Thailand, Asia And Budhism

[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.

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

Google Khuddakapatha; then Tirokudda Kanda. These scriptures are considered a late addition to the Pali Canon, so whether they reflect the Buddha's own teaching I don't know.

A non-dogmatic Buddhist in any case would acknowledge a possible difference between the Buddha's personal beliefs (e.g. his cosmogony and, perhaps, his phasmology) and his core teachings.

[canuckamuck]

Phasmology, cool term too.

I think That Buddhism sans spooks is a more respectable philosophy. But there is no better way to manage the herd than a few boogiemen to keep them all in line. It is a shame how man makes everything religious eventually.

[camerata]

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

Anthropologists describe the practice of most (not all) Thais as "magico-animist," which seems more accurate to me. The many rituals and practices to improve one's karmic lot have nothing to do with ghosts, and the preta ("hungry ghost" in English) of Buddhism is not classed as a ghost (phii). Perhaps pneumatiphobia would cover part of Thai belief, but not all of it.

[Galong]

Phasmology, cool term too.

I think That Buddhism sans spooks is a more respectable philosophy. But there is no better way to manage the herd than a few boogiemen to keep them all in line. It is a shame how man makes everything religious eventually.

Well-stated. Thais, like a huge percentage of the followers of other faiths, seldom actually study and decide on the realities, values, ideals proposed in the source text, they opt for having someone tell them how to interpret it.

The religious overtures lessen the appeal to those of us who are not fans of the supernatural. My favorite old cliche fits in here: The supernatural is just the natural not yet understood.

[sabaijai]

Phasmology, cool term too.

I think That Buddhism sans spooks is a more respectable philosophy. But there is no better way to manage the herd than a few boogiemen to keep them all in line. It is a shame how man makes everything religious eventually.

Animism predated Buddhism. I think it's a bit far-fetched to suggest there is a conspiracy to use popular animist beliefs to keep people in line. In fact many prominent monks argue for Buddhism without animism but popular opinion keeps it alive.

[Polsci]

A new book in English that just came out in October 2011 is The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk: Practicing Buddhism in Modern Thailand, written by Thomas Justin McDaniel, an associate professor of religious studies at University of Pennsylvania.

In Huffington Post, he introduces his book with horrid stories of dead fetuses magically made into highly-sought-after amulets. I grew up in Thailand and was very familiar with the whole occult thing. Reading this still makes my hair stand on end.

And they call that Buddhism!

[Xangsamhua]

A new book in English that just came out in October 2011 is The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk: Practicing Buddhism in Modern Thailand, written by Thomas Justin McDaniel, an associate professor of religious studies at University of Pennsylvania.

In Huffington Post, he introduces his book with horrid stories of dead fetuses magically made into highly-sought-after amulets. I grew up in Thailand and was very familiar with the whole occult thing. Reading this still makes my hair stand on end.

And they call that Buddhism!

Thank you for alerting us to this book by Justin McDaniel, one of the younger generation of Western scholars in Thai and Lao studies.

It is available on Kindle for $40; hardcover for $60 from Amazon.

McDaniels' introduction to the book in Huffington Post is interesting. In his final paragraph he says:

[in my book] I go beyond studies of Buddhist meditation, ethics, and philosophy in order to provide a historical background to many of today's Thai Buddhist practices. I provide a detailed, but hopefully accessible, analysis of the amulet trade, the use of protective tattoos, the rise of Thai horror films, the chanting of protective incantations, the popularity of ghost stories and the work of well-known Buddhist monks, saints and magicians. Even though Thai Buddhism presents itself (and has been so designated by foreign scholars and Western Buddhist enthusiasts) as normative, traditional and exceedingly well-behaved, I argue throughout that rather than hidden aspects of an otherwise orthodox and peaceful Thai Buddhism, these magical and protective rituals and stories are part of the Thai religious mainstream. If we are going to talk in useful ways about Thai culture, if we are going to learn from the various Thai ways of being Buddhist, then it is more accurate to look at what complex technologies people actually employ to solve problems -- the practical (and sometimes seemingly impractical) technologies of astrology, healing, protection, prognostication, precepts, and the like. In this way, I hope to offer a solid background to what a visitor to Thailand, whether she is a scholar of Buddhism or an engaged tourist, will actually see, smell, and hear in a monastery -- even if what we witness makes us want to run it the opposite direction.

