Category Archives: Blog

satomi nichirenism, Blog

The Importance of Japan

This is another in a series of daily articles concerning Kishio Satomi's book, "Japanese Civilization; Its Significance and Realization; Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles," which details the foundations of Chigaku Tanaka's interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism and Japan's role in the early 20th century.


What sets Kishio Satomi and his father, Chigaku Tanaka, apart from mainstream followers of Nichiren is their emphasis of the importance of the nation of Japan.

The Hokekyo [Lotus Sutra] must have a state like Japan in order to validate its pregnant value, and Japan should have the Hokekyo for the sake of the realization of her national ideal. Therefore, Nichiren praised Japan in regard of the truth of the Hokekyo from the doctrinal point of view, not for the sake of his fatherland.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p27

The believer was not to yearn for a Pure Land in the West nor even to seek the Eternal Buddha’s Pure Land in this Sāha world. Real followers of Nichiren, Satomi says, actively seek to create that land.

We must also not neglect the following results which are cited by Nichiren (from the Nehan-gyo) very often as being one of his thoughts about the commandment, It says:

“However virtuous a priest may be, if he neglects to eject transgressors, to make them repent or renounce their sins, hearken! he is wicked and hostile to Buddhist Law. If he casts them out to make them be repentant and amend their negligence, he is worthy to be my disciple and truly virtuous.”

Thus the idea of the Hokekyo does not admit of a mere self-complacency in faith, but it demands absolute reconstruction and instructing one’s environments. Therefore, the definition of faith is much different from the ordinal ones in other religions. The significant purport of a Nichirenian’s faith must be a combination of both, which is self-devotion and social reconstruction, therefore he says:

“How grievous it is that we were born in such a country wherein the right law is disparaged and we suffer great torment! How shall we deal with the unbelief in our homes and in our country, even though some people observe the faith of the Law whereby they are relieved of the sin of individual disparagement. If you desire to relieve your home of unbelief, tell the truth of the Scripture to your parents, brothers and sisters. What would happen would be detestation or belief. If you desire the State to be the righteous one you must remonstrate with the King or the government on its disparagement of the righteous law, at the risk of capital punishment or banishment. From all eternity, all failures of people to attain Buddhahood were rooted in silence about this, out of fear of such things ” (Works, p. 651).

The conception of the commandment, therefore, is not merely negative virtue of individuals, but undoubtedly a strong vow for the realization of a universal or humanistic ideal paradise in this world.

According to Nichiren, the heavenly paradise has not an allegorical existence, but is the highest aim of living beings in the living world. In other words, it must be actually built on the earth. For such a fundamental humanistic aim we must all strive. The true commandment has not its being apart from the vow. If one fully comprehends his thought, and will strive for it, then the signification of one’s life will be realized. This thought is the most important idea of Nichiren’s religion, and, in fact, the peculiarity of Nichirenism consists therein. For him, to protect and extend the righteousness over the world, through the country and to everybody is the true task of life. Consequently, [Nichiren] tested what would be the most convenient way of realizing such an ideal in the world, and he found the country for it.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p100-102

Just as it is important to keep in mind the 13th century medieval environment in which Nichiren developed his ideas, it is equally important to remember that Satomi is writing after World War I and during Japan’s growing imperialistic ambitions in the first half of the 20th century.

Table of ContentsNext

satomi nichirenism, Blog

Nichirenians and Nichirenism

This is another in a series of daily articles concerning Kishio Satomi's book, "Japanese Civilization; Its Significance and Realization; Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles," which details the foundations of Chigaku Tanaka's interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism and Japan's role in the early 20th century.


The full title of Kishio Satomi’s book is “Japanese Civilization; Its Significance and Realization; Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles.” It was published as part of Trubner’s Oriental Series in London in 1923. It is written for the Western reader and as such makes certain concessions. For example, since followers of Christ are called Christians, Satomi calls followers of Nichiren Nichirerians. In an effort to separate the established temple-based Nichiren religion from what his father, Chigaku Tanaka, had established, he called it Nichirenism.

In summarizing Nichirenism and Nichirenians toward the end of his book, Satomi writes:

Nichirenism as the practical religion teaches us that human life finds its signification and light by strong procedure and by following the path which leads to promise of life, and which is different from a mere abstract conception of truth. Therefore, for Nichirenians, there is no racial discrimination, nor wrong notion of nationality, nor class, but only one discrimination, viz. between men who obey and safeguard the path and those who do not. It is the universal religion, which is above the usual national conservatism. Nichirenians find their gratitude in their awakening of the path, and, according to Nichiren’s definite instruction, they are to share their happiness with all mankind. They will never realize the objective state of faith in individual ease or consolation. They will surely proceed to the movement of reconstruction of the world even if they sacrifice their individual consolation or ease; but in the very process of that task they will discover the real means of Attainment of Buddhahood. Their expectation will indeed consist in Universal Buddhafication.

Accordingly, Nichiren’s faith does not lie within a mere religious sentiment nor in bliss of the Almighty. Their faith only traces their right path wherein their lives consist, therefore God’s love is apart from the problem as far as they are concerned with the Heavenly Task. Because protection of righteousness is God’s duty.

Of course they do not seek religion in a mere ritual form, though without doubt it is an important part of religion to a certain extent, and consequently is adopted to a certain degree in Nichiren’s religion. Nichirenism emancipates religion from the dark interior of the church right into joyful human life. Therefore, for Nichirenians, religion is not only a religion in the ordinary sense but it is the principle and method of the synthetic creation of the world. And also for such reasons they establish religion as an achievement, the Heavenly Task.

Thus those who recognize and believe the Heavenly Task, in other words, the establishment of the Holy Altar in future as the vital point and signification of their lives, are ruled by those ideas, viz. absolute adoration, gratitude, mutual admiration of the same minds, vow to realize the law, and sacrifice of one’s life for the law. These five are indeed their radical rules, which they willingly obey. And therefore they guard and extend the Law with all their powers, that is economical power, science, preaching, labor and so forth. They do not discriminate men according to their ranks or occupations or races. Every man is equal before the Heavenly Task, so they admire, respect and thank each other for the practice of the task. Therein lies their real worthiness. They believe they are realizing an ideal human life in the society of one another, if ever.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p226-228

In the Introduction, Satomi explains:

The religion to be aimed at should be one of validity and value. If we were righteous there would be no necessity to ask God’s help, for it is God’s duty a priori to protect the righteous.

So, in the first place, “prayer” consists in “vowing” to do that which is righteous oneself and being benevolently inclined towards our fellow creatures and thereby engendering righteousness and perfect love.

In the second place, “prayer” also means “thanksgiving” for one’s rectitude, and then again “prayer” should be a genuine feeling of absolute dependence on God. Otherwise contradiction will go on repeating itself everlastingly.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p2-3

The goal of Nichirenism, Satomi explains, is to free religion:

Emancipate religion from old conceptions, from the Church and from the grave. The principle and spirit of religion should be interwoven with daily life. Strive to find religion at every step, at every turn, at work, at table, in business or in time of war or peace! Plough the land for the sake of humanity, then shall a man find true happiness.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p4

Nichirenism, Satomi says, requires a different practice.

A tradesman who is devoted to a religion and is a regular churchgoer in order to benefit by sermons and prayer, would appear to be a true believer of the religion as far as the church is concerned. He argues love, benevolence, truth, peace or something of the kind and overestimates himself and is proud of his faith during those moments. However, when attending to his everyday duties he thinks of his own interests and competes with numerous other traders, gloats over his gains and, should an opportunity offer, he would overthrow his competitors.

Is not such a view of peace a superficial one? Can we recognize even the smallest degree of faith in such intentions? Such a phenomenon is obviously contradictory. We cannot approve of such dualism or pluralism which draws a distinction between our mode of living and our religious faith.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p6

Worldwide reform is the ultimate goal of Satomi’s Nichirenism:

We must bring about in the near future an international constitution so that the States and the world may be judged. It is illogical that a State should punish an individual man or woman for a theft or other crime of which the State itself is guilty on a much larger scale. It is out of all reason to ascribe equity to national greediness. Therefore the State must undergo a moral reconstruction. So we must contrive to bring about a reconstruction of the world, its countries and its individuals. We offer Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles as the means to be considered by the nations.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p10

Satomi makes an effort to soften Nichirenism’s rejection of all other Buddhist sects and all other religions.

Nichirenism is the principle of the synthetic creation based on Nichiren’s doctrine, thought and faith, and it is religion in quite an ordinary sense, but at the same time it is the general basis of life and of the world. Accordingly, we cannot treat Nichirenism as a mere form of Buddhism, however apt we may be to allow our views to be influenced by our prejudices and our sectarianism when we come in touch with a sect which is foreign to us. So, to begin with, when seeking truth, we must eliminate sectarianism, which of itself alone will confuse our understanding or reason. For this cause and also in order to free Nichiren’s religion from the hackneyed conception of religion, we use the appellation Nichirenism, the term adopted by Chigaku Tanaka.

