Hi! I've decided to buy an English translated copy of the Lotus Sutra. Which one do you recommend the most?

Hi, Goh -

I like them all, in varying degree.

My two favorites so far are the Threefold Lotus Sutra from Kosei Publishing, and the Murano translation from NBIC.

I have heard very good things about the Leon Hurvitz translation, but haven't read it myself.

The Kern translation is extremely hard for me to work through; since it was translated from the sanskrit version, rather than the Kumarajiva Chinese translation, it isn't used much by Nichiren Buddhists (Nichiren used the Kumaraijiva chinese translation).

I just keep collecting translations as I find new ones. I hear Kosei is going to reissue the Threefold Lotus Sutra but I don't know when this is supposed to happen.

I hope some of this is helpful.........

Hi Goh,

My favorite for daily reading is the Murano version and the Numata version from the "Bdk English Tripitaka Translation Series". Both are very clear and concise, and I like their flow.

My favorites for study are the Kato (Threefold Lotus Sutra) version and the Numata versions as the first is the "full " Lotus Sutra and the second, again, is very direct and clear. I also like the Murano version for its appendixes at the end of the book- it has some very helpful Sanskrit to Japanese words translations and vice versa.

I have not read the older translations such as Kern expect as quoted in some academic articles, so I don't have an opinion about them.

And also Watson's translation of course

the Lotus Sutra - Translated by Burton Watson

Publisher: Columbia University Press
ISBN: 0231081618


ASN

No doubt the worst and most sectarian translation is the Burton Watson translation.
He was guided by Taisekaji and removed or changed anything that might be construed as offensive to the SGI. I have dozens of examples. Here is one, not written by me:

Here are some excerpts from Chapter 14 of the Lotus Sutra, from three
different translations. In the Bunno Kato et al. translation the
chapter is titled "A Happy Life." In Burton Watson's translation the
chapter is titled "Peaceful Practices." In Kern's it is titled
"Peaceful Life." (It is Chapter 13 in Kern's translation from the
Sanskrit. This is because Chapter 12 in the Kumarajiva-based
versions, "Devadatta," is not separate in the Sanskrit version but
rather appears as the end of Chapter 11).


In the chapter, the World Honored One describes how
bodhisattva-mahasattvas should preach the sutra in the "future evil
days," "in the last age when the Law is about to perish." In the
beginning of the chapter he sets out the "spheres of action" and the
two proper "spheres of intimacy" for such bodhisattva-mahasattvas.


The first sphere of intimacy concerns which sorts of people the
bodhisattva-mahasattva should associate with and not associate with.
You can read that section for yourself and decide how you choose to
interpret it... The first sphere of intimacy is also concerned with
avoiding the appearance of impropriety (and presumably temptation as
well). The bodhisattva-mahasattva is said to enjoy sitting in
meditation and learns to still his mind. (In this chapter the
bodhisattva-mahasattva is assumed to be male, though in the
"Devadatta" chapter of the sutra we learn that a female can become a
buddha.)


The sutra was written over 2000 years ago in a completely different
culture -- though this chapter is speaking directly to future
preachers of the sutra. The Lotus Sutra is a beautiful scripture, and
classic literature also. There are a few passages that do not read
especially well to modern ears, though, whether due to cultural
differences, translation, or interpretation. This chapter illustrates
a couple of them. The Kato and Kern translations mention "male and
female slaves" as property to be bestowed by the king as a reward.
Watson translates this as "male and female servants." Similarly, in
one section of verse the properties of those who read the sutra are
listed. Among the properties, the Kato version has "His countenance
will be fresh and white." Kern, from 1884 and the Sanskrit, has the
blunter "the colour of his skin is not blackish." Watson has the more
appealing "his expression will be fresh and bright." This illustrates
some of the problems of translation, including how literally to
translate the original text and what *meaning* the translator reads
the original as having.


In this article I have excerpted the sections of the chapter related
to the bodhisattva-mahasattva's second sphere of intimacy. They
appear below.


