I recently attended a tea ceremony, and was reminded of how it is considered polite in Asia to handle everything with two hands. My first dharma teacher was from Hong Kong, and did this, but I notice it is not done or understood by most Western practicioners. I've been reading about Takuan , and got a copy of The Book Of Tea , and it's got me very interested in how ideas about the aesthetics of how we act and behave shape our minds. It seems like having a clear sense of how to move smoothly and stably helps cultivate positive qualities. Especially in regard to interacting with the altar, and moving in the dharma room, I feel it would be useful to have a better understanding of this. Does anyone have any guidance or suggested texts towards this?

Is a buddhist's goal to transcend a culture's social roles? How do enlightened beings see social roles? As buddhists try to not make distinctions between people, I would imagine that they are not particularly concerned with social roles. Is that true?

An unknown contributer wrote >Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money. How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing? Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma? Maybe worthy to give reflective answer. *[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]*

Monks are bald because as I read somewhere that when person is bald he looks unattractive and so no one else attract towards it. So what are other benefits to being bald either for monks or layman?

A commenter on the NewBuddhist blog claimed that one should not say Namaste in a Tibetan Buddhist event (in this context). > I remember one time saying "Namaste" while at a Tibetan Buddhist event, and someone quickly pulled me aside and said, "Oh, no-- do not say 'Namaste!' Say, 'Tashi Delek!'" > > I'm not entirely sure why I brought that up... perhaps because I'm still confused as to why it was wrong to say Namaste. > > -- SillyPutty I'd like to make a disclaimer that I am not from a Buddhist country so I'm confused. I never even read from anywhere that The Buddha even says this, or is the phrase really Buddhist -- you can imagine my confusion. Is this a modern phrase? What is its connection to Buddhism?

Suppose a leading Buddhist figure -- say a well-known Tibetan monk -- were to suddenly start displaying cultural behavior appropriate to other religious faiths. For instance, suppose this monk were to start performing namaz like a Muslim five times a day, and frequently make the sign-of-the-cross gesture during conversations. Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion? Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

Often in the suttas one finds Bhikkhus who approach the Buddha reverentially uncover their right shoulder as a mark of respect. What is the significance of this practice? Is it cultural or is there a deeper significance? One example from the Ratnakuta sutra > At that time, Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana then arose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, and bowed with his head at the Buddha’s feet. Elsewhere in the sutra, > Perceiving Sumati Bodhisattva’s extraordinary intention, good roots, and sovereign authority, each bhikṣu uncovered his upper robe. They gave an offering to the Tathāgata by developing a great vow, saying...

Whenever the Buddha and his retinue were invited to the palace of a great King or a big merchant, the suttas don't forget to mention the feast was delicious and rich. > Then King Prasenajit, for the sake of his father, the late king, > arranged on the day of mourning a vegetarian feast and invited the > Buddha to the side rooms of the palace. He welcomed the Tathagata in > person with a vast array of superb delicacies of unsurpassed wonderful > flavors and himself invited the great Bodhisattvas. SS 1:121 Of course the Buddha was never attached to such things, as we are told he ate grass meant to feed horses offered by a stablehand with the same beatific smile as he ate palace delicacies. Yet, how is it that when high beds, and perfumes and all manner of luxuries are disallowed, throwing a feast or banquet is actually encouraged as a means of merit making for the lay follower? Especially when one considers how this sets apart the poor lay follower who can only afford to feed the occasional monk on his alms rounds. A casual analysis of monastic accounts over the ages reveals to me a general tendency for monks to even look forward to such feasts. I can imagine there are good reasons for this loophole - after all, a feast probably was a good source of much needed calories while living in the forest. Still it is one of those odd things - who in their right mind could think they could honor the Buddha with a feast? If anything, he probably favored the simple flavors of fruits of the forest over puddings and rich food.