Losing Respect

[ChiangMaiFun]

It so happens I went to Starbucks at the Queen Sirikit Centre this morning, a bit before midday, and just ahead of me was a Thai monk ordering a drink and sandwich.

An observation l made in Bangkok in recent times was that the price of a Starbucks coffee could buy you two substantial Thai meals.

The cost of a tall black or other hot drink maybe considered affordable by a Western visitor but to an average Thai would be quite an extravagant expense.

I can't help but bring up thoughts of "lack of humility", "egocentricity ", "excessive extravagance", "lack of thought or empathy for the poor", "lack of awareness" should a Monk patronize such establishments.

good point! just emphasises where the 'monkdom' is heading.

[bankei]

It so happens I went to Starbucks at the Queen Sirikit Centre this morning, a bit before midday, and just ahead of me was a Thai monk ordering a drink and sandwich. He then paid for this with his own money.

I had no objection to this, even though it's quite clearly contrary to the Patimokkha, as I think the Patimokkha needs substantial revision and should be ignored on some points. The guy needed to eat and it was approaching noon.

What got to me, however, was that, after paying for his lunch and being served it on a tray, he pulled out a Starbucks pamphlet and placed it under the tray so he wouldn't have to receive it directly from a female. Handling money is fine, apparently, but to receive something from feminine hands is just too much!

Oh well ... different strokes for different folks.

Yes, that is interesting considering there is nothing in the vinaya that says a monk cannot receive something directly from a woman.

[camerata]

[canuck1941]

Several posters have mentioned that life is a path, and that's the point as I see it. As you traverse the path of your life, you learn things, you discard things, you take up new things. One could have a Buddhist notion of how to travel that path, a Christian one, and so on. In the end it is how you travel that path that matters to you as an individual and if a belief in a philosophy or a religion impedes your journey on the path, better to just drop it. Just because someone has chosen a "path" doesn't mean it's the right path or will work for someone else. I remember my first night in Thailand a dozen years ago. I was so interested in living in a Buddhist culture after experienceing Christianity, Judaism and Islam and in the hotel room was a copy of Handbook for Mankind which I began reading, only to find in the introduction the statement that the practice of Buddhism had been corrupted. I put the book back and decided to just live in the culture and see what it was. Are clerics corrupt? Of course, since long before Martin Luther went to Rome. Are they all corrupt? No, I don't think so but I've become so wary regarding religion's impact in society, it seems wise to be skeptical about it all. There's still only way to get respect.

[fabianfred]

Have any of you guys read 'The Broken Buddha' ....which IMHO makes very valid points. Yet the author is still a monk...slightly cynical...but he hasn't chucked it all in as being irrecoverably corrupted.

The truth of the Dhamma is perfect and unchanging, just our understanding of it, or misunderstanding, changes and becomes corrupted.

Being a monk is not easy, especially for a Farang monk here in Thailand. Some temples try to keep the Vinaya strictly and not handle money, and they have set-up a system to allow it to happen, but money is still used. A monk in other temples has to handle money....I just spent about five thousand Baht getting my visa done, running around down to BKK and around Chiangmai.

I believe that if one practiced until one was in a position of safety, safety from doing anything which would cause one to take rebirth in the lower realms, the safety of Stream-entry...... one would then be in a position to keep the good rules and ignore the bad ones. I hope to reach such a position one day.

[baboon]

Christiaan,

I never have denied that there is a lot wrong in the world and also in Thailand. But you seem to see only the negative side of Thailand and the positive side of the western world. I try to bring back the balance a little bit.

I like to repeat a recent dhamma thought:

Pay no attention to the faults of others,

What, even that drunken moron that nearly ran me off the road? Could be your kids next time.

things done or left undone by others.

When the Binmen dont empty your bins and rats start running around?

Consider only what by oneself is done or left undone.

A fair point if you drop the "only."

Buddha

Platitudes. But fair play to you for psting.

Edited November 1, 2010 by baboon

[phetaroi]

I never have denied that there is a lot wrong in the world and also in Thailand. But you seem to see only the negative side of Thailand and the positive side of the western world. I try to bring back the balance a little bit.

I like to repeat a recent dhamma thought:

Pay no attention to the faults of others,

What, even that drunken moron that nearly ran me off the road? Could be your kids next time.

things done or left undone by others.

When the Binmen dont empty your bins and rats start running around?

Consider only what by oneself is done or left undone.

A fair point if you drop the "only."

Buddha

Platitudes. But fair play to you for psting.

I have long thought that Christian tries to pick apart every issue ad infinitum. My advice for Christian is to lighten up a bit.

But, is not what you're suggesting, the reason for much of the sorrow in Thailand?

For example, have you ever noticed how many of the beggars along the street are amputees. I've with chatted with a few these fellows, and the answer has always been the same -- industrial or agricultural accident. And "mai pbe rai" always seemed to be the answer. No attention given in the Thai work place about worker safety. No one complains. It keeps happening. Honesty is sales practices in Thailand. Same thing.

There was a particular temple in Thailand -- not one of the famous ones -- were a scam artist would attempt to flee any foreign tourist that happened by. It was infamous...there were websites about it. But everyone just accepted it...apparently even the abbot since the scam went on for years (and yes, I experienced it, too). All apparently because no one said anything about it.

For me, the difference is not in "public" issues, where I think things should be "taken up", but rather in private morality that have no effect on the "common good".

[dutchguest]

"Pay no attention to the faults of others,

things done or left undone by others.

Consider only what by oneself is done or left undone."

It are not my words but the words of Buddha. I think he means that we have a strong inclination to point at others as the cause of everything wrong in the world, that we have a strong inclination to see ourselves as good and others as bad, to see the mistakes and shortcomings of others very sharp but are blind for our own. And I think you don't have to be a Buddha to see the same tendency. And if everybody keeps pointing at others this attitude does not bring us much further in solving problems. We keep going round in circles. The teaching of Buddha is that we can stop this never ending chain of cause and effect by focusing more on ourselves then on others.

In the case of the drunken driver, abusing him might have an inverted effect and may cause him to defend himself, abuse you too, while a non-attacking approach might make him think about his own driving behaviour, feel ashamed and change his behaviour.

Edited November 1, 2010 by dutchguest

[christiaan]

"Pay no attention to the faults of others,

things done or left undone by others.

Consider only what by oneself is done or left undone."

It are not my words but the words of Buddha. I think he means that we have a strong inclination to point at others as the cause of everything wrong in the world, that we have a strong inclination to see ourselves as good and others as bad, to see the mistakes and shortcomings of others very sharp but are blind for our own. And I think you don't have to be a Buddha to see the same tendency. And if everybody keeps pointing at others this attitude does not bring us much further in solving problems. We keep going round in circles. The teaching of Buddha is that we can stop this never ending chain of cause and effect by focusing more on ourselves then on others.

In the case of the drunken driver, abusing him might have an inverted effect and may cause him to defend himself, abuse you too, while a non-attacking approach might make him think about his own driving behaviour, feel ashamed and change his behaviour.

Maybe Buddha also did mean , and that is about the same as Dutchguest writes: the only one you realy could/can change is your self.

So when we have al kind of remarks about others we have to be aware we cannot change them, they have to change themself.

For this awareness is needed.

To have remarks about the world around you and so about other people can also be just an observation, an expression of awareness, it is the intention that counts.

I am not the person Christian but being Christiaan I like to go a long way to find my answers, and most of the time it is a light way..........to me.

[ChiangMaiFun]

"Pay no attention to the faults of others,

things done or left undone by others.

Consider only what by oneself is done or left undone."

It are not my words but the words of Buddha. I think he means that we have a strong inclination to point at others as the cause of everything wrong in the world, that we have a strong inclination to see ourselves as good and others as bad, to see the mistakes and shortcomings of others very sharp but are blind for our own. And I think you don't have to be a Buddha to see the same tendency. And if everybody keeps pointing at others this attitude does not bring us much further in solving problems. We keep going round in circles. The teaching of Buddha is that we can stop this never ending chain of cause and effect by focusing more on ourselves then on others.

In the case of the drunken driver, abusing him might have an inverted effect and may cause him to defend himself, abuse you too, while a non-attacking approach might make him think about his own driving behaviour, feel ashamed and change his behaviour.

The truth is that no one really know what the Buddha 'actually' said right? we may know the teaching he gave through 'word of mouth' but did he really sit down and write up all these Rules? don't think so

Maybe Buddha also did mean , and that is about the same as Dutchguest writes: the only one you realy could/can change is your self.

So when we have al kind of remarks about others we have to be aware we cannot change them, they have to change themself.

For this awareness is needed.

To have remarks about the world around you and so about other people can also be just an observation, an expression of awareness, it is the intention that counts.

I am not the person Christian but being Christiaan I like to go a long way to find my answers, and most of the time it is a light way..........to me.

Does anyone really know what the Buddha said? we only have 'pass down' info - did he really sit down and write up all the Rules? don't think so - we know, generally, the teachings He gave but to be a slave to all the Rules would be an attachment in itself.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ChiangMaiFun

[christiaan]

I have read several biographies telling me some monks had a strong desire to become a monk when they were a young child. I would say they are detached to this desire.

I cannot imagine something else as a monk is a monk out of some choice he made. To me there is nothing wrong with that. But when one become a monk one has to live according the rules of monkhood. Otherwise it has no function. You cannot join a foorballteam to play basketball. When people are not living according the rules they freely attached to it is understandable they are not respected. Not giving respect can mean: not confirming the illusion you are confronted with.

On the other hand , when Buddhism is not an activity as ' playing football ' but more or less an activity of playing some 'game' in some situation just like you are inspired to do at that moment to gain awareness, then maybe most people in the world are Buddhist monks.

[phetaroi]

I have read several biographies telling me some monks had a strong desire to become a monk when they were a young child. I would say they are detached to this desire.

I cannot imagine something else as a monk is a monk out of some choice he made. To me there is nothing wrong with that. But when one become a monk one has to live according the rules of monkhood. Otherwise it has no function. You cannot join a foorballteam to play basketball. When people are not living according the rules they freely attached to it is understandable they are not respected. Not giving respect can mean: not confirming the illusion you are confronted with.

On the other hand , when Buddhism is not an activity as ' playing football ' but more or less an activity of playing some 'game' in some situation just like you are inspired to do at that moment to gain awareness, then maybe most people in the world are Buddhist monks.

1. Who are the monks you have read biographies of? Do you mean a bio as in a book? A magazine article? A paragraph? What were some of the sources?

2. Do you mean they were detached, as you said, or do you mean they were attached to the desire of becoming a monk? If what you're saying is the former, that doesn't make sense to me.

3. You "cannot imagine something else as a monk is a monk out of some choice he made." Huh????

4. When you say that when one becomes a monk he must follow the rules...okay, although not all orders follow the same rules. Do you see a monk in a more general way, or specific to each order?

5. Your analogy to football versus basketball is silly. If you want to use that analogy, you are comparing being a Buddhist monk to being a Methodist minister. Not at all comparable. Get real.

6. When you say, "When people are not living according the rules they freely attached to...", so it is either 100% or nothing? Do you really live that way? Do you follow all rules 100%?

7. Your last sentence above makes absolutely no sense to me. I think you should rewrite that sentence completely.

[christiaan]

I read several biographies of monks, important monks. A book and articles, out of one of them:

About Phra Maha VutichaI Wachiramethi: He was born at a typical Lanna farming family in Chiang Rai provence. His home stood adjacent to a Wat and his mother was so devoted to Buddhadhamma that during the annual three- month rain retreat she brought offerings to the Wat every single day. Wachiramethi accompanied her when he wasn't in school, and the sight of ochre robes inspired him to ordain as a monk when he was 14.

I see I made a typing error, choosing means to be attached (not detached) in some way to the choice you make.

So a monk is a monk , and made his choice to become a monk, out of some kind of desire, I cannot imagine something else, like someone is forced to become a monk or did become a monk by some kind of accident or coincidence.

When a monk becomes a member of some monastery he has to follow the rules of that monastery, why else he becomes a member,?

I think my comparison is not silly, A Catholic priest cannot become a monk in a Buddhist monastery and behave like he is in a Catholic monastery.

When a Catholic becomes a monk in a Buddhist monastry he has to adept to the life and rules of that monastery, why else would he become a monk and be there?

like a Methodist minister has to follow the rules of his Methodist church

I do not always live according the few rules I am freely attached to, when people critisize me for this they would be right, but in my case, I am not a monk in a monastry granted all the privilliges of being a monk, I would say there is some difference, . I do not live on the costs of other people, I have not some kind of high status just becos I wear orange or ochre clothes.

In Europe , when people are unemployed and receiving money to continue to have a reasonable life, there are some rules they have to follow, people would look up very strange when they still work somewhere, buy themself the newest model Mercedes and go on holliday three times a year. Other people can do, but those people normally cannot.

My last sentence is related to the remarks I read everywhere that Buddhism can have many faces depending of the culture and the attitude of the people.

One could easily exchange the word Buddhism in many many talks and writings with 'spirituality'.

Often the message would be complete the same.

Buddhism is, to some extend, spiritual but not all spirituality however is Buddhism.

[phetaroi]

I read several biographies of monks, important monks. A book and articles, out of one of them:

About Phra Maha VutichaI Wachiramethi: He was born at a typical Lanna farming family in Chiang Rai provence. His home stood adjacent to a Wat and his mother was so devoted to Buddhadhamma that during the annual three- month rain retreat she brought offerings to the Wat every single day. Wachiramethi accompanied her when he wasn't in school, and the sight of ochre robes inspired him to ordain as a monk when he was 14.

I see I made a typing error, choosing means to be attached (not detached) in some way to the choice you make.

So a monk is a monk , and made his choice to become a monk, out of some kind of desire, I cannot imagine something else, like someone is forced to become a monk or did become a monk by some kind of accident or coincidence.

When a monk becomes a member of some monastery he has to follow the rules of that monastery, why else he becomes a member,?

I think my comparison is not silly, A Catholic priest cannot become a monk in a Buddhist monastery and behave like he is in a Catholic monastery.

When a Catholic becomes a monk in a Buddhist monastry he has to adept to the life and rules of that monastery, why else would he become a monk and be there?

like a Methodist minister has to follow the rules of his Methodist church

I do not always live according the few rules I am freely attached to, when people critisize me for this they would be right, but in my case, I am not a monk in a monastry granted all the privilliges of being a monk, I would say there is some difference, . I do not live on the costs of other people, I have not some kind of high status just becos I wear orange or ochre clothes.

In Europe , when people are unemployed and receiving money to continue to have a reasonable life, there are some rules they have to follow, people would look up very strange when they still work somewhere, buy themself the newest model Mercedes and go on holliday three times a year. Other people can do, but those people normally cannot.

My last sentence is related to the remarks I read everywhere that Buddhism can have many faces depending of the culture and the attitude of the people.

One could easily exchange the word Buddhism in many many talks and writings with 'spirituality'.

Often the message would be complete the same.

Buddhism is, to some extend, spiritual but not all spirituality however is Buddhism.

Ah, now when you say these monks became attached to the idea of becoming a monk...that makes sense to me. Now, as to what you wrote today, I don't think making a decision to do something necessarily indicates a sense of attachment. Although it is too strong a word, I think the problem is in becoming attached to something to the point where it begins to transform into an obsession. I don't see how one could argue that most monks have an attachment to Buddhism and, in many cases, the monkhood. Where the attachment would become a problem, in my view, is when they simply see "all things Buddhist" as being "the truth", can no longer evaluate the Buddhist world, and cannot fairly interpret the non-Buddhist world.

All temples in Thailand do not follow the exact same rules and lifestyle. The biggest difference is, I would think, between a "regular" temple and a forest wat. But there are many other differences, as well. For example, when I was still living in Thailand we often took food to a temple not far from Victory Monument. It was preferred that we take our food offering to a monk's individual kuti and spend time with him while he was eating his noon meal. Other temples where we have taken food it was a group setting and we ate "leftover" food after the monks had finished. When a monk chooses a temple in which to reside, I imagine he has a reason or reasons for so choosing.

[phetaroi]

For some reason I was thinking of this thread when I woke up this morning...and specifically about the discussion about monks not following all the monastic rules.

I was thinking about my years as a school administrator, and my realization that there were two ways to get students to "fall in line" with the acceptable culture of the community.

One way was to keep laying down dozens of rules to follow. And there were a lot of teachers who believed this was the way we could be successful, because if a student broke a rule, then he or she could be punished.

Fortunately, many of us understood that when students begin to internalize an understanding of right and wrong, they don't really need all those rules, because they think and usually choose the right way to behave.

And I guess that's why I see all the precepts monks have to follow as treating monks like they are children with no internal concept of right versus wrong. I'd much prefer to respect a monk who does right versus wrong because of an internal moral compass, as compared to one who simply and mindlessly follows rules.

[christiaan]

One would accept a grown adult person to have such moral compass.

Then it would be interesting to see where this internal moral compass finds its origin, but that is another topic.

When monks do not follow the rules, there could be several explanations.

The rules are so 'artificial' that nobody living in a normal balanced healthy human life could meet or think of such rules as to be essential to being a human, and not even for being human in an inner proces.

An other explanation could be Thai people do not have a developed inner moral compass.

then we have to be aware a number of young boys enter monastic life out of a diversity of reasons and are no adults.

I would say it must be very difficult to gain respect when people, being monks, do not have an inner moral compass and/ or do not understand the rules as they exist for the situation they are in to.

[Brucenkhamen]

Whether Thais in general have a well developed moral compass or not is besides the point.

The monkhood was setup by the Buddha for those people who wanted to renounce the things of the world and dedicate their lives to follow the path to freedom, to such people I'd expect it's not difficult to follow the spirit of the rules even if there is an occasional slipup according to the letter of them.

However in Thailand we see that the culture is for young men to spend a short time in robes to make merit for themselves and their parents, this is a far cry from the original intention, it's hardly surprising that many temporary monks don't take it seriously.

Imagine if we had temporary police officers, or temporary doctors, do you think they'd be good policemen or good doctors?

There are some very good monks out there as well, so no need to dwell on those that aren't.

[phetaroi]

One would accept a grown adult person to have such moral compass.

Then it would be interesting to see where this internal moral compass finds its origin, but that is another topic.

When monks do not follow the rules, there could be several explanations.

The rules are so 'artificial' that nobody living in a normal balanced healthy human life could meet or think of such rules as to be essential to being a human, and not even for being human in an inner proces.

An other explanation could be Thai people do not have a developed inner moral compass.

then we have to be aware a number of young boys enter monastic life out of a diversity of reasons and are no adults.

I would say it must be very difficult to gain respect when people, being monks, do not have an inner moral compass and/ or do not understand the rules as they exist for the situation they are in to.

Excuse me, but all you have to do is open your eyes in any one day and look at the world...or just look at your world...to see that millions of grown adult persons do not have a moral compass. There are people who are immoral and there are people who are amoral.

In your second paragraph you make my point for me. Thank you.

[phetaroi]

Whether Thais in general have a well developed moral compass or not is besides the point.

The monkhood was setup by the Buddha for those people who wanted to renounce the things of the world and dedicate their lives to follow the path to freedom, to such people I'd expect it's not difficult to follow the spirit of the rules even if there is an occasional slipup according to the letter of them.

However in Thailand we see that the culture is for young men to spend a short time in robes to make merit for themselves and their parents, this is a far cry from the original intention, it's hardly surprising that many temporary monks don't take it seriously.

Imagine if we had temporary police officers, or temporary doctors, do you think they'd be good policemen or good doctors?

There are some very good monks out there as well, so no need to dwell on those that aren't.

I thought we were dwelling on the question of whether or not the seemingly countless rules were helpful to Buddhism. I don't recall discussing specific individuals.

[christiaan]

I was thinking about monkhood as it is in Thailand. There is quite a number of young boys entering monkhood - out of different reasons - and one cannot expect the same of them as from the older Monks. As far as I know Siddhartha Gautama himself stepped in monklife at the age of 29 after reaching adulthood, entering marriage and becoming a father! It is at the least acceptable to see young boys need rules. Adult Monks should know the rules and have a moral compass developed out of understanding the rules as to be guidelines. It is clear that adults quite often do not have an inner moral compass. So we have to see the situation shows that there are adult people who have no inner moral compass and do not follow the rules of being a monk when being a monk for shorter or longer period of time.

I think it is very nice to look at the idea we would have temporary doctors, policeman, government officials, business man, judges, politicians.

We do have. It is not hard to imagine we have them also temporary. People die, or change profession, I do not see this is a dissadvantage in itself as long as they realy have been doctors, policeman and so on at the time they were.

The problem is not if they are permanent or not in their profession but if they are professional in the time they are.

I would say, the situation as described here is more the situation the doctor is no doctor, the policeman is no policeman at the time he 'pretend ' to be.

This observed fact is answered by absence of respect.

So if we would stay by this maybe we could have more understanding when we imagine the situation somebody pretends to be a policeman, wears the uniform, but in fact is no professional policeman. Why would such a person do so? Out of what intentions? How could it be possible to pretend you are a policeman while in fact you are not? What would the consequence be within the society he lives in, in a western country? in Thailand?

I do not know much about the priest or monkrules in the catholic Church, allthough I am aware there have been quite a number, now and in the past, of Catholic religious people, who had or have no inner moral compass too, but this - as far as I know - most of the time has been hidden, but what happens when a catholic priest or monk would visibly not follow the rules? I do not ask this to start a discussion about the catholic situation but to hand some thoughts to see the situation as it is in Thailand.

Writing this I have to think about Krishnamurti. He rejected the situation and the idea to have followers. There are nice stories about how he handled people who tried to become fans and followers. When I visited his talks it was very interesting to see how easy this attitude still arose within people visiting his talks. But at the moment we have no ' Krishnamurti Monks' and so also no ' Krishnamurti Monk problems'. The teachings of Krishnamurti however still exists - thanks to bookprint and other media.

And people have to stay within their individual freedom and reponsibillity when dealing with the teachings of Krishnamurti.

[fullyunenlightened]

I was thinking about monkhood as it is in Thailand. There is quite a number of young boys entering monkhood - out of different reasons - and one cannot expect the same of them as from the older Monks. As far as I know Siddhartha Gautama himself stepped in monklife at the age of 29 after reaching adulthood, entering marriage and becoming a father! It is at the least acceptable to see young boys need rules. Adult Monks should know the rules and have a moral compass developed out of understanding the rules as to be guidelines. It is clear that adults quite often do not have an inner moral compass. So we have to see the situation shows that there are adult people who have no inner moral compass and do not follow the rules of being a monk when being a monk for shorter or longer period of time.

I think it is very nice to look at the idea we would have temporary doctors, policeman, government officials, business man, judges, politicians.

We do have. It is not hard to imagine we have them also temporary. People die, or change profession, I do not see this is a dissadvantage in itself as long as they realy have been doctors, policeman and so on at the time they were.

The problem is not if they are permanent or not in their profession but if they are professional in the time they are.

I would say, the situation as described here is more the situation the doctor is no doctor, the policeman is no policeman at the time he 'pretend ' to be.

This observed fact is answered by absence of respect.

So if we would stay by this maybe we could have more understanding when we imagine the situation somebody pretends to be a policeman, wears the uniform, but in fact is no professional policeman. Why would such a person do so? Out of what intentions? How could it be possible to pretend you are a policeman while in fact you are not? What would the consequence be within the society he lives in, in a western country? in Thailand?

I do not know much about the priest or monkrules in the catholic Church, allthough I am aware there have been quite a number, now and in the past, of Catholic religious people, who had or have no inner moral compass too, but this - as far as I know - most of the time has been hidden, but what happens when a catholic priest or monk would visibly not follow the rules? I do not ask this to start a discussion about the catholic situation but to hand some thoughts to see the situation as it is in Thailand.

Writing this I have to think about Krishnamurti. He rejected the situation and the idea to have followers. There are nice stories about how he handled people who tried to become fans and followers. When I visited his talks it was very interesting to see how easy this attitude still arose within people visiting his talks. But at the moment we have no ' Krishnamurti Monks' and so also no ' Krishnamurti Monk problems'. The teachings of Krishnamurti however still exists - thanks to bookprint and other media.

And people have to stay within their individual freedom and reponsibillity when dealing with the teachings of Krishnamurti.

you are not wrong about rule breaking monks

and your logic seems sound

reasonable critism

but one things for sure

you will not change these monks' behaviour

they and their kind will go on as theve always done

theres nothing you can do about it

[christiaan]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I think the behaviour and monk culture in Thailand is all Karma and in this way has a function for them

Then I also see Thai culture as a kind of personality itself with its own Karma.

Who am I to judge or condem rule breaking monks?

When you see something wrong this could mean you could try to do better yourself.

It is all a matter of awareness.

I am more concerned about Farang who think every ochre robe dressed male in Thailand is an aspirant saint.

In my view in general Thai Buddhisme is a passed station for western culture.

The western culture, originally opposit to Asian culture, not only has another Karma, it also has another awareness.

Many Farang people feel atracted to Buddhisme cos they use this in a very subtle way, Buddhisme, as they interprete it, as a very nice tool to make it possible to be fully occupied and happy with your self and by doing so you are even rewarded with - new age - respect.

What an illusion.

It is just the mirror side of being very selfish in a material way.

(I do not think this is the same for Thai individuals)

Out of this attitude it is very convenient to look upon every monk as someone very special.

We can look at rule breaking monks and see we cannot feel respect for them, but I would not wonder when there is a general attitude towards Thailand, and Thai culture, from many western governements and organisations as considering Thailand is no adult culture and is not gaining a lot of respect.

Just imagine there wasn't money to make with Thailand, there was no certain 'entertainment' in such quantity and discount available, who would bother about it?

It is just a pitty this situation, and on the other hand so desirable Thailand would become and adult culture with many grown up people with an inner moral compass bearing individual responsibillity for all their actions.

[rockyysdt]

When monks do not follow the rules, there could be several explanations.

The rules are so 'artificial' that nobody living in a normal balanced healthy human life could meet or think of such rules as to be essential to being a human, and not even for being human in an inner process.

hI Christiaan

Which particular rules are you referring to?

[Xangsamhua]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I, for one, see some real benefits in the rules being reviewed and monks valued more for their practice of Dhamma and their ability to inspire others with the values exemplified by the Buddha than for their elite untouchability and social dependence. They would serve the community better as "Boon-makers" than "Boon-receivers". Having said that, I'm sure there are many who are already exemplary, and a change of rules may not make much difference to them. It may liberate them though to be a brighter light on the hill for Thai society instead of the entrenched hieratic slew they occupy now.

The Sangha in Thailand is a self-serving elite kept in place by elite-loving Thais who in former times genuinely respected and loved the monks because they contributed to village life in many ways - in many cases by breaking the rules. Those times, captured by writers like Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich, are no longer with us and cannot be retrieved. The new era requires a broader sangha - male and female, monastic and lay - and a focus on mutual support and shared productivity based on a simple lifestyle together with vigorous teaching and self-education programmes for adults and children.

Phra Photiraksa and his Santi Asoke movement is a good example of what a blend of traditional monastic vinaya and authentic Buddhist practice can be, but it's too strict for most people (though one doesn't have to be a full member). Santi Asoke, however, has been ostracised by the official Sangha in Thailand (after initial attempts to criminalise it by invoking state power as the legitimising agent for Thai Buddhism). To practise Dhamma in an authentic, generous-spirited and inclusive manner in this country is to invite legal sanctions and contempt, as experienced by Samanera Photiraksa and Dhammananda Bhikkhuni (head of the community of nuns in Nakhorn Pathom). Even conservative abbots like Ajahn Brahm in Perth have been excluded from the Ajahn Chah network for ordaining bhikkhunis, thereby "breaking the rules".

It's very hard for intelligent monks with insight and foresight to break through the stultifying structures and archaic rules of current fossilised Thai Buddhism. They can do it if they have some charisma and a gift for teaching and writing, but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

[IMA_FARANG]

I can understand and even accept some people thinking that two monks drinking coffe in StarBucks might be a problem...if you follow a strict interpretation of Buddhisim (as I would say is the case in Thailand), but for many who truely consider themselves Buddhist, and try to live their lifes by their Buddhist beliefs; having a cup of coffe with another monk who may be an old friend would hardly be a violation of rules. As I said, I understand that might not be acceptable in Thailand or with other more strict interpretations of Buddhisim. Fair enough.

My point is just that not everyone worldwide agrees to the same rules or has that same strict interpretation.

Also, there is a saying that goes, "Censure yourself first, not others", isn't there?

I try to live by that saying even I don't always succeed.

P.S. Xangsumha. Thank you for that intelligent and thoughtful post. It was excellent.

Edited November 8, 2010 by IMA_FARANG

[fullyunenlightened]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I, for one, see some real benefits in the rules being reviewed and monks valued more for their practice of Dhamma and their ability to inspire others with the values exemplified by the Buddha than for their elite untouchability and social dependence. They would serve the community better as "Boon-makers" than "Boon-receivers". Having said that, I'm sure there are many who are already exemplary, and a change of rules may not make much difference to them. It may liberate them though to be a brighter light on the hill for Thai society instead of the entrenched hieratic slew they occupy now.

The Sangha in Thailand is a self-serving elite kept in place by elite-loving Thais who in former times genuinely respected and loved the monks because they contributed to village life in many ways - in many cases by breaking the rules. Those times, captured by writers like Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich, are no longer with us and cannot be retrieved. The new era requires a broader sangha - male and female, monastic and lay - and a focus on mutual support and shared productivity based on a simple lifestyle together with vigorous teaching and self-education programmes for adults and children.

Phra Photiraksa and his Santi Asoke movement is a good example of what a blend of traditional monastic vinaya and authentic Buddhist practice can be, but it's too strict for most people (though one doesn't have to be a full member). Santi Asoke, however, has been ostracised by the official Sangha in Thailand (after initial attempts to criminalise it by invoking state power as the legitimising agent for Thai Buddhism). To practise Dhamma in an authentic, generous-spirited and inclusive manner in this country is to invite legal sanctions and contempt, as experienced by Samanera Photiraksa and Dhammananda Bhikkhuni (head of the community of nuns in Nakhorn Pathom). Even conservative abbots like Ajahn Brahm in Perth have been excluded from the Ajahn Chah network for ordaining bhikkhunis, thereby "breaking the rules".

It's very hard for intelligent monks with insight and foresight to break through the stultifying structures and archaic rules of current fossilised Thai Buddhism. They can do it if they have some charisma and a gift for teaching and writing, but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

good post

ok, heres my position....

according to the pali scriptures

the buddha said

if the king is bad

the ministers become bad

the whole country becomes bad

(or words to that effect)

using that as criterion....

dont blame society for the current state its in

blame the government

dont blame the monks for their

slack ways

blame the sangharaja and his (ministers)

the elite ruling monks that contribute their votes

to any major change

its my opinion that they are kept tightly reigned in

they are instructed to leave things the way they are

you have to use inference to determine why

my inferential conclusion would not go down

very well on this forum

but ill give it if im really pushed

[christiaan]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I, for one, see some real benefits in the rules being reviewed and monks valued more for their practice of Dhamma and their ability to inspire others with the values exemplified by the Buddha than for their elite untouchability and social dependence. They would serve the community better as "Boon-makers" than "Boon-receivers". Having said that, I'm sure there are many who are already exemplary, and a change of rules may not make much difference to them. It may liberate them though to be a brighter light on the hill for Thai society instead of the entrenched hieratic slew they occupy now.

The Sangha in Thailand is a self-serving elite kept in place by elite-loving Thais who in former times genuinely respected and loved the monks because they contributed to village life in many ways - in many cases by breaking the rules. Those times, captured by writers like Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich, are no longer with us and cannot be retrieved. The new era requires a broader sangha - male and female, monastic and lay - and a focus on mutual support and shared productivity based on a simple lifestyle together with vigorous teaching and self-education programmes for adults and children.

Phra Photiraksa and his Santi Asoke movement is a good example of what a blend of traditional monastic vinaya and authentic Buddhist practice can be, but it's too strict for most people (though one doesn't have to be a full member). Santi Asoke, however, has been ostracised by the official Sangha in Thailand (after initial attempts to criminalise it by invoking state power as the legitimising agent for Thai Buddhism). To practise Dhamma in an authentic, generous-spirited and inclusive manner in this country is to invite legal sanctions and contempt, as experienced by Samanera Photiraksa and Dhammananda Bhikkhuni (head of the community of nuns in Nakhorn Pathom). Even conservative abbots like Ajahn Brahm in Perth have been excluded from the Ajahn Chah network for ordaining bhikkhunis, thereby "breaking the rules".

It's very hard for intelligent monks with insight and foresight to break through the stultifying structures and archaic rules of current fossilised Thai Buddhism. They can do it if they have some charisma and a gift for teaching and writing, but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

good contribution, its important to point at the changes that are present and active in their way.

[christiaan]

When monks do not follow the rules, there could be several explanations.

The rules are so 'artificial' that nobody living in a normal balanced healthy human life could meet or think of such rules as to be essential to being a human, and not even for being human in an inner process.

hI Christiaan

Which particular rules are you referring to?

All the rules that do not add something essential to inner development.

[christiaan]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I, for one, see some real benefits in the rules being reviewed and monks valued more for their practice of Dhamma and their ability to inspire others with the values exemplified by the Buddha than for their elite untouchability and social dependence. They would serve the community better as "Boon-makers" than "Boon-receivers". Having said that, I'm sure there are many who are already exemplary, and a change of rules may not make much difference to them. It may liberate them though to be a brighter light on the hill for Thai society instead of the entrenched hieratic slew they occupy now.

The Sangha in Thailand is a self-serving elite kept in place by elite-loving Thais who in former times genuinely respected and loved the monks because they contributed to village life in many ways - in many cases by breaking the rules. Those times, captured by writers like Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich, are no longer with us and cannot be retrieved. The new era requires a broader sangha - male and female, monastic and lay - and a focus on mutual support and shared productivity based on a simple lifestyle together with vigorous teaching and self-education programmes for adults and children.

Phra Photiraksa and his Santi Asoke movement is a good example of what a blend of traditional monastic vinaya and authentic Buddhist practice can be, but it's too strict for most people (though one doesn't have to be a full member). Santi Asoke, however, has been ostracised by the official Sangha in Thailand (after initial attempts to criminalise it by invoking state power as the legitimising agent for Thai Buddhism). To practise Dhamma in an authentic, generous-spirited and inclusive manner in this country is to invite legal sanctions and contempt, as experienced by Samanera Photiraksa and Dhammananda Bhikkhuni (head of the community of nuns in Nakhorn Pathom). Even conservative abbots like Ajahn Brahm in Perth have been excluded from the Ajahn Chah network for ordaining bhikkhunis, thereby "breaking the rules".

It's very hard for intelligent monks with insight and foresight to break through the stultifying structures and archaic rules of current fossilised Thai Buddhism. They can do it if they have some charisma and a gift for teaching and writing, but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

good post

ok, heres my position....

according to the pali scriptures

the buddha said

if the king is bad

the ministers become bad

the whole country becomes bad

(or words to that effect)

using that as criterion....

dont blame society for the current state its in

blame the government

dont blame the monks for their

slack ways

blame the sangharaja and his (ministers)

the elite ruling monks that contribute their votes

to any major change

its my opinion that they are kept tightly reigned in

they are instructed to leave things the way they are

you have to use inference to determine why

my inferential conclusion would not go down

very well on this forum

but ill give it if im really pushed

Karma is not some singular happening.

Karma is always a connection of a person with the world around this person.

You cannot have Karma just with your spiritual self.

Then, Karma is interwoven with all other Karma in the world.

When a country would have a bad King this is the Karma of a culture.

It is impossible to think a country would have a bad King and all people living in this country would be good.

In Thailand the King is not the ruler of the country anymore, he is more or less the father of the nation.

We can be sure when the King would not be a good father for the Thai people , something would happen.

So it is more interesting to look at the government and the political parties , I do not know that much of the government and the political parties.

But it is interesting to see important people in Thailand studied abroad.

I think by this way there is a Karma connection with the western world.

Just look at the cultural difference with China and notice Mao did not live and study in the western world.

As far as I can see, looking at the political activities in Thailand, this does make me think of a group of adolescents that cannot leave this state of adolescence and become real grown up adults.

And in my view this political side of Thailand is not far from the way Buddhism is lived in this country.

It is intensely interlinked.

It is the Karma of Thailand and so it is Thailand and the Thai that have to develop out of this situation.

This way they would gain respect.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I have no intention at all to change the rule breaking monks behaviour.

There is probably not even one reading this forum.

I, for one, see some real benefits in the rules being reviewed and monks valued more for their practice of Dhamma and their ability to inspire others with the values exemplified by the Buddha than for their elite untouchability and social dependence. They would serve the community better as "Boon-makers" than "Boon-receivers". Having said that, I'm sure there are many who are already exemplary, and a change of rules may not make much difference to them. It may liberate them though to be a brighter light on the hill for Thai society instead of the entrenched hieratic slew they occupy now.

The Sangha in Thailand is a self-serving elite kept in place by elite-loving Thais who in former times genuinely respected and loved the monks because they contributed to village life in many ways - in many cases by breaking the rules. Those times, captured by writers like Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich, are no longer with us and cannot be retrieved. The new era requires a broader sangha - male and female, monastic and lay - and a focus on mutual support and shared productivity based on a simple lifestyle together with vigorous teaching and self-education programmes for adults and children.

Phra Photiraksa and his Santi Asoke movement is a good example of what a blend of traditional monastic vinaya and authentic Buddhist practice can be, but it's too strict for most people (though one doesn't have to be a full member). Santi Asoke, however, has been ostracised by the official Sangha in Thailand (after initial attempts to criminalise it by invoking state power as the legitimising agent for Thai Buddhism). To practise Dhamma in an authentic, generous-spirited and inclusive manner in this country is to invite legal sanctions and contempt, as experienced by Samanera Photiraksa and Dhammananda Bhikkhuni (head of the community of nuns in Nakhorn Pathom). Even conservative abbots like Ajahn Brahm in Perth have been excluded from the Ajahn Chah network for ordaining bhikkhunis, thereby "breaking the rules".

It's very hard for intelligent monks with insight and foresight to break through the stultifying structures and archaic rules of current fossilised Thai Buddhism. They can do it if they have some charisma and a gift for teaching and writing, but how much more creative and influential they could be if there were some loosening of the reins.

Just wanted to say 'excellent'! insightful and true