Records of the Three Treasures through the Ages; 15 juan, completed by Fei Zhangfang and presented to the court at the very beginning of 598) (T no. 2034, vol. 49) 9.83c12-13, Kaiyuan shijiao lu (Catalogue of [the texts related to] the Buddhist teachings, [compiled in] the Kaiyuan reign-era [713-41]; 20 juan, compiled by Zhisheng in 730) (T no. 2154, vol. 50), 4.518a23-28.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 607

In contrast to Shengjian, who had only one text known to Sengyou, Dhar- makÒema is a far more prolific (and important) translator: , , , 11 The eleven texts listed to the right, 104 juan in total, were translated by the Indian srama∞a Tanwuchan , who arrived in western Liangzhou during the reign of Emperor An of the Jin dynasty (r. 396-418), as requested by the Great Juqu Mengxun, the king of the illegitimate Hexi regime. [The name Tanwuchan] is also sometimes written as Tanwuchen 12.

It is clear that here the expression chu/yichu is used in the same way as it is in the title of the Chu sanzang ji ji, meaning “the [successful] issuing of some Buddhist translations.” In addition to these general accounts, Sengyou also attaches to a selected number of translations (eighty-three13) interlinear notes each of which includes a date for the translation (eleven of them even contain double dates, respectively for the start and completion of the translations). In both the general accounts and the interlinear notes, Sengyou uses chu/yichu (when the translation’s beginning and completion are both dated, he uses chu/yichu for the former, and qi [“coming to an end”] for the latter). While chu/yichu denotes the start of the translation when it is used in contrast with qi, we have to decide its meanings when it is used in the interlinear notes that only contain one date about the translations. A comparison of the eleven items bearing two dates with the prefaces and colophons included in juan 5-12 of the Chu sanzang ji ji, which we will refer to as “translation documents,” provides an intriguing clue. It turns out that the start and completion dates in these eleven items are all in their respective translation documents. Then, is it possible that the single dates attached to other items are also based on other translation documents? My investigation shows that there are thirty-nine more items

11 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11b25-27. 12 In the text this sentence appears as an interlinear note. 13 This number is based on the Korean edition, while the Song, Yuan and Ming editions have forty-one more (thirty-three for translations by DharmarakÒa, and eight for those by DharmakÒema).

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 608 JINHUA CHEN whose dates obviously come from other translation documents which are all, except for one, included in the Chu sanzang ji ji. Of these thirty-nine items, sixteen are dated for both start and completion by their translation documents (although in their interlinear notes Sengyou only provides one date for each of them), while for each of the other twenty-three items we can only find a single date in its respective translation document. For the sake of convenience, we can divide these dated items into the following groups in accordance with the different ways they relate to their translation documents: – items bearing dates that are not found in the translation documents included either in the Chu sanzang ji ji or elsewhere. – items each of which bears two dates or a single date that can be found in the relevant translation document(s). This group includes: – items each of which bears two dates, for the start and end of the translation; and – items each of which bears only a single date; these items can be further divided into two sections: – items each of which bears a single date that is the start date of a translation as is shown in its relevant translation document, which also includes its completion date; – items each of which bears a single date appearing in a translation document that does not include a second date, making it an issue to decide whether the single date is the start or completion of the translation.

As in the items covered by , chu/yichu in also denotes the starting point of a translation. The focus of our task here will be then to decide the meaning of chu/yichu as it is used in and . Does it mean the start or completion of the translation? The way the chu/ yichu is used in and suggests that it could have been used the same way in and/or . However, given that, in modern Chinese at least, chu means the production of something or a situation and yichu indicates the successful production of a translation, the date that pre- cedes chu/yichu might encourage the opposite interpretation — that is, that it refers to the completion, rather than the start, of a translation. Which hypothesis stands firmer against further scrutiny? Leaving aside the items in for the time being, let us look at those grouped under , and . In each group, we will present the items in

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 609 chronological order. We will leave the expression chu/yichu intact unless we are certain as to its connotations.

I) B.1 – Eleven Items Each Bearing Two Dates We will start with the easiest part of our task-the entries with two dates that both can be found in their respective translation documents. These dates range from 383 to 435: [B.1.i] Za Apitan piposha (var. Za Apitanxin ) (14 juan) (Skt. *Saµyuktabhidharmah®daya) “[the translation of which] was started” (chu)14 in Jianyuan 19.4 (May 18-June 16, 383) and was completed on Jianyuan 19.8.29 (October 11, 383)15. These two dates are furnished in Daoan’s (b. 312/ 314, d. 385/389) preface to the Za Apitan xin16. The translation project was organized by Zhao Zheng (var. Zhao Wenye )17, who also acted as the Doctrinal Rectifier (zhengyi ). With the Jibin (Kashmiri or Gandharan)18 monk Seng- qiebacheng (Saµghabhadra, fl. 383-397)19 “enunciating” ( )

14 For the sake of brevity, in the following translation of this expression (chu) or its synonym yichu, as it is used in the interlinear notes of juan 2, Chu sanzang ji ji, will be merely given as “was started” although it actually means — as is noted here — “[the translation of a text] was started…” 15 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b5-6. Cf. Sengqiebacheng’s biography at the Chu sanzang ji ji 13.99a29-b1, according to which the translation was carried out from the mengxia (the fourth month) to the zhongqiu (the eighth month) of Jianyuan 19. 16 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73b14-c27, esp. 73c3-8. 17 Originally the zhuzuolang (Editorial Director) in the court of Later Qin, he later got himself ordained as a Buddhist monk with a dharma-name “Daozheng” . His Gaoseng zhuan biography is attached to Dharmananti’s (Gaoseng zhuan 1.328c6-21). 18 For the uncertainty of Jibin’s meanings in Chinese sources, see Enomoto Fumio , “A Note on Kashmir as referred to in Chinese Literature: Ji-bin” (A Study of the Nilamata: Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir [ed. Ikari Yasuke , Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 1994]), p. 365 (the article itself in pp. 357-365). 19 Most scholars have reconstructed Sengqiebacheng’s Sanskrit name as Saµghabhuti. Charles Willemen, however, believes that the correct form should be Saµghabhadra. See Willemen, “The Prefaces to the Chinese Dharmapadas Fa-chü ching and Ch’u-yao ching,” T’oung P’ao LIX (1959), p. 214 n. 53. The evidence for this identification is found in the Fan fanyu (T no. 2130, vol. 54) 2.999c2: < >. My thanks to Funayama Toru for calling my attention to both Willemen’s view and his evidence. Funayama also kindly informed me that it was Antonello Palumbo who told him this piece of evidence.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 610 JINHUA CHEN the text [from his memory] 20, Tanwunanti (Dharmanandi?, fl. 384-391), also a Jibin monk, wrote it down in Sanskrit ( ), while Fotuluocha (BuddharakÒa [Ch. Fohu ]?) acted as the Interpreter (yichuan ) and Minzhi took down his (Buddha- rakÒa’s) Chinese oral translation ( ). It is important to note that two different scribes (bishou ) were involved in this translation project — one transcribing a Sanskrit text delivered by a foreign monk and the other taking down the oral Chinese translation of the text. [B.1.ii] Poxumi jing (10 juan) [ ] (Skt. *Vasumitra) was started (chu) on Jianyuan 20.3.15 (April 21, 384) and finished (qi) on the thirteenth day of the seventh month (Jianyuan 20.7.13 [August 15, 384])21. These two dates are verified by a preface to the Poxumi jing by an anonymous author, whom Su Jinren , an annotator of the Chu sanzang ji ji, has correctly identified as Daoan22. This translation project was also organized by Zhao Zheng, who might also have acted as a Doctrinal Rectifier, although Daoan does not explicitly say so. Other functionaries include: Fonian (an Interpreter), Bacheng (i.e. Sengqiebacheng , Saµgha- bhadra), Nantuo (i.e. Dharmanandi?), and Tipo (Saµghadeva) (all the three acting as the holders of the hu text [zhi huben ])23

20 We know that Saµghabhadra recited the sastra from memory since several lines before Daoan explicitly tells us that Saµghabhadra was able to recite forty-two chu (a textual unit?) of the sastra (Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73c4) on the one hand, and on the other, he also tells us that a compatriot of Saµghabhadra, Dharmanandi, was responsible for noting down the recited text in Sanskrit (Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73c6). 21 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b7. 22 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.71c8-72a8, esp. 71c28-72a3; Su, Chu sanzang ji ji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003 [2nd edition of the 1995 edition]), p. 394, n. 44. 23 The meaning of hu in early Chinese Buddhist sources is rather hard to determine. Generally it refers to the Central Asian (things, cultures and people, etc.). But sometimes, it could also be used as “the Indian,” although for that another word fan (of more pos- itive and respectful connotations) was also used. The strict distinction between the Indian and Central Asian by the appellations fan and hu was not made until sometime later. For this, see Yang Jidong , “Replacing Hu with Fan: A Change in the Chinese Per- ception of Buddhism during the Medieval Period,” Journal of the International Associa- tion of Buddhist Studies 21.1 (1998): 157-170; and Boucher, “On Hu and Fan Again: The Transmission of ‘Barbarian’ Manuscripts to China,” Journal of the International Asso- ciation of Buddhist Studies 23.1 (2001): 7-28. In this article, hu will be generally left untranslated unless we are certain as to its meaning, despite the general practice of translating it as “foreign” (my reluctance to abide by this is mainly derived from my understanding that not all non-Chinese [“foreign”] [both “things” and people] were regarded

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 611 and Huisong (a Scribe)24. The existence of three Holders of Origi- nal Text, which is quite unusual, in this project might cause a problem as to the “translator-ship” of this text. However, given that the preface introduces Saµghabhadra as the carrier of this sutra25 and that it is him whom Zhao Zheng entreated to “bring out” (chu )26 the sutra, Saµghabhadra was taken as the translation-chief, as has been done by Sengyou27. [B.1.iii] Zengyi ahan jing (33 juan) (Skt. Ekottaraagama) was started (chu) in the summer of Jianyuan 20 (May 7-August 2, 384) and completed in the spring of Jianyuan 21 (January 27-April 25, 385)28. These two dates are obviously based on Daoan’s preface to the Zengyi ahan jing29. This translation project was likewise organized by Zhao Zheng (he probably also acted as a Doctrinal Rectifier), who requested Dharmanandi to “bring forth” [a Chinese version of] the scripture. Fonian acted as the Interpreter and Huisong as the Scribe. Daoan and his fellow-disciple Fahe (d.u.) acted as Doctrinal Rectifiers (kaozheng ), with two other monks Senglüe and Sengmao as assistant proofreaders (zhujiao ). as hu by the Chinese in this period). The other word, fan, whose meaning is relatively clear, will be translated as Indian (Indic) or Brahmic. 24 Cf. Saµghabhadra’s biography at the Chu sanzang ji ji (13.99b1-5), which limits itself to a brief note that the translation was made “in the year after [Jianyuan 19]” (ming- nian ). The biography only mentions two of the “Holders of the Original Text,” a function that it refers to as zhi fanwen , rather than zhihuben – Saµghadeva and Saµghabhadra, omitting Dharmanandi (Chu sanzang ji ji 13.99c5-6). 25 Here the Korean edition has the text as zhuan cijing , which the Song, Yuan and Ming editions all have chuan cijing , and the edition included at the top of the Zun Poxumi pusa suoji lun (T no. 1549, vol. 28, 721a25) has it as chi cijing . Su Jinren, who noted these discrepancies, has chosen the last option without telling his reason. In juan 2 (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13-14), Sengyou tells us that Saµghabhadra “brought” (ji ) a hu version of the sutra to Chang’an. Thus, as is believed by Sengyou, Saµghabhadra did bring a hard copy to China and chi cijing is indeed the preferable reading. 26 This expression here is used in a rather ambiguous way. It could have meant the oral delivering of the “memorized” text (to be transcribed), or its oral translation, or both. However, Fonian’s status as a translator in the project means that Saµghabhadra probably had confined his role to sutra-reciter. 27 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11-14. 28 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b21. 29 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.64a29-c2, esp. 64b8-12.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 612 JINHUA CHEN

[B.1.iv] Zhong Ahan jing (60 juan) (Skt. Madhyamagama) was started (yichu) on Longan 1.11.10 (December 15, 397) at Dongting si and was completed on Longan 2.6.25 (July 24, 398)30. Accord- ing to Daoci’s (d.u.)31 preface to the Zhong Ahan jing, the Jin courtier Wang Yuanlin (i.e. Wang Xun , 349-400)32, who acted as the tanyue (Skt. danapati, “donor”) for this translation project, constructed for this purpose a Buddhist temple in the Sub-prefecture Jiankang , Prefecture Danyang (an error for Danyang ) in Yangzhou (i.e. ). To the temple he invited over forty scholar- monks including Huichi (337-412, Huiyuan’s [334-416] younger brother), and the Sutra-master (jingshi ) Sengqieluocha (SaµgharakÒa?), a Jibin monk33. After supporting them for several years, he then, on December 15, 397, beseeched these monks to translate the Zhong ahan jing at the temple. He invited SaµgharakÒa to “recite” (lit. “lecture on,” “speak out”) (jiang ) the hu text, and Seng- qietihe (i.e. Sengqietipo [Saµghadeva]) to translate it into Chinese (lit. the Jin language) ( ), Daoci, a srama∞a of Yuzhou , to act as a Scribe, and Li Bao and Tang Hua , two natives of Wuguo , to act as copyists (shu ). A draft was ready on July 24, 398. Daoci also provides the further information that due to the sociopolitical chaos the translation was not properly copied and put into circulation until three years after it was translated34. [B.1.v] Xin dapin jing (24 juan) (Skt. Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra) was started (chu) on Hongshi 5.4.2235 (May 28, 403) at the Xiao- yao Park and was completed on Hongshi 6.4.23 (May 18, 404)36.

30 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c7-8. 31 A biographical note on this monk is found in the Gaoseng zhuan 7.374c24-26. 32 Wang Xun was a grandson of the extremely powerful courtier Wang Dao (267-330). His nickname happens to be the same as DharmarakÒa’s Chinese name (Fahu ). See his biography at Jin shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975) 65.1756-1757. 33 A short biographical note on this monk is found at Gaoseng zhuan 1.329a23-27. 34 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.63c21-64a28, esp. 63c22. Cf. Saµghadeva’s Chu sanzang ji ji biography at 13.99c29-100a3. 35 The Qisha and Ming editions have the day as the twenty-third (not the twenty- second as it is in the Korean, Song and Yuan editions), which concords with Sengrui’s preface (see below). 36 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c16-17.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 613

The provenance of this translation is described in detail in Sengrui’s preface to the Dapin jing37: , , , , , , … , 38 On Hongshi 5 (guimao).4.23 (May 29, 403), [Kumarajiva, 344-413 (var. 409)] started to [orally] translate (lit. “enunciate”) this sutra at the Xiaoyao Park to the north of the capital. [Our] Dharma Master (i.e. Kumarajiva) held in hand the hu text and orally translated (lit. “enounced by mouth” [kouxuan ]) in Chinese (lit. “language of the Qin”)… the oral translation ended on the fifteenth day of the twelfth month of the same year (Hongshi 5.12.15 [January 13, 404]). The work of collating, correcting, and double- checking was not finished until the twenty-third day of the fourth month of the next year (Hongshi 6.4.23 [May 18, 404]).

The way that Sengrui here uses the expression chu in opposition to chujin proves beyond any reasonable doubt that chu in the context means the beginning of the oral translation, the end of which is, on the other hand, denoted by chujin. The whole of this oral translation was merely a part of the translation process, which included — besides the oral translation — some necessary follow-up work like revision, correction, collations, copying and so on. [B.1.vi] Xin xiaopin jing (i.e. an abbreviated Chinese version of the Mahaprajnaparamita) (7 juan) was started (yichu) on Hongshi 10.2.6 (February 28, 408) and was completed on the twentieth day of the fourth month (Hongshi 10.4.20 [June 11, 408])39. The two dates are provided in Sengrui’s preface to the Xiaopin jing. The translation was solicited by the Crowned Prince of Yao Xing (r. 394-416) (i.e. Yao Hong [r. 416-417])40. [B.1.vii] Da fangguangfo huayan jing (50 juan) (Ava- taµsaka Sutra) was started (yichu) on Yixi 14.3.10 (April 30, 418) and

37 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.52c27-53b27 (esp. 53b3-11). 38 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.53b3-11. 39 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c18. 40 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.54c12-55a12, esp. 55a4-6. It should be noted that according to Sengrui, the translation was not finished until Hongshi 10.4.30, rather than Hongshi 10.4.20, as is noted in juan 2.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 614 JINHUA CHEN was completed on Yongchu 2.12.28 (February 5, 422)41. An anonymous colophon tells us some detailed information about the translation process of this text. The hu text of the Avataµsaka Sutra was secured by Zhi Faning in Khotan. On April 30, 418, at Daochang si (a.k.a. Douchangsi ), which was built by Xie Shi (Xie An’s [320-385] younger brother), Buddhabhadra was entreated to translate it into Chinese. He then “held in hand the hu original and translated the [text in the] hu [language] into Jin [language]” ( , ). The srama∞a Faye acted as a Scribe. Two courtiers Meng Yi (d.u.)42 and Chu Shudu (378-424)43 acted as donors. A draft was completed on Yuanxi 2.6.10 (July 6, 420). A revision was later carried out and was completed on February 5, 42244. [B.1.viii] Za apitan xin [lun] [ ] (13 juan) (Skt. Saµyuk- tabhidharmah®daya): in Yuanjia 3 (January 24, 426-February 11, 427), Yisheboluo (Isvara) started to translate (yichu) it in Pengcheng for the governor of Northern Xuzhou Wang Zhongde (a.k.a. Wang Yi , 367-438)45 and the project was suspended when it reached the Chapter (Ch. pin ; Skt. parivarta) “Ze” (Selections). It was not resumed and brought to an end until Yuanjia 8 (January 29, 431-February 16, 432) under the direction of an anonymous Trepi†aka (Master of the Threefold Canon), whom another source identifies as Qiunabamo (Gu∞avarman, 367-431)46. [B.1.ix] Apitan piposha (60 juan) (Skt. *Abhidharma- vibhaÒa) was started (chu) in the fourth month of the dingchou year (Yonghe 5) (May 21-June 18, 437) and was completed in the seventh month of the yimao year (Yonghe 5) (July 27-August 25, 439)47. These

41 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11c09-10. 42 His biography at Nanshi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975) 19.541-542. 43 His biography at Song shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974) 52.1502-1503. 44 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.60c29-a8. The original has Yongchu 2 as a year of xinchou , an error for xinyou . 45 His biography at Song shu 4.1390-1393, Nan shi 25.671-673. His biographies note that he cast statues of a white wolf and a child within a Buddhist temple that he built. 46 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b9-13, based on an anonymous colophon to the Za apitan xin (Chu sanzang ji ji 10.74b5-21, esp. 74b14-21), which also identifies the anonymous Tre- pi†aka as Gu∞avarman. 47 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11b27.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 615 dates were probably based on Daoting’s (d.u.) preface to the Piposha jing48. According to Daoting, the translation was carried out between the second ten days (zhongxun ) of the fourth month of the yichou year and the first ten days (shangxun ) of the seventh month of the dingmao year. The context of the preface also makes it clear that the translation project was sponsored by the Northern Liang ruler Juqu Mengxun (r. 401-433)49. Under the reign of Juqu Mengxun, the two years with the cyclical titles of yichou and dingmao corresponded to Xuanshi 14 (425) and Xuanshi 16 (427). In other words, the translation process lasted between Xuanshi 14.4.(11-20) (May 4-13, 425) and Xuan- shi 16.7.(1-10) (August 9-18, 427). However, in juan 2 of the Chu sanzang ji ji, the two dates are given as dingchou and jimao year, which correspond to 437 and 439 under the rule of the Northern Liang. These two dates are not tenable given that Juqu Mengxun died in 433. It seems that in juan 2 yichou was miscopied as dingchou and dingmao as jimao . The other possibility, which seems more likely, is that Sengyou (or a later editor) might have made this change on purpose. Daoting notes towards the end of his preface that when Guzang fell into the hands of the Northern Wei, many scrolls of Buddhist texts were destroyed and that when the “current [Northern] Liang King” ( ), who was obviously one of the rulers of the remnant Northern Liang regime in Gaochang , tried to collect the scattered Piposha jing , he was able to collect only sixty juan, which he sent to the Liu-Song court. This account might give one the impression that the Piposha jing was translated toward the end of the Northern Liang. The structure of these two pairs of cyclical titles (yichou – dingmao and dingchou – jimao ) might also encourage one to assume that Daoting miswrote the two cyclical titles: in the two pairs of cyclical titles, the second characters in the two cyclical years are identical (chou-chou, mao-mao); and to make it more tricky, the first character of the second cyclical title in the first pair (i.e. ding of dingmao) and the first character of the first cyclical title in the second pair (i.e. ding of dingchou) happen to be the same character (ding ), while the first character of the first

48 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73c28-74b3, esp. 74a21-b1. 49 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.74a10ff.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 616 JINHUA CHEN cyclical title in the first pair (i.e. yi of yichou) is highly similar in form with the first character in the second title in the second pair (i.e ji of jimao). However, as noted above, Daoting explicitly states that the translation was made under the reign of Juqu Mengxun and therefore before 433. The correct dates should be 425-427, rather than 437-439. This unfounded change was more likely committed by a later editor than by Sengyou. [B.1.x] Za Apitanxin (14 juan) was started (chu) in Yuan- jia 10 (January 6, 433-January 25, 434) at Changgan si and was completed in the ninth month of the year (September 30-October 28, 434)50. The translation of the Zaxin jing is described by Jiaojing (var. Seng- jing , ca. 409 – ca. 475) in his preface to the Zaxin jing (new version [houchu ])51. ,,, , , , ,,52 In Yuanjia 11 (cyclical year [sui ] jiaxu) of the Song (January 26, 434- February 13, 435), there was a foreign srama∞a called Trepi†aka [Saµgha- varman, fl. 433-442], whose tour of pilgrimage and proselytization [brought him] here. Since this person had before comprehensively studied this sutra in a “great country,” monks [in Jiankang] invited [him] to produce its [Chinese version]. Thus, in the ninth month of that year, [he] convened scholar-monks at Changgan si in the Song capital (Jiankang) [to translate this sutra], with Dharma Master Venerable [Bao]yun [ ] (376-449) acting as Interpreter and Dharma Master Venerable [Hui]guan [ ] (fl. 402- 424) as Scribe. It took them the whole year to complete the work of collating and revising.

Thus, according to Jiaojing, the translation started on an unspecified day in the ninth month of Yuanjia 11 (January 26, 434-February 13, 435) and was completed in the next year (January 14, 435-February 2, 436), pre- senting a stark contrast to this interlinear note in juan 2, according to which the translation was completed in Yuanjia 10.9. That Saµghavarman

50 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b20. 51 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.74b22-c10. Jiaojing’s biography at Gaoseng zhuan (7.373b-c) shows him as an Abhidharma expert. 52 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.74c03-7.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 617 translated the Zaxin jing in Yuanjia 10 (rather than Yuanjia 11) might have been based on the following ambiguous statement in Sengyou’s biography for him: … … , , … , , , 53 Saµghavarman… arrived in the capital in Yuanjia 10 of the Song (January 6, 433-February 25, 434). … His manner was broad and serious, inspiring awe from the Buddhist clergy and the lay communities, who, all serving him in respect, called him Dharma-master Trepi†aka. (here is introduced an interesting account of how Saµghavarman assisted some local nuns to get themselves properly ordained). … Thus, in the ninth month of that year, [Huiguan and others] convened scholar-monks at Changgan si [to translate the text], with Baoyun as Translator (yiyu ) and His Venerable [Hui]guan as Scribe. It took them a whole year to do an elaborate and thorough collation [on the translation]. Sengyou here does not tell us which year “that year” (qinian ) was, although the context suggests that it was also Yuanjia 10. However, it should be noted that Sengyou here still believes that Saµghavarman and his colleagues spent a whole year in translating the sutra and getting the new translation thoroughly double-checked and revised. In other words, even though we assume that qinian in the biography does mean Yuanjia 10, the translation was not, according to Sengyou, brought to an end until the following year. In view of this, the author of the note in juan 2 might not have been based on Jiaojing or Sengyou. It must have been a third source, which is probably the Gaoseng zhuan: , , … , , , , 54 After crossing the desert of flowing sands, [Saµghavarman] arrived in the capital in Yuanjia 10 of the Song. … Thus, in the ninth month of that year (Yuanjia 10), [Huiguan and others], who convened monk-scholars at Chang- gan si, and asked him to issue [its Chinese version]. With Baoyun acting as the Translator, [Hui]guan acted as a Scribe in person. The translation work was not completed until a whole round (yizhou ) of investigation, revision and collation [was carried out on the new translation].

53 Chu sanzang ji ji 14.104c06-c24. 54 Gaoseng zhuan 3.342c1-2.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 618 JINHUA CHEN

Since yizhou could be understood as “a whole year” or “a round,” it would be quite understandable if one were to interpret as meaning “[the revising work] was not finished until the whole draft was gone through [from cover to cover].” This might have been exactly what has happened to the interpolator of this interlinear note, who believed that the translation was successfully completed in Yuanjia 10. We might then conclude that the author of the note could not have been Sengyou, but was either Huijiao or a later editor misled by him. Given Jiaojing’s status as a witness (or even a participant) of Saµghavarman’s translation project55, we have reason to believe that the translation was carried out between 434 and 435, rather than 433 as is indicated in this interlinear note. [B.1.xi] Modeleqie jing (of 10 juan) (*Sarvastivadanika- yamat®ka) was started (yichu) in the first month of Yuanjia 12 (February 14 – March 14, 435) and completed on the twenty-second day of the ninth month [of the same year] (Yuanjia 12.9.22 [October 29, 435])56. The two dates are based on an anonymous colophon. In Yuanjia 12 (a yihai year), Trepi†aka (Saµghavarman) “issued” this vinaya text along with his disciples at Pingle si in the Sub-prefecture Moling of Prefecture Danyang in Yangzhou. The project was started in the first month and on October 29, 435 a draft was ready. The copying of the text was completed on the twenty-fifth day, executed by two upasakas Zhang Dao and Sun Jingxin (zhixie ). Thus, it seems that the translation was not formally completed until Yuanjia 12.9.25 (November 1, 435)57. * * * Although in each of these eleven interlinear notes, the beginning and completion dates are all, in the final analysis, derived from the translation documents included in the Chu sanzang ji ji, two of them (B.1.ix-x) probably cannot be regarded as written by Sengyou, but added by one or two later editor(s).

55 This is verified by what he says toward the end of the preface; see Chu sanzang ji ji 10.74c7-9. 56 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b21. 57 Chu sanzang ji ji 11.82a18-22.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 619

Furthermore, the colophons that we have discussed here shed light on some aspects of the translation process in early Chinese Buddhism. In this regard, Daoan’s preface to the Za apitan piposha (B1.1) is most revealing. It tells us that the translation team for the Za apitan piposha contained at least five kinds of functionaries: (1) Deliverer of the Origi- nal Text (chu[jing] [ ]), (2) Transcriber of the Original Text (bishou), (3) Interpreter (yichuan), (4) Scribe [of the oral Chinese translation] (also called bishou) and (5) Doctrinal Rectifier (zhengyi). Similarly noteworthy for this purpose are two more prefaces by Daoan — one to the Zengyi ahan jing, in which he informs us that he and one of his fellow-disciples acted as Doctrinal Rectifiers for the translation; and the other, according to which three foreign monks jointly acted as the Holders of Original Text (zhihuben). The meaning of zhihuben and some of its modified forms will be explained in detail in the concluding part of this article. Let it here be noted that this seems to denote the chief of a translation team, whose role was primarily (but not exclusively) to “bring out” a text from memory (should there be no hard copies at the time) or to check the authenticity and accuracy of the original text (when such a copy existed). Finally, Sengrui’s preface to the Chinese version of the Mahaprajña- paramita Sutra by Kumarajiva uses the paired expression chu and chujin to describe respectively the beginning and end of the process of preparing for a translation draft, a fact which establishes that chu in this context does mean the beginning of the [oral] translation of a Buddhist text. Sengrui’s preface is particularly noteworthy for its inclusion of the statement < , >, a standard expression which, composed of two parts respectively designating two of the most important roles in an early Buddhist translation team (Holder of Original Text, and its Oral Translator), indicates the formal start of a Buddhist translation in Chinese Buddhist sources. How- ever, it turns out that Sengrui was not the first to use this statement. The person responsible was, as we shall see below, the author of a colophon on a translation prepared in 289 under the direction of DharmarakÒa.

II) B.2.1 – Items Each Bearing a Single Starting Date From the Chu sanzang ji ji, I have collected the following sixteen entries which belong to this category. Each of these entries bears a single start-

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 620 JINHUA CHEN ing date of the translation, as is confirmed by relevant translation documents, which also include its completion dates: [B.2.1.i] Bore daoxing pin jing (10 or 8 juan) (Skt. AÒ†asahasrikaprajñaparamita) was started (chu) on Guanghe 2.10.8 (November 24, 179)58. The translation of this text is described in an anonymous colophon. Given that this colophon in its present state contains seriously corrupt passages, let me reproduce it here and highlight the problematic points, for which some possible solutions will be suggested: , [ ]59 , , 60 , , , 61 On Guanghe 2.10.8 (November 24, 179), Meng Yuanshi (a.k.a. Meng Fu ) of Luoyang in Henan received the oral translation of this sutra from the Indian Bodhisattva Zhu Shuofo (fl. 178-189). At the time, the interpreter (chuanyan yizhe ) was the Rouzhi Bodhisattva Zhichen (i.e. Zhiloujiachen [Skt. LokakÒema?], 147-?), the Attendants were Zhang Shaoan (a.k.a. Zhang Lian ) of Nanyang , [?] Zhipi [?] of Nanhai ; the donors (quanzhuzhe ) included Sun He and Zhou Tili . On Zhengguang 2.9.15 (Octo- ber 31, 521), srama∞a Foda copied this text at Pusa si [located in] the west of Luoyang City.

The two dates mentioned here look like the dates between which the translation was made. However, the latter (521), which was 342 (!) years after the translation was started and three years after Sengyou died, is problematic. Obviously, Sengyou could not have had access to a document bearing a date that was used after his death. This document was either included by a later editor, or the name of the reign-era Zhengguang was miscopied. Given that the reign-name Zhengguang would cre- ate such a big gap in time between when the text was initially translated and when it was copied62, the second possibility seems far more likely.

58 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.6b10. 59 This character seems to have been dropped off from here. 60 Obviously, the surname of this person has been dropped off. 61 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.47c4-9. 62 Note that the colophon shows that such a copying marked the formal completion of the translation, and not purely an act of piety, which could, instead, be carried out any- time no matter how far after the translation was done.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 621

The first date, which is exactly the same as that on which another translation of LokakÒema (i.e. Banzhou sanmei jing , see below [B.2.1.ii]) was dated, is also problematic. The Kaiyuan shijiao lu has it as Guanghe 2.7.8 (August 28, 179). Given the similarity in form between the two characters qi and shi , it seems highly likely that one was miscopied as the other. At any rate, this colophon does prove that the first date provided here (Guanghe 2.10.8, or Guanghe 2.7.8) denotes the beginning of the translation, although its end date could not have been, of course, October 31, 52163. [B.2.1.ii] Banzhou[ban] sanmei jing []64 (1 juan) (Skt. Pratyutpannabuddhasaµmukhavasthitasamadhi) was started (chu) on Guanghe 2.10.8 (November 24, 179)65. An anonymous colophon tells us that Zhu Shuofo started to translate the sutra in Luoyang on November 24, 17966. LokakÒema acted as the Interpreter, and transmitted it to Meng Fu, which means that the latter acted as the recipient (transcriber) of the original text dictated by LokakÒema67. Zhang Lian acted as the Scribe.

