Xangsamhua

In another TV sub-forum someone asked why two Thai drivers would beat up a couple of elderly Englishmen in Pattaya recently. The questioner wondered if Thai people's respect for the elderly only extends to Thai elderly.

I thought that maybe it does, as foreigners have no ศักดินา, i.e. no formal place or status in the Thai ranking or deference structure. In the old ศักดินา system, so I believe, even a slave had a notional 5 rai, but a foreigner had none at all. Hence, deference is not owed to foreigners except where the foreigner is a known quantity and deemed worthy of respect.

But how do people nowadays actually use this term? Some time ago I heard a couple of young women on the staff of my school use the term, but as we were merely passing on the stairs I didn't pick up how they were using it. Otherwise I can't think of any cases.

Why, in a forum on Buddhism, is there such a big thread on tattoos?

Without meaning to be aggressive, what have tattoos to do with Buddhism?

I haven't read much of the thread, so may have missed the point, but what I've seen seems to be talking more about magic than dharma.

Wife tells me Samak now says he never said he intended to move the protesters by force, but they must move as they're blocking the traffic.

I don't know what he intends if they don't move (and they've already made it clear they won't).

Hi,

I have been there.

I assume you have read some books from Thich Nhath Han (probably wrongly spelled).

The life in Plum village is very much according to Thich Nhath Han written dhamma.

I was happily surprised that the Sangha in Plum village practise what they preach.

Have fun

Arjen

Thank you Arjen

I'm already checking the PV website and websites for travel and making plans in my head.

Probably fly to London, Eurostar to Paris and train to the point where they pick you up.

My wife is keen and I think we'll go for two weeks. I'll start formally arranging things later this year.

Cheers

Xangsamhua

I am not an expert on Buddhism and I could be wrong but I think your premise that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence is wrong.

I thought it was the opposite.

Not infinity but nothing!

As I understand it, "emptiness" (shunyata) does not equate to "nothingness", but to lack of identity, permanence or self. The Buddha, and Nirvana are "real". (Wikipedia article on "Shunyata") Dharmakaya would also be "real".

At IMAFARANG's suggestion (above) I looked at the E-sangha forum www.e-sangha.com and they've got lots on this and related topics. One poster (#3 to the thread on "Emptiness" in the Buddhist Philosophy forum) suggested that "'mind' or 'consciousness' has underlying 'layer' or 'base' (metaphoricaly) that is not dependent upon, and therefore conditioned by, 'external' (or even other 'internal') events or things. It is out of this 'base' that 'appearance' arises in dependence on a number of factors".

I posted my questions under the topic heading "Buddhism and Infinity, Can we handle it?" to the E-sangha forum on Buddhist Philosophy and have already had some fascinating replies, ones that show me how much of a beginner I am in Buddhist metaphysics. You may like to visit that forum.

Cheers

XSH

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

That's pretty mind-boggling, yet the idea of infinity is happily taken on board by many religious and non-religious people. But when we speak of infinity we really, I suspect, are thinking only of a very long time or a very great expanse of space. I don't think we can really handle the idea of infinity, of something that just goes on and on and on…… In infinity, after all, all things become possible – indeed, inevitable. So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

The medieval Kalam school of Islamic philosophers rejected the idea of an actual infinity, thereby, though still leaving the questions of temporal and spatial boundaries open, getting rid of an unhelpful and distracting construct. But mainstream Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, to my knowledge, retain the idea.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the "real" world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

If it is retained, does it imply that we're living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

I was thinking about this after reading the comments of Matthieu Ricard (the monk) in "The Monk and the Philosopher". Also John Barrow's "The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless".

You ought to go to the site www.e-sangha.com which has a section on Buddhist Philosophy (among other subjects). To be able to post on that site you need to register and assign yourself a password. The response is quick when you register, only takes a few minutes before you can post and discuss ideas regarding Buddhism or anything else to your hearts content.

In order to respond to your original post, I would have to read it carefully and think a while. Unfortunately now, I have other business I have to get done first.

Thanks IMA. I'll do that. I have visited that site before (on your advice?) with good results.

Cheers

XSH

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

I don't doubt that some schools of Buddhism might teach it that way, and there'd be some truth in it, but I'm pretty sure the Buddha would see such attempts at defining of existance as a waste of time.

So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

I can't say I understand how you come to that conclusion.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the "real" world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

I don't see it as helpful in terms of the Buddhist path. If there is the possibility such inquiry can help you to gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred, and delusion in the present moment then it would be helpful.

If it is retained, does it imply that we're living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

There is no need to retain it or discard it, just put it aside as not being immediately relevant to the path, along with such things as Macrame and C# programming.

I thought when I tossed this into the ring that you might come up with something like the dry but eminently sensible response that you have. Of course this kind of speculation doesn't help one "gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred and delusion in the present moment"; however unpursued thoughts remain thoughts even if we put them aside, and they have a way of re-presenting themselves in unguarded moments.

Those of a speculative disposition may be justified in asking the question, particularly where there is a Buddhist metaphysics and where it is put into the public domain by scholars such as the Dalai Lama and the Bhikkhu Mathieu Ricard. To quote from the latter in the text I mentioned: "Buddhism holds that an entity that truly existed could neither arise in the first place nor ever disappear. Being can't be born from nothingness, because even an infinitude of causes wouldn't be able to make something that didn't exist come into existence; nor can it be born from what already exists, as in that case there would be no need for it to be born." (p. 106) If one is going to argue against the possibility of a Creator then one has to argue in favour of infinity (or to argue that nothing exists at all!). But the idea of infinity is, perhaps, as impossible to grasp as that of a Creator.

On the question of inevitable infinite replication (e.g. an infinite number of replications of oneself currently reading an infinite replication of thaivisa.com posts etc.), I didn't come to that conclusion. I don't understand it either, but it is the theme of chapter 8 of Barrow's book and I think is summed up in the principle: "In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often." (p. 156) I assume a zero probability would refer to something that is logically impossible (i.e. logically contradictory, e.g. that black cats will be white cats at the same time). Maybe there's a mathematically clear-minded person out there who can explain Barrow's principle. (Barrow, incidentally, is professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge.)

I know this is a somewhat arcane and unrewarding topic, so I do appreciate your response.

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

That’s pretty mind-boggling, yet the idea of infinity is happily taken on board by many religious and non-religious people. But when we speak of infinity we really, I suspect, are thinking only of a very long time or a very great expanse of space. I don’t think we can really handle the idea of infinity, of something that just goes on and on and on…… In infinity, after all, all things become possible – indeed, inevitable. So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

The medieval Kalam school of Islamic philosophers rejected the idea of an actual infinity, thereby, though still leaving the questions of temporal and spatial boundaries open, getting rid of an unhelpful and distracting construct. But mainstream Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, to my knowledge, retain the idea.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the “real” world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

If it is retained, does it imply that we’re living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

I was thinking about this after reading the comments of Matthieu Ricard (the monk) in "The Monk and the Philosopher". Also John Barrow's "The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless".

Beer Myth 8: The Thai beer Singha has formaldehyde in it

It seems widely believed that Singha is brewed with formaldehyde, as is Chang beer, San Miguel, Vietnamese 33, and Singapore's Tiger Beer. The most believable explanation for this one is that Singha is much more bitter and contains more alcohol than most lagers. When American or British expatriots and soldiers were drinking beer in Thailand, they got drunk much more quickly then they were used to, and it was much more bitter flavor then they were used to. To explain this it was suggested that it contained formaldehyde. Crazy.

In 1973 I went to Pattaya (Na Kluea, actually) for a beachside bungalow holiday and thought I'd test the formaldehyde theory by putting a couple of small bottles of Singha in the freezer for the time we were there (about 4 days). At the end of the time, the beer had not frozen, though the freezer was working OK. I've always believed it had formaldehyde in those days. The same was said, I think, of Larue(?) beer in Vietnam. I was told the GIs were advised not to drink it, but I don't know if the story is true. I also don't know if the freezer test was a valid one for formaldehyde, but someone told me it was.

We had a belief in Korat that if you had a night out on Singha you could ride your motorcycle home at a 45 degree angle. It felt like it was true.

In my limited experience, it's as near to business class as makes little difference - certainly better seating and service compared to economy/cattle class....... so it takes some of the pain out of the flight...... less likely to have swawking babies nearby etc. But I paid a lower surcharge than that - 50% extra would get me wondering whether it's worth it.

And, of course, you'll get the afficionado's chiming in that of course, it's nothing like real business class on XYZ-Air.......

Thank you. Looking again at the prices - depending on the flight the surcharge seems to be roughly 25 - 50 per cent; i.e between 40/44K and 56/60K for October.

Jammers are illegal, so I would be careful.

Oh dear. Thanks for telling us, Britmaveric.

Flying to London from Bangkok by Eva Air, is the 50% additional price worth it for the Elite/Evergreen Deluxe class?

It looks good on their website, but is it as good in fact?

A cellular signal jammer works like a charm, they are available at MBK. I bought one for use in my classrooms, when I was still teaching, now it creates a great dead spot whenever I turn it on.

I need this for the office and the girlfriend. Does it actually work?

It works great, it has about a 20 meter radius wherein it disables all signal. You can get a more powerful version which will double that radius, but I find 20 meters to be more than sufficient. They cost about 5000 Baht and resemble a cellphone. Just take it with you and turn it on when you need it. I love turning it on at restaurants and watching people trying to make calls and wandering why there is no signal.

Sounds like a great toy, but 5000 baht! Pretty tempting though.

My wife and I are interested in going to Plum Village in France next year for retreat and meditation program.

Has anyone been there or know anyone who's been there? We've looked at the website at http://www.plumvillage.org/, but would be interested in any personal experience if available, either here or by PM.

Thank you.

Xangsamhua

No I haven't. But you might want to go to this site:

www.e-sangha.com

It is a forum with a lot of info about Buddhism and there is a least one permanent discussion about meditation retreats and such. You will probably find someone there who has been to a retreat that you mentioned.

You need to register in order to post a question on the forum. It has a lot of good information and dicussions about Buddhism.

Many thanks, IMAFARANG. I did as you suggested and found a thread with the same question as mine. It was quite helpful. If people are interested it's at http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...c=51961&hl=

Cheers

Xangsamhua

As for mobile phone conversations whilst at dinner, I just consider that rude.

Not practicable I suppose, but it'd be nice if there were phone-free zones in coffee shops and restaurants. I don't really want to listen to other people's telephone conversations, especially the serial ones where they make one call after after another. I'm there for a quiet coffee and a bit of a read - not disturbing anyone.

My wife and I are interested in going to Plum Village in France next year for retreat and meditation program.

Has anyone been there or know anyone who's been there? We've looked at the website at http://www.plumvillage.org/, but would be interested in any personal experience if available, either here or by PM.

Thank you.

Xangsamhua

I would say that in general the traffic situation now is much better now than 10-15 years ago. And my own journey to work from Samutprakan into town has improved significantly in the last few months, since the opening of the last section of the Kanjanapisek Road (Ring Road). I don't use it but it's taken a lot of traffic off the road I do use, especially lorries, and my journey time has improved by around 15-20 minutes.

I agree. I lived in Samut Prakan in 97-98 and it was definitely worse then.

I will say many of the farang/thai "couples" you see here look mismatched, not on merit of their race, but on merit of other features like insane age gaps, one is hideous while the other is attractive, or mabey the girl is dressed like a hoe and is walking around with some guy that looks like he ran straight down to Nana after leaving the office and barfined her like 20 min ago.

Exactly. I'm also struck by the mismatch when I see a farang/Thai couple (usually trying to have a romantic dinner) who are totally unable to communicate with each other ... staring, silence interrupted occasionally by monosylabic conversation. ... It should take at least 20 years of marriage to get to that point. but then the choice of words would be different

I'd always understood the role of the military, at least in my country, to defend their country and its people.

The Burmese military seem to see their role as to attack their country and its people.

I hope this disaster might be the catalyst for change, if not in the hearts of the leadership, at least in those who are the next rung down and waiting to succeed them.

I'll probably get hammered into the ground for saying this.......but I'm saying it anyway

I think Foreign men with Thai girls look odd together, kind of mismatched. Whenever I see Foreign couples together they look so right and comfortable and ease with each other and the same when I see Thai couples together.

