This is a forwarded message
From: Michael Olds <mikeolds@...>
Date: Sunday, November 14, 2004, 7:12:37 PM
Subject: Post to Pali Group

===8<==============Original message text===============

Hello Pali Group,

While I find the scholarship on this subject interesting, what I am
concerned with in all of this is the mental set of those who are approaching
the study of Pali as a means, or one means, of breaking through to a deeper
understanding of, or confirmation of a deep understanding of, the Dhamma.
Not everyone here is approaching Pali study for this reason, so with
respect, this is not addressed to them other than as a suggestion that when
speaking of these matters they be expressed conditionally, not as a matter
of confirmed proofs.

In the case of Buddhists doing Dhamma Vicaya, it is not possible, and it is
against the instructions we have in the suttas, to rely on ANY academic
approach to proving such things as the language of the Buddha or even that
what we have in the suttas was spoken by him at all. Such a thing is not
possible to prove in ordinary reality, and anything that perports to be such
a proof can easily be shown to be reliance on the word of some authority and
therefor not qualified as something that can be 'known.' We are cautioned
not only not to accept the reports of anyone other than the Buddha that he
said such a thing 'face to face' with them, [and whether or not their
reputation is that they were Arahant], but we are cautioned not even to
unquestioningly accept what we have as the direct word of the Buddha
himself.

If you say "I know", I can believe you, but I cannot offer your assertion as
proof of anything.

I suggest that as Buddhists approaching the Pali for a greater understanding
of the Dhamma we MUST allow for the massive scope of the mind that created
this system. Years of study will show that within the scope of what the
Buddha actually says in the suttas (allowing that what we have as the suttas
is the only thing we know of this being, and is therefore what we must
accept as the word of this being; accepting it's truth or not as our putting
it into practice allows) there is total control of even the tiniest details.
That he would choose his words haphazardly or without thought for the future
is out of the question. That he would not be aware of and provide for how
his words would degenerate over time and that he would not select his words
to be the most enduring possible, is not consistant with the character of
the mind that developed what we have in the suttas. And that this is so, and
that the intention was just that his VERY WORDS were to be used in teaching
and preserving the Dhamma, is evidenced in various places in the Suttas
where Sariputta and others are reported to have given a discourse where the
discourse was said to have been exactly similar to that delivered elsewhere
by the Buddha --- syllable for syllable!

Also:
Pariyaapu.naati [pari+$p, cp. BSanskrit paryav$pnoti Divy 613] 1. to learn
(by heart), to master, to gain mastership over, to learn thoroughly

The other translators are suggesting this word means simply 'learning',
where I see that it means actually a complete understanding or mastry. I
suggest from personal experience that there is no 'mastery' of what the
Buddha taught without checking what one thinks one knows against what we
have here as the word of the Buddha. So it is counter to effectiveness to
say that one should master the Buddha's Dhamma in one's own
language...although I do think one must master the Buddhist Dhamma in one's
own terms...using the Pali. Over time, sometimes a long long time, (and
especially if one actually tries to teach the Dhamma using the Dhamma rather
than explanations of the Dhamma) one will find that one's vocabulary evolves
ever closer to the root concepts in English most of which are not far
removed from those evident in the Pali. And the interesting thing relating
to this discussion [and which is highly subject to abuse] is the fact that
over time, having reached a sort of bottom line English vocabulary for the
Dhamma, one becomes more and more convinced that even in English, ONLY
certain words should be being used for construction of a 'Dhamma' or
'Sutta'. The difference between using Pain or Shit for Dukkha, as per my
example, is that Pain or Shit is a term that encompasses every meaning of
this term, where 'suffering', 'anxiety', 'angst', etc do not.

So...finally, all I wished to do by entering this discussion was to suggest
that those whose interests are in acadmic studies and their sort of proofs
be cognizant of the effect their absolute statements can have on those who,
for their own benefit in their practice, should be being urged to keep an
open mind and come to no conclusions based on reliance on authority.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my views.

Take Care;
and may your life be long and happy!
Michael Olds


===8<===========End of original message text===========