Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtis20

Download by: [Roberta Raine] Date: 29 January 2016, At: 18:40

Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies

ISSN: 2330-6343 (Print) 2330-6351 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtis20

The Buddhist translation histories of ancientChina (c. 1501276) and Tibet (c. 6171750): acomparative study

Roberta Raine

To cite this article: Roberta Raine (2016): The Buddhist translation histories of ancient China(c. 1501276) and Tibet (c. 6171750): a comparative study, Asia Pacific Translation andIntercultural Studies, DOI: 10.1080/23306343.2015.1131949

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2015.1131949

Published online: 29 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

AsiA PAcific TrAnslATion And inTerculTurAl sTudies, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2015.1131949

The Buddhist translation histories of ancient China (c. 1501276) and Tibet (c. 6171750): a comparative study

Roberta Raine

department of Translation, lingnan university, Hong Kong

1. Introduction

The history of Buddhism is a history of translation, for like most religions, Buddhism could not have spread and flourished without the vehicle of translation to transmit its message and, ultimately, transform entire civilizations. Two such civilizations are Tibet and ancient China, where Buddhism was introduced, translated into the local languages, took root and then proceeded to follow widely divergent paths. Despite the parallels between these two religious and translation histories, no comparative study has ever been published.

A comparative socio-historical or socio-religious study would be a massive undertaking, involving scholars from both traditions, which perhaps explains why it has not yet come to pass. A more manageable task is to compare the two traditions from the relatively narrow

ABSTRACTDespite the parallels between the Buddhist translation histories of ancient China and Tibet where Buddhism was introduced, translated into the local languages and then proceeded to follow widely divergent paths no study comparing the two traditions has been published. In both regions, thousands of Buddhist texts were translated but into markedly different languages and in different historical and cultural contexts. What strategies did the translators of ancient China and Tibet use and how did they carry out their translations? Who were the translators, and what commonalities and differences can be found between the two traditions in terms of translation experience? This study aims to answer these and other questions by employing Wakabayashis model of comparative translation historiography. Since Wakabayashis work was published, no scholar of Translation Studies has utilized or advanced the methodology that she put forth. It is hoped that this study will help to fill this gap, that progress may be made toward advancing this methodology within the discipline of Translation Studies, and that a contribution will be made to historical studies of these regions. Data gathered in the study will be presented and analyzed, and the difficulties in carrying out this type of comparative research will be discussed.

2016 Taylor & francis

KEYWORDSTibet; ancient china; comparative translation historiography; Buddhism

CONTACT roberta raine raraine@ln.edu.hkGiven the time periods being discussed in this paper (ending in the song dynasty in ancient china and in the 1700s in Tibet), Tibet and ancient china may be considered separate regions and juxtaposed for comparative purposes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

2 R. RAIne

lens of translation history. This approach is both warranted and worthy: warranted due to the fact that, as the vehicle for transmission to both cultures, translation may be examined as a discrete phenomenon; and worthy in that such a study could yield insights that may be useful both to a broader historical comparative work and to translation historians.

This study developed out of a related project undertaken by the present author on the history of Buddhist translation in Tibet (Raine 2010, 2011, 2014). While working on this project, the question naturally arose of how the translation of Buddhism in other societies compared to that in Tibet. The closest correlate to Tibets translation history is that of ancient China, in respect of three commonalities: Mahayana Buddhism, rather than Hinayana (Theravada) Buddhism, took hold in both regions; hundreds of the same texts were translated; and translation activity continued for a similar length of time, around 900years. However, the texts in the two regions were not only translated into, and out of, markedly different languages, but were also translated in different historical periods (from the eastern Han to the Song Dynasty in ancient China, and from c. 6171750 in Tibet; see Table 1) and in vastly different cultural contexts.

Some of the questions that arose in regard to comparing the Buddhist translations in the two regions were the following: What strategies or methods did the translators of ancient China and Tibet use, in what manner did they carry out their translations, and what difficul-ties did they face? Who were the translators, and what commonalities and differences can be found between the two traditions in terms of translation experience? This study aims to take a first step toward answering these questions by applying the methodology of compar-ative translation historiography developed by Judy Wakabayashi (2005, 2007, 2013). Since Wakabayashis work was published, no scholar of Translation Studies has applied or advanced the theories, insights, and concepts that she put forth. Further, no other methodologies for comparatively analyzing multiple translation traditions have been developed apart from hers.

As Wakabayashi notes, comparisons of different translation traditions within Asia have been even more neglected in the West and in Asia itself than east-West comparisons of trans-lation traditions (2005, 17). By applying this methodology to the two translation traditions of Tibet and ancient China, it is hoped that this study will help to fill this gap, that progress may be made toward advancing this methodology within the discipline of Translation Studies, and that a contribution will be made to religious and historical studies of these regions.

2. Methodology

Wakabayashis model of comparative translation historiography was developed as a means of comparing the historical similarities and differences that shaped translation norms in Japan, Korea, China and Vietnam, which all adopted Chinese characters as their written script (2005, 17). Her study examined factors such as indigenous methods of reading Chinese texts, the selection of texts for translation, the role of non-local translators, attitudes toward translation as a means of national survival, patronage, and other translational phenomena. Her study included a brief comparison of Buddhist sutra translation among these countries, but only insofar as this related to her overall theme of the use of Chinese characters within each cultural context.

Wakabayashi later published a reflective paper (2007) on the strengths and weaknesses of theory-driven and case-oriented approaches to comparative historiography, which outlines the model used in the case study and discusses various theoretical and epistemological issues. The most recent (2013) paper is an expanded and comprehensive discussion of both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 3

Table 1.Key events in Tibet and ancient chinas Buddhist translation histories.

aMizuno writes that it is thought that the earliest translations in china were actually done in the reign of emperor Ming di (Ad 57-75), at the same time that Buddhism was introduced to china, but the earliest extant translations are from An shigaos time (1995, 44-45).

bThe end date of the later diffusion period is considered by some to be later, and by some to be earlier, but the last translator listed in the derge canon is situ choekyi Jungney (1699-1774).

cfigures are from the derge canon, which was produced between 1729 and 1744. in addition to the 336 Tibetan translators, 371 indian (or nepali) panditas were also involved in translation. see raine 2014 for further data. note that other catalogs will yield different figures, as there is no one complete catalog or definitive canon for Tibetan translations.

