Why be a Buddhist Monk in Thailand?

[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.

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.

Haha, your confusion or ignorance is hilarious to me.

You are just like someone who said he believed in both evolution and the Adam and Eve story when he actually don't understand both or one of of them(in order words, illogical).

Back on your eg of the snake or a rope, you need to know both what they are all. If you don't know any one of them what is it, your worry or question is non-existent or irrelevant. Just like if you don't fully understand everything about life, how could you understand well what is the way of life ?

I am surprise you don't seems to understand anything much about Buddhism despite your "keenness" to know it.

May I ask how old are you ?

Edited March 17, 2016 by only1

[VincentRJ]

Haha, your confusion or ignorance is hilarious to me.

You are just like someone who said he believed in both evolution and the Adam and Eve story when he actually don't understand both or one of of them(in order words, illogical).

Back on your eg of the snake or a rope, you need to know both what they are all. If you don't know any one of them what is it, your worry or question is non-existent or irrelevant. Just like if you don't fully understand everything about life, how could you understand well what is the way of life ?

I am surprise you don't seems to understand anything much about Buddhism despite your "keenness" to know it.

May I ask how old are you ?

Thank you for the present, but I have no need for it. You keep it. It's yours.

[hookedondhamma]

For some reason I can't quote Cameratas post but it's a good one (dealing with the how some rules came not fr9m criticism of the laity but ...)

There are alot of views on how some of the rules are antiquated, unnecessary etc., that I've heard for years. A trick to see why they're in place is just to observe the monk who doesn't follow that rule or take on that rule yourself.

The training rules nfor example - slurping or smacking the lips when drinking or eating - if you observe the monks who don't practice this vs the ones who do you'll normally observe the ones who do are more presentable and refined. It's like a set of fine tuners on a violin. (Kind of like when the laypeople prepare snails and provide a bowl of toothpicks to consume them - the monks sucking the life out of the shell versus the ones who neatly use the toothpick and the least amount of effort).

It seems like a mountain out of a molehill but to those confused or doubtful - try it out for a while. Times change but people are still people. If anyone has access to the tipitika one will see not.much has changed in people's behavior in correlation to the rules formulated.

[only1]

Haha, your confusion or ignorance is hilarious to me.

You are just like someone who said he believed in both evolution and the Adam and Eve story when he actually don't understand both or one of of them(in order words, illogical).

Back on your eg of the snake or a rope, you need to know both what they are all. If you don't know any one of them what is it, your worry or question is non-existent or irrelevant. Just like if you don't fully understand everything about life, how could you understand well what is the way of life ?

I am surprise you don't seems to understand anything much about Buddhism despite your "keenness" to know it.

May I ask how old are you ?

Thank you for the present, but I have no need for it. You keep it. It's yours.

It's okay if you don't find it useful. It can be useful to others.

As Buddhism taught, one must find it suitable before following.

[only1]

For some reason I can't quote Cameratas post but it's a good one (dealing with the how some rules came not fr9m criticism of the laity but ...)

There are alot of views on how some of the rules are antiquated, unnecessary etc., that I've heard for years. A trick to see why they're in place is just to observe the monk who doesn't follow that rule or take on that rule yourself.

The training rules nfor example - slurping or smacking the lips when drinking or eating - if you observe the monks who don't practice this vs the ones who do you'll normally observe the ones who do are more presentable and refined. It's like a set of fine tuners on a violin. (Kind of like when the laypeople prepare snails and provide a bowl of toothpicks to consume them - the monks sucking the life out of the shell versus the ones who neatly use the toothpick and the least amount of effort).

It seems like a mountain out of a molehill but to those confused or doubtful - try it out for a while. Times change but people are still people. If anyone has access to the tipitika one will see not.much has changed in people's behavior in correlation to the rules formulated.

Isn't this the reason for Buddhism ? No one is perfect. Not even God. Even God could made the mistake on his own creations, such that they sinned. That's why Creator God Brahma summoned the Buddha to teach. Maybe that also explained the belief that Buddha taught the Gods and deities too.

[VincentRJ]

Haha, your confusion or ignorance is hilarious to me.

You are just like someone who said he believed in both evolution and the Adam and Eve story when he actually don't understand both or one of of them(in order words, illogical).

Back on your eg of the snake or a rope, you need to know both what they are all. If you don't know any one of them what is it, your worry or question is non-existent or irrelevant. Just like if you don't fully understand everything about life, how could you understand well what is the way of life ?

I am surprise you don't seems to understand anything much about Buddhism despite your "keenness" to know it.

May I ask how old are you ?

Thank you for the present, but I have no need for it. You keep it. It's yours.

It's okay if you don't find it useful. It can be useful to others.

As Buddhism taught, one must find it suitable before following.

I was referring to your post to me, not to Buddhism. Didn't you realize that?

[only1]

Haha, your confusion or ignorance is hilarious to me.

You are just like someone who said he believed in both evolution and the Adam and Eve story when he actually don't understand both or one of of them(in order words, illogical).

