Thai Genesis

[mazo]

hello guys

can any one tell me what the thai buddhist version of the genesis is. you know the big questions in life how did we get here whats it all about who or what made every thing. i have asked but the only answer i get is buda but no real explanation. i would love to know how buddhists or just thai folk law explains why we are here.

chears mazo

[robitusson]

Check out this thread on the same topic.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61636

[thaibebop]

hello guys

can any one tell me what the thai buddhist version of the genesis is. you know the big questions in life how did we get here whats it all about who or what made every thing. i have asked but the only answer i get is buda but no real explanation. i would love to know how buddhists or just thai folk law explains why we are here.

chears mazo

There is none. The topic doesn't matter, only where one is headed is important.

[sabaijai]

Words like 'genesis' and 'creation' presume there was a building of the universe out of nothing, and also imply a creator.

The Buddha said ignorance is the creator, and for the ignorant the round of life is without beginning and without end. Sort of the opposite of Abrahamic religions, ie, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, where eternal life is the goal. For Theravada Buddhism, eternal life = hel_l.

[EastSaxCol]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

[sabaijai]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

I've never seen anything in the Pali Tipitaka stating that the Buddha's life is eternal, so I think the Mahayana and Theravada schools take a different tack on this issue. It is implied that nibbana is the only thing not subject to impermanence, and nibbana is not the exclusive domain of the historical Buddha (according to the Theravada perspective).

[thaibebop]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

I've never seen anything in the Pali Tipitaka stating that the Buddha's life is eternal, so I think the Mahayana and Theravada schools take a different tack on this issue. It is implied that nibbana is the only thing not subject to impermanence, and nibbana is not the exclusive domain of the historical Buddha (according to the Theravada perspective).

I think it still might apply somewhat to Thai thinking though. It seems to me that most Asians view history like a spiral rather than a line, which leads to the ideas discussed by Happy Hammer.

[sabaijai]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

I've never seen anything in the Pali Tipitaka stating that the Buddha's life is eternal, so I think the Mahayana and Theravada schools take a different tack on this issue. It is implied that nibbana is the only thing not subject to impermanence, and nibbana is not the exclusive domain of the historical Buddha (according to the Theravada perspective).

I think it still might apply somewhat to Thai thinking though. It seems to me that most Asians view history like a spiral rather than a line, which leads to the ideas discussed by Happy Hammer.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Assuming the Thais view history as 'spiral' rather than 'linear', it means they believe that 'the Buddha's life is eternal, and we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha'?

In the 29 years I've lived in Thailand, I've never heard a Thai express this particular concept (that the Buddha is eternal, etc) outside of the Dhammakaya tradition, which isn't exactly mainstream Thai Buddhism (yet). On the other hand, certainly the way Thais 'pray' to Buddha images gives that appearance. I guess you could take a poll.

It seems we're agreeing that there is no concept of creation or 'genesis' in Buddhism, however. As usual the poisoned arrow parable applies.

"Suppose someone was hit by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives found a doctor able to remove the arrow. If this man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out until I know whether the person who had shot it was a priest, a prince or a merchant, his name and his family. I will not have it taken out until I know what kind of bow was used and whether the arrowhead was an ordinary one or an iron one.' That person would die before all these things are ever known to him."

In the same way, those who say they will not practise the Dharma until they know whether the world is eternal or not, infinite or not, will die before these questions are ever answered.

the arrow parable

[EastSaxCol]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

I've never seen anything in the Pali Tipitaka stating that the Buddha's life is eternal, so I think the Mahayana and Theravada schools take a different tack on this issue. It is implied that nibbana is the only thing not subject to impermanence, and nibbana is not the exclusive domain of the historical Buddha (according to the Theravada perspective).

This is where ( from the Mahayana perspective anyway ) it becomes even more fascinating and maybe a little complicated perhaps?

The Lotus Sutra speaks of two Buddhas ( in fact of countless Buddhas, but not for the purpose of this discussion ). The historical Buddha who gained enlightenment underneath the pipal tree at Buddh Gaya and the Buddha who gained enlightenment in the remote past. This is probably not made explicit in the earlier Sutras?

However, the Buddha of which we are part is of , is of course, the eternal Buddha rather than the man who gained enlightenment and entered 'nibbana' something over 2,000 years ago.

I think that most Thais who are aware of the true implications of Buddhist teachings know ,to a greater or lesser extent, that enlightenment lies within them/us as a latent factor and that they/we share the same enlightenment that the historical Buddha attained. As this enlightenment has no genesis, but rather has always been in existence , then it doesn't require a great leap in awareness to realise that we are part of the Buddha.That is, in so much we all share the same inherent Buddha consciousness.

Admittedly I'm not a Budhologist, only a Buddhist. But this makes perfect sense to me. And of course I think that we must by necessity agree that there is no Genesis within Buddhism.

As an appendage. There appears to be evidence that Asians in general think a more circular way than Westerners. That is, viewing things in a more interconnected way, rather than a logical progression fron A to B, etc.

But the spiral thing is also interesting. As it raises the question as to whether we progress towards 'nirvana' or tap into it. If Thais ( or anyone else for that matter ) were to think in a spiral way that would be more consistant with Theravadan thought of progression, and, therefore, more remote. Whereas research has provided evidence that a circular way of thinking may be more true. I can only assume that Thai people were included in the category of Asian?

Edited March 27, 2006 by Happy Hammer

[Suthep_Steve]

I notice Sabaijai used eternal and impermanence as opposites. We don't do this in the Mahayana at least not in my tradition as the use of western words to describe Buddhist ideas is far from standardised.

We define permanence as not subject to momentary change. Therefore many things are permanant, such as emptiness and the absence of a Thai lady in my bedroom. (Classical example is an elephant in the room)

From one way of looking at it a Buddhas mind is not permanant but like the rest of us it is eternal. I.E. it does under go momentary change but the stream of cause and effect has no end or begining.

I think I talked a little bit about Kalpas and the birth of universes in the post mentioned by robitusson above.

[sabaijai]

I notice Sabaijai used eternal and impermanence as opposites. We don't do this in the Mahayana at least not in my tradition as the use of western words to describe Buddhist ideas is far from standardised.

Good point.

We define permanence as not subject to momentary change. Therefore many things are permanant, such as emptiness and the absence of a Thai lady in my bedroom. (Classical example is an elephant in the room)

I never understood this example myself. It seems conceptual rather than experiential. The concept of 'elephant' may not be present in the room but all the potential qualities associated with the experience of an elephant are; there are only 54 consciousness moments (citta) and they can arise in connection with virtually any naming (nama) or forms (rupa), whether a coffeepot or an elephant. Yet none of these are permanent, they arise moment to moment (in Theravada at least) The non-presence of an elephant can hardly be called eternal or permanent from an experiential level. From a conceptual level you can debate endlessly about the existence of nonexistent objects (a friend of mine wrote an entire book on this topic) but is there a practical aim to it?

I think I talked a little bit about Kalpas and the birth of universes in the post mentioned by robitusson above.

Yes, the theories about kalpas are interesting and demonstrates how Tibetan Buddhism has a cosmology of sorts. I think Pure Land Buddhism also has a complex cosmology, and most other Mahayana schools. In the Pali suttanta you get oblique references to cosmic cycles but no detail, with the implication that it's not relevant to the path itself.

[thaibebop]

I don't think that there's any specific Thai Theravada answer to your question that is not reflected in Buddhism generally.

For instance, in the "Life Span" chapter of the revered Mahayanan scripture - the Lotus Sutra (LS), the eternity of [the] Buddha is expressed in the passage, "There is no ebb and flow of life and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction" (LS16, 226).

The thing to remember is that that the Buddha's life is eternal and that we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha remains the Buddha in life or death - there is no sepration. Just as there is no Genesis, nor end. Only an eternal continuation in which our future is determined by our actions in the present. An eternal , non-mechanistic, law of cause and effect.

I've never seen anything in the Pali Tipitaka stating that the Buddha's life is eternal, so I think the Mahayana and Theravada schools take a different tack on this issue. It is implied that nibbana is the only thing not subject to impermanence, and nibbana is not the exclusive domain of the historical Buddha (according to the Theravada perspective).

I think it still might apply somewhat to Thai thinking though. It seems to me that most Asians view history like a spiral rather than a line, which leads to the ideas discussed by Happy Hammer.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Assuming the Thais view history as 'spiral' rather than 'linear', it means they believe that 'the Buddha's life is eternal, and we are in no way separate from the life of the Buddha'?

In the 29 years I've lived in Thailand, I've never heard a Thai express this particular concept (that the Buddha is eternal, etc) outside of the Dhammakaya tradition, which isn't exactly mainstream Thai Buddhism (yet). On the other hand, certainly the way Thais 'pray' to Buddha images gives that appearance. I guess you could take a poll.

It seems we're agreeing that there is no concept of creation or 'genesis' in Buddhism, however. I am not really sure. I ahve thought about this now for a awhile and I don't really know what to say. i wasn't speaking of Buddhism, just how Asians viewed events. Like the cycles of Yin and Yang. I thought I would be able to find somthing to support what I was saying, because I have read this before, but I couldn't. I guess just know that I wasn't speaking of Buddhism more academics. If that makes sense.

As usual the poisoned arrow parable applies.

"Suppose someone was hit by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives found a doctor able to remove the arrow. If this man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out until I know whether the person who had shot it was a priest, a prince or a merchant, his name and his family. I will not have it taken out until I know what kind of bow was used and whether the arrowhead was an ordinary one or an iron one.' That person would die before all these things are ever known to him."

In the same way, those who say they will not practise the Dharma until they know whether the world is eternal or not, infinite or not, will die before these questions are ever answered.

the arrow parable

[sabaijai]

I have thought about this now for a awhile and I don't really know what to say. i wasn't speaking of Buddhism, just how Asians viewed events.

Fair enough, and the OP did ask about the Thai concept of 'genesis' after all. I think it's a valid point talking about Thai perception in general.

[thaibebop]

I have thought about this now for a awhile and I don't really know what to say. i wasn't speaking of Buddhism, just how Asians viewed events.

Fair enough, and the OP did ask about the Thai concept of 'genesis' after all. I think it's a valid point talking about Thai perception in general.

I could've sworn that they were similar though. I just can't find what I need to support that. I guess I could point to the Chinese influence in Thai culture?

[Suthep_Steve]

We define permanence as not subject to momentary change. Therefore many things are permanent, such as emptiness and the absence of a Thai lady in my bedroom. (Classical example is an elephant in the room)

I never understood this example myself. It seems conceptual rather than experiential. The concept of 'elephant' may not be present in the room but all the potential qualities associated with the experience of an elephant are; there are only 54 consciousness moments (citta) and they can arise in connection with virtually any naming (nama) or forms (rupa), whether a coffeepot or an elephant. Yet none of these are permanent, they arise moment to moment (in Theravada at least) The non-presence of an elephant can hardly be called eternal or permanent from an experiential level. From a conceptual level you can debate endlessly about the existence of nonexistent objects (a friend of mine wrote an entire book on this topic) but is there a practical aim to it?

Yes the subjective mind experiencing negative phenomena is itself subject to momentary change. However the objective negative phenomena is permanent. The lack of an elephant in the room doesn't exist, cease and act as a cause from moment to moment, just the mind that experiences that lack.

Negative phenomena have great meaning for example if I'm in Severn Eleven at the counter waiting to buy the milk for my breakfast and I put my hand in my pocket and experience an absence of money, it has great meaning. Not least of which is the fact that there will be an absences of breakfast for me!

Also emptiness is a negative phenomena (in my tradition we describe it as a lack of inherent existence) therefore to gain Nirvana you have to become familiar with negative phenomena.

[meadish_sweetball]

Negative phenomena have great meaning for example if I'm in Severn Eleven at the counter waiting to buy the milk for my breakfast and I put my hand in my pocket and experience an absence of money, it has great meaning. Not least of which is the fact that there will be an absences of breakfast for me!

Sorry to butt in and ruin your parable, but ... - You are definitely experiencing an absence of money, and that absence of money means you will not be able to buy any milk. But this does not mean absence of breakfast - you could be treated to breakfast by a stranger behind you in the queue who sees you have no money - or you could go home and get some money if it is there, and then your breakfast would only be delayed, not absent.... right?

[robitusson]

Also emptiness is a negative phenomena (in my tradition we describe it as a lack of inherent existence) therefore to gain Nirvana you have to become familiar with negative phenomena.

What tradition is that? How can emptiness be negative? Surely it is 'empty' of any quality.

[Suthep_Steve]

Also emptiness is a negative phenomena (in my tradition we describe it as a lack of inherent existence) therefore to gain Nirvana you have to become familiar with negative phenomena.

What tradition is that? How can emptiness be negative? Surely it is 'empty' of any quality.

Q1. What tradition is that?

NKT an offshoot of the Gelug tradition in Tibetan Buddhism.

Q2. How can emptiness be negative? Surely it is 'empty' of any quality.

Emptiness is a negative because it is known by what it is not, or to put it another way by an abscence of something. From your definition you could say emptiness is minus 'any quality' or negative 'any quality.'

[Suthep_Steve]

Negative phenomena have great meaning for example if I'm in Severn Eleven at the counter waiting to buy the milk for my breakfast and I put my hand in my pocket and experience an absence of money, it has great meaning. Not least of which is the fact that there will be an absences of breakfast for me!

Sorry to butt in and ruin your parable, but ... - You are definitely experiencing an absence of money, and that absence of money means you will not be able to buy any milk. But this does not mean absence of breakfast - you could be treated to breakfast by a stranger behind you in the queue who sees you have no money - or you could go home and get some money if it is there, and then your breakfast would only be delayed, not absent.... right?

Wrong as your hypothosis clearly breaks Sods Law

[robitusson]

Also emptiness is a negative phenomena (in my tradition we describe it as a lack of inherent existence) therefore to gain Nirvana you have to become familiar with negative phenomena.

What tradition is that? How can emptiness be negative? Surely it is 'empty' of any quality.

Q1. What tradition is that?

NKT an offshoot of the Gelug tradition in Tibetan Buddhism.

Geshe Kelsangs group? I've never read any of his stuff. He kind of got 'banned' by the other Gelugpas, didn't he? They put a video out about the Kadampa monks who live in England which I saw. It all seemed very similar to wht I'm familair with.

Q2. How can emptiness be negative? Surely it is 'empty' of any quality.

Emptiness is a negative because it is known by what it is not, or to put it another way by an abscence of something. From your definition you could say emptiness is minus 'any quality' or negative 'any quality.'

I always considered the 'emptiness' they always talk about in Tibetan Buddhism to be the middle ground conceptually between a void and the material world, beyond the dualism of positivity and negativity. Example: If emptiness is also not-negativity and not-negative qualities then it becomes positive. I don't know.

Edited March 31, 2006 by robitusson

[robitusson]

Edited March 31, 2006 by robitusson

[sabaijai]

I have thought about this now for a awhile and I don't really know what to say. i wasn't speaking of Buddhism, just how Asians viewed events.

Fair enough, and the OP did ask about the Thai concept of 'genesis' after all. I think it's a valid point talking about Thai perception in general.

I could've sworn that they were similar though. I just can't find what I need to support that. I guess I could point to the Chinese influence in Thai culture?

I was agreeing with you.

[thaibebop]

I have thought about this now for a awhile and I don't really know what to say. i wasn't speaking of Buddhism, just how Asians viewed events.

Fair enough, and the OP did ask about the Thai concept of 'genesis' after all. I think it's a valid point talking about Thai perception in general.

I could've sworn that they were similar though. I just can't find what I need to support that. I guess I could point to the Chinese influence in Thai culture?

I was agreeing with you.

Okay, "feeling dumb" moment now, hold please.

Okay, now I am with you.