chutai

Ghosts can be neither good or bad, as in Buddhist thought there can be no life without matter. So no saksit actually exists. Although as far a spirit houses particularly are concerned ,the Japanese word honzon is worth noting, i.e. an object of worship. If they're what anyone puts their faith into, then so be it. Although it's highly unlikely to reap any benefit. But that is not of course to show disrespect for non- Buddhist traditions, only to see clearly that there is nothing intrinsically of value inherent when applied to animistic superstition.

russians in pattaya and now swedish in hua hin. what is thailand coming to

Prachuab Khiri Khan

and where do you think hua hin is?

Close to Cha-Am where I used to live. Not suggesting that they should have said Cha-Am mind ... Prachuab Khiri Khan would have been enough. Slack journalism to call Prachuap, Hua Hin ,imo.

Or to put it another way, to know the map isn't the same as knowing the territory ?

russians in pattaya and now swedish in hua hin. what is thailand coming to

Prachuab Khiri Khan

What is it with us Swedes this week? Seems like a lot of us want to give us a bad reputation in Thailand. But this guy's family name is not Swedish, so perhaps not that bad after all, he's just another import I guess.

Can't get away with that. Possibly Italian dad and Swedish mum ? Something like that. Looks Scandinavian to me, right down to the "colourful" shirt.

:jap:

By the way, I almost said at the end of my first reply to you "But I think you know that already" but I didn't want to imply you were being disingenuous. I was pretty sure you had a reason for the "question" and it mattered to you...

It does. But my main reason for raising that topic was in the context of questioning , or criticising (an articulation of passion), many aspects of "provisional" Buddhist antiquities.

Maybe it's all as quaintly medieval as referring to a Lord Buddha. I don't know, but a more important question to me is why disabled people are excluded from ordination ? That includes people with such as web fingers, etc. Not many people know that - including Thai people.

Though there are going to be more palatable scriptural reasons available (in abhidhammapiṭaka) , I believe the arguably ugly truth may well be that the disability is viewed as evidence of not having been a good person in a previous life (as is often the case with many unfortunate people's lot in life -- they are sometimes, consciously or not -- seen as having earned their fate).

There's not actually. Those rules were laid down by the 1st Patriarch. Having researched the subject, the only possible reason is that supposedly, disabled people "don't reflect the purity of the Buddha's body". Yet, if Buddhism is anything it's based upon compassion (in both the secular and spiritual meaning). NB These rules only govern ordination into the Thai monastic tradition and doesn't apply to other Theravadan traditions ,e.g. as in Burma.And of course not Mahayana.

Thanks very much. I really meant to say "perhaps there are going to be more palatable scriptural reasons available..." as clearly I didn't know and I'm glad to be set straight.

:jap:

Maybe it's all as quaintly medieval as referring to a Lord Buddha. I don't know, but a more important question to me is why disabled people are excluded from ordination ? That includes people with such as web fingers, etc. Not many people know that - including Thai people.

Though there are going to be more palatable scriptural reasons available (in abhidhammapiṭaka) , I believe the arguably ugly truth may well be that the disability is viewed as evidence of not having been a good person in a previous life (as is often the case with many unfortunate people's lot in life -- they are sometimes, consciously or not -- seen as having earned their fate).

There's not actually. Those rules were laid down by the 1st Patriarch. Having researched the subject, the only possible reason is that supposedly, disabled people "don't reflect the purity of the Buddha's body". Yet, if Buddhism is anything it's based upon compassion (in both the secular and spiritual meaning). NB These rules only govern ordination into the Thai monastic tradition and doesn't apply to other Theravadan traditions ,e.g. as in Burma.And of course not Mahayana.

Man (with or without his tackle) wanting to shag a man = GAY!! Why can't people understand this - they are QUEER! ABNORMAL!

Maybe those who disrespect what a person is are the more "queer" and "abnormal". Yours respectfully, a straight Buddhist.

Maybe it's all as quaintly medieval as referring to a Lord Buddha. I don't know, but a more important question to me is why disabled people are excluded from ordination ? That includes people with such as web fingers, etc. Not many people know that - including Thai people.

Some Western Buddhists declare a lack of interest in karma as a generative force in whatever happens after this life. I suppose they are Neo-Buddhists, or Post-Buddhists, but not Buddhists in the conventional sense. Perhaps it doesn't matter really, especially if the Buddha's teaching is not the Final Word, but a powerful contribution to the clarification of reason and the unfolding of truth. I've also heard it put by a Zen master: "Why be a Buddhist when you could be a Buddha?"

I must admit not ever hearing anyone subscribing to Buddhist thought denying Karma as volitional action, although there may be questions around pervasive karmic consequentialism ; as it's obvious from what we experience that people don't always get their just deserts whether based on good or bad actions. However, as a guideline to treating others with mindful respect it can't be beaten, even if there's no proof of rebirth , let alone the question what is there to be reborn. Any answer seems to me more about faith than evidential.

Nevertheless, I do like that Zen quote as it's central to the Mahayana doctrine about each possessing the inherent Buddha nature. Albeit that doesn't negate the navigational compass as set down by the historic Buddha , and subsequently clarified by countless mentors.

My own favourite quote from all Buddhist literature is in Anguttara Nikaya (3.65) :

Do not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it

Empty and devoid of ego

is the nature of all things.

There is no individual being

that in reality exists.

Nor end nor beginning having,

nor any middle course.

All is a sham, there’s no reality whatever;

It is like unto a vision and a dream.

It is like unto clouds and lightning.

It is like unto gossamer or bubbles floating

It is like unto a fiery revolving wheel.

It is like unto water splashing.

Because of causes and conditions things are here:

In them there is no self-nature (atman, soul).

All things that move and work,

know them as such.

Ignorance and thirsty desire,

the source of birth and death are they:

Right contemplation and discipline of heart,

desire and ignorance obliterate.

All beings in the world,

beyond words and expressions are they;

Their ultimate true nature, pure and true,

Is like unto vacuity of space.

- Abhisamaya Sutra

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

Using the term reincarnation is itself problematic from a Buddhist perspective. There can be no such thing as a "non-personal reincarnation" as the term reincarnation implies that something is reincarnated with life, i.e. matter. When in fact matter already has a life-force of its own. To suggest that matter is re-infused with life suggests some transcendent or eternal otherness (soul?) which mystically embodies something with life. This is ok from a theistic point of view, However, is incompatible with Buddhist thought, which prefers to use the term "rebirth".

I used to have quite a lot of contact with someone who was a monk in Thailand for around 15 years ; Peter Robinson aka Phra Peter Pannapadipo, or pen name "Phra Farang". He was highly critical of many of the non Buddhist aspects of Thai Buddhism and when last he wrote to me , he had de-robed and told me that he no longer knew what Buddhism was. From a Buddhist existential perspective that is perfectly understandable and even healthy - although I think it was more to with the fact that much he had learned about Buddhism was in fact in conflict with his experiences as a respected Thai monk.

I found that "Exploring Karma and Rebirth" by Nagapriya had an interesting and thoughtful perspective on both karma and rebirth. Although basically an introduction to the subject, the author offers some thought provoking issues on both subjects that long-term practitioners might do well to consider. For instance, if Shakyamuni was was first expounding Dharma in the West would he have mentioned either. Perhaps it would only make sense in the context of where he was expounding the time ? A very brief precise on some of what Nagapriya is asking , but a book worth the ponderingI think.

Personally began when it all seemed to start in the West on a large scale - the 60's when searching for something other than post WW2 affluence became almost the norm for many of my generation. Along with using a key that took many , too far, too soon I'd always have a copy of Zen Flesh ,Zen Bones on hand and read DT Suzuki and Christmas Humphreys.

Around the end of the 1960's I had a friend who's been introduced to the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin, and although it wasn't my time to take take it up seriously, the mantra of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo was never buried too deeply in my karmic storehouse to be forgotten and periodically arose almost involuntarily.

The journey from there took me into some involvement with Tibetan Mahayana and a largely intellectual conviction towards Theravada. Neither though actually made much difference to my habitual life-state , or deeply ingrained karmic tendencies. It was only when I picked up chanting again - this time seriously - and along with study did things start to change to take me beyond only the level of appearance and form - a gazing at the moon , not directly , but as an image reflected on water. It has been the case over the past fifteen years that my human revolution/mental transformation has coincided with a more simple - but no less profound - understanding that Buddhism = everyday life. Ridiculously easy and simplistic as that seems, it nevertheless escaped me for decades and takes an awful long time for many to realise, The shedding off trappings of religious transcendentalism that has been so part of our philosophy and has been ingrained from the formative years of childhood is no easy thing ; anymore than is still holding an inclination towards theism in some guise : sometimes more subtle, sometimes more overt.

It can be a long and arduous journey, yet the essence of Buddha consciousness is still within each of us and as long as we keep polishing the mirror of practice we are sure to eventually reveal the underlying dynamics driving all phenomena - the true nature of existence.

Well, if they haven't yet understood what a diphthong is I'm not bothering to teach there again.

Labour

Respect has to be earned

But the Buddhist perspective has is that to be afforded respect is a fundamental human right. As is the dignity of all life. Sometimes we really ought to try and understand things from a perspective outside of our own culturally determined ones. :jap:

It doesnt matter because Ying-Luck is going to win and she will end this medieval curse AND BRING DEMOCRACY TO THAILAND! (ha ha ha)

The UK seems to have coped with having a monarchy and democracy.

Of course, everyone knows what the aim of Thaksin was when he was PM. Using Yingluck is just a step back in that direction.

Indeed the UK is a democracy.

With similar LM laws?

As I've already said, a different form of monarchy under a different State religion. The Queen may be the head of the C of E, but His Highness the King of Thailand is seen as an embodiment of Buddha Shakyamuni. A vast differences in deferential position.

The UK seems to have coped with having a monarchy and democracy.

But there are fundamental differences in the form of monarchy. None of which would be expedient ,or respectful, to discuss here.

It doesnt matter because Ying-Luck is going to win and she will end this medieval curse AND BRING DEMOCRACY TO THAILAND!

Pity that no other country has ever colonised Thailand really. Still I'm sure the country could still be invaded and the western model democracy be ,literally, enforced.

Perhaps he thought Thailand , like the rest of the world, just another extension of America. Maybe he'd have done better to have spoken to Giles Ungpakorn first.

Give them a good old Aussie accent any day I say!

You might say , but whether they'll understand is another matter. It's not only once have I had a Thai tell me that the only English accent that they don't understand is the Aussie one. True story.

When will they realise - of course they wont- that the American language, being an aggressive one, is incompatible with the Thai psyche and culture so, therefore, just sounds ugly when spoken by Thais.I was fortunate enough to have been employed by a school that would only employ British native speakers - which generally worked better.

Often a hidden problem. But god forbid anyone having to find a wheelchair to use there.

Thank you for your help. Much appreciated.