Translation and Distribution of the Lotus SËtrain the Cultural Field of Classical Chinese
Jean-Noël RobertI

am addressing this topic from a particular point of view, which will
perhaps be too brutal a reflection of my own tastes. That is to say,from the point of view of the question of language and communication.
Let me begin by saying that I am surprised by how many people havegathered here today to hear about the Lotus SËtra. I think most of you
have come because of your affinity for the Lotus SËtra in its Japanesetradition. I would like to come back to this phenomenon, which as aJapan specialist, I find of great interest, to try to give some generalexplanations and an attempt at interpretation.

Translated Version is More Authentic than the Original
I would first like to start with a personal anecdote from several years agothat made a big impression on me. I had met a young Japanese monk inJapan who belonged to one of the schools of modern Buddhism derived
from Nichiren. He told me that the purpose of his life was to translate
the Lotus SËtra into Hindi. And so I asked him: “Of course, you will use
the Sanskrit version?” He looked very surprised and answered: “No,Kumåraj¥va’s version, the Chinese version.” I told him that Sanskrit is
the original language and that Hindi is close to Sanskrit... For him—andI would like to keep this idea as a main theme of this talk—the true
meaning of the Lotus SËtra is found in Kumåraj¥va’s Chinese version.
But if one compares this approach with other religions, for example,
with the Christian Bible of Catholic Europe, his reflection was not misguided at all. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was the Latin Bible, theVulgate of St. Jerome, which was considered—and confirmed again in
the 16th century by an Ecclesiastical Council—as the authoritative text.
We did not refer to the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, but to the Latin text,
which was a second or third-hand version, depending on whether it was
the Old or New Testament.
In the same way, you probably know the anecdote of a missionary
specialising in the Greek New Testament, who, around the 1920s, went157

158translation and distribution of the lotus sutraˉto Palestine on a cruise. On board, a passenger asked him what he wasgoing to do there. He explained that he was working on the New
Testament in Greek. The lady, a little indignant, retorted: “If English
was good enough for Saint Paul, why do you want to make it Greek!”
For Anglicans, the English version of the Bible was so deeply connected
to Biblical truth that it was easy to imagine that all other versions weresecondary.
That’s what happened with the Lotus SËtra, and I think there’s awhole chain of causal connections that can somehow explain this, andthat also explain why we have gathered here this evening.

Distinctive Popularity of the Lotus Sūtra in East Asia
This phenomenon of the Lotus SËtra—at the risk of over-simplifying—is peculiar to what we used to call the Far East, now East Asia, andwhich I prefer to refer to by a Sino-Japanese term, which seems to me
very relevant: kanbun bunka ken, the cultural domain of classicalChinese. In other words, the geographical area where classical Chinese
was roughly equivalent to Latin in Europe: China, Taiwan, Hong Kong,Singapore, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. In the other major area of ​​Buddhism of the Great Vehicle, that of Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhism(which, by the way, is now having a renaissance in Mongolia and in theRussian Republics of Mongolian culture), the Lotus SËtra has no particular influence. Here, only the Buddhist Canon as a whole prevails,
which constitutes an ‘ocean’ of work as there are 108 volumes in theTibetan recension, and almost as many in the other Mongolian versions.
In this ocean, we might find the Diamond SËtra (skt. Vajracchedikå; Jap.
KongØ-kyØ), which has an independent circulation, and in Mongolia, theGolden Light SËtra (skt. Suvarˆaprabhåsa-sutrå; Jap. KonkØmyØ-kyØ),but this is incomparable to the importance of the Lotus SËtra in the Far
East, in Chinese Asia.
There is, of course, a Sanskrit version of the Lotus SËtra, of which
many ancient manuscripts have been discovered, and which has
remained in a living tradition, in the Nepalese tradition, or more precisely amongst the Newar people of Nepal, a minority in their own country(‘Nepal’ probably comes from ‘Newar’). This ethnic group had preserved this corpus of Sanskrit texts, called the nine scriptures, thenavadharma (the nine dharmas), including the Lotus SËtra, but it seemsto me that the latter was not considered independently and as being
superior to the others. We are now observing a movement to translatethese nine dharmas into Newari, the current Newari language. So, fortranslation and distributtion of the lotus sutraˉ159