Back on your eg of the snake or a rope, you need to know both what they are all. If you don't know any one of them what is it, your worry or question is non-existent or irrelevant. Just like if you don't fully understand everything about life, how could you understand well what is the way of life ?

I am surprise you don't seems to understand anything much about Buddhism despite your "keenness" to know it.

May I ask how old are you ?

Thank you for the present, but I have no need for it. You keep it. It's yours.

It's okay if you don't find it useful. It can be useful to others.

As Buddhism taught, one must find it suitable before following.

I was referring to your post to me, not to Buddhism. Didn't you realize that?

All my posts, replies and comments are from Buddhism, just that you don't realise it.

Do you remember I told you Buddhism is way of life ? It applies to everyone, although whether one accepts it or not is his personal choice.

[tartempion]

When I see how Buddhism is lived in my village I shake my head.

I was raised with candles, holy water and incense, what I see here is far worse.

I think Eckhart Tolle explains the problem very well in New Earth, all religions got it wrong including whatever you call Buddhism.

Have a nice day.

[only1]

At least Buddhism have real meaningful teachings like the 4 Noble Truth and Noble 8 Fold Path and they don't use tricks to convert others or collect more money.

[nongai]

Interestingly, the scriptures say that all doubts are resolved when one attains stream-entry (sotapanna).

However, to do this one would have to drop the first three fetters, Self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), Clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and Skeptical doubt (vicikicchā), a monumental task in itself.

I don't know if others share my experience.

I'm finding overcoming even simple aspects of my conditioning a very difficult task.

Habitual behavior seems to win over.

I would say that those first three fetters are the easiest to overcome than the remaining seven. I have absolutely no doubts in the Dhamma of the Buddha and the main teachings of karma, rebirth and the many realms of existence.

How can i call myself a follower of the Buddha if I doubt his teachings? Also the teachings of certain monks who I am certain have attained to Arahant. They would never lie, and since I can read Thai fluently many of their teachings are available to me which are not to many Westerners who cannot speak or read Thai since few works are translated into English.

[nongai]

How much does an average monk make a month from the ceremonies they attend, weddings, funeral, house warming and blessings? I once saw 3 senior looking ones at a Muay Thai match at 1 am betting on the boxers, so it can't be that badly paid. They were taking the money out of donation envelopes, this was in Samut Prakan. Maybe it was their karma to be up to no good?

Karma is a matter of choice. It is the law of cause and effect. The result of past karma might bring us certain effects such as the conditions we are born into, but we make our own choices. If those monks choose to break their precepts they are creating negative karma for themselves, but their choice is not a result of karma.

This was something the Buddha tried to correct, the Hindu view of karma as being fate and not something we can change. Of course we cannot change the past, but we do make the choices in the present and so affect our future.

[nongai]

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

Although some temples do have very old dilapidated buildings which need repair or replacement, the vast majority of building work done is just to 'beautify' the temple or create yet another large statue of the Buddha or a respected monk (none of whom desired images of themselves) in order to attract visitors. They get all this money from donations and then try to think of ways to spend it. Most of these type of temples do not teach the true Dhamma since the monks themselves are ignorant of it.

The Thai custom of writing the donors name upon each pillar or portion of a building they donated towards the construction of is laughable. Whatever happened to 'hiding one's light under a bushel' or the Thai version 'placing ones bit of gold leaf on the back of a Buddha image'? Like they also broadcast over the village speaker system every donation and the names and amounts..... embarassing!

Many monks get so infatuated by the money they do anything to attract more visitors, and thus donations, to their temple, but once they have got all this money then have to think of ways to spend it.... all the time thinking that they are making merit from these actions!

[nongai]

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.

It is a part of the process which every single Buddha goes through. After perfecting themselves as Boddhisattas for aeons they are always born into high nobllity, they always have two principal followers, they always seek the truth after meeting 'The Four Signs', they always attain enlightenment sitting under a tree (but not the same species). They always have doubts, that the profound truth they have just uncovered during their enlightenment could be penetrated and understood by ordinary humans (they themselves being far from ordinary because of their vast experience training themselves as Boddhisattas). They are all entreated three times by the current Brahma to teach because, they are reminded, that there are some with 'little dust in front of their eyes who could understand'. Theravada Buddhist rules for a monk are a follow on from this, in that a monk can only teach the Dhamma after being requested to. This prevents any proselytising and going as missionaries seeking converts. 'When the student is ready the teacher will appear.'

Edited June 10, 2016 by nongai

[nongai]

For some reason I can't quote Cameratas post but it's a good one (dealing with the how some rules came not fr9m criticism of the laity but ...)

There are alot of views on how some of the rules are antiquated, unnecessary etc., that I've heard for years. A trick to see why they're in place is just to observe the monk who doesn't follow that rule or take on that rule yourself.

The training rules nfor example - slurping or smacking the lips when drinking or eating - if you observe the monks who don't practice this vs the ones who do you'll normally observe the ones who do are more presentable and refined. It's like a set of fine tuners on a violin. (Kind of like when the laypeople prepare snails and provide a bowl of toothpicks to consume them - the monks sucking the life out of the shell versus the ones who neatly use the toothpick and the least amount of effort).

It seems like a mountain out of a molehill but to those confused or doubtful - try it out for a while. Times change but people are still people. If anyone has access to the tipitika one will see not.much has changed in people's behavior in correlation to the rules formulated.

Isn't this the reason for Buddhism ? No one is perfect. Not even God. Even God could made the mistake on his own creations, such that they sinned. That's why Creator God Brahma summoned the Buddha to teach. Maybe that also explained the belief that Buddha taught the Gods and deities too.

The great Brahma believes himself to be the creator of all, but is put straight by the Buddha, since he is really just stuck in Samsara like all the other beings.

"MAHA BRAHMA

The stories of a Buddha going to teach a brahma take place on the plane of Maha Brahma, the third of the fine-material planes (No. 14). Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods.

The Buddha has directly seen the origins of Maha Brahma and understands what it requires to be reborn in his world. In the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) the Buddha describes how a supposed Creator God came to believe himself omnipotent and how others came to rely on his sovereignty. His description was based, not on speculation or hearsay, but on his own direct knowledge. The Buddha explains that when our world system disintegrates, as it regularly does after extremely long periods of time, the lower sixteen planes are all destroyed. Beings disappear from all planes below the seventeenth, the plane of the Abhassara gods. Whatever beings cannot be born on the seventeenth or a higher brahma plane then must take birth on the lower planes in other remote world systems.

Eventually the world starts to re-form. Then a solitary being passes away from the Abhassara plane and takes rebirth on the plane of Maha Brahma. A palace created by his kamma awaits him there: "There he dwells, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long time." After ages pass, he becomes lonely and longs for other beings to join him. It just so happens that shortly after the brahma starts craving for company, other beings from the Abhassara plane, who have exhausted their lifespans there, pass away and are reborn in the palace of Brahma, in companionship with him.

Because these beings seemed to arise in accordance with the first brahma's wish, he becomes convinced that he is the almighty God: "I am the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher... the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being." The other brahmas, seeing that he was already present when they took birth in his world, accept his claim and revere him as their creator.

Eventually this misconception of a Creator God spreads to the human plane. One of the other brahmas passes away and is reborn here. He develops concentration and learns to recollect his previous life with Maha Brahma, but none of his lives before that. Recollecting that existence he recalls that Maha Brahma was considered the "father of all that are and are to be... permanent, stable, eternal." As he is unable to remember further back, he believes this to be absolute truth and propounds a theistic doctrine of an omnipotent Creator God (Net 69-70, 155-66).

The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, a highly renowned Myanmar scholar-monk of the first part of this century, gave a careful analysis of the powers of Maha Brahma in his Niyama Dipani (MB pp. 138-39). He states that although Maha Brahma can perform all sorts of transformations, he cannot actually create independent creatures, change the kammic law of cause and effect, or keep anyone from growing old or dying. Brahma can use his special powers to transport a man to the brahma plane for a short visit, but he cannot ensure that someone will be reborn there."

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

Ayacana Sutta: The Request

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Teacher of the Devas

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

Itivuttaka: This Was Said by the Buddha

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.intro.than.html

Edited June 10, 2016 by nongai

[IMA_FARANG]

Once a monk is ordained,he is a monk whather he speaks Thai or not.

In my time on this forum I can recall one, originally English I believe, who posted on this forum often.

He eventually disrobed and left the monkhood.

Entirely of his own choice, as I recall.

[nongai]

I have known several foreign monks here. A temple such as Wat Pa Nanachart is best for them. Those who stay at Thai temples mostly end up disrobing, whether they speak Thai or not. This is because, although the Thai lay people enjoy seeing foreign monks because they are more devout than Thai monks (because they have usually converted from another religion and therefore studied Buddhism), the Thai monks in general do not like foreign monks. They become jealous of the knowledge and experience of life in general and in other countries. They like to pretend that they know more about Buddhism just because they are born Thai and therefore born Buddhist, but usually the foreigner knows more because they have studied and also practice. The foreign monk is a thorn in the side of those Thai monks who only ordained for an easy time and do not practice, because it is a constant reminder of their own failings.

I would hazard a guess that only 5% of Thai monks practice. Foreign monks get disillusioned by the corruption and business of Thai monks and temples.

[VincentRJ]

I have known several foreign monks here. A temple such as Wat Pa Nanachart is best for them. Those who stay at Thai temples mostly end up disrobing, whether they speak Thai or not. This is because, although the Thai lay people enjoy seeing foreign monks because they are more devout than Thai monks (because they have usually converted from another religion and therefore studied Buddhism), the Thai monks in general do not like foreign monks. They become jealous of the knowledge and experience of life in general and in other countries. They like to pretend that they know more about Buddhism just because they are born Thai and therefore born Buddhist, but usually the foreigner knows more because they have studied and also practice. The foreign monk is a thorn in the side of those Thai monks who only ordained for an easy time and do not practice, because it is a constant reminder of their own failings.

I would hazard a guess that only 5% of Thai monks practice. Foreign monks get disillusioned by the corruption and business of Thai monks and temples.

Interesting point! I suspect there is an element of truth there.