[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:28 +0200, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> I used to sit with a group allied to Kapleau-roshi's outfit, and they 
> would give long, complicated reasons why it was so much better to chant 
> in English than in Japanese.

As I recall from my informal association with that outfit, this issue
was deeply painful. Didn't Roshi Kapleau lose his sanction to teach as a
result of his Japanese teacher being appalled that Kapleau's crew were
translating chants into English? (If Japanese was good enough for the
Buddha, it should be good enough for Americans, sou desu ka nee?) Or was
that just an ugly rumour? 

I still have a copy of the Rochester Zen Center chant book somewhere,
and I quite liked the wording of their chants. Not bad at all. They
sounded rather nice and made good sense. A step even further into
anglicity was made by Roshi Jiyu Kennett, who composed some rather
attractive Buddhist hymns and plainsong chants, using Western music and
English translations of Buddhist chants, and the hymns sung by the
Buddhist Church of America sound to the untrained ear like what you
would hear at a Protestant revivalist meeting. We're still a long way
off from having any Buddhist composers who rival Bach or Mozart (or even
Brooks and Dunn), but give it time.

> After I left them (nothing personal, I just moved to the other side of
> the country) the leaders transferred their allegiance to the Kwan Um
> school, and today *the same people* will give you long, complicated
> reasons why chanting in Korean is far, far better... 

There is probably nothing that human beings do quite as well as finding
arguments to defend their current practices and currently held
prejudices. 

-- 
Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu>
*** 
"If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say,
you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel