Jatukham Fever

[Huw]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

H

Actually, not only. It also is rooted in the believe of energies attached to certain subjects (eg. amulets), either by its material and/or by being given, being able to influence one's life. Hardly restricted to the uneducated or under developed.

I believe in it (to some degree), and i am not from an "under-educated" society.

Not restricted to, but most prevalent in. As opined.

H

Edited May 27, 2007 by Huw

[Huw]

there's an obvious evolutionary and social advantage in accepting without question what you're told as a kid.

that's a joke , right ?

I believe that it's obvious to most that a questioning mind coupled with decent education is the preferred method.

I did a double-take at that too but on second thoughts I think I understand what the OP was intending. There is indeed an evolutionary advantage to children accepting advice without question. But it is the normal situation that as they grow to adulthood they should question what they have been told and develop/adopt their own wisdoms. Societies based on the patronage system like Thailand never quite encourage people to question what they have been told. This is what I meant by under-educated and under-developed.

H

Edited May 27, 2007 by Huw

[camerata]

there's an obvious evolutionary and social advantage in accepting without question what you're told as a kid.

that's a joke , right ?

I believe that it's obvious to most that a questioning mind coupled with decent education is the preferred method .

But we're talking about infants. When mom tells a kid not to wander off on his own, would it be better for the infant to ignore this advice based on its education and reasoning? Believing what mom says in general is a survival strategy. It's natural. Believing in a particular religion - animist or otherwise - makes you part of the group, hence the social advantage. If this is child-like, it's universally child-like.

[camerata]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education. It has similar features to a superstition (there's little difference between petitioning Jatukham and petitioning God) and yet it is very prevalent in educated Western societies. I don't hear anyone calling Westerners child-like because of this. Ironically, "child-like" was the word often used by early Christian missionaries to describe Asians specifically because they believed in systems other than Christianity.

[Mid]

there's an obvious evolutionary and social advantage in accepting without question what you're told as a kid.

that's a joke , right ?

I believe that it's obvious to most that a questioning mind coupled with decent education is the preferred method .

But we're talking about infants. When mom tells a kid not to wander off on his own, would it be better for the infant to ignore this advice based on its education and reasoning? Believing what mom says in general is a survival strategy. It's natural. Believing in a particular religion - animist or otherwise - makes you part of the group, hence the social advantage. If this is child-like, it's universally child-like.

I'll take your point , even though your analogy is not applicable to me ,

there was a time when I was attached to mother by a harness as a precaution against this very issue ...................................

[Huw]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education.

I dont agree. Can you can provide any evidence to support your claim?

H

[ColPyat]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education.

I dont agree. Can you can provide any evidence to support your claim?

H

Do you have proof for the existence of god (as definided by the religions)? If not, then i guess the believe in god is a believe in what other people tell you.

[sabaijai]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education. It has similar features to a superstition (there's little difference between petitioning Jatukham and petitioning God) and yet it is very prevalent in educated Western societies. I don't hear anyone calling Westerners child-like because of this. Ironically, "child-like" was the word often used by early Christian missionaries to describe Asians specifically because they believed in systems other than Christianity.

+1

[Huw]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education.

I dont agree. Can you can provide any evidence to support your claim?

H

Do you have proof for the existence of god (as definided by the religions)? If not, then i guess the believe in god is a believe in what other people tell you.

True but this is a diversion. The question I asked was did the OP have any evidence for the assertion that a belief is the consequence of an unquestioning belief in what other people say. I dispute that, it is certainly not the case with me.

As to evidence, I believe there is a lot of indirect evidence to support a hypothesis of the the existence of God. However the evidence can be interpreted in wide or narrow ways. Scientists, because they study what can be measured or described by equations will interpret evidence in the limited sense of their measurements an equations. I would take a wider interpretation.

But I dont mind suggesting a few mind-games.

H

[ColPyat]

As to evidence, I believe there is a lot of indirect evidence to support a hypothesis of the the existence of God.

Which then is?

[cdnvic]

Finally we get down to whether or not God exists. This should only take a dozen posts or so to wrap up.

[IMA_FARANG]

As I understand "Jatukam Ramathep" were two founders of Wat Mahathat in Nakhon Si Thammarat. The legend has it that they were sent from Ceilon to recover Buddha relics, got into a storm, and ended up in Thailand having lost everything but the relics (or they found the relics there, I don't remember). They prayed that if the land was indeed holy, the Lord would help them to establish a temple.

In effect they are not very different from various Phra amulets - enlightened monks who can bless/help one on his spiritual path. The bonus is that Jatukam is believed to grant instant success.

Why do people want to strip Buddhism of all magic, just like Christians did in the West? All those "devas", "spirits", "ghosts", whatever, they'd continue to exist no matter how many times people deny their existence and concentrate only on dhamma. Is dhamma really that exclusive of all else? Has it always been that way? For lay people?

I might be wrong, but in Buddha's time the world was full of "magic", it was as real as ones family members.

Yes, there is a strong belief of "magic" as you call it in Thai Buddhisim.

Simple people wish to have simple solutions.

For the poor Thais, life is hard and it is better to believe in some easy solution. That isn't limited to Thailand or Asia, but is a common thing everywhere in the world. If you go to the Vatican you will see vendors selling rosary beads that are claimed to have some special holiness because they were "blessed" somehow by being held up when the Pope held a public appearence before the crowd.

All religions have the same elements in them.

Don't be too hard on the people who want to find some quick magical solution to their problems. In their time they will learn and grow in understanding.

If you want to grow in your own understanding and knowledge, censure yourself, not the actions of others. The others will come to their own understanding in their own time.

Tend to your own garden, grow your own flowers.

[Huw]

As to evidence, I believe there is a lot of indirect evidence to support a hypothesis of the the existence of God.

Which then is?

Here is a bit of circumstantial evidence. Take a close look at the human body. Where did it come from? By which series of evolutionary events did it develop its complexity? Which mutations resulted in 5 digits on each hand and then which one coincidentally resulted in 5 digits on each foot? Which DNA mutation suddenly meant that acetyl choline is secreted by the body thus making it possible for nerve impulses to travel through the nervous system? What functioned as a nervous system until then? If acetyl choline was not secreted then the nervous system would have been redundant so which dna mutation created a redundant nervous system which just hung around until another random mutation enabled the body to create neurotransmitters.

It seems obvious to me that the creation of the body shows signs of incremental and 'joined-iup' development which is certainly not random.

I believe the idea of evolution of species through random mutation, whilst probably the best hypothesis science has, is fundamentally unlikely to account for the development of the human body, and simply appeals to the vast expanses of time since the earth was created in order to say 'in so long a time, anything must be possible'.

If I were in the jungle and came across a wonderful old Temple, now inhabited only by monkeys. Would I infer that because I could not detect the builders that it was created by a chance combining of rocks during an earthquake? That wouldnt be very scientific would it? Would I conclude that the monkeys built it?

The available answer is not always the right answer. If we are sensible scientists, in the absence of positive evidence as to causality, we take an open position and say we just dont know. We dont resort to unlikely hypotheses simply because there isnt a more likely one. That is what scientists accuse religious people of doing.

Just an open-minded opinion.

H

Edited May 28, 2007 by Huw

[Huw]

Finally we get down to whether or not God exists. This should only take a dozen posts or so to wrap up.

Well we arent really getting down to whether God exists or not. The best we can do is decide whether s/he *might* exist.

H

Edited May 28, 2007 by Huw

[Huw]

As I understand "Jatukam Ramathep" were two founders of Wat Mahathat in Nakhon Si Thammarat. The legend has it that they were sent from Ceilon to recover Buddha relics, got into a storm, and ended up in Thailand having lost everything but the relics (or they found the relics there, I don't remember). They prayed that if the land was indeed holy, the Lord would help them to establish a temple.

In effect they are not very different from various Phra amulets - enlightened monks who can bless/help one on his spiritual path. The bonus is that Jatukam is believed to grant instant success.

Why do people want to strip Buddhism of all magic, just like Christians did in the West? All those "devas", "spirits", "ghosts", whatever, they'd continue to exist no matter how many times people deny their existence and concentrate only on dhamma. Is dhamma really that exclusive of all else? Has it always been that way? For lay people?

I might be wrong, but in Buddha's time the world was full of "magic", it was as real as ones family members.

Yes, there is a strong belief of "magic" as you call it in Thai Buddhisim.

Simple people wish to have simple solutions.

For the poor Thais, life is hard and it is better to believe in some easy solution. That isn't limited to Thailand or Asia, but is a common thing everywhere in the world. If you go to the Vatican you will see vendors selling rosary beads that are claimed to have some special holiness because they were "blessed" somehow by being held up when the Pope held a public appearence before the crowd.

All religions have the same elements in them.

Don't be too hard on the people who want to find some quick magical solution to their problems. In their time they will learn and grow in understanding.

If you want to grow in your own understanding and knowledge, censure yourself, not the actions of others. The others will come to their own understanding in their own time.

Tend to your own garden, grow your own flowers.

Good advice, though of course a good neighbour always tries to help with someone elses flowers if they aren't growing well.

Does magic exist? If it doesnt, your view as expressed above is the sensible one. If it does exist then there are a whole bunch of other questions.

You made some good points. The OP made at least one excellent point.

H

Edited May 28, 2007 by Huw

[camerata]

Superstition is inevitably based on an unquestioning belief in what people tell you. hence its prevalence in undereducated societies.

The belief in God is based on an unquestioning belief in what other people say rather than on education.

I dont agree. Can you can provide any evidence to support your claim?

My own experience, which I think is typical of many Westerners. I was socialized into an irrational belief in God all through childhood. It didn't have anything to do with reason or education. When I started thinking for myself, at around age 13, I quickly lost any faith in organized religion and the idea of Christ as the son of God. Belief in God is more difficult to get rid of, though, because humans seem to crave an external source of supernatural power to help them out in life. It's an idea that gets embedded deep in the subconscious.

Perhaps some people find a way to apply reason and logic to justify a belief in God later in life, but this doesn't alter the fact that the initial belief is based on what others told them when they were kids.

[Huw]

My own experience, which I think is typical of many Westerners. I was socialized into an irrational belief in God all through childhood. It didn't have anything to do with reason or education. When I started thinking for myself, at around age 13, I quickly lost any faith in organized religion and the idea of Christ as the son of God.

Yep, seem typical. It is often the case though that after the disillusionment in the 'Great Googly in the Sky' (which often accompanies first scientific learnings), a gradual concern that science does not in fact have the werewithall to explain all that we see and feel. In my case, later, this resulted in a gradual reconciliation between science and the supernatural to the point where there is no conflict between them, indeed, each requires the other. They are complementary imho.

Belief in God is more difficult to get rid of, though, because humans seem to crave an external source of supernatural power to help them out in life. It's an idea that gets embedded deep in the subconscious.

Interesting point. Odd that it has such a prevalence. Almost like it is 'pragrammed in' in the same way as meny other behavioural characteristics.

Perhaps some people find a way to apply reason and logic to justify a belief in God later in life, but this doesn't alter the fact that the initial belief is based on what others told them when they were kids.

We are told many things as kids which as you rightly point out are accepted without question. However that doesnt mean they always have to be accepted without question. But not everybody is sufficiently interested to question religion, for many it is just wallpaper to their lives.

H

[camerata]

Interesting point. Odd that it has such a prevalence. Almost like it is 'pragrammed in' in the same way as meny other behavioural characteristics.

Yes. Here's what Walpola Rahula (a Buddhist) said about it:

"Two ideas are psycologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

But not everybody is sufficiently interested to question religion, for many it is just wallpaper to their lives.

Agreed.

[Huw]

Interesting point. Odd that it has such a prevalence. Almost like it is 'pragrammed in' in the same way as meny other behavioural characteristics.

Yes. Here's what Walpola Rahula (a Buddhist) said about it:

"Two ideas are psycologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

But not everybody is sufficiently interested to question religion, for many it is just wallpaper to their lives.

Agreed.

Acually there are 3. If you count self-protection and self-preservation as one which I do then they are: self-preservation, self-replication (reproduction) and self-actualisation. The really interesting one in this context is self-actualisation.

H

[RusT]

The Associated Press

April 9, 2007

A 50-year-old woman was killed and dozens of people injured Monday when a crowd in southern Thailand stampeded during a sale of a popular talisman supposed to bring good fortune, police said.

More than 10,000 people had camped overnight by a school compound in Nakhon Si Thammarat province, 580 kilometers (360 miles) south of Bangkok, waiting to buy the amulets, which in the past few months have gained a huge following for their alleged magical qualities.

The victim fell and was trampled on when the crowd rushed the school gates when sales of a new batch of the amulets was set to begin Monday morning, said police Lt. Suriyon Kaemthong.

Many Thais carry or wear amulets for good luck. The amulets usually show images associated with Buddhism — the religion of most Thais — though amulets are not formally part of its doctrine. A large commercial market exists for collectors, and rare amulets reputedly command prices of over 1 million baht (US$30,600; €22,800).

In a Buddhist country where there are thousands of wats and tens of thousands of monks studying Buddhism constantly, it seems strange that magical amulets would be so universally accepted. It is not part of Buddhist teachings, I am told. In fact belief in magic is contrary to Buddhism.

It's hard to see how you can study the teachings of Buddha and end up thinking you are going to get some kind of magical protection from harm or be blessed with good luck by wearing images of the Buddha.

The same goes for fortunetelling. Nothing to do with Buddhism.

On the contrary, amulets give the false impression that Buddhism is a religion of superstition and magic.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think monks should discourage this practice. It misrepresents of Buddhist teaching.

IMO Thailand is not a Buddhiist country but rather it has a hybrid religion that is dominated by animistic beliefs predating Buddhism's arrival in the country with Buddhist and Hindu influences thrown into the mix.

Most Thai people call themselves Buddhist but I doubt there would be many people who would be able to tell you what the basic tenets of Buddhism are such as The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path.

Therefore it would be misleading to say that Thailand is a Buddhist country in the original sense of what was taught by Lord Buddha in India. The same can no doubt be said of Christianity as it is practised today in it's modern form too.

[cdnvic]

Among the many things taught by Buddha Gautama was not to take his word as a gospel, but to pursue your own path to enlightenment. Orthodoxy would go against this it seems.

[Grover]

Among the many things taught by Buddha Gautama was not to take his word as a gospel, but to pursue your own path to enlightenment. Orthodoxy would go against this it seems.

He prescribed the 8 fold path as the path to enlightenment, and emphisised one must traverse the path by oneself.

[fabianfred]

My wife's parents gave me an old jatukham from their collection for a wedding present. Unknown to my parents in law it turned out to be a very valuable piece.

Some of the prices you hear quoted for these amulets is unbelievable. Just heard of a Malaysian business man buying one from that temple in Nakhon Sri Tammarat for nearly two million baht.

Without having a decent understanding of budhism, I really can't see how collecting an object portraying a picture of your favourite monk, or religious scene can be considered greedy. If you happen to sell it at a profit down the track, well maybe the magical powers of the Talisman really did work in your favour.

Cheers,

Soundman.

The Jatukham craze is rather novel, in its extreme. I have two of them, they were given to me by a relative who is into them - they are only a few months old, and went from the 200 Baht he "rented" them for to between 1000 and 3000 Baht in worth now. Tonight i might get another one or two, because he's picking more up in Nakhorn Sri Thammarat at the temple.

