Jawnie

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Quote - Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever

Who ever said I dont follow a spiritual path? I certainly didnt. I just dont believe in the invisible sky daddy or Santa Claus just because other people have told me I have to or I wont go to Heaven or get any toys for Christmas if I dont.

Quote - It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways.

It doesnt take a measure of faith at all. And certainly not one that has such conformities attached to it like all the major religions. In fact, I can't think of anything less spiritual than having to live by ridiculous rules with fear of repercussions (Not going to heaven, not being reincarnated as a better animal or not getting the plentiful virgins etc) if not obeyed.

Quote - Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

Its my call to voice my own opinion to those who have been conned into thinking there is a afterlife and a big invisible man is watching over them. I mean thats literally just as ridiculous as someone telling you they believe in invisible unicorns made of strawberry icecream. If people who believe this waffle cant accept another point of view then this faith you talk about cant be very strong.

Quote - You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Actually you get less bang for your buck. People who do good deeds without believing in noah's ark, burning bushes, moses parting the seas, adam and eve and talking snakes etc do it because they feel inside it is the right thing to do. Not because they want to go to heaven or please the lord jesus.

If you really want to talk about things found in religions I'll happily share some horrendous passages from the Bible. But of course, people dont follow those ideas, just the ones that suit them just nicely.

Quote - Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And many of those people kill people in the name of religion.

Maybe you could clarify whether you follow a spiritual path since this thread started with a question about Buddhism. It seems not since you say all religions are false.

This doesn't make much sense, 'cut 10-30 per cent of "ineffective" workers, hence productivity and income lowered." If you have 100 employees and 20% are ineffective,ie, 20 people; then you cut, say, 20% of them, then you've cut five workers, the worst presumably. The loss of these five unproductive workers lowered the productivity and income of the entire business? This makes no sense.

In any case, any business that can't pay it's workers a living wage is not a viable business. I'm still amazed that Thailand, an agrarian and tourist economy, has 10 billionaires. It's just the 1% crying that they don't have all the marbles....yet.

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Jingthing, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:30, said:

manarak, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:24, said:

Jingthing, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:19, said:

uptheos, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:16, said:

Private business, can choose whoever he wants or doesn't want in his establishment.

But he isn't the owner. I question his authority as a manager and if he isn't there how could they stop me from sitting down ?

yes, the manager acts as a proxy for the tenant of the premises who exercises property rights which include the ability to forbid access to any person.

OK, so you are saying they could call the police and the police would actually kick me out for sitting there (in their very pleasant premises) waiting to place an order?

Yes. It's private property. I don't know Thai law but common sense says it's their property (even if the manager only works there...he is in control). You have no right to be there. Even though it's open to the public, you have been specifically excluded. I think you've worn out your welcome. Move on....for a few months anyway.

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?

For the individual practitioner, the teacher is the final arbiter.

I said:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

QUOTE:

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Terribul misunderstanding!

I do not think that buddhism should be that way.

I am not telling buddhist what their religion / philosophy should be.

I was only answering the OP, who asked why are you a buddhist (or not).

This is why I am not a buddhist: the absence of a social dimension.

And by the way:

Most buddhists outside this forum do not practice buddhist principles. That does not mean buddhist principles are therefore wrong.

I never said that.

Same goes for believers in real communism, real free market, etc.

I reject buddhism NOT because of the behaviour of most of its followers, I reject buddhism because of NO social relevance.

The 'goal' of Buddhism is the final and complete end to suffering of beings. The goal of Buddhism is not the elimination of poverty. However, they are not mutually exclusive which seems to be the position you've taken.

You don't see the social relevance of ending suffering of beings?

A Buddhist is someone who formally takes refuge. It's a short ceremony conducted by a priest, monk, lama, etc., someone authorized to give refuge vows. Many people are put off by organized religion, but some things are just that way. Resistance to the idea of formal religion and 'authorized priests' is very common in the West. Subscribing to organized religion, however, doesn't automatically make a person bad or any less spiritually-minded.

In any case, one takes refuge vows and commits to following the Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. If one takes refuge as a layperson, they take on the five vows the OP mentioned. In some traditions, refuge vows are repeated every day, or on every ceremony day, etc.

This makes a person a Buddhist. Whether they study the teaching and undertake the practices is another matter entirely. Children born into Buddhist families and cultures, like any other person, typically adopt the religion of the family but may never have an individualized experience of it and only know what they've been told. They are Buddhist, however, because they would have take refuge sometime along the way, probably when they were eight years old at the earliest.

Quotes:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Since you are not Buddhist, why are you asking?

I simply can't imagine any government officials, military generals, or upper-echelon Thais coming out publicly in favor of the necessary education and birth control methods. All of the public personas at that level are way too conservative.

Buddhism proposes the ideal that each person can perfect their own character, why this is beneficial, and the benefits of trying for it. It also provides numerous methods for accomplishing this. There are many people who say human perfection is not possible, but Buddhists teachings say that it is.

Even though the sutras were spoken by the Buddha many centuries ago, there have always been, and continue to be, individuals with the same level of attainment of the Buddha to interpret the sutras in accordance with the cultural conditions of any given time. Moreover, additional teachings, beyond the sutras, exist which aim at human perfection. The five precepts are part of the process of self-perfection because there is a moral and ethical dimension to perfection. Finally, Buddhism says it is up to individual alone to achieve perfection. That there is a need for a teacher or guru is because individuals need guidance and counseling to properly accomplish the goal or not get sidetracked.

Why do almost all of the TVF posters automatically assume this admittedly liberal anti capitalist gadfly, Andy Hall, is unbiased and accurate in his reporting on Natural Fruits? Have you looked into Natural Fruits complaint against him? He has an agenda. He is paid to attack, any and all, for profit capitalist companies. That is how he makes his living. He has damaged Natural Fruits reputation and hurt their sales by his accusations. Likewise, he has damaged Thailand's reputation. What is Nautral Fruit and Thailand by extension, suppose to do? Stand by idly while their reputation and livelihood is defamed and attacked? Natural Fruit isn't a multinational conglomerate. They are a relatively small, environmentally friendly business that provides steady employment for around 500 to 600 employees. I know the TVF posters are a highly educated group and it puzzles me why most of you just automatically suspend your natural scepticism when the issue involves an attack on a for profit business. What would you do if your company and livelihood were attacked? Yes Natural Fruits hires temporary migrant workers but they also employ over 500 full time regular workers and pay them a fair wage and benefits. Why would you support the destruction of the lives of these people and their families. If Andy Hall and Andrew Drummond had their way that is exactly what would happen. Andrew Drummond should go back to Australia and address the internal problems and issues Australia has as should Andy Hall go back to Finland and work on improving Finland. Leave Thailand and Natural Fruits alone.

You wish.

This is your typical garden-variety SLAPP suit, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. They are very common all over the world and the idea is to embroil the person or organization in an expensive lawsuit. Individuals and small organizations don't have the resources to defend such a lawsuit, so they are forced to give up their activities.

SLAPP suits are a big problem in the US for this reason. It's typical for big companies to claim defamation, interference with business, invasion of privacy, etc. However, some states, like California, give a judge the right to make the determination that a lawsuit is a SLAPP suit with the purpose of intimidating someone into stopping investigative work or stop opposing operations of a company. A judge can dismiss the suit for that reason. Corporations have even sued individuals for saying bad things about the corporation before public bodies in public hearings in the US. But that is in the US...this is Thailand where things are upside down in that regard.

When you stop using prepositions, articles, and tenses when speaking, even to other farang. "I tell girlfriend I go store. She get mad, say I have another girlfriend. I tell her no but she say I liar."

davejones, on 06 Mar 2013 - 10:18, said:

worgeordie, on 06 Mar 2013 - 09:41, said:

So the rich get richer and the poor, poorer, true Capitalism at its finest.

regards Worgeordie

Not all rich are getting richer, and not all poor are getting poorer. Many rich people used to be poor.

In Thailand, millions of poor people have got richer. Poverty rates have dropped from over 40% to under 10%.

Sounds like you're a jealous loser who doesn't even know the facts.

It is indeed true that the poverty rate is below 10%. It is also true that Thailand has the one of the greatest income gaps in Asia, and it is growing.

You know, you can say someone is jealous and write them off. But, there are many other negative qualities about people that could equally be cited in this kind of discussion, such as selfishness, greed, etc. So, pick you bad personal trait: jealous losers, or greedy capitalists. I'd say someone, a billionaire let's say, who pays his hundreds or thousands of workers a subsistence income while the billionaire himself makes, well, millions from those workers, is pretty selfish and greedy. That worse than being a single, solitary jealous loser.

