Xangsamhua

I think Ven. Walpola's approach is very reasonable. As Fabianfred suggested, he may be influenced by the Zen practice in the States of ordaining men and women who then function either as full time Zen teachers or continue in their social and professional roles. Some Zen masters are ordained priests and ministers in Christian denominations, for example (e.g. James Ishmael Ford, a Unitarian-Universalist minister).

Of course, the barriers against full female participation at all levels have to go, at least in western societies.

I don't have a problem with the oriental iconography where it derives from India (Chinese imagery I find very alien). The Buddha and early Buddhism flourished in India, so I don't see Indian-style imagery as alienating at all. It seems natural and authentic, though of course it is idealized, as is the nature of religious imagery. An image of the Buddha in western clothes, with a beard and tousled (or gelled) hair, would seem very strange to me and quite inauthentic. Traditional images of the Buddha, even though they are Hellenized idealizations from some centuries after his passing, are very beautiful and should not be marginalized.

I think the OP has raised an interesting question, and the responses have been varied and multi-faceted. Understandings of compassion, complacency, materialism, happiness, racism and intention have all been presented, and I've found each contribution, even the dismissive one, helpful.

I don't think the OP should be too critical of the intention behind his mother's comment, even though it caused some concern for his wife. It's true that Australians who have not travelled, or only made short trips as a tourist, can be complacent, but they have some basis for it.

Australia has been and still is a remarkably lucky country for most people in so many ways, and it's a good thing if children and adolescents can have a chance to verify this for themselves. Of course material prosperity doesn't guarantee happiness, nor does relative poverty guarantee greater misery; however, while acknowledging the limits of material wealth, I don't think many of us reject it as an alternative to spending most of our time and effort just to make ends meet.

And the benefits of freedom and equality have much to be said for them, too. People can make the best of living in a hierarchical and dictatorial regime, but the evidence over time is that they flourish better where individual freedom, an ethos of equality, resourcefulness, creativity and entrepreneurialism are encouraged. There may not be many places now where these qualities are given priority, but Australians probably think they have these things to a reasonable degree and the perception is what counts. An avant-garde person in Vietnam, or even one who in any way is seen to challenge those in authority, will be blocked or, if not, has to live with the reality that he or she may be blocked in the not too distant future. Travel probably won't help much, though, in this regard. The average tourist is unlikely to see monks and nuns being beaten, churches being burnt down, dissidents being arrested and hauled before kangaroo courts, or children being blatantly indoctrinated in school.

I doubt any compassion is "idiotic". Some is unwise and misdirected, but only in my mind, perhaps not in the minds of others. These are the things we argue about. Is it wise to show material compassion to people who are lazy and dishonest? Is it wise to make that judgement of people without really knowing why they are the way they are? To what extent is material compassion affordable? Is it right to deny my children certain benefits in order to improve the lot of other people's children? Gandhi's compassion was seen by many as unworldly, unrealistic and foolish, but did it lead to the disasters that followed decisions made by more "realistic" and "pragmatic" people? The partition of India and the estimated 500,000 deaths that resulted were the consequence of ego-identity, not foolish compassion. It was Gandhi's more worldly-wise opponents who brought this about, not the naively compassionate Mahatma.

The OP has served us well by asking a question that goes to the heart of the matter: Is compassion always wise? Is complacency really complacent when it generates a desire for one's children and grandchildren to be better aware of their good fortune?

I have been fortunate to have two Thai arahants as my teachers.

The first is LP Jaran of Wat Amphawan and it was through the books written about his life by a Thai woman author which led me to vipassana and his temple.

The second is my present teacher Supawan Green.

Both i met through reading books about them and their teachings.

LP Jaran I love, but haven't heard of Supawan Green. What books of hers would you recommend?

All..... she writes both English and Thai books...does seminars around the world each year too...

Ask me if you want more details

https://www.facebook...n.green?fref=ts

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/?lang=En

http://www.scribd.co...-The-Moral-Diet

http://www.scribd.co...fe-Law-of-Karma

I enjoyed Supawan Green's books, too, but haven't read any in a long time.

I also enjoyed LP Jaran's books. Read them about the same time as I read Supawan's (about 10 years ago).

I'm not just an "ardent practitioner of Mahayana" (Fabian Fred above, #12). We can learn from the best in all traditions.

From memory, Supawan Green was severely shaken into Dhamma consciousness by her observation of the student uprisings of 1973 and 1976 and the military reaction to them. She realized that more was needed than just political reform. I wonder who will arise as Dhamma teachers as a result of the depressing experiences of red and yellow protests in the recent past.

At the risk of sounding churlish, I suspect you're in the wrong country to practise Buddhism.

Having said that, why not think of this, the Buddhism forum, as a sangha?

I've learnt much from the discussions and the generally polite and helpful responses to my own queries from experienced practitioners in this sub-forum. I've also received material assistance (in the form of herbal medication) from a highly respected and knowledgeable member of this forum. Although I don't think I've met any Buddhism forum contributors in the flesh, I think of them as online friends and fellow seekers.

There are web-based sanghas, e.g. the Treeleaf Soto Zen virtual community, but you need to be into Zen to feel a part of that. They actually do online ordinations.

A farang-friendly sangha for lay people in Thailand would be a very marginal one, I think. It seems to me that Thai Buddhism is really for the Thais. Farangs just don't have a place in it.

People down there haven't forgotten the old Sultanate of Pattani and its suppression by the Siamese in the late 18th century.

Actually, the southern states weren't suppressed. They had virtually total autonomy. They did, however, have to pay annual tribute to Ayutthaya. If memory serves me right, the tribute was along the lines of a single gold/silver tree model. The states were far too far away from Ayutthaya to be subject to direct rule or even significant influence.

Fair enough. I'm influenced by having read Ibrahim Syukri's (a pseudonym) History of the Malay Kingdom of Patani a few years ago. See http://www.silkwormbooks.com/each_titles/e_thailand/patani.htm

The resentment still seems to rankle, and even relatively benign colonial powers are resented by the colonized. Still, you probably know much more than I do.

Why is the OIC wasting its time whinging about the Thai government, rather than acting to reign in the terrorist tactics of the fanatical branch of its co-religionists?

Maybe they would act when they see some action from the Thai government to bring those (military & police) who carried out Tak Bai & Kru Be massacres (among other rights abuses) to justice.

The insurgent/terrorist acts long predate the (admitted) atrocities. Perhaps those awful events wouldn't have even occurred had the Islamic mainstream stood up again the lunatic Islamic fringe so intent on blowing up policemen, shooting teachers and beheading rubber plantations workers (both Moslem and Buddhist).

Good point. I wonder if the inflow of Saudi Wahhabi funding in more recent times has boosted violent extremism.

The government's record in the South, especially since the Thaksin era, has been abysmal, but I suspect the OIC is one of those bodies who would never be satisfied anyway unless you subscribe completely to their agenda.

Of course, the Southern situation may be unresolvable. People down there haven't forgotten the old Sultanate of Pattani and its suppression by the Siamese in the late 18th century. The Pattani Malays want independence and Bangkok won't give it to them. Even some meaningful degree of autonomy seems to be unacceptable to the Thai government. Protracted conflict is bound to be the result.

I believe Oz just fines no shows. Much more efficient and revenue generating than bayonets....

It's really not draconian at all. You just have to provide a reason within 21 days or pay a $20 fine. In Oz these days $20 is about the price of a nice bottle of wine.

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

http://www.aec.gov.a...ia.htm#not-vote

Well, you Aussies can do as you prefer in Australia. For this American, the last thing we need is yet another <deleted> federal mandate telling us what to do and how to live. We have way too many of those now.

I sympathize with the philosophical argument against compulsory voting, but I don't think anybody but the Jehovah's Witnesses really thinks about it in Australia. We've had it since 1912 and I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue over it or mount a campaign to have the law rescinded.

I believe Oz just fines no shows. Much more efficient and revenue generating than bayonets....

It's really not draconian at all. You just have to provide a reason within 21 days or pay a $20 fine. In Oz these days $20 is about the price of a nice bottle of wine.

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

http://www.aec.gov.a...ia.htm#not-vote

If the USA had compulsory voting, the democrats would never lose the white house again and there would be eternal democratic majorities in the house and senate. So the republicans would never let that happen! BTW, I think you Aussies have got that one right.

That's very interesting, though based on Democrats and Republicans as they are in the present system. With new demographics, presumably the Republicans would develop policies and strategies that appeal to a broader group (including the "47%").

In both October surveys, more Republicans and Republican leaners than Democrats and Democratic leaners are predicted to be likely voters.

I didn't know that. Why do more Republicans vote than Democrats?

In Australia we have compulsory voting, so there's no difference really between the major parties' turnouts.

When I read poster's suggestions that the teachers are overworked and/or do not listen, or the students are not up to snuff, or the directors or government won't listen, etc. I chuckle to myself because it is all face. Face, face face.

You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin, and this what I use to describe as novel ideas and suggestions being put to the Thai mind. These ideas and suggestions simply will not work because that backwards, avaricious beast is designed to process those brilliant and insightfull suggestions in a non-productive and mal-intentioned manner. It's called Face; the origin of Thai-ness. Remove Face and they would have to start all over again.

Cup-O-coffee, while I sympathise with what you're saying, the importance of face is not just a Thai value. It's endemic throughout East Asia, and yet Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Korea are among the top 5 performers on PISA assessments, and, together with Taiwan, are no mean performers in the broader economic sphere. There must be more to Thai conservatism and insularity than just face.

Could it be simply a matter of choice, at least among those able to make choices? When Thai executives and senor managers look at the pressure to perform placed on people in the East Asian societies - managers, teachers, students, et al - maybe they think the surface harmony and lack of accountability in the Thai workplace (and classroom) is preferable. And I don't know if Thai civil servants are any less focussed on their own interests and the "little picture" than civil servants elsewhere (excepting Singapore, where they seem to be driven to achieve national and corporate goals), but I'd say there's much less pressure from above to make them look beyond their immediate office politics. Dealing with Thai civil servants over the past ten years I've been struck by (1) how pleasant they are, and (2) how little reforming (or any other) zeal they seem to have. They seem to be a bit hollow - almost as though they'd much rather be somewhere else. But this is only an impression based on limited experience.

Given the right catalyst, any group of people can stir themselves. If motivated, either by carrot or stick, or perhaps by shining example, otherwise lethargic people can be galvanized. Soldiers under good leaders achieve much more than those under mediocre ones. And I believe something like this occurred in the Department of Energy in the late 90s, when a small group of well-informed civil servants gained the confidence of their superiors and much reform took place as a result.

Its fashionable to bandy scientific terms and combine old knowledge with new discoveries, but I would no more ask a scientist how to live this life than I would ask a mechanic where to drive my car.

The four-year-old Wisconsin study also doesn't control for hereditary and non-Buddhist environmental factors. It may be Ricard's genetics that produce the colourful scans, or the diet he has been on for the last decades, or any number of other factors. To cherry-pick meditation from all the possible variables and make the correlation causal is not scientific.

Fair comment. It's a hypothetical correlation. But I think it's one that Matthieu Ricard identifies, at least hypothetically.

He speaks about the WHM thing (which he laughs off) in the video below and goes on to talk about the importance of meditation to attaining a realistic and unselfish view of life, which helps one to be happy.

By coincidence I am in the midst of reading The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized, by neurophysiologist Owen Flanagan. The book contains several passages discussing the Mathieu Ricard study. Besides the problem of the n = 1 sample size, Flanagan points out it is scientifically fallacious to conclude Ricard is happier than the general population for several other reasons.

The discussion is quite advanced (or at least I have found it so), but if you go to the Amazon link for the book, click on the book cover for the "Look Inside" feature, and then search the book for "Ricard", you can read excerpts of the analysis -- in fact pretty much all of it. Flanagan, the author of an earlier book called The Colour of Happiness has a lot to say about the state of neurology research and measures of 'happiness'. In fact all that scientists have been able to do, so far, is make very rough correlations between certain areas of the brain that 'light up' under CAT, MRI, etc scans and positive affect reported by the subject. The discipline is still very far from defining or confirming 'happiness' through brain scans.

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0262016044

Nonetheless it is a fascinating subject. I highly recommend the book if you can handle scientific discourse. Even in its infancy, brain research represents a whole new way of looking at Buddhist practice.

Yes, to call Matthieu Ricard the "happiest man in the world" is pretty gimmicky, and perhaps trivializes the Wisconsin studies. Still, as Owen Flanagan argues in The Bodhisattva's Brain, the capacity of neurophysiology to come up with such a conclusion is highly reductive and questionable unless one defines happiness in terms of the data emerging from the tests. Circularity. Flanagan baulks at that and so would most people, I think.

