camerata

One off-topic post has been deleted. We aren't interested in anti-religion/anti-Buddhism opinions here, thanks.

....."This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself."......

In that one post you are effectively saying

Theravada right

Mahayana wrong

I think that's a good point.

I've heard Christians and athiests etc come up with the same criticism, the Buddha also is also recorded as fielding questions with similar objections in the early texts, so it's not just Mahayana propaganda.

That's why I said "largely" Mahayana propaganda.

So many topics on this forum just end up with people picking holes in other's posts instead of making useful comments.

Since this is th Thai visa forums we are interested in Thai Buddhism which is Theravada. Not much interest in Mahayana, but it is well known that Mahayana like to look down upon the Arahant/self enlightened idea to push their Boddhisatva ideal as being better.

I lost interest in Tibetan Buddhism, not implying that Tibetans are not devout, because I find they put too much emphasis upon having a Lama/guru and tend to worship their monks, deities, gurus, Boddhisatvas more than the Buddha himself. Too much ritual, and it seems Thai Buddhism is going the same way with all these huge statues of beloved monks, Mae Kuan yim (Chinese and not based upon a real person), etc.

Let's not get side-tracked onto debates about different schools of Buddhism. As you say, we have a few posters here who seem to enjoy criticising, and none of them identify as Buddhists.

This topic is about misconceptions regarding Buddhism as a whole, so I think it's easier to rely on the Pali Canon and its Chinese/Tibetan equivalents to answer. In some cases (eg. "Was Buddha a vegetarian?") the answer will be school-specific.

Well, I was pointing this out in the context of misunderstandings about Buddhism that arise because people look for answers on the Internet instead of in the Canon, which is supposedly common to all schools of Buddhism. There are probably a lot more Mahayana sources on the Internet but many of them are not Canonical, and this confuses the beginner. I am not saying Mahayana is wrong in general, but that it is wrong in this particular accusation and as a result it is often leveled at Buddhism as a whole. The view of Mahayana is that Mahayana Buddhism is not selfish because of the Bodhisattva Ideal. The view of Theravada is as I stated. In other words, Buddhism overall is not "selfish." But in differentiating itself from Theravada, Mahayana texts were often extremely derogatory about what they called the "Hinayanists." This is a matter of record. See The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, the beginning of the Lotus Sutra, etc. The misunderstandings I mention above apply to the whole of Buddhism.

I see from recent topics that there are still a lot of basic misunderstandings about Buddhism cropping up here, as they do on all Buddhism forums. It seems that these misconceptions circulate endlessly on web boards because no one relies on authoritative sources (eg. Bhikkhu Bodhi or P.A. Payutto) for information anymore. When we look for answers on zenquote.com or Wiki we aren't likely to get solid, consistent information and we are likely to get confused by the often major differences between the different schools of Buddhism. A few examples of these basic misunderstandings:

Buddhism is nihilistic: The Buddha taught on two levels depending on his audience. To his monks he taught nibbana in this life. To the laity he taught generosity, morality and rebirth. Ven Payutto says that even when the Buddha talked about rebirth to his monks, it was after talking about nibbana in the here and now. So the focus of the teachings was liberation from dukkha in the life. It's difficult to see how this could be considered nihilistic.

Buddhism is selfish: It's true that the Buddha left his wife and child, but he did it to find liberation for all of humankind. They lived in a palace, so it wasn't like they were left in the street. His wife immediately became an ascetic, and later became a bhikkhuni and an arahant. Later, after the Buddha visited them, his son and the rest of his family became monastics. Clearly this wasn't a selfish action. Another accusation is that Buddhists selfishly only seek enlightenment for themselves. This is largely Mahayanist propaganda. The Theravada view is that you can't guide others to liberation unless you've had a taste of it yourself.

Monks are a burden on society: It's clear from the Pali Canon that the Buddha set up the monastic order to be symbiotic with the laity. The laity provide material support and the monks provide spiritual support. Monks are expected to teach the Dhamma, which ultimately means teaching people to be happy and at peace. They are no more a "burden on society" than any other teacher. AFAIK, monks growing their own food is a relatively recent development that comes from Japanese Zen. In their demeanor and teachings, monks also provide the laity with a kind of proof that peace and happiness can indeed be attained by practice.

Following Buddhism will result in extinction of the species: The Buddha never said everyone should become monks. The idea that everyone should do what a "prophet" says is the right thing is the Abrahamic idea of religion. There is no reason why any of us can't raise children to adulthood and then later do whatever it takes to attain nibbana. It might be easier to start early, but it isn't necessary.

"I don't suffer": A common comment is, "I don't suffer!" so why should I bother with Buddhism? But "suffering" is a loose translation of dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness or dis-ease. Everyone experiences dukkha. It's just a matter of how serious it is and whether we want to put up with it or not.

I think we've had enough acrimony in this thread. Let's be civil and stick to the topic from now on.

From my reading of the Pali Canon and other literatuere, it's pretty obvious that the purpose of Buddhist meditation and ethics is the eradication of dukkha in this life. Everyone experiences dukkha.

One off-topic post deleted. Stick to the topic at hand, please.

I tried to use my pink card when buying foreign currency at Superrich today but they insisted on a passport (since I was giving them baht). Perhaps this is just because they want to make sure I am a bona fide traveller before they sell me foreign currency.

Has anyone tried registering a mobile SIM with the pink card? At 7-11 they just stick a Thai ID card in their Electronic Purse gadget to register a SIM, so presumably the pink card would work too.

When I use the word meditate here, I mean in the Theravada sense: bhavana, meaning "mental cultivation." I think it's this mental cultivation that leads to enlightenment.

Some well-known teachers are scholars who don't meditate. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one.

I think in future when I travel upcountry I'll be taking the pink card (incidentally, the officials at the district office call it "the Pink Card") and a photocopy of passport details and entry stamp.

I've read that temples with an excess of alms food will distribute it to the poor.

I don't know how opening a bank account with the pink card would work since our name is not printed in English. Surely it would mean that Thai would be the primary language of the account and they would need some other document to get the English spelling? In my case, Immigration got the Thai spelling of my name wrong on the Residence Book, so it doesn't correctly reflect the English spelling (i.e. "Cameraka").

I've had mixed results checking into hotels with a driving licence. Often, they have a specific registration form for Thai or foreign guests, and so they prefer a passport for foreigners. Even with a passport I get asked about a visa or "Where is your white Immigration card?"

Yes, the bank account that I opened with the pink ID card shows my name in Thai.

You won't have problems checking in at hotels if you use the pink ID card instead of your PP without TM card, or your driver's licence.

If you book through Agoda etc do you type your info in Thai?

I don't know how opening a bank account with the pink card would work since our name is not printed in English. Surely it would mean that Thai would be the primary language of the account and they would need some other document to get the English spelling? In my case, Immigration got the Thai spelling of my name wrong on the Residence Book, so it doesn't correctly reflect the English spelling (i.e. "Cameraka").

I've had mixed results checking into hotels with a driving licence. Often, they have a specific registration form for Thai or foreign guests, and so they prefer a passport for foreigners. Even with a passport I get asked about a visa or "Where is your white Immigration card?"

I think you'll find that "masters" became masters because they are accomplished meditators and have tended to avoid big cities. Most of the famous farang monk-teachers from Thailand started out in the Forest Tradition in Issan and then moved overseas. Ajahn Sumedho is now semi-retired in Ubon, but the others give talks in Bangkok from time to time and hold retreats. Ajahn Brahm still visits occasionally.

Try the BIA to see who will be visiting.

Several off-topic posts have been deleted. This is a forum for discussion about Buddhism, not for atheist piss-taking and denigrating Thais. Stick to the topic please.

AFAIK, monks can't prepare their own food, so 10kg of rice would only be useful in one of the large temples that have lay people to cook and offer food to monastics.

Thais say that an offering is to the monastic order rather than the individual monk, so they are unlikely to withhold offerings unless they have a problem with an entire temple and its abbot. In the old days, an upcountry abbot came from the local community so he couldn't really get up to much mischief, but it changed somewhat once the Sangha was centralised and abbots were not locals.

The vintage Merc mentioned above is a politically motivated storm in a teacup. Foolish lay persons think they are making merit by donating expensive things to famous monks, but the monks can't exactly refuse donations and they can't know whether tax was paid on them.

In the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, you can be reborn into any one of 31 planes of existence, not only the human realm. Thais tend to focus on not falling into an animal realm, hungry ghost realm or hell realm by giving alms to monks, as specified in the scriptures. Giving alms is a relatively easy way to make merit. Also, the next human life can seem a very long way away.

Interesting blog, Honu. AFAIK, regarding the deceased, the Pali Canon says that merit can only be received by those in the Suffering Ghost realm. On the other hand, we don't know where the deceased have gone, so I guess it is pot luck. Since this seems to contradict the core teaching that we are responsible for our own salvation, scholars like Gombrich think it was probably a popular custom in India before the Buddha's arrived, so he just let it be.

Also, AFAIK, in Thailand a monk never makes or returns a wai to a lay person, no matter how senior.

Quite an interesting article claiming that Buddhism and panpsychism are in accord, but failing to quote any Buddhist sources. It seems the scientist is sometimes talking about things like plants and bacteria, whereas the Dalai Lama is talking about "sentient beings." However, confusingly, they quote Dogen, founder of Soto Zen, as saying "All is sentient being," and "Grass, trees, land, sun, moon and stars are all mind." I'm not sure that saying all is mind is saying that "all is sentient being." Perhaps that is so in Mahayana, but in Theravada the Buddha talks about "breathing" beings. Inanimate objects, plants and beings too small for the eye to see are not considered sentient, AFAIK.

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere”

by Sam Littlefair Wallace

New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.

​"The heart of consciousness,” says neuroscientist Christof Koch, “is that it feels like something. How is it that a piece of matter, like my brain, can feel anything?”

In 2013, ​Koch, one of the world’s leading experts on consciousness, went to a monastery in India to discuss that question with a group of Buddhist monks. He and the Dalai Lama debated neuroscience and mind for a full day.

They had different approaches. Koch offered contemporary scientific theories on the subject, and His Holiness countered with ancient Buddhist teachings. Yet, at the end of their discussion, the two thinkers agreed on almost every point.

“What struck me most was his belief in what we in the West call ‘panpsychism’ — the belief that consciousness is everywhere,” says Koch. “And that we have to reduce the suffering of all conscious creatures.”

Panpsychism, the idea of universal consciousness, is a prominent thought in some branches of ancient Greek philosophy, paganism, and Buddhism. And it has been largely dismissed by modern science — until recently."

Full story

It's not hard to guess what is going on, but you really don't want to go to the police unless you are prepared for a heap of trouble. You could make an anonymous complaint to the regional monastic authorities but I doubt they'll do anything. Also, if there is any investigation and you are the only foreigner in the area, suspicion will fall on you as the snitch.

Some Christian-bashing posts have been deleted. The topic is Buddhism in everyday life.

From the individual's point of view, perhaps, but I'm talking about the Buddha's sangha. The Buddha had the great burden of ensuring the teachings and sangha would endure after his death. Part of that relied on the continuing good perceptions and good will of the laity (just look at the Buddha's reluctance to ordain women, which was shocking to the laity), and part of it relied on the support of kings/rulers, which continued until the present day.

Appearances were important to the early sangha, though, partly because they were dependent on the laity for material support and partly because it was the serene demeanor and impeccable behaviour of the enlightened ones that attracted people to the Buddha's teachings. One man even asked the Buddha if he was a god.

In the present day, when monks act more as a priesthood than as ascetics, you'd think impeccable behaviour wouldn't be so important, but it is. It's widely believed in popular Buddhism that keeping the precepts has a key role in giving monks the "spiritual power" needed to help the laity.