INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION INTIBET AND IN THEGATEWAY
S
ince the time of the Tibetan renaissance, Tibetan Buddhism has looked back to India, the home of the Buddha, as the original, authoritative source of scripture and learning. This is a powerful reason that special ven- eration has always been reserved for the great translators, the scholars who brought the dharma from India to Tibet, and made available in Tibetan lan- guage what had once been inaccessible in Sanskrit. Indeed, translation was of- ten considered the quintessential scholarly ability, and translators the greatest intellectuals. Surely this was the opinion of Sa-pan’s family tradition: “Ma gcig [Zang mo] said [to Sa Chen], ‘Your father’s teacher was a translator. You must also learn Dharma from a teacher who is a translator.’”1Early on, Sa-pan· him- self, along with other great scholars of the day, was called by the honorific title, “Master Translator.”2As I will discuss below, his later honorific title “Sakya
Pan·d·ita” is also directly connected to his expertise as a translator from Sanskrit.3
It is not difficult to understand the importance Tibetans placed upon trans- lators.4
Sa-pan· and his fellow translators represented an intellectual bridge be- tween the dharma of the past and the dharma of the present, and in Sa-pan·’s day between India and Tibet. Yet amid all the veneration of translators, there are pre- cious few discussions of just what translators do, and why it is so important that their work is good. In fact the Gateway may have been the first systematic and detailed discussion of translation to apear in Tibet since the publication of the official translation rules decreed by Thri Desongtsen.5But whereas that ruling
provided an essentially pragmatic regulation of translators’ conduct, Sa-pan·’s analysis provides a theory of translation along with a pragmatic interpreter’s guide. For this reason, Sa-pan·’s distinctively Tibetan view of India and his dis- tinctively Buddhist understanding of the role of the scholar come through in his
analysis of translation, making this one of the most thoughtful practical and the- oretical discussions of translation in any language before the modern period.
In particular, Sa-pan· is interested in the specific problems facing the Ti- betan Buddhist scholar working in the thirteenth century, wherein nearly all of the properly authoritative texts are translations—but translations that are full of dangers. As I have discussed in chapter 1, Sa-pan· believes the scholar prin- cipally to be a guardian of the Buddha’s teachings, a breakwater against the dharma’s inevitable decay. In this context, the decay is cataloged in the form of extensive lists of potential misinterpretations of the dharma that are due to its shift into Tibetan language. The Tibetan scholar who seeks to fulfill his role as protector of the dharma must be aware of the distinctive hazards present in in- terpreting the dharma in Tibetan translation.
Throughout this chapter, I distinguish between two scholarly roles: the translator, who produces a translation, and the expositor, who reads and teaches the translated text. The Gateway’s second chapter, “Entry into Exposition” (bshad pa la ’jug pa), contains most of Sa-pan·’s discussion of translation. There he emphasizes the scholar’s role not as a writer or debater, but as a teacher of scripture. It is, therefore, primarily in the context of the scholar’s role as teacher that Sa-pan· is discussing issues of translation. More specifically, these discus- sions come from Sa-pan·’s vast and diverse treatment of lexical exegesis, literally “explaining the meaning of the statement” (ngag gi don bshad pa).6Most of these
translation issues are thus, for Sa-pan·, issues of scriptural interpretation— proper interpretation of translated texts. For this reason, I will often speak sim- ply of “interpreters” where Sa-pan· would say “expositors” or “teachers.”
Sa-pan·’s emphasis on the needs of the thirteenth century interpreter dis- tinguishes the Gateway from all previous (perhaps all) known Tibetan discus- sions of translation. Although there was no central authority in charge of trans- lation during the “second diffusion” of Buddhism in Sa-pan·’s time, the process of translation had been systematized early in the ninth century under the aus- pices of the Tibetan emperors, and the official works on Buddhist translation produced then were still essential tools of the translators’ trade.7As themselves
translators (lo tsa¯ ba), Sa-pan· and his colleagues would certainly have studied and taken to heart the standard works on Buddhist translation, especially the
Maha¯vyutpatti with its commentary, the Two-Volume Lexicon.8These were lexi-
cographical works, consisting primarily in categorized lists of specific translation terms in source and target languages, but they also contained general rules for translators. Sa-pan· draws upon his knowledge of these texts in his presentation of translation issues in the Gateway, but he is approaching the issue from the opposite perspective. He asks, given that all of these texts have been translated in a given manner, how is a Tibetan interpreter to make sense of these trans- lated works? At one point in the Gateway, in order to explain how to interpret
different levels of honorific terms, Sa-pan· cites “the new language determina- tion (skad gsar bcad)” rule of Thri Desongtsen on the use of honorifics from the
Two-Volume Lexicon, which says “‘In relation to the honorific level of Tibetan
expressions, translate so as to [achieve] ease of understanding.’”9The point is
that, whereas the Sanskrit language has far fewer status markers, Tibetan lan- guage honorifics can be usefully employed to enhance the meaning of a passage —for instance, in a conversation, to indicate whether a servant or a master is speaking. This is an important rule for the translators to know, of course, but why would an interpreter, teaching the text, need to know it? Sa-pan· places this rule under the heading of aspects of a text that “the scholar does not need to explain.”10That is, the honorific character of a Tibetan term does not neces-
sarily reflect the honorific character of the Sanskrit original, and so is not an ap- propriate topic of analysis. To rely too heavily upon such markers might even lead to an interpretive mistake.
Such complications in interpretation are many, and to negotiate them an interpreter must have wide experience not only with texts in translation, but also with aspects of Sanskrit language and Indian literary norms. Two points that will come up repeatedly should be made clear from the outset: First, these in- terpretive difficulties are not to be blamed on the translators. On the contrary, as we will see, Sa-pan·appears to be in agreement with the translators about their translation strategies, regardless of the resultant potential for misunderstand- ing.11
In fact, the only time that Sa-pan· criticizes the translators as a whole is when, based on ignorance, they sacrifice the Sanskrit meaning in order to make Tibetan comprehension easier. Sa-pan· believes that the translators have done their job in preserving the original meaning of the dharma in its movement from Sanskrit to Tibetan. It is now the properly trained expositor’s job to perceive and pass on an authentic teaching.
Second, Sa-pan· makes no claim that Tibetan teachers must know the texts in their original Sanskrit versions. Although some interpretive problems will be difficult to solve without such knowledge, Sa-pan· never suggests that the translations are unreadable in Tibetan. Instead, we must assume that Sa-pan· believes that the translations are intended to be read by interpreters with spe- cial training that compensates for such difficulties.
I will analyze two sections from the Gateway, one where Sa-pan· is trou- bled, and one where he seems optimistic about the dharma in translation. His worries, however, take up far more space. He is extremely concerned that the differences between Sanskrit originals and their Tibetan translations are mis- leading to inexperienced Tibetan interpreters. As usual, Sa-pan· dedicates most of his space to correcting mistakes of other Tibetan scholars and establishing what he sees to be the standard interpretation of the Indian masters.12Inter-
pretive mistakes are thus for Sa-pan· a source of life-long irritation. But they are
also a corrosion of the dharma and the arch enemy of the scholar. When the ig- norant give teachings, he says,
This dharma is a [mere] reflection of the dharma, or a so-called “dharma- like fabrication.” Teachings of such a kind, on top of being of no benefit, bring about the destruction of the dharma.13
So the stakes are high.14As we review the variety of potential interpretive mis-
takes, we are also enumerating the skills required of any scholar who wishes to protect and not destroy the dharma.
For the sake of this discussion, I have divided Sa-pan·’s numerous concerns about difficulties in interpretation into four broad categories.15The interpreter
must be familiar with (1) difficult words; (2) the techniques of translation used by Tibetan translators; (3) the common mistakes in translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan; and (4) elements with an unintelligible or invalid context.
OBSCUREVOCABULARY
In the first category, (1) for those unfamiliar with difficult Tibetan translation terms, Sa-pan· suggests studying a good word list. As he says, “A good knowledge of synonyms such as [those in] the Amarakos´a and the Vis´vapraka¯s´a, etc. settles doubts about all word meanings.”16He also suggests that, as an introduction, the
beginning scholar might study Sa-pan·’s own lexicographic work, the Word Trea-
sury (tshig gi gter).17This kind of study helps prevent four types of errors.18
First off, the uneducated interpreter is often unfamiliar with “the differ- ences between new and old conventions [employed] by translators of the early and later traditions.”19Thus:
For example, when bye ma ka ra [is used] for hwags; glo gor zho sha for the
go yu herb; rin chen tog for rin chen dbal; nam yang for gzhar yang—such are
old Tibetan signs that are difficult to understand today.20
These are instances of old and new translation terms for Sanskrit words. The uneducated reader, encountering hwags and bye ma ka ra, both words for sugar, might be familiar with one but not the other and imagine that they translate dif- ferent Sanskrit terms. Similarly, rin chen tog and rin chen dbal are two transla- tions for the same Sanskrit term ratnaketu, meaning “jewel pinnacle.” As Sa-pan· explains in detail in his Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes, the problem is that while in the newer translations dbal has been replaced by tog, some inter- preters look at the old translations and read dpal (“radiance”) for dbal, and take
it to mean not “jewel pinnacle” but “jewel radiance.”21These are problems best
solved by memorizing a list of translation terms. Next, Sa-pan· points out that:
By virtue of being translated into local idioms (rang rang gi yul gyi skad), [for instance, translating] “arrow” (mda’) as nyag phran; “bow” (gzhu) as
gnam ru . . . and so on—since they are translated [into words] not well
known one place to another, they are difficult to understand.22
Here again the issue is clear: A knowledge of the variety of potential transla- tion terms could prevent confusion when faced with obscure words. To avoid these errors, the interpreter needs to know the rare Tibetan words used to trans- late from Sanskrit.
Third, Sa-pan· mentions that sometimes proper names are translated into Tibetan, and sometimes they are left untranslated. For instance, sometimes “Magadha¯ is translated into ‘bearing all people’ (byings ’dzin); Va¯ra¯n·ası¯ into ‘de- stroyer of attendants and family’ (’khor mo ’jig),”23and so forth. The interpreter
who is unfamiliar with translation terms has no way to know that an expression like “bearing all people” is the name of a place, not an abstract quality.
Fourth, and finally, sometimes Sanskrit terms are translated into Tibetan with a semantically faithful transformation of the term,24with a kind of de-
scription of the meaning instead of a literal rendering of the Sanskrit terms. Looking at the expression “the one that changes everything” there is no way that an uneducated reader could know that it means “prayer,” or looking at “the one that turns evil away,” know that it means “merit.”25And, even if an inter-
preter knows that “the one that turns evil away” means “merit,” he does not necessarily know that the notion of turning evil away does not appear in the Sanskrit word it translates.26
Thus to read the dharma the scholar must have a sure grasp of the often obscure vocabulary used to translate Sanskrit terminology into Tibetan. Sa-pan· is not complaining about the translation practice that burdens the reader with the requirement of an unusually large and obscure vocabulary. It is to be ex- pected that such unusual and obscure terms will appear, since “When beauty appears (mdzes pa byung na) in the Sanskrit language, Sanskrit [words] are used that are not, for the most part, well known in the world.”27“Well known in the
world” is traditionally contrasted with “well known in treatises”—the latter be- ing knowledge that many scholars, but only scholars, possess.28
Sa-pan· recog- nizes that in order to translate the elevated style of Sanskrit texts, translators have imposed a new, elevated vocabulary on the Tibetan language. The Tibetan translation terms are designed to reflect the unique beauty and character of the Sanskrit. This suggests Sa-pan·’s understanding that the new vocabulary is,
therefore, intended to be part of a new distinguished, perhaps aristocratic, Ti- betan literate culture.
