This is another in a series of weekly blog posts comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.
Back in Chapter 4 we got our first example of how H. Kern’s translation of the Lotus Sutra from the 11th century Sanskrit offers different details in the prose sections than appear in the gāthās.
In Chapter 10, The Teacher of the Dharma, we have the story of the thirsty man on a plateau who decides to dig a well.
Here’s Senchu Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese:
“Medicine-King! Suppose a man on a plateau felt thirsty and sought water. He dug a hole in order to get water. As long as he saw the dug-out lumps of earth were dry, he knew that water was still far off. He went on digging, and then found the dug-out lumps of earth wet. When he finally found mud, he was convinced that water was near. In the same manner, know this, the Bodhisattvas who have not yet heard, understood or practised this Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma, are still far from Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi.
And in gāthās:
A man on a plateau, feeling thirsty,
Dug a hole in order to get water.
As long as he saw the dug-out lumps of earth were dry,
He knew that water was still far off.
When he found the earth wet and muddy,
He was convinced that water was near.In the same manner, Medicine-King, know this!
Those who do not hear
The Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma
Are far from the wisdom of the Buddha.
Here’s how Kern explains the scene in prose:
It is a case, Bhaiṣajyarāja, similar to that of a certain man, who in need and in quest of water, in order to get water, causes a well to be dug in an arid tract of land. So long as he sees that the sand being dug out is dry and white, he thinks: the water is still far off. After some time he sees that the sand being dug out is moist, mixed with water, muddy, with trickling drops, and that the working men who are engaged in digging the well are bespattered with mire and mud. On seeing that foretoken, Bhaiṣajyarāja, the man will be convinced and certain that water is near. In the same manner, Bhaiṣajyarāja, will these Bodhisattvas Mahāsattvas be far away from supreme and perfect enlightenment so long as they do not hear, nor catch, nor penetrate, nor fathom, nor mind this Dharmaparyāya.
And in gāthās Kern offers:
17. It is a case similar to that of a certain man who in want of water goes to dig a well in an arid tract of land, and sees how again and again only dry sand is being dug up.
18. On seeing which he thinks: the water is far off; a token of its being far off is the dry white sand which appears in digging.
19. But when he (afterwards) sees again and again the sand moist and smooth, he gets the conviction that water cannot be very far off.
20. So, too, are those men far from Buddha knowledge who have not heard this Sūtra and have failed to repeatedly meditate on it.
The fact that Kern’s prose has the man hiring others to dig the well but drops this detail in the gāthās, raises the question: Why add this detail? What purpose did it serve?
Here again I find myself wondering whether this is an example of how Kumārajīva’s team of translators discarded unessential or confusing details in order to create what became a beloved translation of the Lotus Sutra.