Can Buddhism Save Thailand?

[Samuian]

I think that the answer to whether or not Buddhism can save Thailand is to look at somewhat similar nations. Did Buddhism save Cambodia? Did Buddhism save Burma?

Reflecting on this statement a clear NO!

But at the very same time the illuminating answer arose and the writing in the sky appeared which said:

"wrong question!"

It's not:

"Can Buddhism save Thailand"

it should be:

"Can Buddhist Values safe the one who lives in (contemporary) Thailand (the World) and practices Buddhist Values?"!

How could "Buddhism save Thailand"... both can't interact, as both are in it's very essence only Ideas!

[phetaroi]

I think that the answer to whether or not Buddhism can save Thailand is to look at somewhat similar nations. Did Buddhism save Cambodia? Did Buddhism save Burma?

...

it should be:

"Can Buddhist Values safe the one who lives in (contemporary) Thailand (the World) and practices Buddhist Values?"!

I'm not quite sure I agree with the way you've stated it, but I think you're going in the right direction.

I think a better question than "Can Buddhism save Thailand?" is "If Thais really practiced Buddhist concepts, would Thailand's political crisis exist?"

What if the red shirt leaders had actually practiced "right speech" during their demonstrations?

What if the black shirted red shirt throwing the molotov cocktail while wearing a Buddha amulet had actually practiced "right action"?

And we could go on down the list of Buddhist precepts and find others that apply to those on all sides of the debate.

The danger in involving religion into politics is that one person or side uses religion inaccurately to win their point. In American politics I'm always averse to lumping people together. For example, both Rush Limbaugh and George Will are Republican conservatives. One is a ranting fool who uses conservative principles to win his argument (the key word being argument). The other uses conservative principles to analyze current events and offer thoughts on who issues might be tackled by different groups of people, including conservatives. I think to a limited extent, this already happens in Thailand by a few Thai politicians. For example, over the years I think Chamlong Srimuang has mixed his version of Buddhism with his politics, but has done so through lecturing down to people, rather than asking them questions about Buddhist behavior and politics.

[LindsayBKK]

Well one only has to see the damage to the Buildings in Rajaprasong then

you will also see that no Buddha Statues were attacked. Thankfully.

Some said after the so called "Protest" that they should now put more Buddha Statues

all around the city so that people think twice about attacking a building with a statue in or nearby.

[sabaijai]

I think that the answer to whether or not Buddhism can save Thailand is to look at somewhat similar nations. Did Buddhism save Cambodia? Did Buddhism save Burma?

Reflecting on this statement a clear NO!

But at the very same time the illuminating answer arose and the writing in the sky appeared which said:

"wrong question!"

It's not:

"Can Buddhism save Thailand"

it should be:

"Can Buddhist Values safe the one who lives in (contemporary) Thailand (the World) and practices Buddhist Values?"!

How could "Buddhism save Thailand"... both can't interact, as both are in it's very essence only Ideas!

Good point.

[agent69]

I wonder what percent of those who threw molotov cocktails or hand grenades were wearing a Buddhist amulet as they did so?

All of them were. Because they believe they made them invincible ..................

[Samuian]

I wonder what percent of those who threw molotov cocktails or hand grenades were wearing a Buddhist amulet as they did so?

All of them were. Because they believe they made them invincible ..................

I insist just "Amulets" not "Buddhist", there simply isn't such thing. Only because the user of such things is part of a so called "Buddhist society", or it's a Buddha Image itself, doesn't make such thing "Buddhist"! because the great teacher, never ever mentioned anything about the value, the need, the magic, any-anything ever about Amulets - in sofar these "tools" belong to the realm of the occult and which represents a trap to it's worshipers, as everything has it's cause and effect and the results of it is inescapable karma to the ones who bow, or sell their souls to these forces.... everyone should consider this first, not knowing, doesn't mean automatically innocent!

Reflect about it!

But then.... for me all this is very, very naive, immature, childish, also this behavior in front of deities, shrines, religious symbols etc. it's nonsense, if it's only for this particular moment, or just for one particular purpose.... when I see these people with many, many of these Amulets - it's a big show off supported by a very strong type of profile neurosis, it occurs to me that these people may think, feel, see themselves of no value at all, it's all about some imagined "magic power" around their necks... ah'well....

[rockyysdt]

Basically Buddhism is a practice.

The Buddha developed a path which he personally practiced until he succeeded in his quest to eliminate suffering.

For the majority Buddhism cannot save Thailand as most people do not practice what was taught let alone know what to practice.

Mankind is a creature of habit & becomes rigid in his/her ways, especially with age.

If you learned that Yoga is physical and mental therapy which slows down the aging process, promotes flexibility & can help such ailments such as diabetes, blood pressure, digestive disorders, arthritis, arteriosclerosis, chronic fatigue, asthma, heart conditions & many more things, how many of you will practice it?

If you learned that eating food to sustain life, rather than for pleasure & taste can promote a healthy body, stave off illness & disease & promote longevity how many of you would modify your diet?

Basically modern man is lazy & will always look for the easy way out.

When it comes to Buddhism no amount of talking & self promotion will help.

The Monk told me a poignant story.

Sometimes they bottle the Holy Water days before its use & it often smells by the day of use.

Buddhists flock before the Monks on their knees with their hands in a "Wai" well over their heads.

They utter their wishes for a better life as if begging to a higher power.

The Monks pronounces good luck & sprinkles them with smelly water.

They leave with uplifted hearts as if their groveling & donation will achieve its aim.

A better life.

What tragedy.

When will man realise that improvement only comes with effort.

Without effort nothing will be saved.

Edited June 15, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

Basically Buddhism is a practice...For the majority Buddhism cannot save Thailand as most people do not practice what was taught let alone know what to practice...Basically modern man is lazy & will always look for the easy way out...When it comes to Buddhism no amount of talking & self promotion will help...When will man realise that improvement only comes with effort...Without effort nothing will be saved.

I understand what you're trying to say. But I have a little problem with one Buddhist judging another. For example, if Camerata said, "I'm a better Buddhist than Rockyysdt," most of us would probably not think that was a valid approach. Yet, you are -- in effect -- saying, "I am a better Buddhist than Noi, Lek, and Thuy," and you imply it's because you're more intellectual about Buddhism than they are.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I know that's not your intent, but I don't really see where being judgmental is a part of Buddhism either. Might it be "wrong thought"?

[rockyysdt]

I understand what you're trying to say. But I have a little problem with one Buddhist judging another. For example, if Camerata said, "I'm a better Buddhist than Rockyysdt," most of us would probably not think that was a valid approach. Yet, you are -- in effect -- saying, "I am a better Buddhist than Noi, Lek, and Thuy," and you imply it's because you're more intellectual about Buddhism than they are.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I know that's not your intent, but I don't really see where being judgmental is a part of Buddhism either. Might it be "wrong thought"?

Not a judgement Vince, but an observation.

l am part of mankind and suffer from the same afflictions.

It's best to focus on the word rather than the messenger.

Walk amongst the people.

You will soon find out that for most it's talk and no practice.

For the few who practice I tip my hat but they will not be enough to save Thailand (the masses) or any place for that matter.

Edited June 15, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Adiccavamso]

Can Buddhism save Thailand?

It could, but I suspect it won’t. I noted a couple of relevant things in the book, Happiness, by Matthieu Ricard, a French monk in the Tibetan tradition, and said by some to be “the happiest man in the world”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...rld-433063.html

On p. 105 he says: “Systematically blaming others and holding them responsible for our suffering is the surest way to lead an unhappy life. It is by transforming our minds that we can transform our world.”

He later says (p. 116): “Attachment idealizes its object, hatred demonizes it.”

I find it hard to imagine the leaders of one side or the other exhorting their followers to look deeply into their own actions and motivations and to transform their minds as a result. I think it’s also very unlikely that the idealization or demonization of people like Thaksin Shinawatra or Sondhi Limthongkul is going to be moderated, and a balanced view held up by, say, the Prime Minister or the Redshirt leaders, as the recommended one for people to hold.

Furthermore, Matthieu Ricard suggests that, when people are angry, that is the time to reflect on how the anger arose and the suffering to which it led.

“It is easier to work with the disturbing effects of a strong emotion when we are in the midst of experiencing it, rather than when it lies dormant in the shadow of our unconscious. At the precise moment of the experience, we will have the invaluable opportunity to investigate the process of mental suffering.” (p. 106)

However, I’m not aware of any calls to self-examination or practical steps being taken by the leadership of the national Sangha in Thailand. It may have happened, but I’ve not seen any reports of it.

The International Network of Engaged Buddhists, in its statement on the Thai situation of 18 May, referred to the Dhammapada: verse 201, which says:

Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy.
Persons who have given up both victory and defeat, the contented, they are happy.

The INEB goes on to say: We wish for all parties address the conflict with reason and tools of peace, to recognize the ancient Buddhist wisdom that neither the so-called winner nor loser will be contented and happy. We encourage those who do not fall into one of the two camps can help this process wherever possible. Only through peaceful negotiation and dialogue can all parties concerned return the country to its true nature as a flourishing democracy and a peace-loving nation.

http://jizochronicles.wordpress.com/2010/0...nt-on-thailand/

However, there doesn't seem to be a strong commitment to dialogue, at least among the movers and shakers in this country. Once again, I may be wrong, but in any case, it takes key figures on both sides of a conflict for “peaceful negotiations and dialogue” to take place.

Perhaps we’ll have to wait for more death and destruction, more anger and grief, until the Thai people remember their Buddhist roots and look to responsible and compassionate ways of resolving their differences. People who are already privileged will have to take the lead in this, but will they?

Agreed. No 'ism' saved anyone. (Bearing in mind that Buddhism is a term invented by Western orientalists in the 19th century). The vast majority of lay Thais seem to have a very sketchy knowledge of Dhamma, a tiny minority take meditation seriously and seek the Nibbanic path (such as the followers of Buddhadasa, who represent a miniscule fraction of the educated urban elite), while successive Sangha Acts have reduced the renunciants' room for manoeuvre to such an extent that the Community is virtually moribund. The Sangha does advise government, I'm told by senior monks, but the advice is routinely ignored. Getting out of their temples and going out and about - 'going forth' as in the Buddha's day - to teach basic Dhamma seems beyond the capability of the institution. Thais - monastics and laity - seem to have forgotten that if you want to change/save the world (or just Thailand), you have to start with changing/saving yourself! In the meantime I suppose we can console ourselves with the knowledge/insight that everything is in a state of perpetual change (anicca) and avoid attachment to any aversion or desire with the way things are.

[eggomaniac]

Can Buddhism save Thailand?

. People who are already privileged will have to take the lead in this, but will they?

Not likely. While, maybe, not all of the 'privleged' got there via corruption; for those in political power, it's part of the job description. With the possible exception of Khun Chuan Leekpai, possible I say, there just doesn't seem any power brokers of privlege of humble origins and honest intentions.

Thailand would need a Churchill, Franklin and Lester B Pearson, all rolled into one, if it were to be 'saved'. Abhisit seems to be an okay 'chap', but when you're a dolphin in a shark tank...........

[christiaan]

Can Buddhisme save Thailand?

WhenI started to visit Thailand and learned about the people, the culture , thepolitics, the 'religion' and the history, the following question arose in mymind.

Howis it possible that in a country as orange as it is with Buddhisme, there is,at the same time, so widespreadcorruption, abuse of power andselfishness?

Asan outsider from a culture where, in daily life, hardly anything is todetect regarding religion and spirituality one would expect in a country asBuddhist as Thailand there would be quite a peacefull and spiritual way ofliving together

Butthe facts show it is almost the opposite.

