bankei

Summary of my position:

I too have thought that 'Thais' don't practice "true" Buddhism. But you must question this belief. Westerners have different conceptions of what Buddhism is. They read English books about Buddhism that emphasis the rational and fail to mention the many superstitious things that are mentioned in the scriptures. Westerners thus have a distorted view of Buddhism.

Some Westerners also think Buddhism is just what is written in certain Pali books and anything outside of this is not true Buddhism. Some of these westerners have the tenacity to tell Buddhists - even ordained members - what is and is not Buddhism (This includes me!).

But isn't Buddhism what Buddhists actually believe and do?

Same as Christianity. A pure teaching got polluted and corrupted. Doesn't mean that Buddha or Jesus's basic teachings about the universe or flawed. I think they are no more obsessed with money in Asia than we are in the west, but the difference is they don't hide it here. Money is the god in Asia. Also the Buddha statues and little spirit houses are a layover from the animistic hindu hoodoo religion that was in SE Asia before Buddha's teachings arrived.

Hell. I could do with some more money myself. Know any good monks?

I dont think its a layover. Lod Buddah, Was born hindu, (all hindu temples) he is imaged as one of the great hindu teachers. But he walked away from Hinduism cos he saw the flaws and injustice against lower cast /racial devide. Aryan this aryan that, ..

That is the reason why he started buddism....To fix all faults that was with hinduism. By the way watch an intresting BBC documentary "Jesus was buddist" on youtube... Many things in Christiantity seams to be comming from buddism,and it can be so that jesus actualy went to India ...and learded buddism and took it to Jerusalem and started his own thing

Hinduism was a western investion - about the 18th century or so.

There is no such thing really. The Buddha wasn't a Hindu. The Buddha, legend has it, followed many different teachers, with different teachings. None of whom could be described as being hindu as you would imagine it. There were probably no hindu temples back then - or temples of any sort.

it is also a mistake to say that the Buddha was a caste reformer. He has a few digs at caste, but early Buddhism was dominated by Brahmin caste and Kshatriya caste as well. Modern Sri Lankan Buddhism is very caste conscious too and is broken up into sects based on caste

Hinduism is said to be among the world's oldest living religions. The Upanishads are believed to be some of the earliest texts and predate Christianity.

Siddharta Gautama who later became known as the Buddha was born into a Hindu family and yes they had temples back then. These are known to be facts and are accepted as such even by non-Buddhists and non-Hindus (such as myself).

If you want to make a case against such well-accepted claims, you need to reference them. Just saying that Hinduism was a Western invention would be to credit the colonialists with far too much immagination. And you are insulting the very rich tradition of Hinduism as well as the many millions of followers of that religion.

I am not saying the Vedas do not predate the Buddha. Upanishads evolved around the time of the Buddha, but certainly there are ancient indian religions predating. But that does not mean the Buddha was born a 'Hindu' as you would imagine a Hindu

Today there is something known as 'hinduism' but this is really an umbrella name for hundreds of different Indian religions. There are many different gods, Shiva followers are different to Vaishnavism.

Hinduism has no founder as therefore there are no 'core' beliefs.

I have no interest in 'hinduism' so don't know anything about this topic, but a quick google shows:

The invention of the Hindu

Hinduism is largely a fiction, formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries out of a multiplicity of sub-continental religions, and enthusiastically endorsed by Indian modernisers. Unlike Muslims, Hindus have tended to borrow more than reject, and it has now been reconfigured as a global rival to the big three monotheisms. In the process, it has abandoned the tradition of toleration which lie in its true origins.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/pankajmishra/articles/txt_mishra_hinduism_2004.html

and

The English Invention of Hinduism

Myth of One Hindu Religion

By

Hadwa Dom

And

In his classic article “Constructions of Hinduism at the Nexus of History and Religion,” Robert Frykenberg (1993) notes that this category is recent and has a specific origin: “Hinduism as a single religion, which with the coming Swami Narendrath Datta Vivekananda to the First World Parliament of Religions at Chicago in 1893, was gradually recognized and then elevated by liberally minded and eclectic Western clerics into the rank of a world religion.” Frykenberg, along with many other scholars, contends that “Hinduism was constructed, invented, or imagined by British scholars and colonial administrators in the nineteenth century and did not exist, in any meaningful sense, before this date”

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/NoDefinitionofHinduism.htm

Lorenzen, David N. (2006). Who invented Hinduism: essays on religion in History. Yoda Press

So to say the Buddha was born a Hindu is a mistake.

Incidently "Buddhism" is also a western invention. There was no word used to describe the teachings of the Buddha to distinguish it from other religions untill recently. "Sasana" was the term used in Pali - "The Teachings"

It is unfortunate that a large percent of Thai people know little to nothing about Buddhism. A couple hours of reading about Buddhism conformed my suspicions a couple months after I arrived here.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Are you saying you know more about Buddhism than the Buddhists and that you gained this knowledge by reading a few books - in English no doubt???

Read carefully what i wrote. Don't presume you read about anything i didn't write. I said nothing about how many years i've lived here or any other matters. I didn't even say anything about "Buddhists" as you are saying. I said something about Thai people, and about Buddhism. Inherent to this topic is likely a broad and diffuse discrepancy about what makes a person a Buddhist, considering that such people who think they are Buddhist might not be informed enough about Buddhism to

comply with the core roots of Buddha 2500 years ago. Many Thai people just grow up here and follow whatever tradition, and even superstitions that somebody along the decades and centuries decided to deviate onto. Many of these people's beliefs have no designated relation to Buddhism. They just think it is because it's how they grew up. Education here is not like developed countries. And to think how dumb we are to believe certain things as we grow up in a developed nation, only to later discover by our own intelligent curiousity that much of it was bull.

Firstly how do you know what 'Buddhism' is? Assuming you can read an early Indian language such as Pali and/or classical Chinese to read the preserved scriptures - is Buddhism only what is in the scriptures? Can you read modern Thai?

What about the traditions handed down, are these not Buddhism if practiced by Buddhists and taught as Buddhism?

What are these 'deviations' you write about?

What are the befiefs that have "no designated relation to Buddhism"? If they have no relation to Buddhism how do they relate to this topic?

Bankei

Same as Christianity. A pure teaching got polluted and corrupted. Doesn't mean that Buddha or Jesus's basic teachings about the universe or flawed. I think they are no more obsessed with money in Asia than we are in the west, but the difference is they don't hide it here. Money is the god in Asia. Also the Buddha statues and little spirit houses are a layover from the animistic hindu hoodoo religion that was in SE Asia before Buddha's teachings arrived.

Hell. I could do with some more money myself. Know any good monks?

I dont think its a layover. Lod Buddah, Was born hindu, (all hindu temples) he is imaged as one of the great hindu teachers. But he walked away from Hinduism cos he saw the flaws and injustice against lower cast /racial devide. Aryan this aryan that, ..

That is the reason why he started buddism....To fix all faults that was with hinduism. By the way watch an intresting BBC documentary "Jesus was buddist" on youtube... Many things in Christiantity seams to be comming from buddism,and it can be so that jesus actualy went to India ...and learded buddism and took it to Jerusalem and started his own thing

Hinduism was a western investion - about the 18th century or so.

There is no such thing really. The Buddha wasn't a Hindu. The Buddha, legend has it, followed many different teachers, with different teachings. None of whom could be described as being hindu as you would imagine it. There were probably no hindu temples back then - or temples of any sort.

it is also a mistake to say that the Buddha was a caste reformer. He has a few digs at caste, but early Buddhism was dominated by Brahmin caste and Kshatriya caste as well. Modern Sri Lankan Buddhism is very caste conscious too and is broken up into sects based on caste

Casts in Sri Lanka not really?, The british use to give Royal kandyan names to the locals that did a good job. But its 10 times worse in india about cast . Trust me i have been in sri lanka for 10 years before i came to Thailand.

And that Lord Buddah was not hindu is ,, so wrong .....just walk into any hindu temple...even Sri Vihar you can see Lord Buddah on the thusand years old stones.

I dont know where did you get that from that Hinduism is a western invesion i think that is a very sick comment, i actually take offence against it as a Buddist.

Hinduism is the first real religion. Islam, Buddism, Christianity all grow out of it .

Your knowledge astoundss me. Hinduism is a broad term used to describe a few hundred Indian religions. Go and do some reading. Many so called Hindus now consider the Buddha a god - 9th incarnation of Vishnu maybe. But that doesn't mean the Buddha was a god does it?

Same as Christianity. A pure teaching got polluted and corrupted. Doesn't mean that Buddha or Jesus's basic teachings about the universe or flawed. I think they are no more obsessed with money in Asia than we are in the west, but the difference is they don't hide it here. Money is the god in Asia. Also the Buddha statues and little spirit houses are a layover from the animistic hindu hoodoo religion that was in SE Asia before Buddha's teachings arrived.

Hell. I could do with some more money myself. Know any good monks?

I dont think its a layover. Lod Buddah, Was born hindu, (all hindu temples) he is imaged as one of the great hindu teachers. But he walked away from Hinduism cos he saw the flaws and injustice against lower cast /racial devide. Aryan this aryan that, ..

That is the reason why he started buddism....To fix all faults that was with hinduism. By the way watch an intresting BBC documentary "Jesus was buddist" on youtube... Many things in Christiantity seams to be comming from buddism,and it can be so that jesus actualy went to India ...and learded buddism and took it to Jerusalem and started his own thing

Hinduism was a western investion - about the 18th century or so.

There is no such thing really. The Buddha wasn't a Hindu. The Buddha, legend has it, followed many different teachers, with different teachings. None of whom could be described as being hindu as you would imagine it. There were probably no hindu temples back then - or temples of any sort.

it is also a mistake to say that the Buddha was a caste reformer. He has a few digs at caste, but early Buddhism was dominated by Brahmin caste and Kshatriya caste as well. Modern Sri Lankan Buddhism is very caste conscious too and is broken up into sects based on caste

It is unfortunate that a large percent of Thai people know little to nothing about Buddhism. A couple hours of reading about Buddhism conformed my suspicions a couple months after I arrived here.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Are you saying you know more about Buddhism than the Buddhists and that you gained this knowledge by reading a few books - in English no doubt???

That is a very 'western' potestant interpretation of Buddhism - firstly, how do you know what the 'true' teachings of the Buddha were? You don't and cannot know.

Buddhist monks have been associated with money from the very beginnings. This is evidenced in the archaeological records of money presses being discovered in early monasteries and the evidence of Bhikkhu making donations as recorded on 3rd century BC inscriptions at Sanchi etc. And not just any old monks, but Vinayadhara in some case - experts in the Vinaya. There is also the evidence in the Theravada Pali canon. If monks didn't closely associate money there would be no rules about it. Also in the vinaya are the stories of the 1st and second councils - sanghati - Mahadeva and his 10 points etc.

Maybe no touching money is an idealism which has never really existed in Buddhism and has been read back into history.

bankei

Nooooo. Its real isn't it?

It would be good if other countries punished those responsible for illegal coups...

Why would you go to a bank to ask about how to own a house or an apartment. You would normally ask about borrowing money

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

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.

Yes, I think Tibetan translations from Sanskrit and other Indian languages are very accurate because, standardisation was implemented. So it is not that difficult to reconstruct texts in Sanskrit from Tibetan transations - eg. where the original has been lost. There is even 1 or 2 Pali texts translated into Tibetan.

But, just because the texts are accurate translations doesn't mean they represent what the Buddha taught or what the early Buddhists practiced. I don't think they do. Most were translated around the 10th to 12th centuries and onwards. about 1600 years after the Buddha died. Lots of doctrinal developments had occured by then.

try buddhanet. There arte complete courses, some with a syllabus for primary stiudents.

Thais are Theraveda Buddhists. Japanese are generally Zen Buddhist.. Fololowers of the Tibetan version are Mahayana.

Far from correct. Japanese Buddhists are generally Mahayana. Zen is represented by 3 schools - Soto, Rinzai and Obaku. Rinzai has many sub schools too. All 3 schools combined are only a minority of Japanese buddhists.

Tibetan Buddhism is also Mahayana, but primarily esoteric variety - which is also found in China and Japan (e.g Shingon).

Most Thais are Buddhist, and most of these are nominal Theravadins, but there are also many Mahayanist Buddhists here too - Chinese buddhism, Kuanyin worshipers and most Thais are also Brahmanical followers too - 'Hindu' god worshipers.

bankei

A great overview for newbies is What the Buddha Taught, Author: Dr Walpola Rahula

Free PDF:

http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

But like other's have said in replies, intellectual understanding will be only that, a strong meditation practice of at least an hour per day will manifest profound changes in how one thinks and understands what the Buddha taught. In my particular case, it took my three years to see any change. I now do 10-day vipasssana at least 3 a year.

with metta

www.whereyoustop.blogspot.com

This book should be relabelled "What Buddhagosha Taught"

There are many many different schools of Buddhism, both philosophical and lineage wise.

The religion predominant in Thailand is known as "Theravada". However even amoungst this school there are a number of different lineage sects - many of which reject the validity of the other's lineage. e.g. in Thailand there i Dhammayut and Mahanikaya. The Dhammayut position is that the Mahanikaya monks are not really monks as their ordination lineage is invalid (this has been relaxed in recent years). In Burma there are 9 sects and in Sri Lanka there are 3 main ones and more than 30 subgroupings of these.

However all the above generally belief in the same philosophical texts generally known as the Pali cannon. There are different groups with different approaches such as Dhammakaya and the so-called forest monks.

Going back further in the early years after the Buddha's death the teachings spread in different locations. Gradually different styles and emphasis developed and geographical semi-isolation made these differences because greater. As Buddhism spread to China different indigenous religions were encountered and this resulted in more changes. Translating into different languages also resulted in different interpretations sprining up.

The original language of the Buddha is unknown, but it was not Pali. There are very few early texts, the earliest ones date from around 100AD, about 500 to 600 years after the death of the Buddha. The Theravada school often puts itself out to be the earliest and most faithful strand of Buddhism, however there is no basis to make this claim. Legend has it that Buddhagosha translated Sinhalese commentaries back into Pali around 600 years AD, and it could be said that Theravada springs from this, but there are other Theravada teachings which do not correspond. Other traditions in Thailand and Burma, Cambodia etc could have had a different source other than Sri Lanka. Asoka allegedly sent monks in many directions and some possibly towards Burma. The origins of Buddhism in Thailand are not Sri Lanka, but there were many interactions from around 1000 AD onwards

Anyway, there are no original teachings of the Buddha - glimpses perhaps in the early Pali scriptures and the early Chinese agamas. The Chinese texts are very early and can be predated prior to any Pali text.

The Pali scriptures are very long, it is like a volume of encyclopedias - perhaps 20 volumes without the commentaries. So you will not find one book with everything. There are some summaries out there - but these naturally are selective.

the accuracies of translations is another matter. There is evidence that the Theravadins have misinterpreted the meaning of many words and phrases of the Pali texts. One example is references to Brahmanical teachings were misunderstood as Buddhism moved to new lands where these brahmanical religions were not practiced and therefore not known.

Bankei

Haha he's got 'the point' down good!

Acutally it is not good because he is pointing over their heads. This evidence will be invalid!

And instead of point why didn't mr Farang pull off that bloody ski mask.!

I want to know what "pi pi" means???

"just yelled Pi Pi at me"

....all Thai monk atrocities aside.........

..after all...commit a crime.....go to the temple......presto...you are okay until the next drime.....

what has this got to do with the topic?

This is a naive fantasy.

firstly, you probably have not ever been to Thailand, otherwise you would know that Thai monks don't take vows of silence. Perhaps your knowledge of Buddhism comes from watching Hangover II?

Secondly, what would happen when you give up all your wordly possessions and then decide you don't actually like sleeping on a hard titled floor and being eaten by mosquitoes while feeling hungry and trying to ignore the massive boner under your sabong robe?

I've been a monk in Thailand and it made me see the light! I am no longer a Buddhist, but still follow the teachings of the Buddha...

Bankei

You couldn't have a net for sleeping? Seems a tad harsh.

Yes, I had a net. But outside of the net you will be constantly attacked - while chanting in the sala for example.

I support the locking up of Christian missionaries, but this is just going a bit too far.

Bankei

So what is far enough to satisfy you...? Its a lock up. You should be ecstatic...

A short lockup, possibly 6 months, including brainwashing sessions, and the deportation back to America!

This is a naive fantasy.

firstly, you probably have not ever been to Thailand, otherwise you would know that Thai monks don't take vows of silence. Perhaps your knowledge of Buddhism comes from watching Hangover II?

Secondly, what would happen when you give up all your wordly possessions and then decide you don't actually like sleeping on a hard titled floor and being eaten by mosquitoes while feeling hungry and trying to ignore the massive boner under your sabong robe?

I've been a monk in Thailand and it made me see the light! I am no longer a Buddhist, but still follow the teachings of the Buddha...

Bankei

I support the locking up of Christian missionaries, but this is just going a bit too far.

Bankei

I was under the impression that monks were not supposed to drive cars whether they ( the monks) were sober or inebriated due to the ingestion of assorted substances.

It's certainly a juicy story and he is definitely in a pickle too.

Monks are forbidden all worldy things; Alchol, driving, money, telephones, computers, cigarettes, Betel, et.al., but then T.I.T., where most shrines are for Brahma not Buddha...

If you figure it out, let us know...LOL

Dont know what makes you think this - Alcohol, yes, but monks are not forbidden to use the rest you mention. It is common practice,, in thailand, that monks do not drive, but no vinaya rule as far as I know.

You must be thinking of Jainism!

Interesting to see there have been a large number of cases involving abbots lately too. Wonder what Thai word they are translating as "prelate"?

Bankei

I have often thought that Japan would be a nice place to practice as a Theravada monk.

The Japanese people are in need of a more correct form of Buddhism than their own Mahayana style..... IMHO.

What makes you think Thai Buddhism is a more 'correct' form of Buddhism? Especially that associated with the Ajahn Chah group?