The SËtras in the Chinese World

Jérôme DucorT

he assimilation of Buddhism into the Chinese world took place firstand foremost through the translation of its Indian texts, in a phenomenon of cultural adaptation that is almost unique in the world. Whenthe first missionaries arrived in China at the beginning of the Christianera, they encountered a civilization that was at least as sophisticated asthat of India and endowed with incredibly rich literature.
But the translation enterprise that was about to begin met with amajor challenge: that of the Chinese language itself, for its ideogramicdimension and lack of conjugations and declensions went against thegrammatical perfection of Sanskrit. In addition, the concepts ofBuddhism were very far removed from those of Chinese philosophy. At
this point, we should also highlight how the transposition of Indian
Buddhist texts into Chinese was the polar opposite of the phenomenon
linked to their other major translated language translation—Tibetan,
which was created from scratch—essentially between the 8th and 9th
centuries—in a context devoid of any literary heritage.
In short, it is no surprise that the Chinese translation project was
spread over eight centuries and that certain texts, including the LotusSËtra,1 had to be re-translated several times. We cannot go into detailhere, especially as French readers enjoy the privilege of having access tothe brilliant contribution of Paul Demiéville in l’Inde classique, where
the great Sinologist describes not only the content of the Chinese canon,
but also the history of its translations.2

Three Main Translation Periods
It is important to note however that there were three main translation
periods. The first is that of the ‘archaic translations’ (guyi), which often
grope around to find the right words. For example, the stated aim of
Buddhism—bodhi (awakening), was rendered by the Chinese term dao(way), but one could also opt for the Chinese transcription puti to avoid
any confusion. The translation of the Pratyutpanna-samådhi-sËtra
65

66

the sūtras in the chinese world

Statue of young Kumåraj¥va in front of Kizil Caves(‘SËtra of the samådhi of being in the presence of the Buddhas’) byLokak∑ema in 179 C.E. dates from this period, making it one of the first
documents of the Great Vehicle. The translation of the Lotus SËtra byDharmarak∑a in 286 also belongs to this period, a version that lacked
some clarity and also had misinterpretations.
The second period is that of the ‘ancient translations’ (jiuyi), which
opens with Kumåraj¥va, to whom we are indebted for some major versions still in use today, such as the Sukhåvat¥vyËha-sËtra in 402, theVimalak¥rti-sËtra and, of course, the Lotus SËtra in 406. He is also thetranslator of the basic texts of Mådhyamika and introduced them into
China, marking the beginning of the development of China’s ownBuddhist schools. Kumåraj¥va did not forgo a sometimes astonishing
freedom in his translations, but their fluid style is still appreciated, evenoutside Buddhist circles. One of his major contemporaries (and a rival)
was Buddhabhadra, who, notably, translated the great final NirvåˆasËtra (417–418) and the Flower Garland SËtra (418–420). From thisperiod also dates the translation of Ógama (‘Traditions’), the Sanskrit
equivalent of the first four of the five Nikåya (‘Corpus’) of the Pålicanon.
The third period, finally, is that of the ‘new translations’ (xinyi), initiated by Xuanzang, a Chinese scholar who returned from a greatthe sūtras in the chinese world67

expedition to India in 645. He undertook a systematic review of thetechnical vocabulary, so his translations are especially reputed for theirrigour. This is particularly the case with Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakoßa(Treasury of Scholastic, 651–654), a true encyclopedia of the Small
Vehicle for the Far East; and also for the great compilation by Xuanzangof the Discourse on the Perfection of Consciousness-only (Cheng WeishiLun, 659–660), the fundamental reference for the Yogåcåra idealism ofChina.
Some of his translations replaced their earlier versions: for example,
the famous Prajñåpåramitå Heart SËtra, whose translation byXuanzang is still recited today, unlike Kumåraj¥va’s version. But wealso see the opposite phenomenon: the translation attributed to
Xuanzang of the Sukhåvat¥-sËtra never replaced Kumåraj¥va’s rendition.
It is also worth mentioning that in the following century, basic texts of
Far East Tantrism were translated: the Mahåvairocana-sËtra byÍubhakarasiµha (724–725), theVajraßekhara-sËtra (753) and theAdhyardhaßatikå PrajñåpåramitåsËtra (771) by Amoghavajra.
Finally, it should be noted that theChinese translations were made in an
official context, by men of letters instudies, where a handful of the ‘translators’ we’ve mentioned (there weredozens more)—were only one link in
a network of many officials, includinginterpreters, text ‘polishers’ and otherscribes and editors. This also explains
why indexes were drawn up in a
meticulously Chinese way, providing
bibliographic details and key historicalmarkers, including (retrospectively)
the Indian scriptural sources.

Favour Spirit of Words overLetter
Added to this is the fact that the Chinese Buddhist canon contains somevery significant apocryphal texts.3 Thisis the case with The Concentration ofImage of Tripitaka Master Xuanzang.
Japan; 14th century. Tokyo NationalMuseum, Tokyo (Image: TNM Image
Archives, All rights reserved)

68

the sūtras in the chinese world

Heroic Progress SËtra, of which there are several authentic translations—including Kumåraj¥va’s (408)—but the most widely known
version is a creation mainly of the Chinese Minister Fang Rong (705).
Another apocryphal text is the famous and remarkable The Awakening of Faith in the Mahåyåna, whose attribution to the Indian master
Aßvagho∑a was discredited a long time ago, but which has nevertheless been
the subject of two ‘translations’. However, their inclusion in the canon isno surprise, since one of the main four criteria of Buddhist interpretative
frameworks is to favour the spirit of the words over the letter.
Once the process of translating Indian texts was complete, theChinese Buddhist canon contained more than 1,600 of these works inthe widely published ‘TaishØ’, which appeared in Japan in the early 20thcentury: sËtras nos. 1–847; tantras nos. 848–1420; vinaya (discipline),nos. 1421–1504; and ßåstras (treaties) nos. 1505–1692. This edition,
however, also includes most of the Chinese commentaries on these
Indian texts (nos. 1693-1850), plus a large portion of the original works
of China and Japan’s original Buddhist scholasticism, as well as historical and bibliographical works, etc.
Traditionally, sËtras are the subject of the ‘ten practical canonicaltexts’ (daßadharmacarita): 1. copying, 2. offering, 3. distribution, 4.
hearing, 5. reading, 6. conservation, 7. exegesis, 8. recitation, 9. meditation and 10. putting into practice. It is noticeable that, beyond theirliturgical dimension, these practices include the preservation and dissemination of texts, because Buddhism aspires to be universal. Thus
from the Tang period onwards, the Buddhists of China did not hesitate
to engrave the whole canon on stone tablets, as well as creating woodcut
prints.4
And the religious dimension of the canon is also illustrated by thecreation of revolving bookcases as an act of preservation and also as atool through which one could acquire merit by turning them, a bit likethe famous Tibetan ‘prayer wheel.’5 As for the first complete edition ofthe Chinese Canon, it was published from 971 to 983 and was followedby eight more between then and the 18th century. Notable among theseis the edition produced under the Koryŏ Dynasty in Korea between 1236
and 1251, which also forms the basis of the Japanese edition of TaishØ:its 81,350 woodblocks are still preserved in the Haeinsa temple (SouthKorea). Finally, one of the last modern editions is that of the Chinese
Buddhist canon Zhonghua Dazangjing (‘Chinese Buddhist Canon’),published in Beijing in 2004.

the sūtras in the chinese world

69NotesSee Robert, Jean-Noël : Le Sûtra du Lotus (1997), pp. 14–21.
Demiéville, Paul: « Les sources chinoises »; L’Inde classique, manuel des étudesindiennes, t. 2 (1953), pp. 398–463. Rpr. Demiéville, Paul : Choix d’études bouddhiques(1973), pp. 157–222.
3Kuo, Liying: « Sur les apocryphes bouddhiques chinois »; Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 87-2 (2000), pp. 677–705.
4For an example of the variety and multiplicity of scriptural sources of a sËtra, seeDucor, Jérôme et Loveday, Helen : Le Sûtra des contemplations du Buddha Vie-infinie(2011), pp. 78–85.
5Loveday, Helen: « La bibliothèque tournante en Chine: quelques remarques sur son
rôle et son évolution »; T’oung Pao, LXXXVI, 2 (2000), pp. 225–279.
12Author Biography
Jérôme Ducor began his Buddhist studies at the University of Lausanne with Prof.
Jacques May and received his Ph.D. from the University of Geneva. He teaches at theuniversities of Lausanne and Geneva, and is the curator at the Asia department of theMuseum of Ethnography of Geneva (MEG). In addition, he received ordination andmastery of the Jodo-Shinshu Buddhist school at Hompa-Honganji (Kyoto). He is basedat the Shingyôji Temple in Geneva and is the President of the Institute of Buddhist Studies in Paris. Bibliography: www.pitaka.ch/ducbio.htm