Thatis astonishing, or maybe we even have to say it is shocking.

Ido not write this as a judgement about Thailand, this is merely my observation.

Ihope no one reading this is made thinking I value Thailand and Thai culture oflower quality as any western country, I do not.

Beingvery interested in people, culture, religion, philosophy and science I am veryinterested in the situation of Thailand.

Learningabout Buddhisme in Thailand in time I am wondering how much Buddhisme inThailand is or has become a cultural habbit, a kind of national folklore.

Idid read a book about a famous munk, written by a Thai, after this translatedby a Thai to english language and after that checked by a native Englishman andI was astonished about the content and the translation.

Themoney for the project of the translation and printing (and free samples) was from a governmentalinstitution.

Therewere several mistakes in the book, easy to discover and not all of very seriousnature, but to me it was shocking thatin the description of the principles of Buddhisme, the last part of the book, theThai expression for awareness was consequentely translated as ‘ mind ‘ . Idiscovered because I told my Thai partner the book was not very good and I showedher the use of the word mind where, as I thought should have been written;awareness.

Shetold me, in the original Thai there was also written ‘awareness’.

Butbeside the mistakes I was not very impressed by the content of the book, on onehand becos there was just realy very little about the content of the teachingsof the munk, on the other hand, the teaching itself, to me, were of a simple nature. And yes I know, often these simple teachings canbe of high spirituality and value.

Itwas very clear this munk was a respectable, honest and spiritual man allthrough his life, not any reason to criticize, but he was not a teacher and heobvious also did not feel realy atracted to be one.

Icould imagine a man like this munk could also have been a wise farmer, or a doctor, and no munk

WhyI write this?

Iwrite this becos I think this is related to the question, can Buddhisme saveThailand (from its problems)

Iwould say, this munk could not, but he probably did save him self by the way helived and he probably inspired some other people to do the same.

Thisbrought me to another question?

Thequestion if Buddhisme can be a selfish, spiritual way of life.

Ahuman coming to the individual personal choice to strive for personalenlightment by Buddhisme.

Iam not completely aware of munks life, of all its details, and… I have neverbeen one myself.

ButI see Thai munks detached from manyaspects of material life while forexample a Thai nurse has to work hard and long, without any labor union protection, for low salary, not seldombullied by ‘higher’ staff workers,taking care her family of 3 kids and her sick dying father while her husbandspends most of his money on alcohol and prostitutes.

Wellthat last situation, that could be what Iwould call “ a road to enlightment”

Tome Budhisme is a name for a state of consciousness, a state of awarenessof material life, awareness of spiritual life, awareness of the worldsurrounding you and awareness of the Self.

Thisstate of being is a spiritual state, itis becos it comes to life inside the self and it comes to life not by matterbut by spiritual activity, your own spiritual activity.

Lookingat Thailand , observing life inThailand, I would say every aspect of Thaiculture demonstrates the level of awareness of the Thai people.

Ithink one can look upon to a people in a country, a culture, as being a personality.

Inother words, there is something as “ The American personality”, “The Australianpersonality”, “ The Russian personality” and ofcourse also “ the Thai personality” .

This‘ personality’ reflects the generalcharacteristics of most of the inhabitants of a country.

Thispersonality is not material, it isspiritual, it is in fact the spirit ofthe people (in that specific culture).

So,looking at Thailand, looking to every aspect of it in general, I would say Thailand in general does not havea lot of awareness.

Thailandeven belongs to the five countries in the world where people do the most effort, and make this a habbit, to drink their consciousness away, and this shows the deficit in health of Thaiculture, Thai cultural personality, Thai spirit.

Andit is possible this shortage of awareness, this in a way still dreaming consciousness, is not only in politics, notonly in labor relations, not only in man-woman relations, not only in schooleducation, it is also in Buddhisme as it is in Thailand. (and not only in Thailand)

Soto me the biggest probem of Thailand isa lack of awareness, and it starts on the personal level to influence all otherparts of society up to Buddhisme.

Andthat is the strange part of it, in a country with so many problems due to alack of awareness, Buddhisme is so widespread present as the “religion of awareness”(?)

So, what CAN help to save Thailand from its problems?

[christiaan]

I am sorry, for some reason 'copy and paste' change the text of my contribution.

[phetaroi]

Howis it possible that in a country as orange as it is with Buddhisme, there is,at the same time, so widespreadcorruption, abuse of power andselfishness?[/size][/font][/color]

Asan outsider from a culture where, in daily life, hardly anything is todetect regarding religion and spirituality one would expect in a country asBuddhist as Thailand there would be quite a peacefull and spiritual way ofliving together

Butthe facts show it is almost the opposite.

Thatis astonishing, or maybe we even have to say it is shocking.

...

Learningabout Buddhisme in Thailand in time I am wondering how much Buddhisme inThailand is or has become a cultural habbit, a kind of national folklore.

...

Thequestion if Buddhisme can be a selfish, spiritual way of life.

...

Inother words, there is something as “ The American personality”, “The Australianpersonality”, “ The Russian personality” and ofcourse also “ the Thai personality” .

This‘ personality’ reflects the generalcharacteristics of most of the inhabitants of a country.

...

So, what CAN help to save Thailand from its problems?

An interesting post, and I'd like to respond to a few of your points.

First, one of the positions that I have taken in this forum over time is that Buddhism should also be valued as a moral code, and not just one person's solitary journey to enlightenment. I think you touch on this when you talk about the "Thai personality" (and yes, I do think it is valid -- to some extent -- to look at a nation as an entity with a personality). The temples are beautiful and the way that people interact in a temple is beautiful. But I don't very often see a carryover of Buddhist principles in everyday life. I'm not one to harp on Thailand's HUGE, INTERNATIONALLY FAMOUS sex industry, but certainly the HUGE sex industry -- one of the largest in the world -- is not a reflection of Buddhist principles. And yet it endures and is conveniently overlooked. Is there morality in Thai politics? Generally speaking, I would have a difficult time finding it except in isolated cases (Anand, for example).

