I Don't See Any Buddhism

[ExpatLife]

Before I came to LOS back in 2010 I was pretty much already a 'Buddhist' by nature, not officially as I had not gone through the triple gem ceremony (still haven't) but that is not really that important. I wanted to leave my homeland and narrowed the location down to either Sri Lanka or Thailand, never once stepping foot anywhere near either country. I chose these 2 simply because they had the highest ratio of Buddhists in their populations lol, I was younger and so I was a tad reckless I guess.

When I got here it soon sank into the system that Buddhism had long since been practiced as the Dharma suggests. Luck, greed, egotism, mysticism and the paranormal seem to be at the forefront of the 'religion' and people know very little of what the Buddha was trying to get across.

I was thinking the other day about my favourite monk, Ajahn Chah, who is now deceased. I realised how much of a great teacher he was and how on point his practice happened to be. He hails from Northern Isaan btw. I have not gotten to know many monks here since my arrival personally, but it seems difficult to find a teacher who actually believes in what they are meant to stand for; a monk who is not the embodiment of corruption and ignorance or a monk who even meditates!

There is a temple very close to where I live, a stones throw away even. And last week I think a police officer was going to be ordained for a few weeks as Thais so often do. This police officers family and friends were having the ceremony the night before to celebrate, and there was a lot of drinking and loud music inside the temple grounds! Basically a full blown party going down right in the grounds lol..

tl;dr are there any great monks or nuns that you have come across here, and are there any pockets of actual Buddhism going down in LOS? I cannot see anything

[cooked]

I met a monk who solved a family problem with a few words, somehow things started to work out; a son, grandson and great grandson, two years old, living 700Km away, two years old, was restored to his father. No more mention of half a million Baht as a recompense. Impressive. I have seen a few things along the same lines and no longer raise objections when some kind of a ceremony is proposed for what to me are obscure reasons. It works for them and it rubs of on you after a few years. I was told to dream a lotto number. I did and we won ฿4000. I don't question things much these days.

However, as much as I admire the guy (and I will visit him again sometime) I am convinced that he is a shamanistic monk, if that's the correct expression, living in a Buddhist framework. Reading other stuff, I am thinking that Thailand is a shamanistic country with Buddhist and Brahmanic influences. It is what it is. Of course there are many who take the study and contemplation of Buddhism seriously, but growing up in Thailand leaves them open to all the shamanic and Brahmanic influences from their childhood. (Once a Catholic, always a Catholic). Does Shamaism require drugs of some kind? I don't know.

In the same vein, the 'forest monks' that occasionally turn up in a neighbourhood for a few days before disappearing again seem to be taking poverty and contemplation seriously.

[Brucenkhamen]

Have you visited any of the Ajahn Chah branch monasteries? or any of the other monasteries or retreat centres listed in the sticky guide http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/41645-a-guide-to-buddhist-monasteriesmeditation-centresstudy-groups/

You are likely to be disappointed if you just turn up at the nearest village wat. It's a bit like just turning on the TV without determining which channels and timeslots have something worth watching.

[1FinickyOne]

I have met a few interesting monks, mostly in passing as I am not a student... I just sit and chat with them about whatever...

I think you have to remember that anyone can become a monk and everyone does - it does not make them necessarily wiser or holier the next day.

Both Sri Lanka and Thailand are places where people smile easily... so, I think they were good choices.

I guess some of the "Buddhism" is in the easy "mais bpen rai" attitude of the people... and the smiles. But, keep searching. Isn't that supposed to be part of the process?

[camerata]

One post denigrating Buddhism has been deleted. Constructive posts only, thanks.

[IMA_FARANG]

As the Zen story goes the Master tells his student who complains that he (the student) can not find the Dharma outside.

"Open the treasury and find the Jewels inside". the Master tells the student.

"But where is this treasury?", the perplexed student asks.

"You yourself, hold the treasury in your own heart," the Master replies.

[rockyysdt]

Hi E L.

Monks are humans.

We are all influenced to varying degrees by Greed, Aversion, & Delusion.

For each of us, Buddhism is not about the Monk/s, but about our journey.

It's about growing ones awareness in the present moment.

Awareness is a very interesting thing.

In your example (gleaned form your post):

• There is the naked observation "Corrupt Monks who don't meditate".
• Then there is the conditioned mental thoughts associated with what is seen.
• Then there is the mental conclusion derived from ones stored conditioned thoughts.
• Then there is ones action/s based on mental conclusions/thoughts (Kharma-verb- to do).
• Then there is the result/s due to ones action/s (Vipaka-fruits of Kharma).

My mental conditioning/association leads me to think of the Buddhas 8 Fold Path.

Specifically the Meditation section.

6. Right Effort: Arouse and/or put forth effort, generate energy, exert ones mind, and strive to maintain wholesome mental states and regular practice.

7. Right Mindfulness: To contemplate and be aware of Body, Mind, Feelings and breath during ones wakeful state, to be grounded in the present.

8. Right Concentration: To practice in states of inner stillness, with subsiding thought, through the jhanic states, eventually reaching pure equanimity and mindfulness.

Most Humans are averse to effort (myself included).

Considerable effort is required to master Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, & Right Concentration.

I thought, "how easy it would be to retreat from practice based on observing Monks & their behavior."

