Does Buddhism Condone Feudualism And Nepotism?

[ahalfthaiamerican]

By implying that if a person is wealthy or got lucky to be born or put into the right situations, that means that they OBVIOUSLY must've had loads of karma stored up no matter what?

I'm not going to shun Buddhism at all but doesn't something seem wrong with this specific belief? Or maybe I'm mistaking please reply.

But until then the message I'm getting is that Buddhism says that if you are poor or born poor, it's "your fault" because of negative karma.

Edited January 29, 2008 by ahalfthaiamerican

[ahalfthaiamerican]

Has this viewpoint ever been reformed, or once again, am I mistaken?

Did Thaksin and his family get rich and succeed because they OBVIOUSLY must've had good karma? Does Thai Buddhism hold the view that children born to wealthy people are born into that situation because they OBVIOUSLY must've had good karma from previous lives?

Please answer this will be a determining factor in whether or not I keep on sticking to a much more secular form of Buddhist philosophy rather than this karma, past lives crap which DOES NOT seem like a fair way to determine success.

Is the spoiled, self-centered child of a rich Thai in that enviable position in Thai society all BECAUSE of past KARMA and LIVES, OBVIOUSLY? Do Thai Buddhists actually believe that?

Edited January 29, 2008 by ahalfthaiamerican

[ahalfthaiamerican]

If true, this will be grounds for me publishing an inflammatory paper criticizing the role of Thai Buddhism in keeping that status quo thing going.

Seems like the application of the ideas in karma/rebirth in Thai Buddhism can be just as flawed as the fanatical application of heaven/hel_l in Western religions!

I'm disgusted

Does Buddhism say that if someone commits a crime on you, you OBVIOUSLY deserved it because of bad karma from previous lives?

If karma and past lives is used in such a manner, why should I, as a Buddhist, believe in karma and past lives? If someone stabs you, does that mean that you ultimately deserved it because of past life karma? If so, doesn't something seem "wrong" with that belief?

Once again this not an attack on Buddhism, I'm Buddhist myself and love parts of it. This is more of a questioning on the less secular/logical aspects of Buddhism that hinder true progress. I'm a liberal I need secular and logic.

Edited January 29, 2008 by ahalfthaiamerican

[0Mix1up]

But my understanding of Thais and their belief systems is limited at best.

But I dont think it condones criminal behavior just to get a kharmic pay back

[chownah]

Ahalfthaiamerica,

You have asked alot of questions but with this reply I'd just like to say that there is a lot of different kinds of Buddhism and lots of different kinds of Buddhists....and on top of that there are different levels of understanding among these different people. I don't think that any answer to your questions can be valid for all Buddhists or even for most Buddhists because the beliefs that different Buddhists hold to are so very very different.

Just to take your first question "By implying that if a person is wealthy or got lucky to be born or put into the right situations, that means that they OBVIOUSLY must've had loads of karma stored up no matter what?".....there are some Buddhists who would say that yes a rich person must have loads of karma stored up.....and there are other Buddhists who would say that the Buddha taught that we benefit from our own efforts....and still other Buddhists would say that being rich is not such a big blessing and that rich people have the same real problems in life as poor people so being rich really doesn't say much about karma...and yet others would have different views on the matter.

Chownah

[trader1]

As Chownah has said different Buddhist have different ideas, indeed you can find the most exoteirc beliefs among "buddhists" .However, I assume that you are mainly interested in what the Buddha taught:

Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta

13. "Here, student, some woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks or brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is poor wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to poverty, that is to say, not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans.

14. "But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is rich wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to riches, that is to say, to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans.

Edited January 30, 2008 by trader1

[AYJAYDEE]

it does not condone unskillful behaviour

[camerata]

Please answer this will be a determining factor in whether or not I keep on sticking to a much more secular form of Buddhist philosophy rather than this karma, past lives crap which DOES NOT seem like a fair way to determine success.

If this is so important to you, why not do some serious research on it? And why would it matter to you - or anyone - what Thai Buddhists think? The authority on karma is the Pali Canon, and it's pretty clear there that karma does work across multiple lives. A bad deed in one life will have an unpleasant effect in the present life or a future life. If you prefer to interpret karma as operating in only one life, that's fine, because many others do too. But there's no need to look down on those who accept a literal interpretation of the Buddha's word.

As for being born or becoming wealthy, this might be a result of good karma or it might not. If a wealthy person is wise, they have a better chance of helping others and avoiding suffering than a poor person. Look at Bill Gates and Bono, for example. But if one is brought up as a spoilt brat or a megalomaniac like Thaksin, clearly this is not a good situation and not a result of good karma.

If karma and past lives is used in such a manner, why should I, as a Buddhist, believe in karma and past lives? If someone stabs you, does that mean that you ultimately deserved it because of past life karma? If so, doesn't something seem "wrong" with that belief?

What do you think is wrong with it? Karma means in effect that all good deeds are rewarded and all bad ones are punished... eventually. It could be viewed as a kind of cosmic justice. People like Hitler may get away with their crimes in this life, but ultimately they'll be punished. If someone stabs me in the street, how is it worse that I was stabbed for a past misdeed than, say, because God willed it (for unknown reasons), or it happened for no reason at all? It doesn't seem any worse to me than the alternatives.

Personally, I think it's better to investigate whether particular incidents happen to us because of something we did in the current life. No point at all in speculating whether we committed some "sin" in a former life. If it turns out some guy stabbed me because I badmouthed him, I'll learn the value of Right Speech. If he stabbed me for my money, it'll be obvious the Buddha was right in suggesting we'll be happier without material wealth, etc, etc. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from bad experiences.

[Plus]

Terry Venables had lost his England Manager position for quoting a passage from the Bible that goes along the OPs quiestions. Nowadays it's politically incorrect to say that people suffer due to their own karma.

On the other hand karma must work without any regard for our sensitivites.

[camerata]

Nowadays it's politically incorrect to say that people suffer due to their own karma.

These days, in the West, anything that might cause even the slightest offence to anyone is deemed politically incorrect by the wacko PC brigade. However, this is the way karma works, whether they like it or not. Thank goodness I live in Thailand!

[trader1]

Yes, the only acceptable view in the wacky west is that bad things only happen by sheer bad luck.

[IMA_FARANG]

By implying that if a person is wealthy or got lucky to be born or put into the right situations, that means that they OBVIOUSLY must've had loads of karma stored up no matter what?

I'm not going to shun Buddhism at all but doesn't something seem wrong with this specific belief? Or maybe I'm mistaking please reply.

But until then the message I'm getting is that Buddhism says that if you are poor or born poor, it's "your fault" because of negative karma.

I don't think that Buddhisim would imply that a person who happened to be born wealty was somehow "better off" than a person born poor. Wealth and money or social position don't make you 'better" in a Buddhist context.

The purpose of being born human, and with a mind that can make and choose a moral imperitive (i.e. good vs evil) would be too realise one's Buddha nature and one's role as a part of a universal reality.

Perhaps some Thais (or others for that matter) might somehow regard Karma as determining their wealth in life, but that would be rejected by most Buddhist teachers as a shallow and false intepretation. That would only be a shallow and superficial understanding of the true teaching of Buddha.

I once was told by a born-again Christian that the fact that he was doing well in his business and making a good salary was an obvious result of the fact that he had "accepted Christ" into his life. I guess he thought that accepting Christ into his life meant Jesus owed him a better life style.

Unfortunately, about 3 years later his business had failed and he went bankrupt. Had too sell his house to cover his tax obligations.

Wonder what his religion made of that?

[chutai]

Terry Venables had lost his England Manager position for quoting a passage from the Bible that goes along the OPs quiestions. Nowadays it's politically incorrect to say that people suffer due to their own karma.

On the other hand karma must work without any regard for our sensitivites.

Actually it was Glenn Hoddle (otherwise known as Goddle) who was displaced as England manager for that particular buffoonish statement.

Central to Buddhism are wisdom and compassion. Shakyamuni himself spoke gentlyand met his audiences needs and understanding To say that anyone is physically disabled because of their accumulated past karma is to display a great deal of ignorance in my opinion, and if it were to be common practice for Buddhist to speak of such Bramanistic terms then Buddhism could be rightly condemned as being just another determinisic religion , devoid of compassion. Actually no one knows what the causes are, whether it be karma or just a neutral area in any given case.

We all have our own karma to work on, just as we all have the Buddha nature inherent in our being - the point is to overcome these obstacles and to display the proof of Buddhism by living a radiant and vibrant life. In some ways being disabled can be a beneficial condition as the obstacles and challenges in life are greater in life than otherwise,making one a stronger and more determined person when Buddhist practice takes central position in your life.

As a disabled person myself I can testify to the fact that once one progresses on the Buddhist path then what attracts people is the life-state that one projects and ones disability is a secondary consideration.

Fortunately, karma works not according to a rigid formula or indeed sensibilities, but is an active principle wherein anyone can actively change either aspect of their karma , be that mutable or seemingly immutable.

[jamesc2000]

Firstly its only conditioning from society that tells some of us that being rich is good and being poor is not so good!

If you could see beyond this conditioning then rich or poor makes no difference!

I am not an expert on Buddhism but all I know is that Buddha was born to quite a rich family with power, a nice place to live, good food etc and he gave it all up and became a happy monk with no material possessions!

So good karma surely is not about having a lot of material possessions but to be not attached to it!

However I can understand rich people telling poor people I am only rich because I have good karma and you must respect me or a person who is a manager only because of his family status telling his staff you must do what I say and some people actually believing that!

But I think this has nothing to do with Buddhism but people wanting to hold onto power and control other people and justify themselves because they pander to their own ego or insecurities.

Just thinking about it, it sounds like the exact opposite to Buddhism! Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong!

Edited January 30, 2008 by jamesc2000

[Plus]

Terry Venables had lost his England Manager position for quoting a passage from the Bible that goes along the OPs quiestions. Nowadays it's politically incorrect to say that people suffer due to their own karma.

On the other hand karma must work without any regard for our sensitivites.

Actually it was Glenn Hoddle (otherwise known as Goddle) who was displaced as England manager for that particular buffoonish statement.

.... To say that anyone is physically disabled because of their accumulated past karma is to display a great deal of ignorance in my opinion..

Glenn Hoddle, that's right, stupid me.

It was a display of ingorance to say such things in front of those people. I disagree with the rest. "One reaps what one sows", though in Judean tradition as we know it today that doesn't stretch over to the next live.

Whether it makes Buddhism a deterministic religion or not is debatable. "Free will" and "self" are controvercial concepts, can something that is "non-self" display "free will", or even take up Buddhist pracitce. Better leave it to appropriate topics.

[chutai]

Terry Venables had lost his England Manager position for quoting a passage from the Bible that goes along the OPs quiestions. Nowadays it's politically incorrect to say that people suffer due to their own karma.

On the other hand karma must work without any regard for our sensitivites.

Actually it was Glenn Hoddle (otherwise known as Goddle) who was displaced as England manager for that particular buffoonish statement.

.... To say that anyone is physically disabled because of their accumulated past karma is to display a great deal of ignorance in my opinion..

Glenn Hoddle, that's right, stupid me.

It was a display of ingorance to say such things in front of those people. I disagree with the rest. "One reaps what one sows", though in Judean tradition as we know it today that doesn't stretch over to the next live.

Whether it makes Buddhism a deterministic religion or not is debatable. "Free will" and "self" are controvercial concepts, can something that is "non-self" display "free will", or even take up Buddhist pracitce. Better leave it to appropriate topics.

We should be clear that Hoddle was not speaking as a Buddhist but as some sort of Christian with a mish-mash of New Age ideas.

Shakyamuni Buddha entreated us all not to believe anything because it is written or because some sage tells us it is so. But to test out everything for ourselves, then to accept it if condusive to furthering our happiness and a good conscience.

It is thus that I accept the words of Shakyamuni when he said that to understand our present, then we need to examine our past actions. To know our future then look at the causes that we are creating now.

This, I think, is the sum total of my own verification concerning any absolute determinism within Buddhism; that can be proven from my own experience.

Edited February 1, 2008 by chutai

[Plus]

Shakyamuni Buddha entreated us all not to believe anything because it is written or because some sage tells us it is so. But to test out everything for ourselves, then to accept it if condusive to furthering our happiness and a good conscience.

It is thus that I accept the words of Shakyamuni when he said that to understand our present, then we need to examine our past actions. To know our future then look at the causes that we are creating now.

There's a contradiction in there. You "accept the words of Shakyamuni" as if "some sage tells us it is so".

No one can possibly understand all the links between present and our past actions (some of them from the previous life time), so we better accept it as given. If there's a general agreement between a number of scholars, than it is probably true.

>>>

I don't think feudalism and nepotism are natural outcomes of this understanding of karma. They are just ways to abuse and exploit religion for personal gain.

The only valid argument against hindu caste sytem, or what is called feudalism in the West, is that it prohibits upward movement for talented and aspiring individuals.

Otherwise it's just a sort of a placement test. If you can prove that you were born in a wrong place and you deserve to be in a better position, I believe societies based on Buddhism provide channels to correct that.

In Thailand it used to be through civil or military service. Everyone qualifies to enter and everyone can achieve whatever he thinks he deserves.

I'm not sure that Buddhism itself opens the door to everyone in terms of material progress, however, it wasn't Buddha's goal. I think it's wrong to look at Buddhism as some early kind of democracy or socialism.

[chutai]

]Shakyamuni Buddha entreated us all not to believe anything because it is written or because some sage tells us it is so. But to test out everything for ourselves, then to accept it if condusive to furthering our happiness and a good conscience.

It is thus that I accept the words of Shakyamuni when he said that to understand our present, then we need to examine our past actions. To know our future then look at the causes that we are creating now.

There's a contradiction in there. You "accept the words of Shakyamuni" as if "some sage tells us it is so".

Not a all. Only by testing the validity of Dharma can one know for sure if it be true. It just so happens that Buddhism equates with my own knowledge, experience and reason. And has proven to be the case.

No one can possibly understand all the links between present and our past actions (some of them from the previous life time), so we better accept it as given. If there's a general agreement between a number of scholars, than it is probably true.

I was referring to the causes that we create/have created in this lifetime - as I believe was Shakyamuni. In Buddhist terminology it's called dependent origination.

I do actually think that it possible to know past lives when a Buddha has reached a stage of enlightenment. But unless in knowing it's expedient in furthering the happiness of all beings; then I'm not sure that it's such a great thing to make a fuss about.

"...the number of kalpas that have passed

is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,

millions, trillions, asamkhyas.

Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting

countless millions of living beings,

causing them to enter the Buddha way,

all this for immeasurable kalpas."

Juryo Chapter, Lotus Sutra.

[Plus]

...Only by testing the validity of Dharma can one know for sure if it be true. It just so happens that Buddhism equates with my own knowledge, experience and reason. And has proven to be the case.

I'm pretty sure there are things in Buddhism of which you don't have any experience yet. Start from Nirvana and work your way down. Those things are taken on faith, and so is connection between actions and their results. People hardly learn from their present mistakes, let alone take lessons from past lives.

We are getting off topic, though.

[chownah]

...Only by testing the validity of Dharma can one know for sure if it be true. It just so happens that Buddhism equates with my own knowledge, experience and reason. And has proven to be the case.

I'm pretty sure there are things in Buddhism of which you don't have any experience yet. Start from Nirvana and work your way down. Those things are taken on faith, and so is connection between actions and their results. People hardly learn from their present mistakes, let alone take lessons from past lives.

We are getting off topic, though.

Some people take these things on faith and some do not. Personally, any part of Buddhism which I don't have any experience with I take as a possibility which I might have experience with in the future but until I have had experience with it I just accept it as a possibility and I don't really take much on faith.....I think there are others who take the same approach.

Chownah

[Brucenkhamen]

Some people take these things on faith and some do not. Personally, any part of Buddhism which I don't have any experience with I take as a possibility which I might have experience with in the future but until I have had experience with it I just accept it as a possibility and I don't really take much on faith.....I think there are others who take the same approach.

Chownah

I'm pretty much the same. You could call it faith I suppose but it's very different from the kind of faith generally required by religion, more like the faith that if I cross the road I won't get run over, so I think it's important to see the difference.

[chutai]

You could call it faith I suppose but it's very different from the kind of faith generally required by religion, more like the faith that if I cross the road I won't get run over, so I think it's important to see the difference.

That's absolutely correct. There's a vast difference to the wide-eyed and passive faith of other religions (in fact it's a prerequisite to have a blind faith in other religions) and the faith of Buddhism. Although one begins as if suckling a mothers milk - a baby doesn't know why, but instinctiively knows that it's good for them. When one progresses that faith becomes active in the knowledge of past obstacles that have been overcome and the wisdom acquired . I suppose that one could equate confidence and assurance with faith in this respect. There is nothing passive about Buddhist faith, but a Dharma practitioner becomes wiser and less affected by the opposing winds that can easily throw one off course in the early stages.

The further we progress, the greater the obstacles to be overcome and the greater the faith that needs to be manifest. Thus establishing a life-condition of absolute happiness, that depends entirely on the strength of our faith.

I suppose we coulf say that in Buddhism faith is result driven. Whereas, the blind faith of Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. is more an unproven hope. Although Shakyamuni Buddha said not to hold in derision those of other faiths; as they are aspirants to the truth.

[Plus]

I think your difference is imaginary.

Some Christian sects indeed say that simply accepting Jesus is enough, but many believe in a gradual progress, too. They have their goal, uniting with Jesus in whatever form, they have their methods, they have certain steps and stages and so on.

Purifying one's mind is not unlike regular Buddhist practice.

I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult to find people who belive that Christianity as a rational, scientific, result driven process.

I don't know much about Islam, I suppose it's very similar in many ways. Hinduism, too, is far more complex that relying on blind faith.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think your difference is imaginary.

Some Christian sects indeed say that simply accepting Jesus is enough, but many believe in a gradual progress, too. They have their goal, uniting with Jesus in whatever form, they have their methods, they have certain steps and stages and so on.

Purifying one's mind is not unlike regular Buddhist practice.

I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult to find people who belive that Christianity as a rational, scientific, result driven process.

I don't know much about Islam, I suppose it's very similar in many ways. Hinduism, too, is far more complex that relying on blind faith.

I'm sure there are people in any religion whose approach to their own religion is experiential and experimental, or mystical, in the same way the Buddha promotes.

Though I'm not aware of any other religion where this is the core teaching, and even those sects whose approach is similar, like Quakers or Sufis for example, still have a central belief in God which requires a leap of faith from the start.

Certainly though Buddhism can't claim to have a monopoly on this approach, as it's pretty logical to a lot of people.

Purifying one's mind is not unlike regular Buddhist practice.

Purifying one's mind is Buddhist practice.

[chutai]

Purifying one's mind is not unlike regular Buddhist practice.

Purifying one's mind is Buddhist practice.

Purifying ones being (including the intellect) is the purpose of Buddhist practice.

[chutai]

I think your difference is imaginary.

I don't know why you should thinks so, as the differences between Buddhist faith and blind faith are well documented. Literally, the only imagination utilised in Buddhism, as far as I know, is the visualisation techniques employed in Tibetan Buddhist practice.

Some Christian sects indeed say that simply accepting Jesus is enough, but many believe in a gradual progress, too. They have their goal, uniting with Jesus in whatever form, they have their methods, they have certain steps and stages and so on.

Maybe some small sects do have a slightly different approach (Gnostics and the suchlike ?) But essentially Christianity demands belief in a once and for all sacrifice for the attonement of sins. There's nothing gradual in that , as for Christians the work has been already done on their behalf.

.

I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult to find people who belive that Christianity as a rational, scientific, result driven process wherein all beings are genuingly equal , not equally sinful.

In Buddhism all are equally deserving of respect, as is the sancity of life. Not equal in sin as in Christanity. In Buddhism everyone is equal as everyone has the potential to acheive Buddhahood, not by an external means but by an inner transformation.

Personally. I can see nothing rational or scientific in belief in an external deity that is all powerful yet unseen.

I don't know much about Islam, I suppose it's very similar in many ways. Hinduism, too, is far more complex that relying on blind faith.

Hinduism is multi-theistic (has many gods) so demands the same - or even greater - blind faith in their multifarious existence.

[Plus]

I think you can find examples where Christians condemn blind faith, too, and you can find example where Buddhist do nothing else but pray in front of Buddha's images.

Many fairly recent Protestant churches do indeed believe in one time redemption based entirely on faith, but from what I know about traditional Catholic practices you need a lot more daily work (and weekly confessions) to deserve you place in heaven, you need to keep your mind free from sin, control your thoughts and emotions and so on.

While everyone is a sinner by default, no one is denied God's mercy, that's what makes Christianity very successful in feudal, patronistic societies - reminds me of this thread's title.