Thai Government rejects Buddhism as National Religion
-
Dun understand y?
Maybe that general Sonthi and the new Prime Minister are Muslim so therefore they reject Buddhism as the national religion.
I bet they sure say is because the government dun wanna to provoke the Thailand southern Muslim majority states where there are a lot of Muslim unrest.
Counties like Saudi Arabia also have citizens who are not Muslims but they still declared Islam as the national religion. So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to declare Buddhism as Thai national religion.
What more. There are no Buddhists extremists terrorists
-
yeap true, they arent extremists and there is no reason for a national religion
usually such 'nationalisation' of a religion may impinge on other religious beliefs, and i guess that defeats the aim of Buddhism -
Buddhism is Thai main religion.
O me tok for. -
There are buddhist extermists in Korea.Originally posted by Spartans:Dun understand y?
Maybe that general Sonthi and the new Prime Minister are Muslim so therefore they reject Buddhism as the national religion.
I bet they sure say is because the government dun wanna to provoke the Thailand southern Muslim majority states where there are a lot of Muslim unrest.
Counties like Saudi Arabia also have citizens who are not Muslims but they still declared Islam as the national religion. So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to declare Buddhism as Thai national religion.
What more. There are no Buddhists extremists terrorists
Just because 1 country consider a religion as a national religion doesn't mean that another country can follow suit. -
I noticed this pattern so interesting , coax,using the best sugar coated sweet to one religion on Eternal Hope andOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:There are buddhist extermists in Korea.
Just because 1 country consider a religion as a national religion doesn't mean that another country can follow suit.
slamming the other religion on Wisdom Bliss
thats so interesting -
Spartans , The Thai have always have their state religion as Buddhism ,not all the thai have consensus on that in modern timesOriginally posted by Spartans:Dun understand y?
Maybe that general Sonthi and the new Prime Minister are Muslim so therefore they reject Buddhism as the national religion.
I bet they sure say is because the government dun wanna to provoke the Thailand southern Muslim majority states where there are a lot of Muslim unrest.
Counties like Saudi Arabia also have citizens who are not Muslims but they still declared Islam as the national religion. So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to declare Buddhism as Thai national religion.
What more. There are no Buddhists extremists terrorists
The purpose of state religion is like handling state affairs in diplomacy to religious head visit ,ensure the education of the common people , weed out
deviant teachers
But now Thailand have no need for that , there isnt a serious spiritual vacuum in Thai society.Buddhism is part of thai people
Children since young ordain as part of national service
I just wonder why someone on the forum like to make twisted fact on Buddhism and still feeling self-satisfaction , its like licking the honey from a sharp razor edge ... one day will get deep cuts on the tongue ,such person should take heed of further posting
the more he lick on the honey , the honey become lesser and lesser till he cuts the tongue all becos of such an silly act
-
Buddhism is not about "converting" people like in Judeo-Christian traditions...
Buddhism is about "fate"... if you are fated (karma, rebirths) to become a Buddhist or receive Buddhist instruction or Dharma; you are truly "fortunate" (according to them)
What state religion of Buddhism? A really stupid concept that even Buddhist themselves will reject. -
This I agreeOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:Buddhism is not about "converting" people like in Judeo-Christian traditions...
This I am not sure... The word "Fate" has a reactive connotation that denotes an outcome predertermined by a nebulous Higher Being, which to my understanding is not the case. There is no predetermination, you make your own fate in Buddhism.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Buddhism is about "fate"... if you are fated (karma, rebirths) to become a Buddhist or receive Buddhist instruction or Dharma; you are truly "fortunate" (according to them) -
By definition there can be no Buddhist extremists. This is because moderation and the middle way are among the core teachings in Buddhism. The moment a Buddhist becomes an extremeist he would have strayed from Buddhism's core teachings, and he would have ceased to become a Buddhist altogather. You cannot justify any form of extremism and violence in the name of Buddhism.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:There are buddhist extermists in Korea.
Just because 1 country consider a religion as a national religion doesn't mean that another country can follow suit.
Saying that there are Buddhist extremists is just like saying that there cruel kindness..... It is an oxymoron. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Agreed.
Buddhism is not about "converting" people like in Judeo-Christian traditions...
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"Buddhism is about "fate"... if you are fated (karma, rebirths) to become a Buddhist or receive Buddhist instruction or Dharma; you are truly "fortunate" (according to them)
I need to correct this part. Karma is NOT predeterminism. It is about conditionality. I will post a topic on it soon.
But this, I have posted before:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/karma_thanisaro.html
For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will.
Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present.
This constant opening for present input into the causal process makes free will possible.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
Thus, from a Buddhist point of view, our present mental, moral intellectual and temperamental differences are, for the most part, due to our own actions and tendencies, both past and present.
Although Buddhism attributes this variation to Karma, as being the chief cause among a variety, it does not, however, assert that everything is due to Karma. The law of Karma, important as it is, is only one of the twenty-four conditions described in Buddhist Philosophy.
Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:
"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."
It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our lifeÂ’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.
Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.
But most people's idea, and the general western idea of free will is also extreme and the term free will could be misinterpreted to mean that there is a controller of events. It is not so.
Here is a more balanced view:
http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/173/life-without-free-will
In other words, nirvana is the concrete realization of “no free will.” It is also the concrete realization of “no determinism.” For in order for something to be determined, it must be determined by something OUTSIDE itself. But if there is ultimately nothing outside us to force us to choose what we do, then we are no more determined to make the choices we do than we are free to make them. They simply “arise of themselves in relation to circumstances.” -
You are fated to take a certain route but you can change your fate...Originally posted by Beyond Religion:This I am not sure... The word "Fate" has a reactive connotation that denotes an outcome predertermined by a nebulous Higher Being, which to my understanding is not the case. There is no predetermination, you make your own fate in Buddhism.
If someone has no wish to change his fate, then "fate" will take its course... there is no need for a higher power intervention...
If you don't eat, you are fated to become hungry... did a "higher power" have anything to do with your hunger?
If you say... "when I don't eat I am fated to become hungry, then I will stay hungry..." then that is your choice....
You are not fated to learn Buddhist philosophy (you are not born in a Buddhist family) but if you find that life is "very funny" and you sincerely seek to know the truth/reality... (you are hungry but you do not just accept your "fate" and do something about it) then you might very well discover Buddhism. -
They can accept that I consider their forum as the Eternally Hopeless while you and AEN can't accept that Buddhism: Blissfully Ignorant.Originally posted by bohiruci:I noticed this pattern so interesting , coax,using the best sugar coated sweet to one religion on Eternal Hope and
slamming the other religion on Wisdom Bliss
thats so interesting -
Given that Buddhism is a nationally recognized religion in Korea, 2 competing Buddhist factions had a difference of opinion in the early 1990s and resulted in bloodshed between tens of people is not considered extremist by Beyond Religion, then I don't know what is extremist. Any religion including Buddhism has extremists but yet such extremists still try and follow the core tenets of their professed religion, hence they are still considered believers of their religion.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:By definition there can be no Buddhist extremists. This is because moderation and the middle way are among the core teachings in Buddhism. The moment a Buddhist becomes an extremeist he would have strayed from Buddhism's core teachings, and he would have ceased to become a Buddhist altogather. You cannot justify any form of extremism and violence in the name of Buddhism.
Saying that there are Buddhist extremists is just like saying that there cruel kindness..... It is an oxymoron. -
Nope, there is a difference.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Given that Buddhism is a nationally recognized religion in Korea, 2 competing Buddhist factions had a difference of opinion in the early 1990s and resulted in bloodshed between tens of people is not considered extremist by Beyond Religion, then I don't know what is extremist. Any religion including Buddhism has extremists but yet such extremists still try and follow the core tenets of their professed religion, hence they are still considered believers of their religion.
A religious extremist is one who engages in acts of extremism while attempting to justify such acts in the name and teachings of the religion.
An extremist who engages in acts of extremism despite Buddhism's teachings to the contrary is just an extremist who also happens to call himself a Buddhist. -
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
Don't try and pawn this off as a singular incident as there are still thousands of people involved in both sides even up to now. Just to show there are extremists who practice Buddhism.