63 Ikeda On suggests emending Zhengguan 2.9.15 to Zhengyuan 2.9.15, which corresponds to November 2, 255. See Ikeda, Chugoku kodai shahon shikigo shuroku (Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku Toyo bunka kenkyujo, 1990), p. 72. This emendation does not work very well given that there was still a seventy-six year gap between 179 and 255. I speculate that these two sentences < > are probably a result of some bad corruption. The original might have been something like this: < (corrupted as ) (dropped off) >, which can be read as < , , > (the donors included Sun He , Zhou Ti , Wang Zheng . On Guanghe 2.9.15 [November 2, 179], srama∞a Foda copied this text at Pusa si in the west of Luoyang). If the translation was started on August 28, 179 (and not November 24, 179), then this new reading would mean that it was completed in two months and one week. Given that such a period of time might be too short for translating such a long sutra (ten or eight juan) (although such a speed was not impossible for DharmarakÒa), I would further suggest that < > might have been < >. 64 The second ban is redundant. 65 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.6b12. 66 The text here is followed by four characters , which, as Su Jinren (Chu sanzang ji ji, p. 282, n. 29) correctly points out, must be an intrusion given that DharmarakÒa lived about one century later and should not have been involved in this translation project. 67 In some colophons, this role is also called bishou , which was generally reserved for taking down the oral Chinese translation.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 622 JINHUA CHEN

It was proofread and finalized (jiaoding ) in Jian’an 13 (January 4, 208 – February 21, 209). The colophon also refers to another saying that it was completed at a temple in Xuchang on Jian’an 3.8.8 (Septem- ber 26, 198)68. [B.2.1.iii] Xuzhen tianzi jing (Skt. *Sucinti[?]devaputra) (2 or 4 juan) was started (chu) in Taishi 2.11 (December 14, 266 – Jan- uary 12, 267)69. According to an anonymous colophon, on Taishi 2.11.8 (December 22, 266), at Baima si within the Green Gate (Qingmen ) in Chang’an, DharmarakÒa “enunciated the sutra” ( ); the translators were An Wenhui and Bo Yuanxin , the Scribes were Nie Chengyuan (d.u.), Zhang Xuanbo and Sun Xiuda . It was completed on Taishi 2.12.3070. Since two other people acted as the translators, DharmarakÒa at the time limited his role to “enunciating” (reciting) the original text, which was taken down either by an anonymous person, or by Nie Chengyuan, Zhang Xuanbo or Sun Xiuda, who are here all presented as “scribes,” a title that can refer to, as we have just seen in the last two cases, the function of transcribing an original

68 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.48c9-16. The colophon here identifies Jian’an 3 as a xuzi year, which is incorrect since it was a xuyin year. The only xuzi year in the Jian’an reign-era is Jian’an 13. For this reason, Su Jinren (Chu sanzang ji ji, p. 282, n. 30) has suggested that here Jian’an 3 was an error for Jian’an 13. I do not agree. The year Jian’an 13 has already been mentioned before as the date when the translation was completed. The author had no reason to raise it up again as “another saying.” 69 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c17. Some lines after this (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.9c9-11), an identical translation is attributed to Tanmoluocha . Since Tanmoluocha was none other than a Chinese transliteration of DharmarakÒa’s Sanskrit name, this item is a repe- tition of what is already included before. Zhisheng (Kaiyuan shijiao lu 2.497a11-12) has already noted this error. However, it is not so likely that Sengyou would have made such an outrageous blunder. This item must have been added by a later editor. An analysis of the structure of the list of DharmarakÒa’s translations in the Chu sanzang ji ji supports this. In juan 2, Sengyou tells us that Daoan’s catalogue covered seventeen translators, from An Shigao (fl. 148-170) to Fali (fl. 290-311), all of whom he also includes in his own (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.4-8). This section of the Chu sanzang ji ji in its present state includes eighteen translators. One of them must have been added by later editors. This will be easily accounted for if we assume that the entry on Tanmoluocha was exactly such a (redundant) addition. 70 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.48b23-26; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, pp. 65-66. This date is problematic, since the last day in Taishi 2.12 is Taishi 2.12.29. There was no thirtieth day in this month. The author here means either Taishi 2.12.29, or Taishi 3.1.1.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 623 text that was delivered. This colophon, presumably written either in 266 or shortly afterward, is important in its status as the earliest known record of DharmarakÒa’s activities as a translator. It seems that as of 266 Dhar- marakÒa’s Chinese capacity had not been good enough to be an inde- pendent oral translator, hence the necessity of two translators in his translation team. However, it should also be noted that this is the only extant colophon referring to such a functionary in his translation committee. The next translation document available to us, composed on or shortly after Taikang 5.2.23 (March 26, 284), eighteen years after the Xuzhen tianzi jing was translated, has already praised his Chinese for its “fluency” (chang ). No translator is mentioned either in the document71. [B.2.1.iv] Fangguang jing (Skt. Pancavimsatisahasrikapra- jnaparamita) (20 juan) was started (chu) on Yuankang 1.5.15 (June 28, 291)72. The history of this translation is described in detail in an anonymous colophon73. The Khotanese version of this sutra was secured by the Chinese monk Zhu Shixing (203-282), who in Taikang 3 (Jan- uary 26, 282 – February 13, 283) commissioned his disciple Furutan (a.k.a. Farao , Skt. Pu∞yadarsa) to send it to Luoyang. After spending three years in Luoyang and two years in Xuchang, Pu∞yadarsa arrived at Shuinan si in Cangyuan of Chenliu , where a translation team was eventually formed. The translation was officially started on June 28, 291 and was completed on Yuankang 1.12.24 (Janu- ary 30, 292). The Khotanese monk Wuchaluo (Skt. MokÒala) acted as the “holder of the hu text” (zhihuben),74 Zhu Shulan (?- 291†), who was an upasaka, acted as the Interpreter (kouchuan ), Zhu Taixuan and Zhou Xuanming together as Scribes. A revision of the translation was then carried out at Shuibei si in Cangyuan between Taian 2.11.15 (December 10, 303) and Yongan 1.4.2 (304), under the direction of Zhu Faji and Zhu Shulan.

71 This translation document is not included in the Chu sanzang ji ji (see note 107). DharmarakÒa is also known to have been able to translate a Buddhist text orally on Taikang 5.10.14 (November 8, 284). See Chu sanzang ji ji 7.50b2-5 (discussed in B.2.2.iii). 72 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b7. 73 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.47c10-28. 74 Cf. Daoan’s combined preface to the Fangguang jing and Guangzan jing (Chu sanzang ji ji 7.48a7), in which he presents MokÒala’s function as zhihu , obviously an abbreviation for zhihuben.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 624 JINHUA CHEN

[B.2.1.v] Daai jing (Skt. *Mahakaru∞ikanirdesa) (7 juan) was started (chu) on Yuankang 1.7.7 (August 18, 291)75. According to an anonymous colophon, on August 18, 291, DharmarakÒa “recited the Sanskrit original of the sutra and orally conveyed it to Nie Chengyuan. Nie Daozhen took it down in Chinese with regular script” ( …. ). A draft was completed on Yuankang 1.8.23 (October 3, 291). DharmarakÒa himself double-checked and revised it in person76. Since here no interpreter is mentioned, as it is in the case of the Xuzhen tianzi jing, I assume that DharmarakÒa functioned not only as the deliverer of the original text, but also as the oral translator. Thus, what he is supposed to have transmitted to Nie Chengyuan was probably an oral translation of the text, along with his own glosses on its key terms, crucial passages and so on. [B.2.1.vi] Zheng Fahua jing (10 juan) (Skt. Saddharmapu∞- ∂arika) was started (chu) on Taikang 7.8.10 (September 19, 286)77. An anonymous colophon describes the process in which this sutra was translated78. On September 19, 286, DharmarakÒa, holding in hand the

75 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b16. 76 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.63b13-18; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, p. 79-80. 77 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b14. 78 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.56c16-24; trans. in Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third-century China, p. 71; idem, “Gandhari and the Early Chinese Buddhist Transla- tion reconsidered,” p. 485. According to an anonymous colophon, on Yuanxi 1.8.28 (Octo- ber 18, 290), srama∞a Kang Nalü , after making a copy of the Zheng Fahua jing (the original has it as Zheng Fahua pin , which was probably an error for Zheng Fahua jing ), went to Baima si (the Korean edition has it as Baima-rong – an image at Baima si?) along with several upasakas (including Zhang Jibo , Dong Jingxuan , Liu Changwu , and Liu Changwen ), holding in the hand a copy of the original sutra. Sitting face-to-face with DharmarakÒa ( ), [Kang Nalü] started to orally collate the old exposition [on the sutra] ( ) with DharmarakÒa [and together, they] brought forth its profound meanings. On the fifteen day of the ninth month [of the same year] (Yuanxi 1.9.15 – November 4, 290), he (Kang Nalü or DharmarakÒa) preached on the sutra in a great dana assembly at Dongniu si , for a whole day and night, leaving none of the attendants unhappy. A revision of the sutra was thus completed. See Chu sanzang ji ji 8.56c26-57a2, translated and discussed in Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third-century China, p. 72; idem, “Gandhari and the Early Chinese Buddhist Translation reconsidered,” p. 488. Boucher, like other scholars, believes that both the subject of “orally collating the old exposition and bringing forth its profound meanings,” and the lecturer in the assembly are

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 625 hu original, orally translated (lit. “delivered by mouth”) the twenty-seven chapters of the Saddarmapu∞∂arika sutra (, ). The oral translation was transmitted to Nie Chengyuan. Zhang Shiming and Zhang Zhongzheng together took down [the oral translation] (bishou ). Zhu Decheng , Zhu Wen- sheng , Yan Weibo , Xu Wencheng , Zhao Shuchu , Zhang Wenlong , Chen Changxuan and others all together took pleasure in encouraging and supporting [the translation project] ( ). The [first draft of] the translation was completed on the second day of the ninth month [of the year] (Taikang 7.9.2 [October 14, 297]). The Indian monk Zhu Li and the Kuchean layman Bo Yuanx- ing together proofread and collated the translation (canjiao ). On the sixth day of the second month of the first year79, a revision was undertaken. Further, on Yuankang 1.4.15 (May 19, 300), the Chang’an native Sun Bohu copied an exegesis on the sutra (sujie )80. [B.2.1.vii] Apitan ba qiandu (20 juan) (Skt. *Abhidhar- maÒ†agrantha) was started (chu) in Jianyuan 19 (February 19, 383 – Feb- ruary 7, 384)81. According to Daoan’s preface to this sutra, the draft was done between Jianyuan 19.4.20 (June 6, 383) and Jianyuan 19.10.23

DharmarakÒa, of which I am not certain. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he was actually Kang Nalü. Antonello Palumbo has recently proposed a new reading of this tricky passage in his “DharmarakÒa and Ka∞†haka: White Horse Monasteries in Early Medieval China,” in Buddhist Asia 1: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies in Napels in May 2001 (edited by Giovanni Verardi and Silvio Vita; Kyoto: Italian School of Asian Studies, 2003), p. 175 (the article itself in pp. 167-216). 79 The original here does not tell us the name of the reign-era. Tang Yongtong suggests that yuannian here might have been an error of jiunian (i.e. Taikang 9.2.6 – March 24, 299), or that yuannian refers to the first year of the Yuankang era, the era mentioned below, which will have it as Yuankang 1.2.6 (March 12, 300). See Tang Yongtong, Hanwei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiaoshi (2 vols, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983 [rpt.]), p. 112. The first possibility sounds more likely to me. 80 The expression sujie appears rather befuddling. Okabe Kazuo suggests that it was an error for sujuan , having xie sujuan mean “copied the translation onto pure silk.” See Okabe, “Yakkyo to shakyo” (Toyo gakujutsu kenkyu [Journal of Oriental Studies] 22.2 [1983]: 13-47]), p. 21. Boucher (“Gan- dhari and the Early Chinese Buddhist Translation reconsidered,” p. 486, n. 68) understands it as “simple glosses.” Such a usage appears rather rare to me. Given the similarity in form between su and yi , I suspect that sujie might be an error for yijie (an exegesis [on the Lotus Sutra]). 81 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c9.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 626 JINHUA CHEN

(December 3, 383). Fahe entreated Sengjiadipo (Saµghadeva), who was able to recite this sutra fluently ( ), to “bring it out” (chu zhi ), which here means enunciating the original text from his memory and having it taken down on paper. Fonian acted as the translator (yichuan ), Huili and Sengmao as Scribes, and Fahe “regulating the purport of the sutra” ( ), which probably refers to his function as a Doctrinal Rectifier (zhengyi ). After the production of the draft, Daoan and Fahe, who were unsatisfied with the quality of the draft, insisted that a revision be made. Saµghadeva complied, and after working incessantly for forty-six days, a revision was issued82. [B.2.1.viii] Sengqieluocha jijing (Skt. *SaµgharakÒa- sancayabuddhacarita) (3 juan): chu on Jianyuan 20.11.30 (December 28, 384)83. The Chu sanzang ji ji includes two documents related to the translation of this sutra, one by Daoan and the other by an anonymous author. According to Daoan, when the Jibin monk Saµghabhadra carried the original of this text to Chang’an in Jianyuan 20 (February 8, 384 – January 26, 385), Zhao Zheng persuaded him to translate it into Chinese. With Fonian84 acting as the translator (yi ) and Huisong as Scribe, Daoan and Fahe “collated and fixed [the draft]” ( ), which means that they served as the Doctrinal Rectifiers and Polishers. A draft was produced on December 28, 38485. The anonymous colophon provides some more information about the translation: after the draft was produced on December 28, 384 at Shiyang si , Daoan and Zhao Zheng

82 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.72a9-b15, esp. 72a26-b4. 83 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b8. 84 In the anonymous colophon to the Sengqieluocha jijing, a monk called Fotuluocha (BuddharakÒa?) (the same person mentioned as Futuluocha in Daoan’s preface to the Piposha [Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73c6-7], already discussed in [B.1.i]) is introduced as the “Translator,” the capacity that Daoan ascribes to Fonian in the same translation project. This might suggest that Fonian was BuddharakÒa, which is untenable nonetheless, given that Fotuluocha, which is probably a Chinese transliteration of Buddha- rakÒa, does not seem to be a Chinese translation of the same Sanskrit name. Evidence shows that Fonian and Fohu were indeed two different persons, who both acted as translators in the translation project for the Ahan jing headed by Kumarabuddhi. See Chu sanzang ji ji 9.64c13-15. Thus, once again, Fonian and Fohu (BuddharakÒa) acted as translators for the translation project of Sengqieluocha jijing. 85 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.71b2-23, esp. 71b16-21.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 627 started to polish and revise it till Jianyuan 21.2.9 (March 4, 396)86. Thus, here chu denotes the successful production of a draft on the basis of the oral translation, which can be regarded as neither the beginning nor the end of the translation process, but as a stage thereof. [B.2.1.ix] Zhong ahan jing (Skt. Madhyamagama) (59 juan) was started (chu) in Jianyuan 20 (February 8, 384 – January 26, 385)87. According to Daoan’s preface to the Zengyi ahan jing , through the arrangement of Zhao Zheng, Dharmanandi and his colleagues, including Daoan, Fonian (Translator) and Huisong (Scribe), succeeded in ren- dering the Madhyamagama and Ekottaragama into Chinese under their Chinese titles, Zhong ahan jing and Zengyi ahan jing (totally 100 juan) from the summer of Jianyuan 20 to the spring of the next year88. It is clear that Jianyuan 20 here denotes the start of the translation. [B.2.1.x] Apitan xin (Skt. *Abhidharmah®daya) (4 juan) was started (chu) in Taiyuan 16 (February 20, 391 – February 9, 392) in Mount Lu for Huiyuan89. The old version was translated by Kuma- rabhadrika in Jianyuan 19 (February 19, 383 – February 7, 384) in Chang’an. One of its translators, Fahe, later realized its serious flaws (See B.2.2.xiii). According to an anonymous preface to this sutra, this new version of the Apitan xin was made by Saµghadeva between the winter of Taiyuan 16 (November 20, 391 – February 9, 392) and the autumn of the following year (i.e. Taiyuan 17.7-9 [August 5, 392 – October 31, 392]) at Nan- shan jingshe in Xunyang . “Holding the hu sutra himself, Saµghadeva recited the original before [orally] translating it into Chinese” ( , , ). Daoci acted as a Scribe. In the autumn of the following year, Saµghadeva and his colleagues, after collating and correcting the draft together, eventually made it right. At the time Zhu Senggen , Zhi Sengchun and others (over eighty in total), the governor of Jiangzhou Wang Ningzhi (?-400)

