Traditional Guidelines for Translating

Buddhist Texts
Dr. Alexander Berzin
~

Long before translators began to render Tibetan Buddhist texts into Western
languages, the Mongols had successfully undertaken this task. The first Buddhist
text translated from Tibetan into Mongolian was Shantideva’s Engaging in
Bodhisattva Behavior (Byang-chub sems-dpa’i spyod-pa-la ‘jug-pa, Skt.
Bodhisattvacaryavatara). It was prepared by the Uighur translator Chokyi Ozer
(Chos-kyi ‘od-zer), during the reign of the Mongol Yuan Emperor Khaisan Külüg
(Chin. Wuzong, Wu-tsung, 1308–1311).

The Mongols translated most of the Tibetan Kangyur (bKa’-’gyur) – the collected
translations of Buddha’s words – during the time of Altan Khan (1507–1582). The
work was finished in 1628–1629 under the patronage of the last Great Mongol Khan,
Ligdan Khan (ruled 1603–1629). The Second Manchu Qing Emperor, Kangxi
(K’ang-hsi, ruled 1661–1722) sponsored the slight editorial revision and block
printing of the Mongolian Kangyur between 1718 and 1720.

The Mongolian translation of the Tibetan Tengyur (bsTan-‘gyur) – the collected

translations of the Indian treatises – was completed between 1742 and 1749. This
was done under the patronage of the Fourth Manchu Qing Emperor, Qianlong
(Ch’ien-lung, ruled 1735–1796) and the supervision of his Tibetanized Mongolian
tutor from Amdo, the Second Changkya Khutukhtu, Rolpai Dorje (lCang-skya Rol-
pa’i rdo-rje, 1717–1786). Changkya later went on to supervise the compilation of
the Manchu Kangyur from the Chinese Tripitaka, started in 1772 and completed in
1790.

As part of the translation project, Changkya supervised the compilation of a large

Tibetan-Mongolian lexicon, A Lexicon Resource for the Learned (Dag-yig mkhas-
pa’i ‘byung-gnas), completed in 1741–1742. The lexicon is actually two separate
parallel word lists, one in Tibetan and one in Mongolian. Thus, it differs from its
predecessor, the early 9th-century Grand (Lexicon) for Understanding Specific
(Terms) (Bye-brag-tu rtogs-pa chen-po, Skt. Mahavyutpatti), which places side by
side Sanskrit terms and their Tibetan equivalents, and later the Chinese equivalents
as well.
The Tibetan-Mongolian lexicon has eleven chapters, listing technical terms used in
texts concerning (1) prajnaparamita, (2)madhyamaka, (3) abhidharma, (4) vinaya,
(5) Indian tenet systems, (6) tantra, (7) logic, (8) Sanskrit grammar, (9) architecture
and artisanship, (10) medicine, and (11) archaicisms and their modern equivalents
(brda gsar-rnying) – changes from the old to the new Tibetan spelling or improved
terminology.

In his introduction to the lexicon, Changkya gave guidelines for the good qualities a
translator of Buddhist texts must have, as well as for how to translate Tibetan texts.
These guidelines are still relevant today when the Buddhist literature is being
translated from Tibetan into Western languages.
Source: http://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/transmission-of-buddhism/traditional-
guidelines-for-translating-buddhist-texts
 Preface to “A Lexicon Resource for the
Learned”
Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717-1786)

The Qualities of a Translator

In general, the precious scriptures of the Triumphant Buddha are constructive in the
beginning, middle, and end and are solely to act as eyes to clarify the path to
liberation and omniscience for those who take interest in being freed. As that is the
case, eye-opening translators as well need to think over and again (about this fact),
only cherishing the teachings of the Able One with the thought, “How wonderful it
would be if these very methods were to remain long in the world.” In other words,
they need to rid themselves of a biased mind that wishes for profit or fame, and
analyze, with an honest mind, the particulars of the words and their meanings.

Regarding their analysis, when they themselves do not know (the meaning), they
need to ask thoroughly learned scholars, regardless of them being of greater or lesser
fame (than they themselves are). Having eliminated their doubts in this way, they
need then to translate with clear and easily understandable words that do not
contradict the meaning. If (translators work in this fashion), they will be able to bring
about a vast increase of excellent build-ups (of positive force) on the mental
continuums of themselves and others. Because of that, they will be doing service to
the teachings of the Triumphant Ones and will obtain immeasurable stocks of
positive force.

But, on the other hand, even though they themselves are not learned, some translators
are arrogant with the puffed-up pride of being learned. Even though others are
learned, the eye of intelligence of these translators is veiled with anger from a mind
that is biased against such (learned ones). Holding the pure Dharma to be of little
importance, they are happy with translating as many volumes as they can in order to
gain the wealth of a daily salary. If (translators work in such a fashion), then as a
result of sullying the stainless enlightening words of the Buddha with the dirty
waters of their wrong and faulty explanations, they will have unbearable sufferings
beyond what themselves or anyone could imagine.

