Can Buddhism Save Thailand?

[Xangsamhua]

Can Buddhism save Thailand?

It could, but I suspect it won’t. I noted a couple of relevant things in the book, Happiness, by Matthieu Ricard, a French monk in the Tibetan tradition, and said by some to be “the happiest man in the world”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...rld-433063.html

On p. 105 he says: “Systematically blaming others and holding them responsible for our suffering is the surest way to lead an unhappy life. It is by transforming our minds that we can transform our world.”

He later says (p. 116): “Attachment idealizes its object, hatred demonizes it.”

I find it hard to imagine the leaders of one side or the other exhorting their followers to look deeply into their own actions and motivations and to transform their minds as a result. I think it’s also very unlikely that the idealization or demonization of people like Thaksin Shinawatra or Sondhi Limthongkul is going to be moderated, and a balanced view held up by, say, the Prime Minister or the Redshirt leaders, as the recommended one for people to hold.

Furthermore, Matthieu Ricard suggests that, when people are angry, that is the time to reflect on how the anger arose and the suffering to which it led.

“It is easier to work with the disturbing effects of a strong emotion when we are in the midst of experiencing it, rather than when it lies dormant in the shadow of our unconscious. At the precise moment of the experience, we will have the invaluable opportunity to investigate the process of mental suffering.” (p. 106)

However, I’m not aware of any calls to self-examination or practical steps being taken by the leadership of the national Sangha in Thailand. It may have happened, but I’ve not seen any reports of it.

The International Network of Engaged Buddhists, in its statement on the Thai situation of 18 May, referred to the Dhammapada: verse 201, which says:

Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy.
Persons who have given up both victory and defeat, the contented, they are happy.

The INEB goes on to say: We wish for all parties address the conflict with reason and tools of peace, to recognize the ancient Buddhist wisdom that neither the so-called winner nor loser will be contented and happy. We encourage those who do not fall into one of the two camps can help this process wherever possible. Only through peaceful negotiation and dialogue can all parties concerned return the country to its true nature as a flourishing democracy and a peace-loving nation.

http://jizochronicles.wordpress.com/2010/0...nt-on-thailand/

However, there doesn't seem to be a strong commitment to dialogue, at least among the movers and shakers in this country. Once again, I may be wrong, but in any case, it takes key figures on both sides of a conflict for “peaceful negotiations and dialogue” to take place.

Perhaps we’ll have to wait for more death and destruction, more anger and grief, until the Thai people remember their Buddhist roots and look to responsible and compassionate ways of resolving their differences. People who are already privileged will have to take the lead in this, but will they?

Edited May 30, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

The INEB connection is helpful.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/index.htm

The best in my knowing comes from P.A.Payutto of the "Buddhadhamma", the most venerated and therefore the most non readed book of Thai Culture.

http://reocities.com/Athens/academy/9280/kamma4.htm

Edited May 30, 2010 by lungmi

[Pib]

Partial Quote:

...until the Thai people remember their Buddhist roots and look to responsible and compassionate ways of resolving their differences.

End quote.

I think you could replace the words Thai and Buddhist above with many different types of people and religion (e.g., Israeli and Jewish, Arabs and Islam, etc) and find the attempt to resolve differences sometimes seems to be made more difficult due to the religious beliefs.

[lungmi]

Partial Quote:

...until the Thai people remember their Buddhist roots and look to responsible and compassionate ways of resolving their differences.

End quote.

I think you could replace the words Thai and Buddhist above with many different types of people and religion (e.g., Israeli and Jewish, Arabs and Islam, etc) and find the attempt to resolve differences sometimes seems to be made more difficult due to the religious beliefs.

I agree. In every religion you have a basic understanding of dhukka (suffering) and the way to surmount: metta, karuna, mudita.

The ways to surmount are different, the cultural differences, but deep inside every human being has the same aim: no suffering.

[Capealava]

Buddhism In Thailand is also under the governments thumb, much as it is in Burma. It is of course the state religion and under government regulations. Any monkish interference in government policies is seriously looked down upon. Social awareness in Thai Buddhism has no place in Thailand politics.

Religions have been used throughout history to prop up governments and Thailand is no exception. Enlightenment has no place in Parliament. But if you are thinking of Buddhism making everyone happy and accepting of there position in society, that is exactly what the government wants.

Separation of Church and state is one of the westerns world best aspects. But Religion can teach a good life, a moral life and hope it filters into the governance of the people in a fair way. Unfortunately these morals are not followed in Thai politics. Buying merit does not make the man.

[phetaroi]

It seems to me that Thai Buddhism might actually be a barrier to solving the long-term and very serious problems facing the country today, particularly because it's difficult to solve a crisis-level problem when "right speech" impedes an honest discussion of the issues.

Not a single underlying problem has been solved for either the "red shirt" issues or the southern insurgency. Yet, the Prime Minister (whom I happen to think is a very good man) says that Thailand is "back to normal". So, logically, if it's back to normal, then there can't really be a problem that needs solving.

And that is what I have come to believe is one of the most serious shortcomings in Thai society that holds it back from becoming a truly modern nation and the nation full of promise that it could be -- the idea that things will take care of themselves -- and I believe that is deeply rooted in Buddhist beliefs such as extinguishing desire.

Because of the ingrained nature of "right speech", it is deemed offensive to publicly say that we have a serious problem.

Since there is no acknowledgment that there is a serious problem, solutions are not forthcoming.

Since solutions are not forthcoming, animosities continue to simmer beneath the surface...only to boil up again in the future. And in fact, I would say that the animosities of the red shirts must be far more virulent today than they were six months ago.

Could Buddhism "save" Thailand. Yes (although I guess it depends on how you define "save"), but that would assume that every Buddhism behaves as a true Buddhist. I wonder what percent of those who threw molotov cocktails or hand grenades were wearing a Buddhist amulet as they did so?

[Brucenkhamen]

Because of the ingrained nature of "right speech", it is deemed offensive to publicly say that we have a serious problem.

The Thai cultural imperative to save face is a long way off the Buddhist virtue of right speech, right speech is primarily about honesty and integrity whereas in Thai culture lying to save face is expected.

Buddhism can't save Thai society, has any religion ever saved a society?

For a start only a small percentage of people understand it and practice it in a meaningful way, on the other extreme there are those who use religion to control others or gain legitimacy as there always has been.

one of the most serious shortcomings in Thai society that holds it back from becoming a truly modern nation and the nation full of promise that it could be -- the idea that things will take care of themselves -- and I believe that is deeply rooted in Buddhist beliefs such as extinguishing desire.

Yes this could be a problem. In the west our culture is more about getting stuck in and trying to fix things, but how often do we end up making matters worse?

[sabaijai]

Thailand doesn't have a 'state religion.' The Sangha Council regulates the sangha and monasteries but does not interfere with an individual's practice of Buddhism or any other faith.

Buddhism can't save Thai society, has any religion ever saved a society?

As John Lennon famously sang, 'You say that it's the institution, well you know you'd better free your mind instead.'

[Samuian]

Thailand doesn't have a 'state religion.' The Sangha Council regulates the sangha and monasteries but does not interfere with an individual's practice of Buddhism or any other faith.

Buddhism can't save Thai society, has any religion ever saved a society?

As John Lennon famously sang, 'You say that it's the institution, well you know you'd better free your mind instead.'

And this line is highly Enlightening, could almost be a Koan!

[Xangsamhua]

The INEB connection is helpful.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/index.htm

The best in my knowing comes from P.A.Payutto of the "Buddhadhamma", the most venerated and therefore the most non readed book of Thai Culture.

http://reocities.com/Athens/academy/9280/kamma4.htm

The Ven. P.A.Payutto extract is very helpful. I shall print it and look at it more closely, but I was struck by the following:

Responsible social action

All in all, contrary to the widespread image of Buddhism as a passive religion encouraging inaction, responsible social action is rather encouraged in the Buddha's teaching. There are numerous teachings for encouraging social concord, such as the four sangaha vatthu, the Conditions for Social Welfare: dana, generosity; piyavaca, kindly speech; atthacariya, helpful action; and samanattata, impartiality or equal participation.

However, in Buddhism, all action should ideally arise from skillful mental qualities. A seemingly well-intentioned action can be ruined by the influence of unskillful mental states, such as anger or fear, or it can be tainted through ulterior motives. On the other hand, simply to cultivate skillful mental states without resultant social action is not very productive. So we can look at virtue on two levels: on the mental level we have, for example, the Four Sublime States. These are the bases of altruistic action, or, at the least, of harmonious relations on a social level. On the second level we have the external applications of these skillful qualities, such as in the four Conditions for Social Welfare. The two levels of virtue are interrelated.

The Four Sublime States are metta, goodwill, friendliness; karuna, compassion, the desire to help other beings; mudita, sympathetic joy, gladness at the good fortune of others; and upekkha, impartiality or equanimity.

I wonder if someone were to take the party leaders away somewhere quiet and get them to examine themselves in terms of the four Conditions for Social Welfare (above) it would have any effect. Of course there are underpinning socio-economic and cultural factors that inhibit even the best of intentions, but self-examination based on the conditions above must be of some help in establishing a cooperative rather than confrontational approach to healing the country's wounds. In the past, educated Thai people have listened to exemplars like Phra Buddhadasa, Phra Panya, Ajahn Jumnien, Ajahn Man, Ajahn Chah and others and, even if it hasn't stopped them from giving in to craving, the desire to dominate and closed-mindedness, it may well have mitigated these things to some extent. I know that Khun Sulak Sivaraksa has tried to present a Buddhist model for social development, as has His Majesty the King. And I can see that Ven. Payutto has written well, but Thailand's is an oral culture and I don't know who the current influential preachers are and what they're doing while Thailand seethes.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether religious teaching has helped societies or not, but it's certainly feasible that it could, unless we take an historical/dialectical materialist view (a la Marx) to the effect that religion merely reflects the social conditions in which it functions, and is captive to the powerful, having no dynamic or liberatory capacity of its own. If that is the case, there's not much point talking about Buddhism as a moral or any other kind of influence at all

Edited May 31, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[lovenim]

I wonder what percent of those who threw molotov cocktails or hand grenades were wearing a Buddhist amulet as they did so?

I would guess 75% or perhaps almost 100% ... considering that the majority of Thais who consider themselves "Buddhists" do not really live it beyond a few empty gestures that entail wai'ing to the Buddha when they encounter his statue in front of a Wat and "making merit" from time to time to get credit points for the future (this life or the next). It all seems somewhat superstitious, with the Buddha himself idolised and likened to a god who must be appeased - very un-Buddhist, come to think of it, and definitely not in line with his teachings. At the end of the day those amulets are usually seen as tokens of protection from harm and bringers of good luck, not unlike a talisman... were I such a superstitious idolising Buddhist I think I would wear lots of amulets were I to get myself into thick of the violence, just to protect myself from harm. A bit like the taxi drivers who rely on Buddha amulets rather than a seatbelt for road safety. THAT seems to be the essence of the Thai Joe Average's Buddhism - not abstaining from harmful deeds and such.

[lungmi]

The INEB connection is helpful.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/index.htm

The best in my knowing comes from P.A.Payutto of the "Buddhadhamma", the most venerated and therefore the most non readed book of Thai Culture.

http://reocities.com/Athens/academy/9280/kamma4.htm

The Ven. P.A.Payutto extract is very helpful. I shall print it and look at it more closely, but I was struck by the following:

Responsible social action

All in all, contrary to the widespread image of Buddhism as a passive religion encouraging inaction, responsible social action is rather encouraged in the Buddha's teaching. There are numerous teachings for encouraging social concord, such as the four sangaha vatthu, the Conditions for Social Welfare: dana, generosity; piyavaca, kindly speech; atthacariya, helpful action; and samanattata, impartiality or equal participation.

However, in Buddhism, all action should ideally arise from skillful mental qualities. A seemingly well-intentioned action can be ruined by the influence of unskillful mental states, such as anger or fear, or it can be tainted through ulterior motives. On the other hand, simply to cultivate skillful mental states without resultant social action is not very productive. So we can look at virtue on two levels: on the mental level we have, for example, the Four Sublime States. These are the bases of altruistic action, or, at the least, of harmonious relations on a social level. On the second level we have the external applications of these skillful qualities, such as in the four Conditions for Social Welfare. The two levels of virtue are interrelated.

The Four Sublime States are metta, goodwill, friendliness; karuna, compassion, the desire to help other beings; mudita, sympathetic joy, gladness at the good fortune of others; and upekkha, impartiality or equanimity.

I wonder if someone were to take the party leaders away somewhere quiet and get them to examine themselves in terms of the four Conditions for Social Welfare (above) it would have any effect. Of course there are underpinning socio-economic and cultural factors that inhibit even the best of intentions, but self-examination based on the conditions above must be of some help in establishing a cooperative rather than confrontational approach to healing the country's wounds. In the past, educated Thai people have listened to exemplars like Phra Buddhadasa, Phra Panya, Ajahn Jumnien, Ajahn Man, Ajahn Chah and others and, even if it hasn't stopped them from giving in to craving, the desire to dominate and closed-mindedness, it may well have mitigated these things to some extent. I know that Khun Sulak Sivaraksa has tried to present a Buddhist model for social development, as has His Majesty the King. And I can see that Ven. Payutto has written well, but Thailand's is an oral culture and I don't know who the current influential preachers are and what they're doing while Thailand seethes.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether religious teaching has helped societies or not, but it's certainly feasible that it could, unless we take an historical/dialectical materialist view (a la Marx) to the effect that religion merely reflects the social conditions in which it functions, and is captive to the powerful, having no dynamic or liberatory capacity of its own. If that is the case, there's not much point talking about Buddhism as a moral or any other kind of influence at all

Has medical research helped societies? We have old natural medicine, all developed at the time of the Buddha and still useful today. And we have Pharma compagnies with 80 % of useless products, cosmetic drugs for the beauty of already beautiful women. O.K. we stop ethic medicine, we stop Buddha Teaching, the misuse of medicine and religion can continue to kill in the way of the new religion: consumerism.

I don't give up. I'm traditional doctor in a Buddhist Forest Wat. My patients are Hill tribe people, I love them.

[kevozman1]

Yes I do believe they should introduce Buddism to Thailand

in the religious sense as they seem to like to wai at buddha

statues maybe they could actually learn about Buddism.

I asked several Thai people in Thailand if they have heard

of the Dalai Lama. No one I spoke had heard of him! That

would be like a Catholic not knowing the Pope.

[Brucenkhamen]

I asked several Thai people in Thailand if they have heard

of the Dalai Lama. No one I spoke had heard of him! That

would be like a Catholic not knowing the Pope.

No actually it would be like a protestant not knowing the Pope. Theravadin Buddhism in Thailand is a very seperate sect from Tibetan Buddhism and wouldn't recognise the Dalai Lama beyond being a leader of another nation and a really famous Buddhist.

Of course most protestants have heard of the Pope though, so make that of that what you will.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't give up. I'm traditional doctor in a Buddhist Forest Wat. My patients are Hill tribe people, I love them.

Good for you Lungmi.

Kamala Tiyavanich's books are very interesting in their portrayal of the skills of the old village and forest monks and their knowledge of traditional herbal medicine, together with the ways they were part of the lives, hardships and joys of village life.

My wife's leg was saved when she was a teenager (about 45 years ago) by a village monk at Ban Pha Khao, near Vientiane. Her leg was severely ulcerated after an infected mosquito bite and doctors at the French hospital couldn't stop the ulcer from spreading. The monk made a hot poultice of various roots (which she had to collect herself), applied it once and the infection stopped right away. She still has the scar. The monk died a couple of years ago aged about 100.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

I asked several Thai people in Thailand if they have heard

of the Dalai Lama. No one I spoke had heard of him! That

would be like a Catholic not knowing the Pope.

No actually it would be like a protestant not knowing the Pope. Theravadin Buddhism in Thailand is a very seperate sect from Tibetan Buddhism and wouldn't recognise the Dalai Lama beyond being a leader of another nation and a really famous Buddhist.

Of course most protestants have heard of the Pope though, so make that of that what you will.

This is not correct. Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots. The INEB includes all Buddhist schools in a common aim.

[lungmi]

For serious investigation about the problems of Thai-Buddhism I recommend

this link.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/reThinkingKarma.htm

[eggomaniac]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Bhikkhu-Budd...sa-t360491.html

There were certainly other times when Thailand/Siam was in crisis and Buddhadasa made a concerted effort in applying Remedies from the Buddhist warehouse. While I personally love this man's *open minded approach to learning Buddhism, I believe the purpose is for individual spiritual guidance, not temporal and/or political influencing. [*Is he considered Theravadan? It is written his approach is dismissed by dogmatic adherents.]

I do NOT hold the Hindu belief that Rama and Buddha are avatars of Vishnu, however I do believe Vishnu, and others, exist. I believe Vishnu 'favours' Thailand. In the complicated way Gods can 'assist' Vishnu is trying to save Thailand, but man has to finish the job with our free will on the hints and clues that are revealed. All of the packages for a Golden Thailand were placed at the station in the early 1930's but different trains pulled off in different directions to crash and clash for the last 80 years.

I do believe earthly made Buddha combined our Godliness and Free Will in a manner that made Him equal to Celestial made Beings. He set a surprizing example to be emulated. I also believe, because of merit in life and valour in Battle, Vishnu selected Thong Duang for Ramahood, 'appointed' Him for temporal/political guidance.

I believe Vishnu is getting rather impatient at man's inability to recognize the gifts that have been laid out. I guess you can see my answer to the question, "Can Buddhism save Thailand?" is it should not; the Solution is for another department.

Follow Buddha, assist Rama would sum it up.

---

I almost forgot, in terms of the OP's question it therefore does NOT come down to how many Thais are devout Buddhists. The hope for a Golden Future lies in the fact that 95% of Thais are good people, they are well intentioned people, they are hard working people, they are lovers of life and peace.

When I think of those armies of grown men who ride 80CC bikes up and down sois 360 days a year for 10B a ride.... shhhhhhh... better not say it.....

I can tell you who will NOT save Thailand!

[eggomaniac]

For serious investigation about the problems of Thai-Buddhism I recommend

this link.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/reThinkingKarma.htm

You might enjoy this Essay, as well.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/buddhistethics.htm

"Buddhism seems to lack a precise theory and praxis to address the concrete issues of contemporary socio-political suffering and its liberation. Traditional Buddhism provides guidelines for personal moral conduct such as self-restraint, patience, zeal, compassion, generosity, and mindfulness, but these moral concepts need to be reinterpreted in modern context and integrated into a social ethical theory. Buddhadasa's theory of dhammic socialism tends to be too utopian and abstract. Although his theory addresses the issue of "surplus" in a manner similar to Marx's "surplus value," it still needs interpretation and clarification as a social praxis. A comprehensive perspective on socio-political suffering and its liberation from the existing exploitative system under global capitalism, a consciousness-raising process in regard to socio-political suffering and its structure, and the emergence of Buddhist base communities struggling for social justice in solidarity with the poor and oppressed are steps toward the construction of a Buddhist social ethics."

[phetaroi]

This is not correct. Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots. The INEB includes all Buddhist schools in a common aim.

The fact that Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots is close to being irrelevant.

Mormonism, Catholicism, and Southern Baptists all come from the same roots...yet they are extremely distinct religions.

[phetaroi]

I think that the answer to whether or not Buddhism can save Thailand is to look at somewhat similar nations. Did Buddhism save Cambodia? Did Buddhism save Burma?

[lungmi]

This is not correct. Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots. The INEB includes all Buddhist schools in a common aim.

The fact that Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots is close to being irrelevant.

Mormonism, Catholicism, and Southern Baptists all come from the same roots...yet they are extremely distinct religions.

But the main schools of Buddhism are not extremely distinct religions. Look for the INEB.

[camerata]

One post has been deleted. If you haven't got anything to offer other than sarcastic comments, don't bother posting. The forum is about Buddhism and the topic is "Can Buddhism save Thailand?

[Brucenkhamen]

This is not correct. Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots. The INEB includes all Buddhist schools in a common aim.

The fact that Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism have the same roots is close to being irrelevant.

Mormonism, Catholicism, and Southern Baptists all come from the same roots...yet they are extremely distinct religions.

But the main schools of Buddhism are not extremely distinct religions. Look for the INEB.

Not only that but the Tibetans were virtually isolated until about 60 years ago and therefore probably virtually unknown in places like Thailand, they are only well known in the West now because the West has embraced their cause and their religion. Wheras Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of centuries of interaction.

[IMA_FARANG]

Can Buddhisim save Thailand?

Unfortunately, no.

You might as well change that qestion to: Can Christianity save Thailand? Or Hinduisim, or the Catholic Church, or any other religion or belief.

They can't save any country because they can only act in human beings on a one-to-one basis. This is because they spring from the human heart. All religions and religious feeling come from that source, the heart; including Buddhism. So no, religions can't save any mass of people. It has to save them one at a time.

[The Snark]

If I had a coconut for every time I read a discussion about Buddhism... And then the various 'sects' are always brought up.

Does a person who is a 'Buddhist':

Need to go to a Wat / temple / monastery / doodle parlor and hum one note?

Need to know the teachings of the Buddha?

Need to know the meaning of the triple gem? The eightfold path?

Have to get up at 5:00 AM and take a cold shower?

Abstain from sex with other species?

Yodel on alternate Thursdays?

Wear a fish hat?

Dictate what others should think?

Help governments establish laws?

The point is, Buddhism isn't a religion. It is more easily defined by what it isn't.

Can Buddhism save Thailand? Save? From what? It's collective karma?

Buddhism: Learn to listen to that which is not spoken. What Siddartha Gautama suggested can help but isn't mandatory.

"Hey Bubba! Fella here wants 14 kilos of Buddhism and wants to know if we can gift wrap it."

[Xangsamhua]

OK, the original question was really whether a turn to Buddhist-style self-examination and non-attachment to views might be more effective in finding solutions to Thailand’s problems than the blame-game that has been going on for the past five years. Placing this under the broad heading of “Buddhism” may have been a distraction, as “Buddhism” can mean so many things to so many people, and “save” can denote a range of possibilities from “rescue and restore” to “help”.

Of course people have pointed out that religions cannot normally be said to “save” nations, though one could argue that in some cases they may have served a useful purpose. Muhammad’s Islam could be said to have united the Arabs and “saved” them from frequent clan-based blood feuds and the stultifying parochialism of their local cults. One could argue that the vigorous missionary activity of the Anglo-Celtic monks in Western and Central Europe in the 6th – 8th centuries gave the Frankish and Germanic tribes a form of spirituality, moral law and legal code that strengthened those societies. Buddhism, especially through the activities of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, is seen as a civilizing influence in the India of the middle third of the 3rd century BCE. And so on.

What can be seen from these examples, if one will allow them for now, is that their liberatory impact resulted from strong leadership, whether it be that of Muhammad, Ashoka or St Boniface. Leadership really can make a difference, but it has to be strong and it has to be tried. My concern is that there are no strong Buddhist leaders in Thailand at the moment who have an impact. Ajahns Visaro and P.A. Payutto, whose writings have been referred to in this thread, are intellectual and moral leaders, but seem not to have a widespread influence. Phra Dhammachayo (Dhammakaya) is a strong leader, but not the kind to help in the current situation. Samana Photirak (Santi Asoke) is a strong leader and exemplar of practical Buddhism, but is outside the Sangha.

Unlike the Pope or the scholars at Al-Azhar University in Cairo or the Dalai Lama or (God help us!) the Ayatollahs, no one in the Sangha leadership in Thailand seems willing to provide comment or leadership in political and social matters, so the politicians and extra-parliamentary political leaders continue to act in adversarial ways ("Politics is war without bloodshed" - Mao Zedong). While this continues, Buddhism forgoes the opportunity to “save” Thailand or even to guide it at all. Is it because the Sangha here has no credibility among the political class in social and political matters?

Edited June 5, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

I don't give up. I'm traditional doctor in a Buddhist Forest Wat. My patients are Hill tribe people, I love them.

Good for you Lungmi.

Kamala Tiyavanich's books are very interesting in their portrayal of the skills of the old village and forest monks and their knowledge of traditional herbal medicine, together with the ways they were part of the lives, hardships and joys of village life.

My wife's leg was saved when she was a teenager (about 45 years ago) by a village monk at Ban Pha Khao, near Vientiane. Her leg was severely ulcerated after an infected mosquito bite and doctors at the French hospital couldn't stop the ulcer from spreading. The monk made a hot poultice of various roots (which she had to collect herself), applied it once and the infection stopped right away. She still has the scar. The monk died a couple of years ago aged about 100.

Oh yeah. The old Knowledge. 2500 years old. Acuponcture, Anapanasati, Chi Gong, the herbal medecine, Nuad Bo Rarn, Tuina.

Today I met a Hmong, cousin of a patient with a serious stroke three years ago. The local hospital kicked him out after three days, a nurse of the Health Station took him in the Wat, one month a pickup with 10 to 15 people of his Hmong Tribe came every day for treatment (Acuponcture, Tuina) of her chief . Then they disappeared in their montains. One week later his eldest son (BA for ethnic art) came and gave me the classic Hmong trouser. The biggest salary a doctor can have. And today a cousin invites me (3 years after!) to stay in the Hmong village (35km) to continue to take care for some people with paralysis.

My spiritual master is the Doctor of the Buddha.

Jivaka Kumar Bhaccha

Na-A Na-Wa Lokha Payati Vina-Shanti

[lungmi]

OK, the original question was really whether a turn to Buddhist-style self-examination and non-attachment to views might be more effective in finding solutions to Thailand’s problems than the blame-game that has been going on for the past five years. Placing this under the broad heading of “Buddhism” may have been a distraction, as “Buddhism” can mean so many things to so many people, and “save” can denote a range of possibilities from “rescue and restore” to “help”.

Of course people have pointed out that religions cannot normally be said to “save” nations, though one could argue that in some cases they may have served a useful purpose. Muhammad’s Islam could be said to have united the Arabs and “saved” them from frequent clan-based blood feuds and the stultifying parochialism of their local cults. One could argue that the vigorous missionary activity of the Anglo-Celtic monks in Western and Central Europe in the 6th – 8th centuries gave the Frankish and Germanic tribes a form of spirituality, moral law and legal code that strengthened those societies. Buddhism, especially through the activities of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, is seen as a civilizing influence in the India of the middle third of the 3rd century BCE. And so on.

What can be seen from these examples, if one will allow them for now, is that their liberatory impact resulted from strong leadership, whether it be that of Muhammad, Ashoka or St Boniface. Leadership really can make a difference, but it has to be strong and it has to be tried. My concern is that there are no strong Buddhist leaders in Thailand at the moment who have an impact. Ajahns Visaro and P.A. Payutto, whose writings have been referred to in this thread, are intellectual and moral leaders, but seem not to have a widespread influence. Phra Dhammachayo (Dhammakaya) is a strong leader, but not the kind to help in the current situation. Samana Photirak (Santi Asoke) is a strong leader and exemplar of practical Buddhism, but is outside the Sangha.

Unlike the Pope or the scholars at Al-Azhar University in Cairo or the Dalai Lama or (God help us!) the Ayatollahs, no one in the Sangha leadership in Thailand seems willing to provide comment or leadership in political and social matters, so the politicians and extra-parliamentary political leaders continue to act in adversarial ways ("Politics is war without bloodshed" - Mao Zedong). While this continues, Buddhism forgoes the opportunity to “save” Thailand or even to guide it at all. Is it because the Sangha here has no credibility among the political class in social and political matters?

You point it out. Where people n e e d "leaders" they open the door for misuse. When people accept "leaders" because they understand the common aim, and the common aim is the same - then - and only then development is possible. Dialectic communication between "leaders" and "followers" is necessary. Martin Luther King is a good example and José Ramos-Horta in SEAsia.

[The Snark]

The salient point is ethics and morality can be pointed at, taught to a degree, but won't be taken to heart and lived until the individual's dignity allows it. The old 'you can lead a horse to water...' saying.

Enforced ethics and morality leads to complacence and corruption. I mean, isn't this what life is all about? The learning to discern, to reason, and to seek the higher nature in oneself and in others. The moment someone stands up and announces having the perfect path, you get a load of sheep that let someone else do the thinking, and a leader or leaders who decide to interpret the eightfold path in their own words, their own thinking, for everyone.

The only true solution is in the voice of the silence, and it is up to each individual to hear that voice unto it's own measure.