Monastic Dispute Turning Unholy

[svenivan]

From The Nation 2006-11-08

EDITORIAL

Monastic dispute turning unholy

Infighting among Buddhist factions is what prevents badly needed religious reform from taking place

The long-running controversy over whether the Supreme Patriarch, His Holiness Somdet Phra Yanasamvara Suvaddhana Mahathera, at 93, is physically and mentally well enough to discharge his duties has baffled most Buddhists in this country. So too has the question: If not the ailing Supreme Patriarch, who among senior Buddhist monastic leaders should be appointed to work on behalf of the country's main philosophy and religion? Ordinary Buddhists see little point in the wrangling by opposing factions of Buddhist monks and their lay followers over such a matter, which they see as just a practical arrangement.

They may well be right. The highly politicised quarrelling could turn out to be a smokescreen for a more sinister power struggle between two rival sects in Thailand's Theravada Buddhist establishment: Maha Nikaya and Thammayutti Nikaya. Or it could be seen as a contest between reformists and those fighting to maintain the status quo.

One Buddhist faction rejects the opinion of medical experts, claiming that the Supreme Patriarch is healthy enough to perform his duties unaided. They have been insinuating there is a "conspiracy theory" of "ill-intentioned people" seeking to undermine the office of the Supreme Patriarch. The other faction insists that the second-highest ranking monk, Somdet Phra Phutthajarn of Wat Saket, who has been caretaker Supreme Patriarch since July 15, 2004, should continue in his current capacity.

But most Buddhists believe the priority must be on keeping both the office of the Supreme Patriarch and the Sangha Supreme Council - the governing body of Buddhist monks in Thailand - functioning smoothly. Instead of engaging in this rather senseless infighting, activists on both sides, who claim to have the best interest of Buddhism in mind, should concentrate on more pressing problems that are waiting to be discussed and resolved. These include widespread corruption among Buddhist monks and lay administrators of temples. Such issues contribute to a perceived decline in Buddhism and also raise questions about its continued relevance over the longer term.

With corruption so pervasive among monks and lay administrators, and the Sangha Supreme Council beset by incessant infighting, ordinary Buddhists have been frustrated by the lack of progress in the reform initiatives put forward by the Sangha Act amended in 2004. Measures designed to reorganise the Buddhist monastic order to bring Buddhism up to date with rapid social and economic changes, to strengthen its moral authority and to purge corrupt elements from the religious community remain largely unimplemented.

Most disappointingly, only a handful of Buddhist temples have cooperated with the new rules requiring Buddhist temples to conform to sound governance. Even the most rudimentary requirements for abbots and lay administrators to accurately list monastic assets and to keep records of donations and expenses are generally ignored.

For as long as anyone can remember, the business of running Buddhist temples has been entrusted to abbots, who exercise their discretionary powers with the support of committees of lay people who are respected members of the community. This traditional system has worked well in the past, because temples used to serve as community centres, and people used to be more involved in religious affairs.

All this has changed. Even committed Buddhists no longer feel in any way responsible for temples, except maybe to show up to participate occasionally in religious rites, make merit and give donations. Few temples among the tens of thousands around the country are smoothly run or conform to good governance. The huge amount of money donated by the faithful is not always handled by honest custodians.

The problem of temples being badly run and nurturing corruption has been allowed to fester for too long. So much so that we cannot avoid daily reports in the media about Buddhist monks caught amassing great wealth, or becoming entangled in sex scandals. This is not to mention the great many temples of worship that have been turned into dens of iniquity with monks predicting winning lottery numbers and offering amulets for sale in exchange for donations which they pocket.

The future of Buddhism and its continued relevance to Thai society depends on how successfully Thailand's brand of Buddhism can be brought back to the true, essential core of Buddhist values. The time for Buddhist reform is now.

[Grover]

I think Ajahn Maha Boowa has got his eyes on the 'top position' also. In the Dhammayut sect he is the highest ranking 'candidate' with the most rainy seasons & his work promoting the Dharma. However he has not passed his Pali level 9 exam (the highest), making him possibly unqualified.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Grover

[suegha]

So, does this mean that Buddhism is the same as any other 'organised' religion? Full of in-fighting and corruption?

[wix]

So, does this mean that Buddhism is the same as any other 'organised' religion? Full of in-fighting and corruption?

Yes, Buddhism as it is practiced in the real world is not perfect. Another good example of a power struggle is that over the recognition of the 17th Karmapa. Two rival candidates are competing for control of the Karma Kagyu lineage which has a lot of wealth and power. The behaviour of certain people in this conflict certainly doesn't follow what we would think of as Buddhist principles.

I am sure there are numerous other examples.

Regarding the appointment of a new Sangharaja if Thai Buddhism wants to truly reform it should democratically elect the Sangharaja for a limited term. For example, the Sangharaja could be elected for a five year term. Any monk who had completed five rains retreats would be eligible to vote.

[Tony Clifton]

So, does this mean that Buddhism is the same as any other 'organised' religion? Full of in-fighting and corruption?

Have a look at the DMC bunch on tv. Looks more like a cult to me. Have you seen the size of that building and land? Where does all that money come from?

[toptuan]

One one hand, they say "Don't judge a religion by its fallible followers." On the other hand, others say, "The adherents are merely a reflection of the belief system--they are its products." Where is the truth between or in these statements?

[toptuan]

So, does this mean that Buddhism is the same as any other 'organised' religion? Full of in-fighting and corruption?

Oh, another "holier-than-thou" pagan.

Same could be said of ANY human institution: economic, governmental, entertainment, educational, etc. Is it the "system" or the "humans-in-the-system" at fault? Think about it. Then, begrudgingly admit you're part of the problem (assuming the poster is human).

[bankei]

What is happening to Buddhism in Thailand is completely political and unBuddhist.

Sadly at the present time one of the biggest political conflicts among Buddhists in the country is taking place. This wrangling is underscored by a conflict of interest between the two Buddhist denominations of Mahanikaya, the original order of Thai monks with which over 80 per cent of Thai monks are affiliated, and Thammayuttinikaya, the reformed order estabฌlished by King Mongkut in the 19th century. The latter are in the minority but politically more powerful.

Historically, the Thammayuttinikaya denomiฌnation emerged out of a conflict between the abbot of Wat Mahathad and the princely monk who later became King Mongkut, or Rama IV, who was disappointed with the practices, educaฌtion and rituals of the former.

The differences between the two orders has created a bitter rivalry between them. The Ecclesiastical Law of 2505 BE (AD 1962), issued under the dictatorial regime of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, authorised the appointment of a Supreme Patriarch of Thailand as the "king of monks". The Supreme Patriarch rules the Sangha through the Ecclesiastical Council, which comฌprises 21 senior monks in a hierarchy appointed by the King. The King had the absolute right to appoint any highranking patriarch, a socalled somdet, to be the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand.

Previous appointments have long been a disฌappointment to the senior monks who belong to the Mahanikaya denomination. It appears that most of the Supreme Patriarchs appointed by the King have come from the rival order of Thammayuttinikaya.

An amendment to the Ecclesiastical Law was made by the military government of Suchinda Kraprayoon in 1991 (2534 BE). This restricted the choice of the King in appointing the Supreme Patriarch to that of the most senior monk, based on his seniority in the feudalistic hierarchy (senฌiority being determined according to the length of time since the monk had reached a certain posiฌtion within the hierarchy). The monk promoted to the rank of a chaokhun, first among the somdets - who are all abbots of royal temples in Bangkok - is submitted to the King for appointฌment to the most senior position in the Thai Buddhist monkhood.

According to this principle, the only candidate to become the next Supreme Patriarch is Somdet Phra Putthacharn, the abbot of Wat Saket, who belongs to the Mahanikaya denomination. The second candidate is Somdet Phra Maha Theracharn, the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram, also from the Mahanikaya denomination.

