Joe, It's not really the Sanskrit terms I have a problem with. It's the multitudinous differing translations of them into English that bothers me.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > 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/
