dutchguest

I think Pattaya has something for everybody and focussing too much on the stereotypes does not do right to the diversity. I like visiting now and then, walking in the evening the seaside boulevard, eating something on the beach. Unlike some others I find the bahtbus transportationsystem very convenient and cheap. Also a good point is that there is less discrimination of older or handicaped people, who in the civilized western world are dumped as useless. As far as the sex/sin side is concerned Pattaya may be a little less hypocrite then many other places.

There was a time when sex was a sacred practice, when (human) nature was sacred. This was the time when the femenin aspect was highly appreciated, when there were female goddesses and priestesses, when there were temple prostitutes who functioned as representatives, prostitutes of goddesses and by the practice of sex with them you could become one with the divine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

But times have changed. Nature, the femenin, sex and especially prostitution are desecrated. Patriarchal morals have taken over. Sex is associated with sin and ugliness. Pattaya has become an ugly place by these morals and certainly no family destination.

The unique personality of the Buddha is completely irelevant as far as liberation is concerned. The Buddha nature of the Buddha is no different to the Buddha nature of anyone else, whether realised or not. If the Buddha's nirvana would be unique to him, it cannot be nirvana.

Although it may seem that there are many paths, in reality there is only one path, and that is to be still. Various paths may seem different in their wording, rituals and presentation, but that is just a cosmetic veneer. As you say, emptiness is emptiness, regardless of individual attributes.

The topic was: only the followers of a Buddha's dhamma can attain nirvana.

In that context I don't think it is irrelevant to point at the fact that this is more or less a tautology: the Buddha set the rules of the game, defines what nirvana is and what the path is to reach it on the basis of his experiences. What I am trying to say is that his experiences can not be the experiences of somebody else, so they will necessarily have to find their own way.

I get the impression you have a rather essentialistic, Hinduistic idea of a trancendental Buddha-nature, that is the same for everybody. As if nirvana is something ontological different from samsara, which means a dualistic worldview. I think everybody who has found back his own nature under the many social masks and conditionings, who has become himself, has realized himself.

I think the Buddha was, like everybody else, a unique person. There can be no second one and it would be a sad and useless event if there came another one exactly the same. By following him blindly, repeating what he has said, trying to become like the Buddha yourself, you can only become a caricature. In nature not two leaves are the same and the same goes for people. History can repeat itself but nature never repeats. That is why unlike with worldly teachings in the spiritual world everybody has to invent the wheel again for himself. I read that the Buddha's last words were: be a light unto yourself. So in this sense the Buddha's nirvana was unique for him and it can not be repeated in the same way: people, times, circumstances are not the same.

So in this ultimate sense there can be no “Buddhist” path leading to nirvana, there can only be “fingers pointing to the moon”. There are as many paths as there are people. And what name is given to that path and the destination is not so relevant. The paradox is that we can learn a lot from the way other people went and from all the spiritual traditions but in the end is more a question of unlearning, deconditioning, emptying yourself. And emptiness is emptiness, whether you call it nirvana, enlightenment or selfrealisation. And I think some mahayana and zen teachings, with which I agree, say that in the end the conclusion is that there is no path and no destination and that nirvana and samsara are one and the same.

The Buddha teaches the middle way between the polar extremes of eternalism and nihilism, so things and people nor exist nor not-exist “an sich”, but are always in a state of interdependance and change. This can be seen as non-dual teaching. The mind can only function in a dualistic way; he teaches no-mind, which is beyond all dualities. So he may have been more pragmatic then the later Mahayana-schools and not very much interested in building theoretical, philosophical systems, implicit in his teachings is i.m.o. the notion that duality means suffering and that overcoming duality means overcoming suffering. To go beyond duality does not mean to deny duality, but on the contrary it means to accept the duality, seeing things as they are.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Not only that some Buddhists have their own holy wars, but in America some people seem to think that you can use Buddhist practices to make better soldiers:

I read somewhere that the American army want to use meditation as a means to make the soldiers more able to handle the stresses of warfare.

I fear there may be some unexpected side effects when the soldiers in their foxholes start losing their hate for the enemy and begin to see more clearly what a madness the whole thing is.

Great observation. From battle fatigue to PTSD, the name of the mental stresses of wars have changed but the resulting damage has not. First they decided to move treatment up to the front line, keep soldiers in the fight, and found soldiers actually have better outcomes by addressing the stress while still present. Now they're incorporating meditation but not in foxholes, per se. These are mindfulness exercises while in garrison, FOB support bases, etc. they believe soldiers will stress fatigue less with a global framework of mindfulness in which to have the context of what's been experienced. I agree.

In the 1980s the us military first experimented with this in the Trojan Warrior program, aka Jedi Knights. The unit picked was 10th Special Forces in Ft Devens, MA. Highly skilled meditator instructors were brought in and a rigorous meditation program ensued. However, martial arts, neuro linguistic programming, blood doping, and various deprivation regimes were also practiced to in essence make a superior soldier. Meditation was a core component to make soldiers less attuned to pain and fear. A part of this program, the part at Ft Bragg, NC, became the basis of the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats." They fully expected a command of "self" through meditation would produce a more able soldier.

Not only that some Buddhists have their own holy wars, but in America some people seem to think that you can use Buddhist practices to make better soldiers:

I read somewhere that the American army want to use meditation as a means to make the soldiers more able to handle the stresses of warfare.

I fear there may be some unexpected side effects when the soldiers in their foxholes start losing their hate for the enemy and begin to see more clearly what a madness the whole thing is.

Japanese warriors used meditation to prepare for battle and become better fighters for centuries. During WW2, Zen monks were recruited by the Japanese military to help train troops. Kung <deleted>, having been invented by the forefather of Zen Buddhism, is also closely related to meditation.

As I see it meditation and also religion can be practiced at many levels and also in many different ways.

At the most superficial level we have the outer forms. Social conditioning teaches people that sitting in the lotus posture or practicing religious rites and visiting the wats or churches is the way to go and more or less automatically the promised blessings will descent on the worshippers. Actually IMO a just born baby is already -unconsciously- in a state of meditation and this kind of conditioning can in the beginning only confuse the child. It is like trying to teach a centipede how to walk consciously, what leg to move first etc. When he is going to think about how to walk he will certainly get entangled in his thoughts and movements, which he was perfectly well able to perform without thinking. This state of confusion is the state most humans find themselves during the rest of their lives.

Buddhism teaches that humans -unlike animals- have the possibility to overcome their conditionings and become natural again in a conscious way (or become aware of their inner nature under the many layers of dust). By that time the outer forms will have lost their absolute status and can be seen as vehicles that have done their job and can be left behind.

To come back to meditation as a means to make better soldiers I think it can do that too (this does not have much to do with Buddhism which also demands the right livelihood, so no killing). Being detached from feelings as anger and fear, not identifying with them, you have a more clear overview of the situation, are more in control of yourself and have a better insight in what the enemy thinks or intends to do. I read that in some eastern fighting sports when you lose your coolness and get angry you have lost already and the fight is over. No need anymore to kill or hurt the enemy.

I agree with these last words: we in the west have developed science and have included philosophy under that label. In many respects the development of science was a reaction on the superstitions of religion. Science -like the evolution theory of Darwin- often stood in direct contradiction to religious doctrines and was one of the main reasons of the secularisation of society.

In reaction on this secularisation and a growing materialism there is now beginning to grow the idea that with the total rejection of the organised religions we might have thrown away the baby with the bathing water.

On a more individual level spirituality and a going back to the roots of religions, the actual teachings of the founders, are i.m.o. a growing phenomenon in the west. Science, logic, rationalizing, especially the positivistic kind of scientism, also have its limitations. May be especially in the west we are living too much exclusively in the mind and identify too much with the mind and its delusive games.

On a deeper level as well science, philosophy, as religion may come from the same source: humanity in search of truth and giving meaning to the world and himself. It seems that there are great similarities between the quantum-theory and the most profound teachings of buddhism.

You cannot be empty "of" an ego because that implies there is a separateness of emptiness from ego. Emptiness stands on its own and is unconnected with and untainted by anything relative or phenomenological. Emptiness exists prior to birth. For one who identifies with mind and body, there is birth and death. When there is no such identification, there never was any birth.

If you see a snake, but on closer inspection it is revealed to be a rope you can make two statements that are both true.

You saw a snake

There never was any snake.

May be in an absolute sense you are right.

We can go back further then the evolution of life on earth, further then life and death, to the question of the existence or non-existence of anything uberhaupt. And that by a long chain of causes and effects, karma, we come into existence. But we are relative, conditioned beings so about absolute truths everything remains a bit speculative.

I think emptiness can be explained, and is essentially the same, on all levels, whether taken in an absolute or in a relative sense.

Osho makes a distinction between faith and trust.

Faith is of the mind and keeps you in a conceptional, argumentative, logical, scientific and rationalizing modus in which you can ask yourself if something, e.g. rebirth or karma, are true or not true, if some miracles can have happened or not etc. Faith can be lost and turn into its opposite. This is generally the first (and often only) approach of people when they meet a teaching, a theory, some religious dogma. It is on this superficial level where you can find most church- (or wat-) goers, ritual-performers, the people who on the outside look like religious people (and also the non-believers, atheists). This kind of religiousness or irreligiousness is nothing but a social conditioning, just like the mind is only a conditioned phenomenon. In itself mind and argumentation cannot bring you closer to your own realization. To come closer to you your own nature mind (and outer forms) has to be dropped, at least your attachment to it, identification with it.

Trust is functioning on a deeper level, it is an intuition, a feeling of the heart, just like love. It is beyond the dualism and doubts of the mind. It is not a product of social conditioning but something everybody has by nature.

On this video Osho can shed in his own words some more light on these questions:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=14&m=05&d=18&t=1900&s=0

dutchguest you are referencing Osho - or the Bhagwan Shree Rajnesh to those of us who remember the eighties and one of the most corrupt religious leaders of the 20th century. If Osho is the path to being awakened I would rather remain in my delusional sleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29

We are going a little bit off-topic here but ...

It is clear that I (and many others) don't agree with you. I like to hear one concrete example of his corruptness.

Fact is that enlightened people are controversial and misunderstood by the masses.

Jezus and Socrates were killed, not because they did something wrong but because they spoke the truth, which can be painful.

One more remark about the emptiness at the birth of people:

it is clear that people when born bring a lot of the past, as well through the natural laws of heredety, natural evolution of life on earth, may be environmental impressions during pregnancy. The point is when talking about emptiness we are talking about empty of an “ego”, that is separated from nature. This is something that evolves later, during the first years and this is what has to be dropped (according to the Buddhist teachings as I interprete them).

Osho makes a distinction between faith and trust.

Faith is of the mind and keeps you in a conceptional, argumentative, logical, scientific and rationalizing modus in which you can ask yourself if something, e.g. rebirth or karma, are true or not true, if some miracles can have happened or not etc. Faith can be lost and turn into its opposite. This is generally the first (and often only) approach of people when they meet a teaching, a theory, some religious dogma. It is on this superficial level where you can find most church- (or wat-) goers, ritual-performers, the people who on the outside look like religious people (and also the non-believers, atheists). This kind of religiousness or irreligiousness is nothing but a social conditioning, just like the mind is only a conditioned phenomenon. In itself mind and argumentation cannot bring you closer to your own realization. To come closer to you your own nature mind (and outer forms) has to be dropped, at least your attachment to it, identification with it.

Trust is functioning on a deeper level, it is an intuition, a feeling of the heart, just like love. It is beyond the dualism and doubts of the mind. It is not a product of social conditioning but something everybody has by nature.

On this video Osho can shed in his own words some more light on these questions:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=14&m=05&d=18&t=1900&s=0

"The mind engages when required. It is completely natural. You are analysing too much. The mind is much less active. It ceases its constant chatter. If you look in detail at what you actually need your mind for during the course of a day you will find it is doing far less in useful terms compared with the useless noise it generates. Going back though to your first point about mass starvation if you practised 24 hours a day, there is one point worth making. It is not regarding practice, but the so called egoless state. You cannot completely lose ego while in a human body because you would not function. You would lose all concerns about feeding yourself for instance which wouldn't benefit the body. So there must be some trace until the death of the body. There have been some documented cases of various Indian saints and sages who had to be force fed at some stage because they were in such bliss of samadhi that they ignored their basic needs."

Trd,

I think I should point out, for the sake of general clarity, that your statement above, which I've highlighted in bold, appears to concede to some extent most of the points raised by Rockysdt.

If one completely loses ego while in a human body, and as a result one loses all concern about feeding oneself, then surely one has also lost all, or most thoughts. Doesn't a feeling of hunger involve the thought, "I am hungry", or 'my body is hungry', or 'my tummy feels empty', or simply the practical thought, 'If I don't eat I will die'?

I agree that reducing the constant chatter of the mind by engaging in regular sessions of meditation should be beneficial for everyone, just as regular physical exercise is good for the health. However, is it not true that most things, when taken to extreme, can be harmful?

One might be surprised that even drinking too much water can be harmful. One can actually die through drinking too much water.

Once again, I think Buddhism has got this situation covered by its principle of The Middle Way, which can be interpreted as 'everything in moderation'.

All of our activities in the world require some degree of constant practice for us to be proficient and to maintain our skill. If one were to devote oneself full time, over a number of years, to ridding oneself of one's self, I think it would be difficult to then resume any regular job in society without retraining and relearning.

I think we should make a distinction between our natural instincts and the ego. Animals and just born baby's have feelings of hunger and they don't need any linguistic rationalization or awareness to know what to do about it. According to some Buddhists enlightenment is nothing else then being able to eat when you are hungry and sleep when you are sleepy.

The ego is part of our social conditioning, which often learns us that we ought to eat at specific times and sleep at certain times. Here the alienation from our (Buddha)nature starts already. With wild animals you never see the overeating you see with humans, they keep their natural grace. We have grown out of touch with our own nature and eat when we are not really hungry and sometimes fast when we are hungry (which some saints teach and what the Buddha -after some harsh experiences- rejected as being equally wrong: the right way is the middle way).

So the ego is causing all the problems as it is overclouding, covering up our “true nature”, keeping us imprisoned in in an artificial world of social conventions, rationalizations, interpretations, conditionings etc., causing all kind of compulsive, unfree actions which we consider as our real needs and feelings, but which are nothing else then the words of our parents, teachers, of the books we read etc. This imprisoned life means we have forgotten ourself, do not remember ourself, are asleep in the words of Gurdjieff or the Buddha.

What is so bad about having many more lives? After all: who really wants to die. Apart from exceptional cases of people who are very sick or have much pain. If people really wanted to die the suicide rate would be much higher.

And the Buddha sees it as the ultimate goal no more to come back at all in this world? What is so desirable about that. I think better come back.

Great for women of Thailand. Now for the men to do something of substance in the sporting world apart from promoting thuggery.

The man have already done their part although you might have missed it as they looked like ladies.

See the movie “the iron ladies”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9lLeQPbH1Q

How does one make the unconscious (subconscious) become conscious?

Is this through practicing the eightfold path?

Greater sexual freedom appears to also involve greater levels of education and social awareness.

I'm noting that those with greater levels of education, prosperity, and consumerism tend to be less likely to embrace religion.

Many equate Buddhism with religion.

I'm suggesting that the Thai Buddhist community will continue to embrace patriarchy along with its diminished roles for women due to:

• The newer generations, with their global education/culture/consumerism brought about by the homogenizing affects of the internet/smartphones/popular culture/education/facebook no longer need religion.
• Most who identify as Buddhists never practice the eightfold path and so will never rise above their delusion.
• The cultural and animisticly styled Thai Buddhism is more likely to attract the poor/uneducated who are more likely to be patriarchal.

As I see it, the Buddhist path can certainly be a help to make the unconscious conscious if you don't stick to much its outside form but try to grasp the essence, if you don't take the words to literally, but try to translate the meaning to a personal relevant level. Many enlightened people have the same message in different words, so you can see what suits you the best. I take from as many sources as possible what I can use. After all it is a personal journey and we are not all the same. We live in different times under different circumstances.

The eightfold path may generally speaking be good guidelines to keep in mind, but not to follow blindly. The journey goes inwards so you must try to develop your own conscience to know for yourself what is the right thing to do in certain concrete circumstances. There are societies and primitive tribes that have different sexual norms then existed in the Buddha's time, there can be circumstances where stealing can be a good thing to do and not stealing can produce bad karma (see the video “karma” in the Thai video's forum). So there are higher natural laws of karma that can overrule the relative truths of the eightfold path. I see karma as absolute, objective laws of nature to try to keep in mind in deciding what to do or not to do. The problem is they are often not so easy to understand, but I think intuitively everybody has some feeling for it.

As I see it generally speaking in Thailand the outer forms of Buddhism are more important, in the west the self-development aspect. In themselves the outer forms can also be useful, but if it is just a mechanical practiced conditioning it is not of much value, if it is done with mindfulness and awareness it can be a way to develop yourself. Via the outer forms you can also come to inner core. And may be in the course of time the emphasis in Thailand will shift more to the inner values of Buddhism. Then the male/female aspect will become rather irrelevant.

I have some general ideas why there is male dominance in religion:

If you look at many primitive tribes there is often a matriarchal organization: woman do all the work in the fields and in the house, heredity goes in the female line. There is common property of land and sharing things is highly valued.

Man generally don't do very much and have all the time to sit and think, look after the children a bit and devote themselves to the “higher” things, art, filosofying about all kind of things etc. The woman generally do the more direct productive work, the man helped with some production facilitating jobs, like building houses, travel and fighting with other tribes if needed.

In the course of history, as tribal organization was replaced by first city-states and later the present nation-states, this division of tasks leaded to man being more active in the political and religious field and woman in and around the house. This created slowly a reversal of the power balance between man and woman and often also the heredity laws were changed in favor of man. Private property became the rule.

Now, especially in the western world, the role of woman in all fields becomes more important so they may also give some new impulses to the religions.

Much more can be said about this developments (among others that matriarchal organization and heredity in the female line mean more sexual freedom as it is not so important who is the father of the children, while in a patriarchal organization the freedom of especially the woman is very much restricted so that there can be no doubt who the father is), but I leave it with this. Those interested can have a look at the following links:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000E8LQM4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

After some more research and reading I will now try to give broadly a somewhat more complete picture of evolution of the gender roles in historic perspective as I see it:

There is an increasing amount of evidence that before the present patriarchal situation there was a more matriarchal situation. Thousands of years of patriarchy have conditioned many people in such a way that they think this is the natural situation for mankind and this conditioning has also had its influence on science (anthropology) in the sense that this prejudice has colored the observations of many scientists and that the present situation (of a -preferably- lifelong monogamous marriage as the central institution around which reproduction is organized) is projected upon the past. (By the way, historically seen matriarchy is not just the opposite of patriarchy in the sense that woman rule. The Greek word “arche” means as well “beginning” as “rule” and the term “beginning” is more right in the case of matriarchy as it concerned an egalitarian, democratic organisation in which the female or mother-goddess stood at the beginning and in the center of everything. In the case of patriarchy the meaning of “archy” as “rule” is more right).

The calender may begin counting with Christ or the Buddha, human history does not begin there. A feature of the rise patriarchal rule is that history is (for the first time) written in verbal form and that rational logic takes the place of the more matriarchal awareness in symbols, magic, images and pictures. The mind functions via language and a duality between the words and the reality is created. Mankind became more or less imprisoned in his mind by identification with it and lost contact with reality. Alienation of nature and also of the own nature was the result. The mind became separated from (and was far superior to) nature, the former unity with nature was lost (this objectification of nature may have been a historic necessity to develop the science (of nature). So primitive tribal people have a more direct awareness of reality and are generally much less alienated (and stand in many ways much closer to the Buddhist ideals then modern man).

There is a certain parallel between the development of the individual and the evolutionary/social development of the species: before his birth the embryo follows in 9 months the millions of years of natural evolution of organic life from one-cellular organisms to human, after his birth he follows the social evolution of mankind. For the same reason why most people cannot remember the first years of their life very well, the time before they could talk, humanity does not remember his (matriarchal) unwritten history very well. Not accidentally little children and primitives have much in common. This forgetfulness became the collective and personal unconscious. So “the lost paradise”, the lost unity with nature, is as well a personal as a social phenomenon.

There is a way beyond the duality of male and female which is also a way beyond sex. To realize this way the female side in yourself and also in the evolution of mankind, the social history (inside and outside, psychology and sociology are two sides of the same reality) has to be brought to the surface. This side has been repressed in the present patriarchal situation and has become as well the collective as the personal unconscious. By making the unconscious conscious all duality evaporates, inside/outside, subjective/objective, mind/body, culture/nature etc. The energy lost in the fight with(in) yourself comes free and becomes undivided freedom.

A few websites to support these views:

http://www.hagia.de/en/international-academy-hagia.html

http://www.matriarchiv.info/?lang=en

A general overview of the anthropological ideas concerning the gender roles in the evolution of man can be found here. It is clear that the “nuclear family” as we know it is relatively recent, in the west generally speaking from about 1000 BC (the development of humanity around the world does not go synchronous in this respect). Other forms of sexual relations and upbringing of children were more common as still can be seen in primitive tribes here and there. The development goes from a more group/kinship/clan identification and organization of the reproduction to a more individualistic/egoistic attitude, reproduction is essentially a business of a single man and woman.

There is also archeological evidence that before the present male domination there was a very long historic period in which the female aspect was more dominant. The development of new techniques and ways to determine the age of old remains give a proof that everywhere in the world there was first a motherland and a mother-goddess. From 40.000BC on this book gives an overview of that.

To focus more specific on Thailand this article gives an impression of the gender roles in historic perspective. Thailand is a comparatively young civilization and has still some matriarchal remains especially in the countryside. Although things are changing quickly, traditionally Thailand was (and still is) a matrilinear and matrifocal society: inheritance in the female line and the man moving in with the (family of the) woman. The practice of the “dowry” eg is in Thailand opposite to that in older civilizations like India (google “dowry Thailand” and “dowry India”). Also a sign is the greater sexual freedom compared with the west, where only recently woman (and man) are beginning to emancipate from their Victorian armor/corset and the strict monogamous marriage patriarchal rules. This greater freedom in Thailand attracts many foreigners (just imagine what would happen if so many foreigners were going to some Islamic, Arabic, patriarchal country and starting sexual relations with the woman there. Also in the west there is -IMO- still more male jealousy and possessiveness then in Thailand and woman are sexually more free in Thailand. Of course also economic factors play a not unimportant role).

Women would bring much needed reform to the Sangha and since here in the UK they represent the vast majority of the laity it seems only fair. The Buddha ordained women in his lifetime so it's just a patriarchal cultural thing. Ajahn Brahm has done a noble and courageous act - somebody had to be the first.

I have some general ideas why there is male dominance in religion:

If you look at many primitive tribes there is often a matriarchal organization: woman do all the work in the fields and in the house, heredity goes in the female line. There is common property of land and sharing things is highly valued.

Man generally don't do very much and have all the time to sit and think, look after the children a bit and devote themselves to the “higher” things, art, filosofying about all kind of things etc. The woman generally do the more direct productive work, the man helped with some production facilitating jobs, like building houses, travel and fighting with other tribes if needed.

In the course of history, as tribal organization was replaced by first city-states and later the present nation-states, this division of tasks leaded to man being more active in the political and religious field and woman in and around the house. This created slowly a reversal of the power balance between man and woman and often also the heredity laws were changed in favor of man. Private property became the rule.

Now, especially in the western world, the role of woman in all fields becomes more important so they may also give some new impulses to the religions.

Much more can be said about this developments (among others that matriarchal organization and heredity in the female line mean more sexual freedom as it is not so important who is the father of the children, while in a patriarchal organization the freedom of especially the woman is very much restricted so that there can be no doubt who the father is), but I leave it with this. Those interested can have a look at the following links:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000E8LQM4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

A talk of Khandro on Nagarjuna:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQX4FYitEo4

Although also male dominated Tibatan buddhism has some female family lines of buddhist teachers. I recently listened on Youtube to some talks of Jetsun Kandro Rinpoche and I think she is not only a good speaker but also has something to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khandro_Rinpoche

http://mjkr.org/

I think there are no general, absolute rules about anything. When music is associated with drinking alcohol and “having fun” it is clear that it does not bring you closer to yourself. The Buddha walked the path to awakening through the desert, which might have been a historical necessity for himself, but his last words were: be a light unto yourself, which means: trust yourself and your own experience in the last instance.

Gurdjieff, a composer of music, a smoker and (IMO) an enlightened master, made the distinction between objective art and subjective art. Objective art is in tune with the laws of the cosmos and brings you closer to the divine. Subjective art is clouding your mind and distracts you from your essence.

Also other forms of art like statues of the Buddha may radiate a certain peacefulness that may effect you and bring you in a more peaceful, meditative state, the Taj Mahal in India seen in the moonlight may do the same.

In many western countries churches are loosing their original function and meaning and the buildings are sometimes used for other purposes. Many people are loosing their believe in the traditional way religion is organized, among others because they saw too many of its representatives behaving in a way that goes against the teachings of their founders.

May be it is an unavoidable development: if you want to give a certain form to spiritual truths means you have to deal with mundane powers to give it a place in a society ruled by money, greed etc. and here the corruption of the teachings (and the people representing them) may begin already.

In the past the combined power structure of organized religion and the state were enough to make most people blind followers and believers. Among others the rise of science and more freedom and democracy made people more independent in their way of thinking and they no more automatically followed the way of their parents and forefathers. Arguments take the place of blind believe. And here most representatives of the churches failed because they themselves are only blind believers without deeper going experiences.

If Thai Buddhism goes the same way as the religion in many western countries its institutions will also gradually loose their original meaning and blind believers will turn into more individual seekers of truth and cut the ties with the organized religion. Although i.m.o. the inner core of all religions is the same, Buddhism has the advantage over western religions that its teachings have a more rational and scientific form and can be tested by individually.

What you say has a lot of truth in it. The problem I have is that it seems to be that we base so much on science. To hear people speak of science one would wonder do they really think science has all the answers today.

It is my belief that they will never have all the answers. There is always more to learn. They do not even understand gravity yet. It is however there. They can not even explain how the great pyramid of Egypt was built. They have ideas but no proof so all they have is a theory.

A synthesis between east and west may be a fertile marriage. Buddhism is i.m.o. the ultimate science of the innerworld, the west has developed the science of the outerworld. I agree that science has its limitations: certainly as it is taught at schools and universities it is more like a burden of useless information that has to be unlearned in order to be able to develop a more creative, independent and meaningful way to explore your own mind and the world. Meditation is also ultimately transcending the rational mind into some deeper, more intuitively working forms of awareness.

In many western countries churches are loosing their original function and meaning and the buildings are sometimes used for other purposes. Many people are loosing their believe in the traditional way religion is organized, among others because they saw too many of its representatives behaving in a way that goes against the teachings of their founders.

May be it is an unavoidable development: if you want to give a certain form to spiritual truths means you have to deal with mundane powers to give it a place in a society ruled by money, greed etc. and here the corruption of the teachings (and the people representing them) may begin already.

In the past the combined power structure of organized religion and the state were enough to make most people blind followers and believers. Among others the rise of science and more freedom and democracy made people more independent in their way of thinking and they no more automatically followed the way of their parents and forefathers. Arguments take the place of blind believe. And here most representatives of the churches failed because they themselves are only blind believers without deeper going experiences.

If Thai Buddhism goes the same way as the religion in many western countries its institutions will also gradually loose their original meaning and blind believers will turn into more individual seekers of truth and cut the ties with the organized religion. Although i.m.o. the inner core of all religions is the same, Buddhism has the advantage over western religions that its teachings have a more rational and scientific form and can be tested by individually.

The Buddha's focus was not so much on what other people had to do or not to do but more on what you yourself should do or do not. So Buddha's concern was not so much on censure of other people but more on self-censure. His approach was to teach others to censure themselves in the way mentioned above as “right speech” in order to develop oneself and make progress on the path towards liberation.

In the west may be freedom is sometimes misunderstood as being able and allowed to say what you want to say, but this certainly is a different kind of freedom then the liberation Buddha is talking about. This last concept includes responsibility, knowing what you say, what are the consequences of it, when and where to speak etc. So f.e. on a public forum -if you have to talk about others- sometimes you can not say the same things as you might do in a personal conversation, or if you are in Thailand and you know there are certain sensitive areas you adapt your talking.

Hi,

Last year moxtravel http://www.moxtravel.com/ offered the opportunity to make a booking and give a document to show at the embassy and pay only on the condition that a visum is allowed.

Smokers (like myself again at the
moment) can make a meditation of smoking: just do everything very
slowly and with awareness, knowing what you are doing and why: take a
cigaret out of the packet, look at it from all sides, smell it, take
a lighter very consciously and slowly, light the cigaret, inhale the
smoke, watch the smoke going in, feel the smoke entering the lungs
doing its beneficial workings, watch the smoke going out etc.

It might be proven that you cannot
smoke consciously, that it can only be done mechanical, like any
attachment, addiction. As soon as awareness arises you begin to see
the stupidity of it all, harming your health and paying for it, and
you will stop.

Remember that awareness is not a
function of the mind, it goes beyond the mind. Rationally every
smoker knows the stupidity of it, but this does not change his
behaviour (it can be a beginning). Awareness is a deeper going
experience.