There, I've said it

McGinty

Don't know about mixed race couples looking odd. Lots of couples look odd for one reason or another. I'm 100% Farang and married to my 100% Asian wife for 36 years. Maybe we look odd together. I don't know, but when I see other older mixed race couples, where the ages look similar, I do look at them and think "I wonder what their life experience is. What brought them together? Where did they raise their children?" etc. Maybe mixed race couples look "odd" together because they're just more interesting.

Alot of people that one might assume are expats are technically not. Anyone that doesn't have the residency visa and is still making those annoying visa runs is technically not an expat. Hang your speedo thong on that.

Expatriate (n.) "One who has taken up residence in a foreign country" (The Free Dictionary)

"Somebody who has moved abroad: a citizen who has left his or her own country to live in another, usually for a prolonged period" (Encarta)

There are other definitions of "expatriate" (e.g. one who has lost or renounced citizenship), but the above, I think, are what we are talking about. So a person who "has taken up residence" in Thailand "for a prolonged period" (2 years? 5 years? more?) would be an expatriate. To restrict the term to those who have residence visas seems a bit strict to me.

I would think one is an expat if one has been here for longer than one year and intends to stay on, working or not, and regardless of visa arrangements.

Pico Iyer’s latest book draws on personal relationship to Dalai Lama

By Amy Phan

Northwest Asian Weekly

Despite being exiled from Tibet since 1959, Tenzin Gyatso — the 14th Dalai Lama — is committed to engaging the public in a conversation of compassion and understanding. And now, Pico Iyer’s “The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama,” written from a first-person perspective, provides insight into the Dalai Lama’s ideas of how compassion begins, along with many other sides to Tibet’s unofficial leader.

But Iyer isn’t any ordinary writer — he has direct childhood ties to the Dalai Lama. Iyer’s father, an Indian academic and philosopher, met Gyatso about a year after he fled from Tibet to India, where a lifelong friendship developed, leaving the younger Iyer reaping the benefits of having intimate access to one of the world’s best-known leaders. “The Open Road” chronics Gyatso’s speaking gigs in three continents, weaving in and out of three decades of conversations cultivated from Iyer’s teenage years to adulthood. Iyer also visits the Dalai Lama’s brother, Ngari Rinpoche.

Prior to “The Open Road,” Iyer spent a large amount of time as a travel writer — his forte of setting scenes comes shining through in this book. No small detail goes unnoticed, from the minute, like the way the Dalai Lama finishes his sentences, to the grand, like Buddhism’s “wholeism” approach.

But despite this talent for description, Iyer’s commitment to detail takes digressions not always clear to the reader. Further, descriptions like, “The only real peace could arise from stilling something in yourself, going back behind the self … which reminded you that the boss you cannot abide may in fact have been your mother in a previous lifetime” briefly hint at the cycle of rebirth in Buddhism, but may be too broad a brushstroke to make any coherent sense for the average reader. (Read: myself.)

But to be fair, Buddhism as a subject isn’t the easiest to tackle. Iyer has immense pressure to translate esoteric philosophy into an easy read. “The Buddha,” writes Iyer, “came not to proclaim a new doctrine … but to remind us of what we all know and hold inside ourselves already.”

He continues, “The surface may change but the basic laws of value of compassion and the value of training our minds … to the path to freedom.” The open road, according to Iyer, is seen as the potential meeting point for compassionate and responsible human beings. Like the Dalai Lama, Iyer urges readers to “treat every human being, whether high officials or beggars — no differences, no distinctions.”

But more than anything, “The Open Road” unleashes a critical eye of the way modern culture chooses to view the Dalai Lama. Language, philosophical and cultural mistranslations result in a slew of miscommunication of Buddhism. And Iyer knows this firsthand.

According to the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is just like any other human. Attributing words like “God” or “Living Buddha” to the Dalai Lama’s title is, as the Dalai Lama says, “totally wrong!” In fact, it is considered demeaning to label the Dalai Lama as such. But despite this discussion and making the distinction clear to his editor, an article of Iyer’s was erroneously given the headline, “The God in Exile.”

In a sense, “The Open Road” is a way for Iyer to rectify many of the wrong headlines attributed his writing. But in another sense, it offers readers beginning glimpses of an increasingly popular, but yet misunderstood individual, the Dalai Lama. Iyer’s unique relationship to the Dalai Lama alone makes “The Open Road” an intriguing enough book.

Given the recent pique of Northwest interest in the Dalai Lama and the interest that will invariably continue through the Beijing 2008 Olympics, readers will no doubt benefit from reading “The Open Road” — even if, at times, that road winds and curves with no conclusion in sight.

“The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama,” by Pico Iyer. Published by Knopf, March, 2008. $24.00. The author will appear as a part of Seattle Arts and Lectures series April 29, 7:30 p.m. at Benaroya Hall. Call 206-621-2230.

Thanks sabaijai. I'm off to Kinokuniya today and will look for it.

Not available in Kinokuniya (Emporium) - at least not in the Buddhism shelves. Maybe I should have looked in the Biography section.

Pico Iyer’s latest book draws on personal relationship to Dalai Lama

By Amy Phan

Northwest Asian Weekly

Despite being exiled from Tibet since 1959, Tenzin Gyatso — the 14th Dalai Lama — is committed to engaging the public in a conversation of compassion and understanding. And now, Pico Iyer’s “The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama,” written from a first-person perspective, provides insight into the Dalai Lama’s ideas of how compassion begins, along with many other sides to Tibet’s unofficial leader.

But Iyer isn’t any ordinary writer — he has direct childhood ties to the Dalai Lama. Iyer’s father, an Indian academic and philosopher, met Gyatso about a year after he fled from Tibet to India, where a lifelong friendship developed, leaving the younger Iyer reaping the benefits of having intimate access to one of the world’s best-known leaders. “The Open Road” chronics Gyatso’s speaking gigs in three continents, weaving in and out of three decades of conversations cultivated from Iyer’s teenage years to adulthood. Iyer also visits the Dalai Lama’s brother, Ngari Rinpoche.

Prior to “The Open Road,” Iyer spent a large amount of time as a travel writer — his forte of setting scenes comes shining through in this book. No small detail goes unnoticed, from the minute, like the way the Dalai Lama finishes his sentences, to the grand, like Buddhism’s “wholeism” approach.

But despite this talent for description, Iyer’s commitment to detail takes digressions not always clear to the reader. Further, descriptions like, “The only real peace could arise from stilling something in yourself, going back behind the self … which reminded you that the boss you cannot abide may in fact have been your mother in a previous lifetime” briefly hint at the cycle of rebirth in Buddhism, but may be too broad a brushstroke to make any coherent sense for the average reader. (Read: myself.)

But to be fair, Buddhism as a subject isn’t the easiest to tackle. Iyer has immense pressure to translate esoteric philosophy into an easy read. “The Buddha,” writes Iyer, “came not to proclaim a new doctrine … but to remind us of what we all know and hold inside ourselves already.”

He continues, “The surface may change but the basic laws of value of compassion and the value of training our minds … to the path to freedom.” The open road, according to Iyer, is seen as the potential meeting point for compassionate and responsible human beings. Like the Dalai Lama, Iyer urges readers to “treat every human being, whether high officials or beggars — no differences, no distinctions.”

But more than anything, “The Open Road” unleashes a critical eye of the way modern culture chooses to view the Dalai Lama. Language, philosophical and cultural mistranslations result in a slew of miscommunication of Buddhism. And Iyer knows this firsthand.

According to the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is just like any other human. Attributing words like “God” or “Living Buddha” to the Dalai Lama’s title is, as the Dalai Lama says, “totally wrong!” In fact, it is considered demeaning to label the Dalai Lama as such. But despite this discussion and making the distinction clear to his editor, an article of Iyer’s was erroneously given the headline, “The God in Exile.”

In a sense, “The Open Road” is a way for Iyer to rectify many of the wrong headlines attributed his writing. But in another sense, it offers readers beginning glimpses of an increasingly popular, but yet misunderstood individual, the Dalai Lama. Iyer’s unique relationship to the Dalai Lama alone makes “The Open Road” an intriguing enough book.

Given the recent pique of Northwest interest in the Dalai Lama and the interest that will invariably continue through the Beijing 2008 Olympics, readers will no doubt benefit from reading “The Open Road” — even if, at times, that road winds and curves with no conclusion in sight.

“The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama,” by Pico Iyer. Published by Knopf, March, 2008. $24.00. The author will appear as a part of Seattle Arts and Lectures series April 29, 7:30 p.m. at Benaroya Hall. Call 206-621-2230.

Thanks sabaijai. I'm off to Kinokuniya today and will look for it.

Can you find a way for the religions to mesh? I could not. Buddhism does not buy into the concept of Deism.

Deism is not the same as Theism. The former refers to the belief popular among the 18th century Enlightenment intelligentsia, including the writers of the US Constitution, that God, though the Creator, does not intervene in Creation. People like Voltaire, Kant, Jefferson, perhaps Hume and a fair swag of liberal thinkers before the French Revolution found this idea attractive. Indeed many still do. A recent "convert" to Deism is the former atheist philosopher Antony Flew. Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, in a discussion arranged by Newsweek with a Christian physicist, that he could believe in a supreme being of this kind (though I don't think he'd see much point in it).

Theism is the belief in a Creator God who has an ongoing engagement with his creation and intervenes in human lives and events at times. I think one could say that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are theistic. I'm not sure about Hinduism. Buddhism, as I understand it, in some forms (Tantric?) has gods, but they are lesser beings - below a boddhisatva or arahant (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Atheism finds theism irrational for various reasons, at least for the fact that it posits an original creator at the beginning of all causation. I think Buddhists would have the same objection, among others. However, as a Catholic Christian in terms of my heritage, religious experience and theological education, I have no difficulty with the atheist objections to theism. They seem perfectly logical to me. My problem is not with explanations for existence but with existence itself. It defies explanation, whichever way you look at it. So (now that the existential horse has bolted) does non-existence. Talk about God, therefore, whether by theists, deists or atheists (I don't know if there are any a-deists), is just that - talk. It serves a purpose in giving a framework to discussions about meaning, authority, justification, etc., but doesn't help us know any more whether God exists or intervenes or whatever.

Of course there's agnosticism, either positive (I don't know if God exists, but I think it is possible to know) or negative (I'll never know the answer to the question because the question doesn't make sense).

The original question was: Can one be a Buddhist and a Catholic at the same time? I suggest that you can if you are not too locked in to systematic theologies. If you want to grasp systematic Catholicism in one hand and grasp systematic Buddhism in the other and somehow marry them without modifying either or by creating a fusion of the two, then I suggest you'll end up with a bit of this and a bit of that - neither Buddhism nor Christianity. They have very different origins, presuppositions, histories and ways of approaching the world (regardless of whether Jesus and others on the Galilean trade routes were aware of Indian and Buddhist teachings). I suggest you acknowledge what responsible others think you need to believe to be a Catholic or a Buddhist, but in the long run you'll have to make your own decisions. Learn from Catholicism and take on what is worth retaining; learn from the teachings of the Buddha and take on what you think you can. Ultimately it's up to you to make your own judgements and you can't believe what you can't believe, no matter how much others may wish you to conform.

So, the answer, I suggest, is both yes and no. To go beyond the question, however, and find satisfactory guidance in your quest for meaning and identity you'll need to transcend the categories of "Buddhist" and "Catholic".

A suggestion for reading, though it won't answer all your questions, is Thich Nhat Hanh's "Living Buddha; Living Christ".

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

"Buddhism" is just human interpretation and application of what we think the Buddha taught and the example of his life as we understand it. It's not something to be packaged and presented in a self-satisfying form by which those who see things differently can be condemned.

Many people for one reason or another graft Buddhist (and other religious) teaching onto popular religion or vice versa. It may seem tawdry or even corrupt but it seems to satisfy people's need for reassurance and perhaps it's a better alternative to the purely commercial distractions otherwise available.

Perhaps we should be sincere and diligent in trying to understand and practise what we believe to be the essential truths of the Buddha's (or Christ's or the Prophet Muhammad's) teaching without trying to sweep it up into too neat a package. After all, even Tetzel's indugences had a place in the popular religion of Luther's time (and a perhaps questionable theological justification), and within three hundred years German Protestantism had lost touch with the common folk altogether. (In 1869 only 1% of working class Berliners attended church on Sundays. Burleigh, M. (2006). "Earthly Powers". Harper Perennial, p.263.)