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.

Why is "your" Buddhism of greater value than "their" Buddhism?

I didn't say "my" Buddhism is of greater value than "their" Buddhism. This is not to be taken I am better than them because that was not what I intended to say.

I mentioned what I heard from a tour guide and how I felt it was not what the Buddha taught. I don't think the Buddha taught people to ask for things from him and in return, people had to worship him.

I agree with what the Chiang Mai monk said to phetaroi. Almost everything in the temple, including the statue of Buddha isn't Buddhism. It is hard to differentiate what is and what isn't Buddhism. I think people have made Buddhism way too complicated. Again, the problem is US - You, me and everyone else.

I didn't say "my" Buddhism is of greater value than "their" Buddhism. This is not to be taken I am better than them because that was not what I intended to say.

I mentioned what I heard from a tour guide and how I felt it was not what the Buddha taught. I don't think the Buddha taught people to ask for things from him and in return, people had to worship him.

I agree with what the Chiang Mai monk said to phetaroi. Almost everything in the temple, including the statue of Buddha isn't Buddhism. It is hard to differentiate what is and what isn't Buddhism. I think people have made Buddhism way too complicated. Again, the problem is US

- You, me and everyone else.

First, let me say that I'm not trying to be antagonistic at all, although sometimes in forum-speak no attitude can come across as attitude. Let me reply in a little more detail to your points:

1. "Buddhism in Thailand seems to operate like a religion": Yes, very true. Apparently that is what most Thai people want and need. I would say that the fact that it operates as a religion still allows it to be a moral code.

2. "with Buddha as the ultimate object of worship": Also very true. And, I think inevitable. Over the centuries I rather think that if temples in which to worship Buddha had not developed and continued, and Buddhism had remained an intellectual practice only, it probably would have simply disappeared from the consciousness of man.

3. "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.": I tend to mostly agree with you, and yet, I would have to say it would depend on what you see Buddha as having been. The tour guide was probably just trying to please western tourists whose frame of thought is God and Jesus. Of course, what if you see Buddha and Christ (and others) as having been teachers sent by God?

4. "Buddhism is an education.": Not sure exactly what you mean here.

5. Buddhism should not have developed into a religion, philosophy or money-making ventures." Why not a religion...I think it depends on your definition of what a religion is and may be semantical. Philosophy of life...why not? Money-making venture...I agree...but mostly I don't see that side of it in Thailand. For example, it's easy to see monks breaking the vow of poverty. But, why exactly is that important within certain limits? In the early times of Buddhism, most people lived at subsintence levels, so there was not such a gap in incomes to support life. Now, if you look at various lifestyles throughout Thailand you go from some monks who live at subsintence levels to virtually everyone else who lives at much higher levels of life-style. From a practical standpoint, rather than a spiritual one, why exactly would men want to become monks and live like that?

6. "Nowadays, temples are tourist destinations and not great places to learn Buddhism." I don't agree with that at all. And what's wrong with some temples being tourist destinations. Friends of mine just came back from their first trip to Thailand, and while I know they will not become Buddhists, they have become very interested in learning more about Buddhism.

7. "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.": Well, I think back to the very first book I read on Thai Buddhism. In the foreward it said (paraphrased): "As you read this book you don't need to accept or reject all of it. Think about what you can accept and take that into your pilosophy." I don't think that with Buddhism it has to be all or nothing at all. Is it a path or a destination?