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

---

In comparing Senchu Murano’s English translation of the story of Devadatta and the Dragon King’s Daughter with H. Kern’s English translation from the Sanskrit, we need to start with the fact that this chapter wasn’t translated by Kumārajīva. According to the explanation in Murano’s Introduction, Chapter 12 was translated by Fa-i in 490 CE and inserted into Kumārajīva’s version at the beginning of the sixth century. In Kern’s translation, the material doesn’t appear as a separate chapter but is instead spliced onto the end of Chapter 11, Apparition of a Stūpa.

The two translations appear even closer than the chapters translated by Kumārajīva. Take for instance the opening scene.

Kern offers:

Thereupon the Lord addressed the whole company of Bodhisattvas and the world, including gods and demons, and said: Of yore, monks, in times past I have, unwearied and without repose, sought after the Sūtra of the Lotus of the True Law, during immense, immeasurable Æons; many Æons before I have been a king, during many thousands of Æons. Having once taken the strong resolution to arrive at supreme, perfect enlightenment, my mind did not swerve from its aim. I exerted myself to fulfil the six Perfections (Pāramitās), bestowing immense alms: gold, money, gems, pearls, lapis lazuli, conch-shells, stones (?), coral, gold and silver, emerald, Musāragalva, red pearls; villages, towns, boroughs, provinces, kingdoms, royal capitals; wives, sons, daughters, slaves, male and female; elephants, horses, cars, up to the sacrifice of life and body, of limbs and members, hands, feet, head.

Murano offers:

Thereupon the Buddha said to the Bodhisattvas, gods, men and the four kinds of devotees:

“When I was a Bodhisattva] in my previous existence, I sought the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma for innumerable kalpas without indolence. I became a king [and continued to be so] for many kalpas. [Although I was a king,] I made a vow to attain unsurpassed Bodhi. I never faltered in seeking it. I practiced alms-giving in order to complete the six pāramitās. I never grudged elephants, horses, the seven treasures, countries, cities, wives, children, menservants, maidservants or attendants. I did not spare my head, eyes, marrow, brain, flesh, hands or feet. I did not spare even my life.”

The principal difference is that Murano’s translation inserts material within square brackets that he felt necessary for clarity.

Another telling similarity is the “error” concerning the direction from which the Stūpa of Treasures arrived.

At the beginning of Chapter 11, Murano has the Buddha explain that:

“The perfect body of a Tathāgata is in this stūpa of treasures. A long time ago there was a world called Treasure-Purity at the distance of many thousands of billions of asaṃkhyas of worlds to the east [of this world]. In that world lived a Buddha called Many-Treasures.”

Kern, however, says:

Thus asked, the Lord spake to Mahāpratibhāna, the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva, as follows: In this great Stūpa of precious substances, Mahāpratibhāna, the proper body of the Tathāgata is contained condensed; his is the Stūpa; it is he who causes this sound to go out. In the point of space below, Mahāpratibhāna, there are innumerable thousands of worlds. Further on is the world called Ratnaviṣuddha, there is the Tathāgata named Prabhūtaratna, the Arhat, &c.

While Many Treasures lived in the east in Chapter 11, both Murano and Kern agree that the stūpa arrived from the nadir in the story of the Dragon King’s Daughter.

Murano has:

At that time Many-Treasures, the World-Honored One, who had come from the nadir,’ was accompanied by a Bodhisattva called Accumulated-Wisdom. The Bodhisattva said to Many-Treasures Buddha, “Shall we go back to our home world?”

Kern has:

At that moment a Bodhisattva of the name of Pragñākūṭa, having come from beneath the Buddha field of the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna, said to the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna: Lord, let us resort to our own Buddha-field.

Next: Encouragement

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

---

Chapter 11, Beholding the Stūpa of Treasures, is another chapter where several details mark the differences between Senchu Murano’s English translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra and H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra.

Take the act of Śākyamuni opening the Stūpa of Treasures.

Murano offers:

Now he opened the door of the stūpa of the seven treasures with the fingers of his right hand. The opening of the door made a sound as large as that of the removal of the bolt and lock of the gate of a great city.

