The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, Opening Remarks

Originally translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva et al with imperial largess at the Qin capital, Chang'an 401~404 CE.

This translation of the Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom differs from that of Dr. Edward Conze, my teacher at the University of Washington and the University of California at Berkeley, as follows: the source is a single text written in Chinese whereas Dr. Conze created a composite source text from several sources that were available to him in Sanskrit and in Tibetan. He did compare this to ancient Chinese sources with the help of others who could read them. Most notably there was Étienne Lamotte who translated a large portion, about 40% in my rough estimate, of the Da zhidu lun, abbreviated DZDL, a stupendous commentary on the Large Sutra attributed to Nāgārjuna and translated by Kumārajīva at Chang’an sometime between 402~406 CE. Lamotte’s five-volume French translation with copious notes appeared from 1944~1980.

Also, the reader I normally have in mind has already been introduced to Buddhism and wants to know what Kumārajīva’s translation of the Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, a specific and well-known text, says. Half a century ago, at the time Dr. Conze translated the Large Sutra, his target audience was, I think, teachers, students and others who were primarily interested in learning the main arguments of this Buddhist wisdom teaching in general.

In my bound typescript copy of The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, Revised translation, 1966, Prefatory Note to Part II, Dr. Conze wrote:

If there were even the slightest hope that each of the chief versions [of the Prajñāpāramitā], i.e. S, P and Ad,¹ might be translated in the foreseeable future, I would have stuck strictly with P [the Large Sutra]. As it is, there is no such hope. What is needed at present is to make known the contents and message of the Large Sutra in its entirety, and aware of the execrable nature of the Nepalese Mss. on which the text of P is based, I could not resist the temptation to introduce here and there the better and older readings of the other recensions.

…

Looking ahead to the year 2000, I would say that further study will have to proceed in three stages:

(1) First of all the general outlines of the argumentation of the Large Sutra must be determined, irrespective of the different versions and recensions. This is what I am trying to in this publication. [Emphasis mine.]

(2) Secondly, the literal meaning of many now obscure passages must be ascertained with the help of the Da zhidu lun [Romanization updated].

And only then it would (3) be necessary and useful to scrutinize the many versions and recensions of the Large Sutra, to note their differences as well as their agreements, and to try to work out their mutual inter-relations. To attempt such a detailed study already now would be to put the cart before the horse.

…

Sherborne, Dorset 1963

Item (2) on the list above, “the literal meaning of many now obscure passages must be ascertained with the help of the Da zhidu lun” is exactly what I am working toward in this publication. Translating from Chinese, I am able to keep an eye on the DZDL commentary as I translate, and I can key my translation to it. By seeing how a line, often with ellipses, is going to be treated in the commentary, I can adjust my choice of English words and grammar so that they make better sense within its context, thereby facilitating to some degree an eventual translation of the commentary. And of course my interpretation of the Large Sutra text has been and will continue to be informed by the DZDL, a specific goal that Dr. Conze laid before a few of us students who were studying classical and Buddhist Chinese in 1966 at the University of Washington in Seattle, some fifty-five years ago.

Finally, I may be paying somewhat more attention to how easy it is to read the sutra aloud or more precisely to chant it aloud. Dr. Conze wished to render the argument intelligible based on putting together a source text from the best Sanskrit and Tibetan sources available to him; I hope to reproduce more or less literally in English a single, coherent source text of the Large Sutra. Testing the ‘chantability’ of the text as part of the translation process stems from a consideration of the proliferation of English speaking Buddhists over the past half century, a development in which Dr. Conze played a significant role. It’s not only a small coterie of scholars in the universities and early Western adopters anymore.

1. Ś→ Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: i.e., the PP in 100,000 lines.
P→ Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: i.e., the PP in 25,000 lines. (What we call the Large Sutra or the Panca/Pañca, the sutra I’m translating now.)
Ad→ Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: i.e., the PP in 18,000 lines.