Buddhists And Hinduism

[yellow1red1]

not sure why topic was Locked?

the question was coming up was leading to a Buddism related theme, not just Hinduism...

At the Vishnu shrines and Hindu shrines, why do so many orange robes monks pray?

also, Hindu ceremonies are filled with Thai Budhists and only a few Indian Hindus.\

i only read a few pages on internet and know Thervadans don't believe in god s..

are the Buddhists that pray to Hindu deities a different sect?

sorry you thought it was about Hinduism, but I'm wondering why Bhuddists practise Hinduism, whether it is a denomination that is not Thervadan?

If ,, or because, actually, Buddhists are worshipping, Vishnu, Rama, Brahma, and so on, I would think it ok as a Topic in a Buddhist forum, they are ordained Buddhist monks. :jap:

[Xangsamhua]

Perhaps it was closed because it was becoming a discussion about the monarch.

I think the topic of Vedic/Brahman/Hindu influences in Thai culture, including Thai Buddhism, is interesting, whether it should be in the Buddhism or General forums I don't know.

It's very much connected, I think, with the cultural history of Ayudhaya and the role of Khmer advisors to the court there.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think Xangsamhua is correct.

As for why Thai Buddhist have practices relating to Hindu gods, I think it's much the same reason they still have animist practices as well, even after Buddhism has been their main religion for 100 of years.

If somebody takes their religion to be rites and rituals then why not have more, why not add rites and rituals from all sorts of other religions as well to hedge your bets. I think a lot of this has gone on in asian cultures, not just Thailand.

[phetaroi]

I think Xangsamhua is correct.

As for why Thai Buddhist have practices relating to Hindu gods, I think it's much the same reason they still have animist practices as well, even after Buddhism has been their main religion for 100 of years.

If somebody takes their religion to be rites and rituals then why not have more, why not add rites and rituals from all sorts of other religions as well to hedge your bets. I think a lot of this has gone on in asian cultures, not just Thailand.

Overall, I agree with you. I'll just slightly adapt what you said to say that when you are brought up having only the vaguest understanding of true Buddhist principles, it's likely that you'll naturally follow what you see others doing, and mistake it for Buddhism (and of course, this would work in other religions, also). Aside from monks, and the very occasional person -- Thais with whom I have discussed various aspects of Buddhism usually knew far less than I did, and I admittedly knew little. From the "I don't pray to Buddha, I just ask him for luck in the lottery", to the belief that Buddha was from Thailand, I see only the most casual understanding of any real knowledge of Buddhism among most Thais. For many it is a spiritual crutch, rather than a true belief system. And often when I have wanted to discuss something about Buddhism, the answer I have gotten is something along the lines of "You think too mutt (sic)".

[GrahamR]

Dear all

It's not only Hinduism, we find Chinese gods added in too!

Is the assimilation of religion so different from what is done in the west though? How Christian is Christmas? 25 Dec is the birthday of Mithras, holly and ivy are Pagan symbols of life in winter, the term Yule is still used from the Pagan Norse festival etc etc. Religions may change, but practices continue, Thailand was Hindu for a long time.

I prefer the more basic Buddhist forest of Ajahn Chah, it's not so cluttered.

With Metta

Graham

[Brucenkhamen]

when you are brought up having only the vaguest understanding of true Buddhist principles, it's likely that you'll naturally follow what you see others doing, and mistake it for Buddhism (and of course, this would work in other religions, also).

Yes, that's it pretty much.

[lungmi]

My point of view: Buddhism as an essential non-missionary non-dualistic teaching-system has a high assimilation and synergistic power. It's more than a religion. A religion needs gods , holy men and women, devas, angels and spirits and appropriate rituals to compensate the lack of knowing

This is why religious people need their belief. Authentic Buddhism accepts this as a step on the way to awakening (enlightenment is not the correct pali translation) and Cultural Buddhism is generated over centuries. I don't believe the Buddha (he gave me in the Kalamasutta the freedom to use

my own reflections and experience to validate his teaching. But I am confident that his teaching leads me to understand more and more of the law of nature (Dhamma), to see what is what (the dhammas).

My wife is Sino-Thai with Guan Im (no beef meat) and chinese rituals. We have in our house a common shrine with Chinese artifacts, lucky stones, hindu devas, Theravada Buddhas and photos from my kalyanamittas (spiritual good friends- Tan Buddhadasa, Adjahn Chah, Tan Dhammapitaka),

We practice Theravada evening chanting in Pali together. Mutual tolerance at a high level. We have friends of the hill-tribes - animists, Christians, Buddhists. A non-dualistic mind creates good understanding. The Christians have some problem for integration, but fortunately they are

a little bit animists too.

[Brucenkhamen]

In the west we have our own rituals, to many people their only idea of christianity is a fat bearded guy coming down the chimney with presents, or a bunny bringing chocolate eggs.

The difference is I guess with a higher proportion having had an education we don't take these kinds of things seriously.

[lungmi]

In the west we have our own rituals, to many people their only idea of christianity is a fat bearded guy coming down the chimney with presents, or a bunny bringing chocolate eggs.

The difference is I guess with a higher proportion having had an education we don't take these kinds of things seriously.

Oh, I take some animists believings and rituals seriously. A Hmong friend told me after his mothers dead, that for some months he would not kill an animal, scaring the ghost of his mother could be inside. When he kills a wild pig

he cut the ears and fix them on a tree: I'm hungry: I only take your meat, but your "soul" stay on your territory, I respect you. North American Indians use the same ritual I read somewhere.

But the magic ritual to wear only a shirt with a good name (Adidaddy, Nicky, Redbock or so) is really ridiculous, the rituals of more instructed people.

[healthcaretaker]

Testing reply. It's not locked...

I made some research on this area. I think I can answer that, at least to some relation of it.

[phetaroi]

My point of view: Buddhism as an essential non-missionary non-dualistic teaching-system has a high assimilation and synergistic power. It's more than a religion. A religion needs gods , holy men and women, devas, angels and spirits and appropriate rituals to compensate the lack of knowing

This is why religious people need their belief. Authentic Buddhism accepts this as a step on the way to awakening (enlightenment is not the correct pali translation) and Cultural Buddhism is generated over centuries. I don't believe the Buddha (he gave me in the Kalamasutta the freedom to use

my own reflections and experience to validate his teaching. But I am confident that his teaching leads me to understand more and more of the law of nature (Dhamma), to see what is what (the dhammas).

My wife is Sino-Thai with Guan Im (no beef meat) and chinese rituals. We have in our house a common shrine with Chinese artifacts, lucky stones, hindu devas, Theravada Buddhas and photos from my kalyanamittas (spiritual good friends- Tan Buddhadasa, Adjahn Chah, Tan Dhammapitaka),

We practice Theravada evening chanting in Pali together. Mutual tolerance at a high level. We have friends of the hill-tribes - animists, Christians, Buddhists. A non-dualistic mind creates good understanding. The Christians have some problem for integration, but fortunately they are

a little bit animists too.

Gee. I must have missed something along the way. Buddhism has a supreme holy man -- Buddha. It also has highly revered monks, including (in Thailand) the Supreme Sangha, and in Tibet the Dalai Lama. You think it doesn't have devas, angels, and spirits? Have you read Buddhist descriptions of the various levels of heavens?

I do admire your description of your Buddhist practice.

[phetaroi]

In the west we have our own rituals, to many people their only idea of christianity is a fat bearded guy coming down the chimney with presents, or a bunny bringing chocolate eggs.

The difference is I guess with a higher proportion having had an education we don't take these kinds of things seriously.

Bruce, that's not the same at all. I personally don't know anyone who confuses Christ with the secular figures of Santa or the Easter Bunny. The children's/advertising image of Santa Claus is hardly comparable to the thousands of people each day who are worshiping in front of the Hindu statues in front of Central World or Erawan Shrine.

[lungmi]

In the west we have our own rituals, to many people their only idea of christianity is a fat bearded guy coming down the chimney with presents, or a bunny bringing chocolate eggs.

The difference is I guess with a higher proportion having had an education we don't take these kinds of things seriously.

Bruce, that's not the same at all. I personally don't know anyone who confuses Christ with the secular figures of Santa or the Easter Bunny. The children's/advertising image of Santa Claus is hardly comparable to the thousands of people each day who are worshiping in front of the Hindu statues in front of Central World or Erawan Shrine.

Oh, you forget the shrine of consumerism in Central world. The magic rituals to buy power with magic names like adidaddy , redbock or nicky.

[Brucenkhamen]

Bruce, that's not the same at all. I personally don't know anyone who confuses Christ with the secular figures of Santa or the Easter Bunny. The children's/advertising image of Santa Claus is hardly comparable to the thousands of people each day who are worshiping in front of the Hindu statues in front of Central World or Erawan Shrine.

That's the point, they celebrate the birth and death of christ with myths about figures that have nothing to do with christianity, but yes of course that isn't the same as worshiping statues of them.

[Xangsamhua]

Bruce, that's not the same at all. I personally don't know anyone who confuses Christ with the secular figures of Santa or the Easter Bunny. The children's/advertising image of Santa Claus is hardly comparable to the thousands of people each day who are worshiping in front of the Hindu statues in front of Central World or Erawan Shrine.

That's the point, they celebrate the birth and death of christ with myths about figures that have nothing to do with christianity, but yes of course that isn't the same as worshiping statues of them.

Note Stregheria, or Strega, a pre-Christian craft that is still believed/practiced by many Italian Catholics (older ones anyway). Google "Strega Catholics"for more on this.

There is plenty of evidence of pre-Christian beliefs merging with Catholicism in places like Ireland and Brazil, and, I expect, everywhere that has a rich, if sub-cosmic, indigenous religious tradition (e.g. Africa, where Catholicism is growing faster than Islam).

Consider the cult of St Anne that flourished from the 13th to the 16th centuries (Luther was a devotee), and the many St Anne's Wells in England, all previously healing places from Druidic times or earlier. St Brigid, the patron saint of Ireland, is regarded by some scholars as a derivative of a pagan goddess associated with St Brigid's Well.

Religions are situated. They only exist as pure forms in the minds of scholars and legalists. Living religion carries its cultural past with it, as is so evident in, e.g. the Digha Nikaya. The Buddha may well have transcended his times, but he was also incarnated in his time and place. At one level his teaching reflects this, and this is the level, with its rich vein of myth and speculation, that captures the imagination of the common people, most of whom are too busy meeting their obligations and responsibilities to go to a deeper level.

[Brucenkhamen]

There is plenty of evidence of pre-Christian beliefs merging with Catholicism in places like Ireland and Brazil, and, I expect, everywhere that has a rich, if sub-cosmic, indigenous religious tradition (e.g. Africa, where Catholicism is growing faster than Islam).

There are other examples from when the Romans first adopted Christianity as a national religion. For example instead of celebrating Christ's birthday on the correct date they established christmas on the winter solstace, a very important date on the pagan calender.

[Xangsamhua]

There is plenty of evidence of pre-Christian beliefs merging with Catholicism in places like Ireland and Brazil, and, I expect, everywhere that has a rich, if sub-cosmic, indigenous religious tradition (e.g. Africa, where Catholicism is growing faster than Islam).

There are other examples from when the Romans first adopted Christianity as a national religion. For example instead of celebrating Christ's birthday on the correct date they established christmas on the winter solstace, a very important date on the pagan calender.

Well, they might just as well pick the winter solstice, as no one knew when Christ's birthday was, or even if he had one.

[healthcaretaker]

There is plenty of evidence of pre-Christian beliefs merging with Catholicism in places like Ireland and Brazil, and, I expect, everywhere that has a rich, if sub-cosmic, indigenous religious tradition (e.g. Africa, where Catholicism is growing faster than Islam).

There are other examples from when the Romans first adopted Christianity as a national religion. For example instead of celebrating Christ's birthday on the correct date they established christmas on the winter solstace, a very important date on the pagan calender.

Oh my god, is that true ? You mean Dec 25 is not the true birthday of that man ?

I have been making research on jesus and christianity as I believe it all started as a scam.

I need to know why was jesus punished or sentenced to death at that time.

I am sure he did some crimes and got caught.

But his followers changed history by claiming he "sacrificed for mens' sins" and carried the scam rather well.

Sorry, a little off topic.

[phetaroi]

The last four posts do not mention Buddhism in any way. They are Christian-bashing posts. I did not think that totally off-topic posts that do not involve at least comparative discussions about Buddhism and other religions was what this forum was about. And I do not think bashing other religions is what Buddhism is about.

I suggest that if your post does not honestly refer to Buddhism, that it is an inappropriate post.

[yellow1red1]

Perhaps it was closed because it was becoming a discussion about the monarch.

I think the topic of Vedic/Brahman/Hindu influences in Thai culture, including Thai Buddhism, is interesting, whether it should be in the Buddhism or General forums I don't know.

It's very much connected, I think, with the cultural history of Ayudhaya and the role of Khmer advisors to the court there.

hmmm , i thought that was only if you got rude or something?

\anyway I knew animism would come up and it's not that. as some said Abrahamic religious aherents have suoerstition too.

Been in a room with Sihks, christians, who know waht else, watching a football match, and everybody had to sit in a certain chair with a certain hat on so their team would win,,, seen any buildings with Floor 13?

----------------------------------------------------

This is about basic tenets and principals.

This is more like a jew going to church on Sunday or a JW allowing blood transfusion, or a mormon having one wife,,, 'chuckle'

!!!ordained Buddhist monks worship Vishnu, do I have to run the Utube?

are they a different sect ??? was my question, probably not, just trying to not assume

if they're theravdans, they should read a few internet pages like I did, duh

Whether or not, or not or whether Buddhists in Thailand, do or do not, do not or do, believe Vishnu is a real Deity,, is a very, very important and crucial analysis,

very!

[Xangsamhua]

The last four posts do not mention Buddhism in any way. They are Christian-bashing posts. I did not think that totally off-topic posts that do not involve at least comparative discussions about Buddhism and other religions was what this forum was about. And I do not think bashing other religions is what Buddhism is about.

I suggest that if your post does not honestly refer to Buddhism, that it is an inappropriate post.

Phetaroi, I sort of agree with you that the last few posts about pre-Christian influences on Christianity were probably off-topic, but I'm not sure. They were a diversion loosely related to the theme of cultural influences on religions, which is relevant, perhaps (and a fascinating subject in its own right), but, yes, not specifically about Buddhism.

I beg to differ, however, on them being "Christian-bashing", though they may be threatening to fundamentalist, evangelical or sentimental Christians. Perhaps it depends on what is meant by "Christian" or indeed if this term has much validity any more given the wide spectrum of people who are influenced by the Christian narrative. If literal belief in one or both of the different infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke is a criterion for being Christian there will be very few Christians in non-fundamentalist seminaries, Catholic universities, liberal Protestant communities or scholars of Church History.

Students of Jesus as teacher and saviour figure (i.e. students of Christology), whether active in one of the churches or not, seem to fall into one of four camps on the historical Jesus question:

1. Jesus is pretty much the figure portrayed in the gospels, perhaps allowing for some hyperbole, differences in sequence of events, etc.

2. The Jesus of the gospels is a construct representing the interests and concerns of the communities (Matthaean, Johannine, Marca, Lucan) that cobbled the different stories together (Matthew and Luke showing strong influence from Mark and a no longer extant sayings source named "Q"). However, there was an historical figure behind these stories that gave rise to them.

3. Jesus was never an historical figure, but constructed over time like other mythical deities such as Mithra, Aesclepius, Dionysus, etc.

4. Whether Jesus was an historical figure or not is a question that will never be resolved. There simply isn't enough solid evidence to either prove or disprove Jesus's historical existence. **

Even among scholars and clergy connected with the mainstream churches, the fundamental question whether Jesus was an historical figure is a live one. To not consider dispassionate and informed scholarship is to stick one's head in the sand. The question is whether Christ's historical or mythic legacy has a significant contribution to make to the contemporary world. Many believe that it does, especially if people do not confuse myth and history, faith and reason, and maintain focus on Christian ontology, (with its view of man reaching beyond himself) and ethics (with its essentially non-dualistic view of others as one's first responsibility and reflecting the image of the divine - "for all of you are one in Christ Jesus").

Let me bring this back to the Buddha. The representation I see of the Buddha in the Pali texts, e.g. the Digha Nikaya, the Majjima Nikaya, the Jatakas, is varied and, perhaps contradictory. Now, various forms of exegesis can clarify and explain these differences; however, we can never know to what extent these texts describe the historical Buddha or explain the events ascribed to his life.

The Buddha of the scriptural scholar is a different construct from that of the villager. The former is located in the texts and refined as a result of textual and historical investigation. This Buddha is in a sense less "real" than the Buddha of the myths and legends absorbed by villagers and passed on through their progeny as standard biography even when the progeny have moved to the city and been to university. However, given the gaps in documentation and uncertain providence of the written evidence, plus the reliance on oral repetition of the stories over hundreds of years (not really data, though the oral recounts may be reliable), a case could be made that the Buddha Gautama, too, either didn't exist or, if he did, he wasn't like the Buddha described in the Pali canon, or he didn't actually say some of the things he is reported to have said.

Does it matter much if there were no historical Buddha? We've had that discusion before on this forum and the consensus seemed to be: not really - what matters is the liberating benefit of the teachings. So does it matter if most people in Thailand think that the Buddha Gautama was a miracle worker who made a side-visit to Siam in one stride during a tour of Sri Lanka? And does it matter if we don't all get it "right" or we derive different benefits from Buddhism? Do we all have to be so particular that the "Buddhism" we believe in is the real, authentic teachings and that others should acknowledge that, too? There is no true church of Buddha. There isn't really an historical Buddha any more, just representations based on memory and adulation, and the glosses provided by modern professional historians. The Buddha is just an idea in our minds really. Your Buddha and his legacy is not the same as mine or his or hers.

So if Thai people want to believe in a mythic Buddha and associate him with other mythic deities, they will do so until this is no longer meaningful to them. Then they'll probably go in for something equally as hope-filled and irrational - much like the rest of the world, really.

** On the historical Jesus question, I suggest you take a look at Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth, edited by R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2010. This book consists of 15 essays written by 12 authors as varied as Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy, academics, an atheist publisher (retired academic), a lawyer, a psychologist and a writer.

[dutchguest]

May be the confusion, doubts about the fact whether enlightened persons were real, historic persons is caused by the fenomenon of their enlightenment.

As far as I have understood when you become enlightened you have transcended your historic conditioning, you leave no more "footprints in the sky", you leave no more karmic remainders of your existence. Historic persons like Alexander the Great have put an undeniable imprint on this world by their actions, enlightened persons have something of the eternal, are pure awareness and make an imprint only on the awareness. This can be a reason why they make an "unreal" impression and all kinds of myths are created about their existence: they are ascribed with all kinds of super-mundane, godlike qualities.

[Xangsamhua]

Apologies. A slip of the pen in my post above.

The word "providence" in the statement "uncertain [....] of the written evidence" should be "provenance".

The statement appears in he paragraph beginning "The Buddha of the scripture scholar".

Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

There is plenty of evidence of pre-Christian beliefs merging with Catholicism in places like Ireland and Brazil, and, I expect, everywhere that has a rich, if sub-cosmic, indigenous religious tradition (e.g. Africa, where Catholicism is growing faster than Islam).

There are other examples from when the Romans first adopted Christianity as a national religion. For example instead of celebrating Christ's birthday on the correct date they established christmas on the winter solstace, a very important date on the pagan calender.

Oh my god, is that true ? You mean Dec 25 is not the true birthday of that man ?

I have been making research on jesus and christianity as I believe it all started as a scam.

I need to know why was jesus punished or sentenced to death at that time.

I am sure he did some crimes and got caught.

But his followers changed history by claiming he "sacrificed for mens' sins" and carried the scam rather well.

Sorry, a little off topic.

Rather than approach the historical Jesus topic with a view to exposure as a scam, you could do so as a more open-minded observer. That would give you a much clearer understanding, I think, but will not result in the same kind of emotional satisfaction as you may hope for. And it will take longer; and you may well end up with the anti-climactic Scottish legal verdict: "Not proven".

You might start with John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991). Paula Fredricksen's From Jesus to Christ (2000) is also very good. And for early Christianity, a good one is Michael L. White's From Jesus to Christianity (2004). From a Jewish scholar's perspective, Geza Vermes's books are enlightening. The book by Hoffman referred to in my post above brings a number of views together.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[phetaroi]

Perhaps it was closed because it was becoming a discussion about the monarch.

I think the topic of Vedic/Brahman/Hindu influences in Thai culture, including Thai Buddhism, is interesting, whether it should be in the Buddhism or General forums I don't know.

It's very much connected, I think, with the cultural history of Ayudhaya and the role of Khmer advisors to the court there.

hmmm , i thought that was only if you got rude or something?

\anyway I knew animism would come up and it's not that. as some said Abrahamic religious aherents have suoerstition too.

Been in a room with Sihks, christians, who know waht else, watching a football match, and everybody had to sit in a certain chair with a certain hat on so their team would win,,, seen any buildings with Floor 13?

----------------------------------------------------

This is about basic tenets and principals.

This is more like a jew going to church on Sunday or a JW allowing blood transfusion, or a mormon having one wife,,, 'chuckle'

!!!ordained Buddhist monks worship Vishnu, do I have to run the Utube?

are they a different sect ??? was my question, probably not, just trying to not assume

if they're theravdans, they should read a few internet pages like I did, duh

Whether or not, or not or whether Buddhists in Thailand, do or do not, do not or do, believe Vishnu is a real Deity,, is a very, very important and crucial analysis,

very!

While your writing style sometimes seems a bit flip, I think you ask some good questions. In my view there are two types of Buddhism -- purist Buddhism and everyday Buddhism. A number of our posters in this forum seem to feel they adhere to the purist view, even more than do most Buddhist monks.

One of the problems I have with all religions is that they all tend to involve -- to some degree or another -- magic. To some of our purists, when you visited some particular Thai temple and the monk offered to tie a sai sin around your wrist, did you refuse?

[phetaroi]

Phetaroi, I sort of agree with you that the last few posts about pre-Christian influences on Christianity were probably off-topic, but I'm not sure. They were a diversion loosely related to the theme of cultural influences on religions, which is relevant, perhaps (and a fascinating subject in its own right), but, yes, not specifically about Buddhism.

I beg to differ, however, on them being "Christian-bashing", though they may be threatening to fundamentalist, evangelical or sentimental Christians. Perhaps it depends on what is meant by "Christian" or indeed if this term has much validity any more given the wide spectrum of people who are influenced by the Christian narrative. If literal belief in one or both of the different infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke is a criterion for being Christian there will be very few Christians in non-fundamentalist seminaries, Catholic universities, liberal Protestant communities or scholars of Church History.

Students of Jesus as teacher and saviour figure (i.e. students of Christology), whether active in one of the churches or not, seem to fall into one of four camps on the historical Jesus question:

1. Jesus is pretty much the figure portrayed in the gospels, perhaps allowing for some hyperbole, differences in sequence of events, etc.

2. The Jesus of the gospels is a construct representing the interests and concerns of the communities (Matthaean, Johannine, Marca, Lucan) that cobbled the different stories together (Matthew and Luke showing strong influence from Mark and a no longer extant sayings source named "Q"). However, there was an historical figure behind these stories that gave rise to them.

3. Jesus was never an historical figure, but constructed over time like other mythical deities such as Mithra, Aesclepius, Dionysus, etc.

4. Whether Jesus was an historical figure or not is a question that will never be resolved. There simply isn't enough solid evidence to either prove or disprove Jesus's historical existence. **

Even among scholars and clergy connected with the mainstream churches, the fundamental question whether Jesus was an historical figure is a live one. To not consider dispassionate and informed scholarship is to stick one's head in the sand. The question is whether Christ's historical or mythic legacy has a significant contribution to make to the contemporary world. Many believe that it does, especially if people do not confuse myth and history, faith and reason, and maintain focus on Christian ontology, (with its view of man reaching beyond himself) and ethics (with its essentially non-dualistic view of others as one's first responsibility and reflecting the image of the divine - "for all of you are one in Christ Jesus").

Let me bring this back to the Buddha. The representation I see of the Buddha in the Pali texts, e.g. the Digha Nikaya, the Majjima Nikaya, the Jatakas, is varied and, perhaps contradictory. Now, various forms of exegesis can clarify and explain these differences; however, we can never know to what extent these texts describe the historical Buddha or explain the events ascribed to his life.

The Buddha of the scriptural scholar is a different construct from that of the villager. The former is located in the texts and refined as a result of textual and historical investigation. This Buddha is in a sense less "real" than the Buddha of the myths and legends absorbed by villagers and passed on through their progeny as standard biography even when the progeny have moved to the city and been to university. However, given the gaps in documentation and uncertain providence of the written evidence, plus the reliance on oral repetition of the stories over hundreds of years (not really data, though the oral recounts may be reliable), a case could be made that the Buddha Gautama, too, either didn't exist or, if he did, he wasn't like the Buddha described in the Pali canon, or he didn't actually say some of the things he is reported to have said.

Does it matter much if there were no historical Buddha? We've had that discusion before on this forum and the consensus seemed to be: not really - what matters is the liberating benefit of the teachings. So does it matter if most people in Thailand think that the Buddha Gautama was a miracle worker who made a side-visit to Siam in one stride during a tour of Sri Lanka? And does it matter if we don't all get it "right" or we derive different benefits from Buddhism? Do we all have to be so particular that the "Buddhism" we believe in is the real, authentic teachings and that others should acknowledge that, too? There is no true church of Buddha. There isn't really an historical Buddha any more, just representations based on memory and adulation, and the glosses provided by modern professional historians. The Buddha is just an idea in our minds really. Your Buddha and his legacy is not the same as mine or his or hers.

So if Thai people want to believe in a mythic Buddha and associate him with other mythic deities, they will do so until this is no longer meaningful to them. Then they'll probably go in for something equally as hope-filled and irrational - much like the rest of the world, really.

** On the historical Jesus question, I suggest you take a look at Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth, edited by R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2010. This book consists of 15 essays written by 12 authors as varied as Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy, academics, an atheist publisher (retired academic), a lawyer, a psychologist and a writer.

As I said in my earlier post, all one need do to stay on topic is show a link between the religion one is speaking of and Buddhism. As I said, I think when you are comparing religions and you include Buddhism in your discussion, you are on topic. However, posts that say things such as, "I have been making research on jesus and christianity as I believe it all started as a scam. I need to know why was jesus punished or sentenced to death at that time.

I am sure he did some crimes and got caught. But his followers changed history by claiming he "sacrificed for mens' sins" and carried the scam rather well." I don't any Christians -- fundamentalist or otherwise -- that would not find that statement to be insulting.

I appreciated your discussion of what may be the myth of Buddha. And you're right, even if there never had been a Buddha, that does not affect the validity of the principles of the philosophy. But, keep in mind, one can say the same thing about Christ. I do think we need to remember, however, that when some of us discuss what I will refer to as "real Buddhism", we need to be very careful. I think there are some in this forum who believe in a sort of "ivory tower Buddhism", which in and of itself seems just a bit egotistical. On the other end of things there the Buddhism "well mixed with" animism, which is so common in Thailand today. And then there's every position in between. And what I find just a little bit insulting in the posts of some forum members is the "my religion is better than yours", or, even within Buddhism, "my version of Buddhism is better than yours".

[healthcaretaker]

The last four posts do not mention Buddhism in any way. They are Christian-bashing posts. I did not think that totally off-topic posts that do not involve at least comparative discussions about Buddhism and other religions was what this forum was about. And I do not think bashing other religions is what Buddhism is about.

I suggest that if your post does not honestly refer to Buddhism, that it is an inappropriate post.

Phetaroi, I sort of agree with you that the last few posts about pre-Christian influences on Christianity were probably off-topic, but I'm not sure. They were a diversion loosely related to the theme of cultural influences on religions, which is relevant, perhaps (and a fascinating subject in its own right), but, yes, not specifically about Buddhism.

I beg to differ, however, on them being "Christian-bashing", though they may be threatening to fundamentalist, evangelical or sentimental Christians. Perhaps it depends on what is meant by "Christian" or indeed if this term has much validity any more given the wide spectrum of people who are influenced by the Christian narrative. If literal belief in one or both of the different infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke is a criterion for being Christian there will be very few Christians in non-fundamentalist seminaries, Catholic universities, liberal Protestant communities or scholars of Church History.

Students of Jesus as teacher and saviour figure (i.e. students of Christology), whether active in one of the churches or not, seem to fall into one of four camps on the historical Jesus question:

1. Jesus is pretty much the figure portrayed in the gospels, perhaps allowing for some hyperbole, differences in sequence of events, etc.

2. The Jesus of the gospels is a construct representing the interests and concerns of the communities (Matthaean, Johannine, Marca, Lucan) that cobbled the different stories together (Matthew and Luke showing strong influence from Mark and a no longer extant sayings source named "Q"). However, there was an historical figure behind these stories that gave rise to them.

3. Jesus was never an historical figure, but constructed over time like other mythical deities such as Mithra, Aesclepius, Dionysus, etc.

4. Whether Jesus was an historical figure or not is a question that will never be resolved. There simply isn't enough solid evidence to either prove or disprove Jesus's historical existence. **

Even among scholars and clergy connected with the mainstream churches, the fundamental question whether Jesus was an historical figure is a live one. To not consider dispassionate and informed scholarship is to stick one's head in the sand. The question is whether Christ's historical or mythic legacy has a significant contribution to make to the contemporary world. Many believe that it does, especially if people do not confuse myth and history, faith and reason, and maintain focus on Christian ontology, (with its view of man reaching beyond himself) and ethics (with its essentially non-dualistic view of others as one's first responsibility and reflecting the image of the divine - "for all of you are one in Christ Jesus").

Let me bring this back to the Buddha. The representation I see of the Buddha in the Pali texts, e.g. the Digha Nikaya, the Majjima Nikaya, the Jatakas, is varied and, perhaps contradictory. Now, various forms of exegesis can clarify and explain these differences; however, we can never know to what extent these texts describe the historical Buddha or explain the events ascribed to his life.

The Buddha of the scriptural scholar is a different construct from that of the villager. The former is located in the texts and refined as a result of textual and historical investigation. This Buddha is in a sense less "real" than the Buddha of the myths and legends absorbed by villagers and passed on through their progeny as standard biography even when the progeny have moved to the city and been to university. However, given the gaps in documentation and uncertain providence of the written evidence, plus the reliance on oral repetition of the stories over hundreds of years (not really data, though the oral recounts may be reliable), a case could be made that the Buddha Gautama, too, either didn't exist or, if he did, he wasn't like the Buddha described in the Pali canon, or he didn't actually say some of the things he is reported to have said.

Does it matter much if there were no historical Buddha? We've had that discusion before on this forum and the consensus seemed to be: not really - what matters is the liberating benefit of the teachings. So does it matter if most people in Thailand think that the Buddha Gautama was a miracle worker who made a side-visit to Siam in one stride during a tour of Sri Lanka? And does it matter if we don't all get it "right" or we derive different benefits from Buddhism? Do we all have to be so particular that the "Buddhism" we believe in is the real, authentic teachings and that others should acknowledge that, too? There is no true church of Buddha. There isn't really an historical Buddha any more, just representations based on memory and adulation, and the glosses provided by modern professional historians. The Buddha is just an idea in our minds really. Your Buddha and his legacy is not the same as mine or his or hers.

So if Thai people want to believe in a mythic Buddha and associate him with other mythic deities, they will do so until this is no longer meaningful to them. Then they'll probably go in for something equally as hope-filled and irrational - much like the rest of the world, really.

** On the historical Jesus question, I suggest you take a look at Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth, edited by R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2010. This book consists of 15 essays written by 12 authors as varied as Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy, academics, an atheist publisher (retired academic), a lawyer, a psychologist and a writer.

Wow, what a great post.

I wonder how much time have you spent in the past to know so much and so deep.

I think there are very few people like you who is open-minded as well as being fair and unbias.

Do you accept student ? Can I learn more from you ?

My approach is much simpler. I just want to know things from the basic in a layman's term, in a simple, logical or scientific manner. If I know something or someone(whether a religion or a forum member) is not right or not true or confirm a scam or anyone trying to have bad intention, I will just EXPOSE it.

Thank you for those books or essays you recommended to me. I don't have the time for them now. Once I confirm a scam or something similar, it's enough, I will not want to debate or discuss over it in a time-wasting manner. Recently in my country among the Chinese community, the christians are using a trick to fool the Chinese. They said even Chinese history origins believe in christianity because the Chinese character( word )"wife" has the Chinese word for "human" within it; and this proved the truth that a male is created from a female since there is a "human" within the word "wife" who is a female. What a lie and scam !! I called it a scam because it came out from some top people in the church and not ordinary people.

In case anyone is not Chinese and don't understand what I am trying to say......the original Chinese word for "wife" was designed with a "human" within a box because in olden days, a wife is supposed to stay in the house while the hushand stay out to work. The box represented the house.

When I explained the above to my christian friend and asked him not to "mislead" others with their christianity lie, he NEVER contact me again.

Back to the OP why why some Buddhist monks pray to Hindu gods, I have some thoughts here nand wonder what other masters think:

1) Hinduism is a much older religion than Buddhism and Gautama Buddha and his family might be of Hinduism origin.

2) Buddhism NEVER teach anyone to go against other religions.

3) Unlike Christianity, both Hindusim and Buddhism has nothing proven wrong or rebutted by science. Although there are a lot of mythologys in Hinduism, they may have existed.

4) Buddhism showed and taught the TRUTH and how sufferings can be freed. Its teachings don't conflict with Hindusim at all.

Based on the above 4 points, some Buddhist monks may think that Hindusim is their "history" and actually the higher levels. Just my thoughts.

Wonder what others think ?

Some Hindus actually believe that their gods are actually the highest level and the origin of the world and that gods of christianity, islam and people like Buddha, JC and PM are actually later decendants and much lower ranking.

[camerata]

with due kindness, is there one where open talk is allowed...?

there are 100's , 1000's of of Buddhists, Brahmic, Hindu sites...

I hade 2 questions to learn to ask a 3rd question, and it looks like speaking with respect and curiosity and honesty won't be allowed..

funny that, what Buddhist reliogious principal does free speech violate...

How about you read the forum rules and the welcome message and cut the sarcastic remarks and criticism of the board and the moderation? If a topic gets locked and you don' understand why, take it up with a moderator via PM. Public discussion of moderation violates the forum rules.

2. Budhist monks who worship Vishnu,,, recognised,,, ? officially, different sect?

No. Thais tend to believe in a whole variety of deities and spirits, some related to Buddhism and some not. That belief doesn't necessarily stop when they become a monk. It is not against the monastic code to pay respect to deities.

3. that knowleadge would lead to questions about, YES, Buddhism and the move to make it the State Religion...

as censorship does not allow that here,,, is there a good Forum that these issues could be discussed with Thai Buddhists, heck even debated.

Maybe, most of you are very, very bright, you can see that certain maths and logics don't add up, eh?

As mentioned elsewhere, it is not the state religion according to the Constitution but it has a kind of "most favoured" status.

[khaowong1]

I think Xangsamhua is correct.

As for why Thai Buddhist have practices relating to Hindu gods, I think it's much the same reason they still have animist practices as well, even after Buddhism has been their main religion for 100 of years.

If somebody takes their religion to be rites and rituals then why not have more, why not add rites and rituals from all sorts of other religions as well to hedge your bets. I think a lot of this has gone on in asian cultures, not just Thailand.

yes, I believe Bucenkhamen is correct. It's an Asian culture thing.. nothing much more. It's been done for 100's of years. Whether it is correct to do or not, The Buddha said to look at your own self for salvation, not others.

[healthcaretaker]

Yes, its a culture thing but we are here to discuss "why" and the root of it, isn't it ?

Only then, we can learn and broaden our knowledge.

BTW, I never expect to see such a sexy voluptuous looking moderator here, least to expect in a Buddhism forum.