86 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.71b24-c7, esp. 71b25-29. 87 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b23. The original has it as . Here zhou must be an error for tong , which refers to the same reign-era of the Later Qin. 88 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.64a29-c2, esp. 64b8-16. We have already mentioned this preface before (see note 29). Cf. Dharmanandi’s biography at Chu sanzang ji ji (13.99b16-21) and Fonian’s at Chu sanzang ji ji 15.111b18-20. 89 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c12.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 628 JINHUA CHEN and the Inspector of Xiyang (an error for Youyang [in Jing- zhou]?) upasaka Ren Guzhi (otherwise unknown), acted as donors together90. [B.2.1.xi] Da banniehuan [jing] (Skt. Mahaparinirva∞a) (6 juan) was started (yichu) on Yixi 13.11.1 (November 25, 417) at Dao- chang si91. The translation was started on Yixi 13.10.1 (October 26, 417) (not Yixi 13.11.1 [November 25, 417] as it is noted in juan 2) and a draft was completed on Yixi 14.zheng.2 (February 22, 418)92. Fodabatuo (i.e. Buddhabhadra) held in hand the hu text ( ) and Baoyun acted as the Translator93. [B.2.1.xii] Mishasai lü (Skt. Mahisasaka-vinaya) (34 juan) was started (yichu) in Jingping 1.7 (August 23-September 20, 423)94. In his introductory note on the Mishasai lü, Sengyou tells us that in the eleventh month of Jingping 1, Wang Lian of Langye , Huiyan and Zhu Daosheng , invited the Jibin vinaya master Fodashi (Buddhajiva,?-424†), who newly arrived in Jiankang in the seventh month of the same year, to translate this vinaya text at Longguang si . Buddhajiva “held in hand the hu version [of the vinaya text]” ( ), the Khotanese srama∞a Zhisheng acting as the Trans- lator. The translation was completed in the twelfth month of the next year95. Thus, according to Sengyou, Jingping 1.7 was the date of Bud- dhajiva’s arrival in Jiankang, rather than that in which the translation was started, which did not happen until four months later. It does not seem likely that this note was added by Sengyou himself, but by a later editor who has misread Sengyou’s introduction. [B.2.1.xiii] Mishasai biqiu jieben (a portion of the Mishasai lü) appeared (chu) at the same time as did the [Mishasai] lü

90 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.72b16-28. Cf. Huiyuan’s preface to the same sutra, which, also included in the Chu sanzang ji ji (10.72b1-73a1), confirms that the new translation was started in Taiyuan 16, although he does not tell us when it was completed. Huiyuan depicts Saµghadeva’s role with a standard statement: “holding in hand the hu text, he enounced [the text] in Chinese (lit. ‘the language of the Jin’)” ( , ). 91 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11c25. 92 The Song, Yuan and Ming editions have it as Yuanxi 14.zheng.1. 93 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.60b2-11, esp. 60b7-11. 94 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b3. 95 Chu sanzang ji ji 3.21a11-b1, esp. 21a26-b1.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 629

()96. This suggests that the translation of this text was according to the interpolator of this note who was not likely Sengyou for the reason noted above — simultaneous with that of the Mishasai lü — that is, in Jingping 1.7 (August 23 – September 20, 423). [B.2.1.xiv] Mishasai jiemo (a portion of the Mishasai lü) appeared (chu) at the same time as did the [Mishasai] lü97. [B.2.1.xv] Ba jixiang jing (Skt. *AÒ†abuddhaka) (1 juan) was started (yichu) on Yuanjia 29.zheng.13 (February 18, 452) in Jingzhou98. According to an anonymous colophon to the sutra, this text was translated between the third and sixth day in Yuanjia 29.zheng (February 6 – March 6, 452) by Gu∞abhadra in Jingzhou , with a member of the imperial family Liu Yixuan (413-452) as the donor99. In juan 2, the starting date (the thirteenth) is obviously an error for the third. [B.2.1.xvi] Chanyao mimi zhibing jing (i.e. Zhi chan- bing miyao fa ) (2 juan) was started (yichu) in Xiaojian 2 (February 3, 455-January 22, 456) in Zhuyuan si 100. An anonymous colophon records that the translation, undertaken by Juqu Jingsheng (a cousin [congdi ] of Juqu Mengxun), lasted for seventeen days, from the eighth to the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month of Xiao- jian 2 (October 4-21, 455), with the nun Huirui (392-464) acting as the Donor101. It seems that Juqu Jingsheng just wrote out the translation from memory (shuchu ) given that it took him barely two weeks to “translate” — apparently single-handedly — the two-juan text.

* * * In the first section, we have detected two entries (B.1.ix-x) containing two interlinear notes which were probably not originally added by Sengyou, but by later editors. It so happens that this section also contains three

96 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b4. 97 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12b05; cf. the note above. 98 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c22. 99 Chu sanazang ji ji 9.68a2-8. 100 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13a11. 101 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.66a24-b2. This nun’s biography is found at Biqiuni zhuan (Biographies of Nuns) (4 juan, by Baochang [464-520†] ca. 520, T no. 2063, vol. 55) 2.940c-941a.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 630 JINHUA CHEN entries (B.2.1.xvii-xix) whose interlinear notes cannot be regarded as Sen- gyou’s work given that they contradict what he so explicitly says about the date of the Mishasai lü.

III) B.2.2. – Items Each Bearing a Single Date also Included in a Translation Document without a Second Date Largely thanks to the relevant translation documents in the Chu sanzang ji ji, we had very little difficulty in clarifying the meanings of chu/yichu in the interlinear notes added to the entries covered by categories and . The situation gets more complex when we turn to the entries in , not only because of their relatively large number, but also because here the meaning of chu/yichu in each interlinear note becomes rather difficult to determine: [B.2.2.i] Shoulengyan jing (Skt. *Suraµgama) (2 juan, trans. LokakÒema): chu on Zhongping 2.12.8 (January 16, 186)102. This date is provided by Daoan’s catalogue, the Zongli zhongjing mulu , as is quoted in an anonymous preface to Zhi Daolin’s (314-366) commentary on the Shoulengyan jing (LokakÒema’s version)103. It is not clear whether this date refers to the start or completion of the translation. [B.2.2.ii] Xiuxing jing (Skt. *Caryamargabhumi) (7 juan) was completed (chu) on Taikang 5.2.23 (March 26, 284)104. This information is obviously based on a preface which, though not included in the Chu sanzang ji ji, was attached to an edition of the Xiuxing jing105. According to

102 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.6b11. Here Sengyou notes (the text) is not extant (jinque ), which means that it was not seen by him, not that it did not exist. 103 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.49a14-16. The preface itself does not explicitly identify Zhi Daolin as the author of the commentary, which can be inferred, however, from the simple fact that he is the only person directly mentioned and praised in the preface. Cai Yaom- ing speculates that the author of this preface was a disciple of Zhi Daolin. See Cai, “Jiedu youguan Shoulengyan sanmei jing de sipian qianxu houji-yi Shoulengyan sanmei jing xiangguan wenxian de tantao wei beijing" — , Foxue yanjiu zhongxin xuebao 8 [2003], pp. 1- 42), p. 20. This does not seem tenable in the light of the way the author refers to Zhi Daolin (Shamen Zhi Daolin ) and himself (yu ), which suggests that he treats Zhi Daolin as a peer, rather than a teacher. 104 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b21. 105 T no. 607, vol. 15, p. 230, editorial note 19; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Pro- cedure in Third-century China, pp. 66-67. This composition contains praises for Zhu

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 631 this preface, DharmarakÒa secured the original of this text from a Jibin literatus (wenshi ) Zhu Houzheng , who brought it to Dun- huang . Then assisted by a number of people, both Chinese and foreign, religious and lay, DharmarakÒa started to translate it into Chinese and the translation “was not finished until” (shiqi ) Taikang 5.2.22 (March 25, 284)106. It is important to note that by this time DharmarakÒa’s Chinese had already been recognized as “fluent” ( ). The expression shiqi leaves no room to doubt that March 26, 284 here marks the completion of the translation. Therefore, in this interlinear note chu should be understood as referring to the completion of a translation. In the mean- while, we should also note that this colophon, as the only known source for the date of this completion, is not included in the Chu sanzang ji ji, a fact which suggests that it might not have been known to Sengyou107. This fact emphatically points to the possibility that this note was actually added by a later editor, rather than by Sengyou himself. [B.2.2.iii] Aweiyuezhizhe jing (Skt. *Avivartitadharma- cakra) was started (chu) on Taikang 5.10.14 (November 8, 284)108. An anonymous colophon briefly reviews the history of this translation. On November 8, 284, DharmarakÒa, who obtained the Sanskrit original (fanshu ) of the Butuizhuan falun jing (i.e. Aweiyuezhizhe jing) in Dunhuang from Mei Zihou (var. Qiang Zihou ), the vice-envoy of Qucha, [started to] make oral expositions in Chinese [on it] ( ). [When completed,] the translation [obviously together with

Houzheng and DharmarakÒa as well, in addition to some factual information on the translation; it looks more like a preface to the translation than a colophon, which is usually confined to a factual account. 106 Two of his disciples Fasheng and Yuezhi Fabao acted as the scribes. Over thirty laymen volunteered to be donors (lit. qunzhu [encouragers and supporters]). Two persons, apparently laymen too, are listed as copyists (xiezhe ) who copied the text with regular script (zhengshu ). 107 Taking even a casual look at the translation documents in the Chu sanzang ji ji, one will not fail to be impressed with Sengyou’s eagerness and thoroughness in collecting and preserving the prefaces and colophons related to Buddhist translations. He did not pass by what might appear too trivial to a less obsessive cataloguer. Quite a few colophons he includes in the Chu sanzang ji ji are several lines in length. Had he known this anonymous colophon to the Xiuxing jing (which is of a considerable length and quite informative), he would not have failed to include it. 108 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c2.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 632 JINHUA CHEN

DharmarakÒa’s own glosses] was transmitted to Fasheng (d.u.), one of the most important disciples of DharmarakÒa109. Evidently, the phrase koufu jinyan indicates a preliminary phase in a translation process (i.e. orally translating the original text into Chinese). November 8, 284 must accordingly be understood as the start of the translation. [B.2.2.iv] Chixin jing (Skt. Visesacintabrahmaparip®iccha) (6 juan) was started (chu) on Taikang 7.3.10 (April 20, 286)110. A two- line anonymous colophon111 tells us that on April 20, 286, DharmarakÒa enunciated ( ) the Sanskrit original ( ) of this text in Chang’an and transmitted it to [Nie] Chengyuan. It seems that here chu means the reciting of the Sanskrit original from memory (probably accompanied by some necessary glosses), and having it noted down on paper. In other words, it denotes a process of turning a Sanskrit text from its “mental” (memorized) state into first an oral and then written form. For a translation project, this was of course the most preliminary stage to be followed by other procedures including preparing a Chinese draft on the basis of the original text, collating the Chinese rendition with its original, polishing the draft and so on. [B.2.2.v] Guangzan jing (Skt. Pancavimsatisahasrikaprajna- paramita) (10 juan) was started (chu) on Taikang 7.11.25 (December 27, 286)112. In his combined preface to the Fangguang jing and Guangzan jing113, Daoan tells us that DharmarakÒa “issued” (or “started to issue”) (chu) the Guangzan jing on December 27, 286, and the Fangguang jing in the fifth month of Yuankang 1 (June 14 – July 13, 291). Independently, we would not know whether December 27, 286 and Yuankang 1.5 mark the beginning (or completion) of the two translations. Fortunately, from an anonymous colophon on the Fangguang jing we know that it was translated between Yuankang 1.5.15 (June 28, 291) and Yuankang 1.12.24

109 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.50b2-5; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, pp. 68. Fasheng’s biography is found at Gaoseng zhuan 4.347b-c. 110 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b19-20. 111 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.57c20-21; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, pp. 68-70. 112 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b12. 113 “He Fangguang Guangzan lüejie xu” , Chu sanzang ji ji 7.47c29- 48b21.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 633

(January 30, 292)114. Now that Yuankang 1.5 turns out to be the starting date of the Fangguang jing, Daoan must have also given December 27, 286 as the starting point of translating the Guangzan jing. [B.2.2.vi] Wenshushili jinglü jing (Skt. *Manjusri- suddhavinaya sutra) (1 juan) was started (chu) on Taikang 10.4.8 (May 14, 289)115. According to the anonymous colophon, DharmarakÒa received the original of this text from a srama∞a (jizhi ) from India or Cen- tral Asia (xiguo ). Although the copy was incomplete, DharmarakÒa still decided to enunciate the available parts and render them into Chinese ( , ) at Baima si, with Nie Daozhen as a Scribe (dui bishou — “taking down the translation while facing [the translator]”?) and several laymen as donors (quanzhu)116. The context itself does not provide compelling evidence to decide whether the date May 14, 289 was the starting, or ending, point of the translation. However, given that in the Chinese Buddhist tradition the eighth day of the fourth month marks the Buddha’s birthday, it is rather likely that May 14, 289 was chosen as the date to start, rather than to end, the translation. [B.2.2.vii] Moni jing was started (chu) on Taikang 10.12.2 (December 30, 289)117. The translation process is briefly narrated in an anonymous colophon:

114 This colophon is also included in the Chu sanzang ji ji (7.47c9-28), right before Daoan’s preface, discussed in B.2.1.iv. 115 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c22. 116 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.51b9-13; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, p. 77. This entry is also mentioned in the Zhongjing bielu , which was, as most scholars believe, composed earlier than the Chu sanzang ji ji. This catalogue as a whole has been lost since the time of Zhisheng. Some scholars have identified two pieces of Dunhuang manuscript (S 2872, P 3747) as its two portions. They are reproduced in Dun- huang baozang (130 vols., compiled by Huang Yongwu , Taibei: Xin- wenfeng chuban gongsi, 1984) (24: 210, for S 2872), and 130: 337-341 (for P 3747). Fang Guangchang provides a critical edition for each of them in his Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1997), pp. 12-14 (for S 2872), and pp. 14-25 (for P 3747). There is, however, an exception to this almost unanimous con- sensus on the identity of S 2872 and P 3747 on the one hand, and the Zhongjing bielu as mentioned in Fei Zhangfang’s Lidai sanbao ji on the other. Tan Shibao has provided some thought-provoking arguments for the fabricated nature of both the Zhongjing bielu as is mentioned in the Lidai sanbao ji and the two “Dunhuang manuscripts” as well. See Tan, Han Tang Foshi tanzhen (Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1991). 117 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c19. This entry, with an interlinear note indicating the date of the translation, is also included in the Zhongjing bielu; see Dunhuang baozang 130.337;

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 634 JINHUA CHEN

, , , , 118 On Taikang 10.12.2 (December 30, 289), the Rouzhi Bodhisattva Dharma- rakÒa held in hand the Sanskrit text and orally translated it into Chinese. Nie Daozhen acted as a scribe. It was only then that the text was initially translated at Baima si in the western part of the City Luoyang.

We here encounter the standard expression < , >, which denotes the start of a translation process. This instance is particularly important not only because it turns out to be the first known occasion in which DharmarakÒa was described in this way, but also because he stands out as the earliest Buddhist translator who was reportedly able to hold in hand an original text and simultaneously pronounce its oral translation. In addressing a similar statement applied to Kumarajiva (B.1.v), I have already noted that this marks the start of a translation project. Here, the last two characters in this paragraph, shichu , corroborate the plausibility of this understanding by proving that the translation was indeed started on December 30, 289. [B.2.2.viii] Yongfuding jing (2 juan) was started (chu) on Yuankang 1.4.9 (May 23, 291)119. The Yongfuding jing was a Chinese translation of the Suraµgamasamadhi sutra, which is better known in Chinese as Shoulengyan sanmei jing 120. This date is recorded in an anonymous colophon to the Yongfuding jing quoted in Zhi Mindu’s (a.k.a. Zhi Mindu , d.u.) combined preface to the three versions of the Suraµgamasamadhi sutra (by LokakÒema, DharmarakÒa and Zhu Shulan)121. The colophon simply notes that on May 23, 291 Dharma- rakÒa “held in hand a copy of the sutra in a hu language and orally enunciated [the meanings of] the Shoulengyan sanmei [jing]” ( , ), which can also be regarded as a modification of the

Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, p. 16. In P 3747, Taikang is miscopied as Dakang . 118 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.b7-9; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, p. 77. 119 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.9a1. 120 The yongfuding and shoulengyan sanmei are respectively a Chinese translation and transliteration for the Sanskrit term suraµgamasamadhi. 121 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.49b15-17; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, pp. 78-79.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 635 standard expression shouzhi huben kouchu jinyan. Thus, in the same vein, the expression chu here also means the beginning of the translation. [B.2.2.ix] Xianjie jing (Skt. Bhadrakalpika) (7 juan) was started (chu) on Yuankang 1.7.21 (September 1, 291)122. An anonymous colophon describes the translation of this text in the following way. On September 1, 291, DharmarakÒa, who received [a copy of] this Xianjie sanmei [jing] from a Jibin monk, “held in hand [this text] and enunciated [it] by mouth” ( ). Then a copy of this translation (copied by Zhao Wenlong ) was carried to the author of the colophon, who was then staying in Luoyang123. As an abbreviation for < >, < > denotes a starting stage in a translation process124. Thus, September 1, 291 marks the beginning, rather than the completion, of the translation. [B.2.2.x] Yi Weimojie jing (Skt. Vimalakirtinirdesa) (3 juan, translated by Zhu Shulan) was started and completed (yichu) in Yuankang 1 (April 16, 291 – February 4, 292)125. This date is verified by Sengyou again in his biography for Zhu Shulan, where he states that in Yuankang 1 of the Jin, Zhu Shulan “yichu” (translated) Fangguang jing and Yi Weimojie [jing], which together made up over one hundred thousands words126. An anonymous colophon to the Fangguang jing confirms, on the other hand, that the twenty-juan sutra was translated between Yuan- kang 1.5.15 (June 28, 291) and Yuankang 1.12.24 (January 30, 292) by MokÒala and Zhu Shulan127. Thus, it seems that if the Yi Weimojie jing was also translated in Yuankang 1, it was done sometime before June 28, 291. Given that a much longer text like the Fangguang jing was translated within seven months, it is quite possible that the Yi Weimojie jing, of only 3 juan, was completed in the earlier half of Yuankang 1. The yichu here then means both start and completion of a translation.

122 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b13. 123 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.48c3-5. 124 In principle, kouxuan does not necessarily mean “orally translating a text”; it could also be read as “delivering a text in mouth.” However, since by this time DharmarakÒa’s Chinese had already improved enough to be able to give an oral translation, I believe that stands for , and for < >. 125 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.9c12. 126 Chu sanzang ji ji 13.98c6-7. 127 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.47c10-28.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 636 JINHUA CHEN

[B.2.2.xi] Jianbei yiqiezhi jing (Skt. *Sasabhumika) was started (chu) on Yuankang 7.11.21 (December 21, 297)128. According to a document describing the transmission history of this translation, on December 21, 297, DharmarakÒa “held in hand the hu text and translated it into Chinese” ( , ) at Xisi of Chang’an129. Like < , >, < , > also denotes the start of a translation process. [B.2.2.xii] Puyao jing (Skt. *Samantaprabhasa) (8 juan) was started (chu) in Yongjia 2.5 (June 2 – July 1, 308)130. According to an anonymous colophon131, in Yongjia 2.5, DharmarakÒa “held in hand the hu version of this text and orally translated it into Chinese” ( , ) at Tianshui si , with Kang Shu and Bo Faju as Scribes. The two phrase shouzhi huben, kou xuan jinyan (, ) also constitute a standard expression for the start of a translation. [B.2.2.xiii] Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao (5 juan): chu (primarily designating the beginning, but maybe also the end of the translation) in Jianyuan 18 (January 31, 382 – February 18, 383)132. Daoan’s preface to this redaction (chao ) tells us the provenance of this text and how a selection of the text was translated under the Later Qin. In Jianyuan 18, Midi , the king of Kucha, came to the court of the Later Qin to pay tribute. Along with him came the Kuchean National Master Jiumoluobati (Kumarabhadrika?), who carried with him a copy of a hu version of the Mahaparamitaprajña sutra (of over 550,000 words). Then a selection of the sutra was translated into Chinese by the Indian monk Tanmobi (a.k.a. Tanmobei or

128 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b22. 129 “Jianbei jing shizhu huming bing shu xu” , Chu sanzang ji ji 9.62a3-c21, esp. 62b6-7. Cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third-century China, pp. 82-85. Sengyou fails to identify the author of this document. Su Jinren (Chu sanzang ji ji, p. 357, n. 27) has correctly identified him as Daoan. 130 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b15. Sengyou (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c5) also attributes a text of the same title (with the second character written differently, as , rather than ) to another translator Zhiyan . Zhiyan’s Puyao jing was of six, rather than eight, juan, and was translated in Yuanjia 4 (427), almost twelve decades after DharmarakÒa’s version. These two different versions have been noticed by Sengyou (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.14a35). 131 Chu sanzang ji ji 7.48b28-c1; cf. Boucher, Buddhist Translation Procedure in Third- century China, p. 86. 132 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b1-2.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 637

Faai [Skt. Dharmapriya], fl. 380s) (the Holder of the Original [zhiben ]), with Fohu acting as the Translator (yi ) and Huijin as a Scribe133. Here Jianyuan 18 seems to denote the beginning of this translation, which might have also been over in the same year given that only a small selection (of 5 juan in Chinese) of this voluminous sutra was translated. [B.2.2.xiv] Sanshiqi pin jing (1 juan) was started and completed (chu) in the sixth month of Taiyuan134 20 (cyclical year bingshen ) (February 6, 395 – January 26, 396)135. Tanwulan (Skt. DharmarakÒa), the translator of this sutra, wrote a preface to it and he dates the preface to the sixth month of Taiyuan 21 (cyclical year bingshen) (January 27, 396 – February 12, 397)136. This is in contrast with the date provided in juan 2 of the Chu sanzang ji ji — Taiyuan 20. Given that the bingshen year during the Taiyuan era fell in Taiyuan 21, rather than Taiyuan 20, the date provided in juan 2 must be corrected to Taiyuan 21. Moreover, the small size of this text (only 1 juan) implies that its translation was very likely started and completed in the same year. Thus, chu in this case can mean both, although it seems primarily intended for the start. [B.2.2.xv] Bailun (Skt. *Sataka) (2 juan) was started (yichu) in Hongshi 6 (January 28, 404 – 14 February, 405)137. According to Seng- zhao’s (384-414) preface to the Bailun, in Hongshi 6 the Later Qin courtier Yao Song (?-416) gathered (ji ) scholar-monks to “exam- ine and collate” (kaojiao ) the authentic original (zhengben ) [of the sutra] with Kumarajiva138. Hongshi 6 must therefore be first understood as the date of the preparatory work for (and therefore beginning of) the translation, which could also be finished in the same year given its small size. [B.2.2.xvi] Xin Fahua jing (7 juan) was started (yichu) in the summer of Hongshi 8 (= Hongshi 8.4-6 [May 4, 406-July 31, 407]) at the

133 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.52b8-53b28, esp. 52b3-20. 134 The original has it as Dayuan , which should be an error for Taiyuan . 135 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b17. 136 Chu sanzang ji ji 10.70c11-12. 137 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11a2 138 Chu sanzang ji ji 11.77b10-c9, esp. 77c1-6.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 638 JINHUA CHEN

Great Monastery (Dasi ) of Chang’an139. According to Huiguan’s “Fahua zongyao xu” , in the summer of Hongshi 8, over two thousand scholar-monks were gathered at the Great Monastery in Chang’an to prepare for a new version of the Saddarmapu∞∂arika sutra. Thoroughly discussing [the teachings of the sutra] with the attendants of this congregation, Kumarajiva “held in hand the hu scripture and orally translated it into Chinese” ( , )140. Largely identical with the standard expression , means exactly the same — the initiation of a translation project. The date given here (the summer of Hongshi 8) therefore primarily refers to the official start of this translation project, although in practice it could have also meant the whole of the translation process given that the text, not a very big one, might have been completed in the summer. [B.2.2.xvii] Xin Weimojie jing (3 juan) was started (chu) in Hongshi 8 (February 4, 406 – January 24, 407) at the Great Monastery of Chang’an141. In his preface to the Xin Weimojie jing, Sengzhao thus describes the circumstance under which this new Chinese version of the Vimalakirtinirdesa was prepared: … , , , , , , , … , 142 In Hongshi 8 (February 4, 406-January 24, 407), when suixing (Jupiter) was in the chunhuo position, the Heavenly King of the Great Qin (Yao Xing) … ordered Grand General, Duke Changshan (i.e. Yao Xian [d.u., a younger brother of Yao Xing]), and Left General, Marquis Ancheng (an error for ) (i.e. Yao Song), joined by one thousand two hundred scholar-monks to entreat Dharma Master Kumarajiva to re-translate the authentic original at the Great Monastery in Chang’an… At the time, Kuma- rajiva held in hand the hu scripture and orally translated it into Chinese by himself.

We here have a rather typical statement featuring the start of a translation project: formally requested by a sponsor (usually a political luminary), a

139 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c19. 140 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.57b6-8. 141 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c22. 142 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.58b7-14, the whole preface is found in 58a17-b11.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 639 translator (usually an Indian or Central Asian master) held in hand a copy of the text (either in Sanskrit or a Central Asian language), which he, or one of his assistants, orally translated into Chinese. Obviously, the expression < , > is just a slightly modified form of the standard statement , with which we have now become so familiar due to its frequent occurrences in the colophons to DharmarakÒa’s (and occasionally Kumarajiva’s) translations. Therefore, Sengzhao here also uses Hongshi 8 for the date when the translation was started, although given its small size (3 juan) it may have been completed in the same year. [B.2.2.xviii] Zizaiwang jing (Skt. *Isvararajabodhisattva) (2 juan) was started (chu) in Hongshi 9 (January 25, 407 – February 12, 408)143. About the date of this translation, Sengrui gives us such a rather routine and simple report in his colophon to the sutra: …,… .…144 The Grand General of the Qin, Director of the Imperial Secretariat, and Duke Changshan Yao Xian… therefore entreated Dharma Master Kumarajiva to bring it forth by orally translating it ( ) [into Chinese], which resulted in these two juan. … this year was Hongshi 9 (January 25, 407 – February 12, 408)….

We here still have largely the same narrative structure: at a specific time a sponsor asked for a translation, and a translator complied accordingly. The date should also be understood as the beginning of the translation (and in reality, given its small size [2 juan only] the translation could also be completed in the same year). [B.2.2.xix] Chang ahan jing (Skt. Dirghagama) (22 juan): chu (its oral translation was completed) in Hongshi 15 (February 17, 413 – Feb- ruary 5, 414)145. Sengrui’s preface to the Chang ahan jing proves that this translation was completed in Hongshi 15 ( … )146. The expression < … > makes it clear that it is a result of a process that

143 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c27. 144 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.59a27-b4, esp. 59a26-b3. 145 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11b1. 146 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.63c15-16.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 640 JINHUA CHEN is talked about here, although we should bear it in mind that this was far from the whole translation process, but a part of it — the oral translation, which had to be followed up by a series of tasks. [B.2.2.xx] Wenshushili fayuan jing (Skt. *Manjus- ripra∞idhanotpada) (1 juan): chu (probably both started and completed) in Yuanxi 2 (January 31 – May 27, 420) at Daochang si147. A three-line anonymous colophon to this translation just remarks that this translation was produced by the “Meditation Master” (chanshi ), who was very likely Buddhabhadra, at Douchang si (i.e. Daochang si) in Yangzhou in Yuanxi 2148. The information here is too scant to decide whether the date given here designates the start or end of the translation, although it could be both in view of the small size of the sutra (1 juan). [B.2.2.xxi] Da banniepan jing (Mahaparinirva∞a) (36 juan) was started (yichu) on Xuanshi 10.10.23 (December 3, 421)149. Daolang’s (d. after 439 and probably 445)150. preface makes it clear that this date marks the beginning, rather than the completion, of the translation: , , 151 The King of Hexi entreated [DharmakÒema] to translate this sutra [into Chi- nese] on Xuanshi 10.10.23 (December 3, 421), with the planet Jupiter in the [astrological house of] daliang. Holding in hand the Sanskrit text, [Tanmo]chen orally translated it into the language of Qin (i.e. Chinese).

It can be easily imagined that December 3, 421 was the date for a mag- nificent ceremony during which Juqu Mengxun formally requested Dhar- makÒema to translate the Nirva∞aSutra and the latter started to do so accordingly, exactly as Sengrui had spoken of Yao Xian and Kumarajiva in the case of the preparation for a new Chinese version of the Vimalakir- tinirdesa (B.2.2.xvii).

147 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11c21. 148 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.67c5-8. 149 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11b11. 150 Sengyou mentions a Huilang as an eminent monk (zongjiang ) in Hexi (i.e. Liangzhou) who gave a new name to a collection of Buddhist texts either in or shortly after 445 (see B.2.2.xxii). If this Huilang was Daolang, which seems quite likely to me, he must then have lived beyond 445. 151 Chu sanzang ji ji 8.59c21-23.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 641

[B.2.2.xxii] Xianyu jing (13 juan): chu (was started, and maybe also ended) in Yuanjia 22 (January 24, 445 – February 11, 446)152. This date was probably derived from Sengyou’s own account of the Xianyu jing153. Eight Liangzhou (Hexi ) monks headed by Tanxue (var. Huijue , Tanjue , ?-445†)154 and Weide (var. Chengde , ?-445†) went to Khotan, where they participated in a pancavarÒika assembly, in which various scholar-monks preached on sutras and vinaya

152 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c15. The Zhongjing bielu also includes this entry, to which is attached such an interlinear note: , (Dunhuang baozang 130: 338; Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, p. 16) Issued (chu , this character is missing from Fang’s critical edition) in the twenty- second year of the Yuanjia era. In the time of Emperor Wen of the Song [dynasty] (P 3747 has it as , which Fang correctly emends to Song ), the Liangzhou srama∞a Tan[xue] [ ] obtained [the text] in Khotan (P 3747 has it as , which Fang emends as [Liangzhou srama∞as Tanxue and Weide] on the basis of the Chu sanzang ji ji. However, it is more likely that there is only one character [ ] was missing from the manuscript). The Lidai sanbao ji (9.85a14-15) contains a note on the provenance of this collection. The Liangzhou monks Tanjue (var. Huijue), along with Weide, secured the Sanskrit original of this sutra in Khotan and brought it to Gaochang. The sutra was translated at Tian’an si of Gaochang in Yuanjia 22. This brief account is inaccurate in at least four points. First of all, the Liangzhou monks did not secure a separate sutra in Khotan as the original of this collection. Second, the original was not necessarily in Sanskrit, but rather more likely in Khotanese. Third, it is not accurate to say that the Xianyu jing was “translated” in Gaochang. Sengyou makes it clear that the components of the collection had already been translated in Khotan by the eight Liangzhou monks; and therefore that presumably in Gaochang only a limited amount of work was done to edit the separate notes and com- pile them into a coherent entity. Fourth, the biggest mistake that Fei Zhangfang has made here is that he mistook Tian’ansi, which was Hongzong’s affiliation temple in the Xiao Qi capital (Jiankang) (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c18, 9.23-24), as a temple in Gaochang! It is quite surprising that such an outrageous blunder has escaped the eyes of Daoxuan and Jingmai (d. after 664), both of whom repeat the mistake in their catalogues — Da Tang neidian lu (Record of the Buddhist texts, [compiled under] the Great Tang; 10 juan, compiled in 664), T no. 2149, vol. 55, 4.256b28-c1; Gujin yijing tuji (Graphic accounts of the translation of Buddhist scriptures from the past to the present; compiled in 664-665), T no. 2151, vol. 55, 3.360a12-15. Zhisheng, as is characteristic of his extraordinary vigilance and judiciousness as a historian, apparently noted and avoided this mistake judging by the fact that he does not locate Tian’an si in Gaochang; see Kaiyuan shijiao lu 6.539b28-c11. 153 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.67c9-68a1. 154 Sengyou provides no more information about this monk. It was only the Gujin yijing tuji (3.360a12-13) that adds a few general remarks on his personality and the advanced level of his religious cultivation.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 642 JINHUA CHEN texts. Excited by this, they started to study the hu language (probably meaning Khotanese here) and wrote down in Chinese what they heard. After returning to Gaochang, they edited their individual notes and compiled (ji ) them into a collection. After that, they brought the collection back to Liangzhou, where the eminent monk Huilang (probably Daolang ) named this collection “Xianyu jing.” Right after this, Sengyou adds that this collection was “compiled” in Yuanjia 22 (the yiyou year) (January 24, 445 – February 11, 446). Then he turns to introduce the Liang monk Hongzong (432-515†), who, when he was a srama∞era of fourteen sui, went to study in Liangzhou with his master and witnessed the event of “compiling” the collection. Hongzong reached, Sengyou tells us, eighty-four sui in Tianjian 4 (January 21, 505 – February 8, 506), when the collection had been in the Central Kingdom (zhongguo ) for seventy years. There are a couple of discrepancies implied in this account. If the collection was compiled in Yuanjia 22 (January 24, 445 – February 11, 446), when Hongzong was fourteen sui, then he must have been born in 432 and reached seventy-four, rather than eighty four, sui in Tianjian 4 (Jan- uary 21, 505 – February 8, 506); and the text had only been in China for sixty (445-505), rather than seventy, years. These two incoherent points have led scholars to debate the date when this collection was compiled. While some are of the opinion that it was translated in 445 and propose to correct the date Tianjian 4 to Tianjian 14 (three years before Sengyou’s death), some maintain that it was done in 435 (and accordingly that Yuan- jian 22 was an error for Yuanjia 12 [February 14, 435 – February 2, 436]). A third view has also been proposed as a compromise: while it was compiled in 435, it took a whole decade to have the collection transmitted from northern China to the south155. A major reason that scholars stick to the year 435 is that by 445 Liang- zhou was already in hands of the Northern Wei rulers, who were then turning increasingly hostile to Buddhism, which would have allowed no room in Liangzhou for compiling a group of Buddhist texts into a collection.

155 These different views are reviewed in Liang Liling’s “Xianyu jing zai Dun- huang de liuchuan yu fazhan” (Zhonghua foxue yanjiu 5 [2001]: 123-162), pp. 128-132.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 643

These scholars have forgotten a simple point that Sengyou makes in the account: the collection was compiled in Gaochang on the basis of individual notes that the eight monks made in Khotan156. The remnant regime of the Northern Liang in control of Gaochang was quite enthusiastic in promoting Buddhism157. They certainly had the willingness and capacity to sponsor such a program. Furthermore, that Yuanjia 22 was indeed a yiyou year as Sengyou noted renders it highly unlikely that Yuanjia 12 was miscopied as Yuanjia 22. These scholars have come to believe that the text was “translated” in Liangzhou probably because of Sengyou’s remark that Hongzong “participated in the ‘congregation’ in person and witnessed the event with his own eyes” ( , ) while “traveling in Hexi with his teacher” ( ). It is possible that another assembly was held in Liangzhou during which Huilang formally assigned a name to the collection. Given that the collection had already been properly edited and compiled in Gaochang, such an assembly was probably no more than a cele- bratory ceremony that would not have lasted too long. Furthermore, there is no constraining evidence to suggest that in 445 such a ceremony would have been impossible in Liangzhou. It is true that due to the corruption of the Saµgha and especially its involvement in a series of anti-government insurgencies, Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei was becoming more and more vigilant about Buddhists since the beginning of the 440s, as is shown by two remarkable events that both happened in 444: the issuing of an edict to prohibit the practice of keeping Buddhist monks in private households and the execution of the eminent monk Xuangao (d. 444), who was suspected of intervening in court intrigues158. However, the

156 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.67c17-22. 157 The enthusiasm that Juqu Mengxun’s successors in Gaochang had shown to Bud- dhism is shown by an epitaph currently known as “Juqu Anzhou zaosi gongde bei” (written by Xiahou Can [?-445†] in 445). On this important epigraphic source, see Jia Yingyi’s “Juqu Anzhou zaosi gongde bei yu Bei Liang Gaochang fojiao” « » (Xiyu yanjiu 1995.2: 35-41) and Rong Xinjiang’s “Juqu Anzhou bei yu Gaochang Da Liang zhengquan” (Yanjing xuebao [New Series] 5 [1998]: 65-92) and the studies quoted therein. 158 Zizhi tongjian (Comprehensive mirror for aid in government; compiled by Sima Guang [1019-1086] and others, and presented to the court in 1084; Bei- jing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976) 124.3903; Gaoseng zhuan 11.397c-398a.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 644 JINHUA CHEN nationwide persecution of Buddhism was not officially decreed until two years later (in 446)159. It is therefore possible that such a ceremony could still have been held in Liangzhou in 445. To sum up, the following scenario seems closer to the truth: the collection was compiled in Gaochang in Yuanjia 22 before it was shortly afterward brought to Liangzhou, where a ceremony was held to honor it and it also received a new name from Huilang. After briefly addressing the tricky issues centering around the compilation of this collection, let me add, for our purposes, that in this context Yuanjia 22 marks the date of compiling this collection. Given that the individual sutras had already been noted down and translated into Chinese in Khotan by Tanxue and his comrades, the compilation process in Gaochang should not have been too long. In all likelihood, it only lasted several weeks (or at maximum, months). Thus, in this case, chu denotes both the start and completion of the process that resulted in this thirteen juan work. [B.2.2.xxiii] Baiju piyu jing (i.e. Baiyu jing ) (by Qiunapidi [Gu∞av®ddhi,?-502]) was started (yichu) on Yong- ming 10.9.10 (October 16, 492)160. Given that this date appears in a document called “Chujing qianji” , which, in contrast with the Chu- jing houji (a colophon attached to a translation when it was completed), probably means “an account of the translation right before it was started,” I assume that this date marks the beginning, rather than the completion, of the translation161.

* * *

Of these twenty-three entries examined in this section, fifteen (B.2.2.iii- ix, B.2.2.xi-xii, B.2.2.xv-xviii, B.2.2.xxi, B.2.2.xxiii) are those in which chu/yichu indicates the start of the translations, five (B.2.2.x, B.2.2.xiii- xiv, B.2.2.xx, B.2.2.xxii) in which chu/yichu primarily means the beginning

159 Zizhi tongjian 124.3923-3924. 160 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13c4. 161 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.68c24-28; cf. 14.106c29-107a1, in which the date is roughly given as “the autumn of Yongming 10.”

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 645 of the translations, but probably also their end given their small size, and only three, in two of which the expression means the end of the translations (B.2.2.ii and B.2.2.xix), while in the third (B.2.2.i) the expression could have indicated the beginning or end of the translation.

IV) Analysis and Conclusion As is shown in the Appendix, thirty-three out of the eighty-three entries that Sengyou has dated in the second juan of his Chu sanzang ji ji have dates that are, unfortunately, unverified by any translation documents earlier than Sengyou, no matter whether included in the Chu sanzang ji ji or not. It is quite remarkable that almost half (sixteen out of thirty-three) of these translations are in DharmarakÒa’s name. We cannot help but wonder how many — if not all — of these dates indicate the start of these translations. Let us return to this tricky question after a general survey of the investigation in which we have so far engaged and see what general rules — if any — can be drawn from this investigation. Since the meaning of chu/yichu in the twenty-seven items in (eleven items) and (sixteen items) is rather clear and has posed no issue to us, let me here make several general remarks on the twenty- three items covered in . Of these twenty-three items, thirteen bear dates specific to days —viz, each of them is a specific day of a specific month of a specific year, while the other ten (B.2.2.x, B.2.2.xiii-xx, B.2.2.xxii) give less specific dates — a month in a year (Taiyuan 20.6), a season in a year (summer of Hongshi 8), and eight individual years (Yuankang 1, Jianyuan 18, Hongshi 6, 8, 9, 15, Yuanxi 2, and Yuanjia 22). All of the thirteen specific dates — except for one which is in a note (B.2.2.ii) probably added by a later editor, and another (in B.2.2.i) which indicates the completion of a translation — denote when the translations were started, rather than ended. That chu/yichu in these cases indicates the start of a translation process is most compellingly proved by the preface that Sengrui wrote for Kumarajiva’s version of the Mahaprajna- paramita sutra in which he uses chu and chujin to describe the start and completion of the oral translation delivered by Kumarajiva.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 646 JINHUA CHEN

Regarding the ten less specific dates, except for one (B.2.2.xix), which denotes the end of a translation162, they either (B.2.2.xv-xviii) exclusively indicate the start of the translations, or (B.2.2.x, B.2.2.xiii-xiv, B.2.2.xx- xxii) are primarily meant for the start of the individual translations although they might also be the dates in which the translations — not big in size — also ended. Thus, we can make the following three conclusions regarding the usages of chu/yichu in juan 2 of the Chu sanzang ji ji. First, when an item bears two dates, to the first of which chu/yichu is invariably attached, chu/yichu is to be understood as “[the translation] was started.” Second, with very few exceptions, chu/yichu, when preceded by a date specific to a day, denotes the beginning, rather than the end, of the translation. Third, when preceded by a less specific date (a month or a season in a year, or simply a year), chu/yichu primarily denotes the start of a translation, or — if the text to be translated is of small size — also the whole of the translation process (as we can see, to this general rule there is only one exception)163. Therefore, chu/yichu added to the interlinear notes in the second juan of Chu sanzang ji ji denotes at least four quite distinct meanings: (1) the enunciating, and (2) oral translation, of a foreign text, (3) successful production of a draft on the basis of the oral translation (to be subjected to a series of editorial work), and eventually (4) the completion of a translation process per se, which included oral translation and its transcription, polishing, collation, revision and so on. The first connotation has been least noticed and deserves particular attention. Many Buddhist missionaries from India or Central Asia came to China without bringing hard copies of Buddhist texts, which were instead “saved” in

162 The translation, finished in Hongshi 15, was probably started in a different year given that the translation is rather sizeable (22 juan). 163 Entries in are equally divided into two parts with specific and less specific dates — (B.1.i, B.1.iii, B.1.viii, B.1.ix, B.1.xi) vis-à-vis (B.1.ii, B.1.iv-vii). Likewise, a half of < B.2.1.> (B.2.1.i-ii, B.2.1.iv-vi, B.2.1.viii, B.2.1.xi, B.2.1.xv) bear specific dates, while the other half (B.2.1.iii, B.2.1.vii, B.2.1.ix-x, B.2.1.xii-xiv, B.2.1.vi) are not. Here we do not take into account the entries in and < B.2.1.>, all of which, no matter with specific or less specific dates, are about the beginning of the translations. Thus, the inclusion of these cases in and will just increase the likelihood of my hypothesis on the meaning of chu/yichu-it indicates the start of a translation when preceded by a specific date, and is primarily meant for the start of the translation while might also, in practice, include its end.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 647 their minds, from which, after arriving in China and if requested to do so, they recited the texts and had them transcribed. These foreigners were so brilliant at mnemonics that their Chinese associates and sponsors were awe-struck by their abilities. In this sense, they used to some extent their brains as a kind of computer164. On the basis of these general conclusions, we can suggest that in those items in juan 2 whose dates are not verified by sources earlier than Sengyou, the specific dates probably mark the beginning of these translations, while other less specific dates might also refer to the whole translation process although they were originally meant for the dates when these translations were formally initiated. Then, are these general rules applicable to other parts in the Chu sanzang ji ji, or even to other Buddhist catalogues? Nothing definite can be said until we do a thorough examination of the relevant examples in these catalogues, although my own limited and preliminary investigation shows that these general rules seem to hold true for some of the examples that I have randomly selected from these major catalogues like Lidai sanbao ji, Zhongjing mulu 165, Da Tang neidian lu, Da Zhou kanding shijiao mulu 166 and Kaiyuan shijiao lu. However, I would like to emphasize that the situation has become more complex and indeterminate in later Buddhist catalogues. They had to treat some translations done under the auspices of secular authority, which sometimes could become exceedingly aggressive in intervening, for the good or bad

164 For an outstanding example, see Chu sanzang ji ji 14.102c9-12, which records a story of how Yao Xing tested, and became deeply impressed by, the incredible mnemonic prowess of Buddayasas (Fotuoyeshe , fl. 410s), who — with only three days’ preparation — was able to recite without any error over forty sheets of household regis- ters and the same amount of prescriptions! If the historical truth of this story is doubtful given that Buddayasas did not know Chinese at the time, the following story about the Tang genius monk Yixing (683-727) cannot be rejected too easily. Yixing was believed to have been able to recite in front of Xuanzong (r. 712-756) a palace account book after only a casual look at it; see his biography at Song gaoseng zhuan (Biographies of eminent monks, [compiled in] the Song Dynasty [960-1279]; 30 juan, by Zanning [919-1001] and others in 988), T no. 2061, vol. 50, 5.723a6-9. 165 “Catalogue of the Scriptures,” 5 juan, compiled in 602 by Yancong (557-610) and others, T no. 2147, vol. 55. 166 “A Catalogue of the Buddhist Scriptures Collated and Sanctioned under the Great Zhou Dynasty (690-705),” 15 juan; compiled by Mingquan (?-712†) and others in 695; T no. 2153, vol. 55.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 648 JINHUA CHEN of the Saµgha, in the translation, canonization and publication of Bud- dhist texts. In these later catalogues, the dates (more often followed by yi than by chu/yichu) attached to some translations sometime indicate neither the beginning nor the end of these translations, but rather when they were proclaimed (and therefore canonized) by the imperial court. Antonino Forte, who mentions a couple of such examples in one of his recent publications, makes this cogent observation: In actual fact, the dates that are given in the colophons and, consequently, in the catalogues are often the dates of the official document allowing inclusion of a certain work in the Canon. The actual translation could have been done shortly beforehand or, as often happened, much earlier167.

Although what Forte says here cannot be applied to most — if not all — of the examples that we have discussed in this study, he is correct as regards his interests — some translations done during the Tang dynasty and under imperial sponsorship. I have also elsewhere touched on three of Yijing’s (635-713) translations with three largely identical colophons, which not only record three groups of translation committees with nearly the same members, but also date all the three translations to a specific day — Jinglong 4.4.15 (May 18, 710), which could not have been, obviously, the date on which these translations were all together started or completed, but the date on which they received the permission of being entered into the Buddhist canon and also public circulation168. In the course of reviewing some entries in correlation with their respective translation documents, we have encountered a number of identically

167 Forte, A Jewel in Indra’s Net: The Letter Sent by Fazang in China to Uisang in Korea (Kyoto: Scuola Italiana di Studi sull’Asia Orientale, 2000), pp. 57-58. 168 These three colophons are to the following three translations by Yijing (1) Genben Shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye song , (2) Genben shuoyiqieyou bu nituona , (3) Genben shuoyiqieyou bu nituona mudejia ; see Ikeda, Chugoku kodai shahon shikigo shuroku, pp. 272-276. In addition, two more translations by Yijing, the Jin guangming Zuishengwang jing and Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye , also bear two nearly identical colophons. See Ikeda, Chugoku kodai shahon shikigo shuroku, p. 260- 265; Chen Jinhua, “Another Look at Tang Zhongzong’s (r. 684, 705-710) Preface to Yijing’s (635-713) Translations: With a Special Reference to Its Date,” Indo-tetsugaku bukkyogaku kenkyu (Studies in Indian Philosophy and Buddhism, Tokyo University) 11 (2004), pp. 24-25, n. 73.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 649

(or very similarly) formatted statements to the effect that [a translator] held in hand a copy of an original text either written in Sanskrit (fan ) or a Central Asian language (hu ), and orally translated (literally, “enunciated by mouth”) it in Chinese (referred to as the language of Jin [jinyan , jinyu ], or of Qin [qinyan , qinyu ] and so on). Although I have frequently highlighted this format, given its unique importance in deciding the connotation of chu/yichu in the second juan of Chu sanzang ji ji, let me here list — in chronological order169 — these examples, along with a couple more which, though also found in the Chu sanzang ji ji, we have not discussed yet. Our purpose is to see what exactly these bipartite statements mean under different circumstances: 1. [B.2.1.vi] DharmarakÒa on Taikang 7.8.10 (September 19, 286): , ; 2. [B.2.2.vii] DharmarakÒa on Taikang 10.12.2 (December 30, 289): , ; 3. [B.2.2.viii] DharmarakÒa on Yuankang 1.4.9 (May 23, 291): , []; 4. [B.2.1.v] DharmarakÒa on Yuankang 1.7.7 (August 18, 291): …. , ; 5. [B.2.2.ix] DharmarakÒa on Yuankang 1.7.21 (September 1, 291): ; 6. [B.2.2.xi] DharmarakÒa on Yuankang 7.11.21 (December 21, 297): , ; 7. [B.2.2.xii] DharmarakÒa in Yongjia 2.5 (June 2 – July 1, 308): , ; 8. [B.2.1.x] /1 Saµghadeva in Taiyuan 16 (February 20, 391 – February 9, 392): 170 , , ; 9. [B.2.1.x] /2 Saµghadeva in Taiyuan 16 (February 20, 391 – February 9, 392): , 171; 10. [B.1.v] Kumarajiva on Hongshi 6.4.23 (May 18, 404): , ;

169 Here I assume that a colophon to a translation was written shortly after the translation was done and properly copied. In other words, a translation and its colophon(s) can be regarded as, more or less, synchronic. 170 Given the similarity in form between shou and zi and the frequent appearances of the expression shouzhi hujing , it is possible that shou here was miscopied as zi. 171 Nos. 8 and 9 are both about Saµghadeva’s role in the translation of the Apitan xin. The first was in an anonymous colophon, and the later in Huiyuan’s preface to the same text. Cf. note 90.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 650 JINHUA CHEN

11. [B.2.2.xvi] Kumarajiva in the summer of Hongshi 8 (May 4, 406 – July 31, 407): , ; 12. [B.2.2.xvii] Kumarajiva in Hongshi 8 (February 4, 406 – January 24, 407): , ; 13. Kumarajiva on Hongshi 13.9.8 (October 11, 411): , 172; 14. [B.1.vii] Budhabhadra on Yixi 14.3.10 (April 30, 418): , ; 15. [B.2.2.xxi] DharmakÒema on Xuanshi 10.10.23 (December 3, 421): , ; 16. Baoyun (376-449) (in his late years): , 173;

Quite evidently, this format is composed of two components, respectively meaning “holding in hand an original text [in Sanskrit or a Central Asian language],” and “orally translating it into Chinese.” For the second component, these different expressions are used: [1] kouxuan jinyan (“enunciating [the text] in the language of Jin [i.e. Chinese]”) (four times, 2. [B.2.2.vii], 7. [B.2.2.xii], 9. [B.2.1.x]/2, 16; the former two for DharmarakÒa and the latter two for Saµgha- deva and Baoyun respectively); [2] kouxuan qinyan (“enunciating [the text] in the language of Qin [i.e. Chinese]”) (twice, 10. [B.1.v] and 15. [B.2.2.xxi], for Kuma- rajiva and DharmakÒema); or [2.1] kouyi qinyu (“orally translating [the text] in the language of Qin [i.e. Chinese]”) (once, 11. [B.2.2.xvi], for Kumarajiva); [3] kou zi xuanyi (“orally translating by oneself”) (12. [B.2.2.xvii] for Kumarajiva); or [3.1] kou zi chuanyi (“orally translating by oneself”) (13, for Kuma- rajiva);

172 According to an anonymous colophon (Chu sanzang ji ji 11.78a7-10), on Hongshi 13.9.8, Yao Xian, the Director of the Imperial Secretariat (shangshu ling ), requested [Kumarajiva] to produce a Chinese translation of the *Tattvasiddhi (Chengshi lun ). It was completed on Hongshi 14.9.15. Kumarajiva “held in hand the hu text, which he orally translated by himself” ( , ). Tangui acted as a scribe. In his account of the lecturing of this sastra in Jiankang starting from Yongming 7.10 (489) (Chu sanzang ji ji 11.78a12-15), Sengyou tells us that another disciple of Kumarajiva Tanying acted as polisher (zhengxie ) for the translation (in the Chu sanzang ji ji the author of this composition has been left unidentified. Su Jinren [Chu sanzang ji ji, p. 422, n. 28], on the basis of the Quan Liang wen , successfully identifies him as Sengyou). 173 Chu sanzang ji ji 15.113a19-20.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 651

[4] kouxuan (“orally enunciating”) (5. [B.2.2.ix], for DharmarakÒa); [4.1] kouchu (“enunciating” [“orally translating”]) (3. [B.2.2.viii], for DharmarakÒa); or [4.2] kou xuanchu (“enunciating” [“orally translating”]) (6. [B.2.1.i], for DharmarakÒa); [5] kouxuan (“transmitting the oral translation [to someone else]”) (4. [B.2.1.v], for DharmarakÒa); [6] yi wei jinyan (“[orally] translating [the text] into the language of Jin”) (6. [B.2.2.xi], for DharmarakÒa); or [6.1] yi wei jinyu (“[orally] translating [the text] into the language of Jin”) (8. [B.2.1.x]/1, for Saµghadeva); or [6.2] yi hu wei jin (“[orally] translating the hu [text] into the language of Jin”) (14. [B.1.vii], for Buddhabhadra). Both the literal meanings of these expressions and their contexts show that they indicate the role of an oral translator, who was responsible for orally translating a non-Chinese text into Chinese. However, for the first component, which Sengyou presents by diverse expressions, its connotation is far from clear: [1] Shouzhi huben (“holding in hand the hu text”) (six times, 6. [B.2.2.xi] [for DharmakÒema], 7. [B.2.2.xii] [for DharmakÒema], 9. [B.2.1.x]/2, 10. [B.1.v] [for Saµghadeva], 13 [for Kumarajiva], 16 [for Baoyun]); or [1.1] shouzhi hujing (“holding in hand the hu sutra”) (four times: 3. [B.2.2.viii] [for DharmarakÒa], 4. [B.2.1.v] [for DharmarakÒa], 1. [B.2.1.vi] [for DharmarakÒa], 11. [B.2.2.xvi] [for Kumarajiva]); or [1.2] shouzhi huwen (“holding in hand the hu text”) (12. [B.2.2. xvii] [for Kumarajiva]); [2] zizhi hujing (“holding the hu sutra in person”) (8. [B.2.1.x]/1 [for Saµghadeva]); [3] shouzhi fanwen (“holding in hand the Sanskrit text”) (14. [B.1.vii] [for Budhabhadra], 15. [B.2.2.xxi] [DharmakÒema]); [3.1] shouzhi fanshu (“holding in hand the Sanskrit original”) (2. [B.2.2.vii] [DharmarakÒa]); [4] shouzhi (“holding in hand [the original text]”) (5. [B.2.2.ix], for DharmarakÒa).

What do these various expressions (though more or less identical in meaning) mean in the translation documents collected in the Chu sanzang ji ji and the biographies written by Sengyou? Some hints might emerge from a colophon which lists in great detail the various functionaries in a

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 652 JINHUA CHEN translation team directed by the great Buddhist translator Yijing in the early eighth century: i) zhengfanyi (Doctrinal Verifiers of the Sanskrit Text) ii) zhengfanwen (Textual Verifiers of the Sanskrit Text) iii) dufanben (Enouncers of the Sanskrit Original) iv) zhengyi (Doctrinal Verifiers) v) bishou (Scribe) vi) zhengzi (Verbal Rectifier) vii) zhengyi (Verifies of the Translations) viii) zhengfanben (Verifiers of the Sanskrit Original) ix) jianyi (Supervisors of the Translations) x) ciwen runse (Composers and Polishers) xi) jianhu (Supervisors and Protectors of the Translations)174.

As is shown by this list, Yijing’s translation committee contained four groups of people in charge of a Sanskrit original: first, zhengfanben, who authenticated the Sanskrit original (mainly in terms of its provenance, transmission history and so on); second, dufanben, who recited the original text aloud in the course of the translation; third and fourth, zhengfanwen and zhengfanyi, who verified the accuracies of the Sanskrit text respectively from the textual and doctrinal points of view. Although it is risky to put on a par an early translation team with another one almost five centuries later, which was surely far more sophisticated, it still does not seem too far from the mark if we assume that with regard an early translation team the expression zhihuben and its various modified forms indicate a function adopted by the head of a translation team, either a Chi- nese or foreigner, to whom a Chinese translation was usually attributed175. This role consisted in checking the authenticity of the original text and getting it punctuated, and pronounced properly. If this chief-translator’s capacity in Chinese happened to be sufficient, as in the above-mentioned

174 See Ikeda, Chugoku kodai shahon shikigo shuroku, pp. 272-273; quoted and discussed in Chen, “Another Look at Tang Zhongzong’s (r. 684, 705-710) Preface to Yijing’s (635-713) Translations,” p. 13; see also my forthcoming book, History and His Stories: A Biographical and Hagiographical Study of Fazang, Appendix E, where I slightly modified the analysis I made in my article on Yijing. The classification of the functionaries presented here is based on my book on Fazang. 175 In the Chu sanzang ji ji the only Chinese monk who was able to act this role is Baoyun. In some cases, these checkers could be plural (see B.1.ii).

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 653 cases (DharmarakÒa, Saµghadeva, Kumarajiva, Buddhabhadra, Dharmak- Òema, and Baoyun, the last of whom was a native Chinese-speaker), he could also act as an interpreter. In addition to these dual role players, Sengyou also mentions other foreign Buddhist masters who, although also held as the chief-translators, actually only acted as the oral deliverers of the original texts. To these translators, Sengyou applies the following expressions, three of which (shouzhi huben, zhi huben, and shouzhi fanwen) he has already used to describe several of the dual-role translators: [1] shouzhi huben (for Buddhabhadra [B.2.1.xi] [when his Chinese was not good enough] and Zhishilun 176); or [1.1] shouzhi huwen (for Buddhajiva [B.2.1.xii]); [2] zhi huben (“holding the hu text”) (for Kumarabuddhi177, Mok- Òala [B.2.1.vi] and remarkably, three translators together: Saµgha- bhadra, Dharmanandi, and Saµghadeva [B.1.ii]); or [2.1] zhihu (“holding the hu [text]”) (for MokÒala [B.2.1.vi] and Fonian178);

176 This expression appears in an anonymous colophon to the Shoulengyan jing translated by Zhi Shilun, which was done in the third year of the reign-era Xianhe (an error for Xian’an [for this correction, see Su, Chu sanzang ji ji, pp. 283-284, n. 48]) (December 23, 371 – February 20, 372) on the request of the Liangzhou governor Zhang Tianxi . For this translation and three more (Xulai jing , Shang jinguang- shou jing , and Ruhuan sanmei jing ), Bo Yan , a Kuchean prince, acted as the Interpreter, several officials including Zhao Su , Ma Yi and Lai Gongzheng as Scribes (shouzhe ), while Zhang Tianxi himself performed (although perforce only symbolically) the duty of a Composer (zhuci ). See Chu sanzang ji ji 7.49b19-29. 177 According to Daoan’s preface to the Si Ahanmu chao (Chu sanzang ji ji 9.64c3-23, esp. 64c13-16) (although Sengyou has not identified this preface’s author, Su Jinren [Chu sanzang ji ji, p. 359, n. 52] has correctly suggested that he was actually Daoan), in the eighth month of the renwu year (382) at Yesi Daoan requested Kumarabud- dhi to “hold the hu text” ( ), Fonian and Fohu to act as the Interpreters (yi ), Sengdao , Tanjiu and Sengrui as Scribes. The translation was completed in the eleventh month [of the same year]. Cf. Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10b15-16. I have calcu- lated the renwu year mentioned here as 382 on the basis of the following consideration. Daoan mentions in the preface that he was then seventy-two (bajiu ) sui old. Since Daoan was born in 312 or 314, he reached 72 sui in 383 or 385; the renwu year around the period fell on 382. 178 According to an anonymous colophon to a vinaya text for the bhikÒu∞i saµgha (Biqiuni dajie ) translated by Tanmoshi (probably an error for Tan- mochi ) under the Later Qin, Tanmochi acted as interpreter (chuan ), Fonian “held the hu original” (zhihu) and Huichang acted as a Scribe. See Chu sanzang ji ji 11.81b21-24.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 654 JINHUA CHEN

[3] [shou]zhi fanwen (for Buddhabhadra [B.1.vii], Saµghadeva and Saµghabhadra [who jointly performed the function]179, and Saµ- ghabhadra alone180); [4] shouzhi zhengben (“holding in hand the authentic original”) (for Gunabhadra181); [5] shouzhi jingben (“holding in hand the original of the sutra”) (for Kang Nalü [see note 78]); [6] or even simply zhiben (“holding the original”) (for Dharmapriya [B.2.2.viii]), which could have been an abbreviation for shouzhi jingben , shouzhi zhengben , zhi huben , or shouzhi huben .

Given that all the translations should be based on and start with the authentication, proper enunciation and oral translation of an original text, a statement with this bipartite format, when preceded by a specific date, usually functions as a rhetorical reference to the official initiation of a translation. This point becomes more evident in the description of two translation projects directed by Kumarajiva and DharmakÒema respectively (B.2.2.xvii, B.2.2.xxi), in which we are told that on a specific day an official ceremony was held and a sponsor formally requested the translator to carry out the translation, with which the latter complied by holding in hand the original text and orally translating it into Chinese. Since the two components in this bipartite format actually indicate two functions adopted by a chief-translator (those of holding the original text and orally translating it), it naturally brings us to a related issue; that is, the structure of an early Buddhist translation team and its general working procedure, which has been summarized by Erik Zürcher:

179 See Saµghadeva’s Chu sanzang ji ji biography at 13.99c5-6. As is noted before (see note 24), Sengyou here omits the third “Holder of Original Text” — Dharmanandi. 180 See Fonian’s biography at Chu sanzang ji ji 15.111b16-17. Fonian acted as the interpreter. 181 Chu sanzang ji ji 9.67a29-b7.When Prince Pengcheng , the Minister of Educa- tion (situ ), invited the foreign srama∞a Gunabhadra [to translate the text], he “held in hand the authentic original and orally transmitted it in Sanskrit” ( , ), which Baoyun translated into Chinese. Over one hundred monks of virtuous conducts, including Huiyan (363-443), examined the sounds and investigated the meanings in order to finalize the text of the translation. The turning of Bhramic wheel (fanlun ) was initially started on Yuanjia 13.8.14, and was terminated at the end of the month.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 655

The master either had a manuscript of the original text at his disposal or he recited it from memory. If he had enough knowledge of Chinese (which was seldom the case) he gave an oral translation (k’ou-shou [pinyin: koushou] ), otherwise the preliminary translation was made, “transmitted”, by a bilingual intermediary (ch’uan-i [pinyin: chuanyi] ). Chinese assistants — monks as well as laymen — noted down the translation (pi-shou [pinyin: bishou] ), after which the text was submitted to a final revision (cheng-i [pinyin: zhengyi], chiao-ting [pinyin: jiaoding] ). During the work of translation, and perhaps also on other occasions, the master gave oral explanations (k’ou-chieh [pinyin: koujie] ) concerning the con- tents of the scriptures translated182.

Zürcher here has highlighted these major functionaries in an early Bud- dhist translation office: i) the Chief-translator who delivered oral translation (if his Chinese knowledge allowed him to do so) and oral explanations on the scriptures, ii) a bilingual intermediary (chuanyi), iii) scribe(s) (bishou), iv) editor(s) (zhengyi, jiaoding)

This summary has certainly covered the most essential components in an early Buddhist translation team. It leaves only a few points that warrant some further clarifications and supplementations. First of all, as has become quite clear now, in this period the role of a chief-translator (i.e. yizhu as was called in later periods) was designated by a rather com- mon appellation — zhihuben, which has, of course, a number of modified forms. This appellation rather vividly features the nature and importance of a chief-translator — he was esteemed as the very source of an authentic text (when it was recited from his memory), and/or — when there was already a hard copy of the text — the checker and verifier of its authenticity. This was the primary role of the chief-translator, although he could, as Zürcher points out, assume more roles depending on the levels of his ability in spoken and written Chinese. The relative fluidity

182 Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (2 vols., Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959 [rpt. 1972]), p. 31. Cf. Cao Shibang (Tso Sze-bong) , “Lun Zhongguo fojiao yichang zhi yijing fangshi yu chengxu” (Xin Ya xuebao [The New Asia Journal] 5 (1963): 239-321, included in his Zhongguo fojiao yijing-shi lunji (Taibei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1990), pp. 1-94.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 656 JINHUA CHEN of the roles adopted by the chief-translator has also rendered the meanings of bishou, another central functionary, more complicated and ambiguous than Zürcher has presented here. As exemplified by several translators with no or insufficient capacity in Chinese, a so-called bishou was enrolled to transcribe the Sanskrit original recited by a chief-translator, rather than merely to note down the oral (Chinese) translation delivered by the translator. Therefore, it seems more accurate to say that an early Buddhist team was more often than not equipped with two kinds of bishou, one versed in Sanskrit and the other with excellent skills in literate Chinese. Also required by the fluidity of the chief-translator’s roles, we ought to be more sensitive to the ambivalences of such expression as koushou, which, although often denoting the chief-translator’s role as the oral translator as Zürcher has correctly observed, could also refer to the reciting and dictating of an Indic text. On the other hand, we should bear in mind that the role of oral translator could be, as we have shown in the course of ana- lyzing the bipartite format, signified by an assortment of expressions. Finally, more heed are due to other roles in a translation team that did not stand out as remarkably as those of zhihuben, bishou, chuanyi or zhengyi, but which were, nonetheless, still quite instrumental. They include Com- poser (zhuci )183, who was in charge of rewriting and/or polishing the draft from the hands of a scribe, copyists (xiezhe ), and the donors, who are known as tanyue , quanzhu and so on and whose roles might go beyond that of purely financial support (sometime they might helped polish the translations). Thus, maybe we can reconstruct the components of an early Buddhist translation team in this way: i) zhihuben : Holder of the Original Text; ii) bishou : Sanskrit Transcriber; iii) chuanyi : Oral Translator; iv) bishou : Scribe of Oral Chinese Translation; v) zhuci : Composer/Polisher; vi) zhengyi (jiaoding ): Doctrinal Verifier;

183 This expression is only found in an anonymous colophon to the Shoulengyan jing (Chu sanzang ji ji 7.49b28) (discussed in note 176), featuring the role adopted by Zhang Tianxi, who was also the sponsor of this translation project. It seems that Yao Xing and several of his kinsmen might have also acted as both sponsors and composers/polishers in Kumarajiva’s translation projects.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 657

vii) xiezhe : copyist; viii) tanyue (quanzhu ): Donor.

Although still rather undeveloped compared with a later translation team such as Yijing’s, an early Buddhist translation team as described by Sen- gyou already possessed the major functionaries we come to see centuries later.

Appendix: The Entries in Juan Two of the Chu Sanzang ji ji with Dates Unverified by any Translation Documents

Of the eighty-three dated entries in juan two of the Chu sanzang ji ji, the following thirty-three have dates that are not, unfortunately, corroborated by any translation documents included in the Chu sanzang ji ji or elsewhere: [A.i] Fangdeng nihuan jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 2 juan) (Fos- huo Fangdeng bannihuan jing , T no. 378, vol. 12): Taishi 5.7.23 (September 6, 269)184; [A.ii] Deguang taizi jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan) (Foshuo Deguang taizi jing , T no. 170, vol. 3): Taishi 6.9.30 (October 31, 270)185; [A.iii] Baozang jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 2 juan) (T no. 461, vol. 14): Taishi 6.10 (November 1-29, 270)186; [A.iv] Da shanquan jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 2 juan) (Huishang pusa wen da shanquan jing , T no. 345, vol. 12): Taikang 6.6.17 (August 4, 285)187; [A.v] Hailong-wang jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 4 juan) (T no. 598, vol. 15): Taikang 6.7.10 (August 27, 285)188; [A.vi] Puchao jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 4 or 3 juan) (T no. 627, vol. 15): Taikang 7.12.27 (January 8, 287)189; [A.vii] Pumen jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan) (Foshuo Pumen pin jing , T no. 315-1/2, vol. 11): Taikang 8.1.11 (February 10, 287)190;

184 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.8a10. 185 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c21. Cf. Zhongjing bielu, Dunhuang baozang 130.337; Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, p. 15. 186 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c7. The original has as . 187 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.8a11-12. 188 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b24. 189 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b25. 190 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.8b8.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 658 JINHUA CHEN

[A.viii] Baonü jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 4 juan) (Baonü suowen jing , T no. 399, vol. 13): Taikang 8.4.27 (May 26, 287)191; [A.ix] Miji jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 5 juan) (K.192 no. 997, vol. 30): Taikang 9.10.8 (November 18, 288)193; [A.x] Ligoushi nü jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan) (Foshuo Ligoushi nü jing , T no. 338, vol. 12): Taikang 10.12.2 (December 30, 289)194; [A.xi] Baojie jing (or Baoji jing ) (trans. DharmarakÒa, 2 juan) (Baoji pusa suowen jing , or Baoji pusa hui in the Baoji jing , T no. 310-47, vol. 11): Yongxi 1.7.14 (Sep- tember 5, 290)195; [A.xii] Dushi pin jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 6 juan) (T no. 292, vol. 10): Yuankang 1.4.13 (May 27, 291)196; [A.xiii] Rulai xingxian jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 4 juan) (Foshuo Rulai xingxian jing , T no. 291, vol. 10): Yuankang 1.12.25 (January 31, 292)197; [A.xiv] Shoulengyan jing (trans. Zhu Shulan, 2 juan): Yuankang 1 (April 16, 291 – February 4, 292)198; [A.xv] Wugai yijie shixing jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan): Yongning 2.4.12 (May 25, 302)199; [A.xvi] Mie shifang ming jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan) (Fos- huo mie shifang ming jing , T no. 435, vol. 14): Yuanxi 1.8.14 (304)200;

191 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c24. 192 Koryo taejanggyong , 48 vols. (Soul T‘ukpyolsi: Tongguk Taehakkyo, 1957-1976). 193 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b18. 194 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c14. It is noteworthy that the issuing of this sutra was synchronic with that of the Moni jing (see B.2.2.viii). 195 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c08-9. 196 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7b17. 197 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c25. 198 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.9c13. 199 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.8c6. 200 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.8a20. Yuanxi was the reign-name that the Later Zhao regime adopted between 304 and 307. It is rather strange that here a Former Zhao reign- name, rather than the corresponding Jin reign-name, which would be Jianwu (four reign- names were used in the year: Yongan — from the first to the seventh month, Jianwu — from the seventh to eleventh month, switching back to Yongan — from eleventh month to twelfth month, and Yongxing — in the twelfth month). However, the For- mer Zhao, which was founded in the very year (304), had been based in present-day Shanxi and did not extend its dominion to Luoyang until 311. DharmarakÒa is not known to have been active in the Shanxi area around 304. I suspect that here this reign-name was an error.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 659

[A.xvii] Dajing famen jing (trans. DharmarakÒa, 1 juan) (Foshuo dajing famen jing , T no. 817, vol. 17): Jianshi 201 1.3.26202; [A.xviii] San fadu : Taiyuan 16 (February 20, 391 – February 9, 392)203; [A.xix] Xin Wuliangshou jing (trans. Buddhabhadra, 2 juan): Yongchu 2 (February 18, 421 – June 6, 422)204; [A.xx] Puyao jing (trans. Zhiyan and Baoyun, 6 juan)205: Yuan- jia 4 (February 12, 427 – February 1, 428) [A.xxi] Sitianwang jing (trans. Zhiyan, 1 juan) (T no. 590, vol. 15, Foshuo Si tianwang jing ): Yuanjia 4 (February 12, 427 – February 1, 428)206. [A.xxii] Guangbo yanjing jing (trans. Zhiyan, 4 juan) (T no. 268, vol. 9, Foshuo guangbo yanjing bu tuizhuanlun jing ): Yuanjia 4 (February 12, 427 – February 1, 428) 207. [A.xxiii] Chan miyao (trans. Dharmamitra, 3 juan) (T no. 619, vol. 15, known as Wumen chanjing yaoyong fa ): Yuanjia 18 (February 7, 441 – January 26, 442)208

201 Two reign-eras were named Jianshi in imperial China; one, belonging to the Han, lasted from 32 BC to 29 BC and the other, of the Later Yan, fell on 407. Given that DharmarakÒa was active between 265 and 313, the reign-name Jianshi here is obviously a mistake for Taishi (265-274), Jianwu (304), or Jianxing (313-317). This error had already appeared in the Zhongjing bielu. See Dunhuang baozang 130.337; Fang, Dunhuang fojiao jinglu jijiao, p. 15. 202 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.7c16. 203 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.10c13. The Chu sanzang ji ji contains two documents related to this text, one preface written by Huiyuan and the other as an anonymous colophon, presumably composed shortly after the translation was completed. Unfortunately, neither of them dates the translation. It is Saµghadeva’s Chu sanzang ji ji biography which assigns it to the year Taiyuan 16, without telling us if it was the date when the translation was started or completed. See Chu sanzang ji ji 10.73a2-29, 73b1-5; 13.99c17-20. See Zhou Bokan , “San fadu lun chutan” , Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 1 (1987), pp. 17-30. Zhou believes that the San fadu jing and the Si Ahanmu chao (trans. by Kumarabuddhi in 382 at the request of Huiyuan’s teacher Daoan; cf. note 176) were two versions of the same original. 204 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.11c12. On another occasion Sengyou (Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12a24; cf. Baoyun’s biography at Chu sanzang ji ji 15.113a18-19) attributes the same translation (with the same title and translated in the same year) to another monk, Baoyun. This confusion might have been due to the fact that Baoyun was an assistant to Buddhabhadra. 205 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c5. See note 130. 206 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c6. 207 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c7. Sengyou tells us in his biography of Zhiyan (Chu sanzang ji ji 15.12c19-20) that in Yuanjia 4 Zhiyan and Baoyun together translated three texts: Puyao jing [ ], Guangbo yanjing jing [ ] and Si tianwang jing [ ]. Given that these three texts make up only eleven juan, it is possible that they were translated in the same year and chu here denotes both the start and completion of the translation. 208 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.12c1.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 660 JINHUA CHEN

[A.xxiv] Fomu bannihuan jing (trans. Juqu Jingsheng, 1 juan) (Huijian ?, , T no. 145, vol. 2): Xiaojian 2 (Febru- ary 3, 455 – January 22, 456)209 [A.xxv] Nianfo sanmei jing (trans. Gongdezhi [Gu∞abharman?], 6 juan) (T no. 414, vol. 13, Pusa nianfo sanmei jing ): Daming 6 (February 15, 462 – February 3, 463)210; [A. xxvi] Pomo tuoluoni jing (trans. Gu∞abharman, 1 juan) (T no. 1014, vol. 19, Wuliangmen Pomo tuoluoni jing ): Daming 6 (February 15, 462 – February 3, 463)211; [A.xxvii] Za baozang jing (trans. Tanyao , 13 juan) (T no. 203, vol. 4): Yanxing 2 (January 26, 472 – February 12, 473)212; [A.xxviii] Fu fazang yinyuan jing (trans. Tanyao, 6 juan) (T no. 2058, vol. 50, Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan ): Yanxing 2 (January 26, 472 – February 12, 473)213; [A. xxix] Fangbianxin lun (trans. Tanyao, 2 juan) (T no. 1632, vol. 32): Yanxing 2 (January 26, 472 – February 12, 473)214; [A.xxx] Shanjian piposha lü (trans. Saµghabhadra, 18 juan) (T no. 1462, vol. 24, Shanjian lü piposha ): Yongming 7 (February 16, 489 – February 5, 490)215; [A.xxxi] Guanshiyin chanhui chuzui zhoujing (trans. Fayi [Skt. Dharmamati], 1 juan): Yongming 8 (February 6, 490 – January 5, 491)216; [A.xxxii] Shier yinyuan jing (trans. Gu∞av®ddhi, 1 juan): Jianwu 2 (February 11, 495 – January 30, 496)217;

209 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13a12. 210 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13a16. 211 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13a17. 212 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13b6. 213 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13b7. 214 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13b8. Fei Zhangfang (Lidai sanbao ji 9.85b25-28) attributes the dating of these three texts to a catalogue compiled by the monk Daohui (451-481), Song Qi lu . 215 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13b20. There is an anonymous colophon which contains an interesting account of how a copy of this translation was brought to Jiankang from Guangzhou shortly after it was translated there. See Chu sanzang ji ji 11.82a23-b2. The colophon does not tell us when the text was translated, only telling us that the Chanlinsi nun Jingxiu secured it in Yongming 10 (February 14, 492 – February 1, 493). This account is also important for its reference to the Indian practice of making a dot per annum on the vinaya text since the parinirava∞a (the so-called dianji fa ), which provides a frame of reference to date the parinirava∞a and the Buddha’s birth. See W. Pachow, “A Study of the Dotted Record,” in his Chinese Buddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), pp. 69-86. 216 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13b24. 217 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13c18.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUDDHIST TRANSLATION PROCEDURE 661

[A.xxxiii] Xuda zhangzhe jing (trans. Gu∞av®ddhi, 1 juan) (T no. 73, vol. 1, Foshuo Xuda jing ): Jianwu 2 (February 11, 495 – January 30, 496)218

*** The author wishes to thank James Benn, Funayama Toru, Mary Ngai, Jonathan Silk, and Rosanna Sze for their comments on this article in its different drafts. Parts of research incorporated here are generously supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC), and Canada Research Chair program.

SUMMARY The second fascicle of the Chu sanzang jiji provides an extensive list of 446 Bud- dhist translations. Quite a number of these entries are with interlinear notes, eighty- three of which provide dates for the translations. These dates are each followed by the expression chu/yichu / . Scholars generally understand chu/yichu as “being produced,” or “being completed.” This article argues for the multi-valences of this keyword. First, when an interlinear note bears two dates, to the first of which chu/yichu is invariably attached, chu/yichu is to be understood as “[the translation] was started.” Second, in the interlinear notes with single dates, the chu/yichu, when preceded by a date specific to a day, also denotes the beginning, rather than the end, of the translation. Third, when preceded by a less specific date (a month or a season in a year, or simply a year), chu/yichu primarily denotes the start of a translation, or — if the text to be translated is of small size — also the whole of the translation process (to this general rule there is only one exception). Thus, the chu/yichu in the second juan of Chu sanzang jiji denotes at least four quite distinct meanings: (1) the enunciating, and (2) oral translation, of a foreign text, (3) successful production of a draft on the basis of the oral translation (to be subjected to a series of editorial and doctrinal revisions), and eventually (4) the completion of a translation process per se, which included oral translation and its transcription, polishing, collation and revision. In addition to advancing this clarification which will prove essential for an appropriate reading of a major part of the earliest extant Buddhist translation catalogue in East Asia, this article also studies some obscure aspects of several translation centers in early Chinese Buddhism. Keywords: Chu sanzang ji ji; Sengyou; Buddhist catalogues; Buddhist translations; Buddhist translators.

218 Chu sanzang ji ji 2.13c19. Sengyou here does not tell us who was the translator of the last two texts, although in his biography of Gu∞av®ddhi (Chu sanzang ji ji 14.107a2- 3) he attributes these two translations to him.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662 662 JINHUA CHEN

RESUME La deuxième fascicule du Chu sanzang jiji contient une longue liste de 446 traductions de textes bouddhiques en chinois. Plusieurs entrées sont annotées et 83 d’entre elles donnent la date de traduction. A chaque fois la date est suivie de l’expression “chu/yichu” / que les savants traduisent en général par [traduction] “faite” ou “terminée” [le...]. Le présent article prône d’autres usages du terme. Tout d’abord, lorsque l’annotation comprend deux dates et que la pre- mière de celles-ci est suivie de “chu/yichu” le terme est à comprendre dans le sens de “[la traduction] commença [le...]”. Lorsque la note ne contient qu’une seule date et que celle-ci comporte le jour, dans ce cas aussi le terme “chu/yichu” se réfère au début [de la traduction] plutôt qu’à la fin. Si en revanche le terme est précédé par une date moins précise (par exemple le mois, ou la saison ou tout simplement l’année) “chu/yichu” peut désigner le début de la traduction ou bien, dans le cas ou le texte traduit est un texte court, il peut se référer au processus de traduction dans son intégralité (il n’y a qu’une seule et unique exception à cela). Dans la perspective du déroulement traditionnel des traductions, chu/yichu peut ainsi se comprendre comme se référant au moment de 1) l’énonciation du texte, 2) la traduction orale, 3) de la rédaction du premier jet de la traduction sujette ensuite à toute une série de procédés éditoriaux, 4) la fin de la traduction en tant que telle. En plus d’une analyse fine du sens de chu/yichu l’article étudie quelques aspects mal connus de l’organisation de plusieurs centres de traduction aux premiers temps du bouddhisme en Chine.

Mots-clefs: Chu sanzang ji ji, Sengyou, catalogues d’ouvrages bouddhiques, traductions et traducteurs de textes bouddhiques en Chine.

Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662