CuriousGeorge77

I have found many Western "liberals" to be about as liberal as Hitler, when it gets down to brass tacks. It is merely the same thing from another side. They are reacting because they precieve opression - they are not reacting because they see something in Tibetan Buddhism itself... It is one fo the key reasons for the famous line "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... Most of these same people will glorify Native Americans as having created Eden.

This isn't to pick on the pseudo liberals ... there are pseudo people of all stripes

I remember one of Aesop's Fables ...  about a family rising a donkey into town.  At first the father is riding,  while the rest of the family is walking.  Then someone passing by comments about how shameful it is that a perfectly healthy adult would let a 10 year old walk.  So the father gets off and puts his som on. Then someone comments about how the mother should ride,  and how the parents should ride,  and how the family should be carrying the donkey.  Finally they all get on the donkey,  and it dies from overexertion.  

I've always liked that one,  and it makes a point about how you can never satisfy other people.  It is a fools errand.  Amazing how hard it is not to care about what other people think about you, though,  isn't it!!?  ITs amazing how susceptible we are to even the littlest whims of those passerbys...  

China is taking a lot of natural resources from Tibet as well... its a big country. From what I understand about economics, China is actually depressing the standard of living for its citizens - especially those outside the major cities. Tourism would certianly be better with a 'friendlier' government... so an argument can be made that Tibet would be fine, economically, without China.

I must admit - Khamma is one aspect of Buddhism that completely mystifies me. I mostly understand it as a skyhook to motivate people to do good things - essentially a reward/punishment system. I expect that such a system is invaluable to any functioning human society. But a sort of record system does not seem to promote understanding.

As such, I don't really know what to make of being reborn, except in a physical sense that our matter and energy hand around, and our identity is fleeting. Our physical makeup is constantly changing, and lower animals are constantly being 'reborn' as humans as we eat them / breathe their air etc.

Other than that, I think that our being reborn, as such, is a load of crock. (e.g., in my past live I was a stableman for a sheik in Northern Africa) It just doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't that be a big, big permanent spot in an impermanent world? I am therefore a combination of a great other things - both formally alive and also inorganic. What is "me" is changing constantly - far faster than my own lifespan.

I disagree with these points

You can not change your past

Simon - you have a few other posts that take sceince,  shall we say,  out of context,  but on this one I would ring in on your side.  It is virtually accepted that Time is the 4rth dimension,  one of quite possibly a great many.  If it is a dimension,  it can be altered,  just like the other ones.  Apparantly, "Cause" and "Effect" are not all they are cracked up to be.  Particles are clearly linked, instantaneously.  The transporter from Star Trek has been invented already (for really really small things) and other things.  We don' know how to do it yet,  but that does not mean that it can't be done.  If one realized the true nature of things,  it might be concievable that this might become possible.  

I would like to reiterate,  though,  Simon,  that there are some other things that simply are not actually supported.  Such as some of the posts in the amulet thread.  Imbuing objects with "thoughts" has no real support. I'm familiar with the topic.  Matter is simply a form of energy.  Thoughts are things and things are thoughts.  No need to 'diefy' thoughts.  They aren't that special.  IMHO - I expect most people would disagree with me.  

How can you begin to concieve that Buddha was an ordinary man without considering the magnitude of the universal creation.

By your own definition, "Just a man" is not "Just a man,"  and therefore your objection contradicts itself....  

Your tool my already be relatively sharp because of your music and you may find you progress in meditation better than others might.

Thanks for the links ... some of the ideas have sorta filled up my head for the time being ... I'll have to sort through 'em. Like I said before, some of it I can clearly understand, but other aspects just don't make sense to me yet.

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly what I mean. People who judge Christianity from their own limited experience! The statement that Jesus is God is typical! Not all Christians believe this, I certainly don't! Nowhere in the bible is this true! Also the statement that "The key factor in Christianity is not good acts" So totally untrue and incorrect, if your faith does not manifest itself in good works, your faith is dead. James 2 vv 20-26.  

This makes my point presicesly.  Good acts are a measure of faith.  Faith is the important issue,  and good acts modify it,  and/or are caused by it.  

I'm not arguing that belief in a kind and benevolent God (although that would 

certinaly exclude the OT God), as well, as Firm Laws to treat others in a specified manner does not lead to good acts.  Not at all.  I am simply stating that it is a very VERY different path than Buddhism.  

Christianity is 100% about personal responsibility! Not placing in all in the hands of your God.  

I do agree, however, that many people do quote the bible incorrectly and that it should be read as a whole. I have been reading it for 30 years and can tell you that constant study is what is necessary for a fuller understanding.  

Which is why you can't take out the fundamental underpinning of the religion when you compare it to something else.  If you said "aspects of Christianity are very similar to aspects of Buddhism" I would say that is clearly true.  But there are points where they greatly differ.  

The point about not much historical evidence about Jesus is a joke. Many historians cite many of the gospels accounts, Josephus for one details much of the trial and execution detail.

Since you brought it up ...  

Josephus was not there,  and neither was he an objective witness.  He EASILY could have used the Bible as source material.  But that is wholly aside the point.  The Bible as a historical document is sorely lacking.

For example, Nebuchennezzar pumped a lot of money into Judea and built up the area.  Much of the builkding attributed to Sol

omon was really from ol' Neb.  

The entire populace of Judea was not exile.  Neb installed a King form the House

 of David,  who made a secret pact with the Egyptians,  Neb's biggest enemy (he didn't really see Cyrus coming!).  Neb killed him,  and installed someone else from the House of David,  with the same results.  Neb then shipped all the Egyptian lovers off to Bagdhad,  where they got high paying jobs and owned land.  Point is Ezekial wasn't exactly an impartial, unbiased witness either.  When he got back from "exile" he re-wrote the Bible,  saying that Jews couldn't marry non-Jews,  and other intolerant laws.  The Bible is not 100% accurate.  

Then there is the widely (but certainly not universally!) accepted view that James was Jesus' brother.  You don't see that anywhere in the Bible,  either!  There are Egyptian records of a Jewish man named Moses who was the leader of a leper colony.  They got expelled from Egypt for having the plague.  These records are a few hundred years after Moses was supposed to have left Egypt,  but you hopefully get the picture ..  that is that the picture isn't clear.  Yet Christianity would have you believe that it is clear,  and this is the fundamental point that seperates Christianity from Buddhism - Faith.  

And also, I ask, have you or any of the other posters with no idea about Christianity, actually read the bible with an open mind un-polluted by any orthodox prejudices?

I let this comment to be evidence of my point of view.  

Open, honest,  objective debate is simply not to be tolerated if Faith is the prime motivator.  You cannot have Faith is you question it.  If it is proven to you, then it is no longer Faith.  If you have to ak,  you don't know.  You aren't supposed to look behind the curtain to see the Wizard.  

The Jesuits or the Episcopalians might disagree, but they are the exception - and both have been persecuted for it in the past.  This is exactly why I don't consider myself to be a Christian.  I think there ARE a great many great things to be learned from the Good Book and the Good, Honest Christians that make up the bulk of the religion.  However,  I think the faith isn't one of them. For me,   that is not something that I can live with.  It doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't ring true.  If you find a path that makes sense for you,  and that helps you to becomes a better person,  I am all for it. That is great.  But, that is not the same as having 84,000 Dharma doors.  

Buddhism and Christianity are remarkably similar and potentially effective paths. Likewise, hatred and resentment towards Buddhism and/or Christianity is similarly corrosive to the creative soul.

They are only similar if you ignore half of the book.  Its like taking an apple and an orange and saying,  well, they are both sweet,  and they both contain water,  and they are both food,  and ...  

Certainly hatred and/or resentment toward either of them,  or anything,  is corrosive.  I agree.  Hopwever, I disagree that you can take the good parts out of Christianity and call it 100% good.  Christianity and Buddhism are very different paths.   They can reach the same goal,  but they are very different paths.  

It would seem that most religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Judaism and Christianity have a more philosophical side as well as a more faith-based side. For example, the Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao. But in folk Taoism there are thousands of gods that one prays to and you have faith in. In Chinese Buddhism there are two shortcuts to salvation or enlightment. One is Ch'an (meditation) Buddhism. The Japanese call it Zen. The other shortcut is the Pure Land School, which surprisingly has become very popular in Thailand of late. It is centred around the female bodhisattva/Buddha figure (Khwan Yum, Khan Yin). The Pure Land School of Buddhism is faith-based. For example, if you say Khwan Yum's name ten times you will be re-born in the Western Paradise. Their are ten rules similar to the Ten Commandments.

A lot of these are where Buddhism has combined with native traditions.  These are not "Pure Buddhism" ...  Similarly,  Ted Haggard is not exemplar of "Pure Christianity"  I would want people judging either religion by either one of those exampl

es.  People pray to Christian God to win the lottery or smite their enemies just 

as often.  It doesn't accurately reflect the religion, though.    

All I ask is you to provide just one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

Its a fair question ....  

which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable

Thats truly impressive.  Too good to be true,  some migh even go so far as to say!

I went to a Christian schools from 5 y/o to 19. I have found that studying it has led me directly AWAY from any sort of faith in it. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that the is one God, and that Jesus was his son. If you don't believe that, you are outa luck. Period. Everything else is extra. There are good things said, certainly there are. Lots of good things. However, anyone calling themselves a "Christian" is then morally bound to believe that Jesus is God, and 100% right. The key factor in Christianity is not good acts, it is faith. It is not understanding, it is trust.

To sum it up into "one sentence": Christianity(Judiasm, Islam) places 100% of the power into the hands of God. buddhism places it firmly and irreducibly into your hands. The name "Islam" means exactly that. "Submission"

Every post in this forum is selectively choosing what is in the Bible. I would argue that you can't do that. Take it, as a whole, or leave it. If one wants to bring history into it - i.e. talking about Jesus as a historical figure, then that is a whole new ball of wax. it is an interesting and highly contested subject, but there is really not much evidence that Jesus existed. What evidence there is, suggests that religion in Israel, prior to the Roman masacres, was VERY different than it is today, for closer to Egyptian religion.

And, while Christianity falls apart when you objectively take this step, Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage. The ideas are strong and stand on their own.

IMHO, It is the ideas, - the function - that matters. And certainly, in this context, I think you will mostly all agree. The posts about how Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally the same thing cherry pick the parts of the Bible that fit what they want to see. Again, the fundamental tenet of Christianity is to believe. I don't think, having read the Bible and grew up in religious schools, that you can take that part out of the equation. if you do, then it is no longer Christianity. Then, it be becomes "Christian-esque" or kind of "Christian-y". I don't think ANYONE here will argue that the good parts of the Bible are wrong.

One farang I know around town is in the process of "educating" about 15 or so Thai children (buddhists presumably), neglected by their parents or orphans, looking after them kindly etc, but with the covert intention of converting them. I've no doubt if one day these children after growing up and with a head-start in life, one day turned their back on Christianity (for whatever reasons), that (conditional) love would evaporate.

As far as I know, followers of Buddhism are not burdened with that type pressure.

Christianity in Korea has gone wild because of these same orphanages... especially since the war left so many orphans

Simply for the sake of playing the Devil's advocate, but what makes animals innocent? If they did something to you (killed your mother, bit off your leg, peed on your blue suede shoes....), would that make a difference? What if they are painlessly killed?

I feel that 2 answers are necessary. First, I would answer that in the world of humans, where we are, literally, that that would be, to say the least, unpleasant. It makes sense to have injunctions against eating humans in modern society. i am culturally bound to find the idea repulsive - although there have been other cultures that do not share this idea, and there have been other instances where canabalism has saved lives. Is eating something that saves your life sin? If so, then the only proper thing to do is to kill ourselves now.