While Kern says:

The Lord then, with the right forefinger, unlocked the middle of the great Stūpa of jewels, which showed like a meteor, and so severed the two parts. Even as the double doors of a great city gate separate when the bolt is removed, so the Lord opened the great Stūpa, which showed like a meteor, by unlocking it in the middle with the right forefinger.

Interestingly, Leon Hurvitz’s English translation, which merges Kumārajīva’s Chinese with a Sanskrit compilation, says Śākyamuni used “his right finger” to open the door.

The description of the Buddha Many Treasures is significantly different between Murano and Kern.

Murano says:

At that instant all the congregation saw Many Treasures Tathāgata sitting with his perfect and undestroyed body on the lion-like seat in the stūpa of treasures as if he had been sitting in dhyāna-concentration. They also heard him say:

“Excellent, excellent! You, Śākyamuni Buddha, have joyfully expounded the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma. I have come to hear this sūtra [directly from you].”

But Kern adds:

The great Stūpa of jewels had no sooner been opened than the Lord Prabhūtaratna, the Tathāgata, &c., was seen sitting cross-legged on his throne, with emaciated limbs and faint body, as if absorbed in abstract meditation, and he pronounced these words: Excellent, excellent, Lord Śākyamuni; thou hast well expounded this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law. I repeat, thou hast well expounded this Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law, Lord Śākyamuni, to the (four) classes of the assembly. I myself, Lord, have come hither to hear the Dharmaparyāya of the Lotus of the True Law.

As for Hurvitz, he has the body “whole and undecayed” and says nothing of “emaciated limbs” or “faint body.”

Then there’s the Lion’s Roar that’s heard. But who roared?

Murano says:

(The Buddha said to the great multitude.)
Who will protect
And keep this sūtra,
And read and recite it
After my extinction?
Make a vow before me to do this!

Many-Treasures Buddha,
Who had passed away a long time ago,
Made a loud voice like the roar of a lion
According to his great vow.

But Kern says:

10. Let him who after my extinction shall keep this Dharmaparyāya quickly pronounce his declaration in the presence of the Lords of the world.

11. The Seer Prabhūtaratna who, though completely extinct, is awake, will hear the lion’s roar of him who shall take this resolution.

Hurvitz notes the Sanskrit variation but sticks with Many Jewels roaring.

The differences in Chapter 11, as with earlier chapters, are significant but not consequential. It’s still all the Lotus Sutra.

Next: Lessons of Devadatta and the Dragon King’s Daughter

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

---

In Chapter 10, The Teacher of the Dharma – or as H. Kern entitles it simply “The Preacher” – we get an interesting example of Kumārajīva’s brevity vs. the 11th century Sanskrit’s clarity.

Senchu Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva offers this at the conclusion of the initial prose section of Chapter 10:

“Medicine-King! An evil man who speaks ill of me in my presence with evil intent for as long as a kalpa is not as sinful as the person who reproaches laymen or monks with even a single word of abuse for their reading and reciting the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma.

“Medicine-King! Anyone who reads and recites the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma, know this, will be adorned just as I am. I will shoulder him. Wherever he may be, bow to him! Join your hands together towards him with all your heart, respect him, make offerings to him, honor him, and praise him! Offer him flowers, incense, necklaces, incense powder, incense applicable to the skin, incense to burn, canopies, banners, streamers, garments, food and various kinds of music! Make him the best offerings that you can obtain in the world of men! Strew the treasures of heaven to him! Offer him heaps of the treasures of heaven! Why is that? It is because, while he is expounding the Dharma with joy, if you hear it even for a moment, you will immediately be able to attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi.”

Note that there is no specific explanation of why it is worse to slander the preacher of the Dharma than the Buddha. It simply is.

