Manjusri asked Wuzhuo, "Where did you just come from?"
"From the south," replied Wuzhuo.
"And how does the buddhadharma fare in the south?" asked Manjusri.
Wuzhuo answered, "There are but few monks in the Final Age of the Law who maintain the precepts."
Manjusri asked, "How many monks are there?"
Wuzhuo replied, "Some are three hundred, some are five hundred."
Wuzhuo then asked Manjusri, "How does the buddhadharma fare here?"
Manjusri said, "Worldly people and sages live together; dragons and snakes intermingle."
"How many monks are there?" asked Wuzhuo.
Manjusri answered, "Front, three and three, back, three and three."
norman wrote:I have not read the Lotus Sutra, but I've read quotes of it.
The Treasure tower is, apparently "five hundred yojanas in height and two hundred and fifty yojanas in width and depth" (chapter 11), equivalent to half the diameter of the earth, and Mt Meru (Sumeru) is a hundred yojanas. This means that the Treasure tower is five times the height of Mt Meru.
Now since the Treasure tower is five times higher than Mt Meru, how far does the tower reach into the realms above? The Desire realm does not reach outside of Mt Meru (hundred yojanas), does it?
What is the meaning of its height, other than being just a number? Is the entrance to the tower (where the Many Treasures Buddha is) in a specific realm, or is the peak of the tower in a specific realm? Or both?
Aemilius wrote:Mt Meru is really 84 000 Yojanas high! See the correct calculations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru
norman wrote:Hello Jikan,
Reeves' contemporary version, Kato's Threefold Lotus, and Watson's Lotus seems to have received most praise.
Why do you consider Murano's version to be the best one? I can't find any reviews or comments on it, so it's hard to make an interpretation of its "quality", so to speak.
My interest is the version where the focus is on the essential meaning. All the sutras are, in my opinion deeply metaphysical, in comparsion with the modern materialist-positivist attitude we live by today. Any extra layers (other than what is already there) of poetical translation/interpretation, would only obscure the original intent.
As for your comment on the Mahayana sutras truth claims, I do infact have an idea for a topic on that one, already. I'll leave my comments to that.
Your analogy make sense, though.
I have found a site that sells copies of Murano's translation:
And a pdf-version:
http://www.nshi.org/Lotus%20Sutra/Saddh ... nglish.htm
add: Watson has released another version as well, called The Essential Lotus. Is it the same as the first one, only smaller?
second add: it seems that Reeves has translated dharmas into "things".
Does it really help to clarify the sutra, considering how the word "dharmas" are used in buddhist texts?
Jikan wrote:I don't think I understand the distinction you allude to between the metaphysical on one side and the positivistic on the other; positivism is definitely a metaphysics (in the sense of an ontology), while materialism as I understand it is intended as a critical antidote to metaphysical idealism, which is to say, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism is a rigorously materialistic work in this sense. It could be that I understand these terms differently from the way you intended them, or we just value different things in these texts.
Users browsing this forum: BrianG, Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests