[Buddha-l] bodhi

[Artur Karp]

At 22:23 2009-11-25, Dan wrote:

 > So the light model does not conform to transcendent other-power paradigm
 > both you and Artur are wary of.

Dan, let me put it this way: it's quite probable that this "transcendent 
other-power paradigm" linked to the term "enlightenment" is present in 
minds of (at least some) people reading books on Buddhism. It's present in 
mine. And it is strengthened by phraseological complexes of the "having 
obtained Enlightenment" sort, which (again: at least to some) seem to imply 
the presence of the enlightenment's donor.

People read book from within their own culture. Sorry for the banality.

Steven Collins (_Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities_, CUP, 1998, pp. 
213-214) says re:

"The words enlightenment and enlightened for bodhi and buddha do not render 
them exactly. They are from the root budh, to be awake, and so more 
faithful to the original would be "Awakening" and  "Awakened"; this would 
also avoid confusion with the metaphor behind the eighteenth-century 
European enlightenment. But these terms are so firmly entrenched in English 
usage for Buddhism and other Indian religions that it seems pointless to 
try to change matters, and I am content to use them."

Rupert Gethin (_The Foundations of Buddhism_, OUP, 1998) isn't content "to 
use them": he uses consequently  „Awakening”, „Awakened”, and I do not 
think his book is any worse for the loss of the light metaphor.

And: what kind of lexical problems you had in mind when you wrote: "Trying 
to make some adjectival or adverbial form of "awaken" seamlessly fit a 
passage in English can be difficult and frustrating [...]; all the more 
aggravating when an "enlighten" derivative works perfectly". Could you, 
please, offer some examples? What worries me (English not being my native 
tongue) are those "adverbial forms": do you really need them in some contexts?

Regards,

Artur