SuttaCentral
Honestly, even after years of studying and practicing Dhamma, I find it difficult to read Bodhi’s translations for anything other than pure research reasons. It’s just not an enjoyable read. It feels like I’m trying to cut through a dense jungle (sometimes).
Sometimes people discount how important this is but texts should be enjoyable to read if you want large numbers of people to read them.
Not to discount the great service that he did and the importance of his work of course!
To be clear, I’m not trying to discount this. But it’s also been discussed quite a bit already. My thinking is that if it is possible to figure out why some people don’t have a problem with the texts as written, that might help to figure out ways to make the texts enjoyable without altering the texts. I also am not against having different editions out there to help more people.
I didn’t mean you, I was mostly referring to people who are really traditionalist and see anything but a word for word matching translation as an aberration (these people exist in all religions!)
I was a lawyer at one time in my life. Legal documents are often repetitive with only key phrases changed, so it was easy for me to get through repetitive scripture without getting bored or lost, having been familiar with legalese.
Hmm, I’m rethinking about my compatibility with repetitive, slow rythm texts.
It just appears to me that of course I like from my youth singing songs (mostly ballads or folksongs, even gospels) and one constituting element of singing songs is repetitivity, sometimes even just playing with it (repetition becomes one line longer each verse). Think only, how many times you repeat the words “swing low, sweet chariot” and “coming to carry me home” in the timespan that you give this piece of music/of tale.
I don’t mean by this that I would like the chanting-of-sutras: no, it is not that.
But giving a thought, a word, a phrase time to dwell in your mind and soul, just be open to chew on something longer than just swallow it - this is part of why I felt somehow familiar with that (german) translation of sutras which I met initially.
Also I’ve been in rural area in Africa and the evening sitting in the forest at the fire and the telling was also slow and calm, and if teaching were intended, repetitions of phrases/thoughts would surely have fitted the communication. And it was sometimes that I visioned the forestly situation of the flock of monks and the talkings, and the multiple references to the personal names of that ones involved in the discourse. I don’t know the best and appropriate english words for this but may be “serenity” and “seriosity” come to mind. A good example is this MN32 where even the forestly environment has been illustrated - I liked that sutra immediately when I came across it.
Just one word more on repetition: in a german buddhist newsgroup we had some fierce (and sometimes nearly mad) discussion on the words of the buddha, its translation and understanding. To conclude one aspect of this discussion I wrote a “fake” sutra and used the tool of repetition myself as central element in that sutra (which I gave loosely the form of an original discourse in the pali-canon). This was to “drum” some aspect (that of doubly-understandable phrases and the need of training of letting go automatical prejudices) into the reader. That “sutra” has been a great success in that discussion, btw.! But surely, that is of course only one form of repetitivity and not all of the repetitivity in the sutras /EBT’s is of this form and of this aspect… (see “the birth of the Ariyoyana at the Geierberg” in my collection of stories about (the fictional) Ya-Nun (sorry, only in german so far)
No, no, I was just speaking in general and trying to frame my question better. I’m curious to hear from folks who had no automatic averse reaction to the style of the suttas. Of course those folks may overlap with the “hands off my suttas” crowd. And there may even be some causation. But that’s not the point I’m interested in exploring.
Ah, yes. Exactly what I was after. That makes perfect sense.
And yes, another. I also had quite a bit of music, both formal and informal in my background. I think this is a good point.
So far it seems we have:
Support
Method
Attitude
Results
Desire
Background
I’ve @'d people in in case they wanted to clarify if I’m getting their point.
Any other thoughts?
Obviously some of these points may be more actionable and some less. I wouldn’t want people to become lawyers before they read suttas, no offense meant to lawyers :-). But things like starting with texts whose style is more approachable (as opposed to starting with texts based on perceived importance)
Now that we have the beginning of a list, it would be interesting to hear from people that meet some of these criterion but still had an averse reaction.
I’ve always been in to Buddhism, even as a child and so was curious to know what the Buddha’s words were, rather than coming from later writers, and I haven’t been disappointed. Though having said that I started with a free copy of the Dhammapada, from a Tai wanese printing company. It had simple verses, which makes it easy to read.
The next step was Itivuttaka. A paragraph (or a few small paragraphs) followed by a simple verse.