Regardless of status, or professed calling, we are all capable of practicing towards discovering that which the Buddha taught.

I promised myself never to judge something by the actions of those who profess to be adherents.

I knew that doing so would be my psychological way of avoiding effort.

Edited July 6, 2016 by rockyysdt

[thai3]

They can be very good fortune tellers, two told my mrs more or less the same. Instead of the usual positive you will win the lottery type stuff they told her she talks too much, and that when she talks she talks silly and hot hearted. They were spot on. As far as Buddhism is concerned it's more a lifestyle than a serious religious pursuit for a lot of them

[honu]

My wife's aunt (who is Thai) said the same about Buddhism, that it's as much a lifestyle choice for monks as anything else. If the idea is to find a monk inclined towards meditating a lot and sorting out deepest meaning of teachings the forest temples are the place to go, and probably a limited few would be better than others.

I don't see Thai Buddhism as decadent and pointless, or the actions of a few as demonstrating that all monks are bent on living out as worldly a life as they can, regardless of the rules. It's more that it's just a religion, as with any other. Christian priests and ministers are sort of just ordinary people as well, more interested in religion than most, but not necessarily Christian ideal exemplars chosen by God or anything like that.

[thai3]

we live next to a forest temple, last time I went after they finished eating I could see the monks sitting about on their phones!

[rockyysdt]

My wife's aunt (who is Thai) said the same about Buddhism, that it's as much a lifestyle choice for monks as anything else. If the idea is to find a monk inclined towards meditating a lot and sorting out deepest meaning of teachings the forest temples are the place to go, and probably a limited few would be better than others.

I don't see Thai Buddhism as decadent and pointless, or the actions of a few as demonstrating that all monks are bent on living out as worldly a life as they can, regardless of the rules. It's more that it's just a religion, as with any other. Christian priests and ministers are sort of just ordinary people as well, more interested in religion than most, but not necessarily Christian ideal exemplars chosen by God or anything like that.

In my view the main difference between most religions and Buddhism is that with most of the Theistic religions all one need do is believe in ones God, pray to Him & follow his commandments including getting others to join, whilst in Buddhism actual practice is involved.

A practice requiring some faith in order to sustain initial practice.

A practice requiring considerable effort.

So one lot simply pronounce their faith and then wait for their Deity to provide eternal life in heaven, whilst the other lot must embark on a life long journey of effort through regular, sustained, practice.

One requires blind faith, while the other finds truth through effort and practice.

The first lot can sit around on their phones and generally interact as others do, but the second lot must refrain from that which sustains Ego.

There is no greater influence on Ego than a portable device which instantly links one to everything imaginable on our planet.

At times Monks may have other duties such as Funerals, Teaching, & attending to personal affairs of the Community, but their core activity is to practice the 8 Fold Path.

They are humans, but failing to practice for at least a large percentage of each day is not taking this calling seriously.

Edited July 7, 2016 by rockyysdt

[honu]

My wife's aunt (who is Thai) said the same about Buddhism, that it's as much a lifestyle choice for monks as anything else. If the idea is to find a monk inclined towards meditating a lot and sorting out deepest meaning of teachings the forest temples are the place to go, and probably a limited few would be better than others.

I don't see Thai Buddhism as decadent and pointless, or the actions of a few as demonstrating that all monks are bent on living out as worldly a life as they can, regardless of the rules. It's more that it's just a religion, as with any other. Christian priests and ministers are sort of just ordinary people as well, more interested in religion than most, but not necessarily Christian ideal exemplars chosen by God or anything like that.

....

At times Monks may have other duties such as Funerals, Teaching, & attending to personal affairs of the Community, but their core activity is to practice the 8 Fold Path.

They are humans, but failing to practice for at least a large percentage of each day is not taking this calling seriously.

There seems to be an implied meaning for "practice" in these comments. I agree with the general idea, that monks should live a certain way and adopt a certain type of perspective, and that elements of the core of Buddhism should be followed up, for example meditation (of some form) and not just religious observances.

But the rules for monks relate to what they shouldn't do, so in one sense the observance is simply abstaining from a lot of things. Monks "practice" 24 hours a day, in a sense. Messing with a phone is not prohibited, or Facebook chatting, but then those wouldn't be from a 2000 year old set of rules.

Progress in interpretation and personal application of Buddhism would be impossible to mandate, and difficult to assess. If a monk is busy essentially all the time with the demands of religious rituals and other duties, eg. temple administration, or an educational role, it doesn't seem there is any transgression in not setting aside hours to spend in meditation. One might potentially fault the organized religion as a system for not emphasizing those aspects more.

In the case of a temple as a tourist center, like the Grand Palace, or Wat Pho, or Wat Arun, administration of non-religious activities seems reasonable, since support of religious awareness is a normal, relatively essential aspect, or in the case of running monastery based schools. Obviously enough the tiger temple crossed the line, shifting focus to earning revenue from a zoo function, with the added gap of not performing that function adequately in regards to animal welfare.

[VincentRJ]

My wife's aunt (who is Thai) said the same about Buddhism, that it's as much a lifestyle choice for monks as anything else. If the idea is to find a monk inclined towards meditating a lot and sorting out deepest meaning of teachings the forest temples are the place to go, and probably a limited few would be better than others.

I don't see Thai Buddhism as decadent and pointless, or the actions of a few as demonstrating that all monks are bent on living out as worldly a life as they can, regardless of the rules. It's more that it's just a religion, as with any other. Christian priests and ministers are sort of just ordinary people as well, more interested in religion than most, but not necessarily Christian ideal exemplars chosen by God or anything like that.

In my view the main difference between most religions and Buddhism is that with most of the Theistic religions all one need do is believe in ones God, pray to Him & follow his commandments including getting others to join, whilst in Buddhism actual practice is involved.

A practice requiring some faith in order to sustain initial practice.

A practice requiring considerable effort.

Hi Rocky,

I'm not sure this is the best way of describing the practice, as something that requires considerable effort. Such a description seems more appropriate for someone who's striving to become a body-builder like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, perhaps expresses it better, as in the following quotes:

"By letting it go, it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try, the world is beyond the winning."

"Few things under heaven bring more benefit than the lessons learned from silence and the actions taken without striving."

I suspect the excuse that most people would offer for not practicing more, is not having the time. Most of us have an agenda of constant chores, duties and obligations, and are constantly interrupted by phone calls and text messages. Setting aside a period of time each day for meditation practice would involve the sacrifice of some other activity, like watching a film in the evening, or going out for dinner in a nice restaurant, or preparing an elaborate meal at home in the kitchen, or watering the garden, and so on.

However, Lao Tzu also addresses this issue in the following quote:

“Time is a created thing. To say 'I don't have time,' is like saying, 'I don't want to.”

It's also interesting to note that some historians think it possible the Lao Tzu traveled all the way to India and was actually the teacher of Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha. Others claim Lao Tzu was the Buddha himself.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

I'm not sure this is the best way of describing the practice, as something that requires considerable effort. Such a description seems more appropriate for someone who's striving to become a body-builder like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, perhaps expresses it better, as in the following quotes:

"By letting it go, it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try, the world is beyond the winning."

"Few things under heaven bring more benefit than the lessons learned from silence and the actions taken without striving."

I suspect the excuse that most people would offer for not practicing more, is not having the time. Most of us have an agenda of constant chores, duties and obligations, and are constantly interrupted by phone calls and text messages. Setting aside a period of time each day for meditation practice would involve the sacrifice of some other activity, like watching a film in the evening, or going out for dinner in a nice restaurant, or preparing an elaborate meal at home in the kitchen, or watering the garden, and so on.

However, Lao Tzu also addresses this issue in the following quote:

“Time is a created thing. To say 'I don't have time,' is like saying, 'I don't want to.”

It's also interesting to note that some historians think it possible the Lao Tzu traveled all the way to India and was actually the teacher of Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha. Others claim Lao Tzu was the Buddha himself.

The image "considerable effort" which our conditioned minds might create does appear to contradict the state which we aim for.

Never the less, effort is required.

One of the practices of the 8 Fold Path is Right effort (samyag-vyāyāma / sammā-vāyāma).

Quote:

And what is right effort?

Here the monk arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to prevent the arising of evil and unwholesome mental states that have not yet arisen.

He arouses his will... and strives to eliminate evil and unwholesome mental states that have already arisen. He arouses his will... and strives to generate wholesome mental state that have not yet arisen.

He arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to maintain wholesome mental states that have already arisen, to keep them free of delusion, to develop, increase, cultivate, and perfect them.

This is called right effort.

I agree.

I have no time = I don't want to do it" or = "my Ego has too many other things requiring attention".

PS: The Monks should have their Smartphones placed in the safe out of the way.

They should have express permission from the Abbott when plausible reasons can be offered for their occasional use.

[VincentRJ]

Quote:

And what is right effort?

Here the monk arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to prevent the arising of evil and unwholesome mental states that have not yet arisen.

He arouses his will... and strives to eliminate evil and unwholesome mental states that have already arisen. He arouses his will... and strives to generate wholesome mental state that have not yet arisen.

He arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to maintain wholesome mental states that have already arisen, to keep them free of delusion, to develop, increase, cultivate, and perfect them.

This is called right effort.

Rocky,

In all humility, I think I achieve this through complete laziness. No striving required at all.

[NativeSon360]

My wife's aunt (who is Thai) said the same about Buddhism, that it's as much a lifestyle choice for monks as anything else. If the idea is to find a monk inclined towards meditating a lot and sorting out deepest meaning of teachings the forest temples are the place to go, and probably a limited few would be better than others.

I don't see Thai Buddhism as decadent and pointless, or the actions of a few as demonstrating that all monks are bent on living out as worldly a life as they can, regardless of the rules. It's more that it's just a religion, as with any other. Christian priests and ministers are sort of just ordinary people as well, more interested in religion than most, but not necessarily Christian ideal exemplars chosen by God or anything like that.

In my view the main difference between most religions and Buddhism is that with most of the Theistic religions all one need do is believe in ones God, pray to Him & follow his commandments including getting others to join, whilst in Buddhism actual practice is involved.

A practice requiring some faith in order to sustain initial practice.

A practice requiring considerable effort.

Hi Rocky,

I'm not sure this is the best way of describing the practice, as something that requires considerable effort. Such a description seems more appropriate for someone who's striving to become a body-builder like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, perhaps expresses it better, as in the following quotes:

"By letting it go, it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try, the world is beyond the winning."

"Few things under heaven bring more benefit than the lessons learned from silence and the actions taken without striving."

I suspect the excuse that most people would offer for not practicing more, is not having the time. Most of us have an agenda of constant chores, duties and obligations, and are constantly interrupted by phone calls and text messages. Setting aside a period of time each day for meditation practice would involve the sacrifice of some other activity, like watching a film in the evening, or going out for dinner in a nice restaurant, or preparing an elaborate meal at home in the kitchen, or watering the garden, and so on.

However, Lao Tzu also addresses this issue in the following quote:

“Time is a created thing. To say 'I don't have time,' is like saying, 'I don't want to.”

It's also interesting to note that some historians think it possible the Lao Tzu traveled all the way to India and was actually the teacher of Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha. Others claim Lao Tzu was the Buddha himself.

Despite their 7,000 years of documented "human development", the Chinese seem to be much better at “proselytizing” about the realities a Buddhist life, than actually living it.

Only a Chinese person would claim that Lao Tzu was the Buddha. Indeed, making such a claim provides the Chinese with the plausible “deniability” of the "genetic" fact, that Siddhartha Guatama was (as a matter of fact) a black-skinned Tamil Indian, instead.

Hence, the multitude of the “Meditating (Chinese) Buddha” statues, so deliberately proliferated throughout East/SE Asia. A brief excursion to Kathmandu, will readily clear-up any confusion, in that regard.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

I'm not sure this is the best way of describing the practice, as something that requires considerable effort. Such a description seems more appropriate for someone who's striving to become a body-builder like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, perhaps expresses it better, as in the following quotes:

"By letting it go, it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try, the world is beyond the winning."

"Few things under heaven bring more benefit than the lessons learned from silence and the actions taken without striving."

I suspect the excuse that most people would offer for not practicing more, is not having the time. Most of us have an agenda of constant chores, duties and obligations, and are constantly interrupted by phone calls and text messages. Setting aside a period of time each day for meditation practice would involve the sacrifice of some other activity, like watching a film in the evening, or going out for dinner in a nice restaurant, or preparing an elaborate meal at home in the kitchen, or watering the garden, and so on.

However, Lao Tzu also addresses this issue in the following quote:

“Time is a created thing. To say 'I don't have time,' is like saying, 'I don't want to.”

It's also interesting to note that some historians think it possible the Lao Tzu traveled all the way to India and was actually the teacher of Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha. Others claim Lao Tzu was the Buddha himself.

Despite their 7,000 years of documented "human development", the Chinese seem to be much better at “proselytizing” about the realities a Buddhist life, than actually living it.

Surely the same applies to the adherents of most religions. There's often a huge discrepancy between the actual behaviour of the so-called believers, and the ideals written in the teachings.

Only a Chinese person would claim that Lao Tzu was the Buddha. Indeed, making such a claim provides the Chinese with the plausible “deniability” of the "genetic" fact, that Siddhartha Guatama was (as a matter of fact) a black-skinned Tamil Indian, instead.

There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

However, what does appear to be the case is that the earliest writings that mention Lao Tzu (or Laozi, or Lao Dan) significantly predate the earliest writings about Buddhism.

The earliest Buddhist texts are the Gandhāran texts which are probably a bit earlier than the Pali Canon but both are still dated within the 1st century B.C.E.

Whilst there exists a Chinese view, according to the ancient Chinese historian Sima Qian, that Lao Tzu lived during the 6th and early 5th centuries B.C.E., there is actual archaeological evidence dating the earliest discovered Taoist manuscripts around 300 B.C.E.

Following are the relevant quotes from the links below.

"First, some scholars maintain that we should accept on the whole Sima Qian's account that the Laozi was written by Lao Dan in the sixth or early fifth century B.C.E. A second and more widely held view traces the Laozi to the fourth century, while a third argues for an even later date, not earlier than the mid-third century B.C.E. Although recent archaeological discoveries may seem to rule out the last, the issue is complex because the Laozi may turn out to be a composite work involving a long process of textual formation."

"In late 1993, the excavation of a tomb (identified as M1) in Guodian, Jingmen city, Hubei province, has yielded among other things some 800 bamboo slips, of which 730 are inscribed, containing over 13,000 Chinese characters. Some of these, amounting to about 2,000 characters, match the Laozi (see Allan and Williams 2000, and Henricks 2000). The tomb is located near the old capital of the state of Chu and is dated around 300 B.C.E."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/#DatAutLao

http://www.daoisopen.com/guodianlaozi.html

http://www.iep.utm.edu/laozi/

[camerata]

There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

Anything is possible, but scholars agree that the early teachings were the work of a single, exceptionally gifted individual. Just one example:

"The early Buddhist texts present a highly distinctive personal style, together with a number of revolutionary ideas, which conveys the flavour of a single and exceptional

creator."

- The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts

[VincentRJ]

There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

Anything is possible, but scholars agree that the early teachings were the work of a single, exceptionally gifted individual. Just one example:

"The early Buddhist texts present a highly distinctive personal style, together with a number of revolutionary ideas, which conveys the flavour of a single and exceptional

creator."

- The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts

Hi Camerata,

I think it would be more accurate to claim that most scholars agree. In other words, there is a consensus of opinion that the character, Gautama Shakyamuni, really did exist, around 2,500 years ago, and was the founder of a revolutionary movement that eventually developed into what we know as Buddhism.

However, as you've probably gathered from my writings on this forum, I'm not one who readily accepts the opinion of authority without question. In fact, it is the very existence of the Kalama Sutta, which advises people to always question authority, which is one of the main attractive features of the Buddhist philosophy, from my perspective.

There are many situations which simply don't lend themselves to scientific certainty, because of a lack of reliable evidence. History in general is notorious for being inaccurate, partly because history tends to be written by the victors, and rulers and kings see no advantage in allowing the permanent reportage (in stone or text) of unfavorable events and facts.

The great, glaring problem with the true situation of Gautama Buddha is the absence of a written text in India around 2,500 years ago. This situation is something which is not widely advertised. There is often an assumption that the ancient Vedas and Upanishads were written texts. Often, they are referred to as 'texts'.

For example, the following quote is from Wikipedia, regarding the Upanishads.

"The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so."

Now, such a statement clearly implies that written texts, a written language, existed in India in the 6th and even the 7th centuries BCE, prior to the birth of the Buddha. Yet a search on the internet reveals another Wikipedia statement, as follows.

"The first introduction of writing to the Indian Subcontinent (apart from the Bronze Age Indus script, which is undeciphered and may not be an actual script), is mostly identified as the Edicts of Ashoka from c. 250 BCE."

The development of a fully functioning script is no doubt a very gradual process, beginning with a number of basic symbols representing various objects, which the uninterpreted symbols in the Indus Valley civilization probably were.

The expression of complex ideas and concepts in writing or text requires a fully functioning written language with grammar and so on, which it seems did not exist during the times of Gautama in India, but did exist in China at that time.

[camerata]

However, as you've probably gathered from my writings on this forum, I'm not one who readily accepts the opinion of authority without question. In fact, it is the very existence of the Kalama Sutta, which advises people to always question authority, which is one of the main attractive features of the Buddhist philosophy, from my perspective.

I think you are kind of missing the point here. We are not talking about authority in the sense of "power without knowledge", we are talking about experts who can determine to what extent the suttas were the product of one mind. If the Buddha was a composite character, the implication is that the teachings came from different people, but this is not what scholars say. If you know of a Pali scholar who supports the idea of multiple authors of the core teachings, I'd certainly like to know about it.

Your argument seems to be that absence of (written) evidence is evidence of absence. Are we then to conclude that no one at all existed in India 2500 years ago just because there isn't a written record? The Ashokan Edicts were inscribed just a few generations after the Buddha lived, and they specifically mention him:

"Piyadasi, King of Magadha, saluting the Sangha and wishing them good health and happiness, speaks thus: You know, reverend sirs, how great my faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha is. Whatever, reverend sirs, has been spoken by Lord Buddha, all that is well-spoken." (Minor Rock Edict Nb3)

I don't think there was enough time between the Buddha and Ashoka for a composite or mythical figure to emerge, leaving no trace of the truth.

Better to apply some common sense. What is more likely - that in an age (The Axial Age) when many talented and revolutionary thinkers appeared, one of them happened to be the Buddha, or that some widespread conspiracy was put into place to create the person called Buddha and hoodwink everyone? Or perhaps random folktales coalesced to produce "the Buddha," without leaving any trace? Buddha as a historical person seems more likely to me, given that the core teachings are coherent.

[VincentRJ]

However, as you've probably gathered from my writings on this forum, I'm not one who readily accepts the opinion of authority without question. In fact, it is the very existence of the Kalama Sutta, which advises people to always question authority, which is one of the main attractive features of the Buddhist philosophy, from my perspective.

I think you are kind of missing the point here.........

I don't think there was enough time between the Buddha and Ashoka for a composite or mythical figure to emerge, leaving no trace of the truth.

With all due respect, Camerata, I think it is you who might be missing my point here.

I accept the view, as quoted from your interesting link to the subject, that: "The early Buddhist texts present a highly distinctive personal style, together with a number of revolutionary ideas, which conveys the flavour of a single and exceptional creator."

Conveying the flavour, or the realistic depiction of a character, is what any good novelist does. That ability is what distinguishes the exceptionally good novelist, who becomes part of the literature classics, such as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and the ordinary novelist who disappears from history.

My claim in post #17 was that: "There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters." Note, I did not write they were possibly mythical characters.

We should distinguish between mythical figures and composite figures. Mythical figures tend to be of the realms of the Gods, or aliens from outer space and the like. In other words, completely imaginary, whereas a composite character is almost an inevitable consequence resulting from the attempted description or biography of any individual. All that differs is the degree to which a description represents a composite character.

This tendency towards the creation of composite characters occurs because everything in the human mind is essentially an interpretation (a fact which is itself in accord with Buddhist principles).

When historians write a biography of a prominent character in history, there will tend to result a different 'flavour' to the descriptions from each historian, depending on the perspective of the writer, and the emphasis and significance attached to certain evidence, and the reliability attributed to the evidence available.

When a movie director creates a movie based upon a true character, there will always be embellishments, additions and distortions to make the movie more appealing to the targeted audience.

Likewise, when a novelist creates a character in a work of fiction, it can be the case, and is perhaps more often the case than not, that the character is based upon an actual person who might have featured in the newspapers, or might be based upon someone, or a number of people, whom the author personally knows quite well. In such cases, the fictitious name and the composite nature of the character has the side effect of preventing the author from being sued by people who may identify themselves as being portrayed unflatteringly.

When it comes to promoting a religion based upon an individual who is claimed to have lived about 400 years or more prior to the first textual references to his life, which were written in a language which the founder did not speak, I think it's reasonable to presume that a certain degree of creative writing will have taken place.

[camerata]

My claim in post #17 was that: "There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

Right. It is possible, but there is no evidence to support this idea. On the other hand, while there isn't conclusive scientific evidence supporting the idea of the Buddha as a historical person, there is evidence of other types as reflected in the views of the scholars who have researched it. From Rupert Gethin:

That the subsequent Buddhist tradition is founded upon and inspired by the teaching activity of a charismatic individual who lived some centuries before the beginning of the Christian era can hardly be doubted. In the words of the great Belgian scholar Étienne Lamotte, ‘Buddhism cannot be explained unless we accept that it has its origin in the strong personality of its founder.’

[VincentRJ]

However, as you've probably gathered from my writings on this forum, I'm not one who readily accepts the opinion of authority without question. In fact, it is the very existence of the Kalama Sutta, which advises people to always question authority, which is one of the main attractive features of the Buddhist philosophy, from my perspective.

I think you are kind of missing the point here. We are not talking about authority in the sense of "power without knowledge", we are talking about experts who can determine to what extent the suttas were the product of one mind.

Before I reply to your more recent post, I think I should address the above point you made, which I think deserves some elaboration. I never got the impression from reading the Kalama Sutta that the advice that we should question 'authority', only related to specific types of authority involving power, such as the authority of a ruler or a government. Rather, the advice of the Kalama Sutta mentions things from various 'sources of authority' which most people often tend to automatically assume is correct because of the general aura or flavour of knowledge and truth that is associated with such sources.

Such sources which are mentioned in the Kalama Sutta include traditional practices, the scriptures, a teacher, hearsay and speculation, and the 'authorities' which I interpret as a general term which would include any individual, or any organisation, who/which claims to be an authority on any subject, such as a teacher, a specialist in any subject, a doctor, a person with a Ph.D, and so on.

The translation that I have of the relevant phrase is: " Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so."

However, I get the impression that some people interpret this advice as encouraging a 'free-for-all', anti-authoritarian, unruly type of behaviour in which no respect is shown for any type of authority.

I think such a view is a misinterpretation of the Kalama Sutta. The advice is simply to encourage people to think for themselves, rather than unquestioningly accept that anyone with an aura of authority must know what he is talking about.

Of course, I am not always immune to sometimes blindly accepting the 'sayings' of such authorities (despite my great wisdom ).

An example would be the current consensus of scientific opinion on anthropomorphic climate change. Several years ago, I assumed that the 'authorities' on that subject would be correct, because they included trained scientists in the field of climatology, and because the reportage in the media (another authority) gave the repeated impression that the vast majority of scientists were in agreement that rising CO2 levels will have disastrous consequences for mankind in the future.

It was only when I began investigating the issue for myself that I discovered a number of untold stories. However, this is off-topic, and I just use it as an example.

[VincentRJ]

My claim in post #17 was that: "There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

Right. It is possible, but there is no evidence to support this idea. On the other hand, while there isn't conclusive scientific evidence supporting the idea of the Buddha as a historical person, there is evidence of other types as reflected in the views of the scholars who have researched it. From Rupert Gethin:

That the subsequent Buddhist tradition is founded upon and inspired by the teaching activity of a charismatic individual who lived some centuries before the beginning of the Christian era can hardly be doubted. In the words of the great Belgian scholar Étienne Lamotte, ‘Buddhism cannot be explained unless we accept that it has its origin in the strong personality of its founder.’

From the perspective of the advice in the Kalama Sutta, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Earliest Buddhist Texts (the EBTs) accurately represent the life and sayings of a real historical figure, known as Gautama Shakyamuni. However, I would agree that it is reasonable to presume that all major changes in societies depend upon strong personalities exerting their influence.

The main points to consider are whether or not the sayings, teachings and advice are wise and of benefit to oneself and others. If something is true, it's true, regardless of the aura or flavour, or personality of the authority of the source.

As I've tried to explain in my previous post, there is a danger in attributing exceptional powers to any individual who is claimed to be the source of scriptures, sayings or so-called wise advice, because such attributes discourage rational thinking, and encourage blind obedience to an assumed superior power.

[camerata]

However, as you've probably gathered from my writings on this forum, I'm not one who readily accepts the opinion of authority without question. In fact, it is the very existence of the Kalama Sutta, which advises people to always question authority, which is one of the main attractive features of the Buddhist philosophy, from my perspective.

I think you are kind of missing the point here. We are not talking about authority in the sense of "power without knowledge", we are talking about experts who can determine to what extent the suttas were the product of one mind.

