Disrespect In Thai Wats

[ChiangMaiFun]

Has anyone else noticed how disrespectful some Thai's are in temples? sitting down and on the mobile, chatting to each other... wearing hats, sun glasses etc.... I'm tend to be very strict on these things - I was at Phra Singh recently and had to leave as I was getting irritated at young Thai's walking around with mini-skirts, sub glasses and all sorts!

Even some of the older generation have 'lost' some of the respect - not as much as the young - but it is noticable... is it just me?

[Mario2008]

I often see monks with their mobiles during ceremony. Living up country that are of course not the big temples. We also have a smoking monk nearby.

I find it disrespectful, but the Thais never seem to mind.

[harrry]

It is cultural not religious. I wonder if you got so concerned when ladies stopped wearing hats and veils to church.

[Samuian]

I often see monks with their mobiles during ceremony. Living up country that are of course not the big temples. We also have a smoking monk nearby.

I find it disrespectful, but the Thais never seem to mind.

Seeing them in certain corners around in Phantip Plaza where the blue movies series from xxx to xxxxxxxxx are sold....

Watching the latest Blockbuster Movie on DVD...playing games on their laptop, on the mobile, smoking, looking after girls.. making jokes...

well only some are ordained monks... most are only being periodically admitted for staying in a temple - samsara at it's finest!

a saffron robe, a shaved head and eyebrows, a vow or two doesn't make a saint nor a buddha!

nuff said....

The thing is if you are the observer - DON'T get trapped yourself!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Samuian

[ChiangMaiFun]

It is cultural not religious. I wonder if you got so concerned when ladies stopped wearing hats and veils to church.

Not quite sure where you're coming from... personally I would respect all representations of human efforts to commune with 'God' - if I go to a church I would automatically take off sun glasses/hat and switch off my phone.

Isn't it a 'given'? people go to attempt to commune with 'Whatever' - a time for peaceful reflection in a quite space? isn't it at the very least 'grenge jai'?

I guess to Thais it's 'mai pen rai' but... I still find it shocking - I go for peaceful reflection and meditation - some Thais just don't take Buddhism that seriously (same with Christians I grant you) - shame really... can't be cultural as it happens in all cultures but many Thais I know think respect for Buddhism is on the wane here...

Surely it starts at the Wat? lose respect for that sacred place and it's downhill from there?

[Samuian]

It is cultural not religious. I wonder if you got so concerned when ladies stopped wearing hats and veils to church.

Not quite sure where you're coming from... personally I would respect all representations of human efforts to commune with 'God' - if I go to a church I would automatically take off sun glasses/hat and switch off my phone.

Isn't it a 'given'? people go to attempt to commune with 'Whatever' - a time for peaceful reflection in a quite space? isn't it at the very least 'grenge jai'?

I guess to Thais it's 'mai pen rai' but... I still find it shocking - I go for peaceful reflection and meditation - some Thais just don't take Buddhism that seriously (same with Christians I grant you) - shame really... can't be cultural as it happens in all cultures but many Thais I know think respect for Buddhism is on the wane here...

Surely it starts at the Wat? lose respect for that sacred place and it's downhill from there?

"it's a material world" nothing taken for granted!

A temple, a church maybe a sacred place, building in regards to higher consciousness, to "God", "Buddha", name it... but it's NOT it!

And not to forget:

All that surrounding it, is IT as well!

If we can see it, want it or not - IT won't ask - IT is, as is!

Let's start over from here..........

[ChiangMaiFun]

It is cultural not religious. I wonder if you got so concerned when ladies stopped wearing hats and veils to church.

Not quite sure where you're coming from... personally I would respect all representations of human efforts to commune with 'God' - if I go to a church I would automatically take off sun glasses/hat and switch off my phone.

Isn't it a 'given'? people go to attempt to commune with 'Whatever' - a time for peaceful reflection in a quite space? isn't it at the very least 'grenge jai'?

I guess to Thais it's 'mai pen rai' but... I still find it shocking - I go for peaceful reflection and meditation - some Thais just don't take Buddhism that seriously (same with Christians I grant you) - shame really... can't be cultural as it happens in all cultures but many Thais I know think respect for Buddhism is on the wane here...

Surely it starts at the Wat? lose respect for that sacred place and it's downhill from there?

"it's a material world" nothing taken for granted!

A temple, a church maybe a sacred place, building in regards to higher consciousness, to "God", "Buddha", name it... but it's NOT it!

And not to forget:

All that surrounding it, is IT as well!

If we can see it, want it or not - IT won't ask - IT is, as is!

Let's start over from here..........

It's is true that IT is not IT

It is not the IT but what IT represents - I mean you would not chat on a mobile at a Wat or Church at a funeral right? it's dis-respectful? my point is only that is IS disrespectful AND not respectful of other people at the same venue - and it's getting worse?

[camerata]

It is cultural not religious.

Yes. For Thais, the important thing - the respectful thing - is to show up. They are used to phuyai giving long, boring speeches and they have their own way of dealing with it. It's the same at business meetings. The CEO will be talking and yet there will be several private conversations going on in the background.

At popular temples I find it near-impossible to meditate simply because of the movement of the people around me. Better to go early in the morning or go to a remote temple. As for paying respect by making an offering to the Buddha image, it doesn't really matter whether someone is talking on a mobile phone or not. The same goes for actually making merit and getting a blessing from a monk.

Dress is a different matter. People - especially women - are supposed to cover up out of consideration for the monks who are practising total chastity. There are instructions on how to dress in the big temples in Chiang Mai but people certainly seem to be getting lax about it. I guess it's a result of the increasing secularization of society and the Western-style "I can do what I want" attitude that people see on TV.

[luangtom]

It is the casual "mai phen rai" attitude that prevails throughout the modern Thai culture. IMHO it is what has put Thailand into the spiral downward they themselves tell us they are in. Corruption is "mai phen rai", disrespect is "mai phen rai". It only makes sense that former taboos in temples are now "mai phen rai". Few and far between are monks that follow strict vinaya rules and sangha directives. As my wife sez, "There are 'real monks' and there are education or lazy monks. You are seeing the lazy or education monks, those that ordain to not get a job or those that get an education". As most natives here say, "mai phen rai"......................

[Samuian]

It is cultural not religious. I wonder if you got so concerned when ladies stopped wearing hats and veils to church.

Not quite sure where you're coming from... personally I would respect all representations of human efforts to commune with 'God' - if I go to a church I would automatically take off sun glasses/hat and switch off my phone.

Isn't it a 'given'? people go to attempt to commune with 'Whatever' - a time for peaceful reflection in a quite space? isn't it at the very least 'grenge jai'?

I guess to Thais it's 'mai pen rai' but... I still find it shocking - I go for peaceful reflection and meditation - some Thais just don't take Buddhism that seriously (same with Christians I grant you) - shame really... can't be cultural as it happens in all cultures but many Thais I know think respect for Buddhism is on the wane here...

Surely it starts at the Wat? lose respect for that sacred place and it's downhill from there?

"it's a material world" nothing taken for granted!

A temple, a church maybe a sacred place, building in regards to higher consciousness, to "God", "Buddha", name it... but it's NOT it!

And not to forget:

All that surrounding it, is IT as well!

If we can see it, want it or not - IT won't ask - IT is, as is!

Let's start over from here..........

It's is true that IT is not IT

It is not the IT but what IT represents - I mean you would not chat on a mobile at a Wat or Church at a funeral right? it's dis-respectful? my point is only that is IS disrespectful AND not respectful of other people at the same venue - and it's getting worse?

Excerpt:

"you would not chat on a mobile at a Wat or Church at a funeral right? it's dis-respectful? my point is only that is IS disrespectful AND not respectful of other people at the same venue - and it's getting worse?"

It is as is... what ever one makes out of it!

it's about judgment - not the situation!

The observer and the observed are not different - it is only perceived as such!

And he/she - the novice, who isn't able to "meditate", find "peace" in crowded,

noisy environment has a loooooooooooooooooong way to go!

keep trying!

It's YOU - not the world around you - this is as is - always, unchangeable - unless you change yourself!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Samuian

[camerata]

it's about judgment - not the situation!

To put it another way, as long as we are judging others, we are going nowhere.

[ChiangMaiFun]

it's about judgment - not the situation!

