Download the Tibetan version of Lama Chönam’s letter here in PDF format

"In the time of the Tibetan Dharma King Songtsen Gampo (d. 649/50), an initial body of codes governing the translation of texts was established in order to accomplish a variety of objectives; among them, so that translators such as Tönmi Sambhota would receive an appropriate education, so that words would be arranged in harmony with the treatises on grammar, and so that terminology would be employed in a consistent manner."

To ensure that a lineage of translators and scholars would continue into the future, Trisong Detsen scoured the land of Tibet in search of youths rich in compassion and endowed with sharp faculties, faith, and exertion. He then established a school for the education of one hundred and eight such children. King Trisong Detsen served as the school's headmaster; Shantarakshita and Padmakara led the faculty; great translators such as Berotsana, Kawa Peltsek, and Jokro Lui Gyeltsen bore the principal responsibility for both oral translation and the translation of literature. Their service to the teachings and those who wander in samsara has not been surpassed.

Based upon the knowledge gathered in the preceding centuries, King Trisong Detsen defined and promulgated three principles: translators and scholars were to (1) translate in harmony with the treatises on grammar, (2) reflect rather than contradict the meaning expressed in a book of dharma, and (3) write in a way that Tibetan people would easily understand. Moreover, Trisong Detsen also prescribed four excellent methods for translation: (1) translation of terms, (2) translation of meaning, (3) straightforward translation, and (4) inverted translation.

The first of those four, translation of terms, may be described in three aspects: (a) When literal translation would produce a term difficult to unravel, or when translating the names of woods, grasses, medicines, animals, lands, cities, and so forth that are not found in Tibet, leave the term in Sanskrit, (b) When one word has many meanings, rather than translate the term in a way that accounts for only one of those meanings, use instead the language of India, (c) When translating the meanings of the books of Secret Mantra into Tibetan, where there is danger of perverse misunderstanding, leave the term in the language of India. The second method, translation of the meaning, requires a book’s subject to be explained clearly and without contradiction. It stipulates also an emphasis upon clarity of language and ease of understanding. The third method, straightforward translation, entails translation that accords with the sequence of words in the Sanskrit sentence. The fourth method, inverted translation, is to be employed when translation that reproduces the sequence of words in the Sanskrit sequence would either detract from the clarity of the meaning to be expressed or, alternatively, promote a perverse misunderstanding. In that circumstance, the sequence should be changed so that Tibetan people would be able to understand the meaning correctly.

These and other precedents established during the era of Trisong Detsen deserve careful consideration even now. For instance, when giving commentary upon a buddha’s names, each and every name and quality would necessarily receive an extensive explanation. The names and qualities of bodhisattvas would be treated more briefly. Still less attention would be given to the names and qualities of hearers (shravaka). In this way, conventions governing honorific terms were set in motion. Translators and scholars were required to observe the principles described in the codes promulgated by the king and were not permitted to fabricate new expressions on a whim. When they needed new words, they were required to ask the king as well as other translators and scholars for permission to devise a novel expression, and only when permission was granted were they free to use their invention. Similarly, when they wished to translate books concerning Secret Mantra, they needed to obtain the permission of their superiors—the King, Padmakara, and so on—before embarking upon the project. In these ways and others, Trisong Detsen left a multifaceted legacy furthering the Buddha’s teachings.

During the era of Trisong Detsen’s son and heir, Muné Tsenpo (d. 804), and the kings who succeeded him, the translations completed previously were reviewed and corrected by Kawa Peltsek, Jokro Lui Gyeltsen, and Shang Yeshé Dé. Their reforms are referred to as a second delineation of codes governing the translation of texts.

At the beginning of the eleventh century of the general calendar, in the time of Hla Lama Yeshé Ö, who marks the eighth generation counting from King Langdarma, the extraordinary translators Rinchen Sangpo, Ngok Lekpé Sherap, and others made a third set of codes governing the translation of texts. By doing so they demonstrated uncommon and exceptional concern for the teachings. For those in contemporary times who would contribute even in minor ways to the proliferation of the teachings in the lands enclosed within darkness, the legacy of the excellent ones who have preceded us persists as a dignified testament to truth. We are grateful to those fortunate ones who rejoice in the great waves of such activity and who have conviction that a relationship, direct or indirect, with the work of translation will bring beneficial results. May everyone rejoice also in the portion of merit that is one's own, for to engage with the work of translation is thoroughly pure activity that benefits both the teachings and those who wander in samsara.

We thank you for supporting the work of Light of Berotsana.
With best wishes,

Lama Chöying Namgyal, October 2005