Lotus Sutra

Context

At least some parts of the Lotus Sutra were likely composed in a local Indian or Central Asian dialect, which was then translated into a form of Sanskrit (known as Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) in order to lend it an air of authority and to allow the teachings to be shared with others. The Lotus Sutra’s self-referential claims to transcendent authority and its insistence on the “one vehicle” of dharma—that is, of Buddhist law and teachings—are indicative of some of the disputes and transformations that were taking place within Indian Buddhism at the time of its creation. Between the first century BCE and the second century CE, a diffuse movement was developing that would come to be known as the Mahayana, or “great vehicle.”

Mahayana Buddhists generally reject the traditional Buddhist pursuit of individual nirvana (literally, “extinction”), which implies both a release from worldly suffering during life and liberation from the endless cycle of rebirth (samsara) upon one’s death. While Mahayana Buddhists continued to understand nirvana in terms of a release from suffering, they centralized the virtue of compassion and further emphasized the necessity of releasing others from suffering as well as oneself. Mahayana Buddhists utilize the term bodhisattva to refer specifically to beings who put aside all personal hopes for liberation in order to “save” other beings. This goal is contrasted with the traditional Buddhist goal of the arhat—enlightenment—which was perceived by Mahayanists as being somewhat “selfish.” Given this context, it is not difficult to read the Lotus Sutra as part of a larger polemic by monks affiliated with the broader Mahayana movement to establish their credentials vis-à-vis more traditional monks. And yet, whatever its polemical or sectarian intent, the success of the Lotus Sutra as an inspirational and transformative text throughout East Asian history can hardly be reduced to this aspect alone.

Whatever its Indian (or possibly West Asian) origins, the oldest extant versions of the Lotus Sutra are in Chinese, and these Chinese translations—particularly that of the Indo-Kuchan monk-translator Kumarajiva (344–413)— became the standard versions of the text as it spread throughout East Asia. The Lotus Sutra would eventually serve as the primary text for two important East Asian Buddhist sects: the sixth-century Tiantai (in Japanese, Tendai) sect, often called the first indigenous Chinese Buddhist school, and the thirteenth-century Nichiren (also known as Hokke) sect, which can make a similar claim to being the first indigenous Japanese Buddhist sect. For followers of both these traditions, the Lotus Sutra contains the highest stage of the teachings of Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha, also known as Siddhartha Gautama. In turn, all earlier teachings—that is, the texts and doctrines of the so-called Hinayana (a pejorative term meaning “lesser vehicle”)—are considered provisional stages on the path toward the highest truth as revealed in the Lotus Sutra. For all this, the Lotus Sutra is notoriously vague about the actual content of this highest truth or highest law, to the extent that it has been called (and criticized as) an “empty text.” Moreover, despite the fact that the text—like many other early Mahayana sutras—revels in complex visualizations and otherworldly splendor, it has often been employed as a vehicle for this-worldly sociopolitical critique and religious reform. Indeed, in terms of its usage, the Lotus Sutra is the most “political” of all Buddhist scriptures.