---------


Bunno Kato et al. translation:


[...]


"Further, a bodhisattva-mahasattva contemplates all existences as void
-- appearances as they really are, neither upside down, nor moving,
nor receding, nor turning, just like space, of the nature of
nothingness, cut off from the course of all words and expressions,
unborn, not coming forth, not arising, nameless, formless, really
without existence, unimpeded, infinite, boundless, unrestrained, only
existing by causation, and produced through perversion [of thought].


Therefore I say constantly to delight in the contemplation of things
[or laws] such as these is termed a bodhisattva-mahasattva's second
sphere of intimacy."


[...]


All laws [or things] are
Void and nonexistent,
Without permanence,
Neither beginning nor ending;
This is named the sphere
To which wise men resort.
The perverse discriminate
All laws as either existing or nonexisting,
Real or unreal,
Produced or unproduced.
Let [the bodhisattva] abide in seclusion,
Cultivate and control his mind,
And be firmly fixed and immovable
As Mount Sumeru;
Contemplating all laws
As though they were not,
As if they were space,
Without solidarity,
Neither producing nor coming forth,
Motionless and unreceding,
Ever remaining a unity.


[...]


---------


Burton Watson translation:
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Bu...tra/text/Chap...


[...]


"Next, the bodhisattva or mahasattva should view all phenomena as
empty, that being their true entity. They do not turn upside down, do
not move, do not regress, do not revolve. They are like empty space,
without innate nature, beyond the reach of all words. They are not
born, do not emerge, do not arise. They are without name, without
form, without true being. They are without volume, without limits,
without hindrance, without barriers. It is only through causes and
conditions that they exist, and come to be taken upside down, to be
born. Therefore I say that one should constantly delight in viewing
the form of phenomena as this. This is what I call the second thing
that the bodhisattva or mahasattva should associate himself with."


[...]


All phenomena
are empty, without being,
without any constant abiding,
without arising or extinction.
This I call the position
the wise person associates himself with.
From upside-down-ness come distinctions,
that phenomena exist, do not exist,
are real, or not real,
are born, are not born.
Place yourself in quiet surroundings,
learn to still your mind,
remain tranquil, and moving,
like Mount Sumeru.
Look upon all phenomena
as having no existence,
like empty space,
as without firmness or hardness,
not born, not emerging,
not moving, and regressing,
constantly abiding in a single form -


[...]


---------


Kern translation:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot13.htm


[...]


Further, Mañgusrî, a Bodhisattva Mahâsattva looks upon all laws (and
things) as void; he sees them duly established, remaining unaltered,
as they are in reality, not liable to be disturbed, not to be moved
backward, unchangeable, existing in the highest sense of the word (or
in an absolute sense), having the nature of space, escaping
explanation and expression by means of common speech, not born,
composed and simple, aggregated and isolated, not expressible in
words, independently established, manifesting themselves owing to a
perversion of perception. In this way then, Mañgusrî, the Bodhisattva
Mahâsattva constantly views all laws, and if he abides in this course,
he remains in his own sphere. This, Mañgusrî, is the second proper
sphere of a Bodhisattva Mahâsattva.


[...]


19. All laws (i.e. the laws, the things) have been declared to be
non-existing, not appearing, not produced, void, immovable,
everlasting; this is called the proper sphere of the wise.


20. They have been divided into existing and non-existing, real
and unreal, by those who had wrong notions; other laws also, of
permanency, of being produced, of birth from something already
produced, are wrongly assumed.


21. Let (the Bodhisattva) be concentrated in mind, attentive, ever
firm as the peak of Mount Sumeru, and in such a state (of mind)
look upon all laws (and things) as having the nature of space
[i.e. as being void],


22. Permanently equal to space, without essence, immovable,
without substantiality. These, indeed, are the laws, all and for
ever. This is called the proper sphere of the wise.

Let us see what Burton Watson himself says:

Burton Watson explains a few things in his Translator's Notes on pages xxv
and xxvi:

"The origin of the present translation goes back to a day in December 1973
when I had an opportunity to meet and talk with President Daisaku Ikeda, head
of the Soka Gakkai International and a world leader in the Buddhist movement. "
. . .
"The translation was prepared with the assistance of the Nichiren Shoshu International Center in Tokyo, which is connected with Soka Gakkai International. The translation is based on the Chinese text and Japanese yomikudashi found in
the Myoho-renge-kyo narabi ni kaiketsu, compiled and edited by the Soka Gakkai and published in Tokyo in 1961. The Chinese text of the Kumarajiva translation was fixed long ago and there are no significant textural variations. I would like here to express my deep gratitude to the many persons associated with Soka
Gakkai International and the Nichiren Shoshu International Center who lent their assistance to the undertaking. They not only checked over my translation with care and thoroughness, BUT OFFERED INVALUABLE ADVICE AT MANY POINTS ON QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION (caps mine)."

"A word may be said here as to the sort of problems in interpretation that arose. Classic Chinese, the language of the Kumarajiva Lotus, is highly spare and
compressed in style, and hence often ambiguous, in meaning or construction and open to varying interpretations. [example snipped]"
. . .
"Because of such recurring problems and ambiguities, no two translators of
the Chinese will ever come up with exactly identical renderings of the text.
This does not mean in most cases that one translator is wrong and the other right,
but simply that they have made different choices in their interpretations. In
the present translation I have tried to render the text in the way that it has
traditionally been understood in China and Japan. That is why I have carefully taken into consideration the Japanese yomikudashi reading in the edition cited above [Soka Gakkai compilation], which rearranges the Chinese characters of the text so that they conform to the patterns of Japanese syntax. This reading is based on an interpretation of the text followed by Nichiren (1222-1282), the founder of Nichiren Buddhism in Japan, who throughout his life constantly lectured on the Lotus Sutra to his disciples and lay followers and gave detailed expositions of its teachings."

So Ansanna, one would have to study classic Chinese so as to compare your
Soka Gakkai kanji version with the original Chinese and determine if you had
the "translation closest to the original"?

burton Watson is admitting that the SGI and the NSIC "assisted" on questions of interpretation and presentation and that he referred to one of the Soka Gakkai's interpretations of the Lotus Sutra.

So, if you buy the Burton Watson translation please compare it to the Kato, Hurvitz, Kern, and Murano translations.

Mark

Dharma friend Illarraza,

I think you might havesome misunderstanding on the Watson’s translation, as his Translator’s Note, page xxiv , he wrote:
“ Why, one may also ask, if the Lotus Sutra is a work of Indian Buddhim, has the translation been made from the Kumarajiva Chinese translation of the text rather than from one of the Sankrit version?

- First, at already mentioned in my introduction, though we do not know what language the Lotus Sutra was first composed in, it was very probably not Sanskrit, and therefore the Sanskrit versions of the text are already one step removed from the original.
- Second, none of the extant Sanskrit versions are as early in date as Kumarajiva’s Chinese translation, done in 406 ce , and all differ in some respects from his version. Thus his almost certainly represents an ealier version of the text, one nearer to the original.
- But most important of all, Kumarajiva’s Chinese translation is the version in which the Lotus Sutra has been known and read over centuries throughout the countries of eastern Asia.
- Buddhism died out in India long ago and the Sanskrit versions of the text were lost for many hundreds of years, only coming to light again in recent times. Today no one but a handful of scholars read the Lotus Sutra in its Sanskrit versions, whereas Kumarajiva’s text is read and recited daily by millions of priests (ordains) and lat believers of East Asia. It is the language and imagery of the Chinese Lotus Sutra that has molded the religious life and thought of the people of that part of the world ( includes Tientai & Nichiren ) and made its way into their art and literature. So it seemed whooly justifiable to make the English translation from this still living and vital version of the scripture. “

Coming to the translation version if point out, but if you could understand the rational as above mention of watson’s translation which is based on the Kumarajiva Chiense version, the rest is petty matches well and clear.

Example :

1) the tile of Chapter 13 , Watson translated “Peaceful Practice”, it derive direct from the Chinese version of
安樂 ( Peaceful and Joy ) 行 ( Practice ) 品 ( Chapter )

2) Likewise , Watson translated "male and female servants." it derive direct from the Chinese version of 奴( slave ) 婢 (servant) ( this word if used together usually means servant only )

3) "his expression will be fresh and bright." Come from 顏色( colour ) 鮮( fresh ) 白 ( white)

well if I have time , I could help to back translate and verify for you

All East Asian Buddhist who read scriptures ( sutras and commentaries listed in Taisho Tripitaka ) used Classical Chinese, it is a standard knowledge.

This nichiren shu sites also listed with both Watson and Kern version
http://lotus.nichirenshu.org/lotus/sutra/

lets respect the professional scholarship , we must be grateful and respect those who did their works of translating the dharma works to the living beings.

Ansanan

Hi, Ansanna -

I don't choose the Watson translation first, primarily because of two translation choices made:

One is the choice to drop the "as such" from the Ten Suchnesses (sometimes known as the ten factors), in the beginning of Chapter 2, and just list them.

The second is the last sentence of the verse section of Chapter 16, where "quickly acquire the body of a Buddha" was chosen, rather than "quickly become Buddhas" as I have seen it in several other translations.

Just personal preferences, of course, but to me these choices give a different flavor to those particular passages.

BW- 速( quick) 成就 ( accomplished ) 佛 ( Buddha ) 身( body )

where you prefered version , lost two chinese words i) accomplished ii) body .

This ' 成就 ' and ' become ' is a very loose translation, it loose the sense of accomplishment

ASN

Hi again, Ansanna -

Maybe this is differences in usages of english. I don't find loss of a sense of accomplishment in "becoming Buddhas" rather than "acquiring the body of a Buddha". If I have acquired the body of a Buddha, does that mean I have achieved enlightenment? "Becoming Buddha" seems a less ambiguous way to say it, at least as english is used here.

Again, as I said before, these are just personal preferences. I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with the Watson translation, just that I don't prefer it. You seem to prefer the Watson translation over the others; that's fine. I'm just glad we have several to choose from.

The upcoming RKK version says something like "and quickly perfect their Buddha-bodies." The translator said that he thought keeping the word "bodies" in the translation was important, but I can't remember why he thought that. Or maybe he didn't say.

Pam

Dear rev. Engyo

I agreed all are tying to translate them to English with their various preferences in mind.

1) For Prof. Burton Watson, he is one of the world renource scholar and translator in East Asia classical works, here in his tranlation version of Lotus Sutra, he displayed his masterful work of attempting to translate without loosing much of the original Chinese characters wording and favour, and the same time could placed them in an elegance and simple to read English.

Lets also not forgetting, one of his objective of his work is also link the English translation of Lotus Sutra with the existing Lotus works of the writtings of Nichiren , Tientai & Dengyo whom they quoted the passage of Lotus Sutra extensively.

2) back to the discussion of the passage of "quickly acquire the body of a Buddha" ( chpt 16 ) was chosen.

The word 成 by itself could already translated as ( Become )
example in our common Buddhist term 成佛, in Japanese we pronunced as ( Jobutsu ) , English direct as ( Becoming a Buddha ),
Usuallly translated as ' Attaining Buddhahood ' - such as the Gosho title of " On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime ' or 'Issjo Jobutsu Sho '

Seperately, 成 ( Become / Forming) and 就 ( Engaging )

If used together as a compound words 成就 would means ( Achievement / Sucess / Accomplished )


So in this sense, the miss the word 就 ( Engaging ) or the full compound words of 成就 ( Suceed )
But I think Watson must be thinking very hard on his choosing of the word "Aquired"

I think the ' Body ' here would also mean the Three Bodies (Three Kaya) of the Buddha - which are the Dharma body, Buddha wisdom and Buddha emanation.

ASN

Ansanna -

First, please don't call me Rev. I have not taken vows to become ordained; that is not my path at this time.

Secondy, I repeat my earlier point - I was talking about *my own personal preferences*, not making any other distinctions. I understand who Burton Watson is, and his standing in the community. I haven't called any of that into question.

Are you trying to get me to change my personal preference? Why? Does my personal preference have some bearing on what anyone else thinks about these things? I don't get it.

Hey Engyo , I have said I agreed that it only each have different preference ! we fully respect that

I thought we are just thinking aloud , and try to discuss on how the various structure and version of translation come about, it purely in the scope of civil and academical , that we sharing about?

No body is pushing other around, it just that when I read the earlier post - I have alittle feeling that is is not doing much justice in Watson version ( since he is just translating it direct from the Kumarajiva Chinese version )

ASN

Hi illarraza, just to help you to understand,

The original text of Kumarajiva's Chinese translated version of Lotus Sutra is the only version used in the living tradition of Mahayana Buddhism, and considered the more authoritative.

There are no other version, unlike the Bible which have versions of context in different edition ( simplify version, classical version, King Jame version and so on ).

In the East Asia text of Lotus Sutra , there is only the one version of Kumarajiva's translation version written in classical Chinese form of the latter Chin era ( 406ce, 5th century, few hundreds before the Tang dynasty )
Although the form of writing characters may have slight different in history , the context remain the same.

example
i) the traditional Chinese form ( where the Japanese Kanji , and Korean adopted )
Lotus Sutra as 'Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo' is written as 妙法蓮華經
ii) and the modern simplified form of writing, is written as 妙法莲华经
iii) and In Japanese Kanji is written as 妙法蓮華経
iv) and in Korean is written either by 묘법연화경 or 妙法蓮華經



Likewise all Tientai/Tendai , Nichirenshu/Nichirenshosho/SGI/RKK , Shingon and all other East Asia's Mahayana use the same text.

It is kept in the Mahayana canon such as the :
Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 9, No. 262 『 妙法蓮華經 』 ( Kumarajiva version )
Source

and any other version of canon collection throughout history and various land in East Asia.

You could pick out a Tang era's copy from the caves in Tunghung and compare with the modern digitial canon of Taisho, and they are ready matched with one another.


in the canon, example in the Tasho, the other 2 existing translations besides Kumarajiva version also collected.
i) 『正法華経』（竺法護訳、Dharmaraksa, 286ce, 2nd century ) - Taisho Tripitaka Vol. T09, No. 263
ii) 『添品妙法蓮華経』（闍那崛多・達磨笈多共訳、 Jnanagupta and Dharmagupta, 601ce, 7th century ） - Taisho Tripitaka Vol. T09, No. 264


Ansanna

I have all three translations. I have to say that for me the Watson was the easier read.

Further, since I like to understand what I am reciting (I use Japanese sutrabooks - kyohon), for many chapters, such as the Kannon chapter, I compared the chinese characters to Watson's translation (mainly for the ending sections in poem form) and they meshed well for me.

BTW, Same thing with Dogen's writings, there are so many translations and Dogen is so complex anyway....some seem to mesh better with the way I follow them in nihongo....but that is just me reading without a teacher....

Either way, it is wonderful that the Lotus Sutra and so many others are available to us in English and I praise all those who spent the time to aid our efforts in the Dharma!



Marc

I've decided to get either the Kato version but when I have more money, I'll get the Burton and the Hurvitz versions. Thank you everyone!

Thank you Ansanna to help me to understand. I'm sure this is how the SGI study department helped Burton Watson to understand what he was reading. Ill take my Lotus Sutra straight up, thank-you.

Mark

illarraza: to make causal remarks and/or discredit others in their Dharma works is relative easy things to do , but this could only reflect one's narrowness in one's mind or their cultivation.

Maybe advise us how sangha Kempon Hokke shu in their efforts to support the transmission and translation works of the sutras and works of Nichiren.
Only by putting efforts and money in good value use of such activities could create true good causes that could last for manay generations down the road, I'm such the Buddhas will pad on their back and smile. Lets trust the Dharmakaya - all good causes will be rewarded and any abuse in wrong intent will be back fired, Let that to the Gohonzon, just do our part.

Watson's Lotus Sutra also retranslated into many other language ( includes Greek, Lao, German and others )

As we have all study Lotus Sutra, the SadDharma could only valid when it is flowing in live of living beings, Buddhahood is manifested in practice and invested in actual actions ( like putting efforting in translating the Good Dharma in all different language to beneifit and sow the seed of Buddhahood the large circle of beings ), else it will fall back to the Theorical Provisional Teaching and empty talk.

I try to visit your Kempon Hokke site, see some photos, but I did not see much of your any original Buddhist liternature works ? If your side yet do much in this area, I don't think it right for make those remarks on others who exert it.
http://www.kemponhokke.com/
http://www.nbaa.tv/welcome.html


ASN

Hi all

I have the Watson, Kato and Murano translations.

I like them all in different ways - I would agree with others when they say the Watson is very easy to read. I think he did a very good job in making it fluid. Also, as Ansanna notes, the Watson has been re-translated into many languages other than English, so it's useful when studying with people who speak different languages.

The Kato translation is good in that it has the two accompanying sutras (the only current translation of them into English I believe). It also has good footnotes. It reads slightly more academically, which I feel sometimes affects the fluidity.

I find the Murano reads well, and as Shikimyo notes, it has some really good glossaries at the back. It's the translation I use most, as it is the one that is used in my Sangha for Lotus Sutra study classes etc. however I also utilize the others.

I think a lot of it is down to personal preferance, and certainly for myself, I find it good to read as many translations as possible of the same thing, so that I can get closer to the true meaning. One of these days I'll get around to buying the Hurvitz, Kern, Numata and others.

As for translation accuracy, I'm not in a position to judge. This is another reason for me to read as many translations as possible.

In Gassho,

Ben

Reginald Carpenter wrote, which I agree with:

First of all, the title of it is: "Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma" (The Lotus Sutra) "Translated from the Chinese of Kuramajiva By" Leon Hurvitz; copyright 1976 by Columbia University Press.

Secondly, as the name/ title implies, it is the most scholarly & wordy of all of the Lotus Sutra English language translations as well as the most expensive & thickest one in soft cover; but, it is the only one that is free from any Nichiren Buddhist sectarian affiliations and/ or their biases: the Threefold Lotus Sutra translation is a Rissho Koseikai book, the S. Murano translation is a Nichiren Shu, Inc priest-hood's book, and the Burton Watson is a Soka Gakkai book that's always been
used by the so called Nichiren Shoshu priest-hoods, of course. [Note: the old, 19th century H. Kern translation was NOT made from the Chinese translation by Kuramajiva like the above ones]

Thirdly, perhaps as a result of it being so scholarly & non-biased, the book contains some variant translations and also some variant interpretations of translations printed in various sections in it. But, if a person could have acquired that one first, then they certainly would NEVER need to have any other Lotus Sutra translation book to read & study for the rest of their life! LOL. WorldPeace!

Mark

I have had the Watson translation for some time and find it quite readable. My favorite translation though is Leon Hurvitz's.

The comparisons it provides between Kuramajiva's translation and the Sanscrit is quite illuminating. Sometimes the meaning of one translation compared to the other can be interpreted quite differently.

It also clearly brings to light many areas where Watson, in what probably is an innocent attempt to keep the information simple, sometimes ends up misleading the reader about the meaning of what is being said.

Having both is useful. Read Watson for enjoyment and Hurvitz for depth of understanding.

As I neither own, nor have access to Hurvitz's translation ; could you provide a couple of glaring examples of where Watson's is misleading ?

Cheers

Preachers of the Dharma -

Hurvitz - "The room of the Thus Come One is the thought of great compassion towards all living beings..."

Watson - "The 'Thus Come One's room' is the state of mind that shows great pity and compassion toward all living beings..."

There are other references in the Watson translation that seem to stress 'pity'. I don't see as equal to and do interpret differently from simply 'compassion'. Pity to me implies "feeling sorry for". Do you need to "feel sorry" to act out of compassion? If not then what is the point of adding the word 'pity'?

I think someone else mentioned the Watson shorthand treatment of the 10 factors.

Hurvitz (chapt 2) - "Concerning the prime, rare, hard-to-understand dharms, which the Buddhas have perfected, only a Buddha and a Buddha can exhaust their reality, namely the suchness of the dharmas, the suchness of their marks,
the suchness of their nature, the suchness of their substance, the suchness of their powers, the suchness of their conditions, the suchness of their effects, the suchness of their retributions, and the absolute identity of their
beginning and end."

To me this wording draws to mind a broader, dynamic and less cut-and-dried landscape than the simply put "this reality consists of appearance, nature..." found in the Watson translation.

(Here though when Hurvitz compares the Kuramajiva to the Sanskrit it seems that Kuramajiva too may have taken liberties with chapt 2 if he was working from the same source.)

Its not so much that any one of the shortcuts taken by Watson is in isolation misleading. But taken together, and after reading other translations, I do come away thinking that his adds a distinctive twist to the story.

I can think of one out of my hat. From context, it looks like he might translate 慈 [ji] as pity. That is a common meaning in Chinese; but it it is translation of metta / maitri; which is usually translated as Loving Kindness, Amity, or Good Will; the far opposite of enmity or ill will.

I have seen pity used as a bad translation of 悲 [hi]; which is in turn a translation of karuna. The standard translation is compassion; I have also seen it given as sympathy. No one else I know of translates metta as pity.

This is more of an issue for me in the Gosho.

See my post. I think that is metta which he translates as pity. He translates jihi [慈悲] or metta-karuna as pity and compassion. I think.

Working on it,

On needs to take note, the issue is that Master Kumarjiva have achieved a very high Mahayana realization, he already a very accomplished master in India and Central Asia before he travel to China. That's why he was regards as Tripletaka master.

Reading on his translation and commentaries on all those Perfection of Wisdom
sutras and works of Nagarjuna and those Mahayana masters, he have a very complete understanding of all the different schools of Nikaya and Mahayana. On top of that he worked with different versions original Sanscrpts copies ( on hand and/or retained in his memories , and he fully understoods how the unfold of Mahayana and conditions in India ) before his translations work, and asisted by a dream team magnitude of count supported scholars and Buddhist masters. That's why his works had been enduring and shiring so well in the history of living tradition in East Asia Mahayana realm. As such he had his liberty with his wisdom in his translational realm, to define the teaching required to propagate in the condition in the East Asia Buddhism.

This is certainly in a great constrast to Hurvitz in his translation, where he only have a limited surviving copies of sanscript copies, and his rather narrow scope of Buddhist work. As he certainlye was only a schiolar in study the Buddhist work, but not a Buddhist Tripletaka master ( one who achieved high attainment of doctrinal, meditation and conduct/practice )


ASN

Thanks for that, Robby.

Although to be fair, it is probably to simplify the term out of good sematic intentions ? But I think that most would have understood the generic term of compassion to convey Shakyamuni's intention without textual complication.

Although I don't really think that using the word pity as a substitute is really misleading more, as you say, a poor translation.

Ansanna,

I have no quarrel with Kumarjiva's work. I was only pointing out that there is this difference.

Given the differences between languages and inevitable typo's any translation is subject to miscommunication even if the translator's intentions are pure.


It is in the end left to the reader to discover fact from fiction.

Mark

I apologise for seeming to have overlooked this post.

I agree that Watson's wording does tend to miss both the dynamic and profundity that we find in the other.

Another translation that may not have been mentioned is the Numata series one by Kubo Tsugunari & Yuyama Akira. They did not follow the Taisho, but the Kasuga edition, which they claim has only slight differences with the T.

One issue is that Watson conflates the meanings of

1. Metta / Maitri / Ji 慈 . In common use, 慈 evidently means mercy, which does not express the original meaning at all.
http://www.mahou.org/Kanji/3B7C/

2. Karuna / Hi 悲. In common use, this evidently means to grieve, which does not capture the meaning of karuna either.
http://www.mahou.org/Kanji/4861/

Nichiren also uses the compound word jihi 慈. Watson also translates that as compassion. I think deep empathetic sympathy rooted in unconditional affection, and elicited by suffering, is what Nichiren intended by jihi. I gather that Watson is a linguist who specializes in translating Chinese and Japanese Literature. He must not have much if any background in Indic Buddhism, or else he would have known the original terms.

Metta is unconditioned affection, empathy with all beings, similar to the idea of agape. The Buddha compared metta to the love a healthy Mother has for an only child. No matter what the child does, that pure affection never changes. She will never feel enmity, spite, stinginess, jealousy, or envy toward that child. The Buddha also said that those who cultivate Metta will obtain freedom from rebirth. In other words; freedom from conditioned existence?

Karuna is a response to encountering suffering beings; therefore Karuna arises from conditions. However Karuna is not not ordinary affected compassion, because it is rooted in Metta. One rooted in metta will naturally see the suffering of others as their own suffering. If someone thinks metta means mercy or pity, then the intent of Buddhist Compassion becomes badly obscured or even distorted. Since Metta is a significant concept in the Lotus Sutra, the intent of the Sutra may also be distorted, by a simple poor translation.

At any rate, when reading Watson's Gosho & Lotus Sutra translations, maybe try to keep in mind that when we see pity, there is a decent chance the better choices of words would be loving kindness, good will, or amity. Personally, I think we should use the borrowed word metta, instead of a translation.

gassho

robin

I just ordered a copy of the Lotus Sutra from Amazon without thinking about whose translation it was, so I just checked after reading this thread and it is the Burton Watson translation! Well, I can't afford to buy a different one just now so I'll start with that and maybe get another one later. Judging by the comparison, it does seem to be rather drier and less exuberant than the others.

It is very difficult for a newcomer to Nichiren to make sense of all the sectarian division. I can't understand how anything in the Lotus Sutra could be "offensive" to the SGI, since they are people who believe it to be the highest teaching of humanity!

Many decades ago in SGI, we were told that reading a translation of the Lotus Sutra was not the way to 'get' it. I think they were right.

Reciting it might be better. Recently I have been reciting aloud my Kato* translation, just for the experience. It is interesting.

There is so much formulaic stuff, so much repetition, strings of huge unimagineable numbers, and lots of metaphor. I think it is a big job to work out all those challenges. I believe that if you chant the sutra, you can make a more direct connection with the original spirit of the sutra, avoiding the pitfalls of language and translation problems. I suppose the original content of the sutras might well be something that can't be put into any words at all. At any rate, the intellectual/translation approach to understanding may be difficult, especially for a new entrant.

*I got my Kato translation decades ago; it was the only one I happened to find in a used book store.

Just my $0.02.

Regards,
T

Dear all ,
i have been watching this thread for some time now , and to be honest , i had myself only the Watson version of the lotus sutra .
Reading your discussions however made me decide to get my hands on other translations , Kern and some translation to be found on the site of the Shu if im correct .

However , would you agree to start with Watson for start ?
Since it seems more accessable ,because of his way of writing ?

I do plan to read the other versions as well .

In respect ,

Richard

I am not trying to do anyone out of a faie royalty. However, you can find Kern's many places on line. Also, some others:

Kern

Buddhist Text Translation Society

(Chap. 2, 14, 16, 21, 23) Translated by Leon Hurvitz

(Translated by The Buddhist Text Translation Society in USA

妙法莲华经

Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram

Fodian