Spirits, Good And Bad

[DeDanan]

Hi All,

Spirits good and bad have a big significance in Thailand, is this part of Theravada Buddhist belief?

Have a Happy...

DeDanan

[LoongJohn]

Spirits good and bad have a big significance in Thailand, is this part of Theravada  Buddhist belief?

Gd'day DeDanan

My wife assures me that the belief in spirits (other than Mekong) predates Buddhism in Thailand. Spirit houses abound - to keep the phii happy. Phii-paa live in the forest, to (hopefully) protect the trees from foreign timber interests. There are also spirits to protect the waterways. The belief in spirits goes back to pre-Buddhist animism and served a useful purpose. Chinese ancestor-worship sits side-by-side with Buddhism.

My (Chinese) Thai brother-in-law had a hair -raising habit of always taking both hands off the wheel to offer a wai when driving past a shrine of any sort in Bangkok. It didn't matter if it was Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Christian or Innuit - he saluted them all. I asked him about this - if he was a Buddhist, why wai the others? He replied: "Insurance!"

Seems fair enough - Why take chances?

LoongJohn

.._

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Spirits good and bad have a big significance in Thailand, is this part of Theravada  Buddhist belief?

Gd'day DeDanan

My wife assures me that the belief in spirits (other than Mekong) predates Buddhism in Thailand. Spirit houses abound - to keep the phii happy. Phii-paa live in the forest, to (hopefully) protect the trees from foreign timber interests. There are also spirits to protect the waterways. The belief in spirits goes back to pre-Buddhist animism and served a useful purpose. Chinese ancestor-worship sits side-by-side with Buddhism.

My (Chinese) Thai brother-in-law had a hair -raising habit of always taking both hands off the wheel to offer a wai when driving past a shrine of any sort in Bangkok. It didn't matter if it was Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Christian or Innuit - he saluted them all. I asked him about this - if he was a Buddhist, why wai the others? He replied: "Insurance!"

Seems fair enough - Why take chances?

LoongJohn

.._

He'll be right. He has all the bases covered Kinda multiple each way bets.

Belief in animism is common, but it is not part of the teaching in Buddhism.

[Lioneric]

In Coufucian says respect all beings but stay away from them, He means all creatures are created but God,so we must respect them as well . But we don't ask help from them . Some people ask lottery numbers from Phi(ghost) in return they must pay certain condition back to them. They is no free lunch in this world.

In one story Buddha and His disciples walk and Buddha saw a dead body only bones left and Buddha bow down and pray to the bones,with all the sudden one of his disciple ask Buddha why Your holiness bow to the bones? and Buddha answer" We have been reincarnation for so long(many life), this maybe one of my parent in my past life,I saw my my parent body lying on the road side and as a son I should respect to my parent" This story tell us Buddha did't pray to Phi but it's his parent, so it's not weather we are praying any sprits but it's how our intention is?

It's noting wrong to Wai on other religion,once we respect other gods or spirits we will get respect in return.

[stroll]

Well, as I understand it, spirits, demons and celestial beings are recognised to exist, and some maybe helpful allies, but are ultimately illusory. I cannot imaging Buddha recommending to seek help from spirits to win the lottery or prevent accidents, such practises are actually going against his teachings.

In Theravada the emphasis is on attaining enlightenment by one's own efforts, so it is surprising how dominant the concern with spirits is in Thailand?!

[organic]

Gods, demons and all sorts frequently appear in Shakyamuni's teachings but they should be viewed rather as symbolic rather than genuine entities. They were neecessary for Shakyamuni to be able to communicate his ideas to people of that time. Imagine, for instance, trying to explain how a radio works to such a person and you could well end up using such metaphors. I think it's the case in Buddhist though that a ghost or spirit cannot exist as such because material existence requires the 5 components, of which it'd only have 1.

The longer I live in Thailand, the more I come to view it as an animist country, Theravada Buddhism being to most people, it seems, more a formality than a core belief. Talking with a friend the other day about cause and effect, I think she was surprised that I, as a farang (Buddhist), believe in it while I was just as surprised by her statement that 'only old people believe in that'!

[stroll]

"They were neecessary for Shakyamuni to be able to communicate his ideas to people of that time. Imagine, for instance, trying to explain how a radio works to such a person and you could well end up using such metaphors. I think it's the case in Buddhist though that a ghost or spirit cannot exist as such because material existence requires the 5 components,..."

Well, one has to guess whether he was using metaphors, and we are not talking material existance, I haven't seen a spirit yet, or am I missing the point?

I fully agree with the rest of your post.

[andyinkat]

Hello Stroll and everybody, may I participate?

I'd like to suggest, if I may, that the responses to the question in this thread approach Buddhism from a strongly western perspective. If you step out of that mileau there really is no contradiction or strangeness.

Wesern assumptions that cloud an understanding of the Buddhadhamma are many but here I can briefly touch on a couple.

Firstly the monotheistic religions have left a legacy of assuming only one path is 'true' so a 'sharing' of religious paths seems odd, yet it is the norm in the East.

Secondly Buddhism (the very term is a western creation) was first examined in the West by rationalist philosophers who filtered out allegedly 'non-rational' elements. Since then psychology has jumped in. Now the Buddhadhamma quite rightly has a great deal to offer psychology and philosophy but a westerner must br careful not to REDUCE the wealth of the Buddhadharma to the recent western disciplines.

Now to bring this to bear on the issue of spirits, let us first consider what the Buddha taught. The suttas are very rich in contemporary Indian divinities - Indra, Brahma, tree nymphs, earth goddesses etc. Okay you may wish to hold on to the position that the Buddha was skilfully using these devices in a symbolic, metaphorical or mythological sense, but do you think the generations of devotees down the millenia though tin this way? Mind you does it really matter?

For me the interesting point is to contrast the Buddha's approach to that of the monotheistic religions. There is ONE Truth - a jealous god; other religions are erroe, to be smashed. Buddha never asserted that the existence of deities was an error or an illusion. What he did was relativise them.

Let me explain: he taught that rather than being omnipotent or salvific, they exist within samsara. In other words gods and spirits are real but they are not enlightened. They can cause mischief, they can help - but only in samsaric ways; they cannot further ones journey towards enlightenment since they too are ignorant.

Stroll, you said you thought Buddhists were working towards enlightenment. In Theravada Buddhism in particular it is very clear that to stand the smallest miniscule chance of enlightenment in this lifetime you ave to be a fully ordained monk. Women have no chance, neither do male laity. At best you can make enough merit in this life for favourable rebirth, as a male, in an environment where you might become a monk.

Thus for the vast majority enlightenment is a theoretical goal but too far over the horizon to be of practical concern. Thus your concerns are samsaric and it is quite logical to turn to samsaric spirits for help. Buddhadhama isn't going to make your sick buffalo well but a placated spirit might.

Consider, a Christian in deep debt and in trouble with the bailiffs might pray fo rdivine aid - but he might go and see his bank manager as well. He might pray to be protected from tropical diseases, but he'll get the vaccinations too. Same same.

Buddhism is the only major religion that makes no attempt to be comprehensive. There are the famous meatphysical question in the Malunkyaputtasuta where the Buddhas refused to speculate on classic religious questions; there are no prescribed rituals for birth or marriage ceremonies - there are many 'gaps' that are filled by the popular beliefs and practices of indigenous religions. Buddha was very careful to deliberately integrate and respect them so long as it is understood that they do not offer a route to the Ultimate. Such tolerance has historically been a great strength of the buddhadhamma.

Thank you.

[NaiGreg]

I have nothing to add to the last post except a grateful "thank you andyinkat." That was a wonderful and lucid explanation. Very interesting topic. I have gleaned some of this from my Thai wife and Thai friends, but it has never been stated so succinctly and clearly before.

Greg

[Darknight]

Stroll, you said you thought Buddhists were working towards enlightenment. In Theravada Buddhism in particular it is very clear that to stand the smallest miniscule chance of enlightenment in this lifetime you ave to be a fully ordained monk. Women have no chance, neither do male laity. At best you can make enough merit in this life for favourable rebirth, as a male, in an environment where you might become a monk.

hi andy,

I agree with all the rest that you've written but this is the biggest load of Male chauvinistic , Power hungry, Buddhist crap i've ever heard.

"Women have no chance, neither do male laity"

You only need to be aware, mindfull (not full of mind) centered and able to let go...

There is no requirement on "Being" this or the other. i would say the requirement is "No being".

Maybe you could go ask your Teacher again, Will give him a good laugh

[NaiGreg]

I'm [mildly] offended by Darknight's remarks. I was hoping that sort of post (mean-spirited, sophomoric, anti-buddha ) would be a rare event in this forum. Why do people become unnecessarily aggressive when communicating with a keyboard?

[andyinkat]

Obviously what he quoted is not MY opinion, and in his flaming of me in another thread he hasn't noticed that I'm latterly of the Tibetan tradition for which this view does not apply.

He clearly has no experience of training within a sangha or learning about Theravada. There are a couple of ill-informed, angry egotists following me around this forum - sad but no point rising to it.

[OxfordWill]

Yes, I must agree that Darknight, although having posted some interesting posts, seems to be being unecessarily aggressive.

I for one hope to learn from people who have had more experience than I.

[stroll]

I second that.

[bina]

naigreg,

truly good explanation and as a woman , darknight, i am aware that most philosophies/religions have a tendency to leave women out of the loop so to speak and am not offended so why are you?

now, i have a question that involves translation of the terms god (God) , gods, fate , etc...

my friend (a thai man from issan )writes to me and i send for translation... he is from issan with sixth grade education so his writing seems to be not very sophisticated:

"I just pray to God, please don’t let it happen that

way, but if it actually happens, I will just have to accept my fate..." "What is meant to happen will happen

and no one can prevent it from happening. We can’t choose how we want things to be, but only a higher power above set things on

destiny’s way before we know it. Our path in life is predestined, with no exceptions for soul mates..."

is this the way most issan thai see life? and when he writes, what thai word or words is/are he using to express the term god? maybe the translators are doing a bit of poetic editing for their western client? and is budhism a 'fatalistic' philosophy as far as predestined paths? I know he is not a christian thai... although after living in israel maybe he picked up some of our crazy jewish ideas

just curious and maybe have to ask the linguistic gurus also....

[bina]

andyinkat sorry your explanation but i agree with naigreg's side remarks....

mai pen rai

[Darknight]

I'm [mildly] offended by Darknight's remarks. I was hoping that sort of post (mean-spirited, sophomoric, anti-buddha ) would be a rare event in this forum. Why do people become unnecessarily aggressive when communicating with a keyboard?

Yes, I must agree that Darknight, although having posted some interesting posts, seems to be being unecessarily aggressive.

I for one hope to learn from people who have had more experience than I.

I'm not agressive . It's just the biggest crap inside the buddhist traditions.

Why would only monks be able to reach enlightenment? Why wouldn't woman be able to attain it?

Maybe you can give me an answer on that first ?

Maybe you can go and have a look at the quotes i posted in another thread from "old masters" that actually specify that there is no need to "Be something, follow something or copy something".

It only shows how much you're still connected to the Mind and your ego, that you can't see beyond your precious Rules and Precepts.

Monks can only reach enlightenment after following this and doing that. It is just a self importance thing, "see we can do it" which is just the opposite of What Buddha meant.

It's the biggest <deleted> i've seen

Especially what you read into it says more about your perception then my writing

[stroll]

I don't like the way this is going.

Darknight:

"Especially what you read into it says more about your perception then my writing"

DK, maybe the above quote applied to your reaction to Andy might be the path to enlightenment here?

As i understand it, he was referring to Theravada Buddhism, not his personal opinion, whatever that might be. You may not see your reaction as 'aggressive', so would 'agitated' be an acceptable term?

I think a button was pressed for you here, and I understand why, but please consider others responses to your reaction.

(who am I to say, I keep losing my temper, too)

Most posters here don't seek to create disharmony and offense intentionally, let's give each other credit for that.

[andyinkat]

Bina, Stroll et al,

To clarify further, Stroll is correct – I was not giving my own opinion, I was giving the traditional Theravadan position on the role of women and lay people. I see from other posts that Darknight adheres to a Zen position which is very different. My MA thesis was actually entitled “The Role of Women in Buddhist Scriptures” in which I did a comparative study of this issue within Theravadan, Mahayana (including Zen) and Tibetan scriptures, so I’m not completely uninformed – I’ll spare you the scholarship however.

Like I said, it’s not MY view – indeed this was one of the main factors that prevented me from considering ordination within that tradition and led me towards Tibetan Buddhism which does include female Buddhas within its pantheon.

Bina – you ask about predestination/fatalism. I think the Buddha spelt out a clear middle path between fatalism and free will in a way that makes rational sense. What happens to you is the result of causes and conditions ‘you’ created in the past – i.e. your kammic seeds ripening. However, how you RESPOND to these events is your free will and will create the future conditions. For instance, if something bad happens to you, you can react with anger, which will create further negative conditions in the future; or you can respond positively in which case you create the conditions for positive outcomes in the future.

Of course, it’s a little more complicated than that, you might say. You don’t INTEND to react with anger, it just happens. But that is where the Buddhist practice comes in; through the mind training laid out by the Buddha your subconscious gradually transforms so that when you do react to events the reaction is governed by wisdom, compassion and skilfulness.

Past kammic seeds have to ripen sometime. When they ripen depends on the right conditions coming together. Sometimes it might be ‘instant’, sometimes it might be months or years later, sometimes it might be one or more lifetimes before the results manifest – in the latter case this might seem like ‘fate’. But only the omniscient mind of a Buddha can know when kamma will ripen; for us unenlightened mortals speculation is unprofitable (although there are plenty of ‘folk’ practices which claim to give answers) and the best position to take is to accept that whatever ‘fate’ throws at us is the outcome of past errors, be grateful that they are ripening now as that means they are finished with, and use the situation to sow positive kammic seeds and thus take control of our future ‘destiny’.

[bina]

in this world of instant its very hard to think i may have to wait a few lifetimes for anything....'sigh'...

thank you andy but what about the 'god' thing: when a thai says god... what is he/she intending? Buddha? the jewish god?; the christian one? a bunch of deities sitting in a heaven?... i looking at it from an anthropological and symantic point of view ... or is that just an expression that suits as a figure of speech like we in israel will often say 'insh allah' (as allah wishes) which obviously is moslem but has worked itself into our lexicon?

i've never heard thai say: as the gods wish it, or 'the gods will strike you down' although i was told Buddha would strike me dead when i lit a cigarette in some muban near udon and an old guy came running out and yelling at me including pointing at the sky and gestilating wildly (women dont smoke in public there and i didnt know)...so i translated that as god (a single deity) and not as a group of spirits watching me do bad or good things.

its really hard to discuss this stuff on a keyboard.... but very instant

[andyinkat]

From what you wrote Bina, it seems to me the man is using western language in a rather shallow way - much like western people with secular outlooks might throw in the term 'God' without much philosophical depth. I believe that most young thais have no more 'real' grasp of their state religion than most young Europeans do of Christianity. So I can't really interpret what he meant fo ryou - you'd have to get him to clarify.

This thread has also brought up a separate issue I'd like to share my views on.

I don't personally agree with all aspects of contemporary Thai Theravadan Buddhism - however I do wish to UNDERSTAND it. This for me is all the more imperative when it is the dominant form of religion in my adopted home. I feel that any form of 'my Buddhist path is better than your Buddhist path' is utterly unsklful. The Buddha welcomed level-headed rational debate between different religious paths and there has been a long and healthy tradition of inter-Buddhist debate down the millennia.

I think that one of the subtest and most dangerous forms of attachment is not to the physical or even the mental, but to the Dhamma. Budda taught that the Dhamma (teaching, Truth) is a raft, a vehicle - not to be clung to. You do come across people who seem to understand this theoretically and quote all the right passages, but in practice you can tell from their behaviour and reactions that they are very attached to their concept of enlightenment; their version of the Dhamma/Dharma is the RIGHT one, all else is error. This is very ironic but was clearly understood and anticipated by the Buddha. After all, if you are truly endeavouring to lose your false ego what's all this 'I want enlightenment' about?

On the issue of women and enlightenment, the Pali Canon is unique in the scriptures of the major world religions in having a whole book, the Therigatha which is written by women - they are the songs of enlightened women during the lifetime of the Buddha. Sadly, for historical reasons this 'freshness' dried up within the Theravada tradition. There are reasons for this but they require an understanding of complex background issues. To repeat, I don't defend the position - quite the contrary in fact. Since nobody contributing to this thread is actually disagreeing on this issue I'd rather leave it anyway and suggest you talk to an Ajahn (Achaan). I would however like to suggest that to me at least, there is far more that is positive about Theravadan Buddhism than is negative and it is quite a distortion to home in on one issue to the exclusion of all else.

PS Stroll - I found your thread on becoming a monk and added a comment. :-)

[andyinkat]

in this world of instant its very hard to think I may have to wait a few lifetimes for anything....'sigh'...

That’s a wonderfully witty and perceptive comment Bina. Instant gratification – the western disease. One of the great distortions of the buddhadramma in the West is to try to force it into a “I want it all and I want it now” framework. Such is the western ego.

There is another thread in this forum on ‘what is the nature of enlightenment’ – I chipped in a bit but tried to desist as it was getting very intellectual. But since you touch on it here let me make a brief observation – my understanding of the ‘goal’ of Buddhism if you will.

For me the key concept that makes sense of most of the Dhamma is ‘sati’ (in Pali) – often translated ‘mindfulness’. It means being fully aware, fully present in the moment. I think that Zen tends to express this particularly well but it is also clearly outlined in Theravada. The present moment, if looked into deeply enough, is an eternal moment.

The western mindset with the heaven/afterlife scenario projects the goal into the future and it takes this mindset into its understanding of nibbana/nirvana and looks for some distant goal. But ironically looking for a distant future goal is to lose focus on the present moment. A glimpse of the eternal now is possible – now.

For me – and I stress this is my personal understanding, not based on any high authority, enlightenment is simply moments of mindfulness all joined up. In other words every moment is a mindful moment.

A glimpse, an isolated momentary experience is achievable in many ways, not just through Buddhist training. Referring to earlier issues on this thread, I’m sure drug experiences can offer such a transient experience (altho’ I can’t personally verify that), as can ‘highs’ gained from art, nature, sex, many such methods. However they are transient and the Buddha insisted that of themselves are of no great worth. Buddhist training offers methods to put your mind in a position to make such experiences more likely to recur, and Buddhist ‘philosophy’ offers a structure to make sense of it all.

So, to make sense of all this in a sentence, what I’m basically saying is,

Forget about the future! Live in the Now.

[Darknight]

Darknight:

"Especially what you read into it says more about your perception then my writing"

DK, maybe the above quote applied to your reaction to Andy might be the path to enlightenment here?

As i understand it, he was referring to Theravada Buddhism, not his personal opinion, whatever that might be. You may not see your reaction as 'aggressive', so would 'agitated' be an acceptable term?

I think a button was pressed for you here, and I understand why, but please consider others responses to your reaction.

(who am I to say, I keep losing my temper, too)

Hihi not agitated at all stroll, i was actually pleased with Andy's explanations . By the way i think andy and i actually could be friends....

What you all don't get is that i'm putting up mirrors to reflect your own thoughts. Not all things in life have to be nice and agreable. Into your face is just a part of life as "can we discuss and agree to something". The latter challenges your brain and mind to understand. The first stirs your deep emotions and ego.

Your emotions and ego will show clearly your consious state, as your brain will only show you your attained knowledge. It's not the words you speak but the reaction to certain things that's important.

The master wouldn't have reacted to my comments. He just would have smiled...As he has trancended his ego reaction already he would understand that it is not important. The question and the reaction is not important. Neither is the need to answer or not...

First you have to realize the mirror, then later on you can start to look through it.

By the way , the button didn't angry me also, It was just another game in the illusion of daily life, Ask bluecat i told him before.

A glimpse, an isolated momentary experience is achievable in many ways, not just through Buddhist training. Referring to earlier issues on this thread, I’m sure drug experiences can offer such a transient experience (altho’ I can’t personally verify that), as can ‘highs’ gained from art, nature, sex, many such methods. However they are transient and the Buddha insisted that of themselves are of no great worth. Buddhist training offers methods to put your mind in a position to make such experiences more likely to recur, and Buddhist ‘philosophy’ offers a structure to make sense of it all.

Very true andy, Many paths and many religions lead to similar things. I think we just come from a opposite path to the same thing. You come from the scholastic side , i'm more from the ( kick in the butt, lot's of lessons quickly following, in your face, open your eyes, remember) side i would say. Each path where-ever you start has the same intrinsic value. no other being can understand that path since he can only realise his/hers/its. that's why i say "experience", don't study, teach, learn. It's no use at all.

Realization comes through experience, not from following a rule in a book

If you learn a rule and your being hasn't experienced the opposite, the middle, and the rule itself, it will always remain knowledge of no importance. Only the experience in all it's facets will give you wisdom.

Wisdom can't be transferred either, only knowledge can.

You are no different from Buddha.

There is no other Dharma.

Simply let your mind be carefree.

You do not need to contemplate

your action and to purify your mind.

Let your mind be boundless

and without any obstruction.

Be free from going and coming.

Whether you walk or stay,

sit or lie down, and whatever

you see or meet,

all are the subtle functions of Buddha.

It is joy without sorrow.

This is called Buddha.

- Fa-yung (593-657)

[mango head]

Bina, in response to your question, one time while at a temple where my brother -inlawwas a monk, one of the other monks asked me if I loved God.

So, at least this particular monk recocnizes God as a single deity.

As for the original question to this post, doesn't the story of Ramakian answer the question of good and bad spirits in Buddhisim?

[bina]

mango head,

are u subtly reminding us that we digressed from the original post??

to the others,

thanx for the extremely interesting posts; a pleasure to read after talking all day to goats --

'zen and the art of goat herding' -- watching a goat chew her cud for two hours and let your mind be aware only of the goat chewing her cud....its very relaxing

[ghengis]

Spirits and Buddhism

According to the life of Buddha before his enlightenment Mara came and asked the the Earth GoddessBuddha what right he had to attain enlightenment in his life and bring people out of their ignorance. The Buddha replied that in his past lives he had accumulated enough merit to attain enlightenment in this life.

The Buddha then changed his attitude from meditation to that of subduing Mara by placing his right hand on his right knee calling the Earth Goddess from the ground who drowned the whole Mara Army by wringing out her hair. The Buddha then continued out his meditation until he arrived Supreme Enlightenment.

[stroll]

That clarifies it.

Fascinating, the different directions a thread goes, yet the answer has been there for centuries.

[DeDanan]

Hi Andy and Stroll & All,

I am the original post on this question and before Andy’s post I did not see how siprits (good or bad) can FIT with Buddha’s teaching…. Lets not get hung up on the male/female or indeed monk part of Andy’s post But on the over view ….. That is… sh1t if I have to explain it YOU have missed the point

However...

Have a Happy

DeDanan