[flagged]
Some ostensibily religious people don't actually follow the teachings of the religions they profess. Some people are hypocrites. Bears actually do shit in the woods. Item #7 on a Buzzfeed listicle won't actually surprise you.
That's not a completely comprehensive list of obvious facts but it will have to do for now.
It does say something about Buddhism as well as the specific temple where it happened.
Why are some temples ok but this one not?
Though given that it was only 4 monks it could be that this doesn't say anything about the group. I didn't know it was just 4 at the time, I thought it was like 30 or 50 or something.
Just because something happened in a group self-labelled X doesn't mean X actually had anything to do with it, any more than the latitude, weather, or any other condition around the event. Humans have a demonstrated tendency to do stupid stuff like drugs already, so you need strong evidence to say that something like Buddhism played a strong causal role on top of that. You're listening for voices in the wind. Shit happens.
Ed: reading a little more about the wider problems, the relevant concept is probably the base rate fallacy. This stuff would happen with "Christians" if Christianity was the dominant religion in the area. For comparison consider all the ways, throughout history, the Catholic Church has failed to live its stated principles.
All four monks at a temple in Phetchabun province's Bung Sam Phan district, in central Thailand, were forced by police to take urine tests on Monday. All four of them, including the abbot, failed.
Further:
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Also, minor nit-pick, this was a temple and not a monastery. At the end of the day, these people are human, susceptible to temptation, and they succumbed, just as others have in any other community, faith, or tradition. It's not getting any better, now with the situation in Myanmar. There's a much larger amount of cheap drugs flooding the markets in SE Asia from Myanmar, and meth is available for the equivalent of $1.40 a hit [1]
I'm definitely insinuating that the core tenants of the religion by themselves are possibly ineffective by itself at alleviating suffering. But why here at this specific location? What was different?
Another user mentioned it's 1.40 a hit. It's way too accessible.
Go ask people how many of them go to bed at their desired time each night.
I'm asking a hard question. When you ask a question you explicitly REVEAL ignorance.
I’m not Buddhist, but your insinuation is ridiculous…
Like when you see a Catholic priest molesting kids you have to be absolutely insane to not question the core foundations of the Catholic church if it happens regularly.
This desire to be polite and politically correct. This desire to not step on anyone's toes out of respect. If it prevents you from asking critical questions then I'm sorry, it's a stupid philosophy and a stupid way of thinking.
You need to constantly question everything. It's like the drug war in the US. If drug use increased you have to be next level insane not to question the drug war itself.
So I bring up the question again. Why are a bunch Buddhists doing meth? What is it about that temple or city or location that makes them do meth?
Buddhism is suppose to prevent suffering. What drove these people to do meth? These are absolutely valid questions to ask and it is completely valid to insinuate that Buddhism is ineffective at preventing the the conditions it claims to prevent (suffering). Why are there less people doing meth in say a rich upper class suburb in say the US then this Buddhist temple?
For what purpose do these people choose to live at the temple and become monks? It's a contradictory choice to become a monk and do meth. The obvious thing to do here is to ADDRESS the CONTRADICTION. The contradiction itself is the reason why this article is on the front page. Why don't I see a headline "all residents in a crack house found to be doing meth"?
None of these questions have been fully answered, and they never will be if people like you get there way.
Each of those dimensions seem relevant as to how “tough” we ought to be on this, and the two cases presented seem very different.
I'm not comparing such a thing. I am purely asking a fundamental question in the same way Siddhartha asked the question of why does suffering occur.
Why did those monks do meth and become Buddhist at the same time?
Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.”
Sure! Do we have evidence this happens regularly among Buddhist monks? As of now this just seems like an internet tirade based on nothing but a curious event.
It's one and the same question.
>Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.”
An entire temple is equivalent to "regularly" in this case. It is not a curious event.
I will say that another user did say that it was only 4 monks. That makes it a curious event. But the click bait headline by itself does not indicate that.
Not understanding the topic you’re making inflammatory arguments about (at least to the depth of Sentence 2 of the discussed article) is fully on you. But yeah, you know, “asking questions the way Siddhartha did.”
I readily admit my mistakes because I treat this thread as a discussion not a holy war. Next time I recommend you do the same instead of assuming something is "inflammatory" because you've been outright rude. It's a poor display of whatever you represent.
Anyway this conversation is over. My question is answered and I have no wish to discuss anything further with you specifically. Good day.