Farang Buddhists

[Jawnie]

Just because things aren't said the way we would like them said or not in a manner we'd prefer, doesn't mean the speaker is wrong...maybe it's just the ego responding to being convicted on one of its own faults. I, for one, am not afraid to take a position or make a judgement - we must do this all the time in all aspects of our lives. Why would it be any different in our spiritual lives?

[sirchai]

I guess it all comes back to an easy point.

It doesn't really matter which religion you might think is the best. It's up to WHO you are.-----

[rockyysdt]

Just because things aren't said the way we would like them said or not in a manner we'd prefer, doesn't mean the speaker is wrong...maybe it's just the ego responding to being convicted on one of its own faults. I, for one, am not afraid to take a position or make a judgement - we must do this all the time in all aspects of our lives. Why would it be any different in our spiritual lives?

Hi J.

I agree with you.

It's important to take a position, particularly if another might be influencing others inappropriately.

However, what I've been learning through earlier posts and from dharma is that the way we respond is also important.

I believe the Buddha was quoted as saying:

'When talking about others, do not mention their faults, only their good points; but when talking about ourselves mention only our faults, and avoid talking about our good points..'

During times when I lack awareness my response/judgement may be directed to others and result in hurt.

When taking time to respond, I attempt to reframe my response with an example illustrating my own shortcomings.

This allows me to avoid direct criticism of anothers possible shorcoming, while ensuring my message and position is illustrated.

Edited October 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[beb]

Well as somebody who doesn't follow the philosophy but admires much of it and does try to incorporate some of its teachings, let me just say that I admire those of you who seem to truly try to follow those teachings with humility but others seem to have their ego totally wrapped up in their teachings and their comments here. And it shines right through in this forum.

Now I don't mean to attack anybody and I respect your efforts but there is an irony to that and it's as if a friend should really let you know.

[Xangsamhua]

... but others seem to have their ego totally wrapped up in their teachings and their comments here. And it shines right through in this forum.

Now I don't mean to attack anybody and I respect your efforts but there is an irony to that and it's as if a friend should really let you know.

You've not attacked anybody specifically, Beb, but you've made a blanket criticism. This doesn't help me much if you don't provide any examples of the ego-absorbed behaviour you see on the forum. If, "as a friend", you're letting some of us know something, can you give an example or two, so we know what it is?

Having one's "ego totally wrapped up in their teachings", etc. can be interpreted in different ways, can't it? A Buddhist fanatic? One who sees things from only one perspective. One who takes excessive pride in being Buddhist? One whose identity is exclusively bound up with one's religion? One who responds aggressively?

I would like to see some examples, or a clearer explanation of what you mean. After all, you're the one sitting in judgement.

[beb]

... but others seem to have their ego totally wrapped up in their teachings and their comments here. And it shines right through in this forum.

Now I don't mean to attack anybody and I respect your efforts but there is an irony to that and it's as if a friend should really let you know.

You've not attacked anybody specifically, Beb, but you've made a blanket criticism. This doesn't help me much if you don't provide any examples of the ego-absorbed behaviour you see on the forum. If, "as a friend", you're letting some of us know something, can you give an example or two, so we know what it is?

Having one's "ego totally wrapped up in their teachings", etc. can be interpreted in different ways, can't it? A Buddhist fanatic? One who sees things from only one perspective. One who takes excessive pride in being Buddhist? One whose identity is exclusively bound up with one's religion? One who responds aggressively?

I would like to see some examples, or a clearer explanation of what you mean. After all, you're the one sitting in judgement.

I get your point but I don't want to cite specific examples because I don't want to point anybody out for criticism. That's not my purpose. My statement was not meant to be a blanket criticism as much as an observation on the differences in comments as I see them. I guess you could say it was a blanket-just-over-the-legs criticism.

I think that others probably recognize what I'm talking about, possibly even some of you that are buddhist.

I guess I would say that there is a similarity to some of my Christian friends and family who seem more focused on projecting their beliefs than living them.

Edited October 22, 2012 by beb

[Xangsamhua]

OK. Thanks. That's clear enough.

Food for thought.

[beb]

OK. Thanks. That's clear enough.

Food for thought.

Um, let me clarify just a little because I really do enjoy reading people's thoughts on this subject. I don't want to give the impression that I am offended or annoyed by people talking about these things. Far from it. It's all good stuff for me. What I'm talking about is a sense of judgement that bleeds through no matter how gently it is projected.

[Jawnie]

... but others seem to have their ego totally wrapped up in their teachings and their comments here. And it shines right through in this forum.

Now I don't mean to attack anybody and I respect your efforts but there is an irony to that and it's as if a friend should really let you know.

You've not attacked anybody specifically, Beb, but you've made a blanket criticism. This doesn't help me much if you don't provide any examples of the ego-absorbed behaviour you see on the forum. If, "as a friend", you're letting some of us know something, can you give an example or two, so we know what it is?

Having one's "ego totally wrapped up in their teachings", etc. can be interpreted in different ways, can't it? A Buddhist fanatic? One who sees things from only one perspective. One who takes excessive pride in being Buddhist? One whose identity is exclusively bound up with one's religion? One who responds aggressively?

I would like to see some examples, or a clearer explanation of what you mean. After all, you're the one sitting in judgement.

I get your point but I don't want to cite specific examples because I don't want to point anybody out for criticism. That's not my purpose. My statement was not meant to be a blanket criticism as much as an observation on the differences in comments as I see them. I guess you could say it was a blanket-just-over-the-legs criticism.

I think that others probably recognize what I'm talking about, possibly even some of you that are buddhist.

I guess I would say that there is a similarity to some of my Christian friends and family who seem more focused on projecting their beliefs than living them.

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.

I tend to lose clarity when explanations are expressed in such ways.

Could you expound ?

[hookedondhamma]

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.

Was the teacher Vajrayana?

Edited October 22, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[Jawnie]

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.

Was the teacher Vajrayana?

Yes.

[MahaYellow]

Most people who call themselves "Buddhist"

are nominal Buddhists.

[endure]

Most people who call themselves "Buddhist"

are nominal Buddhists.

The Ajahn at our local temple says there are no such thing as good Buddhists - it's just that some are further along the path than others.

[ChrisB87]

I personally think there is no such thing as Buddhist, nor 'farang Buddhist'.

Everything just is. (without a name)

There is only suffering and impermanence.

Many people learn to be equanimous without ever hearing the Buddha's teachings or knowing about meditation.

[beautifulthailand99]

I'm a Buddhist lite traveller - and have gone on retreat a couple of times in Amaravati in the UK. Once on a 'farang retreat' for 5 days and the second time on a Thai led retreat designed particuarly for Thais which started on the Friday night and ended on the Sunday night. Both were supposed to operate under noble silence which was religiously observed on the 'farang side'. On the Thai weekend which consisted of 49 retreatants - 48 were Thai women and just one farang man - namely me. The noble silence lasted until the first coffee break when the phones came on and a lot of the women started gassing away as they do.

On the farang side the silence and being unable to speak was a very useful way combined with meditation and following the 8 precepts of examining your mind and helping stuff to heal and to find its place. I found the answer that there are no great answers just what you do and the grace with which you do it. That said I came back as if on drugs and was all for diving in deeper - but when I started to try to communicate this to my wife and Thai friends they said your think too much - too deep. Followed by - if you care so much why not become a monk. I soon came back to my more natural balance and being in and of the world. The middle way so to speak.....

The farang monk who led the farang retreat was a man of few words and quite stern in appearance and bearing and said if you go back to the world following this retreat and are not changed by this to become a Buddhist then it was really only just a spiritual holiday - nothing more.

For the Thai retreat I went a day early to help set up as my visit before had made me mindful of these things don't run themselves and it was nice to have a quiet day involved in purposeful work with nice people. When the Thai's came the whole retreat took a different character , there were children with a lot of the women and the noisiness in the temple got my mind thinking all the pat criticisms of Thailand we all have easily to hand.

The Thai monk who led it couldn't be different from the farang one - he liked to laugh a lot and tell tales and have a spirited feedback with his congregation. He was joined by two visiting monks one who was his teacher and the most senior the teacher of him - they also joked and loved to chat to the women. They both had iphones and were busy snapping away and one was addicted to betel nut and had run out of it and he spotted a Thai women who was particuarly noisy on the sly to see if she could get some betel nut for him which involved a 3 hour round trip to London which she regarded both as a burden and an honour.

As for the noise - I gave in after a day and started to chat myself and liase with the slightly horrified organisers that had seen their 'perfect' Amaraviti taken over by the noisy Thais and I helped to understand what was going on. I also got chatting to a lovely german nun who had spent a lot of time in Thailand and I was remarking (slightly censoriously) about how noisy they were - and she said to my surprise "I love it when the Thai's come here with their children and their boisterousness - they bring life to the temple" - she had been very well looked after by Thais when she was there and she finished on the comment that a lot if the monks were just too serious and into the very serious business of trying to be a perfect monk - which is of course an impossible task.

When the retreat was finished all the women went to have their photos taken with the monks and were busy facebooking the photos which would have been 'liked' by all and sundry. Meanwhile the toilets of one of the dormitories I found was quite dirty so as everyone was rushing to go home - I showed it to my wife and we both stayed behind got stuck in and that hour was probably the best hour of the retreat where I realised the meaning of mindfullness and giving something from your heart to the temple is the greatest gift you can give.

I also got to wondering why were there just women there (which is the same in our favourite London temple - Wat Buddharam) - because on the whole it is women who are left holding the baby and the Thai immigrants who come to the UK are for the most part from poor origins and at a guess from the obvious clues - 50% of the women are from the dodgier areas of the Thai tourism sector and they want to find some peace of mind and for them finding it was just being there, warts and all and they left mostly happier even if they weren't wiser. And this didn't matter as it is just the way it is - so the Thai retreat also taught me acceptance - which is the Thai way of thinking.

So I get a lot of life tools from following Buddhism 'lite' but I am also in the world and of this world and don't want to spend all my time meditating and going to the temple and getting too drawn in at the moment.Maybe that will change as I get older but I'm glad that people do and I feel connected to some ancient rites that go back over 2500 years and are significant and it is this that makes the temple a sacred space - it was here long before I ever existed and will continue as long as humans still exist. And for that I am profoundly grateful.

Finally I asked both the farang monk and the Thai monk the same question which was - what remains in the end (of your life). The farang monk said "a clear vision of the truth" - whilst the Thai monk - whilst laughing said "Nothing".

[Tchooptip]

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.

No doubt Buddha would have been a good Christian as well

[AYJAYDEE]

he was born in nepal.

Thanks, payak. It is true, the Buddha-to-be was born in Nepal. :-)

in nepal-to-be

[AYJAYDEE]

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...

they can hardly be blamed for disturbing your life if YOU have chosen to come to this forum and click on this thread.

[AYJAYDEE]

Most people who call themselves "Buddhist"

are nominal Buddhists.

The Ajahn at our local temple says there are no such thing as good Buddhists - it's just that some are further along the path than others.

Wow! I hope your village realizes how lucky they are.