Happiness, like love, is not entirely measurable, or definable in purely quantitative terms (or even, perhaps, in qualitative ones). I would rather just observe Matthieu Ricard over a period of time in order to judge whether I thought he was very happy or not, and I think he and I would need to sit down first in one of his extensively exploratory dialogues to see if we can agree on what "happiness" is.

Not only Owen Flanagan, a fully booted and spurred neurophysiologist, is skeptical about the Wisconsin studies (Ricard began working with them in the early 2000s, and the results - and the "WHM" epithet - go back to 2006, so why we're hearing about them again now I don't know), but others question the broader neuroscience project altogether. The conservative English philosopher, Roger Scruton, has described it as "a new academic disease" that rejects the whole enterprise of a specifically ‘humane’ understanding of the human condition". Scruton's primary complaint seems to be that its findings do not really apply to the human condition except in very limited ways and that the neuroscience enterprise dismisses "our old ideas of responsibility".

In regard to the human response to images, for example, he asks:

How do we explain the emergence of thoughts about something from processes that reside in the transformation of visually encoded data? Cognitive science doesn't tell us. And computer models of the brain won't tell us either. They might show how images get encoded in digitalised format and transmitted in that format by neural pathways to the centre where they're interpreted. But that centre does not in fact interpret - interpreting is a process that we do, in seeing what is there before us. When it comes to the subtle features of the human condition, to the byways of culpability and the secrets of happiness and grief, we need guidance and study if we are to interpret things correctly. That is what the humanities provide, and that is why, when scholars who purport to practise them, add the prefix 'neuro' to their studies, we should expect their researches to be nonsense.

http://www.spectator...33/brain-drain/

Matthieu Ricard, as a scientist and one who delights in exploration and analysis, has cooperated with the Wisconsin studies for over a decade and is happy to accept the sobriquet of "world's happiest man" for the publicity it directs to his work on meditation and the funds it brings in to the charitable work of Karuna-Shechen that he administers. However, I strongly suspect that he does not take the sobriquet very seriously, and that he would ascribe the happiness he enjoys to his long practice of the Buddhadharma and the meditation practice at its centre.

He's also no mean intellect. "The Monk and the Philosopher" and "The Quantum and the Lotus" are must-reads for students of Buddhist philosophy.

The problem is the teacher and the school system as a whole starting from elementary up to the university level. A new breed of teachers need to be trained in progressive methods. However, it is a vicious circle as the teachers even at a university level are rarely interested in developing creativity. Student play it safe by regurgitating what their teachers' say to get a good grade. And students are mainly concerned with grades and not their learning.

Having provided assistance to elementary schools in Southern Thailand, I noticed many teachers turned on satelilte teaching on a television, while teaching unrelated subjects.

My comments are based on my personal experience having completed a phd here and taught many levels of students in Thai universities.

The Thai son of a family friend just graduated from engineering in the US after doing school in Thailand. He said the main difference was that US students study to get knowledge while Thai students study to get a piece of paper. That was quite an astute observation I thought...

I thought the idea was to study for both. You need both the knowledge and the credential.

Is the young man suggesting that US students have purer and loftier motives and, perhaps, would be happy not to sit for the exams after the knowledge was attained?

Perhaps what he really means is that, in the US, the bit of paper will not be handed over if you haven't acquired the knowledge. In Thailand, however ....

Check out the link I just provided. It is a fairly comprehensive article on "natural born". The real truth is nobody really knows.

http://en.wikipedia....-citizen_clause

Edit in: Another interesting article about "natural born".

http://www.michiganl...tutional-method

Thanks, Chuckd. It certainly is a massive distractor from the substance of the campaign. It seems odd that Arnold Schwartzenegger, a naturalized citizen can be Governor of California, but people are challenging Barak Obama's eligibility, even when conceded that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

It's not that odd about the Arnold as the California constitution doesn't require governors to be native born.

Ah yes, I was forgetting about federalism and states' rights.

Check out the link I just provided. It is a fairly comprehensive article on "natural born". The real truth is nobody really knows.

http://en.wikipedia....-citizen_clause

Edit in: Another interesting article about "natural born".

http://www.michiganl...tutional-method

Thanks, Chuckd. It certainly is a massive distractor from the substance of the campaign. It seems odd that Arnold Schwartzenegger, a naturalized citizen can be Governor of California, but people are challenging Barak Obama's eligibility, even when conceded that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

Interesting that Boonlert calls his new group Pitak Siam (Protect Siam) and not Pitak Thailand. After all the name Siam was dropped to incorporate Lao speaking Issaan and the north into a greater family of Tai peoples. Now it seems this mob somehow feel that their Siam of central Thai inhabitants and rulers is somehow under threat by the red hordes from the north and northeast......people who in the not too distant past were known to the Siamese as Lao and who had their own rulers.

I don't know what Seth Bounlert thinks about this, but it's not unusual for Thai nationalists of both the right and the left to prefer "Siam" to "Thailand" as that is the historic name for the country. Ajarn Sivarak Sulak, an outspoken radical, is a prominent advocate for the name "Siam" to be restored. He regards "Thailand" as just an expression of Plaek Phibulsonggram's fascist agenda and should be discarded along with any residual glorification of Field Marshal Plaek and his chauvinistic governments.

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, this was not an issue when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.

John McCain was born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, this was not an issue when he ran president in 2008.

an American military base which is considered to be American soil.

But it isn't http://www.justanswe...ed-us-soil.html

Can someone clarify, definitively, the US constitutional position re children of US nationals born abroad?

Usually, to my knowledge, if a child is born on foreign soil while the parents are on government business (incl. military postings) then the birth is not counted as an expatriate one. In fact, in my country, the same would apply to children born abroad of parents who are missionaries. (In any case, being born abroad is no impediment in Australia unless one has two nationalities, in which case, to be a member of parliament, for example, one must have cancelled the other nationality prior to registering as a candidate.)

It would seem bizarre to me if the US asks its military or government employees to serve abroad and then discriminates against their children, even allowing that not many of them are likely to campaign for the presidency.

Just a thought....

If we could get (1) a serious Minister for Education (who can stay in the job for more than a year or so) who could (2) appoint a courageous Permanent Secretary to implement a reform agenda based on attainable goals and evidence of success from Thailand and abroad, and (3) provide firm and continuing support to those implementing this agenda, perhaps we could get a breakthrough.

The present Permanent Secretary is very capable and well qualified, but she is part of the system, and has been for a long time. Her predecessors, though highly educated, were also products of the system, neutralizing their abilities to make qualitative changes. An educator myself, I'm suggesting that someone new needs to be brought in from outside the education networks, to do a very close examination and push through a new vision and strategy. Many early retirements may be necessary, and those moving up would be forced to realize that rewards will be based on success, and failure will be accounted for.

Maybe just a pipe dream. Maybe things will just muddle along as always, and Thailand will continue to decline in comparison with its ASEAN partners, but there'll be rice in the fields and fruit on the trees for the villagers, and Louis Vuitton and Tesco-Lotus for the urbanites. Politics will be fractious and acrimonious and shambolic, but there'll be no civil wars, so life will go on pretty much as always.

Well lets just put one issue to bed.. at least for now.

The venue holds 20,000 seats, it was stated as being nearly full.

estimates range from 6,000 to 50,000 lets have another educated guess.. if almost full then it's almost 20,000 !!

enough said !

So 18,000 - 20,000 would be a fair estimation then, on that basis?

Would not matter how you carve up any of those figures, for the population in Bangkok not to mention the country and persons who could have gotten to this venue, not to attend, it was a poor attendance.

It was a drop in the ocean, not a drop in the bucke, a drop in the ocean.

Most people don't attend protest rallies, especially if they're not paid, not bused in and the rally doesn't coincide with down time on the farm. The numbers may not tell you a great deal about the extent or depth of support there is; you can only compare rally numbers with those of other rallies (plus the logistics, as mentioned above - transportation, "lunch money", etc.).

What you need to consider is how reasonable were the complaints and demands being put forward and how well-behaved the attendees were. It seems the gathering was peaceful and caused no inconvenience to anyone, and the complaints were specific, e.g. the mismanagement and corruption of the rice pledging scheme and the brazen contempt of court by government leaders regarding Thaksin Shinawatra's role in Thai government.