Before I reply to your more recent post, I think I should address the above point you made, which I think deserves some elaboration. I never got the impression from reading the Kalama Sutta that the advice that we should question 'authority', only related to specific types of authority involving power, such as the authority of a ruler or a government. Rather, the advice of the Kalama Sutta mentions things from various 'sources of authority' which most people often tend to automatically assume is correct because of the general aura or flavour of knowledge and truth that is associated with such sources.

Such sources which are mentioned in the Kalama Sutta include traditional practices, the scriptures, a teacher, hearsay and speculation, and the 'authorities' which I interpret as a general term which would include any individual, or any organisation, who/which claims to be an authority on any subject, such as a teacher, a specialist in any subject, a doctor, a person with a Ph.D, and so on.

The translation that I have of the relevant phrase is: " Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so."

However, I get the impression that some people interpret this advice as encouraging a 'free-for-all', anti-authoritarian, unruly type of behaviour in which no respect is shown for any type of authority.

I think such a view is a misinterpretation of the Kalama Sutta. The advice is simply to encourage people to think for themselves, rather than unquestioningly accept that anyone with an aura of authority must know what he is talking about.

Of course, I am not always immune to sometimes blindly accepting the 'sayings' of such authorities (despite my great wisdom ).

An example would be the current consensus of scientific opinion on anthropomorphic climate change. Several years ago, I assumed that the 'authorities' on that subject would be correct, because they included trained scientists in the field of climatology, and because the reportage in the media (another authority) gave the repeated impression that the vast majority of scientists were in agreement that rising CO2 levels will have disastrous consequences for mankind in the future.

It was only when I began investigating the issue for myself that I discovered a number of untold stories. However, this is off-topic, and I just use it as an example.

What's your source for the Kalama Sutta? I don't see anything like what you are saying. First, the sutta is Buddha's explanation on how to determine if an ascetic teacher is teaching the "truth." It doesn't apply to anything else:

As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines [...] They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

Second, the Buddha doesn't really talk about "authority" other than the implied authority of scripture or of our own teacher. The Buddha answers:

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

- Thanissaro

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias toward a notion pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher.'

- Bodhi

I don't see anything there that suggests we should ignore the word of academics/experts, or apply the Kalama Sutta to anyone other than a teacher of religion or philosophy.

[camerata]

My claim in post #17 was that: "There's no firm, scientifically sound evidence that either the Buddha or Lao Tzu were real individuals who actually existed as described in the later writings. It is possible they were both composite characters.

Right. It is possible, but there is no evidence to support this idea. On the other hand, while there isn't conclusive scientific evidence supporting the idea of the Buddha as a historical person, there is evidence of other types as reflected in the views of the scholars who have researched it. From Rupert Gethin:

That the subsequent Buddhist tradition is founded upon and inspired by the teaching activity of a charismatic individual who lived some centuries before the beginning of the Christian era can hardly be doubted. In the words of the great Belgian scholar Étienne Lamotte, ‘Buddhism cannot be explained unless we accept that it has its origin in the strong personality of its founder.’

From the perspective of the advice in the Kalama Sutta, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Earliest Buddhist Texts (the EBTs) accurately represent the life and sayings of a real historical figure, known as Gautama Shakyamuni. However, I would agree that it is reasonable to presume that all major changes in societies depend upon strong personalities exerting their influence.

The main points to consider are whether or not the sayings, teachings and advice are wise and of benefit to oneself and others. If something is true, it's true, regardless of the aura or flavour, or personality of the authority of the source.

I think it is "Yes and no" in the case of Buddhism. With nibbana being fairly hard to attain, having a founder who attained it and followers who attained it by following his instructions, is a huge morale booster and inspiration for the rest of us. I wonder if people would feel the same if there were no mention of the Buddha's own awakening and the teachings were known to come from different sources?

[VincentRJ]

Before I reply to your more recent post, I think I should address the above point you made, which I think deserves some elaboration. I never got the impression from reading the Kalama Sutta that the advice that we should question 'authority', only related to specific types of authority involving power, such as the authority of a ruler or a government. Rather, the advice of the Kalama Sutta mentions things from various 'sources of authority' which most people often tend to automatically assume is correct because of the general aura or flavour of knowledge and truth that is associated with such sources.

Such sources which are mentioned in the Kalama Sutta include traditional practices, the scriptures, a teacher, hearsay and speculation, and the 'authorities' which I interpret as a general term which would include any individual, or any organisation, who/which claims to be an authority on any subject, such as a teacher, a specialist in any subject, a doctor, a person with a Ph.D, and so on.

The translation that I have of the relevant phrase is: " Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so."

However, I get the impression that some people interpret this advice as encouraging a 'free-for-all', anti-authoritarian, unruly type of behaviour in which no respect is shown for any type of authority.

I think such a view is a misinterpretation of the Kalama Sutta. The advice is simply to encourage people to think for themselves, rather than unquestioningly accept that anyone with an aura of authority must know what he is talking about.

Of course, I am not always immune to sometimes blindly accepting the 'sayings' of such authorities (despite my great wisdom ).

An example would be the current consensus of scientific opinion on anthropomorphic climate change. Several years ago, I assumed that the 'authorities' on that subject would be correct, because they included trained scientists in the field of climatology, and because the reportage in the media (another authority) gave the repeated impression that the vast majority of scientists were in agreement that rising CO2 levels will have disastrous consequences for mankind in the future.

It was only when I began investigating the issue for myself that I discovered a number of untold stories. However, this is off-topic, and I just use it as an example.

I don't see anything there that suggests we should ignore the word of academics/experts, or apply the Kalama Sutta to anyone other than a teacher of religion or philosophy.

Who is suggesting one should ignore the word of academic experts, or ignore the word of anyone? The verb ignore is very much associated with the noun 'ignorance'. To ignore is to be ignorant. I'm definitely not recommending that.

The main message that I get from the Kalama Sutta is that one should not unthinkingly assume that someone who claims to be an authority on some issue is always right in their opinion. If one has reason to doubt the opinion, because one has thought for oneself what seems to be a more plausible explanation, or because one has come across another authoritative view which is in disagreement with the first one and which seems more plausible, or because an authoritative view simply doesn't make sense in relation to one's general understanding of matters, then that's all right. One should explore the issue for oneself, make enquiries, do some research and think about it.

Of course, it goes without saying, if one has no reason to doubt something, then it would be silly to just automatically doubt it.

If the issue is religion and how best to conduct one's life, as it was in the case of the Kalamas, then the advice from the Buddha that the Kalamas should take into consideration what is best for both themselves and others, when trying to determine which teaching is true, makes perfect sense.

What's your source for the Kalama Sutta? I don't see anything like what you are saying. First, the sutta is Buddha's explanation on how to determine if an ascetic teacher is teaching the "truth." It doesn't apply to anything else:

It would definitely not make sense if the Buddha were to add that such a process should only apply to religious matters.

In those days in India, there did not exist the multitude of various disciplines, and 'authorities' on such disciplines, that exist today. But let's imagine that instead of wandering ascetics and religious authorities passing through the village of Kesaputta, often offering conflicting or differing advice, there were agricultural experts (authorities) wandering through the village offering differing advice on which plants to grow, and which plants will thrive best, and which plants will produce the most nutritious food.

Would the Buddha's advice, to test the truth for themselves, not apply in these circumstances?

One of the main attractions of the Buddhist philosophy, for me, is the attitude of free inquiry as expressed in the Kalama Sutta. There are also many other features of Buddhist philosophy which seem remarkably prescient, considering their age. The most fundamental concept, for me, is that the mind tricks us. We are egocentric and tend to falsely assume that what we perceive through our senses (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) is in fact reality, rather than a general anthropomorphic interpretation of reality, and an individual interpretation within those general anthropomorphic confines.

Regarding my source for the Kalama Sutta, I've looked at a number of websites. However, Wikipedia seems to summarize the situation quite well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

"Thus, the Buddha named ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:

Oral history

Traditional

News sources

Scriptures or other official texts

Suppositional reasoning

Philosophical dogmatism

Common sense

One's own opinions

Experts

Authorities or one's own teacher

Instead, the Buddha says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it. Thus, as stated by Soma Thera, the Kalama Sutta is just that; the Buddha's charter of free inquiry."

[camerata]

It would definitely not make sense if the Buddha were to add that such a process should only apply to religious matters.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because to me it's clear that the Kalama Sutta is only about evaluating the claims of spiritual teachers, and specifically the teachings on "the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds," as stated by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

[jak2002003]

I have become quite disillusioned with the Buddhism practiced here, for the most part.

I have been here many years and had the good fortune to know several very nice, kind and genuine monks in my area. I have also had the misfortune to meet and see some very bad and immoral behaviour from other monks, and they were well respected and long term monks, not the usual teenagers novice ones.

The first village I lived has a temple, and they were very spiritual and had lots of festivals and the like, all very well done. It was a real center of the community without being materialistic and over the top showy. The monks were well respected and well liked.

The temple in my new village is the opposite. Without going into details the monk is feared by the local people and acts like a bully, there is also very strange in none Buddhist behaviour going on there and huge sums of money seem to mysperiously appear and get spent on it.

I think the problem in Thailand is that there are don't seem to be any actual regulations or inspections of the temples and monks in them, so each one becomes a law unto itself and can go off the right path.

Lucky for me, there is another temple about 20 minutes form my house with a very basic and traditional feeling and its a very spiritual calming place for meditation, with a very sincere abbot.

The Thai Buddhism is mixed up with their old religion and also a lot of superstitions, which can get in the way of the true way and distract people minds too much and confuse them.... just my personal opinion.

[VincentRJ]

It would definitely not make sense if the Buddha were to add that such a process should only apply to religious matters.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because to me it's clear that the Kalama Sutta is only about evaluating the claims of spiritual teachers, and specifically the teachings on "the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds," as stated by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

I sure hope I haven't weakened anyone's belief system. Perhaps I should explain that I've never been religious. I recall at the age of 5 or 6 arriving at the conclusion that the Santa Claus story, which of course becomes prominent every Christmas, was total nonsense.

Nevertheless, I would admit that I do have some sort of belief system, but it tends to be focused on the practical application of rationality, logic and evidence.

I find Buddhism interesting to the extent that it provides philosophical insights into the general condition of humanity, regardless of specific religious considerations.