Anyhow, as far as i know the origin in these amulets is that they were given by temples in recognition of a service or donation, by loved ones and friends, and by monks as a reminder of the teachings. In a strict sense - amulets are somewhat against Buddhist doctrine, but in popular Buddhism things are a bit more relaxed. I have heard many monks saying that things such as amulets are alright as long as they help people to observe the teachings.

Obviously the speculation going on with amulets is not what was intended originally, but from a purely artistic sense - many of them are stunningly beautiful and Thai culture would be poorer without them. I do somewhat collect them sporadically, not exactly as an investment, but just because their artistic value (and i am not Buddhist either, i am agnostic). Some of my favorite ones are not pieces found in any market, but a set that was made by a forest monk who is a friend of mine, and given to a few friends of his.

Others i was given in temples or by monks, and i have no idea about their market value, other than that some i have accumulated over the last two decades might be considerable (i don't think though selling them for a second).

I always enjoy when people show me their prized collection, often decades of effort, and with pieces inherited as well. There is so much beauty in these amulets.

Many negative arguments against these amulets are justified, but a lot of the discussion goes far too puritanic for my taste, reminding me of the arguments of what some of the extreme reformists in the 15th and 16th century in Europe said about the catholic church.

One thing to note is that the images inscribed on the Jatukham Ramathep amulets are not Buddhist and the creators/markets/vendors don't pretend they are. It's much like the Rama V amulet craze in the 90s, though the 'JR fever' has reached a much more intense level.

Of course the main place where they are sold is Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahaviharn in Nakhon Si Thammarat, and the mythical prince/god depicted on the medals is said to be a protector of Buddhism. So there is an established link.

Last year an excellent Thai-language novel on amulets appeared, all about a group of men who try to get rich by creating amulets, and the vipaka they experience as a result. It contains lots of detail about all the ceremony involved, mass chanting, etc, an extremely interesting aspect of the Thai culture of the supernatural that most Westerners are oblivious to.

what was the novel called... i am buddhist and enjoy reading Thai dhamma books... this sounds interesting too...

[fabianfred]

all these things are ultimately worthless....

if you had the real live buddha standing before you... and held onto him.... it still wouldn't assist you any to get to nirvana

we can only reach enlightenment through our own effort

Buddhas and their monks can only point the way...

[cdnvic]

all these things are ultimately worthless....

if you had the real live buddha standing before you... and held onto him.... it still wouldn't assist you any to get to nirvana

we can only reach enlightenment through our own effort

Buddhas and their monks can only point the way...

Yes, even a real living Buddha can only show you so much. I'm thoroughly convinced that it's impossible to learn how to reach enlightenment. After a certain point it's all up to you.

[Grover]

all these things are ultimately worthless....

if you had the real live buddha standing before you... and held onto him.... it still wouldn't assist you any to get to nirvana

we can only reach enlightenment through our own effort

Buddhas and their monks can only point the way...

Yes, even a real living Buddha can only show you so much. I'm thoroughly convinced that it's impossible to learn how to reach enlightenment. After a certain point it's all up to you.

There are several stories in the suttas where a sermon or short teaching phrase given by the Buddha triggered a spontaneous enlightenment.

No doubt, these people had already laid the groundwork earlier, and their minds were fully receptive and fertile for the teachings.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Grover

[cdnvic]

...and I always take any story presented so with a grain of salt.

[Grover]

It seems to me that the point at which one can no longer be lead along the path by another is variable for each person. Some can be taken to the gate so to speak, while others can not find or do not need a guide.

Admittedly, the first case seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Grover

[Mid]

Jatukam fever reaches new heights

The Lions Club of Nakhon Si Thammarat took Jatukam Ramathep fever to a new high yesterday. The club put monks on board a special flight of One-Two-Go airlines to make the talismans while the plane was circling over the southern city. Part of the profits from selling the ``Sethee Sri Siam'' amulets (inset) will go to rebuilding torched schools in the three southernmost provinces. — WEERAWONG WONGPREEDEE

help .................???

1 + 1 ain't equalling 2 .........

[cdnvic]

Southern monks are in enough danger without shoving them on a 1-2-Go flight