Dear Venerable Sir,
> Please pardon my rather over-prolix contributions these last few
> weeks, but i can't resist some comments on this one. Wow! I lived
in
> Thailand for 6 years, and never came across such ideas. You must
> have all the parami, to encounter such exotica....
That's okay, I don't even know what "prolix" means... :)
That's not the end of it... they have another website
called "www.direct2buddha.com". Another prevailing attitude among
Thai (and of course many East Asian) people I've talked to is that
the Lord Buddha is in Nibbaana and you can go talk to him there.
(incidently, this is probably what the Mahayanists mean by Pure
Land, not the anagami realms... I think you are off track to say
that my plans to go to be an anagami will be spoiled by a bunch of
grey-robed lay people chanting "namo amitaaaaaafah, namo
amitaaaafah" - that's enough to push one to strive for arahantship
in this life)
One of my students explained that Vipassana lets you see Nibbaana,
but not go there. To go there you have to practice "Mano". Of
course, explaining that "mano" means mind doesn't help.
> Of course, anyone reasonably learned in any school of Buddhism
would
> know that their religion hailed from India.
Touche - I admit to being rather unlearned in regards to Buddhist
history. Of course I've heard that the Lord Buddha hailed from
India, and have been to all the holy sites, and seen all the Bodhi
trees on the side of the road. Actually, I am just looking for
arguments to use to convince these silly people that they are
dreaming it all up themselves (only because they seem to like to
come to Doi Suthep to study).
> The Buddha was born on the Nepalese/Indian border; i don't know
how
> many seasons they have there (it is far south of Kathmandu). But
the
> Vinaya was established when the Buddha was living farther South,
> where they definitely have three seasons.
Right, but the Bodhisatta was raised in three palaces...
> >
> > 4) In short, what proof is there that tells us beyond doubt that
> all
> > of this what we are talking about really took place in India,
and
> > not Thailand?
>
> Obviously, the overwhelming evidence of all the texts, reinforced
in
> essentials by vast quantities of archeological remains of
Buddhism,
> dating a thousand years or more before anything is found in
Thailand.
Oh, that's not entirely true... they claim to have a "semha-dhatu",
petrified clotted blood from the Lord Buddha. That's gotta be
old :) I think they've also got his death-bed somewhere... not sure
what kind of wood it is made of...
One thing they say is that Pali used to be the common language of
the Thai people, that Sanskrit is new to Thailand, and 50 years ago
all of the Sanskrit spellings like "piksu (bhikkhu)" were Pali. How
long has Sanskrit been a part of the Thai language?
What I would really like is examples of some of the "overwhelming
evidence of all the texts" that I can quote for my students that
will shake them of this silly fantasy... It's like the Cambodian
people who I used to stay with who said that Pali was part of the
Cambodian language. They called it "Higher-Cambodian". It all has
a common theme... remember when the Cambodians burnt down Thai shops
in Phnom Phen because a Thai celebrity said that Ankhor Wat was
built by Thai people? Apparently this is another thing Thai people
believe strongly.
> Complete rubbish. Bodhi trees may be seen commonly along the side
of
> the road throughout northern India, at least, where they are often
> made into shrines. Proof of the antiquity of this custom is found
in
> the Indus valley seals, which clearly depict a Bodhi tree as
object
> of worship around 2000 before the Buddha.
As I say, I was interested to see myself that India is full of Bodhi
trees, and when I mentioned it to the man responsible for these
websites, he seemed quite agitated and asked whether they grew by
themselves or were planted there (to maintain the illusion, I
suppose). Didn't know that about the seals. Thanks.
Again if all of this is off topic, my apologies.
Respectfully,
Yuttadhammo