Siamese Resurgence

Citation preview

SIAMESE RESURGENCE

Front cover :

by Phong Senging

Back cover :

the author with His Eminence Somdej Phra Nanasamvara, abbot of Wat Bovornives.

Distributed

by Suksit Siam 1715 Rama IV Rd. Bangkok

SIAMESE RESURGENCE A Thai Buddhist Voice on Asia and a World of Change

S. SIVARAKSA

Asian Cultural Forum on Development Bangkok 1985

MATA YATHA NIYAM PUTTAM

AYUSA

EKAPUTTAMNARUKKHE EVAMPI SUBBABHUTESU MANASAMBHAVAYE APARIMANAM Even as a mother protects her only child, even so should one practice an all-embracing mind unto all beings.

IN MEMORY OF MY LATE MOTHER

MRS. SUPAN HEMAJANATI (1908 - 1984)

This kingdom was known as Siam until 1939, when its name was changed to Thailand. Then it reverted to the original name again in 1946. Two years after the coup d’etat of 1947 it was decreed that the country would be called Thailand, and it remains so officially. Ironically the kingdom has since been ruled by one dictator after another with very brief liberal democratic intervals. The name, Thailand, signifies the crisis of traditional Siamese Buddhist values. By removing from the nation the name it had carried all its history is in fact the first step in the psychic dehumanization of its citizens, especially when its original name was replaced by a hybrid, Anglicized word. This new name also implies chauvinism and irredentism. For this reason, the author of this book rarely uses it.

CONTENTS

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

Foreword Acknowledgements Introduction Buddhism and Society 1. Buddhism arid a World of Change 2. Buddhism as a Catalyst of Social Unity and Progress 3. Religion and Society 4. Buddhist Women : Past and Present

3 17 35 50

Buddhist Perspective and. Development 5. Buddhism from a Thai Perspective 6 . A Buddhist Perspective on Asian Development 7 . A Personal Concept of Development 8. “Quality of Life” A Buddhist Perspective 9. Buddhadhamma : A Review

67 80 $ 96 104 116

Culture and Asia 10. Southeast Asia and the Environment 1 1 . Culture and Development in Asia 12. Asia in the World —Trends in the Eighties

129 142 160

Some Leading Siamese Personalities 13. Leading Personalities in Early Bangkok 14. The Prince of Nagarasavarga 1 5 . Prince Sitthiporn Kridakara 16. Fiftieth Anniversary of Suanmokha : The Garden. f of Liberation Miscellaneous 17. Wat Thong Nopakhun 18. Notes on Angkor Wat 19. Views from Vietnam 20. Students and Social Development 21 . Recommendation for New Directions for Thammasat University 22. Ramkamhaeng’s Inscription : Thai Democracy dr Dictatorship 23. The Growth of the Voluntary Sector in Siam

173 188 208 227

;247 256 265 275 286 298 312

24.

Small People speak out

4

327

Appendices Appendix I 25. Prosecution against violator of law 337 26. -Village Scouts’ Announcement .339 27. Which way does the wind blow? 346 28. Sulak Sivaraksa’s unmasked 349 29. Speaking from my heart 352 30. Thailand arrest Social Gadfly 358 31. The bailing of Sulak Sivaraksa 360‘ 32. Social critics : Now an endangered species? 363 366 33. The Curious case of Sulak’s Spring into notoriety 34. A Critic Stands Trial 369 35. Unrest in Thailand 374 Australian support for Critic of Thai King 378 36. 37. Cultural Freedom 381 Peace Leader Arrested in Thailand 383 38. -386 39. Thai Thinker on Trial 40. Possible Life-Imprisonment for a Man 391 Devoted to Freedom, Democracy and People 41. Knights, pawns... and Kings 394 42. Legal Action : Amnesty International 407 Prosecution Charges 43. 414 435 Chronology of Events 44. The Lampter Factor 45. 446 AppendixII 46.

Violation of human rights in 1'976

X

454

FOREWORD

At the time I was asked to write a forwordto this new|book of Sulak Sivaraksa he is waiting trial on a charge of lese majeste: His arrest followed on the accusation that he had been critical of the monarchy. In his country of Thailand this is a serious charge. It does not seem like a time to publish another social commentary on his country and the forces for change that ‘are moving to a Siamese resurgence. However Sulak has decided that he must continue his work as an advocate of social justice. It is a role in which he has become increasingly well known and respected. His recent arrest caused a world wide reaction. Protests have come from many countries. Groups with which he is linked have appealed for a fair and open trial. Sulak seeks “.a chance to defend myself ..fairly.” He is prepared “to fight the case according to the rule of law”. He does not want to be a hero but he is prepared, to stand firmly. “I advocate the three main institutions of the country, namely the nation, religion and kingship. But these institutions have to be directed towards the good of the majority of the people .... and not be used politically by any groups”; So while he may not want to be a hero and go to prison, his stand is not without danger to himself. Given the times it is a courageous stand and one that can make people into heroes whether they like it or not. However it is true that his present situation is consistent with the movement of his life. He comes from a background that could have given him security and status. He "is an intellectual and a traditionalist. He loves his country. But Sulak

also knows about the burdens that weigh down on the masses of the people. The sufferings of the poor of Asia and the poor of his own Thailand have moved him to take a moral and idealistic stand. He has become a critic of the structures and systems that oppress the people. This commitment has been strengthened by the sincere motivation of his religious faith. The Buddhist spirit has deeply influenced his thinking and actions. The threads of patriotism, search for truth and religious faith have come together in a conviction that gives priority to the, liberation and full development of the Thai people. This conviction leads him to make critical comments on, the political, economic and social situation of his country. He continues to call institutions and systems to be faithful to serving the good of the people. In recent years Sulak has given more and more of his time to this work for justice for the people of Asia. He has travelled to many places in support of their cause. In writings, lectures, conferences and meetings, he has raised a voice for truth and justice. For many such as myself it has- been a privilege to work with him and enjoy his friendship and learn from his teachings and example. I along with so many others see this new book as a further evidence of his commitment to the task he has set himself. .It is the truth that will finally bring freedom. May Sulak who searches honestly and speaks courageously enjoy this same freedom to get on with the. task. John Curnow Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrement Christchurch New Zealand 24 September 1984

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i'

In 1979 an Australian friend helped editing my collected articles which were published as Siam in Crisis. It is now out of print. In 1981, a Canadian friend edited another set of collected articles, which were published as A Buddhist Vision f or Renewing Society. My lecture in Thai was also translated by an American friend and was published in the same year as Religion and Development. This too is out of print. Although I still have no time to write a.proper book,, I have again been encouraged to publish yet another collection of essays, articles and lectures. Unfortunately my themes are limited to my religion (Buddhism), my country (Siam) and my region (Asia, especially Southeast Asia). I am not quite sure whether my words are worth recorded in a more permanent form as most of them’had already appeared in various journals. However I was reminded that most of my books in English have been, out of print, a new title may be welcome, although some of the stuff in it may be similar to those already published . All my previous books in English —not to mention. Siam through a Looking Glass which was not properly published— were possible through, the kindness of occidental friends, so with this one I relied entirely on my Asian colleagues, especially those who work with me at the. Asian Cultural Forum On Development and. the Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development. point.

Whether New Zealand is occidental or not is besides the It is indeed a great honour that Fr John Curnow kindly

wrote the Forword to this volume. Dr. Uthai Dulyakasem, Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University, in particular, spent so much time in arranging bits and pieces into a cohesive form. Even so I fear I still repeat myself in different essays which assemble here in this volume. At the final stage Daw Tint Tint Than from Burma kindly edited my English and proof read the entire book for me: Although she does not share my faith or my opinion, she is very tolerant and very patient with me. Her polite criticisms lielp improve the articles too. With such collaboration and encouragement from many quarters that I feel confident in seeing this book through the press. Although the subjects in this volume cover wider area than my native land, as a Siamese who tries to be optimistic and pragmatic, and whatever subject I wrote of talked, my Siameseness must have come across somehow, perhaps the title of this volume may not be too misleading. When the book was being printed that. I became well known or notorious through the so-called lese majeste case, which clouded my life for about four months, so I ought to share with my readers what were written about me during that period. Hence Appendix I . And to make the readers aware a little of the 1976 period, when a greater harm had been done to a greater number of the Thai public, yet only my books were destroyed (—had I been at home-, I too might suffer a similar fate as my colleagues and students). I therefore have my letter to UNESCO then published (Appendix II). (If the readers wish to understand more about the 1976 implications, they ought to read Puey Ungphakorn: A Siamese for All Seasons.) The appendices are only some indications of certain contemporary historical events. Although I felt sad about the violation of human rights in my country, and although I suffered along

with others, I still . regard myself more fortunate than most, especially with the help of so. many friends, collaborators and well wishers, both at home and abroad, that I managed to survive Government’s prosecution somewhat. I wish my less well-known compatriots could at least be protected similarly. However, I hope that the path towards social. justice will be better in the near future. We must of cour.se fight for it, but our fight rrtust be done rionviolently and with full collaboration of good friends who understand us and' our culture, I hope this small volume will help somevyhat for that understanding. S.S.S. 30th November 1984

v

INTRODUCTION

This is a book containing a collection of lectures, public addresses and talks given to audiences gathered to hear Acharn Sulak Sivaraksa deliver them on many special occasions. He is well known to a wide public as the author of a number Of works covering a comprehensive range of topics on religion, history and other miscellaneous writings. Highly educated in different fields of arts, science, law etc., Acharn Sulak is a man of wide experience, outspoken and with worldwide contacts. Not only has he studied, but also has an up-to-date knowledge of the fundamentals of ethics and religion. He is that type of man who cannot and will not just sit quiet where he thinks ill-treatment, unfairness or injustice was done. He will go to any lengths to help, act or speak up for the oppressed, thus the qualities of being a man full of compassion and courage are distinctly seen. He has a remarkable understanding of nature and a pretty gift of speaking. Anyone after speaking with Acharn Sulak will find himself learning more and being introduced to some new aspects of the subject talked about. As an outstanding contribution to historical and religious thought, this book will rank as an important source fof all concerned with the history of Siam. He has for the benefit of all of us, taken pains to gather all the facts and put them together and produced this book. All the lectures and speeches in this book were written in the original form as delivered by him on different occasions. The

book is divided into five main parts. 1. Buddhism and Society. 2. Buddhist Perspectives and Development. 3. Culture and Southeast Asia. 4. Some Leading Siamese Personalities. 5. Miscellaneous. Plus two appendices The author tried to avoid technical terms but he has not always been successful. We even have to print some words in Thai scripts . Buddhist terminology better known to the west in its Sanskrit form and the author follows the practice, but since he belongs to the Therevada tradition, he has to quote the Scripture in its Pali terms. Hence the discrepancies of certain words, e.g. Dhamma, Dharma; Nibbana, Nirvana. Hopefully this will not confuse the readers. If the readers wish to understand Buddhism and Southeast Asia, they had better familiarize themselves with these terms anyhow. It is hoped that this book with a wealth of material will be of some use to all those who read it, giving them a deeper understanding of Buddhism and Thai history and encourage people to live in harmony with all others, exploiting none and serving them all and live a simple, less complicated life. DTTT Bangkok 5th August 1984

BUDDHISM AND SOCIETY

BUDDHISM AND A WORLD OF CHANGE

The problem of 'pluralism in Asia is different from that of the west. Asians, having once felt the impacf of colonialism and foreign values, are determined to develop their own identities arid destinies. Inequalities of life chances have meant that Asian peoples are ‘still bound by models of “modernization” which are essentially western. But no longer can it b.e assumed that westernization will be inevitable or good. What insights can we gain frbm the Buddha in our pluralistic world? Buddhists look up to the Buddha as a great man. To ns’ he is the - greatest in wisdom (panna) arid in compassion (karuna). However complex the world has become, the underlying riiessage of the Buddha is still relevant. Buddhism’s appeal is due to the seeming simplicity of its message and its resolute unconcern with questions that do not immediately bear upon the burden of its glad tidings. The Buddha himself comes out as a sympathetic personality who makes no special claims of possesing extraordinary powers and who manages to convey his teaching through transparent images and arresting parables. The stress of the teaching is mostly on the practicality of mindfulness, in order to' solve orie’s problems' before one attempts to solve problems of others. Buddha affects the role merely of the author, or discoverer, of a genuine solution to a very considerable human problem. That problem is suffering, the cause and cure of

4 which the Buddha claims not merely to know, but to be able, without super-human difficulty, to teach. The solution is universal and radical. It is addressed to suffering as such, and not to this sort of suffering or that. Neither the cause nor the cure of suffering are matters of revelation. The Buddha only discovers them, as any others could have done before or after him. So the Buddha appears to himself and to his immediate disciples as a doctor, for the generalized ills of mankind. The Buddhist liberation - nibbana - is accessible to anyone at any time and is indifferent to caste standing. It requires neither mastery of an arcane doctrine nor elaborate program of austerity. In fact, the Buddha condemns severe austerity practice as he is anti-intellectual, regarding learning that does not directly apply to questions that he regards as urgent, i.e., questions which pertain to life and death, suffering and the cause of suffering. The initial thrust of Buddhism—that of search for cure of suffering— brings with it an emphasis on exploration rather than revelation. Thus Buddhism’s stance in the face of a pluralistic world is different from faiths which depend more on revelation. The understanding and enactment of the Buddhist prescription is well within the limits of common intelligence and will. The Buddha is a self-proclaimed advocate of the Middle Path —midway between the extremes of hedonism and asceticism. It is a path that leads to the precise end sought by hedonists, who mean to drown out pain by unremitting pleasure, and by ascetics, who mean to escape pain by sinking into a state of apathy and slipping from the opposites of painand-pleasure through their programs of discipline. Most important, the Buddha promises immediate release, in the respect that there is no need to work one’s way through a sequence of

5 karmic stages, to some remote stage, at which release is feasible. That release may come directly and to anyone is dramatically underscored in the exotic branch of Buddhist teaching, namely Zen, which is rather well known in the West than, say, in Southeast Asia. Yet the behaviour and saying of meditation masters in Theravada tradition do not seem to be different from that of the Zen Guru. The Buddha’s original teaching, which remains a common fund for all branches of Buddhist thought, is expressed in the Four Noble Truths. I have already mentioned three of these in passing. It is not enough, however, merely to attain an abstract understanding of the propositions intellectually. One has to make them part of one’s life. After all, they are considered as medicine. And medicine has to be taken. It does, your headache no good to have aspirins in the bottle. It has to be internalized, which is the main crux of disputes between believers and non-believers. If one does not regard suffering as something real and threatening, one does not take the message of the Buddha seriously. The first problem the Buddha faces is the fact that we are suffering in many respects in human life. Always and everywhere through the long history of Buddhism, the fact of suffering has been stressed. According to the Buddha, life is suffering. Existence is pain and the struggle to maintain individuality is painful. The believers in Buddhism are convinced that suffering overbalances pleasure in human life so much that it would be better never to have been born. Early Buddhists enumerated many kinds of suffering. We, moderns, tend to ignore the sad, dark aspects of our lives by means of external directions: television, cinema, drama, music, etc. People who are busy all the time, who must always think of something, who must always be doing something under pressure, are

0

incessantly running away from this experience of basic original anxiety. But if we look at our inner life, we cannot deny that there remain many things which can be called suffering. If the word suffering is too strong, the word unsatisfactoriness may be a substitute for the word dukkha used by the Buddha. The Buddhist contention is that we will never be at ease before we have overcome this basic anxiety, and the Buddha teaches' the way out of suffering. There is much to be said for the First Noble Truth of suffering, even though it appears a commonplace. Everyone, in a way, knows the First Noble Truth, but it took a virtual act of genius to see it as the sort of truth, that the Buddha did. Everyone suffers. But not everypne knows that he suffers. Suffering is a passion. To know that it is suffering is not a passion, but a piece of knowledge. What the Buddha recognized is that knowledge of the fact can be a step towards its mitigation. The first, and in some ways the hardest, step for a certain sort of sick man to make is towards the knowledge that he is sick. Indeed, until this step is taken, no other step can be taken at all. The Buddha also recognized that it is in some measure a mitigation of suffering to know that suffering is universal. When an adolescent realizes that he is an adolescent, that his sufferings are exactly the suffering of his kind, he has taken a step towards the mitigation of his ills. One of the Buddha’s celebrated cures was of a mother, who, mad with grief, asked him to restore her child to life; he told her he required only a mustard seed from any household where there had not been a death, and of course she could not find this. What she did find is that the condition she lamented was a universal condition and that restoring the child to life would only postpone an inevitable fact. Nothing was changed by what the Buddha did.

1

Only she saw the same facts in a different way and seeing them so, she was transformed. The Second Noble Truth (Samudaya) explains the cause of suffering 'as desire or -craving. This is perhaps the most distinctive Buddhist teaching; the suffering is the product of “(1) the craving of the passions, (2) the craving of existence and (3) the craving of nonexistence”. Our craving is so strong and blind that the Buddha compares it to thirst (tanha). When we are thirsty, we cannot help desiring water, and we forget everything else. In the same way, our craving compels us to crave objects. These cravings are’ caused by ignorance. We are ignorant concerning the true nature of our existence and of the universe in which we live. Human existence and indeed the existence of everything in the universe; are boundby three characteristics (tilakkhana). Apart from suffering, all things are impermanent (anicca) and ultimately they have ‘non-self’ (anatta) attached to them. If one does, not understand this from the bottom of one’s heart, one cannot realize the Third Noble Truth, i.e. the cessation of suffering (Nirpdha). One can only realize the Third Noble Truth by following the Noble Eightfold Path, which, is the Fourth Noble Truth. The Buddha says “Knowing that this body is (fragile) like a jar„ making this thought firm like a fortress, let him attack Mara (the tempter, the devil) with the weapon of wisdom, protect what he has conquered and remain attentive to- it.” We should be sure that no temptation will overtake us. We can realize this, because we know that all things are transient and we should not cling to them with the attitude of craving. Being ourselves impermanent, we should search for the

8 way of deliverance. By reflecting on the transitoriness of our existence, we should endeavour to search for that which shines beyond us — Enlightenment. Through the wisdom which comes from reflection on the transitoriness of life, by following the Noble Eightfold Path, everyone can attain Enlightenment. And man must tread the Path by his own effort to seek his own salvation, as the last words of the Buddha are recorded as saying: “Decay is inherent in- all compound things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.” Admitting the transitoriness of everything, the Buddha did not want to assume the existence of any metaphysical substance. This attitude was logically derived from his fundamental standpoint. The Buddha reduced things, substances and souls, to forces, movements, functions and processes, and adopted a dynamic conception of reality. For the Buddhist each moment is the fullness of life and meaning. My life is, as it were, wholly present in every moment, even as I realize the dying and becoming that constantly goes on. It is in the awareness of the present, and of the interrelationship of all life in the process of being and becoming, that the Buddhist finds a genuine pluralism. Im this sense the Buddhist interpretation of pluralism insists in going beyond the static dualisms between the relative and the absolute, and therefore takes a different view of the problem from that of western thought. Life is a series of manifestations of generation and extinction. It is a stream of becoming and change. He repudiated the existence of the individual ego. According to him, -the concept of the individual ego as a substance is a popular -delusion. The objects with which we identify ourselves" are not the true self. Our fortune, our social position, our family, our body and even our mind are not our .true self.

9 The ‘ego’ or ‘soul’ is the English translation of the Pali atta. It is more literally rendered “self”. There is. nothing permanent, everything is therefore nomself (anatta). Everything is impermanent. The so-called ‘self’ consists of five aggregates: body, feeling, memory, thought and consciousness. Once all these are grasped, as self, they are suffering; If they are not grasped as self, these are all non-self. There is nothing that does the grasping. We are the aggregate of the graspings, not something apart from them, that does the grasping. Nothing of them is substantial. They are all appearances, empty of substantiality or reality. There can be no individuality without putting together components. And this is always a process of becoming. There can be no becoming without a becoming different, and there can be no becoming different without a dissolution, a passing away or decay, which sooner or later will inevitably come about. In The Questions of King Milinda, Nagasena, the Buddhist monk, pointed out to the Greek general of Alexander, Menander, who proclaimed himself king, that just as a carriage is nothing, separate from wheels and shafts, and the like, that might be said to have wheels, so we are not something separate from limbs and feelings either. We are parts, we are not something that has those parts. In the First Sermon, the Buddha addressed the company of five monks thus: “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the cause of pain: the craving, which tends to rebirth, combined with pleasure and lust, finding pleasure here and. there; namely, the craving for passion, the craving for existence, the craving for non-existence.” Later, the Buddha expounded this in Chain of Causation or Dependent’ Origination, thus:

10

~

Conditioned by ignorance is the Will-to-Action; conditioned by the Will-to-Action is Consciousness;* conditioned by Consciousness is Psychophysical Existence; conditioned by Psychophysical Existence are the Sixsense-fields; conditioned by the Six-sense-fields is Contact; conditioned by Contact is Feeling; conditioned by Feeling is Craving; conditioned by Craving is Grasping; conditioned by Grasping is Becoming; conditioned by Becoming is Birth; conditioned by Birth there come into Being, Aging and Dying,. Grief, Sorrow, (Bodily) Suffering, Lamentation and- Despair. Thus'is the origin of the whole mass of suffering.

According to the.sutta, the Buddha found that birth is the cause of such suffering as decay and death, and traced the chain back to ignorance. Then he contemplated the way in which ignorance gives rise to Will-to-Action (Karmic formation) which in turn produces consciousness and so on through the chain of causation until he came to birth as the cause Of decay and death. Working backward, he saw that cessation of birth is the cause of the cessation of suffering arid, finally, he discovered that the cessation of ignbrance is- the ultimate cause of cessation of the whole chain. He is''said to have become the Buddha by means of this twofold contemplation up and down the chain of causation. In other words he contemplated the way to deliverance from suffering -and found that the cause of suffering is ignorance and that by extinguishing ignorance, suffering is extinguished. 1 The Third Noble Truth is the assurance that suffering can

11 be completely cured, a formulation that once more underscores the fundamental- Buddhist attitude that suffering is a disease. The cure is up to us. We must stop ignorant .craving. It is the vanishing of afflictions so that no passion remains. It is the giving up, the getting rid of, the emancipation from, the harboring no longer, of the craving thirst. The Pali word for cessation is Nirodha, originally and etymologically means ‘control’. To control, or “cool”, this craving thirst is truly the ideal state of Nibbana. The. Fourth, and final, Noble Truth announces the way to this ideal state. This is the Noble Eightfold Path or the,Middle Way,, viz.: 1) Right Views; 2) Right Aspirations; 3) Right Speech; 4); Right Conduct; 5) Right Livelihood; 6) Right Effort; 7) Right Mindfulness; 8) Right Tranquility of the Mind. 1) Right Views means the understanding of the fundamental teaching of the Buddha, especially the four Noble Truths. .2) Right Aspirations means the aspiration to overcome sensual desires, the aspiration not to create any ill-will, the aspiration' to non-violence. 3) Right Speech means riot .to tie, but speak truthfully, beautifully and usefully for the purpose of spiritual progress. 4) Right.Conduct means not to kill, not to steal, not to display wrongful sexual behaviour. 5) Right Livelihood means the livelihood that will not take an advantage of oneself or others. Trading in, armament, for im stance; would be regarded as wrong livelihood. 6) Right Effort means that effort should be spent in preventing evil desires, useless cravings, and idle excitements by the cultivation of the opposite of right desires and lofty aspirations, for instance; the desire for emancipation from sensuali-

12 ty, aspirations toward the attachment of love for -others, the wish not to injure any living thing, the desire;.for the eradication of wrong and for the promotion, of right aspirations. 7) Right Mindfulness is expounded fully in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta , namely, one should be mindful of one’s body merely as body, feeling merely as a feeling, mind merely as mind and elements of existence (dhammas) merely as elements of existence. Once one has reached this stage, the attachment to desires could be overcome. 8) One can then achieve the ideal state of Right Tranquility of the Mind, the state of the cool of Nibbana— Enlightenment. The Eightfold Path raises a point which is a crucial institutional facf connected with the spread of Buddhism. It is that the Eightfold Path is a regimen involving complete dedication. It is not something one can do casually and hope to get the aimed for results. You really hayejo. enter into the cure, or you are certain to persist in suffering. So it is not surprising that a group of followers should have' detached themselves from their daily world and form themselves into a specifically monastic body. In the early sermons and homilies, it is monks who are. addressed by the Buddha. Monks are individuals upon whom; the grip of the world is already looser than it is upon most of us. It is, to be sure, a cheerful order. The Middle Way dispenses with great austerities. Moreover it is open to anyone, whatever sex or caste. The monks leave home to the homeless lives, don the yellow robe and embark on the Noble Eightfold. Path to release. The Buddha prescribes a community and an ethic as a path to freedom. Freedom is the result of discipline, not the lack of it. Part of the trauma of pluralism in the modern world is the unsettled nature of the meaning of freedom and discipline in our lives and institutions. As for the laity, the general principle must be adapted to

13 the infinitely varying circumstances of actual life. Otherwise there would be a danger of detailed and petty regulations encroaching unduly on the moral autonomy of the individual. In order to avoid this danger, the Buddha advised his disciples to resort to the spirit of the Middle Path. This fundamental approach to ethical problems has been preserved throughout the Buddhist world, although it has been variously applied in different periods and different countries. The main issue is the proper understanding of the Right View, especially the Three Characteristics of everything namely, the suffering, the impermanency, and the selflessness. If a man could live a life of the Right Path, of unvarying patience and kindness to all, not binding his heart to the worldly things that rise and pass away, then he would be free from mundane life, and for him the fountain of evil would vanish. If one could still the craving for one’s petty self, and endeavor to do good for others, then the principle of individuality, the fundamental and worst delusion of mankind might be overcome. Only then is peace of mind really possible; the mind has cleansed itself. The Buddha, having attained the peaceful state of Nibbana, is full of compassion. Those of us who have, not yet reached that ideal stage, should also seek our salvation through compassion. True wisdom consists not of metaphysical sophistication, b.ut only of practical knowledge, and its fundamental -principle should be the attitude of compassion. This attitude of compassion or benevolence should be taken as the fundamental principle in our social life. Compassion or love toward one’s neighbors is highly esteemed in Buddhism. ~Corifbassion is expressed in the Pali word Metta, which is derived from Mitta (friehd)r~ So compassion means ‘true friendliness’.. Salvation could in fact be developed through ‘true friends’ (kalayanamitta) and through ‘insight, self awareness’ (yonisomanasikara).

14 If we allow the virtue of compassion qr love to grow in us, it will not occur to us to harm anyone else,, any more than we would willingly harm ourselves. In this way, we extinguish our sentiments and our clinging tp.our petty selves by widening the boundaries of what we regard as ours. We invite eyeryone’s self to enter our own personality; thus we break down the barriers which separate us from others. The Metta Sutta which I quoted in my talk on ‘Buddhism and Nonviolence’* goes on saying: As a mother even at the risk of her own life protects her own only child, so let everyone'cultivate a boundless love toward all beings. Let him cultivate toward the whole world — above, below, around — a heart, of love, unstinted, unmixed with the.sense of differing or opposing interest. Let a man maintain this.mindfulness all the while he is awake, whether he be. standing, walking, sitling or lying down. This state of heart is the best in the world. Indeed by practicing loving kindness, one could reach the .ideal state beyond birth and death. What then is the basisi for this altruistic attitude in Buddhism?’ It is attained byarieditation on the elements which constitute our ‘self’ — that is our dhammas. Such meditation dissolves the existence of toneself into a conglomeration of impersonal and instantaneous elements. Meditation reduces each individual to th.e five aggregates of constituent elements, plus a labpl for the individuals. If there is nothing in the world except bundles of constituent elements, instantaneously appearing and’perishing all the time, there is nothing which friendliness and. compassion could work on. This way of meditating seeks to abolish QUErdeep'rooted egoism in our own existence, it aims at cherishing compassion and love toward others.: By dissolv*see A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society pp. 98-118

15

ing our human existence into component parts, we can get rid of the notion of ego, and through that meditation we are led to a limitless expansion of the self in a practical sense, because one identifies oneself with more and more living beings. The whole world and the individual are intimately and indissolubly linked. The whole human family is so closely knit together that each unit is dependent upon other units for- its growth and development. To bring out a goodness in us, each of us should try to reproduce in his own wheel of life the. harmony with the great universe which comprises us and enables us to exist. Love or friendliness could be called the highest virtue. It must however be. accompanied by other .mental attitudes - the four states of Sublime Conditions (Brahma-vihara). They are loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. These feelings should be deliberately practiced, beginning with a single object and gradually increasing until the whole world is suffused with them. Sariputta, the right hand disciple of the Buddha, said: “Love should be felt for one’s own kin, And so for enemies too, and the whole wide world Should be pervaded with a heart of love. This is the teaching of all the Buddhas. ” The Buddha himself declared : All actions, by which one acquires merits are not worth the sixteenth part of friendliness (metta) which is the emancipation of mind; for friendliness radiates, shines, and illumines, surpassing those actions as the emancipation of mind, Just as all the lights of the stars are not worth the sixteenth part of the moonlight! for the moonlight, surpassing them all, radiates, shines and illumines.

16 In reading the Pali canon, one- is impressed with the strong p’ersonal influence the Buddha exercised over the hearts of his fellow men — monks or laity; whether his. followers or not. He was regarded as a very meek arid com'passioriate man by others. In all that he represented ways of peace. Anger, in fact, had no place in his character. Anger played no role in his preachings. The birth stories of the Buddha exalt, often extravagantly, his great compassion and renunciation. The ways in which he is described might seem too fantastic, yet their purport is characteristically altruistic. There is much to be learned from the wisdom and the compassion of the Buddha in this pluralistic world.

Lecture presented at the University of Hawaii, Manoa/June 1977. First published in Solidarity No. 1,1983.

BUDDHISM AS A CATALYST OF SOCIAL UNITY AND PROGRESS

The Religious Affairs Department has recently put restrictions on foreigners who may wish to become Buddhist monks in Siam. The Department cited as a main reason for making foreign monks seem unwelcome in Siam the fact that they contribute nothing to the welfare of the Thai people and in fact have proved to be a burden to the local economy. Such restrictions may be justified if we were to take into consideration that some foreigners want to become monks because they only want to escape from the world of turmoil and as such they Would benefit only themselves. My- own experience of Buddhist practices in England over the past thirty years clarely indicated that Buddhism there was practiced by those who.did not want to get involved with the society. ■ However, a new generation of Buddhists in England (and other Western societies as well) have displayed a robust feeling and inclination in' being involved in the spirit of Buddhisms A lot of foreign monks in Siam have also come to realize that they should help the Thai people, and many of them do indeed get involved in certain social service activities. For example, quite a number of them have been assisting Phra Chamroon, the abbot and recipient of the Magsaysay Award, at Wat Tham Krabok, Sraburi, in launching a campaign to cure drug addicts inside the5 Wat premises.

18

Some foreign monks have studied under Achariya Cha, a famous monk in his seventies, the abbot of Wat Pah (forest monastery), Ubon Rajthani province. As chief disciple of Achriya Cha, the Venerable Sumedho, is now an abbo(-in-charge of a meditation centre outside London. If the main purpose of becoming a monk is simply to expand knowledge of or immerse oneself in Buddhism, it is perhaps a lot, better, more practical and less expensive to contact good meditation centers as there are now serveral in the USA and in Europe. However, it is understandable for foreigners to feel that a Buddhist temple in an alien culture in a western society cannot be the same as an authentic Buddhist temple in a land and among people who have practiced Buddhism both as a religion and a way of life for many centuries. Notwithstanding the fact that Buddhism as practiced in Siam today is becoming more decadent and materialistic, Siam nevertheless continues to present a certain ideal —the irreplaceable true cultural pattern of a Buddhist society. To cite a very common example, when monks board a public utility bus in Bangkok, the passengers automatically give way and let the monks take the back seat, the place traditionally given to them, no matter how crowded a bus happens to- be. At the same time, the female passengers immediately keeps away from the monks as the Vinaya rule forbids the opposite sex to come in close contact with monks as part of proper decorum. This needs not to mention that they do not have to pay the bus fare. On the other hand, another Buddhist ritual, pindapata, or monks collecting alms in the early morning hours, is still very much part of life ‘in rural villages in Siam, but not rigorously observed in Bangkok anymore. It has almost

19 disappeared in Sri Lanka and is quickly on the decline in Burma. Thai monks know very well that they owe it to laity so they actively participate in productive and meaningful projects that often relate directly to the economic well-being of the people. As illustrations, I will refer to few monks who have been active in the projects directly related to the bettermerit of quality of life of the people. Phrakru Sakorn, who is in his 50’s, is the abbot of Wat Yokrabat in Samut Sakorn province. He is a provincial monk who only completed elementary education. Samut Sakorn, where the temple is located, is only one province away from Bangkok. The people of that province are mostly impoverished illiterate farmers. The province is usually flooded with sea water, which perenially destroys the paddy fields, leaving the people with little or no other means of subsistence. Being fully aware of the people’s situation, Phrakru Sakorn decided that he should try to develop the people first before attempting to make any improvements in his own temple. First of all, he could see for himself that the people lacked an essential element of success in any understanding unity. Each person had his own means of escape from reality, be it gambling, drinking or playing the lottery. Instead of spending his time preaching the Buddhist moral code alone, Phrakru organized the people to work together to build dikes, canals and to some extent also engage in road-building. In addition, he believed that poverty could not be eradicated unless salt-water be completely prevented from

20

ruining the rice fields and new crops be introduced. Phrakru therefore suggested coconut as a substitute for paddy because a nearby province, Samut Songkram, has the highest per capita income in- the country and the people there are well-off mostly from their successful coconut industry. Once the people of Samut Sakorn started growing coconuts, Phrakru advised them not to sell coconuts because the middlemen kept the price of coconuts very low. Phrakru then encouraged the people to make coconut sugar instead by using traditional techniques of making this particular'product. i At the time the people of Samut Sakorn under Phrakru’s leadership were busily producing coconut sugar, Dr. Puey Ungphakorn, the then Rector of Thammasat University, and head of ,an organization comprised of three Universities: Thammasat, Kasetsart, and Mahidol, was interested in the development and promotion of community projects. Phrakru therefore received assistance from Dr. Puey’s group and the people of Samut Sakorn managed to sell their coconut sugar all over the country during a period when its price was quite high, owing to a prevalent sugar shortage, thus finally bringing success and prospecity to them. Today Phrakru Sakorn is acknowledged as an expert both in coconut production and coconut by-products. Recently he has been invited to lecture in the Philippines on how to make use of coconuts in a better way, which is an excellent tribute indeed to Phrakru’s superb ingenuity and preseverance. But Phrakru has no intentions of resting oh his past achievements. He has now encouraged palm tree growing in his province, since palm trees need less time to grow to maturity and can thrive even in salt water. Moreover, palm trees are much cheaper than concrete as building material and are also

21

used in fishing boats. Another line of work that Phrakru has started is the planting of herbs to be used as traditional medicineWhile Phrakru has succeeded in improving the livelihood of the people of Samut Sakorn, a young monk, named Phra Pracha from a temple in Chaiya, Surat Thani province, who is in his 30’s, is trying to provide a good religious education to the Thais. During his student days at Chulalongkorn University, he was quite well-known as a progressive-thinking young man, very ardent, very dedicated to various causes. He organized a lot of things for the benefit of the people, but was never satisfied or content with whatever he did or accomplished in the social7 and political fields. Then, somebody suggested that he ought to try Buddhism, if his purpose in life is to improve fellow human ’beings. At first he only wanted to be ordained for a few weeks, but has now remained in the monkhood for eight years (as of 1983). Phra Pracha could communicate with different kinds of Buddhism. He translated a book, The Miracle of Being A wake by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese zen monk — more than 20,000 copies of his Thai translation of the book have been sold. It is not only for sale but is also given away at cremations. Phra Pracha has also translated other books, and in collaboration with other young people, has initiated various good works to help bring the.messages of the Buddha to the people. He has paid several visits to many students in jail as well as wounded soldiers and policemen injured while fighting communist insurgents.

22

Many more monks such as these could be cited as examples, but it is suffice to show that monks can play a vital role in the improvement of. the life conditions of the people, had they been fully aware of the problems. According to latest statistics, Siam has 25, 605 Buddhist temples with 213,175 monks and 114,252 novices scattered throughout the country. Dr. Prawes Wasi, also a Magsaysay Award' winner, has pointed out that monks represent a great potential waiting to be tapped as “bareheaded doctors”, which was what Sir John Brotherstoh, a famous Scottish physician, called them. “Monks can only and readily fill large gaps in the existing health care system,” Dr. Prawes maintained. The curing of a large number of drug addicts at Wat Tamkrabok and the community development programs of Phrakru as cited earlier are excellent examples of beneficial community efforts led by monks. Some year ago, the Komol Keemthong Foundation organized a seminar in health care at Wat Thongnopkhun where monks participated. Dr. Prawes wrote about that seminar in a published work: “Student-monks were recruited from the province. They were very receptive and were quite adaptive at learning new techniques in health care. Upon their return to the provinces, they have been able to work effectively in preventive medicine and in providing information on health care and curative medicine. However, the monks have been careful to strictly abide by the Vinaya, or rules of discipline, of the Sangha.” Dr. Prawes also observed that people can learn to take

23 care of themselves in 80-90 percent of the most common diseases among Thais. The largest number of victims can be found in rural areas, especially in poor villages. “ I t is the rural Sangha leadership which can best provide the advice, information and encouragement to villagers, so that they will be motivated and capable of protecting themselves against illness and curing themselves when sick,” Dr. Prawes opined, adding that although people are being increasingly taught to rely on the professional medical system, the overall system of medical care in the country is “overcentralized, overbureaucratized and overcommercialized”. In the field of education, the monkhood continues to serve Thai society as a primary source of social mobility, compensating for much of the inequality of opportunity in. education between the rich and the poor. However, it is unfortunate, as Phra Rajavaramuni, a leader monk scholar in Bangkok, explained that monks have been retired from their role in public education and have developed the habit of idleness, living only on the rich inheritance of traditional popular support. In the old days monks were a lot more active in furthering their studies as preachers, doctors, astrologers, artists, artisans, etc. Phya Anuman’s account (in his Popular Buddhism) duly notes the procedures followed by monks in their search for greater knowledge. “ I f a monk required some knowledge, say astrology, and there was not a monk-astrologer in the wat where he was staying, he would retire to another wat where there was a .monkastrologer.” Phya Anuman wrote “He would present an offering to the monk-astrologer of tapers, incense sticks and flowers, in the same manner as the boy student to his monkteacher, and ask for initiation as a pupil. The monk then

24 would attend the study at hrs monk-teacher’s residence regularly every afternoon. He might have a layman for his tutor, if he could not find a suitable monk-teacher. There was no teacher-fee in the modern sense. The teaching was given free to accepted students. When a monk student had completed his course of learning, he might become an astrologer himself and give his services free to the people of his village”. Educated monks, monks who possessed special knowledge and skills, offer their specialized services without charge to the people, and in turn monks were presented with offering of all necessary things befitting a monk’s use. “An abbot of the village wat, if h e i s a man of age, full of love and wisdom, is a highly respected person in the village,” Phya Anuman noted.“He is called Luangpaw (great father) by the villagers. His counsel is eagerly sought in case of difficulties and differences. The villagers seek his advice and decision even in a serious, case rather than refer the case, if they can, to the official authority for decision. A decision by the authority or legal court will take days, and also a certain amount of money has' to be paid out in fees and expenses. But not so with the venerable abbot, their spiritual father. The abbot in his spare time will make a round of afternoon visits to the villagers, giving advice or. distributing his home-made medicine or other things as needed.” In comparing the monks in the traditional Thai Society with the monks in modern times, Phra Rajavaramuni expounded in his article, “Thai Buddhism: A Trend”, that things have changed for the worse: He wrote, “In the past, the monkhood was recruited from men of all classes of the society and from all parts of the country regardless of their status. As members of the monkhood, the monks formed an independent society exercising

25

s

spiritual and intellectual influences on the secular society. Roughly speaking, they played the roles of intellectuals. But in modern times, since the monks were retired from educational responsibility on the adoption of the modern system of public education and since the traditional system of education was retained only in the monasteries, the monkhood has been recruited from the underprivileged, mostly from the peasants’ children. “To distinguish them from those trained in the newly adopted modern system of education, the monks of modern times may be called the traditional intellectuals. But, with an undeveloped system, they have lost the position of the intellectuals and fallen to the class of the common uninformed people or even the uneducated. In contrast to these outcast and outdated intellectuals recruited from the villagers are modern intellectuals who get educated through the modern educational system The modern intellectuals are now represented by university students who are mostly (about 75-80 percent) recruited from the privileged classes in towns and cities, the children of government officials and merchants. “ I n spite of -this loss of intellectual leadership, the monkhood still plays an important educational role of the modern society. Amidst the unequal opportunities in education, the monkhood provides a channel through which the less privileged people who get no access to the modern educational system of the state may continue their intellectual pursuits.’’

Phra Rajavaramuni also discussed in the same essay the monks’ involvement in community development in contemporary Thai society. He said, “To monks and to a number of lay Buddhists, the monks’ Joss of leadership in the modern

26

Westernized sector of Thai society, usually represented by the urbanized communities, has affected the stability of the religion and partly accounted fOr the misdirected development of the society.” He stressed the fact that monks no longer play any roles of real importance or lasting value, and that the society has reached its current stage of development without the help or guidance of monks. With the division of education into two branches—lay and ecclesiatical — the ecclesiastical branch has no program to induce leading lay intelligentsia to come into Buddhism, though some of them are strongly possessed with the faith. In an interview with Venerable Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, who is well-known throughout the kingdom for his upright behaviour, originality, outspokeness and profound scholarship in the Buddhist scriptures, I asked him what could be done wherein there would be fewer leading highly intellectual monks on the ecclesiastical side than intellectuals on the lay side. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu replied, “I’Ve noticed it for some time. I am rather worried about it. In the future, there would be only mediocre monks in our wats and those living under the guise of religion. The latter may be clever or cunning, but only at taking advantage of religion. If only this type is left in our wats, the religion would be doomed.” “But,” he continued, “ o n looking at the other side of the problem, we see that it’s like Fortune’s wheel turning to its own tempo. Now, the tempo or the turn of Fortune’s wheel is just that, just like the way of the world. It has changed to such a state, so it may change for the better in the future. We aren’t too worried, but realize that the situation must be saved and certainly prevented from

,27

becoming worse.” The problem of' the world today is due to lack of Sammadithi, (meaning the right view or attitude). If education were the answer to most problems, it should begin by cultivating Sammcidithi. It is a sad fact, however, that education as such is more of a dream than a reality. Most Thai schools, and this applies to other countries as well, do not help set people free from infatuation and intoxication with things that do not make for well-being. Schools are entrusted with old customs and habits which are for the most part without value. They press people out in almost identical molds, teaching, them to be slaves of material things, slaves of wordly ideals, until it is almost -impossible for them' to struggle free. Additionally,, the more education a person receives, the more he is taken by educational lures. Instead of being in* terested in the true goods of education which is human development, the interest centres upon the diploma, in the degree which will put a price on a person, making him worth so much salary with such and such a. piece of paper. And the less the institution provides worthwhile education, the. less knowledge and skill it imparts, the less it inculcates creative ways of viewing* things, while more emphasis is placed on educational non-essentials such as diplomas and degrees, for these are the passes that will get one a job, never mind whether the job is useful or harmful to society. Under the present system, everyone wants to compete with the rest, climbing on top of others to better oneself. Even if it means destroying one’s neighbor or double-crossing one’s friend, it will be done without hesitation. This is evident as one looks around at most of the people of repute. The less respect

28 they have for themselves and the less interest they have in helping society,, the more crooked they are. And the worst o f it is that they themselves are seldom aware of how evil they are. Perhaps that is why some thinkers o f the West such as Ivan Illich have said that educaton in its present form makes slaves o f people. People become really free not by mass education but through their own struggles. Until colonial, expansion in the 19th century, the wat (temple) was not only a spiritual center but was also t h e social, cultural, educational, and artistic center o f -every town and village. The bhikkhu would be regarded as the leader, who bridged the gap between the king and people. H e would set the. Buddhist values above all others. Yet, Buddhism would n o t deny non-Buddhist elements, whether they came from other religious traditions, local culture or any other sphere of the arts or sciences, provided that the Triple Gem of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha are. regarded as of supreme value. The Triple Gem could help people to better understand themselves, the society to which they belong and the universal law of righteousness. I f other arts and sciences, indeed even if other religious leaders and gods could help them iri one way or another, Buddhists would have no objection. Indeed those elements could well be incorporated into popular Buddhist beliefs and practices. Once the Buddhists are awake or aware, they would be mindful about themselves and others. They would discard impure elements, one after the other. They would be able to tackle any problems of spiritual and social life confronting mankind, and could offer guidance to others as much as the degree of their enlightenment would allow. There is a Buddhist story, that one day a leader o f a religious sect came to visit and asked the Buddha, “If I follow your way, what will I do day by day?” The Buddha said,

zd “Walk, stand, lid down, sit, eat, drink...”. The man' asked, “Then what is so special about your Way?” The Buddha answered: “It is indeed special. The ordinary man though he walks, stands, lies down, sits, eats and drinks, does not know he is walking, standing, lying, sitting, eating and drinking. But when we walk, we know that we are walking, when we stand we know that we are standing.” It is a simple story,, but it points to a practice which is most effective: To be able to see one’s own self, to be mindful of every act and movement of one’s heart and .mind, leads to a realization of concentration of power. Once the heart is mastered, wisdom is born. Although self-restraint and wisdom are but first small building-blocks, they are infinitely precious material. Our heart and mind,j under the guidance of self-restraint and wisdom, will know which path we need to take, and we would act with loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Buddhist monks who are mindful of the traditional concepts of Buddhism try their best to apply religious principles and ideas in a modern1 setting for the benefit of the people, which is in sharp contrast to some other monks who may, whether deliberately or not, exploit the people instead. One good example of how Thai bhikkhus differ from each other in their basic outlook according to their means was very much evident during the nationwide observance of the Bangkok Bicentennial Celebration this year, 1982, in commemoration of the founding of the capital city of Siam. In effect, the big event created a distinction between the poor monks and the rich monks. It was on a visit to Uthai Thani province, about 200 kms from Bangkok, that I first learned from a monk there that the Religious Affairs Department had issued an order to the effect

30

that every temple in the country must make merit- and hold ceremonies in honour of the present monarchy and the previous kings of the Chakri .Dynasty on April 5, 6 and 7 —the height of the Bicentennial festivities. The Uthai Thani monk no doubt expressed the sentiments of many other monks when he said he was deeply saddened by such an order. He had a right to be. The people o f his province are poor, and he was aware of the fact that people in some other provinces are even poorer in comparison. What further aggravated the situation was the fact that the order gave monks throughout the country only one week’s- notice. Yet another adverse factor was the fact that the climax of the, celebration was to be quickly followed by the Songkran Festival (April 13-15—traditional Thai New Year). Thai people everywhere must again make merit and celebrate—this time in honour of their own ancestors. Thai monks who have accomplished good works of any lasting value have performed them entirely for the people’s benefit in mind rather than for their own personal aggrandizement. On the other hand, before monks can successfully relay.spiritual matters to the people, the latter must first be able to possess the four requisites, which consist of the four basic necessities of life — food, shelter, clothing and medicine. Otherwise, religion loses its whole meaning. Hence, if monks are required to hold special ceremonies at the people’s expense, and the monks are fully aware that the people could not afford them, there is always a way out. Poor monks in this particular instance decided, to observe the Bicentennial for just one day instead of three consecutive days, just to be able to say that the order from Bangkok was at least partially, if not fully, complied with. This one-day observance was of course carried out at minimal expense or even without

31

any expense. While it is permissible to spend even millions of money on merit-making and religious festivals, If one can afford it, the Lord Buddha stressed that the most meritorious act is made not by spending money, but by keeping one’s mind calm and pure for even one second during which one pays homage with loving kindness to both the living and the dead. Despite the succinct words of the Buddha regarding truly meritorious acts, some monks still gladly receive such an order as the Bicentennial observance as a perfect opportunity to show off, keeping an eye on possible recognition from higher authorities and perhaps with also a promotion in mind at the same time. Of course, not all monks can be expected to see eye to eye on every issue, even if all monks are supposed to follow the same path of righteousness. Each monk or group of monks would do things according to their own personal persuasion or interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings’. All of them can say that what they are doing is for the benefit of the people, although that is not always true, because even monks may consciously work for their own advancement and recognition rather than for improving the lot of the people. In the old days, Thai monks were so successful at making Buddhism an integral part of the agrarian society, and as a religion it was remarkably suitable as an essential part of people’s daily lives. A basic weakness of Buddhism as practiced by the Thais is the erosion pf the Buddha’s basic teachings by other beliefs, mostly having to do with animism and the fear of Pii (ghosts). Monks are often asked to exorcise ghosts. What should have been done to make the religion stronger was to get rid of or minimize all these other folk beliefs and superstitions, but instead the religion has been extremely accommodating all along, working side by side with all kinds

32

of other beliefs, which have done nothing but adulterate and weaken genuine Buddhist practices. The present single worst enemy of Buddhism in Siam is of course new technology which comes hand in hand with industrialisation and progress. Many monks cannot possibly be blamed for not having.any idea of how they can function better than heavy mechanical equipment and machinery, for example. Perhaps without even knowing it, monks have not only condoned but in fact have widely endorsed new technology. It is common knowledge that at grand openings of business and industrial establishments, whether big or small, wherein some importation of foreign goods and equipment has taken place either during the setting up or the expansion of the company in question, nine monks—nine being the auspicious number—are normally invited to bless the grand opening ceremony. It has come to a point where no grand opening or move to a new business address is considered complete without the monks’ participation. So prevalent in today’s Thai consumer society is the' use of monks’ testimonials or articles, such as, the monk’s fan, with a religious significance and meaning that everybody has taken this form of exploitation for granted. Because using monks and religious symbols have been proven effective in advertisements, there’s no end in sight to it. On the brighter side, however, about 99 per cent of monks in Bangkok today are from up-country areas, and the majority of them have their own province or region at heart, and they maintain such an allegiance for life. For many young men from poor families, joining the monkhood is still viewed as the finest means of gaining respect and becoming much better-off economically,, socially and of course, if honestly serious about it, also develop themselves spiritually. Despite

33'

the limited education of many monies, monkhood does in fact offer an excellent chance of receiving a good, education as well as getting to know many wealthy, influential and powerful men. -7 U It is hot unusual for some monks to become quite rich, and the common pitfail is to be obsessed with the acquisition of wealth. The good monks do not let themselves fall into such a trap, however. Perhaps even if they wanted to, they could not, because by nature they are much obliged to send most of their money back home. This is where I would like to close with a little story based on fact. There is an old monk who for the past twenty-five years has been collecting alms at my house every morning. He comes from Sri Sa Kaet in the Northeast, considered the ‘poorest part of the country. As a young man, he decided to become a bhikkhu because he saw in the -monkhood an- opportunity to become a better person and to be useful to the society, but the thought of being of some service to his home province was always on his mind. Because he is quite popular among the people in our neighbourhood, he is able to collect much food, and there are always small temple' boys following behind him to assist with the daily collection. Over the years, he has fed many young boys, students from primary school to the university level, and a number of low-salaried workers, including mere pedi-cab boys. Although some of them earn little money, they can save most of what they make, because they receive free lodging and free food at the wat, and the person they have to thank for the free food is this particular old monk.

It is no coincidence that all these boys come from the same province or region as the old monk. The students want to pursue higher education in better educational institutions in Bangkok, while the young workers are trying to eke out a living in Bangkok, since they could not get any jobs back home, because, the Northeast is one of the poorest regions in the country. Annually for a week or so the old monk would plan a return journey to his village. He would announce his intention to do so beforehand to all his Bangkokian friends, and invite them all to come along to observe some local religious ceremonies there, if they could spare the time, but then he would not forget to ask and remind them about donations for a number of projects that he has either started or plans to launch back home. There is great, rejoicing when he comes back home. His townmates would carry him in a palanquin like a king in, a big procession. There is no better reward for a good monk like him than to be dearly loved by everyone. And this old monk is not an unusual case, because there are many other Thai monks in Bangkok who come from different regions who are just like him,. This goes to shqw that Thai monks may, to some extent, be exploited by the industrial and capitalistic present-day society they live in, but nevertheless they can also take advantage of the affluent members of the society for the benefit of the people back home. This is the type of monk who always manages to prick the conscience of affluent Bangkokians, and make the latter concede that they must also share some of their economic gains with poor people living far away from Bangkok. A background paper submitted to a conference on Paradigm Shifts in-Buddhism and Christianity, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 3-11 January l984

RELIGION AND SOCIETY

Prof. Donald Swearer: It’s very hard to identify Khun Sulak. He has been here several times as teacher, writer, publisher and Buddhist social activist. His latest book is Siam in Crisis. Every American'that I know who does research in Thailand always finds his way to Khun Sulak’s doorstep to ask him for advice and wisdom about research and other things. This I see when I visit Khun Sulak in Thailand in his book store or in his lovely home put together from old Thai wooden houses. But then that’s only half of his life, because when I visited Khun Sulak in this country, he’s with group of Thai students who are doing the same thing here. So I see Khun Sulak leading a kind of double existence with American scholars and researchers seeking his advice and getting his counsel in Thailand, and in American, context Thai students and scholars were here seeking his adviceand counsel and reading with him. I think that says a great deal about Khun Sulak, about what he means to a great many others. He organized among other things ecumenical groups in Thailand, together with the former head of the Church of Christ in Thailand, dedicating to the work for civil rights and social justice. He helped organize the Asian Forum for Human Rights based in Hongkong. He helped organize service training projects at the university for Buddhist monks in Bangkok, for these monks would serve the rural and ur.ban poor. He has been a participant in the World Council of Churches sym-

36 posium and so on and so forth. Finally I would just like to say that, perhaps to say something about Khun Sulak also, he was invited to deliver a paper at the Bicentennial meeting of the American Studies Association, Washington. The man who invited him one day came and knocked at my door and said “who is this fellow Khun Sulak that you encouraged me to invite, I just got a cable from the Ambassador saying this man is a dangerous fellow, you had better not invite- him.” So Khun Sulak is a dangerous fellow. Here he is. Sulak Sivaraksa : It’ is a bit late now, so my talk had better be short. Last Monday I told you already about the Asian Cultural Forum oh Development which is more dr less regionalized, and I talked to you already about various religious traditions involving in the development issues of the people in Asia? So tonight I- will limit myself ’to' talk about' my own society only. My' society, my country, is known throughout ‘the world as Thailand. That name I dislike greatly, I will give you the reason quoting from my book called Siam in Crisis. I wrote “This kingdom was known as Siam until 1939 when it was changed to Thailand. Then it reversed to the original name again in 1946. Two years after the coup d’etat in 1947 it was decreed that the country would be called Thailand. And it remains so officially. Ironically the Kingdom has since been ruled by one dictator after another —with very brief liberal democratic interval. The name, Thailand, signifies the crisis of traditional Siamese Buddhist values. By removing from the nation the name it had carried all its life is in fact the first step in the psychic dehumanization of its citizens, especially when its original name was replaced by hybrid, Anglicized word. This new name also implies chauvinism and irredentism. For this reason, I refuse to use it.”

37 So please bear with me as I shall refer to Siam all through my talk, but you are at liberty to refer to1 it as Siam or Thailand. Now the topic of my talk is religion and society. I too will speak very personally. To 'me religion means a great deaf and to me religious values are the most important values in human life; For those of us who profess any religion, religious values equate our spiritual depth. Deep down into oneself, as the previous speaker said, it’s the surrender of a person, the transformation, or getting rid of the ego. We must go until we find out, until we get rid of the selfishness in us. And in our Buddhist tradition, as indeed in many other religious traditions; the direct way and the best way is to look within. Hence in the Buddhist, tradition meditation or Samadhi is the most important element of our .religion. Since the time of the Buddha there have been many meditation masters. We still have some of them. I think this spiritual traditation is very important. In Christianity, you have the hermits; you have the mystics. In Islam, you have the sufi, you have the mystics; and it is .the same with us in Buddhism. Although my talk tonight concerns society, we must hot belittle those meditation masters. They may appear not to be involved with society, but they contribute greatly to the society. To me, they are living thelife of the founder; to me, they are the spring of fresh water; they are the proof to us that arahat is still possible, the saints are still possible inlhis world, And without them religion would be much poorer, religion would be just a mere something, very shallow. These meditation masters, those ostensibly practice mindfulness, those monks who spend their lives in the forests, are very very important for us and for our society. Even those of us who are in society must go back to these masters and must look within. We must practice daily our Samadhi, our meditation, our prayer. We must do it at least every morning, or every evening,

38 or both. And in this world of ours, in this crisis of the present society, those of us, particularly those who work in, society ,and who confront with powef with social injustice, we often get beaten every now and again and we get tired often. At least annually, we ought to retreat ourselves into the forests, into the monasteries, to sit at the feet of the masters, to gain our spiritual strength, in order to come out again to confront with society. The spiritual masters are just' like the spring of spiritual water. Those of us who practice religions in society, like to carry that water, hopefully that pure water, to flood the banks, to fertilize the land, to fertilize the trees, to be of use to the plants and animals;. so that they can taste something fresh, to refresh themselves, to be revitalized. If we do not go back, to the spring of the water, we get our mind polluted, just like water being polluted. It will be not of much use to those plants, the earth and those trees. Most of us who are in society must be very very careful, because we get polluted very easily, particularly when we are confronted with many problems in society. Sometimes we get the idea of hatred within us, sometimes we get the idea of greed into us, sometimes we would like to be powerful, sometimes we too would like to be rich. I think that this is the first danger for most of us who practice religions and get involved in- society. We must make ourselves very clear that we do not want to get more powerfulor richer. It is easy, particularly when you.get a little bit older, you would like sometimes softer lives, sometimes you would like to be recognized, sometimes you would like to be on equal terms with those in power. I think that is a great danger. If we are not careful, religion just becomes an advertising board to say that we have religion. We just go along with those in power. In fact we would just like to be powerful. I think to me this is not religion. Religion means deep commitment. As the previous speaker said and as Donald Swearer said, it means personal

39

4 transformation. You must be more and more selfless. Less and less selfish.- If we cannot do that, do not practice religion. And to be less selfish, to be more selfless, we have to have more and* more moral responsibility in* society. That is the religion from the ancient time right onto now. I said in my class yesterday, a lot of people, particularly in the west, have wrong ideas about Buddhism in society. And they thought Buddhism is only for personal transformation, only for deep meditation, and nothing to do with society, which is not true, which is not the case. Particularly, in South Asia and South East Asia, Buddhism has been a great strength, a leading value in society. Until recently Buddhist values permeated all society, in the Buddhist countries: whether Burma, Siam, Laos, Cambodia, or Sri Lanka. Buddhist values are the leading values of the society, the rest are secondary or tertiary. Unfortunately things have changed, due mainly t o the colonial power, due mainly to the materialistic development in the west, due mainly to western education. And those of us who have been educated abroad in the west and gone home, unfortunately many of us look down upon our own indigenous culture, look" down upon our own religious values. I think this is the price we are now paying. And on top of that, society has become much more complex. Whether we like it or not, industrialization has come in, urbanization has come in; traditional Buddhism does not know how to cope with these. It did very well in the rural society and in the agarian association. But in the urbanized society, with complexity of modern life, Buddhism does not know what to do; how t o be the leading light. What I want to talk to you is about my own involvement in this aspect. Because I feel, as I said, religious values must remain primary values. Yes, anything from the west which could be of some use can be taken in, but very carefully. Otherwise we lose our spiritual strength. So now take the

40 Buddhist university. By Buddhist university I mean university for Buddhist monks.. The monks read only the scipture. The monks are only studying the life of the Buddha! in the traditional way while Bangkok has now become like New York, like Chicago.- The monks are not aware. The monks thought Bangkok, is still, just like a big Siamese village; When 1 was born, Bangkok- was just a mere conglomeration of villages. Indeed the monks still have food offered to them.. They do not realize that Bangkok has now become very complex. And they still feel that since we still have the king, they thought that the government must be just: The Dhammaraja theory. The government that is just, supports the Sangha, and on the surface they -are doing that. But in reality, the government has become corrupted, at least for the last three or four decades. They come-to power through coup d’etat. And coup d’etals were at first not dangerous, but later on they become violent. In the last coup d’etat they killed several hundreds, many of whom were students. They put thousands in jail. And many still feel that the government was just. So it is the duty of those of us who have a certain spiritual strength, and who can see what is outside ourselves then to alert the people, to say that the governments are unjust. And I think this is the duty o f any religious person. So you have to build up political awareness. Politics must be related to religion. We must also build up economic awareness.. Economics also relate to religion. We can see some Thai students studying economic in this country' sitting here also.. Of course these economists from the west could also be of great help to us when they return home, if they realize that what we need at home is what Schumacher called Buddhist economics — not the western capitalistic economics, which is unethical and unjust, which only makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Yes, we also need some socialistic economics, but socialistic economics make the state too powerful. That is not much good either. What we need is

41 Buddhist economics. If we are to be poor, we must be poor together, poo? but generous, share our labor, share our thought, share our generosity. We ought to build on that. So it must be our duty to make economists aware that Buddhist economics are superior to the western economics. And with their help, we make our people aware: aware of the people in power who do now ally themselves with the multinationals, who are exploiting our people. , Political awareness and economic awareness are related to our society, and related to our own culture. We must tell dur people that to drink Coca Cola, to drink Pepsi-Cola, is a great sin. It is not only junk food, it does not do you any good healthwise. It is exploiting your country economically. Most of our people are not even aware of that. I have to bring in td show them why Pepsi-Cola Thailand Company has one exprime minister as the president of -the company? Coca-Cola Thailand Company has another ex-prime minister as the president of the company. Could they sense something cynical there?' And it not only exploits us politically and economically, it exploits us culturally too. Pepsi and Coca Cola make the villagers ashamed to offer us the rain water. They feel ashamed. They must offer us something in a bottle. Arid each bottle costs them one day of their earnings. And 1 will give you two concrete examples, and indeed to be more Ideal, even one of the big pineapple companies here, I shall not name because I do not want to be sued here. One of pineapple companies in Hawaii is now expanding its multinational empire into my country. It bought a lot of land from our farmers, who were very proud—poor but proud to be farmer, to own the land. But now they become landless farmers. They do not grow rice any more, they just grow pineapple for that company. At first, the company buys at a very good price; later on, they put the price down; still later on, you just become their employee. And

42 in the country without labor union, without the right to strike, you are at the mercy of the pineapple company. I think this company was started by a missionary. You see, to begin with, we thought we started among our Buddhist circle, to be aware of what is going on negatively within our society. We must hot disregard our spiritual practice: that is the most important thing. Once we disregard that, it becomes a great danger. We just become like any secular organization doing various works. So the spiritual dimension must be—aware of these negative things going on, and try to educate people, try to raise their consciousness. At the- same time, we must do something positive, build up something positive. First we must get the proper information and spread it properly,- for instance we even make slides about these pineapple companies, we publish article’s, “Maharaj”. So instead of calling him Phra Buddha Yot Fa Chulaloke Maharaj, they cut the word ‘Chulaloke’ out, and substitute it with the word ‘Maharaj’, that is,- instead of the king, being the crown of the world, he is now just a great king, despite the fact that all Siamese kings were great kings, and any ruling prince of .even a tiny Indian state or a ruling prince of Chiengmai created by Rama I was a Maharaja and only Rama I was ‘the Crown of the Worlds’. You see, the present Government dared to change the king’s name, against royal decree of Rama III and put him on a

176 much lower pedestal. Had I done that, the Government would accuse me of lese majeste with a maximum imprisonment for seven years. Should I therefore sue the Government? But I would rather forgive them. As you know, most members of the present cabinet are not very literate, so you could not ex’ pect them to understand the subtlety of the Siamese (language, customs or court etiquette. I am sure they mean well, but if they are not well-educated, they are bound to make stupid mistakes like this. Yet if they would be humble enough to consult the people outside the government’s circle, they would at least do things much better than what they did. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion" when the government blundered. In fact they run the affairs of state badly on almost every issue. Of course this is the price one pays for having a military regime, which is truly dictatorial, despite a democratic facade. As the Siam Society is not allowed to deal with politics,- 1 therefore only deal with this subject historically. And from now on, I shall confine myself to the personality of Rama I. I will not, however, tell you about him chronologically as towhen and how he was born, etc., up to the time he died. You Scan look that up in any history book. But I must tell you that Rama I was destined _tQ.be king. He was a colleague and a friend of the King of Dhanapuri or King Taksin; the two of them were ordained at the same time, staying at the same temple in Ayudhaya. The story had it that when they went out oh their alms round- one morning there was a Chinese, fortune teller who looked at them, and said, “Strange,- both, of you would become kings”; and both of them laughed, because at that time Ayudhaya still had a big Royal Household,, with many members of the Royal Family and they were just two pages in the King’s service. Yet that prediction came true and in a way King Taksin must have realized that later on, that was

177

why in order to make that fortune fulfilled in a way, Rama I wasgiven a kind of a Dukedom. He was created ‘Somdej Chao Phaya Mahakashatriyasuk’ toward the end of the reign of the King of Dhanapuri. The title (Mahakashatriyasuk) means a great king or a great warrior. By granting him such a title, King Taksin thought he would fulfil the fortune teller’s prediction. It was not so in this case but it did work in the case of Rama IV and his brother much later on. You may recall that when Prince Mongkut was invited to leave the monkhood to ascend the throne at the death of Rama III, his half brother, he looked at the horoscope of his full brother, which indicated that the younger brother, too; 'would become king, so he did not only appoint his brother Vice-king or the Prince of the Front Palace as was customary but had him crowned as the Second King, while he himself had the title of the First or Supreme King of Siam. By so doing, Mongkut managed to outlive his younger brother and the royal lineage passed on from him to his son, Chulalongkorn, instead of descending via Mongkut’s younger brother. It did not work in the case of King Taksin, who also married Rama I’s eldest daughter, in the hope that his royal lineage might carry on through his son born of this wife, hence cementing the two families for the benefit of the royal house and the Kingdom. His other sons, more senior than this prince, were sent off to be the king of Cambodia etc. Unfortunately the boy destined to succeed King Taksin was not bright, and he had stutter so obviously, it would be difficult for him to be King, especially at that time there was. so much turmoils. However, to make a long story short, Rama I became king on the sixth of April about two hundred years ago. Apart from his own achievement, one must also think of his full brother who became .the first Vice-King of Bangkok.

178 An in fact, his younger brother was much brighter, much more courageous, and much more gallant by all accounts. But Rama I was much more calm, and was much wiser than any of his contemporaries. When Rama I was a young official towards the end of the Ayudhaya period, he married a lady of the great Bangchang family in Rajaburi - Samudra Songkram provinces. A younger sister of his wife was married to a leading member of the Bunnag family, which at one time was even more powerful than the Royal Family itself. And these two sisters had a big brother called Chao Khun Xuto who was supposed to be very .bright, very gallant; and he could not stand his. eldest brother-in-law, whom he regarded as a coward chap. While the King, of Dhanapuri started fighting the Burmese by recapturing, the capital from the invaders, this in-law took no part, still hiding somewhere with his wife and family. He only sent his younger brother to join the King of Dhanapuri. And his wife’s brother was very angry with him. Eventually Chao Khun Xuto, persuaded his brother-in-law to join the King of Dhanapuri. It was said that they went together in the same boat, travelling to Bangkok. Yet Rama I was sitting in the boat, teasing his wife. This made his wife’s elder brother very angry, and he said “How dare you, the country is in turmoil and you are singing and making fun with your wife”. So he jumped from the boat, went on by himself with sword in his hand, to fight the Burmese, and he. disappared. I should like you to contrast the characters of Rama I to that of his brother-in-law, who was courageous and hot tempered. Yet he got nowhere. Whereas the King, even in his youthful years, when he was an unknown personality, calculated everything carefully and seemed to take things so lightly. In fact his appearance hid what was' deep down in him. This was true of him all through his life. Even on his last trip

/

v

179 to Cambodia, in order to consecrate King Taksin’s son as the King of Cambodia, he must have smelt something fishy around Dhanapuri and he felt that some young Turks might start a coup d’etat somewhere somehow. And in fact, it was a young >Turk who started the coup. And the coup leader’s name was Phya San, not unlike the one who staged the coup last April. Did Rama I back Phya San to stage the coup against the King of Dhanapuri, we have no evidence at this stage, to accuse him. Yet he did not go to Cambodia very quickly. He marched quite slowly and his prediction was- right; there were some troubles, there was a coup and the coup leaders made the King of Dhanapuri give up the throne. As usual as in most Thai politics, the King in those days, as field-marshal nowadays, took the robes in the monkhood for safety and then of course Rama I marched back. Even before he marched back, his nephew, who was then Governor of Korat had left the city to fight in the capital. The Governor’s name was Suriya which means the Sun, exactly the same as our General Aditaya, 'who used Korat as the stronghold for the King and Queen last April in fighting against General Sant, the same name, with different spelling, the one who had staged the coup against the King of Dhanapuri. Are all these mere coincidence? > The upshot of what had happened two hundred years ago was that when Rama I became King, he made his younger brother, who marched to Cambodia with him, Vice-King or the Prince of the Front, and his nephew, General Sunday, Third King or the Prince of the Rear. I said earlier that Rama I’s younger brother was brighter and more courageous than the King himself, so the two must have' conflicts all along. But in the oriental setting, the younger one must-submit- to the wills of the elders. Rama I’s younger brother tried very hard to submit himself to his elder brother. But it was very difficult, especially when he knew that he was

180 better or cleverer. During the reign of the King of Dhanapuri, he was sometimes promoted higher in rank than his elder brother. In war, his troops often scored more victorious results than those under his elder brother’s, command. This was so even after they both became Supreme King and Vice-King of Bangkok. So towards the end of the reign, the Vice-King.could not control his emotion any longer, despite the fact that the cause which led to the outburst was a very minute one. It. started with a boat race, between the Grand Palace and the Front Palace. Both teams were practicing and even rehearsed the race before the appointed time. Everytime the team from the Grand Palace won the race, which made the King happy — in his old age. But then when the actual boat race took place, the Front Palace had another team which practiced in hiding all along (whereas the team practicing with that of the Grand Palace only consisted of those in reserve), and this team beat the one from the Grand Palace mercilessly. The King was very Upset. He felt he was cheated by his own brother, who did not have a sporting spirit. And that accusation was the last straw on the back of the Vice-King, who ordered that canons be put on the wall of the Front Palace pointing towards the Grand Palace. So the Grand Palace too had to reiterate. It was about to be a civil war. Something like this also took place in the Fifth Reign, when the Vice-King had to take refuge in the residence of the British Consul, who really wanted to interfere. But during the First Reign, the Farangs were not yet in a position to interfere with Siamese politics. Luckily at that time the mediators were the two elder sisters of the two Kings. The two Princesses went from the Grand Palace to the Front Palace and talked to their younger brother about the good old days when they were young together and. how They rose from a mere ordinary family, to nobility arid royalty; without, haying stucktogether, through thick arid thin-, they would, not have come this far. And if that unity were broken now, there would be no

181 future of the Dynasty. The Vice-King, having been calmed down by his elder sisters, cried with them and asked them to beg Rama I for forgiveness. ‘The Supreme. King also went to the Front Palace to forgive his younger brother and they all .cried together. This was a Siamese way of solving national problems through family reunion. Most of you know of course that the Front Palace or the Palace of the Front (Wang Na) is now our National Museum. But do you know why it became so. This is due to the fact the King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) remarked to Prince Damrong, our first Vice-Patron, that the Front Palace was better preserved traditionally than the Grand Palace. It should be maintained as such, because by then the Rear Palace of the Third King had already been demolished, to pave way for the modern Siriraj Hospital. So after the abolition of the position of Vice-King in the Fifth Reign, the Palace was kept as such, but was not in a good condition, until Prince Damrong petitioned King Prajadhipok in the Seventh Reign that the Palace be preserved architecturally by using all the buildings for our national museum. Hence Chulalongkorn’s wish was fulfilled.

t8 go back again to the First Reign, you must realize that the two brothers differed on many occasions, for instance, at the end of the Dhanapuri period, the new Vice-King wanted to eliminate all offsprings of King Taksin so that the new Dynasty would have no opposition, but Rama I thought this was too cruel. Why should children and women be killed. Besides one of Taksin’s sons was his own grandson, because the prince’s mother was his eldest daughter. Rama I’s wish of course prevailed. Again when Emperor Gialong of Vietnam was a refugee here from Saigon, he was well-treated with a special honour. In fact Siamese army was sent twice to help the Emperor regain

182 his throne but failed. Later with the aid of French troops, the Emperor escaped from Bangkok to fight, and won. the throne at last from the rebels. When the Emperor left wihtout permission, the Vice-King was very angry and said he should be captured and executed, but Rama I argued otherwise. Hence Siamese Vietnamese relations were very good for many more years. Before the Vice-King died, he indicated that his eldest son should succeed him as occupier of the Front Palace, This of course implied treason, because a Vice-King could only be appointed by the Supreme King and the Vice-King automatically succeeded to the throne at the death of the Supreme King. As it happened, quite a number of the Vice-King’s children were captured and tried together with a number of high military officers in the Front Palace. They were all executed. This upset Rama I so much. He even threatened not to cremate his late brother’s body. Only with pleas from high officials in the Grand Palace that he yeilded to their petition and had a proper cremation ceremony for the deceased Vice-King. Even so, entertainments were carried out, supposedly for the benefit of the Relic of the Buddha prior to the actual cremation, as the King deemed that his brother did not deserve any festivity as the last rites for his remains, as he had committed a great error before his departure from this world. What I have said so far only concerns some point about personalities of the two brothers at the beginning of the Bangkok era. I could say more about them and about other lesser personalities of that period. But since we have a number of ladies here tonight, if I do not say anything about personalities of some leading ladies, it would not be fair. Mind you, when you read the chronicles, they only mention the men. But in fact, if you read carefully between the lines, you can draw your own conclusion that it- was the women who shaped

