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

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

H. Kern’s English translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra offers interesting variation in the telling of parables compared to English translations of Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese Lotus Sutra.  The first example of this comes in Chapter 4 in what Kern describes as a parable “exemplifying the skill of the wise father in leading a child that has gone astray and lost all self-respect back to a feeling of his innate nobility and to happiness.”

Let’s begin with Senchu Murano’s version. After introducing the father and the missing son and their current situations, we are told the son becomes frightened and runs away after the father dispatches a messenger to bring him to the father:

“The messenger pulled him by force. The poor son thought, ‘I am caught though I am not guilty. I shall be killed.’ More and more frightened, the poor son fainted and fell to the ground. Seeing all this in the distance, the father said to the messenger, ‘I do not want him any more. Do not bring him forcibly! Pour cold water on his face and bring him to himself! Do not talk with him any more!’

“The father said this because he had realized that his son was too base and mean to meet a noble man [like his father]. He knew that the man was his son, but expediently refrained from telling to others that that was his son. [The messenger poured water on the son. The son was brought to himself.] The messenger said to him, ‘Now you are released. You can go anywhere you like.’

“The poor son had the greatest joy that he had ever had. He stood up and went to a village of the poor to get food and clothing.

Compare that with Kern’s telling:

At the same time, moment, and instant, Lord, he dispatches couriers, to whom he says: Go, sirs, and quickly fetch me that man. The fellows thereon all run forth in full speed and overtake the poor man, who, frightened, terrified, alarmed, seized with a feeling of horripilation all over his body, agitated in mind, utters a lamentable cry of distress, screams, and exclaims: I have given you no offence. But the fellows drag the poor man, however lamenting, violently with them. He, frightened, terrified, alarmed, seized with a feeling of horripilation all over his body, and agitated in mind, thinks by himself: I fear lest I shall be punished with capital punishment; I am lost. He faints away, and falls on the earth. His father dismayed and near despondency says to those fellows: Do not carry the man in that manner. With these words he sprinkles him with cold water without addressing him any further. For that householder knows the poor man’s humble disposition and his own elevated position; yet he feels that the man is his son.

The householder, Lord, skillfully conceals from everyone that it is his son. He calls one of his servants and says to him: Go, sirrah, and tell that poor man: Go, sirrah, whither thou likest; thou art free. The servant obeys, approaches the poor man and tells him: Go, sirrah, whither thou likest; thou art free. The poor man is astonished and amazed at hearing these words; he leaves that spot and wanders to the street of the poor in search of food and clothing.

Kern’s version offers a much clearer explanation of why the son was frightened. And the detail that the father sprinkled his son with cold water after he fainted without addressing him any further enhances our understanding of the depth of the father’s feelings for his son. This detail is dropped from the gāthās.

The details of the expedient used by the father to attract his son are significantly different.

Murano offers:

Thereupon the rich man thought of an expedient to persuade his son to come to him. He [wished to] dispatch messengers in secret. He said to two men looking worn-out, powerless and virtueless, ‘Go and gently tell the poor man that he will be employed here for a double day’s pay. If he agrees with you, bring him here and have him work. If he asks you what work he should do, tell him that he should clear dirt and that you two also will work with him.’

“The two messengers looked for the poor son. Having found him, they told him what they had been ordered to tell. The poor son [came back with them,] drew his pay in advance, and cleared dirt with them.

Kern expands this, offering:

In order to attract him the householder practices an able device. He employs for it two men ill-favored and of little splendor. Go, says he, go to the man you saw in this place; hire him in your own name for a double daily fee, and order him to do work here in my house. And if he asks: What work shall I have to do? tell him: Help us in clearing the heap of dirt. The two fellows go and seek the poor man and engage him for such work as mentioned. Thereupon the two fellows conjointly with the poor man clear the heap of dirt in the house for the daily pay they receive from the rich man, while they take up their abode in a hovel of straw in the neighborhood of the rich man’s dwelling.

Again, this detail is dropped from the gāthās.

At this point, it is Murano who adds details to clarify the timeline.

Kern says:

And that rich man beholds through a window his own son clearing the heap of dirt, at which sight he is anew struck with wonder and astonishment.

While Murano adds:

Seeing him, the father had compassion towards him, and wondered [why he was so base and mean]. Some days later he saw his son in the distance from the window. The son was weak, thin, worn-out, and defiled with dirt and dust.

As for the father taking up a disguise in order to chat with his son, and the son advancing until he takes over the household and the final revelation of the son’s inheritance, the differences in the two versions are more a product of Kern’s 19th century English vocabulary than the substance of the story.

In the gāthās Kern offers some curious added details. The boy is said to have run away because he was “seduced by foolish people.” And in describing the work the son will do, the rich man points out that the dirt is “replete with feces and urine.” But on a whole, the story in gāthās is even closer between versions than the prose.

Next: Disposition to Understanding by Faith

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

Many of the variations between H. Kern’s translation of the 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit document and Kumārajīva’s fifth century translation fall into a category I call, “Now that’s interesting, but what does it mean?”

Consider the Parable of the Burning House. In the gāthās re-telling, Kern states:

62. In such a state is that awful house, where thousands of flames are breaking out on every side. But the man who is the master of the house looks on from without.

63. And he hears his own children, whose minds are engaged in playing with their toys, in their fondness of which they amuse themselves, as fools do in their ignorance.

64. And as he hears them he quickly steps in to save his children, lest his ignorant children might perish in the flames.

But Senchu Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva offers this:

The house was so dreadful.
[In that house] there were
Poisonings, killings and burnings.
There were many dangers, not just one.

At that time the house-owner
Was standing outside the gate.
He heard a man say to him:
“Some time ago
Your children entered this house to play.
They are young and ignorant.
They are engrossed in playing.”
Hearing this,
The rich man was frightened.
He rushed into the burning house.

All of the English translations of Kumārajīva include this point, but what is added to the meaning of the story to have someone telling the father his children are inside versus the father hearing his children inside?

Further down in the gāthās, Kern says:

105. This, Śāriputra, is the closing word of my law which now at the last time I pronounce for the weal of the world including the gods. Preach it in all quarters.

But Murano adds a caution:

Śāriputra!
I expound this seal of the Dharma
In order to benefit
[All living beings] of the world.
Do not propagate it carelessly
At the place where you are!

Again, the “do not propagate it carelessly” is unique to Kumārajīva, but why has it been added? Does Kumārajīva want to presage the later warnings about teaching to those who won’t benefit? Both Kern and Kumārajīva caution future preachers.

Kern:

111. But do not speak of this matter to haughty persons, nor to conceited ones, nor to Yogins who are not self-restrained; for the fools, always reveling in sensual pleasures, might in their blindness scorn the law manifested.

112. Now hear the dire results when one scorns my skillfulness and the Buddha-rules for ever fixed in the world; when one, with sullen brow, scorns the vehicle.

Murano:

Śāriputra
Do not expound this sūtra
To those who are arrogant and idle,
And who think that the self exists!

Do not expound it to men of little wisdom!
They would not be able to understand it
Even if they heard it
Because they are deeply attached to the five desires.

Those who do not believe this sūtra
But slander it,
Will destroy the seeds of Buddhahood
Of all living beings of the world.

Some will scowl at this sūtra
And doubt it.
Listen! I will tell you
How they will be punished.

I expect to have many more of these “Now that’s interesting, but what does it mean?” discussions.

Next: Comparing and Contrasting a Parable

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

In Senchu Murano’s translation of the Buddha’s prediction for Śāriputra, we get this picture:

“Śāriputra! After a countless, inconceivable number of kalpas from now, you will be able to make offerings to many thousands of billions of Buddhas, to keep their right teachings, to practice the Way which Bodhisattvas should practice, and to become a Buddha called Flower-Light, 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. The world of that Buddha will be called Free-From-Taint. That world will be even, pure, adorned, peaceful, and fertile, where gods and men will prosper. The ground of that world will be made of lapis lazuli; the roads will fan out from the center to the eight directions. Those roads will be marked off by ropes of gold, and the trees of the seven treasures on the roadsides will always bear flowers and fruit. Flower-Light Tathāgata will also lead the living beings [of his world] by the teaching of the Three Vehicles.

“Śāriputra! Although the world in which he appears will not be an evil one, that Buddha will expound the teaching of the Three Vehicles according to his original vow.

Now, compare that with H. Kern’s translation:

Again, Śāriputra, at a future period, after innumerable, inconceivable, immeasurable Æons, when thou shalt have learnt the true law of hundred thousand myriads of koṭis of Tathāgatas, showed devotion in various ways, and achieved the present Bodhisattva-course, thou shalt become in the world a Tathāgata, &c., named Padmaprabha, endowed with science and conduct, a Sugata, a knower of the world, an unsurpassed tamer of men, a master of gods and men, a Lord Buddha.

At that time then, Śāriputra, the Buddha-field of that Lord, the Tathāgata Padmaprabha, to be called Viraja, will be level, pleasant, delightful, extremely beautiful to see, pure, prosperous, rich, quiet, abounding with food, replete with many races of men; it will consist of lapis lazuli, and contain a checker-board of eight compartments distinguished by gold threads, each compartment having its jewel tree always and perpetually filled with blossoms and fruits of seven precious substances.

Now that Tathāgata Padmaprabha, &c., Śāriputra, will preach the law by the instrumentality of three vehicles. Further, Śāriputra, that Tathāgata will not appear at the decay of the Æon, but preach the law by virtue of a vow.

I’ve struggled over the Buddha’s assertion that Śāriputra will teach the three vehicles even though “the world in which he appears will not be an evil one.” Why not emulate Mañjuśrī? “In the sea [Mañjuśrī] expounded only the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma.” But Kern’s translation agrees that Śāriputra “will preach the law by the instrumentality of three vehicles” after pointing out that his world will be “level, pleasant, delightful, extremely beautiful to see, pure, prosperous, rich, quiet, abounding with food, replete with many races of men.”

Given this agreement it seems safe to assume that this is an important point being made by the Lotus Sutra, and I should just accept this and move on.

Which brings me to another puzzle. This one occurs whenever Kern is describing the world of a future Buddha.

For example, Murano says Śāriputra’s “world will be made of lapis lazuli; the roads will fan out from the center to the eight directions. Those roads will be marked off by ropes of gold, and the trees of the seven treasures on the roadsides will always bear flowers and fruit.”

Kern agrees that it will consist of lapis lazuli, but he says it will “contain a checker-board of eight compartments distinguished by gold threads, each compartment having its jewel tree always and perpetually filled with blossoms and fruits of seven precious substances.”

This “checkerboard” image is used repeatedly by Kern, while all of the English translations of Kumārajīva speak of roads branching out in eight directions. For example, Hurvitz says: “It shall have vaiḍūrya for soil in an eightfold network of highways, each bordered with cords of pure gold.”

I have no clue what Kern was imagining when he described a world of eight compartments distinguished by gold threads.

Next: Variations to Puzzle Over

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

Before leaving Chapter 2, I want to address some differences between Senchu Murano’s English translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra and the English translations of others.

During my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice I’ve used Leon Hurvitz’s translation and admired its academic thoroughness. I’ve puzzled over Gene Reeves’ decision to use Greek and Roman names for Indian mythological creatures. The BDK English Tripiṭaka translation’s use of Sanskrit names for Buddhas made it unusable for my purposes. And I found the “Modern” Rissho Kosei-Kai translation’s effort at gender neutrality distracting.

For me, the Third Edition of Murano’s translation has been my reference point. I started with Murano back in 2015 because it was the translation sold by Nichiren Shu’s Nichiren Buddhist International Center. As I’ve cycled through the Lotus Sutra more than 75 times I’ve become intimately familiar with Murano’s version of the teaching.

Now as I compare and contrast English translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra with H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Nepalese Sanskrit document, I want to acknowledge the particular touch Murano applied.

The verses at the conclusion of Chapter 2 serve as a good example.

In Kern’s translation this is rendered:

139. Let this mystery be for thee, Śāriputra, for all disciples of mine, and for the eminent Bodhisattvas, who are to keep this mystery.

140. For the creatures, when at the period of the five depravities, are vile and bad; they are blinded by sensual desires, the fools, and never turn their minds to enlightenment.

141. (Some) beings, having heard this one and sole vehicle manifested by the Jina, will in days to come swerve from it, reject the Sūtra, and go down to hell.

142. But those beings who shall be modest and pure, striving after the supreme and the highest enlightenment, to them shall I unhesitatingly set forth the endless forms of this one and sole vehicle.

143. Such is the mastership of the leaders; that is, their skillfulness. They have spoken in many mysteries; hence it is difficult to understand (them).

144. Therefore try to understand the mystery of the Buddhas, the holy masters of the world; forsake all doubt and uncertainty: you shall become Buddhas; rejoice!

