How Does The Fetus Scandal Affect Your Confidence In Thai Buddhism

[healthcaretaker]

I am no specialist in this matter, but 2.200 aborted children collected in a building to me could be part of an explanation of the fall back of birthnumbers in Thailand (?)

Do the statistics tell why it happened, this drop back in births?

Are the pregnancies also registrated, I think this is about impossible but a dropped number of pregnancies could tell the story.

Or is it just that people think cos the programm was installed that would be the cause of the fall back?

When this programm itself had such a great effect and has been so succesfull, why do so many people complain about the immature and ridiculous way Thai people run most of their affairs?

This is the exception?

In many western countries abortion to my knowledge is not considered the way of familyplanning, it is the last "rescue" when something before didnot worked as it should.

I read somewhere that most of the abortions in Thailand are related to woman under 25 years, does this show a lot of awareness for birthcontrol by the group up to 25 years living within this programm of the NGO??

Maybe birthreduction did became significant becos the availabillity of abortion and the money to pay for this has increased?

How many Thai woman - under 25 years- left Thailand in the last 30 years?

How many young Thai woman nowadays do not want to marry (soon) and like to stay independent to protect themself for abuse in marriage, earning money and welfare in their independency instead of loosing this ?

By the stories of my Thai girlfriend I understand there have been dramatical changes in Thailand in the last 35 years, I would not be surprised when the NGO is just one of the factors and not the most important one, however it will have put the attention and awareness to the possibillity and the advantages of not to have - a lot of - children anymore.

Good to see that you have learn and changed or diverted your topic and not to insult Buddhism like what you did in some of the earlier posts. I hope the OP will learn too.

[phetaroi]

...not to insult Buddhism like what you did in some of the earlier posts. I hope the OP will learn too.

I am not insulting Buddhism. I am questioning the moral behavior of members of the Sangha, who represent one of the three foundations of Buddhism in the Triple Gem.

[Xangsamhua]

...not to insult Buddhism like what you did in some of the earlier posts. I hope the OP will learn too.

I am not insulting Buddhism. I am questioning the moral behavior of members of the Sangha, who represent one of the three foundations of Buddhism in the Triple Gem.

If we think of the Sangha more broadly than the ordained temple-dwelling community of monks, then we could see unworthy behaviour of monks as reflecting also on the laity, which in Thailand would be a large proportion of the population. If we broaden the sangha-concept to actively include the laity - male and female, irresponsible or wayward monks should be accountable and brought to task by the whole sangha. In Thailand, as in early Buddhism, the laity sits outside the Sangha and sees its role as to feed the monks, put them on a pedestal, ingratiate them and generally treat them as a race apart - a privileged caste, to whom the laity actually kowtow. Indeed, one attains "merit" by these means. This is not healthy either for the monks or their devotees. Of course, there are certainly Thai voices advocating a more accountable, responsive and inclusive Sangha in this country, but how do you get change when those already privileged are the ones who have the authority?

[Brucenkhamen]

In Thailand, as in early Buddhism, the laity sits outside the Sangha and sees its role as to feed the monks, put them on a pedestal, ingratiate them and generally treat them as a race apart - a privileged caste, to whom the laity actually kowtow. Indeed, one attains "merit" by these means. This is not healthy either for the monks or their devotees. Of course, there are certainly Thai voices advocating a more accountable, responsive and inclusive Sangha in this country, but how do you get change when those already privileged are the ones who have the authority?

I agree, and this combined with the fact that a large proportion are temporary monks what can we expect really?

There are places where being a monk is taken seriously, for example in Wat Pah Nanachat you need to make a 5 year commitment and be an anagararika for 3-6 months and a novice for a year before they'll ordain you as a monk. I think if this were implemented Thailand wide there would be very few monks who weren't serious about their practice.

So I don't think there is much point expressing our surprise or complaining about the conduct of those monks in the middle of the fetus scandal.

There are enough serious monks out there for me to have not lost confidence that the vision the Buddha had for the monastic sangha is not dead.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Thailand has no state religion.

Watch regular TV at 8 o'clock tonight and I think there's a pretty good chance that you'll see that you're mistaken.

In answer to the OP, I'm not a Buddhist so I don't have a dog in this fight. That said, I have a pretty deep antipathy to all religions and the whole sorry episode has simply deepened by conviction that - contra the absurd fantasies of a few - Thai Buddhism is overwhelmingly a force for reaction, repression, and conservatism (and if you want further proof of that, take the advice in my first sentence). There's nothing desperately surprising about this - we're talking about a religion after all - but it's extremely depressing nonetheless.

[healthcaretaker]

...not to insult Buddhism like what you did in some of the earlier posts. I hope the OP will learn too.

I am not insulting Buddhism. I am questioning the moral behavior of members of the Sangha, who represent one of the three foundations of Buddhism in the Triple Gem.

What is there to question ?

Did anyone ever question the moral behaviour of the head of church and christianity for their "false" teachings as well as their donation-encouraging act, that many consider to be a scam ?

Now, don't try to reply that it is a different issue, you know I am just applying the principle and concept for your better understanding.

Moreover, I have already replied you that harbouring the unborn dead is considered a merciful act according to their religion. So what what is there to question on the effect of "confidence" ?

May I know if you have any religion ? If you are honest enough to give me an honest answer, I will be able to help you better on your doubt or confidence, if ever shaken.

[phetaroi]

What is there to question ?

Did anyone ever question the moral behaviour of the head of church and christianity for their "false" teachings as well as their donation-encouraging act, that many consider to be a scam ?

Now, don't try to reply that it is a different issue, you know I am just applying the principle and concept for your better understanding.

Moreover, I have already replied you that harbouring the unborn dead is considered a merciful act according to their religion. So what what is there to question on the effect of "confidence" ?

May I know if you have any religion ? If you are honest enough to give me an honest answer, I will be able to help you better on your doubt or confidence, if ever shaken.

It seems you're getting into comparative religion here. And, in a sense you sort of expand on my point. Did anyone ever question Christianity? All the time. There is little complacency in regard to questioning Christian dogma, particularly Catholicism (ever hear of Martin Luther?) and the evangelic movement...the latter being a point of major controversy in the West at this time. Compare that to the tendency to just say "mai pben rai" to whatever happens in Thai Buddhism.

