5 April, 2022 On translation, dates and authenticity
以弘始五年歲在癸卯四月二十三日。於京城之北逍遙園中出此經。法師手執胡本口宣秦言。兩釋異音交辯文旨。秦王躬攬舊經。驗其得失。諮其通途。坦其宗致。與諸宿舊義業沙門釋慧恭僧䂮僧遷寶度慧精法欽道流僧叡道恢道㯹道恒道悰等五百餘人。詳其義旨。審其文中。然後書之。以其年十二月十五日出盡。校正檢括。明年四月二十三日乃訖。(from https://deerpark.app/reader/T2145)
Upon is an excerpt from the eighth volume of a book Chu San Zang Ji Ji [出三藏记集]. What was precious in this paragraph is it rebuilds the process of how a sutra was translated. The translation of the above excerpt is seen below:
In the 5th year of Hongshi (A. D. 403), on 23rd April (i.e. 24th June), this sutra was translated in Xiaoyao Garden, a place north to the capital city. The Dharma master held the original sutra in hand, speaking of the Chinese version. The other monks discussed the meaning of each sentence through their own languages. The king of Qin has diligently read the former sutras, and testified the meanings and loss of meanings, inquire about the path of practice and exposes the core concept. The Dharma master carefully analysised the content of each sutra with more than 500 other monks, including Shi Huigong, Senglue, Sengqian, Baodu, Huijing, Faqin, Daoliu, Sengrui, Daohui, Daobiao, Daoheng, Daocong. They cautiously examined the textual meanings. Then, they wrote down the text. On 15th December, they have finished the translation. The review and justification of this Sutra was lasted to the next April.
The Dharma master mentioned in this excerpt is exactly the famous translator Kumārajīva, the translator who has caused a national war for his wisdom and ability of translation. The King of Qin has long admired Kumārajīva and thus started that war to take him back to his kingdom for the direction of the translation of Sutras. The Diamond Sutra was translated by Kumārajīva, and it is highly possible that this sutra was translated through this process. It is so grandeur even to think that five hundred monks, with the wisdom to perfectly understand the sutra, both in Sanskrit and Chinese, discussed each meaning of every sentence together. The Chinese sentence "兩釋異音交辯文旨", though translated as "The other monks discussed the meaning of each sentence through their own languages", actually discribes the scene through depiction. It means in the place for translation, different languages are heard to discuss the meaning of each sentence. This is how the translation was once made for the very authenticity in history.
On 30th March, I used to query the 'dates'. I copied the date on the Diamond Sutra (868) and questioned what I can do with the dates, I wrote:
Questions then comes: How do we fill the meanings of dates? What does date on the Diamond Sutra（868） mean?
When reading the above excerpt, especially the dates in the text, I then question, what is exactly a date in translation? The date in ancient China is defined by the year name of the emperor, the sexagenary cycle and the date on lunar calendar. It was translated into another style, different numbers based on another understanding, however, the dates are not wrongly translated, but are authentic, exactly authentic.
The reader also creates their own worlds when reading.Upon reading a translated work, authenticity may be regarded as the most important factor. The best translator is someone who does not reveal his own existence. However, on authenticity, was it only based on the translator's side? Even if one work was translated perfectly, the reading of the work will lead to dissimilar ideas. Thus, where is the authenticity? Or, every translation should have its validated authenticity, because it was read by someone, the audience create their own world, and that is their authenticity.
In 2018, Hamdan investigates the role of translators in the Nuremberg trials.
“The Witness-Machine Complex,”
He said:
I was interested, specifically, in the translators’ role in the trial, but I soon discovered that there was no trace of the translators’ voice in the recordings, videos, or transcript of the proceedings. It’s this really strange thing, where it was necessary to negotiate across Russian, English, French, and German, in all of their potential permutations, but when you watch the trial, there’s just this fluid dialogue across languages. The absent process of translation becomes an elephant in the room. It raises questions about whether such simultaneity is really realizable—there’s an argument that it’s not. But it’s still being implemented today. (Hamdan & McHugh, 2021, lines 19-27)
Further, he found out that:
one of the only traces of the translators in the process of translating was their control of two lights located on the witness stand and the judge’s podium: a yellow light to signal “slow down” and a red light that meant “stop altogether.” The rudimentary communication by way of these lights dictated a strange flow. (Hamdan & McHugh, 2021, lines 29-33).
The translation mentioned by Hamdan is different from the Kumārajīva's translation, though both are formal and professional. Translations during Nuremberg trials are political. The sutras are for teaching and practice of thoughts. but where is the translator?
Other notes:
In Kumārajīva's time, a monk named Huiyuan in Lushan, a place near where I am living has had correspondence with Kumārajīva. (Wagner, 1971) I have known this because I have been to the temple a few times. Recently, it occurs to me that, time, which might be like space, are so connected. When not regarded as linear, every 'time' and its memories are so close and related to this moment.
A more detailed translation process is seen in Professor Zürcher's work:
From the middle of the second to the first decade of the third century AD, a number of Buddhist teachers and translators, foreigners of diverse origin, were active at Luoyang. The earliest sources speak of some ten ācāryas who are said to have translated a considerable number of Buddhist scriptures during this period ( fifty-one, acc. to Dao’an’s catalogue). Some early colophons which have been preserved contain interesting details about the way in which the work of translation was carried out. The master either had a manuscript of the original text at his disposal or he recited it from memory. If he had enough knowledge of Chinese (which was seldom the case) he gave an oral translation (koushou 口授), otherwise the preliminary translation was made, “transmitted”, by a bilingual intermediary ( chuanyi 傳譯 ). Chinese assistants—monks as well as laymen—noted down the translation (bishou 筆受 ), after which the text was subjected to a final revision ( zhengyi 正義 , jiaoding 校定 ). During the work of translation, and perhaps also on other occasions, the master gave oral explanations (koujie 口解) concerning the contents of the scriptures translated. Explanations of this kind often appear to have crept into the text; “translator’s notes” figure in most Chinese versions, and at least one Han time translation forms an in extricable mixture of text and explanatory notes. Sometimes, however, the glosses were kept apart as separate works of exegesis. (Zürcher & Teiser, 2007, p. 31)
Hamdan, L. A., & McHugh, C. (2021). Lawrence Abu Hamdan on translation, Nuremberg, and the juridical unconscious. Artforum. https://www.artforum.com/interviews/lawrence-abu-hamdan-on-translation-nuremberg-and-the-juridical-unconscious-86875
Wagner, R. G. (1971). The original structure of the correspondence between
Shih Hui-Yüan and Kumārajīva. Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies, 31,
28-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2718713
Zürcher, E., & Teiser, S. F. (2007). The Buddhist conquest of China : the spread and adaptation of Buddhism
in early medieval China (2 ed.). BRILL. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ecu/detail.action?docID=468539
Comments
Post a Comment