Why be a Buddhist Monk in Thailand?

[VincentRJ]

Remember, Gautama is sometimes criticised for leaving his wife and baby to search for a solution to the extreme suffering he witnessed outside of his palace. In a modern Western society with abundant social services, we don't have that motivation of witnessing extreme suffering. Perhaps that's the problem, regarding the motivation of Westermers to follow the Buddhist path.

I think I should perhaps try to clarify that point. There's a great lack of detailed accounts of the social conditions that prevailed during the times of the Buddha, perhaps due to a lack of preserved writings, or even a capacity to write. We have a general, historical understanding that there was a caste system in place, apparently introduced by an Aryan migration from Eastern Europe into India (sometimes described as an invasion, but this is not certain).

We also have historical evidence that between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE there were dramatic changes taking place in India, politically and economically. The large number of small, tribal groups or states (about 16 of them) were gradually being 'amalgamated' into 4 major states, no doubt with a lot of fighting and consequent pillaging, rape and killing of innocent women and children.

Siddhartha belonged to a small warrior-caste tribe, the Sakyas, which was not completely independent and was apparently dominated by the larger Kausala state further south. Who knows what sort of fighting and atrocities took place between these two tribes?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the social conditions outside of Gautama's palace were probably absolutely awful. The story that Gautama witnessed, on journeys outside his father's palace, an old man, a sick man, a dead man and a wandering mendicant, must be very sanitised and simplified versions of what Gautama really witnessed.

Using my imagination (and worldly experience) he probably saw women and children screaming in agony, people lying by the road-side suffering from terrible diseases for which there was no cure at the time, and old people who were not just old but who had to continue working in order to survive, despite their back problems and poor health.

In other words, the disparity between the life inside the palace of a warrior-caste tribe, and the life of ordinary people outside of the palace, was probably far more extreme than the differences today between the life of the Queen of England and the life of ordinary people outside of Buckingham Palace, in terms of suffering.

The motivation for Gautama to leave his wife and child to search for a solution to such awful conditions must surely have been far greater than the current motivation of most Westerners, who are interested in Buddhism, to become a full-time monk in Thailand.

[AYJAYDEE]

I am not a Thai basher. Also, I am farang.

I have lived in LOS for 13+ years. I am a practising Buddhist.

My observations are -

Thai people do not seek assistance from the monks in their spiritual pursuits.

The Abbot where I live seems to be interested in overseas travel & building a new wat.

The novice monks seem to do all the manual work whilst the ordained enjoy playing computer games & using their smartphones.

does that bother you?

[honu]

I was a "temporary" monk here, and I'm an expat, so I could pass on one person's worth of experiences. It's not really possible to relate that to a lot of this thread discussion since it's all over the map.

Camerata mentioned the benefit that if someone has a Thai wife then it serves the purpose of fulfilling that family's expectation, and that is valid, one possible benefit. It's interesting to consider what the family really gains from it, since there is a range of answers for that. They receive a "merit / karma" benefit, which even extends to dead family members who are long since no longer around, or on to the generation not yet born. Or at least that's one part of the story, a literal faith that relates to generated merit.

Visas aren't really part of the potential benefit. I know one long-term monk here (mostly online) that goes through the same visa issues others do, resolved mostly through use of educational visas. As related background, I know one other layman expat using the same approach.

There is discussion here of financial benefit, and of course monks do receive money as contributions, in spite of a clear rule restricting them possessing or spending any money. Of course their expenses are very low, but they do have some very legitimate ones. For example, some temples charge the monks for their use of electricity, with the understanding that with completely unrestricted access they might waste it. Cell phones might seem a frivolous expense (although monks do typically own those), but something like eyeglasses or medical treatment seems a valid use of money.

Of course there are lots of examples of monks exploiting their role for financial benefit, or spending money improperly, but my guess is that these are exceptions. Funneling some limited amount of money back to a family may not be so isolated, even if technically still not ok, but most monks probably wouldn't have access to enough money to waste a lot of it.

