sickbuffalo Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 It could be argued that wearing amulets goes against much of what doctrinal Buddhism stands for. Reformers like ¾Ø·¸·ÒÊÀÔ¡¢Ø have tried to discourage the practise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 but as the doctrinal buddhism is only for a very small intellectual elite it could also be argued that as long as those amulets help people in reaching the middle path, wearing those amulets is permissable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 realy, aren't these amulets worn for protection, rather than sticking to or eyeing the middle road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 what's wrong with a bit of protection, even if it just a bit of a crutch? nobody is perfect - and you just cannot expect a layman (or even a monk) to be a obedient follower to the letter of the doctrine. buddhism, like every other philosophy/religion needs a certain mass appeal. you can argue any way here - some people might consider zen as the most closest way to the doctrine, bare of every crutch in its simplicity. but zen to the letter is not for everyone either, more the opposite, only a very few selected can go that way. many others who try go crazy. than many people do consider the different sects of the vajrajana as the furthest away from the original doctrine, but then, in those tibetan temples you will find the oldest still existing scripts of buddhism. just read about the mad journey of that japanese monk who travelled under disguise at the turn of the century to lhasa to acquire some scripts. if buddhism would be a strict doctrine where even the smallest transgression from the doctrine would be rooted out, it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. in the history of buddhism you can see one major thing for it's success. buddhism has always and everywhere assimilated certain pre-existing local cults and customs as a way to spread the teachings. just look at the systhem of tantra (esp. the lefthanded), in both buddhism and hinduism. there at first many things are required which would somwhat go against the core of all what those philosphies/religions stand for, such as the importance of a protective goddess brought to existence through rigorous visualisation, just to, as the last step, completely dismantle itself (a step very few ever reach). as contradictive as it sounds - but too strict adherence to the doctrine is at least as harmful as not following it at all. and regarding amulets - the problem lies not with the amulet, or the one who issues or gives it, but it depends on the one who wears it. if it leads that person to attempting to improve himself it fullfilled it's function already. if he abuses it though it is not the fault of the amulet, but just of the person who abuses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 what's wrong with a bit of protection, even if it just a bit of a crutch? ------------------------ Nothing. Why? Someone said something?.... :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickbuffalo Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Says flyonzewall: what's wrong with a bit of protection, even if it just a bit of a crutch? Because its dishonest. It is calling something 'Buddhism' which is not in fact Buddhism at all. Dishonesty is maybe not a good start to finding religious truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brink15 Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Dishonesty is maybe not a good start to trying to find religious truth. But is Buddhism really a religion in the sense of a deity or a philosophical path to enlightenment? Should anyone worship the Buddha? Or like another philosopher, Socrates, is he but a teacher of wisdom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 One can never repeat enough: the Buddha was a man, and died 2500 years ago, so it is important to understand that Thais do not worship him, they pay homage to his examplary life and look for spiritual sustainance when they fulfill rituals in temples. To sickbuffalo, thais/tais were animist way before they were buddhist, to feel there is some kind of propitiation, even superstition in wearing amulets respond to their cultural make-up. Nothing dishonest. It is noticeable that one of the things we enjoy about Thailand, the easy-goingness, finds its expression in such cultural behaviour. Unlikle many in the west, they do not moralize incessantly or drive you to the ground about proper ways to do this or that, what is good, what is bad, etc.... Whatever suits you in the pursuit of your own happiness or salvation is your own responsibilty, and should not be judged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Says sickbuffalo: Says flyonzewall: what's wrong with a bit of protection, even if it just a bit of a crutch? Because its dishonest. It is calling something 'Buddhism' which is not in fact Buddhism at all. Dishonesty is maybe not a good start to finding religious truth. if you ask a learned monk, the only way to understand what the essence of what buddhism is, is via meditation only. but he will also say that there are many different levels of buddhism - you can't expect a layman to adhere to the same form of buddhism as a monk. for that you also have very different precepts for each. and personally i don't really see why wearing amulets is "dishonest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 [color:"red"]but as the doctrinal buddhism is only for a very small intellectual elite it could also be argued that as long as those amulets help people in reaching the middle path, wearing those amulets is permissable. [/color] I agree, if the amulets remind people that they have to be good persons, it should be ok. What comes out of these amulets is that people associate "money" into it and many foriegners thought it is a "Thai" thing. :: For me each for his own, as long as it does not harm other beings, why worry about it? Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.