Jawnie

Brilliant....absolutely brilliant. Not!

Until the Thaksin regime is out??? Er...uh, there isn't any Thaksin regime in!!! I mean, Thaksin haters have been saying PMYL is his puppet, but actually she is the elected PM and Thaksin himself is outside of the country.

So, in an ABSOLUTELY REAL sense, there is no Thaksin regime. With regard to the Red Shirts and all the Thais that support Thaksin, sorry to say, but they have the right to support whomever they wish...you can't just take over a country, its streets and roads and offices until everyone else agrees with you. Grow up...move on.

PM Yingluck wins yet another election by a landslide...yay! Democrats and your ilk: elections have consequences, you lost, get over it...grow up!!!

Religion is opium for the people and an instrument of domination.

So Mao, and every Chinese leader since Mao, did away with religion and focused on being instruments of domination.

I think it's a great idea.....let's go REDS!!!!

Try the bus station in Eakamai.

Wouldn't the world be better if People (Native English Speakers) coming to a foreign land tries to learn their native language to communicate rather than expecting that the natives learn English and then ridicule them if they cannot speak english correctly.

It is a FOREIGN language... They are not supposed to know it at the first place. If they are trying to learn don't ridicule them. Think about how well can you speak their language.

I would love to see the statistics on how many different languages can a "Native English Speaker" would know compared to the Non-Native English Speaker in average.

Yes learning English is an advantage but doesn't mean that it is "Embarrassing" if you cannot speak english. It is already so easy for the native english speakers to travel around the world and communicate and yet in some countries, if they have to learn a slight bit of new words of a new language, they complain their @$$ out and ridicule them.

Is that the attitude all over the English Speaking countries or just the ThaiVisa Members? People are relating ones Inability to speak English as ignorance. Well that thought itself is Ignorance at its Best.

I agree. I taught English in Bangkok for two years. The differences between the two languages are enormous, especially with pronunciation, but really everything: phrasal verbs, compound nouns, the past tense of verbs is especially difficult because since verb change form in English but not in Thai. These together make it very difficult. Often, I think people get caught up in the strong accent of Thais and interpret it as poor English. I've met numerous professional Thais who've studied English for years, but don't speak well because they don't get the opportunity. OTOH, if you 'listen past' the accent and missing articles and verb forms, they are quite understandable.

It is not ATROCIOUS that the PM speaks broken English, it's hard for all of them.

It works both ways, I found. English speakers learning Thai are difficult for Thais to understand. Why, because of the pronunciation, compound noun usage, phrasal verbs, etc. It's difficult for both sides.

Yes, we are talking about the Bodhisattva ideals which is not so much a part of Hinayana but is a main feature of Mahayana and Vajrayana. Because the Buddha taught all three, the teachings on Buddha as bodhisattva are found in Mahayana and Vajrayana texts. From the view of the Mahayana, Shakyamuni attained the more complete enlightenment of the Mahayana. The difference is that the Hinayana teaches enlightenment to be extinction. Mahayana teaches that enlightenment is freedom from all defilements and attachments but the mind continues and may manifest again in other times, places, and bodies. That's the essence of the bodhisattva ideal, one does not abandon beings in the six realms after nirvana or enlightenment, but vows to stay until all are free. I've heard Thai buddhist call this a 'fetter' and and attachment, to stay and help other beings. That's an incomplete view of the enlightened mind, which is suffused with compassion, something not strongly reinforced in Hinayana.

Here's the quote from a sutra which is commonly cited. I don't have the name of the sutra but will try to find it:

"When the Buddha was about to pass away at Kushinagara, and his disciples were weeping, He said to them: " The world being transitory and death inevitable for all living things,the time for my departure hath come. But weep not ;for 12 years after my departure ,from a lotus blossom on the Dhanakosha Lake,in the north-western corner of the country of Urgyan, there will be born one who will be much wiser and more spiritually powerful than Myself. He will be called PADMASAMBHAVA ,and by him the Esoteric Doctrine will be established."

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

According to Buddhist theory an Arahant cannot be reborn (what is it that reincarnates?). Maybe you are talking about Bodhisattavas?

And, are there any sources that Padma Sambhava was supposed to be a 'reincarnation' of the Buddha? ie. is this really claimed by any legitimate tradition?

Bankei

Farang , simply means foriegner, that is no racist term in itself, but the manner and tone in which it is used can be offensive, in my opinion. To use and old phrase, its not what you say its the way you say it.

I've heard this explanation before, that farang simply means foreigner. But, the world is a little more sophisticated than that, I'd say, and this incessant use of farang, instead of the country name, strikes me as racist. I don't call my Chinese friends 'asians', I call them Chinese...same with Japanese, Korean, etc. Same for Germans, Russiasn, Italian, etc. I think you get my drift....things are a little more sophisticated in some places that don't just lump people into general categories. Sure, the kids didn't know what country OP was from - they are kids. But, really, after you've been around people from other countries, cultures and languages for a while, it's not that hard to figure which country they are from....then you use the country word, not the generalized name. Thais don't do this, that makes it stereotypical, if not racist.

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

The translations, those translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan, were initially overseen by Padma Sambhava, the subsequent re-incarnation of Shakyamuni and by the group of enlightened scholars he led for the translations in the eighth century. The translations have also been verified by subsequent masters and by their realization through study and practice. The evidence of tantra was brought forward by those students to whom the Buddha directly taught tantra to. Over time, the tantras were practiced and verified by subsequent masters.

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate.

By whom?

The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts.

Any independent evidence he taught tantra?

I don't know anything about him but his situation seems rather unremarkable. There are a few things missing, which detract from my interest. First, I see no representations of the Buddha, other than incidentally. Second, he does not mention his teachers (other than one, guru Som Bahadur Lama) nor does he praise them or mention anything about his teachers - in other words, he does not align himself with any particular lineage or lineage gurus. He doesn't mention which, if any, meditation or practice systems he studied and mastered. All in all, as I mentioned, there's is nothing very remarkable about this person.

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Doesn't sound like a funeral to me. Evidently, what may have started out as a funeral got co-opted by the self-denial, self-indulgent, clueless party crowd.

Thailand is not a very good place to learn about Buddhism, frankly. There are several reasons for this. First, most Thais don't have enough English-Buddhist vocabulary to explain buddhist concepts and teachings as they understand them - it applies to reading materials as well. Second, the Buddhism taught in Thailand is Hinayana, which is known as the 'lesser vehicle' across the Buddhist world. This simply means that Thai Buddhist (and other Hinayana Buddhists) adhere only to the sutras, the recorded spoken words of the Buddha while generally rejecting Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings and texts. This rejection runs rather deep in that in doing so, it rejects additional sutras which the Buddha that reflect the ideals of the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. Thai buddhists generally reject those teachings, specifically the bodhisattva ideal and the tantric teachings of the Vajrayana. In order the fully study, understand, and learn about Buddhism, you'd need to study those other schools. India and Nepal are good places to learn about them, definitely not Thailand.

Some much for the Thai-Buddhist qualities of detachment, patience, serenity, and loving kindness towards others.

Why couldn't it just be something like, "The Director-General will not participate in any festivals or banquets for 15 days"? That strikes me as much less insane.....

Er...uh, I think a flood, by its very definition, means that things are out of control

I like boob jobs....

There a few politicians around the world who would retain their jobs if they said the identical thing about the highest ranking female in a government? Shame on Abhisit!!!

Whatever the punishment is for this monk it is nothing compared to the negative karma that will befall him eventually. Loss of face, possessions, position and reputation will not compare. There is an extremely strict moral code within Buddhism for the proper handling of money donated to the Dharma. It is very likely that this monk will reincarnate into an extremely unpleasant and heinous existence/realm for very long time after this world. His regret and suffering will be beyond description. Because of this, the proper response is sadness and pity....for him.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to begin. Why would a US citizen wander around an airport for 10, or 4 days, or even two hours and not call the US embassy? And, why would an American is such a situation refuse to talk to US representatives - I mean...<deleted>?? Of course, there's the problem with being on the no-fly list but he certainly does not help himself by being so obstinate when stranded in foreign airport. Did he think he was charming his way out of the situation? Gawd! I have little sympathy for the US efforts regarding terrorism when they act like idiots in this case, but this passenger one-upped (or one-downed) them by being such a dick.

This is an unfortunate situation...it simply doesn't look good. I am a long time Buddhist and lived in Thailand for 2.5 years but was Buddhist many years before them. What really matters is the quality of the monk's renunciation. It is very difficult to say if the monks are attached to the wealth appearances or not but they probably are. It is unfortunate for these monks to be seen is this way but it appears to be the truth about them. In any case, they aren't setting the right example for renunciant monks.