This is another in a series of weekly blog posts comparing and contrasting the Sanskrit and Chinese Lotus Sutra translations.
Last month I discussed how Senchu Murano’s title for Kumārajīva’s Chapter 4 added a nice twist by taking the elements of faith and understanding and emphasizing faith. Understanding by Faith is more than simply individual elements of Belief and Understanding or Faith and Understanding.
But when we compare with H. Kern’s translation of the Nepalese Sanskrit document and the title for the story “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,” we lose the elements of faith or belief or understanding and focus instead on the disposition of the son.
This Disposition used by Kern as the title for Chapter 4 is addressed specifically in the final prose section of the chapter:
Even so, O Lord, do we represent the sons of the Tathāgata, and the Tathāgata says to us: Ye are my sons, as the householder did. We were oppressed, O Lord, with three difficulties, viz. the difficulty of pain, the difficulty of conceptions, the difficulty of transition (or evolution); and in the worldly whirl we were disposed to what is low. Then have we been prompted by the Lord to ponder on the numerous inferior laws (or conditions, things) that are similar to a heap of dirt. Once directed to them we have been practicing, making efforts, and seeking for nothing but Nirvāṇa as our fee. We were content, O Lord, with the Nirvāṇa obtained, and thought to have gained much at the hands of the Tathāgata because of our having applied ourselves to these laws, practised, and made efforts. But the Lord takes no notice of us, does not mix with us, nor tell us that this treasure of the Tathāgata’s knowledge shall belong to us, though the Lord skillfully appoints us as heirs to this treasure of the knowledge of the Tathāgata. And we, O Lord, are not (impatiently) longing to enjoy it, because we deem it a great gain already to receive from the Lord Nirvāṇa as our fee. We preach to the Bodhisattvas Mahāsattvas a sublime sermon about the knowledge of the Tathāgata; we explain, show, demonstrate the knowledge of the Tathāgata, O Lord, without longing. For the Tathāgata by his skillfulness knows our disposition, whereas we ourselves do not know, nor apprehend. It is for this very reason that the Lord just now tells us that we are to him as sons, and that he reminds us of being heirs to the Tathāgata. For the case stands thus: we are as sons to the Tathāgata, but low (or humble) of disposition; the Lord perceives the strength of our disposition and applies to us the denomination of Bodhisattvas; we are, however, charged with a double office in so far as in presence of Bodhisattvas we are called persons of low disposition and at the same time have to rouse them to Buddha-enlightenment. Knowing the strength of our disposition the Lord has thus spoken, and in this way, O Lord, do we say that we have obtained unexpectedly and without longing the jewel of omniscience, which we did not desire, nor seek, nor search after, nor expect, nor require; and that inasmuch as we are the sons of the Tathāgata.
Comparing this with Murano’s translation you realized the shift in the perspective. Murano’s Śrāvakas are focused on their clinging to the Lesser Vehicle.
You expounded the Dharma to us with expedients according to our capacities because you knew that we wished to hear the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle. We did not know that we were your sons. Now we know that you do not grudge your wisdom to anyone.
While Kern’s Śrāvakas are focused on their innate disposition.
For the Tathāgata by his skillfulness knows our disposition, whereas we ourselves do not know, nor apprehend. It is for this very reason that the Lord just now tells us that we are to him as sons, and that he reminds us of being heirs to the Tathāgata.
Kern’s translation also notes an extra burden placed on the Śrāvakas, which is not made in Murano’s translation:
For the case stands thus: we are as sons to the Tathāgata, but low (or humble) of disposition; the Lord perceives the strength of our disposition and applies to us the denomination of Bodhisattvas; we are, however, charged with a double office in so far as in presence of Bodhisattvas we are called persons of low disposition and at the same time have to rouse them to Buddha-enlightenment.
One could argue that Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sutra is much less sympathetic to the plight of the Śrāvakas than the Nepalese Sanskrit Lotus Sutra.
Next: Kern’s Simile of the Herbs Sucks
