Brucenkhamen

Yes it is against the monks rules. I've never seen even the most lax monks ask strangers for money in s way, money is usually given to the monastery at monastic ceremonies.

If a monk asks you for money he is not a good monk so tell your wife she won't get any merit.

If they have a lay person with them to handle the money you could give it to them, but even so they should never ask for it unless you've invited them to tell you what they might need.

Well, yes, that was the point I was making. That many are treating Buddhism as a new age movement rather than the respected philosophy it is.

I think your observation has a lot of truth in it. Whether it's good or bad I'm not sure.

My world view is pretty much minimalist Theravadin Buddhist. I've been to a lot of different retreat centres around the world and in contact with different Insight meditation groups and I often feel in the minority. I often feel the new age world view is dominant and there is an expectation that I because I'm on the retreat I should see things the same.

As somebody pointed out when Buddhism travelled to different countries in Asia it mixed with the local belief systems, that could be it's strength, though when you look at the state of Buddhism in Thailand you can see it is also a weakness. This appears to be what is now happening in the West.

At the end of the day if something is skillful and leads to awakening, use it, if not then discard it. Everybody has to walk their own path to travel towards enlightenment, if they want to take the scenic route I don't begrudge them that.

From the evidence you posted nothing is clear at all. At best it quotes one anonimous monk (alleged monk) on a foreign radio.

The easiest way would be to translate the banners they were carrying.

Maybe an assumption that they demanded a regime change is correct. I don't know, it's just an assumption so far.

Ask yourself this, is getting better petrol prices worth dying for? I suspect you'll agree the answer is no.

Then ask yourself what they might want that they are willing to put their lives on the line for. I think then you'll find the answer is obvious.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that the monks wanted to overthrow the junta and establish democracy. There's a strong chance that they actually wanted to preserve the status quo and simply improve people's conditions.

While I've heard of their being a few government agents amongst the monkhood why on earth would they want to preserve the status quo? Sounds like a pretty daft interpretation of events to me. Yeah right, like everyone loves to live under a brutal dictatorship.

TooK: ทุกข้

no lasting happiness;

i found this term in a buddhist book and i was wondering if anyone knows how to write it in thai scripture? thanks!!

I think that phrase would be a translation of the Pali word Dukkha, the equivilent Thai word is Took, I'll ask the wife how to write it in Thai script tonight.

If you were to translate the above phrase literally into Thai I'd probably say "suk ja mot", which is happiness will run out, but without knowing the context I doubt that's what the author intended.

What if there IS God?

If there is a God I'm not sure he'd be too happy with people distributing sleazy booklets in his name, let alone some of the other things people do in his name.

The belief that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

The belief that you belong to God and anyone who disagrees with you is hoodwinked by the Devil produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

The belief that you must convince everyone around you that they must believe what you believe or they'll be damned to eternal hel_l produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

I feel annoyance as well as pity for people who think the way of the author of this book, I try to convert it to compassion, with mixed results.

the books i read on buddhism did not mention this type of nonsense. are these the actual buddha's teaching or ideas that were added on through time?

There is a lot in the Buddhist scriptures that comes out of the religious terminology of the time, much like Christianity uses Jewish terminology. Whether you take it literally is up to you, the Buddha doesn't ask you to believe anything.

As far as Hel_l is concerned the main difference between Buddhism and the judeo christian version is that it is not permanent, as a couple of posters have already pointed out.

Personally I think hel_l is what you create in your everyday life, when you do bad things and you create negative impacts in your life here and now or in the future as a result, that is really what hel_l is and you don't need to concern yourself beyond that.

Your gf may have a different view but bear in mind that 80% of popular Buddhism in Thailand doesn't really conform to the spirit of the Buddhas teaching and you won't be bothered by it so much.

Keep reading those books and make up your own mind.

These reactions are not "personal", they are societal... Don't try to copy Dalai Lama or Gandhi, you are not there yet (no offence meant).

Well, you make a strong case for banning religion altogether.

While the symptoms you describe are evidenced in all religious societies to some degree I don't think the original teachers ever meant it to turn out that way.

Certainly from what I've seen practicing the Buddhas teachings in the spirit that they were intended with an honest heart doesn't lead to the sorts of things you describe.

I have read that Spirituality is of the Soul and Religion is of the State. When monks demonstate against the state or have cars and computers or even come outside are they really monkish? Should the monks in Burma care, were the monks in Vietnam who immolated themselves Spiritual? Is this biting the hand that feeds you?

I think it's all about caring about the plight of the people that feed you, whether that's spiritual or not I don't know, but it is good. It's been a long time in coming, so it hasn't been entered intio lightly. I'd ask is standing by watching the suffering of others and doing nothing spiritual?

That's not how believes work, imo.

On the contrary you should be very firm in your believes so that a minute contact with "infidels" doesn't shatter you to death.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak faith.

I don't really see it that way.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak character, not their weak faith. Sure if they have doubts and feel they have something to prove, maybe that is because of weak faith, and can lead to the sorts of things you are talking about.

But surely an open mind is the remedy for that, not brain washing.

I believe that if you go back to the original quote, you will see in bold print a far more relevant observation by the Dalai Lama, at least relevant to this thread.

That would be this one; All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." and yes it is more relevant.

At first glance, or if one had a literal mind, this could be interpreted that the Dalai Lama would like to confirm that God exists despite the Buddha refusing to confirm or deny.

Looking at the quote in context, here for example http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/...53d44e87a6.html you can see he is addressing conflicts between religions, and religious extremism.

So I'd say what he is saying is it doesn't really matter if God exists or not, or what practices or path you undertake, all paths are intended to lead to the same thing, and that's what matters. This is in line with your comparison between Buddhism and Catholicism also.

This brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you hold those beliefs lightly with an open mind. When beliefs become rigid and not open to scrutiny and the attitude that non-believers are damned arises then that's where problems start.

So, you must be an expert on SriLankan issues... .May I know where this "Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese" came from? Do you know exactly who made them and how it functions? Since you’re brave enough to post this (something that you don't have a clue), I guess you have enough evidence to share with us. So the violence in SriLanka because Sinhalese are Buddhists? And all the tamils are pussy cats? So, Sinhalese should become Christians, Hindus or even Muslims to stop the violence and give the SriLanka to all the F#####s who want a piece of it !! You are suppose to comment on the God and Buddhism, not other countries social problems.....Stick into the point. People like you are worst than tamil terrorist

I think you missed that the posting was a quote from the Dalai Lama. So assuming the quote is genuine, and you have no reason to believe it isn't, you need to address your questions to the Dalai Lama not the person who posted it here. Or you could ask the poster why he thought it was a good thing to post.

According to the Pali scriptures, the Buddhas answer to the OP question was that God is not very important to Buddhism. If anyone dismisses the importance of God like this does it amount to disrespect ? For some monotheistic religions, yes.

I am agnostic, and if a monotheist calls me an "infidel" or an "unbeliever" it doesnt bother me in the least, despite the disrespectful meaning put behind it. But when I say to them that God is not important to me and that I don't really believe in him/her, they often get defensive or tense, silently mumbling "unbeliever", as if I have challenged the very foundation of their lives and religion, which is in fact what I have done unintentionally.

Very well put Grover.

Maybe I read into some of the posts to much (in the Buddhism section in general) a vehicle for making sly digs at other faiths. Namely Christianity. Is it me or is there a subliminal 'disrespect christianity, while championing Buddhism?' vibe that I sometimes pick up in some members posts? I know this is going OT moderators but as we don't have a Christianity section to voice this matter, when personal opinions come out If think it's only right folk like Canuckamuck and myself come on to present the 'other' side of the argument by giving our own personal opinions from time to time

I think subliminal 'disrespect Christianity, while championing Buddhism' vibe you pick up is more a subjective interpretation rather what is actually happening.

The question was asked "Did the Buddha say there wasn't a God or it wasn't important", now if there were a lot of people who have had experiences with Hinduism or Islam they'd probably draw on that to answer the question, but I suspect the vast majority have only really had experience with Buddhism and Christianity which is why the latter started appearing as a contrast.

Now the forum is about Buddhism, so it's not appropriate to talk about other teachings other than in comparing and contrasting with Buddhism. Which I think this topic proceeded to do until one or two people took a couple of statements regarding Christianity more literally and personally than they were intended.

Personally I'm not interested in my brand is better than your brand type discussions. Really what this topic was about was "Is a theistic approach compatible with the Buddhas teachings?" I'd say yes. "Does a theistic approach enhance or detract from following the Buddhas teachings" I'm not sure but am inclined to think it detracts as it encourages delusion. Now if someone here is actively practicing a theistic religion as well as practicing the Buddhas teachings or meditation techniques I'd like to hear their experiences, as so far they've been silent. On the other hand the approach of some Buddhist schools, Tibetan or Pure Land for example, borders on theism so the two obviously can work together.

At the end of the day if there are people on this forum who don't really want to discuss Buddhism other than to promote an alternative, and get offended at small generalisations about their views on life then perhaps they need a forum of their own. Though I'd be disappointed if they were made to feel unwelcome and stopped contributing here.

I have heard that there are "good" and "bad" days for a buddhist style wedding. How can I find out about that? Is there a website that shows the "good" and the "bad" days? Why are they "good" and "bad"? What are the reasons for "good" and "bad" days?

Any help is welcome. Thanks a lot !

In Buddhism there is no good or bad day for anything.

However many Thai's are superstitious and won't even fart without consulting a fortune teller first, Chinese Thais even more so I think. If your future mother in law has not already consulted one and found the perfect day for you I'd consider myself lucky and pick the day most suitable day for you.

I am aussie male we both previously married/divorced. She thai buddhist. O knoe there gifts expected but knoeone will tell me what is over the top & what is insulting.( how long a bit of string ) any indication appreciated

I think you are better off asking these questions on the general forum, if you do a search you'll see a lot of questions on this topic have been discussed already.

Weddings in Thailand are all about Thai culture, while there are Buddhist elements in them (and hindu and pagan and western materialism too) as in everything in Thailand but I wouldn't really use the term "Buddhist wedding".

I am just wondering if anyone here can help me to better understand Vedic and Buddhst connections, or the lack thereof if you believe so. I am wondering about what the Buddha used and what he might have discarded from Vedic culture.

Here's an article I found in my bookmarks tht might be helpful http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/pre_buddhism_history.html

I think you'll finf\d the Hindu and Buddhist view on the history is quite different.

One of the bosses (owners son) made terrible decisions and treated his workers like they were machines with no feelings. At first I was vocal voicing my opinion. I quickly learned that being vocal was not a effective way to change things. During a meeting with several of the Thai engineers, I was upset that one of my recommendations was ignored. I then made the statement that if the boss had not been born rich, he would have starved to death by now. The meeting room became deathly still. The best engineer of the group sat beside me and explained that I had insulted their boss and their religion. I was told that the boss was a VERY good man in his previous life/lives and being born wealthy was his just reward. I then asked if that meant that the boss could do no wrong and that was greeted with nods and smiles. That group of guys are highly educated and very Buddhist. They will shape the future of Thailand. I found that quite alarming. I was forced to change my methods and did become more effective because of it. It certainly wasn't easy because I was very prone to yell and scream when someone did something stupid. Maybe they are correct. My pulse rate slowed and my high blood pressure dropped considerably.

A good example of how religion can be misunderstood, twisted, corrupted, and used by powerful people to suppress the weak... welcome to Thailand.

Christians and Muslims don't have a monopoly on this kind of thing.

You'll find much of what goes on in thailand in the name of Buddhism is not, but there is good out there too if you want to find it.

Would not having the answer but wanting to know it generate a subtle form of suffering ?

Sure it probably does. The same of the subtle form of suffering produced by any unknown in life.

Where will I be next year? Should i take that job? When will I die? What's for dinner?

But like every other uncertainty wouldn't knowing the answer be followed by a sense of anticlimax? therefore just another round of suffering.

Also wouldn't knowing the answer to that question reduce the sense of openmindedness, wonder, mystery, and adventure you can get by accepting the uncertainties in life?

