Plus

Plus

A worldwide distortion of Buddhism?
By Professor Dhammavihari Thera
The so-called authentic Pali texts printed early in Sri Lanka have, within recent decades, witnessed inexplicable changes where readings of the earlier texts have been altered without giving any justifiable reasons for the changes. The rot started with the printing of new editions of the old texts, at times by powerful groups and at others by less powerful ones. This happened at both national and international levels.

In the next category, we have witnessed over the decades, errors in the translation to Sinhala of Pali words (and even whole sentences) resulting in total distortion. In particular, the Sinhala translations of the Dhammapada in Sri Lanka, often misdirected by deflected commentarial traditions, reveal many such glaring errors.

In the third category, it must be said that the entry of the digital media into the area of Buddhist literary texts by way of computerizing the extant printed material has, in many instances, led to disastrous results. In the hands of typists who work for these organizations, whose knowledge of Pali and of the Dhamma seems minimal, we have discovered some CD Roms of such origin to be devastatingly ruinous. In some of these early Sri Lankan Pali texts, known to us for more than fifty years, readings have recently been changed to less acceptable ones without any rhyme or reason. The results are much worse than where national histories are now being re-written, prompted by ethno-religious arrogance.

The digital media (which includes websites, servers and numerous Internet programmes), which is now within the reach of every Tom, Dick and Harry in town, has also opened the floodgates for a ceaseless inflow of garbled versions into the hands of credulous seekers of information on Buddhism who often are not serious students of the subject.

On the other hand, on a global reckoning, the more serious students of Buddhism of a much younger generation are thrown into utter confusion as to the intent and import of basic Buddhist teachings. The outcome of this which we believe to be a near death-dealing virus (not very different from that of the SARS epidemic) would be the disappearance of what could be identified as the early teachings of the Buddha Gotama.

Besides these documented areas where errors could be checked and publicly discussed, there is another disastrous area of the uttered word on Buddhism. As far as we can reckon, these range over three or four segments like the public media of radio and television as well as collectively disseminated and individually delivered neo-scientific and super-modernistic presentations of the teachings of the Buddha of two and a half millennia ago. All these areas are dominated by both monks and laymen of formidable stature.

The worldwide distortion of Buddhism, unwittingly at times, is vast. In Sri Lanka today, it is widespread. Teachers and preachers of the Dhamma each claim a correctness to what they say. Abhidhamma at times claims to be the ultimate authority on the Dhamma. Can we afford to forget the Buddha's own instructions in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta under the heading cattaro mahapadesa which specifically dealt with the criteria with which to decide on the authenticity and acceptability of Buddhist teachings?

In our early Buddhist literary records like the Atthakathas of Sri Lanka we have reports of the early Sinhala sanga enjoying that academic dignity of freely examining the content of the Dhamma as expected of them by the Buddha and critically evaluating the opinions expressed about them by various authorities.

A very good example of this is the story of the dialogue between Dipavasi Sumana Thera and his pupil Tipitaka Culabhaya Thera regarding the use of the term Catuparisuddhisila. This report comes to us in the writings of the commentator Buddhaghosa. It is enlightening to note the manner in which the teacher accepted with dignity and decorum the correction by his pupil (see Encyclopaedia of Buddhism - Sri Lanka, Vol. IV. Art. Catuparisuddhisila).

Finally we come to areas of interpretation of Buddhist texts. We discover that new visions of the Dhamma are imposed on listeners and readers by some neo-fundamentalist preachers who present very down to earth teachings of Buddhist suttas as transcendental teachings, which they name as paramattha-desana. We have seen the Mangala Sutta presented in this manner. Does this not totally destroy the social relevance of Buddhism as a religion?

We believe that socio-ethical upgrading of the humans via sila is the fundamental step in the religious culture of Buddhism, whatever the self-appointed people of the neo-fundamentalist Buddhist groups of today say. Mata-pitu-upatthanam of the Mangala Sutta, we believe, reflects this sensitivity of the Buddha to develop to its highest level the cultural potentialities of the human before endeavouring to push him to the acquisition of superhuman achievements. Mata-pitu-upatthanam of that sutta to us therefore is no more than an upgrading of human character development, providing a foundation for the attainment of the highest bliss of Nibbana.

It is with a deep sense of regret that we publicize a serious error in the interpretation of Buddhism to which our attention was drawn awhile ago. It appears in the July 2003 issue of the Reader’s Digest (Vol.81, No. 484) under the caption Good Karma. It is presented as a dialogue between the Dalai Lama in the form of questions put to him by RD. In the middle of the interview between the two parties, a disastrous presentation of Buddhism is put in the words of His Holiness.

The objectionable portions in these comments are; 1) That the speaker who answers a question put to him refers to a story in Buddhism without any comment about the genesis of this story, about the time of its origin or the tradition to which it belongs or even to the book from which the story is taken. In talking about a religion which has had a period of growth and development of more than 25 centuries and therefore has within it three distinct traditions, including the subsequent ones of the Mahayana and the Vajrayana, besides the one of earlier Indian origin, one is not justified in bundling them all into one and referring to it under the generic name of Buddhism.

Lamentably one seriously lacks a sense of historical perspective here. Paying due respect to current trends of academic generosity, even for purposes of global unification, one cannot ignore the vital differences between the original and the later deflections which have crept into the core of Buddhism and have at the same time their legitimate right to be so, owing to very significant regional and cultural differences in their origin.

At a global level, fashioning as it were world opinion, one also needs to reflect a degree of academic soundness in the process. Even within the pages of the RD, one does not want to take its contents as mere fiction.

2). That the person who is esteemed here as the killer of one person in order to save 499 others, reflecting his wisdom and magnanimity, although he is first referred to as the Buddha in one of his previous lives, is thereafter indiscreetly referred to as the Buddha. Note, "So the Buddha took the sin by killing one person as well as saving 499 people - purely out of compassionate motivation."

One could give on this a verdict of reckless misrepresentation. Even in the Mahayana stories such as the Vyaghri Jataka, the doer of such altruistic action is always referred to as the Bodhisattva or Buddha aspirant and not the Buddha. Such persons always relate to an earlier preparatory period on the way, prior to the attainment of Buddhahood. These statements we refer to here could not possibly bring credit either to the questioner or to the one who answers them in the way he does in the RD.

Back to Plus