[Buddha-l] bodhi

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Dan and others,

I saw the light was on and thought I popped by to say hello.

> I have no idea where you get that erroneous idea from. Clearly everyone 
> agrees that the meaning "awakening" is attested. I provided Chinese 
> examples. The question is whether budd terms can *also* mean "illuminate", 
> "enlighten", etc. Richard thinks not. I used to think so too. But have seen 
> examples over the years of buddh terms used in conjunction with light 
> imagery, so I am not ruling that out. This would be exactly the opposite of 
> what you accuse me of.
>   
The question seems to be rather whether the English translation 
"enlightened" is biased. It probably is like almost any translation. But 
I feel the refusal of the translation "enlightened" could be at least as 
biased, perhaps even more so. It is my personal bias to consider 
exclusion more biased and less enlightened or awakened than inclusion. 
That tends to make things messier, but also provides more fun.

I can see no objection to a link between the notion of awakening and 
light (have you ever tried to remain sleeping when the sun is shining in 
your eyes?), between seeing clearly and light, especially as I am 
getting older and my eyesight is regressing. The fact that Mr. 
Monier-Williams hasn't included any of those notions in his dictionary 
is no proof for me that there was no such connection or association. The 
contrary would be a surprise to me. Especially if one looks at the later 
(?) developments in Buddhism and its variety of lamps, lights, suns and 
other luminaria, mirrors or glittering jewelry linked with bodhi, prajñ? 
etc. If there were no link between seeing clearly and light, where did 
this hype come from all of a sudden? And why are all those awakened 
people represented iconographically, from quite early on, with light 
haloes around ther heads?

There seems to have been some messing about with light in Anguttara 
nikaya 1.49
“Pabhassaramidam bhikkhave cittam tanca kho akantukehi uppakkilesehi 
uppakkilittham”
“Monks, naturally the mind is bright, but by the visit of defilements, 
it is polluted.” (English translation picked up somewhere on the Internet)

I guess, I and many others with me, perhaps even the Indians living in 
Monier-William's dictionary, wouldn't understand this sentence any 
differently if it were “Monks, naturally the mind is awake, but by the 
visit of the sandman, it is asleep.” Whatever happens when the 
defilements are removed, can be metaphorically described as an awakened 
mind, a bright mind, an enlightened mind. And all those metaphors merely 
underline the difference between the former and the latter state of mind.

Light and receiving light (or anything at all) is something so natural 
and obvious that we perhaps have the tendancy to take it for granted. 
How would we see without it, how do flowers "expand" without it, how is 
scent revived? Why do we sleep at night and are we awake when the sun 
shines? Could there possibly be a link between light and awakening?

I understand "Buddha" to be a metaphor. If he really was the only person 
awake in his time, there wouldn't have been many dialogues. That being 
established, why translate "buddha" by "the awakened" rather than "the 
awake"? If he metaphorically woke up, he may have been "the awakened" 
for a moment, but after the buzz wore off and during the rest of his 
long life he was simply metaphorically "awake". Does the term "Buddha" 
somehow specifially mean the awakened rather than the awake? Could 
someone please enlighten me on this?

Joy