Nope, there is a difference.
A religious extremist is one who engages in acts of extremism while attempting to justify such acts in the name and teachings of the religion.
An extremist who engages in acts of extremism [b]despite Buddhism's teachings to the contrary is just an extremist who also happens to call himself a Buddhist.[/b]
While Buddhism as a philosophy rejects extremism, but as practicing religion, it embraces extremism. -
Read my post again. I did not comment on whether this is a singular incident or not. I am saying that a religious extremist justifies his acts of extremism with religion, while a 'run-of-the-mill' extremist does not. In so far an extremist calls himself a Buddhist and still engage in acts of extremism, he is doing things that are contrary to the core teaching of Buddhism.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Don't try and pawn this off as a singular incident as there are still thousands of people involved in both sides even up to now. Just to show there are extremists who practice Buddhism.
While Buddhism as a philosophy rejects extremism, but as practicing religion, it embraces extremism. -
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
Read the portion of my last posting and you will get the geist.
Read my post again. I did not comment on whether this is a singular incident or not. I am saying that a religious extremist justifies his acts of extremism [b]with religion, while a 'run-of-the-mill' extremist does not. In so far an extremist calls himself a Buddhist and still engage in acts of extremism, he is doing things that are contrary to the core teaching of Buddhism.[/b] -
No I do not understand the gist. In fact, I do not understand the point in your last paragraph at all. Care to explain?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Read the portion of my last posting and you will get the geist. -
"While Buddhism as a philosophy rejects extremism, but as practicing religion, it embraces extremism."Originally posted by Beyond Religion:No I do not understand the gist. In fact, I do not understand the point in your last paragraph at all. Care to explain?
That such things are expected in real life. -
General Suryarud Chulanot is a Buddhist actually ... and a pretty devout one at that ...Originally posted by Spartans:Dun understand y?
Maybe that general Sonthi and the new Prime Minister are Muslim so therefore they reject Buddhism as the national religion.
I bet they sure say is because the government dun wanna to provoke the Thailand southern Muslim majority states where there are a lot of Muslim unrest.
Counties like Saudi Arabia also have citizens who are not Muslims but they still declared Islam as the national religion. So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to declare Buddhism as Thai national religion.
What more. There are no Buddhists extremists terrorists
I remember reading in the bangkok post when he was edged aside and "retired" by Thaksin ... that one of his plans after retirement was to spend a period of time as a monk in a forest temple .... -
so chimOriginally posted by bohiruci:Spartans , The Thai have always have their state religion as Buddhism ,not all the thai have consensus on that in modern times
The purpose of state religion is like handling state affairs in diplomacy to religious head visit ,ensure the education of the common people , weed out
deviant teachers
But now Thailand have no need for that , there isnt a serious spiritual vacuum in Thai society.Buddhism is part of thai people
Children since young ordain as part of national service
I just wonder why someone on the forum like to make twisted fact on Buddhism and still feeling self-satisfaction , its like licking the honey from a sharp razor edge ... one day will get deep cuts on the tongue ,such person should take heed of further posting
the more he lick on the honey , the honey become lesser and lesser till he cuts the tongue all becos of such an silly act 
-
oh well .... I think I can live with Buddhist extremists ....
I don't think they'll be slicing people's heads off with a little folding knife on camera and posting the videos up on the internet, nor would they go around building bombs and killing people ... -
but thats because christian extremists have invaded other countries in the name of " war on terror " .......Originally posted by Fatum:oh well .... I think I can live with Buddhist extremists ....
I don't think they'll be slicing people's heads off with a little folding knife on camera and posting the videos up on the internet, nor would they go around building bombs and killing people ... -
Oh no, they go about rioting and setting fire to religious properties.Originally posted by Fatum:oh well .... I think I can live with Buddhist extremists ....
I don't think they'll be slicing people's heads off with a little folding knife on camera and posting the videos up on the internet, nor would they go around building bombs and killing people ... -
what a mess..