The real reason, though, I alluded to earlier in the thread with the Canyonlands story

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1851653

What is your body except for a bunch of chemicals? When it gets into another organism, it remains the same thing. What are you? if someone eats you, what are they doing? What is really going on? Is your body more special than someone else's, fuindamentally? Certainly your 'attatched' to it, but if you are objective, then I would say no, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it. of course, killing people to eat them is another matter. Entirely disrespectful!

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. ...

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

A very good point.

What you describe would be called in Buddhist terms as Samadhi. A strong positive step in training the heart and mind, though not the ultimate goal of Buddhism.

Is the affect of the intensity of your experience permanant or does it dissipate when you are no longer are practicing? Does it change you from the inside out or does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

The next step is to use that Samadhi to develop the wisdom leading to permanant freedom.

I envy you that you have something that has helped you develop Samadhi because I think it will give you a good boost to your practice.

It is not a cocoon. It is not that i don't think about other things, it feels more like my mind is operating naturally, efficiently, and that this gives me a very satisfied feeling. It is not accomplishment per se, it is the act itself, on a mental level. (mental/physical union rather)

It is not only during the time which i am playing, but it has an effect that lasts beyond it - often all day long, sometimes longer. It is only a state that I have been able to glimpse lately, and I feel that one of the key factors allowing me to reach this state is the recognization that emotions and other things need to be included in performance. For example, butterflies in the stomach is the natural result of adrenaline, and this is something that needs to be felt, and allowed to contribute.

does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

Thus, I could not perform at a high level in a 'cocoon'. I need to get into a place where the negativites are positives. Likewise, I have to be in a place where I don't feel obliged to show off, or impress anyone. Feeding that impulse is almost always self-defeating.

I don't feel that it is the end all and be all of anything, but it is a platform that allows me to reach other places, and is a forum/laboratory where I can try out things and get to know myself. These things can then get applied to life in general.

Samadhi

(Sanskrit) A compound word formed of sam, meaning "with" or "together"; a, meaning "towards"; and the verbal root dha, signifying "to place," or "to bring"; hence samadhi, meaning "to direct towards," generally signifies to combine the faculties of the mind with a direction towards an object.

OK - I just looked up Samadhi, and, the first part of the definition would be just about exactly what I'm talking about. I have only recently arrived at a place where I understand this, how it works, although actually achieving it is another matter entirely. I would like to stress that I have NOT attained Samadhi, I just kind of sense its form. Thank you for the compliment, though, but I am nowhere near that! I would like to get there, but my feeling is that I never will. I see how I could, but I don't think i will ever actually commit the resources to it. The definition turned my head around because the fundamental player in my flow chart is "resource allocation" ... as in the above example, when you ignore or try to inhibit "stage fright", then you are limiting the resources available to you when you actually perform ... You have lost the battle of being present already, and it is simply 'being fully present' that is required.

Incidentally, I even went so far as to write out a concept map/flow chart as to how this can be achieved, using brain schematics as a basis. its fundamentall pretty simple and jives completely with my understanding of buddhism (at least those aspects of Buddhism that make sense to me!)

There seemed to be some sort of spiritual 'mumbo-jumbo' attatched to the definition that I didn't include, because I don't feel/sense that at all. I just feel that I can direct my attention more effectively and more efficiently.

Can you point me to a good place to read more about attaining Samadhi, and also what the 'next step' is? I would presume it is expanding the tasks that you attain Samadhi with, to the point where you are Samadhi all the time? Or is that what is meant by Samadhi in the first place? (Like I said, I haven't gotten there!!) Or is it more along the lines of acting more in line with the 8fold path?

thanks

After all, it wasnt philosophers who invented the bomb!

