Comments

You did raise a very good point about hill tribe people. Unfortunately I have no data on denomination.

But the hill tribe problem is interesting because Christian missionaries have done excellent job, mostly in education, to marginalized people along the border. Buddhists complain, but very few would do something to uplift these minorities’ well-being.

That leads to the question about Sangha Raja. Will this new position bring changes in the Sangha policies? If so, how? Will it reinterpret about gay right, women discrimination, and human rights overall. The former Sangha Raja did not do anything about that, perhaps due to his health, perhaps his attitude. Theravada is often more individualistic and inward looking than Mahayana, which reaches out more to save the society.

When you speak about Muslim in Thailand, be aware that they are from different origins. The Malay Muslim is unique even among Muslims.

From the National Statistical Office, Christianity grew from 0.5 in 1990 to 0.8 in 2000 and 1.2 in 2010. I suspect that those who converted to Christianity were former Buddhists and from upper social strata, putting Christianity into direct competition with Buddhism. The most famous case of Sangha’s paranoid was the circulation of Pa-lung-haeng-che-vit (the power of life), which was an inspirational book by the Christian foundation. It was so popular that monks demanded the government to halt such circulation and advertisement. Since then, there have always been discussions about Christian threat, which was criticized as so systematic and organized.

Recognition of Buddhism as an official religion may, or may not, has practical implication. Buddhism domination is already very strong in schools. But this status would justify more oppression of others and promotion of them. They want to have a Buddhist fund and ethical-based appointment to public post.

Just briefly as i gotta go – also Christianity, for example, knows such entirely personal pathways. Especially the eastern orthodoxy has a very strong tradition of individualist eremites.

Thanks boon for your thumbs up. Why Thaksin decided to – ultimately disasterously – go into politics, rather than staying in business, where SSino-Thais like him have been SO successful, and beneficial to Thailand, the region, and the world – iOS beyond me. Megalomania? Duncan McCargo has some interesting theories.

I wonder what the practical implications of Constitutional recognition of Buddhism might be? Buddhism is the official religion in Cambodia and it doesn’t seem to mean much at all – the State is quite even-handed among various faiths and its only acts seem aimed at defusing potential tensions (notably a rule about not building mosques/churches too close to temples).

I’m interested in the very brief mention about the growing popularity of Christianity in Thailand. Are there figures on this, any studies done?

All in all a very good article, raising many issues even if it doesn’t have answers for them all.

It is not that Buddhism is “better” or worse”.

True society’s use of a “Religion” is not that different from its use of any other product or utility.

Buddhism though does have different features. As in Burma for example, there is no central authority, like Pope or Ayatollah or Archbishop. Kings or the generals cannot keep the Buddhism away from the populace or use it as a ransom like in excommunication.

Organised religion being a political force is very true. But in Buddhism if one can be a Buddhist with no one else involved if one chooses to. The aim is self awareness and finding the so-called “Noble Truths” which requires no facility or person of any sort thereby taking away the opportunity for blackmail or indeed to wage a war.

Current form of “Popular Buddhism” though is just about total opposite. It is just a group of people trying to get a power for their own purpose however noble they claim to be. Yes. In that sense it is political force with particular brand or name and membership.

“Who wants to institutionalize Buddhism as state religion hasn’t understood Buddhism!”

I’m sure the Sri Lankans and Bhutanese might want to dispute that, hrk, and so would Tibetans, for whom religion WAS the state up until Mao’s “secularization”.

These discussions of Buddhism versus “Western/semitic/Abrahamic” religions are always amusing.

If I had a dollar for every time some farang came on social media sneering about “Thai Buddhism” not being “real Buddhism” I’d have a bigger motorcycle.

“Real Buddhism” usually means that which is contained between the covers of Dalai Lama paperbacks, the zen of DT Suzuki and a collection of Shambhala Press volumes.

That which is practiced daily by actual living breathing human beings is never “real”. And if the millions upon millions of practicing Buddhists around Asia consider their religion to be a religion, well what do they know? Wiki says otherwise.

Christianity, on the other hand, is usually represented by the Crusades, the Salem witch hunts and pedophile priests. For good measure we often hear of Hitler’s profound relationship with the Pope.

All that guff about “agape” and “the least among you” is theoretical nonsense that never every hits the streets, so…

Liberalism, the political doctrine that seeks to deny the state the power of coercion in so many spheres, including religion, is arguably a development from Christianity.

The doctrine of the separation of church and state, however imperfectly applied at various times and in various places, is pretty much “western” then, and specifically Christian.

And while it is true that Christianity has tended over the years to work as a prod to social and political activism in contrast to the passivity provoked by Buddhism, there is also a rather grand tradition of spiritual withdrawal from worldly concerns in the “semitic religions”, hrk.

So it isn’t all Martin Luther King and marching in the streets demanding freedom and equality.

Ohn – isn’t that true for almost all religions? What, for example has the way Christianity is practiced to do with the sermon on the mount?

And on the other hand – as with all religions, they may be part of people’s lives, a guidance, but people are still people. “Pure” doctrine is just not for everyone.
That is one of my issues – many people expect Buddhism of being something fundamentally different and the bearer of superior knowledge or wisdom, forgetting that human society remains human society. People in different cultures practice Buddhism, and any other religion, as they see fit, and as they are used to, and do not need any converted purists or radical reformers to tell them that what they have done since generations is suddenly wrong.
In my admittedly limited understanding of Buddhist doctrine i believe that lay people have to follow far less precepts than monks, and are not really expected to be any more perfect than anyone else. And as most monks are still people from communities, involved in their communities, it can hardly be expected that they suddenly are above their communities, and suddenly put all culture aside.

Is there any Buddhist society where politics and power have not been integral part of society and religion? I don’t think so. Buddhism is just another religion, and if one wants to look for personal enlightenment, i would say that any religion can offer that to the seeker. But one should be realistic enough to see that the moment any religion becomes an organization, it will turn political.

re planned attacks on Shia.

During 2014-15 Sunni clerics conducted a campaign against Shia Hazara asylum seekers in Indonesia, waiting to come to Australia. The campaign was strongest in Pekanbaru, Kaltim and Makassar. Extreme Sunni clerics complained that IOM funded by Australia and the US were providing better facilities to Hazara Shia than to locals and were facilitating Shia into Indonesia to cause trouble. One of the more interesting conspiracy theories named the US Ambassador and another person with an Australian connection as facilitators, and claimed provocations were planned to coincide with Jokowi’s visit to Papua over Christmas. The provocations would be used as a pretext for a crackdown on Sunnis.

When extremist Sunni clerics conduct a campaign of this sort, it’s only reasonable to conclude that militant groups are listening. No surprise then that Shia were targets of the IS group detained before Christmas. It would be useful to know whether Hazaras and Australian funded IOM facilities were among the targets, and if so, what implications there may be for our asylum seeker policy.

So… Luhut is the President. Jokowi is the grinning puppet. Political elites are all crooks. Capitalists of oriental origin are the actual owner of Indonesia – so they can do whatever they wish with it.

Is that what you’re saying?