Following the literary custom adopted in the nineteenth century, John Blofeld drew upon the European word “enlightenment” to translate the highest goal of Zen Buddhism. In actual fact, however, among the most widely employed symbols for the goal of Zen used in the Huang Po literature, none could be translated literally by our word “enlightenment.” Why, then, did Blofeld opt for this word rather than simply translating the symbols that were to be found in the texts? One reason would clearly be that the precedent for this rendering had already been firmly established. Earlier translators, including D. T. Suzuki, had interpreted both Buddhism and its particular “Zen” form as traditions focused on the quest for “enlightenment.” This answer, however, simply forestalls our question: why had they chosen the word “enlightenment” as the most general rendering of an array of terms for the goal of spiritual practice in Buddhism? No doubt they would have responded to our question with the simple claim that “accuracy” was the primary criterion of selection, not necessarily “literalness” of translation but overall correspondence to the authentic meanings being transmitted. “Correspondence,” however, is two-dimensional. It entails an understanding of two vocabularies, two contexts of meaning, and two evolving traditions – one for the tradition out of which a meaning will be taken and one for the tradition into which it will be placed.