4.2.1An intimate spiritual mentor with authority

As has been pointed out above, a significant feature of Wong’s translation is its frequent use of we. Although we in English can be either “inclusive” (speaker plus hearer) or “exclusive” (speaker plus others instead of the hearer) (Haas 1969Haas, Mary R 1969 “ ‘Exclusive’ and ‘Inclusive’: A Look at Early Usage.” International Journal of American Linguistics 35 (1): 1–6. ; Levinson 1983Levinson, Stephen C 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Pennycook 1994Pennycook, Alastair 1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 48 (2): 173–178. ; Biber et al. 1999Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan 1999 Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.; Baumgarten 2008Baumgarten, Nicole 2008 “Writer Construction in English and German Popularized Academic Discourse: The Uses of We and Wir .” Multilingua 27 (4): 409–438. ), analysis shows that we used by Huineng in Wong’s translation refers to both himself and the hearer (inclusive we). A vocative is often added at the beginning of the sentences containing we when Huineng gives public teachings in front of a large audience, or has personal conversations with his disciples.

For example, the first sentence uttered by Huineng in the Platform Sutra is translated as follows by Wong:

The use of inclusive we in English is to achieve solidarity and communality with the hearer (Hyland 2001Hyland, Ken 2001 “Bringing in the Reader Addressee Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication 18 (4): 549–574. , 559) and to construct a “chummy” and “intimate” tone (Wales 1996Wales, Katie 1996 Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 67). By using the inclusive we, Huineng intends to be closely identified with his audience. The image of Huineng recreated here is not a solemn Chan master standing high above the listeners, but a kind and considerate mentor who positions himself as being part of the group.

However, as inclusive we could also be taken as being non-authoritative on the part of the speaker (Quirk et al. 1985Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman., 350), “addressee” (you) is therefore adopted as a compensation in both suggestions and demands. This is illustrated in the following example:

The transition from the inclusive we to the addressee you can be understood as an indication of authority, and a slight adjustment on the part of Huineng of the close relationship with his audience. In fact, you and we are used alternatively in Wong’s translation (19.1%% and 22.5% respectively), depicting Huineng as eager to be regarded as authoritative as well as amiable.

4.2.2A detached Chan master

In Heng’s translation, Huineng speaks in an objective and detached way, which is mainly manifested through the non-use of personal pronouns. This is most apparent in the first chapter, where Huineng tells his own experience of getting the Dharma and becoming the Sixth Patriarch. In the following example, Huineng relates his first meeting with the Fifth Patriarch, who asked him where he came from and what he wanted, and Huineng tells the audience how he answered this question:

In Heng’s translation, Hui Neng (his own name), your disciple (a humble term as self-reference), and the Master (an honorific term to refer to the Fifth Patriarch) in the source text are all retained. In comparison, personal pronouns are used in the other three translations, as can be illustrated by Wong’s translation of the same sentences.

The linguistic choice in Heng’s translation helps to create an image of Huineng that is different from those in the other translations. He is telling his own story, but first person pronouns are totally avoided. On the one hand, this is consistent with the traditional genre of jataka (birth story) in which the Buddha narrates stories of his previous lives in third person (Jorgensen 2012Jorgensen, John 2012 “The Figure of Huineng.” In Readings of the Platform Sutra, ed. by Morten Schlutter and Stephen F. Teiser, 25–52. New York: Columbia University Press., 48) and the no-self doctrine in Buddhism (Fink 2012Fink, Charles K 2012 “The ‘Scent’ of a Self: Buddhism and the First-person Perspective.” Asian Philosophy 22 (3): 289–306. , 289). On the other hand, however, self-naming and the use of the third person pronoun as self-reference (also called illeism) are unusual in English. Self-naming in English may be used to assert self-worth, to distance oneself from the immediate situation and achieve objectivity, to emphasize a tension between inner and outer self and so on (Curren-Aquino 1987Curren-Aquino, Deborah T 1987 “Self-Naming in Shakespeare’s Early Plays.” Names 35 (3–4): 147–163. , 149–156). Speaking of oneself in the third person is often associated with presenting the views of someone else on oneself (Land and Kitzinger 2007Land, Victoria, and Celia Kitzinger 2007 “Some Uses of Third-Person Reference Forms in Speaker Self-Reference.” Discourse Studies 9 (4): 493–525. , 494–502). The adoption of these two strategies often signals a detached attitude from the speaker, and in this context, the politeness and humbleness manifested in the original text are lost in the translation.

The objectivity and detachment on the part of Huineng are also maintained in his later public sermons and teachings in Heng’s translation. The high proportion of “addressee” (40.3%) in relation to “speaker” (15.1%) and “speaker-plus” (2.1%) shows that Huineng in Heng’s translation pays great attention to his audience. He constantly refers to them using you, with little inclination to talk about himself as I and is even less inclined to identify the audience and himself together as we. Therefore, the image of Huineng in Heng’s translation is a solemn God-like Chan master, with absolute authority and objectivity in imparting knowledge and all attention focused on his audience.

4.2.3A friendly teacher

Unlike the image of a modest mentor who uses we to identify himself and the audience in Wong’s translation or an aloof Patriarch speaking in a detached and indifferent manner in Heng’s translation, Huineng is presented by Cleary as a friendly teacher, who addresses his audience and disciples as you, and is also willing to address himself in a personal way as I.

An example can be seen at the beginning of Chapter Six, where Huineng is leading a large audience to perform a ritual of bestowing precepts. The opening speech of Huineng in Cleary’s translation is presented as follows:

In Cleary’s translation, Huineng addresses the audience directly using you, all of you and each of you while using I for himself, and our for the audience and himself. This indicates that he is willing to include his audience as part of the exchange in the public teaching.

The use of “addressee” (you) in conversation mainly has two advantages. First, as the second person you does not have any distinction in gender, number or social distance, it has greater potential to cater to more hearers. Anyone who hears may become the actual you. This also helps to create a one-to-one relationship between the speaker and hearer (Myers 1994Myers, Greg 1994 Words in Ads. London: Edward Arnold.; Smith 2004Smith, Karen 2004 “ ‘I Am Me, but Who Are You and What Are We?’: The Translation of Personal Pronouns and Possessive Determiners in Advertising Texts.” Multilingua 23 (3): 283–303. ), and shows the speaker’s recognition of the existence of and care and attention to the audience, especially in the genre of sermon (Bader 2010Bader, Christopher Kennedy 2010 “Fire and Brimstone (and Linguistics): The Sermon in Moby-Dick.” Available at SSRN 2039161. http://​papers​.ssrn​.com​/sol3​/papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=2039161:18, 9).

Second, you can be used to indicate both informal and formal relationships between the participants. The voice of the speaker can “simultaneously be one of friendship, authority and respect” (Cook 2001Cook, Guy 2001 The Discourse of Advertising. London: Psychology Press. , 183). Just as Huineng in Wong’s translation uses you to offset the over-friendliness of inclusive we, the frequent use of you by Huineng in Cleary’s translation can also be seen as a way to indicate authority. As pointed out by Pennycook (1994Pennycook, Alastair 1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 48 (2): 173–178. , 176) and Hyland (2001Hyland, Ken 2001 “Bringing in the Reader Addressee Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication 18 (4): 549–574. , 557) , the use of you referring to the hearer, while acknowledging his existence, also has the possibility of creating an “Other” and a kind of distance between the speaker and hearer, especially when considered in relation to the simultaneous use of I to refer to the speaker.

Therefore, the image of Huineng in Cleary’s translations is more flexible and realistic. Huineng addresses the audience directly as you, which can be understood as an indication of close interpersonal relationship established in a less formal situation. But the fact that he is the Chan master, the venerable Sixth Patriarch, may also indicate that I, Huineng, as a distinguished Chan master, am teaching you, who lack the knowledge and can only obtain enlightenment with my help. After all, a teacher is a teacher. What makes Huineng different is that he is at the same time friendly and aloof, close and distant. This kind of paradox is actually what makes Huineng attractive to the general public, as such an image can satisfy different needs and imaginings of the readers.

4.2.4An elegant truth transmitter

The distinctive feature of Cheng’s translation is its high frequency of “non-interactant” personal pronouns, especially the use of one to refer to people in general. Such a linguistic choice helps to present Huineng as an elegant Chan master whose aim is to impart knowledge rather than establish any interpersonal relationship with his audience.

In the following example, the subject is omitted in the source text, and Cheng uses the non-interactant one. In comparison, we/our and you/your, which are all “interactant” personal pronouns, are used by the other three translators, as can be seen in their translations of the same sentences:

In Cheng’s translation, one is used as a “generic” reference, which refers to “people in general” (Wales 1980Wales, Katie 1980 “ ‘Personal’ and ‘Indefinite’ Reference: The Users of the Pronoun One in Present-Day English.” Nottingham Linguistic Circular 9 (2): 93–117., 95). This usage is chiefly “formal” (Quirk et al. 1985Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman., 387–388). Meanwhile, the generic one is primarily restricted to written registers, especially fiction and academic prose, as it helps to build an impersonal and objective style (Biber et al. 1999Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan 1999 Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman., 353–355).

A quick examination of the textual environment of one using SysConc (key word in context [KWIC], see Figure 3) shows that the two most frequent concordant words on its immediate left are if and when, indicators of hypothetical situations, and the frequently used words on its immediate right include would, should, can, could, and shall, all of which are modal auxiliaries. This is the typical use of one in theoretical or hypothetical contexts. As Wales (1980Wales, Katie 1980 “ ‘Personal’ and ‘Indefinite’ Reference: The Users of the Pronoun One in Present-Day English.” Nottingham Linguistic Circular 9 (2): 93–117., 96) points out, when used in conditional clauses and in combination with modal auxiliary, the generic personal pronoun one is to indicate universal truth.

By using the personal pronoun one, Huineng in Cheng’s translation shows an inclination to be both impersonal and formal in his teaching. The image of Huineng presented here is an elegant Chan master who speaks in a formal manner and pays more attention to the validity of what he is saying than to the people who are listening.

4.3.1Wong Mou-lam (1932): The first translator and his Western readers

Wong Mou-lam was the first person to translate the Platform Sutra into English. Born in Hong Kong, Wong went to Shanghai to work in a law firm in 1923. He was “discovered” by one of the founders of the Pure Karma Society, which published his translation later, as he was both good at English and interested in Buddhism (Welch 1968Welch, Holmes 1968 The Buddhist Revival in China. London: Harvard University Press., 180). In 1928, Dih Ping Tsze, another founder of the society, invited Wong to stay in his house and translate the Platform Sutra, which took one and half years. The translation was sold in Shanghai and more than one hundred copies were taken to London and soon sold out (Humphreys 1973Humphreys, Christmas 1973 “Foreword to New Edition.” In The Sutra of Wei Lang (or Hui Neng), tr. by Christmas Humphreys and Mou-lam Wong, 5–7. New York: Hyperion Press.; Ko 1996Ko, Ping-Yip 1996 “The History of The Sutra of Hui-Neng in English Translations.” The Dharmalakshana Buddhist Institute Buddhist Journal IV: 1–19.).

The purpose of translating the sutra into English, according to the preface by Dih, was to make the ideas of Chan Buddhism known to Westerners as “it is rather sad to see that so far this Good Law has not yet been made known to the Western people in Europe and America” (Dih 1930Dih, Ping Tsze 1930 “Preface.” In Sutra Spoken by the Sixth Patriarch, Wei Lang, on the High Seat of the Gem of Law (Message from the East), tr. by Mou-Lam Wong, i. Shanghai: Yu Ching Press., i). Therefore, the intended readers of the translation were Westerners with an interest in the ideas of Chan Buddhism. However, it is interesting to see the ambivalent attitude towards these targeted readers. On the one hand, Dih admitted that “so far as felicity in the form of material comfort is concerned, the occidentals are in a more favourable position than our Eastern people” (ibid.). On the other hand, he claimed that “but in spite of their favourable position, the Great Law reaches them at a later date than it reached us” (ibid.).

This kind of self-contradictory tenor relationship between the translator trying to introduce Chinese Chan Buddhism to the West in the 1930s and the targeted Western readers is reflected in the recreation of the image of Huineng. On the one hand, Huineng was portrayed as an Eastern Chan master intimate to his audience by addressing them with we. On the other hand, however, the belief that Chinese people, though in lack of material comfort, were able to help their Western counterparts by transmitting to them the “Message from the East” (part of the title of the translation) led the translator to choose you alongside we, in order to ensure that the authoritative image of Huineng, the much respected Sixth Patriarch in China, would be maintained.

4.3.2Heng Yin (1977): The first Western Buddhist translator and early American Buddhists

The former Bhikshuni Heng Yin was the first ordained Buddhist and Westerner to translate the Platform Sutra into English. Becoming a Buddhist nun in 1969, Heng was one of the first five Americans ordinated by Hsuan Hua (Baur 1998Baur, Loni 1998 “Loni Baur-Life as Service: From Buddhist Nun to Ukiah Attorney.” Sojourn Magazine. Accessed February 13, 2016. http://​creation​-designs​.com​/gracemillennium​/sojourn​/Fall97​/html​/l​_baur​.html).

The purpose of Heng’s translation of the Platform Sutra, as stated in Hsuan Hua’s introduction, was to help the Westerners to “realize Bodhi and accomplish the Buddha way” (1977, xvi). It was hoped that “westerners will now read, recite and study it [Platform Sutra], and all become Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and/or Patriarchs” (ibid., xv). The intended readers, therefore, were mainly American Buddhist practitioners, especially those who were studying under the teaching of Hsuan Hua.

Heng’s translation contains not only Huineng’s words in the Platform Sutra, but also a running commentary by Hsuan Hua, which was originally Hsuan Hua’s Chinese lectures on the sutra. The commentary was praised highly by the translator, who stated that “if you wish to understand the wonderful meaning of this sutra, you should study this [Hsuan Hua’s] commentary, for within it are set forth the limitless, inexhaustible, profound principles of the Buddhadharma” (Heng 1977cHeng, Yin 1977c “Translator’s Introduction.” In The Sixth Patriarch’s Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra, tr. by Heng Yin, xvii–xviii. San Francisco: Buddhist Text Translation Society., xvii).

In this way, equal importance is put on the words of Huineng and Hsuan Hua. By translating both at the same time, the translator also assumed the role of being the mouthpiece of her own teacher, who enjoyed great obedience and devotion from his students, as a result of the early Buddhism institutionalization in the U.S. in the 1970s (Lachs 2008Lachs, Stuart 2008 “The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves.” Accessed February 13, 2016. http://​www​.shimanoarchive​.com​/PDFs​/20061118​_Lachs​_Dressing​.pdf).

The tenor relationship between the translator and her intended readers is therefore unequal, as the translator served as an appointed representative of the authority and the intended readers were those waiting to receive instructions. This may have further influenced the translator’s recreating of the image of Huineng, a historically significant Patriarch who is said to have served as an inspiration for the present Master (Heng 1977aHeng, Ch’ih 1977a “Reviewer’s Preface.” In The Sixth Patriarch’s Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra, ed. by Heng Yin, xix–xx. San Francisco: Buddhist Text Translation Society., xix). Possessing absolute authority and high status, Huineng was divine and noble. His sole mission was to convey the profound knowledge to his disciples and the audience, help them to get enlightenment and save them from the endless circle of birth and death.

4.3.3Thomas Cleary (1998): A professional translator and the general public

Thomas Cleary is a professional translator of East Asian culture and philosophy, and one of the major authors of Shambhala Publications, the publisher of his translation. Up to now, he has translated more than eighty works from eight languages into English, with the themes mainly covering Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, conflict studies and women’s spirituality (Burton-Rose s.d.).

The identity of the translator and the publisher enables one to infer that the general public are the intended readers of Cleary’s translation. This is further revealed by the description of Huineng in the blurb of the book as “perhaps the most respected and beloved figure in Zen[Chan] Buddhism” and the introduction of the translator as a person who “holds a doctorate in East Asia languages and civilizations from Harvard University.”

The tenor relationship between Cleary and his target readers is therefore likely to be intimate, as the translator mainly served to bring East Asian wisdom to those who had similar Western cultural background. Accordingly, Huineng was presented as a friendly teacher speaking in a less formal way, talking about himself as I and his audience as you. He was kind, simple and approachable. His high status in history and the reverence towards him from past and present Buddhists were no longer the main concern for the translator as well as the target readers.

Such a construction of the image of Huineng is also reflected in the title of the translation and the translator’s introduction to the text. The translation was entitled Sutra of Hui-neng, and in his introduction, Cleary spent two pages talking about the legendary life and influence of Huineng, using the name “Hui-neng” whenever reference is necessary. Actually, this kind of attitude was criticized by Cheng Kuan, who indignantly stated that it is greatly disrespectful to refer to the highly revered Sixth Patriarch directly by his name, and it is improper, and even frivolous to use his name in the title of the translation (Low 2010Low, Sang-Thoi 2010 A Preliminary Study of Liuzu Tanjing: With a Focus on Cheng Kuan’s Version. Master thesis Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University., 97).

4.3.4 Cheng Kuan (2011)Cheng, Kuan 2011 The Dharmic Treasure Altar-Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. Taipei: Vairocana Publishing Co.: An abbot and his disciples

Previously an English major in college and a translator after graduation, Cheng Kuan was ordained in 1988 and is now the founder and abbot of two temples, one in Taiwan (Maha-Vairocana Temple, 1991) and the other in the U.S. (Americana Buddhist Temple, 1993). From 2005 he began translating Chinese Buddhist texts into English and up to now he has translated six books into English. All these translations were published by the publishing institutions under his charge and distributed for free.

Cheng’s translation is mainly targeted at his American disciples (most of them are Chinese Americans), as well as Buddhist experts and practitioners (Low 2010Low, Sang-Thoi 2010 A Preliminary Study of Liuzu Tanjing: With a Focus on Cheng Kuan’s Version. Master thesis Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University., 41, 87). The tenor relationship between Cheng and his intended readers is therefore not equal, as the identity of Cheng as an abbot of two temples, the successor of two Buddhist sects and a Buddhist master gave him an authoritative status. This, in combination with Cheng’s dissatisfaction with most of the existing translations, which he thought were too informal and lacking in the solemnity of a Buddhist canon (86), resulted in his choice of the general personal pronoun one and recreating of the image of Huineng as highly revered and talking in a scholarly and genteel way.

As Cheng considers that both the sutra and Huineng as the Sixth Patriarch deserve great reverence, his translation has a formal style and focuses on knowledge transmission. This is also reflected in the structure of the book, which contains nearly one-hundred pages of glossaries and index at the end of the translated text.