[Fwd: Re: [Buddha-l] liturgical languages]

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 09:48 -0500, F.K. Lehman (F.K.L. Chit Hlaing)
wrote:

> I was simply pointing out why it may have become a fixed tradition to
> recite in Pali (in Theravada), namely, because they were supposedly
> the words (stricto sensu) of the Buddha himself and or related
> reasons.

I have to admit that chanting the refuges and precepts in Pali still
gives me a thrill, mostly because I am aware that these very words have
been chanted every day for the past two thousand years or so. I have no
idea when the Pali language began or where it comes from, but it was
probably within a few hundred years of when the Buddha lived, so the
Pali version of the refuges and precepts has a long history with which
it is wonderful to be connected.

> And in spite of His position, as cited by Richard, the Indic idea of
> word in the original having special power persisted.

It did indeed. The best efforts of the best minds in Indian Buddhism
could not change that deeply ingrained habit. The position that was
taken up by many Indian Buddhist philosophers was that words have some
kind of power, not because of any intrinsic power of the sound, but
because of the conviction of the mutterer. And it was always said by
many that mantras and so forth have the power to attain worldly goals
but no power at all to help one attain lokuttara goals. So mantras came
to be seen as something like money: useful in ordinary life but useless
as part of a spiritual practice.

> On the other hanxd, yet again!, the Pali tradition, in Burma at least,
> but also amongst the Shan and Northern Thai ((less so in Central
> Thai?) is such that laypersons are repeatedly drilled in the
> vernacular glossing of such stuff, so it is intended NOT to be
> meaningless.

It has always been my practice, even here in the land of no buddhas, to
teach people just enough grammar and vocabulary to enable them to
understand the meaning of whatever they chant. Most people who have said
anything at all to me about it have said that understanding the meaning
has deepened their appreciation of the practice of chanting in Pali. Of
course it could be that people who resent the intrusion of meaning into
their pure aesthetic appreciation of the sounds have been so annoyed
with me that they have not said anything to me about it.

> I cannot see why this confuses any of you on this List, but then i am
> not that steeped in any Mahayana tradition of practice, and I've no
> experience at all with 'Western Buddhism' or any other version of
> Oriental Mysticism chic.

You have been on this list long enough to know that it is mostly about
confusion and prejudice and uninformed opinion mongering.

By the way, Western Buddhism is not necessarily another flavour of
Oriental Mysticism chic than Burmese Buddhism is a form of Indian
Mysticism chic. Buddhism is young in the Europe, and even younger in las
Americas, but it is often dynamic and alive and every bit as deserving
of respect as Buddhism in Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico