Video: Farang wows Thais with knowledge of Buddhist ways

[hugh2121]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Only if you'll remember that many Thais are not Buddhist.

Definitely NOT many.

[Kieran00001]

32 minutes ago, hugh2121 said:

Definitely NOT many.

 

About 9 million people.

[oldhippy]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

About 9 million people.

You mean muslims? That's even worse.

 

Free thinking has not yet arrived in Thailand.....

 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

You mean muslims? That's even worse.

 

Free thinking has not yet arrived in Thailand.....

 

 

Muslims and Christians make up about half of that number, about 4 million now identify as being non religious.

[oldhippy]

9 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Muslims and Christians make up about half of that number, about 4 million now identify as being non religious.

Good news - thank you!

 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Only if you'll remember that many Thais are not Buddhist.

I think that is obvious by just a brief observation.

[PattayaAngel]

14 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Muslims and Christians make up about half of that number, about 4 million now identify as being non religious.

 

They can call themselves what they like but I have yet to meet many Buddhists in Thailand. The ones that are live in the forest but it's a small number relatively. 

[lvr181]

5 hours ago, hugh2121 said:

Remembering, of course, that many westerners are not Christians.

Correct - they just think they are 

[oldhippy]

42 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

Correct - they just think they are 

Yes there are many that just think they are christians (such as Blair, Ulster Unionists, etc), but there are also many who reject christian faith completely.

As a matter of fact, the best thing - no, the only good thing - to have emerged from christianity is atheism!

[Trouble]

On 1/23/2018 at 11:42 PM, NextStationBangkok said:

Most of us forget about this. Buddhism is about good principles for better life, especially sharing.

 

Start the day with sharing some food to others. It could be a Monk, or your colleague, or a friend or a poor person.

 

It is about sharing the good things with others, it could be food, wealth or knowledge.

 

We are trying to bring the equilibrium in our existence. Because at the end of the day, we all have to share this common earth equally.

Thank the stars some of us DON'T have to share the earth equally.

[balo]

I only see a a guy covered in tattoos.  

[lvr181]

11 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Yes there are many that just think they are christians (such as Blair, Ulster Unionists, etc), but there are also many who reject christian faith completely.

As a matter of fact, the best thing - no, the only good thing - to have emerged from christianity is atheism!

Lol.

 

Going to church does not make you a 'christian' anymore than standing in the garage makes you a car!

[Docno]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 12:11 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, not before Alexander, in fact about 700 years later!  And the mere existence of Grecco-Buddhist art does not translate into Greeks introducing the idea of making statues of Buddha, that is quite an assumption indeed.

Please read more carefully... I didn't say that Buddhist statuary started with Alexander. They were an outgrowth of the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms that arose after his empire was divided upon his death. 

 

In fact, your dates are way off. There is distinctly Greco-styled Buddha statue in the Tokyo National Museum that may have been sculpted as early as the 1st century CE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Buddha  Take note... the earliest statue of the Buddha we have is in a Greek style. Not only that, "Some of the standing Buddhas (such as the example pictured) were sculpted using the specific Greek technique of making the hands and sometimes the feet in marble to increase the realistic effect, and the rest of the body in another material." 

 

So it would appear that I was making no assumptions... 

 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, Docno said:

Please read more carefully... I didn't say that Buddhist statuary started with Alexander. They were an outgrowth of the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms that arose after his empire was divided upon his death. 

 

In fact, your dates are way off. There is distinctly Greco-styled Buddha statue in the Tokyo National Museum that may have been sculpted as early as the 1st century CE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Buddha  Take note... the earliest statue of the Buddha we have is in a Greek style. Not only that, "Some of the standing Buddhas (such as the example pictured) were sculpted using the specific Greek technique of making the hands and sometimes the feet in marble to increase the realistic effect, and the rest of the body in another material." 

 

So it would appear that I was making no assumptions... 

 

 

I read clearly, you said, "it was actually the Greeks who introduced the idea Buddhist statuary", which would imply that you thought that the Greeks introduced the idea rather than what they actually did, which was influence Indian art. 

But yes, my date was wrong, it should have been 300 years later not 700, my bad.

[Docno]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 1:35 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

You got it, the face of Buddha is of Greek influence, but of course not necessarily the concept of making a statue of Buddha.

 

Theres a few who claim Alexander as being their own, Greeks, Macedonians and also Bulgarians, most correctly he was a Macedonian  as that is where he was from, but then he did unite all of Greece for the first time so they also like to think of him as theirs, and the Bulgarians like to claim Macedonia as being a part of their country so they too like to claim Alexander as being a Bulgar.

This debate has nationalistic overtones... many years ago I watched Greek and (Slavic) Macedonian mobs in Toronto trying to break each other's heads with long sticks because the Macedonian community had erected a statue of Alexander a few minutes' walk away from the Greek part of town. That said, today's Macedonians are Slavs--descendants of peoples who arrived after the fall of Rome--and are unrelated to the Macedonians of Alexander's time. The ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and shared much of the culture (including religious beliefs) of their cousins to the south. Alexander himself was seen by the Greeks as a bearer of Greek culture...  

[Docno]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I read clearly, you said, "it was actually the Greeks who introduced the idea Buddhist statuary", which would imply that you thought that the Greeks introduced the idea rather than what they actually did, which was influence Indian art. 

But yes, my date was wrong, it should have been 300 years later not 700, my bad.

Well, all I can say is that it's not an assumption that the building of Buddha statues was directly influenced by Greek culture and practices. The link I gave previously includes this statement: "Although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshiping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature, the murals would suggest that statues of the Buddha were already in existence during the 2nd century BCE, connecting them directly to the time of the Indo-Greeks."

 

That's about the best sort of evidence you will get if you are exploring cultural influences that took place more than 2000 years ago in a part of the world that's seen much conflict and destruction.... 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Docno

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, Docno said:

This debate has nationalistic overtones... many years ago I watched Greek and (Slavic) Macedonian mobs in Toronto trying to break each other's heads with long sticks because the Macedonian community had erected a statue of Alexander a few minutes' walk away from the Greek part of town. That said, today's Macedonians are Slavs--descendants of peoples who arrived after the fall of Rome--and are unrelated to the Macedonians of Alexander's time. The ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and shared much of the culture (including religious beliefs) of their cousins to the south. Alexander himself was seen by the Greeks as a bearer of Greek culture...  

 

The claim by Macedonians that they are descended from Slavs who entered after Alexander the Great is false, it was started as communist propaganda during the Yugoslavia days and holds exactly no truth whatsoever however is still being repeated today by Macedonian politicians who received a communist education.

[Kieran00001]

19 minutes ago, Docno said:

Well, all I can say is that it's not an assumption that the building of Buddha statues was directly influenced by Greek culture and practices. The link I gave previously includes this statement: "Although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshiping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature, the murals would suggest that statues of the Buddha were already in existence during the 2nd century BCE, connecting them directly to the time of the Indo-Greeks."

 

That's about the best sort of evidence you will get if you are exploring cultural influences that took place more than 2000 years ago in a part of the world that's seen much conflict and destruction.... 

 

 

I have not disputed that there was influence, just your original claim that they introduced the idea of statues of Buddha.  And before telling people to read clearly you really should make an effort to write clearly as if you wanted to talk about influence you did not make that at all clear.

[SunsetT]

On 24/01/2018 at 1:19 PM, oldhippy said:

If you are interested in buddhism, go visit your local library in Farangland.

 

Buddhism is about philosophy, Thai buddhism is about monks.

.....and donation, donation donation.

[SunsetT]

On 24/01/2018 at 2:42 PM, NextStationBangkok said:

Most of us forget about this. Buddhism is about good principles for better life, especially sharing.

 

Start the day with sharing some food to others. It could be a Monk, or your colleague, or a friend or a poor person.

 

It is about sharing the good things with others, it could be food, wealth or knowledge.

 

We are trying to bring the equilibrium in our existence. Because at the end of the day, we all have to share this common earth equally.

"Most of us forget about this. Buddhism is about good principles for better life, especially sharing."

 

No its not! The bottom line in Buddhism is that life sucks and it teaches how to escape being reborn over and over to suffer it. Thai Buddhism is the original Theravada Buddhism which emphasises this and teaches individuals to renounce the World, abandon their family and run away from all worldy responsibilities and duties and put this selfish quest for their own escape and liberation above all else. The Buddha is said to have done just this and he serves as a role model , a very poor one I believe, for others, especially Thai men to follow, in abandoning their wives, kids (ring any bells?) and responsibilities. Compare this to the the role model served by the man Jesus, whovever he was, to ordinary people in Christian cultures. Other forms of Buddhism have evolved and changed to be less selfish.

 

Also compared to other countries I have visited I dont find Thais particularly hospitable, and I find them, on the whole,  to be quite selfish.

 

Giving food to monks in the morning is not really about sharing but an opportunity to improve one's karmic bank balance, (or improve one's chances, in Thailand,  of winning the next lotterry.....lol.) This is because monks are supposed to have renounced all action and possesssions in the World and should depend solely on what is given them, i.e., what is placed in their begging bowl in the morning.

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by SunsetT

[geronimo]

I see that this is a culture that really has the answers I am looking for. These are people clearly at peace and full of empathy for all living things around them. I see no conflict that can't be resolved with a simple wai. I see no greed no corruption just people focusing on  harmony and selflessness. That is why you must copy their ways, even though the Buddha would be horrified to see the idols, the extravagance of the temples, and the opulent lifestyle of many monks. You should copy their every move so you can have what they have. And also you should bathe in a barrel of ink a couple of times a week.

I'm sure you can find better things to do than reply to this.... campaigning for example.....

Sent from my SM-G610F using Tapatalk

[NextStationBangkok]

On 1/26/2018 at 3:31 PM, SunsetT said:

"Most of us forget about this. Buddhism is about good principles for better life, especially sharing."

 

No its not! The bottom line in Buddhism is that life sucks and it teaches how to escape being reborn over and over to suffer it. Thai Buddhism is the original Theravada Buddhism which emphasises this and teaches individuals to renounce the World, abandon their family and run away from all worldy responsibilities and duties and put this selfish quest for their own escape and liberation above all else. The Buddha is said to have done just this and he serves as a role model , a very poor one I believe, for others, especially Thai men to follow, in abandoning their wives, kids (ring any bells?) and responsibilities. Compare this to the the role model served by the man Jesus, whovever he was, to ordinary people in Christian cultures. Other forms of Buddhism have evolved and changed to be less selfish.

 

Also compared to other countries I have visited I dont find Thais particularly hospitable, and I find them, on the whole,  to be quite selfish.

 

Giving food to monks in the morning is not really about sharing but an opportunity to improve one's karmic bank balance, (or improve one's chances, in Thailand,  of winning the next lotterry.....lol.) This is because monks are supposed to have renounced all action and possesssions in the World and should depend solely on what is given them, i.e., what is placed in their begging bowl in the morning.

 

 

 

I agree with family attachment part is failing somewhat in Thailand, it could be economic reasons too. But you have responsibility right to care of your karma you are creating for yourself, especially your family. If only men are earning, and women taking care family is OK, but most cases here woman are working and having money, so they make individual decisions, and let the man go from life if they dislike them. That is the major difference. If woman are fully dependent of husbands, definitely husbands wont abandon them.

 

If you don't like to have human attachments as Buddhism teaches, just not abandon your parents or wives, rather understand the importance of responsibility of your own self, and not to depend on your parents. Same applies, to wife and kids, just dont marry or make kids with a lady and abandon them, rather don't for physical relationship and attachment towards wealth later.

 

Partly you are right that, Hinduism was practiced for 5000 years, and Buddhism came 2500 years ago, and at the peak estimated about 60%-70% of Indians were following Buddhism, and that was the time it was spreaded to South Asia, and slowly Buddhism wave is vanished in India, and Hinduism is fully back, except some Buddhists living.

 

Buddhism came, because equality of humans regardless of what jobs you do. Hinduism classifies the people's class based on the daily jobs you do. It has only draw back is that some are staying in upper class always, like Brahmans, and some menial jobs like cleaners, hair dressers, laundry men, musicians stay in the lower class, but only difference is they mastered in their skills and passed to their generations. But otherwise all have something do in their life.

 

But anyhow Buddhism is still surviving in SriLanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos and in Cambodia, i am sure something is good in it. But may be people misuse the advantages provided, rather than using it wisely.

[SunsetT]

1 hour ago, NextStationBangkok said:

I agree with family attachment part is failing somewhat in Thailand, it could be economic reasons too. But you have responsibility right to care of your karma you are creating for yourself, especially your family. If only men are earning, and women taking care family is OK, but most cases here woman are working and having money, so they make individual decisions, and let the man go from life if they dislike them. That is the major difference. If woman are fully dependent of husbands, definitely husbands wont abandon them.

 

If you don't like to have human attachments as Buddhism teaches, just not abandon your parents or wives, rather understand the importance of responsibility of your own self, and not to depend on your parents. Same applies, to wife and kids, just dont marry or make kids with a lady and abandon them, rather don't for physical relationship and attachment towards wealth later.

 

Partly you are right that, Hinduism was practiced for 5000 years, and Buddhism came 2500 years ago, and at the peak estimated about 60%-70% of Indians were following Buddhism, and that was the time it was spreaded to South Asia, and slowly Buddhism wave is vanished in India, and Hinduism is fully back, except some Buddhists living.

 

Buddhism came, because equality of humans regardless of what jobs you do. Hinduism classifies the people's class based on the daily jobs you do. It has only draw back is that some are staying in upper class always, like Brahmans, and some menial jobs like cleaners, hair dressers, laundry men, musicians stay in the lower class, but only difference is they mastered in their skills and passed to their generations. But otherwise all have something do in their life.

 

But anyhow Buddhism is still surviving in SriLanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos and in Cambodia, i am sure something is good in it. But may be people misuse the advantages provided, rather than using it wisely.

U forgot Tibetan, Japanese Zen, and Chinese Chan forms of Mahayana Buddhism, which evolved to emphasise, in the former, selflessness as represented by the vow of  the Bodhisattva, and the possibility, in the latter, of instant enlightenment and liberation for all.

 

I no longer trust any religion after learning of sexual abuse by those in power in so many religions. And the way it is denied even by devotees and believers, and then covered up by the establishment means that over time it is completely forgotten. This mean later generations of devotees/followers are blissfully unaware of this, and through the masses of religious literature in circulation, the religions survive and their teachings are perpetuated whether true or false. http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/HOME/The_Findings.html. This means that even the most revered  founders of World religions like Jesus, etc., (sorry, using more examples could get me in serious trouble) could have been sexual abusers or paedophiles. There is no way that we would know.

 

I followed teachings and practised meditation for some years, and have studied the mystic basis of some religions. My personal conclusion, which, of course,  may be totally wrong, is that the 'mystic core' is all 'smoke and mirrors' which conveniently hides behind the cloak of ineffability and so ultimately  depends on blind faith. Also where are those who are supposed to have reached, or achieved some degree of self-realisation or enlightenment? And what use are they? Surely their extraordinary spiritual charisma and wisdom could not escape the attention of today's pervasive World media! The Catch 22 is that religions are  a necessary evil in this YinYang World, and without their ethical and moral teachings humans would simply regress and resort to their perfectly natural basic animal instincts, which sadly lie, in all of us, not far beneath the thin veneer of civilisation. Humans seem to have evolved a powerful gene/meme for supertitious belief to support this balance. When it comes to religion, 'superstition sells'.

 

So I now believe that religions can only be judged by the influence that they have, and have had, on the lives of the people, especially the masses of ordinary people in the societies where those religions are practised, and hence, as I emphasised originally, the importance of the founders as role models.

[NextStationBangkok]

57 minutes ago, SunsetT said:

U forgot Tibetan, Japanese Zen, and Chinese Chan forms of Mahayana Buddhism, which evolved to emphasise, in the former, selflessness as represented by the vow of  the Bodhisattva, and the possibility, in the latter, of instant enlightenment and liberation for all.

 

I no longer trust any religion after learning of sexual abuse by those in power in so many religions. And the way it is denied even by devotees and believers, and then covered up by the establishment means that over time it is completely forgotten. This mean later generations of devotees/followers are blissfully unaware of this, and through the masses of religious literature in circulation, the religions survive and their teachings are perpetuated whether true or false. http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/HOME/The_Findings.html. This means that even the most revered  founders of World religions like Jesus, etc., (sorry, using more examples could get me in serious trouble) could have been sexual abusers or paedophiles. There is no way that we would know.

 

I followed teachings and practised meditation for some years, and have studied the mystic basis of some religions. My personal conclusion, which, of course,  may be totally wrong, is that the 'mystic core' is all 'smoke and mirrors' which conveniently hides behind the cloak of ineffability and so ultimately  depends on blind faith. Also where are those who are supposed to have reached, or achieved some degree of self-realisation or enlightenment? And what use are they? Surely their extraordinary spiritual charisma and wisdom could not escape the attention of today's pervasive World media! The Catch 22 is that religions are  a necessary evil in this YinYang World, and without their ethical and moral teachings humans would simply regress and resort to their perfectly natural basic animal instincts, which sadly lie, in all of us, not far beneath the thin veneer of civilisation. Humans seem to have evolved a powerful gene/meme for supertitious belief to support this balance. When it comes to religion, 'superstition sells'.

 

So I now believe that religions can only be judged by the influence that they have, and have had, on the lives of the people, especially the masses of ordinary people in the societies where those religions are practised, and hence, as I emphasised originally, the importance of the founders as role models.

Good narration, yes founders and followers are important.

 

>> I no longer trust any religion after learning of sexual abuse by those in power in so many religions.

 

This is the core issue of every religion, and  all equally promoting the same in different ways.

 

Thank you.