Temples vs. Poverty

[DSJPC]

I instinctively suspect this will create a huge amount of controversy...

 

I love all the Buddhist temples abundant all over Thailand...each one is unique and extremely interesting if u compare all the subtle decorations...very impressive!!!

 

each temple was built at gr8 expense by loyal Buddhists from often low-income families...wages in Thailand are very low and farmers just survive, thanks to Yingluck's rice-scheme ripoff...I suspect most (if not all) Thais contribute at least 10% (if not more) to their temples?

 

I was a Buddhist monk at Wat Umong in Chiang Mai about 8 years ago...shaved the head, wore the orange robes, bell rang at 0330, chanting, meditation, prayers 0400-0500...walked downtown barefoot at 0530, gathering food for the day (always abundant...a lucrative area)...more prayers/ meditations/chanting at 4pm...but I often missed the afternoon shindig by walking to a nearby sanctuary at the foot of Doi Suthep to meditate and watch daily herds of two kinds of deer and one herd of gaurs come up to visit me...they trusted me and I trusted them!

 

but my point is I think Thai people (especially poor) contributing to Buddhist temples is hurting them rather than helping...does anyone agree with me???...Jack

 

 

[PoorSucker]

The thing about Buddhism is that there is no clear path, nobody will tell you that this is right.

You must find your own way to enlightenment.

The teaching of the Lord Buddha is reinvented for every new person that seeks enlightenment.

 

You can not force anyone to follow your path, your role is as the Lord Buddha, only a teacher.

 

Moved to the Buddhist forum.

[kannot]

all religions are pathetic waste of life and time the ridiculous amount of  shiny palaces in Thailand is unbelievable, peoples  gullibility never ceases to amaze me. Let them throw  their  money where they want however but dont complain when youve  no money left and your sweaty hand comes out asking for "help" or  blaming someone else for your predicament.....is  what i think

[alant]

An ex monk having a pop at Yingluck. Is that how it goes in this religion?

[amykat]

I agree with you Jack!  Glad you got to spend some nice time with the animals!!  That is always valuable and makes good memories.

[Kwasaki]

No definitely no to the poor giving money to temples the Monks should not except their money it's immoral it doesn't take much effort or hard to see who can afford to give and those that can't and shouldn't.

 

 

[sanemax]

I have stayed in a poor village in the Norther mountains, Some families live in bamboo huts and their children dress in rags an look under nourished .

   Yet, the local Monastery is building a huge new Temple paid for by these villagers , every few months there is a large procession where all the villagers march down to the Temple with their donations .

    Surely their Childrens welfare is more important that a huge shiny  new Temple ?

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, kannot said:

all religions are pathetic waste of life and time the ridiculous amount of shiny palaces in Thailand is unbelievable, peoples gullibility never ceases to amaze me. Let them throw their money where they want however but dont complain when youve no money left and your sweaty hand comes out asking for "help" or blaming someone else for your predicament.....is what i think

 

I'm surprised your post has not been moderated.

 

I understand your view and I suspect you are in complete agreement with the sorts of views expressed by the likes of  Richard Dawkins.
However, I think my more moderate view is closer to the truth (so pay attention, Richard Dawkins   ).

 

It's clear from the current state of the world, and from recent history, ancient history and paleontology, that the human species is an animal with similar instincts to all other animals.

 

We kill other animals for food as other predators do. We fight amongst ourselves for territorial advantage just like many other species of animal do. In some respects our behaviour is even worse than that of other animals in the sense that we sometimes engage in deliberate torture, either as a form of punishment or to gain some advantage in respect of information, and sometimes even for fun.

 

In my view, religion at its best is an attempt by the more enlightened amongst us, to show that there is a better way of life than being in servitude to our animal instincts. We can rise above the usual conflicts for territorial advantage, economic power and status, control over others and the satisfaction of our sexual drives, if we want to.

 

Unfortunately, some of the people espousing and promoting and representing religious views, have not been able to transcend their own animal instincts, hence the problem of religious wars, pedophilia amongst Catholic priests (and no doubt certain Buddhist monks), excessive indulgence in food, and all sorts of other misbehaviour in respect of the religious ideal.

 

Such people deserve criticism because of their deceit and personal failure, but one cannot therefore deduce that the religious ideals they espouse are at fault.

[partington]

You can  deduce the religious ideals they espouse are at fault if you compare them to equally responsible, beneficent and empathetic ethical ideals on how to live that have no religious foundation whatsoever.

 

It isn't necessary to invent supernatural or imaginary entities, goals and motivations to simply treat everyone as nicely as you can. In my opinion these barnacles on ethics have a habit of becoming an end in themselves that begins to fight for their own existence as a belief system.

 

The same is of course true if you treat science as a religion and not as a simple methodology.  

 

As someone* once said:

"What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society. Anti-Darwinian in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.”

 

 

*Richard Dawkins 

- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/12/richard-dawkins-we-need-an-anti-darwinian-society/

[camerata]

An Anti-Darwinian society would be a pro-Dhamma society.

[VincentRJ]

16 hours ago, partington said:

You can  deduce the religious ideals they espouse are at fault if you compare them to equally responsible, beneficent and empathetic ethical ideals on how to live that have no religious foundation whatsoever.

 

 

I think you should sit quietly in a meditative pose and contemplate upon the absurdity of your above statement. 

 

How is it possible to have ethical ideals that have no religious foundation whatsoever? Give me an example of such an ideal. Religious ideals, thoughts, explanations for our situation and circumstances, and rules to help society progress and live harmoniously together, go back tens of thousands of years. Throughout history, such religious ideals have been discussed and promoted ad nauseum, and often amended according to changing circumstances.

 

Both philosophers and scientists have thought deeply about the truth of religious ideals for many centuries, long before Charles Darwin arrived on the scene.
One of the greatest scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, was deeply religious, but in an unconventional way, as was Albert Einstein.

 

One of the most fundamental and widely accepted ethical principles of all time, that has been promoted by many religions throughout history, is the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Whilst the wording varies slightly in different cultures and religions, the meaning is the same. 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' is another Jewish/Christian variation. "There is nothing dearer to man than himself; therefore, as it is the same thing that is dear to you and to others, hurt not others with what pains yourself" is a Buddhist variation.

 

The religions of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, India and China all included some variation of the Golden Rule. You don't think that's a modern invention do you? 

 

The problem is not with religion but with mankind's emotional need or desire to avoid change, and mankind's lack of skill in adapting to change, or reluctance to adapt to change.

 

Change seems to make people feel insecure, so they tend to hang on to certain religious principles or rules that they are familiar with, rather than amend them in accordance with changing circumstances and increasing knowledge.
One of the attractions of Buddhism for me is that it emphasises the reality that everything is subject to change

[rockyysdt]

In a poor country life is like a pyramid.

 

Only a few can get to the top, the vast majority, remaining disenfranchised, living in poverty.

 

As in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Religion is the Soma of the masses.

 

Buddhism acts as an escape for the masses.

 

A chance at a better left, be it in a next life.

 

Sure they're milking the poor, but if removed, you would need to very quickly replace it with another psychological crutch.

Something extremely difficult to do, given the centuries of Buddhist custom deeply rooted in the nations psyche

[Jack Mountain]

I recommend the Church of the flying spaghetti monster.