The Nation: Editorial on Buddhist-Nationalist Movement

EDITORIAL

Keep Buddhism from exploiters

The Nation

Manipulative forces seeking to have faith declared the national religion in charter must not be allowed to succeed


The Surayud government, the Council for National Security, and the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) have found themselves under mounting pressure by some very vocal Buddhist groups, including immodest saffron-robed monks, to name Buddhism as the state religion in the new constitution. They must not give in to this unreasonable demand, which will not benefit Buddhism in any way and has the potential of alienating followers of other faiths and thereby disrupting social harmony. Not even the tacit threat by these militant Buddhists to campaign for the rejection of the charter if their demand is not met should deter them from firmly adhering to the principle of keeping religious faith out of state affairs. The majority of tolerant, sensible Buddhists must not be swayed by the irresponsible rhetoric of these self-styled defenders of Buddhism, who are motivated by an unhealthy form of nationalism and paranoia.


Continued



I've already blogged on this, but Hobby brought it up, so I decided to leave a few comments.

Personally, I really don't care one way or the other. The arguments on both sides make a mockery out of Buddhism.

Thais aren't Buddhists and Buddhism isn't a religion, so incorporating Buddhism into the constitution as the official religion is ridiculous.

Thais for the most part are cultists. They are not Buddhists, but follow a cult of the Buddha(and other gods and religious symbols), and the Sangha is nothing but a priesthood that administers the cult.

Some monks want Buddhism as the official national cult because they think that it will sustain their feudal privileges. Others want Buddhism as the national cult for cultural reasons Just having this type of mentality proves that these monks are nothing but charlatans in orange robes.

However, with all this being said, I think that having a real debate about the state of Buddhism in Thailand is good. I may think the arguments on both sides are stupid, but I have nothing against the debate itself.

Unfortunately, The Nation and The Bangkok Post have decided to turn this into another us vs. them discussion instead of transforming it into a debate about the state of Buddhism in Thailand and the cult's relation to Thai politics.

Another thing that troubles me about this editorial is that The Nation's editors mock the other side for its right-wing nationalist fervor in relation to Buddhism, yet The Nation unapologetically jumps on the right-wing reactionary bandwagon when it comes to defending the Bumibol cult.

In other words, The Nation is quick to argue that the Bumibol cult(the monarchy) is part and parcel of Thai identity and it should be defended legally and culturally, but why do these editors deride the Buddhist-nationalists who want the same protection and acknowledgment for Buddhism? Isn't the Buddha cult even more important to Thai identity than the monarchy? I would argue that it is.

If somebody said to me that they want to integrate the cult of Buddha and the cult of Bumibol into our constitutional system, then that would make sense, because most people believe in these cults. When you eliminate the words religion and monarchy and substitute the word cult, it actually makes the Buddha cult and Bumibol cult more defensible because then they are not confused with religion and monarchy.

Is it possible to have a debate the separates the truth from the symbolism? Probably not. But at least acknowledging the distinctions might be helpful.

Bangkok Post: Interesting Opinion Piece Against Making Buddhism the State Religion

Not in need of 'status crutch'

Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Prasong Soonsiri is correct when he points out that Buddhism does not need to be labeled the national religion


By PHRA PAISAN VISALO

The decline in morality and continued disarray of Buddhism over the past several decades have prompted many Buddhists to try to strengthen the religion. One of the measures has been a call that Buddhism be declared the official national religion in the new constitution, whose first draft will be finished today. In the past, Buddhism was an inseparable part of Thai life, history and culture. Today, however, Thai people live a life that is increasingly separated from Buddhist teachings. The proof is in the sharp rise in crime, widespread corruption, domestic violence especially against women and children, proliferation of gambling, promiscuity and the unprecedented obsession with occult practices and talismans.

These "problems" have always existed, long before the modern era.

All these raise the question: Is Buddhism still part and parcel of Thai life?

There is nothing wrong with the campaign to name Buddhism as our state religion. The problem is that we can't make it true by writing a passage down in the constitution.

Suppose we had a new constitution with Buddhism codified as the state religion today, do you believe that crime, rape or corruption cases would go away? Do you believe Thailand would cease to be a paradise for the flesh trade? Do you believe people would stop killing one another?

The only difference would be an increased sense of puzzlement among foreigners or people who uphold different religions: if Buddhism, which preaches compassion and peace, was made the national religion, why were Thais still doing violent and vile things?

Continued

I really don't see how naming Buddhism the state religion will change anything one way or another. In the end, it doesn't make a difference. And I think any person analyzing this from a truly Buddhist perspective would argue that the notion of making Buddhism a "national religion" is ludicrous. Is Buddhism really a religion or even a faith? And what does Buddhism have to do with nationality?

Those monks and Buddhist-nationalists who are pushing for this national religion nonsense are actually making a mockery out of the Buddha's teaching.

Thailand has a long history of being a place of religious tolerance. It should stick to that legacy.

Mettananando Bhikku Speaks out Against Feudal Thai Sangha

Nationalists tap a source of empty pride

The writer argues that Buddhism in Thailand is in need of radical change, but definitely not through the grandiose status of a National Religion

By METTANANDO BHIKKHU

In every change there is always a chance. This saying is true not only in business, but also for Buddhist nationalists in Thailand who are trying to make Buddhism a national religion under a new constitution that is being drafted. At present it seems the winds of change are blowing in their favour, but they have not considered the full implications of appointing Buddhism as the National Religion, which would give empty pride to the majority of Thais who, sadly, have little awareness of what is going on in their own religion.

The nomination of a National Religion is not only undemocratic; it would be oppressive to other equally nationalist Thais who are not Buddhists and hurt the peace process in the South. And it would mean nothing, in practice, for Buddhist monks under the oppressive Ecclesiastical Act of BE 2505 (1962) which was issued during the military dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, based on the assumption of Buddhism as Thailand's national religion.

According to the Lord Buddha, the Sangha or the Buddhist Community, is the family of monks and nuns who respect each other according to their seniority of ordination. It serves not only as an institution for spiritual development with healthcare and freedom of education, it also has system of regulations independent of the state.

The Buddhist community has survived for over 2,000 years in many countries without support from government.

There is a huge defect in the Ecclesiastical Act, which was written to impose a feudalistic structure of administration on top of the Sangha, wherein the once universal brotherhood among monks has been eroded and their rights as citizens of Thailand sacrificed to the security of the feudal hierarchy of their superiors.

Under this Act, all Thai monks are ruled under a feudal system, another state within the kingdom wherein abbots serve as state officers and they have authority to rule over their temples. A rotation of positions is not included in this system.

One outcome of this law is seen in the Thai language: the original meaning of Sangha as a ''community'' has been lost. Now the word ''sangha'' in Thai means an ''individual monk''.

Unbelievably, in Thailand where monks are highly respected, under this feudalistic law monks who apply for citizen ID cards at any local office of the government are threatened with being defrocked.

Also, monks have no right to apply for passports without consent from each member of their ecclesiastical hierarchy, which normally takes months to complete before the application form can be forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Monks who are liberal, reformist, or those who disagree with any policy of the Ecclesiastical Council risk getting no consent for their passports, and thus no freedom of movement.

They are also barred from communicating through any form of state-run public media.

Taking comfort in the feudal culture of the Thai clergy, the Ecclesiastical Council of Thailand never endorses any bills, document or policies of the United Nations which endorses rights or equality among people.

The clergy's oppressive system is not its only problem. The monks' education system also needs much improvement. Currently, there is no teaching of Thai culture, society, history or geography in the ecclesiastical syllabus. All these subjects have been classified by the monastic council as merely secular.

While Pali literature is promoted by the Ecclesiastical Council, the only text is an archaic one on Pali grammar composed by a princely monk, formatted like the Victorian English grammar book, making it extremely difficult for students to comprehend. This text also prevents them from understanding Pali grammar as taught in other Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Burma. Instead of studying the Tripitaka, the canonical literature of Buddhism, the Ecclesiastical Council views that the Tripitaka is too holy for anyone to study or interpret. With this reason, they include only commentaries, mostly written by the monks of Mahavihara temple in Sri Lanka in the 5th-10th centuries AD as their set texts, second-hand literature written 1,000 years after the Buddha.

Up till now there has been no attempt by any government of Thailand nor the Ecclesiastical Council to change the syllabus because it is bound to the old, feudal royal ties. Unlike the Tripitaka, the commentaries have no room for radical analysis or criticism. They focus mainly on defending the Buddhist faith and glorifying Lord Buddha by miracles and supernaturalism. These stories do not encourage monks to be aware of their social responsibility, blaming all vicissitudes of life on past karma or conduct.

The impact of such commentarial literature is present and clear in every Theravada country: status quos are endorsed; women are seen as inferior creatures; all inequalities in society are seen as displays of the Law of Karma and all victims deserve their fate and humility; all this makes social development planning almost impossible.

It is not surprising that instead of being a religion of peace and wisdom, Buddhism in Thailand fosters supernaturalism. Many high-ranking monks in Bangkok are astrologers, masters of the occult arts or entrepreneurs in the amulet industry, making Thailand one of the world's largest amulet producers. The amulet market, also controlled by the Ecclesiastical Council in Thailand, is as lucrative as that of the underground lottery: billions of baht circulate in this business daily, and it is all tax-free.

Buddhism in Thailand is in need of radical change _ but not through the grandiose status of a National Religion. Rather, we need a separation of Church and State, so that Buddhism can be freed from governmental control and the feudal lords of the Ecclesiastical Council. It will be good not only for Buddhists, but for the development of democracy in Thailand.

Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. He is special adviser on Buddhist affairs to the secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

This is an extremely important article that probably nobody will read.

Notice how what is most important to the Thai Sangha is keeping its feudal privileges and right-wing politics. And while it is doing those things, the Sangha is rotting from the inside from hypocrisy, greed, sex scandals and a lot of mindless hocus pocus. It does nothing to very little for the spiritual growth and development of the Thai people.

It resembles the real world, doesn't it?

There are many battles going on in Thailand right now.

The right-wing reactionaries are winning, because ironically most progressives are right-wing reactionaries also.

Will Thailand continue to be a feudal society with liberal pretensions?

What will be the catalyst for a real social revolution?

Will the last 70 years of pretense, lies and cover up eventually come crashing down on Thai society's head like a ton of bricks?

Will the monarchy/military/state's policy of not mentally, socially, economically and politically preparing the Thai people for the future end up destroying Thailand in the end?

When will the Thais get that feudal social structures and right-wing nationalism may make a lot of people feel good about themselves but it does nothing to transform the people in dealing with real world problems, globalization, democratic politics and foreign affairs.

Thailand really has only three ways to go: Denial until things are destroyed from neglect, corruption, and self-delusion, enlightenment and transformation, or the dark path of nihilism.