DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18344675
title: Buddhist Classics AI Translation Series Volume 16 ,  Kangyur and Tengyur Exoteric Scriptures in Pali, Japanese, and Korean Translations , Version 1.0(佛典AI译丛第十六卷 巴利日韩译甘珠尔丹珠尔显教经论)

description: Buddhist Classics AI Translation Series Vol. 16: Pali, Japanese, and Korean Translations of the Kangyur and Tengyur Exoteric Scriptures (Version 1.0)

OverviewThis dataset constitutes Volume 16 of the Buddhist Classics AI Translation Series. It represents a pioneering effort to translate the exoteric original texts of the Tibetan Buddhist Kangyur (Translation of the Word) and Tengyur (Translation of Treatises) into three major languages: Pali (presented in Roman script and 8 other Asian scripts), Japanese, and Korean. Following Volume 15, this project aims to utilize the Tibetan canon—which preserves the most complete aspect of late South Asian Buddhism—as a source to introduce these distinct philosophical systems to the linguistic worlds of Southern Buddhism and the East Asian Sinosphere.

Source Text and MethodologyThe primary source text is the "Old Derge Edition" (Sde dge) of the Tibetan Canon. Chosen for its superior collation and clear calligraphy, this edition faithfully preserves the original textual integrity of the 18th century, avoiding errors common in later reprints.The translation process utilized a multi-model AI collaboration approach (incorporating Gemini 2.5, and GPT-5.0).

Tibetan to Pali: An experimental reconstruction of "Mahayana Scholastic Pali." By utilizing standard Pali grammar to carry the rigorous logical deductions of late Mahayana thought, this project bridges the linguistic gap between the Northern and Southern traditions. The Pali text is provided in Roman script as well as Thai, Myanmar, Sinhala, Lao, Khmer, Tai Le, Shan, and Tai Tham scripts.

Tibetan to Japanese & Korean: Leveraging the syntactic similarities (SOV structure) between Tibetan, Japanese, and Korean, these translations achieve a high degree of logical precision, particularly for complex epistemological treatises (Hetuvidyā), restoring nuances often lost in Chinese translations.

Content ScopeThis volume focuses exclusively on Exoteric Scriptures, excluding Tantra.

Kangyur: Includes major Mahayana sutras such as the Prajñāpāramitā, Ratnakūṭa, and Avataṃsaka, along with the Vinaya.

Tengyur: The core contribution of this volume. It features Madhyamaka treatises by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, Yogacara works by Asanga and Vasubandhu, and, crucially, the Hetuvidyā (Logic) masterpieces of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, including the Abhisamayalamkara commentaries which are often absent or incomplete in the Chinese canon.

Philosophical Reflection: The Limits of LogicA unique feature of this volume is its critical engagement with Buddhist Logic (Hetuvidyā). Through the translation process and AI analysis, the series explores the structural tension within ancient Indian logic: the paradox between establishing "Universal Norms" (which require an infinite observer) and serving "Finite Cognition" (the ordinary practitioner). This volume offers not just a translation, but a deep reflection on how these ancient logical tools function as a "belief reinforcement cycle" rather than absolute ontological proofs, providing a mirror for modern challenges in AI and cognitive science.

中文介绍标题:佛典AI译丛第十六卷:巴利日韩译甘珠尔丹珠尔显教经论 (1.0版)

概览本数据集为《佛典AI译丛》第十六卷。本卷利用前沿AI技术,将藏传佛教《甘珠尔》(佛语部)和《丹珠尔》(论疏部)中的显宗原典,翻译为巴利文(提供罗马字及8种亚洲字体)、日文及韩文。继第十五卷之后,本工作旨在以保存晚期南亚佛教面貌最为完整的藏文载体为源头,向南传佛教语言体系及东亚汉字文化圈进行深度译介。

底本与方法论本卷底本选用在版本学上享有崇高地位的藏文“旧德格版” (Old Derge Edition)。翻译工作采用了多模型AI协作模式(整合了 Gemini 2.5,  GPT-5.0 等模型能力):

藏译巴利文:这是一项具有实验性质的“大乘经院巴利语”重构工程。我们尝试用巴利语的语法框架来承载陈那、法称严密的逻辑推演,打破了“大乘思想无法用巴利语表达”的藩篱。

藏译日韩文:利用藏语与日韩语在句法结构(SOV)和助词系统上的天然同源优势,本卷实现了极高精度的逻辑还原,特别是填补了东亚佛教在晚期因明量学文献上的空白。

收录范围本卷严格遵循“显密分流”原则,仅收录显教文献:

甘珠尔:收录《般若经》、《宝积经》、《华严经》及《毗奈耶》(律藏)等。

丹珠尔:本卷的核心亮点。包含龙树、月称的中观论著,无著、世亲的唯识论典,以及陈那、法称的因明(逻辑学)著作。特别是藏文独有的《现观庄严论》及其庞大的注疏系统,是本次翻译的重点。

哲学反思:因明的局限性本卷不仅是文本的转换,更包含对佛教逻辑(Hetuvidyā)有效性边界的深度审视。通过AI分析,我们在序言中探讨了古印度因明在“全称规范”(要求无限视角)与“有限认知”(凡夫视角)之间存在的结构性张力。这种反思揭示了因明作为一套思维训练系统的价值,同时也指出了其作为认识论工具的局限,为现代认知科学提供了独特的参照。