Jawnie

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

Everyday trinketry, statues, music etc., is not Buddhism. It's culturism. The Buddha didn't promote that stuff. Buddhism is like most other religions, it got organized and commecialized. You have to do like I do, cut through the fluff to get to the core.

I won't disagree with this entirely because the essence of your meaning is that one should not and can not rely on externals. Since this board is a Theravada board, your comment would be the end of it as Theravada does not use or include much Buddhist art or symbolism. However, in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, art and symbols are central elements of practice in that they bring into view higher spiritual qualities. This is why you see the rather fantastic artwork produced by Tibetans with multiple heads and arms, etc. Each represents a spiritual quality which the practitioner aspires to and the art work, often used for visualization purposes, is the physical representation of the various qualities.

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

This is where it gets a little tricky for us mortals to explain. A bodhisattva is on the path to enlightenment whereas a buddha has attained it. Bodhisattvas can be extremely and highly realized but not yet buddhas. It is said that Jigdral Yeshe Dorje aka Dudjom Rinpoche, (1904-1987) was Sariputra, one of the Buddha's closest disciples, in a previous lifetime. In his lifetime in the 20th century, he was the supreme head the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and was born already possessing 'vast spiritual realization'. At the age of nine years old, he initiated hundreds of Tibetan monks and lamas into the Rinchen Terzod, the highest teaching of the Nyingmas - it's a ceremony which requires weeks in order to complete with Dudjom Rinpoche directing and performing it, again, at the age of nine.

The point is that bodhisattvas chose to remain as such (and this is where I don't really understand the difference) rather than becoming fully enlightened buddhas. The choice probably resides is whether the bodhisattva thinks they will benefit beings more as a bodhisattva or as a buddha. Mahayana and Vajrayana texts explain that there are ten different levels of being a bodhisattva. You won't find anything about this in Thai or Theravada Buddhism.

For us mere mortals, with regard to beings such as Dudjom Rinpoche and others (there are other such highly realized beings currently alive), there is no distinction between them and the Buddha.

That is extremely interesting - time to go do some research!

edit* Jawnie, I came across a sitewhich had this quote, though I can't figure it out; the meaning is ambiguous to me:

"Two boys have been recognised as the yangsi of HH Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdral Yeshe Dorje. Multiple rebirths of great lamas are not all that unusual ."

Does this mean that a lama is reborn many times, or that a lama's rebirth can be take essence in two people? Reading the article I got that it is generally accepted that both boys are making quite a positive impact, while the former of the two is regarded as being Dudjom's incarnation. Can you help me out with this??

I suggest you continue the internet research. I don't know much about that issue and I view as Tibetan Buddhist politics which I leave to them. Also, it is not Theravada and might be considered 'off topic' by the board mod who may then delete or lock this thread. I met one of the two Dudjoms in Darjeeling, India, in 2004. Actually, I met and received a blessing from Jigdral Yeshe Dorje in Berkeley, CA, in 1974.

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

This is where it gets a little tricky for us mortals to explain. A bodhisattva is on the path to enlightenment whereas a buddha has attained it. Bodhisattvas can be extremely and highly realized but not yet buddhas. It is said that Jigdral Yeshe Dorje aka Dudjom Rinpoche, (1904-1987) was Sariputra, one of the Buddha's closest disciples, in a previous lifetime. In his lifetime in the 20th century, he was the supreme head the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and was born already possessing 'vast spiritual realization'. At the age of nine years old, he initiated hundreds of Tibetan monks and lamas into the Rinchen Terzod, the highest teaching of the Nyingmas - it's a ceremony which requires weeks in order to complete with Dudjom Rinpoche directing and performing it, again, at the age of nine.

The point is that bodhisattvas chose to remain as such (and this is where I don't really understand the difference) rather than becoming fully enlightened buddhas. The choice probably resides is whether the bodhisattva thinks they will benefit beings more as a bodhisattva or as a buddha. Mahayana and Vajrayana texts explain that there are ten different levels of being a bodhisattva. You won't find anything about this in Thai or Theravada Buddhism.

For us mere mortals, with regard to beings such as Dudjom Rinpoche and others (there are other such highly realized beings currently alive), there is no distinction between them and the Buddha.

Buddhism is not a religion. It is a system of philosophy, psychology, and mental training. The philosophy explains existence from the smallest single event/instance to the largest extent of cosmic time and space. It is a psychology in that it explains the experience and mind of beings, how they work, how they came to be, and how they can cause happiness or misery. It is a system of mental training by which one can know the topics set out in the philosophy and psychology through one's own experience. Buddhism has a religious connotation because it requires qualities of mind such as compassion, faith, devotion, humility, love, etc.

Maybe the government of Thailand should stop being the sole manufacturer and distributor of cigarettes in Thailand. Du-uhhhhh!

I was fortunate once to be in the position to help a scorpion.....one of the big black ones with a body as thick as a finger and if extended stretching to a good six inches in length. It was after a heavy overnight rain in Chiangmai old city an in the early morning I noticed it trying to climb up the wall to escape the water. I managed to get it into a jam-jar and went and released it in the undergrowth some distance away....not much jungle in the city.

The only time I've seen one like that...mostly they are the small brown and white ones...with deadlier stings.

Feelgood factor...8/10 ....(not 10/10 because no really safe place to release it.)

Yes, you can always help, regardless of the type of being. If you can not physically help, you can help mentally through aspirations prayers and dedicating merit on behalf of the particular being.

If he was already convicted once in connection with this affair, why the hell does he still have a job with the government for chrissakes???!!!

Thank you for your input. That's a tough one to accept, let alone practice.

It would also seem that it could be counterproductive, although of course it is possible that the hypothetical monk had thought over the consequences of his death in relation to other beings that may be dependent upon his survival. Perhaps it could be answered that in doing what he did, he served as the greatest example possible.

Also, the thought that there might be more skilful ways of seeing to it that the tiger and her cubs did not starve than killing oneself, also arises.

This story of the monk sacrificing himself to starving lions is a Jataka story, which are scriptural stories of the Buddha's previous lives as a bodhisattva.

http://www.himalayan....cfm/74281.html

Er...uh...do not try this at home.

The Buddha would help the turtle without recognizing any distinction between himself and the turtle and without performing any act of helping the turtle.

Agree about the semantics, meditation actually means thinking.

Here's a crucial difference between Buddhism and Christianity vis a vis "meditation":

To my mind, a competent Buddhist meditator understands what's going on when he meditates.

He has learned something about the mind.

He has a plan, and being in a carefully cultivated state of balance between focus and breadth.......always "ready to catch a ball"......he carries out that plan, and watches "himself" carrying out the plan. In this very sort of act he slowly or quickly acheives the ultimate purpose of the meditation, to decompose the self and undermine the paucity of concept. Satipatthana instruction, which the Buddha extolled above all others, does this in a carefully scripted and effective way.

But generally speaking Buddhists see the necessity of understanding the mind for what it is and what it isn't, and the role that has in seeing through the illusion of concept and of an individual self or soul.

This is notably not the case with Christianity, unless all it's teaching is taken as a metaphor which would be so far fetched as to be retogressive.

Cheeryble

Again, I respectfully disagree that meditation is the same as thinking. Contemplation is thinking ie considering and analyzing a topic (one of the 84,000 topics in Buddhism, for example, such as the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind, etc. ). The goal is to gain wisdom and achieve the correct view of reality. Meditation is the natural state of the mind beyond concepts, thoughts, feelings and beyond a self, beyond meditation, beyond a path or idea of a path, etc. The fictional self is an integral part of contemplation whereas is not in meditation.

It's strange that meditation is mostly thought of as a Eastern concept when Christian monks have been doing it for approx. 2000 years. I may be wrong but Christian schools quit teaching meditation about 500 years ago. Now focus primarily on hymnals. Which is a form of chanting. Which is a form of meditation.

Sorry to say but I don't agree with this definition of meditation - it is the "anything is everything' approach. While it is true that meditation awareness is with us moment to moment, or is to be practiced moment to moment, Christian schools today do not teach the inner experience or mind training aspect of moment to moment meditation. The practice must be informed by the teachings of sunyata, emptiness, actual selflessness, and Buddha nature.

Christianity generally discourage the practice of meditation as it does not accord with its general world view or its views of the individual in relation to the divine.

That's is a highly questionable statement.

Christians (especially Christian monks) have been mediating for centuries if not millennia in various forms; chanting probably the most widely known form in its meditative character.

"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night." Joshua 1:8

It is a very small sub-section of Christianity which teaches anything near the type of meditation, ie, emptiness meditation, taught and practiced by Buddhism. The 'meditation' referred to in the broader Christian world is what would be a 'form' meditation. Selecting a thought, or teaching, and reflecting on it over a period of time. It is really thinking about something and not much more.

But, the basic practice of sitting meditation, watching the breath, thoughts, ie, mind training, is not taught across the general Christian world. Perhaps it was a few hundred or 2,000 years, but not anymore. Only very small groups do it. You won't find Catholics, any of the main American denominations doing it. So, to say my statement is questionable is to elevate those Christian sects who do practice to a more prominent role than is actually the case. Simply put, walk into any Christian church and you simply will not find people meditating or hear any teaching about it.

I've never really cared for religion(I'm an atheist). I really don't know why humanity needs it. Cultural decoration perhaps?

A true religion explains existence - your place it in and the full nature and extent of existence. It's really hard to explain why people need religion or, more to the point, a spiritual practice, because it sounds very judgmental. Most people don't like being judged even if it may be true. Spend a few days or weeks with a true master and you will then see why religion and spiritual practice are necessary.

Still wondering how convicted killer cops get bail without any publicity but a few bum politicians have to stay in jail while the public goes crazy whether they may/may not make bail. Seems just a little backwards......

You are in the wrong place, ie., Thailand, to buy a mandala. I don't know much about this but mandalas are typically associated with Vajrayana practice (perhaps with Mahayana, too). Thailand is completely Theravadin which does not seem to include mandalas, certainly not to the extent of these other schools. If you find one, or any, it will be by chance or luck because that particular shop happens to have one or some. But, Bangkok and Thailand generally don't have them and Thai Buddhists don't use them for practice or display.

Mantra focuses the mind on a more subtle levels of experience. It is also worship and an invocation - mantras are often associated with particular 'deities' or spiritual qualities, qualities that are invoked in the mind by reciting the mantra. Mantra purifies negative speech karma.

I mean, if it can be considered Buddhist; I'm not sure.

One does not have to be a Buddhist to meditate nor does labeling meditation as being "Buddhist" assist one in its practice. Meditation is most closely associated with Buddhism because it is openly taught and practiced by Buddhists whereas Christianity generally discourage the practice of meditation as it does not accord with its general world view or its views of the individual in relation to the divine. Meditation is observing the mind and allowing it to function on its own, this does not require any particular religion or teaching. However, because Buddhism supports meditation, it also contains a lot of literature, instruction, and commentary about the practice of meditation. And because of this, one is most likely to get the most accurate and complete instruction and benefit from meditation from the Buddhist views of it.

According to Buddhists, it is, in fact, infinitely easier to live a daily existence with family, friends, work, etc., that to tame one's own mind. Mind training is the essence of Buddhist practice, introspective mind training of which meditation is only one form of practice. If you think that being busy and occupied with daily life is more important than training your own mind, then you miss the point of Buddhist practice entirely. Now, it may sound selfish to take taming one's mind as the most important thing in one's life, but at the end of your life, of this life, your mind is all you will have. You will not have family, friends, wealth, possessions, anything to take with you....just your own mind. Some schools of Buddhism feel one's entire life should be a preparation for death. This is because the moment of death offers a unique opportunity to attain liberation and Buddhahood if one does not achieve it during one's life.

What if you die as a result of your unwillingness to kill? and do plants count? why or why not?

Plants don't count because they don't have a central nervous system or anything similar therefore they don't experience suffering when they are killed.

The are a number of Jataka stories (stories of Buddha's previous lives when he was a bodhisattva} in which he actually allowed himself to be eaten by wild animals or gave his life in some manner for the sake of others or so that others would like. Ultimately, each individual will need to abandon killing in order to stop accumulating negative karma. There a many, many practicing Buddhists of all sects who scrupulously follow this tenet. Life release of animals of all kinds is the 'flip-side" of this tenet. Some Tibetan monasteries still practice animal releases, releasing 100,000s of fish into rivers, ransoming sheep, goats, yak, even horses, from butcheries and are then set free. A Tibetan friend said his monastery used to perform life releases "for months." It's really a matter than the world and humans havie given up trying to follow this tenet even though every major religion in the world teaches it. It's a glaring hypocrisy.

There is registration on the internet ... http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5544550

Given that, I wonder how you register for it if you don't have internet access?

You have 2 choices:

-your very own smartophone!you are proud owner of HTC?

-internet cafe

If everyone has their own HTC with internet access, why would the government need to provide free internet access?

The internet cafes will make some money then, with lots of people needing to go in to buy 15-60 minutes of time so that they can register every 6 months.

Everybody does NOT have their own internet access, that's why....

Maybe you have to show an id to get a log on. That is not so uncommon. In India, you must show id to buy a sim card.

My question is: why do I still need to pay at Starbucks?

A police officer can get bail even though convicted of murder and subject to a death sentence but a person accused of saying a few bad things about the royal family (an Article 112 charge), can not get bail.

Priceless....but not in a good way.

More school yard politics from Thailand's national leaders, as in, "You're not the boss of me!"