Category Archives: Blog

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

Kern, d29b, Blog

The Odd Praise of Amitābha in Kern’s Lotus Sutra

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

In comparing H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra with English translations of Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese Lotus Sutra, there are two major differences that stand out. First, is the lack of the 10 Suchnesses in Chapter 2 in Kern’s version. The other is the addition in Kern’s version of seven verses in the gāthās of Chapter 25, The Universal Gate of World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva.

The opening prose section of the chapter is essentially the same.

Kern, for example, has:

Those who shall keep the name of this Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Avalokiteśvara, young man of good family, will, if they fall into a great mass of fire, be delivered therefrom by virtue of the luster of the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva.

While Murano has:

Those who keep the name of this World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva will not be burned when they are put into a conflagration [because they are protected] by, the supernatural powers of this Bodhisattva.

But there are some minor differences. For example, in Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra, when Endless-Intent Bodhisattva offered World-Voice-Perceiver a necklace, World-Voice-Perceiver refused it and the Buddha had to intervene to convince World-Voice-Perceiver to accept the gift. Murano has:

The Endless-Intent Bodhisattva said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One! Now I will make an offering to World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva.” From around his neck, he took a necklace of many gems worth hundreds of thousands of ryo of gold, and offered it [to the Bodhisattva], saying, “Man of Virtue! Receive this necklace of wonderful treasures! I offer this to you according to the Dharma!”

World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva did not consent to receive it. Endless-Intent said to World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva again, “Man of Virtue! Receive this necklace out of your compassion towards us!”

Thereupon the Buddha said to World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva:

“Receive it out of your compassion towards this Endless-Intent Bodhisattva, towards the four kinds of devotees, and towards the other living beings including gods, dragons, yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, men and nonhuman beings!”

Thereupon World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva received the necklace out of his compassion towards the four kinds of devotees, and towards the other living beings including gods, dragons, men and nonhuman beings. He divided [the necklace] into two parts, and offered one part of it to Śākyamuni Buddha and the other to the stupa of Many-Treasures Buddha.

In Kern’s translation the Buddha does not intervene:

Further, the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Akshayamati said to the Lord: Shall we give a gift of piety, a decoration of piety, O Lord, to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Avalokiteśvara? The Lord replied: Do so, if thou thinkest it opportune. Then the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Akshayamati took from his neck a pearl necklace, worth a hundred thousand (gold pieces), and presented it to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Avalokiteśvara as a decoration of piety, with the words: Receive from me this decoration of piety, good man. But he would not accept it. Then the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Akshayamati said to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Avalokiteśvara: Out of compassion to us, young man of good family, accept this pearl necklace. Then the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Avalokiteśvara accepted the pearl necklace from the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Akshayamati, out of compassion to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Akshayamati and the four classes, and out of compassion to the gods, Nāgas, goblins, Gandharvas, demons, Garuḍas, Kinnaras, great serpents, men, and beings not human. Thereafter he divided (the necklace) into two parts, and offered one part to the Lord Śākyamuni, and the other to the jewel Stūpa of the Lord Prabhūtaratna, the Tathāgata, &c., who had become completely extinct.

Kern’s gāthās, however, are significantly different, beginning with the question of who is talking.

It should be noted here that Kumārajīva did not translate these gāthās. These were translated by Jñānagupta and inserted between 561 and 601 CE, according to Murano’s notes.

In Murano’s translation, Endless-lntent Bodhisattva repeats the question he made at the opening of the chapter and the Buddha responds.

Thereupon Endless-lntent Bodhisattva asked the Buddha in gāthās:

World-Honored One with the wonderful marks
I ask you about this again.
Why is the son of the Buddha
Called World-Voice-Perceiver?

The Honorable One with the wonderful marks answered Endless-Intent in gāthās:

Kern’s chapter begins with the Bodhisattva Akshayamati asking the Buddha about Avalokiteśvara, but for the gāthās Kern has the Buddha recalling a conversation between Akshayamati and another bodhisattva:

And on that occasion the Lord uttered the following stanzas:

1. Kitradhvaga asked Akshayamati the following question: For what reason, son of Jina, is Avalokiteśvara (so) called?

2. And Akshayamati, that ocean of profound insight, after considering how the matter stood, spoke to Kitradhvaga: Listen to the conduct of Avalokiteśvara.

Leon Hurvitz, who consulted both Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation and a Sanskrit compilation of the Lotus Sutra, notes this difference and comments:

In the Skt. it is supposedly the Buddha speaking. On the face of it, this is very puzzling. It seems to me, however, that this must be a survival from the primitive Lotus, which was presumably a work entirely in verse. If so, then the first śloka was Akṣayamati’s question introduced by narrative, while the second śloka begins the Buddha’s answer, likewise introduced by narrative. Later editors of the text, however, who knew the Lotus only as a work of combined verse and prose, misunderstood the passage and garbled it. As we have it, then, “Akṣayamati of the particolored banner questioned this matter, namely, the reason (kāraṇāt): / ‘For what cause is the son of the Victorious One called Avalokiteśvara?’ // Then by the discerning Teacher was Akṣayamati, the sea of vows, / he of the particolored banner, addressed: ‘Hear of the conduct of Avalokiteśvara!”‘ // The only conundrum is then kāraṇāt, which one might emend to read kāraṇam.

The extra stanzas in Kern’s gāthās appear near the end. Here’s what Murano offers from Kumārajīva:

By all these merits, he sees
All living beings with his compassionate eyes.
The ocean of his accumulated merits is boundless.
Therefore, bow before him!

Thereupon Earth-Holding Bodhisattva rose from his seat, proceeded to the Buddha, and said to him:

Kern has an equivalent verse at the start:

26. He who possesses the perfection of all virtues, and beholds all beings with compassion and benevolence, he, an ocean of virtues, Virtue itself, he, Avalokiteśvara, is worthy of adoration.

But before we get to the the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Dhārāṇidhara, Kern’s translation includes these verses emphasizing Avalokiteśvara relationship with Amitābha Buddha and praising Amitābha:

27. He, so compassionate for the world, shall once become a Buddha, destroying all dangers and sorrows; I humbly bow to Avalokiteśvara.

28. This universal Lord, chief of kings, who is a (rich) mine of monastic virtues, he, universally worshipped, has reached pure, supreme enlightenment, after plying his course (of duty) during many hundreds of Æons.

29. At one time standing to the right, at another to the left of the Chief Amitābha, whom he is fanning, he, by dint of meditation, like a phantom, in all regions honors the Jina.

30. In the west, where the pure world Sukhākara is situated, there the Chief Amitābha, the tamer of men, has his fixed abode.

31. There no women are to be found; there sexual intercourse is absolutely unknown; there the sons of Jina, on springing into existence by apparitional birth, are sitting in the undefiled cups of lotuses.

32. And the Chief Amitābha himself is seated on a throne in the pure and nice cup of a lotus, and shines as the Sāla-king.

33. The Leader of the world, whose store of merit has been praised, has no equal in the triple world. O supreme of men, let us soon become like thee!

Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra contains several references to Amitābha,  but this section of verse in Kern’s Lotus Sutra seems out of place as if appended onto the sutra at a later time.

Next: Talismanic Words for Guard, Defense, and Protection

Kern, d28b, Blog

The Translator’s Touch

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

As I near the end of this chapter by chapter comparison of H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra with English translations of Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese Lotus Sutra, I find a pattern has developed. Kern adds a filigree of details while Senchu Murano clarifies and directs readers in his translation of Kumārajīva.

For an example of Kern’s embellishment consider the story of the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Gadgadasvara. Kern has this as Chapter 23. Kumārajīva has the story of Wonderful-Voice Bodhisattva as Chapter 24.

In this story, Many Treasures Buddha is asked to invite Wonderful Voice Bodhisattva to visit. Here’s how Murano tells this:

Thereupon Many-Treasures Buddha called [loudly] to [Wonderful-Voice] Bodhisattva [from afar], “Good man! Come! Mañjuśrī, the Son of the King of the Dharma, wishes to see you.”

Thereupon Wonderful-Voice Bodhisattva, accompanied by eighty-four thousand Bodhisattvas, left his world [for the Sahā World]. As they passed through the [one hundred and eight billion nayuta] worlds, the ground of those worlds quaked in the six ways; lotus flowers of the seven treasures rained [on those worlds], and hundreds of thousands of heavenly drums sounded [over those worlds] although no one beat them.

Kern embellishes upon this:

And the Lord Prabhūtaratna, the Tathāgata, &c., who was completely extinct, instantly produced a token in order to admonish the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Gadgadasvara (and said): Come, young man of good family, to this Sahā-world; Mañjuśrī, the prince royal, will hail thy coming. And the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Gadgadasvara, after humbly saluting the feet of the Lord Kamaladalavimalanakṣhatrarājasaṃkusumitābhijña, the Tathāgata, &c., and after three times circumambulating him from left to right, vanished from the world Vairokanarasmipratimandita, along with eighty-four hundred thousand myriads of koṭis of Bodhisattvas who surrounded and followed him, and arrived at this Sahā-world, among a stir of Buddha fields, a rain of lotuses, a noise of hundred thousands of myriads of koṭis of musical instruments.

Another example of this occurs when the bodhisattva greets Śākyamuni.

Murano has Wonderful-Voice Bodhisattva say:

“World-Honored One! I bring you a message from Pure-Flower-Star-King-Wisdom Buddha. [He wishes to say this.] Are you in good health? Are you happy and peaceful or not? Are the four elements of your body working in harmony or not? Are the worldly affairs bearable or not? Are the living beings easy to save or not? Do they not have much greed, anger, ignorance, jealousy, stinginess and arrogance, or do they? Are they not undutiful to their parents, or are they? Are they not disrespectful to śramaṇas, or are they? Do they not have wrong views, or do they? Are they not evil, or are they? Do they not fail to control their five desires, or do they? World-Honored One! Did they defeat the Maras, who are their enemies, or not.

Kern has Gadgadasvara say:

The Lord Kamaladalavimalanakṣhatrarājasaṃkusumitābhijña, the Tathāgata, &c., inquires after the Lord’s health, welfare, and sprightliness; whether he feels free from affliction and at ease. That Lord has also charged me to ask: Is there something thou hast to suffer or allow? the humors of the body are not in an unfavorable state? thy creatures are decent in manners, tractable, and easy to be healed? their bodies are clean? They are not too passionate, I hope, not too irascible, not too unwise in their doings? They are not jealous, Lord, not envious, not ungrateful to their father and mother, not impious, not heterodox, not unsubdued in mind, not unrestrained in sexual desires.? Are the creatures able to resist the Evil One?

Let us all inquire after each others’ sprightliness – “the quality of being energetic and in good health, especially when you are old: Due to his sprightliness, everyone thought he was much younger than he actually was,” Cambridge English Dictionary.

As for Murano’s efforts to add clarity and direct readers consider the many transformations of the bodhisattva.

Kern introduces this feature of Gadgadasvara in this way:

Dost thou see, Padmasri, how the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Gadgadasvara now looks? Padmasri replied: I do, Lord; I do, Sugata. The Lord said: Now, Padmasri, this Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Gadgadasvara preaches this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law under many shapes he assumes; sometimes under the shape of Brahma, sometimes under that of Indra, sometimes under that of Siva, sometimes under that of Kubera, sometimes under that of a sovereign, sometimes under that of a duke, sometimes under that of a chief merchant, sometimes under that of a citizen, sometimes under that of a villager, sometimes under that of a Brahman.

For his part, Murano puts these transformations in the past.

Flower-Virtue! Now you see Wonderful-Voice Bodhisattva here and nowhere else. But formerly he transformed himself into various living beings and expounded this sūtra to others in various places. He became King Brahman, King Sakra, Freedom God, Great-Freedom God, a great general in heaven, Vaisravana Heavenly-King, a wheel-turning-holy-king, the king of a small country, a rich man, a householder, a prime minister, a brahmana, a bhikṣu, a bhikṣunī, an upāsakā, an upāsikā, the wife of a rich man, that of a householder, that of a prime minister, that of a brahmana, a boy, a girl, a god, a dragon, a yakṣa, a gandharva, an asura, a garuda, a kiṃnara, a mahoraga, a human being or a nonhuman being.

