The Religion of Translators in Their Translations : A Laconic Note to Buddha Carita

The analysis of ‘History of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature’ puts a different view; which is far away from theory of favouritism. This philosophy of separatism, on the basis of intelligencia, is unable to avail collaborative treatises. The result of a brief researches Is not straight. For example, “Rhys David has rightly emphasized that this Chinese work is no translation in our sense”. Indirectly, Rhys David was criticized by this statement when Samuel Beal considers him untrained scholar of Buddhism. It seems that an argument never becomes speechless. If we take a short notice that Samuel Beal is not disagree to the advice of F. Max Muller’s about the seventeen chapter Buddha Carita in Sanskrit. Rhys David also accepts the authenticity of the same text.31 But here is an objection which comes through E.B. Cowell’s translation; He quotes Rajendralal Mitra, “There were two Nepalese version of Buddha Carita, full of faulty. The first one is in Nevari and the second one is in Sanskrit. Mentioning that Amritananda added four more sargas into thirteen chapter, viz, seventeen chapters. Which version was reliable text for Rhys David and F. Max Muller, to be found in Nepal or other any more? Recast the past as it was; that is less impossible only on the basis of written references and the researchers’ hypothatical and analytical studies. Notwithstanding, it fulfills its objective in a precise manner.