What happens to the food believers put in front of statues?

[RichCor]

"but if you are genuine in your desire for understanding--which I'm beginning to doubt--you will find a lot of resources out there to help you."

Trust me. I am extremely interested. Trust me also that I have read a lot in the last few days. But there is contradiction everywhere. Even in the answers in this thread, by so called experts.

And I am not really interested in the official doctrine, because I believe the average person does not know much about it. Maybe a monk doesn't see Buddha as a God. Maybe he doesn't pray to Buddha. Because he knows the official doctrine.

But if say 80% of Thai who go to a temple pray to Buddha, expect him to listen and expect favours from him then I want to know.

I want to know how Buddhism is understood by the actual Thai people. Not by the select few who understand its true teachings.

Are there books about how the average Thai experiences Buddhism? What he internally says during prayer? Why he thinks the Thai 'grandparents' are spirits and not reborn now as humans. Etc etc.

That I want to know.

"But if say 80% of Thai who go to a temple pray to Buddha, expect him

to listen and expect favours from him then I want to know."

"I want to know how Buddhism is understood by the actual Thai

people. Not by the select few who understand its true teachings."

The ONLY way you will 'know' this would be to poll the Buddhist Thais directly*.

I'm sure you are aware of the Monk / Nun and Layperson divide. As one website puts it:

... going for Refuge to the Three Jewels isn’t something you do just once. It’s an orientation not an event. Buddhist practice is about going for Refuge more and more deeply. [There are] various levels of going for Refuge. Whatever stage we have reached on the path, the next step is always to transform our actions, thoughts and values from those based on limited or selfish aspirations to those represented by the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

In many Asian Buddhist cultures the sangha is divided between monks and nuns, who can be seen as the ‘real’ full-time Buddhists, and lay people, who can be regarded as part-timer supporters. In some countries the role of the laity is simply to serve the monastics. However, all Buddhists face the same spiritual and existential issues: how to live well; suffering and death; the fact that actions have consequences; the need to transform your ways of thinking and ways of seeing things. So all Buddhists – whether monk or lay – Go for Refuge to some extent, and all have the challenge of doing so more fully.

I know a lot of Thai Buddhists who play the lottery. They can 'Pray to Buddha' or 'wish' all they want, but the majority of them don't win anything back. But they keep on wishing, playing, even believing that *something* else out there can help them win if only they could find it. And when they do occasionally win, then they and everyone else around them are hopeful that all their luck has suddenly changed, they 'ask' even more and hope everyone will win the big jackpot so... so... they don't comprehend impermanence. Similar behavior to people who need their Buddha Amulets.

This is all part of the ignorance, craving and delusion.

They are lay people, and take up the easier role that lay people have. 5 Precepts, or 8 Precepts on special occasions. Not the 227 Precepts of a Bhikkhu or 311 for Bhikkhunis. You can't expect people to drop all of their cravings, desires, ignorance and delusions just because someone says so. There is no one word that can be uttered or button to be pressed that will allow everything to escape Saṃsāra. Only a few elect to take on the arduous task of trying to know for oneself. The rest support the cause, even as they continue to seek happiness via that which is unsustainable.

But it's accepted as part of the Thai Culture. Doesn't mean that all Thais actively participate in the behavior.

Nor do I understand why you think it's important. Will "knowing" help you somehow?

* Technically, a random sampling of 385 Thais would statistically give you your answer within 95% accuracy.

[zeichen]

"

Say a person who grew up in the West and who is not a Buddhist does good deeds. He is a good man. He dies. Will he be born in a better life even while he is not a Buddhist? If you say YES then assume he had been a Buddhist, so has gone many times to temples for example, would his new life than have been even better? Assuming in both cases the good deeds are 100% the same. In other words does believing in Buddhism give you extra karma and a better life compared to not believing in it BUT living the exact same good life, doing the exact same good deeds?

In other words does believing in Buddhist give you extra karma points and extra good next live compared to situation in which you are equally good but do not believe in it?

"

Again, you are linking Christian doctrine which isn't similar.

Only Christian will go to Heaven and no amount of good deeds will open the doors to heaven unless you believe in Christ.

Buddhism don't have that same rigid lines. You achieve enlightenment by fully following the 8 fold path and not by just faith or merit.

[Goosood]

Nor do I understand why you think it's important. Will "knowing" help you somehow?

* Technically, a random sampling of 385 Thais would statistically give you your answer within 95% accuracy.

Yes it will. It will make me understand what I see.

Of course I have talked with Thai people about Buddhism. But it never goes well. Often their English is just not good enough (that is really the main issue). Or they don't understand the questions. Or I receive an answer and I fail to see how that possibly is an answer to the question I had asked. Or the answer is "I don't know". My experience so far is not good.

I think most Thai people (like most Christians) don't know that much about their religion. If you ask a Christian to the why of the Holy Trinity, why this idea is now dogma and what it really means he can not explain. Most Christians don't read the Bible. The ones that have read more than 100 pages are very few. Seems most Muslims don't read the Koran either.

Likewise I start to think now that most Thai can not explain Buddhism. I start to think for most Thai truly following Buddha's path is not something they want to do. Almost no one meditates. So I don't think most Thai actively are seeking Enlightenment (meditation is a condition for reaching it; else you can forget about it). I think most just give some alms, food to monks, go to Temple a few times a year for some merit/karma (so for a very selfish reason if you think about it) and hope it will benefit them this life and the next. And when in the temple they just follow the rituals they were taught. Without knowing why and what. However I do think that most Thai will know what the meaning is of the 3 incense sticks. What each represents. But I don't think knowledge goes much further. I also think most Thai do pray to Buddha and think that he answers prayers. Which is not strict Buddhism.

That is what I think now after these few days. But there is so much contradiction among the replies. I am just still not sure. I also get the idea I am rare in wanting to understand it. Many don't even bother to understand certain contradictions.

I think this thread can be closed. Thank you all. I am less ignorant. But not much wiser.

[DogNo1]

There is a wide variety of beliefs associated with Buddhism. Back in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Indian monks in Vietnam were bemused by the number of local beliefs that the Vietnamese insisted on injecting into their Buddhism. Also, there are many different sects. Some Japanese monks own their temples, charge for officiating at weddings and funerals, marry and eat meat and drink alcohol. One of my Vietnamese monk friends tells fortunes. He sees no problem with that.

So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth. Read his book "Food for the Heart." You'll learn about Thai monks who condemn making merit and who don't accept other than very basic donations.

I am aware that this post will offend some TV Buddhists. I've had posts deleted in the past. Maybe this one will be too but I don't think that it is very "Buddhist" to delete opinions that don't agree with your doctrine.

[Goosood]

Buddhism don't have that same rigid lines. You achieve enlightenment by fully following the 8 fold path and not by just faith or merit.

Ok thanks. I thought so. Now I have it confirmed.

So technically a religious Buddhist doesn't need to go to Temples, doesn't need to give food to monks. Doesn't need to worship Buddha statues. If he does other good deeds he will get the same Karma and same good rebirth. Because as you say a Western person not believing in Buddhism gets the exact same reward for the exact same good deeds and he also doesn't go to Temples.

[Goosood]

So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth.

Funny. I talked to a Thai and he thinks bad people go to a hell (they are reborn into a hell). I have read about it and in strict official Buddhism the most worse rebirth realm is called 'hell'.

So i think you are wrong. The concept of a 'hell' is Buddhism.

[Docno]

There is a wide variety of beliefs associated with Buddhism. Back in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Indian monks in Vietnam were bemused by the number of local beliefs that the Vietnamese insisted on injecting into their Buddhism. Also, there are many different sects. Some Japanese monks own their temples, charge for officiating at weddings and funerals, marry and eat meat and drink alcohol. One of my Vietnamese monk friends tells fortunes. He sees no problem with that.

So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth. Read his book "Food for the Heart." You'll learn about Thai monks who condemn making merit and who don't accept other than very basic donations.

I am aware that this post will offend some TV Buddhists. I've had posts deleted in the past. Maybe this one will be too but I don't think that it is very "Buddhist" to delete opinions that don't agree with your doctrine.

"So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth."

What do you mean that there is no concept of rebirth in Buddhism? What was Buddha trying to end the 'cycle of' then? Buddhism's concept of rebirth is not the same as other faith's idea of reincarnation ... there is no individualised soul moving from one life/body to the next. It's more a continuity of consciousness, with the common example being the flame passed from candle to candle (not the same flame, but one flame being a continuity of a previous flame). Is that what you're referring to?

[VincentRJ]

There is a wide variety of beliefs associated with Buddhism. Back in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Indian monks in Vietnam were bemused by the number of local beliefs that the Vietnamese insisted on injecting into their Buddhism. Also, there are many different sects. Some Japanese monks own their temples, charge for officiating at weddings and funerals, marry and eat meat and drink alcohol. One of my Vietnamese monk friends tells fortunes. He sees no problem with that.

So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth. Read his book "Food for the Heart." You'll learn about Thai monks who condemn making merit and who don't accept other than very basic donations.

I am aware that this post will offend some TV Buddhists. I've had posts deleted in the past. Maybe this one will be too but I don't think that it is very "Buddhist" to delete opinions that don't agree with your doctrine.

"So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth."

What do you mean that there is no concept of rebirth in Buddhism? What was Buddha trying to end the 'cycle of' then? Buddhism's concept of rebirth is not the same as other faith's idea of reincarnation ... there is no individualised soul moving from one life/body to the next. It's more a continuity of consciousness, with the common example being the flame passed from candle to candle (not the same flame, but one flame being a continuity of a previous flame). Is that what you're referring to?

One can't argue that the concept of rebirth does not exist. Concepts exist in the mind, as do all opinions and interpretations. Whether they exist in reality, outside of an individual mind, is another question.

I suspect Ajahn Chah is applying his own interpretation to the 'rebirth' concept, which he thinks makes more sense than the traditional view.

According to the Buddhist scriptures (the Pali Canon) the Buddha, during one single night sitting under a Bodhi tree where he gained enlightenment, first remembered his former lives in all their detail. He recalled not just 6 or 7, or 20 or 30 former lives, but a hundred thousand of them, in one night.

Does that seem realistic or remotely possible? How should one interpret such claims, which were in any case memorized by several generations of Buddhist followers during a 450 year period after Buddha's death, before being written down for the fist time in Sri Lanka around 29 BC.

The concept that 'former lives' refers to real, physical beings who lived before we were born, is the subject of much speculation.

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

[Goosood]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

[VincentRJ]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

We don't know for certain what the Buddha really believed, only what was written by others about 450 years after his death.

As mentioned already in this thread, new religions tend to amalgamate and adapt, at least to some degree, to the existing, prior beliefs, in the areas they spread to. It seems reasonable to presume that Gautama Buddha, when preaching his message and insights, would have found it necessary or helpful to use metaphors and concepts that were understood and appreciated by the people who lived at that period of time, 2,500 years ago in Northern India.

[partington]

I find this fascinating. Goosood asks questions that every interested person seeing a new culture and religion will ask.

What do they believe, and why are they doing these things, and why do these things seem to contradict the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the religion they are supposed to be expressing?

A few of the replies are very useful, leading to the conclusion that Goosood has already come to: that everyday Thais do not really know why they do much of what they do, and don't think analytically about whether it makes sense or not, or whether it is even internally consistent. Is your great grandmother floating about helping you, or has she been reborn in Chicago, working in a realtor's office?

What's not fascinating are those obscurantist replies from westerners who seem to 'own' Buddhism. Then we get: how does it help to know? as if curiosity has to help. Or go and talk to a real monk, or read the following weighty tomes " if you really want to know - which I doubt", implying that the questioner really wants to learn and follow pure Buddhist teachings, which of course he has no interest in.

Then we have the "of course when he talks about cheese-makers he really means all workers with dairy and dairy products" apologists who start saying past lives means former emotional or mental states. Then we have the explanations about the difference between monks and laity, laden with the implication that of course the everyday Thai shouldn't be paid attention to because they don't understand their religion, and so they might harm its reputation so, sincerely go to a monk.

Goosood is not asking what real Buddhism is!

He is trying to find out and understand what 80% of Thai are thinking when they think they are engaged in Buddhist practices. This is far more interesting to me too than the abstract guesses of western Buddhists on what Nirvana might be.

So please, less Buddhist philosophy in this thread, and more explanation whether your Taxi driver believes Buddha is alive, can hear him, and can influence his future !!

edit correct spelling of OP!

[VincentRJ]

He is trying to find out and understand what 80% of Thai are thinking when they think they are engaged in Buddhist practices. This is far more interesting to me too than the abstract guesses of western Buddhists on what Nirvana might be.

I think the main point is, they're probably not thinking. They're probably mindlessly following rituals and customs they've been brought up to accept without rational reason, and perhaps sometimes without any reason at all.

[DogNo1]

I think that the answer to everyone's questions will come through research, not speculation. Ajahn Chah's book is not a weighty tome. It provides definitive answers in line with the forest monks' understanding of Buddhism. And yes, according to Ajahn Chah, rebirth happens when a person's thoughts detach from nothingness and return to the world of suffering, however briefly. There is nothing physical or animist about it.

If you've watched Fox News, you know that there is no end to the chatter concerning opinions about the news. What the facts are is usually much simpler. There are practical and simple books that set out the philosophy of Buddhism. But, as with everything, there is no end to conjecture and speculation.

[DogNo1]

Does any poster really think that what my taxi driver believes about Buddhism is of any great significance? Would you also like him to act as your doctor and lawyer? I'll get the name and contact information of the next taxi driver that I meet and pass it on.

[Goosood]

Does any poster really think that what my taxi driver believes about Buddhism is of any great significance?

Of course not. But there are people - like me- who like to know what the average Thai thinks about Buddhism. If he believes Buddha listens to prayers. Is still around somewhere (a heaven or so).

Because if the experts know he doesn't, but 90% of the population think he does listen to prayers, then you ONLY EVER will understand what you see in a Thai temple when you know what the average guy thinks. Not what the expert thinks. What is happening when you see someone praying in front of a Buddha statue? A monk is NOT praying to Buddha, when you see him he is only thinking about his teachings (he needs the statue to focus), but do not draw that conclusion for 90% of the population. For them I strongly suspect he is a kind of God. Who does listen and they pray to him.

If you want to understand Thailand, expert knowledge is worthless.

[Goosood]

Goosood is not asking what real Buddhism is!

He is trying to find out and understand what 80% of Thai are thinking when they think they are engaged in Buddhist practices. This is far more interesting to me too than the abstract guesses of western Buddhists on what Nirvana might be.

Thanks. You understand me 100%!!!

I hope the answers to the questions will come one of these days in this thread. Here must be many people who have Thai friends. Talk to them please. Ask them my questions. And please post their replies here. I am honestly sincerely interested. (But it appears I am a rare kind of human, most people don't interest this at all...which is very strange.)

[connda]

Goosood is not asking what real Buddhism is!

He is trying to find out and understand what 80% of Thai are thinking when they think they are engaged in Buddhist practices. This is far more interesting to me too than the abstract guesses of western Buddhists on what Nirvana might be.

Thanks. You understand me 100%!!!

I hope the answers to the questions will come one of these days in this thread. Here must be many people who have Thai friends. Talk to them please. Ask them my questions. And please post their replies here. I am honestly sincerely interested. (But it appears I am a rare kind of human, most people don't interest this at all...which is very strange.)

And I'll repeat the most succient answer:

Thai Buddhism is "Buddhist flavored Animism". That's it in a nutshell.

[Goosood]

Thai Buddhism is "Buddhist flavored Animism". That's it in a nutshell.

Yes. I know. But what would the average Thai answer on this question:

"Why do you think your grandmother is still a spirit now (I see you think that because you ask for her protection and put food for her), why you not think she is reborn as a human and lives in Europe?".

That is very interesting to know. Will you get a blank stare? Will you get an answer like "Yes, I know everyone is reborn, but it takes 200 years and in these 200 years you are spirit". Maybe they have made their own internal rationalisations like the one I just gave. (Of course totally contradicting the official doctrine.).

What answer will we get you think?

[DogNo1]

I think that a guess is only a guess. It's speculation. In any survey of opinion, a diverse sample of 25 or more persons is required to be significant. If the sample is not drawn broadly enough (gender, age, social class, place of residence, etc.,) then the result will not be representative of the group that you are trying to measure. I would suggest doing some trial interviews to determine what questions to put into a survey and then have the respondents answer the questions according to a five point scale ranging from not at all to very much. Then you would be able to judge what the average person's beliefs are. Unfortunately, getting valid information requires a lot of work but informally asking a couple of people questions about their Buddhist beliefs, even if the questions are exactly the same will not give you a representative result. I have a hunch that someone at Chulalongkorn or Thammasat may already have done this. Certainly someone at Mahachulalongkorn University could be a good source for finding out the commonality in the Buddhist beliefs of Thais.

I have read a long and very well-written book about Buddhism in Vietnam written by some researchers in Hanoi and and written a paper about it. As you might guess, Vietnamese Buddhism is distinct from Thai Buddhism. I'll be happy to send the paper to you if you want.

[Goosood]

I'll be happy to send the paper to you if you want.

I have send you a personal message.

[Goosood]

Another question I have (I know it keeps coming). But the more I contemplate this topic, the more questions I get.

This one is how the average Thai interprets Karma.

Do they have thoughts like: "No issue if I lie to this guy today, tomorrow I just give some food to a monk and my Karma is Ok again, so I can safely tell some lies now to get some money from this Farang without worrying about my next life".

This can explain why some Thai in Pattaya for example lie to Farang to get some extra money. Because if they interpret Karma such that the next good deed washes away the lie - so they have not to worry about the next life - then this (wrong?) interpretation of Karma can be an explanation why religious people sometimes resort to lie.

[Konini]

Do they have thoughts like: "No issue if I lie to this guy today, tomorrow I just give some food to a monk and my Karma is Ok again, so I can safely tell some lies now to get some money from this Farang without worrying about my next life".

Not exactly the same, but in my view this is quite similar to the confessions of the Catholic church.

(This is a question I've pondered on myself a few times.)

[Goosood]

Do they have thoughts like: "No issue if I lie to this guy today, tomorrow I just give some food to a monk and my Karma is Ok again, so I can safely tell some lies now to get some money from this Farang without worrying about my next life".

Not exactly the same, but in my view this is quite similar to the confessions of the Catholic church.

(This is a question I've pondered on myself a few times.)

No not the same. In the Catholic Church you are only forgiven by God if you sincerely feel being sorry. The doctrine is not such that you can kill, go to confession and your soul is pure again. You must sincerely feel sorry when going to confession. So it is absolutely not the same as the example I gave. That person does not feel sorry at all for lying.

How is that in Buddhism for the average Thai? How can we explain that Thais who go to temples, pay respect to Buddha sometimes lie to Farang? I can come up with one explanation and that is that they interpret Karma such that the next good deed washes away the lie.

[VincentRJ]

Getting back to the original question, 'What happens to the food believers put in front of statues?', I'm reminded of a visit I made a couple of years ago to the Swayambhunath temple in Kathmandu, sometimes referred to as 'The Monkey Temple'.

I couldn't help wondering if the local Nepalese considered the monkeys to be reincarnations of their great grandparents and distant ancestors, because the monkeys were obviously tolerated and even encouraged.

The food placed in front of various statues within the temple complex were always eaten by the monkeys.

Now I didn't attempt to do a survey of what the local people thought the role of the monkeys was, and why they are there and why they are tolerated. Instead, I did a search on the internet and discovered the most wonderful and colorful mythological explanation for the presence of the monkeys at that temple.

According to legend, the surrounding area where the temple now sits was once a valley filled with an enormous lake. Many years ago, the great Bodhisattva, Manjushri, raised a hill in the lake, and the temple called Swayambhunath, that still exists today, was built on that hill.

But the story gets even more charming. Manjushri was a bit slack and didn't keep his hair shaved like a good Buddhist monk should. He let his hair grow long, and lice began to infect his head.

Those lice, because they had the honour of infecting such a noble head, have been rewarded by being reincarnated as a much higher form of life, a monkey.

All those monkeys at the Swayambhunath temple are reincarnations of the most honoured lice.

Here are a couple of photos of those reincarnated lice.

[maidee]

start a new business... ghosts need clothes too, or they all would be naked, right ?

[Goosood]

All those monkeys at the Swayambhunath temple are reincarnations of the most honoured lice.

Nice legend. But how I understand now Buddhism when you are reborn in a heavenly realm the lifespan is very very long. But when a lice is reborn as a monkey his lifespan in that new life is just the lifespan of a monkey. I don't know how long that is, 40 years? So does this mean these lice for hundreds of years are getting reborn again and again as monkey? They must have had extremely bad Karma in their pre-lice years. But that can not be, because if you really have super bad karma you end up in a hell realm. Not the animal realm.

Why do they not get the chance of being reborn again in the human realm so they have the opportunity to reach Enlightenment?

[VincentRJ]

All those monkeys at the Swayambhunath temple are reincarnations of the most honoured lice.

Nice legend. But how I understand now Buddhism when you are reborn in a heavenly realm the lifespan is very very long. But when a lice is reborn as a monkey his lifespan in that new life is just the lifespan of a monkey. I don't know how long that is, 40 years? So does this mean these lice for hundreds of years are getting reborn again and again as monkey? They must have had extremely bad Karma in their pre-lice years. But that can not be, because if you really have super bad karma you end up in a hell realm. Not the animal realm.

Why do they not get the chance of being reborn again in the human realm so they have the opportunity to reach Enlightenment?

I presume that once an individual lice has been reborn as an individual monkey, the monkey will continue to be reborn as a monkey, in the usual cycle of Samsara, until something unusual occurs, such as the monkey sharing a meal with a starving monk. Such monkey will then gain so much merit, it might be reborn as a human. Okay!

On the other hand, if the monkey is very aggressive and bites and infects a young human child who dies as a result, then such monkey will likely be reborn again as a lice. Okay!

I'm just speculating, of course.

[Goosood]

I presume that once an individual lice has been reborn as an individual monkey, the monkey will continue to be reborn as a monkey, in the usual cycle of Samsara, until something unusual occurs, such as the monkey sharing a meal with a starving monk. Such monkey will then gain so much merit, it might be reborn as a human. Okay!

Nice theory :-)

But it can not be true. Because animals who share food with a human, that is so extremely rare, that your theory means effectively that once reborn as animal there is no escape anymore. Most animals (insects for example in a rain forest) never ever encounter a human.

And that is not true according to how I understand Buddhism. Eventually you will leave the animal realm and become human again.

Very hard for me to comprehend Buddhism. I am reading now Peter Harveys "Introduction to Buddhism". And it is very clear what it is. The goal is Nirvana. To be reached via an 8 fold path.

Billions of people have been Buddhists, how many of these have followed that path? How many Thais are following it now, via meditation? I think extremely few. Why are they then called a Buddhist if they ignore the CORE, THE FOUNDATION of their religion?

I think anyone who does not follow the 8 fold path is not a Buddhist at all. I mean it is THE CORE of the religion. I understand you can re-interpret some things (like not believing in 26 heavens, interpreting rebirth differently, and still be able to call yourself Buddhist) but I do not understand how someone can call himself a Buddhist who privately is not following the 8 fold path. It is THE CORE of what it means calling yourself a Buddhist. A very strange religion for me to grasp. I really try. I ask questions. I read now a book. I want to understand it. But I can't. And I am not dumb. I hold a Msc in Mathematics.

[VincentRJ]

I presume that once an individual lice has been reborn as an individual monkey, the monkey will continue to be reborn as a monkey, in the usual cycle of Samsara, until something unusual occurs, such as the monkey sharing a meal with a starving monk. Such monkey will then gain so much merit, it might be reborn as a human. Okay!

Nice theory :-)

But it can not be true. Because animals who share food with a human, that is so extremely rare, that your theory means effectively that once reborn as animal there is no escape anymore. Most animals (insects for example in a rain forest) never ever encounter a human.

Sharing food with a human was merely one example that I suggested as a possible way that a monkey might be reborn as a human. It seems no more unreasonable than the story that a lice can be reborn as a monkey if it infests the head of a Bodhisattva. Your imagination is the limit here.

I think anyone who does not follow the 8 fold path is not a Buddhist at all. I mean it is THE CORE of the religion.

The 8 fold path is not only the core of the Buddhist religion but the core of all common sense.

Here is the 8 fold path in essence.

1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)

2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)

3. Right Speech (Samma vaca)

4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)

5. Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)

6. Right Effort (Samma vayama)

7. Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)

8. Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)

Now I ask you, who in his right mind would want to follow or support a wrong understanding, a wrong thought, engage in wrong speech, wrong actions, wrong livelihood or wrong occupations, misguided effort, wrong mindfulness and inappropriate concentration on wrong things?

[Goosood]

Now I ask you, who in his right mind would want to follow or support a wrong understanding, a wrong thought, engage in wrong speech, wrong actions, wrong livelihood or wrong occupations, misguided effort, wrong mindfulness and inappropriate concentration on wrong things?

No-one. if you put it like this than 100% of the world population is a Buddhist. Which they are not.

But that 8-fold path is not easy. There are meditation techniques. It requires effort. Lots of effort.

Just having the intention of living a moral live, but never doing meditation for example, will not give you Nirvana (Enlightenment).

The 8 fold path is not just trying to live a good moral life. It is far more.

I think in practice in all of history for 99.99% of Buddhist their religion has only meant: give some food to monks, then I get good karma and better next live. Show up sometimes in Temple and pray to - or honour - Buddha. Do some spirit worship. That's all. Is that really Buddhism as it is intended? NO. You need to actively engage in the 8 fold path.