A Study Of Chinese Versions From Diamond Sutra (Part Ⅰ)

In this paper we select the quadruplet different Chinese versions of Diamond Sutra from Kumarajiva(YaoQin Dynasty),Gupta(Sui Dynasty)and XuanZang(Tang Dynasty) as research objects,compare the translations with the original Sanskrit Diamond Sutra word for word.After analyze the Sanskrit and Chinese versions from four angles:composition of exotic words,exegesis of words,grammatical Problems and features of Translation,some language phenomenons are investigated.Hope the results of this study can be a further study of language research of Diamond Sutra.We summed up the composition of exotic words in Chinese versions of Diamond Sutra.Although their tastes differ as regards translation,free translation is still the predominant way to translate exotic words.For an exotic word,its free translated name is often more popular than the transliterated one.One would say that Chinese language is a language of monosyllabic morpheme,Those monosyllabic morphemes are have excellent ability of word formation.meanwhile, as a pronunciation unit,monosyllabic morpheme does not fit to pronounce a long transliterated word.Therefore free translation is more forgivable than transliteration.We proposed our own point of view on the explanation problems of the original Sanskrit Diamond Sutra.In conjunction with the other three Chinese versions,we found out that in the three Chinese versions we discussed,parts of explanation are not proper,parts of explanation are against the original.We consider that translation should be bring out the pragmatic meaning of the original text,it could neither interpret the meaning of a word or sentence superficially,nor contradicted itself,nor follow in the footsteps of one's predecessors.By our careful observation of the original Sanskrit Diamond Sutra,we point out and correct some wrong explanations in Diamond Sutra rendered into modern Chinese(Jingangjin Jinyi) and A Chinese Grand Dictionary (Hanyu Da Cidian).We are just discover some problems,and contribute to the solutions to those problems.Sanskrit and Chinese are two totally different languages.In the process from one language into another,obviously,Buddhist Scripture will subject to the double restriction of the two languages.On the one hand,it must translation true to the original,the teachings of the original must not be violated.on the other hand,it must weigh its words,convert the original language into the reader's own language in an unified way.This systematization is based on the corresponding relationship between Buddhist Scripture's lexicon & grammar and Sanskrit lexicon & grammar.We discovered some corresponding grammar-mark in Diamond Sutra,also revealed some special grammatical phenomenon,and setted up our own opinion to the deficiency of the relevant studies. of predecessors.The three Chinese versions of Diamond Sutra,which this paper studies,are in various styles.Each of them has its individual characteristics and its weaknesses.The above problems are detailedly discussed in this paper.Generally speaking,in order to suit his work to the YaoQin people,Kumarajiva learned to speak plain.His work is a little bit more easy to follow,but caused a lot of omission,spoiled the unity of the original content.His "Faithful translation"is just an intelligible one.Gupta's Chinese Diamond Sutra is the original Sanskrit Diamond Sutra all over again.From beginning to end,it all base on the principle of "word-for-word translation" and make sure a corresponding relationship between every word & sentence is established.His translation is a faithful one for sure,but this "Faithful translation" is at the expense of acceptability (smoothness).XuanZang translated the sutra with complete fidelity,his translation is basically true to the original.But he take the sutra too much for interpreted by adding sentences in his own.He also adapt and deduct directly.This phenomenon, we call it "exceeding the proper limits in righting a wrong",is the mishap in XuanZang's Chinese Diamond Sutra.His "Faithful translation" is also not faithful enough to the original in the proper sense,it's seems as if his work is an exceeding one.