Some Questions About Buddhism In Thailand

[Jawnie]

Making offerings is yet another skillful means for creating merit, which we can apply to our own future circumstances or dedicate to others. The Buddhas don't need food. Rather, we need to perform positive actions to counter the negative karma in our own mind streams. For some, seven bowls of water are offered each day. Each bowl symbolizes something different: water, food, incense, flowers, music, light... These, in turn, symbolize the five senses. So, when we make an offering, we are offering food, yes, but also the delicious and fulfilling quality of food - cutting our attachment to it - in a skillful way, by offering the food and the sense experience of the food. The Buddhas don't need food, the offering is really a form of renunciation made in the presence of an image of the Buddha.

Her father came from China

That's the key to the practice of offering food to the Buddha. It is more a Chinese tradition than something from Thai practice.

I've seen the same thing in Vietnam, Penang Malysia, and Singapore ... usually in areas with a large number of Chinese/local ethnic residents.

It always seemed "normal" to me to see offerings of food being made to a Buddha image because Vietnam was the first place I was exposed to Buddhisim, and I just assumed that making such offerings was what all Buddhists did.

[Brucenkhamen]

The Buddhas don't need food, the offering is really a form of renunciation made in the presence of an image of the Buddha.

Perhaps they would prefer the food was offered to hungry people then, this would equally be a form of renunciation as well as more practical.

[Jawnie]

Actually, one should do both - they are not mutually exclusive.

But, in the context of the question, the offering is made to the Buddhas for the purpose of creating merit.

It doesn't need to be a lot of food. As mentioned, bowls of water visualized as offerings will suffice. When one offers bowls of water, the offerings are visualized as filling the entire universe. Offerings are also an act of generosity.

The Buddhas don't need food, the offering is really a form of renunciation made in the presence of an image of the Buddha.

Perhaps they would prefer the food was offered to hungry people then, this would equally be a form of renunciation as well as more practical.

[bankei]

You are forgetting the importance of rituals.

Offering food and chanting are ritual acts. Many westerners, myself included, generally downplay the role and benefits of ritual in Buddhism.

Please expand. Thanks

Hi Chutai

I am no expert on rituals, but think they play an important psychological role as well as a social role. eg. Celebrating birthdays is a ritual. It makes the person on the receiving end feel good as well as others giving presents or attending the party etc. It also allows groups of related people to get together and bond etc.

Bankei

[Groongthep]

Sorry Mr. Groongthep, but your inconsistencies have me between 'a rock and a hard place' in providing an answer that might move the topic forward. You said in a previous post that it is only up to the individual to acknowledge their own realization but here you say you would be skeptical of someone who did so. Similarly, your list of quotes of things we should not do, including relying on 'the authority of sacred texts,' is from, well, a sacred text. If that's true, how can I possibly rely on anything in your list?

I did not say monks had large groups of followers, I said emanations had large groups of followers - the distinction makes all the difference in the world. An emanation is the actual embodiment of the enlightened state. It is they who have large groups of followers who eventually attain realization.

Being skeptical of religious traditions, etc., is really an old, worn-out argument that has gone out of fashion. On the one hand, religious traditions in the past have made some mistakes and people of followed them much too naively. On the other hand, they contain the collected knowledge of the great religions of the world. What's the answer? Follow a tradition that works for you. Just because you can't find one that works for you doesn't mean they don't have value and meaning for lots of other people.

Well Jawnie, it is kind of difficult for me to answer you as well since you either completely misread what I wrote or you are wanting to engage in an "I'm right and you're wrong" argument in which I would prefer not to participate.

If you go back and re-read my original post you will see that what I asked in response to your earlier post was "..what metric does one use to measure achieving realization in westerners vs others". I then went on to say that my intuition tells me that the only one who could really know if enlightenment had been obtained would be the individual him/her self. Nowhere did I mention any need to acknowledge the achievement in any way. In my second post I went on to say that I would be skeptical of anyone who did go around proclaiming enlightenment. I don't see any inconsistency there.

Further, I don't doubt your statement that being skeptical of a religious tradition is a really old, worn-out argument that has gone out of fashion. To be honest, I never knew it ever was in fashion in the first place. If you re-read my second post you will see that I began by saying that "I am always skeptical of claims that one tradition is in any respect better than another." by this I meant that I respect all traditions. I see them as simply different paths to the same destination. I think it quite a stretch that you took from my statement that I somehow can't find one that works for me or that I believe they don't have any value or meaning for lots of other people. I believe they do.

Having come out of a religious culture where people, including myself, used proof-texts all the time to back up our claims on all sorts of matters - often unwisely and unskillfully - I'm now a bit wary of them.

On further consideration I now see that both you and Xangsamhua are both correct in that I should not have included the quote from the Kalama Sutta in my reply. I will point out however that I was only adding it as food for thought. Nonetheless, I think it best discussions of Buddhist thought avoid this ineffective type of argument. I apologize. I too originally came out of a culture that too often used scripture to go back and forth in efforts to defend a point of view. It's usually pointless.

[fabianfred]

I'm wondering what Thai's usually think about or ask when they are praying? Does anyone know?

If they are chanting then they are not actually praying.

The chants sing the praises of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and repeat parts of the scriptures.

Often short Pali chants are done to share merits made with all beings after offering food to monks or doing meditation.

Perhaps they make the aspiration to be reborn in such a situation to meet Buddhism in their next lifetime, or even to be born when the next Buddha comes and be able to become a monk under his teaching.

[Xangsamhua]

I'm wondering what Thai's usually think about or ask when they are praying? Does anyone know?

If they are chanting then they are not actually praying.

The chants sing the praises of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and repeat parts of the scriptures.

Often short Pali chants are done to share merits made with all beings after offering food to monks or doing meditation.

Perhaps they make the aspiration to be reborn in such a situation to meet Buddhism in their next lifetime, or even to be born when the next Buddha comes and be able to become a monk under his teaching.

Fred, I would think the above are a form of prayer, but obviously not petitions to a heavenly father or prayers of thankfulness for God's intervention.

When we think of prayer we perhaps think first of petitions and expressions of gratitude. They are the first prayers most people in the West learn as children. For example:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my soul to keep:

May God guard me through the night

And wake me with the morning light.

Amen.

OK, so monks' chanting is not like that, but "sharing merit" sounds to me like a prayer for others and, by comparison, even though merit is not shared in the Catholic "Prayers of the Faithful" during Mass, the idea is to wish well toward the community and the world and all those in it who are working for the benefit of others. Likewise, to "make an aspiration" for any worthwhile outcome is a kind of prayer, isn't it?

The difference, as I said earlier, is that no God/Yahweh/Brahma figure is expected to be on the listening end of the monk's chant, but even a general wish that good outcomes eventuate and that we have the strength of character to make them happen seems like prayer to me. It also seems an easy slide from chanting to prayer. I wonder how many of the monks are in fact "praying" in the more traditional sense of the word.

[rockyysdt]

I'm wondering what Thai's usually think about or ask when they are praying? Does anyone know?

If they are chanting then they are not actually praying.

The chants sing the praises of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and repeat parts of the scriptures.

Often short Pali chants are done to share merits made with all beings after offering food to monks or doing meditation.

Perhaps they make the aspiration to be reborn in such a situation to meet Buddhism in their next lifetime, or even to be born when the next Buddha comes and be able to become a monk under his teaching.

Fred, I would think the above are a form of prayer, but obviously not petitions to a heavenly father or prayers of thankfulness for God's intervention.

When we think of prayer we perhaps think first of petitions and expressions of gratitude. They are the first prayers most people in the West learn as children. For example:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my soul to keep:

May God guard me through the night

And wake me with the morning light.

Amen.

OK, so monks' chanting is not like that, but "sharing merit" sounds to me like a prayer for others and, by comparison, even though merit is not shared in the Catholic "Prayers of the Faithful" during Mass, the idea is to wish well toward the community and the world and all those in it who are working for the benefit of others. Likewise, to "make an aspiration" for any worthwhile outcome is a kind of prayer, isn't it?

The difference, as I said earlier, is that no God/Yahweh/Brahma figure is expected to be on the listening end of the monk's chant, but even a general wish that good outcomes eventuate and that we have the strength of character to make them happen seems like prayer to me. It also seems an easy slide from chanting to prayer. I wonder how many of the monks are in fact "praying" in the more traditional sense of the word.

Isn't the distinction between prayer and chanting, that prayer is a dialogue to the supreme, whilst chanting isn't?

If a Monk visualizes the Buddha as a being in Nibanna whilst chanting then it's prayer.

Edited September 12, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Isn't the distinction between prayer and chanting, that prayer is a dialogue to the supreme, whilst chanting isn't?

You're probably right, Rocky. I was just mulling over ideas about prayer - not trying to state a case with any real strength. Perhaps what I had in mind was "non-directed" as against "directed prayer". For example, if I pray that my sick child will be healthy again, but don't direct that prayer to God, or "put God to the test" (Deuteronomy 6:16) then that might be a non-directed prayer (like a "prayer of aspiration" in some Mahayana traditions). There's some discussion about it here: http://newhope360.com/business-directory/what-best-way-pray but I don't think that's quite what I'm saying either.

If a Monk visualizes the Buddha as a being in Nibanna whilst chanting then it's prayer.

Dhammakaya followers have a meditation practice that encompasses visualization (a luminous sphere or translucent Buddha Statue). Would that be prayer, do you think? It's not chanting, but it's some kind of objectification (the Buddha appearing as an object in mental formation).

Edited September 12, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Jawnie]

Chanting accompanied with visualization of deities and symbols is a common Buddhist practice across all of the schools, I think. At the same time, the idea that there is no external god or reality being prayed to is a teaching that is integral to the practice of chanting. Again, these are skillful means intended to transform and purify our accumulated negative speech and mental karma. Chanting purifies speech, visualization purifies the mind suspending thoughts and breaking down mental patterns and attitudes. Our true nature is obscured by our karma, the skandas (heaps), etc. The practices remove them, ie, we are liberated. For some schools, the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons", (Mahayana). For other schools, it can be still be many, but fewer, life times. Some Vajrayana schools claim it can be accomplished very quickly.

Isn't the distinction between prayer and chanting, that prayer is a dialogue to the supreme, whilst chanting isn't?

You're probably right, Rocky. I was just mulling over ideas about prayer - not trying to state a case with any real strength. Perhaps what I had in mind was "non-directed" as against "directed prayer". For example, if I pray that my sick child will be healthy again, but don't direct that prayer to God, or "put God to the test" (Deuteronomy 6:16) then that might be a non-directed prayer (like a "prayer of aspiration" in some Mahayana traditions). There's some discussion about it here: http://newhope360.co...t-best-way-pray but I don't think that's quite what I'm saying either.

If a Monk visualizes the Buddha as a being in Nibanna whilst chanting then it's prayer.

Dhammakaya followers have a meditation practice that encompasses visualization (a luminous sphere or translucent Buddha Statue). Would that be prayer, do you think? It's not chanting, but it's some kind of objectification (the Buddha appearing as an object in mental formation).

Edited September 12, 2011 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

Dhammakaya followers have a meditation practice that encompasses visualization (a luminous sphere or translucent Buddha Statue). Would that be prayer, do you think? It's not chanting, but it's some kind of objectification (the Buddha appearing as an object in mental formation).

Perhaps it could be viewed as taking refuge in part of the triple gem.

Visualization of the luminous sphere or translucent Buddha Statue being a symbol of Buddha nature.

[rockyysdt]

For some schools, the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons", (Mahayana). For other schools, it can be still be many, but fewer, life times. Some Vajrayana schools claim it can be accomplished very quickly.

Hi J.

Did the Buddha teach this?

[Jawnie]

Yes.

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position within the overall framework of Buddhist doctrine."

"Some of the misconceptions about the Tantras stem from their esoteric nature. Since the time of the Buddha the Tantras were always taught secretly and selectively. For their correct understanding they have always required the oral instructions of a qualified master; without such explanations they can easily be misunderstood in wrong and harmful ways."

........

"Through Mantrayana practices, a person of superior faculties can attain Awakening in a single lifetime. One of middling faculties can attain Awakening in the after-death period (bardo). And one of inferior faculties who observes the commitments will attain enlightenment in from seven to sixteen lifetimes. These are much shorter periods than the three "immeasurable" aeons required through the Paramitayana practices. But even though the Mantra Vehicle is thus superior in skillful methods, its view of ultimate reality is identical with the Madhyamika view of the general Mahayana. "

HH Sakya Trizin.

For some schools, the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons", (Mahayana). For other schools, it can be still be many, but fewer, life times. Some Vajrayana schools claim it can be accomplished very quickly.

Hi J.

Did the Buddha teach this?

Edited September 12, 2011 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

Yes.

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position within the overall framework of Buddhist doctrine."

"Some of the misconceptions about the Tantras stem from their esoteric nature. Since the time of the Buddha the Tantras were always taught secretly and selectively. For their correct understanding they have always required the oral instructions of a qualified master; without such explanations they can easily be misunderstood in wrong and harmful ways."

........

"Through Mantrayana practices, a person of superior faculties can attain Awakening in a single lifetime. One of middling faculties can attain Awakening in the after-death period (bardo). And one of inferior faculties who observes the commitments will attain enlightenment in from seven to sixteen lifetimes. These are much shorter periods than the three "immeasurable" aeons required through the Paramitayana practices. But even though the Mantra Vehicle is thus superior in skillful methods, its view of ultimate reality is identical with the Madhyamika view of the general Mahayana. "

HH Sakya Trizin.

Do you use Mantrayana practices and are you in line for a speedy awakening?

How does this fit into Theravada Mindfulness practice?

[Brucenkhamen]

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position within the overall framework of Buddhist doctrine."

"Some of the misconceptions about the Tantras stem from their esoteric nature. Since the time of the Buddha the Tantras were always taught secretly and selectively. For their correct understanding they have always required the oral instructions of a qualified master; without such explanations they can easily be misunderstood in wrong and harmful ways."

This is just an excuse commonly trotted out to justify teachings that bear no resemblance to the core teachings preserved in the oldest texts, the nikayas of the Pali canon.

I find it very hard to believe that a teacher who taught in such an open way, advised his followers to "be a lamp unto yourself", to not take his word for it but to test and see that his teachings were true and helpful, was also teaching vastly different teachings to a chosen few secretly and selectively on the sly. These teachings to turn up hundreds or thousands of years later in a very different style with a very different emphasis.

It would be better for those that discover new skillful means are honest about it's origins, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the origin of the recipe, this is one of the points the Buddha was expressing in passages like the Kamala sutta.

Tantra is generally considered to have arisen hundreds of years after the Buddhas death and is not specifically Buddhist but present in Hindu, Sikh, Bön, Buddhist, and Jain religious traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

I don't know enough abbout this practise to be able to judge whether it's skillful or not, but I wouldn't buy a used car from a salesman who's claims about it's history didn't seem to stack up.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[sabaijai]

Just to lighten things up a bit. Don't forget to be thoughtless

[huli]

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position within the overall framework of Buddhist doctrine."

"Some of the misconceptions about the Tantras stem from their esoteric nature. Since the time of the Buddha the Tantras were always taught secretly and selectively. For their correct understanding they have always required the oral instructions of a qualified master; without such explanations they can easily be misunderstood in wrong and harmful ways."

This is just an excuse commonly trotted out to justify teachings that bear no resemblance to the core teachings preserved in the oldest texts, the nikayas of the Pali canon.

I find it very hard to believe that a teacher who taught in such an open way, advised his followers to "be a lamp unto yourself", to not take his word for it but to test and see that his teachings were true and helpful, was also teaching vastly different teachings to a chosen few secretly and selectively on the sly. These teachings to turn up hundreds or thousands of years later in a very different style with a very different emphasis.

It would be better for those that discover new skillful means are honest about it's origins, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the origin of the recipe, this is one of the points the Buddha was expressing in passages like the Kamala sutta.

Tantra is generally considered to have arisen hundreds of years after the Buddhas death and is not specifically Buddhist but present in Hindu, Sikh, Bön, Buddhist, and Jain religious traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

I don't know enough abbout this practise to be able to judge whether it's skillful or not, but I wouldn't buy a used car from a salesman who's claims about it's history didn't seem to stack up.

When Buddha's teachings were taken afar, and found there to be of great value, I suspect there was an effort to own them and minimize their Indian origins. It doesn't take much imagination to see how the Chinese or Japanese would want to have their own Buddhism, and not an Indian one. Just as the pure Buddhist teachings still inspire unique and creative books, it's always been possible to emphasize this or that. However, to say that there was an esoteric teaching that was kept secret until THEY came around? Maybe it would have been better if they just started their own religion. Here we are with people who call themselves Buddhists and nobody wants to say they aren't, but they emphasize Bohisattva's, talk about going to heaven, and emphasize rituals way too much, IMO.

[Jawnie]

Your understanding of Buddhist history is very limited.

Regular posters here are generally hostile to any form of Buddhism that is not Thai or Thervadin.

These other schools of Buddhism may have something to offer to those for whom Thervada does not appeal. That is why the Buddha taught Mahayana and Vajrayana - it's for those of differing capacities and intellect.

Sometimes the Thervadins sound like fundamentalist Christians who reject Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and other Christian schools. It's what Tibetans call 'sectarianism', thinking that your type of Buddhism is the authentic one, while others are a perversion or fake. It's not that the others are fake, it's that the Theravadins have missed the point.

It would take only a little study outside typical Theravadin thought and literature to find and realize these other forms of Buddhism were taught by the Buddha and subsequent masters. I don't know why Theravadins don't make the effort.

But, that goes back to the reason the Buddha taught different forms, because of the differing capacities of beings. Hence, the different forms. But, sectarianism should not be practiced related to Dharma.

"There is a common misconception among many non-Buddhists (and even among certain Buddhists) that the Tantras are late and corrupt additions to the Buddha's Teachings. This is false. The Tantras are genuine teachings of the Lord Buddha, and they occupy a paramount position within the overall framework of Buddhist doctrine."

"Some of the misconceptions about the Tantras stem from their esoteric nature. Since the time of the Buddha the Tantras were always taught secretly and selectively. For their correct understanding they have always required the oral instructions of a qualified master; without such explanations they can easily be misunderstood in wrong and harmful ways."

This is just an excuse commonly trotted out to justify teachings that bear no resemblance to the core teachings preserved in the oldest texts, the nikayas of the Pali canon.

I find it very hard to believe that a teacher who taught in such an open way, advised his followers to "be a lamp unto yourself", to not take his word for it but to test and see that his teachings were true and helpful, was also teaching vastly different teachings to a chosen few secretly and selectively on the sly. These teachings to turn up hundreds or thousands of years later in a very different style with a very different emphasis.

It would be better for those that discover new skillful means are honest about it's origins, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the origin of the recipe, this is one of the points the Buddha was expressing in passages like the Kamala sutta.

