Since Living In Thailand Do You Believe Everthing Is Due To Karma?

[canuckamuck]

This the thi people do themselves,my wife also things it is absurt.Certainly the Buddhist spirit did not ask for that.The contrary in fact,this only reflects how they not understand the teachings,they think only monks are good for that.It is all a big show ofcourse,if you mean this.But this has nothing to do what the Buddhist teachings means,look at the Tibetans,so much wisdom they also have their things,it is Asia look around you,they like(humans)to adorise something,to make them feel better.Instead they better should live the budhist life then to worrie to make the local temple shined up.But on the other way I enjoy how Thais do it,could say their culture,it is up to them really.

Well that was a very honest answer, I appreciate one like that rather then the pie in the sky attitude of the purists who describe Buddhism with such high standards but cannot see that in actual practice, Buddhism is 90 percent idolatry, fortune telling, and animism.

I know this isn’t the way it is supposed to be, but the average man needs a hands-on answer to his problems; philosophy just doesn’t cut it when the spooks come out at night.

[autonomous_unit]

Well, yes, but a Buddhist is not supposed to do good with the idea of getting some reward, although a reward might be a side-benefit. Ideally the whole of Buddhist morality is mental cultivation with the aim of diminishing the ego. I think that makes it different from most other religions. And karma in Buddhism is intent as well as action. The karma of the intent as well as the action leads to good or bad results, not just the action alone. That's something else that is a bit different.

I only mentioned the game theory in an attempt to illustrate the "natural" basis I see, as a materialist, for the pervasive emergence of philosophies of kindness and justice. Evolutionarily speaking, we might not be here now if we were, on the whole, biased towards making overly selfish, greedy (and therefore sub-optimal) decisions on how to act together as social animals... some other creatures could have taken our place by thriving relative to us in the same environments! I think that this is the only underlying physical law behind one "getting what is coming to him." This is not to say that there are not other internal, mental benefits to living by such creeds. I would imagine there are also "universal" benefits for reforming oneself to be compassionate and good---we share a common physiology and core psychology, but it is a messy enough topic that I shy away from speculating too much further...

By the way, I am not Christian, but I have been exposed to enough of it to say this: I believe the Christian message of loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc. has just as much to do with cultivating the mind and finding a sense of peace in honest living as practicing of right-mindedness in Buddhism. I do not think that is really so different from the Buddhist goal, if you look at either from the same philosophical and psychological standpoint. I think contemporary humanists would express similar attitudes as well. There are different "depths" to which one can appreciate and practice the same abstract teachings.

Also, I think it is easy to mix up the underlying philosophies and tenets with the rhetoric and metaphysical depth of the typical spokeperson. If you are tuned to a metaphysical approach, you may not appreciate what an evangelical person has to say... but I believe there are thinkers in many religious schools who could espouse a self-reforming concept very much like what you are describing. Having grown up in California, I have to point out that there are even evangelical and "born again" Buddhists who can turn me off to their message just as fast as any other salesperson.

The problem in discussing this is considering the teachings in a large population. Some people look at karma or God's judgement as a carrot on a stick, promising a nice dessert if you behave. But others look at the internal change of being true to these feelings of kindness and love as the true reward. Both ideas exist at the same time in a society full of people. Some people are just more self-aware than others...

[Pepe']

The real question is if there is karma, then where does evil come from?

------------------------

Ignorance?

So you are saying either uneducated people are evil, or people who disagree with you are evil.

----------------------------

Ignorance is posed as a question, not a statement.

If your looking foe a fight go somewhere else.

I am not looking for a fight in a mean spirited sort of way; I was attempting to debate your thin and defensive response to my take on Karma.

Mental note: Pepe likes people to affirm his/her opinions. Not those who challenge them.

Sorry for troubling you buddy, no hard feelings

--------------------------------------

People with PHDs and other higher education can be some of the most ignorant people you may meet.

Wisdom is not "learned" in the university.

So of my most valuable lessons in life have come very very simple people with little or no formal education.

Mental note: It is of no difference to Pepe' if people affirm or challenge his opinions.

My vacation starts now.

[Yamantaka]

Canuck: No , No, No! Statues like green Fanta. Fire hydrants like the red. Everyone knows that!

[wolfmanjack]

This the thi people do themselves,my wife also things it is absurt.Certainly the Buddhist spirit did not ask for that.The contrary in fact,this only reflects how they not understand the teachings,they think only monks are good for that.It is all a big show ofcourse,if you mean this.But this has nothing to do what the Buddhist teachings means,look at the Tibetans,so much wisdom they also have their things,it is Asia look around you,they like(humans)to adorise something,to make them feel better.Instead they better should live the budhist life then to worrie to make the local temple shined up.But on the other way I enjoy how Thais do it,could say their culture,it is up to them really.

Well that was a very honest answer, I appreciate one like that rather then the pie in the sky attitude of the purists who describe Buddhism with such high standards but cannot see that in actual practice, Buddhism is 90 percent idolatry, fortune telling, and animism.

I know this isn’t the way it is supposed to be, but the average man needs a hands-on answer to his problems; philosophy just doesn’t cut it when the spooks come out at night.

I would not say that "Buddhism" is idolatry, fortune telling, and animism but it is perceived as such by most of the people that claim to be Buddhist. As it was pointed out before most of the people that say they are Buddhist know very little about the teachings of Buddha. This is also true of the Christian faiths. Most people who claim to be Christian know very little about what it means to be a Christian.

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

To answer the OP question I do not hear many people using the term Karma. They use making merit instead. Most of the Thais around me speak of making merit. Most of them also believe that the only way to do this is by giving money to a temple or food to the monks. Many believe they can rack up a bunch of negative merit when they are young and then wipe it out with donations to the temple when they get older. When my wife tells me to make merit at the temple I try to explain to her that it is better to make merit by helping people that are less fortunate. She says it is not the same thing and that I just do not understand how it works.

[canuckamuck]

I would not say that "Buddhism" is idolatry, fortune telling, and animism but it is perceived as such by most of the people that claim to be Buddhist. As it was pointed out before most of the people that say they are Buddhist know very little about the teachings of Buddha. This is also true of the Christian faiths. Most people who claim to be Christian know very little about what it means to be a Christian.

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

To answer the OP question I do not hear many people using the term Karma. They use making merit instead. Most of the Thais around me speak of making merit. Most of them also believe that the only way to do this is by giving money to a temple or food to the monks. Many believe they can rack up a bunch of negative merit when they are young and then wipe it out with donations to the temple when they get older. When my wife tells me to make merit at the temple I try to explain to her that it is better to make merit by helping people that are less fortunate. She says it is not the same thing and that I just do not understand how it works.

I am not sure if you are disputing what I said or confirming it. Your post does both. If they believe the statues contain a spirit and then revere it, then its idolatry.

Making merit is an attempt to pay for sins. If karma is an automatic spiritual law as some have suggested here, how does giving money to a temple activate a removal of negative karma? Wouldn’t it be better to give it to poor people? Doesn’t this also give an unfair advantage to the rich?

About Christians not knowing what it means to be a Christian; this isn’t true, they know, even many non Christians know. It’s pretty simple, Love God, Love your neighbor. The problem is many don’t live like they believe it. And, like most Buddhists, they don’t study their bible to remind themselves.

[Pepe']

I thought karma was karma. Whether it be in a Hindu or Thera veda system.

It is interesting to here how the spouses and or other Thai friends view merit, donations, etc

However my wife talks about comming back in the next life and what kind of birth she may have.

And although maybe not accurate I've seen so many of these Thai movies that my wife watches.

The themes are very similar. The characters flash back and fort to lives in the past or meet lovers or spouses from the past in this life.

Something like that.

Anyway it did appear to me that the Thais believed that a soul or spirit went on.

If not then what is it that goes on?

[lannarebirth]

This the thi people do themselves,my wife also things it is absurt.Certainly the Buddhist spirit did not ask for that.The contrary in fact,this only reflects how they not understand the teachings,they think only monks are good for that.It is all a big show ofcourse,if you mean this.But this has nothing to do what the Buddhist teachings means,look at the Tibetans,so much wisdom they also have their things,it is Asia look around you,they like(humans)to adorise something,to make them feel better.Instead they better should live the budhist life then to worrie to make the local temple shined up.But on the other way I enjoy how Thais do it,could say their culture,it is up to them really.

Well that was a very honest answer, I appreciate one like that rather then the pie in the sky attitude of the purists who describe Buddhism with such high standards but cannot see that in actual practice, Buddhism is 90 percent idolatry, fortune telling, and animism.

I know this isn't the way it is supposed to be, but the average man needs a hands-on answer to his problems; philosophy just doesn't cut it when the spooks come out at night.

I would not say that "Buddhism" is idolatry, fortune telling, and animism but it is perceived as such by most of the people that claim to be Buddhist. As it was pointed out before most of the people that say they are Buddhist know very little about the teachings of Buddha. This is also true of the Christian faiths. Most people who claim to be Christian know very little about what it means to be a Christian.

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

To answer the OP question I do not hear many people using the term Karma. They use making merit instead. Most of the Thais around me speak of making merit. Most of them also believe that the only way to do this is by giving money to a temple or food to the monks. Many believe they can rack up a bunch of negative merit when they are young and then wipe it out with donations to the temple when they get older. When my wife tells me to make merit at the temple I try to explain to her that it is better to make merit by helping people that are less fortunate. She says it is not the same thing and that I just do not understand how it works.

Your wife is correct. From a buddhist perspective there is much more merit in giving to monks than other worthy recipients. Since there is more merit to be derived in this way, virtually all other would be recipients are ignored. I'd say it's a flaw in the religion or in the understanding of the religion. Also, as Camerata has pointed out, Karma is about state of mind, where intent is important as action. I think that is an often overlooked aspect of Karma.

Edited March 19, 2007 by lannarebirth

[Neeranam]

I've know lots of people who didn't believe in karma then changed.

I've never met anyone who was brought up believing karma to change.

More than half of the world's population believe in karma - so do I.

I've also been hypnotically regressed, but that's another story.

I also believe that we were only human in previous lives.

[Pepe']

I've know lots of people who didn't believe in karma then changed.

I've never met anyone who was brought up believing karma to change.

More than half of the world's population believe in karma - so do I.

I've also been hypnotically regressed, but that's another story.

I also believe that we were only human in previous lives.

---------------------

I don't understand. Aren't most of us in human form now?

[Neeranam]

I don't understand. Aren't most of us in human form now?

If you believe that we can change from an ant in one lifetime to a cockroach in other, then human, maybe not all of us are human now. Of course the ones reading this will be human(for now).

[canuckamuck]

I've know lots of people who didn't believe in karma then changed.

I've never met anyone who was brought up believing karma to change.

More than half of the world's population believe in karma - so do I.

I've also been hypnotically regressed, but that's another story.

I also believe that we were only human in previous lives.

I know lots of former Hindus who no longer put any faith in karma. I just spent 17 days with a bunch of them in Nepal. I also have scores of friends in Thailand who are ex-animists and ex-Buddhists.

If half of the world believed they could breathe underwater and become Atlantians, they would still find out they were wrong when they tried it.

[Neeranam]

I know lots of former Hindus who no longer put any faith in karma. I just spent 17 days with a bunch of them in Nepal. I also have scores of friends in Thailand who are ex-animists and ex-Buddhists.

But do they actually say that karma doesn't exist?

[Pepe']

I don't understand. Aren't most of us in human form now?

If you believe that we can change from an ant in one lifetime to a cockroach in other, then human, maybe not all of us are human now. Of course the ones reading this will be human(for now).

-------------------------

Interesting thought.

The way it was explained to me is that there are those that appear to be human form but because of their mentality, they have not actually reached the human platform yet.

[canuckamuck]

I know lots of former Hindus who no longer put any faith in karma. I just spent 17 days with a bunch of them in Nepal. I also have scores of friends in Thailand who are ex-animists and ex-Buddhists.

But do they actually say that karma doesn't exist?

Yes

[wolfmanjack]

This the thi people do themselves,my wife also things it is absurt.Certainly the Buddhist spirit did not ask for that.The contrary in fact,this only reflects how they not understand the teachings,they think only monks are good for that.It is all a big show ofcourse,if you mean this.But this has nothing to do what the Buddhist teachings means,look at the Tibetans,so much wisdom they also have their things,it is Asia look around you,they like(humans)to adorise something,to make them feel better.Instead they better should live the budhist life then to worrie to make the local temple shined up.But on the other way I enjoy how Thais do it,could say their culture,it is up to them really.

Well that was a very honest answer, I appreciate one like that rather then the pie in the sky attitude of the purists who describe Buddhism with such high standards but cannot see that in actual practice, Buddhism is 90 percent idolatry, fortune telling, and animism.

I know this isn't the way it is supposed to be, but the average man needs a hands-on answer to his problems; philosophy just doesn't cut it when the spooks come out at night.

I would not say that "Buddhism" is idolatry, fortune telling, and animism but it is perceived as such by most of the people that claim to be Buddhist. As it was pointed out before most of the people that say they are Buddhist know very little about the teachings of Buddha. This is also true of the Christian faiths. Most people who claim to be Christian know very little about what it means to be a Christian.

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

To answer the OP question I do not hear many people using the term Karma. They use making merit instead. Most of the Thais around me speak of making merit. Most of them also believe that the only way to do this is by giving money to a temple or food to the monks. Many believe they can rack up a bunch of negative merit when they are young and then wipe it out with donations to the temple when they get older. When my wife tells me to make merit at the temple I try to explain to her that it is better to make merit by helping people that are less fortunate. She says it is not the same thing and that I just do not understand how it works.

Your wife is correct. From a buddhist perspective there is much more merit in giving to monks than other worthy recipients. Since there is more merit to be derived in this way, virtually all other would be recipients are ignored. I'd say it's a flaw in the religion or in the understanding of the religion. Also, as Camerata has pointed out, Karma is about state of mind, where intent is important as action. I think that is an often overlooked aspect of Karma.

A Buddhist Monk (Non Thai) explained to me that the purpose of being a monk was to distance themselves from want. They do not want reverence since this gets in he way of the attempt at enlightenment. They do not want to be given many things since this leads to greed. I do not remember the exact words that he used but the gist of what he told me was that the Thai people were preventing the monks from gaining enlightenment by giving all of this money and other things to the monks. The only way to happiness is by getting rid of want. He said that the food in the morning and the robes one or twice a year should be all that they give. Any more than that creates want.

Therefore the money that is now given to the temples would be better off used to alleviate suffering in others.

Edited March 19, 2007 by wolfmanjack

[Yamantaka]

There seems to be a lot of confusing what "people" believe with what Buddhism teaches. Accepting the beliefs of people who have never taken Buddhist teachings about what is or isn't Buddhism probably isn't going to give you an accurate picture.

There is merit in Buddhism but it doesn't "buy" anything. The concept here has been distorted by those wishing to profit from it. There is no "holy spirit" inside statues, amulets, paintings - same explanation. There are stupas which contain the remains of dead Buddhists, and they (the Buddhists, not the stupas) are revered because of what they taught or accomplished.

All of these "props" are merely instruments which are used to focus the mind when doing meditations, especially analytical meditations. If they are not available, anything or nothing for that matter could be an acceptable substitute.

[garro]

Wolfmanjack said;

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

In my years living in Thailand, in both city and village, I have yet to met anyone who believes that staues contain the Buddha's spirit. Some shrines do contain relics though, which the locals pay respect to. My wife has never heard of this either.

[wolfmanjack]

Wolfmanjack said;

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

In my years living in Thailand, in both city and village, I have yet to met anyone who believes that statues contain the Buddha's spirit. Some shrines do contain relics though, which the locals pay respect to. My wife has never heard of this either.

Boy my wife sure does. She believes that the blessing done by the monks makes the statues holy. I also know several that keep their Buddhas in a special room. They clean them every day and ask each and every one for forgiveness before they touch them. Before my wife picks a Buddha statue up she says "sorry". I have discussed this with these people and they told me that the spirit of the Buddha is in each and every statue and you can not insult them in any way.

[camerata]

Your wife is correct. From a buddhist perspective there is much more merit in giving to monks than other worthy recipients. Since there is more merit to be derived in this way, virtually all other would be recipients are ignored.

And just to explain a bit further, the reason there is more merit in giving to monks, temples and (especially) enlightened monks is that there is an obvious ripple effect. If we help a beggar in the street we help just one person with his material needs, and possibly his family. But if we support a monk, we support his teaching dharma to hundreds or thousands of people, and helping them find a way out of suffering. This clashes somewhat with Western ideas of "Christian charity" but it is stated in the Pali Canon, and that's why people do it.

[camerata]

I thought karma was karma. Whether it be in a Hindu or Thera veda system.

The Buddha came up with his own proposition for how karma and rebirth works, which is different from the Hindu system.

It is interesting to here how the spouses and or other Thai friends view merit, donations, etc

However my wife talks about comming back in the next life and what kind of birth she may have.

The Thai expression "tham-boon" (make merit) means to make good karma. For those Buddhists who aren't prepared to become monks and make a serious effort at enlightenment in this life (which is 99.9% of them), the idea is to practise the teachings in such a way as to ensure an advantageous rebirth in which enlightenment can be attained. One of the easiest ways to make merit is by generosity, so that's what most lay people practise. And by giving to monks at a temple there is the social benefit of showing everyone what a good person you are.

And although maybe not accurate I've seen so many of these Thai movies that my wife watches.

The themes are very similar. The characters flash back and fort to lives in the past or meet lovers or spouses from the past in this life.

Something like that.

Anyway it did appear to me that the Thais believed that a soul or spirit went on.

If not then what is it that goes on?

As I mentioned before in the simile of the candle it is really difficult to explain what does pass from life to life, so people simply call it a spirit or soul. If I remember correctly, Thais call it jit - a word also used to mean "mind." A book on Buddhism would probably call it "karmic accumulations" or "a stream of existence" but it isn't supposed to be a complete personality transplanted into a new body.

[Yamantaka]

Camerata would you agree that giving to monks, believing that this will benefit the giver, is not generosity at all but only serving self-interest? In fact, isn't any charity given because it makes you feel good, really to feed one's own ego and therefore not likely to result in positive karma.

I would postulate that the only true compassionate giving is giving to those for whom you hold the most negative feelings and which present you with no satisfaction for doing so.

[camerata]

I think that giving should be done as "an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind," as the Buddha said. Check out the Dana Sutta.

[Isaanresting]

Wolfmanjack said;

Most of the Thais that I have discussed this with believe that the statues actually contain part of the Buddha's spirit, therefore should be revered. They do not consider it as only an object to remind them of the teachings.

In my years living in Thailand, in both city and village, I have yet to met anyone who believes that staues contain the Buddha's spirit. Some shrines do contain relics though, which the locals pay respect to. My wife has never heard of this either.

My wife has not heard of this either, she is very Budhist.

[GuestHouse]

Having studdied Budhism for many years, but also other philosphy based religions, in particular 'Stoicism' I'm more impressed with the use of reason to define life's challenges than any extent to which the answer that reason throws up being the true definition of why life is the way it is.

Karma is a concept that fits into the Buddhist explanation of life. It is not necessarily a truth.

I'd recommend reading Seneca's moral essays, and in particualar his essay 'To Lucilius on Providence'

It becomes clear that there are other ways of looking at why things happen in life, equally comforting to those who seak comfort but also equally intelectual and balanced in their reasoning.

To answer the OP's question, I don't believe in Karma and I find the passivity that belief in Karma produces, ie let him suffer because it is his Karma to do so, one of the most disagreable aspects of Thai culture.

Moreover, when I listen to what many people who claim to be Buddhist, but by no means all, have to say about their understanding of Buddhism, I'm left wondering if they are not just picking and choosing a doctrine they feel lets them live the life they want to live rather than looking to see how Buddhism guides them to a particular life.

It is this fitting the religion around the self, and not self into the teachings that I find very strange about many people who claim to have taken up Buddhism - but as I said, by no means all.

[roblin]

I wonder the loss of GDP all the monks do to Thailand.

And I wonder if all the money spend on temples had been spend on infrastructure, education etc, where would Thailand been today?

Seems a big waste of precious time. Sure will give atheist China a big advantage.

[garro]

Having studdied Budhism for many years, but also other philosphy based religions, in particular 'Stoicism' I'm more impressed with the use of reason to define life's challenges than any extent to which the answer that reason throws up being the true definition of why life is the way it is.

Karma is a concept that fits into the Buddhist explanation of life. It is not necessarily a truth.

I'd recommend reading Seneca's moral essays, and in particualar his essay 'To Lucilius on Providence'

It becomes clear that there are other ways of looking at why things happen in life, equally comforting to those who seak comfort but also equally intelectual and balanced in their reasoning.

To answer the OP's question, I don't believe in Karma and I find the passivity that belief in Karma produces, ie let him suffer because it is his Karma to do so, one of the most disagreable aspects of Thai culture.

Moreover, when I listen to what many people who claim to be Buddhist, but by no means all, have to say about their understanding of Buddhism, I'm left wondering if they are not just picking and choosing a doctrine they feel lets them live the life they want to live rather than looking to see how Buddhism guides them to a particular life.

It is this fitting the religion around the self, and not self into the teachings that I find very strange about many people who claim to have taken up Buddhism - but as I said, by no means all.

Sorry Guesthouse but......the path advocated by the Buddha is not something too be 'studied over many years'. It is a way of approaching life that needs to be followed. The Buddha's way involves action rather than book study. I doubt if anyone could obtain anything but the most superficial knowledge about Buddhism from study unless they put his advice into practice. This is probably why his teachings weren't recorded in writing for nearly 600 years.

The Buddha described Kamma (karma) as intended action and not the result of this action. It would be a total misrepresentation of his teachings to say that belief in kamma produces passivity among his followers. I would have thought that someone who has studied Buddhism for many years would have at least grasped this one essential point,as it is Buddhism 101.

[canuckamuck]

Moreover, when I listen to what many people who claim to be Buddhist, but by no means all, have to say about their understanding of Buddhism, I'm left wondering if they are not just picking and choosing a doctrine they feel lets them live the life they want to live rather than looking to see how Buddhism guides them to a particular life.

It is this fitting the religion around the self, and not self into the teachings that I find very strange about many people who claim to have taken up Buddhism - but as I said, by no means all.

This has been my observation as well, but it happens in all religions, and it is the basis of humanism. Everything leads back to the self because we are essentially self obsessed. The Buddhism I see practised in Thailand might be better described as antiBuddhism.

[camerata]

I wonder the loss of GDP all the monks do to Thailand.

And I wonder if all the money spend on temples had been spend on infrastructure, education etc, where would Thailand been today?

Temples contribute greatly to Thailand's GNH (Gross National Happiness).

[GuestHouse]

Sorry Guesthouse but......the path advocated by the Buddha is not something too be 'studied over many years'. It is a way of approaching life that needs to be followed.

Thanks for appointing yourself as the arbiter of what my approach to Buddhism should be. It seems I, and many others, have been laboring under the misunderstanding that we are allowed to approach Buddhism as we ourselves wish.

As I have stated, I have indeed studied Buddhism for many years, but as indicated I have also studied other religions and philosophies. I have a personal interest in Moral Philosophy, something I have taken a great deal of interest in all my adult life, I would say all my 'reasoning life'.

If I may correct your misunderstanding of the reason why the teachings of the Buddha were not recorded in writing for over 600 years. This had nothing to do with the merits of study versus the merits of following the teachings, and every thing to do with the transition of the cultures where Buddhism was practiced moving from the Oral Tradition to the Written Tradition.

The same can be seen in the shift of Greek Culture where, for example 'Thucydides' 'Homer' et al, record oral tradition for the fist time. – Like Buddhism the record was within an oral tradition and then when written culture arose, the oral record was transcribed.

There is a whole branch of theological study that examines the impact of recording oral traditions (but that is an aside)

This brings me to beg license, for myself and others, to continue perhaps the longest existing area of academic study – “Theology” and one of its core areas of interest ‘The Comparative Study of Religion, Ethics and Morals’.

You perhaps may wish to consider that giving permission for others to study Buddhism within Theological Study may undermine as baseless your statement that study without practice provides only a superficial understanding (I would however, accept that of practice without study).

As for refuting the relationship between Karma and its encouragement of passivity, you’re going to have to do better than say what you believe Karma should be, you are certainly going to have to do better than trying to rubbish my thoughts on Buddhism with childish references to Buddhism 101. You have the reality of Thai culture in front of you and a huge raft of theological study on the relationship between Karma and Passivity, much of it by some of the world’s leading Buddhist scholars.

Or, it might be easier to accept that you can approach Buddhism as you wish, and others can approach Buddhism as they wish. Pass on the need to tell others what Buddhism is, shall we say, remove your attachment.