Xangsamhua

For example, "Thai" as a noun meaning "Thailand" is extremely common in both the spoken Thai language and in news reporting, and same is true for Lao meaning "Laos", as well as Chiin meaning "China", etc., without Mueang in front.

Thanks Rikker. We all seem to have a bit of a different take on this question. However, I shall pay more attention to Thai speakers now, as I don't recollect hearing them use the term "Thai" without proceeding it by "mueang", "prathet", "khon", "phasaa" or whatever except where it's understood, as in (oh dear!) "Thai Rak Thai", "kin Thai" (i.e. food, - do people actually say that?). It may occur in songs, though (e.g. the hymn "Rak phrachao rao pen thai", but in this case "thai" has the general meaning of "free person"). To go on, there's also a street in Vientiane called "Sam Sen Thai", meaning 300,000 freemen and the name of a prominent king).

I'm sure you're right, and others agree with you, that if someone - farang or native - says, "well, I'm off to Lao tomorrow" it shouldn't cause one's toes to curl, but I just happen to like the old way (add the "s" when speaking English and the preceding noun when speaking Lao or Thai) and wondered if there was an issue of "correctness" or otherwise.

Incidentally, Grant Evans has a little sermonette on the matter at the beginning of his Short History of Laos.

I know this isn't "Thai language", but it's related and I don't know where else to put it.

Just saw this on another TV sub-forum:

"He has to go to Lao to get his B (teachers) visa." Then a question followed about "the Thai Embassy in Lao".

It now seems common practice for foreigners here to say "Lao" when they are referring, not to the language or the people, but to the country. I assume it comes from "Lao PDR", though this would normally have a definite article. It seems ugly to me and really odd. I don't hear people saying they have to go to "Thai", nor that they need a visa for "Indian" or that they're returning to live in "English".

I now hear Lao people saying "si pai Lao" etc, and I assume they've adopted it as a back-formation from the incorrect but increasingly common usage by foreigners. I don't recollect when I lived in Laos (30 years ago), or when I spoke with people from the Lao diaspora up until fairly recently, any Lao people using the adjective "Lao" without a preceding subject (mueang, khon, phasaa, etc.), but in the last couple of years I have.

Should I be annoyed when I hear foreigners misuse the adjective "Lao" as a noun or am I just being pedantic and fussy?

I wouldn't be upset by it or consider it a back translation. As you know from living in both Laos (Lao country) and interaction with Lao (or should we write laoitian?)people, the language has never pronounced their country name with an "s." In fact there isn't a final consonant "s" sound in the language. The "s" came along through foreigners during the French Colonial period I would imagine. The way I see it the "s" was just part of an initial improper pronunciation so by means of correction I say Lao in most situations. For ease I will go back to saying Laos when speaking with friends from back in the US as they would only know of the country (if at all unfortunately) when spoken with the 's.' The same goes for saying Lao vs Laoitian. I just really don't like the sound of Laoitian.

In relation to Lao(itian) people dropping the Mueang, or pathet before saying Lao, I don't know. I doubt it is a back translation but it may just be a lazy abbreviated sentence construction, though I can't recall hearing it myself during my travels there.

edit: superseded by David's post while I was writing mine. He covers what I was attempting to say better anyway.

Thank you, David and CSS, for your responses. I agree that the term "Laotian" is contrived and have hardly ever used it or heard it used by Lao people, except when referring specifically to nationality, as distinct from ethnicity (about 35% of people in Laos are not ethnic Lao). In Lao (language), people of non-Lao ethnicity who are Lao nationals would be "khon Lao" or "sanxart Lao" when referring to their nationality, but "Maew" (Hmong), Tai Dam, Kha, Viet or whatever when noting their ethnicity.

I know the term "Laos" comes from the French and therefore could be regarded as inauthentic, but it is still useful in order to avoid using the adjective "Lao" without a preceding noun (in Lao) or following noun (in English). To use an adjective without the noun it describes still seems weird to me.

I know this isn't "Thai language", but it's related and I don't know where else to put it.

Just saw this on another TV sub-forum:

"He has to go to Lao to get his B (teachers) visa." Then a question followed about "the Thai Embassy in Lao".