Kern’s translation of the Sanskrit, however, is very specific about this:

Again, Bhaiṣajyarāja, if some creature vicious, wicked, and cruel-minded should in the (current) Age speak something injurious in the face of the Tathāgata, and if some should utter a single harsh word, founded or unfounded, to those irreproachable preachers of the law and keepers of this Sūtrānta, whether lay devotees or clergymen, I declare that the latter sin is the graver. For, Bhaiṣajyarāja, such a young man or young lady of good family must be held to be adorned with the apparel of the Tathāgata. He carries the Tathāgata on his shoulder, Bhaiṣajyarāja, who after having copied this Dharmaparyāya and made a volume of it, carries it on his shoulder. Such a one, wherever he goes, must be saluted by all beings with joined hands, must be honored, respected, worshipped, venerated, revered by gods and men with flowers, incense, perfumed garlands, ointment, powder, clothes, umbrellas, flags, banners, musical instruments, with food, soft and hard, with nourishment and drink, with vehicles, with heaps of choice and gorgeous jewels. That preacher of the law must be honored by heaps of gorgeous jewels being presented to that preacher of the law. For it may be that by his expounding this Dharmaparyāya, were it only once, innumerable, incalculable beings who hear it shall soon become accomplished in supreme and perfect enlightenment.

Also note who carries whom? Kumārajīva has the Buddha supporting the preacher; “I will shoulder him.” Kern’s translation has the preacher carrying the Buddha because he carries the Lotus Sutra. Kern’s translation actually sets the stage for when we learn later in the chapter that the sutra, not the śarīras of the Buddha, should be enshrined in a stupa and honored.

Here’s Murano:

“Medicine-King! Erect a stupa of the seven treasures in any place where this sūtra is expounded, read, recited or copied, or in any place where a copy of this sūtra exists! The stupa should be tall, spacious and adorned. You need not enshrine my śarīras in the stupa. Why not? It is because it will contain my perfect body.

Kern offers:

Again, Bhaiṣajyarāja, on any spot of the earth where this Dharmaparyāya is expounded, preached, written, studied, or recited in chorus, on that spot, Bhaiṣajyarāja, one should build a Tathāgata shrine, magnificent, consisting of precious substances, high, and spacious; but it is not necessary to depose in it relics of the Tathāgata. For the body of the Tathāgata is, so to say, collectively deposited there.

The awkwardness of Kern’s translation underscores why Kumārajīva is so beloved, even if it lacks some of Kern’s details.

Next: Digging Into A Story

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

---

In Senchu Murano’s English translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra we are offered this story about the past life of Śākyamuni and his disciple, Ānanda:

“Good men! Ānanda and I resolved to aspire for Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi under the Void-King Buddha at the same time [in our previous existence]. At that time Ānanda always wished to hear much while I always practiced strenuously. Therefore, I have already attained Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi[, but he has not yet]. Now he protects my teachings. He also will protect the store of the teachings of future Buddhas, teach Bodhisattvas, and cause them to attain [Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi], according to his original vow. Therefore, now he has been assured of his future Buddhahood.”

All of the other English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra adhere to this image of Ānanda being overly focused on learning while Śākyamuni takes action and becomes a Buddha, leaving Ānanda behind to be a keeper of Buddha knowledge.

Having bathed in Murano’s translation, I’ve written in the past:

While it is important to remember that a single Daimoku is the equivalent of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra, I think the point Chapter 9 is making is that just knowing stuff is not enough. You have to put that knowledge to work. In the above quote from today’s portion of Chapter 9, we learn that Śākyamuni and Ananda both aspired for enlightenment under the Void-King Buddha, but Ananda was too focused on learning and neglected his practice. In the future, he will protect the store of the teachings of future Buddhas, just as he does now, but he will also teach Bodhisattvas, and that will be how he becomes a Buddha named Mountain-Sea-Wisdom-Supernatural-Power-King.

H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra offers a different view. Kern says:

Young men of good family, I and Ānanda have in the same moment, the same instant conceived the idea of supreme and perfect enlightenment in the presence of the Tathāgata Dharmagahanābhyudgatarāja, the Arhat. At that period, young men of good family, he (Ānanda) constantly and assiduously applied himself to great learning, whereas I was applying myself to strenuous labor. Hence I sooner arrived at supreme and perfect enlightenment, whilst Ānanda Bhadra was the keeper of the law-treasure of the Lords Buddhas; that is to say, young men of good family, he made a vow to bring Bodhisattvas to full development.

