Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Qianxi
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:16 pm

Re: Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Post by Qianxi »

That quotation seems quite strange, i'm not sure why Prasad is quoting a Tibetologist from the 1930s on the accuracy of Chinese translation. Looking at Bell's book 'Religion of Tibet' (1931) on google books, it seems he couldn't read Chinese.
pulga wrote:How have we ascertained the accuracy of Saṃghadeva's Madhyama Āgama when we haven't the original to compare it with?

By comparing it with the Pali, basically.
pulga wrote:The whole historical setting of how these texts came to be preserved is lost to us. What sort of man was Saṃghadeva? What circumstances did he find himself in? What particular texts did he have access to? What was his standard of thoroughness and accuracy?

The historical setting of Buddhism in Central Asia and India at the time is partially recorded in the travel account of the monk Faxian. The historical setting of the translation of the Madhyama Āgama is recorded in quite some detail, however. As are the character, circumstances and interests of Saṃghadeva, and the names of the other texts he translated, and his process of translation.

The sources for these are the prefaces to Saṃghadeva's translations written by his contemporaries and a collection of monks' biographies compiled 100 years after his time. And the wider Chinese social context is recorded in stacks of official and unofficial histories.

Basically, he was a specialist in the Abhidharma from Kashmir, when he first came to China he worked on a translation team with other Indian, Central Asian and Chinese monks checking or reading out the Indic original, but not translating himself as he could not yet speak Chinese. After a decade or so in China he learnt the language and discovered that the translations he had worked on as a monolingual assistant (including the Madhyama Agama) were not accurate, so he and his followers resolved to retranslate them.

The translation process usually took place in a hall in front of an audience of local dignitaries and monks. Usually a foreign monk read out the Indic version, either from memory or from a manuscript, a monk who understood both Indian and Chinese translated it orally into Chinese, then a couple of Chinese monks would each write down the translation in Chinese. After the translation had been completed in this way it would be thoroughly checked and edited.

In the case of the Madhyama Agama the preface records that it was translated from December 15th 397 to July 24th 398 in a temple on the estate of a local official in what is modern day Nanjing by the Kashmiri Gautama Samghadeva, based on a manuscript read out to him by Samgharaksa, another Kashmiri monk. The Chinese monk Daoci acted as the scribe, assisted by Libao and Tanghua. So the public translation process finished in summer 398 but the preface records that because of the outbreak of war the editing process was not completed until 401.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Post by pulga »

Qianxi wrote:That quotation seems quite strange, i'm not sure why Prasad is quoting a Tibetologist from the 1930s on the accuracy of Chinese translation. Looking at Bell's book 'Religion of Tibet' (1931) on google books, it seems he couldn't read Chinese.
It's not really necessary that he know how to read Chinese. I'm sure that when the Sanskrit fragments were first discovered scholars were inclined to compare them with their Chinese translations. Bell was probably familiar with such studies. Has anyone bothered to make such a comparative study in recent years? Has the topic even been brought up? If the Chinese translations don't tally well with the Sanskrit originals that they're supposed to be translations of it certainly would put a damper on things, but on the upside it would provide us more fodder for speculation.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Qianxi
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:16 pm

Re: Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Post by Qianxi »

pulga wrote:
Qianxi wrote:That quotation seems quite strange, i'm not sure why Prasad is quoting a Tibetologist from the 1930s on the accuracy of Chinese translation. Looking at Bell's book 'Religion of Tibet' (1931) on google books, it seems he couldn't read Chinese.
It's not really necessary that he know how to read Chinese. I'm sure that when the Sanskrit fragments were first discovered scholars were inclined to compare them with their Chinese translations. Bell was probably familiar with such studies. Has anyone bothered to make such a comparative study in recent years? Has the topic even been brought up? If the Chinese translations don't tally well with the Sanskrit originals that they're supposed to be translations of it certainly would put a damper on things, but on the upside it would provide us more fodder for speculation.
The Chinese Agamas were not translated from Sanskrit, they were translated from a Prakrit like Gandhari. It's not the case that there is a single text of the Agamas that the Chinese either does or does not accurately reflect, there were lots of different textual lineages, and most of the different Chinese agama collections are from a different lineage (Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivada etc.). According to Richard Salomon the content of the recently unearthed 1st century bce Gandhari texts is no earlier than that of the Chinese Agamas or the Pali canon, and different from them both, to the same extent that the Pali and Chinese differ from each other. (sorry for linking to a podcast, I couldn't find a more convenient reference. I'm also quoting from my memory of the podcast, I haven't listened to it again)

The Sanskrit fragments are mentioned in the work of Analayo, as are quotations from the Agamas in Tibetan, but it's hard to draw any conclusions from a fragment of a common textual block. It's mainly the way that the blocks are arranged that varies from lineage to lineage, not the blocks themselves. That's plausibly a feature of oral transmission.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Post by pulga »

Thanks, Qianxi. What you say sounds reasonable, but we still don't know enough of the details surrounding each of the particular lineages: how scrupulous they were in preserving their texts, the adversities and setbacks each must have encountered. As I said the subject is intriguing, but still very speculative. I question its relevance to the Dhamma.

I came across an online edition of Choong Mun-keat's Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism . It looks very informative, and nicely laid out. I'll have a look at it, maybe even read the whole book if I'm drawn into it. Perhaps then I'll be able to better engage you in discussion.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Using the Chinese to 'correct' the Pali?

Post by daverupa »

pulga wrote:I came across an online edition of Choong Mun-keat's Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism . It looks very informative, and nicely laid out. I'll have a look at it, maybe even read the whole book if I'm drawn into it. Perhaps then I'll be able to better engage you in discussion.
That book was referred to in this thread; the following two links, across two posts, are also relevant. Probably there is quite a bit more in there of note (e.g. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p213781 etc.).
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Post Reply