bankei

What is happening to Buddhism in Thailand is completely political and unBuddhist.

Sadly at the present time one of the biggest political conflicts among Buddhists in the country is taking place. This wrangling is underscored by a conflict of interest between the two Buddhist denominations of Mahanikaya, the original order of Thai monks with which over 80 per cent of Thai monks are affiliated, and Thammayuttinikaya, the reformed order estabฌlished by King Mongkut in the 19th century. The latter are in the minority but politically more powerful.

Historically, the Thammayuttinikaya denomiฌnation emerged out of a conflict between the abbot of Wat Mahathad and the princely monk who later became King Mongkut, or Rama IV, who was disappointed with the practices, educaฌtion and rituals of the former.

The differences between the two orders has created a bitter rivalry between them. The Ecclesiastical Law of 2505 BE (AD 1962), issued under the dictatorial regime of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, authorised the appointment of a Supreme Patriarch of Thailand as the "king of monks". The Supreme Patriarch rules the Sangha through the Ecclesiastical Council, which comฌprises 21 senior monks in a hierarchy appointed by the King. The King had the absolute right to appoint any highranking patriarch, a socalled somdet, to be the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand.

Previous appointments have long been a disฌappointment to the senior monks who belong to the Mahanikaya denomination. It appears that most of the Supreme Patriarchs appointed by the King have come from the rival order of Thammayuttinikaya.

An amendment to the Ecclesiastical Law was made by the military government of Suchinda Kraprayoon in 1991 (2534 BE). This restricted the choice of the King in appointing the Supreme Patriarch to that of the most senior monk, based on his seniority in the feudalistic hierarchy (senฌiority being determined according to the length of time since the monk had reached a certain posiฌtion within the hierarchy). The monk promoted to the rank of a chaokhun, first among the somdets - who are all abbots of royal temples in Bangkok - is submitted to the King for appointฌment to the most senior position in the Thai Buddhist monkhood.

According to this principle, the only candidate to become the next Supreme Patriarch is Somdet Phra Putthacharn, the abbot of Wat Saket, who belongs to the Mahanikaya denomination. The second candidate is Somdet Phra Maha Theracharn, the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram, also from the Mahanikaya denomination.

The way things stand, it will take generations for a Thammayuttinikaya monk to become qualiฌfied for possible appointment to the position of Supreme Patriarch. However, the situation could dramatically change if the rule is amended to base the qualification of candidates on seniority of ordination: ie, according to the total length of time spent in the monkhood. If this happens, the next candidate to be considered for the position of Supreme Patriarch will be switched to the reformed Thammayuttinikaya order.

The Thai Rak Thai leadership of the previous government was obviously in support of the Mahanikaya denomination, as it is in the majoriฌty. Somdet Phra Putthacharn was promoted to the top position in the Sangha because the Supreme Patriarch was suffering from a chronic illness that had long prevented him from active duty. It was understood that Somdet Phra Putthacharn was next in line to succeed the ailing Supreme Patriarch. However, the coup of September 19 has set the stage for a tug of war between rival facฌtions of monks in Thailand.

Rivals of the controversial Somdet Phra Putthacharn, both lay people and monks from the two Buddhist orders, now want to have him replaced. Supporters of the Thammayuttinikaya order are also seeking to change the rule for appointment of the next Supreme Patriarch in favour of their candidates. Some of the proThammayuttinikaya activists are members of the National Legislative Assembly.

Their efforts are being countered with fierce resistance. Followers of Somdet Phra Putthacharn took action and protested in front of Government House, denouncing the opposition as lacking in legitimacy. Both groups seem adamant and have vowed to fight to retain their power.

It is clear that the military appointed interim government has no clear idea on how to solve the problem. They turned down a proposal for replacement of Somdet Phra Putthacharn with the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram. At the same time, pressure continues to build from supporters of Phra Putthacharn.

However, the Mahanikaya order is fragmentฌed, especially after the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram gave a speech in support of an initiative which would place him in the top posiฌtion.

Most lay Buddhists in Thailand are now conฌfused and feel a sense of hopelessness over the ongoing conflict. The better educated are more concerned that such infighting is eroding the faith of the public. According to the teaching of the Buddha, monks should not covet political power, and feudal hierarchy has no place in Buddhist monasticism.

Neither of the criteria promoted by the two factions for the selection of candidates for the leadership of the Thai Sangha is rooted in Buddhist monasticism. According to the Buddha, the Sangha is a family of monks and nuns who respect each other according to seniority of ordiฌnation. Nevertheless, the Buddha never said that the leader of the Sangha should necessarily be the most senior member of the community.

In fact, the Buddha told his monks, nuns and lay men and women to take responsibility for the religion. There is a huge defect in the Ecclesiastical Law, which is written to impose a feudalistic structure of administration on top of the Sangha and which deprives all nuns and lay Buddhists of the right to get involved. Sadly, Thailand is the only Buddhist country where the study of the Tipitaka, or the canonical literature of Buddhism, is not included in any of the nine levels of monastic education. Buddhism has surฌvived and flourished for over 2,000 years in many countries without support from governments. What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. He studied at Chulalongkorn, Oxford and Harvard universities and received a PhD from Hamburg University. He is a special adviser on Buddhist affairs to the secretarygeneral of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

Mettanando Bhikkhu

http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/09/opi...on_30018494.php

After reading Chapter 2:Christian Arguments

for God's Existence

Here's an example of his lack of logic:

"Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim."

And another good one:

"Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God"

So the author who is arguing against Christianity knew nothing about the fall of man and the earth's subsequent falling from perfection after the "deadly sin" which is the basic foundation of Christianity, Good and Evil.

The author has never read, nor comprehended the Bible or Christianity, so there's not much point reading further. He can't argue against something he knows nothing about. His arguments become even more absurd and illogical in subsequent chapters.

My suggestion, don't waste your time.

Next please!

Hello Tropo

I agree it is probably a waste of time reading this book, there are better ones out there arguing against Christianity.

I have never been a Christian, so am not sure why you think the above passages are illogical.

The first one is about a God being able to design such a complex universe. Now I see, I suppose this is illogial as if there was a God, God could design it all itself, and not need helpers.

The second one is about the universe not being perfectly designed. Surely if there was a God, then God would be perfect (Otherwise not God), and therefore the universe would be prefect. Unless God deliberately put in flaws to cause suffering. Then you have a cruel God. I cannot see why this is illogical.

Are you saying that man fell from perfection due to a deadly sin? Was this "Adam" eating the apple? If God designed the universe, why was man able to sin?

Regards

Bankei

I purchased it many years ago.

It is actually written by an Australian monk who was supposedly worried about his being associated with such a book.

From memory, the book provides ample evidence from the bible of all the 'bad' things about Christianity as well as arguments against the existance God etc. A handy little summary for when the evangelists come knocking.

Bankei

I've read your sentence a few times but I'm still puzzled what you mean, since it makes no sense to me.

LaoPo

Hi - Which sentance are you talking about? Probably the 2nd?

There are many 'bad' things in Christianity - this book points many of them out. It also has arguments against the existance of a God.

Bankei

What do you think Zen is?

There are a lot of silly notions out there at the moment, probably due to the various books titled "XXX and the art of Zen." Some people think Zen is something nonsensical, others think Zen is something akin to simplicity eg. a barely furnished room may be described as 'Zen'. Zen has possibly become an English word.

Suzuki's works are now generally not very well regarded as being representative of Zen. Not many realize that Suzuki was a Professor at the Jodoshin University, Otani, he was a priest of this school, not a Zen monk. However, the majority of his work was on "zen" or his version of it. Suzuki was also influenced by the so called Kyoto School of Philosophers. Suzuki's translations of classical Chinese works are also now consider to be full of errors.

To me Zen is/was just another school of Mahayana Buddhism, virtually no different to the others in China. There is a saying attributed to Bodhidharma that Zen is "a special transmission outside the scriptures, not reliant of words or letters, pointing to one's heart". But Zen (or Chan is Chinese) produced a large amount of literature. Zen 'monks', even to this day, do an enormous amount of study of literature, including classical Confucian and Daoist works. Suzuki loved to constantly point out the non reliant on words side of things, but he wrote so many books.

Some possibly unique things about Zen that have appeared in include Koan Study. These are supposedly non logical questions which can jolt the student into an insight (kensho in Japanese). eg. what is the sound of one hand clapping (many centuries ago answer booklets sprang up and were circulated among students) (and Bart Simpson knew the answer to this one).

Some masters used various techniques to shock their students into a kensho - eg suddenly shouting at them, slapping them in the face etc. Some masters burned Buddha statues and sutras to keep warm. Another monk, Huike cut off his arm and presented it to Bodhidharma to demonstrate his resolve to learn. Another monk, think it may have even been Bankei, said reciting sutra in the hope of receiving a benefit is like reciting recipes to alleviate hunger.

However, these sorts of monks were in the minority. For the most part Chan/Zen was just another school of Buddhism, very similar to the rest. In Modern Japan, there are 3 Zen Schools: Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku. The majority of 'monks' there typically spent one or 2 years in the training hall, then go home and take over the family temple, marry, and conduct funerals - virtually indistinguishable from the rest.

I must admit I am attracted to a lot of 'Zen' stuff, even if it is romantised notions of the school.

One good book on Chan history of the origins of the school is

John Macrae, "Seeing through Zen"

I purchased it many years ago. It is actually written by an Australian monk who was supposedly worried about his being associated with such a book.

From memory, the book provides ample evidence from the bible of all the 'bad' things about Christianity as well as arguments against the existance God etc. A handy little summary for when the evangelists come knocking.

Bankei

Hi

Would anyone be able to recomend bookshops selling Buddhist books in Bangkok please?

Bankei

Hi

I ordained in a Thai temple earlier this year. I can confirm it cost me a fortune. Much more than I expected. approximately $1000 US.

When you ordain, you need robes and bowl. Most temples have heaps of spares lying around, so you should be able to get some of these. But as you are a foreigner, they will expect you to be rich. It is customary to give donations to the monks at the ceremony - approx 200B each, and then approx 2000B for the preceptor and 1000B for the other 2 monks who act as your teacher.

After that there is the customary lunch, which you will be expect to provide. Then another donation to the monks at the lunch - 200B each.

You may also need a white sabong, and shirt for the initial phase of the ordination and gift packs for the monks - and maybe your self. umbrella, pillows, blankets, etc.

You may not need to hire the band, or microphones, chairs etc if you have no family coming.

Buddhism in Thailand is a a big business. But don't worry too much, you will get donations that will give you back some of your investment.

I would suggest you arrive on a tourist visa and find a good temple, ordain there and then worry about the visa. I ordained on a tourist visa.

Bankei

I agree with jdinasia. You probably won't learn much by going to a temple, better off to start reading some good books on the subject. Watch out for a lot a crap on the internet. I also recommend Wat Mahatat - they have a few monks there that teach meditation in English.

I'm picking a copy of Act Normal up from the director in Bangkok next week. Also just received a copy of Bae Yong-kyun's Why Did Bodhidharma Go East? but haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

Hi Sabaijai

How did you like "Act Normal"?

Bankei

This is dreadfully sad - real, moderate Muslims the world over are horrified by the way the fanatics have twisted the interpretations of the Holy Koran to "support" their greed and hate of anyone who does not think and act like them.

I'm fed up with this non sense : there is NO MODERATE ISLAM.

Only a few intellectuals are.

But consider the whole 1.3 billion muslims around the world. Look at what you see on TV, the image of pure violence everywhere, during mass rallies : Pakistan, Irak, Libanon, Palestine, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, burning flags.

The same images all around the world, among different cultures, differents races. And only one common point : islam.

Are these people "moderate" ?

The day after 9/11, we saw images of muslims enjoying the news in the street of Karachi, Palestine.

And what about the massive support from the people during elections that "islamists" manage to gather ?

They are able to win election. They win election because they have support among the population : Palestine with Hamas, Algeria with the FIS. Egypt too ! And if you remove dictactureship from Saudi Arabia, and the whole middle east actually, islamist will win elections everywhere.

Because they have large support from the population.

So, are we, are you, are they still "moderate" ?

There are moderate muslims. Not all muslims support violence. TV shows usually only show the bad side. I recall a show showing the footage of muslims cheering the news of the trade centre terrorist attacks was footage from a few months earlier - they were cheering something else, but this was shown to stir up hatred of Muslims.

I am surprised at the high levels of racist and bigotist attitudes of foreigners in Thailand, in particular western males. Some don't even like the Thais!

Isn't it wonderful.

The Pope says that Islam is evil and humane.

The moderate Muslims object, but the radical ones react by setting off bombs in Thailand and attacking churches in Palestine.............

Sad to say it rather goes to prove the Pope's point.

The Muslims need to get their act together if they are to be respected.

Do you even know the bombers were Muslim?

If they were, does this mean all Muslims are terrorists?

Maybe they were men, does this mean all men are also terrorists?

two more movies:

ANGRY MONK

This historical documentary tells the story of Gendun Choephel, a legendary

figure in Tibet, who turned from the monastic life he was born to (as the

reincarnation of a Buddhist lama), to become a fierce critic of his

country's religious conservatism and isolationism.

http://www.frif.com/new2006/angr.html FULL SYNOPSIS

WANDERING SOULS

Thirty years after the end of the war against the United States, two

Vietnamese veterans continue to search for the remains of their dead

comrades and, in Buddhist tradition, bring their spirits "back home."

http://www.frif.com/new2006/wan.html FULL SYNOPSIS

Bankei

Does he follow Muslim beliefs? It seems odd that he would go to southern Thailand when most governments advise people to avoid the area.

Why would it matter what religion he follows?

Japan was once a mightly Buddhist country, but I suppose it may be like Australia, many people if asked (like on a census form) would say they are Christian, but the majority wouldn't go to church, or practice. As time goes on, these people identify less with the religion. The majority of the Japanese are non relgious in my experience. Especially the younger ones.

As for Japanese never stealing, did you know there are many prisons in Japan?

Bankei

Thanks Sabbaijai. Very interesting stuff, please keep posting anything you come across.

Regards

Bankei

I think you will find 'converting' to Buddhism, at least Theravada, is usually done by reciting the Namo Tassa formula followed by taking the 5 precepts. However, it is certainly true that many 'westerners' consider themselves Buddhist without doing this. For many, the only contact is via books.

Buddhism is certainly a peaceful religion, however not all Buddhists practice peace. I remember a few years ago a Buddhist Bhikkhu in Thailand walked into Parliament with a large gun, and then there was the Sri Lankan Bhikkhu who assassinated the Sri Lankan Prime Minister back in 1956.

These days very few Japanese beleive or associate with a religion at all. Buddhism there is usually reserved for funerals, and is mostly a money making enterprise for the priests. Early last century nationalist fever spread throughout Japan, and, unfortunately, many Buddhists misused religion to justify the aggression.

As there are no Gods or deities in Buddisum they must be athiest.

I would agree that Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying a creator type God.

However, do you consider the Deva gods or dieties?

There are plenty of references to Devas in the Suttas. There are even refences to other gods such as Brahma. The Buddha going to the Tushita heaven to preach to his deceased mother etc.

In the Mahaparinibanna Sutta, as the Buddha is dying, he asks teh monk Upavana to move back as most of the Devas of the 10 thousand world systems had assembled to see him. There was not one spot that could be pierced with the tip of a hair that was free.

Then, after the Buddha died, 8 of the Kusinara Malla prices tried to lift his body, but they were prevented in doing so because they had different ideas than the Deva's.

There is a good academic paper on this topic by Prof Richard Hayes on "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition"

Download at http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/atheism.pdf

Of course all of this is scriptural evidence. You must also consider what actual Buddhists believe. In Thailand I have met some people whose conception of the Buddha is almost that of a God.

Bankei

The Dalai Lama, does not use the term atheist. He said he is a non believer, he does believe in an eternal God.

Did you miss a "not" in the above sentence? ie. the Dalai Lama "does not beleive in an eternal God".? I would find it very strange if he did beleive in a God.

To Buddhists there is no hel_l or heaven.

What gives you this idea?

In the Pali Suttas there are numerous refences to heavens and hells!

Bankei

Most of the money that is collected at the temple just stays with the temple. There are large running costs for electricity, phones, sometime staff etc. Temples need to hire things sometimes, such as cars or buses to take monks around, tents maybe for big events, then there are the repairs and endless buidling maintencance works.

When monks get individual donations, they usually keep this money themselves. This money is used to buy cigarettes, mobile phone credits, mobile phones evem, travel etc. Monks usually get these donations at funerals, ordiation ceremonies, lunch invitations (for death anniversaries etc), and sometimes someone pops a few baht in their bowls on almsround.

When I spent a short time as a monk, I received more money than the average Thai worker would have received for working!

Bankei

I got a slightly different impression of the book.

I feel the author was saying many things, including that Theravada, or modern Theravadin's, were lacking in the compassionate aspect, especially compared to Mahayana. The Buddha taught on compassion, non violence, generousity etc, but these teachings have been de-emphasised, in Theravada, while more attention has been paid to dry scholastic theories, meditations on different aspects - disgust of the body etc.

Then, there are some monks were overly concerned with following rules to the letter - adhearing to the letter, but not the spirit. I feel this was aimed at mostly Western Theravada monks, especially those of the so-called forest lineages. Some of these monks cause huge burdens to lay people by being inflexible (such as the monk that made a woman drive 50 km to pick up her son because he could not be alone with a woman, and then he refused to go with her and the son as the boy was only 10, not old enough to supervise etc). I see this attitude often in Thailand with monks generally being inconsiderate of pay people.

He also mentions double standards, such as monks not physically touching money in front of lay people, but actually handling it later. There are also monks that don't physically touch it, but use money. Some monks are keen on observing minor rules, or interpretations of minor rules, while openly breaking more serious rules.

Overall, the book is a bit negative because the author is criticising the negative aspects of the book. At the end he attempts to come up with some suggestions, but these are just silly and would be impossible to implement.

Bankei

my wife often sees a certain monk who tells her fortune. I am rather skeptical of this and considered such monks as not practicing Buddhism. But one day I went along, and on seeing the monk, I was very impressed with his demeanor. With some monks, you can tell instantly they are no different to lay people, not developed. However, this monk was very impressive. I got the impression that he had developed onlong the path. I asked a for questions about Buddhism to test his answers, and seemed to be on track there.

I don't know about the fortune telling though. He knew some things that he could not have known. eg. my wife's friend has had 2 abortions, the monk said there were 2 babies following her, and sleeping with her etc. But, on the otherhand, this could be just educated guesswork too.

Hi Pinksquid

I would suggest you just go down to the local Wat you mentioned. Maybe go on Wan Phra, give some food etc, and just hang around and observe things for a while. Maybe a few trips. Hopefully people will start to befriend you and then you can get to know some of the nuns, and then tell them of you wish to become a nun for a short time. Don't worry about language too much, you will get by. In fact, this will be the quickest way to improve your Thai.

Regards

Bankei

Here are some links with brief info on ordaining in Thailand:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhi...ordination1.htm

http://www.thailandlife.com/ordination_001.htm (appears to be Dhammayut)

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut048.htm (Burmese)

Hi

I had previously purchased a little book called "Ordination Proceedure" which is put out by the Mahamakut Rajavidyalaya Press, and available in the bookshop opposite Wat Boworn in Bangkok.

However, there are differences in the wording used by the two nikaya (schools) in Thailand. The Mahamakut are the smaller Dhammayutika Nikaya, while the larger Nikaya is the Mahanikaya.

I ended up ordaining in a Mahanikaya Wat, so before I left I asked a monk for a copy of the proceedure for this school. I can probably email acopy to anyone in need.

Still, I found there were slight differences in wording to what I had. I also had to learn how to pronounce the Pali in the way the Thai's pronounced it. eg. 'v' becomes 'w', 'Dh' becomes 'Th'. eg Sadhu is pronounced 'Sathu'.

Regards

Bankei

Let me tell you about an incident I had and how it was handled by the monks at my temple.

While I was a monk, I had a bad experience with a visiting senior monk. The ‘evil’ monk had 21 vassa (years as a monk), more than any monk in my temple except the Abbot. He had been a monk since the age of 20, and probably a novice before that. He was from a different temple.

From the start, I didn’t like this monk. He was loud and rough in the way he talked. At breakfast he would call out to me, trying to use English, telling me to ‘eat Banana’ etc.

The incident started after breakfast when he smacked me on my bum when helping me with my robes (it took me about a week before I could dress myself!). I didn’t think much about it at the time. Then he tried to kiss me on another occasion. He asked for a massage and then said he would sleep in my room with me that night-because it looked cool. I wasn't sure if he was joking or not as he was a joking type, but rather than risk being raped in my sleep, I complained to a senior monk.

The senior monk (only 9 vassa) said the monk involved was probably joking, but he moved him to another area away from my kuti. The next day the 'evil' monk approached me while I was with a few other monks, and he started to playfully kick me softly. One of the other monks must have heard of the other incidents, and he warned him off. He commented that the ‘evil monk was only joking.

A few days later, the 'evil' monk approached me again while I was with another monk, and he talked to me and the other monk, (asking me for money!) then as he was leaving he shook my hand. Initially thought he may have been saying sorry, but while shaking my hand he scratched my palm with one of his fingers.

In Australia, this indicates the person wants sex, I wasn't sure if it was the same in Thailand, but asking a few monks I discovered it was. So I immediately complained to the senior monk who rang the Abbot who was away over night.

The abbot advised the senior monk to ask the 'evil' monk to leave the Wat. However, the evil monk had left to go to the market to buy a new under robe (that's what he wanted me to give him money for). Later I found out the evil monk did not return to the Wat until around 2am in the morning! He missed bindabart, and missed the morning meal. The senior monk then told him he was no longer welcome at this Wat, and he left.

As a monk, I was concerned about the Vinaya rules; the second highest class called Sanghadisesa number 8 states:

"Should a bhikkhu, being angry, groundlessly accuse another bhikkhu of Parajika, it entails a Sanghadisesa offence."

So initially I was reluctant to complain. This is possibly the case of many monks in similar situations. However, another monk openly told me he thought the evil monk was a parajika ('defeated' by breaking one of the 4 main rules including sexual intercourse).

After I disrobed I had a chat to the abbot (highly educated Bangkok monk) by myself and I explained everything the evil monk did and I told him I thought the monk was a parajika. The abbot looked uncomfortable, squirming in his seat, but he basically didn’t want to know about it. He said the bad monk had been kicked out, and would not be allowed back. The problem was basically passed on to someone else, to some other Wat.

Later on, some other monks told me they didn’t like the bad one, and were happy he had been kicked out. One monk told me the bad monk also touched him on the arm, and he had his suspicions too. I told my story to a novice and young monk and they immediately changed the topic, so who knows what happened to them.