Jim Taylor has published a new book on Buddhism in Thailand. Here are the details from the publisher’s web-site (from which you can download Chapter 1):
This book presents a rethink on the significance of Thai Buddhism in an increasingly complex and changing post-modern urban context, especially following the financial crisis of 1997. Defining the cultural nature of Thai ‘urbanity’; the implications for local/global flows, interactions and emergent social formations, James Taylor opens up new possibilities in understanding the specificities of everyday urban life as this relates to perceptions, conceptions and lived experiences of religiosity. Changes in the centre are also reverberating in the remaining forests and the monastic tradition of forest-dwelling which has sourced most of the nation’s modern saints. The text is based on ethnography taking into account the rich variety of everyday practices in a mélange of the religious. In Thailand, Buddhism is so intimately interconnected with national identity and social, economic and ethno-political concerns as to be inseparable. Taylor argues here that in recent years there has been a marked reformulation of important conventional cosmologies through new and challenging Buddhist ideas and practices. These influences and changes are as much located outside as inside the Buddhist temples/monasteries.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Dhammanusari // Apr 26, 2009 at 7:33 am
In the recent clashes between the Yellow and Red shirts, one could also see Buddhist monks joining both sides. Does that indicate an ideological split in the Thai Sangha, perhaps along Dhammayut/Mahanikai lines, just like some 30 years ago?
Jim Taylor has already written in a comment here on NM about Gen. Surayud (the PM in the recent post-coup government) doing a stint as temporary monk in one of the strictest forest monasteries in Isaan, while at the same time planning to overthrow Thaksin. One wonders whether such a period spent in a monastery practising meditation is for the goal of Nibbana or rather for accumulating the necessary meritorious power to accomplish one’s more worldly goals. It also opens the interesting question as to what extent are Dhammayut forest monasteries (supposedly strictly devoted to meditation practice and not involved with the problems of society “out there”) linked to Wat Bovorn as the centre of religio-politics in Thailand, and how much of their donations come in as a result of this important connection to the rich elites (wearing yellow shirts, presumably).
2 Jim Taylor // Apr 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Dhammanusari has posed interesting questions not dealt with much in my book given the timeline, or even in blogs here at NM: what is the relationship between the deep & continuing social and political divide post-2006 coup and civic Buddhism? It is clear for instance that Luang Ta Maha Bua has been placed centre stage in the last five years because most of his supporters were amaat (aristocrats, royalist elites and aligned wealthy middle classes) with vested interests & response post 1997 economic crisis. Even Sondhi Lim played the religious card to the max and tried to get an image of himself and his elite cronies endorsed by a widely recognised living Arahant. But from my stay in the forest monasties in 2007, many northeastern born kru-ba-ajaan (Thammayut forest teachers in the line of Phra Ajahn Man Phurithatto) were in a moral dilemma: they could see the real benefits in nearby communities of pro-Thaksin polices and reforms and also see the injustices, double standards and immorality of the post-2006 anti-democratic pro-Prem alliance which had hurt so many ordinary people. Some monks talked about this in private to trusted supporters but rarely in public discourses. Many monks Thammayut and Mahanikai are embroiled in this divide especially as it concerns the monarchy and in my view it is not possible to identify one sect with one strand of political orientation. It is profoundly personal. Perhaps other NM readers may have experiences?
3 david w // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I do not have any direct experience regarding forest monasteries. Nonetheless, for many social and historical reasons, I suspect your analysis, Jim, is accurate. I also imagine that in the past, whether it was the 70s or other times, the political viewpoints of monks were also profoundly personal and not easily mapped onto their membership in either the Thammayut or the Mahanikai.
In this vein, it is useful to keep in mind that while the Thammayut ’sect’ is a relatively coherent, integrated and bounded social and ideological institutional phenomenon, the Mahanikai is not. Therefore the latter has historically always contained much more diversity, pluralism and contradictions. Imagining the Mahanikai as a social and institutional presence interested in and capable of establishing a clear and unified political orientation is therefore highly unlikely.
In addition, since the 60s and 70s the flourishing of various independent organizations in civil society, many of which have an explicitly political orientation, has meant that the relative salience and influence of the Sangha vis-a-vis political activity has declined. I think this means that those actors who want to express themselves politically, and especially regarding certain ideological projects, will find other organizations and settings within civil society as a more fertile ground for fostering political movements and alliances. Especially given that the degree to which the Sangha remains captured as an institutional force by the bureaucratic, conservative state remains relatively high.
Finally, the formal and informal injunctions against monks participating in ‘politics’ (usually interpreted in a relatively broad sense) means that the the political viewpoints of monastics is likely to remain idiosyncratic and rarely collectively organized in any particular ideological direction once one steps beyond a range of predictably general, status quo, and relatively innocuous ideas concerning politics in particular, or the proper relationship of religion to politics in particular. As a result, political opinions are expressed in public in code or more openly in private and backstage.
4 Sidh S // Apr 27, 2009 at 9:51 pm
This looks like a very interesting book and I look forward to reading it. I also hope a book on the role of astrology and animism (arguably even more influential than Buddhism) in Thai politics, rural-urban spaces is being researched or in-press somewhere. Charles Keyes provides a great h’oderve in a Bangkokpost article:
“THAILAND IN CRISIS: Magic, mobs and millennialism” in:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/15632/magic-mobs-and-millennialism
I wonder if Jim also investigated PMThaksin’s links to Dhammakaya and the acting-Supreme Patriarch appointment controversy in the book.
5 Dhammanusari // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:00 am
One Dhammayut monk from the Isaan who has a military background was quite unhappy after the 2006 coup because, he said, many useful social welfare programs were being cut by the new government. Even though he is very loyal to the Royal family (and this strong connection is more noticeable in the Dhammayut monasteries, who also get better support as a result of that) he was actually supportive of Thaksin and his policies. Another thing that was worrying him was the internal army reshuffles: he said that most of his old colleagues (belonging to a certain class) were being swiftly replaced by other ranks. So the army seems to be internally divided as well.
6 Jim Taylor // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Thanks Sidh S., well, frankly I find Keyes’ piece a bit baffling. Thaksin sought out mediums in much the same way as he attended the occasional ritual at the invitation of monks and laity at Wat Thammakaai- as indeed had other political leaders, military, business persons and civic elites, including royalty, and many continue to do so. The media also tried to accuse Thaksin of overriding the Supreme Patriarch & king in making the appointment of an Acting Supreme Patriarch (Somdet Kiew from Wat Saket, the second in seniority after the Supreme Patriarch at the Supreme Sangha Council). This was done according to seniority and nothing to do with sect/nikai. The current Supreme Patriarch is not capable of functioning and has not been capable for some years due to his health. It was not because, as some made out, of Thaksin favouring Mahanikai (or specifically Wat Thammakaai) monks over Dhammayut monks.
As for the link between Thaksin and King Taksin? This was an ignoble attempt by the opposition to discredit Thaksin after he went to pay respects to the well-known Northeastern mystical monk Luang Puu Kuun. LP Kuun was reputed to have said that that Thaksin was one of the important Thai ancestors in this lifetime who has come here to help the people. The unscrupulous Thai media since tried to make a link in this statement in an attempt at making Thaksin appear guilty of lese majesty- suggesting he wanted to raise himself to the level of a rebel Buddha-King to oppose the legitimacy of the current king; fiction, and Biff should know that. In much the same way as the media made out that Thaksin tried to place himself at the level of royalty at the royal Emerald Buddha temple. Sondhi Lim then went on to defame Thaksin through his media saying that he was mimicking the king himself and should be punished. Then the Office of the Royal Secretariat had to come out and explain that in fact Thaksin had done nothing wrong and that his government had been granted permission to perform this ceremony. Did that get reported? [And Biff, I’d like to ask: how did Thaksin try and subvert the 1997 Constitution? It was the 2006 Coup & khor Mor Chor cronies who subverted the 1997 Constitution].
7 Sidh S // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Thanks Jim #6. On the “unscrupulous Thai media”, I am of the view that actually works as much the other way. I see it as also PMThaksin’s conscious self-construction in Thai media space of a “PhuMeeBoon” – a reincarnated person of very high merit and power such as a former Siamese king would be ideal. This is very important in Thai political space, characterized by deeply held believes in the supernatural.
It is only consistent with his penchant for risk taking. He may offend part of Thai society, but at the same time he is gaining magical influence over another – possibly much larger Thai audience. That is his ‘profit’.
On the 1997 Constitution, it was for PMThaksin, a worthless piece of toilet paper – once the Constitutional Courts let him off with a slap on the hand for his assets concealment “honest mistake” in 2001. He clearly had little respect for it since…
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.