Lost in Translation: Christian, Islamic and Secular misunderstandings of Buddhism clarified.

The fact that we can anonymously post to a global audience means we have a great power at our fingertips and immeasurable potential for both good and bad, skilful and the unskillful acts. With such power comes responsibility, including the responsibility to your fellow man not to take oneself too seriously or post stuff making fun at the suffering of others.

The internet is a wonderful thing, for many reasons. For one, it is a means to harmless absent-minded distraction. Occasionally, this has it's place in our world, and "YouTube parties/games" are often a hilarious way of sharing an evening with loved ones. I didn't have Youtube as a child, as so instead embarked on a brief but lively career as an amateur explosives enthusiast and all-round pyromaniac. Granted, there are obvious arguments against having a platform to express negativity (racial hatred/cruel pranks/bullying/sectarianism), but such is the case with every vehicle of human communication, and besides, now I can get the correct proportions of ethanol to gunpowder from the expert's videos. Musical cats, dancing otters, awe-inspiring music and vicarious 'must-see' disaster footage are all seemingly inexhaustible lines of enquiry into which one may delve at any time. For someone who grew up in a world before the mobile phone, the Pentium chip and the internet, dominated by musicians with towering hairdos, garish makeup and spandex (and that was just the men), this is simply magical. The internet is surely the most significant technological breakthrough in Mankind's history, is it not? Notwithstanding, if nothing else it allows you and I to connect, and for that I am exceedingly grateful. 

In more reflective moments, this medium provides an opportunity to ask some slightly bigger and more intimate questions too. This morning, with much on my mind and feeling restless, I went for refuge to a few Sangharakshita videos, and found them very useful indeed. Whilst perusing the suggestions for my next selection, I happened upon a video, entitled "Did Buddha believe in one God?", a Q&A session from an audience with Islamic theologian, Dr. Zakir Naik. The video is shown below, and I recommend you watch it, should you be able to spare three or four minutes. Essentially, it is a video of Dr. Naik answering an audience question on whether the historical Shakyamuni Buddha taught about one true God or not. Needless to say, it made for interesting viewing...

The below is an elaboration of a response which I posted, saddened to see so many so-called Buddhist practitioners writing very hateful, equally ignorant, patronising comments to the effect that Dr. Zakir Naik should be ashamed of himself for propagation of his views, and suggesting that he "does his research better". Some offered "corrections" to his answer, but few called upon the real crux of the matter - What do the canonical sources actually say on the matter, and more importantly (as Buddhism is a belief system based on rational experience), WHY The Buddhist tradition holds such beliefs? In essence, the Docter claimed that :

1. Buddhism is a Gnostic tradition, refusing to answer as to whether there is a creator-God or not.

2. The reason the Buddha chose not to discuss the matter was that the polytheistic tradition of the day would not have accepted the notion of one true God.

3. The Four Noble Truths are that I) suffering/misery exist. II) they exist because of desire III) desire can be eradicated, and thus so can suffering IV) the way to the cessation of desire is through the Noble Eight-Fold Path.

4. Buddhism is a contradiction in terms, because if one desires to suffer less, one must desire to tread the Eight-Fold Path. Buddhist logic is therefore flawed, one can never actually practice it, and that a desire to engage with the path to end desire is a contradiction in terms.

For me, this is an interesting situation, as the confusion and misunderstandings of Buddhism appears to be intrinsically entrenched in the limitations of language itself. As a keen linguist and aspiring author, communication is that which is most alive in me, and I'm fascinated by the tools by which we may do so, as their subsequent use (or misuse) is responsible for all bloodshed in the history of humanity. For example, Dr. Zakir is basing his teachings/beliefs on the understanding that the 2nd Noble Truth is: "The cause of dissatisfaction (note, NOT 'misery/suffering', an incorrect translation of the word 'Dukha') is desire". In fact, the Pali word recorded in the Buddhist scriptures is 'Tanha', which literally translates not as 'desire', but as 'thirst'. Let us briefly examine how this misunderstanding has come about. 'Desire' is a synonym for thirst, granted, but 'thirst' has a lustful, neurotic, desperate quality to it e.g. " a thirst for blood/a thirst for power" etc.as well as for more initially positive although eventually troublesome aspirations, such as "a thirst for knowledge". The problem of the over-intellectualisation of the Dharma in the West, and the trappings which lie therein is too vast to be looked at in any further detail on this occasion, and so regrettably, we must leave it for another time, but trust me, it's a bad place to wind up in. Take it from a habitual over-thinker.

I personally find graphics like the one above misleading, although I'm sure well intended. The main problem with trying to understand Buddhism is that there are many words and idiomatic phrases for which we have no equivalent, either linguistically or emotionally. Hardly surprising then to find subtler nuances than even available in English, when you consider it comes from a culture with 6,000 year of exploring the human condition. The above appears to have been written by someone who has English as a second language. No wonder people think Buddhism is negative, miserable and unrealistic if they see things like this!  

Meanwhile, the main other synonym for 'desire' is 'craving', but again, we must understand the term in the context of an unhealthy, neurotic craving, something which is to the detriment of ourselves and others. It is not wrong to desire to see one's partner happy, or one's loved one's well and free from suffering. To desire a glass of water if one is parched is perfectly reasonable, as is it to desire adequate food and shelter, but a neurotic dependancy on one's possessions or other people for one's own sense of wellbeing is clearly only going to lead to suffering on your part. The word 'thirst' seems to also bring to mind as tendency to try and grasp at things, to appropriate them, to control them. It is this grasping, this neurotic lust for material things, love, power, fame, health, even knowledge which is unhelpful, and leads to dissatisfaction and worse.

Interestingly, the first 'step' or stage or 'fold' on the path is "correct vision/Right Insight". This insight consists in recognising that as all worldly phenomena are characterised by impermanence, all are transient, and thus none alone can solely provide a lasting source of uninterrupted joy or pleasure. Our 'thirst/craving' for life to be otherwise, for the desired to be obtained, the broken to be mended, for the lost to be found, for the dying to live, is a cause of much our suffering and dissatisfaction, and often disillusionment too.

Again, the above is useful, but so easy to misread. "Right Speech" should read "Always communicate out of Love". "Right Action" is more "choose your actions wisely" and "Right Livelihood" is "do not harm others through your work". "Right Effort" is better understood as "do not make too much effort, do not make too little". The word "evil" was the one used by early Christian translators, but of course with no supreme moral authority, concepts such as 'good/bad/righteous/evil' etc become redundant. Hence we should use 'skilful' and 'unskilful'. Right Concentration should read "Right Awareness/Mindfulness", which is very different, and finally "Right Mindfulness" itself actually translates as "Right Meditation". It's easy to get confused when things are translated poorly, and I think a lot of it is because Westerners like these snappy diagrams and quotes because they can readily be posted on social networking sites. This makes it really hard for ANYONE to get their head around it all.

Another confusing teaching of the Buddha is the oft-misunderstood doctrine of 'no-self' or 'anatman', which posited that there is nothing within us which is not ever-changing and impermanent. This does not refute the inner dimension of experience or consciousness, but is very different to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic beliefs in a 'Soul', which is the transcendental version of oneself attaining to a heavenly realm or otherwise. The main problem again is in the translations. This does not mean that we are to blame the translator, it's simply that words must be understood in their correct context. The Buddha was brought up in a world ruled by an ancient religion which later developed into Hinduism, called Brahminism. Within it its myriad or rituals and regulations is to be found the doctrine of 'atman' or 'atma', which described the inner-most refined essence of a person's spiritual being as being indistinguishable from God, and eternal, fixed, unchanging and immutable. In Western terms, a Soul. In the Pali language, placing the prefix 'a-' or 'an-' before a word turns it into it's exact polar opposite. Hence 'anatman' does not mean that as Buddhist we are denying an inner-spiritual dimention. Nor does it mean that for Buddhists, there is no such thing as 'me' 'I' or 'self', but more that on closer inspection, when we look for a fixed, unchanging, permanent aspect of what makes us 'us', none can be found. As a Buddhist, I do not say that I am soulless in the poetic sense, far from it. When I say I have no Soul, it simply means I find no evidence whatsoever for such a phenomenon, understood in those terms. To translate 'anatman' correctly, there is no fixed, definable 'self' to call 'me'. I experience consciousnesses of various states, some more refined and sublime than others. I experience memory (some, still) and I have a fluid personality (habitual responses) tying up a postcode, a name and a date of birth. My body changes, my opinions change, my 'self' changes. There is nothing within 'me' which is unchanging, nothing separate which is eternal. For this, I am exceptionally happy. It means I can transform my entire being, spiritually and emotionally, leaving none behind 'stuck in the past'. No facet of who we are should be left unexplored in our collective quest for who we can become. 

"Sabbe Dhamma Anatta - Everything is non-eternal".
Not a poetic translation, but an accurate one if the above aren't clear. The above isn't inaccurate, just very abstract.
It is neither Nihilistic nor Eternalistic. It's the Middle Way. To me, it's a fact. Like the fact that even Buddhists get it wrong sometimes...

The Buddha also taught that as everything is dependant on conditions (pratitya samutpada), nothing can self-create, and hence from the traditional Buddhist perspective, there is no creator deity or "God/Allah". Buddhism is not Nihilistic ('everything ends, so nothing matters'), nor is it Eternalistic (I will survive death and live forever'). Many would argue that Buddhism is a highly realistic belief system, and rather than terms such as optimistic or pessimistic (which are highly subjective) it can best understood as melioristic, founded in the belief in the betterment of human society through the individual's own efforts.  Buddhist is NOT gnostic (refusing to comment on God) and nor is it agnostic (not sure one way or the other). Buddhism is very clear on the matter, and no Buddhist can be anything other than a staunch atheist. Buddhism does not deny the transcendental, supra-rational dimension of existence, but instead of accrediting it to a divine creator being, recognises it as 'simply' the sublime, the transcendental, the dimension of the unconditioned, as opposed to the mundane or conditioned world of samsara, everyday cyclical life. It is in the conscious gravitation of oneself from the conditioned to the unconditioned, turning away from the limitations of the fleeting material world, and towards the ineffable beauty of life and the unconditioned, to evolution which makes us truly Human. It is in this re-orienting of ourselves towards the indescribable magic of friendship, the ocean, sunsets, stillness, silence, music, poetry, and meditation, to name but a few, in which the rhythm, the pulse, the very heartbeat of a Buddhist life is to be found.

Whilst we are on this daring fact-finding mission of awakening, I'd love to touch on the beautiful, revolutionary truth of Karma. The word 'Karma' means 'volitional actions', not some kind of mystical poetic justice. The consequences of actions, that to which so many people are referring when they mistakenly use it, is actually called 'Vipaka', and the Buddha taught the doctrine of 'Karma-Vipaka' or 'choices/actions have consequences'. This is a far more accurate and correct translation, and it's not hard to see where the confusion comes from, but there is a world of difference between this understanding, and the notion of Karma as some kind of impersonal cosmic retribution or punishment for 'bad' or unskillful deeds. You control your Karma NOW, in this VERY MOMENT, but you are Vipaka. You are creating your Karma as we speak, but how you make your present decisions and tendencies now are the Vipaka of your past actions or habits - you cannot change what you are now, but you can do things which will change who you become and how you react to life in the future. If you are angry, you can't suddenly stop being angry, but you can take a few deep breaths and (so long as you are not driving) close your eyes and allow the moment to pass. Buddhism is self-empowering. You are the boss. 

You define your own Karma. You can change it all around. YOU are the Karma Chameleon! 

Sometimes, it's better to look for re-expressions of the Buddha's key original message if we wish to understand translations of his supposed 'words'. Thich Nhat Han, Sogyal Rinpoche and of course Sangharakshita are some of my favourite exponents of the Buddha's vision, as they have gone beyonds the roots of the words themselves, and come back again to share their wisdom. 

Whilst researching this article, I discovered that many startling examples of online slander/confusion about Buddhism comes from a section of (often fundamentalist) Christianity called the Apologist movement. In the below clip we find another Doctor, but this time one who compensates for having little-to-no knowledge of his chosen subject by having flashy graphics. This one actually caused a tangibly negative response in me, I'm not embarrassed to admit it. It was found after 30 seconds of searching for "Buddhism Christianity debate" and is done so smugly it actually makes it really hard to write objectively and politely about Dr. Bobbie, given how woefully inaccurate this man is on so many of his "points". Some of the points in fact surely could be swapped around! This man clearly isn't going to let something as insignificant as scholastic or empirical fact get in the way of a good sell. I've rarely heard someone so sure of themselves be so categorically wrong, and so openly patronising too. At the time, it made me want to punch him, mindfully, in the testicles... 

I don't even know where to start with this one! The problem that a lot of detractors have with Buddhism is that is demands nothing from you. There is no obligation to adhere to a strict moral code for the sake of appeasing and divine creator, nor is there the duality of creator and the created, the later being ourselves. They seem to think that anyone who does not recognise the moral authority of their God is ethically vacuous, and that Buddhism is an "anything goes" belief system. Far from it: In Buddhism everything counts, every action of body, speech and mind is of vital importance! Many videos critical of the historical Buddha often have someone saying "...and all this from a man who left his wife and children!" or words to that effect. Time and time again whilst researching my response, I came across Christian commentators who whilst happy to accept that we live in an impermanent world of inevitable setbacks and frustrations/sorrows, insisted that this was due to Original Sin (Adam & Eve) and that the reason suffering exists is because we are all sinners. As is my understanding, the Christian doctrine dictates that 'salvation' comes NOT from your own efforts, but through Going for Refuge, as it were, to the Holy Trinity and accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God and your Lord and Saviour. They put it in his title, just in case you ever forget. Apparently, even if you live a life that is virtuous and in ernest for the wellbeing of others, yet reject the gospel of Jesus, then you are screwed, and hell or purgatory awaits. However, as we all know, the simple act of Confession will absolve you of all your Sins, and sadly many people who commit mass atrocities on both sides of the law can be found kneeling before a cross on a Sunday. 

We can all agree that we are not perfect, but if we are all sinners, then we are all doomed to fail whatever we do.
Hollow then the subsequent apology rings, and the confession appears to be little more than admission that we knowingly sinned, and will do so again. Where is the resolve to change? We need to confess to our mistakes in order to take ownership of our actions. The above almost resembles an obedience exercise, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Specifically, as with these examples, the problems with looking into Buddhism are with language. Buddhism is an unbelievably dense, multi-layered belief system, and within each layer truths become relative to that layer alone. The moment you think you have it figured out, another deeper layer is revealed, like excavating endless Roman floors, the mosaics becoming ever more splendid with each one removed. Or like peeling the giant onion of truth. Whichever image you prefer. I wouldn't expect an Apologist to have a scholastic knowledge of Buddhism, but what irritated me was the condescension in his manner, and in the dismissive and notably inaccurate postulations of Dr. Naik, especially in front of an impressionable group on individuals. I have searched Youtube extensively, but you will find very few Budddhist critics of other religions. It's not our place to say, and is liable to cause offence. When we read the work of great Buddhist scholars, when pushed they will explain why Buddhism is an atheist 'religion'. Essentially, nothing can 'self-manifest', not even God - the 'who created God' line of rational thinking. 

To conclude, let us pause for thought and remember what started all this; incorrect translations, and their proliferation online. We ourselves must tread carefully here: the word 'Tanha' (or thirst') itself was simply the word agreed upon by the scholastic part of the Sangha approximately 250-300 years after the time of the Buddha, who himself would have spoken something similar to Sanskrit, but not Pali itself. 'Tanha' would have been chosen because it was etymologically similar, so we can't even be certain the exact word the Buddha himself used. Just so we are all clear on that. Instead we must, as searchers of Truth, therefore ultimately look beyond words, beyond idiom and metaphor, beyond language itself if we 'desire' to understand, or even come close to glimpsing the true vision of the Enlightened mind. 

I will leave the final word on the matter of Buddhist doctrinal accuracy for my teacher, Sangharakshita, to explain the Buddhist position most fully on God, non-theistic morality, Karma and The Three Jewels, and all in under 4 minutes! I think it makes a lot of sense and I hope you enjoy it. Check out the other videos on him, this one was broadcast on British TV in 1984. I think they really are incredible, but this after all is a teacher who spent 20 years living as a monk in India. I love how he speaks, very exactingly and consciously choosing each word. This is how we need to be online in our discourse; mindful and kind.

I send encouragement, love and Metta to Dr. Naik for his continued efforts to respond to what is ultimate in him. Peace be with him, I'm sure he simply misunderstands the translation of the word 'tanha', or is unaware of it. As regards to the other Doctor, again, maybe in time he will learn that deficient research will guarantee judgement in this lifetime, never mind wondering about the next. I'd love to help shift the course of his Karma, but why would he believe me? If you are a Christian or a Muslim, or if you just don't like what I'm saying or how I'm saying it, please accept my apologies. If I have acted unskilfully, I wish to take ownership of it. I'm am but a beginner. 

If anyone cares to clarify any misunderstanding of mine, please don't hesitate to comment below. I was really saddened by all the hate-bombs being thrown over inflammatory material. People get so ugly. It's all really device, and totally counter productive, as you will hardly value the opinion of someone who has just been insulting you. I have more pressing concerns than whether I'm right or wrong in my belief system. What I care about is how I treat myself and others, and trying to respond to life creatively, openly, and honestly. As a Buddhist, I know that there are bigger questions than what my 'backpack' looks like. We're all gonna have to jump, as he points out in one of his few brief detours through common sense. Many say it is a fear of death and the uncertainty of the afterlife which compels theists to act as they do. 

Sangharakshita once said "All fear is, ultimately, a fear of Death". It's beginning to make more sense these days. Theistic religions need metaphysical carrots and stick to get people to board the plane for that one-way flighted finale, to continue Dr. Bobbie's metaphor. That's no judgement of them, it's just a fact. I have no fear for them, no condescension, nor mean any disrespect. On the contrary, I think there is much to be gained from studying other world view points. It's why you and I are here in the first place, dear reader. 

Being alive is about living without fear, and Buddhism is jumping from the metaphorical plane without a backpack at all! I'm all buckled up and enjoying the flight, it's beautiful from up here, I can see for miles! As day by day our collective altitude rises, as we get closer to the opening of hatches and the big green light in the sky (to coin a phrase), I just wish all beings to be well, all beings to be happy, and may all beings one day dwell in the great equanimity that is free of suffering. May they look out the rounded window, and drink it in on this shared journey. As I have yet to jump, I can't comment on the descent but as Woody Allen said, I'm packing a spare pair of underpants just in case. Before that though, I'm off to inform the ernest Dr. Bobbie that he will want a parachute, not a backpack... I doubt he'll listen though. It all gets lost in translation these days...


In Metta, your humble in-flight companion,

The Dharma Farmer xx

May any merit gained by my acting thus be dedicated to the benefit of all beings.
May those who have lost some early jumpers along the way live on and heal in peace, 
with still hearts and freshly-dried cheeks. My thoughts are with you.