The End Of Buddhism In Thailand.

[camerata]

Don't worry, folks. Maitreya will eventually appear to revive the practice of Dhamma and save us all.

[EliBuchen]

Don't worry, folks. Maitreya will eventually appear to revive the practice of Dhamma and save us all.

@camerata the million dollar question is when will Maitreya appear next?

Best to practise when the Shakyamuni's teachings are still around and the Sangha still preserving the teachings and they are realised beings amongst us.

[fabianfred]

Don't worry, folks. Maitreya will eventually appear to revive the practice of Dhamma and save us all.

@camerata the million dollar question is when will Maitreya appear next?

Best to practise when the Shakyamuni's teachings are still around and the Sangha still preserving the teachings and they are realised beings amongst us.

not for several million years in the future, that is sure.

[dutchguest]

The trouble is, that by the time people realise that consumerism does not bring happiness there will be few opportunities left to meet the true Dhamma and be taught the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. Learning from a book is hardly possible since you cannot ask a book questions and get advice from it. Real teachers will become more difficult to find.

The globalisation coming about is not done to make everyone one big happy family, but for business purposes. One currency, one nation policies are engineered by the global elite who desire only control and power.

Globalisation is indeed at the moment a question of power in the hands of a few. For the moment this capitalistic way seems to me to be a necessary development. The motives of "the rich and powerfull" may not be altruistic but a side-effect of this development is a worldwide democratisation of knowledge and -if knowledge is power- also of power. "Apple" may want to sell more tablets to make more profit, but it gives consumers the opportunity to enter into the world of internet with almost unlimited access to information. So there are two sides on this development. After all, without the globalisation we would not be able share our opinions on this forum. So I am not against new technology. If it is good or bad, if it makes people more happy and relaxed I don't know. But the right views and insights are also part of the Buddhist way.

Personally I think the present form of extreme capitalism will collaps due to its intrinsic contradictions, and it is already collapsing if we read the newspapers. And we will be forced to look for other ways of production. More locally oriented, self-sufficient and without destroying its own sources, nature.

[spacedcowboy]

I like reading people's views/opinions/beliefs regarding what Siddhartha Gautama actually attained through developing full self awareness.

I am even more intrigued by peoples concepts of how to go about reaching this level of self realisation for themselves.

I read a variety of different Buddhist forums and just wondered if anybody had any opinions to share on the major message that Siddhartha Gautama left us with maybe along the lines of

"I did it so can you"

[greatflood]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

[IMA_FARANG]

I don't mean to criticise...there are a lot of good dedicated practicing Buddhists on this forum.

But as a layman...who likes to call himself a Buddhist...although a far from pefect one...doesn't it seem rather silly to be debating such grand and wide-ranging questions as "The Future of Buddhisim in Thailand", and maybe therefore the (it is semingly assumed) the Entire World?

Considering such a question mindfully, wouldn't such a question demonstrate a unhealthy clinging to an Ego centered perception of reality...maybe one not consistant with Right Perception and therefore Right Thinking?

Anyhow, shouldn't buddhists...please note I didn't capitalise buddhists...recognise that impermanence is the true nature of all dependently arising things?

(I personally would call that Dependent Origination...but that is only words not the essence.)

Presumeably that also includes the practice of buddhisim itself.

Anyhow, I have my own personal view of buddhisim and my own style of "practice".

In that way I tend my own garden and grow my own flowers in that garden.

So, with respect, I will just keep growing my own flowers; mindfully if possible, in my own garden and hoping they will bloom.

[huli]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

talking about "Gods" is ridiculous on a Buddhist Forum

"you should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future" - doesn't this statement violate the rules of this forum?

this brand new member's prognosis is grim

[sabaijai]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

Something better? Could you elaborate, greatflood? And before you do, please read the guidelines for posting in this forum.

[greatflood]

If something can substitute Buddha's Dhamma, should it be better or worst than Buddha's Dhamma?