No, it was "philosophers" that use them! And it was philosophers that ponied up the money to pay for the research that led to the bomb.

This is, in fact, the exact reason that I so strongly disagree with the mode of investigation you subscribe too. I am not saying this describe you, not at all, in fact it almost certainly doesn't... however, it does describe a large number of people. Whenever you rationalize something with "you can't prove it, just trust me", the next step is "I'm right and you're wrong, because I said so".

It is "philosophy", not science, that powered the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, WWII, the Hundred Years War and the Four Days War. "Philosophy" outlines the tenets of capital punishment and torture. I respectfully wholly reject the denileation you seem to be making.

But really, this is a moot argument. Science is, itself, philosophy. it is the philosophy of objectivity. The idea is that objective analasis ought to be used to discern the real world. this is so difficult, however, that nothing can ever actually be proved, only described. there are many theories, ways that we think the world is, but these change, and that is part of science. There are even scientific books written that describe how ideas and opinions change, amongst the scientific community. It is well accepted. The technical term is "zeitgeist"

Now that we are debating the pros and cons of one philosophy versus another, sabaijai brings up a very good point. Science is certainly the most effective philosophy ever at describing the outside world. There are 2 more arguments that I would like to include.

* How do you know whose spirits are right and whose are wrong? the christians believe that here is god, jesus, + the Holy Spirit, and THATS IT. period. How do you know they are wrong? I presume you disagree.... What about disagreements as to the nature of ghosts? The nature of ghosts varies WIDELY worldwide. As does the nature of god.

* dang, I forgot the second point. It was my best one! I expect that as soon as i hit "Add Reply" that I'll reemember, so I'll leave this here for future editing

I am sorry, but i cant agree with you.

I don't see how you can say that the physical (material) world and the metaphysical (spiritual) world are one and the same.

I would respectfully agree to disagree. I find that the union of the physical and the metaphysical to be fundamental to my beliefs. Incidentally, my belief that the material and the spiritual world is mine, and not general amongst scientists. It is borne of the logic that if there is a god that created everything, this would all be it's creation, and thus holy. if there isn't a creator, then we are all god. the other explanation is that there is no meaning to anywhing, whatsoever. I don't like that one as much, but is me. Thats how i read the cards at the present moment, at any case

Science's reaction to that idea is "Thats very interesting and all, but its not objective. can you come up with a way to demonstrate how this idea, in a way that stands up to any and all rational questioning and skepticism?"

Can science prove that dogs can't see spirits?

Science doesn't ever prove anything. It is simply not possible given its mode. Science does not exclude the idea. However, it does say that "The is no objective evidence to date that demonstrates any sort of effect by ghosts. It doesn't say that they aren't there, but it does say that if they aren't there, then we aren't looking in the right place.

Additionally, if dogs can see spirits, why can't we? We have better eyesight and better hearing. Of course, they have FAR better smell. Moreover, they are less likely to inhibit the 'natural', most 'organic' functioning of the brain than humans, so maybe thats where you are heading?

Science is incapable of giving us any insight whatsoever into what is probably the most fundamental question of all mankind: what happens to us after death!

Actually, science has a very accurate description, involving bacteria and worms. perhaps a better question is : Who are "us"? Science doesn't have any way to examine that question, because there is no way to be objective about another person. Buddhism has much better answers here.

Interesting reading what you have to say, but I am afraid I am more of philosophical rather than scientific persuasion.

like I said above, they are one and the same.

The problem with science is that it is materialistically bound; ignoring anything that cant be tested in a lab, calculated mathematically, or probed by the 'so-called' 5 senses.