Most of the posters in this particular subforum tend to look at Buddhism as a personal path. If that is what Buddhism is supposed to be, then no, Buddhism cannot save Thailand, anymore than it saved Cambodia. And yet, Thailand sees itself as a Buddhist nation. But I believe that is wrong. I think that Thailand can better be described as a nation of Buddhists, but not a Buddhist nation. If Thailand were a Buddhist nation, issues such as the southern unrest would not be allowed for fester for years and result in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people. Instead Buddhist principles would be used to solve the problems. The same is true for the current reconciliation farce. I don't see any Buddhist principles being used by the government -- or the red shirts -- or the yellow shirts -- or anyone else.

I am very sad for Thailand and I am very sad for Buddhism.

[rockyysdt]

Most of the posters in this particular subforum tend to look at Buddhism as a personal path. If that is what Buddhism is supposed to be, then no, Buddhism cannot save Thailand, anymore than it saved Cambodia. And yet, Thailand sees itself as a Buddhist nation. But I believe that is wrong. I think that Thailand can better be described as a nation of Buddhists, but not a Buddhist nation. If Thailand were a Buddhist nation, issues such as the southern unrest would not be allowed for fester for years and result in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people. Instead Buddhist principles would be used to solve the problems. The same is true for the current reconciliation farce. I don't see any Buddhist principles being used by the government -- or the red shirts -- or the yellow shirts -- or anyone else.

I am very sad for Thailand and I am very sad for Buddhism.

Although the actual practice (sitting meditation & mindfulness) can be considered a personal path & personal in nature (within the mind) successful practice leads to, as the Buddha taught, natural loving kindness.

Simply attempting to live a moral & upstanding life is not sufficient as each of us must constantly battle against our ego, negative conditioning & self promotion.

On the other hand, a practitioner who regularly sits & practices mindfulness, as the Buddha taught, will begin to develop a natural concern for his fellow man, & environment as a natural consequence.

ln my opinion, if all Thai citizens, including those in power, regularly practiced as the Buddha taught, then Thailand would be in a far better state.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the majority of Buddhists are either all talk and little or no practice, or practice non Buddhist rituals.

Many observing a lack of progress (state of Thailand) need to discern between talk and practice.

Edited July 26, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

This is a correction of my contribution before, with some changes in the text, it will be more easy to read.

Can Buddhisme save Thailand?

When I started to visit Thailand and learned about the people, the culture, the politics, the 'religion' and the history, the following question arose in my mind:

How is it possible that in a country as orange as it is with Buddhisme, there is, at the same time, so widespread corruption, abuse of power and selfishness?

As an outsider from a culture where, in daily life, hardly anything is to detect regarding religion and spirituality, one would expect in a country as Buddhist as Thailand there would be quite a peacefull and spiritual way of living together.

But the facts show it is almost the opposit.

That is astonishing, or maybe we even have to say it is shocking

I do not write this as a judgement about Thailand, this is merely my observation.

I hope no one reading this is made thinking I value Thailand and Thai culture of lower quality as any western culture, I do not.

Being very interested in people, culture, religion, philosophy and science, I am very interested in the situation of Thailand.

And learning about Buddhisme in Thailand in time I am wondering how much Buddhisme in Thailand is or has become a cultural habbit, a kind of national folklore.

I did read a book about a famous munk, written by a Thai, after this, translated by a Thai to English language and after that checked by a native Englishman and I was astonished about the content and the translation.

The money for the project of translation and printing (and free samples) was from a government institution.

There were several mistakes in the book, easy to discover and not all of very serious nature, but to me it was shocking that in the description of the principles of Buddhisme, the last part of the book, the Thai expression for awareness was consequentely translated by ' mind '.

I discovered becos I told my Thai partner the book was not very good an I showed her the use of the word mind where, as I thought, should have been written ' awareness'

She told me, in the original Thai there was also written 'awareness'

But beside the mistakes I was not very impressed by the content of the book, on one hand becos there was just realy very little about the content of the teachings of the munk, on the other hand, the teaching itself, to me, were of a simple nature. And yes, I know, often these simple teachings can be of high spirituallity and value.

It was very clear this munk was a respectable, honest and spiritual man allthrough his life, not any reason to criticize, but he was not a teacher and he obvious also did not feel atracted to be one.

I could imagine a man like this munk could also have been a wise farmer, or a doctor, and no munk.

Why I write this?

I write this becos I think this is related to the question: can Buddhisme save Thailand (from its problems)

I would say this munk could not, but he probably saved himself by the way he lived and he probably inspired some other people to do the same.

This brought me to another question, the question if Buddhisme itself can be a selfish, spiritual way of life.

A human coming to the individual personal choice to strive for personal enlightment by Buddhisme.

I am not completely aware of munks life, of all its details, and...I have never been one myself.

But I see munks detached from many aspects of material life, while, for example, a Thai nurse has to work hard and long, without any labor union protection, for low salary, not seldom bullied by 'higher' staf workers, taking care her family of 3 kids and her sick dying father, while her husband spends most of his money on alcohol and prostitutes.

Well that last situation, that could be what I would call " a road to enlightment"

To me Buddhisme is a name for a state of consciousness, a state of awareness of material life, awareness of spiritual life, awareness of the world surrounding you and awareness of the Self.

This state of being is a spiritual state, it is becos it comes to life inside the self and it comes to life not by matter, but by spiritual activity, your own spiritual activity.

Looking at Thailand, observing life in Thailand, I would say every aspect of Thai culture demonstrates the level of awareness of the Thai people.

I think one can look upon to a people in a country, a culture, as being a ' personality'.

