Comments on: Dunhuang and the ‘new’ schools http://earlytibet.com/2008/02/08/dunhuang-and-the-new-schools/ Notes, thoughts and fragments of research on the history of Tibet Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:21:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: earlytibet http://earlytibet.com/2008/02/08/dunhuang-and-the-new-schools/#comment-619 earlytibet Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:57:32 +0000 http://earlytibet.wordpress.com/?p=145#comment-619 In most cases the new translations were of tantras not previously known in Tibet. The case of the <i>Guhyasāmaja</i> is interesting. The need for the new translation may have been due to a number of factors, including: (i) A general distrust of the existening tantric lineages in Tibet, and the wish to find genuine Indian sources for tantric translations. (ii) The fact that the two centuries of so that had intervened between the 'early' and 'later' translation period, much had changed in India, and the Sanskrit manuscripts acquired by the 'new' translators might be quite different from those that were used as a basis for the 'old' translation. (iii) In the case of the <i>Guhyasāmaja</i> in particular, a new chapter, the <i>Uttaratantra</i>, was added to the tantra, and required an entirely new translation. As for why the original translators were not credited in the case of the <i>Guhyasamāja</i>, we might speculate that this was also due to the distruct of the 'old' tantric translations, especially among the Rinchen Zangpo's sponsors. We need not blame the 'new' translators. The names of the original translators may not have been known to them. Colophons change over the years of transmission as well, so the original translator's names may have been there once, and only later been lost. For further reading I recommend Ronald Davidson's <i>Tibetan Rennaissance</i>, especially chapter 4. In most cases the new translations were of tantras not previously known in Tibet. The case of the Guhyasāmaja is interesting. The need for the new translation may have been due to a number of factors, including:

(i) A general distrust of the existening tantric lineages in Tibet, and the wish to find genuine Indian sources for tantric translations.
(ii) The fact that the two centuries of so that had intervened between the ‘early’ and ‘later’ translation period, much had changed in India, and the Sanskrit manuscripts acquired by the ‘new’ translators might be quite different from those that were used as a basis for the ‘old’ translation.
(iii) In the case of the Guhyasāmaja in particular, a new chapter, the Uttaratantra, was added to the tantra, and required an entirely new translation.

As for why the original translators were not credited in the case of the Guhyasamāja, we might speculate that this was also due to the distruct of the ‘old’ tantric translations, especially among the Rinchen Zangpo’s sponsors. We need not blame the ‘new’ translators. The names of the original translators may not have been known to them. Colophons change over the years of transmission as well, so the original translator’s names may have been there once, and only later been lost.

For further reading I recommend Ronald Davidson’s Tibetan Rennaissance, especially chapter 4.

]]> By: Cheryl http://earlytibet.com/2008/02/08/dunhuang-and-the-new-schools/#comment-597 Cheryl Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:32:40 +0000 http://earlytibet.wordpress.com/?p=145#comment-597 >but the similarities between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ translation >shows that the later translators were quite aware of the >previous version, and relied on it when they made their new >translation. Hello, I have a question re: 'their new translation". What, in your estimation, prompted the "need" for a new translation? On what basis was such an activity undertaken do you think? >but the similarities between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ translation >shows that the later translators were quite aware of the >previous version, and relied on it when they made their new >translation.

Hello,
I have a question re: ‘their new translation”. What, in your estimation, prompted the “need” for a new translation? On what basis was such an activity undertaken do you think?

]]>