So what is the body of knowledge that legitimatizes them as technical terms? Or are they just 'sign posts' to things we all experience (a.k.a. same level as Tolle, Chopra, et al.)?
(Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".)
The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Buddhist canons. You can dismiss that if you want to, but they're not wishy-washy concepts within the study of that canon.
It's not like such a baseless accusation -- "oh, they use them as technical words, they're probably full of shit" -- deserves an answer. If you're really interested, do your own research next time. Not that you are.
Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.
