Yes, thai buddhism is what it is and tibetan buddhism is what it is. And sometimes the two meet:

Edited July 16, 201214 yr by dutchguest

Everyone can do or believe like they want as long as the don't try to disturb my life.

But actually all religions try to do. Muslims more, Christs medium and Buddhists less.

But still the Buddhists force people to not buy Alcohol on some days, can't recall that Buddha ever told to force people to their luck.

But always some people want be holier than God...

Is that the same Buddha who said " give us all your money for yet another spangly new unnecessary temple", same same Mosque/Church

I certainly am not having a go at HH Dalai Lama, quite the opposite. I was merely trying to point out that, in the face of Thai criticism of farang Buddhist that, I as a farang Buddhist, note some questionable leanings among Thai Buddhists. Cheers!

I try to keep my notes to myself, and let others get on with their own lives.

"Let he who is without ..." etc.

Despite what churchmen say, I don't think there are any religions that make a big deal out of excoriating others

SC

Everyone can do or believe like they want as long as the don't try to disturb my life.

But actually all religions try to do. Muslims more, Christs medium and Buddhists less.

But still the Buddhists force people to not buy Alcohol on some days, can't recall that Buddha ever told to force people to their luck.

But always some people want be holier than God...

Is that the same Buddha who said " give us all your money for yet another spangly new unnecessary temple", same same Mosque/Church

Is this you trying to illustrate h90's line "But always some people want to be holier than God"?

Some amongst us find peace and serenity in the glorification of God; others prefer to glorify themselves. You are free to worship God (or yourself) as you see fit

SC

I will say I'm a Buddhist when asked, and I go through the motions, just like many Thais. I'm not really a Buddhist of course, but you can't be an atheist in Thailand and still fit in somewhere.

Jesus actually was pretty much a Buddhist in his actions.

I do the same. Especially in western countries where the inhabitants are still ate up with the dumb ass about some great heavenly space fairy.

The truth will come out sooner than later. I just hope I live to that time as I want to witness the holy-rollers lose their s#1t when they realize they have devoted their lives to a lie.

Is spitefulness and lack of respect for the views of others a fundamental part of atheism? Or is it just that you need something to believe in and look forward to?

SC

Exactly what I was going to say.

I suggest they read some works by some of the Stoics.

What a sad thought - an Atheist with out any virtue.

Yes, Stoicism - top stuff. It certainly helped Jim Stockdale during his seven years in the "Hanoi Hilton".

(Vice Admiral James Stockdale, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, 1995)

Jesus actually was pretty much a Buddhist in his actions.

You are probably aware of the idea that Jesus based his teachings on Buddhism? There are those who claim that Jesus was practicing Buddhism but decided to start his own business...

Those who claim that the above is plausible usually point to the fact that not much is known about Jesus's life between something like 15-30 years of age. Some say he went to India.

Dan Brown would make a best seller out of this one.

Jesus is pretty much what you want to make of him. The gospel writers had no qualms about making him in their own image and attributing to him the things they wanted to say themselves. There's a fair case now that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels either never existed as an historical figure or, if he did, that we know almost nothing reliable about him.

I posted here to test a theory i suspected to be true, and now it's confirmed.

I never often discuss my religion with people, and I never push it onto people,more importantly i respect all religions and philosophies.

so many just posted attacks aimed at all religions, even went as far as saying why we wear amulates blah blah, so we have a thread with many mind readers, who know why we became buddhists, and why we wear certain things.

for the record, when its hot i wear shorts and a singlet to,smart thing to do in hot weather, i wear amulates to, not to show wealth or brag about religion, after all who cares what religion i am when i'm out an about, I wear it for the purpose its meant to be worn.

ask yourselves when you look at someone wearing something and shake your head in judgement, who really has a problem because when you point your finger, don't forget where the other 4 are pointing.

for thos that have no religion i respect that choice also.

I started wearing an amulet recently of a Thai monk - about two weeks ago. It was a present from my wife and was very expensive. I'm not sure why I wear it - maybe to please my wife maybe superstition, maybe faith or maybe fear.

I must admit to being that newbie farang trying to fit in when I had lived her for 3-5 years and wore an amulet then , although not Buddhist one. Actually, it was Ganesh and a lot of Thais asked me why I wore a Thai Deity

There seems to be a bit of confusion/ignorance in this country about Buddhism.

I can relate as I grew up Protestant and know nothing much about it, Although I went to church regularly up until aged 12 when my elder brother bought this single which led me to refuse to go.

I posted here to test a theory i suspected to be true, and now it's confirmed.

I never often discuss my religion with people, and I never push it onto people,more importantly i respect all religions and philosophies.

so many just posted attacks aimed at all religions, even went as far as saying why we wear amulates blah blah, so we have a thread with many mind readers, who know why we became buddhists, and why we wear certain things.

for the record, when its hot i wear shorts and a singlet to,smart thing to do in hot weather, i wear amulates to, not to show wealth or brag about religion, after all who cares what religion i am when i'm out an about, I wear it for the purpose its meant to be worn.

ask yourselves when you look at someone wearing something and shake your head in judgement, who really has a problem because when you point your finger, don't forget where the other 4 are pointing.

for thos that have no religion i respect that choice also.

I started wearing an amulet recently of a Thai monk - about two weeks ago. It was a present from my wife and was very expensive. I'm not sure why I wear it - maybe to please my wife maybe superstition, maybe faith or maybe fear.

I must admit to being that newbie farang trying to fit in when I had lived her for 3-5 years and wore an amulet then , although not Buddhist one. Actually, it was Ganesh and a lot of Thais asked me why I wore a Thai Deity

There seems to be a bit of confusion/ignorance in this country about Buddhism.

I can relate as I grew up Protestant and know nothing much about it, Although I went to church regularly up until aged 12 when my elder brother bought this single which led me to refuse to go.

Ganesh[a] is a Hindu deity (and a pretty cool one). The Thais have drafted him in to their pantheon of deities and bodhisattvas and former kings. We have a statuette of Ganesh at home (bought in Dharamsala, the current seat of the Dalai Lama) and an ikon. Ganesh rocks (and he drinks real milk). http://en.wikipedia....du_milk_miracle

I was Buddhist long before I came to Thailand. I follow Tibetan Buddhism with its Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings. Tibetan Buddhism is not well accepted in Thailand. I've heard a few reasons. One, Thais (Theravadins) say the Buddha did not teach Mahayana and Vajrayana. But, they are mistaken and simply missed it (like the Jews did not recognize Jesus). Second, because of the sexual imagery in tantric Buddhism, Thais are somehow 'offended' by this saying it is disrespectful of the Buddha - again, they miss the meaning even when it is explained, over and over. Moreover, a Theravadin 'scholar' once described the Bodhisattva Vow of the Mahayana, ie., the vow to renounce personal enlightenment until all other beings achieve it first, as nothing more than attachment to the world, calling it a sin. This was one of the most perverse understandings I've ever heard from a fellow Buddhist.

It is telling to me that HH Dalai Lama has not visited Thailand in over 40 years even though Thailand is a Buddhist country. This is such a glaring hypocrisy to me. I've got issues with monks who smoke and own guns, too. But that's just me.

At least there are many Thai monks who are vegetarians, unlike Tibetan ones.

Mahayana monks are generally vegetarian, unlike most Thai monks. Vegetables and fruit are not so easy to grow in Tibet (the "Land of Snows") and it's really cold there.

I found this interesting thought on a Taoist thing - makes me wonder.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

whether there is no god, and no you

or you are one with God

or you are God

it's the same thing, really

all 3 views describe a non-dualistic reality

which is key

Everyone can do or believe like they want as long as the don't try to disturb my life.

But actually all religions try to do. Muslims more, Christs medium and Buddhists less.

But still the Buddhists force people to not buy Alcohol on some days, can't recall that Buddha ever told to force people to their luck.

But always some people want be holier than God...

Is that the same Buddha who said " give us all your money for yet another spangly new unnecessary temple", same same Mosque/Church

When you look at Pan Thip placa (or similar places) were monks buy the latest graphic card for their PC......I would say wearing orange clothes does not make a monk....

Everyone can do or believe like they want as long as the don't try to disturb my life.

But actually all religions try to do. Muslims more, Christs medium and Buddhists less.

But still the Buddhists force people to not buy Alcohol on some days, can't recall that Buddha ever told to force people to their luck.

But always some people want be holier than God...

Is that the same Buddha who said " give us all your money for yet another spangly new unnecessary temple", same same Mosque/Church

When you look at Pan Thip placa (or similar places) were monks buy the latest graphic card for their PC......I would say wearing orange clothes does not make a monk....

No-one among us achieves anything like perfect adherence to our spiritual principles

Maybe the graphics card is for the orphans

SC

my wifes brother is a monk, has been for years, will be for life, is also the author of several religious books.

he has a laptop, he also has a facebook page, and a phone, has it occured to anyone that they use them to help people.

my wifes brother is a monk, has been for years, will be for life, is also the author of several religious books.

he has a laptop, he also has a facebook page, and a phone, has it occured to anyone that they use them to help people.

Perhaps.

Sat next to a monk near Chong Mek whilst waiting for my pal, the monk smoked more fags than me , that helped the youngsters learn stuff eh.

anyone remember the ?maybe zen' story about a monk helping pretty girl over a puddle, and the novice reprimanding him about it after, and the older monk saying: u are the one still 'carrying' the girl, i forgot about her already???

argueing religioun is a waste of time, adn creats enimity... i am buddhist (have been since i was aobut 10 yrs old), raised in an ethic (not ethnic but ethical) jewish household, schooled in a quaker high school, living on a socialist secular kibbutz with a thai buddhist husband who was a monk but now is definatly not (has no 'jai yen', keeps revenge foremost in his mind, drinks, hates any religioun that doesnt allow soeone to be 'free style' and who worries if a picture of buddha falls off teh wall, face down... he fanatically hates the religious jews, more then me (i dont hate them but they do interfere with my daily life in more andmore ways)he doesnt walk the middle path, i am much more jai yen and middle path then him, but he still wont consider me buddhist, as i am jewish and he doesnt understand how i can be both. and i dont believe in god.

thais seem to have a problem with farangs being buddhist because thais see buddhism as part of their thainess/culture and not as a philosophy that is separate then their ethnic/national identity. sort of like being jewish . even if u dont want to be, u are stuck with it. (only with us its most likely genetic.) it has to do with education among other things.

like many other things, those that choose to join are often more serious/zeolous/sticklers for the rules/regulations .... no matter what religoun/sect/philosophy is chosen. those that are born in to it, live it all their lives, pick and choose what they want of it.

oh. btw, for general knowlege, there is a sect of judaism called karaites: they keep kosher literally only i.e., they mix milk and meat at the same meal becasue the rule was 'not to mix a kid with ITS (own) mother's milk when cooking. but u can in a different mother's milk. there are several rules like that. the keraites travel on shabbat also. i expect that jesus could have been... but that is definately a different long and intereseting article.

bina

israel

thais seem to have a problem with farangs being buddhist because thais see buddhism as part of their thainess/culture and not as a philosophy that is separate then their ethnic/national identity.

I haven't had any problems. I've heard of farang Buddhists getting odd looks or questions if they try to explain that they are, say, Zen Buddhists, but I haven't had that. If you generally do things the Thai way, everything is cool. No one who knew I was a Buddhist has ever questioned why I sometimes don't bother to krab the Buddha image in a temple, or why I don't bother getting a blessing from the monk on duty.

If I get talking to monks or other Thais about being Buddhist, they sometimes ask how I came to be Buddhist. And I sometimes get comments to the effect that being in Thailand a couple of decades "is long enough to become Buddhist," as if it is a natural consequence of being exposed to Buddhism for a long time.

Same same. But not in Thailand for as long. Found Buddhist literature about 20 years ago.

Jesus actually was pretty much a Buddhist in his actions.

You are probably aware of the idea that Jesus based his teachings on Buddhism? There are those who claim that Jesus was practicing Buddhism but decided to start his own business...

Those who claim that the above is plausible usually point to the fact that not much is known about Jesus's life between something like 15-30 years of age. Some say he went to India.

Dan Brown would make a best seller out of this one.

Jesus is pretty much what you want to make of him. The gospel writers had no qualms about making him in their own image and attributing to him the things they wanted to say themselves. There's a fair case now that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels either never existed as an historical figure or, if he did, that we know almost nothing reliable about him.

Also JC never to my knowledge taught meditation. All his teachings were Sila. Plus a fair amount of talk about his 'fathers kingdom' which is not like Buddha at all. Some of his disciples were armed and he consumed intoxicants and there was a last supper, so he ate after midday. If he was a Buddhist he was a bloody awful one.

Just a theory but more likely he spent his missing years in Egypt. Much closer and his family fled there once before so he may have had contacts or family thereabouts. But thats just speculation.

Jesus actually was pretty much a Buddhist in his actions.

You are probably aware of the idea that Jesus based his teachings on Buddhism? There are those who claim that Jesus was practicing Buddhism but decided to start his own business...

Those who claim that the above is plausible usually point to the fact that not much is known about Jesus's life between something like 15-30 years of age. Some say he went to India.

Dan Brown would make a best seller out of this one.

Jesus is pretty much what you want to make of him. The gospel writers had no qualms about making him in their own image and attributing to him the things they wanted to say themselves. There's a fair case now that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels either never existed as an historical figure or, if he did, that we know almost nothing reliable about him.

Also JC never to my knowledge taught meditation. All his teachings were Sila. Plus a fair amount of talk about his 'fathers kingdom' which is not like Buddha at all. Some of his disciples were armed and he consumed intoxicants and there was a last supper, so he ate after midday. If he was a Buddhist he was a bloody awful one.

Just a theory but more likely he spent his missing years in Egypt. Much closer and his family fled there once before so he may have had contacts or family thereabouts. But thats just speculation.

".. it's no good speculating" "You're quite right, no point"

French and Rooney

SC

I've got issues with monks who smoke and own guns, too. But that's just me.

Lets hope the guns aren't smoking.

I am a farang living in Thailand and I call myself a "Buddhist"....more about that later.

The "maybe Zen: story refered to is this one

Muddy Road

Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.

Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't do near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

This is not the version I prefer...there are many versions. That story is intended as a "teaching story" ....to illustrate a point.

In the versions I prefer it is made clear that

1. The "pretty girl" was in fact a prostitute on her way to see a wealthy client.

2. Ekido specifically refers to "women of that type" in his complaint about Tanzan's action.

3. Tanzan's reply is, "It is true that I picked her up and carried her...but when we reached the other side of that puddle, I put her down there and left her.

It is you, Ekido, who has carried her around all day in your mind."

The "moral" of that teaching story is that Tanzan;s actions were completed and the girl was forgotten....while Ekido's disaproving judgement was "carried around" all day.

For that reason Ekido's dissaproving judgement was a greater error.

Now as I said, I call myself a Buddhist...more directly a Zen Buddhist.

One of my personal dislikes is that Thai Buddhisim in my opinion is an organised Buddhisim with a structure and an organised order to it.

I don't do well in organised ordered structure based systems.

That's why I practice my Buddhisim myself and my way....and I don't call myself a "Farang Buddhist".

Edited July 17, 201214 yr by IMA_FARANG

Zen stories are great! Some of my favorite Buddhist literature is Zen. Can be a bit confusing or misleading. Ikkyu wrote some pretty saucy poetry, but he was an enlightened master and could leave the 'girls by the puddle'. Trouble is some unenlightened monks cite him as an excuse to get married. Not the same thing. And I think you'll find that Zen in Japan is highly formalised nowadays. Visit the master for a chat. He dispenses advice anx gives you a symbolic blow with the shippei. Now when an enlightened master hits you it is because he percieves it is exactly the right thing to do at that moment to push you over the edge into realisation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is every religion has those who follow form and those who seek truth. But good on ya for trying. All the best Imafarang.

It is telling to me that HH Dalai Lama has not visited Thailand in over 40 years even though Thailand is a Buddhist country. This is such a glaring hypocrisy to me. I've got issues with monks who smoke and own guns, too. But that's just me.

is it, because the dalai lama has never been invited here?

because of the relations to china?

Edited August 9, 201213 yr by biggunguy

Yes, very few countries will risk damaging trade relations with China these days.

The Dalai Lama visited Thailand in 1993, during the first Chuan Leekpai administration. It's the only Buddhist nation in SE Asia that has allowed a visit in the last 20 years. In fact, the only other nation he visited in SE Asia in that period was Indonesia in 1992.

One of my personal dislikes is that Thai Buddhisim in my opinion is an organised Buddhisim with a structure and an organised order to it.

I don't do well in organised ordered structure based systems.

That's why I practice my Buddhisim myself and my way....and I don't call myself a "Farang Buddhist".

Just out of curiosity, do you wien tien at Thai temples on Buddhist holy days? This is something I rather enjoy. The Thai Sangha may be centralized but it doesn't seem to affect the day-to-day activities of the laity much as far as I can see.

Yes, very few countries will risk damaging trade relations with China these days.

The Dalai Lama visited Thailand in 1993, during the first Chuan Leekpai administration. It's the only Buddhist nation in SE Asia that has allowed a visit in the last 20 years. In fact, the only other nation he visited in SE Asia in that period was Indonesia in 1992.

He visited Australia in 96 but the Chinese gave the Aussie government a hard time about it. He was invited back later, around 2000 I think, but the Aussie government had their minds changed for them by increased Chinese pressure. Its a shame but there you go. Money over merit I guess. I seem to remember quite a few people giving the government a hard time about doing what they are told by foreign powers. His first visit was a great success. Quiet a few Australians are sympathetic towards Buddhism.

Yes, very few countries will risk damaging trade relations with China these days.

The Dalai Lama visited Thailand in 1993, during the first Chuan Leekpai administration. It's the only Buddhist nation in SE Asia that has allowed a visit in the last 20 years. In fact, the only other nation he visited in SE Asia in that period was Indonesia in 1992.

He visited Australia in 96 but the Chinese gave the Aussie government a hard time about it. He was invited back later, around 2000 I think, but the Aussie government had their minds changed for them by increased Chinese pressure. Its a shame but there you go. Money over merit I guess. I seem to remember quite a few people giving the government a hard time about doing what they are told by foreign powers. His first visit was a great success. Quiet a few Australians are sympathetic towards Buddhism.

That is strange. I wonder who it was visited Australia in June this year. SOLD a lot of tickets too. Maybe the fuss is that the Australian Government did not recognise this as a visit by a head of state.

http://www.dalailamainaustralia.org/

seems he was also there in 2011 too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016081/Dalai-Lama-Australian-Masterchef-reveals-favourite-foods.html

Edited August 10, 201213 yr by harrry

Yes, very few countries will risk damaging trade relations with China these days.

The Dalai Lama visited Thailand in 1993, during the first Chuan Leekpai administration. It's the only Buddhist nation in SE Asia that has allowed a visit in the last 20 years. In fact, the only other nation he visited in SE Asia in that period was Indonesia in 1992.

He visited Australia in 96 but the Chinese gave the Aussie government a hard time about it. He was invited back later, around 2000 I think, but the Aussie government had their minds changed for them by increased Chinese pressure. Its a shame but there you go. Money over merit I guess. I seem to remember quite a few people giving the government a hard time about doing what they are told by foreign powers. His first visit was a great success. Quiet a few Australians are sympathetic towards Buddhism.

That is strange. I wonder who it was visited Australia in June this year. SOLD a lot of tickets too. Maybe the fuss is that the Australian Government did not recognise this as a visit by a head of state.

http://www.dalailamainaustralia.org/

seems he was also there in 2011 too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016081/Dalai-Lama-Australian-Masterchef-reveals-favourite-foods.html

Heh. Haven't been to Oz in a couple of years. Bit behind on the news it seems. Took me three weeks to hear Osama was dead. It was a liberal government back then, suppose labor have different views. Didn't the Dalai Lama retire from political life? Could be wrong again but I thought he was only going to talk about non-political things.

Am I a farang buddhist?

Sometimes people or monks ask if I am a buddhist or not and I find it very hard to answer, I don't know what to say. I could say yes and I could say no, those are the choices common logic gives the mind, in both cases I probably would be misunderstood.

I think it might be best to say “no” as I don't like labels (although most Thai won't like the answer).

Now, what I would like to say is that I have my own personal religion and the only goal is to be or become myself, not a buddhist, moslim or christian. These I consider as prisons where other people proscribe what I have to think, what is good or bad, what rituals I haved to do etc. Jewish children are circomcised as if giving them a stamp to what religion they belong without being asked anything, just like some animals are stamped so that the owner can recognise them. So all religions have there own methods to count there sheep.

In many lifes you can see a kind of dialectic movement. At birth children are told they are of this or that religion; the children belief this at first, they have no other option, they depend completely on their parents, priests, teachers. Then there comes the time they are beginning to think for themselves, question everything and start rebelling against the traditions. Often this ends up in rejecting all religions (that are imposed from the outside). This is not yet thinking independently about all kind of fundamental questions, it is reactive thinking and acting and can be seen as the second phase of a dialectical proces:

first there is religion (or being, existence), then there is no-religion, (or nothingness, nihilism, a simple negation of the initial position).

In the third step in the proces, the negation of the negation, both positions are transcended into some higher synthesis.

So in that case you can not say that you are religious and you also cannot say you are non-religious, both are at the same time true and untrue. (in dialectical logic “a” can be in the same time “b” and “not-b”, the opposites are in the same time opposite and melt together, just like in the buddhist saying: emptiness is form, form is emptiness).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics

Hear, hear, Dutchguest. The labels can be constricting.

When Thai people ask me what religion I am (not that they often do) I tell them I'm Catholic, my heritage religion. (My wife usually tells them on my behalf. ) That is what they expect to hear - "Catholic" or "Christian". I know they're not asking for an exposition of my personal beliefs (and how does one explain "perennial philosophy" in a short conversation, though most Thai people have a simplified form of belief in it).

As Mahatma Gandhi once asked of his followers: What do you want me not to do? Not to meet with Mr. Jinnah? I am a Muslim, and a Hindu, and a Christian, and a Jew, and so are all of you.

So, as Dutchguest said, to tell people you are a [insert religion here] only sends them a signal that they interpret through their own filters and preconceptions. You may well mean something different. And the fact that you are an xxxx in your own mind does not believe that you can't be a yyyy, or a zzzz as well, but on a different level, in a different way from that which most people understand those labels.

That which is true and real is one, not manifold. It transcends the different forms it takes in religion and philosophy. Though these forms have value they are pointers directing our gaze to truth and reality; they are not in themselves transcendent.

Whether we can realize truth and experience reality without mediating teachers, rituals and disciplines is a matter of contention, but it is this realization that all genuine seekers after truth pursue in their own ways, whether as Sufi masters, mystics, yogis, bodhisattvas, meditation masters, or whatever.

Thai people seem to have an intuitive sense of the oneness behind exoteric religious forms and teachings, and they are happy to acknowledge and make offering to visual representations of the Buddha (wisdom), Kuan Yim (compassion), Ganesha (knowledge and prosperity), the Virgin Mary (humility), Brahma (creativity) and even former kings and other notables (care, responsibility, patriotism). Other representations of the truth behind appearances are found in scriptures, rituals and the Sangha itself.

To say one is a Buddhist, then, is simply to start a dialogue, as we can see in the many threads in this Buddhism Forum.

Thanks for the reaction X.

May be I should answer the question if I am a Buddhist in the Jain dialectical way (quote from Wikipedia where you can replace “it is” by “I am”):

1. 
   syād-asti – "in some ways it is"
   
2. 
   syād-nāsti - "in some ways it is not"
   
3. 
   syād-asti-nāsti - "in some ways it is and it is not"
   
4. 
   syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"
   
5. 
   syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable"
   
6. 
   syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable"
   
7. 
   syād-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is indescribable"
   

But I doubt if this would make anybody any wiser (it might confuse so much that they call for an ambulance for me).

I agree that all religions point at the same truth, but I think this point is indescribable, beyond words. As soon as people begin to talk the trouble starts. Also we can not overlook the actual practices of the different religions.

The Buddha wanted to get rid of all “I amness”. So if you say “I am a Buddhist” you go already against his intentions. Every identification can be a bondage, an attachment. The mind is not free, not empty, and this can i.m.o. be a hindrance to come to a state of no-self, no-mind. (With this I don't want to say that organised religion or wise masters cannot be a great help for many people, including myself, to develop yourself).

The reason I come with the dialectics is because I am beginning to see more and more striking similarities between the Buddhist way of reasoning and principles (eg no inherent self, everything is interdependent and in a constant change) and the dialectics.