Pali Course Overflow Discussions

Events Pali Course
1

Hi John,

I hope you don’t mind, but I prefer to separate the learning of Pali as a language away from the learning of Buddha’s teachings, and also Buddhism as a religion.

You have probably noticed in class I do not chant along, and that is by intention. My intention in learning Pali is so that I can discover the Buddha’s teachings for myself, I prefer not to engage or even discuss interpretations of Buddha’s teachings because that may unduly influence my later interpretation of these texts.

One thing I liked about @sujato 's classes is that he sticks to teaching the language.

I also wish to disengage from the practice of Buddhism as a religion - I am not comfortable with following any ritual or practice, even seemingly innocuous ones like chanting.

I hope you don’t mind. By all means use examples from the Tipiṭaka, as I understand all the reading passages in Warder are from there anyway. But one thing I do like about Warder is that he generally picks passages that are secular in content (they may allude to a teaching, but it’s not obvious from the excerpts).

2

Hi Christie,

Thanks for letting me know how you feel.

I prefer to separate the learning of Pali as a language away from the learning of Buddha’s teachings, and also Buddhism as a religion

My intention with the chanting was not to teach Dhamma, but only to teach Pāli. There was certainly chit-chat of the Buddha’s teachings afterwards on this discussion thread, raised by Beth, and I think that is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. If you are not interested, you just stay out of the discussion and that’s fine.

What I liked about those 3 Dhp verses in terms of Pāli teaching was that the language was fairly straightforward, lots of repetition, and so many students would here have the satisfaction of learning three nice Dhp verses (which they could chant or not - I actually recommend chanting Pāli for learning the language), and feeling like they understood the Pāli.

I will offer other suttas in class too, since personally I’m not keen on only learning Pāli from the Dīgha Nikāya, which is all we get from Warder.

I hope others will comment on my post here and if the majority agree with your point of view, Christie, then I will refrain from bringing in other suttas in future and we’ll stick to just the DN Pāli.

Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.

5 Likes
3

Thanks John. I certainly don’t mean to discourage you from bringing in other suttas and I am certainly grateful that you have taken the effort to impart your greater wisdom and knowledge beyond what Warder offers.

Just be aware that discussing the finer points of language translation and exactly what a phrase may mean is appropriate, however, adding a theological opinion, for example commenting on whether nibbāna is anattā or not (which is not alluded to or a subject of the quotes from Dhp) ventures into a different category, and not everyone may be comfortable discussing or even being exposed to such opinions.

However, I recognise at the end of the day I can’t stop you, or anyone else in the class, from discussing such matters. After all, there is enough such discussions in this forum (which, although I try my best to stay away from, doesn’t completely escape from me). All I hope for perhaps is greater sensitivity to this in the future.

4

Please continue to do this, as variety of sources is good for language learning.

Do you mean that you’re not keen on learning just from a single source?
Or is it something about the DN specifically?
Would you feel the same way about MN?
(I’m interested to know what you think because I’ve been mulling over this issue (of one source or several for teaching input) for some time.)

2 Likes
5

I would prefer to use doctrinal here rather than theological because theos means “god,” and I don’t think you meant to refer to the devas.

There’s a tricky slide here. Language can’t be separated from meaning, but translations still involves making choices between meanings and ultimately this comes down to opinion. Eg for saṅkhāra Sujato use “choices” and Bikkhu Bodhi prefers “formations.” Is this semantics or doctrine/theology? I think the question about nibbāna isn’t whether it is or isn’t anattā but whether it’s a conditioned saṅkhāra, like anattā is. But I also think that in the context of this discussion thread it doesn’t matter. (The entry for nibbāna in the PED is very interesting.)

It’s simply best, when we come together in a language class, to accept each other as kalyanamittas with a shared interest in the sources, and to disregard completely points of personal disagreement. :pray:

5 Likes
6

One of the nice things about G&K, as opposed to Warder, is that it gives a broad selection of readings, both prose and poetry, and some later Pali.
All the reading can be said to be religious in nature, however. There really aren’t any Pali texts that don’t address what we might call ‘religious subjects’.
(A very late medical treatise? may be an exception. )
For non-religious texts, perhaps Sanskrit offers a wider variety.

