Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
10 pages
1 file
Journal of Indological Studies and Culture, 2012
Translation is one of the fundamental resources and conditions for religious propagation. As it relates so closely to the spread of Buddhist teachings, we may see translation as a specific manifestation of the Bodhisattva Way. Thus, we intend to propose the idea of the bodhisattva-translator as a self-chosen way of life, a subjectivity and a habitus which are constructed in the context of Buddhist practice, whose roots may be traced down to the Lotus Sutra’s Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Kumārajīva (344-413), the eminent Dharma Master who translated Buddhism to Chinese and thus enabled the worldwide dissemination of Buddhist teachings, may offer a bright, unparalleled example of the bodhisattva-translator and help us outline new approaches to contemporary Buddhist translation
2013
The aims of the current research are as follows: first, review the challenges of rendering Buddhist texts into Chinese and English through the study of the passage “the dharma of emancipation of the exhaustible and inexhaustible”, as articulated in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra; and second, discuss the scholarly argument by which these Chinese and English translations could have originated from different Sanskrit or Tibetan editions. This study tabulates the three full classical Chinese translations and five English editions, among which are included in the Chinese renditions the works of Zhi Qian (the third century A.D.), Kumārajīva (the fifth century A.D.), and Xuan Zang (the seventh century A.D.); and the English versions translated by Luk, Watson, McRae, Lamotte/Boin, and Thurman between the 1970s and the 2000s. The former three English translations were mainly based on Kumārajīva’s edition and the latter two on the Tibetan copy, illustrating a three-tier translation hierarchy in which the Chinese translations represent the first-tier, being directly translated from the Sanskrit original(s); the English renditions represent the second-tier, stemming from either Kumārajīva’s or the Tibetan edition; and with the third-tier represented by Boin’s translation of Lamotte’s French copy into English. By comparing their chaptering, chapter titles, transliteration of Buddhist terminology, translation of the passage, punctuation, linguistic expressions, and missing parts in each edition, this analysis unveils the intra- and inter-differences between the Chinese and English renditions. Prior research results suggest that it is difficult to evaluate the credibility and validity of the translations because of the uncertainties related to the origin of the text. They have also addressed the fact that the translation discrepancies in Buddhist terminology in English might create a risk of misinterpretation of Buddhist Two Sanskrit Issues p. 3 teachings. Conclusively, this research first substantiates recent discussion on directly using Sanskrit terminology, instead of the English terms, in modern English Buddhist publications; and second agrees that the renditions probably came from different Sanskrit or Tibetan originals. Importantly, it equally values the academic contributions of individual Chinese and English renditions and translators; thus proposing cross-reference among various renditions as a means to inspire researchers with insight from different translations.
This paper is part of a larger research project that attempts to apply historical social network analysis to the study of Chinese Buddhist history. The underlying research questions are whether social network analysis (SNA) metrics can be gainfully applied to Buddhist history, and whether network visualizations can enable us to better understand historical constellations and discover new patterns. Fundamental to this effort is a dataset of Buddhist
The Buddhist community in China has traditionally considered Lushan Huiyuan 盧山慧遠 334-416) to be the first "patriarch" (zu 祖) of the Pure Land school, based almost entirely on his having hosted a meeting of monks and scholars in the year 402 to engage in nianfo practice and vow rebirth in the Western Paradise of Amitabha. This article examines the extent to which Huiyuan might be considered a "Pure Land Buddhist" by looking at an exchange between him and the great translator Kumarajiva on the topic of buddha-contemplation, as well as other sources for his life that demonstrate his participation in activities that could be regarded as part of the Pure Land repertoire of ritual and doctrine in the early fifth century.
2012
Normal 0 21 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Century","serif"; mso-ansi-language:ES-AR; mso-fareast-language:ES-AR;} Resumen: Las obras de filosofia religiosa permiten observar de que manera las ideas eticas, metafisicas, ontologicas, cosmologicas se traducen en creencias, y en que medida estas configuran conductas, metas y actitudes hacia la vida. Un caso de interes historico es la transmision del budismo Mahayana, sostenida en una milenaria produccion textual que hoy, de la mano de la traduccion, nutre movimientos pacifistas en Occidente y en America Latina. En este articulo, primero presentaremo...
Journal of Indological Studies and Culture - Mahendradatta Universitas, Indonesia, 2012
Translation is one of the fundamental resources and conditions for religious propagation. As it relates so closely to the spread of Buddhist teachings, we may see translation as a specific manifestation of the Bodhisattva Way. Thus, we intend to propose the idea of the bodhisattva-translator as a self-chosen way of life, a subjectivity and a habitus which are constructed in the context of Buddhist practice, whose roots may be traced down to the Lotus Sutra’s Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Kumārajīva (344-413), the eminent Dharma Master who translated Buddhism to Chinese and thus enabled the worldwide dissemination of Buddhist teachings, may offer a bright, unparalleled example of the bodhisattva-translator and help us outline new approaches to contemporary Buddhist translation
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. ;HE Ta-ch'eng ta-i chang9;*l 3? (Taisho Tripitaka 1856), an exchange of letters between Shih Hui-yiian W.M , the most prestigious figure of the southern sanigha at the beginning of the fifth century, and Kumarajiva AOMM f1t, the Kuchean missionary active in Ch'ang-an, has attracted a certain, if insufficient, amount of attention from historians of Chinese Buddhism in the last twenty years.1 Mr. Liebenthal mentioned the work,2 Mr. Ziircher gave a summary and a discussion of it,' the text with an annotated translation and two papers was published by scholars of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies in Kyoto,4 and Mr. Robinson translated part of the text into English in his recent work.5 The discussion of this text in the publications mentioned above has, however, been hampered by what I think to be a misunderstanding of the organization and the structure of the correspondence. The respective questions and answers of Hui-yiian and Kumarajiva had been collated well before the end of the fifth century to form pairs, an organization still to be found in all surviving manuscripts. There are in present editions eighteen of these paired sections, as I shall call them, part of them containing several questions and answers and one 1 This article is a translation of the second chapter of my doctoral dissertation for the University of Munich, "Die Fragen Hui-yiians an Kumarajiva"; the thesis, soon to be published, contains an annotated translation of the Ta-ch'eng ta-i chang, an analysis of Hui-yiian's criticism of the Ta-chih tu lun, and a description of his own philosophy of spirit developed in his other writings and in his questions concerning dharmakaya in the Ta-ch'eng ta-i chang.
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2012
Although not functionally multilingual or a translator himself, Daisaku Ikeda has been deeply involved in translation processes, both as a reader and as someone who has produced texts for translation into various languages. This article examines two sources of influence shaping Ikeda's attitude toward translation culture: the flourishing culture of translation that prevailed in the Japan of his childhood and youth and the example of the 5th century C.E. Buddhist translations of Kumarajiva. These two sources are seen as fostering an attitude toward translation as a vehicle for cross-cultural communication rooted in a faith in a universal humanity.
Proceedings of the First International Seminar and Exhibition «Kumarajiva: Philosopher and Seer», 2011
This essay is an offspring of a graduate thesis in progress in Translation Studies about the life and activities of Dharma Master Kumarajiva (344-413), one of the most remarkable translators in history. Based on significant biographical markers, we suggest eight relevant areas of contemporary research focused in Global Issues, Cognitive Psychology, Politics, Sociology, Translation Studies, Translation Teaching, Ethics, and Philosophy, which may contribute to further interdisciplinary studies. We also introduce two proposals: one is the creation of an international study group about Kumarajiva in the field of Translation Studies, and the other is an action-research project to explore the possibilities and conditions of a contemporary specialized translation school based in Kumarajiva’ approach and in his methodology of work.