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

---

Chapter 7, The Parable of a Magic City, provides an excellent example of how the various translations of the Lotus Sutra differ while maintaining a consistent message.

For example, in calculating how long ago Great-Universal-Wisdom-Excellence lived, Senchu Murano’s English translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra states:

Do you think that any mathematician or any disciple of a mathematician could count the number of the worlds [he went through]?”

“No, we do not, World-Honored One!”

“Bhikṣus! Now all the worlds he went through, whether they were inked or not, were smashed into dust. The number of the kalpas which have elapsed since that Buddha passed away is many hundreds of thousands of billions of asaṃkhyas larger than the number of the particles of the dust thus produced. Yet I remember [the extinction of] that Buddha by my power of insight as vividly as if he had passed away today.”

H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Sanskrit Lotus Sutra offers instead:

Now, monks, what do you think of it, is it possible by calculation to find the end or limit of these worlds?

They answered: Certainly not, Lord; certainly not, Sugata.

The Lord said: On the contrary, monks, some arithmetician or master of arithmetic might, indeed, be able by calculation to find the end or limit of the worlds, both those where the atoms have been deposited and where they have not, but it is impossible by applying the rules of arithmetic to find the limit of those hundred thousands of myriads of Æons; so long, so inconceivable, so immense is the number of Æons which have elapsed since the expiration of that Lord, the Tathāgata Mahābhigñāgñānābhibhū. Yet, monks, I perfectly remember that Tathāgata who has been extinct for so long a time, as if he had reached extinction today or yesterday, because of my possessing the mighty knowledge and sight of the Tathāgata.

File this under the topic of clarity. Murano (and Kumārajīva) have the better description, although both reach the same end.

One aspect of Great-Universal-Wisdom-Excellence Buddha’s quest for enlightenment is the length of time it requires.

Murano offers:

[Before he attained Buddhahood,] he sat at the place of enlightenment and defeated the army of Mara. He wished to attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, but could not because the Dharma of the Buddhas had not yet come into his mind. He sat cross-legged without moving his mind and body for one to ten small kalpas. During all that time the Dharma of the Buddhas did not come into his mind.

I’ve often stumbled on this “one to ten small kalpa” time frame. Is this a range of possible durations or a progression?

Hurvitz’s translation makes clearer that Kumārajīva is talking about a progression:

In this way, from one minor kalpa up through ten minor kalpas he sat cross-legged, body and mind immobile; yet the buddha-dharmas still did not appear before him.

Kern, on the other hand, clarifies this from the start:

In the beginning when the Lord had not yet reached supreme, perfect enlightenment and had just occupied the summit of the terrace of enlightenment, he discomfited and defeated the whole host of Māra, after which he thought: I am to reach perfect enlightenment. But those laws (of perfect enlightenment) had not yet dawned upon him. He stayed on the terrace of enlightenment at the foot of the tree of enlightenment during one intermediate kalpa. He stayed there a second, a third intermediate kalpa, but did not yet attain supreme, perfect enlightenment. He remained a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, a ninth, a tenth intermediate kalpa on the terrace of enlightenment at the foot of the tree of enlightenment, continuing sitting cross-legged without in the meanwhile rising. He stayed, the mind motionless, the body unstirring and untrembling, but those laws had not yet dawned upon him.

Kern’s lengthier explanation trumps Kumārajīva’s condensed description.

Kern also gets points for describing the palaces of the Brahman-heavenly-kings, whom Kern calls Brahma-angels, as aerial cars.

While Murano offers:

“Thereupon the Brahman-heavenly-kings of the five hundred billion worlds went to the west, carrying flower-plates filled with heavenly flowers, in order to find [the place from where the light had come]. Their palaces also moved as they went.

Kern says:

Thereupon, monks, the great Brahma-angels in the fifty hundred thousand myriads of koṭis of spheres mounted all together their own divine aerial cars, took with them divine bags, as large as Mount Sumeru, with celestial flowers, and went through the four quarters successively until they arrived at the western quarter, …

While Murano offers:

Having offered flowers, they offered their palaces to the Buddha, saying, ‘We offer these palaces to you. Receive them and benefit us out of your compassion towards us!’

Kern has:

After that they presented to the Lord their aerial cars (with the words): Accept, O Lord, these aerial cars out of compassion to us; use, O Sugata, those cars out of compassion to us.

Still there is some confusion at the end of the description of the reaction of the Brahman-heavenly-kings to the light produced by Great-Universal-Wisdom-Excellence’s enlightenment.

Murano has:

The great Brahman-[heavenly-]kings of the five hundred billion worlds in the southwest, west, northwest, north, northeast, and nadir also did the same. The great Brahman-heavenly-kings of the five hundred billion worlds in the zenith, who saw their palaces illumined more brightly than ever, also danced with joy. They wondered why [their palaces were so illumined]. They visited each other and discussed the reason, saying, ‘Why are our palaces illumined so brightly?’

