This posting was originally published in the International Agenda: Newsletter of the Schoolcraft College International Institute 7.1 (2008): 14

Next semester, when students pick up a copy of Siddhartha, the PagerTurners book selected for February 2009, they might be puzzled that the cover pictures a thin image of the Buddha, not the laughing Buddha Americans typically associate with Buddhism. Then they will likely be surprised to learn that the laughing Buddha is not the founder of Buddhism.

Hotei, the laughing Buddha, is actually a representation of a Chinese Zen monk who lived approximately 1,500 years after the enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. Often depicted carrying a large sack in which he puts the sorrows of the world, Hotei is an important figure in Chinese Buddhism. However, from a Western perspective, his true significance was lost in translation as he traveled from China to America.

After one class last semester, a student told me that he was learning about Buddhism in his philosophy class. When the student repeated his professor’s teaching that the first noble truth was the nature of suffering, I jokingly suggested that the next time he saw his philosophy professor, the student should say, “Dr. Berg says that you are wrong. The first noble truth isn’t suffering. It’s dukkha.”

While I understand the realities that we face as faculty members, I am also aware that “suffering” is an inadequate translation of dukkha. Students who apply dictionary definitions or American cultural understandings of what it means to suffer as a starting point from which to understand the noble truths cannot hope to come to a real appreciation of this basic foundation of Buddhist thought.

For the purposes of his philosophy class, teaching that suffering was the first noble truth was perfectly acceptable. I really don’t have an issue with my colleague teaching Buddhism in translation. But, when the student asked to do a paper on Buddhism, I informed him that he would have to use dukkha. He suffered through some texts I gave to him and came to a much fuller appreciation of Buddhism than he would have had had I not insisted that he add this one Pali term to his vocabulary.¹

This academic year when I teach Culture Shock! Sri Lanka: A Survival Guide to Customs and Etiquette, I will have the opportunity to introduce the concept of translation as well as the credibility of sources. At one point, Barla and Wanasundera explain that Buddhists practice five precepts on a day-to-day basis. On certain days, they practice eight precepts by adding three more to the original five. All eight precepts are listed in the text. Although it does not make a significant difference for their book, the authors are presenting incorrect information.²

When five precepts are practiced, a Buddhist abstains from kamesu micchacara which is usually translated as either “sexual misconduct” or “adultery.” But when eight precepts are practiced, abrahmacariya (typically translated as “incelibacy”) is substituted for kamesu micchacara. During this discussion, I will tell my students that even if they cite Baria and Wanasundera as their source they will be wrong if they argue that someone practicing eight precepts refrains from adultery. I will also pose the rhetorical question “Is there a difference between sexual misconduct, adultery, and incelibacy?” and will likely joke that if they want to practice the precepts they had better carefully pick their translation.

I do not know much Pali. Therefore, I need to rely on translations. Sometimes the results are humorous. For example, I could not understand the obsession with sex in one portion of the Satipatthana Sutta. After hours of study over several weeks, I finally realized that this section of the Sutta is more interested in people who lust after their neighbors’ goods; not those who covet their neighbors’ wives.

One way that I use to help students appreciate the difficulty of learning Buddhism in translation is to show Capt’n Awesome’s Buddhism is Stupid and Evil.³ This profanity laden diatribe against Buddhism is so extreme that students cannot mistake Capt’n Awesome as a serious scholar. But because it is so extreme, it is easy for students to identify problems when Capt’n Awesome imposes his own definitions of English words translated from a Pali text without considering how Buddhists understand the passages. The Amazing Atheist’s Buddhism: The Great Evil⁴ is an even better example of ethnocentrism, but is too vulgar to show in most classes.

Most of us will not have the opportunity to teach about Buddhism. But we frequently teach other texts in translation; texts–such as the Bible–which often have multiple translations we can compare. And Capt’n Awesome, the Amazing Atheist, and other such scholars on You Tube deliver jeremiads on a variety of topics from many disciplines we can incorporate into our classes.

Because of the difficulties of teaching Buddhism and other texts in translation, when given the opportunity, we owe it to our students to teach them that lust has nothing to do with sex—-at least while they are reading the Satipatthana Sutta.

¹Pali is an ancient Indian language and is one of two languages in which you can read Buddhist texts. The other is Sanskrit. Because I use the Pali terms “dhamma” and “dukkha” instead of the Sanskrit terms “darma” and “duhkha,” one could rightly assume that I study in the Theravada tradition.

²Barlas, Robert and Nanda P. Wanasundera. Culture Shock: Sri Lanka. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish, 2006.

³http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPu7TI-XXXY

⁴http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNzejoJBAKo&NR=1

–Steven L. Berg, PhD