In a recent posting about Thaksin Shinawatra’s birthday, there were some marvelous pictures of monks taking part in the festivities. One pair showed some monks removing a curse, with their begging bowls used to signify the removal of the curse. Other pictures showed live monks in conjunction with pictures of Thaksin (Actually, Mr. Thaksin was not just in conjunction, but looking down on the monks beatifically. I’m not sure which was more striking: the cut out of Thaksin standing behind the senior monk, or the pictures of Thaksin overlooking a group of chanting monks, hand raised in the sign-language gesture of “I love you.”). Regarding these monks, one of the comments pithily noted simply, “Rentamonks.” This was not an unreasonable comment, I suppose, but also troubled me. Why can’t monks support Thaksin? What do most monks think about the recent troubles in Thailand? And what does their relative silence say about Buddhism and politics in Southeast Asia more broadly? This is not the place to discuss this comprehensively, but it’s interesting to note there have been no four-letter word essays about this central (?) yet silent (?) figure: the monk (auspiciously, if we Romanize the word from both Thai and Dai-lue (ie from Sipsongpanna), we get phra and dubi, both 4-letter words).
For the most part, monks have been largely absent from the public discussion of the colored shirts. This absence is especially noteworthy because within several months of the coup that started the current phase of Thai politics, there were several significant demonstrations by monks over the status of Buddhism in Thailand, and in particular whether or not Buddhism would become an official religion. To the best of my knowledge, the conversation about the status of Buddhism as the de jure as well as de facto national religion of Thailand was not finished, rather it went private, something to be talked about within monasteries between monks, but not in public, in much the same way that monastic opinions about reds and yellows seems to be taking place.
In June of this year, I was in Bangkok talking with both monks about their views on politics, and also with non-monks (mainly taxi drivers) about monks and politics. The official line, and that espoused by most lay folk that I spoke with is that monks (and in this context, I mean lifers, not the men who have ordained for a month or a rainy season) in Thailand do not have political views. I was told that the Supreme Sangha Council has told monks that they are not allowed to express their views on politics (despite the fact that the constitution guarantees this right for all Thai citizens, lay and monastic), and that they should stay away from political rallies in particular. Those that do go to these rallies (birthday parties, airport closings and so forth) are not exactly committing a sin, but they are in a place inappropriate for monks. They also open themselves up to criticisms of being “copy monks” (or “rentamonks”).
There is then a lot of pressure on monks in Thailand to shut up about the political world, and many that I spoke with are just as happy not to be dragged into the discussion. At the same time, though, there is tension. Many monks would like to be allowed to vote, and at least some would not mind being able to speak more freely about politics. Although the monks that I met at the red shirt rally on June 22 looked uncomfortable, they said they weren’t doing anything wrong, and that they weren’t false monks. They were there, they told me, “because they love democracy.”
Monks have of course long (always?) been involved in politics in Thailand (as well as other places). This used to be framed in terms of monastic legitimation for the king and/or state (think for example of the Sinhala monks saying its okay to kill Tamils in the Mahavamsa, or Phra Kitthivuttho saying it’s okay to kill communists). More recently, there has been a tendency for scholars at least to pay attention to monks as liberal figures, figures who ordain trees or preach against the excesses of modern capitalism. The reality of course is that the Sangha is filled with monks on both sides of the aisle, and always has been, because monks do not cease to be people with connections and ideas when they shave their heads and take on the saffron robes. What I think we need to pay more attention to is when it is okay for phra to edge into the political realm in Thailand and how they do so.
Monks throughout the Buddhist states of Southeast Asia of course have different roles in the civil society of their respective communities. Moreover, I would suggest that what is considered to be appropriate activity for monks changes over time, both in and out of politics. Monks in Sri Lanka can vote, in Thailand they can’t. The Burmese Sangha tradition of political protest which flowered under the British means that they can act in ways that the Thai Sangha cannot or will not. This does not mean, though, that Thai monks aren’t any less political than other monks, or other Thais. Rather their position constrains (most of) them from making certain kinds of statements in public. In other words, I would suggest that there is a monastic idiom of political expression. This idiom is much more muted than lay political expression, and it only rises to public attention in certain contexts. When monks speak outside this idiom, they risk censure.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Frank // Aug 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Yes. I made the rentamonks comment. Certainly monks are entitled to have views. But they seemed to have been more interested in practicing voodoo religion than actually expressing an opinion in this case.
2 David Brown // Aug 7, 2009 at 11:59 pm
the PAD/yellow shirts were strongly supported in running food supplies and in rituals and accompanied in their occupations of Government House and, I think, the airports by their current leader and a cohort of Santi Asoke monks.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santi_Asoke for some more info, not mentioned in that article it seems Chamlong styles as a lay leader for the sect and as Wikipaedia mentions the group is seen as anti-Thaksin.
recently the redshirts have been permitted to stage rallies at Wat Suan Keow and in association with a city monastery and numbers of monks have attended their rallies and senior monks have spoken on stage. a (dhammakaya) monk has a regular morning spot on DTV
3 Nick Nostitz // Aug 8, 2009 at 12:17 am
On both sides of the divide are monks involved.
The austere approach discussing what Buddhism should be often ends up in orthodoxy that somehow contradicts much of how Bhuddism has developed in Buddhist cultures.
Why are these monks called “renta-monk” just in this case? Also the PAD had monks appearing and performing ceremonies.
In many ways almost all of popular Buddhism then could be labeled such – monks are given donations for the appearance at weddings, at funerals and at any other event their presence is required.
But, this is integral part of Thai culture and Thai Bhuddism. Buddhism has its orthodox aspects, and equally important popular believes that may contradict the more orthodox leanings of some.
There are some monks which are regulars at the Red Shirt rallies, some appear even on the stage. Others i have heard holding sermons about politics, democracy and dhamma to protesters. Especially important was this in the aftermath of the Songkran Riots, where Red Shirts have gathered (without the red shirts) in small groups during the emergency decree, and discussed the crackdown. There people closely listened to what the monks had to say.
Not much has been written about the involvement of monks and religion, other than biased polemics, unfortunately.
I very much welcome this article. The involvement of religion and monks shows very much that the present conflict is much more than just a political or social conflict, but goes to the heart of Thai identity.
4 Frank // Aug 8, 2009 at 1:30 am
Indeed, why not also call those monks who support PAD rentamonks? Especially when they start telling us they know better than the layman – Sondhi style. The comment was made on the strength of knowing only too well about the likes of Pra Kittivutto. Indeed, my dislike of both Chumlong and Sondhi is partly based on the pseudo-religious BS they both surround themselves with. Plus the feeling that Chumlong never really had an democratic cred anyway. In the 1992 debacle, he did little more than lead gullible (but at least concerned) people into being killed and maimed by his old military academy ‘chums’. Power struggle was about all it ever was to him. And certainly nothing has changed.
If anything, it could be said that many Thai monks are too opinionated and too easily led into lending support to causes that have dubious benefit for the vast majority. If they feel so strongly about lay issues, maybe they would be better off becoming lay politicians. They could hardly be any worse than the current Garn Muang shower. They might even be an improvement, if you go on the basis that things can hardly get any worse than they are at present.
As it is, many monks are probably just told what to do by their superior clergy. In other words, they do stuff to keep the necessary funds going to run the temple and keep themselves in a fairly easy life. You have to keep the rich sponsor happy. And name me a rich sponsor who doesn’t have some allegiance in this struggle, since they see politics as their guarantee of continuing easy profit.
5 Nick Nostitz // Aug 8, 2009 at 6:09 am
“Frank”
That is a bit too cynical for me. But maybe i am just too young and/or idealistic.
Not that you are wrong with much that you have stated. But there is always the other side. The common monks i have listened to in the protests, mostly in the Red Shirt protests, do have strong believes, and do not appear to me living lives of luxury.
Is it for monks to have opinions on politics? I don’t know, i am not an expert in Buddhism.
But some of the more impressive monks i have met, forest monks and such, had usually rather strong and well thought through views on the more practical things of life as well as being meditation masters. And more often than not they were also very straight forward in expressing these views.
6 anon // Aug 8, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This is total nonsense – Thomas, you know very little about the recent hisoty of Thai Buddhism.
Luang Ta Bua, one of the most influential monks in Thailand and a leader of the so-called “forest monk” tradition, was a major supporter of the Yellow Shirts from day 1. His beef with Thaksin was due to the fact that the Supreme Patriarch has been living in a hospital for years, and that Thaksin had Somdet Kiaw, the second most senior monk in the Sangha Council, appointed acting Supreme Patriarch.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Patriarch and Luang Ta Bua are Dhammayuttika Nikaya-sect monk, while his number 2 was a a Mahanikaya-sect monk. The Dhammayuttika Nikaya has been closely affiliated with the palace since it was founded by R.4. In the Thaksin years, Luang Ta Bua even petitioned the King (despite what the current yellow government might say about royal petitions) asking that Somdet Kiaw be defrocked.
Read any of Luang Ta Bua’s anti-Thaksin sermons si… they make Sondhi and friends sound sane.
7 Frank // Aug 8, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Well you can either be somewhat cynical about undoubted realities, or you can partake of the old sanyassin powder and switch off the old brainpan completely. And I am absolutely certain that this is not what is being advocated by those who truly believe in mindfulness. One may be somewhat cynical for the purposes of debate, but then still manage to go with the flow in every day life. Which is how I work. But sit back and note just how many are prepared to ruthlessly exploit one’s more accepting moments.
The forest monks are revered by many. And I have quite a lot of respect for them. (Modern Thai politics has taught me not to revere.) I note, however, that many of the same people who revere them are usually more attuned to the fact that their heroes are making pleasant and positive noises. I see no real move, by the vast majority, to actually act on those words. Such followers will usually tell you that such and such monk is a refreshing change because, “He reduces my stress levels.” Sure, some Buddhists are engaged in community projects of a very interesting and positive nature. And they are helping those at the village level. But middle-class supporters don’t really seem to do much else other than tune into the positive vibes, and then chill out completely. But I guess that is the inevitable result of barbaric thugs like Pra Kittivuttho preaching mindless extermination of anyone who goes against the modern Thai capitalist grain of milking cheap labor to death.
Conversely, those monks who really do seem to get most of the real media attention these days are those who are not terribly fussy about who they work for, and who are prepared to work with all sorts of dubious hocus-pocus to get that attention. And it is perhaps well-worth noticing that Pra Kittivuttho never advocated mowing down such quacks,charlatans and snakeoil salesman. Probably because he knew only too well that was where his support base came from to a very large degree.
Conclusion. There aren’t enough monks who are engaged and active enough in their desire for social change (as opposed to just passively wanting to see more massive dollops of highly-dubious ‘development’) to actually make any significant difference.
8 david w // Aug 8, 2009 at 10:38 pm
An exploration of the “monastic idiom of political expression” in modern Theravada Buddhism is a project well worth pursuing and long overdue. Although I would quickly add that it must become a project of exploring idioms in the plural very quickly, both within any modern domestic national Sangha and across various national communities. And it must also become a thoroughly historical project very quickly as well. It is clear after all that in every Theravada country, the idioms, the possibilities, and the abilities to express political opinions have changed quite sharply across just the decades of the twentieth century. After all, to take just one example (which expands the horizon of the original post) Cambodian monks obtained the right to vote at a very particular time (the 1990s) under very particular conditions (the influence of UN officials and political discourse).
In such a project though I would argue that we do have to distinguish quite clearly between words and actions, myth and history, ideology and practice. To that degree I think Borchert’s examples of the Mahavamsa and Kitthivuttho is a bit like apples and oranges. One is a mythic charter of questionable historical documentation, the other is a well documented historical case. Of course, studying the changing twentieth-century rhetorical use of supposed examples of monastic political behavior drawn from chronicles or the Pali canon – which examples are used, how are they rhetorically employed, when and to what end are they employed – would in itself illuminate much about these changing idioms. Arguing that Kittivuttho preached the “mindless extermination of anyone who goes against the modern Thai capitalist grain of milking cheap labor to death” to my eye is not attending very closely to the actual idioms of expression used by this monk in that time and place (Thailand in the 70s). That is however a very interesting re-statement and interpretation of what he asserted. I do think we need to keep these two things clearly separate in any analysis of modern Theravada monastic idioms of political expression.
It is quite clear that the loosely associated rise of Buddhist modernism, political liberalism and the nation state have reconfigured these idioms if only because they have reconfigured the very boundaries and definitions of what is political and what is religious. And often, but certainly not always, this has in general seemingly narrowed the scope of legitimate public political expression by monks. Or at least raised the level of suspicion and scrutiny when political opinions are expressed. But a closer historical and social reading of how exactly this has narrowed, when this narrowing has been strategically reversed, and what sorts of expressions continue to be perceived as non-political (support for the Thai monarchy, for instance) would be well worth the effort. I would argue that the lack of attention to and writing on this topic by Thai academics and the Thai press is part of the story itself, of course, as well.
9 Luecha Na Malai // Aug 10, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Monks are human. Trappings make them different. Be not misled by those trappings.
10 Erik Davis // Aug 12, 2009 at 2:54 am
Excellent essay, Tom. You’ve encapsulated a great deal of information in this short piece, and while certainly you’d qualify it were it a longer essay, this is admirable.
I wonder about one reference, in which you point out the recent liberal fascination with monks doing liberal activism, such as the ordination of trees, etc. Having read Andrew Walker and Tim Forsyth’s book fairly recently, I’m reminded of some of the horrendous attitudes expressed by such monks towards the shifting cultivators of the upland plateaus (Tai and non-Tai alike). Such an attitude, which is rarely included in descriptions of such monks by westerners, certainly makes the issue of monkish political beliefs a bit more complex.
I wonder if framing this question with primary reference to current Thai political troubles necessarily deforms any general answers we might arrive at were the question frame comparatively, or more generally. It seems that perhaps the political beliefs that monks have, or indeed that any normal person in Thailand (or Cambodia, or anywhere else, really) have, do not neatly map onto the supposed liberal-conservative, red-shirt-yellow-shirt divides.
Thanks again for this post.
11 jonfernquest // Aug 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Thomas Borchert wrote: “I would suggest that what is considered to be appropriate activity for monks changes over time, both in and out of politics”
Great post. Someone should definitely write an objective history of monks supporting Thaksin. Include the extrajudicial killings of the “Drug Wars” by all means, too.
Monks of Theravadan Buddhist lineages have been involved in politics for two millenia (See Mahāvihāra and Abhayagiri) largely to secure patronage and survive as a monastic lineage.
But that is history not theology (empirically vs. normative).
Most monks would no doubt agree that involvement in politics and affairs in the “mundane path or world” (lokiyamagga) would only hinder their progress towards higher spiritual goals, particularly if they ended up legitimizing killing during as Phra Kitthivuttho did during the Cold War or other Thaksin supporting monks did by supporting extrajudicial killing during the so-called “Drug War.”
12 Stephen // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“…what is considered to be appropriate activity for monks changes over time, both in and out of politics.”
Not just over time, but within the sangha at any given time. Looking to Burma there has been a lot of international attention on the involvement of monks in the September 2007 protests. Some observers saw this as the legitimate expression of Buddhism while those monks who chose not to participate must have been either afraid or illegitimate “government monks.”
However, one of the most respected monks in the country, U Nyanissara (Sitagu Sayadaw) locked the doors of his monastery during the protests and forbid resident monks from leaving to participate in the protests. This has not led any widespread dismissal of him as a “government monk.”
Also, Burma’s 2008 constitution has a clause (Chapter IX art. 2a) which forbids members of “religious orders” from voting. Some observers have seen this as an attempt to disenfranchise monks who “clearly” side with the opposition. However, this clause was also put in the 1947 constitution (Chapter VI art. 76.4) reportedly at the request at the time of the sangha itself in order to keep the sasana untainted by politics.
There’s also divergence on this issue between sects, like the Thudhamma and Shwegyin; the former having no official prohibition against involvement in politics while the latter having made an explicit policy to stay out of politics.
But even within a given sect there is divergence. For example, U Thuzana, nominal head of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army is a member of the Shwegyin sect, although in his role as head of the DKBA he is clearly much involvement in politics. At the same time however, U Thuzana enforces an explicit regulation of “no politics” at his compound in Myaing Gyi Ngu (which also happens to be the DKBA headquarters). The late Thamanya Sayadaw was also in the Shwegyin sect and enforced a “no politics” policy around his hermitage on Mount Thamanya, but his ‘politics’ (i.e. photo taken with Suu Kyi and reported rebuff of Khin Nyunt) have been much commented on.
13 Frank // Aug 18, 2009 at 3:34 am
We should judge Kittivuttho by his disgraceful actions rather than his reported idioms (aka weasel words). Kittivuttho is typical of those people who want to be politicians and still scamper off to hide behind a colored robe when they get themselves into trouble.
Monks are traditionally supposed to offer succor to those who may not be entirely suited to the cut-&-thrust of a hot-house environment of competitiveness – by which I am referring to the vast majority of the world’s population. If they are no longer prepared to offer that sanctuary, then they have largely rendered themselves obsolete. I really don’t need a monk to preach to me on how to be a successful rich kid, when at my advanced age I already know that I can teach myself how to be content with what little I have.
14 Jon Young // Nov 5, 2009 at 8:58 am
Thanks to Mr. Borchert for this post, and to all the interesting comments it has inspired. I especially appreciate the way that the question was framed. As Borchert states, he is interested in learning about “when it is okay for phra to edge into the political realm in Thailand and how they do so.”
I believe a project which looks historically and comparatively at the emergence of the sangha into political discourse would be quite worthwhile. As a specialist in Sri Lankan Buddhism, it strikes me that a study of the in-fighting and public statements of the relatively recent (2004-) JHU party, a political party formed by Buddhist monks which has monks sitting in seats of Parliament, would prove fertile ground for comparative work with mainland SEA cases.
Since this topic interests me, and no doubt many who have posted comments here, I would like to suggest that those who have the means of initiating such things attempt to form a conference panel centered around the questions raised here. This would set the stage for some valuable dialogue regarding comaparative perspectives on these issues.
15 Stephen. // Nov 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I meant to post this observation some time ago. In a September 2009 report for Human Rights Watch, authored by Bertil Lintner, one of the “Key Recommendations to the Government of Burma” reads:
However, an August 2009 report by the International Crisis Group (of which I paraphrased an earlier version in my comment above), states:
It seems a relevant question to ask what percentage of monks (or, indeed, the wider Buddhist community) in Burma would support the HRW recommendation quoted here.
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.