[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 13:33 -0400, curt wrote:

> Thank you for your psychic insight into the professor's true thoughts.

Jim Peavler is not psychic. Like me, he laughs at the very idea of
psychicity. Jim Peavler has eaten enchiladas with me. It is very
difficult to eat enchiladas with a fellow human being without becoming
intimate with the way they think. 

As it turns out, Jim was right about the reasons for my giggling. I find
it laughable that any grown man would believe in full enlightenment.
Unless he's from Indiana. People from there are unusually naive and are
therefore likely to believe almost anything anyone tells them. (Just to
test that hypothesis it, I once said that to a man fro Indiana, and he
believed me.)

> I lack the ability to read minds - so I was only able to respond to his words. 

Actually, you did not respond to my words. You responded to what you
imagined I meant by them. There is a world of difference.

> then that just proves he was ducking the real issue and trying to
> create a distraction away from the fact that he couldn't come up with
> an actual counter-argument to what I was clearly talking about.

I don't recall you making any point coherent enough to warrant a
counter-argument. I just recall you making a bunch of bald assertions
unbacked by reasoning or empirical evidence. Make an argument, and
someone here may make a counter-argument. I probably won't, because I
don't really care one way or the other on this issue. All I ever said
was that I chant in Pali and understand the language, but I would not
ask anyone else to chant in a language they do not understand. If they
wanted to chant something they didn't understand for some reason, I
wouldn't stop them. I just wouldn't ask them to chant something without
understanding it. Everything from there was irrational and emotive
overreaction on your part. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico