Non Intervention ?

[sabaijai]

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

This whole debate about Buddhism versus Christianity, it's too easy to argue the philosophy. Why bother, I look at the whole thing as personal. It doesn't matter what the religion would do or say, it matters what the individual would choose to do. It wouldn't matter if an entire church congregation or a temple full of monks sat by and did nothing while someone innocent was hurt. It would matter that each INDIVIDUAL was guilty if they did nothing. Religions aren't punished for wrong doing, people are. It's easy to hide behind a religion, safety in numbers right? It's more difficult to act on your own. Hitler went after the Jews with a vengeance, millions of innocent Jewish people were killed, but Judaism is still going strong. The Holocaust didn't hurt the religion, it hurt the people. Religions set moral boundries that people choose to follow, individuals stay the course or break away all by themselves.

I believe that you have made the problem your own. You know the monk, you know what's going on, you are at least minimally on friendly terms with the monk. You also said that he confided the message to you. I would say that it would be up to YOU to ASK that monk if YOU can place a sign near those pipes. You have seen the percieved danger, and if YOU do nothing, it would be YOU that would be guilty of the "sin". By telling everyone here, you think that you made us complicit, the fact is, you've made us bear witness to a grave misdeed. YOU as a compassionate individual should excersize your free will and resolve the situation.

I was asked not too long ago how I felt about Accountability Drills in our Camp. The Employee Relations officer thought that I would side with him against my boss, as is the popular thing with many of my colleagues. I surprised him by totally agreeing with my boss and going one step further. He became irate and said that none of the other camps were doing anything like that, "How could I feel justified in wanting to do it anyway?" My answer... " I would rather be in trouble for doing something right, than to be lauded for doing something wrong!" Just because some others don't feel compelled to do the right thing, won't stop me from doing what I feel is right. I have to live with MY OWN conscience. I don't have to live with yours, or you with mine.

You have to do what YOU KNOW to be the right thing...

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

I don't agree. I am in no different position than you are.

The monk chose not to do anything but he told me.

So, I heard about it.

I chose not to do anything about it myself at this time.

Now I have told you.

We are both equally "guilty of sin" if that is what you want to call it.

It is my responsiblity only if I choose to make it so.

With your line of reasoning I suppose I should also post signs on the mountain road to warn

people of the dangers at the corners?

In my opinion, if anyone should take responsibility it is the farmer.

No doubt the monk has pointed out this danger to him.

If the farmer chooses not to do anything and the monk chooses not to do anything and the

locals choose not to do anything and you choose not to do anything, how on earth do you

figure it is my responsibilty to do something?

I am sure if I saw someone drinking this water I would immediately speak up but you are

suggesting I trespass on private property and post a poison sign, which is a different thing

altogether...and definately intervention.

Well said.

If the OP could point out where in the Buddhist canon it says lay people or monks should ignore wrongdoing, then one could generalise about the religion. In fact the principle of karma covers every situation. A search for 'karma' in this forum branch will yield lots of discussion on this closely related topic.

My Christian fundamentist/foundationalist friends tell me that for them good works are irrelevant, that one is saved (and judged by God) only through faith. One could generalise from that that one needn't help those in need. However some Christian schools, such as Catholicism, do believe that good works merit salvation.

[banchang]

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

This whole debate about Buddhism versus Christianity, it's too easy to argue the philosophy. Why bother, I look at the whole thing as personal. It doesn't matter what the religion would do or say, it matters what the individual would choose to do. It wouldn't matter if an entire church congregation or a temple full of monks sat by and did nothing while someone innocent was hurt. It would matter that each INDIVIDUAL was guilty if they did nothing. Religions aren't punished for wrong doing, people are. It's easy to hide behind a religion, safety in numbers right? It's more difficult to act on your own. Hitler went after the Jews with a vengeance, millions of innocent Jewish people were killed, but Judaism is still going strong. The Holocaust didn't hurt the religion, it hurt the people. Religions set moral boundries that people choose to follow, individuals stay the course or break away all by themselves.

I believe that you have made the problem your own. You know the monk, you know what's going on, you are at least minimally on friendly terms with the monk. You also said that he confided the message to you. I would say that it would be up to YOU to ASK that monk if YOU can place a sign near those pipes. You have seen the percieved danger, and if YOU do nothing, it would be YOU that would be guilty of the "sin". By telling everyone here, you think that you made us complicit, the fact is, you've made us bear witness to a grave misdeed. YOU as a compassionate individual should excersize your free will and resolve the situation.

I was asked not too long ago how I felt about Accountability Drills in our Camp. The Employee Relations officer thought that I would side with him against my boss, as is the popular thing with many of my colleagues. I surprised him by totally agreeing with my boss and going one step further. He became irate and said that none of the other camps were doing anything like that, "How could I feel justified in wanting to do it anyway?" My answer... " I would rather be in trouble for doing something right, than to be lauded for doing something wrong!" Just because some others don't feel compelled to do the right thing, won't stop me from doing what I feel is right. I have to live with MY OWN conscience. I don't have to live with yours, or you with mine.

You have to do what YOU KNOW to be the right thing...

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

I don't agree. I am in no different position than you are.

The monk chose not to do anything but he told me.

So, I heard about it.

I chose not to do anything about it myself at this time.

Now I have told you.

We are both equally "guilty of sin" if that is what you want to call it.

It is my responsiblity only if I choose to make it so.

With your line of reasoning I suppose I should also post signs on the mountain road to warn

people of the dangers at the corners?

In my opinion, if anyone should take responsibility it is the farmer.

No doubt the monk has pointed out this danger to him.

If the farmer chooses not to do anything and the monk chooses not to do anything and the

locals choose not to do anything and you choose not to do anything, how on earth do you

figure it is my responsibilty to do something?

I am sure if I saw someone drinking this water I would immediately speak up but you are

suggesting I trespass on private property and post a poison sign, which is a different thing

altogether...and definately intervention.

Well said.

If the OP could point out where in the Buddhist canon it says lay people or monks should ignore wrongdoing, then one could generalise about the religion. In fact the principle of karma covers every situation. A search for 'karma' in this forum branch will yield lots of discussion on this closely related topic.

My Christian fundamentist/foundationalist friends tell me that for them good works are irrelevant, that one is saved (and judged by God) only through faith. One could generalise from that that one needn't help those in need. However some Christian schools, such as Catholicism, do believe that good works merit salvation.

I am not Buddhist and have not read the cannon so I canot give you that answer. I did not say monks ignored wrong doing I said they did not intervine in wrong doing. This is a common belif by

academics that study world faiths.

I would go as far to say that in summing up Buddism

Buddism is an athiest, non intervention belif that seeks to end human suffering on earth by ending all life on earth.

I may have to leave this one hanging as i'm of on my 2 week vacation on saturday. I will log on if time and family allow

[camerata]

I am not Buddhist and have not read the cannon so I canot give you that answer. I did not say monks ignored wrong doing I said they did not intervine in wrong doing. This is a common belif by

academics that study world faiths.

Buddism is an athiest, non intervention belif that seeks to end human suffering on earth by ending all life on earth.

I think you are getting confused. Your original post said nothing about intervention in wrongdoing, it was a hypothetical situation in which monks supposedly did not intervene when a child got bitten by a dog, i.e. they were callous and unfeeling. Compassion for all beings (even brattish children) is a major part of Buddism, so that should motivate any Buddhist to help such a child.

"Intervention in wrongdoing" would depend on the situation. The idea is that people make their own karma, so there wouldn't be much point in intervening to stop someone telling a lie or having a beer. A Buddhist might try to instruct the person as to the benefits of not telling lies or drinking alcohol. But there is no law that says a Buddhist can't intervene to stop wrongdoing.

As for Buddhism being a "non-intervention belief," just take a look at the Mahayana tradition, where everyone is supposed to spend aeons of lifetimes helping others. The goal of Buddhism is not to end all life on earth, it's to end suffering by reaching nirvana. Nirvana is not synonymous with death.

You seem to be trying to make the point that because Buddhism is atheistic, Buddhists don't intervene to protect others and want to end all life on earth.

I would say the opposite: Buddhism proves that mankind doesn't need orders from God in order to be compassionate and caring towards others.

Edited August 11, 2006 by camerata

[longway]

Buddism is an athiest, non intervention belif that seeks to end human suffering on earth by ending all life on earth.

I think your views on Buddhism are a common distortion of the teaching. Its a subtle and deep philosophy that is not possible to sum up with words. Not that I am any sort of expert.

Just to be clear the statement Buddhism seeks to end all suffering sums up the goal, but does not sum up the philosophy or teachings.

You are right on some levels and wrong on many other levels. I think Chownah gave you a very good answer to your OP.

I hope you take some time to read more about Buddhism.

Edited August 11, 2006 by longway

[JRingo]

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

You are making wrong assumptions.

I would not expect people to trek across Thailand.

I would not expect anyone to do anything.

I just told you a story and left it at that.

Actually, I am not there, I am in USA.

So, if you are in Thailand, why don’t YOU take personal responsibility?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not asking you to, just posing the question.

[banchang]

So is it possible then to reach a state of navana and then go on to procreate? on earth?

[soic]

So I'm guessing that this monk on the hill may or may not exist? I mean that appears to be the real issue here, "you told a story". You posed this as the truth, not a story, and you said it was close to you... Hypotheticals are easily argued and debated, they're merely what actions we "HOPE" we would take, none that we are ever put in the position to have to take. It's easy for everyone to take the moral high ground there... we're all guilty of thinking that we're better persons than we truly are. "Of course we'd all do the right thing!", we're all wonderful people. The real question is, if there were blood and bone at stake.... Would we really?

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

You are making wrong assumptions.

I would not expect people to trek across Thailand.

I would not expect anyone to do anything.

I just told you a story and left it at that.

Actually, I am not there, I am in USA.

So, if you are in Thailand, why don’t YOU take personal responsibility?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not asking you to, just posing the question.

Edited August 11, 2006 by soic

[JRingo]

Sorry for the language confusion.

I told a story, it is a true story. You say this is the “real issue here”.

If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself.

The place is close to me when I am in Thailand, which I am not now.

Your arguments are interesting but if you are in Thailand they apply more to yourself

than to me.

You are in a better position to do something about this than I am.

So, why don’t you heed your own advice?

Seems like you are the one "hiding behind excuses".

Edit: I am not asking you to do anything.

You seem to be trying to lay a guilt trip on me.

If you think that is appropriate, then try it on yourself, maybe you will learn something.

So I'm guessing that this monk on the hill may or may not exist? I mean that appears to be the real issue here, "you told a story". You posed this as the truth, not a story, and you said it was close to you... Hypotheticals are easily argued and debated, they're merely what actions we "HOPE" we would take, none that we are ever put in the position to have to take. It's easy for everyone to take the moral high ground there... we're all guilty of thinking that we're better persons than we truly are. "Of course we'd all do the right thing!", we're all wonderful people. The real question is, if there were blood and bone at stake.... Would we really?

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

You are making wrong assumptions.

I would not expect people to trek across Thailand.

I would not expect anyone to do anything.

I just told you a story and left it at that.

Actually, I am not there, I am in USA.

So, if you are in Thailand, why don’t YOU take personal responsibility?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not aski ng you to, just posing the question.

Edited August 11, 2006 by JRingo

[banchang]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

I did ask earlyer if there are any childrens homes run by monks ? dose anyone know?

[soic]

I'm sorry to say you're just a bit off the mark. I'm not hiding behind anything... I am in Iraq, I don't have the luxury of just hopping on a plane and popping over to Thailand and fixing your problem. I can assure that if I were there and in the area, I would gladly do what I could to take care of that. I can honestly say that everyone that knows me personally would be surprised if I didn't. I'm notorious here and everywhere I go for always trying to do the right thing, or help someone even at great danger or discomfort to myself. Find your own bunker... I don't need one.

Sorry for the language confusion.

I told a story, it is a true story. You say this is the “real issue here”.

If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself.

The place is close to me when I am in Thailand, which I am not now.

Your arguments are interesting but if you are in Thailand they apply more to yourself

than to me.

You are in a better position to do something about this than I am.

So, why don’t you heed your own advice?

Seems like you are the one "hiding behind excuses".

[JRingo]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

I did ask earlyer if there are any childrens homes run by monks ? dose anyone know?

Yes, sure in Mae Rim.

It is a big orphanage, funded by the government and run by monks.

[camerata]

So is it possible then to reach a state of navana and then go on to procreate? on earth?

It takes half a lifetime to achieve nirvana. There is plenty of time to have children before getting there.

[camerata]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

The answer is that the reason for becoming a monk is to get into the right environment for meditation and reaching nirvana. It would make little sense for them to be overly involved in welfare projects. They don't take a particular interest in soi dogs, but people dump unwanted animals in temples so the temples get stuck with them.

It's been a long tradition that temples take in male children - usually poor children, perhaps unwanted children - as "dek wat" and give them an education. At one time, this was how most children in Thailand got an education.

[JRingo]

So once again you show that you and I are both in the same situation.

I am not in Thailand either, so how is it “my problem” and not yours?

You want to assign this problem to me and then lay guilt on me if I don't rectify it.

This sounds like the "Christian guilt technique" for dealing with the world...but that is a topic for another day.

I'm sorry to say you're just a bit off the mark. I'm not hiding behind anything... I am in Iraq, I don't have the luxury of just hopping on a plane and popping over to Thailand and fixing your problem. I can assure that if I were there and in the area, I would gladly do what I could to take care of that. I can honestly say that everyone that knows me personally would be surprised if I didn't. I'm notorious here and everywhere I go for always trying to do the right thing, or help someone even at great danger or discomfort to myself. Find your own bunker... I don't need one.

Sorry for the language confusion.

I told a story, it is a true story. You say this is the “real issue here”.

If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself.

The place is close to me when I am in Thailand, which I am not now.

Your arguments are interesting but if you are in Thailand they apply more to yourself

than to me.

You are in a better position to do something about this than I am.

So, why don’t you heed your own advice?

Seems like you are the one "hiding behind excuses".

[macb]

It was quoted by the Hi llama in Tibet on one of his teachings about Human behaviour and why people Gossip and find fault with eahc other this meaning that we as members of the Human race find fault with people which is human nature.

But his answer is all people are equal does any one ever look at the PROBLEM and not at the person, we have this phrase I have a problem with tom dick or harry but never look at why the problem exists.

Food for thought

macb

[soic]

No Christian guilt technique... I don't care what you think, I don't care if you feel guilt, I don't care if you do anything. I don't have to live with what you do or don't do, YOU DO!!!

It's not my problem, because I don't "know" about it. I have only your word that it's true. You supposedly know the monk, know the situation and know the location. I know what you told me... I have to live with whether I believe you or not. By my standards, No, I choose not to. You made a couple of statements in a couple of your other threads that cause me concern. Wanting a woman soley for pleasure and not understanding that women could possibly have wants the same as you. Then your extremely foolish statement of superiority over women, that "NO Women were Equal to YOU!" It causes me to doubt your honesty and sincerity about anything.

Take care!!!

So once again you show that you and I are both in the same situation.

I am not in Thailand either, so how is it “my problem” and not yours?

You want to assign this problem to me and then lay guilt on me if I don't rectify it.

This sounds like the "Christian guilt technique" for dealing with the world...but that is a topic for another day.

[longway]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

I did ask earlyer if there are any childrens homes run by monks ? dose anyone know?

you stated earlier you dont know much about buddhism, so why would you be expected to answer such questions, whatever the correct answer happens to be.

as camerata mentioned monastaries have long been refuges for men and women (to a lesser extent i believe) with nowhere else to go. temple boys often come from very poor families who are unable to feed them or from broken homes or orphans. many of these children receive some kind of education too. monks' leftover food is also used by the poor.

i suppose the main difference is that either you have to ordain or you will be expected to some sort of work around the monastary in exchange for food and shelter.

there is a monastary also somewhere that rehabiliates drug addicts

so now you know a bit more. as much as i do anyway.

i have to say i think many of your ideas of buddhism are wrong and you seem to have a bone to pick. what is your motivation in asking these questions if i may ask? maybe a question to ask yourself is why such issues upset you.

[thaibebop]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

I did ask earlyer if there are any childrens homes run by monks ? dose anyone know?

you stated earlier you dont know much about buddhism, so why would you be expected to answer such questions, whatever the correct answer happens to be.

as camerata mentioned monastaries have long been refuges for men and women (to a lesser extent i believe) with nowhere else to go. temple boys often come from very poor families who are unable to feed them or from broken homes or orphans. many of these children receive some kind of education too. monks' leftover food is also used by the poor.

i suppose the main difference is that either you have to ordain or you will be expected to some sort of work around the monastary in exchange for food and shelter.

there is a monastary also somewhere that rehabiliates drug addicts

so now you know a bit more. as much as i do anyway.

i have to say i think many of your ideas of buddhism are wrong and you seem to have a bone to pick. what is your motivation in asking these questions if i may ask? maybe a question to ask yourself is why such issues upset you.

I am just waiting for the "good" book and the sheep god to show up.

[JRingo]

Soic wrote:

" You made a couple of statements in a couple of your other threads that cause me concern. Wanting a woman soley for pleasure and not understanding that women could possibly have wants the same as you. Then your extremely foolish statement of superiority over women, that "NO Women were Equal to YOU!" It causes me to doubt your honesty and sincerity about anything."

You are mistaken again Soic, it wasn’t me that said I wanted a woman soley for pleasure or the other quote about no women being equal.

Someone else must have made those statements because it wasn't me.

I know sometimes it is difficult to figure who said what with this type of forum software

but look again and you will see that you are mistaken.

You keep falsely accusing me and I think it is really quite rude.

Edited August 11, 2006 by JRingo

[chownah]

This is the Buddhism Forum. What does it mean that this is the Buddhism Forum? Does it mean that topics about Buddhism should be here?

[soic]

Hi JRingo- You're correct, I was wrong and for that I apologize. I had you mixed up with causticme. I wouldn't say that I keep accusing you, that was the only time if I'm not mistaken again.

I stick to my guns as far as my opinions about the monk and that situation. It is something that you're familiar with, and someone you're supposed to be familiar with. I have a hard time believing it. In any case you're more interested in either pushing the burden to someone else, or sharing it. Neither of us are in a position to change things, it's a waste of time to continue to debate the morality of a story.

You are mistaken again Soic, it wasn’t me that said I wanted a woman soley for pleasure or the other quote about no women being equal.

Someone else must have made those statements because it wasn't me.

I know sometimes it is difficult to figure who said what with this type of forum software

but look again and you will see that you are mistaken.

You keep falsely accusing me and I think it is really quite rude.

[JRingo]

That was nice of you to apologize, thank you.

Sorry to keep correcting you but you are wrong again.

I am not interested in pushing the burden to someone else or sharing the burden.

I decided a few years ago that I wasn't going to do anything about this.

It is not a burden at all for me.

I offered the story as a real life example of "intervention" which is what this thread is about.

The monk chose not to intervene.

I chose not to intervene.

You chose not to intervene.

So there you have it.

Hi JRingo- You're correct, I was wrong and for that I apologize. I had you mixed up with causticme. I wouldn't say that I keep accusing you, that was the only time if I'm not mistaken again.

I stick to my guns as far as my opinions about the monk and that situation. It is something that you're familiar with, and someone you're supposed to be familiar with. I have a hard time believing it. In any case you're more interested in either pushing the burden to someone else, or sharing it. Neither of us are in a position to change things, it's a waste of time to continue to debate the morality of a story.

You are mistaken again Soic, it wasn’t me that said I wanted a woman soley for pleasure or the other quote about no women being equal.

Someone else must have made those statements because it wasn't me.

I know sometimes it is difficult to figure who said what with this type of forum software

but look again and you will see that you are mistaken.

You keep falsely accusing me and I think it is really quite rude.

[soic]

You've really caused me to put my thinking cap on now... How to continue to respond to the "story". Ummm..... errr...... Whatever!!!!! I think that just about caps the subject!

That was nice of you to apologize, thank you.

Sorry to keep correcting you but you are wrong again.

I am not interested in pushing the burden to someone else or sharing the burden.

I decided a few years ago that I wasn't going to do anything about this.

It is not a burden at all for me.

I offered the story as a real life example of "intervention" which is what this thread is about.

The monk chose not to intervene.

I chose not to intervene.

You chose not to intervene.

So there you have it.

Hi JRingo- You're correct, I was wrong and for that I apologize. I had you mixed up with causticme. I wouldn't say that I keep accusing you, that was the only time if I'm not mistaken again.

I stick to my guns as far as my opinions about the monk and that situation. It is something that you're familiar with, and someone you're supposed to be familiar with. I have a hard time believing it. In any case you're more interested in either pushing the burden to someone else, or sharing it. Neither of us are in a position to change things, it's a waste of time to continue to debate the morality of a story.

You are mistaken again Soic, it wasn’t me that said I wanted a woman soley for pleasure or the other quote about no women being equal.

Someone else must have made those statements because it wasn't me.

I know sometimes it is difficult to figure who said what with this type of forum software

but look again and you will see that you are mistaken.

You keep falsely accusing me and I think it is really quite rude.

[sabaijai]

There are a few other threads here in the Buddhism forum which discuss closely related issues with regard to monks' treatment of discarded pets and other morality topics.

[camerata]

In recent months we've had monks who don't take care of monks, monks who don't take care of abandoned puppies, monks who don't take care of children in danger and monks who don't take care of tourists who might drink polluted water. The subtext of the questions seems to be that monks - and by inference all Thais - are less moral than the average Westerner.

My theory about this is that many expats find it disconcerting to be an outsider who is treated differently in Thailand, so they compensate by trying to emphasize the perceived inferiority of Thai culture to Western culture. Monks are singled out because they are highly revered and supposed to embody all the good qualities Thais admire.

I think there is a Shangri-La effect at work on Westerners with regard to Thai Buddhism. Because Thais are proud of their religion and often consider themselves devout, a lot of farang expect monks and Buddhists in general to be perfect (according to Western Christian standards of morality). A case in point is the TV member who popped up month ago raving about someone abducting his Thai wife over a gambling debt and ending the post with, "And these people call themselves Buddhists."

Regarding "intervention," Thai-Buddhist and Western-Christian ideas are often quite different. A TV member recently "saved" a stray puppy and then told us it would be drowned if someone didn't take it off his hands. A good example of farang (Christian?) intervention: a puppy is better off dead than having an uncertain future. Put it out of its misery! The Thai view would probably be that whatever happened to the puppy, good or bad, was due to karma. No point in drowning it since it may well have a happy future ahead (and the one who drowns it creates some bad karma for himself). If it doesn't, that's the result of its karma and it will soon be back in another life anyway, and probably a happier one.

For interventionist Thai Buddhists, look no farther than Chamlong Srimuang who managed to block a bill to make abortion legal and, more recently, blocked the listing of an alcoholic beverage company on the Thai stock exchange and blocked Thaksin temporarily from raping the country. He thought it was wrong, and he and his supporters intervened.

[sabaijai]

In recent months we've had monks who don't take care of monks, monks who don't take care of abandoned puppies, monks who don't take care of children in danger and monks who don't take care of tourists who might drink polluted water. The subtext of the questions seems to be that monks - and by inference all Thais - are less moral than the average Westerner.

My theory about this is that many expats find it disconcerting to be an outsider who is treated differently in Thailand, so they compensate by trying to emphasize the perceived inferiority of Thai culture to Western culture. Monks are singled out because they are highly revered and supposed to embody all the good qualities Thais admire.

I think there is a Shangri-La effect at work on Westerners with regard to Thai Buddhism. Because Thais are proud of their religion and often consider themselves devout, a lot of farang expect monks and Buddhists in general to be perfect (according to Western Christian standards of morality). A case in point is the TV member who popped up month ago raving about someone abducting his Thai wife over a gambling debt and ending the post with, "And these people call themselves Buddhists."

Regarding "intervention," Thai-Buddhist and Western-Christian ideas are often quite different. A TV member recently "saved" a stray puppy and then told us it would be drowned if someone didn't take it off his hands. A good example of farang (Christian?) intervention: a puppy is better off dead than having an uncertain future. Put it out of its misery! The Thai view would probably be that whatever happened to the puppy, good or bad, was due to karma. No point in drowning it since it may well have a happy future ahead (and the one who drowns it creates some bad karma for himself). If it doesn't, that's the result of its karma and it will soon be back in another life anyway, and probably a happier one.

For interventionist Thai Buddhists, look no farther than Chamlong Srimuang who managed to block a bill to make abortion legal and, more recently, blocked the listing of an alcoholic beverage company on the Thai stock exchange and blocked Thaksin temporarily from raping the country. He thought it was wrong, and he and his supporters intervened.

Well said.

[sleepyjohn]

If I was asked why do monks apear to take more interest in soi dogs and other erant animals and don't look after orphaned children I wouldn't be able to give them an answer !

I did ask earlyer if there are any childrens homes run by monks ? dose anyone know?

I would judge based on a broader knowledge than your questioners.

Here's a personal anecdote. I was training for ordination for some years in the UK. I helped run meditation classes. I like to think those classes and what people learnt there helped them treat their children, animals and others more mindfully, and make the world slowly just a little bit a more happy and peaceful place. This is of course true of the monkhood as a whole I would l like to think. It has a huge indirect value. Anyway the group in the UK had a chain of very successful city centre gift shops across Britain, they actually won a fastest growing business award, and were run on a "right livelihood" basis. I worked in one. I went to India to a multi centre project. A lot of the shop profits went to running schools where untouchable children were educated and looked after, one child per family. Medical aid to families. Extremely low expense ratio. It was brilliant. (Many untouchables had a mass "conversion", a rather un-Buddhist thing, under Dr Ambedkar, untouchable himself, who was right hand man to Gandhi and wrote the constitution. It was a strange thing to do but he did it to give the untouchables a possible lamp out of their darkness. More intervention.) Most of the people in our Buddhist group, along with a million others, marched and wrote against the US invasion of Iraq in both London and Chiangmai(oh only me there!). Intervention.

(sorry to talk about me but I'm an expert on the subject).

Is it possible that Thai monks tending towards non intervention is more to do with their being Thai than being monks?

It was quoted by the Hi llama in Tibet on one of his teachings about Human behaviour and why people Gossip and find fault with eahc other this meaning that we as members of the Human race find fault with people which is human nature.

macb

It is also said, very sensibly, that finding fault with others is just a way of raising our opinion of ourselves, of praising ourselves.

Mindfulness should let us know when we let this happen. After a good run, I let it happen a bit recently. I'll try to do better.

So is it possible then to reach a state of navana and then go on to procreate? on earth?

I'll do my best!

ps: like your posts Camerata

Edited August 12, 2006 by sleepyjohn