Hurvitz, who used both Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation and a Sanskrit compilation of the Lotus Sutra, offers:

Śāriputra, be it known that
The Buddhas’ dharma is like this:
By resort to myriads of millions of expedient devices
And in accord with what is appropriate for the situation, they preach the dharma;
But they who have not practiced it
Cannot understand this.
All of you, knowing now
That the buddhas, the teachers of the ages,
In accord with what is peculiarly appropriate have recourse to expedient devices,
Need have no more doubts or uncertainties.
Your hearts shall give rise to great joy,
Since you know that you yourselves shall become buddhas.

Reeves simplifies this:

It should be understood, Shariputra,
That the Dharma of the buddhas is like this.
With trillions of skillful means, in accord with what is good
They teach the Dharma.
Those who have not practiced and studied it
Cannot fully understand this.
But all of you,
Knowing that the buddhas,
The teachers of the worlds,
Use skillful means
According to what is appropriate,
Should have no more doubt.
Your hearts should be filled with great joy,
For you know that you too will become buddhas.

Senchu Murano’s translation clarifies and focuses this message:

Śāriputra [and others], know this!
As a rule, the Buddhas expound the Dharma
With billions of expedients as stated above,
According to the capacities of all living beings.

Those who do not study the Dharma
Cannot understand it.
You have already realized
The fact that the Buddhas, the World-Teachers, employ expedients,
According to the capacities of all living beings.
Know that, when you remove your doubts,
And when you have great joy,
You will become Buddhas!

The twist here in Murano’s telling is the role of “joy.” 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!”

Title Understanding

Another example of Murano’s special touch comes in the choice of the title for Chapter 4.

Leon Hurvitz and Burton Watson offer “Belief and Understanding.”  Gene Reeves and the modern Rissho Kosei-Kai translation offer “Faith and Understanding.”

Again, Murano offers an additional layer of meaning by marrying two separate aspects into a dynamic relationship with his choice of the title “Understanding by Faith.”

Interestingly, the only other Nichiren priest to translate  Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra into English, Bunno Kato, chose a similar title for Chapter 4, “Faith-discernment.”  (See the Introduction to W.E. Soothill’s 1930  “The Lotus of the Wonderful Law or The Lotus Gospel.”)

Next: Śāriputra’s Future

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

Kumārajīva translations are considered unexcelled in their accuracy and elegant style. This is genuinely revealed when you place H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Sanskrit document next to an English translation of Kumārajīva‘s fifth century translation of the Lotus Sutra. This is amply illustrated in the gāthās that conclude Chapter 2.

I’ve always enjoyed the clarity of this passage in Senchu Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva Chinese:

I do not deceive
Those who believe me and rely on me.
I am not greedy or jealous
Because I have eliminated all evils.
Therefore, in the worlds of the ten quarters,
I am fearless.

I am adorned with the physical marks of a Buddha.
I am illumining the world with my light.
To the countless living beings who honor me, I will expound
The seal of the truth, that is, the reality of all things.

Know this, Śāriputra!
I once vowed that I would cause
All living beings to become
Exactly as I am.

That old vow of mine
Has now been fulfilled.
I lead all living beings
Into the Way to Buddhahood.

Compare that with Kern’s translation:

57. There is no envy whatever in me; no jealousy, no desire, nor passion. Therefore I am the Buddha, because the world follows my teaching.

58. When, splendidly marked with (the thirty-two) characteristics, I am illuminating this whole world, and, worshipped by many hundreds of beings, I show the (unmistakable) stamp of the nature of the law;

59. Then, Śāriputra, I think thus; How will all beings by the thirty-two characteristics mark the self-born Seer, who of his own accord sheds his luster all over the world?

60. And while I am thinking and pondering, when my wish has been fulfilled and my vow accomplished, I no more reveal Buddha-knowledge.

The verses clearly come from the same sutra, but Murano’s translation makes the meaning far more accessible.

Again here’s Kern’s translation 38 verses later in Chapter 2:

98. Endless shall be the skillfulness of these leaders of the world, by which they shall educate koṭis of beings to that Buddha-knowledge which is free from imperfection.

99. Never has there been any being who, after hearing the law of those (leaders), shall not become Buddha; for this is the fixed vow of the Tathāgatas: Let me, by accomplishing my course of duty, lead others to enlightenment.

100. They are to expound in future days many thousand koṭis of heads of the law; in their Tathāgataship they shall teach the law by showing the sole vehicle before-mentioned.

101. The line of the law forms an unbroken continuity, and the nature of its properties is always manifest. Knowing this, the Buddhas, the highest of men, shall reveal this single vehicle.

102. They shall reveal the stability of the law, its being subjected to fixed rules, its unshakeable perpetuity in the world, the awaking of the Buddhas on the elevated terrace of the earth, their skillfulness.

Compare that with Murano’s translation of the same verses:

The Tathāgatas save all living beings
With innumerable expedients.
They cause all living beings to enter the Way
To the wisdom-without-āsravas of the Buddha.
Anyone who hears the Dharma
Will not fail to become a Buddha.

Every Buddha vows at the outset:
“I will cause all living beings
To attain the same enlightenment
That I attained.”

The future Buddhas will expound many thousands
Of myriads of millions of teachings
For just one purpose,
That is, for the purpose of revealing the One Vehicle.

The Buddhas, the Most Honorable Bipeds,
Expound the One Vehicle because they know:
“All things are devoid of substantiality.
The seed of Buddhahood comes from dependent origination.”

The Leading Teachers expound the Dharma with expedients
After realizing at the place of enlightenment:
“This is the abode of the Dharma and the position of the Dharma.
The reality of the world is permanently as it is.”

This is why Kumārajīva’s translation became the standard text of the Lotus Sutra in China and Japan.

Next: Senchu Murano’s Insight

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

Before I leave the topic of 10 suchnesses and their absence in H. Kern’s 1884 translation, I want to digress for a moment to discuss the difference between the English translation of the Lotus Sutra published by Leon Hurvitz and other English language translations of Kumārajīva’s Chinese Lotus Sutra. Hurvitz translated both Kumārajīva’s Chinese and the Sanskrit, at times merging the two.

Hurvitz’s Sanskrit document was not the same as the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscript written on palm leaves and dated C.E. 1039 that Kern used. Instead, Hurvitz incorporated a later Sanskrit document compiled by Kern and Bunyiu Nanijio.

Unless otherwise noted, the Skt. Quotations are from H. Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio, eds., Saddharmapuṇḍarika, Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. 10 (St. Petersburg: Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1912), and the translations are made from the same text.

First published in 1908, Kern and Bunyiu Nanijio combined multiple manuscripts in order to create one Sanskrit Lotus Sutra. From the book’s  “Preliminary Notice”:

The text of the for Saddharmapuṇḍarika, is now published for the first time, based upon the following MSS.:
A.: MS. of the Royal Asiatic Society, London.
B.: MS. of the British Museum, London.
Ca.: Add. MS. 1682 of University Library, Cambridge.
Cb.: Add. MS. 1683 of University Library, Cambridge.
K.: MS. in the possession of Mr. Ekai Kawaguchi, acquired in Nepal.
W.: MS. in the possession of Mr. Watters, formerly British Consul in Formosa.
O.: Indicates readings found in sundry fragments of MSS., all from Kashgar, now in possession of Mr. N.F. Petrovskij, and deposed by him in the Asiatic Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. The fragments, though belonging to different MSS., show all of them the same peculiarities and evidently belong to the same family of texts.
P.: The lithographic text in Nāgarī published by Ph. Ed. Foucaux in his work Parobole de l’Enfant égaré (Paris, 1854).

A more detailed account will be given in the Preface after the completion of the whole work.
The Editors

The text includes extensive footnotes pointing out which manuscripts contain or don’t contain material. Here is a screenshot from the end of the prose section of Chapter 2 and beginning of the gāthās:

Note 3, which appears where the 10 suchnesses would be found, says this part is only found in three of the manuscripts used in this compilation.

There is a significant difference between Kern’s translation of Chapter 2 and the translation of the same portion by Hurvitz.

Kern concludes the initial prose section of Chapter 2 with:

Enough, Śāriputra, let it suffice to say, that the Tathāgatas, &c., have something extremely wonderful, Śāriputra. None but a Tathāgata, Śāriputra, can impart to a Tathāgata those laws which the Tathāgata knows. And all laws, Śāriputra, are taught by the Tathāgata, and by him alone; no one but he knows all laws, what they are, how they are, like what they are, of what characteristics and of what nature they are.

