SeerObserver

I bet he didn't invite questions from the audience after.......

No doubt. He would have looked like a fool if anyone even mildly knowledgeable took issue with what he said.

"Now bring your awareness to your breath," began the Buddha in the Bad Brains T-shirt, who happens to be one of the most influential Buddhist teachers in America.

Interesting article in all, but this really stuck out. It isn't the first time I've seen this misuse, but why do so many people, such as Budai Luohan, get labeled as Buddhas?

It's so wonderful that he took the time to actually learn about something before hosting an event such as this to criticize it. Otherwise he would look foolish in front of any audience members who knew anything.

Avoiding harm/pain for others is indeed a big reason behind this precept but i think not the only one.

It is also aimed at helping people to progress on a spiritual path. Sensual desire is a hindrance to achieving calm and balanced mind, and behavior that fans the flames of desire is counter-productive. Absitnence is not required of lay people because it would deter many from the path altogether, and because people in early stages of practice are usually not able to be abstinent without generating a lot of repressed tension, which would also be counter productive. hence the Buddha prescribed a "middle way" wherein sexual relations are permitted but limited to committed, socially sanctioned relationships.

The bonds of commitment and caring tend to offset the otherwise intrinsically selfish nature of lust, and, as everyone knows, sex between long-term partners does not usually generate the same degree of sensual intoxication that sex with a new partner does (although it may be very satisfying in other ways). While that is often a reason for straying, from a Buddhist perspective it is a plus, because a serious Buddhist practioner does not want to be intoxicated with lust or any other sensual craving.

I think it is important to understand the very different emphasis between these teachings and the Christian moralizing that many westerners are more familiar with. It is not "don't do that, it's sinful and you'll go to hel_l!" but "doing that will harm you in the long run, it is not conducive to your progress on the path"

Great post.

This is a most excellent synopsis of the situation especially regarding mindset and moralizing. The rationale behind the prescribed path which is in turn the middle-way is also really clear and concise. The first reason given for not-straying is typical, but the undesirability of that form of intoxication is an interesting spin on the matter.

Someone who wants to ordain for their own spiritual reasons via the traditional means will be of a different mindset than someone who's initial interest/curiosity is brought on by viewing the facebook ad. They will probably also already more knowledgeable of Buddhism and ordination. As a participant in the "for a month" program is in effect a customer, aren't they still really free to do as they wish and leave at will? I see the merit in the program that a guide/mentor is assigned to participants and what not, but this can be arranged at other temples without the program. Although it may be more difficult to have the kind of attention devoted to you I'm presuming this program provides (altruistic or obligated?).

It would be interesting to see how everlasting the spiritual experience is in someone who has completed this program. I wonder if it sticks, or if they just take it as an experience they paid for and go back to their old ways (hopefully not the road to ruin).

I think it would be better for you to stay at a monastery in the capacity of an upasaka or anagarika. Take the precepts from a bhikkhu and attend morning and evening chantings plus whatever else is offered such as meditation sessions for lay followers. Help with any Sangha dana or any other ceremonies that take place during your stay.

Most temples would be happy to have you. This would be better than an ordination and deordination which would both entail formal ceremonies to be performed and would take up a decent portion of your first and third day. For such a short stay, my suggestion may seem more practical.

The monkhood seems set to continue its march towards priesthood.

Ouch. Never really thought of it like that. Hopefully, it won't go that far. That would really be part of the decline that Buddha described.

By some interpretations of the Vinaya it already is. The fifth of the ten precepts (which are the first ten of the 227 precepts for fully-ordained monks) is to avoid intoxicating drugs. I used to smoke, and while I didn't feel anything particularly intoxicating about a cigarette after I had been a smoker for a while, I remember the buzz I got from my first cigarette. After smoking regularly for a few months, you no longer feel that buzz, but by then you are already addicted. And by continuing to smoke, you are at least in contradiction to the Buddhist goal of extinguishing desire.

