Destruction Of Erawan Shrine

[TopChinese]

Cross post from News Clippings forum. Just keen to know on how the incident is viewed by the religious community? And will the new image be as efficacious as the old image?

BRAHMA STATUE

Replacement will be made of metal

New design will be ready in two months, will feature pieces from original

A decision has yet to be made about the material to be used to build a new Brahma statue - to replace the old one destroyed early yesterday morning by a mentally-ill man.

Plaster will keep its essence, but nine types of metal mixed with some surviving pieces of the old statue will ensure its durability. Those fragments include the face, head and weapons, said Preecha Gungeeya, director-general of the Religious Affairs Department.

The new Brahma statue for the Erawan shrine will be completed and replaced within two months. The shrine will be open for the public to pay their respects from today with four photographs of the statue facing out from the shrine.

Srislang Sooksomstarn, the Maha Phrom Foundation's managing director, said it was likely metal would be used for the new statue.

While the original design of the statue would be followed, its foundation and the surrounding fence would be raised to protect it from possible attack. Moreover, the four sides of the statue would be shielded by glass; the old version was an open shrine surrounded by a low metal fence.

"The fragments will form part of the new statue because we want to keep its soul intact," Preecha said.

Srislang was certain the new statue would attract a crowd, despite the different materials.

The damaged statue was yesterday embraced by the Royal Brahmin. When the new one is finished a ceremony will be conducted again to "bring it home".

Surakiart Sathirathai, acting deputy prime minister and culture minister, said the damage affected people badly, so the statue needed to be replaced as soon as possible. Once the renovation was complete, he said the ministry would celebrate with a suitable ceremony.

Meanwhile, Sathienpong Wannapok, an expert on Buddhism, said: "What's happening is crazy", because the shrine was only a result of current culture and social practice.

"If you are a Brahma, you don't need to pay homage to the Brahmin statue," he suggested. He referred to the Pramwiharn 4 (unbounded states of mind) practice of goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy and neutrality. He also said people in the city lacked neutrality.

Believing more in Buddhist teaching than being attached to a man-made image, Sathienpong said such a shrine was only for people with vulnerable minds. "It's only a symbol. It's like a toddler who needs something to depend on while taking its first steps."

The shrine was attacked yesterday morning by a man who was later beaten to death.

The Nation

[nokia]

Buddhists do not believe that the buddha was a god, so how could they possibly believe that a piece of wood or metal is a god? The dictionary defines an idol as "an image or statue worshipped as a god". And in buddhism, the statue of the buddha also reminds us of the human dimension in buddhist teaching, the fact that buddhism is man-centred, not god-centred, that we must look within not without to find perfection and understanding. So true buddhists do not worship images. The image is a symbol that helps people to recall the qualities of the buddha. But popular buddhism in LOS fused with Brahmanism, Hinduism, Shintoism and other idolatrous Eastern religions, which makes it more complicated.

The first precept is "A disciple of the Buddha does not kill nor let others kill.." Harming, not to mention killing, produces fear in others, and, according to Buddhism, it destroys our seed of compassion. One must not deliberately kill any living creatures, either by committing the act oneself, instructing others to kill, or approving of or participating in act of killing. It is a respect to others' lives. One should not deprive others (animals not excluded) of the right to live. If one is hurt or killed, one's family, relatives, friends will suffer. It is the cause of rebirth in Three Evil Paths. The effect of killing to the performer are brevity of life, ill health, handicapped and fear.

---------BKK post

ERAWAN SHRINE / CRAZED ATTACKER BEATEN TO DEATH

Revered Brahman statue smashed

ANJIRA ASSAVANONDA

The remains of the Brahman statue at the Erawan Shrine after it was smashed to pieces with a hammer by a crazed man in the early hours of yesterday morning. Parts of the smashed statue (top picture) are placed on a piece of white cloth. — Photos by KOSOL NAKACHOL and PHRAKIT JUNTAWONG

A large crowd gathered yesterday in front of the famous Erawan Shrine to try and get a view of the remains of a much-revered Brahman statue after it was destroyed by a mentally-disturbed man during the early hours of yesterday morning.

Thanakorn Pakdipol, 27, was beaten to death after attacking the statue at about 1am yesterday morning.

His body was found in a pool of blood near the entrance of a hotel about 50 metres away, police said.

Two cleaners from Pathumwan district office _ Saksri Klinbua, 21, and Kasemsak Karunwong, 22 _ were arrested for committing the assault leading to the man's death, police said. Both apparently admitted their involvement, but pointed out that others were involved in the attack.

Members of the public were only allowed as far as an iron gate after authorities closed the shrine. Apparently, only the lowest part of the statue remained intact following the attack.

Sayan Pakdipol, father of the man who attacked the statue, said his son had been in and out of hospital suffering from mental disorders since he was about 21. His mental condition was attributed to stress.

Mr Sayan said his son had returned home at about 8pm on Monday night and appeared irritable. He vanished at about midnight, prompting his father to call the police.

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra called for the reconstruction of the Thao Maha Brahma statue, which is also known as Phra Prom.

Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai ordered the Culture Ministry's Fine Arts Department to restore the statue as soon as possible.

''The shrine was widely revered by not only Thai people but those from other countries in the region. Many countries have contacted us to express their sorrow over the incident. That's why we need to rebuild the statue as quickly as possible,'' Mr Surakiart said during an inspection of the site.

Arak Sanghitakul, director-general of the Fine Arts Department, said the restoration work could take about two months to complete. Unlike the Thao Maha Brahma statue, which was made of plaster, the replacement would be cast in a mix of metals, including copper, to make it more resilient.

''We will maintain the shape and appearance of the deity that was destroyed. The remains of the old statue will be included in the new one to preserve the spirit of the deity,'' Mr Arak said.

Paichit Rojanavanich, chairman of the Than Tao Mahaprom Foundation, the organisation responsible for overseeing the shrine, said the foundation was ready to meet the costs of the restoration.

Mr Arak said the shrine would soon be reopened, while a photo or painting of the original would be installed so people could continue to pay their respects while the restoration work was carried out.

Most flower vendors abandoned their stalls on hearing the bad news. Those who remained said they had not been present when the attack took place.

Pachara Khansakorn, 36, who sells drinks near the site, said she was expecting a drop in income and the coconut juice usually popular among visitors to the shrine was not selling well yesterday. She said, however, that she would not seek a new location for her business since she had been working there for over 10 years.

She said she hoped the shrine would reopen soon, ''so we can get back to our normal lives''.

[camerata]

And will the new image be as efficacious as the old image?

According to my Thai friends, no. Images and amulets gain power as they grow older. This is why the government said the new image will use as many pieces of the old image as possible.

Buddhists do not believe that the buddha was a god, so how could they possibly believe that a piece of wood or metal is a god?

Heh heh. To paraphrase Ajahn Chah: "Those aren't Buddhists who do those things, those are people doing those things!" In other words, regardless of being Buddhists, 99% of Thais need external objects and beings to give them hope and comfort in life. Surprise! They are just like the rest of humanity. Of course they don't actually believe the piece of plaster is a deity, but they obviously believe it either contains the spirits of the area or is a channel for communication with Brahma. That's the way they were brought up.

But popular buddhism in LOS fused with Brahmanism, Hinduism, Shintoism and other idolatrous Eastern religions, which makes it more complicated.

Shintoism? In Thailand? Shinto shrines don't have any images at all for worship. It probably ranks alongside Islam in that respect.

I admit I got caught over the Erawan Shrine incident. At one point I started lecturing a Thai friend about what an excellent lesson in impermanence it was, and how we shouldn't be attached to any image at all, let alone a modern non-Buddhist image. But Thais don't see it that way. For them it's a national icon, something which gives hope to people who often have little understanding of the core Buddhist teachings. I'm sure many of them feel the guy reaped the fruit of his karma when he was beaten to death. The lack of sympathy for the guy and his family is pretty shocking, but so was the public's tacit approval of extra-judicial killings in the government's drug war.

Since I feel nothing about the loss of the Erawan image, especially as it can easily be reconstructed, I started wondering how I'd feel if the guy had taken a hammer to the priceless Emerald Buddha. I wouldn't murder anyone, but I think I'd feel pretty bad at the loss of an irreplaceable work of art, especially one representing the Buddha. It's hard not to be attached sometimes.

[aaaaaa]

just another example that especially nowdays (as actually always, but more so) religion is merely some external attributes, symbols, paraphernalia and rituals. people often forget the inside meaning.

well, but then the guy who has done that - is same.

even muslims, with their denial of forms (many Hindu temples in India has smashed statues and cut of faces) - they gather annually to worship their Kebla, which according to some sources is just huge SHiva Lingam. not to mention that some claim there are over 300 dieties still secretly kept there somewhere - from time before Mohammad made it Islamic shrine.

yes, whole purpose of Buddha's teaching was first of all to stop violence and sacrifices. and yet in Thailand even monks even eat meat. I was told by one monk from Sri Lanka (met him here in Bangkok) that in his country they don't eat meat, and after spending a year in Thailand he was not so happy about being forced to compromise this his principle, so he was heading to Taiwan.

same as Jesus Christ said he will stop sacrifices preformed by Jewis religionists. but nowdays christians (well, majority of them) would argue with foam at their mouth that "Thou shall Not Kill" is refered only to humans, and that word "broma" which in original Bible and in Aramean and Greek means "food" (ANY food) - actually means ONLY "flesh" or "meat".

religions and their principles deteriorate eventually. every one of them. people adjust and adopt principles to their convinience. and after sometime it is inevitable that this or that religion becomes more and more materialistic.

[robitusson]

just another example that especially nowdays (as actually always, but more so) religion is merely some external attributes, symbols, paraphernalia and rituals. people often forget the inside meaning.

well, but then the guy who has done that - is same.

even muslims, with their denial of forms (many Hindu temples in India has smashed statues and cut of faces) - they gather annually to worship their Kebla, which according to some sources is just huge SHiva Lingam. not to mention that some claim there are over 300 dieties still secretly kept there somewhere - from time before Mohammad made it Islamic shrine.

yes, whole purpose of Buddha's teaching was first of all to stop violence and sacrifices. and yet in Thailand even monks even eat meat. I was told by one monk from Sri Lanka (met him here in Bangkok) that in his country they don't eat meat, and after spending a year in Thailand he was not so happy about being forced to compromise this his principle, so he was heading to Taiwan.

same as Jesus Christ said he will stop sacrifices preformed by Jewis religionists. but nowdays christians (well, majority of them) would argue with foam at their mouth that "Thou shall Not Kill" is refered only to humans, and that word "broma" which in original Bible and in Aramean and Greek means "food" (ANY food) - actually means ONLY "flesh" or "meat".

religions and their principles deteriorate eventually. every one of them. people adjust and adopt principles to their convinience. and after sometime it is inevitable that this or that religion becomes more and more materialistic.

Lord Buddha ate meat. The Dalai Lama ests meat. Thai monks eat meat. There is absolutely nothing stopping Buddhists from eating meat. Eating meat is not a corruption of Buddhism in any way whatsoever. The concept of Buddhists being vegetarian is entirely a Western reading of the meaning of the religion.

Just because people have religious statues is not necessarily a reflection of the religion becoming more materialistic. Symbolic offerings, prayers and shows of respect to statues and images of the Buddha, monks and deities have always been central to Therevada, Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism and still are today. As Westerners, we may not like this and disagree with this and think "it's not Buddhism" but we haven't been part of the unbroken lineage which has carried the original teachings and traditions to us all today.

[robitusson]

^^^I hope this isn't too harsh but Thai Buddhism is not there to conform to what we think Buddhism should and shouldn't be, that's all.

Edited March 25, 2006 by robitusson

[aaaaaa]

Lord Buddha ate meat.

are you sure about it ? and then, even if he did, doesn't change one of the purpose of his mission.

The Dalai Lama ests meat.

Dalai Lama is of category "orginized religion" - as Pope in Rome, whom not all Christians accept as an authority. he might as well do some other things - although I am not saying he does.

Thai monks eat meat. There is absolutely nothing stopping Buddhists from eating meat.

yeah, doesn't mean non-Thai monks eat meat. as well as - that anybody here said we wanna stop them from eating it. at least I didn't.

again they might as well do other things - and many evidences, documented by media, that they DO - as illicit sex, selling drugs, using their position for material gains or influence.

Eating meat is not a corruption of Buddhism in any way whatsoever.

hmmm... THAT is very arguable. at least to the monk from Sri Lanka with whom I'd discussed this matter and who told me this difference in practice - it IS. that's why he decided to go to Taiwan instead, after spending a year here, even though in Taiwan they practice Mahayana Buddhism, while he himself (and his fellow in Sri Lanka) and Thai monks practice Theravada. (sorry if spelling or transliteration is not correct)

The concept of Buddhists being vegetarian is entirely a Western reading of the meaning of the religion.

that is quite a b/s ! particularly, I have been reading Vedic version of it, not at all Western. to my opinion Western version would rather condon meat eating - why vegeterian ? I'm rather surprised !

Just because people have religious statues is not necessarily a reflection of the religion becoming more materialistic.

now, who said that ? I didn't ! or you feel ok taking one phrase from begining and placing it together with other in the end of my post ?

although more techincal and deeper study reveals that worship of statues (or other forms made of material elements, which at least indirectly engross mind and bind to material existence) is more materialistic than without them. because while omnipresence of God or divine is an aspect present more or less in all religions, it is always emphasised, that God or divine or whatever He / it is called is NOT those material element, although again techincally it cann be called part of Him / it as an emanation of one of His plentifull energies. however material energy binds consiousness to itself, distracts from spiritual objects. meditaion on / worship of spiritual onbjects is considered superior to those objects made of material elements.

perhaps that is one of main reasons why also Abrahamic religions are against "idol" worhiping - because conditioned mind and senses can easily become attached to material objects, and such attachment is detremental to spiritual growth. not to mention that bewildered mind can start to consider object made of material elements as God / divine....

another entire subject is about - motives in worship, be that spiritual or material objects.

but again, that is too esoteric and technical. and again, I didn't say that deity worship is materialistic or deterioration of religion. show me, where didn I say that ?

BUT it IS the fact that every religion sooner or later degrades. otherwise, why religions also appear and dissapear ? Christians are most known for their claim that only by Bible and Jesus one can enter heaven (I bet they don't even think of higher level - spiritual realm, which is beyond material heaven). but history of it is only 2000 years, Buddhism 2500 years, Islam 1500 years, Judaism I don't recall how old. so, does that mean before these religions or along with them there was no other, or won't be later , after ? and WHY ? simple: because eventually each religion spreads, and mass of its followers grows, people join who are not entirely spiritually motivated, but many or most just "follow the trend" or forced (as Roman has spread Christianity, Arabs spread Islam, Emperor Asoke spread Buddhism). and with encreasing number of materialistically motivated people (to continue material existence, merely improve it with some spiritual practice as prayers, rituals, sacrifices in exchange for divine blessings), especially those in positions of power, inevitably religion would start to be adjusted, adopted to this or that cultural, political, social etc. specialties. in other words - spiritual principles lessen, become weaker and after a while later dissapear at all. that is why Jesus argued with faresses and set some new standarts, some even more strict than Moses gave previously ("Moses thaught you so out knowing cruelty of your hearts - I teach you anew ! if he said don't commit adultery - I say the one who looks at other women with lust already commits adultery in his heart" - or something like that, sorry I'd read that not in English version).

so, as it is inevitable that each and every religion detetiorates, so is inevitable that new religion appreas, which re-establishes religious principles and sets new (actually long forgotten old, which has degraded with time).

[robitusson]

Lord Buddha ate meat. This is a fact. As far as I know Koreans are the only Buddhist monks who are vegetarian. I don't know of anywhere where it is mentioned that eating meat is forbidden or being vegetarian necessary to practice Buddhism. The Vedas are Hindu scriptures.

I don't think you can compare eating meat to illicit sex and drug taking. These are expressly forbidden and there's no ambiguity about it.

I misunderstood your post to mean that statues where a sign that Buddhism was becoming more materialistic. Sorry anout that if I was wrong. The Bangkok Post had a page long article yesterday about the statue and it's significance and talked a little bit about why Buddhists have a statue of Brahma at all. Don't know if you saw the article or not. Get a hold of yesterdays B.P. and have a look. It was pretty interesting.

I'll try and find the thread about vegetarianism in Buddhism and post a link anyway.

Edited March 26, 2006 by robitusson

[bankei]

I must admit that I had a few discussions with Thais where I also argued that the Phra Phrom statue was not Buddhist, but a brahmanical idol. Of course, the Thais insisted it was Buddhist, just as all the Ganesh statues are (that elephant god).

So that got me thinking, why do I consider these to be non Buddhist? Is it my rational western upbringing? Maybe Buddhism for me is textual - ie if it is not in the Pali Nikayas/vinaya it is not Buddhist, but a later degeneration. Is this view justified?

Bankei

[nokia]

I must admit that I had a few discussions with Thais where I also argued that the Phra Phrom statue was not Buddhist, but a brahmanical idol. Of course, the Thais insisted it was Buddhist, just as all the Ganesh statues are (that elephant god).

So that got me thinking, why do I consider these to be non Buddhist? Is it my rational western upbringing? Maybe Buddhism for me is textual - ie if it is not in the Pali Nikayas/vinaya it is not Buddhist, but a later degeneration. Is this view justified?

Bankei

Guatama Buddha did not make any claim to divinity, nor urged his followers to worship him, but the Brahmans-who were already worshipping idols of Ganesh, elephant god & Shiva, Brahma & Vishnu, quickly began to make statues of Guatama. And in time, those who are used to worshipping idolscame to worship these idols of Guatama as god for blessings, rather than a symbol that helps people to recall the qualities of the buddha.

Similarly, for Islam, When Mohammed was born in Mecca in 570 AD, the black Kaaba Stone was the religious center of all Arabia. In Mohammed's day, 365 idols were worshipped there, standing in the great courtyard. One of those deities was called Allah and was the god of the Quarish tribe, of which Mohammed was a member. When the Quarish tribe took control of Mecca, all the idols except Allah, the idol of their tribe, were destroyed. But he kept the Kaaba as a holy, sacred place and confirmed that the black stone had the power to take away man's sins. He obligated every believer to make a pilgrimage to the stone at least once in his lifetime.

Even for Christianity, in 300 AD, pagan rituals and idols gradually took on Christian meanings and names and were incorporated into "Christian" worship (e.g., "saints" replaced the cult of pagan gods in both worship and as patrons of cities; mother/son statues were renamed Mary and Jesus; etc.), and pagan holidays were reclassified as Christian holy days (e.g., the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia celebrations were replaced by Christmas celebrations; an ancient festival of the dead was replaced by All Souls Day, rededicated to Christian heroes [now Hallowe'en]; etc.). A transition had occurred -- instead of being persecuted for failure to worship pagan deities, Christians who did not agree with the particular orthodoxy backed by the Emperor were now persecuted in the name of Christ! "Christianized" Rome had become the legitimate successor of pagan Rome! This is the sad origin of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sadly, it's all about the contextualisation of newer religions wrapped in the clothes of the older ones, keeping the baby without discarding the bath water. Any care to comment?

[sabaijai]

I must admit that I had a few discussions with Thais where I also argued that the Phra Phrom statue was not Buddhist, but a brahmanical idol. Of course, the Thais insisted it was Buddhist, just as all the Ganesh statues are (that elephant god).

So that got me thinking, why do I consider these to be non Buddhist? Is it my rational western upbringing? Maybe Buddhism for me is textual - ie if it is not in the Pali Nikayas/vinaya it is not Buddhist, but a later degeneration. Is this view justified?

Bankei

And I know quite a few Thais who will argue that the Erawan shrine has nothing to do with Buddhism. There are probably has many gradations of opinion on the topic as there are individual Thais.

If you want to apply a functional definition to Erawan shrine worship, then it's not Buddhist. It's not Hindu/Brahmanist either, rather it boils down to animism, ie, that a spirit (Brahman or otherwise) residing at that spot has the power to influence people's lives.

When I've questioned Buddhist Thai friends about why they give offerings to spirit houses, the Erawan shrine, Lak Muang (City Pillar) etc, and how it differs from visits to Buddhist temples, they typically say that they placate spirits to stay safe and prosperious in this life, and practice Buddhism for the next life.

Thus, functionally speaking, they're separating it from Buddhism, even if upon first questioning they may lump it together with Buddhism. But it differs from individual to individual, no doubt.

[nokia]

Unfortunately, popular Buddhism in LOS becomes a culture shock for Westerners, whether atheists, agnostics or theists who understand Buddhism is not about worshipping deities but self enlightenment/ nirvana.

In LOS, placating a pantheon of deities/"good spirits" & to avoid "malevolent spirits"/ghosts is a daily ritual for every Thais. In addition, with many colourful & rich festivals to placate the Lak Muang(City Pillar) and the different spirits residing in mountains, rivers, caves, cities etc, can a foreigner not do as the "Romans" do?

Do we prefer to spend our short, temporal life placating the numerous "spirits" in LOS, or in pursuing purse the Truth? Truly, few can do both, in trying to serve two masters...

---

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

---

Although the Buddha did not deny the existence of gods/spirits, he taught that the worship of gods /spirits obstructed one's quest for nirvana. To him the gods inhabit the cosmos and are impermanent like all other living beings. Thus they too must escape rebirth through nirvana. Ironically many Buddhists revere the Buddha above the gods. What was important to the Buddha, however, was certainly not the worship of gods/spirits or himself but the following of his teachings.