Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by salayatananirodha »

[Split from the "Concepts" thread, — Dhammanando]

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:03 pm It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7306
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Concepts

Post by Sam Vara »

salayatananirodha wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:17 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:03 pm It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha
That's correct!
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concepts

Post by salayatananirodha »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:23 pm
salayatananirodha wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:17 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:03 pm It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha
That's correct!
why refer to the buddha non-reverentially
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7306
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Concepts

Post by Sam Vara »

salayatananirodha wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:31 am why refer to the buddha non-reverentially
This is an interesting question, but one which is off-topic and might be better served by starting a new thread.

The short answer is that nearly every reference I and others make to the Buddha here on DW is non-reverential, and I can't find anything against that in my precepts or the ToS.
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 1197
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by JamesTheGiant »

This came up in another topic too, about mocking a sutta.
I wasn't mocking that particular sutta, but I definitely mock suttas I find ridiculous.
For instance the sutta where the gods of the rain clouds get angry, and cause unusual rain! That's just about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
The gods of the air become restless and cause unusual winds!
Ha!
May as well argue the world is flat.

As for reverence towards my main man Sid, or Siddy-G as we call him in my hood, I'll let the rest of you discuss that.
Peace out, suckas.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5632
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by Dhammanando »

salayatananirodha wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:17 pm [Split from the "Concepts" thread, — Dhammanando]

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:03 pm It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha
Which part? "Our man" or "nominalist"?

And by "non-reverential" do you mean "not expressing reverence" or "expressing irreverence"?
Svākkhātaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, sandiṭṭhikam’akālikaṃ,
Yattha amoghā pabbajjā, appamattassa sikkhato.


“The holy life is well proclaimed,
directly visible, immediate,
Where not in vain is the going forth
of one who trains heedfully.”
— Sela Sutta
sunnat
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by sunnat »

If one sees no reason to be reverential it can be a ritual to behave reverentially and that may not be helpful, though that can be disrespectful which is not wholesome behaviour.

If one sees a reason to be reverential then the best way to express that is to walk the path.

It can be helpful to deconstruct the I conceit by recognising a superior authority.
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 3047
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by Bundokji »

I think it has to do with intention and the individual understanding of what the Buddha is. Verbal expressions, while can be indicative of intentions, do not always reflect the state of mind behind them.

For example, when the Buddha referred to his body as vile, was he against revering his body?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9202
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by Ceisiwr »

I wouldn’t say it’s reverential but I wouldn’t say it’s disrespectful either.
“His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna. Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
MettaDevPrac
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by MettaDevPrac »

sunnat wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:25 am If one sees no reason to be reverential it can be a ritual to behave reverentially and that may not be helpful, though that can be disrespectful which is not wholesome behaviour.

If one sees a reason to be reverential then the best way to express that is to walk the path.

It can be helpful to deconstruct the I conceit by recognising a superior authority.
:goodpost:
- MettaDevPrac
auto
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by auto »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:27 am This came up in another topic too, about mocking a sutta.
I wasn't mocking that particular sutta, but I definitely mock suttas I find ridiculous.
For instance the sutta where the gods of the rain clouds get angry, and cause unusual rain! That's just about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
The gods of the air become restless and cause unusual winds!
Ha!
May as well argue the world is flat.

As for reverence towards my main man Sid, or Siddy-G as we call him in my hood, I'll let the rest of you discuss that.
Peace out, suckas.
irony is that the post you made is a psychic lure.

*And flat earth example is pretty good since certain people like to gather around these topics and start ridicule, and that will invite even more people who delight on ridiculing and seeing it snowballing.

.. this theme keeps getting exposed more and more
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by Aloka »

auto wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:04 pm
irony is that the post you made is a psychic lure.
What's a " psychic lure" ? Is it something connected to fishing for ghosts, or Pokémon ?



.
dharmacorps
Posts: 1282
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by dharmacorps »

Just because you joke about something in the canon doesn't mean you aren't being reverential. Being too uptight can be a major obstacle in the practice, too.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by Aloka »

dharmacorps wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:47 pm Just because you joke about something in the canon doesn't mean you aren't being reverential. Being too uptight can be a major obstacle in the practice, too.
Absolutely, and an example of not being too uptight about the suttas is Bhikkhu Sujato's blog post:

"The Ten Funniest Scenes from the Pali Canon"

.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17865
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

Post by mikenz66 »

dharmacorps wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:47 pm Just because you joke about something in the canon doesn't mean you aren't being reverential. Being too uptight can be a major obstacle in the practice, too.
As Patrick Kearney likes to say (when encouraging experimentation, exploration, and play): "The Dharma is too important to be taken seriously."

:heart:
Mike
Post Reply