Tibet Ancient China

Period Key translation events Period Key translation eventsc. 150265 ce (eastern Han and Wei dynasties)

central Asian monks come to china to spread Buddhism sutra translations begin in 148 by An shigao, a Parthiana

265420 (Jin dynasty)

large-scale translation work begins by central Asian monks By 317, over 1,100 sutras translated Period of ge-yi (concept matching) large translation forums held

420587 (north-ern and southern dynasties)

first persecution of Buddhism 431454 emperor supports Buddhism 502549 second persecution in 574 official sutra translation begins in 582

589617 (sui dynasty)

sutra translation academy established in 594, 2,257 translations are cataloged in 602, the catalog lists only 688 extant works

early diffusion period (617839)

Tibetan script developed c. 632 first monks ordained, samye Monas-tery built c. 779 Monks go to india to learn sanskrit, bring back sutras to translate Buddhism and translation flourish under three emperors lexicons, catalogs and guidelines made 97% of all sutras (1,100 texts) trans-lated by the end of this period

617905 (Tang dynasty)

Muslims invade central Asia, Buddhism there declines Government control over Buddhism complete Kaiyuan catalog in 730 lists 1,076 translated works 176 translators from 148 to 730 indian monks begin to translate Third persecution of Buddhism (840846)

838950 Tibets dark ages, royal dynasty collapses Buddhism suppressed, translation activity stops

907960 (five Kingdoms period)

Translation activity declines, period of political turmoil no translations of Buddhist texts from 810 to 970

later diffusion period, (c. 9501750b)

Buddhist renaissance, local kings begin supporting translators, journeys to india begin again nearly 3,000 texts translated by mid-1300s Muslims invade india in the 13th c., decline of Buddhism begins there flow of texts to Tibet slows, transla-tions end in the 18th c. Total 4,533 texts translated by 336 Tibetan translators and 371 panditasc

9601276 (song dynasty)

emperor orders compilation of chinese canon in 971 Translation forums revived, systematic state-sponsored translation process in place 284 tantric texts translated by indian monks from 982 to 1111 Translation activity ends in the 13th c. Total of at least 2,200 texts translated by 194 translators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

4 R. RAIne

methodological and theoretical issues surrounding comparative translation historiography. Together, the three papers offer valuable guidance and insights that have been instrumental in analyzing and presenting the materials for this study.

Regarding the aims for undertaking comparisons of different translation histories, Wakabayashi initially suggested four, but later expanded the list to nine (2013, 420424). As the original four aims are more concise and pertinent to this study, they are listed here:

(1) To view local translation phenomena in a broader context in order to distinguish between aspects specific to that culture and general aspects;

(2) To trace influences and interactions across cultures in regard to theories and prac-tices of translation;

(3) To identify similarities, determine their significance, and ask whether they are due to coincidence or are inherent in the process of translation; and

(4) To identify differences and determine where divergences occurred, what caused them, what their significance is, and how they might relate to each other. (Wakabayashi 2005, 18)

When beginning her case study, Wakabayashi initially theorized that similarities across traditions might be (a) coincidental, (b) inherent in the nature of translation, or (c) the result of textual or intellectual transfers (2007, 15). However, in the final analysis, she found that more specific linguistic, social, and political factors led to similarities (and differences) not accounted for by these three. This study will draw from and apply Wakabayashis method-ology, hypothesize as to what factors led to the similarities and differences in the Buddhist translation histories in Tibet and ancient China, and discuss the difficulties and practical constraints involved in carrying out this type of comparative research.

3. Historical background

When carrying out comparative historical studies of any kind, one of the earliest questions that arises is how much background on each history to provide. In this study, the individual histories of Buddhism in ancient China and Tibet are exceptionally long and complex. If the audience of this study consisted only of Buddhist historians, such knowledge would be assumed; however, for an audience of fellow Translation Studies scholars, a certain amount of background is necessary. on this point, Wakabayashi emphasizes that in a comparative study, it is less important to discuss historical regional details and more important to focus on cross-cultural patterns of similarity and difference (2007, 16).

In Wakabayashis case study, trying to provide historical details on the use of Chinese characters in Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam, in order to allow her readers a backdrop for her discussion of translation practices and norms, would have been unwieldy. Similarly, to outline here the entire religious histories of ancient China and Tibet is both impractical and unnecessary, since the focus in this study is on translation phenomena. Wakabayashi states that she created a timeline of the various histories for her own purposes, but ultimately chose not to include it in her published work (2007, 14). In this study, a comparative timeline for readers reference has been included, since only two regions are involved and it allows readers to easily apprehend the key translation events in each history (Table 1).

In regard to periodization, separate columns are provided for each region since ancient Chinas periodization is most commonly organized by dynasty, while in Tibet, there are, as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 5

traditionally considered to be, two distinct periods of Buddhist history, the early diffusion and the later diffusion periods when Buddhism flourished and spread. These two standard methods of periodization are chosen to be used in this study, as they are seldom contested and alternate periodizations are less well known to non-specialists.

In Table 1 above, key data on numbers of translators and texts translated are provided, together with important events that influenced translation history.

4. Comparative parameters

In organizing and presenting the findings in her case study, Wakabayashi rejected using a chronological approach and decided instead on a thematic approach based on certain comparative parameters. Beginning with her own extensive knowledge of Japans translation history, she formulated an initial hypothesis about translation in the four cultural regions that use Chinese characters and made a preliminary selection of which comparative parameters to investigate. This, in turn, led to fact-finding aimed at refining and testing these hypotheses and modifying the parameters to better represent actual conditions (Wakabayashi 2007, 12). She then created a mega-chart with a vertical column for each culture and horizontal rows consisting of points of potential comparison that she later refined and grouped according to theme.

like Wakabayashi, the present author began the investigation based on extensive studies of Tibets translation history and then went on a lengthy fact-finding mission to discover the data relevant to ancient Chinas translation history. unlike what she has done, however, there is not any pre-formulated hypothesis about ancient China in this study. Instead, the facts are allowed to reveal themselves with no particular expectation of what would be found.

Considering the four reasons above for carrying out comparative translation research, and following her thematic approach, a chart (Table 2) outlining the major points of com-parison between Tibets and ancient Chinas Buddhist histories was created. As for her, this simple act of juxtaposition was surprisingly revealing (ibid.), and clearly illuminated which themes to examine more deeply. like Wakabayashi, as information was accumulated, some parameters were excluded from the final table because they were less relevant to translation phenomena or were inconclusive. A total of 11 comparative parameters were eventually included, with an additional two vertical columns added to the chart, one to indicate the degree of similarity or difference for each parameter and another to hypothesize about the reason for the similarity or difference.

of the 11 parameters listed in Table 2, the eight most pertinent to translation have been selected for elaboration and analysis, indicated in column 1 by an asterisk. Some of these are treated separately below, while others are grouped together (e.g., ethnicity, gender, and number of translators are discussed under the heading Identity and number of Translators). Information on three parameters (patronage, the pre-existence of religious traditions in the target cultures, and training of translators) is mentioned at various points in the sections below.

4.1. The language of translated texts

A somewhat surprising difference between the two traditions is the source language of trans-lated texts. Due to the way in which Buddhism was introduced to the two regions directly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

6 R. RAIne

from India in the case of Tibet, and indirectly via Central Asian nations in the case of ancient China both the source languages themselves and the number of source languages are markedly different.

In Tibet, travels to India by monks and translators began in the early period and contin-ued almost unabated up until the Muslim armies invaded India and wiped out Buddhism. Following in the footsteps of the first translator, Thonmi Sambhota (7th c.), the Tibetans trav-elled to India in large numbers to learn Sanskrit and study Buddhism. often they returned to Tibet laden with texts to translate. After becoming sufficiently fluent in Sanskrit and learned in Buddhist philosophy, they began translating texts with the aid of an Indian religious scholar, or pandita. Some Tibetan translators worked with Indian panditas and translated texts in India; others did their translation work back in Tibet, either with or without the help of panditas (Raine 2010, 136). In all cases, the language pairs that were translated

Table 2.comparative parameters for Tibetan and ancient chinese traditions.

Parameter of comparison Tibetan tradition

Ancient Chinese tradition

Degree of similarity or difference

Possible cause of similarity or difference

language of source texts*

sanskrit and chinese sanskrit, Prakrit ver-naculars, Buddhist Hybrid sanskrit, and various central Asian languages

some similarity linguistic

ethnicity of translators*

Tibetans and indians central Asian, indian, and some chinese

some similarity linguistic and social

Gender of translators*

Males only, except for three imperial princesses in the early period

Males only The same social

Time periods of translation activity

7th9th centuries and 10th18th centuries

2nd9th centuries and 10th13th centuries

similar duration; dif-ferent time periods

duration: coinciden-tal; time periods: political and religious

no. of texts translated*

At least 4,533 At least 2,200 Great difference religious and social

no. of translators* 707 (336 Tibetan translators and 371 panditas, mainly indians)

194 Great difference Textual/practical

Patronage Yes, especially in early period

Yes, but intermittent some similarity social/political

existing religious traditions

indigenous Bn religion

Taoism and confu-cianism

some similarity social

Means of collaboration*

Mainly teamwork in pairs or small groups, some indi-vidual translations

large translation forums; institutes and committees; teamwork in small groups only in earliest period

Great difference linguistic

Training of translators*

extensive training in sanskrit, pilgrimage and study in india common

little training; learned on the job in large committees; pilgrimages to india less common

Great difference Geographical, reli-gious and political

Translation practices*

use of standardized lexicon and imperial guidelines in early period; more varia-tion in later period

Practices varied greatly; little standardization of methods

Great difference Political, cultural

*indicates the most pertinent parameters to translation.Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 7

were SanskritTibetan, except for a small number of texts that only existed in other Asian languages.

The Chinese tradition, on the other hand, is decidedly more complicated. It first must be noted that the original language that the Buddha taught in was not Sanskrit (a literary language) but one of a number of possible Indian vernaculars known as Prakrit languages. For the first two centuries after the Buddha lived, teachings were transmitted orally and were only written down later in Pali, Sanskrit, and other Indic languages. By the time the Tibetans began translating Buddhist teachings, many centuries after the ancient Chinese, Sanskrit had become the dominant language in which Buddhist texts were preserved. The earliest translated texts in ancient China predate the oldest Sanskrit manuscripts by as many as four or five centuries (Boucher 1998, 472).The language of the earliest Buddhist texts is still a topic of some debate in the field of Chinese Buddhist history, and as Hung writes, the actual languages involved in Chinese sutra translation from the second to the fifth century could have been half a dozen or more1 (2005b, 84).

Since Buddhism arrived in China via Central Asian states, most early texts were transmit-ted through relay translation, which involves translating into one language first, then into a second, and finally into the third language, e.g., PrakritSogdianChinese. St. Andr writes that relay translation was vital in the transmission of Buddhism to China and was carried out in a complex process that relied on one or more relay translations of texts (2010, 82). During the first few centuries of translation in ancient China, virtually all Chinese transla-tions of Buddhist texts were produced from relay translations (St. Andr 2010, 82). At later stages in ancient China, texts were translated directly into Chinese from a language known as Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit,2 or from Indian languages including Sanskrit.

4.2. Number of texts translated

one of the greatest differences in data between Tibetan and ancient Chinese translation histories is the number of texts that were translated, with the Tibetans translating roughly twice the number of the ancient Chinese. The Tibetans, in their quest for knowledge in all fields from India, voraciously studied, transmitted, and translated virtually every Buddhist text that was available during the many centuries that Buddhism was absorbed into Tibetan life and culture. This included all of the Buddhist sutras (teachings of the Buddha), tantras (eso-teric teachings), and shastras (commentaries), as well as secular texts on grammar, poetics, and other topics. These texts were organized into different editions of a canon beginning in the fourteenth century. The total number of translations in the eighteenth-century Derge edition of the canon is 4,533.3

like the data on the language of texts translated, the number of texts translated in the ancient Chinese tradition is also considerably more complex than in the Tibetan, in part because of the much earlier beginnings of Buddhist transmission to China. The Taisho edition of the Chinese canon,4 the most authoritative and complete canon of Chinese texts, was published in Japan between 1924 and 1934 and comprises translations of sutras, texts, and treatises (1,692 still extant), works written in Chinese and Japanese, illustrations on Buddhist art, and catalogs (Mizuno 1995, 184185).

However, Mizunos figure of 1,692 translated works is only part of the picture, because many translated sutras were lost. As Table 1 shows, in 594 Ce a Sui dynasty catalog listed 2,257 translated works, believed to be the total number of sutras extant at that time in China

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

8 R. RAIne

(Mizuno 1995, 104). But just a short eight years later, in 602, a new catalog included 2,109 works, although only 688 works were extant at that time (ibid.), an astounding fact that shows the extent to which texts were lost or destroyed throughout much of Chinas tumultuous history. In 730, the Kaiyuan Catalogue contained only 1,076 extant works; more than 1000 translated sutras had been lost by this time. The actual number of texts translated throughout Chinas history is therefore impossible to verify, but it is known that at least 2,200 sutras were translated together with more than 200 tantras translated in later periods.

Figures on the types of texts translated in the two traditions are shown in Table 3, below, calculated in the number of pages. Stanley (2011) classifies text type into Hinayana, Mahayana, and Tantra(yana), the well-known three vehicles (yana) of Buddhist teachings. The much larger number of tantras translated by the Tibetans is mainly due to the lack of receptivity for the more esoteric teachings in ancient China, which were embraced, arduously practiced, and further developed by the Tibetans.

4.3. Identity and number of translators

For ease of discussion, these themes are treated together, with the question of identity (including ethnicity and gender) treated first, followed by a discussion of the numbers of translators. Although, as mentioned above, prior to beginning this study no specific hypothe-ses have been formulated regarding what data were expected to be found in ancient Chinas translation history, it was nonetheless very surprising to learn that in all of Chinese history, the vast majority of its translators of Buddhism were not of Chinese ethnicity. This is in complete opposition to Tibet, where virtually all of its translators were of Tibetan ethnicity. What social, cultural, and linguistic factors were at work to result in such ethnically divergent corps of translators?

In Tibet, the dominant mode of collaboration when carrying out translation (see 4.4, below) was teamwork between a Tibetan translator (Tib. lotsawa) and an Indian (or some-times nepali) pandita, due to the geographical proximity of the two regions and their close regional and historical ties. In some instances, Tibetans had no choice but to translate on their own due to a dearth of panditas, and there were some cases of Indian panditas who were fluent enough in Tibetan to do their own translations. However, the vast majority of translators were Tibetans who were assisted in their work by panditas, whose job was to elucidate difficult concepts and clarify questions.5

While in Tibet the lotsawa-pandita model of translation continued for as long as it was physically possible, as this was considered to be the ideal means for achieving the best

Table 3.number of pages translated in the chinese and Tibetan canons.

afigures are from stanley (2011) who compared multiple editions of the Tibetan canon. one of the difficulties in calculating and comparing numbers of translations in multiple translation traditions is that the unit of measurement may vary. in ancient china, sutras were divided into juan, or fascicle (long sheets of paper rolled into scrolls), while in Tibet pecha, loose-leaf books with narrow, horizontal pages, were used. further, the length of pages varied, with one page in the Taisho canon equivalent to approximately five pages in the Tibetan canon. Thus, the only reliable parameter to use for comparing translations is that of texts, as is used in Table 2.

Chinese (Taisho edition) Tibetan (combined editions)Hinayana 55,760 35,809Mahayana 88,809 114,462Tantra 19,136 81,532Total pagesa 163,705 231,803

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 9

translations, in ancient China the situation is again more complex, and altered throughout the course of Buddhist history. As noted above, Buddhism spread to China via a number of Inner Central Asian states including Parthia, Kucha, and Sogdia, and the first sutra was translated in the second century by An Shigao, a Parthian. For the next 300years, monks from Inner Central Asia were responsible for virtually all translations of Buddhist texts.

An Shigao and his contemporary lokaksin, for example, two of the most prominent trans-lators of this time, learned the Chinese language after arriving in China as adults and had bicultural experience of both Sanskrit studies and ancient Chinese classics. However, fully mastering a language as an adult is difficult, as any language learner knows, and for this reason, the early translations were less than ideal. Hung writes that this is the main reason for the roughness of their translation work despite the assistance they received from their Chinese disciples (2005b, 85). Hung describes the Central Asian monks command of Chinese as shaky and their disciples understanding of Buddhist concepts as equally lacking; thus, their translations were often crude and sometimes incomprehensible (2005b, 87).

The next generation of translators was also of Central Asian origins but they grew up in China; thus, they were both bilingual and bicultural, which made their translations superior to those before them. In the 4th and 5th centuries, Central Asian monks continued to have influence, but native Chinese began to take on more of a role in translation work, though more often as interpreters for foreign monks who did not know Chinese.

The Sui and Tang periods were the first time that Chinese monks established themselves as authoritative translators. Xuan Zang (602664), perhaps Chinas most famous translator, studied at nalanda Monastery in India for many years, which gave him the prestige to dominate the translation scene from his return to China in 645 until his death (Hung 2005b, 89). However, even at this time, Chinese translators were outnumbered by foreign monks, now more from India than from Central Asia. By the Tang dynasty, the most eminent foreign monks were Indians, but only a small number of them took part in translation work.

overall, in catalogs of translations, the number of foreign monks credited as chief trans-lator far outnumbered Chinese monks at a ratio of ten to one (Hung 2005b, 89). Hung con-cludes that throughout Chinese Buddhist history, there were only a dozen bilingual Chinese translators of high caliber (2005b, 95). This is in stark contrast to the Tibetan translators, who were all fluent or at least well-versed in Sanskrit.

In regard to gender, it is perhaps not surprising that given ancient Chinas traditionally patriarchal culture all the translators were males. nattier writes that in the entire history of ancient China, there is not a single female translator attributed to a Buddhist translation (2008, 27). In Tibet, the only females known to have engaged in translation were the Chinese and nepali wives of emperor Songtsen Gampo (r. 617649) and the Chinese wife of emperor Tri Desuktsen (r. 712755).6 They acted as both patrons and translators and were able to assist in translation due both to their native linguistic abilities and their royal status. Apart from these three, no female is listed as a translator of any text in the Tibetan Buddhist canon.

Regarding the number of translators in the two translation traditions, while this may appear at first to be a simple matter to calculate, in fact this is not so, due in part to the uneven amount of research carried out into Tibet and ancient Chinas translation histories. In the case of ancient China, with its wealth of historical data and published research, the number of translators has been long known. Ikeda reliably cites in his work a total of 194 translators who translated Buddhist texts in China, with 176 individuals in the period up to 730, and another 18 from 730 to 1285 (1997, 34).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

10 R. RAIne

In Tibet, due to the dearth of research and reliable data, much less is known about the number of translators, with no reliable figures7 currently available apart from my own. In my research using the Derge edition of the Tibetan canon, a total of 336 Tibetan translators (and 371 Indian panditas) were counted, with 51 in the early period and 285 in the later period (Raine 2014, 286). It should be noted that the Derge is not the only canon that lists transla-tors names, but it is considered the most reliable. other editions will yield slightly different figures (see fn. 6). In short, much research has been done on the numbers of translators in regard to ancient China,8 but in the case of Tibet, further investigation is needed.

4.4. Means of collaboration

As St. Andr notes, in Translation Studies today there is an assumption, based on european and Western experiences, that translation is essentially a solitary act (2010, 77), carried out by an individual for his or her own personal or professional reasons. In contrast, in the translation of Buddhism in both ancient China and Tibet, this was the exception rather than the rule, and collaboration played a crucial role in both the process of translation and in the quality of the work that was produced. However, in each of the two traditions, the manner in which collaboration took place was markedly different, and in ancient China, the process altered throughout the course of its translation history.

In ancient China, the most important feature of sutra translation was teamwork of various kinds. In the early period, this was due to the foreign monks lack of linguistic skills in Chinese, and the earliest translations were often done in small teams, with one or more foreign monks working together or asking for assistance from Chinese. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the prevailing technique was for the foreign monk to explain the text in Chinese and his Chinese collaborator to write it down. This technique was, not surprisingly, subject to serious flaws (Chen 1964, 365). In some cases, the foreign monk did not know the written language and only spoke a little Chinese; thus, his explanations were based on his limited linguistic skills and he had no idea what his collaborator was writing down. Further, the collaborator merely wrote down what he heard, but had no idea of the contents of the original text. Room for misunderstanding was present in every step of the process.

A variation on this technique was for one foreign monk to recite the source text, another foreign monk to translate it orally into Chinese, and yet another to write down the Chinese. A third scenario was for the foreign monk to recite the text, then a Chinese monk would translate it (orally) into Chinese, and another Chinese would then write it down (Chen 1964, 366). The results of such a circuitous process were hardly accurate, and as Boucher writes, the oral/aural nature of the translation process in [early] China led to a number of problems of interpretation for Chinese assistants, such as grammatical mistakes, mistaken division of words, and semantic misrepresentations (1998, 475).

Translation bureaus were first established in the time of Dao An (312385), and after Kumarajivas arrival in China in 401, the translation bureau became the accepted organ to carry out the task of large-scale translations (Chen 1964, 367). Kumarajiva is most well known for his translation forums at which hundreds, and occasionally thousands, of people were in attendance, with the Indian master transmitting and explaining the text while others would take down the teachings in writing and then later edit them into literary Chinese. As Wright explains, there were corps of specialists at all levels: those who discussed doctrinal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 11

questions with Kumarajiva; those who checked the new translations against the old and imperfect ones; hundreds of editors, subeditors, and copyists (1959, 63).

