Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[rockyysdt]

How is it possible to avoid bias as we all originate from one culture or another. To say the Christian translators were biased is in itself a biased remark. Clearly they could not have translated the texts without a knowledge of Pali. Bias and accuracy are interlinked.

It is never going to be possible to go back and ask Buddha what he meant.

I agree TRD.

I definitely displayed bias, especially by describing the translator as being Christian, even though he was.

I do feel though, that ones religious leaning (add to this a 19th century knowledge of the world) can have considerable influence or color to ones works.

We certainly aren't able to go back to ask the Buddha for his original intention/meaning.

My post was not so much what the Buddha actually taught or meant, but rather the accurate translation of the Sanskrit word ("Metta") attributed to him, which has been incorrectly translated to English.

Metta = Benevolence, friendliness, amity, friendship,good will, kindness, close mental union, and active interest in others.

Judging by this translation, if the Buddha did use the word Metta in his teachings, wouldn't it appear that the19th century translator was a touch creative by coining the phrase "loving kindness"?

Edited December 23, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

I actually prefer "loving kindness" because your true unconditioned nature is unconditioned Love and its expression is compassion. Theravadins don't talk much about Love!

Edited December 23, 2014 by trd

[trd]

When a group of people have a shared interest which they discuss and develop they develop a shared vocabulary and technical terms that have specific meaning in that context. Buddhism is no different. Compounded to that is a lot of translations of of pali or sanskrit words in common use are inaccurate or carry the cultural baggage of 19th century Christians who started the work of translation.

Added to that is that this board in particular attracts a relatively high proportion of people who don't practice Buddhism, so don't have the shared vocabulary. Normally guests in any context will just fit in out of politeness and not straightaway tell you how you should run your household, but some people have strong ideas of how Buddhism "should be".........

.............Don't get me started on "suffering" as a translation of Dukkha.

You imply that the early Christian translators were innacurate in their translations as if you have some kind of direct line to what Buddha actually said. And you treat with disdain the "guests" on this forum who would have the audacity to question what you think you know to be authentic Buddhism. Clearly you have an extremely poor grasp of the changing face of Buddhism over the centuries to say nothing of Theravada which has undergone very recent changes. You take a completely ideological stance when a reference is made to the Hindu Vedic tradition for instance, which predates Buddhism by thousands of years and from which the historical Buddha emerged. Your comments are no different to the way in which Protestants and Catholics battle each other. Neither position has anything to do with Truth. The problem with your "household", if I may borrow your phrase, is that you have fixed ideas based on scriptural interpretations or things various ajahns have told you which makes you believe you are on an authentic path. This gives you comfort. It is just another kind of conditioning. A good example of that is when you refer to sin as being a Judeo Christian concept. Actually it means doing wrong which is a human moral concept. By saying it is unskillful action in Buddhist terms just shows what kind of dogma hell you are trapped in.

As for the last sentence, why would you want to waste your time debating what dukkha means? You know what it is. It is your experience for heaven's sake. It is everyone's experience. When Buddhism becomes a study about the words and definitions, you have lost your way. When I brought up the subject of personal experience before, you brushed it aside rather defensively as if it had nothing to do with you. How absurd.

You say nothing about what you know. You are merely reactive in your comments, which by the way have been extremely selective in what you choose to comment on.

It doesn't matter whether you choose to talk of greed or craving or desire. To get into the fine detail of these definitions is of no help. Do you not understand this? You have to investigate who it is that experiences these thoughts and feelings by going back to the source. To become the unconditioned. Everything else is just a work of fiction.

[VincentRJ]

In all matters that are communicated through language, my understanding of concepts is always related to the definition of English words, because that's my language. I'm not able to read Pali or Sanskrit. I'm totally reliant upon English translations.

Very true. I'm also very much reliant on English translations.

I think what was being suggested is that it's not the translation to English, but its accuracy.

If the translator was a 19th century Christian, as many were, then it can be said that there maybe considerable bias or influence.

This is what John Peacock (Pali/Sanskrit Scholar) found in abundance.

I'm not sure I can add to what Trd has already written, Rocky. A translation of any serious and complex writing into another language is fraught with difficulties. Consider how much time has been spent, and how many books have been written in English, discussing the meaning of the works of Shakespeare which are also in English, or any of the great poets and novelists who wrote in English.

How much more problematic it must be for the reader to clearly and accurately understand a complex treatise translated from Pali or Sanskrit, attempting to express ideas and concepts of such a foreign culture that existed in such a distant era and from which few, if any, written records survive.

It is reasonable to suppose that the imagination must play a large role in such translations, and that the final result will reflect the biases and conditioning of the translators, compounded by the biases and conditioning of the people who wrote the first Buddhists texts about 400 years or more after Gautama's death.

Understanding the social and cultural context within which certain ideas are developed and expressed is crucial to the creation of an accurate translation. However, if there is a dearth of historical records available that describe the culture, as I believe is the case with the life and times of Gautama who didn't speak either Pali or Sanskrit, then the difficulties are compounded.

Even if one is confident that the Pali words have been accurately translated, how can one be confident that the original Pali text accurately reflects what the Buddha said and taught?

I've included an interesting example below, relating to Christianity, of the sort of problem that can arise if one is not familiar with the historical context and the culture of the times.

If such a problem exists in Christianity, which background I believe is better documented from the historical perspective than is Buddhism, as a result of the survival of original documents from Roman historians, then the translation problems of Pali and Sanskrit must be even greater.

This example relates to the meaning of certain phrases in The Sermon on the Mount. It's an interesting read. http://www.cpt.org/files/BN%20-%20Jesus'%20Third%20Way.pdf (Sorry! link doesn't seem to work from this forum. I'll try pasting it again: http://tinyurl.com/9re8ahg

However, the author, Walter Wink, doesn't address the issue of the historical accuracy of the sermon, just the likely meaning of the phrases as written, considering the culture of the times.

Edited December 23, 2014 by VincentRJ

[rockyysdt]

I'm in agreement that the only true measure of meaning can be found in wisdom, the result of personal experience through practice.

One thing I can say. There are many unawakened on the planet who, in their current state, are just unable to love everyone.

TRD and Bruce are but one example.

However, everyone is able to be friendly.

Friendliness has a disarming nature and is capable of bringing warring parties together.

Naturally wisdom born of direct experience is ultimately the way.

Until this occurs what better way for people to engage than with profuse friendliness.

Does your ego love everyone?

Edited December 23, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

You are making too many presumptions my dear Rocky. Do you really think that unconditional Love precludes the ability to chide another?

[Brucenkhamen]

In all matters that are communicated through language, my understanding of concepts is always related to the definition of English words, because that's my language. I'm not able to read Pali or Sanskrit. I'm totally reliant upon English translations.

Most Buddhist teachers will explain these concepts and shades of meaning as and when necessary.

Experiencing these things in intensive meditation type situations gives the opportunity to break down these experiences, see the causal relationships, and gain clarity on what the Buddha was talking about.

I imagine that rational choices based on logical reasons were not a common feature of life in ancient India, so it's understandable that their language wouldn't have addressed such issues. I don't think the Buddha and Aristotle were in communication, were they?

Of course thy were, surely you jest. The point is that's not what the word that we various translate as aversion is about, it's not what that particular teaching is about.

If anything a rational choice to turn away from something that you know has no benefit for you and will only cause you to experience an aversive reaction is wisdom.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Theravadins don't talk much about Love!

As love is something you do.

[Brucenkhamen]

You imply that the early Christian translators were innacurate in their translations as if you have some kind of direct line to what Buddha actually said.

Its pretty common knowledge, one doesnt need a direct line to the Buddha just pay attention to modern scholars and meditation teachers, and pay attention to how it works in practical terms when one puts it into practice.

Of course if you have reason to believe that some of my interpretations of pali terms are incorrect or my understanding of Buddhist concepts are inconsistent with how its currently being taught then you are welcome to make your case and we can learn from each other. This is what a discussion forum is for is it not? Thats how adults discuss and debate. Though I must say most of your supporting quotes so far have turned out to be fizzers.

And you treat with disdain the "guests" on this forum who would have the audacity to question what you think you know to be authentic Buddhism. Clearly you have an extremely poor grasp of the changing face of Buddhism over the centuries to say nothing of Theravada which has undergone very recent changes. You take a completely ideological stance when a reference is made to the Hindu Vedic tradition for instance, which predates Buddhism by thousands of years and from which the historical Buddha emerged. Your comments are no different to the way in which Protestants and Catholics battle each other. Neither position has anything to do with Truth. The problem with your "household", if I may borrow your phrase, is that you have fixed ideas based on scriptural interpretations or things various ajahns have told you which makes you believe you are on an authentic path. This gives you comfort. It is just another kind of conditioning. A good example of that is when you refer to sin as being a Judeo Christian concept. Actually it means doing wrong which is a human moral concept. By saying it is unskillful action in Buddhist terms just shows what kind of dogma hell you are trapped in.

Oh Ive been such a bad bad boy have I? I dont think the above is a good example of how adults discuss and debate.

We all believe we are on an authentic path, if we didnt believe the path was authentic we wouldnt have chosen that path now would we? If it wasnt working we wouldnt stay on that path now would we? However only one of us is on a discussion board of a different path telling them that his path is correct and their path is wrong.

As for the last sentence, why would you want to waste your time debating what dukkha means? You know what it is. It is your experience for heaven's sake. It is everyone's experience. When Buddhism becomes a study about the words and definitions, you have lost your way.

I said and "don't get me started on suffering", so yes that means I wouldnt want to waste my time debating what dukkha means, good interpreting.

I also wouldnt want my waste my time debating whether the four noble truths is the Buddhas foundational teaching and whether he emphasized Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha, but hey anything goes on Buddhist boards these days.

It doesn't matter whether you choose to talk of greed or craving or desire. To get into the fine detail of these definitions is of no help. Do you not understand this? You have to investigate who it is that experiences these thoughts and feelings by going back to the source. To become the unconditioned. Everything else is just a work of fiction.

Of course you have to investigate what it is that experiences these thoughts and feelings by going back to the source. If one chooses to use a particular methodology laid down by a teacher then one needs to understand definitions used, the theory behind that methodology, and how to implement the practices of that methodology. Discussion boards are a good place to clarify understanding nobody expects it to be a substitute for direct experience. Nobody expects to be awakened just by talking about it, just as nobody expects to be awakened just by snapping their fingers and stilling their mind.

I dont think Thaivisa are interested in providing a platform for philosophical debate on the merits of various spiritual paths, and this is board is not called Makeitupism in Thailand.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

Theravadins don't talk much about Love!

As love is something you do.

This is what you have yet to understand and from what you describe in your practice, it will surely transpire. The unconditioned state is Love. It is not something you do. It is beyond doing. Edited December 24, 2014 by trd

[trd]

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure. Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

[Brucenkhamen]

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure. Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Reciprocal selective quoting. I assume this is supposed to be proof that the Buddha changed his mind and went back to the pre-Buddhist idea of seeking the True Self, rather than the discarding of self view that we see in the original texts.

The interesting thing about the above quote is that the web site you probably lifted it from credits the Kosho Yamamoto translation, lloking at the full text of this translation here http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf the above text is nowhere to be found, not in chapter 3 not anywhere as far as I can see. Help me out here?

The sutra basically waffles on and on around the topic for 584 pages and I'm left confused whether the authors are pro or anti self, here are is some more selective quoting...

O Cunda! Now, meditate upon all that is made, that is composite. Think that all things

are not-Self and are non-eternal, and that nothing endures.

It is thus with this carnal body. It has no Self and no master. Thus we meditate on selflessness. You, the Buddha, say:

"All things have no Self and nothing belonging to Self. O you Bhiksus! Learn and practise

[this]!" Once this is practised, self-conceit goes away. Self-conceit gone, one enters Nirvana.

Then all the bhiksus said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! You, the Buddha,

said before that all things have no Self, that we should practise this and that, when practised,

the thought of Self goes away, and that once the thought of Self is done away with, one does

away with arrogance and that, arrogance once done away with, one gains Nirvana.

Also, emancipation is not possessed of atmatmiya [fixation on self and what belongs to

self]. Such emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Dharma.

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Really, there cannot

be any case in which there is Self. Why not? When a child is born, it knows nothing. If there is a

Self, the child would have to have knowledge when it is born into the world. Hence we can know

that there is no Self. If a Self definitely existed, there could not be any loss of knowing. If it

were true that all beings eternally possessed Buddha-Nature, there could be no breaking away.

[trd]

You are confusing the small self (anatta) with the true Self (atman). Here is the translation from the Yamamoto version.

O you Bhiksus. Do not abide in the thought of the non-Eternal, Suffering, non-Self, and the not-Pure and be in the situation of those people who take stones, bits of wood, and gravel to be the true gem. You must study well the Way, how to act, wherever you go, and "meditate on the Self, the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure”. Know that the outer forms of the four items which you have learnt up to now are inversions and that anyone who desires to practise the Way should act like the wise man who deftly gets hold of the gem. This refers to the so-called thought of Self, and that of the Eternal, Bliss, and Pure."

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana. It is clear where you stand. For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

[rockyysdt]

For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

In the Ven Maha Boowa's work he equates the "purified Citta" with ultimate reality or higher self.

Naturally the conditioned/impermanent traveler cannot even begin to comprehend or verbalize such a state, except by association (Awakening).

A common thought: "Is, whether Self or Atma is universal or individual?".

In other words is each persons Citta unique or a window/portal into a universal permanent/unconditioned?

Edited December 24, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

You are confusing the small self (anatta) with the true Self (atman). Here is the translation from the Yamamoto version.

In the original texts both concepts are presented as questionable, attachment to them a cause of suffering. But yes I can now find the passage.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana. It is clear where you stand. For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

Excellent. So can I take it that VincentRJ can have his thread about sex and celibacy in Buddhist monasticism back now?

[trd]

For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

In the Ven Maha Boowa's work he equates the "purified Citta" with ultimate reality or higher self.

Naturally the conditioned/impermanent traveler cannot even begin to comprehend or verbalize such a state, except by association (Awakening).

A common thought: "Is, whether Self or Atma is universal or individual?".

In other words is each persons Citta unique or a window/portal into a universal permanent/unconditioned?

There are not many Selfs. There is only one Self. It is all there is. Citta is individual consciousness and is perishable. Edited December 24, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana.

Then stick to common ground, or better yet stick to the topic of the thread.

There is only one Self. It is all there is.

Not interested, huh?

[VincentRJ]

You are confusing the small self (anatta) with the true Self (atman). Here is the translation from the Yamamoto version.

In the original texts both concepts are presented as questionable, attachment to them a cause of suffering. But yes I can now find the passage.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana. It is clear where you stand. For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

Excellent. So can I take it that VincentRJ can have his thread about sex and celibacy in Buddhist monasticism back now?

Actually, Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny were only a part of what was intended as a general discussion of Buddhism at a serious level. This thread has not strayed off course. You are all still having a serious discussion, aren't you?

From my perspective, I've always thought that Buddhism contains some profound statements of principle which resonate with my understanding of Western Philosophy and Science. At the same time, the religion as practised by Buddhist populations at large, often seems to contain a lot of mumbo jumbo, superstition and nonsense.

I'm hoping this thread will help elucidate matters. The difficulties of providing a meaningful English translation of certain key words in Pali and Sanskrit seem important considerations to me.

Take the key word 'Dukkha' for example. Why the confusion? If we go back to the etymology of the word in Sanskrit we find that it consists of two radicals 'dus + kha'. 'Dus' is a prefix indicating bad, and 'kha' refers to the axle-hole of an ox-drawn cart. If your cart had a bad axle hole, or 'duhkha', you were in for a bumpy ride.

Now you can describe the discomfort of that bumpy ride using a variety of words. It might be downright painful if the seat is hard and you already have a sore bottom.

Of course, many such words take on a metaphorical meaning over time, as the language develops and changes, and dukkha appears to be one such word. The bad axle hole now denotes the discomfort that is a consequence of the bad axle hole, as well as discomfort caused by anything and everything. In ordinary language it appears to mean suffering in general of various types and degrees, such as: sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair, misery, anxiety, uneasiness, unpleasantness, disquiet and so on. (I've run out of synonyms )

I don't have a problem with such definitions.

Oh! I almost forgot. Merry Christmas to you all.

Edited December 25, 2014 by VincentRJ

[Brucenkhamen]

Actually, Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny were only a part of what was intended as a general discussion of Buddhism at a serious level. This thread has not strayed off course. You are all still having a serious discussion, aren't you?

I wondered why the title didn't really match the first post.

Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny

A lethal combination.

Take the key word 'Dukkha' for example. Why the confusion? If we go back to the etymology of the word in Sanskrit we find that it consists of two radicals 'dus + kha'. 'Dus' is a prefix indicating bad, and 'kha' refers to the axle-hole of an ox-drawn cart. If your cart had a bad axle hole, or 'duhkha', you were in for a bumpy ride.

Now you can describe the discomfort of that bumpy ride using a variety of words. It might be downright painful if the seat is hard and you already have a sore bottom.

A very good example. The word "suffering" can lead people to the conclusion Buddhism is about doom and gloom, others object "But I'm not suffering", whereas I think the bumpy ride metaphor paints a different picture.

The Buddha was a master at wordplay and this is generally lost in translation.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[camerata]

I think "a serious discussion about Buddhism" is way too broad for a single topic since it includes everything. So let's try and stick to the scope of the original post, which was about celibacy and women in the monastic order.

From what I have read (Warder's Indian Buddhism etc), the problem the Buddha faced was that his influential stepmother was threatening to start her own sangha if he didn't allow bhikkhunis. On the other hand, he knew how easily the momentum of his own teachings could be halted if he made a wrong move and lost the support of society in general. He had already admitted an Untouchable to his order, then a serial killer, but apparently the idea of female renunciants was beyond the pale.

Then there were the practical considerations. Monks spent a lot of time in the forest. Having sex was a disrobing offence. What if a bhikkhuni was raped? How would anyone know if it really was rape? What if a bhikkhuni got pregnant? The Pali Canon has Ananda persuading the Buddha to accept bhikkhunis, but scholars are sceptical for various reasons. I think he accepted bhikkhunis out of compassion, but he took a major risk in doing so.

[VincentRJ]

I think the essential point here is that unfair discriminations against women has been very widespread throught the history of mankind, and unfortunately Buddhism, as practised, doesn't seem to have had much impact on that discrimination, whatever the positive attitudes that might be attributed to Gautama.

The emancipation of women seems to be a modern, Western, secular progression that seems to have been resisted by religious cultures in general. We can have a female chairman (or chairperson) of a Banking Corporation, and a female Prime Minister, but not a female Pope.

I found it very revealing recently when I came across some examples of Chinese words that have bad and negative meanings. They contained the female radical. Now that fact alone is not necessarily alarming because many words with a positive meaning also contain the female radical. The significant point is that no words with a negative meaning contain the 'male' radical, as I understand, so that fact implies a discrimination deeply embedded in the nature of the language itself.

As I understand, Chinese characters consist of one or more radicals or pictograms that originally were crude pictures of the thing they represented. For example, the Chinese character for 'female' (nu), is essentially a drawing of a woman kneeling on the ground with arms bounded on the back. That in itself places women in an inferior position.

Some examples of negative Chinese words containing the female radical are: demon, evil wind or spirit, treacherous, sinister, traitor, behave like a hoodlum, act shamelessly, jealousy, greed, prostitute, rape... and so on.

One can't help wondering what subconscious effect this characteristic of the Chinese language must have on the young female population as they gradually learn their language from infancy.

[geronimo]

If one is trying to kill something, it is never a good idea to be exposed to it, therefore celibacy effectively draws the line that we would find so hard to draw.

[VincentRJ]

If one is trying to kill something, it is never a good idea to be exposed to it, therefore celibacy effectively draws the line that we would find so hard to draw.

Celibacy is a line that has to be drawn by the person practising celibacy. However, I agree if one is trying to draw such a line, being surrounded by constant temptation makes it more difficult, a point which I've tried to argue in this thread.

Having confidently gained mastery over one's sexual urges, temptations might then be no problem. I'm reminded here of Mahatma Ghandi's practice of sometimes sleeping with a young lady in order to test or confirm his powers of celibacy.