Couple agrees to remove Buddha images from fence at their Chiang Mai house

[dave_boo]

1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

I don't think you'll find any Buddha heads (heads only, "decapitated") in a temple. That's what's offensive. If you see such a Buddha head in a temple, take a photo and post it!

Actually in western Nakhon Sawan there's a temple, วัดใหม่แม่เรวา, that has exactly what you are talking about.

 

 

[bheard]

It's wrong . . . .

[cmsally]

Maybe he should have started a museum ?

 

Ganesh Himal Museum Chiang Mai

[Thechook]

3 hours ago, bbradsby said:

Exactly right - for the dense westerner who can't put himself for a second in another culture's shoes, imagine me hanging bleeding Jeezus decapitated heads all along my property line in a 100% fundamentalist christian small town in the US or UK. I imagine there'd be quite the uproar. Could be fun, actually..

 

Actually this Thai lady isn't hanging bleeding decapitated heads of Buddha.  She is Thai,  Buddhist and the ornaments were manufactured in Thailand by presumably Buddhists.  I have seen these ornaments in many garden supply stores.  Actually I think a bleeding suffering and tortured man nailed to a cross on walls is more offensive.

 

 

[thenoilif]

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the head as being what is disrespectful. That's not really the issue.

Cut and dry it's because:

1. He's not Buddhist

2. He's using them for decoration only which is not allowed

3. Its excessive use of the image 

 

And that's pretty much it.

 

 

[piersbeckett]

3 hours ago, bbradsby said:

Well true, but beside the point of this thread. Besides, no one does genocide better than the Western, Christian countries in recent history..

Well, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung had a good stab at it.

[Cory1848]

6 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

Actually in western Nakhon Sawan there's a temple, วัดใหม่แม่เรวา, that has exactly what you are talking about.

 

 

 

Touché! (Perhaps the locals believe that the rest of him is buried in the ground?)

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, thenoilif said:

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the head as being what is disrespectful. That's not really the issue.

Cut and dry it's because:

1. He's not Buddhist

2. He's using them for decoration only which is not allowed

3. Its excessive use of the image 

 

And that's pretty much it.

 

 

Maybe his wife is.

 

There is no Buddhist law.

 

That is definitely it.

[munchlet]

Surely the moral to the story here is that complete stupidity of following Organised Religion? There is much that we can learn from The Buddha, Jesus (he studied Buddhism in the Himalayas), Mohammad, Guru Nanak and others. But none of these guys suggested that setting up a religion after they had gone was the way forward. In fact, they all railed against the prevailing organised religions in control at the tome when they were alive. Organised religion merely fossilises the live teachings of a master and prevents their techings being studied as living, evolving tests of wisdom.

[PerkinsCuthbert]

Chalk it up to TiT.

[owl sees all]

11 minutes ago, Catoni said:

I am Therevada Buddhist and had some Sak Yant done by a monk several years ago.  He only tattooed me after questioning and determining I was Buddhist and respected Buddha and his Teachings and the Thai customs.. Among my Sak Yant are some Ongk Pra figures..

If you later become a atheist, after reading Christopher Hitchen's 'Religion Posions Everything', would you have the tattoo covered over or removed?

[baansgr]

But its OK to have Bhudist images/statues in bars that are nothing more than brothels.

[thenoilif]

55 minutes ago, captspectre said:

it did not specify names. it said THAI PEOPLE ! and disrespecting Buddha. the people I am reffering to are THAI and are disrespecting Buddha. now you just want to argue or are you satisfied?

Not all Thai people are Buddhists and unless the people who complained are doing what you say, I don't see where the hypocrisy is. I also don't think that you can apply religious hypocrisy to Buddhism. It's a very loose religion, more of a spiritual practice than the strict laws that are more prevalent in Christianity and Islam. The idea is that if you don't follow the teachings life and the after will be hard enough.

 

The only thing that they ask is that you don't disrespect the Buddha. 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

19 hours ago, webfact said:

A picture of the fence with the Buddha images was posted on Facebook by a Chiang Mai resident who voiced concern that it was disrespectful of Buddhism.

Ah, yet another fb w*****.

[Cranky]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Yes and that 'symbolism' plays nicely with flags everywhere to remind the citizens of their 'place'. It's a deferential culture that will take decades to change (if ever).

By 'deferential' do you mean beating the crap out of, shooting, stabbing each other (and us) on a regular basis at the drop of a hat, bit of dodgy driving, inconsiderate parking, taxi competing, nicking land, gold or anything that isn't bolted down or too heavy?

 

About time Buddha made a comeback if you ask me.

[owl sees all]

49 minutes ago, jgarbo said:

Next time stick with Garden Gnomes. 

Agreed!

 

But in 'The Full Monty' the wife hated the gnomes and the husband couldn't understand why. He thought that because he liked them it was wrong for anyone not to. That's the trouble with these religious <deleted>; they just can't see it; just like the gnome man in the film.

[holy cow cm]

So what. It is tacky. Replace them with the Pope's head image or Hitler's.

On another note, Buddha cannot be bought so why the heck is this allowed? If they are going to attack one thing then get it all in that category. An image is an image and Buddha can't be bought or owned.

[Lupatria]

Seeing so many Buddha statues in this country, I wonder if this is more a matter of who is allowed to place them somewhere.

[Thechook]

30 minutes ago, thenoilif said:

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the head as being what is disrespectful. That's not really the issue.

