camerata

If you stress the point that suffering in all its forms, including extreme suffering and extensive sorrow etc, is a mistranslation of Dukkha, and when the equivalent term was used by the Buddha, he was really referring to a sense of uneasiness, discomfort, dissatisfaction and/or the things that cause such uneasiness, then I would claim that such modest discomforts are not things that worry me particularly

That wasn't what I said. The common misunderstanding is that dukkha has the narrow meaning of the English word "suffering," which has quite a strong - almost biblical - connotation. The real meaning of dukkha, as can be seen in the above article, is very broad, covering everything from minor mental stress to major physical suffering. As such, no one can claim they don't experience dukkha. This is important because the Buddha said:

"One thing only does the Buddha teach, namely, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha."

This sums up what the Buddha's teachings were about. To assess the Buddha's teachings we have to test whether it does in fact result in the reduction and ultimate cessation of dukkha. His methodology was a system of mental training or mental cultivation. Whether one wants to try this is up to whether the individual feels it will be of benefit or not. The Buddha certainly never said everyone had to do it. You could say it's a "lifestyle choice" rather than a religion.

Sure, there is no perfect translation for dukkha - hence the confusion among non-Buddhists and those new to Buddhism. But my point was that it is pointless to discuss statements the Buddha made about dukkha without knowing exactly what he meant by it. Sometimes we have to get back to basics.

The English word "suffering" is a traditional but inadequate translation of the Pali word dukkha. To understand the Buddha's teaching, one has to understand the true meaning of dukkha. One of the best terms IMO is "dis-ease," i.e. not being at ease.

There is an article about this on Access to Insight:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

It is YOU, and your acquired illusions and delusions in your "normal" life that blocks you from entering the gate.

You were born pure, a blank slate, but then as you lived you taught yourself to believe that these illusions and delusions were the one and only reality.

Those illusions and delusions keep you from entering that gate.

Wake up and see clearly.

Just understand that this is NOT easy..... it took me 65 years of study and practice (it's called Life) to even see that gate open in front of me.

Although the Theravada view on attaining nibbana is a little different, Ajahn Chah said something quite similar to this. When a student asked how long it would take, he answered something like: "If you are 20 years old you have 20 years of 'defilements', so it might take 20 years to awaken."

There are things you can do to prevent ATM skimming. The first is to always cover the key pad when you enter your PIN, so your keystrokes can't be seen or photographed by a hidden camera. The second is to only use ATM machines inside a bank or mall where it would be difficult to attach skimming equipment.

One off-topic post has been deleted. The difficulties in attaining nibbana is an interesting topic, so let's not digress.

Vesak is the international name for Wisakha Bucha Day. It's been a United Nations holiday since 1999.

I watched Rebirth of the Buddha and it definitely doesn't tell the story of the Buddha!

Set in modern Japan, it begins with schoolgirl Sayako (who sees dead people) having a near-death experience. She decides to go and attend a lecture by the sinister Chairman Arai, who claims to have the answer to the world's problems, but her boyfriend Yuki warns her it is dangerous.

"Stop telling me what to do! I can make my own decisions, Yuki. Our relationship is OVER!"

Needless to say, Yuki saves her uppity teenage ass in the next scene, as she's about to be turned into a cult-zombie by Arai. She should have known that golden-haired anime hunks are always right.

Yuki takes Sayako to see Master Soren, the "reincarnation of Shakyamuni Gautama" (never actually named as Maitreya), who reveals that he and his organisation, TSI, are going to stop Chairman Arai's plan for world domination. It turns out that Sayako has been chosen as the one to bring the Truth about the "real Boodha" to the masses. At this point we hear such gems of Buddhist wisdom as:

"Success must be appreciated by many people."

"God created the earth."

"The Boodha's enlightenment was given to him by the Great Spirit."

"Rejecting the Great Spirit leads to Hell."

Sayako's young brother becomes possessed by an evil spirit. Master Soren performs an exorcism on him using an Australian exchange student as a medium to trap the spirit.

Later, Sayako is wearing a kimono and strolling in the park with Yuki when Chairman Arai's UFOs start razing the city. Sayako destroys them all and has a nice photo-op standing on an old castle wall pointing to the sky. Arai turns up, gets her into his UFO and then throws her out, whereupon her uppity independent ass is saved yet again by Yuki. This episode turns Sayako into a media star and she meets a famous TV personality.

All of this leads to a final battle between Chairman Arai and the shadowy demon behind him, and Master Soren who wields the latest model light sabre.

Soren wins, the world (and religion) is saved, and Sayako makes up with Yuki.

The movie is strongly pro-religion and anti-atheist. Sayako's parents are depicted as angry atheists. We are told to have have faith in the afterlife, in religion, and in the "living Boodha."

It was written by Ryuho Okawa, based on his own book. He founded his own religion called Happy Science. "Okawa claims to channel the spirits of Muhammad, Christ, Buddha and Confucius and claims to be the incarnation of the supreme spiritual being called El Cantare. Happy Science claims that El Cantare is the true hidden name of the Heavenly Father in the Old Testament, Elohim, known in the Middle East as the God of creation (El) and in other ancient cultures of the world as the Cosmic Tree of Life and the World Tree."

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

I've seen a Thai-English version in Asia Books, but not recently. Better to try a Thai-language bookstore.

Topic going nowhere. Closed.

It's the Buddha in the Subduing Mara posture, but that's a very popular type. Other than that, I couldn't say.

The way the forum generally works is that if you disagree with a post you set out your reasoning and preferably provide some evidence. That way we can all learn from the information that comes out of the discussion. For example, if you claimed the Buddha never ate meat, I would point to the Cunda Sutta in the Pali Canon, which says:

Then the Blessed One, early in the morning, adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — went together with the community of monks to Cunda's home. On arrival, he sat down on the seat laid out. Seated, he said to Cunda, "Cunda, serve me with the pig-delicacy you have had prepared, and the community of monks with the other staple & non-staple food you have had prepared."

Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Cunda served the Blessed One with the pig-delicacy he had had prepared, and the community of monks with the other staple & non-staple food he had had prepared.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.05.than.html

This is a well-known sutta because the Buddha died from the tainted pork.

Similarly, if you are saying the third precept specifically prohibits sleeping with a prostitute, I'd ask where the Buddha said this. A quote from the scriptures would put this to rest. I don't have any particular position on this, but in the context of the OP I think if a prohibition isn't clearly specified in the scriptures, can we criticise Thais for doing it? As it happens, the third precept is generally interpreted in Thailand as being a prohibition on adultery.

Just to clarify my post regarding the precepts anthropologists say Thai villagers find impossible to keep - I'm not saying that ignoring the precepts is OK, but understanding the culture enables us to be less judgmental about it.

So let's hear your reasoning. This is a discussion forum, after all. We all have our opinions.

Note no one has confirmed or refuted my points on the precepts yet despite the number of replies whereas I have had many great discussions in other countries about many belief systems.

RandomSand do you think you can be a Buddhist if you don't even try to follow any of the rules set out by Buddha? This is a general question, not for you personally as I can see you have a good understanding of the topic.

Defining who is a Buddhist is always going to be a personal opinion. IMO, 95% of Thais call themselves Buddhists, believe in the law of karma, believe they will be reborn in another realm according to their actions/karma, believe they will one day attain nirvana, and believe that observing the lay precepts result in a better rebirth, so it's reasonable to call them Buddhists. Virtually every Thai gives to the Sangha as recommended in the suttas. Virtually every male spends at least a few weeks in the monkhood in his life. So I think it's reasonable to say Thailand is a Buddhist country.

The 5 lay precepts are not mandatory rules. They are guidelines for the relief of suffering and attaining nirvana. If you follow them only a little, you only get partial relief from suffering. It's your choice. Obviously, you are a "better" Buddhist if you try to follow them all. I have many Thai friends who do try to follow them all.

There are several good books on Thai Buddhism in Thailand written by anthropologists. Basically, the typical Thai villager/farmer feels that several of the precepts are just too difficult to keep.

1. It's impossible not to kill animals, because that's how villagers get their protein and how they grow successful crops. They can't buy their meat at the supermarket like we can. The Buddha never advocated vegetarianism in the Pali Canon. He ate meat himself, as did his monks. While vegetarianism is desirable, it's only mandatory for Mahayana Buddhists.

2. Most Thais are not "corrupt" and corruption is not always theft.

3. The precept doesn't deal directly with prostitution. According to Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, the emphasis is on a man not sleeping with a woman in a relationship with another man. Also it's about not sleeping with a woman under the protection of someone (like parents). But this is a big topic and we've covered it before in the forum. Even if the precept did apply to sleeping with a prostitute, let's suppose 50% of Thai men do this regularly and 100% of Thai women don't, that leaves 75% of the total population who keep the precept.

4. According to what I've read (the Buddha talking to Rahula about lying etc), false speech means the type of lying that causes others to mistrust you, not to white lies like telling the wife you like her radical new haircut. As for Right Speech, I think everyone finds this difficult.

5. This is another big topic we've discussed before. According to the anthropologists and Thais I've talked to, villagers feel that after a hard day's work this is the (only) way to relax and wind down. However, very few monks drink. In my experience, up until the last 10 or 15 years, most Thai women did not drink at all. So there's 50% of the population that were keeping the precept for a start. IMO, it would be hard to argue that coffee and tea should be covered by the precept. Sure, there are far too many people taking drugs these days, but its a small percentage of the whole population.

With reference to the topic title, though, Japanese Pure Land is supposed to be a short cut to the Tusita Heaven (Amida's "Western Paradise") rather than a way to attain Nirvana or "Buddhahood." Followers rely on the grace of the mythical Buddha Amida to get there, i.e. "other power" (tariki) rather than "self power" (jiriki). IMO, Pure Land and Nichiren are as far from the historical Buddha's teachings as you can get.

I haven't heard of any voucher like that. We can't even get one ticket that works for both BTS and MRT in Bangkok.

The bottom line here is that those of us who have discovered the Buddha's teachings and adopted them are more fortunate than (most of) those who were "born Buddhist."

Definitely Koh Kret. Also Ancient Siam, which is about an hour from central Bangkok. Lumpini is Tent City at present. Benjakitti Park might be better.

Although the White Temple has a kind of fairytale Gothic beauty from a distance, close up it seems pretty tacky to me. However, it does more or less follow traditional ideas. Typically, in a Thai temple the side walls have murals of the Jataka (morality)Tales mixed with scenes of contemporary life to make them more relevant to the viewer. The central theme of this mural seems to be a petrol pump leading to the burning twin towers. The moral clearly is that greed for cheap oil can lead to violence.

Personally, I'd rather not see violence in temple murals, but it isn't unusual. There are scenes of hell realms, armies fighting, people shot with arrows, etc. While this modern mural is pretty jarring, the basic concept is an old one: morality and karma.

The Buddha's prediction about the decline of the Dhamma is from the Pali Canon, Digha Nikaya, 26. AFAIK, the claim that it would be in stages of 500 years each was made by the commentator Buddhaghosa.

Off-topic and cantankerous posts have been deleted. The topic is not about religion in general, it's "Would the Buddha approve (if he were alive today) of certain practices by Buddhists?"

Generally, it's more convenient to donate cash, regardless of what the Vinaya says.

The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople is a good reference for what monks can and can't do according to the Vinaya.

For example:

"Clothing, food, shelter and medicine are necessary whether one is a lay person or a bhikkhu. The bhikkhu, however, should take a completely balanced stance towards these fundamentals. Advertising and the latest fashion should not draw him, for he should be solely concerned with simplicity and lack of attachment towards things.[57] It seems that the original requisites were 'basics' that wandering bhikkhus could conveniently carry around, for example, an alms bowl, three robes, a sitting cloth, a needle-case, and a waist band. However, extra allowances were gradually given as the need arose, for instance, a water filter, a razor and its sheath, the stone and strop for sharpening it and then articles such as an umbrella and sandals. Later the commentaries allowed other similar items."