6 Likes
7

I prefer John continue to teach it the way he is.

In my post in this Lesson 18 thread, I veered into the Buddha’s teachings by way of John’s light offering during class to have a look at Dhp. 277-279 for the Pāli declensions, among other linguistic aspects.

I would find it challenging to separate my own Pāli study from my Buddhist religious practice as the only reason I am engaged in the former is the latter. In my mind, I don’t expect that all students in this course need share my motivation. Again, I prefer John continue to teach it the way he is.

Blessings to all.

9 Likes
8

According to various dictionaries, “theology” is defined as “Of or relating to theology or to specialized religious study.” (American Heritage), “the study of religion and religious ideas and beliefs” (Longman), “the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth” (Wordnet)

[Curiously, I can’t find the word in my edition of the Oxford]

Of course, in Christian-dominated societies, we often associate “theology” with “god” and as you point out the root of the word is related to god, but dictionary definitions, which I adhere to, ascribe a more generic meaning.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t have an issue with the Dhp excerpt, nor discussing ways in which it could be translated. Nor do I have an issue with @johnk introducing suttas during class. However nibbāna wasn’t mentioned in the excerpt, so discussing it in the context of anattā wasn’t on topic but a theological opinion (note, I will continue to use this term despite your opinion of what it means).

For record, I don’t disagree, or agree, with @johnk 's opinion. I actually don’t want to be even discussing it, as it may affect my personal journey to soteriology.

As for the translation of saṅkhāra, my not so humble opinion is that this is a complex word with many shades of meaning depending on usage, so my personal preference is to leave it untranslated, just like we leave many other Buddhist terms untranslated (eg. kamma, dhamma, etc.). But that’s just my personal preference, “choices”, “formations”, “volitions” or even John’s “conditioned things” are variants I have encountered. They are all imperfect renditions, but there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

nibbāna is also a complex Buddhist technical term and I don’t really wish to discuss what it means. My own understanding of it is continually evolving, and I suspect any views I have on it may change so I definitely no longer wish to be bound to a statement that I may later wish to disassociate from.

9

I do like the gradated approach in G&K, and I have no problems with the content. Like I said, I don’t have an issue with discussing how the text should be translated, or even the context of the text. @sujato in his classes often do talk about the wider context of the excerpt under discussion, but I notice he is very careful by talking about general context rather than inserting his personal opinion (and I do know he has many opinions, many of which I even agree with!)

As for Pali texts without “religious subjects”, Kaccāyana does a very good job in avoiding religious interpretations (despite the claim that the entire book is based on explaining the derivations of words from the Pali canon), as do other Pali grammar books such as Rupasiddhi, Saddanīti (I’ve just recently started reading them)

Translating a Pali grammar book into English would actually be a very worthwhile exercise for a Pali student. I was considering doing my own translation of Rupasiddhi before I realised I am not skilled enough, so I might need to postpone that as a later project.

10

I’m not sure if I’m a good person to comment on this… as a Buddhist monastic I’m very happy to be brainwashed and indoctrinated by the Buddha! This is also why I want to learn Pali. :pray:t5: :sunflower: :smiley: :upside_down_face:

9 Likes
11

4 posts were split to a new topic: Alternate translation/interpretation of AN 3.136

14

I don’t understand what is the line between theology and hermeneutics here. Johnn briefly mentioned nibbana to explain why the third verse uses the term dhamma rather than sankhara like the others two verses. And this is because in other suttas Nibbana is referred to as peace, undying, etc. It is neither dukkha nor anicca. And to say all dhammas are anatta means that just like all sankharas, the unconditioned is also not the atta and is not to be grasped as the atta.
Whether one believes in such doctrines or not, it is useful to interpret the sutta passages as part of the process of learning pali. You can take it simply as information, as interpretation of ancient pali texts (since context and meaning are a crucial element of the language), or as a path to be lived. That is for each one to evaluate and choose according to what seems to fit best with one’s own understanding and experience.