The way things stand, it will take generations for a Thammayuttinikaya monk to become qualiฌfied for possible appointment to the position of Supreme Patriarch. However, the situation could dramatically change if the rule is amended to base the qualification of candidates on seniority of ordination: ie, according to the total length of time spent in the monkhood. If this happens, the next candidate to be considered for the position of Supreme Patriarch will be switched to the reformed Thammayuttinikaya order.

The Thai Rak Thai leadership of the previous government was obviously in support of the Mahanikaya denomination, as it is in the majoriฌty. Somdet Phra Putthacharn was promoted to the top position in the Sangha because the Supreme Patriarch was suffering from a chronic illness that had long prevented him from active duty. It was understood that Somdet Phra Putthacharn was next in line to succeed the ailing Supreme Patriarch. However, the coup of September 19 has set the stage for a tug of war between rival facฌtions of monks in Thailand.

Rivals of the controversial Somdet Phra Putthacharn, both lay people and monks from the two Buddhist orders, now want to have him replaced. Supporters of the Thammayuttinikaya order are also seeking to change the rule for appointment of the next Supreme Patriarch in favour of their candidates. Some of the proThammayuttinikaya activists are members of the National Legislative Assembly.

Their efforts are being countered with fierce resistance. Followers of Somdet Phra Putthacharn took action and protested in front of Government House, denouncing the opposition as lacking in legitimacy. Both groups seem adamant and have vowed to fight to retain their power.

It is clear that the military appointed interim government has no clear idea on how to solve the problem. They turned down a proposal for replacement of Somdet Phra Putthacharn with the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram. At the same time, pressure continues to build from supporters of Phra Putthacharn.

However, the Mahanikaya order is fragmentฌed, especially after the abbot of Wat Chanasongkram gave a speech in support of an initiative which would place him in the top posiฌtion.

Most lay Buddhists in Thailand are now conฌfused and feel a sense of hopelessness over the ongoing conflict. The better educated are more concerned that such infighting is eroding the faith of the public. According to the teaching of the Buddha, monks should not covet political power, and feudal hierarchy has no place in Buddhist monasticism.

Neither of the criteria promoted by the two factions for the selection of candidates for the leadership of the Thai Sangha is rooted in Buddhist monasticism. According to the Buddha, the Sangha is a family of monks and nuns who respect each other according to seniority of ordiฌnation. Nevertheless, the Buddha never said that the leader of the Sangha should necessarily be the most senior member of the community.

In fact, the Buddha told his monks, nuns and lay men and women to take responsibility for the religion. There is a huge defect in the Ecclesiastical Law, which is written to impose a feudalistic structure of administration on top of the Sangha and which deprives all nuns and lay Buddhists of the right to get involved. Sadly, Thailand is the only Buddhist country where the study of the Tipitaka, or the canonical literature of Buddhism, is not included in any of the nine levels of monastic education. Buddhism has surฌvived and flourished for over 2,000 years in many countries without support from governments. What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. He studied at Chulalongkorn, Oxford and Harvard universities and received a PhD from Hamburg University. He is a special adviser on Buddhist affairs to the secretarygeneral of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

Mettanando Bhikkhu

http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/09/opi...on_30018494.php

[Grover]

The dhamayut's are fighting with the mahanagais. The mahanagais are infighting with each other. What a mess. So, we have had the tsunami crisis, the bird flu crisis, the political crisis, now the Buddhist crisis?? lets hope we have no angry mobs, this will make Thai buddhism look really bad.

[chownah]

What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

This can be found in Thailand in the Thai forest tradition which follows the teachings of the Buddha more closely.

Chownah

[Grover]

What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

This can be found in Thailand in the Thai forest tradition which follows the teachings of the Buddha more closely.

Chownah

However, Ajahn Maha Boowa (a Dhamayut), who is a forest monk is intimatly involved in this 'crisis'. Not too long ago busloads of his followers and monks descended into BKK to make their voice heard regarding the appointment of the next Sangaracha. Sadly, it seems even the forest tradition is not completely immune from the power plays.

[chownah]

What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

This can be found in Thailand in the Thai forest tradition which follows the teachings of the Buddha more closely.

