Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

Buddhist group goes after Buddha-Ultraman artist, as abbot calls on society to forgive and forget

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

And your assumption is... I am a Buddhist. Are you sure of that?

Am I preaching or answering comments from other people who referred to my comments.

If I was preaching, I would be saying things of my choice, thinking these should be what they needed to know.

It is quite different from answering people's comment. ... I am sure you know the differences.

No, i was not sure that you are a Buddhist, but, having read a few of your posts, i was thinking that you are at least interested in Buddhism.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all, i just found your posts a bit too argumentative for a Buddhist.

Never mind, peace.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

No, i was not sure that you are a Buddhist, but, having read a few of your posts, i was thinking that you are at least interested in Buddhism.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all, i just found your posts a bit too argumentative for a Buddhist.

Never mind, peace.

I like Buddhism because its philosophy also offers great scientific detail explanation of their teachings. Not easy in practice but seeing that it is possible, is convincing enough.  Peace to you too.

Edited by Perhaps2more
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

I like Buddhism because its philosophy also offers great scientific detail explanation of their teachings. Not easy in practice but seeing that it is possible, is convincing enough.  Peace to you too.

Please enlighten me: what is the scientific foundation for reincarnation or rebirth (buddhists don't agree on which one of the two it is), and while you're at it, explain scientifically the concept of karma.

Thank you in advance.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldhippy said:

Please enlighten me: what is the scientific foundation for reincarnation or rebirth (buddhists don't agree on which one of the two it is), and while you're at it, explain scientifically the concept of karma.

Thank you in advance.

I am sure there will be many people saying I am talking nonsense and trying to show that I know better than others. I merely try to answer a dare from you.

It is a very long subject and complicated but I will try knowing that your question is really not a question but something you are trying to prove your point, so let's see.

 

Karma can refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).

You can prove this to be true easily. If you rob a bank it is likely that you will be worried and end up in a prison. If you are nasty to people then you are likely to be left out, no one wants to be near you.

 

Freud discovered that there are no accidents and no coincidences.  Even random feelings, ideas, impulses, wishes, events and actions carry important, often unconscious, meanings.  “Freudian Slip” is the importance display of the unconscious meanings of the things we do and say. Read it yourself how he proved his theory.

Understand subconscious is part of Buddhist meditation. Meditation is a type of hypnosis which one hypnotises oneself but remain conscious awareness of all feelings.

 

All things have no value until we attach thought to it. Thought is a product of experience. Otherwise all things are only objects or beings.

In the process of attaching value we need to have ability to see or sense, the object which exist within space and time, different space and time give different meanings. 

At the first instance, we only see, after that we attach our perception then we value it, after that react to it.

In Buddhist training you learn to catch the moment before you attach value to an object, therefore able to remain unaffected and has no emotional response. To see it before you value it, so it has no meaning.

 

Rebirth; Buddhism teaches that life continues after death. Rebirth in a future existence is not the continuation of a past personality. It is seen as a fresh start. All animals, plants, people and even stars continue in the eternal cycle of birth and death.

Our genes carry all the characters of our past generations within them. This is how all being develop through time. We become what we are now through life experiences of the generations before us. These genes also give us emotions and type of character we become.

 

Reincarnation is impossible to prove but there are many things in every religion that is just the same as a fairy tale. I choose not to believe in this, just the same as I do not believe that when the Buddha was born, every step he took there were lotus flowers came up under his feet. 

But then people talk about ghosts and what they are if they exist then the reincarnation is possible.

I personally see a ghost as an energy form of life left behind through emotions but only exist for certain amount of time, not forever.

Some people are sensitive enough to feel them or see them. Some of them have kinetic energy, enough to prove their existence.

I do not think this can be scientifically proven but there are many filming of these, so it is debatable. If you have experienced death of someone in your family you probably aware of this type of energy.

 

These are not the teachings but only parts of Buddhist philosophy.

The real teachings are about unhappiness, causes of unhappiness, the ways to do to get to the path which take you away from unhappiness and the path to get out of unhappiness. All stages are possible to try out to prove that it is true to what the teaching is about. 

If you can test it and proven to be true then it is scientific enough to me.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be new here, and I don't intend to chase away new guys, especially ones who don't mind getting a little philosophical. But I have to say, you are easy to wind up and it is hard to resist a little fun.

However, In the future you should really look at other posts for what the guy is really saying before formulating your rebuttal. Many times you could have said more with less. 

Back to your reply to me. I find it interesting that you went to such lengths to say bad Buddhists aren't Buddhists and then went on to say that there are bad Buddhists.

Quote

My words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

Quote

Your words: If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Another point, There is no point to define whether or not someone is a Buddhist. You can't join the Buddhists, but you can decide to be one. There is no test or membership fees. It is a philosophy. I call myself a conservative but many of my ideals are more accurately classic liberal. Which am I really?