How to Translate

When translating a text, if it is easy to understand following the Tibetan word order
and the Mongolian meaning does not get confused or garbled, then translate the text
like that. In cases in which it is not like that, violate the original word order and make
the meaning clear. For things to be easily expressible when they are in verse, one
can violate the word order within a shloka (a Sanskrit verse) so as to make it clear.
And when extravagant (filler) words have been added for the sake of the meter,
whether it is one, two, or three words, see what the meaning of the whole is and,
violating the original literal text, translate clearly. But it is important not to confuse
the logical order of the meanings.

Also, one must choose terms that preserve the connotations of the original terms.
Some Tibetan terms, if translated literally, would become many words in Mongolian,
and the meaning would get obscured. For the many examples like this, it is all right
to discard the extra words, so long as it doesn’t affect the meaning. Sometimes, if
one doesn’t add a few extra words, the full connotation does not come across. In
those cases, translate by adding extra words to help make the meaning clear and not
to have it be just dead language.

If one term has several meanings, choose terms that decisively cover its various
(individual) occurrences. When it is possible to conclude that a term has just one
meaning, translate it as such. When one can’t conclude that it has just one meaning,
if one can find a Mongolian word with both meanings, use it wherever the Tibetan
term occurs.

If one were to translate names of people such as pandits, mahasiddhas, kings, and
ministers, and names of places, flowers, and fruit trees, it would be difficult to
understand and would be ungraceful language. For situations in which, even if such
names could be translated roughly, it would be uncertain if the meaning will or will
not be as it should, add the word Pandit or King or flower, and so on, before or after
the name, and leave the name in Sanskrit or Tibetan.

For commentaries to great texts, if its root text has already been translated, then
translate the words of the root text in the commentary in accordance with it. If it has
not been translated, then first translate the root text; and for this, translate it in
agreement with the commentaries.
For debate terms used by the defender and the attacker in a debate, choose terms that
fit the thought of the two and keep the flow of the debate. Translate the points for
proving or disproving with words that are sharp and easy to understand.

Also, translate words of praise, abuse, wonder, depression, and fear with words that
are well known to everyone in Mongolian, which have strong connotations and can
move the mind, and which fit the occasion.

One must translate a text just as the author composed it, even if there are some in
which the meaning of the text is not well explained, or in which it is obvious that it
explains incorrectly. Don’t fix it up by adding from good explanations from other
texts; because if one does like that, then the traditions of different teachers will
become confused.

In texts of guideline instructions, when names of gods, substances, numbers, and so

forth, are indicated by other hidden, obscuring words (gab-tshigs) (such as “fire” for
“three”), translate them as they are. Do not translate them with the bare words (that
were being obscured), because that would nullify the necessity for the obscuring
words.

When there are poetic synonyms in poetry, such as “beautiful throat” for “donkey,”
translate the word itself (that is, the poetic synonym) and not the word that it is
referring to, because otherwise it would make it unpretty.

Even though the foundation to which two terms, such as rtsa-ba’i rnam-shes (root
consciousness) and kun-gzhi (basis for all, Skt. alaya) are getting at is the same, yet
there is a slight difference between the ways of ascribing the terms and explaining
them in the Avatamsaka and Chittamatra traditions. Therefore (in such cases),
translate them in accordance with the individual texts (in which they appear).
Otherwise, if one thought that they have the same meaning, the terminology will get
mixed up and conflated.

Then there are such terms as bden-par grub-pa (truly established existence; true
existence) and rang-gi mtshan-nyid-kyis grub-pa (existence established by
individual defining characteristic marks; inherent existence). In Prasangika, they
could be translated such that one could substitute for the other, since they have the
same meaning (in that system). Nevertheless, since there are many instances in
which, like with Svatantrika-Madhyamaka, they cannot be made into the same
meaning, because they have two very different meanings (in that system), one must
examine well and translate them according to their own traditions.
Also, although bdag-med (lack of an impossible “soul”; selflessness;
identitylessness) and bden-med (lack of truly established existence) are exactly the
same in Prasangika, yet in some lower systems of tenets, there are important
differences, such as all phenomena being bdag-med, but not accepting that they are
all bden-med. Therefore, one must differentiate them from each other; otherwise,
since one will be taking situations in which one sees them explained as the same and
applying it in all situations, then the special differences among systems of tenets will
become topsy-turvy.

Further, one must pay attention to tense, case, the position in a sentence of the word
only, emphasis, and differences between old and new spelling and terminology.

Even though Tibetan and Mongolian poetry have different meters, lengths of line,
and so forth; nevertheless, one must translate poetry in a poetic way, with the full
meaning, easy to understand, and with lines nearly of equal length. In some praises
and requests, although it is not disagreeable to use (Mongolian stylistic) conventions,
such as each line starting with the same word in Mongolian, yet don’t do this in great
texts; otherwise, they become too wordy and the meaning gets obscured.

If it becomes necessary to coin and use a new term that is not in this lexicon and
which does not appear in others, don’t just make up terms at pleasure at any place.
Rather, consult monks and translate without contradicting texts or reason.

Source: “Dag-yig mkhas-pa’i ‘byung-gnas” by Changkya Rolpai Dorje (lCang-skya Rol-pa'i rdo-
rje) translated by Alexander Berzin. https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/original-
texts/sutra-texts/preface-to-a-lexicon-resource-for-the-learned