Thai monks rebuked over 'ostentatious' jet ride

[Tchooptip]

I am curious to know some Buddhists members comments about this story,

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647439-thai-monks-rebuked-over-ostentatious-jet-ride/

of course for me its a bit too much knowing the price of an hour's flight of a private jet,

so...did the jet went this way empty anyway? (for instance)

As for the Louis Vuitton handbag thousands are fake in LOS, some very cheap, did the monk even know Vuitton?

Or for him was it a bag as any ordinary bag?

Referring to the video, he said the public reaction should depend on whether the monks chose to travel by private jet or if it was organised by followers.

In both case where did they found such huge sum of money?

​I suppose I am a bit naive but its is almost unbelievable.

My question is not about Buddhism itself for me not called into question!

[rockyysdt]

What are your thoughts on the subject T?

[camerata]

There are scriptures that say making an offering to an arahant (enlightened one) results in great merit. Many Thais associate supranormal feats with arahants. The webpage of the temple mentioned in the story says that that even as a child the abbot could levitate, and strongly implies that he is or will be an arahant:

"He continued his merit practices until one day when he was 13 years of age, he felt his body afloat up from the floor while taking meditation in his parent farm hut. And also later, while walking on the field walkway surrounding the rice field, he felt afloat and his feet did not touch the ground. One day after took meditation for 5 hours, around 2 O’clock at night, he decided to take a bath in the pond. He rose up and realized that his feet did not even touch the dust on the floor and stayed afloat when walking into the pond. Those were the signs that made him done more religious practices."

"At his secondary school days, he always thought that 'I shall not return back to this life again after completes my religious missions in this present life. It should be enough for my reborn. I have approached all the pities of life and realized that I have experienced before from the past life. I have to go on to accumulate my perseverance on merit making and ascetic meditations to reach the salvation.'"

"On 27th May, 1999 he was ordained as a monk at Wat Pa Don Tard. After being proposed, he decided to go to Sri Saket as was asked to stay for the rest of his final life (his last existence; there is no more rebirth)."

http://en.luangpunenkham.com/about/history/brief/

Most likely some movie star or rich follower chartered the jet for the abbot as a way of making merit.

[rockyysdt]

There are scriptures that say making an offering to an arahant (enlightened one) results in great merit. Many Thais associate supranormal feats with arahants. The webpage of the temple mentioned in the story says that that even as a child the abbot could levitate, and strongly implies that he is or will be an arahant:

"He continued his merit practices until one day when he was 13 years of age, he felt his body afloat up from the floor while taking meditation in his parent farm hut. And also later, while walking on the field walkway surrounding the rice field, he felt afloat and his feet did not touch the ground. One day after took meditation for 5 hours, around 2 O’clock at night, he decided to take a bath in the pond. He rose up and realized that his feet did not even touch the dust on the floor and stayed afloat when walking into the pond. Those were the signs that made him done more religious practices."

"At his secondary school days, he always thought that 'I shall not return back to this life again after completes my religious missions in this present life. It should be enough for my reborn. I have approached all the pities of life and realized that I have experienced before from the past life. I have to go on to accumulate my perseverance on merit making and ascetic meditations to reach the salvation.'"

"On 27th May, 1999 he was ordained as a monk at Wat Pa Don Tard. After being proposed, he decided to go to Sri Saket as was asked to stay for the rest of his final life (his last existence; there is no more rebirth)."

http://en.luangpunenkham.com/about/history/brief/

Most likely some movie star or rich follower chartered the jet for the abbot as a way of making merit.

Hi Camerata.

Was it wise of him to accept?

[camerata]

If he's an arahant I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Someone in the News Forum topic was claiming monks aren't supposed to accept gifts. This can't be true because the Buddha talks about receiving gifts in the suttas. I wonder if the monks here could comment on this? Actually, I wonder if a monk can actually refuse a gift if accepting it isn't a violation of a precept, given that he may be hurting the feelings of the giver and denying him an opportunity to make merit.

[Tchooptip]

What are your thoughts on the subject T?

My thoughts? I am a bit lost I reckon on the other hand I do know human nature has not limit at all so why not monks ? I also do not forget putting more than two people in the same box is stupid so I wont do it with other monks! Yes it is an anecdote "related" to Buddhism since the subjects are monks, Should I read on TV Buddhism bashing or Thai bashing, I would smile in drab colours for those people definitely do not know human nature, and every kind of "excess" by individuals happened every days for centuries .

[sabaijai]

What are your thoughts on the subject T?

My thoughts? I am a bit lost I reckon on the other hand I do know human nature has not limit at all so why not monks ? I also do not forget putting more than two people in the same box is stupid so I wont do it with other monks! Yes it is an anecdote "related" to Buddhism since the subjects are monks, Should I read on TV Buddhism bashing or Thai bashing, I would smile in drab colours for those people definitely do not know human nature, and every kind of "excess" by individuals happened every days for centuries .

Also check this thread, which covers some of the same territory.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/642141-monks-and-money/

[Tchooptip]

What are your thoughts on the subject T?

My thoughts? I am a bit lost I reckon on the other hand I do know human nature has not limit at all so why not monks ? I also do not forget putting more than two people in the same box is stupid so I wont do it with other monks! Yes it is an anecdote "related" to Buddhism since the subjects are monks, Should I read on TV Buddhism bashing or Thai bashing, I would smile in drab colours for those people definitely do not know human nature, and every kind of "excess" by individuals happened every days for centuries .

Also check this thread, which covers some of the same territory.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/642141-monks-and-money/

Thanks for the link sabaijai I I did read most of the posts not sure I still wish to thank you not sure if I am over naive or simply try to still believe in human beings ? Since I have been like that all my live I wont change anymore, most of the time I do my best to trust people and believe me or not I had not been cheated often time, on the other hand I can change in seconds if I realise there is no hope, so naive probably not, only unmovable idealist/optimist

[jaapfries]

"It is not important what other people think of one; it is only important what one thinks of oneself" - for ultimately Karma will determine & judge.

It is obvious that there exist only very few 'true' emulators of Buddha.

“Buddhism” is not a religion; the Lord Buddha is some God: the only reason true followers wai to him and pray, is to thank him for showing them the way. This Lord Buddha is not served by people worshiping him. Buddhist temples are not meant to be places of ‘worship’, rather places of quiet, peaceful solitude, where an individual can begin the process of ‘looking inside’ himself.

The masses are deceiving themselves if they think that "making merit" will do anything for them at all; on the contrary - ultimately Karma will determine & judge.

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

A beggar who shares his meager meal with a stray dog is far more 'enlightened' & compassionate than a rich man donating a million dollars to some temple.

Myself; I already feel compassion for those who never 'got it', for when they arrive in the next dimension, their eyes will suddenly be opened and only then will they begin to understand . . . . .

[rockyysdt]

"It is not important what other people think of one; it is only important what one thinks of oneself" - for ultimately Karma will determine & judge.

It is obvious that there exist only very few 'true' emulators of Buddha.

“Buddhism” is not a religion; the Lord Buddha is some God: the only reason true followers wai to him and pray, is to thank him for showing them the way. This Lord Buddha is not served by people worshiping him. Buddhist temples are not meant to be places of ‘worship’, rather places of quiet, peaceful solitude, where an individual can begin the process of ‘looking inside’ himself.

The masses are deceiving themselves if they think that "making merit" will do anything for them at all; on the contrary - ultimately Karma will determine & judge.

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

A beggar who shares his meager meal with a stray dog is far more 'enlightened' & compassionate than a rich man donating a million dollars to some temple.

Myself; I already feel compassion for those who never 'got it', for when they arrive in the next dimension, their eyes will suddenly be opened and only then will they begin to understand . . . . .

Your post rings true.

The only catch about worrying about how others see us, is that many suffer deeply from this affliction.

Short of serious practice nothing stops these feelings and their control over us.

[harrry]

If he's an arahant I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other.

If.

Edited June 21, 2013 by harrry

[camerata]

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

[rockyysdt]

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

Doesn't study of early texts allow us to evaluate Dharma and remove from our practice what was added later?

Should we become prisoners of all within the Pali Canon?

[fabianfred]

It is far 'better' to treat a downtrodden unfortunate with compassion than it is to 'donate' fortunes to a building or a group of chaps who have donned saffron robes: the latter action is totally without merit.

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

Actually...keeping the eight precepts for a single day and night earn more merit than that by building several temples. The more personal effort the more merit.

[camerata]

I imagine in the Buddha's day it would have required considerable effort to build a monastery. But my point was that we can't claim that an action creates no merit when the Canon clearly says it does.

I don't feel imprisoned by the Pali Canon. It's the best reference we have for what the Buddha said. The majority of Western scholars consider the earliest identifiable stratum to be the Vinaya (excluding the Parivara) and the first four nikāyas of the Sutta Pitaka. So the "later" parts are most of the Khuddaka Nikkaya and the Abhidhamma.

[rockyysdt]

I imagine in the Buddha's day it would have required considerable effort to build a monastery. But my point was that we can't claim that an action creates no merit when the Canon clearly says it does.

I don't feel imprisoned by the Pali Canon. It's the best reference we have for what the Buddha said. The majority of Western scholars consider the earliest identifiable stratum to be the Vinaya (excluding the Parivara) and the first four nikāyas of the Sutta Pitaka. So the "later" parts are most of the Khuddaka Nikkaya and the Abhidhamma.

How would you put this in laymans terms?

Also, it isn't just the Pali Canon, but who interpreted the original teachings into it.

Didn't Buddhagosa write the Pali Canon in the 5th century?

As such isn't his works subject to misinterpretation?

In other words, re interpret the original Sanskrit and also rein interpret Pali to English.

Edited June 21, 2013 by rockyysdt

[chatette]

Well if you look at his web site, every second posting includes bank account details for donors to deposit funds for this or that. It reads like business rather than dhamma, whether we `like it or not.'

As for the flight footage, which I watched sometime before it went viral, just reinforces my query as to why these guys aren't paying tax like any other business people? (It's rhetoric, before you respond they're exempt while I'm not).

Massive stakes. Sheltered workshop.

[huli]

I imagine in the Buddha's day it would have required considerable effort to build a monastery. But my point was that we can't claim that an action creates no merit when the Canon clearly says it does.

I don't feel imprisoned by the Pali Canon. It's the best reference we have for what the Buddha said. The majority of Western scholars consider the earliest identifiable stratum to be the Vinaya (excluding the Parivara) and the first four nikāyas of the Sutta Pitaka. So the "later" parts are most of the Khuddaka Nikkaya and the Abhidhamma.

How would you put this in laymans terms?

Also, it isn't just the Pali Canon, but who interpreted the original teachings into it.

Didn't Buddhagosa write the Pali Canon in the 5th century?

As such isn't his works subject to misinterpretation?

In other words, re interpret the original Sanskrit and also rein interpret Pali to English.

I would like to know from Camerata or others with factual knowledge, is it true or not, as Rocky claims, that the Pali Canon was written, or even changed, by Buddhagosa in the 5th century?

[fabianfred]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_councils

[rockyysdt]

I would like to know from Camerata or others with factual knowledge, is it true or not, as Rocky claims, that the Pali Canon was written, or even changed, by Buddhagosa in the 5th century?

Wiki Quote:

Buddhaghosa went on to write commentaries on most of the other major books of the Pali Canon, with his works becoming the definitive Theravadin interpretation of the scriptures. Having synthesized or translated the whole of the Sinhalese commentary preserved at the Mahavihara, Buddhaghosa reportedly returned to India, making a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya to pay his respects to the bodhi tree.

Buddhaghosa was reputedly responsible for an extensive project of synthesizing and translating a large body of Sinhala commentaries on the Pāli Canon. His Visuddhimagga (Pāli: Path of Purification) is a comprehensive manual of Theravada Buddhism that is still read and studied today.

My contention is that interpretation is everything.

Look at what has already been said of Buddhagosa:

Quote:

The Visuddhimagga reflects changes in interpretation which appeared during the centuries since the Buddha's time.

The Australian Buddhist monastic Shravasti Dhammika is critical of contemporary practice.He concludes that Buddhaghosa did not believe that following the practice set forth in the Visuddhimagga will really lead him to Nirvana, basing himself on the postscript to the Visuddhimagga:

Yet Nanamoli notes that this postscript does not appear in the original Pali.

Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment. And yet in the postscript [...] he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.

According to Kalupahanan, Buddhaghosa was influenced by Mahayana-thought, which were subtly mixed with Theravada orthodoxy to introduce new ideas. Eventually this led to the flowering of metaphysical tendencies, in contrast to the original stress on anatman in early Buddhism^.

So there you have it.

Interpretation is EVERYTHING.

[rockyysdt]

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

My contention has always been interpretation.

Wat = Bikkhu's quarters.

So if you are donating to build quarters for Monks you are assisting them to practice (meritorious)

On the other hand if you are assisting to build Monasteries (Religious buildings) this equates to deifying the Buddha and promoting places of worship (religion). I don't think the Buddha wanted to be deified or to create a Church, but rather facilitate practice.

Using the correct interpretation of Wat, the merit comes from assisting others with their practice.

Edited June 22, 2013 by rockyysdt

[huli]

I would like to know from Camerata or others with factual knowledge, is it true or not, as Rocky claims, that the Pali Canon was written, or even changed, by Buddhagosa in the 5th century?

Wiki Quote:

Buddhaghosa went on to write commentaries on most of the other major books of the Pali Canon, with his works becoming the definitive Theravadin interpretation of the scriptures. Having synthesized or translated the whole of the Sinhalese commentary preserved at the Mahavihara, Buddhaghosa reportedly returned to India, making a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya to pay his respects to the bodhi tree.

Buddhaghosa was reputedly responsible for an extensive project of synthesizing and translating a large body of Sinhala commentaries on the Pāli Canon. His Visuddhimagga (Pāli: Path of Purification) is a comprehensive manual of Theravada Buddhism that is still read and studied today.

My contention is that interpretation is everything.

Look at what has already been said of Buddhagosa:

Quote:

The Visuddhimagga reflects changes in interpretation which appeared during the centuries since the Buddha's time.

The Australian Buddhist monastic Shravasti Dhammika is critical of contemporary practice.He concludes that Buddhaghosa did not believe that following the practice set forth in the Visuddhimagga will really lead him to Nirvana, basing himself on the postscript to the Visuddhimagga:

Yet Nanamoli notes that this postscript does not appear in the original Pali.

Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment. And yet in the postscript [...] he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.

According to Kalupahanan, Buddhaghosa was influenced by Mahayana-thought, which were subtly mixed with Theravada orthodoxy to introduce new ideas. Eventually this led to the flowering of metaphysical tendencies, in contrast to the original stress on anatman in early Buddhism^.

So there you have it.

Interpretation is EVERYTHING.

Well, it seems to me that you now have changed your mind, and now admit that Buddhagosa did not, after all, write the Pali Canon in the 5th century (post 19). What he did was to write Commentaries and also new creations of his own, most notably the Vishuddhimagga, that are not sutras.

It is quite reasonable to critique Buddhagosa's writings. Some people may find them lacking and others may find them original and superior.

[sabaijai]

All the books of the Tipitaka. whether commentaries or otherwise, were written long after the Buddha's death. And the caveats of the Kalama Sutta apply equally to all of them.

I don't buy the idea that we need to be more sceptical of the later suttas or commentaries than of the Vinaya and earliest suttas. All have a lot of value in them, as far as I've been able to tell in my lengthy yet limited (can't claim to have read them all) exposure, and yet all contain parts which just leave me scratching my head. I have always found more of value from Abhidhamma than from any other Pitaka, and could care less where Buddhaghosa or Joe Schmoe was the author.

That said, the words of an accomplished Buddhist master go further with me.

[rockyysdt]

Well, it seems to me that you now have changed your mind, and now admit that Buddhagosa did not, after all, write the Pali Canon in the 5th century (post 19). What he did was to write Commentaries and also new creations of his own, most notably the Vishuddhimagga, that are not sutras.

I would like to know from Camerata or others with factual knowledge, is it true or not, as Rocky claims, that the Pali Canon was written, or even changed, by Buddhagosa in the 5th century?

If l've misinterpreted or misled l apologise.

This was not my intention.

The thrust of my comments is that most of us do not know Sanskrit nor Pali and have no idea how faithful interpretations from these to English have been, not to mention "commentaries" which are now used as accepted practice/knowledge.

With no first hand knowledge of these ancient languages, aren't most of us fed/taught conclusions from commentaries?

Misinterpretation can lead to incorrect practice/belief.

Edited June 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

My contention has always been interpretation.

Wat = Bikkhu's quarters.

So if you are donating to build quarters for Monks you are assisting them to practice (meritorious)

On the other hand if you are assisting to build Monasteries (Religious buildings) this equates to deifying the Buddha and promoting places of worship (religion). I don't think the Buddha wanted to be deified or to create a Church, but rather facilitate practice.

Using the correct interpretation of Wat, the merit comes from assisting others with their practice.

It doesn't matter how anyone defines "monastery." My point was that there is a coherent explanation for Thais donating to build them, and it comes from the Pali Canon. A monastery is a "wat" in Thai, and Thais would consider that to be the whole complex. They wouldn't be analyzing the word, and what it meant in the Buddha's time, and demanding their donations only be used for sleeping quarters.

The Buddha mentions other gifts for monks, such as garlands, scents, and vehicles in one sutta, leading to rebirth in human form, so not all meritorious gifts are directly related to assisting monks to practise and not all Thais are aiming higher than a human rebirth - whether we agree with that or not.

[rockyysdt]

The problem with this is that - whether we like it or not - the Pali Canon states that great merit results from building monasteries.

My contention has always been interpretation.

Wat = Bikkhu's quarters.

So if you are donating to build quarters for Monks you are assisting them to practice (meritorious)

On the other hand if you are assisting to build Monasteries (Religious buildings) this equates to deifying the Buddha and promoting places of worship (religion). I don't think the Buddha wanted to be deified or to create a Church, but rather facilitate practice.

Using the correct interpretation of Wat, the merit comes from assisting others with their practice.

It doesn't matter how anyone defines "monastery." My point was that there is a coherent explanation for Thais donating to build them, and it comes from the Pali Canon. A monastery is a "wat" in Thai, and Thais would consider that to be the whole complex. They wouldn't be analyzing the word, and what it meant in the Buddha's time, and demanding their donations only be used for sleeping quarters.

The Buddha mentions other gifts for monks, such as garlands, scents, and vehicles in one sutta, leading to rebirth in human form, so not all meritorious gifts are directly related to assisting monks to practise and not all Thais are aiming higher than a human rebirth - whether we agree with that or not.

It definitely explains why Thais support such giving.

However their folly is that the original word (Sanskrit) doesn't = "Monastery".

Wouldn't this mean that the donations are being misappropriated?

Wouldn't it also mean that the donors have a misconception of what their donation is for?

Out of interest, which Sutta refers to vehicles?

I'd imagine that travel is an extremely important ingredient for making available the teaching.

In return for alms,the core duty of a Bikkhu is:

The practice Dharma and

Passing on his knowledge when asked.

In terms of Jet & Helicopter rides, expensive phones and Aviator Sunglasses, the folly is the "luxury' content. The luxury content does not increase the value of the gift, but indicates a complete lack of awareness from both the giver and the receiver. Given such extreme poverty amongst the people, the value of the luxury component could have been converted in order to assist those in need.

Edited June 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I wouldn't exactly call it folly that Thais don't know the Sanskrit word for monastery. When they donate towards the building of a monastery, they generally won't know what it will entail. Thais aren't fanatical about specifying how their donations will be used. The basic idea is that giving to the Sangha is meritorious and it's the intention that counts.

I myself prefer to donate to poor temples upcountry. There are a lot of them. Although I often find beautiful temples and Buddha images to be an inspiration, the additional size and ornamentation does seem unnecessary.

As for helicopters, what if an arahant got so many invitations to teach that helicopter travel was the only feasible way to do it. Would it still be a luxury then?

The reference for the teaching that mentioned vehicles and garlands was Anguttara Nikaya 8.35, Rebirth on Account of Giving.

[marstons]

Funny how Buddha himself managed to spread the word and his teachings over such vast area's without even a motorised vehicle, now its seems helicopters and private jets are required. Is it not possible for the more enlightened to teach to othes to spread the word. Worked for Bhudda and Christians a like. The monks on the plane seem to be far away from leading an Aesthetic life.

[rockyysdt]

I wouldn't exactly call it folly that Thais don't know the Sanskrit word for monastery. When they donate towards the building of a monastery, they generally won't know what it will entail. Thais aren't fanatical about specifying how their donations will be used. The basic idea is that giving to the Sangha is meritorious and it's the intention that counts.

I myself prefer to donate to poor temples upcountry. There are a lot of them. Although I often find beautiful temples and Buddha images to be an inspiration, the additional size and ornamentation does seem unnecessary.

As for helicopters, what if an arahant got so many invitations to teach that helicopter travel was the only feasible way to do it. Would it still be a luxury then?

The reference for the teaching that mentioned vehicles and garlands was Anguttara Nikaya 8.35, Rebirth on Account of Giving.

Apparently these can travel anywhere in the Kingdom.

In terms of their donation, if the money ends up being spent on items not specified by the Buddha, the merit maybe zero or even negative.

Also, what they end up with (many golden temples of religion) reinforces the wrong intention.

The intention should not involve deification and places of worship, but rather facilitate practice.

Edited June 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

The Buddha spoke Maghadhi, later standardised (together with other local dialects) as Pali, not Sanskrit.

Here are some relevant Pali terms used in the Vinaya, as defined by Bhante Sujato::

Ārāma: originally ‘park’, then ‘monastery’, since parks (like the Jetavana or Veḷuvana) were frequently offered as monasteries.

Āvāsa: ‘residence’. The most common and general term for a place where monastics stay.

Vihāra: ‘dwelling’. A building, usually in an ārāma/āvāsa where monastics dwell.

Vatthu: ‘site’. The piece of land on which a monastery or dwelling is built.

Kuṭi: ‘hut’. A small dwelling.

As Bhante Sujato notes, "There are a large range of other kinds of dwelling specified," all of them more or less equivalent to common connotaions of the English word 'monastery'.

http://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/who-owns-a-monastery-in-the-pali-vinaya/

Many Buddhists would agree that building and/or supporting a monastery is a good thing. Riding in private jets is another story.