Florin Deleanu florindeleanu@yahoo.co.jp The paper argues for the suitability, or at least acceptability, of a transla- tion style which I call jolie laide, i.e.  a rendering which is not necessarily exquisite in its aesthetic quality but is as faithful as possible to the original and perfectly intelligible in the target language.  This is not a mechanical process, and in order to meet these standards, the translator should allow for flexibility and make full use of the critical apparatus. I do not rule out, however, other rendering strategies, and the last part of my contribution illustrates the possibility of having jolies laides side by side with free trans- lations.  The article also contains an appendix on Dao'an's 'five [points of permissible] deviation from the original and three [points which should re- main] unchanged' and Xuanzang's 'five types [of Indic words which should] not be translated’. Strutting and Fretting Our Hour Between the Rock of Graceful Freedom and the Hard Place of Lacklustre Literalness To add or not add?– that is the question awaiting any translator!  Is it nobler to suf- fer the slings and arrows of hard-core philologists mercilessly unleashed against graceful free renderings?  Or should one take arms against a tedious sea of lacklus- tre literal translation?  In one form or another, the question has been around for quite a while.  The awareness of the need to make a responsible choice is already discernable in Cicero's and Horace's exhortations to avoid word-for-word ren- ditions. 2  A continent apart and centuries later, one recognises similar concerns in Daoan's道安(312-385) counsel to the translators of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese to depart from the Indic originals in some regards but stay close to them in others. 3  According to George Steiner (1998, 251), the essence of the argument has been repeated again and again over the centuries 'with identical theses, famil- iar moves and refutations in debate.'4  The lines below can hardly aspire to bring something original, let alone solve the perennial dispute of literal vs free rendering (if it is solvable at all!).  Apart from a few idle thoughts on the theoretical frame- work of translation, they will mainly attempt to connect these basic questions and some derived problems to the task of rendering traditional Buddhist sources and terminology into modern languages. 5 While extreme forms of literal or free renderings of Buddhist texts may not be so frequent, there is an entire spectrum of degrees between these two poles. And there seems to be no consensus as towards which pole and in what degree one's translation should be geared. The problem is further compounded by the lack of objective criteria for defining and assessing the degrees of literalness. What may be a perfectly understandable rendering for some (usually the translator himself/ herself!) could make quite a few puzzled eyebrows rise. Even with all these provisos, some renderings do, however, strike us as un- necessarily literal.  Alex Wayman's study, partial edition, and translation of the Śrāvakabhūmi (1961) or The Foundation of the Disciples [ʿPath of Spiritual Cul-
147
tivation],6 an otherwise noteworthy pioneering contribution, provides some rel- vant examples.  In spite of its merits, Wayman's style sometimes displays what Edgerton (1962, 308) describes as 'wooden literalness'. The epithet is specifically used to qualify Wayman's rendering of the Sanskrit phrase bhojanemātrajñatā as 'knowing the amount in food'. In plain English, this amounts to saying 'modera- tion in eating' or, as suggested by Edgerton (ibid.), 'moderation in food'. At the opposite pole, we find adaptations like Dwight Goddard's Self- ial works like the *Yogācārabhūmivyākhyā or Exposition upon the Foundation [or: Stages] of Spiritual Practice (T 30.884c25-26) (see Deleanu 2006, 48, n. 3). Similarly, in his Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya or Gloss upon the Ornament of [Mahāyāna] Scriptures, the Yogācāra exegete Sthiramati (ca 510- 570) glosses the term ρañcavidhā yogabhūmiḥ (ad MSĀ 65.16ff.), usually construed as 'five types of stages of spiritual practice', as follows: 'The[se] five types of factors are called "foundations of spiritual practice" ( yogabhūmi ) due to [their] being the basis (*āśraya ) and the ground (*nidāna ; or: *adhiṣṭhāna) of the cultivation (*bhāvanā) of spiritual practice ( yoga ) ' ( chos rnam pa lnga rnal 'byor bsgom pa'i rten dang gzhir gyur pas na rnal 'byor gyi sa zhes bya'o || D Mi 189a4-5). The pol- ysemy of the word bhūmi is undeniable, and it is not excluded that even in the same context, more than one denotation or connotation may have been present. It seems to me, however, more nat- ural to construe the original meaning of the titles of the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Bodhisattvabhūmi as 'The Foundation of the Disciples[' Path of Spiritual Cultivation]' and 'The Foundation of the Bodhisattvas[' Path of Spiritual Cultivation]' respectively. However, it is quite possible that ° bhūmi in the sense 'stage', i.e. a semantic line which may have originally been a secondary, even dormant, semantic line in the title of the two texts, may have gradually gained prominence over the meaning of 'foundation' once the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Bodhisattvabhūmi became part of the Yogācārabhūmi and the latter continued its expansion into a mega-encyclopaedia of spiritual and doctrinal lore.  But even in the Yogācārabhūmi , the term °bhūmi does not have a straightforward, unequivocal meaning of 'step' on a ladder of spiritual pro- gression. There is no implication, for instance, that a yogi must first practice according to the Śrā- vakayāna, then follow the Pratyekabuddha's path, and then engage in the bodhisattvic course of
148
on of Noble Wisdom (1932) 7 which drastically abridges, edits, themati- re-arranges, and renames the chapters of D.T. Suzuki's (generally faithful, times controversial) English translation (1932) of the Lankāvatārasūtra or ipture upon [the Buddha's] Entry into the Island.8  This not only blasts the orig- al flow of ideas and themes into a new structure which bears little resemblance the Lankāvatārasūtra itself but sometimesalso tampers with the very message of the text. Let us take, for instance, the Chapter on the [Undesired] Consequences of [Postulating] the Permanence or Impermanence of the Tathāgata ( Tathāgata- ityānitya- prasaṅgaparivarta). 9  The gist of this very brief chapter is that the thāgata is neither permanent nor impermanent ( na […] tathāgato nityo nā- tyāḥ)10 and the true understanding of the meaning of this statement can only come 'from the destruction of the conceptual knowledge' ( vikalpabuddhikṣayān ).11
149
By restructuring the argumentation line of the chapter and conflating it with assages from other chapters, Goddard (1932, 109-110) not only departs from the iginal arrangement of ideas, but ends up giving the unsuspecting reader a rather ferent, if not wrong, description of the basic purport.  For a page or so, God- rd sticks to the basic structure of the original, presenting the arguments leading to the conclusion that as far as linguistic formulations are possible, the Tathāgata can only be declared to be neither permanent nor impermanent. The American author ends the third paragraph of his account more or less faithfully stating the message of the sutra itself: 'when discrimination is done away with, Noble Wis- dom […] will be established' (ibid. 110). Goddard, however, does not stop here and returns to the statement made by the Lankavatarasutra that the Tathagata can also be said to be permanent, a statement which is basically directed at those who become too much attached to the equally wrong view that It is impermanent. e stress in Goddard's account is now on 'the eternal-unthinkable of the Tathā- gatas [which] is the "suchness" of Noble Wisdom' (ibid.).  The addition of this paragraph, which concludes with declaring this exalted state to be 'truly eternal' (ibid.), is not only superfluous but also erroneous in its stress on the permanency of the Tathāgata rather than on the need to transcend any duality, including per- manence and impermanence, as well as conceptual cognition– the basic messageof the chapter in its original as well as in Suzuki's translation.12
150
Goddard's work is thus not so much a faithful summary of the Lankāvatāra- sūtra as an attempt to rewrite Suzukui's translation, an attempt which sometimes is even misleading in its description and restructuring of ideas and sections. Ad- mittedly, the Lankavatarasutra is a jungle of doctrines and themes, and introduc- ing some order does help the reader in gaining a better view of the purport of the text.  In this sense, Goddard's 'epitomised version', to use the subtitle of his work, may have some merits.  However, if one wishes to get a bird's eyeview of the Lankāvatārasūtra which does not take dangerous shortcuts, turns and rolls, then relying upon a traditional commentary like Kokan Shiren's虎關師錬(1278- 1346) Butsu go shin ron佛語心論( Treatise on the Essence of the Buddha's Words ) or one of its modern versions such as Jikidō Takasaki's (1980,19-54) excellent syn- optic presentation is a far wiser choice. Theoretically, one can only with agree with Eco ([2003] 2004, 127-132) that 'rewording is not translation'. 13  If anything, Goddard's work is an adaptation comparable to such genres as the Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Marry Lamb (1807) or the belles infidèles, a popular style of translation thriving in France during the 17th–18th centuries.  The latter were works, mainly by classical au- thors, adapted to suit the tastes and moral standards of the age, with translators often taking such liberties as heavily doctoring the style, censoring, and even cor- recting the originals (see Salama-Carr 2009, 406-408). Goddard's 'epitomised version' is, however, an extreme example, and most modern translators are found somewhere in between the poles of belles infidèles and what one may label laides fidèles. Following different strategies and philoso- phies, everyone trying his or her hand at rendering a foreign source, especially a classical one, is most probably striving to become what Horace named fidus in- terpres or 'faithful translator'. The ideal of fidelity, however, is not something easy to define, let alone achieve.  The 'in-between' the two extremes is not a simple straight line easily quantifiable ordivisible into clear discrete units. It rather seems to be a hugely complex space with multiple dimensions related to subjectively and historically determined values.  Translation does imply an intricate play between invariants, i.e. elements remaining unaltered in the source language as well as the target language, and shifts, i.e. necessary changes to make the rendering intelli-
151
gible.14  The core of the problem is to identify what precisely are invariants and shifts as well as how the latter are to be implemented.15 In the present state of consent over the importance of faithfully communi- cating the purport of the original, on the one hand, and disagreement as to how exactly this is to be achieved, on the other, it seems wiser to keep an open and flexible attitude in one's own approach and embrace, or at least admit of, the pos- sibility of plurality.  We have seen and most likely will continue to see a wide range of translation approaches in all areas of Buddhist studies.  Although one is entitled, I believe, to criticise (what he/she may regard as) excesses, it is more constructive to accept the principle of plurality and whenever necessary (in lexi- cographical contributions, for instance) to duly reflect the variety of translations and styles. Based upon an admittedly impressionistic assessment, I would, however, say that the balance in such areas as Yogācāra and Abhidharma research tends to tip in favour of near-literal renderings of different degrees and hues –something which is not exactly describable as laides fidèles but rather, to once again use a French phrase, as jolies laides or 'plain-looking ladies nonetheless exuding charm'. Here I shall use the latter collocation to refer to such translations which are not exactly exquisite in style but succeed in conveying the purport of the original (arguably better than the belles infidèles ) and in being intelligible (perhaps occasionally with some difficulty…) – features which make them attractive enough for a devoted reader. As intimated above, I do not deny the rights of free translations and wish to emphasise the importance of maintaining this tradition, too.  The only point I would dare to make here is that hard-core proponents of this approach should, nonetheless, try to temper their belles infidèles. Too much beauté might spoil the very meaning and raison d'être of the entire enterprise of translation. On the other hand, advocates of the rival strategy of literal or near-literal translations should make serious efforts in creating acceptable jolies laides and promoting them to the general public.
152
Since my own very modest attempts at translation tilt in the direction of the er approach, I shall concentrate here more on the problems raised by the jolies , as well as some possible compromises (a word which sounds better than lutions – the latter being hardly possible in a strong sense).16 Before tackling these issues, it is, however, important to state the basic premises of what I regard as a jolie laide translation. (1) Faithfulness to the original. 17 Staying as close as possible to the original oth lexically and grammatically presupposes perfect understanding of the source linguistic, doctrinal, and cultural terms and conveying its message with as little terference on the part of the translator as possible. Needless to say, the process not and should not be mechanical. Understanding implies interpretation, and conveying it in an intelligible form requires making changes in the target language which cannot be controlled simply by the translator's choice. (2) Intelligibility in the target language.  This is a criterion at least as impor- tant as fidelity.  Actually, whenever a choice has to be made between faithfulness and intelligibility, I believe the latter should be given priority. The bottom line of any translation is to convey the basic message of a text. If structural, even lexical, fidelity cannot be achieved in the target language, awkwardly close faithfulness to the original can and should be sacrificed on the altar of intelligibility.  After all, no translator, let alone reader, would like to be told something similar to what the classicist Robert Yelverton Tyrell (1844-1916) remarked about the English render-
153
g of the Agamemnon made by Robert Browning in 1887: 'The original Greek is of great use in elucidating Browning's translation of the Agamemnon'.18 (3) Use of a critical apparatus even in translations designed to reach the gen- eral public. Many unnecessary headaches on how much fidelity is to be sacrificed for intelligibility, or the other way round, can be avoided by not shying away from the use of a full critical apparatus and the philological conventions currently ac- cepted in the scholarly community but frequently shunned by both publishers and readers.  The downside of this premise is that although translators may rejoice in the sharp decrease of their purchase of aspirin, publishing houses and the general public may be less willing to face their share of headaches.  More details on this and the other premises will be discussed in the pages below.
minology As It Is (yathābhūtam!)
eally, we should be able to find perfect, or at least satisfactory, equivalents f h term in the vast technical vocabulary employed in Buddhist sources.¹9  The est is far from new.  The same Sisyphean task has been faced by all traditional civilisations in which Buddhism left an impact deep enough to lead to the produc- tion of literary sources.  Most notably, the Chinese and Tibetans have struggled for centuries to find optimal solutions. And in spite of all the failures and extrav- agant attempts, the process has had profound and enriching effects not only for the Buddhist communities but also for the languages and cultures of these coun- tries. 20
154
A one-to-one equivalence pleasing every single reader, let alone scholar in the field, remains, however, a distant dream at best. In tune with the philosophy we are studying, it would actually seem more appropriate to describe it as mere illusion ( māyāmātra !). Let us look at some reasons underlying this predicament. (1) Needless to say, technical terms, as any other words in natural languages, are both context-determined and history-dependent. Perfect symmetry between the source language and the target language, presupposing one-to-one equiva- lence in all contexts and texts, is hard to achieve, to say the least. More often than not, both languages confront us with lexical material which is polysemic, and this plurality of meanings has quite different histories. Let us take a key Buddhist term like the Sanskrit dhyāna (Pali, jhāna ).  Already in the early Pali Canon, jhāna appears to have a wide semantic sphere and usage. In a narrow technical sense, it refers to the four levels of 'meditative absorption' leading to heightened states of emotional balance. 21  There are, however, textual witnesses pointing in the direction of a different and most probably wider under- standing.  For instance, the verses uttered by the Buddha during the night of his Awakening declare that victory over Māra, the Evil One, i.e.  the symbol of death,22 occurs to him who is 'ardent[ly] meditating' (ātāpino jhāyato).23  This must be ei- ther a general meaning or a reference to meditation on the chain of dependent arising ( paticcasamuppāda ), upon which the Buddha had concentrated his atten- tion ( manasā ’kāsi ) at least in the account given by the Vinayapitaka or Book of Monastic Discipline.24 The cognate verb similarly appears to be used with a broad meaning in the Dhammapada or Verses ofthe Teaching which exhorts 'meditate, mendicant, and do not be careless.25 This polysemy is inherited and further amplified in Mahāyāna Buddhism, Yogăcăra included.  The Abhidharmasamuccaya or Compendium of Philosophy, for instance, often construes dhyāna as '(the four levels of) meditative absorp- tion’.26  However, the same text also tells us that while in dhyāna , the Buddhas
155
and bodhisattvas attain all sorts of contemplations [or:  meditative concentra- tions] ( samādhi ), which are not even known, let alone accessible, to disciples ( śrāvaka ) and solitary Buddhas ( pratyekabuddha ).² 7  For the Buddhas and bod- isattvas, dhyāna is thus no longer a mere experience of meditative absorption but rather the locus or foundation upon which contemplative states peculiar to Mahāyāna are generated and practised. The latter usage becomes even more obvious in the definitions given to the dhyānapāramitā or 'perfection of meditation', which is construed in a most com- prehensive sense.  In the Bodhisattvabhūmi or Foundation of the Bodhisattvas[ ' Path of Spiritual Cultivation], 28 for example, dhyāna is categorised as meditation for blissful dwelling in the present life ( dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihārāya dhyānam ), meditation for triggering the qualities [necessary for] the bodhisattva's contem- plation [or:  concentration] ( bodhisattvasamādhiguṇanirhārāya dhyānaṃ ), and meditation for [accomplishing] acts for the benefit of [all] sentient beings ( sat- tvārthakriyāyai dhyānaṃ).²9 e Laṅkāvatārasūtra goes one step further and classifies dhyāna into four types: 1.Simpletons' meditation ( bālopacārikaṃ dhyānaṃ), i.e. the typical tranquil- lity ( śamatha ) meditation practised by disciples and solitary Buddhas, which cul- minates in the attainment of cessation ( nirodha [ samāpatti ]), i.e.  the last of the traditional nine stages of absorption. 2. Meditation investigating the [cognitive] object [or: sense] ( arthapravicayaṃ dhyānam), which focuses on the characteristics of the essencelessness of phe- nomena ( dharmanairātmya ) and the stages ( bhūmi ) of the Bodhisattva path. 3. Meditation [taking] Suchness [i.e. Supreme Reality] as its object ( tathatā- lambanaṃ dhyānaṃ). 4. Tathāgata's meditation ( tāthāgataṃ dhyānaṃ ) accessible only to the Awak- ened Ones and consisting in various unfathomable ( acintya ) altruistic acts under- taken for the sake of sentient beings.30 Obviously, the sense of meditative absorption is discernable only in the first category, the rest consisting in cogitation, contemplative states, or salvific activ- ity. The latter can hardly be connected to the old technical meaning of dhyāna as
156
psorption'.  It seems more likely that they are a development from the general se of the word, development which, however, went far beyond the semantic hits that the early Buddhist communities could have imagined. To complicate matters, scholastic analysis adds a further meaning to dhyāna , that of birth and existence in heavenly spheres obtained in accordance with mas- tery of different levels of meditative absorption.  The Abhidharmakośabhāsya or Commentary on the Thesaurus of Philosophy , for instance, tells us that 'briefly stated, [one can speak of] two sorts of dhyāna due to the distinction [made be- tween] dhyāna as birth and [ dhyāna ] as meditative attainment'.31  The same usage can be ascertained in Yogācāra sources such as the Śrāvakabhūmi32 and the Ab- hidharmasamucaya. 33 Last but not least, a further ramification in the semantic history of the word is brought by Tantric Buddhism.  We find, for example, in  Āryadeva's Caryāmelāpaka- pradīpa or Lamp on the Integration of Practice a technique called 'the twofold med- itation' ( dvividhaṃdhyānaṃ ).  This refers to two steps of yogic praxis implying the dissolution ( anubheda ) and grasping of a globe ( pindagrāha ) (of light?), which makes it possible for the contemplative to dissolve into the Brilliance, i.e. the Ul- timate Reality. 34 The methods are not described in detail in Āryadeva's opus, but in all likelihood they represent advanced forms of Tantric meditation consisting in visualisations and control of subtle energies.  Although the general rendering of 'meditation' may be used in this context, too, the term can be more precisely ren- dered as 'meditative visualisation' or even 'meditative technique [of dissolution into the Brilliance]’. (2) We should add here the obvious fact that polysemy is not confined to the source language.  One of the most frequent and certainly justified renderings of dhyāna is 'meditation', but the English word itself is far from being monolithic.35
157
Depending on the translator, different shades of meaning could be present, and ideally (i.e., whenever the publisher does not impose space limitations!), basic definitions of one's usage of key terms in the target language, too, should be pro- vided. (3) The semantic complexity of most technical terms in both the source and the target languages requires flexibility and openness:  flexibility in finding the proper rendering(s) fit for each specific usage (even if this means a departure from one-to-one equivalence) and openness to the presupposition that one's choices may not be the only possible ones, let alone the best.  This does not invalidate the need for effort on the part of the translator to look carefully into each context and find what he/she believes to be the best rendering.  Yet the sheer complexity of each language, exponentially augmented in the process of translation, makes ‘perfection’ and ‘definitive solutions’ difficult, if attainable at all. To return to the example of dhyāna/jhāna : together with many Buddhist scholars, I believe that rendering the term as '(meditative) absorption' in its strict technical sense and 'meditation' in a more general usage is basically correct. On the other hand, I do not think that T.W. Rhys Davids' translation of jhāna as 'rap- ture' ([1899] 1977, 84, etc.), Woodward's 'trance' ([1934] 1979, 272, etc.) or 'mus- ing' ([1936] 1972, 106, etc.) are necessarily wrong.36 Furthermore, when we come to far more difficult and controversial terms such as adhimukti ('conviction', etc.), 37 vijñapti ('representation', etc.), prājñā ('wis- dom', etc.) and so on, or even the ubiquitous 'five aggregates' ( pañcaskandhāḥ ), 38 we must be open to plurality.  What the scholarly community and public at large
158
badly need are extensive and reliable lexicographical tools collecting all (or at least the major) translations attempted by scholars over the centuries.39 We find some of them in works like Edgerton's classical Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary ([1953] 1985) or Dayal's old but still valuable study on the Bodhisattva doctrine ([1932] 1978). Fortunately,more recent projects such as the Digital Dic- tionary of Buddhism ( http://buddhism-dict.net/ddb/ ), whose initiator and main editor is Prof. Dr A. Charles Muller (University of Tokyo), or the Buddhist Trans- lators' Workbench ( http://www.mangalamresearch.org/ ) undertaken by the Man- galam Research Center for Buddhist Languages (Berkeley, California) under the direction of Mr Jack Petranker, are making impressive progress and will one day come to answer this need in a thorough and highly professional manner.
The Yoga of Terminology Propping
Another way to help flexibility as well as ensuremore palatability to Buddhist studies is to combine the use of (at least some of the) well-established render- ings with the readiness to paraphrase them.For instance, the key Yogācara term usually rendered as ' three natures ' ( trayahsvabhāvah ; trisvabhāva ) or ' threefold na- ture' ( trividhaḥṣvabhāvaḥṣṣvabhāvastrividhaḥ)40 has the double benefit of being faithful to the meaning of svabhāva in Sanskrit and havinga long, well-established use easily recognisable by almost any student of Buddhism.41  On the other hand, it cannot be denied that 'nature' (not to mention 'self-nature'!) in the particular sense meant in Yogācāra philosophy may be a rather puzzling use for quite a few members of the general public. If the results of Buddhist scholarship are to reach wider audiences, as I believe they should, then using only 'three natures' may be
159
insufficient. In this case, I suppose adding a paraphrase like 'three modes of con- sciousness functioning', whether in square brackets or notes, would open more minds and hearts to what Yogācāra has to say. Similarly, while Frauwallner's Ele- mente der Gegebenheiten, rendered into English by LodröSangpo as 'elements of the factors', is a faithful literal translation of Skt. dharmadhātu, it becomes fully intelligible to the non-initiated if paraphrased as 'the ultimate state of being', as actually done by Frauwallner himself.42 Paraphrasing may, however, become insufficient when one is faced with much more complex terms and phrases or feels the need to further elucidate the 'hidden' (saṃdhi!) meanings of words and wording. In such cases, making full use of the critical apparatus to bring forth the entire semantic field, with its historical and cultural ramifications, becomes imperative.  Many Buddhist scholars, especially the clearly distinguishable sub-species of 'hard-core' philologists, do, of course, make extensive use of it.  We do not have to tell them to augment their annota- tions – they anyway do so by their very nature ( svabhāvenaiva !), so to speak. If further efforts are required, then these should be towards increasing the public awareness of the necessity of or at least acceptability of the critical apparatus.43 I see no reason why publishers and the general readership should a priori reject annotations, bracketing, parallel translations, etc. They are admittedly more diffi- cult to follow than, say, comics or gossip columns, but those who set their mind on reading Buddhism will probably be willing to spend some more time and energy on the intricacies of reading annotations and also accepting some exotic nota- tions.  Whether or not every single reader makes full use of it, the critical appa- ratus should, I believe, be an integral part not only of academic publications but also of books geared to general audiences. Without the help of annotations (a German invention, as they often say!), I cannot see how we could come as close as possible to restoring the original colours of the blurred fresco of ideas and details lying beneath the surface level of a text. The full import, for instance, of a diatribe voiced by the authors of the Śrāvakab- hūmi against 'one's own body, material, coarse, made of the four elements, grow- ing upon boiled rice [or] coarse gruel, always requiring ointment, bathing, and massage, [yet] bound to breaking, splitting, scattering, and destruction' can only
160
be graspedby providing annotations. 44 These will reveal most, or at least the ba- sic, ideas, socio-cultural background, and paronomastic use of the imagery which is opaque to most modern readers but would have been quite obvious to an edu- cated audience in ancient India. 45  It does require some effort on the part of the reader, not to mention of the translator, to cover this intricate web of informa- tion, but correctunderstanding in depth does come at a price. 46  Serious reading arguably is not only a delight but also to a certain extent a form of ascetic practice (tapas!). One question arises here.  If we are to rely on heavily 'armed' critical appara- tuses, how close should we stay to the original?  In other words, can we produce laides fidèles propped up by page after page of annotations?  Controversial as it may be, my choice would be to give intelligibility and a minimum degree of good style in the target language priority over unnecessarily obedient fidelity.  Rather than 'ugly (hyper-)faithful renderings', I believe the translator's efforts should con- centrate on producing jolies laides–not exactly beautiful pieces of writing but faithful enough and, one hopes, reasonably attractive. A similar conclusion comes out of Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty's (1971; 1987) experience (experiments?) in and reflections on rendering Sanskrit literature. In an early article published in 1971, the American Indologist advocates a new ap- proach which presupposes 'a very literal, word-for-word translation, retaining the long, multiple compounds, and bracketing pairs of words to represent the puns and doubles entendres with which Sanskrit abounds' (Doniger O'Flaherty 1987, 123). This resulted, as the author herself admits, in a 'highly unorthodox form of English verse ' (ibid. 124), which in turn, 'called upon the reader to do a great deal of work indeed' (ibid.  123).  Later on, Doniger O'Flaherty came to criticise her earlier over-literal, rather unintelligible style, admitting that she failed to realise 'that anyone who was interested in fighting through that sort of translation would be likely to go ahead and learn the original language' (ibid. 124).
161
The conclusion provides further argument for avoiding literal translations as well as extravagant notation systems.  What distinguishes a jolie laide rendering from a laidefidèleis the degree of intelligibility of the translation itself.  Although an indepth understanding of a jolie laide will most probably need the backing of annotations and bracketing, the basic comprehension of its main ideas should be possible just by reading the translation itself with no or little help from footnotes.
Prudent Loving-Kindness For (Almost…) Any Translation Style
I must reiterate that my arguing in favour of jolies laides does not mean that this should be the only style to be followed by all translations.  Generally speaking, it is wiser to accept a functionalist approach implying that 'the linguistic form of the target text is determined by the purpose it is meant to fulfil ' (Schäfner 2009, 115).  Free renderings are not bad in themselves, especially as long as the translator clearly states his/her method and goals. 47  If we temper the excesses of the belles infidèles , i.e. if we do not let them run into the domain of sheer adaptations, they can remain an equally viable way of transmitting Buddhist lore and culture to the readers of our age. And if publishers and audiences are bodhisattvic enough, putting jolies laides and belles infidèles side by side in the same volume may be an appealing, even preferable, alternative.  The translator may hope that his/her entire volume will be perused, but depending on their interests and needs, the readers may choose to focus on either of the renderings.  And needless to say, readers should consult annotations only to the extent they find necessary to disambiguate the message and background of the text.  (Confidentially, I must add that even scholars may skip some notes, but don't ask how many and how often….) Though far from being gifted with poetical talent (or any talent, for that mat- ter), I take the liberty of taxing the reader's patience with a clumsy attempt to see how a jolie laide translation can co-exist side by side with a free rendering which I hope can be qualified as remotely belle infidèle.48  For this purpose, I have chosen
162
asubandhu's (ca 350-430)49 Trimsikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi or Thirty on] the Proof [that Everything is] Representation-Only.50 The verses con- e the celebrated philosophical treatise with a statement on the ultimate goal addhist practice, i.e. the locus and experience of Awakening attained after a , arduous path of spiritual cultivation. o let me start with a jolie laide translation of the stanza ( jolie enough for most ders, I dare hope…) That alone is the uncontaminated Realm, inconceivable, wholesome, lasting, 51 ; this is the Liberation Body, it is called the Truth ( dharma ) of the Great Sage.52 Sa evānāsravo dhātur acintyah kuśalo dhruvaḥ / Sukho vimuktikāyo 'sau dharmākhyo 'yaṁ mahāmuneḥ // [Kārikā 30] slation (TrimBh-B 139.12-15): nyid zag pa med dang dbyings / am gyis mi khyab dge dang brtan // ni bde ba rnam grol sku / ub pa chen po'ī chos zhes bya // I have followed Buescher's text but conve translation (T 31.61b):即無溺界不思議善常楽解脱身大牟尼名法163 As for my vain lumbering into the poetical world, the belle infidèle translation reads:53 Long lasting is that Realm, beyond what mind can fathom or attain, And wholesome in its nature, full of bliss, and well above all stain. Indeed the Freedom Body 'tis, cut loose from woe and more rebirth, Which oft they name the Truth and Norm of the Great Sage of Ut- most Worth. The doubtless clumsy attempt to attain a more pleasing effect through rhythm and rhyme has resulted, however, in quite a few deviations from the original.  First, Sanskrit verse basically relies only (or at least mainly) upon rhythm, i.e. patterns of regular succession of long and short syllables. Most of classical Indian poetry, including the stanza above, does not exploit the aesthetic dimension of rhyme. 54 However, rendering into a modern Western language in rhythmical prose without rhyme would, I surmise, reduce the literary value of a belle infidèle , especially if the latter is also intended to evoke an aura of ages bygone. The second, more obvious deviation in my translation is the addition of words which do not appear in the original such as 'cut loose from woe and more rebirth', etc. 55  These, however, are more or less harmless changes against which I believe Vasubandhu would not have protested too much (though he might have told me 'to mind-only' the task of rendering faithfully!). The basic Buddhist understand- ing of the word ‘Liberation’ ( vimukti ) does entail becoming free from the cycle of
164
rebirths and suffering. Of course, there are differences, sometimes vast, amongst the various strains of Buddhist thought as to what exactly this Liberation means and how It is brought about.  Yet to the best of my knowledge, there is complete agreement that Its attainment signifies the end of 'woe and more rebirth', at least as these are experienced by deluded beings. Such harmless changes appear, therefore, to be both acceptable and actually unavoidable if a belle (not too) infidèle is to be produced.  What ought to be avoided at all costs is omission of terms and phrases in the original other than semantically unimportant grammatical elements.  The real challenge, especially for verse, remains to come up with close enough renderings which are at the same time written in a style capable of inducing aesthetic feelings akin to the original. I do not wish to test any longer the reader's efforts to cultivate the perfection of patience ( kṣāntipāramitā! ), and I shall now rest my quill, which can hardly boast of any originality.  The idle thoughts set down above actually draw on long practice in trying to stay as close as possible to the Buddhist sources and conveying this in an intelligible and reasonably good style.  If anything, my attempt here has been to put in a wider theoretical context some of the aspects and problems entailed by this practice.  To some, if not many, of the readers of this humble essay (in case there are any at all….), these will be matters of course, probably not worth spelling out in any detail. It thus only remains for me to express my apologies for trying to take coals to Newcastle or, as we say in Japanese, attempting to give a Dharma-talk to Śākyamuni himself. 56
Appendix I
Dao’an道安(312-385) is one of the central figures in early Chinese Buddhism whose efforts to understand the true message of the new religion left a deep impact on the course it would take in the next centuries.57 His 'five [points of permissible] deviation from the original and three [points which should remain] unchanged'五失本三不易reflect a genuine concern to make translation both faithful to the Indic original and intelligible to Chinese audiences and readers.58
165
passage expounding Dao'an's views on this matter is found in his 'Pref- e to the Compendium of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra’摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經(T 55.52b-c) recorded in the Chu sanzangjiji出三蔵記集or Collection of Notes Concerning the Translation of the Tripitaka [into Chinese], a major historical source compiled by the scholarmonk Sengyou僧祐(445-518).  Dao'an's theory of translation expressed in this short passage has been the subject of many modern studies and translated into quite a few languages.  Here I shall list only some of the most important contributions which have come to my attention: Satō 1952; Ui 1956, 130-137; Ochō 1958, 247ff.; Robinson [1967] 1978, 77-79; Zürcher 1972, 203; Hurvitz and Link, 1974, 425-432; Held 1980; Kamata 1982, 387-388;Wang 1984; Aramakiand Kominamitr.  1993, 70-74; Lackner 2001; Cheung ed.  2006, 79-83.59 Since the reader can find very good translations into English (especially Hurvitz and Link, 1974, 426-428 [complete rendering of the Preface]; Robinson [1967] 1978, 77 [partial translation of the key passage]; Lackner 2001, 362-363 [partial rendering of 'the five losses']; etc.), I shall limit myself here to a brief presentation of the gist of Dao’an views.60
166
boints of permissible] deviation from the original五失本:
