Off The Middle Path

[sabaijai]

Off the Middle Path

New York Times

May 24, 2010

By KARUNA BUAKAMSRI

BANGKOK — Last Wednesday, the television station where I work in Bangkok was attacked and set on fire by an angry mob while I was anchoring the news. The men who invaded the building were members of the red shirts — protesters who had seized control of the center of Thailand’s capital for more than two months with the goal of bringing downing the government.

Shaken by an explosion, I telephoned a government official and pleaded with him to send soldiers to evacuate us. But there was no time to wait. Through choking fumes and flames, my colleagues and I ran down nine flights of stairs, not knowing if the mob would be waiting for us at the bottom. We made it to the basement, burst out through a back door, scrambled over a wall and dashed into the sanctuary of the winding alleys of a poor neighborhood.

Exactly 18 years earlier— May 19 at 3 p.m. — I was also running for my life. Then I was the protester: a student leader demanding democracy and opposing military rule. Soldiers had opened fire on us. I fled in pure terror, scaling a wall to escape the gunfire. Many were killed that night.

More than a date connects these two events. Many of the leading figures are also the same. In 1992, I joined hands with Jatuporn Promphan, Veera Musikapong and Dr. Weng Tojirkan — now leaders of the red shirt movement. I also joined hands with Pipob Dongchai, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Suriyasai Katasila — now leaders of a group of protesters known as the yellow shirts, bitter enemies of the reds. Also among us were two promising young politicians: Abhisit Vejjajiva and Jaturon Chaisaeng. Abhisit is now prime minister, while Jaturon opposes Abhisit.

Then we were all united in wanting democracy. Today we are divided over what we believe democracy is or should be. What drew these leaders down divergent paths is complex. But the flashpoint for their explosive opposition to each other is a man who in 1992 was consumed with making money rather than fighting alongside us for democracy: Thaksin Shinawatra.

A telecommunications tycoon elected prime minister in 2001, Thaksin won the hearts of the poor with his social programs and the enmity of many others for his graft and authoritarianism. Toppled in a bloodless coup in 2006, he now lives abroad rather than serve a prison sentence for corruption. Red shirt protesters are calling for his return. Thaksin is the fault line that has fractured our country. My own family reflects the divide. My uncle, a rural villager, supports Thaksin because he distributed one million baht ($25,000) to every village for local development projects and for his universal health care program.

My uncle never asked about Thaksin’s attempts to crush the free press — a battle I fought personally against him. He didn’t dwell on how Thaksin enriched himself at the public’s expense while holding office. Nor did he ponder the fates of the thousands killed in Thaksin’s “war on drugs”; the community activists who were murdered; or those massacred at Tak Bai in the Muslim south — even though most of them were poor just like him, or fighting to improve the lives of poor people just like him.

Some have called Thailand’s crisis a class struggle. But it’s hard to take such portrayals seriously when powerful politicians and wealthy businesspeople are calling from the red shirt stage for the overthrow of “the elite.” Among those fiery speakers was my old colleague Jatuporn Promphan, wearing a shirt with a silkscreen of Mahatma Gandhi. The protest site was defended by red shirt guards who were armed.

From 2006 through 2008, my old colleague Pipob Dhongchai, a leader of the yellow shirts, spearheaded mass rallies against Thaksin and subsequent governments he controlled by proxy, culminating in the occupation of Bangkok’s airports. The yellow shirts also had a corps of armed guards. In 1992, none of us were armed. We suffered through bullets and batons with our ideals as our only defense.

Watching the spiraling political violence of the past few years I wonder what has become of my old friends, the veterans of 1992, and where they are taking our country?

Back then, I was inspired by their oratory in support of democracy and justice. Today, these same orators inflame crowds with hate and distortion. Yellow orators goaded their followers into ransacking the prime minister’s office. Red orators fired mobs to burn Bangkok. I can’t see any justice or democracy in what they have done.

In Thailand, most people are Buddhists, and in Buddhism we believe in moderation and the middle path. How have my friends become so extreme? The events of the last few weeks have left me shaken. But I am determined that the men who burned my building will not burn away what we fought for in 1992: A Thailand where we can differ and yet not destroy; where we can criticize yet not demonize; where we can fight for our ideals without dealing out violence and death. A Thailand where never again will I be running in fear.

Karuna Buakamsri is a news anchor and reporter at Channel 3 in Bangkok.

[Dap]

Gives ample pause for thought, Well said IMHO.

[SomTumTiger]

Truly wonderful article, and right on the money. Many of us here find both extremes bad - but people on either extreme are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them a follower of the other.

The middle way is certainly needed. Will anyone find it?

[givenall]

Gives ample pause for thought, Well said IMHO.

Let’s look at all webcam videos and identify these people and put them in Jail for a long long time

[Publicus]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

[321niti123]

Totally agree, when ever a criticize a red or Thaksin, i am accused a yellow, when ever i criticize Abhisit or the yellows i get accused of being the reds, I hope there is a middle path in all of this and money and greed would not consume THailand into a land of Chaos, rather than a land of smiles

[djayz]

I enjoyed reading that... something different for a change. I wonder how much of it is true... I mean all these political figures having been involved / active in 1992... anybody know? I really haven't gotten around to reading up on Thai history yet.

Edited May 25, 2010 by djayz

[misterjag]

Mandela, MLK, Lenin, Castro, Che Guevara, and Subcomandante Marcos aren't uneducated peasant farmers.

[wlcart]

Nice to see something thoughtful, hopeful and productive for a change. Well done.

[chaoyang]

Ah. the idealism of youth ... replaced by hardened cynicism. Happens to all of us to one degree or another.

Well written piece (no doubt honed by the fine editors at the NY Times), but my question to author: What have you done personally -- however large or small -- to advance democracy or human dignity since those heady days of 1992? Has it been enough?

It's a question we can all ask ourselves, whether the date is 1970 in Boulder, Colorado, 1989 in Beijing or 1992 in Bangkok. For most, the answer is no; we have been too busy chasing the almighty buck and its cousin currencies.

[gemini81]

Truly wonderful article, and right on the money. Many of us here find both extremes bad - but people on either extreme are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them a follower of the other.

The middle way is certainly needed. Will anyone find it?

Its even divided their families. Quite sad.

Thaksin was a well-rehearsed demagogue. Lots of folks bought his sales pitch. Even some rich folk at first.

[Pib]

Red Shirt Approach: Speeches followed by destruction.

Yellow Shirt Approach: Speeches followed by disruption.

Government Approach: Speeches followed by indecision.

Above groups definitely need to find the middle ground for the sake of Thailand's future.

[souvenirdeparis]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

2500 or 100 years ago people weren't naked apes ;just have a look at the paintings in Wat Phra Singh.

I find your attack on Buddhism grossly unfair ; that people forgot sound principles doesn't mean said principles are worthless.

Go to the temple and make tam boon !

[xenomorph]

Words worth consideration and after thoughts.

I can only find these reasons that would fit:

Greed for money, greed for power and position.

I'll too many are in the belief that if they join hands with the rich and powerful Mr. Thaksin, they too will get prosperous. It's like when the indoctrinated poor in the northeast believes when Thaksin return, he will sprinkle money on everyone.

I believe the culture of following and trusting a person just because he is rich, will make great harm to the poor. If you can imagine the following scenario:

A poor but honest man wants to do something for the situation of the poor in the society. He decides to be a politician. It is election times an he manage to make several tours around Issan and talk about what he believes in and how he wants to do good for the society. Especially for the poor. He is dressed simple but proper. He gives a good impression of being an honest person. But... BUT! There is one detail though... He doesn't wear golden chains, doesn't wear heavy golden rings, doesn't drive a Mercedes. Would the poor vote him? No, no and no!!!

If we remove the part where the poor villagers sell their vote to whoever pays for it and imagine that the do a free choice, they would put their vote for the candidate that says he likes the poor AND do carry the heaviest gold chains and drives the most expensive car. That's how this culture works. Respect and follow the money trail! So how can there ever be democracy in a society like this?

Thaksin did everything right. If anyone could dupe the poor, it was him. He got everything that the poor looks up to. Everything except a clean conscience.

.

Edited May 25, 2010 by xenomorph

[intothefuture]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

Wonderful article by Karuna Buakamsri...with real insight and real questions for us all to consider.

But this response from Publicus shows us how materialistic people respond to spiritual and caring insight. What a sad and pathetic response by Publicus. I feel sorry for you. You appear to be spiritually empty of soul and spirit...and attack someone with genuine insight and care for their fellow Thais. Your effort to show this was not an editorial from the NY Times is meaningless. The fact that the NY Times printed this article shows they have more insight as a media organization that Publicus does as an individual.

Your attacks on Buddhism show shallowness and lack of any spiritual understanding. Sad that you must convey your spiritual numbness on this website. I agree with a previous comment. Go spend some time at a temple or spiritual dwelling of your choice. It will do you good and perhaps spare others your cynical perspective on life. I believe there are many Thais like Karuna Buakamsri who will pull this Country thru, in spite of those that have lost all moral and spiritual bearing like Publicus.

For those interested, Karuna Buakamsri's Op-Ed article in the NY Times can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/...html?ref=global

Edited May 25, 2010 by intothefuture

[Publicus]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

2500 or 100 years ago people weren't naked apes ;just have a look at the paintings in Wat Phra Singh.

I find your attack on Buddhism grossly unfair ; that people forgot sound principles doesn't mean said principles are worthless.

Go to the temple and make tam boon !

Man overboard! Throw out the lifelines!! Get him back on board and dry him out.

It's a wild leap to take my statements as meaning 'naked apes' or that I do or would deny human culture and civilization exist since the most ancient of societies. There just isn't any rational reason to try to mischaracterize my across the board critiques of religion anywhere and everywhere as presently being petrified to mean ancient humans were devoid of culture.

After two years in Korea, three in China and ten years in Thailand I've been to so many temples I could almost feel Buddhist but I don't. My statement is that Buddhist principles that had determined the attitudes and values among the believers over the past 2,500 years (excepting the Buddhists who stepped out of the circle to grab control of the resources of the society and established their authority and power) minus the past score of years were practical, viable and rational. That, however, during the past score years are meaningless to the developing sectors of society. It's obnoxious to see the neuveau rich who are appointed to government and who own giant corporations vacuuously and cynically pay false homage to a bygone religion they themselves have ignored since many years ago.

Certain people haven't forgot once sound principles, certain people instead recognize and know the once sound principles have become irrelevant and meaningless in the modern world of money, wealth, standard of living, quality of life. Buddhism does have certain universal principles, such as rejection of greed, but in these parts that baby long since went out with the bathwater. Would that the cautions of greed continue to have impact among the new monied classes, but it doesn't and that principle isn't going to be revived.       

[jayjay0]

Great article. Yes we do need the middle road.

Hard to believe that some of these idealists could go on to lead yellow shirts who only want 30% of the representatives to be elected and 70% appointed.

Then some of them put on a red shirt and go on to openly incite Thais to riot.

Bottom line they all got a lot of money and ideals do not mix with money.

[animatic]

A very good article and with relevance well beyond this time and place only.

Someone asked what has she done since 1992 to help Thai society,

Well being a relatively honest journalsit isn a corrupt world would seem

a pretty good thing to do. Helping people understand the wkirlwind of events

surrounding them daily.

As for Publicus' statement. Quite true on the specifics of how Newspapers work.

He knows this without a doubt.

All he is saying is that the intepretations of Buddhism in todays society

hasn't necessarily kept pace with the rapid change in how Thais now must function.

Regardless of central truths, they need to be reinterpreted into the society as it is,

and not as it was.

The middle class has lost it's connection, and indeed it seems much of the rural

AND governing classes, with the central tenets of Budhism, but cause possibly

their current delivery has not maintained it's relevance to life as it goes

frothing by at speed. Most politicians in particularly get a SLAP for this....

Very, very few seem to exhibit even the slightest REAL Buddhist values,

just the trappings if it suits their control purposes.

So I do not see Publicus's words as an attack on Buddhism per se,

but how it is delivered to Thais today. Petrified can also mean it has not

moved forward as society has changed. Quite rapidly one has to note.

Not to say a change in core message is even countenanced,

but delivery is the issue.

I have long thought that the Red leaders, and indeed many PAD leaders,

had lost connection with their Buddhist roots, and fell back on to shaman ism

and Hindu mysticisms cobbled onto Buddhism in the current day. That there was a

communications break down, I think Chamlong also was seeing this.

Edited May 25, 2010 by animatic

[Publicus]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

Wonderful article by Karuna Buakamsri...with real insight and real questions for us all to consider.

But this response from Publicus shows us how materialistic people respond to spiritual and caring insight. What a sad and pathetic response by Publicus. I feel sorry for you. You appear to be spiritually empty of soul and spirit...and attack someone with genuine insight and care for their fellow Thais. Your effort to show this was not an editorial from the NY Times is meaningless. The fact that the NY Times printed this article shows they have more insight as a media organization that Publicus does as an individual.

Your attacks on Buddhism show shallowness and lack of any spiritual understanding. Sad that you must convey your spiritual numbness on this website. I agree with a previous comment. Go spend some time at a temple or spiritual dwelling of your choice. It will do you good and perhaps spare others your cynical perspective on life. I believe there are many Thais like Karuna Buakamsri who will pull this Country thru, in spite of those that have lost all moral and spiritual bearing like Publicus.

For those interested, Karuna Buakamsri's Op-Ed article in the NY Times can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/...html?ref=global

My god, kindly cease the misrepresentations of my statements. I'd clearly stated the Editorial Board of the NYT agreed to publish Ms. Buakamsri in their journal...let me be sure to state I support the Board's decision to contribute to the open and free discussion of religion, politics, personal perspectives predicated on personal experiences such as those of Ms Buakamsri, and the right of each of us to react and respond to it in our own individual ways. This philosophy and practice by the NYT is but one reason it is a globally respected daily news journal, one which I consistently have honored by buying it.

Some mutual respect of secular humanism, a recognized definition of my world view, would be welcome.

One thing you didn't say was that you'll pray for me which you of course are free to do if it might make you feel any comfort or solace. You seem so wrapped up in the 12,000 year human emotionalism of mystery worship and spirits that you could give the impression you haven't any significant regard or respect of science and its new order of rationality. I did say that in its time, place and circumstance Buddhism once was rational (despite its primitive minded predicate of a spirit roaming the universe deciding to park itself on planet earth...my god that's another zany origin tale.) 

As with many others, I do sometimes engage with spirits of a different kind if you know what I mean .   

 

[shadiadi]

Have you ever watched Thai television? It's unrealistic unbeleivable and they exploit poor Thai people for their own personal gain, Sorry to be more precise channel 3 5 7 completeley unbeleivable I worked part time for all three stations 16 years ago. They paid me peanuts 500-1000 Baht a day no hope of a work permit. Some days took 3-5 hours of my time they were ok, but other days 30 plus hours sometimes 40 hours. complete garbage.

[gl9999]

Have you ever watched Thai television? It's unrealistic unbeleivable and they exploit poor Thai people for their own personal gain, Sorry to be more precise channel 3 5 7 completeley unbeleivable I worked part time for all three stations 16 years ago. They paid me peanuts 500-1000 Baht a day no hope of a work permit. Some days took 3-5 hours of my time they were ok, but other days 30 plus hours sometimes 40 hours. complete garbage.

You're being sarcastic right?

500-1000 baht a day? 16 years ago? That's pretty good considering you're sorta like an illegal immigrant worker.

[surangw]

"In Thailand, most people are Buddhists, and in Buddhism we believe in moderation and the middle path."

How many average thais ( poor) stick to the teachings and principles of buddhism when money is involved?

snauk?

face?

family?

[intothefuture]

" Some mutual respect of secular humanism, a recognized definition of my world view, would be welcome.

One thing you didn't say was that you'll pray for me which you of course are free to do if it might make you feel any comfort or solace. You seem so wrapped up in the 12,000 year human emotionalism of mystery worship and spirits that you could give the impression you haven't any significant regard or respect of science and its new order of rationality. I did say that in its time, place and circumstance Buddhism once was rational (despite its primitive minded predicate of a spirit roaming the universe deciding to park itself on planet earth...my god that's another zany origin tale.)

As with many others, I do sometimes engage with spirits of a different kind if you know what I mean . "

To Publicus:

I respect your right to any world view that you find meaningful. I don't respect your demeaning and mis-characterization of Buddhism....especially in a Thai forum, which has many Buddhists as readers and commentators. Buddha's teachings...not the popularized version of them...are born of introspection, discernment, compassion and are markedly aligned with modern science and quantum physics....and are equally meaningful and applicable today as the were 2500 years ago. Your comment about a "spirit roaming the universe and deciding to park itself on planet earth" has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism. Buddha did not teach about spirits...but about Non-self... a reality beyond thoughts and concepts of spirit or individual self. Please consider refraining from commenting on a subject, sacred to many, that you have made zero effort to understand. I wish you well...but suggest you don't need to bash Buddhism in your effort to understand life and universe.

Edited May 25, 2010 by intothefuture

[eggomaniac]

This Article is couple of bricks short of a load!

It's not a bad rough draft about 'some' of the key players. Is it, like, against some kind of law to detail any facts about Sondhi, or is he the writer's boss, or are Thais scared to?

Of all the men mentioned in the article, only 1 would tie Sondhi for having an influence on Thailand, going back to the days when he supported and helped bankroll Thaksin into power.

The article says a lot, which I agree with, about Thaksin; but not fitting Sondhi into the 'history' speaks volumes about the slant of the writer!

If the writer wants to come clean, don't forget to shampoo as well!

Edited May 25, 2010 by eggomaniac

[moo9]

This is not a New York Times "editorial." This is an invited "column" with a "By-Line" (By Karuna Baukamsri).

We musn't confuse the two because the difference is significant. An "editorial" is unsigned, placed on the Editorial Page, written on agreement by the Editorial Board of a newspaper and, as with Supreme Court decisions, written by a single Board member who is designated by the Board. An "editorial" is an instiutional statement.

The written piece above and others like it with a By-Line constitute a personal statement - a column - by an individual person. In this instance the piece is a "guest column" because the writer is not contractually employed by the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the particular journal has agreed to publish this guest column, whether by invitation or after being approached by the individual writer.

That said, Buddhism is literally irrelevant to the developing sectors of Thai society. A central tenent of Buddhism is to purge one's self of desire, a practical and valid point 2,500 years ago (or 100 years ago in Thailand) as most humans everywhere on the planet had nothing and were going to spend their short miserable lives with nothing. So why want? Why desire material things? You're subsistence life is just that so accept it, run the farm and be happy.

For the past 15 or so years however the country has begun significantly to develop its economy, particularly (since 1980) industry and more recently a service/consumer economy. Buddhism offers nothing to the contemporary neuveau rich and/or to the middle class concerning wealth creation, wealth management, distribution of wealth, modern consumerism etc. Hence the gross mismanagment of the country's newly developing wealth and the ineffectiveness of its institutions to include government especially in directing, managing, distributing the new wealth and the means to create and acquire it.

It's also telling that the guest columnist points out that in 1992 Thaksin was manning the money train while she and all of the other current players whatever their views and activities were fighting the military dictatorship of the particular time. She also points out that many of the major players irrespective of shirt color have managed to acquire fat bank accounts and wealthy personal estates.

Ms Buakamsri would do as well to call on a spirit house as to invoke yet another petrified religion as guidance through the present mess.

2500 or 100 years ago people weren't naked apes ;just have a look at the paintings in Wat Phra Singh.

I find your attack on Buddhism grossly unfair ; that people forgot sound principles doesn't mean said principles are worthless.

Go to the temple and make tam boon !

Man overboard! Throw out the lifelines!! Get him back on board and dry him out.

It's a wild leap to take my statements as meaning 'naked apes' or that I do or would deny human culture and civilization exist since the most ancient of societies. There just isn't any rational reason to try to mischaracterize my across the board critiques of religion anywhere and everywhere as presently being petrified to mean ancient humans were devoid of culture.

After two years in Korea, three in China and ten years in Thailand I've been to so many temples I could almost feel Buddhist but I don't. My statement is that Buddhist principles that had determined the attitudes and values among the believers over the past 2,500 years (excepting the Buddhists who stepped out of the circle to grab control of the resources of the society and established their authority and power) minus the past score of years were practical, viable and rational. That, however, during the past score years are meaningless to the developing sectors of society. It's obnoxious to see the neuveau rich who are appointed to government and who own giant corporations vacuuously and cynically pay false homage to a bygone religion they themselves have ignored since many years ago.

Certain people haven't forgot once sound principles, certain people instead recognize and know the once sound principles have become irrelevant and meaningless in the modern world of money, wealth, standard of living, quality of life. Buddhism does have certain universal principles, such as rejection of greed, but in these parts that baby long since went out with the bathwater. Would that the cautions of greed continue to have impact among the new monied classes, but it doesn't and that principle isn't going to be revived.       

What is your point?

First thing: any religion is personal

Second thing: you totally underestimate the importance of Buddhism in the Thai society even today

Third thing: if you critisize religions you can pick any religion of the world as no religion is implemented and followed perfectly in any part of the world.

I enjoyed reading the article because it hits the nail.

Edited May 26, 2010 by moo9

[moo9]

"In Thailand, most people are Buddhists, and in Buddhism we believe in moderation and the middle path."

How many average thais ( poor) stick to the teachings and principles of buddhism when money is involved?

snauk?

face?

family?

Where do we Westerners stick to?

Money! Family? No... Face? No.... Sanook? No...have

So what you try to tell you?

Just let people believe in what they want and respect it!

[iasian]

Off the Middle Path

May 24, 2010

By KARUNA BUAKAMSRI

Being intelligent AND pretty are always an admirable dual trait.

Karuna's Facebook pic

[yothai]

Gives ample pause for thought, Well said IMHO.

well written

[SomTumTiger]

This Article is couple of bricks short of a load!

It's not a bad rough draft about 'some' of the key players. Is it, like, against some kind of law to detail any facts about Sondhi, or is he the writer's boss, or are Thais scared to?

Of all the men mentioned in the article, only 1 would tie Sondhi for having an influence on Thailand, going back to the days when he supported and helped bankroll Thaksin into power.

The article says a lot, which I agree with, about Thaksin; but not fitting Sondhi into the 'history' speaks volumes about the slant of the writer!

If the writer wants to come clean, don't forget to shampoo as well!

What? No "Joseph Solution" nonsense in this post?

[Ulysses G.]