Does Thailand Need To Become More Buddhist ?

[WaiWai]

Buddhist Social Ethics: A Structural Analysis

Historically, Buddhism arose in India at the time when the Aryan civilization flourished. Unlike Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the main concern of religious leaders and philosophers during the time of the founder was not political liberation from social conditions, but personal liberation from human psychological suffering arising from the cycle of birth, old age, sickness, and death. Although the Buddha also taught ethical principles regarding the social, economic, and political well-being of people, the main theme in Buddhism was personal liberation from psychological suffering. Since social and political conditions have changed tremendously in Thailand, I maintain that Buddhism needs a structural vision and a new emphasis on social liberation.

Before the country became modernized, Siam -- the original name of Thailand -- was a traditional society whose values were articulated in terms of Buddhism. The name was changed to Thailand by the government of Phibun Songkhram, soon after he become prime minister in December 1938, as a step toward westernization or modernization. Although Siamese people, measured by modern economic standards, were poorer in terms of material wealth and public health, members of older generations report that they were generally happier and more humane than the Thai people today. The contrast between yesterday's Siam and today's Thailand, however, developed over time as a consequence of basic economic and social changes, themselves the product of government efforts to modernize the country. This modernization has shattered the self-sufficient economy of local communities and centralized the relatively self-sustained polity of the provinces. Ultimately, this process has tied the country economically to the global market economy, and politically to the new international order. These economic and structural changes have had a great impact on all social and cultural aspects of Thai society, and consequently have affected the social values and well-being of the Thai people.

...

Buddhist social ethics must do more than advocate mindfulness and the ideal of simplicity. To construct a healthier Buddhist society requires a change of the economic structure into one of more local self-sufficiency, and the political structure into one of more local decentralization, with moral and cultural values adapted to a contemporary context. Only then can Buddhist social ethics take root in society as it did in the historical past. The Buddhist spirit of loving-kindness, compassion, sharing, and cooperation expressed in Buddhadasa's dhammic socialism will then prevail, at both a personal and structural level.

If we consider Buddhist social ethics in contemporary Thai society from a broader perspective, we are forced to recognize that greed, hatred, and delusion, which Buddhism identifies as the root of all harmful things, currently prevail. A systematic and structural greed can be found in the present economic system, in which millions of traditional farmers have been uprooted from their farmlands by tenancy and agribusiness, causing massive dislocation, unemployment, and poverty. Centralized political power and an economic system of dependency have caused group hatred to arise as elites grow richer while the vast majority of people are driven into greater poverty. A structural delusion comes from the expanding influence of commercial advertising in the mass media, leading local people to discard their cultural values and embrace consumerism.

In order to overcome greed, hatred, and delusion, a person needs to change not only his or her personal conduct or lifestyle, but also the system that creates them.

This is an extract from an essay titled TOWARD A BUDDHIST SOCIAL ETHICS: THE CASE OF THAILAND by Tavivat Puntarigvivat and sub-titled "Traditional Buddhist concepts of moral conduct need to be reinterpreted for the modern world and integrated into a social ethical theory." You can find the full essay online if interested.

TAVIVAT PUNTARIGVIVAT, who received his Ph.D. in religion from Temple University, is professor in the Humanities Department at Mahidol University in Thailand and was head of its Comparative Religion graduate program from 1995 to 1997. His lectures and essays on social ethics from cross-cultural and Buddhist perspectives reflect his first-hand experiences as a bhikkhu in the Thai Theravada tradition.

Well, what do you think ? Is he right and can this approach succeed in contemporary Thailand ? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

(Please leave this in General forum; it's a broad question & not just a Buddhist one.)

[roietjimmy]

It would be a better place if Thailand became more Buddhist in the behavior of it's citizens. The same applies for Christianity. It would be better for Christians to become more Christ like.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen in contemporary society.

Edited September 1, 2007 by roietjimmy

[ColPyat]

Well, what do you think ? Is he right and can this approach succeed in contemporary Thailand ? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

(Please leave this in General forum; it's a broad question & not just a Buddhist one.)

What a pile of constructed hogwash.

The first fallacy is the romantic outlook on the past based on invented history written by the elites. In the past there were wars, there was social injustice, such as the sakdina system and then feudalism, and slavery was well alive. A health system for the masses was non-existent, and most people died relatively young.

The Thai dream of the fabled King Ramkamhaeng and his just system is most likely pure fantasy and legend as there is no sufficient historical proof for anything of that era, and under the demigod Kings of the Ayuttaya period there was already more than a bit of social injustice and capitalist competition. Siam in those days was an important regional trading center already, with a vast Chinese trader minority.

The modern magic word of "sufficiency" is applied wrongly. Sufficiency is not that the elites can have everything and feel sufficient, while the masses should be happy by being sufficiently stuck in poverty.

In modern times people demand their right of equal opportunities and a minimum of material comfort. Call it greed - but it is simple human nature to strive for this. The elitist fantasy of the all around happy peasant is just that - a fantasy born out of the minds who never had to live and suffer as a peasant.

Yes, modern life is not easy, competitive. But to compensate for this applying a social system of a romanticized past that has never existed is useless.

This essay is exemplary for the fallacies of most of the Thai style "sufficiency" proponents, and shows the mistakes of a Buddhist clergy that was too closely attached to the political system and hierarchies of Thailand. Such researchers should not waste their thoughts on how a "Buddhist system" based on a non-existent past is set up, but how Buddhism can be adapted to the inevitable modernization of Thailand, and help the individual to cope with the specific challenges the new Thailand imposes upon the individual.

Social justice and development is not in conflict with Buddhism. Re-enforcing unjust hirarchies though is, especially when based on fake history.

[WaiWai]

The first fallacy is the romantic outlook on the past based on invented history written by the elites. In the past there were wars, there was social injustice, such as the sakdina system and then feudalism, and slavery was well alive. A health system for the masses was non-existent, and most people died relatively young.

Agree. Perhaps I should have omitted this part.

The modern magic word of "sufficiency" is applied wrongly. Sufficiency is not that the elites can have everything and feel sufficient, while the masses should be happy by being sufficiently stuck in poverty.

I am not sure he's suggesting this at all. He's talking about Buddhism needing to change to deal with social inequalities & problems. (I am not very familiar with Thai theories of sufficiency, so may have missed a subtext, though.)

In modern times people demand their right of equal opportunities and a minimum of material comfort. Call it greed - but it is simple human nature to strive for this.

I think all of us should (increasingly, will have to) modify our "needs" .

[a2396]

Best to keep dogmatic religions, so-called or otherwise, out of politics and nation building. Trying to build a modern society, with philosophy and customs rooted a social environment relevant 2,000 years ago, is counter-productive in many ways. This applies to the inflexible doctrine (interpereted as such by many followers) of the world's major religions.

[ColPyat]

The first fallacy is the romantic outlook on the past based on invented history written by the elites. In the past there were wars, there was social injustice, such as the sakdina system and then feudalism, and slavery was well alive. A health system for the masses was non-existent, and most people died relatively young.

Agree. Perhaps I should have omitted this part.

The modern magic word of "sufficiency" is applied wrongly. Sufficiency is not that the elites can have everything and feel sufficient, while the masses should be happy by being sufficiently stuck in poverty.

I am not sure he's suggesting this at all. He's talking about Buddhism needing to change to deal with social inequalities & problems. (I am not very familiar with Thai theories of sufficiency, so may have missed a subtext, though.)

In modern times people demand their right of equal opportunities and a minimum of material comfort. Call it greed - but it is simple human nature to strive for this.

I think all of us should (increasingly, will have to) modify our "needs" .

There is a lot of subtext with the particular Thai style of sufficiency, and much of that is of ideological nature, regarding statesmanship and the role of the individual.

Yes, all of us should modify our needs. But the problem here in Thailand is that there are large sectors of the populations still stuck in poverty. "Buddhist ethics" and "sufficiency" is presently used here trying to stop those sectors demanding their rights for things such as a proper health service, land, and employment, demands which are threatening the hold of the traditional elites over Thailand.

Even the new constitution has now an article that Thailand is supposed to be run now according to "sufficiency theory". This "theory" has been sufficiently dismantled by foreign scholars and publications, but cannot be criticized too harshly in Thailand due to the Lese Majeste laws.

Which should be an indicator that we have a problem here, when the national economical policy cannot be properly debated. Papers such as these are a political tool of the now dominating social conservatives, and are cause for huge conflicts in the academic world.

[WaiWai]

Papers such as these are a political tool of the now dominating social conservatives, and are cause for huge conflicts in the academic world.

I see .

If Buddhism were practised more sincerely, would there be fewer inequalities or are these so entrenched in Thai society that it needs deep & radical change ?

[Grover]

Buddhist Social Ethics: A Structural Analysis

<snip>

In order to overcome greed, hatred, and delusion, a person needs to change not only his or her personal conduct or lifestyle, but also the system that creates them.

Well, what do you think ? Is he right and can this approach succeed in contemporary Thailand ?

Well, I think the author missed the target completely. The "system that creates" is not society but the mind, and this is what the Buddha emphasized repeatedly.

[LongThaimer]

Buddhism style capitalism ????

Beautiful philosophy, but rather difficult to put into practice.

Never seen Buddhism from this angle through the whole of my Buddhist life. Prefered, not to mix religion and politics .

[ColPyat]

Papers such as these are a political tool of the now dominating social conservatives, and are cause for huge conflicts in the academic world.

I see .

If Buddhism were practised more sincerely, would there be fewer inequalities or are these so entrenched in Thai society that it needs deep & radical change ?

The inequalities are deeply entrenched - Thai society does need deep change, or better - development. Radical is always frightening though.

But those changes are for the people and their elected politicians to perform, and not the Buddhist clergy. The Buddhist clergy should stay with religious matters, and help the individual to cope with himself and his position in the world and work towards inner development, and not propose systems of government and economics.

When religion gets involved in matters of the state - it always gets scary. Suddenly the members of the clergy might decide what is "not Thai", and give religious excuse to worldly brutalities. Which has happened on several occasions here, the latest being the drug war murders.

[roietjimmy]

Buddhism is the faith of 95% of the population, 4% are Muslims, 0.5% are Christians and the rest are Hindus, Sikhs and others. All are based on one central theme. Everything else (Precepts, Commandments, Laws et al) are merely expansions on this theme.

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1

Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires himself. Sunnah

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them. Matthew 7:1

Hindu - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do to you. Mahabharata 5, 1517

99.5% of our elected government representatives and our citizens are professed believers of these faiths. So based on the central theme of Buddhism, in answer to your post "Should Thailand Become More Buddhist?" the obvious answer is YES.

Regarding your post quote from the learned professor, it is a political statement justifying an extremely conservative solution which as some have suggested herein could have "disastrous results". The idea that somehow Thailand would be better off if it was to revert to the good ole days implies setting the gains made in human rights, economic opportunity and education back centuries. He has vainly tried to justify his thesis by wrapping it all in the context of "self sufficiency". ColPyats post "What a pile of constructed hogwash" pretty much sums up my opinion!

Longthaimer - Buddhism and capitalism are not mutally exclusive. It is not the acquisition of wealth but rather Unbuddhists (is this a word?) like methods used to acquire it that are in conflict. From the beginnings of human civilization, politics (politicians) have religious beliefs and they will, if allowed, bring their religion to politics. When the politicians and the clergy become one and start making the laws, then we can expect a real rude awakening! Anyone for a dose of Taliban?

Edited September 1, 2007 by roietjimmy

[mackayae]

How many buddhas have there been and how many have been Thai?

[bangkoksingapore]

i just wish people would learn to be happy with they have and learn sufficiency in their lives. this will make the thai people happy.

[WaiWai]

Regarding your post quote from the learned professor, it is a political statement justifying an extremely conservative solution which as some have suggested herein could have "disastrous results". The idea that somehow Thailand would be better off if it was to revert to the good ole days implies setting the gains made in human rights, economic opportunity and education back centuries. He has vainly tried to justify his thesis by wrapping it all in the context of "self sufficiency". ColPyats post "What a pile of constructed hogwash" pretty much sums up my opinion!

I skimmed over that part, thinking it was just some Eastern-style ornamentation in the writing and not being aware of the real implications.

I thought the idea of change occurring through individual Buddhist practice, as well as the application of Buddhist principles to the social sphere sounded interesting. Change in Thailand seems to be occurring in rather undirected ways ("Westernization" in various rather superficial forms, "Japanese-ization" & "Korean-ization" in popular culture etc). Then there's the "unseen" social engineering, largely for reasons of economic power, and the struggles between the factions therein. The latter group sem to have little interest in change, and I have noticed the nationalist/traditionalist urgings of some of the Ministries. So how does Thailand move forward ?

I know very little about Thai politics, as I am sure is obvious, so this thread is an exploratory one. I am really interested in hearing from those of you with a better understanding of all this ( & the thoughts and wonderings of those like me, too. )

Edited September 2, 2007 by WaiWai

[ColPyat]

I know very little about Thai politics, as I am sure is obvious, so this thread is an exploratory one. I am really interested in hearing from those of you with a better understanding of all this ( & the thoughts and wonderings of those like me, too. )

A few websites and books you might enjoy, and which explain a lot:

-The book we are not allowed to talk about.

-"Rituals of National Loyalty" by Katherine E. Bowie

Websites:

-Bangkokpundit

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/

NewMandala:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/

[WaiWai]

Thanks, ColPyat.

I hope to figure out the secret handshake soon .

[ColPyat]

Thanks, ColPyat.

I hope to figure out the secret handshake soon .

Don't worry, there will be many references on the forbidden book. Just google the here forbidden subject and 'biography'...

[canadiangirl]

Interesting, interesting. I am looking forward to this discussion, especially the more thoughful posters.

Christianity went through something like this several decades ago. There is a Catholic movement called "liberation theology" which raised almost all the same questions as the article above. It started in South America, I believe around 1940 (?) Unlike most countries with a Catholic majority, South America is poor. At the time, the position of the Catholic Church was that this world doesn't matter, what matters is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church had no part in wordly affairs, and priests ministering to the poor were told to concerns themselves only with the souls of their charges.

But some of these priests, who lived amongst the poor in South America rebelled against this. They felt that Catholicism, with its "turn the other cheek" was actively contributing to the oppression of these people. They decided the Church was misinterpreting the teachings of Jesus, who would have cared about social justice in this life, not just the afterlife. Their position was that in a world stacked against the poor, to remain neutral (as the church claimed to do), was to side with the status quo, which is to say the rich.

I don't know how lasting their influence has been. I think the Catholic Church might have kicked those priests out, it's pretty sad.

I'm not Christian, BTW, so please don't consider this preaching.

There's a branch of Buddhism concerned with social justice as well. It's attached to a monk called Thich Nat Hanh (sp?). He's Vietnamese, not Thai -- so I think it's something else than Theravada.

[ColPyat]

Christianity went through something like this several decades ago. There is a Catholic movement called "liberation theology" which raised almost all the same questions as the article above.

The big difference though with liberation theologists and the article above is that liberation theologists mixed catholicism and socialist ideals trying to get rid of elites that with the backing of the catholic church held South and Central America's countries in an iron grip.

The opinions expressed in the article above may appear on first glance similar to the ideas expressed by modern advocates of "sufficiency". In Thai context though something very different is expressed there, almost the opposite. What appears as a modern step into sufficiency development is though a highly conservative world view based on a revisionary history that has never existed, a particular Thai style of "sufficiency" that is used by old elites to strengthen their hold over Thailand, and to keep the poor in their place. It re-enforces the hold of the traditional elites over the country, and a stiffly hierarchal class based society.

Any criticism on the particulars of this Thai style "sufficiency" is a dangerous undertaking presently. It is part of an social conservative and extreme royalist agenda in which all possibilities the state has is used to further this agenda and to stop any public discussion.

Edited September 2, 2007 by ColPyat

[roietjimmy]

Can anyone supply me with an English translation of what His Majesty has said about the subject "sufficiency"? I would appreciate a direct translation rather than an opinion or analysis of what he has said.

Edited September 2, 2007 by roietjimmy

[ColPyat]

Can anyone supply me with an English translation of what His Majesty has said about the subject "sufficiency"? I would appreciate a direct translation rather than an opinion or analysis of what he has said.

He hasn't said a lot, i would suggest googling for the birthday speeches and translations. Most what is said about that topic is by people known to be closed to and within the palace, and therefore assumed to be having approval.

This is an issue which, when talked about in public, has to be dealt with extremely carefully.

[canadiangirl]

The big difference though with liberation theologists and the article above is that liberation theologists mixed catholicism and socialist ideals trying to get rid of elites that with the backing of the catholic church held South and Central America's countries in an iron grip.

The opinions expressed in the article above may appear on first glance similar to the ideas expressed by modern advocates of "sufficiency". In Thai context though something very different is expressed there, almost the opposite. What appears as a modern step into sufficiency development is though a highly conservative world view based on a revisionary history that has never existed, a particular Thai style of "sufficiency" that is used by old elites to strengthen their hold over Thailand, and to keep the poor in their place. It re-enforces the hold of the traditional elites over the country, and a stiffly hierarchal class based society.

Any criticism on the particulars of this Thai style "sufficiency" is a dangerous undertaking presently. It is part of an social conservative and extreme royalist agenda in which all possibilities the state has is used to further this agenda and to stop any public discussion.

Thanks ColPyat,

having reread the article more carefully a second time, I see what you are saying.

Would you say that this current in Thailand (in its religiosity, conservatism, and support of old power structures) has something in common with the "traditional family values" cry of the religious right in the US?

Have any countries succeeded economically by pushing self-sufficiency before? The only examples I know of are failed ones: the khmer rouge, and kim jong il's juche -- not shining examples, but I might be missing some better ones.

[WaiWai]

Ground control to ColPyat ...

[BADBRAD]

Informative posts ColPyat. Thanks for the knowledge.