Which Translation of the Lotus Sutra Should I Get?
Originally posted on Feb 9, 2013
[amazon_link asins=’1492886041′ template=’ProductLink’ store=’ryusho0a-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’33f32531-0552-11e8-8f62-ebd936b15d2d’]Frequently folks ask me which translation of the Lotus Sutra they should get. You would think this would be a fairly easy, straight-forward question to answer, yet it is not, for a variety of reasons. Different people have different reasons for wanting to read the Lotus Sutra. There may also be other factors that may play into a person’s choices such as budget, availability, accessibility and so forth. In this short writing I would like to address some of these as well as offer a brief comparison between the various translations.
Before I consider the technical merits of each translation available I would like to talk about personal decisions that may be a factor in personal selection. First, for many price is a consideration. There are many used copies usually available if one has access to the internet, it is not necessary to have the most expensive translation available nor need it be a brand new copy. As of the time I am writing this various translations are available from several retailers online in various conditions from $15 – $35. So you have plenty of options.
The next consideration is how you want to read the Lotus Sutra. Until recently this was not even a factor for consideration. However with the increase in use of electronic book readers there is now even a version available for the Kindle. I am sure that as time goes on the number of versions available specifically formatted for e-books will increase. Of course if one is persistent it is possible to find PDF copies of a few translations which can usually be converted to e-book format.
All of the above are factors of influence, which are more of a personal nature, and there is no right or wrong way to go. There are good reasons for some and there are corresponding less good reasons but again it is a matter for you personally to decide.
Moving on to the relative merits of the various translations I would first like to say that these are my opinions, and as such you are under no obligation to subscribe to them. In fact I think it would be more beneficial to see how I approach the issue and then use a technique similarly thought out for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
When reading any translation I think the most important place to begin is with the translators notes which are generally found variously titled at the beginning of the translation. You won’t always find such notes but you should never ignore them if they are provided. By taking the time to read the translators notes you will usually get an idea behind that translators approach. It is possible to find what conventions he will use when translating. Revealed also may be an overarching philosophical inclination into his manner of translating. Often times the translator will tell you why they chose to do things a certain way.
By uncovering this information it is possible to determine if you personally are able to be satisfied with whatever parameters the translator set. The choice may involve a doctrinal matter or it may involve a matter of linguistic convention. It may be that the translator has chosen to adhere to only the Japanese names for all characters, and you may not like that and wish to only see Sanskrit naming conventions. If you know what the translator set out to do then you can decide if you are comfortable with that.
I frequently hear people complain about translations as if they never considered whether or not the translator promised to provide something other than what they did. If a translator states that they are attempting to provide an easily readable translation that may not be as technically scholastic as another then it is fair to be critical as to whether the translator achieved his objective but not necessarily fair to say it is a poor translation. If one is looking for something much more linguistically and scholarly accurate then do not bother with a translation which states it will not provide it. If you go to the store to by a banana and come home with an orange is it the fault of the orange that it tastes nothing like a banana?
Some people have derided a certain translation because it was ‘sponsored’ by a very large lay organization. I believe this is somewhat disingenuous since for the most part most of the translations are either supported by or published by various Nichiren denominations. Also in the particular translation this criticism is attached to makes no attempt to hide that affiliation. If you don’t like a certain group and don’t want to use their translation that is fine, don’t. But it is my belief that there is value to be found in all the translations, especially so if we aware of what we are getting. I find no attempt on the part of any of the translators or translations to hide any affiliation with any group.
I think it is probably fair to say that there may never be a perfect translation. There will be good things in a variety of translations. Perhaps the best option is for a person to acquire several translations and use them side by side. This may be outside the realm of practicality for most people and one should not feel that if it isn’t your inclination or ability to do so you are some how deficient, or will miss something important.
Here at this temple the translation used as reference for quoting unless otherwise specified is the Murano translation. All page numbers when referenced are from that translation as well. I have also been using the Reeves translation and trying to cross reference it when possible. I have decided to add the Reeves translation because of the availability as an eBook through Amazon. Also I have used the Reeves book because it is easily available from book retailers both physical and on-line. Of the two translations which attempt to make the Lotus Sutra more readable, Watson and Reeves, I think the Reeves version comes closer to the mark and certainly is closer to the Murano translation.
Some of the translations that are available are very similar to each other, frequently even seeming to be identical, yet when one studies closer generally you will find significant variances. This is why having several translations handy when studying is very helpful. With a variety of translations you can see how several people translate a particular passage and I think it is probably the closest a non-Chinese speaker will ever get to understanding what is written.
Below I have listed various translations by name of translator. I have included a few quotes from the translator when available. I also have given my opinion on the various translations, which mind you are just one person’s opinion and I am no authority. You are free to disagree if you like.
Watson Translation:
Translated based on Chinese text and Japanese yomikudashi found in the Myoho-renge-kyo narabi ni kaiketsu
“Each translator has a certain kind of reader in mind as the work progresses, and certain aspects of the text he or she is especially concerned to do justice to in the translation, perhaps at the expense of other important aspects of the original.”
“The present translation, as should be apparent from the translator’s introduction, is designed for readers who have no special background in Buddhist studies or Asian literature.”
“…convey the ideas for which the work is so important, but at the same time give some sense of its rich literary appeal.”
“The translation was prepared with the assistance of the Nichiren Shoshu International Center, in Tokyo, which is connected with the Soka Gakkai International….They not only check over my translation with care and thoroughness, but offered invaluable advice at many points on questions of interpretation and presentation.”
“I may not have always made the best choice in deciding what English equivalent to use, but the reader may be assured that I gave careful thought to all such places.”
My Comments: perhaps the simplest and easiest translation to read. As the translator points out scholarship is sacrificed. I don’t think it is worthy of being used for a scholarly study but it can be helpful for the person who just wants to see what the Lotus Sutra says.
Numata Center translation by Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama:
Made from Chinese version by Kumarajiva, the Miaofalianhuajing, in seven fascicles (Taisho Vol 9, No 262, 1c12-62b1) used the Kasuga Edition of Kumarajiva’s version as basic text, rather than the Taisho Edition
“We have tried to make our translation as readable as possible without straying form the original meaning.”
Sponsorship or editorial assistance provided by associates of Reiyukai
Bunno Kato translation with revision by W.E. Soothill published by Kosei:
Rissho Kosei-kai publisher and sponsor
“…desire to produce a text that would be easy to read and at the same time maintain a high level of scholarship.”
My Comment: In spite of the claim to produce an easy to read text, this translation can be a bit tedious to read. I recommend it as a source of comparison to what other translators have done. The current edition out now is soon to be replaced with a newer edition.
H. Kern translation:
“…I must declare that I cannot speak in too warm terms of the benefit I have derived from the French translation by the illustrious Burnoff. I have taken that work throughout for my model, without having been able to reach its excellency.”
“The base of my translation has been an old manuscript on palm leaves, belonging to Dr. D. Wright’s collection in the University Library of Cambridge. The manuscript is dated Newar, era 159 (AD 1039) and was written in the reign of King Kamadeva, in the bright half of the month Vaisakha, on a Thursday.
“This translation, therefore, results from a motive essentially religious – the motive to “transmit the Dharma” in the contemporary generation.” by Clarence Hamilto in Preface
“This is a translation of the Myohorengekyo, not a revision of it by comparison with extant Sanskrit text of the Saddharmapundarika-sutra.”
My Comment: This is a very difficult to read translation but invaluable for its detail and different original version. Translators introduction lays outa fairly complete critical analysis of comparative inconsistencies which can be found in various texts of the Lotus Sutra.
Senchu Murano translation:
Translator notes that whereas in the First edition he translated every Chinese word into English in this second edition there are certain words he transliterates and does not translate.
Other translator notes reveal more of technical explanations as to translation style
Senchu Murano was a Nichiren Shu priest and this translation was published by Nichiren Shu Shimbun Co., Ltd.
My Comment: As I mentioned above this is the version that serves as the official translation for Nichiren Shu. I do not however use this version any longer and don’t advocate for it. This second edition is the version I quote from and all page numbers when referenced come from. Quoted text is from the Murano version unless specifically stated otherwise.
Gene Reeves translation:
“This new translation of the Lotus Sutra is intended primarily for people who are interested in Buddhism but are not Buddhist scholars. My intention is provide a highly readable English version of this important text.,,,While I do my best to make the sutra accessible, I never deliberately compromise the meaning of what I find in it.”
“Translation of any large and complex Chinese text is not something one can ever expect to get right. All one can hope for is that it will become better.”
“My decision to use the English (originally Greek or Roman) equivalents for most Indian mythological creatures will seem misguided to some….When I saw that Jean-Noël Robert used translations of these terms in his excellent translation of the Lotus Sutra into French, I decided to do the same.”
My Comment: This is a relatively easy version to read. It is also the only version that is available both in paper and electronically. I use this as a second source for some of my lectures only because so many people currently have it. I also frequently share quotes and notes via the Kindle reader through Facebook and Twitter.
Leon Hurvitz translation:
“The choice to publish a new edition of Hurvitz’s translation of the Lotus Sutra is based on the overriding significance of the original text itself as well as the accuracy and high standards of Hurvitz’s rendering….his knowledge of Chinese phonology, Sanskrit etymology, and the lexicon of Chinese Buddhism has few rivals….distinguished by its word-for-word accuracy, its understanding of Chinese grammar, and its fluency. Unlike some translators, Hurvitz uses correct Sanskrit forms rather than an inaccurate system of alphabetizing Sanskrit, and he adopts standard Buddhological terminology for the translation of technical terms.”
Comment: This is one of my favorite translation. I believe it invaluable as an addition to any collection of Lotus Sutra translations. It is not so technical as to be seriously off putting to even the first time reader, though certainly it does lack the readability of the Watson edition. When I study the Lotus Sutra I have now added Hurvitz to Murano and Reeves. These are the the gems of translations.
To aid you in your study of the Lotus Sutra I have written many books which are available on Amazon.
[amazon_link asins=’1492886041,1979530815,147834198X,1979814023,0692257470,1508534780,1978003862,1975689763′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’ryusho0a-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’73339edd-0552-11e8-b044-87c7fe321a38′]
