Video

                        ~guyatree adds

    :————————*+*———————:
Sarde sings this so sadly, as if there is just a little trickle love coming back to her from this person whom she loves so much. It is a lonesome kind of loving, that one-way love, the way she moans couldn’t love you more
But then that’s the main reason friends and lovers part: they simply do stop loving more; one of the two establishes a “less”, sees a limit, questions the value or temporal endurance of the relationship.

From that moment on there is no getting around it; the one who wants an ending will see plenty of reasons to separate–or will make reasons, no matter if a reason is valid or fictional.

The best the other can do is "To give space when what one most yearns for is closeness, that is both the great test and great tragedy of love


Video

September 27. 2012: Center Theatre Group maintained a long relationship with August Wilson and continue this tradition with the upcoming production of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone as part of the 2013 Mark Taper Forum season.

Center Theatre Group is proud to be the Southern California home for the National August Wilson Monologue Competition, in which high school students perform Wilson’s soaring monologues and bring his memorable characters to life.  

Applications are now available at www.CenterTheatreGroup.org/AugustWilson monologue competition. (More details at the YouTube site.)

https://www.tumblr.com/audio_file/guyatree/32380809639/tumblr_lzfnjpeoaY1qh1t5p?plead=please-dont-download-this-or-our-lawyers-wont-let-us-host-audio

soygaspar:

Solo MOnk

Queremos tanto a Monk que lo mismo nos da que se lo monte en trío, cuarteto, o como en este caso, se lo guise él solito.

Mientras escuchaba esta maravilla hace unos días con el Lector Constante, conveníamos que vendría de perlas como fondo musical de uno de esos especiales de “días de cine”: hoy, cine de periodismo. Un poner.

Thelonius MonkDinah (take 2)

Who was the first to call him Buddha?

I am a fellow who neither reads or writes Sanskrit or Pali, so if you know the answer, please share.

Of course I have no expectation that practicing Buddhists will find this question worth their time, as such may not consider it leading to the notice nor removal of suffering, still for any with interest… 

The story goes that soon after the ex-yogi blossomed in existential radiance a passerby noticed how way cool he was, and asked. `wow, who.. no, wait– WHAT are you?“ and the Dude replied,

                                         "I am awake.”

Awake.

                       He did not say, “Yo’ man, I’m Buddha." 

                        He did not say, ‘Yo man, I am a prince.”

                                        He said, “I am awake.

जाग्रत | jaagrt awake

बुद्धि buddhi

बुद्ध buddha

Scriptures are known universally for revealing such statements in simple human terms, usually via similarly private meetings wherein only the founder, or the founder and one other person, is present–and yet the attentive now gets a bird’s eye view of the “actual event as it happens…” Spiritual TV, sorta.

Like in the Gita.

Like Jesus, alone in the garden.

Or Moses, when he met a burning bush talking.

Or that wandering ex-ascetic when he called himself Buddha for the first time.

Or in any hagiography wherein the Holy One said or did this or that when he was alone.

Since apparently only two guys were there when “I Am Awake” was announced, it suggests that either a single marveling passerby told the story to many many many people, or maybe the awakened guy himself told it to his admirers, often– or maybe the story was made up later. Way later.

The word Buddha is a title, not a name. It is derived from the Sanskrit: “Budh,” to know. It means “one who is awake” in the sense of having “woken up to reality.” This title was first given to a man named Siddartha Gautama, who lived 2,600 years ago in northern India.”

Er yes, Buddha is a title, now– but no, Buddha is not derived from the Sanskrit verb TO KNOW. (Jnani is the title for thems what knows.) Rather Buddha as a title may have come from Pali admirers playing on Sanskrit nouns such as Budbuda (a bubble, symbolizing impermanence) or Buddhi (intelligence, signifying discernment.).

I say that because in my own limited study it appears that before Buddhism, the Sanskrit word BUDDHA was not a noun, nor was it used as a title, nor to signify a person. It was a verb tense. So who thunk it up to call anyone A BUDDHA, or THE Buddha– and why Buddha? Why not “He Who Is Awake”, or “The Awakened”…

(Yes, of course NOW `awake` or `totally awakened` or a `fully extinguished ego` is exactly what Buddha “means”; agreed. But as I grok it Buddha now “means” Awakened only because Pali devotees said so centuries after the Awakened One had died.)

However, as I see it, Christ too is a title and not a name, yet so too Christ and Buddha both now are title and name in popular usage– just not in the original languages of the founders. (It is fairly clear that Christ as name and title is due Greek-writing Gentile followers of the Jew Yeshua, and I have a hunch Buddha is a name and title due Pali-writing Sri Lankan followers of the Indian Siddharta.)

But who was the first to call him Buddha, and why did that especial name/title stick?

As you now see, I am indeed a fellow well out of his depth, and so if you know the answer, or want to have a go on your hunch, please do share.

Thanks,

 

                                                                    ~guyatree