Tibetan Translation in Russia

B.
Erokhine, Tibetan Translations in Russia

1
Tibetan Translations in Russia

1720th – 2005
by Boris Erokhin,
e-mail to: lovingeye@mail.ru
Contents
Introduction: Sources, general criteria and methodology of research

The history of the translations: Interrupted take-offs
Current works: In search for genuine
Conclusion: Further directions
Bibliography
…And if you fail to become a master, you will become just translators.
Tobga Yulgyal Rinpoche,
during a lecture, Delhi, 1995.
General purpose of this paper is to outline major events within Russian Tibetology from
the very beginning until the current situation, in the broader context of common theory of
translation and the world Buddhology. Since only the Tibetan studies are concerned,
many great figures of Buddhology, worth special works, are just mentioned or shortly
outlined.
The researcher's starting base is the necessity of combination both of academic and living
tradition approach for a good and accurate translation to be produced. Moreover, it is also
the position of the follower of Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, and therefore
some particular features are emphasized. Last part is dedicated to inspection of some
latest works and possible perspectives of development
Sources, general criteria and methodology of research.
Reference literature for introductory part, concerning general translation problems, was
taken from many leading contemporary English translators' introductions where they
specified their approach to a particular work, found in bibliography section. Still, the
main collection of references is collected the papers of the conference held in Delhi in
1990 and as such is of the biggest value until today1. It contains the most of suggestions,
observations, narratives about theory overview and technique details of translation.
The most valuable sources for writing the historical part of this paper appeared to be
Vostrikov (1935) that cover in details the first steps of Russian Tibetology up to beginnig
of 19930th, and Vorobyeva & Savitsky "Tibetovedenie" article that covers the history of
researches up to 1970th. T. Ermakova in her extensive monograph gives detailed overview
B. Erokhine, Tibetan Translations in Russia
2
of Russian Buddhology accompanied by important primal documents of officials and
field researches.
Some important recent Tibetan-Russian translations are examined and evaluated, so
numerous respective sources were used, including periodicals; hopefully, it gives a
glimpse on the overall current situation in its diversity. Much valuable information was
acquired via personal contacts and interviews, and to less extend through Internet sites
surfing.
As the criteria of evaluation of translations from Tibetan into Russian, the modern
western approach is taken as it formulated in numerous articles and prefaces of leading
translators of the past two decades2, so I will approach the topic from more broad context.
The aim of the Russian translators is probably the same as their western counterparts, but
it is still to be articulated more precise, clear and commonly agreed, as currently one
finds scarce discussions in Russian on this topic3.
Everybody praises early and later Tibetan translator's works. During the five centuries of
translation of Buddhist texts in Tibet it was recognized three main types of translation:
literal, for meaning, and combination of both, the latter is the most preferable4. This way
of thinking does not seem to change until nowadays, but details are to be specified. From
among numerous suggestions listed hereafter, I take those which I'm agree with, omitting
extensive arguing pro et contra, and try to generalize not going into all necessary details
listed in J. Rheingans' theses.
Brief summary of ideal requirements to Tibetan – a Western language translation here is
subsumed under categories of goal, means and qualities of a translator.
The goal is – via Tibetan, in which the most complete and precise set of rendering of
Buddha's teachings exists, fully and correctly transmit these teaching into very different
soils of western thought. Ultimately, it is not the words in their sequences, but the
ineffable meaning and insight. This is to be accompanied with translation of not less
profound and rich heritage of Tibetan enlightened teachers and thinkers. So it's a long
run, for generations and centuries.
More practically, on the relative level, a translation requires that the resultant text should
be:
■ congenial with the original, with respect to wording, vocabulary, genre, style,
historical traits, author's particularities.
■ included into the context of the respective texts, as E. Napper formulates:
"What form should this translation take? I believe that the most useful translation is one
that is quite (although not mindlessly) literal and that renders technical terms with a
precision that allows complex philosophical discussions that occur in the Tibetan to be
mirrored in the English translation"5. However, some terms should be specified with
understanding of particular school (the most evident example being translation of rig pa
in Nyingma tradition; generally understood as awareness elsewhere, here it implies much
more profound meaning of insight, realization, ultimate presence).
■ implying all charming and relevant means of target language and avoiding side
connotations. "Reproduce the original concepts (not words) as closely as possible, using a
minimum of addition or alternation. English words have been chosen on the basis of
3
matching the feel an power which Tibetan words convey when used by lamas during their
explanations"6.
■ suitable to the target reader: scholarly and not-so-scholarly7 (and thus be
equipped with necessary apparatus), or general (and thus be supplied with the translator's
higher experience, realization, and responsibility – because of his\her inevitable
interpretation. Actually, it is the aspect of growth from a humble translator to a teacher
position).
■ Still, not quite literal, with the use of paraphrases if applicable. "Accurate
translation requirs, in addition to a transfer of the full contents, a transfer of their full
intention"8
■
The means of ideal translation is such a complex that always can be expanded, to list a
few more important:
■ To begin with, usage the genuine, critically edited text9.
■ Team work, where at least one member being the source language native
speaker, one – target10, and an experienced "editor" observation. Nowadays it is the
essential points due to which so many brilliant results are achieved. Moreover, it brings a
western translator from usually individualistic inner position closer to the ideal figure of
Tibetan lotsava – a professional and a realized one.
■ Use for cross-references the sources on major Buddhist languages – especially
Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese in their variety. Russian School of Buddhology was famous for
this feature, but now in decline.
■ Use of as extensive as possible lexicographical sources
■ As part of team work terminological dictionaries should be developed, at the
beginning in smaller groups, then within a particular tradition, and only after that is
would be possible to talk about some common such collections. For the time being
diversity of basic term translation is recommended. The problem is thoroughly described
by S. K. Pathak (2001).
■ All methods of modern academic research – linguistic, historical, technical,
comparative - proved their basic usefulness, however, not sufficient alone.
■ From the Buddhist point of view, direct and pure transmission of a text is
indispensable. Primary it means possession of textual transmission (lung) and oral
explanations of a qualified teacher. For this a translator is supposed to be a Buddhist.
Pure academician would argue with this statement, however last decades of experience of
majority of translators will probably support this point for efficiency reason, however it
works. The definition of "grace" is offered as follows: "A psychic link transcending the
boundaries of self-identification. It transforms an individual's personality, enhancing the
perception of a spiritual environment"11.
■ Probably, thoroughly probated Buddhist middle way would be the best solution
as to the general standards of Buddhist translation – not that much novelties, general
agreement and consensus between leading scholars, less a translator's personal intrusions,
and common sense too.
■
■ Motivation is no less essential thing on the border between method and
characteristic. Based on the Bodhisattva view and practice, it is supported by pertaining
4
to a particular tradition as well as following to instructions of a particular Lama if the
Diamond Way is practiced. "It is not hidden secret that only then will scriptures start
revealing their multiplicity of nuances to the seeker"12. Concerns about one's fame, wealth
etc. should be avoided.
Qualities of a translator partially could be understood through the previous list, as he\she
is the possessor of the means. Still. a lotsava is supposed to perfect study, reflection and
meditation, be able to explain, debate and compose, and be "sagacious, diligent and
magnanimous"13.
In utilitarian manner it is to say that a good translator is academically (scholastically) and
traditionally (in Tibetan understanding) educated, and thus possesses necessary for a
particular work knowledge on philosophy, grammar, whatever special sciences are
concerned, history, essential secret mantrayana instructions, fluent understanding of
styles and types of source language, particular cultural background (usually all these is
reached for some 20 years of studies).
Cultural background and native language skill should be high. Moreover, he\she belongs
to a particular tradition and does work "from within", - according to its interpretation; is
able to pass though one's experience the text communicated, and finally bears inner
certainty in quality of the work done.
The special award in translating work is a special warm feeling of meeting with "inner
root lama", a king of insight into author's intention that may occur due to the special
transmission of text. Hopefully, it will bring up similar feelings and discoveries in
reader's mind as well.
Certainly, texts of different schools of Tibetan Buddhism require different approach. As

we can already see, most of western scholars groups differ one from the other
specializing on particular schools, such as Kalu Rinpoche Translation Group (Kagyu),
Ranjung Yeshe (Nyingma-Kayu), many Gelugpa-oriented scholars around biggest US
universities.
Particular features of Karma Kagyu translation process I would define starting from "the
face uncommon look" (F. Tyutchev). Clearly enough, Karma Kagyu school cherishes two
main approaches, - scholarly-monastic one, rooting in Kadam approach that derives from
Gampopa's time, and secular-yogic original (from Marpa's, and even Tilopa's time) one,
sometimes demonstrating "crazy-yogin" style. Other traits would be a special attention to
the essence but the words, to formal and informal meditation practice, crucial importance
of one's root teacher's instructions, and general easygoing character, up to superficiality,
of trainees.
This list would probably point out to particular qualities of translation in question. The
first, scholarly approach, would meet to all requirements relevant to other schools' frames
of reference. But even in seemingly dry exposition of tenets a translator would better
keep in mind his potential auditory's interests, so the following streaks, more relevant to
the second, less chilled genre such as liberation stories, essential instructions, etc. , are
also applicable. Richness, vividness, flexibility and inflection in expressions, in
transmitted feelings, would also be appreciated, as well as good sense of humor.
5
Big importance is to be given to oral tradition of commentaries that communicate many
particular specialties within philosophical understanding and meditation practice.
Shentong-Rangtong views balance, with full appreciation of "emptiness-of-other"
approach as the philosophical background for meditation practice, is one such a
particularity. Understanding of madhyamaka, "middleness" as not only the "avoiding of
four extremes", but also "avoiding the extreme of the middle", is another example of the
sort, and there are many similar details. In Kagyu people interested in deep philosophical
excavations are far less numerous then in Gelug or Sakya traditions, so maybe less arid
exposition of tenets makes sense; this, however, would not mean simplification. Being a
dryasdust towards the text analyzed, a Karma Kagyu translator outwardly, in produced
text, may be more relaxed to fit with auditory.
One should be mindful to fragments where more then one level of meaning is traced, or
to a wordplay that sometimes might open a new dimension of understanding.
Karma Kagyus may pay not so big attention towards cultural details of Tibetan Falk as
long as direct methods of liberation and enlightenment are not concerned, of whatever
origin, Indian or Tibetan, they are. Still, to follow all effective methods of inventing the
Buddha-Dharma that Tibetans had developed themselves, is clearly beneficial, and it
means to work in team and support all good we find in our colleges.
Output would-be is precise in meaning, inspiring, deep, and rich in resultant exposition.
All general made above points are relevant up-to the aim of a text. Main concern as to the
topics of translation are subject of vital needs, that is essential instructions supported by
broad choice of basic Buddhist literature.
Others schools features, probably, is better to be discussed by their adherents, and

generally also should be correlated with particularities of its followers. Scholastically
oriented schools like Gelug and Sakya naturally are closer to academic approach as it
appeared nowadays in the universities. Maybe, within Nyingma tradition it makes sense
to reveal new terminology and more individual style in order to communicate newly
discovered treasures with their fresh-old insights.
The history of the Russian translations: Interrupted take-offs
Tibetan studies are closely associated with Buddhist ones, but latter are not in the main
focus of this shorter research, being too broad topic. Here the main figures are those who
are involved in direct Tibetan – Russian translating process, so Sanskrit, Mongolian,
Chinese, Japanese aspects are left out.
Vorobyeva-Desyatovskaya and Savitsky divide development of Russian Tibetology into

5 phases according to "availability of enough prepared specialists, general course of
development of orientology in Russia and scientific interests of tibetologists
themselves".14 Those 5 phases are:
1. first introduction (until 1829)
2. beginning of intensive complex of exploration of Central Asia (1829 – 1880th)
3. 1880th – 1917
4. 1917 – 1941
6
5. after WW II 15
Nowadays this understanding of tides and ebbs of Russian Tibetology caused by difficult
history of the country, is interesting to compare with generally accepted modern
understanding of Tibetan – Western translation through the ages, Russian branch being
an integral part of the process. Doboom Tulku allocates 4 periods of Buddhist
translations' history:
1. Christian-influenced period (until the beginning of XX c. ), when "translations…
contain a very high degree of Christian coloring in the language of the translation
and interpretation of original material"16 (Kern, Rhys Davids, Waddel).
2. Implementation into understanding of Buddhist texts some other Western
philosophical concepts, notably Marxist and Kantian. (1st half of XX c. ) –
Stcherbatsky, Conze.
3. A call for newer concepts of Western thought such as of Freud, Jung, linguistic
relativism etc. (1950th – beginning of 1990th) – in works of e. g. Guenter, and
many contemporary ones. These three phases comprise "the imposition of the
Western conceptual scheme upon Buddhist material"17.
4. "Translators work in close collaboration with authoritative Tibetan scholars… to
allow Buddhist text to speak… with authentic Buddhist voice"18.
This approach seems to be more relevant to the meaning of whole translator's activity – to
bring the deep teachings of Buddhism into new world as accurately as they exist in
original form. As to the Russian contemporary Tibetology, later we will see that many
works are still did not transgress the 3rd phase.
So following this pattern of periods, we can proceed with description of the initial period
of Russian Tibetology.
Beginning of Tibetan studies in Russia is difficult to part with the German ones since the
foundation of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) was heavily dependent on German
scientists invited to introduce the Western knowledge to newly-opened minds. The most
of published papers were in German so they invoked some interest in the West towards
such a distant culture.
Russia since long had direct contacts with Mongolian peoples, who were followers of
Tibetan Buddhism from XIII c.19, so there is no surprise that we find a mention in the
autobiography of an interpreter of the Foreign Affairs department, P. I. Kulvinsky dated
as early as 1696 where he calls himself as a "translator from written Kalmyk, Mungal and
Tangut" (as that time was called Tibetan) languages20.
The first pages of Tibetan manuscripts arrived in RAS in 1720 th from the monastery of
Ablain-Hit on Irtysh river, Western Siberia. The secretary of the Russian Emperor Peter I
I. D. Schumaher (1690 - 1761) tried then his best to translate the page with help of
French and German scientists but the only correct result they arrived at was identification
the script with Tibetan characters. The interest to this "Tartar" page in Europe, however,
drew more general attention to Tibet.
It was only in 1735 when Academician G. F. Mueller during his travel in Buryatia met
with the prominent Lama Agwan Puntsog who translated the beginning of the text into
Mongolian, and then a translator from the Foreign Office translated it into Russian. It is
considered to be the first documented rendering from Tibetan into Russian.21
7
Next step was done due to activity of I. Erig (Jaehrig) whose main sphere was translation
from Mongolian, but who also knew Tibetan and made a few unpublished translations of
some texts (e. g. exposition of Songtsen Gampo's first testament from ma ni bka' thang22),
and composed a short Tibetan Grammar. I. Erig served as translator of well-known
researcher P. S. Pallas (1741 - 1811); he spent a considerable amount of years in Kyahta
on the border with Mongolia. They both gathered a big collection of Tibetan manuscript
that formed a foundation of huge funds of RAS.
Breakthrough of Tibetan studies in Russia is connected with the name of I. J. Schmidt
(1779 – 1847). A German merchant, he had spent 3 years among Kalmyks in northern
Caucasus plains before joining the RAS in 1829 where he gained his knowledge of
spoken and written Tibetan. I. J. Schnidt is considered as the founder of Russian Mongol
and Tibetan studies. General description of Buddhist Mahayana views and translations
published in German articles were based on primal sources as well as on direct
explanations of learned Kalmyk Lamas. He also did a lot analyzing and cataloguing new
arrivals of Tibetan books.
Schmidt had published the first Tibetan Grammar and Dictionary into Russian and
German. His approach can be characterized as a collection of rules not quite well-
structured logically and easy to remember, still, up to recent times, his works were
remaining the main source of grammar for students in St-Petersburg University. Being
based as on his own's experience as on Choema de Koeresh's pioneering textbook (1834),
it gives a god stock of usually undistinguished as to its usage synonyms with unsorted by
area of usage grammatical rules. It was, however, a task for future researches.
As to Schmidt's Dictionary, his approach to the order of words being sorted by root letter
(ming gzhi), unlike of de Koeresh's approach, was the right one and thus generally
accepted later on.23
Schmidt's successor in RAS, A. A. Schifner (1817 - 1879) in his grammatical works

demonstrates dry linguistic approach; the main concerns in his studies were details of
phonetics and morphology of Tibetan. Published in German too Buddha's lifestory and
some sutras does not contribute much to my topic.24
Though I. J. Schmidt in his works does not show that much influence of Christian
background, his counterpart of Kazan University O. M. Kovalevsky (1807 – 1878) and
other contemporary compilers and researchers gave their accounts being heavily
influences with Christian ideas. Prof. Kovalevsky was using his humble knowledge of
Tibetan mostly for references in his pioneering Mongol studies. So were less important
figures that contributed for development of Tibetan-Buddhist studies in XIX century,
such as archbishop Nyl (1799 - 1874), priest I. Popov, prof. A. I. Vvedensky and others
Christian thinkers.25
Direct contacts with the bearers of Tibetan-Buddhist knowledge that were always at hand
as subjects of Russian Empire, but at the same time those "alien people" were not-native
Tibetan speakers. This determined two of some main features of its future development:
Tibetan studies were heavily influenced with "provincial" interpretation as to mongolized
pronunciation as to more theistic and ethnological approach with regard to understanding
the main terms of Buddhist doctrine. Moreover, as the main feature, pioneering
8
researches were done (as elsewhere in western Orientology) with many Christian
misinterpretations since the majority of researchers were orthodox officials or devoted
followers of the Eastern Church.
The interest of subsequent explorers was focused mostly on field research meaning the
aim to assimilate rather strange ideas of 'idolaters', - Buryat and Kalmyk peoples – for the
use of converting them into Orthodox Church and thus make them an integral part of the
State.
Main approach to Tibetan knowledge was almost solely thru Mongolian or Chinese
studies, so that Tibetan language in the Russian Buddhology for centuries was just an
auxiliary source after Mongolian and, later, Sanskrit. The favorable condition of being
next to the research field was balanced with provincial, second-hand character of the
knowledge acquired. The outer features of social relations, customs and ceremonies was
far more important for an explorer then the meaning. Nonetheless, this task raised more
by the beginning of XX c.
V. P. Vassilyev (1818 - 1900) was the student of Kovalevsky in University of Kazan with
main specialization in Chinese and Tibetan (his tutor in Tibetan and Mongol was Buryat
lama Galsan Nikituev, - Pubaev 1, 24). A. Vostrikov calls him "genius" (1935, p. 68)
because of huge heritage unpublished works that could constitute the results of researches
of an institute even in the beginning on XX c. Staying with his fellow translator V. V.
Gorsky (his literary and scientific heritage disappeared completely whereas the efforts
was not less then of Vassiliyev) in Russian Embassy in Beijing for 10 years, Vassiliyev,
using four principal to Buddhist studies languages (Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan and
Mongolian), managed roughly translate almost all Chinese Tripitaka and made a draft for
about 10-volume extensive composition that could comprise general and detailed
overview of Buddhism in its doctrine, history and literary heritage. Only 2 volumes of
this work was published which made a principal impact on Western Buddhology, but
because of lack of interest within Russia (at that time it was no public nor much scientific
interest as to this topic) all other discoveries fall neglected and disappeared in vain.
Famous sanscritologist S. F. Oldenburg thus generalizes development of Russian science

in his speech dedicated to the memory of Vassiliyev: "…courageous beginnings, deap
thoughts, rare talents, splendid minds, even laborious and persistent work, - one meets all
these surplus; at the same time one has to note as everything abrupts: long rows of the
"first" volumes, "first" issues that never had successors; wide plans stiffed as on half-
word, heaps of unpublished, half-finished manuscripts. Huge cemetery of
unaccomplished undertakings, unrealized dreams".26 Spoken in 1918, this speech holds
true even in the bigger extent during the XX c.
Still Vassiliev's works demonstrate some flaws common to the contemporary

understanding. Philological approach substantially narrows the analysis of basic Buddhist
text, taken out of general context of Buddhist thought and therefore misinterpreting
meaning of terms. Idea of supremacy of Western civilization and values over Eastern
ones certainly limits insights into the meaning of Buddha's teachings. Also, main sources
of prof. Vassilyev's research were not of Tibetan origin, and this fact contributed much in
weakening the tradition of direct Tibetan studies in St. -Petersburg University, which by
the middle of XIX c. became the main seat of oriental science.27
9
The most prominent later scholars being students of Vassiliyev were concentrated onto
indological researches. Tibetan studies and translations declined.
It was caused mainly by general attitude of the government towards Tibetan studies.
Tibet was far away and, by the beginning of XX c. , out of the sphere of interest, so these
studies were private matter of researches. Only in 1907 in Vladivostok the classes on
Tibetan language were opened, and still they was not obligatory for students.
I. P. Minaev (1840 - 1890) traveled a lot on Indian sub-continent and was interested in
development of ancient schools and sects of Buddhism as well as in Vinaya, and his
works primary are connected with Indianology.
His student S. F. Oldenburg (1863 - 1934) was also concerned more with indological
research in social and other forms that Buddhism adopted through the ages. Tibetan
studies, apart of Oldenburg's deep interest in its art, for him was an indispensable source
for Indian research. He also did a lot of administrative work, popularized oriental culture,
organized expeditions in Eastern Turkestan, Tunhuang, Tibet itself. Due to his efforts the
famous Bibliotheka Buddhika was established and publications contributed by leading
scientists made it the treasury of modern scholarship. Along with F. I. Stcherbatskoy his
activity may be considered as start and climax of new, non-Christian approach within
world Buddhology.
Activity of another student of Minaev, F. I. Stcherbatskoy (1866 - 1942) became a new