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

Buddhism teaches us to neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation, that's a Hindu concept, though a lot of traditional Buddhists probably believe it in that way I don't think that's the way it was taught.

You can't have reinmcarnation if there is no distinct and seperate self, what you have is re-becoming which is simply put when something passes away something new arises. This is a principle in nature, "When a seed falls to the ground and dies..." is how the Bible puts it.

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created that, and who created the one that created tha, and so on...

Would the answer to that question reduce the suffering experienced in day to day life?

I'd be willing consider discussing how the world comes from nothing if you can present evidence on how God comes from nothing.

I always find it strange when people speak of 'God', they think of Christians. What about Muslims, Hindus?

The main reason I asked the original question was that I'm interested in learning more about Buddhism. However, I'm not interested if other know-it-all practitioners mock my belief in God, go on about Santa Claus existing etc.

Most Western converts to Buddhism seem to be athiests. If it's posible to benefit from Buddhism, being an atheist, it it possible being a believer in God(not Christian)?

I find a large number Western converts to Buddhism to be more the new agey types. They seem to have an eclectic-theistic- wholistic view to life and the spiritual path. Then there are those like me who are more skeptical agnostics. I'm not sure true athiests are that common at all.

As a couple of us have mentioned you get quite a few practicing Christians also, Hindus as well especially in the Goenka movement. No Muslims though, the penalties for them dabbling in other religions is severe.

I realize this is the Buddhism forum and I might be pushing the intention of this forum by providing non Buddhist responses so if you want me to stop I will, but for now I would like to respectfully answer a couple of the comments directed to me, I will remember that I am a guest here.

It's funny how when I give my own thoughts you referred to it as a sermon but when others describe their deep held beliefs they are simply having a discussion.

I do not see faith as a negative thing, it is the key actually. What I was avoiding was the blanket statement that it is all based on faith alone and therefore imaginary as you were intonating. We all have faith in something; even atheism is a kind of faith. The question is how you arrive upon that faith.

Thanks for toning it down a little. I wouldn't want this forum to be a place where people of other faiths couldn't compare and contrast their beliefs with Buddhism, neither would I want it to be a place where people of other faiths can troll for converts, I don't think we've hit either extreme.

My original statement was intended to compare and contrast Nirvana with the Christian experience at a level of detail appropriate to this topic. It was never meant to say Christianity is X and nothing else, it was enough to answer the question and move on.

You reacted to it in a subjective manner, "Hey hey MY Christianity is not just X it's much more". Well so what, we weren’t talking about YOUR Christianity, we were just comparing and contrasting Nirvana with the Christian experience in very general terms.

I’m sure we both know that if we had this discussion on an evangelical Christian forum I would have been in for a lot more flak than you experienced here.

I’m curious what you are referring to when you say “others describe their deep held beliefs”, certainly if I was expressing deep held beliefs I’d want someone to challenge them in relation to the Buddha’s teaching as beliefs should be “lightly held” when practicing the Buddhist path.

So returning back to the topic “Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?” there is nothing to stop someone with a theistic belief system from practicing Buddha’s teaching, because Buddhism in it’s purist form does not attempt to fill the role that a theistic religion does. Now 2500 years of Asian religious superstition has made it into a religion but I don’t think the Buddha ever intended it. Also people and missionaries of other religions have been defining Buddhism as a religion for years and getting confused about why there is no God or creation myth.

I’ve been on meditation retreats where Christian’s seemed to be in the majority, including some clergy and social workers. Buddhist practices can add something to a theist’s spiritual life, and doesn’t attempt to take anything away from it.

So from that point of view whether there is a God or not it doesn’t matter in the context of the Buddhist path because the Buddhist path doesn’t attempt to do or define anything in relation to God.

I think some have gone off topic....the topic is not whether God exists or not, nor is it about faith of any sort.....the topic is about what the Buddha taught about the existence of God or lack of such teaching.....this topic is about the Buddha's teachings.

That was probably my fault. I probably should have just pointed out in the beginning that my description of "the peace that passeth all understanding" as faith based was not meant to be a be-all and end-all description of it, rather a comparison with Nirvana at a level of detail appropriate in a Buddhist forum.