How Are Christians Regarded In Thai Buddhist Society?

[lannarebirth]

There was no such thing as ateism in those days, there was no such thing as secularism either. Buddha didn't preach in spiritual vacuum or against the background of christianity, or under onslaught of "new ateists". Though term didn't exist, it was Hindu culture, there were gurus, pandits, rishis, sadhus and Buddha lived among them, learned form them, offered them respect and prayed to their chosen gods and so on (at least before his renunciation). He didn't need to prove that karma works since everyone learned that at school already, he didn't need to offer prove of reincarnation since that's what everyone learned at school, too.

We come to Buddhism with completely different schooling. We think that democracy is a natural order of society, we assume that equal human rights is a universal truth, we know that there's no scientific proof of existence of either God, gods, souls, ghosts and so on. We have different questions, wants, and needs, at least initially.

Now we rely on answers that weren't meant for us, they were given to people with completely different views of the world. Sometimes it doesn't make much sense, sometimes we imply sense that is not there.

Back to my original point - in those days people didn't look at buddhist monks as "philosophers" as opposed to "religious devotees" as we like to stress now.

I don't disagree with that Plus. In fact you could even have called them a cult, but so what? More importantly, what does any of this have to to do with the OP's question?

Edited February 6, 2008 by lannarebirth

[suegha]

Nothing! As often happens another thread has gone off on a tangent. It's one of the things I love about tv!

[Plus]

Struggling for connection here....

The fact that historically Buddhism was not much more than one of numerious religious teachings, and a minor one at that, might explain why Thais don't think too much about Christianity.

[jumnien]

I don't think the Buddha would have minded folks seeking refuge in the Buddha, let alone the Dharma and the Sangha.

Thais who care to notice, would notice that many of the early Westerners who popularized the Thai Theravadan tradition in the West, many who ordained in Thailand, were predominantly Jewish. What significance this has is rather up to one's imagination.

Edited February 7, 2008 by sunrise07

[Xangsamhua]

A friend of mine once said "If I weren't a Buddhist I'd be a Christian". The inference (in the context of the conversation) was that she'd been born into a Buddhist family, so she's a Buddhist.

I wonder how many Thais are really Buddhists in the sense that they really take the Buddha's teaching to heart and try to model their lives on them. I suspect there aren't many Thai "Buddhists" in that sense. Not many "Christians" in the West either.

[Plus]

On the other hand the reason Thais are so benevolent towards Christianity is that they do not feel threatened.

They won't allow Christians to actively convert, they won't allow Christians to declare Buddhists are going to hel_l on very corner.

It's ok, just don't rock the boat.

They reduced Christianity to personal, private affair and stripped it of the missionary zeal.

So yes, that kind of Christians, domesticated ones, is acceptable, beyond that we don't know.

[suegha]

I wonder how many Thais are really Buddhists in the sense that they really take the Buddha's teaching to heart and try to model their lives on them. I suspect there aren't many Thai "Buddhists" in that sense. Not many "Christians" in the West either.

Good point!

[suegha]

On the other hand the reason Thais are so benevolent towards Christianity is that they do not feel threatened.

They won't allow Christians to actively convert, they won't allow Christians to declare Buddhists are going to hel_l on very corner.

It's ok, just don't rock the boat.

They reduced Christianity to personal, private affair and stripped it of the missionary zeal.

So yes, that kind of Christians, domesticated ones, is acceptable, beyond that we don't know.

As a Christian I don't think that Buddhists go to he11. Or maybe I should rephrase that. As he11 just refers to the grave in the bible, we all go to he11!

[Pepe']

Several years ago my sister in law and mother in law in Samut Sakorn converted to Christianity. Much to my surprise.

Without the details it seemed that they became much better people because of it.

The wonderful thing for me was I got all of the beautiful statues, amulets and pictures of Buddha, Kwan Yin

etc that had been passed down from many generations.

They wanted to get all of these out of the house as these things were now considered idols connected with the devil.

How sad.

I'm looking at them om my alter at home right now. I feel very fortunate...

[Xangsamhua]

On the other hand the reason Thais are so benevolent towards Christianity is that they do not feel threatened.

They won't allow Christians to actively convert, they won't allow Christians to declare Buddhists are going to hel_l on very corner.

It's ok, just don't rock the boat.

They reduced Christianity to personal, private affair and stripped it of the missionary zeal.

So yes, that kind of Christians, domesticated ones, is acceptable, beyond that we don't know.

As a Christian I don't think that Buddhists go to he11. Or maybe I should rephrase that. As he11 just refers to the grave in the bible, we all go to he11!

Nor do I. I think the hel_l notion entered Jewish thinking as a result of their exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Captivity (6th century BC) and flowed through to Christianity. (See Riley, The River of God, HarperCollins, p.141) However, hel_l and damnation appears to have been alive and well quite recently in some Thai Christian communities, to the annoyance of their Buddhist neighbours. Dr Herb Swanson, a Presbyterian missionary in Chiang Rai province, relates how the Christian community's taunting of the Buddhists in his village with the prospect of hellfire caused considerable tension and sometimes violence. The problem was resolved when the Buddhists built a new phraviharn and invited the Christians to participate in the celebrations. This put the latter on the spot, but after much discussion they agreed. From that point on relations improved dramatically. The Christian value of loving your neighbour began to overwhelm previous intolerance and condemnation. The change in the community was "miraculous". Dr Swanson talks about these events and the changes they brought about in a homily to parishioners in the States at http://www.deltapresby.org/Kindness%2093007web.pdf. It's also interesting, and rather sad, that in agreeing to participate in the Buddhist celebrations, the church in that village was criticised by other churches (he doesn't say which).

[Plus]

I doubt you could persuade those fiery American preachers to abandon the notion of eternal damnation and hel_l for anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the one and only savior.

I don't believe the explanation that the concept was imported by Jews from the East while nice, brother loving Christians are victims of misunderstanding.

I do believe, however, that once confronted with reality of Buddhist society, even the Christians can be very accomodating with their dogmas.

[ya5702]

As a Christian I don't think that Buddhists go to he11. Or maybe I should rephrase that. As he11 just refers to the grave in the bible, we all go to he11!

I am a free thinker. I respect ALL religions. Let me share with you my experience at a Christian (Protestant) funeral several yeas ago:

The Pastor at the wake preached that "...only Christians get to go to Heaven..."!!! He repeated the message several times.

A lot of the non-Christians were visibly upset by that message. Sure, the Pastor did not say non-Christians go to hel_l, but his message was clear. I think his message was insensitive and it turned a lot of people off.

In my books, naughty people (think blondes) get to go everywhere! And given a choice they will probably not choose Heaven. Who wants to go to Heaven where you meet the same people of the Sunday congregation...darn boring!!!

[suegha]

As a Christian I don't think that Buddhists go to he11. Or maybe I should rephrase that. As he11 just refers to the grave in the bible, we all go to he11!

I am a free thinker. I respect ALL religions. Let me share with you my experience at a Christian (Protestant) funeral several yeas ago:

The Pastor at the wake preached that "...only Christians get to go to Heaven..."!!! He repeated the message several times.

A lot of the non-Christians were visibly upset by that message. Sure, the Pastor did not say non-Christians go to hel_l, but his message was clear. I think his message was insensitive and it turned a lot of people off.

In my books, naughty people (think blondes) get to go everywhere! And given a choice they will probably not choose Heaven. Who wants to go to Heaven where you meet the same people of the Sunday congregation...darn boring!!!

As a Christian I don't believe in Heaven going or He11 going! And even if I did I would be wrong to state that anyone was going anywhere. Judgement is the Lords!

[Nudee]

While many people and also the English translation of Thailand's constitution call Buddhism a religion I have always held and continue to hold the view that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, but perhaps this is a mere question of semantics.

--

Maestro

And I hold the view that it is psychology first, that became a philosophy and later a religion

Buddhism is never been philosophy nor religion. It is science and the lord buddha is a scientist, a great scientist who studied "law of nature". And his greatest theory is called "Iddhappajjayata". One subset of this theory is called "Patijasamupbat" which is the "law of the nature of suffering". Buddhist use this scientific theory to end their suffering. It's not philosophy nor religion and will never be.

[Virin]

While many people and also the English translation of Thailand's constitution call Buddhism a religion I have always held and continue to hold the view that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, but perhaps this is a mere question of semantics.

--

Maestro

And I hold the view that it is psychology first, that became a philosophy and later a religion

Buddhism is never been philosophy nor religion. It is science and the lord buddha is a scientist, a great scientist who studied "law of nature". And his greatest theory is called "Iddhappajjayata". One subset of this theory is called "Patijasamupbat" which is the "law of the nature of suffering". Buddhist use this scientific theory to end their suffering. It's not philosophy nor religion and will never be.

Nudee

Thank you, I am glad to have someone like you, camerata and some members who have real understanding of Buddhism to explain and give us the clarity, please post frequently.

[Plus]

Buddhism is never been philosophy nor religion. It is science and the lord buddha is a scientist, a great scientist who studied "law of nature".

Anything to back that up?

There was no line between religion and science in those days. Even the terms didn't exist as we know them today.

Dharma, which is translated as religion today, roughly means "one's duty", and Buddha left plenty of duties for us to follow, in fact one of the definitions is "the doctrine or teaching of the Buddha".

Trying to present him as some sort of Isaak Newton is a weak attempt at validating people's own notions that science, atheism (and often democracy) are the natural order of the universe and existed since forever.

We shouldn't be trying to conform Buddhism to our minds, it's the other way around. We are not ordering Buddhism from a catalogue and checking available options - I want the one without God, without soul, and it should look like science, and cross out some of the rules, too.

[jamesc2000]

While many people and also the English translation of Thailand's constitution call Buddhism a religion I have always held and continue to hold the view that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, but perhaps this is a mere question of semantics.

--

Maestro

And I hold the view that it is psychology first, that became a philosophy and later a religion

Buddhism is never been philosophy nor religion. It is science and the lord buddha is a scientist, a great scientist who studied "law of nature". And his greatest theory is called "Iddhappajjayata". One subset of this theory is called "Patijasamupbat" which is the "law of the nature of suffering". Buddhist use this scientific theory to end their suffering. It's not philosophy nor religion and will never be.

Nudee

Thank you, I am glad to have someone like you, camerata and some members who have real understanding of Buddhism to explain and give us the clarity, please post frequently.

I couldn't agree more! Please post more Nudee!

[camerata]

Whether we call Buddhism science, philosophy or psychology depends on the definitions we are using. I've always thought of it as a philosophy ("the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct") and psychology ("the science of the mind or of mental states and processes").

[jumnien]

I agree with Camerata, Christianity, like Buddhism, is primarily a philosophy and a psychology. They are concerned with liberation and salvation of the individual. Religions have grown up around the teachings of Buddha and Christ, but not really the original intent.

[lannarebirth]

Whether we call Buddhism science, philosophy or psychology depends on the definitions we are using. I've always thought of it as a philosophy ("the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct") and psychology ("the science of the mind or of mental states and processes").

I accept both those definitions as being true, and describing Buddhism. It is also true that many people practice Buddhism as a religion, complete with scriptures, rites, mythology, mysticism. It's all these things, including your definitions. What's exceptional about Buddhism IMO, is that one may find one's own "salvation" on one's own path without bothering about whether or not Buddhism is any or all of the above.

[Nudee]

A Comment from a monk who studied buddhism the whole life (from his 20 to his 80).

My English is not good enough to translate it. May be someone here can do it.

====

Edited February 11, 2008 by camerata
Thai text deleted. Only English is allowed under forum rules.

[suegha]

I agree with Camerata, Christianity, like Buddhism, is primarily a philosophy and a psychology. They are concerned with liberation and salvation of the individual. Religions have grown up around the teachings of Buddha and Christ, but not really the original intent.

I disagree that Christianity is a philosophy based around the teachings of Christ but not really the original intent. For some it may be!

However, for me, my Christianity is based on the teachings of all scripture. All of which encompass 'Christ'. He is woven into all the OT scriptures, The promise of his advent, his birth, his life, his teachings, his death his resurrection and his second advent are all accurately fortold. So my Christianity is definitely my religion.

[Plus]

I'm sure you can lfind philosophy in any religion, and any philosophical system worth mentioning has "religious" followers.

There's one interesting difference between Christianity and Buddhism - it's ok for Buddhists to claim that their practice is confirmed by their personal experiences, so it's scientific and "philosophical", but Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only.

[toptuan]

There's one interesting difference between Christianity and Buddhism - it's ok for Buddhists to claim that their practice is confirmed by their personal experiences... but Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only.

The above words describe an aberrant view of Christianity at best.

The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are very clear that the maxim "You reap what you sow" applies to experience in this life as well as the hereafter. The entire Bible is replete with stories and practical instruction which describe the short term consequences of a life lived righteously and a life lived selfishly. I'll just give you one book to start out with: Proverbs. The entire book is given over the the maxim that a man who lives according to Godly wisdom reaps rewards in the here and now, as well as the future.

Because of this fact, one's spiritual progress can be easily recognized and experienced over a lifetime. In fact, the book of 1 Corinthians was written to a church that included both "baby" believers (less practical experience) and "adult" believers (those who had progressed along quite well in their spiritual and practical maturity). The monikers "baby" and "adult" had nothing to do with their chronological ages--it referred to the evidence of and rewards experienced in the here and now related to their spiritual/practical experience of living the Christian walk in their church and surrounding culture.

A Christian who lives with only a "pie in the sky" mentality (as the above poster describes) is truly short-changing himself and his opportunities to enjoy personal fulfillment and rich relationships NOW as well as later. If these are the only kinds of Christians the poster has known, and he judges the content of Christianity by them, it's obvious he hasn't read much of The Operator's Manual--the Christian Scriptures.

Coming back to the topic. The more I explore the philosophy of Buddhism, the more similarities I see to many truths in Christianity--especially those truths related to the practical benefits of an ethical and moral life lived in the present.

However, the GREATEST difference, IMO, still stands: Buddhism is a philosophy in which you earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit. Christianity is a religion in which you do good because you have already been changed on the inside ("born again'). Good deeds are a natural reflection of a changed heart, not done to "earn" one's salvation or eternal place in heaven.

Edited February 12, 2008 by toptuan

[Plus]

I don't think you understood my point, Toptuan.

Usually, on this board, people call Christianity a religion and Buddhism a philosophy or science because former relies on blind faith and the latter on measurable progress.

Your posts illustrates that these differences are only imaginary.

>>>

Anyone remembers an episode a few years ago when local Christians were "caught" distributing books about their progress? There was a puublic backlash and they had to retreat.

That's how Christians are viewed in Thai society - keep it to yourself and you are ok with us.

[Brucenkhamen]

However, the GREATEST difference, IMO, still stands: Buddhism is a philosophy in which you earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit. Christianity is a religion in which you do good because you have already been changed on the inside ("born again'). Good deeds are a natural reflection of a changed heart, not done to "earn" one's salvation or eternal place in heaven.

You've just demonstrated that you don't understand Buddhism at all, and haven't been reading many of the posts on this forum either.

The central core of Buddhism is most certainly not "a philosophy in which you earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit". This is a modern Thai populist view of it but it misses the whole point of the teaching.

The whole point of the teaching is to free yourself from the cycle of having to earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit.

In my opinion the whole earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit idea was included in Buddhist scripture as a reference point to the philosophies of the day rather than as anything important to the central teaching, others may differ on that.

Your definition of Christianity however is on the money.

[Brucenkhamen]

There's one interesting difference between Christianity and Buddhism - it's ok for Buddhists to claim that their practice is confirmed by their personal experiences, so it's scientific and "philosophical", but Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only.

I think you'll find most Christians would disagree with you on that. It would take a very dry bones kind of faith not to expect confirmation through a "changed life".

It doesn't matter whether the beliefs that lead to those changes are true or not, the changes are real and that's what's important in my opinion.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[Plus]

I'm sure many Christians will disagree, it's the difference implied in this forum to stress how Buddhism is not a religion and doesn't rely on faith.

[Xangsamhua]

There are some very well-informed responses on this thread and I suppose it doesn't matter if we go off the topic a bit at times. After all Thai Buddhists probably have an understanding of what Christianity is that may differ widely from Christians' self-perceptions and these may differ widely too.

Apart from the question of whether Christianity is a religion or a philosophy (I think it's both), I'd like to suggest that Christianity is an event and one that differs qualitatively in Christian eyes from other historical events, such as the life and teachings of the Buddha. Christianity, in Christian terms, began when God chose to "break in" to human history by taking on human form and personality through Jesus of Nazareth. The union of God with creation in the stark form it took in Jesus' life and death changed everything. No longer is the realm of God and the realm of humanity divided; Jesus inaugurated the reign of God and since then we are all eligible for citizenship (though the "kingdom of God" has not been fully realised).

This all sounds rather strange, I suppose, to people who haven't been socialised into it, and it does need lots of clarification, and even so it's still hard to get a grip on. (Well, that's what I think.) The point is that Christianity, like Judaism its parent and Islam its cousin, appeals to historical events that not only provide a context but are salvific. In this way the Semitic religions differ markedly from Buddhism and I suspect most Thai people are not fully aware of this dimension, thinking rather of Jesus and Muhammad as simply great teachers and, if they think of Moses at all, probably as a wise old patriarch rather than as one who by dealing directly with God brought the Jewish nation out of slavery.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm sure many Christians will disagree, it's the difference implied in this forum to stress how Buddhism is not a religion and doesn't rely on faith.

Yes Buddhism does not rely on blind faith in the same way other religions do, but I really don't see how you can use that to make the assertion "Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only".