phase in development of world Buddhology. His main contribution to it is that he
overcame pure philological approach in translation of texts by showing the innermost
continuity of meaning of the terms translated from Pali or Sanskrit into Tibetan, Chinese,
etc. Thus, it became clear that later translations should be understood as rooted into
proto-Indian sense while ancient Sanskrit and Pali texts is to be understood thru living
tradition of contemporary scholars of Buddhist tradition. Scherbatskoy established the
highest standards as to a researcher who supposed to have (and did, as many of his
students!) thorough knowledge of principal Buddhist languages – Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan,
Chinese, Japanese – to be able observe correctly all the whole and details of principal
treatises, ideas, sections of Buddhism. One may call this approach encyclopedic.
Being the brightest figure of Kantian From the point of view of these notes it was the
biggest breakthrough the fruits of which translators of Buddhist texts is an integral part of
the work of. Another Ac. Stcherbatskoy's discovery was separation of different sections
of Buddhist literature, and the fundamental analysis of the theory of perception.
Unfortunately, internationally orientated scientist did not produce many translations into
Russian, but he revived Tibetan studies in Russian academic institutions so that many
talented researches were educated at the beginning of XX c. Stcherbatskoy for the first
time in Russia in 1920th established a group of Tibetologists about whom I will speak
later in this paper.
It is difficult to summarize shortly all aspects of Stcherbatskoy's immence activity.
Employment of contemporary European philosophy into understanding of ancient
Buddhist ideas was called, probably, by deep Stcherbatskoy's feeling that it as deep as
modern western ideas, so he "uplifts" to the concepts of "thing-in-itself" (svalaksana,
rang bzhin), "absolute" and "relativity" (śūnyatā, stong pa nyid) in order to show the
10
vivid meaning of ancient treatises to the contemporary European world. On the other
hand, translation terms substantially different by their meaning with terms of Western
philosophy such as idealism, realism, animation brings with it too many connotations
irrelevant to the sense in source language, and thus misleading. Still it might be
considered as a necessary step in adopting a foreign to Western thought meaning.
Especially, general presentation is given in good and reach Russian, not touched with
egg-headed style, but clear and elegant. It is a pity that just a few works originally were
written into Russian.
As to Stcherbatskoy's methods to translate texts, the editor of translation his "Theory of
Perception…" into Russian Dr. A. Paribok notes two particular features in
Stcherbatskoy's translations as his personal style: Russian text often expands by 10 times
comparing original one (partially due to the little terminologiveness of Russian, partially
as the method to slow down the attention of a reader and thus bring him closer to the
meaning of text), and big diversity in translation of a particular term. 28 Whole
bibliography a reader will find in Scherbatskoy (1988), pp. 42 – 51.
The approach of "structured observation, engaged and disengaged" was developed by a

number of famous field researches of Central Asia – Mongolia, Eastern Turkestan,
Amdo, Kham and Tibet - such as G. N. Potanin (1835 - 1920), G. E and E. G. Grum-
Grzhimailo, V. A. Obruchev, A. M. Pozdneev (1851 - 1920), N. M. Przhevalsky, M. V.
Pevtsov, V. I. Roborovsky, P. K. Kozlov (1863 - 1935), individual travelers to Central
Tibet O. Norzunov and G. T. Tsybikov (1873 - 1930), and to Amdo - B. B. Baradyin
(1878 – 1937(?9)). The first place in explorations of the first group of "discoverers" was
occupied by flora, fauna, geographical and geological observation, a smaller attention
was given to daily life in their economical, social, and cultural aspects, and only then they
were interested in monasteries' own rules and views of its inhabitants. Sometimes it's
amusing to read, how they explain indignation of a hermit near who's cave they were
hunring, with that they disturbed his solitude.
Only at last point of interest we meet the reference to translation aspects, as Pozdneev
communicates: "In my diary I put everything that I saw, all those explanations that were
given me orally, and, finally, all those translations of Buddhist compositions that lamas
gave me as addition to their expounding".29 From many reports of the state officials, it is
quite clear that those Lamas certainly were not fluent in Russian. Unable to discover the
meaning and essence of meditation retreats, explorers were far away from understanding
of the Buddhist philosophy as well.30
Gombozhab T. Tsybikov is to be regarded as a special figure in Russian Tibetology as his

travel accounts gives the vivid description of many aspects of Tibet life and outlook.
Being of Buryat origin, he was one of the first European-minded scholar to reach Lhasa
in 1901 pretending to be a pilgrim. His report was highly praised in academic circles,
being a mixture of a pathbreaker's notes with thorough descriptions of all details of
monastic life in sites that less fortunate travelers could not reach.
In the second half of his life while teaching in Vladivostok, he made and published an
accurate translation of the part of one the most important texts – Lamrim Chenmo by
Tsongkhapa – with proper and rich Russian. Unlike others, he was a Buddhist that
granted him capacity to interpret correctly grammatical puzzles of Tsonkhapa's passages
11
and thus to form a good translation. First, a part of the text was translated into
Mongolian, and then into Russian. Along with Badmaev's translation of medical treatise
Gyud Zhi with its well-styled Russian, it formed a good basis for further translations.
B. B. Baradyin spent 7 months in Lavran monastery in Amdo, but did not do much as to
Tibetan translations, but later concentrated on Tibetan Arts.
P. A. Badmayev (before 1840 - 1920), famous hereditary physician according to Tibetan
medicine system, of Mongol origin, was officially accepted in academic society as an
effective clinicyst whose clinic attracted crowd of patients in the second half of XIX c.
He had translated basic medicine treatise Gyud Zhi into Russian which was published in
1898, that time being one of the first proper translation of an important Tibetan text into a
European language. This translation is not literal, but lacks distortions as it was written
by a legitimate representative of the tradition. Clear language and authoritative exposition
was a real novelty for that time.
But maybe a greater impact, together with Agwan Dorjiev (both were high-rank
officials), was made on Russian society in the beginning of XX c. as to accustoming
highest officials as well as general public to the thought that mysterious Tibet Lamas with
there methods and teaching are just next to everybody, are the part of the country and
people. Buddhism became a fashion, great and famous poets like K. Balmont wrote
extensive poems on Buddha's life so before bolshevic's turnover of 1917 the theme came
to demand. There activity may support the blossom of contemporary and later researches
of Russian orientology.
Agwan Lobsan Dorjiev (1853? - 1938), a teacher of XIII Dalai Lama and an influential
politician, was one of the highly educated Geche (graduated from Drepung Monastery
near Lhasa). His involvement in big politics obstructed his scientific and pedagogical
work, but still is worth mention since he organized in Kalmyk the Higher Buddhist
School (functioned in 1906 - 1931).
Generally, in Russian Buddhology was two main approaches – field research and
academic analysis.
After Stcherbatskoy –
Older generation turned to foreign-language translation due to the lack of interest within
the country, continuing the series of Bibliotheca Buddhika until it was possible; younger
ones were killed in KGB torture chambers, and their heritage disappeared; singles, if
possible, hided themselves somewhere in the country.
O. O. Rozenberg (1888 - 1919) had very deep knowledge in Buddhism specializing in
Japanese and Chinese Buddhism; Tibetan sources were taken as reference.
E. E. Obermiller (1901 - 1935) perfectly knew both Tibetan and Sanskrit that made his
translations of Budon's "History of Buddhism", "Ornament of Clear Realization" and
"Unsurpassable Tantra" by Maitreya – Asanga with commentaries a model work of his
time. All of them are to be translated into Russian yet, if direct new translations do not
appear.
M. I. Tubyansky (1893 - 1943) was an accomplished scholar whose important works
would stand in range with those of his counterparts, but they just disappeared both in
cells of KGB as well as in the similar structure in Mongolia where he worked for 10
12
years. Among these papers one should list analysis of philosophical, logical and historical
treatises, Tibetan - Mongolian dictionary (about 10, 000 entries), directory of Tibetan
medicine terms, overview prof. Vassilyev's achieves, monumental translation of Lamrim
Chenmo by Tsongkhapa.31
A. I. Vostrikov (1904 - 1937) also perfectly knew "basic", for Scherbatskoy's scientific
school, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Mongolian languages. His heritage in its main components
also vanished after his arrest and death. It comprises voluminous works on logic of
Dignaga, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti, on Tibetan literature in general (as part of it the
pathbreaking "Tibetan Historical Literature" monograph is well-known and translated
into English), Tibetan textbook, chronological tables of Ngang dbang brtson 'grus (1648 -
1722), researches of Buddhist and Tibetan philosophical schools through deep analysis
and translation of "The Crystal Mirror of Phylosophical Schools" by Thu'u Kan Lobzang
Chokyi Nyims (1732 - 1802) and Atisha's "Introduction into Two Truths".32
Further decades of degradation is well-defined by M. Kozhevnikova. She writes: "In 30 th
Buddhological group of Feodor Ippolitovich Stcherbatskoy was practically looted, and by
that Russian Orientology was thrown back to starting position in research of Buddhist
thought and religious practice. During all Soviet period Buddhology remained in some
sense "under a bushel", being forced to examine whatever aspect of Buddhism –
sociological, historical, ethnographical, formal, - but own substantial questions.
Orientologists had no possibility to get education somehow comparable with that one of
Stcherbatskoy's time, or with the modern Western Buddhological education that became
possible in the USA and European countries from 60th, after Tibetan scholars appeared
there. Moreover, Soviet buddhologists were cut short to the living tradition, and just a
few enthusiasts from Buddhological circles filled this gap up with personal exertions and
courage, and established contacts with Buryat lamas"33.
By 1938 the activity of Indo-Tibetan Chamber of the Orientological Institue RAS almost
stopped as the majority of its members were repressed. At that time the main collective
projects being fundamental Tibetan – Russian classical. colloquial and explanatory
dictionaries, manuscript descriptive works etc. broke, and it meant the break in serious
Buddhological works for decades.
Instead of Tibetan – Sanskrit direction acknowledged by state officials as meaningless,
the most energy of researchers was directed to the history and literature of China.
Russia's greatest neighbor, from 1950th first it became ideologically friendly, and quite
soon – hostile but still somehow attractive on the common communist view basis, so
there is no wonder that much efforts were put in ideologically less dangerous (because of
authority's pressure) fields – old history but religion, outskirts (and fragments) of
philosophy but "mystic" treatises in any way. This topic, however, is beyond of my
theme.
A thin thread of St-Petersburg tradition drew through tibetologists Cheremisov K. M.
(during WWII he was in Ulan-Ude, Buryatia) and his student V. S. Vorobyev-
Desyatovsky (1928 - 1956). Historical works of the former were not published again, the
latter started Tibetan language classes in Leningrad University in 1953, and in 1955
within the Chinese Faculty the Tibetan Department appeared. From that time Tibetan
studies (philological) regarded as humble additional topic within sinology, and
Buddhological ones shifted to there as well as to Pali and Sanskrit sources.
13
Generally, Orientology during Soviet times from 1950th till 1990th was a chambermaid of
communist ideology. Headquarters of the Institute of Oriental Studies of Academy of
Science with its main concern to Arabic, Chinese and South Asia studies were in
Moscow under the close gaze of Kremlin. Basically no Tibetan studies were carried on
there. In the branch of the Institute in Leningrad the life was hardly glimmering, for a few
employer not even being able to handle the huge collection of Tibetan manuscripts, and it
still being in the process of cataloguing.
Some activity, still humble, moved further away of authorities' watching eyes to a
traditional Buddhist area in Ulan-Ude – where under the roof of Buryat Institute of Social
Science of the Buryat Branch of Siberian Department of the USSR Academy of Science
(BISS) some researches relevant to our topic were carrying out.
B. V. Semichov, one of Ac. Scherbatskoy's student to survive, moved to Buryatia where
he became prominent scholar specializing in Tibetan medications and plants as well as
Buryat people fully embraced Buddhism in course of XVIII cen., when hierarchical
structure was established and the religious order was officially recognized by the
Empress Ekaterina II. I am not going in details of development, function and structure of
education and research in traditional society if it goes beyond links with Russian
language, still a few facts are necessary. In 1850th in Aginsk a philosophical college
(mtshan nyid grwa thsang) was established, which in 1880th was followed by a tantric and
medical colleges. The most strong links of teachings was with Lavran monastery in
Amdo. A printing house provided almost all necessary materials, also became an
important source of books for growing Russian tibetology, whose best representatives –
Tscherbatskoy, Oldenburg, Tsybikov, Vostrikov - also discussed in details topics in
question with learned Lamas.
In Russian Empire state archives stored many travel accounts of Buryat and Kalmyk
travelers who visited Tibet from 1740th, such as one of principal Buryat Lama
Dambadarje Zayaev presented to Ekaterina II in 1767 into tree languages – Tibetan,
Mongolian and Russian. However, they remained out of demand until the end of XIX c.34
Among Buryat educators of XIX c. the figure of Rinchen Nomtoev (1820 - 1907) is
worth to mention first. Learned in Tibetan, Mongol, Russian languages, he did much for
education in Buryatiya, founding schools, Buddhist colleges and communicating with
Russian researchers. He wrote quite a few grammars and dictionaries connecting Tibetan,
Mongol and Russian, however, his main activity was concerned with Buryat education.35
By the end of XIX c. it was over 40 monasteries with 10, 000 monks in Buryatia who
developed the whole range of Buddhist sciences. All those were completely swept away
it 1930th when a part of printing materials formed immense collections of academic
archives, statues melted in plants and replenished funds of museums, etc. Buddhism
became private, hidden personal matter.
A small, also traditionally Buddhist (with strong shamanic influences), region of Tyva to
the west of Buryatia was annexed in 1944 and its Buddhist component eradicated too.
Modest revival happened in
Soviet period was extremely difficult for Buddhists studies, - in fact, the gap from 1930
till 1950th became the death sentence for Russian Buddhology. The only mountain in
Russian Tibetology of 1960th one can regard as such, is George Roerich's monumental
14
11-volume "Tibetan – Russian – English Dictionary with the Sanskrit Parallels", but it is
but the product of his overseas researches. Still, it was the beginning of the revival of
studies, resulted in the humble academic activity in 1960 – 1980, incomparable to the
western huge , - due to soviet iron curtain.
G. Roerich (1902 - 1960) may be considered as the founder of Tibetan Studies in

Moscow Institute of Orientology. He fortunately avoided all horrors of communist rule,
was educated as philologist and historian in England, extensively traveled in Tibet and
wrote many brilliant historical works needless to list – mainly in English. If Roerich had
not returned to Russia in 1957 he would be rightly considered as purely Western scholar.
As to his contribution to Russian Tibetology and translation, the main impact was done
with his teaching, "Tibetan Language" monograph (1962) and fundamental "Tibetan –
Russian – English Dictionary with Sanskrit Parallels" in 11 volumes published as late as
in 1980th, with its reach, proper, exhaustive Russian entries. continued at its highest
standards
Due to his academic and pedagogical work in Moscow a new generation of Tibetologists
appeared.
Parfionovich, Modern Tibetan- Russian Dictionary, translations of Tibetan fairy tales.

Activity of the mostly established as ideological institutions such as the both branches, in
Moscow and Leningrad, of the Institute of Orientology of USSR Academy of Science,
quite often gave distorted historical and philosophical picture of Tibetan knowledge.
Tibetan researches certainly was not in focus for the most of researchers, and almost all
publications about Tibet and Buddhism was don from the angle of China (history of Tibet
in XVII – XVIII c. in the monograph Мартынов А. С. Статус Тибета в XVII – XVIII
веках в традиционной китайской системе политических представлений. Наука.
Москва. 1978) was given by no means of using original Tibetan sources, or done as a
compilation of Western Nagarjuna's philosophy
Imitation of activity by issuing
with few exceptions such as monograph by V. S. Dylykova "Tibetan Literature" with it
overview of Western sources on relevant topic, more focussing on secular gneres such as
didactic parables, fairy-tales, biographies.
B. I. Kuznetsov (1931- 1985) initially was specializing in Chinese literature and history,
and later, after one-year training under khenpo of Involga (in Buryatia) monastery
guidance, he taught Tibetan in St. -Petersburg University until his death and thus , more
concentrating on Tibetan history (critical edition of Tibetan text and partial translation of
"The clear mirror of Royal Genealogies", monographs "History of Tibet and Bon" and
"Ancient Iran and Tibet (History of Bon Religion)"). He also made a draft translation of 3
parts of Lamrim Chenmo by Tsongkhapa.
E. I. Kychanov (b. 1932) also belongs to St. -Petersburg orientological school, as

historian he deeply researches and wrote many works on history of Tangut and Hsi Hsya
states (X – XIII c. )
www. orientalstudies. ru
15
L. S. Savitsky (b. 1932) graduated in 1960 the Tibetan Philology Department in St.
-Petersburg University, in later activity being mostly researching Tibetan belle-letre: its
history, poetry of VI Dalai-Lama, anthology of "Elegant sayings", Songtsen Gampo's
testaments.
Special topic is activity of Buryat Insitute of Social Science of Buryat Branch of Siberian
Department of USSR Academy of Science where many learned scholars, most of them of
Buryat origin, were working primary in historical and medical sphere of Tibetan
knowledge. There were under strict ideological control of communist officials which
greatly limited there themes of research. Any publication directly referring to Buddha's
teachings, such as collection of articles Психологические аспекты буддизма, Новосибирск,
1991, (Scichological aspects of Buddhism, Novosibirsk) was sentenced to become
bestseller in spite of being rather humble translation of mostly Chinese sources
B. V. Semichov, R. E. Pubaev, B. D. Dandaron, B. D. Badaraev, K. M. Gerasimova
For Buddhists, the main hope to survive was to be forgotten by authorities somewhere
outskirts of central regions. Notably, in 1960th the only living tradition of non-monastic
approach was the school of Bidiya Dandaron, the great practitioner who had the
transmission of, mainly, Gelug school. He managed to gather some bright heads of that
time from the biggest cities, Russians by origin. Many of them later moved to Buryatiya
region, settled in remote villages, and established themselves as the leaders of the tantric
groups, attracting new followers, mostly from the European part of the USSR. To
mention a few, - Vassily Repko and Yury Lavrov entertained a "crazy wisdom" wild
style, put their students to the heavy hardships, and always expected various authorities'
pressure. All that drove them to a really marginal position; as to the academic studies,
Current works: In search for genuine
Perestroika and fall of the iron curtain signified the raise of

With the fall of communists power (1991) situation with Buddhist studies changed
completely. Academic studies went their traditional way while lacking funding, whereas
newly established Buddhist groups answered urgent need of the practitioners by rough
and imprecise translations of the meditation texts from western languages.
In 1990th
Grouping of Tibetan – Russian translation can be roughly outlined as follow.
Academic approach as "objective" evaluation and historical-linguistic methods is

shriveling due to lack of funding, being too dry and of limited interest to general
Buddhist-oriented public. The most researches are oriented to Chinese and Japanese
16
cultural sphere. Moscow and St.-Petersburg schools are distinctly different, the first being
more scholastic and thorough (but Tibetan studies are just a side-topic; extensive works
are based mostly on Western sources), and the second being much more productive,
based on primal sources, flexible to the new influences, and pervading.
Moscow scholars who somehow in their works concern our topic, are represented by
circumstantial works of V. Shokhin on comparative studies of Buddhist, Western and
Indian philosophies. They are interesting, but are of limited interest being thorough
analysis of Tscherbatski concepts and interpretations, or in-depth restoration of Indian –
Buddhist schools of philosophy (Tibetan sources were not used).
Kitinov's (2004) work is a real novelty as to the history of Kalmyk (Oyrat) people with its
relations to different schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Based on many original (also Tibetan,
unlike other's) sources, it reliably disproves the idea about the only Gelygpa's dominance
among traditionally Buddhist peoples in Russia.
Androssov's (1990, 2000, 2001) "systematic historic-textological method"36 is applied
mostly to lives and works of Nagarjuna and Buddha Shakyamuni. Voluminous works
comprise broad compilation of Russian and Western language major works on Buddhism,
accompanied by translation of some the most important Nagarjuna's treatises. Here
solicitous, reverent and attentive attitude towards Buddhist teachings somehow is
combined with "objective" position had being in vogue in the West in 1950-70th. Tibetan
language (because of absence of primal sources bibliography) seems to be taken as
reference. Some Androssov's artificial translation of "sentient being" as "species", kleśa
as "affect" (rather strange in Russian usage), "mind" as "psyche" called some critique
among translators too37.
There is no doubt that close contacts of last two scholars with their colleagues abroad, as
they acknowledge it themselves, was very conductive to their recent works.
St.-Peterburg is the scene of major tibetological activity, much more creative, exigent,
then anywhere else.
E. Ostrovskaya-Jn. started as translator of smaller didactic text of Gung thang bsTan pa'i
sGron me (1762 - 1823), Guntan (1997), where excessively broad and liberal translation
of terms is combined with superfluous literal rendering, occurring too often to be listed
here. Diligent, but immature work, about which Wladislaw Ermoline once said that "the
translator fell into all traps of a beginner". Good apparatus, thorough commentary and
best intentions redeem the exposition, but literary and stylistic values are suffered too.
Another work, an overview of Tibetan religious history (Ostrovskaya (2002)) is given in
sociologic perspective, and is certainly of interest since it gives many unknown to a
Russian reader facts. Lack of sources of information (no apparatus except the modest
bibliography is provided) diminishes the value of the book even for a not-so-scholarly
reader supposed to be addressed.
Barely worth to mention, recurring the traits of proper translation discussed in the
beginning, that all translators discussed so far, are phyi rol pas, that is, outsiders of inner
Buddhist understanding, and as such are devoid of some indispensable qualities.
Among reputable scholars of St.-Petersburg school many names should be mentioned,

such as V. Rudoi, E. Ostrovskaya-Sn., E. Torchinov, A. Paribok, but their works are
17
concentrated mostly on Sanskrit, Chinese and Pali texts, and thus fall away of our theme.
Still, their influence on Tibetan studies is substantial. Some of them continued to work in
frames of academic, linguo-historical approach, some others became Buddhists, and thus
expanded their understanding.
As it was before in the history of Tibetan translation on Russian soil, renewal came with
foreign contacts, educational and cooperative, and the new phase of its development
towards up-to-date translation techniques commenced according to description of the
fourth stage given by Doboom Tulku. In the beginning of 1990th many talented Buddhists
of different schools departed to, mostly, India to study Tibetan Buddhism from its very,
primal source. Some scientists followed their track came from the West academic
approach (Schmidt, Tscherbatskoy, Roerich), but it fades in academic corridors during 1
– 2 generation, and then the next hurl follows;
Other scholars, translators and editors whose activity is discussed below, cannot be bound
with just one place, however many of them are living in St.-Petersburg, and are better to
be discussed within groups naturally appeared in course of modern development of
"Russian" Buddhism. During some fifteen years of open boundaries big Russian cities
saw teachers of all traditions who were able to quench any kind of Dharma thirst of any
type of trainee. Usually after a visit of such a teacher a group of practitioners appeared,
but not so many of them continued their activity for long.38
Influential groups that follow one of Tibetan Buddhism tradition, are as follows39.
Gelug tradition. Traditional Buddhist Sangha of Russia40 represents numerous Buddhists
of Buryat Autonomous Republic as well as nearby regions who generally follow Gelug
tradition in its Mongolia-oriented variant for some 300 years. Having established two
edicational institutions, in Ivolga and Aginsk, where some course materials is published,
and to be shortly analyzed later. There are also numerous groups around the country that
following Gelug order too, sometimes associated in bigger units by geographical (like
Kalmyk and Tyva Autonomous Republics) or teaching principle. Overwhelming majority
accept Dalai Lama's incontestable authority. Translating activity is found mostly in St-
Petersburg and Moscow. Periodical press, local and national, is developed, as well as
publishing activity ("Clear Light", "Narthang", "Utpala", Datsan Gunzechoinei
publishing houses).
Russian Association of Karma Kagyu (Karmapa Thaye Dorje lineage) is a conglomerate
of about 100 centers around the country "Buddhism.ru" magazine and "Diamond Way"
publish translated texts from Western languages, whereas activity of Russian Brunch of
Karmapa International Buddhist Institute in Elista, Kalmykia (1995 - 2002) won common
respect by its traditional way of education.
Nyingma tradition is represented by strong community of Dzogchen practitioners in
many cities under the guidance of Namkha'i Norbu, as well as Khenpos Palden Sherab
and Tsewang Dongyal's groups. One of the most successful publishers "Uddiyana" that
follows mainly this tradition, is specializing in translations, Tibetan ones being not so
numerous as one could wish. Generally, major part of teachings was rendered from
western languages. Some independent translators of this tradition are also working
intensively.
18
Rime movement unifies groups of some Karma Kagyu teachers, and also Drikung
tradition is presented. They seem just start to develop translating works.
Sakya groups are just a few, but there scholastic activity is well presented in translating
due to R. Krapivina activity.
V. Motlevich, B. Dandarom's student, and his companions comprise a significant part of
Tibetan translation landscape.
A distinct feature that distinguishes these new translators from previous one, is that all of
them had been studying Tibetan and other Buddhist sciences somewhere abroad, or had
continuous contacts with genuine bearers of traditional knowledge.
Geshe Jampa Thinley (b. 1962), a native Tibetan41, from 1993 became a Russian resident.
He established many centers and gives extensive teachings on traditional Gelug
philosophy and meditation techniques. His first discourses were translated from English,
but soon Geshe learned Russian and became able to teach directly in simple, but
intelligible Russian. Constant and continuos work with translators' team allowed to
establish terminological system that made a strong impact on future development of
translation in Russia42. Some doubtful renderings43 we will meet also in works of other
translators, other terms bear imprint of English mediation.
With this idealistic criteria so difficult to accomplish that such a translator can be
compared to, maybe, a chakravartin, I will try later to examine some works.
Evaluation of any translation according to those criteria may be influenced with
individual predisposition and taste.
A new approach to Tibetan – Russian translation being the internationally acknowledged

necessity of close cooperation with bearers of Tibetan scholastic tradition in academic
institutions represents R. N. Krapivina (b. 1947). Her career as researcher of Tibetan-
Buddhist philosophical, religious and historical tradition started in Buryatia, with deep
researches on Sakya tradition (translations of "The Gates leading to the Dharma" by bSod
Nams rTsemo, "Cristal Mirror to the Philosophical Systems, Sakyapa Chapter" by Thu'u
bKwan bLobzang Choskyi Nyima, published in 1994 and 1995 respectively). These
works draw a clear border between 3rd and 4th phase of development suggested by
Doboom Tulku in Tibetan to Western language translation, within one translator's
activity. For this reason let me demonstrate some details in each.
The first one (Sonam Tsemo translation) was prepared during Krapivina's work in Buryat
Institute, presented as Candidate of Science's (close to the Western MPh degree) thesis in
St. -Petersburg Branch of IO RAS, and published some 10 years later. This work is one
of the best samples of academic approach of survived Russian Buddhology tradition, with
full range of apparatus such as relevant commentaries, indexes, Tibetan text, etc.
accompanied with thorough exposition of historical, cultural and philosophical
background. Exposition of Buddha Shakyamuni's deeds that comprise the biggest part of
the book is communicated precisely, with feeling of measure, nice and rich Russian. But
the main difficulties appeared in general teachings' parts.
Some passages dealing with details of polemics between philosophical schools are
missing exactly because of lack of direct contact with a bearer of tradition, and for the
19
same reason some terms and details go beyond the original meaning. To be precise, it is
translation of mtshan ma as self-essence (p. 40) instead of characteristics or alike; rnam
par rtog pa as discrimination (p. 5) instead of consciousness, concept; 'du byed phung po
as karmic impulses (p. 71) instead of skandha of composite; mthong lam as Path of
Cognition (p. 166); 'dus byed as elements that are subjects of existence instead of
compounded (p. 172), and some other deviations. With regard to essential points
traditional division of Dharma as lung pa'i chos and rtogs pa'i chos translated as
theoretical and practical (p. 8) instead of Dharma of scripture and realization. Next
passage being de la rtogs pa'i chos ni gang zag 'phags pa rnams la 'byung ba ste\ dbying
glo bur gyi dri ma las grol ba 'gog pa mthar thug dang\ de snang ba med pa'i shes pas
bskyed pa lam mthar thug pa'o\ translated: "As to that, the saints realize the practical
part of the Teaching. It brings them to the purification from accidental dirt and to final
extinction [of it] in the process of cognition of indivisibility of subject and object; it
constitutes the final [phase] of the Path"(translated from Russian). The rendering might
be more precise, like: "As to that, the Dharma of realization arises in the Noble persons;
it is the ultimate cessation, liberation from incidental stains [that cover Dharma-]dhatu,
and the ultimate path developed by a cognizer to whom those [stains] do not appear" (p.
8, 116). Pure academic method characterized by limited contacts with traditionally
educated scholars reveals its limits because of insufficient perspective of whole range of
Teachings.
In spite of wish to render the original as precise as possible, annoying discrepancies are
appearing from time to time. Mi skye ba'i chos kha bzod pa, "patience as to [realization
that] phenomena are unborn" appears as "cognition of teaching about emptiness" (p. 24).
The common place about different potential of beings – attached to existence, those who
possess the methods (Hinayanists), and Mahayanists – is presented as follows: de ltar na
sems can gyi bsam pa gsum gyis 'bras bu gsum du 'dod ba'i thabs lam gsum du dbye ba'o
- "Thus, three types of consciousness inherent to sentient beings comprise division into
three parts and, in dependence upon the method, into three results" instead of "Thus, due
to three intentions of beings there is a division into three paths [of] methods which [bring
about] three desirable results" (p. 4, 115).
Other mistakes can be traced with regard to geography (Gridhakuta is placed in Shravasti
instead of Rajagriha, p. 40), in translation of some concise verses (e. g. len pa'i rnam par
shes pa zab cing phra\ sa bon thams cad chu bo'i rgyun bzhin 'bab\ - "Taken
consciousness is profound and subtle, - like water stream, it washes all seeds [of
previous actions] away" whereas it reads "Taken consciousness is profound and subtle.
All seeds flow like stream of a river", p. 40, 130). Practice of multiplying the number of
lines in verses in spite of a particular pliancy of Russian syntax also looks strange. Many
places also devoid of brackets since translation tends more to interpretative approach like
that of Tscherbatskoy.
Still, this work is a really good one. But the next work also endowed with fully developed
academician approach bears also experience of the translator's studies in Tribhuvan
University in Kathmandu in 1991 – 1993. Difficult topic of concise presentation of Sakya
philosophical, practice and historical tradition in Tugan's treatise finds relevant reflection
in Krapivina's translation, with persistent tendency to interpret some clear and elegant
passages in explanatory way, but this can be ruled to translator's free choice.
Nevertheless, some terms used seem to be too far from original meaning. E. g. sgom ("to
20
meditate, to cultivate") is taken for goms and mostly translated as "to accustom"; btang
snyoms becomes equality instead of equanimity (p. 74), 'khrul and gsal snang becomes
absent and correct vision instead of illusory and clear appearances (pp. 77 - 79). Mthong
becomes to cognize instead of possible to see, or insight, etc. (p. 85), and the whole
elegant passage with wordplay mthog bya mthong byed med pas bltas pas mthong rgyu
med becomes dryish "since neither object of cognition exists nor someone who cognizes
it, there is no way to cognize [any object whatsoever] even with help of analytical
consideration" while more precise would be "Since one that sees devoid of that to be
seen, there is nothing to watch through observation" (p. 85). In the string of following
similar statements some liberties also continue: grol rgyu med pa de ga rtogs pas grol te
– "We are liberated by liberating ourselves from that of which is not possible to be
liberated" (Krapivina) - "Liberating [oneself] by realization that there is just nothing to
liberate" (p. 85), etc.
This can be taken as too strict criteria, but it should be remembered that those instructions
constitute the essential points of the very core of tantric teachings where each syllable is
extremely important as in any ritual, meditation text that I am going to examine a bit
later.
No doubts that these deviations made more then 10 years ago have been perfected during
later practice of Dr. Krapivina with such experienced teachers as resident of St.
-Peresburg Geshe Jamyan Khentse to whom she serve as permanent translator. Now she
also teaches Tibetan in St. -Petersburg University, and currently her attention shifted to
more fundamental treatises such as "Ornament of Clear Realization" by Maitreya –
Asanga, Buddhist theory of valid cognition, tantric practices and its levels, 7-Point Mind
Training (published in 1998), Tibetan Fairy Tales (2001), "Entering the practice of a
Bodhisattva" by Atisha, and some other works in progress.
The title of the most voluminous and fundamental translation from the Tibetan rightly
belongs to Tsongkhapa's "The Big Exposition of Graduated Path" (lam rim chen mo) by
A. Kugyavichus with the team of editors44. Algirdas Kugyavichus is the student of Buryat
Lama Gombo Tsybikov, now Dzogchen tradition45. He leaves in Lituania and belongs to
St.-Petersburg group of translators following Gelug tradition.
Being started in 1982, this work demonstrates formation and deepening the skill and
insight the leading Russian translators the working team was consisting of. From volume
to volume, published in succession from 1994 until 2000, a reader is a witness of refining
the usage of crucial terms, perfection of style, and upgrade of self-requirements,
becoming more and more relevant to modern scholarship. Thorough apparatus much
eases all necessary references. Guided by criteria of translation mentioned above as to the
terms and style, let's have a look at some details.
Terms. In first two volumes we see more quivering attitude caused by a kind of clerical,
old fashioned approach, in usage such words as "sin" for sdig pa, "sinful action" for mi
dge ba, "soul" for sems (~ rgyud), "confession" for bshags pa, "precept" for bka',
"paradise" for mtho ris, "saint" for 'phags pa. Some of them gradually disappear by the
end of the work. Many terms were given in Sanskrit, its amount later is lessening too. For
many close in meaning, but still quite different in nuances words, the sets of relevant, but
too broad words is used, so borders between terms erode, and the exact meaning blurs. It
21
persists until the end of the publication (however, the most obvious deviations disappear),
and this can be taken as general position of translators that may be corrected further.
E. g. the word "thought" stands for 'du shes (also "imagination, setting, aware(ness)" is
used), as well as for bsam pa, rtog pa, and sems ("thought" exclusively; IV, V46), - it
seems that too many different terms are subsumed under one; word "object" stands for
yul, gzhi, and dmigs pa (V). "Basis" is used for gzhi (which also sometimes translated as
"thing"), as well as for rtsa ba, gnad, gtso bo (V); "aware(ness)" – exclusively for shes
pa, but also for rtogs pa, mthong ba, rig pa (the last also means "Presence", - Dzogchen
tradition understanding, clear invention of the translator, - in vol. II), and also used to
translate 'du shes, dpags pa (V), and ye shes (in Iid vol.; in vol. V ye shes is interpreted
already as "insight, knowledge"). "Propelling forces" and "impulse" for 'du byed (in II)
become "will" (in IV), and end up as rightful "conditioned", elsewhere in the translation
'dus ma byas being "unconditioned". Again, "the bad, filth" (II) and "mistake" (IV) for
sgrib finally transforms into correct "veil" (V).
Some other translations also seem not to be justified, even until the end of the work, such
as she rab – was translated only as "acuteness" (possibly "insight") in II vol., which
seems to diminish conceptual component of the term; by V vol. the meaning "wisdom"
was also adopted. "Feelings" stays for dbang po and 'dun pa (II, IV), "logic" only - for
tshad ma in II, by vol. V being transformed into correct "valid cognition". Just
"aware(ness)" stays for purely conceptual dpags pa elsewhere (basically it means "to
measure, to infer"). The same process of transformation of sgom ("to meditate, to
cultivate") that, as in Krapivina's works, in the beginning is taken for goms and mostly
translated as "to master" (also "the Path of Mastering" stands for Path of Meditation),
slowly adopts "contemplation" and "cultivation", whereas bsgom pa (future form of the
verb – Thumi, p. 68; bod rgya tshig I, p. 633) remains "mastering". On the last topic long
argues can be hold, but I prefer newly arrived into Russian but widely adopted nowadays
"to meditate", as this word is empty enough yet to be filled with meaning of definitions of
sgom pa: (1) "again and again familiarize the mind with intention and meaning" – bsam
don yang yang yid la 'dris par byed pa, and (2) "methods and wisdom of familiarizing
with mind" - yid la 'dris pa'i thabs shes47.
To exhaust strange and not exact translation found in Russian variant of Tsongkhapa's
work, I'm to list a few more renderings. Polysemantic don in the meaning of "benefit"
here is translated as the "aim" [for oneself and others] (II, p. 220), nye bar len pa – as
"content" (V, p. 446), rnam bzhag – as "elements" (ibid.), sphrul pa – as "phantom" (V,
p. 449), important thal 'gyur – as "refuting inference" (V, p. XVI, 447). 'Gro ba is
translated as "fate" (IV, p. 212), kun brtags – as "imagination". The reflection of old-days
manner to apply European philosophical terminology to quite different Tibetan terms can
also be found on last pages of translation, such as "transcendentalist" for rab tu mi gnas
par smra ba, clarified as "those who consider that there is nothing [self-identical]
whatsoever"48. This rendering can lead an inexperienced reader to confusion.
To give another example how the rendering is not quite precise, let me quote a sentence
from the vol. III that concerns the results of generosity. Original reads: 'dis ni rang gi
bsod nam shin tu mang po bskyed la gzhen kha cig gi nyon mongs btul ba dang kha cig gi
chos 'dod pa rdzogs par byas pa dang sems can bsdus pa dang smin par byas par yang
'gyur ro49. Kugyavichus translates as "Thanks to this, very much merit for oneself will be
sown; and for others – in someone kleshas will be suppressed, for someone righteous (or:
22
godly) wishes will be fulfilled, and it also will serve to conversion of beings [into
Dharma], and to their development"50. In my opinion, more precise would be like: "By
this, utter plentitude of merit will be developed, and for others – someone's kleshas will
be tamed, someone's wish for Dharma will be perfected, and also beings will be gathered
and brought to maturation"51.
Hopefully all these notes exhaust the most evident, from my point of view,
inconsistencies, smaller ones being on the border of possible interpretation might be
discussed endlessly.
Overall result is a good one in spite on that the work was commenced independently of
traditional way of transmission. In the process of translation the text was somehow
improved and became based of oral commentaries of Tibetan master (Jamyang
Khyentse). Style also improved much: dryness and clerical overtones were diminished,
more natural constructions and words came in use. The language is rich and image-
bearing, tastefully archaic and poetic: tendency to employ white verse is adding much to
the elegance of exposition. The terminology at many points remained self-employed so
sometimes it is difficult to trace the initial meaning in order to compare with other
Tibetan texts. The reason for these undesirable appearances may lie in excessive
creativeness of the translator and editors, and in the fact that they were pioneering new
approach in not well-known land.
Later, A. Kugyavichus in his article52 considers some important, general and particular,
aspects how properly to translate the most significant Buddhist terms. He rightfully
rejects both approaches – niveler53 manifold meanings into one target term, and to use too
many terms to translate just one, the solution being zero term, - "the source of the term,
the concentrated wordless silence (even "premonition"), from which a necessary word is
born"54 - actually, being quite similar to the grace of N. Singh.
As soon as, however, a practical task is handled (here Kugyavichus analyzes ye she, rang
bzhin and stong pa nyi terms), solutions offered are subjects of arguing. E.g., "awareness"
is suggested for ye shes as a result of examination of different possibilities, but the course
of thought does not look justified, starting from statement that "wisdom", a possible
translation, sounds strange "since Wisdom is not a subject of accumulation, it rather
'opens' at rejecting… of all unnecessary"55 until undiscussed possibility of usage the word
"awareness" for translating other, not less important terms, such as "rig pa".
Already mentioned A. Terentyev (b. 1948) is the student of Buryat Lama Zhimba-
Zhamtso Tsybenov (from 1978). He translates Dalai Lama and other renowned teachers
discourses, usually from English, runs well-established national Buddhist magazine and
Narthang house56 publishing up to 5 books per year. His editing work57 makes a big
impact on many translators of our days, and area of the Terentyev's special interest is the
Buddhist iconography58. He also coordinates Gelug activity among its European
followers in Russia.
M. Kozhevnikova's poetic talent adorns rather dry plains of philosophical discourses. Her
numerous special translations of ritual texts, meditations and other elevated Buddhist
texts are done with genuine feeling, and are rather poetical. For me can be taken as one of
the most promising works in current Russian Tibetology.
23
Yaroslav Komarovsky is one of the first of "new generation" students who went for
longer studies in proper Tibetan institutions in India of other places of traditional studies,
namely College of Dialectics in Dharamsala where he studied Buddhist philosophy, logic
and Tibetan. He was not following instructions of teachers of only Gelug tradition, but
also of Sakya and Nyingma teachers. After traditional training he shortly visited Russia
where two shorter books were published, one being translation of Dujom Rinpoche's
description of lives of fourteen Dalai-Lamas, another – an overview of Buddhist logic.
Both works demonstrate precise, sometimes dryish language relevant to the topics,
carrying the blessing of transmission too. Unlike too dry western academic approach, the
exposition follows the Tibetan way of representation. Now Komarovky is studying in an
USA university.
{the article is not finished}
Bibliography (Russian)
Рерих Ю. Н. Тибетский язык. М. , 1961.

Рерих Ю. Тибетский язык, М: Эдиториал УРСС '2001
Рерих Ю. Тибетско-Русско-Английский словарь с санскритскими параллелями (в
11 томах) М: Наука '83-87
Цыбиков Г. Ц. Пособие для изучения тибетского языка: Упражнения в разговорном

и литературном языке и грамматические заметки. Ч. 1. Разговорная речь. –
Владивосток, 1908.
Парфионович Ю. М. Тибетский письменный язык. М. , 1970.
Ходж Ст. Тибетский язык, СПб: Дацан Гунзэчойнэн '97
Буддизм России. №28, осень 1997.

Буддизм России. №29-30, весна-осень 1998.
Буддист.Санкт-Петербургский "Дхарма-Центр".Номер 1, 1996
Гаруда.Санкт-Петербург.Номер 2, 1994
Жизнь Кагью.Журнал буддийской традиции Карма Кагью.1993
Мандала. Номер 1, 1992
Мандала. Номер2, 1993
Androssov (2000)
24
Андросов В.П. Буддизм Нагарджуны. Религиозно-философские
трактаты.Восточная литература РАН.Москва.2000
Androssov (2001)
Андросов В.П. Будда Шакьямуни и индийский буддизмю Современное
истолкование древних текстов.Восточная литература РАН.Москва.2001
Androssov (1990)
Андросов В.П. Нагарджуна и его учение. Наука. Москва.1990
Abaev (1995)
Психологические аспекты буддизма. Наука. Новосибирск. 1991. Буддизм в целом.
я. Тибетский буддизм: теория и практика. Ответственный редактор Абаев Н. В.
Наука. Новосибирск. 1995.
Badmaev (1991)
Бадмаев Петр. Основы врачебной науки Тибета. Жуд-Ши. Москва. Наука. 1991.
Bayartuev B. D. (1985)
Баяртуев Б.Д. Жизнь и творчество Ринчена Номтоева (1820 - 1907). В сборнике:
Буддизм и литературно-художественное творчество народов Центральной Азии.
Ответственный редактор Р.Е. Пубаев. Наука. Новосибирск.1985, стр. 71-77.
Bazarov (1998)
Базаров А. А. Институт философского диспута в тибетском буддизма. Наука.
Санкт-Петербург. 1998.
Dandaron (1996)
Дандарон Б. Д. Буддизм. Сборник статей. Дацан Гунзэчойнэй. Санкт-Петербург.
1996
Dandaron (1992)
Дандарон Б. Д. Махамудра как объединяющий принцип буддийского тантризма.
Улан-Удэ. 1992
Dandaron (undated)
Дандарон Б. Д. Мысли буддиста. Владивостокское буддийское общество.
Владивосток. 199?
Dandaron (1995)
Дандарон Б. Д. Черная тетрадь. О четырех благородных истинах буддизма. Дацан
Гунзэчойнэй. Санкт-Петербург. 1995
Death (2003)
Смерти вопреки. Антология секретных учений о смерти и умирании в традиции
Дзогчен тибетского буддизма. На основе текстов Лонгчен Рабджама, Джигме
25
Лингпа, Карма Лингпа, семнадцать тантр Дзогчена Менгак-дэ. Перевод с
тибетского и комментарий Ламы Сонам Дордже. Москва. 2003.
Dharma (1996)
Дхарма. Религиозно-философский альманах. Дхарма Община. Улан-Удэ. выпуск 1-
2 1996.
Dujom (2001)
Дюджом Ринпоче. 14 Далай-лам Тибета. Краткое описание жизни и правления
Далай-лам. Перевод с тибетского Я. Комаровского. Уддияна. Санкт-Петербург.
2001.
Dylykova (1986)
Дылыкова В. С. Тибетская литература. Наука. Москва. 1986.
Dzunba (1998)
Дзунба Кунчог Жигме Ванбо. Драгоценное ожерелье учений философских школ.
Улан-Удэ. 1998
Ermakova (1998)
Ермакова Т. В. Буддийский мир глазами российских исследователей Х1Х-первой
трети ХХ века. (Россия и сопредельные страны). Наука. Санкт-Петербург. 1998.
Gunchen (2001)
Гунчен Жамьян Шадба. Исследование крайностей семидесяти значений парамиты.
Перевод с тибетского Б. Б. Дампилон. Будийский институт "Даши Чойхорлин".
Верхняя Иволга. 2001.
Guntan (1997)
Гунтан Данби Донме. Обучение методу исследования текстов сутр и тантр.
Ладомир. Москва. 1997.
Gusev (2000)
Гусев, Б. Петр Бадмаев. Крестник императора, целитель, дипломат. Олма-Пресс.
Москва. 2000.
Jampa Thinley (1995)

Джампа Тинлей Геше. Шаматха. Основы тибетской медитации. Ясный свет. Санкт-
Петербург. 1995

Джампа Тинлей Геше. Тантра: путь к освобождению. Ясный свет. Санкт-

26
Джампа Тинлей, геше. Ум и пустота. Пер с английского М. Малышевой и Т.
Проваторовой. Московский буддийский центр Ламы Цонкапы. Москва. 1999.
Kalachakra (2002)
Практика Круга Времени - Калачакра. Кратчайший текст шестиразовой практики.
Краткий текст шестиразовой практики Круга времени. Гуру-йога Калачакры –
Круга времени в соединении с шестиразовой практикой. Перевод с тибетского М.
Кожевниковой. Нартанг. Санкт-Петербург. 2002.
Kitinov (2004).
Китинов Б. У. Священный Тибет и воинственная степь: буддизм у ойратов (XIII -
XVII вв. ). Товарищество научных изданий КМК. Москва. 2004.
Kozhevnikova (1998)
М. Кожевникова. Путь к Знанию пути (по материалам архива Ф.И. Щербатского). –
"Буддизм России" № 29-30 (1998), стр. 93 – 109.
Kugyavichus (2002)
А Кугявичус. Контекстуальные границы унификации перевода буддийского
термина. Начальные тезисы для обсуждения. – "Буддизм России" № 35, 2002, стр.
89 – 92.
Kuznetsov (1998)
Кузнецов Б. И. Древний Иран и Тибет. История религии Бон. Евразия. Санкт-
Петербург. 1998.
Lamaism (1983)
Ламаизм в Бурятии ХVШ-начала ХХ века. Структураи социальная роль культовой
системы. Наука. Новосибирск. 1983.
Longchen (2002)
Лонгчен Рабджампа. Драгоценный корабль. Разъяснение смысла Бодхичитты –
Царя Всетворящего. Тридцать советов, идущих из сердца Гьялвы Лонгченпы.
Перевод с тибетского А. Пубанц. Перевод с английского Ф. Маликова. Уддияна. С.
-Петербург. 2002.
Longchen (2002)
Лонгчен Рабджам. Драгоценная Сокровищница Дхармадхату. Перевод с тибетского
Ламы Сонам Дордже. Ника-центр. Киев. 2002.
Martynov (1978)
Мартынов А. С. Статус Тибета вХУП-ХУШ веках в традиционной китайской
системе политических представлений. Наука. Москва. 1978.
Mipham (2003)
27
Мипам Ринпоче, Джу Джамгон. Врата, открывающие путь к знанию. Институт
общегуманитарных исследований. Москва. 2003.
Namhai (2000)
Намкхай Норбу Ринпоче. Круг дня и ночи, который проходят на пути Ати-йоги.
Сущностный тибетский текст по практике Дзогчена. Шанг Шунг. Санкт-Петербург.
2000.
Oldenburg (1991)
Ольденбург С. Ф. Культура Индии. Наука. Москва. 1991.
Ostrovskaya-Jn. (2002)
Островская-мл. Е.Н. Тибетский буддизм. Петербургское востоковедение. Санкт-
Pozdneev (1993)
Позднеев А. М. Очерки быта буддийскихмонастырей и буддийского духовенства в
Монголии в связи с отношеними сего последнего к народу. Калмыцкое книжное
издательство. Элиста. 1993.
Przhevalsky (1948)
Пржевальский Н. М. От Кяхты на истоки Жёлтой реки. Исследование северной
окраины Тибета и путь через Лоб-Нор по бассейну Тарима. ОГИЗ.
Государственное издательство географической литературы. Москва 1948.
Pubaev (1981)
Пубаев Р. Е. "Пагсам-Чжонсан"- памятник тибетской историографии ХУШ века.
Наука. Новосибирск. 1981.
Pubaev (1985)
Буддизм и литературно-художественное творчество народов Центральной Азии.
Ответственный редактор Р. Е. Пубаев. Наука. Новосибирск. 1985.
Pubaev (1989)
Введение в изучение Ганчжура и Данчжура. Историко-библиографический очерк.
Ответственный редактор Пубаев Р. Е. Наука. Новосибирск. 1989.
Pubaev – Dandaron (1968)

Источник мудрецов. Тибетско-монгольский терминологический словарь буддизма.
Перевод с тибетского и монгольского Р. Е. Пубаева и Б. Д. Дандарона. Парамита и
мадхьямика. Бурятское книжное издательство. Улан-Удэ. 1968.
Researchers (1998)
Исследователи Центральной Азии в судьбах России. Альманах ORIENT, выпуск 2-
3. Утпала. Санкт-Перетбург. 1998.
28
Rozenberg (1991)
Розенберг О. О. Труды по буддизму. Наука. Москва. 1991.
Schmidt I. (1839)
Шмидт. Учебник тибетского языка. . Спб. 1839.
Scherbatskoy (1988)
Щербатской Ф. И. Избранные труды по буддизму. Наука. Москва. 1988. Буддизм в
целом.
Scherbatskoy (1995)
Щербатской Ф. И. Теория познания и логика по учению позднейших буддистов.
Часть 1 - 2. Редакция и примечания А. В. Парибка. Аста-Пресс. Санкт-Петербург.
1995.
Shishkin (1999)
Шишкин, Олег. Битва за Гималаи. НКВД: магия и шпионаж. Олма-Пресс. Москва.
1999.
Sonam Tsemo (1992)

Соднам-Цзэмо. Дверь, ведущая в учение. Перевод с тибетского Р. Н. Крапивиной.
Дацан Гунзэчойнэй. Санкт-Петербург. 1994.
Source Study (1986)

Источниковедение и историография истории буддизма. Наука. Новосибирск. 1986.
Source Study (1989)

Источниковедение и текстология памятников средневековых наук в странах
Центральной Азии. Сборник научных трудов. Ответственный редактор Р. Е.
Пубаев. Наука. Новосибирск. 1989.
Tibetan Studies (2005)

Тибетские исследования в Санкт-Петербургском Отделении Института
Востоковедения РАН. www. Санкт-Перетбург. 2005. html file
Tsonkapa (1994 - 2000)

Цонкапа Чже. Большое руководство к этапам пути пробуждения. т. 1 - 5. Нартанг.
Санкт-Петербург. 1994 - 2000.
Tsybikov (1991)
Цыбиков Г. Ц. Избранные труды. т. 1 - 2. Наука. Новосибирск. 1991.
Tugan (1995)
Туган Лопсан-Чойкьи-Ньима. Хрустальное зерцало философских систем. Глава
Сакьяпа. Перевод с тибетского Р. Н. Крапивиной. Дацан Гунзэчойнэй. Санкт-
Петербург. 1995.
29
Vasubandhu (1990)
Васубандху. Абхидхармакоша. Раздел 1. Наука. Москва. 1990.
Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972).

Воробьева-Десятовская М. И.; Савицкий Л. С. Тибетоведение. В сб. : Азиатский
Музей - Ленинградское Отделение Института Востоковедения АН СССР, стр. 149 -
176. Наука. Главная редакция восточной литературы. Москва. 1972.
Vostrikov (1935)
Востриков А. И. С. Ф. Ольденбург и изучение Тибета. - В сб: Записки Института
Востоковедения Академии Наук IV, стр. 59 - 81. Наука. Ленинград. 1935.
Vostrikov (1962)
Востриков А. И. Тибетская историческая литература. Издательство восточной
литературы. Москва. 1962.
Zhamyan (2000).
Жамьян Шадба, Гунчен. Золотые чётки, кратко разъясняющие некоторые аспекты
буддийской логики. Перевод м тибетского Б. Б. Дампилон. Даши Чойнхорлин.
Улан-Удэ. 2000. Тибет.
Bibliography (English)
Barzun, J. & Gaff, H. (2003)

Barzun, J. & Gaff, H. (2003). "Difficulties and Dangers of Translation". In: The Modern
Researcher. Sixth edition, Boston: Houghton Miffin Company, pp. 243 – 255.
Doboom Tulku (2001)

Doboom Tulku (2001). Introduction. In: Buddhist Translations: Problems and
Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku. Manohar. Delhi. pp. 1 - 13
Holmes (1995)
Preface in: Gampopa, Je. Gems of Dharma, Jewels of Freedom. Transl. from the
Tibetan by Ken and Katia Holmes. Alteya Publishing. Forres.
Konchog Gyaltsen (1998)

Preface in: Gampopa. The Jewel Ornament of Liberation. The wishfullfilling Gem
of the Noble Teachings. Translated by Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche, Khenpo.
Snow Lion. Ithaka, New York.
C. Lindtner (2001)
C. Lindtner (2001). Editors and Readers. In: Buddhist Translations: Problems and
Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku. Manohar. Delhi. pp. 193 – 204.
30
Napper (2001)
Napper (2001). Styles and Principles of Translation. In: Buddhist Translations: Problems
and Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku. Manohar. Delhi. pp. 35 – 42.
S. K. Pathak (2001)
S. K. Pathak (2001). Some formulae for Translating: Buddhist Texts from Tibetan. In:
Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku. Manohar.
Delhi. pp. 43 - 58.
N. Singh (2001)
N. Singh (2001). Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives. In: Buddhist
Translations: Problems and Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku. Manohar. Delhi. pp. 20
– 34.
Terentyev (2004)
A. Terentyev. Buddhist Iconography Identification Guide. Narthang. St. Petersburg. 2004
(bilingual).
Bibliography (Tibetan)
Tsongkhapa (2000)
Mnyam med tshong kha pa chen pos mdzad pa'i byang chub lam rim che ba. The
Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation. Taipei, Taiwan. 2000.
bod rgya tshig (1993)

bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1993
Thumi
Thumi.The.Complete Tibetan Verb Forms. Khrto C.T. Lakshmi Printing Works.
1
Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives. Ed. By Doboom Tulku.
2
Holmes (1995), Konchog Gyaltsen (1998)
3
Scarce discussions are found in Kugyavichus (2002), B. Zagumennov's home page www. , ongoing discussion in
the "Buddhism of Russia" magazine.
4
Konchog Gyaltsen (1998) p. 17 (in Gampopa)
5
Napper (2001) p. 39.
6
Holmes (1995), p. X.
7
As C. Lindtner (2001), p. 199, suggests.
8
Barzun, J. & Gaff, H. (2003)
9
"The editor must try to present his text in the form it is assumed to have left the hands of its author, editor or translator". C.
Lindtner (2001), p. 197.
10
"Those who are aspire to be translators need to study their own parent language first to a degree of acceptable literary
proficiency". N. Singh (2001) p. 21.
11
N. Singh (2001) p. 26.
12
N. Singh (2001) p. 26.
13
N. Singh (2001) p. 24.
14
Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972), p. 148.
15
ibid.
16
Doboom Tulku (2001), p. 2.
17
ibid. , p. 4.
18
ibid. , p. 5.
19
Kitinov (2004), p. 65.
20
Vostrikov (1935), p. 67.
21
Vostrikov (1935), pp. 62 – 65.
22
Vostrikov (1935), p. 42.
23
Vostrikov (1935), p. 67-68; Ermakova (1998), p. 12.
24
Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972) p. 153 - 154; Ermakova (1998), p. 285.
25
Ermakova (1998), pp. 15 – 28.
26
Ermakova (1998) p. 287.
27
Ermakova (1998), pp. 152 - 155.
28
Scherbatskoy (1995) vol. I, p. III.
29
Ermakova (1998), p. 90
30
ibid. , 91.
31
Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972) p. 162 – 164; Tsonkhapa (1994 - 2000) vol. I, x-xi.
32
Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972) p. 165 – 171.
33
Kozhevnikova (1998), p. 93.
34
Vostrikov (1935), p. 71 – 72.
35
Bayartuev (1985).
36
Androssov (2000), p. 10.
37
E.g. extensive polemics on the Zagumennov's site
38
An overview of this process is given in "Buddhism of Russia" magazine, # 34 (2001), p. 27 – 36, and is continuously
carrying on by A. Terentyev, the Chief Editor of it (not without predisposition towards those who are not acting in full
accordance with Dalai Lama's directions).
39
Listed in order of number of adherents, rough evaluation (general considerations and number of participants in Dharma-
events).
40
www.
41
Graduated from Central Institute of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, went through tree-year retreat, and then obtain Geshe degree
in Sera monastery (South India).
42
The biggest Geshe Thinley's center is situated in Moscow, www.
43
E.g. 'du byed – the impulse of will, thal 'gyur – inference, 'dus byas – derivative, rig pa –
consciousness, - Jampa Thinley (1999), pp. 228 – 234.
44
A. Terentyev (alter pater of translation), M. Kozhevnikova, and B. Zagumennov
45
Buddhism of Russia, # 35 (2002), back cover flyleaf.
46
Romanian number designates the number of volume from index of which the term is taken.
47
bod rgya tshig I, p. 597.
48
Tsonkhapa V, p.12.
49
Tsongkhapa (2000), p. 378.
50
Tsonkhapa III, p.178.
51
Underlined words are seem to be deviations.
52
Kugyavichus (2002).
53
French expression, meaning "to bring to similarity", that is, to reduce original term's connotations and levels of meaning.
54
Kugyavichus (2002), p. 92.
55
Ibid., p. 90.
56
www.buddhismofrussia.ru
57
especially on Tsongkhapa's lam rim translation, should be acknowledged as one of determining factor.
58
Terentyev (2004).

Tibetan Translation in Russia

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tibetan Translation in Russia

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

B.

Erokhine, Tibetan Translations in Russia

Tibetan Translations in Russia

Introduction: Sources, general criteria and methodology of research

Sources, general criteria and methodology of research.

Certainly, texts of different schools of Tibetan Buddhism require different approach. As

Others schools features, probably, is better to be discussed by their adherents, and

The history of the Russian translations: Interrupted take-offs

Vorobyeva-Desyatovskaya and Savitsky divide development of Russian Tibetology into

Schmidt's successor in RAS, A. A. Schifner (1817 - 1879) in his grammatical works

Famous sanscritologist S. F. Oldenburg thus generalizes development of Russian science

Still Vassiliev's works demonstrate some flaws common to the contemporary

Activity of another student of Minaev, F. I. Stcherbatskoy (1866 - 1942) became a new

The approach of "structured observation, engaged and disengaged" was developed by a

Gombozhab T. Tsybikov is to be regarded as a special figure in Russian Tibetology as his

G. Roerich (1902 - 1960) may be considered as the founder of Tibetan Studies in

Parfionovich, Modern Tibetan- Russian Dictionary, translations of Tibetan fairy tales.

E. I. Kychanov (b. 1932) also belongs to St. -Petersburg orientological school, as

B. V. Semichov, R. E. Pubaev, B. D. Dandaron, B. D. Badaraev, K. M. Gerasimova

Current works: In search for genuine

Perestroika and fall of the iron curtain signified the raise of

Grouping of Tibetan – Russian translation can be roughly outlined as follow.

Academic approach as "objective" evaluation and historical-linguistic methods is

Among reputable scholars of St.-Petersburg school many names should be mentioned,

A new approach to Tibetan – Russian translation being the internationally acknowledged

{the article is not finished}

Рерих Ю. Н. Тибетский язык. М. , 1961.

Цыбиков Г. Ц. Пособие для изучения тибетского языка: Упражнения в разговорном

Парфионович Ю. М. Тибетский письменный язык. М. , 1970.

Ходж Ст. Тибетский язык, СПб: Дацан Гунзэчойнэн '97

Буддизм России. №28, осень 1997.

Буддист.Санкт-Петербургский "Дхарма-Центр".Номер 1, 1996

Jampa Thinley (1995)

Jampa Thinley (1996)

Jampa Thinley (1999)

Pubaev – Dandaron (1968)

Sonam Tsemo (1992)

Source Study (1986)

Source Study (1989)

Tibetan Studies (2005)

Tsonkapa (1994 - 2000)

Vorobyeva – Savitsky (1972).

Barzun, J. & Gaff, H. (2003)

Doboom Tulku (2001)

Konchog Gyaltsen (1998)

bod rgya tshig (1993)

Você também pode gostar