THETECHNIQUES OFTRANSLATORS
Errors in interpretation of the second category (2) result from Tibetan inter- preters being unfamiliar not with unusual vocabulary and expressions but with the techniques of translation used by the Tibetan translators. These are all mis- takes of excessive glossing—ignorant scholars give expositions on expressions that in fact do not exist in the original Sanskrit. They fall under five basic types. The first two occasions for error are similar: they are terms that present, in Ti- betan, a word that is merely a clarification and not a direct substitution for a Sanskrit term. When an Indian flower or jewel is named, even though the terms “flower” and “jewel” do not appear in the Sanskrit, they are often translated as, for instance, “Vaidu¯rya jewel” or “Saugandhika flower.”29
Also, Sa-pan· writes, with terms such as
“divine flower” and “divine incense,” etc., some [translators] have added the expression “property” (rdzas), translating [them thus] as “flower of- fering” (lit. “divine property flower”) and “incense offering” (lit. “divine property incense”).30
These are terms that are unclear when translated word for word, and so the translators have strategically inserted an extra word to clarify the meaning.
The third translation strategy noted is similar to these, but involves com- pound words that represent uncompounded, simple terms in Sanskrit. In terms such as ye shes ( jña¯na, wisdom) and phyag rgya (mudra¯, seal), the first syllables
ye and phyag represent no proper part of the Sanskrit; the translators have in-
serted these in order to facilitate understanding in Tibetan.31
Sa-pan· chastises interpreters who gloss ye shes as “primordial wisdom” in spite of there being no word corresponding to “primordial” in the Sanskrit source. Thus, whenever a pseudo-scholar gives a commentary on a Tibetan syllable that fails directly to reflect a Sanskrit original, Sa-pan· levels the charge of innovation—“fabricated dharma.”
Sometimes, in order to reflect the Sanskrit wording, the translators have included words that appear redundant in Tibetan. As an example, Sa-pan· cites the Eight Thousand Line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra as having the Sanskrit term
paks·i, “winged one,” together with the term s´akuna, “bird.” Both terms are
translated into Tibetan, so that the translated term reads, essentially, “winged one bird” (’dab chags bya). A Tibetan interpreter who comments on these words
may be tempted to read the verse as “the winged one and the bird,” reasoning that there is no justification for the redundancy unless two creatures are meant. But Sa-pan· explains that in Sanskrit the terms paks·i and s´akuna are each am- biguous on their own, and only together mean, exclusively, “bird.”32It would
seem that the translator has sacrificed ease of comprehension in Tibetan to a very close adherence to the Sanskrit. But Sa-pan· takes this translation strategy for granted, and places the burden on the interpreter. As I see it, the only way for the interpreter to avoid being fooled by this type of translation change will be either to know something of the Sanskrit terms reflected in the Tibetan, or to be warned by a teacher of the significance of this specific translation. Perhaps this is why Sa-pan· points out that, realistically,
If you desire to understand well the meaning of such words, you need to be suitably trained in the five sciences. Specifically, you should be well ac- quainted with grammar, metrics, poetics, and lexicography, etc.33
Errors of exposition will continue to arise until the interpreter masters all the sciences, and especially the full complement of linguistic sciences.
As the last aspect of this category, the scholar expositor must be aware that translators of Sanskrit into Tibetan have adopted the use of honorific and nonhonorific language in accordance with proper Tibetan usage. As mentioned above, Sa-pan· notes that very few Sanskrit terms have honorific and non- honorific forms, and he cites the “new language determination” of Thri Des- ongtsen that “In relation to the honorific level of Tibetan expressions, [one must] translate so as to [achieve] ease of understanding.”34A Tibetan inter-
preter who does not know this rule might place too strong an emphasis on the use of a particular honorific or nonhonorific form.
TRANSLATIONMISTAKES
In the third category (3), errors arise from an unfamiliarity with common mis- takes in translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan. These are of three types, but all are mistakes that occur in decoding the Sanskrit, as opposed to recoding the meaning into Tibetan. In fact, it is fair to say that Sa-pan· criticizes translators only when they have performed errors of decoding (Sa-pan· does not consider it an error of translation when the translators place the word “bird” twice in suc-