• krajog
  • ranking : General member
  • created : 2009-05-26
  • entry : 38
  • visitors : 18489
  • votes : 35
  • send msg :
Free Expression
The objective is to discuss social issues and provide some useful tips in Thai language. Comments from readers are welcome.
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/oldguard2
Saturday , June 20 , 2009
Of things Thai, Part 5: MARRIAGE in Thai Buddhism, language and tradition, etc.
Posted by krajog , Reader : 1711 , 17:36:38  
Print


Talking about MARRIAGE in this blog is going to be fun. I invite all readers to make comments from experience, perception and thought in terms of social issues.

Marriage is personal matter of two people, basically a man and a woman. Legally, it’s a binding obligation, which involves entire lives of a married couple. It’s a long process of living together in the same roof. Anything can happen from their first day in marriage and the next day that will come as long as the couple stays together with their child or children. The marriage vow in Christian tradition,  I (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part,”  is just ceremonial remarks that can fade away from the couple mind so easily when things between them become rough and unbearable. It may result in a broken marriage or a bitter lives for both of them until death do them part.

In the western world cultures, marriage is a tie between man and woman. That’s why they call it a nuptial knot. But this kind of knot can be undone. In the East, marriage is interpreted in different perception from one country to another. A marriage can be a life-long commitment on the woman part or a slave to her husband. A wife has no social standard and subject to her husband’s wishes. In a couple household, a wife’s main duty is to serve her husband’s sexual pleasure. Other duties in the couple’s household are secondary.

In Thailand, influence of Buddhism plays an importance role in laying down a guideline for a happy family life for husband and wife. In a marriage ceremony, monks can be involved only when parents of the couple or the couple themselves ask for a Buddhist religious rite to be performed by a monk or 3, 5, 7 or nine monks to a place arranged for holding the rite. There are not many activities other than chanting mantras for a blessing on the couple before actual wedding ceremony. An image of Buddha on an altar is to be set up for the couple to perform their traditional gesture of respect by lighting a couple of candles and three incense sticks. After that the couple would “graab” the Buddha three times for the image blessings.

The highlight of Thai wedding ceremony as practiced in Bangkok and other urban areas with financial stability is the pouring of holy water (blessed by monks) over the couple’s hands by wedding guests who would give them good wished for a long-lasted lives together or a short advice. The wedding guests at the ceremony are traditionally senior relatives and friends of their parents. Friends and younger relatives will not involve. Friends will be invited to a wedding reception, traditionally organized in the evening of the wedding ceremony. Many couples nowadays keep the ceremony brief and involved only senior relatives. It depends on the social status of the parents or the man or the woman themselves. The venue of the ceremony and reception has become a status symbol of the couple and their parent. The favourite venue for the famous and the rich can be a top-class hotel. Some couples may be graciously granted an audience with HM the King and the Queen for their Majesties to give holy water to them in a brief and private ceremony. It’s the highest honour a wedding couple can be granted in Thailand. No further ceremony can be performed afterward, except a reception.

A small conch shell with gold trim is used for pouring of holy water on the hands of the couple. This is a standard for middle-class people for whom wedding ceremony is important in their lives as well as a show of class. There is no wedding vow to utter by the couple. The legal binding is the certificate of marriage issued by the district chief anywhere in Thailand. The choice depends on the couple’s judgment alone. But there is no legal enforcement to require a couple who held the wedding ceremony to register their marriage. Modern couples live as man and wife and having children without marriage certificate. It happened under some reasons. One is both sides of the couple or one of them is wealthy to the point that they do not want to be involved on matrimonial sharing of wealth with his or her partner if the lives together went sour to the point of breaking up. The law now allows a bride to use her own family name after marriage and the couple can register their child family name in any of the father or mother.

In ancient past, a couple was known as “man and wife” because a man is dominant in social standing over woman in every society.  There was no legal obligation for a man to his woman. Women serve men as mistresses in much lesser social status. Let me quote a definition of husband from Answer.com as follows:

The English word husband, even though it is a basic kinship term, is not a native English word. It comes ultimately from the Old Norse word hūsbōndi, meaning “master of a house,” which was borrowed into Old English as hūsbōnda. The second element in hūsbōndi, bōndi, means “a man who has land and stock” and comes from the Old Norse verb būa, meaning “to live, dwell, have a household.” The master of the house was usually a spouse as well, of course, and it would seem that the main modern sense of husband arises from this overlap. When the Norsemen settled in Anglo-Saxon England, they would often take Anglo-Saxon women as their wives; it was then natural to refer to the husband using the Norse word for the concept, and to refer to the wife with her Anglo-Saxon (Old English) designation, wīf, “woman, wife” (Modern English wife). Interestingly, Old English did have a feminine word related to Old Norse hūsbōndi that meant “mistress of a house,” namely, hūsbonde. Had this word survived into Modern English, it would have sounded identical to husband—surely leading to ambiguities.

 I think, at present, Thai women have a lot of liberties to enjoy more than those in the past and also in some other countries since the law on family name was promulgated last year.

Thai women in the old days when men were superior over women were protected in large part by Buddhist teaching in morality and duties of husband and wife. In the code of 7 for good men or seven virtues of a gentleman, which is known as suppurisa dhamma, are described as follows: 1) Dhammaññutā: knowing the law, knowing the cause.   2) Atthaññutā: knowing the meaning, knowing the purpose and knowing the consequence.  3) Attaññutā: knowing oneself.  4) Mattaññutā: moderation; knowing how to be temperate.  5) Kālaññutā: knowing the proper time; knowing how to choose and keep time.  6)  Parisaññutā: knowing the assembly; knowing the society.  7) Puggalaññutā: knowing the individual; knowing the different individuals.

Buddhism also teaches a husband to look after his wife in 5 ways as his household partner or follower: a) By honouring her, b) by being courteous to her, c) by being faithful to her, d) by handing over authority to her, and e) by providing her of ornaments. For a wife, there are five ways to show her love to her husband: a) The household affairs are to be well-managed, b) she should be hospitable and helpful to friends and relations of both hers and his, c) she should be faithful to him, d) she should take care of the goods he brings home, and e) she should be skilful and industrious in all her duties.

However, Buddhist teachings cannot stand the overwhelming power of changes in people’s way of life under the industrial revolutions since the 17th century. The borderless world in terms of international trade and globalization as well as capitalistic tendency have deluded the Buddhist principles for good conduct of husband and wife and their decent way of being good partner to each other until death.  The loss of respect between husband and wife opens way to domestic violence to seep into their family as well as their carelessness toward each other. Divorces and cases of broken home and abandoning of their responsibilities to look after their child or children have damaging effects to Thai society as a whole. (To be continued with discussion in matrimonial language and traditional practices)

 


Read comment

comment 29
Ian date : 28/06/2009 time : 18.20
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Dave, the small group includes humans, apes and most domestic pets. Interestingly in the case of pets, their wild ancestors all have seasonal behaviour. It seems that domestication changes all behavioural patterns.
comment 28
DKO date : 28/06/2009 time : 14.11
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Ian (C24)
Thanks for your further comments.

Ian (C27)
Clearly you do NOT include dogs, cats or rabbits in your "Most animals think about sex once a year"

They must be in your "a small group..... "

Some of my dogs did not care if they were trying to have sex with my rabbits, pillows or my/others leg

Sorry to lower the tone. Your "most animals.... just struck me as funny when started thinking about my past pets.
comment 27
Ian date : 28/06/2009 time : 03.34
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Mav, 25. Gaia does not take an interest in an individual's sexual activities, Gai is concerned with the survival and evolution of species and of the planetary ecosystem.
Most animals think about sex once a year, a small group of animals including humans seem to think about it all the time, perhaps Gaia is trying to find out which method is best
comment 26
maverick263 date : 28/06/2009 time : 00.42

@ DKO, c.23

* Ian I assume by your comment;
"All religions see voluntary abstinence and celibacy as an act of dedication to one's God, they do not see it as something to enforce but as a sign of devotion" *

a) religion is culture & society. it's important. as it's so big/massive... na... --- well, look at western culture...: everybody believes in "sciences", "media", etc: noting but conceptualizations ;-)

a.1) there's "faith". there's faith u go to sleep & u'll wake up. there's faith in "laws of universe". hee hee hee.

a.2) develop faith in root of your heart na.

*

b) celibacy is a _technique_ to develop:

b.1) "subtle energy body"

that's all

*

c) "thinking" is not special. it's just noise. like rain.
comment 25
maverick263 date : 28/06/2009 time : 00.26

@ Ian, c.24:

"DKO, as I understand Buddhism sex in any form is not wrong but is simply an impediment to progressing further. In a footrace there is nothing wrong with carrying a sack of stones over your shoulder, but it won't help you win the race."

:-)

very well _said_ na :-)

sex beyond words & doctrine is fine. isn't it? tantra is rare & boredom is widespread. &...

i like all these comments that urge "ethics" & "conduct". is there a gaian perspective ? ;)
comment 24
Ian date : 27/06/2009 time : 18.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

DKO, as I understand Buddhism sex in any form is not wrong but is simply an impediment to progressing further. In a footrace there is nothing wrong with carrying a sack of stones over your shoulder, but it won't help you win the race.

As to the Bible an adultry, you have to remember it is an English translation from either the Greek or the Latin Vulgate. The modern meaning of adultry was very different from then, a better word to use in the present day would perhaps be rape although even that is not quite rape.
Mohammed forced one of his associates to divorce from his wife so that Mohammed could have her. What word would you use in this situation?
Again King Solomon came well after Moses, yet had 900 concubines, I think this makes it clear that the ancient definition of adultry is not the one in common usage today.
comment 23
DKO date : 27/06/2009 time : 10.54
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Very interesting discussion, views and info.

The following is my inability to understand and not an not challenges to any religious beliefs be they Christian or Buddhist, Hindu or any other

Ian C22:

Ian I assume by your comment;
"All religions see voluntary abstinence and celibacy as an act of dedication to one's God, they do not see it as something to enforce but as a sign of devotion"
that you exclude Buddhism from being a True Religion as the Lord Buddha avoids all concepts of God as Krajog has advised The Lord Buddha has totally different reasons for sexual abstinence and celibacy.

Forgive me Ian if I have misinterpreted that.

With regard to your comments (which I agree seem logical) about marriage being post Religions and man made). However you also say:
"Celibacy and monagamy has never been part of any religion, this again is a recent invention, all major religions have accepted polygamy, concubines and handmaidens, likewise servants and slaves have always been acceptable outlets for male sexuality"

Once again can I clarify whether you consider Buddhism a religion. If you do then the 5 truths and Buddhist teachings on sexual misconduct suggest Buddhism and the Lord Buddha do not accept much of these as unfaithfulness and adultery are not deemed incorrect. (be it within "legal marriage or within a committed union between a man and woman.

Now a major religion Christianity also conflicts with what I think you are saying. In the 10 Commandments one commandment (which are not considered negotiable or open to interpretation) says "Thou shall not commit adultery".
These Commandments are reportedly issued directly from God to Moses.

This seems pretty clear that polygamy, concubines sex with servants etc. are not acceptable does it not?

To say all religions seem to pick and choose (well their believers seem to anyway) seems to me an understatement.

I feel Buddhism has some very imprecise teachings.

Noonin has said "The Answers are within you"

Well that would seem to me correct, if one believe in Buddhism. but seems to me as it permission in many things for each to interpret as they see fit due to lack of precise direction or "benchmarks". How can anybody without "benchmarks" find answers within them as they would not know if they had found them or whether they were just accepting what they wished to believe.

The Lord Buddha's views on existence of God and sex (if I understand Krajog's information here and in one or two excellent later Blogs of his, correctly ) seem to me two of the most wishy washy of Buddhist teachings or directives

Sex:
Sexual misconduct is a defilement which includes sexual deviations of all kinds. Going by Noonin's phrase and what Krajog seems to be telling me each decide what is/is a sexual deviation (as Buddhism does not specify. As no two people think the same what do the teachings tell us to follow/believe is appropriate (unless it is 100% celibacy. Telling us to be chaste in sex IF a Buddhist practises it, once again is very vague. Without definition what is sexual purity?

God:
From what Krajog has said I cannot tell for sure if The Lord Buddha denied the existence of God(s) or suggested God(s) are irrelevant to Buddhism and should be ignored and Buddhists should not waste time on the existence, meaning or requirements of God(s).

That being so then how can those Buddhists who DO believe in God(s) ever find enlightenment if they seek knowledge and understanding of God(s). Without that knowledge they must be going through one of the suffering the Lord Buddha refers.

If The Lord Buddha does believe there is/are God(s) then they can neither be denied or ignored as they are a higher level of importance and enlightenment than the enlightenment the Lord Buddha could have found not thinking about them. Am I mistaken?

If those who do believe in God(s) are not suffering they are undoubtedly using some/a lot of their time/activities in worship of God(s) and I assume The Lord Buddha would say they cannot find Nirvana and be fully enlightened until they release themselves of this aspect of their religious beliefs.

If they are not required to do so then why has the Lord Buddha bothered to teach Buddhists not to waste time on God(s) and "how we all got here"

I admit the more I read the more I personally am confused. Maybe its because I am not Buddhist and have never been exposed to any Buddhism until only 3 years ago.

Confused , Dave
comment 22
Ian date : 27/06/2009 time : 01.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Marriage is nothing to do with either God/s or religion, it is a personal arrangement between a man and a woman but which has been taken over by most religions creating a ceremony to increase the power of that religion.
In these ceremonies it is not sanctioned by God but sanctified by God, a very different meaning.
In the Old Testament the word marriage is never used, rather they used expressions such as "took unto himself",the clear implication is one of ownership. Similar terminology is found in the Quran.
Love itself is a recent invention from late medieval times, you either covetted a woman or found her desireous, if you were successful you possessed her or went into her.
Marriage is a contract, sometime implicit, sometimes voiced. Religion is an attempt to enforce this contract by the swearing of oaths.
Celibacy and monagamy has never been part of any religion, this again is a recent invention, all major religions have accepted polygamy, concubines and handmaidens, likewise servants and slaves have always been acceptable outlets for male sexuality.
All religions see voluntary abstinence and celibacy as an act of dedication to one's God, they do not see it as something to enforce but as a sign of devotion. Again over time this has been distorted from voluntary to compulsory amongst many religions. The Buddhist concept of a woman not even touching a monk is an extreme example.
Modern marriage in most countries carries certain legal conditions upon both partners, but these are civil not religious.
Marriage is about sex, children, mutual aid and companionship, love is a recently added bonus as is clear from the fact that no one has succeeded in either defining it or measuring it.
comment 21
noonin date : 25/06/2009 time : 18.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

Of things Thai, Part 5: MARRIAGE in Thai Buddhism, language and tradition, etc.

The blog is about the above.

I have always respected religion in the sense the greatest art, the greatest aspirations of mankind have been the products of religion.
On the downside the worst atrocities ever have likewise been the outcome of distorted religious belief.

I said DISTORTED!
comment 20
noonin date : 25/06/2009 time : 18.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

Comment 19
History did not begin in the 20th Century.
All participants in WW2 were fighting for god.
comment 19
Alien date : 25/06/2009 time : 06.31
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/alien

Comment 14 - Hello Noonin. I strongly disagree with the following portion of your comment: "On the downside the worst atrocities ever have likewise been the outcome of distorted religious belief."

On the contrary, the greatest atrocities have come from the Nazis, who rejected the Christian religion that was prevelant in Germany at the time. The next 2 atrocities were commited by Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, both communist atheists. If there is no God to punish you in the end, what other contraints would you have if you obtained great power over people?
comment 18
krajog date : 24/06/2009 time : 21.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/oldguard

DKO

I have posted new entry as Part 7 of this blog today and I will post Part 8 tomorrow Thur. Jun 25 in response to your questions. Please follow.
comment 17
DKO date : 24/06/2009 time : 17.31
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

ac (C15),

Long I agree and there is no requirement for you to read if it does not head in.

I guarantee however, that my long English commentaries are is much easier to read and understand than your few lines "cool dude' (or whatever you would call it) style of comment.

Please try to remember that whilst many (and I) can work out what you are saying, that there are many non native English speakers participating on this weblog and may find what you type very heavy going.

Short enough??
comment 16
maverick263 date : 24/06/2009 time : 00.48

@ DKO, c.12:

i like noonin's comments in c.14. it feels like a human heart reaching out to another one, a brother, a friend. just like you & me na :-)

"the answer is within you"

it's just 5 words in english language. you look at it read it think you understand & get it --- & it's gone already. isn't it? our mind is like leaves in stellar winds... maybe...

* * *

i'm not good with writing. but i'll try:

a) "If I understand what you are explaining to me Maverick it seems to be a cutting off of worldly feelings (be it pain or pleasure to name two). I do not understand why because surely any removal form normal human senses would be limiting in some aspects (be it beneficial in others)."

no. it's not ab "cutting off of worldly feelings". _that_ exactly is a trap a LOT of "spiritual seekers" fall into. we're human beings... not some kind of angelic entities.

liberation/nibbana implies the "blow-out" of identity between personalized-mind & desire. that is, as the buddha taught, "the ending of suffering".

asked ab sex ramana maharshi put it, "when differentiation ceases, desire no longer exists" --- that is: when ur "SELF" is "gone" ("blown-out", liberated)... quite literally u'll experience a transformation of what u call physical reality.

nonetheless... feeling thinking sensation & all that stuff still goes on. i like the metaphor a guy robert adams once recalled: it's like a fan. even if u pull the plug... it's still rotating... rotating... rotating... according to its karmic energy patterns na :-)

* * *

b) people have problems w sex. it's _PEOPLE_ who _HAVE_ "problems" w something they call think desire fear "sex". imho, people take it too... "serious"; but, well, that's realy just my opinion.

u say, "Instead I would describe it a a lovely and meaningful experience between "two who are as one" --- isn't that a great & beautiful way? :-)

nonetheless..., as u asked ab it: it's neither sex nor any kind of sensual pleasure that is "bad" or "sinful" in buddhist doctrine. these are "defilements" of mind. if u wanna train & cultivate a "pure" mind... u just don't want it to be _DISTURBED_. try to look at "defilements" quite literally as spots on a brilliant mirror, that's mind.

look, DKO, christ said his "kingdom is not of this world". the buddha claims same.

that is: if you're completely pure enlightened liberated... for sure you can "carry poison in you hands & it'll not harm you" --- that is: you can enjoy worldy life. i've met many who claimed so... but imho they all failed ;-)

* * *

c) celibacy is just a technique for training of "subtle energy body". u just don't go around wasting creative energy for pleasure or offspring. instead... well... there are books that talk about it.

btw... it's not "news" na. martial artists etc all know about it.

* * *

d) gods in view of the buddha are as bound by laws as every other creature. these laws are:

impermanence, stress/suffering, non-self (arising according to conditions)

that is... even gods face their decline ;-)

as that is the case... there's no reason to "worship" gods hoping they'll be able to liberate you. you've to do it yourself. the eightfold noble path. meditation.


DKO, the buddha _ONLY_ spoke the "dhamma" & taught the way to liberation/"nibbana". in this tradition... gods don't matter as neither does the origin of the universe does. can your mind grasp one of these? whose mind it is?

* * *

i like noonin's comments in c.14. it feels like a human heart reaching out to another one, a brother, a friend. just like you & me na :-)

"the answer is within you"

it's just 5 words in english language. you look at it read it think you understand & get it --- & it's gone already. isn't it? our mind is like leaves in stellar winds... maybe...
comment 15
ac date : 23/06/2009 time : 22.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/marks

DKO,

Does the D stand for Dostoyevsky? Cuz reading your comments is like wading through War and Peace. Rat! Cut it dahn ta size man! Ya doin me 'ead in. Why write a thousand words when 50 would do? Word up!
comment 14
noonin date : 23/06/2009 time : 19.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

DKO ,
Does believing in a god solve any of your doubts?
You have asked many salient points here.
You were raised in a Christian culture, your wife in a Buddhist one.
Her Buddhism is probably much like your Christianity, not based on rational thinking, but from accepted culture.
Perhaps "Western Buddhist" are inclined to be more philosophical, taking an atheistic stance.
I have always respected religion in the sense the greatest art, the greatest aspirations of mankind have been the products of religion.
On the downside the worst atrocities ever have likewise been the outcome of distorted religious belief.
The answers you seek are not easy to find.
The answer is within you.
comment 13
DeinHerzkenntdieWahrheit!!!! date : 23/06/2009 time : 14.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/changnoi


comment 12
DKO date : 23/06/2009 time : 12.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Thank you for your interesting input and suggestions Maverick

With regard to C10 I suppose much of this depends on whether one considers this is the correct direction beliefs and ideal they wish to achieve or aspire (with regard to what one tries or seeks)

Forgive me Maverick when I say I wish to understand Buddhism and my wife's beliefs, no doubt I will share some (maybe many) the values) but not all BUT I do not seek to convert nor do accept some aspects and views of Buddhism.

JUST BEING HONEST & TRUTHFUL. That does not mean I do not respect the views and beliefs of Buddhists nor would I dream of trying to negate or counteract those views. Example I have a 6 year old Stepson and I would never dream to dilute my wife's, Buddhist raising of him.

If I understand what you are explaining to me Maverick it seems to be a cutting off of worldly feelings (be it pain or pleasure to name two). I do not understand why because surely any removal form normal human senses would be limiting in some aspects (be it beneficial in others).

As I see IF EVERYBODY succeeded in ultimate enlightenment then nothing would get done, all would be spiritual (monks or similar) and no reproduction would occur (as no ones would consider it important and a defilement to be avoided) Humans would die out. Am I understanding Buddhists ultimate goals incorrectly?

I see (MYSELF) no reason for ONLY spiritual enlightenment in any Religion, nor that is wrong to experience pleasures if not detrimental to others. I do NOT want to harbour on sex but PROVIDED not deviant then I fail to see why it should not be enjoyed, nor can I EVER accept any definition of a "normal" loving sexual relationship between husband and wife as a sin or defilement. Instead I would describe it a a lovely and meaningful experience between "two who are as one"

In the Christian Religion one see diverse views as well. Some think a woman can be a priest and at the highest level (I do) and others fight against it including the clergy. Some priests have denied their original Anglican priesthood to join the Catholic Church due to this issue.

Roman Catholics believe priests should be celibate and not marry. Anglican Priests (not sure about High Church or some of the many branches) ARE allowed to marry, have children and be priests (I agree with this).

Being a Christian with agnostic concerns I personally do cannot accept (what I understand - please correct me if in error) are Buddhist beliefs of reincarnation where sins and merits from past incarnations are passed on to the latest incarnation to try and become better and ultimately achieve Nirvana.

I am unable to PERSONALLY accept that the state of spiritual enlightenment (I understand The Lord Buddha achieved) and all Buddhists aspire to achieve, as the ultimate desirable goal.

I do not suggest I am correct or incorrect just being honest with what I believe or could believe

In a way Roman Catholic clergy are avoiding pleasures of the flesh to concentrate on their spiritual role. Anglicans mostly feel they can do both and it is OK.

---

By the way, can anybody tell me who is "God" or God(s) to
1) the Lord Buddha.
2) Thai Buddhists

I understand the Lord Buddha has never suggested he was a God and I assume he believed in a supreme creator. If so what are the God(s) (of The Lord Buddha's) views on some of these subjects.

I believe many Thai Buddhists believe in the Hindu Gods. My wife certainly does.

If so how do Thai Buddhists accommodate conflicting or not identical teachings? Does a Buddhist accept "God(s) view over The Lord Buddha is different?

Same would apply IF it is accepted a Buddhist can believe in different Gods - I understand there are Christian Buddhists. - I also understand some leading Buddhists believe you can be both and some feel you cannot.

Buddhism to me is unusual being a Religion based upon The Lord Buddha (a human) and his valuable teachings but not upon a God. Most religions are based around each Religion's perceived creator (God(s)).

I have heard non Buddhists suggest Buddhism is more a philosophy on way of life and incomplete as not based upon a Creator (God).

I assume Buddhists would reject such descriptions.

Has anybody any knowledge on either formal or informal but widely accepted beliefs on any of the above.

To recap I do not seek to convert to Buddhism but I do seek to understand what Buddhists and my wife believe. Nor am I seeking to be negative about Buddhism. I certainly am not saying which Religions is best, or which is the one true Religion worshipping the one true God.

To be 100% honest, I PERSONALLY believe most who have a religion, believe in its teachings, worship and believe in God(s) actually worship the SAME creator(s) but in their own cultural/historical way.

I have just found that The Lord Buddha is reported as having said"
Buddha told his disciples not to enquire into the origin of the world, into the existence and nature of God. He said to them that such investigations were practically useless and likely to distract their minds."

Is this not denial or lack of respect for the Creator. If one accepts The Lord Buddha ideal of realise for all pain and finding ultimate enlightenment surely that can never be without a desire to seek enlightenment about the Creator, the creator’s existence and nature. Is that not the ultimate enlightenment and freedom from suffering to have a greatest understanding of God

I am totally confused now. . The more I think and ask the more questions and unknowns I see.

Regards to all, Dave
comment 11
ac date : 23/06/2009 time : 03.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/marks

Do you think it is oh-k for hi-so Thai girls to have sex before marriage, inclooding if it is with a farang man?
comment 10
maverick263 date : 22/06/2009 time : 23.50

@ DKO, c.7:

i read ur post again & i'd like to add sth else:

let's say in strict terms _any_ indulgence in sensual pleasure is a defilement. so the monk's "training rules" encourage a "restraint of the senses".

a monk, a disciple of the lord buddha, _renounces_ "the world" --- an ever-changing field of experiences rooted in desire; resulting in suffering.

but, DKO, these are mere words. there are more words, lots of words. like grasping craving clinging... to "experience" / "the world".

nibbana implies the final & complete cutting-off & letting-go of mind's inherited habits to identify to grasp to crave to cling ... to whatever kind of experience ... u might call good/bad, pleasure/pain, etc.

words.

so u've to go beyond words. beyond conceptualization. beyond ur cultural heritage. beyond ur personal traits. likes/dislikes. beyond ur assumptions.

it cannot be done by asking questions & exchanging one answer to another. _that_ happens anyhow.

u've to _DO_ it :-)

in buddhist training, the way to _DO_ it... is meditation, vipassana meditation.

imho, for busy laypeople of 21st century, one of the best trainings is of aj. goenka. it's 10-day-courses. it's available around the globe.

http://www.dhamma.org

try it na :-)
comment 9
maverick263 date : 22/06/2009 time : 23.29

@ DKO, c.7:

1) pls, don't get me wrong... but u say

"As a Non Buddhist I often, regretfully, frustrate my wife into comments like.

*** "How can you not see or understand what I tell you explained.
Why do you not accept”
“Why do you not believe”
"it is obvious" ***

& i guess u'd be better served reading john gray's series "men are from mars, woman are from venus" than asking for an answer/solution in "buddhist" terms. yes, give it a try na :-)

---

2) sometimes i'm a bit perplexed people think/take "sexuality" so... serious ;-)

i can remember a famous myanmar meditation teacher speaking ab the fear of man&woman to join & enjoy marriage bed... --- due to false fear of some weird buddhist doctrine... 555

adultery isn't just ab sex. it's ab "relation", a precious private space between the sexes/partners. a mind-space ppl like to call "committed". this lovely fragile space allows & nourishes trust, empowerment of the loved one/other, open acceptance of vulnerabilty & being hurt, respect --- & so much joy it's energy of universe.

adultery destroys this space.
sex... na... i'm sorry... isn't that "important".

& btw... there's more on sex if u choose a "subtle energy" perspective... as in kundalini yoga, some taoist exercises, chi kung & even meditation, too, yes :-)

---

my 0,02 bht
comment 8
noonin date : 22/06/2009 time : 18.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

I wait for Krajog to reply.
DKO good points, but not Buddhist.
comment 7
DKO date : 22/06/2009 time : 16.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Krajog thanks for such a detailed reply which I must admit answers some questions and raise new one.

As a Non Buddhist I often, regretfully, frustrate my wife into comments like.

"How can you not see or understand what I tell you explained.
Why do you not accept”
“Why do you not believe”
"it is obvious"

Many times I am honest in replying to her that what I am being told is contradictory or there seems to be some picking and choosing and interpretation going on (not only by her but other Thai Buddhists around me).

In example of what I mean. In this Blog I see several possible contradictions (to MY non Buddhist eyes anyway).

You suggest Buddhism does not go into details on what is OK (if anything), reasonably OK or unacceptable regarding some aspects of sex behaviour.

OK I accept that statement BUT without more precision, what does one make of a sentence like
"Please note also Buddhism is strongly against sexual misconduct, which includes adultery, sexual abuse of other people's daughters, raping, unsolicited sex, sexual deviations of all kinds" in specific reference to “sexual deviations of all kinds".

As the saying goes in the West "One man's meat is another man's poison" In this case what one person would consider normal activity and NOT deviant, another would consider deviant.

Let us assume non deviant sexual activity means sex in its most basic form to produce offspring only. That would mean for pleasure (even most basic with protection) is deviant. Other would say nonsense and no way is that deviant but normal as some would say other sexual activities are (I will not go into details or common or near universal activities).

OK three Buddhist statements you have stated seem contradictory to me.
1) One of the 5 ways says "c) by being faithful to her"
Clear enough

2) "Please note also Buddhism is strongly against sexual misconduct, which includes adultery,"

Also clear enough and 100% supports 1).

Now the contradiction
3)"...Having minor wives is wrong if it is behind your legal wife"

So this suggests if your legal wife knows its OK to have Mia Nois which is by definition adulterous and unfaithful.

3) is seemingly 100% incompatible with 1) and 2). And would suggest is not nowadays for production of offspring but added pleasure and alternative sexual partners. As an aside what if the legal wife knows and does not approve (no mention is made of that)..

Forgive me Krajog but here is but ONE example of why I say to my wife that as I see so many interpretations and lack of complete definition that I do not know what to believe.

If I accept 1) and 2) then I have to assume many Thais who consider themselves good Buddhists are consciously violating 1) and 2) for personal sexual and companionship pleasures.

From what you say Buddhism suggests sex is not a sin but a defilement (pretty strong negative language sin or not meaning by one definition : “Impure condition: dirtiness, foulness, impurity, pollution, uncleanness, unwholesomeness”.) If practised it must be pure and minimal but IDEALLY Buddhists should be celibate.

This seems to me to give a Buddhist man or woman the right if he or she so chooses to marry and refuse sex 100% and Buddhism would say that is OK and correct and at its purist. Can this be true?. Thailand a Buddhist country I believe allows a person to apply for divorce if such sexual services are unreasonably or completely withheld by a spouse.

You said
"Indulging in sex is viewed under Buddhism as a root of evil that pins people down forever in this planet".

If people are pinned down forever on this planet may I ask how the Lord Buddha achieved ultimate enlightenment and Nirvana if (as you say “Buddha as Prince Siddhartha Gautama had had so many concubines around him. His life as a prince of a rich and powerful Kapilvastu was full of pleasure. “

Doesn’t “pinned down forever to this planet” imply that if one has sex one cannot achieve Nirvana from this current incarnation? Even if they have become enlightened and seen the errors of their earlier life?

You said
"Buddhism encourages people to be moderate in sex and practice chastity if being celibate is impractical for a man"

What does that mean to EACH man (or woman) reading it. I am sure most will say THEIR sexual activities are pure but many will be very different form each other depending on their tolerances, perceptions, culture customs of what is pure or deviant.

Who ultimately decides or guides those who ask what is what.? If a person went to to Buddhist Monk for guidance, what would the Monk say. Give a set official interpretation,give his opinion as their is no specific laid down answer, or tell the person it is for each person to look into their own souls/spirit and decide for themselves.

Krajog these are genuine questions in my search for understanding and trying to understand my wife’s beliefs, perceptions and understandings from her Buddhism. I am not trying to trip you or Buddhism up, nor am I implying any other religions better.

I am confused. In essence, to MY EYES, I see much perceived picking and choosing by dedicated Buddhists. This suggests Buddhism at times is very imprecise and unclear for its followers and faithful. For example: I am not a Roman Catholic, but whether agreed with or not by Catholics around the World, the Pope does state what is considered incorrect/correct practices (right down to direction on use of condoms, abortions, the pill etc.) Catholics may ignore or obey but they know what their Pope’s interpretation is on Catholic beliefs.

Krajog I hope I have been clear in what I am asking.
comment 6
noonin date : 22/06/2009 time : 13.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

"Kammakhun" or indulgence in all kinds of pleasure physically or mentally are obstacles to reach a higher plane of suffering cessation.

This is central to Buddhist philosophy and is counter to all other belief systems.
The survival of the species is not a central concern.
It is a path to personal liberation.
Perhaps Krajog you can help me with this selflessness which can easily become selfishness. As is the case with polygamy.
comment 5
krajog date : 21/06/2009 time : 22.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/oldguard

DKO c3

Please note also Buddhism is strongly against sexual misconduct, which includes adultery, sexual abuse of other people's daughters, raping, unsolicited sex, sexual deviations of all kinds. The hidden guides for sexual behaviour for Buddhists are: "Do not force other people to have sex with you on any ground even your own wife. Having minor wives is wrong if it is behind yourlegal wife.

Buddhism has no reference in sexual guidelines, responsibilities, acceptability because Buddhism treats sex as normal behaviour of mankind. Buddhism does not suppress sex as a sin. It would be anti-thesis if Buddhism discuss sex to the point of what is apporpriate and what not as Buddhism defined sex is one of human defilements and a cause of mind impurity. "Kammakhun" or indulgence in all kinds of pleasure physically or mentally are obstacles to reach a higher plane of suffering cessation.

Buddhist perception in marriage is in the 5 ways for both husband and wife to take care of each other as your have quoted.
comment 4
krajog date : 21/06/2009 time : 21.06
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/oldguard

DKO c3

You are a terrific reader of my blog. Thanks for your comment.

You’ve got the right idea about Buddhism in general. But when it comes to sex, or sexual pleasure, Buddhism has taken a firm stance on defining it as just one of human defilements, not a sin.

Why a defilement? It’s a basic human instinct and a way of nature to keep human and other species of living things continuing their existence in this planet earth, you may argue strongly in scientific terms!

But the ultimate objective of the Buddhist teaching is to guide people out of Dhukka or sufferings or state of uncomfortable living because people did know the causes and effects of their unhealthy and immoral lifestyles. Indulging in sex is viewed under Buddhism as a root of evil that pins people down forever in this planet. Buddhism encourages people to be moderate in sex and practice chastity if being celibate is impractical for a man.
You know, Buddha as Prince Siddhartha Gautama had had so many concubines around him. His life as a prince of a rich and powerful Kapilvastu was full of pleasure. But the day he walked out of his palace alone to seek answers for many questions in his mind including, what’s the purpose of a human life? After many years of study with learned men and meditation, at age 35 he reached his enlightenment as the Buddha. He discovered the Four Noble Truths or Ariyasacca: Duukha, the cause of Dukkha, the path to the cessation of Dukkha and Magga, the path to the absolute ending of Dukkha or Nirvana.

Buddhism is divided into two major parts. The first part was for the Buddha’s disciples who were seeking a new life to clean himself of all defilement and lead a celibate life as a Buddhist monk. Another part is for normal people to practice ways to be less suffered under Dukkha or to begin his virtuous life while maintaining his material wealth. Buddhism has no strict rule to prohibit Buddhists from sexual activities. But the third Sila in the Five Precepts says “to abstain from sexual misconduct”. You see, Buddhism does not restrict polygamy. The Buddha as a prince knew well about polygamy is a way of life among rulers, wealthy men, Rajas and Maharajas. In ancient culture everywhere in this world having several wives at the same time has never been a sin in major religious and faiths.

Polygamy was a sin only in Victorian standard. The law banning polygamy in Thailand was a result of trying to follow European standard after the 1932 political change from Absolute to Constitutional Monarchy system. Thai kings since time immemorial all had a harem of concubines. King Mongkut had 68 children in just a little over 17 years on the Throne from 1851 to 1868. Before that he was a Buddhist monk. No one knew exactly how many he had concubines. King Chulalongkorn had more children than his Royal Father, King Mongkut. He had 33 sons and 44 daughters, altogether it was 77 children but some of them did not survive into adulthood.
In old Siam days, government officials with aristocrat title (Khun, Luang, Phra, Phya, Chao Phya and Sodej Chao Phya, all have minor wives living in the same roof their major wife. Having minor wives is transparent in the eye of a major wife. In many cases, minor wives of a Chao Khun (Phya) were sisters of the Major wife or Khun Ying by official titles. In many cases, a Khun ying or Khun Naiy (wife of Khun, Luang and Phra whose ranks are below Phya in that order) had provided young girls for her husband and they might be maids of the household for house chores or helpers in kitchen. In the old Siam days before the 1935 law on polygamy, having more than one wife was a pride of a ranking government official. They were not secret wives or a mistress or “Gik” as they call secret girl friend a man. Almost every Thai wealthy men in their forty-plus or over fifty who, particularly Chinese-Thais, has young mistresses from less-privileges families. Many of them are college students with upcountry roots. Their moral perception? Comfortable life with enough money to spend at will is the key. Morality does not give the money. Buddhist principles? This is my real life. Religious concepts are in the book, not for me to follow. I’m young. I want a fast-lane lifestyle to enjoy my life.

There are many men who operate small food processing plants to supply local markets such as pork, beef and fish balls, noodles and other food items that employ young girls as their workers. These girls are from poor families in the North and Northeast. Virginity and chaste life has no room in their minds because economic pressure is huge and they need money to send back homes to help their parents live by. So the “Tao Kae” has double-duty service from his female workers, as employees and bed partners. The major wife knows well that she have to keep her cool. Present day social standing is money, not moral standard. Well, DKO, I hope you are clear about Buddhism and polygamy. It’s two different worlds, religious world and earthy world.

In conclusion, I have to say that Buddhism is a religion with an open principle and not aim at suppress people to believe in its concepts of human life. Believe or not,it's your rights to decide, not other's, even the Lord Buddha himself had said nothing about nonbelievers.
comment 3
DKO date : 21/06/2009 time : 13.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Krajog:

Your paragraph:

Buddhism also teaches a husband to look after his wife in 5 ways as his household partner or follower: a) By honouring her, b) by being courteous to her, c) by being faithful to her, d) by handing over authority to her, and e) by providing her of ornaments. For a wife, there are five ways to show her love to her husband: a) The household affairs are to be well-managed, b) she should be hospitable and helpful to friends and relations of both hers and his, c) she should be faithful to him, d) she should take care of the goods he brings home, and e) she should be skilful and industrious in all her duties.

1) I note there is NO reference to sexual responsibilities, acceptabilities, expectations and perceptions within marriage.

Why not? In Buddhism is sex frowned upon, considered unimportant or, considered a necessary evil required for child bearing?

I assume Buddhism has teachings, views or guidelines upon such an important subject

2) I note the practise of having Mia Nois is rampant in Thailand within the circles or those who can afford them. Unlike in the West, Mia Nois seem often to be publically known and considered as a sign of wealth, status or pride (or all three). This would seem to go 100% against the Buddhist beliefs and teachings you mention above Krajog.

In the West having a Mistress or a woman having a lover (other than her husband) although common, is frowned upon and the adultery is usually hidden from others as far as possible.

Bhuddism has been in Thailand for thousands of years yet I understand legal polygamy was only outlawed in 1935.

An extract in Wikipedia quotes;
"Prior to October 1, 1935 polygamy could be freely practiced and recognized under civil law in Thailand.[1][2] The old family law divided wives into three categories, all in accordance of the way in which they would become wives. There were three categories for a polygamous marriage, the first called "Mia Glang Muang," who would be the "official wife" that the husband's parents had "acquired for him," the second known as "Mia Glang Norg," the "minor wife" whom the man attained after his first marriage, and the third, "Mia Glang Tasee," the title given to slave wives that were purchased from the mother and father of their prior owners.[3]

While polygamy has since been abolished, it is still very much alive in Thailand, and according to reports, widely accepted.[4] Even still, such unions are not recognized under Thai law as in accordance with the law that states "A man or a woman cannot marry each other while one of them has a spouse."[5]

Where I live there is one man well known to have 1 legal wife and about 18 Mia Nois. They all work in his businesses and have their own houses, land etc. All seem to be well looked after materially, and all thought to be happy with the situation. The man has many children by many of his Mia Nois and some old enough now also work in his businesses. It is known they all seem get on well and the only rule people, where I live, are aware of is: Living in Harmony. They must get on well with each other or the offender(s) will be "dumped" for want of a better word.

Krajog I realise this is an extreme case (I assume ) but, whether a man has 18 or only 1 Mia Noi, surely such practices are totally contrary with the teachings of Buddhism. Consequently, how do Buddhist Thais justify both and consider both can co-exist? which (to me) most of the communities seem to accept willingly and without criticism. Many even seem to admire the men with Mia Nois and, if the Mia Nois are well looked after many seem to regard them as fortunate, even to be envied.

For my part, I do not understand this acceptance of a seemingly "back door" Polygamy as being either respectful, faithful, fair to the ladies concerned, or acts of good practicing Buddhists.

How does Buddhism view married Thais (men or women) of any class or status who have lovers (Giks is it) or Mia Noi etc.?

I look forward to your further comments Krajog on this very complex subject.
comment 2
DKO date : 21/06/2009 time : 12.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/DKO

Terrific Krajog.

Seems you posted this Blog, whilst I was unaware of it and constructing my Comment C27 in your other excellent Blog "Of things Thai, Part 3: Traditions, social customs and etiquette".

This Blog deals with several parts of my request in that C27. Thanks. Hopefully you will discuss the others (or some) when you have time and IF you feel they are of value.

I support Noonin's C1 100%. Thank you very much Krajog
comment 1
noonin date : 20/06/2009 time : 18.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

I will read this again.
Krajog , you are a breath of fresh air. You make it clear why I live in Thailand.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."


  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

<< June 2009 >>
s m t w t f s
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30