[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 14:08 -0400, curt wrote:

> Call it what you will - just so long as we are clear that what you are 
> insisting on is something that has never been a generally accepted
> practice in the 2500 year history of Buddhism in Asia.

Well, monks fly around in airplanes now and use computers, which have
never been generally accepted practices. Personally, I see no great harm
in change, as long as its for the good. And I think making things
understandable is good, arguably even better than flying around in
airplanes and using computers.

> I think this is a relevant point, since Western Buddhists are often
> given the impression that there is something peculiar about Westerners
> chanting in a foreign language

Oddly enough, in my thirty-five years of hanging around Western
Buddhists I've never heard this impression that you say is often given. 

> You seem to be primarily concerned with the literal meaning 
> of the chants.

Most chants that I know of are texts attributed to the Buddha. I am
assuming the Buddha used words in order to be understood. But of course
like everyone else he spoke both literally and figuratively. I am
interested in both, so long as it can be understood.

> I am personally much more concerned with how the chants sound.

That is precisely what the Buddha warned against. When people became
intrigued with the sound, they fail to focus on the meanings of the
words. This is why he forbade chanting.

> The Great Dharani, for example, is a very beautiful sounding chant -
> but when you translate it into English it is largely meaningless mumbo
> jumbo.

I have never seen this in the original language. It's one of the things
we used to chant in anglicized Sino-Korean. Attempts have been made to
reconstruct the original Sanskrit (if indeed it was ever originally in
Sanskrit). As far as anyone can tell, it's essentially mumbo jumbo even
in the original, as are many dharanis that appear in Mahayana texts.

> But it sure does sound nice "in the original".

De gustibus non disputandum est. I never much liked it, but I did find
it a useful way of cultivating patience.

> And then there's the Heart Sutra - the Japanese, Korean and Chinese 
> versions have a rhythm and musicality that is completely lost in
> translation. 

That depends entirely on the style. The chanting of the Heart Sutra I
have heard most often is ugliness personified--nothing but a bunch of
rapid-fire staccato macho bellowing. My testosterone level doubles every
time I hear it. On the other hand, I have heard it chanted in English in
ways that make it sound very beautiful. If you use melodies and rhythms
that fit the English language, it can be made so sound lovely, if that
is what you are after.

Oh, and by the way, when the Heart Sutra, the Kanzeon Sutra and the
Diamon-cutter Sutras are chanted in the languages you mention, they are
in translation.

> Yet another example is the "Kanzeon Sutra". When done in the Japanese
> version it is, in my opinion, a genuinely transforming experience -
> but the English translations are flat and lifeless.

That has nothing to do with its being in English. Don't forget that most
translations are done by pedantic philologists who know next to nothing
about either philosophy or poetry. I've never done a systematic study,
but I'd estimate that 98% of everything translated from Asian languages
is just plain awful as English literature. Dharma texts in translation
are often ghastly at the beginning, ghastly in the middle and ghastly at
the end. But it needn't be that way. Indeed, I think if people get truly
inspired, they will produce beautiful English texts. And then we won't
have to choose between chanting beautiful texts that no one understands
and chanting flat and lifeless texts that everyone understands.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico