SeerObserver

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? I understand everything that you're saying though, and I agree with the synopsis by phetaroi to a degree.

If so, yes...in fact proselytizing seems very un-Buddhist since you need to be seeking "truths", rather than have someone pushing them on you. If my friends ask me about various aspects of Buddhism, I will answer them to the extent of their questions and interest. I never bring it up independently.

I agree with the latter part, but would like to hear your opinion on the former. What is your opinion of the missionary monks then who go into the areas of the hilltribes and others in order to teach Buddhism?

It's like re-labeling a bottle of wine, whiskey - name it!

the label won' change the contends!

a saffron robe, shaved head and eyebrows and prostrating

again and again in front of some buddha or whatever image

won't catapult you one day into nirvana!

So are you proposing they just stay put?

Always been wondering about farangs who convert to Buddhism. My impression is that Thai people tend to chuckle a bit about it, the thruth seeking farang wandering about in orange. An exception would be westerners who made it very high up in the clerical hierarchy, became abbott of a temple for instance. Mostly I believe they are Americans, and a few Germans.

Buddism is not a profilerating religion like Christianity or Islam, though it does accept converts, unlike for instance Jewism.

During my 18 years in Thailand, it hardly ever happened that anybody suggested that I should become a Buddhist.

Your thoughts on this?

Buddhism is a proliferating religion, meaning it is growing. For example it is the fastest growing religion in Australia and continues to grow steadily although religion is said in a general decline there.

What you probably meant to say is that Buddhism is not a proselytizing religion, but that isn't completely true. Yes, the general ehipassiko come and examine for yourself practive is there, and Buddhism has not conducted any crusades nor is it quite as well known to set up various missions like Christianity may be. But proselytizing does occur. In Thailand, monks are known to go into the area of the hilltribes and teach them about Buddhism so that they may abandon their folk superstitions and ghost worship.

That is just one example. The reason you are of this opinion is because Buddhism really doesn't have overzealous and forceful evangelism. The reason for this is the ehipassiko practice.

As for your first point, I do not take that attitude. Whenever a farang "converts", I rejoice in their commitment and merit (if you will). Reason being, is that they either had done some merit or practice before in order to meet Buddhasāsana in this lifetime, especially if they have "no apparent reason" to do so. Phra farang isn't exactly uncommon these days anymore either.

Also, as all the precepts are open to interpretation, many of us can fool ourselves into bending them.

The first thing that comes to mind is #5. Many Theravadins interpret it as avoiding intoxicants, and many interpret it as avoiding intoxication. Although there isn't really much doctrinal division that I'm aware of among serious practitioners that trade intoxicants is an evil trade.

I always knew that drinking wasn't any sort of taboo or anything in Zen (and maybe some other traditions) but never looked into what their 5th precept would then be. In a way it makes sense that it would then follow that their 5th precept would have to be what it is, but in another way it doesn't make much sense. If drinking is ok, then why isn't providing the substance?

Personally, I would elect option #1. First, I do not believe it is illegal. Secondly, if you are lucky enough to relocate to Thailand maybe your Buddha is right for you. If you let it go, maybe luck can change. Take it and believe...Good luck!

Why would the possession of a statue affect your luck or lack thereof?

Why do you think there are more Buddha images in Thailand then there are people? Why do you think Buddist pray or meditate and have the Buddha image? Buddha images are also made from incence ashes, why do you think that is? If you do not know the answer to these questions then maybe you should just donate your Buddha. Best of luck to you!

Anyone come up with an answer for this, even a superstitious one?

Supposedly, fish have no central nervous system and so can't feel pain. But recent research seems to show that both fish and crustaceans can feel discomfort.

In addition to that, aside from the pain fish are harmed since much recreational fishing involves hooking which can leave a mouth in tatters rendering a fish unable to eat as effectively (or at all).

This is one of the accounts that I had seen before which led to this thread.

...Arahant Pilindavaccha, in the Pilindavaccha Sutta of the Udāna. Also given in more detail in the Dhammapada Commentary to Dhp. verse 408. The term of insult was 'vasala', meaning hireling or outcaste.

I don't believe an Arahant would have any defilements left.

Are you familiar with the story of an arahant around the time of the Buddha who was said to be rude and impersonable? And of course there are more modern arahants whom display certain character traits from time to time. But like I said, that can be a skillful means to handle a certain scenario.

There is an account of Ajahn Chah I have seen somewhere (unverified so please let me know). Someone claiming to have just attained stream-entry came to tell him about it. Ajahn Chah says something along the lines that he supposes the meditator is now much better off than a dog (a fairly harsh insult in Thai, to call someone a dog). Afterwards, the meditator is fuming and leaves. Sotapanna?

I get confused with these terminologies.

What is the difference between an Arahant & a Buddha?

There are 3 types of enlightened beings.

1. Sammasambuddha - Becomes enlightened and finds the dhamma in their last existence on their own accord (although they may have encountered dhamma from a previous Sammasambuddha in a previous existence i.e. Gotama and Dipankara) and teaches the dhamma to other beings. Of note, the dhamma from previous Sammasambuddhas is believed to have been long lost due to societal decline and the like.

2. Paccekabuddha - Same as above but is silent and does not teach dhamma.

3. Arahant - Becomes enlightened by following the noble path taught by Sammasambuddha.

ARHANT is some sort of title - do you sincerely believe/think that a truly "nlightned" being still would like to rant about some f..... title like arhant?

Title shows that this individual still hasn't made "the jump"!

Is this clear?

It's about as clear as unrefined crude oil.

Masters considered to be arahants generally do not refer to themselves as such, partially because it is against vinaya. It is other people that label them as arahants out of belief in their level of attainment.

So while I agree that attachment to labels indicates that the fetters have not been cut, that principle does not really apply to this thread. The point of this thread is to see if in cutting out the fetters, one's constitution has changed and certain acts/attitudes are no longer going to emanate from such a being.

Just to be clear, I write this thread with no intention of questioning anyone's attainment. That is why specific references are left out for the time being (although they will probably eventually be brought up here and there).

Having attained enlightenment, how would that be reflected in one's constitution?

There are accounts of arahants being rude and otherwise impersonable. These range from the time of the Buddha through to modern times. Wouldn't one with such an attainment have gradually shed certain traits such as impatience, rudeness, etc? What about foul language?

It could be argued that certain attitudes are expressed as a skillful means of teaching a lesson as well, so that might reconcile certain instances of rudeness and the like.

And what to make of smoking?

A friend of mine had his intended go to a temple for a week, she said it was to ask forgiveness for her past, they married ,moved to the uk where 6 months later she went off to work in a gentlemans club in leeds,.

Exactly the type of thing Beacher was thinking of when he posted...

It seems strange to become a nun for a day or 2, and it reflects one of the things that bothers me about this country -- superficiality. Thais seem very good at going through the motions to to show how proper and devoted they are.

How much saddha could she have really had in the whole temple experience if she became a stripper so soon after? The "girl of the night" seems not to have put her past behind her.

i think i would like three days; not sure about eating one meal a day do to slight medical problems but wont die either...

will discuss with anon... as he has always thought my personality suits becoming eventually a mee chi ...

Anyhow...the one meal per day thing isn't always the case or has become lax in some ways. This is due to a few different reasons. One reason is interpretation. Some interpret the rule as not to eat after midday. The second reason is due to medical conditions that weren't prevalent at the time the rules were written. So many monastaries now allow you sustenenace as long as it doesn't involve chewing (yogurt, etc.) Milk and honey tea is always a good filler too. The possible third reason is something along what Beacher has been talking about. That is due to societal decline and the like.

So really double check with the Wat.

Not to knock the charity behind the whole thing, but it's an interesting trade for a Buddhist cause. Regardless of what is done with the proceeds, this still falls under trade in poison/intoxicants.

just curious, am thinking of doing same for one day/night to three days/nites , question being if i can at the local wat at my husbands village? will ask him (he would like for me to do this also as he was a monk for a long time and his first cousin has been a monk for the past 20 yrs)...

me being a farang woman of course, but buddhist (though jewish nationality living in israel) for past 25 yrs at least.... maybe i would go with his sister or mother? ... any ideas?

Do it for at least 3 days. Attend both morning and evening chanting sessions for your time there.

Depending on the Wat, you being a westerner should not be an issue. There are many westerners who stay at Wats and the like now either as ordained or monastic, so other monastics and some ordained generally speak English. But if it makes you feel better to have someone who can serve as a guide or something, then his sister or someone like that would be appropriate. It would be a good and meritorious experience for you both. Sadhu.

Sarira

That was quite helpful. The article really provides a good background for the understanding of this saddha, beliefs, and practices.

They looked like small pellets of granite.

It would be interesting to know what the pellets are actually composed of.

I read somewhere that Luang por Tim, from the Rayong area, when he was meditating, relics, or small colored pebbles, would appear on the floor near him... Did you ever read that?

I am not familiar with this particular account, but am aware of kathas and meditation that conjure relics or pebbles as you mention.

What are these pebbles though?

Arahant monks, upon death, are either preserved/mummified or cremated. I haven't heard of any to be buried, although I would like to hear about any relevant accounts of that as well if there are some to discuss.

There are bodies of monks who have passed away on display in Thailand that have not decomposed. Many are said to be miraculously not decomposing, but is that the case with all of them or are some of them are acutally processed for preservation? Is it that an arahant has transcended certain natural phenomenon?

Then there is the matter of what remains after cremation. Oftentimes there are pellets and some other solid matter left behind which are then kept as relics. What exactly are these pellets, and how is what remains after the cremation of an arahant different from anyone else? When a non-arahant is cremated, is this matter not left behind? Is it only ashes and dust that remain? It has also been said that some bodies would not burn until certain conditions were met and things of that nature.

There is also a belief and practice regarding conjuring up relics. There are accounts of people praying for and receiving relics. Are these of the Buddha, Arahants, or whom? Also, what are they, bones?

Background information would be appreciated as well. Generally, what are the beliefs and practices behind relics? Specific examples, well-known or otherwise, would also be appreciated.

Any idea where i can access information in english on amulets competitions? Or related topics on amulets would be welcome too. Thanks in advance

Did you try googling on "thai amulets competition"?

http://www.geocities.com/thai_pendants/pis...competition.htm

http://amulet-collection.blogspot.com/2009...8-march-09.html

Thanks for those links, Camerata. I was pretty sure that's what it entailed. It seems to be more of a showcase than a competition per se. But some exibitioners do take placements, so it still remains a competition.

What I was looking for for was some information regarding some of the other judging criteria used. I have not really found anything to that effect as of yet. I have seen sites describing what to look for when verifying authenticity of amulets, but beyond that how can an amulet place over another? If many people received the same amulet from a monk, aside from breakeage or something like that, all those amulets would more or less have those same traits described on those sites.

Anyhow, thanks to everyone. I was just a little curious about these tradeshows and what they entail.

This is exciting information. Powerful information.

You see, the clergy's main argument against female ordination is that we never had Bhikkhuni in Thailand. They also argue that since the Theravada Bhikkhuni lineage has been long extinct, it is impossible to have Bhikkhuni in the Thai Theravada clergy.

No need asking the clergy to ordain women. They insist that a legitimate female ordination, according to the monastic discipline, must be performed both by monks and Bhikkhuni.

The clergy's arguments, however, crumble with historical evidence of the Ashokan Buddhist mission. They not only show that we used to have Bhikkhuni, they also confirm that dual ordination is not necessary where Bhikkhuni does not exist, that monks alone can ordain women to set up the Bhikkhuni clergy.

What an interesting turn on the matter. Although often seemingly contemptuous of the Sangha (or maybe I should say just the way it's operated), I have to say that her posts do bring light to what may often be swept under the rug.

It would be good if the exposure of certain issues makes way for reforms by those in the position to do so.

Mohinga, I went to look at page 45 of the document you linked for us and a little ways down it says "see warning". I clicked on that but saw nothing of concern. Do you (or anyone else who checks) know what that is in reference to?

Luang Por Jaran of Wat Amphawan, Singhburi is well known for his writings about the working of the law of karma....and he states that normal merit making such as chanting, alms food, offering robes to the monks etc. can help those in the hungry ghost realm, but not those beings in the hel_l realms. Only very strong forms of merit such as being ordained as a monk or the practise of Vipassana can help alleviate the suffering of hel_l beings.

Thanks for this input. This is the more pertinent stuff to discuss (doctrinal and practice matters). The other stuff that comes out in these discussions may be good to be mindful of as well, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. It's pretty outrageous sounding and also dam_n near impossible to verify.

So now does anyone know if Dhammakaya says that hel_l beings are easily and readily helped, or do they also say that it takes strong merits? I would think the latter.

For my own edification, what exactly is an amulet competition and how does one "win"?

From the Dhammakaya web page, "Homage to the Cetiya":

The golden light reflects the light of Absolute Truth pouring down from the most supreme place beyond highest heaven to enlighten the mind of human being.

Dhammakaya is the real self of Lord Buddha existed at the inner most of his physical body and also of the enlightened ones.

It's the true eternity body, timeless and indestructible.

I think that one 'doctrinal' difference might be their views regarding the sharing of merit. I don't speak Thai fluently, but can understand some; and when visiting the kingdom on several occasions have seen their television show. The monk seems do be doing "readings" for people, and suggesting that the merit helps their relatives in various hel_l states.

I don't have a sutta reference at hand; but I'm quite sure that the Buddha taught that merit could only be shared with beings in the peta (hungry ghost) realm. 'Shared' in the sense that the beings would receive the benefit.

Leaving aside the sideshow aspect of these "readings", it might be that the tendency of this practice favours an eternalism view. Maybe some ancestor worship influence?

As a side note regarding their method of meditaton ... it seems that it was introduced to the West in the 1950's and 1960's, but never caught on.

"Honour Thy Fathers" (http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/honourfathers.pdf)

describes Ven. Kapilavaddho, founder of the English Sanga Trust, practicing at Wat Pak Nam (description of method on page 45). His successor at the E.S.T. in the early '60's, Ven. Ananda Bodhi (later Namgyal Rinpoche) also practiced at Wat Pak Nam, and taught this method. At that time it was referred to as "16 Buddha Body Meditation". This was well before the rise of the Dhammakaya organisation; and it's perhaps regrettable that this strain did not survive free from that influence.

What Camerata says may sound somewhat off in some contexts, but not in legitimate Buddhism as a whole. The concept of Buddha nature within all humans is a core Mahayana view. So it seems that this may raise a few eyebrows in a Theravadin country, but that's really the "worst" you can say about it.

Regarding mohinga's post, the practice of sharing merit with deceased relatives is like he says, not unique to Dhammakaya. So this eternalism view is then not a criticism that can be attached merely to them. This (link) is a good read on the subject.

Of course, not all the deceased will be in a position to share our merits. Only those who are born in an unfortunate state of existence called "spirits who subsist on the offerings of others" can share our merits.

This could be a matter of scriptural interpretation. Their understanding of this is not limited to pretas. Even so, it's not different to the point of heresy that people make Dhammakaya out to be.

Interesting document you found. I went to page 45 of the document and after scrolling down just a little bit it said, "see warning". When I clicked on that it took me to another page, but I didn't see anything of concern there.

There has been a lot written, in the Thai media (including English-language publications), about Wat Dhammakaya practices. Probably the one thing that stands out most is the practice of 'selling' nibbana, reminiscent of medieval Catholic clergy selling indulgences. Dhammachayo's interpretation of nibbana, likening it to a state resembling heaven ('a permanent blissful realm where Buddha and other enlightened ones reside after death'), is also controversial. And the dhammakaya members' evangelistic zeal. According to an investigative article in the BKK Post, 'New recruits go through intensive training to learn bok boon -- the offering of merit-making opportunities to the public -- and in a similar way to salespeople, they learn to be persistent through follow-up phone calls.'

This article goes through most of the critiques.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general644.html

Further critical info:

http://www.buddhismaustralia.org/cults.htm

I have seen both of those before. They seem to be among the most common criticisms of the movement.

The first one is by Sanitsuda Ekachai. A caveat regarding her is that she seems to have a disdain towards the sangha in general, not just Dhammakaya. She has written much criticism out of what seems to be mere spite. It seems spiteful because she is constantly fault-finding, but you don't see her offer any solutions or even mere suggestions of reforms (other than saying that reform is needed). So her articles are really just constant fault-finding and cannot be considered constructive criticism at this time. What she says is often true, but she should really make some suggestions as to how the situations addressed can be remedied.

The second article makes all the usual criticisms you will find of any large religious congregation. If you were to look into criticism on Lakewood Church and The Potter House, you would find the same things being said. Both are large Christian congregations in the USA with roughly 20,000 (or more) attendees every Sunday and countless more by television, internet stream, etc. You will find all the criticisms of proselytizing, grandeur, scriptural inconsistencies, etc. One thing of note is that this site claims that Dhammakaya says its abbot is a reincarnation of the Buddha. I have not found and literature from the movement stating such. The abbot often refers to the Buddha in the third person in his writing as well as his speech. Never have I heard of him saying, "in my past life as Buddha" or anything to that effect. I'm looking for stuff like that and coming up with nothing. It seems it's just one of many outlandish claims that nobody from Dhammakaya itself seems to feel the need to refute. The supplement written by Mano Laohavanich (formerly Mettanando Bhikkhu of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, and now a politician and Chart Thai party member) brings up a key point. Much of the hostility towards the movement seems to stem from political causal factors. Khun Thaksin is a former affiliate, and numerous high-profile politicians, business people, etc. are to this day. Food for thought (link).

The alms-giving with the abbot as a medium is an interesting issue. It could be an interpretive issue? It may even be a symbolic ceremony, which would not exactly be foreign to popular Buddhism. Even if not, I have not really seen other monks criticized to this scale for medium practice, fortune telling, lottery seeing, etc.