Xangsamhua

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

Good luck, TP.

On the big question:

Schopenhauer put it nicely. He was an "atheist", much influenced by the philosophies of India.

"Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs forever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time."

(Arthur Schopenhauer, “On the Vanity of Existence”, 1851)

Qoheleth, the 3rd century BCE Jewish teacher, had a way with words too.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

(Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV)

On Theravada and doing your best to be a good person:

"For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the Arahat seeks to, what would be left but compassion?" (Lama Govinda, quoted in Huston Smith, "The World's Religions" (1991), p.127

Apologies, the quote in red is from Bhikkhu Nyanaponika, not Lama Govinda. The bhikkhu was speaking about Lama Govinda's views.

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

Good luck, TP.

On the big question:

Schopenhauer put it nicely. He was an "atheist", much influenced by the philosophies of India.

"Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs forever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time."

(Arthur Schopenhauer, “On the Vanity of Existence”, 1851)

Qoheleth, the 3rd century BCE Jewish teacher, had a way with words too.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

(Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV)

On Theravada and doing your best to be a good person:

"For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the Arahat seeks to, what would be left but compassion?" (Lama Govinda, quoted in Huston Smith, "The World's Religions" (1991), p.127

Awakened, there's a lot of material in your postings. I've just skimmed them (will read more closely later) and am familiar with the broad theme you have presented. There have been a number of popular books published on these matters, notably those by Freke and Ganley that take up Professor Wells' thesis (since expanded upon by others) that Jesus never existed (though I understand Wells backed away from a strong view on this at an Oxford debate in recent years). I think the Rosicrucians have been making these connections since they were founded, haven't they? I have vague recollections of reading something by Dr Spencer Lewis, a Rosicrucian writer.

You refer to various authors. Is it possible for you to provide a bibliography of the main works you refer to?

The Buddha-Christ connection is always food for speculation (as is the Christ-Issa connection in Kashmir) and I don't know if anyone will ever have enough material on this to satisfy scholars. It is agreed, I think, that the Egyptian Therapeutiae, a prototype for the monastic movement started by Antony and Pachomius in the 3rd century CE, drew on Buddhist principles. Jesus lived in Galilee which was on a major trade route through which merchants of the India trade would have passed and one would assume there was some exchange of ideas. Marcus Borg, the liberal Protestant writer, has authored a book of sayings, parables etc that show a close similarity between those of the Buddha and of Jesus.

There are a number of interesting propositions you put forward, some of which can be contested (e.g. Buddhist influence on the "Hebrews": Abraham and the early "Hebrews" were well before the Buddha's time), but they are all worth following up. Archetypes for great heroes and religious leaders are well known, as they are for most folk tales and legends of significance (similar flood stories are found in Mesopotamia (taken up in Genesis) and in Central (and South?) America), reflecting something common in the human psyche across times and cultures.

Whether Jesus actually existed is not a closed question. Most (liberal?) scholars acknowledge that while our inherited portrait of Jesus may be heavily overlain by myth, there is enough evidence to indicate that the stories about him are based on a real person who lived and taught in first century Galilee (with at least one foray into Jerusalem). Certainly we acknowledge the existence of other historical figures on as little or as much evidence. Ed Sanders, a very careful scholar, says that compared with many other ancient historical figures we in fact know quite a bit about Jesus. Paula Fredericksen and Geza Vermes, both highly skeptical of the conventional presentations of Jesus in the past, do not believe that he did not exist. Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg and other revisionists agree and books by most or all of these authors are easily accessed through Kinokuniya in Thailand or Amazon, Barnes & Noble etc.

There are those who argue, on grounds similar to those you have raised, that the Buddha was not an historical person; however, most of us do not believe that, but rather that there is a substratum of historical substance beneath any mythical superstructure that has been raised

Lao words are spelt phonetically and there are more homonyms than in Thai. Today's spelling of ວຽງຈັນ translated into Thai is เวียงจจันทร์ (City of the Moon) but considered to be the Thai official spelling is เวียงจันทน์ (Sandalwood City), which derives from the original Sanskrit spelling and the way it was spelt before the Lao reforms.

That's an excellent explanation, 5tash. However, what did the Laotians intend. Did they intend that the name of the city be Sandalwood City or City of the Moon? Are there superstitions or ancient tales that are associated with the founding of the city which would indicate intent one way or the other? Thanks again.

Unless my memory is playing tricks (as it may be in my dotage), Vientiane has always been เวียงจันทน์ (sorry, don't have Lao script) - the city of sandalwood. Certainly it was when I lived there between 1969 and 1975.

Just a few points about the Catholic mission/s in Thailand (and a bit about the Protestants).

It's worth noting that:

• There has been a Catholic community in Siam/Thailand since before the first Catholic clergy were appointed in Ayutthaya in 1567. The two Portuguese Dominicans sent out in that year were sent as pastors to minister to the Catholic community, not to evangelize the Buddhist population.
  

• There have been Catholic churches and communities in Bangkok since at least 1674 when the Church of the Immaculate Conception was built in Samsen District.
  

• Unlike the Protestant churches, Catholic missionary activity in Siam/Thailand has always been focused on education, medical provision and social welfare and development. It was always made quite clear by the Siamese/Thai authorities up to the reign of Rama V that evangelization through proselytization was not welcomed. Apart from an unfortunate lapse during the reign of Narai the Great (late 17^th century), encouraged by his Greek Prime Minister, Constantine Faulkon, the Catholic missions have, to my knowledge, largely respected Thai sensitivities. People have become Catholics, however, over the years and Catholic villages have emerged, particularly in areas where ethnic minorities, such as Chinese immigrants, mountain people, or descendants of Vietnamese Catholic refugees (since the 18^th century) have settled.
  

• Rama IV encouraged Western Protestant missionaries, such as the Bradleys and Dr Samuel McFarland, because of their expertise in education, health care, printing and publishing etc. and maintained excellent relations with the Catholic missionaries and a close friendship with their Apostolic Vicar, Bishop Pellegroix,from whom he learnt Latin in exchange for lessons in Sanskrit and Pali. Rama V continued this, inviting Dr McFarland to establish the first bilingual schools in Thonburi-Bangkok, but with the proviso that no Christian proselytization was to take place.
  

• The Protestant missionaries who came in the reign of Rama V more actively sought converts and the seeds of bitterness and distrust between Christians and Buddhists in areas worked by those missionaries persisted until recently. Hopefully, mutual respect and understanding has replaced the distrust, at least in those villages where the Christian community has been established for a long time. Dr Herb Swanson, a former Presbyterian missionary in Chiang Mai province has a very good website covering his own and the broader Thai church experience. http://www.herbswanson.com/
  

• Foreign Catholic missionaries are rather thin on the ground now in Thailand, though there are some and, of those, some have been here for 50 or 60 years and, hence, are not naïve about what is possible and desirable. Most members of missionary orders such as the Redemptorists are Thai and they work in Bangkok in Catholic parishes, in places like the Mercy Center in Klong Toey, and in Catholic villages in various parts of Thailand. They have no illusions about "converting" people from anything other than ignorance, disease, hunger and demoralization (through poverty and powerlessness). Of course, being religious missionaries, they can always be accused of having hidden agendas, taking advantage of people's misfortune, etc., but to decide if that's the case you'd have to find out more about them and their work.
  

Thaksin legal reps jailed over bribe attempt

By south-east Asia correspondent Karen Percy

Members of the legal team representing Thailand's ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, have been sentenced to jail for attempting to bribe court officers earlier this month.

Three of Mr Thaksin's legal representatives have been found guilty of contempt of court after visiting the Supreme Court on June 10 to drop off a package containing pastries and two million baht ($70,000).

The court ruled the three had attempted to bribe court officials.

Mr Thaksin is fighting several corruption cases after been pushed from office in the 2006 military coup.

Pressure is mounting on the current Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, to step down.

He faces a vote of no confidence in Parliament today because of his Government's close ties with Mr Thaksin.

Buddhism is not decaying or weakening by any means. In fact you will find that Buddhist teaching is spreading in Europe and the U.S. rapidly. Perhaps some of the more organized Buddhist traditions (including Thailand) are not growing as fast as before, but all you have to do is go online to the Buddhist site www.e-sangha.com and you will meet Buddhists from all over the world. Of all Buddhist traditions and creeds.

I'm sure you can find at least a few who were (or feel they still are) Christians, but have converted (if that is the correct term) to a Buddhist perspective. (There is no prohibition against being a Christian, and a Buddhist at the same time.)

So I'm not worried about evangelists "converting" people.

Good points, IMA. I'm more worried about the mentality of the evangelists and the impact this mentality can have on Western societies.

My experience with Indochinese refugees in Australia, who were often sponsored or assisted by Christian groups in their early days is that, of those who were then baptized, they were quite happy to call themselves Christians, but it appeared to make no difference to their participation in the life of the Wat, once they'd got one established. Being Christian and Buddhist didn't seem to present any issue at all for them.

I get the impression also from discussion forums among Masters students in (Christian) Theology that at least these Western Christians (mainly Catholic) are beginning to accept that religious boundaries can be porous and exclusivism is clearly unacceptable. Of course it requires some open-mindedness and some willingness to shed and renew.

type=simple&format=Long&q1=heaven&restrict=New+Testament&size=All"]New Testament with regard to heaven[/url]

Excellent resource. Thank you. I think, though, if we are looking for Jesus' own words about heaven we could restrict ourselves to the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke, that draw on common sources as well as their own community's tradition. John is too "theological" (rather than "historical"), Paul talks about heaven from entirely his own perspective (and reflects Chaldaean-Persian influences in referring to the "third heaven" and, in another place to the "sting" of death [a Babylonian metaphor for death as a scorpion]), the non-Pauline epistles simply reflect their authors' views, and Revelations is simply a bizarre vision or dream account that barely made it into the canon.

Browsing quickly through the quotes I think you're right that the references to heaven are not altogether clear. Is Jesus speaking of a place in the cosmos? Is he referring to a paradisiacal future state on earth? The coming kingdom he's inaugurating? A metaphor for a better state/condition than at present? It is a bit vague.

I had a look at Richard McBrien's magisterial and hugely popular work "Catholicism" (1994) and note from the index that there are 3 pages given to discussion on "heaven" in a 1200 page book; they're right near the end. I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church at work, so will check tomorrow, but I suspect there's not much in there either. As you say, the heaven/hel_l thing is probably largely folk-religion, ubiquitous and all as it may be. Interestingly, purgatory seems to stand the test of time better, because, if there is any retribution in whatever form for the sins one commits in one's life, the chance to work it off over time is more acceptable justice than an eternal punishment (or an eternal reward for someone who just gets over the line). Purgatory got a bad press in the pre-Reformation period because of abuse of the dispensations system (people could pay money to get relatives out of purgatory or reduce their time).

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian.

Sabaijai, there's no need to dredge up a tendentious 1926 publication by an amateur biblical scholar (though he was a lawyer and we all trust lawyers, don't we) to make Christians look like idiots. They're perfectly capable of doing that by themselves, particularly those of the literalist variety (see my earlier posting about Fowler's stages of faith). Have a look at John Selby Spong's books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". They're easy to read and well-informed (he is a retired Episcopalian bishop).

There's plenty to criticize, and attack if you like, in Christianity, and this fissiparous religion is starting to go through a purifying phase from which I think it will emerge much less numerous but much more reasonable and credible. To what extent it resembles the old form is a good question. Religions, institutions, forms of expression.. these things go in cycles. It'll be interesting to watch. Buddhists should do so with charity.

Correct, all you have to do is read all the citations about 'heaven' in the New Testament.

But I do think the scholar made good points, sorry if you are so far above his scholarship as not to appreciate it

Sabaijai, apologies for my somewhat cranky and perhaps arrogant response to your earlier posting. There has, however, been an explosion in biblical studies in the past 50 or 60 years, especially since Pope Pius XII opened the door (1943) to Catholic scholars to engage in and promote critical methods in the field. Admittedly a lot of biblical studies that goes on, particularly in the conservative Christian seminaries, although meticulous, doesn't accept a lot that would be uncontested in more liberal schools.

On the question of Hebrew understandings of "heaven", I would have thought that first century Jews were more likely to have picked up ideas about "the last things" from their experience during the exile (6th century BC) in Chaldaea than they would have retained from earlier pre-Exodus biblical times. The Israelites were notorious throughout their history for taking on the beliefs and devotions of neighbouring peoples, perhaps because the cult of Yahweh was so harsh. You're quite right though, I think, in saying that metaphors about heaven in first century Temple Judaism and early Christianity were generally based on primitive cosmology. What the people actually believed it was I'm not sure. I don't think Jesus preached "pie in the sky", but he certainly taught that ethical living would be rewarded in some way, either after death or during life (especially with the coming of the kingdom). I'm not sure that he had any certainties himself about the after-life; his focus was on the Kingdom, which was to be an earthly one. We retroject onto Jesus beliefs that emerged after his followers' response to whatever happened at Easter.

A very interesting review and rather depressing in the picture it describes.

I would recommend that people read the review right through, as the earlier paragraphs can give the impression that Christians in general are engaged in these ghastly evangelising activities and have the same pathological mentality. The second half of the review makes it quite clear that the object of concern is not Catholics or mainstream Christians but the literalist and fundamentalist types.

I'm not always sure what the difference is between fundamentalists and evangelical Christians. The former are obviously very literal and doctrinaire and more likely to be "in your face". I think the latter start from a position of taking the Bible at its face value, but will modify their views if given good reason to do so. Perhaps some won't accept any reason for doing so and, hence, are really fundamentalists. The popular author on religious matters, Phillip Yancey, himself an evangelical, but a very reasonable one, says that fundamentalists are "evangelicals who are angry", therefore inclined to say and do stupid things.

I like Brucenkhamen's comment above: "If you look at the core of the Buddhas teachings these are universal truths that don't just apply to people who believe in the Buddha. To the degree that someone applies the principals of awakening and gaining freedom from Greed, Hatred, a Delusion is the degree to which they are applying the Buddha's principals. It doesn't matter whether that person is a Buddhist, Christian, Athiest, or Muslim etc."

I'm trying to apply these principles without giving up on my own Christian heritage, but it's difficult sometimes, and the constant embarrassment of being associated with Christians of literalist and dogmatic enthusiasms doesn't make it any easier.

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian.

Sabaijai, there's no need to dredge up a tendentious 1926 publication by an amateur biblical scholar (though he was a lawyer and we all trust lawyers, don't we) to make Christians look like idiots. They're perfectly capable of doing that by themselves, particularly those of the literalist variety (see my earlier posting about Fowler's stages of faith). Have a look at John Selby Spong's books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". They're easy to read and well-informed (he is a retired Episcopalian bishop).

There's plenty to criticize, and attack if you like, in Christianity, and this fissiparous religion is starting to go through a purifying phase from which I think it will emerge much less numerous but much more reasonable and credible. To what extent it resembles the old form is a good question. Religions, institutions, forms of expression.. these things go in cycles. It'll be interesting to watch. Buddhists should do so with charity.

Most Christian thought appears to be from the Dark Ages.

Descartes, Pascal (yes, he of the wager - an apologetic exercise, not the flippant line some posters have suggested: see Wikipedia), Leibnitz (satirized by Voltaire in Candide, but a major philosopher), J H Newman, A N Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Margaret Anscombe, Teilhard de Chardin, Bernard Lonergan, Charles Taylor, John Barrow, Charles Birch, et al - Dark Age thinkers?

For a contemporary discussion, look at Timothy Radcliffe's "What's the Point of Being a Christian" (Radcliffe is immediate past Master of the Dominicans) for a far more liberal and thoughtful view of the big questions in people's lives than is displayed in some of postings in this (a Buddhist!) forum. For a Buddhist view consider Thich Nhat Hanh's "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

I think that the problem I would have with a heaven is who would go there? The me now or the me yesterday? The me next year or the me when I was six? All these seem like different people to me who are only connected by shared memories. I prefer to believe that the only continuation of this me is the karma that I generate. The idea of a dead me (soul) going somewhere just doesn't make sense. Of course I could be wrong, but the ideas of the Buddha are what I find when I try and look deep inside.

Yes, the idea of "going to heaven" is, as Brucenkhamen suggested, Sunday School stuff and, yes, it's still taught to children that way by adults who appear to believe it themselves. Camerata referred to levels of teaching depending on the maturity of those taught. James Fowler proposed 6 stages of faith, as follows:

Stage 0 - "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (ie. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse). In addition, sharp attention is paid to mammalia (e.g., wooly sheep)

Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious.

Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage three persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.

Stage 3 - "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence) characterized by conformity

Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for their beliefs and feelings.

Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems

Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment".

I think most posters here are concerned about adults who are still stuck in stages 2 and 3. Perhaps most of us think we are in or aspire to stages 4 and 5, whether we be disciples of the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad or whoever. Is anyone in stage 6?

jesus says we go to heaven, hel_l or purgatory depending on what we do this life

one life - one chance only

Jesus never said anything about purgatory. That is a doctrine that was developed over many years by the church.

Jesus didn't say we'd "go to heaven" if we did the right things in this life. He spoke of heaven as the abode of his father. He said of the poor in spirit that theirs is the kingdom of "heaven" (Matthew) or "God" (Luke). The kingdom of God would be God's reign on Earth, something that Jesus believed himself to be inaugurating and to which he called all to follow him. Jesus didn't actually talk about what happens after you die. Eschatology, the study of the "last things", is something developed by the church. Remember, Jesus only preached his mission over a short period of probably one to two years. He didn't reach a vast audience and it seems that what he said was not written down at the time, but passed on orally and in a now lost compendium of sayings ("Q") before the first of the Gospels (Mark) was written about 30 years after Jesus died. (Paul, who started writing epistles about AD50 showed little interest in the actual events of Jesus' life or in what he actually said.)

I can't remember what Jesus said about hel_l. As a first century Jew he may have accepted the idea of punishment after death; the image of Gehenna, the rubbish dump beneath the walls of Jerusalem, was one often used at the time. The idea of hel_l as a form of eternal punishment is one developed by the church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1990) retains the doctrine of hel_l as eternal punishment, but describes it in such a way that one would have to be a raging psychopath to get there, and then you probably wouldn't because a psychopath is probably not fully responsible for his actions. The church has never made any statement that anyone has ever actually gone to hel_l.

Millions of people ascribe statements and beliefs to Jesus that we can't be sure he actually held. Even the Gospel writers were dependent on their sources and they were writing for different kinds of audience and with their own axes to grind. Much of what is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels he probably never said at all.

Let's keep our minds open about these things and not get caught up in debates over questionable propositions.

I think what makes the Buddha story different is that he was given no great revelation from the gods. What he found was there for anyone to find if they knew where and how to look.

Good point. He had to work long and hard to become awakened. I mentioned Sikhism. Guru Nanak may have made a lot of sense, but he did not claim his fundamental insights as his own; rather, he had gained them from a 3-day assumption into heaven, where he was blessed and told to "Go, rejoice in my [God's] name and teach others to do so also." An archetypal revelation experience.

The Buddha did not depend upon, nor did he receive any special revelation to our knowledge. He did draw on the Vedic/Hindu traditions of his culture, however, including the doctrine of karma, and I understand his teaching was very close to that of his older contemporary, Mahavira, the founder of the Jain religion. Where no special revelation was involved one would have expected him to draw on familiar ideas. If I might venture a simplified view, perhaps what was new was the realization of self-lessness and impermanency; hence, radical detachment, and the need to depend upon oneself to find enlightenment, without the mediation of a priestly caste.

I think that Buddhism is the only 'religion' where you could remove the main character and yet it would still hold water.

Interesting comment, Garro, and I think I see your point, but am not sure you can really say that. I mean "not sure" literally, not rhetorically.

Philosophically, I can see that the possibly apocryphal life of the Buddha is not central to the teachings ascribed to him. However, as a religion, Buddhism is about more than philosophy, and includes beliefs and dispositions that include faith in the efficacy of intercession, divine attributes ascribed to the founding teacher, and so on. Some Buddhists, I understand, would separate the doctrine of karma from Buddhism as a philosophy and place it in the category of religious faith.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we start to argue over what is "real" Buddhism and what is in some way "corrupted" or at least culturally derived as opposed to pure doctrine.

I think the Buddha as a person is important for many or most Buddhists. The triple gem would suggest so, though we may de-historicize the Buddha in this case. (I'm not a Buddhist, so am open to correction.) I'm also thinking that, unlike Christianity or Islam, where the historicity of the "central character" seems to be essential (though possibly it's not, or at least its centrality is diminishing, at least in the former), Sikhism may be an example of a religion where the founder and the early fathers are no longer central, having handed their patrimony over to the Sikh scriptures.

Podgey, there may be something to what your wife has picked up from local temples, particularly if they're in Khmer-speaking areas, but the stories may have been blended and reconstituted over time.

Cambodia (Kambuja) is believed to have been settled by a branch of the Kambujiya people, who seem to have migrated from Iran in the second century CE into Northern India. The Kambujiyan people came to Cambodia via Sri Lanka, which, I suppose, provided the Buddhist connection, though the Kambujiyan-originated dynasties in Angkor were Hindu until Jayavarman VII in the 12th century.

A Kambujiyan prince from Northern India, who was also a sage or hermit, is believed to have come to Cambodia in the fourth century CE and married an apsara, from which union the Khmer lineage is said to have derived.

The strong historical connection of Cambodia with India, through the Kambujiya people and, later, the South Indian Pallava dynasty, together with the origin story based on Prince Kambu and his apsara wife could have become mixed in with the life of the Buddha, also a North Indian prince who became a hermit (but didn't marry an apsara).

If your wife wants to believe that the Buddha was a Khmer prince, what harm is there in that (unless she's training to be a teacher or planning to do a degree in history or religious studies)?

PHUKET CITY: -- Mystery surrounds the death of a Russian man who missed his flight out of Thailand on Wednesday (June 18) and was found dead in his apartment yesterday afternoon.(June 19)

Mr Hyrus, naked except for a towel, was found lying face-up on his bed with his legs dangling down to the floor. The sheets beneath him were covered with dried blood.

His packed suitcase was still in his room and there was no evidence that anyone had tried to tamper with it," Col Wijak said.

Other tenants in the apartment block said that Mr Hyrus had lived in Thailand since 2005 and was an alcoholic, Col Wijak said.-- Phuket Gazette 2008-06-20

The presence of a possible blood stain is not unusual and is hardly grounds for the wild assumptions made. Putting aside the statement as to the deceased's possible state of alcoholism, it is not unusual to have body fluids, urine, feces and blood leak prior to death, or subsequent to death. Conditions such as a stroke, stomach ulcer, cranial bleeding, various types of cancers, liver disease, vascular disease, and many other conditions can all give rise to such events. An incomplete description is given as to this "blood" stain. How big is it? Where exactly was it? A few ml left on fabric can give the impression that a large amount of blood was lost. The reality is that this may jus have been normal leakage of the bowels following the loss of muscular control. If the body was deceased for a day, then rigor mortis would have come and gone and the usual bowel leakage would have resulted.

blood stain bed sheets!, no reason to think of fowl play!...... will be noted as natural death or even sucide, thus to save paper work...

Of course! Must be natural causes! After all, isn't it natural to die after bleeding profusely?

Where did the article state the bleeding was profuse? In light of my above comments, I think you will understand why, natural causes may likely have been the cause of death, particularly since there was no evidence of theft.

Police across Thailand all go the the same training for jumping to conclusions.

The same can be said for many TV contributors, who are too quick to look for conspiracies, when the actual cause is nothing mysterious or diabolical.

Blood samples were sent to a local hospital for analysis to confirm the cause of death, he said.One would assume, sending his entire body would divulge more evidence of his demise.RIP

Agreed. Perhaps, we have another incident of shoddy reporting. No investigator would just request blood samples from a corpse in a case like this. It is expected that a full autopsy will be undertaken

Now, if the deceased was indeed an alcoholic, then the condition is the norm for many such similar cases. Sorry, but one cannot make a credible claim of foul play based upon the article.

Gee, I would have jumped to the same conclusions, GK, based on a quick read of the report, so your post is very enlightening!

Sorry, I posted this question in one of the pinned threads (as a reply to an earlier posting of my own ) , but it was a bit out of place there.

I want to know if anyone is actually doing the Bansomdej Rajapat University teacher accreditation course (forgotten the exact name of it) run by Dr Areewan, or if anyone knows of someone who's currently doing it.

I'm interested in this course as we've had three teachers who've done it recently and been licensed as a result. It seems that emails don't get answered (mine early this year weren't) until a course has enough people and is able to begin, but a visit to the university may be effective. The people who did it recently were quite happy with the course and the outcome (teacher licence).

If the course is continuing it sounds worthwhile.

Xangsamhua

It looks like the era of cheap and easy international air travel might be over. Not too keen on the idea of alternative fuels for aircraft (biodiesel?? ).

I'd like to explore the options for sea travel, especially as I hope to have a bit more time on my hands before long. Does anyone have information about sea travel other than the cruise variety? For example, I understand that one can get quite nice accommodation as a passenger on a cargo vessel. I wouldn't mind doing this, initially to Brisbane or an Australian eastern seaboard port.

Cheers

Xangsamhua

Do farang teachers really get a chance to join the civil service nowadays? Years ago when teaching in the provinces I had a civil servant ID card, but it didn't make a scrap of difference to my rights and entitlements. There were no benefits that I can remember and, because I was a "civil servant" I had to do like my Thai karatchakarn colleagues and get permission from the Governor any time I wanted to leave the province (it was during a period of martial law, and in fact we only had to sign a register).

Hello Xangsamhua,

You may have been under the National Economic and Social Development Board. The governors are direcly involved in such projects.

One of my previous government positions was with Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Office of the Prime Minister. You may have been part of DTEC.

FYI there are also other projects and programs where you get official military ranks (depending on qualifications) such as Captain in the Royal Thai Navy or Royal Thai Air Force as an official language instuctor or a Lt. Col under the Defense Energy Department (DED).

Very interesting, Ilyushin. Thank you. I didn't know about those things.

I was part of a joint project between the British Council and the Ministry of Education. It was in the early 70s.

One of our ex-teachers has done this course and a current teacher is doing it now.

It's run by Bansomdejchaophraya Rajaphat University (BSRU) in Thonburi. It cost about 8000 baht and takes a few months (I'm not completely clear as I'm relying on information from my colleague who's a little unclear herself). It's largely self-managed apart from an introductory day at the university. You just get the notes and send in the assignments. Your practical teaching assessment is done by video I think. It satisfies requirements for the teacher licence (assuming one has the requirements to enter the course - a degree in something, I suppose), but presumably would have no weight outside the local context.

The coordinator is Dr Areewan Iamsa-ard. She is a real person (see http://www.academiae.biz/EEProgram/MyPhilosophy.asp) but she only responds to email when there's enough candidates to statrt a new course. Her email address is [email protected]

I hope this is helpful. I've spoken to her on the phone, but she prefers email, even if she doesn't answer it right away.

The information above is correct as far as I can tell, but it seems a very loose arrangement. For example, my colleague doesn't remember filling out an application form. I would think that interested persons should send Dr Areewan their basic personal details and qualifications and that should do for a start.

Is anyone actually doing this course at the moment or heard from the university about upcoming courses? I spoke to a teacher this morning who finished it earlier this year and it does lead to licensing. We have two who've done it for this purpose. It seems, though, that there is no response to emails and it's best to go out there to make any inquiries.

Do farang teachers really get a chance to join the civil service nowadays? Years ago when teaching in the provinces I had a civil servant ID card, but it didn't make a scrap of difference to my rights and entitlements. There were no benefits that I can remember and, because I was a "civil servant" I had to do like my Thai karatchakarn colleagues and get permission from the Governor any time I wanted to leave the province (it was during a period of martial law, and in fact we only had to sign a register).

Many thanks, Rikker, Virin, Konjianghai and David. Your responses and references have been most helpful.

Will order the book from Amazon.

Cheers

Xangsamhua

Here is Lexitron on ศักดินา:

ศักดินา [N] status in terms of land, counted in rai; right to the possession of farmland

Where ศักดิ means power; might; authority (Syn. กำลัง, อำนาจ, ศักดิ์) and นา means "field; farm", that is, the land which is fundamental to Thai economics and culture.

and ศักดิ์ has the following meanings:

ศักดิ์ [N] mightiness; vigor; force

ศักดิ์ [N] prestige; power

ศักดิ์ [N] ability; skill; capability; potential

ศักดิ์ [N] power; mighty; authority

ศักดิ์ [N] rank; status; prestige

Despite the fact that The word ศักดินา is no longer a part of the Thai social structure, the metaphor ศักดิ์ continues to be embedded in the following common Thai words"

ศักดิ์ศรี [sakL seeR] [N] honor; glory; fame; renown

ศักดิ์ศรี [N] prestige

ศักดิ์สิทธิ์ [sakL sitL] [ADJ] sacred; holy; consecrated

If you interest about the ศักดินา you can check these links.

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A8%E0%...%B8%99%E0%B8%B2

http://www.rsu.ac.th/soc/corner58.html

Thank you. I found the rsu.ac.th piece a bit hard to follow on a quick reading, so will need to look at it more carefully, but it seems that ศักดินา originally referred to ascribed value, i.e. a person's status as defined by the social order, not to any intrinsic quality in the person him/herself that merits respect, nor to any moral order outside social ascription that would require one to, for example, defer to the elderly. Hence, the elderly Englishmen who were beaten up (in the presence of a policeman!) were not seen to merit any ascribed or other due respect. They had no "prestige", "rank", "honour" or "status" despite their age, whereas, had they been Thai, they would have - a hangover from the original ศักดินา idea. But perhaps I'm reading too much into this. (I also don't know how aggressive or provocative the Englishmen were, but the presence of the policeman is interesting.)

Am I right in concluding that the term ศักดินา is not generally used in conversation now, except in discussion on political and sociological topics and only in relation to Thailand?