I would object here. I'm a huge science-geek you might say. First, there are more than 5 senses - FAR more. Science looks at everything that has an effect. whither this is through magnatism, electricity, quantum mechanics, what have you, if it has an effect, it can be observed (somehow) If it doesn't have an effect of any kind, science doesn't care about it. (and should you, really?) The 'placebo' effect. whereby expectations themselves create an effect is it's own form of effect.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the objectives of Buddhism and Science are synonymous. They use different techniques, but the objective is the same. Whatever the techniques, the results are dovetailing nicely. Many things that Buddhism has been proscribing, such as meditation, are gaining mighty scientific support. The idea that everything is unified is also gaining scientific support. Granted, Buddhism puts an additional step on the end - that gaining this knowledge and understanding will have good effects for you and everyone else. Sciecne attempts to stay completely neutral.

Additionally, the argument that science is materialistically bound is/has been used constantly as a "Because I said so" argument - meant to end all discussion. this is not a method that leads toward edification. Again, if it has an effect of any kind, it can be observed. If there is no effect, well, probably nothing is happening. Maybe we just aren't looking in the right place - this is a point where the scientific community is quite open - however skeptical. There have been a great many scientific experiments conducted that have shown no effect from Amulets, per se, and the like. If want to make predictions based on their effects and look to see if those predictions match up with the real world, then the science community would be happy to hear about it. However, you might look to see if it has already been done. A lot of them have. Thus the skepticism.

Science is all about being able to learn for one's self. Thats exactly why being able to duplicate results hold such importance! The experimental design is published, and the results are published, so that anyone who wants to can do the same experiment and get the same results. If people get different results with the same experiment, then something is wrong.

Regarding the spiritual - spirituality has effects. 'God' has effects. IMHO, 'God' is everything. If there was a monotheistic creator, then it created everything, and the study of 'material' is the study of 'God'. Any attempt to deform objective understanding is thus Hubris.

In other words, the material world IS the spiritual world. I don't think (know) that we don't have anywhere near a complete understainding of it, but they are one and the same. They cannot be separated. (Isn't that one thing that Buddhism says? .... well, I guess if anyone knew the answer to that they'd be truly enlightened... )

Bringing the argument back to the amulets in particular, I think they have some value. They can be a reminder of many good things - a reminder to be present, to cultivate compassion and objectivity. They can also be a crutch to support someone who isn't walking on their own. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed to help someone move around, to be discarded as such when it is time. One could make the argument that if they haven't been discarded, then it isn't time. However, those with crutches have the understanding that they are using a crutch, that the objective is to walk freely. This understanding is something that amulet wearers often don't have.

Everyone has a passion. Yours might be painting. Each passion will probably be tested out. Each individual should make there own choices about what they do. The universe is limitless, all limitations come from a lack of understanding truth. If you want to learn more about this kind of thing from a Buddhist perspective, you might look at Vajrayana and the supporting tantras.

Yes but what's it in aid of?

In terms of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path where does it get you?

Following your passion sounds kind of fun, but it sounds more like a spritual dead end to me, a distraction from what the Buddha would have you do, remember the handful of leaves.

If you understand the limitlessness of the universe but still don't understand your own heart you've got nothing, other than perhaps interesting topics to discuss at cocktail parties.

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. IMHO, the particular activity is moot. Painting is as good as running is as good as music is as good as archery. It is not the particular activity or the physical skills learned so much as it is the methods of study - how you interact with the things around you. In order to play at a high levelm, these things are absolutely required. If they are not present, it is clear to all in sundry (if they care to look)

* Being present in your body - Awareness of self / emotional state/physical state/posture

* Being present in your environment

Additionally, countless hours of practice are required - this includes siting at the drum and making the perfect sounds, and grappling with yourself(actually, they aren't countless. 10,000 hours of practice time is required to "master" anything, from poker to golf) These practice hours involve being present, and also involve the process by which the ability to be fully present is achieved. Playing music when fully present is quite possibly the best experience I've ever had. It is fulfilling in a way that other things (i.e. physical desires/intellectual desires) simply aren't.

Another example - You have to balance your ego - not have no ego, nor have a big ego - in order to play. At least for the time that you are playing. Many master musicians seem to adopt other modes when not performing, most are extremely modest, others not so much. However, when playing, in order to play at a high level, you need to combine what you are doing with what is going on around. If you are stuck thinking about whether people like you, and trying to impress people, then you just don't do a good job.

