[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Jim Peavler]

On Apr 29, 2005, at 12:03 PM, curt wrote:

> Richard P. Hayes wrote:
>
>>> To be honest I just don't think that Western Buddhism has yet 
>>> produced
>>> the personell who are QUALIFIED to compete with such works of
>>> art as the Morning Bell Chant in Sino-Korean, for example. That will 
>>> require people who are, first of all, fully enlightened
>>>
>>
>> How quickly we move from the realm of the subjective to the realm of 
>> the
>> ridiculously dogmatic. Thanks for the giggle. It seems a good way to 
>> end
>> a conversation that shows no signs of going anywhere.
>>
> Not so fast my giggling friend. It sounds to me like you are
> implying, or possibly you are coming right out and saying, that
> someone who does not fully understand the Buddha's teaching can
> nevertheless correctly translate these teachings from one language
> into another.

Ah, now you are being far too logical (or not logical enough). I 
personally think that the old NM professor was implying that the term 
"fully enlightened" was silly and caused him to giggle. I had the same 
reaction. To imply that understanding a philosophical or theological 
work in a particular requires some sort of supernatural direct 
connection with some "higher reality" strikes many of us lowly 
pragmatists as amusing. I think we just don't get it.