Comments on: Jesus Heals Thai AIDS Girl

By: Pete, FrogBlogger

Pete, FrogBlogger — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:56:46 +0000

Girlie, while the Buddhist “real thing” is as you describe, superstition plays a massive role in Thai life, far more so than in the West. There’s a kind of cohabitation between the two. Thai Buddhism is far more “flexible,” as Dan describes it, than the purist version that has been imported into the likes of the U.K. – eg. the Forest tradition. Thai people are a long way from giving up their superstitious practices, and education has little effect. I watched and blogged about a foundation stone laying ceremony for a block of flats a few months back, it lasted hours – the entire family investing in the project were there and took it very seriously indeed.

By: Girlie

Girlie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:58:37 +0000

Dan,

My reply didn’t go through, so trying again.

All well and good to go to a temple and offer food or whatever, but that doesn’t wipe the slate clean entirely.

A Buddhist society such as Thailand vehemently believe in karma and karmic retribution. Surely they do not believe going to a temple obliterates their future karma for any sins they are contemplating?

That is just like the belief in the West (catholicism etc.) that confessing one’s sins to a priest and repeating hail mary’s etc. obliterates any untoward aftereffects, and one can go out and “sin” some more.

By: BangkokDan

BangkokDan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:15:41 +0000

I think the main issue with mainstream Buddhism is that it has become the same flexible something we see everywhere in Thailand, be it law enforcement, the judiciary, politics, work ethics ... One can read into it and transform it as it pleases. And done something not too good? Just go to the temple and you'll be fine. It's beautiful to see how Thai people give alms to monks in the mornings - that's the one side. The other: religious commandments are no easy walk. They involve pain, abstinence, composure. Hardly virtues commonly seen over here. To feel sabai and have sanuk are the dominants mainstream Buddhism is subjected to. Like the working girls here: a wai, some flowers and food offerings before work exonerate from doing something not too Buddhist. BangkokDan

By: Girlie

Girlie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:02:00 +0000

Dan,

Agreed, in principle.

BUT, I also think Buddhism is very radical in some ways, and yet has a lot of value, moreso than most religions. Esp. the part of giving up all desires and pleasure. I think balance is important.

I have wondered with Buddhism being such a strong influence in Thailand, why is there so much corruption? Seems hypocritical to me. Or Buddhism is just not “working” for the Thais?

By: BangkokDan

BangkokDan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:56:09 +0000

In principle why not Girlie. Theoretically. "Proper" Buddhism has a deeper understanding of the human psyche than other major religions. Practiced mainstream Buddhism though has degenerated into a circus rendering homage to the mammon. BangkokDan

By: Girlie

Girlie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:40:28 +0000

You’re well aware that “proper” Buddhism is rather a psychology than religion. So where does belief start/end?

So really then, Dan, in BKK, there is no heavy need (such in the West) for therapists and counsellors. You just need Buddhism to get you through tough times. Great.

By: BangkokDan

BangkokDan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:42:36 +0000

I knew I shouldn’t enter that slippery territory called religion, but myself a once student of theology I thought I risk it.

stefan dear! What are you suggesting. I wish I was bankrolled by anyone … But this site stands for integrity and that’s why I mirrored the video of this outrageous neo-supremacy going on here and now, and unchecked for that.

But then again, some people need and deserve the comfort of a religious belief. And you mention an important point, the non-religious aspects of Buddhism.

You’re well aware that “proper” Buddhism is rather a psychology than religion. So where does belief start/end?

It’s all about different manifestations of humaneness.

BangkokDan

By: stefan

stefan — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:44:38 +0000

Furthermore I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic, simply a student of life, and the more I learn, the more I realize that the attentive rendering of the universe’s massive questions will eventually lead to answers, and not dogma. The best aspects of Buddhism are not religious, but simply intelligent lessons on psychology and life. Understanding that doesn’t make me religious and subsumed by a higher power; the only higher oppressor is my own ignorance.

By: stefan

stefan — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:24:30 +0000

I’m shocked at this hogwash Bangkok Dan, I wrongly assumed you were “above” this and the posted video is especially offensive, with the whining American VO speaking for a Thai child, fabricated of course, but clearly the manipulators would never let a Thai child speak for herself … she may not have the chops to convey the sales pitch …

Reminds me of the pathetic bus driver who recently refused to drive a London bus with a mild atheist message /billboard on it. The same driver would be happy to drive around with the message that we are all doomed in not believing in his crap … your reckoning about religion is on the same flawed and hypocritical reasoning as the bus driver getting paid to be a public servant AND free to prosthelitize, except, unless there is something darker going on here, I have assumed, you are not bankrolled to write this codswallop?

By: Pete, FrogBlogger

Pete, FrogBlogger — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:01:51 +0000

The classic misunderstanding Dan – with respect. Lacking belief in a deity does not equate to denying its existence as you suggest. Atheists may say that a god is more or less improbable, but even Dawkins won’t categorically deny the possibility. There is no more belief involved than there is, say, in not believing in faeries at the bottom of the garden, or not believing in Thor’s hammer, or not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc. etc.

We simply do not invoke ‘higher powers’ without the necessary evidence. We don’t need a god for the gaps in our (current) understanding.

Creationism – whether 10,000 year old universe based, or the fudge ID (intelligent design) – is a theory, as evolution is a theory. There is just immensely more evidence in favor of the latter. Belief doesn’t enter into it, as far as evolutionary science is concerned.