Buddha And Buddhism ... Not Necessarily In Total Agreement?

[farangissan]

From the very little I've read (I'm no expert), Buddha was at pains to deny his status as saviour, leader, or one to be worshipped. He was even accused of being "anti religion".

From what I see from living in Thailand, Buddhism is practised as a religion (in spite of the argument that it is more a philosophy), with all the rites and trappings and hierarchy of a religion. And huge, golden images of Buddha are at the heart of every temple.

Again, from my admittedly ignorant point-of-view, doesn't this seem to be going against what Buddha said?

There's some thoughts about this and other aspects of Buddhism in Thailand on this blog: http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

It's a long read, and I doubt there's anything new there for anyone but me, but I'm interested in responses to this question in particular.

Thank you.

[Plus]

Organised religion is a social construct, and it's unavoidable, like jails and murderers and public holidays. People are social animals, they naturally tend to organise themselves.

[ChiangMaiFun]

From the very little I've read (I'm no expert), Buddha was at pains to deny his status as saviour, leader, or one to be worshipped. He was even accused of being "anti religion".

From what I see from living in Thailand, Buddhism is practised as a religion (in spite of the argument that it is more a philosophy), with all the rites and trappings and hierarchy of a religion. And huge, golden images of Buddha are at the heart of every temple.

Again, from my admittedly ignorant point-of-view, doesn't this seem to be going against what Buddha said?

There's some thoughts about this and other aspects of Buddhism in Thailand on this blog: http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

It's a long read, and I doubt there's anything new there for anyone but me, but I'm interested in responses to this question in particular.

Thank you.

In my opinion, for what its worth, there is no doubt that nearly all the trappings are actually 'un-Buddhist' but inevitable. Monks tend to think that if it 'pleases' the population and 'harms none' then it is a tolarable and good thing.

I have found many so called Buddhists are not Buddhist at all - but same same can be said for all philosophies. I am astounded and shocked that some monks eat meat - very un-Buddhist but they construct articulated reasons why it's ok. In the end, whether you wear the orange robe or not, it's what you Karmically develop which counts...

[SeerObserver]

In my opinion, for what its worth, there is no doubt that nearly all the trappings are actually 'un-Buddhist' but inevitable. Monks tend to think that if it 'pleases' the population and 'harms none' then it is a tolarable and good thing.

I have found many so called Buddhists are not Buddhist at all - but same same can be said for all philosophies. I am astounded and shocked that some monks eat meat - very un-Buddhist but they construct articulated reasons why it's ok. In the end, whether you wear the orange robe or not, it's what you Karmically develop which counts...

The Buddha did not explicity prohibit meat. Please show and expound on this if you have seen that said somewhere in a valid text. As a matter of fact it was Devadatta who proposed this. It was rejected by the Buddha, and Devadatta broke off in order to create a schism within the Sangha (a anantarikka kamma).

The Buddha prohibited certain kinds of meat for specific reasons (of which there are examples to illustrate the gravity of the situation), but not meat as a whole.

[phetaroi]

From the very little I've read (I'm no expert), Buddha was at pains to deny his status as saviour, leader, or one to be worshipped. He was even accused of being "anti religion".

From what I see from living in Thailand, Buddhism is practised as a religion (in spite of the argument that it is more a philosophy), with all the rites and trappings and hierarchy of a religion. And huge, golden images of Buddha are at the heart of every temple.

Again, from my admittedly ignorant point-of-view, doesn't this seem to be going against what Buddha said?

A number of thoughts came to mind from your posting.

First, regarding the debate about whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Does it really matter? It is a matter of semantics? Philosophy is such a broad term. In America right now we are debating the philosophy of the free market system versus government intervention. Isn't the philosophy of Buddhism so much more than at that level? One definition of religion is: "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." Sounds like Buddhism to me.

Second, in regard to your point about Buddhism being practiced as a religion in Thailand. Yup. Definitely. I remember having a discussion with three monks in Thonburi about Christianity (no...I wasn't pushing it...they asked me to explain it). They thought the idea of the "magic" of Christianity was quite funny. Yet, they admitted that most Thais do, indeed, pray to Buddha. As I have discussed this very issue with a number of Thai friends, they say Buddhists don't pray to Buddha, but as they explain what they do in a temple, it's clear many (perhaps most) are, indeed, praying. And then, of course, there's the intertwining of animistic beliefs with Buddhism.

Third, I think back to a discussion I had with a monk in Chiang Mai. I was lamenting how difficult it is to practice Buddhism in the States where it is so difficult to find a Buddhist temple. He said, "Easy to learn about Buddhism. Buy a book. Difficult to learn about yourself. Look around at everything in this temple...even the statue of Buddha. All these things have nothing to do with Buddhism." He touched my head and said, "Everything you need to practice Buddhism is inside here."

Finally, I recall that saying that "perception is reality." Is Buddhism what is written in the Buddhist scriptures? So, even though Buddha taught that all should be questioned, despite centuries of questioning there has been no evolution in Buddhist thought? Hmmmmmm. Or, is Buddhism what is practiced today?

[ChiangMaiFun]

In my opinion, for what its worth, there is no doubt that nearly all the trappings are actually 'un-Buddhist' but inevitable. Monks tend to think that if it 'pleases' the population and 'harms none' then it is a tolarable and good thing.

I have found many so called Buddhists are not Buddhist at all - but same same can be said for all philosophies. I am astounded and shocked that some monks eat meat - very un-Buddhist but they construct articulated reasons why it's ok. In the end, whether you wear the orange robe or not, it's what you Karmically develop which counts...

The Buddha did not explicity prohibit meat. Please show and expound on this if you have seen that said somewhere in a valid text. As a matter of fact it was Devadatta who proposed this. It was rejected by the Buddha, and Devadatta broke off in order to create a schism within the Sangha (a anantarikka kamma).

The Buddha prohibited certain kinds of meat for specific reasons (of which there are examples to illustrate the gravity of the situation), but not meat as a whole.

Abstaining from killing is one of the five precepts chai mai? you cannot avoid the situation and comply with this precept because you 'personally did not kill the animal' it is pretty obvious?

[ChiangMaiFun]

In my opinion, for what its worth, there is no doubt that nearly all the trappings are actually 'un-Buddhist' but inevitable. Monks tend to think that if it 'pleases' the population and 'harms none' then it is a tolarable and good thing.

I have found many so called Buddhists are not Buddhist at all - but same same can be said for all philosophies. I am astounded and shocked that some monks eat meat - very un-Buddhist but they construct articulated reasons why it's ok. In the end, whether you wear the orange robe or not, it's what you Karmically develop which counts...

The Buddha did not explicity prohibit meat. Please show and expound on this if you have seen that said somewhere in a valid text. As a matter of fact it was Devadatta who proposed this. It was rejected by the Buddha, and Devadatta broke off in order to create a schism within the Sangha (a anantarikka kamma).

The Buddha prohibited certain kinds of meat for specific reasons (of which there are examples to illustrate the gravity of the situation), but not meat as a whole.

You asked for expounding on this point:

Certain Mahayana sutras do present the Buddha as very vigorously and unreservedly denouncing the eating of meat, mainly on the grounds that such an act is linked to the spreading of fear amongst sentient beings (who can allegedly sense the odour of death that lingers about the meat-eater and who consequently fear for their own lives) and violates the bodhisattva's fundamental cultivation of compassion. Moreover, according to the Buddha in the Angulimaliya Sutra, since all beings share the same "Dhatu" (spiritual Principle or Essence) and are intimately related to one another, killing and eating other sentient creatures is tantamount to a form of self-killing and cannibalism. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and falsely claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome.

[rockyysdt]

The Buddha did not explicity prohibit meat.

Chiang Mai Fun covered a lot on this subject.

For me, the dilemma is the breaking of the precept "not to kill".

I know this has been covered on other posts, but if someone kills for your benefit then you are complicit.

For you to benefit from a meal of meat, someone must kill.

[rockyysdt]

Finally, I recall that saying that "perception is reality." Is Buddhism what is written in the Buddhist scriptures? So, even though Buddha taught that all should be questioned, despite centuries of questioning there has been no evolution in Buddhist thought? Hmmmmmm. Or, is Buddhism what is practiced today?

Could this be due to the fact that enlightenment is a very rare event?

In fact, after becoming enlightened, the Buddha gave up reviewing his past lives, because the number appeared almost infinite.

