Brucenkhamen

If you've just been around BKK and judging by your description then it's likely most temples you will have visited will be oriented towards tourists.

Forest monasteries in regional areas couldn't be more different.

Having said that its common in Thai culture to value ostentatious displays of wealth and not realise the contradiction with the Buddhas teaching.

4 hours ago, Scott said:

Is Buddhism only relevant to people in Thailand?

 

That's a silly question.

Its quite reasonable to ask if your post is on topic if there doesn't appear to be relevance.

Is there a relevance to Buddhism in Thailand?

A thread about string that resurrects every year or ten?  I think we are being strung along.  I hope he has untied it by now, no need to tie yourself in knots over a piece of string.

On the surface it does look like they are packaging as a commodity something that is freely available elsewhere and aiming it at tourists.

It might be a good experience fort you but I think it would be better to do retreats as a layman at places like those you've already mention, Wat pah nanachat, or Wat Suan mokh.

I don't think there is much point thinking about a temporary ordination unless you've found a monastery or teacher and want to spend more time there.

>The best example I can think of is that the Catholic Church saw considerable success in Vietnam (Mahayana background). Still pretty vibrant there. But the Church never gained any real traction with the Theravadan Lao or Khmer right next door.

Vietnam is probably a good example.  You'd expect the evangelical activity in Vietnam, Laos, and Khmer would have been much the same.  I vaguely recall reading that at the beginning of the Vietnam war there were 15% Catholics to 85% Buddhists in Vietnam which is not a huge number of Christians.

This page provides an overview of Buddhism in vietnam Buddhist Studies: Mahayana Buddhism: Vietnam (buddhanet.net)

It's quite simple and hardly a secret.

We all experience un-satisfactoriness in life, in some cases there is strong pain an suffering but for all there is at least a subtle thread of unease.  The Buddha taught that through seeing clearly that craving, aversion, and delusion is what fuels this instead of letting it snowball we can dis-identify with it and gradually let go of it.  When we practice to purify the mind gradually it stops perpetuating itself it's like a candle blowing out (Nibbana/Nirvana) which is the metaphor the Buddha used to explain this freedom.

>Perhaps a course in Basic English?

No, need, your english is good overall.  Just rephrase for clarity if "what it is:" was not intended to indicate that this that follows is the definition of pursuing enlightenment.

Either way I'd rather have a mind that is free, than one that has developed the ability to perform tricks but still lacks freedom.

>I did no such thing: in fact, I stated the opposite.

I reread your sentence, though it isn't clear it's hard to interpret it any other way.

>suggests that you've been watching too many "action movies".

There weren't too many action movies available in 5th century BCE India when these rules were formulated,. 

The Buddha did not teach a left hand or a right hand path, he called his path the Middle way.

In Buddhist practice psychic powers are understood as possible side affects of advanced meditation practice, they are never seen as a goal, or something to cultivate as an end in themselves.

Monks are forbidden from telling lay people that they have had such attainments, the idea being such monks may be motivated to manipulate others into following them.

Buddhism is about self purification, eradicating craving aversion and delusion, and these kinds attainments can often work against this goal leading to pride, distraction, and craving more.

The Buddha practiced these Siddhis with the teachers of the day reached the conclusion that they were a dead end, and moved on to practice by himself to look for something more meaningful.  It seems to me that equating Enlightenment with mental masturbation and the gaining of Siddhis as the path then you're already on the wrong path.

Mahayana does have ideas that sound a bit more like salvation but I think it varies from school to school.  Pure Land I think is definately salvation oriented whereas Zen has ideas like delaying your enlightenment in order to save others, and of instant enlightenment. but it's practice is very much self purification oriented like Theravada.

I'm not sure Christianity has been very successful in gaining converts anywhere in Asia, except Korea.  In a lot of these cultures people hedge their bets as far as religious practice is concerned, they might attend Taoist, Shinto, or animist etc practices as well as Buddhist, and the idea of a conversion experience is foreign.  So Jesus might be just another deity for them.  Also In Theravadin countries it's not uncommon for lay people to have ideas that sound more like expecting salvation, if someone doesn't have the time and energy for self purification the notion someone else could save them is appealing.

I think that's a reasonable assumption.

On 12/24/2019 at 9:52 AM, mekong.star said:

my adopted son will become monk soon. i have been told i need to contribute 300,000 baht.  i don't understand this.