Nichirenism, in the first place, rejects all other religions on the one hand, but, on the other hand, approves them all, when enlightened and elucidated by Nichirenism. From the former point of view, Nichirenism is not incompatible with the other religions, but is in unison and harmony with them from the latter point of view.

For Satomi, the world of the 1920s was ripe for conquest by Nichiren’s ideas.

Nichirenism is by no means the religion of the past, but the religion of the future and forever. The past ages were not ready to be Nichirenized for many reasons, the political condition was one of them, the state of civilization was another, and the affairs of the world of thought might also be added. But now the world has come to a standstill, so that it must of necessity take a new turn.

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p13

Table of ContentsNext

satomi nichirenism, Blog, Books

Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles

In May I published a number of quotes from Bruno Petzold’s book, Buddhist Prophet Nichiren–A Lotus In The Sun, examining the Tendai view of Nichiren’s doctrine. Petzold based his understanding of Nichiren and his doctrine on three books:

satomi-bookcover-web
Japanese Civilization: Its Significance and Realization, Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles
  • Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet by Anesaki Masaharu, 1916
  • Japanese Civilization: Its Significance and Realization, Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles by Satomi Kishio, 1923
  • Nichiren-shū kōyō (Manual of the Nichiren Sect), Shimizu Ryōzan, 1928

Since I already have Anesaki Masaharu on this website, I went looking for the other two books. I couldn’t find Shimizu Ryōzan’s “Nichiren-shū kōyō” (Manual of the Nichiren Sect), but Satomi Kishio’s book is available online and in print. (Download a PDF copy.)

Satomi was born in 1897, the youngest son of Chigaku Tanaka and his second wife, Ogawa Hiroko. He died in 1974. In writing the book, Satomi sought to bring his father’s work to the Western world. As he explains in the Author’s Preface:

The chief object of the present work is to make accessible to Western scholars and all people one of the very important aspects of Japanese spiritual civilization which is, in a sense, a result of our synthetic creation by harmonization and unification of several elements. The Author has treated Nichiren’s Religion, known as the True Mahayana Buddhism, and the Japanese National Principles in this volume, to which he begs to draw the attention of readers.

The book’s objective is detailed in an Introduction written by G.F. Barwick in 1923.

Professor Satomi, although so far unknown in England, is well known in Japan, both as an author of works relating to Nichirenism and as the youngest son of Mr. Chigaku Tanaka, the leading authority on the life and writings of the apostle of Buddhist reformation. There is a powerful society in Japan, the Kokuchukai, of which Mr. Chigaku Tanaka is the president. It is composed entirely of laymen, and its object is to present the ideal religious life, as revealed by Nichiren, free from any obscurities which formalism and the misdirected zeal of various sects may have induced. The activities of this society are mainly directed towards spreading the idea of practical religion over every aspect of life and bringing the religious influence to bear not only on personal work like art and science, but on the collective work of politics, economics, and military affairs. Mr. Chigaku Tanaka is the one who may be said to be the most active since Nichiren’s death in 1282 in spreading the doctrine, or perhaps one ought rather to say the ideas, of Nichiren; and his son is an enthusiastic worker in the same field.

Of Nichiren’s religion it may suffice to say here that its main ideas are: the communion of those living now and henceforth with all who have gone before, and the restoration of primeval connection with the eternal Buddha; and that it is not the worship of an abstract truth, but a life to be lived by every being, human or other, in the identity of man with nature. Nichiren was imbued with the strongest faith that Japanese Buddhism would spread from East to West, and his disciples are earnestly endeavoring to make his prophetic vision a present reality. The Nichirenians count their temples by thousands and their adherents by millions, and may claim recognition as one of the religious forces of the world.

At the time Barwick wrote this he was the “Assistant-Keeper of Printed Books and Superintendent of Reading-room of the British Museum.” I’ve found no explanation of his connection to Satomi or his expertise in Japanese religions. His claim that “Nichirenians count their temples by thousands and their adherents by millions, and may claim recognition as one of the religious forces of the world” only stands if “Nichirenians” include all of the various sects who see Nichiren as their founder. Tanaka’s Kokuchukai, Pillar of the Nation Society, which he founded in 1880 as Rengekai (Lotus Blossom Society), certainly never counted it’s adherents by the millions nor did it possess any temples.

For my purposes, I’ll be publishing quotes from the book illustrating where I see Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi in Japanese) diverges from modern Nichiren Buddhism but also where it points to weaknesses in today’s implementation of Nichiren’s teachings. I’m particularly moved by the desire of Tanaka and his son to “emancipate religion from the dark interior of the church right into joyful human life.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nichirenian and Nichirenism
The Importance of Japan
Nichiren’s Times
Nichiren’s Early Motivation
Dengyo, the Hokekyo and Nichiren
Nichiren’s Life in Kamakura
Nichiren as Honge Jogyo
A Religious Man Worthy of the Name
Transmission of the Three Great Secret Laws
Realization of Buddha’s Kingdom
A Military Role in Spreading Nichiren’s Teaching
Religionizing the Country to Propagate the Lotus Sutra
Vows for the Protection and Enlargement of the Law
Japanese National Principles and the Holy Altar
The Essences of the Japanese National Principles
Adoration to Myōhōrengekyō
Five Reasons for Chanting Daimoku
The Law of the Sacred Title
The Object of Worship in Nichirenism
The Meaning of the Sun Goddess and Hachiman on the Gohonzon
The Path Reaching the Summit
The Importance of the Lotus Sutra in Nichirenism
Good and Evil and Lust All Together
Kishio Satomi’s Odd Interpretations of the Lotus Sutra
A Religion Founded With A Future Aim
Blog

With Military Honors and a Kito Blessing

20230609_flag-presentation-TM-burial
A ceremonial flag is presented to Deardra Murray, the wife of Thomas Murray, by a member of the U.S. Marine honor guard.

On Friday, my wife and I drove Rev. Igarashi to the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery for a military burial service for Thomas Hamilton Murray, who died in June 2020. “T” to his friends, Mr. Murray had been a member of the Sacramento Nichiren Buddhist Church for several years. His wife, Deardra, asked Rev. Igarashi to perform a Buddhist burial service following the military rites. The U.S. Marine honor guard presented the ceremonial flag to Mr. Murray’s wife, taps was played and a three gun salute fired.
After the military honors, Rev. Igarashi performed a full kito purification ceremony for Mr. Murray’s ashes. After the kito blessing, Rev. Igarashi recited the Invocation in English, and the Jiga Ge from Chapter 16 in Shindoku. He then chanted Daimoku and invited those attending the service to offer incense. At the end of Daimoku chanting he recited Hōtōge, the Difficulty of Retaining the Sutra verses from the conclusion of Chapter 11. He closed the service with Buso, the prayer sung in Shindoku to say farewell to the venerable spirits who attended the service.

Each Nichiren Shu priest has his own take on these services. Rev. Igarashi, having accomplished the 100-day aragyo ascetic training five times, is uniquely qualified to perform purification services in America. Only one other priest in the continental United States, Rev. Shoda Kanai in Las Vegas, is qualified, having twice completed the 100-day aragyo ascetic training.

20230609_kito-blessing-TM-burial
Rev. Igarashi performs purification kito blessing for Thomas Murray following military burial service
Kern, Blog

The Dedicated Work of a Buddhist Priest

This is the final weekly blog post comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.

When I began this project comparing H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Sanskrit copy of the Lotus Sutra with English translations of Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese translation of a Sanskrit copy of the Lotus Sutra in July, 2022, I wrote:

As readers of this blog will no doubt recognize, I am a big fan of Senchu Murano’s translation of the Lotus Sutra. As of July 2022, I’ve now read it aloud as part of my daily practice more than 65 times. There are differences in style and phrasing when compared with the other English translations that I’ve used in my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice – two Rissho Kosei-Kai translations, Soka Gakkai’s translation, Gene Reeves’ translation and the BDK English Tripiṭaka translation – but the substance is the same since all are based on Kumārajīva’s fifth-century Chinese translation of the original Sanskrit.

That claim that “the substance is the same” among the translators of Kumārajīva’s Chinese version turns out to have been naïve.

Each translator makes deliberate changes. Gene Reeves substituted Greek and Roman equivalents for the Indian mythological creatures in the sutra. Michio Shinozaki, Brook A. Ziporyn and David C. Earhart went out of their way in the “Modern” Risshō Kōsei-kai translation to erase “potentially offensive or seemingly discriminatory words and phrases within the text itself.”

It was only when I had finished the comparison of the translations that I realized that Murano had also added his own personal touch.

I have long known that there were subtle differences between Murano’s translation and the other English translations of Kumārajīva. In 2019, after having made 40 cycles through my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice, I began substituting other English translations. Without understanding exactly why, I found each translation lacking. Murano’s translation just seemed more focused on the propagation of the Lotus Sutra. And it’s that focus, I believe, that guided the choices Murano made in his translation.

Murano (1908-2001) was an ordained Nichiren Shu priest. He earned a degree in East Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 1938 and served as a teacher of Buddhist studies at Rissho University in Tokyo from 1962 to 1979.

Murano worked for 20 years on his translation. When the first edition was finally published in 1974, Murano offered this acknowledgement:

The translator wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude to Bollingen Foundation for their offer of a fellowship to assist him in translating the Chinese version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarika during 1960-1964 through the recommendation of Dr. Clarence H. Hamilton.

The first edition of Murano’s Lotus Sutra included a preface by Hamilton in which he offers a testament to the value of the first full translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese work to appear in English.

A unique interest attaches to this fresh English translation of the Lotus Sutra, more fully entitled The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma. Not only does it correspond to Kumārajīva’s classic Chinese text, with the important later additions. It also represents the dedicated work of a Buddhist priest of the Nichiren Sect in Japan. This Sect reveres the Lotus Sutra as its one sacred book and reverences its truth as the supreme object of devotion. This translation, therefore, results from a motive essentially religious – the motive to “transmit the Dharma” in the contemporary generation. …

For full appreciation of all it contains, the Lotus Sutra must be read in its entirety. In making this possible for English-speaking readers, Senchu Murano has rendered notable service in his appointed task of furthering “transmission of the Dharma” in the modern world.

CLARENCE H. HAMILTON
Winchester, Massachusetts, 1974

I must confess that I haven’t been completely comfortable with the idea that Murano made deliberate changes when translating the Lotus Sutra into English.

Some of those changes seemed benign. I wrote earlier about Senchu Murano’s Insight in subtly changing the conclusion of Chapter 2. Others suggest that the result of understanding will be joy – Your hearts shall give rise to great joy – but for Murano, joy is a prerequisite – “When you have great joy, You will become Buddhas!” This idea that you must have joy to become a Buddha was a frequent theme of Ryusho Jeffus Shonin’s teachings.

One can find many places that illustrate how Murano’s English choices shape the tone and tenor of his Lotus Sutra translation, but I must admit that I stumbled when I realized how he had intervened in Chapter 14, Peaceful Practices. I wrote about this earlier in The Plight of an Ordinary Bodhisattva.

At the time, I brought this up with Shinkyo Warner Shonin, the editor of the third edition of Murano’s translation. He responded:

You bring up an interesting point. Translation always involves some amount of interpretation. So-called “originalists” often insist on a word for word rendition to preserve the authenticity of the translation. In my opinion while they claim to preserve the authority of a translation, they are missing the forest for the trees.

The best translators preserve not just the meanings of individual words, but the meaning of the work as a whole. Bishop Murano’s translation of the Lotus Sutra was the first one I read. It was not until I read [Burton] Watson’s translation that I realized one of the many things Bishop Murano was doing with his.

I found that in the Watson translation the Bodhisattva ideal, in other words that the sutra was a teaching for us who are reading it, was absent if not actively suppressed. This is not surprising given those who sponsored his translation. I found that rather than encouraging readers to bring out their true natures as Bodhisattvas, it called on them to accept the authority of the Buddha and presumably those who communicate to them the teachings of the Buddha.

With that in mind, it is not surprising that Bishop Murano inserted “ordinary” into that sentence to contrast with the “rare” Bodhisattvas mentioned earlier in the paragraph. The question from Mañjuśrī is not about how the great, rare Bodhisattvas should expound the Sutra. Presumably they already know. The question is about how we in comparison to those rare Bodhisattvas should expound the Sutra.

I had the honor of being able to meet with Bishop Murano several times before he passed away. I found him to be a man of intelligence, compassion and even humor. I believe that rather than saying a translation is wrong, it is much more respectful to look deeply at what people are trying to get across in their works rather than just saying that something is wrong or bad. Such an approach is much more likely to lead to productive conversations, meaning those that produce insights you may not have anticipated before going in, rather than just debates about who is right.

Bishop Murano’s translation emphasized the Lotus Sutra as “the Dharma for Bodhisattvas.” Others do not. With that in mind we can talk about which are more authentic.

Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra has been the translation favored across Asia. Senchu Murano’s translation should be the one favored in English-speaking lands. As Shinkyo Shonin says, it is not the meanings of individual words, but the meaning of the work as a whole that is important, especially when the goal is to further  the transmission of the Dharma in the modern world.

Blog

A Vacation of Sorts

Next Monday, June 5, will be the last of my series of posts comparing and contrasting H. Kern’s Sanskrit and Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra translations. That will also be the last blog post of any kind for the month of June.

I will continue to repost the Daily Dharma produced by the Lexington Nichiren Buddhist Community in the morning and I will continue my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra posts in the evening, but that’s going to be it for the month of June.

In July I hope to begin an examination of Chigaku Tanaka’s Nichirenism and how his Japanese nationalism influenced immigrants in American to found the Sacramento Nichiren Buddhist Church.

Kern, d32b, Blog

A Patriarchal Worldview Shared by Women

This is another in a series of weekly blog posts comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.

Back in July 2016 after having read the Lotus Sutra 10 or so times, I commented upon the patriarchal worldview of Chapter 28, The Encouragement of Universal-Sage Bodhisattva. Nothing in the chapter seemed likely to encourage female practicers. It was as if this chapter were solely designed to encourage teenage boys.

But then I read H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra. In his Chapter 26, Encouragement of Samantabhadra, Kern has the newly arrived bodhisattva say:

I have come hither, O Lord, from the field of the Lord Ratnategobhyudgata, the Tathāgata, &c., as I am aware, Lord, that here in the Sahā-world is taught the Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, to hear which from the mouth of the Lord Śākyamuni I have come accompanied by these hundred thousands of Bodhisattvas Mahāsattvas. May the Lord deign to expound, in extension, this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law to these Bodhisattvas Mahāsattvas.

Note that Kern doesn’t have Samantabhadra say anything about the sex of these Bodhisattvas.

Senchu Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra offers a different picture:

“World-Honored One! I heard the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma, which you expounded in this Sahā World, from a remote world in which lives Treasure-Power­-Virtue-Superior-King Buddha. I came here with many hundreds of thousands of billions of Bodhisattvas in order to hear and receive [this Sūtra]. World-Honored One! Tell me how the good men or women who live after your extinction will be able to obtain this Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma!”

The other English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra follow Murano’s translation and specify that Universal-Sage Bodhisattva is asking about both men and women practicers.

And yet in Kern’s telling, the Buddha focuses his response solely on women who practice.

So addressed, the Lord said to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Samantabhadra: These Bodhisattvas, young man of good family, are, indeed, quick of understanding, but this is the Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, that is to say, an unmixed truth. The Bodhisattvas exclaimed: Indeed Lord; indeed, Sugata. Then in order to confirm, in the Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, the females among the monks, nuns, and lay devotees assembled at the gathering, the Lord again spoke to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Samantabhadra: This Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, young man of good family, shall be entrusted to a female if she be possessed of four requisites, to wit: she shall stand under the superintendence of the Lords Buddhas; she shall have planted good roots; she shall keep steadily to the mass of disciplinary regulations; she shall, in order to save creatures, have the thoughts fixed on supreme and perfect enlightenment. These are the four requisites, young man of good family, a female must be possessed of, to whom this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law is to be entrusted.

The equivalent portion of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra ignores this focus on female followers. As Murano offers:

The Buddha said to Universal-Sage Bodhisattva:

“The good men or women will be able to obtain this Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma after my extinction if they do the following four things: 1. secure the protection of the Buddhas, 2. plant the roots of virtue, 3. reach the stage of steadiness [in proceeding to enlightenment], and 4. resolve to save all living beings. The good men or women will be able to obtain this sūtra after my extinction if they do these four things.”

Again, the other English translators of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra agree with Murano.

After vowing protection against being captivated by women, both Kern’s version and Kumārajīva’s promise followers of the Lotus Sutra rebirth in heaven, where eighty-four thousand goddesses – or in Kern’s telling, nymphs – will serve them. Only Murano specifies that this reward is reaped only by male Bodhisattvas.

Anyone who copies this sūtra will be reborn in the Heaven of the Trāyastriṃs̒a Gods immediately after his present life. On that occasion, eighty-four thousand goddesses will come and receive him, making many kinds of music. A crown of the seven treasures will be put on his head, and he will enjoy himself among the ladies in waiting.

Kern and the other English Kumārajīva translators use the inclusive “they.” (I’m going to ignore the Modern Risshō Kōsei-kai translation‘s decision to change “goddesses” to “heavenly beings” and “ladies in waiting” to “refined attendants.”)

Perhaps it’s my narrow male view that makes it seem unlikely that female followers will be encouraged by the promise of receiving the attentions of goddesses and ladies in waiting as a reward for practicing the Lotus Sutra. Still, if you remove Murano’s focus on male followers, the patriarchal criticism is certainly diminished.

Next: The Dedicated Work of a Buddhist Priest

Blog

Where to Begin Learning About Nichiren Buddhism

Today I’ve added links to Rev. Ryūei Michael McCormick’s “Dharma Flower: The Faith, Teaching, and Practice of Nichiren Buddhism” to my Where to Begin page. Rev. Ryuei explains that he began writing this back in the late 1990s as a collection of notes for lectures he was giving. Those notes became the book Dharma Flower by the year 2000. Rev. Ryuei expects to publish a revised and updated version in book form in the future. For now, however, this is an excellent resource available online for those who want a detailed explanation of Nichiren Buddhism.

Kern, d31b, Blog

The Request of Pure-Store and Pure-Eyes

This is another in a series of weekly blog posts comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.

In comparing English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra with H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra one finds an interesting disagreement on what exactly the two sons of the king requested from their mother in Chapter 27, King Wonderful-Adornment as the Previous Life of a Bodhisattva, or as Kern titles his Chapter 25, Ancient Devotion .

Kern offers this version:

Then, young men of good family, the two young princes Vimalagarbha and Vimalanetra went to their mother, to whom they said, after stretching their joined hands: We should like to go, mother, to the Lord Jaladharagarjitaghoṣhasusvaranakṣhatrarājasaṃkusumitābhijña, the Tathāgata, &c., and that, mother, because the Lord Jaladharagarjitaghoṣhasusvaranakṣhatrarājasaṃkusumitābhijña, the Tathāgata, &c., expounds, in great extension, before the world, including the gods, the Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law. We should like to hear it.

Kumārajīva expands this request to include an invitation for the mother to join them. As Senchu Murano offers:

The two sons, Pure-Store and Pure-Eyes, came to their mother, joined their ten fingers and palms together, and said, ‘Mother! Go to Cloud-Thunderpeal-Star-King-Flower-Wisdom Buddha! We also will go to attend on him, approach him, make offerings to him, and bow to him because he is expounding the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma to all gods and men. Hear and receive [the sūtra]!’

The other English translations agree with Murano that the invitation is extended to the mother.

The BDK Tripiṭaka translation has:

We entreat you, O mother, to go before the Buddha Jaladharagarjitaghoṣasusvaranakṣatrarājasaṃkusumitābhijña. We shall also go before him together with you, attend him, make offerings to him, and pay him homage. Why is this? Because this buddha teaches the Lotus Sutra amid the assembly of all the devas and humans. Thus we should all listen to him.

Gene Reeves has:

Meanwhile the two sons, Pure Treasury and Pure Eyes, went to their mother and, putting their ten fingers and palms together, said to her: ‘We beg you, mother, to go and visit Wisdom Blessed by the King of Constellations Called the Sound of Thunder in the Clouds Buddha. We also would wait on, associate with, make offerings to, and worship him. Why? Because this buddha is teaching the Dharma Flower Sutra among the multitudes of human and heavenly beings, and we ought to hear and receive it.’

The only exception is Leon Hurvitz. His translation, which compared a composite Sanskrit Lotus Sutra with Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation and created a hybrid English translation, doesn’t include the invitation to the mother to go along with the boys. He has:

At that time the two sons, Pure Womb and Pure Eye, went before their mother and, joining their palms, ten fingers to ten fingers, deferentially spoke: ‘We beg leave, Mother, to go before the buddha Wisdom Adorned with Flowers by the King of Constellations [named] Thunder Sound of Clouds, where we too will attend him, approach him with familiarity, make offerings to him, and worship him. What is the reason? In the midst of a multitude of all gods and men this buddha preaches the Scripture of the Dharma Blossom, and we must listen to it receptively.’

Where there is a difference among the English translations of Kumārajīva is in the response of the mother. Kern’s translation has the mother say:

Whereupon the queen Vimaladattā said to the two young prince Vimalagarbha and Vimalanetra: Your father, young gentlemen, the king Śubhavyūha, favors the Brahmans. Therefore you will not obtain the permission to go and see the Tathāgata.

In Burton Watson’s English translation of Kumārajīva, he has the mother reply:

The mother announced to her sons, ‘Your father puts his faith in non-Buddhist doctrines and is deeply attached to the Brahmanical doctrines. You should go to your father, tell him about this, and persuade him to go with you.’

The Modern Risshō Kōsei-kai translation has:

“The mother replied to her sons, ‘Your father believes in a different teaching, as he is deeply attached to the Brahman doctrines. You should go to your father and see if he will agree to go with you.’

While Kumārajīva’s translation includes the invitation to the mother to go with the sons to see the Buddha, the mother does not respond and instead indicates that the two sons need to convince their father to join them.

That is, all the English translations of Kumārajīva except Murano, who offers:

“The mother said to them, ‘[Yes, I will. But] your father believes in heresy. He is deeply attached to the teachings of brahmanas. Go and tell him to allow us to go [to that Buddha]!’

This is another example of Murano’s effort to clarify and enhance his translation of the Lotus Sutra.

Next: A Patriarchal Worldview Shared by Women

Kern, d30b, Blog

Talismanic Words for Guard, Defense, and Protection

This is another in a series of weekly blog posts comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.

In H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra, the Dhārānis chapter appears between The Supernatural Powers of the Tathāgatas chapter and The Previous Life of Medicine-King Bodhisattva. And that’s the most significant difference between Kern’s Spells chapter and Kumārajīva’s Dhārānis chapter.

The two bodhisattvas, two heavenly kings, and ten female rākṣasa demons and the mother of demons each make an appearance. Each offers what Kern describes as “talismanic words for guard, defense, and protection.”

There are as many differences between English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra as there are between Kern’s translation and those of Kumārajīva.

Kern opens the chapter with:

Thereupon the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Bhaiṣajyarāja rose from his seat, and having put his upper robe upon one shoulder and fixed the right knee upon the ground lifted his joined hands up to the Lord and said: How great, O Lord, is the pious merit which will be produced by a young man of good family or a young lady who keeps this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, either in memory or in a book?

Senchu Murano opens translation of Kumārajīva with:

Thereupon Medicine-King Bodhisattva rose front his seat, bared his right shoulder, joined his hands together towards the Buddha, and said to him:

“World-Honored One! How many merits will be given to the good men or women who keep, read, recite, understand or copy the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma?”

The difference between Kern’s action “keeps this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, either in memory or in a book” and Murano’s “keep, read, recite, understand or copy the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma” is consistent among the English translators of Kumārajīva.

Gene Reeves opens his “Incantations” chapter with:

At that time Medicine King Bodhisattva rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, put his palms together facing the Buddha, and said to him: “World-Honored One, if there are good sons or good daughters who can embrace the Dharma Flower Sutra, read and recite it, gain insight into it, or copy it onto a scroll, how many blessings will they obtain?”

Burton Watson opens his “Dharani” chapter with:

At that time Bodhisattva Medicine King rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, pressed his palms together and, facing the Buddha, spoke to him, saying, “World-Honored One, if there are good men or good women who can accept and uphold the Lotus Sutra, if they read and recite it, penetrate its meaning, or copy the sutra scrolls, how much merit will they gain?”

Another minor difference is the predicted reaction if someone abuses a person protected by the Dhārānis. Kern has Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Bhaiṣajyarāja say:

. All these Buddhas would be offended by any one who would attack such preachers, such keepers of the Sūtrānta.

Murano has Medicine-King Bodhisattva say:

Those who attack and abuse this teacher of the Dharma should be considered to have attacked and abused those Buddhas.”

This difference between Kern’s “offended” Buddhas and the “attack and abuse” of Buddhas in Murano is consistent among the English translators of Kumārajīva.

The Modern Risshō Kōsei-kai translation has:

Those who would persecute the teachers of the Dharma will have persecuted these buddhas.

The BDK English Tripiṭaka offers:

Anyone who attacks or slanders an expounder of the Dharma also attacks or slanders these buddhas.

One other difference is Kern’s description of the rākṣasas demons as “giantesses.” Since rākṣasas is a Sanskrit term for an Indian mythological creature, one would expect that even in 1884, when Kern was translating the Lotus Sutra, they would not be described as “giantesses.” As described in Lotus World, the rākṣasas are “flesh eating, blood drinking, or spirit draining demons.”

The only English translator of Kumārajīva who doesn’t call these demons rākṣasas is Gene Reeves, who calls them “ogresses.” But that is prompted by Reeves decision to change the names of all of the Indian mythological creatures into Greek and Roman equivalents.

Next: The Request of Pure-Store and Pure-Eyes