183 the main events of our history. I mentioned the two royal sisters already, although very briefly. I should now mention Rama I’s Queen, who was also a lady of strong character. She certainly did not obey her husband, because when he married her, she was much better off economically. It is said that she had a very strong temper and was jealous of any woman. Hence Rama I did not have many wives before ascending the throne, although as a general and a duke, he was entitled to a small harem too. And when he became King, she refused to live with him in the Grand Palace as royal custom decreed that he would be surrounded by ladies at court. She chose to remain at their former palace in the old capital of Dhanapuri. In fact, they were not on speaking terms even long before he was crowned. The quarrel took place after the capturing of Vientien. Not only did General Chakri (as Rama I then was) take the Emerald Buddha from the capital of Lao to Dhanapuri, but he also had a Lao lady as his wife. This new wife caused so much jealousy to the first wife that she refused to have anything, to do with her husband anymore. The new wife’s name was Waen or Glasses, but she too was fierce. Hence her nickname was Sua or Tigress. It was she who .accompanied Rama I to live in the harem of the Grand Palace. She was in charge of the Inside, where no man, except the King, was allowed to spend the night. She herself had no child, and wished to have one, as her wish was stated in a well known poem at Wat Sangkajjayana, which Rama I had rebuilt for her merit. She looked after Rama I’s children and relatives with devotion. When Rama I’s eldest son—the future Rama II —had his love affairs with his cousin, daughter of the King’s second elder sister which was a taboo, as no one could make love in the Grand Palace except the King himself, it was

184 )

Khun Sua or Lady Tigress who smoothed the affairs over so that the future King would not be severely punished by his father. 'When Rama I had his golden urn built, ready for his own body when he died, he wanted to inspect it properly. Lady Tigress objected that this would be a bad omen. The king said he was the King of Siam, unlike the King of Lao who was superstitious, he had ho fear of death. Hence the urn was brought in for royal inspection. This royal urn is the most beautiful and exquisite. It was intended only for the sovereign, but then Rama I’s eldest daughter died before him. He loved this daughter so much that he allowed her body to be placed’ in that urn before his own august body. Hence some very important members of the royal family could also be allowed to have their bodies interned in the urn before royal cremation. And in the second reign, the Supreme Patriarch who was the King’s spiritual mentor died, the King had his body interned in this royal golden urn also. This was the only exception for commoners. Before I conclude my talk, I should perhaps mention the personality of some monks. The first one, of course, was the Supreme Patriarch of the King of Dhanapuri; but he was sacked (nor disrobed) and demoted by King Taksin. There were three monks, who were demoted: the Supreme Patriarch, Phra Vimaladhamma, abbot at Wat Po and Phra Buddhacariya, abbot at the Wat Bangwanoi, because these three out of the whole assembly of monks objected to the King’s opinion. The King felt that he had reached the state of the stream-winner i.e. he was on the noble path of Buddhist sainthood. And as such he felt that all the ordinary monks who were not noble-persons (without super natural powers) ought to prostrate to him, a stream-winner, and these three monks

185 said “No” because (1) they doubted whether the king was a stream-winner; (2) if he were, they being monks fully ordained, were on a higher plane, spiritually, than lay persons, so they simply could not pay respects to him. Hence he was very angry. He had them demoted with no rank at all, and in fact he would like to beat them, but their lay disciples were prepared to take the beating in their stead. They were, however, sent to carry refuse at Wat Hong as punishment. So When Rama I became king the first thing he did was of course to install these three monks including the Supreme Patriarch in their former positions. He said, “Whatever the majority in the monkhood tells me, if these three venerable > gentlemen contradict them, I would always believe these three, as I have witnessed their brave and wise words and actions previously.” As for those monks who allowed themselves to prostrate to the late King, he forgave them, saying that they were weak and were afraid of the King then. The Supreme Patriarch whom the King of Dhanapuri appointed instead of the one he had demoted was not disrobed either, but was put in a lower ecclesiastical rank. Two monks, however, were disrobed. One was the abbot of Wat Hong, who became a lay official, and who edited the new edition of The Three Worlds of King Ruang, the original of which had been composed during the Sukhothai period about 700 years ago. Another one was the abbot of Wat Rakhang, the temple where the Supreme Patriarch was abbot before he was demoted by King Taksin. This abbot taught .King Ta'ksin meditation and taught the future Rama II literature. Obviously he was a man of great talent. During the reign of King Taksin, he was once conducting

186 meditation practice with the King in private. The future ViceKing of the First Reign was then a young general. He thought the King wanted to see him, so he went to the meditation halL The abbot wispered to the King’s ears that this general was an usurper and had come to kill the King, who suddenly got up and caught the young general but found no weapon with him. He therefore asked the general to tell him what punishment the general deserved. The general said he deserved capital punishment. The King said this was too harsh as he needed the services of the general. The general then said he should be beaten 100 strokes; all his ranks and insignia should be’ taken away so that he would become a mere commoner with no permission to see the King any more. The King said this was again too strong as he still needed his service. The general then said he should be beaten 100 strokes and remained a general. The King was satisfied with this last suggestion and he beat the general himself, until his back was full of blood. It is said that the general never cried once and he went straight to the river and had his robe rub his back so that there would be no criminal marks of the strokes left on his body. Obviously he was furious with the monk,, but not with the King, his master. So when he became Vice-King, he had the monk disrobed and wanted to execute him, but his nephew, the future Rama II, went to him in person and begged for his teacher’s life. Hence the man’s life was spared and he became yet another well known official in the Royal Scribes Department. He even had a daughter whom he presented to Rama II as a minor wife, in gratitude for having saved his life. Rama II, however, felt that it was not proper to have his teacher’s daughter as a minor wife, but to refuse the offer might also hurt his teacher’s feelings, so he accepted the lady and presented her as a wife to his eldest son, the future Rama III. This lady bore King Rama III a distingished son, who had many talented descendants of the

187 present Choomsai family. One of them, Dr. Sumet is at present actively involved with several subcommittees set up by the government in celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of Bangkok.

A l e c t u r e given at the Siam Society, 5th January 1982.

THE PRINCE OF NAGARASAVARGA

In January I gave a talk on Reverend Brother Hilaire of the Assumption College, Bangkok, to mark the centennary of his birth. Although he was a French Catholic, he devoted his entire adult life to serve Siam, especially in the field of education and literature. He was a prolific writer in Siamese and wrote a series’ of Siamese primers to teach the young citizens of this country to learn their mother tongue. He used to write Siamese poems and corresponded with Prince Damrong, our Vice Patron, and the Siam Society made him a Free Member. I wrote to his old College where he was the heart and soul for many decades that they should have a special celebration for him but they would not, despite the fact that they have his lifesize bust in the school compound and still sells his books —not only to primary students at the Assumption College but to all Catholic schools. So there was no public commemoration for Brother Hilaire’s hundredth birthday anniversary anywhere in January, except my little talk here at the Siam Society. However, on 29th June, there was a big celebration to mark the centennial birthday anniversary for His late Royal Highness Prince Baribatra of Nagarasavarga. As the Prince was our -honorary President until h e died in 1943 I felt that it would be good to give a talk about him, because, I feel that most people nowadays do not know very much about him, and I think it’s fitting that I gave a talk once on a French scholar who had been very keen on Thai culture and now I will be talking about a Siamese Prince. As you know, until recently most members of the Siam Society were Farang and Princes. ‘

189 Of the Princes, in the Thai system there are at least 3 categories of Royal Highnesses. The first category of the Royal Highness is known as a Celestial Prince —a Chaofa prince ; the second category is a Pra-ongchao prince—a Praongchao born of a sovereign; both are entitled for the Royal Highness, then you have the third category: the Royal Nephews or the Royal Grand Children who are also Royal Highnesses. But the difference in Thai is that the Royal Children are known as a Prachaolukyathur —a Royal Son, a Prachaolukthur —a Royal Daughter and of course when the reign changes the titles become Prachaonongyathur, Prachaopiyathur, Prachaonongnangthur, Prachaopinangthur as the case may be of the Royal Sister, Elder or Younger, Royal Brother, Elder or Younger. Of course there is no Royal. Prachaolungthur or A-thur after the reign. If the sons or daughters of the late King live long enough to be the uncle of the new sovereign, then the title has become fixed as Prachaobaromavongthur either Uncle or Grand, or Great Grand Uncle or Aunt and so they remain Prachaobaromavongthur, that is one of Royal Highnesses. But the son and daughter of the Royal Highness, particularly of the Chaofa prince, could also remain a Royal Highness provided that he or she was born of a Royal Mother —got to be a Royal Mother:. Of course, fliefe are exceptions, for instance, our late president here was His Royal Highness Prince Wanwaithayakorn. Strictly-speaking, he shprild riot be entitled as a Royal Higfrness because his father was a Pra-ongchao who was born of a minor wife of the King, so Prince Wan was born as a Momchao and a Momchao. could be raised -only to a Highness Prince as in the case of another former President of the Society —His Highness Prince 'Dhani and Prince Wan were, in fact, born of the same rank i.e. that of Momchao rank; they were both grandsons of King Morigkut but Prince Dhani was raised to be the Pra-ongchao' in the reign of Rama VII, properly raised as His Highness; but when Prince Wan was raised, he was raised first of all to be a Highness Prince. But at that time

190 Pibulsonggram was Prime Minister and Pibulsonggram did away with all other titles. We used to have titles for officials as Khun, Luang, Phra, Phya etc. , and Pibulsongkram eliminated all of the titles except' those for the monkhood. So once you raise a prince from a Momchao to be a Pra-ongchao, he could also be raised to be a Kroma Muen, Kroma Khun, Kroma Luang and so on; so Pibul did away with that and since Prince Wan did so much work so Pibul raised him from a Highness to a Royal Highness which had no precedence. There was a similar mistake, of course, made in the reign of Rama YI when Prince Chula was created a Royal Highness. There was a Royal letter stating very clearly by King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) who said that his brother made a mistake; why? Because Prince Chula’s father, although a Celestial Prince, HRH the Prince of Bishanuloka, married a foreigner, a Russian—not only a foreigner, even if he married a Siamese commoner, his off-spring would remain only a Momchao. But, in fact, Prince Chula was born of a Russian mother during the reign of His Grand-father, King Chulalongkorn who did not even acknowledge his existence, so .nobody knew whether he was a prince or a commoner; because in this country, members of the Royal Family could only be a prince when the King acknowledges his existence. Indeed King Chulalongkorn once asked the Prince of Bishanuloka what title would his son have, he said he could be a “Mister”. He did not use the word ‘Nai’, mind, you, because ‘Nai’ would indicate that he was a commoner in the Siamese heirachy, but “Mr.” means he is somebody out of the Thai heirachical system. So Prince Chula was nobody, until the reign of Rama VI, and Rama VI felt so sorry for his first nephew, that the boy was not even acknowledged by his august father. So the boy was created a Royal Highness, with the prefix of Prachaovoravongthur and this is partly connected with the subject of our talk .because, by that time the Prince of Nagarasavarga already had a son a few

101 years more senior than Prince Chula,and his son who was a Highness in the .Fifth Reign was also created a Royal Highness in the Sixth Reign. I do not know whether I have made it too complicated for you, but this subject is not yet complicated enough. As I told you, the Royal Highnesses are divided into three categories. One is a Chaofa, born of the King and a queen; second it’s a Pra-ongchao, born of the king and a minor wife; third, a Praongchao, born of the Chaofa, normally. Now among the Chaofa, the Celestial Prince, there are also three divisions normally known as Chaofa of the first rank, Chaofa of the second. rank and Chaofa of the third rank. The Prince of Nagarasavarga, su'bject of my talk tonight, was a Chaofa of the first rank; because he was born of a queen. King Chulalongkorn had three categories of Royal Consorts: the first Category known as queen. I think there were four of them, alfof whom were his half sisters. The second category known as great consort, in Thai, Pra-akarachaya. They were all Momchao or Serene Highnesses. And they were all his cousins, granddaughters of Rama III. Their children were regarded as second category Chaofa, and thirdly he created the daughter of a prince of Chiengmai as Royal Consort, Prarajchaya. In fact his daughter born of this Royal Consort was not created a Chaofa and he said to Prince Damrong in private that he had made a mistake; he said, “This daughter ought to be created a Chaofa”, but unfortunately the child died very young before she was created, a Chaofa. If she was created a Chaofa, she woul.d be created a Chaofa of the third rank. You have.got to realize that in the eyes of Bangkok, the prince of Chiengmai was as important as the King of Luang Pra Bang or the King of Cambodia. That is why if the King, of Luang Pra Bang’s daughter married to the King of Bangkok, could produce a Chaofa, as indeed it was in the reign of Rama I; and the daughter of the King of Cambodia could produce a Chaofa, as.

192 indeed in the case of an offspring- of the Vice-King in the reign of Rama I, then, obviously, the daughter of the •Prince of Chiengmai in the reign of Rama V should produce a Chaofa-, is that complicated enough? I kept on stressing this because Chaoj a of the first rank is called ‘Tulkramom’, Tulkramom is and it is also used as a prefix, honorific prefix for colloquial usage. A Chaofa of the, first rank is called ‘Tulkramom’, and indeed a king is also referred to as a Tulkramom especially by his. children. So this is the highest prefix in the land. Chaofa of the second rank is only called ‘Somdej’, indeed when Chulalongkorn was born, he. was only a second category Chaofa because his mother was only a Momchao created Praongchao. Queen Thepsirin was not a full-queen in the reign of Rama IV;’ the full-queen was then Queen Somanas, so queen, Thepsirin was only at that time known as Pranang Rampuew. Hence when Prince Chulalongkorn was born, he was created Somdejchaofa and he was called ‘Than Somdej’-, whereas Prince Paribatra was born as Tulkramom and all children of the four queens were called ‘Tulkramom’. Now the three queens I list on the black-board there (1) Queen Sunantha, (2) Queen Sawang, and (3) Queen Saowapa, were all sisters. Queen Sukhumal was only half’ sister of those three and they were all half sisters to King Chulalongkorn, all of whom were children of King Mongkut. The implication is very important. These three sisters, although they were all daughters of King Mongkut, their mother had no political consequence.' Their mother had a Chinese connection, with rich merchants, but no political’ power; whereas Queen Sukhumal, her mother was a daughter of' the Somdej-qngnoi. Those of you who read John Bowring may remember that he referred to Somdej-ongyai and Somdej-ongnoi as the two regents in the reign of Rama IV and,

193 in fact, the two Somdejs were very prominant in the reign of Rama III too. You have got to realize that the Bunnag Family controlled Thai’ political scene, right from the Third Reign to the beginning of the reign of King Chulalongkorn. So politically, Queen Sukhumal was much more important than the three sisters; Age-wise, Queen Sunantha was the eldest, Queen Sukhumal was the second, then Queen Sawang and lastly Queen Saowapa. King Chulalongkorn created all his half sisters Queens. He called them Pranang in Thai or Rajadevi in Sanskrit—all equal. Queen Sunantha being his first Queen, was created more important than anybody to begin with; so she was the. only Somdej Pranang. I told you Somdej could be created, a prince could be created, a princ’ess could also be created or raised higher in status. A commoner too could be created Somdej as in the case of monks, but for lay officials Somdej was confined to the. noble family only. It is the highest among the titles created by the king. So of all the four Queens, I think Sunantha was his favorite. Unfortunately, for her and for King Chulalongkorn, she had a tragic accident on the river. On the way to Bang Pa In, the boat capsized and she was drowned with her daughter. In fact, in her womb, it was expected to be a son. Of course if the son was born he would be the Crown Prince. When she died, King Chulalongkorn lamented her death greatly. Those of you who have been to the Summer Palace, Bang Pa In, must have Seen the monument written in English and in Thai in her memory. Indeed, there is another monument at Saranrom garden next to the Foreign Office. So Queen Sunantha disappeared from the scene. Now, the second to produce the offspring for the king, was, in fact, Queen Sukhumal. Unfortunately for her and for Thai history, her first offspring happened to be a princess; had it been a prince, without any doubt, he would have been a Crown Prince. Because at that time, the Bunnags were still

194 controlling the political scene and the king had to yield to their wishes. There was a love-hate relationship between members of Royal Family and the Bunnag Family. However a princess was born, yet she was very deaf to King Chulalongkorn. He regarded her as the most beautiful girl. When this celestial princess was born, King Chulalongkorn boasted he had a more beautiful daughter than his half brother, Prince Pichit. Prince Pichit’s daughter, by the way, later, married Prince Sawat and their offspring is the present Queen Rampai, our Vice Patron. People said that, if you think that Queen Ra'mpai is beautiful,; you. ought to look at her mother who wgs much more beautiful. And people said that Prince Pichit’s wife was even more beautiful; so it makes me want to ask a question about Prince Pichit’s mother-in-law. She must be even more beautiful. However, our Celestial Princess was named Princess Suthathip and she was created a Krom. A Krom is a kind of dukedom which in this country could also be conferred on the princess and her title was very important. In fact, her name was no less than Bangkok itself as she was the Princess of Sriratanakosindara, a very auspicious name. She was not only beautiful in her figure, but she was. most generous and very well behaved. In fact, she was the first person in this country to contribute in those days two million Baht to build ‘Suthathip’ Building in Chulalongkorn Hospital, the biggest building in the Hospital, at that time. It was a big amount of money and she contributed it, she said, for the benefit of her people. That was the eldest sis.ter of our subject tonight—Prince Paribatra of Nagarasavarga, who missed to be the Crown Prince as he was born after his elder sister. -So Queen Sawang, younger sister to the deceased Queen Sunantha, was very lucky. She produced a son —the first of all the four Queens. Obviously, he became the first crown prince, the Crown Prince Vajirunahit; automatically, she was raised to become ‘Somdej ’;.she, in fact,;

195 became the Somdej Phrabaromarajthevi. King, Chulalongkorn was very clever. He never repeated the title for all his Queens. He did not make them feel that one was better than another. He made them all grand. When they were raised to the top rank, you cannot tell which was grander than the other. He was very diplomatic even in his family and he used that, of course, in dealing with the great powers. If you can deaf with Queens, I am sure you can deal with all the Farangs. So after the birth of Crown Prince Vajirunahit, Queen Saowapa produced Prince Vajiravudh. By their age, (1) Princess Suthathip, (2) Prince Vajirunahit, (3) Prince Vajiravudh and (4) the prince who is the subject of my -talk tonight. The story had it that Prince Vajirunahit fell in love with his elder half sister, and this I can confirm because he wrote a poem in praise of the beauty of his half sister and this poem, I published for the first time in my ‘Social Sciences Review’, almost, a hundred years afterwards. It was still a hush-hush thing even then. I was told when Prince Vajirunahit wrote.this poem, he had an orchestra play it in front of King Chulalongkorn to the annoyance of his august father who, clapped twice and went upstairs straight way. Now, unfortunately again, Prince Vajirunahit at the great age of fifteen suddenly died. Then the title of the Crown Prince went straight to Prince Vajiravudh, at that time was being educated in England. History did not say very much about this, as if there, was no opposition to Prince Vajiravudh. In fact there was much struggle in the royal court whether his full brother should be made a Crown Prince, i.e. the Prince of Songkhla, born of the same Queen because she was the number 1 Queen. But King Chulalongkorn argued that Prince Mahidol of Songkhla: was too young and he was not quite sure that he would live long enough to groom the young prince properly to succeed him. That was why he made Vajiravudh,. only a half brother, to. be a full

196 Crown Prince and then, obviously, Queen Saowapa became number 1; Queen Sawang also remained number 1 but she retired from the place to live at Sriracha because she was so upset and she was in ill health. In those days, the best seaside resort was Sriracha and in fact she built the hospital which is now named after her. ’ I think of all the Queens, Queen Saowapa. was perhaps the; most clever, and. to put it bluntly the most crafty, and. of course the most attractive. She made it quite clear that from then on, if something happened to her eldest son, as it had happened to Prince Vajirunahit, she made the king promise her that succession would go along to all her children, and the King granted her that wish. As you know, in those days of absolute monarchy, whatever the king said must become law. So, that was why when King Vajiravudh died, the throne went to King Prajadhipok, the youngest of her five sons. A story had it that, the Prince of Nagarasavarga was only a year senior to the Prince of Pishanuloka. The Prince of Nagarasavarga was sent to Germany to be educated under the patronage of the Kaiser while the Prince of Pishanuloka went to Russia to be educated under the patronage of the Tsar. So the Prince of Pishanuloka did not know the wish that the King had granted to his mother. He thought that if something went wrong with his elder brother, the crown would automatically go to his half brother, the Prince of Nagarasavarga. That was why he married a Russian. However, he and two other younger brothers died before Vajiravudh, that was why, Prajadhipok, who was the youngest became King. Yet at the end of the reign of Rama VI, the order of succession came up again, because at that time Prince Prajadhipok was very young;, he was twelve years younger than the Prince of Nagarasavarga and there was another of his half brothers, the Prince of Songkhla —our present King’s father, who was a little older

197 than Prince Prajadhipok. Prince Prajadhipok was at the time the Prince of Sukhothai and Prince Mahidol was the Prince of Songkhla. Their mothers were full sisters, so they were very close in age as well as in blood relations and were of similar opinions that Prince Paribatra should succeed as Rama VII because he was much more senior and had much experiences with statescrafts, besides he was badly treated by Rama VI, although he was much praised by their father for his devotion to the crown and the country. But Prince Paribatra denied the throne and I heard the story from an eye-witness account that he knelt down on the floor and prostrated three times to his younger half brother, that was why Prajadhipok had no choice, but to accept the throne. If your elder celestial brother prostrates to you, he only could prostrate to a king; as a" rule the younger brother must prostrate to the elder brother. This protocol is still very strict, even nowadays. So far, I have tried to give you a background information about the subject of my talk tonight, because it is rather important. Now you must look at the Prince’s horoscope. You have got to realize that when you talk of the life of any Thai person, if you do not look at his horoscope, you make a great mistake. Prince Paribatra’ s horoscope showed that he would become very bright, he would have a great moral upright, he would become a great artist, he would have much charm, much love and respect by people surrounding him; but his life would be full of suffering and he would never climb to- the top. This .. was according to the horoscope. I think this is all true, especially that he never did get to the top. During the Fifth reign, in fact, the Prince of Pishanuloka was the King’s favourite but he knew he was a favorite not only his father’s, but also his mother’s, so he was spoiled and did all the wrong things, like marrying a foreigner which was the first time in Thai royal history. Hence Chulalongkorn never acknowledged

198 the offspring and never acknowledged the wife. In fact I heard from an eye-witness account that one day King Chulalongkorn went on a motor ride. In those days of course, motor ride was a great joy as there was' no traffic jam. Then he saw his Russian daughter-in-law; On his return to the Palace, he said “my eyes were hurt today, because I saw that foreign woman. I am sure they won’t remain together long as husband and wife. At most I give them ten years”. And it was true enough, the couple was soon divorced in the next feign. There is a Thai saying that parent’s curse usually comes true. If your parent happens to be King then it is bound to be true. Although Prince Paribatra was not Chulalongkorn’s favoirte, he was devoted to his father so much that the King grew more fond and fond of him, especially when His Majesty was hurt by Prince Chakrabongse of Pishanuloka. Besides, the king was never close to Crown Prince Vajiravudh, but became closer and closer to Prince Paribatra that the: future King Rama VI even became jealous. Almost all through the Sixth Reign, he was often accused privately as an usurper, despite the fact that he tried to serve his half brother as he had done his august father. Chulalongkorn certainly appreciated Paribatra’s administrative ability. Although he was trained as a military man, he 'managed to solve naval problems for the Kingdom after all the admirals had failed to do so. The conflicts were not only among the Danes and the Siamese but also between the younger and elder Siamese generations of naval men also. The King also relied on Prince Paribatra for many of his private affairs. They even went to Europe together just before the end of the Fifth Reign. Not only was Prince Paribatra good at administration, but he also had a wonderful taste over the arts. He was an ac-

199 complished Siamese musician and composed quite a number of master pieces for Siamese orchestra. Even nowadays traditional Siamese musicians regard him as one of their modern masters. Although the Prince of Pishanuloka was younger, he shone brighter, especially in the, Sixth Reign and Prince Paribatra swallowed humility dignifiedly. Yet when the former passed away in Singapore, Prince Paribatra inherited almost all his half brother’s jobs, which meant that he had to be transferred from the Navy, which he loved dearly, back to the Army. He also had to be Vice-President of the Siamese Red Cross. By then Queen Sawang was the President and she remained so until she died in the present reign and was succeeded by Her Majesty, the present Queen. Prince Paribatra was every inch a celestial prince. He dressed and dined in the traditional princely manner. Yet he was so punctual and articulate as a German officer. His palace was built in a European fashion of that period —the grandest and I think the most beautiful of its kind—adjacent to the road and the river, the present site of the Bank of Thailand. I think they would pull it down soon as the Thai nowadays have no taste for anything of artistic value. They pulled anything down to make ugly concrete-buildings; I have, in fact, written to Dr. Puey when he was the Governor of the Bank, asking him to preserve it and while Dr. Puey lasted that building lasted; but I do not know the new governor, so anything can happen. To me Prince Paribatra tried to preserve the Thai culture in the traditional irianner the best possible. As I said if you want to understand Thai culture, you must understand Princes at that period as they tried to preserve the best of the Thai culture. But to be educated in Europe from your young age, no doubt you must have a European influence for better or for

200 worse; but for Prince Paribatra he felt that it was very good to appreqiate European civilization, while retaining the uniqueness of the Thai culture, but in fact European upbringing did destroy him in the long run. He looked very Germanic. People were afraid of him and he did not realize that. Of course by his build and his size, he was: an average Siamese, but when he put the uniform on, he became a sort of German militarism, and commanded much respect and fear. Yet I knew many people who knew him well. They all admired him. They loved and respected him without any awe or fear. He was very human. He was full of humour. You, could approach him any time. You see! This is one bad aspect judged from outside; but a good aspect of his European education was that the Prince was the first generation to observe strict monogamy. As a celestial Prince, he was entitled to as many major wives, minor wives, royal consorts, minor consorts etc., but he married one princess only. Admittedly, later on he did marry again but he took the second wife because by that time his first wife became so ill with tuberculosis that his mother made him take a second wife and yet I was told when he went to sleep with his second wife in the small house in the compound of the palace, before doing so he had to come to say “Good Night” to his. wife the Princess and the Princess agreed that he could take the second wife, provided the lady would not show her face to her. If she saw her face anytime, the Prince had to pay 1,000 Baht as a fine which was a great sum of money in those days. I said he got permission or persuasion to take the second wife from his mother—Queen Sukhumal who was alive until the reign of Rama VII. The Prince was devoted to his mother, devoted ,to his father, devoted to his wife, devoted to all his children. He was in fact a very devoted man and devoted his life to all his people. To me, that is a good European influence—not a family’ man in

201

the Thai sense; the Thai man has not much consideration for his wife in that respect. Even nowadays, many people, including Ministers and Directors-General as well as lesser mortals do take second, wives, third wives etc. He was an ideal, indeed, there was a book written by Momrajawong Nimitmorigkul Navaratna, who became famous. He said the man to be admired and to imitate was Prince Paribatra, and many young people in those days looked up to him that way. Only those who knew him, loved, respected and admired him, also, for those who did not know him personally were afraid of him. So I think this is, a good or bad European influence. There was still another European influence which he tried to practice in this country and which made him fail in the long run. Yet, I admire the way he did it; but I think that the Thai did not understand him because of that European value, which I will illustrate. He started the navy but he was not remembered in the navy. Prince Arpa of Chumporn is still remembered because Prince Paribatra switched over to the army, and after the army in the reign of Rama VII he switched again to the Ministry of the Interior. Whatever work he did, he concentrated on that entirely. He did hot build up a political base to leave his influence behind, partly perhaps because he was afraid. The king might envy him so he wanted to play down his role. He only wanted to play the role of the servant of the king, so after he left the army, it did not remember him. Although he did something very crucial for the army, he switched over to the civil service. When he was in the navy, he dressed in navy uniform. Then when he became a Minister of the Interior, he dressed entirely as a civilian,, as in those days the Prince only wore the Panung and the rajapattern jacket; and all those people in the army and the navy said, “Well, the Prince really does not regard us as one of his men any more”. That is why, I think, the 1932 coup was successful. In fact, he was informed of the

202 i

coup and he looked at the names the chief of police informed him, and of the leading Jpeople who promoted the coup were all educated in Germany so he laughed — “How could they. We speak German .to each other here. It’s not possible, they’re all loyal to me.” Indeed the person who linked the civilian clique with the military clique was no less a person than his own former Royal Rage, the chap that he gave the name and he brought up in his own palace. His mother was German, his father was a military attache in Germany. You see the Prince switched his European mentality into a Thai setting and he failed inspite of the fact that he knew a great deal of Thai culture—Thai music and one other thing which I did not mention—he knew Thai language. Really he was a master of the Thai language. Nowadays, we think of Prince Wan as a master in coining new words. But in the reigns of Rama VI and Rama VII, most words were coined at Wang Bangkhunprom —his palace. So it was the place of learning. All his daughters were educated in the palace, in the. old traditional- style but he: and his mother brought French ladies, German ladies and English ladies to teach his daughters, King Prajadhipok called Wang Bangkhunprom a university. You have got to realize that in those days we had no proper university, yet, admittedly Chulalongkorn University was founded earlier but it did not grant, a university degree until after the coup d’etat- of 1932. Prince Paribatra was a man of great learning, a man who knew Thai society so much, yet because of that European outlooks or European influence and he felt the kind of European loyaltyhe lost his touch with Thai political reality. I said early that the Prince refused the throne, so Rama VII depended almost entirely On him to guide the affairs of the state. He was not only the Minister of the Interior, but he was also President of the Supreme Counsellors of State, because King Prajadhipok appointed five persons to be Supreme

203 Counsellors of State and they were all high .ranking princes, presided over by Prince Paribatra in H.M.’s absence. Of course before that, when Prince Panurangsi was alive, he presided over the meeting, as he was full brother of King Chulalongkorn. The others were Prince Naris —a great musician, great artist and in many respects, I think, Prince Paribatra was very near to Prince Naris, as a musician and as an artist as well as a man of letters, but that European connection made him aloof from the real Thai society. Apart from these three celestial princes, there were Prince Damrong and the Prince of Chandaburi, grand father of the present Queen. Five counsellors of state. In all of these, Prince Paribatra was very important and in those days anything to -be done was usually done through this Prince’s consent. There is one very important point which nobody ever mentioned. You may remember Prince Sitthiporn who was our honorary member here. Prince Sitthiporn was just like Prince Dhani of that generation. He was a young Prince of Momchao rank— a mere Serene Highness, but very bright and he gave up his official career to become a farmer; and by farming he wrote a long memo to King Prajadhipok that, “This country ought to have a new policy. This country should not concentrate our education on bringing our youngsters to be civil servants. We ought to educate them to become farmers”, and he said that the future of this country lay in the hands of the farmers. Our farmers unfortunately were not well educated. That was why they could, be exploited very easily. He wanted our new generation of farmers to be educated in order to solve the problems of this country.. This memo was written over sixty years ago, which King Prajadhipok passed on to the Prince of Nagarasavafga and the Prince gave his full-backing; that was why Prince Sitthiporn was recalled to the Ministry of Agriculture. To make a long story short, Prince Sitthiporn would not be a Father of modern Thai agriculture, without

204

Prince Paribatra’s blessing. So to me Prince Paribatra did many things for our nation, but unfortunately people did not realize them, that is why I feel that we ought to make his contributions known. Mind you, he too had a great fault. He was a reactionary prince, who objected to King Prajadhipok in granting the constitution in 1932. Yet you have got to realize that in those days, you had to think in their terms, think in their minds. In those days most upper class people felt that the people were not ready for constitution, not ready to rule themselves. The rulers did try towards democracy. They thought the first thing to do was to let the people elect members of municipality, and. then perhaps we could have parliament. That time they had what they called Sapa-ongamontri, a kind of appointed senators to debate government policy. I think there was. an effort. In fact, Prince Sitthiporn was one of the senators appointed, although officially they were called privy councillors. Prince Bidyalongkorn, one of our former honorary Vice-presidents, was president of the senate and I think that the senators of those days were much more genuine, much more sincere then the senators nowadays. I say that without any reservation, because they were on the whole men of' courage and tried to serve the society, but unfortunately, they could not see that the. wind of change came so strong and could not see that the Royal Family was running the country too long; however best you tried, you simply could not make it. I think the best intention, the best brain - of the Royal Family failed in 1932. And the person, the promoters of the coup were afraid of most, was the Prince of Nagarasavarga. When King Prajadhipok was spending his summer retreat at Hua-Hin, Prince Paribatra was,, of course, regent. They arrested him on the 24th of June and put him as hostage and that was their best bargaining power. In the Thai context, you

205 simply could not let your half brother die. In fact, they only wanted him but of course when he was arrested he said to his page, “Inform Prince Damrong that I was arrested. Since Prince Damrong was the next senior of all the Supreme Counsellors, ask Prince Damrong to look after the affairs of the State”; so poor Prince Damrong was arrested too. Prince Naris at that time'was living at Klongtoey, which in those days was far away from Bangkok. When Prince Naris heard that something went wrong in Bangkok, he went to see his brother, Prince Damrong, so both of them were arrested. That was how the three senior Princes were arrested. Prince Damrong whs over 70 already and Prince Naris was about to reach 70. Prince Paribatra was only in his early fifties, full of energy and so on. So King Prajadhipok granted the constitution, as he had wanted to already; besides he wanted all of the Princes to be released. Prince Paribatra on no'account must live within this kingdom; and not only was he asked to be an exile Abroad, but the promoters of the coup also Ranted to have something in exchange for his life. So he said, “What can'll give? You want me to live in exile. The money I have, I have to spend it abroad, since I won’t have my salary any more. The only thing I have which might be of use to you is my house; so take it”. So that was how his palace eventually became the Bank of Thailand. In a way, the government claimed that it was given to them, but I think it was given on the harassment of the then government. In fact I made a campaign not to return the building to the family, because that family was not poor, but I felt that the government ought to build up a trust fund in his name for his memory, -that the trust fund could be made for anything to serve his interest such as to promote traditional Siamese music, Thai literature and so on. So, when he went to live in exile in Indonesia, one thing I have great admiration for him and members of the Thai Royal

206

Family is that whatever they said, they would never comment on politics any more. For them that was finished. They had done enough for this country, for better or for worse, so no more,. Living in Indonesia, Prince Paribatra started learning ■Dutch, because it was not too difficult for him as he knew German well already. Then he started learning Bhasa Indonesia as well as Javanese and Sudanese, because he lived in BanDung where Sudanese was spoken. He mastered four or five languages besides English, and he translated from Malayan which is now called Bhasa Indonesia a new version of Inao which had become our Thai classics since the end of Ayudhya period. The remaining years of his life was spent entirely for literature and music, which kept him happy. This helped him to forget Thai politics. He made trips once to South Africa and once to India. He wrote an account of his trip to India in beautiful Siamese which also shows that the man understood Indian culture very well; if a Thai who understands Siamese culture does not understand Indian culture, he cannot understand his Siamese, culture very deeply. So it really shows that Prince Paribatra understood Buddhism and Brahmanistic approaches as well as other aspects of Indian cultures, although he only wrote it as letter to Prince Naris. Of course, Prince Naris was known as the best man of letters at that time; and I am very glad .that in the audience we have a man who met Prince Paribatra ja India at that time. He was a novice and Prince Paribatra had a great respect for this man and in fact the Prince even supported him for his education and they kept on corresponding with each other. I was previledged to read the correspondences both in Thai and in English. He had to write in English because during the war, because of censorship, you had to write in the language the British raj understood. His English was beautiful and his Thai was not only beautiful but was Very humble—from a Celestial Prince to a novice. He gave the novice a full financiaLsupport. Yet the letters show that he

207 was in a way a broken man, away from home, and he saw a glimpse of the future in this young novice and he would do anything possible to help the new generation. To me I think that was very encouraging. He died during the Japanese occupation of Indonesia, partly, of a broken heart, I suppose, and he had a hard time during the Japanese occupation; and by then most Thai people had forgotten all about him. Those who were afraid of him were relieved that he was dead. But luckily for him, luckily for history of this country and luckily for those who practiced Buddhism, Pibulsonggram who was one of the promoters of the coup of 1932, who was very much against him, and who pushed him out of Siam, felt very bad afterwards and begged for his forgiveness by asking for his body to be returned to Bangkok and had a Royal Cremation at Pramaru Ground, immediately after the Cremation of King Ananda, Rama VIII, so he had a proper cremation befitting a Celestial Prince. In June this year people thought of him again. They had some celebration for him. They had some beautiful musical evenings for him, and now they even have a music library for him at the National Library. But to me that was only a small token for this very important man, a very important son of Siam who contributed so much to the Thai nation and the Thai culture.

th A lecture given at the Siam Society, 11 September 1981

PRINCE SITTHIPORN KRIDAKARA

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. food.

I hope you enjoyed the

Sixty or seventy years ago much of what we ate would not have been possible. Take for instance the cauliflower that went with our drink before the main meal. It was Prince Sitthiporn who experimented with it and now it’s a common crop. Cabbage we ate with our rice could not be grown in those days. Prince Sitthiporn had to first grow it in Chiengmai to find out whether the crop was viable. Now it is grown all over the country. Our rice then was 'so inferior, but Prince Sitthiporn found ways of improving it until he won for Siam an award for having the best rice variety in the world for three straight consecutive years. Our water melon, in my father’s generation,, was very small and tasteless. Again, we owe it to Prince Sitthiporn for making it large and sweet. Prince Sitthiporn was also the first to introduce scientific methods for chicken raising in this country. Most of us are ignorant of the fact that before his time, chicken eggs had to be imported from Hong Kong and China, mainly to supply the European community as the local people only ate duck eggs.. The chicken dish served tonight had corn ingredients. It was Prince Sitthiporn who initiated the idea of growing not only sweet corn, but other varieties to feed our cattle. And even the ground nuts are the results of his efforts to diversify the crops.

209

I colud go on and on. But all these are only part of Prince Sitthipofn’s contribution to modern Thai agriculture. What we must realize is that during his grandfather’s time, and up to Prince Sitthiporn’s generation, our main crop was rice. We have been successful since time immemorial in producing rice. But again I stress — this was our main and perhaps only crop. Until the period of his grandfather, our country was self-sufficient —we grew rice, vegetables, fruit trees for our own consumption. We had no need to export nor to import. But when the Westerners came in the 17th century, they bought from us non-essential things like elephant tusks, rhinoceros horns, things of that sort. It was during the period of this grandfather’s reign that the John Bowring’s treaty was reached in 1855. This signalled Siam’s entry into the capitalist scene. Our country then had no choice. Our neighbouring countries which refused the foreigners were all colonized. King Mongkut saw in his wisdom, that we had to bend with the wind. And we paid heavily for that. We began to import at only 3 percent import duty. Before this time, export was the monopoly of the government, but this no longer was to be. When Chulalongkorn succeeded to the throne, our main export was rice. With the coming of the Europeans, tin mining was started and we began to export tin. Then because of the Princes of the North — the Prince of Chiengmai, the Princes of Nan, of Lampoon and so on—who held monopoly over the forests within their territories, teak was added to our list of export products. Later, because of the development of the South, we h'ad to import rubber trees from South America. This eventually became another of the export products. Indeed, when I was a little boy, we learned at school that our four main exports were rice, tin, teak and rubber.

210 It was largely due to the efforts of Prince Sitthiporn that not only our agriculture and consequently, the export scene, but our eating habits were revolutionized. But before I give you an account of his many contributions to the Thai agriculture, perhaps I ought to give you a slice of his life, which is very interesting, facts and figures from what I have read of him and from the little that I knew of him. Of course I can only give you an account from an outsider’s •viewpoint, although I was one of those fortunate enough to know him personally. If you want to know more, we are very privileged tonight to have his son here in the audience as well as his grand daughter and his daughter-in-law. I am sure they will find a lot of mistakes in what I am about to say. But never mind, perhaps, they can correct me. You know of course that Prince Sitthiporn was the grandson of a very distinguished man, King Mongkut, Rama the fourth (1851-1868). One can talk a great deal about Mongkut, and his eldest son, Chulalongkorn (1868-1910), born of Queen Thepsirin. Of those born not of the Queen, Prince Sitthiporn’s father was the eldest: Prince Krisdapinihara, later known as Prince Nares, as he was created a Krom, an equivalent of a dukedom, with the new title of Naresvarariddhi. Prince Nares’ mother, Lady Klin, was a very wellknown figure. She was the first Thai lady who studied English well. Anna Leonowens mentioned her in her books. She also figured in the. play and the film, The King and I. Among Mongkut’s wives she was prominent, at least in the eyes of the foreign community. Indeed Lady Klin remained speaking English all through her life. Yet she was not of a pure Thai blood but was of Mon descent. Her father and her grandfather came from a distinguished Mon family. In fact, when the British attacked Burma in the reign of Rama II, Mongkut’s father, the Thai was asked to help the British troops. At that

211 time, the British thought of setting up the Mon Kingdom again in lower Burma. Lady Klin’s grandfather was asked to become the King of the Mon people, but he refused because of his loyalty to the Thai throne. As you can see, Prince Sitthiporn came from distinguished families on both sides. One must not neglect to mention the significant role which the women, especially of. Prince Sitthiporn’s family, played in Thai history. His grandmother, his mother and above all, his wife, were prominent figures. His mother, Mom Supap, was one of the first Thai ladies who became aware that to be a prince’s wife was not a privilege. She started a lime industry in Saraburi Province. Conscious that industry and commerce in those days were entirely in the hands of the Chinese, and in order to supplement her husband’s income, she started a lime industry through a Thai lady who Was also of a Mon descent. She felt she had to do something but like most Thai ladies who involved themselves in industry and commerce at this time she failed. Well, I will have a lot more to say about Prince Sitthiporn’s wife. But let us wait for a while. April 11, 1983 is Prince Sitthiporn’s hundredth birthday anniversary. Let me bless the Thai Government for a change for deciding to issue a stamp in his honour. The Ministry of Agriculture will hold some exhibitions and some lectures in honour of the man known as father of modern Thai Agriculture. Unfortunately we know the exhibition will not be that great, because politicians are already preparing for the coming general election. Our dear Minister of Agriculture, for instance,will fight for his seat, and therefore the Prince will not be the main item in his mind. Anyhow at least we have some lectures here. For those of you who understand Thai, I invite you to come here on the eleventh. Dr. Kawee, Khon Kaen

212 University, dean of faculty of agriculture, who also understands a great deal about Prince. Sitthiporn, will give us a lecture about the Prince in Thai. Going back to the life of Prince Sitthiporn, soon after he was born in 1883, his father was appointed Minister to the court of St. James’s. Therefore the Prince travelled to England at a very early age of 3 months, but returned at the age of three. He was sent back to England at the age of eight when his great uncle on- his mother’s family, Phya Mahayotha, succeeded his father as minister. In England, Prince Sitthiporn went to a very distinguished public school, Harrow. From Harrow he went to study engineering at the City and Guild College, which later became part of London University. Unfortunately, he had to return to'Siam before he finished his formal education due to the decline of his family’s-fortune. His mother needed him badly to save her lime business. When he returned he tried to help his mother but -his efforts were to no avail. He then decided to follow his elder brothers’ footstep and joined the civil service. Prince Sitthiporn joined the Foreign Ministry and became secretary to the foreign advisor in the Ministry, the first Phya Kalayanamitri (not Francis B. Sayer but Westengard). His first contribution was his designing of the Thai short hand system which, the Ministry did not think much of since the language of communication then was English, not- Thai. The Ministry of Justice thought otherwise. It therefore awarded him ten thousand baht for his invention—a great deal of money at that time. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was transferred to the Ministry of Finance, to become deputy director-general of the Royal Department of Opium. The department was later combined with the Royal Department of Spirit and was renamed Department of Excise. His main responsibility was to

213 devise methods to mechanize the production of opium, until then was done by hand. Some of you who were here earlier than the Sarit regime, probably recall that you must have seen Bangkok then full of opium dens. These opium dens had to pay excise duty to this department. The Prince was so successful that he was made director-general of the Royal Mint Department, because of his engineering background. After only a few years, he was promoted to the rank of directorgeneral- of the Royal Opium Department itself. Again, he became so successful there that the Royal Opium Department could boast of one-fifth of the whole national revenue. Of course, by Thai law, opium was banned for Thai citizens. Only the overseas Chinese could srnoke opium, and in those days the labourers whom we called Kuli in Bangkok and all the big towns, were all imported from China, whereas guards in various western organizations and government departments were all imported from India. When I was a young boy here in this country, not a single Thai person was a labourer unless you call ticket collectors and tram drivers as labourers. There were no Samlos (tricycle) then and rickshaws were all drawn by Chinese. The Chinese were heavy smokers of opium and this accounted for why the Opium Department earned one-fifth of the national revenue. The Prince ran the Opium Department efficiently and honestly. Prince Sitthiporn was not only an excellent manager, he was also deeply interested in culture and in sports. He and his elder brothers were close friends of King Vajiravudh (19101925), who, like the prince, was educated in England, as was the custom for the royalty in those days. The King was very fond of producing plays, and he sometimes took part as an actor too. Prince Sitthiporn was drawn in as an actor at the King’s amateur theater. Besides his interest in theater, the prince was also an accomplished musician and a great sports-

214 man. He was the first to organize a Thai football team which became the national team that competed against an international team at the-Royal Sports Club. But as even more significant contribution was his use of sports to level off class distinction. He encouraged everyone at the Royal Opium Department to participate in tennis, football, etc. regardless of class background. Thus on the one hand, he was close to the Royal family, and on the other, he became instrumental in transferring his Department into something like a family. Unfortunately, he was so successful that he found life in the civil service a great bore. Indeed he found life in Bangkok not conductive to his lifestyle. Luckily on his part, by then he married his wife, Sri Promma. He had married once before to Kamtip who bore him a son. After the death of his first wife, he married Princess Sitthiporn in 1915, who was then known as Chao Sri Promma, a very interesting and distinguished lady. Chao Sri Promma was a daughter of the Prince of Nan. Up to the centralization of King Chulalongkorn, we had so many principalities: Chiengmai, Lampang, Lampoon, Nan, Prae. They all had their ruling Princes. Chao Sri Promma’s father was the ruling Prince of Nan and was very loyal to Bangkok. He was promoted from the Chao of Nan to be the Pra Chao Nan with the title of Pra Chao Suriyapongseparitadej. Bangkok then was very afraid of colonial expansion because it already had lost Luangprabang to France. During the reign of King Mongkut we had lost Cambodia. Bangkok then had to send the Kha-luang, a kind of special- envoy from the King, to be attached to each court of its principalities. At Nan, the Kha-luang who was then only a Khunpra and his wife, who was made a Khunying, were a very distinguished couple. The Khaluang’s wife was educated in France, spoke French and English, a rarity in those days. Henpe she was proved very useful especially because Nan, Chiengmai and around that area

215

was the sphere the British and French were interested in, and therefore it demanded of the Kha-luangs in the area to engage in a kind of diplomacy with the French consul in Luangprabang and the British consul in Chiengmai „and so on. The Kha-luangs at Nan and his wife became interested in adopting the ybung daughter of the Prince of Nan, Chao Sri Promma. They succeeded in getting the Prince’s permission. Soon afterwards, they were transferred from the Ministry- of the Interior to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which assigned the Kha-luang to become the first minister in_.residence at the court of St. Petersburg in Russia. There had been ministers sent to the Court in Russia before, but they resided merely in France. This time, King Chulalongkorn needed a minister he could trust to reside in St. Petersburg to protect his favourite son, Prince Chakrabongse, who he was sending to be educated in Russia as.a foster son of the Russian Tsar. The Kha-luang of Nan was chosen, and then, he and his wife left for Russia with their adopted daughter, Chao Sri Promma. I can talk a great deal about this lady too, so romantic, so sad and so happy. Her integrity, her beauty, her charm and so on, would be a subject of a lecture by itself. To make a long story short, Sri Promma was married to Sitthiporn and had a great contribution not only to their very happy lives together but contributed so much to our society and nation. I myself was very privileged to know both of them. Although I know quite a number of distinguished people, and their -families, yet I’ve never met any couple who have been happier as a family than this couple. They had high positions — from the Prince of Nan, the King of Siam, the would be King of the Mons and so on — but the couple remained so humble, and in fact very poor economically. When I last met Prince Sitthiporn before he died, he wanted to have a bungalow built. And he drew the plan of the bungalow himself. On that plan, he wanted to have

216

a simple bungalow with one bed room, one small sitting room and a kitchen with a budget of 30,000 baht. But he didn’t even have the money for that. Despite his high position, he could not afford to build his dream house. It is indeed very inspiring to find amidst the corruption and easy life that usually accompanies top government positions, a rare couple who cared very little for the power and wealth their rank could bring but instead devoted their time, energy and brains to serve their people. Still another distinctive trail of this couple was their supportiveness of each other and their sharing of decision-making. Prince Sitthiporn made the drastic decision of leaving government service at a time when he had won recognition for being the youngest and most successful director-general of the most powerful department that accounted for one-fifth of the national revenue, he met no resistance from his wife. Having consulted her, he found her very encouraging and supportive of his desire to become an ordinary farmer. He felt that the age of colonial expansion was over, and therefore- the civil service no longer needed the best brains, which was what was demanded at the time of his uncle, King Chulalongkorn, to Show western powers that we could run our own country. He realized that it was agriculture that needed his brains more, and was convinced that the future of this country depended on agriculture, particularly farming. You see we have been farming rice for seven hundred years. And nobody could take rice farming away from us. Even the Chinese who came and they took away from us most things, like commerce, craftsmanship, goldsmithing, jewelry-making which before the reign of King Chulalongkorn, were done by the Siamese, could not compete with us in rice farming. He decided that the Thai must, if we wanted to survive, do our own farming, and we must do this better than anybody else. And it was not possible

217 to rely on seven hundred years of practice. We must move along with the new era, and confront the incurable problem of less land. Therefore firstly, the new middle class must become farmers, and secondly the farmers themselves must have selfrespect, to be able to survive with political and cultural dignity. He knew that, to realize this, he must himself become a farmer so that he could show the way. But if he had been married to somebody else, that wish would remain just wishful thinking. But Mom Sri Promma was v.ery supportive. The two of them therefore went out of Bangkok to engage in farming: at that time, it was not easy to do farming, particularly in the area of Bangberd, known as the Himalaya of Siam, four hundred kilometers away. To travel to Bangberd, one had to either take a bullock cart (after a long train journey), or the EastAsiatic ship in which case we would have to ask the captain to stop the ship in the middle of the high sea and take a small boat to shore. It was very difficult to get there. Besides, being a member of the Royal family, his father who was still alive had wished to see his son become more distinguished in the civil service as his other sons had been : one was Minister of Justice in the Fifth Reign, and later Minister at Paris, another was Viceroy in Chiengmai and later became Minister of Defence. On the other hand, there was King Vajiravudh who would likewise have opposed his resignation. But cleverly the Prince played between his father who thought the King would object, and the King who thought Prince Nares would object. He therefore managed to get away from Bangkok in 1921. The reason for his choice of far-away place was because Mom Sri Promma had inherited pieces of property from her adoptive mother, Khunyihg Un who, as I mentioned earlier, was a very prominent lady at the court of St. Petersburg. She had become a lady in-waiting to the Queen Mother and could speak English and French. She also had progressive ideas.

218 Even when I was a boy in this country, if you mentioned any lady’s name, Khunying Un’s name would come to the forefront as a very distinguished progressive lady. And Khunyings1 in those days had dignity, unlike the Khunyings nowadays, many of whom are social maniacs. So in 1921 Prince Sitthiporn left Bangkok with his wife and young children to live as ordinary farmers at Bangberd. Bangberd then had tigers, elephants and other wild animals roaming in the jingle. Khunying Un had planted some coconut trees by the seaside, but the rest, the Prince and Princess Sitthiporn had to do by themselves with the help of local people. We must note that when the Prince was still directorgeneral, he already was experimenting with chicken raising even though he was trained as an engineer. He read books on agriculture, and felt that if one concentrated on rice farming alone the land would be less fertile after a few years. Although in those days we could have new land all the time, but he said no to this and insisted that we must deversify our crops. This, I think was his solution number one. At Bangberd, he grew some rice but he also grew some ground nuts after harvesting rice to fertilize the field. And he raised chickens, pigs and made use of natural fertilization. He was the first Siamese to raise chicken in the western and scientific way., Luang Suwan Wajokasikij got the idea from him and became known as the father of modern chicken raising. Luang Suwan later on founded Kasetsart University. The Prince also wanted to build a model farm. He used an accounting book to record everything: what was the income, expenditure, methods of running the farm etc. And .he introduced new kind of crops, some of which I- had already mentioned — cabbages; sweet corn; other kind of corns to feed the cattle; the famous water melon; and rice which became the best in the world. The best contribution he made which helped a lot of people in the North

219 become rich was Virginia tobacco. He told me it was not this idea. You know Prince Sitthiporn was very modest. He never said that he had original idea. He always said that somebody gave him the idea. In the case of Virginia tobacco, he said it was Phya Indramontri. Phya Indramontri was an English man, Francis Giles, who was president of Siam Society for many years. In fact, it was Francis Giles who got this land donated to us by Mr. A.E. Nana. Francis Giles was the first director-general of the Revenue Department, the only English man who had such a high position in the Siamese civil service. Mr. Giles complained that the Ministry of Finance spent so much money importing Virginia tobacco from USA. In those days we had the British American Tobacco company which had - the monopoly in producing cigarettes, in part because of the Bowring’s treaty. So Mr. Giles talked to Prince Sitthiporn about the possibility of this country producing Virginia tobacco. Prince Sitthiporn tried at Bagberd first but failed. Later he experimented it in the North and it became a success. From there on we hardly imported Virginia tobacco. And a lot of people in the North became rich. Had he wanted to be a rich man the Prince could have been. But he did not want to. He simply wanted to become a farmer, make Bangberd a kind of experimental farm, and share his knowledge (his failure as well as his success) with others. If was because of his desire to share knowledge that he started a monthly magazine called Kasikorn, (agriculturist), which he and his w,ife edited. Both of them wrote articles for the magazine. She wrote about how to preserve food, how to preserve vegetables, how ;to make ham and bacon. She was. the first Thai lady to make ham and bacon in those days without refrigerator or electricity. And Prince Sitthiporn was of course the first Thai to raise pigs. For a Thai to raise pig, that was the worst crime possible. But he was not an ordinary Thai, he was a member of the Royal family. This was social degradation and sinful. His grandmother cried at

220

this, nor was the pre'sent King’s grandmother pleased. But his argument was very simple; if to kill a pig is sinful, why do people eat pork? He claimed he was not sophisticated but I think this was very pragmatic approach. He said’, well, obviously there must be something wrong about killing. But to commit some small sinful act is better than to commit a greater sin. To kill animals for our survival is better than warfares, dishonesty, and cheating. When he was already eighty six years old, I once brought a very prominent Thai farmer to see him — Mr. Kamsing Srinawk known by his pen name as Lao Kam Hom. This man has now become even more famous as a short story writer. Prince Sitthiporn was still raising pigs at the age of eighty six, and running his old tractor too. The Prince showed us about pig raising. And he asked Mr. Kamsing “You’ are .a farmer from Korat, do you engage in pig raising?” Kamsing said “No” He said “Are you afraid of sin?” Kamsing said “Yes...” He said “Don’t be silly. Wehave to commit sin sometimes. You better do it with the pigs than with the people!” Prince Sitthiporn had that kind of direct approach. But it was because of his willingness to take risks that he revolutionized Thai agriculture after only ten years of experimentation at Bangberd. He spread the ideas through Kasikorn and influenced many young people to visit his farm, and they set up similar farms. His main arguments were always reported in the journal. He said the government must change policy. We must diversify crops. To rely on rice alone was no good. He was a little bit ahead of his time. It was only during the depression period in the late 1920s when we could not sell our rice abroad, that the government realized he was right. King Prajadhipok (1925-1934), who was then on the throne, thus summoned him to Bangkok. The King said “You were right. The government was wrong.” One good thing about the absolute monarchy in those days was that when they made a mistake, they admitted it, unlike nowadays. The King con-