Chownah

However, Ajahn Maha Boowa (a Dhamayut), who is a forest monk is intimatly involved in this 'crisis'. Not too long ago busloads of his followers and monks descended into BKK to make their voice heard regarding the appointment of the next Sangaracha. Sadly, it seems even the forest tradition is not completely immune from the power plays.

I'm wondering just how involved Ajahn Maha Boowa is in this dispute. I don't really know. Just because some people go to Bangkok and agitate for his promotion does not mean the he is involved....but maybe he is...I really don't know.

As to the forest tradition being immune from power plays.....I think that it is more appropriate to talk about people being involved in power plays and not traditions being involved.....but, just to accomodate your statement I'll just say that the tradition of the Thai forest monasteries seems to me to be against power playing.....I'm talking about the tradition now and not the people......the people who get involved in the Thai forest tradition do not have to pass a test for political correctness nor do they have to pass a yearly screening to make sure that they are adhereing to the things that are taught.....many of them may completely misunderstand some of all of the tradition that they are pursueing.....I don't really know.

Chownah

P.S. Grover, this is the second post you have made talking about Maha Boowa and the power plays.....do you have some special information or attitude about him?

Chownah

Edited November 13, 2006 by chownah

[Grover]

What Thailand needs is not another amendment of the law but a radical reform to revive the longforgotten spirit of the teaching of the Lord Buddha.

This can be found in Thailand in the Thai forest tradition which follows the teachings of the Buddha more closely.

Chownah

However, Ajahn Maha Boowa (a Dhamayut), who is a forest monk is intimatly involved in this 'crisis'. Not too long ago busloads of his followers and monks descended into BKK to make their voice heard regarding the appointment of the next Sangaracha. Sadly, it seems even the forest tradition is not completely immune from the power plays.

I'm wondering just how involved Ajahn Maha Boowa is in this dispute. I don't really know. Just because some people go to Bangkok and agitate for his promotion does not mean the he is involved....but maybe he is...I really don't know.

As to the forest tradition being immune from power plays.....I think that it is more appropriate to talk about people being involved in power plays and not traditions being involved.....but, just to accomodate your statement I'll just say that the tradition of the Thai forest monasteries seems to me to be against power playing.....I'm talking about the tradition now and not the people......the people who get involved in the Thai forest tradition do not have to pass a test for political correctness nor do they have to pass a yearly screening to make sure that they are adhereing to the things that are taught.....many of them may completely misunderstand some of all of the tradition that they are pursueing.....I don't really know.

Chownah

P.S. Grover, this is the second post you have made talking about Maha Boowa and the power plays.....do you have some special information or attitude about him?

Chownah

The forest tradition is one of the best things to come out of Thai Buddhism IMO. Ajahn Maha Boowa is one of the strongest and spiritually advanced monks around IMO. However, I don't think he is perfect. When bus-loads of HIS monks were sent to BKK to 'protest', it spells a message in no uncertain terms that he is involved.

I didn't really want to go any further in this direction, but Ajahn Maha Boowa is the highest ranking monk in the forest tradition. As you know, his teacher was Ajahn Mun. By virtue of his many rainy seasons he is also one of the highest ranking monks in the Dhammayut sect. From his high status, you cannot completely disentangle him from the forest tradition or the Dhammayut sect.

I find Thai Buddhist politics interesting, and i'm not motivated out any malice towards Ajahn Maha Boowa. Power and Politics and all that goes with it is in the Thai blood. I'm disappointed but not suprised.

[khaojao]

The forest tradition is one of the best things to come out of Thai Buddhism IMO. Ajahn Maha Boowa is one of the strongest and spiritually advanced monks around IMO. However, I don't think he is perfect. When bus-loads of HIS monks were sent to BKK to 'protest', it spells a message in no uncertain terms that he is involved.

I didn't really want to go any further in this direction, but Ajahn Maha Boowa is the highest ranking monk in the forest tradition. As you know, his teacher was Ajahn Mun. By virtue of his many rainy seasons he is also one of the highest ranking monks in the Dhammayut sect. From his high status, you cannot completely disentangle him from the forest tradition or the Dhammayut sect.

