Referring to the Buddha non-reverentially

[cappuccino]

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.

well it's true

[auto]

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 ?



.

this post.

[MettaDevPrac]

this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha

That's correct!

why refer to the buddha non-reverentially

There might be many reasons why; some are wholesome, some unwholesome, some neutral.
What appears to be non-reverent might be respect for the Supreme achievement of Enlightenment/ Awakening, and the Noble Path for sentient beings. It's important and helpful for some people to constantly remind themselves, this is a human achievement and Path; this is possible; this requires diligence.



What is actually, intentionally irreverent, coming from ill-will; it remains theirs, it does not touch the Buddha. But this arises from conditions, ignorance, and is unfortunate; like all conditioned things, it's anicca, dukkha, anattā; don't cling to it.

[befriend]

because he's been dead for 2,600 something years ago I wouldn't use this terminology not because he's buddha but because he was a person whos dead you wouldn't call your grandfather gramp gramps after he died. Or your dead grandmother gizmo. That would be disrespectful.

[Sam Vara]

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

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"?

I think the distinction between non-reverent and irreverent is extremely important here. Many of us, myself included, may feel and actively express reverence for the Buddha in other contexts. DW, however, is a forum. Most of the posts referencing the Buddha seem to be about what he said, or meant, or implied. It's perfectly OK to discuss these things respectfully without showing overt reverence. Non Buddhist academics do it all the time. There doesn't seem to be a convention, even among believers, of a form of words used to demonstrate faith, such as the formula "pbuh" used by Muslims for Mohammed.

Deliberate irreverence is a matter of subjective taste. I'm not much bothered how other people refer to the Buddha. I was a bit taken aback when a contributor explained how the Refuge Recovery programme routinely use "Sid" as per James, above.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/refuge-r ... ipq_zj7u1M

But when it was explained to me, it all made perfect sense. It just wasn't what I was used to.

With regard to my offending post, I hadn't anticipated that referring to the Buddha as a nominalist could be thought offensive! I thought it might be referring to the Blessed on as Gotama, but I can see little harm in that. That's what he is often called in suttas ("Bho Gotama...") by people apparently more advanced than me. Some of them use it, and are converted to followers a few lines later.

"Our man" is, where I come from, an Irish-inflected term of endearment or solidarity. People might not like it, but that, I think, is their problem. People might not like all sorts of things, but I think the ToS cater for that eventuality.

For myself, when I saw the claim that I was guilty of non-reverentialism:

this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha

and

why refer to the buddha non-reverentially

I was so shocked by the flagrant and repeated lack of capitalisation of the Blessed One's title that I had to have a cup of tea and a lie-down.

I'm OK now, though.

[Lombardi4]

During his time people simply called him Goṭama. "Buddha" is just his attainment. Buddhism at the time was called "Goṭama's Dhamma-Vinaya".

[MettaDevPrac]

because he's been dead for 2,600 something years ago I wouldn't use this terminology not because he's buddha but because he was a person whos dead you wouldn't call your grandfather gramp gramps after he died. Or your dead grandmother gizmo. That would be disrespectful.

This seems a cultural truth (in that I recognze you speak honestly, probably are accurately characterizing a local etiquette, but don't see this as universally true). In my family and culture, use of nicknames after someone has died is ok, not disrespectful. If it communicates respect and affection, these would be used no matter the passage of time, among family, or in biographies shared with the public.

Nothing to fear in this, I think.

[Srilankaputra]

this is a non-reverential way of referring to the buddha

Chide a friend in private and praise him in public
~Solon

[manas]

Because I live in a society where reverence and even basic good manners are often lacking, I strive to be respectful at all times towards the Buddha, whether in body, speech or thought. I can see how our modern minds might chafe somewhat at the notion of reverence, and that makes me suspect that it's just the defilements that chafe. I believe the resistance comes from egoism. I've observed this in my own mind at times; whether it's a resistance to the simple act of bowing three times (it costs very little to do this, and takes about ten seconds, so why the resistance?) or a heedless thought or comment in the mind regarding the Buddha.

My understanding and practice have a long way to go. I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou regarding this. But I would feel shame and remorse, were I to be informal or casual when referring to the Buddha. Thanks to the Buddha, I quite possibly won't have to reappear in a lower realm. The effort must be made by ourselves alone, but as far as I know, none of us could have learned the illuminating Dhamma on our own - we did so, in dependence upon instructions that were handed down to us. Some reverential respect for being saved from the lower realms of long-lasting suffering, distress & despair, is appropriate. For those who doubt whether lower realms exist, go outside and observe how wild animals live - mostly, struggling hard to find food, find a mate, fight & defend, and avoid being killed or eaten alive. They too feel pleasure & pain just as we do, but they can't cultivate the wisdom that could free them from such an existence. If we really knew how much pain & misery we may have avoided by learning the Dhamma, if we could get a glimpse of it, I suspect we would feel much reverence towards the Tathagata.