Originally posted by JS357it's comforting to realize that i'm at the same level as thunderhead, though i'm not too sure about featherhead and chowderhead? humm. methinks i need to move up to dragonhead. where do i find that amulet?
They differ, but not by much.
There are many levels in this pursuit, that have names that end in "head."
http://www.scrabblefinder.com/ends-with/head/
But I was wrong or at least, as a meathead would, I hit the wrong key. Chucklehead is 4 levels below Godhead. It is on the same level as knucklehead. As you ascend through the levels, you get a persona, ...[text shortened]... d permanently and solely to Eddie Vinson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2Zpd0AYw
Originally posted by Taomanthe hot dog vendor got the chuckle out of me, but the ones that came before set up a mental state of levity which makes me wonder, would i have achieved the chuckle if one of the others occupied the ordered position of the hot dog vendor on the list?
Looking forward to my annual pilgrimage soon to a Jazz and Blues Festival at our Wangaratta. Half the family come too. Good times.
"I liked the one, ...do the opposite...so I didn't". Chuckle, chuckle.
No laughing til you cry stuff. Then you ARE laughin.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritQuite a Buddhist type thought. The 'dependent origination' even of our laughs!
the hot dog vendor got the chuckle out of me, but the ones that came before set up a mental state of levity which makes me wonder, would i have achieved the chuckle if one of the others occupied the ordered position of the hot dog vendor on the list?
It's true. My son and I were watching a comedian in full flight and we were building up in our laughter. An interruption occurred, the vid was paused and the flow and our laughter was not the same later. We both recognized how the interruption had changed the moment, - of our 'merging' with the flow of humor.
'Not stepping into the same river twice' comes to mind also.
Originally posted by TaomanMy sonnet, in response:
Silly Old Buddha
Buddha was monk
who used to be a prince.
Buddha sitting there
teaching nothing
ever since.
Buddha, the man, realised the pain
Of suffering and wealth, for the 'poorest' man's gain.
He sat alone, with himself and naught
With in-depth thinking and thought upon thought,
To come to realise in riches and thrift
That truth to oneself is a perfect gift.
To others, yet to one's self name
In the search for losses of what one wanted to gain,
He became as one, as empty as a shell
And gave all he had to find an answer.
He freed his mind, and dependence of hell,
To find enlightement, which made him a dancer
Amongst peoples whose fears had made them
forget how to live freely, and with pictures, yet he
wrote the almost perfect Pali Scriptures, to set you free.
-m. 😉
Originally posted by mikelomThank you mike for that meaningful sonnet.
My sonnet, in response:
Buddha, the man, realised the pain
Of suffering and wealth, for the 'poorest' man's gain.
He sat alone, with himself and naught
With in-depth thinking and thought upon thought,
To come to realise in riches and thrift
That truth to oneself is a perfect gift.
To others, yet to one's self name
In the search for losses of what o ...[text shortened]... ith pictures, yet he
wrote the almost perfect Pali Scriptures, to set you free.
-m. 😉
You would know some Buddhist humor too, eh?
Buddha could crack a joke or two also, I expect.
Know any from the Pali?
Originally posted by TaomanA monk searches for an answer to the question, ‘Where do the four great elements cease without remainder?’
Thank you mike for that meaningful sonnet.
You would know some Buddhist humor too, eh?
Buddha could crack a joke or two also, I expect.
Know any from the Pali?
He questions the gods, but they keep referring him upstairs (which itself is a lovely satire on the bureaucratic nature of the celestial hierarchy) until he arrives in the realm of Brahma.
Brahma appears and boasts, ‘I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, Father of All…’. But he keeps dodging the question.....
Eventually the monk is so persistent, he takes him by the elbow, leads him to one side, and whispers to him;
‘Actually, I don’t know the answer to your question. You should have asked the Buddha!’ 🙂
-m.
Best Joke? :
Numerous scholars of "religion" have criticised the terms commonly used.
"While there is a staggering amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might be characterised in one culture or another, by one criterion or another, as religion," writes religious historian Jonathan Z. Smith, "there is no data for religion. Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study."
Timothy Fitzgerald studied philosophical theology but decided that social anthropology was a more useful field for researching the conversion movement of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in India. Fitzgerald wants "to reconceptualise what is now called religious studies as the study of institutionalised values, and the relation between values and the legitimisation of power in a specific society."
The discovery of Buddhism "was therefore from the beginning, in a somewhat literal and nontribial sense, a textual construction," according to Tomoko Masuzawa, whose book is intriguingly titled, "The Invention Of World Religions, Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved In The Language Of Pluralism."
"It was a project that put a premium on the supposed thoughts and deeds of the reputed founder and on a certainbody of writing that was perceived to authorize, and in turn was authorizedby, the founder figure."
Even the term "Theravada Buddhism," used to distinguish Buddhists of Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka (the former Ceylon) from their northern cousins, is disparaged by Pali scholar Peter Skilling who suggests that it"came to be distinguished as a kind of Buddhism or as a 'religion' --remembering that 'Buddhism' is a modern term and that 'religion' is a vexed concept -- only in the late colonial and early globalised periods, that is, in the twentieth century."
"The Invention Of World Religions", or, "How European Universalism Was Preserved In The Language Of Pluralism."
The old labels and methods of classification don't work very well in Asia. I'm now convinced that "religion," "Buddhism," "Theravada Buddhism,"and even "Hinduism" are terms invented in the 19th and early 20th century by mostly Western scholars (with some eager assistance from Asians struggling to resist missionaries and colonial power) who constructed doctrinaire world views based on the recently translated Pali and Sanskrit texts. The living traditions in Southeast Asia practiced by Asians were ignored or denigrated, until they were re-invented and re-packaged to conform to modern Western sensibilities and exported to America and Europe with great success.
Meanwhile, the unexpurgated local traditions continue, and, if recent reports are true, are flourishing and proliferating despite state (and intellectual) attempts at centralisation and control. The shop worn labels of"religion" and "Buddhism" make it difficult to see the inextricable hybridity of culture and values because we want to identify the separate strands believed to be part of a syncretistic amalgam ("this is Buddhism, this is animism, this is Brahmanism"😉. Perhaps "Buddhism" is simply a reification of disparate practices and it would be better to speak of "buddhisms" in the lower-case plural, just as some Christian theologians use the term "christianities" to emphasize the proliferation of sects after the death of Jesus, and before church councils canonised scriptures.
I accept the social constructionist argument that both"Buddhism" and "religion" were categories created in the 19th century by scholars to distinguish Christianity from the other two ethnic monotheism and from the heathenism, paganism and idolatry missionaries and colonisers were discovering outside Europe and North America. So does that clear the decks?
If you follow the argument so far, there is no such thing as "religion" in the singular, or even a monolithic "Buddhism,"and the label.
"Theravada Buddhism" applied to the what was called, disparagingly, "Hinayana" (lesser vehicle) by the Mahayanists is equally a misnomer of little use in speaking of the living traditions practiced by millions of Asian Buddhists, from Ceylon to Korea. Other than stories about the founder, written down hundreds of years after his death, we have Pali and Sanskit texts translated by European philologists in the 19th century. These were then used to construct an "original" Buddhism and to ridicule actually existing Buddhists, encountered by Christian missionaries as corrupt and superstitious.
The fundamental difference for buddhisms, then, is between the 19th century Western enthusiasts for Buddhism, from Schopenhauer to Thoreau, and the masses worshipping Buddha images in temples throughout Asia for a thousand years.
That amuses me.
-m. 😉
Originally posted by mikelomNot so light, but worthy of serious contemplation nevertheless.
Best Joke? :
Numerous scholars of "religion" have criticised the terms commonly used.
"While there is a staggering amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might be characterised in one culture or another, by one criterion or another, as religion," writes religious historian Jonathan Z. Smith, "there is no data for religion. ...[text shortened]... s.
That amuses me.
-m. 😉
This passage in particular was cause for reflection:
'The shop worn labels of"religion" and "Buddhism" make it difficult to see the inextricable hybridity of culture and values because we want to identify the separate strands believed to be part of a syncretistic amalgam ("this is Buddhism, this is animism, this is Brahmanism"😉. Perhaps "Buddhism" is simply a reification of disparate practices and it would be better to speak of "buddhisms" in the lower-case plural, just as some Christian theologians use the term "christianities" to emphasize the proliferation of sects after the death of Jesus, and before church councils canonised scriptures.'
Labels and lived experience are two different things.
Even sunyata - 'nothing' - is a label.
So out comes the flower.
Originally posted by TaomanTesco Lotus? 😀
Not so light, but worthy of serious contemplation nevertheless.