Then a deep dive into the Majjima Nikaya on-line on www.metta.lk, was when I actually got to taste it, well. Also finding from the practice resonates well with what’s written so I was happy, despite minor translational niggles occasionally - I’m concerned when things are added that aren’t in the pali and when it’s ‘watered down’ so much it points only to mundane experiences and not what’s sublime.
When I was a teenager I loved to read books about Taoism and Zen, but they were popular books, not original texts. When I was in college a professor chided me for reading popular books on these subjects and urged me to read the original texts. So I began to read the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, the Sun Tzu, the Unfettered Mind, etc. (I was a serious student of gung fu, hence some of the martial texts). I couldn’t understand much of what I read, but I couldn’t dismiss them – they’d been venerated for so long that I felt they must contain some really valuable wisdom. I began to see them like a puzzle to figure out. Reading commentaries on them was helpful, as it gave me a handle on the concepts being used in the texts.
Whatever little I understood from each text, I would try to apply in real life. Every year or two I would re-read a particular text and would find that I understood a little more than I did the last time. Gradually, the meanings became clearer and more profound. I would later use this same approach with the suttas too.
I began to read the suttas because I felt I’d had enough of reading later traditions’ interpretations of what the Buddha taught and wanted to get as close as I could to the source itself. Because of my past history working with these other texts, I wasn’t daunted by the way the suttas were written. I couldn’t understand a lot of what they said, not knowing a lot of the terminology and concepts (like aggregates, sense bases, cessation, etc.), but I approached it like a puzzle to figure out. Each time I came across something unfamiliar, I would research it until I had a basic grasp of the concept or term.
One thing I noticed when I began to read the suttas, something that I didn’t experience with the other texts I mentioned, is that, even if I didn’t understand a sutta, my mind felt calm, clear, and peaceful afterward. This wasn’t from faith, as I didn’t have any at that time. I hadn’t even started practicing yet.
One little off-topic side note in case some might find it useful: Venerable Anālayo once recommended that when I read a sutta, I read it out loud. I tried it and have been surprised by how much more depth and texture it adds to the experience of reading a sutta. It helps me notice subtle nuances that I may otherwise have missed. I have to admit that I sometimes even adopt different voices for each speaker, as if I’m telling a story. 
So, @Mat, would you say this is a summary of your experience?
Yes, accurate. I might add that I am not entirely dependent on EBTs (or their translations) for accuracy. As they can be vague enough to not provide a perfect guide to buddhist enlightenment. For my practice, they inform the skeletal structure of it, while contemporary teacher’s flesh it out, and I ‘experience it ‘in the body’ in my personal practice. However (showing the limitations of that simile) if something a teacher says or something in my practice crops up I tend to keep it within the boundaries of the EBTs.
When I was a complete newbie the structure of the suttas with all the repetitions drove me away. After I had absorbed more Dhamma I started to love them. Now, I sometimes fill in the printed ellipses just for fun and sometimes skim read over them.
If it’s not too personal, would you be willing to say if you had any of the factors that I’ve bulleted out in my posts above? Or at least if you could mention the texts you started with if you can remember? I know that many people have problems with the style of the texts as written. I’m curious to find out if there are factors present that contribute to someone not being put off by them. So if people have a bunch of these factors and are still turned off, then maybe these factors aren’t correct.
More broadly, “technical writing” – which isn’t always conventionally entertaining to say the least, nor even well-written, but somebody was trying to explain precisely how to do something.
When you first read a technical manual (e.g. “How to design and build a radio”) you barely understand 10% of it – then if you read it again you’ll understand 15%, and so on.
I personally define a technician as “rare: someone who is willing to read the manual”.
If it’s technical writing then I’m used to having to study it, and not necessarily for hours but for days, weeks, and years.
The suttas are relatively rewarding (“gratifying”?), compared to e.g. the first book I read about electronics: a) in their goal; b) in being understandable on first reading – not perfectly understandable, but more than 10% on first read. One good thing about the suttas (which is unlike perhaps e.g. electronics or e.g. another religion) is that it resonates (“makes sense”) somewhat given one’s personal experience (e.g. the Buddha can expect the Kalamas to understand what he’s saying from their own experience).
So I guess I see myself as a technician (a technology-student and -practitioner) rather than a linguist. I was also taught algebra and other maths, and so e.g. “What is the value of X in this equation?” can have me asking questions like, “what is dukkha exactly?” and so on.
