The author of this paper, Dr. Sadahiko Kariya, supposes that the composer of the Indian original scripture of the Saddharmapundarīka-sūtra or the Lotus Sutra could be an abscure unknown Buddhist monk who was disappointed to be born in the age after the passing of the Buddha and craved to meet with the Buddha and to listen to His teachings. It is supposed that the monk might practice meditation in search of enlightenment so earnestly and deeply that he reached the highest state of religious experience in which he could meet with the Buddha ever living and teaching and listen to His true words. After returning from the religious experience to ordinary life, the monk intended to propagate accurately the truth that every sentient being has possibility of becoming Buddha and he composed the Lotus Sutra prudently enough to avoid a mistake or a misunderstanding. The Indian original of the Lotus Sutra should be constructed the consistent plot and completed with attention to every detail by the honest monk. However, the current Lotus Sutra consisting of twenty-seven or twenty-eight chapters can not be regarded as the consistent completed work because it is contaminated with inconsistency and contradiction between chapters and even in each chapter. Dr. Kariya considers that the inconsistency and the contradiction in the Sutra were caused by additional or inserted parts different from the original in later ages, which is called ‘later part’（ 後分） by him, and he has closely read throughout the current Lotus Sutra in order to remove the ‘later part’ and to restore the Indian original of the Lotus Sutra. According to his judgment, the original Lotus Sutra consisted of only twelve chapters. In this paper, the sixth chapter of Dharma-bhānaka（ 法師品） was minutely examined. As a result of close reading of it, it was turned out that this chapter also contains many ‘later parts’ and the key word ‘dharma-bhānaka’ occurs fewer times in limited passages despite the title of the chapter. Accordingly, it is supposed that the original of this chapter should have been less in volume than it could be an independent chapter, and that the original passages should have belonged to the next chapter of Stūpa-samdarśana as an introductory part of it.