The full introduction is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-mcdaniel/thai-buddhism-magic-money-murder_b_1016115.html

[sabaijai]

I look forward to reading the book when it makes it to the Neilson-Hays or TCDC libraries. Not to take anything away from the work, which sounds well researched, but it's not the first academic literature published on the Thai occult, Thai magic, c.f. prominent works by social anthropologist Stanley Tambiah. Nor do I believe most Western observers automatically separate ethics and philosophy from Thai animism, etc. Some do to be sure (some in fact insist on it), but if you live in Thailand and are involved in Thai Buddhism, the integration is obvious and omnipresent. I look forward to finding out how the author explains the integration.

[dutchguest]

A few remarks after reading the topic:

- I agree that the east and Buddhism have something to offer to the west that seems almost lost or at least forgotten in the materialistic west. But, like Gautama had known as a king all the richness he wanted before going on his search for truth inwards, I think -generally speaking- the rich west is in a better position then the poor Asiatics to go on an inward search. Most poor people don t have the time nor the inclination for such a luxury. Basic, physical needs come first.

- About ghosts and supernatural happenings: I recently reread this book http://pratyeka.org/...gotten_kingdom/

and, apart from giving i.m.o. an excellent and entertaining anthropological impression of China in the past century, I found some quite convincing examples of the existence of ghosts in it, which made me think that the last word is not yet said about them (especially the chapter about "Poltergeists").

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

[canuckamuck]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

Edited December 2, 2011 by canuckamuck

[dutchguest]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

There may be a parallel, but i.m.o. in Buddhism you become not a "bad" person if you do something wrong. It is just stupid. You do not behave wise.

[canuckamuck]

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

There may be a parallel, but i.m.o. in Buddhism you become not a "bad" person if you do something wrong. It is just stupid. You do not behave wise.

I think what you are saying is Buddhists aren't as judgmental of others as adherents of other faiths are. This is probably true; but Buddhists are still judged (by the universe apparently) otherwise karma would be a non issue).

[rockyysdt]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

But isn't the distinction between the two, "that what constitutes a sin is subjective"?

[rockyysdt]

- I agree that the east and Buddhism have something to offer to the west that seems almost lost or at least forgotten in the materialistic west. But, like Gautama had known as a king all the richness he wanted before going on his search for truth inwards, I think -generally speaking- the rich west is in a better position then the poor Asiatics to go on an inward search. Most poor people don t have the time nor the inclination for such a luxury. Basic, physical needs come first.

Perhaps for some particular occupations this might be so, but from my observation there is much down time between activities.

For example a rice farmer has critical periods in the year, such as cultivation, sowing, weed and pest control, irrigation, & harvesting.

Between these times there can be much down time during which contemplation can be performed.

It's all about time management and mindset.

Also, early works of the Buddha taught of another path using Metta practice.

This offered the rural and working classes an alternative practice which leads to awakening, a goal no longer the exclusive preserve of the monastic.

Edited December 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

But isn't the distinction between the two, "that what constitutes a sin is subjective"?

How is sin in Buddhism not subjective?

[dutchguest]

- I agree that the east and Buddhism have something to offer to the west that seems almost lost or at least forgotten in the materialistic west. But, like Gautama had known as a king all the richness he wanted before going on his search for truth inwards, I think -generally speaking- the rich west is in a better position then the poor Asiatics to go on an inward search. Most poor people don t have the time nor the inclination for such a luxury. Basic, physical needs come first.

Perhaps for some particular occupations this might be so, but from my observation there is much down time between activities.

For example a rice farmer has critical periods in the year, such as cultivation, sowing, weed and pest control, irrigation, & harvesting.

Between these times there can be much down time during which contemplation can be performed.

It's all about time management and mindset.

Also, early works of the Buddha taught of another path using Metta practice.

This offered the rural and working classes an alternative practice which leads to awakening, a goal no longer the exclusive preserve of the monastic.

There are more ways that lead to Rome, but I think it is difficult when you are poor not to develop the desire at least to try the many things you see around you. Even if you have time to meditate I think generally your concerns will be in the material field. And only after you have found out that these material are not what you are really looking for you go look in other directions.

[dutchguest]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

But isn't the distinction between the two, "that what constitutes a sin is subjective"?

How is sin in Buddhism not subjective?

My interpretation of Buddhism:

The universe and its evolutionary laws are per se, an sich not moralistic. That would be an attribute added by man. Man can act, live in accordance with and be aware of the natural laws, be natural, be himself or not. At the present time people are more or less alienated from nature and also from their own nature. This alienation causes (unneccessary) suffering. It is not bad, it is just unawareness of the truth.

Killing other people or animals would then be an act of unawareness of the interconnection and selflessness of everything and everybody. So you can say that killing another person is the same as killing yourself and it is the illusion that you are somebody separate and different from others that can make you act that way.

The selflessness of reality also means that there is no dualism of subjective and objective, that the subjective, the ego is illusory.

[Xangsamhua]

When I was a Theology student we were told that the Christian notion of “sin” could be traced back to Aristotle’s use of the term “harmatia”, meaning “to miss the mark". That was the term used in Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, i.e. the Septuagint (2nd century BCE). However, harmatia could mean intended wrongdoing, accidental wrongdoing or error resulting from ignorance. Using terms like wrongdoing and error of course imply a moral judgement.

To speak of Buddhism lacking a concept of sin would imply that there is no moral judgement in Buddhism, that actions simply have beneficial or harmful consequences, which in turn impact on the post-mortem destiny of the agent. If this were so, to rape a child would be seen not so much as immoral, but unwise, because the karmic consequences of the action would be harmful to the rapist, regardless of the consequences to the child. Most people, however, would shy away from such a utilitarian view, and it clearly runs counter to the Buddhist ethic of loving-kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

To suggest that Buddhists are judged by the universe (i.e. karma as a cosmic law) implies that there is a universal judge who maintains a moral balance through karmic law. Buddhists are not supposed to see it that way, however. To do so suggests Deism. Karma is, on the one hand, simply the natural consequences of actions; but on the other, it is more than just a natural process, as karmic consequences proceed not so much from the action itself as the intentions of the actor. This clearly implies a moral dimension.

How would it work in practice? The man who rapes a child will experience the karmic consequences in proportion to the viciousness of his intentions. If he follows some primitive religious cult that values deflowering 13 year-old girls he would presumably suffer less severe karmic consequences that if he does it simply because pedophiliac lust and opportunity are both present. Natural justice, if there is such a thing, would suggest that the effect of his actions on the child should also be factored in to the karmic impact accruing to the rapist, but I don’t know if it does in Buddhist teaching on Karma.

A law that rewards and punishes on the basis of good and bad intentions implies a notion of sin, and of personal responsibility for doing good and avoiding evil. The working out of this law through rebirths based in part on karmic effects suggests a soteriology, a pathway to salvation, or liberation, based on the cultivation of good intentions and the avoidance of bad ones (implicit in greed, hatred, ignorance, and the derivatives of these). Buddhism is not just an intellectual exercise therefore; it is fundamentally a moral philosophy, though it is able to support its claims with intellectually sound arguments rather than appeals to revelation, faith in tradition, spiritual authority and the like.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

- I agree that the east and Buddhism have something to offer to the west that seems almost lost or at least forgotten in the materialistic west. But, like Gautama had known as a king all the richness he wanted before going on his search for truth inwards, I think -generally speaking- the rich west is in a better position then the poor Asiatics to go on an inward search. Most poor people don t have the time nor the inclination for such a luxury. Basic, physical needs come first.

Perhaps for some particular occupations this might be so, but from my observation there is much down time between activities.

For example a rice farmer has critical periods in the year, such as cultivation, sowing, weed and pest control, irrigation, & harvesting.

Between these times there can be much down time during which contemplation can be performed.

It's all about time management and mindset.

Also, early works of the Buddha taught of another path using Metta practice.

This offered the rural and working classes an alternative practice which leads to awakening, a goal no longer the exclusive preserve of the monastic.

There are more ways that lead to Rome, but I think it is difficult when you are poor not to develop the desire at least to try the many things you see around you. Even if you have time to meditate I think generally your concerns will be in the material field. And only after you have found out that these material are not what you are really looking for you go look in other directions.

I suppose desire to practice is another thing.

Why do you or I desire to practice the path?

Is it something associated with our conditioning?

Was it the positive fruit of past kharma, luck, or an attempt to avoid pain (aversion) to a condition we suffer?

Whether we are poor or wealthy it seems we are all faced with obstacles.

I can think of as many diversions a wealthy person might face which might prohibit practice as would a poor fellow.

In fact those who associate with the higher strata must strive even harder to keep up their deluded appearance.

I was fascinated to observe the common needs of a human and yet how widely ranging this can be to realize.

A poor fellow might walk whilst the Middle East billionaire oil tycoon might sport a white gold Mercedes.

The peasant woman might use a recyclable plastic bag to carry her personal items whilst the fashionable career professional might sport a $3,000 Armani handbag.

The third world working class battler might house his family in a one bedroom slum whilst a businessman might reside in a seven bathroom mansion in an upper class suburb.

The farmer might sit on the floor with his family casually dressed in his fishermans shorts to dine with his family scooping shared dishes with his hands whilst the wealthy gentleman sports his $1,500 dinner suit whilst seated at a silver service dinner affair.

We all need transport, bathrooms, bags, clothing and food, but some of us need large amounts of money to maintain elaborate affairs in keeping with their inherited/chosen social strata.

Whether it be the poor wretch who must strive to keep food on the table or an elite who needs to earn $100,000 and above to keep up appearances we all find ourselves struggling with our environment.

Naturally the answer is to be free of greed, aversion & delusion, but until this happens we are all trapped in our conditioned worlds.

Edited December 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

- About morals in Buddhism: as far as I have understood there is no concept of "sin" in Buddhism as it exists in many other religions. I think it is morally neutral: if you do this the consequence will be that, up to you. Karma is a natural law of cause and effect. Buddhism is non-judgemental.

I once heard that the original meaning of "sin" is "forgetful". May be this meaning is more appropriate for Buddhism: lack of awareness, mindfulness, living unconscious, like a robot does not bring you any further on the path (to liberation)

I think their is a direct parallel between carrying a sin debt and karma. Both come from wrong action.

But isn't the distinction between the two, "that what constitutes a sin is subjective"?

How is sin in Buddhism not subjective?

What we are discussing here is the difference between moral judgement (sin) and the Buddhas precepts.

Moral sin requires someone to make a judgement whilst the precepts are a training guide.

For example some may say that committing adultery is a sin and is not negotiable.

The Buddhist precept which one could say is related is that "I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.".

One can say that committing adultery in itself is not wrong (provided all parties are in agreement).

Should any party become hurt due to this act then it becomes misconduct.

One may decide to avoid such acts as it is unwise to place oneself in a situation where others are harmed.

The act itself is not wrong.

The overriding factors regarding the precepts is the practice of avoiding hurt or harm to others, whilst sin moralizes what is and is not sinful.

The precept "I undertake the training practice to refrain from taking life" is much more subtle than the moral directive "thou shalt not kill".

The nature of our path and practice is designed to soften the heart.

The very act of taking a life is desensitizing and in the opposite direction.

Edited December 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

What we are discussing here is the difference between moral judgement (sin) and the Buddhas precepts.

Moral sin requires someone to make a judgement whilst the precepts are a training guide.

For example some may say that committing adultery is a sin and is not negotiable.

The Buddhist precept which one could say is related is that "I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.".

One can say that committing adultery in itself is not wrong (provided all parties are in agreement).

Should any party become hurt due to this act then it becomes misconduct.

One may decide to avoid such acts as it is unwise to place oneself in a situation where others are harmed.

The act itself is not wrong.

The overriding factors regarding the precepts is the practice of avoiding hurt or harm to others, whilst sin moralizes what is and is not sinful.

The precept "I undertake the training practice to refrain from taking life" is much more subtle than the moral directive "thou shalt not kill".

The nature of our path and practice is designed to soften the heart.

The very act of taking a life is desensitizing and in the opposite direction.

Well put, Rocky. :jap:

[canuckamuck]

What we are discussing here is the difference between moral judgement (sin) and the Buddhas precepts.

Moral sin requires someone to make a judgement whilst the precepts are a training guide.

For example some may say that committing adultery is a sin and is not negotiable.

The Buddhist precept which one could say is related is that "I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.".

One can say that committing adultery in itself is not wrong (provided all parties are in agreement).

Should any party become hurt due to this act then it becomes misconduct.

One may decide to avoid such acts as it is unwise to place oneself in a situation where others are harmed.

The act itself is not wrong.

The overriding factors regarding the precepts is the practice of avoiding hurt or harm to others, whilst sin moralizes what is and is not sinful.

The precept "I undertake the training practice to refrain from taking life" is much more subtle than the moral directive "thou shalt not kill".

The nature of our path and practice is designed to soften the heart.

The very act of taking a life is desensitizing and in the opposite direction.

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.

Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Edited December 3, 2011 by canuckamuck

[dutchguest]

When I was a Theology student we were told that the Christian notion of "sin" could be traced back to Aristotle's use of the term "harmatia", meaning "to miss the mark". That was the term used in Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, i.e. the Septuagint (2nd century BCE). However, harmatia could mean intended wrongdoing, accidental wrongdoing or error resulting from ignorance. Using terms like wrongdoing and error of course imply a moral judgement.

To speak of Buddhism lacking a concept of sin would imply that there is no moral judgement in Buddhism, that actions simply have beneficial or harmful consequences, which in turn impact on the post-mortem destiny of the agent. If this were so, to rape a child would be seen not so much as immoral, but unwise, because the karmic consequences of the action would be harmful to the rapist, regardless of the consequences to the child. Most people, however, would shy away from such a utilitarian view, and it clearly runs counter to the Buddhist ethic of loving-kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

To suggest that Buddhists are judged by the universe (i.e. karma as a cosmic law) implies that there is a universal judge who maintains a moral balance through karmic law. Buddhists are not supposed to see it that way, however. To do so suggests Deism. Karma is, on the one hand, simply the natural consequences of actions; but on the other, it is more than just a natural process, as karmic consequences proceed not so much from the action itself as the intentions of the actor. This clearly implies a moral dimension.

How would it work in practice? The man who rapes a child will experience the karmic consequences in proportion to the viciousness of his intentions. If he follows some primitive religious cult that values deflowering 13 year-old girls he would presumably suffer less severe karmic consequences that if he does it simply because pedophiliac lust and opportunity are both present. Natural justice, if there is such a thing, would suggest that the effect of his actions on the child should also be factored in to the karmic impact accruing to the rapist, but I don't know if it does in Buddhist teaching on Karma.

A law that rewards and punishes on the basis of good and bad intentions implies a notion of sin, and of personal responsibility for doing good and avoiding evil. The working out of this law through rebirths based in part on karmic effects suggests a soteriology, a pathway to salvation, or liberation, based on the cultivation of good intentions and the avoidance of bad ones (implicit in greed, hatred, ignorance, and the derivatives of these). Buddhism is not just an intellectual exercise therefore; it is fundamentally a moral philosophy, though it is able to support its claims with intellectually sound arguments rather than appeals to revelation, faith in tradition, spiritual authority and the like.

I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

[Brucenkhamen]

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.

Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

[Xangsamhua]

I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

Morning Dutchguest.

"Forgetfulness" seems as good a root for "sin" as anything else. I guess, if one is attending, is fully "awake", then one will see the unwisdom of harmful acts. Actually, 'forgetfulness" seems more helpful than "missing the mark".

I think we agree that wisdom (panna) and morality (sila) go together. This is a core principle of Buddhist teaching. And yet they are not the same. So can one act wisely, but not morally and vice versa? And how does one decide if an act has been well-intended (moral), but unwise? Only in hindsight? For example, giving money out of compassion to people who can't manage it or who use it for harmful purposes may be unwise. But the compassion itself, does it accrue good or bad karma?

As for intuition, I'm not sure. Aristotle, via Aquinas, gave Western theology the proposition that Natural Law is the source of human conscience. That is, we know in our hearts that it is a violation of natural law and natural justice to commit murder, steal, rape, lie, etc. Hence, intuitively we know right from wrong at least basically, though there may be complicating circumstances. However, the concept of natural law as applied to ethics is contested. Naturalists argue that conscience has evolved along with everything else about us in response to Darwinian principles and the evolution of cultural values (and taboos). Hence, do we shy away from acts of violence against the vulnerable or feel remorse afterwards because we sense intuitively that we've violated universal natural law or is there another, naturalistic, explanation?

Whatever the possible explanations, Buddhists believe, as you have said, that wisdom and morality are inseparable from individual responsibility. Although Karma seems a relentless and, once having been accrued, inescapable force, personal responsibility for one's actions is at the core of Buddhadharma. Ascribing blame to one's upbringing or social circumstances or mental condition doesn't hold enough water. There may be mitigating circumstances, but otherwise one is responsible for one's actions. The belief that all wickedness constitutes not sin but mental illness does not gain traction in the Buddhist worldview.

(I'm not sure how coherent all this is. I'm thinking aloud.)

Edited December 4, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[canuckamuck]

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.

Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

I like this answer and it is true that English can be a problem and so can the prevalence of Christophobia in western culture. But in Thailand the term บาป works quite well in Christian and Buddhist terminology.

Xang, I like your answers as well.

[dutchguest]

I once heard the original meaning of "sin" is forgetfulness, I think I heard it from Osho who also gave some evidence, but I forgot what evidence, linguistic or other. Also a short search on the internet did not make me much wiser in this respect. So let that be what it is for the moment.

My concept of wisdom includes that you act with compassion and that you are responsible for what you are doing. It is not (only) a rational calculation of the mind about what is the right way to act or speak, not an internalized God or conscience that tells you what is right or wrong, but an intuitive, natural attitude towards live.

So in my view rape and other sexual perversions are an unnatural behaviour, behaviour of a sleeping, unawakened, unconscious person who is not aware of the implications and consequences of his acts and will suffer because of that in this or possible future lives. Also compassion is not a moral concept but a natural quality of somebody who is aware. Of course if you say suffering is bad you can give everything a moralistic flavour.

In my view the existence of karmic laws of the universe do not necessarily mean that there is a judge or god, but that it are laws of nature, just like the gravitation.

Morning Dutchguest.

"Forgetfulness" seems as good a root for "sin" as anything else. I guess, if one is attending, is fully "awake", then one will see the unwisdom of harmful acts. Actually, 'forgetfulness" seems more helpful than "missing the mark".

I think we agree that wisdom (panna) and morality (sila) go together. This is a core principle of Buddhist teaching. And yet they are not the same. So can one act wisely, but not morally and vice versa? And how does one decide if an act has been well-intended (moral), but unwise? Only in hindsight? For example, giving money out of compassion to people who can't manage it or who use it for harmful purposes may be unwise. But the compassion itself, does it accrue good or bad karma?

As for intuition, I'm not sure. Aristotle, via Aquinas, gave Western theology the proposition that Natural Law is the source of human conscience. That is, we know in our hearts that it is a violation of natural law and natural justice to commit murder, steal, rape, lie, etc. Hence, intuitively we know right from wrong at least basically, though there may be complicating circumstances. However, the concept of natural law as applied to ethics is contested. Naturalists argue that conscience has evolved along with everything else about us in response to Darwinian principles and the evolution of cultural values (and taboos). Hence, do we shy away from acts of violence against the vulnerable or feel remorse afterwards because we sense intuitively that we've violated universal natural law or is there another, naturalistic, explanation?

Whatever the possible explanations, Buddhists believe, as you have said, that wisdom and morality are inseparable from individual responsibility. Although Karma seems a relentless and, once having been accrued, inescapable force, personal responsibility for one's actions is at the core of Buddhadharma. Ascribing blame to one's upbringing or social circumstances or mental condition doesn't hold enough water. There may be mitigating circumstances, but otherwise one is responsible for one's actions. The belief that all wickedness constitutes not sin but mental illness does not gain traction in the Buddhist worldview.

(I'm not sure how coherent all this is. I'm thinking aloud.)

Morning Xang.

I will as a sundaymorning sermon add a few thoughts:

I agree that a naturalist explanation of everything, including morals, can be a dangerous undertaking in which you can easily go astray. Nevertheless nature is the only reality, the only thing that really exists. The rest are social constructs and conditionings. As we are not fully aware of our conditioning and a great part of it has become unconscious, a mistake often made is to ascribe something, some morals that originate in the cultural, social environment to human nature. As Buddhism tries to go beyond the temporal, local, social conditioning and is looking for more eternal truths and does not believe in a almighty god to give a ready-made set of morals, I think you must look at nature and human nature as a base for a Buddhist morality.

I think the Buddha once said that the functioning of karma is very complicated and not so easy to grasp in its totality. Idealiter, if one is fully aware of everything, when one is acting with good intentions the resulting karma will be positive. As we do not live in an ideal world and people are not fully aware of what they are doing, things become complicated. Good intentions may of an unawakened person may not be enough to create a better world.

[Xangsamhua]

Harming others is as much a sin in Buddhism as it is in most worldviews. What you are trying to do is distance Buddhism from faith terminology by creating language constructs.

Why is it so hard to admit that Buddhism has a moral core.

Of course Buddhism has a moral core, but whether the word "sin" is appropriate for breaches of that core is another question.

Looking through various online dictionaries some definitions of the word "sin" seem appropriate to Buddhism, others not.

Definitions in terms of breaches of a moral code seem ok, in terms of breaches of a law, divine law, or God's law are inappropriate as a description of the Buddhist precepts.

I find that Buddhists who haven't had a western upbringing often don't have a problem with the use of the word "sin" in Buddhism, but those who have do.

I think the problem is partly the judeo christian baggage that comes with the term and partly the word "sin" is both a verb and a noun.

When used as a verb to label specific acts of naughtiness it's not too far off the Buddhist concept of unskillful action, when used as a noun to describe being in a state of immorality or separation from God it is totally inappropriate.

Buddhism is focussed on abandoning unskillful action by learning and wisdom rather than judging the state a person may be in by their actions.

If that isn't enough reason not to use it the fact that the Thai word for precept is "sin" avoiding confusion seems enough reason not to use it in Thailand.

Bruce, I don't have any argument with what you say, apart from your perception of Judaeo-Christian understandings of sin (and guilt) as "baggage".

There may be a lot of baggage in the inherited Judaeo-Christian worldview on many things, but I'm not sure if awareness of and the desire to avoid sin is one of them, except in its exaggerated and distorted form - "I am a miserable sinner", etc. This was derived largely from Augustine's residual Manichaeism and Calvin's legalism. It had nothing to do with Judaism and was softened in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity by the institution of Penance (Confession). (I think “sin” in Judaism is a more collective thing – Israel’s disobedience.)

Breaches of a moral code, where it is also rational (say the Buddhist one), could be rightly labelled "sins", as you have suggested. The moral code being based on reason, breaches of it would also be "unskilful". However, if a man claimed to repent of raping a child, I would be less convinced if he said "I have performed an unskilful act" than if he said "I have done something bad, for which I am truly sorry".

[dutchguest]

I think any morals in Buddhism can be traced back to the physical reality that man (and also animals) do not like pain and suffering. It is an instinctive reaction that can be seen even in unicellular organisms that are downsizing and trying to avert and distance themselves from the cause of the pain. So in essence there are no metafysical postulations in Buddhism about how people and animals should behave. As nature becomes aware of itself in the form of humans the role of the mind becomes more important in dealing with these instincts.