This paper discusses the problem of the Japanese translation of “Silent Spring” by Ryoichi Aoki. It has been said that Aoki’s translation has a lot of room for improving. In some cases, the meaning of the original text is intentionally altered. There are nine cases of the use of “狂”, i.e. mad or madness, in his translation. But many of which do not correspond to the original text. Carson refers to the criticized as irresponsible but not as mad or insane. The contrast between sanity and insanity in Aoki’s translations is often judged to be his explanatory notes or commentaries.

View full abstract

Present stem of pari-deva- ‘to lament’ is originally conjugated in the active voice as paridevati, parideveyur etc. However, the middle forms are predominant in the Sanskrit text of the Lotus Sutra: paridevate, paridevamānāḥ, paridevadhvam. Could these be considered genuine readings? Gilgit A, Cambridge’s C5 and Tokyo University’s T8 read paridevati against KN XXII: 411,9 paridevate. Most probably KN’s paridevate is to be emended. All Gilgit-Nepal manuscripts stated below read paridevadhvam, but Central Asians suggest paridevatha. Presumably, these active forms were original ones. While most of manuscripts read paridevamānāḥ, this form has been attested in Pāli literature and Mahāvastu. The authenticity of this present participle cannot be denied. This paper is one of a series of small attempts to collect materials for a future re-edition of the Lotus Sutra.

View full abstract