MAHĀPIṬAKA
Newsletter New Series No. 18

January 1, 2013

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE of
the ENGLISH TRANSLATIONof the CHINESE TRIPIṬAKA
Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai(Society for the Promotion of Buddhism)

Editor: MAYEDA Sengaku

Table of Contents
Publishing Schedule
Published in 2012 ............................................................................................ 1
Forthcoming titles ......................................................................................... 1-2

Message from New PC Chair:
BDK Project and Digital Tools
Charles Muller .............................................................................................. 2-3

Review:
Buddhacarita: In Praise of Buddha's Act (Translated by Charles Willemen)
HIRAOKA Satoshi .......................................................................................... 3-4
The Sutra of Queen Śrīmālā of the Lion’s Roar, Translated by Diana Y. Paul &Prince Shōtoku’s Commentary on the Śrīmālā Sutra, Translated by Mark Dennis
FUJII Kyōkō ..................................................................................................... 5

Report:Symposium on “Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories andPractices of Translation” (July 23–25, 2012, University of Hamburg)

YOSHIMIZU Chizuko ..................................................................................... 6-7
Committee Members ..................................................................................................... 8

Publishing Schedule
Published in 2012:

1. EXPOSITORY COMMENTARY ON THE VIMALAKĪRTI SUTRA(維摩經義疏 Yuimakyōgisho, Taisho 2186)
Translated by Jamie Hubbard
Forthcoming titles:

2. TENDAI LOTUS SCRIPTURES(無量義經 Muryōgikyō, Taisho 276)
Translated by KUBO Tsugunari and Joseph M. Logan(觀普賢菩薩行法經 Kanfugenbosatsugyōbōkyō, Taisho 277)
Translated by KUBO Tsugunari and Joseph M. Logan(妙法蓮華經憂波提舍 Myōhōrengekyō-upadaisha, Taisho 1519)
Translated by Terry R. Abbott-Yamada(天台四敎儀 Tendaishikyōgi, Taisho 1931)
Translated by David W. Chappell

3. THE MADHYAMA ĀGAMA —THE MIDDLE LENGTH DISCOURSES—(中阿含經 巻一〜十六 Chūagongyō, Taisho 26, Divisions 1-6 = fasc. 1-16)
Translated by
Bhikkhu Anālayo (Division 1)
Kin-Tung Yit (Division 2)
William Chu (Division 3)
Teng Weijen (Division 4)
Marcus Bingenheimer (Division 5)
Shi Chunyin (Division 6, fasc. 11-13)
Kuan Tse-fu (Division 6, fasc. 14-16)

4. NIRVANA SUTRA Volume I(大般涅槃經 巻一〜十 Daihatsunehangyō, Taisho 374, fasc. 1 - 10)
Translated by Mark L.Blum

5. THE COLLECTION FOR THE PROPAGATION AND CLARIFICATION OF
BUDDHISM
Volumes I and II(弘明集 Gumyōshū, Taisho 2102)
Translated by Harumi Hirano Ziegler

16. THE ALL PLEASING: A COMMENTARY ON THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE(善見律毘婆沙 Zenkenritsubibasha, Taisho 1462)
Translated by MORI Sodō and ENDŌ Toshiichi

7. DISCOURSE TO PRINCE CANDRAPRABHA(月燈三昧經 Gattōzanmaikyō, Taisho 639)
Translated by MURAKAMI Shinkan

Message from New PC Chair:

BDK Project and Digital Tools
Charles Muller
Professor, The University of Tokyo
There is a sense in which I have mixed feelings about my assumption of the position of Chair of the
BDK publication committee, as it is an event that was made possible by the sudden passing of theprevious chair, my friend and senpai, John R. McRae. In addition to being one of the most prolific(and in my opinion, most skillful) translators for the BDK series, it has become obvious to me in myearly tenure in this position that John had been pursuing the Chair’s task with great dedication,
working with the high standards that he displayed as a matter of course throughout his works.
Early in my career, I realized that no significant progress could be made in the large-scale,accurate, and consistent translation of Buddhist scriptures in our generation without the existence of acomprehensive and reliable Chinese-English dictionary of Buddhist terminology. With this awareness,
I decided to devote myself to the development of such a dictionary, which, in the age of the Internet, I
naturally attempted to create on line. Presently, this dictionary (the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism[DDB]) is quite comprehensive—containing almost 60,000 entries, and is used extensively by students,
scholars, and translators working with Buddhist texts composed in East Asian languages. Many ofthese users are actively cooperating in the DDB’s further development, both in terms of adding new
entries and in ongoing curation of pre-existent data.
Before coming to the BDK in my present capacity, I had been using the DDB extensively inother translation projects—not only in my own work, but also in the editing of translations by others.
Since the DDB is in digital format, it is very easy to produce concordances from it and use these toparse and mark up classical texts, a function which, as many already know, is provided by the SAT
Taishō Text database (http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT/ddb-bdk-sat2.php). This kind of function has

2already proved extremely useful to me in my work with BDK editors thus far, as it helps me toidentify technical terms and locate translation problems far more quickly and accurately than would bepossible with the naked eye.
This is just one example of the usage of a digital tool to enhance translation work. We will,with the cooperation of SAT, also be making available the BDK/SAT parallel corpus for those whoare able and willing to use it, to make the best use of the passages translated by earlier BDK
collaborators, as well as other tools being developed around the Web.
The BDK project presently stands at a juncture where many older, longer translation efforts
are coming to fruition, and thus our readers will no doubt be delighted to see the appearance of solid
English translations of important texts making their appearance during the next few years. The long
history and good reputation of the BDK project has made it such that we are getting greater support
from younger and mid-career Western scholars, who are working in the very midst of the dynamicallydeveloping world of Buddhist studies—thus the production of accurate translations using current
vernacular. These efforts are being greatly facilitated by the members of our editorial team, which
includes Sarah Horton and Sarah Aptilon, who are reading the texts against their original Chinesesources; Marianne Dresser, our expert copy, style, and production editor; Hudaya Kandahjaya andBrian Nagata, who oversee production in the Berkeley office. And all of this work is done based on
the guidance and support of the editorial committee and support staff in Tokyo.
So we at the BDK are energetically forging ahead, availing ourselves of the best in traditional
Buddhist scholarship, while at the same taking advantage of the digital tools for textual studies that areappearing apace. We look forward to your continued support and cooperation. And I think John would
be very happy to see where we are headed.

Review:

Buddhacarita: In Praise of Buddha’s Acts
Translated by Charles Willemen(BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, published in 2009)
HIRAOKA Satoshi
Professor, Kyoto Bunkyo University
The book under review is an English translation of the Fosuoxingzan (仏所行讃), the Chinesetranslation of the Buddhacarita composed by Aśvaghoṣa, famous for kāvya literature. According to
the translator, while the Sanskrit version belongs to the corpus of world literature, the Chinese version
is more suited to the average reader. In the following I will try not to appreciate the beautiful lyricism
of the Sanskrit kāvya or the rhythm of the Chinese verses, or even to evaluate the fluency of the
English translation. I will, instead, concentrate my attention simply on the accuracy of the English

3

translation. As will become clear, a glance at merely the first chapter, “Birth,” is enough to indicate
the quality of the work.
自 知 生 不 死 (v. 12): Willeman translates “he was born fully conscious, without any
confusion.” The text literally means “He (the Bodhisattva) realized his life is immortal by himself.”
From where did Willeman’s translation arise? I suppose he took it from the Sanskrit saṃprajānan ...
na mūḍaḥ which corresponds to this portion. However, this book aims to be not a translation from
Sanskrit but from Chinese.
梵天応 (v. 65) as an attribute of the seer Asita: Willeman’s translation is "Applied tobrahmadeva." This is a literal translation from Chinese to Sanskrit, but no such Sanskrit word is found.
The Chinese means just "Brahman."
汝当聴我説 今者来因縁 我従日道来 聞空中天説 (v. 72-73): Willeman translates asfollows: “Listen to my explanation of the present causality. ‘I heard a celestial voice in the sky
coming from the path of the sun.’” It should be translated as follows: “Listen to my explanation of thereason I came [here] now. Coming from the path of the sun, I heard a celestial voice in the sky.”
沙門婆羅門 呪願祈吉福 睹施諸群臣 及国中貧乏 / 村城捲女衆 牛馬象財銭 各随彼
所須 一切皆給与 (v. 107-108): Willeman translates the verses as “The śramaṇas and brahmans
offered incantations and prayed for good fortune for [the king’s] close family and for all his ministers
and also for the poor of the land. A group of women from villages and towns, cows, horses, elephants,
money and material goods—all were provided according to everyone's needs." The verses cannot beread in this way. The translation should run as follows: “The śramaṇas and brahmans offeredincantations and prayed for good fortune. [The king] offered cows, horses, elephants, wealth andmoney to all his ministers, the poor of the land and a group of women from villages and towns ....”
Almost at random, other examples of inaccuracy in Willemen's translation include: 震動大憂
悩 as “was full of sorrow (v. 34)”, for which read “trembled”, 気結盈心胸 as “Sadness filled hisheart (v. 78)”, for which read “Depression filled his heart”, and 周匝礼天神 as “His wife ... didobeisance to the celestial spirits all around (v. 110)", for which read “His wife ... did obeisance to thecelestial spirits, going around [them].”Many more examples may easily be found just in this chapter, and it is pointless to continue
the litany. A question might arise over the status of this work. The aim of the series is said to be tocreate a “Buddhist canon” in English. When we remember that many Chinese translations of Indian
texts entered the canon even though they contained mistranslations, we might wonder if accuracy isthe best criterion for its evaluation. Only time will tell whether an inaccurate translation like this one
will find favor.

4

Review:

The Sutra of Queen Śrīmālā of the Lion's Roar
Translated by Diana Y. Paul(BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, published in 2009)

Prince Shōtoku’s Commentary on the Śrīmāla Sutra
Translated by Mark Dennis(BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, published in 2011)
FUJII Kyōkō
Professor, International College for Post graduate Buddhist Studies
The Society for the Promotion of Buddhism published the English translations of Śrimālādevī Sūtra in2005 and Prince Shōtoku’s Commentary on the Śrimālādevī Sūtra in 2012. With regards toŚrimālādevī Sūtra, there are translations from the Tibetan such as the one by Alex and Hideko
Wayman (1974), but this probably is the first translation from the Chinese. There are actually two
Chinese versions of this sutra, one of which is by Guṇabhadra. It was this version that circulated
widely in East Asia and the one on which Prince Shōtoku wrote his commentary. Thus, its translation
into English is of enormous significance.
Śrimālādevī Sūtra is a difficult text to comprehend as it espouses new doctrines such as the“two kinds of saṃsāra” and “afflictions of the stage of ignorant dwelling.” Moreover, we canappreciate the difficulties that the translator, Diana Y. Paul, must have experienced for there aresections in the original Chinese text that were not translated very well from the Sanskrit itself.
For example, in Chapter Five the term “無” in the phrase “阿羅漢於一切無行怖畏想住” hasbeen determined by modern scholarship to be incorrect. Being fully cognizant of this error, Dr. Paul
has made the correct translation. (30, 14-15.)
On the other hand, Prince Shōtoku of 6th – 7th centuries understood this phrase literally,
without the correction, which caused him to offer a rather convoluted, difficult interpretation.
However, Mark Dennis, the translator of the Commentary on the Śrimālādevī Sūtra, has also correctly
understood this situation and translated the passage in accordance with Prince Shōtoku’s reading of
this passage. (62, 7-10.) This shows the depth of his understanding and the good care he took intranslating this text.
On another point, Prince Shōtoku as a Japanese understood 尽 to mean “complete,” but theoriginal meaning in Chinese is “to exhaust.” Consequently, Prince Shōtoku’s commentary revealed arather idiosyncratic interpretation, but Dr. Dennis has properly translated this term having understoodthe nature of Prince Shōtoku’s interpretation. (75, 11-23.) I highly evaluate this kind of carefulattention. Further, the translator has included charts that indicate the various sections and divisions of
the text, making comprehension easier for the reader.
As indicated above, I applaud the careful and thoroughgoing qualities of the translations ofthese two texts. It is my fervent wish that these English translations be widely utilized by those in the
English speaking world interested in East Asian Buddhism.

5Report:Symposium on“Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts:
Theories and Practices of Translation”(July 23rd-25th, 2012, University of Hamburg)
YOSHIMIZU Chizuko
Professor, University of Tsukuba
As one of its activities, the Khyentse Center for Tibetan Buddhist Textual Scholarship (KC-TBTS) of
the University of Hamburg organized a three-day international symposium on “Cross-Cultural
Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation.” The chief organizers were
Prof. Dorji Wangchuk, Prof. Harunaga Isaacson and Dr Orna Almogi of the Department of Indian andTibetan Studies, Asia-Africa Institute, University of Hamburg. Their staffs and students participated in
the actual conduct of the symposium. It was funded by the KC-TBTS and the Fritz Thyssen Stiftungfor the promotion of science. Twenty-two invited scholars presented their papers (the papers by HongLuo and Peter Verhagen were read by proxy).
The program was arranged in accordance with historical and geographical spheres of thepapers. The first day started with the welcome addresses by Dorji Wangchuk and Harunaga Isaacson
and the keynote speech by David Seyfort Ruegg, entitled “Translation in the Transmission and
Reception of Buddhism and Indian Civilization from India to Tibet.” They were followed by the paper
presentations, focused mainly on the issue related to the Chinese translation of Indian texts. On thesecond day, the eyes of the speakers focused on Tibetan translation and the transmission of Buddhist
texts. The papers on the last day covered a wider range of topics on both Chinese and Tibetantransmission of Buddhism. A certain number of papers, however, dealt not only with the practices oftranslation activities but also with the theoretical and methodological problems of translation. These
included the translation of classical literature into modern languages, as the title of the symposium
suggested. The symposium was closed with a concluding discussion by all the speakers on a roundtable. It was moderated by David Seyfort Ruegg with Masahiro Shimoda serving as commentator. The
program and the abstracts of the papers are downloadable from the HP of the KC-TBTS:
http://www.kc-tbts.uni-hamburg.de/index.php/en/workshops-conferences
In all times and places, translation has been the most approved method of transmitting texts
and thought from a different cultural sphere. It has greatly contributed to our understanding of otherpeople who live spatially and temporary far away from us. The method and content of the translation
have, however, been reviewed and renewed even into modern period because any translation caninevitably entail ambiguity, misreadings, intervention of translator’s interpretation, and the loss of thetaste of original language. In order to improve our own translation methods, we are able to learn fromour great predecessors, viz., known and unknown translators of Buddhist canons into Chinese andTibetan. Most speakers seem to have been aware of this internal tie of ancient translation activities
with those of their own. But yet one may possibly classify the papers read at the symposium into two
categories according to their approach: philology-oriented and problem-oriented in the sense that the
papers handle problematics of translation in general. In the following, I shall briefly introduce some6the papers from each category.
Among the philology-oriented papers, those of Daniel Boucher (Cornell Univ., “Gāndhārī andthe Early Chinese Buddhist Translations: Reconsidering an Old Hypothesis in Light of New Finds”)
and Stefan Baums (Univ. of Munich, “Found in Translation: Resolution of Linguistic Ambiguity as
Source of Doctrinal Innovation”) drew attention of the audience to the new finds among Gāndhārīmaterials. Weirong Shen (Renmin Univ., “History through Textual Criticism: On Chinese Translationof Tibetan Tantric Buddhist Texts from 12 to 15th Centuries”) discussed Chinese translations ofTibetan tantric Buddhist texts from the periods of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Tangut Xia kingdom andthe Ming dynasty, based on his new discovery of Chinese texts from Central Asia and China. Leonard
van der Kuijp (Harvard Univ., “A Fourteenth Century Text-critical Conundrum in Tibet with aHistory: On a Quotation from the Śrīmālādevīsimhanāda-sūtra in the Uttaratantravyākhyā”) dealt
with a discussion among Tibetans about different translations of a sūtra citation; and Michael Hahn
(Univ. of Marburg, “Multiple Translations from Sanskrit into Tibetan”) analyzed and classified
multiple translations of Tibetan canonical works.
The following papers, though based on philological investigations, focused rather on actual
practices and activities of translation and transmission of texts by Tibetans: Orna Almogi (Univ. ofHamburg), “Translation as Proofs and Polemics of Authentication: rNying-ma versus gSar-ma
Translation Practices”; Anne MacDonald (Austrian Academy of Sciences), “Tibetan Translators andCitations: Further Investigations”; Chizuko Yoshimizu (Univ. of Tsukuba), “How did Tibetans learn a
new text from its translators and comment on it? The Case of Zhang Thang sag pa (12th century).”
Akira Saito (Univ. of Tokyo, “Tibetan Translations of Nāgārjuna and Some of His Followers’ Typical
Logic”) drew special attention to the Tibetan translation of prasaṅga type logic. Harunaga Isaacson(Univ. of Hamburg, “Some Problems in the Translation of Technical Terms of Tantric Literature”), in
the same way, shed light on specific terms of Tantric Buddhism.
As for the papers the main interest of which consists in problematics of translation in its
theories and practices, one may enumerate the followings: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (Univ. of
Lausanne / École Pratique Hautes Études, Paris), “The Problematic of Translating: Continuity andDiscontinuity”; Dorji Wangchuk (Univ. of Hamburg), “Tibetans on the Phenomenon of Translation”;
Luis O. Gómez, “Technical and Dynamic Translation: Translation theory and the Heterogeneity of
Buddhist Literature,” which discussed some modern translations of verses from the Suttanipāta.
Confronting the problems which might be caused by the triangle of texts in Sanskrit, Tibetan andChinese in sūtra literature, Jonathan Silk (Univ. of Leiden, “Peering Through a Fun-house Mirror:
Trying to Read Indic Texts through Tibetan and Chinese Translations”) developed a stimulating
discussion in a wider perspective including the questions about target readers of translated texts.
Since the organizers plan to publish the proceedings of the symposium, all the papers are
expected to become available in a written form in the new future.

7

Committee Members
Editorial Committee, Tokyo:
MAYEDA Sengaku (Chairperson), Professor Emeritus, The University of TokyoICHISHIMA Shōshin, Professor Emeritus, Taisho University
ISHIGAMI Zennō, Shukutoku Junior College
KATSURA Shōryū, Ryukoku University
NAMAI Chishō, Koyasan University
NARA Yasuaki, Professor Emeritus, Komazawa UniversitySAITŌ Akira, The University of TokyoSHIMODA Masahiro, The University of Tokyo
Kenneth K. Tanaka, Musashino University
WATANABE Shōgo, Toyo University
YONEZAWA Yoshiyasu, Taisho University
Publication Committee, Berkeley:Charles Muller (Chairperson), The University of Tokyo
Carl W. Bielefeldt, Stanford University
Marianne Dresser, BDK America
Hudaya Kandahjaya, BDK America
Brian Kensho Nagata, BDK America (President)
Robert H. Sharf, University of California, BerkeleyMAHĀPIṬAKA
Newsletter New Series No.18
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE of
the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the CHINESE TRIPIṬAKA
c/o Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai (Society for the Promotion of Buddhism)
4-3-14 Shiba, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0014, JAPAN
Tel: +81-3-3455-5851
Fax: +81-3-3798-2758
E-Mail:bdk@bdk-jp.org
URL: http://www.bdk-jp.org

8