How Does The Fetus Scandal Affect Your Confidence In Thai Buddhism

[christiaan]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

[eurasianthai]

Not too sure I understand the OP.

Because the foetuses end up in a wat for cremation, you're questionning Buddhism?

This is actually respect of life, they want to give a proper burial to the foetuses that were aborted.

Not sure it is the same in most countries, where they are just discarded as garbage.

And as far as abortion is concerned, no woman wants to have one, but well, where is the father?

Edited December 3, 2010 by eurasianthai

[healthcaretaker]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

I am not sure if you are directing your last 2 messages to the OP as I find the OP getting away from the topic(not just off-topic) by avoiding me just because he/she could not accept my reasonings or replies ?

As far as I am concern, I never go off topic. Every messages of mine are in reply to someone who responded to me or others; and related to the topic started by the OP.

As for the "Lord" usage, iy depends on who and when it's used. This is a Buddhism forum, so my use of Lord obviously is the Buddha but of course, I should specify. When someone mention, "May the Lord Bless you" NOWADAYS, they could mean the Buddha too, unlike in the past. Usage of a word, like everything else has a beginning, don't you agree ? Someone in the past must have started to refer to their god or someone as Lord, so in the present or in the future, don't be surprise more people may refer to Buddha as the Lord in "May Lord Bless You".

I am studying and making research on "spiritual" too but I do it on the scientific level. In times to come, eventually, evereything actually breaks down to "energy" level. The Big Bang is the original source of enery and this "god" dam_n thing that everyone claim for their religion is actually energy. So in future, those who believe in god can say that god created the original source of energy or god created the Big Bang. That sounds more logical than to claim that god created the world or humans, don't you think so ?

Back to the OP, I think there are enough replies from the others(I made mine clear too) and everyone has equal rights to give their opinions as long as they are reasonable and logical. If anyone is to disagree with anyone's message, of course they can voice out .

Ok....let's continue......

[christiaan]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

I am not sure if you are directing your last 2 messages to the OP as I find the OP getting away from the topic(not just off-topic) by avoiding me just because he/she could not accept my reasonings or replies ?

As far as I am concern, I never go off topic. Every messages of mine are in reply to someone who responded to me or others; and related to the topic started by the OP.

As for the "Lord" usage, iy depends on who and when it's used. This is a Buddhism forum, so my use of Lord obviously is the Buddha but of course, I should specify. When someone mention, "May the Lord Bless you" NOWADAYS, they could mean the Buddha too, unlike in the past. Usage of a word, like everything else has a beginning, don't you agree ? Someone in the past must have started to refer to their god or someone as Lord, so in the present or in the future, don't be surprise more people may refer to Buddha as the Lord in "May Lord Bless You".

I am studying and making research on "spiritual" too but I do it on the scientific level. In times to come, eventually, evereything actually breaks down to "energy" level. The Big Bang is the original source of enery and this "god" dam_n thing that everyone claim for their religion is actually energy. So in future, those who believe in god can say that god created the original source of energy or god created the Big Bang. That sounds more logical than to claim that god created the world or humans, don't you think so ?

Back to the OP, I think there are enough replies from the others(I made mine clear too) and everyone has equal rights to give their opinions as long as they are reasonable and logical. If anyone is to disagree with anyone's message, of course they can voice out .

Ok....let's continue......

Thank you very much. What a pitty however cos I would love to hear more about the original source of the Big Bang, and so the original source of energy. But maybe we at some time at some place in some other forum we will meet again about this Big Bang that came out of 'nothing' (?)

So back to the OP or other OP's

[christiaan]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

I am not sure if you are directing your last 2 messages to the OP as I find the OP getting away from the topic(not just off-topic) by avoiding me just because he/she could not accept my reasonings or replies ?

As far as I am concern, I never go off topic. Every messages of mine are in reply to someone who responded to me or others; and related to the topic started by the OP.

As for the "Lord" usage, iy depends on who and when it's used. This is a Buddhism forum, so my use of Lord obviously is the Buddha but of course, I should specify. When someone mention, "May the Lord Bless you" NOWADAYS, they could mean the Buddha too, unlike in the past. Usage of a word, like everything else has a beginning, don't you agree ? Someone in the past must have started to refer to their god or someone as Lord, so in the present or in the future, don't be surprise more people may refer to Buddha as the Lord in "May Lord Bless You".

I am studying and making research on "spiritual" too but I do it on the scientific level. In times to come, eventually, evereything actually breaks down to "energy" level. The Big Bang is the original source of enery and this "god" dam_n thing that everyone claim for their religion is actually energy. So in future, those who believe in god can say that god created the original source of energy or god created the Big Bang. That sounds more logical than to claim that god created the world or humans, don't you think so ?

Back to the OP, I think there are enough replies from the others(I made mine clear too) and everyone has equal rights to give their opinions as long as they are reasonable and logical. If anyone is to disagree with anyone's message, of course they can voice out .

Ok....let's continue......

Thank you very much. What a pitty however cos I would love to hear more about the original source of the Big Bang, and so the original source of energy. But maybe we at some time at some place in some other forum we will meet again about this Big Bang that came out of 'nothing' (?)

So back to the OP or other OP's

[phetaroi]

Not too sure I understand the OP.

Because the foetuses end up in a wat for cremation, you're questionning Buddhism?

This is actually respect of life, they want to give a proper burial to the foetuses that were aborted.

...

Fair question, I'll try to explain it one more time. Perhaps an analogy will help.

Before retiring, I was a school principal. Ultimately, in one way or another, I was the one held responsible for what happened in my building. And there were three aspects of that responsibility:

1. Setting high expectations from the beginning so that my teachers and other staff operated at a high level of competence.

2. Sufficient planning that things went off well.

3. Reacting properly to things that did not go well.

So, for example, if teacher X slaps a kid in the face, was part of the fault the administration's because we didn't set expectations, or if we did, how did we deal with the teacher who slapped the child?

How do these concepts apply to the current discussion?

In the analogy, the abbot is comparable to the principal. He is responsible for what happens in his temple. He (along with the Supreme Sangha) is responsible for setting high expectations for all monks...monks, who, incidentally, are the face of Thai Buddhism to the Thai Buddhist laity and the world.

Now, you said, that "they want to give a proper burial to the foetuses that were aborted." I would accept the outcome as being responsible if the fetuses had been brought to the temple and either respectfully buried or cremated. Instead, the fetuses were -- at least as reported -- thrown into plastic bags and left in some temple building. I do not accept that as being respectfully buried or cremated. Again, to draw an analogy, when I die, I want to be cremated or buried. I don't want to be thrown into a plastic bag which is then tossed into some room and just left there to rot and smell up the entire neighborhood.

Since the way in which these 2,000+ (!!!!!) rotting fetuses were discovered was that the entire community was sickened by the stench, how can we saw that the monks and abbot were not aware of the situation? If they did not have the funds to cremate or bury the fetuses, did they go to the Supreme Sangha or the government and ask what they should do? No, they just let it continue over some significant period of time as the rotting fetuses piled up. Just as my school community had to have a level of confidence in my principalship in order to fully respect our school*, I submit that to have respect for the local wat, the monks, the abbot, and ultimately Buddhism itself, that the laity must respect the wisdom and competence of one-third of the Triple Gem ("To the Buddha I go for refuge. To the Dhamma I go for refuge. To the Sangha I go for refuge.")

Anticipating your response, you might well ask, "So because of one incident you're going to condemn all of Buddhism?" No, I am not. We can still respect the Dhamma, which at least are words influenced directly by Siddhartha...who we can also continue to respect. When it comes to the Sangha, I'm not really talking about this incident alone. In this very forum --or similar forums about Thai Buddhsim -- I have seen members (although not me) criticize monks for smoking, chatting on cell phones, personally handling money (both their own and the temple's) on a regular basis, and so on.

So my question was, as you can see above, simply "How does the fetus scandal affect your confidence in Thai Buddhism."