It now seems common practice for foreigners here to say "Lao" when they are referring, not to the language or the people, but to the country. I assume it comes from "Lao PDR", though this would normally have a definite article. It seems ugly to me and really odd. I don't hear people saying they have to go to "Thai", nor that they need a visa for "Indian" or that they're returning to live in "English".

I now hear Lao people saying "si pai Lao" etc, and I assume they've adopted it as a back-formation from the incorrect but increasingly common usage by foreigners. I don't recollect when I lived in Laos (30 years ago), or when I spoke with people from the Lao diaspora up until fairly recently, any Lao people using the adjective "Lao" without a preceding subject (mueang, khon, phasaa, etc.), but in the last couple of years I have.

Should I be annoyed when I hear foreigners misuse the adjective "Lao" as a noun or am I just being pedantic and fussy?

^ Like Thailand. Muslims are number two here though, I know that. Christians follow in place in third, but much fewer than Muslims.

When I think of persecution I think of someone I know who is now living in Laos. He is a devout Christian and he wrote me recently in an e-mail to tell me that he didn't want to continue to try to spread his "Word" around because he "didn't want to go to jail" (in Thailand). He said that he feels more free in Laos to practice his Christian faith, and he's now working in the missionary field.

I think your friend is a bit confused. Laos is getting its act together in a number of ways, but religious freedom's not one of them. The Lao PDR is a notorious violator of religious freedom, in particular against Protestant Christians. A recent example is at http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/...ders-sentenced/

As others have pointed out though, these are actions of a xenophobic government, not of any Buddhist institution,

I hadn't thought of a connection between Mahayana and New Age, as lannarebirth and Brucenkhamen have suggested; however, I see that The Secret, which seems new agey from what I've gathered, seems to have taken the idea "All that we are is the result of what we have thought", attributed to the Buddha, and debased it via an earlier "Law of Attraction" to make it a vehicle for material and egotistic acquisition. The idea is that, if you think you can afford a BMW, you'll get one; if you tell yourself you deserve a promotion, lo and behold, it'll come your way. You can become a "money magnet"!

Maybe I'm not being fair, as I've not read the book (or seen the movie, or bought the T-shirt), but that's what it seems to be from reviews I've read. It's all about acquisition and the glorification of the self. I suppose if one attaches oneself to Mahayana with a view to being more intelligent, insightful, competent and admired, that would be a New Age approach. I gather, though, there's nothing in The Secret about compassion for others and all beings, so someone that goes for The Secret's ethos would find the boddhisattva ideal unattractive, wouldn't they?

I have the impression that Mahayana is the preferred vehicle for western people studying Buddhist teaching.

I also have the impression that westerners are less likely to come to Thailand to study or be ordained in the Theravada tradition than they did nearly 40 years ago when I first came this way.

Is there anything in my impressions? Are they accurate, and if so, why?

My wife, a lifelong Buddhist in the Theravada tradition, is showing an active interest in Mahayana now, reading books and checking a lot of websites. That's why I've been thinking about this.

There is actually an incedible amount of super honest people of the utmost integrity in Thailand, probably at least double(percentage wise) that of all western countries........

.............but infortunately, because there is so many nice people in thailand, there is a absolutely obscene amount of thieves/grifters/bludgers/scum just waiting to prey on all those nice thai's......probably at least double (percentage wise) the amount of any western country.

The honest and integral man, or woman, is far tougher and extemely more empowered than the filth of this world.....good on you mr taxi driver, you are a real person.

I've heard many reports on FM100 (jor sor roi) of cab drivers reporting stuff left in the back and being put in touch with anxious (and absent-minded) passengers. It's amazing what people - Thai and foreigners - leave in taxis. There are plenty of honest people here, and plenty who just find it easier to be dishonest, same as where I come from.

I think that this lovely SE Asian nation where I am living has some of the absolutely stupidest, silliest, most illogical policies I have ever seen.

I've become more reconciled to some of the bizarre propositions of Thai politicians and bureaucrats since looking at some of the proposals of the 20/20 forum held in Canberra over the weekend. A thousand leaders and representatives from various interest areas formed 48(?) groups and came up with proposals to make Australia a better place. An unashamedly biased selection of some is found at http://alsblog.wordpress.com/

Having said that, I think Oz is a pretty decent country to live in. I don't think I'm any more or less nationalistic for all the years I've spent as an expat.

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

I'm not sure about Islam either:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=17579

----

Interesting link, though the piece is somewhat polemical. As I understand it, there was a period of military expansion following the Prophet's death that extended throughout the Arabian peninsula and the fertile crescent, leading to the foundation of the Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus and the subsequent push into North Africa. The point of all this, apart from forward defence of the Muslim heartland, was to bring these territories into the House of Islam. Inhabitants of conquered territories who were not Jews or Christians would have been strongly advised to embrace Islam.

Jews and Christians were generally treated with respect in Muslim states, except for a period from the late 11th to the 13th century under the Almoravids and Almohads in Spain when non-Muslims were treated harshly. Pogroms against both Christians and Jews were unleashed in Muslim Spain in the 11th century.

Under the Ottomans Greeks, Armenians and other Christian communities as well as Jews had an influential role in commerce, finance, administration and so on. Indeed, even under Saddam Hussein, Chaldean Christians were a favoured group in government service. Generally it would appear that Muslim states were far more tolerant of Jews than Christian Europe, which, as we know, has an appalling record of anti-semitism. However, in the early days, I think it is fair to say that the House of Islam was extended if not by military means then at least with military backup and that no one in the region would have seen anything untoward in this. Of course, one must not forget that many, including children of the book, would have been attracted to Islam anyway once they heard about it and would have submitted without the threat of violence.

My 25 satangs worth is not to do with the spread of Buddhism by the sword (violence) but it's spread by totally non-violent means. I read many years ago (please don't ask for references as it was a book (a book?) and a long time past) that the only instances of violence in Thai Buddhist culture were the sacrifices made at the gate of new temples. Apparently the victims were laid in a trench across the temple gateways and crushed to death by a large slab of stone. I can't remember if this was a general thing or confined to one particular area of the country.

Anyway that is what stuck in my mind from what I read and any comments etc will be most welcome.

I think you'll find that the sacrifice of (usually) young men and maidens at sacred sites and buildings was a practice in primitive religion. If my memory serves me correctly there's quite a bit about it in Fraser's "Golden Bough", with reference to the Corn Gods and Goddesses (the sacrificial victims were supposed to ensure a bountiful corn harvest). There's much of primitive religion still mixed in with Thai Buddhism, so I suppose this kind of practice may have continued into Buddhist times here.

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

You are forgetting the numerous crusades inside Europe to remove heretics, such as the Albigensian Crusade or the Spanish Inquisition.

I agree with you though that most so called religious wars primarily have a territorial or economic focus rather than the conversion of non-believers.

I'm not sure, but all the examples so far appear to be conversion to Catholicism rather that conversion to Christianity, other denominations don't appear to have been involved in this kind of activity. I wouldn't want this thread to digress away from Buddhism though.

Yes, you're quite right. I did forget the Albigensian crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, both of which were ghastly. In fact, even in the context of the times, the Spanish Inquisition was seen by many outside Spain as extreme and excessive. Its linkage to the heartless expulsion of the Jews in 1492 has to be noted, too, as well as the attempts by the much maligned pope Alexander VI to help the Jews where he could (he welcomed them into Italy). (Actually, Alexander VI wasn't really interested in "heresy" unless it threatened the temporal authority of the Church.)

It would be good if this sub-forum could focus on Buddhism and the formation of its members in good practice. However, it seems that many who post in have a background of some kind in Christianity and make frequent reference to it. Hence there are responses. It might be good if there were a "Christianity" sub-forum, but I suspect the current state of "Christianity" is such that it just wouldn't work. There'd be too much ill-natured and ill-informed bickering, proselytising and so on. In fact, I don't think there's any harm in this forum taking up issues to do with non-Buddhist religions, as long as the Buddhist perspective is presented and a respectful discussion environment is maintained. My own interests are in both Buddhism and Christianity. Like Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh ("Living Buddha; Living Christ) I think we have much to gain from dialogue with and reflection on both traditions.

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

The Constantinian church grew because it was in people's interest to sign up.

