What Is Buddhism?

[phetaroi]

The way Buddhism is taught in our university

Ah, textbook religion or philosophy totally removed from real life or human emotion.

students come out of the courses 100% secularists.

Your data to support that conclusion?

For this reason, I think these students are pulling away from much of the traditional ceremony and observance at the local temples. Merit-making and attendance at weekly temple teaching sessions are not very well-attended.

On the other hand, I have been to several temples lately and been surprised to see the number of students spending part of their late afternoons there.

[Samuian]

Mother Therese was a practicing Christian, not all Christians are like her...

Well, we can certainly thank God for THAT! Mother Theresa exposed.

Thanks for the clarification, but nevertheless she certainly

was an undisputed practicing Christian no matter what Mr.

Christopher Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and

author of the book The Missionary Position:

"Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. "

Where he elaborates on his viewpoints and critising an

outstanding effort under very difficult conditions of a

single human being, but never ever made an effort to walk

in "her shoes" for one moon only!

[Xangsamhua]

"Buddhism" is a whole lot of things. There are many schools with divergent teaching and practice. In fact I think I've read that "Buddhism" as a holistic concept is a product of the writing of the 19th century Orientalists. Up to then each school and lineage and tradition practised what it had inherited without thinking much about some superordinate reality called "Buddhism".

However, despite the significant differences between, say, Theravada and Vajrayana, there are some things to which one could point as "Buddhist". I would suggest (not in any particular order):

1. Non-self (anatta)

2. Impermanence (anicca)

3. The 5 precepts and 8-fold path

4. The law of Karma

5. The Sangha

6. Non-attachment as the key to liberation

7. Sunyata (emptiness as the irreducible element of existence)

8. Dependent co-origination

9. Nibbana as a negative destination (non-attached, free from taints)

10. Teachings are sourced to the Buddha or his close disciples

[Xangsamhua]

On the other hand, I have been to several temples lately and been surprised to see the number of students spending part of their late afternoons there.[/color]

Yes, I get the impression young people are keen to learn more about Dhamma, but they are selective. They want to learn from monks that have a reputation for knowing what they're talking about and who can discuss the authentic teaching of the Buddha in terms that are meaningful and relevant to their young listeners.

[Petbon]

Thirty-five years ago, friends tried to interest me in Buddhism, but it was not for me, although I much wanted the benefits of the meditation process. Christianity never appealed either. Perhaps it's my reluctance to accept charismatic leadership when knowing of ordinary peoples' extraordinary achievements through courage, hardship, sacrifice, love and ommitment etc, which are more inspirational for me.

Attempting meditation again recently I read of a Harvard cardiologist's (Benson) identification of the "relaxation response" in the early 70's, and that approach has helped me (but still very new at it) more than the ritualised forms, although I'm open to Buddhist precepts. I feel the aspiration of treating others like one would like to be treated pretty well says it all.

The American monk at our sessions trained through the Forest Dhamma in Thailand.

Many roads lead to Rome.

[jasreeve17]

To reach Nirvana: next question please.

I learnt some Buddhist ideas / principles from Tibetan monks I taught in Mongolia, and I must admit to being deeply unimpressed by the Thai version...

To reach Nirvana is difficult for practicing in current situation.

The way leading to the complete cessation of sufering is the Eightfold Path or summarized into the three admonitions:

Not to do any evil

To cultivate good

To purify the mind or clean your own heart and your onw mind.

The difficulty is irrelevant.

What is evil? good? pure mind? clean heart? Meaningless words really.

Nirvana is Nirvana is Nirvana and is the goal. Simple; it's internal and never more or less difficult to achieve due to any situations...

To me, Thai buddhism has become very similar to Christianity, i.e. a business. Ask Thais (including the most senior monks) basic ideas (like why does Buddha have long earlobes) and they have no idea; it doesn't pay them to know.

[rockyysdt]

Wrong assumption in the OP.

Buddhism in Thailand is not a religion.

A religion assumes the worship of a deity or the belief in the supernatural. Buddhism in Thailand is simply a secular philosophy which is atheistic. It has the trappings of religion (temples, ceremonies, etc.), but at its core is the opposite of religion. As a belief system, it's really closer to the secular "isms" (humanism, hedonism, materialism, etc.)

Perhaps it's this absence of a deity which results in its adherents so weakly following the precepts of Buddha. There is no real accountability in daily life for one's actions. Only social pressure. Hence, Thailand has a deplorable reputation for respect for the individual, fair and empathetic treatment of others (especially strangers), corruption at all levels, and many more core problems which reflect the reality of skewed values in the practice of daily life.

Thai Buddhism is even facing a crisis of values and practice at its core--the behavior and morality of its monkhood. Corruption and malpractice within the temple system is rife. Thai social amorality has influenced Thai Buddhism, not the other way around.

If you look closely you'll find that the perpetrators of the scenarios you describe don't practice what the Buddha taught.

Claiming to be a Buddhist (individual or country) & actually living by Buddhas teachings are two different things.

[rockyysdt]

Thirty-five years ago, friends tried to interest me in Buddhism, but it was not for me, although I much wanted the benefits of the meditation process. Christianity never appealed either. Perhaps it's my reluctance to accept charismatic leadership when knowing of ordinary peoples' extraordinary achievements through courage, hardship, sacrifice, love and ommitment etc, which are more inspirational for me.

Attempting meditation again recently I read of a Harvard cardiologist's (Benson) identification of the "relaxation response" in the early 70's, and that approach has helped me (but still very new at it) more than the ritualised forms, although I'm open to Buddhist precepts. I feel the aspiration of treating others like one would like to be treated pretty well says it all.

The American monk at our sessions trained through the Forest Dhamma in Thailand.

Many roads lead to Rome.

It can feel that way without concrete evidence.

Here is a glimmer which slipped through the cracks.

Well worth watching when you have spare time.

Edited August 12, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

[camerata]

Ask Thais (including the most senior monks) basic ideas (like why does Buddha have long earlobes) and they have no idea; it doesn't pay them to know.

It serves no useful purpose to know why a Buddha image has long earlobes. Ask a monk how to reduce suffering and most will be able to tell you. That's what matters. As many have said here before, there's a difference between Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha. We are all free to choose between the two.

[Xangsamhua]

Here is a glimmer which slipped through the cracks.

Well worth watching when you have spare time.

I agree. Well worth watching after the first couple of minutes.

[phetaroi]

It serves no useful purpose to know why a Buddha image has long earlobes. Ask a monk how to reduce suffering and most will be able to tell you. That's what matters. As many have said here before, there's a difference between Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha. We are all free to choose between the two.

Well, I'm not sure it's as easy as that. First, I think a serious monk (rather than an amateur monk -- one who plays the role for a few weeks) ought to learn about the history of Buddhism, and specifically Thai Buddhism. It was helpful to me as an educator to, at the university, learn about the evolution of the American education system. I think it's fair to expect a serious monk to know why the Buddha at his temple looks as it does.

Second, and taking this further, while I understand what you are saying about the difference in Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, here is my question for you:

Who knows more about Buddha and what Buddhism should be -- you (or me) as an individual, or the Sangha that has interpreted Buddha's teaching over thousands of years?

[camerata]

I think it's fair to expect a serious monk to know why the Buddha at his temple looks as it does.

But the topic at hand is "What is the goal of Buddhism?" It certainly isn't knowing the reason for a Buddha image's long earlobes, or the cultural history of Buddhism. Sure, that stuff is interesting but it's hardly an indication of a serious monk.

Second, and taking this further, while I understand what you are saying about the difference in Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, here is my question for you:

Who knows more about Buddha and what Buddhism should be -- you (or me) as an individual, or the Sangha that has interpreted Buddha's teaching over thousands of years?

Neither, if we are talking about the historical Buddha and his teachings. It's the individuals who have investigated what the Buddha really said and really meant (Bhikkhu Bodhi comes to mind). The Sangha holds tight to tradition, rather than "interpreting" the teachings. For example, where did the Buddha ever talk about the Triple Gem or say we have to take refuge in it? Nowhere in the Pali Canon. The Thai Sangha doesn't even use an authentic version of the Canon - it's been revised a couple of times.

As to what Buddhism should be, I have no problem with the idea of adapting the Buddha's teachings to achieve a goal of reducing suffering in the way that, say, Jack Kornfield is doing.

While I was looking for an article I remember by Bhikkhu Mettanando about the Thai version of the Pali Canon, I came across this article about Revivalism in Thai Buddhism which is worth reading.

