OxfordWill

Ive had my TDL from day one with a tourist visa. Never a question asked. Got it in Nong Khai mind you. So, it expires tomorrow. Its the one year one. Is it really the case that I cannot renew it until it's expired?

nothing to do with Thailand mate. Will happen everywhere if your luck is out.

Because I respect him.

Monks chanting.

Traditional Thai Music at the theatre.

Food smells and tastes great everywhere.

As for Nana Plaza, sensory overload whether you can see it or not!

Waterfalls- a must.

Hope she enjoys it.

Wasnt actually meaning it as an excuse per say. But yeh..i wish men had something like PMS too, so they finally have some idea what the hel_l it feels like!

Speaking of hormones, I will take feeling like utter shit once a month for feeling constantly horny every single day of my life, from dawn to dusk, sometimes even waking up horny, for no reason, being constantly consumed by sexual thoughts, even when you need to concentrate on something else, or being far too easily distracted from what you are doing when an attractive female walks, talks or gives off a nice smell anywhere within a KM of you. Regardless of how much sex you actually have! infact the more I have the worse it gets.

Situations Ive been in when my hormones have been a serious pain in the arse

business meetings

important student deadlines

important work deadlines

funerals

And no I dont mean physical reactions Im only talking about the mental burden of it!

Wanna feel like youre only barely a step above a monkey because you need to put real effort into daily life to achieve anything more than being a walking talking sex robot?

Wanna swap? Didnt think so!

Ill take bleeding out of my penis and feeling grumpy or in pain a few days a month in return for the clarity of thought and mind I usually only get for only 5 minutes (once or twice a day, immediately after sex), all the other days.

Chutai, thanks for your reply. My purpose here is to understand my friend better so I am trying not to see what you're writing as an argument for the way things are but rather as an example of what someone with the same or similar set of beliefs to my friend thinks. In this regard I am very grateful you are sharing your beliefs with me but I wonder if I could ask you to phrase them in a way which is not dictatorial- i.e. "we believe X" not "It is the case that X." Ill understand if you dont want to but the way I am, unfortunately when I read the latter form I frequently cannot stop myself from getting down to the nitty gritty and we'll quickly lose focus and Ill learn nothing about my friend and youll hate me within a few replies.

So from what I read my friend believes that truth will lead him to happiness and that SGI Buddhism holds the secrets to the truth about the universe. SGI Buddhism, if I understand you correctly, claims to provide the tools or direct knowledge as to how to learn the profound truth of reality. Do they make this claim exclusively or do they suggest non buddhists might be able to get to the same truth in other ways?

I do not know if the comment you make about intellectual reasoning is yours alone or one SGI Buddhism teaches also? Would be good if you could clear that up. Actually thats very important viz my friend.

The next bit you mention is that SGI Buddhists believe chanting a phrase of japanese language will transform the life of the agent chanting, or perhaps lives of others, and increase the agents' wisdom in some way, perhaps with a bearing on being enlightened (which I dont know what enlightened means, at all). Can I ask you to kindly explain how the chanting works? Is it a claim about physics? About psychology? What? Thanks!

escapades?

Thanks Focus.. shame if he isnt reputable since that house on the lake looks quite nice. Although I expect the mozzies and wildlife invade nightly.

Im also interested in this but Ive only found houses.

anonymity brings out the worst in alot of people.

It's hard to define where you and I start and stop, we cannot exist outside of our environment.

Anyway I hope you find that more useful.

Yea, it's certainly a wartered down version of what my friend is arguing. Ontology isn't easy though and this view is over simplifying alot of important things which I wont bring up here.

Compassion is recognising that as I feel pain so do others feel pain, as I suffer so do others. My suffering isn't somehow unique, seperate or special, it's part of the human condition. True compassion is not so much me doing something for you, it's a recognition there is a need and we're in this together.

Yea.. and in the light of your own definition of inter-being this is logical.

I agree with you and Krishnamurti on this, unfortunately there are a lot of Buddhists who mistake belief for reality. It's not what you believe it's the path you walk, Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

Do most people agree with you on this?

For example if the concept of oneness shakes up your view of the world and awakens you to a deeper reality then it has worked, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Some people focus on the wrapper so much they never eat the chocolate.

Nice way of putting it.

thanks.

Thanks.

Chutai: I read that link.

My question is:

Is SGI Buddhism more about happiness-seeking than truth-seeking?

He says the real purpose of religion is to bring happiness. He says his mentor said the real purpose of religion is to bring relief to the sick and poor. At no point does he say the purpose of religion or SGI buddhism is to discover anything true about reality. In fact, he assumes a great deal about reality in a matter of fact way.

Yes Brucenkhamen I am perplexed and concerned about my friends behaviour and because he explains his behaviour as related to his beliefs, almost all of the time, I am wanting to understand his beliefs. I'm a philosopher of a western tradition so that is my "framework" if you like, for judging it. Maybe it's lacking. I'd not like to think it is. Regardless, the best way I can explain it right now is that he is a truth relativist of some sort and I am most definitely not. I don't even know if Buddhism or SGI in particular has a term which describes the same thing but this point about one-ness would seem to at least encroach on the issue.

Things I am pondering:

a ) Is the state of englihtenment a state of being able to see oneself as a teapot?

b ) Isn't Buddhism about compassion and if so, how can one express compassion if one recognises nothing as separate or "other" to oneself? If I hit myself I do not need to feel compassion for myself. The feeling implies the very separateness that my friend claims does not exist.

c ) I have read some J. krishnamurti who seems to be very keen on the idea of experience and theory being importantly different. My friend talks like he believes everything is "one" not that he experiences everything as "one". Isn't this a crucial difference and a misunderstanding on his part?

d ) Why do my japanese friends not like SGI Buddhism? Why don't they want to really explain to me why they dont like it? Why are its leaders so rich? Is it like the scientology of Buddhism?

The more I look into it the more confused I am becoming.

Not offended at all. I have lived here full time for 8 years- spent a few months here every year since '82- worked here for a year in the mid 90s-As can be calculated- I'm not young- nor are most of my Thai acquaintances and friends. That may have something to do with it. I know that in the west young people are almost obsessively concerned with appearances- always have been- and it probably isn't much different here either- but I dont think most young people pay us old farts much attention regardless of how we dress.

Some people find suits offensive- they are the uniform of those who wish to convey dominance and power- like a military uniform worn by corporate soldiers. I would much prefer that my country be invaded by a bunch of foreigners wearing singlets and cargo pants- than wearing suits.

But certainly basic hygiene is important- that's just common sense.

But branching off a bit- I would hope that at some point the Thais start asking themselves what their reputation is, such that so many unappealing characters wash up on their shores each day.

Well- I'm being a bit facetious- but the bottom line is- I have no complaints about the way I am treated by Thais. In fact, I am surprised at how nicely I am treated- and my wardrobe is not- shall we say- top shelf. And I really don't feel like the treatment afforded to me by THais- strangers as well as acquaintances- is in any way shaped by their experiences with seeing unkempt foreigners (or kempt ones for that matter) on the BTS.

I sure have learned one thing though over the years- you walk around looking snooty- or angry- or miserable- and it won't matter how sweet you smell- how tussled your hair- or current your suit- Thais pick up on face very very fast= and amazingly, I think, accurately.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I was wrong. You've been here longer than me and say you don't think Thais treat you any differently because of how other westerners dress. I didn't mean to suggest this might be the case. But the thread is about westerner reputation so we should surely take the whole and not the indivuduals. I don't even own a suit but I suggest everyone wearing one would only help. Its a strong and ridiculous example but one I hope shows how often I hear Thais complain about the way some westerners dress themselves. I am also treated on the whole very well. But this thread isnt about me or about you and one should not deny we have a reputation regardless of either of us.

Of course you and the other posters mentioning attitude as important are right- its also very important. As is language. But since most Thais do not interact with most of us, and a great deal of them see us more than they interact with us, the way we look I think still matters, for better or worse. Coupled with their own judging of Thais based on appearance, skin colour, etc etc.

I wish to reply to each of you but am about to dash out but want to add:

The SGI stuff has obviously become a big part of my friend's identity and I am not really wanting to "prove him wrong" or similar, only understand him better. It's a relatively new thing in his life- I think only a few years.

My personal experience with Thais is that they are much more respective of individual differences within a culture than were many of the people I associated with in my home country. Certainly many Thais have stereotypes of westerners- but all we can do, I think, is be the person we want to be- and not cater to those who would tar us all with the same brush.

The dress point is actually one of the most important and I really believe if 100% of farangs wore a suit all of the time, the way we are treated would be unimaginably better. Of course, thats not possible, sensible or practical and its not the only thing which we do "wrong" "sometimes". But I'm using it as an example so dont take me literally. What you wear and how you "look" matters hugely. Much more than you seem to realise, which suggests to me although I am happy to be wrong, that you have not been living here a long enough time to learn this yet. Thats not a fault, so dont be offended.

Should it be the case? Who knows. But it is.

Platitudes was an unnecessarily negative word for me to use, I was wound up at the time by the issues in my new thread I started (or was about to start and did).

I chose 12th century really meaning 13th century and referring to Aquinas.

Dont take him personally, this is just the internet and youre just words on his screen.

It turns out you're right, which is a shame since I dont want anyone to have a good reason not to read this book.

I would prefer if we agreed to put this into the category of "an imperfection" of the book and not "a reason not to encourage people to read it". Your concern over your Mrs challenging your parents are not quite as valid as the section is about children.

On this point I can't come up with a defence for the authors that I am satisfied with, although will still recommend the book to people looking for an intro for previously stated reasons.

Thanks for proving me wrong- I need to re read the western sections with this in mind.

Kinda funny how men react to women breastfeeding. So many try to catch a gawk at womens chests under normaI circumstances, onIy to recoiI if the breast that is more easiIy viewabIe is feeding a baby.

Well, not so funny when you think about it. Breasts = sexy for adult males. Babies = not sexy. Breasts (sexy) plus baby(not sexy) = embarassment, confusion and "oh shit, does that mean im a paedophile?!"

Well some people do have the luxury of being able to not care what others think.. and it is a luxury. Many people have to operate in public environments like offices etc etc and unfortunately, it can matter alot

That can be true anywhere. If you work in any country then you have to conform to the rules of the work place. Many offices have a dress code. Certainly schools and universities do for the professors, and, in some cases the students.

Yes, it is a luxury to have enough money to do whatever you wish. But, it's also wise to not intentionally upset the people around you, and it's wise to stay within the framework of the country you are in. I wouldn't go into a market place wearing a thong, even though I might bathe naked on a nud_e beach. I wouldn't make love on a public beach where others might watch, and I wouldn't make a drunken spectacle of myself anywhere.

Exactly. And it is true everywhere. The attitude of "I dont care what others think" with the rationale "You cant control what they think" is a bad argument. Why? Because it assumes that if you cannot control what others think, you shouldnt even bother trying. I can't control whether or not my new boss will like me enough to keep me on, but I will dam_n well try to influence his opinion. And in Thailand, the way I would influence a Thai boss is not the same as how I would try to influence a Farang boss in somewhere like London. In both places, reputation of your race matters and in both places, the way you dress matters (just two pertinent examples, of course many other things matter also and moreso).

