Pressure Mounts To Make Buddhism State Religion

[tettyan]

Nice Op-Ed piece

Written by a guy that has something to gain from that opinion? <book sales?>

You may have just made a big mistake in questioning Professor Klausner's credentials. He's been studying Thailand since 1955 (see here). He has published articles in peer-reviewed journals, and holds an academic appointment at Chulalongkorn University. He also has taught at Mahachulalongkorn Buddhist University, one of two Buddhist universities in the kingdom. He also holds a BA, MA, and a JD (law degree), all from Yale University (see here).

What are your credentials? Other than spending a few nights at a couple temples?

I'll be back later. I've got more important things to do right now.

Edited May 24, 2007 by tettyan

[jdinasia]

Take a look at his first paragraph Just think for a moment about the first lines.

The good professor undoubtedly knows more than me Yet in this case it is an OP/ED piece from someone that is now a Poly-Sci professor Did I question his credentials? no His reasons for writing an Op-Ed piece? yes

I could take the same article and hilight different things than you did ... and the results would be totally different.

Again ... <and again and again> I don't see the same problems with acknowledging in the charter what is already a fact for all practical purposes

[tettyan]

Yet in this case it is an OP/ED piece from someone that is now a Poly-Sci professor

Why don't you bother reading (or at least skimming) the links that I took all the trouble to post for YOUR sake before opining? He's not merely just a poli-sci professor, he's taught law, and taught at a Buddhist university.

You've also never answered an important question that cdnvic and I have asked you, and which you continually evade. What is your understanding of Buddhist doctrine? How does your understanding differ from cdnvic's? WHERE you "learned" about Buddhism isn't that important (and that's all your replies have ever addressed), we want to know exactly your SUBSTANTIVE understanding of Buddhist doctrine is and how this can be reconciled with the concept of an official religion.

If you're not going to address these important issues, and not read the links that I bother post, then you I'd rather you address my posts at all. I do put a lot of thought into a matter before posting anywhere in this forum, and I hope you would do the same.

Again ... <and again and again> I don't see the same problems with acknowledging in the charter what is already a fact for all practical purposes

Perhaps you misunderstand me. All my posts here have endeavored to show that the status quo with regard to state-Buddhist relations is abhorent and unacceptable. Advocates of the official religion are seeking to entrench this status quo. As someone who's not merely an outside observer, I strongly object to this.

OK, I really gotta run this time.

Edited May 24, 2007 by tettyan

[cdnvic]

If there is no advantage then there is no reason to introduce the potential risks of further alienating minorities in Thailand. Also if you need to plaster smilies throughout your posts please go find a pokemon forum to post on. If you want a serious debate please grow up a bit.

I'm not comparing Thailand to Canada, so I don't see where you're going with that. Buddhism is not the state religion in Thailand, and fortunately it looks as though the powers that be are not about to make it so, thank goodness. I'm not about to keep belabouring the point. You either get it or you don't. Feel free to post all the silly grins you want now.

[jdinasia]

I read your links My practice shall remain mine though. The concept of My practice is better than YOUR practice is silly, self-defeating pompous, and ultimately NOT something I will participate in <feel free to substitute 'practice' for 'understanding' if that is more appropriate in your particular case>

I have avoided yours and cdnvic's attacks so far and will continue to do so without resorting to the same behaviour.

<again ... I have said that openly acknowledging something which is reality anyways could have some good points!>

Canada and China and the USA have been brought up in various posts cdnvic .. none of which bear any relevance to Thailand.

If I choose to add smilies ... again my choice ... but enjoy the sarcasm and name calling with someone else

Edited May 24, 2007 by jdinasia

[tettyan]

My practice shall remain mine though. The concept of My practice is better than YOUR practice is silly, self-defeating pompous, and ultimately NOT something I will participate in

Nobody was questioning your "practice" or asserting that it was "worse" or "better" than anyone else's. That is because none of us here knows WHAT your "practice" is because you've never bothered to answer the question and explain to us WHAT your "practice" is. Please share with us. I'm waiting to be enlightened.

[jdinasia]

My practice shall remain mine though. The concept of My practice is better than YOUR practice is silly, self-defeating pompous, and ultimately NOT something I will participate in

Nobody was questioning your "practice" or asserting that it was "worse" or "better" than anyone else's. That is because none of us here knows WHAT your "practice" is because you've never bothered to answer the question and explain to us WHAT your "practice" is. Please share with us. I'm waiting to be enlightened.

read that first line again

[tettyan]

Take a look at his first paragraph Just think for a moment about the first lines.

The good professor undoubtedly knows more than me Yet in this case it is an OP/ED piece from someone that is now a Poly-Sci professor Did I question his credentials? no His reasons for writing an Op-Ed piece? yes

I could take the same article and hilight different things than you did ... and the results would be totally different.

You could do that. But in your case, that would be called taking the author's words out of context. In my case, what I did is called highlighting the author's main points. You forget, my friend, that even though Professor Klausner dutifully argues both sides of the issue (as any good academic would), his final conclusion is that Buddhism should NOT be made the state religion (read the article's title and caption again in case you missed it).

Edited May 24, 2007 by tettyan

[tettyan]

My practice shall remain mine though. The concept of My practice is better than YOUR practice is silly, self-defeating pompous, and ultimately NOT something I will participate in

Nobody was questioning your "practice" or asserting that it was "worse" or "better" than anyone else's. That is because none of us here knows WHAT your "practice" is because you've never bothered to answer the question and explain to us WHAT your "practice" is. Please share with us. I'm waiting to be enlightened.

read that first line again

Here's a brief summary our discussion so far. CDNVIC argues that based on his understanding of Buddhism (which he concisely and convincingly expains), the concept of a state religion is not compatible with Buddhist doctrine. You try to rebut this by merely stating that your understanding of Buddhist doctrine is different, but don't explain how or why. When pressed for an explanation of WHAT your understanding of Buddhist doctrine is, you offer a list of temples WHERE you said that you "learned" about Buddhism. You still avoid answering my main question about WHAT your understanding of Buddhist doctrine is, and how you reconcile this with the idea of a state religion. When cdnvic and I press you further, you defensively yell that "My practice shall remain mine though."

That's all right with me. But remember, you were the first one to raise the issue of YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of Buddhism when you said:

I think we see and understand Buddhism very differently

In other words, you yourself boldly raised this issue early in the discussion, and after being pressed, you now refuse to back it up with substance.

I think your bluff has finally been called.

Edited May 24, 2007 by tettyan

[garro]

I too feel that making Buddhism the state religion would probably be a bad move. I do not feel that Buddhism needs any protection from governments. If individuals practice well Buddhism will survive and flourish but if they don't it will decline. As pointed out in other posts there is a lot of problems in Thai Buddhism today and if these are not sorted out then Thai Buddhism will deservedly begin to decline even futher. This is natural and should not be feared, as the Buddha pointed out everything is impermanent and should not be clung on to.

I heard an interesting audio talk by Ajahn Brahm recently in which he described how Buddhism has developed. He compared it to a tree. As a sect/branch of Buddhism becomes popular and influential the monks within become lazy and decadent. It is like an old tree which is beginning to rot from the inside. Luckily new acorns fall from the tree and produce brand new healthy trees. Maybe Buddhism in Thailand has had its day and now is the time for new beginnings; I hope not. I do not fear the dissapearence of Buddhism as I am personally convinced that the ideas of the Buddha are indestructable and can be found if one can look deep enough inside.

[camerata]

It is like an old tree which is beginning to rot from the inside. Luckily new acorns fall from the tree and produce brand new healthy trees. Maybe Buddhism in Thailand has had its day and now is the time for new beginnings; I hope not. I do not fear the dissapearence of Buddhism as I am personally convinced that the ideas of the Buddha are indestructable and can be found if one can look deep enough inside.

I think the new acorns Aj Brahm was talking about means new traditions within Buddhism, such as the Thai Forest Tradition or the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition in Burma... or even [ugh!] Dhammakaya. Given the popularity of Dhammakaya, I doubt Buddhism has had its day in Thailand. In fact it seems to me that for most Thais Buddhism is an integral part of their national identity - being Thai means being Buddhist. Those who campaign for Buddhism to be the state religion seem to be nationalists rather than fundamentalists.

[jdinasia]

Take a look at his first paragraph Just think for a moment about the first lines.

The good professor undoubtedly knows more than me Yet in this case it is an OP/ED piece from someone that is now a Poly-Sci professor Did I question his credentials? no His reasons for writing an Op-Ed piece? yes

I could take the same article and hilight different things than you did ... and the results would be totally different.

You could do that. But in your case, that would be called taking the author's words out of context. In my case, what I did is called highlighting the author's main points. You forget, my friend, that even though Professor Klausner dutifully argues both sides of the issue (as any good academic would), his final conclusion is that Buddhism should NOT be made the state religion (read the article's title and caption again in case you missed it).

His premise is based upon something that is a biased OPINION ... but you didn't read the first lines of his article I think.

so here that is again

The movement to declare Buddhism as the state religion of Thailand is rooted in feelings of insecurity on the part of those involved. This is especially true for the monks and their leadership. There is both a conscious and subconscious realisation that Buddhism is on the wane as respect for the Sangha declines and the faith's relevance is increasingly challenged.

Yeah I'd say the guy is biased and that these statements are not proveavle at all. He not only claims to know what they are thinking consciously ... but also subconsciously ... I guess his Juris Doctor made him a psychic too! He makes a faulty premise in the first paragraph and then continues to back it up ... with what?With statements that he admits are "Isolated incidences".

Making sweeping statements about the motivations of all the people that agree with a point is just a silly thing. Remember, no matter what he has been in the past ... he's a poly sci professor now.

He wrote an OP/Ed piece ... OPINION ... EDITORIAL

Regarding my practice/understanding ..... badgering me about it isn't going to get you want you want. It is childish and rude

[jdinasia]

It is like an old tree which is beginning to rot from the inside. Luckily new acorns fall from the tree and produce brand new healthy trees. Maybe Buddhism in Thailand has had its day and now is the time for new beginnings; I hope not. I do not fear the dissapearence of Buddhism as I am personally convinced that the ideas of the Buddha are indestructable and can be found if one can look deep enough inside.

I think the new acorns Aj Brahm was talking about means new traditions within Buddhism, such as the Thai Forest Tradition or the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition in Burma... or even [ugh!] Dhammakaya. Given the popularity of Dhammakaya, I doubt Buddhism has had its day in Thailand. In fact it seems to me that for most Thais Buddhism is an integral part of their national identity - being Thai means being Buddhist. Those who campaign for Buddhism to be the state religion seem to be nationalists rather than fundamentalists.

I concur ...

[tettyan]

His premise is based upon something that is a biased OPINION ... but you didn't read the first lines of his article I think.

so here that is again

The movement to declare Buddhism as the state religion of Thailand is rooted in feelings of insecurity on the part of those involved. This is especially true for the monks and their leadership. There is both a conscious and subconscious realisation that Buddhism is on the wane as respect for the Sangha declines and the faith's relevance is increasingly challenged.

Yeah I'd say the guy is biased and that these statements are not proveavle at all. He not only claims to know what they are thinking consciously ... but also subconsciously ... I guess his Juris Doctor made him a psychic too! He makes a faulty premise in the first paragraph and then continues to back it up ... with what?With statements that he admits are "Isolated incidences".

Making sweeping statements about the motivations of all the people that agree with a point is just a silly thing. Remember, no matter what he has been in the past ... he's a poly sci professor now.

He wrote an OP/Ed piece ... OPINION ... EDITORIAL

Proving my point. You took his words out of context. Buddhism indeed is in a crisis. The monks and established clergy are insecure about their position in society. If you read further, whose fault is that? The farangs? Society at large? No! He blames the monks and the clergy themselves.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot on this one.

And while you may not have directly questioned his credentials earlier (though you did question his credibility), you now are explicity questioning his credentials. I have no problem with those who question the credentials of others, but I think it's only fair that if you do, then you should answer likewise.

So, what are your credentials? I am waiting to be impressed.

Regarding my practice/understanding ..... badgering me about it isn't going to get you want you want. It is childish and rude

If you read my post above, you would know that I really don't care whether you wish to share your "practice" (that's what you now insist on calling it instead of "understanding," but remember you used the latter term first).

But it's really a cheap shot. YOU were the first one to question MY understanding of Buddhism (which is similar to cdnvic's) by expressing disagreement with cdnvic's explanation of his understanding. But when I ask you to explain HOW your understanding is different, and what your understanding is, you defensively hide behind the issue of your personal privacy.

Which is fine by me. But that begs the question. Who here is being "childish and rude"?

[jdinasia]

I haven't flamed ... I haven't had portions of posts deleted ... and I told you I am unwilling to participate in a "whose understanding of Buddhism is better"

I certailnly took nothing the author said out of context ... I just pointed out that it is an OP/ED piece ... and that he makes sweeping generalisations about people that he cannot in fact be privy to. It is conjecture/opinion. I also pointed out that in the very article you push so hard about ... the OP/ED piece .... that ISOLATED instances of political involment have occured.

