Zuesbeld, we essentially agree.

[Bumpity]

CONTEXT is an essential part of history. Even if Buddha wrote nothing, his life and teaching would still have to be in CONTEXT. The word "context" is significant and objective. No way in hell that Buddha would have accepted and eaten meat in a Hindu society . . . while he taught COMPASSION and that "all life is suffering." Because he taught about suffering -- that is another reason he wouldn't have taught his disciples to accept the product of suffering.

Well, my point is not whether I am right or not right . . . I'd just like to find a Thai veggie gal that's cute and likes to party :-)

[alexanderdream]

CONTEXT is an essential part of history. Even if Buddha wrote nothing, his life and teaching would still have to be in CONTEXT. The word "context" is significant and objective. No way in hell that Buddha would have accepted and eaten meat in a Hindu society . . . while he taught COMPASSION and that "all life is suffering." Because he taught about suffering -- that is another reason he wouldn't have taught his disciples to accept the product of suffering.

Well, my point is not whether I am right or not right . . . I'd just like to find a Thai veggie gal that's cute and likes to party :-)

:shock:

[Loburt]

I told you not to listen to that Branson guy, Ghee.

[Bumpity]

started this thread by mistake. Let's get back to the first one. OK?

I would call any institutionalized structure which earnestly tries to propagandize the collective minds of a group of people for power and profit -- a religion. The Thai Buddhist Temple certainly qualifies. In fact, it may be more successful than the Catholic Church, per capita.

One evening, as Soi Cowboy (sorry :-)) I watched the strippers and ladies of the evening making offerings to Buddha before beginning their evenings work. I asked one why she was doing it, and she said she was asking Buddha for "good money tonight." If you give to Buddha (i.e., the Temple), he gives to you!! I think the entrie society is caught in the grips of that belief, which has NOTHING to do with Buddha at all.

Yea, Buddhism is a religion, as I defined it, more or less.

[zeusbheld]

CONTEXT is an essential part of history. Even if Buddha wrote nothing, his life and teaching would still have to be in CONTEXT. The word "context" is significant and objective. No way in hell that Buddha would have accepted and eaten meat in a Hindu society . . . while he taught COMPASSION and that "all life is suffering." Because he taught about suffering -- that is another reason he wouldn't have taught his disciples to accept the product of suffering.

like i said i dont know that much about the buddha's actual life and how it compares to the shaggy dog stories that have grown around him since, but most versions i've seen or heard have him traveling all over the better of asia teaching and stuff.

while many ruins in southeast asia have blatant references to hindu mythology carved into their stony walls, i am not so sure (based on what little i've read) that these cultures were hindu per se, at least the kind a hundu where the buddha came from would recognize.

it would take quite an accretion of texts and archaeological evidence to resolve conclusively whether the buddha was ever in a position to choose between eating all alms offered, and avoliding flesh of all kinds (including bugs, seafood, etc).

some key questions:

1. where did he actually travel?

2. what was the dominant culture in each of these areas, and what other groups passed through there trading, etc--and what were their habits (especially regarding meat) and

3. how conclusive is the evidence for any of this?

also, as a side note, coming from a hindu area where eating meat just wasn't done, it might possibly have never occurred to him that it had to be spelled out explicitly. in other words, how much of the message got through?

these would all be interesting questions to resolve, but i doubt they will help you find a date. gives you something to do while searching for that rare veggie girl in thailand though.

Well, my point is not whether I am right or not right . . . I'd just like to find a Thai veggie gal that's cute and likes to party :-)

can't help you on that.

all the gals i know are cannibals.

although one possibliity is to contact the NGOs; seems like some of the thai gals hanging around western college-town lefty types for long periods of time would be likely to adopt vegetarianism from them, but i'm just guessin'.

[GoldMember]

"I would call any institutionalized structure which earnestly tries to propagandize the collective minds of a group of people for power and profit -"

this is what is called marketing, and every company does this

....and in Japan they have it down to a fine art.Buddhism inc does very nicely thank you.."Donations" for funerals,weddings,blessings,etc,etc can be gigantic A monk i know out there is absolutely loaded.Even has a share in an 18 hole golf course.In my mind its virtual extortion...even blackmail.But in these delicate matters of faith, its rather insensitive and virtually pointless for a 'gaijin' outsider to comment.Live and let live is the safer policy.

[johnno]

ghee, me old mate, i don't see anything here about religion being a "service to God." but i know what you mean 8)

here is a good reference for the meaning of religion.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Definition_of_religion

The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels ? a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience ? varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

[eagle]

bumpity wrote

quote

No way in hell that Buddha would have accepted and eaten meat in a Hindu society . .

Buddism has ho strict rules about not eating fish or flesh. And INdia is not a vegetarian country either. You may be right but to state absolutely that Buddha never ate meat because you think so is not going to hold up in court. Just because you are a vegetarian and you have your beliefs doesn't mean you can transfer them on the world as an absolute.

[eagle]

bumpity wrote,

quote:

I would call any institutionalized structure which earnestly tries to propagandize the collective minds of a group of people for power and profit -- a religion.

this would make vegatarianism a religion

Bumpity wrote,

quote:

One evening, as Soi Cowboy (sorry ) I watched the strippers and ladies of the evening

If you are not a meat eater you are thinking about it

[CiaranM]

.....Thai veggie gal.....

whats a thai veggie gal??

is she:

a) vegetarian

or

vegan

or even a virgin ... or here on TF is that "virgin on the ridiculous" !!

[zeusbheld]

have to disagree on that one.

all puns aside (you brigands know who you are, ciaran) a virgin is someone who has never had sexual intercourse, full stop. state of mind might enter into whether they stay that way but that's about it.

[CiaranM]

virginity is a state of mind... to be a real virgin you should have NO idea about sex whats it for how to do it and why people do it and you should not have any idea which body part or parts are involved in doing it...got it? good!

BOLLOCKS

being a virgin (like me) is a physical state and absolutely NOTHING to do with anybody's state of mind. except for the fact that my mind is in real state worrying about when i'm going to lose mine .... virginity that is, not my mind.

being a virgin simply means u haven't had full sexual intercourse. u can know as much about sex as u want, watch in dvd's or real life, but until u actually DO IT u r still a virgin !!