once, and this must be emphasised, the Lotus SËtra is to be translated
into a modern language of the Indian subcontinent from Sanskrit, notfrom Chinese.
The Lotus SËtra, together with some other sËtras, such as the AmidaSËtra and the Vimalak¥rti SËtra, widely read in the Far East, has thus
had a very distinctive popularity, linked to several traditions beyond thedoctrinal or scholastic.
I wonder if at the origin of this popularity there could be a reason
related to language itself. The language used in the translation of theLotus from Kumåraj¥va’s studio is quite extraordinary, and its connections to the translation of Dharmarak∑a are very interesting. In reality,
we have two visions of translation, evoking an issue that is currently
fashionable in France (I believe, incidentally, that the notion was bornhere); translators are divided into two groups: the “sourcists” and the“targeters”. Sourcists are focused on the source language, the language
they have to work on and targeters are concerned about the intelligibilityof their translation in the target language. Do we favour faithfulness tothe source language, or to the output language? Put this way, the question would be very simple... only Dharmarak∑a, who was a targeter, left
an incomprehensible translation, whereas Kumåraj¥va, who was asourcist, produced a wonderfully fluid translation. In my opinion, thiscan be explained by the fact that Dharmarak∑a did not know much
Sanskrit, but had, by contrast, a great command of Chinese. Althoughincomprehensible, his translation is wonderful for all who love Chinese.
You will find a blaze of colour there, a flowering of extraordinary
terms... . I will give you a more precise example.
We have spoken a lot since this morning about the possibility for living beings to become Buddhas. In Sanskrit, these beings are calledsarvasattva, or ‘all life’, including animals. The Kumåraj¥va studio systematically translated this word with a Chinese term already used byDharmarak∑a,—zhongsheng (shujØ in Japanese), literally meaning ‘thecrowd’, the multitude of the living, of those who have been born, which
encompasses animals as well as human beings. Dharmarak∑a uses half adozen words for this term, all of them indicating human beings. Thus heis clearly a targeter, he has sinicised, adapting the Chinese vision inwhich there could be no other objects of salvation than human beings
themselves. We have spoken of the parable of the poor child.
Dharmarak∑a follows it, but only with the knowledge that he has of it.
He lets the cat out of the bag by translating the parable; the father says
to the son, “You are my son”, which reveals things too soon.
But Kumåraj¥va’s studio did not, however, reject Dharmarak∑a’s

160translation and distribution of the lotus sutraˉtranslation. If you follow the two translations line by line, you see thatKumåraj¥va corrects Dharmarak∑a’s version. If you give two different
people a Sanskrit text to translate into Chinese, or another language forthat matter, it would be impossible to find the same alignment of syntax,
that is, the same order of propositions between the Sanskrit and Chinese.
If Kumåraj¥va had not looked at Dharmarak∑a’s work, he would havetranslated the words in a different order. Instead of just dumping the text
fragments phrase by phrase, Kumåraj¥va corrects and rewrites, andsometimes, when possible, he takes certain words from Dharmarak∑a,moving them from the wrong place to the right one.
It is fascinating work to study in detail—which I cannot go into further here—and shows that there is a real cooperation between the twotranslations, spaced a hundred and twenty years apart. Kumåraj¥va is atargeter, because we understand his Chinese and the sequences muchbetter, and at the same time he is a sourcist because, unlike
Dharmarak∑a, who did not use Sanskrit words, Kumåraj¥va reintroduces
Sanskrit words by transliterating them, such as ‘supreme perfect enlightenment’, anuttara-samyak-sambhodi. There is therefore a literary
quality, specific to the Lotus SËtra, which is due to the symbiosis
between these two translations.

Japanese Poems on the Lotus SūtraFrom the 7th century in Japan, during the reign of ShØtoku Taishi, theprotector of Buddhism who died in 622, the so-called ‘three assemblies’(Jap. sanne) developed, in which three great sËtras were read, separated
from the Buddhist Canon: the Ír¥målå SËtra (Jap. ShØman-gyØ), theVimalak¥rti SËtra (Jap. Yuima-gyØ), widely read by the laity in China,
and the Lotus SËtra (Jap. Hoke-kyØ). These three assemblies perpetuatedthemselves over the centuries and it is especially the Vimalak¥rti SËtraand the Lotus SËtra, which have had the most impact.
I therefore think that the literary quality and the very history of thetranslation of the Lotus SËtra greatly influenced the reception it enjoyed,
first of all from the Chinese and then from the Japanese. Incidentally
this is in contrast to the Sanskrit version of the Lotus SËtra as there is noecho of the popularity of the Lotus in the Sanskrit literary world.
When this sËtra reached Japan with all the other sËtras, it was nottranslated. As I mentioned, with Chinese being the ‘Latin’ of the Far
East, Japanese monks did not translate it. It was recited according to theChinese text, but with Japanese pronunciation. There was no Japanesetranslation of the Lotus SËtra until a very late date. The first Japanesetranslation and distributtion of the lotus sutraˉ

161

Fan-shaped booklet of the Lotus SËtra, Japan; 12th century. Tokyo National Museum,Tokyo (Image: TNM Image Archives, All rights reserved)

Edition of the Lotus SËtra (Kanagaki Hoke-kyØ) is that of the 13thcentury, which was done at the time of Nichiren (1222–1282), but it islimited insofar as all Buddhist terms remain in Chinese.
For a very long time Chinese sËtras and texts in general had been readorally. The Chinese text was read according to Japanese grammar. Thequestion arises as to whether, when reading aloud, one kept the SinoJapanese vocabulary, or if one ‘Japanised’ everything, as suggested bysome of the evidence. It is certain, however, that from the 9th and 10thcenturies especially, in the practice of Japanese poetry, (which, as youknow, goes far back in history—the first confirmed waka date from the8th century) the tradition developed—mostly through women to begin
with—of writing poems in Japanese on the Lotus SËtra.
However, the thirty-one syllable wakas have an important literary
constraint: one absolutely avoids the use of Chinese vocabulary. These
poems on specific passages of the Lotus SËtra therefore obliged theJapanese to translate essential philosophical terms into their language
which were subject to interpretation and which, in my opinion, musthave been influenced by the oral reading of the sËtras. In this way, translations were subconsciously transmitted into poetry and then into thewhole of Japanese literature. As eminent monks practised this poetry,
the tendency developed to infuse into it teachings that were not originally in the Lotus SËtra.
For example, we have spoken much today about the universality of162translation and distribution of the lotus sutraˉ

Buddha nature (Jap. busshØ). This term does not appear as such in theLotus SËtra, even though an extremely controversial passage might suggest it. The monk Genshin (942–1017), mentioned earlier, a great
thinker of the Pure Land, and one of the rare Japanese scholars ofBuddhist logic, left a poem on the parable of the medicinal herbs fromthe fifth chapter of the Lotus SËtra. Genshin goes further than the LotusSËtra since he tells us that these very diverse plants on which the samerain falls will also become Buddhas. He associates an idea that is notpresent in the Lotus SËtra—that of ​​the awakening of plants and vegetation (Jap. sØmoku jØbutsu); an idea that took shape in China from theeighth century onwards. In this way, a whole tradition of Japanese poetry cultivated and conveyed by monk-poets said that plants as well as
human beings were called to become Buddhas.
Similarly, Jien (1155–1225) left a very interesting poem of introduction to the Lotus SËtra, which shows how the Lotus SËtra blended into
Japanese culture, as this poem refers both to Shinto and Buddhist traditions, while reconciling silence and speech.
Pure waters of the rockOf the one who now speaks
The leaves of words float
Just as they are in their current.

Jien uses a very evocative Japanese term to say ‘words’, literally‘leaves of words’, (Jap. kotoba or koto no ha). This poem is dedicated toa Shinto sanctuary near Kyoto, Iwashi-mizu (literally ‘pure waters of therock’). At the same time there is a Japanese word game: iwashi can also
be read iwaji: ‘it will not speak / I will not speak’, therefore iwaji-mizu:‘water that does not speak’. The ‘leaves of words’ are like autumn
leaves thrown into the river of this Japanese sanctuary. The Buddha,
who had hitherto kept quiet the truth of the Lotus SËtra, began to reveal
and propagate it. In this poem, you have at the same time praise of theLotus SËtra, of the Japanese language (the main meaning of kotoba is‘Japanese words’) and, at the same time, the reference to the Shinto
sanctuary, the meeting place for the phenomenal represented by Japanand the supreme truth which is the Lotus SËtra.
I would like to conclude with a revealing example of this ‘returneffect’, illustrating how this poetic Japanese interpretation, which developed over the centuries, influenced the Japanese reading of the LotusSËtra to the point where even Sanskrit scholars of the Lotus SËtra, whoread the Lotus SËtra in Sanskrit, almost unconsciously follow thistranslation and distributtion of the lotus sutraˉ163

interpretation.
Chapter II of the SËtra enumerates the so-called ‘ten factors’ (Jap. jËnyoze) following a fundamental principle of this SËtra, ‘the true aspectof all phenomena’ (Jap. shohØ jissØ). In this context, I have translatedshohØ as ‘means’, for it seems to me that an impartial reading of thispassage says that the character hØ is translated as ‘teaching’ or ‘method’, not as ‘things’ or ‘existing phenomena’, a less relevant translation
here. It is to do with methods of teaching and this corresponds well to
the fact that the Buddha will reveal that there is only a single vehicle.
However, the Japanese poet-monks, and even before them the Chinese
commentators, interpreted shohØ as ‘things’, ‘beings’, ‘entities of thephenomenal world’.
Concerning this passage, Jien writes in a poem, which has remained
famous:That the bay of Naniwa in the country of Tsu
Be as realThanks to the way of the helpful door
That we know.

The ‘bay of Naniwa’ (present-day Osaka), is a word-play in Japanesemeaning ‘all things’. This is a self-evident interpretation in Japan. Now,
some time ago, a modern Japanese translation of the Sanskrit version
appeared in which the term sarvadharma is translated as monogoto,
meaning ‘all things’. The Japanese translator involuntarily reads theterm dharma as ‘things’, with eyes shaped by a thousand years ofJapanese poetry.
The Lotus SËtra is now re-broadcast across the world from its
Chinese version, which is itself supported by a long tradition ofJapanese understanding and it will be exciting to study how these translations will, in turn, generate new traditions in other languages.
Thank you for your attention.
(Lecture transcribed by Bertrand Rossignol)
Author Biography
Jean-Noël Robert is a specialist in the history of Japanese Buddhism and its Chinese
history. His work focuses in particular on Tendai Buddhism and on the philology ofSino-Japanese Buddhist texts. He holds the Chair in Philology of Japanese Civilization
at the Collège de France and is a member of the Institut de France: Académie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Academy of Inscriptions and Literature).