If the fetuses had been cremated, I would have had no problem with that situation. Letting them rot in plastic bags is not harboring them as a merciful act. I doubt you can show me any Buddhist literature that suggests that means of handling fetuses.

In regard to your final question, as time goes by I come more and more to the conclusion that there is no "religion" that has it right, although many religions may have part of it right. As a result I would say that I am spiritual and that my beliefs incorporate some principles of Buddhism and some principles of Christianity. Oh, and by the way, I really don't want or need you to help me. Helping me wasn't part of the OP.

[christiaan]

...not to insult Buddhism like what you did in some of the earlier posts. I hope the OP will learn too.

I am not insulting Buddhism. I am questioning the moral behavior of members of the Sangha, who represent one of the three foundations of Buddhism in the Triple Gem.

If we think of the Sangha more broadly than the ordained temple-dwelling community of monks, then we could see unworthy behaviour of monks as reflecting also on the laity, which in Thailand would be a large proportion of the population. If we broaden the sangha-concept to actively include the laity - male and female, irresponsible or wayward monks should be accountable and brought to task by the whole sangha. In Thailand, as in early Buddhism, the laity sits outside the Sangha and sees its role as to feed the monks, put them on a pedestal, ingratiate them and generally treat them as a race apart - a privileged caste, to whom the laity actually kowtow. Indeed, one attains "merit" by these means. This is not healthy either for the monks or their devotees. Of course, there are certainly Thai voices advocating a more accountable, responsive and inclusive Sangha in this country, but how do you get change when those already privileged are the ones who have the authority?

When I read about this situation, Monks taking care of by laity in Thailand, I have to think about the Sutta telling Ambattha is remembering Buddha about the division in the society between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and that the obligations of the last ones where to serve and honour the Brahmins.(!) Then he complains about the bad attitude of the Sjakya's , - Buddha was born within the family Gautama being part of the people of Sjakya, a clan that did not seem to be Braman itself- he continues to complain telling it is not suitable ordinary people, very common people like the Sjakya do not honour, respect and praise the Brahman and not give them gifts.(!)

I wonder what is the essential differnce in situation between that time and now?

[Brucenkhamen]

When I read about this situation, Monks taking care of by laity in Thailand, I have to think about the Sutta telling Ambattha is remembering Buddha about the division in the society between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and that the obligations of the last ones where to serve and honour the Brahmins.(!) Then he complains about the bad attitude of the Sjakya's , - Buddha was born within the family Gautama being part of the people of Sjakya, a clan that did not seem to be Braman itself- he continues to complain telling it is not suitable ordinary people, very common people like the Sjakya do not honour, respect and praise the Brahman and not give them gifts.(!)

I wonder what is the essential differnce in situation between that time and now?

The Buddhist monkhood evolved to be more of a an esteemed priestly institution after the Buddha's sure, but there are plenty of essential differences.

For as start someone could only be a Brahmin if they were born a Brahmin, wheras most people can become a Buddhist monk or Nun if they wish to.

Buddhist monks give up sex, family life, money, the opportunity to have temporal power, so there is a cost to be paid to be a Buddhist monk, the Brahmins can have all of those things so can more easily be corrupted by them.

Brahmin practice as far as I know is only about priestly rites and rituals, practice for Buddhist monks has taken on some of that but is supposed to be (and for many it still is) a personal practice to train the mind and awaken wisdom.

[christiaan]

So we agree Buddhist monkhood evolved more to a priestly institution. That is the aspect I was talking about.

In this way one could argue something happened in Buddhism that did not seem to have been part of the culture of the Sjakya's.

Somehow in someway the caste system out of india became part of Buddhism in Thailand.

And it is a fact one can be corrupt as a Brahman priest but it would be naive to think a Buddhist monk in his position and situation can not be corrupt.

A person can be corrupt in every situation.

At the moment a Thai is dressed in orange robe he is considered to be 'another person' and is looked upon as being a monk.

The Monks in Thailand do have the 'priestly' responsibillity to take care the funerals.

[healthcaretaker]

What is there to question ?

Did anyone ever question the moral behaviour of the head of church and christianity for their "false" teachings as well as their donation-encouraging act, that many consider to be a scam ?

Now, don't try to reply that it is a different issue, you know I am just applying the principle and concept for your better understanding.

Moreover, I have already replied you that harbouring the unborn dead is considered a merciful act according to their religion. So what what is there to question on the effect of "confidence" ?

May I know if you have any religion ? If you are honest enough to give me an honest answer, I will be able to help you better on your doubt or confidence, if ever shaken.

It seems you're getting into comparative religion here. And, in a sense you sort of expand on my point. Did anyone ever question Christianity? All the time. There is little complacency in regard to questioning Christian dogma, particularly Catholicism (ever hear of Martin Luther?) and the evangelic movement...the latter being a point of major controversy in the West at this time. Compare that to the tendency to just say "mai pben rai" to whatever happens in Thai Buddhism.

If the fetuses had been cremated, I would have had no problem with that situation. Letting them rot in plastic bags is not harboring them as a merciful act. I doubt you can show me any Buddhist literature that suggests that means of handling fetuses.

In regard to your final question, as time goes by I come more and more to the conclusion that there is no "religion" that has it right, although many religions may have part of it right. As a result I would say that I am spiritual and that my beliefs incorporate some principles of Buddhism and some principles of Christianity. Oh, and by the way, I really don't want or need you to help me. Helping me wasn't part of the OP.

Be honest. Your OP certainly showed that you need HELP as your "confidence" with Buddhism have been shaken, otherwise you won't bring it up in such a manner.

Now I understand your problem better since you believe some principles of Christianity as well as Buddhism; and you mentioned "no "religion" that has it right".

Learn to see it in another way, "certain religion has something wrong" and all the answers for all the wrong beliefs in christianity can be found in budhhism.

May you be enlightened like the Lord soon.

In case you still don't understand, let me explain further by making use of your 1st para:

Christianity cannot be questioned because you only ask question on something that can provide an answer that is logic, reasonable and correct. In the case of christianity, there is no logical or reasonable answer, not to mention correctness. There is nothing to understand to christianity, unlike buddhism. In buddhism, you have to understand, just like you understand for eg science. In christianity, you don't understand(because there is no logical or reasonable answers. In short, you don't "question" or "understand" christianlty, you just "believe" or don't believe in what they claim or teach.

That is why people don't question christianity nowadays, science already PROVED them wrong.

Beside that, there are other reasons. One of which is sensible people don't believe in christianity because of all the mistakes that "their" god(if it existed) made. How could an all mighty god make so many terrible and cruel mistakes; Oh it's getting late........gtg.

Continue some other time.

[Brucenkhamen]

So we agree Buddhist monkhood evolved more to a priestly institution. That is the aspect I was talking about.

In this way one could argue something happened in Buddhism that did not seem to have been part of the culture of the Sjakya's.

Somehow in someway the caste system out of india became part of Buddhism in Thailand.

And it is a fact one can be corrupt as a Brahman priest but it would be naive to think a Buddhist monk in his position and situation can not be corrupt.

A person can be corrupt in every situation.

At the moment a Thai is dressed in orange robe he is considered to be 'another person' and is looked upon as being a monk.

The Monks in Thailand do have the 'priestly' responsibillity to take care the funerals.

Something happened to Buddhism that happened to all religions, it became organised. I'm not sure what you find significant about the culture of the Sjakya's, Buddhism wasn't a clan religion and had gone well beyond one ethnic group during the Buddha's lifetime.

Thailand has it's own social hierarchy that probably originates before contact with Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the indian caste system as far as I can see.

You'll notice when I talked about corruption I used the term more easily, the point being that if a Buddhist monk follows the rule on not handling money there is much less opportunity, of course in modern Thailand far too many do handle money.

[christiaan]

So we agree Buddhist monkhood evolved more to a priestly institution. That is the aspect I was talking about.

In this way one could argue something happened in Buddhism that did not seem to have been part of the culture of the Sjakya's.

Somehow in someway the caste system out of india became part of Buddhism in Thailand.

And it is a fact one can be corrupt as a Brahman priest but it would be naive to think a Buddhist monk in his position and situation can not be corrupt.

A person can be corrupt in every situation.

At the moment a Thai is dressed in orange robe he is considered to be 'another person' and is looked upon as being a monk.

The Monks in Thailand do have the 'priestly' responsibillity to take care the funerals.

Something happened to Buddhism that happened to all religions, it became organised. I'm not sure what you find significant about the culture of the Sjakya's, Buddhism wasn't a clan religion and had gone well beyond one ethnic group during the Buddha's lifetime.

Thailand has it's own social hierarchy that probably originates before contact with Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the indian caste system as far as I can see.

You'll notice when I talked about corruption I used the term more easily, the point being that if a Buddhist monk follows the rule on not handling money there is much less opportunity, of course in modern Thailand far too many do handle money.

I think it is very important to realise Siddhartha was born within the Sjakya people, -( Karma, cause and effect) - cos this people were very independent of the Brahman religion of those times.

In fact someone could state Buddha was a free thinker in his days compared with the culture of the Brahmans, and it was evident he was born in such culture.

So that was significant about the Sjakya culture, they were very independent towards the Brahman culture, and by description of Trevor Ling, they were not very sympathic to Brahmans.

I would not be surprised one could explain part of the attitude of Buddha by his experience of the differences of the Sjakya culture and the Brahman culture.

Looking at his life of compassion and love and rejecting the caste system of the Brahmans, by the sample of his life, one could maybe tell Buddha overruled the Brahman culture in a spiritual way on a spiritual level.

What happened to Buddhism probably everywhere , happened and happens to most spiritual enlightment, it becomes institutionalised.

And to my opinion this means it becomes an instrument in the subjective 'hands' of humans.

It becomes an instrument to organise people, to organise power, to construct social systems up to telling people what language they have to speak and what clothes to wear.

In Thailand funerals are organised this way, they are part of the responsibillity of a religious institution.

In western countries the Governments have made rules, laws, about what to do when people die.

Most of the times those rules and laws are not directly related to religion, cos in most western countries there is freedom of religion.

Those rules are there to take care the people in general, to prevent diseases to occur and to spread, those rules are there to grant every indvidual a proper and respectfull handling of their physical remains.

And what is the situation in Thailand as the aborted babies show?

When you would read about the social hierarchy of Thailand you will learn the Thai entered this part of Asia out of Yunnan (China) in the 10th century.

There is just little known about this part of Asia in the times before, but the scientists think it hosted a number of indigenous Mon Khmer and Malay civilizations.

This Indochina peninsula seem to have been a home to various indigenous animistic communities .

In the eighth century, - 1300 year after Buddha - missionaries from Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) introduced Theravada Buddhism to the Mon.

At that time there still was no Thai social hierarchy implementing an overall Thai culture in this part of Asia.

[phetaroi]

Be honest. Your OP certainly showed that you need HELP as your "confidence" with Buddhism have been shaken, otherwise you won't bring it up in such a manner.

Now I understand your problem better since you believe some principles of Christianity as well as Buddhism; and you mentioned "no "religion" that has it right".

Learn to see it in another way, "certain religion has something wrong" and all the answers for all the wrong beliefs in christianity can be found in budhhism.

May you be enlightened like the Lord soon.

In case you still don't understand, let me explain further by making use of your 1st para:

Christianity cannot be questioned because you only ask question on something that can provide an answer that is logic, reasonable and correct. In the case of christianity, there is no logical or reasonable answer, not to mention correctness. There is nothing to understand to christianity, unlike buddhism. In buddhism, you have to understand, just like you understand for eg science. In christianity, you don't understand(because there is no logical or reasonable answers. In short, you don't "question" or "understand" christianlty, you just "believe" or don't believe in what they claim or teach.

That is why people don't question christianity nowadays, science already PROVED them wrong.

Beside that, there are other reasons. One of which is sensible people don't believe in christianity because of all the mistakes that "their" god(if it existed) made. How could an all mighty god make so many terrible and cruel mistakes; Oh it's getting late........gtg.

Continue some other time.

It isn't a question of being honest or dishonest. My point is that there is no reason for me to believe that you are going to help me, and it seems to me that your ego is a bit inflated...not such a good thing in Buddhism. I would be far more open to your comments if you began, instead, by saying something along the lines of, "In my view...."

I also think you're off base when you say, "all the answers for all the wrong beliefs in christianity can be found in budhhism." First, many (although not me) would say that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. Second, Buddhism does not answer some of the great questions of mankind.

And, you're really wrong when you say that people do not question Christianity. My goodness...its tenets are questioned constantly. In fact, within the past week, people are sorely questioning the Pope's statement that under certain conditions, the use of condoms is acceptable, and this is just one example.

And finally, your condemnation of Christianity and that science has won (as well as your implication that Buddhism has won over Christianity). I didn't realize that it was all a contest. First, millions ( probably billions) of people disagree with you. For example, in a recent poll, 92% of Americans stated a belief in some form of "god" or "universal spirit". In another study, "Larson and Witham found that 40% of American scientists still believe in a personal God. This does not include scientists who believe in an impersonal God or in a God who does not answer prayer. Nor does it include scientists who believe in a personal God, but don’t believe in the immortality of the human soul." My degree is in the Geosciences, with a specialty in invertebrate paleontology...closely related to the study of evolution. Virtually all of my professors -- all of whom believed in evolution -- were also Christians.

But, you have also twisted my OP, which was about how people view Buddhism after the failure of the Buddhist monks at this particular temple to uphold the highest principles of mankind.

[Brucenkhamen]

And what is the situation in Thailand as the aborted babies show?

I think for one thing it highlights the Thai cultural habit of ignoring problems and hoping they go away, rather that getting them solved.

When you would read about the social hierarchy of Thailand you will learn the Thai entered this part of Asia out of Yunnan (China) in the 10th century.

There is just little known about this part of Asia in the times before, but the scientists think it hosted a number of indigenous Mon Khmer and Malay civilizations.

This Indochina peninsula seem to have been a home to various indigenous animistic communities .

In the eighth century, - 1300 year after Buddha - missionaries from Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) introduced Theravada Buddhism to the Mon.

At that time there still was no Thai social hierarchy implementing an overall Thai culture in this part of Asia.

Of course the Thais would have had a social hierarchy before thay migrated to what we now know as Thailand.

There was some Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism sprinkled throughout South East at the time, from what I've read there were missionaries from Sri Lanka as early as the 6th century. However it wasn't until the thirteenth century A.D that Theravada Buddhism was made the state religion of Thailand.

[christiaan]

And what is the situation in Thailand as the aborted babies show?

I think for one thing it highlights the Thai cultural habit of ignoring problems and hoping they go away, rather that getting them solved.

When you would read about the social hierarchy of Thailand you will learn the Thai entered this part of Asia out of Yunnan (China) in the 10th century.

There is just little known about this part of Asia in the times before, but the scientists think it hosted a number of indigenous Mon Khmer and Malay civilizations.

This Indochina peninsula seem to have been a home to various indigenous animistic communities .

In the eighth century, - 1300 year after Buddha - missionaries from Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) introduced Theravada Buddhism to the Mon.

At that time there still was no Thai social hierarchy implementing an overall Thai culture in this part of Asia.

Of course the Thais would have had a social hierarchy before thay migrated to what we now know as Thailand.

There was some Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism sprinkled throughout South East at the time, from what I've read there were missionaries from Sri Lanka as early as the 6th century. However it wasn't until the thirteenth century A.D that Theravada Buddhism was made the state religion of Thailand.

It would be interesting to look at other Asian cultures in South Asia and to see how they orghanise the funerals of the physical remains of humans within a Buddhist culture.

This would give more information on how the Thai Monks do and more information on Thai culture..

But to answer the original question of this topic : My confidence in Thai buddhism is not shaken at all, its just about the same as before.

[healthcaretaker]

Be honest. Your OP certainly showed that you need HELP as your "confidence" with Buddhism have been shaken, otherwise you won't bring it up in such a manner.

Now I understand your problem better since you believe some principles of Christianity as well as Buddhism; and you mentioned "no "religion" that has it right".

Learn to see it in another way, "certain religion has something wrong" and all the answers for all the wrong beliefs in christianity can be found in budhhism.

May you be enlightened like the Lord soon.

In case you still don't understand, let me explain further by making use of your 1st para:

Christianity cannot be questioned because you only ask question on something that can provide an answer that is logic, reasonable and correct. In the case of christianity, there is no logical or reasonable answer, not to mention correctness. There is nothing to understand to christianity, unlike buddhism. In buddhism, you have to understand, just like you understand for eg science. In christianity, you don't understand(because there is no logical or reasonable answers. In short, you don't "question" or "understand" christianlty, you just "believe" or don't believe in what they claim or teach.

That is why people don't question christianity nowadays, science already PROVED them wrong.

Beside that, there are other reasons. One of which is sensible people don't believe in christianity because of all the mistakes that "their" god(if it existed) made. How could an all mighty god make so many terrible and cruel mistakes; Oh it's getting late........gtg.

Continue some other time.

It isn't a question of being honest or dishonest. My point is that there is no reason for me to believe that you are going to help me, and it seems to me that your ego is a bit inflated...not such a good thing in Buddhism. I would be far more open to your comments if you began, instead, by saying something along the lines of, "In my view...."

I also think you're off base when you say, "all the answers for all the wrong beliefs in christianity can be found in budhhism." First, many (although not me) would say that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. Second, Buddhism does not answer some of the great questions of mankind.

And, you're really wrong when you say that people do not question Christianity. My goodness...its tenets are questioned constantly. In fact, within the past week, people are sorely questioning the Pope's statement that under certain conditions, the use of condoms is acceptable, and this is just one example.

And finally, your condemnation of Christianity and that science has won (as well as your implication that Buddhism has won over Christianity). I didn't realize that it was all a contest. First, millions ( probably billions) of people disagree with you. For example, in a recent poll, 92% of Americans stated a belief in some form of "god" or "universal spirit". In another study, "Larson and Witham found that 40% of American scientists still believe in a personal God. This does not include scientists who believe in an impersonal God or in a God who does not answer prayer. Nor does it include scientists who believe in a personal God, but don't believe in the immortality of the human soul." My degree is in the Geosciences, with a specialty in invertebrate paleontology...closely related to the study of evolution. Virtually all of my professors -- all of whom believed in evolution -- were also Christians.

But, you have also twisted my OP, which was about how people view Buddhism after the failure of the Buddhist monks at this particular temple to uphold the highest principles of mankind.

Who is twisting now ?

Did I say christianity's wrong-belief and false claims mean I don't believe in god ?

Did anyone taught that Buddhism don't believe in god ?

Yes, 92% of Americans believe in some form of "god" or "universal spirit" but what has this got to do with christianity ?

In other words, I am saying people losing faith in christianoity on their claims of "A & E" story, world created in 6 or 7 days nonsense, etc - NOT about belief of god or not, are you getting it ?

Oh my GOD !!

I always find christianity-believers always share the same traits, twisting in their arguements or pretending not to understand ?

BTW, there is NO ego or contest involved here, don't try to change any subject or attention.

I NEVER said Buddhism is not a philosophy or not and it don't matter whether it is a religion or not. My point is simply that NOTHING in Buddhism has been proven wrong by any studies, science or not, but many claims by christianity has been proven to be wrong.

What is it that Buddhism cannot answer about questions on Mankind (that you make up ?)? Please be specific, don't make malicious claims about Buddhism.

If Buddhism cannot answer you, I will try.

Now don't wrong away, it's getting interesting, isn't it ?

May our Lord bless you.

[healthcaretaker]

So we agree Buddhist monkhood evolved more to a priestly institution. That is the aspect I was talking about.

In this way one could argue something happened in Buddhism that did not seem to have been part of the culture of the Sjakya's.

Somehow in someway the caste system out of india became part of Buddhism in Thailand.

And it is a fact one can be corrupt as a Brahman priest but it would be naive to think a Buddhist monk in his position and situation can not be corrupt.

A person can be corrupt in every situation.

At the moment a Thai is dressed in orange robe he is considered to be 'another person' and is looked upon as being a monk.

The Monks in Thailand do have the 'priestly' responsibillity to take care the funerals.

Something happened to Buddhism that happened to all religions, it became organised. I'm not sure what you find significant about the culture of the Sjakya's, Buddhism wasn't a clan religion and had gone well beyond one ethnic group during the Buddha's lifetime.

Thailand has it's own social hierarchy that probably originates before contact with Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the indian caste system as far as I can see.

You'll notice when I talked about corruption I used the term more easily, the point being that if a Buddhist monk follows the rule on not handling money there is much less opportunity, of course in modern Thailand far too many do handle money.

I think it is very important to realise Siddhartha was born within the Sjakya people, -( Karma, cause and effect) - cos this people were very independent of the Brahman religion of those times.

In fact someone could state Buddha was a free thinker in his days compared with the culture of the Brahmans, and it was evident he was born in such culture.

So that was significant about the Sjakya culture, they were very independent towards the Brahman culture, and by description of Trevor Ling, they were not very sympathic to Brahmans.

I would not be surprised one could explain part of the attitude of Buddha by his experience of the differences of the Sjakya culture and the Brahman culture.

Looking at his life of compassion and love and rejecting the caste system of the Brahmans, by the sample of his life, one could maybe tell Buddha overruled the Brahman culture in a spiritual way on a spiritual level.

What happened to Buddhism probably everywhere , happened and happens to most spiritual enlightment, it becomes institutionalised.

And to my opinion this means it becomes an instrument in the subjective 'hands' of humans.

It becomes an instrument to organise people, to organise power, to construct social systems up to telling people what language they have to speak and what clothes to wear.

In Thailand funerals are organised this way, they are part of the responsibillity of a religious institution.

In western countries the Governments have made rules, laws, about what to do when people die.

Most of the times those rules and laws are not directly related to religion, cos in most western countries there is freedom of religion.

Those rules are there to take care the people in general, to prevent diseases to occur and to spread, those rules are there to grant every indvidual a proper and respectfull handling of their physical remains.

And what is the situation in Thailand as the aborted babies show?

When you would read about the social hierarchy of Thailand you will learn the Thai entered this part of Asia out of Yunnan (China) in the 10th century.

There is just little known about this part of Asia in the times before, but the scientists think it hosted a number of indigenous Mon Khmer and Malay civilizations.

This Indochina peninsula seem to have been a home to various indigenous animistic communities .

In the eighth century, - 1300 year after Buddha - missionaries from Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) introduced Theravada Buddhism to the Mon.

At that time there still was no Thai social hierarchy implementing an overall Thai culture in this part of Asia.

The Lord's teachings don't just overruled the Brahmans in a spiritual level. It even overruled many other religion, especially those based on fictional and supernatural stories and claims.

[phetaroi]

Who is twisting now ?

Did I say christianity's wrong-belief and false claims mean I don't believe in god ?

Did anyone taught that Buddhism don't believe in god ?

Yes, 92% of Americans believe in some form of "god" or "universal spirit" but what has this got to do with christianity ?

In other words, I am saying people losing faith in christianoity on their claims of "A & E" story, world created in 6 or 7 days nonsense, etc - NOT about belief of god or not, are you getting it ?

Oh my GOD !!

I always find christianity-believers always share the same traits, twisting in their arguements or pretending not to understand ?

BTW, there is NO ego or contest involved here, don't try to change any subject or attention.

I NEVER said Buddhism is not a philosophy or not and it don't matter whether it is a religion or not. My point is simply that NOTHING in Buddhism has been proven wrong by any studies, science or not, but many claims by christianity has been proven to be wrong.

What is it that Buddhism cannot answer about questions on Mankind (that you make up ?)? Please be specific, don't make malicious claims about Buddhism.

If Buddhism cannot answer you, I will try.

Now don't wrong away, it's getting interesting, isn't it ?

May our Lord bless you.

Based on your attitude and the way that you write, I would prefer to continue the discussion about Buddhist values with others in the forum. You are certainly welcome to continue to share your views with the forum, in general.

[Brucenkhamen]

It would be interesting to look at other Asian cultures in South Asia and to see how they orghanise the funerals of the physical remains of humans within a Buddhist culture.

This would give more information on how the Thai Monks do and more information on Thai culture..

I think you'll find they are pretty similar. I know in Japan for example they have a saying you are born a Shinto and die a Buddhist, because the Buddhistts handle the funeral rites.

But to answer the original question of this topic : My confidence in Thai buddhism is not shaken at all, its just about the same as before.

It wasn't my question it was Phetaroi's. I lost confidence in Thai Buddhism more than a decade ago, but I didn't lose confidence in the Buddhas path to awakening.

[christiaan]

So we agree Buddhist monkhood evolved more to a priestly institution. That is the aspect I was talking about.

In this way one could argue something happened in Buddhism that did not seem to have been part of the culture of the Sjakya's.

Somehow in someway the caste system out of india became part of Buddhism in Thailand.

And it is a fact one can be corrupt as a Brahman priest but it would be naive to think a Buddhist monk in his position and situation can not be corrupt.

A person can be corrupt in every situation.

At the moment a Thai is dressed in orange robe he is considered to be 'another person' and is looked upon as being a monk.

The Monks in Thailand do have the 'priestly' responsibillity to take care the funerals.

Something happened to Buddhism that happened to all religions, it became organised. I'm not sure what you find significant about the culture of the Sjakya's, Buddhism wasn't a clan religion and had gone well beyond one ethnic group during the Buddha's lifetime.

Thailand has it's own social hierarchy that probably originates before contact with Buddhism, it has nothing to do with the indian caste system as far as I can see.

You'll notice when I talked about corruption I used the term more easily, the point being that if a Buddhist monk follows the rule on not handling money there is much less opportunity, of course in modern Thailand far too many do handle money.

I think it is very important to realise Siddhartha was born within the Sjakya people, -( Karma, cause and effect) - cos this people were very independent of the Brahman religion of those times.

In fact someone could state Buddha was a free thinker in his days compared with the culture of the Brahmans, and it was evident he was born in such culture.

So that was significant about the Sjakya culture, they were very independent towards the Brahman culture, and by description of Trevor Ling, they were not very sympathic to Brahmans.

I would not be surprised one could explain part of the attitude of Buddha by his experience of the differences of the Sjakya culture and the Brahman culture.

Looking at his life of compassion and love and rejecting the caste system of the Brahmans, by the sample of his life, one could maybe tell Buddha overruled the Brahman culture in a spiritual way on a spiritual level.

What happened to Buddhism probably everywhere , happened and happens to most spiritual enlightment, it becomes institutionalised.

And to my opinion this means it becomes an instrument in the subjective 'hands' of humans.

It becomes an instrument to organise people, to organise power, to construct social systems up to telling people what language they have to speak and what clothes to wear.

In Thailand funerals are organised this way, they are part of the responsibillity of a religious institution.

In western countries the Governments have made rules, laws, about what to do when people die.

Most of the times those rules and laws are not directly related to religion, cos in most western countries there is freedom of religion.

Those rules are there to take care the people in general, to prevent diseases to occur and to spread, those rules are there to grant every indvidual a proper and respectfull handling of their physical remains.

And what is the situation in Thailand as the aborted babies show?

When you would read about the social hierarchy of Thailand you will learn the Thai entered this part of Asia out of Yunnan (China) in the 10th century.

There is just little known about this part of Asia in the times before, but the scientists think it hosted a number of indigenous Mon Khmer and Malay civilizations.

This Indochina peninsula seem to have been a home to various indigenous animistic communities .

In the eighth century, - 1300 year after Buddha - missionaries from Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) introduced Theravada Buddhism to the Mon.

At that time there still was no Thai social hierarchy implementing an overall Thai culture in this part of Asia.

The Lord's teachings don't just overruled the Brahmans in a spiritual level. It even overruled many other religion, especially those based on fictional and supernatural stories and claims.

Suddenly there is this expression ' The Lord', first time I read it overhere. I wonder what is meant by the expression ' The Lord' but I do not want to get of topic.

Well, to my opinion Buddhisme was a next step in the evolution of human mankind, 2500 years ago, just like the Greek philosophies where at the same time, one maybe can see Buddhism as the birth of the Asian logic where the Greek philosophy was the birth of the western world logic.

At the time Buddhisme came to birth it could not overrule Christianity since at that time there was no Christian institutionalised religion, the Brahman religion however was there.

In the mean time, 2500 years have past, some further important steps have been taken after all those philosophies became part of human mankind.

Buddhism is part of human mankind becos it is in general part of being a human like Greek philosophy is part of being a human.

People make religions out of personal manifested spiritual experiences and by that they always and always become subjective and conservative, but in fact and essentially in all the spiritual experiences humans just ' touch' the quality of the spiritual world out of the specific - asian or western - situation they are living in.

Nobody, no individual, no religion, no culture does posses this spirituallity exclusively like no one posses logic exclusively.

Thai Buddhisme can be trusted to not have some exclusive possession of spitrituality or logic , we still can have confidence in that.

[phetaroi]

It wasn't my question it was Phetaroi's. I lost confidence in Thai Buddhism more than a decade ago, but I didn't lose confidence in the Buddhas path to awakening.

Interesting. Thank you for answering clearly, rather than arguing with me, as others are doing.

[phetaroi]

Suddenly there is this expression ' The Lord', first time I read it overhere. I wonder what is meant by the expression ' The Lord' but I do not want to get of topic.

Well, to my opinion Buddhisme was a next step in the evolution of human mankind, 2500 years ago, just like the Greek philosophies where at the same time, one maybe can see Buddhism as the birth of the Asian logic where the Greek philosophy was the birth of the western world logic.

At the time Buddhisme came to birth it could not overrule Christianity since at that time there was no Christian institutionalised religion, the Brahman religion however was there.

In the mean time, 2500 years have past, some further important steps have been taken after all those philosophies became part of human mankind.

Buddhism is part of human mankind becos it is in general part of being a human like Greek philosophy is part of being a human.

People make religions out of personal manifested spiritual experiences and by that they always and always become subjective and conservative, but in fact and essentially in all the spiritual experiences humans just ' touch' the quality of the spiritual world out of the specific - asian or western - situation they are living in.

Nobody, no individual, no religion, no culture does posses this spirituallity exclusively like no one posses logic exclusively.

Thai Buddhisme can be trusted to not have some exclusive possession of spitrituality or logic , we still can have confidence in that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...the only problem with your thesis may be that the Old Testament (based on the Hebrew Bible) dates to at least 450 BC.

Could you further explain your last sentence?

Thank you.

[christiaan]

Suddenly there is this expression ' The Lord', first time I read it overhere. I wonder what is meant by the expression ' The Lord' but I do not want to get of topic.

Well, to my opinion Buddhisme was a next step in the evolution of human mankind, 2500 years ago, just like the Greek philosophies where at the same time, one maybe can see Buddhism as the birth of the Asian logic where the Greek philosophy was the birth of the western world logic.

At the time Buddhisme came to birth it could not overrule Christianity since at that time there was no Christian institutionalised religion, the Brahman religion however was there.

In the mean time, 2500 years have past, some further important steps have been taken after all those philosophies became part of human mankind.

Buddhism is part of human mankind becos it is in general part of being a human like Greek philosophy is part of being a human.

People make religions out of personal manifested spiritual experiences and by that they always and always become subjective and conservative, but in fact and essentially in all the spiritual experiences humans just ' touch' the quality of the spiritual world out of the specific - asian or western - situation they are living in.

Nobody, no individual, no religion, no culture does posses this spirituallity exclusively like no one posses logic exclusively.

Thai Buddhisme can be trusted to not have some exclusive possession of spitrituality or logic , we still can have confidence in that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...the only problem with your thesis may be that the Old Testament (based on the Hebrew Bible) dates to at least 450 BC.

Could you further explain your last sentence?

Thank you.

Christiantiy , as an institutionalised religion came to life, as told by the history of the Catholic Church, after the dead and resurrection of Jezus Christ and then the same thing happened as with Buddhism, it became the instrument in the hands of humans and - in the main stream - in that way culture, powerplay, dogma, weapon and so on and so on.

It just shows people can use everything to cultivate their subjective lower selfs, and some spiritual and worldly happenings are just more powerfull to use as others.

The old Testament is the history about culture, spiritual revelations and insitutionalised religion of the Jewish people.

As I wrote before, by observation one can see that Christianity originally is no national religion, so no part of the Jewish people or Jewish culture.

Regarding my last sentence , I prefer everyone to give his or her own meaning to that one.

I could only say, when a friend of mine would always wear glasses while in fact he not needs them, I can have confidence he will wear them tomorrow like he did before.

My confidence only would be shaken when he would not wear them tomorrow.

[healthcaretaker]

Who is twisting now ?

Did I say christianity's wrong-belief and false claims mean I don't believe in god ?

Did anyone taught that Buddhism don't believe in god ?

Yes, 92% of Americans believe in some form of "god" or "universal spirit" but what has this got to do with christianity ?

In other words, I am saying people losing faith in christianoity on their claims of "A & E" story, world created in 6 or 7 days nonsense, etc - NOT about belief of god or not, are you getting it ?

Oh my GOD !!

I always find christianity-believers always share the same traits, twisting in their arguements or pretending not to understand ?

BTW, there is NO ego or contest involved here, don't try to change any subject or attention.

I NEVER said Buddhism is not a philosophy or not and it don't matter whether it is a religion or not. My point is simply that NOTHING in Buddhism has been proven wrong by any studies, science or not, but many claims by christianity has been proven to be wrong.

What is it that Buddhism cannot answer about questions on Mankind (that you make up ?)? Please be specific, don't make malicious claims about Buddhism.

If Buddhism cannot answer you, I will try.

Now don't wrong away, it's getting interesting, isn't it ?

May our Lord bless you.

Based on your attitude and the way that you write, I would prefer to continue the discussion about Buddhist values with others in the forum. You are certainly welcome to continue to share your views with the forum, in general.

Just as I have expected such a reply will come from you.

Over the years from my experience and observations on those(mostly christians) who tried to condemn Buddhism(whether in a profunnd manner, direct or indirect), whenever they are cornered, proven wrong or exposed of their intentions, they will always end in a mannner like the above post, "Because of your attitufe, I will not continue to argue with you" or in othger words of more or less the same meaning.

Just to prove your ill-intentions(just my own suspicion) again, look at your new post which you tried to discuss christianity with the other person who behave like you. Didn't you mentioned earlier that you will not discuss christianity here as this is a Budhhism thread of forum ? What is your inbtentions actually ?

I still hope to help you, as the Lord's teachings, one should always have compassion towards others.

BYW, to someone who don't understand who is the Lord, he is Lord Buddha of course.

May you be enlightened soon.

[sabaijai]

The programme significantly contributed to the decrease in the annual population growth rate from 3.3% in the mid-1970s to 0.6% in 2005. During the same period, the number of children per family fell from 7 to under two. That outperforms just about any other nation in the world since that time.

Meanwhile a legendary NGO, Population and Community Development Association (PDA), utilises a participatory, community-based approach, recruiting and training residents of villages and urban neighborhoods to provide information on family planning, including the supervised, non-medical distribution of oral contraceptives. Condom use for both contraception and disease prevention is one of the highest in Asia.

I don't see that Thailand in any way "pretends to have a cultural code of religion." Thailand has no state religion.

Hi SJ.

Is the National Family Planning Program predominantly education based?

Education is an important facet of birth control, but affordability is equally important.

I don't know about oral contraception but condoms are far too expensive for the millions of rural poor in Thailand.

Average Thai incomes are only a fraction of what is earned by the working class in the West.

On the other hand condoms are sold at international prices.

Yes primarily education. Not sure what the alternative would be.

Condoms are widely distributed for free by Thailand's Ministry of Public Health and by other NGOs, including the PDA. They are available at family planning clinics for example.

[phetaroi]

Christiantiy , as an institutionalised religion came to life, as told by the history of the Catholic Church, after the dead and resurrection of Jezus Christ and then the same thing happened as with Buddhism, it became the instrument in the hands of humans and - in the main stream - in that way culture, powerplay, dogma, weapon and so on and so on.

It just shows people can use everything to cultivate their subjective lower selfs, and some spiritual and worldly happenings are just more powerfull to use as others.

The old Testament is the history about culture, spiritual revelations and insitutionalised religion of the Jewish people.

As I wrote before, by observation one can see that Christianity originally is no national religion, so no part of the Jewish people or Jewish culture.

Regarding my last sentence , I prefer everyone to give his or her own meaning to that one.

I could only say, when a friend of mine would always wear glasses while in fact he not needs them, I can have confidence he will wear them tomorrow like he did before.

My confidence only would be shaken when he would not wear them tomorrow.

I understand what you're saying about Christianity. The point I am making to you is that there is a close relationship between the Hebrew texts, which essentially became the Old Testament. This is not unlike feature of the Hindu religion which carried over into Buddhism.

You might want to research some of the old writings of historians Will and Ariel Durant. As Will Durant once said (slight paraphrase), "If god did not exist, then man would create one."

[christiaan]

Christiantiy , as an institutionalised religion came to life, as told by the history of the Catholic Church, after the dead and resurrection of Jezus Christ and then the same thing happened as with Buddhism, it became the instrument in the hands of humans and - in the main stream - in that way culture, powerplay, dogma, weapon and so on and so on.

It just shows people can use everything to cultivate their subjective lower selfs, and some spiritual and worldly happenings are just more powerfull to use as others.

The old Testament is the history about culture, spiritual revelations and insitutionalised religion of the Jewish people.

As I wrote before, by observation one can see that Christianity originally is no national religion, so no part of the Jewish people or Jewish culture.

Regarding my last sentence , I prefer everyone to give his or her own meaning to that one.

I could only say, when a friend of mine would always wear glasses while in fact he not needs them, I can have confidence he will wear them tomorrow like he did before.

My confidence only would be shaken when he would not wear them tomorrow.

I understand what you're saying about Christianity. The point I am making to you is that there is a close relationship between the Hebrew texts, which essentially became the Old Testament. This is not unlike feature of the Hindu religion which carried over into Buddhism.

You might want to research some of the old writings of historians Will and Ariel Durant. As Will Durant once said (slight paraphrase), "If god did not exist, then man would create one."

Hello Phetaroi

I hope and think I understand you and if not so please hand some more information to help me understand your point,.

I think you point out to the fact that there is another connection from Hebrew text - withhold in the Old Testament - to Chistianity in a later period, as we see in Hindu religion related to, carried over to, Buddhism?

I think it is interesting maybe you could explan more as you see this, but maybe this would be more for another topic?

I never read anything yet of the named historians, could surely be interesting.

[christiaan]

Who is twisting now ?

Did I say christianity's wrong-belief and false claims mean I don't believe in god ?

Did anyone taught that Buddhism don't believe in god ?

Yes, 92% of Americans believe in some form of "god" or "universal spirit" but what has this got to do with christianity ?

In other words, I am saying people losing faith in christianoity on their claims of "A & E" story, world created in 6 or 7 days nonsense, etc - NOT about belief of god or not, are you getting it ?

Oh my GOD !!

I always find christianity-believers always share the same traits, twisting in their arguements or pretending not to understand ?

BTW, there is NO ego or contest involved here, don't try to change any subject or attention.

I NEVER said Buddhism is not a philosophy or not and it don't matter whether it is a religion or not. My point is simply that NOTHING in Buddhism has been proven wrong by any studies, science or not, but many claims by christianity has been proven to be wrong.

What is it that Buddhism cannot answer about questions on Mankind (that you make up ?)? Please be specific, don't make malicious claims about Buddhism.

If Buddhism cannot answer you, I will try.

Now don't wrong away, it's getting interesting, isn't it ?

May our Lord bless you.

Based on your attitude and the way that you write, I would prefer to continue the discussion about Buddhist values with others in the forum. You are certainly welcome to continue to share your views with the forum, in general.

Just as I have expected such a reply will come from you.

Over the years from my experience and observations on those(mostly christians) who tried to condemn Buddhism(whether in a profunnd manner, direct or indirect), whenever they are cornered, proven wrong or exposed of their intentions, they will always end in a mannner like the above post, "Because of your attitufe, I will not continue to argue with you" or in othger words of more or less the same meaning.

Just to prove your ill-intentions(just my own suspicion) again, look at your new post which you tried to discuss christianity with the other person who behave like you. Didn't you mentioned earlier that you will not discuss christianity here as this is a Budhhism thread of forum ? What is your inbtentions actually ?

I still hope to help you, as the Lord's teachings, one should always have compassion towards others.

BYW, to someone who don't understand who is the Lord, he is Lord Buddha of course.

May you be enlightened soon.

[christiaan]

Healtcaretaker:

Over the years from my experience and observations on those(mostly christians) who tried to condemn Buddhism(whether in a profunnd manner, direct or indirect), whenever they are cornered, proven wrong or exposed of their intentions, they will always end in a mannner like the above post, "Because of your attitufe, I will not continue to argue with you" or in othger words of more or less the same meaning.

Just to prove your ill-intentions(just my own suspicion) again, look at your new post which you tried to discuss christianity with the other person who behave like you. Didn't you mentioned earlier that you will not discuss christianity here as this is a Budhhism thread of forum ? What is your inbtentions actually ?

I still hope to help you, as the Lord's teachings, one should always have compassion towards others.

BYW, to someone who don't understand who is the Lord, he is Lord Buddha of course.

May you be enlightened soon.

Christiaan

Thank you very much with regard to your elucidation on the use of the phrase : The Lord.

There are so many Lords nowadays it is very important to realise who we are talking about.

There seem to be a Lord Maitreya, The Lord Jehova, the Lord Jezus, and ofcourse the Lord Buddha, and then there are even more.

Within Christian religion one can observe it is very common to use just this expression ' The Lord ' , and it has also been very common to use the expression May the lord Bless you.

This all can be very confusing.

It is a fact that most contributors occasionally move out of topic, it seems difficult not to do.

We should help eachother to on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic.

Since this is a forum about Buddhism, and that is ' artificially' but understandable, where would we end otherwise, we have to center at and around Buddhism.

Everyone will have his or her own limit in expanding outside the topic and try to discipline him or herself.

I am not condemning Buddhism at all, I just question and I question everything , so also all other religions and spiritual manifestations and also the practical and social behaviour of people.

Overhere we can support and question the validity, the meaning, handling and interpretation of Buddhism.

In my opinion no question should be avoided.

There are other forums to question other religions or other topics.

When I contribute there I probably would be accused of condemning Christianity, (the truth is I have been) some contributors in forums seem to transcend to hardcore fans, ' holy guards ' and more dangerous, even fundamentalists with a blind spot for their fanaticism.

So, I cannot go into discussions about Christianity overhere, I am not part or fan of any institutionalised religion and so I cannot represent one of them in any way,.

On the other hand I am studying and practicing spirituality in a very broad sence and I am aware some remarks made here just show a very superficial approach of the essence of spirituallity as apears to be part of human existence.

But the fact is this part of the forum understandably is limited as we know and we should continuesly at least try to respect this.