[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 14:03 -0400, curt wrote:

> Not so fast my giggling friend. It sounds to me like you are
> implying, or possibly you are coming right out and saying, that
> someone who does not fully understand the Buddha's teaching can
> nevertheless correctly translate these teachings from one language
> into another.

Yes, of course. All one needs is a knowledge of the grammar and a sence
of the meanings of the technical terms.

> But how can someone who does not understand these teachings in one
> language be thought to understand them in two languages?

It is very easy to understand the teachings of Buddhism. I have never
encountered a single idea that was not quite easy to understand. What is
difficult is not understanding that attachment leads to pain. What is
difficult is shedding one's attachments.

> And just to be clear - I am here assuming an identity
> between these two states: (1) the state of fully understanding the
> Buddha's teachings, and (2) the state of being fully enlightened.

In that case, I'd suggest that 98% of the people who have read an
introductory textbook on Buddhism are fully enlightened. What you have
just established is that enlightenment isn't worth a bucket of stale
piss.

> And another thing I want to be clear about: I am distinguishing
> between translations that will be used for study and those used for
> religious/devotional practice - and I am assuming that a higher
> standard (or, more precisely - the highest standard) should be used
> for translations that are used for religious practice.

You are very good at making bold assertions. Less good at defending
them.

> Maybe an example would help. Say for example that someone
> is translating a book about Chemistry from Arabic into Swahili.
> The translator would need to know more than simply the two
> languages.

Yes, of course. Who would deny that? Similarly, someone translating a
text on poetics or rhetoric should know something about poetics and
rhetoric. And someone translating a book on Buddhist theory should
understand the theory being translated. But that is quite easy to do.

> I'm sorry if you feel like this is going nowhere.

Don't be sorry. I don't mind when discussions go nowhere.

> But I am very curious to know what you think the proper qualifications
> should be for someone to do a meaningful translation of liturgical
> texts for liturgical use.

What difference does it make what I think? You have your own opinions
and seem content with them. And I am content with mine. For what it's
worth, liturgy is not my bag. I never went to church in my life until I
was about twenty-one, and then I went to a Unitarian church. Unitarians
are not big on liturgy, but they had a little too much of it for my
taste, so I moved on the the Quakers. From there I graduated to Buddhist
meditation, which I did entirely on my own. I around forty before I saw
a Buddhist ritual, and I didn't much like it, nor did I much dislike it.
It just doesn't do anything for me. So I am content to leave it to
people who are fussy about such things to set the standards, while I
bide my time doing things that I find more suited to my needs.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico