Are Any Of Us Students Of The Pali And Sanskrit Languages?

[rockyysdt]

A scholar of the Pali & Sanskrit languages has indicated in his lectures that much of what we know of the English translation of the Pali Canon and other Buddhist works is laden with considerable incorrect translation and therefore misinterpretations of what the Buddha was actually attempting to convey.

For example:

• Bhikkhu , translated as Monk, gives a monastic, religious flavor. The actual translation is Beggar/Sharer. This captures the essence of a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni as one who collects alms food, and who shares surplus food and shares the Dharma in return.

• Vihara is translated as a Monastery (residence of monks living in seclusion, bound by religious vows). Far from this illusion, a Vihara is simply a residence or dwelling place of Bhikkhus/Bhikkhunis.

• The third precept reads, "I undertake to abstain from sexual misconduct". In actual fact the translation reads, "I undertake to abstain from sensual & sexual misconduct". That is, misuse and over use of the senses.

Subtle meanings can give a completely different flavor/meaning to what the Buddha was actually teaching.

Monks and Monasteries give a religious flavor.

Sexual misconduct restricts the all encompassing thrust of the word sensual.

How much more of what we have been served actually reflects what the Buddha taught.

Have any of our forum members actually studied Pali & Sanskrit as languages, and not just as canonical translation study?

It appears ensuring the integrity of translation is vital if we are to truly understand the Buddhas teachings and the path to follow.

Do we just follow blindly the translation of others, or should the English speaking Sangha collectively undertake to verify our current diet?

Edited September 27, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Another misinterpretation of Dharma translation is Nibanna (Nirvana).

Often translated as a noun, the Buddhist heaven, a place to arrive, the reward of enlightenment.

The real translation is "gone out", that is, greed, infatuation, aversion and delusion, have gone out. No longer being the forces of ones behavior.

Edited September 27, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Another word, often misquoted is Enlightenment (the Buddha became enlightened).

Enlightenment is a 19th century word.

More correctly the Buddha awakened (Buddha = the awakened one).

To be awakened.

Enlightenment gives the suggestion that one has crossed the line and is now enlightened.

Rather, awakening is more a continual process which needs continual effort.

[Xangsamhua]

Thanks for these, Rocky. Very interesting.

Translation's certainly not an exact science, regardless of the languages involved. I've been reading recently about mistranslations from Hebrew into Greek and Greek into Latin and the effect of these on the philosophy of people like Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine, and the subsequent knock-on effect on early and later Western philosophy and theology.

Who is the scholar you're referring to?

[rockyysdt]

Thanks for these, Rocky. Very interesting.

Translation's certainly not an exact science, regardless of the languages involved. I've been reading recently about mistranslations from Hebrew into Greek and Greek into Latin and the effect of these on the philosophy of people like Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine, and the subsequent knock-on effect on early and later Western philosophy and theology.

Who is the scholar you're referring to?

John Peacock, an English gentleman.He's been a monastic in both Tibetan & Theravadan traditions, a master of many languages, including Pali & Sanskrit and is currently the Director of Master of Studies at Oxford University.

He brings a refreshing view to the teachings of the Buddha, including the background and influences of the time and makes the point that followers can either cobble together a religion out the teachings, or discover a practice which enables one to be free of suffering from mind formations and achieve liberation through awakening.

Interestingly he quotes the Buddha as saying: "Absolutely all phenomena are impermanent".

He says that unless we accept this (uncertainty of the world) we're always going to be chasing illusions and phantoms which just aren't there.

He goes further to say that religious traditions built up on the back of the Buddha have sought to provide degrees of consolation and/or certainty which just aren't there.

The only real certainties are old age, sickness & death.

Whilst on the subject of translation he has indicated that "metta" does not mean loving kindness.

In fact metta means "fat friendliness" or "boundless friendliness".

Edited September 29, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It seems our knowledge of the Buddhas teachings have been extensively colored by misinterpretations over the centuries and now locked into doctrine.

As well as being involved with the ruling classes, the Buddha travelled from village to village teaching the common people in agrarian settings.

He communicated in terms his audiences could comprehend and often spoke in metaphors.

The Buddha taught that there was an alternative path to liberation (freedom from duka).

He taught that the practice of Metta (boundless friendliness) was like cultivating the soil, allowing compassion to grow and yield liberation.

Interestingly the Buddha seldom used the word compassion. He used the word "anukampa": to tremble with, to cry out for another, a complete empathy for another where self takes the background and the barrier between self and another breaks down, the middle position. He also used the term Karuna: to turn outwards from your own self obsessions.

He said that by practicing Metta, "you will dwell with Brahman", (Brahman Vihara).

In the Buddhas time "You will dwell with Brahman" was a synonym for "You will be liberated".

Buddhagosa (author of Theravadan Tradition as we know it today), in the 5^th century took the literal meaning and by doing so is telling us that by practicing the Brahman Viharas (Metta Sutta) you can be reborn into the house of Brahman.

The house of Brahman is in the highest of the Deva Realms, but still in Samsara, and well short of liberation.

Not only does Buddhagosa's misinterpretation alter what the Buddha taught, denying a path to liberation, he also makes liberation largely the domain of the Monk via the path of Vippassana.

Sitting and Mindfulness practice are vital, but I'm troubled with the level of knowledge in terms of what the Buddhas Dharma actually instructed.

Practice is useless without authentic Dharma.

Edited October 4, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

In early texts he was referred to as Bagawan (simple term of respect or Lord) .

He referred to himself as Tathagata, "one who has found the truth".

The word Buddha was never used in the Pali texts and has been added centuries later in a mythological way.

Edited October 4, 2011 by rockyysdt

[cm das]

Rocky,

I sympathize with your impulse to get at the original meanings of key words and thereby to get closer to what the Buddha (or Tathagata if you prefer) taught. I began my study of Sanskrit and Pali for the same reasons. In the 80's when I was just getting interested in Indian religious traditions, I found it odd that many of the translations of old texts that I was reading sounded like 17th century English. I guess the King James Bible's literary style was taken as the norm for scripture and applied across the board, appropriate or not. In any case, I wasn't satisfied & wanted to see for myself just what those old Indian guys were saying.

My own experience with formal study of Sanskrit and Pali is not very extensive – a few years of graduate study in the US. I was on track to do a PhD in Buddhist studies, focusing on early Indian Buddhism. I even had the good fortune to work for a time on the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project, helping with the editing and translation of some of the world's oldest know Buddhist manuscripts. Eventually it was the language study that did me in though. In order to really get a handle on early Buddhism, you have to be conversant not only in Pali and Sanskrit (as well as other Prakrits like Gandhari), but also Tibetan and Classical Chinese. Throw in French and German in order to better appreciate modern scholarship. At least for me to get my PhD I would have had to study & pass exams in all those languages.

But let me get to the specific points you raise. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from, but I think the path you're on is a very difficult and complicated one. Here are a few examples that show the problems.

First of all, just because you know the root meaning of a word, Bhikkhu for example, doesn't mean that it had that sense at the time it was used in a Buddhist context. For a parallel example, think of the word 'spirit'. At root it comes from a word meaning 'breath', (think respiration) but already by new testament times it meant something more particular (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). So Bhikku may mean "beggar" in a strict sense, but it did have a religious connotation from an early time as attested in other, non-Buddhist usage. (The bit about "sharing" seems less well attested.) To translate "bhikkhu" as "monk" seems fair to me, since in the Buddha's day his followers were not simply homeless dudes asking for food but were part of an organized community in pursuit of awakening. You could use another term like "ascetic", but that fails to convey the community aspect of the bhikkhus' existence.

I don't know of John Peacock, and I'm not sure if all the points you make come from his work, but I have to say some of the statements you/he have made strike me as strange or simply untrue.

Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

Sutta Nipata 558 and other verses contradict this claim. (Sutta Nipata is thought to be among the earliest strata of texts in the Pali canon.)

The word Buddha was never used in the Pali texts and has been added centuries later in a mythological way.

I don't know how anyone can back up a claim like this. The word is in fact found many, many times in the canon. I've given one reference above. Maybe the claim here is that using "Buddha" as a title rather than a simple description is what was added later, but I think that's exceedingly difficult to demonstrate.

He referred to himself as Tathagata, "one who has found the truth".

This is a good example of why you need to be very careful. Tathagata looks like a very simple compound word that would literally mean "thus-come" or "having come in that way". Exactly what that denotes is not completely clear (there are many theories, old and new) but the meaning you give is neither straightforward nor obvious given the form of the word itself. Similar criticisms could be made about the meanings you give for anukampa and karuna.

I could address other points you've made but I've gone on long enough for now, I think. This is a good discussion to have and I thank you for starting it. But in order to really work towards the historically "original" meanings or teachings of the Tathagata, you need your own familiarity with the relevant languages. After all, the man himself warned us against taking things on the authority of others, right? And even with deep knowledge of Pali, I think you have to accept that we can never get back to the true, original teachings. There are layers of codification & interpretation that we simply cannot penetrate. Some confront this truth and give up. And that's ok. Despite all the bs that goes on under the guise of Buddhism I still think there are authentic teachers around who are onto something real and know well how to share it. But you don't have to give up on the historical angle. Even if we can't get back to the original source, what we can do is dig through the texts honestly, with awareness and without attachment, and hopefully find things that resonate with us and strengthen our own practice. And maybe help others with their own journey along the way.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you for this generous and informed response, CM Das.

As you say, Rocky has introduced a very worthwhile topic and your contribution is very helpful.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks CM DAS.

It's good to have more than one perspective on this issue of misinterpretations.

My practice will continue but I've learned enough to have healthy skepticism before following tradition without thought, and examination which the Buddha welcomed.

We have all seen how religions have taken followers in tangential directions from the original message.

I believe our limited time in our current form is very short and precious.

Far too precious to waste on false paths (doubt aside).

I welcome any further light you can shed regarding your knowledge on scripture and interpretation.

I also encourage you to listen to John Peacocks lectures on the subject at Audiodharma dot org as I'd welcome your critique.

He gives an eloquent presentation and introduces the practice of Metta cultivation, one of the paths taught by the Buddha for liberation/awakening.

Rocky,

I sympathize with your impulse to get at the original meanings of key words and thereby to get closer to what the Buddha (or Tathagata if you prefer) taught. I began my study of Sanskrit and Pali for the same reasons. In the 80's when I was just getting interested in Indian religious traditions, I found it odd that many of the translations of old texts that I was reading sounded like 17th century English. I guess the King James Bible's literary style was taken as the norm for scripture and applied across the board, appropriate or not. In any case, I wasn't satisfied & wanted to see for myself just what those old Indian guys were saying.

My own experience with formal study of Sanskrit and Pali is not very extensive – a few years of graduate study in the US. I was on track to do a PhD in Buddhist studies, focusing on early Indian Buddhism. I even had the good fortune to work for a time on the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project, helping with the editing and translation of some of the world's oldest know Buddhist manuscripts. Eventually it was the language study that did me in though. In order to really get a handle on early Buddhism, you have to be conversant not only in Pali and Sanskrit (as well as other Prakrits like Gandhari), but also Tibetan and Classical Chinese. Throw in French and German in order to better appreciate modern scholarship. At least for me to get my PhD I would have had to study & pass exams in all those languages.

But let me get to the specific points you raise. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from, but I think the path you're on is a very difficult and complicated one. Here are a few examples that show the problems.

First of all, just because you know the root meaning of a word, Bhikkhu for example, doesn't mean that it had that sense at the time it was used in a Buddhist context. For a parallel example, think of the word 'spirit'. At root it comes from a word meaning 'breath', (think respiration) but already by new testament times it meant something more particular (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). So Bhikku may mean "beggar" in a strict sense, but it did have a religious connotation from an early time as attested in other, non-Buddhist usage. (The bit about "sharing" seems less well attested.) To translate "bhikkhu" as "monk" seems fair to me, since in the Buddha's day his followers were not simply homeless dudes asking for food but were part of an organized community in pursuit of awakening. You could use another term like "ascetic", but that fails to convey the community aspect of the bhikkhus' existence.

