Unfortunately the great majority of Korean scholars-if not all (not to speak of the general public, though well educated) hold the Chinese Tripitaka, the Japanese Tripitaka & the Tibetan Kanjur & Tanjur in such great veneration that the Question of their validity & accuracy in rendering the original (then before the ancient translators) does not even come to their mind. Since few of these scholars have sufficient knowledge of the various languages involved. and not enough experience with the intricate philological problems they encounter, when in front of a real problem, more often than not, they will be Quite unable to judge wether the translation given is correct or beside the point. Here a few examples: The Chinese and the Tibetan versions both render the Pali-term arahant (Skr. arh-ant) as if its meaning were "slayer of enemies (Chin 殺敵 Tib. dgra beam pa)", which points to a Sanskrit-compound : "ari-han", whereas "arahant" means "deserving, worthy, meritorious, one who has achieved great distinction by mastering enormous difficulties." It might be a deliberate replacement of the Pali-term by a tantric one, to give a new meaning to an old title, or be based on a pun already current in India, or no more than a misunderstanding. Again when translating from the Buddhacarita the Chinese, Japanese & Tibetan versions of the Sanskrit sequence "kramena garbhadabhinihsrtah)" come up with "when in due course he had issued from the womb (Chin. 漸漸從胎出, tib. ``mnal nas mnon par nes par byun ba gzug mjes te; Jap. ‘順調な經過を經て胎より出たとき)’ while the correct reading would be: when at the right time he had issued from the womb." Considering a modem Japanese translation of the Tibetan Kanjur, for instance a Madhyamaka text by Teramoto, the lack of knowledge of the mechanics of Tibetan grammar, for example the adjectival framing of substantives, makes his translation unnecessary difficult to understand. So is the rendering by Hayasi of the Pali sentence "cattaro me bhikkhave ahara bhutanam va sattanam thitiya sambhavesinam va anuggahaya", occurring in the Puttamamsasutta of the Samyuttanikaya, as given in his Japanese Pali Tipitaka to mean, "For the welfare of sentient beings & living beings so that they may stay on in their present state and to enable them to seek rebirth these four kinds of food are given." (Jap.比丘等よ 有情或は衆生の 住し 再生を 求め 資益の だめに それらの 四食ぁり) quite difficult to grasp- for a Japanese reader showing the translator`s insufficient mastery of Pali grammar & vocabulary. while the correct translation would be: "These are the four kinds of nourishment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to birth, & for the forwarding of those who seek to come to be." In a similar way Shaibi`s translation of the Chinese version of the Agama sentence, which is reading "奠者摩訶拘希羅於此六觸入處如實知見明覺悟慧無問等 是名爲明(雜阿含經九. 251)" renders it in the Japanese Taisho Tipitaka according to the spacing adhered to in the chinese Original: 奠者摩訶拘希羅 於此六觸入處 如實知見明 覺悟慧無問等 是名爲明. as if it were: 奠者摩訶拘希羅, 此の六觸入處に 於て 如實に 知見し 明に 覺悟し 慧無問等な是れを明と爲す. Yet the Taiwanese Bukwangpitaka uses a Quite a different spacing rendering it: 奠者摩訶拘希羅! 於此六觸入處 如實知 見 明 覺 悟 慧 無問等 是名爲明” But when this same sentence preserved in the Tripitaka Korean, is translated into Korean on the basis of the Japanese National Tripitaka-version, the translator shows off his inadequate understanding of the Pali-term phassayatana(觸入處) by rendering it clumsily as "organ, that is bumped into", while "contact-organ" would have been the correct translation. Again when translating the Pali-sequence "pannaya abhisamayo(慧無問等)”, the translator gives it in the Korean version as "if the wisdom is impartial" while the correct rendering would be "to understand according to wisdom." As with the pronunciation of orthography a Pali- & so it IS with the supposed Sanskrit-word into Chinese or Tibetan, for instance. Many variants are met with, so too in the case of arahant: 阿羅漢, 阿慮漢, 阿羅呵, 適羅局帝. In this respect, the way in which Korea translators & speakers render the supposed "proper" pronunciation of an Indian term shows a tendency to substitute a conventional Korean articulation [for instance "웨, 위(we, wi)"] for ve & vi in "Veda" & "Avidya", since the nature of the sound in its position (after consonant or vowel) is not understood & the proper pronunciation taken to be difficult. To give in a translation that aims to be accurate a proper rendering of orthography & pronunciation as well as of the grammar in relation to sense is difficult enough but a problem that can be solved more easily than finding proper modern equivalents in everyday-speech for Pali expressions of great importance & precision. The Chinese text, just as, for instance, the English, French & German versions, has its own way to identify key words & phrases. Of course, the less the Pali is understood the more foggy the translation will be. The translator should endeavor to clearly differentiate between the various terms as the meaning depends on the syntactical construction & semantical gradation. When comparing early renderings of various translators into Chinese as to the differentiation of key tenns, it is easy to see that they were often enough Quite unable to clearly distinguish between them due to lack of understanding of the intended meaning & lack of ability to make use of the resources of the languages involved. That is not, of course, to take away In the least anything of their great merit. Evidently, only when the Pali is fully understood can a proper translation be attempted, and likewise only when the resources of the modem vernaculars into which the intricate subtleties of Buddhist terminology have to he translated are fully mastered, an adequate rendering into everyday modem speech can be successful. In order to achieve these high aims, humbly endeavoring to give due respect to the teaching of the Buddha, the Pali Text Society of Korea intends to apply all its resources, as far as possible, to this great task.