Also the manifestation of Buddhas is also quite rare, occurring, I believe once or twice every 5,000 years.

Some board members have already indicated the likelihood of them becoming enlightened in this lifetime as extremely unlikely and this was one of the reasons for not taking up their practice full time.

This is a big issue for me, or for my ego, as I had hoped that succeeding in my endeavor would have been nice.

[Samuian]

From the very little I've read (I'm no expert), Buddha was at pains to deny his status as saviour, leader, or one to be worshipped. He was even accused of being "anti religion".

From what I see from living in Thailand, Buddhism is practised as a religion (in spite of the argument that it is more a philosophy), with all the rites and trappings and hierarchy of a religion. And huge, golden images of Buddha are at the heart of every temple.

Again, from my admittedly ignorant point-of-view, doesn't this seem to be going against what Buddha said?

A number of thoughts came to mind from your posting.

First, regarding the debate about whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Does it really matter? It is a matter of semantics? Philosophy is such a broad term. In America right now we are debating the philosophy of the free market system versus government intervention. Isn't the philosophy of Buddhism so much more than at that level? One definition of religion is: "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." Sounds like Buddhism to me.

Second, in regard to your point about Buddhism being practiced as a religion in Thailand. Yup. Definitely. I remember having a discussion with three monks in Thonburi about Christianity (no...I wasn't pushing it...they asked me to explain it). They thought the idea of the "magic" of Christianity was quite funny. Yet, they admitted that most Thais do, indeed, pray to Buddha. As I have discussed this very issue with a number of Thai friends, they say Buddhists don't pray to Buddha, but as they explain what they do in a temple, it's clear many (perhaps most) are, indeed, praying. And then, of course, there's the intertwining of animistic beliefs with Buddhism.

Third, I think back to a discussion I had with a monk in Chiang Mai. I was lamenting how difficult it is to practice Buddhism in the States where it is so difficult to find a Buddhist temple. He said, "Easy to learn about Buddhism. Buy a book. Difficult to learn about yourself. Look around at everything in this temple...even the statue of Buddha. All these things have nothing to do with Buddhism." He touched my head and said, "Everything you need to practice Buddhism is inside here."

Finally, I recall that saying that "perception is reality." Is Buddhism what is written in the Buddhist scriptures? So, even though Buddha taught that all should be questioned, despite centuries of questioning there has been no evolution in Buddhist thought? Hmmmmmm. Or, is Buddhism what is practiced today?

Because there is none left to "evolve" further!

Or can the state of Liberation be liberated any further, beyond liberation?

That is the seed, the target, the base of buddhist Philosophy and therefor cannot evolve - more thoughts and billions of essays can be woven around this, but this will only carry the practitioner further into the deep oceans of ignorance confusion!

It is pointed out that:

"Form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!”

The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” [7] The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self.[8] It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.

Quotes from:

"who asks?"

Finally, I recall that saying that "perception is reality." Is Buddhism what is written in the Buddhist scriptures? So, even though Buddha taught that all should be questioned, despite centuries of questioning there has been no evolution in Buddhist thought? Hmmmmmm. Or, is Buddhism what is practiced today?

Could this be due to the fact that enlightenment is a very rare event?

In fact, after becoming enlightened, the Buddha gave up reviewing his past lives, because the number appeared almost infinite.

Also the manifestation of Buddhas is also quite rare, occurring, I believe once or twice every 5,000 years.

Some board members have already indicated the likelihood of them becoming enlightened in this lifetime as extremely unlikely and this was one of the reasons for not taking up their practice full time.

This is a big issue for me, or for my ego, as I had hoped that succeeding in my endeavor would have been nice.

As from this point of view NOBODY can become enlightened, ever, indeed!

Because it questions the state of enlightenment!

Many of the Scriptures point in the direction that this is the genuine state -

it is a sort of rediscovery of our true nature, not as much as some sort of result of chastising oneself all the way to complete self denial!

Close your eyes, your ears, where is the "world" gone?

How will we "be" after death?

Where is the notion of "I am" when we sleep or are unconscious?

And make things even a bit trickier:

The Buddha was silent to the questions of the paribbajako (wandering ascetic) Vacchagotta of “Is there a self?” or “Is there not a self?” [sN.5:44,10]. When Ananda later asked about his silence, the Buddha said that to affirm or deny the existence of an eternal self would have sided with sectarian theories and have disturbed Vacchagotta even more. The early Suttas see even Annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self.