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

Another point: A Passion for one thing opens the doors to passion for other things ... and a passion for everything is where we are all trying to get, correct? Perhaps the word "passion" itself is not a good one?

Just my 2 satang worth .... The leveling out of tones is something that occurs from physiology and efficiency ... IMHO, if you learn the 'proper' way you will naturally start speaking the fast and relaxed way, well, when you start speaking fast and relaxed.

is this it?

http://www.anu.edu.au/ThaiOnline/NTSC/Publ...ublications.htm

What does a female cat say? Meeeeoooow. What does a male cat say? "Ooooow" (Say meeooow like Mai Ow)

Actually, this joke does work in English, but not really the same way. I tell the joke as if it was funny in English and wait for the quizzical looks... then I say, "yeah, but it's REALLY FUNNY in Thai!"

Except that indulging your whims doesn't get you anywhere.  And idealism is not factually correct. It sounds good as long as you only listen to the arguments you want to.  The Middle Path may be between both of those extremes,  but that doesn't mean it is a compromise ...  

At least not 'compromise' in the sense that you have 2 opposing parties negotiating... ( I'll eat meat if you meditate on it....  )   Meditation works,   thats why it is in the Path, not because it was something people could 'live with'.  People do take out what they can at any particular moment, but thats not 'compromise',  thats realism.  

Looks like a wordplay to me, and I didn't even use the word compromise in my original post. The austerity has its merits, sense indulgement is unavoidable, too.

I don't particulary care what you call the solution as long as it's not used as an excuse for gluttony.

Indeed,  you said "to reconcile ideals and reality."  This is not necesarily 'compromise',  as I had read it.  You are quite right and I stand corrented.  I have a tendency to move to fast sometimes    If you mean "The Middle Path was that to reconcile ideals,  so that they reflect reality",  then I quite agree with you.  

If by that you mean "reconcile ideals with the practical situation faced by unique individuals - that what is right for one person at any given time will not be right for another person,  no matter what is theoretically (ideally) the most correct course of action"  then I also quite agree.  

However,  I don't think that the Middle Path was a way by which to get people to conform to ideals,  in baby steps.  I don't mean to pick nits,  but I do think the point is an important one.  

I sincerely don't mean to justify gluttony.  I only think that certain, often-used arguments to support vegetarianism are logically moribund.  It is a symptom,  not a cause.  

I also feel that many of those self-same arguments are just an extension of anthropomorphism.  Vegetarianism vs eating animals breaks down into a matter of degree - how "far down the chain" is ok to eat?  I don't really see the chain as such.  Along the same lines,  I think that the understanding of the physics underlying such arguments is on the verge of changing significantly.  The physic

s will undoubtedly show a 

degree of relatedness inconcievable to the present zeitgeist.  

This is not to make light of many effective arguments.  Vegetarianism ban be an important part of eating thoughtfully, healthily, and sustainably.  Gluttony fails these tests regardless of vegetarianism.  

Thanks. However, now I am completely turned around! Oh well.

And speaking of ... the Professor Nithi article is entirely incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, even with the translator. Thanks anyway, though.

** OOPS - that should read "The Overture", not "The Overtube" (how the heck did I do that?)

What does this mean?

1. วัฒนธรรม สาม วาสอง ศอก

What era is it referencing? thanks

Except that indulging your whims doesn't get you anywhere.  And idealism is not factually correct. It sounds good as long as you only listen to the arguments you want to.  The Middle Path may be between both of those extremes,  but that doesn't mean it is a compromise ...  

At least not 'compromise' in the sense that you have 2 opposing parties negotiating... ( I'll eat meat if you meditate on it....  )   Meditation works,   thats why it is in the Path, not because it was something people could 'live with'.  People do take out what they can at any particular moment, but thats not 'compromise',  thats realism.