Criminalising anti-Buddhist acts is not very Buddhist

[hawker9000]

hawker

Ultimately it's what people do with an idea that it should be judged on. You could argue that communism or fascism were noble ideas to start with, but when implemented by fallible humans they turned into bloody disasters. The ideas of limited government, and lack of religious intrusion have been far more successful, even if not without their flaws.

Then we should get rid of all government, all armed forces, all law enforcement, all business, money, political parties, computers, printed language, marriage, [no end to this list as it includes every human institution and innovation]...since all these things must be judged on what people have done with them.

[NBD]

hawker

Ultimately it's what people do with an idea that it should be judged on. You could argue that communism or fascism were noble ideas to start with, but when implemented by fallible humans they turned into bloody disasters. The ideas of limited government, and lack of religious intrusion have been far more successful, even if not without their flaws.

Then we should get rid of all government, all armed forces, all law enforcement, all business, money, political parties, computers, printed language, marriage, [no end to this list as it includes every human institution and innovation]...since all these things must be judged on what people have done with them.

Not really. You would have to weigh up the pros and cons of each. I can't really see how you could argue that printed language has done more harm than good, nor can I see that it's possible to argue that religion has done more good than harm.

[kirk0233]

It would be more productive for KNOWING BUDDHA to work toward ending the fees foreigners have to pay to enter some Thai temples. I cannot think of any Christian church that charges visitors to enter. Buddhism in Thailand is so materialistic and unwelcoming.

"I cannot think of any Christian church that charges visitors to enter"

I believe that Westminster Abbey in London charges 18 GB pounds to look around.

The website for Westminster Abbey states:

All those wishing to enter the Abbey with the purpose of spending a moment in private prayer or attending the 12.30 pm Eucharist on a weekday should apply at the West Gate. There are some wats in Thailand that do not allow any westerners to enter for any purpose without payment.

What cities/towns are they located? Thanks.

Working temples I have personally observed to charge westerners for entrance are Doi Suthep temple and Wat Pho. I have visited other temples that charge, but cannot recall the names. The charges discouraged me from pursuing any interest in Buddhism as a vehicle for spiritual enlightenment. Of course the historical ruins of temples charge westerners as well, but not Thais.

[mrdome]

This is usually not an issue in Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism.

[Maestro]

...Thailand is not a Buddhist country - it has no official religion...

Thailand's constitution is a bit vague on that.

Section 79. The State shall patronise and protect Buddhism as the religion observed by most Thais for a long period of time and other religions, promote good understanding and harmony among followers of all religions as well as encourage the application of religious principles to create virtue and develop the quality of life.

[DocN]

Any "religion" that tells you, it is okay to donate some money/ fruit/ flowers/incent sticks and you will be forgiven....instead of apologizing to the person you did wrong or take responsibility for your wrongdoings, not by symbolism, but by "real life" action, is a fraud!

Edited October 2, 2013 by DocN

[MaxLee]

There is one monk that is currently travelling around the world, with the most wealthy possessions, one could ever dream of. But things are easily forgotten and forgiven courtesy of the DSI

[AgentSmith]

Isn't it very buddhist to not feel offended by anything, ever? I know the reality is quite far from this ideal in Thailand and that the average Thai isn't 100% buddhist (lots of hinddhu stuff around). But an action group against anything that is somehow anti-buddhist is just insane.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Edited October 2, 2013 by AgentSmith

[NBD]

What exactly is meant by "un-Buddhist" anyway? It sounds like it means incompatible with a western notion of Buddhism informed by the Dali Lama and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Which is about as useful as singling out Thomas Aquinus and Cliff Richard to say that you understand Christianity.

Buddhism is an old cult that has evolved by as many twists and turns as it's monotheistic cousins to exert control and extract money from people.

[bangon04]

Bang on the button, Khun Pravit.

Khun Acharawadee's rant last week was nothing more than nationalistic, xenophobic, hypocritical drivel.

Full marks for this thoughtful and balanced article.

Can anyone direct me to a Thai language version of this same article?

[timber]

Buddhism is a lifestyle not a religion. There is a way to show respect to the Buddha, and a way not to which would be fraud if anyone cared.

I doubt if the Buddha would get excited over this pettiness. I feel sad that monks and laymen put monetary gains before respect for the Buddha.

As the Delhi Lama once said Christens and Buddhist's are the same they leave most of what they learn in the Temple or Church.

[hawker9000]

hawker

Ultimately it's what people do with an idea that it should be judged on. You could argue that communism or fascism were noble ideas to start with, but when implemented by fallible humans they turned into bloody disasters. The ideas of limited government, and lack of religious intrusion have been far more successful, even if not without their flaws.

Then we should get rid of all government, all armed forces, all law enforcement, all business, money, political parties, computers, printed language, marriage, [no end to this list as it includes every human institution and innovation]...since all these things must be judged on what people have done with them.

Not really. You would have to weigh up the pros and cons of each. I can't really see how you could argue that printed language has done more harm than good, nor can I see that it's possible to argue that religion has done more good than harm.

No, really. Let's see you make an objective, quantitative argument. Some sort of "balance sheet " that includes all the good that all these institutions have done as well as all the bad. A single omission invalidates the entire presentation. Impossible. Give it a try if you like. If you can't, then you must concede the whole thing is subjective. And if subjective, then entirely a matter of opinion. Go for it.

[rametindallas]

I cannot agree more with the article. Thailand, thy name is hypocrisy.

p.s. Before anyone accuses me of singling out or bashing Buddhists or Thailand, I know other religions and people are guilty of the same thing; it's just that I'm commenting on this article and not some article not presented here. Sad that I feel I have to make a disclaimer.

Calling " Thailand" hypocritical as an entity is inaccurate IMO. Now if we want to say that some Thais are hypocrites as it pertains to this issue, then it may be more accurate.

Using that broad brush to paint all or everyone ends up splattering the user with the same paint.

It's an expression. Is picking nits your hobby or your profession?

Edited October 2, 2013 by rametindallas

[NBD]

hawker

Ultimately it's what people do with an idea that it should be judged on. You could argue that communism or fascism were noble ideas to start with, but when implemented by fallible humans they turned into bloody disasters. The ideas of limited government, and lack of religious intrusion have been far more successful, even if not without their flaws.

Then we should get rid of all government, all armed forces, all law enforcement, all business, money, political parties, computers, printed language, marriage, [no end to this list as it includes every human institution and innovation]...since all these things must be judged on what people have done with them.

Not really. You would have to weigh up the pros and cons of each. I can't really see how you could argue that printed language has done more harm than good, nor can I see that it's possible to argue that religion has done more good than harm.

No, really. Let's see you make an objective, quantitative argument. Some sort of "balance sheet " that includes all the good that all these institutions have done as well as all the bad. A single omission invalidates the entire presentation. Impossible. Give it a try if you like. If you can't, then you must concede the whole thing is subjective. And if subjective, then entirely a matter of opinion. Go for it.

Well given that I don't have all day to write a philosophical thesis on the merits of each of these, and that anyway such a task is futile with no meaningful alternative, you will have to make do with one or two arbitrarily picked examples as I see fit.

Money

Provides a means of exchange and a store of value. The means of exchange part allows people to trade goods that can't be directly swapped or easily equated in value, and so facilitates all kinds of trade. How could you pay for a house with beef? As a store of value it enables you to plan for the future and invest in things that would otherwise not attract any investment (how can you invest potatoes in a building project?) which makes large and widely beneficial undertakings worthwhile.

Hard to really see the downside without wild hypotheses about free love and a brotherhood of man, and harder still to imagine any attempt to abolish it.

Printed Language

A sort of intellectual money that stores the knowledge we have and allows us to communicate it. Nearly every technology we have is built on the knowledge that was recorded by previous generations, so unless you want to argue against all technology and in favour of returning to the caves then it can be deemed a good thing. If you're referring more specifically to the printing press and the mass distribution of printed documents, then the argument changes a bit. Information becoming widely available in an understandable form for the layman, as opposed to being the exclusive preserve of the clergy and the powerful, who then get to disseminate it as they please. Again hard to really see a downside on any rational, secular, humanist basis without appeal to the fantastical.

So for comparison, Religion

In the form of mass, organised religion it did replace some previous superstitions with a compelling narrative that captured people's imagination far and wide, and thus removed some of the more brutal traditions that went before it. You could make a case that it's patronage of science and arts enriched medieval society and continues to do so, but you'd have to also concede that this was only possible because of the vast resources available to it, taken from those who could ill afford to give.

You could also make a case that it actually delayed and rolled back the work that was done in Greece and Rome, China and Persia, and absorbed and perpetuated the brutal practices it overtook there.

On the downside, I wouldn't as some atheists like to, attribute all war and violence to religion, but it certainly helps. It provides the excuse, the division and the bottomless well of self righteousness for nutcases throughout history. Religion tells poor, miserable Catholics that contraception is a sin, it tells poor, desperate Muslims that to die for Islam, and take infidel with you is glorious, and it tells poor, idiotic Hindus that it's right and proper for a widowed woman to burn herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

At my very most sympathetic to organised religion, and my very most appreciative of any good it may have done, I can't conceive of a reason for keeping it alive now. Let alone giving it any "respect."

[dao16]

I went to Doi Suthep and didn't pay a penny. The ones in BKK.....sure, you pay, but I paid to go to Notre Dame and other cathedrals in Europe. I think Bangkok is the only place I have paid to see a temple (Wat Arun also comes to mind). [/background]

[selftaopath]

Will Miss Acharawadee go as far as having the name and image of Buddha copyrighted as a Thai domain?

QUOTE:

"When the group hosted a seminar on the topic last week at the Senate, its chairwoman, Acharawadee Wongsakol, spoke with bitterness and anger. Anger and attachment are rather un-Buddhist, however." END OF QUOTE

Miss Acharawadee in speaking with bitterness and anger postulated Thailand's failings in knowing, understanding and practising the teachings of Shakyamuni, Buddha,

Siddartha Gautama's groups of followers were all men, Buddha for many years rejected the notion that women could join the sangha (company of Buddhist monks). Gautama Buddha in the Bahudhātuka-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya in the Pali Canon says that it is impossible that a woman could be "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One'", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmā'".

The traditional view of women in Early Buddhism is that they are inferior.^[5]Rita Gross agrees that "a misogynist strain is found in early Indian Buddhism. Which can be traced to Buddha himself. For many years Ananda (his cousin) pleaded with him to accept women in the Sangha, Buddha viewed women as unable to reach Enlightenment or self-detachment from earthly tings. Eventually Buddha allowed his aunt to join the Sangha and established a set of limitations for women in Buddhism. This is based on the statement of Gautama Buddha in the Bahudhātuka-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya in the Pali Canon that it is impossible that a woman should be "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One'",,

But, there she is, Miss Acharawadee, in unbuddhist anger trying to monopolize the image of Buddha. Will she go as far as having it copyrighted?

Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.

Fast forward to today's' Thailand.

What of the amulets churned out by some of the more 37,500 wats in Thailand, blessed and being sold for astronomical prices?

What of the pre-packaged offerings (to make merit) sold at every wat ostensibly to help the poor monks that have nothing in this world.? Packages that enter the turnstile: from selling counter on the grounds of the wat to the buyer who pays the regulated price in Money

(merit-packages of 100, 300, 500 Baht and so on) who gives it to the monk who, in turn, sends it back to the counter to be resold again and again?

I see it as a nifty business.

Indeed, as one member of TV stated, the Thai strain of Buddhism (Theravada) is frowned upon by other Buddhist countries.

Thailand is anything but humble and compassionate in the strict Buddhist sense of philosophy, life and Dhamma.

Yet, the teachings of the Buddha are sound.

Maybe Miss Acharawadee posturing is one more manifestation of the almost pathological need of Thailand to be the HUB of everything in the world.

Don't us Westerns know yet: Thailand IS THE WORLD. Nothing else exists.

[Cuban]

Might not be "Buddhist" but it is very Thai - also the variation of Thai Buddhism and any religion that you choose to inspect allows for them to chose their path - and that is Very Buddhist.

[cpofc]

Every Religion has them. Extremists, fundamentalists or, terrorists. Or all three. Sri Lanka, good case in point, some very extreme and radical monks over on that island. Publicly preaching persecution and death to the Tamils.

Lots of people reckon Thais should get with the program. Develope and become more like the West. Well this woman and her mob are a great example of that. She missed her calling, she could just as easily have been a tree hugging, whale kissing greenie activist.. I mean take your pick. No shortage of causes to fight for, There's a bandwagon leaving for somewhere every day.

So Thai Buddhism is arrogantly going it alone in the world of religion and Buddhism eh? The uppity bastards! Like Henry the Eighth did in England, or the Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Presbyterians, the Branch Dividian, (spelling) and the many, many other versions of Christianity. Then we come to the Muslims, and they are all getting along famously aren't they, in perfect harmony.

At least the Thai Buddhists haven't got to the stage where they're bombing Churches, Mosques and Synagogues, with their worshippers inside them. We westerners seem to have this preconceived notion about Thais and Buddhism, we expect them all to be perfect little buddhists like in the holiday brochures, books or movies. But do we expect the same puritanical behaviour from ALL the so called christians in England, USA, Aust, NZ etc?

This is a storm in an Alms Bowl. Caused by just another attention seeking religious zealot.

There was a time when the best ganja in the world was known as 'Thai Buddha', I wonder how she feels about that?