The Lotus Sutra (review)

Reviews 559 Burton Watson, translator. The Lotus Sutra. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. xxix, 352 pp. Hardcover $34.95, isbn 0-231-08160-x. Paperback $14.95, isbn 0-231-08161-8. The impact ofLotus Sutra ideas and imagery on the development ofEast Asian Buddhist thought and practice is widely acknowledged. Familiarity with this pivotal religious text is necessary in order to understand important aspects ofEast Asian Buddhism. The sutra's import accounts, in part, for its several English translations . Historically, there were six different translations ofthe Lotus Sutra into Chinese, but it was the translation ofKumärajiva (344-413 ce.) in 406 ce. that became canonical throughout East Asia and is the basis for most ofthe English translations, including the following: Murano Senchu, The Sutra oftheLotus Flower ofthe Wonderful Law (Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Headquarters, 1974); Katö Bunnö, Tamura Yoshirö, and Miyasaka Köjirö, The Threefold Lotus Sutra (New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill/Kosei, 1975); Leon Hurvitz, Scripture ofthe Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976); and (a translation that I have not yet seen) Kubo Tsugunari and Yuyama Akira, The Lotus Sutra: The White Lotus ofthe Marvelous Law (Tokyo and Berkeley: Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1991). To this impressive list we now add Burton Watson's 1993 rendition. Watson is known for the quality ofhis translations, so the appearance of this volume is ofspecial interest to East Asianists in general and to students ofEast Asian Buddhism in particular. I must confess, though, that I was initially dubious about the need for another translation ofthe Lotus Sutra when so many other important Buddhist texts remain untranslated. Granted, there is no such thing as a definitive translation; but what, I wondered, did Watson's version afford over the others? Hurvitz' translation, for instance, is alreadywidely used and accepted among Buddhologists and historians ofreligion, so that comparisons ofWatson with Hurvitz are inevitable. By the time I finished reviewing Watson's translation, however, I was convinced of the value of this particular version, especially for use in undergraduate classes. As with all translations, there are problems ofinterpretation based on different views ofthe text and its meaning, and on differences of opinion about word choice. Thus, although this translation will not please everyone, especially those who prefer the use of Sanskrit diacritics and other scholarly features, it nevertheless provides a user-friendly version of this important Mahayana text. Watson articulates his reasons for undertaking this translation in the "Translator's Note." His rationales are only partly convincing because he has made problematic assumptions about the language used in prior translations and because he has not always achieved his own stated goals. The first ofhis two major reasons for undertaking this translation anticipates the question of the need 56o China Review International: Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1996 for another English version of the Lotus Sutra: "Why another English translation of the Lotus Sutra, one may ask, when there are several already in existence? First, I would reply, because language changes and translations grow old. The great works ofworld literature deserve to be translated again and again so that they will continue to be in language that is appealing to contemporary readers" (p. xxiii). Watson apparently views the language of the other renditions of the Lotus Sutra as somewhat less than appealing. He cites as his example Kern's 1884 translation from the Sanskrit. According to Watson, both the Kern translation and the more recent ones are done in such a way that they "impart a 'religious' tone by employing an archaic or biblical-sounding style" (p. xxiv). What, however, are the parameters of "appealing" language? And is the use of contemporary English always to be preferred? Some, no doubt, prefer their religious texts to sound, well, archaic. Hurvitz renders the conventional sutra opening, -ipftei 83 , as "Thus have I heard" (as do Murano and Katö et al.). Watson minimizes the religious tone ofthis passage by translating it as "This is what I heard." Perhaps it is simply that I am accustomed to reading these four characters as "thus have I heard," but I do not see how, in this instance, Watson's translation is either necessarily more appealing or...