The importance of learning languages related to Buddhism if one is able

[yokosukasailorboy]

Something I have been thinking recently is that in order to really understand Buddhism in any substantive way, one would need to be at least somewhat familiar with the original languages or at least the languages related to one's tradition. For example, some familiarity with Pali/Sanskrit, Tibetan, classical Chinese, Sino-Japanese etc., and really trying to understand the ancient texts to some extent in their original languages. There are many fine translations into English and other languages. Nevertheless, when some people in the west who are considered as experts on Buddhism, yet haven't even made an effort to learn the language of the Sutras and other ancient texts, it's hard for me to take their "expertise" seriously. Not that the practise of Buddhism requires linguistic ability, but certainly it would seem that being considered an expert in the field would require at least some mastery of the original languages of Buddhism.

Any thoughts on this?

[Archie2009]

"To really understand Buddhism in any substantive way," as you say, requires direct perception. Direct perception of emptiness, etc. do not depend on linguistic skills. Everything else is intellectual, conceptual understanding.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It’s important that people do that. But not everyone has to do that or can do that. Supporting the work of knowledgeable translators so that their translations can be of benefit is probably a better use of one’s resources.

Having said that, Hindi is not a terribly difficult language to learn (I’m currently learning Nepali but for different reasons) and it is very close to Sanskrit, and would be helpful to some extent.

[Johnny Dangerous]

There have been realized persons who were completely illiterate.

As far academic and/or deep text study, then sure things like etymology and good understanding of Dharma vocabulary in a given language is important.

Striving to be “expert on Buddhism” as a subject and striving towards realizing the Dharma are not the same thing at all, though sure they can and do overlap..

Intellectual knowledge is important up to a point of course, but one can "understand Buddhism", and then one can actually practice Dharma, the difference isn’t trivial. To use an analogy, being a cartographer is not the same as being a traveler, though they are both important, and the two need each other for successful journeys to happen.

That said, supporting people who choose to learn these languages and engage in this way is really important for the continuity of the teachings.

I think you need to define “understand Buddhism in a substantive way” though.

Similarly, if you want to object to “ Western experts on Buddhism” who you believe are not, that probably needs further unpacking.

[Queequeg]

I think learning a language through which practitioners have expressed understanding is helpful for sure. But not because there is something intrinsic to those languages in terms of dharma, but because people speaking those languages have gained insight and worked out linguistic conventions that approximate well the experiences, and utilizing the conventions in those languages to express bodhi.

We'll get there with English and other languages. We are part of that process. The best thing we can do to make English a dharma language is to be a native English speaker who wakes up.

[PeterC]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.

Nevertheless, when some people in the west who are considered as experts on Buddhism, yet haven't even made an effort to learn the language of the Sutras and other ancient texts, it's hard for me to take their "expertise" seriously.

Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

[yokosukasailorboy]

There have been realized persons who were completely illiterate.

As far academic and/or deep text study, then sure things like etymology and good understanding of Dharma vocabulary in a given language is important.

Striving to be “expert on Buddhism” as a subject and striving towards realizing the Dharma are not the same thing at all, though sure they can and do overlap..

Intellectual knowledge is important up to a point of course, but one can "understand Buddhism", and then one can actually practice Dharma, the difference isn’t trivial. To use an analogy, being a cartographer is not the same as being a traveler, though they are both important, and the two need each other for successful journeys to happen.

That said, supporting people who choose to learn these languages and engage in this way is really important for the continuity of the teachings.

I think you need to define “understand Buddhism in a substantive way” though.

Similarly, if you want to object to “ Western experts on Buddhism” who you believe are not, that probably needs further unpacking.

Naturally, the western "experts" on Buddhism get very sensitive if one calls them out on this. No, not my feelings nor beliefs, by all means they may well all be experts despite their lack of any knowledge of the original languages. After all, the whole point of arrogant white dudes coming to Asia and telling us what Buddhism "really means" depends on us not questioning this, they make a lot of money from their expertise.

Let's unpack it, you go first.

[yokosukasailorboy]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.

Nevertheless, when some people in the west who are considered as experts on Buddhism, yet haven't even made an effort to learn the language of the Sutras and other ancient texts, it's hard for me to take their "expertise" seriously.

Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

[Johnny Dangerous]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.

Nevertheless, when some people in the west who are considered as experts on Buddhism, yet haven't even made an effort to learn the language of the Sutras and other ancient texts, it's hard for me to take their "expertise" seriously.

Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

If they had authentic teachers who well communicated the Dharma, and have realization, that is much more important...at least in terms of their quality as teachers themselves. From my observations many such people get some knowledge of said languages simply through immersion, however.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

Like everyone is saying, scholar, expert doesn't necessarily say anything about qualifications in terms of Dharma.

It's pretty silly to throw this out multiple times without examples though, can you please provide one?

[yokosukasailorboy]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.

Nevertheless, when some people in the west who are considered as experts on Buddhism, yet haven't even made an effort to learn the language of the Sutras and other ancient texts, it's hard for me to take their "expertise" seriously.

Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

True, practice doesn't require linguistic ability. Actual knowledge of Buddhism, perhaps.

[Johnny Dangerous]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.



Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

True, practice doesn't require linguistic ability. Actual knowledge of Buddhism, perhaps.

What exactly is "knowledge of Buddhism" you are talking about here? You really need to be less vague to keep this thread productive.

Please be specific about your claims and terms.

[yokosukasailorboy]

You require very little philosophical/academic knowledge to be a practitioner. Of course it helps but what really matters is practice and realization.

As a practitioner one does need a certain about of vocabulary whether or not you learn a language. There are technical terms in every school which are simply inefficient to translate.

For the survival and spread of the Dharma, translators are absolutely essential. And they need to be translator/practitioners, so that they’re not just working on texts in a vacuum.



Literally nobody who would be considered an expert does not know at least one Dharma language. Who do you think fits this description?

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

If they had authentic teachers who well communicated the Dharma, and have realization, that is much more important...at least in terms of their quality as teachers themselves.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

Like everyone is saying, scholar, expert doesn't necessarily say anything about qualifications in terms of Dharma.

It's pretty silly to throw this out multiple times without examples though, can you please provide one?

[/quote]

I'm a silly person with nothing of value to add. I am a person of low intelligence, silly and people can disrespect me. No ego. It reflects on them, not self.

True, scholarship and expertise has nothing to do with qualifications in terms of Dharma. Everyone is an expert. Languages are of no value. Sorry, yes, I stand corrected.

[Johnny Dangerous]

There have been realized persons who were completely illiterate.

As far academic and/or deep text study, then sure things like etymology and good understanding of Dharma vocabulary in a given language is important.

Striving to be “expert on Buddhism” as a subject and striving towards realizing the Dharma are not the same thing at all, though sure they can and do overlap..

Intellectual knowledge is important up to a point of course, but one can "understand Buddhism", and then one can actually practice Dharma, the difference isn’t trivial. To use an analogy, being a cartographer is not the same as being a traveler, though they are both important, and the two need each other for successful journeys to happen.

That said, supporting people who choose to learn these languages and engage in this way is really important for the continuity of the teachings.

I think you need to define “understand Buddhism in a substantive way” though.

Similarly, if you want to object to “ Western experts on Buddhism” who you believe are not, that probably needs further unpacking.

Naturally, the western "experts" on Buddhism get very sensitive if one calls them out on this. No, not my feelings nor beliefs, by all means they may well all be experts despite their lack of any knowledge of the original languages. After all, the whole point of arrogant white dudes coming to Asia and telling us what Buddhism "really means" depends on us not questioning this, they make a lot of money from their expertise.

Let's unpack it, you go first.

No, it's your thread and you need to be more specific.

I hope that comment doesn't mean that you think I view myself as an "expert on Buddhism", I most definitely don't, and most definitely am not, in any way. I am a nobody practitioner with very limited academic knowledge, some beginner level experience, but I have been fortunate enough to have good teachers.

So no, I have no sensitivity on the subject at all, but If you refuse to get specific on the subject the thread is pointless and circular, so please do so if you want it to stay open.

[yokosukasailorboy]

Lots of westerners who have written books on Buddhism haven't any background in ancient languages, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, ancient Chinese, probably most of the authors of books on Buddhism would fit this description.

Yes, true, most westerners who have written books on Buddhism are most certainly not "experts" for this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not scholars, not experts in any way.

True, practice doesn't require linguistic ability. Actual knowledge of Buddhism, perhaps.

What exactly is "knowledge of Buddhism" you are talking about here? You really need to be less vague to keep this thread productive.

Please be specific about your claims and terms.

True, the expression of "knowledge of Buddhism" has no meaning. There is no such thing as scholarship nor expertise in Buddhism, this is an entirely vague term.

This thread cannot be productive because the original question has no value. Please disregard. Hahaha yes, I can understand why this question might strike a sensitive nerve on DW. Expertise and academic knowledge is very vague and ephemeral. It has no meaning.

Admittedly, Dharma practice doesn't require any academic knowledge, look at some famous teachers who couldn't read, yet they had very high attainments.

Sorry, I won't bring this up again.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I'm a silly person with nothing of value to add. I am a person of low intelligence, silly and people can disrespect me. No ego. It reflects on them, not self.

True, scholarship and expertise has nothing to do with qualifications in terms of Dharma. Everyone is an expert. Languages are of no value. Sorry, yes, I stand corrected.

Yeah, no one said any of that, that's a straw man.

[Johnny Dangerous]

What exactly is "knowledge of Buddhism" you are talking about here? You really need to be less vague to keep this thread productive.

Please be specific about your claims and terms.

True, the expression of "knowledge of Buddhism" has no meaning. There is no such thing as scholarship nor expertise in Buddhism, this is an entirely vague term.

This thread cannot be productive because the original question has no value. Please disregard. Hahaha yes, I can understand why this question might strike a sensitive nerve on DW. Expertise and academic knowledge is very vague and ephemeral. It has no meaning.

Admittedly, Dharma practice doesn't require any academic knowledge, look at some famous teachers who couldn't read, yet they had very high attainments.

Sorry, I won't bring this up again.

Seems kinda juvenile, but ok. I will lock the thread, anyone can PM me if they want it opened again, or wants to seriously engage the question