This is the final weekly blog post comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.
When I began this project comparing H. Kern’s English translation of an 11th century Sanskrit copy of the Lotus Sutra with English translations of Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese translation of a Sanskrit copy of the Lotus Sutra in July, 2022, I wrote:
As readers of this blog will no doubt recognize, I am a big fan of Senchu Murano’s translation of the Lotus Sutra. As of July 2022, I’ve now read it aloud as part of my daily practice more than 65 times. There are differences in style and phrasing when compared with the other English translations that I’ve used in my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice – two Rissho Kosei-Kai translations, Soka Gakkai’s translation, Gene Reeves’ translation and the BDK English Tripiṭaka translation – but the substance is the same since all are based on Kumārajīva’s fifth-century Chinese translation of the original Sanskrit.
That claim that “the substance is the same” among the translators of Kumārajīva’s Chinese version turns out to have been naïve.
Each translator makes deliberate changes. Gene Reeves substituted Greek and Roman equivalents for the Indian mythological creatures in the sutra. Michio Shinozaki, Brook A. Ziporyn and David C. Earhart went out of their way in the “Modern” Risshō Kōsei-kai translation to erase “potentially offensive or seemingly discriminatory words and phrases within the text itself.”
It was only when I had finished the comparison of the translations that I realized that Murano had also added his own personal touch.
I have long known that there were subtle differences between Murano’s translation and the other English translations of Kumārajīva. In 2019, after having made 40 cycles through my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice, I began substituting other English translations. Without understanding exactly why, I found each translation lacking. Murano’s translation just seemed more focused on the propagation of the Lotus Sutra. And it’s that focus, I believe, that guided the choices Murano made in his translation.
Murano (1908-2001) was an ordained Nichiren Shu priest. He earned a degree in East Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 1938 and served as a teacher of Buddhist studies at Rissho University in Tokyo from 1962 to 1979.
Murano worked for 20 years on his translation. When the first edition was finally published in 1974, Murano offered this acknowledgement:
The translator wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude to Bollingen Foundation for their offer of a fellowship to assist him in translating the Chinese version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarika during 1960-1964 through the recommendation of Dr. Clarence H. Hamilton.
The first edition of Murano’s Lotus Sutra included a preface by Hamilton in which he offers a testament to the value of the first full translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese work to appear in English.
A unique interest attaches to this fresh English translation of the Lotus Sutra, more fully entitled The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma. Not only does it correspond to Kumārajīva’s classic Chinese text, with the important later additions. It also represents the dedicated work of a Buddhist priest of the Nichiren Sect in Japan. This Sect reveres the Lotus Sutra as its one sacred book and reverences its truth as the supreme object of devotion. This translation, therefore, results from a motive essentially religious – the motive to “transmit the Dharma” in the contemporary generation. …
For full appreciation of all it contains, the Lotus Sutra must be read in its entirety. In making this possible for English-speaking readers, Senchu Murano has rendered notable service in his appointed task of furthering “transmission of the Dharma” in the modern world.
CLARENCE H. HAMILTON
Winchester, Massachusetts, 1974
I must confess that I haven’t been completely comfortable with the idea that Murano made deliberate changes when translating the Lotus Sutra into English.
Some of those changes seemed benign. I wrote earlier about Senchu Murano’s Insight in subtly changing the conclusion of Chapter 2. 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!” This idea that you must have joy to become a Buddha was a frequent theme of Ryusho Jeffus Shonin’s teachings.
One can find many places that illustrate how Murano’s English choices shape the tone and tenor of his Lotus Sutra translation, but I must admit that I stumbled when I realized how he had intervened in Chapter 14, Peaceful Practices. I wrote about this earlier in The Plight of an Ordinary Bodhisattva.
At the time, I brought this up with Shinkyo Warner Shonin, the editor of the third edition of Murano’s translation. He responded:
You bring up an interesting point. Translation always involves some amount of interpretation. So-called “originalists” often insist on a word for word rendition to preserve the authenticity of the translation. In my opinion while they claim to preserve the authority of a translation, they are missing the forest for the trees.
The best translators preserve not just the meanings of individual words, but the meaning of the work as a whole. Bishop Murano’s translation of the Lotus Sutra was the first one I read. It was not until I read [Burton] Watson’s translation that I realized one of the many things Bishop Murano was doing with his.
I found that in the Watson translation the Bodhisattva ideal, in other words that the sutra was a teaching for us who are reading it, was absent if not actively suppressed. This is not surprising given those who sponsored his translation. I found that rather than encouraging readers to bring out their true natures as Bodhisattvas, it called on them to accept the authority of the Buddha and presumably those who communicate to them the teachings of the Buddha.
With that in mind, it is not surprising that Bishop Murano inserted “ordinary” into that sentence to contrast with the “rare” Bodhisattvas mentioned earlier in the paragraph. The question from Mañjuśrī is not about how the great, rare Bodhisattvas should expound the Sutra. Presumably they already know. The question is about how we in comparison to those rare Bodhisattvas should expound the Sutra.
I had the honor of being able to meet with Bishop Murano several times before he passed away. I found him to be a man of intelligence, compassion and even humor. I believe that rather than saying a translation is wrong, it is much more respectful to look deeply at what people are trying to get across in their works rather than just saying that something is wrong or bad. Such an approach is much more likely to lead to productive conversations, meaning those that produce insights you may not have anticipated before going in, rather than just debates about who is right.
Bishop Murano’s translation emphasized the Lotus Sutra as “the Dharma for Bodhisattvas.” Others do not. With that in mind we can talk about which are more authentic.
Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra has been the translation favored across Asia. Senchu Murano’s translation should be the one favored in English-speaking lands. As Shinkyo Shonin says, it is not the meanings of individual words, but the meaning of the work as a whole that is important, especially when the goal is to further the transmission of the Dharma in the modern world.