I don't know of John Peacock, and I'm not sure if all the points you make come from his work, but I have to say some of the statements you/he have made strike me as strange or simply untrue.

Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

Sutta Nipata 558 and other verses contradict this claim. (Sutta Nipata is thought to be among the earliest strata of texts in the Pali canon.)

The word Buddha was never used in the Pali texts and has been added centuries later in a mythological way.

I don't know how anyone can back up a claim like this. The word is in fact found many, many times in the canon. I've given one reference above. Maybe the claim here is that using "Buddha" as a title rather than a simple description is what was added later, but I think that's exceedingly difficult to demonstrate.

He referred to himself as Tathagata, "one who has found the truth".

This is a good example of why you need to be very careful. Tathagata looks like a very simple compound word that would literally mean "thus-come" or "having come in that way". Exactly what that denotes is not completely clear (there are many theories, old and new) but the meaning you give is neither straightforward nor obvious given the form of the word itself. Similar criticisms could be made about the meanings you give for anukampa and karuna.

I could address other points you've made but I've gone on long enough for now, I think. This is a good discussion to have and I thank you for starting it. But in order to really work towards the historically "original" meanings or teachings of the Tathagata, you need your own familiarity with the relevant languages. After all, the man himself warned us against taking things on the authority of others, right? And even with deep knowledge of Pali, I think you have to accept that we can never get back to the true, original teachings. There are layers of codification & interpretation that we simply cannot penetrate. Some confront this truth and give up. And that's ok. Despite all the bs that goes on under the guise of Buddhism I still think there are authentic teachers around who are onto something real and know well how to share it. But you don't have to give up on the historical angle. Even if we can't get back to the original source, what we can do is dig through the texts honestly, with awareness and without attachment, and hopefully find things that resonate with us and strengthen our own practice. And maybe help others with their own journey along the way.

[cm das]

It's my pleasure to contribute to a discussion like this and I will definitely check out John Peacock's lectures.

Healthy skepticism is indeed appropriate, both in the context of a tradition itself as well as scholarship regarding that tradition. That said, where early Buddhism is concerned I can recommend 2 books that take a scholarly approach to early Buddhism, with a particular emphasis on philology (i.e. linguistic analysis of early texts). They are:

A Philological Approach to Buddhism by K.R. Norman

How Buddhism Began by Richard F. Gombrich

The authors are incredibly well-informed, they present loads of fascinating material, and they don't have any particular doctrinal axe to grind. On the other hand, the books aren't what you'd call light reading. They are available online, though at steep prices. If anyone in Chiang Mai is interested in having a look you can contact me & I might be persuaded to loan them out (or at least copies of them).

Edited October 5, 2011 by cm das

[cm das]

By the way, there are many who argue convincingly that philology is not the best route to discovering what early Buddhists actually thought and how they practiced (as opposed to the ideals presented in the texts). Gregory Schopen is one of the leading scholars who advocate an archaeological & epigraphical approach to the study of early Buddhism. In this case the materials available are some centuries later than the time of the historical Buddha, but then again many of the texts also probably didn't take their current shape until later as well. Schopen's book Bones, Stones & Buddhist Monks is a "classic" in this field and it's also on my shelf in Chiang Mai.

[Xangsamhua]

Healthy skepticism is indeed appropriate, both in the context of a tradition itself as well as scholarship regarding that tradition. That said, where early Buddhism is concerned I can recommend 2 books that take a scholarly approach to early Buddhism, with a particular emphasis on philology (i.e. linguistic analysis of early texts). They are:

A Philological Approach to Buddhism by K.R. Norman

How Buddhism Began by Richard F. Gombrich

A bit expensive. Norman $79.84 and Gombrich $149.99 on Amazon.

