This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the Japanese dictionaries I checked, hokekyō is preferred to hokkekyō, and I changed the article accordingly.
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 (
talk •
contribs)
06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please give specific in-line citations for your new additions. Mitsube ( talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oh the irony of such a statement being left unsigned! Yes please someone provide a cite AND sign any comments here with four tildes please! Tumacama ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
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]' 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)
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)
(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)
According to Lopez the Burnouf translation, the first to appear in the West, was based on Sanskrit documents. BrandenburgG ( talk) 04:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently added, specifically by name, the Three Vehicles in Ch. 3 summary: A Parable "The Buddha teaches a parable in which a father uses the promise of various toy carts to get his children out of a burning house, once they are outside, he gives them all one large cart to travel in instead. This symbolizes how the Buddha uses the Three Vehicles: Arhatship, Pratyekabuddhahood and Samyaksambuddhahood,..." I found this naming to be necessary, because the linked "Three Vehicles" leads to en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Yana_%28Buddhism%29#The_three_carts_of_expedient_means:_the_parable_of_the_burning_house which only names the Three Vehicles somewhat tangentially towards the end. If someone can provide a more comprehensive or informative link please do. Tumacama ( talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lotus Sutra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is such a wonderful and balanced article. Thanks to all of the editors.
I am currently reading Tanabe's The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture. Shioiri Ryodo's chapter in it emphasizes how much content in the Lotus Sutra is centered on its own propagation/transmission. I think this should be mentioned in the WP article, not sure where. Any thoughts? BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
An enormous treasury of art and poetry was inspired by the LS. Does this merit a subsection (maybe 5.3, under Impact)? The Tanabe source has a lot of comments on this topic. I would be interested in editors' thoughts on this. BrandenburgG ( talk) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I put in a short section on this topic. Please share with me any feedback you may have. There's a lot of sources for this, what I have is just a sample. BrandenburgG ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we add a section on modern commentary. Otherwise the article looks like Lotus Sutra commentary and scholarship died centuries ago. In fact tremendous contributions have been made by people such as Burnouf, Niwano, Ikeda, etc. BrandenburgG ( talk) 04:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if there are modern interpretations I would like to see them. This article is rather obscure and one may conclude from it that the sutra is interesting intellectually, but surely there are modern religions using it? -- JackBnimble10 ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my long MIA...busy season at work. I will try to put something up to start this off. BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fellow editors, I placed a first draft for this section in my Sandbox. I would appreciate feedback before I place it in the article. /info/en/?search=User:BrandenburgG/sandbox
/info/en/?search=User:BrandenburgG/sandbox#Modern_Scholarship_and_Application BrandenburgG ( talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment
1) Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 commentary on the Lotus Sutra, "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West. His translation of the Lotus Sutra, "Le Lotus de la bonne loi" was published posthumously in 1852. Prior to publication, a chapter from the translations was included in the 1844 journal The Dial, a publication of the New England transcendentalists, translated from French to Engish by Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. A second translation was completed by Kern and Nanjo in 1884.
2) Western interest in the Lotus Sutra waned in the latter 19th century as Indo-centric scholars focused on Pali and Sanskrit Hinayana texts. Christian missionaries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, predominantly in China, became interested in Kumārajīva's translation of the Lotus Sutra into Chinese. These scholars attempted to draw parallels between the Old and New Testaments to earlier Hinayana sutras and the Lotus Sutra. Abbreviated and "cristo-centric" translations were published by Richard and Soothill.
3) In the post World War II scholarly interest in Japanese Buddhism and its Chinese origins, as well as archeological research in Dunhuang, inspired renewed focus on the Lotus Sutra from East Asian perspectives. This phenomenon led to the first full translation of Kumarajiva by Leon Hurvitz in 1976. Whereas the Hurvitz work was independent scholarship, other modern translations were sponsored by Buddhist groups: Kato Bunno (1975, Nichiren-shu/Rissho-kosei-kai), Murano Senchu (1974, Nichiren-shu), Burton Watson (1993, Soka Gakkai), and the Buddhist Text Translation Society (Xuanhua).
4) According to Shields "modern(ist) interpretations" of the Lotus Sutra begin with the early 20th century nationalist applications of the Lotus Sutra by Chigaku Tanaka, Nissho Honda, Seno'o, and Nisshō Inoue.
5) After World War II various Buddhist organizations shared their interpretations of the Lotus Sutra through publications, symposia, and exhibits. Etai Yamada, the 253rd head priest of the Tendai denomination conducted ecumenical dialogues with religious leaders around the world based on his interpretation of the Lotus Sutra which culminated in a 1987 summit. He also used the Lotus Sutra to move his sect from a "temple Buddhism" perspective to one based on social engagement. Josei Toda began his reconstruction of the Soka Gakkai after the war with a series of lectures on the Lotus Sutra. Daisaku Ikeda wrote a six-volume dialogue called "The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra.". The Soka Gakkai-affiliated Institute of Oriental Philosophy has sponsored colloquia and exhibitions about the Lotus Sutra.The Risshō Kōsei Kai has held academic conferences about the Lotus Sutra and the collected papers are often published.
1) The first sentence appears to be misleading because "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," is an introduction to the history of Buddhism in India (the LS is part of the content, see https://archive.org/details/MN41423ucmf_0 p. 641). I propose to change the sentence to: " Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West." Nanjo is not named as an author of the English translation by Kern.
2) "Hinayana texts": perhaps Nikaya texts is more neutral.
3) ok. (Hurvitz was Professor at a catholic University if I remember correctly. The first edition of the German translation was sponsored by the catholic church/Cardinal Ratzinger!)
4) ok, (I did not have the time to read the source)
5) "and the collected papers are often published." remove, this is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I would remove the Lokesh Chandra source because this is a highly promotional piece. The whole section appears to be incomplete. We should avoid to give undue weight to Soka Gakkai. I think this part might fit into the "Buddhism in Japan" (or The Lotus Sutra in Japan?) section.
1-4 might fit into the "Translations into Western languages" (or rename: "Western scholarship") section. Several Sources are freely available and need to be supplemented by url´s. Is the Fatherree a PhD thesis? Is it available as a pdf? JimRenge ( talk) 11:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to @JimRenge for the feedback. Here is the updated proposal for the new section. I would appreciate any comments. Let me keep this in the Talk page for a few days before posting it into the article. BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and posted my proposed addition. I am very open to comments on this new section and would happily engage with fellow editors to improve it. BrandenburgG ( talk) 12:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I slightly expanded this section with a couple of sources about the influence of the LS on Japanese Buddhist poetry. I'd like to expand this section to include sources from all the art genres, perhaps a paragraph for each genre. Help appreciated! BrandenburgG ( talk) 11:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@JimRenge, I think you might've been too hasty to remove the source from this publisher. It's a house based in India but it seems to be reputable...and not a self-publishing outfit. ( http://www.gyanbooks.com/index.php?p=aboutus&l=0).
The scholar also appears to be creditable. ( http://www.icsin.org/faculty/show/14) Let's reconsider! BrandenburgG ( talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
At the very onset, it says "According to Paul Williams, "For many East Asian Buddhists since early times the Lotus Sutra contains the final teaching of the Buddha, complete and sufficient for salvation." Why exactly do we need the opinion of a non-Buddhist Western scholar to tell us this? Or is it only true if a foreigner says it but if a native practicing Buddhist says it then it has no weight? It is only valid if a Westerner says so otherwise not.
I am pretty tired of this view point and I am a Westerner but not a Buddhist. I want to hear what the local tradition thinks not some idiotic professor who never practiced the tradition he is commenting on.
Western academics are NOT the last word on the matter. If I want to read idiocy regarding something I am an expert at all I need do is read what some scholar wrote about it.
So I say get more opinions of those in the tradition. 49.207.61.24 ( talk) 07:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't remember. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan: Then the next question is probably not going to surprise you: would you like to work together to write a page like that?-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I cannot do this by myself. I have never involved myself with policy before. JimRenge, can you give me a few pointers how to start a policy page? Thanks. I would also like your input on whether you think this section contains any misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 00:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I would love to see a section on the contemporary significance of the LS. I suggest that we look toward recent scholarship on this matter. There is the Daniel Lopez book from a few years ago. Also articles ( sample) published by the Institute for Oriental Philosophy. RKK sponsors annual academic international LS seminars. I am sure there must be many more sources.
Any thoughts? BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps mistranslated? "...1-9 and 17 were probably created in the 1st century BCE" In fact all sutras were transmitted by Shakyamuni Buddha around 500BC. At the conference after Buddha's death, all sutras were recited from memory. First written down in Pali, with Sanskrit translations coming later. Perhaps the Sanskrit translation of the Lotus Sutra was discovered 400 years after it was first written down? The sutras were handed down through generations in monasteries where monks memorized them and recited them to new students for them to memorize. I don't know when Sanskrit translations were first written down, but they were "created" in the 4th or 5th century BCE. Suggest changing 'created' to discovered. This is common knowledge, ask the Dalai Lama, not "scholars".
Hpfeil ( talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
☸Javierfv1212☸, thank you very much for your recent edits. JimRenge ( talk) 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have read the lotus sutra and vimalakirti sutra vary carefully ! And the great vehicle description of the buddha is not deferent from the description of the supreme God . First the buddha is depicted as the father of all so as the supreme God. Second this world is sakyamuni Buddha's world and in other sutras like amitabha sutra it is written that amitabha bodhisattva ( before buddhahood ) vowed to have a wonderful world ( buddha land ) so the the world is conditioned by amitabha and also the supreme God is the creator of the "God land" Third the Buddh'sa enlightenment was before beginningless time and also will be after endingless time , so did buddha and God lived together before the conditioning of everything ? Or is the buddha the very supreme God . Forth it is known that it is impossible to study s.God and also the Buddha Sixth there is one buddha( dharmakaya form ) and also one God ( devine form ) 197.156.118.178 ( talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to find near the top the language or languages this was originally written in. But I didn't see that at the top. And I didn't see it as a skimmed page after page after page. Shouldn't this information be at the top? Looking up the word sutras, we find out that there are Hindu and Buddhist versions etc. And also there is at least one other language base, Chinese. And of course there is Japanese. The original language of this, and the oldest source of that, are crucial pieces of information. As is the topic of provenance. Confusing the topic is the chant that goes with it in some religion, that is based on two or three different languages (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). If the information is in the article, especially the language part, should it be moved to the top, near the introduction? Misty MH ( talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Why does this professor’s name appear 14 times in this article? Matt90266 ( talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the Japanese dictionaries I checked, hokekyō is preferred to hokkekyō, and I changed the article accordingly.
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 (
talk •
contribs)
06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please give specific in-line citations for your new additions. Mitsube ( talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oh the irony of such a statement being left unsigned! Yes please someone provide a cite AND sign any comments here with four tildes please! Tumacama ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
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]' 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)
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)
(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)
According to Lopez the Burnouf translation, the first to appear in the West, was based on Sanskrit documents. BrandenburgG ( talk) 04:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently added, specifically by name, the Three Vehicles in Ch. 3 summary: A Parable "The Buddha teaches a parable in which a father uses the promise of various toy carts to get his children out of a burning house, once they are outside, he gives them all one large cart to travel in instead. This symbolizes how the Buddha uses the Three Vehicles: Arhatship, Pratyekabuddhahood and Samyaksambuddhahood,..." I found this naming to be necessary, because the linked "Three Vehicles" leads to en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Yana_%28Buddhism%29#The_three_carts_of_expedient_means:_the_parable_of_the_burning_house which only names the Three Vehicles somewhat tangentially towards the end. If someone can provide a more comprehensive or informative link please do. Tumacama ( talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lotus Sutra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is such a wonderful and balanced article. Thanks to all of the editors.
I am currently reading Tanabe's The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture. Shioiri Ryodo's chapter in it emphasizes how much content in the Lotus Sutra is centered on its own propagation/transmission. I think this should be mentioned in the WP article, not sure where. Any thoughts? BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
An enormous treasury of art and poetry was inspired by the LS. Does this merit a subsection (maybe 5.3, under Impact)? The Tanabe source has a lot of comments on this topic. I would be interested in editors' thoughts on this. BrandenburgG ( talk) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I put in a short section on this topic. Please share with me any feedback you may have. There's a lot of sources for this, what I have is just a sample. BrandenburgG ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we add a section on modern commentary. Otherwise the article looks like Lotus Sutra commentary and scholarship died centuries ago. In fact tremendous contributions have been made by people such as Burnouf, Niwano, Ikeda, etc. BrandenburgG ( talk) 04:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if there are modern interpretations I would like to see them. This article is rather obscure and one may conclude from it that the sutra is interesting intellectually, but surely there are modern religions using it? -- JackBnimble10 ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my long MIA...busy season at work. I will try to put something up to start this off. BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fellow editors, I placed a first draft for this section in my Sandbox. I would appreciate feedback before I place it in the article. /info/en/?search=User:BrandenburgG/sandbox
/info/en/?search=User:BrandenburgG/sandbox#Modern_Scholarship_and_Application BrandenburgG ( talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment
1) Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 commentary on the Lotus Sutra, "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West. His translation of the Lotus Sutra, "Le Lotus de la bonne loi" was published posthumously in 1852. Prior to publication, a chapter from the translations was included in the 1844 journal The Dial, a publication of the New England transcendentalists, translated from French to Engish by Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. A second translation was completed by Kern and Nanjo in 1884.
2) Western interest in the Lotus Sutra waned in the latter 19th century as Indo-centric scholars focused on Pali and Sanskrit Hinayana texts. Christian missionaries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, predominantly in China, became interested in Kumārajīva's translation of the Lotus Sutra into Chinese. These scholars attempted to draw parallels between the Old and New Testaments to earlier Hinayana sutras and the Lotus Sutra. Abbreviated and "cristo-centric" translations were published by Richard and Soothill.
3) In the post World War II scholarly interest in Japanese Buddhism and its Chinese origins, as well as archeological research in Dunhuang, inspired renewed focus on the Lotus Sutra from East Asian perspectives. This phenomenon led to the first full translation of Kumarajiva by Leon Hurvitz in 1976. Whereas the Hurvitz work was independent scholarship, other modern translations were sponsored by Buddhist groups: Kato Bunno (1975, Nichiren-shu/Rissho-kosei-kai), Murano Senchu (1974, Nichiren-shu), Burton Watson (1993, Soka Gakkai), and the Buddhist Text Translation Society (Xuanhua).
4) According to Shields "modern(ist) interpretations" of the Lotus Sutra begin with the early 20th century nationalist applications of the Lotus Sutra by Chigaku Tanaka, Nissho Honda, Seno'o, and Nisshō Inoue.
5) After World War II various Buddhist organizations shared their interpretations of the Lotus Sutra through publications, symposia, and exhibits. Etai Yamada, the 253rd head priest of the Tendai denomination conducted ecumenical dialogues with religious leaders around the world based on his interpretation of the Lotus Sutra which culminated in a 1987 summit. He also used the Lotus Sutra to move his sect from a "temple Buddhism" perspective to one based on social engagement. Josei Toda began his reconstruction of the Soka Gakkai after the war with a series of lectures on the Lotus Sutra. Daisaku Ikeda wrote a six-volume dialogue called "The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra.". The Soka Gakkai-affiliated Institute of Oriental Philosophy has sponsored colloquia and exhibitions about the Lotus Sutra.The Risshō Kōsei Kai has held academic conferences about the Lotus Sutra and the collected papers are often published.
1) The first sentence appears to be misleading because "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," is an introduction to the history of Buddhism in India (the LS is part of the content, see https://archive.org/details/MN41423ucmf_0 p. 641). I propose to change the sentence to: " Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West." Nanjo is not named as an author of the English translation by Kern.
2) "Hinayana texts": perhaps Nikaya texts is more neutral.
3) ok. (Hurvitz was Professor at a catholic University if I remember correctly. The first edition of the German translation was sponsored by the catholic church/Cardinal Ratzinger!)
4) ok, (I did not have the time to read the source)
5) "and the collected papers are often published." remove, this is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I would remove the Lokesh Chandra source because this is a highly promotional piece. The whole section appears to be incomplete. We should avoid to give undue weight to Soka Gakkai. I think this part might fit into the "Buddhism in Japan" (or The Lotus Sutra in Japan?) section.
1-4 might fit into the "Translations into Western languages" (or rename: "Western scholarship") section. Several Sources are freely available and need to be supplemented by url´s. Is the Fatherree a PhD thesis? Is it available as a pdf? JimRenge ( talk) 11:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to @JimRenge for the feedback. Here is the updated proposal for the new section. I would appreciate any comments. Let me keep this in the Talk page for a few days before posting it into the article. BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and posted my proposed addition. I am very open to comments on this new section and would happily engage with fellow editors to improve it. BrandenburgG ( talk) 12:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I slightly expanded this section with a couple of sources about the influence of the LS on Japanese Buddhist poetry. I'd like to expand this section to include sources from all the art genres, perhaps a paragraph for each genre. Help appreciated! BrandenburgG ( talk) 11:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@JimRenge, I think you might've been too hasty to remove the source from this publisher. It's a house based in India but it seems to be reputable...and not a self-publishing outfit. ( http://www.gyanbooks.com/index.php?p=aboutus&l=0).
The scholar also appears to be creditable. ( http://www.icsin.org/faculty/show/14) Let's reconsider! BrandenburgG ( talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
At the very onset, it says "According to Paul Williams, "For many East Asian Buddhists since early times the Lotus Sutra contains the final teaching of the Buddha, complete and sufficient for salvation." Why exactly do we need the opinion of a non-Buddhist Western scholar to tell us this? Or is it only true if a foreigner says it but if a native practicing Buddhist says it then it has no weight? It is only valid if a Westerner says so otherwise not.
I am pretty tired of this view point and I am a Westerner but not a Buddhist. I want to hear what the local tradition thinks not some idiotic professor who never practiced the tradition he is commenting on.
Western academics are NOT the last word on the matter. If I want to read idiocy regarding something I am an expert at all I need do is read what some scholar wrote about it.
So I say get more opinions of those in the tradition. 49.207.61.24 ( talk) 07:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't remember. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan: Then the next question is probably not going to surprise you: would you like to work together to write a page like that?-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I cannot do this by myself. I have never involved myself with policy before. JimRenge, can you give me a few pointers how to start a policy page? Thanks. I would also like your input on whether you think this section contains any misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 00:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I would love to see a section on the contemporary significance of the LS. I suggest that we look toward recent scholarship on this matter. There is the Daniel Lopez book from a few years ago. Also articles ( sample) published by the Institute for Oriental Philosophy. RKK sponsors annual academic international LS seminars. I am sure there must be many more sources.
Any thoughts? BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps mistranslated? "...1-9 and 17 were probably created in the 1st century BCE" In fact all sutras were transmitted by Shakyamuni Buddha around 500BC. At the conference after Buddha's death, all sutras were recited from memory. First written down in Pali, with Sanskrit translations coming later. Perhaps the Sanskrit translation of the Lotus Sutra was discovered 400 years after it was first written down? The sutras were handed down through generations in monasteries where monks memorized them and recited them to new students for them to memorize. I don't know when Sanskrit translations were first written down, but they were "created" in the 4th or 5th century BCE. Suggest changing 'created' to discovered. This is common knowledge, ask the Dalai Lama, not "scholars".
Hpfeil ( talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
☸Javierfv1212☸, thank you very much for your recent edits. JimRenge ( talk) 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have read the lotus sutra and vimalakirti sutra vary carefully ! And the great vehicle description of the buddha is not deferent from the description of the supreme God . First the buddha is depicted as the father of all so as the supreme God. Second this world is sakyamuni Buddha's world and in other sutras like amitabha sutra it is written that amitabha bodhisattva ( before buddhahood ) vowed to have a wonderful world ( buddha land ) so the the world is conditioned by amitabha and also the supreme God is the creator of the "God land" Third the Buddh'sa enlightenment was before beginningless time and also will be after endingless time , so did buddha and God lived together before the conditioning of everything ? Or is the buddha the very supreme God . Forth it is known that it is impossible to study s.God and also the Buddha Sixth there is one buddha( dharmakaya form ) and also one God ( devine form ) 197.156.118.178 ( talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to find near the top the language or languages this was originally written in. But I didn't see that at the top. And I didn't see it as a skimmed page after page after page. Shouldn't this information be at the top? Looking up the word sutras, we find out that there are Hindu and Buddhist versions etc. And also there is at least one other language base, Chinese. And of course there is Japanese. The original language of this, and the oldest source of that, are crucial pieces of information. As is the topic of provenance. Confusing the topic is the chant that goes with it in some religion, that is based on two or three different languages (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). If the information is in the article, especially the language part, should it be moved to the top, near the introduction? Misty MH ( talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Why does this professor’s name appear 14 times in this article? Matt90266 ( talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)