13 February 2007 – 06:41
I have been reading “Phra Farang, An English Monk in Thailand” for last two days. I must admit that I have been disappointed in a way of his approach to the religion or basically what he calls as ‘truth’. The writer, a former successful businessman became a monk in Thailand and this book simply reflects his experiences starting how he decided to be monk and goes through his ordination and other good/bad days in the temples. Although he mentions the reasons for choosing such a way in the first chapters, it is still not clear to me what his real motivation was. He says “I sometimes sensed that something was missing” and probably then he supposes us to believe that he became a monk to fill that missing gap in his soul. However this also claims that being a monk itself can help people to fill the gaps. I wish I could believe such a thing easily but the more I read, the more I became suspicious about the benefit of being a monk for both the person and the society. There is nothing wrong with the feeling of ‘something is missing’ because this is the dynamics of our life. We have this feeling so that we can keep going. The important issue here is how we can lead this ‘missing points’ to a place where we can use it as a pushing factor to help others. It is impossible to eradicate this feeling if you are a monk, even if you stop asking for new things, even if you don’t have a future to worry about. There is and there will always be something missing. The idea of incompleteness is one thing which helps us to keep going in the game and work for better. I think there is nothing wrong with the feeling of unsatisfaction in life as long as the individual does not try the evil methods to fulfill his/her wishes.
People have a misunderstanding that a monk sacrifices his life more than a layman does just because they choose the path of ascetic lifestyle. The way they choose includes a simple life which encourages them to stay away from seeking worldly pleasures. But what deserves respect if one wants to satisfy his needs by choosing a relatively difficult way? Isn’t it another way to make yourself happy? Why do laymen need to show respect and offer food to these people who just decided to stay away from stress of the modern lifestyle and became ascetic wanderers? I did not understand this!
Moreover the monks I knew when I was in Thailand and the monks mentioned in the book do not seem as they are really doing a great job. During my short term study in ABAC, I found two monks in my class were lazy in terms of doing their assignments and even reading the materials before coming to class. This of course means nothing and two monks can not represent the whole Shanga community. However my question is still the worth to be asked: Do monks sacrifice more things than laymen do to continue their lives? My answer is no because they work less than other people do. I respect all the good-hearted people, regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious.
I believe that there is no permanent self and there is no unique truth to embrace all the issues in the universe. It might be a great idea to let our ego melt in the big pot of ‘we’ or ‘they’ so that we will not have evil intentions to make bad things. This way while we deny our egocentric world, we can also build some fruitful relationships with our society. This will help the people to have a better life and will also help the individuals to get satisfied with the life they live.
I know very little about Buddhism. I used to consider it as a philosophical school rather than a religion but later the idea of Nirvana caused some changes in my mind. If we think that a doctrine offers salvation to its followers, then it might be considered as a religion. Buddhism offers a kind of salvation to the devotees. But now I am thinking about it again. The salvation offered by Buddha was nothing supernatural and nothing out of this universe. Basically the salvation offered by Buddhism is in the limits of reality and causality. From this perspective, it seems to me not a religion but a path to follow to stay away from sufferings of life. The bad thing is not everyone can be a monk. The good thing is even if you are not a monk; you can still enjoy beauty of Dharma.
In another page, the writer mentions today’s Buddhism as ‘corrupted’. I think the word ‘corrupt’ may not represent what actually happens with the religion during the long time frames. From the perspective of evolution, the religions also evolve. They somehow start to answer people’s needs even more than the founder’s imagination. The same thing is valid for other religions as well. For Islam, Bible and Torah are both Holy Scriptures but they are also ‘distorted’. For Sunni, Shia is wrong and for Shia, Sunni is wrong. Similar things happened in Christianity during the emergence of Protestantism. Religions evolve same as living organisms. They need to adapt to the society to survive. Otherwise, the religious doctrines also will need to migrate to other lands to be accepted. I would rather say ‘adapted’ or ‘evolved’ instead of saying ‘corrupted’. Because corruption happens to the things which are good in itself and corrupted thing is supposedly bad or wrong. But today’s Theravada Buddhism is good enough to answer people’s needs even though it is not exactly reflecting what Buddha taught 2500 years ago.
Beside his approach to Buddhist philosophy, the book itself an easy read and many parts are really enjoyable. Especially his experiences on the streets of Bangkok or in the temple of a small Isan village are remarkable and give a photographic picture of life in Thailand. I enjoyed the chapter in which he mentions about the funerals and the assaults to Thai monks by British youth in Liverpool, his feelings towards other animals etc… The book tells a lot about easy life style of Thai people and their common attitude towards problems by saying My Peln Rai.
While reading this book, sometimes I imagine myself as a monk. I might be called ‘Phra Ali’ by Thai people and I might enjoy the silence of the temple environment. Since most of the temples in Thailand are in remote areas, I can also a lot of time to write my experiences as an isolated monk. This might be a great experience but in fact one should not be a monk just to satisfy his adventurous intentions. I am not sure how much I can believe Buddha’s doctrines. I read them but there are always question marks in my mind about certain issues. Especially the way Buddhists see Dharma as ultimate truth keeps me discouraged from the whole thing.
“One day”, I keep saying to J in a jokingly tone, “you will call me Phra Ali and I will call you Yom Tuck”. She laughs…
I have been reading “Phra Farang, An English Monk in Thailand” for last two days. I must admit that I have been disappointed in a way of his approach to the religion or basically what he calls as ‘truth’. The writer, a former successful businessman became a monk in Thailand and this book simply reflects his experiences starting how he decided to be monk and goes through his ordination and other good/bad days in the temples. Although he mentions the reasons for choosing such a way in the first chapters, it is still not clear to me what his real motivation was. He says “I sometimes sensed that something was missing” and probably then he supposes us to believe that he became a monk to fill that missing gap in his soul. However this also claims that being a monk itself can help people to fill the gaps. I wish I could believe such a thing easily but the more I read, the more I became suspicious about the benefit of being a monk for both the person and the society. There is nothing wrong with the feeling of ‘something is missing’ because this is the dynamics of our life. We have this feeling so that we can keep going. The important issue here is how we can lead this ‘missing points’ to a place where we can use it as a pushing factor to help others. It is impossible to eradicate this feeling if you are a monk, even if you stop asking for new things, even if you don’t have a future to worry about. There is and there will always be something missing. The idea of incompleteness is one thing which helps us to keep going in the game and work for better. I think there is nothing wrong with the feeling of unsatisfaction in life as long as the individual does not try the evil methods to fulfill his/her wishes.
People have a misunderstanding that a monk sacrifices his life more than a layman does just because they choose the path of ascetic lifestyle. The way they choose includes a simple life which encourages them to stay away from seeking worldly pleasures. But what deserves respect if one wants to satisfy his needs by choosing a relatively difficult way? Isn’t it another way to make yourself happy? Why do laymen need to show respect and offer food to these people who just decided to stay away from stress of the modern lifestyle and became ascetic wanderers? I did not understand this!
Moreover the monks I knew when I was in Thailand and the monks mentioned in the book do not seem as they are really doing a great job. During my short term study in ABAC, I found two monks in my class were lazy in terms of doing their assignments and even reading the materials before coming to class. This of course means nothing and two monks can not represent the whole Shanga community. However my question is still the worth to be asked: Do monks sacrifice more things than laymen do to continue their lives? My answer is no because they work less than other people do. I respect all the good-hearted people, regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious.
I believe that there is no permanent self and there is no unique truth to embrace all the issues in the universe. It might be a great idea to let our ego melt in the big pot of ‘we’ or ‘they’ so that we will not have evil intentions to make bad things. This way while we deny our egocentric world, we can also build some fruitful relationships with our society. This will help the people to have a better life and will also help the individuals to get satisfied with the life they live.
I know very little about Buddhism. I used to consider it as a philosophical school rather than a religion but later the idea of Nirvana caused some changes in my mind. If we think that a doctrine offers salvation to its followers, then it might be considered as a religion. Buddhism offers a kind of salvation to the devotees. But now I am thinking about it again. The salvation offered by Buddha was nothing supernatural and nothing out of this universe. Basically the salvation offered by Buddhism is in the limits of reality and causality. From this perspective, it seems to me not a religion but a path to follow to stay away from sufferings of life. The bad thing is not everyone can be a monk. The good thing is even if you are not a monk; you can still enjoy beauty of Dharma.
In another page, the writer mentions today’s Buddhism as ‘corrupted’. I think the word ‘corrupt’ may not represent what actually happens with the religion during the long time frames. From the perspective of evolution, the religions also evolve. They somehow start to answer people’s needs even more than the founder’s imagination. The same thing is valid for other religions as well. For Islam, Bible and Torah are both Holy Scriptures but they are also ‘distorted’. For Sunni, Shia is wrong and for Shia, Sunni is wrong. Similar things happened in Christianity during the emergence of Protestantism. Religions evolve same as living organisms. They need to adapt to the society to survive. Otherwise, the religious doctrines also will need to migrate to other lands to be accepted. I would rather say ‘adapted’ or ‘evolved’ instead of saying ‘corrupted’. Because corruption happens to the things which are good in itself and corrupted thing is supposedly bad or wrong. But today’s Theravada Buddhism is good enough to answer people’s needs even though it is not exactly reflecting what Buddha taught 2500 years ago.
Beside his approach to Buddhist philosophy, the book itself an easy read and many parts are really enjoyable. Especially his experiences on the streets of Bangkok or in the temple of a small Isan village are remarkable and give a photographic picture of life in Thailand. I enjoyed the chapter in which he mentions about the funerals and the assaults to Thai monks by British youth in Liverpool, his feelings towards other animals etc… The book tells a lot about easy life style of Thai people and their common attitude towards problems by saying My Peln Rai.
While reading this book, sometimes I imagine myself as a monk. I might be called ‘Phra Ali’ by Thai people and I might enjoy the silence of the temple environment. Since most of the temples in Thailand are in remote areas, I can also a lot of time to write my experiences as an isolated monk. This might be a great experience but in fact one should not be a monk just to satisfy his adventurous intentions. I am not sure how much I can believe Buddha’s doctrines. I read them but there are always question marks in my mind about certain issues. Especially the way Buddhists see Dharma as ultimate truth keeps me discouraged from the whole thing.
“One day”, I keep saying to J in a jokingly tone, “you will call me Phra Ali and I will call you Yom Tuck”. She laughs…
Merhaba Ali,
YanıtlaSilInteresting blog on Phra Farang and Buddhism. I should be packing but I am finishing off e-mail that can probably wait instead, and reading your blog, and writing to you. Briefly. Some possibly enduring fragments that I hope will add to your interesting reflections:
One of the Zen Masters has a statement that goes something like this: "In a monastery there are three types of people: there are the masters and teachers; there are the students; and then there are the rice bags and clothes hangars." It has been recognized for centuries that a lot of the monks are not the best.
In Japan some Buddhist monasteries became predominantly like training schools or finishing schools for young men who would be molded into better social products and then put out again. This was criticized, but it had its good points. Even earlier not everyone who became a monk stayed a monk. Some yo-yo'd back and forth, going in for a tune-up now and then as it were.
The idea that Buddhists search for an Ultimate Truth has to be handled care, because it can be true or false depending on how you understand it. The Buddha taught "no clinging" and "no grasping." He also taught the doctrine of Impermanence. Nothing lasts. So of course there is nothing that can be clung to. Realizing this and living according to it is a big step.
Then there is the idea of "Sunyata" or Emptiness, which is even more difficult to get a hold of, especially since it too is impermanent and cannot be grasped. But perhaps it can be seen into.
And finally in Northern Buddhism there is the Bodhisattva Ideal. The Bodhisattva comes to the edge of entering into Nirvana (which is said to be total extinction, or perhaps Emptiness) then turns away, turns back into the world to work to relieve the suffering of others. "However innumerable are the suffering beings, I vow to save them," or something like that is one of the vows.
One more thing... as I recall, one of the more popular Northern Buddhist texts is called something like the Vimalakirti Sutra. It's been a long time and my memory is faulty, but that is probably close enough to identify it if you go hunting. It is about a man who has a family and a business and yet is a practicing Buddhist.
I am not a Buddhist, so all this is not official, but I hope that it is helpful. I like Buddhism and respect it at its heart, which is difficult to grasp but I go looking for.
Best wishes,
--Allan
Thanks Allan,
YanıtlaSilAfter finishing this book, I have more books to read but whenever I have chance i will look for a book on Buddhism. I need to fresh my memories...
Best wishes,
Ali