[Buddha-l] G-d damn it

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> But <he said in a stranied effort to move back on topic> then why do we
> always capitalise the word "buddha"? 

This reminds me of another joke. One time the Lone Ranger was out riding
with his Indian guide Tonto in western Texas. He looked up onto a ridge
and saw a huge gathering of Comanche warriors, evidently getting ready
to charge. He said "Holy smokes, Tonto. We're surrounded by Indians."
And Tonto said "What do you mean WE, white man?"

All of which goes to say that I quite agree that those who capitalize
the word "buddha" are acting in direct violation of buddhist principles
and will probably therefore go to hell for a while. For that matter, why
do so many put the article "the" in front of "buddha"? There were a good
many buddhas, and perhaps still are.

> So strictly speaking, and allowing for the inversion of name and title
> we get from Indian languages, we can write "Shakyamuni Buddha" or
> "Gautama Buddha", but without the name it should be just "the buddha".

Or maybe "some buddha" or "one of the recent buddhas".

> That we don't do this is just a gesture of respect.

Au contraire. It is never respectful to be erroneous in one's practices.

> So Jews are not alone in their inconsistency.

NOt all of them, to be sure. Just those who write "G-d" and (even more
strange) "g-d". What I find a little odd is that what is written is a
wordoid with a hyphen in it. If the purpose is to cultivate a Hebraic
cultivation, why not write "gd" and pronounce it "lord"? The whole this
is too wonderful for words.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico