Book Reviews Of Scripture Of Lotus Blossom Of Fine Dharma

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided book review of Leon Hurvitz's translation of the Lotus Sutra, as presented in the text:

The book review, written by J. W. De Jong, focuses on Leon Hurvitz's 1976 English translation of the Saddharmapundarika Sutra, specifically based on Kumārajīva's Chinese version. This is noted as the third English translation of the text.

Strengths and Intentions of Hurvitz's Translation:

• Hurvitz aimed to satisfy both the requirements of the series it belongs to and his "philological conscience."
• To cater to "Sanskrit-oriented readers," he included Sanskrit words and phrases in parentheses or in back notes, often providing English translations of the Sanskrit where differences between versions were significant.

Critique of Hurvitz's Sanskrit Knowledge:

• Major Weakness: De Jong strongly criticizes Hurvitz's Sanskrit knowledge, deeming it "definitely inadequate" and filled with "elementary howlers."
• Examples of Errors:
  • Misinterpretation of a passage about Buddhas: Hurvitz misinterpreted a passage concerning the arrival of Tathāgatas (Buddhas) into world spheres, leading to a convoluted and incorrect explanation of self-creation. The review points out that the original text states the Buddhas had not yet all arrived, necessitating the creation of more Buddha-fields.
  • Omission and misplacement of sentences: Hurvitz is noted for omitting key phrases like "ekaïkasyām diši" and rendering a sentence that concludes one passage as if it started a new one.
  • Incorrect translation of "dharmanetri": Translated as "eye of Dharma" when other interpretations might be more appropriate.
  • Struggles with common Sanskrit expressions: The expression "yathecchayā" (according to wish) was translated inaccurately, leading to uncertain and alternative interpretations by Hurvitz.
  • Difficulty with "sparsakāya": Hurvitz's translation of this term results in "complete gibberish." De Jong highlights the correct reading, explaining its connection to Pāli and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit terms for "contact" or "sensation," supported by scholarly research.

Critique of Hurvitz's Buddhist Literature Knowledge:

• Limited understanding of Buddhist terms: De Jong finds Hurvitz's knowledge of Buddhist literature to be "rather limited."
• Misunderstanding of "dharmaskandha": Hurvitz is criticized for his trivializing discussion of the "eighty-four thousand dharmaskandha," failing to grasp its significance within Buddhist tradition.
• Error with "yuga": Hurvitz incorrectly states that "yuga" (cosmic age) is not a Buddhist term and is hard to construe in the context of the famous simile of the tortoise and the yoke, when "yuga" in this instance clearly means "yoke."

Specific Translation Issues:

• Minor rendering preferences: While acknowledging Hurvitz's work as "excellent," De Jong points out minor places where a different rendering might be preferred (e.g., "Tamālapatracandana scent" vs. "the scent of Tamālapattra and sandal").
• Misinterpretation of Chinese characters: Hurvitz appears to have misread or misinterpreted certain Chinese characters, leading to translation errors (e.g., "wang" vs. "wang").
• Tendency to translate individual characters: This tendency makes the translation "heavy reading" and can lead to awkward phrasing (e.g., translating "chi-yüeh" as "skilfully played music" instead of simply "music").
• Less preferable translations of negative statements: Hurvitz's translation of a passage about not being born into undesirable circumstances is considered less preferable and more verbose than those of Kato and Murano.
• Omissions and omissions of explanatory notes: Hurvitz omitted translating several characters and even entire passages. The review notes the lack of explanatory notes for terms like "anutpattikadharmakṣānti," which would be crucial for an undergraduate audience.

Discussion on the Term "Pratyekabuddha":

• Critique of Hurvitz's etymological argument: De Jong refutes Hurvitz's suggestion that the Pāli "paccekabuddha" might derive from a hypothetical "prātyayikabuddha" rather than "pratyekabuddha." He argues that "prātyayikabuddha" is not found in any texts and that "pratyekabuddha" is the established etymological source.
• Explanation of the Chinese rendering "yuan-chüeh": The review delves into the Chinese translation of "pratyekabuddha" as "yuan-chüeh." It discusses Fujita's research suggesting a connection to "pratyayabuddha" in early Mahāyāna texts and the theories within the Ta Chih Tu Lun about how a pratyekabuddha arises.
• Proposed explanation for "yuan-chüeh": De Jong concludes that "yuan-chüeh" likely arose as a simplification of "yuan i chieh" (found in Dharmarakṣa's translations) and that Chinese preference for two-character compounds made "yuan-chüeh" more appealing. This term can be understood in two ways, aligning with different theories about pratyekabuddhas: "awakened through the effect of former conditions" or "awakened through the understanding of conditions."

Recommendations for Future Editions:

• De Jong hopes for a revised edition and suggests omitting the appendix of Sanskrit notes.
• He recommends adding more explanatory notes and paying closer attention to translating binomials.
• If these changes are made, the translation could serve a valuable purpose for a long time.

In essence, the review is a mixed but predominantly critical assessment of Hurvitz's translation. While acknowledging his effort and the inclusion of Sanskrit, De Jong meticulously details significant flaws in Hurvitz's linguistic and scholarly understanding, particularly concerning Sanskrit and Buddhist terminology, which undermine the overall quality and accuracy of the translation.