can you "learn" buddhism without learning pali?

[Arkx6]

Apologies for the many threads but i have autism and right now my brain is in overdrive and wants answers and quite a few of them at that.

 

So i said this regarding reading the suttras and everything else that is translated from pali as said by the buddha (fyi i speak english and french so have some experience of concepts encountered when translating things in general and english to/from french specifically).

 

"Stuff like this is so subtle in its meaning, need realise firstly its a translation from a different language and the nuances and subtleties dont translate well...so putting it in english is a best fit situation...u realise this kind of thing when speak 2 languages and can see the nuances etc lost in translation" (as there are no exact matches of words in two different languages, as each word has shades of meaning, subtleties and nuances that are lost when translating).

 

So a sutra passage in english is not literally what it seems to say but something good and empowering is locked in the text i believe...which i but get glimpses of at odd moments.

 

my question is..how much can you learn of buddhism without learning pali and if it is possible to "learn" buddhism by reading the suttras in english without a teacher where is a good place to start and on what websites?

 

 

[Apech]

Hi,

 

I think you've hit upon an important question.  Translation of normal texts and literature even between European languages is fraught with difficulty - so anything from the ancient world is even more difficult.  It's not only Pali of course - the Pali Canon was not written down until the first century BC - but also the Chinese agamas and also versions in Tibetan.  What is different about the old translations in Tibetan and Chinese is that they went to great pains to get things right.  The Chinese had a protocol for translation which involved not only the original text holder but also a group of scribes, together with ann expert in classical Chinese.  In this way they produced high level versions.  But even then they made mistakes which had to be corrected over the generations.  For instance part of the reason for the prominence of 'buddha-nature' in Mahayana texts was because the Chinese translated it to 'shen' and regarded it somewhat like the atman in Brahmanic doctrine for several generations.  The Tibetans invented a script and a whole set of terminology to translate the important concepts.  In contrast many translations in English are done by a single translator and cann be quite sloppy and misleading.

 

Having said all this - the way round this problem is to find a good, competent teacher who reads the original language and receive teachings in the proper context which involves a long and detailed explanation of the text together with a transmission.  If you don't want to learn the whole language you can of course study the important terms which also will be a help.  But I guess if you want to be a serious scholar (unlike me  ) then yes you will need to learn Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or Chinese depending on the tradition you feel connected to.

 

 

[Stosh]

15 hours ago, Apech said:

Hi,

 

I think you've hit upon an important question.  Translation of normal texts and literature even between European languages is fraught with difficulty - so anything from the ancient world is even more difficult.  It's not only Pali of course - the Pali Canon was not written down until the first century BC - but also the Chinese agamas and also versions in Tibetan.  What is different about the old translations in Tibetan and Chinese is that they went to great pains to get things right.  The Chinese had a protocol for translation which involved not only the original text holder but also a group of scribes, together with ann expert in classical Chinese.  In this way they produced high level versions.  But even then they made mistakes which had to be corrected over the generations.  For instance part of the reason for the prominence of 'buddha-nature' in Mahayana texts was because the Chinese translated it to 'shen' and regarded it somewhat like the atman in Brahmanic doctrine for several generations.  The Tibetans invented a script and a whole set of terminology to translate the important concepts.  In contrast many translations in English are done by a single translator and cann be quite sloppy and misleading.

 

Having said all this - the way round this problem is to find a good, competent teacher who reads the original language and receive teachings in the proper context which involves a long and detailed explanation of the text together with a transmission.  If you don't want to learn the whole language you can of course study the important terms which also will be a help.  But I guess if you want to be a serious scholar (unlike me  ) then yes you will need to learn Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or Chinese depending on the tradition you feel connected to.

 

 

From the vantage of a person who is not serious , but does speak fluent English , what are they saying a soul is , if it is not the skandhas? which I just read, includes consciousness and awareness. 

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

From the vantage of a person who is not serious , but does speak fluent English , what are they saying a soul is , if it is not the skandhas? which I just read, includes consciousness and awareness. 

 

It's all in this book, which is basically someone's doctrinal thesis from Oxford University:

 

https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/how-buddhism-acquired-soul/

 

 

[Stosh]

Just now, Apech said:

 

It's all in this book, which is basically someone's doctrinal thesis from Oxford University:

 

https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/how-buddhism-acquired-soul/

 

 

Can you just tell me what you think.. 

[Daemon]

17 hours ago, Arkx6 said:

Apologies for the many threads but i have autism and right now my brain is in overdrive and wants answers and quite a few of them at that.

 

So i said this regarding reading the suttras and everything else that is translated from pali as said by the buddha (fyi i speak english and french so have some experience of concepts encountered when translating things in general and english to/from french specifically).

 

"Stuff like this is so subtle in its meaning, need realise firstly its a translation from a different language and the nuances and subtleties dont translate well...so putting it in english is a best fit situation...u realise this kind of thing when speak 2 languages and can see the nuances etc lost in translation" (as there are no exact matches of words in two different languages, as each word has shades of meaning, subtleties and nuances that are lost when translating).

 

So a sutra passage in english is not literally what it seems to say but something good and empowering is locked in the text i believe...which i but get glimpses of at odd moments.

 

my question is..how much can you learn of buddhism without learning pali and if it is possible to "learn" buddhism by reading the suttras in english without a teacher where is a good place to start and on what websites?

 

 

Did the Buddha need to read Pali texts in order to be a Buddhist?

Did the Buddha write Pali texts in order to enshrine any thing that he considered necessary for others to learn Buddhism?

 

☮️

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Can you just tell me what you think.. 

 

 

Well as you probably know the Buddha refuted the idea of the atman.  This is where the atman means a kind of eternal essence of a person and which was the subject of a lot of early Upanishadic teachings of his day.  The best translation for atman is probably 'soul'.  This would imply a permanent agent (the soul) which moves through cyclical existence (samsara) through incarnation after incarnation.  A higher self which appears in various bodies and so on.

 

As you point out the Buddha said that 'existence' which we perceive as arising through dependent origination can be analysed into five 'heaps' or 'baskets' called skandhas.  These are form, feeling, perception, volitional formations (or concepts) and consciousness.  So for him consciousness (vijnana) arises in dependence on its causes and conditions, such as the objects of consciousness, so subject and object are co-dependent.  They arise together and when one ceases so does the other.  So in this way it cannot be a permanent eternal agent in samsara.

 

However in Mahayana Buddhism particularly there is a emphasis on samsara itself being a projection through ignorance.  And so on enlightenment when ignorance departs the true nature of things is revealed - and that anything other than this is not truly existent - which leads to the idea that a being always has buddha-nature whether it knows it has or not.  While this originally was just pointing to a kind of potential to be a Buddha - it was developed into an idea like 'true-nature'.  The use of the word shen in Chinese in some minority schools of Daoism suggests the essence of mind - and this view was used by some early Chinese Buddhists to counter nihilist thought as in the quote from the Zhuangzi ' when our hands finish lighting the firewood, the fire continues to exist, moving from one piece of firewood to another; there is no extinction of it'.  And so a suggestion of an active agent in samsara which survives death arises.

 

 

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

Did the Buddha need to read Pali texts in order to be a Buddhist?

Did the Buddha write Pali texts in order to enshrine any thing that he considered necessary for others to learn Buddhism?

 

☮️

 

 

 

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, so no.  Also he lived in pre-literate times so there were no texts.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Well as you probably know the Buddha refuted the idea of the atman.  This is where the atman means a kind of eternal essence of a person and which was the subject of a lot of early Upanishadic teachings of his day.  The best translation for atman is probably 'soul'.  This would imply a permanent agent (the soul) which moves through cyclical existence (samsara) through incarnation after incarnation.  A higher self which appears in various bodies and so on.

 

As you point out the Buddha said that 'existence' which we perceive as arising through dependent origination can be analysed into five 'heaps' or 'baskets' called skandhas.  These are form, feeling, perception, volitional formations (or concepts) and consciousness.  So for him consciousness (vijnana) arises in dependence on its causes and conditions, such as the objects of consciousness, so subject and object are co-dependent.  They arise together and when one ceases so does the other.  So in this way it cannot be a permanent eternal agent in samsara.

 

However in Mahayana Buddhism particularly there is a emphasis on samsara itself being a projection through ignorance.  And so on enlightenment when ignorance departs the true nature of things is revealed - and that anything other than this is not truly existent - which leads to the idea that a being always has buddha-nature whether it knows it has or not.  While this originally was just pointing to a kind of potential to be a Buddha - it was developed into an idea like 'true-nature'.  The use of the word shen in Chinese in some minority schools of Daoism suggests the essence of mind - and this view was used by some early Chinese Buddhists to counter nihilist thought as in the quote from the Zhuangzi ' when our hands finish lighting the firewood, the fire continues to exist, moving from one piece of firewood to another; there is no extinction of it'.  And so a suggestion of an active agent in samsara which survives death arises.

 

 

Hmmm, can I think on this and ask a follow up later,,  if I get it formulated ?

Because it looks like you just said ,that Buddha said ,,that when you die, the skandhas are terminated as well, yielding no rebirth whether one calls those mind objects,  souls OR aggregates of skandhas, but the Mahayana tradition revives the idea. 

Looking at dates , though earliest sanskrit texts may be 2000 BC,(vedas)  however in Nepal , earliest sanskrit is possibly 464 CE , sources seem to suggest , that The teachings of Buddha weren't compiled till 500 yrs after his death, and so anything attributed to him can be suspected of modifications from both earlier and later dates. SO I cant really ascribe an opinion to him divorced of the traditions which perpetuated his input.  

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Stosh

[Daemon]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, so no.  Also he lived in pre-literate times so there were no texts.

 

 

You'll find that the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta is some evidence to the contrary.

(I can provide lots more if that fails to satisfy.)

 

☮️

 

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

You'll find that the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta is some evidence to the contrary.

(I can provide lots more if that fails to satisfy.)

 

☮️

 

 

Do I have to read the whole thing or are you going to give me a clue?

[Daemon]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Do I have to read the whole thing or are you going to give me a clue?

 

 

In your case, I feel it's better to let the sutta speak for itself.

Let me know if you disagree with it (and preferably why) and I'll be happy to provide further corroborative evidence that you may find helpful.

 

☮️

 

[Fa Xin]

I’ve always considered Buddhism a practice of going inside oneself, reflection and meditation. So the outward texts are “fingers pointing to the moon”.  

 

Even if you have the most accurate version of the map, you still have to interpret the map and then set out on the journey.