In Kern’s telling it is not a failing that has prevented Ānanda from becoming a Buddha, but a vow he made “to bring Bodhisattvas to full development.” This is not unlike Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva – Jizō in Japan – who vowed to rescue all beings in the six realms of existence before he would attain Buddhahood himself.

This aspect of Kern’s translation is not as clear in Hurvitz’s translation of the compiled extant Sanskrit Lotus Sutras.

Then indeed the Blessed One, recognizing in his own mind what was going on in the minds of those bodhisattvas, addressed those bodhisattvas as follows: ‘Identically, O sons of good family, in the same moment, at the same instant, was our thought, mine and that of Ānanda, raised up to unexcelled, right, perfect, enlightened intuition in the presence of Dharmagaganābhyudgatarāja [the King Ascended to the Dharma Sky] the Thus Gone One, the Worthy One, the Properly and Fully Enlightened One. There this man, O sons of good family, was bent on the status of one who has heard much, while I was bent on vigorous undertaking. Therefore I was the quicker to experience unexcelled, right, perfect, enlightened intuition. This fellow, on the other hand, this goodly Ānanda, became the very bearer of the treasure of the true dharma of the blessed buddhas. That is to say, whatever vow is taken for the perfection of bodhisattvas, that belongs, O sons of good family, to this very son of good family as well.’ “

Both versions, though, offer Ānanda in a different light than Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra.

Next: Shouldering the Buddha

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

---

When I first read H. Kern’s 1884 English translation from Sanskrit of Chapter 9, the prediction for Ānanda and Rāhula, I was struck by something inserted here that is not found in translations from Kumārajīva’s Chinese. Kern has Ānanda and Rāhula say, “The Lord is our father and procreator, our refuge and protection.” Is this 19th century Christian bias sneaking in?

The full quote reads:

‘Let it be our turn also, O Lord; let it be our turn also, O Sugata. The Lord is our father and procreator, our refuge and protection. For in this world, including men, gods, and demons, O Lord, we are particularly distinguished, as people say: These are the Lord’s sons, the Lord’s attendants; these are the keepers of the law-treasure of the Lord. Therefore, Lord, it would seem meet, were the Lord ere long to predict our destiny to supreme and perfect enlightenment.’

Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva offers:

“World-Honored One! We think that we also are qualified to be assured [of our future Buddhahood]. Only you, the Tathāgata, are our refuge. We are known to all gods, men and asuras of the world. Ānanda always protects the store of the Dharma as your attendant. Rāhula is your son. If you assure us of our future attainment of Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, the wishes not only of us but also of others will be fulfilled.”

The other English translations of Kumārajīva all lack the idea that the Buddha is “our father and procreator,” and all separate Ānanda’s aspect of protecting the teachings and Rāhula’s position as the Buddha’s son rather than saying, “These are the Lord’s sons, the Lord’s attendants; these are the keepers of the law-treasure of the Lord.”

Leon Hurvitz’s English translation of the Lotus Sutra, which merges both Kumārajīva’s Chinese and a composite Sanskrit text, sticks with the language of Kumārajīva and places the Sanskrit version in an endnote:

1. “Then indeed the long-lived Ānanda at that time thought: ‘Truly, may we also receive such a prophecy as this!’ Then thinking, reflecting, and praying in this way, rising from his seat and bowing down to the feet of the Blessed One, and the long-lived Rāhula also thinking, reflecting, and praying in this way, and bowing down to the feet of the Blessed One, [they] spoke as follows: (If the English of this does not parse as a sentence, it is because the Sanskrit, too, is not grammatically coherent.) ‘May our turn also come in the same way, O Blessed One! May our turn also come in the same way, O Well Gone One! For the Blessed One is our father, our progenitor, our refuge, our salvation. For we, O Blessed One, in this world with its gods, men, and asuras, have been variously depicted in such words as these: “These are the sons of the Blessed One, as well as the attendants of the Blessed One, and they carry the storehouse of the dharma of the Blessed One.” Now, O Blessed One, let that [prophecy] be right quickly matched [by you], in that the Blessed One shall prophesy to us concerning unexcelled, right, perfect, enlightened intuition.’ “

Again the Sanskrit inserts the Buddha’s position as not only the “father” but also the “progenitor,” or in the word used by Kern, “procreator.”

Why does that bother me? Śākyamuni, himself, declares in the Lotus Sutra that he is the father of all living beings. Why am I so sensitive to extending to the father a role as “progenitor”? Perhaps this is just a continuation of whatever prompts my uneasiness about Nikkyō Niwano‘s assertion that we are “caused to live by Śākyamuni.”

In any event, one can easily make the argument that this is another place that illustrates the superiority of Kumārajīva’s translation, both in content and style.

Next: Ananda’s Vow

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

---

Throughout the first half of the Lotus Sutra we find descriptions of what a future Buddha world will look like.  Pūrṇa’s future Buddha world in Chapter 8 is a good example. The differences between English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra and H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Sanskrit Lotus Sutra are instructive.

Using Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva we begin with the prediction for Pūrṇa:

He will perform the Way of Bodhisattvas step by step for innumerable, asaṃkhya kalpas, and then attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi in this world. He will be called Dharma-Brightness, 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.

Kern renders this:

After completing such a Bodhisattva-course, at the end of innumerable, incalculable Æons, he shall reach supreme and perfect enlightenment; he shall in the world be the Tathāgata called Dharmaprabhāsa, an Arhat, &c., endowed with science and conduct, a Sugata, &c. He shall appear in this very Buddha field.

Note that they agree that Śākyamuni says Pūrṇa’s Buddha world will be “in this world,” or as Kern emphasizes, “in this very Buddha field.” What are we to make of “this world” becoming Pūrṇa’s pure land?

Murano describes the world:

The world of that Buddha will be composed of one thousand million Sumeru-worlds, that is, as many Sumeru-worlds as there are sands in the River Ganges. The ground [of that world] will be made of the seven treasures. It will be as even as the palm of a hand. There will be no mountains nor ravines nor ditches. Tall buildings adorned with the seven treasures will be seen everywhere in that world, and the palaces of gods of that world will hang so low in the sky that gods and men will be able to see each other.

In Kern’s telling we get this version:

Further, monks, at that time the Buddha-field spoken of will look as if formed by thousands of spheres similar to the sands of the river Ganges. It will be even, like the palm of the hand, consist of seven precious substances, be without hills, and filled with high edifices of seven precious substances. There will be cars of the gods stationed in the sky; the gods will behold men, and men will behold the gods.

Again we get the palaces of the gods imagined as flying cars.

The description of the inhabitants and their environment is consistent. Murano offers:

There will be no evil regions nor women. The living beings of that world will be born without any medium. They will have no sexual desire. They will have great supernatural powers, emit light from their bodies, and fly about at will. They will be resolute in mind, strenuous, and wise. They will be golden in color, and adorned with the thirty-two marks. They will feed on two things: the delight in the Dharma, and the delight in dhyāna.

Kern explains:

Moreover, monks, at that time that Buddha-field shall be exempt from places of punishment and from womankind, as all beings shall be born by apparitional birth. They shall lead a spiritual life, have ideal bodies, be self-lighting, magical, moving in the firmament, strenuous, of good memory, wise, possessed of gold-colored bodies, and adorned with the thirty-two characteristics of a great man. And at that time, monks, the beings in that Buddha-field will have two things to feed upon, viz. the delight in the law and the delight in meditation.

I would argue that Kern’s translation lessens the negative connotation about women contained in Murano’s translation. In fact, Kern’s version is not unlike the Modern Rissho Kosei-Kai translation of the Lotus Sutra, which goes to great lengths to eliminate gender stereotypes.

“In that land, there will be no gender distinction, for all living beings there will come into existence by transformation, free of carnal desire.”

As for the occupants of this world, Murano offers:

There will be innumerable, asaṃkhya Bodhisattvas, that is, thousands of billions of nayutas of Bodhisattvas. They will have great supernatural powers and the four kinds of unhindered eloquence. They will teach the living beings of that world. There will also be uncountable Śrāvakas there. They will have the six supernatural powers including the three major supernatural powers, and the eight emancipations. The world of that Buddha will be adorned with those innumerable merits. The kalpa [in which Pūrṇa will become that Buddha] will be called Treasure­Brightness; and his world, Good-Purity. The duration of the life of that Buddha will be innumerable, asaṃkhya kalpas, and his teachings will be preserved for a long time. After his extinction, stupas of the seven treasures will be erected [in his honor] throughout that world.”

While Kern says:

There will be an immense, incalculable number of hundred thousands of myriads of koṭis of Bodhisattvas; all endowed with great transcendent wisdom, accomplished in the (four) distinctive qualifications of an Arhat, able in instructing creatures. He (that Buddha) will have a number of disciples, beyond all calculation, mighty in magic, powerful, masters in the meditation of the eight emancipations. So immense are the good qualities that Buddha-field will be possessed of. And that Æon shall be called Ratnāvabhāsa (i.e., radiant with gems), and that world Suviṣuddha (i.e., very pure). His lifetime shall last immense, incalculable Æons; and after the complete extinction of that Lord Dharmaprabhāsa, the Tathāgata, &c., his true law shall last long, and his world shall be full of Stūpas made of precious substances. Such inconceivable good qualities, monks, shall the Buddha-field of that Lord be possessed of.

Note that in Murano’s telling the Bodhisattvas have “great supernatural powers and the four kinds of unhindered eloquence. They will teach the living beings of that world.” Kern, on the other hand, describes these Bodhisattvas as “all endowed with great transcendent wisdom, accomplished in the (four) distinctive qualifications of an Arhat, able in instructing creatures.”

This description of Bodhisattvas as Arhats is very un-Mahayana. As the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism explains:

As taught in early Buddhism, the Arhat attains exactly the same goal as the Buddha. Mahāyāna Buddhism, however, comes to regard Arhatship as an inferior ideal to that of Buddhahood, and portrays the Arhat (somewhat unfairly) as selfishly concerned with the goal of a ‘private nirvāṇa.’ In contrast, emphasis is placed on the great compassion (Mahākaruṇa) of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who dedicate themselves to leading all beings to salvation.

---

As a postscript I’m adding The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism’s definition of a Sumeru world:

[Mount Sumeru is] the central axis of the universe in Buddhist cosmology; also known as Mount Meru, Mount Sumeru stands in the middle of the world as its axis and is eight leagues (yojana) high. It is surrounded by seven mountain ranges of gold, each separated from the other by an ocean. At the foot of the seventh range, there is a great ocean, contained at the perimeter of the world by a circle of iron mountains (cakravāda). In this vast ocean, there are four island continents in the four cardinal directions, each flanked by two island subcontinents. The northern continent is square, the eastern semicircular, the southern triangular, and the western round. Although humans inhabit all four continents, the “known world” is the southern continent, named Jambudvīpa, where the current average height is four cubits and the current life span is one hundred years. The four faces of Mount Sumeru are flat and are each composed of a different precious stone: gold in the north, silver in the east, lapis lazuli in the south, and crystal in the west. The substance determines the color of the sky over each of the four continents. The sky is blue in the southern continent of Jambudvīpa because the southern face of the Mount Sumeru is made of lapis. The slopes of Sumeru are the abode of demigods (asura), and its upper reaches are the heavens of the four heavenly… . At the summit of the mountain is the heaven of the thirty-three (Trāyastriṃsá), ruled by the king of the gods, Sakra. Above Mount Sumeru are located the remaining heavens of the sensuous realm (kāmadhātu).

Next: The Buddha as Father and Procreator

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

---

At the opening of Chapter 8, The Assurance of Future Buddhahood of the Five Hundred Disciples, we have another example of the clarity of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra in comparison to H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Sanskrit Lotus Sutra.

Kern offers:

On hearing from the Lord that display of skillfulness and the instruction by means of mysterious speech; on hearing the announcement of the future destiny of the great Disciples, as well as the foregoing tale concerning ancient devotion and the leadership of the Lord, the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyanī, was filled with wonder and amazement, thrilled with pure-heartedness, a feeling of delight and joy. He rose from his seat, full of delight and joy, full of great respect for the law, and while prostrating himself before the Lord’s feet, made within himself the following reflection: Wonderful, O Lord; wonderful, O Sugata; it is an extremely difficult thing that the Tathāgatas, &c., perform, the conforming to this world, composed of so many elements, and preaching the law to all creatures with many proofs of their skillfulness, and skillfully releasing them when attached to this or that. What could we do, O Lord, in such a case? None but the Tathāgata knows our inclination and our ancient course. Then, after saluting with his head the Lord’s feet, Pūrṇa went and stood apart, gazing up to the Lord with unmoved eyes and so showing his veneration.

Senchu Murano’s English translation of Kumārajīva presents the same scene in this way:

Thereupon Pūrṇa, the son of Maitrāyanī having heard from the Buddha the Dharma expounded with expedients by the wisdom [of the Buddha] according to the capacities of all living beings, and having heard that [the Buddha] had assured the great disciples of their future attainment of Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, and also having heard of the previous life of the Buddha, and also having heard of the great, unhindered, supernatural powers of the Buddhas, had the greatest joy that he had ever had, became pure in heart, and felt like dancing [with joy]. He rose from his seat, came to the Buddha, and worshipped him at his feet with his head. Then he retired to one side of the place, looked up at the honorable face with unblenching eyes, and thought:
‘The World-Honored One is extraordinary. What he does is exceptional. He expounds the Dharma with expedients by his insight according to the various natures of all living beings of the world, and saves them from various attachments. The merits of the Buddha are beyond the expression of our words. Only the Buddha, only the World-Honored One, knows the wishes we have deep in our minds.’

The other English translations have comparable descriptions and Leon Hurvitz, who melded  Kumārajīva and a compilation of extant Sanskrit Lotus Sutras in his English translation, follows Kumārajīva and offers a note with the Sanskrit variation.

While lack of clarity in Kern’s translation can be considered in part a biproduct of his 19th century environment, one wonders what to make of additional information introduced by Kern in his translation.

In discussing Pūrṇa experience in past lives, Murano offers:

“Bhikṣus! Pūrṇa was the most excellent expounder of the Dharma under the seven Buddhas.

But Kern has Śākyamuni add a little extra explanation:

He was also, monks, the foremost among the preachers of the law under the seven Tathāgatas, the first of whom is Vipasyin and the seventh myself.

When I first read this I checked the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism authored by Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr., my go-to source of Buddhist minutiae.

Under the entry for Vipaśyin, the dictionary offers: “Sanskrit proper name of the sixth of the seven Buddhas of antiquity, not the first. But when you check the dictionary entry for Saptatathāgata, the seven buddhas of antiquity, you discover that Vipaśyin is the first of the six:

[Saptatathāgata] include Śākyamuni and the six buddhas who preceded him, i.e., Vipaśyin (P. Vipassin), Śikhin (P. Sikhī), Viśvabhū (P. Vessabhū), Krakucchanda (P. Kondañña), Kanakamuni (P. Konāgamana) and Kāśyapa (P. Kassapa).”

If you just Google “seven buddhas of antiquity” you find everyone agrees with Kern that Vipasyin was the first and Śākyamuni the seventh.

1. Vipassī (lived ninety-one kalpas ago)
2. Sikhī (lived thirty-one kalpas ago)
3. Vessabhū (lived thirty-one kalpas ago in the same kalpa as Sikhī)
4. Kakusandha (the first Buddha of the current bhadrakalpa)
5. Koṇāgamana (the second Buddha of the current bhadrakalpa)
6. Kassapa (the third Buddha of the current bhadrakalpa)
7. Gautama (the fourth and present Buddha of the current bhadrakalpa)

I’m not a fan of Donald S. Lopez Jr. and this confusion over Vipaśyin’s place among the seven buddhas of antiquity makes me less likely to take as gospel anything I read in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism.

Next: Imagining Buddha Lands

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