Cut and dry it's because:

1. He's not Buddhist

2. He's using them for decoration only which is not allowed

3. Its excessive use of the image 

 

And that's pretty much it.

 

 

You seem to be putting the blame on the farangs shoulders and clearing the wife.  Maybe she just had a say or maybe the entire say in this.

[dpcjsr]

If a farang had not been involved would this have been a problem? I think not. 

[patrick kennedy]

Would they have to take them down if they were the family of the RED BULL,Budda in my opinion if it was possible for him to reappear,he would be very pleased to know that even American people have respect for his teachings.If this man disrespected Budda he would not have purchased them in the first place.As per usual,DONT DO AS I DO JUST DO AS I SAY,that is of course unless you are related to RED BULL.

[Tony125]

9 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

So what. It is tacky. Replace them with the Pope's head image or Hitler's.

On another note, Buddha cannot be bought so why the heck is this allowed? If they are going to attack one thing then get it all in that category. An image is an image and Buddha can't be bought or owned.

 

Not true , you can buy a Buddah figure or wear an amulet as religious practice but not as strictly a decoration

Photo below of foreigner who obviously has no knowledge of Buddism as she has the image on her foot--totally insulting as the foot is considered the lowest of body and towards hell. You can't even point with your foot here. 

[Foozool]

The problem is:

The heads are installed on a farang house wall and someone just wake up and see them and of course don't like the idea on that particular day, mention it on face book and some others wake up as well and agree with the poster. 

But really, anybody knows for how long those heads are on the wall ? 

Perhaps for quit long.

[Tonto21]

6 minutes ago, dpcjsr said:

If a farang had not been involved would this have been a problem? I think not. 

I don't think it would have 'dpcjsr'..... As I think it would not have happened in the first place.

 

[4MyEgo]

16 hours ago, johng said:

I wonder if all Americans are very offended by my wifes new undies sold by a Thai company
Disgusted of not Tunbridge Wells

Does she have white ones ?

[alien365]

So now the Buddha heads will all be on the floor in the garden? I thought this was a no no too and that his image should be raised above anything else in the garden. I have a Buddha image as the background on my phone as it reminds me to stay calm and not take things too seriously. No doubt some people may be offended by that saying its for decoration also.

[thenoilif]

22 minutes ago, Thechook said:

You seem to be putting the blame on the farangs shoulders and clearing the wife.  Maybe she just had a say or maybe the entire say in this.

"Nualchan said her husband initially had refused to remove the heads but she explained to him that the issue was sensitive for Buddhists.

 

She said her husband loved art and had bought many Buddha heads from sculptors, collecting so many of them that he had no place to keep them so he had placed them on the wall and along the path to the house."

 

The article does point out that both made the decision but it seems to me that he was the driving force.  

28 minutes ago, dpcjsr said:

If a farang had not been involved would this have been a problem? I think not. 

I think no. It's the combination of factors I mentioned earlier that made this an issue. If they had  1 or 2 Buddha images on their wall and if the guy was a known Buddhist I don't think it makes the news. 

[British Bulldog]

1 hour ago, speckio said:

pick your fights... they decided that it wasn't worth the hassle... people are crazy and it could have easily escalated quite quickly... I think they chose wisely in letting this issue go and complying with taking down the heads.

 

When it comes to religion and matters of faith people lose their minds very quickly and there is no way reason or use logic with them. 

 

It's hilarious for the most part almost every single religion tries to teach peace and understanding yet there are so many people who claim to be devout followers who go ballistic and are willing to resort to violence if someone has a different interpretation from their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So true ... that's what makes the wars around the world these days and did since Adam was on the Earth ...(If he ever was ?)

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, thenoilif said:

If you're referring to the ruins of the old capital I think that they left them there for historical representation purposes. A completely different situation altogether and a good example of how a foreigner just displaying the heads would be seen as extremely disrespectful.

 

Edit: As far as temples go, I think that a place of Buddhist worship would not automatically make any imagery a religious symbol, and not something that is used solely for decoration. It's not rocket science. 

Well no ayutthaya had not come to my mind at all. although there are several historical sites there that are wasting away and cannot be preserved through lack of funding. 

 

The wife said that old guy was an avid collector, with an accompanying picture of several pieces neatly placed on the ground. To me that would be extremely disrespectful. Especially buddhist heads at foot level. He had placed the pieces on the fence in an effort to preserve them and in fact to show a love of his collection of images, which in turn is a way of showing respect and devotion to the religion itself. 

The objects were placed suitably and denotes the culture of Buddhism in Thailand. 

I find the order to destroy the images and their place very disrespectful to thai culture. 

[Baerboxer]

20 hours ago, tracker1 said:

Disrespectful hmmm so monks drug dealing, scaming and shaging is acceptable ?

 

No those activities aren't acceptable EITHER. 

 

Just like pedophiles and child molesters aren't acceptable in the Catholic clergy.  Inappropriate behavior never is.

 

But the unacceptable activities of monks and clergy don't make turning religious figures into garden ornaments acceptable either.

 

The fact you and the large number who liked your comment miss that speaks volumes for the lack of understanding towards other religious believes that prevails in the Western 'developed" world these days.

 

Interesting that no Buddhist country, or anyone else has complained massively about Dubai's Buddha bar which displays images of the Buddha in a boozer bar; which is also not for Muslims as they don't drink (555!). Wonder how Muslims would react if a Mohammad Entertainment and Go-Go was opened here?