BUDDHA SAYS, I SAY
.
A kind, intelligent and creative monk I once knew wrote that his purpose was to make a translation that is first and foremost readable, so that this astonishing work of ancient spiritual insight might enjoy the wider audience it so richly deserves. I say “I once knew” because we have stopped communicating, out of the embarrassment of a growing number of differing views we have about early Buddhism.
After a few years of knowing him and, and some reading and listening to his well publicized works in cyberspace, I realized that he actually disagreed with my understanding that the suttas actually teach us, in so many ways, that we must work for STREAMWINNING in this life itself. I clearly recall years back when I excitedly but calmly shared with him this happy discovery, he coldly, almost gruffly but characteristically, dismissed it: “The Buddha seems to make it all so easy!”
.
FAILING FAITH
My faith in him was deep enough to take his words LITERALLY: yes, the Buddha, indeed, makes it all so easy for us! This is just what we should be doing. However, after a few years, I realized that my faith had failed me. He really meant just the opposite: he was forbearingly facetious, hinting that I had violated one of his verified dogmas: that we must have jhana even to attain streamwinning. Yet I cannot find any reference in the suttas for this.
I was being paltry. But he did not or dared not say that I was wrong (but I certainly was to him). One thing is clear: he has proven how dense and slow my mind worked when trying to read his subtexts. We were talking but there was no communication at all!
.
THE BUDDHA SAYS
Now, how would the Buddha respond when approached? Would he have been archaic and obscure? Would he use words in odd, alienating ways? Would we need to have an expert by our side, whispering notes into our ear every second sentence—“He said this; but what he really meant was … ”? That just what it seemed to have been when we chatted all these years!
On a higher, less personal level—correction: the higher the level, the more personal it becomes. The most personal connection we can today have with the Dhamma is to start with the suttas: in Pali or in translation. The suttas are the coded programmes the Buddha left us as our guide. We need to run them as they are, like any computer programme; then, they will work their wonder.
.
BUDDHIST HYBRID ENGLISH
Ideally, he claims, an approachable translation expresses the meaning of the text in simple, friendly, idiomatic English. It should not just be technically correct, it should sound like something someone might actually say. Which means that it should strive to dispense entirely with the abomination of Buddhist Hybrid English (BHE), that obscure dialect of formalisms, technicalities, and Indic idioms that has dominated Buddhist translations, into which English has been coerced by translators who were writing for Indologists, linguists, and Buddhist philosophers. I disagree!
Firstly, we should not look down on BHE. It is the natural language of both the scholars on high, whose careful learning drops on us like the gentle rain from heaven. It is twice blest: it blesses the scholars who live for learning, and those on the ground who learn for living. If not for the scholars, we would not have such easy access to the Pali editions, translations, and modern commentaries we have today.
.
THE WAY WE ARE
“Buddhist Hybrid English” was a condescending term invented by an elitist scholar who apparently laughed at the starts and stutters of his students and squints (non-scholars), and then left for a better-paying job. So what if the Burmese translated Pali texts using “uncomfortable English”; the Sinhalese, too, rarely, if ever, spelled roman Pali correctly; and the Thai Pali texts are so inaccessible. We should help them; not mock them with a thousand papercuts.
Bring any volume of the best English translation of the Pali texts today. Nay, get a thousand copies, or as many as there are people in a talk by a populist speaker. Get the venerable speaker to ask his audience to read these sacred translations. Now, time them: we will see how quickly its obscurity distances readers, pushed away by the density of the printed page.
.
GUIDANCE NEEDED
Even the best translations need an inspired and inspiring teacher to guide us through them. These translations are like musical notes to be properly play, without missing a note, and to be respectfully heard to be enjoyed. Of course, we can teach individuals to play a passage or an excerpt, feel its truth and beauty. The Dhamma is to be heard, felt and lived.
That is how those who listened to the Buddha would have experienced it. They were never rightly being annoyed by the grit of dubious diction, nor were they being constantly nagged to check the footnotes. Yet, they know: just as they humbly bow at the Buddha’s feet, they respect these footnotes, that the scholars and teachers took hours, even days, to put together to guide the lost and uncloud the perplexed.
.
MARA DISCOURAGES
As we study and live the suttas, we are drawn inwards and upwards, fully experiencing the Dhamma’s transformative power as it echoes in our own understanding. Even a firefly of understanding pierces brightly the dark night of samsaric ignorance.
How easily then we can repeat this experience: this is the secret to the path. Repetition is diligence, and yet it is different each time. “Repetition” is a word Māra uses to discourage us. The reality is that we never repeat the Dhamma: we live it but once, and then it’s gone. Every moment counts; each step we take uplifts. To take a new step, we first ift up one foot, put it down; then, the other foot rises up even higher.
.
WRITING SUTRAS
At each step of the way we ask myself, “Would an ordinary person, with little or no understanding of Buddhism, be able to read this and understand what it is actually saying?” Our compassion wells up for them who look at Dhamma but see not. Even the simplest words are just coloured marks on colourless paper. This is called ignorance.
We can create a new translation with simpler words rather than the more complex; with direct phrasing rather than the oblique; with the active voice rather than the passive; with the informal rather than the formal; with the explicit rather than the implicit. What we have done is merely written our own Sutras, like those churned out in the centuries after the Buddha. If suttas could be simplified, then, the scholars would be awakened beings by class and course.
When we remove the lines that hold the musical notes together, what are we left with? The line that holds the suttas together goes back to the Buddha himself—but only when we free the words, we see the line. For that, we need to take the suttas just as they are, and get to know them, starting now. As we mature, so will our understanding—but having a good teacher only expedites the clarity of our mind and openness of our hearts. Still, we must take the steps ourself.
,
fb190906 piya
No comments:
Post a Comment