Buddhist group goes after Buddha-Ultraman artist, as abbot calls on society to forgive and forget

[DrTuner]

15 hours ago, Perhaps2more said:

People call themselves whatever they like, it does not mean they are what they've said.

But yet you want to condemn them as the people they've said they are.

If I called myself God, and then misbehave. Would you call me a bad God?

I think the correct term for someone that claims to be pious and is nothing but is a <deleted>.

[Perhaps2more]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

An opinion, you again are entitled to have.

 

This is a forum, where people post opinions, readable for everyone, and thus subject to personal opinions and comments.

 

If one wants to address a personal message to a specific poster, he can;

no need than to post for everyone.

 

An opinion has no real value, it is what it is : a personal way of thinking/a personal approach of things.

 

 

Now there are always people who believe that their opinion has more importance that the opinion of others.

 

Usually those people are vainglorious, and want to let everyone know how good they are (supposed to be), in one or another domain.

 

I am not at all a connoisseur, but I remember something from a Buddhist quote : 

 

" With pride comes shame, with humility, wisdom "

If it were true as you said that an opinion has no real value, how is it that it affects your feeling.

Nothing of real value can affect you. What would that tell about you?

Your Buddhist quote which you remember it from somewhere if it were Buddhist, is a good start for yourself.

I see no need in going private when answering a public comment but for people which the answer is not intended but he feels a lot for it should really question his own emotion.

An explanation giving out publicly can be seen in many ways by different people.

Some see that as an explanation.

Some see it as a show off.

Some see it as a threat.

Some see it as a command.

Some see it as unnecessary.

How they see it tells about each of them. The one that sees it as a show off, lives his life full of jealousy and the outcome is fear and tears.

Some of us have interfering neighbours unfortunately..

[Perhaps2more]

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

You, Perhaps2more, a Buddhist, no way - your belittling put down language, failure to see anything other than what you consider is correct, says otherwise.

You may well consider you understand and call yourself Buddhist, but as far as applying what was taught - you are so far away from the truth, you're out of sight - luckily. 

And now blocked from further contact as your lack of anything rational is to say the least - boring. 

 

How am I a Buddhist when you said I was trying very hard to be one? Have you short memory? Or you also can not understand yourself.

Which Buddhism are you talking about? Will that be the Thai Buddhism according to you?

Weak people always see everything in this world as a threat, unfortunately.

According to you I am so far from the truth, that means you know what the real truth is. Well done you !

[Perhaps2more]

45 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

I think the correct term for someone that claims to be pious and is nothing but is a <deleted>.

Sorry your rude word got deleted by the system so better try again with a more polite word. I am curious to know what that was.

[luckyluke]

7 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

If it were true...

This post confirm my first thought, you think you are wise, and you are here to try to impress people.

 

You take : " What we think, we become " too literally.

 

No further reactions to you from my side.

[Perhaps2more]

33 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

This post confirm my first thought, you think you are wise, and you are here to try to impress people.

 

You take : " What we think, we become " too literally.

 

No further reactions to you from my side.

Should I say, you think you are stupid and you are not trying to impress anyone? Just to be opposite of what I am, according to your thinking.

Don't tell me you are the same. That can not be ?

As I said , how you choose to see things, tell so much about yourself.

 

Your first thought is confirmed by you, of course. ... Self inflicted Winner. Congratulations !

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, Perhaps2more said:

Sorry your rude word got deleted by the system so better try again with a more polite word. I am curious to know what that was.

I think you can insert any word not passing TVF filter, so just pick your favorite, the gist of it will be same.

[khaowong1]

22 hours ago, Perhaps2more said:

1) Learn to separate Buddhism from Pagan belief. You said it yourself that "Buddhism doesn't revolve around spirit houses."

You also said that they ignore most of the Buddhist teachings. How can you call people who are not following the Buddhist teachings as a Buddhist. They do whatever they believe in but surely that is not being Buddhist.

2) The original teachings were written down in Pali scripts and these are what Thai Buddhism is about. The essence is in the teachings, not the rituals.

