Talk:Lotus Sutra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Lotus Sutra, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Japanese readings[edit]

According to the Japanese dictionaries I checked, hokekyō is preferred to hokkekyō, and I changed the article accordingly.

Indeed, you are right. I just checked about 10 国語 dictionaries, and they all give hokkekyō as a secondary reading. Thanks for the correction. Jim_Lockhart 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Nam myoho renge kyo[edit]

Okay disclaimer: I am a member of soka gakkai, a form of nichiren buddhism, so hope I'm being objective with respect to other buddhism's point of view: but just wanted to say: in the paragraph:

"The Lotus Sutra also often alludes to a special teaching that supersedes everything else that the Buddha has taught, but the Sutra never actually says what that teaching is. This is said to be in keeping with the general Mahayana Buddhist view that the highest teaching cannot be expressed in words. This same point is also often cited by critics of Lotus Sutra."

In certainly all the Nichiren and probably in some form in tendai sects, this highest teaching *can* be said in words and it's Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - and I'd link that to the page on this, because although you might not think this is the highest teaching, the fact is nichiren buddhists believe this, and it's an important thing to put down in the article. The wikipedia nam-myoho-renge-kyo page doesn't actually say much about this so another place to get references for this are the background articles to these goshos: http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_EssenceJuryoChapter.htm http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_SelectionTime.htm and the opening of the eyes http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/OpeningEyesPart1.htm - where he goes in depth into the chapter and what exactly is hidden there. The links here link in turn to a translation of the gosho zenshu - Nichiren's letters and treatises. --skoria at gmail.


Nam Myoho Renge Kyo could be somewhat translated as 'The Devotion of oneself to the Mystic Law of Lotus Sutra', thus this mantra could not be considered the teaching itself. On the Nichiren's writings, he states that repeating this mantra will expose the person to the mystic law. I'm not discussing the belief of each one, just trying to be objective based on facts and words. Although I would not place that the teaching can be said in words as a fact, I would point out what skoria wrote in a section like 'Interpretations', once I think is valid to show how each school of Buddhism can interpret the same Sutra. Best Regards. -- Clke2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clke2009 (talkcontribs) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Included in the more ancient Āgamas or not?[edit]

Currently the article reads "Therefore, it is probably not included in the more ancient Āgamas of Mahayana Buddhism, nor in the Sutta Pitaka of the Theravada Buddhists". Could somebody clarify: is the Sutra or is it not thus included? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Traces of Prakrit in Chinese Translations[edit]

Oh dear, here we go again with clever Mr Mitsube. It has been accepted for quite a number of years now that almost ALL the early Chinese translations show signs of under-lying Prakrit -- see Coblin's work on Han Dynasty phonology, for example. The methodology is rather abstruse, so I fear it might be beyond your intellectual capabilities, but I can outline it for you if you want. As for the Lotus Sutra in particular, get hold of the work by Prof Seishi Karashima (he is the leading expert in this area) and his group. You might like to download his two lexicons on the Chinese terminology of early Lotus Sutra translations in Chinese from IRIABS and go through themcarefully yourself. Oh, I forgot ~ you can't read Chinese or Sanskrit. What a pity !-- अनाम गुमनाम 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. You are welcome to add sourced content. Mitsube (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You should perhaps look to your own insulting attitude to other contributors. Then they might treat you with a bit of respect. Your comments that it is extremely unlikely that Chinese translations might reflect their underlying sources has been questioned for decades ~ I believe Shackleton Bailey was mentioned this possibility back in 1946 in his article BSOAS on Gandhari. Believe me, there is nothing odd about this suggestion. First, this can be determined by the forms in which Indic names are transcribed into Chinese that reflect Prakrit phonology. Secondly, this can be determined when early Chinese translations have unexpected variants, such as in Dharmaraksa's translation of the Lotus Sutra which can only be explained by an underlying Prakrit. For example, there is a flower called the "sapta-parni" which literally means "seven-petalled", but it can be found translated into Chinese as "one hundred-petalled". So how does this come about ? Simple, because Prakrit for "seven" is "satta" and "sata" is the word for one hundred. One further refines this by the knowledge that some Prakrits such as Gandhari simplify geminated consonants, so in Gandhari the words for "seven" and "one hundred" are both indistinguishably "sata". But this is all explained in the article I mentioned as a reference. Take the trouble to find it on in the internet, read it and stop your insulting attitude to other people when their knowledge obviously exceeds yours. And that last is intended as a statement of fact.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please give the quote from your source that supports the statement you added. Mitsube (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It's the whole article. Shall I post that ? OK, no problem. Do you know who Daniel Boucher is ? He takes it for granted that the reader knows that Prakrit underlies the majority of the early Chinese translations. Why are you so incredibly stubborn ? READ THE ARTICLE YOURSELF and you will see what I am talking about.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So please give the quote here. Mitsube (talk)