To put it another way, as long as we are judging others, we are going nowhere.

I understand... but we have to make judgements all the time - do we make that mobile call at the Wat or wait in defference to 'place' and to others? and what of the Monk who asks that young girls 'cover up' that's a judgement right?

[camerata]

We are talking about judging others, not making decisions like whether to use the phone. AFAIK, no serious monk would ever actually ask a woman (nothing to do with "young girls") to cover up. He knows that any resulting thoughts on his part are his own problem. In the 19th century, tudong monks had this problem all the time because many upcountry village women went topless. The covering up in temples is both personal consideration and Thai culture.

From what I recall reading about Bangkok's Wat Phra Kaeo, the covering up rules there are (or were) applied equally to men - perhaps because some monks might be of gay orientation.

[Samuian]

it's about judgment - not the situation!

To put it another way, as long as we are judging others, we are going nowhere.

I understand... but we have to make judgements all the time - do we make that mobile call at the Wat or wait in defference to 'place' and to others? and what of the Monk who asks that young girls 'cover up' that's a judgement right?

However it remains a judgement - despite wrong or right -

it's relative to the observed and the observer's stance to the

observed and the observation!

None less and remains a differentiation of black and white, wrong or right,

which is ONLY a result in the observers eye and does not reflect reality as is!

Is like the request from a customer I got one day:

Q: "What is this noise?"

A: "A cicada!"

Q: "What is it, can't you switch this off?"

A: "Well Mam' haven't got a shot gun at hand!"

It is reality, what WE, or the Observer wishes to make out of it -

remains entirely up to him/her and the results of doing so are his/her karma!

Why interfere, with given situations, unless it is entirely to avoid harm or save life of imminent danger!

No need to interfere with everything and not to forget to practice METTA - the concept of universal love and understanding!!!!!!

Anatta is another one - where is the Observer, the observed and the judgment about it, if practiced steadily and thoroughly ?

[ChiangMaiFun]

We are talking about judging others, not making decisions like whether to use the phone. AFAIK, no serious monk would ever actually ask a woman (nothing to do with "young girls") to cover up. He knows that any resulting thoughts on his part are his own problem. In the 19th century, tudong monks had this problem all the time because many upcountry village women went topless. The covering up in temples is both personal consideration and Thai culture.

From what I recall reading about Bangkok's Wat Phra Kaeo, the covering up rules there are (or were) applied equally to men - perhaps because some monks might be of gay orientation.

Interesting... what is your view about judging criminals (for instance)? I genuinely interested not trying to catch you out or provoke you

[toptuan]

What's often disrespectful to you is not disrespectful to Thais and vice versa.

Do you know how many Thais you've probably offended by pointing your toes in the wrong direction? Handing someone an item over someone else's head? Raising your voice? Not wai-ing to someone who should've have gotten one? Giving a hug in public? ...ad infinitum....

Remember, Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.

You need to hang your judgment on the hanger for a few more years until you soak in a little more culture.

[richard_smith237]

At a funeral a few months back I was quite astonished at the lack of regard shown for the deceased, according to my Western values those paying their respects should have acted in a more solum and respectful manner.

Instead people were talking, smiling exchanging in light chat, taking phone calls - this was through the speeches. What was more astonishing is that these were members of Parliament !

So, if the senior line up of a nation behaves like this, how is the rest of the nation supposed to act ?

It is becoming apparent that amongst 'some' posturing and deliberately acting carelessly is a show of power, the rest of the nation appears to try copy this 'couldn't give a F$%K' attitude. Luckily there are many who refuse to follow this and hold onto traditional values of respect and good manners.

[camerata]

Interesting... what is your view about judging criminals (for instance)? I genuinely interested not trying to catch you out or provoke you

We were talking about judging people's behaviour with respect to religious places and religious practices because your OP specifically criticized Thais by asking, "Has anyone else noticed how disrespectful some Thai's are in temples?" This has nothing to do with secular law and the judging of criminals.

"Right and wrong both exist within yourself. Why don't you take an interest in looking there? What's the point in meddling in the rights and wrongs of others? Is this the type of thinking that will make you a good, skillful person? Even though you may find out how good or skillful someone else is, if you yourself are neither good nor skillful, then you will never be successful."

- Ajahn Man

[toptuan]

At a funeral a few months back I was quite astonished at the lack of regard shown for the deceased, according to my Western values those paying their respects should have acted in a more solum and respectful manner.

Instead people were talking, smiling exchanging in light chat, taking phone calls - this was through the speeches. What was more astonishing is that these were members of Parliament !

So, if the senior line up of a nation behaves like this, how is the rest of the nation supposed to act ?

It is becoming apparent that amongst 'some' posturing and deliberately acting carelessly is a show of power, the rest of the nation appears to try copy this 'couldn't give a F$%K' attitude. Luckily there are many who refuse to follow this and hold onto traditional values of respect and good manners.

But they didn't act according to your western values, did they? Shouldn't that be your main point?

I've been to a dozen funerals in Thailand and saw the same things you did. You've got to take off your Western-tinted glasses when you attend these things, if you want to keep your sanity and judgmental attitudes in check.

As to the last bold phrase in your post, I would ask "whose values?"

[ChiangMaiFun]

At a funeral a few months back I was quite astonished at the lack of regard shown for the deceased, according to my Western values those paying their respects should have acted in a more solum and respectful manner.

Instead people were talking, smiling exchanging in light chat, taking phone calls - this was through the speeches. What was more astonishing is that these were members of Parliament !

So, if the senior line up of a nation behaves like this, how is the rest of the nation supposed to act ?

It is becoming apparent that amongst 'some' posturing and deliberately acting carelessly is a show of power, the rest of the nation appears to try copy this 'couldn't give a F$%K' attitude. Luckily there are many who refuse to follow this and hold onto traditional values of respect and good manners.

But they didn't act according to your western values, did they? Shouldn't that be your main point?

I've been to a dozen funerals in Thailand and saw the same things you did. You've got to take off your Western-tinted glasses when you attend these things, if you want to keep your sanity and judgmental attitudes in check.

As to the last bold phrase in your post, I would ask "whose values?"

I see what you are trying to say... I think there are some accepted 'norms' in all cultures - of course when in Rome etc. but it's not a sign of an educated and cultured society to not be silent in a religeous place - sorry but cannot agree with that no matter how long I am here - of course I accept it as TIT.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Interesting... what is your view about judging criminals (for instance)? I genuinely interested not trying to catch you out or provoke you

We were talking about judging people's behaviour with respect to religious places and religious practices because your OP specifically criticized Thais by asking, "Has anyone else noticed how disrespectful some Thai's are in temples?" This has nothing to do with secular law and the judging of criminals.

"Right and wrong both exist within yourself. Why don't you take an interest in looking there? What's the point in meddling in the rights and wrongs of others? Is this the type of thinking that will make you a good, skillful person? Even though you may find out how good or skillful someone else is, if you yourself are neither good nor skillful, then you will never be successful."

- Ajahn Man

I was just asking your view... sorry if it made you uncomfortable. So you are saying withhold judgement of Thais (or anyone else) if they disrespect the temple by using a mobile phone? or kissing? most Thai's I know abhor this behaviour... anyway my OP was asking if anyone else had noticed this behaviour - and is it increasing. I'm susprised you think it's acceptable to behave that way - and if you don't think it's acceptable then you are judging? (which I think IS acceptable the way) - just trying to encourage out your real view... and maybe learn something

[richard_smith237]

At a funeral a few months back I was quite astonished at the lack of regard shown for the deceased, according to my Western values those paying their respects should have acted in a more solum and respectful manner.

Instead people were talking, smiling exchanging in light chat, taking phone calls - this was through the speeches. What was more astonishing is that these were members of Parliament !

So, if the senior line up of a nation behaves like this, how is the rest of the nation supposed to act ?

It is becoming apparent that amongst 'some' posturing and deliberately acting carelessly is a show of power, the rest of the nation appears to try copy this 'couldn't give a F$%K' attitude. Luckily there are many who refuse to follow this and hold onto traditional values of respect and good manners.

But they didn't act according to your western values, did they? Shouldn't that be your main point?

I've been to a dozen funerals in Thailand and saw the same things you did. You've got to take off your Western-tinted glasses when you attend these things, if you want to keep your sanity and judgmental attitudes in check.

As to the last bold phrase in your post, I would ask "whose values?"

In my experience here there is far more overlap in values than difference. Culture is often used as an excuse for poor manners and the values of common decency and respect are universal.

What I also see is that these values are disregarded by choice. If the funeral was for someone of 'higher' than those attending then I'm sure their behavior would have been quite different.

[Samuian]

Interesting... what is your view about judging criminals (for instance)? I genuinely interested not trying to catch you out or provoke you

We were talking about judging people's behaviour with respect to religious places and religious practices because your OP specifically criticized Thais by asking, "Has anyone else noticed how disrespectful some Thai's are in temples?" This has nothing to do with secular law and the judging of criminals.

"Right and wrong both exist within yourself. Why don't you take an interest in looking there? What's the point in meddling in the rights and wrongs of others? Is this the type of thinking that will make you a good, skillful person? Even though you may find out how good or skillful someone else is, if you yourself are neither good nor skillful, then you will never be successful."

- Ajahn Man

I was just asking your view... sorry if it made you uncomfortable. So you are saying withhold judgement of Thais (or anyone else) if they disrespect the temple by using a mobile phone? or kissing? most Thai's I know abhor this behaviour... anyway my OP was asking if anyone else had noticed this behaviour - and is it increasing. I'm susprised you think it's acceptable to behave that way - and if you don't think it's acceptable then you are judging? (which I think IS acceptable the way) - just trying to encourage out your real view... and maybe learn something

FYI:

Anatta

Anatta (Pali, Sanskrit, anatman, "no-self") is a fundamental precept in Buddhism that since there is no subsistent reality to be found in or underlying appearances, there cannot be a subsistent self or soul in the human appearance. This is in sharp contrast to Hinduism where the comprehension of the terms atman and jiva gives a fundamental understanding of the human predicament and how to escape it. If all is subject to dukkha (transient and the grief that arises from trying to find the non-transient within it) then human appearance is no exception. The human is constituted by five aggregates, skandha, which flow together and give rise to the impression of identity and persistence through time. Thus even if there is "no soul," there is that which has the nature of having that nature. There were major disputes concerning the best candidates for constituting such an impression…but agreement in general was reached that no soul resides within the human body, so to speak, like a driver of a bus, and gets out at the end of the journey. There is only the aggregation of components, which is caused by the previous moment and causes the next. Thus while there is momentarily some one person who is rightly identified as the Dalai Lama, there is no person who is always the Dalai Lama.

Source:

read it well ..... Excerpt form your post: "... and maybe learn something "

Who is the observer, who the observed , the judge and the judgment, then?

Who planted the seed and who will harvest it?

[473geo]

" Ironically, the one who screams "judge not" is often the one passing judgment on you!" - John Duncan

[Samuian]

" Ironically, the one who screams "judge not" is often the one passing judgment on you!" - John Duncan

"He who is without sin, may throw the first stone!"

To carry this discussion a wee bit further or may one say all the "nine yards"...?

One may consider the concept of Sunyatta:

Śūnyatā signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of absolute identity, permanence, or an in-dwelling 'self'. This is because everything is inter-related and mutually dependent - never wholly self-sufficient or independent. All things are in a state of constant flux where energy and information are forever flowing throughout the natural world giving rise to and themselves undergoing major transformations with the passage of time.

This teaching does not connote nihilism. In the English language the word emptiness suggests the absence of spiritual meaning or a personal feeling of alienation, but in Buddhism the realization of the emptiness of phenomena, at basic level, enables one to realise that the things which ultimately have no independent substance cannot be subject to any irreconcilable conflicts or antagonisms. Ultimately, true realisation of the doctrine can bring liberation from the limitations of form in the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth.

Source:

May all beings live in peace and be happy!

[ChiangMaiFun]

Interesting... what is your view about judging criminals (for instance)? I genuinely interested not trying to catch you out or provoke you

We were talking about judging people's behaviour with respect to religious places and religious practices because your OP specifically criticized Thais by asking, "Has anyone else noticed how disrespectful some Thai's are in temples?" This has nothing to do with secular law and the judging of criminals.

"Right and wrong both exist within yourself. Why don't you take an interest in looking there? What's the point in meddling in the rights and wrongs of others? Is this the type of thinking that will make you a good, skillful person? Even though you may find out how good or skillful someone else is, if you yourself are neither good nor skillful, then you will never be successful."

- Ajahn Man

I was just asking your view... sorry if it made you uncomfortable. So you are saying withhold judgement of Thais (or anyone else) if they disrespect the temple by using a mobile phone? or kissing? most Thai's I know abhor this behaviour... anyway my OP was asking if anyone else had noticed this behaviour - and is it increasing. I'm susprised you think it's acceptable to behave that way - and if you don't think it's acceptable then you are judging? (which I think IS acceptable the way) - just trying to encourage out your real view... and maybe learn something

FYI:

Anatta

Anatta (Pali, Sanskrit, anatman, "no-self") is a fundamental precept in Buddhism that since there is no subsistent reality to be found in or underlying appearances, there cannot be a subsistent self or soul in the human appearance. This is in sharp contrast to Hinduism where the comprehension of the terms atman and jiva gives a fundamental understanding of the human predicament and how to escape it. If all is subject to dukkha (transient and the grief that arises from trying to find the non-transient within it) then human appearance is no exception. The human is constituted by five aggregates, skandha, which flow together and give rise to the impression of identity and persistence through time. Thus even if there is "no soul," there is that which has the nature of having that nature. There were major disputes concerning the best candidates for constituting such an impression…but agreement in general was reached that no soul resides within the human body, so to speak, like a driver of a bus, and gets out at the end of the journey. There is only the aggregation of components, which is caused by the previous moment and causes the next. Thus while there is momentarily some one person who is rightly identified as the Dalai Lama, there is no person who is always the Dalai Lama.

Source:

read it well ..... Excerpt form your post: "... and maybe learn something "

Who is the observer, who the observed , the judge and the judgment, then?

Who planted the seed and who will harvest it?

Doesn't mean I agree I'm a Theosophical Buddhist and have a definite belief in a 'Soul'

[camerata]

I was just asking your view... sorry if it made you uncomfortable.

It didn't make me feel uncomfortable - it was off-topic. If you're so keen to talk about it I'll make it a new topic for you.

So you are saying withhold judgement of Thais (or anyone else) if they disrespect the temple by using a mobile phone? or kissing?

I'm saying that judging them will hinder rather than help the practice of Dhamma and mental cultivation because it inevitably gives us a feeling of superiority. Buddhist practice is about diminishing the ego, not enhancing it.

I'm susprised you think it's acceptable to behave that way - and if you don't think it's acceptable then you are judging?

Refresh my memory and quote me the part where I said it was acceptable. You still seem to be missing the point.

[camerata]

" Ironically, the one who screams "judge not" is often the one passing judgment on you!" - John Duncan

But that isn't the case here. In the Buddhist context, judging another's religious practice is unskillful because it inflates the ego and takes us away from the goal of anatta ("not-self"). There are exceptions, of course, such as an enlightened master criticizing a student who is going in the wrong direction, but in general the idea is to avoid thoughts, speech and actions that make one feel superior. It isn't easy.

[ChiangMaiFun]

" Ironically, the one who screams "judge not" is often the one passing judgment on you!" - John Duncan

But that isn't the case here. In the Buddhist context, judging another's religious practice is unskillful because it inflates the ego and takes us away from the goal of anatta ("not-self"). There are exceptions, of course, such as an enlightened master criticizing a student who is going in the wrong direction, but in general the idea is to avoid thoughts, speech and actions that make one feel superior. It isn't easy.

thanks for explaining

[473geo]

" Ironically, the one who screams "judge not" is often the one passing judgment on you!" - John Duncan

But that isn't the case here. In the Buddhist context, judging another's religious practice is unskillful because it inflates the ego and takes us away from the goal of anatta ("not-self"). There are exceptions, of course, such as an enlightened master criticizing a student who is going in the wrong direction, but in general the idea is to avoid thoughts, speech and actions that make one feel superior. It isn't easy.

Perhaps to more easily accept unavoidable/irrevocable change is part of the answer?