I find Thai Buddhist politics interesting, and i'm not motivated out any malice towards Ajahn Maha Boowa. Power and Politics and all that goes with it is in the Thai blood. I'm disappointed but not suprised.

assumption is a dangerous affair. pls be careful.

[Grover]

assumption is a dangerous affair. pls be careful.

sure. do you mind clarifying your statement? what specifically in my post are you referring to? and when you use the words "be careful" and "dangerous" what do you really mean?

Edited November 13, 2006 by Grover

[chownah]

Grover,

I would admit that if many monks from his monastary promote him it is an indication that he might be involved....but it does not necessarily mean that he is involved. To conclusively show that he is involved you would need to show evidence that he at least encourages this activity. My view is that Maha Boowa might have no opinion on the matter of what the monks from his temple do on their own time...I could definitely be wrong on this and maybe he's in it up to his eyeballs but I'm just saying that so far your evidence is just circumstantial in my opinion.

Chownah

Edited November 13, 2006 by chownah

[Grover]

Grover,

I would admit that if many monks from his monastary promote him it is an indication that he might be involved....but it does not necessarily mean that he is involved. To conclusively show that he is involved you would need to show evidence that he at least encourages this activity. My view is that Maha Boowa might have no opinion on the matter of what the monks from his temple do on their own time...I could definitely be wrong on this and maybe he's in it up to his eyeballs but I'm just saying that so far your evidence is just circumstantial in my opinion.

Chownah

Busloads of monks from Ajahn Maha Boowa's temple coming down to BKK to 'make their voice heard' has happened at least twice in recent times. I've never actually seen the 'gatherings' first hand, but I have been told from respectable, high level monks (both mahanagai and dhammayut) that this in fact did occur for these very reasons. I've also seen a small booklet in Thai on this matter.

Ajahn Maha Boowa must be connected to this, or at least giving his silent approval. After all it's the monks from his temple. And its happened at least twice. And it's obviously organised. Unfortunatly I don't know what Ajahn Maha Boowa has publicly said on the matter, but the actions speak pretty loudly, and from what I believe, pretty clearly.

[Grover]

Chownah, let me just add that this whole dispute looks terrible for Thai Buddhism. The last thing the Sangha needs is a 'crisis of faith' from the lay community. From my experience, the monks I have talked to on this topic are somewhat reluctant to discuss it. I had to ask direct questions. The people who know about what is going on, generally don't want to discuss it because they know it is wrong for monks to fight in this manner, and talking about it just seems to make things look as bad as they really are.

About the whole Ajahn Maha Boowa thing, if you are friends with a monk in the know, ask for yourself. I will do the same. I would like to know what Ajahn Maha Boowa has said (if anything) publicly about this topic.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Grover

[sabaijai]

One thing to keep in mind here is that the original post is an editorial, not a news report, and beyond the facts stated in the first paragrahs, much of it simply reflects one writer's opinions.

I don't see how any writer, for example, can state 'Few temples among the tens of thousands around the country are smoothly run or conform to good governance,' without extensive direct experience of those tens of thousands of temples ...

[khaojao]

assumption is a dangerous affair. pls be careful.

sure. do you mind clarifying your statement? what specifically in my post are you referring to? and when you use the words "be careful" and "dangerous" what do you really mean?

hi...i'm not pointing at anything specific in your posts. just a friendly advice. i apologise if u have taken offense.

[Grover]

assumption is a dangerous affair. pls be careful.

sure. do you mind clarifying your statement? what specifically in my post are you referring to? and when you use the words "be careful" and "dangerous" what do you really mean?

hi...i'm not pointing at anything specific in your posts. just a friendly advice. i apologise if u have taken offense.

why do you assume that? i had a bit of a chuckle actually !

[bankei]

This is not the first time Acharn Maha Boowa has dabbled in politics. Back a few years ago during the financial crisis he was campaigning for people to donate gold to 'save' Thailand. I think they raised over a ton of gold! After it was collected there was some sort of dispute in that he didn't want to hand it over unless the government could guarantee it would be used in a certain way.