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

[fabianfred]

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.

It might be very difficult to attain Nirvana within a single lifetime...to reach Arahant ....but it is certainly quite possible to reach sotapanna (stream-entry) within a single lifetime ...and hence are assured Nirvana within a very few lives.

Buddhas are extremely rare .......... many billions of aeons go by without any...and the maximum in a single aeon is five.....we are in such a fortunate aeon now. Gotama is the fourth and the fifth will become a buddha after a few million years...... certainly not any time soon.

[fabianfred]

Chiangmaifan quotes many scriptures to support his theory that Buddha advised vegetarianism....... but they are mahayana texts and this is a theravada forum..

We have certain major differences of opinion about the scriptures which caused the rift.

For one thing the Mahayana treat our Arahants with distain by declaring them to "still have subtle defilements..." ...quite contrary to the scriptures.

[fabianfred]

Ordinary simple people who have a shallow understanding of the Buddha's teaching...or are just starting out upon the path....need the comfort of rites and rituals....the carrot and stick of heaven and hel_l....and the desire to accumulate merit.

But those more advanced can start to do good just for the love of doing good, without any desire to make merit........ making in fact neutral karma....the kind which leads best to Nirvana.

Doing good always requires effort, so it is easier to take the lazy route and do bad. And a natural laziness causes people to prefer to pray to an outside source for help, rather than see that we can only help ourselves by our own effort.

[ChiangMaiFun]

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.

Thank you for your courtesy... we are not 'there' to create or otherwise 'merit' for the animal - we are put in the position of having a karmic choice ahead - just as we are when we decide to lie - or not to lie. It is not 'fate' that we chose to lie it was a decision we made which then leads dynamically to actions - which may be for our betterment or not - and so that is the choice we make as we journey upwards - certainely as we progress the choices become wiser - not just a contribution to 'ourselves' but to the collective planetary karma. I guess we won't agree on this one Peace

[farangissan]

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.

Thank you for this, it is very relevant to my original enquiry. Before we get back on-topic to the ethics of meat-eating, I'd just like to add that I visited Suan Mokkh, very much as an interested and respectful tourist (I don't claim to be a Buddhist, or to nurse a desire to be one), and what I saw there did nothing to make me think that that organisation is any closer to what the Buddha was talking about than, say, the Royal Opera House. I was greeted at the gates by the sight of a dead cat at the foot of a gatepost, in the state of putrefaction where the gases inflate the corpse to balloon-like proportions, the eye-holes swarming with flies. The dead cat could have been removed at any time in the past week, but the devoted pilgrims filed past without a glance.

Next up was the hollow-eyed monk who greeted me at the office, where I signed the book. Skeletal, unsmiling, and offhand, he was hardly an invitation to contemplation other than of the next bus out of there. I'd noticed that my all-black garb had attracted reactions akin to flinching from the white-dressed acolytes who wandered the strangely tatty, kitsch-cluttered walkways through the woods, but nothing prepared me for the farang sleeping quarters, where pallid and apparently sleep-walking Europeans avoided each others' eyes and any attempt at communication was ignored. Why, I asked myself, come together here to be alone? I didn't even stay one night.

Yes, I've tried Vipassanna (sp), having been taught it by an abbot in Burma (another experience entirely). But I got more from Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's writings, and my own contemplation, than I got from that weird spiritual theme park in the south ...

[rockyysdt]

It is not 'fate' that we chose to lie it was a decision we made which then leads dynamically to actions - which may be for our betterment or not - and so that is the choice we make as we journey upwards - certainly as we progress the choices become wiser - not just a contribution to 'ourselves' but to the collective planetary karma.

Interestingly, due our unique background and conditioning, each of us has a varying propensity towards making the right or wrong choices.

Those raised in poor or disadvantaged circumstances both financial and intellectual have a much greater chance of negative karma accumulation than others.

Perhaps this is a result of negative karma accumulated in previous lives, but this seems inequitable.

[rockyysdt]

Chiangmaifan quotes many scriptures to support his theory that Buddha advised vegetarianism....... but they are mahayana texts and this is a theravada forum..

We have certain major differences of opinion about the scriptures which caused the rift.

For one thing the Mahayana treat our Arahants with distain by declaring them to "still have subtle defilements..." ...quite contrary to the scriptures.

When I learn of such disputes (Mahayana vs Theravada ) I can't help but think that much of this is political and nothing to do with achieving enlightenment.

It's a pity that Buddhist groups view themselves as the rightful path as do many Christian groups.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhas are extremely rare .......... many billions of aeons go by without any...and the maximum in a single aeon is five.....we are in such a fortunate aeon now. Gotama is the fourth and the fifth will become a buddha after a few million years...... certainly not any time soon.

Perhaps the model is changing.

Having five within such a period may cause a snow balling effect raising this towards a critical mass.

Is a Buddha a higher status than an Arahant?

Aren't both enlightened, but the Buddha came back to teach?

If the only difference is that the Buddha came back to teach, then that shows you how many of us may ever be enlightened.

[fabianfred]

Buddhas are extremely rare .......... many billions of aeons go by without any...and the maximum in a single aeon is five.....we are in such a fortunate aeon now. Gotama is the fourth and the fifth will become a buddha after a few million years...... certainly not any time soon.

Perhaps the model is changing.

Having five within such a period may cause a snow balling effect raising this towards a critical mass.

Is a Buddha a higher status than an Arahant?

Aren't both enlightened, but the Buddha came back to teach?

If the only difference is that the Buddha came back to teach, then that shows you how many of us may ever be enlightened.

Both Buddhas and Arahants have reached Nirvana...true, but they are vastly different, and I doubt whether an Arahant would allow themselves to be compared to a Buddha.

An Arahant can only attain enlightenment (nirvana) after hearing and following the teaching of a Buddha.......

A Buddha reaches enlightenment on his own...Sammasambuddha ......self-enlightened.

But the true Dhamma which leads to Nirvana is so profound that only a Buddha can discover it for himself ....and then proceeds to teach it. It is not too profound for those of us "with only a little dust before our eyes.." to hear and understand and practise to attain Nirvana....but we cannot discover it for ourselves.

In th Dipankara thread I told of how extremely difficult is the long Boddhisattva path a Buddha makes in order to attain full buddhahood and be able to teach the way to freedom to all beings (capable of receiving it.) http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Dipankara-t241281.html

The Buddha did not 'come back to teach'.....Nirvana can be attained in this human lifetime. A Buddha reaches enlightenment beneath a tree and then teaches....until his death (parinirvana). An Arahant attains the state of Nirvana in what then becomes his final existence in samsara.

Nirvana is not a place or realm...but a state to which one attains during an existence in one of the realms in samsara...after that life ends there is no more rebirth in samsara....but not no more existence..... there is existence, but what kind is beyond our comprehension.

[fabianfred]

It's a pity that Buddhist groups view themselves as the rightful path as do many Christian groups.

...but then do not all of us believe that our own way, our own beliefs are the true ones. No-one will admit to having wrong beliefs...the ego at work as usual..

That is why we have to change our beliefs to solid unshakeable knowledge of the ultimate truth....wisdom. This can only be achieved by practise, which verifies the veracity of what we have learned.

Upon the dhamma path one can reach as stage where one is absolutely convinced, absolutely certain, that the way one is following is the true path. Having complete confidence in the triple gem, ones knowledge becomes unshakeable.

I know a thousand jehovas witnesses or christian missionaries could try all day to convert me or alter my view, but it would have no effect upon me (although i might shake their beliefs a little... lol).

At this stage one must be getting close to 'entering the stream'.......

I tell my students that at this point I could not suddenly say "Oh I give up.... it's too much hard work (being good and making the effort to follow the path)..... I'm going to be just like an ordinary ignorant (of the true dhamma) person..... would I really be able to break the five precepts casually??? I don't think it would be possible. It would be like having a person born blind and allowing them to have sight, then asking whether they wanted to reman with sight or go back to being blind....... would they be able to go back???

I compare Ariyahood with 'getting onto an escalator' .........the first step being Sotapanna, and at the top one is Arahant....but once upon the escalator there is no going back, only gradual progress to the top.

[rockyysdt]

It's a pity that Buddhist groups view themselves as the rightful path as do many Christian groups.

...but then do not all of us believe that our own way, our own beliefs are the true ones. No-one will admit to having wrong beliefs...the ego at work as usual..

That is why we have to change our beliefs to solid unshakeable knowledge of the ultimate truth....wisdom.

FF

I read your posts with interest.

My concern with Buddhist groups and their beliefs was aimed more at the establishment in the context of "Buddha vs Buddhism".

Many are so far from the Buddhas teachings that they now virtually preside over another religion such as Christianity, Islam and others.

That's why I'm frustrated with the official Thai Buddhist structure which allows karmic removal from Thaksin for cash and other such things including the marginalization of female monks.

If the official Thai Buddhist organization embraced Buddhas teachings then Thailand would experience much enlightenment over only a few decades.

Edited March 7, 2009 by rockyysdt

[SeerObserver]

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.

I am somewhat familiar with Luang Phaw พุทธทาส, but not so much Wat Umong. I have been told that there are two by this name, but have not determined if the one affiliated with LP พุทธทาส is the same one that held the rite for Khun Thaksin. It would be surprising if that were the case.

It's a pity that Buddhist groups view themselves as the rightful path as do many Christian groups.

And even worse to refer to one's own tradition as a greater vehicle and another's as a lesser vehicle.

[rockyysdt]

Both Buddhas and Arahants have reached Nirvana...true, but they are vastly different, and I doubt whether an Arahant would allow themselves to be compared to a Buddha.

An Arahant can only attain enlightenment (nirvana) after hearing and following the teaching of a Buddha.......

A Buddha reaches enlightenment on his own...Sammasambuddha ......self-enlightened.

But the true Dhamma which leads to Nirvana is so profound that only a Buddha can discover it for himself ....and then proceeds to teach it. It is not too profound for those of us "with only a little dust before our eyes.." to hear and understand and practise to attain Nirvana....but we cannot discover it for ourselves.

The Buddha did not 'come back to teach'.....Nirvana can be attained in this human lifetime. A Buddha reaches enlightenment beneath a tree and then teaches....until his death (parinirvana). An Arahant attains the state of Nirvana in what then becomes his final existence in samsara.

Nirvana is not a place or realm...but a state to which one attains during an existence in one of the realms in samsara...after that life ends there is no more rebirth in samsara....but not no more existence..... there is existence, but what kind is beyond our comprehension.

The Buddha was definitely very special to have formulated the path to enlightenment.

His legacy is enormous and it is now "written" (Pali Cannon).

I'm a little confused.

I thought once one reaches enlightenment (nirvana) there is no state which is higher.

Didn't the Buddha not want to set himself apart and said that we are all Buddha's but we just don't know it.

Now that we have a road map we don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to progress on the path to enlightenment.

Is an Arahant still one step away from full enlightenment?

If enlightenment can be achieved in our lifetime, why don't we all pull out of main stream life and practice full time?

That is to say, treat our practice as our full time vocation but continue to interact with society and to continue with perform charitable acts.

I know someone may say I should lead the way, but my point is valid.

If we all believe in what appears in the Pali Cannon, what is stopping us from embracing the truth?

Edited March 7, 2009 by rockyysdt

[SeerObserver]

I'm a little confused.

I thought once one reaches enlightenment (nirvana) there is no state which is higher.

Didn't the Buddha not want to set himself apart and said that we are all Buddha's but we just don't know it.

Now that we have a road map we don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to progress on the path to enlightenment.

Is an Arahant still one step away from full enlightenment?

If enlightenment can be achieved in our lifetime, why don't we all pull out of main stream life and practice full time?

An Arahant has reached full enlighenment, but did not attain it by his own discovery. He had to follow the path set forth by a Samasambuddha. The other self-attained enlightened being is the Paccekkabuddha. But this Buddha does not teach. This Buddha is silent on enlightenment.

Enlightenment CAN be achieved in ONE lifetime, but whether or not that is THIS lifetime is a construct of our karma. Some who pack up and practice full time will reach. Some will not reach. The Buddha lived many lifetimes learning virtues and generating merits. Born as Gautama, he was not enlightened yet. But he attained enlighenment in that lifetime and it was his last existence.

Not all of us can pack up and practice full time. Using modern-day Arahants as an example, they too lived virtuous lives in the past and exercised generosity. Their karma allows them to not have obligations in this life so that they may focus on the path. Their past generosity and other virtues makes their current condition that they do not have to worry about worldly matters and provisions are also not a problem. A being less generous in their past would have trouble doing almsrounds, would have to worry about other provisions, etc.

Edited March 7, 2009 by SeerObserver

[fabianfred]

it is not necessary to be ordained in order to practise full-time.... a lay person can still reach stream-entry and continue to live a lay life.

many monks who attain Arahant may have attained to stream-entry in a previous life... which gives them a head start

[SeerObserver]

it is not necessary to be ordained in order to practise full-time.... a lay person can still reach stream-entry and continue to live a lay life.

many monks who attain Arahant may have attained to stream-entry in a previous life... which gives them a head start

Thank you for the clarification. Anyhow...the same principle still applies. One may not have to be ordained, but whether or not one can attain enlightenment in this lifetime is a construct of karma. Whether or not an unordained will be able to set aside worldly concerns to devote themselves to practice depends on that as well.

Some people have to constantly work to make ends meet, to provide for their families, to meet obligations, etc. This is a result of the karma construct. It is more difficult for someone in this situation to devote themselves to practice and make progress.

[rockyysdt]

Some people have to constantly work to make ends meet, to provide for their families, to meet obligations, etc. This is a result of the karma construct. It is more difficult for someone in this situation to devote themselves to practice and make progress.

Could some of this be illusory (negative self talk) getting in the way of progress?

More material for Self Observation.

I've had countless road blocks thrown in my path and I'm starting to feel that my ego and self is using them to hinder my progress.

I also suspect giving up ones status, career & wealth may also get in the way.

[SeerObserver]

Could some of this be illusory (negative self talk) getting in the way of progress?

More material for Self Observation.

I've had countless road blocks thrown in my path and I'm starting to feel that my ego and self is using them to hinder my progress.

I also suspect giving up ones status, career & wealth may also get in the way.

Not at all. I do not view my conditions negatively. I was merely stating what I have been taught about giving (dana) and how it is condusive to your practice. People who have practiced the virtue of generosity will be well provided for and that will allow them to not have to divert too much time away from the path.

[Samuian]

.......................edited.........

weird spiritual theme park in the south ...

and so are all the other "spiritual Institutions"!

Buddhadasa wrote this himself!

still people flock there to ... yes trying be alone, escape, maybe.... where from?

[Groongthep]

I visited Suan Mokkh, very much as an interested and respectful tourist (I don't claim to be a Buddhist, or to nurse a desire to be one), and what I saw there did nothing to make me think that that organisation is any closer to what the Buddha was talking about than, say, the Royal Opera House........But I got more from Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's writings, and my own contemplation, than I got from that weird spiritual theme park in the south ...

I was saddened to read of your experience at Wat Suan Mokkh. I personally have never been but unfortunately have heard similar descriptions from others. My experience with Phra Phuttatat has strictly been through reading the translations of his sermons and from monks at different temples. I know that the translator of much of his earlier work was an American monk named Phra Santikaro who studied under Phuttatat for many years. A number of years after Phra Phuttata's death Santikaro became disenchanted with the traditional Thai Buddhist Sangha hierarchy and what he felt was the twisting and commercialization of Phuttatat's teachings and legacy. Santikaro has since disrobed and left the Thai Sangha but has kept his ordained name and has founded an organization he calls a Dhamma refuge in a wooded rural area in Wisconsin in the US called Liberation Park. Liberation Park Santikaro also does an extensive amount of traveling speaking at Wats and Buddhist organizations around the world. He often returns to Thailand to speak to interested groups here as well.

Hopefully the discussion of meat eating can be moved to one of the many other threads on this sub forum that have already dealt with that subject.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Groongthep

[fabianfred]

Some people have to constantly work to make ends meet, to provide for their families, to meet obligations, etc. This is a result of the karma construct. It is more difficult for someone in this situation to devote themselves to practice and make progress.

we must remember that the essential teaching of the Buddha was the four Foundations of Mindfulness...... which can and should be practised throughout the day in whatever situations we find ourselves.

Practise does not mean mere sitting or walking meditation..... these are just methods to practise mindfulness...and thence understand that we CAN be mindful ...whatever we are doing.....walking....washing the dishes...... exercising (especially yoga, TaiChi, martial arts, etc.)..... eating......folding/ironing clothes etc.

We practise something in order to use it.......no musician practises the scales only without playing any music. Formal meditation practise is only training ourselves in mindfulness.

[farangissan]

This thread is a demonstration in itself of the monkey-mind, jumping from branch to branch! The posts about diet and Buddhist hierarchy and zen-like gnomic utterances are valuable, and I'm sure merit their own threads. I'm ducking out for a while, and would like to thank those who enlarged upon and continued the original enquiry, which continues to interest me. I would also appreciate any comments to my blog, should anyone have any to make, where I shall continue to write in the spirit of total ignorance and fascination.

Thanks again.

http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

[purushanti]

This thread is a demonstration in itself of the monkey-mind, jumping from branch to branch! The posts about diet and Buddhist hierarchy and zen-like gnomic utterances are valuable, and I'm sure merit their own threads. I'm ducking out for a while, and would like to thank those who enlarged upon and continued the original enquiry, which continues to interest me. I would also appreciate any comments to my blog, should anyone have any to make, where I shall continue to write in the spirit of total ignorance and fascination.

