[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[curt]

Jim Peavler wrote:

>
> 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.

Thank you for your psychic insight into the professor's true thoughts. I 
lack
the ability to read minds - so I was only able to respond to his words. 
However,
if what he really meant to say was not that a profound and thoroughgoing
understanding of the Dharma is necessary to translate the Sutras - but 
rather
that the phrase "fully enlightened" (more or less a paraphrase of anuttara
samyak sambodhi) is just plain silly laughable in and of itself - then 
that just
proves he was ducking the real issue and trying to create a distraction away
from the fact that he couldn't come up with an actual counter-argument to
what I was clearly talking about.

- Curt