Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
BOOK REVIEWS
SCRIPTURE OF THE LOTUS BLOSSOM OF THE FINE DHARMA (The Lotus Sūtra). Translated from the Chinese of Kumārajiva. By Leon Hurvitz. Columbia University Press: New York, 1976, XXXVIII +421 pp.
Leon Hurvitz's translation of Kumārajiva's version of the Saddharmapundarika is the third English translation of this famous text. The translations by Kato and Murano, published respectively in 1971 and 1974, were reviewed in a previous issue (Vol. VIII, No. 2, pp. 154-159). Hurvitz's work comprises a preface, the translation of the Chinese text, a glossary, notes on the Sanskrit text and an index. In the preface Hurvitz explains that he has attempted to satisfy two demands simultaneously, that of the series to which the present translation belongs and that of the translator's philological conscience. For this reason Hurvitz has added Sanskrit words and phrases either in parentheses or in notes in the back of the book for the benefit of “Sanskrit-oriented readers." In addition to this, where the difference between the two versions is sufficient to merit comment, the Sanskrit is given in English translation in the notes. · Alas, Hurvitz has been badly guided by his philological conscience for it is obvious that his knowledge of Sanskrit is definitely inadequate. Elementary howlers abound. To illustrate this a few examples may suffice. Kern-Nanjio p. 245.8–10 contains the following passage: tena khalu punaḥ samayeneyam trisāhasramahāsāhasri lokadhātus tathāgataparipūrņābhūn na tāvad bhagavataḥ śākyamunes tathāgatasyātmabhāvanirmitā ekasmād api digbhāgāt sarva āgatā abhūvan. Hurvitz translates: "Then indeed at that time the sphere of this thousandmillionfold world was filled with Thus Gone Ones. Nor is this to say that those fashioned from the Body of the Thus Gone One Sākyamuni arrived even from one quarter" (p. 374). Hurvitz adds the following comments: "I am by no means certain of the meaning of this. Two possibilities come to mind: (1) From no direction, no not one, did any Buddhas arrive who had been fashioned by Sākyamuni. This is as much as to say that they were all self-created. (2) Not by any means did they all come from any particular quarter, but from all
169
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST
sides at once." Of course, the text says that they had not yet all arrived, even from a single quarter. In order to accommodate the Tathāgatas who keep on arriving the Buddha creates twenty thousand koțis of nayutas of Buddha-fields. After having done this the Buddha creates again in this way in every direction the same number of Buddha-fields (Kern-Nanjio p. 246.11: anena paryāyeņa punar aparāni....). This sentence is the first of a new passage which repeats the previous passage. However, in Hurvitz's translation, the same sentence is rendered as if it concludes the first passage: "Moreover, in that way Sākyamuni the Thus Gone One cleared twenty kotis of nayutas of hundreds of thousands of world-spheres to provide accommodation for those Thus Gone Ones who had arrived” (p. 375). Hurvitz omits the words ekaikasyām diši (Kern-Nanjio, p. 247.1). On the same page Hurvitz translates dharmanetri by "eye of Dharma." (cf. Kern-Nanjio p. 251.6). Expressions which one can find in Sanskrit dictionaries create great difficulties for Hurvitz. For instance, the expression yathecchayā "according to wish", cf. Kern-Nanjio p. 264.5: yathecchayā me sambodhiḥ sākși me 'tra tathāgataḥ (Kern's translation: "I have obtained enlightenment according to my wish; the Tathāgata can bear witness to it."). Hurvitz translates: "Mine is perfect enlightened intuition, as if it were at will, and my witness thereof is the Thus Gone One" (pp. 378-379). He adds the following comments: "The first ardhaśloka of 51 is far from a certainty. It may also mean: How my sambodhi is a matter of the will, of that the Thus Gone One is an eyewitness.”
There is no point in multiplying examples of elementary mistakes made by Hurvitz in his translations of the Sanskrit text. Even when the meaning of the text is quite obvious, the translation is often completely wrong. If one wants to consult a translation of the Sanskrit text, Burnouf's and Kern's translations (published in 1852 and 1884) are infinitely preferable even though they are based upon Nepalese manuscripts and are not free from misunderstandings. Much work has still to be done with regard to a good translation of the Sanskrit text. Edgerton's Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary will be of great assistance but even his indications have to be examined critically. Kern-Nanjio p. 301.5 reads: ābādhavipramukto 'si sparśaḥ kāye tavānagha. Kern notes in his critical apparatus that O. (the Kashgar manuscript) has sparsam but all other manuscripts sparsa. Following the reading sparśakāye Burnouf translates: “Es-tu, ô toi qu es sans péché, libre d'obstacles dans les contacts que tu rencontres ?" Kern's translation is very free: "Dost thou feel free from bodily disease, O Perfect One?" Reading sparsah, Hurvitz translates: "Are you free of obstacles? Do
170
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
BOOK REVIEWS
the things that touch your body cause it no illness?” (p. 386). This is, of course, complete gibberish. Edgerton proposes to read sparśakāye and translates as follows: "Are you free from trouble in your group-of-sensory-contacts?" (op.cit., s.v. sparsa-kāya). Edgerton overlooked the fact that this half-verse repeats what has been said before in prose: kaccid bhagavato 'lpābādhatā mandaglānatā sukhasamsparśavihāratā (Kern-Nanjio p. 300.17-301.1). The correct reading is given by manuscript O. which has sparsam, a Sanskritization of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit phāsam or phāsam. The latter occurs in the corresponding passage of the Gilgit manuscript edited by Watanabe Shoko (Tōkyō, 1975, p. 102). The meaning and etymology of Pāli phāsu and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit phāsa have recently been explained in detail by Colette Caillat (Journal asiatique, 1960, pp. 41-55; 1961, pp. 497-502) and by R. L. Turner (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 36, 1973, pp. 424-428; Collected Papers, London, 1975, pp. 430–435). The Tibetan translator correctly translated this half-verse: gnod-las rnam-par rab-grol lam sdig-pa mi-mraḥ sku bde 'am "Are you free from injury? O, sinless one, are you comfortable in your body?”
Even more disturbing than Hurvitz's poor knowledge of Sanskrit is the fact that his knowledge of Buddhist literature seems to be rather limited. The well-known expression “the eighty-four thousand dharmaskandha" is being discussed by him in the following way: "Let them dwell with all the traditional verbose commentary on all eighty-four dharmas. (The Theravāda school, for example, lists the dharmas at eighty-four). If it comes to that, let them multiply their precious dharma-catalogue by a thousand. What's so so hard about that?” (p. 377). On p. 409 Hurvitz quotes the Sanskrit text of the well-known comparison between the chance of encountering a Buddha and the chance of a tortoise putting his neck through the hole of a yoke in the ocean. Hurvitz remarks that yuga (cosmic age) is not a Buddhist term, and that the compound is hard to construe. This is no wonder if one does not know that yuga here means "yoke". This comparison occurs in quite a few texts and has been studied by many scholars (for references see Toung Pao, 42, 1954, p. 404 and Indo-Iranian Journal, 18, 1976, p. 317).
Hurvitz's translation of Kumārajīva's version is an excellent piece of work. In the chapters which I compared with the Chinese text chapters 11-16) there are only very few places where one would prefer a different rendering. For instance, p. 183 “Tamālapatracandana scent"; read “the scent of Tamālapattra and sandal.” P. 211, line 1: "Or those who seek to display passage into extinction.” The Sanskrit text has: yā nirvítim gaveșanti drste dharme upāsikāḥ.
171
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST
Chinese hsien stands for hsien-fa dṛṣṭadharma. The Chinese text corresponds exactly to the Sanskrit: "seek extinction in their present life." According to the preface (p. xxv) Hurvitz made use of Akamatsu Kōyō's Kunten kōsei Myöhō renge kyō (Kyoto, 1891), an edition which I have been unable to consult. On p. 219 (6th line from below) Hurvitz seems to have read wang instead of wang. However, the Taishō edition has and does not record any variant. It is clear that is the correct reading as it is also found in the verses, cf. Hurvitz p. 221, line 18: "Would not set it forth recklessly.' On p. 201, line 1 Hurvitz has: "The Path of the Buddha is remote and cavernous." The Taishō edition has "The path of the Buddha is remote." One wonders whether Hurvitz's text is different. As in many other instances Hurvitz translates here a binom with two words. The tendency to translate each single character with an English equivalent makes the translation sometimes heavy reading. For instance, Hurvitz translates everywhere chi-yüeh with "skilfully played music" whereas other translators, and rightly so, have "music". On p. 221 (last two lines) Hurvitz translates 404M as follows: "Nor shall he be born into poverty, want, lowliness, degradation, ugliness or restriction." The same passage is rendered by Katō as follows: "He will not be born poor, humble, or ugly." Similarly Murano: "He will not be poor or humble or ugly." Katō's and Murano's translations are to be preferred to the one given by Hurvitz. On p. 186 (line 11) Hurvitz omits to translate four characters. A much longer passage (cf. Taishō Daizōkyō, Ix, p. 36a16-18) is left out on p. 203 (line 5). The translation is provided with very few notes. In view of the fact that it is meant to be used in undergraduate courses it is certainly necessary to explain, for instance, the term anutpattikadharmakṣānti. Hurvitz's "acceptance of [the doctrine of] the unborn" (p. 197, line 17) will not be very comprehensible to the uninitiated reader.
It is very much to be hoped that there will be such a demand for Hurvitz's work that a second and revised edition will soon be forthcoming. In that case it would be advisable to omit entirely the appendix, containing the Notes on the Sanskrit, to add a number of explanatory notes and to pay more attention to the translation of binoms. If that is done, then Hurvitz's translation will be able to render useful service for a long time to come.
To conclude this review I would like to make some brief comments on Hurvitz's discussion of the word pratyekabuddha and its Chinese renderings (p. xix). Hurvitz remarks that Kumārajīva either transcribes pi-chi-fo or translates yuan-chüeh, "condition perceiver". According to him "The Pāli
172
55
Page #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
BOOK REVIEWS
form of the word is paccekabuddha, which could as easily go back to prātyayikabuddha, 'Buddha related to causes and] conditions,' as to pratyekabuddha. The latter is obviously a sanskritization postdating Kumārajīva or rejected by him." It is perhaps not superfluous to point out that no form prātyayikabuddha is found in any text and that of course Pāli paccekabuddha goes back to pratyekabuddha. It is therefore absurd to say that pratyekabuddha is a sanskritization postdating Kumārajiva or rejected by him. How to explain the rendering of pratyekabuddha by yüan-chüch? Fujita pointed out that in early Mahāyāna texts (especially in verses) we find pratyaya or pratyayabuddha used instead of pratyekabuddha ("Sanjō no seiritsu ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, vol. 5, 1957, p. 426, n. 19; "Ichijō to sanjo”, Ocho Enichi (ed.), Hokke shiso, 1969, p. 377). The latter article was translated by Hurvitz (“One Vehicle or Three,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 3, 1975, pp. 79-166). The examples quoted by Fujita are to be found in the verses of three texts only. Fujita is careful to refrain from stating that yüan-chüeh is a translation of pratyayabuddha. He draws attention to the fact that in early Mahāyāna there is a connection between the twelve causes and conditions and the pratyekabuddha. Especially interesting is a passage of the Saddharmapundarikasūtra quoted by him: anye sattvā anācāryakam jñānam damaśamatham ākārikşamāņā ātmaparinirvāṇahetor hetupratyayānubodhāya tathāgataśāsane 'bhiyujyante / ta ucyante pratyekabuddhayānam ākārikşamāņās (KernNanjio p. 80.8-9). However, the widespread use of the term yüan-chüeh cannot be explained by the occasional occurrence of the term pratyayabuddha in a few texts or by early Mahāyāna theories about the pratyekabuddha. The explanation is to be sought in another direction. Fujita mentions in passing that Dharmarakṣa once translates pratyekabuddha by yuan i chieh - (Hokke shisā, p. 378). His only comment is that this translation which seems to combine pratyaya with the eka in pratyeka is not correct (Hurvitz's translation of this sentence fails to render accurately the original). However, it is important to point out that yüan a chüeh is found in many translations of the second and third century. According to the indices of the Taisho Daizõkyo it is used in the following texts: Nos. 152, 225, 263, 313, 361, 442, 460, 474, 585, 635, 816 and 1507 which, probably, were all translated in that period. The only occurrences in translations belonging to the fourth and fifth centuries are found in No. 26 (Taisho Daizõkyvol. I, p. 722b16 and 25) and No. 640 (vol. xv, p. 62 1 b28). It seems therefore very likely that the term yüan-chieh does not go back immediately to a Sanskrit original but has to be explained as a simplification of the term yüan i chieh. Chinese has a preference for two-character
173
Page #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ THE EASTERN BUDDHIST compounds and yuan-chueh sounds much better to Chinese ears. Hurvitz renders yuan-chueh by "condition perceiver" but Demieville interprets it as "awakened by conditions" (eveille par les conditions). Demieville remarks that the pratyekabuddha has become Buddha through the effect of his anterior conditions and not by the teaching of another Buddha ("La Yogacarabhumi de Sangharaksa," Bulletin de l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient, XLIV, 1954, p. 425, n.5). Demieville refers to a passage in the Ta chih tu lun E (p. 191a), translated by Lamotte as follows: "A une epoque ou les Buddha n'apparaissent pas et ou la Loi du Buddha a disparu, les Pratyekabuddha, en raison des causes anterieures (purvajanmahetupratyaya), produisent seuls- la sagesse, sans l'avoir entendu des autres" (Le traite de la grande vertu de sagesse; Tome II, Louvain, 1949, p. 1068). In the same passage the Ta chih tu lun distinguishes two kinds of pratyekabuddha: the tu-chueh 9 and the yin-yuan chueh *TE. Lamotte translates the latter as "celui qui est illumine a la suite d'un evenement (nidana)". According to the Ta chih tu lun only a t "small motive (nidana)" is sometimes sufficient for somebody to become a pratyekabuddha (cf. p. 191b4 and 266c9). However, the Ta chih tu lun mentions also that the Buddha preaches the twelve nidana to the future pratyekabuddha (p. 295b11-12). Therefore two different theories about the pratyekabuddha were known to the author of the Ta chih tu lun. According to the first a pratyekabuddha is somebody who has accumulated merit in former lives so that a small motive is sufficient for him to become a pratyekabuddha. According to the second one becomes a pratyekabuddha through the understanding of the twelve nidana. The existence of these two theories may have contributed to the ready acceptance of the term yuan-chueh which can be interpreted in two different ways, either as "awakened through (the effect of former] conditions" or as "awakened through [the understanding of] conditions." J. W. DE JONG. 174