ourmanflint

But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his own happiness and salvation, without caring for his fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha's teaching which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.

Walpola Rahula

Yes, the idea of getting out there and being seen to help people less advantaged than you is a Western thing.

I have never heard either that the idea of helping people is a western thing? Where does that idea come from? One of the main aspects of Buddhism, and one of the reasons I was initially attracted to it, is the idea of selflessness.

Why would Walpola Rahula suggest that the Buddha's teaching is one " based on love, compassion, and service to others " when what I am now hearing from you all is that , no that is a western thing.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what Buddhism is or is not, and using Thai Theravada as a mirror of what Buddhism encompasses, is like saying the only music that exists is that heard here in Thailand.

I think my original question about what a Thai monks duties are has been answered in part, there are many monks who officiate at weddings and house blessings, and shop blessings and car blessings and all those blessings the Buddha so wisely 2500 years ago instructed his Bikkhus to memorise in case they were ever needed.

I think it will take a lot more time to start to change my opinions of the monastic way of life, especially so for those in China and Tibet, which seem to be overrun with those who just see Buddhism and monastic vows as a means to an end and a big belly!!

But I'm glad that many of you at least have positive experiences of the monastic way of life here in sunny Thailand. Maybe I shall visit Sri Lanka next!!

One example of a good monk I forgot to mention is Luangta Maha Boowa. He's been a monk for almost all of his life and is now in his early 90's.

Every day hundreds of people come to his monastery to give food, and every day he teaches and chats with them despite his advanced years, well at least every day I was there.

Not only that but after the economic crises in the late 90's Thailand ended up owing the IMF a lot of money. Luangta Maha Boowa decided to use his celebrity status and started a campaign along the lines of "If every Thai gave 10 baht we'd pay off the IMF". It worked and the money raised was given to the government and the IMF was paid off.

Just one example of how one monk can make a difference in society.

That's what I wanted to hear!! It seems like a rare exception though.

I saw the monk chat sign at Wat Chedi Luang last week, but I couldn't find anyone to chat with...

Which was a shame!

I Just cannot agree with your assertions.

It may be agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practice Buddhism living among your fellow beings, helping them and being of service to them. It may perhaps in some cases be useful for a man to live in retirement for a time in order to improve his mind and character, as preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual traing, to be strong enough to come out later and help others. But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his own happiness and salvation, without caring for his fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha's teaching which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.

Walpola Rahula

Finding the above text whilst I was in China is what has set me thinking long and hard about this. It offers a more sensible view in my eyes.

If what you say is true about the relationship between these lifelong monks and lay people, then that in some way allays my concerns about the right or wrong of becoming a monk. I still do not agree though that staying in a monastery for life is a good thing, and I don't think it has to do with my western work ethic, more that if anything being in a monastery substantially cuts you off from real life, and if you had really wanted to lead by example, that would best be done outside the monastery.

Camerata..

I agree that the original purpose of becoming a Bikkhu or monk to spread knowledge to others seems to have taken a back seat. Why this is so I have no idea, it feels like many monks are content to retreat to the safety of the life of a monk within the monastery. I think this is especially true in China, here in Thailand I am glad that they play some role in society by helping ordinary Thais make merit, what this actually entails I'm not sure.

I must admit to most of my knowledge of Mogao came from the guides we had there. But here are a few excerpts and links I have found.

The Indian tradition of sannyasa refers to the concept of renouncing attachments to the material world in order to devote oneself entirely to spiritual matters. This concept developed in two ways: The first, outlined in the "Bhagavad Gita", is the principle of internalizing this concept so that it inspires one's daily life. The second is the physical execution of this ideal by formally renouncing the various comforts of society for the austerity of a remote location where the spiritual aspirant devotes him/herself to the search for enlightenment. A remote cave offers peace and shelter as well as an environment suited to spiritual endeavor. Neither light nor dark, high nor low, enclosed nor exposed, a cave is a metaphor for a dimension that exists beyond the worlds of reality and unreality.

The cave thereby became a place for spiritual search. It was but a small elaboration to painting the caves' walls with emblems to facilitate meditation or with visualizations derived from the search for enlightenment.

Sannyasa originally relates to an individual's search for enlightenment. However, even before the institution of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, there was evidence of devotees' zeal to enlighten their contemporaries. Caves also became loci of pedagogy and the tools of proselytizers. Cave paintings came to have the function of publicizing Buddhist stories and concepts to an illiterate audience. The images became attractive and accessible libraries of Buddhist sutras (teachings) and jataka (moral tales of previous incarnations of the Buddha).

from here

Also here, the wikipedia entry is here

Examples from the caves can be seen here

It would seem that for such a huge treasure trove there is remarkably little research on them, possibly as a result of the ongoing disputes between China and various institutions worldwide over the removal of many of the manuscripts.

Once again it depends on what you mean by Buddhism and what you mean by art. I think that the murals you mention can reveal what a particular group of Buddhists thought about their wall decorations (art) but since Buddhism is such a diverse collection of people and beliefs I would hesitate to accept the view that those murals say much about Buddhism as a whole.

Both your statements are of course true, we may have different notions of what is art and what is Buddhism, but when these murals were painted between the 4th and 14th centuries, there must have been a much stronger sense of what Buddhism "is" or was at the time. I would from a common sense perspective argue that religions or philosophies can only dilute over time, and so whilst in todays perspective you may not see the relevance of a group of murals, they would have been seen in a much different light when they were created.

To say these are just murals either is not to do them justice, they are incredible works of art and some would not be out of place amongst the greatest art we have. I have always believed that the appreciation and creation of art are central to the Buddhist way of life, as they both bring joy, and are a good thing. Art is the sublime result of right action and right thought. Many of the works at Mogao are the result of meditative practices, they come from concentration from mindfulness.

So I think it is safe to say that they do say volumes about the Buddhist view of art, you cannot break it down to "annica, dukkha, and annata" that would be like a chemist only seeing the various chemicals used to make the paints.

I think there is a greater appreciation for art in Buddhism, art in nature and art made by artists.

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

I think your confusion stems from the OP's question about what Buddhism thinks of art, while your response deals with what artists think of Buddhism. Not unlike visiting the Uffizi. You won't learn a thing about what Christianity thinks of art, but you'll certainly gain some insight as to what artists think of Christianity.

How so?? The artists that created the many murals at Mogao where themselves Buddhist monks, they were painted to inspire to instruct and to aid meditiation. There is no similarity to the Uffizi whatsoever. And seeing them 1000 years later they still inspire, instruct and make you just sit there in admiration. All qualities of art I would say.

I think it would be safe to say that you can learn a lot about what Buddhism thinks of Art as the caves at Mogao are art for and by Buddhists.

Ourmanflint,

From the perspective of the Buddha's teachings as accepted by Theravada orthodoxy (Thai Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism) there are many reasons for monkhood. I think that the most compelling of these reasons that the broadest audience can appreciate is that the monkhood is what has preserved and spread the Buddha's teachings for the 2500 odd years since the Buddha lived.

As for the veneration of monks in general, this is according to the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha taught that monks should be venerated and I believe he taught that they should be venerated whether one feels that they are personally worthy of it or not.

Chownah

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of what the Buddha said and how that is to be best appreciated, maybe because I try not to follow any one school of thought.

I agree and have said that one of the reasons I can see is good to being a monk is to carry on the tradition and pass on knowledge and wisdom. I agree that this is very important. But nowhere can I find a reason to live ones whole life as a monk?? There maybe those to whom Buddhism is a sanctuary from reality and others who feel they cannot practice Buddhism unless they are too cut off from everyday life, but I believe to do this and to claim you are not being partly or wholly selfish is a foolish lie and if you cannot even accept and understand your own actions and see them as they are, then 10 lifetimes of sitting in a monastery will see you no better off.

I'm not sure why you think anything I have said relates to the veneration of monks? And I have never read anything to suggest that I or anyone should blindly accept any teaching without question, and therefore I cannot agree that veneration of a monk is a must. I would certainly not respect any monk younger than I without at least first talking with them..

putting on the robe does not magically transform anyone. It is just a sign of intention.

For a start you need to realise that there are at least two kinds of monks in Thailand.

One kind, maybe 90% in Thailand, are there to try and make merit for their parents, as a cultural status thing, or to skive off from having to make a living, Their practice of the buddhist teachings and the monks rules can vary from non-existant to being as genuine as a Thai can be.

The other 10% or so see Buddhist teachings as a way to end their personal suffering and suffering as a human condition. They tend to be very strict on the application of monks rules and ascetic practices. In Thailand meditiation isn't so emphasised as in places like Burma but it is a major part of their life. They might live a very secluded life or teach others.

If you are saying the first kind is selfish then I agree with you, the whole merit making industry seems daft to me and quite a sad corruption of the Buddhist teachings.

As for the latter it really depends on where you think the answers to human problems lie. If you think feeding the poor and helping the sick is where it's at then they are going to seem selfish compared with Christians for example.

In contrast the Buddhist teachings points to rooting out an inner dissatisfaction and selfishness within each of us as the way to make the world a better place. The more people who achieve that, the more that can teach others, the better society is as a whole. So while sitting cross-legged in a cave and working on your own self can seem selfish in the short term in the long run it can benefit society as a whole. It takes a long time sure but other methods seem to treat the symptoms, wheras the buddhas method treats the cause.

The people that feed and look after the worldly concerns of those monks are doing their bit and showing that they don't think it's a selfish act but something they want to get behind and support in a way that's appropriate for them.

The making merit was not something I had considered, but on balance while superficial I don't think their behaviour could be regarded as selfish, as they are doing it for many reasons, and if what you say is correct then those reasons are not always their own, so I think this cannot be a selfish act.

I should have added that I do believe that monks who are ordained to set themselves on the path and then leave are not selfish either. They are looking for guidance and are then returning to society to live a full life.

In fact it is the ascetics, the lifers I now regard as the most selfish. Obviously there has to be those who offer knowledge and guidance to newly ordained novices and Bikkhus, they are the teachers and the continue the tradition of passing on their wisdom to those in need of it. I am curious though as to how these monks interact with lay people and if they are available to them when needed?

I can't fathom why a monk should spend his entire life within the monastery, surely there is no need once you have set yourself on the right path, what purpose does it serve? Would it not be more useful to be out in society, not behind the walls of the monastery.? These are the things I cannot justify.

Isn't it more selfish to just be concerned with ones own existence, and ones own salvation??

I seem to have developed these feelings after travelling through western China in the Tibetan foothills and have seen little to change them since returning to Thailand. Maybe I am just seeing the world as it is for the first time. There are lots of notions about the nobilty of life of a Buddhist monk which I can no longer subscribe to. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

If you would like to learn about the things that I mentioned then I suggest a good starting place is the Wings to Awakening web site. It is a thorough treatment of the Buddha's teachings written by a well respected (although not entirely controversy free) monk....American I think. He starts with the basics but some people recommend reading some simpler more basic text first...I hope someone will post and recommend one as I don't know the names of any.

Chownah

Maybe not!! I am completely at ease with my understanding and interpretation of Buddhism, but thanks anyway. My point was I couldn't understand it because it made no sense to me.

I think almost everyone here has had more experience in dealing with Thai monks than me, so I am curious as what are their duties as monks within society, are there things that are expected of them by Thais and if so what are they?

My impression of Buddhist monks has taken a beating this year and I am more and more convinced that they are selfish. I can't seem to shake off the idea that becoming a monk is a selfish not a selfless act, as they are not contributing to society only taking.

Can anyone redress the balance and explain to me why it is not selfish to become a monk.

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

We all now live in a global economy like it or not, the free movement of people and trade is an essential part of this new world. This is a one way street that once you are on you cannot just decide to get off whenever you like or worse try to reverse up it as if turning back time itself.

The central assumptions of this new freedom of movement and business are that countries participating and benefitting from it shall have a level playing field . This means the free flow of not just finance and ideas, but of people, and people wherever they are have to work to survive and they have to have somehwere to call home.

Now if a country like Thailand wishes to continue to benefit from this global economy, then self protectionist measures such as those being taken by the government now and over the past year, can only be seen as xenophobic.

It is hard for some people to accept, but if you wish to keep your countries land, property and jobs to citizens of your own country and take measures in law to do this, then you have lost the right for any of your fellow countrymen to do the same elsewhere.

So we all stay in the country we were born in and go on holiday, no more choosing where you want to spend your life, the level playing field has gone. You cannot have it both ways.

So is Thailand as a state xenophobic... yes it is. And moreover it is in comparison far more proactively xenophobic than any country I have ever been to.

I hope you don't think that football compelled me to leave...

That would make me seem very silly when really I am one of the least silly people I know!

i must be xenophobic, as if i had my way foreigner's would not be able to own land in australia.

we have the rediculous situation where any foreigner with enough money can walk in and buy land.

the japanese own most of queensland, bringing there own people in, and the money goes strait back to japan.

because they are so rich the price of land has sky rocketed because they can afford to pay any price.

who loses?

the average australian who can no longer afford to buy land and a house.

im lucky, i already have my own realestate but there's a generation of australians who will have nothing.

why should our government allow foreigner's to buy land?

sounds fair enough to me.

For once El Tel you are spot on!!

You are xenophobic!!

Who is it that sells all this land to the "invading Japanese"??? Could it be your fellow countrymen by any chance?

This is the exact same small mindedness we are discussing here... the country you are so proud of is changing and quickly, so you blame it all on the fact that "foreigners" are allowed to buy land in Australia. It is ridiculous to think that you can stick a flag in the ground now and say this is my country and we will not allow anyone who does not belong here to buy a part of it.

I don't know the economics of the Australian housing market, but I don't see the connection between Japanese investment in Queensland and the overall rise in house prices.

There is certainly a similarity between Thai xenophobia and your own though, it's a too simple assumption that it all must be the fault of the foreigner and not the person selling the land and making a big juicy profit.

2) I hate football and feel sorry for people whose whole life revolves around football. I have no time for football players one and all.(please see 1)

Blimey, ourmanflint. That's a strange reason (or one of them) to leave England for. Nearly every country in the world has football, in fact i get to see more live English Premiership games IN Thailand than when i am in England.

Gotta agree with the majority of the rest of your reason's though.

It must be that celeb come football player thing that really winds me up... oh and the obscene amounts of money that these little pr*cks get paid to kick a ball around. Football players as rich ferrari driving thugs.... what happened?

Comments like this about the money footballers get paid make me laugh . Be honest ourmanflint, if you could kick a ball as well as Wayne Rooney, and Alex F. gave you a call, you'd take the money wouldn't you? I know I bluddy would, like a shot.

The fact that most of them behave like idiotic retards is just indicative of the fact that they are young, have shed loads of cash and little self control. A bit like most of us at that age, well apart from the money that is.

The money may seem obscene to many but I'd rather they, the footballers, were doing what they are doing than lounging around a council estate supported by the welfare getting involved in drugs and petty crime.

Phil

not everyone is inspired by the gain of material things and wealth... the point is I no longer wish to live somewhere where football players are treated like gods and truly brilliant people have to struggle to survive.

My choice!

2) I hate football and feel sorry for people whose whole life revolves around football. I have no time for football players one and all.(please see 1)

Blimey, ourmanflint. That's a strange reason (or one of them) to leave England for. Nearly every country in the world has football, in fact i get to see more live English Premiership games IN Thailand than when i am in England.

Gotta agree with the majority of the rest of your reason's though.

It must be that celeb come football player thing that really winds me up... oh and the obscene amounts of money that these little pr*cks get paid to kick a ball around. Football players as rich ferrari driving thugs.... what happened?

I must say that there will always be things I love about the UK, quite a few things actually, but I left. Why?

1) I cannot bear the way the culture in the UK is more and more revolving around celebrity, I don't give a f*ok who is going out with who!

2) I hate football and feel sorry for people whose whole life revolves around football. I have no time for football players one and all.(please see 1)

3) I hate Eastenders... anyone who watches this I cannot be friends with!

4) I dislike the rise of mediocrity, and the system that has arisen to support it.( see items 1 to 3)

5) There is no fun in the UK anymore, except on days when the sun comes out to play... and I'm usually working.

6) The UK is not a big enough part of Europe, if it was I would be happier to stay.

7) There are an awful lot of incredibly stupid, ignorant, selfish, small minded and shallow people who I cannot abide to be within earshot of. (please see item 4)

Unfortunately for me I will be making a tactical retreat to blighty in the next few weeks. I only hope I can survive without serious injury to my spirit.

What an interesting thread!

Is Thailand Xenophobic?? There can only be one answer... 100% yes... anybody not seeing that is really missing something. I have visited here many times over the past 15 years and have tried to understand what makes Thais tick, I'm not content with hanging out in bars or on the beach, I actually want to know about the society I once thought I wanted to live in permanently. There are some huge clues for everyone to see, you don't have to read or speak Thai, just look at the jobs section of any of the English language papers. A very large proportion of job offers have the words "Thai People only" or "Thai Nationals only".

Would that be considered xenophibic or racist in your home country? Would it even be legal?

Now.. are Thai people xenophobic? In general I would say no.. on a personal level they have no need to be. I think this is what El Tel and those that cannot see Thai xenophobia are seeing on a day to day basis. Good Thai people are just that, not racist not xenophobic, just happy for you to be spending your money with them.

So do ordinary Thai people show any xenophobic tendencies at all, no. Why would they? Why risk being seen to be xenophobic when your government is xenophobic enough for everyone? That seems to be the best face saving solution of all.

i think your drawing a very long bow there flint.

as far as business wanting thai employees only, i cant see the problem, as they must employ thai nationals first.

farang must be second choise only.

be a top idea if australia tried that one.

thais must be first pick as it is there country after all and they also need a stable pay packet.

this has absolutely nothing to do with xenophobia and a very poor example.

you have to better than that mate.

The point which you so cooly missed is that it is OK for whatever reason to discriminate on the basis of nationality.... that is xenophobia. And Whilst I agree there are sensible reasons for wanting Thai nationals, it would not be tolerated anywhere else I know of.

What an interesting thread!

Is Thailand Xenophobic?? There can only be one answer... 100% yes... anybody not seeing that is really missing something. I have visited here many times over the past 15 years and have tried to understand what makes Thais tick, I'm not content with hanging out in bars or on the beach, I actually want to know about the society I once thought I wanted to live in permanently. There are some huge clues for everyone to see, you don't have to read or speak Thai, just look at the jobs section of any of the English language papers. A very large proportion of job offers have the words "Thai People only" or "Thai Nationals only".

Would that be considered xenophibic or racist in your home country? Would it even be legal?

Now.. are Thai people xenophobic? In general I would say no.. on a personal level they have no need to be. I think this is what El Tel and those that cannot see Thai xenophobia are seeing on a day to day basis. Good Thai people are just that, not racist not xenophobic, just happy for you to be spending your money with them.

So do ordinary Thai people show any xenophobic tendencies at all, no. Why would they? Why risk being seen to be xenophobic when your government is xenophobic enough for everyone? That seems to be the best face saving solution of all.

About time too!! I can't believe these are not commonplace already.

What happened was this: He says to her, "Well you know, I've been to 18 countries now. And do you know what I'm beginning to discover?" We both paused.... waiting for it... And he goes on with, "Once you've been to that many countries, you find that they all start to look the same."

What that really means is "Once you've been to that many countries, my brain can't distinguish between them anymore, and I have lost the ability to see things new without comparing them to everything else I've seen."

Apologies I'm very uneducated on the conflicts in Southern Thailand and the Malaysian border area and I shouldnt of automatically assumed it was down to religion. I did not know there were territorial conflicts in that part of Thailand...

Can anyone enlighten me a little?

Don't believe a word of it. They are just dragging up old history as a smokescreen. Pattani has never ever had very close links to Malaysia, it has on the other hand had very peaceful links with Thailand for hundreds of years. These so called Muslim activists are using this as a way of inflaming the local population, because they now feel that because of the current anti Islamic climate they would be better off allying themselves with strong and muslim Malaysia.

When will people learn that under Islam there is no need to justify ones actions, as it is all "inshala" ...god's will!

just a snippet in the paper yesterday

18% of workers in Singapore are foreigners.

amazing how they have survived this

and made their economy the strongest in se asia

so i guess if they follow Thailands lead and throw most of them out

they will get even more richer...

I think everyone can bring something to Thaivisa.

Perhaps you can bring Silence :-)

Very different countries, different resources; Singapore got great on 3 things; HBDs, the port and financial deregulation/infrastructure investment arm. At least that is how they like to explain it to me.

Foreigners can bring a LOT to Thailand. But some of the foreigners here bring a big supply of condoms and pay checks to keep half of Isaan looking after sick buffalo. (the pay checks do the looking after, not the condoms). Go down to Singapore to meet white people who actually know what they are talking about; it is a lot harder to find them here (although there are admittedly plenty, just they are vastly outnumbered).

Not one for the stereotypes then!!!

Foreigners work in Singapore, because they are attracted to do so by the economic and more importantly the political environment there. Thailand as a xenophobic nay racist society will never attract workers of that calibre in any number, so instead it gets condoms and pay checks in Isaan. This is Thailands choice consciously or not, and as long as they are happy with that, then I guess nothing will ever change.