Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (Translations from the Asian Classics)

This is considered one of the definitive translations of the Lotus Sutra, so anyone wanting to read this text should read this version. I do not follow this vehicle, but read it out of interest and also a desire of wanting to know more about Nichiren Buddhism and SGI, both of which hold this sutra in high esteem (although I find it ironic that while many SGI adherents talk all the time about this sutra, few have actually read it).So while my rating indicates that I liked it, that's because it was a good translation and easy enough to read. Having said that, I must repeat, I do not follow this vehicle nor do I espouse its teachings.

Excellent. Excellent.

None of the translations including this one, have the feeling of the classical flair of the old Kern translation or passages translated by Anesaki. This one is most helpful with it's technical information then the others, which all have their good and bad points.

good

This is a wonderful piece of work. Having read two other interpretations of the Wonderful Lotus. This version which includes some Sanskrit interpretations adds to the richness of this version

The Lotus Sutra, or Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (J., Myohorengekyo, Hokkekyo), the preeminent scripture in the Mahayana Buddhism of East Asia -- China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam -- is known primarily through the translation into Chinese of the Sanskrit Saddharma-pundarika-sutra by Kumarajiva in CE 406. (This 28-chapter version differs in organization and presentation from the 27-chapter Sanskrit text translated into English by H. Kern in 1884, and still available for sale; the two versions should not be confused.)Although Kumarajiva's Lotus Sutra has influenced all of Japanese Buddhism in one way or another, it is the basic scripture for the great medieval Tendai (C., T'ien T'ai) sect, as well as the later Nichiren sect and its offshoots, especially Soka Gakkai and Rissho Koseikai, all three of which emphasize recitation of the "Nam' myohorengekyo" formula." The Lotus is NOT included in the scriptural canon of Southern Buddhism (Theravada) in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, and other areas of SE Asia.The Lotus Sutra is basically a statement of philosophical principles and should not be approached as literary entertainment. Its message has serious implications - today probably more so than any time in past history. But the reading takes patience and serious, quiet rumination. Its message is that all sentient beings have the potential for attaining Buddhahood, but conceptual illusion prevents them from realizing that this is their essential nature. Out of compassion, the Buddha(s) employs many devices (Skillful Means/Expedients; hoben) accommodated to their specific needs, to assist them in seeing through this illusion. (The notion is expressed through most of the sutra's Seven Parables.) Although provisional teachings are not only possible but necessary, there is, in fact, only One Vehicle, one ultimate, ineffable spiritual goal; and for this reason the Lotus is sometimes called the Sutra of the One Vehicle. It is important to note, however, that the term does not describe an EXCLUSIVE DOGMATIC FORMULATION that is taken to be correct while others are false. The ultimate religious experience is beyond the reach of rational understanding, which is, at best, "a finger pointing at the moon".Although the Lotus Sutra might be viewed as the BEST possible expression of the Buddha's teaching, it is NOT THE ONE AND ONLY way to spiritual realization: other scriptures (and other words, rituals, myths, metaphors, etc.) can be embraced as expressing a more or less adequate means for attaining spiritual understanding - the specific words or symbols do no matter. The One Vehicle refers to a single experiential GOAL to be reached through a variety of conceptual formulations and exercises, but ultimately transcending the word-games of rationality. Note, however, that although the Lotus Sutra freely admits many routes to enlightenment (because of the varying needs of individuals), it does NOT claim that "one view is just as good as any another," i.e., relativism.Although today the most popular translation of the (Chinese) Lotus Sutra may be Burton Watson's elegant rendition (1993) into English, some serious scholars still prefer this older version by Leon Hurvitz (1976); and even, occasionally, the Bunno Kato collection of three sutras (1975). Depending on the size of your wallet, you might consider buying all 3.

Hurvitz's translation brings the visionary beauty, power and poetry of the Lotus Sutra to life in English. It stands forth on its own. Made for slow reading and reflection. The images are many and gorgeous. This is not a sanitized or simplified versions of the Sutra and some readers may have a problem with that.

While the Burton Watson translation of the Lotus Sutra is "elegant" as one reviewer commented, to be sure, it was also totally commissioned by the Soka Gakkai International to be written. Don't get me wrong, it is a great translation in it's own right as Burton Watson has done some excellent translations in the past, it's just that that one had an agenda from the beginning.Now this older Leon Hurvitz translation, on the other hand, had no political influence. It just remained pure to the Sanskrit and Chinese translation from the Kumarajiva. This remains the most accurate and readable translation to date - period and exclamation point!Buy both copies and read them side by side. Do all the research online into the original Sanskrit of the Bodhisattvas and then make your own judgement. Better yet buy as many translations of The Lotus Sutra as you can and refer to all of them from time to time - it will broaden your understanding deeply.Namaste, Donna

Just to say that if you are interested in this great Buddhist text, the Lotus Sutra, Leon Hurvitz's translation into English is one of the best. On his own explanation, he translated the Kumarajiva Chinese text with another eye on the original Prakrit or Sanskrit textual versions. Worth emphasizing, too, that Hurvitz seems not to have had any specific doctrinal affiliation.