3) The apparent lust to enrich themselves and climb over others who get in the way, as you put it, is an individual doing. It is personal greed. Religion has nothing to do with that. You do not blame the justice system because of a thief.

4) There are priests, preachers, monks and lay people who do not behave according to the teachings of their religion. This does not mean that religion is bad. It only means that particular person is bad.

5) Buddhism is personal. It is within which means you deal with yourself, not the world. Other people do whatever they do, understanding nature of all things is wisdom. Watching your mind moves is wisdom. Meditation helps to gain wisdom by connecting the conscious with the subconscious. 

5) Buddhism is personal. It is within which means you deal with yourself, not the world.

And there's the essence of the Buddha's teachings.  Personal.  He didn't expect his teachings to become a religion for either Monks or civilians.  It was all about personal growth as an individual.  Correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Artisi]

7 minutes ago, khaowong1 said:

5) Buddhism is personal. It is within which means you deal with yourself, not the world.

And there's the essence of the Buddha's teachings.  Personal.  He didn't expect his teachings to become a religion for either Monks or civilians.  It was all about personal growth as an individual.  Correct me if I'm wrong. 

You are correct. 

[canuckamuck]

It really is a shame that perhaps2more can't see what people are saying in his rush to defend something only he can define. No one is criticizing Buddhism here. The criticism is of people who claim to be Buddhist but their actions say otherwise. Perhaps2more says those people are not really Buddhists. But there is a problem with that statement.  There is no definition of who is a Buddhist, beyond a person claiming to be one. So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist. Why not just accept that there are bad Buddhists out there, just as there are bad Christians, dentists, and cake decorators.

 

[Perhaps2more]

24 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It really is a shame that perhaps2more can't see what people are saying in his rush to defend something only he can define. No one is criticizing Buddhism here. The criticism is of people who claim to be Buddhist but their actions say otherwise. Perhaps2more says those people are not really Buddhists. But there is a problem with that statement.  There is no definition of who is a Buddhist, beyond a person claiming to be one. So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist. Why not just accept that there are bad Buddhists out there, just as there are bad Christians, dentists, and cake decorators.

 

Such a shame that you canuckamuck can not see that a person who does not practise Buddhism is not a Buddhist even if they call themselves one.

You are set in your belief that if they call themselves Buddhist then they are it. People can call themselves whatever, that does not mean they are one.

Would you call someone a painter if he/she does not paint?

Would you call someone a singer he/she does not sing?

You call someone an actor because he/she acts, not because they call themselves an actor.

 

Contrary to your belief that "There is no definition of who is a Buddhist."

Of course there is a definition of being a Buddhist.

How can you be a Buddhist if you do not practise it. Otherwise everyone in the world is Buddhist. 

If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

 

Did you see I defend Buddhism anywhere? Quote it, if you can. I suggest you really read what I said properly before accusing me of this.

People say These Thais who got upset about the paintings are not Good Buddhist.

Some of you seemed to know Buddhism, so ask yourself how easy is it to accept and let things be. So far here, I have seen none of you do any of that.

 

As you have said there are bad people in every path of life, then why you all are complaining about Thai Buddhists? 

 

And Then one person turned up to say Thai Buddhism is far from the real Buddhism because there are so many things blended in to it.

There I have asked this person to separate pagan from Buddhism. Unfortunately the response was that I was trying to show myself as superior.

 

Some Thai people got upset about the painting, not because all of them think from religion perspective but rather cultural point of view also, where one learns to respect what is sacred to others. 

 

In your rush to accuse me of my replies to people who call Thai people bad Buddhist because some of these Thais follow their cultural belief, (such as, house spirit from old Brahmins' belief, and worship Gods from Hinduism, some pray to tree spirits), and they created an idiotic conclusion that it is a Thai Buddhism. To this I have tried to point out that you must separate, pagan and Buddhism.

 

But you are still going on, without reading anything properly thinking it is wise to just accuse me of trying to know better than others. 

 

My Explanation to a deaf ear?

..............but you can't make it drink.

 

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

Such a shame that you canuckamuck can not see that a person who does not practise Buddhism is not a Buddhist even if they call themselves one.

You are set in your belief that if they call themselves Buddhist then they are it. People can call themselves whatever, that does not mean they are one.

Would you call someone a painter if he/she does not paint?

Would you call someone a singer he/she does not sing?

You call someone an actor because he/she acts, not because they call themselves an actor.

 

Contrary to your belief that "There is no definition of who is a Buddhist."

Of course there is a definition of being a Buddhist.

How can you be a Buddhist if you do not practise it. Otherwise everyone in the world is Buddhist. 

If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

 

Did you see I defend Buddhism anywhere? Quote it, if you can. I suggest you really read what I said properly before accusing me of this.

People say These Thais who got upset about the paintings are not Good Buddhist.

Some of you seemed to know Buddhism, so ask yourself how easy is it to accept and let things be. So far here, I have seen none of you do any of that.

 

As you have said there are bad people in every path of life, then why you all are complaining about Thai Buddhists? 

 

And Then one person turned up to say Thai Buddhism is far from the real Buddhism because there are so many things blended in to it.

There I have asked this person to separate pagan from Buddhism. Unfortunately the response was that I was trying to show myself as superior.

 

Some Thai people got upset about the painting, not because all of them think from religion perspective but rather cultural point of view also, where one learns to respect what is sacred to others. 

 

In your rush to accuse me of my replies to people who call Thai people bad Buddhist because some of these Thais follow their cultural belief, (such as, house spirit from old Brahmins' belief, and worship Gods from Hinduism, some pray to tree spirits), and they created an idiotic conclusion that it is a Thai Buddhism. To this I have tried to point out that you must separate, pagan and Buddhism.

 

But you are still going on, without reading anything properly thinking it is wise to just accuse me of trying to know better than others. 

 

My Explanation to a deaf ear?

..............but you can't make it drink.

 

Well, you may have some good points, but why don't you practice what you preach ?

No need to get so worked up about what other people think, that's not quite Buddhist.

 

[Perhaps2more]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, you may have some good points, but why don't you practice what you preach ?

No need to get so worked up about what other people think, that's not quite Buddhist.

 

And your assumption is... I am a Buddhist. Are you sure of that?

Am I preaching or answering comments from other people who referred to my comments.

If I was preaching, I would be saying things of my choice, thinking these should be what they needed to know.

It is quite different from answering people's comment. ... I am sure you know the differences.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

And your assumption is... I am a Buddhist. Are you sure of that?

Am I preaching or answering comments from other people who referred to my comments.

If I was preaching, I would be saying things of my choice, thinking these should be what they needed to know.

It is quite different from answering people's comment. ... I am sure you know the differences.

No, i was not sure that you are a Buddhist, but, having read a few of your posts, i was thinking that you are at least interested in Buddhism.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all, i just found your posts a bit too argumentative for a Buddhist.

Never mind, peace.

[Perhaps2more]

28 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

No, i was not sure that you are a Buddhist, but, having read a few of your posts, i was thinking that you are at least interested in Buddhism.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all, i just found your posts a bit too argumentative for a Buddhist.

Never mind, peace.

I like Buddhism because its philosophy also offers great scientific detail explanation of their teachings. Not easy in practice but seeing that it is possible, is convincing enough.  Peace to you too.

[oldhippy]

12 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

I like Buddhism because its philosophy also offers great scientific detail explanation of their teachings. Not easy in practice but seeing that it is possible, is convincing enough.  Peace to you too.

Please enlighten me: what is the scientific foundation for reincarnation or rebirth (buddhists don't agree on which one of the two it is), and while you're at it, explain scientifically the concept of karma.

Thank you in advance.

[Perhaps2more]

1 hour ago, oldhippy said:

Please enlighten me: what is the scientific foundation for reincarnation or rebirth (buddhists don't agree on which one of the two it is), and while you're at it, explain scientifically the concept of karma.

Thank you in advance.

I am sure there will be many people saying I am talking nonsense and trying to show that I know better than others. I merely try to answer a dare from you.

It is a very long subject and complicated but I will try knowing that your question is really not a question but something you are trying to prove your point, so let's see.

 

Karma can refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).

You can prove this to be true easily. If you rob a bank it is likely that you will be worried and end up in a prison. If you are nasty to people then you are likely to be left out, no one wants to be near you.

 

Freud discovered that there are no accidents and no coincidences.  Even random feelings, ideas, impulses, wishes, events and actions carry important, often unconscious, meanings.  “Freudian Slip” is the importance display of the unconscious meanings of the things we do and say. Read it yourself how he proved his theory.

Understand subconscious is part of Buddhist meditation. Meditation is a type of hypnosis which one hypnotises oneself but remain conscious awareness of all feelings.

 

All things have no value until we attach thought to it. Thought is a product of experience. Otherwise all things are only objects or beings.

In the process of attaching value we need to have ability to see or sense, the object which exist within space and time, different space and time give different meanings. 

At the first instance, we only see, after that we attach our perception then we value it, after that react to it.

In Buddhist training you learn to catch the moment before you attach value to an object, therefore able to remain unaffected and has no emotional response. To see it before you value it, so it has no meaning.

 

Rebirth; Buddhism teaches that life continues after death. Rebirth in a future existence is not the continuation of a past personality. It is seen as a fresh start. All animals, plants, people and even stars continue in the eternal cycle of birth and death.

Our genes carry all the characters of our past generations within them. This is how all being develop through time. We become what we are now through life experiences of the generations before us. These genes also give us emotions and type of character we become.

 

Reincarnation is impossible to prove but there are many things in every religion that is just the same as a fairy tale. I choose not to believe in this, just the same as I do not believe that when the Buddha was born, every step he took there were lotus flowers came up under his feet. 

But then people talk about ghosts and what they are if they exist then the reincarnation is possible.

I personally see a ghost as an energy form of life left behind through emotions but only exist for certain amount of time, not forever.

Some people are sensitive enough to feel them or see them. Some of them have kinetic energy, enough to prove their existence.

I do not think this can be scientifically proven but there are many filming of these, so it is debatable. If you have experienced death of someone in your family you probably aware of this type of energy.

 

These are not the teachings but only parts of Buddhist philosophy.

The real teachings are about unhappiness, causes of unhappiness, the ways to do to get to the path which take you away from unhappiness and the path to get out of unhappiness. All stages are possible to try out to prove that it is true to what the teaching is about. 

If you can test it and proven to be true then it is scientific enough to me.

 

 

 

 

[canuckamuck]

You seem to be new here, and I don't intend to chase away new guys, especially ones who don't mind getting a little philosophical. But I have to say, you are easy to wind up and it is hard to resist a little fun.

However, In the future you should really look at other posts for what the guy is really saying before formulating your rebuttal. Many times you could have said more with less. 

Back to your reply to me. I find it interesting that you went to such lengths to say bad Buddhists aren't Buddhists and then went on to say that there are bad Buddhists.

Quote

My words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

Quote

Your words: If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Another point, There is no point to define whether or not someone is a Buddhist. You can't join the Buddhists, but you can decide to be one. There is no test or membership fees. It is a philosophy. I call myself a conservative but many of my ideals are more accurately classic liberal. Which am I really?

 

You also went on to say there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. Well there is no definition of real Buddhism either. There are major factions of Buddhism that practice very differently. Thais are generally accepted to be Theravada Buddhists. In Tibet they are mostly Mahayana. Japan has Zen Buddhists, And China has a mashup with Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you want see fundamental Buddhism which tries to be fundamental to the Buddha's teachings, you might be better off in a western temple. I think we can safely say that there can be observed elements of Indo-Chinese Buddhism, that are fairly consistent. The spirit houses being part of that. But each country and region has its own flavor.

 

[Perhaps2more]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You seem to be new here, and I don't intend to chase away new guys, especially ones who don't mind getting a little philosophical. But I have to say, you are easy to wind up and it is hard to resist a little fun.

However, In the future you should really look at other posts for what the guy is really saying before formulating your rebuttal. Many times you could have said more with less. 

Back to your reply to me. I find it interesting that you went to such lengths to say bad Buddhists aren't Buddhists and then went on to say that there are bad Buddhists.

Another point, There is no point to define whether or not someone is a Buddhist. You can't join the Buddhists, but you can decide to be one. There is no test or membership fees. It is a philosophy. I call myself a conservative but many of my ideals are more accurately classic liberal. Which am I really?

 

You also went on to say there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. Well there is no definition of real Buddhism either. There are major factions of Buddhism that practice very differently. Thais are generally accepted to be Theravada Buddhists. In Tibet they are mostly Mahayana. Japan has Zen Buddhists, And China has a mashup with Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you want see fundamental Buddhism which tries to be fundamental to the Buddha's teachings, you might be better off in a western temple. I think we can safely say that there can be observed elements of Indo-Chinese Buddhism, that are fairly consistent. The spirit houses being part of that. But each country and region has its own flavor.

 

I find it really tiresome when people keep going on regardless of all the repeated explanations.

Your words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

My words:  If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Can you see what is the difference?

 

You called yourself a conservative but your ideal is classical liberal and you don't know what you are? ... I am not surprised coming from you.

If writing is your profession but you call yourself a singer. What are you? Do you know?

I call myself a king but really I am a pauper. What do you think I am? Is it that difficult to understand this?

 

This is the problem so far; People want to condemn Thai people who called themselves Buddhist (but not practising Buddhism), bad Buddhist.

How can anyone be Buddhist if they are not practising it? In your thinking then everyone in the world is Buddhist because they are not practising Buddhism.

 

No there is no exam to be Buddhist or any requirement to join but YOU yes YOU... have to be following the teachings which means practising it. You can not just call yourself one.  Is this really hard for you to grasp this point which has been said several times. I am sure people are sick of it, but you still go on and on about the same point.

 

I only answered people who quoted my comments and have no need to read everyone else. I prefer not to interfere with other people conversation.

In spite of that, people accused me of defending Buddhism. When did I do that and Why would I? When no one here say anything bad about Buddhism but only about Buddhists.

People here are really saying that the so called Thai Buddhists are not behaving accordingly, so they are bad Buddhist, as if in where they are from, they all follow their religion and this in Thailand is so uniquely misbehaved that they need to say that it is so bad. 

 

It is not only about Buddhism where these paintings are concerned.

It is also about Thai culture which respect to other should be observed. Kids fight just because someone saying their parents' names, that may sound silly to foreigners. 

Making fun of the king or the nation or religion is a no no. Country, religion and king are written in Thai constitution, they are not to be disrespect by anyone. Making the Buddha as a comic is disrespectful. You may find it silly but this is Thailand, Thai culture, you are passing judgement on.

 

That's right there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. There is a guy who jumbled up all the local practices add them to Buddhism and call it Thai Buddhism. 

There are different sects, but no one in their right mind create a sect by a country's name.

You mentioned the 2 main Buddhist approaches which are Theravada and Mahayana,

Zen is not an approach but only taking the teaching of cause and effect to the extreme for the modern usage and that is  Good cause = good effect. Therefore you can pray for wealth or anything you wish which is moving away from the real teaching, but the Chinese Buddhism as you said a mixture because you are not separating the Buddhist teachings and Confucius teachings. 

 

Almost all of the Western temples are the extension of Asian temples and many are from some famous Thai monks from some of the temples where people really practise Buddhism not just called themselves Buddhist.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

Wow so many words. Then your first statement

Quote

I find it really tiresome when people keep going on regardless of all the repeated explanations.

Your first point

Quote

Your words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

My words:  If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Can you see what is the difference?

This only makes sense if you find people who call themselves Buddhists but never tried even once to practice. Otherwise you have only people who have tried but failed, and those people you called bad Buddhists.

 

I call myself a conservative because modern definitions are not the same as classical definitions. A modern liberal is no longer a freedom loving anti big government defender of free speech and ideas. Personally I consider modern liberals to be fascists, so I am more properly described as a modern conservative.

 

The issue of the Ultra Man paintings is a problem with conservative Buddhists not liking a liberal approach to the imagery of the Buddha, despite the reverence intended. In this case I would not be with the conservatives, I would support the liberal view. The Buddha would likely be critical with all the idolatry associated with him, so everybody in this story is actually in the wrong. 

