DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - simplifying Buddhism: part 4: Anapanasati

**golozhopik** · 06-05-2012, 10:48 PM

I just made the suggestion that we could start a separate discussion titled "Not simplifying Buddhism" (given that there's a long series of discussions offering the opposite)...

...and I pointed to the example of "dependent origination" not at all meaning what is commonly supposed.

http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.ca/201...anonicity.html

You can simplify Buddhism; however, if you offer a simplification of an already-bad translation, the result is an even worse misrepresentation (of the original text). I realize that the people contributing to this website do all of this with the best of intentions.

I notice that the thread on "breathing meditation" (which, again, declares itself as offering a simplification) is now closed to new replies.

Why is this, I wonder?

Perhaps someone would draw attention to the fact that the translations concerned are really misrepresenting the texts? Perhaps some people have wondered why the translations do not use simple words like "inhale" and "exhale", but instead use outward phrases about "out-breaths" and "winds", etc.?

It is always assumed that prāṇa and apāna were the first of the group of breath-words to appear, and that, consequently, whenever they are used together, they mean in-breathing and out-breathing. This is a mere assumption which has no evidence to support it. On the contrary, the evidence is against it.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newman...ng-meditation/

Gentle reader: the original text does not say exhale, and does not provide instructions on "breathing meditation", either.

I can only say again: if you offer a simplification of an already-bad translation (perhaps an already-biased translation, perhaps an already-evasive translation), the result is an even worse misrepresentation (of the original text).

All of this may be shocking for some to read, however: the Buddha's religion didn't worship ignorance (and it didn't worship statues, either). Each of us has to decide if we're willing to hear what the ancient texts have to say or... if we're not.

06-05-2012, 10:48 PM	#8
golozhopik Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 498 Senior Member	I just made the suggestion that we could start a separate discussion titled "Not simplifying Buddhism" (given that there's a long series of discussions offering the opposite)... ...and I pointed to the example of "dependent origination" not at all meaning what is commonly supposed. http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.ca/201...anonicity.html You can simplify Buddhism; however, if you offer a simplification of an already-bad translation, the result is an even worse misrepresentation (of the original text). I realize that the people contributing to this website do all of this with the best of intentions. I notice that the thread on "breathing meditation" (which, again, declares itself as offering a simplification) is now closed to new replies. Why is this, I wonder? Perhaps someone would draw attention to the fact that the translations concerned are really misrepresenting the texts? Perhaps some people have wondered why the translations do not use simple words like "inhale" and "exhale", but instead use outward phrases about "out-breaths" and "winds", etc.? It is always assumed that prāṇa and apāna were the first of the group of breath-words to appear, and that, consequently, whenever they are used together, they mean in-breathing and out-breathing. This is a mere assumption which has no evidence to support it. On the contrary, the evidence is against it. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newman...ng-meditation/ Gentle reader: the original text does not say exhale, and does not provide instructions on "breathing meditation", either. I can only say again: if you offer a simplification of an already-bad translation (perhaps an already-biased translation, perhaps an already-evasive translation), the result is an even worse misrepresentation (of the original text). All of this may be shocking for some to read, however: the Buddha's religion didn't worship ignorance (and it didn't worship statues, either). Each of us has to decide if we're willing to hear what the ancient texts have to say or... if we're not.
	Quote