It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.

The Buddha appealed to experience in his refutation of natthikavaada, saying: "To one who sees, with proper understanding, the arising of the things in the world, the belief in nonexistence would not occur."

So then who, what can become "enlightened" then?

There is nothing to seek, to find, to be realized, envisioned - this all belongs to the realm of "I" - Be, be here and now, perceive the world "as is", see the "wheel of life" the Bhavachakra rollin', turning, spinning....

Bhavachakra:

interactive Tour of Bhavachakra:

Edited March 5, 2009 by Samuian

[Samuian]

Please not that on the "Interactive Tour" of the Bhavachakra the is Yamantaka holding the Mirror which reflects the "wheel of life" and to it's upper left a smaller picture which depicts a "Bhoddisatva" hover the mouse over it and there will appaer an explanation of it's meaning/symbolics in the left filed to the Picture.

So with the "Buddha" image on the right.

and all sections of the Wheel it self - good fun!

[sabaijai]

The Buddha did not explicity prohibit meat.

Chiang Mai Fun covered a lot on this subject.

For me, the dilemma is the breaking of the precept "not to kill".

I know this has been covered on other posts, but if someone kills for your benefit then you are complicit.

For you to benefit from a meal of meat, someone must kill.

The debate on vegetarianism is and well covered in other threads in this subforum

[rockyysdt]

Finally, I recall that saying that "perception is reality." Is Buddhism what is written in the Buddhist scriptures? So, even though Buddha taught that all should be questioned, despite centuries of questioning there has been no evolution in Buddhist thought? Hmmmmmm. Or, is Buddhism what is practiced today?

Could this be due to the fact that enlightenment is a very rare event?

In fact, after becoming enlightened, the Buddha gave up reviewing his past lives, because the number appeared almost infinite.

Also the manifestation of Buddhas is also quite rare, occurring, I believe once or twice every 5,000 years.

Some board members have already indicated the likelihood of them becoming enlightened in this lifetime as extremely unlikely and this was one of the reasons for not taking up their practice full time.

This is a big issue for me, or for my ego, as I had hoped that succeeding in my endeavor would have been nice.

As from this point of view NOBODY can become enlightened, ever, indeed!

Because it questions the state of enlightenment!

Many of the Scriptures point in the direction that this is the genuine state -

it is a sort of rediscovery of our true nature, not as much as some sort of result of chastising oneself all the way to complete self denial!

Close your eyes, your ears, where is the "world" gone?

How will we "be" after death?

Where is the notion of "I am" when we sleep or are unconscious?

And make things even a bit trickier:

Yes, the rediscovery of true nature.

Apparently a rediscovery which is very rare.

Doesn't happen very often.

[sabaijai]

No matter how long it takes to 'reach enlightenment,' any time not dedicated to that goal keeps it that much further at bay. In fact it will never be attained in the future, only now.

[jumnien]

No matter how long it takes to 'reach enlightenment,' any time not dedicated to that goal keeps it that much further at bay. In fact it will never be attained in the future, only now.

Oh my, and to think all the time wasted on TV! namo tassa bhagavato sammsambuddhassa

[farangissan]

Thanks for the replies to the topic I raised (and the, er, interesting dietary digression ...)

I don't think it "matters" that Buddhism in Thailand, as practised, seems to go directly against some very clear injunctions from the Buddha, especially with regard to the worship of the golden images of him. I understand that religion is a basic social construct, and is inevitable. And at the same time, there is something very odd about the whole thing.

I used to have contacts with the Krishnamurti Centre in the UK, got to know them quite well. And a similar thing is happening there - Krishnamurti, the great iconoclast who said (paraphrasing) that you must do the work yourself, don't follow leaders, religion is a distraction ... there's this following that surrounds him and his works. I wouldn't call it a cult or a religion, yet there's something of both in a group of people that use the man as a figurehead, and devote themselves to archiving and communicating every word he said (a lot of it along the lines of don't believe me, don't believe anything, find out yourself).

As an outsider, I can reconcile the disjunction between what the Buddha said, and the almost mirror-image result of what he said, as an intellectual exercise using some of the arguments above. But if I was a monk, and I was reading the Buddha's words where he says find someone else to honour with your offerings (and many similar phrases), I wonder how I could explain the huge gilded statue with the incense and flowers at his feet.

I also wonder how much time in the monkhood is spent teaching and discussing the core of Buddha's teachings (that specifically pertaining to his enlightenment) in relation to the time spent on the more pragmatic, social aspects of his teaching, and the web of fairy-tales that have been spun of his life? I've tried asking monks, but this subject is difficult enough in one's own language.

Edited March 6, 2009 by farangissan

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thanks for the replies to the topic I raised (and the, er, interesting dietary digression ...)

I don't think it "matters" that Buddhism in Thailand, as practised, seems to go directly against some very clear injunctions from the Buddha, especially with regard to the worship of the golden images of him. I understand that religion is a basic social construct, and is inevitable. And at the same time, there is something very odd about the whole thing.

I used to have contacts with the Krishnamurti Centre in the UK, got to know them quite well. And a similar thing is happening there - Krishnamurti, the great iconoclast who said (paraphrasing) that you must do the work yourself, don't follow leaders, religion is a distraction ... there's this following that surrounds him and his works. I wouldn't call it a cult or a religion, yet there's something of both in a group of people that use the man as a figurehead, and devote themselves to archiving and communicating every word he said (a lot of it along the lines of don't believe me, don't believe anything, find out yourself).

As an outsider, I can reconcile the disjunction between what the Buddha said, and the almost mirror-image result of what he said, as an intellectual exercise using some of the arguments above. But if I was a monk, and I was reading the Buddha's words where he says find someone else to honour with your offerings (and many similar phrases), I wonder how I could explain the huge gilded statue with the incense and flowers at his feet.

I also wonder how much time in the monkhood is spent teaching and discussing the core of Buddha's teachings (that specifically pertaining to his enlightenment) in relation to the time spent on the more pragmatic, social aspects of his teaching, and the web of fairy-tales that have been spun of his life? I've tried asking monks, but this subject is difficult enough in one's own language.

Mea Culpa - but forgiveness is good chai mai?

[SeerObserver]

Shrines, Buddha images, etc., should be looked at in another way. This worship is different from the worship of deities. When prostrating before a Buddha image or a member of the Sangha, a Buddhist is also aspiring towards an ideal.

Buddha did not wish to be worshipped as a deity, but in this case one is thanking him for discovering and teaching the path as well as leaving it behind so that other beings can also benefit from his discovery. One is also aspiring towards an ideal. The "worshipper" recognizes that an attainment was made by a great being in our own realm, and we hope to achieve that same release from samsara. We hope to model our lives around those principles and teachings.

[SeerObserver]

Abstaining from killing is one of the five precepts chai mai? you cannot avoid the situation and comply with this precept because you 'personally did not kill the animal' it is pretty obvious?

The being that was killed received fruits of their karma. The transgressor that killed that being has created new karma for themselves. You are not involved in that transaction. There is some thought that by supporting the market demand you are creating the causes and conditions for killing to occur. But according to the law of karma, the TRUE causes and conditions for the killing to occur stemmed from the being's karma.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Abstaining from killing is one of the five precepts chai mai? you cannot avoid the situation and comply with this precept because you 'personally did not kill the animal' it is pretty obvious?

The being that was killed received fruits of their karma. The transgressor that killed that being has created new karma for themselves. You are not involved in that transaction. There is some thought that by supporting the market demand you are creating the causes and conditions for killing to occur. But according to the law of karma, the TRUE causes and conditions for the killing to occur stemmed from the being's karma.

Karma is DYNAMIC and the person who kills has a choice - to kill or not to kill that is the question - it is not 'fatalistic' - the animal was destined to be killed etc. If this were the case why should we try to stop war? or hunger? your point is only partially correct - the karma of the individual is to be 'in the position to choose' the next action - kill or not. It is not pre-ordained but dynamic and fluid leading to the next effect.

When we make more 'correct' decisions we advance. We are all responsible for animal deaths if we choose to eat dead things - even if by the hand of another. Just as we are all collectively responsible for hunger etc. - amounting to world/collective karma. When there are more enlightened humans on the planet world hunger will cease - because the 'collective' will be more advanced.

We cannot be absolved, however convenient that might be, from the actions of others on our behalf - if we stop eating dead things and animals will stop being slaughtered - so... it is our responsibility to act with compassion - and after all we don't 'need' to kill to live right?

[Samuian]

What is inexpressible is inexhaustible in its use.

Heaven and earth and I are of the same root,

The ten-thousand things and I are of one substance

Chopping wood and carrying water

Try this:

Edited March 6, 2009 by Samuian

[SeerObserver]

The being that was killed received fruits of their karma. The transgressor that killed that being has created new karma for themselves. You are not involved in that transaction. There is some thought that by supporting the market demand you are creating the causes and conditions for killing to occur. But according to the law of karma, the TRUE causes and conditions for the killing to occur stemmed from the being's karma.

Karma is DYNAMIC and the person who kills has a choice - to kill or not to kill that is the question - it is not 'fatalistic' - the animal was destined to be killed etc. If this were the case why should we try to stop war? or hunger? your point is only partially correct - the karma of the individual is to be 'in the position to choose' the next action - kill or not. It is not pre-ordained but dynamic and fluid leading to the next effect.

When we make more 'correct' decisions we advance. We are all responsible for animal deaths if we choose to eat dead things - even if by the hand of another. Just as we are all collectively responsible for hunger etc. - amounting to world/collective karma. When there are more enlightened humans on the planet world hunger will cease - because the 'collective' will be more advanced.

We cannot be absolved, however convenient that might be, from the actions of others on our behalf - if we stop eating dead things and animals will stop being slaughtered - so... it is our responsibility to act with compassion - and after all we don't 'need' to kill to live right?

If we stop wating dead things, these beings will not escape their karmic fruits. They will receive them in some other form. Your decision does not dedicate merit to them which will improve their conditions. Of course you agree because you yourself said that we cannot offset another being's misdeeds.

but unconvinced it is in fact 'a fact' that we can offset others mis-deeds

I am convinced and certain that we are responsible, entirely, for our actions... and that others are accountable for theirs - no escape clause apart from diligent expression of compassion, discipline and love - no short cuts! (alas)

So we are on the same page in terms of the animal dying as a result of its misdeeds and the transgressor committing a misdeed that will lead to retribution for them later down the line. We will probably not be in agreement is whether or not a meat eater is committing demerit, but I like your knowledgeability and ideas.

[farangissan]

So we're back on the meat-eating thing?

[rockyysdt]

If we stop wanting dead things, these beings will not escape their karmic fruits. They will receive them in some other form. Your decision does not dedicate merit to them which will improve their conditions. Of course you agree because you yourself said that we cannot offset another being's misdeeds.

This is a good thing isn't it?

1. These beings will receive their karmic fruits in some other form.

2. You have ensured merit due to the avoidance of attracting negative karma.

3. You have protected the collective against accumulation of negative karma.

In summary, indirectly creating demand for another to break a precept logically attracts negative karma.

On the subject of Buddha vs Buddhism, it is obvious that most humans choose the path of least resistance in their lives.

It takes great effort to study and master the teachings of Buddha.

On the other hand, it is very easy to assume psychological merit through the practice of Buddhism as a religion.

You don't have to sacrifice your lifestyle, behaviour and ego.

Edited March 6, 2009 by rockyysdt

[farangissan]

Shrines, Buddha images, etc., should be looked at in another way. This worship is different from the worship of deities. When prostrating before a Buddha image or a member of the Sangha, a Buddhist is also aspiring towards an ideal.

Buddha did not wish to be worshipped as a deity, but in this case one is thanking him for discovering and teaching the path as well as leaving it behind so that other beings can also benefit from his discovery. One is also aspiring towards an ideal. The "worshipper" recognizes that an attainment was made by a great being in our own realm, and we hope to achieve that same release from samsara. We hope to model our lives around those principles and teachings.

I don't doubt it. But whatever spin you put on worship, the act expressly goes against what Buddha said. Perhaps the motive of making merit should be taken into consideration, too.

[Samuian]

If we stop wanting dead things, these beings will not escape their karmic fruits. They will receive them in some other form. Your decision does not dedicate merit to them which will improve their conditions. Of course you agree because you yourself said that we cannot offset another being's misdeeds.

This is a good thing isn't it?

1. These beings will receive their karmic fruits in some other form.

2. You have ensured merit due to the avoidance of attracting negative karma.

3. You have protected the collective against accumulation of negative karma.

In summary, indirectly creating demand for another to break a precept logically attracts negative karma.

On the subject of Buddha vs Buddhism, it is obvious that most humans choose the path of least resistance in their lives.

It takes great effort to study and master the teachings of Buddha.

On the other hand, it is very easy to assume psychological merit by treating Buddhism as a religion.

You don't have to sacrifice your lifestyle, behaviour and ego.

For the non-existing Ego feeding it's existential illusion only, making the delusion of being "I" stronger, instead of untying the knot!

The compost pile in the corner of the garden, the wind in the trees, the fish in the pond, the stars above are the buddha & the dhamma!

As one can't see the stars and the planets during day hours, one cannot see "as is", those who can are called "seers" or enlightened ones..

[Groongthep]

In an attempt to get back on the original topic I would simply answer, Yes, Buddhism in Thailand is for the most part not practiced as the Buddha taught. Plus made a very good observation in his post that organized religion in general is a social construct, and the hierarchy, ceremonies and praying are mostly unavoidable since people naturally tend to organize themselves. This is obvious to anyone who observes the everyday activities at the average Thai Wat where the local populace come to make merit and participate in the various ceremonies which are held there, especially on Buddhist Holy Days.

If you look around though you will find many in Thailand who are more advanced in their knowledge and practice of Buddhism and who do try to adhere to the original teachings as written in the suttas. The late monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu พุทธทาสภิกขุ (referred to and pronounced simply "Puttatat" in Thai) tried to refocus the the practice of Buddhism in Thailand away from the animist and superstitious beliefs back toward the original teachings. He still has many followers today, particularly at Wat Suan Mokkh which he established in Surat Tani and at Wat U-Mong in Chiang Mai and at many other temples as well.

The following link is to a page in the now classic "Handbook for Mankind" which is a compilation of some of his sermons. It sums up very well how he felt Buddhism should be regarded, as Truth, as Philosophy, as Psychology and as a Religion. Click Here I personally feel that it is in line with the original teachings of the Buddha.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Groongthep

[rockyysdt]

Yes, Buddhism in Thailand is for the most part not practiced as the Buddha taught. Plus made a very good observation in his post that organized religion in general is a social construct, and the hierarchy, ceremonies and praying are mostly unavoidable since people naturally tend to organize themselves. This is obvious to anyone who observes the everyday activities at the average Thai Wat where the local populace come to make merit and participate in the various ceremonies which are held there, especially on Buddhist Holy Days.

The Thai Buddhist Organisation (if there is such a thing) is khammically in big trouble for allowing non Buddhist practices to continue.

What they should do is acknowledge they are wrong and issue directives (top down) for the hierarchy to study and adopt the Pali Cannon.

This should include ordination of women as full members with the same rights as men within the organization.

Anything short of this should result in defrocking of all transgressors.

Otherwise they will continue to fool themselves.

They appear to be going through the motions on their way to nowhere.

In summary, drop the superstition and trickery and replace it with Buddha's teachings.

Edited March 6, 2009 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

One thing that comes to mind when I read your posts is:

"Directly from my Heart to You".

[sabaijai]

Yes, Buddhism in Thailand is for the most part not practiced as the Buddha taught. Plus made a very good observation in his post that organized religion in general is a social construct, and the hierarchy, ceremonies and praying are mostly unavoidable since people naturally tend to organize themselves. This is obvious to anyone who observes the everyday activities at the average Thai Wat where the local populace come to make merit and participate in the various ceremonies which are held there, especially on Buddhist Holy Days.

The Thai Buddhist Organisation (if there is such a thing) is khammically in big trouble for allowing non Buddhist practices to continue.

What they should do is acknowledge they are wrong and issue directives (top down) for the hierarchy to study and adopt the Pali Cannon.

This should include ordination of women as full members with the same rights as men within the organization.

Anything short of this should result in defrocking of all transgressors.

Otherwise they will continue to fool themselves.

They appear to be going through the motions on their way to nowhere.

In summary, drop the superstition and trickery and replace it with Buddha's teachings.

Good plan. Why don't you lead the way?