Thailand, Asia And Budhism

[Odysseus221]

As I look out, upon world history particularly in Asia, I must comment that my realizations in a spiritual context, speak to a reality beyond temporal life, and suggest a reality totally encompassed by the Buddhist beliefs. Unfortunately, as time wears on, Buddhism I think finds itself overwhelmed by much richer societies, which suggest a better life characterized by materialism. There can be no denial that materialism does create a prosperity and wealth for societies that have little experience with wealth in a Western sense; however, I believe that as times move on, wealth creation will be shown to be a wealth of inner sanctity, not outer demonstrations. To this end, I believe that the Eastern traditions, especially Buddhism, must find a social and political platform which can dissect the visions of Western belief systems, in their philosophical sense, as well as economically, so as to preserve their own beliefs, which are sacred and endearing, and offer the world, at it's most profoundly difficult moments, the quietude and alternative perspective that create a total perspective. In this framework, Buddhism and South East Asia offer the world a great hope which should not be discounted due to materialism from the West.

Sawadeekrup

[/size][/size][/size][/size]

[cougar52]

In this framework, Buddhism and South East Asia offer the world a great hope which should not be discounted due to materialism from the West.

Maybe you overlooked Thailand with that statement, being as there are more Mercedes (per Capita) in Thailand than in many western countries. Not to mention the Thai culture that has to show off what they have, be it money, gold, cars, houses. (material things)

Edited November 1, 2011 by cougar52

[abhaya]

If things were so hunky dory in predominantly Buddhist cultures, I might agree with you, but unfortunately they are not. People are just as materialistic, grasping and venal as they are in any other society. I think it is a big mistake to divide the world into the East and West; maybe the haves and have nots would be more on point since this is the real global division, which too frequently is manifested as religious conflict. There is one common theme in all the world’s major religions and that is renunciation of the self to something greater. :jap:

[WhizBang]

 Thailand is budhist in name only.

Less that 1/10 of 1% of Thais practice real budhism.

The real Thai religion is the almighty BAHT.

[Galong]

 Thailand is budhist in name only.

Less that 1/10 of 1% of Thais practice real budhism.

The real Thai religion is the almighty BAHT.

Ouch, that was daring.

If by 'real' Buddhism you mean the one that starts with the tenet that suffering is a product of the misinterpretation that there is a personal identity, then I agree with you. The Doctrine of the Anatman was the original foundation of the way of thinking. It was a view of life which abolished suffering by abolishing an ego. Thus, 'losing face' is not really possible. Wouldn't that be a nice chance in modern Thai society... the belief that YOU are not losing face, because YOU only exist in the realm of conventionalism.

The fact of the matter however, is that few if any actually read the source material. Just like in other religions, they merely listen to what a so-called authority as to say and then do it. I don't think of Buddhism as a religion, but for this purpose I call it that.

No one seems interested in the paradox that desire is one of the strongest desires. That school of thought went to China and progressed to a more logical stance... in my opinion.

[Galong]

 Thailand is budhist in name only.

Less that 1/10 of 1% of Thais practice real budhism.

The real Thai religion is the almighty BAHT.

Ouch, that was daring.

If by 'real' Buddhism you mean the one that starts with the tenet that suffering is a product of the misinterpretation that there is a personal identity, then I agree with you. The Doctrine of the Anatman was the original foundation of the way of thinking. It was a view of life which abolished suffering by abolishing an ego. Thus, 'losing face' is not really possible. Wouldn't that be a nice chance in modern Thai society... the belief that YOU are not losing face, because YOU only exist in the realm of conventionalism.

The fact of the matter however, is that few if any actually read the source material. Just like in other religions, they merely listen to what a so-called authority as to say and then do it. I don't think of Buddhism as a religion, but for this purpose I call it that.

No one seems interested in the paradox that desire is one of the strongest desires. That school of thought went to China and progressed to a more logical stance... in my opinion.

Oops, I see I made a typo... I meant to say that the desire NOT to desire is one of the strongest desires.

[Nisa]

Thailand is budhist in name only.

Less that 1/10 of 1% of Thais practice real budhism.

The real Thai religion is the almighty BAHT.

If everybody was a perfect Buddhist then they would have all attained enlightenment. You have no idea what you are talking about. To believe in Buddhism is to be a Buddhist. You clearly have no idea about this subject or for that matter the quality of life of the average Thai or how much money they have. Instead you make an incorrect statement regarding 99.9% of Thais because you are clueless about the culture here and only know to incorrectly apply false western standards where they don't fit.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Nisa

[BAYBOY]

I have been married to a Thai for the last 16 years and have read a little about the Buddhist faith. After living here in Rural Thailand for 11 of those years I firmly believe that the " faith " as such, is on a ever faster spiral downwards.

Thai people under the age of 50, have embraced the wealth ideas of the West with vigor. One only has to look at how they spend any money as soon as they can. Savings are low, borrowing legal and illegal is high, credit a way of life, and high personal debt is common. Sure with the flooding of the last couple of months has shown how people can pull and work together, but once the drama drys up then it will be game on again. Greed , hate , revenge, and self interest will renew.

One wonders why this has come about so quickly..... the various media outlets have played a part, the I am better than you aspect, petty jealousy has changed the peoples attitude. We all know how society has changed for the worse in this country

But the thing that I see more and more is the failure of the " faith" to show the way. The famous Monks of the past taught the people about all aspects of life and how to live in harmony with each other.

The current crop of leading Monks are so hell bent on building bigger and bigger monuments to themselves that many Temples have huge money problems and the younger people have no wish or desire to follow that world as they have not the time , motivation or money to give as their parents did.Go to a temple on a big religious day and see how few teenagers, 20's and 30's people are present. Very few. Also look at the lack of males who attend these days.

Just as the Christian religions have declined in the West in the last 50 years, so to will Buddhism fall away here.

The death of Maha Bua a few months ago was I felt the last link with the true Buddhism of Thailand.

One man's thoughts

BAYBOY

[abhaya]

Well, only 94.6% of people in Thailand are Buddhists if you want exact stats and whether they are genuine or not is none of my business. I don’t understand why people want to think that all the materialism is some sort of infliction from the West. Desire is universal. Bear in mind that Gotama was born into a rich family so one may surmise it is easier for someone who has everything to renounce it than for a poor person who never had it to begin with.

It seems very weird and unBuddhistlike to me that essence of Buddhism has a geographical location but if you want to go there, the very first images of Buddha to appear 600 years after his death, looked a lot like Jesus Christ or a Taliban, i.e. a guy with aquiline features and a beard in Gandhara, prior to that his message was more important than his image. Buddhism may have even made it to it Ptolemaic Egypt as did Nestorian Christianity to the Tang Chinese court, but somehow neither made that big of an impression.

Living in a rural Thai Buddhist village from a societal perspective, I don’t see a big difference between the Temple and the Catholic Church in a Mexican village. The vendors dispense wisdom, solace and occasionally sanctuary in times of need, and most of the time its all good.

Anyway “Religions are like toothbrushes, it’s nice to know the other person has one but you don’t necessarily want to use theirs”. :jap:

[sbk]

Moving to Buddhism forum

[Odysseus221]

As Asia becomes materialistic, the traditions of Buddhism, built on an agricultural society, are challenged with a materialism unlike past history, and outwardly at least, the ability to maintain "the middle way" becomes muddled in a cash culture, while its ability to respond create institutions which safeguard its values wanes.

[Xangsamhua]

Pity the thread's been moved to the Buddhism forum. The topic is really about Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon and, I suspect, won't get much traction on the Buddhism forum, as these matters have already been discussed there to the nth over the past several years. But let's see.

It's interesting to read the views about Buddhism of people who don't normally contribute to the Buddhism forum, some of whom clearly have knowledge and insights worth sharing.

[Odysseus221]

I would agree that much of the behavior of people who profess a belief is contradictory, but so is society in general; perhaps this is human nature. It seems many people are interested in wealth. The interesting thing that I have experienced is that, every morning as I drive around, I see people burning incense, putting flowers on shrines, and meditating briefly. It is a reflection of an inner spirituality that I appreciate and see. Thailand still offers the opportunity to go to places that have few Western influences and see how people lived and live in a society with very little material wealth, but with families, friends, food and traditions which reflect the environment and traditions dating back hundreds of years. This is a wealth worth preserving and a way of life which once gone, cannot be reclaimed. Traditions, be they from Western societies or Eastern places, are worth preserving.

[IMA_FARANG]

Buddhisim in Thailand is an institution...organised and regulated.

The Catholic church is an institution.....organised and regulated.

The Anglican church is an institution.....organised and regulated.

That is not my type of "relgion". I don't do well with "organisation".

I call myself a Buddhist...but my Buddhisim is a personal thing.

I'm not a member of anything or any organisation.

That's just my personal choice...and I suspect it always will be.

Religion should not be an organised activity in my opinion.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddhisim in Thailand is an institution...organised and regulated.

The Catholic church is an institution.....organised and regulated.

The Anglican church is an institution.....organised and regulated.

That is not my type of "relgion". I don't do well with "organisation".

I call myself a Buddhist...but my Buddhisim is a personal thing.

I'm not a member of anything or any organisation.

That's just my personal choice...and I suspect it always will be.

Religion should not be an organised activity in my opinion.

Hi IMA

Like yourself I don't profess any religion in a formal sense any more, though if Thai people ask me I say that I'm a Catholic because that's my heritage and I'm pretty sure they're not asking about my personal beliefs. In fact, at present, I'm somewhere in a Venn diagram with Buddhism in one circle and Graeco-Roman Stoicism in the other, but I practise Shikantaza Zazen, which would be alien to the Stoics.

I think religion has an important place, however. We need, or would benefit from being part of a community, perhaps especially as we get older. We need a sangha (and not just a monastic one), both for companionship and as a point of reference. We can only go freelance as long as there is an organization that provides a bearing to which we can relate ourselves. A web-based sangha is helpful, but only exists as a derivative of a real, flesh and blood sangha out there, full of people at all stages of development and personal idiosyncrasies.