 

21 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

In your thinking then everyone in the world is Buddhist because they are not practicing Buddhism.

An obvious straw man. I said people who call themselves Buddhists are Buddhists because there is no other measure to be used. Christians do not usually call themselves Buddhists, so they are not Buddhists. 

If you have a list of the specific requirements to be considered a Buddhist, by all means share it with us so we can be enlightened.

 

I'll not bother with the rest.

[Saint Nick]

On 9/12/2019 at 4:49 PM, Perhaps2more said:

Don't underestimate Thai mania! When the king Rama 9 was alive, people were lynched for saying bad things about him.

To the Buddhists these pictures display insults.

Comparing what is sacred to a modern day gimmick is quite ridiculous. It just shows how substandard the education is.

The painter is one of those young students these days who has no concept of the word "Respect".

...Perhaps1less or Nomorethankyou might be a better name!

[Saint Nick]

On 9/15/2019 at 12:59 AM, Perhaps2more said:

Why would you thank God when you are an Atheist?  ... Very funny !

...you are not that bright, really!

[Saint Nick]

13 hours ago, Artisi said:

You are correct. 

Please...wait for the experts (the only TRUE experts) opinion, expressed in an incredibly condescending word- salad!

[oldhippy]

8 hours ago, Perhaps2more said:

I am sure there will be many people saying I am talking nonsense and trying to show that I know better than others. I merely try to answer a dare from you.

It is a very long subject and complicated but I will try knowing that your question is really not a question but something you are trying to prove your point, so let's see.

 

Karma can refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).

You can prove this to be true easily. If you rob a bank it is likely that you will be worried and end up in a prison. If you are nasty to people then you are likely to be left out, no one wants to be near you.

 

Freud discovered that there are no accidents and no coincidences.  Even random feelings, ideas, impulses, wishes, events and actions carry important, often unconscious, meanings.  “Freudian Slip” is the importance display of the unconscious meanings of the things we do and say. Read it yourself how he proved his theory.

Understand subconscious is part of Buddhist meditation. Meditation is a type of hypnosis which one hypnotises oneself but remain conscious awareness of all feelings.

 

All things have no value until we attach thought to it. Thought is a product of experience. Otherwise all things are only objects or beings.

In the process of attaching value we need to have ability to see or sense, the object which exist within space and time, different space and time give different meanings. 

At the first instance, we only see, after that we attach our perception then we value it, after that react to it.

In Buddhist training you learn to catch the moment before you attach value to an object, therefore able to remain unaffected and has no emotional response. To see it before you value it, so it has no meaning.

 

Rebirth; Buddhism teaches that life continues after death. Rebirth in a future existence is not the continuation of a past personality. It is seen as a fresh start. All animals, plants, people and even stars continue in the eternal cycle of birth and death.

Our genes carry all the characters of our past generations within them. This is how all being develop through time. We become what we are now through life experiences of the generations before us. These genes also give us emotions and type of character we become.

 

Reincarnation is impossible to prove but there are many things in every religion that is just the same as a fairy tale. I choose not to believe in this, just the same as I do not believe that when the Buddha was born, every step he took there were lotus flowers came up under his feet. 

But then people talk about ghosts and what they are if they exist then the reincarnation is possible.

I personally see a ghost as an energy form of life left behind through emotions but only exist for certain amount of time, not forever.

Some people are sensitive enough to feel them or see them. Some of them have kinetic energy, enough to prove their existence.

I do not think this can be scientifically proven but there are many filming of these, so it is debatable. If you have experienced death of someone in your family you probably aware of this type of energy.

 

These are not the teachings but only parts of Buddhist philosophy.

The real teachings are about unhappiness, causes of unhappiness, the ways to do to get to the path which take you away from unhappiness and the path to get out of unhappiness. All stages are possible to try out to prove that it is true to what the teaching is about. 

If you can test it and proven to be true then it is scientific enough to me.

 

 

 

 

Yes, all very scientific indeed.

