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