But really, people who say "I dont care what others think of me" are really just saying "Ive believe Ive been persecuted for a long time for being somehow different, and Ive found a coping mechanism" or "Ive tried to influence the people around me and their opinion of me but Ive failed and I quit." or "I'm too rich to care and need not rely on other humans" and then at the ultimate reduction, "Im a selfish person". What's selfishness got to do with it? Well, consideration of the sensitivities of others is only possible if you care what they think about you and your actions. Not being concerned that something about YOU might offend some group of people who come into contact with you is pretty selfish. We all screw our face at the guy who turns up drunk, wearing yesterdays shirt and smelling of urine. He probably doesnt care. Thankfully not everyone is like him. To such people I would ask: "Do you wish to live in a world where nobody cares what anyone thinks about anyone?" The answer is usually "thats not the same thing" which is simply wishful thinking.

I've got a very close friend who is a self described practicing SGI Buddhist. Now, I've read the wikipedia entries on SGI Buddhism, Ive read the SGI Buddhism literature which I could find and Ive asked some friends who are different types of Buddhists, what SGI Buddhism is all about.

I have two problems I am wondering if readers of the Buddhist TV forum can help me with:

1) I don't really understand SGI Buddhism. What's it all about? How does it differ from more traditional Buddhist systems?

2) My friend in question seems to take on board and believe himself the teachings that SGI Buddhism has. He has been going to meetings weekly for most of his adult life and he reads books that SGI Buddhists recommend he read. I have tried to read one of them but despite it being English, and despite the fact I have spent alot of time in my life reading some very hard scientific and philosophical papers and books, its like Im reading nonsense, I dont mean that I am reading things I dont agree with, I mean I literally cannot figure out what is being said. Although we are very close friends this is one discussion which leads us to strong disagreement and he will say I dont handle it well and I say he doesnt handle it well. Out of respect for my friend I am trying to work it all out.

What I understand so far is that SGI Buddhism makes some very strong claims about the way the world is. I would also say this about more traditional forms of Buddhism. It makes claims about the nature of reality, time, the place humans have in the universe, and from this it extrapolates another series of beliefs about morality, ethics.. in fact I cannot find a section of Philosophy it does not deal with. Ontology, metaphysics, science, etc.

I have asked my friend to explain to me what he believes and what SGI Buddhism believes. He describes his beliefs at length but I will sum it up as I understand it (and maybe I am misunderstanding it) as: he believes in a sort of universal "one-ness". I.e. that everything and everyone is all basically one thing. We recently had a strong disagreement about this which began from him sending me this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us, the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Note the word "delusion". He frequently claims I am deluded if I believe the planet and my own self to be separate, or the teapot and my own self to be separate. Is he using separate in a different way to the one in the dictionary? Do I lack the fundamental Buddhist lingo to get his point? He skirts these questions by posing more of his own, so I cant find it out by asking him. I asked if this means he believes things do not exist in their own right, and he replied:

"oh, i see, you see the universe and ourselves as separate?"

Unfortunately most of what he replies during these kind of conversations is in the form of question and seldom in the form of an answer or a straightforward argument. Now, to be clear, I do not mind if someone holds a belief or set of beliefs which are explicitly stated to be "beyond" or "outside" of the normal standards of rational thought. But my friend, and apparantly SGI Buddhism, does not state this. On the contrary, both parties seem to utilise the normal methods of rational argument to explain, and attempt to convince or validate their beliefs. For example, regarding his belief that the universe and self are not separate entities:

time is neither absolute nor definable

and so no period of time can be comparatively big or small...

time is intrinsically linked to matter and energy

hence albert

e=mc2

energy = mass x (speed of light)2

no one is independent

the above i.e energy (potential), mass (manifestations of physical world), time (cause&effect)

are also the components of the title of the lotus sutra

Myo (unseen potential) Ho (seen manifest) Renge (cause&effect/time)

Now, the first thing I notice when reading my friends' reply above is that he uses words like "and so". These are conclusion words. These words suggest an argument, or at the least, a set or propositions. The first lines seem like propositions, dont they? "X is Y". "A is B" "and so" (we might say "therefore") : Z / C

So it is fair, is it not, to analyse them using the normal standards of rational thought? Inference, induction, logical connectives, formal validity, etc?

I have always respected my friend and I want to take him seriously. More importantly, he takes these beliefs and SGI Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, seriously. He relates everything back to his Buddhist beliefs. If he acts badly, upsets a friend, or whatever (things we all do from time to time) he will explain it in a Buddhist way, or what sounds like a Buddhist way. He'll sya he hasnt been chanting as much as he used to. Or he'll say something which makes my brain explode trying to work it out, whereas others might simply say "I made a mistake, I shouldnt have done that" or "I was in a bad mood". etc.

I meet crackpots every day who I happily ignore. Most people I meet, even down the pub, hold strong convictions and beliefs which if true, have huge consequences to life (God exists, god doesnt exist, killing is wrong, killing is ok, wars are wrong, wars are ok, etc etc). Normally people explain their reasons in the form of an argument or several which can be easily recognised as a valid argument or not, but even if invalid they are typically uttered as if they are common knowledge to everyone. Im happy to dimiss arguments which seem illogical, but when its a close friend I actually want to understand his position and if its not possible to agree with him I can at least understand why I dont understand.

So, who knows what my friends means and can provide me with the best possible argument as to why its true? This in good faith.

After 30 years as a Buddhist, hasn't the Buddhist take on consciousness helped? Why would she care who is conscious?

It depends what you mean by helped. If you mean, given her platitudes to calm her concerns on the issue so that she can live a happy life without such questions bothering her, then I can definitely agree with that possibility. If you mean "helped her understand the true nature of reality and how it affects this question" then I very much doubt it since Buddhism, if we take the best of what all Buddhist belief systems (as of course there are many) teach or "believe" about the subject, and compare it to the timeline of unbiased thinking on the same, we can say that Buddhism is stuck somewhere around the 12th Century AD and that's probably being generous to Buddhism.

Paul Ekman: Death and forgiveness

I fear a painful death, but not death itself. Can’t comprehend why people do.

Lucretius pretty much closed the file on this topic in his arguments about the rationality of fearing death (again a very long time ago). Thomas Nagles shone a light on them again as have many others in recent times and the summary of the current best theory is: its entirely rational to fear Death and the reason is the associated losses one incurs as a result (not pain, loss).

Interesting reading. Thank you for posting it.

Not sure how much I understood, but

Yes and I dont mean to derail your thread (might be too late if anyone bothers to read this). However, one point to be taken from it is that any serious discussion (by which I mean where the participants care absolutely about what is true and what is actually the case) involving the way the mind works which does not involve at least one reference to words like "nativism" is at best a waste of time and at worse idiotic. That the best examples of Buddhist reflection on the matter are so far behind the times, is to me quite sad. Surely, they are way ahead of most other systems of belief, but like any system of belief they are restricted by their own interests.

Things like this:

while reminding us that there is in fact no agent as such, no self, the "choices" being a product of karma and "condition" (Nagarjuna) rather than a freely choosing "self"

Is a hugely sweeping and very heavy statement to make. Even the language is dishonest: "reminds us". As if its true, somehow innately? I dont know what they mean. But people and groups make these kind of statements/teachings/call it what you will, all the time and usually with the utmost confidence when from within the spheres of a particular set of beliefs about the world. You'll have noticed how the sum of thousands of years of unbiased thinking into the issue (re: fodor summary/intro link) has led the modern intellectual giants of the subject to basically say "we dont have a bloody clue". Or more fairly, "we've got a few clues but dam_n, it beats me."

Anyway this is the Buddhist forum, not the philosophy forum, and I apologise if Ive gone OT. I actually dont know much about Buddhism only meta-buddhism. Actually this thread has inspired me to ask you Buddhist experts a question so I will start a new thread.

Hello

Please list the wildly incorrect postulations this book makes about American culture.

You may mention specific lines on specific pages, I will dust off my copy and look them up to see if you are right or not.

thanks