Acknowledgements
Being published by the Soka Gakkai as number 10 of the Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series,
this book is a romanized text of the Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscript from Cambridge
University Library (Add. 1684). The publications issued in this series so far are as
follows:
1. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Fragments from the Lüshun Museum Collection,
Facsimile Edition and Romanized Text, 1997.
2-1. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the National Archives of Nepal(No. 4-21), Facsimile Edition, 1998.
2-2. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the National Archives of Nepal(No. 4-21), Romanized Text 1, 2001.
2-3. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the National Archives of Nepal(No. 4-21), Romanized Text 2, 2004.
3. Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from Khādaliq(presently the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China), 2000.
4. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts from Cambridge University Library (Add.
1682 and Add. 1683), Facsimile Edition, 2002.
5. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from University of Tokyo General Library (No.
414), Romanized Text, 2003.
6. Xixia Version of the Lotus Sutra from the Collection of the St. Petersburg
Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
2005.
7. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the Royal Asiatic Society of GreatBritain and Ireland (No. 6), Romanized Text, 2007.
8. Manuscript sanscrit du Sûtra du Lotus de la Société asiatique (No 2 ), Texte
romanisé, 2008.
9. Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the British Library (Or. 2204), Facsimile
Edition, 2009.
In 2011, “Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the British Library (Or. 2204),
Romanized Text” is scheduled to be published as number 11 of the Series.
I am so fortunate to have been in charge of editing the publications of numbers 5, 7,8, and 10. This is entirely due to the academic benefit that Dr. Hirofumi Toda
(1936-2003) kindly granted to me. Here I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude tohim.

A fundamental desire to prove that the classification of the Nepalese manuscripts ispossible, which Dr. Toda advocated, underlies my work for this manuscript series.
I understand that the romanization of manuscripts is an arduous undertaking: first,
to read original texts as they are without preconception, avoiding simple miscopying ormiscopying due to assumptions or misreadings by the copyists, and not being confusedby complicated text portions that enable multiple variant readings if one adopts different
interpretations, and second, to reconstruct the most relevant readings after determining
the respective variants’ appropriateness.
One cannot always judge all text portions so clearly, saying, “Such and suchreading is correct (or incorrect)”. Rather, more often are cases with complicated orconfused variant readings that require subjective decisions by the editors of romanizededitions when the copyists’ intentions are hardly understandable from the texts
themselves. Such cases, however, are often of much philological importance.
Some cases include illegible letters due to damage or defacement. The editorstransliterate them as they are, adding “sic”. Though not all cases, the description sic is
added as a result of choosing to respect the original reading. Copyists in the past might
have suspended their own judgment and sought to maintain the texts they copied ascontemporary editors of the romanized editions do today. These undertakings areperformed by contemporary experts as if they carried out dialogues with copyists fromsome one thousand years ago, whose names and identities are unknown. From thedescription sic, those who tend to take things easy may inadvertently consider that thetexts are just transliterated as they are without surmising such delicate treating of thetexts. As a matter of course, nothing can guarantee that the decisions of today’s editors
who read the texts are the best ones. There is still the possibility that the editors could
repeat misreadings by making mistakes or erring due to false perceptions in the samemanner as copyists in the past. Furthermore, today’s editors might also create newmisreadings. All they can do is seek to provide better romanized texts through faithfulreading.
In this regard, the present writer, living in the 21st century, is nothing more than a“copyist” holding a humble seat in the long tradition of copying and transmitting
Sanskrit Lotus Sutra manuscripts. The romanized text in this book is, therefore, just a
copy of the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra text interpreted by himself, a contemporary “copyist”.
The only thing the current copyist can say confidently is the fact that he enjoys theprivilege of using more voluminous data than copyists in the past.
Regarding one of the most important themes in this discipline, is it possible toclassify the Nepalese manuscripts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra? I intend to answer
the question by presenting the four samples in the Introduction and Appendix, “A New
Classification of the Nepalese Manuscripts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (1)”.
Those who read them are kindly requested to judge if the classification is valid or not.
In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people whoencouraged me and supported this project for 13 years from 1997 to 2010.
First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Daisaku Ikeda,president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), who has wholeheartedly dedicatedhimself to the cause of world peace and the well-being of humanity. Without him, thisproject itself could not have materialized, and it would have been very difficult for us toachieve the scheduled goals due to various obstacles. The guidelines for life offered in
his occasional speeches have encouraged me and enabled me to advance step by step.
His words urged me to challenge myself though I often lost heart as a result ofdifficulties that arose in my daily life. From the bottom of my heart, I sincerely hopethat the fruits of this project will become seeds that will be being carried into the tide ofworld peace created by the SGI leader and that they bloom large flowers of culture allover the world.
Next, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Minoru Harada, presidentof the Soka Gakkai, and other people from related sections of the Gakkai’sHeadquarters. Furthermore, I extend my sincere gratitude to the people concerned at theInstitute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP), in particular, Dr. Yoichi Kawada, IOP director
and chairman of the IOP Board of Trustees, Mr. Yasuo Morita, adviser and formerchairman, Mr. Naoki Hagimoto, managing director, and Mr. Hirofumi Koseki, IOP
secretary-general.
I am very deeply indebted to Mr. Noriyoshi Mizufune, senior editor at the Soka
Gakkai’s Office of International Affairs and concurrently an IOP researcher, who is mycolleague in manuscript studies. He has kindly concentrated his time and energy moreto the present volume than to the so-far-published three of mine by undertaking
numerous tasks including public relations, coordination, editing, and translation. I am
also grateful to Mr. Dylan Scudder, who kindly edited the English portions of thisvolume.
I wish to thank Mr. R.C. Jamieson, keeper of Sanskrit Manuscripts, and Ms. Ruth
Long, head of Imaging Services, and other staff members at Cambridge University
Library, who kindly responded to my request to provide color digital images ofmanuscripts Add. 1684 and Add. 2197, as well as Mr. Mizufune and Mr. Hiroya Ouchi

of IOP, who lent their good offices in preparing procedural requirements and effecting
liaison with the Library. Last but not least, I express my deepest thanks to Mr. Jamie
Cresswell, director of the IOP European Centre, who has long made efforts to establish
a good relationship between the Library and the IOP.
Haruaki Kotsuki
Researcher in charge ofSanskrit Lotus Sutra manuscript studies
Institute of Oriental Philosophy
Kyoto, 10 February 2010