Re: Pali grammar/education in Thailand

Dear Eisel,

My own assessment of the weaknesses of monastic education in
Thailand differs somewhat from that of Phra Mettanando. I
did complete the Nak Tham course back in the 1980's and have
also sat in on Pali classes taught according to the national
Parien curriculum (though without taking the exams). I think
Mettanando focusses on rather trifling matters and misses
the most important flaw of all: that the monks just don't
study enough texts. It is absurd that a Thai monk can
complete the nine-year Parien course and so be ranked as a
top scholar, without having read even a single Nikaaya of
the Sutta Pi.taka, nor any of the seven books of the
Abhidhamma. But I will write more about this tomorrow. For
now, just a few comments on your latest post:

> 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.

Do you mean reciting the maatikaas at Thai funerals?

Nobody seems to know the origin of this use of the
Abhidhamma. Perhaps its roots lie not in an interpretation
of the Abhidhamma's contents but in one or another of the
stories about the miraculous effects of reciting the text. I
am thinking of King Du.t.thagaaminii being cured of his
insomnia through listening to monks chanting the Yamaka
(DA. ii. 640), or the Atthasaalinii's story of the bats who
went to heaven after listening to two bhikkhus recite the
Abhidhamma (DhsA. 17).

But then again, it could be a purely local folk development
with no textual support, like the northern custom of
women trying to improve their fertility by listening to monks
recite the Pubbakicca to the Paatimokkha.

> 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 don't think this is the case. The training rule itself refers
to a person who has a knife "in his hand."

na satthapaa.nissa agilaanassa dhamma.m desessaamii ti
sikkhaa kara.niiyaa

If the Buddha had meant "attached to his person" he could
easily have said so. I would guess the point is that the
person wishing to be taught should show his willingness by
assuming a non-threatening demeanour. Sikhs don't wear
their ceremonial daggers in order to scare people.

> 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.

I think you're right that the parasol in question is
probably an indication of rank and that etiquette required
it to be set aside as a sign of humility. The problem with
understanding the sekhiyas is that neither their origin
stories nor the Vinaya atthakatthaas and .tiikaas have very
much to say, so one is in most cases reduced to relying on
guesswork.

> 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.

By 'modern' do you mean 'contemporary', or are you just
talking about 19th century developments? If you mean
contemporary, could you give an example? I am a little
surprised to hear that there is anyone of royal stock in the
monkhood nowadays. For the most part the rich, the royal,
and the well-educated don't become monks (except for
once-in-a-lifetime temporary upasampadaas).

___________________________

A few comments on Mettanando's article:

> [Title:] Anna and the retarded education

Ouch. It seems that Mettanando enjoys being provocative, but
like Sulak Sivaraksa he always stops slightly short of saying
anything that could lead to a lese majeste charge. Any
mention of Anna Leonowens is sure to raise people's hackles
in royalist circles.

> The bad news about education in Buddhist monasteries in
> Thailand is that it is based almost exclusively on
> memorization; critical thinking plays little part. It is
> conditioned by the traditional system of feudal obedience.

"Feudal obedience" seems a grotesque overstatement to me.


> No student has the right to question his teachers.

If Mettanando means that one may not ask a teacher questions
then it's false (though for all I know it may be true of Wat
Dhammakaya, where he originally trained; but this is a most
peculiar temple). If he means that one may not challenge or
disagree with a teacher, then it's true that this would be
considered impolite if one did it during a lesson. Classroom
etiquette requires that doubts and disagreements be
expressed privately when the lesson is over. It's common
that at the end of a lesson a teacher will stay behind for
an hour or more responding to objections from the more
difficult students (like me!).


> This is in contrast with the liberal and critical attitude
> of early Buddhist monastic training expounded by the Buddha
> in the canonical literature. This does not condone any
> concept of obedience to a guru. The message opf the Buddha
> encourages his listeners not to believe in him nor accept
> his teachings without putting them to the test of thorough
> and critical analysis.

He's been listening to too many Californians.

saddhassa, bhikkhave, saavakassa satthusaasane pariyogaahiya
vattato ayamanudhammo hoti: 'satthaa bhagavaa,
saavako'ham'asmi; jaanaati bhagavaa, naaha.m jaanaamii 'ti
(MN. i. 480)

> Monks here are taught to accept the teachings of their
> master without question. Criticism or analysis of any
> passage or myth about the life of Buddha is neither welcome
> nor tolerated.

I'm not quite sure what he has in mind here. Possibly he
means his own articles in which he draws upon his medical
knowledge to offer new interpretations of various episodes
in the Suttas. As far as I know, nobody has threatened to
burn him at the stake for it. There just isn't very much
interest in what might have caused the Buddha's backache
or what sort of fever Moggallaana was suffering from.


> Worse than the rigid system of religious orthodoxy in the
> monastic philosophy of education is that students in this
> education system are not encouraged to study the Tipitaka,
> the very canonical literature of Buddhism.

This is true.

> Instead, their studies are limited to the commentaries from
> the Mahavihara monastery in Sri Lanka of the 5th century C.E.

Also one Thai Pali composition: the Ma`ngalatthadiipanii, a
lengthy 13th century .tiikaa to the Ma`ngala Sutta.

> The traditional system of exegesis is based on fables and
> tales written by commentators and preserved in the Pali
> language, which is believed to be the language of the state
> of Magadha, the legendary root language of the cosmos,
> spoken by the Buddha.
>
> Despite the fact the legend of the root language of Pali as
> the language of the Buddha [sic.] has no support in the
> Tipitaka, this belief is one of the distinctive
> characteristics of Theravada Buddhism, which is the only
> form of the religion that takes the language as the one and
> only sacred language of Buddhism. Based on this assumption
> Buddhist scriptures in Tibetan, Chinese or Mongolian are
> seen as heterodox.

Eisel, you were wondering in another post why he would raise
this point. I suspect it is part of his ecumenism, which he
pushes much further than most ecumenically-minded Thai monks
would be willing to go. I understand it is his wish that the
three main bhikkhu-paramparaas be reunited. To advance this
agenda he rarely loses an opportunity to chip away at the
planks that support Theravaadin exclusivism and
conservatism. One such plank is the idea of Maagadha-bhaasaa
as the muulabhaasaa. Another is Buddhaghosa's gloss on the
term sakanirutti in the Cullavagga's chandaso episode
("sakaaya niruttiyaa" ti ettha sakaa nirutti naama
sammaasambuddhena vuttappakaaro maagadhiko vohaaro. VinA.
vi. 1214), as opposed to the popular modern interpretation
that each should learn the teaching in his own tongue.


> Even worse than this is that the text on Pali grammar,
> mandated for national Pali examination in Thailand differs
> greatly from books of Pali grammar taught in other Theravada
> countries. Not only is this book without references, thus
> preventing readers from learning about the history and
> origin of Pali, its format is not based on the traditional
> book of grammar in Pali that was known in Sri Lanka or
> Burma.

In other words, it's not Warder and it's not Kaccaayana. But
this doesn't in itself constitute a criticism. I will leave further
discussion of Prince V's grammar until tomorrow.


> Of course, fulminations against the monarchy's corruption of
> the sangha are always a welcome sight in a major Thai
> publication --such as the Bangkok Post. There are many hard
> questions that are not being asked in Thailand --such as why
> bloodline and "pride of birth" seems to establish (or
> reserve) rank and authority for Orthodox monks in Thai
> Buddhism, i.e., directly contrary to the Vinaya.

The monarchy's involvement with the sangha today is confined
to things like offering ka.thina robes to monks residing in the
thirty or so designated royal temples, going to pay respects
to various eminent acharns, and annually handing out
ceremonial fans to those monks who have been selected for
administrative offices by the sangha. I'm not aware of
anything here that could be called corruption. I think the
days when a king or a prince could step in and do the sort
of things done by Rama IV and Prince Vajira~naa.navarorasa
(and lots of Burmese kings of yore) are now well passed.
For one thing there is too much regional resistance to
Bangkok-imposed centralization and standardization.
Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

Best wishes,

Dhammanando