[greatflood]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

talking about "Gods" is ridiculous on a Buddhist Forum

"you should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future" - doesn't this statement violate the rules of this forum?

this brand new member's prognosis is grim

There are a lof of monks who become famous by producing Jatukam.

And it's generally accepted that the power embeded in those amulets are from Trimurti or Gods.

If talking about Gods is ridiculous in Buddist forum, should those ridiculous monks be kicked away from the temple?

[huli]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

talking about "Gods" is ridiculous on a Buddhist Forum

"you should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future" - doesn't this statement violate the rules of this forum?

this brand new member's prognosis is grim

There are a lof of monks who become famous by producing Jatukam.

And it's generally accepted that the power embeded in those amulets are from Trimurti or Gods.

If talking about Gods is ridiculous in Buddist forum, should those ridiculous monks be kicked away from the temple?

People do what they do. It's not appropriate to suggest that some temple should kick out their members. What's that to us, we don't make their rules.

However, we do have rules on this Buddhist Forum, and to knock Buddhism as you did is against them.

The questions, are there Gods?, if so, are they ever wrong?, if they are, about what? lead to nothing but meaningless speculation, the antithesis of Buddha's teaching.

OK, maybe ridiculous was the wrong word.

[rockyysdt]

"My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand."

I agree with your Luang Por Jaran.

Gods never wrong with anything. They are in the Universe for many billion years.

Your should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future.

talking about "Gods" is ridiculous on a Buddhist Forum

"you should be glad that something better than Buddha's dhamma is coming in the near future" - doesn't this statement violate the rules of this forum?

this brand new member's prognosis is grim

There are a lof of monks who become famous by producing Jatukam.

And it's generally accepted that the power embeded in those amulets are from Trimurti or Gods.

If talking about Gods is ridiculous in Buddist forum, should those ridiculous monks be kicked away from the temple?

People do what they do. It's not appropriate to suggest that some temple should kick out their members. What's that to us, we don't make their rules.

However, we do have rules on this Buddhist Forum, and to knock Buddhism as you did is against them.

The questions, are there Gods?, if so, are they ever wrong?, if they are, about what? lead to nothing but meaningless speculation, the antithesis of Buddha's teaching.

OK, maybe ridiculous was the wrong word.

Some Buddhists believe in realms of existence including the Deva or God realm.

Meta physical as it is, many Buddhists like to speculate on such matters which include, realms, re birth to future lives, Nibanna, and Stream Entry.

Based on this wouldn't discussion of Gods be on the table?

Edited November 5, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Gaccha]

Nice post patient. You describe well many of the current Western attitudes.

I was talking to my fellow farang monk here yesterday and I said that so many of the problems in the West come about because of the largly held beliefs of Christianity or Atheism. Both of those religions consider that we have a single life. This causes people to consider this lifetime of extreme importance and preciousness. They have thus got to be sucessful or at least have as good a time as possible. IMHO it leads to selfishness. Christians go around forcing their religion on the world because they think it is superior and have gods given right to do so, causing untold damage and suffering in the process, thinking they are doing gods work and earning themselves salvation.

Destruction of nature with no thought of the future state of the planet is also a consequence.

Non-belief in rebirth leads to a very short-sighted view and exaggerated idea of the importance of oneself and ones right to do as one pleases without any comebacks.

I think this is awfully unfair.

It is an almighty stretch to call Atheism a religion. Take a look at Peter Berger's monumental "The Sacred Canopy" to understand just what ontological commitments have to be made for something to be a religion.

I'm an atheist and I have no idea if this is my only life. There might or might not be a heaven. Heck, there might be a heaven and no god/s. I love surprises so it's all good.

As for the Christians, their belief in heaven is supposed to nullify their upset at how rubbish their lives are in this one, and to discipline them into certain codes of conduct. Michel Foucault in 'Security, Territory, Population' masterfully shows the regulatory lengths of Pastoral Care.

