Ghosts

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:09 am

Dan Rowden wrote:I believe "kowtaaia" is a Pali word, the literal translation of which is: "smartarse Buddhistic guy from Quebec"

But I might just be guessing ;)

Buddhistic? There's no need to be insulting! :)

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:29 am

Well, it was actually a subtle ad hominem. Now that I've called you that no-one could possibly take a single word you say seriously.

Skill in means, dude, skill in means........ :)

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:49 am

Dan Rowden wrote: Well, it was actually a subtle ad hominem.

Only subtle to those ignorant of the implication.

Dan Rowden wrote: Now that I've called you that no-one could possibly take a single word you say seriously.

Good! Let them die like dogs. :)

Dan Rowden wrote: Skill in means, dude, skill in means........ :)

Oh, you're a master, alright!

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:48 pm

This is great, but I don't know shit about buddhism(spelling?), so if somebody could point me to A(as in one, not a million) website that they think explains it best, it would help.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:58 pm

This thread is about ghosts! We need Leyla to come here and give Dan Rowden shit for taking the thread off topic. :)

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:35 pm

Borommakot wrote:This is great, but I don't know shit about buddhism(spelling?), so if somebody could point me to A(as in one, not a million) website that they think explains it best, it would help.

Here ya go... Not many could say it better than old Hal.

http://www.oldfree.org/

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:48 pm

Definitely to the point.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:01 pm

kowtaaia wrote:Definitely to the point.

And it's a nice read too. Definitly strikes the balance between brevity and poetry.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:18 pm

I thought I was going to be reading for hours.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:20 pm

Borommakot wrote:I thought I was going to be reading for hours.

LOL! Good stuff.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:24 pm

Thanks bee.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:25 pm

No prob dude.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:37 pm

I don't think an in-depth study of Buddhist terminology is necessary for a discussion of the essential ideas. In fact, a truly in-depth study of Buddhist terminology is the last thing a person seeking truth would want to engage in. I mean, what sort of cruelty would it be to encourage anyone to possibly become an actual Buddhist?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:42 pm

What generalization are you working from?

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:46 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I mean, what sort of cruelty would it be to encourage anyone to possibly become an actual Buddhist?

The worst kind, of course.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:56 pm

Steven,

From the generalisation that modern Buddhism is sadly infected with the spirit of religiosity and scholasticism. Other than in that sense you can ignore what I said.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:11 pm

Do you think the title of "Buddhist" requires one to adhere to a sense of religiosity, etc.

Or could someone study the terminology and derive the meaning, and then kill the Buddha?

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:15 pm

Steven Coyle wrote:Do you think the title of "Buddhist" requires one to adhere to a sense of religiosity, etc.

Or could someone study the terminology and derive the meaning, and then kill the Buddha?

What does that have to do with encouraging someone to become a buddhist?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:22 pm

Steven Coyle wrote:Do you think the title of "Buddhist" requires one to adhere to a sense of religiosity, etc.

I think if you identify as a Buddhist, you're in a spot of trouble.

Or could someone study the terminology and derive the meaning, and then kill the Buddha?

Yes, certainly, in the sense that that famous quote intends. Trouble is the Buddha is a hard fellow to kill because he's just damn well everywhere. Of course, ironically, that's also the realisation in which one does effectively kill him.

There's a Tibetan Buddhist sanctuary/monastry/sangha place near here. Kevin and David have been there a number of times. One of the more idiotic things they do there is to tell people who meditate in the Gompa not to point their feet in the direction of the Buddha (meaning the big statue at the front). Something to do with disrepect I guess. I've always wanted to go there and chastise those silly persons for asking me not to point my feet at the Buddha. But I somehow doubt they would understand my chastisement.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:48 pm

That's pretty insane.

You guys should go there, and instead of cutting the cat in two (a famous Zen Koan), you should cut off the feet of the Buddha.

That way, those shoddy monks would learn to relinquish their false pride.

-

Nan Ch'uan Cuts the Cat in Two

Nan Ch'uan saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: 'If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat.' No one answered. So Nan Ch'uan boldly cut the cat in two pieces.

That evening Chao Chou returned and Nan Ch'uan told him about this. Chao Chou removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out.

Nan Ch'uan said: "If you had been there, you could have saved the cat."

Mumon's Comment: Why did Chao Chou put his sandals on his head? If anyone answers this question, he will understand exactly how Nan Ch'uan enforced the edict. If not, he should watch his own head.

Had Chao Chou been there,
He would have enforced the edict oppositely.
Chao Chou snatches the sword
And Nan Ch'uan begs for his life

Lost in the world of the ten-thousand things, Nan Ch'uan tried to save them. Instead they passed from one nonsense to another, taking it all seriously and leaving no way out for the cat. Like playing children, interrupted by the order: "Play"; suddenly they didn't know what to do. But Chao Chou did; he would have saved the cat and them! Lost in their game, they were lost in the world; but Nan Ch'uan was at home in the world and therefore, at home in the game.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:51 pm

Dan Rowden wrote: the Buddha is .. just damn well everywhere. ...

One of the more idiotic things they do there is to tell people who meditate in the Gompa not to point their feet in the direction of the Buddha

I guess I guess I'd get kicked out if I asked a philosophical question in response to them telling me that rule - asking about the "true" location of the Buddha, or the difference between the Buddha and the statue, or what the Buddha would have thought about giving more respect to a statue of him than to a tree or the person sitting next to me...

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:01 pm

Almost every year a Buddhist group (could be the same people actually, I'm not sure) play a game called "Build a sand Mandala and teach the people non-attachment". A few monks spend a few weeks or whatever creating the mandala which they then, for the news cameras, ritualistically take down to the river and destroy. The supposed message being that these monks are not attached to their earthly efforts etc etc. Of course, only a person as dumb as horse shit would fall for it. They obviously are not attached to it because the whole point is to destroy it.

I've sometimes thought about going to the place where they make it and after they're about 95% finished, picking up a broom and casually walking through it, thereby giving them a true lesson in non-attachment.

But, I'm either too cowardly or too cognizant of the consequences for me if I did. Still, it's an idea.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:05 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: the Buddha is .. just damn well everywhere. ...

One of the more idiotic things they do there is to tell people who meditate in the Gompa not to point their feet in the direction of the Buddha
I guess I guess I'd get kicked out if I asked a philosophical question in response to them telling me that rule - asking about the "true" location of the Buddha, or the difference between the Buddha and the statue, or what the Buddha would have thought about giving more respect to a statue of him than to a tree or the person sitting next to me...

You wouldn't get kicked out, you just wouldn't get anything resembling a satisfactory answer. A bemused smile perhaps, but that's about it....

Rory · Post by **Rory** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:50 pm

Dan Rowden wrote: One of the more idiotic things they do there is to tell people who meditate in the Gompa not to point their feet in the direction of the Buddha

This seems to be a very cultural attitude. It exists in exactly the same form in Hinduism. Muslims won't aim their feet towards the Qur'an (indeed, some schools of law allow non Muslim students to learn to write using the Qur'an but only if they do not erase their slates with their feet)

Funny how Buddhism claims unattachment, yet maintains their attachment to some strange cultural norms.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:59 pm

Yeah, funny that. But that speaks to the unfortunate historical "religionisation" of the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha's one great mistake, really, was to passively allow the development of the Sangha. But, generally speaking, I agree that expressions of such cultural attitudes and prohibitions is especially stupid in a Buddhist setting.

But, since we realise this, we're ok........or, are we....?

GENIUS FORUMS

Ghosts

yeah.