On another hand, I am contrary to the idea of translating "deva"
and
"Brahma". If you say "demi-god", "god", you will be changing pali
words
with a clear meaning for others carried with a Western perspective,
alien to the
Buddhist view. If one is going to actually understand them, it won't
happen
through such poor renderings.
Hello Flavio, and thank you for your remarks. Yes, to me, "deva"
contains many associations for a South Asian
that we don't have any longer in the West (the ancient Greeks were
closer to this concept, I think). In the same
way, "God" contains associations for a modern Westerner (especially a
Judeo-Christian) that the South Asian
may not relate to. So to substitute God for Deva is a little like
exchanging apples for oranges. However, to help
the lay reader, I suppose it is a good idea to have such words that are
left untranslated introduced by a footnote
or entry in a glossary.
F: However, I do not see why some people choose
to left "bhikkhu" untranslated. If I use this word, nobody would
understand it here in Brazil, but if I say "buddhist monk" anyone get
it
straight-forwardly. Any difference between a monk and a bhikkhu seems
to be
quite more subtle than what you find between "deva" and "demi-god" or,
even
worse, "yakkha" and "spirit"!
R: Yes. I always translate "bhikkhu." Do you need the word "Buddhist"?
Readers, I think, will assume that the
monk being referred to is Buddhist. I note that the word bhikkhu
originally meant "beggar, almsperson,
mendicant" as seen in the Sanskrit root, bhiks.
In the Saama~n~naphala sutta (DN2) something interesting happens in
reference to "bhikkhu." A large part of
this sutta describes the spiritual journey of one who ultimately gains
enlightenment. At the beginning of the
spiritual journey (section 41) someone hears the word of the Buddha. He
is called a householder (gahapati), or a
householder's son (gahapatiputto), or a person from any clan / caste
(a~n~natarasmi.m vaa kule paccaajaato).
He becomes homeless (anagaariya.m) and therefore in sec. 42 is now
referred to as a samaa.no (recluse). But
he is a samaa.no only in this short paragraph. At the beginning of 43 he
is "bhikkhu."
Here I have a question, and I think some readers will also. I think:
Wait a minute! He was just now a recluse,
and suddenly hes a monk. I dont see any ordination, and it seems to me
that the recluse has been all alone.
How is it that he is now called a bhikkhu?
The paatimokkha is briefly mentioned in par. 42. (He adopts and trains
himself in the paatimokkha.) Are we
to assume that this implies ordination and involvement of the sangha? Or
does bhikkhu here just mean
almsperson, mendicant as its root implies? (I think back on the
earliest period of Buddhism, when you had
wandering mendicants not attached to a vihara, as described in the Sutta
Nipata and perhaps Thera- and
Therigatha.)
So, maybe monk is not the best translation for bhikkhu here, but
mendicant or some other word?