[rockyysdt]

By the way, there are many who argue convincingly that philology is not the best route to discovering what early Buddhists actually thought and how they practiced (as opposed to the ideals presented in the texts). Gregory Schopen is one of the leading scholars who advocate an archaeological & epigraphical approach to the study of early Buddhism. In this case the materials available are some centuries later than the time of the historical Buddha, but then again many of the texts also probably didn't take their current shape until later as well. Schopen's book Bones, Stones & Buddhist Monks is a "classic" in this field and it's also on my shelf in Chiang Mai.

Thank you for the references.

Perhaps I'll be able to track these down in my locale.

John Peacocks lectures are very compelling and well presented.

They gives a pre Theravaden story of the environment the Buddha found himself living in and how he initially studied Brahmanism & Jaism (this were his pre middle way experiences).

He refers to many early suttas which were more practical in comparison to the religious flavor which came later along with the deification of the Buddha.

He also uncovers the alternative path to liberation which includes Metta & Compassion, important ingredients even with Vippassana practice.

He instructs that as well as periods of vippassana, one can introduce periods of sitting with focus on Metta towards oneself, Metta towards a loved one, and Metta towards one you find aversion towards, instead of focus on the breathe and then to listen and observe what comes up.

He indicates that regular regimented daily sitting can lose its spontaneity, and become a ritual rather than an enquiry.

Further he describes that liberation/awakening isn't a superhuman metaphysical experience but a liberation from the influence of greed, aversion & delusion and an unlocking of the human potential to live in an expanded proactive manner free from the fetters of ego.

He alludes to the fact that when one is free of self, as a consequence one becomes compassionate towards others.

The difference between self and another disappears.

Compassion diminishes the self.

Edited October 5, 2011 by rockyysdt

[bankei]

Here is a very interesting article regarding a major and far reaching mistranslation:

“Apāna and the Mistranslation of the “Anāpānasati sutta”

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/09/16/flatulence-and-breathing-meditation/#more-15764

basically, it seems Āpāna = farting and not exhalation.

Have a read of the comments too. Interesting

Bankei

Edited October 23, 2011 by bankei

[rockyysdt]

Here is a very interesting article regarding a major and far reaching mistranslation:

"Apāna and the Mistranslation of the "Anāpānasati sutta"

http://asiapacific.a...ion/#more-15764

basically, it seems Āpāna = farting and not exhalation.

Have a read of the comments too. Interesting

Bankei

Very interesting Bankei.

Based on quite a number of misinterpretations I've come across, coupled with substantial Brahman conditioning of the time, and skewed by the passing of time (Theravada was cobbled together 500 years after the Buddha), I suspect many travelers, spending decades in practice may not be getting anywhere purely as a consequence of not knowing the Buddhas true message and instruction.

Could passing this off in the quiet comfort that they are entering stream entry in another life, be a way of soothing the ego?

Edited October 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Polsci]

Sitting and Mindfulness practice are vital, but I'm troubled with the level of knowledge in terms of what the Buddhas Dharma actually instructed.

Practice is useless without authentic Dharma.

Rockysdt, great question!

This is how I understand it that Buddha's teaching has been tempered with, resulting in various interpretations, social practices and cultural traditions. No one probably ever knows his exact words. As someone who was raised in philosophical teachings of Hinduism, the Enlightened One instead dismissed Hindu gods and goddesses. Funny how he is godly portrayed as an incarnation of Vishnu. As a Yogi in the Vedic tradition, the Awakened One probably didn't care and didn't have much choice if his food alms would aggravate his doshic imbalance. In his case, the wild mushroom considered Tamas in Ayurveda (food like caffeine, meat, alcohol, etc. that's bad for you ) triggered his death.

There are many people with different religious labels who are more Buddhists at heart than people who call themselves Buddhists just because they worship Buddha images, become monks, go to the Wat, meditate for hours, donate a lot, or can recite the whole Sutras in Pali.

To get back to your initial question about the languages, it's likely that you already see the evidence everywhere that Sanskrit is heavily and presently used in Thai for names and proper nouns, not just in Buddhist texts and their Vedic science. More and more, you see fancier, multi-syllable names in Thai that definitely have Sanskrit roots.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Polsci