In other words , there is something as "The American personality" , " The Australian personality", " The Russian personality" and ofcourse also "The Thai personality".

This 'personality' reflects the general characteristics of most of the inhabitants of a country, or participants of a culture.

This 'personality' is not material, it is spiritual, it is in fact the spirit of the people (in that specific country or culture)

So, looking at Thailand, looking to every aspect of it in general, I would say Thailand in general does not have a lot of awareness.

Thailand even belongs to one of the five countries where people do the most effort, and make this a habbit, to drink their consciousness away with alcohol, (and alcohol is also an excellent liquid to conserve things, to make them stay as they are) .

This lack of awareness is the deficit in the spiritual health of Thailand, of Thai culture, of Thai personality.

And it is possible this shortage of awareness, this in a way still dreaming and conserved awareness, is not only in politics, not only in labor relations, not only in man-woman relations, not only in schooleducation, it is also in Buddhisme as it is in Thailand. (and not only in Thailand)

So to me the biggest problem of Thailand seems to be a lack of awareness, a lack of consciousness, and it starts on the personal level to influence all other parts of society up to Buddhisme.

And that is the strange part of it, in a country with so many problems due to a lack of awareness, Buddhisme is so widespread present as " The religion of awareness" (?)

So, what CAN help to save Thailand from its problems?

[Xangsamhua]

I think my original post and my second one in this thread were motivated by a lament at the lack of leadership or guidance from the Buddhist leadership in resolving the grave difficulties the country is facing. However, after reading Ven. Dhammiko's reflections on what he sees as the failure of the Theravada vehicle to do anything creative or constructive for the laity, I wonder if the Thai Sangha is in fact part of the problem. Especially so if the laity infer that, having no potential for enlightenment and no role other than to serve the monks, there's not much point them making more than a token effort to live according to the Dhamma.

The thread on Ven. Dhammiko's booklet is at

Edited July 26, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

Maybe this should become another topic and if so, I would apreciate to learn to know

Talking about the diverse aspects of leadership of Buddhisme leadership I am wondering what the thoughts are about leading the (Thai) Buddhists.

To my opinion there are at least 2 parts or levels of the phenomenon (Thai) Buddhisme.

The first is the spiritual level, the second is the organisation of the Buddhist movement on a material level.

With te last I do mean nothing more as to handle matters regarding organising meetings, printings, housing and so on.

In the second part I can imagine some kind of leadership, I even hope that leadership would be a very proffesional one, so things work out fine .

Regarding the first part I would say there cannot be any organised leadership.

On the spiritual level there should be inspirators, inspiration, dialogue, talks.

On the spiritual level every human should have full freedom to ' walk his or her road '.

I have been interested in Krishnamurti and read most of his books and visited his last talksessions in Brockwood, the last before he died.

That was an impressive experience also wih regard to leadership.

I do not think leadership is the problem in Buddhisme in Thailand, but the people are becos they lack the awareness to give spirituality a meaning in their live.

In this situation I would even suggest that it would be interesting to investigate if Buddhisme, as it is practiced in Thailand today, is one of the factors that conserves the problematic situation of Thailand.

In other words answering the question if Buddhisme can save Thailand with an almost certain ; " No " we should try to detect if Buddhisme as it is in Thailand is one of the factors helping to continue the problems in Thailand.

Then there is the problem with Buddhisme itself.

Is Buddhisme dead or is Buddhisme a life?

When Buddhisme is dead as one of the biggest monoliths of the world beautifull situated in a desert, attracking thousands of tourists every year for its wonderfull orange colours and history, it would be time to turn our selfs towards life.

When Buddhisme is not dead it should be full of dynamic life, and life means, moving, transforming all the time.

In my opinion Buddhisme is alive but it is almost a secret life, most people are not even aware and maybe even the name for this life has changed (or need to be changed (?))

Buddha is also alive, he is alive in the spiritual world and it is almost a chutzpah (impertinence) to think Buddha, after almost 2600 years passing time on earth, still would be the same (dead?) entity in the spiritual world.

Reading the Sankha, as far as I have read it, I would say it needs some update.

I do not think our consciousness awakes by the form, but we our selfs are gifted with consciousness (in normal healthy persons) by birth, - being spiritual entities in the beginning - , and we awake in our awareness in time (allthough time itself is not working) and detect the spiritual ideas, the concepts of the material phenomena by our spiritual intuitive thinking.

With a selfdeveloped higher awareness we see how the spiritual world is hidden inside the material world.

We can detect this since the world of matter is the expression, the manifestation of the spiritual world.

We do so by our questions and every knowledge, every awareness awakes by intuitive thinking and questions of the self.

Our awareness is in quality the same as the world of absolute awareness.

Enlightment means: being aware out of selfexperience our awareness is in quality the same as absolute awareness.

The Self is no Illusion.

On earth the Self is reality, and only on earth it is and to deny this is an illusion.

I have worked with primary intelligent autistic youngsters, and (talking about pure and real autisme) the essence of autisme is the absence of a Self (in this earthly life)

As humans we are spiritual entities living in a material body in a material world.

In our souls we are connected with the spiritual world, the more awareness the more connection.

Our Self is the pilot of our soul and even after dead this pilot continues to live, while the body returns to basic matter again.

Without a pilot we live in a fearfull world, by natural law, and then we only can survive when the Self of other humans compensates the absence (still back in the spiritual world, incomplete incarnated) of our self.

Only from a complete spiritual existence we can 'see' the ' earthly Self' is in some way an illusion.

The road to enlightment can be as follows:

Coming out of the spiritual world we are born, we come to awareness within a material life.

This is not happening with animals, plants or minerals.

We detect the origin of our awareness: The Self.

We can choose to become completely aware of our Self so we can clean it , by awareness , from all actions of the Self that are negative.

This is living spirituality, a living spirituality possible by the detection, awareness and work of the Self.