Hello, Mitsube is very capable to edit material in this text. Anam however keeps deleting sourced material and trying to put a bias in various articles.Greetings, Sacca 08:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User Sacca: You seem a bit delusional ~ what do you mean I keep deleting sourced material. I deleted ONE passage recently in another article and explained my reasons. Try and get your facts right or are you a glove puppet type of Mitsube clone ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give specific in-line citations for your new additions. Mitsube (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What are "in-line citations", please ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a source, citation, or NPOV for...?[edit]

Hey, the headline could apply to more things than one, but please above all else could we possibly get a source on the supposed date of origin assigned to the supposed Sanskrit original?

How could this have possibly sat at the top of this article without being challenged or deleted? You can't just assign a century to a text with no source and no rationale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.197.169 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy Buddha emerging from lotus[edit]

The boy Buddha rising up from lotus. Crimson and gilded wood, Trần-Hồ dynasty, Vietnam, 14th-15th century

This image was just added as a thumbnail. Is it related to the contents of the Lotus Sutra? It looks more like a child being born from a lotus, per the Sukhavativyuha Sutra, rather than the Lotus Sutra... Any info would be appreciated. Tengu800 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Born by Transformation from Lotus Flowers, is one of the four forms of birth. A footnote in Nichiren's writings by SGI says:

"'Born by transformation [from Lotus Flowers]' refers to one of the four forms of birth. Due to their karma, beings so born are said, upon the end of their previous lifetime, to appear suddenly in this fashion without the help of parents or other intermediary agency."

I think this is how beings are supposedly born in a Pure Land. - Steve (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[...] "if [they are born] in the presence of a buddha, they will be born spontaneously in a lotus flower.” pp. 181-182 (also p. 285) in: The Lotus Sūtra translated by Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama (2009) JimRenge (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra[edit]

There should be a section on the Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra. Was it discovered in Nepal? Komitsuki (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Several manuscripts and MS-fragments have been found (Nepal, Gilgit, central asia, Tibet). Please see: Jamieson, R.C. (2002). Introduction to the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts, Journal of Oriental Studies 12 (6): 165–173.

(last of the external links in the LS-article) and Jonathan A. Silk, The Place of the Lotus Sutra in Indian Buddhism Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I also found a record that there is a full Sanskrit manuscript of Lotus Sutra in Nepal. ([1])

The recently published tenth in the series contains an original Sanskrit Lotus Sutra text found in Nepal dating back to 1064 or 1065 CE. This text was one of the sources used in the compilation of the influential Kern-Nanjio edition of the Lotus Sutra from 1908-12, and it is thus a key source for research into the Lotus Sutra. [Soka Gakkai]

Hope this interests anyone. Komitsuki (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese versions seem mixed up[edit]

Text reads about the Kumārajīva translation: >> The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma, in eight volumes and twenty eight chapters But according to the front page of the Taisho T262 (http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T09n0262) it has seven scrolls. Something is wrong here.

Also, I don't see any numbered references or links to primary Chinese sources in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexamies (talkcontribs) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)