 

You also went on to say there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. Well there is no definition of real Buddhism either. There are major factions of Buddhism that practice very differently. Thais are generally accepted to be Theravada Buddhists. In Tibet they are mostly Mahayana. Japan has Zen Buddhists, And China has a mashup with Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you want see fundamental Buddhism which tries to be fundamental to the Buddha's teachings, you might be better off in a western temple. I think we can safely say that there can be observed elements of Indo-Chinese Buddhism, that are fairly consistent. The spirit houses being part of that. But each country and region has its own flavor.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You seem to be new here, and I don't intend to chase away new guys, especially ones who don't mind getting a little philosophical. But I have to say, you are easy to wind up and it is hard to resist a little fun.

However, In the future you should really look at other posts for what the guy is really saying before formulating your rebuttal. Many times you could have said more with less. 

Back to your reply to me. I find it interesting that you went to such lengths to say bad Buddhists aren't Buddhists and then went on to say that there are bad Buddhists.

Another point, There is no point to define whether or not someone is a Buddhist. You can't join the Buddhists, but you can decide to be one. There is no test or membership fees. It is a philosophy. I call myself a conservative but many of my ideals are more accurately classic liberal. Which am I really?

 

You also went on to say there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. Well there is no definition of real Buddhism either. There are major factions of Buddhism that practice very differently. Thais are generally accepted to be Theravada Buddhists. In Tibet they are mostly Mahayana. Japan has Zen Buddhists, And China has a mashup with Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you want see fundamental Buddhism which tries to be fundamental to the Buddha's teachings, you might be better off in a western temple. I think we can safely say that there can be observed elements of Indo-Chinese Buddhism, that are fairly consistent. The spirit houses being part of that. But each country and region has its own flavor.

 

I find it really tiresome when people keep going on regardless of all the repeated explanations.

Your words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

My words:  If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Can you see what is the difference?

 

You called yourself a conservative but your ideal is classical liberal and you don't know what you are? ... I am not surprised coming from you.

If writing is your profession but you call yourself a singer. What are you? Do you know?

I call myself a king but really I am a pauper. What do you think I am? Is it that difficult to understand this?

 

This is the problem so far; People want to condemn Thai people who called themselves Buddhist (but not practising Buddhism), bad Buddhist.

How can anyone be Buddhist if they are not practising it? In your thinking then everyone in the world is Buddhist because they are not practising Buddhism.

 

No there is no exam to be Buddhist or any requirement to join but YOU yes YOU... have to be following the teachings which means practising it. You can not just call yourself one.  Is this really hard for you to grasp this point which has been said several times. I am sure people are sick of it, but you still go on and on about the same point.

 

I only answered people who quoted my comments and have no need to read everyone else. I prefer not to interfere with other people conversation.

In spite of that, people accused me of defending Buddhism. When did I do that and Why would I? When no one here say anything bad about Buddhism but only about Buddhists.

People here are really saying that the so called Thai Buddhists are not behaving accordingly, so they are bad Buddhist, as if in where they are from, they all follow their religion and this in Thailand is so uniquely misbehaved that they need to say that it is so bad. 

 

It is not only about Buddhism where these paintings are concerned.

It is also about Thai culture which respect to other should be observed. Kids fight just because someone saying their parents' names, that may sound silly to foreigners. 

Making fun of the king or the nation or religion is a no no. Country, religion and king are written in Thai constitution, they are not to be disrespect by anyone. Making the Buddha as a comic is disrespectful. You may find it silly but this is Thailand, Thai culture, you are passing judgement on.

 

That's right there is no such thing as Thai Buddhism. There is a guy who jumbled up all the local practices add them to Buddhism and call it Thai Buddhism. 

There are different sects, but no one in their right mind create a sect by a country's name.

You mentioned the 2 main Buddhist approaches which are Theravada and Mahayana,

Zen is not an approach but only taking the teaching of cause and effect to the extreme for the modern usage and that is  Good cause = good effect. Therefore you can pray for wealth or anything you wish which is moving away from the real teaching, but the Chinese Buddhism as you said a mixture because you are not separating the Buddhist teachings and Confucius teachings. 

 

Almost all of the Western temples are the extension of Asian temples and many are from some famous Thai monks from some of the temples where people really practise Buddhism not just called themselves Buddhist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow so many words. Then your first statement

Quote

I find it really tiresome when people keep going on regardless of all the repeated explanations.

Your first point

Quote

Your words: So claiming to be Buddhist, and then failing entirely in practice would make you a bad Buddhist, not a non-Buddhist.

My words:  If you are practising Buddhist but you fail some of the rules then you are perhaps a bad Buddhist, at least you are practising and you are learning.

Can you see what is the difference?

This only makes sense if you find people who call themselves Buddhists but never tried even once to practice. Otherwise you have only people who have tried but failed, and those people you called bad Buddhists.

 

I call myself a conservative because modern definitions are not the same as classical definitions. A modern liberal is no longer a freedom loving anti big government defender of free speech and ideas. Personally I consider modern liberals to be fascists, so I am more properly described as a modern conservative.

 

The issue of the Ultra Man paintings is a problem with conservative Buddhists not liking a liberal approach to the imagery of the Buddha, despite the reverence intended. In this case I would not be with the conservatives, I would support the liberal view. The Buddha would likely be critical with all the idolatry associated with him, so everybody in this story is actually in the wrong. 

 

21 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

In your thinking then everyone in the world is Buddhist because they are not practicing Buddhism.

An obvious straw man. I said people who call themselves Buddhists are Buddhists because there is no other measure to be used. Christians do not usually call themselves Buddhists, so they are not Buddhists. 

If you have a list of the specific requirements to be considered a Buddhist, by all means share it with us so we can be enlightened.

 

I'll not bother with the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 4:49 PM, Perhaps2more said:

Don't underestimate Thai mania! When the king Rama 9 was alive, people were lynched for saying bad things about him.

To the Buddhists these pictures display insults.

Comparing what is sacred to a modern day gimmick is quite ridiculous. It just shows how substandard the education is.

The painter is one of those young students these days who has no concept of the word "Respect".

...Perhaps1less or Nomorethankyou might be a better name!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 12:59 AM, Perhaps2more said:

Why would you thank God when you are an Atheist?  ... Very funny !

...you are not that bright, really!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Wow so many words. Then your first statement

Your first point

This only makes sense if you find people who call themselves Buddhists but never tried even once to practice. Otherwise you have only people who have tried but failed, and those people you called bad Buddhists.

 

I call myself a conservative because modern definitions are not the same as classical definitions. A modern liberal is no longer a freedom loving anti big government defender of free speech and ideas. Personally I consider modern liberals to be fascists, so I am more properly described as a modern conservative.

 

The issue of the Ultra Man paintings is a problem with conservative Buddhists not liking a liberal approach to the imagery of the Buddha, despite the reverence intended. In this case I would not be with the conservatives, I would support the liberal view. The Buddha would likely be critical with all the idolatry associated with him, so everybody in this story is actually in the wrong. 

 

An obvious straw man. I said people who call themselves Buddhists are Buddhists because there is no other measure to be used. Christians do not usually call themselves Buddhists, so they are not Buddhists. 

If you have a list of the specific requirements to be considered a Buddhist, by all means share it with us so we can be enlightened.

 

I'll not bother with the rest.

Still missing the point asking the same question again  and again.

If you don't read my previous answer then you'll be repeating the same question and wasting time.

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

Christian are not Buddhist because they do not practice Buddhism ... NOT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CALL THEMSELVES BUDDHIST.

You can call yourself whatever you like if you are not doing it them you are a FAKE.

You can call yourself a singer but if you do not sing then you are not a singer.

 

Yes the requirement is............

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

 

I have already said that people who have tried and failed are bad Buddhists, in many comments but they are learners. 

People who are saying that The Thais who have problem accepting the modern idea of painting are bad Buddhists and then quoting several things happen in Thailand which are against Buddhist principle, all with the assumption that all these Thais mentioned are practising Buddhism just because they call themselves Buddhist. It is an assumption. You should never assume when you condemn people.

 

This is what I said in the previous answer.....READ IT.

It is not only about Buddhism where these paintings are concerned.

It is also about Thai culture which respect to other should be observed. Kids fight just because someone saying their parents' names, that may sound silly to foreigners. 

Making fun of the king or the nation or religion is a no no. Country, religion and king are written in Thai constitution, they are not to be disrespect by anyone. Making the Buddha as a comic is disrespectful. You may find it silly but this is Thailand, Thai culture, you are passing judgement on.

It is not about being conservative or liberal.

 

Yes the requirement is............

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism, 

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Yes, all very scientific indeed.

 

And there is always the ultimate answer: "well yes, but this has not to be taken literally".

I recommend watching the "blessed are the cheesemakers" scene from Life Of Brian.

Yes, nice comparison from the Life of Brian which from the Western point of views is hilarious. 

Everything in life has  Good and Bad side. Whether you are able to see them or not, they are there, and to those who can see, can use them to their advantage.

You can say anything good or bad to everything if you really want to. But in choosing, that is how your life becomes. 

You can see the bad side of religion and decide to have none. or you can see the good side and have one.

With religion you have a shelter to rest your soul in bad time or you have nothing in your bad time, except yourself which is at the time weak and helpless.

Life is about choice but there are reasons why you choose, even to turn left or right when you leave home. Going left or right your life experience will not be the same for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

...you are not that bright, really!

Your comment tells more about yourself than about me. Thanks for the comment anyway, Saint NIck ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Perhaps2more said:

The requirement is that you practise Buddhism,

OK, what is the threshold that defines whether or not someone is practicing Buddhism?

I'm just asking in case I have done it by accident.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...