jts-khorat

I get, to a point, what you are saying. But at the same time, there are in any moment in time millions of people constantly worse off, to the point of dying from starvation, famine, or -- as in this case -- war. Many of those are children, even. It never worries anybody. Actually I would bet, would we have a starving Iranian man ringing on our doorbell right now, we would not open our house to him. So why would we single out this guy who talks about the fact that he, personally, suffered a very quantifiable and serious financial loss. I think all those who critisized this man are hypocrites, if they are not -- right now! -- posting from somewhere in Gaza, the South Sudan or some favela slum in South America, handing out food to the poor and suffering. Even then I would question how those holy people have the time to post banal criticism on the internet, instead of investing their time in helping those poor souls their virtue signaling is supposed to be about.

So, the interesting question is then: why are those poeple stuck in those airports? This was an illegal, fully imperialist attack on a third nation: totally preventable, if the same guy would not have broken the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). My assumption would be, that you would, following your logic, ask for the United States government to reimburse people for their preventable losses and hardships endured; and for those who wrote similar comments to yours and are actually American, to chip in with their own funds (as they are collectively responsible for their government -- same as the Iranian civilians dying right now, it seems). I am waiting with bated breath hearing how some American paid for this guys airfare and hotel...

Of course, some poeple save a whole year for their one little holiday in the year; so for him, it might be a considerable financial hit that will takes months to recover from. But you are right, this is infinitely better than getting bombed to pieces by an aggressive terrorist regime acting against any international law, bombing and killing people based on their religion (yes, I am talking about the USA).

This was exactly the category error after the tsunami, when many people who booked hotels with our company asked for refunds -- only, as it was high season, the hotels had already been paid and especially in the case of Phi Phi Island simply did not exist any more (I personally do not know what happened with this money from their end, but TiT). Many people did not understand, that also the Thai government would not step in and pay some recompense -- even though many customers argued that they "had donated money for the tsunami cleanup". The number of customers who did get anything back was the tiniest percentage (in the best case a coupon for a discount on future bookings within a year), not because we did not have goodwill, but simply because we as an agent simply did not have the cash reserve. I assume, big airlines might have a size and cashflow advantage, but many people do not book directly, but with some travel agent. They will be out on the street alone with this.

It is. But then, Thailand and especially Phuket makes an incredible amount of money with tourists, and complaining later that they behave like... tourists, sounds a bit stupid. And finally: going topless was culturally the norm in Thailand, until the far-right Phibunsongkhram government banned it to make Thais look more Western with their introduction of strict cultural norms (Ratthaniyom). So, what exactly is then the "correct" Thai cultural sensibility?

Why would you even think about buying a condo where you are already not happy while renting? Rent for a while at least in the same builduing where you want to stay, check out your neighbors (you buy them with the unit and are stuck with them forever!), see if you feel good when staying there. Then, only then, would I start thinking financials. The cheapest condo was not worth the investment if you do not enjoy living your life there.

War means "higher force", just as Covid did. No insurance will pay for this. His best bet is that the airline shows some goodwill, but there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

By all accounts (and by my own experience), Google has created real issues with his new Gemini 3.1 models; most credit it to the guardrailing and censoring going haywire in the new model, as it seems to hit in the most unexpected circumstances, making prompts that worked a week ago throwing up errors. I guess this can be fixed by finetuning those guardrails, then you will see improvements within a few days. Or this is indeed the beginning of the end, with OpenAI-models already experiencing excessive ressource lockdowns due to the immense cost/income ratio those services have; some see this as the first crack in the bubble that will wipe out this part of the American economy. I think the survivors of this will be the Chinese models, built on copying and scraping the much more expensive American ones. They could be just cheap enough to maybe have a slim chance to make the money back they have cost.

If anybody could get a job if they want more money, you would not need UBI as a concept. The whole premisse of this thread is, that there are no more (normal) jobs you could get.

well, yes. but looking at drone technology, unrest simply means rotting in a field really quick.

I think the answer is fairly obvious, and nobody has talked about it in this thread yet... Nations in the West have recognized that they can live far beyond their means and fuel unnatural growth, by indebting themselves. To get rid of some of this debt, they are inflating themselves out of it. Whoever defined that 2% inflation or more is a good economic target should be shot. The Americans are masters in living beyond their means and it finally has turned to bite them. But the countries mentioned here like China have learned quickly and are blowing up their own bubbles. While they are at the beginning of this growth cycle, we are at the end of it.

I have not asked you to be following any Buddhist tenets. Horses led to water and all that. But, somebody asked, where he can get a specific blessing and I added some information on what the philosophy behind it is. You might give it some thought, or you might not. Simply calling it all rubbish without having thought about it, is, of course, also one of your prerogatives.

A whole different discussion however. And there is another categorical issue with your post. Why is getting donations inherently a bad thing (you make it sound like it)? Giving a donation to a temple or a monk follows two very defined uses: the one of less importance is, that it actually feeds the monks; this makes them dependent on their congregation, so that bad monks get filtered out very quickly (I know, in theory, but that would be a discussion even more removed); I have witnessed several times that a village stopped giving rice to the monks for undue behaviour, and somebody having no food at all will wise up quickly. The one of more importance is, that it is again a tool to practice relinquishment from worldy possessions and practicing merit due to exercising a wholesome action -- giving a donation is for your personal benefit foremost. As such it is really of no importance whatsoever what the monk might do with your donation-- which does not mean that you cannot critisize; but you have already gained the benefit from giving it. It is the only way this system can work, and it did so for 2500 years. I would posit, that it would help anybody much more to focus in all of this on why it should be done and that you, if you would do it, do it for wholesome reasons and with the proper intention, instead of concentrating on how so many others might do it wrong. As a simple example: just because you can hit somebody with a shovel, it does not mean that all shovels are bad, or that you also should start hitting people with your own shovel. Live your own best life, and you will be content.

Maybe, and this would be just as well. Improving knowledge is the best use of time. My answer to him is not based on any notion about how he might use it, I simply gave him an advice based on best practice to follow as per my current knowledge. As should be all advice ever given. I am actually happy that he has questions. And the answer written here might benefit additional others who simply did not dare to ask.

Some categorical problems with your answer. First, it is (Theravada, Pali) Kamma, not (Mahayana, Sanskrit) Karma. The concepts are sufficiently different to insist on the distinction. I would posit, that the "Karma" Boy George was maybe singing about to be a wholly different concept to the two. To simplify the central and certainly complicated tenet of a faith to some New Age meme is not making enough effort of understanding. If you read my post, you definitely do not get "instant" anything by wearing a string, or amulet -- there is no such a concept in Theravada. Accruing wholesome Kamma is a lifelong process of concentrating one's ethics towards a goal, which is enlightenment (eg. recognizing reality). Karma is a concept developed a thousand years after the Buddha, not an original teaching, so it is completely left-field to even bring it up in the context of a Theravada-based discussion (eg what you can or cannot get from a visit of a Thai temple or wearing a Saisin). A Saisin, as would be the Buddha image in a temple or at home, is however a very good tool to snap one back from everyday distractions into concentrating on our intentional actions. I think, most lay people would definitely need such a tool, and I would follow the simple motto here: what helps, helps. Not to go too deep with it (the internet is full of great reading material), this maybe explains very shortly the difference between Kamma and Karma: As I wrote in another thread: words do have meaning. If we use them interchangeable as if they do not, it will be really difficult to understand each other and maybe come to a mutual result for any discussion.