INTRODUCTION
A Study of the Original
Texts of the Lotus Sūtra
1.
Previous Studies
Sanskrit copies of the Lotus
Sūtra (Skt. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra), which
was completed in India, were transmitted to China where they were
translated; among the extant translations, the oldest may be the work (A. D.
286) by Dharmarakṣa entitled, Chêng-fa-hua-ching 正法華經 [Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō
(or Taishō Issaikyō) 大正新脩大藏經 (hereinafter, Taishō) No.263]. Although, in
general, this was a literal translation of the Sanskrit original, it failed to
circulate widely because, it was an early translation that was difficult to
comprehend. In contrast, the translation (A.D. 406) by Kumārajīva entitled
Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching妙法蓮華經 [Taishō No. 262] was and remains extensively used
today because, being based on liberal translation of the original, it was
rendered more fluently. In China, this became the basis for several
commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra and for the teachings of the T’ien-t’ai school
founded by Chih-i (A.D. 538-597). Again, the history of Japanese devotion to
the Lotus Sūtra, which begins with Prince Shōtoku’s (A.D. 574-622) Hokekyōgisho
法華經疏義 [Taishō No. 2189], reflects similar reliance on the
Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching, as does the founding of the independent Japanese Tendai school by Saichō and
Nichiren sect (A.D. 1253) by Nichiren.
Although
critical studies of the Lotus Sūtra can be found in such Chinese sources as the
“Catalogues of Sūtras” and in the preface to the T’ien-p’in
miao-fa-lien-hua-ching添品妙法蓮華經 [Taishō No. 264] translated
(A.D. 601) by Jñānagupta and Dharmagupta, they were far from complete.
However, their inception in Japan can be traced to the introduction of Western
philological method after the Meiji period.
K.
Fuse, comparing Sanskrit and Chinese texts in Hokekyō seiritsushi 法華經成立史
(Tokyo, 1934), indicated that there are differences in the structure and
content of the Lotus Sūtra, and suggested that several stages preceded its
completion. G. Honda, comparing Sanskrit Lotus Sūtra manuscripts unearthed in
Central Asia and Nepal in Butten no naisō to gesō 仏典の仏內相と外相(Tokyo, 1934) and
Hokekyōron 法華經論 (Tokyo, 1944), attempted to provide an explanation for the
differences in the Chinese translations. Although the research method of the
two professors can be said to have paved the way for philological study of the
Lotus Sūtra in Japan, the number of Sanskrit manuscripts used in their research
was extremely small.
A
copy of a Sanskrit manuscript of the Lotus Sūtra was first collected in 1821 by
the them British minister to Nepal, B.H. Hodgson. This copy was presented to E.
Burnouf of France whose translation in French was published after his death by
J. Mohl:
Burnouf,
E., Le lotus de la bonne loi, 2 tomes, Paris, 1852; Nouvelle édition avec une
préface de S. Lévi, Paris, 1925; Reproduction, 1 tome, Paris, 1973.
This was followed by an English translation by H. Kern of Holland:
Kern,
H., tr., The Saddharma-puṇḍarīka or The Lotus of the True Law, Sacred Books of
the East, Vol. XXI, Oxford, 1909.
The first publication of a Sanskrit manuscript of the Lotus Sūtra
was:
Kern,
H. and Nanjio, B., ed., Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Bibliotheca Buddhica X,
St.-Pétersbourg, 1908-1912; Reprint, Osnabrück, 1970.
This work, however, was based on the following manuscripts:
A.:
MS. Of the Royal Asiatic Society, London.
[R
in Sanskrit Manuscripts of Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, hereafter SMS]
B.:
MS. Of the British Musuem, London. [SMS:B]
Ca.:
Add. MS. 1682 ( mistake for Add. 1683) of University Library, Cambridge. [SMS:
C4 ]
Cb.:
Add. MS. 1683 ( mistake for Add. 1684) of University Library, Cambridge. [SMS:C5]
K.:
MS. In the possession of Rev. Ekai Kawaguchi, acquired in Nepal. Tokyo
University Library MS. No. 414.品SMS:T8}
W.:MS.
in the possession of Mr. Watters, formerly British Consul in Formosa.
O.:
Petrovskij MS. Discovered in Kashgar, held in the Institute of the Peoples of
Asia, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad.品SMS:O}
P.:
The lithographic text in Nagari published by Ph. Ed. Foucaux in his work Para
bole de l’Enfant égaré (Paris, 1854).
Except for MS. O, unearthed
in Central Asia, all other manuscripts are of the Nepalese group. Although Kern
comments on the points of difference between the MS. O and the Nepalese
manuscripts, it is hardly complete. That there are significant differences
between the two should be clear from the present work. Be that as it may,
because Kern’s publication had confusedly treated the manuscripts from the two
groups, it embraced a number of problems.
The
next publication was the work by Professor U. Wogihara and Mr. C. Tsuchida:
Wogihara,
U. and Tsuchida, C., Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram, Romanized and Revised Text of
the Bibliotheca Buddhica Publication by Consulting a Skt. MS. And Tibetan and
Chinese Translations, Tokyo, 1934-35.
This
text was revised with references to the Tibetan and Chinese translations and
the Kawaguchi manuscript [SMS:K] held in the Tōyō-bunko. It was followed by the
publication of:
Dutt, Nalinaksha, rev.,
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram, with N.D. Mironov’s Readings from Central Asian MSS.,
Bibliotheca Indica No. 276, Calcutta, 1953.
Not
based on any single manuscript, it is a revised edition of the texts by
Kern-Nanjio and Wogihara-Tsuchida, with corrected portions made with references
to the same. It also includes Mironov’s reading of the manuscript unearthed in
Central Asia in the footnotes. Furthermore, in Vaidya, P.L., ed., Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram,
Buddhist Sanskrit Text No. 6, Darbhanga, 1960,
A similar editorial approach is taken; it is no more than a
selective adaptation with references to already published works.
The
manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra are classified into three groups according to
the place of discovery:
(1)
Nepalese manuscripts
(2)
Kashmir (Gilgit) manuscripts.
(3)
Central Asian manuscripts.
Thus, first of all, there is
a need to study the manuscripts in terms of each group. For this purpose, the
initial step in the study of original texts ought to be an objective compilation
of a text based on each manuscript. In this regard, Dr. Shōkō Watanabe’s recent
publication is appraised highly:
Watanabe, Shōkō, ed.,
Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Manuscripts Found in Gilgit; pt. I Photographic
Reproduction, Tokyo, 1972; pt. II Romanized Text, Tokyo, 1975.
As a bibliography of the
heretofore published works on the original texts of the Lotus Sūtra, the
following is of considerable use:
Yuyama, Akira, A
Bibliography of the Sanskrit Texts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Canberra,
1970.
II. Summary of Sanskrit
Manuscripts
A.
Nepalese Manuscripts
Among the extant Buddhist
Sanskrit texts, the greatest share is found
in the Nepalese (including Tibetan) manuscripts. Since the first
Sanskrit manuscript of the Lotus Sūtra was collected by Hodgson in the first
half of the nineteenth century, the number of manuscripts known to us today is
at least 36.
1.
Manuscript of the Tōyō-bunko, Tokyo.品SMS:K}
Brought to Japan from the
Shālu dGonpa Monastery in Tibet by Rev.
Ekai Kawaguchi, it is now preserved in the Tōyō-bunko. Palmleaf;
181 folios; 5 lines; probably an 11th century copy. (Dates A.D.
1069-1070 appear)
2.
Manuscripts of the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge.
Six different manuscripts of
the Lotus Sūtra are preserved in the
Cambridge University Library with the following designations: Add.
1032,1324,1682,1683,1684, and 2197. Among these, Add. 1683 corresponds to MS.
Ca in the Kern text, and Add. 1684 to MS. Cb of the same. (The Kern text
mistakes Add. 1682 and 1683 to Ca and Cb respectively.)
a.
Add. 1032 [SMS:C1]:Paper, 90 folios, 14-20 lines.
b.
Add. 1324 [SMS:C2]:Paper, 96 folios, 14 and 16 lines.
c.
Add. 1682 [SMS:C3]: Palmleaf, 83 folios, 5 and 6 lines,
an 11th century copy.
d.
Add. 1683 [SMS:C4]: Palmleaf, 141 folios, (5-) 6 and 7
lines.
e.
Add. 1684 品SMS: C5}: Palmleaf, 158 folios, 5 and 6
lines, an 11th century copy. (Dates A.D. 1063/1064 appear.)
f.
Add. 2197 [SMS: C6]: Palmleaf, 131 folios, 5-6 lines,
an 11th century copy. (Dates A.D. 1091/1092 appear; the postscript in Newārī
shows A.D. 1685/1686.)
3.
Manuscript of the British Museum, London. [SMS:B]
The Sanskrit manuscript of
the Lotus Sūtra preserved in the British
Museum corresponds to Kern’s MS. B. Or. 2204, palmleaf, 175
folios, 6 lines, probably of 11-13th century copy.
4.
Manuscript of the Royal Asiatic Scoeity of Great Britain and
Ireland, London. [SMS:R]
The Sanskrit
manuscript of the Lotus Sūtra collected by Hodgson and
now preserved in the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
corresponds to MS. A in the Kern text. MS. No. 6, paper, 173 folios, in Newārī
script, 6 lines, an 18th century copy.
5.
Manuscript of the Bibliothéque National, Paris.
Two different Sanskrit
manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra are preserved in
the Bibliothéque National of France, both were used by Burnouf in
his translation in French.
a.
MS. Nos. 138-139 [SMS:P1]:Paper, 224 folios, 9 lines, a
19th century copy.
b.
MS. Nos. 140-141 [SMS:P2]:Paper, 205 folios, 6 lines, a
19th century copy.(Dated A.D. 1827.)
6.
Manuscripts of the Tokyo University Library, Tokyo.
Nine Sanskrit manuscripts of
the Lotus Sūtra are preserved in the
Tokyo University Library with the following designations: Nos.
10(1), 408,409,410,411,412,413,414,and 415.
a.
No. 102(1) [SMS:T1]:Though the manuscript has the
title,
Kīrtivīṣayāvadānapari-karma-kathā,
it is actually a portion of Chapter XXII of the Lotus Sūtra. Paper, 9 folios,
7-9 lines.
b.
No. 409 [SMS:T2]: Palmleaf, 125 folios, in Siddhānta
script, 7 lines, probably of 11th century copy.
c.
No. 409 [SMS:T3]: Paper, 232 folios, in modern Newārī
script, 7-9 lines.
d.
No. 410 [SMS:T4]: Paper, 194 folios, in Newārī script,
7-8 lines.
e.
No. 411 [SMS:T5]: Paper, 288 folios, in Newārī script,
6 lines.
f.
No. 412 [SMS:T6]: Palmleaf, 147 folios, in Siddhānta
script which resembles Newārī, 5 lines.
g.
No. 413 [SMS:T7]: Palmleaf, 111 folios, in Kuṭila script,
5-6 lines, probably of 11th century copy.
h.
No. 414[SMS:T8]: Paper, 118 folios, in Kuṭila script, 8
lines. This corresponds to MS. K in the Kern text.
i.
No. 415[SMS:T9]: Paper, 114 folios, in modern Nepalese
script, 6 and 8-11 lines.
7.
Manuscripts of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
Three Sanskrit manuscripts
of the Lotus Sūtra are preserved in the
Asiatic Society with the following designations: Nos. G4079, G4199
and B7.
a.
No. G4079 [SMS:A1]: Paper, 215 folios, 7lines.
b.
No. G4199 [SMS:A2]: Paper, 137 folios, 7lines.
c.
No. B7 [SMS:A3]: Paper, 131 folios, 10lines.
8.
Manuscripts of the National Archives of Nepal, Katmandu.
In the National Archives of
Nepal, there are seven Sanskrit
manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra; these were formerly deposited in
the Bir Library (Katmandu) with the following numbers: Nos. 3/240, 3/259,
3/613, 3/678, 3/373,* 3/781, 1/1098. According to C. Vogel**, ten manuscripts
are preserved:
a.
No. 4/21 [SMS:N1 ]:Palmleaf, 178 folios, 6 lines.
b.
No. 3/672 [SMS:N2 ]:Palmleaf, 138 folios, 5 lines.
c.
No. 5/144 [SMS:N3 ]:Palmleaf, 73(72) folios, 6 lines,
incomplete.
d.
No. 3/259 [SMS:N1 ]:Paper, 69 folios.
e.
No. 5/82:Paper, 200 folios.
f.
No. 4/217:Paper, 249 folios.
g.
No. 1/1098:Paper, 160 folios.
h.
No. 5/211:Paper, 175 folios.
i.
No. 3/781:Paper, 179 folios.
j.
No. 3/613:Paper, 226 folios.
*Bir Library MS. 3/373;
Palmleaf, 4 folios, in Upright Gupta script, 3-4 lines.
Brhatsūcīpatram,
Vīrapustakālaya, Pt. 3, p. 85.
Hokke-bunka (Institute for
the Comprehensive Study of Lotus Sūtra,
Rissho University), No.2 (1967), pp. 5-7.
**Vogel, C., “The Dated
Nepalese Manuscripts of the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra,”Nachrichten der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Nr. 5, 1974.
B.
Kashmir (Gilgit) Manuscripts
Among the several Buddhist
manuscripts (palmleaf) in Sanskrit
discovered in June 1931 in a stūpa located 20 kilometers north of
Gilgit in Kashmir, Lotus Sūtra texts in Sanskrit were included. Most of the
folios, however, were sold individually and thus were scattered and lost before
their contents could be brought to light.
1.Manuscripts in the
National Archieves of India, New Delhi.
A
majority of the manuscripts mentioned above are held in the National Archives
of India classified under six groups. For convenience sake, they are presented
under three groups in the present work.
a.
Serial No. 45 [SMS:D1 ]:Birch-bark, 120 folios, 8-9
lines.
b.
Serial Nos. 44, 47, 49, 50 [SMS:D2 ]:Birch-bark, 49
folios, 9-10 lines.
c.
Serial No. 48 [SMS:D3 ]:Birch-bark, 48 folios, 11
lines.
Totaling 217
folios, in Upright Gupta script. 5-6th century transcription. It is assumed
that the transcription was done by several student transcribers. The extant
palmleaves comprise about three fourths of the entire manuscript.
Of these palmleaves,
Serial Nos. 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49 (Box V) were published as a photographic
edition by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra:
Vira, Raghu and Chandra,
Lokesh, reproduced, Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts, (Facsimile Edition), Pts.
9-10, Śata-piṭaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures, Vol. 10, New Delhi, 1974,
Plates Nos. 2785-3220.
Furthermore,
manuscripts (s) and (b) from the same edition were made public by Dr. Shōkō,
ed., Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Manuscripts Found in Gilgit, pt. I Photographic
Reproduction, Tokyo, 1972; pt. II Romanized Text, Tokyo, 1975.
2.Manuscripts in the British
Museum, London. [SMS:D3]
Seven folios of the
above-mentioned Sanskrit manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra unearthed in Gilgit
were collected by J. Hackin and once preserved in the Musée Guimet in Paris. At
present, they are held in the British Museum:
MS. Gil. C8 0r.
11878B:Palmleaf.
Six of these have been
photographed already and brought to Japan by Dr. Giei Honda and Mr. Jōjun
Deguchi. They appear in:
Honda, G.,
Saiikishutsudobonpon-hokekyo, Kyoto, 1949, Nos. 225-236. (Hereinafter, Honda
text.)
Prior to this publication,
however, one of the six folios was made public in:
Lévi,
Sylvain, “Note sur les manuscripts sanscrits provenants de Bamiyan
(Afghanistan), et de Gilgit (Cachemire)”, JA, ccxx, 1932, pp. 13ff. (Honda
text: Nos. 235 and 236) 235 and 236)
Three of the six were made public in:
Baruch,
W., Beiträge zum Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Leiden, 1938; Plated Ia, Ib, IIa,
IIb, IIIa, and IIIb. (Honda text: Nos. 225-230)
The last of the seven folios had not been made
public until Professor Shōkō Kabutogi brought it to Japan and introduced it in:
Hokke-bunka,
No. 6(1968), p.3; No. 8(1969), p.7.
3.Manuscripts in the
possession of Mr. M.A. Shah.[SMS:D3]
A folio of Sanskrit
Lotus Sūtra was found among the manuscript fragments (approx. 275 folios) which
Mr. Shah of Lahore sent to P.V. Bapat for purposes of identification. In
Upright Gupta script, 10 lines:
Bapat,
P. V., “Another Valuable Collection of Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts.”
Manuscripts
obtained by George Macartney, the then British Consul General stationed in
Kashgar, 6 folios:
Hoernle
MS. No. 142, SB 12 (Honda text: Nos. 215-16):1 folio.
No.
142, SB53 (Honda text: Nos.63-40:1 folio.
No.
148, SA 22-5 (Honda text: Nos. 41-8)[SMS:0]: 4 folios.
b.Manuscripts in the British Museum, London. [SMS: 0]
A
collection by Stein preserved in the British Museum:
MS. Or. 9613. (Honda text: Nos. 49-56,
133-176, 183-184, 189-202, 203-212, and 223-224):40 folios.
c.Marburg Manuscript [SMS:0]
Sanskrit
manuscript fragments discovered by Emil Trinkler in Khotan between 1927 and
1928; originally deposited in the German Academy (Berlin), but later
transferred to the Academy of Science and Literature (Mainz), and now preserved
in the German National Library (Marburg):
Mainz
685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 705, 706, 715, and 717 (Honda text: Nos. 23-40):
Paper, Upright Gupta script, 9 folios.
It
is assumed that the above 40 folios of the Stein collection, 4 of Macartney’s,
and 9 of the Marburg collection were, alogn with the Petrovskij manuscript
cited above, originally from a single text but were sold separately and
scattered.
References
are made to these manuscripts under code ”0” in the Kern text; they have also
been made public in Honda-Deguchi’s Saiikishutudobonpon-hokekyō.
3.Farhād-Beg Manuscript[SMS:F]
A
Sanskrit manuscript of the Lotus Sūtra discovered by Stein in 1906 at
Farhād-Beg-Yailaki, about 13 killometers northwest of Khadalik, and how held in
the India Office Library:
No.
F xii. 7:Paper, 35 folios, in Upright Gupta script, 8 lines; probably a 6th
century copy, considered the oldest among the Lotus Sūtra manuscripts unearthed
in Central Asia. (Honda text: Nos. 65-132)
4.Mannerheim Fragment
A
fragment of the Sanskrit Lotus Sūtra discovered among the manuscripts brought
back by Baron C. G. Mannerheim from his 1906-08 expeditions to Kashgar, Khotan,
Turfan, and other regions of Central Asia. The place of discovery, however, is
unclear: Paper, 1 folio, 6 lines. (Honda text: pp. IX-X)
5.Turfan Fragments
Fragments
of the Sanskrit Lotus Sētra obtained by the Turfan expedition team of Albert
Grünwedel and Alber von Le Coq, now preserved in the German Academy of
Sciences:
a.
Nr. 622=Lüders Nr. Sg 800 (S 60): Paper, 1 folio, 9 lines;
obtained in Sengim, about 30 kilometers east of Turfan.
b.
Nr. T. 4, Chotän 8: Paper, 1 folio, 6lines; obtained in Khotan(?).
(Honda text: Nos. 277-8)
6.Ōtani Manuscript
The
Sanskrit manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra which the Ōtani expedition team brought
back from Central Asia on three occasions from 1902 to 1914 were originally in
the Kantōchō 関東庁 Museum (Ryojun) but, at present, their whereabouts is unknown.
Kantōchō
Museum, “Bonji-hokekyō-dampen” 梵字法華経斷片, Ōtanike-shuppin-mokuroku 大谷家出品目錄,Nos.
687-697: 271 folios, in Upright Gupta script.
III. Structure of the Lotus Sūtra
When
we next examine the chapters constituting the Lotus Sūtra and the order in
which they are arranged, we note there are significant differences between the
Sanskrit, the Tibetan (Dam-paḥi chos pad-ma dkar-po shes-bya-ba theg-pa chen-poḥi
mdo, Ōtani No. 781, Tr. by Surendrabodhi & ye-śes sde) and the Chinese
texts. This strongly indicates that the Lotus Sūtra appeared in various forms
as it was transmitted. If we were to represent the structure of the Lotus Sūtra
by means of a table, it would be as follows:
C. Central Asian Manuscripts
From
the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century, expeditions to
Central Asia recovered a large number of Sanskrit Buddhist texts in fragments.
It became clear that among them were included Sanskrit manuscripts of the Lotus
Sūtra. These manuscripts are variously named according to their place of
discovery or the name of the discoverer.
1.
Petrovskij Manuscript Unearthed in Kashgar. [SMS:0]
This is the manuscript
obtained in 1903 by the then Russian
Consul General Petrovskij who was stationed at
Kashgar in China’s Sinkiang Province. It is now held in the Leningrad branch of
the Institute of Peoples of Asia, USSR, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad.
Originally totaling 459 folios, the present manuscript contains 393
folios.Paper, in Upright Gupta script, 7 lines, probably of 6-7th
century copy.
The Manuscript in parts had
been made public by Messrs.
Sanada and Kiyota, but a photographic edition
was recently published by Dr. L. Chandra:
Chandra, Lokesh, ed.,
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Foreword by Dr. Heinz Bechert, International Academy
of Indian Culture, New Delhi, 1976, Śata-piṭaka Series, Indo-Asian Literature,
Vol. 229. (Second impression published by the Reiyūkai, Tokyo, 1977)
2.
Khadalik Manuscripts
These are the Sanskrit
manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra
discovered in Khadalik, 115 kilometers east of
Khotan. Paper, in Upright Gupta script.
a.
Manuscripts in the India Office Library, London.
(1)
Stein Manuscripts
The manuscripts obtained by
Stein in 1906, now held in
the India Office Library under the code, Kha.
Kha. 0013b (Honda text: Nos.
1-2)
Kha. I. 24(Honda text: Nos.
3-6)
Kha. Ix. 23 (Honda text:
Nos. 7-8)
Kha. 92b (Honda text: Nos.
237-8)
Kha. Ix. 36 (Honda text:
Nos. 239-40)
Kha. 0014b (Honda text: Nos.
9-10)
Kha. I. 214b (Honda text: Nos. 11-12)
Kha. I. 102 (Honda text:
Nos. 13-14)
Kha. I. 134b (Honda text:
Nos. 15-16)
Kha. I. 174c (Honda text:
Nos. 17-18)
Kha. Ix. 28 (Honda text:
Nos. 241-2)
Kha. Ix. 29 (Honda text:
Nos. 243-4)
Kha. I. 185c (Honda text: Nos. 19-22)
Kha. 0013b (Honda text: Nos.
245-6)
Kha. Ix. 16a, b (Honda text:
Nos. 247-8)
Kha. 0011 (Honda text: Nos.
57-58)
Kha. Ix. 16a, b (Honda text:
Nos. 59-62)
Kha. Ix. 24 (Honda text:
Nos. 249-250)
Kha. Ix. 18 (Honda text: Nos.
177-8)
Kha. Ix. 38, 42 (Honda text:
Nos. 179-80, 251-2)
Kha. Ix. 1,3 (Honda text:
Nos. 253-6)
Kha. I. 215a (Honda text:
Nos. 181-2)
Kha. I. 38, 42 (Honda text:
Nos. 257-8, 185-6, 259-64)
Kha. I. 317b (Honda text:
Nos. 265-8)
Kha. Ix. 38, 4 (Honda text:
Nos. 269-70)
Kha. I. 311a (Honda text:
Nos. 187-8)
Kha. I. 21 (Honda text: Nos.
271-2)
Kha. Ix. 38, 42 (Honda text:
Nos. 213-14)
Kha. Ix. 15 (Honda text:
Nos. 217-18)
Kha. Ix. 38, 42 (Honda text:
Nos. 273-4)
Kha. I. 177 (Honda text:
Nos. 219-20, 221-2)
Kha. I. 305 (Honda text:
Nos. 275-6)
(2)
Hoernle Manuscripts
梵本(チベット語訳)
|
正法華經 |
妙法蓮華經 |
添品妙法蓮華經 |
1.
Nidāna. (Gleṅ-gshī) |
……光瑞品第一 |
……序品第一 |
……序品第一 |
2.
Upāyakauśalya. (Thabs-la mkhas-pa) |
……善榷品第一 |
……方便品第二 |
……方便品第二 |
3.Aupamy.(Dpe) |
……応時品第三 |
……譬喻品第三 |
……譬喻品第三 |
4.Adhimukti.(Mos-pa) |
……信樂品第四 |
……信解品第四 |
……信解品第四 |
5.Oṣadhī.(Sman) |
……藥草品第五 |
……藥草喻品第五 |
……藥草喻品第五 |
6.Vyākaraṇa. (Nan-thos lu-bstan-pa) |
……
授聲聞決品第六 |
……
授記品第六 |
……
授記品第六 |
7.Pūrvayoga. (Sṅon-gyi sbyor-ba)) |
……
往古品第七 |
……
化城喻品第七 |
……
化城喻品第七 |
8.Pañcabhikṣuśatavyākaraṇa. (Dge-sloṅ lṅa-brgya luṅ-bstan-pa) |
……
授五百弟子決品第八 |
……五百弟子受記品第八 |
……五百弟子受記品第八 |
9.Vyākaraṇa.(Kun-dgaḥ-bo daṅ sgra-gcan-zin daṅ dge-sloṅ ñis-stoṅ
luṅ-bstan-pa) |
……授阿難羅云決品第九 |
……授學無學人記品第九 |
……授學無學人記品第九 |
10.Dharmabhāṇaka. (Chos-smra-ba) |
……藥王如來品第十 |
……法師品第十 |
……法師品第十 |
11.Stūpasaṃdarśana.(Mchod-rten bstan-pa) |
……七寶塔品第十一 |
|
……見寶塔品第十一 |
12.Ustāha. (Spro-bar-bya-ba) |
……勸說品第十二 |
……勸持品第十三 |
……勸持品第十二 |
13.Sukhavihāra. (Bde-bar gnas-pa) |
……安行品第十三 |
……安樂行品第十四 |
……安樂行品第十三 |
14.Bodhisattvapthivīvivarasamudgama. (Byaṅ-chub-sems-dpaḥ sa-rum-nas ḥthon-pa) |
……菩薩從地踊芔品第十四 |
……從地踊出品第十五 |
……從地踊出品第十四 |
15.Thatāgatāyuṣpramāṇa. (De-bshin-gśegs-paḥi sku-tsheḥi tshad) |
……如來現壽品第十五 |
……如來壽量品第十六 |
……如來壽量品第十五 |
16.Puṇyaparyāya. (Bsod-nams-kyi rnam-graṅs) |
……御福事品第十六 |
……分別功德品第十七 |
……分別功德品第十六 |
17.Anumodanāpuṇyanirdeśa. (Rjes-su yi-raṅ-baḥi-bsod-nams bstan-pa) |
……勸助品第十七 |
……隨喜功德品第十八 |
……隨喜功德品第十七 |
18.Dharmabhāṇakānuśaṃsā. (Skye-mched drug rnam-par-dag-paḥi phan-yon) |
……歎法師品第十八 |
……法師功德品第十九 |
……法師功德品第十八 |
19.Sadāparibhūta. (Rtag-tu brñas-pa) |
……常被輕慢品第十九 |
……常不輕菩薩品第二十 |
……常不輕菩薩品第十九 |
20.Thatāgatarddhyabhisaṃskāra. (De-bshin-gśegs-paḥi rdsu-ḥphrul mon-par ḥdu-byed-pa) |
……如來神足行品第二十一 |
……如來神力品第二十一 |
……如來神力品第二十 |
21.Dhāraī. (Gzuṅs-sṅags) |
……總持品第二十四 |
……陀羅尼品第二十六 |
……陀羅尼品第二十一 |
22.Bhaiṣajyarājapūrvayoga. (Sman-gyi rgyal-poḥi sṅon-gyi sbyor-ba) |
……藥王菩薩品第二十一 |
……藥王菩薩本事品第二十三 |
……藥王菩薩本事品第二十二 |
23.Gadgadasvara. (Saṅ-saṅ-poi dbyaṅs) |
……妙吼菩薩品第二十二 |
……妙音菩薩品第二十四 |
……妙音菩薩品第二十三 |
24.Avalokitesvaravikurvaṇanirdesa. (Spyan-ras-gzigs-dbaṅ-phyug-gi rnam-par- ḥphrul-pa bstan-ba kun-nas-sgo) |
……光世音普門品第二十三 |
……觀世音菩薩普門品第二十五 |
……觀世音菩薩普門品第二十四 |
25.Śubhavyūharājapūrvayoga. (Rgyal-po dge-ba bkod-paḥi sṅon-gyi sbyor-ba) |
……淨復淨王品第二十五 |
……妙莊嚴王本事品第二十七 |
……妙莊嚴王本事品第二十五 |
26.Samantabhadrotsāhana. (Kun-tu-bzaṅ-po spro-bar-bya-ba) |
……樂普賢品第二十六 |
……普賢菩薩勸發品第二十八 |
……普賢菩薩勸發品第二十六 |
27.Anuparīndanā. (Yoṅs-su gtaṅ-pa) |
……囑累品第二十二 |
……囑累品第二十二 |
……囑累品第二十七 |
In the table above, 27 chapters constitute the Sanskrit texts, the
T’ien-p ‘in-miao-fa-lien-hua-ching, and the Ch’eng-fa-hua-ching, while 28
chapters consitute the Miao-fa-lien-hua ching. The difference comes from the
Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching treating the Devadatta passage independently, while the
three other versions include it within the Stūpasaṃdarśana chapter. A
philological study of the Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching, however, has shown that
Kumārajīva’s translation contained 27 chapters, that is, without the Devadatta.
Furthermore, we can be certain, from the fact that the oldest manuscript in Sanskrit
unearthed in Farhād-Beg continues directly from the Stūpasaṃ-darśana to the
Utāha chapter without the intervening Devadatta, that a Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching
text comprising 27 chapters without the Devadatta did actually exist. The
Devadatta, on the other hand, appears as a separate chapter in the Petrovskij
manuscript unearthed in Kashgar, making it a 28 chapter text similar in
structure to the present Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching.
When
we compare the Chêng-fa-hua-ching and the Mia-fa-lien-hua-ching which respectively
represent the forms of late 3rd and early 5th centuries, we can discern
considerable structural differences between the two. These differences
apparently led to a need for a revised edition which appeared in the form of T’ien-p’in-miao-fa-lien-hua-ching.
On the circumstances surrounding the new translation, the following note
appears in the preface to the same:
Formerly
during the reign of Emperor P’u-wu, Śramaṇa Dharmarakṣa
Of
Tun-huang translated the Chêng-fa-hua (-ching). Later, Emperor Yao-hsing
(Wen-huan) of the Later Ch’in Dynasty asked Kumārajīva to translate the
Miao-fa-lien-hua (-ching). Examining the two, we see that they are not from a
single source. Dharmarakṣa’s (translation) is like the manuscript on
tāla-leaves; Kumārajīva’s (translation) like the manuscript from Kuccha. When I
closely examined the two in light of the Tripiṭaka, (the manuscript on the
leaves of) tāla matched the Chêng-fa (-hua-ching) and (the manuscript from)
Kuccha is exactly like the Miao-fa (-lien-hua-ching). The original text of
Dharmarakṣa is incomplete while that of Kumārajīva is complete. (The original
text of) Dharmarakṣa lacks the gāthā of the P’u-men-p’in 普門品. Kumārajīva’s
(original text) lacks the (latter) half of the Yo-ts’ao-yü-p’in 藥草喻品, the
beginning of the Fu-lou-na-p’in 富樓那品 (Wu-pai-ti-tzu-shou-ji-p’in 五百弟子受記品) and
the Fa-shih-p’in 法師品, the entire Ti-p’o-ta-tuo-p’in 提婆達多品 and the gāthās of the
P’u-men-p’in. Further, in the (original text of) Kumārajīva, the Chu-lui (-p’in)
囑累(品) precedes the Yo-wang (-p’u-sa-shih-p’in) 藥王(菩薩本事品). In both, however, the
T’o-lo-ni (-p’in) 陀羅尼(品) is placed after the P’u-men-p’in. The differences
between the two are too extreme to be explained.
In
the Miao-fa lien hua-ching, we see that six chapters, from the Yo-wang-p’u-sa
pen-shih-p’in 藥王菩薩本事品(Bhaiṣajyarājapūrvayoga) to the P’u-hsien-p’u-sa-ch’üan-fa-p’in
普賢菩薩勸發品(Samantabhadrotāhana), are placed after the Chu-lui-p’in (Chapter XXII,
Anuparīndanā); it is assumed that these chapters, newly created, were added to
the original form of the Lotus Sūtra. Parenthetically, the usual practice is to
place the Chu-lui-p’in at the end of the Sūtra; the fact that this is so in the
Sanskrit texts, the Chêng-fa-hua and the T’ien-p’in is seen as a proof of later
editing. Furthermore, the position of the T’o-lo-ni-p’in behind the P’u-men-p’in
is seen as a proof of later editing. Furthermore, the position of the T’o-lo-ni-p’in
behind the P’u-men-p’in is similar to that found in the Ōtani MS. (Mironov’s
readings) unearthed in Central Asia, while its position behind the Shen-li-p’in
神力品(Thatāgatarddhyabhisaṃskāra) can be similarly attributed to later
adjustment.
Finally,
as seen in the original translation of the Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching and in the
Sanskrit text unearthed in Farhād-Beg, it is believed that the original form of
the Lotus-Sūtra continued directly from the Pao-t’a-p’in寶塔品 (Stūpasaṃdarśana)
to the Ch ‘üan-ch’ih-p’in 勸持品 (Utāha). However, in connection with the Pao-t’a-p’in,
the Sa-t’an-fên-t’o-li-ching薩曇分陀利經(A. D. 265-316, translator unknown, Taishō
No. 265), expounding the vyākaraṇa of Devadatta and women’s attainment of
Buddhahood, was circulated as a separate volume. The first attempt at
incorporating the Sa-t’an-fên-t’o-li-ching into the Lotus Sūtra occurred while
the Chêng-fa-hua-ching was still in the process of being transmitted. This is
proven by a passage corresponding to the Sa-t’an-fên-t’o-li-ching found only in
the Pao-t’a-p’in of the Chêng-fa-hua-ching. The differences among the various
extant texts indicate the stages in the formation of the Lotus Sūtra.
Keishō Tsukamoto
Yenshū Kurumiya
From 《SANSKRIT MANUSCRIPTS OF SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKA》, COMPILED BY INSTITUTE FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF LOTUS SUTRA RISSHO UNIVERSITY