Buddhists And Hinduism

[Brucenkhamen]

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.

This is very true, we can see the same happening in the West where people losing faith in Christianity turn to new age or eastern religion, so for Thais I think it would be better to be a good Christian or Hindu than a bad Buddhist.

What sets Buddhism apart though is that there is a kernel of teaching that isn’t all about hope-filled and irrational consolation but rather a clear psychology showing the problem with the human condition and the process to gain freedom from it.

[Brucenkhamen]

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.

Central to the teaching of Christianity is Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. I’m not really sure how that works as a causal relationship but if Jesus never existed then he never died on the cross so from that point of view the historical Jesus is essential to Christianity. Take that away, as some modern humanist type Christians might be inclined to do, then we are just left with a set of moral ideals that can be found just about anywhere.

By contrast the Buddha never indicated that he would do it all for us but rather that we needed to walk the path ourselves, so the historicity of the Buddha doesn’t make a lot of difference as it’s the putting the teaching into practice that counts.

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".

I’m not sure what "ivory tower Buddhism" is but it sounds derogatory.

There are several people on this board who are quite “long in the tooth” in terms of the practice, they’ve spent a lot of quality time in retreat centres and monasteries over a periods of years or decades, maybe with quite well known teachers.

Having done that you learn a bit about what is skilful and what is not, what works and what doesn’t. Of course that doesn’t give certainty of what really happened 2500 years ago but it does help distinguish between what practices contribute to the path and what practices are really a corruption of the path. Also you’d hope after all that practice any egotisticalness or arrogance would have been left behind.

By contrast some on this board don’t practice Buddhism at all, and don’t claim to, they discuss Buddhism out of idle curiosity I suppose. One thing I like about Thaivisa compared with other Buddhist boards is you encounter more non-buddhist perspectives. There have been instances though where such people have taken it upon themselves to tell us Buddhists should be like this or Buddhism should be like that, and I’m not sure why they feel qualified to make such pronouncements.

Seems to me a bit like talking about food but not eating it, it’s not really going to get you anywhere and any descriptions of the taste will be pure speculation.

[Brucenkhamen]

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

A boob job? on a moderators salary?

[phetaroi]

Central to the teaching of Christianity is Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. I’m not really sure how that works as a causal relationship but if Jesus never existed then he never died on the cross so from that point of view the historical Jesus is essential to Christianity. Take that away, as some modern humanist type Christians might be inclined to do, then we are just left with a set of moral ideals that can be found just about anywhere.

By contrast the Buddha never indicated that he would do it all for us but rather that we needed to walk the path ourselves, so the historicity of the Buddha doesn’t make a lot of difference as it’s the putting the teaching into practice that counts.

I’m not sure what "ivory tower Buddhism" is but it sounds derogatory.

There are several people on this board who are quite “long in the tooth” in terms of the practice, they’ve spent a lot of quality time in retreat centres and monasteries over a periods of years or decades, maybe with quite well known teachers.

Having done that you learn a bit about what is skilful and what is not, what works and what doesn’t. Of course that doesn’t give certainty of what really happened 2500 years ago but it does help distinguish between what practices contribute to the path and what practices are really a corruption of the path. Also you’d hope after all that practice any egotisticalness or arrogance would have been left behind.

By contrast some on this board don’t practice Buddhism at all, and don’t claim to, they discuss Buddhism out of idle curiosity I suppose. One thing I like about Thaivisa compared with other Buddhist boards is you encounter more non-buddhist perspectives. There have been instances though where such people have taken it upon themselves to tell us Buddhists should be like this or Buddhism should be like that, and I’m not sure why they feel qualified to make such pronouncements.

Seems to me a bit like talking about food but not eating it, it’s not really going to get you anywhere and any descriptions of the taste will be pure speculation.

In re Christianity without Christ -- the Ten Commandments (as perhaps the best example) would stand on their own as moral principles even if we discovered there was no Christ. Again, it's a moral principle.

What I meant by ivory tower Buddhists -- are those who discuss Buddhism as only an abstract idea and never bring it down to everyday life. I guess, in a sense, I was being derogatory about people like that, since Buddha's words (if they are his words) seem aimed at everyone in everyday situations.

[rockyysdt]

In re Christianity without Christ -- the Ten Commandments (as perhaps the best example) would stand on their own as moral principles even if we discovered there was no Christ. Again, it's a moral principle.

I thought the Ten Commandments were "pre Christ"?

Christianity is associated with Jesus Christ.

There is no Christianity without Jesus Christ.

Religion as laid out in the scriptures loosely termed the First Testament, dictates completely different practices compared to those associated with Christianity.

Edited December 20, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

In re Christianity without Christ -- the Ten Commandments (as perhaps the best example) would stand on their own as moral principles even if we discovered there was no Christ. Again, it's a moral principle.

Joining a religion in order to get a set of moral principles strikes me like buying a car to get a radio, lots of unreligious people also have moral principles, if Buddhism were just a set of moral principles I wouldn't see the point in being a Buddhist.

since Buddha's words (if they are his words) seem aimed at everyone in everyday situations.

True enough

[healthcaretaker]

In re Christianity without Christ -- the Ten Commandments (as perhaps the best example) would stand on their own as moral principles even if we discovered there was no Christ. Again, it's a moral principle.

// PROVOCATIVE COMMENTS DELETED //

You also mentioned some members are off-topic when "christianity or jc" is refered. If it is relevant in reply to someone's message, it is not off-topic.

May the Lord bless you, if not enlighten.

[Xangsamhua]

Joining a religion in order to get a set of moral principles strikes me like buying a car to get a radio, lots of unreligious people also have moral principles, if Buddhism were just a set of moral principles I wouldn't see the point in being a Buddhist.

Yes, I don't think many people would join a religious group to "get" a set of moral principles. One would hope they have these in the first place. But they might join a religious community that unites itself around a set of moral principles with which they agree, or a community that seems to actualize a set of moral principles and whose members regulate their lives by these principles. In many or most cases, such a community is a religious one.

A religious community may be attractive if it is an example to others, a "light unto the nations", or at least to the nation. The Santi Asoke community in Thailand strikes me as setting an example by its firm adherence to a non-attached and communitarian Buddhist life, and I could see myself connecting more formally with that community for those and other reasons, but I doubt I could ever warm to their leader's (Phra Photirak's) puritanical take on the scriptures. A "religious" connection with this group would be based on ethical and behavioural grounds rather than doctrinal ones. (Mrs Xang has no problems with the puritanical side of things. )

There are plenty of cases of people attracted to a religious community because they are inspired by the community's ethical behaviour, and I suspect people stay with their own religious community as long as it meets ethical criteria. Most people probably don't really care all that much about doctrine. The falling away of US Catholics from the church in recent years is not on account of doctrinal concerns (though they may be a necessary though insufficient contributing cause), but because of the discovery of widespread child and other abuse among a previously admired order of people, the clergy and religious brothers. I suspect the widespread cynicism in Thailand about the Buddhism taught by the Sangha results not so much from the teaching as the unexemplary behaviour and apparently limited intelligence of so many monks.

With regard to the question of whether, on discovering that the religious founder either didn't exist or was not what he was generally thought to be, one should stay in that religious community is a tricky one for many people, especially those who are ordained or have otherwise spent many years involved in the work of that community and believe that membership of the community and adherence to its principles has been a force for right action and wholesome outcomes (and may continue to be so).

It's more an issue for older people though. In the case of the western churches - Catholic, Protestant and Reformed (not the Orthodox) - nearly everyone under 30 - 40 has already walked away from the old models of church and probably won't come back. Even people attending seminaries now or doing postgrad courses in Theology (other than the fundamentalist ones, and they still seem to attract a type of person) won't swallow the old myths and metaphors. Everything is now open to critique and, possibly, postmodern religion won't worry about boundaries and will happily live with ambiguity and doubt.

Perhaps this postmodern religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever (Islam is already postmodern on its Sufi side, but pre-medieval on its Ash'ari side) will focus more on the questions and less on the answers, even and especially where the questions are not answerable, in the faith that the attempt to find answers, to whatever extent that is possible, will lead one to an authentic awareness of reality and an acceptance of one's limits and potential in dealing with it.