Due to this more structured process, the quality of translation improved together with the linguistic skills of both the foreign monks and the Chinese. In the following Sui dynasty, a sutra translation academy was set up at court, and by the Tang dynasty translation forums were commonplace, although not always as large as during Kumarajivas time. Chinese monks such as Xuan Zang began traveling to India to study Sanskrit and Buddhism, but even after his return to China, Xuan Zang worked with a team and continued the translation forums. However, by this time, Buddhism was in decline in Central Asia, and in China, the Tang emperors favored Taoism over Buddhism, resulting in less patronage for translation works.

During the ensuing period of persecution of Buddhism, no translations took place for a span of 160years, and it was not until the Song dynasty that the translation forums were resumed. For the next 300years, Buddhism flourished for the last time in Chinese history, with most of the translations carried out in the imperial Song Institute for Canonical Translation (Yijing Yuan), where Indian and Central Asian monks worked with large teams of assistants in a nine-step process that involved a chief translator, philological assistant, text appraiser, transcriber, scribe, composer, proofreader, editor, and stylist (orzech 2006, 141142). Due to this systematized process, a great number of works could be translated within a short space of time and the resulting translations were more literary and accurate than many early translations (Jan 1966, 33).

Before the end of the Song dynasty, there was an acute shortage of foreign monks left in China, resulting in the eventual closure of the Song Institute. As one scholar notes, for the nine-step process to work, at least six of the nine individuals had to be able to read the source text (Bowring 1992, 91). In a revealing moment in 1078, a member of the institute petitioned the emperor to close its doors, to which the emperor replied that they had no choice but to wait until an erudite Indian monk arrived (Bowring 1992, 92). This episode illustrates the extent to which the Chinese translations were dependent on foreigners. not only were many individuals with varied language skills needed, but relay translation was often still necessary due to the lack of bilingual talent. even as late as the Song dynasty, texts written in languages such as Kuchan or Simhalese had to be first translated into Sanskrit before they could be rendered in Chinese (Jan 1966, 41).

It is clear that throughout Chinese history, the lack of individuals with appropriate lin-guistic training was the main reason for the often-convoluted translation processes used. In the early centuries in particular, Indian or Central Asian monks are frequently described as having little or no skill in Chinese and it is virtually certain that practically no Chinese commanded any Indian literary language (Boucher 1998, 471). As a result, the translations were less than satisfactory and only began improving when Chinese monks began traveling to India to study, though the number of these in ancient Chinas history is remarkably small.

By contrast, the Tibetans went to India in veritable droves, and their fluency in Sanskrit was without doubt one of the reasons for their consistently excellent translations. Starting with the first translator, Thonmi Sambhota, who is credited with inventing the Tibetan writ-ten language, Tibetans collaborated with Indians even after becoming fluent in Sanskrit. The training of translators involved first becoming thoroughly versed in Sanskrit language, grammar, and poetics, which was considered essential for the transmission of Buddhism to Tibet by the early emperors, followed by in-depth studies of Buddhist philosophy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

12 R. RAIne

In the early diffusion period in Tibet, emperor Tri Songdetsen (r. 742797) established the first Buddhist monastery, Samye Monastery, where he installed a team of translators to supervise translation work of the texts thus far accumulated. A hall for translation was set up where the work was divided among translators, editors, and copiers, including chief editor-translators, second editor-translators, and draft translators (Samten 2005, 87). This procedure continued under the next emperor, Tri Desongtsen (r. 800815), who is credited with the creation of the first SanskritTibetan lexicon of Buddhist terminology and the intro-duction of specific guidelines for translators.

Apart from the translations done by committee at Samye Monastery, the vast majority of translations were carried out in teams of Tibetan translators and Indian panditas, most often involving one of each. Whether teams consisted of a pandita and lotsawa only, or also involved editor-translators, depended upon the location where the translation took place and the availability of such individuals. In some cases, if the text was especially long and there were sufficient qualified translators available, the work was divided among a group. one unusually long text that contained 2,190 chapters has the names of 12 Tibetan translators attributed to it (Samten 2005, 123).

The quality of translations from the early diffusion period is considered by both Tibetan and Western scholars to be exceptionally good, due to the close process of collaboration with learned Indian panditas and the excellent linguistic skills of the Tibetans, who in all cases translated into their mother tongue, unlike the foreign monks in ancient China. After the fall of the royal dynasty at the end of the early diffusion period and the dark ages during which Buddhism in Tibet was suppressed almost entirely, the Tibetans again began traveling to India in search of teachings, ushering in a renaissance of Buddhism that lasted for hundreds of years.

The later diffusion translators focused mainly on translating tantras and shastras, and their method of collaboration was now almost entirely that of teamwork (in pairs or small groups), since the hall of translators at Samye Monastery was no longer under imperial patronage. By the early thirteenth century, Muslim forces had invaded parts of northern India, destroying monasteries and making travels to that land impossible; thus, the number of panditas who were available to work with translators in Tibet decreased. Due to the conditions in India, many of the later translators had to study Sanskrit either in Tibet or in nepal, and some had no choice but to translate alone. As a result, the quality of their translations was not always as good as their early predecessors, but by that time, nearly all of the Indian Buddhist texts had been translated into Tibetan and the transmission of Buddhism to Tibet was almost complete.

As is evident from the above, methods of collaboration in the two traditions varied greatly and were dependent upon a number of factors, including the nationality of translators, the language of source texts, the route of religious transmission, linguistic training, and royal patronage. Although there is some similarity in the use of teamwork in small groups, the large forums and production line method of translation seen in ancient China never occurred in Tibet. Another point of departure relates to directionality, with the Tibetans always translat-ing texts into their mother tongue, while in ancient China, the Central Asians and Indians were translating into a second language, even at times into a language that they barely knew. These variations in collaboration had a marked impact on the quality of translations, which in ancient China varied greatly but in Tibet remained high for most of its history.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 13

4.5. Translation practices

of the comparative parameters discussed in this study, it is perhaps in the study of translation practices that the imbalance of scholarly research of the two traditions is most acute. on the Chinese side, numerous works examine the difficulties encountered and strategies used in Buddhist translations, including several in-depth studies of translation practices, most notably those of nattier (2008) and Chen (2004). Further, Cheungs anthology of translation discourse from ancient China presents more than 50 writings by individuals who translated Buddhist works into Chinese, including discussions on the methods and principles that the translators employed, the difficulties they encountered, and translation criticism (2006, 5).

By comparison, no comprehensive study of translation techniques used by the Tibetans has ever been published, nor has anyone ever published writings on translation by Tibetans. nonetheless, there are several individual studies of translated works which, together with the present authors own research into primary materials, are sufficient to piece together a picture of the practices and strategies used by the Tibetans, though much more work needs to be done in this regard.

In ancient China, the most commonly studied aspect of early translations is the technique called ge-yi, often referred to as concept matching. This technique involved choosing a grouping of Buddhist ideas and matching them with a plausibly analogous grouping of indigenous ideas (Wright 1959, 37). During the ge-yi period, c. 150402, China had a vast philosophical literature of Confucianism and Taoism, and terms from these traditions were well established in peoples minds; therefore, Buddhist terms were often translated using ge-yi by substituting approximate terms of these two philosophical traditions, in particular Taoism.

This practice continued until the time of Dao An (312385) who rendered the greatest service to Chinese Buddhism by ending the use of Taoist terminology and the practice of ge-yi (Mizuno 1995, 49). Dao Ans writings show that he realized that the meaning of Buddhist concepts had been distorted, sometimes to an unbearable extent, and he began to criticize the use of ge-yi, writing that one should follow the original closely and that the only change a translator should make is to invert word order for grammatical purposes (liu 2006, 212). The practice of ge-yi was not entirely abandoned until Kumarajivas time.

In a detailed study of over 70 translations done during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, nattier found that there was no consistency in translation methods and that several distinct trans-lation styles were already in use simultaneously (2008, 4). She concluded that there were a number of distinctive translation policies, resulting in strikingly different repertoires of vocabulary and style being used in the same place at virtually the same time (nattier 2008, 5). Some translators wrote in a vernacular style, while others used a literary style. In some translations, there was an exoticizing tendency (foreignization) mainly marked by use of transcription, while in others, there was an indigenizing tendency (domestication) marked by translating foreign words directly (nattier 2008, 1718).

Indeed, the inconsistency of translation techniques noted by nattier continued for much of Chinese Buddhist history, and Dao Ans strictures on staying close to the source text and only altering word order were not followed by all later translators. Kumarajivas approach was semantic translation, with a main interest in preserving the meaning or central theme of the sutra, but as Chen writes, Kumarajiva did not follow the original literally and even made certain changes to the text, such as place names (1964, 371).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

14 R. RAIne

The debate on free versus literal translation, and literary versus vernacular styles, con-tinued for centuries, with apparently no consensus ever reached, although Chen writes that Kumarajivas viewpoint finally won supremacy, and that the Chinese canon preserves primarily only the meaning of the important portions of sutras. However, Chen considers this not a victory for translation, but rather indicative of the limitations of the Chinese canon (1964, 372). overall, there appears to have been no standardization imposed on or used by translators, with each person or group selecting their approach for reasons that are not entirely clear. Hungs study concludes that some translators leaned toward literal and others toward refinement (elegance) and that this was not a linear change but rather a zig-zag, with the work of the last important chief translator, Yijing, showing a decided preference for the literal approach (Hung 2005b, 91).

By contrast, in Tibet translations were, in the early period, under the supervision of a suc-cession of Buddhist emperors who took an active role in supporting, training, and guiding translators. unlike the Chinese, when the early Tibetan translators were deciding how to translate the terms used in Indian Buddhist literature, they were working in a cultural envi-ronment in which there was no preexisting philosophical tradition with its own lexicon of established terms. As Doboom writes, the remarkable accuracy of the Tibetan translations of Buddhist texts may be partly due to the fact that in the 8th and 9th centuries, Tibet hardly had any well-developed or well-defined intellectual tradition of its own and the new Buddhist concepts were introduced into what was virtually an intellectual vacuum (2001, 5).9

In addition, clear guidelines for translators to follow were established during the reign of emperor Tride Songtsen, who decreed that certain translation principles must be adhered to in order for the Buddhist teachings to spread without distortion. The emperors overall principle was one of fidelity to the source text, but he also displayed a sophisticated under-standing of translation techniques. Samten summarizes these principles into four quintes-sential translation methods: transliteration; translation of meaning; direct translation; and restructured translation (2005, 86).

Moreover, rules were laid down regarding how to translate numbers, how to translate honorifics, when adjectives should be added, and restrictions on who was allowed to trans-late tantric texts. These rules were declared universal and were to be followed by all trans-lators, not only those stationed at Samye Monastery but even those in India or elsewhere. new terms could not be coined by individual translators, who were required to follow the lexicons that had been compiled by a committee of learned translators and panditas. If a new term had to be coined, the suggestion had to be made to the emperors assembly and authorized for use (Samten 2005, 87).

Hahn notes that during the early period, the emperors principles were mostly followed and the result is a great number of excellent Tibetan translations (2007, 136137). During the later diffusion period, these rules did not fall into disuse but were still maintained by many, though not all, translators. Copies of the decree were still carried by translators, but their translations became more mechanical, and the wise rules of the early emperors were not always followed (Hahn 2007, 143). Wedemeyers study of a corpus of Tibetan translations concludes that the translators in the later period did translate terminology according to the imperial lexicons, but that variability with regard to syntax and morphology is legion and one sees widespread license being taken with the rendering of verbal forms and other elements of grammar (2006, 169170).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 15

This brief comparison of the translation practices employed in the two traditions high-lights the vast differences between their translation histories, and may also help us to under-stand why the quality of Buddhist translations in ancient China and Tibet varied so greatly. It also brings into clear focus the crucial role that royal patronage played in how translation work was carried out in the two regions. Without an authority declaring what principles to follow, translators in ancient China appeared to have made up their own rules somewhat arbitrarily, resulting in widely divergent styles. Further, the absence of officially sanctioned lexicons in ancient China, and in particular the use of ge-yi, resulted in inaccurate renderings of texts for centuries.

5. Difficulties and practical constraints

Wakabayashi mentions three practical constraints (2013, 459) involved in carrying out comparative translation historiography, all of which were found to be key difficulties in the present research:

(1) The lack of reading proficiency in all the languages involved. In this study, as shown in section 4.1. above, there are at least six languages involved between the two traditions, some very ancient and archaic. It is difficult to conceive of any translation scholar who would be proficient in all of these languages. This lack of linguistic proficiency leads to another problematic issue: the researchers reliance on secondary and translated primary sources in studying and comparing multiple translation traditions. This is especially problematic in regard to translated materials, which are necessarily mediated by the translator, who may not have the same knowledge or interests as the researcher. However, as Wakabayashi points out, such reliance is common in comparative studies, since researchers seldom have the linguistic competence needed to examine primary materials in all the regions being studied.

like Wakabayashis case study, the present work has not involved studies of individual translations in the corpuses of the two traditions in an attempt to draw conclusions about translation norms. In Wakabayashis case, this was due to linguistic and practical constraints (2007, 13), which made it impossible for her to examine texts from multiple societies. In this study, linguistic constraints were also a factor, together with the tremendously large number of translated texts that exist in the two traditions. However, given that there are hundreds of the same texts that were translated in both regions, such studies would be very fruitful and it is hoped that other scholars may take up this work.

(2) The lack of competence in the range of relevant disciplines. In the case of this study, the researcher must be knowledgeable about Buddhism and its extremely long and complex his-tories in both regions. Indeed, this type of cross-disciplinary research creates a fundamental challenge to translation historians, who may often feel that they are encroaching on aspects of history that fall beyond their area of expertise. This was certainly true for the present research, which involved extensive readings on the religious and social histories of the two traditions that were written by (and for) specialists in Buddhist, Chinese, or Tibetan studies.

Whenever research into comparative translation histories is of an interdisciplinary nature, the translation history researcher must have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter that is outside of his/her own field, while at the same time maintain a clear focus on translation phenomena without getting lost in the mass of historical data available. By focusing their lens on translation as a distinct though interrelated social, cultural, and linguistic practice, translation historians may be able to shed light on aspects of history that are overlooked (or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

16 R. RAIne

simply not looked at) by scholars in other fields. Further, by juxtaposing two or more related translation traditions and then applying that same investigative lens to them, conclusions, insights, and questions may emerge that would otherwise have been obscured.

(3) either the limited availability or the over-abundance of historical materials. In fact, the imbalance in both primary and secondary materials between the two regions is perhaps the greatest difficulty encountered in the present work.

The history of Buddhism in ancient China has been studied for decades by both Chinese and non-Chinese scholars and has at its disposal a large number of primary materials (bibliog-raphies, catalogs, historical records, biographies). Many scholarly books and articles discuss, in various degrees of detail, the role played by translation in Chinas historical develop-ment. numerous individual textual studies of Chinese translations have been carried out by Buddhist scholars, as have studies of translations from particular time periods. Further, in Translation Studies, a large number of studies have been published on the translation of Buddhism in ancient China, such as the anthology of discourse by translators of Buddhism in Chinese history (Cheung 2006).

In the Tibetan tradition, on the other hand, historical and political events both in ancient times and more modern periods have resulted in the destruction of unknown numbers of primary archival materials, and those that do exist are difficult to access. Modern-day Tibetans, being part of a diaspora community, have only been engaged in research into their own history for a relatively short time, and few of their works have been studied by non-Ti-betan scholars or translated into other languages. english-language materials on Tibetan history are increasing but are not as numerous as the Chinese tradition, since Tibetan Studies is a relatively new academic discipline with a small number of researchers. The english mate-rials that do exist tend to only mention translation in passing if at all and it is seldom examined as a discrete phenomenon. In Translation Studies, there are no researchers apart from the present author who have published works on the history of translation in Tibet.

This imbalance in historical materials makes the work of comparing the two traditions not only difficult but also subject to misconstrual due to a lack of precise, statistically com-parable data. However, this does not mean that the study should not be performed; it does mean that one must be vigilant and cognizant of this fact when analyzing data. In her 2007 paper, Wakabayashi remarked that comprehensive individual histories are a prerequisite and support for comparative studies (2007, 17), but in her later work, she modifies this stance, stating that it is idealistic to postpone comparisons until the individual histories are complete (2013, 420). I agree with this point, and in fact hope to see other comparative studies of Buddhist translation histories, such as between Mongolia and Tibet, between Japan and Korea, or between Thailand, Burma, and Sri lanka. now that a working methodology is available for researchers to use, there is no reason not to expect to see such projects in the future.

6. Conclusion

This study set out to apply the methodology developed by Wakabayashi to the historical translation of Buddhism in Tibet and ancient China. Through the process of identifying key themes and analyzing the comparative data, many intriguing facts made themselves appar-ent, such as the issue of directionality and the complexity of the language of the source texts in ancient China. Such points may not have been as apparent had the two traditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 17

been studied separately. Certain aspects specific to the two cultures also emerged, such as the preexistence of religious traditions in ancient China that affected the use of translation techniques, and the route that Buddhism took to reach ancient China, which directly influ-enced the ethnicity of the translators. neither of these conditions was present in Tibet, and thus, its translation history evolved very differently from ancient Chinas.

Surprisingly few similarities between the two traditions were found: collaboration (though its type and manner varied greatly), the existence of imperial patronage (though to varying degrees), the gender of translators, and the length of translation activity. The differences, however, were many: the ethnicity and number of translators, the size and content of the translated canons, the language of the source texts, translation practices, and others. This study found that specific linguistic, social, and political factors led to some of the divergences in the two traditions, but that others were coincidental, geographical, religious, or practical due to textual considerations. As each of these similarities and differences was analyzed, the effect that they had on the translation process and on the quality of translations became evident.

Regarding the varying quality of translations in the two traditions, several points have come to light through this study. First, state control was clearly a key factor in both Tibet and ancient China. In Tibet, early emperors promoted Buddhism and sponsored translations for the first 200years. In the later period, state sponsorship was largely replaced by translators own initiative, driven by religious devotion. We see that, as a result, the quality of translations in the later period is somewhat more variable. In ancient China, state control over religion and the shifting political concerns of different dynasties caused translations of Buddhist texts to undergo many ups and downs, which is not seen in Tibet.

Second, and related to the first, human agency seems to have played more of a role in Tibet. Translators there willingly made countless pilgrimages to India in search of teachings, and worked closely with panditas and teachers when carrying out actual translations. This close collaboration and the translators own deep understanding of the teachings clearly improved the translation quality. In ancient China, large forums and the use of non-local translators caused a distance between the text and the translator, with many different agents often involved in one translation.

Third, the way in which Buddhism was transmitted the fact that Buddhism came to ancient China via Central Asian states, but came to Tibet directly from India seems to have had a very marked effect on the translation process. In ancient China, this resulted in the source texts coming from a range of languages, which further complicated the translation process, such as the use of relay translation. In Tibet, direct contact with Indian Buddhism and the fact that translators extensively studied Sanskrit grammar, poetics and other related subjects resulted in higher quality translations.

In addition to these points related to translation quality, certain socio-historical differ-ences also emerged as an outcome of the comparative process. In ancient China, Buddhism was subject to frequent political upheavals, with imperial patronage uneven. Translation was intermittent and heavily reliant on foreign monks, with some texts emphasized over others and tantric teachings largely ignored. Being influenced by Confucianism and Taoism, a distinctively Chinese religion evolved with its own institutions and practices. In the end, the Buddhist teachings were only partially transmitted and Buddhism ceased to be a major religion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

18 R. RAIne

In Tibet, however, Buddhism was sought after actively by the Tibetans, who saw India as the cradle of civilization, particularly in spiritual matters. Centuries of patronage by emperors and systematic translation of the Buddhist canon resulted in the entirety of the teachings being transmitted. With precise translation guidelines and lexicons to follow, and working in teams of individuals fluent in the two languages, translations were accurate and faithful. Since there was no indigenous system of religion to compete with, Buddhism was not heav-ily influenced by other religious beliefs as it was in ancient China, and to this day is still the religion of Tibetans everywhere.

