In MN 38 on p 351 of The Middle Length Discourses, either Bhikkhu Bodhi translates “sakalikañca” or affirms Bhikkhu Namamoli’s translation of “sakalikañca” as the six letter f-word that means both “a bundle of twigs” and “a male homosexual (derogatory)”. Has he ever addressed that anywhere? I’d be interested in both the original word choice and, since my copy is a fourth edition, why that word choice has never been updated. I googled and didn’t find anything.
Bikkhu Sujato translates it as “twigs”. In British English the word “faggot” (which is what I assume you mean by the f-word) means a bundle of sticks, inter alia. A bit old fashioned, and not widely used anymore, for obvious reasons. There is also a traditional meat dish, where cheap scraps of meat are formed into a ball and fried, usually served with potato mash.
Yes, I do know what the old time-y meaning of the F-word is. But in 1995 in the United States, that was not the general usage of that word. The general usage was a slur. The only time I heard it be used to mean “a bundle of twigs” was when someone would claim innocence after clearly using it as a slur. And there are alternative words that could have been used. For example, “a bundle of twigs” would have conveyed the exact same meaning without the usage of a slur. So I’m curious if someone has asked Bhikkhu Bodhi about why he chose that word, and why he has kept choosing that word, and if his response was recorded somewhere that I could read/listen to.
To give the background that I know…
Bhante Bodhi still considers Ven. Nyanamoli to be the translator of the text and he is simply the editor. If you talk to him about “his translation” of the MN I think he would correct you. I believe the manuscript itself is from the 1950’s. As far as I know, Bhante Bodhi wasn’t even a monk by the time Ven. Nyanamoli died. And I think that Bhante had been living in Sri Lanka for more than a decade (maybe two) before the book was published.
I once asked Bhante if his Pali skills were such when he edited the manuscript that he could have just done his own translation. He said yes, but that Wisdom had asked him to be the editor, not to do a new translation.
And as far as I know, the changes made between editions were very minor and were mostly to correct outright errors or typos, not to rework the language.
That all doesn’t answer the question why he never took the opportunity to change it. But I think the history and timeline is a bit different than assumed in the OP. Bhante was editing the manuscript of someone who had long since died. And I would assume that his focus in editing was on correcting outright errors and not the register or formality of the language.
Personally, I’m not a fan of that word’s translation. It’s clearly no longer the modern meaning of the word, so it’s not only jarring but dated.
Oh yeah, Bikkhu Nyanamoli was a British monk who died in 1960. He was working in a very different cultural context. And I hear that Bikkhu Bodhi was the editor, not the translator. But my edition has a second copyright date of 2015, which to me anyways, is well past the date the language should have been updated by an editor. It just felt so out of place and jarring to me when I came across it. If no one has any more info, maybe I’ll write a letter and ask the man himself.
Yes, this is all true.
Ven Nyanamoli is working with this word:
fagot
1 of 2
noun
fag·ot ˈfa-gət
variants or faggot
: BUNDLE: such as
: a bundle of sticks
The first known use of fagot was in the 14th century
It is not a rare word, found in many old texts. If we had to hunt down all the books that used this word and then change it with something people liked better, (and then put a note saying the author’s work has been altered), we would have a rather big job. As I recall, the word is also used in the Lord of the Rings, written roughly in the same time period.
Also see here:
PS note the correct spelling of the Pali word ‘bhikkhu’.
No one is debating that.
And found in almost no modern texts with this meaning. That’s the point.
The OP is pointing out that the the original publication date (not to mention the latest edition) is very much not in that time period. No one here is saying all old texts need to be cleaned up.
I’m guessing it will depend on how often this word was weaponized against someone whether or not they find its modern use with this meaning bizarre. Especially when we have a couple of completely normal synonyms.
On another thread regarding “khandha”, I saw Bhante suggested this and I find it interesting. I feel we don’t really have to adhere to a certain meaning for a word if we don’t want to. It’s quite freeing in a way.
This is because the translation was left in manuscript.
As it is clear when the translation dates from, I don’t see why the text needs to be ‘cleaned up’, i.e. censored.
Yes, clearly you don’t.
Thank you for your understanding.
Shall we ‘clean up’ snark as well?
With legacy text like Ven. Nyanamoli’s translation, it is usually left as is. I understand the OP’s point of view. I still think sometimes “a cigar is just a cigar”, we shouldn’t read too much into it in the context of the Canon.
I’m not sure it’s common to violently assault someone while calling them a snark. But if it was, then I’d suggest that translators not use that word if it also had an archaic meaning.
Oh, you think I was being snarky? Ah. I was not.
The fact that you are using the word “censor” and “clean up” signals to me that you either aren’t trying to understand why someone might find this troubling, or you simply don’t care. That’s fine. I was just glad you are being open about it.
The term ‘cleaned up’ is the phrase you used.
I’m sorry this thread has quickly devolved into ad hominum attacks.
Seems to me this answers the OP question rather satisfactorily. Then, additional posts by Snowbird and Sumana suggest there could be a consensus in the translators’ circle to approach Bhikkhu Bodhi & Wisdom about changing it when the opportunity arises.
It’s a bit weird being someone who would be called this word and not reading too much into it. It obviously has two different meanings. Anyway we have new translations that don’t use that word. Besides, why “clean up” an old translation? That would be inauthentic to the original translator right. I don’t think Bhikku Bodhi or Bhikku Nyanamoli meant anything other than, a bunch of sticks.
I am sure Bhante Bodhi is well aware of this. Usually, Bhante updates his translation while he is teaching online. The rest like Beth said, is up to Wisdom Publications whether they are going to have another new edition.
I think this is a fair question and relates to a general conundrum re: translations with a third-party copyright (let’s call them static) vs Bhante Sujato’s unusual approach here on SuttaCentral.net where he updates the translations and notes frequently.
Maybe this is another topic. Dunno.
While I understand that Bhikkhu Namamoli did his translation in the late 1950’s, the book is being published today with much more recent copy write dates (1995 and 2015), editions (at least through a 4th edition), and with Bhikkhu Bodhi credited as a translator on the cover. And in the circles that I run in, at least, it isn’t treated like a, historic (? maybe not exactly the correct word?) edition that represents how someone might translate things in a previous moment in time, but as a current translation. If this had been Horner’s translation I wouldn’t have blinked. Other than maybe to register the irony of a lesbian reading an old translation by a lesbian that uses a word that would now be considered a slur.
If I’m understanding things correctly, @Snowbird gave me context about how Bhikkhu Bodhi holds his relationship to this specific text in the sense that he considers himself more of an editor than a translator. @Sumana suggested that the above context cues I cited give a misleading sense of the text and that it should be considered a legacy translation, and that legacy translations in general aren’t updated. And then in a later reply, Sumana indicated that Bhikkhu Bodhi knows that the language is outdated since he uses different language when he teaches MN 38.
I’d love to hear more about how people hold what is a legacy text vs what is “current”, how editors hold their… responsibility(?) to a text vs translators, and maybe any info on the publishing process that is relevant to when new editions get new correction (or total reworkings) vs when they don’t. In my field, new editions of books come out all the time that have substantial changes which are often author led because otherwise their books become irrelevant. Though then, of course, they the authors are editing themselves.
Perhaps the point I am trying to say is that words have power but only if we adhere to them.
A great example is in this sutta AN8:11, a brahmin of Verañja calls the Buddha all kinds of names including “abortionist” or “fetus killer” in a sense. And the Buddha gave a new meaning for each “name” in a skilful way.
What troubles me is not that the word is outdated in our contemporary context, but how we bring our own wounds into reading the sutta, and how we might be forever stuck in the prison of perception created by the morally weak, the bully, and misogyny.
The sutta in itself and in its context has nothing to do with us. It is a totally different context.
I have been called a lot of slur words in the past by those who bullied me. And those words are in the sutta too. It is triggering. But I know the words in the sutta don’t have the intention to hurt my feelings or to degrade me in any way. As you said: “Bhikkhu Bodhi or Bhikkhu Nyanamoli meant anything other than, a bunch of sticks.”
Having said that, I think if Wisdom Publications would update that F word, that would be amazing. I would sign a petition to change it in a heartbeat. It can only bring more good than harm! I will be a happy bundle of sticks if they change it!
And I love what Bhante Sujato said in one of his lectures recently that he is not teaching the EBT but the most contemporary form of Buddhism. I am so sorry if I didn’t paraphrase Bhante correctly. But you got the gist. If the translations could keep up and reach contemporary readers, maybe they should change it.
At this point, it is going too much into my personal opinion which I tried to avoid but I am not doing a great job here. 