[kropotkin]

Twice now i have read that unlike christianity, buddhism has never been proven wrong or been rebutted by science.

Can somebody explain please?

[lungmi]

Coming back a little bit to daily life. My wife besides me checks Indian Deva pictures on her computer. Me, I look for a Dhammapada text in English and Thai.

I ask her why? Oh, beautiful pictures. I answer, if your are happy to see beautiful pictures, no problem. Here I have the Dhammapada in Thai and English. You learn English and I learn Thai

and together we learn the best lessons of the best Teacher.

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

Jesus was an awakened One. 14 years of his life he disappeared for western history, no trace. Chine old history books note about a holy healer from the Occident staying at the Afghanistan/Chinese border at the same time he disappeared. I quote my son, PhD sinology.

[camerata]

The topic is about why (some) Buddhists worship Hindu deities. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted and the topic will be closed. The idea is to stay relevant to Buddhism and also to the original post of the topic.

From the Buddhism Forum Guidelines:

Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism. Any new topic where Buddhism is not thematically involved will be immediately deleted.

[camerata]

You also mentioned some members are off-topic when "christianity or jc" is refered. If it is relevant in reply to someone's message, it is not off-topic.

There's no automatic right of off-topic reply when someone else goes off-topic. We expect everyone to stay on the subject of the original post and pull things back ON topic if they go off-topic.

Let's have no more personal remarks and bickering from anyone. We should all be getting into the Buddhamas spirit with only five days to go.

[lungmi]

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.

In all this discussions I miss the notion: Authentic Buddhism and Cultural Buddhism. The Authentic Buddhism is the deep structure, the Cultural Buddhism the surface structure. The Authentic Buddhism (Pali-Canon) is

clear, coherent, modern linguistics show it. Prof. Lambert Schmitthausen (top ten of the world Pali-Experts) agreed that the Buddhadhamma of Tan Dhammapitaka (P.A. Payutto) is a correct mirror of the Teaching of Buddha. for modern times. For further information: http://leeds.wreac.org/staff/martin-seeger.

[lungmi]

The topic is about why (some) Buddhists worship Hindu deities. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted and the topic will be closed. The idea is to stay relevant to Buddhism and also to the original post of the topic.

From the Buddhism Forum Guidelines:

Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism. Any new topic where Buddhism is not thematically involved will be immediately deleted.

Hard job, to stay relevant to Buddhism, in context to Buddhism - co-dependent origination is a Law of Dhamma. A discussion comes up same a volcano, let it go out. Moderators only have the job take care that no one is hurt.

[camerata]

Moderators have the job of making sure things stay civil and mostly on-topic. However, there is often room for some leeway, at the mods' discretion. There are considerations other than making sure no one is hurt. There are a lot of non-members who read the Buddhist forum, and they won't want to join in and ask questions if it's like Saturday night at the pub in here.

[lungmi]

Moderators have the job of making sure things stay civil and mostly on-topic. However, there is often room for some leeway, at the mods' discretion. There are considerations other than making sure no one is hurt. There are a lot of non-members who read the Buddhist forum, and they won't want to join in and ask questions if it's like Saturday night at the pub in here.

Good answer, I agree. The rules are necessary and the exceptions too.

[healthcaretaker]

Twice now i have read that unlike christianity, buddhism has never been proven wrong or been rebutted by science.

Can somebody explain please?

You need to know some Buddhism in order to understand it. Yes, until today everything that Buddhism taught 2500 since 2500 years ago has nothing proven wrong by science(yet).

If you are a science enthusiast you will know that the theory of energy is is close to the karma theory...but maybe I have to start another thread to discuss further before it goes off-topic.

As for the "christianity" part, sorry cannot continue.....moderator don't allow.

[phetaroi]

Yes, I don't think many people would join a religious group to "get" a set of moral principles. One would hope they have these in the first place. But they might join a religious community that unites itself around a set of moral principles with which they agree, or a community that seems to actualize a set of moral principles and whose members regulate their lives by these principles. In many or most cases, such a community is a religious one.

A religious community may be attractive if it is an example to others, a "light unto the nations", or at least to the nation. The Santi Asoke community in Thailand strikes me as setting an example by its firm adherence to a non-attached and communitarian Buddhist life, and I could see myself connecting more formally with that community for those and other reasons, but I doubt I could ever warm to their leader's (Phra Photirak's) puritanical take on the scriptures. A "religious" connection with this group would be based on ethical and behavioural grounds rather than doctrinal ones. (Mrs Xang has no problems with the puritanical side of things. )

There are plenty of cases of people attracted to a religious community because they are inspired by the community's ethical behaviour, and I suspect people stay with their own religious community as long as it meets ethical criteria. Most people probably don't really care all that much about doctrine. The falling away of US Catholics from the church in recent years is not on account of doctrinal concerns (though they may be a necessary though insufficient contributing cause), but because of the discovery of widespread child and other abuse among a previously admired order of people, the clergy and religious brothers. I suspect the widespread cynicism in Thailand about the Buddhism taught by the Sangha results not so much from the teaching as the unexemplary behaviour and apparently limited intelligence of so many monks.

With regard to the question of whether, on discovering that the religious founder either didn't exist or was not what he was generally thought to be, one should stay in that religious community is a tricky one for many people, especially those who are ordained or have otherwise spent many years involved in the work of that community and believe that membership of the community and adherence to its principles has been a force for right action and wholesome outcomes (and may continue to be so).

It's more an issue for older people though. In the case of the western churches - Catholic, Protestant and Reformed (not the Orthodox) - nearly everyone under 30 - 40 has already walked away from the old models of church and probably won't come back. Even people attending seminaries now or doing postgrad courses in Theology (other than the fundamentalist ones, and they still seem to attract a type of person) won't swallow the old myths and metaphors. Everything is now open to critique and, possibly, postmodern religion won't worry about boundaries and will happily live with ambiguity and doubt.

Perhaps this postmodern religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever (Islam is already postmodern on its Sufi side, but pre-medieval on its Ash'ari side) will focus more on the questions and less on the answers, even and especially where the questions are not answerable, in the faith that the attempt to find answers, to whatever extent that is possible, will lead one to an authentic awareness of reality and an acceptance of one's limits and potential in dealing with it.

I'm very impressed with you well-thought-out response...which is most often the case with your posts.

You're correct, of course, that most people don't join a religious affiliation to "get a set of moral principles". In fact, except for the earliest members of almost any religion (including Buddhism), most people are born into some particular religious culture. Some of us do experiment a bit, to one degree or another, and I'd guess that's pretty much true for almost everyone posting on this forum. And, for those of us who do "choose" a religious affiliation, we tend to choose it because it fits our already formed moral code.

You mentioned the "falling away" from Catholicism, and there are people who "fall away" from all religions, including Buddhism. But I think we have to be careful how we interpret that "falling away". I know quite a few Catholics who have "fallen away" from doctrinal Catholicism, but I only know one who no longer considers himself basically Catholic (and he became a born-again Christian). All the rest consider themselves Catholic, but no longer believe in, for example, papal doctrine, etc. They occasionally attend Mass, but no longer go to confession, etc. This is just like most of the Thai Buddhists I know, who only go to a Buddhist temple when they are with me on a sightseeing jaunt. Yet, they will say they are Buddhist.

Your comments about people no longer believing in the old myths...it would be interesting in another thread to see how people feel about the old Buddhist myths.

Again, thanks for all your thoughtful posts.

[phetaroi]

Twice now i have read that unlike christianity, buddhism has never been proven wrong or been rebutted by science.

Can somebody explain please?

I can explain it. Virtually every religion says that.

[kropotkin]

Why do some buddhists worship hindu gods?

Maybe because buddhism has become a supermarket religion: take what you want, leave the rest in the shelves?

[phetaroi]

Why do some buddhists worship hindu gods?

Maybe because buddhism has become a supermarket religion: take what you want, leave the rest in the shelves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism

[camerata]

Has anyone ever seen a statue of a major Hindu deity set up as an object of worship in a Thai temple, other than Ganesha? I just visited over a hundred temples upcountry, and while the temple buildings were often decorated with Brahmanical motifs and deities, I only saw a couple of standalone statues of Ganesha - none of Brahma, Indra, Vishnu or Shiva.

[sabaijai]

You will also find animist shrines in many Buddhist wats in Thailand. Thai Buddhism is an integrated belief system that includes elements of Pali Buddhism, Brahmanism (not Hinduism) and animism. It is not a 'pure' form of Buddhism, but then no Buddhist-majority country anywhere in the world can claim to follow a 'pure' form of Buddhism. Religions take on aspects of local culture wherever they take root. Tai communities in SE Asia were originally animist, and were later exposed to Brahmanism and then Buddhism. An integrated system is the result.

Brahmanist iconography found in Thai Buddhist painting, architectural ornamentation and sculpture is usually intended to demonstrate that the Brahmanist pantheon, in recognising that the Buddha had gone beyond their attainments, would serve to 'protect' Buddhism in the world. Most often the whole pantheon is represented by symbols associated with Indra, administrative leader of the Brahmanist pantheon ('king of the gods'), eg, an image of Indra or Garuda (Indra's mount) on the front gable of a temple building. People who work in civil service, the military, police and so on do in fact pay homage to these deities as it's believed they will help them with promotions and so on. For the same reason amulets, tattoos and so on will sometimes display Brahmanist iconography. Likewise animistic spirits play a role in daily life. Even morality, withdrawal and restraint perform talismanic roles in popular Thai Buddhism, something most Westerners don't understand.

Of course there are many Thais who are more interested in canonical Pali Buddhism, but they would seem to be in the minority.

[phetaroi]

Has anyone ever seen a statue of a major Hindu deity set up as an object of worship in a Thai temple, other than Ganesha? I just visited over a hundred temples upcountry, and while the temple buildings were often decorated with Brahmanical motifs and deities, I only saw a couple of standalone statues of Ganesha - none of Brahma, Indra, Vishnu or Shiva.

It almost seems like you're saying that a little Hinduism mixed into Buddhism is okay?

I think you also have to look at occasions in Thai life when Brahman ceremonies take precedence over Buddhism -- such as the Ploughing Ceremony.

[phetaroi]

You will also find animist shrines in many Buddhist wats in Thailand. Thai Buddhism is an integrated belief system that includes elements of Pali Buddhism, Brahmanism (not Hinduism) and animism. It is not a 'pure' form of Buddhism, but then no Buddhist-majority country anywhere in the world can claim to follow a 'pure' form of Buddhism. Religions take on aspects of local culture wherever they take root. Tai communities in SE Asia were originally animist, and were later exposed to Brahmanism and then Buddhism. An integrated system is the result.

Brahmanist iconography found in Thai Buddhist painting, architectural ornamentation and sculpture is usually intended to demonstrate that the Brahmanist pantheon, in recognising that the Buddha had gone beyond their attainments, would serve to 'protect' Buddhism in the world. Most often the whole pantheon is represented by symbols associated with Indra, administrative leader of the Brahmanist pantheon ('king of the gods'), eg, an image of Indra or Garuda (Indra's mount) on the front gable of a temple building. People who work in civil service, the military, police and so on do in fact pay homage to these deities as it's believed they will help them with promotions and so on. For the same reason amulets, tattoos and so on will sometimes display Brahmanist iconography. Likewise animistic spirits play a role in daily life. Even morality, withdrawal and restraint perform talismanic roles in popular Thai Buddhism, something most Westerners don't understand.

Of course there are many Thais who are more interested in canonical Pali Buddhism, but they would seem to be in the minority.

To me, the significant point is that many Thais regularly incorporate Hinduism into their lives, and seem to have no idea that its principles conflict with their Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

To me, the significant point is that many Thais regularly incorporate Hinduism into their lives, and seem to have no idea that its principles conflict with their Buddhism.

Many Thais also regularly incorporate capitalist materialism into their lives, it's principles also conflict with their Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

It almost seems like you're saying that a little Hinduism mixed into Buddhism is okay?

It's sub optimal but what can you do? Some people will mix Chritianity with Buddhism, some animism and so on.

Of more concern is that their Buddism is based on rites and rituals and buying their way to better rebirth rather that mental development.

[phetaroi]

It almost seems like you're saying that a little Hinduism mixed into Buddhism is okay?

It's sub optimal but what can you do? Some people will mix Chritianity with Buddhism, some animism and so on.

Of more concern is that their Buddism is based on rites and rituals and buying their way to better rebirth rather that mental development.

But here's my point, when someone asks me what I am, I answer something along the lines of, "Well, I adhere to some Buddhist principles and some Christian principles...so somewhere in between."

Ask a Thai and they will indicate they are wholly Buddhist, despite the animism and Hinduism. I've even had more than one Thai tell me that the various Hindu deities are Buddhist gods.

Back when I was a school principal in the States, one Black girl refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which was her right. But when I asked her why, she said, "I honor the kings and queens of Africa." So then I asked her to name one. "What do you mean?" "well, you say you honor the Black kings and Queens of Africa. Okay. So since you honor them so much, I'm just asking you to name one." She couldn't. So much for all the honor she was bestowing on them. I don't consider myself an expert on Buddhism in the least, but my Thai friends who have accompanied me to various temples while sightseeing all say I am an expert and know far more than they do...ye they profess to be 100% Buddhist. So, I'm suggesting that in answer to the question of why so many Thai Buddhists worship Hindu gods, it's because they don't know what they're doing. They're just doing what everyone else is doing.

[Brucenkhamen]

But here's my point, when someone asks me what I am, I answer something along the lines of, "Well, I adhere to some Buddhist principles and some Christian principles...so somewhere in between."

Ask a Thai and they will indicate they are wholly Buddhist, despite the animism and Hinduism. I've even had more than one Thai tell me that the various Hindu deities are Buddhist gods.

Back when I was a school principal in the States, one Black girl refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which was her right. But when I asked her why, she said, "I honor the kings and queens of Africa." So then I asked her to name one. "What do you mean?" "well, you say you honor the Black kings and Queens of Africa. Okay. So since you honor them so much, I'm just asking you to name one." She couldn't. So much for all the honor she was bestowing on them. I don't consider myself an expert on Buddhism in the least, but my Thai friends who have accompanied me to various temples while sightseeing all say I am an expert and know far more than they do...ye they profess to be 100% Buddhist. So, I'm suggesting that in answer to the question of why so many Thai Buddhists worship Hindu gods, it's because they don't know what they're doing. They're just doing what everyone else is doing.

I think you've nailed it. It could be a case of poor education or ignorance but I think though it's more likely being born into a religion leads to a level of complacence, whereas people like you and me have spent a bit of time reading about various religions before making a choice they've never been through that process and probably never felt the need to.

It happens with other religions as well, not just Thai Buddhism, though less so in the West where our education system encourages us to question and think for ourselves.

In the west religion is seen as more as a personal choice and a personal journey, in Thailand more as just where you fit in.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[camerata]

It almost seems like you're saying that a little Hinduism mixed into Buddhism is okay?

No, just confirming for the OP that worship of Brahmanical deities by monks is not part of normal temple activities.

I think you also have to look at occasions in Thai life when Brahman ceremonies take precedence over Buddhism -- such as the Ploughing Ceremony.

It isn't taking precedence over Buddhism, it's complementing it. As Sabaijai said, the different systems have different functions.

It's mainly Western thinking that one should follow only one system exclusively, and calling yourself one thing but doing another thing is somehow wrong or hypocritical. Asians in general don't think like that. The Japanese are a good example. Most of life's ceremonies are Shinto, the wedding may well be Christian-style, but they pay temples a small fortune to be assigned a special Buddhist name for a good afterlife, or be buried on Mount Koya with Kobo Daishi and await the coming of Maitreya.

Monotheism pretty much stamped out competing systems, but traditional Buddhism ignored them or assimilated them.

As to whether anything is "okay" in Buddhism, if we are talking about doctrinal Buddhism (i.e. the Dhamma), the important point is not so much what is "okay" under the perceived rules but what is skillful/unskillful in moving towards nibbana. At his talk last night Ajahn Pasanno quoted Ajahn Chah as saying something like, "Buddhist wisdom is not accumulated pieces of knowledge, it's the ability to read the heart - to find out the causes and conditions that lead to happiness or suffering, and then act on them with the tools the Buddha gave us. This is the bottom line."