Thanks again.

http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

It is in the nature of time that the purity of the teaching is subject to increasing decay the farther one gets from the timeframe of the great teacher. Nature seems to make up for this by producing another great teacher or avatar when things have hit a low point. All religions go thru the dissolution of the purity of their original teaching..yet ever with us within, is our Higher Self, competing for our attention to its wisdom with outside distractions, and dependent upon the clarity of our inner hearing. Even great spiritual teachers must groan when their spiritual teachings are turned into a religion, the organization of which stifles, hinders, blocks one's indivualized free will choice to evolve to the Highest. Beyond even religion and philosophy is lifestyle, spontaneously, freely, living the teachings, with no-mind.

[phetaroi]

It is in the nature of time that the purity of the teaching is subject to increasing decay the farther one gets from the timeframe of the great teacher. Nature seems to make up for this by producing another great teacher or avatar when things have hit a low point. All religions go thru the dissolution of the purity of their original teaching..yet ever with us within, is our Higher Self, competing for our attention to its wisdom with outside distractions, and dependent upon the clarity of our inner hearing. Even great spiritual teachers must groan when their spiritual teachings are turned into a religion, the organization of which stifles, hinders, blocks one's indivualized free will choice to evolve to the Highest. Beyond even religion and philosophy is lifestyle, spontaneously, freely, living the teachings, with no-mind.

I think you're assuming that all teachings of the "great teacher" are instantly clear. That's not necessarily true. Over time, with continued thought and discussion there can be a greater understanding of the teachings...an evolution of Buddhist thought. I don't think that Buddha ever said that his teaching were the "last word".

[rockyysdt]

I would also appreciate any comments to my blog, should anyone have any to make

http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

Just some things which come to mind regarding Kings of Nowhere.

If what Buddha said is the truth, it does not need a temple to hold it, nor a monk to utter it. We do not need to be Buddhists to understand it.

Naturally there is great scope for abuse and misuse when straying from the original teachings.

Doing without temples altogether however is at the other end of extreme. I view temples as marketing and advertising. Without initial knowledge of the Buddha and his teaching, and without some ego based incentives there can't be a beginning to our path towards truth.

Possession is the most absurd concept imaginable. What does owning mean?

What home ownership does for me is liberate me from hard labor so I can devote more time towards study, practice and charity.

Until the day I become enlightened I need stability in my life as a base from which to grow.

In Thailand there are many Watts where one may obtain free guidance lodgings and food in ones quest for truth.

In the west the daily fees for such endeavors might cost you more than you can earn in a day and seem to be geared towards profit than assistance towards enlightenment.

Some possessions and assets give you time.

But as you say, obsession with possessions and wealth is meaningless in the context of the truth.

PS: To all posters. Why so much aversion on the subject of meat, even when it may be in context?

Edited March 9, 2009 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I would also appreciate any comments to my blog, should anyone have any to make http://skip-this-ad.blogspot.com/

Possession is the most absurd concept imaginable. What does owning mean?

If Prince Siddharta didn't come from a wealthy background would he still have had the resources and time to experiment with his life on his path towards truth?

Edited March 9, 2009 by rockyysdt

[khaowong1]

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.

I'm pretty sure, that you can find nowhere in the Buddha's teachings and sermons, that he expressly forbid eating meat.. correct me if I'm wrong.

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...

[khaowong1]

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?

I love your points here. Very perceptive. Thanks...

[phetaroi]

If Prince Siddharta didn't come from a wealthy background would he still have had the resources and time to experiment with his life on his path towards truth?

And, aren't we seeing this same problem in the declining number of monks in Thailand today for the very same reason?

[SGDude]

Buddhism in Thailand seems to operate like a religion with Buddha as the ultimate object of worship. I was at Wat Phra Keow early this year and I heard this Thai guide telling a bunch of Western tourists that if you ask for something from the Buddha and you get what you want, please come back and give thanks to the Buddha. This isn't Buddhism at all. I was deeply offended by the guide's statement but I think a lot of people think of Buddha that way.

Buddhism is an education. Buddhism should not have developed into a religion, philosophy or money-making ventures. Nowadays, temples are tourist destinations and not great places to learn Buddhism. The problem isn't Buddha or Buddhism but people - we tend to be stupid and do stupid things. We always try to justify our bad deeds with rubbish excuses.