In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a p t e r 4 Rewriting Buddhist Medicine This chapter shifts gears from the broad analysis of norms to look more closely at how a handful of individual authors tailored their presentation of various aspects of Buddhist medicine in specific compositions. The texts under consideration in this chapter include commentaries, manuals, reference materials, and other writings that can be thought of as “Buddhist secondary sources” in the sense that they describe, reconcile, systematize, and codify the scriptural knowledge discussed in the previous chapter. Although they were not necessarily engaged in translation proper, these commentators, anthologizers, and other rewriters of Buddhist medicine were intimately involved in intralingual translation. Like those who engage in translation of any kind, they employed divergent strategies in response to shifts in patronage patterns, sociopolitical context, changing perceptions of the source culture, and other factors beyond questions of language and equivalence. Each of the authors introduced here responded as an individual to the perceived needs of his time. Nevertheless, a general historical trend emerges. In contrast to the relative stability of the translation norms for scriptures discussed in the previous chapter, a close reading of these secondary sources suggests that a shift took place between the sixth and eighth centuries in how Chinese writers approached the Indian medical knowledge that was being made available to them by the translation assemblies. Authors in the earlier period tended to try to explain Buddhist medical doctrines in terms that were more compatible with indigenous repertoires. They liberally employed metaphorical equivalents and other domesticating translation strategies and emphasized the compatibility of Indian medical thought with Chinese ideas. Following the broader trend in post-reunification China, however, discussions of Buddhist medicine from the mid-seventh century Rewriting Buddhist Medicine 97 onward became increasingly concerned with fidelity to the source context. Secondary sources on Buddhist medicine composed in this period exhibit a marked increase in familiarity with Indian medical terminology and contain technical language rarely seen in the earlier era. This chapter investigates these historical developments, focusing on how such choices dovetailed with translators’ strategies and goals as individual actors in their own social and political worlds. Early Commentaries on the Sutra of Golden Light Chinese Buddhist exegetes in the early medieval period struggled to make sense of the sheer volume of the Buddhist scriptures that were being introduced to China. In the earliest period of textual transmission, Chinese Buddhists were often unable to discriminate among the doctrinal positions of the various competing Indian schools or to reconcile their conflicting messages. As familiarity with Buddhist thought increased, making sense of these differences became a central focus. In the sixth century, exegetes such as Paramārtha (Ch. Zhendi, 499–569), Zhiyi (538–97), and Jizang (549–623) began to posit elaborate hierarchical systems that purported to show de- finitively how all Buddhist doctrines fit together. Departing from Indian commentarial tradition, these “taxonomies of teachings” (panjiao) placed the diversity of the Tripitaka within a hierarchy of truths that made sense in the Chinese context. Taxonomies based on the “three turns of the [Dharma] Wheel” (sanlun) proposed by Paramārtha and Jizang organized all scriptures into three discrete temporal phases supposedly correlating to chronological periods of the Buddha’s teaching career. In Zhiyi’s system, on the other hand, he enshrined the Flower Ornament Sutra (Huayan jing, T. 278– 279, T. 293) and Lotus Sutra as the undisputed paragons of truth, with other texts arrayed below these. During an era of political transition, such rationalizing systems attempting to unify Buddhist teachings closely mirrored initiatives to reunite the cultural and social diversity of the Chinese subcontinent under a single emperor . This connection was not lost on ambitious rulers, who frequently supported the systematizing efforts. Emperor Wu of the Liang, for example, invited Paramārtha, a Tripitaka master from western India living in Southeast Asia, to Jiankang as part of his attempt to use Buddhism to bring peace to the realm. Zhiyi, a native of Anhui, received patronage from the upper 98 chapter 4 strata of the Chen dynasty before the reunification and was specifically sought out by the rulers of the Sui as part of their efforts to consolidate their reabsorption of the South into the reconstituted empire. Likewise, Jizang, who was born in China but was of Parthian heritage, received patronage and was given multiple abbotships by the rulers of the Sui as well as by the founder of the Tang. It is not surprising...

Share