eae KARL H. POTHIER independent of out thinking) caste oF be ented by the correct ‘metaphyseal acount On the other hand, nothing precdes that being 30 Site, The pont iy we now hve scott in whch to make ene of he Suestion “reals core or not" «context in which the skeptical Shallenge ino tngerof any consequence since we now understand how to anewer i sace no unjsiled «pron asumpions have been made Sout my ontological theses being antecedent required. “Tis then, fe my suggestion a8 fo what Indian philosophy sal about “Te theory of the pramanas and related maters Usual counted by scholars a8 contang Indian epistemology should i ths approach tight be relented to'a more fundamental though less exaed postion. Prandna theory the ty ofthe paca meanings of cogaive atv. but it does ot have to do wth truth and knowledge, suit has been "upposed toby thove who have rendered is terminology into Western imbues Ta thre se deepsaed ete the Wyo sig the jtsftion proces should perhaps brag phonaphers, wha heen of Inslfient exposure tend to daceunt Indian phceophy as without any Imesnge for our times, to reconsider ~ orto Jide fo consider for the fst te ~ what the Casal Indian thinkers ha 1 sy 09 these and felted sues SOME REFLECTIONS ON TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS FROM SANSKRIT AND TIBETAN’ . Seyfort Ruegg, London 1 thas often been said that teanslation is an art eather than a scence, and even that to teansate ist betray. Ifthe first propesiton is intended to mean only that tansation isnot a mechanical acti, this i surely £0 the translator has so offen to take into acetal consideration a number of contextual and cultural factors that are unexpresved or barely hinted atin the text he is translating, Moreover, syntactical and semantic structures Srequently cannot be automaticaly rendered from a sovre-language into ‘he target-anguage. As forthe peopeition that t translate ito betray ‘waduttore wadtore’~ even when the translator has proceeded Knowle eably and carefully and succeeds in making what may be called a good and aecurate translation, he and his reader might stil find that many ‘connotations and meanings ofthe orginal have nevertheless been Ios in the rendering and perhaps also that now and undesired connotations have been inadvertently introduced. At least to this extent, then, even competent and careful ianslator may find that he his betrayed is text ot author. Moreover, the traslator tends 10 find himself serving more than fone master namely his author/teat, his eader, and eventually hime, that is to say his need 10 develop his understanding of the text he is translating ~ and this fact can also place him ina difficult postin, Tes then no doubt a trum to say that hy its very natre, sransation fe more often than not ako interpretation. Let us act mention here the socalled unfaithful beauties” (ler eller infdler, those egregiously unfaithful translations, or rather confections, in which emuliors have reworked, imitated or “recreated thei originals to the detriment af the batter” Soe aban fhe paper een actress pubes eh Bi owe atin (Siver Hebes le, 1), aad tera Ie Fan een 1 eG Moun 2 ets nes Pas, 1959)368 D, SEYFORT RUEGG- In order to be able to mitigate and, whenever possible, to eliminate such undesired losses or gins of meaning inthe process of tansation, professional translators, linguists and also some philosophers have devoted hhumerovs studies to the problem of translation I wll ofcourse not be possible co survey this literature here, Sulice i to say tha in this manner ‘much valuable work, both theoretical and applied, has been crtied out on ‘making tansation less ofan art that maybe more of less haphazard and more of a seience that i regular and well-founded? Reo oe ec t a es Meeee e ool —”—™—. compra rea Clas ‘an 1958), RA” Brower (ed), On en Freon oa eae sence Of mnsiing (Leen, 1964 hs bok s concerned chy with tansating the 7 SC ae ae nr wih atten Sk Pea, es Gig Init i isbeing naeasngyreropiced ane ston of piioph tes poss fi say te ao Iam eared ih ne made the 199 verbo hs ensng of Sano Yee ‘Shen he was ll concerned bere and tne ss mith rendering the exact sense of ‘icin othe palo foere he quesinn sen tome Seen Ca tea tifa Ste avid le Bes. Farley, -Trandaton trom Greek phlospty, in. Apes of ransaon (Sadist PEO aged on gt ar egg Os o-Lrrt—trt——_—C = HS cnet nl En ane cary ta ES olebeecpeange gel eelareen Beiter Hee tarts ae seas Peace cas TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 369 u ‘We are often told that a really good rendering should eead as fit had been composed original inthe receptor language, tht isa fit had not bboentransated at all Thus literalness and rigid metaphrasis are to be shunned, and what has been termed ‘transfusion’ bocomes the ideal On the face of it this sounds unexcepionable enough, and no doubt it often proves to bean attainable goal when the orginal and the translation both belong to a common linguistic and cultural community. But on reflection, is this akways and necesarily to be our ideal for a translation? That is can ~ and indeed should ~ an English rendering ofa classical Sanskrit oF Tibetan philosophical work read exactly as if it had been composed originally in English? “The further desideratum is, moreover, sometimes specified thatthe language of the translation should appear contemporary? But we must ask whether this desideratum isnot pethaps mare problematic than it appears at first sight. Should an old work actually read in tanslation exactly as iit had been written by a contemporary author ‘in this present age? (On consideration, it may turn aut thatthe ancient controversy as t0 Hteral 1s. nonslteral transition has heen largely grown anc transcended by modern specialists in the theory and. practice of transation, Certainly, the opposition between letter (Skt. yyaiana Tb, shig bra) and sense (0r spirit, Sk. artha,Tib. don) inthe Budchis theory of the four recourses (prafsarana),and between an understanding that itera pore, cites om Plo a Sena tisegh Si ‘und fru Moa Medeper aed Waser enn 0 neues Deneve Bosal Bron hin of tae Bos conan xesne bogaps on he poems ef 1 Norman Onan Fl nee Tuna fee Nata Gey Sorp Bose Soy 0 pp TS ae psa ere aes aed she acer the sn and 3) Thesutonnt The endeavor make Vig et sch Engh