I think Thaksin's next strategy should be to say, "Boo!". This would set all the yellow shirts and TVF Thaksin-haters into a frenzy for at least a year.....give him some time to relax.

Not sure why an incumbent winning re-election is considered to be a "major upset." If anything, I'd say it's a major case of inaccurate polling and unreliable surveys.

Keep reading about all this religious stuff and whats going to happen to us when we pop off, seems nobody is happy to be here and wants to pop off to better things, YET, everything written about whats going to happen when you pop off is written by a bloke who has never popped off.

What happens to all the other living creatures that have the same organs as us humans that we kill every day and eat ?

Religion is for those who cannot deal with anything and want some book to point a way, BUT, it will have been written by a bloke who was looking for HIS own way.

According to reincarnation theory, there are if fact, 'blokes who have popped-off" and returned to teach about it. This is found most commonly in the Tibetan tradition with His Holiness The Dalai Lama being the main example. He is the 14th Dalai Lama, ie., the 14th of a succession of reincarnations of Chenrizig, the deity of compassion. There are numerous others. They are called tulkus. So, one may meet and hear teachings about this from blokes who've been there and done it.

Use of the word "crackdown" is code for "media PR campaign under way courtesy of the police." Nothing to see here, move along......

Many under-cover sting operations are needed. Until Thailand undertakes those, it will not change. Throughout all the discussions and news reports I've seen, I've never once heard anyone in the government or private industry propose under-cover operations and stings. They work.

These women are not ashamed....they are thrilled that their video is such a big hit and that everybody is watching it. It'll probably get them some modeling work. I know for a fact that at least one of the women works as a model...I saw her at an event in Bangkok working with a bunch of other models as eye candy for a promotion.

How about Thai people using the sex industry?

Isn't it easier to blame the Farangs rather than to see the whole picture?

In my view us farangs are a bit to blame. We come here with a view "ahh well what harm can it do" "they come with me and I give them money, everyone is happy". "the girl looks happy"

What we don't realise is that this line of work (unless they get lucky and marry or go abroad) after years of doing it will more than likely end up with the girl being mentally and physically in bad shape. Years of having sex with different men, lying, drinking, smoking and then the biggest pyschological problem from years of earning alot of money too easily and for not much effort is never good for the mind. So by their mid 30s they have either been lucky and met their knight or thats it, career over. Now they are mentally and physically ruined, they cant ever go and work in a normal job because after years of getting maybe 30,000+ a month there is no way the mind can work 5 times longer for 5 times less the wage. So the only option is to have a baby girl with a Thai guy who will probably be lazy, not work and eventually leave. And then guess what the whole process starts again.

This is really the process that has been going on since the Vietnam war where most of this all started and wasn't put down ever since. Now Thailand has a generation of girls and women who are unable to break out of the cycle.

So all in all i think the blame is a mixture but ofcourse Isaan in history has always been more neglected by Bangkok so its no surprise I suppose.

As with alot of problems and as proved by the story above Thai people are always more bothered about the exposure of a problem rather than the problem itself. As we all know Thai peole are unable to think long term. The long term benfit to getting rid of prostitution would ofcourse be great but all the time this industry is making an immediate income then Thais will always endorse and allow.

Shame

Hogwash. at least 85% of prostitution in Thailand is a domestic exchange. It's their culture that's to blame. Foreigners did not start this, nor do foreigners account for enough economically to account for growth in the industry.

Not only are Thais 85% of the customers, but of the tourist to Thailand, 75% are from other Asian countries. Technically, that makes them farang, but farang usually implies white people from Europe or America.

The notion that prostitution in Thailand is fueled by white people from the West/Australia is false. It's just that nobody recognizes that many 'asian couples' they see around town are in fact a Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Phillipine man with his Thai prostitute/gf.

What's embarrassing is seeing all these old white guys walking around town holding hands with young Thai girls and acting like she's really his girlfriend or something. Now THAT'S embarrassing.

One wonders how misfits like this make it so far from home without wandering in front of a bus along the way.

In order to be removed from such a watch list it would be necessary for the government to do something, anything, about the open-air IP piracy shops all over town including some of the large malls. Of course, nothing whatsoever has been done about them...business is too good.