Kern muddles this:

Repetition; the same occurred in the southwest, in the west, in the northwest, in the north, in the northeast, in the nadir.

Then, monks, the aerial cars of the Brahma angels in the nadir, in those fifty hundred thousand myriads of koṭis of spheres [&c., as above till to one another].

Kern is consistent, though. He has the Brahma-angels traveling from the nadir to the zenith.

As a final example of the differences between Kern’s Sanskrit translation and Kumārajīva’s Chinese version we consider the Parable of the Magic City.

Murano begins the prose telling of the parable with:

“I will tell you a parable. Once upon a time there was a dangerous, bad road five hundred yojanas long. It was so fearful that no men lived in the neighborhood. Now many people wished to pass through this road in order to reach a place of treasures. They were led by a man, clever, wise, and well informed of the conditions of the dangerous road. He took them along this dangerous road, but halfway the people got tired of walking. They said to him, ‘We are tired out. We are also afraid of the danger of this road. We cannot go a step farther. Our destination is still far off. We wish to go back.’

In Kern’s telling we get:

By way of example, monks, suppose there is some dense forest five hundred yojanas in extent which has been reached by a great company of men. They have a guide to lead them on their journey to the Isle of Jewels, which guide, being able, clever, sagacious, well acquainted with the difficult passages of the forest, is to bring the whole company out of the forest. Meanwhile that great troop of men, tired, weary, afraid, and anxious, say: ‘Verily, Master, guide, and leader, know that we are tired, weary, afraid, and anxious; let us return; this dense forest stretches so far.’

In gāthās Murano offers:

Suppose there was a bad and dangerous road.
Many wild animals lived in the neighborhood.
No man was there; no water nor grass there.
The road was so fearful.

Many tens of millions of people
Wished to pass through this dangerous road.
The road was very long.
It was five hundred yojanas long.

The people had a leader.
He had a good memory.
He was wise and resolute in mind.
He could save people from dangers.

Getting tired,
The people said to him:
“We are tired.
We wish to go back.”

Kern keeps to the forest:

92. It is as if there were a forest dreadful, terrific, barren, without a place of refuge or shelter, replete with wild beasts, deprived of water, frightful for persons of no experience.

93. (Suppose further that) many thousand men have come to the forest, that waste track of wilderness which is fully five hundred yojanas in extent.

94. And he who is to act as their guide through that rough and horrible forest is a rich man, thoughtful, intelligent, wise, well instructed, and undaunted.

95. And those beings, numbering many koṭis, feel tired, and say to the guide: We are tired, Master; we are not able to go on; we should like now to return.’

Again, the message is clear even if the details diverge. You can’t fail to recognize the Lotus Sutra.

Next: Offering Clarity and Avoiding Errors

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

---

In Chapter 6, Assurance of Future Buddhahood, Great Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti and Mahā-Kātyāyana, having heard the prediction of future Buddhahood given to Mahā-Kāśyapa, explain how they would feel if they received a similar prediction. In both the English language translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra and H. Kern’s English language translation of a Nepalese Sanskrit document, a story is told of a man in a time of famine who finds himself before a great meal.

Senchu Murano offers this telling:

Suppose a man came
From a country suffering from famine.
Now he saw the meal of a great king.
He did not partake of it in doubts and fears.
After he was told to take it by the king,
He took it at once.
We are like that man.
We know the defects of the Lesser Vehicle.
But we do not know how to obtain
The unsurpassed wisdom of the Buddha.

Although we hear you say [to us],
“You will become Buddhas,”
We are still in doubts and fears about it,
Just as that man was about the meal.
If you assure us of our future Buddhahood,
We shall be happy and peaceful.

You, the Great Hero, the World-Honored One,
Wish to give peace to all the people of the world.
If you assure us of our future Buddhahood, we shall be
Like the man who was permitted to take the meal.

An entirely different greeting is presented by Kern:

12. (It is as if) a certain man, in time of famine, comes and gets good food, but to whom, when the food is already in his hands, they say that he should wait.

13. Similarly, it was with us, who after minding the lower vehicle, at the calamitous conjuncture of a bad time, were longing for Buddha-knowledge.

14. But the perfectly-enlightened great Seer has not yet favored us with a prediction (of our destiny), as if he would say: Do not eat the food that has been put into your hand.

15. Quite so, O hero, we were longing as we heard the exalted voice (and thought): Then shall we be at rest, when we shall have received a prediction.

16. Utter a prediction, O great hero, so benevolent and merciful! let there be an end of our feeling of poverty!

This is a striking difference. Kumārajīva has the great disciples hesitant to take the food, uncertain that it is available to them. They have heard they are qualified to become Buddhas, but they want to be reassured. Kern’s Sanskrit has the disciples denied the reward of the great vehicle. They remain outside the great vehicle until they receive an explicit prediction from the Buddha.