he wl sce ve spe heh ben bry a apa an hun age’ made ae Bryon h-Deseon the Ate hs recy ben es ui raf MD Ecru cay annem a Sw thinking ery tramdnon specu py tod the Fence pPhsopcal es cera pesto ae ec ems370 D. SEYFORT RUEGG (ie, word-bovnd, Skt. sathdnitam, Tih sa in pa) and one hat accords with the tue meaning (Skt yaaa) in some theories of the diference between the provisional surface meaning (Skt neydtha, Tb. dra don) and the ultimate and deintive deep meaning (Skt, ntatha, Tides don) in ‘Buddhist hermencutis, retains ts sgnfiance inthe maticr of intralingual transcoding and interpretation. But the dichotomy word vs. sense seems to have less immediate relevance to interlingal interpreting, ie t0 translation, And the question of literalness has been to a great extent isplaced by moce refined conceps in translation-theory * Clearly, if by “literal” we mean a rendering that is servile and unrelective, and which therefore mists the meaning, the translation will be a poor ~ and indeed an unserviceable ~ one however literal (in one Sense of this word) it might be. But an emphasis on the question of lteralness in either exegesis or translation tends to obscure the in: escapable fact that in the ease of works more than several decades oll ll ‘we so often porsest is thee (iatatextual) “eter, which hes then to be Understood inthe rame ofthe whole textual eorpus in which words, sen fences and entre works fit, Le their context and intertextualiy And in teanslation as well atin exegesis neglect ofthe leer in this pertinent sense inevitably caries with it the gravest danger of arbitrariness, bi ind subjectivism Therefore, whilst & poor translation will indeed be no less bad by being a ‘literal crib and may indeed be a monstrosity untrve to the orginal, translation thats notiteral inthe appropriate sense of this word i no less an unfaithful manstrosity. Nomliteralnes then no more a guarantee of fidelity in translation than is mere litrainess. For true faithfulness is nether direetly nor inversely proportional to any undiferentated concept of iteralness per se: everything will epend on what precisely i to be understood by tert. ‘Asa criterion, either positive or negative, the concept of literalness ‘thus proves to be something ofan irrelevance, Rather, in the matter of translating philosophical texts in question here, it is adequateness, regularity and terminological and’ conceptual sstematicalness that Constitute more pertinent charateintisn, Ad itis these properties other than lteralness that can then serve a eitera of «good translation 4 Ass suhue for be leans and alice oppostons, tbe pie of Ceol hs See wr on ty os 5. Ghent protemsiesurf he concep of onlay equlense ‘aa lama nemundenc (ores th pes Fer be mod OF telson equate sec M Seah Nona, opey BE ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 371 [As for the above-mentioned second desderatum set up by some writers on translation to teat for example Nigijuna and Asia, or any oftheir classical followers, as if they had been born ‘in this present age 4 native speakers of our modern target-languages could easily result in anachronistcally presenting them as. contemporary thinkers who have hhomever failed to cead thee fellow philosophers and to acquaint them- selves with moder modes of though! So to present our classical authors snd ther texts would surely bas unfair and as untenable at force them ino the mould of modern philosophical thinking by making their works 'speak’ tous as if their authors were the representatives of some modern philosophical movement. In view of these considerations it would seem that the matters of literaness and reading smoothly have sometimes been quite misconeeved ‘What has to be done is to take these works as serious technsal products of the philosophical Ssta oftheir own times, and the language Used by the translator must take account ofthis. So to regard them as products of their time and place it certainly not fo devalue ether the authors or their works. No doubt eanstors wl be well advised to fami linize themselves with philosophy a8 subject of stody inclusive of is ‘most recent developments. Cerninly they ean never afford entirely to ise Seiate the task of translating work of philosophy from the philosophical content of that work and hence from the philesophical endeavoue, When tiscussing or perhaps paraphrasing, these works it might even be les timate for a modeen transator-interpreter to “do philosophy in the syle of the Madhyamika or Vijkinavadin, ofthe Nib ma pa or Ge logs pa But this should never issue in simply confusing or conflating philosophical translation and "doing phosophy” in such ase Furthermore, if the view that there exists certnin essential tink between the levels of expression and conten isto be taken seriously (and signifi and signié- are, let-us not forge, the owo faces even of the Saussurean linguistic sign), iis surely less than obvious thatthe answer tothe question pored at tha beginning ofthe tstion should alvays beat Unqualified affirmative. But this nced not necessarily invalve espousing the ‘doctrines of linguistic and cultural elatvism andthe most extreme version ‘of Whort’s theory of the relation between language and cultural categories (Of course a translator must oid not only harbaisms and solecsms but also unnecessary ~e. unmotivated ~calgues of his sourve-text. And ‘heze is perhaps no reason why a syntactical construction of the source language shouldbe exactly reproduced inthe target-Language; but this may rot always be so, and even in this matter translator (especially thea2 D. SEYFORT RUEGG \canslator of philosophical text) may sometimes deliberately, and for good reason, choose to follow as closely as possible the syntax of his ‘Atal events iti aot clear thatthe semante structure ofa translation, Including its voeabulary, should ~ or indeed could —be tat of some Stan- dard Average European (or English) writing. In ather Words there may be place for some kinds of calques reflecting atthe vey eas the semantic fields of the language and representations in the sourcestext Tk might well be that i 8 not such things thatthe advocates of the above-mentioned total Englishing (et) had in mind when setting up their deal of having a cendering read just a8 though it had not heen translated {T°F"higham i the inrodcon Toh xed of rok ese bei DOSE SS TEae Shey ooetens sree suucieiai rte rate oe es Morente Sey he ie Fire retiree ttre sees ieee ote ee cn ee eran iecnpsaecy wins yt Ser as any Douce cae PREIS Sele Pice cay ean ae Sait ae fet eae pete IRS in anarwory have Smeg Weta ik pose manfred pa sieeinae te regonnt aheamag af ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 373, at all but had been writen by a (contemporary) native speaker of English (exe) But itis not altogether clear what the proponents of such Engshing do mean, und whether they have given due consideration tothe fact that translation — and most certaialy-noniterary translation — cannot necessarily be expected to read like an original English composition. This is probably a mater that requies further thought. Atal events iis well, ‘known that bligualsm often brings with it interaction and interference between two languages. And a certain bcuturalism (or multiculturalism) in philosophy might be expected to have a similar effect. Is such ‘multiculturalism grounded in realy comprenensivebistory of philosophy ‘Something that is antiphilosphical and that is therefore to be rejected? ‘Let us just note here @forher point that is perhaps relevant to thie matter, Tibetan colleagues of ours sith both an excellent Tibetan education and an outstanding mastery of (¢) Engish sometimes find it possible (6 say in good English what is written in a Tibetan text that presents dficlis ast its contents ~ that they are able to paraphrase this text = bot atthe same time they find ie hat to ansate it inthe Strict sense. In other words, the Tibetan text isnot considered ty them to fontain something unsayable in English ~ something that is propery Ineffable~ but they find they can convey this content to us ony in English praphrase. This curious obstacle in’ translating and communicating meaning may be purely contingent in the sense that iis dve to nothing ‘more than the fat that Tibetan scholars have been translating theit literature into Wester languages only fairly tecenty. In other words, it may simply be a matter of acquiring more practice in translation, That it is real problem, and not one that s experienced solely by our Tibetan colleagues, is nevertheless suggested ty the fact that it-has been encountered equally by non Tibetan scholars translating from Tibetan into their native languages; and it therefore does not appear tobe simply due to the cecognzed problem of translating from one's native language into 1 foreign one. Thus, over a number of decades very competent scholars have published renderings of Sanskrit and Tibetan philosophical works ‘that Cannot be described a5 incorrect, hut which neverteles failed a critical points fll ‘sommunieate, ie. to convey the mesning of the original m He question then aves: Wheve ds el poems tastatin i,3 thot i a sentinel tt (pest teat singless than impossible (in theory atleast? And is it poetry alone that i both untransatable and translatable (being so often translated)? ‘An answer i no doubt thatthe problem is not exclusively one of linguistic expression in a texto utterance but also one of sile that i culture-bound and of content that is philosophical, religious te. This may Seem obvious enough, for the level of content is of course generally ecognized t9 be of no less importance for wranslation than that of lin fuistc expression’ and the prablem ofthe relation af the sourcelanguage to the targe-language i accordingly not an exclusively Linguistic one inthe sense of being confined to eg, morphology and syntax o, indeed, even 10 ‘vocabulary. To refine our question then’ How does the translator imple- ment the conveying of the full meaning of his text 0 the reader or listener? Or, putin another way, how does he make the text ‘communi cate’ co a new audience in another language? ‘We son find thatthe problem of translation raises the twin questions of transmission and reception, and also the matter of intercultural hermeneutics, which ae inescapable a any consideration of how to render Sanskrit and Tibetan works into a Westera language. Similar ficulties presumably arise in translating from eg. Sanskrit and Tibetan into hon-Western language such a6 Japanese. And one suspects that the problems may not be so radically different even when rendering ancient Sanskrit texts into modern Indo-aryan languages, and that they are only being masked by the practice of many translators from Sanskrit into € 8 Hindi who i fat transpose (using fatsama forms andl substituting Hind Pails for Sanskrit inflexional endings) more than they actually translate, Seemingly on the implicit assumption thatthe cute and the world of thought of modern Indians are hardly diferent from those of cassical Sanskrit authors, of at least that such transposition renders an ancient Sanskrit work transparently accesible to the modern Indian reader. wv ‘A further point offen raised in connexion with translating from Sanskrit ‘or Tibetan is the usefulness or necesity of using commentaries and oral teaition. Itseeme that some uncertainty may stil prevail inthis matter, There ifs, the fundamental question of whether commentaries of any kind are tobe regarded as reliable guides to understanding and inter preting Sanskrit or Tibetan works, and accordingly whether they ea be of fny eal use to the translator tn the history of Sanskrit tues, early (and PRANSLALING BUDDHIS1 PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS — 375 ofcourse some more recent) Indologists had few qualms about making ‘extensive se both of ater Sanskrit commentaries and ofthe oral tradition ‘ofthe Pandit, Reference can be made for example to Sir Willi Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson, and also to James R. Ballaniyne (whose ultimate interest lay pethaps more in accurately presenting Christan doctrine to an audience of learned brifomanas). ‘well as to Theodor Goldstucker (whom Ernst Windisch described inthis Fespect as ‘rondeur in his history of Sanskrit philolog” but who did ‘not actually work personally with Pandits in India” Later on Richard Pischel (whom Windisch also described as a ‘rondeur') differed from Rudolph Roth in his considerable regard for commentaries” But increa- ‘ingly inthe nineteenth century avery strong, and sometimes quite violent, reaction took hold with perhaps the majority of Western Sanskrit phi ogists, andi eame to be considered by many as practically axiomate that litle or no eeliance ito be placed on commentaries (unless of couse they were ether autocommentaries or nearly contemporary with the work com ‘ented on). The views of Otto Bohtlingk, Rudolph Roth and Albrecht ‘Weber can fr instance be cited; and an especially esteme example was Wiliam Dight Whitney. This view was no doubt largely justified with Fespect to Siyana’s comments on the Vedic Samiti, but i appears very much less leptimate inthe case of clasial Sanskrit works 1 Gri da a nce Arann Pa county a 9 She it on Teka nay tr stung ct paar pc ay ae BS {bin ator solar nen ena ah res Se ommeen creb at 0 Seamer aecoreers as ret ese ee ee : ae 1 Igoe bk ed Rahs vata, Pe 1a Sa conn eet Ge Sie Shits bale, a's ca wae ote cpm ae dates ea Ser iy noe hereeiemactaa eens Ant fal ictcoers apeny a Racereegem ote‘A more balanced attiude has since made its appearance in regard to the use of commentaries when interpreting and wanslating classical ‘Sanskrit works. Iecan be summed up by saying that a translator must cicefully familiarize himself with the cultural and exegetical traditions creeynngesine sonante hte te weir saya toenaa e ei ee ean ‘ei a Hace Hy ior Bead 3p. 0-0 Ch ao Re Gambres O {SHEA Win HE Corba: ad iene io enn apis ccs Se ee ee ee eat enmity dpeee et ten etieediecad! tare Solon cia ndan evita Bopyt averting covet ih compaaine Sigemradet gure ueat oeaeg St anty obo onli GC Haugen ber ten ibn ab he sale Sara Ra ar ets rane Passes om ts ue’ tEvpes lp hy Frente sma sujur oto hang rele Can om fl sepa, Shoe ed emerson styles eee ta ‘neo St re pin lec ene pode accion Ds Reet eeerpet enter wane ete a Ieee Sate pe meng omen eas prion ree Serine ml wrgeenm oe the pa ey the ia rao don pa nen Poppe hr et eh coamne taste riemenaie eae Eiken, B Laon, BeoegersL. Reno, Tere foap he aeeses whee cemwwireeneymamaceente EATER earn cup reereea e Seh ARANSLALING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS — 377 ‘relevant to his text and it intertetual corpus and context, eventhough his task of course continues to be in the frst place to understand and teanslate his particular text in its historical contest ‘of tne an place without permitting himself to be unduly nflinced by later developments that may be reflected inthe commentaril traditions (It fs nevertheless coming tobe widely recognized at the same time that such developments in interpretation may be of very considerable interest in their own ight) In sum, the value and interest of the commentaria tradition is being accepted by many Indologists; and for many Western Sanskrtss working with a eared Pandit has come to be regatded as not unusbel = ‘This applies also (and pechaps to an even greater degree) to many ‘Tibetologists. Most regrettably, however what accepted by Tibetologists has yet to be reflected in the academic structure of universities where classical Tibetan may perhaps be taught ut where, with only a very few honourable ‘exceptions. little ar 0. provsion is made for heving Fepresented the ling scholarly and cultural traditions of Tibet together withthe living language as thei vehicle. But it seems clear that ia Tibetan studies genuine progress can be efficient made only in close collaboration with Tibetan scholars, following the model as it were of the ‘Panda Lotsaba teams that produced most ofthe major translations from Indian languages ito Tibetn, ‘As for oxal commentary, it has tobe said that in very many cases their corality is contingent, or quite accidental, in s0 far as whist the oral ‘tradition in question transmits is infact rooted in the written tradition and ‘an itself easily be recorded in writing. (Compare for example the resent and very useful commentary by the contemporary ge bes a mgrin Rab brten on Tson kha pa's Legs Biad sit po.") For reasons not yet si. ficiently explored. however, i has very offen not been customary to write ‘down these schoo-raditions One reason for this was perhaps the fac that ‘hey represented the special interpretations of individual seminaries ot teachers, and that they had not (jet) achieved the “oii” sats, oF ‘sanoncity’, that would have warranted their being written down and Printed, But the fact remains that suc orl commentarial reditions could ‘ipa Fehon’ Frac i anion of Nes ous (Bombay. ish hed P'S Fie Invedean to MS Ramone ay ‘Metatngpatpntiynds (enol 1p 1 Thee og work ra tm yl ep Mal it po dpa mas con ‘Rr bo pa Ps Mo sate378 D. SEYFORT RUEGG easly be wren dow, and that many infact wee sooner of ltr. (See for example the accounts by Nag dha Spal lan [born in 1797 of the varying interpretations cument in the sG0 maf and. Blo gl gh Seminaries represented in Urpn, where they were etahihed in 187, nd dering rom the Bras puts monastery ear Ia") Such examples of oral commentri tatton have therefor 10 be cerflly distinguishes tom that ther form ofa trsmasion which Pope phate end acto that whch oe ans tndidaly in the form of san bp rom a maser og (aa) 10 each dsipe (or group of diiples) and which charscteces the Mantayana In ripe sich oral tation isnot so much sere delieratly mytiying i reserved and spec being destined fot invidual iipes according to their ateresandeapacies parce time and inspectiecreumtances To ovat extent if ata) such ora insrvtion are abe used in preparing ransation something tat has tobe decided in each eae by the transmits and anatore Concerning commentria tan, written or ort i some respects the interpreterseanltor of Tson kb pa (fr example) iim poston simiae (0 that of the interpretrtansltor of Panini in fa as bath ean ry amariing tases th he ent commentaries te that she Tibetan sed in Toh haps highly compat and pregnant PhlosepbilInguge is ecuely a natura! ngage = tht rt Compose basil of words employed ewe tat are to be found in Tibetan dictionaries, and of consactions tat belong to ordinary Tost spins ~ shereas Panini wed in prt + apes forma and quasi ale, Braz) technical language employing numerous techoial exponents {anubandha or) and abirevation (rapanara) not oundin the Sask Jovcon outside grammatical usage and which ate theefore ot ined in most Sanskrit ltonaris, nd in i syntax he used cases inspect senses. But very often Taon ka p's iio i ree les tere and technical than Papi's 29 maths that ino immediatly lite tall educated betas nd readers hve oth to fanaa themes wth his idiom and aoqsint hemsves with his tem of thought and the exegetical tutions ned oni This nessa obliges wf ens De pet a te eh gr hag er ih ad ‘shat Mod pe Bot don lg othe alors lt a =n tee {samen of he ae an ana pin ras n Urs Teh Bs fe to aba ptt gh 1p. 2 ane ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 37 the commentaries and the transmitters of the exegetical tration, even in such cares where ther explanations may not necessary be accepted a binding and final if only becuse the commentators and scholars some times eilfer from each other and reflect later developments in exegesi nd hermeneutic. ‘While good commentators can ofcourse be of very great value 10 u in understanding dificult Sanskrit and Tibetan texts in prose, commen tacies (especially auto-commentaries) are sometimes altogether indispen Sable for the interpretation and translation of oth. Sanskrit text composed in verse and Tibetan verified renderings of arts. Finally, it is necessary to keepin mind the value of any ‘peracanonical teavitions that may be ivalable. Acide from recensons of text tans mitted elsewhere than in the bKa’‘gyur or bsTan “gjur editions nov Available to us, the main source of alternative textual traditions ar ‘commentaries either of Indian origin (which ar then normally tobe found in the bsTan ‘gyur) oof Tibetan origin v The references made above to the philoschcal, religious and cultura specifciy of Sanskrit or Tibetan works in connection with interultura transmission and reception and hermeneutis inevitably raise the thorm ‘questions not only of linguistic relativism but also of conceptual an Cultural relativism. These are topics that have been discused at grea length by linguists, philosophers and anthropologists, and they cannot b gone into in detail here "To simplify a complex matter, it seems possible to aocept the facto cultural ang philosophical speifiey ~ and perhaps even the theory of Certain incommensutablty between cultures together wth the rellectio ofthis spesificy in the language and conceptual systems of Sanskrit 0 Tibetan philosophical or fligious texts without, however, having to gos far a6 tO maintain the strongest versions of either the thesis of th indeterinay of translation (Quine), or that of cultural relativism and th influence of language on cultural eategories (the Saps-Whor! hypothesis) ‘Within Buddhism, the Mahiysnst have infact generally assumed tha translation oftheir canonical Stras~the bddhavacana~and the Sasa ~ from Sanskrit into Chinese of Tibetan, rom Chinese into Japanese an Korean, and from Tibetan info Mongolian was both dsiable and feasible tis interesting to observe that in tie matter the Mahiyanists have mos380 D. SEYFORT RUEGG ‘often proceeded diferently from the Theravadins, who retained the Pali anon and language wherever they migrated in South snd Southeast Asis ‘and who, though they once had eg. an old Sinhalese Atthaktha inelly transmitted ther main commentaries in Pall It should however be noted that, even in Mahayanisttaditions, Tibetan has tended to develop into the sandard language of ‘Lamaism’ also outside geographical and ethnic ‘Tibet, for example among the Mongol and in parts of China, and Chinese has been used outside China, including in Japan (though in Sino Japanese reading) The Buddha himeel i indeed Geemed to have proclaimed that his disciples should have the Dharma availabe in their Fespective languages. The use of ferent canonical languages is moreover in haemony with Mahayénist docetism according to which the teaching of the Dharma is carried out by a Buddha's ninnanava in conformity with the capacities and requirements of each of his disciples, For the Mahayana, it true, absolute cealty (param) as such is properly inexpressible (anabhutggya). Yet the expositions found in both Sea and Sistra presuppose effailty (in the frame of, si, the principles ofthe ‘sapanya-paramanha or the udbhivand-sart. And such eat of course implies translatabiliy. [Nevertheless as already noted, i translating there is frequently to be noticed a serious loss or deficit of meaning. and sometimes also.an unwanted gain or surplus of meaning. And evea if Sora and Satta ae ott be thought of as untranslatabl, it seems that there does often exist 2 kind of incommensurabiliy between the original and ts translation a exemplified either in the translations of the same text into diferent languages with their culturally determined matrices or (sometimes) in sifferent translations ofa text into the same language. (Ths wll have to o at least in part with the philosopher's problem of synonymy of Propositions in natural languages) 15 Fo ma ie onan td wee) sat of pn Teja and play “Matiyanrinevn nod Ingots Soa ‘ants aya ceca egy hc rt ‘modes ama) af ama, clon nme homens Madina ona Seth te ih ets nie ne ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 381 uw In considering the transating of philosophic tet ination to the stureelangnge or text andthe tarprlangage or text = ies t intringual tansation eg fom Sankt or Tibetan into x European language i necensy ao fo ge though to what Donald Davison mong others fas clled the metalanguage (onthe lve! of inating {canton}. This metalanguage isthe language of the theory, which ‘yr what expression ofthe ajc language arte which expres of the oer language: Davidson explsins When interpretation is ou Sima method of tratslaton dear wih «wrong tpi ation between io languages, where shat is wanted an nterpretation of one (i Smothers ofcourse bu that goes without sying slace any theory sin ‘ome nginge ne genera case, a theory otansation vce thee languages the object language, the subject. lngunge, and the mea language” And he as ps 3) “The translation manual churns ou fo each senence ofthe language to be tasted, 2 sentence ofthe rae tno language th theory of inerprtation then gies the interpretation a these Tamia sentences. Clearly the reference othe home language Superfuus tis an unneeded intermediary between iterpretation and allen idiom. The only expressions a theory of interpretation as 1 ineation ae hose teonging tthe langage tobe interpreted The imp. rion of this snd other phosphal testment Of tanlton tng imerpretation for our preent purposes wil require refltion and inary car, in view ofthe concern with intringua ransating and consequent withthe soreeangunge/ten and is ending inthe age language/transation which nowadays characteris Buddha studies, con "ideation of theory ~ which in Buathism shoul of couse not be unde. ‘ood ae ealsive of and anit to practice tends to be negcted. Te is for ths reason that we fegure more sustained attempts a ana ance nm tf dir em th Siew to penetrating and intrpeing tear and developing an uate language of phlosopy. among oer things this ivalesbuling up 9 tae outed of what the Tibetans cal gma (Ske ent), thats not merely tenet or set of dogmas and bei but philosophical Systems esaished by analysis (Ti. dyad pe) and reasoning (Tn ‘o) Exercise in twaclaton int eg. Engich from Sanskrit er Thetan 1 ade nero gant oth and tpn (Onan 8K,382 D.SEYFORT RUEGG doubtless helps greatly towards this end, and this is of course why translation is practised in university seminars, But necessary though they ace such exercises are not sufficient. Sometimes, it seems, the cart has heen put hefore the horse by attempting to translate vast hoes of tens without cgnsrucing the fem foundation of 4 knowledge of the meta language’ Needless to say, inorder to be useful transations as wel 35 historical andsymthesizin studies equire reliable (and, whenever possible, critical) editions ofthe tents “Transation of Sanskrit or Tibetan philosophical texts must then involve a very sustained effort toward understanding and interpetation and in the domain of intercultural ansmission and hermeneutics. This reed can not be met simply by turning out more translations however Worthy these may be. A balance will ave lobe stuck between intelingal translating on the one side and interpretation, analysis and synthesis on the other side. Tis last activity can be either intalingual or interlingal, and it needs tobe oth systematic (synchronic) and historical (diachronic), vm i was mentioned above that the process of translation is an atin the sense that it canaot be made purely mechanial nd automatie. But has it not often been claimed thatthe Tibetan Lotsibas developed a special form of the Tibetan language in which they imitated and ealqued the terminology, and very often even the syntax, oftheir Indi source-exts? ‘And have we not sometimes heard i said that their translations differ radially for example from the majority of Chinese translations of ‘Buddhist texts, and especially from the earlier Chinese translations using the method of ‘meaning-matching’ (ko¥)" by being not only highly technical but also mechanical? Stniaatst'sTatmmaraha wit Kamala’ Pasi ay he et rrp omen Sut taesevemile fad aeqty to cre 1 Te ead ab soe Gee ee nat 18 Tas sutomen of core oe ended 0 Ye jen 9 the dso {coy ot cen af ena co Doasocandewbsosehl ss Seeing 19 See Tang Yunpienp "Oro! WR. tage ea (shai, Coupe wales psy pened hoof hs ia Lane {98h ung Yat yf Chine poy, 2¢Peacaen 9, Bp BATE ana Zc Pe ah Cong of Ohne (aden, 99) pC WF Fath ia major 100) pp 86109 one echelon 9 he Chg ‘ean of i TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 3 Inthe eighth and ninth centuries the Tibetans did indeed develop ety spevial language ~ the so-aled chor shad ~ sed for render Sanskrit (and also Middle Indo-Aryan” and Chinese) texts into Tibet Anda form of this cas shad has survived in use up tothe preset day writing treatises and commentaries on the Dharma, In its turn ths ho sad fas left its imprint on the offal, chancellery language of nor teligious documents and even on the colloquial language. But t would hy 4 mistake to overemphasize the artificiality and mechanialnes of Tibeta Transitions from the Sanskrit, orto regard the cos shad vs ony bare ‘natural language. Tis canbe shown by comparing two or more Teta translations of (vietualy) the same Sanskrit text in the eases (relative rare it i true) where we have availabe such pacllel translations. (Th tase of Tibetan teansations made from distinet Sanskrit recensions of. work, or that of Tibetan tansations made fram both the Indian an Chinese versions of works such as the Mahayéaist Mahdparinivdnasi and the Stwamabhasaszra, will not he considered here) For this purpose let us beely compare two Tibetan versions of th Prajhdpiramistota, otherwise known as the Ninikalpastaa, tribute to Nagarjuna but no doubt by (his disciple?) Rihulabhadra. ‘Translation {is by Samtibhadta and Tshul kins real ba (boca in (011) and is foo in the Tibetan version of the Acasahanka pajiaparamita (as reproice inthe Phu brag/sPu brag bKa" gyur [ef Otani Catalogue no. 734)) Trans lation 1s by Tlakakalasa (Thig le bury pa) and sNog Blo kan Ses 1a (1959-1109) and is found in the tsTan "gyur (see. Otani Catalogu ro, 2018)?" ‘We find that there indeed exis significant clitferences between thes two versions, Some of them ate stylistic: and in I the use of honor forms is more widespread and consistent than in 1, Other dlfference {heh mentions tras Asan yong tow fam sf ebm Sime arm rn ahem np aia Coates se Gams Ly Wt) pT Serpe cae of Si lc Rr (eyo, 188) pot D928, 18307 ba 2 Schpeh, Cm ‘Ava ural 3 OP) p21 9. 214 The Phu ragsPu brag OR! ur versn ofthe Titan rani of the Ppt ‘Rowman hs ben eed, ger wah the htin ur ean the Sa "tty M Hai Hime (ea) uct no tee han, 98) Saath cnt nf eb eigen af the Stra a pu 9K Ht Snare paps Papasan Faas, 98) 9p 334 D. SEYFORT RUEGG concern vocabulary. And stil others involve interpretation. Here are some ‘examples to ilustrate theve points (the mrt nation 6a thf Psp nvr 1 eee Ghatedprunattrennet nt ane sal orp me asi (Tepe nds i vo 2 ended yr iii, a typ met nant nti fame) (i) de near ered yo brn rt oct more coe bY bean (PDs en ps eve H we hot ene y Jay or oc ag bg no moh. whi Se ‘ana nt sen oy em gogo mi bt mo hmm oe pub ugh he moon By op pty verde he ‘Send ming et (0 tbs roe fe yh Bn at, moe nee; by | Sent (0) Bourn ei renee yi a gor ty dma i (0) SU ge ad bn to ae See 8 rope rue hppa yp a,b ropa (nd yon be bh fe (sip nv 4 rer Gok) ms be at a re undrand nba ie ect vere pen ened mihi bm {an he Son n'a rear te nao Tntrnd' pata vas 4 ves 1S har ut) (ou fm een ty a a as in iene wee rn en i) Sah These examples of stylistic, terminological and eligio-pilosophical ‘variations wl serve to show that Tibetan tansatons are not literal othe point of being purely tomatic or written ina non-natural language: "When the orginal Sanskrit text io longer extant paral translations into Tibetan can be ofthe greatest value to the modern interpreter and translator an example being the two bsTan yur translations of Canora Nietis Mdinematduatins = On the contrary, the two tanslations of ce ener ees bike he Bh) dy tsa 2g Ps {hab na rage nthe tanaton by ase od Pa oh ed on 2 Rat {Oweced and ied ty Kaskwarmas atdFe uh onthe be of fe: Peet de esteem ft in a oo Stand any bt me the sDe dye econ shat onl the iter seron found (v.31) The ferences ‘Reece he to artes pat to marl cameras Along Wh hse ‘Sntan efi as tent were Kan oe La Vale Pon, sen of his TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS Digniga’s Pramdnasamuccaya present the interpreter and translator ‘quite daunting difficulties sine they diverge to sch an extent from ¢ ‘other Incidental. some ofthese examples of parallel translations s stat ts not always possible to estore or resstruct Sanskrit og with perfect confidence solely from the Tibetan translations. For ‘Tien tration as een ana and nt abe ei vu This brings us to the question of reranslation (ie. rero-teansation elation £0 what has been known as the reconstruction’ and restora ‘of lost Sanskrit work fom their Tibetan (or Chinese) translations. Al “etoptor wht Bhs Madan, Base uh Pte "S072 he unitary ad ot epider ys ote ne ror ean oo ones Bl page Ga 2 Trt fe Pasomaccy yon Vs Fann Sma raat wh 24a Se {G10 and Sethe waver a mann ao see Handaton othe stocmmerany ne demo anda (Caso a Tam ch ‘irate of aff are for eampe the Than versions of Naganune’s Takes nt Stipa, ello Const adipomalva eve ne ‘hee fe se Dena gen ney Thana of he Ya (eC Scherer sent Some roma on FTW aad 9 foo ‘Gri Hanan) md i he Psyaomapaiadotane fs Che esos ite 7 A tr cane WE pare ics eee ‘tesa nara ty WS Hbame Sewl fer Feb aan es {hatin Wi ah pS “ ‘these athena Nig ranted in ado ina praca (is toms a) terasion esl for amy the Ba ‘shied Nine aan he nn es eo Compete aa sud fpr asaon a Sees Son Ingoaetnne ude (Upp, ED, Se tan he te bat Ee iF ceca 0 op. 8 ein font pa nn si i ree ‘http ese ato to et oats on which sR War. re Aree a pops xtra)386 D. SEYFORT RUEGG the term ‘restoration’ had been in use for atime some decades ago scholars apparently decided forthe reacone mentioned above that this term reflects an unrealistic atitude towards what is possible since it Promises more than can in most cases be actully delivered by the Phillogst-ransator and that the most appropiate tecm would i the ‘ircumstances be teanulaion’ As or the expression Peconscton'S eveeyting will depend on jst what is actually to he understood by i I it means a carefully catiedout ‘retro-ransation’ making use both of attested terms and phrases from other texts ofthe sime category stil extant in Sanskrit and of any available fragments of the lost Sanskrit, the teem is no doubt acceptable. This i evidently what the term teconsi uc tion’ (Senskrit/Hindi punaruddhdra) is intended to convey when if employed for example by the scholars wha are at present engaged a the Varanasi Sanskrit University and the Cental Institue of Higher Tibetan Studies (Sarnath) in teanslating bac into Sanskrit Tibetan renderings of Jost Sanskrit works. Yet these schalars sometimes compare ther work with the punanuddhara or rescue of an archaeological site or monument, even "ough the restoration of the physial remains of an ancient site by the trained archaeologist, or the eestorative“anasylosis" of a badly damaged monument ty the archaeologist cambined with the aft historian, is process that is altogether ifferent rom the philologist-ansiator's Fendering back into its original language of a text now available only in ‘tansation, For in the ease of archaeology what may e called the medium, of expression remains essentially the same ~ stone, brick, plaster, ete > ‘whereas in the case of ‘retro-translation'the linguistic medium changes = "hats the Tibetan or Chinese, which as target-languages were substituted atan earlier stage forthe original Sanskrit source-language, themselves, become in the later stage souree-angunges and are replaced by Sanskrit fe eee ere eee Sr eafintcancneae dani hac ‘who lo employed the word ‘eration (p15, 2). wih goed reason Pradhan picasa antag sue etc ke x Tt nn ng Ti a a a ie Rte foe a ake [Raghunath Fandeys (Beth, 1989): 7 ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 387 asthe targetdangvge In etal stutts what corresponds most sel. dtehiologea resonsraction/testraion of course the phiologest ‘econituton of an impetecytanited tex Kom “ncomplee tras ofthis texts tom fragmentary quotations emt found in Shee work in the some lnguge, es with no intrigue ange ang place inthe mesiom of exes de to tation” cee gata teh ene iy foe nae Chip antec ater rs nets cea Syed ey Searcher Ee Rigen yatnancen boat emer payee ena ec ays Va he Rome it oe tartans ate meee gee pie ela Specne name aga Saat ee eeeg teen Ceaace Paes aa Se ‘es arta i ee ese eee cena cee lak cee a arene eee rene Bore sn wee earn race SERS ge on © eee toa Why GB} olrerenderng eno Sit fon isran whe wl wang eter sesore oe Ce renete nena te eat sea ict a ate" a rosette Socom reed Dine nerdeucar ee ase par a iy aimee a te ed ‘ioe tia rae Ps388 D. SEYFORT RUEGG Moreover, if it were ever thought that soalled “reconstruction estores t0 us a lost Sanskrit original in the form in which it Tet its futhor’s hands, the term could well lead to misunderstanding ad t0 the ‘erroneous idea that a reconsructon’can for l practical purposes replace the Tibetan of Chinese translation. Ie must aways be remembered thatthe Tibetan translation wil always be ane step closer tothe original than any such ‘reconstruction’, however carefully thas been prepared In other words, a5 a whole ~ that i, apart from technical terms and individual phrases that it maybe possible to retrieve with great accuracy om the basis ‘of parallel texts ~ such a Sanskit ‘reconstruction’ wil probably be (in most cases atleast) hardly closer to the orignal than a translation into English, French, German or lapanese when carefully prepared by & com: petent scholar" In one respect, nevertheless, it may be superior to the latter by being able 10 incorporate inta the body of the text ise the technical terms and the semantic systems of the Indian orginal so that the philosophical structure might appear more clear Retro-ansations of lost Sanskrit texts and, especially, recon stiutions/reconstrucions of texts only feagmentarily preserved in the ‘original Sanskrit can thus serve not only the needs of traditional Pandits {as noted for example by Tucci) but also the requirements of modern Scholars wishing to orm as cleat an idea as possible of how their texts ‘may have been articulated in Sanskrit x ‘Throvgh important periods oftheir history several Buddhist communities have been characterized by their deep commitment to and intense activity in translating Sotra and Sistra A very remarkable feature of Tibetan cultural history that continues to attache admiration of scholars was the 28 1. cone sul be mentioned hat nh pune of se commenaces (sNigigunes Matinee sore te 3) Rapunth Ply hay Fei cnr a he Beg won teh og wh hs Con Stan prem one iain om Toft Sarit wos ofthe Prana oan apr hepa don ater (die hoc of Pfr Gah Sa, Cae 198) F998 An one ‘etchings nt aang seen {he consittion of Semke es rom he Buch rama radon WAS 72 (108), Pi ‘TRANSLATING BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS 389 pity with which by the eary ninth century the Tibetans had succeeded ‘in producing good rendering of large baie of these texts, And 38 now well recognized, the Tibetan translators have preserved for us many works that would otherwise be losin their orignal languages. But even when the original texts are extant, ther Tibetan translations ~aswellas translations into Chinese and other languages ~ are tl of value to us both for the Dhillogical tak of establishing uncertain and correcting corrupt ‘manuscript readings and (since very often the date of these translations is known) forthe historical task of determining the state ofa text by sven time, From earl times the Tibetan Ltsibas sought to develop principles of| teansation that would preclude imprecision and ambiguity in so Tar as dliferences of interpretation and the very nature of natural language do not make this goal impossible. These efforts to develop a technical, and truly scent, system of transatng found expression in the introduction to the Madhavepat (By brag tu tops bed Bri po), oF sGrasbyar (bart po gts pa), a eaise on translation composed eal inthe ninth century ‘ander the Tibetan monarch KhriIDe sron ban when the translation of Indian texts into Tibetan was reaching its peak during the period ofthe Early Propagation (sia dar ofthe Dkarma. This manval for translators contains the priniples accepted for rendering Indian texs in the ‘new language’ according to the instretions concerning this decreed standard which Were promulgated under the authority of the Tibetan ruler, Much late, in the eighteenth century, these principles were reproduced and expanded in the introduction to the Dag yig mthas pa? yu gras, the Tibetan-Mongolian terminological lexicon prepared when the Tibetan bsTan ‘gyur was being tansated Inco Mongolian under the patronage of the Chen-lung Emperor and under the supervision of [Can skya Rol pa rose (1718-1986) and other leading scholars” [No less important for the translator ae glossaries and lexicons which allow him to render the terminology of his ests in ax etc, regular and Uinarbitary fashion as i humanly possible. The need for such aids 10 translation was realized by the Tibetans in the early ninth century also when an invaluable glosary of Sanskrit terms with their Tibetan equivalents, the Mahaipupatt, was compiled. The Mahdyupatto¢ Bye tage rogs bd chen pa contains the ‘ficial’ terminologiel equivalents 50 See ea D Seon Rup, “On using th Buh cio in: Fr Rate Cee eben agin Common vane,390 D. SEYFORT RUEGG accepted for transition according to the principles ofthe ‘new language’ ts decreed by the Tibetan monarch. Later ths lossy had added f0 it Mongolian and Chinese equivalents2* The main body of the above mentioned Dag yig kas pa Byun gna is an example of such a Tibetan- ‘Mongolian glossary from the eighteenth century. This is the sort of material that translators will now be placing in theie computerized data banks. x “Today itis hardly possible to regulate transators and their work by decree, nor would it be desirable to attempt to impose uniformity by such means. Yet it will bein the intrest of translators and their readers to develop systems of terminological equivalences that are as regular, tinarbitary and well thought-out a5 is humanly possible. Some progress has been made in tis direction, butt would hardly be realistic o expect that one single terminological system cin be developed inthe foreseeable future for lexicons or databases in any given European target-language. Ta view nf the inspiring precedents mentioned above ~ and in view of the favourable attitude to translation adopted in practice by both the Seivakayinist and Mahayinist schools of Buddhism which have not hesitated to render their Shicas and Sista into often unrelated languages in Central and East Asi forthe sake of peoples of a wide variety of Cures, and ofthe fact that these school are now inthe process of doing the same thing also in Europe and America ~ contemporary translators ff Tibetan and Sanskrit texts have behind them 2 long tradition of ‘Buddhist scholarship on which they can draw and from the experience of which they have much to learn. ‘An outstanding example of a translation answering the requirements cutlined above was the rendering from Sanskrit and Tibetan of twelve 31 The tan eons of tht See Tnetan lon we R. Sas (0,110, ‘thsi aadion ontas Chase an aparse gu mine een ‘ne Saktyupas by aod © Fade (ng 1969), ion Lana Mevaion chal Or oe wgsahiny of he Mochpetog Chine ‘Sunnie sis ese | No Hadar, Quine Face Pas ad Sh iy Srnec enc Sa Se ‘onset Menptan Neha ae Oven Higa (18) 929 eu An. Fo San i Monga Kates) Rttaaignom, Boy Bonu of Ns Sonon (S198), TRANSLATING chapters of erses of Nagarjuna’ ‘edicatee ofthis article aki BUDDHIST FHILUSUF rnb sewn +s Prasannapadda together with the coresponding Madiyanakakarikas published in 1959 by theLVI-1- 1992