Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1would seem to take away one of the fundamental doctrines of Buddhism, namely the doctrine of karman, or of the continuous working of our deeds whether good or bad. Instead of the old doctrine, As a man soweth, so he shall reap, a new and easier way of salvation is here preached, viz. As a man prayeth, so he shall be saved. It is what is known to us as salvation by faith rather than by works. The Larger Sukhavati-vyuha lays likewise great stress on prayer and faith in Amitabha, but it never neglects ' the stock of merit ' as essential for salvation. It would almost seem as if this popular and easy doctrine had secured to itself the name of Mahayana, as meaning the Broad Way, in opposition to the Narrow Way, the Hinayana. The historical relation between the Hinayana and the Mahayana schools of Buddhism is to me as great a puzzle as ever. But that the teaching of vSakyamuni as represented in the Hinayana comes first in time seems to be shown by the Mahayana-sutras themselves. Even in our Sukhavati-vyuha the teacher, the Bhagavat, is 5akyamuni, whom we know as the son of the Lord of Kapilavastu, the husband of Yaj-odhard, the father of Rahula. We begin with a dialogue between this Buddha and his famous disciple Ananda. Ananda observes that Buddha is in a state of spiritual exaltation and asks him what he is seeing or thinking. Thereupon Buddha relates how there was a line of eighty-one Tathagatas or Buddhas beginning with Dipahkara and ending with Lokexvarara^a. During the period of this Tathagata Loke.yvarara^, a Bhikshu or Buddhist mendicant of the name of Dharmakara formed the intention of becoming a Buddha. He therefore went to the Tathagata Lokej-varara^a, praised him in several verses, and then asked him to become his teacher and to describe to him what a Buddha and a Buddha country ought to be. After having received instruction, Dharmakara comprehended all the best quahties of all the Buddha countries, and prayed that they should all be concentrated in his own country when he himself had become a Buddha. After long meditations Dharmakara returns to Buddha Loke.yvararara and tells him in a long prayer what he
2wishes and wills his own Buddha country to be. This prayer forms really the nucleus of the Sukhavati-vyuha ; it is in fact, under the form of a prayer, a kind of prophecy of what, according to Dharmakara's ideas, Sukhavati or the Land of Bliss ought to be. Dharmakara then became a l^odhisattva, a candidate for Buddhahood.and lastly a real Buddha (§ 9). All this is related by Buddha 5akyamuni to Ananda, as a kind of vision of what happened ten kalpas ago (§ 14, s. f,). When Ananda asks vSakyamuni what has become of this Bodhisattva Dharmakara, Buddha answers that this original mendicant is now reigning in Sukhavati as the Buddha Amitabha. He then proceeds to describe Sukhavati where Amitabha dwells, and his description of Amitabha's country is very much the fulfilment of all that Dharmakara has prayed for. Once (§ 17) Ananda is reproved by Buddha for not implicitly believing all he says about the marvels of Sukhavati, but afterwards the praises of Sukhavati and of its inhabitants are continued till nearly the end. In some verses recited by Buddha ^akyamuni, Amitabha himself, when questioned by the Buddha-son Avalokite^vara, explains that Sukhavati is what it is in fulfilment of his prayers, when he was as )'et living on earth (§§31, 13; 1 7). At last Ananda expresses a wish to see Amitabha, whereupon that Buddha sends a ray of light from the palm of his hand so that the whole world was inundated by its light, and not only Ananda, but every living being could see Amitabha and his retinue of Bodhisattvas in the Land of Bliss, while they in Sukhavati could sec 6"akyamuni and the whole world Saha. Then begins the conversation between 6"akyamuni and A^^nta (instead of Ananda). Buddha explains to him how some of the blessed spirits in Sukhavati sit cross-legged in lotus-flowers, while others dwell shut up in the calyx of these flowers, the former being the firm believers in Amitabha, the latter those who have entertained some doubt, and who have therefore to wait for five hundred years inside the calyx before they become full-blown, being debarred during all that time from seeing and hearing the Buddha. In conclusion Buddha ^Akyamuni exhorts A^ita to teach
3this treatise, the Sukhavati-vyuha, to all beings, and promises great rewards to all who will learn it, copy it, teach and explain it. I need not repeat here what I have said in the preface to my edition of the Sanskrit text of the Sukhavati-vyuha about the difficulties of translating a text which in many places is corrupt and imperfect. But I may point out another difficulty, namely how almost impossible it is to find in English a sufficient number of nouns and adjectives to render the superabundant diction of this Description of the Land of Bliss. An exact rendering of all the words of its gushing eloquence is out of the question. Often I should have liked to shorten some turgid sentence, but I was afraid of exposing myself once more to the frivolous charge of representing the Sacred Books of the East as more beautiful, as more free from blemishes, than they really are. No more unfounded charge could have been brought against these translations of the Sacred Books of the East. Whatever else they may be or not be, they are certainly faithful, as faithful as an English translation of an Oriental original can possibly be. That they are free from mistakes, I should not venture to say, and no Oriental scholar would expect it. Those who venture to translate Oriental texts that have never been translated before are few in number, and they have to do the work of pioneers. Those who follow in their track find it very easy, no doubt, to do over again what has been done before, and even to point out here and there what they consider and represent as mistakes ; nay, they evidently imagine that because they can discover a mistake, they themselves could have done the pioneer's work as well or much better. If only they would try for once to find their way through the jungle and the brushwood of an unexplored forest they would become more just to their predecessors, and more humble in judging of their own performances. Nay, they might possibly find that often when they differ from the translation of others, they themselves may be wrong, and their precursors right. This at all events I may say in my own name and in the name of my fellow-workers, that the idea of representing
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1would seem to take away one of the fundamental doctrines of Buddhism, namely the doctrine of karman, or of the continuous working of our deeds whether good or bad. Instead of the old doctrine, As a man soweth, so he shall reap, a new and easier way of salvation is here preached, viz. As a man prayeth, so he shall be saved. It is what is known to us as salvation by faith rather than by works. The Larger Sukhavati-vyuha lays likewise great stress on prayer and faith in Amitabha, but it never neglects ' the stock of merit ' as essential for salvation. It would almost seem as if this popular and easy doctrine had secured to itself the name of Mahayana, as meaning the Broad Way, in opposition to the Narrow Way, the Hinayana. The historical relation between the Hinayana and the Mahayana schools of Buddhism is to me as great a puzzle as ever. But that the teaching of vSakyamuni as represented in the Hinayana comes first in time seems to be shown by the Mahayana-sutras themselves. Even in our Sukhavati-vyuha the teacher, the Bhagavat, is 5akyamuni, whom we know as the son of the Lord of Kapilavastu, the husband of Yaj-odhard, the father of Rahula. We begin with a dialogue between this Buddha and his famous disciple Ananda. Ananda observes that Buddha is in a state of spiritual exaltation and asks him what he is seeing or thinking. Thereupon Buddha relates how there was a line of eighty-one Tathagatas or Buddhas beginning with Dipahkara and ending with Lokexvarara^a. During the period of this Tathagata Loke.yvarara^, a Bhikshu or Buddhist mendicant of the name of Dharmakara formed the intention of becoming a Buddha. He therefore went to the Tathagata Lokej-varara^a, praised him in several verses, and then asked him to become his teacher and to describe to him what a Buddha and a Buddha country ought to be. After having received instruction, Dharmakara comprehended all the best quahties of all the Buddha countries, and prayed that they should all be concentrated in his own country when he himself had become a Buddha. After long meditations Dharmakara returns to Buddha Loke.yvararara and tells him in a long prayer what he
2wishes and wills his own Buddha country to be. This prayer forms really the nucleus of the Sukhavati-vyuha ; it is in fact, under the form of a prayer, a kind of prophecy of what, according to Dharmakara's ideas, Sukhavati or the Land of Bliss ought to be. Dharmakara then became a l^odhisattva, a candidate for Buddhahood.and lastly a real Buddha (§ 9). All this is related by Buddha 5akyamuni to Ananda, as a kind of vision of what happened ten kalpas ago (§ 14, s. f,). When Ananda asks vSakyamuni what has become of this Bodhisattva Dharmakara, Buddha answers that this original mendicant is now reigning in Sukhavati as the Buddha Amitabha. He then proceeds to describe Sukhavati where Amitabha dwells, and his description of Amitabha's country is very much the fulfilment of all that Dharmakara has prayed for. Once (§ 17) Ananda is reproved by Buddha for not implicitly believing all he says about the marvels of Sukhavati, but afterwards the praises of Sukhavati and of its inhabitants are continued till nearly the end. In some verses recited by Buddha ^akyamuni, Amitabha himself, when questioned by the Buddha-son Avalokite^vara, explains that Sukhavati is what it is in fulfilment of his prayers, when he was as )'et living on earth (§§31, 13; 1 7). At last Ananda expresses a wish to see Amitabha, whereupon that Buddha sends a ray of light from the palm of his hand so that the whole world was inundated by its light, and not only Ananda, but every living being could see Amitabha and his retinue of Bodhisattvas in the Land of Bliss, while they in Sukhavati could sec 6"akyamuni and the whole world Saha. Then begins the conversation between 6"akyamuni and A^^nta (instead of Ananda). Buddha explains to him how some of the blessed spirits in Sukhavati sit cross-legged in lotus-flowers, while others dwell shut up in the calyx of these flowers, the former being the firm believers in Amitabha, the latter those who have entertained some doubt, and who have therefore to wait for five hundred years inside the calyx before they become full-blown, being debarred during all that time from seeing and hearing the Buddha. In conclusion Buddha ^Akyamuni exhorts A^ita to teach
3this treatise, the Sukhavati-vyuha, to all beings, and promises great rewards to all who will learn it, copy it, teach and explain it. I need not repeat here what I have said in the preface to my edition of the Sanskrit text of the Sukhavati-vyuha about the difficulties of translating a text which in many places is corrupt and imperfect. But I may point out another difficulty, namely how almost impossible it is to find in English a sufficient number of nouns and adjectives to render the superabundant diction of this Description of the Land of Bliss. An exact rendering of all the words of its gushing eloquence is out of the question. Often I should have liked to shorten some turgid sentence, but I was afraid of exposing myself once more to the frivolous charge of representing the Sacred Books of the East as more beautiful, as more free from blemishes, than they really are. No more unfounded charge could have been brought against these translations of the Sacred Books of the East. Whatever else they may be or not be, they are certainly faithful, as faithful as an English translation of an Oriental original can possibly be. That they are free from mistakes, I should not venture to say, and no Oriental scholar would expect it. Those who venture to translate Oriental texts that have never been translated before are few in number, and they have to do the work of pioneers. Those who follow in their track find it very easy, no doubt, to do over again what has been done before, and even to point out here and there what they consider and represent as mistakes ; nay, they evidently imagine that because they can discover a mistake, they themselves could have done the pioneer's work as well or much better. If only they would try for once to find their way through the jungle and the brushwood of an unexplored forest they would become more just to their predecessors, and more humble in judging of their own performances. Nay, they might possibly find that often when they differ from the translation of others, they themselves may be wrong, and their precursors right. This at all events I may say in my own name and in the name of my fellow-workers, that the idea of representing
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.