How Many Thais Are Buddhists?

[Xangsamhua]

Reading the reports of the RTN treatment of the Rohingya refugees makes me wonder yet again whether Buddhism really is the religion of this country or whether it even has a toehold. Over many years, despite my generally positive experience of working with and having friends among Thai people, I have been constantly reminded of a dark side, or underbelly, to Thai culture. It is often manifested when a Thai person finds him/herself in a position of advantage or power and immediately abuses it. It has been manifested recently in the Rohingya case.

I am aware that a general condition of powerlessness among many Thai people may result in a warped exercise of power when it becomes available, but I sense there's little actual teaching in the community - in schools, temples, etc. - to countermand abuse of power or privilege. People are taught to be patient, obedient, self-disciplined and diligent, but not to be fair, empathic or compassionate.

Is this a weakness in the Theravada tradition, with its focus on personal development rather than compassion? Or is it just that for most people Buddhist principles, let alone ethics, are simply not on the radar. If we look at the five precepts, how well are they sustained in this country?

Avoid killing - murders daily, both direct and contracted; and how many abortions?

Avoid stealing - what is there to say?

Avoid sexual misconduct - rife at all levels of society

Avoid lying - We had a Prime Minister (Samak) recently chastised by the judges for lying quite blatantly to the court; just an immediate example of widespread lying in the community

Avoid intoxication - communal drunkenness is de rigueur in the villages at every opportunity - weddings, festivals, funerals, house completions, you name it.

It seems that anyone trying to follow the Buddhist path here is counter-cultural. The culture, in fact, does not encourage it.

What do you think?

Xangsamhua

PS I realize this might look like a "Thai-bashing" post and I'm sorry if it does. However, we are told so often that Thailand is a Buddhist nation, permeated by Buddhist values, but it just doesn't seem to be so. If anyone called Italy or France a "Catholic" nation, permeated by Christian values, they'd probably be laughed out of court, though these countries have a Catholic heritage dating from the emergence of Christendom. (Actually, there's probably some residue of Christian ethical principles still remaining in the post-Christian nations.)

[IMA_FARANG]

Reading the reports of the RTN treatment of the Rohingya refugees makes me wonder yet again whether Buddhism really is the religion of this country or whether it even has a toehold. Over many years, despite my generally positive experience of working with and having friends among Thai people, I have been constantly reminded of a dark side, or underbelly, to Thai culture. It is often manifested when a Thai person finds him/herself in a position of advantage or power and immediately abuses it. It has been manifested recently in the Rohingya case.

I am aware that a general condition of powerlessness among many Thai people may result in a warped exercise of power when it becomes available, but I sense there's little actual teaching in the community - in schools, temples, etc. - to countermand abuse of power or privilege. People are taught to be patient, obedient, self-disciplined and diligent, but not to be fair, empathic or compassionate.

Is this a weakness in the Theravada tradition, with its focus on personal development rather than compassion? Or is it just that for most people Buddhist principles, let alone ethics, are simply not on the radar. If we look at the five precepts, how well are they sustained in this country?

Avoid killing - murders daily, both direct and contracted; and how many abortions?

Avoid stealing - what is there to say?

Avoid sexual misconduct - rife at all levels of society

Avoid lying - We had a Prime Minister (Samak) recently chastised by the judges for lying quite blatantly to the court; just an immediate example of widespread lying in the community

Avoid intoxication - communal drunkenness is de rigueur in the villages at every opportunity - weddings, festivals, funerals, house completions, you name it.

It seems that anyone trying to follow the Buddhist path here is counter-cultural. The culture, in fact, does not encourage it.

What do you think?

Xangsamhua

PS I realize this might look like a "Thai-bashing" post and I'm sorry if it does. However, we are told so often that Thailand is a Buddhist nation, permeated by Buddhist values, but it just doesn't seem to be so. If anyone called Italy or France a "Catholic" nation, permeated by Christian values, they'd probably be laughed out of court, though these countries have a Catholic heritage dating from the emergence of Christendom. (Actually, there's probably some residue of Christian ethical principles still remaining in the post-Christian nations.)

I would be the last to deny that many Thais do not practice "Right thinking", "Right Practice", and such. However there are also others who do. I know your not intending it to be a "Thai bashing" post.

The thing is, such actions are individual, determined by an individuals choice of lifestyle. It is always so, and always has been, in Thailand or elsewhere.

In my time in Thailand (many years) I have had a taxi driver return to me my passport (including current visa), airline ticket, money (about 300 U.S. dollars), and other documents that I accidentally left in his cab. I went to the local police station in Bangkok, to file a report that I had lost my passport (required by U.S embessy). While I was there filing the report, a tourist police officer told me a taxi driver had just arrived and was turning in the items that were left in his cab by some foriegner. It was my possesions, and they were returned to me. I tried to give the taxi driver a reward for returning the stuff to me. He wouldn't take a reward, he said it was his duty as a Buddhist to return what was accidentaly lost. I finally got him to take a small reward, but he did it more to make me feel good. He told me, through the tourist police, that as a Buddhist, he didn't feel right aboiut profiting from the loss of someone else.

That was unusual, but there are a few who practice what they claim to believe. Again, it is an individual choice.

I hope I can perhaps get to the point where I myself would freely make such a choice.

Edited January 19, 2009 by IMA_FARANG

[rockyysdt]

My observation is that people continue to be prisoners of their conditioning, until a certain level of awareness can develop through "self awareness" and "meditation".

Most of us are constantly confronted with negative self talk and a myriad of temptations and obstacles which get in the way.

Commencing ones journey and/or sticking to it seems to be the hardest thing.

Those that you refer to are consumed by their conditioning.

I suspect this is one of the reasons why so few actually become enlightened.

Edited January 19, 2009 by rockyysdt

[Tyree D.]

I learned in my Thai Society class at CMU SE Asians claim to be a part of a religion even if they ever practice it.

case in point:

-Thailand is 95% "Buddhist" but everything you already mentioned

-Indonesia is considered the most populous Muslim nation in the world but when I was there I saw open drug use and elementary kids smoking at school and other things that would get you hanged in Saudi Arabia

I'm in Korea where 33% say they have no religion. But in SE Asia when I said I had no religion they looked at me confused.

[jumnien]

I think an intense metta practice will alleviate the desire to evaluate the spiritual practice of others and allow you to focus more on your own.

[Xangsamhua]

I think an intense metta practice will alleviate the desire to evaluate the spiritual practice of others and allow you to focus more on your own.

So everything's OK then? We shouldn't care if people are put out to sea wrists bound and with no engine? It's just someone's "spiritual practice"? I know you don't mean that, but non-judgmentalism can be just a form of complacency. I suggest you're negatively judging someone who questions the state of Buddhism in Thailand and who asks the question: Does Thai Buddhism focus on self-development at the expense of compassion? The implicit question is: What can be done?

[sabaijai]

It's not complacency, it's putting things in perspective and not neglecting one's own practice. The nomenclature a nation chooses to describe itself shouldn't be such as source of irritation, especially when, as you implied, it's ok that (for example) Western nations practice torture, etc, since they don't call themselves Christian nations. Why worry whether Thailand describes itself as a Buddhist nation or not? Repulsion at the notion is aversion, and has little to do with justice in Thailand. One might as well be concerned about injustice in countries that don't call themselves 'Buddhist', the injustice is the same whatever the descriptors favoured by one's national identity might be.

Each of us alone or together can work on secular solutions to deal with problems that are, in their immediate form, secular and political, not spiritual. The remote cause may be a deficit of Buddhist practice, but spiritual transformation takes time and it begins at home. It's hardly complacent to provide a solid example for your neighbours, friends and enemies to follow, bearing witness to the universal values of Buddhism rather than chipping away at a national identity formed over centuries.

Xangsamhua, I suspect the efficiency of leading by example exceeds the efficiency of anger, however righteous it may be. To borrow lyrics from John Lennon:

You tell me it's the institution

Well you know

You better free your mind instead

[Brucenkhamen]

I agree that not asking these kinds of questions, not having any concern or compassion, is complacency.

I also agree that asking them too much, or obsessing over them is wrong view and inappropriate or destructive in terms of ones own practice. Such a person would deserve to be told off or asked to remove the beam from his own eye before worrying about the speck in other people eyes, but I don't see any evidence that Xangsamhua has reached that point.

In the West the majority of people dissassociate themselves with Christianity, whether they choose to do right or wrong it's common for people to know when they are doing wrong and they don't have any need to use a distorted view of Christianity to justify it. Thailand and Thai people associate themselves much more with Buddhism and so when they do wrong bring Buddhism into disrepute in the eyes of people from the outside looking in. I don't think we can be complacent about that, I don't think there is anything we can do about it either.

As for the original question much of it was answers in this recent topic apply;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Telling-Truth-t227226.html

[jumnien]

As far as we know, the Thai people (approx. 65 million) did not participate in alleged media histrionic fabrications in the south. Shouldn't this be an anti-naval rant instead? You are painting the Thai people with a very wide non-skillful brush, no?

[Brucenkhamen]

As far as we know, the Thai people (approx. 65 million) did not participate in alleged media histrionic fabrications in the south. Shouldn't this be an anti-naval rant instead? You are painting the Thai people with a very wide non-skillful brush, no?

The OP mentioned Rohingya in brief, I don't think it was the topic of the post.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[sabaijai]

I agree that not asking these kinds of questions, not having any concern or compassion, is complacency.

I also agree that asking them too much, or obsessing over them is wrong view and inappropriate or destructive in terms of ones own practice. Such a person would deserve to be told off or asked to remove the beam from his own eye before worrying about the speck in other people eyes, but I don't see any evidence that Xangsamhua has reached that point.

In the West the majority of people dissassociate themselves with Christianity, whether they choose to do right or wrong it's common for people to know when they are doing wrong and they don't have any need to use a distorted view of Christianity to justify it. Thailand and Thai people associate themselves much more with Buddhism and so when they do wrong bring Buddhism into disrepute in the eyes of people from the outside looking in. I don't think we can be complacent about that, I don't think there is anything we can do about it either.

As for the original question much of it was answers in this recent topic apply;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Telling-Truth-t227226.html

I see your point, but I see aversion as the prime motivator here. But then complacency and aversion are two sides of the same coin.

I also see a certain complacency and lack of compassion inherent in objecting to the use of 'Buddhist nation' as a descriptor, as if that were an act of justice, when in fact it's simply debating terminology.

Acts of brutality are not Buddhist acts. Do we respond to these acts by reminding those who commit these acts that they are not Buddhist? If so, then posting here will make little difference. In fact the short-term solutions are likely secular and political. In the longer term the world needs Buddhists who lead by example, rather than Buddhists who preach about who is Buddhist and who is not.

[Xangsamhua]

Thanks guys for all your responses. They help me to towards having a more balanced view.

The question was set off by the Rohingya incident. I was depressed by that and it made me think of other cases in my own experience where Thai officials have been less than charitable - quite callous, in fact - and how much these instances have conflicted with the image Thais present of themselves and which they may believe is essentially true. Of course, as jumnien and IMAFARANG have pointed out, the actions of naval personnel, or even of officials in general, should not be seen as a predictor of what the next Thai person you meet will be like. The opposite could well be the case. And, of course, not all officials are uncaring, and, yes, one can point the finger at the Western countries, too.

So, the post was sparked by the incident and my depressed state of mind - in itself indicative of a lack of balance and, perhaps, metta - and people are right to alert me to that, to my benefit. However, I'm still sort of interested in the subsidiary question whether Theravada lacks a focus on compassion in comparison with Mahayana and whether this is something that needs to be addressed. I think sabaijai took this up in suggesting that personal practice leading to spiritual transformation can be a powerful witnessing factor in transforming social consciousness (have I got that right?). There are, however, people who believe Buddhists need to be more "engaged" (Thich Nhat Hanh internationally; Phra Phayom, Tan Chan in Thailand; others?) and they are from both the Mahayana and Theravada traditions.

Thanks, Brucenkhamen, for the link to the other thread. I'll look through it when my internet stops dragging its feet.

Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

However, I'm still sort of interested in the subsidiary question whether Theravada lacks a focus on compassion in comparison with Mahayana and whether this is something that needs to be addressed. I think sabaijai took this up in suggesting that personal practice leading to spiritual transformation can be a powerful witnessing factor in transforming social consciousness (have I got that right?). There are, however, people who believe Buddhists need to be more "engaged" (Thich Nhat Hanh internationally; Phra Phayom, Tan Chan in Thailand; others?) and they are from both the Mahayana and Theravada traditions.

I don't think Mahayana is necessarily more compassionate than Theravada, though it does talk about it more.

The kind of questions you ask could be asked of the actions of Japan during WWII, or China since then for example. Both countries are mostly Mahayana, though identify themselves more as secular I suppose, in contrast with Thailand which prides itself in it's "Buddhistness".

However no secular government is necessarily bound by the moral standards of their majority religion.

You asked what percetage of Thais are real Buddhists, the answer depends on what you define as Buddhist. You might define it as following the 5 precepts, personally I'm more inclined to define it as someone who has followed the Buddha's example and left power and prestige in favour of seeking spiritual truth. Unfortunately most Thais might define it as what family you are born in or ritual's you partake in.

As soon as the Buddhist religion ceased to be revolutionary and became a part of the establishment it was doomed to become corrupted, we can see that with every religion, that doesn't invalidate what the Buddha originally taught.

[rockyysdt]

As soon as the Buddhist religion ceased to be revolutionary and became a part of the establishment it was doomed to become corrupted, we can see that with every religion, that doesn't invalidate what the Buddha originally taught.

Unfortunately, many sceptics use it to invalidate Buddism.

[Brucenkhamen]

As soon as the Buddhist religion ceased to be revolutionary and became a part of the establishment it was doomed to become corrupted, we can see that with every religion, that doesn't invalidate what the Buddha originally taught.

Unfortunately, many sceptics use it to invalidate Buddism.

And so it should, but it doesn't invalidate the Buddha's teaching.

[camerata]

However, I'm still sort of interested in the subsidiary question whether Theravada lacks a focus on compassion in comparison with Mahayana and whether this is something that needs to be addressed.

I don't see that there is anything to address really. Theravadins follow the teachings of the Buddha in the Pali Canon, and there really isn't any indication there that the Buddha expected his disciples to "engage" with the world other than by teaching. In trying to attain nibbana, the practice was mostly renunciation. IMO, metta meditation was important because a monk or serious disciple might not have many opportunities to act out his compassion. In fact, compassion actually means "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." So, presumably, one can develop a compassionate mind through meditation, without actually helping people.

The goal of a Theravadin is a radical transformation of the mind (i.e. nibbana), so I think how much one engages with the world is a matter for each individual to decide, based on whether he thinks it will take him towards that transformation. The obvious problem with, say, running a soup kitchen or protecting the environment is you get caught up in all kinds of worldly problems, which is not the way to nibbana. And the Buddha did emphasize the idea of nibbana in the current life and the incredibly small chance of getting the human rebirth needed to make significant progress towards nibbana.

For Mahayanists it's a bit different. The whole idea is to be a bodhisattva and spend eons helping others before eventually achieving buddhahood. There is no hurry, so one lifetime running a soup kitchen is not a big deal. The notion that this is somehow superior to the Pali Canon teachings or that aiming for arahantship is "selfish" is ridiculous from a Theravadin perspective but probably makes more sense from a secular perspective.

Each to his own, is what I say. Choose the tradition that will make life most meaningful for you.

[rockyysdt]

And so it should, but it doesn't invalidate the Buddha's teaching.

Agreed.

[phetaroi]

This has been a very thought provoking thread. As I have read through the posts I have seen some factors that are touched on that are quite interesting.

What is a "Buddhist nation", or for that matter a "Christian nation". As an American and as a Buddhist, I watched the inauguration ceremony yesterday and found myself focusing on (among other things) the prayers that were said at the beginning and ending of the official ceremony. Yes, I heard a few phrases that seemed exclusionary, but I also heard phrases that seemed inclusive of all faiths. I thought back to a coffee table photography book on Thailand I once owned. I no longer have the book, but I did keep two pages...the foreword written by Gore Vidal. I was never a fan of his, but I was impressed by this particular writing: "What...most westerners take to be Thai apathy is the Buddhist non-confrontational approach to life, which is totally unlike that of those who worship the Judeo-Christian God, forever in dubious battle on the plains of Heaven with Lucifer. Because of this constant rate in Heaven, we tend to mirror it on Earth where it is taken for granted that nation must constantly fight nation, class class, family family...Although the Thai Buddhists have had their share of wars and incursions, crimes and alarums, they cope with needless pain in ways different from ours. The Buddha teaches that pain comes from desire. Therefore, to eliminate desire is to lessen the pain of existence. Obviously no one lives up to this system any more than anyone has ever lived up to the tenets of Judaism or of Christianity, but a society based on the teaching of the Buddha is bound to be very different from one based upon a furious God dueling with a wily Devil."

And so, I think part of this thread has dealt with the concept of Thailand being a "Buddhist nation", and certainly there is a world of difference (so to speak) between nations that are (predominantly) Buddhist nations...Christian nations...Muslim nations.

The other major part of this thread deals, I think, with a separate concept -- individual adherence to Buddhism. Over my years visiting Thailand (and, just for the record...I will soon be living in Thailand as a retiree) I have had the great fortune to meet and form close relationships with Thai individuals and families from varying levels of Thai life. In Chiang Mai I was sort of adopted by a Thai family where the father was a police official (perhaps I should say Official with a capital) and every child (now adults) went to university. It was, in fact, that family that first introduced me to Buddhist practice (e.g., what you do at a temple...and why). Their conceptual understanding of Buddhism was much deeper than, for example, some of the comparatively non-educated Thais I have known from Issan. Yet, those folks from Issan considered themselves just as devout Buddhists...even though they couldn't really discuss the concepts of Buddhism as well.

I guess what I am trying to say, in part, is that I see Buddhists in Thailand on two different paths. There is the purely religious path...to what extent they practice Buddhist precepts...that intersects with an intellectual path of understanding Buddhism. The Thai in Issan who has learned Buddhist precepts as handed down via word-of-mouth from family and rural monks, will probably have a different understanding of Buddhism than some of us who have perhaps read books analyzing Buddhism.

[Xangsamhua]

This has been a very thought provoking thread. As I have read through the posts I have seen some factors that are touched on that are quite interesting.

What is a "Buddhist nation", or for that matter a "Christian nation". As an American and as a Buddhist, I watched the inauguration ceremony yesterday and found myself focusing on (among other things) the prayers that were said at the beginning and ending of the official ceremony. Yes, I heard a few phrases that seemed exclusionary, but I also heard phrases that seemed inclusive of all faiths. I thought back to a coffee table photography book on Thailand I once owned. I no longer have the book, but I did keep two pages...the foreword written by Gore Vidal. I was never a fan of his, but I was impressed by this particular writing: "What...most westerners take to be Thai apathy is the Buddhist non-confrontational approach to life, which is totally unlike that of those who worship the Judeo-Christian God, forever in dubious battle on the plains of Heaven with Lucifer. Because of this constant rate in Heaven, we tend to mirror it on Earth where it is taken for granted that nation must constantly fight nation, class class, family family...Although the Thai Buddhists have had their share of wars and incursions, crimes and alarums, they cope with needless pain in ways different from ours. The Buddha teaches that pain comes from desire. Therefore, to eliminate desire is to lessen the pain of existence. Obviously no one lives up to this system any more than anyone has ever lived up to the tenets of Judaism or of Christianity, but a society based on the teaching of the Buddha is bound to be very different from one based upon a furious God dueling with a wily Devil."

And so, I think part of this thread has dealt with the concept of Thailand being a "Buddhist nation", and certainly there is a world of difference (so to speak) between nations that are (predominantly) Buddhist nations...Christian nations...Muslim nations.

The other major part of this thread deals, I think, with a separate concept -- individual adherence to Buddhism. Over my years visiting Thailand (and, just for the record...I will soon be living in Thailand as a retiree) I have had the great fortune to meet and form close relationships with Thai individuals and families from varying levels of Thai life. In Chiang Mai I was sort of adopted by a Thai family where the father was a police official (perhaps I should say Official with a capital) and every child (now adults) went to university. It was, in fact, that family that first introduced me to Buddhist practice (e.g., what you do at a temple...and why). Their conceptual understanding of Buddhism was much deeper than, for example, some of the comparatively non-educated Thais I have known from Issan. Yet, those folks from Issan considered themselves just as devout Buddhists...even though they couldn't really discuss the concepts of Buddhism as well.

I guess what I am trying to say, in part, is that I see Buddhists in Thailand on two different paths. There is the purely religious path...to what extent they practice Buddhist precepts...that intersects with an intellectual path of understanding Buddhism. The Thai in Issan who has learned Buddhist precepts as handed down via word-of-mouth from family and rural monks, will probably have a different understanding of Buddhism than some of us who have perhaps read books analyzing Buddhism.

Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful post, Phetaroi. I wonder, though, if the Gore Vidal foreword is talking more about the "Old Testament" God - really the post-exilic Judaean God that the Jews brought back from Babylon, heavily influenced by Zoroastrian theology from Persia.

The God and Lucifer battles sound more like the Ahura Mazda vs Angra Mainyu conflict, which will of course be resolved in the triumph of the former and the ushering in of cosmic peace and harmony. (In some ways this scenario is represented in the Book of Job, also dating from the Babylonian exile and afterwards, though in this story God and Satan seem more like chummy heads of opposing political parties who create Job's sufferings in order to win a bet.)

Gore Vidal was renowned for his hostility to Judaism, so he may well have had an axe to grind in contrasting Thai Buddhist eirenicism with Judaic adversarialism, but I think he may have been setting up straw men at both ends of the pole. Certainly the contemporary God of liberal Christians seems a very self-effacing character, preferring to manifest him/herself through the beauties and wonders of nature, motherly love and the warm fuzziness to be found in groups of affable people. Fundamentalists like the Persian-Judaic one better, of course.

I hope we'll hear more from you as you prepare for and eventually arrive in Thailand.

[Svenn]

Avoid killing - murders daily, both direct and contracted; and how many abortions?

The fact that you think abortion is killing perhaps demonstrates you're more of a moralist, i.e. outward-focused, than an inner-focused spiritualist. It happens all the time in religion, some people just gravitate much more to the moral side of it, they like to judge other people or control their actions.

It's an odd thing to do in Buddhism, because the foundation of the religion, it's very name, is the focus on seeking Bodhi for yourself, not on 'creating a better world' or something western commentators or popular buddhist leaders like to impose on it. Let the affairs of masses settle themselves, in the vast stream of causation, any supposedly 'beneficial' or 'charitable' acts you try to give society will probably vanish into non-consequence. Gautama spent 20 or 30 years reveling in the pleasures of a palace before he went out to seek bodhi- all humans need such contradistinction, so let the villagers drink beer and seek riches as they please.

Oh, and if you still think an unconcious pile of moving tissue like an infant can be "killed," then perhaps you better go back to the Catholics and their noble christendom you describe. I say terminate these unfortante organisms even after birth if need be, especially if they're developmentally challenged or something. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I really think we hurt ourselves by putting so much value on life, on an event that is bound to dissipate into pain and death. Even ancient Kohn Lao practiced infanticide Xangsamhua! btw, I agree, Thailand isn't or never was a 'Buddhist' country, there never was one anywhere... I realized that long ago

Edited January 22, 2009 by Svenn

[Xangsamhua]

Avoid killing - murders daily, both direct and contracted; and how many abortions?

The fact that you think abortion is killing perhaps demonstrates you're more of a moralist, i.e. outward-focused, than an inner-focused spiritualist. It happens all the time in religion, some people just gravitate much more to the moral side of it, they like to judge other people or control their actions.

It's an odd thing to do in Buddhism, because the foundation of the religion, it's very name, is the focus on seeking Bodhi for yourself, not on 'creating a better world' or something western commentators or popular buddhist leaders like to impose on it. Let the affairs of masses settle themselves, in the vast stream of causation, any supposedly 'beneficial' or 'charitable' acts you try to give society will probably vanish into non-consequence. Gautama spent 20 or 30 years reveling in the pleasures of a palace before he went out to seek bodhi- all humans need such contradistinction, so let the villagers drink beer and seek riches as they please.

Oh, and if you still think an unconcious pile of moving tissue like an infant can be "killed," then perhaps you better go back to the Catholics and their noble christendom you describe. I say terminate these unfortante organisms even after birth if need be, especially if they're developmentally challenged or something. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I really think we hurt ourselves by putting so much value on life, on an event that is bound to dissipate into pain and death. Even ancient Kohn Lao practiced infanticide Xangsamhua! btw, I agree, Thailand isn't or never was a 'Buddhist' country, there never was one anywhere... I realized that long ago

Hi Svenn

I included abortion in the list because I understood it to be contrary to Buddhist moral teaching. As you say, this suggests that there is an external code to which an individual refers as a guide to action. Situations differ, though, and one has to make decisions accordingly. I think you're right in that Buddhist teaching, as I understand it, invites people to make their own choices after reflection on the precepts and the circumstances, rather than simply latch onto a moral absolute.

I don't think that there is that much of a dichotomy between internal and external loci of direction in making up your mind. Any religion or school of thought arrives at principles which it then commends to its followers and perhaps to people in general. At one extreme a person might regard these as unconditional absolutes; at the other they can be regarded as simply guidelines to discretionary action. But both externally derived criteria (unless they're quite irrational) and internally generated judgements are positive contributors to the same process. To make judgements reflectively but without recourse to some moral code or set of ethical criteria would be anarchic and possibly egocentric, I think. In any case, after a while, one would arrive at some kind of personally helpful ethical system, which might be idiosyncratic, but would form the basis for future judgements. Unfortunately, not all self-derived ethical systems are benign.

Interesting comment about infanticide among the Lao. I didn't know about this and can't understand why the ethnic Lao, a lowland and riverine people, would need to practise it. They did not need to limit their population, to my knowledge, and lowland rice-farming is not the kind of work that depends on an abundant supply of sons and a minimal one of daughters. Was it happening during the time when the Proto-Lao were moving as part of the, presumably arduous and hazardous, Tai migration into the areas of eventual settlement? From memory, the Lao did not become Buddhist or even a distinctive ethnic entity until the 13th century when King Mangrai of Lanna sent Buddhist missions into the Luang Phrabang region and Chao Fa Ngum brought Buddhism from Angkor as the religion of his new Kingdom of Lan Xang.

[Pierrot]

However no secular government is necessarily bound by the moral standards of their majority religion.

You asked what percetage of Thais are real Buddhists, the answer depends on what you define as Buddhist. You might define it as following the 5 precepts, personally I'm more inclined to define it as someone who has followed the Buddha's example and left power and prestige in favour of seeking spiritual truth. Unfortunately most Thais might define it as what family you are born in or ritual's you partake in.

As soon as the Buddhist religion ceased to be revolutionary and became a part of the establishment it was doomed to become corrupted, we can see that with every religion, that doesn't invalidate what the Buddha originally taught.

Maybe there is a confusion between two different meanings of the same world.

Buddhist (or Catholic, Muslim) : Follow on an individual basis the rules and teaching of a religion / philosophy.

Buddhist (or Catholic, Muslim) : Belong to a society which rules are based (sometime very loosely) on a religious teaching and follow the rules and tradition of this society.

I'm not a specialist of religious studies but I believe the Reform was based on that distinction. The society that was claiming the "ownership" of a religion had moved way too far from the original teaching.

Sorry if I don't make sense but it's not easy to explain complex ideas in a language that is not your mother tongue.

[Svenn]

I don't think that there is that much of a dichotomy between internal and external loci of direction in making up your mind. Any religion or school of thought arrives at principles which it then commends to its followers and perhaps to people in general. At one extreme a person might regard these as unconditional absolutes; at the other they can be regarded as simply guidelines to discretionary action. But both externally derived criteria (unless they're quite irrational) and internally generated judgements are positive contributors to the same process. To make judgements reflectively but without recourse to some moral code or set of ethical criteria would be anarchic and possibly egocentric, I think. In any case, after a while, one would arrive at some kind of personally helpful ethical system, which might be idiosyncratic, but would form the basis for future judgements. Unfortunately, not all self-derived ethical systems are benign.

Hmm, the external/internal loci I was talking about was in regards to focus on the material world versus focus on the non-material or letting-go of consciousness.... not so much about externally vs internally generated moral codes. I dunno, I just find ethics to be one of the more incidental and trivial aspects of a practice based primarily on separating one's attachment to self. Maybe I'm immoral, but I don't consider ethical decisions about what's good or bad for the other people around me too difficult to make, it's always pretty obvious what the right thing to do is. Plus all those moral codes in the Theravada are obviously, as other poster mentioned, not contemporaneous with Gautama... and are most likely the work of scribes or missionaries trying to show that Buddhism can become a state religion (and not just individualist).

Interesting comment about infanticide among the Lao. I didn't know about this and can't understand why the ethnic Lao, a lowland and riverine people, would need to practise it. They did not need to limit their population, to my knowledge, and lowland rice-farming is not the kind of work that depends on an abundant supply of sons and a minimal one of daughters. Was it happening during the time when the Proto-Lao were moving as part of the, presumably arduous and hazardous, Tai migration into the areas of eventual settlement? From memory, the Lao did not become Buddhist or even a distinctive ethnic entity until the 13th century when King Mangrai of Lanna sent Buddhist missions into the Luang Phrabang region and Chao Fa Ngum brought Buddhism from Angkor as the religion of his new Kingdom of Lan Xang.

You know much more about this than me! I just remember reading somewhere that developmentally challenged babies were terminated in old Cambodia if the family couldn't afford to feed a non-working member... I made the inference that the Lao must have done it as well. But yes, it certainly musn't have been a wide-spread practice like it was in Sparta or something ("exposure"- not even killing them, just putting them on a hillside to die). I'm unclear on the origin of the Lao as well- aparently there's debate if Lanna (Chiang Mai) and Lao (Luang Prabang) were even distinct peoples back in the 13th/14th century or just one civilization.... they certainly had the same alphabet back then (the ancietn Lanna script you see up there). The quasi-mythology of old Lao kings will certainly tell a different story. Dialects can become unintelligable in 200 years or so, but Thai and Lao are still somewhat mutually intelligable... plus the near equivalence of every other aspect of Thai and Lao culture does seem to indicate that had the French not arbitrarily divided Siam at the Mekong, the Lao may have just ended up as a Siamese sub-ethnicity. What's the understanding you have of the situation?

[Xangsamhua]

I don't think that there is that much of a dichotomy between internal and external loci of direction in making up your mind. Any religion or school of thought arrives at principles which it then commends to its followers and perhaps to people in general. At one extreme a person might regard these as unconditional absolutes; at the other they can be regarded as simply guidelines to discretionary action. But both externally derived criteria (unless they're quite irrational) and internally generated judgements are positive contributors to the same process. To make judgements reflectively but without recourse to some moral code or set of ethical criteria would be anarchic and possibly egocentric, I think. In any case, after a while, one would arrive at some kind of personally helpful ethical system, which might be idiosyncratic, but would form the basis for future judgements. Unfortunately, not all self-derived ethical systems are benign.

Hmm, the external/internal loci I was talking about was in regards to focus on the material world versus focus on the non-material or letting-go of consciousness.... not so much about externally vs internally generated moral codes. I dunno, I just find ethics to be one of the more incidental and trivial aspects of a practice based primarily on separating one's attachment to self. Maybe I'm immoral, but I don't consider ethical decisions about what's good or bad for the other people around me too difficult to make, it's always pretty obvious what the right thing to do is. Plus all those moral codes in the Theravada are obviously, as other poster mentioned, not contemporaneous with Gautama... and are most likely the work of scribes or missionaries trying to show that Buddhism can become a state religion (and not just individualist).

Interesting comment about infanticide among the Lao. I didn't know about this and can't understand why the ethnic Lao, a lowland and riverine people, would need to practise it. They did not need to limit their population, to my knowledge, and lowland rice-farming is not the kind of work that depends on an abundant supply of sons and a minimal one of daughters. Was it happening during the time when the Proto-Lao were moving as part of the, presumably arduous and hazardous, Tai migration into the areas of eventual settlement? From memory, the Lao did not become Buddhist or even a distinctive ethnic entity until the 13th century when King Mangrai of Lanna sent Buddhist missions into the Luang Phrabang region and Chao Fa Ngum brought Buddhism from Angkor as the religion of his new Kingdom of Lan Xang.

You know much more about this than me! I just remember reading somewhere that developmentally challenged babies were terminated in old Cambodia if the family couldn't afford to feed a non-working member... I made the inference that the Lao must have done it as well. But yes, it certainly musn't have been a wide-spread practice like it was in Sparta or something ("exposure"- not even killing them, just putting them on a hillside to die). I'm unclear on the origin of the Lao as well- aparently there's debate if Lanna (Chiang Mai) and Lao (Luang Prabang) were even distinct peoples back in the 13th/14th century or just one civilization.... they certainly had the same alphabet back then (the ancietn Lanna script you see up there). The quasi-mythology of old Lao kings will certainly tell a different story. Dialects can become unintelligable in 200 years or so, but Thai and Lao are still somewhat mutually intelligable... plus the near equivalence of every other aspect of Thai and Lao culture does seem to indicate that had the French not arbitrarily divided Siam at the Mekong, the Lao may have just ended up as a Siamese sub-ethnicity. What's the understanding you have of the situation?

Thanks for the clarification on the external/internal loci thing. Much food for thought. I find ethical discussion/debate a bit unsatisfying. It never seems to end, and I find it hard to reach a firm conclusion. The debate over abortion is an example; ditto "just war" arguments. I noticed on the e-sangha forum that one very senior poster claimed that abortion is killing and, therefore, "incompatible" with Buddhism, but the article introducing the thread http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...amp;hl=abortion suggests that there are several conditions to be taken into account before judging the morality, or karmic effect, of aborting a fetus.

In responding to your comment about early Lao infanticide I unconsciously did a mental slide and started talking about female infanticide. I don't know why. You may well be right that the early Lao killed off infants of either sex with significant malformations or disabilities. Apologies for misrepresenting your claim.

I think you're absolutely right that, had the French not intervened in Luang Prabang in the 1880s, establishing a protectorate that eventually included Vientiane and Champassak, Laos would have been absorbed into the Siamese kingdom. I've heard Lao people say that being colonized by the French was not a good thing in itself, but at least it saved Laos from the Siamese (presumably a worse fate). I think I remember Prince Sihanouk saying much the same about Cambodia. That's getting away from Buddhism though.

[khaowong1]

However, I'm still sort of interested in the subsidiary question whether Theravada lacks a focus on compassion in comparison with Mahayana and whether this is something that needs to be addressed.

I don't see that there is anything to address really. Theravadins follow the teachings of the Buddha in the Pali Canon, and there really isn't any indication there that the Buddha expected his disciples to "engage" with the world other than by teaching. In trying to attain nibbana, the practice was mostly renunciation. IMO, metta meditation was important because a monk or serious disciple might not have many opportunities to act out his compassion. In fact, compassion actually means "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." So, presumably, one can develop a compassionate mind through meditation, without actually helping people.

The goal of a Theravadin is a radical transformation of the mind (i.e. nibbana), so I think how much one engages with the world is a matter for each individual to decide, based on whether he thinks it will take him towards that transformation. The obvious problem with, say, running a soup kitchen or protecting the environment is you get caught up in all kinds of worldly problems, which is not the way to nibbana. And the Buddha did emphasize the idea of nibbana in the current life and the incredibly small chance of getting the human rebirth needed to make significant progress towards nibbana.

For Mahayanists it's a bit different. The whole idea is to be a bodhisattva and spend eons helping others before eventually achieving buddhahood. There is no hurry, so one lifetime running a soup kitchen is not a big deal. The notion that this is somehow superior to the Pali Canon teachings or that aiming for arahantship is "selfish" is ridiculous from a Theravadin perspective but probably makes more sense from a secular perspective.

Each to his own, is what I say. Choose the tradition that will make life most meaningful for you.

Thanks Camerata, your insights are sometimes amazing. I was talking the other day with someone about a subject which included going to Buddhist monks for marriage counseling, drug problems, drinking problems etc. and couldn't come up with a good answer. But it was very close to what you just said, "there is no indication that the Buddha expected his disciples to "engage" in the world other than by teaching. This explains things better than I put it.