Comments

Apologies. For ‘turbaned head’, read ‘turban-head’.

While the focus of his article is on the specific issue of whether the Buddha was bald, the author also suggests a general dichotomy between the manner in which the Buddha is depicted in the Pali Canon (which one might describe as a naturalistic depiction) on the one hand and a tendency in texts later than the Pali Canon to depict the Buddha with physical abnormalities and supernatural characteristics on the other hand. He also refers to the fact that the latter tendency is widespread in Mahayana Buddhism.

Below are some of his statements:

“Evidently, the Buddha did not have physical abnormalities (nor any other remarkable characteristics) that would have allowed his devotees to recognize him at close range, nor did his followers have a tradition of believing this to be the case in the era of the composition and compilation of the most ancient canonical texts.”

“This has clear implications for the (still-widespread) Mahayana assumption that the Buddha had freakish physical abnormalities.”

“These passages (quoted below) also show more generally that there was nothing supernatural about the Buddha’s appearance, and that (for most of his career) he did not look much different from the other monks who were his followers.”

The deficiency in this hypothesis is that there does exist evidence in the Pali Canon for the Buddha being depicted with physical abnormalities or supernatural characteristics. Most obviously, the famous Lakkhaс╣Зa Sutta (PTS: D─лgha Nik─Бya 3.142ff.) describes the Buddha’s 32 marks, including genitalia enclosed in a sheath, skin to which dust cannot attach, a long tongue, and a tuft of white hair between the eyebrows.

The text does not state that the Buddha has hair on his head (although an important omission in the author’s article is that he does not deal with the controversial phrase ‘uс╣Зh─лsa-s─лsa’, literally ‘turban-like head’ or ‘turbaned head’). However, a tradition of depicting the Buddha with physical abnormalities is clearly present and, under the author’s own limited notion of orthodoxy, cannot therefore be ‘heretical’ because it is found in the Pali Canon. Surely even the author would concede that, within this genre of text where the Buddha is invested with all sorts of abnormal physical attributes, it would not be a great leap for the Buddha to be depicted with hair?

As stated in previous comments, rather than branding a common form of depiction of the Buddha as fallacious/heretical, a more nuanced and considered approach would be to consider how it is that a tradition can maintain two different (apparently inconsistent) modes of depicting the Buddha. It is important to consider what the purpose is behind depicting the Buddha with hair (whether hagiographical, symbolic, or otherwise) and to investigate whether a Buddha with hair in fact serves an entirely different role from depictions where the Buddha is bald.

I also note that the author fails to consider whether the concept of the Buddha’s having 80 minor marks is found in the canon (given that such marks, as far as I understand it, do include hair on the head). In this regard, the author may wish to consider the meaning and import of the phrase anuvya├▒jana-sampanna found in the Buddhavaс╣Гsa (PTS, p.35) and Apad─Бna (PTS 2.459, 2.508 and 2.571). Certainly the commentaries of those texts take it that anuvya├▒jana refers to the 80 minor marks and support for this analysis is provided by the fact that the phrase is found alongside a phrase referring to the Buddha’s 32 marks. Of course the author may assert that such texts belong to late strata of the canon. This, however, does not mean that they are not ‘orthodox’ (under the author’s own limited concept of orthodoxy).

P.S. In respect of the phrase ad hominem, I prefer to use the Oxford Dictionary definition: ‘an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining’.

P.P.S. In respect of the phrase ‘articles of this ilk’, I was merely referring to a tendency, found for example in the German philological tradition (especially during the first half of the 20th century) and in the Oxford text-historical tradition, of treating an early text as somehow ‘true’ Buddhism and a later development as somehow ‘corrupt’ Buddhism. While I admire the quality of the text-historical work of many such philologists and agree with the importance of textual stratification, the biases and normative interpretations that sometimes accompany such articles should, in my view, be avoided by scholars wherever possible.

I think we need empirical evidence to feel one way or another about Somsak. I also think we need even more empirical evidence to understand about what feelings do people who went to support Somsak have.

My impression from Handley’s book is that ever since Prem took to slithering around the palace floor like a snake, other subjects considered it prudent to keep even lower. Jim Taylor has indicated that it began earlier with Sarit. Whoever it was, the motive for continuing the oppressive and unjust practice (Chulalongkorn’s words) was the same.

Zach

I didn’t argue at all. I said I’m simply not as interested in Singapore as I am in Thailand, in answer to Nattavud Pimpa’s invitation to comment. I’m sure Singapore is a very nasty place indeed, with untold millions going without the latest in household appliances, but I believe there are other nations more deserving of my acid. As I said, that may change once the Singaporeans’ 4-year interest-free deals at Carrefour expire and they take to the streets in fury.

On the really remote chance that Thaksin S. returns to Thailand, gets arrested and jailed . . . what type of prisoner will Amnesty International classify Thaksin.

Could I suggest “Prisoner with no conscience”?

“I came across about 100 people in a temporary holding camp (under armed guard) in Nan town in 1990, who had been evicted, at gunpoint and onto trucks”

Lief – I know its a very long time ago, but do you know whereabouts this temprorary holding camp was – and where the people being held originally came from?

Last August a private investigator came to Nan trying to find out more about the refugee camps that existed there. She was looking for proof of her clients story – about being a refugee there before being sent to the US, but found very little, as a lot of the people who were supposed to be helping her denied that there had ever been any refugee camps for the Mong/Thai Lua there.

Eventually, a local guide took her to see the ruins of the refugee camp near the Laos border in Mae Jarim district, but I’m not sure whether that trip gave her the info she needed.

He’s still in touch with her (via facebook) so if you have any info that you could pass onto her I’m sure she’d be grateful.

Kerrie to answer your question.
Reforming the current social/ political structures that are rightly holding back Thailand’s progress firstly needs for those in power to acknowledge that what they have created and continue to promote is backward and wrong.
Having this happen in the near future is unlikely as the country is highly nationalistic with propaganda controlled by the elite classes that misinform and constantly shift blame so as to retain the status quo.
They manipulate social norms to retain their control over the economy.
Thai youth from all classes must be given the opportunity to ‘critically think’ and ask questions of their superiors but at present due to paternal nature of Thai society are basically force feed selective information. Education reform has been discussed for over a decade with little or nothing changing. This alone says a lot.
Thai governments hide behind a mask of democracy but in reality continue to deny the public’s right to be truly involved in the democratic process.
On the many discussions I have with my Thai friends this brainwashing which has evolved from a selective curriculum that lacks not only world history but a broad national history leads to ultimate frustration. Expecting my Thai friends to think outside the box comes across as offensive as it belittles the education they received yet I persevere as I’m intrigued with the ‘why’ of it all.
I believe the age of global communication will have a hand in bringing reform to Thailand’s reluctance to question and ask why.
Its happening in the Arab world where other not so dissimilar autocratic regimes have for decades assumed superiority over the masses basically due to their illegitimate wealth and influence.
Its an archaic form of governance that has no place in a progressive democracy but that said, Thailand is great at taking what it wants from the outside especially if it pertains to wealth and disregarding ideas that are foreign or progressive when it comes to the evolution of its social culture. This is the reality and we can only wait and hope especially for Thailand’s next generation.

From 89 “There should be real opportunity for the so called inferior to not only question and argue for openness and transparency but for real accountability for those that lead and govern”

Just out of interest, given the current social/political structures in Thailand (which post 89 describes much better than my long waffley comment did…) and the fact that neither the media or academics feel comfortable with asking ‘why’ questions, how do people think this will ever happen ?

To Ray

Thank you. I got the copy of this particular Gazette from a Thai historian who is currently with me at ISEAS.

Pavin