We can, becos of awareness, transform our Self.

Enlightment is the transforming of our Self, it is not the dissolving of our Self, becos without a Self we have no awareness.

Even in my highest spiritual experiences I always am aware, I am (Self).

This is no theory, this is life

[rockyysdt]

Enlightment is the transforming of our Self, it is not the dissolving of our Self, becos without a Self we have no awareness.

Even in my highest spiritual experiences I always am aware, I am (Self).

This is no theory, this is life

By your description you have traveled to an advanced state but aren't you short of Nibanna by remaining attached to the self?

I have heard it said that the final step to becoming Enlightened involves completely letting go of self.

Self anchors one to attachment, ego, suffering & re birth.

Isn't our goal to realize selfless awareness, a pure, subtle state without defilement?

Edited July 27, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

Well, my concerns are not about Nibbana but about life on earth.

That is the topicality. And in this topicallity I am atached by my material existence to material life, if I would not be I would die.

And I do not choose to turn away from this topicallity by having other people taking care my food, my clothes and housing.

I would say in my topicallity, the actuality of my life, I have turned it around, I take care the food , the housing and clothes of other people.

And I do out of complete free will.

I am also attached to my spiritual life since I am a spiritual being from origin but to know this I have to wake up in material existence by my awareness, a spiritual activity.

Then I do not have enlightment as a goal in my life. To me enlightment is more like sweating when I work .

It is something that can happen when living my life the best way I can and I do not sweat all the time.

I do try to work for and out of knowledge and truth.

People talk about enlightment without ever having experienced it, so how do they know what enlightment is?

When you know becos you are told about it what kind of knowledge is this without experience?

Self anchors one to ego, suffering and rebirth, Self also free the Self from this.

It is not some unidentified spiritual subject that is doing the last, it is your Self.

So what about letting go your Self..........?

Did you ever think about if it is realy possible to have a selfless awareness?

When you would without being attached to some ' Buddhist ' doctrines it could be possible you would discover this is impossible.

How can someone tell about being enlighted or having reached enlightment when the Self was not there or is not there to tell.

(and when the self would not be there who or what is telling about the enlightment?)

Cos it is by the Self that we remember.

Rememberance is the spititual activity of the Self to rebuild the past experience of the Self into imagination, this always happens after the actual happening.

When you would look very close to your Self you can discover you can think about your thinking, become aware of your awareness.

Becoming aware is a high spiritual activity , the stronger the spiritual activity, the more awareness.

This is all activity of your Self.

When you are not corrupted by some way of thinking you will realise awareness starts with selfconsciousness, with selfawareness.

You are unconsciousness and unaware when you are not there with your Self and then you will not become aware of anything else surrounding you

Enlightment is the state of being where you are not only aware of the material reality but also at the same time, of the spiritual reality 'behind' the material reality.

Enlightment is when you not only see the illness of a person but at the same time also the spiritual reality of it.

So to translate this to practice, at he same time when you are confronted with an ill person, you are aware of the history of this person (Karma) the essence of the illness, and the cure and, not to forget, the relation of this ill person with his or her social environment.

So Enlightment is when you experience the material world and the spiritual world at the same time.

This state of being is only possible when you have freed your Self of the lower temptations connected to material life.

In fact a human has a higher Self connected to the spiritual world where we all are coming from by birth, and we have a lower self connected to our material existence.

We are inhabbitants of two worlds and can and normally do live in the middle in our soul.

We can free ourself of our lower self only by awareness,

It is not right to think we have to detached ourself from material life itself in a practical way, we detached by spiritual activity with our awareness.

Sometimes the Buddhist detachments make me think about Muslim man telling their women to cover all in clothes becos they, the man , otherwise cannot handle their sex drive.

Enlightment is a state of awareness, there is no awareness for you without a Self,

The Self on earth is enclosed in material existence and therefore separated from the inner life and spiritualty of the world surrounding the self,

In material existence on earth, in our daily awareness we are also separated from the spiritual world itself.

We are much more separated as 2500 years ago.

Enclosed in our selfs and separated, spirituality om earth has become an individual 'hidden' activity.

It is by awareness that we can , in 'secret' unseen activity, connect to the spiritual world.

After dead of material life we pass the treshold to the spiritual world, with selfawareness, and there it is the other way around, there we life within the (spiritual) world, within spiritual existence, with awareness, selfawareness, outside material existence, in an open secret. an unlocked mystery.

There we also live inside the consequenses of our actions in our earthly existence before, to purify our Self.

It is our goal to realise awareness for the sake of humanity, not for personal enlightment, personal enlightment is a side effect.

( since I am not a native english I excuse for my english)

[rockyysdt]

Thanks christiaan.

It will take me awhile to digest all that you have said, especially in terms of what the Buddha taught

As you say, without personal experience we don't know other than by what the Buddha taught.

Perhaps "self & selfless" equates to "lower self & higher self"??

To me selfless also equates to action due to inherant loving kindness & not due to desire originating from the 5 senses & the mind which fuel ego.

Edited July 28, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

Also thanks Rockyysdt

in my view and experience, self & selfless does not equates lower self & higher Self.

self is the lower self that is connected to material existence and Self is the higher Self inspired by your spiritual individuality - and the spiritual world - and experienced in awareness.

You can imagine this in action as if your higher Self is sitting on a chair and in peace is observing the actions of your lower self.

your higher Self is all about awareness, your higher Self is awareness, and awareness cannot be without a Self.

selfless, less self, means less conscious, less awaren, up to being unconscious, without awareness.

[rockyysdt]

Also thanks Rockyysdt

in my view and experience, self & selfless does not equates lower self & higher Self.

self is the lower self that is connected to material existence and Self is the higher Self inspired by your spiritual individuality - and the spiritual world - and experienced in awareness.

You can imagine this in action as if your higher Self is sitting on a chair and in peace is observing the actions of your lower self.

your higher Self is all about awareness, your higher Self is awareness, and awareness cannot be without a Self.

selfless, less self, means less conscious, less awaren, up to being unconscious, without awareness.

It might be a language barrier Christiaan.

I thought selfless means "having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, power, possessions etc".

A Self, operating on natural loving kindness which has been realized through awareness can be considered Selfless as it isn't driven by ego.

We all have a Selfless nature but many don't have deep enough awareness to experience it.

In fact, that's why I refer to Self & Selfless.

Many are so unaware of their higher Self that it can be considered a stranger to their Ego or lower Self.

To take this further, depending on the depth of our practice (awareness), we live in duality.

There is our Ego or lower Self, & there is our Selfless or higher Self.

I suggest that until the Ego, or lower Self is fully extinguished, it will always influence you to some degree. Also, should your practice cease your Ego will grow back.

Achieving Enlightenment to me means that the Ego has been extinguished and you are living purely with higher Self.

To me Enlightenment doesn't mean death. The Buddha lived for many years after he was Enlightened, & used his time to teach others.

That's why I was surprised to read your view in an earlier post that Enlightenment would mean your death.

The problem with attaining growth short of Enlightenment is that if you stop your practice the ego will return.

Achieving Enlightenment destroys the ego and allows you to do your work with total purity.

Until Enlightenment occurs we may always have our Ego to contend with to various degrees.

The Ego can corrupt ones intent, particularly when awareness is lacking.

A crude example of this:

A wealthy man donates a large sum of money to the orphanage.

On the surface a noble deed, however his Ego enjoys being thought of as a good man by others, & he has also gained a business tax deduction.

Edited July 29, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

The Ego can corrupt ones intent, particularly when awareness is lacking.

A crude example of this:

A wealthy man donates a large sum of money to the orphanage.

On the surface a noble deed, however his Ego enjoys being thought of as a good man by others, & he has also gained a business tax deduction.

I wonder if Anathapindika was totally without ego when he donated the Jeta grove to the Buddha and why the Buddha accepted it if he wasn't.

I've mentioned before that Santi Asoke won't accept donations until they have some evidence of right intention on the donor's part. That seems admirable, but if orphans need your support should you withold it out of fear of ego-gratification? I'd be inclined to lend a hand and risk the consequences of misplaced intention. Ego be hanged!

[rockyysdt]

The Ego can corrupt ones intent, particularly when awareness is lacking.

A crude example of this:

A wealthy man donates a large sum of money to the orphanage.

On the surface a noble deed, however his Ego enjoys being thought of as a good man by others, & he has also gained a business tax deduction.

I wonder if Anathapindika was totally without ego when he donated the Jeta grove to the Buddha and why the Buddha accepted it if he wasn't.

I've mentioned before that Santi Asoke won't accept donations until they have some evidence of right intention on the donor's part. That seems admirable, but if orphans need your support should you withold it out of fear of ego-gratification? I'd be inclined to lend a hand and risk the consequences of misplaced intention. Ego be hanged!

Totally agree with you on this.

My view is that we are what we are and must live our lives as best we can with the hope that practice will eventually uncover a better way.

I would travel without fear of ego-gratification but used the example to describe how ego can affect intent.

[christiaan]

Rockyysdt.

Yes, there might be a problems with language, I would not call it a barrier but still it could cause some problems.

Beside this even when we do understand the language itself it is possible, and this is what happens offen, that we give different meanings to the same words.

Looking to my Self I have a lot concern for my self.

I have out of my higer Self to my lower self.

I have to become aware of everything concerning my lower self becos it is by awareness I can purify this self.

Everytime in my life , when I am awake I have to choose, everytime I can choose to do the good thing and to do the bad thing.

To handle this it takes awareness.

I am almost all the day communicating with people, helping people, serving people, so this is very important.

I am attached to do the right thing, to be honest, to be helpfull.

I would say this is part of my ego becos I am sometimes told I am a very good, kind and honest person.

In becoming aware of my lower self I am becoming aware of my higher Self.

This started when I was still young, whatever people were doing around me I was observing and developing my own awareness.

I learned to distinguish between who I was expected to be and who I realy was.

That turnewd out to be a continueing experience, development.

This becoming aware is the action my higher Self, nobody can touch this, it is like : you could take anything away from me but you would have to destroy me physically to take away my awareness,

This is my : I am.

This is my higher Self.

To me this is not Selfless.

I would say,; in contrary, the stronger my awareness the stronger; I am

To describe this in my way, could be a language barrier, but when this would be so, I would say more people would fall victim to this barrier, or language problem.

Many people are unaware of their higher Self, becos they are just unaware, they are not only unaware of their higher Self, they are unaware of many ' things '.

For me it is hard to see or feel this as a dualtiy, since my awareness makes it a unity. I comprehend the total with my awareness.

There must be something wrong with my language or way of formulating, os if i did I never meant to claim enlightment would mean dead.

I think I did express enlightment means total awareness. A total awareness that is not bound to the past but is ALL present, the actual moment, making the most powerfull reality come true : future.

Enlightment is not bound to time, so not bound to a time of dead, not bound to a time of life, it is bound to a stat of consciousness.

But I know when I pass the treshold of dead and will enter the spiritual world I will do with awareness,

When my material existence will end, my awareness continues.

And I agree that the lower Self could be called ego, just another word for the same condition but it still does not make me feel I am Selfless when I have freed my self - even for a short timem - as can happen on a regular base.

So it is interesting to see where the language problem is.

I think your example makes very clear how the lower self, ego, can corrupt ones intent.

For the reciever however this is not realy important.

The receiver, being enlighted, can be aware of the intentions of the one giving, but to him or her it is important to receive without being corrupted by the ego or the self.

Every individual has to live his or her Karma.

[rockyysdt]

I have to become aware of everything concerning my lower self becos it is by awareness I can purify this self.