 

And there is always the ultimate answer: "well yes, but this has not to be taken literally".

I recommend watching the "blessed are the cheesemakers" scene from Life Of Brian.

[Perhaps2more]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Wow so many words. Then your first statement

Your first point

This only makes sense if you find people who call themselves Buddhists but never tried even once to practice. Otherwise you have only people who have tried but failed, and those people you called bad Buddhists.

 

I call myself a conservative because modern definitions are not the same as classical definitions. A modern liberal is no longer a freedom loving anti big government defender of free speech and ideas. Personally I consider modern liberals to be fascists, so I am more properly described as a modern conservative.

 

The issue of the Ultra Man paintings is a problem with conservative Buddhists not liking a liberal approach to the imagery of the Buddha, despite the reverence intended. In this case I would not be with the conservatives, I would support the liberal view. The Buddha would likely be critical with all the idolatry associated with him, so everybody in this story is actually in the wrong. 

 

An obvious straw man. I said people who call themselves Buddhists are Buddhists because there is no other measure to be used. Christians do not usually call themselves Buddhists, so they are not Buddhists. 

If you have a list of the specific requirements to be considered a Buddhist, by all means share it with us so we can be enlightened.

 

I'll not bother with the rest.

Still missing the point asking the same question again  and again.

If you don't read my previous answer then you'll be repeating the same question and wasting time.

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

Christian are not Buddhist because they do not practice Buddhism ... NOT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CALL THEMSELVES BUDDHIST.

You can call yourself whatever you like if you are not doing it them you are a FAKE.

You can call yourself a singer but if you do not sing then you are not a singer.

 

Yes the requirement is............

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

 

I have already said that people who have tried and failed are bad Buddhists, in many comments but they are learners. 

People who are saying that The Thais who have problem accepting the modern idea of painting are bad Buddhists and then quoting several things happen in Thailand which are against Buddhist principle, all with the assumption that all these Thais mentioned are practising Buddhism just because they call themselves Buddhist. It is an assumption. You should never assume when you condemn people.

 

This is what I said in the previous answer.....READ IT.

It is not only about Buddhism where these paintings are concerned.

It is also about Thai culture which respect to other should be observed. Kids fight just because someone saying their parents' names, that may sound silly to foreigners. 

Making fun of the king or the nation or religion is a no no. Country, religion and king are written in Thai constitution, they are not to be disrespect by anyone. Making the Buddha as a comic is disrespectful. You may find it silly but this is Thailand, Thai culture, you are passing judgement on.

It is not about being conservative or liberal.

 

Yes the requirement is............

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

[Perhaps2more]

3 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Yes, all very scientific indeed.

 

And there is always the ultimate answer: "well yes, but this has not to be taken literally".

I recommend watching the "blessed are the cheesemakers" scene from Life Of Brian.

Yes, nice comparison from the Life of Brian which from the Western point of views is hilarious. 

Everything in life has  Good and Bad side. Whether you are able to see them or not, they are there, and to those who can see, can use them to their advantage.

You can say anything good or bad to everything if you really want to. But in choosing, that is how your life becomes. 

You can see the bad side of religion and decide to have none. or you can see the good side and have one.

With religion you have a shelter to rest your soul in bad time or you have nothing in your bad time, except yourself which is at the time weak and helpless.

Life is about choice but there are reasons why you choose, even to turn left or right when you leave home. Going left or right your life experience will not be the same for sure.

[Perhaps2more]

6 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

...you are not that bright, really!

Your comment tells more about yourself than about me. Thanks for the comment anyway, Saint NIck ?

[canuckamuck]

37 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

OK, what is the threshold that defines whether or not someone is practicing Buddhism?

I'm just asking in case I have done it by accident.

[Artisi]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

OK, what is the threshold that defines whether or not someone is practicing Buddhism?

I'm just asking in case I have done it by accident.

Don't encourage him, please????

[Perhaps2more]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

OK, what is the threshold that defines whether or not someone is practicing Buddhism?

I'm just asking in case I have done it by accident.

How often do you have to sing to be a singer? Singing one song accidentally or singing is what you do?