One other thought. Adding highlights:
Dhammanando wrote:A. “I undertake the rule of training [that is] abstinence from the basis of negligence, [consisting in] intoxicating liquors and intoxicating wines.”
B. “I undertake the rule of training [that is] abstinence from the basis of negligence, [consisting in] liquors that are intoxicants and wines that are intoxicants.”
C. “I undertake the rule of training [that is] abstinence from the basis of negligence, [consisting in] liquors, wines and intoxicants.”
Translated in this way, clearly the precept is to be interpreted as involving abstinence from alcohol itself, and not the state of intoxication and negligence to which alcohol leads.
This appears to hinge on a very different focus for the word "thaanaa" than had been offered until now. Kare's translation is tied to an understanding of "thaanaa" as a condition or a state of the individual
. Ven. Dhammanando's translation is tied to an understanding of "thaanaa" not as a condition or state of the individual, but rather as the underlying attribute of intoxicants
, namely, that by their very nature intoxicants are a basis for heedlessness (or however one wishes to translate pamaada).
This strikes me as significant because it makes the precept applicable to a type of conduct that a disciple can engage in. If one views the precept as a training rule to avoid "intoxication," then the rule is vague and difficult to know how to follow, because only by the result
of an action can one tell whether one has kept the precept. In other words, under this understanding, it very well may be impossible to know beforehand whether one is breaking the precept as one sips a drink. Only later when one realizes, "I'm drunk," can one know that the precept has been broken.
If, on the other hand, one views the precept as a training rule to abstain from "intoxicants," it's much easier to know how to follow, because all one need do is not take the intoxicants. (The only issue then is to define what substances constitute intoxicants.)
The understanding derived from Ven. Dhammanando's translation seems to me to be much more in accord with the implicit intent of the precepts as training rules, and also with other teachings in the suttas and throughout the tradition. In the context of all of these, if there is a disagreement over what constitutes "normal" Pali usage, an understanding of the subject of the texts would seem to tip the balance in favor of Ven. Dhammanando's translation.
Just my 2 cents. With gratitude to everyone who has participated here.