[Xangsamhua]

I think it's fair to expect a serious monk to know why the Buddha at his temple looks as it does.

But the topic at hand is "What is the goal of Buddhism?" It certainly isn't knowing the reason for a Buddha image's long earlobes, or the cultural history of Buddhism. Sure, that stuff is interesting but it's hardly an indication of a serious monk.

Second, and taking this further, while I understand what you are saying about the difference in Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, here is my question for you:

Who knows more about Buddha and what Buddhism should be -- you (or me) as an individual, or the Sangha that has interpreted Buddha's teaching over thousands of years?

Neither, if we are talking about the historical Buddha and his teachings. It's the individuals who have investigated what the Buddha really said and really meant. The Sangha holds tight to tradition, rather than "interpreting" the teachings. For example, where did the Buddha ever talk about the Triple Gem or say we have to take refuge in it? Nowhere in the Pali Canon. The Thai Sangha doesn't even use an authentic version of the Canon - it's been revised a couple of times.

As to what Buddhism should be, I have no problem with the idea of adapting the Buddha's teachings to achieve a goal of reducing suffering in the way that, say, Jack Kornfield is doing.

While I was looking for an article I remember by Bhikkhu Mettanando about the Thai version of the Pali Canon, I came across this article about Revivalism in Thai Buddhism which is worth reading.

Yes, a very interesting article. A bit dated - 1996, so it was probably written up to a year or so before publication in the journal. The big-money cultish features of Dhammakaya hadn't flowered to the extent they are at now and Santi Asoke's enthusiastic infrastructural support (catering, maintenance, security, etc) of the PAD was far into the future (as was Dhammakaya's support for Thaksin).

Despite their unabashed willingness to engage in political action, Santi Asoke seems a breath of fresh air in Thai Buddhism, at least from my limited knowledge of them. A visit out to their centre at Bueng Kum on the Nawamin Road on a Sunday morning is worth the trip. The centre is surrounded by shops and stalls selling all kinds of vegetarian food, herbal products, books and DVDs, simple clothing, etc. and you can hear Samanara Photiraksa speaking as well (about 9 am). There's a buffet-style vegetarian restaurant as well.

[camerata]

Despite their unabashed willingness to engage in political action, Santi Asoke seems a breath of fresh air in Thai Buddhism, at least from my limited knowledge of them. A visit out to their centre at Bueng Kum on the Nawamin Road on a Sunday morning is worth the trip. The centre is surrounded by shops and stalls selling all kinds of vegetarian food, herbal products, books and DVDs, simple clothing, etc. and you can hear Samanara Photiraksa speaking as well (about 9 am). There's a buffet-style vegetarian restaurant as well.

One of the main criticisms that I've read about Santi Asoke is that they want to take Thailand back to a kind of pseudo-mythical, idealized communal village lifestyle. But the genie of materialism is out of the bottle now and the real Thai village of the past wasn't as perfect as they think.

[Xangsamhua]

Despite their unabashed willingness to engage in political action, Santi Asoke seems a breath of fresh air in Thai Buddhism, at least from my limited knowledge of them. A visit out to their centre at Bueng Kum on the Nawamin Road on a Sunday morning is worth the trip. The centre is surrounded by shops and stalls selling all kinds of vegetarian food, herbal products, books and DVDs, simple clothing, etc. and you can hear Samanara Photiraksa speaking as well (about 9 am). There's a buffet-style vegetarian restaurant as well.

One of the main criticisms that I've read about Santi Asoke is that they want to take Thailand back to a kind of pseudo-mythical, idealized communal village lifestyle. But the genie of materialism is out of the bottle now and the real Thai village of the past wasn't as perfect as they think.

Yes, although I'm not really up with their long-term platform and policies, I expect they would be open to that kind of criticism, a bit like the criticism one hears of another widely promoted philosophy in Thailand to do with "Buddhist economics". Still, if the materialist genie is out of the bottle and can't be relocated elsewhere or reformed then it's not going to happen. Communitarianism on a voluntary basis sounds all right to me though, based on the sort of principles Santi Asoke espouses.

A Catholic friend worries more that General Chamlong and, presumably, other Santi Asoke stalwarts, would like to establish Buddhism as the national religion, but I don't think I've seen them involved when there have been monk-led campaigns for this in recent years. I'd say they're too critical of the mainstream Sangha, particularly the Mahanikaya. It seems more the kind of thing that Dhammakaya would go for. I doubt Santi Asoke would ever be a mainstream movement. They're too committed. Still, I'm sure they have sympathizers, at least among sections of the urban middle class.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[Samuian]

"Empty da' cup!"

[phetaroi]

I think it's fair to expect a serious monk to know why the Buddha at his temple looks as it does.

But the topic at hand is "What is the goal of Buddhism?" It certainly isn't knowing the reason for a Buddha image's long earlobes, or the cultural history of Buddhism. Sure, that stuff is interesting but it's hardly an indication of a serious monk.

Second, and taking this further, while I understand what you are saying about the difference in Buddhism and what the Buddha taught, here is my question for you:

Who knows more about Buddha and what Buddhism should be -- you (or me) as an individual, or the Sangha that has interpreted Buddha's teaching over thousands of years?

Neither, if we are talking about the historical Buddha and his teachings. It's the individuals who have investigated what the Buddha really said and really meant (Bhikkhu Bodhi comes to mind). The Sangha holds tight to tradition, rather than "interpreting" the teachings. For example, where did the Buddha ever talk about the Triple Gem or say we have to take refuge in it? Nowhere in the Pali Canon. The Thai Sangha doesn't even use an authentic version of the Canon - it's been revised a couple of times.

As to what Buddhism should be, I have no problem with the idea of adapting the Buddha's teachings to achieve a goal of reducing suffering in the way that, say, Jack Kornfield is doing.

While I was looking for an article I remember by Bhikkhu Mettanando about the Thai version of the Pali Canon, I came across this article about Revivalism in Thai Buddhism which is worth reading.

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

[rockyysdt]

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

Phetaroi

Do you mean in terms of actual experience of enlightenment or in terms of knowledge of the Buddhas teachings?

Edited August 13, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

I don't think anyone is claiming to be wiser than the combined Sangha. The topic is the goal of Buddhism in our opinion. That's the question we are answering.

Quite a few of our members have been monks in the past, they meditate and study the scriptures. Would you consider them to be amateurs in the ways of Buddhism?

[jasreeve17]

Ask Thais (including the most senior monks) basic ideas (like why does Buddha have long earlobes) and they have no idea; it doesn't pay them to know.

It serves no useful purpose to know why a Buddha image has long earlobes. Ask a monk how to reduce suffering and most will be able to tell you. That's what matters. As many have said here before, there's a difference between Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha. We are all free to choose between the two.

Well, yes, you can ignore one of Buddha's most important teachings if it suits your purpose.

As you obviously don't know; the long ear lobes were due to years of princely decandence when huge gold earings dragged his earlobes down: VERY VERY importantly signifying the move away from seeking material gains; i.e. money. It's central to Buddhism - every Mahana monk / follower I've known (hundreds...) know this and believe it to be paramount, but I've never met a Thai Theravada Buddhist who knows, and I've asked many monks at many temples including some very senior ones.

As I said, it doesn't suit them to take the money out of the equation...

By the way Camerata I once had a Tibetan friend who told me: 'many foreigners feel comfortable reading and quoting scriptures without ever understanding the basics - don't be too proud to start at the beginning.' I consider him very wise, and he was the one who originally told me about Buddha's earlobes.

Edited August 13, 2009 by jasreeve17

[phetaroi]

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

Phetaroi

Do you mean in terms of actual experience of enlightenment or in terms of knowledge of the Buddhas teachings?

What I mean is this: Everyone in this group has an opinion about Buddhism. We each think our views are correct and we discuss those views. And that's fine. But an underlying tone throughout the group in far more threads than just this one is that Thailand's Buddhism is not as pure (for wont of a better word) than what I (whoever the individual is posting) practice. Again, that's fine. I have my own specific beliefs about what is correct or questionable in Buddhism.

I have a lot of respect for your posts. I have a lot of respect for Camerata's posts. I learn from all who post here...learn what to believe and what not to believe. Many people here post things that I consider and sometimes absorb into my belief system.