Not trying to preach here, just being pedantic.

That's an important point that's often passed over in discussion over whether or not tobacco falls under the 5th precept.

A man has a girlfriend or wife and cheats secretly on her with another woman; lets just assume his mia noi is actually satisfied and happy in her role. Still, clearly he breaks the 4. precept (false speech and lying). But does he break the third precept?

The third precept is broken. This is clearly adultery. It has nothing to do with whether or not you admit it.

Now lets assume he does not cheat on his wife but tells her the truth; he might assume that his wife is emotionally hurt, even though she does not say so. Now he is not even breaking the 4. precept.

If he does not cheat on his wife, what is there to tell the truth about? I'm not sure what you meant by this one.

My Wife and I were disgusted by some pictures sent to her email of some flammingly homo monks running around with purses and kissing and fondling each other in the temple. To have any sexual desire as a monk is something to be curbed but this..this shit is just over the top. Streight men are expected to suppress their sexuality while wearing the robs, why should gays any different?

They are expected to suppress it as well. More or less we know what the monastic code is and so do they. My guess is that they were either forced to ordain out of custom, and/or that the defiant component of their personality is what is causing this behavior. They know it's not in line. It would be hard to believe that they don't know about precepts or monastic behavior.

The course, introduced by leading preacher and writer Phra Wor Wachiramethi, is borne out of concerns after reports of unconventional behaviour by monks in public, including using cosmetics, carrying pink bags and readjusting their robes for a fashionable look.

Some allegedly even had sex in their sleeping quarters, a severe sin under the code of conduct which incurs forced defrockment.

While those with strong saddha will not be wavered by things like this, it is important to address it so as to not turn away those who are not quite at that point yet.

Cosmetics are a blatant violation of the 8th precept. Robes are not about being fashionable, but rather a renunciation of such worldly adornments.

With that said, this course is a double-edged sword. It could be useful as a reminder for what is and is not acceptable for monastic life, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the monks/novices seen doing these and other such acts are aware of that already. Some of them simply have defiant personalities and wish to express themselves however they want regardless of this.

...

The process can take a long time; I have been doing this now for about 12 years. Normally farangs are not accepted into the society, some members will ask you to allow them to enter it into the competition. BIG CAUTION on that.

If by chance your amulet wins from 1st to 4th in any amulet type it automatically jumps in value by 100% or more depending if it is one of the benjapakee group.

...

Now first and foremost take your amulets to a first class photographer zoom in and shot front back left and right and top and bottom of the amulets in super high resolution. NOT digital use film. This protects you in the event that your pim is switched.

I'm guessing the BIG CAUTION has to deal with amulets being switched out as well. So now that one will have pictures and what not, what is the recourse for when a switch occurs? How much of a difference does film vs. digital make, and how can one go about the recovery process?

First off, please address them with namasakarn (as opposed to sawasdee).

Then choose the appropriate...

Luang Peeh - for a monk lesser in age or only a bit older.

Luang Loong (or nah) - for a monk your father's age or more.

Luang Pooh (or Ta) - for a monk your grandfather's age.

Luang Paw - Yes it means father, but is reserved for monks of distinction.

Phra khun Jao - for more than one in your immediate presence.

There are more, but that'll keep you covered for the most part. So an example would be namasakarn, luang peeh.

Check with your wife for pronunciations...she will know how to pronounce these words which mean, elder, uncle, grandfather, father, and venerables. If she "doesn't know", then she really doesn't want you talking to monks.

I was told to begin the address as Namasakarn Phra Song

What is the difference? Am I being rude?

This is not rude, but is more appropriate as a plural address. It basically means, "I bow to you, monks of the Sangha."

It's possible that I was mistaken. It may have just been that I've seen mention of cessation of evil (at the very least during the session) and purification of the mind.

There are some teachings out there though that meditation can be meritorious in and of itself.

Thais look to animism/Brahmanism/astrology for help (i.e. psychological security) in the present life.

Isn't their security false as it's founded on superstition?

Is it sound to seek psychological security based on things which aren't true?

Doesn't false security negate the need to search for the truth?

Doesn't the support of animism/Brahmanism/astrology come undone when you look at some of the detail?

The principle you are emphasizing here can apply. There are even thoughts that saddha in certain things cultivates a temperament for that and will yield fruit in that you will continue to be misguided for some time. False security negating the need to search for truth is also a slippery slope.

If you were in a group suddenly transported to foxholes in Afghanistan and the Taliban were coming to kill you (or worse), who do you think would have the easier death - you, the atheist, the Christian evangelist or the Thai with a bunch of amulets round his neck? Makes you think, doesn't it?

Definitely. It makes me find the merit (pun) in some things that are outside of the box, so to speak. We are often quick to criticize this and that, often strongly implying (if not outright saying) that our practice is right and others' is wrong. If someone can use a tool that is not akusala kamma to help guide them in their practice, then we should really let it be without unconstructive criticism.

At a Dhamma talk recently, a point was made by one of the Bhikkhus facilitating the discussion that clinical professionals are in a really good position to understand much of the dhamma. This is because they are in constant contact with 4 things (3 of which are 3 of the 4 sights), birth, aging, illness, and death. In addition, they often have the opportunity to see the insides face to face, so to speak. That being the case, they should really be able to detach from form and beauty by seeing that our insides are all composed of visually unstimulating things, kesa, loma, nakha, danta, taco, etc.

I think that's a fairly advanced practice. For non-Buddhists at least, doctors, dentists and psychologists all have very high suicide rates.

Come to think of it, you're right to say that. There is an account somewhere in the suttas of a group of monks who began to take their own lives after having meditated on such a subject. This happened because of an aversion that they formed from that practice. So it would be correct to say that this may be a practice that one has to be ready for.

BTW, Ajahn is often reserved for a monk with 10 years or more of ordination tenure, but may also be used for any monk actively teaching.

First off, please address them with namasakarn (as opposed to sawasdee).

Then choose the appropriate...

Luang Peeh - for a monk lesser in age or only a bit older.

Luang Loong (or nah) - for a monk your father's age or more.

Luang Pooh (or Ta) - for a monk your grandfather's age.

Luang Paw - Yes it means father, but is reserved for monks of distinction.

Phra khun Jao - for more than one in your immediate presence.

There are more, but that'll keep you covered for the most part. So an example would be namasakarn, luang peeh.

Check with your wife for pronunciations...she will know how to pronounce these words which mean, elder, uncle, grandfather, father, and venerables. If she "doesn't know", then she really doesn't want you talking to monks.

At a Dhamma talk recently, a point was made by one of the Bhikkhus facilitating the discussion that clinical professionals are in a really good position to understand much of the dhamma. This is because they are in constant contact with 4 things (3 of which are 3 of the 4 sights), birth, aging, illness, and death. In addition, they often have the opportunity to see the insides face to face, so to speak. That being the case, they should really be able to detach from form and beauty by seeing that our insides are all composed of visually unstimulating things, kesa, loma, nakha, danta, taco, etc.

I would be interested to hear thoughts on this, especially those of clinical professionals.

But really in general, how has your occupation or daily life experience impacted your view of dhamma?

PS - A point has also been made, although elsewhere, that oftentimes the schooling one receives may have skewed or hindered the understanding of dhamma. For example, different values get instilled by different schoolings and what may be viewed as progress and development by the modern world, is actually viewed as decline and decay by the truth of nature...things like that.

As some basic tenets, Buddhists are to cease evil, do good, and purify the mind. In various discussions points are brought up that certain temperament is being cultivated, as well as how one is at the very least not out committing akusala kamma while practicing right meditation, and other things along those lines.

But how exactly is meditation kusala kamma? The cultivation of a right temperament seems to contribute to that, but I seek to raise my understanding of this concept. Some good points have been made before, but I seem to have lost grasp of them at the moment.

Thank you in advance.

Also, a lot of the less-than-authentic practices (bowing to Buddha images, making offerings, etc) can be justified as having some symbolic value, being inspirational or contributing to mental cultivation in some small way. Personally, I recite the three refuges in front of some Mahayana buddhas and bodhisattvas in old Japanese temples because they all represent qualities of the Buddha and there is an authentic Theravada practice of reflecting on the qualities of the Buddha.

It contributes to mental cultivation and also serves as a reminder of the ideal to which Buddhists aspire. The common chants, arahan samma sambuddho bhagava and nammo tassa bhagavato arahato sammasambuddhasa serve that purpose. Similar to the function of the abhinasutta in order to remind us of subjects that warrant recollection.

We've written in a number of threads the prevalence of Buddhism being practiced as a superstitious religion by the majority in Thailand.

And of course we farang Buddhists know for sure that we are doing it "right" and they are doing it "wrong."

They practise "popular Buddhism" because that's what gives them comfort. Part of it is based on the Pali Canon, part of it isn't. I don't see why that should concern us, really. Those who want to follow the Buddha's authentic teachings can find them as easily as we can. It seems to be mainly our problem that we can't accept popular Buddhism (not to mention animism and Brahmanism!) and its place in Thai life and culture.

Excellent point. It will help us if we are aware of this distinction, as many of us are "guilty" of what is described in this context.

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

Except for that they now have a gash in their mouth and will get gashed again and again due to this supposed poor memory.

it is a good thing that there are no nerve endings around the fish's mouth and it is also a good thing that the fish has no ego and no sense of vanity so that it wouldn't be concerned with a small hole that would soon close anyway. I guess my first sentence suggesting barb-less hooks to reduce damage went over your head though.

There was no misunderstanding of your point...just disagreement. It is ok to disagree with someone, so there is no need to take it so personally and respons with ad-homs. Although my response sounded a bit curt, in general nobody is really trying to judge anyone...just have a discussion over the topic from a Buddhist POV on a Buddhist forum.

I've heard the scientific arguments about there being no nerve endings and also a point about the hooks without the barb that will tear the side of the mouth when you remove it. Right...I'm even with you that fish probably don't have that same vanity that you're talking about as well. But the hole from the hook closing up soon...how soon? Will it be closed before the next hook that they go after? I'm not all that familiar with using those hooks. I'm assuming they fish may still be hungry after the first release and possibly go after another bait. This is highly speculative, I know. But it's possible that they could have a series of gashes in their mouth that inhibit function at least for a period of time. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I raised these questions in the previous post.

So which stance of yours are you really standing behind though? One of your highlighted points says minimal damage, and the other says no damage. After that you then say, ""reduce damage". I could see what you mean though in that it seems you argue that long-term there is no damage, but the jury will always be out on the general issue.

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

Except for that they now have a gash in their mouth and will get gashed again and again due to this supposed poor memory.

Phetaroi is correct, in fact, to become a Buddhist there is no requirement to tell anyone at all. When I visit my elderly parents I still attend Catholic Mass with them because they like it when I do. I do this out of respect for them and their beliefs even though I myself quit believing in most Catholic teachings many years ago. Trying to explain my interest in Buddhism to them at their age would probably hurt them, so I don't. I think most Buddhists would agree that keeping ones beliefs to oneself is perfectly OK and doesn't make one any less Buddhist.

How do you feel about going through the motions? You stand, sit, etc. I'm assuming you also partake of the blood of Christ and what not. Isn't there is somewhat of an ethical issue here, from a Buddhist context or otherwise?

No, I see no ethical issue here at all. I don't take communion but even if I did, I don't see how going through the motions would do anyone any harm or disrespect.

I'm just interested to hear anyone's opinion on this with respect to the 4th precept.