Harsh Penalties For Monks In Old Siam

[camerata]

I've been reading the Falcon of Siam trilogy and the story of Constantine Phaulkon. Even though it is fiction, it is based on historical characters and events in the reign of King Narai, and the author seems to have done his research (apparently sources are mostly Western because the Burmese burnt all Siamese documents when they sacked Ayutthaya).

It seems they had some pretty cruel punishments in those days (boiled alive, eaten by tigers, etc) but I was surprised to see that the punishment for a monk touching a woman was for them both to be roasted alive on a spit. I imagine they didn't have much trouble with monastic discipline if the rules were like that.

[agent69]

I guess if we are talking about punishment method in the 17th century, burning alive would have been common around the world. Fire has always been regarded as an element that can get rid of evil.

[KhaoNiaw]

In one of the accounts by a foreigner in Ayutthaya (I think in 1690 - can't locate the book at the moment), it mentions a temple where nuns were living with the monks and bearing their children. I seem to recall the writer reporting that the nuns were moved elsewhere but no mention of roasting on the spit!

[harrry]

I thought you couldnt take a life.

[rockyysdt]

It seems they had some pretty cruel punishments in those days (boiled alive, eaten by tigers, etc) but I was surprised to see that the punishment for a monk touching a woman was for them both to be roasted alive on a spit. I imagine they didn't have much trouble with monastic discipline if the rules were like that.

It could be one way of sorting out the smoking monks who can only convey negative thoughts about the dhamma in the minds of the people!

[Ijustwannateach]

They can still be pretty strict today- saw a news story last night where a monk was arrested for having sex with a woman (at least I think that was the gist of it).

[Nampeung]

What rubbish... if any of these people were actually following true and original Theravadan Buddhism these sort of 'punishments' would not be an issue. The Buddha never taught such crap. Very basic people who have no real understanding of true Buddhism unfortunately. No one who really understands Buddhism would support such twaddle.

Camerata I am surprised at your naivety - or maybe you are playing devil's advocate??!!!!

Edited June 7, 2009 by Nampeung

[Nampeung]

IJWT - you think that's strict??? Men take vows of celibacy when they become monks and it's in their own best interests that they stick to that vow otherwise it is more difficult for them to achieve a higher mindset. So what's your problem with monks being arrested for having sex with a woman? Any questions I will gladly answer...

[phetaroi]

IJWT - you think that's strict??? Men take vows of celibacy when they become monks and it's in their own best interests that they stick to that vow otherwise it is more difficult for them to achieve a higher mindset. So what's your problem with monks being arrested for having sex with a woman? Any questions I will gladly answer...

While I can't speak for IJWT, I think for many Westerners, they're so wrapped up in the separation of church and state, that they think any country which has a different model must be doing things wrong. Although I didn't like Mahithir (sp?) in Malaysia, I think he was wise in pointing out...repeatedly with boring pomposity...that not every democracy has to be like the U.S. It seems to me that Thailand's version of the relationship between religion and state mostly works pretty well for Thailand.

[camerata]

if any of these people were actually following true and original Theravadan Buddhism these sort of 'punishments' would not be an issue. The Buddha never taught such crap.

Right. But since when do governments adhere strictly to religious doctrine? Those were barbaric times. It was no different in Tibet. Prior to the Chinese occupation the country was run by the Dalai lama and mostly by monastics. And yet the punishment for criminals was to have their eyes put out. Lhasa was full of eyeless beggars.

[agent69]

I thought you couldnt take a life.

You can, but it's bad karma.

[agent69]

if any of these people were actually following true and original Theravadan Buddhism these sort of 'punishments' would not be an issue. The Buddha never taught such crap.

Right. But since when do governments adhere strictly to religious doctrine? Those were barbaric times. It was no different in Tibet. Prior to the Chinese occupation the country was run by the Dalai lama and mostly by monastics. And yet the punishment for criminals was to have their eyes put out. Lhasa was full of eyeless beggars.

I would have been angry at that comment!!

It's like the words of a European colonist. Have to be seen by the eyes of a would-be victim of colonisation. True, the punishments back then were harsh, but it was part of the tradition. Capital punishment and torture would be norm even in the European countries back then. Ayutthaya art could easily put some of the European's into shame.

Laws of the land should not be confused with a religion teaching. But without a sanction or intervention from a government, a religion will be struggling to florish.

[camerata]

I would have been angry at that comment!!

It's like the words of a European colonist. Have to be seen by the eyes of a would-be victim of colonisation. True, the punishments back then were harsh, but it was part of the tradition. Capital punishment and torture would be norm even in the European countries back then. Ayutthaya art could easily put some of the European's into shame.

"Those were barbaric times" meant compared to the present time. It wasn't a comparison with the West, which was also pretty bad.

Laws of the land should not be confused with a religion teaching. But without a sanction or intervention from a government, a religion will be struggling to florish.

This law (if the author is correct) had to have been a secular law. Still, it does seem harsh if it was used for just touching a woman as well as actually having sex. I read somewhere that Buddhism always needed close relations with the State (or monarchy) because it had no means to enforce its own discipline. If a monk refused to disrobe it would be the secular authorities that took care of it. I think maybe only Tibetan Buddhism used to have a "monk police," called dobdobs.

[khaowong1]

I thought you couldnt take a life.

Not taking of life is a world wide concept. For ordained monks, it's either you don't or you get out..

The first Buddhist precept as well as the first Christian commandment, says not to take a life...neither says; unless, but, however... How many people, both Buddhists and Christians follow these simple rules of living? I am always asked by my Christian friends in the U.S., what would you do if; what about in time of war; what about this and what about that... I just tell them, neither the first Buddhist precept or the first Christian commandment has a clause that says; unless, but, however..

[bankei]

I thought you couldnt take a life.

Not taking of life is a world wide concept. For ordained monks, it's either you don't or you get out..

The first Buddhist precept as well as the first Christian commandment, says not to take a life...neither says; unless, but, however... How many people, both Buddhists and Christians follow these simple rules of living? I am always asked by my Christian friends in the U.S., what would you do if; what about in time of war; what about this and what about that... I just tell them, neither the first Buddhist precept or the first Christian commandment has a clause that says; unless, but, however..

Hi Khaowong

Although the first precept says a life (in general) should not be taken, the precepts for monks states specifically that a human life should not be taken - parajika 3.

incidently I coudn't find anywhere in the Patimokha which prohibits the killing of animals (may have missed it?) but monks should also follow the 10 precepts as well as the 227 Patimokha rules.

Bankei