Tagged: Philology
Pages with this tag
Bamford - The Uses of Philology - A Case Study in Popularising Buddhism (2015)
1This paper critiques the use of a philologically unsound translation of a Buddhist text within UK public policy discourse, specifically by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) in its "Spiritualise" report. The author, Geoffrey Bamford, traces a popularised quote about "ground" and "place" to Stephen Batchelor's idiosyncratic translation of the Ariyapariyesanāsutta, which misinterprets the Pali word *ālaya* (clinging/attachment) as "place" and the common word *ṭhāna* (state/fact) as "ground." This error creates an existentialist concept of a "groundless ground" that is alien to the apophatic nature of the Pali canon. Bamford argues that while the popularisation is inaccurate, its influence demonstrates a significant Western appetite for Buddhist ideas, suggesting that the very aspects of Buddhism that challenge ingrained cultural habits of thought are precisely what make it appealing, even when misunderstood.
Bronkhorst - Did the Buddha Believe in Karma and Rebirth (2021)
2Johannes Bronkhorst argues that the historical Buddha did believe in karma and rebirth, but that his crucial innovation was to redefine karma not as physical or mental activity, but as the psychological element of intention and desire (*tṛṣṇā*). This unique understanding explains why the Buddhist path to liberation is fundamentally psychological, focusing on mindfulness and insight, rather than relying on the physical asceticism or doctrines of an inactive Self found in contemporary traditions like Jainism. Bronkhorst critiques scholarly attempts to locate the "original" teaching in passages that resemble Vedic or Jaina ideas, suggesting these are more likely later borrowings or misunderstandings by followers who struggled to grasp the Buddha's distinct psychological focus.
Tillemans - Remarks on Philology (2018)
3In a reflection on the practice of philology within Buddhist Studies, Tom Tillemans argues against rigid methodological positions, instead defending the practical goal of understanding an author's thought through deep engagement with their language, history, and context. He counters the critique that philologists naively seek to eliminate all personal bias by suggesting that prejudices can be progressively challenged and refined, allowing for genuine progress in understanding. Tillemans addresses the central tension between interpreting a text "on its own terms" and using modern, author-alien concepts by introducing the logical distinction between *de re* and *de dicto* attributions of thought, which validates interpretations that are true to an author's thinking even if phrased in unfamiliar terms. He concludes by championing the necessity of rigorous, text-based philological work, warning that postmodern pragmatism should not be misused as a license to bypass the demanding but essential task of mastering the linguistic and historical foundations of the texts being studied.
Vetter - Explanations of dukkha (1984)
4In a philological analysis of the First Noble Truth, Tilmann Vetter argues that the concluding statement on the five aggregates (*upādānakkhandhā*) is not a summary of suffering (*dukkha*), but rather another example of it. He bases this on the presence of the coordinating particle *pi* ("also") in this final statement in older Pāli manuscripts, such as those used in Hermann Oldenberg's edition of the Mahāvagga. Vetter contends that later editors and commentators, notably Buddhaghosa, worked from texts where this *pi* was missing, leading them to develop an anachronistic interpretation of the aggregates as a summary or foundation for all other forms of suffering. He asserts that the original reading with *pi* is more historically sound, presenting the five aggregates as a distinct, added item in the list of things that are *dukkha*, with the term *sankhittena* ("in brief") indicating it is a concise point requiring further explanation, not a summation of what precedes it.
Norman - A Philological Approach To Buddhism (1997)
5A philological approach to Buddhism involves a critical analysis of the language in early scriptures to understand not just *what* they mean, but *how* and *why*, thereby correcting long-standing mistranslations of core concepts like *nibbāna* and the four noble truths. This method reveals early Buddhism's origins within a broader *śramana* movement that shared terminology with Jainism and reacted against Brahmanism, and it traces the evolution of the Buddha's teachings from an oral tradition—marked by mnemonic structures like repetition and lists—to a written one that introduced new scribal errors. Philology demonstrates that the Pāli canon was translated from earlier eastern dialects, retaining traces of "Māgadhisms" before being standardised and later partially Sanskritised, a process that created its own set of incorrect back-formations like *bodhisattva*. This linguistic investigation also provides a more accurate historical context, showing that Emperor Aśoka's *dhamma* was a universal moral code rather than Buddhist doctrine, and clarifies the gradual, complex formation of the canon and the vital role of commentaries in preserving alternative traditions and interpretations.