As pointed out last week, this is a far cry from Kumārajīva’s 10 suchnesses:

No more, Śāriputra, will I say because the Dharma attained by the Buddhas is the highest Truth, rare [to hear] and difficult to understand. Only the Buddhas attained [the highest Truth, that is,] the reality of all things’ in regard to their appearances as such, their natures as such, their entities as such, their powers as such, their activities as such, their primary causes as such, their environmental causes as such, their effects as such, their rewards and retributions as such, and their equality as such [despite these differences].

When Hurvitz translated the Sanskrit version of the Lotus Sutra compiled by Kern and Nanijio, he found something closer Kumārajīva:

Enough, Śāriputra! Let this statement, at least, stand: the Thus Gone Ones, the Worthy Ones, the Properly and Fully Enlightened Ones, have arrived at the supremely wonderful, Śāriputra. Therefore let it be the Thus Gone One, Śāriputra, who shall teach the dharma of the Thus Gone One, what dharmas the Thus Gone One knows. All the dharmas, every one of them, Śāriputra, does the Thus Gone One himself teach. All the dharmas, every one of them, Śāriputra, does the Thus Gone One himself know. Which the dharmas are, how the dharmas are, what the dharmas are like, of what appearance the dharmas are, and of what essence the dharmas are: which and how and like what and of what appearance and of what essence the dharmas are, indeed it is the Thus Gone One who is the manifest eyewitness of these dharmas.

In this case, Hurvitz put this translation of the Sanskrit in his notes at the back. However, in other places he incorporates the unique content of the Sanskrit to create a translation of the Lotus Sutra that blends Kumārajīva’s Chinese with elements of the Sanskrit.

For example, in Murano’s translation of Kumārajīva, Chapter 3 concludes:

[Expound it to those]
Who receive [this sūtra]
And put it on their heads,
And who do not seek
Any other sūtra
Or think of the books of heresy!

(The Buddha said to Śāriputra:)
Those who seek the enlightenment of the Buddha
Are as various as previously stated.
A kalpa will not be long enough
To describe the variety of them.
They will be able to understand [this sūtra] by faith.
Expound to them
The Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma!

Kern contains additional material:

146. And he who keeps (in memory) the great Sūtras, while he never shows any liking for other books, nor even knows a single stanza from another work; to all of them thou mayst expound this sublime Sūtra.

147. He who seeks such an excellent Sūtra as this, and after obtaining it devoutly worships it, is like the man who wears a relic of the Tathāgata he has eagerly sought for.

148. Never mind other Sūtras nor other books in which a profane philosophy is taught; such books are fit for the foolish; avoid them and preach this Sūtra.

149. During a full Æon, Śāriputra, I could speak of thousands of koṭis of (connected) points, (but this suffices); thou mayst reveal this Sūtra to all who are striving after the highest supreme enlightenment.

In Hurvitz’s translation, we get a blended conclusion:

If there is a bhikṣu
Who for the sake of all-knowledge
Seeks the dharma in all four directions,
With joined palms receiving it on the crown of his head,
Desiring merely to receive and keep
The scriptures of the great vehicle,
Not accepting so much
As a single gāthā from the other scriptures,
For men like him,
And only for them, may you preach.
As a man wholeheartedly
Seeks the buddhaśarīra,
So may one seek the scriptures
And, having found them, receive them on the crown of one’s head,
Such a person shall never again
Wish to seek other scriptures,
Nor has he ever before thought
Of the books of the unbelievers.
For men like him,
And only for them, may you preach.
I say to you, Śāriputra,
That I, in telling of this sort
Of seekers of the buddha path,
Could spend a whole kalpa and still not finish.
If they are men of this sort,
Then they can believe and understand,
And for their sakes you may
Preach the Scripture of the Fine Dharma Flower.

Something to consider when Hurvitz’s translation is used in comparing English translations of the Lotus Sutra.

One last point: The order of chapters is different between Kern’s original English translation and the later compilation that Hurwitz’s used in his translation.

Notes

1

Both Chapter 7 and Chapter 25 have the same title in Kern’s translation. return

2

In the Preface to the Revised Edition of Hurvitz’s Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, a comparison of chapter titles between Kumārajīva and the Kern and Bunyiu Nanijio compilation lists the final chapter numbers as 21. Magic formulas, 25. The former connection of Śubhavyūharāja, and 26. The encouragements of Samantabhadra. return

Next: The Problem with Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas