Re: Pali grammar/education in Thailand

Robert Kirkpatrick,

  It seems that we agree --i.e., about the issues in the article about which
you controvert its author.
  *However*, you said that you disagreed with *all* of the article's
conclusions --and it seems that you either agree with (or have omitted to
comment on?) the conclusions I drew attention to, namely:
    (1) The modern Thai-Pali grammars/textbooks in use since Rama V are
problematic --or at least represent a significant departure from the
Kaccayana-centred traditions of teaching Pali in Burma.
    (2) This is symptomatic of the type of problems arising from the active
involvement/interference of the "Blue Blood" caste of modern Thailand --as
the author of the article put it, the intersection of "Feudal" power
structures with the proper functioning of the sangha.
  There is a third important issue that the article raises, and it is indeed
an echo of the issues raised by Buddhadasa (being in turn derived from a Sri
Lankan critique dating back to Dhammapala and his generation):
    (3) The hierarchy of modern Thai orthodoxy "Discourages" the reading of
primary source sutta material by requiring that all examinations are based
on the content of the commentarial glosses.
  The third issue is indeed a weighty one --and I do not think that many
Westerners understand what is "at stake" here.  From an outsider's
perspective it seems as if there's a clique of bourgeois modernizers (both
in Sri Lanka and, more recently, in Thailand) who have an inexplicable
distaste for the commentaries.  The reality is a more nuanced struggle --and
in Thailand the flashpoint has been (1) the institution of the examinations,
and (2) the dissolution of the Thammayut Nikaya's separate examinations (the
latter were based on primary source knowledge of the Vinaya --which many
justifiably considered to be more worthy of memorization than the versions
of the Jataka stories found in the Dhp-A! [commentary to the Dhammapada]). 
Both of these are *modern* historical events --and do not represent some
kind of "traditional" Buddhism to which "modernizers" (like Buddhadasa)
relate as outsiders.
    The gap between the actual content of the primary source (e.g., the
Dhammapada or the Abhidhammapitaka) and the (often Jataka-derived) stories
artifically associated with the text through commentaries or even later
sub-commentaries is sometimes very deep, and very broad.  I think it is
quite wrong to suppose that it is only a "modern" concern to emphasise the
greater importance of the primary source.  In modern Thailand, knowledge of
the Abhidhamma-pitaka is especially filtered through the mythology of
sub-commentaries and interpretations --as Buddhadasa said, it is a "Rat's
nest" that modern Thais have made out of the Abhidhamma (not the
Buddhavacana itself) that was the object of his life-long criticism.  Many
Westerners mistake this for an actual attack on the value of the Abhidhamma
and the commentaries as such.
  Again, in case you think this complaint is simply the intrusion of "Modern,
western, scientific perspectives", I can point to one very palpable
illustration of how far the interpretation has veered from the original
Pali, and that is the recitation of the Abhidhamma to summon ghosts and
"Communicate with the dead" in various Thai festivals.  I think that this
would raise the eyebrow of even the most traditional Abhidhamma scholars of
Burma --i.e., it would surprise sincere, Pali-literate monks, who have no
"modernizing" agenda (but who are also culturally alien to the accretions of
Thai tradition).
  On a very clear, very fundamental issue of the vinaya such as assigning
rank to monks based on their royal bloodline, caste, wealth, or the
influence of their family, I *do not* see how the categories of "modern" or
"scientific" apply.  There is no subtle question of interpretation at stake
here --just a blatant, fundamental corruption of the discipline that has
come to be called "Orthodox" by the authorities currently in power.  I do no
unfairly single out Thailand on this issue --but it is noteworthy that the
corruption was (in effect) carried back to Sri Lanka in the form of the
"Siam Nikaya", being the first sect/order there to define its membership by
caste/bloodline.  But I will not digress about corruption in Sri Lanka --for
it is another topic.
  Finally, I have to note that there is almost nothing ancient in the Thai
adaptations of Theravada Buddhism.  There is no sense in which the Thais
could be called Theravada before the 13th century --and most of the
prominent features of the modern cult of Thai Buddhism have a much later
date still.  The first attempts at constructing a Thai Ramayana date from
the Chakri Dynasty --and this became a major public cult only circa Rama
III.  The artificiality and late-origin of such traditions as worshipping a
three-headed Brahma (looking nothing like any Brahma to be found in India!)
are a startling contrast to any of the older, more continuous religious
traditions elsewhere in the region --i.e., Cambodia and Burma --although I
use the latter names only as toponyms (not as ethnic groupings --as we would
then have to distinguish Mon, Champa, etc. etc.).
  In short, it is hardly surprising that the minority of Thai monks who
actually read the original Pali should be a bit startled at how far the use
made of the same sources has drifted from its meaning in modern Thailand. 
And who, really, is to say to such erudite monks that they ought instead to
be over-awed by the value of "tradition" instead?  I think the latter is a
most un-Buddha-like sentiment --and a defensive one-- to which only a small
number of authority figures cling.
  The controversies raised by such critics of the currently ruling orthodoxy
are very worthy of consideration and reconsideration; one can hardly say
that these are quibbles over minor points of the Vinaya, such as (proudly)
illustrate the history of orthodoxy in Burma (e.g., 200 years of debate over
wearing the robe on one shoulder or two, etc.).

E.M.

> Dear E. M.
>  The whole article reads as if the venerable has
> insights into the Dhamma  beyond those of the
> Theravada tradition. He disparages Buddhaghosa and the
> Mahavihara, he thinks his "critical analysis" can
> detect right and wrong. Unfortunately far from being
> rare- as the article implies- this obeisance to the
> God of western scientific methodolgy and ideas is
> widespread in Thailand and growing, one only has to
> look at the popularity of books by Buddadasa.
> Just another sign of the eventual disappearance of the
> sasana.
> His disbelief in Pali/magadha as being the Buddha's
> language is bizarre (but bound to find adherents).
> Robert



--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
Just as the creeper overspreads a Sal-tree and destroys it, the man who
allows his wickedness to overcome him, suffers as much as his enemy would
have him suffer.
Random Dhammapada Verse 162