8 Likes
15

Hi @Gillian. I’ve been away from this thread for the last two days but do want to answer this question you raised.

My answer is that it is for both reasons! It is indeed better to learn a language from multiple sources and the DN is my least favourite and least frequently read of all the Nikāyas in the canon.

If I had answered your question before wise @stephen did, I would have said exactly the same thing about diversity of sources.

One of the nice things about G&K, as opposed to Warder, is that it gives a broad selection of readings, both prose and poetry, and some later Pali.

I believe this is one of the reasons why Bhikkhu Bodhi has taught his Pāli classes from G&K. I’m only teaching from Warder here because I took over classes that Bhante started.

On the second point, why I’m not as keen on the DN, I would refer everyone to the Introduction to BB’s translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, pp.20-21 which I quote from extensively below. I’ve never been a big fan of evangelism! :smile:

While the four main Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka are each highly variegated, close examination of their contents suggests that each has a dominant purpose in conveying a particular aspect of the Buddha’s message. This concern, I should stress, is by no means evident in every sutta in the respective collection, but only pertains to the collection when viewed as a whole. The Dīgha Nikāya is largely governed by the aim of propagating Buddhism within its cultural milieu. Its suttas attempt to establish the supremacy of the Buddha and his Dhamma over their competitors on the Indian religious and social scene. Thus the first sutta of DN surveys the philosophical views that the Buddha flatly rejected, the second repudiates the teachings of the six contemporary teachers, while many of the following texts pit the Buddha in debate against brahmins and members of other sects; other suttas serve the purpose of glorifying the Buddha and demonstrating his superiority to the gods, the nature spirits, and the ascetics and contemplatives who traveled over the Ganges plain. The Majjhima Nikāya, on the other hand, turns its spotlight inward on the Buddhist community. Many of the suttas deal with the fundamentals of the doctrine and with meditation and other aspects of Buddhist practice. This makes it particularly well suited for the instruction of monks who need to be integrated into the community.

The Saṃyutta and Aṅguttara Nikāyas consist mostly of short suttas and thus lack the scenarios and dramatic confrontations that make the two longer collections so fascinating. The Saṃyutta is governed by a thematic principle and contains many short suttas disclosing the Buddha’s radical insights and the layout of the path. This collection would have served the needs of two types of specialists in the monastic order. One were those monks and nuns who were capable of grasping the deeper ramifications of Buddhist wisdom and were therefore charged with clarifying these for others. The other were those who had already fulfilled the preliminary stages of meditative training and were intent on developing insight and realizing the goal.

With the move from the Saṃyutta to the Aṅguttara Nikāya, a shift in emphasis takes place from comprehension to personal edification. Because the short suttas that explain the philosophical “theory” and the main methods of training found their way into the Majjhima and the Saṃyutta, what remained to be incorporated into the Aṅguttara were short suttas whose primary concern is practical. To some extent, in its practical orientation, the Aṅguttara partly overlaps the last book of the Saṃyutta, which contains chapters devoted to the seven groups that make up the thirty-seven “aids to enlightenment” (bodhipakkhiyā dhammā). To avoid unnecessary duplication the redactors of the canon did not include these suttas again in the Aṅguttara under their numerical headings. The topics do appear in the repetition series at the end of each nipāta, but here their role is stereotyped and secondary. The Aṅguttara focuses instead on aspects of practical training that are not comprised in the standard sets, thereby helping us understand the Buddhist training from new angles. Perhaps we might say that if the last part of the Saṃyutta gives us an anatomy of the Buddhist path, the Aṅguttara takes a physiological slant on the path, viewing it by way of its dynamic unfolding rather than by way of its constituents.

5 Likes
17

This is a very helpful distinction between the two main nikāyas.
& thank you @johnk for taking the time to prepare a considered answer to my question.

2 Likes
18

I am sorry Luis, but I don’t really understand what you are saying either. I think we come from completely different perspectives.

My understanding of the three statements mentioned in the excerpt from Dhp are that they are statements commenting on or refuting Vedic philosophy. Even though today many of us (particularly Buddhists) associate words like dhamma with Buddhism, the Buddha did not invent these words and originally they meant something quite different, and often related to brahministic practice and Vedic beliefs, since that was the established religion in Buddha’s lifetime.

Dhamma in particular in context of these verses refers to the principles and characteristics of “natural” law as it pertains to Vedic cosmogony, or “fundamental truths” or “sacred knowledge” as it were, as well as the duty and obligation to engage in practices supporting such laws. This is not just my personal interpretation or opinion, as I mentioned in another post Gombrich essentially makes the same analysis.

Much of Vedic philosophy concerns what is referred to in Sanskrit as ātman, or an eternal and intrinsic part of ourselves that is linked or associated with the universal principle brahman and ultimately the Creator God. Dhamma is therefore associated with the ritualistic practices, duties and obligations relating to “freeing” the ātman so that it forms a metaphorical union with the universal principle and Creator God. In the Mahabharata, for example, “practising” or “knowing” dhamma is often associated with a purifying of the self, which then results in the attainment of supernatural powers.

So it seems (to me) what the Buddha was really trying to say in the third verse was that “all the principles and laws (relating to ātman) is actually not the self.” This makes complete sense as it basically is a “self standing” complete refutal of pretty much everything the Vedic texts said.

Given that, I am completely at loss at why nibbāna needs to be referenced at all, since it has nothing to do with the contents of these verses. We can argue (although I prefer not to) about what nibbāna may or may not be (personally, I don’t think it means “peace”, “undying” etc.) but it has no place in a discussion about Vedic “natural laws”. I can only imagine @johnk mentioned nibbāna in connection with a personal theological belief. Again, I don’t wish to discuss whether this belief is correct or not, everyone is welcome to interpret or draw conclusions from the words of the Buddha in the way they see fit.

19

Thank you very much @Gillian for moving this discussion out of the Pāli class thread and into it’s own separate one. What a model moderator you are!

Just a few thoughts that I have on nibbāna and anattā. [And remember, I’m a Pāli teacher, not a Dhamma teacher.]

To me, they are essentially the same. Nibbāna is a state of complete non-clinging, and the one thing we all tend to cling to tenaciously is a sense of self. Clinging to sakkāyadiṭṭhi is generally the last thing given up by an accomplished being, an arahant.

This is just my opinion - which I try to cling to only very lightly! :smile:

3 Likes
20

Evaṃ me sutaṃ … but definitely not experienced. :rofl:

It seems to me that Gair & Karunatilake selected readings very broadly, in terms of both topics and text types, and that this was well done. But I remember finding the jump between reading 1 and reading 2 in the first lesson immensely challenging! I shall enjoy working through that book again after this experience of Warder.

I don’t admire the types of explanations Warder gives, but I do admire some of his intuitions about how to present language. I think the sense that he omits “doctrine” is really his language teacher’s instinct to present language first with reference to the material world rather than abstract ideas. I definitely look forward to wading slowly through the rest of his long readings on my own, and making frequent use of the Kelly and Brahmali keys … I actually wonder if we students realise how lucky we are to have these resources available because they haven’t been around for long … that’s along with Bhikkhu Bodhi’s and your own recordings. (When this course ends I will remember to add the BAUS language learning webpage to the list of resources.)

3 Likes
21

I’m so glad you’re enjoying your Pali studies!

(Please note that the participle ‘sutam’ has one t, and that bhikkhu starts with an aspirated b (bh) !). :grinning:

2 Likes
22

You’ve correct my spelling of BB before :cry:

1 Like
23

Warder thinks DN is the earliest collection:

“This order of the five “traditions” (DN MN SN AN KN) happens also to be the order of their authenticity, probably because it was easier to insert short texts among a large number or to get a composition of doubtful origin admitted to the already doubtful Minor Tradition of a school.”

A K Warder, Indian Buddhism pp202-203

This may be one of the reasons that Warder selects their passages from DN.