The other English translations of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra are closer to Kern than Murano.

The BDK English Tripiṭaka has:

O Padmaśrī! You think that the body of Bodhisattva Gadgadasvara exists only here; however, this bodhisattva manifests himself in various bodies. He has thus taught this sutra in many places for the sake of the sentient beings.

Gene Reeves has:

Flower Virtue, you see merely the one body of Wonderful Voice Bodhisattva which is here. But this Bodhisattva appears in many different bodies, everywhere teaching this sutra for the sake of the living.

None of the other translators of Kumārajīva includes Murano’s suggestion that World-Voice’s transformations happen in the past.

Next: The Odd Praise of Amitābha in Kern’s Lotus Sutra

Tendai Lotus, Petzold Nichiren, Blog

Viewing Nichiren Through a Tendai Lens

When I first started publishing quotes from The Collected Teachings of the Tendai Lotus School by Gishin back in February, I mentioned that I was unclear on where Nichiren’s teachings diverge. I asked Rev. Ryuei McCormick about the difference between Tendai and Nichiren on the 3,000 realms in a single thought moment, and I published his response yesterday. But I wanted a fuller explanation of the similarities and differences between Tendai and Nichiren.

As I was organizing the quotes from Gishin, I recalled that I had a copy of Bruno Petzold’s book, Buddhist Prophet Nichiren–A Lotus In The Sun. Petzold was a German journalist and educator who lived in Japan in the early 20th century. While in Japan he became fascinated with Buddhism and eventually became a Tendai monk. At the beginning of World War II, Petzold was decorated by the Emperor of Japan for his 25 years of service. Soon afterwards the Tendai Sect conferred upon him the rank of Sōjō, or archbishop. He died in 1949 and his ashes are buried at Hieizan, the home of the Tendai sect on Mount Hiei.

That Tendai background is evident in his treatment of Nichiren and his teachings. When I first picked up his book in 2021, I was unsure how to approach Petzold’s obvious Tendai-centered discussion. His was not a devout view of Nichiren. Now, however, Petzold’s view of Nichiren through the lens of Tendai teachings offers insight into how Nichiren, the one-time Tendai monk, used Tendai teachings as a foundation for his doctrine.

In the book, Petzold explains at one point:

Nichiren incorporates into his own system the whole Tendai philosophy. He adopts the classification of the Five Periods and the Eight Teachings; he acknowledges the doctrines of the Perfectly Amalgamated Three Truths (i.e. the Synthesis of vacuity and phenomenal reality in the Middle) and of the Identity of the One Mind and the Three Thousand (representing the totality of phenomena), and he upholds the practice of the Three Meditations in One Mind. He teaches the Oneness of the World. He proclaims that the whole universe in its essence is nothing but Buddha’s own body, so that even trees and grasses do not only attain Buddhahood, but are direct manifestations of Buddha. Similarly he maintains that the cosmos or the Tathāgata is our own body and soul; that the Buddha, Truth and Paradise are not outside of our own self; that Buddhahood can be attained in our present life and in our present body; that the Buddha, the mind and the living beings form One Unity. There is not one single important Tendai doctrine which is not a part of Nichiren’s system.

Petzold, Buddhist Prophet Nichiren , p 50-51

That’s not to suggest there is no difference. As Petzold explains:

[N]ichiren’s tenet for criticism of the Tendai Hokke Sect lies in its harmonizing tendencies. His objection to their meditation is based on their acceptance of Dharma Daishi’s zen meditation, which contradicts the teaching of Tendai Daishi; and the subsequent disassociation of the proper Tendai Teaching (shikan) from its original source, the Hoke-kyō.

Petzold, Buddhist Prophet Nichiren , p 109

Today, I’m publishing Senchu Murano’s Preface, which he wrote for Petzold’s book. As Murano explains, Petzold’s view of Nichiren was greatly colored by three books published in the early 20th century:

  • 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

During the month of May I will publish select quotes from Petzold, many of which outline where Nichiren doctrine departs from Tendai teachings. I would prefer to read a book written from the Nichiren perspective, but Petzold meets my current needs.

Buddhist Prophet Nichiren–A Lotus In The Sun

Book Quotes

 
Book List

Tendai Lotus, Blog

Nichiren’s Departure from Tendai and Chih-i

Back in February, I started publishing quotes from “The Collected Teachings of the Tendai Lotus School,” which was written by Gishin in 830 CE. Those quotes offer a very readable explanation of the Japanese Tendai teachings that Nichiren was immersed in as a young monk. But he did not accept those teachings wholly, making modifications and adjustments based on his understanding.

At the time, I told Rev. Ryuei McCormick, “What I would love to find is a detailed discussion of where Nichiren diverged from Chih-i, especially a full explanation of the difference between Chih-i’s 3,000 realms in a single thought moment based on the 10 Suchnesses and Nichiren’s 3,000 realms in a single thought moment based on Chapter 16 and, in particular, the difference in application.”

Here’s his response:

Theoretically there is no discernible difference, though perhaps it could be argued that Miaole and later Nichiren made ichinen sanzen central, whereas in the Great Calming and Contemplation it is “merely” used to describe the contemplation of the truth of the provisional existence of the aggregates-entrances-elements, not even of the truth of emptiness or the truth of the Middle Way. It is, in effect, a contemplation that can lead one in to the deeper understanding of emptiness, the middle, and the threefold truth that embraces all three truths at once.

However, I think the real difference is found in this statement of Nichiren about how his approach differs from that of his Tiantai predecessors:

There are two ways of observing the three thousand worlds in a single thought-moment. One is in terms of principle, the second is in terms of the actual phenomena. At the time of T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō and so on, it was [observed in] principle. Now it is [observed in] actual phenomena. Since [the latter form of] contemplation is superior, the great difficulties [accompanying it] are also superior. The former is the three thousand worlds in a single thought-moment of the provisional teaching [of the Lotus Sūtra], and the latter is the three thousand worlds in a single thought-moment of the original teaching [of the Lotus Sūtra]. They are as different as Heaven and Earth, and at the time of death, you should keep this in mind. (Toki Nyūdō-dono Go-henji also known as Chibyō-shō, Shōwa Teihon p. 1522. Authenticated copy extant. Also see p. 257, WNS: D2)

What this means is that ichinen sanzen in principle is about contemplating that in principle the realm of buddhahood is always present in every thought-moment and therefore we can discern it in meditation or have faith that eventually we will be able to realize it. This is in line with the Trace Gate of the Lotus Sutra wherein all the voice-hearers and others have their future buddhahood predicted. Buddhahood is part of their lives but they won’t personally realize it until much later, for now they must take it on faith. On the other hand, ichinen sanzen in actuality (or in terms of phenomenal practice) is the active expression here and now of the realm of buddhahood that is present in every thought-moment. It is expressed via the practice of the Odaimoku (as well as contemplation of the Gohonzon). This is in line with the Original Gate wherein because buddhahood has no beginning and no end the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha (and therefore our own buddhahood) is constantly present and active in some manner in every situation. Put another way, if Shakyamuni Buddha’s buddhahood has no beginning or end then our own buddhahood also has no beginning or end, and if Shakyamuni Buddha has been spending all these past eons showing how to attain buddhahood then our own buddhahood is being spent showing how to attain buddhahood. All of this means that in chapter 16’s presentation of buddhahood as without a beginning or end, buddhahood is not just a principle or theoretical possibility but something that is always actual if concealed and obscured. How do we realize this? For Nichiren, faith as expressed in and by the Odaimoku is the gateway.

When I asked for permission to publish his response, Rev. Ryuei said:

Yes, as long as you say that the translation of that gosho passage was done by me. That is from Dharma Flower. You can find the original context here: https://www.nichirenbayarea.org/chapter-11-the-three-great-secret-dharmas

Tomorrow: Bruno Petzold’s Comparison of Tendai and Nichiren Doctrine