Ajarn Sujato, a youngish (40-something) Theravada monk based in New South Wales, defines and describes religion as follows:

What is religion?

‘A life that accords with the highest good.’

There, that’s my answer. I’ve been thinking about this for some time, and it always comes back to this.

As I’ve said earlier, I am uncomfortable with the way that secularists use the word ‘religion’: it confuses me, because it doesn’t seem to relate with what religion means to those who practice it. The secularist, disparaging use seems to means something like ‘irrational dogma and superstition’. Of course, these things are found in religion (as elsewhere) but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any religionist who thought of religion in that way.

In some sense, religion serves to orient our life for what we see as ‘better’, even ‘best’. Our ideas of what is best surely differ: but these are just ideas, not the thing itself.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I expanded the definition:

‘Religion is a relatively organized system that typically includes such things as beliefs, doctrine, scriptures, ritual, contemplation, institutions, and communities, all of which are intended to orient or guide the religious practitioner to live in accord with that religion’s conception of the highest good.’

There you have it, the unanswerable has been answered. What do you think? Is this what religion means for you?

Sujato has a most interesting and broad-minded blog. Just enter "Sujato's Blog" into Google and it'll come up.

[Galong]

The interesting thing that I have experienced is that, every morning as I drive around, I see people burning incense, putting flowers on shrines, and meditating briefly. It is a reflection of an inner spirituality that I appreciate and see.

It's nice that you see it like that. I see helpless dogs left to fend for themselves, many with mange, many with ribs shows due to starvation. I see people living in tin shacks while they're constructing mansion (with spirit houses that are nicer than the construction workers' houses) and so on. I see people thinking only of themselves and not of community.

Burning incense, flowers and meditation are all directed at personal gain and luck. I would personally prefer to see more energy put into actually doing something nice for someone else (human or animal).

Besides, the whole idea of luck and face is a direct contradiction to the most basic tenet of Buddhism, which is that in order to deal with suffering, one needs to abolish the concept of a personal identity. Almost everything done here is the exact opposite of that. If, however, one picks and chooses certain parts of the Pali Canons and Sutras, it is easy to see why this is so. What is needed is more studying if the path of Buddhism AFTER the Theravada path. Stopping there makes one miss out on a much deeper message and understanding of the view of life and what is all means behind the scenes.

[Xangsamhua]

What is needed is more studying if the path of Buddhism AFTER the Theravada path. Stopping there makes one miss out on a much deeper message and understanding of the view of life and what is all means behind the scenes.

I'm inclined to agree. The Pali Canon is fundamental to the formation and development of early Buddhism, from which Theravada derives its legitimacy, but there has been much beneficial development since then. The work of Nargajuna, Vasubhandu and Asanga and their schools comes immediately to mind, together with the Chan/Zen schools of China and Japan and the yogic schools of Tibet and the Himalayas.

Of course, these teachings cannot be forwarded with proof-texts from the Pali Canon, but they are developments of, and not necessarily deviations from, early Buddhism. One doesn't have to subscribe to these teachings, but it is a loss to be unaware of them.

People are sometimes offended by the practice in some Mahayana texts and sutras of ascribing the text to the actual words of the Buddha, even in some of the more bizarre texts (and there are some pretty bizarre schools in Mahayana). However, the ascription of one's writing to one's master or foundation teacher was a standard literary practice in ancient times. It's very noticeable in early Christianity, where at least two of the gospels (Matthew and John) were written in the name of the gospel community's teacher, seven of the epistles attributed to Paul were written by his followers, and all of the early gnostic, apocryphal and other texts found at Nag Hammadi would, if written today, find their way into Snopes. We must remember that in ancient times there was no concept of intellectual property. Plagiarism was not an offense, and authorship could be ascribed to whoever you wanted.

To insist on accepting only that which can be found in the Pali texts and to refuse to go beyond them may be a defence of authenticity, but it reifies the Buddha's teaching and deifies his person. To those who are more inclined to regard the Buddha as a wise, even sublime teacher, in word and deed, rather than a superhuman, omniscient figure, all of whose statements transcend his historical place and time, some later development, critically considered, is helpful.

[Galong]

What is needed is more studying if the path of Buddhism AFTER the Theravada path. Stopping there makes one miss out on a much deeper message and understanding of the view of life and what is all means behind the scenes.

I'm inclined to agree. The Pali Canon is fundamental to the formation and development of early Buddhism, from which Theravada derives its legitimacy, but there has been much beneficial development since then. The work of Nargajuna, Vasubhandu and Asanga and their schools comes immediately to mind, together with the Chan/Zen schools of China and Japan and the yogic schools of Tibet and the Himalayas.

Of course, these teachings cannot be forwarded with proof-texts from the Pali Canon, but they are developments of, and not necessarily deviations from, early Buddhism. One doesn't have to subscribe to these teachings, but it is a loss to be unaware of them.

People are sometimes offended by the practice in some Mahayana texts and sutras of ascribing the text to the actual words of the Buddha, even in some of the more bizarre texts (and there are some pretty bizarre schools in Mahayana). However, the ascription of one's writing to one's master or foundation teacher was a standard literary practice in ancient times. It's very noticeable in early Christianity, where at least two of the gospels (Matthew and John) were written in the name of the gospel community's teacher, seven of the epistles attributed to Paul were written by his followers, and all of the early gnostic, apocryphal and other texts found at Nag Hammadi would, if written today, find their way into Snopes. We must remember that in ancient times there was no concept of intellectual property. Plagiarism was not an offense, and authorship could be ascribed to whoever you wanted.

To insist on accepting only that which can be found in the Pali texts and to refuse to go beyond them may be a defence of authenticity, but it reifies the Buddha's teaching and deifies his person. To those who are more inclined to regard the Buddha as a wise, even sublime teacher, in word and deed, rather than a superhuman, omniscient figure, all of whose statements transcend his historical place and time, some later development, critically considered, is helpful.

Great comments, thanks!

To carry on one man's thinking to more logical conclusions (to me) are honoring the man (Siddhartha). The school that headed up to China melded with the long-existing deconstructionistic Taoist philosophy and that's when (to me) it really started getting interesting.

Tear away the rites and rituals and get to the meat of what it means to be human. Who are 'you' before all socio-cultural influences. You are a product of input. This is not only Taoist, but a huge part of the foundation of the liberal way of thinking. If you or I were placed in radically different situations from what we've experienced in our lives so far, we would be completely different individuals. The Taoists saw this too. Therefore, the thing that defines you as you, is a man-made construction.

To get at your essence, take as much away as possible. In doing that, you see that you, as an individual with a personal identity, don't really exist. You are a manifestation of, for a lack of a better term, the Tao (or atoms or whatever).

Zen Buddhism then takes it one step further and targets language as a root problem. Concept are a product of language. Destroy language and you destroy concepts, thus allowing you to see even deeper into the mystery.

[Xangsamhua]

To carry on one man's thinking to more logical conclusions (to me) are honoring the man (Siddhartha). The school that headed up to China melded with the long-existing deconstructionistic Taoist philosophy and that's when (to me) it really started getting interesting.

Tear away the rites and rituals and get to the meat of what it means to be human. Who are 'you' before all socio-cultural influences. You are a product of input. This is not only Taoist, but a huge part of the foundation of the liberal way of thinking. If you or I were placed in radically different situations from what we've experienced in our lives so far, we would be completely different individuals. The Taoists saw this too. Therefore, the thing that defines you as you, is a man-made construction.

To get at your essence, take as much away as possible. In doing that, you see that you, as an individual with a personal identity, don't really exist. You are a manifestation of, for a lack of a better term, the Tao (or atoms or whatever).

Zen Buddhism then takes it one step further and targets language as a root problem. Concept are a product of language. Destroy language and you destroy concepts, thus allowing you to see even deeper into the mystery.

Thanks for your comments. Yes, it would be a shame if development in Buddhism ended with Buddhaghosa, himself a commentator rather than a creative thinker. But later thought, it seems to me, still builds on the earlier teachings as we have them, especially on the "givens" - impermanence, (inter)dependent origination, and the denial of "self" in an absolute sense, together with the nature of mind and identity - both related to the question of what is reborn.

That we would be different if entirely fortuitous events hadn't occurred in our personal pre-history is something we are all aware off, but can't come to grips with. "What if my mother had married the postman? What if I'd never met my wife? Where would my third child be if we'd stopped at two?" These are the sort of questions that children and adults ask naturally. But like the question, "Why is there something and not nothing?", they are barren - simply counter-factual conditionals of no propositional value because they didn't happen; hence couldn't happen, as there was insufficient reason (causal conditions) for them to happen. There is something and not nothing because "somethingness" is at the core of existence, not a prior state of nothingness (from which God created the world, ex nihilo). Which brings us to the question of deconstruction.

Deconstructionism

Buddhist ontology as radical reductionism is said to end in nothingness, but it doesn't seem to be the kind of nothingness or emptiness proposed by nihilists. The Buddha debated with nihilists, but I can't remember the gist of his arguments as reported in the scriptures. From memory, for the Buddha, that which underpins existence is nirvana/nibbana, which involves the cessation of existence, at least in its phenomenal form, and is unconditioned, i.e. unlike any form of being that we can conceive. In this respect, Buddhism is not completely reductionist or deconstructionist, but mystical and, therefore, in line with other religions that consign the mysteries of existence to the unknown.

I'm not aware of a Zen approach that seeks to destroy language, but I'll take your word for it. Certainly Rinzai Zen, with its koans, treats language in a very strange way and attempts to take the practitioner beyond concepts. Ironically, however, forests of text have been used by Zen teachers to discuss the inadequacy of language. A recent one is The Book of Mu: Essential Writings on Zen's Most Important Koan, by Ford, Tarrant and Blacker. Still, it's not for me to speak lightly of the things I don't understand. I suppose I'm still stuck in Wittgenstein's claim that "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", though he acknowledged later that the world extends beyond language.

Identity

Schopenhauer, who has been said to have been attracted to Buddhism for its "nihilism" (a view I can't embrace), in fact never in his atheism reduced all being to nothing. He acknowledged the contingency of all things objectively observable, but perceived our personal consciousness as something observable only subjectively, but existent nevertheless, and therefore demanding a source of sorts, which he identified as the "Will", a passionless force that animated all things, including those we normally think of as inanimate. I generally find Schopenhauer persuasive, though he was probably more interested in Brahmanism than Buddhism.

That the mind remembers, at least to a limited extent, the life of that with which it is bound, suggests that there is a dynamic, persisting and cohering entity that constitutes a large part of our identity. Indeed, the research of Ian Stevenson suggests that there are cases where memory is in fact inherited, and often by individuals who are not biologically related to the deceased individual whose memory has been superimposed on the recipient (at least from early childhood to adolescence, when the "reincarnated" memory starts to fade). Whatever one thinks of that, it can't be denied that our life does not begin with each new causally contingent moment, but retains its past. Indeed, it could be said (and was said by the Greeks) that we do not live in the present, but in the past. Our lives consist of the remembered past and the imagined future. The present is a fiction, at best a line so fine it can't be drawn between the past as we remember it and the future as we imagine it will be. The only "reality" is the past. The Buddha, seated beneath the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, did not spend his time thinking about the future, but surveying his past lives and what he had learned from them (in addition to his present life up to that point).

This is where my thoughts have led me for the moment, for what they are worth. I think they are acceptable as a form of non-dogmatic [lower case] buddhism, but I suspect they are not authentic [upper case] Buddhism.

Thank you for setting my thoughts in motion.

[Galong]

To carry on one man's thinking to more logical conclusions (to me) are honoring the man (Siddhartha). The school that headed up to China melded with the long-existing deconstructionistic Taoist philosophy and that's when (to me) it really started getting interesting.

Tear away the rites and rituals and get to the meat of what it means to be human. Who are 'you' before all socio-cultural influences. You are a product of input. This is not only Taoist, but a huge part of the foundation of the liberal way of thinking. If you or I were placed in radically different situations from what we've experienced in our lives so far, we would be completely different individuals. The Taoists saw this too. Therefore, the thing that defines you as you, is a man-made construction.

To get at your essence, take as much away as possible. In doing that, you see that you, as an individual with a personal identity, don't really exist. You are a manifestation of, for a lack of a better term, the Tao (or atoms or whatever).

Zen Buddhism then takes it one step further and targets language as a root problem. Concept are a product of language. Destroy language and you destroy concepts, thus allowing you to see even deeper into the mystery.

Thanks for your comments. Yes, it would be a shame if development in Buddhism ended with Buddhaghosa, himself a commentator rather than a creative thinker. But later thought, it seems to me, still builds on the earlier teachings as we have them, especially on the "givens" - impermanence, (inter)dependent origination, and the denial of "self" in an absolute sense, together with the nature of mind and identity - both related to the question of what is reborn.

That we would be different if entirely fortuitous events hadn't occurred in our personal pre-history is something we are all aware off, but can't come to grips with. "What if my mother had married the postman? What if I'd never met my wife? Where would my third child be if we'd stopped at two?" These are the sort of questions that children and adults ask naturally. But like the question, "Why is there something and not nothing?", they are barren - simply counter-factual conditionals of no propositional value because they didn't happen; hence couldn't happen, as there was insufficient reason (causal conditions) for them to happen. There is something and not nothing because "somethingness" is at the core of existence, not a prior state of nothingness (from which God created the world, ex nihilo). Which brings us to the question of deconstruction.

Deconstructionism

Buddhist ontology as radical reductionism is said to end in nothingness, but it doesn't seem to be the kind of nothingness or emptiness proposed by nihilists. The Buddha debated with nihilists, but I can't remember the gist of his arguments as reported in the scriptures. From memory, for the Buddha, that which underpins existence is nirvana/nibbana, which involves the cessation of existence, at least in its phenomenal form, and is unconditioned, i.e. unlike any form of being that we can conceive. In this respect, Buddhism is not completely reductionist or deconstructionist, but mystical and, therefore, in line with other religions that consign the mysteries of existence to the unknown.

I'm not aware of a Zen approach that seeks to destroy language, but I'll take your word for it. Certainly Rinzai Zen, with its koans, treats language in a very strange way and attempts to take the practitioner beyond concepts. Ironically, however, forests of text have been used by Zen teachers to discuss the inadequacy of language. A recent one is The Book of Mu: Essential Writings on Zen's Most Important Koan, by Ford, Tarrant and Blacker. Still, it's not for me to speak lightly of the things I don't understand. I suppose I'm still stuck in Wittgenstein's claim that "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", though he acknowledged later that the world extends beyond language.

Identity

Schopenhauer, who has been said to have been attracted to Buddhism for its "nihilism" (a view I can't embrace), in fact never in his atheism reduced all being to nothing. He acknowledged the contingency of all things objectively observable, but perceived our personal consciousness as something observable only subjectively, but existent nevertheless, and therefore demanding a source of sorts, which he identified as the "Will", a passionless force that animated all things, including those we normally think of as inanimate. I generally find Schopenhauer persuasive, though he was probably more interested in Brahmanism than Buddhism.

That the mind remembers, at least to a limited extent, the life of that with which it is bound, suggests that there is a dynamic, persisting and cohering entity that constitutes a large part of our identity. Indeed, the research of Ian Stevenson suggests that there are cases where memory is in fact inherited, and often by individuals who are not biologically related to the deceased individual whose memory has been superimposed on the recipient (at least from early childhood to adolescence, when the "reincarnated" memory starts to fade). Whatever one thinks of that, it can't be denied that our life does not begin with each new causally contingent moment, but retains its past. Indeed, it could be said (and was said by the Greeks) that we do not live in the present, but in the past. Our lives consist of the remembered past and the imagined future. The present is a fiction, at best a line so fine it can't be drawn between the past as we remember it and the future as we imagine it will be. The only "reality" is the past. The Buddha, seated beneath the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, did not spend his time thinking about the future, but surveying his past lives and what he had learned from them (in addition to his present life up to that point).

This is where my thoughts have led me for the moment, for what they are worth. I think they are acceptable as a form of non-dogmatic [lower case] buddhism, but I suspect they are not authentic [upper case] Buddhism.

Thank you for setting my thoughts in motion.

Rather than looking at nihilism as a perceived pointlessness lacking any reason for moral based on a non-existence statue as a foundation for living a life, why not look at it as a way to find peace throught NOT understanding the underlying realities of life?

Personally, I'm more into deconstructing everything that is added to the perception of my personal identity. What does it mean to be the human animal? What would it be like to be a person stripped away from the constant barrage of societal and cultural input? What would it be like to focus on those things that sustain life, such as food, shelter, and the essentials of life irregardless of religion, politics, nationalism, etc, etc?

I find peace in NOT KNOWING what's going on. I find it rather vain that humans think they have the answer to unanswerable questions on the meaning of life and on how it all started.

I am not familiar with Ian Stevenson's work, but I find the premise to be something which I doubt could be proven in a scientific study... not without hinting to the subject that he/she should remember this or that, thus planting a seed to promote the answer wanted. Furthermore, all thoughts of the past and future are in the present. There is only the present at the moment. The past is memory and memory is sometimes/often mistaken or interpreted. The present is real, though it too can be misinterpreted. The future is a dream at this point.

Getting back to Thai Buddhism, I find that stopping at the first chapter in the book of Buddhism makes it impossible to understand the ending. I'm sure it's really confusing to read the Dhamapada, which talks about you creating the world, and you doing this and that, and then hear someone else who talks about Buddhism claiming that personhood is to some degree an illusion. How can "I" not exist when I'm so very here?

Peace... through not know.

[Galong]

There are many who claim that morals are only possible through an invisible means of support, i.e. a religious foundation. Besides finding this insulting on a personal level, I find it sad to think that people actually think this is somehow logical.

I honestly don't need a commandment or a precept to tell me that it's wrong to kill.

Now, two questions would be is it a natural instinct to not kill as a way to promote the species or is there another means by which those of us who don't belong to any religious mindset come to this position?

[rockyysdt]

There are many who claim that morals are only possible through an invisible means of support, i.e. a religious foundation. Besides finding this insulting on a personal level, I find it sad to think that people actually think this is somehow logical.

I honestly don't need a commandment or a precept to tell me that it's wrong to kill.

Now, two questions would be is it a natural instinct to not kill as a way to promote the species or is there another means by which those of us who don't belong to any religious mindset come to this position?

Hi G.

There's much misinformation and misinterpretation about what the Buddha actually taught.

This coupled with metaphysical doctrine, such as re birth/ future lives, can easily make one skeptical.

Terminology such as "commandments" and "morals" are Judeo/Christian concepts and nothing to do with Buddhism.

The Buddha didn't say "to kill is wrong".

He taught: I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Killing (any being) requires a level of hardening of ones heart or to become desensitized.

This leads one in the opposite direction of a path which supports the cultivation of compassion and empathy.

The ultimate goal of the Buddhas teaching is to live ones life free from greed, aversion & delusion.

Then one can live their life free from suffering.

Edited November 8, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Rather than looking at nihilism as a perceived pointlessness lacking any reason for moral based on a non-existence statue as a foundation for living a life, why not look at it as a way to find peace throught NOT understanding the underlying realities of life?

Personally, I'm more into deconstructing everything that is added to the perception of my personal identity. What does it mean to be the human animal? What would it be like to be a person stripped away from the constant barrage of societal and cultural input? What would it be like to focus on those things that sustain life, such as food, shelter, and the essentials of life irregardless of religion, politics, nationalism, etc, etc?

I find peace in NOT KNOWING what's going on. I find it rather vain that humans think they have the answer to unanswerable questions on the meaning of life and on how it all started.

I am not familiar with Ian Stevenson's work, but I find the premise to be something which I doubt could be proven in a scientific study... not without hinting to the subject that he/she should remember this or that, thus planting a seed to promote the answer wanted. Furthermore, all thoughts of the past and future are in the present. There is only the present at the moment. The past is memory and memory is sometimes/often mistaken or interpreted. The present is real, though it too can be misinterpreted. The future is a dream at this point.

Getting back to Thai Buddhism, I find that stopping at the first chapter in the book of Buddhism makes it impossible to understand the ending. I'm sure it's really confusing to read the Dhamapada, which talks about you creating the world, and you doing this and that, and then hear someone else who talks about Buddhism claiming that personhood is to some degree an illusion. How can "I" not exist when I'm so very here?

Peace... through not know.

Much food for thought here. Thank you. For the moment, just a note about Ian Stevenson's work.

It has been critiqued by some scholars and defended by others, but Stevenson never claimed to have "scientific proof" of his findings. That would be impossible. Hence the title of his book: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Only "suggestive", though to me persuasive, not that people are "reincarnated", but that there are cases where memory seems to be transferred across individuals from a deceased person to a recently born child. This phenomenon appears to have no moral dimension, however, and fades over time.

Of course, in the twenty cases reported Stevenson and his colleagues were careful to eliminate all possibilities that a child could have been coached or have picked up information accidentally and unconsciously, etc. There were many other cases that came to his attention, but were not reported because of possibilities of contaminated evidence, even if remote.

[rockyysdt]

I am not familiar with Ian Stevenson's work, but I find the premise to be something which I doubt could be proven in a scientific study... not without hinting to the subject that he/she should remember this or that, thus planting a seed to promote the answer wanted. Furthermore, all thoughts of the past and future are in the present. There is only the present at the moment. The past is memory and memory is sometimes/often mistaken or interpreted. The present is real, though it too can be misinterpreted. The future is a dream at this point.

But aren't most of us stuck in deep thought about what went wrong in the past, or worrying about the future that we totally forget about the present.

How many times have we driven a vehicle whilst caught in deep thought, then realizing we have no memory of the journey which took place in an automatic mode.

How often have we been so focused on our problems not having any awareness of the tension throughout our body.

How many times have we sat down to a meal without awareness of what we are eating, including swallowing of many largely unchewed pieces.

To regularly practice a technique of awareness has great value in cultivating the experience of being in the present.

Getting back to Thai Buddhism, I find that stopping at the first chapter in the book of Buddhism makes it impossible to understand the ending. I'm sure it's really confusing to read the Dhamapada, which talks about you creating the world, and you doing this and that, and then hear someone else who talks about Buddhism claiming that personhood is to some degree an illusion. How can "I" not exist when I'm so very here?

Peace... through not know.

Isn't it a question of becoming aware of the scripts (conditioning) which control our responses to life and consequently imprison us.

Why should I respond to given scenarios based on what I observed as an infant and locked away in my subconscious.

To be ware of such things is to be truly free.

One can't exercise true freedom if ones responses are due to subconscious scripts implanted due to conditioning.

Edited November 8, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Galong]

Rather than looking at nihilism as a perceived pointlessness lacking any reason for moral based on a non-existence statue as a foundation for living a life, why not look at it as a way to find peace throught NOT understanding the underlying realities of life?

Personally, I'm more into deconstructing everything that is added to the perception of my personal identity. What does it mean to be the human animal? What would it be like to be a person stripped away from the constant barrage of societal and cultural input? What would it be like to focus on those things that sustain life, such as food, shelter, and the essentials of life irregardless of religion, politics, nationalism, etc, etc?

I find peace in NOT KNOWING what's going on. I find it rather vain that humans think they have the answer to unanswerable questions on the meaning of life and on how it all started.

I am not familiar with Ian Stevenson's work, but I find the premise to be something which I doubt could be proven in a scientific study... not without hinting to the subject that he/she should remember this or that, thus planting a seed to promote the answer wanted. Furthermore, all thoughts of the past and future are in the present. There is only the present at the moment. The past is memory and memory is sometimes/often mistaken or interpreted. The present is real, though it too can be misinterpreted. The future is a dream at this point.

Getting back to Thai Buddhism, I find that stopping at the first chapter in the book of Buddhism makes it impossible to understand the ending. I'm sure it's really confusing to read the Dhamapada, which talks about you creating the world, and you doing this and that, and then hear someone else who talks about Buddhism claiming that personhood is to some degree an illusion. How can "I" not exist when I'm so very here?

Peace... through not know.

Much food for thought here. Thank you. For the moment, just a note about Ian Stevenson's work.

It has been critiqued by some scholars and defended by others, but Stevenson never claimed to have "scientific proof" of his findings. That would be impossible. Hence the title of his book: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Only "suggestive", though to me persuasive, not that people are "reincarnated", but that there are cases where memory seems to be transferred across individuals from a deceased person to a recently born child. This phenomenon appears to have no moral dimension, however, and fades over time.

Of course, in the twenty cases reported Stevenson and his colleagues were careful to eliminate all possibilities that a child could have been coached or have picked up information accidentally and unconsciously, etc. There were many other cases that came to his attention, but were not reported because of possibilities of contaminated evidence, even if remote.

Ah, that's some useful insight into his work. Now, if he admits this is not something that he or anyone can prove, I find the concept quite interesting and certainly worthy of some deeper consideration.

Equally, it would be interesting to see if there were any scientists who could actually come up with a reliable method to support this position that eliminates the possibilities of coaching and contamination... good questions and good quest.

[canuckamuck]

If I was to describe actual Thai practice the best word I could use would be phasmophobia.

[Xangsamhua]

Much food for thought here. Thank you. For the moment, just a note about Ian Stevenson's work.

It has been critiqued by some scholars and defended by others, but Stevenson never claimed to have "scientific proof" of his findings. That would be impossible. Hence the title of his book: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Only "suggestive", though to me persuasive, not that people are "reincarnated", but that there are cases where memory seems to be transferred across individuals from a deceased person to a recently born child. This phenomenon appears to have no moral dimension, however, and fades over time.

Of course, in the twenty cases reported Stevenson and his colleagues were careful to eliminate all possibilities that a child could have been coached or have picked up information accidentally and unconsciously, etc. There were many other cases that came to his attention, but were not reported because of possibilities of contaminated evidence, even if remote.

Ah, that's some useful insight into his work. Now, if he admits this is not something that he or anyone can prove, I find the concept quite interesting and certainly worthy of some deeper consideration.

Equally, it would be interesting to see if there were any scientists who could actually come up with a reliable method to support this position that eliminates the possibilities of coaching and contamination... good questions and good quest.

There's an article (1988) by Ian Stevenson and a colleague at http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_stevenson.pdf which gives you an idea of how they analyzed and reviewed these cases. I didn't read the full article because, frankly, it's boring ploughing through all the detail on case after case (though there's only three discussed in this article), and the methodology is much the same each time. The "20 Cases" book is no page-turner by any means after you've read about the first four or five cases..

[Galong]

There are many who claim that morals are only possible through an invisible means of support, i.e. a religious foundation. Besides finding this insulting on a personal level, I find it sad to think that people actually think this is somehow logical.

I honestly don't need a commandment or a precept to tell me that it's wrong to kill.

Now, two questions would be is it a natural instinct to not kill as a way to promote the species or is there another means by which those of us who don't belong to any religious mindset come to this position?

Hi G.

There's much misinformation and misinterpretation about what the Buddha actually taught.

This coupled with metaphysical doctrine, such as re birth/ future lives, can easily make one skeptical.

Terminology such as "commandments" and "morals" are Judeo/Christian concepts and nothing to do with Buddhism.

The Buddha didn't say "to kill is wrong".

He taught: I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Killing (any being) requires a level of hardening of ones heart or to become desensitized.

This leads one in the opposite direction of a path which supports the cultivation of compassion and empathy.

The ultimate goal of the Buddhas teaching is to live ones life free from greed, aversion & delusion.

Then one can live their life free from suffering.

Hi Rocky,

It certainly seems that there are morals tied to the Four Nobel Truths and the Eight-fold Path.

The five Buddhist precepts followed (or not) here are:

1. Refrain From Killing

2. Refrain from Stealing

3. Refrain from Lying, Slandering, Gossiping and Spreading Rumors

4. Refrain from Sexual Misconduct

5. Refrain from Taking Intoxicants

True, it does not come right out and say DON'T do it, but it sets moral/ethical groundwork for the promotion of the concepts. It's very be nice now and you'll get rewarded later. In doing this or thinking like this, it furthers the illusion that one has a personal identity which is something that carries on from one life to the next.

One of the many downsides to this is the belief that animals are people who weren't nice in their past life, thus they can be abused in light of this.

One thing I find odd is that people who believe that they will come back to the same earth don't seem to find taking care of the earth to be a high priority.

Lastly, once past the early doctrines, the metaphysical world seems to dissolve. Rite and rituals as well as the accompanying artwork, all meant to bring emotion into the game, seem not to matter as much, if at all.

[Xangsamhua]

If I was to describe actual Thai practice the best word I could use would be phasmophobia.

Thanks for the new word, Canuck. I thought at first you'd come up with it yourself.

Incidentally, my wife, a very keen supporter of Samana Photirak and the [santi] Asoke movement, tells me that the Samana is very dismissive of ghosts and admonishes his audiences to forget about them.

Yet Preta ("hungry ghosts") are widespread in Buddhist teaching, not just in Thailand.

[canuckamuck]

If I was to describe actual Thai practice the best word I could use would be phasmophobia.

Thanks for the new word, Canuck. I thought at first you'd come up with it yourself.

Incidentally, my wife, a very keen supporter of Samana Photirak and the [santi] Asoke movement, tells me that the Samana is very dismissive of ghosts and admonishes his audiences to forget about them.

Yet Preta ("hungry ghosts") are widespread in Buddhist teaching, not just in Thailand.

Did the Buddha speak on ghosts or were they added later?