What other benefits would there be? It seems possible someone holding a literal form of religious Buddhist faith could expect to accumulate merit / positive karma. Some form of spiritual development could be seen as the same thing or else as relatively separate from that. Or maybe someone would just like the lifestyle. I knew a long-term foreign monk at another temple that stayed on for that purpose, or so it seemed to me; he liked it. I had a good bit of history studying Buddhism so it really related mostly to that, personally, a follow-up to other types of exposure, enabled by becoming a part of a Thai family.

The idea that one might be a samanane or monk novice is an unusual special case. Thais seem to only use this position for children, although I can't say for sure there is no convention related to an adult becoming a samanane, but I'm not familiar with any. It seems like special programs use this role for the purpose of giving a foreigner a taste of the experience without drawing on full ordination, or altering existing practices to set up monastic experience as tourism. If anyone here has more experience to share to shed more light on that I'd be interested to hear it.

[camerata]

Another post slagging off monks, Thai Buddhism and Thailand has been deleted. The topic is Why be a Buddhist Monk in Thailand?

[jacky54]

Well the money is good, that's one reason. They get a good income from house warnings, weddings, blessings and all the other things they officiate at and off wat I believe they keep the lot.

[camerata]

As I've mentioned before, of the tens of thousands of temples in the kingdom, relatively few are what could be described as wealthy. The ones with relics, a famous statue, a famous living or deceased monk, or some gimmick or other (i.e. temples Thais call "wat theeo") all do fairly well. But I've travelled all over Thailand and seen a great many dirt-poor temples that struggle to maintain the temple buildings and a handful of monks. The temples need money for maintenance and administration. After that there may not be much left for individual monks.

Sure, at the big urban temples there are monks with iPhones, but in my experience that isn't the general rule upcountry. Also, I doubt many foreigners who enter the monkhood do so to get consumer goods. It just isn't worth it.

[jacky54]

Well I go to a fair number of Wats all over the country and it's hard to think of one that does not have a building project under way, even forest temples. Why are they so concerned with forever expanding these places? At least i have my name on very many roof tiles at 20 baht a go

[honu]

When I first became a monk my wife's aunt mentioned that people might become monks because they like the lifestyle, which seemed a little strange to me.

Who would want a lifestyle defined most by over 100 rules one has to adhere to, covering significant restrictions like wearing normal clothing or physically touching a woman, or eating after noon. There are also a lot of minor rules, for example a monk is not permitted to drink something while standing. Of course it wouldn't be a serious issue to break the minor rules (like drinking something while standing), and to some extent monks do possess money, going against one of the main rules, as discussed here already. My impression is that most monks don't have access to much money, though, so what most do with what they do receive isn't much of an issue, if they really need a cell phone and such. Others in the main temples, tourist centers, primary ceremonial centers, or probably those within the Dhammakaya sect in general probably do have access to more money, so it could become an issue.

After being a monk I could see what she meant. It was hard adjusting to the schedule and the restrictions but after a month it all became a bit more normal, and along with some of those choices and options some responsibilities drop away. A monk doesn't need to worry about most expenses, like food or housing, or much about their jobs (although many had harder jobs than a lot of lay-people, work that would be somewhat demanding and perhaps even stressful, requiring long hours). Financial concerns would mostly drop away, but to be honest I'm not sure how that works for a lot of medical care, which may get complicated. One demand I didn't foresee, although I should have after studying for a month to repeat the ordination vows in Pali language, was that it takes a lot of work to learn and retain those endless chants they do in ceremonies.

There are other pros and cons, and lots of related factors, but I could see how in the end some people might like it as a lifestyle choice. Of course this is completely separate from the original phrasing of a question about why people become monks in the first place, since that might be a reason to stay on as a monk but would seem an unlikely reason to ordain.

[jacky54]

Does anyone have a link to the rules a monk should keep? I thought there were about 200?

[honu]

Apparently it's 227; that does sound familiar:

http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

This part gets a little strange; I never learned them when I was a monk (which was 8 years ago now). They covered the main ones with me, or seemed to; it would be hard to narrow down what "main ones" really means. I suspect some of the behavior code monks obey really aren't actually rules, the general manner, or the convention that you never wai first to anyone, etc.

The reason for that was simple enough; they sent the new monks, or temporary monks, to informal classes on what not to do, but as a foreigner I wasn't going to catch that training in Thai language, and they weren't going to translate it for me. It's hard to say to what extent the average Thai has already picked up the background of those rules. Of course they know they're not supposed to touch women and can't eat after noon but I'm not sure how many of the others would be familiar.

Some of the rules they don't really follow. We've covered the background on #17 and #18 of the nissagiyas, not to accept or use money, and they sort of do that, to a limited extent. #1 on that list, not to keep an extra robe for more than 10 days at a time, they would also routinely ignore. Essentially all the rest they really do practice, but some of those get a little vague. One says to only shower twice a month, unless dirty, but that's open to judgement, and monks tend to keep clean now.

One of the other new monks, the temporary, two-week duration kind, told me it was against those rules to smell a flower, and I asked a senior monk and he said it wasn't. I just read the list and nothing about that is on there. I didn't see a rule about not drinking while standing either, which the other monks said you can't do; funny how those minor rules inconsistencies might work out.

[HenryB]

No, I don't.

I see Christianity as a religion based on fear whereas Buddhism is based on knowledge & application of a life based on intelligence & research. No prayers seeking assistance - do it yourself.

That is the European view of buddhism.

That view is very appealing, and maybe close to the original philosophy.

Do you think this also is the view of Thai buddhism?

PS In my post I was really replying to shunter, but I like to hear the opinion of others too.

Thai Buddhist Monks are the smartest the most of all the most ethical oany people in the whole wide world

[VincentRJ]

Apparently it's 227; that does sound familiar:

http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

This part gets a little strange; I never learned them when I was a monk (which was 8 years ago now). They covered the main ones with me, or seemed to; it would be hard to narrow down what "main ones" really means. I suspect some of the behavior code monks obey really aren't actually rules, the general manner, or the convention that you never wai first to anyone, etc.

The reason for that was simple enough; they sent the new monks, or temporary monks, to informal classes on what not to do, but as a foreigner I wasn't going to catch that training in Thai language, and they weren't going to translate it for me. It's hard to say to what extent the average Thai has already picked up the background of those rules. Of course they know they're not supposed to touch women and can't eat after noon but I'm not sure how many of the others would be familiar.

Some of the rules they don't really follow. We've covered the background on #17 and #18 of the nissagiyas, not to accept or use money, and they sort of do that, to a limited extent. #1 on that list, not to keep an extra robe for more than 10 days at a time, they would also routinely ignore. Essentially all the rest they really do practice, but some of those get a little vague. One says to only shower twice a month, unless dirty, but that's open to judgement, and monks tend to keep clean now.

One of the other new monks, the temporary, two-week duration kind, told me it was against those rules to smell a flower, and I asked a senior monk and he said it wasn't. I just read the list and nothing about that is on there. I didn't see a rule about not drinking while standing either, which the other monks said you can't do; funny how those minor rules inconsistencies might work out.

Hi Honu,

Thanks for the link to those 227 rules that monks should follow. My first impression is one of amazement at the apparent triviality of many of those rules.

One such rule which caught my attention is Rule #7 of the 92 pācittiyas, which states:

"Not to teach to a woman more than six consecutive words of dhamma."

I clicked on the rule to get a fuller description and found it quite baffling. here's the full description.

"If, not being in the presence of a man able to understand, a bhikkhu teaches a woman more than six consecutive words of dhamma (tipiṭaka or authoritative commentaries on them) in pāḷi, he commits a pācittiya.

If the bhikkhu uses another language, he can freely teach the dhamma to women. By pronouncing in pāḷi, the sentences of taking refuge in the triple gem or the precepts, there is no fault. The reason for this being that it was not meant to make known the points of the dhamma.

According to this rule, a series of words means a verse, for the texts composed in the form of stanzas. Concerning texts devoid of a particular structure, each word is considered as a continuation of the preceding one.

A bhikkhu, when in the presence of several women, can teach six consecutive words of dhamma to each one, even if the others listen. As soon as the bhikkhu or the woman changes his or her position, the bhikkhu can teach six supplementary continuations (to the same woman) without being at fault."

That last paragraph is very strange. It gives the impression if there is more than one woman, and if the monk or any of the women continue to change their seating positions, then the monk can continue teaching indefinitely.

[camerata]

This Vinaya Guide for Laypeople is clearer:

The previous rules dealt with physical proximity whereas this next rule concerns a bhikkhu and woman talking alone. It might appear strange that a rule should completely forbid confidential interviews with a bhikkhu alone. Yet if one reflects on how things have regularly gone wrong with such private spiritual counselling, it is easier to see that being safe is better than sorry — for the sake of everyone involved. Even if their conduct is completely pure, it still may lead to rumour and criticism.[52]

The seventh Confession offence arose when Ven. Udaayin went to visit lay supporters. He sat close to the mother of the family at the front door, teaching her Dhamma in a quiet, confidential manner, and then approached the daughter-in-law who was by the side door and spoke to her in the same way. Both women mistakenly thought that he was flirting with the other, and criticized him, saying that Dhamma should be given in a clear and open way. As a result the Buddha eventually laid down that:

"Teaching more than six sentences [vaacaa] of Dhamma to a woman, except in response to a question, is [an offence of Confession] unless a knowledgeable man is present." (Summarized Paac. 7; BMC p.285)

There are different interpretations as to exactly what is meant by 'six sentences,' for the Paali word vaacaa can mean 'word,' 'saying' or 'speech.'[53] Even if there are many women, but no other man, it is still considered an offence.

◊ One can see from the origin of this rule that the point (again) is not that women cannot be taught Dhamma but that it should be done in a way that is completely open and above misinterpretation.

[honu]

It sort of goes without saying this list of rules is a bit dated. It isn't as self-explanatory where it is all coming from.

According to comments by our Sanskrit professor in college at least some of these rules are represented in modern restrictions of the higher classes in India that were observed very recently, or to some extent may still be today.

A good example is the prohibition against urinating while standing up. The highest Indian caste (Brahmin) still shouldn't do this today, according to him, and he was saying that less than a decade ago. Why not? Who knows, and really what does it matter. Monks essentially do still practice this restriction, but so what if they didn't, it's hard to imagine what it had been based on being relevant.

The restriction on teaching women six sentences is a bit like that, but a bit different. Monks definitely don't tend to spend any time isolated alone with women, because it really doesn't look good, so if my wife has to drop something off at the temple in the evening when it's likely to be quiet there I have to go with her.

[VincentRJ]

The seventh Confession offence arose when Ven. Udaayin went to visit lay supporters. He sat close to the mother of the family at the front door, teaching her Dhamma in a quiet, confidential manner, and then approached the daughter-in-law who was by the side door and spoke to her in the same way. Both women mistakenly thought that he was flirting with the other, and criticized him, saying that Dhamma should be given in a clear and open way. As a result the Buddha eventually laid down that:

◊ One can see from the origin of this rule that the point (again) is not that women cannot be taught Dhamma but that it should be done in a way that is completely open and above misinterpretation.

Thanks for the clarification, Camerata. I generally understood that this particular rule would have related to the perilous situation that might develop if a Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni were to spend too much time alone, considering that sexual relations are forbidden.

However, I'm still puzzled that Buddhist rules of behaviour should be influenced and modified in accordance with a possible misinterpretation by the ignorant.

Isn't it a principle of Buddhist teachings that the mind continuously play tricks on us, and what we consider to be reality is really a misinterpretation to some degree, unless we are 'enlightened'?

[camerata]

If you look at the Vinaya, many of the rules seem to be aimed at ensuring a flawless image for the sangha. You can't just be pure - you have to be seen to be pure. This wasn't always because of criticism from the laity, it was sometimes due to malicious criticism from rival sects. I recall reading that some of the more extreme Vinaya rules are thought to be a response to criticism from the Jains.

[VincentRJ]

If you look at the Vinaya, many of the rules seem to be aimed at ensuring a flawless image for the sangha. You can't just be pure - you have to be seen to be pure. This wasn't always because of criticism from the laity, it was sometimes due to malicious criticism from rival sects. I recall reading that some of the more extreme Vinaya rules are thought to be a response to criticism from the Jains.

Yes. That does appear to be the case, which is not something that appeals to me. 'Keeping up appearances', and being concerned about what others might think, is a constant worry and activity of modern life. One presumes that someone who is genuinely interested in Buddhism and considering leading the life of a monk, would want to escape from such concerns. Yet it seems that one set of rules has been replaced by another set of rules.

Nevertheless, I can see there is a practical reason for such rules, or at least there was a practical reason that that was relevant during the times of the Buddha. When a group of people is totally dependent for their very survival on charitable hand-outs from individual working people, then what those working people might think of the group, whether rightly or wrongly, could affect the survival of the group.

I'm reminded here of the recent deposition of an Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull of the same party.

After such an event there is a great deal of analysis in search of the reasons behind the downfall, and one political commentator has been quick to publish a book detailing the reasons.

It seems that Tony Abbott was considered by members of his own party to have been far too dependent on his female 'Chief of Staff', Peta Credlin.

The book reveals that both Tony Abbot and Peta Credlin were individually warned by another female senator that there was a deep concern among many Liberal members of parliament that they were having an 'affair'.

The senator is reported to have told them:

'Politics is about perceptions.

'Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that you are sleeping with your chief of staff. That's the perception, and you need to deal with it.

'I am here because I care about you, and I care about your family, and I feel I need to tell you the truth, the brutal truth. This is what your colleagues really think.'

Of course, neither of them acted on that advice. Tony Abbot could have sacked his Chief of Staff, or Peta Credlin could simply have resigned in the interests of the party.

We've had a number of discussions on this forum as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. It's probably both, but it now seems it's also politics.

[camerata]

Appearances were important to the early sangha, though, partly because they were dependent on the laity for material support and partly because it was the serene demeanor and impeccable behaviour of the enlightened ones that attracted people to the Buddha's teachings. One man even asked the Buddha if he was a god.

In the present day, when monks act more as a priesthood than as ascetics, you'd think impeccable behaviour wouldn't be so important, but it is. It's widely believed in popular Buddhism that keeping the precepts has a key role in giving monks the "spiritual power" needed to help the laity.

[VincentRJ]

In the present day, when monks act more as a priesthood than as ascetics, you'd think impeccable behaviour wouldn't be so important, but it is.

Camerata,

I think it's the other way around. When a person is an ascetic, then 'perceived' impeccable behaviour by others is not important.

However, when a religion has been established with a priesthood, then impeccable behaviour becomes of great significance.

[camerata]

From the individual's point of view, perhaps, but I'm talking about the Buddha's sangha. The Buddha had the great burden of ensuring the teachings and sangha would endure after his death. Part of that relied on the continuing good perceptions and good will of the laity (just look at the Buddha's reluctance to ordain women, which was shocking to the laity), and part of it relied on the support of kings/rulers, which continued until the present day.

[VincentRJ]

The Buddha had the great burden of ensuring the teachings and sangha would endure after his death..

I find it difficult to imagine that the Buddha would have felt burdened by anything. Wasn't he initially reluctant to even bother attempting to teach his philosophy, presumably thinking it would be a waste of his time?

[honu]

No matter what the core teachings say about the Buddha's initial impression of the potential for success in teaching I couldn't believe an idea that subtle would have ever been accurately communicated, or retained for 2500 years across a stretch of oral tradition if it had been.

It's possible to completely accept different teachings literally and completely, since there are passages to go on, some very specific, but it makes sense to me to learn as broadly as possible and then put it all together. It seems clear enough to me that the earliest teachings tend to contradict each other, especially related to what is implied versus stated explicitly, although why that might be is debatable, or even if that's actually true.

Someone would really need to be fluent in Pali to read the Pali canon directly, with limited access through translations, and given the limited number of people that study that language now almost no one would have a very informed opinion. I know the head of a Buddhist university program here that may have spent his life on such a project but I'd expect that as a monk he would be biased about the content, so it would be hard to accept his interpretation and opinion as objective. We never discussed the subject so I'm not sure to what extent he ever did learn Pali.

[VincentRJ]

No matter what the core teachings say about the Buddha's initial impression of the potential for success in teaching I couldn't believe an idea that subtle would have ever been accurately communicated, or retained for 2500 years across a stretch of oral tradition if it had been.

It's possible to completely accept different teachings literally and completely, since there are passages to go on, some very specific, but it makes sense to me to learn as broadly as possible and then put it all together. It seems clear enough to me that the earliest teachings tend to contradict each other, especially related to what is implied versus stated explicitly, although why that might be is debatable, or even if that's actually true.

Someone would really need to be fluent in Pali to read the Pali canon directly, with limited access through translations, and given the limited number of people that study that language now almost no one would have a very informed opinion. I know the head of a Buddhist university program here that may have spent his life on such a project but I'd expect that as a monk he would be biased about the content, so it would be hard to accept his interpretation and opinion as objective. We never discussed the subject so I'm not sure to what extent he ever did learn Pali.

Hi Honu,

I've just discovered an informative analysis of the situation at:

https://www.academia.edu/2514515/Why_Did_Brahm%C4%81_Ask_the_Buddha_to_Teach

There are a number of different implications to the story which are mentioned in the article, but the overall conclusion is:

"The episode of Brahmā’s request to the Buddha to teach has been regarded as problematic from early times, since it suggests that the Buddha was initially lacking in compassion. Comparison of versions of the story shows it to be possibly pre-Aśokan in origin. A close reading of themes in the episode, in relation to other incidents in the Buddha’s life described in the Pali canon, show that it need not be taken as portraying an actual experience of theBuddha. The original purpose of the episode was not to describe the Buddha’s inner conflict but to show that Brahmā, representative of Brahmanical religion, was a follower of the Buddha. The episode was originally religious propaganda."

I find it interesting that Brahma describes himself as: 'I am great Brahma, conqueror, unconquered, all-seeing, all-powerful, lord, maker, creator, chief, appointer, orderer, father of all that are and will be', yet Buddha seems to have dismissed questions about a creator God in his teachings, and here is one of the earliest stories in the Buddhist literature, relating how this 'creator god' of Hindu mythology advised Gautama to teach the Dhamma. It seems a bit contradictory.

Perhaps the Buddha did not really need to be asked by a creator god to teach his own methods, but a celebrity endorsement might have been helpful.

[honu]

Seems odd the story goes straight to sorting out implied problems with the conventional story without doing much with how unlikely it is that such a god exists, or that if he did there would be an account like this to draw upon.

It does seem possible it was all developed to show differences in competing perspectives, as the author is working through, but it doesn't seem like one needs to tease out logical implications as evidence or problems when the background related to the conversation itself seems unlikely.

Or then again maybe there is a real Brahma, and maybe those two had this talk, word for word.

[VincentRJ]

Seems odd the story goes straight to sorting out implied problems with the conventional story without doing much with how unlikely it is that such a god exists, or that if he did there would be an account like this to draw upon.

It does seem possible it was all developed to show differences in competing perspectives, as the author is working through, but it doesn't seem like one needs to tease out logical implications as evidence or problems when the background related to the conversation itself seems unlikely.

Or then again maybe there is a real Brahma, and maybe those two had this talk, word for word.

I didn't get that impression. Near the beginning of the chapter, the author makes the following comment:

"But whatever the genesis of the episode, I am not so much interested to judge the truth of the episode (whether or not a god really asked the Buddha to teach), which we are in no position to ascertain, but to inquire into the value of the story for the early tradition."

That seems sensible to me. Didn't Gautama's teachings also suggest that it's futile to speculate on the existence of an (ultimate) creator god?

The author goes on to state:

"Unless we are prepared to regard Brahma as a celestial apparition who descends from the sky in order to plead with the Buddha on behalf of humanity, we need to consider Brahma as another metaphor of Buddha's inner life.

Brahma, internalized in accordance with a psychological interpretation of myth, becomes a higher or divine aspect of the Buddha's mind, and the episode of Brahma's request illustrates the play of forces inside the Buddha's whole mind."

In other words, this story of Brahma imploring the Buddha to teach, can be interpreted as a metaphor for a particular psychological process.

That's the sort of explanation that makes more sense to me.

[only1]

I find it difficult to imagine that the Buddha would have felt burdened by anything. Wasn't he initially reluctant to even bother attempting to teach his philosophy, presumably thinking it would be a waste of his time?

Are you sure of what you wrote ?

What makes you think he was reluctant to teach his knowledge(not philosophy) ?

Or if the "presumably" is made for yourself, why make such unnecessary presumption ?

[only1]

In the present day, when monks act more as a priesthood than as ascetics, you'd think impeccable behaviour wouldn't be so important, but it is.

Camerata,

I think it's the other way around. When a person is an ascetic, then 'perceived' impeccable behaviour by others is not important.

However, when a religion has been established with a priesthood, then impeccable behaviour becomes of great significance.

Don't get confused.

Impeccable behaviour and those "perceived" by others are totally different.

[only1]

We've had a number of discussions on this forum as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. It's probably both, but it now seems it's also politics.

Does it matter whether Buddhism is a religion, philosophy or politics to you ?

It's not important to another how or what he thinks others "perceived" it.

It's how one own self perceived it that matters.

For your knowledge, Buddhism is much bigger than religion, philosophy or politics.

It's a way of life.

Edited March 16, 2016 by only1

[only1]

No matter what the core teachings say about the Buddha's initial impression of the potential for success in teaching I couldn't believe an idea that subtle would have ever been accurately communicated, or retained for 2500 years across a stretch of oral tradition if it had been.

It's possible to completely accept different teachings literally and completely, since there are passages to go on, some very specific, but it makes sense to me to learn as broadly as possible and then put it all together. It seems clear enough to me that the earliest teachings tend to contradict each other, especially related to what is implied versus stated explicitly, although why that might be is debatable, or even if that's actually true.

Someone would really need to be fluent in Pali to read the Pali canon directly, with limited access through translations, and given the limited number of people that study that language now almost no one would have a very informed opinion. I know the head of a Buddhist university program here that may have spent his life on such a project but I'd expect that as a monk he would be biased about the content, so it would be hard to accept his interpretation and opinion as objective. We never discussed the subject so I'm not sure to what extent he ever did learn Pali.

Hi Honu,

I've just discovered an informative analysis of the situation at:

https://www.academia.edu/2514515/Why_Did_Brahm%C4%81_Ask_the_Buddha_to_Teach

There are a number of different implications to the story which are mentioned in the article, but the overall conclusion is:

"The episode of Brahmās request to the Buddha to teach has been regarded as problematic from early times, since it suggests that the Buddha was initially lacking in compassion. Comparison of versions of the story shows it to be possibly pre-Aśokan in origin. A close reading of themes in the episode, in relation to other incidents in the Buddhas life described in the Pali canon, show that it need not be taken as portraying an actual experience of theBuddha. The original purpose of the episode was not to describe the Buddhas inner conflict but to show that Brahmā, representative of Brahmanical religion, was a follower of the Buddha. The episode was originally religious propaganda."

I find it interesting that Brahma describes himself as: 'I am great Brahma, conqueror, unconquered, all-seeing, all-powerful, lord, maker, creator, chief, appointer, orderer, father of all that are and will be', yet Buddha seems to have dismissed questions about a creator God in his teachings, and here is one of the earliest stories in the Buddhist literature, relating how this 'creator god' of Hindu mythology advised Gautama to teach the Dhamma. It seems a bit contradictory.

Perhaps the Buddha did not really need to be asked by a creator god to teach his own methods, but a celebrity endorsement might have been helpful.

Interesting find, if this was true, than it makes more sense how the idea of Christianity's "son of God" and Islam's "messenger of God" came about, considering the close similarities of Brahma and Abraham, Sarasthi and Sarah and their big flood story, and Jesus and Buddha similarities (Maya and Mary, miracle pregnancy, birth during a journey home or from home, prophesied after birth, had 12 disciples and one who betrayed).

[VincentRJ]

We've had a number of discussions on this forum as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. It's probably both, but it now seems it's also politics.

Does it matter whether Buddhism is a religion, philosophy or politics to you ?

It's not important to another how or what he thinks others "perceived" it.

It's how one own self perceived it that matters.

For your knowledge, Buddhism is much bigger than religion, philosophy or politics.

It's a way of life.

Of course it does. I like to be clear in my mind, as far as possible, what something is, so I can identify it. If I see a coil of rope lying on the ground, I don't want to be confused and think it's a snake, or vice versa.

I don't find the description of Buddhism as a 'way of life' particularly informative or illuminating. Every living creature on this planet has a 'way of life', but only a tiny percentage could be described as Buddhist. Furthermore, those human beings who might 'appear' to be Buddhists, or categorised as Buddhist, or describe themselves as Buddhist, will each have a different way of life, to some degree.

One would expect a monk in a temple to conform more rigidly to a specific way of life than 'so-called' Buddhist laypeople, but even the way of life of different monks in the same temple can vary to some degree, not to mention the way of life in different temples and different sects of Buddhism.

For example, when I visited Wat Phra That Doi Kong Mu, situated on a hill in Mae Hong Son, and accessed by walking up literally hundreds of steps, I was interested to find out how the monks would deal with this arduous situation on their daily rounds with the alms bowl. Would they really walk down and then back up those hundreds of steps every day? If so, that would be tremendous exercise for them, and keep them fit. I was prepared to be impressed.

What I discovered is that there's a road around the back of the temple, which was built some time ago, which allows access by vehicle. A portion of the monks, probably most of them, travel down to the city by taxi or tuk tuk, as well as back up by taxi. A few appeared to walk down the steps but take a taxi back up to the temple. Only a very few walked down and then walked back up, after their rounds.

Walking, as opposed to taking a taxi, is a difference in the 'way of life', wouldn't you agree?

　

It's not important to another how or what he thinks others "perceived" it.

It's how one own self perceived it that matters.

Of course. That's understood. The discussion is about why the possible misperception by others, regarding one's own behaviour, has been addressed through the introduction of numerous, restrictive rules. The reason appears to be practical and political. If a monk is reliant upon charitable hand-outs from others for his survival, then any misperceptions about the monk's moral behaviour can affect his survival, or at least result in his having to leave the sangha to earn a living.

Since Buddhism is not just a religion, and not just philosophy, and not just politics, it has to be bigger than each of those aspects. However, there is no life of any description that is not a 'way of life'. To describe Buddhism as a 'way of life' is as useful as defining a living creature as something that's alive.

Hope that's all clear.

Edited March 17, 2016 by VincentRJ