Re: Pali grammar/education in Thailand

Robert Kirkpatrick,

Again, I think we agree more than we disagree --or else you omit to comment
on points about which we may differ.

A little bit of confusion on a few points that I feel I should clarify
before moving on:

> This is hard to evaluate. I know one Thai (mr.
> Somporn) who has done translations of the
> Abhidhammathasangaha, the Netti-pakarana and other
> books...

This is, strictly speaking, not related to the point I was making; I was
specifically commenting on the central textbook used in teaching (and
testing) Thai monks on their Pali --which is the composition of one of the
princely sons of Rama IV --I believe he also penned the "official" Thai
interpretation of the Vinaya, of which I used to own an English translation
(I donated it to the library).  The full royal title of the monk in question
was reported in the article I posted --and the question of "significant
digression" from Kaccayana, etc., was directed to this particular text, not
the sum total of all translation efforts in Thailand.  The specific text has
been reported to be problematic by a number of people "in the know", and the
article provided some interesting remarks about the nature of the problem. 
I think one significant comment on the quality of Pali being learnt from the
official method came to me from Peter Skilling, who basically stated that
the only monks really learning Pali were doing so by non-orthodox/non-exam
methods (either subsequent to or instead of the orthodox route) --such as
the Burmese method still practiced at Wat Ta Ma Oh.  The latter is
Kaccayana, not "The King's Kaccayana" --the difference between the two being
the substance of what I was trying to draw attention to.  Other, more recent
and ongoing works by the translation committee --be what they may-- are
(strictly speaking) spurious to the question of the quality of the grammar,
pedagogy, and examination system through which the majority of Thai monks
are "processed".

> This example about commnunicating with the dead you
> give can't be used to discrdeit Abhidhmma and the
> commentaries ...

You seem here to have (180 degrees) misinterpreted the meaning of my
statement.  I was trying to state that neither I nor Buddhadasa felt that
the Abhidhammapitaka was "bad", but rather that cultural accretions (that
are not based in the text) such as communicating with the dead are clear
signals as to what a mess has been made of "interpreting" the Abhidhamma.  I
know full well that the Abhidhamma (especially the 7th book, the K.V.) is
explicitly opposed to witchcraft of various kinds, and contains refutations
of many folk-beliefs contemporary with its authorship (e.g., that the Buddha
was 20 feet tall).

> ... because they are deeply against ritual -
> especially such as you mention above.

Yes, THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I CHOSE THIS EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE MY POINT.  It
is a clear case of the Thai "interpretation" widely diverging from the
primary source text --and, yes, that Thai interpretation is inculcated in
the monastic system of education.  Thus, your statement is posed as if to
contradict me, but precisely what I was stating is that the "modern"
emphasis on a return to the source text *does not* discredit the text in
question --although many traditional/ritualists depict (i.e., misrepresent)
their opponents in the other camp in this manner precisely because they hold
such beliefs.  Thus, if you actually believe that chanting the summaries of
the Abhidh. can summon the dead, you would regard someone who contradicts
the point as "discrediting" the text (i.e., because they discredit the
ritual); from our shared perspective, someone like Buddhadasa *is not*
discrediting the Abhidhamma!  He is just trying to insist on reading and
understanding the source text --and hopefully basing the religion of
Buddhism on that instead of crass superstition.

>  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 ...

I really wonder if this is an informed opinion --i.e., in contrast to
Mettanando (i.e., the monk who authored the article that you're disagreeing
with), do you have any direct knowledge of the content of the examinations
(and how they relate to the commentaries *or* the primary text)?  I have
read several studies, from several angles, including quotations from the
examinations --I feel I'm about as well informed on the problem as I can be
without sitting the exams (or reading the originals in Thai).  You seem to
be taking an unexamined, dogmatic position on the grounds that "The
commentaries are good --therefore any exam based on the commentaries are
good".  This is just as problematic as to say "Plato is good, therefore an
exam about Plato must be good" --obviously, it is possible for an exam to be
badly flawed, or to relate in a problematic way to the source text,
irrespective of the "goodness" of the source text in question.  In the
instance of the devolution of the Thai examination system, there is a
significant difference between testing on Sutta content (or Vinaya content)
and the King's official interpretation thereof --which is a selective
mishmash that is not always well rooted in the commentaries *or* the
Buddhavacana.

I disagree with you utterly, and think it is absurd to generalize about all
commentaries being of equal value.  I recall a sutta that begins with the
Buddha wandering about a series of Kutis, thinking to himself "Do many monks
live here?" twice, then asking another monk aloud, "Say, do many monks live
around here?"; at this point the commentary stipulates that because the
Buddha was all-knowing, it is impossible that he actually had any doubt as
to the precise number of monks living there, and that he only pretended not
to know (even in asking himself!) in order to instigate the discussion that
follows --and that he knew in advance (with his future-seeing eye) would
follow.  Clearly, in such a case, the sentiment and real content of the
commentary is very different from the substance of the source text --and
shows an additional layer of "deification" intersecting with an original
text in which the Buddha appears as a more "naturalistic" human figure. 
There are numerous other texts (inclduing commentaries) in which the
opposite view is taken, i.e., that the Buddha being "all knowing" simply
meant that he had fully comprehended samsara and nibbana, not that he had
arithmatical precision in knowing every triviality on earth --but if we
treat all commentaries as inviolable (simply because they "are"
commentaries!) it will lead to many absurdities becoming entrenched.

Finally, there is nothing "modern" about regarding Buddhavacana as being of
greater importance than 5th century opinions about the Buddhavacana.  If you
don't know the Patimokkha, you can't practice it --and the official (Royal)
Thai gloss on the Patimokkha seems to diverge from both the letter and the
spirit of the original in many respects.  The latter has been translated
into English.  Thus, e.g., it stipulates that the Patimokkha rule against
teaching the Dhamma to someone bearing a knife or sword doesn't actually
apply to an aristocrat or a Sikh wearing a weapon "To show a martial spirit"
(a convenient interpretation, as Rama V, VI, & VII had taken to wearing a
sword, in the fashion of European aristocrats!) --in fact, the rule is
virtually nullified by the official interpretation.  I disagree with this
"commentary" utterly; obviously, the rule against teaching to someone
wearing a sword is meant to be applied in the same way as the rule against
teaching someone holding an umbrella (NB: a sign of royal blood in ancient
India!) or the two rules against teaching someone wearing shoes.

> It is worrying that you
> write against the Jatakaatthakatha, a very helpful and
> profound text.

When did I write "against" it?  It is certainly a popular part of the Pali
literature, but it is very much a separate text from the Dhammapada --and
often the interpretations and contextualizing stories it imposes on the
verses are quite alien to the purposes of the source text --especially where
we can trace the verse back to an earlier usage elsewhere in the Suttapitaka
(i.e., prior to the composition of the Dhammapada itself --which wasn't even
originally composed in Pali, but represents a post-canonical collection of
verses).  Will you now say that I am "against" the Dhammapada?  Is knowing
something about a text a form of opposition to it?  Most likely it is.  Well
then, I am opposed to everything --and whatever I learn about comes into
opposition to me.

> ... and
> encouraged his son Mahinda to go to Sri lanka (where
> he was the leader of the monks)...

Risible.  Mahinda was the first Buddhist monk to set foot on Sri Lanka --he
was the first missionary and senior-most monk on the island thereafter. 
This is not related to teenage Royal monks assuming positions of superior
authority to older, sometimes better educated monks, the day after they
matriculate, because of their Royal blood in modern Thailand.  Obviously,
following the Vinaya, a poor Issan farmer who has been a monk for 20 rains
should be superior in rank to a Blue Blood in his first year --but if the
latter is assigned "Abbot-hood" or some other title/position of practical
authority (often involving handling money on behalf of the sangha ... don't
even get me started) he is in a position to lord his authority over elder
monks --and so the caste system that exists in society (outside the sangha)
is reproduced inside the sangha.  Have you read the Vinaya's statements on
the caste system?  Wait, why go so far afield?  Why don't *you* explain to
*me* what Mahinda's mission to Sri Lanka has to do with the Royal blood
gaining higher rank for monks in modern Thailand?  Go on, convince me that
this has a shred of legitimacy in the Theravada tradition, R.K., I'm tired
of being the only one talking about the Vinaya in this discussion.

E.M.

--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
As rust sprung from iron eats itself away when arisen, even so his own deeds
lead the transgressor to states of woe.
Random Dhammapada Verse 240