[Buddha-l] bodhi

[Franz Metcalf]

Dan et al.,

Dan, I appreciate your valiant work in problematizing the uncritical  
use of "awake*" to render "budh*". "Enlightenment" is an awful  
translation of "budh," but it's not entirely unusable, as you and  
Steven Collins seem to be saying. (And that's not bad company to be  
in!) Further, I'm reminded of Amitabha and especially Amitayus, and  
the work Paul Mus did in connecting them to Zoroastrian influences. I  
think it was in the avant-propos to _Borabudur_, but it might have  
been in _Le Buda Paré_. It was a long time ago, but the point is well  
taken that "enlightenment" seems a good fit for the radiance of these  
Buddhas and the blissful experience we might have in their Pure Lands.  
And of course this is all in addition to your comments on the use of  
"radiance" in the Linji line (though I don't remember it in Dogen).

It is *because* of all this that you've made me consider, that I can't  
agree when you write,

> So the light model does not conform to transcendent other-power  
> paradigm
> both you and Artur are wary of.

That is going too far. Surely this model, like light itself being both  
a particle and a wave, does both. It conforms (in Pure Land  
traditions) and it doesn't (in Chan traditions). Perhaps the latter is  
somehow more palatable, being indigenously Chinese, rather than Middle- 
eastern?

But don't let me dissuade you from fighting the good fight of pulling  
comfortable assumptions out from under us. Just don't let it make you  
miss the cutting of the turkey.*

Franz

*A reference to a Thanksgiving scene from Barry Levinson's wonderful  
film, "Avalon."