Conversely my mum for example wouldn’t be keen on any doctrine that required her to learn a foreign language – one foreign language is almost more than enough for her, and it (the other language she’s acquainted with) isn’t Pali. I suppose that any foreign word – nibbana, kamma – is likely to be a turn-off, “eyes glaze over”.
I think that’s OK, you have to assume there’s more than one “dhamma gate”, that virtue is virtue in any language.
No, I don’t mind at all. 
Support
Method
Attitude
Results
Desire
Background
Phew! That took a while. Do you mind me asking what you’re hoping to do with the information you collect? It’s interesting.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do that. I appreciate your thoroughness and specifics.
I have an interest in helping people read the suttas. I know that the style of the suttas is often an obstacle. One solution is to produce translations that change the style to suit the reader’s temperament (or need, or however you would call it). I’m not necessarily opposed to people trying to do that. And of course I don’t begrudge anyone finding a way into the Dhamma that works for them.
While you can see a lot of people complaining (or just talking, although it often does sound like complaining) about the suttas, and you also hear from the “purists” who want literal translations, I wanted to hear from people who were able to find success right away with reading the suttas. Because for them there is nothing to complain about or for them to defend against, I feel like we don’t hear about their experiences. And my theory is that by looking at the situation these folks were in, it might be able to help more people succeed with the suttas sooner.
Obviously some things aren’t easily replicated, like someone having a background in technical writing. But others like attitudes and especially starting with the right text are.
By the way, there are very few cases where I think starting off with Walsh’s DN would be the right move. It’s not quite at the level of “If it were the last book on the planet then I guess it’s ok,” but it comes close. I probably wouldn’t recommend the whole DN as a collection as a first text even with a much better translation like Bhante Sujato’s.
And a big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share their experiences. I’d love to hear more‼
Support SuttaCentral and Bhante Sujato’s translations
Method Voice search (yes, that’s why Voice search does what it does)
… and DN33 
Attitude “Let’s try this and see if it works.”
Results “OMG it works!”
Desire “Why am I feeling so disillusioned?..oh. That’s why.”
Background Terrified of heights. Studied climbing to develop equanimity.
The best way to read IKEA manuals is after you’ve tried to assemble the furniture. This leads to 100% comprehension upon first reading.
“Oh that’s what the screw was for…”
So if you REALLY want to understand the suttas, make all the mistakes and learn from them first. Try it. You’ll like it. 100% comprehension. 
Ven. Bodhi’s translation of MN1 as “delight is the root of suffering” was my first AHA! That phrase is now lasered into my skull, uncompromising and total in its emphasis.
Not relishing, but delight. 
And yes, relishing is quite totally fine as is. It’s the heated swimming pool version of the nordic plunge into a hole in the ice. You can’t cross the stream until you get…wet. 
Thank you @Christopher. Would you agree with this as concise summary?
Support:
Background:
Attitude:
Method:
I couldn’t understand much of what I read, but I couldn’t dismiss them – they’d been venerated for so long that I felt they must contain some really valuable wisdom.
I think you bring out a very important point. For people who come to Buddhism through the “Don’t believe because someone else said it” door, it seems like your attitude may not only be absent, but that people might be hostile to it. You mention that early on you didn’t have shraddha, but I think that your attitude is actually a kind of faith or confidence.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Was your annoyance enough to prevent you from reading, or do you feel like you had enough patience to continue since you understood the reason behind it. Do you feel like you had any of the supporting factors that are bulleted out in this thread?
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Thank you for the careful consideration, Snowbird, and thank you for raising such an interesting topic. I would agree with your summary, but, after reading it, I thought of a few other points:
Under Attitude: “High tolerance for not understanding” is correct in one way – I was willing to keep reading despite not understanding. But on the other hand, “low tolerance for not understanding” — being haunted by these puzzles — is what motivated me to read and research (externally and internally) whatever I didn’t understand.
Under Attitude: In the beginning, there was an appeal to reading these ancient, esoteric texts. This was fascinating in itself but was also tied in with a created identity that became more special and unique by being someone who studies ancient, esoteric texts. 
Under Method: stopping to research terms and concepts I don’t understand has always been a big part of reading the suttas for me.
You’re right, of course. I was pointing to the fact that I had the typical Western scientific materialism view that was skeptical of whatever didn’t fit into my worldview. But, fortunately, I had enough openmindedness to be curious about all of the Dhamma and not just those things that fit my worldview. And I think an open-minded, curious attitude is the best kind of faith for a beginner.