This passage in particular was cause for reflection:
'The shop worn labels of"religion" and "Buddhism" make it difficult to see the inextricable hybridity of culture and values because we want to identify the separate strands believed to be part of a syncretistic amalgam ("this is Buddhism, things.
Even sunyata - 'nothing' - is a label.
So out comes the flower.
-m. 😉
Edit: sorreeeeee, that was so loe.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by mikelomI am a little confused. Let me describe my two experiences of Buddhism (maybe someone will say they are not both experiences of Buddhism; that could be the issue and if so, please correct me).
Best Joke? :
Numerous scholars of "religion" have criticised the terms commonly used.
"While there is a staggering amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might be characterised in one culture or another, by one criterion or another, as religion," writes religious historian Jonathan Z. Smith, "there is no data for religion. ...[text shortened]... s.
That amuses me.
-m. 😉
One of them is a tiny bit of Western education and then, on my own, reading and listening to -- dabbling in -- Buddhist teachings, and my informal exposure on the internet such as this forum. The other of them is tourist-style visits to Buddhist temples, mainly in Taiwan, seeing the statuary and adornments and the everyday folks doing their rituals, with the apparent intent of influencing their lives. I have attended one Buddhist funeral, in the US, where no one waxed philosophical, and there was much ritual.
Do these two experiences relate to what you say in this post? What would be the one accurate Western view of Buddhism and what should it be based upon? Maybe you are saying religious categorizations especially such dualisms in this case, are unfitting. Is there a joke in there somewhere, as you start it with "Best Joke:"?
Originally posted by JS357JS, I'll just put in a bit here on your question to mike. I'm not sure myself what the "joke" was exactly but he may explain that.
I am a little confused. Let me describe my two experiences of Buddhism (maybe someone will say they are not both experiences of Buddhism; that could be the issue and if so, please correct me).
One of them is a tiny bit of Western education and then, on my own, reading and listening to -- dabbling in -- Buddhist teachings, and my informal exposure on the int ...[text shortened]... s case, are unfitting. Is there a joke in there somewhere, as you start it with "Best Joke:"?
Your experience of Buddhism is about as much as many westerners get often. And it is confusing because there are three main streams, or "vehicles or schools of Buddhism. They differ in their practice, monk vows, and where they get their primary guidance from. This is as simple as I can make a complex subject. And I am far from an expert on its history and presentations myself. I hope I am essentially correct.
The essential Buddhist philosophy is inherent in all of them. There is tension sometimes between the schools of Buddhism, as to practice and what is "prior".
The streams are:
Theravada Buddhism, the monks are in full yellow, as I have experienced here. Their primary resource is the Dharmapadda, in ancient Pali script ,the earliest record of Buddha and his teachings.
There is Tibetan Tantric Buddhist school, to which the Dalai Lama belongs and leads. The monks often wear gold and maroon. Then there is the Mahayana school that is represented by the more minimalist Zen type and more philosophical type Buddhism that came through China and japan. . They are often seen in gray and darker colors, and leading teachers wear a bag on the front.
In the West, there are Zen teachers that are often simpler still in their dress.
Each of these schools have subsets and ways of teaching. That's just basic categories and identification. mike is influenced or attached to the Theravada school, i believe. bb, I and some others who share here are influenced to greater or lesser degree by the Mahayana Zen 'view', with its koans and sutras.
Cheers.
To get back on track - some more jokes
Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta walk into a bar.
Dukkha says, “Life sucks!” Anicca says, “This will pass!” Anatta says, “You talkin’ to ME?!” (That's a bit of an "in" joke.)
***
Two monks were sitting in a cave. One was silent. The other one said, ‘I could have done that’.
***
There once was a man who said, “Though
it seems that I know that I know,
what I would like to see
is the me that knows me
when I know that I know that I know.”
***
What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Zen Buddhist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.
Originally posted by Taomanyou saved the best for last.
To get back on track - some more jokes
Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta walk into a bar.
Dukkha says, “Life sucks!” Anicca says, “This will pass!” Anatta says, “You talkin’ to ME?!” (That's a bit of an "in" joke.)
***
Two monks were sitting in a cave. One was silent. The other one said, ‘I could have done that’.
***
There once was a man who said, “Tho ...[text shortened]... hovah’s Witness with a Zen Buddhist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.