Brief History Of Buddhist Studies In Europe And Maerica

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 83

BUDDHIST STUDIES IN THE WEST
always used the same equivalents. This is perhaps also partly due to the fact that they did not always have the same Chinese collaborators who polished the Chinese style. However, the range of variation in the use of terminology by one translator is one of the important facts which can only be determined by the compilation of Chinese-Sanskrit and Sanskrit-Chinese dictionaries.
In the past much work has been done in translating Buddhist texts in Sanskrit, Pāli and Chinese. Much more still has to be done. Many translations of Sanskrit texts by Western scholars were done in the nineteenth century. Moreover, they were not based on critical editions. Very few contain sufficient notes. However, there are at present some excellent translations, for example, Johnston's translations of the Buddhacarita and the Saundarananda. Johnston's translations are based upon critical editions and an extensive study of Buddhist literature in Sanskrit and Pāli. Johnston paid great attention to the stylistic and lexical characteristics of these two Sanskrit texts. A scholar who is well acquainted with the Chinese Buddhist literature could probably add much to the commentary and it is always possible to improve upon Johnston's translation in some points as has been shown by Claus Vogel in his study of the first chapter of the Buddhacarita.1 Nevertheless, Johnston's translations are a splendid achievement and they show how Buddhist texts should be translated. Many Pali texts have been translated into English, but new critical translations are an urgent desideratum. As an example of such a critical translation, accompanied by lengthy notes, I would like to mention K. R. Norman's translation of the Theragāthā. In this translation the commentary takes up much more space than the translation itself. Norman's work shows clearly how Pāli texts have to be translated and studied.
The translations by Johnston and Norman are translations of literary texts. Therefore it is not surprising that they have concentrated their efforts in the first place on the language and the style of the texts, as is obvious from the notes to these translations. In the case of texts of philosophical and historical importance, a translation ought to be accompanied by a commentary dealing with these aspects. It is not difficult to mention a translation which contains a commentary discussing in great detail all important items in the text itself:
1 Claus Vogel, On the first canto of Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita, Indo-Iranian Journal, IX No. 4 (1966), pp 266-290.
79