parting from the word order in the original and following the natural rules e Chinese syntax in translation is a liberty which one has to take when ren- dering from the totally different language(s) of the Western regions胡語. 61 (2) 'e scriptures of the Western regions esteem [plain] substance, [whereas] the Chinese are fond of [elegant] style'胡經尚質，秦人好文．It is, therefore, permissible to depart from the Indic original and adapt the style of the translation to the tastes of Chinese audiences and readers. 62 61 I render胡語hu yu as 'languages of the Western regions', which from Dao'an's and his contem- oraries' perspective encompassed Central Asia and India. The Chinese Master must have known nost of the) Buddhist scriptures were composed in the language(s) of India, but h :胡hu, which does not refer specifically to India,  Originally, it denoted s living north or west of the ancient Chinese heartland. Even later the word would retain its pejorative, racist connotations typical of the Sinocentrist feelings entertained by many orthodox hinese intellectuals.  Whether Dao'an as well as the vast majority of Chinese Buddhists shared ese feelings or not remains, however, controversial.  Scholars like Yang (1998) argue that胡hu id retain a 'strong racist sense' even in Buddhist sources, and it came to be replaced with梵fan , which specifically denotes Sanskrit (and/or Indic languages in languages in general) without any disparaging nuance (for more on this character, see note 72 below) only around the beginning the Sui and Tang periods (6th to 7th century), when Buddhism came to be fully accepted in he Chinese society and culture. Yang's views have been criticised by Boucher (2000), who argues that though not always consistent, the dichotomy胡hu –梵fan refers to texts written in kharosthī script vs those in brāhmī script. Furthermore, the preference for the latter character in later Chinese sources reflects the fact that by the 5th century, kharosthī (=胡hu ) became obsolete and replaced with brāhmī (=梵fan ) in Northern India and Central Asia (Boucher 2000, especially pp.  17-19). More importantly, Boucher remarks that ' hu , when referring to scripts, languages, texts, is not used in any overtly derogatory manner – neither by the critics of Buddhism nor by Buddhist exegetes emselves' (ibid. 23). This applies, I believe, to the use of this character in Dao'an's Preface too. His ere belief, so often openly expressed, that the ultimate truth came from the lips of an Awakened lan and His Disciples who had lived in a Western land makes it quite unlikely that胡hu evoked pejorative, racist tones for Dao'an and his audiences. ²The character算zhi also implies the nuance of crude, unpolished nature, being opposed to文en, which is the adorned, the refined, that which is acquired as a result of training, and basically ociated with urban civilisation. Confucius孔子(551-479 B.C.E.) contrasts the two in a famous saying: '[When] there is a preponderance of [the unrefined qualities of] natural disposition質over ivilised] refinement文, then [the result] is [boorish] rusticity. [When] there is a preponderance of [civilised] refinement over [the unrefined qualities of] natural disposition, then [the result] is [behaving like a pedantic] clerk. [Only] after [the unrefined qualities of] natural disposition and ivilised] refinement [become] equally blended, [will the result be achieving the status of] a true gentleman'買勝文・則野・文勝賀・則史・文賀彬彬・然後君子・(Analects論語, Ch. VI ho val. lee. and the saying is the family of the great great and the saying of the saying (3) The Indic originals are too detailed, especially when it comes to excla- mations,嘆詠which are often repeated反覆. In order to conform to Chinese have also consulted the renderings of Legge, [1893] 1991, 190; Lau 1992, 51; Yoshikawa 1978, vol. 1, 187-188; as well as the very useful Chinese traditional commentaries collected in Cheng 1990, vol. 2, p. 400-401). Another hint as to what Dao'an may have meant by the stylistic preferences of the Chinese as well as to what質zhi meant to Chinese intellectuals (as well as connoisseurs of the subtleties of the language) is suggested by Ui (1956, 133).  This is an episode concerning the famous Kuchean Buddhist Master and translator Kumārajīva (344-409)鳩摩羅什, who is also said to have attained a very high proficiency in the language of the Middle Kingdom, and his prominent Chinese disciple Senrui僧叡, recorded in the Biographies of Eminent Monks高僧傳, an early ecclesiastical history written by the scholar monk Huijiao慧皎in 519. It goes like this: [Seng]rui participated in the correction of the scriptures translated by [Kumāra]jī[va].  In the earlier rendering of the Lotus Sutra of the True Teaching, Chapter on the Prediction [of Future Buddhahood], done by Dharmarakṣa, it is said: 'Deities see human beings, [and] human beings see deities'.  Having arrived with [his own] translation of the [Lotus] Sutra at this place, [Kumāra]jī[va] said: 'This word[ing of Dharmaraksa's version] is identical with the meaning of [the orig- inal text of] the Western Regions, but as far as the style is concerned, it is exceed- ingly crude.' [Seng]rui said: 'Then why not [something like] "Deities and human beings come into mutual contact, and [thus] are able to catch sight of each other"?'. [Kumāra]jī[va] gladly said: 'Verily so!'什所翻經・叡並參正・昔竺法護出『正法華經』「受決品」云： “天見人・人見天・”什譯經至此・乃言： “此語與西域義同・但在言過質・”叡曰： “將非《人天交接・兩得相見》？”什喜曰： “實然！” (T 50.364b2-6; the punctuation is mine) The episode may have happened in fact, but the account contains a rather puzzling detail. True, Kumārajīva did translate the Saddharmapundarīkasūtra under the title of Miao fa lianhua jing $法獲華經or Lotus Sutra of the Wondrous Teaching. Equally true, Dharmaraksa竺法護(233- ca310) had rendered the text into Chinese as the Zheng fa hua jing正法華經or Scripture of the [Lotus] Flower of the Right Teaching some two centuries earlier. But the sentence cited above, i.e.天見人,人見天, does not occur in the extant version of Dharmarakṣaʾs translation.  Kumārajīvaʾs rendering does contain the sentence人天交接・兩得相見(T 9.27c25), as apparently suggested by Sengrui. And one can trace it back to the Sanskrit original, where it reads: devā api manusyān draksyanti, manusyā api devān draksyanti (SadPun 202.3-4) 'deities will see human beings, and human beings will also see deities'. The problem is that the same sentence is rendered in the extant version of Dharmarakṣa's translation of the Lotus Sutra as:天上視世間・世間得見天上・天人世人往來交接・ (T 9. 95c28-29) – not exactly the crude sentence Kumārajīva is said to have seen.  Furthermore, the Chapter on the Prediction [of Future Buddhahood] is given above as受決品, which again does not correspond to our extant version, which reads:授五百弟子決品(T 9.94b26). The only explanation I can think of is that Kumārajīva had access to a different (earlier, unedited?)  redaction of Dharmarakṣa's translation which has not survived to later ages (though Huijiao must have known it as he does not seem to mind the discrepancy).
168
stylistic preferences, it is allowed to delete these superfluous rhetorical elements. (4) The scriptures of the Western regions often contain prolix explanatory ad- ions (or what we would call today exegetical interpolations) which should be distinguished from the scriptural text proper and can therefore be excised. (5) The Indic style finds it acceptable to complete the exposition of one topic and then after embarking upon a new subject to reiterate a few phrases or sen- tences concerning the topic just explained above. Such repetitions can, of course, be omitted.
The three [points which should remain] unchanged三不易:
(1) The Holy One聖, i.e. the Buddha, preached the scriptures in conformity with his times. Customs俗do change over the years, but one should not 'expunge the elegant ancient [wording conveying the message of the Holy One] only to fit [the tastes of] the present age'刪雅古以適今時. (2) 'Ignorance and wisdom are Heaven[-made] distinctions'愚智天隔, and one should accept that ordinary people cannot understand all subtleties contained in the scriptures.  The translator should not sacrifice these subtle nuances and make alterations only to agree to the customs of later ages未俗. (3) The Buddha's foremost disciples Ānanda and Mahākaśyapa as well as the Five Hundred Arhats, traditionally believed to have compiled the Canon after the Buddha's demise, were extremely cautious兢兢in their transmission of the scrip- tures.  How can deluded people living one thousand years after the Buddha and his direct disciples be so complacent平平as to believe that they can 'fathom and judge [the original meaning] with their modern ideas'近意量裁?63  Obviously, the basic wording of the scriptures should not be changed.64
169
In a nutshell, what Dao'an is trying to say is that while translators are allowed to (or rather should) make some grammatical and stylistic changes, mainly excis- ing repetitious and superfluous passages, it would be unwise to presume that they could tamper with the substance and basic wording of the scriptures, no matter how abstruse these may appear to them.
