The Lotus Sutra  - I. What is the Lotus Sutra?

A literal explanation

‘The Lotus Sutra is one of the most important and influential of all the sutras or sacred scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism, revered by almost all branches of the Mahayana teachings, and over many centuries the object of intense veneration among Buddhist believers throughout China, Korea, Japan, and other regions of eastern Asia.’[1] So says Burton Watson, the most recent translator of this ancient text.  

The date when it was first set down in writing is unknown, but the first translation from Sanskrit into Chinese dates from around 255 AD.  In Sanskrit, the title of the Lotus Sutra is Saddharma‑pundarika‑sutra. Saddharma means the correct Law; pundarika, white lotus; and sutra, the Buddha’s teaching.  It is believed that there have been six Chinese translations of the Lotus Sutra, the three extant being the Sho Hokke Kyo of Dharmaraksha, the Tempon Hokke Kyo of Jnanagupta and Dharmagupta, and  Kumarajiva’s Miao fa lien hua ching, which is pronounced in Japanese as Myoho Renge Kyo.  Kumarajiva’s translation, made in 406 AD, has long been acknowledged as the best of these; according to Nichiren Daishonin, ‘Only Kumarajiva has not added the slightest personal interpretation to the teaching of the founder Shakyamuni.’[2]

Myoho Renge Kyo consists of  69,384 Chinese characters, in twenty-eight chapters. In the Japan of Nichiren Daishonin’s day, it was divided into eight separate volumes, each volume being a long scroll of parchment wound around a thick wooden core. This is the ‘eight-volume Lotus Sutra’ or ‘twenty-eight chapters in eight volumes’. The ‘Threefold Lotus Sutra’ - also known as  the ‘ten-volume Lotus Sutra’, or ‘thirty chapters in ten volumes’ - includes the ‘Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings’ (Muryogi Sutra)[3], which serves as an introduction to the Lotus Sutra, and the ‘Sutra of Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy’ (Fugen Sutra), which serves as its postscript.  

Philosophically, the Lotus Sutra represents Shakyamuni’s most profound teaching and the ultimate expression of his enlightenment. It is the only sutra to state that all people, without exception, can become Buddhas; that the sole purpose of the Buddha’s appearance in the world is to lead all people to attain the same enlightened life condition as the Buddha himself; and that Buddhahood is eternally present in life.  In the words of Daisaku Ikeda:    

‘Three kinds of Lotus Sutra’

From another viewpoint, however, the Lotus Sutra is not simply Shakyamuni’s highest teaching, but the name given to the highest teaching of any Buddha, whatever the precise form it takes.  For example, in Shakyamuni’s Lotus Sutra there are numerous passages that mention ‘the Lotus Sutra’ as preached by other Buddhas in other lands, in previous ages:    

Clearly, the Lotus Sutra that Bodhisattva Never Disparaging heard and taught was not the ‘eight-volume Lotus Sutra’ of Shakyamuni, but the essence of the Law couched in a different form.  In fact, even the ‘eight-volume Lotus Sutra’ as translated by Kumarajiva is obviously not a word-for-word account of what Shakyamuni actually preached in the last eight years of his life, but a literary distillation of his teaching, added to and polished by various hands down the centuries.  The term ‘Lotus Sutra’ therefore has a significance that goes beyond the literal text.  Daisaku Ikeda explains: 

Mr. Toda, who had grasped its very essence, offers a noteworthy perspective on the Lotus Sutra:    

This is an extremely important point.  Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism is sometimes criticised as being an offshoot of mainstream Buddhism. The concept of a ‘universal’ Lotus Sutra explains how, even though Nichiren Daishonin denies the validity of Shakyamuni’s Lotus Sutra as the teaching for this age, his own teaching remains true to the essence of that sutra and is in direct line from that essence. As he states:    

In other words, Nichiren Daishonin teaches that Shakyamuni’s Lotus Sutra itself implies that there will be a ‘Lotus Sutra of the Latter Day’.  This point is discussed further in the section entitled ‘The Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin’.  

Controversies surrounding the Lotus Sutra

It is generally believed that the Lotus Sutra was compiled sometime around the first century AD; that is, several hundred years after Shakyamuni’s death.  By this time a number of Buddhist schools were already established, based on his earlier Agama teachings.  Since these teachings required a high degree of dedication and self-discipline, they were practised mainly by those who lived and worshipped in monastic orders.  

Mahayana Buddhism emerged as a liberation from these closed orders, arguing that the Buddha’s intention had always been to save all people from suffering, not just monks and nuns.  The Lotus Sutra is the supreme example of Mahayana thought, so it is no surprise that, from the moment it appeared, it was attacked by the established schools of the time. The grounds for the attack were that it and the other Mahayana sutras were not preached by Shakyamuni, but the work of later compilers.  As such, its opponents claimed, the Lotus Sutra did not contain the Buddha’s teaching. 

There is no doubt that the Lotus Sutra was committed to writing later than many of the Agama sutras, and its central message flatly contradicts much that is in the earlier scriptures.  There is also evidence that several hands can be seen at work in the text.  As Watson notes:   

However, all of Shakyamuni’s teachings were passed down orally for many centuries following his death, and there is no direct proof that he actually preached any of them, even the Agama sutras. Again, the order in which the sutras were written down is not necessarily an indication of the order in which they were taught, nor of their relative importance.  Members of a monastic community would first record the sutras on which their own order was based and, unlike the laity, would be in a position to do so; many monks could write, and they had the time and resources to devote to such literary work.  The Mahayana sutras, arising in response to the seeking spirit of lay people, may therefore have been preserved orally for a longer time before being set down.  

There are, however, more profound reasons to refute the idea that the Lotus Sutra does not derive from Shakyamuni.  The first concerns the Buddha’s intent. If Shakyamuni did not preach the Lotus Sutra, which alone among the sutras offers the path to enlightenment for all living beings, then, as Daisaku Ikeda comments, ‘we must conclude that he failed to preach the Dharma in its fullest form or to complete the mission for which he came into the world. Such a conclusion is untenable, and therefore I believe that as Buddhists we do best to accept the view that Shakyamuni did preach the Lotus Sutra.’[11]  

The second reason concerns the nature of the ‘universal Lotus Sutra’ discussed earlier. Daisaku Ikeda again:    

TOP - CONTENTS

If you would like to download this chapter please click here