Everytime in my life , when I am awake I have to choose, everytime I can choose to do the good thing and to do the bad thing.

To handle this it takes awareness.

I am almost all the day communicating with people, helping people, serving people, so this is very important.

I am attached to do the right thing, to be honest, to be helpfull.

I would say this is part of my ego becos I am sometimes told I am a very good, kind and honest person.

In becoming aware of my lower self I am becoming aware of my higher Self.

This started when I was still young, whatever people were doing around me I was observing and developing my own awareness.

I learned to distinguish between who I was expected to be and who I realy was.

That turnewd out to be a continueing experience, development.

Out of interest christiaan.

What practices and periods of time do you undertake each day to produce your awareness?

How do you distinguish between unattached awareness & conditioned behavior?

[christiaan]

rockyssdt

Well that is a difficult question cos I do not measure in time.

Normally I study every day when I am not too tired from daily duties in life.

My studies are focussed on attaining independent thinking.

The subject of my studies most of the time are pointed at the question: what does it mean to be a Human.

All our life we are working with the TOOL : being a human, without realy knowing this tool.

What is : a human?

What is it to be : a human?

Then I would say it is in daytime a matter of changing awareness, I am aware and unaware alternately through the day.

It is a matter of focussing to the action you are undertaking, focussing on the action is meditation by concentration.

So it is also influenced by the situation where I am in.

Then , it is impossible to produce awareness, since awareness is absolute and ever present.

The problem is we overslep awareness, we are sleeping most of the time in daily action and so it is a question of awakening, stop being unaware, stop dreaming, stop 'sleeping' .......... to enter awareness.

This dreaming, sleeping, being unaware are actions of a conditioned ego.

We sleep inside being an ego.

To my experience I do not feel being my self in that situation,

I feel my Self when.........I am aware, concentrating, meditating in action.

When I am aware I can see when I am attached and at that moment (how short or how long it is) I am not attached to it.

Imagine............ for some simple reason you are lying.

At the moment you are aware you are lying and you tell your Self : I am lying, you stop.

You would stop when you have the intuitive knowledge (awareness) that this lying is wrong, is something you would not accept when it would happen to you.

Only by a special way of thinking (finding excuses to continue lying) you start to sleep again in unawarenes regarding to what you are actually doing.

But when you would continue to tell your self : I am lying, I am lying at this moment it will be very difficult to continue.

To me this is concentration and meditation in action.

At the moment you say I AM you start to enter Self awareness.

[rockyysdt]

rockyssdt

Well that is a difficult question cos I do not measure in time.

Normally I study every day when I am not too tired from daily duties in life.

My studies are focussed on attaining independent thinking.

The subject of my studies most of the time are pointed at the question: what does it mean to be a Human.

All our life we are working with the TOOL : being a human, without realy knowing this tool.

What is : a human?

What is it to be : a human?

Then I would say it is in daytime a matter of changing awareness, I am aware and unaware alternately through the day.

It is a matter of focussing to the action you are undertaking, focussing on the action is meditation by concentration.

So it is also influenced by the situation where I am in.

Then , it is impossible to produce awareness, since awareness is absolute and ever present.

The problem is we overslep awareness, we are sleeping most of the time in daily action and so it is a question of awakening, stop being unaware, stop dreaming, stop 'sleeping' .......... to enter awareness.

This dreaming, sleeping, being unaware are actions of a conditioned ego.

We sleep inside being an ego.

To my experience I do not feel being my self in that situation,

I feel my Self when.........I am aware, concentrating, meditating in action.

When I am aware I can see when I am attached and at that moment (how short or how long it is) I am not attached to it.

Imagine............ for some simple reason you are lying.

At the moment you are aware you are lying and you tell your Self : I am lying, you stop.

You would stop when you have the intuitive knowledge (awareness) that this lying is wrong, is something you would not accept when it would happen to you.

Only by a special way of thinking (finding excuses to continue lying) you start to sleep again in unawarenes regarding to what you are actually doing.

But when you would continue to tell your self : I am lying, I am lying at this moment it will be very difficult to continue.

To me this is concentration and meditation in action.

At the moment you say I AM you start to enter Self awareness.

Hi christiaan

Are these entirely your words gained through your experience or do you study a lot of works.

I personally think that all of us are in danger of adopting others beliefs through what we read, without the insight of personal experience.

That's why I find many concepts interesting, but generally adopt what is verifiable or obvious & concentrate on mindful practice (sitting & mindfulness).

I am mindful of becoming attached to doctrine which mind end up being fantasy.

The Buddha taught to observe without attachment.

Do you sometimes feel this way?

[sabaijai]

Returning to the original topic, Phra V Wachiramethi is an up-and-coming Buddhist reformer (in the sense of teaching more empirically, and declaiming superstition, money merit-making, folk myths and so on) on the scene who is reminiscent of P A Payuttho and Than Buddhasa in his approach, which he calls 'applied dhamma.'

For anyone that reads Thai, he published a book very recently called Santimankha pheua Santiprachatibodai (สันติมรรคาเพื่อสันติประชาธิปไตย The Path of Peace for Peace and Democracy) that directly addresses the question from a modern Buddhist perspective. The gist of the message - and I haven't read all of the book yet - is that democracy starts in the heart and mind. Because people are flawed (have kilesa), the systems they create are flawed, and the only way to bring the systems closer to perfect is to bring the individual closer to perfect, while in the meantime maintaining a firm practice of non-harm and non-violence. He further suggests that it is every citizen's duty to get involved in politics and participate fully in building an improved democratic system.

One section that caught my attention begins with the heading "A vote made mindfully is a democratic vote," which develops into the notion that if one votes for what is best for society at large rather than what might appear to be best in the short term for one's self, then a truly democratic society is served.

Whether the book and its ideas will have any noticeable impact in Thailand remains to be seen, but it is apparently selling well.