Others in the forum are attempting to change my question, but it was a rather simple question. And the reason I asked is twofold. First, that over the past year I have begun to develop serious questions about some aspects of Buddhism. Some of my questions are discussed (although not necessarily by me) right here in this forum, and I look at some of the discussions and find myself with mixed reactions -- sometimes saying, "Okay, that makes sense...I understand," but sometimes saying, "This (whatever aspect is being discussed) just doesn't sound right to me". And I would submit that to not question Buddhism (or any other religion one says they believe in) is simply acting on blind faith. The other reason that I asked the question is that a number of my friends who know that I consider myself to be a Buddhist (although not exclusively) have asked me about how the scandal (widely reported in the media here in the States) has affected my faith in Buddhism, or have asked questions along the lines of (paraphrase), "How could Buddhists do this?"

None of this is about Buddhism "wins" or "loses" as compared to Christianity (for example). It is not about science supports Buddhism. If today we learned that Siddhartha (or Jesus, or Mohamed)never really existed, that would not mean that the principles of Buddhism (or Christianity or Islam) were not (to one degree or another) valid.

And just to set the record straight, my question was not about the morality of abortion. That is another discussion. But, I have never heard anyone say, "Oh, aborted fetuses should just be thrown in a bag to rot." At least the people I know, no matter how they feel about the morality or legality of abortion, feel that aborted fetuses should be handled in a responsible (dare I say respectful) manner.

I hope this relatively lengthy discourse clarifies the question I asked and why I asked it.

(* Many scientific studies show that more than any other one person, it is principal who is determining factor in the success of the school and how the community respects the school).

(Incidentally, I totally disapprove of one poster's effort to proselytize his Buddhist beliefs. One of the very first things I was taught about Buddhism -- by a monk -- was that Buddhists do not proselytize because the recipient of an introduction to the Dhamma must be seeking the truth.)

Edited December 4, 2010 by phetaroi

[Xangsamhua]

Not too sure I understand the OP.

Because the foetuses end up in a wat for cremation, you're questionning Buddhism?

This is actually respect of life, they want to give a proper burial to the foetuses that were aborted.

...

Fair question, I'll try to explain it one more time. Perhaps an analogy will help.

Before retiring, I was a school principal. Ultimately, in one way or another, I was the one held responsible for what happened in my building. And there were three aspects of that responsibility:

1. Setting high expectations from the beginning so that my teachers and other staff operated at a high level of competence.

2. Sufficient planning that things went off well.

3. Reacting properly to things that did not go well.

So, for example, if teacher X slaps a kid in the face, was part of the fault the administration's because we didn't set expectations, or if we did, how did we deal with the teacher who slapped the child?

How do these concepts apply to the current discussion?

In the analogy, the abbot is comparable to the principal.

He is responsible for what happens in his temple. He (along with the Supreme Sangha) is responsible for setting high expectations for all monks...monks, who, incidentally, are the face of Thai Buddhism to the Thai Buddhist laity and the world.

I wonder how comparable the position of abbot is to that of a principal in a US school. Though I am not American, I would expect that a principal of a school in the US is not only responsible for what happens in his or her school, but is accountable to various bodies for the legal and financial probity, and the pastoral and pedagogical processes and outcomes of the school. And this accountability is monitored by various bodies and established regular practices. The school district and higher authorities demand an accounting of what happens in the school and the educational outcomes for the students on a regular and, perhaps, frequent basis. Furthermore, in an age that values measurable outcomes, poor student test scores will be laid at the feet of the principal, who'd better have a good reason for them.

I suspect, though, that a Thai abbot is not often required to account for himself, even though there are structures in the Thai Sangha Act that appear to be set up for this. (I had a quick look on the net, but could only come up with this: http://www.thaibuddh...thai_sangha.pdf)

The link doesn't talk specifically about matters such as inspection, accountability and censure, but presumably that is the job of the chao khana phak. From what I understand of the Thai Sangha, however, the abbot would be pretty secure in his position, unless there has been a major scandal over money or sex or something. Even then, Phra Dhammajayo, abbot of Wat Dhammakaya, despite major financial misdealings over property in the late 90s, maintained the Sangha Council's support, and there appear to have been no complaints from the monastic side over the curious financial management methods of the abbot and his former wife at the Suan Santitham retreat centre in Cholburi. Perhaps these things just don't get in the media, at least after the initial exposure has run its course.

With regard to Wat Phayngeun, where the fetuses were found, (and which is close to where I work - though not close enough to catch any of the recent odour), I'm not aware of any widespread condemnation of the abbot or the monks. I certainly haven't heard about any committee of inquiry. Not that people would draw things to my attention. There must have been a fair amount of discussion in the immediate area, though, especially as the temple is only a couple of hundred metres from a Catholic church and school, and the temple grounds themselves house a sizeable school. The temple, to all appearances, was exactly the same post-exposure as it was before. The main event acknowledging the scandal was a reconciliation service to which the local people brought toys and baby clothes, the mothers were invited to write apologies on cards to their aborted children, and the occasion was graced by an especially famous fortune-teller, who presumably reassured the mothers that no harm would befall them (TBH I don't know what he was doing there). The whole fiasco has probably been consigned to memory now.

[healthcaretaker]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

I am not sure if you are directing your last 2 messages to the OP as I find the OP getting away from the topic(not just off-topic) by avoiding me just because he/she could not accept my reasonings or replies ?

As far as I am concern, I never go off topic. Every messages of mine are in reply to someone who responded to me or others; and related to the topic started by the OP.

As for the "Lord" usage, iy depends on who and when it's used. This is a Buddhism forum, so my use of Lord obviously is the Buddha but of course, I should specify. When someone mention, "May the Lord Bless you" NOWADAYS, they could mean the Buddha too, unlike in the past. Usage of a word, like everything else has a beginning, don't you agree ? Someone in the past must have started to refer to their god or someone as Lord, so in the present or in the future, don't be surprise more people may refer to Buddha as the Lord in "May Lord Bless You".

I am studying and making research on "spiritual" too but I do it on the scientific level. In times to come, eventually, evereything actually breaks down to "energy" level. The Big Bang is the original source of enery and this "god" dam_n thing that everyone claim for their religion is actually energy. So in future, those who believe in god can say that god created the original source of energy or god created the Big Bang. That sounds more logical than to claim that god created the world or humans, don't you think so ?

Back to the OP, I think there are enough replies from the others(I made mine clear too) and everyone has equal rights to give their opinions as long as they are reasonable and logical. If anyone is to disagree with anyone's message, of course they can voice out .

Ok....let's continue......

Thank you very much. What a pitty however cos I would love to hear more about the original source of the Big Bang, and so the original source of energy. But maybe we at some time at some place in some other forum we will meet again about this Big Bang that came out of 'nothing' (?)

So back to the OP or other OP's

So you can bring up the Old Testament & jesus Christ but you cannot accept others bringing up the Big Bang ? Is it because the Big Bang is a big threat to christiaan'ity ?

If you like to know more about the Big Bang & energy knowledge, google "Big Bang" "energy" or "enstein's theory". You will find that his discovery that's merely less than 200 years(?) ago is getting to confirm Buddha's discovery 2500 years ago. Of course The Big Bang discovery is also something that further prove Buddha's teachings. If you can leave long enough, I am sure you will find more and more scientific discoveries that one day can prove the karma theory too. Of course, by then Christianity will have to rewrite the Bible. BTW, how many times have they rewrote the Bible ?

You cannot accept or belive the Big Bang and energy came out of nothing ??

Here are the answers, you choose:

a) According to Buddhism, nothing is permanent, so go figure out the relationship of the Big Bang, energy, the WORLDS and Buddhism; or

Just believe that God created the Big Bang and energy that eventually created our world. Of course, God here means everyone's God and not the god that christianity claimed.

Edited December 5, 2010 by healthcaretaker

[christiaan]

small but important addition to my contribution above: We should help eachother to stay on topic when possible, that is different from blaming others to move from topic

I am not sure if you are directing your last 2 messages to the OP as I find the OP getting away from the topic(not just off-topic) by avoiding me just because he/she could not accept my reasonings or replies ?

As far as I am concern, I never go off topic. Every messages of mine are in reply to someone who responded to me or others; and related to the topic started by the OP.

As for the "Lord" usage, iy depends on who and when it's used. This is a Buddhism forum, so my use of Lord obviously is the Buddha but of course, I should specify. When someone mention, "May the Lord Bless you" NOWADAYS, they could mean the Buddha too, unlike in the past. Usage of a word, like everything else has a beginning, don't you agree ? Someone in the past must have started to refer to their god or someone as Lord, so in the present or in the future, don't be surprise more people may refer to Buddha as the Lord in "May Lord Bless You".

I am studying and making research on "spiritual" too but I do it on the scientific level. In times to come, eventually, evereything actually breaks down to "energy" level. The Big Bang is the original source of enery and this "god" dam_n thing that everyone claim for their religion is actually energy. So in future, those who believe in god can say that god created the original source of energy or god created the Big Bang. That sounds more logical than to claim that god created the world or humans, don't you think so ?

Back to the OP, I think there are enough replies from the others(I made mine clear too) and everyone has equal rights to give their opinions as long as they are reasonable and logical. If anyone is to disagree with anyone's message, of course they can voice out .

Ok....let's continue......

Thank you very much. What a pitty however cos I would love to hear more about the original source of the Big Bang, and so the original source of energy. But maybe we at some time at some place in some other forum we will meet again about this Big Bang that came out of 'nothing' (?)

So back to the OP or other OP's

So you can bring up the Old Testament & jesus Christ but you cannot accept others bringing up the Big Bang ? Is it because the Big Bang is a big threat to christiaan'ity ?

If you like to know more about the Big Bang & energy knowledge, google "Big Bang" "energy" or "enstein's theory". You will find that his discovery that's merely less than 200 years(?) ago is getting to confirm Buddha's discovery 2500 years ago. Of course The Big Bang discovery is also something that further prove Buddha's teachings. If you can leave long enough, I am sure you will find more and more scientific discoveries that one day can prove the karma theory too. Of course, by then Christianity will have to rewrite the Bible. BTW, how many times have they rewrote the Bible ?

You cannot accept or belive the Big Bang and energy came out of nothing ??

Here are the answers, you choose:

a) According to Buddhism, nothing is permanent, so go figure out the relationship of the Big Bang, energy, the WORLDS and Buddhism; or

Just believe that God created the Big Bang and energy that eventually created our world. Of course, God here means everyone's God and not the god that christianity claimed.

[christiaan]

Well, in the way you describe your are always on topic, and with those standards you use for your self most people overhere are always on topic, but in my view I think WE ALL often circle around and sometyimes are ar away of topic.

I can bring up all the old religious books witnessing of revelations and historical events.

So I also can bring up Jezus Christ, Buddha, Allah, Zarathusta, Ahura Mazda, and so on.

Then I nowhere claimed the Big Bang being wrong so this cannot be otherwise as your subjective conclusion.

Just read again and see you probably became confused since I suggested the Big Bang originally also had some original cause outside itself.

And I can state here with certainty the Big Bang was caused by something outside/before the Big Bang occured, whatever this is called.

I think it is important to realise the Bible is changed in all those years so it is very difficult to be always sure about the contents, this is the same about all the teachings of Buddha , there is no 100% certainty all the teachings of Buddha are the real authentic teachings and words. There is no proove for this.

But from a certain point of view this all is not important.

Reading your contribution I can see why it is possible you meet often resistance and disaproval for what you write,...... it is the tone of your 'voice'.

This comes to expression in assuming other contributers are your opponents - and they are as long as they do not think the same way as you - , (without even knowing them) - suggesting what you believe is the reality and ...especially....by limiting possibillities related to the Big Bang to 2 question by just 2 answers some one HAS to choose out of (?)

Your attitude does not remind me in 1 way to Buddha.

You do not know how much I studied about the Big Bang, this seems to be far beyond your comprehension, then the origin of the world we live in cannot be limitted to your simple 2 answers, (and ahead of this to your 2 simple questions).

It seems they mainly show your personal limitiation.

I can tell you, when I read your contributions it does remind me to Jehova Witnesses, it makes me even wonder if this is possible, a : Buddhist Watchtower Society, but I still do not suggest, assume, or accuse you of being a Jehova Witness.

These are just some thoughts occuring in my investigating mind

[AYJAYDEE]

the actions of mortals cant really affect my confidence in the dhamma.

[christiaan]

the actions of mortals cant really affect my confidence in the dhamma.

Buiddha was mortal

[christiaan]

Sorry, typing error,

Buddha - before known as Siddhartha Gautama - was mortal

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddha - before known as Siddhartha Gautama - was mortal

Good point, yes one would hope that the Buddha would affect ones confidence in the Dhamma to the positive.

[healthcaretaker]

Sorry, typing error,

Buddha - before known as Siddhartha Gautama - was mortal

Buddha was a human. That made his teachings truthful, meaningful, logical, sensible, reasonable and real.

All his teachings have facts and reasons to support, unlike certain religions that is build on nothing but "beliefs" and simply force their followers to "believe" without logic and reasons.

He and his teachings are NOT "human created".

All his teachings and theories until now, have NEVER been proven wrong by any single human or science.

It's time you change your name from "christiaan" to "buddhaa".

I have Chinese friends who are misled to become christians when they are kids but now when they are grown up and understand facts and science, they became Buddhists.

Actually you don't need to become a Buddhist to lead a proper life with good understandings. It's just a right way of life.

May the Lord(Buddha of course) bless you.

[sabaijai]

[yellow1red1]

5 pages! responding before reading.

They have discovered other temples carrying on the same 'business'.

What those people were doing is not Buddhism.

Was flying jet liners into blgs really Islamic?

In an endemically corrupt nation can any institution not be cross contaminated? politics, army, police, religion, any!?

Is Thailand for the many being ruined and destroyed by the few?

[phetaroi]

...

What those people were doing is not Buddhism.

Was flying jet liners into blgs really Islamic?

...

Not the same thing. The 9/11 hijackers were not doing there thing inside a temple. The rotting fetuses were inside a temple. If the monks don't know what's going on in their own temple, then there is something seriously wrong.

[christiaan]

Sorry, typing error,

Buddha - before known as Siddhartha Gautama - was mortal

Buddha was a human. That made his teachings truthful, meaningful, logical, sensible, reasonable and real.

All his teachings have facts and reasons to support, unlike certain religions that is build on nothing but "beliefs" and simply force their followers to "believe" without logic and reasons.

He and his teachings are NOT "human created".

All his teachings and theories until now, have NEVER been proven wrong by any single human or science.

It's time you change your name from "christiaan" to "buddhaa".

I have Chinese friends who are misled to become christians when they are kids but now when they are grown up and understand facts and science, they became Buddhists.

Actually you don't need to become a Buddhist to lead a proper life with good understandings. It's just a right way of life.

May the Lord(Buddha of course) bless you.

Mohammed was a human. Jezus was a human. That make their teachings..............?

My parents give me the name Christiaan, without any aware relation to the religion Christianity.

People do make up their believe also the Buddhist believe when it has become a believe not being connected to any meaningfull inner experience, like they make up my name has anything to do with a religion.

I consider it to be an insult to the meaning of the name Buddha to change my name to Buddhaa and so the suggestion to do so is not showing awareness.

The name Buddha is not related to the self or the ego, but is related to the pure spiritual essence of every human, the name Buddha is the name for a spiritual state of being.

Christiaan is the name of my self, my existence on earth, my spiritual essence inspiring my life is what a buddhist calls: Buddha. - the pure spiritual self -

I am blessed by the Lord, the King of heaven, the Alpha and the Omega, for I am a human, a spirit embodied living on earth.

We are all blessed.

[Brucenkhamen]

It's time you change your name from "christiaan" to "buddhaa".

I consider it to be an insult to the meaning of the name Buddha to change my name to Buddhaa and so the suggestion to do so is not showing awareness.

The name Buddha is not related to the self or the ego, but is related to the [/color][/color]pure spiritual essence of every human, the name Buddha is the name for a spiritual state of being.

Christiaan is the name of my self, my existence on earth

I have to agree with Christaan here this was really not funny, quite rude, and unnecessary.

Christian is a pretty common name in Scandanavian and Germanic countries I think, and presumably the reason it's spelt with two a's instead of ia is because it's not english.