[Buddha-l] Re: Filtered Buddhism

[Margaret Gouin]

On Sat, July 7, 2007 1:11 am, Michael LaTorra wrote:
> The lay members objected. They **liked** chanting words they did not
> understand (or, more precisely, words for which they did not know the
precise
> individual meanings, although they did know that these words were
supposed to be the originals from which our English translations
derived).
> I myself prefer to know what I am saying. Evidently, this preference
> places me in the minority.  Does anyone else here feel the same way?
>

I like chanting in Tibetan because the chants are rhythmical and melodic,
which helps in memorising them. But I don't like chanting 'blind', without
knowing what I'm saying. My preference is for a text in either Tibetan or
Wylie transliteration, with English translation; then I go back over it
and do my own translation so I'm sure I know what the words say. A big
problem for me is that many of the English translations of sadhanas are
poorly done, in awkward language; perhaps something that will improve as
the quality of Tibetan language studies improves. I *really* dislike
asking for a Tibetan text and being given something in someone's idea of
phonetics.

Perhaps some people like to emphasise the 'otherness' of what they're
doing. Like someone I knew who was convinced she could never have a
'proper' altar until she could afford to buy 'real' butter lamps from
Tibet (or probably Nepal). (I use tea lights from the local
everything-for-a-liri shop.)

By the way, when I was learning Hebrew there was a similar mind-set in
many of the people in the class: they didn't want to learn to speak
Hebrew, they just wanted to be able to recite the religious service in the
'holy' language. Which is fine.

-- 
Margaret Gouin
PhD Candidate
Centre for Buddhist Studies
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Bristol (UK)