Translation as Pedagogy: Dharmagupta’s Didactic Rendering of the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā-Prajñāpāramitā-Sūtra) and Sanskrit Instruction in the Sui–Tang Period

Abstract

The Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā-Prajñāpāramitā-Sūtra) translated by the Sui Dynasty monk Dharmagupta is the fourth Chinese rendition of the Diamond Sutra. Characterized by unprecedented linguistic opacity and syntactic complexity within the history of Buddhist textual transmission, this translation’s distinctive features have attracted significant scholarly attention. This study synthesizes existing academic perspectives and employs Sanskrit–Chinese textual criticism and comparative analysis of parallel translations to conduct a granular examination of Dharmagupta’s retranslation. Our findings reveal that this text fundamentally deviates from conventional sutras designed for religious dissemination or liturgical recitation. Its defining traits, including morphological calquing of Sanskrit structures, simplified pronominal systems, and etymologically prioritized equivalence, collectively reflect a pedagogical focus characteristic of language instructional texts. Dharmagupta’s approach epitomizes a translation-as-pedagogy paradigm, with the text’s deviations from conventional norms resulting from the interplay of religious development, historical context, and translator agency. We argue that the Diamond Sutra retranslation constitutes a radical experimental paradigm in translation history, warranting re-evaluation of its significance within the broader trajectory of Buddhist textual practice.

1. Introduction

The Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā-Prajñāpāramitā-Sūtra), originating in India between the second and first centuries BC, holds a significant position within the Mahāyāna Buddhist canon. This seminal text underwent six Chinese translations by prominent scholar-monks: (1) “Jingang bore boluo mijing 金剛般若波羅蜜經” (Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, Yao Qin Dynasty, 402 AD); (2) “Jingang bore boluo mijing 金剛般若波羅蜜經” (Bodhiruci 菩提流支, Northern Wei Dynasty, 509 AD); (3) “Jingang bore boluo mijing 金剛般若波羅蜜經” (Paramārtha 真諦, Chen Dynasty, 562 AD); (4) “Jingang nengduan bore boluo mijing 金剛能斷般若波羅蜜經” (Dharmagupta 達摩笈多, Sui Dynasty, 605–617 AD); (5) “Nengduan jingang bore boluo miduo jing 能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經” (Xuanzang 玄奘, Tang Dynasty, 648 AD); and (6) “Nengduan jingang bore boluo miduo jing 能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經” (Yijing 義淨, Tang Dynasty, 703 AD).

Among the six extant parallel Chinese translations of the Diamond Sutra, Dharmagupta’s version stands as the most anomalous rendition. Characterized by linguistic opacity, his translation poses significant interpretive challenges owing to its use of atypical terminology and sentence structures that deviate from standard Chinese grammatical patterns. This intentional break from standard Chinese language norms creates textual features that are fundamentally different from other Chinese versions of the sutra. This is illustrated by the following example:

【Sanskrit】atha khalu bhagavān pūrvāhṇakālasamaye nivāsya pātracīvaram ādāyaśrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya prāvikṣat|1

【Kumārajīva】爾時, 世尊食時, 著衣持缽, 入舍衛大城乞食。

【Bodhiruci】爾時, 世尊食時, 著衣持缽, 入舍婆提大城乞食。

【Paramārtha】爾時, 世尊於日前分, 著衣持缽, 入舍衛大國而行乞食。

【Dharmagupta】爾時, 世尊前分、時, 上裙著已, 器上給衣持, 聞者大城搏為入。

【Xuanzang】爾時, 世尊于日初分, 整理裳服, 執持衣缽, 入室羅筏大城乞食。

【Yijing】爾時, 世尊于日初分時, 著衣持缽, 入城乞食。

【English】 Then Bhagavat having in the forenoon put on his undergarment, and having taken his bowl and cloak, entered the great city of Śrāvastī to collect alms.

The comparative analysis of these six Chinese translations reveals Dharmagupta’s version as a distinct outlier. Whereas the other five renditions exhibit fluent and idiomatic Chinese expressions conforming to Chinese linguistic norms, Dharmagupta’s version is marred by terminological opaqueness and syntactic dislocations, rendering it difficult to comprehend and interpret. This linguistic peculiarity remained even with three prior authoritative translations (Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, Bodhiruci 菩提流支, and Paramārtha 真諦) available during Dharmagupta’s retranslation. The translation’s deficiency becomes particularly evident when evaluated against Fu Yan’s tripartite translation principle of 信、達、雅 (faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance)—a theoretical framework that remains foundational in Chinese translation studies (X. Wang 2007). This perceived translational incompetence has sparked historical criticism within the Buddhist intellectual tradition. For example, Zhixu 智旭 of the Ming Dynasty offered a scathing assessment of Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra in his “Yuezangzhijin 閱藏知津”: “金剛能斷般若波羅密經 (一卷) , 隋南天竺沙門達摩笈多譯, 文拙甚 (The Diamond Sutra [1 fascicle], translated by Dharmagupta of South India during the Sui Dynasty, displays an extremely crude literary style)”. Such critiques reflect enduring scholarly perplexity regarding Dharmagupta’s apparent deviation from established translational norms.

As a principal figure among the “Three Great Masters of Kaihuang 開皇三大士” during the Sui Dynasty, Dharmagupta directed two imperial translation bureaus: Tai Hing Temple 大興善寺 in Xi’an and Shanglin Garden 上林園 in Luoyang. His documented expertise in Buddhist translation is evidenced by historical records such as the “Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳”, which praises his works as “文義澄潔, 華質顯暢 (doctrinally lucid with balanced literary refinement)” and “義理允正, 稱經微旨 (exegetically precise in conveying subtle sutra meanings)”. Despite documented translation competence evidenced by his other translations, Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra exhibits deliberate linguistic deviations rather than accidental flaws. Here are two examples:

爾時, 曼殊室利法王子, 承佛威神, 即從座起, 偏露一髆, 右膝著地, 向婆伽婆合掌曲躬白言: “世尊! 唯願演說諸佛名號及本昔所發殊勝大願, 令眾生聞已, 業障消除, 攝受來世正法壞時諸眾生故。” (達摩笈多譯《藥師如來本願經》) 

At that time, the Dharma Prince Mañjuśrī, relying upon the Buddha’s majestic spiritual power, rose from his seat. Exposing his right shoulder and kneeling with his right knee on the ground, he bowed with joined palms toward the Bhagavān and respectfully said: “World-Honored One, I respectfully request that you expound the names of the Buddhas and the sublime vows they made in the past. May sentient beings, upon hearing them, have their karmic obstructions eliminated, and be embraced in future lives—especially in the age when the True Dharma is in decline. (Dharmagupta’s translation of Bhaiṣajyaguru-Vaidūrya-Prabharāja-Sūtra, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 14, Text No. 449)

世尊聞已, 其日晡時出於禪定, 從迦利囉窟中而起, 行詣堂上。到堂上已, 在諸比丘大眾之前, 依常敷座, 儼然端坐 (達摩笈多譯《起世因本經》) 

Having heard [the preceding], the World-Honored One, in the late afternoon of that very day, arose from his meditative absorption and emerged from the Kareri-kutikā. He proceeded to the assembly hall, and upon arrival, he arranged his seat as usual, and solemnly sat upright before the great gathering of bhikṣus. (Qishi yinben jing, translated by Dharmagupta from a lost Sanskrit text, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 1, Text No. 25)

It is thus evident that Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the Diamond Sutra diverges significantly from both extant Chinese versions of the text and his own translations of other Buddhist scriptures. Its linguistically opaque rendering compromises textual accessibility, thereby impeding the religious reception and dissemination of this canonical work. This apparent paradox compels us to interrogate the translator’s strategic rationale: what pedagogical or institutional motivations might have driven a respected Sui-era translation authority like Dharmagupta to deliberately compromise textual fluency in this specific retranslation project?

This paper aims to elucidate the correlation among the formation of the distinctive linguistic features in Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra, the nature of the translated text, and its intended purpose. Through a review of existing scholarship and an analysis of the linguistic evidence within the translated scripture, this study demonstrates that Dharmagupta’s version exhibits calqued Sanskrit lexical structures, a simplified pronominal system, and an emphasis on etymological correspondence—features that align with the characteristics of a textbook for language learning and reflect adherence to the comprehensible input principle in second language acquisition. Consequently, it is proposed that this version functioned not as a conventional translated scripture intended for religious dissemination or liturgical recitation but rather as a pedagogical tool employed within the translation bureau context to assist monastics in learning Sanskrit or Chinese.

Furthermore, by examining historical evidence and analyzing the interplay between translator agency and sociocultural factors, this study contends that the emergence of this translation-based pedagogical text reflects Dharmagupta’s sophisticated awareness of language pedagogy and his commitment to translator training. Situated within the broader context of the prevalent enthusiasm for foreign language learning during the Sui–Tang period, the Diamond Sutra in this form exemplifies a deliberate paradigm shift toward “translation as pedagogy”.

2. Textual Nature of Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra Translation

The textual peculiarities of Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra translation have attracted sustained scholarly attention. Studies by Hajime Nakamura 中村元 (Nakamura and Kino 1960), Haiyan Hu 胡海燕 (Hu 1985), Stefano Zacchetti (Zacchetti 1996), Shufen Chen 陳淑芬 (S. Chen 2006), Qingzhi Zhu 朱慶之 (Zhu 2006), and Jihong Wang 王繼紅 (J. Wang 2020) have laid critical groundwork for understanding this textual anomaly. Contemporary scholarship converges upon three principal explanatory paradigms.

2.1. The Literal Translation Hypothesis

One strand of explanation centers on translation methodology, proposing that Dharmagupta’s rendition of the Diamond Sutra represents a highly literal translation. Japanese Buddhologist Hajime Nakamura, in his annotated edition of “Bore xinjing · Jingang borejing 般若心經·金剛般若經”, categorizes this version as a “逐字譯 (literal translation)”, sometimes referred to as the “zhiben 直本, word-for-word translation”. He observes that the text follows the Sanskrit word order with remarkable fidelity, replacing each lexical unit sequentially with a Chinese equivalent. This mechanical substitution, however, results in a text that is largely unintelligible when read linearly in Chinese. Nonetheless, Nakamura also notes that Dharmagupta’s later translation of Vasubandhu’s “Jingang bore boluomi jing lun 金剛般若波羅蜜經論” displays considerable fluency, suggesting a shift toward deliberate stylistic adaptation and increased control over Chinese syntax.2

Another Japanese scholar Kōun Kajiyoshi 梶芳光運 contextualizes this literalist approach within Dharmagupta’s translational development. He argues that the Diamond Sutra reflects Dharmagupta’s early-stage work, undertaken when his command of Chinese was still limited. In contrast, his later translation of “Jingang bore lun 金剛般若論” demonstrates linguistic sophistication, indicating that the earlier literalism was likely due to initial linguistic constraints rather than methodological preference.3 This perspective aligns with Max Müller’s (1881) assessment (p. 15), in which he remarks that Dharmagupta’s version, the fourth Chinese translation, was so literal and mot-à-mot that it would have been unintelligible to a Chinese reader without direct reference to the Sanskrit original.

S. Chen (2006, pp. 287–303) similarly contends that Dharmagupta employed a literal translation strategy by mapping Sanskrit inflectional endings directly onto Chinese characters. Given that Chinese characters inherently encode lexical meaning rather than function as bound morphemes, as in the case of Sanskrit, the resulting translation yields a form that is syntactically awkward and semantically opaque, rendering it difficult to interpret. This interpretation is echoed by Xie (2011) and Han (2001).

2.2. The Unfinished Translation Hypothesis

Another alternative perspective evaluates the text through the lens of translation process, positing that Dharmagupta’s rendition constitutes a procedurally incomplete product. Hu (1985) pioneered this hypothesis by conducting a meticulous word-for-word comparison between the Chinese translation and its Sanskrit source. Hu (1985, p. 16) argues that Dharmagupta mechanically followed Sanskrit word order without syntactic adaptation, a method fundamentally misaligned with Chinese linguistic conventions. In reality, this text constitutes merely a preliminary draft, having completed only the initial phases of medieval translation procedures. At most, it reached the 筆受 (verbatim transcription) stage, lacking subsequent editorial processes like 綴文 (stylistic integration) essential for producing a polished Chinese rendition.

Zacchetti (1996, p. 150) supports this view through codicological analysis, arguing that the apparent “systematicity” in the rendering of Sanskrit affixes, often mistaken for deliberate design, actually reflects the procedural incompleteness of the translation process. Drawing on Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu 開元釋教録, which records documenting “不暇重修, 未及練覆 (inadequate revision and unpolished finalization)” and situating this within the translation protocols of the Sui–Tang era workshop, Zacchetti hypothesizes that the translation was abruptly terminated at the 筆受 (verbatim transcription) stage.

2.3. The Pedagogical Textbook and Bilingual Lexicon Hypothesis

A third line of interpretation, distinct from the dominant views that treat Dharmagupta’s version as a religious scripture, has been advanced by Zhu (2006), who reconceptualizes the text as a language textbook rather than a liturgical translation. Zhu (2006, p. 10) posits that a retranslation of a Buddhist scripture should ideally build upon previous versions by offering substantive improvements or supplements, and furthermore, it should meet the functional requirement of being recitable by monastics. Dharmagupta’s version, however, satisfies neither of these criteria, thus calling into question its classification as a conventional translated scripture. Instead, Zhu suggests that the text may have been intended as a pedagogical aid: either for Chinese learners seeking to understand Sanskrit or for Central Asian monks acquiring Chinese.

He further notes that the translation offers insights into how learners at the time approached Sanskrit acquisition. The verbatim semantic transcription of a foreign language through native linguistic annotations remains foundational in early-stage language acquisition. Moreover, Dharmagupta’s systematic rendering of both lexical and grammatical elements of Sanskrit into Chinese was not arbitrary but likely informed by the sophisticated grammatical and etymological traditions of Indian linguistics dating back to Pāṇini. This method, Zhu (2006, pp. 10–11) contends, had the effect of transmitting knowledge of Sanskrit syntax and morphology to Chinese readers. Finally, the text also serves as a valuable repository of translation strategies and accumulated linguistic experience developed over four centuries of Buddhist translation practice, from the Eastern Han through the Sui Dynasty.

J. Wang (2020, pp. 42–53) concurs with the view that Dharmagupta’s translation transcends conventional scriptural categorization and further refines the argument by reconceptualizing Dharmagupta’s version as a bilingual lexicon designed for parallel consultation with its Sanskrit source. Through multilayered analysis, she identifies four definitive characteristics aligning the text with glossary functions. According to her, Dharmagupta’s translation systematically renders both content words and function words through their etymological semantics, focusing on guiding users in “how to express” rather than “what it signifies”. Dharmagupta’s version employs equivalence-oriented translation methods that prioritize isomorphic lexical correspondence between Sanskrit and Chinese terms over explanatory adaptation, while eschewing phonetic transliterations almost entirely.

2.4. The Present Study’s Viewpoint

The central disagreement between the Pedagogical Textbook and Bilingual Lexicon Hypothesis and the first two positions lies in a fundamental question: was Dharmagupta’s text a Buddhist scripture intended for doctrinal transmission through ritual recitation or a pedagogical tool devised in Tang-era monasteries to train monks in bilingual textual analysis?

This study contends that Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra translation served not as a canonical scripture but rather as a language-learning aid, designed for parallel use with Sanskrit manuscripts in translation workshops. Nevertheless, the pedagogical features of this version, along with its underlying translation ideologies and instructional motivations, remain areas that warrant further scholarly investigation. Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the sutra adopts a rigid “dead translation (死譯)” strategy that exceeds “literal translation (直譯)”, ultimately compromising its liturgical recitability and doctrinal communicability. This approach stands in stark contrast to the two cardinal principles that traditionally govern Buddhist scripture translation: fidelity to the source text and fluency for oral recitation.

The Comprehensive Dictionary of Chinese Translation Studies (Fang 2019) 中國譯學大辭典defines “dead translation” as a translation method involving rigid word-for-word substitution, often yielding in semantically inaccurate, grammatically aberrant, or stylistically convoluted results, whereas it defines “literal translation” as a fidelity-oriented approach preserving source-text form and content while adhering to target-language morphosyntactic conventions. There is a crucial distinction between “literal translation” and “dead translation”. Literal translation does not mean mechanically replacing every source-language word, and it maintains fidelity to the original while ensuring fluency. In contrast, Dharmagupta’s rendition of the Diamond Sutra clearly aligns with “dead translation”.

Chinese scholar Z. Zhou ([1925] 2020, p. 1635), in the preface to his translation of Tuoluo 陀螺, critiques overly literal translation practices by referencing Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra as a historical example. He likens the English phrase “lying on his back” being rendered as “臥著在他的背上” to what he calls a case of “dead translation (死譯)”. Zhou further observes that such flawed practices had already emerged during early Buddhist translation efforts. For instance, he cites Dharmagupta’s rendition of the line “與大比丘眾二百五十人俱 (with two hundred and fifty great bhikṣus)” as “大比丘眾共半三十比丘百 (Gathering of the Great Bhikṣus, half-thirty bhikṣus hundred)”, observing that while such phrasing may be grammatically acceptable in Sanskrit, it becomes syntactically awkward and unnatural in Chinese unless adapted appropriately.

Moreover, the peculiar language of Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra translation should not be attributed to the translator’s incompetence—his other translated scriptures fully conform to the standards of faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance and exhibit no further traits of “dead translation”. This paradox necessitates a functional reevaluation: classifying this text as a religious scripture contradicts its inherent unreadability and counter-disseminative nature as it fails to fulfill the core purposes of Buddhist texts—liturgical recitation and doctrinal circulation. Therefore, a re-evaluation of the Dharmagupta translation’s function is necessary. The deliberate preservation of its “unreadability” implies a latent pedagogical agenda. As Zhu (2006) and J. Wang (2020) posit, this text likely served a pragmatic role in Sui–Tang translation academies—not as a ritual scripture but as a bilingual textbook or reference manual for training monks in Sanskrit–Chinese translation techniques.

3. The Pedagogical Features in the Diamond Sutra by Dharmagupta: A Textual Analysis

A comparative analysis of the Sanskrit and Chinese texts reveals that Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra exhibits several distinctive linguistic features characteristic of a grammatical primer, achieved through the following strategies.

3.1. Morphological Calquing: Replicating Sanskrit Lexical Structures

Dharmagupta adopted a strategy of morphological imitation to mirror the derivational structure of Sanskrit. This was achieved through semantic matching, using Chinese morphemes corresponding to Sanskrit roots or stems, and grammatical mapping, in which Chinese functional particles were used to approximate Sanskrit inflectional suffixes, thereby artificially reconstructing the “stem + suffix” morphology characteristic of Sanskrit. This translation strategy transcended the typological differences between Chinese and Sanskrit and effectively illustrated the grammatical architecture of the source language. For example,

(1)	dharma-to		Buddhas			draṣṭavyo
	Dharmato		Buddhas			draṣṭavyo
	m.sg.Ab.		m.sg.N.			fpp.m.sg.N
	law-body		Buddha			be seen (known)
	【Sanskrit】dharma-to		Buddhas			draṣṭavyo
	【English】A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law.
	【Dharmagupta】	fati	法體	Fo	佛	jianying	見應
	【Xuanzang】	faxing	法性	Fo	佛	yingguan	應觀

The Sanskrit word draṣṭavyo is a future passive participle, also known as a gerundive, indicating the meaning “that which is to be seen” or “should be seen”. It is derived from the root Skt. √dṛś (“to see”), with the stem Skt. draṣ- expressing the lexical meaning and the suffix Skt. -tavya” encoding the grammatical meaning of obligation or necessity. Dharmagupta mirrored this structure in his Chinese translation by calquing the morphological components: he used the morpheme “見 (to see)” to render the root Skt. draṣ- and “應 (should)” to render the participial suffix Skt. -tavya. The suffix-positioned “應” after “見” artificially reconstructs the Sanskrit “stem + suffix” structure, yielding the unidiomatic Chinese sequence “見應 (should observe)”, whereas idiomatic Chinese would place the modal before the verb, as in Xuanzang’s translation “應觀 (should observe)”.

Zacchetti (1996, p. 149) noted that “應 ying”, “當 dang”, “中 zhong”, “過 guo”, and “邊 bian” all exhibit this characteristic, stating, “Besides the features listed above (those which occur frequently), no other ‘suffixes’ or ‘endings’ can actually be detected in JGNDJ. This suggests that Dharmagupta is very unlikely to have had the intention of systematically representing Sanskrit morphology in Chinese.”

However, this claim does not hold. S. Chen (2006) discovered that “等 deng” and “已 yi” also follow the same pattern. Furthermore, this study identifies that Dharmagupta additionally used “者zhe” to calque case endings of Sanskrit nouns, participles, or infinitives, employing the formulaic structure “Chinese morpheme + 者” to replicate Sanskrit morphological constructions. For example, he translated Skt. arhan as “應者 yingzhe”, whereas other translators typically adopted a phonetic transcription, rendering it as “阿羅漢 a luo han”.

(2)

【Sanskrit】subhūtirāha|no hīdaṃ bhagavan|nārhata evaṃ bhavati| 【Kumārajīva】須菩提言:  “不也, 世尊! 何以故? 實無有法名阿羅漢。” 【Bodhiruci】須菩提言:  “不也, 世尊! 何以故? 實無有法名阿羅漢。” 【Paramārtha】須菩提言:  “不能, 世尊! 何以故! 實無所有名阿羅漢。” 【Dharmagupta】善實言:  “不如此, 世尊! 彼何所因? 不彼世尊有法若應名, 彼故說名應者。” 【Xuanzang】善現答言:  “不也, 世尊! 諸阿羅漢不作是念: 我能證得阿羅漢性。何以故? 世尊! 以無少法名阿羅漢, 由是因緣名阿羅漢。” 【Yijing】妙生言:  “不爾, 世尊。由彼無有少法名阿羅漢。” 【English】Subhūti said: “Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise.

The Sanskrit term Skt. arhan,4 phonetically transcribed into Chinese as “a luo han 阿羅漢”, is defined in Ding Fubao’s 丁福寶 Buddhist Dictionary 佛學大詞典as “小乘極悟之位名 the highest realized state in Theravāda Buddhism”. Derived from the verbal root Skt. √arh—which carries the core meaning of “ought to/deserves to”—Skt. arhat thus finds one of its semantic translations as “應供 (one worthy of offerings)”, designating those who merit veneration and worship from both humans and celestial beings. Grammatically, Skt. arhan is the present participle form of Skt. √arh, and in Sanskrit, participles function as nouns and inflect for gender, number, and case.

Among the six extant Chinese translations of the Diamond Sutra, only Dharmagupta’s rendition employs the calqued form “應者” for Skt. arhan, rather than adopting the phonetic transliteration “阿羅漢”. The morpheme “應” corresponds to the participial stem Skt. arhat, and “者” functions as a semantic counterpart to the masculine singular nominative case ending.

Another example is the translation of Skt. āyuṣmān, which likewise mirrors the morphological structure of the Sanskrit original. For instance,

(3)

【Sanskrit】tena khalu punaḥ samayenāyuṣmān subhutis tasyām eva parṣadi saṃnipatito ’bhūt saṃniṣaṇṇaḥ|atha khalv āyuṣmān subhūtir utthāyāsanādekāṃsam uttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvādakṣiṇaṃ jānumaṇḍalaṃ pṛthivyām pratiṣṭhāpyayena bhagavāṃs tenāñjaliṃ praṇamyabhagavantam etad avocat| 【Kumārajīva】時, 長老須菩提在大眾中, 即從座起, 偏袒右肩, 右膝著地, 合掌恭敬, 而白佛言。 【Bodhiruci】爾時, 慧命須菩提在大眾中, 即從座起, 偏袒右肩, 右膝著地, 向佛合掌, 恭敬而立, 白佛言。 【Paramārtha】爾時, 淨命須菩提於大眾中共坐聚集, 時, 淨命須菩提即從座起, 偏袒右肩, 頂禮佛足, 右膝著地, 向佛合掌, 而白佛言。 【Dharmagupta】複時, 命者善實彼所如是眾聚集會坐, 爾時, 命者善實起坐, 一肩上著作已, 右膝輪地著已, 若世尊彼合掌, 向世尊邊如是言。 【Xuanzang】具壽善現亦於如是眾會中坐, 爾時, 眾中具壽善現從座而起, 偏袒一肩, 右膝著地, 合掌恭敬, 而白佛言。 【Yijing】爾時, 具壽妙生在大眾中, 承佛神力, 即從座起, 偏袒右肩, 右膝著地, 合掌恭敬, 白佛言。 【English】At that time again the venerable Subhūti came to that assembly and sat down. Then rising from his seat and putting his robe over one shoulder, kneeling on the earth with his right knee, he stretched out his folded hands towards Bhagavat and said to him.

The Sanskrit adjective Skt. āyuṣmān5 is formed by combining the nominal root Skt. āyuṣ (lifespan) and the suffix Skt. -mat (possessing). In different Chinese Buddhist translations, Skt. āyuṣmān was translated as “長老zhanglao”, “慧命huiming”, “淨命jingming”, and “具壽jushou”. In contrast, Dharmagupta applies the Chinese morpheme “命” to translate the meaning of the Skt. āyuṣ and employing the Chinese particle “者”, a nominalizer functionally analogous to the Sanskrit suffix Skt. -mat, replicates the term’s nominalization. By placing “者” after “命”, Dharmagupta syntactically mirrored the position of the masculine singular nominative suffix, thereby replicating the morphological structure of the Sanskrit term. The renderings “應者 yingzhe” and “命者 mingzhe” exemplify a calquing strategy in which semantically equivalent Chinese morphemes are used to translate the lexical meaning of Sanskrit roots, while functionally equivalent grammatical morphemes are postposed to mimic Sanskrit case endings.

Both S. Chen (2006) and the findings of this study demonstrate that Dharmagupta’s treatment of suffixes exhibits a discernible and rule-governed regularity. Given the fundamental typological divergence between Sanskrit and Chinese, Dharmagupta’s translation strategy was inherently pedagogical, aimed at facilitating language acquisition rather than achieving strict equivalence. Within this instructional functional framework, the preserved “suffix” structures possess high perceptibility and didactic value. For instance, “者” explicitly marks nominalization, and “當” signals Sanskrit gerundives. These function as explicit metalinguistic cues that scaffold beginners’ comprehension of Sanskrit morphology. Such pedagogically designed systematicity, centered on recurrent, functionally transparent markers, stands in direct contrast to Zacchetti’s (1996) claim of unsystematic representation.

As J. Wang (2020, p. 51) argues, this approach vividly reflects the morphological correspondence of grammatical categories by “realizing grammatical equivalence through lexical means.” By replicating the structural composition of Sanskrit words, such translations make the semantic and grammatical components of Sanskrit vocabulary more transparent. Zhu (2006) further emphasizes that such strategies disseminated knowledge of Sanskrit syntax and word formation to Chinese monastics, thereby enhancing the reader’s comprehension and application of both the Diamond Sutra and the underlying Sanskrit lexical and grammatical systems.

3.2. Pronominal Simplification: Enhancing Learnability Through Controlled Input

First, in terms of types of personal pronouns, the Diamond Sutra exhibits an underdeveloped pronominal system, with relatively simplified equivalents for Sanskrit terms. Specifically, the use of first-, second-, and third-person pronouns is extremely limited: only “我 wo” for the first person, “汝 ru” for the second person, and “彼 bi” for the third person appear in the text.

However, this minimalist pronominal system contrasts sharply with Dharmagupta’s typical linguistic style. As can be seen in

Table 1. Pronominal usage in Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra and other Sutra translations.

	Dharmagupta Commentary (Excluding Diamond Sutra)		Translation of the Diamond Sutra by Dharmagupta
	Singular Nouns	Plural Nouns	Singular Nouns	Plural Nouns
First-person pronouns	wu 吾 wo 我	wo 我 wu deng 吾等 wo deng 我等 wo bei 我輩 wo deng bei 我等輩	wo 我	wo 我
Second-person pronouns	er 爾 ru 汝	ru deng 汝等 ru bei 汝輩 ru deng bei 汝等輩 ren bei 仁輩 ren zhe 仁者 ren zhe bei 仁者輩	ru 汝	ru deng 汝等
Third-person pronouns	bi 彼 qi 其 zhi 之	bi 彼 bi deng 彼等 qi 其 zhi 知	bi 彼	bi 彼 bi deng 彼等

, in his other eight translated sutras, the first-person singular pronouns include both “吾 wu” and “我 wo”. The second-person singular pronouns are more varied, featuring both neutral and honorific forms (e.g., “汝 ru” and “仁者 renzhe”), and the third-person pronouns include a wider range such as “彼 bi”, “其 qi”, “之 zhi”, and “他 ta”.

Second, in terms of plural pronominal forms, Dharmagupta’s translation in the Diamond Sutra exhibits a near absence of marked plural pronouns and conflates singular–plural distinctions in third-person references. For instance, the third-person singular pronouns in Sanskrit vary by gender: Skt. saḥ (masculine), sā (feminine), and tat (neuter), with corresponding plurals Skt. te (masculine), tāḥ (feminine), and tāni (neuter). However, in Dharmagupta’s version, all are generally rendered as “彼”, with only a handful of instances translated as “彼等” to indicate plurality. An example follows:

(4)

【Sanskrit】bhagavān asyaitad avocat iha subhūte bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitenaivaṃ cittam utpādayitavyaṃ yāvantaḥ subhūte sattvāḥ sattvadhātau sattvasaṃgraheṇa saṃgṛhitāaṇḍajā vājarāyujā vā saṃsveda ā vaupapādukā vā rūpiṇo vārūpiṇo vā saṃjñino vāsaṃjñino vā naiva saṃjñino nāsaṃjñinovā yāvān kaścit sattvadhātuḥ prajñapyamānaḥ prajñapyate te ca mayā sarve ’nupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau parinirvāpayitavyāḥ| 【Dharmagupta】世尊於此言: 此善實菩薩乘發行, 如是心發生應: 所有善實眾生, 眾生攝, 攝已, 卵生、若胎生、若濕生、若化生, 若色、若無色, 若想、若無想, 若非想非無想, 所有眾生界施設已, 彼我一切無受餘涅槃界滅度應。 【English】Then the Bhagavat thus spoke to him: Any one, O Subhūti, who has entered here on the path of the Bodhisattvas must thus frame his thought: As many beings as there are in this world of beings, comprehended under the term of beings (either born of eggs, or from the womb, or from moisture, or miraculously), with form or without form, with name or without name, or neither with nor without name, as far as any known world of beings is known, all these must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvāna.

The Chinese demonstrative pronoun “彼” in Dharmagupta’s translation corresponds to the Skt. te, the masculine plural nominative form derived from the stem Skt. tad. It refers to the previously mentioned phrase “sattvāḥ sattvadhātau sattvasaṃgraheṇa (all sentient beings in the realm of living creatures).” Although Skt. te clearly marks plural reference, Dharmagupta renders it as “彼” instead of the expected plural form “彼等 bideng” in Chinese. This indicates that in Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra, there is no consistent one-to-one correspondence between Sanskrit third-person plural pronouns and the Chinese plural expression “彼等”.

The pronominal systems of Sanskrit and Chinese exhibit distinct typological structures and context-dependent usage patterns, creating inherent acquisition challenges for second language learners. As Stephen Krashen’s “Controlled Input” principle (1982) proposed, effective linguistic input provided should be both comprehensible to the learner and appropriately graded in difficulty. When applied to textual design, this means avoiding abrupt morphological complexity that could cause cognitive overload. Both Sanskrit and Chinese pronoun systems exhibit typological complexity and pragmatic flexibility, presenting significant learning hurdles. Consequently, language textbook design should prioritize distributed difficulty progression, advancing from simple to complex structures. Dharmagupta’s translation strategy of simplifying pronouns exemplifies this pedagogical sequencing from foundational to expanded content.

By systematically reducing morphological variations, Dharmagupta’s approach minimized learners’ memory burdens, facilitating quicker mastery of basic expressions. Such textual engineering parallels the editorial approach observed in the Korean textbook Lao Qida 老乞大, where Takashi Takekoshi (2024) documents deliberate singularization of plural pronouns and elimination of dialect-specific honorifics to construct a core vernacular more closely aligned with practical Chinese communication. Similarly, Dharmagupta’s pronominal translation tactics demonstrate that the Diamond Sutra, functioning as a language primer, adhered to the pedagogical principle of scaffolded comprehensible input from basic to advanced tiers.

3.3. Etymological Equivalence: Semantic Distortion Through Dual Mismatch

Grammar rules can be learned relatively quickly, while vocabulary acquisition demands continuous practice over an extended period. J. Wang (2020) observes that Dharmagupta often prioritized bilingual lexical equivalence over contextual interpretation to facilitate users’ quick understanding of how a word in the native language is expressed in the foreign language. Rather than offering context-specific renderings, he aimed to reflect what were considered standard or canonical equivalents between Sanskrit and Chinese. This approach enabled users to trace and learn consistent pairings between source and target language terms in Buddhist scripture translation.

The etymological meaning refers to the deeper sense underlying the surface usage of a word; it is reflected in the core semantic features of the word’s meaning. Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra translation strategically employed an etymosemantic correspondence translation approach to construct one-to-one Sanskrit–Chinese lexical equivalences, thereby facilitating foundational vocabulary acquisition through cognate transparency. Specifically, Dharmagupta consciously filters out context-specific or derived senses and selects Chinese equivalents that correspond directly to the etymological meaning of the Sanskrit term. For instance, the adverb “tatas” derives from the Sanskrit root Skt. tad (“that”) plus the suffix Skt. -tas (indicating source or origin6). The suffix “-tas” means “from that place” according to the Williams (1899). In the Diamond Sutra, one instance of Skt. tatas conveys a logical connection, equivalent to the Chinese “therefore”. Dharmagupta, however, translated it as “彼”, faithfully preserving the etymological sense of Skt. tatas (combining “that” + “place source”). For example,

(5)

【Sanskrit】yaḥ kaścit kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vāimaṃ trisāhasramahāsāhasraṃ lokadhātuṃ saptaratna paripūrṇam kṛtvā|tathāgatebhyo ‘rhadbhyaḥ samyaksaṃbuddhebhyo dānaṃ dadyāt|api nu sa kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā tato nidānaṃ bahu puṇyaskandham prasunuyāt| 【Kumārajīva】若人滿三千大千世界七寶, 以用佈施, 是人所得福德, 寧為多不?  【Bodhiruci】若滿三千大千世界七寶, 以用佈施。須菩提! 于意云何? 是善男子、善女人所得福德, 寧為多不? 【Paramārtha】若人持用佈施, 是善男子、善女人因此佈施生福多不?  【Dharmagupta】若有善家子若、善家女若, 三千大千世界七寶滿作已施與。雖然彼善家子若、善家女若, 彼緣多福聚生?  【Xuanzang】若善男子或善女人, 以此三千大千世界盛滿七寶, 奉施如來應正等覺。是善男子或善女人, 由是因緣所生福聚寧為多不?  【Yijing】若善男子、善女人, 以滿三千大千世界七寶, 持用佈施, 得福多不?  【English】If a son or daughter of a good family filled this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven gems or treasures, and gave it as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tathāgatas, would that son or daughter of a good family on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit?

This translation methodology establishes transparent etymosemantic mapping, enabling learners to reverse-engineer the derivational logic of Skt. tad-root lexemes through the semantic domain of Chinese “彼”. However, this strategy is not without its limitations. As in the case of translating Skt. tatas with “彼”, the rendering fails to convey the logical connective sense of “therefore”, thus sacrificing contextual appropriateness. When no direct etymological equivalent exists in Chinese, Dharmagupta’s approach risks introducing semantic distortions or mistranslations.

In Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the Diamond Sutra, mistranslations resulting from a strong emphasis on etymological equivalence are not uncommon. First, the mistranslation of Skt. sacet/saced resulted from misidentification of morpheme boundaries. In Sanskrit, “sacet/saced” functions as a conditional conjunction meaning “if” and is typically translated in Chinese Buddhist texts as “若ruo” introducing conditional clauses. A comprehensive survey of the Diamond Sutra’s Sanskrit text reveals 13 occurrences of Skt. sacet/saced, which in Dharmagupta’s translation are rendered as “彼” in 5 cases and “彼若” in 4 cases. In particular, the renderings “彼” and “彼若” represent translation patterns that are unique to Dharmagupta’s version. For instance,

(6)	【Sanskrit】saced bhagavan srotaāpannasyaivaṃ bhaven| 【Kumārajīva】\ 【Bodhiruci】\ 【Paramārtha】\ 【Dharmagupta】彼若世尊流入如是念…… 【Xuanzang】世尊! 若預流者作如是念…… 【Yijing】世尊! 若預流者作是念…… 【English】Buddha, if Srota-āpanna thinks so, ……

saced	bhagavan	srotaāpannasya	evaṃ	bhaven
conj.	m.sg.V.	ppp. G.	adv	opt.3.sg.P.
If	Buddha	srotaāpanna	like this	recites

Dharmagupta’s rendering of Skt. sacet as “彼若” or simply “彼” reflects an etymosemantic parsing strategy rooted in Sanskrit morphophonemics. In Sanskrit, the third-person singular pronoun Skt. sas, used for distal or generic reference, often appears as Skt. sa in sandhi contexts, where the final “s” is dropped before consonants. The conjunction Skt. cet, meaning “if”, remains invariable. Dharmagupta appears to segment Skt. sacet into Skt. sa and Skt. cet and accordingly translates Skt. sa as “彼” and Skt. cet as “若”. This compositional approach gives rise to the form “彼若” in his translation.

As a reference, this study analyzed Dharmagupta’s translation of Skt. sacet/saced in his rendition of the “Yaoshi jing (Bhaiṣajyaguru-vaidūrya-prabharāja-sūtram) 藥師經”, where he consistently renders the term as “若”, indicating his awareness that Skt. sacet/saced functions as an indivisible conditional conjunction. This contrast implies that the unusual renderings “彼若” or “彼” in the Diamond Sutra reflect a translation strategy overly driven by etymological correspondence. Such a strategy ultimately results in both semantic and grammatical distortion. Dharmagupta’s mistranslation of Skt. sacet/saced in the Diamond Sutra exemplifies a translation purpose constrained by pedagogical intent. This strategy deliberately enhances source–target lexical mapping due to the text’s use as a language-learning tool.

(7)

【Sanskrit】tat kasya hetoḥ|sacet punaḥ subhūte lakṣaṇa-saṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyo ’bhaviṣyad|rājāpi cakravartī tathāgato ’bhaviṣyat|tasmān na lakṣaṇa-saṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ| 【Kumārajīva】佛言:“須菩提! 若以三十二相觀如來者, 轉輪聖王則是如來。” 【Bodhiruci】佛言:“須菩提! 若以相成就觀如來者, 轉輪聖王應是如來。是故非以相成就得見如來。” 【Paramārtha】何以故? 若以具足相觀如來者, 轉輪聖王應是如來, 是故不以具足相應觀如來。 【Dharmagupta】彼何所因? 彼複善實, 相具足如來見應有, 彼王轉輪如來有。彼故不相具足如來見應。此相非相, 故如來見應。 【Xuanzang】善現! 若以諸相具足觀如來者, 轉輪聖王應是如來, 是故不應以諸相具足觀於如來。 【Yijing】妙生! 若以具相觀如來者, 轉輪聖王應是如來。是故不應以具相觀於如來, 應以諸相非相觀於如來。 【English】Bhagavat said: “…O Subhūti, if the Tathāgata were to be seen (known) by the possession of signs, a wheel-turning king also would be a Tathāgata.”

sacet	punaḥ	subhūte		lakṣaṇa-saṃpadā	tathāgato	draṣṭavyo	abhaviṣyad
conj.	adv.	m.sg.V.		f.sg.I.	m.sg.N	fpp.	cond.3.sg.P.
If		Subhūti		the possession of signs	Tathāgata	be seen (known)	be

According to the Monier Williams Sanskrit–English Dictionary (Williams 1899), the entry for Skt. sacet/saced confirms that Skt. saced is analyzable as a compound of Skt. sa and Skt. ced, with Skt. ced itself derived from a fusion of “ca” and “id”. The composite form Skt. sacet/saced thus integrates both the subject pronoun Skt. sa and the conditional particle Skt. ced, functioning as a conditional conjunction equivalent to “if” or “supposing that”. This compound structure reflects the original etymological logic of Sanskrit conditionals.

In Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the Diamond Sutra, characterized by a pedagogical orientation as a language-learning text, the translator systematically prioritized etymological mapping and formal equivalence between Sanskrit and Chinese. His translational norm sought to establish consistent one-to-one correspondences, enabling learners to cross-reference source-language lexemes with their target-language counterparts. Consequently, Dharmagupta adopted a strategy of uniform translation, prioritizing etymological transparency over contextual nuance. This explains why the Chinese pronoun “彼” appears with unusually broad scope in his translation—not only rendering third-person pronouns and demonstratives in Sanskrit but also translating Skt. tatas and Skt. sacet/saced. Such usages are absent from the five other major Chinese translations of the Diamond Sutra, indicating a distinctive translation purpose in Dharmagupta’s version.

Second, the mistranslation of Skt. te resulted from overgeneralization of inflectional homonymy, as illustrated in the following examples:

(8)

【Sanskrit】tat kiṃ manyase subhūte|lakṣaṇa sampadā tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddhā|na khalu punas te subhūte evaṃ draṣṭavyaṃ|tat kasya hetoh|na hi subhūte lakṣaṇa saṃpadā tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddhā syāt| 【Kumārajīva】須菩提! 汝若作是念: 如來不以具足相, 故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提, 莫作是念: 如來不以具足相故, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 【Bodhiruci】須菩提! 于意云何? 如來可以相成就, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提? 須菩提! 莫作是念: 如來以相成就, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 【Paramārtha】須菩提! 汝意云何? 如來可以具足相, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不? 須菩提! 汝今不應作如是見: 如來以具足相, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故? 須菩提! 如來不由具足相, 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 【Dharmagupta】彼何意念? 善實, 相具足如來無上正遍知證覺? 不復彼, 善實, 如是見應。彼何所因? 不, 善實, 相具足如來無上正遍知證覺。 【Xuanzang】佛告善現: 于汝意云何? 如來應正等覺以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶? 善現! 汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故? 善現! 如來應正等覺不以諸相具足現證無上正等菩提。 【Yijing】\ 【English】What do you think then, O Subhūti, has the highest perfect knowledge been known by the Tathāgata through the possession of signs? You should not think so, O Subhūti. And why? Because, O Subhūti, the highest perfect knowledge would not be known by the Tathāgata through the possession of signs.

na	khalu	punas		te	subhūte	evaṃ	draṣṭavyaṃ
adv.	indec.	adv.		pers2.m.sg.G.	m.sg.V.	adv.	fpp.n.sg.N.
not		again		you	Subhūti	like this	be known

The original Sanskrit term Skt. te in this context is a second-person genitive pronoun. In Sanskrit grammar, when a verb is transformed into a participial form, particularly a future passive participle like Skt. draṣṭavyaṃ, the genitive case may assume the role of the instrumental case to denote the logical subject of a passive construction. Here, Skt. draṣṭavyaṃ governs a genitive subject, and Skt. te—in conjunction with the vocative Skt. subhūte—refers to the same addressee: Subhūti 須菩提. The rhetorical context further supports this reading as the Buddha is posing a question to Subhūti: “Subhūti, what do you think? Is it by possessing physical marks that the Tathāgata 如來 attains supreme enlightenment?” The Buddha then immediately negates this idea, responding to his own question with a corrective statement: “Subhūti, you should not think in this way.” Thus, based on syntactic structure and discourse context, Skt. te functions as a second-person genitive pronoun, referring to Subhūti, and not as a third-person plural pronoun. This interpretation is further supported by the translations of Paramārtha 真諦 and Xuanzang 玄奘, both of whom render Skt. te as “汝”, accurately reflecting its second-person usage. Another case of mistranslation into “彼” involves the second-person dative pronoun Skt. te.7

Such a translational approach, by homogenizing homonymous inflected forms, effaces grammatical distinctions in person and case, resulting in distortions at both semantic and grammatical levels. Semantically, the Chinese pronoun “彼” fails to convey the deictic directionality of second-person reference, rendering the vocative “Subhūti” as a third-person referent “that Subhūti”. Grammatically, the case-marking function of Skt. te in inflected Sanskrit is flattened into a mere demonstrative function in isolating Chinese. Such translation may mislead learners into assuming a one-to-one correspondence between Skt. te and “彼”, thereby obscuring the underlying morphosyntactic rules and potentially causing negative transfer in interlingual acquisition. These mistranslations reflect a broader limitation in Dharmagupta’s translation strategy: the excessive pursuit of etymological and formal equivalence at the cost of syntactic functionality and semantic precision.

Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra serves both as a “fossilized specimen” of Sino-Sanskrit contact and as an unconventional pedagogical text. From the perspective of language teaching functionality, the translation’s distinctive features—morphological calquing of Sanskrit lexical structures, simplification of the pronominal system, and prioritization of etymological equivalence—reflect both instructional utility and structural limitations.

First, the calquing of Sanskrit word formation provides a transparent mapping of Sanskrit morphology, enabling learners to deduce morphemic constituents through their Chinese equivalents and facilitating the acquisition of basic Sanskrit derivational logic and grammatical structures. Second, Dharmagupta simplifies the complex pronominal system of Sanskrit, minimizing morphological inflection to reduce the cognitive burden for novice learners, consistent with Krashen’s (1982) “comprehensible input” principle in second language acquisition. Third, the emphasis on etymological meaning and formal equivalence allows for the construction of lexical mapping networks, supporting systematic vocabulary retention.

Although these translation strategies were not applied consistently throughout the entire text, this in itself reflects Dharmagupta’s exploratory attempt at “translation as pedagogy”—an original approach that integrates language teaching into the act of translation. Despite its flaws, the effort to map etymological correspondences and pursue formal equivalence offers a valuable early model for later studies in Sanskrit–Chinese comparative linguistics.

4. Multidimensional Influences Shaping Dharmagupta’s Pedagogical Translation

A philological examination through Sanskrit–Chinese textual collation reveals that Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the Diamond Sutra exhibits distinct pedagogical textual properties, diverging fundamentally from conventional Buddhist scriptural translations. The development of this unique style involved multiple factors, including the religious development, the specific historical context, and translator subjectivity.

First, the linguistic challenges of indigenizing Buddhism in China gave rise to a symbiotic need for both scripture translation and language instruction. Although Buddhism had been introduced to China for several centuries by the Sui–Tang dynasties, the linguistic barrier between Sanskrit and Chinese continued to hinder the accurate transmission of Buddhist doctrines. As the chief translator in Sui state-sponsored workshops, Dharmagupta recognized that Chinese monks’ limited Sanskrit proficiency left them reliant on translations that conveyed doctrinal content (what is said) but obscured grammatical logic (how it is structured). In response, Dharmagupta sought to strike a balance between doctrinal transmission and language pedagogy through his Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra. His translation adopted strategies such as etymological annotation and morphological calquing, enabling student monks to gain insight into Sanskrit word formation, e.g., understanding the structure of “draṣṭavyo” through its rendering as “見應”. Furthermore, the translation encouraged learners to compare and comprehend key differences between Sanskrit and Chinese, such as the functional substitution of Sanskrit case markers with Chinese grammatical particles.

Second, the translation bureaus during the Sui and Tang dynasties served not only as centers for scripture translation but also fulfilled pedagogical functions, thus providing a practical context that supports the pedagogical translation of the Diamond Sutra. As Tang Yongtong (Tang 1982, pp. 72–73) notes, “凡往天竺, 先學梵語。會在國內就學於譯場 (Those who traveled to India first studied Sanskrit at the domestic translation bureaus)”. Many monks, such as Yancong 彥琮 and Zhitong 智通, became proficient in Sanskrit without going abroad, likely acquiring their skills through instruction from foreign monks within the translation bureaus. Historical records like “Lidai sanbao ji 曆代三寶記” reveal that these state-sponsored bureaus were more than centers for scriptural translation but also early prototypes of monastic language academies. On one hand, bilingual personnel and foreign monk-translators acted as language instructors; on the other, a “譯中求學 (learning through translation)” model developed within the bureaus. As documented in Yancong’s “Bianzheng lun 辯證論”: “向使法蘭歸漢僧會適吳, 士行佛念之儔, 智嚴寶雲之末, 才去俗衣, 尋教梵字 (Had Dharmarakṣa竺法蘭 returned to the Han, Kang Senghui康僧會 journeyed to Wu, and disciples such as Zhu Shixing朱士行 and Dharmapriya竺佛念—along with later figures like Zhi Yan智嚴 and Bao Yun寶雲—just renounced their secular garments to begin studying Sanskrit scriptures).” This underscores the Sui bureaus’ prioritization of Sanskrit mastery, that monks were required to achieve linguistic proficiency before participating in translation work.

Third, the proliferation of “Sino-Barbarian” bilingual/multilingual lexicons during the Sui–Tang period provided critical templates for compiling language textbooks. As M. Chen (2009, p. 64) observes, these lexicons emerged to meet the demands of intensified cultural and commercial exchanges between Central China and Western Regions, resolving linguistic ambiguities in cross-cultural communication.8 These lexicons represent early prototypes of foreign language teaching materials (Zacchetti 1996). J. Wang (2020) argues that the structure and compilation format of “Sino-Barbarian” bilingual lexicons may have exerted a direct influence on Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra. She points out that Dharmagupta had spent many years in the Western Regions, where he began learning Chinese and was likely exposed to, if not actively using, the bilingual or multilingual wordlists that were in circulation at the time. These lexicons, which were intended to facilitate cross-linguistic understanding, could plausibly have shaped his translation strategy. Based on textual evidence from Dharmagupta’s Diamond Sutra, J. Wang (2020) suggests that his version likely reflects the imprint of such bilingual reference materials. Within this historical-linguistic context, it is plausible that Dharmagupta regarded his translation not merely as a religious rendering but as a pedagogical model designed for use in institutionalized translation settings.

In addition, the religious authority and textual characteristics of the Diamond Sutra enhance its potential as a language teaching tool. Its concise length and repetitive lexical and syntactic patterns provide ideal scaffolding for novice learners to internalize grammatical rules and lexical usage. For instance, “佛法、佛法者, 即非佛法, 是名佛法 (What is called the Dharma is in fact not the true Dharma; therefore, it is called the Dharma.)”. As a core scripture of the Prajñāpāramitā corpus, known as “the mother of all Buddhas,” the Diamond Sutra centers on the doctrine of 緣起性空 (dependent origination and emptiness). Despite its brevity, the text offers a comprehensive encapsulation of key Mahāyāna doctrines, making it both doctrinally essential and pedagogically efficient. Dharmagupta’s choice to retranslate this text rather than more voluminous alternatives like the Da bore jing 大般若經 reflects strategic prioritization of conciseness over complexity, a trait critical for instructional efficacy.

Last but not least, Dharmagupta’s translatorial agency, his deliberate application of pedagogical strategies in the translation process, directly facilitated the fulfillment of the text’s didactic functions. Departing from conventional translation practices, he adopted a “dead translation” method that, while seemingly compromising the fluency of the target text, strategically foregrounded etymology and exposed the morphological structure of Sanskrit vocabulary. In doing so, he transformed the Diamond Sutra into a bilingual teaching tool within the translation bureau, aiding monastics in their study of either Sanskrit or Chinese and reinforcing the bureau’s role in language instruction. As a devout Buddhist monk, Dharmagupta saw it as his mission to enhance Chinese monks’ ability to access Buddhist scriptures in their original form. This aligns with the aspiration articulated by Yancong, namely, that “人人共解, 省翻譯之勞 (Accessible to all, thereby obviating the need for further translation).” Behind Dharmagupta’s translation of the Diamond Sutra lay not merely a motivation to propagate Buddhism but also a thoughtful consideration for nurturing translation expertise in the Buddhist scripture translation sector of the Sui Dynasty.

In sum, the pedagogical intent embodied in Dharmagupta’s retranslation of the Diamond Sutra was not incidental but rather a natural outcome in the history of Buddhist scripture translation. This phenomenon emerged through the convergence of five interlocking factors: (1) the need to overcome Sanskrit–Chinese linguistic barriers in the dissemination of Buddhism; (2) the institutionalization of translation bureaus as sites of language instruction; (3) the availability of “Sino-Barbarian” bilingual lexicons as reference materials; (4) the canonical authority of the Diamond Sutra, which legitimized its pedagogical repurposing; and (5) Dharmagupta’s cross-cultural agency as a foreign monk-translator facilitated the emergence of a more systematic model of translator training during the Sui–Tang dynasties.

5. Conclusions

Influenced by both the spread of Buddhism and active cultural and commercial exchanges, the Sui–Tang period witnessed a strong societal enthusiasm for learning foreign languages. State-sponsored translation bureaus emerged as proto-linguistic academies, providing institutionalized platforms with expert instructors, dedicated spaces, and monastic cohorts for Sanskrit–Chinese bilingual training (Sun and Wang 2010, p. 48). Dharmagupta translated the Diamond Sutra into a unique format specifically to assist monks in these translation centers with learning Sanskrit and translating Buddhist texts more proficiently.

This study employs a Sanskrit–Chinese comparative method to analyze Dharmagupta’s version of the Diamond Sutra, integrating textual evidence with historical contextualization. The analysis reveals a set of deliberate translation strategies, including the morphological calquing of Sanskrit word structures, the simplification of personal pronoun systems, and a focus on etymological meaning, which together imbue the translation with the features of a language teaching material. This retranslation emerged from the combined influence of religious transmission, historical context, and translator agency, enabling the Diamond Sutra to transcend its function as a religious text and serve as a foundational teaching scripture within the Buddhist translation bureau.

Within the broader Buddhist translation tradition, Dharmagupta’s pedagogical rendering of the Diamond Sutra stands as a rare example of “translation-as-pedagogy” paradigm. It provides valuable insights into the language-teaching practices of the Sui–Tang period, a time when the flourishing of Buddhism catalyzed increasing linguistic contact and spurred the development of metalinguistic awareness in language acquisition and pedagogy. The emergence of this translation further reminds us that the effective transmission of religious doctrine depends not only on theological depth but also on attentiveness to the practical needs of language learning.

Unlike Dharmagupta’s other scriptural translations, the Diamond Sutra was a bold act of “experimental translation.” Its creative and unconventional approach challenges conventional expectations, calling for renewed attention to both the uniqueness of the translation and Dharmagupta’s larger role in the history of Buddhist textual transmission.