As Rundle notes, one of the objectives of translation historians should be to introduce the insights that the study of translation can bring to a wider community of cultural historians, who do not usually take translation into consideration (2011, 33). Similarly, Wakabayashis purpose in seeking to identify the macro-characteristics of translation in her case study was not only to raise some issues concerning translation in this linguistic and cultural milieu, but also to stimulate those who do have expertise in these languages and cultures to explore these matters in great detail and depth (2005, 20). In this study, I also hope to have brought new insights to Buddhist scholars and historians of Tibet and ancient China, and urge such scholars to use this research to further explore the many differences and similarities in the two traditions.

Notes

1. Including various Prakrit vernaculars and Central Asian languages such as Parthian, Kuchan, and Sogdian.

2. An intermediate language that developed during the process of Sanskritization.3. The Derge canon is considered the most reliable edition, although Dharma Publishings nyingma

edition of the Kangyur and Tengyur is more comprehensive and includes the Derge. The figures used in the present authors published research are all taken from the Derge edition, since Dharma Publishings edition was not available at that time. later research, as yet unpublished, includes data from Dharma Publishings edition.

4. The full title is the Taisho shinshu daizokyo (new edition of the Buddhist Canon Compiled During the Taisho era).

5. See Raine (2010) for a discussion of the lotsawa-pandita model of collaboration.6. These three womens names are not listed in the Derge or other canons, which is not uncommon

for the very earliest translators, but Tibetan historical records state that Princesses Wencheng and Jincheng of China and Princess Bhrikuti Devi of nepal translated some early texts on astrology, medicine, and other subjects (Samten 2005, 121).

7. Tibetan sources cite widely different figures, and it was this discrepancy that spurred my own investigation, discussed in detail in Raine 2014.

8. See, for example, Hungs excellent table of translators from the 1st6th centuries and the numbers of texts each translated (2005a, 5860).

9. The indigenous Bn religion did exist in pre-Buddhist Tibet, but it appears to have had relatively little impact, linguistically or otherwise, on the translation of Buddhism, though no studies have yet been carried out on this question.

Disclosure statement

no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

ASIA PACIFIC TRAnSlATIon AnD InTeRCulTuRAl STuDIeS 19

Notes on contributor

Roberta Raine, after completing her PhD in Translation Studies at City university of Hong Kong in 1999, worked for eight years as a Chineseenglish translator for human rights organizations in the uS and Hong Kong. She began teaching in the Department of Translation at lingnan university in Hong Kong in 2007, where she teaches courses in translation, including History of Translation, legal Translation (Chineseenglish), and others. Her main research interests are the history of translation in Tibet, and the translation of Tibetan Buddhism in modern times. She has published numerous arti-cles related to Tibet in Translation Studies journals such as Meta, JosTrans, MTM, and Forum. She has been researching the lives and history of Tibets translators of Buddhism for the past six years and hopes to publish a monograph on this subject.

References

Boucher, Daniel. 1998. Gndhr and the early Chinese Buddhist Translations Reconsidered: The Case of the Saddharmapuarkastra. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (4): 471506.

Bowring, Richard. 1992. Buddhist Translations in the northern Sung. Asia Minor, Third Series 5 (2): 7983.

Chen, Kenneth K. S. 1964. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton, nJ: Princeton university Press.

Chen, Shu-Fen. 2004. Rendition Techniques in the Chinese Translation of Three Sanskrit Buddhist Scriptures. Devon: Hardinge Simpole.

Cheung, Martha P. Y. 2006. An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation, Vol. 1, From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project. Manchester, nH: St. Jerome.

Doboom, Tulku, ed. 2001. Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives. new Delhi: Manohar.Hahn, Michael. 2007. Striving for Perfection: on the Various Ways of Translating Sanskrit into Tibetan.

Pacific World Journal, 3rd series 9: 123149.Hung, eva. 2005a. Cultural Borderlands in Chinas Translation History. In Translation and Cultural

Change: Studies in History, Norms and Image-projection, edited by eva Hung, 4364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hung, eva. 2005b. Translation in China An Analytical Survey. In Asian Translation Traditions, edited by eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi, 67107. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Ikeda, Daisaku. 1997. The Flower of Chinese Buddhism. Translated by Burton Watson. new York: Weatherhill.

Jan, Yun-hua. 1966. Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China. History of Religions 6 (1): 2442.liu, Jingguo. 2006. Ge-yi in Buddhist Scripture Translations. Perspectives 14 (3): 206213.Mizuno, Kogen. 1995. Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing.nattier, Jan. 2008. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Translations. Tokyo: Soka university.orzech, Charles D. 2006. looking for Bhairava: exploring the Circulation of esoteric Texts Produced by

the Song Institute for Canonical Translation. Pacific World, Third Series 8 (Fall): 139166.Raine, Roberta. 2010. The Translator in Tibetan History: Identity and Influence. Forum 8 (2): 133161.Raine, Roberta. 2011. Translating the Tibetan Buddhist Canon: Past Strategies, Future Prospects. Forum

9 (2): 157186.Raine, Roberta. 2014. Translation Archaeology in Practice: Researching the History of Buddhist

Translation in Tibet. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 59 (2): 278296.Rundle, Christopher. 2011. History through a Translation Perspective. In Between Cultures and Texts:

Itineraries in Translation History, edited by A. Chalvin, A. lange, and D. Monticelli, 3343. Frankfurt: Peter lang.

Samten, Tri. 2005. Skad gnyis smra bai rin-chen bang mdzod [Treasure Store of Translators]. lanzhou: Gansu nationalities Publishing House.

St. Andr, James. 2010. lessons from Chinese History: Translation as a Collaborative and Multi-stage Process. TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 23 (1): 7194.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

20 R. RAIne

Stanley, Phillip D. 2011. Finding ones Way Around the Kangyur and Tengyur. Paper presented at the XVIth Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Jinshan, Taiwan, June 2025.

Wakabayashi, Judy. 2005. Translation in the east Asian Cultural Sphere: Shared Roots, Divergent Paths? In Asian Translation Traditions, edited by eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi, 1766. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Wakabayashi, Judy. 2007. Reflections on Theory-driven and Case-oriented Approaches to Comparative Translation Historiography. In Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation Studies, edited by Dorothy Kenny and Kyongjoo Ryou, 821. newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wakabayashi, Judy. 2013. Towards a Framework for Comparative Translation Historiography. In Towards a History of Translating, edited by lawrence Wang-chi Wong, Vol. III, 419466. Hong Kong: The Research Centre for Translation, The Chinese university of Hong Kong.

Wedemeyer, Christian K. 2006. Tantalising Traces of the labours of the lotsawas: Alternative Translations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings of Rje Tsong Kha Pa. In Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, 9001400, edited by R. M. Davidson and C. K. Wedemeyer, 149182. leiden: Brill.

Wright, Arthur F. 1959. Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford, CA: Stanford university Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

obert

a Rain

e] at

18:40

29 Ja

nuary

2016

Abstract1. Introduction2. Methodology3. Historical background4. Comparative parameters4.1. The language of translated texts4.2. Number of texts translated4.3. Identity and number of translators4.4. Means of collaboration4.5. Translation practices

5. Difficulties and practical constraints6. ConclusionNotesDisclosure statementNotes on contributorReferences