Re: Pali grammar/education in Thailand

Hi E.M.
I was in a hurry so sorry for not responding properly
to your last mail. As you point out I didn't reply to
all of it.
--- navako <navako@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

===============
This is hard to evaluate. I know one Thai (mr.
Somporn) who has done translations of the
Abhidhammathasangaha, the Netti-pakarana and other
books. he is on teh government committee overseeing
Tipitaka translations and I know they take a great
deal of care. No doubt there are room for improvements
(many).


>    (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).

===========
This example about commnunicating with the dead you
give can't be used to discrdeit Abhidhmma and the
commentaries because they are deeply against ritual -
especially such as you mention above. I am sure you
will find no such reference anywhere in the
commentaries.

  It is encouraging to hear that the higher ups in the
sangha are requiring monks to understand the suttas
based on what the ancient commentaries say rather than
their own interpretations, guesses, or views of
Buddhadasa and his followers. It is worrying that you
write against the Jatakaatthakatha, a very helpful and
profound text.
===============
>  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.
======================

The article said something about there being no
precedent for any royal involvement in choosing Sangha
leaders. However King Asoka himself was the instrument
invloved in cleaning the Sangha 2300 years ago and
encouraged his son Mahinda to go to Sri lanka (where
he was the leader of the monks)...


Robertk