Nowadays , learning dhamma is a big deal ! Why ? Not only because the dhamma itself is profound , but too many interpretations available . For any newbie that want to learn dhamma will have to go through a rough journey without any guarantee they will get the true and right dhamma ! Another thing is there is a view that if you want to learn true dhamma , the most promising way is learn pali language first ! Otherwise , you may not get the right information, knowledge and understanding of the dhamma !
Therefore , would you think learning pali language is a prerequisite of learning dhamma ?
3 Likes
Hi. Of course learning Pali is no condition to grasp Dhamma. It’s good, but not a condition. Plus you might learn Pali but then understand no Dhamma at all! So learning Pali is neither a condition nor guarantee to grasp Dhamma.
Translations of Pali are not that horrible! 
plus you have literally thousands of Dhamma talks by good teachers covering nearly all areas of doctrine and practice. I benefited a lot from these at the beginning of the journey. So maybe along with a Pali dictionary, what you really need is YouTube!
I believe Dhamma is understood with a vigorous and vibrant intuition, I don’t believe it is a matter of study alone. Good luck.
9 Likes
Language of the heart…
Knowing, understanding, mindful of inner self.
1 Like
Regarding the title question I am going to guess it’s yes.
But to navigate the various interpretation, some knowledge at least is necessary.
1 Like
Well Said. My personal take on this issue is that if someone is truly interested in learning true Dhamma, he should be prepared to sacrifice a lot of time and efforts without getting bogged down in the process. One gets bogged down due to allowing personal preferences to get in the way. When it happens, he/she begins to align themselves with those ideas and preferences without them even knowing that it is happening and it is the end of the story.
If someone can grasp the key message of the Buddha and listen to and read Dhamma by any teacher or language without biases and see for himself/herself how they fit into the key message, then true Dhamma will be with them.
With Metta
2 Likes
I think learning Pali, at least key terms can be very helpful. I began teaching myself Pali from Warder’s introduction but that fell by the wayside eventually, which I’d prefer to blame on my work-life. I plan to take it up again, but in any event, what can be very useful is reading what buddhologists, indologists, and philologists, e.g. KR Norman, Richard Gombrich, etc, have to say about the thought world and metaphorical structure that the Buddha’s teaching is contextualized in.
Many allusions seem to have been lost to the commentators ancient and modern. For example, when Ajahn Brahm explains the Bahiya Sutta he uses the commentarial story, but there is a better explanation and analysis of Bahiya’s story whereby it appears he was an ascetic follower of the early upanishads.
See this excellent post by Ancient Buddhism on dhammawheel:
Another comparison with the phrase diṭṭhaṃ, sutaṃ, mutaṃ, viññātaṃ in the Nikāyas, to the dṛṣṭe, śrute, mate, vijñāte in the Upaniṣads, is in the Kāḷakārāma Sutta of Aṅguttara Nikāya (4.24), with reference to Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad III.8.11.
In this Upaniṣad the epithet for the Ātman is ‘Imperishable’ (akṣaram), of which…
”…is unseen but is the seer, is unheard but is the hearer, unthought but is the thinker, unknown but is the knower. There is no other seer but this, there is no other hearer but this, there is no other thinker but this, there is no other knower but this.” [S. Radhakrishnan]…tad vā etad akṣaraṃ gārgy adṛṣṭaṃ draṣṭṛ, aśrutaṃ śrotṛ, amataṃ mantṛ, avijñātaṃ vijñātṛ, nānyad ato ‘sti draṣṭṛ, nānyad ato ‘sti śrotṛ, nānyad ato ‘sti mantṛ,nānyad ato ‘sti vijñātṛ
We find this echoed in the Kāḷakārāma Sutta where we read that for a Tathāgata, there are no imaginings (maññati) of a possessor of these, because a Tathāgata abides in the quality of ‘suchness’ (tādī); a distillate quality of direct contemplative knowing:
”Thus it is, bhikkhus, when the Tathāgata sees what is to be seen; he does not imagine the seen, does not imagine the not-seen, does not imagine what is to be seen, and does not imagine a seer. When hearing what is to be heard; does not imagine the heard, does not imagine the not-heard, does not imagine what is to be heard, and does not imagine a hearer. When thinking what is to be thought; does not imagine the thought, does not imagine the not-thought, does not imagine what is to be thought, and does not imagine a thinker. When cognizing what is to be cognized; does not imagine the cognized, does not imagine the not-cognized, does not imagine what is to be cognized, and does not imagine a cognizer.“ti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na maññati; sutvā sotabbaṃ, sutaṃ na maññati, asutaṃ na maññati, sotabbaṃ na maññati, sotāraṃ na maññati; mutvā motabbaṃ, mutaṃ na maññati, amutaṃ na maññati, motabbaṃ na maññati, motāraṃ na maññati; viññatvā viññātabbaṃ, viññātaṃ na maññati, aviññātaṃ na maññati, viññātabbaṃ na maññati, viññātāraṃ na maññati.
“Thus it is, bhikkhus, being just such with the nature of what is to be seen, heard, thought, and cognized; the Tathāgata is such. And I say that of this such, not another such can be brought forth that surpasses it.
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato diṭṭhasutamutaviññātabbesu dhammesu tādīyeva tādī. Tamhā ca pana tādimhā añño tādī uttaritaro vā paṇītataro vā natthīti vadāmī’ti.
We should also make a comparison of this with the Bāhiya Sutta of Udāna 1.10, with reference to the state of being ‘merely’ (mattaṃ) present with these, also with no possessor to be found.
”When, Bāhiya, the seen shall be merely the seen, the heard shall be merely the heard, the thought shall be merely the thought, and the cognized shall be merely the cognized; just so, Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there; just so, Bāhiya, you will not be in that condition. When, Bāhiya, you are not in that condition; just so, Bāhiya, you will not be of that condition, nor in another, nor between the two. Just this is the release of dissatisfaction.”‘Yato kho te Bāhiya, diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissati; tato tvaṃ Bāhiya na tena, yato tvaṃ Bāhiya na tena, tato tvaṃ Bāhiya na tattha, yato tvaṃ Bāhiya na tattha, tato tvaṃ Bāhiya nevidha, na huraṃ, na ubhayam-antare, esevanto dukkhassā.’ – Udāna 1.10 https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=356730#p356730
I don’t want to go so far as to say that explanations of dhamma that have forgotten the original context and allusions preclude there usefulness in progressing on the path and realizing extinguishment. So Ajahn Brahm’s discussion on the Bāhiya Sutta here might be perfectly workable for practice. An example of multiple interpretations being useful even when they were not what the Buddha initially had in mind can be seen here:
The Further Shore
Parāyana Sutta (AN 6:61)I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vārāṇasī at the Deer Park at Isipatana. And on that occasion a large number of elder monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms round, were sitting gathered together in the assembly hall when this discussion arose: “It was said by the Blessed One in The Way to the Further Shore, in Metteyya’s Question [Sn 5:2]:
‘Whoever, a thinker,
knowing both sides,
doesn’t adhere in between: He
I call a great person. He
here has gone past
the seamstress.’1
“Which, friends, is the first side? Which is the second side? What is in-between? Who is the seamstress?”
When this was said, a monk said to the elder monks, “Contact, friends, is the first side, the origination of contact the second side, and the cessation of contact2 is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk directly knows what should be directly known, comprehends what should be comprehended. Directly knowing what should be directly known, comprehending what should be comprehended, he is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
When this was said, another monk said to the elder monks, “The past, friends, is the first side, the future the second side, and the present is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk… is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
When this was said, another monk said to the elder monks, “Pleasant feeling, friends, is the first side, painful feeling the second side, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk… is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
When this was said, another monk said to the elder monks, “Name, friends, is the first side, form the second side, and consciousness is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk… is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
When this was said, another monk said to the elder monks, “The six internal sense-media, friends, are the first side, the six external sense-media the second side, and consciousness is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk… is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
When this was said, another monk said to the elder monks, “Self-identification, friends, is the first side, the origination of self-identification the second side, and the cessation of self-identification is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, friends, that a monk directly knows what should be directly known, comprehends what should be comprehended. Directly knowing what should be directly known, comprehending what should be comprehended, he is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
“When this was said, one of the monks said to the elder monks, “We have each answered in line with his own inspiration. Come, friends, let’s go to the Blessed One and, on arrival, report this matter to him. However he answers is how we should remember it.”
“As you say, friend,” the elder monks said to that monk.
Then the elder monks went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they reported the entirety of their conversation to him. “Which of us, lord, has spoken well?”
“Monks, each of you has spoken well in his way, but as for what I intended when I said in The Way to the Further Shore, in Metteyya’s Question—
‘Whoever, a thinker,
knowing both sides,
doesn’t adhere in between: He
I call a great person. He
here has gone past
the seamstress’—
“Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”
“As you say, lord,” the elder monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said, “Contact, monks, is the first side, the origination of contact the second side, and the cessation of contact is in between. Craving is the seamstress—for craving stitches one to the production of this or that very becoming. It’s to this extent, monks, that a monk directly knows what should be directly known, comprehends what should be comprehended. Directly knowing what should be directly known, comprehending what should be comprehended, he is one who puts an end to suffering & stress in the here & now.”
If you gain pleasure by stimulating the intellect, and you have time to do so, learning Pāli and reading, extensively, works produced in the field of buddhist studies can be very enjoyable and helpful. It’s probably not necessary though, or at least it’s not necessary per se. It might be accidentally necessary for some though. And by accidentally I mean in the philosophical sense.
2 Likes
IMO
words are there to convey meaning . once we get the meaning ,we can discard the words. its like, once we eat the chocolate the wrapper can be discarded.
in what ever language the dhamma is communicated we must strive to get at the heart of the words.
4 Likes
What about learning Chinese? Comparing the agamas to the nikayas is crucial to getting a full presentation of the dhamma.
Absolutely, but the final place dhamma should be verified is within ourselves. This body endowed with mind as it were. Other wise its just theory that we have varying degrees of confidence in.
2 Likes
Yes, it is one of prerequisites nowadays.
No. The truth of true dharma is not dependent on the language it is written down in.
IMO
1 Like
When would the era of “nowadays” have begun? There are still illiterate people in the world, or, at the very least, people of very meager resources who lack access to the internet and other means for learning a language other than the one they speak. Are they doomed to not being able to learn true Dhamma? Can we be sure the Buddha would adopt such a position when he was alive?
1 Like
I would say “No”
Even if you learn Pali you have to read the commenary to fully understand the Sutta. However if you have a Pali knowledge you have the winning edge.
1 Like