Having said that, I am not going to simply accept your belief system about Buddhism. Or Camerata's. Or any individual monk's. Because, there are millions of individual views about what Buddhism is or should be in Thailand. Instead I will use the most trusted source -- "To the Buddha I go for refuge, to the Dhamma I go for refuge, to the Sangha I go for refuge." To the collective Sangha.

[phetaroi]

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

I don't think anyone is claiming to be wiser than the combined Sangha. The topic is the goal of Buddhism in our opinion. That's the question we are answering.

Quite a few of our members have been monks in the past, they meditate and study the scriptures. Would you consider them to be amateurs in the ways of Buddhism?

Let me answer this way: In general, to whom should I turn -- George the ex-monk, or Fred the ex-monk, or Horace the ex-monk...or the combined Sangha of Thailand?

In my view -- in general -- the combined wisdom of the Sangha is wiser than an individual.

[camerata]

As you obviously don't know; the long ear lobes were due to years of princely decandence when huge gold earings dragged his earlobes down: VERY VERY importantly signifying the move away from seeking material gains; i.e. money. It's central to Buddhism - every Mahana monk / follower I've known (hundreds...) know this and believe it to be paramount

Well, that explains it, then. While Theravada is not without its symbols, Mahayana has a much richer tradition of teaching via symbolism - the Lotus Sutra being a prime example. If I open any book on Theravada Buddhism I'll soon come across the teaching of anicca, dukkha and anatta, and if everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self, material gain is worthless. I don't need the Buddha's earlobes to remind me of that. Theravada and Mahayana have different approaches that appeal to different people. Personally, I like to get straight to the basics without any intervening symbolism. So I guess I agree with your friend about starting with the the basics.

I haven't asked any monks about this, but I think you are rather overstating your case. On my first visit to Thailand decades ago our tour guide explained the significance of the long earlobes, following it up with a joke that ordinary men who have long earlobes are "very naughty." My Thai-published Gestures of the Buddha mentions the earlobes on page 5, but points out that they are not cited in the list of the Buddha's 32 distinguishing marks in the Digha Nikaya. If descriptions of the characteristic earlobes are non-Canonical, perhaps fewer monks would know about their symbolism.

[jasreeve17]

As you obviously don't know; the long ear lobes were due to years of princely decandence when huge gold earings dragged his earlobes down: VERY VERY importantly signifying the move away from seeking material gains; i.e. money. It's central to Buddhism - every Mahana monk / follower I've known (hundreds...) know this and believe it to be paramount

Well, that explains it, then. While Theravada is not without its symbols, Mahayana has a much richer tradition of teaching via symbolism - the Lotus Sutra being a prime example. If I open any book on Theravada Buddhism I'll soon come across the teaching of anicca, dukkha and anatta, and if everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self, material gain is worthless. I don't need the Buddha's earlobes to remind me of that. Theravada and Mahayana have different approaches that appeal to different people. Personally, I like to get straight to the basics without any intervening symbolism. So I guess I agree with your friend about starting with the the basics.

I haven't asked any monks about this, but I think you are rather overstating your case. On my first visit to Thailand decades ago our tour guide explained the significance of the long earlobes, following it up with a joke that ordinary men who have long earlobes are "very naughty." My Thai-published Gestures of the Buddha mentions the earlobes on page 5, but points out that they are not cited in the list of the Buddha's 32 distinguishing marks in the Digha Nikaya. If descriptions of the characteristic earlobes are non-Canonical, perhaps fewer monks would know about their symbolism.

You said: 'It serves no useful purpose to know why a Buddha image has long earlobes.'

Good to see that you've changed your mind.

I'll remind you what my friend said, as you seem to have misunderstood: 'many foreigners feel comfortable reading and quoting scriptures without ever understanding the basics...'

I think I'll end it here, I'm worrying that you may be one of those posters that NEEDS to prove to yourself how you're always right... I find that really unenlightening...

[sabaijai]

Topic merged with your other, similar topic, What Is Buddhism?

[sabaijai]

The problem with the 'combined Sangha' idea is that it's simply a concept. One cannot locate and question this 'combined Sangha,' so its collective wisdom is essentially inaccessible to us. What we do have is the Tipitaka (or other scripture, according to your school of Buddhsm) and our own minds.

[Sarathi]

As you obviously don't know; the long ear lobes were due to years of princely decandence when huge gold earings dragged his earlobes down: VERY VERY importantly signifying the move away from seeking material gains; i.e. money. It's central to Buddhism - every Mahana monk / follower I've known (hundreds...) know this and believe it to be paramount, but I've never met a Thai Theravada Buddhist who knows, and I've asked many monks at many temples including some very senior ones

a rather 'testy' tone to that comment there... The long ear lobes are part of the longer list of 'Signs of a Great Man' - usually the 32 parts only are considered, but many Buddha images follow the longer list and the ear lobes are #49 .

The Buddha did not allow images of him to be made and worshipped (the curious story of the wooden image the monks made when he was in the Tavatimsa realm teaching his mother abhidhamma excepted) any discussion on imagery is hardly relating directly to the essense of the teachings. The bodhi tree, Dhammacakka and 4 kinds of stupa were allowed for veneration. The Greeks are credited with originating the Buddha images, though Buddhist Art Historians can point to a few instances prior or unconnected with the Greeks.

The story of the heavy earrings sounds like a much later Chinese invention - probably because they did not know the real reason, and in the tradition of any good teacher, used the things around them as teaching aids. Hardly something to include in the 'must-know' handbook for senior monks.

[rockyysdt]

I will say it more strongly this time. There is no one in this group that has proven to me to be more wise in the ways of Buddhism than the combined Sangha. As far as I know, virtually everyone else is an amateur.

Phetaroi

Do you mean in terms of actual experience of enlightenment or in terms of knowledge of the Buddhas teachings?

What I mean is this: Everyone in this group has an opinion about Buddhism. We each think our views are correct and we discuss those views. And that's fine. But an underlying tone throughout the group in far more threads than just this one is that Thailand's Buddhism is not as pure (for wont of a better word) than what I (whoever the individual is posting) practice. Again, that's fine. I have my own specific beliefs about what is correct or questionable in Buddhism.

I have a lot of respect for your posts. I have a lot of respect for Camerata's posts. I learn from all who post here...learn what to believe and what not to believe. Many people here post things that I consider and sometimes absorb into my belief system.

I know I have a very long way to go in the practice of refining my mindfulness.

Until I'm rewarded with an increasing awareness of what lies beneath, I'll continue to live with my ego.

Being ego bound I look for inspiration & understanding of the Buddhas teaching & do this by reading & networking with fellow travelers.

Perhaps I'll encounter many distortions along the way, but as long as these only anchor to my ego, by remaining resolute in my practice , I know they'll eventually fall away along with this ego, leaving me with answers that only self experience can provide.

Instead I will use the most trusted source -- "To the Buddha I go for refuge, to the Dhamma I go for refuge, to the Sangha I go for refuge." To the collective Sangha.

I use the triple gem, by thinking of the Buddha, the Dhamma, & the Sangha at the beginning of each meditation for an inspirational mindset, and as a reminder that I'm in the company of many others traveling on the same journey.

Edited August 14, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

What I mean is this: Everyone in this group has an opinion about Buddhism. We each think our views are correct and we discuss those views.

I don't think it's quite that bad. I'd say we each have our current view of things on which we base our practice, but we don't necessarily insist it's the correct view and don't necessarily stick to it forever. What works for one guy may not work for another and vice versa. On the surface, one guy's opinion is as good as the next guy's. What's more interesting IMO (and up for debate) is whether an opinion is based on facts (the scriptures), experience, faith, or something else.

But an underlying tone throughout the group in far more threads than just this one is that Thailand's Buddhism is not as pure (for wont of a better word) than what I (whoever the individual is posting) practice.

This is something we just have to live with. With regard to Buddhism in general, it seems to be the case on other web boards too that people argue over which Buddhism is more authentic or valid. On Thai-related boards there seems to be a never-ending stream of members who have to constantly criticize Thailand and Thais, and Thai monks seem to be a soft target. It does get pretty boring.

Let me answer this way: In general, to whom should I turn -- George the ex-monk, or Fred the ex-monk, or Horace the ex-monk...or the combined Sangha of Thailand?

Frankly, I don't think anyone should be learning Buddhism from web boards. There are just too many different opinions and too much incorrect information floating around. Better to learn from a teacher-monk, books and scriptures, and then use web boards to get some feedback.