17

Buddhist Translations Past, Present, and Future:
With a Focus on Chinese and Tibetan RenderingsSAITŌ Akira*Translation is of enormous importance in the ﬁeld of humanities. This istrue not only of reception of religious thought, philosophical texts, literaryworks, and other documents; it can be readily understood just by looking attranslations into modern languages of many “classics.” An accurate understanding of technical key terms is especially profoundly important in thecases of religious thought and philosophical texts. The ﬁrst prerequisite is tohave an accurate understanding of such technical terms in the contexts inwhich they appear in individual works, while considering their historical,
cultural, and philosophical backgrounds.
Next the translator is faced with the necessity of choosing an equivalent
in the target language that is suﬃciently reliable and as masterful a translation as possible. When it is not possible to ﬁnd existing vocabulary that is
appropriate, the translator must use a transliteration (Buddha, bodhisattva,
arhat, Sāmadhi, nirvāṇa) or create a Chinese neologism ( yuanqi [縁起] for
pratītya-samutpāda, foxing [仏性] for buddhadhātu, jingjin [精進] for vīrya, orzhongsheng [衆生] for sattva).

I. Historical Translations of the Buddhist Scriptures
As is commonly known, during the over 2,400 years of the history of
Buddhism, Buddhist scriptures were translated directly from Indic languages
into other languages (excluding examples of translations into modern
languages) from the second century AD for Chinese and from the latter halfof the eighth century for Tibetan, the latter being undertaken as a national
enterprise. Later, translations were carried out in a broad sense from Chinese
into Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and other languages; Mongolian translations were produced based on Tibetan translations. Further, there were trans* SAITŌ Akira 斎藤 明 is Professor emeritus of the University of Tokyo and directorof Japanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies（JAIBS）

18

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

lations and phonetic transcriptions from sacred Pāli texts into Sinhalese andSoutheast Asian languages. Since the nineteenth century, there have continued
to be translations from Sanskrit, Pāli, and other Indian languages into modern
languages.
In keeping with the main topic of this paper, I will ﬁrst brieﬂy introduce
the characteristics of Chinese and Tibetan translations and then provide someactual examples.
A. Chinese Translations
The following characteristics can be noted in Chinese translations. The
ﬁrst is that prior to Kumārajīva (350 409), that is, in the period of ancienttranslations, aside from a few exceptions, there were no translators proﬁcientin both Indic and Chinese languages. Translations until the fourth century,
during the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420 589), generally had not afew problems as Chinese-language texts, as well as with the level of theirreliability as translated works.
Secondly, before the transmission of Buddhism, there had been a traditionin China of the Hundred Schools of Thought (諸子百家) centering on
Confucians and Daoists (daojia 道家). Philosophical and cultural acculturation
was sought, especially in terms of the various concepts of Laozi andZhuangzi (the Daoists). Several examples come to mind, such as the Chinesetranslation of dao 道 (way) for bodhi (awakening); wuei 無為 for the nature ofnirvāṇa (extinction); and the key concept of wu 無 (nothingness) from daojia
thought for śūnya (emptiness). In terms of the last example, wu, the translationof kong (空 voidness) was eventually settled upon based on criticism of
categorizing Buddhist concepts (geyi 格義). Thus, Dao An 道安 (312 385),
who was at the vanguard of the criticism of categorizing Buddhist concepts,
summarized the principles of translation of the Buddhist scriptures as wu shi
ben san bu yi 五失本三不易 (literally, “the ﬁve errors that can’t be avoided,
three things that are not to be changed;” i.e., the ﬁve points that can’t be
avoided when translating the text, such as simpliﬁcation of word order andrepeated phrases, and three points to remember). On the other hand,
Xuanzang 玄奘 (600/602 664) indicated that rather than translation, transliteration was appropriate for Buddhist technical terms, a concept he illustrated
with ﬁve examples (wuzhong bufan; ﬁve “untranslatables” 五種不翻). I will
touch on this subject again later.
Thirdly, and this is related to the ﬁrst characteristic, because the translator
into Chinese was assigned large volumes of material, there are pronounced
diﬀerences in the quality of the translations. As a result, outstanding translators, such as Kumārajīva and Xuanzang, provided the prototypes for translations of terminology and texts.

Buddhist Translations Past, Present, and Future

19

B. Tibetan Translations
In contrast, in Tibetan translations the following characteristics areobservable. First, in terms of both script and acceptance of culture, there is a
profound relationship between Tibet and India (and partially with China).
Tibetan translations are strongly characterized by their considerably direct
acceptance of Buddhist culture. From the end of the eighth century, the workof translation was carried out as a national enterprise systematically and in aconcentrated manner based on cooperative eﬀort between Indian scholars andTibetan Lotsawa or translators of Buddhist texts.
The second characteristic is that there are many verbatim-like freetranslations. In contrast to Chinese translations, where all important technicalterms use transliterations, such as those for Buddha, bodhisattva, or nirvāṇa,in Tibetan translations, free translations are the norm, as is exempliﬁed by theterm sangs rgyas (one who has awakened and opened up) for Buddha.
Transliterations are rare. For Tibetans before the acceptance of Buddhism, all
Buddhist terminology was new; there were generally no similar philosophicalconcepts to invite misunderstanding. For that reason, there was a backgroundin Tibetan cultural history that made it comparatively easy to use free translation. What was referred to when making free translations were in manycases related treatises on interpretations of the sutras and annotations in India
that oﬀered conceptual prescriptions.
Thirdly, and this is related to the ﬁrst characteristic, diﬀerences in thequality of translation are perceptible because of divergences in the ability ofunderstanding and expression among Tibetan translators (or Indian scholars),
but this was on a relatively small scale. Mahāvyutpatti (翻訳名義大集) andMadhyavyutpatti (同中集; 814) were compiled with the intention of unifying
the methods of translation and translation terms, and could be said to be thebackground for fulﬁlling certain of these functions.
The following is an example that reﬂects the divergences in thinking
behind the Chinese and Tibetan translations mentioned above. In terms ofwhat’s known as the most common name that disciples used for addressing
Buddha, Bhagavat, the Chinese free translation includes Shizun (世尊 WorldHonored One) as well as the transliteration, Boqiefan (薄伽梵). Xuanzang inparticular gives this as an example of the second case of ﬁve types of“untranslatables;” that is, a word that cannot be rendered in free translation
owing to its having multiple meanings.
Dharma master Xuanzang of Tang China clariﬁed the ﬁve types that are
not to be rendered in free translation. First, terms that are secret; thedhāraṇī (陀羅尼) incantation is one of these. Second, terms that have
many [meanings] are not to be expressed in free translation; Bhagavat

20

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

(薄伽梵 Blessed One) has six meanings so it is included in this category.
Third, things that do not exist in China are not to be translated,
including words such as the jambu tree (閻浮樹). Fourth, terms that follow
old [traditional transliterations] are not to be translated, such as anuttara[samyaksaṃ] bodhi [the supreme and perfect enlightenment], 阿耨 [多羅三貌三] 菩提). Actually, this can be conveyed in free translation [such as
the wushang zhengdeng jue 無上正等覚] (The Supreme Way of Right
Seeing), but because of the Sanskrit transliteration since [Käśyapa]Mātaṅga [ﬁrst introduced Buddhism to China in the Later Han period],transliteration has been used. Fifth, words that are not rendered as freetranslations in order to create virtue; [the transliteration] bore (般若) is
august and serious whereas zhihui (智慧) is casual and shallow. This is
not translated in order to engender a sense of respect in people. (Note 1)
Thus, Xuanzang considered free translation to be appropriate for all ﬁve
representative concrete examples that he gave. In contrast, in Tibetan, except
for the ﬁrst example of dhāraṇī and the third of the Indic proper noun,
jambul, it was common for all to be rendered as free translations.
Next I will examine the examples of Bhagavat from the sGra-sbyor
bam-po gnyis-pa or Madhyavyutpatti (Middle Etymological-Glossary), whichindicates the basis for translating over 400 important technical Buddhist
terms. The Tibetan translation for the same word is bcom ldan ’das; the sametext explains the basis for the translation below.
Concerning bhagavat = bcom ldan ’das, for one thing, one is called
Bhagvān because he conquers the four demons ( Māra )(bhagnamāracatuşţayatvād ). That is, because he conquers (bcom pa) thefour demons [i.e., the demons of aggregates, deﬁlements, death, and theheavenly Evil one], he is called “one who conquers” (bcom pa). Another[interpretation] is that bhaga is the name for the “six kinds of virtues”.
These refer to appearance, fame, omnipotence, auspiciousness, wisdom,and endeavor, which all have the common characteristic of being“virtues.” The reason that -vat appears is that the person has virtue(bhago ’syāstīti) and is therefore Bhagavān (one who has virtues), so is
explained as ldan pa (one who has…)…. Since he has “far more” [virtue]
than Bhagavān, the god of the world, ’das has been appended and he wascalled in particular bcom ldan ’das, “one who conquers, has [virtues], andtranscends [the god of the world].”…. The god [of the world], Bhagavān,is [simply] called legs ldan (one who possesses good). (Note 2)
As can be seen above, the Tibetan translation uses the fairly standard

Buddhist Translations Past, Present, and Future

21

translation, bcom ldan ’das, which at ﬁrst glance is diﬃcult to understand inthat it means “one who conquers, possesses, and transcends.” As can besurmised from a similar explanation in Arthaviniścaya-sūtra and its
Commentary written by Bhikṣu Vīryaśrīdatta (a scholar from the latter part ofthe eighth century at Nālandā, India), as referenced in Note 2, this is a resultof Tibetan respect for the tradition of Abhidharma of the early Sarvāstivāda
school of Buddhism. As in the case of the previously mentioned translation ofsangs rgyas (one who has awakened and opened up) for the word, “Buddha,”even if this was a type of popular etymological interpretation, it respects the
traditional semantic understanding and is the result of an attempt to reﬂect thefree translation as faithfully as possible.

II. Modern Translations of the Buddhist Scriptures and Buddhist
Terminology
Here I will be considering once more the merits and demerits of theChinese translations of Buddhist terminology that comprise the foundation ofJapanese Buddhism based on the divergent characteristics of the Chinese andTibetan translations, which I discussed above.
A. Impediments to a Philosophical Understanding of Buddhism
In Japan, Buddhism has played an important role as a substratum in
cultural traditions. It would be impossible to talk about Japanese cultural
traditions, including various forms of Buddhist faith, annual events, funeralrites, temple construction, landscape design, many Buddhist statues and paintings, and traditional arts such as iroha poems and the ﬁfty sounds of the kanaalphabet, without talking about Buddhism.
Then what about the philosophical understanding of Buddhism?
Unfortunately, it must be said that there are very few opportunities forJapanese to read the Buddhist scriptures directly or deepen their understanding of Buddhist thought. This is in spite of the fact that Buddhist statues
have always been beloved, many Japanese have deep feelings about the
distant sounds of the temple bell on New Year’s Eve, make their ﬁrst visit of
the year to a temple on New Year’s day, or are disposed, even now, to follow
Buddhist funeral rites for their relatives, albeit the tradition is in decline.
There are several reasons for this. From ancient times, 1) a profoundsigniﬁcance was assigned to reciting the Buddhist scriptures, and it was
accepted that treatises and annotations on the scriptures were studied bylearned priests. 2) The study of Buddhist texts (sutras, treatises) meant classical texts related to founders of sects, and religious doctrine was studied astranscriptions of classical Chinese into Japanese. 3) Ordinary people have tocome into contact with the Buddhist scriptures through Buddhist memorial

22

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017rites and bereavement meals, Buddhist tales and essays; it can be said thattraditionally the common people have had little opportunity for direct contact
with the Buddhist scriptures. Further, 4) in the modern era, Sanskrit and Pālihave begun to be studied and research on original texts has progressed, but
for better or worse, in many cases the tradition of prioritizing the reading ofChinese texts as Japanese and of Chinese translations has been retained.
B. Merits and Demerits of Confucian Translations: Examples of Problems
concerning Interpretation of Buddhist Terminology
What are the merits and demerits of adhering to the Buddhist terminology
translated from Chinese to deepen philosophical understanding of Buddhism?
As is well-known, a vast number of specialized terms appear in the texts
and treatises of Buddhism. Among them, most translations into various
languages are based on middle Indo-Aryan languages, including Sanskrit andPāli. In particular, translations into Chinese terminology, such as 四聖諦 (Ch:sishengdi / J: shishōtai [catvāri ārya-satyāni]), 五蘊 (陰) (Ch: wuyun(yin) / J:
go’un (on) [ pañca-skandha]), 無我 (Ch: wuwo / J: muga [anātman]), or 縁起(Ch: yuanqi / J:engi [pratītyasamutpāda]), became widely established in the
Buddhist world of East Asia and are still in use today. Further, while theconcepts derive originally from India, this specialized vocabulary contains nota few cases of technical terms formulated in the process of the developmentof Chinese Buddhism (e.g., 理事無礙 Ch: lishi wu ai / J: rijimuge [principle ofemptiness coexisting with concrete phenomena based on commentaries by themonk Chengguan 澄観; 738 839], 十界互具 Ch: shijie xiangju / J: jikkai gogu
[both Buddha and hell are in one’s heart] , and 草木成仏 C: caomu chengfo J:
sōmoku jōbutsu [even grasses and trees can attain Buddhahood]).
In any case, it could be said that from the beginning, Gautama Buddha
reﬂected the intellect and sensibilities honed by transmitters and various
scholars who enumerated both Buddhist sutras and laws. In addition, whiletranslators of the Buddhist sutras and laws worked within the context of theirown philosophical and historical backgrounds and sect traditions, theirstruggles to create lexica appropriate for expressing each thought should not
be overlooked. There are many brilliant, concise translations among these
traditional terms, including yuanqi / engi 縁起 [dependent origination], wuwo
/ muga 無我 [non-self ], ( feiwo / higa非我 [not oneself ]), and zhongdao / chūdō
中道 [the middle path], which long ago became conventional translations inJapanese.
Nevertheless, it is not easy to understand precisely some of the traditional
single character Chinese translations, especially for terms such as法 (fa / hō)[dharma], 蘊 ( yun / un) [skandha: aggregate], 処 (chu / sho) [āyatana: ﬁeld],
界 ( jie / kai) [dhātu: cosmos], 色 (si / shiki) [rūpa: appearance of material

Buddhist Translations Past, Present, and Future23

objects], 受 (shou / ju) [vedanā: sensation], 想 (xiang / sō) [saṃjñā: representation], and others, whether they are heard or one knows the Chinese characters. There should be important illustrations and their contexts for the understanding of the translated lexica, but there are not a few cases when thetranslations cause misunderstandings.
Next I will discuss the term 集 (Ch: ji/ J: jū), which literally means“collection” and is one of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni): 苦(Ch: ku / J: ku: pain), 集 (collection), 滅 (Ch: mie /J: metsu: suppression [ofpain]), and道(Ch: dao / J: dō: path).
The Sanskrit words for the Four Noble Truths are duḥkha (suﬀering),
samudaya (arising / cause), nirodha (suppression), and mārga (path) respectively. Samudaya refers to the arising of suﬀering or the cause of that arising.
Accordingly, when these terms are translated into modern languages(Japanese, English), the corresponding terms of “arising” or “cause” are used.
The other three Noble Truths mean “suﬀering,” “suppression, control,” and“way, path.” Compared with the word in the original Sanskrit, the Chinesetranslation 滅 (mie: extermination) has a rather strongly negative nuance, butother than that, there are no large problems with the traditional Chinesetranslations.
The important point I will pursue next will be the deﬁnitions behind themodern translations and major illustrations. I will very brieﬂy discuss thisissue below. It is probable that the above-mentioned modern translations of“arising” or “cause” for samudaya are based on the following Buddhist texts
and annotations passed down in Pāli or Sanskrit:evam etassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti/(SN II, p.17.26 27, 29 30)
In this way there is an arising (samudaya) of a congregate of all
suﬀering.
evam asya kevalasya mahato duḥkhaskandhasya samudayo bhavatīti/(AKBh, pp.135.5 6, 139.12, 140.21)
In this way, there is an arising of a congregate of all of this massive
suﬀering.
samudety asmād duḥkham iti samudayaḥ/(AKBh, p.5.16)
Because suﬀering arises from this, it is the cause.
samudety asmād duḥkham iti samudaya iti. hetu-bhūtāḥ skandhāḥ
samudayaḥ. phalabhūtāḥ skandhā duḥkham iti varṇayanti.
(AKVy, p.23.4 6)

24

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

They say that “because suﬀering arises from this, it is the cause,” whichmeans that the causal [ﬁve] aggregates constitute samudaya (cause),
and that the resulting aggregates are dukkha (suﬀering).
Why is it that Kumārajīva and Paramārtha, as well as Xuanzang, allassigned the translation ji 集 to samudaya, which means the “arising” or the“cause” of suﬀering (there were also the translations for the word samudaya:
集生 [ jisheng] and 和合生 [hehesheng])? One plausible reason was that when
the Four Noble Truths of duḥkha, samudaya, nirodha, and mārga wererepresented with one translation term, the preﬁx sam- was often translated as
集 (ji), which was mechanically used here as well. That is, the sam- ( ji) of
samudaya (集起 jiqi; 集生 jisheng) had been used from ancient times, and thattradition was preserved.

III. The Project for Constructing Bauddhakośa: A Treasury of Modern
Standard Translations of Buddhist Terms and Definitive
Illustrations
As I mentioned in the introduction, in order to deepen understanding of
Buddhist thought, what is most essential is an accurate, corresponding
contextual understanding of important terms. Scholars with this mindset havealways individually attempted translations into modern languages. Today, it is
becoming more necessary to bear in mind the results of this valuable workand to oﬀer modern translations based on the standards or the “foundation” ofimportant Buddhist terminology and that are built on an accurate understanding of traditional Chinese translations.
Lastly, here I would like to end my essay by introducing our project,“Project for Constructing Bauddhakośa: A Tresury of Modern Standard
Translations of Buddhist Terms and Definitive Illustrations,” which is fundedby Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (A). Now there are many academic
workshops related to the “ﬁve groups of the one-hundred modes” in the
Yogachara school of Buddhism. Below is one example of research on theseventy-ﬁve dharmas of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya of the Sarvāstivāda
school of Buddhism that has already been made public. Traditionally,
manaskāra (translated into Chinese as zuoyi 作意 [mental engagement] by
Xuanzang), was one of the ten universal mental functions (mahābhūmika). In
accordance with the deﬁnitive illustration given in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya verses, at the same time that the modern translations contained thereinsuggest “devotion” or to “give attention to,” the work also provides theoriginal text that forms the basis of the translation, translated passages, andrelated traditional translations, annotated texts, and examples of translations
into Western languages. (For details, see the following website: http://www.

Buddhist Translations Past, Present, and Future25

l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~b_kosha/start_index.html).
Example:manaskāra
Chinese translation: 作意 zuoyi (“mental engagement;” Xuanzang); 思惟
siwei (“thought;” Paramartha);
Tibetan translation: yid la byed pa (= Mvy no.1926)
Standard translation: 傾注 (devotion), 心を向けること (to direct one’s
attention to)
E. attention
Deﬁnitive illustrations:Japanese translation: 傾注とは心を〔特定の対象に向けて〕はたらかせることである。

Original text: manaskāraś cetasa ābhogaḥ/ (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of
Vasubandhu ed. by Pradhan, 1967, 54,22, Chap.II v.24b)（『阿毘達磨倶舍論』
大正29巻19a21）
Xuanzang’s translation: 作意謂能令心警覺。
(See Puguang’s interpretation [普光釈を見る])
Paramartha’s translation: 思惟謂心迴向。
（『阿毘達磨倶舍釋論』
大正29巻178b15）
Tibetan translation: yid la byed pa ni sems kyi ’jug pa’o (Chos mngon pa’i
mdzod kyi bshad pa 北京版115巻72a8)
Annotated texts: Abhidharmakośavyākhyā: (ed.by U.Wogihara, 1932 36,
127) manaskāraś cetasa ābhoga iti. ālambane cetasa āvarjanam.
avadhāraṇam ity-arthaḥ. manasaḥ kāro manaskāraḥ. mano vā karotiāvarjayatīti manaskāraḥ.
『阿毘達磨順正理論』: (玄奘訳, 大正29巻, 384b8 9)
引心心所。令於所緣有所警覺。説名作意。此即世間説為留意。

Examples of Western translations: Pruden [1988: 190]: the act of attention;
La Vallée Poussin [1923: 154]: acte d’attention (文例略)
Related sources:
Other Abhidharma texts (その他のアビダルマ文献)
Vijñānavāda texts (瑜伽行派の文献)

IV. Conclusion
As can be seen above, a philosophical understanding of Buddhism mustﬁrst be based on constant consideration of the background of historical
thought in which the meaning of each term belonged in context and theselection, as much as possible, of appropriate, simple translations based on
various shades of meaning of translation, linguistic impressions, and actual
examples. As can be seen in the sentence below, such principles are the sameas those used in Tibet when many Buddhist texts were translated as part of anational endeavor at the beginning of the ninth century.

26

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 8 2017

“The method of translating the true teachings of Buddha is to make the
Tibetan words simple without changing the original meaning.”
dam pa’i chos bsgyur ba’i lugs ni don dang yang mi ’gal la bod skad layang gar bde bar gyis shig/ (“Preﬁx, Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa” 二巻
本訳語釈, Ishikawa Mie, Studia Tibetica, no.28. Materials for TibetanMongolian Dictionaries, vol.3 [1993] p.2)

Notes
1 唐玄奘法師明五種不翻。 一秘密故不翻。 陀羅尼是。 二多含故不翻。 如薄伽梵含六義故。三此無故不翻。如閻浮樹。四順古故不翻。如阿耨菩提。實可翻之。但摩騰已存梵
音故。五生善故不翻。如般若尊重智慧軽浅。令人生敬、是故不翻。」（『翻訳名義集』南宋・法雲編、大正 No.2131, vol.54, 1057c7 12）

2 bhagavat = bcom ldan ’das: gcig tu na/ bhagnamāracatuşţayatvād bhagavān*zhes bya ste/ bdud bzhi bcom pas na bcom pa la bya/ yang rnam pa gcig tu nabhaga ni legs pa rnam pa drug gi ming ste/ gzugs dang/ grags pa dang/ dbang
phyug dang/ dpal dang/ shes rab dang/ brtson ps ste/ ’di drug gi spyi la bya/ vānzhes ’byung ba ni bhago ’syāstīti bhagavān zhes ldan par bshad de/…/’jig rten
pa’i lha bhagavān las khyad par du ’das shes bla thabs su bsnan te/ bcom ldan’das shes btags/…’jig rten pa’i bhagavān ni legs ldan zhes gdags/ (sGra sbyor
bam po gnyis pa, Ishikawa [1990] pp.6 7)*Cf. Arthaviniścayasūtranibandhana, Samtani ed., pp.76.4 77.3: bhagavān iti
māracatuşţayaṃ devaputrakleśaskandhamŗtyulakṣaṇaṃ bhagnavān iti kŗtvā
nairuktena nyāyena bhagavān/ aiśvaryādiguṇayogād vā, yathoktam –aiśvaryasya samagrasya rūpasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ/jñānasyātha prayatnasya şaṇṇāṃ bhaga iti śrutiḥ// iti/