I really do understand that you are afraid of something that I am not ... I am sorry you are fearful! For your sake I hope that you get what you want as it may remove a source of your fear!

On the other hand I still don't see putting on paper what is already the defacto state religion will cause any harm

[blaze]

I haven't flamed ... I haven't had portions of posts deleted ... and I told you I am unwilling to participate in a "whose understanding of Buddhism is better"

I certailnly took nothing the author said out of context ... I just pointed out that it is an OP/ED piece ... and that he makes sweeping generalisations about people that he cannot in fact be privy to. It is conjecture/opinion. I also pointed out that in the very article you push so hard about ... the OP/ED piece .... that ISOLATED instances of political involment have occured.

I really do understand that you are afraid of something that I am not ... I am sorry you are fearful! For your sake I hope that you get what you want as it may remove a source of your fear!

On the other hand I still don't see putting on paper what is already the defacto state religion will cause any harm

It could cause a great deal of harm; what is the Buddhist take on abortion? On homosexuality? And given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Buddah's teachings on specifics, what is the Sangha's interpretation of Buddhism on those issues- and many others?

A government which wanted to stamp out homosexuality for instance, could easily justify the most draconian measures by aligning itself with and promoting anti-gay elements in the clergy. What was a personal bias on the part of the legislators, now becomes a religious edict- laws are dangerous enough- but edicts... no thanks. And when religious edicts can serve to rationalize law- then I can see trouble. No?

[tettyan]

Those who campaign for Buddhism to be the state religion seem to be nationalists rather than fundamentalists.

In a way, this sort of proves a point that I'm trying to make, and that Prof Klausner also makes.

This whole campaign has very little to do with religion or Buddhism itself. It has a lot more to do with raw power politics.

The Buddhist establishment here is afraid of losing their special social status and priveledges here. As Prof Klausner explains, their declining position in society is in large part (though not entirely) their own fault - through corruption, scandal, politiking, and failure to adapt in a way to make themselves relevant to ordinary people's modern lives.

Instead of reforming themselves, though, the Buddhist establishment now seeks to entrench their power through having Buddhism declared the state religion. To drum up public support for such a move, they have cynically exploited Thai nationalistic sentiment to put pressure on the drafters. I'm not sure if most ordinary Thais who support the measure are aware of these broader political implications.

As human history's long experience with state religions suggests, having an established state religion ends up benifiting the oligararchy that oversees the religion more than it benefits the ordinary faithful. Pity that Thailand fails to heed such lessons. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time.

[jdinasia]

re Blaze's post

There are no proscriptions against homosexuality ... not sure about abortion but then again that is one area I have never looked into in Thailand I don't remember ever seeing an abortion clinic here .. I think <note think> it may be illegal.

The fact remains though that having it as a 'state religion' in the charter would not have to lead to any of your scenarios ... much would depend on the wording

Edited May 25, 2007 by jdinasia

[tettyan]

I haven't flamed ... I haven't had portions of posts deleted ... and I told you I am unwilling to participate in a "whose understanding of Buddhism is better"

Rest of the board: please pardon me if I sound like a broken record.

I told you that if you don't want to particpate in such a debate, I have no problem with it. How many times have I said that again?

But I just wanted to remind you that YOU brought up the issue yourself, not me. You yourself opened yourself up to those questions with your remarks, for which I will not waste space to quote yet again. If you want to invoke your personal privacy and refuse to discuss the matter further, that's fine. But it also quite frankly spanks of hypocrisy.

I'm not addressing this specific matter any further. I'm tired of repeating myself

I certailnly took nothing the author said out of context ... I just pointed out that it is an OP/ED piece ... and that he makes sweeping generalisations about people that he cannot in fact be privy to. It is conjecture/opinion. I also pointed out that in the very article you push so hard about ... the OP/ED piece .... that ISOLATED instances of political involment have occured.

I really do understand that you are afraid of something that I am not ... I am sorry you are fearful! For your sake I hope that you get what you want as it may remove a source of your fear!

On the other hand I still don't see putting on paper what is already the defacto state religion will cause any harm

Yet again, you repeat yourself instead of addressing the substance of my discussion. But I'm not surprised.