In Leon Hurvitz’s translation of the Lotus Sutra, he compared a composite Sanskrit Lotus Sutra with Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation and created a hybrid English translation. Where the Sanskrit and Kumārajīva disagreed substantially he put the Sanskrit version in the footnotes. See Kern’s Sanskrit and Hurvitz’s Sanskrit. Hurvitz’s translation of this section of Chapter 6 has the disciples awaiting the King’s permission to eat without comment on the difference in the Sanskrit. Since the Sanskrit he is referencing merges several extant documents into a single version, it is possible that the denial found in Kern’s earlier document was an outlier and that other Sanskrit documents take Kumārajīva’s position – the disciples are not denied the food but hesitant to take it.

Next: Different and Yet Consistent

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

---

In Chapter 5, H. Kern opens the Simile of the Herbs with this:

It is a case, Kāśyapa, similar to that of a great cloud big with rain, coming up in this wide universe over all grasses, shrubs, herbs, trees of various species and kind, families of plants of different names growing on earth, on hills, or in mountain caves, a cloud covering the wide universe to pour down its rain everywhere and at the same time.

A great cloud big with rain covering everything just isn’t going to dampen a mountain cave. What is imagined here? Why set up such an unlikely situation?

But then, in Kern’s telling, the plants aren’t passively watered.

Then, Kāśyapa, the grasses, shrubs, herbs, and wild trees in this universe, such as have young and tender stalks, twigs, leaves, and foliage, and such as have middle-sized stalks, twigs, leaves, and foliage, and such as have the same fully developed, all those grasses, shrubs, herbs, and wild trees, smaller and greater (other) trees will each, according to its faculty and power, suck the humid element from the water emitted by that great cloud, and by that water which, all of one essence, has been abundantly poured down by the cloud, they will each, according to its germ, acquire a regular development, growth, shooting up, and bigness; and so they will produce blossoms and fruits, and will receive, each severally, their names.

Perhaps the humid element from the rain can be sucked into the mountain caves to nourish the plants there. Who knows?

There is a certain clarity in Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation that is lacking in the Nepalese Sanskrit document translated by Kern. Consider this from Murano:

“Kāśyapa, know this! I, the Tathāgata, am like the cloud. I appeared in this world just as the large cloud rose. I expounded the Dharma to gods, men and asuras of the world with a loud voice just as the large cloud covered all the one thousand million Sumeru-worlds. I said to the great multitude, ‘I am the Tathāgata, the Deserver of Offerings, the Perfectly Enlightened One, the Man of Wisdom and Practice, the Well-Gone, the Knower of the World, the Unsurpassed Man, the Controller of Men, the Teacher of Gods and Men, the Buddha, the World-Honored One. I will cause all living beings to cross [the ocean of birth and death] if they have not yet done so. I will cause them to emancipate themselves [from suffering] if they have not yet done so. I will cause them to have peace of mind if they have not yet done so. I will cause them to attain Nirvana if they have not yet done so. I know their present lives as they are, and also their future lives as they will be. I know all. I see all. I know the Way. I have opened the Way. I will expound the Way. Gods, men and asuras! Come and hear the Dharma!’

Compare that with Kern’s version:

In the same manner, Kāśyapa, does the Tathāgata, the Arhat, &c. appear in the world. Like unto a great cloud coming up, the Tathāgata appears and sends forth his call to the whole world, including gods, men, and demons. And even as a great cloud, Kāśyapa, extending over the whole universe, in like manner, Kāśyapa, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, &c., before the face of the world, including gods, men, and demons, lifts his voice and utters these words: I am the Tathāgata, O ye gods and men! the Arhat, the perfectly enlightened one; having reached the shore myself, I carry others to the shore; being free, I make free; being comforted, I comfort; being perfectly at rest, I lead others to rest. By my perfect wisdom I know both this world and the next, such as they really are. I am all-knowing, all-seeing. Come to me, ye gods and men! hear the law. I am he who indicates the path; who shows the path, as knowing the path, being acquainted with the path.

I believe this is just one example of why Kumārajīva’s translation is so highly valued.

And then there are points where the two simply don’t align.

Kern concludes the prose section of Chapter 5 with this declaration:

You are astonished, Kāśyapa, that you cannot fathom the mystery expounded by the Tathāgata. It is, Kāśyapa, because the mystery expounded by the Tathāgatas, the Arhats, &c. is difficult to be understood.

In Kumārajīva’s version (as translated by Murano) this is rendered:

“Kāśyapa, and all of you present here! It is an extraordinarily rare thing to see that you have understood, believed and received the Dharma which I expounded variously according to the capacities of all living beings because it is difficult to understand the Dharma which the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, expound according to the capacities of all living beings.”

Here again I’m left to wonder whether this is an example of how Kumārajīva and his team of translators shaped the telling of the Lotus Sutra. There are many more examples of this when comparing the two translations.

Is it possible that Kumārajīva left out the two parables that are included in Kern’s Chapter 5? Is anything lost by not having The Simile of the Clay Pots or The Parable of the Blind Man?

Next: The Plight of the Famished