Appendix II
Xuanzang's玄奘(602-664) translations represents the pinnacle of the centuries- long travails to render the Buddhist Dharma into the language of the Middle King- dom. The Master's obsession with getting to the very root of scriptural accuracy and faithfully conveying it to his country fellowmen led not only to a long, ardu- ous journey of studies and pilgrimage to India but also to an amazingly prolific activity intranslating thousands of manuscript leaves into Chinese. 65  Linguisti- cally, this passion for the original message resulted in some of (if not) the most faithful (as well as intelligible) translations in the history of Buddhism on Chi- nese soil.  Xuanzang has not left much by way of a theory of translation, but the 'five types [of Indic words which should] not be translated'五種不翻, allegedly advocated by him, offer a glimpse into some of his ideas concerning the proper rendering of Buddhist terminology.  We find a sketchy description of these princi- ples in the Fanyimingyiji翻譯名義集or  Collection of Translations of Names and
170
a Sanskrit-Chinese dictionary compiled by the scholarmonk Fayun e 'five types [of Indic words which should] not be translated' refer to those categories of lexemes for which the translator should provide phonetic transcrip- ions, i.e.  use Chinese characters for the phonetic value only, rather than offer emantically meaningful equivalents.  A case in point is prajñā , for which Xuan- zang prefers the phonetic transcription般若( /pa-函ia '/ in Early Middle Chinese ronunciation [see Pulleyblank 1991, s.vv.]; bõrě in modern Mandarin Pinyin nsliteration), both characters being used here for their phonetic value, i.e. pro- nciation, while their meaning is completely ignored.  The semantically trans- parent equivalent智慧, a binome in which both characters mean 'wisdom' (thus conveying the basic sense of the Sanskrit word), is discarded as an inferior ren- dering.  Xuanzang's reasons for this as well as other judgements will become ap- parent from Fayun's account of the 'five types [of Indic words which should] not be translated': Master [Xuan]zang of the Tang [Dynasty] elucidated the five types [of Indic words which should] not be translated. (1) [Words which] are esoteric [should] not be translated;68 [magical formulae like] dhāraṇīs陀羅尼are such [examples]. 69 (2) [Words which] are pregnant with 171 r meanings [should] not be translated, like bhagavat薄伽梵ch] encompasses six meanings.70 (3) [Words which denote ob- jects] inexistent [in China] [should] not be translated, like the Jambu- e閻浮樹.ﾌ¹  (4) [Words for which it is preferable to] follow the old tradition] [should] not be translated, like anu[ttarasamyaksam]bodhi阿舜菩提,7² [which] can actually be rendered [into Chinese] but have been in usage with their Indic pronunciation [transcribed by means of Chinese characters] 73 since the time of Mātaṅga. 74  (5) [Words which] generate [more] good [in phonetic transcription should] not be translated, like [prajñā transcribed as /pa-�ia'/, i.e.] 殷若[which sounds more] dignified [when compared to] 'wisdom'智慧[i.e.  the translation proper which sounds] shallow; [the former] makes eople [feel more] respect [for the term], and thereforeshould not be ranslated. 75 e citations from or references to Sanskrit and Pali sources show the page nber after the abbreviated title and, whenever relevant, volume number. Often give the line number, which follows a dot placed after the page number. For 172 Tibetan sources, I have used the sDe dge Canon (abbreviated as 'D'). The syllable following 'D' shows the traditional Tibetan numeration symbol and is followed by the folio number, 'a' = recto or 'b' = verso, and line number. For Chinese sources, I have relied upon the Taishō Canon (abbreviated as 'T').  The number following the siglum 'T' indicates the volume in this Canon, followed by a dot and then by page, segment (‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’), and column number.

Bibliography 76
Aramaki Noritoshi荒牧典俊and Kominami Ichirō小南一郎tr.  1993.  Daijō butten, Chūgoku, Nihon-hen大乗仏典中国・日本編Vol.  III: Shutsu sanzō ki shū, Hō on ju rin出三蔵記集、法苑珠林. Tokyo: Chuōkōron-sha. Bader, Jonathan.  Meditation in Śaṅkara's Vedānta , New Delhi:  Aditya Prakashan, 1990.
173
Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha eds. 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Bakker, Matthijs, Cees Koster, and Litty van Leuven-Zwart.  2009.  'Shifts'. In Baker and Saldanha eds.: 269-274. Bastin, Georges L. 2009. 'Adaptation'. In Baker and Saldanha eds.: 3-6. Boucher, Daniel.  2000.  'On Hu and Fan Again:  the Transmission of "Barbarian" Manuscripts in China’.  Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23 (1): 7-28. Browning, Robert (transcribed by).  1877. The Agamemnon of Æschylus.  1st edition. London:  Smith, Elder, & Co. Buescher, Hartmut.  2007.  Sthiramati's Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya:  Critical Editions of the Sanskrit Text and its Tibetan Translation.  Vienna:  VerlagderÖsterreichis- chenAkademieder Wissenschaften. Cheng Shude程樹徳. 1990. Lun yu ji shi論語集釋. Edited by Cheng Junying程俊英and Jiang Jianyuan蔣見元. 4 vols. Beijing: Zhonghuashuju. Cheung, Martha, ed. 2006. An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation .Volume 1: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project , Manchester, UK, and Kinderhook, USA: St. Jerome Publishing. Coleman, George ed.  and tr.  1783.  The Art Of Poetry An Epistle To The Pisos:  Q. Horatii Flacci Epistola Ad Pisones, De Arte Poetica ; available on line atProject Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9175 . Dayal, Har. [1932] 1978. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Deeg, Max. 2008 (2010). Creating religious terminology: A Comparative approach to early Buddhist translations’.  Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31 (1-2): 83-118. Deleanu, Florin. 2006. The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga) in the Śrā- vakabhŭmi:  A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Trans- lation, and Introductory Study.2 vols. Tokyo: The International Institute of Bud- dhist Studies. Doboom Tulku ed.  1995.  Buddhist Translations:  Problems and Perspectives.  New Delhi: Manohar. Doniger O'Flaherty, Wendy.  1971. 'A New Approach to Sanskrit Translation, Applied to Kālidāsa’sKumārasambhava Canto VIII’. MAHFIL: A Quarterly of South Asian Literature 7 (3-4): 129-142. −. 1987. 'On Translating Sanskrit Myths'. In W. Radice and B. Reynolds eds. The Translator's Art: Essays in Honour of Betty Radice.  Harmondsworth:  Penguin, 121-128. Dutt, Nalinaksha ed. 1978. Bodhisattvabhūmi. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Insti- tute. Eco, Umberto.  2001.  Experiences in Translation.  Translated by Alastair McEwen. Toronto:  University of Toronto Press. . [2003] 2004. Mouse or Rat: Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix. Edgerton, Franklin [1953] 1985. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary . Volume I: Grammar; Volume II: Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas Publish- ers. —. 1962. Review of Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi , by Alex Wayman. Language 38 (3): 307-310. Fathers of the English Dominican Province tr.  1911.  The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Part II-II ( Secunda Secundae ).  New York:  Benziger Brothers; also available online at Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/ 18755. Frauwallner, Erich.  1969.  Die Philosophie des Buddhismus.  3rd revised ed.  Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. —.  2010.  The Philosophy of Buddhism.  Translated by Gelong Lodrö Sangpo, with the assistance of Jigme Sheldrön, under the supervision of Professor Ernst Steinkellner. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Gerow, Edwin.  1971.  A  Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech.  The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Gethin, R.M.L.[1992] 2003. The Buddhist Path to Awakening . Oxford: Oneworld. Goddard, Dwight.  1932.  Self-Realization of Noble Wisdom:  A  Version Based on Dr. Suzuki's translation of the Lankāvatārasūtra (Thetford); reprinted as D.T. Suzuki tr., Dwight Goddard, compiled and edited.  2005.  The Lankavatara Sutra:  An Epitomized Version. Varanasi: Pilgrims Publishing. Gòmez, Luis O. 1996. Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. Honolulu:  University of Hawai'i Press and Kyoto:  Higashi Honganji Shinshū Otani-ha. Griffiths, Paul J. 1981.  'Buddhist Hybrid English:  Some Notes on Philology and Hermeneutics for Buddhologists'. Journal of the International Association of Bud- dhist Studies 4 (2): 17-32. Gutt, Ernst-August.  1991.  Translation and Relevance:  Cognition and Context.  Ox- ford:  Basil Blackwell. Hedicke, Edmundus ed.  1889.M. TulliCiceronislibellus de optimogenereoratorum .  J.D. Rauert: SoraviaeLustorum. Held, Axel. 1980. 'Enthalt Tao-an'sVorwort in CSTCC 8.1 wirklich "Leitsätzefur die "Übersetzer"?'. Nachrichtender Gesellschaft fur Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens 1980: 111–119. Hermans, Theo. 2009. 'Hermeneutics'. In Baker and Saldanha eds.: 130-133. Horner, I.B. tr.  [1951] 1993.  The Book of Discipline.  Volume IV ( Mahāvagga ).  Ox- ford: Pali Text Society. Hurvitz, Leon N. and Arthur E. Link. 1974. 'Three Prajñāpāramitā prefaces of Tao- an'.  In Mélanges de Sinologie offerts à Monsieur Paul Demiéville.  Paris:  Biblio- thèque de l'Institut des HautesÉtudesChinoises, Volume XX: 403-470. Itō Zuiei伊藤瑞叡. 1968. 'Jujikyōniokerubhūmi no gogi'十地經におけるの語義. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū印度學佛教學研究 17 (1): 134-135. −. 1970. 'Jujikyōniokerubhūmi no gainen'十地経におけるbhūmiの概念. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū印度學佛教學研究 18 (2): 442-448. Kamata Shigeo鎌田茂雄.  1982.  Chūgokubukkyō-shi中国仏教史.  Vol.  I. Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku shuppan-kai. −. 1999. Chūgokubukkyō-shi中国仏教史. Vol. VI. Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku shuppan-kai. Kern, H. and Nanjio, Bunyiu ed.  [1908-1912] 1970.  Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.  Os- nabrück: Biblio Verlag. Kirchberger, Clare tr.  1957.  Richard of St.  Victor, Writings on Contemplation.  London: Faber and Faber. Koller, Werner.  1989.  'Equivalence in Translation Theory'.  In A Chestermann ed. Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura AB. Lackner, Michael.  2001.  'Circumnavigating the Unfamiliar:  Dao'an (314-385) and Yan Fu (1852-1921) on Western Grammar'. 2001. In Michael Lackner, Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz eds.  New Terms for New Ideas.  Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China. Leiden: Brill, 357–370. Lau, D.C. tr.  1992.  Confucius, The Analects (Lunyü).  2nd edition.  Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. James, Legge.  [1893] 1991.  The Chinese Classics.  Vols.  I & II: Confucian Analects, The Great Learning, The Doctrine of the Mean, The Work of Mencius. 2nd revised edition. Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. Lévi, Sylvain ed.  1907.  Asanga Mahāyāna-Sūtrālaṃkāra:  Exposé de la doctrine du Grand Véhicule selon le systèmeYogācāra. Tome I: Texte. Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion. −. ed. 1925. Vijñaptimātrātāsiddhi. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Ling, Trevor. [1962] 1997. Buddhism & the Mythology of Evil: A Study in Theravāda Buddhism. Oxford: Oneworld. Nanjio, Bunyiu ed.  [1923] 1956.  The Lankāvatāra Sūtra.  Kyoto:  Otani University Ôchõ Enichi横超慧日. 1958. Chūgoku bukkyō no kenkyū中国仏教の研究. Kyoto: Hōzō-kan. Pradhan, P. ed.  1975.  Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu.  Patna:  K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press. Rhys Davids, T.W. tr. [1899] 1977. Dialogues of the Buddha . Part I. London: Pali Text Society. Rhys Davids, T.W. and William Stede. [1921-1925] 1986. The Pali Text Society's Pali- English Dictionary. London: Pali Text Society. Ratcliffe, Susan ed.  2006.  Oxford Dictionary of Phrase, Saying, and Quotation.  3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, Richard H. [1967] 1978.  Early Mādhyamika in India and China.  Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sakaki Ryōsaburō榊亮三郎. 1916. Mahāvyuttpati翻譯名義大集. Kyoto: Shingon- shū Kyōto Daigaku. Salama-Carr, Myriam.  2009.  'French Tradition'.  In Baker and Saldanha eds.:  404- 410. Satō Ichirō佐藤一郎. 1952. 'Chūgokujin no hon'yaku-ron: Shaku Dōan no go shit- subon san fu eki-ronwochūshin to shite'中國人の翻譯論一釋道安の五失本三不易論を中心として. Nihon chūgoku gakuhō日本中國學報4. Schäfner, Christina. 2009. 'Functionalist Approaches'. In Baker and Saldanha eds.: 115-121. Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina. 1999. 'Translation, Transmission, Tradition: Suggestions from Ninth-Century Tibet’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 67-77. Shukla, Karunesha ed. 1973.Śrāvakabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal. Seyfort Ruegg, D. 1992.  'Some Reflections on Translating Buddhist Philosophical Texts from Sanskrit and Tibetan'. Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques XLIV (1): 367-391. Steiner, George.  1998.  After Babel:  Aspects of Language & Translation.  3rd ed.  Ox- ford, New York: Oxford University Press. Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro.  [1932] 1956.  The Lankavatara Sutra: A Mahayana Text Translated for the first time from the original Sanskrit.  London:  Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Takasaki Jikidō高崎直道.  1980. Ryōga kyō楞伽經(Butten kōza佛典講座, Vol.  17) Tokyo: Daizō shuppan kabushiki kaisha. Takasaki, Jikidō高崎直道, Zuihō Yamaguchi山口瑞鳳, and Noriaki Hakamaya袴谷憲昭eds.  1980.  sDe dge Tibetan Tripitaka bsTanhgyur — preserved at the Faculty of Letters University of Tokyoデルゲ版チベット大蔵経論疎部. Sems tsam唯識部. Tokyo: Sekai seiten kankō kyōkai. Tatia, Namthal ed. 1976. Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣyam. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Re- search Institute. Ui Hakuju字井伯詩. 1956. Shaku Dōan kenkyū釋道安研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Wang Wenyan王文顔.  1984.  Fodian hanyi zhi yanjiu佛典漢譯之研究.  Taipei: Tianhua chubanshe. Wayman, Alex. 1961. Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript. Berkley: University of California Press. Wedemeyer, Christian K. ed.  and tr.  Āryadeva's Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa): The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition.  New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2007. Windisch, Ernst.  1895.  Māra und Budda.  Leipzig:  Abhandlungder Philologisch- historischen Klasseder Königlichen Sächsischen Gesellschaftder Wissenschaften XV, 4. Wogihara Unrai ed. [1936] 1971. Bodhisattvabhūmi. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store. Woodward, F.L. tr.  [1930] 1977.  The Book of the Kindred Sayings.  Part V. London: Pali Text Society. Yamakami Sōgen. [1912] 1976. Systems of Buddhistic Thought. San Francisco: Chi- nese Materials Center, Inc. Yang Jidong.  1998.  'Replacing hu with fan :  A Change in the Chinese Perspective of Buddhism during the Medieval Period'.  Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21 (1): 157-170. Yoshikawa Kōjirō吉川幸次郎. 1978. Ron go論語. 3 vols. Tokyo: Asahi shinbun- sha. Zürcher, E. 1972.  The Buddhist Conquest of China:  The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill.