Chapter 6: The Great Translations—From Sanskrit to Silk Road

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Buddhism.

"One line of Sanskrit could become three scrolls in Chinese. With each word, the Dharma changed shape."

Chang'an, Tang dynasty China, 645 CE. The morning sun slants through the windows of the translation hall at Da Ci'en Temple, illuminating a scene of extraordinary intellectual collaboration. Master Xuanzang, recently returned from his epic sixteen-year journey across the deserts and mountains to India, sits at the center of a carefully orchestrated scholarly assembly. Before him lie over 600 Sanskrit manuscripts—bundled palm-leaf texts, birch-bark scrolls, and copper-plate inscriptions that he has carried back from the great monastic universities of Nālandā and Vikramaśīla.¹

Around him, a team of assistants represents the finest minds of the Tang empire: bilingual monks who have spent decades mastering both Sanskrit grammar and Chinese literary style, imperial scholars appointed by Emperor Taizong himself, scribes trained in the elegant clerical script that will preserve these translations for posterity, and reciters whose voices will test each sentence for euphony and memorability. The air hums with intense concentration as Xuanzang reads aloud from the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, a massive philosophical treatise on the stages of meditation practice. His voice carries the rhythmic cadences of Sanskrit verse, but his Chinese assistants lean forward, trying to capture not just the words but their deeper implications for spiritual practice.²

The translation process is painstakingly deliberate. Xuanzang renders each Sanskrit sentence into spoken Chinese, carefully explaining technical terms and philosophical concepts that have no direct equivalents. His assistant Yijing proposes Chinese characters that might capture the meaning, while another scholar raises concerns about how Confucian readers might misinterpret certain Buddhist ideas about family obligations and social hierarchy. A scribe records each tentative rendering, while others debate whether dharma should be left untranslated as a transliterated term or rendered as fa (法), whether the name Avalokiteśvara should remain in Sanskrit or become the familiar Chinese Guanyin (觀音, "Perceiver of Sounds").

Each sentence requires hours of discussion. Each choice—about vocabulary, syntax, cultural adaptation—could shape how countless future generations understand the path to awakening. This is not simply translation in the modern sense of converting text from one language to another. This is canon formation on a civilizational scale, where ancient Indian wisdom is being reimagined for an entirely different cultural world.

As the scholars work, they are aware that their decisions carry implications far beyond linguistic accuracy. The Tang dynasty has embraced Buddhism as a unifying force for its vast, multiethnic empire, but the religion still faces suspicion from Confucian traditionalists who worry about foreign influence and Buddhist monasticism's challenge to family-centered values. How these Sanskrit texts are rendered into Chinese will determine whether Buddhism takes root as a genuinely Chinese tradition or remains forever foreign. The translation hall at Da Ci'en Temple has become the crucible where Indian enlightenment meets Chinese civilization, creating something unprecedented in human history.

Buddhism's Linguistic Odyssey

By the beginning of the Common Era, Buddhism had begun an extraordinary journey that would eventually carry it across the breadth of Asia, from its birthplace in the Ganges valley to the imperial capitals of China, the mountain monasteries of Tibet, the trading ports of Southeast Asia, and the zen gardens of Japan. But this geographical expansion required an even more remarkable feat: the transmission of profound spiritual and philosophical insights across radically different languages, writing systems, and cultural frameworks.

Sanskrit, the scholarly language that had become the primary medium for preserving Buddhist philosophical literature in India, was completely unintelligible to Chinese, Tibetan, or Southeast Asian audiences. The concepts that Buddhist texts took for granted—karma as the moral causation that shapes rebirth, nirvana as the cessation of suffering through the elimination of craving, śūnyatā as the emptiness of inherent existence—had no equivalents in Chinese Confucian thought, Tibetan Bon cosmology, or Southeast Asian Hindu-influenced cultures. Even more fundamentally, the grammatical structures of Sanskrit, with its complex system of inflection and philosophical precision, differed radically from the largely uninflected Chinese language that relied on context and literary allusion for meaning.

The challenge facing Buddhist translators was not simply linguistic but philosophical and cultural. They needed to find ways to express Indian insights about the nature of reality, consciousness, and spiritual liberation in languages and conceptual frameworks that had developed independently for centuries. This required not just bilingual competence but creative theological thinking, cultural sensitivity, and often considerable diplomatic skill in navigating political and religious tensions.

The solutions that emerged varied dramatically across different regions and time periods, reflecting the diverse approaches that different communities developed for adapting Buddhism to local circumstances. Some translators emphasized fidelity to original Sanskrit terminology, creating new vocabulary by transliterating Indian terms directly into local scripts. Others prioritized comprehensibility for local audiences, finding indigenous concepts that seemed to approximate Buddhist ideas even when the philosophical implications might differ significantly. Still others developed synthetic approaches that combined faithful translation with extensive commentary designed to help readers understand both the original meaning and its relevance for contemporary spiritual practice.

Jan Nattier's pioneering research has revealed that the translation process was even more complex than previously understood, involving not just the conversion of existing Indian texts but the creation of entirely new works that were composed in Chinese while maintaining the literary style and doctrinal content of Indian Buddhism. Some texts that were long considered authentic translations of Indian originals are now recognized as indigenous Chinese compositions that addressed specifically Chinese concerns while drawing on Buddhist philosophical principles.³

This creative dimension of translation meant that Buddhist literature in translation often differed significantly from its Indian sources, not through error or corruption but through deliberate adaptation to new cultural contexts. The resulting texts were neither purely Indian nor purely Chinese (or Tibetan or Southeast Asian) but represented innovative syntheses that created new possibilities for understanding and practicing Buddhism.

The Mechanics and Politics of Sacred Translation

The process of translating Buddhist texts involved far more than individual scholars working in isolation with dictionaries and grammatical guides. Major translation projects, especially in China and Tibet, became massive institutional endeavors that required royal patronage, bureaucratic organization, and collaborative teams of specialists with diverse skills and expertise.

The translation bureau established by Xuanzang at Da Ci'en Temple, with imperial support from Emperor Taizong and his successors, included not only language experts but also philosophers, meditation teachers, scribes, editors, and administrative personnel who managed the complex logistics of processing hundreds of texts simultaneously. Similar institutional arrangements developed in Tibet under royal patronage during the imperial period (seventh to ninth centuries), where translation became a systematic national project aimed at creating comprehensive Tibetan versions of the entire range of Indian Buddhist literature.⁴

These institutional frameworks inevitably shaped the translation process in ways that reflected political priorities and cultural assumptions as much as spiritual or scholarly concerns. Imperial patrons supported translation projects partly for religious reasons—seeking merit through the preservation and dissemination of Buddhist teaching—but also for political purposes, including legitimizing their rule through association with Buddhism's prestigious Indian origins, unifying diverse populations under shared religious culture, and demonstrating their civilizational sophistication through mastery of foreign learning.

Paul Harrison's analysis of Chinese translation projects has shown how these political dimensions influenced which texts were selected for translation, how they were interpreted, and how they were integrated into broader educational and liturgical programs. Texts that supported imperial ideology or addressed Chinese philosophical concerns received priority, while materials that seemed incompatible with Chinese social structures or political systems were often modified, abbreviated, or ignored entirely.⁵

The collaborative nature of translation work also meant that individual translators' preferences and interpretations were filtered through team discussions, editorial review, and institutional oversight that could significantly alter the final results. Kumārajīva (344–413 CE), widely regarded as one of the greatest Buddhist translators in Chinese history, worked with teams of Chinese scholars who influenced his vocabulary choices, stylistic decisions, and theological interpretations in ways that made his translations distinctively Chinese while remaining recognizably Buddhist.

The famous account of Kumārajīva's translation methods reveals the extent to which these projects involved creative interpretation rather than mechanical conversion. When asked about the challenges of translation, he reportedly compared the process to chewing food and then feeding it to others—the essential nutrition is preserved, but the form is necessarily transformed. His translations of key Mahāyāna texts like the Lotus Sutra and Vimalakīrti Sutra became foundational for East Asian Buddhism not because they were the most literally accurate but because they successfully conveyed the spiritual essence of these teachings in language that Chinese readers could understand and apply to their own practice.⁶

Regional Variations and Cultural Adaptation

The different approaches to translation that developed across Buddhist Asia created distinct regional traditions that reflected local linguistic capabilities, cultural priorities, and philosophical emphases. These variations had profound implications for how Buddhism developed in different contexts, influencing everything from meditation techniques and ritual practices to institutional organization and social engagement.

Chinese Translation Traditions

Chinese Buddhist translation evolved through several distinct phases that reflected both advancing linguistic sophistication and changing cultural circumstances. The earliest period, roughly from the second to fourth centuries CE, was characterized by relatively free translation that prioritized making Buddhist ideas comprehensible to Chinese audiences familiar with Daoist philosophy and Confucian social thought. Translators like An Shigao and Lokakṣema created Chinese versions of Buddhist texts that incorporated indigenous philosophical vocabulary and narrative styles, often producing works that were more interpretive paraphrase than literal translation.

The classical period of Chinese translation, exemplified by figures like Kumārajīva and later Xuanzang, moved toward greater fidelity to Sanskrit originals while developing sophisticated techniques for handling technical philosophical terminology. This period established many of the standard Chinese equivalents for Buddhist concepts that continue to influence East Asian Buddhism today: fa (法) for dharma, kong (空) for śūnyatā (emptiness), niepan (涅槃) for nirvana, and countless others that shaped how Chinese-speaking practitioners understood Buddhist teaching.

Victor Mair's linguistic analysis has revealed how the structural differences between Sanskrit and Chinese created systematic translation challenges that influenced the development of Chinese Buddhist thought in unexpected ways. Chinese grammar's lack of inflection meant that many Sanskrit distinctions about agency, causation, and temporal relationships had to be expressed through context and literary allusion rather than explicit grammatical markers. This led to Chinese Buddhist literature that was often more allusive and poetic than its Sanskrit sources, but sometimes less precise about philosophical distinctions that Indian authors considered crucial.⁷

Tibetan Systematic Approaches

The Tibetan approach to translation represented perhaps the most systematic and scholarly effort to recreate Indian Buddhist literature in another language. Working under royal patronage during the imperial period, Tibetan translators developed comprehensive glossaries that established standard Tibetan equivalents for Sanskrit technical terms, created translation principles that prioritized accuracy over literary elegance, and established review procedures that involved multiple scholars checking each other's work.

The Mahāvyutpatti, a Sanskrit-Tibetan glossary created during this period, included over 9,000 technical terms with standardized translations that were intended to ensure consistency across different texts and translators. This systematic approach enabled Tibetan scholars to create what many consider the most accurate and complete translations of Indian Buddhist literature in any language, preserving not only the content but much of the linguistic precision of Sanskrit originals.⁸

However, this fidelity to Sanskrit sources also meant that Tibetan Buddhist literature remained more closely tied to Indian philosophical frameworks and less adapted to specifically Tibetan cultural concerns than Chinese translations were to Chinese contexts. The resulting tradition was extraordinarily sophisticated philosophically but sometimes seemed foreign to ordinary Tibetan practitioners who lacked extensive training in Indian logical and philosophical methods.

Southeast Asian Selective Preservation

The Buddhist transmission to Southeast Asia involved yet another approach that emphasized selective adoption of particular texts and practices rather than comprehensive translation of entire canonical collections. Communities in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos generally focused on preserving the Pāli Canon and related Theravāda literature rather than attempting to translate the vast Sanskrit Mahāyāna collections that were being rendered into Chinese and Tibetan.

This selective approach reflected both practical limitations—Southeast Asian communities often lacked the institutional resources for massive translation projects—and philosophical preferences for the more conservative Theravāda tradition over Mahāyāna innovations. However, it also meant that Southeast Asian Buddhism remained more closely connected to the earliest layers of Buddhist literature while developing distinctive approaches to commentary, ritual, and community organization that reflected local cultural patterns.⁹

What Would Have Changed?

The editorial choices made by Buddhist translators across Asia represented crucial decision points where alternative approaches could have produced dramatically different outcomes for how Buddhism developed in different cultural contexts and how it is understood globally today.

Literal Fidelity Over Cultural Adaptation

If early Chinese translators like Lokakṣema and An Shigao had prioritized literal accuracy over cultural comprehensibility, Chinese Buddhism might have remained a more scholarly and esoteric tradition with limited popular appeal. Jan Nattier has suggested that the early success of Mahāyāna Buddhism in China depended partly on translations that "domesticated" foreign concepts by connecting them to familiar Chinese philosophical and religious frameworks.¹⁰

A more literally faithful approach might have preserved important philosophical distinctions that were lost in cultural adaptation, potentially preventing some of the doctrinal developments that distinguished Chinese Buddhism from its Indian sources. However, such literal translations might also have created insurmountable barriers to popular understanding, limiting Buddhism's appeal to educated elites and preventing its integration into broader Chinese culture.

The long-term implications could have been profound: Buddhism might have remained a foreign import rather than becoming a genuinely Chinese tradition, possibly limiting its subsequent transmission to Korea and Japan and altering the entire trajectory of East Asian civilization.

Comprehensive Mahāyāna Translation in Southeast Asia

Had Southeast Asian Buddhist communities undertaken systematic translation of Sanskrit Mahāyāna literature comparable to the Chinese and Tibetan projects, the resulting tradition might have developed very different characteristics. Étienne Lamotte speculated that greater exposure to Mahāyāna philosophical sophistication could have created Buddhist traditions in these regions that were more philosophically complex and less focused on the practical ethics and meditation techniques that characterize contemporary Theravāda.¹¹

Such development might have strengthened intellectual connections between Southeast Asian and East Asian Buddhism, potentially creating more unified pan-Asian Buddhist culture. However, it might also have created traditions that were less accessible to ordinary practitioners and less well adapted to the social and economic circumstances of Southeast Asian societies.

Chinese Translation of Pāli Literature

If Chinese translators had focused on translating the Pāli Canon rather than Sanskrit Mahāyāna literature, East Asian Buddhism might have developed along more conservative lines similar to Southeast Asian Theravāda. This could have prevented some of the innovative doctrinal developments that distinguished Chinese Buddhism—such as the emphasis on Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) and the development of distinctive meditation techniques like Chan/Zen.

Robert Buswell Jr. has suggested that Chinese Buddhism's openness to Mahāyāna innovation was partly enabled by working with Sanskrit sources that were already more philosophically elaborated than early Pāli texts.¹² A Pāli-based Chinese tradition might have been more historically accurate but less creative in developing new approaches to spiritual practice and philosophical understanding.

Systematic Translation Coordination Across Traditions

If Buddhist communities across Asia had developed coordinated translation standards and shared terminology comparable to the Tibetan systematic approach, the resulting traditions might have maintained much greater doctrinal consistency and cultural exchange. Such coordination could have prevented some of the divergent developments that eventually created distinct sectarian traditions with limited mutual comprehension.

However, Lewis Lancaster has argued that the diversity of translation approaches actually enriched global Buddhism by creating multiple valid interpretations of core teachings that addressed different cultural needs and spiritual temperaments.¹³ Standardized translation might have created more unified tradition but less cultural adaptation and creative development.

Scholar Debate

Contemporary Buddhist scholarship reveals ongoing debates about fundamental questions concerning the relationship between translation accuracy, cultural adaptation, and religious authenticity that have important implications for how we understand both historical Buddhist development and contemporary practice.

Jan Nattier's groundbreaking research on "indigenous" Chinese Buddhist texts has challenged traditional assumptions about the translation process by revealing that some works long considered translations of Indian originals were actually composed in China. Her analysis of texts like the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha Amitāyus has shown that these indigenous compositions often addressed specifically Chinese concerns about family relationships, social harmony, and political loyalty while maintaining recognizably Buddhist doctrinal content. This research raises fundamental questions about what constitutes "authentic" Buddhism and whether texts can be genuinely Buddhist without being of Indian origin.¹⁴

Nattier's work has sparked debates about the criteria for evaluating religious authenticity and the relationship between cultural adaptation and doctrinal integrity. Some scholars argue that her findings demonstrate Buddhism's remarkable flexibility and capacity for creative development, while others worry that acknowledging indigenous composition might undermine confidence in the historical reliability of Buddhist textual traditions.

Paul Harrison's analysis of translation practices has emphasized how doctrinal allegiances and philosophical commitments inevitably influenced translators' work, making translation an inherently interpretive rather than mechanical process. His studies of how different translators handled the same Sanskrit texts reveal systematic variations that reflect theological priorities rather than linguistic limitations. Harrison argues that recognizing these interpretive dimensions can help contemporary readers understand both the possibilities and limitations of accessing Buddhist teachings through translation.¹⁵

This perspective has influenced discussions about contemporary translation projects and the relationship between scholarly accuracy and spiritual accessibility. Some modern translators emphasize literal fidelity to original texts, while others prioritize making ancient teachings comprehensible to contemporary practitioners, echoing debates that began with the earliest Buddhist translations into Chinese.

Victor Mair's linguistic research has revealed how structural differences between languages can create unavoidable meaning shifts that significantly influence religious understanding. His analysis of Chinese Buddhist terminology has shown how concepts like śūnyatā (emptiness) and anātman (non-self) acquired distinctively Chinese connotations through translation that differed substantially from their Sanskrit meanings. Mair argues that these linguistic transformations were not failures of translation but inevitable consequences of cross-cultural transmission that created genuinely new forms of Buddhist understanding.¹⁶

This research has contributed to broader discussions about the relationship between language and religious thought, suggesting that translation necessarily involves theological creativity rather than simple preservation. Some scholars see this as validating diverse approaches to Buddhist practice, while others worry about the implications for claims about universal Buddhist truths.

Lewis Lancaster and Helmut Wilhelm's work with digital humanities approaches to Buddhist textual analysis has revealed previously unrecognized patterns of variation, interpolation, and editorial modification across different canonical traditions. Their comparative database projects have made it possible to track how specific passages were translated differently across various traditions and how these variations influenced subsequent doctrinal development.¹⁷

This technological approach has opened new possibilities for understanding the historical development of Buddhist literature while also raising questions about the implications of such analysis for contemporary practice. Digital comparison can reveal the constructed character of canonical boundaries and doctrinal formulations, but it can also provide more precise understanding of how different communities have understood core Buddhist principles across time and culture.

Contemporary Relevance

The editorial decisions made by ancient Buddhist translators continue to shape contemporary Buddhist life around the world in ways that extend far beyond historical interest, influencing everything from meditation instructions and philosophical understanding to community organization and social engagement.

Most contemporary Western practitioners encounter Buddhism through multiple layers of translation that reflect the accumulated decisions of translators working across many centuries and cultural contexts. English-language Buddhist literature typically draws on Pāli, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese sources that have already been shaped by previous translation processes before being rendered into English. Understanding this translation history can help contemporary practitioners appreciate both the remarkable preservation of Buddhist wisdom and the inevitable modifications that occur when teachings travel across cultural boundaries.

The choice of English terminology for fundamental Buddhist concepts continues to influence how practitioners understand and apply these teachings. The rendering of dukkha as "suffering," "unsatisfactoriness," or "stress" shapes how students approach the First Noble Truth, while translations of śūnyatā as "emptiness," "openness," or "interdependence" influence understanding of Mahāyāna philosophy. Contemporary translators face the same challenges that confronted Xuanzang and Kumārajīva: balancing fidelity to original meanings with accessibility to contemporary audiences.

Digital technologies have created unprecedented opportunities for comparative textual analysis that can reveal translation variations and their implications for understanding Buddhist teaching. Online databases like the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and the CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripiṭaka make it possible for contemporary practitioners to examine multiple versions of the same text and understand how different translation choices have influenced Buddhist development.¹⁸

However, these technological capabilities also create new challenges for religious authority and interpretive legitimacy. When practitioners can easily access multiple translations and historical variants of the same teaching, questions arise about which versions are most authoritative and who has the expertise to evaluate competing interpretations. The democratization of textual access that digital resources provide can enrich understanding but can also create confusion when students lack sufficient background to navigate complex scholarly debates.

Contemporary Buddhist communities in the West face similar challenges to those confronted by ancient Chinese and Tibetan translators as they work to adapt Asian Buddhist traditions to different cultural contexts. Questions about gender equality, social engagement, environmental responsibility, and integration with psychotherapy echo the cultural adaptation challenges that have always characterized Buddhist transmission across cultural boundaries.

Some contemporary Buddhist teachers emphasize maintaining traditional forms and interpretations as closely as possible, viewing faithful preservation as essential for authentic transmission. Others argue for creative adaptation that addresses contemporary concerns while maintaining essential spiritual principles, following the example of successful historical translations that prioritized cultural relevance over literal fidelity.

The global character of contemporary Buddhism creates new possibilities for cross-traditional dialogue and learning that were largely impossible in earlier periods when different Buddhist traditions remained geographically and culturally isolated. Contemporary practitioners can study Pāli, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan traditions simultaneously, potentially creating synthetic approaches that draw on the best insights from multiple historical developments.

Yet this cross-traditional access also requires sophisticated understanding of how different translation choices and cultural adaptations have shaped various traditions in ways that may not be immediately compatible. Contemporary Buddhist scholarship and practice must navigate questions about how to honor the integrity of different traditional approaches while creating authentic forms of Buddhist practice for contemporary global culture.

The translation work that began in the scriptoriums of Chang'an and the royal courts of Tibet continues today in the decisions that contemporary teachers, translators, and practitioners make about how to understand and apply Buddhist wisdom to modern circumstances. Understanding the historical precedents for this work can provide both inspiration and guidance for contemporary communities seeking to maintain authentic spiritual practice while remaining responsive to contemporary needs and insights.

The great translations that carried Buddhism across Asia demonstrate that faithful transmission has always required creative interpretation and cultural adaptation rather than mechanical preservation. Contemporary Buddhist development continues this ancient process of translation—not just between languages but between historical and contemporary contexts, between Asian and Western cultures, between traditional and modern worldviews.

In our next chapter, we will explore how these diverse translation traditions eventually crystallized into distinct regional canons that reflected not only linguistic differences but also political priorities, cultural values, and sectarian allegiances that shaped what became "official" Buddhism in China, Tibet, and Southeast Asia.

Notes

Xuanzang's journey and translation activities are documented in traditional Chinese sources including the Da Tang Xiyu Ji (Records of the Western Regions of the Great Tang) and the Da Cien Si Sanzang Fashi Zhuan (Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of Da Ci'en Temple). For modern analysis, see Sally Hovey Wriggins, Xuanzang: A Buddhist Pilgrim on the Silk Road (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996), 178-205.
On the institutional organization of Chinese translation projects, see Tansen Sen, "The Formation of Chinese Buddhist Translation Teams," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29, no. 2 (2006): 87-118.
Jan Nattier, A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations (Tokyo: International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, 2008), 15-47.
On Tibetan translation institutions, see Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 89-135.
Paul Harrison, "Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahāyāna Sūtras," The Eastern Buddhist35, no. 1/2 (2003): 115-151.
On Kumārajīva's translation methods, see Whalen Lai, "Kumārajīva's Popularization of the Lotus Sutra," in Buddhist Translation, ed. Juliane Schober (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2000), 55-89.
Victor H. Mair, "Buddhism and the Rise of the Written Vernacular in East Asia," Journal of Asian Studies 53, no. 3 (1994): 707-751.
On the Mahāvyutpatti and Tibetan translation standards, see Michael Hahn, "Invitation to Enlightenment: Letter to a Disciple (Śiṣyalekha) by Candragomin" (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 1999), 23-45.
On Southeast Asian selective transmission, see Steven Collins, Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 45-78.
Jan Nattier, "The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism," Pacific World, 3rd series, no. 8 (2006): 179-201.
Étienne Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, trans. Sara Webb-Boin (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1988), 654-678.
Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr., The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), s.v. "translation."
Lewis Lancaster, "Buddhist Canons and Translation," in Buddhist Canons in Asia, ed. Lewis Lancaster (Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing, 2000), 15-28.
Jan Nattier, "The Realm of Akṣobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20, no. 1 (1997): 51-102.
Paul Harrison, "Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What Are We Looking For?" The Eastern Buddhist 28, no. 1 (1995): 48-69.
Victor H. Mair, "What Is a Chinese Word? Thinking about Translation," Sino-Platonic Papers 44 (1994): 1-35.
Lewis Lancaster and Helmut Wilhelm, eds., Buddhist Canons and Transmission (Berkeley: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1993), 234-267.
On digital Buddhist textual resources, see Marcus Bingenheimer, "Buddhist Studies and Digital Humanities," Digital Humanities Quarterly 12, no. 2 (2018): 1-23.