Tantra is generally considered to have arisen hundreds of years after the Buddhas death and is not specifically Buddhist but present in Hindu, Sikh, Bön, Buddhist, and Jain religious traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

I don't know enough abbout this practise to be able to judge whether it's skillful or not, but I wouldn't buy a used car from a salesman who's claims about it's history didn't seem to stack up.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Jawnie

[Xangsamhua]

Your understanding of Buddhist history is very limited.

Regular posters here are generally hostile to any form of Buddhism that is not Thai or Thervadin.

These other schools of Buddhism may have something to offer to those for whom Thervada does not appeal. That is why the Buddha taught Mahayana and Vajrayana - it's for those of differing capacities and intellect.

Sometimes the Thervadins sound like fundamentalist Christians who reject Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and other Christian schools. It's what Tibetans call 'sectarianism', thinking that your type of Buddhism is the authentic one, while others are a perversion or fake. It's not that the others are fake, it's that the Theravadins have missed the point.

It would take only a little study outside typical Theravadin thought and literature to find and realize these other forms of Buddhism were taught by the Buddha and subsequent masters. I don't know why Theravadins don't make the effort.

But, that goes back to the reason the Buddha taught different forms, because of the differing capacities of beings. Hence, the different forms. But, sectarianism should not be practiced related to Dharma.

I think you're generalizing a bit, Jawnie. I can think of at least four regular posters for a start (and there aren't that many regulars) who follow traditions other than Theravada, and I'm aware of some identifiably Theravada practitioners on the forum who are quite open-minded to other traditions. And is it fair to say that all "Theravadins don't make the effort" to study outside the tradition? No, it isn't.

May I refer you to this Theravadin site that I think displays open-mindedness and generosity of spirit. http://sujato.wordpress.com/about/

Metta to you, and as we say in Thailand: "Don't be too serious."

[Groongthep]

Regular posters here are generally hostile to any form of Buddhism that is not Thai or Thervadin.

I think you're generalizing a bit, Jawnie.

I have to agree with Xangsamhua here Jawnie. I see you only joined the forum earlier this year in January, but it has been around for years. If you go back and review what has been written here over the years I think you'll find that most posters are not at all hostile to non Theravadin schools of thought. In fact it seems to me that for the most part just the opposite is true. Relax and take the chip off your shoulder. We respect your views. Really.

[IMA_FARANG]

the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons

Not criticising anyone, but being a skeptical westerner, I would like to ask:

1. Exactly how long (in years) is even ONE immeasurable aeon?

2. And even when you know that.. exactly how do you string THREE of them together?

Just joking, guys.

[rockyysdt]

the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons

Not criticising anyone, but being a skeptical westerner, I would like to ask:

1. Exactly how long (in years) is even ONE immeasurable aeon?

2. And even when you know that.. exactly how do you string THREE of them together?

Just joking, guys.

The historical Buddha was also known to joke or speak with puns.

Was he indirectly ridiculing the rigid Brahman teachings of the time by suggesting ridiculous time spans.

He wouldn't be the only one to speak in parables.

In fact, there were a number of attempts on his life.

In order to steer people into investigative thought, rather than being obvious, which would attract the ire of the Brahmans, he used parables to convey truth in indirect ways.

One needs to read statements, such as "three immeasurable aeons" in their context to extract what he really was attempting to convey.

Edited September 27, 2011 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

the practices accomplish this over "three immeasurable aeons

Not criticising anyone, but being a skeptical westerner, I would like to ask:

1. Exactly how long (in years) is even ONE immeasurable aeon?

2. And even when you know that.. exactly how do you string THREE of them together?

Just joking, guys.

One time the Buddha gave the length of an aeon with a simile...

imagine a hole....ten miles wide, ten miles long, ten miles deep.....throw in a single sesame seed every one hindred years...it would be full sooner than the end of an aeon :jap:

[fabianfred]

...and then when some bright spark immediately asked him how many such long aeons had passed by he said...more than there are grains of sand in the River Ganges. I don't think they had a word for infinite in those days, or this was more comprehensible...