In the period from the sack of Rome to the Crusades, aggressive missionaries would burn down pagan temples, chop up sacred groves, etc, but they were clerics, not soldiers.

In the period from the 8th to the 11th century battles were usually fought between Christian (e.g. Frankish) armies and Muslim ones over territory.

The Crusades were a bizarre series of expeditions to retrieve Jerusalem and other territory and then defend it from the Muslims.

Ferdinand and Isabella's reconquest of Granada in the late 15th century was territorial, though Isabella was a bit of a religious fanatic as well.

The wars of religion after the Protestant Reformation were politico-religious conflicts among rival state powers.

The cross followed the sword in the New World and indigenous people were given no choice but to announce themselves Catholic. That would probably be the best example of forced conversion; however, it was on the coat tails of the military conquest. In many cases (such as the Jesuits in Paraguay and Bishop Las Casas in Cuba) the clergy strongly defended the indigenous people from the depredations of the colonizers.

I don't think there is evidence that the British tried to convert the locals in India by the sword.

I don't know about the Portuguese record in Goa or Africa.

I don't think the Dutch or British used the sword to convert in Southern Africa.

That's enough examples for now.

I've just returned from 5 days in Dharamsala and participated in the candlelight processions and prayers in support of Tibetan autonomy. I think the processions (from the main square to the main temple) have been going on nightly since the Chinese reacted to the protests in Tibet in March. I'm not sure how long they intend to continue. There's also a chain hunger strike (done as in a relay) going on outside the main temple.

One evening a monk gave a talk at the temple in English (perfect English, in fact) and was fastidious in pointing out that the Dalai Lama believed the Chinese had a right to host the Olympic Games and that he had no argument with Chinese politics as such, but wished to emphasise that the Games were not a reward for China's physical and cultural genocide in Tibet. China still had to be confronted non-violently on these matters. The Dalai Lama is also not calling for national independence for Tibet, but autonomy within China. I suspect, however, from what I saw on the marches, that many younger Tibetans, while venerating the Dalai Lama, do not agree with his concessions to the Chinese. However, I have no firm evidence for this.

Got back this morning from a trip to India. What a contrast between Indira Gandhi international airport and Suvarnabhumi! Over an hour to collect luggage at IGI; two minutes at Suvarnabhumi. Walking to Immigration and baggage collection at IGI is a soul-destroying experience; the same trip along moving walkways at SI is a pleasure. The TG lounge at SI is marvellous; the Clipper Lounge at IGI is a disgrace. I know IGI is undergoing reconstruction and I hope it all turns out well, but I suspect they don't really have much idea of customer service or efficiency. Despite the problems Suvarnabhumi has had, my experience of this trip tells me it is really a quality airport. (I hope this doesn't jinx me for my next trip!)

Jake: The band Elwood. The band!

Elwood: The band? ... The band. The band? The band!

Rev: Praise God.

Elwood: And God bless the United States of America.

And just about any other piece of dialogue from "The Blues Brothers".

Take a tuk tuk from the train station to the bridge ( Friendship Bridge). Buy a chitty for the bus that takes you across the bridge. When you pass thru Laos immigration there are all forms of transport to Vientiane. You can hire a van for the whole family. When you reenter Thailand they will give you a 30 day visa. If you have a one year visa, get an exit/reentry visa at the immigration office beforehand. It is pretty straight forward. No need for helpers.

Thank you for your advice. They'll need to exit Thailand on their Non-Imm "O" visa, but will be coming back for only a few days before returning home. From what you say, I gather that the exit process from Thailand is straightforward and they can re-enter the country on a 30-day tourism visa. How much is the tuk-tuk from Nong Khai station to Nong Khai immigration? Is that at the bridge?

Cheers

X.

I haven't been to Laos via Nong Khai for about 35 years, so can't really advise my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren who'll be going that route next Monday. Can anyone tell me if there's anything to be sure to have, or watch out for, or any good tips that will make their crossing hassle-free?

I know they need a photo for each visa and that the visa will cost them about US$30 or THB1000, but beyond that I don't know anything. How do they get to the Immigration post from the train and how much should they pay? If anyone offers to run off with their passports on either side of the border and fix it all for them, what should they do? How do they get from Thadeua (Is the Lao immigration post still there?) to Vientiane and how much will it cost?

I know there are other posts on the forum about this crossing, but if anyone can answer these specific questions in one hit I'd be very grateful indeed. And if anyone can warn me of any potential dangers or ripoffs for this little family that would be very helpful. I wish I was going with them, but am caught up here and their mother will already be there.

Thank you

Xangsamhua

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

Unlikely? I'm not so sure. The Buddha 'converted' many different types of people with all sorts of world views in opposition to Buddhism, even polytheists who have many more Gods to contend with than the Jews.

Also, even though Buddhism is more than 600 years older than Christianity, India was a more spiritually advanced culture than the one Christ was born into, and there were a number of competing teachers with high knowledge (gurus, messiahs, whatever u want to call them), and in this competitive environment Buddhism flourished and was successful, 'converting' many others, a great number who would later go on to reach full enlightenment.

And the remarkable thing is, the Buddha never had to resort to brainwashing or false promises and threats of sin etc to 'convert' his followers - the 'conversion' came from a completely different direction - that respected the individual.

I can't see the Buddha going out of his way to "convert" Jesus or the other way round. The Buddha probably had a broader outlook on life and the world than Jesus had because the Buddha was older and had taught for about 40 years. Jesus, on the other hand, died in his 30s and his mission, as recorded in the gospels, lasted somewhere between 6 months and 2 years. He did live on a trade route and Nazareth was only 4 miles or so from Sepporis, a Roman town. Still, there's an awful lot we don't know about Jesus, despite his impact.

Jesus operated within the Jewish framework of his time, place and background. The Buddha may have been more deracinated, but still drew on pre-Buddhist images and concepts to get his message across. Both were calling for "metanoia", a radical transformation in one's life, away from deluded attachments and toward the things that really mattered - the search for enlightenment on the one hand; the inauguration of a just society based on right relationships with God and fellow humans on the other. Both would have recognised the metanoia in the other and the different routes by which it was attained. I don't think either of them would have said "Yes, but...."

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

I just received an email reply from Nicola Roxons office, it told me to contact Centrelink International Services on 03 6222 3765 and that it would be much better for me to contact the CIS myself and give the finer details of my case. After waiting 24 days for a reply I expected a bit more response from my local member than that but then again we are a minority and the next federal election is a long way off.

The latest email I received is from Centrelink International Services, my email was passed on to them from Joe Ludwigs office. This email states that I should contact Nigel Males at CIS to discuss my case, the phone number is :#61 3 6222 2908, the line is open from 9am-5pm weekdays. You can call this number and reverse the charges or call first give your number and your call will be returned. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all, anyway nothing ventured nothing gained.

Would be interested to know how you got on with CIS. I've had no replies to two emails to Arch Bevis (MHR Brisbane) that I sent a long time ago.

Again, let's get back on the topic of conversion to/from Buddhism.

There's very little conversion from Buddhism to other religions, whether from inertia or because other religions are not particularly attractive to Buddhists for one reason or another. There's some interest in Buddhism in the West, partly because Buddhism is attractive, though at a serious level it's a bit cerebral for a lot of people. It's also culturally alien to most Westerners.

Partly Buddhism appeals to Westerners because Christianity in its present form is in such bad shape in the West and lacks credible leadership. However, Islam gets about 50,000 converts a year among Christians in Europe for perhaps that reason (yet Islam has a serious leadership problem and is wildly fissiparous).

Buddhism is often attractive to Westerners who have little real knowledge of Christianity (and it does take some study) and even less sympathy for it. Mind you, study of it (Xianity) isn't necessily going to make it more appealing, but will probably incline one to be less dismissive. The same comment applies to other major religions. Still, as someone said, we live in an information-overloaded age, so if study of Buddhist teaching and practice of the way takes up your time, and if it satisfies, you might as well stick to it.

however, the fact that you are reading a translation seems to escape you. as talented as the translator is, you are only getting a second hand view of the author. how can you possibly judge the prose of the book through a translation? english and thai are very different languages.

This is exactly my point as well, unless you can read Thai fluently then you simply can not judge this literature, it is impossible. That is why claiming to know how good an author is after reading a translation of their work is just laughable.

I know that norwegian and english are much closer as languages - and in cultural terms - but there ARE a lot of differences. I have read many norwegian books both in norwegian and in english - and read many english books in both english and in norwegian. And in my experience not much is "lost in translation". Professional translators are very clever people.

That good literature can only be "judged" in it's original language is just laughable... it is something only a snob would think.

-AG

And before some cleverdick, with emphasis on dick, asks me why I have read many books in both english and norwegian: I was a bit of an immature snob in my youth - and I also wanted to find out for myself if there was anything to this "you have to read an author in his original language"-BS.

-AG

I don't know if I'm a snob or not, but I would think the closeness of Norwegian and English - culturally and linguistically, despite the differences - is significant, not something to be brushed aside. The cultural and linguistic differences between Thai and English are certainly significant, too. These are bound to impact on the authenticity of a translation, regardless of the competency of the translator.

It's not that translations are worthless, but that they are a different artifact from the original and, hence, can't be judged on the same criteria.

Nobody tried to convert me, I am an atheist anyway. Many friends of mine are Buddhist scholars. One of their precepts is not to teach anyone who is not ready. I have to ask whenever I want to know anything.

Interesting how different we all are, and how certain, or at least declarative, some of us are.

My wife was born a Buddhist and throughout our married life of 36 years she has always found solace and a guide to living in the Buddha's teaching. I'm Catholic and our children and grandchildren are. This was my wife's request. I worked for the Catholic church for 23 years and have almost completed a Masters degree in Theology from a Catholic university. There has never been any tension between my wife and I on religious grounds.

I can't imagine that two people who love and respect each other are going to try and convert each other, especially when both are from such different cultural backgrounds. All the major enduring religions have something of value to contribute to each other, but the desire to learn has to precede the desire to teach.

The prime minister was quoted as saying the following about Khao Prawiharn:

"กรณีเขาพระวิหารที่กัมพูชาจะนำขึ้นทะเบียนมรดกโลกนั้น นายกรัฐมนตรีกัมพูชายืนยันแล้วว่า จะนำเฉพาะตัวพระวิหารเท่านั้นไปขึ้นทะเบียน ไม่เกี่ยวกับตัวภูเขา และเขตแดน โดยมีเงื่อนไข 2 ข้อ คือ 1.ต้องไม่กระทบสิทธิของไทยในพื้นที่ทับซ้อน และ 2.มีการตกลงในการจัดการพื้นที่ทับซ้อน ซึ่งทางทหารและกระทรวงการต่างประเทศ ก็บอกว่าพอใจ และพร้อมที่จะออกแถลงการณ์ร่วมกัน"

With respect to Khao Phrawiharn which Cambodia will register as a World Heritage Site, the Prime Minister of Cambodia has reiterated that only Phrawiharn itself will be subject to such registration; the mountain on which it resides and the border area will not be so subject. (The registration) will be two conditions. First, (this transaction) will not affect the rights of Thailand __________ and 2. The will be an agreement for this area ________. Both the military and the Foreign Ministry stated that they are satisfied and are ready to issue a joint statement (regarding this issue).

My question for you is, what is the meaning in this context of "ทับซ้อน" in both these places? Also, please let me know if any of my renditions are incorrect. Thanks.

How about "First, ([this transaction] will not affect Thai rights in/over the disputed area and 2. There will be an agreement over management of the disputed area...."?

I will be sending two 14 year-olds to Brisbane by themselves in April. I haven't yet booked the tickets, so am asking here before asking the airlines.

What assistance is available to them getting through immigration, to the departure lounge, transiting, through immigration & customs in Brisbane, etc. from airlines covering this route?

Some years ago I did get assistance for a 14 year-old going to Heathrow - I think with Thai.

The information on the current Thai website talks about 5-11 year-olds.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I've seen unaccompanied minors being walked thru immigration and departure on Thai International flights.....but I believe they were younger than 14 years old. My impression is they were about 10 years old or so. Probably best to check with the airline and provide them the details.

Problem solved. One of the parents had a friend in the airline so all will be attended to FOC. (It's not what you know but who.) The travel agent had told me it would be USD60 for each child.