In any event, I'm far too busy to engage in another pissing contest today. So I'll be gone for now, but I'll be back later.

[jdinasia]

Rest of the board: please pardon me if I sound like a broken record.

I told you that if you don't want to particpate in such a debate, I have no problem with it. . But it also quite frankly spanks of hypocrisy.

I'm not addressing this specific matter any further. I'm tired of repeating myself

uh huh

Good ! be done with it

I replied to your salient points by showing the bias and lack of reasoning that was in the article etc ...

Nothing gets more tiring than your rants/flames and insults. But it does me good to reply with basic facts that can't be beaten down .. that I am NOT afraid of what is the defacto state religion being called that on paper

When I go to the DL office this week ... and fill out the forms with the B.E. dates etc I'll remember. When I look at the state seal ... I'll know ...

I like my life here .. and I have enough time to sit outside of it to watch what happens around me. Maybe you should try the same

[lannarebirth]

We've seen the examples where government, through it's close relationship with the clergy, has co-opted monks to say such things as "killing a conmmunist is not a sin", "killing a drug dealer is not a sin". Could "killing a gay/lesbian is not a sin" be next on the agenda? In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the state religion, homosexuality is a criminal offense. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sri_lanka/slnews011.htm

[jdinasia]

We've seen the examples where government, through it's close relationship with the clergy, has co-opted monks to say such things as "killing a conmmunist is not a sin", "killing a drug dealer is not a sin". Could "killing a gay/lesbian is not a sin" be next on the agenda? In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the state religion, homosexuality is a criminal offense. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sri_lanka/slnews011.htm

not comparing apples to apples here Lann ... homosexuality was illegal in ALL former british colonies ... they are almost all still working to get past that stigma/hangover from colonial rule!

[lannarebirth]

We've seen the examples where government, through it's close relationship with the clergy, has co-opted monks to say such things as "killing a conmmunist is not a sin", "killing a drug dealer is not a sin". Could "killing a gay/lesbian is not a sin" be next on the agenda? In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the state religion, homosexuality is a criminal offense. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sri_lanka/slnews011.htm

not comparing apples to apples here Lann ... homosexuality was illegal in ALL former british colonies ... they are almost all still working to get past that stigma/hangover from colonial rule!

My point is, once a religion, any religion, is named as being part of the state, it becomes a tool of the state. Many people who favor this state religion think it is the reverse. They seem to believe that Buddhism, and the tolerance, ethics and wisdom associated with it will influence the government and citizenry in beneficial ways. I believe the government only wants to use the moral authority that exists with the clergy for its own ends.

[jdinasia]

We've seen the examples where government, through it's close relationship with the clergy, has co-opted monks to say such things as "killing a conmmunist is not a sin", "killing a drug dealer is not a sin". Could "killing a gay/lesbian is not a sin" be next on the agenda? In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the state religion, homosexuality is a criminal offense. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sri_lanka/slnews011.htm

not comparing apples to apples here Lann ... homosexuality was illegal in ALL former british colonies ... they are almost all still working to get past that stigma/hangover from colonial rule!

My point is, once a religion, any religion, is named as being part of the state, it becomes a tool of the state. Many people who favor this state religion think it is the reverse. They seem to believe that Buddhism, and the tolerance, ethics and wisdom associated with it will influence the government and citizenry in beneficial ways. I believe the government only wants to use the moral authority that exists with the clergy for its own ends.

OK .. so that means we drop the SriLankan argument .. not applicable ... <unless you can find something where the state religion has led to issues! and not former colonial law!>

and we drop the gay/lesbian thing .. also not applicable. <not a Buddhist thing ...>

So we look at the communist thing? or the drug dealer thing? A comment by one guy .. that was thereafetr refuted by MANY (in the case of the drug dealers) just doesn't have much weight!

The communist thing? Not that familiar with that era of Thai history but look at the makeup of the CNS I don't expect perfection in gov't ... or in the clergy. I do expect that concensus is part of what the sangha is about.

[lannarebirth]

We've seen the examples where government, through it's close relationship with the clergy, has co-opted monks to say such things as "killing a conmmunist is not a sin", "killing a drug dealer is not a sin". Could "killing a gay/lesbian is not a sin" be next on the agenda? In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the state religion, homosexuality is a criminal offense. It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sri_lanka/slnews011.htm

not comparing apples to apples here Lann ... homosexuality was illegal in ALL former british colonies ... they are almost all still working to get past that stigma/hangover from colonial rule!

My point is, once a religion, any religion, is named as being part of the state, it becomes a tool of the state. Many people who favor this state religion think it is the reverse. They seem to believe that Buddhism, and the tolerance, ethics and wisdom associated with it will influence the government and citizenry in beneficial ways. I believe the government only wants to use the moral authority that exists with the clergy for its own ends.

OK .. so that means we drop the SriLankan argument .. not applicable ... <unless you can find something where the state religion has led to issues! and not former colonial law!>

and we drop the gay/lesbian thing .. also not applicable. <not a Buddhist thing ...>

So we look at the communist thing? or the drug dealer thing? A comment by one guy .. that was thereafetr refuted by MANY (in the case of the drug dealers) just doesn't have much weight!

The communist thing? Not that familiar with that era of Thai history but look at the makeup of the CNS I don't expect perfection in gov't ... or in the clergy. I do expect that concensus is part of what the sangha is about.

Your not getting it. This isn't about Buddhism, it's about the state. The state seeks control. Bhuddhism, or any other religion it can co-opt is just a tool. Consensus? Are you joking?

[jdinasia]

So you are afraid of the State ... ok ..

I think the Sangha is independant enough for that not to be a problem. Yes consensus in the sangha is an important factor of monastic life

The article that was jumped on and lauded above has shown some of the problems that exist in the sangha today. They are the normal growing pains in any group in a country/space that is rapidly progressing. People in any group make silly choices and sometimes speak without thinking. I don't fault people on a huge scale for screwing up.

Think about groups in Thailand that would be LESS likely to cave in from pressure! ... I don't know of any!

[thaibebop]

If Christian Fundamentalism took hold of the American gov, would it be better to make Thailand a Theocracy as well? Would balance be found? What about the Muslim nations, most are theocracies anyway, would it balance out to have competing theocracies? Many have been concerned with the spread of violent Islam in Asia and other parts of the world, would Thailand being a Buddhist theocracy help this?

[jdinasia]

I don't think ANYONE has mentioned Thailand becoming a theocracy

[tettyan]

It could cause a great deal of harm; what is the Buddhist take on abortion? On homosexuality? And given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Buddah's teachings on specifics, what is the Sangha's interpretation of Buddhism on those issues- and many others?

A government which wanted to stamp out homosexuality for instance, could easily justify the most draconian measures by aligning itself with and promoting anti-gay elements in the clergy. What was a personal bias on the part of the legislators, now becomes a religious edict- laws are dangerous enough- but edicts... no thanks. And when religious edicts can serve to rationalize law- then I can see trouble. No?

Unlike some supposed experts I can speak to the issue of abortion.

As I understand the current law, abortion is legal so long as the mother has "cause" - i.e. rape, incest, risk to health/life/emotional well being of the mother. Historically, as I understand it, exceptions were rarely granted. I'm not sure how often they are granted today. Of course there are also many who obtain abortions illegally - we had an illegal abortion clinic around the corner from our house for many years, though it's now gone.

As for Buddhist doctrine's position on abortion, well, it's complicated, and while there doesn't seem to be unanimity on what gov't's role should be, on the individual level, morally, it's seen as a sin akin to murder.

Which brings me to my main point. When Prem's gov't proposed minor relaxations to the restrictive law in the 1980s, Chamlong, who was then working in Prem's gov't, resigned in protest against the proposed law. He then went on to lead a broad coaltion of various Buddhist groups to lobby and protest against the proposed law. They succeeded in getting the unelected Senate to defeat the bill, and today, the law remains unchanged.

Many (but not all) farangs are attracted Buddhism because the doctrine appears to be less dogmatic and less proscriptive than the Judeo-Christian traditions that westerners are accustomed to. While there may be some vailidity to this perception, the reality is far more complex. The reality is that in many ways, the internal struggles within Buddhism arn't that different from the kind of struggles you see in other religions. You have the dogmatists, the ones who insist on seeing eveything in terms of black-and-white, and you've got the pragmatists, who see shades of grey all around them.

[tettyan]

I think the Sangha is independant enough for that not to be a problem. Yes consensus in the sangha is an important factor of monastic life

Think about groups in Thailand that would be LESS likely to cave in from pressure! ... I don't know of any!

Explain then, exactly HOW Thaksin's wife's fortune-teller got himself appointed to be acting Supreme Patriarch?

Edited May 25, 2007 by tettyan