That's outrageous!

when I ordained many years ago the main expenses were the robe and bowl, probably only a few thousand all up for all of the gear.  In addition to that the monks who officiated in the ceremony each received an evelope with about $1000 baht in it (which they hopefully gave to their steward to handle).

Holding big lavish parties, if that's what the money is being used for, doesn't seem in keeping with an ordination.

The headquarters of the sect that he ordained in (Wat Boronives or Wat Mahathat) will know where he ordained but I doubt they'll track his movements after that.

On 1/8/2019 at 12:38 AM, trd said:

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

I don't like the word Enlightenment. I only used it because it's in the title of the thread. Full awakening in Buddhist terms is Nirvana (quenching, blowing out) Awakening is less precise because for instance you could say you have awakened to the reality of impermanence or you awakened to the cause of suffering or you have awakened to realizing that wherever you look you will not be able to find an entity that is a self. Or you have awakened through meditation practice to the discrimination between unchanging awareness and changing phenomena of the aggregates. I would consider that more important, but while those awakenings are important it is not liberation.

Good point.  awakening with a small a is relative and adjective you could apply to all kinds of small insights or happenings, Awakening with a capital A is Full Awakening, or liberation, or Nibbana.

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

Yes

Wat Suan Mokh would be my recommendation for a beginner, but unless it's changed retreats start on the 1st ofthe month so you've already missed this month.

This page has a selection http://www.littlebang.org/retreats-2/

Also see the sticky on this board;

If you want to drop in and just meditate casually rather than do a residential retreat then Wat Umong is a good bet. 

After you go through the main gates immediately veer left and you will find the international meditation centre, depending on the time of the day you should find a group of foreigners meditating in a hall which is the first main building you come to on the road that branches to the left, unless things have changed in recent years.

On 7/9/2018 at 10:46 AM, fusion58 said:

The meaning of "egocentrism" I have in mind refers to the psychological condition in which the ego is experienced as the center of the psyche.

 

In other words your original statement "I thought enlightenment meant the dissolution of ego... I've since come to understand it as the dissolution of egocentrism." was about originally thinking that enlightenment was the dissolution of an entity, and now understanding it as the dissolution of a psychological state.

If so I concur.

Statues are usually unconcious and oblivious to their surroundings, thronging crowds or not.

The way you've described what you expect enlightenment is pretty on the mark as far as I'm concerned, at least in terms of how the Buddha taught it.

It's not a trance, escape, or annihilation of conciousness.

I was last at SuanMokh in 1997, so not so recent but no dogs back then, the retreats are held in a retreat centre seperate from the main monastery so I think it's likely they would continue to keep It dog free.  The same is probably true of Wat Kow Tahm.

I think you've interpreted this teaching a bit literally, as I understand the teaching you refer to doesn't state that humans are the only state capable of awakening it's that the human state is the optimum.  This is because we have the optimum balance of self awareness and freedom of thought and suffering partly due to physical form.

If you want to speculate about aliens in other worlds then I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that there may be other species with a similar balance.

I think when you look at the suttas where the Buddha goes into this cosmology in depth you'll find that he is talking to Brahmins.  My view is that he is using their cosmology to teach them a principle which is probably don't wait until you get to one of your heavenly realms to practice to attain awakening, the best time to do it is now. 

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Yes, who is re born, and what awakens?

 

... and how does this question segue from "The distinction between dualism and non-dualism", if at all.

On 12/3/2017 at 11:12 PM, rockyysdt said:

Interesting subject Bruce.

 

Is calling it God or Brahman technically incorrect though?

 

Didn't the Buddha suggest that even Brahman was in a state of Samsara?

Yes it's technically incorrect within the Buddhist framework because it doesn't form part of the framework, I was talking more in terms of the concept not being useful.

The Buddha talked in terms implying all deities being samsaric beings, Brahma is just one of them but is mentioned in quite a few passages.  However I referred to Brahman which is a very different concept, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma#Difference_between_Brahma,_Brahman,_Brahmin_and_Brahmanas

I don't see how killing can protect a religion, if you need to kill to protect a religion it's not worth protecting. 

If the Rohingyas were proseletysing amongst the Rakhines then you'd counter that by reviving the local Buddhist practice, but I doubt very much that this is what's happening.  Rather two ethnic groups have been competing for scarce resources for centuries and now the army and clergy have gotten involved.

The Sayadaw's is using of a Sri Lankan saga to justify what most people who know a little about Buddhist know is not right.  The article suggests non-Buddhists are less than human but there is no justification for such a view in the original teachings and even if that were true Buddhism encourages compassion for all sentient beings human or not.