[Buddha-l] bodhi

[Richard Hayes]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Curt Steinmetz wrote:

> OK - this is really getting out of hand. Both "awakening" and
> "enlightenment" are highly dualistic metaphors with nearly identical
> semantic ranges in the English language.  And both are used as terms  
> for
> historical periods. What exactly is it that is getting people so  
> worked up?

So far, the only evidence of anyone being worked up is the message  
quoted above. The question on the floor is straightforward enough. Why  
is it that a word that in Sanskrit means "awakening" is routinely  
translated into English as "enlightenment"? And why does the  
mistranslation persist, even though it has been pointed out repeatedly  
by scholars that there is a more accurate translation available? Being  
curious enough to ask such a question is not a sign of derangement,  
nor is providing a speculation or two in response.

Here's something else to be curious about? Since "buddha' means  
"awakened," why is it not translated as "vigilant"? Is there any  
reason why people are skittish about referring to the Buddha and his  
Sangha as the Vigilante and his Posse?

May I indulge in one final curiosity for this morning? Let me  
initially address this little question to Dr. Steinmetz with the  
understanding that others are invited to chip in, letting the chips  
fall where they may. What difference does it make that the metaphors  
in question are "highly dualistic"? (A side issue: does dualism come  
in degrees? Could a metaphor be moderately dualistic or just barely  
dualistic?) Buddhism is shot through with dualism. At every turn,  
contrasts are made between positive and negative conditions, things to  
seek and other things to avoid. If Buddhism were not dualistic, it  
would be pointless. No, make that highly pointless. No, I raise that  
further: it would be totally pointless.

Richard