Bill!, Now, now;
I sympathize with the difficulty some have in understanding the Sanskrit technical terms "cold", but the fact is that they are precise, and carry well-understood meaning. That's why they exist; and persist. Granted, for one who has not studied, and not assimilated them into the understanding and the vocabulary, well, ...that person may as well be reading Quantum Field-Theory, no? And yet the vocabulary in both cases has *exact* signification. Surely, one -- we -- can speak in common speech. That is fine. And then we find, too, that a lot of agreement must be made on the fly about vocabulary in mid-flight, during the course of the discussion. I sense that *that* is a cause of much disagreement here in several threads. It's mostly due to mis-understanding, caused by different "takes" on the meaning of words, when impressed into service to act as technical terms. In discussions of historical Buddhist philosophical schools' findings, it's always good to know and to use the terms that those schools use. It's more true to our subject to do so. Granted, somebody can try to speak about the workings of Quantum Mechanics with you, but if you don't know the applicable mathematics, you will be lost no matter how easily the common words roll off the tongue. They just don't hit the mark. Very often, a close, intimate understanding of a topic, and a more skilful *ability*, requires some homework: learning to read music; learning math; learning the language of Wall Street and investing. Discussion of the mind or the Buddha is no different. Yes, make it up from scratch if you like; but expect misunderstanding at *every* turn. Such discussions never end. Granted, we can use common speech to describe or discuss phenomenolgy, as my Shihfu's disciple, Master Guo Jun does here, in giving a brief account of one part of his awakening: http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/returning-home ...but he is not engaging there in a discussion of Philosophy!, just phenomenology... what he felt as the blinkers fell away. And, it is wonderful! But he is a fellow who can teach Yogacara and Madhyamika, in all their technical and precise panoply. And that is wonderful, too. My Shifu taught it to many of us in months'-long classes, and so it carries on through Guo Jun's generation. As well as in academic departments. And in my living room. --Joe > "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Here's what I think it a good answer to this question by Bernie Glassman > who was the Senior Monk at ZCLA when I was attending there and later > became a full-fledged Zen Master. He's since renounced his Zen Master > title and goes about his zen practice in a much more low-key and casual > manner. > It's refreshingly simple and to-the-point without any Buddhist or > Sanskrit mumbo-jumbo: > What is Enlightenment? > <http://zenpeacemakers.org/2013/03/what-is-enlightenment/> ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
