Peter H <voxsonorus@yahoo.com> said (and further to the remarks by Dan Ribble
<ribbled@med.kochi-ms.ac.jp>),
> In Daoism enlightenment is "zixian," literally self-appearance, though
> the usual translation is "self-realization," [...]
And a little further on,
> Can you say "well, his
> technique and sound are terrible, but his playing has great spirit."
I think so. One of the most memorable orchestral performances I ever heard was
given by a group of high-school students: not very good players at all, but
their playing had verve, and they appeared really to be enjoying what they were
doing even though (as it seemed to me, anyway) aware that they were not rising
-- not *able* to rise -- adequately to the challenge of the music from the point
of view of a "perfect performance." In their striving and what they managed to
do, though, they appeared to take great satisfaction. I found that moving.
I recall it being remarked that a particular great pianist (can't remember which
one, now!) no longer practised his playing at all in the last years of his life.
He made lots of mistakes in his performances (well into his eighties or
nineties), but I think no one minded, least of all him.
> How about the opposite, and if so is one the converse of the other,
> i.e. can just one but not both be true? Anyone care to bite this time?
I knew a person who was forced into the career of a professional pianist by
domineering and ambitious parents. This person teaches in a university music
department, plays recitals and even, I think, occasionally records. She is a
very fine player, but does not like being so: she would rather have spent her
life doing something else.
Perhaps people who did not know this story would just enjoy my acquaintance's
playing; I did, too (I recall a particularly nuanced performance of Schoenberg's
Op. 25 Suite), but I always felt a bit sad listening to her performances, too.
Both of these instances raise the question mooted or glanced at by others on
this list, that of how, if at all, the intention of the player affects the
listener's
perception or appreciation of the playing. I think if the listener can know or
reasonably guess (from facial expression and other body language -- or even by
being told) how the player feels, then the answer is yes. I am skeptical of
claims to be able to discern a performer's inner, affective state from the sound
itself, though of course I distinguish between better and worse performances,
more animated and "flabby", etc.
Thomas W Hare <thare@Princeton.EDU> said,
> [...] in normal
> use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed to
> traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about "the
> Enlightenment" in Western thought believed that by relying on reason and
> science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness which had
> eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their "Enlightenment" then, was a
> very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20
And Marcus Grandon <mgrandon@tokai.or.jp> observed,
> [Fukushima Roshi] said that
> "enlightenment" was not a good translation for this Zen experience.
> Rather, we should use the word "satori". He said the the word
> "enlightenment" has a rather Christian nuance, and when we think of the
> word we may think about a darkened room then it being illuminated, and
> we can "see" things. I had completely forgotten about how "The
> Enlightenment" was so related to scientific investigation, (I was
> interpreting, not thinking) and so now his teaching becomes even
> better. You see, he went on to say that in Zen, satori does take into
> account the illumination of a darkened room, but it also includes, as
> an essential part, the darkness as well.
>
> Let there be light!
"Enlightenment" is now well established in English as a label for having an
insight (not necessarily even a profound one) about something, but it's an
unfortunate usage in the case of whatever it was the Buddha experienced (or
claimed to have experienced, or is claimed that he experienced by the lineages
and texts transmitting what purports to be his tradition).
"Buddha" comes from the Sanskrit root "buddh", which has something to do with
waking up (as from sleep); a far better term in English would simply be
"awakening" (with a capital "A," perhaps,) which is still used by more careful
(or fussy) commentators, but they are in a very tiny minority and
"enlightenment" is probably here to stay, with all its extraneous connotations.
(The first European scholars to translate Buddhist texts seized on this word as
a translation for the label for the Buddha's experience, and the label has
stuck. This is, I note, often how language changes: by people making mistakes.)
There is perhaps better justification for "enlightenment" in the case of the
Tibetan (and, I think, Japanese) tantric Buddhist traditions, which make much
use of the imagery of radiating and absorbing light, a feature Giuseppe Tucci
aptly dubbed "photism."
Windsor Viney
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
----------------------------------------
This mail sent through www.mywaterloo.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:32 PST