By Professor Emeritus Shelton Gunaratne, PhD

Samangie WETTAMUNY in the feature titled ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-See Buddha through His DhammaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Sunday Observer, 23 May 2010) summarizes his/her view of Buddhism in the lead sentence:

Man is supreme, according to Buddhism. He is his own master.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This translation of the Pali verse 380 from Bhikkhuvagga (Dhammapada Sutra, Chapter 25) is misleading because it contradicts the crux of Buddhism embedded in the doctrine of dependent co-arising (paticca samuppada):

This being, that becomes;

From the arising of this, that arises;
This not being, that becomes not;
From the ceasing of this, that ceases.

Thus, nothing can be supreme/independent; everything is dependent. Buddhism doesnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t accept the supremacy of the individual because it asserts anatta (no-selfness) as one of the three truths of existence. It rejects the concept of soul (atta).

Acharya Buddharakkhita provides a more accurate translation of the Bhikkhuvagga stanza:

380. One is one’s own protector; one is one’s own refuge. Therefore, one should control oneself, even as a trader controls a noble steed.

This doesnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t say that man is supreme; it implies that man has control over his own destiny in the cycle of rebecoming. He has the freedom to choose between a good or bad destiny based on his volitional action (karma).

Below are three early translations of Verse 380ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  (25:380)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 380.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  You are indeed, the protector of yourself.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  You are, indeed, your own refuge.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Therefore, control your own self as a merchant controls a noble horse.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ (Narada, 1959)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 380.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Each man is his own helper, each his own host; therefore, curb thyself as the merchant curbs a spirited horse. (Wagiswara, 1912)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

380.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  For self is the lord of self, self is the refuge of self; therefore curb thyself as the merchant curbs a good horse.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  (Muller, 1881)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

If anatta (no-selfness) is the truth of existence, then the use of the English term ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-selfƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ in each of the above translations, particularly that of Muller, is misleading. A sentient being is the composite of five ever-changing and interacting elements; therefore, no self can exist beyond a single moment. This elucidates the second truth of existence: impermanence (anicca).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  From the Buddhist perspective, then, a human being is a stream of consciousness (conditioned by the interaction of the five elements or panca-skanda), not a self as such. English is incapable of capturing the exact meaning of significant Pali words like dukkha.

The article goes on to describe the event of Gautama BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s birth 2625 years ago:

Amidst the thunderous ovation of millions of people and gods, the new born prince walked seven steps to the North and uttered thus:

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Aggo Hamasmi Lokassa,
Jetto Hamasmi Lokassa,
Setto Hamasmi Lokassa,
Ayamanthi Majathi
Naththi Dhani PunabbavoƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ (I am the greatest of all, I am the most senior of all, This is my last birth.)

I doubt the veracity of the English rendition of this Pali stanza. The translation connotes a certain braggadocio associated with self, which contradicts the Buddhist belief in anatta. Pali experts should produce an English translation that is consistent with anatta and avoids egocentric words such as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-greatestƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-supreme.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Sunday Observer should have edited WettamunyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s feature for accuracy prior to publication.

(The writer is a professor emeritus at Minnesota State University Moorhead. Opinions expressed here are solely his.)