And this fits into my views on the 'End of Buddhism'. This is certainly a dramatic narrative. But this narrative has arisen so many times in history before. As Daniel Dennet points out in 'Breaking the Spell', religions have survived precisely becuase of their ability to sustain critical attacks. They have a whole armoury of rhetorical techniques to counter criticism. They are like jelly. The buddhism of Thailand today has nothing to do with whatever an Indian nobleman was doing in India a few centuries back. Only the name is the same.

So Buddhism in this latter narrative never existed in Thailand anyway. Just a quick reading of Weber's masterpiece on the religions of India makes it very difficult to think there is some 'uncorrupted' version out there. Indeed, it perfectly displays the bizarre twists and turns that religions take to shift and survive. Yet despite it being *obviously* nothing to do with the original aestheticism of the noble, the armoury of religion to defend against my criticism now is to state "but this is not the real Buddhism, this is the real Buddhism", pointing somewhere else. Indeed, whereever and whatever is criticised, it is never 'real Buddhism'. But this slippery nature of religions actually reveals their onotological absurdity.

So why are they all around us? Perhaps Robert Bellah's new book-- 20 years in the making-- helps to answer this question.

So to sum up, your question of whether Buddhism will/has ended in Thailand, perfectly encapsulates the disciplining nature of the tricks of religions to reassert and reposition themselves. They never grow tired and never grow weary. You join a long line of men with this same claim.

[fabianfred]

I think this is awfully unfair.

It is an almighty stretch to call Atheism a religion. Take a look at Peter Berger's monumental "The Sacred Canopy" to understand just what ontological commitments have to be made for something to be a religion.

I'm an atheist and I have no idea if this is my only life. There might or might not be a heaven. Heck, there might be a heaven and no god/s. I love surprises so it's all good.

As for the Christians, their belief in heaven is supposed to nullify their upset at how rubbish their lives are in this one, and to discipline them into certain codes of conduct. Michel Foucault in 'Security, Territory, Population' masterfully shows the regulatory lengths of Pastoral Care.

And this fits into my views on the 'End of Buddhism'. This is certainly a dramatic narrative. But this narrative has arisen so many times in history before. As Daniel Dennet points out in 'Breaking the Spell', religions have survived precisely becuase of their ability to sustain critical attacks. They have a whole armoury of rhetorical techniques to counter criticism. They are like jelly. The buddhism of Thailand today has nothing to do with whatever an Indian nobleman was doing in India a few centuries back. Only the name is the same.

So Buddhism in this latter narrative never existed in Thailand anyway. Just a quick reading of Weber's masterpiece on the religions of India makes it very difficult to think there is some 'uncorrupted' version out there. Indeed, it perfectly displays the bizarre twists and turns that religions take to shift and survive. Yet despite it being *obviously* nothing to do with the original aestheticism of the noble, the armoury of religion to defend against my criticism now is to state "but this is not the real Buddhism, this is the real Buddhism", pointing somewhere else. Indeed, whereever and whatever is criticised, it is never 'real Buddhism'. But this slippery nature of religions actually reveals their onotological absurdity.

So why are they all around us? Perhaps Robert Bellah's new book-- 20 years in the making-- helps to answer this question.

So to sum up, your question of whether Buddhism will/has ended in Thailand, perfectly encapsulates the disciplining nature of the tricks of religions to reassert and reposition themselves. They never grow tired and never grow weary. You join a long line of men with this same claim.

I'm sorry you find it unfair..... it is only my own humble opinion....but then life is often seen as unfair when we can only see and know the present lifetime....unaware of the consequences of past actions and those actions too.

You seem good at reading and quoting other peoples work... why don't you try thinking for yourself...

[Gaccha]

I think this is awfully unfair.

It is an almighty stretch to call Atheism a religion. Take a look at Peter Berger's monumental "The Sacred Canopy" to understand just what ontological commitments have to be made for something to be a religion.

I'm an atheist and I have no idea if this is my only life. There might or might not be a heaven. Heck, there might be a heaven and no god/s. I love surprises so it's all good.

As for the Christians, their belief in heaven is supposed to nullify their upset at how rubbish their lives are in this one, and to discipline them into certain codes of conduct. Michel Foucault in 'Security, Territory, Population' masterfully shows the regulatory lengths of Pastoral Care.

And this fits into my views on the 'End of Buddhism'. This is certainly a dramatic narrative. But this narrative has arisen so many times in history before. As Daniel Dennet points out in 'Breaking the Spell', religions have survived precisely becuase of their ability to sustain critical attacks. They have a whole armoury of rhetorical techniques to counter criticism. They are like jelly. The buddhism of Thailand today has nothing to do with whatever an Indian nobleman was doing in India a few centuries back. Only the name is the same.

So Buddhism in this latter narrative never existed in Thailand anyway. Just a quick reading of Weber's masterpiece on the religions of India makes it very difficult to think there is some 'uncorrupted' version out there. Indeed, it perfectly displays the bizarre twists and turns that religions take to shift and survive. Yet despite it being *obviously* nothing to do with the original aestheticism of the noble, the armoury of religion to defend against my criticism now is to state "but this is not the real Buddhism, this is the real Buddhism", pointing somewhere else. Indeed, whereever and whatever is criticised, it is never 'real Buddhism'. But this slippery nature of religions actually reveals their onotological absurdity.

So why are they all around us? Perhaps Robert Bellah's new book-- 20 years in the making-- helps to answer this question.

So to sum up, your question of whether Buddhism will/has ended in Thailand, perfectly encapsulates the disciplining nature of the tricks of religions to reassert and reposition themselves. They never grow tired and never grow weary. You join a long line of men with this same claim.

I'm sorry you find it unfair..... it is only my own humble opinion....but then life is often seen as unfair when we can only see and know the present lifetime....unaware of the consequences of past actions and those actions too.

You seem good at reading and quoting other peoples work... why don't you try thinking for yourself...

Your reply is in an oddly rhetorical style. Obviously, I did not use 'unfair' to describe my feelings but to suggest your broad criticism of those religions could not be made from your arguments. In other words, you are playing the dark art of the dialectic, and I am playing the game of logic. And since you seem to enjoy my book referencing then you might enjoy 'The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument' (1831) by Schopenhauer. In his book, your rhetorical trick would fall under a 'diversion' move. You seem more keen on 'winning' than on finding insight. I am genuinely baffled, I thought the positioning of Buddhism necessarily prefers the latter.

As for your second point of criticism, all thinking is based on the thinking of others. The sign of thinking is the ability to find the confluences of thoughts and come up with a new perspective. I thought my post was a bravura argument. If you haven't read those books, you have no time to lose. Although, having said that, if you believe in reincarnation, you have plenty of time, so you might not need to hurry so much. Had you read those books you would be aware of the rich history of the narrative of the 'end of Buddhism is now'. This would and should put your mind at rest.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Gaccha

[Mirth]

Problems in the west are caused by greed and ignorance, not religion as ALL religion states that greed and ignorance are sins.

It's human nature to desire, not religion and only wise humans are at peace. Some people opt for material treasures, others mind and some spiritual. Wise people on the other hand are contented with what they have.

Religion is about faith, how they are practised, observed or worshipped, it's entirely up to them and true believers of faith in a religion will never criticise another. Religion is and never was a pissing match, it's for the faithful and observant.

Will Buddhism vanish? It will but it will be reborn again as like all religions. End of day, it's for the faithful to observe and follow whichever religion they so chooses.

Nice post patient. You describe well many of the current Western attitudes.

I was talking to my fellow farang monk here yesterday and I said that so many of the problems in the West come about because of the largly held beliefs of Christianity or Atheism. Both of those religions consider that we have a single life. This causes people to consider this lifetime of extreme importance and preciousness. They have thus got to be sucessful or at least have as good a time as possible. IMHO it leads to selfishness. Christians go around forcing their religion on the world because they think it is superior and have gods given right to do so, causing untold damage and suffering in the process, thinking they are doing gods work and earning themselves salvation.

Destruction of nature with no thought of the future state of the planet is also a consequence.

Non-belief in rebirth leads to a very short-sighted view and exaggerated idea of the importance of oneself and ones right to do as one pleases without any comebacks.

[Xangsamhua]

So why are they all around us? Perhaps Robert Bellah's new book-- 20 years in the making-- helps to answer this question.

Robert Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, September 2011. Hardcover, 784 pages. Available from Amazon at US$22.45.

To a faith-committed person such a book would be threatening. Naturalistic explanations for religions and the development of their doctrines? Oh dear!

Dialogue with people committed to the doctrines of a faith-system is difficult. Hence, inter-religious dialogue usually tiptoes around the really contentious issues and focuses on the common ground. Dialogue between committed supernaturalists and naturalists, however, is especially hard, as there is no ontological and epistemological common ground. The best one can do is listen respectfully to each other's point of view. Unfortunately, anxiety at being found to be in error sometimes overrides the ability to listen with respect. But even if you think your interlocutor is naive, obscurantist or devious, there's usually something you can learn from him. (Isn't there?)

Question is: Is it worth the time and effort?

[camerata]

One off-topic post has been deleted. Either stick to the topic or don't post at all.

It would be interesting to know exactly what LP Jaran meant by "Buddhism." Did he mean "true Buddhism" (presumably referring to classical Theravada) or the popular Buddhism practised by most Thais. I certainly wouldn't expect the latter to disappear in a hundred years.

[fabianfred]

Unfair...I'll tell you what is unfair. Politicians are by nature immoral, and get to make descisions thinking that they know better than the people they represent....thinking the people are like silly children who don't know what is best for them. Here in Thaialnd where the majority are Buddhist laws have been passed which put us at a disadvantage. Buddhism is very tolerant of other religions and and so is Thailand. When the people wanted to make Buddhism the National religion they were denied. All religions get an equal say in things, so wheneve there is a meeting about religious affairs all religions get equal representation....not equal to their percentage of adherants within the country...so the 95% Buddhists get only as many representatives as the Christians who are a tiny minority...and suffer the pushy prostlytizing actions of those others who are given free reign. Of course the politicians who allow this are only Buddhist in name and in their greed for power allow the precepts to take a back row.

How about proportional representation?

[DaamNaam]

Worry is interest paid on trouble not yet due.Buddhism ( meditation ) is growing worldwide. Don't worry if Thai Buddhism is fading. It's not called the teaching of the "elder" for nothing. It will endure in some shape or form.

[huli]

Unfair...I'll tell you what is unfair. Politicians are by nature immoral, and get to make descisions thinking that they know better than the people they represent....thinking the people are like silly children who don't know what is best for them. Here in Thaialnd where the majority are Buddhist laws have been passed which put us at a disadvantage. Buddhism is very tolerant of other religions and and so is Thailand. When the people wanted to make Buddhism the National religion they were denied. All religions get an equal say in things, so wheneve there is a meeting about religious affairs all religions get equal representation....not equal to their percentage of adherants within the country...so the 95% Buddhists get only as many representatives as the Christians who are a tiny minority...and suffer the pushy prostlytizing actions of those others who are given free reign. Of course the politicians who allow this are only Buddhist in name and in their greed for power allow the precepts to take a back row.

How about proportional representation?

I agree, proportional representation is only fair. I also think the Thai government gives out missionary visas too easily. Why encourage, to this degree, the Christians to come here to preach their message that Buddhists will all go to hell, because they don't accept "Jesus"? In Chiang Mai they offer free English lessons as a ploy to corner a Thai and preach. Some stand and scream their sermons in the middle of busy public areas. Their schools flaunt the Thai traditions. They get accepted here, but they don't accept themselves. I am embarrassed at this behavior by my admitted countrymen.

[camerata]

I wouldn't worry about missionaries if I were you. The "End of Buddhism" in Thailand - if it ever comes - is not likely to be due to Christianity.

[huli]

I wouldn't worry about missionaries if I were you. The "End of Buddhism" in Thailand - if it ever comes - is not likely to be due to Christianity.

I agree with you. I'm just complaining about their obnoxious behavior.

[fabianfred]

On my recent tudong trip to Pai, whilst I was just arrived at a temple and trying to find someone to ask about staying in the grounds, a young Thai man kept pestering me asking to have a chat. Eventually after speaking to the Abbot and getting his permission to camp out in the temple grounds I turned to the man and asked what he wanted to talk about...assuming he wanted to practice his English. He knew I could speak Thai and started to ask if he could have a chat with me about god. This was a temple which gets many thai and foreign visitors, so it was obvious that he hangs around there trying to preach to people about Christianity.

They've got a nerve coming into Buddhist temples and prosthlytizing. If I went to a church here and started handing out Dhamma books I would probably get lynched or at least asked to leave, but because of the tolerant attitude of Buddhists they get away with anything here.

Wouldn't it be obvious that a Farang who was a Buddhist monk had already made great changes in their beliefs and be the last person to go and try to convert?

I said to the the guy that I was brought up as Catholic and had changed to Buddhist myself, and there was no way I'd be going back again.

I once had a chat with a German woman who was here to do missionary work, and asked her if she told her converts about the bad press some monks get for misbehaving...she agreed and gave a snide smirk....but I then asked her if she made her people aware of the same problems in the West of the clergy having many peadophile and sexual harrasment problems...but no....of course she never mentioned them!!

Edited November 9, 2011 by fabianfred

[greatflood]

People do what they do. It's not appropriate to suggest that some temple should kick out their members. What's that to us, we don't make their rules.

However, we do have rules on this Buddhist Forum, and to knock Buddhism as you did is against them.

The questions, are there Gods?, if so, are they ever wrong?, if they are, about what? lead to nothing but meaningless speculation, the antithesis of Buddha's teaching.

OK, maybe ridiculous was the wrong word.

I don't mind you use the wrong word. But what I feel is that you have double standards.

You don't mind anything monk have done or practice out of the scope Buddha had taught.

Does Buddha want his disciple to pay attention to get the way to Nirvana or making amulet?

If talking about the creator of this planet is ridiculous, why will you make any salution to those Jatukam-producing monks?

You don't make the rule of any temple, but some of you make the rule for this forum, which I feel that it's unfair to be ridiculous just mentioning of Gods in this forum, but it's not ridiculous to become well known monk by producing those Jatukams.

If someone can knock Buddism, does it mean Buddist principle need revising and improvement?

Does Buddha teach you that his teaching is invincible or must not be changed?

Edited November 11, 2011 by greatflood

[camerata]

How about you tell us what the Hindu Trimurti gods have to do with the end of Buddhism in Thailand (the subject of this discussion) - if anything?

[Comicus]

My teacher Luang Por Jaran at Wat Amphawan, Singhburi says that in 100 years Buddhism will have disappeared from Thailand.

Are you saying that he is a fortune teller?

Is it normal for Buddhists to believe that "Everything that has a beginning has an end.", yes?

[Comicus]

People do not turn to Buddhism for mindfulness.....they mostly know nothing about it until they study Buddhism.

Interesting statement

Should it be "they mostly know nothing about it even after they have studied Buddhism." ?

[camerata]

Should it be "they mostly know nothing about it even after they have studied Buddhism." ?

No, it shouldn't.