221 tinned: “All right, the government must change the policy. They said you were doing something on diversified crops, you’d better come back and serve the government.” But before he went back to serve the government, I must mention two things. When he was at Bangberd, he kept connection with Bangkok on two issues. Because of his engineering background, he remained advisor to the Bangkok Dock Company, the Chao Phya Steam Boat Company, and Bangkok Electric Company which Was then run by the Danes. The Danes also ran electricity, tram way, and so on. The Bangkok Dock of course is now near Sathorn Road. So Prince Sitthiporn had to come back to Bangkok every month or so, for a week or a few days. And at that time King Prajadhipok felt that he must pave the way for democracy. So he had the first House of Senate appointed. And Prince Sitthiporn was instrumental in drafting the rules and regulations of the senate. If that would prove successful, King Prajadhipok felt he would start municipality election and then would grant constitution for general election all over the kingdom. But of course his wish was not fulfilled. When Prince Sitthiporn came back to serve the civil service in 1931, Prajadhipok offered him to become Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Agriculture. But Prince Sitthiporn refused. He said to become Under-Secretary of State meant much administration work. He wanted to have a new department created—Department of Agricultural Inspection, so he could introduce what he had been experimenting at .Bangberd to it in a more official way. Once the King agreed to this, he started three experimental stations: Maejo at Chiengmai, which is now a leading college of agriculture: one at Nonsoong in Korat; and one at Kuanieng in the South. This experiment should help us know what would be the best crops to

222 grow in each part of the country: the north, northeast and the south. He wanted to change the policy for diversified crops. And on top of that; he discussed with the Minister of Education, the idea of changing our education curriculum which had until then only produced clerks and civil servants. He argued that what the times demanded was for our educational system to produce farmers. He said our solution was to attract more people to become farmers. And those who are not fit to be farmers, let them become clerks, let them become civil servants, etc. Unfortunately this was not realized mainly because he came back to serve the king only for one year after which there was the coup d’etat in 1932 and a counter-coup in 1933 led by his own brother,. Prince Bovoradej who was educated in England and felt that the 1932 promoters of the coup who were educated in France did not work to achieve democracy. So the counter coup was the English vision of democracy versus the French. And then of course I think that the Thai type of democracy prevailed, so we have had military democracy ever since.. Anyhow Prince Bovoradej ’s counter-coup was defeated. And the Prince himself flew away to live in exile in Saigon. As a result Prince Sitthiporn was put in jail for eleven years. In fact a lot of people escaped from the detention camp at Tarutao island. Some of you may have been to Tarutao with the Siam Society trip. It was beautiful and so on, but those who spent their lives there, thought otherwise and considered it as hell. Phya Saraphai and a fevy others escaped to Penang, Singapore. And then to Australia. They of course asked Prince Sitthiporn to escape with them. He said “No. If they put me in jail by law, then they will have to release me also by the law.” And true enough, they released him by passing a new act of amnesty.. Anyhow he spent eleven years in jail altogether. Even during that eleven years it was very in-

223

teresting. But unfortunately I can’t talk more about this since we have not enough time. Prince Sitthiporn received freedom during the. Pridi Banomyong’s liberal period, at the end of the Second World War. And soon afterwards, to make a long story short, he was made Minister of Agriculture in the Kuang Aphaiwong cabinet. Again he tried to implement his vision of twelve years ago: diversified crops. But when he was minister in the Kuang Aphaiwong’s first, cabinet which was criticized for having a lot of good and able people, but most of whom were the old timers and aristocrats and therefore were not really/representatives of the wishes of the people. To dispel this hejan for election, and was elected in Prachuapkirikhan, where Bangberd was. He became M.P. and Minister then of course in 1948, Pibulsongkram made Kuang Aphaiwong resign, so he was removed from office. But he told me that General Pin, Pibul’s number two, who later on became a field marshal, confided to him that although the military did not want Kuang to head the cabinet, they wanted Prince Sitthiporn to remain Minister of Agriculture. Prince Sitthiporn believed in democracy, in election, he didn’t agree to this kind of military maneuvering. He therefore refused the cabinet posts. But he did help the new government on the technical side. They appointed him the Thai representative to FAO which was new at that time. He was elected president of International Rice Commission for three consecutive years which was very unusual. You see when the meeting took place in this country, it was natural that he was elected chairman. Later on the meeting took place in Rangoon and in Bundung, he was still’ elected chairman until he resigned. And at that time, he made a great contribution to Thai rice, and particularly he managed through FAO to fight against the buffalo disease until we were able to' eradicate this disease entirely. Even Pibul who put him in jail for eleven

224 years had to ask the King to bestow on him the grand cross of the crown of Siam. Well, I could go on and on, but I would skip to say that unfortunately after he was released from jail at the time of his inyolvement in politics at an advanced age, Bangberd had become overgrown and that it was beyond him and his wife to keep the farm under their control. In 1959 he was more or less forced to sell Bangberd. In fact he wanted to sell it to the government. But the government would not buy it. But the Prime Minister bought it personally from his own pocket or was it the government’s money after all. However, the property was later on confiscated when that Prime Minister died. In fact I wrote to many ministers of Agriculture, including the present one, that they should make use of this confiscated property to honour Prince Sitthiporn by making it an experimental farm again. Prince Sitthiporn never wanted honour for himself, but he said if people liked him or admired him, they should put his experimental ideas into practice and see whether- they work or not. I try to argue this with three or four ministers. But it seems that I have been talking to deaf ears. As for the Prince, after he gave up his Bangberd farm, he still had a smaller farm at Suan Khao Noi near Hua Hin, that was where I first met him. He was then eighty years old. He received the Magsaysay award at the age of eighty four. In his eighties, he still wanted to fight for two or three issues. He was against the rice premium. He felt the rice premium was indirect taxation and worked for the benefit of the government instead of the farmers. I remember vividly when I first became council member of Siam Society in 1969. The first lecture in English we had was by Prince Sitthiporn. The room was packed and there were four cabinet ministers attending, and he argued against the rice premium. He had spoken for two hours, sitting down there. And he prepared, very detailed arguments with

225

facts and figures and put his ideas across very modestly, but the cabinet ministers could not understand what he said. This was and is. the dilemma of this country. Eventually, they had to give up rice premium after the Prince’s death, during the Sanya Dhammasakdi cabinet. The Prince spent his life arguing but he felt that to argue with cabinet ministers was useless. Instead, the better way was to make the farmers realize they were being unjustly treated. When I first knew him, he had just founded a new political party. At the age of eight five, he was still heavily involved in politics. His new party was called Vinfl&JJmvmtmQ'UI (The party of the Right Livelihood to Serve the Farmers). His argument was very simple. He said in Germany, they had only sixteen percent farmers and the government had to listen to the farmers attentively and made the policy accordingly. Yet in this country, we had eighty percent farmers and the government never listened to them. So we must unite the farmers and we must have somebody represent the farmers in parliament. He tried to argue with M.Ps. (he talked to Seni Pramoj, he talked to Kukrit Pramoj), but the farmers were not considered political force. For the Democrats, Bangkok was the political force so they wanted the people in Bangkok to buy cheap rice. But Prince Sitthiporn wanted them to buy expensive rice so the money would go to the farmers, so that farming would be a worthwhile profession, economically. And his wish was fulfilled, when his party from Nakornpathpm managed to get an M . P . Yet that M..P. was disloyal to Prince Sitthiporn and the farmers so that he would be better off by siding with the government. Unfortunately in his life, it was soured like that all through. The Prince’s last two wishes were, firstly he was against chemical fertilization because of the high price this demanded.

226 Not only economically was it unjust, but it was.also bad for our land. He tried to show the benefits .of natural fertilization which could be concocted; he said .everyone could do and every farmer could make it himself. Secondly he fought -for the young farmers. He called then} the fiTJaiWimui (Children and Grandchildren of Farmers). He said that unless we teach those youngsters to be proud- farmers, to survive economically as farmers, to survive culturally as farmers, we have no hope for this country. He said to me “In your life time, you may have to import rice from abroad.” And he said to me twenty years ago “Those farmers will immigrate from their farms, they will come to Bangkok, live in slums and migrate abroad.” This is happening now. Except we have not yet imported rice. Prince Sitthiporn was a little bit ahead of his time. But his voice was so prophetic. Yet he preached to the deaf ears of us all. He was very much liked, was very much admired, because he was humble, he was polite, but very firm. His wife was just like that.Togetherthey epitomized the work. A few days from now, we will celebrate his centenary. The government will issue a stamp to honour him, they will have exhibitions and so on; and they will soon forget about him, because of the election, because of this and that. But I think we ought to honour him properly. We have to reflect on what he"has done, what he has said which I think are very vital and very essential for the livelihood of this country. Unless our young educated people go out to farming, unless we do something seriously for our farmers so that they would survive with dignity, we will not honour him, we will not honour our forefather and we will riot survive meaningfully. A lecture delivered at the Siam Society, 5

th

April, 1983.

First published in Asian Action No. 40 July 1983.

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF SUAN MOKKHA: THE GARDEN OF LIBERATION

Venerable Sirs, Ladies and Gentlemen, This talk, in fact, is a series of the Bangkok Bicentennial Lectures, in which we have asked certain people to speak about certain historic events in the past 200 years. Some of you now have seen the film, shown here a month or two ago about the 150th. Anniversary of Bangkok. I think the lecture was given by the President. The 150th Anniversary of Bangkok took place in April, 1932, and in June 1932 there was the 'first coup d’etat which ended the ancient regime. And next month we will have yet another film show and somebody, I think Dr. Chan-; wit, will talk about the 50th Anniversary of that first coup d’etat in conjunction with the film “The King of the White Elephant” produced by the civilian leader of that coup. That will be on the 24th of June. So between the 150th Anniversary of Bangkok in April and the Junecowp d’etat, there was May and May, is usually the .month of the Buddha, Vissakha Puja. The Buddha is supposed to have been born, attained Enlightenment, and passed away on the full moon of May. On that full, moon of May, 1932, there was a young monk of Chinese heritage, who retreated from Bangkok to his birthplace in Chaiya to found something which was unknown fifty years ago and which has now become a very important landmark in the history of this country and the history of Thai Buddhism. So there are these three events taking place: April, May, and June.

228

•But before I talk' about that event, arid the monk who founded that place, it might not be out of place if I tell you briefly of the kind of reform movement in this country since the founding of Bangkok. That would perhaps give you some historical background of Thai Buddhism. As you know, at the end of the Ayudhaya Period the destruction took place not only in the' capital city. The destruction also affected Thai life, Thai culture, and' particularly Thai Buddhism. You have got to realize that Thai Buddhism was very corrupted already towards the end of the Ayudhaya Period. It was very much mixed with Hinduism and mixed with many kinds of foreign elements, alienated from the original teaching of the Buddha. It was therefore easy, once the capital was sacked, that Buddhism more or less disappeared. It is given in the Singhalese Embassy’s account' that they came here towards the end of the Ayudhaya Period, to ask for the Buddhist monks to go to Ceylon to restart -the Bhikkhu’ lineage in Ceylon just about 250 years ago. In Buddhism, the Buddhist monks must be ordained by a chapter of Bhikkhus who have already been ordained and this lineage of ordination must go right back to the Buddha. Once this lineage is broken, it cannot be restarted, hence in Buddhism there is now no order for nuns, there are no Bhikkhuni.at least not in the Southern School of Buddhism, because the lineage of mins was broken and there is no way of reviving it. That is why in this country and Burma and many countries which believe in Theravada Buddhism, each young men must join the Order, if he can, at least to prolong the lineage. When the Singhalese Embassy came to ask for the monks to go to Ceylon, to restart the lineage, they described how the monks in Ayudhaya were living. They were living in luxury. The Supreme Patriarch was surrounded by all pomp and ceremony and the Bhikkhus were involved with many of the elements very much outside the

229

original teaching of the Buddha, unfortunately not unlike nowadays. They were involved in creating sacred images and so on and so forth for money and for luxury, so it happened very easily that when the capital was sacked, the monkhood disintegrated and almost entirely dissappeared. So the King,of Thonburi had a very hard -time to find monks or at least those he convinced were monks. In the Catholic Church, which also believes in the same kind of lineage, a kind of apostolic succession, a priest can be a very bad priest but he remains a priest all the way through, once he is ordained. But in the Buddhist monkhood, if a monk commits one of the four cardinal sins, he ceases to he'd monk, straight away whether he wears the yellow robes or not. So when the King of Thonburi regained independence, he had difficulty to see whether such and. such a person wearing the yellow robes was really a monk or not. And he could not even find a Sangha Raja, the Supreme Patriarch, until he went down to Nakorn Si Thammarat. After the sacking of Nakorn Si Thammarat that he found a monk to his satisfaction, who was a monk of great learning and great spiritual insight, and he invited him to be the Supreme Patriarch in Thonburi. You may notice that monk was a mere ordinary monk, Phra Achaan See who was not even in. the hierarchy of Ayudhaya. You have got to realize that in Ayudhaya the hierarchy was as complicated as the hierarchy now. We have a kind of Supreme Patriarch, a kind of Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and so on.. All these disappeared almost entirely. One Bishop even proclaimed himself King, Chao Phra Fang—he proclaimed himself King while he remained a monk, fighting. So it can be seen that the state of the Sangha was that bad. But unfortunately the reign of the King of Thonburi was so short, despite the fact that he was on the throne fifteen years. He spent most of his time fighting the Burmese and others. One of his preoccupations was to reform the Sangha, but he could not carry it out successfully. But I do

230

not want to go into that now because that is, another story in itself. When Rama I founded Bangkok, it was his preoccupation also to reform the Sangha, to reform the monkhood. That was- the first reform movement in* the history of these two hundred years. He held a Buddhist Council. Buddhist Council (Sanghayana) is something very important in the history of Buddhism. In this country only two councils have been held, one in Chiengmar during the reign of King Tilokaraj which was the eighth council and the other held by King Rama I which was' the ninth council. There were three others held in India and four were held in Sri Lanka. These councils were to purify the original teachings. Once the teaching is purified then the practice could be authenticated, in addition you must have the monks behaving properly. King Rama I passed many laws and edicts to purify the monkhood and to force the bad monks out. I think that was the first reform movement in the 200' years of Bangkok history. That was done' mostly by the State. The second reform movement was done within the Sangha itself, and it was carried out by King Rama I’s grandson, King Mongkut, who was a monk for twenty six years. During his time as a monk he spent much time with the reform movement. So, his grandfather made the reform movement from outside the Church as the protector of the religion and Prince Mongkut made reforms from within the Sangha itself. These two members' of the royal family did much to reform the monks. In Buddhism learning is very important. We must know the proper teaching of the Buddha and then we! must put the learning into practice, .particularly on the meditative side, so that wisdom can be achieved. King Mongkut’s reform movement has been written about often. Some of these books accused

231

him of starting a political party while he was a monk during the reign of King Rama III. But I do not think so. If he had used the monkhood as a, political base he would not have started a new sect. I believe that new sect was a mistake which I will refer to later when I' talk about Aachan Buddhadassa. In his wisdom; Buddhadassa did not found a new sect. But King Mongkut made that great error which has now become something very awkward in the history of the Thai Sangha. This reform movement that leads’ to a new sect was not just in this country but it even spread to Cambodia and Laos which were buffer states of Siam then. This reformed sect, the Dhammayutika Nikaya, lasted in these foreign countries until both countries threw out the monarchy. Now when you go to Lao or Cambodia they are very pround that they only have one sect of Buddhism and no longer have the reformed sect. The reformed sect in this country is still very much of a privileged sect because all members of the royal family must be ordained into this sect. It has also had many many privileges which.most Thais are not even aware of unless they are very much interested in Church affairs. Luckily, most Thais are not aware of Church politics. In fact after the 1932 coup in June the majority of the monkhood (Mahanikaya sect) made a movement for equality. It is interesting because I am advising one of my M.A. students on her thesis of this event. It is called the Young Monks Movement, and they called themselves Kanapatisangkhon —the RestorationMovement, which. ended in the year B.E.2484 (1941) with the passing of a new Ecclesiastical Law which made the Church seem similar to the State, giving equality to the two sects. But this Law was abolished by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in the year B.E. 2505 (C.E. 1962) because he. was a dictator and pushed his authority into the Church as well as the State. The movement by Rama I who was an outsider of the

232

Church but still a patron of the Church was given validity by •King Asoka. Asoka’s theory was that Buddhism could not exist without 'the backing of a righteous ruler, the Dhammaraja, and since Rama,I wanted to be Dhammaraja, he purified and supported the Buddhist Church. His predecessor, King Taksin of Thdnburi, also wanted to support the Buddhist Church but went one step too far, and that step cost him his life, his throne and his dynasty. Rama I’s grandson, Mongkut, made the reform movement from within the Church: which purified much of the practice and learning, yet committed one major mistake by starting a new sect. When he became king, he had many eminent sons, two of whom tried to overcome this mistake. First, King Chulalongkorn tried very hard to bridge the gap between the two sects but as an outsider, as a layperson, he failed to do so. Then his other son who became the Supreme Patriarch, the Prince Patriarch Vajiranana also tried to bridge the gap between the two sects and he nearly succeeded yet he too failed. First, the Prince Patriarch’s failure was due to the members of his own sect who felt they should not become part of the majority since they have so many privileges. They had been purified so much, they felt they should not become part of the majority. Later on he became very hurt with the majority who was back-biting him. There were politics even within the royal family and so he decided he would not help the major sect anymore. That was his last attempt. After the 1932 coup, the leader of the coup Phya, Bahol tried to bridge the gap again. He passed the law of 2484 (in 1941) and after he resigned from his premiership, he himself was ordained into the two sects and they built a new monastery near the airport, Wat Phra Si Mahatat, which Vvas a symbol, of the two sects being merged. And Phya Bahol himself was ordained in that monastery inviting members of both sects to perform his ordination. But he, too, failed to bridge the gap because his ordination was considered valid only

233

by the Mahanikaya sect and invalid by the reformed sect. Even the present king when he was ordained at the Emerald, Buddha Temple, was ordained by members of the two sects, but to make his ordination valid by the reformed sect, he was forced to have a second ordination privately, otherwise the first ordination would not be valid in the eyes of the reformed sect. As I said, King Mongkut made that mistake and that mistake has lasted and will probably last as long as the monarchy, despite the fact that the reformed sect has contributed much to the progress of-Buddhism in this country, particularly its learning and its practice. Most of you who are interested in the meditation practice may notice that the- reformed sect has many meditation masters particularly in the North East. I said that Prince Vajiranana and King Chulalongkorn tried to bridge the gap but both failed. These two brothers made positive and negative contributions to the Church. Positively they brought the Sangha much more up-to-date,, made the teaching more relevant to the progress of the country with the modernization of the country. But’ negatively they used their centralization policy towards the Sangha, which was very much independent, and which was very much geared along with the local traditions in their own unique cultures. The Sangha has become much more uniform, unified and much more centralized. They were of course resistant to this centralization, particularly in Chiengmai. Those of you who go to Chiengmai, when you go up to Doi Sutep, you will see a statue of the monk who built that road up to Doi Sutep, Khruba Sivijaya. The government of Rama VII failed to make the road up to that mountain, , partly because of the then inferior technology, and partly because of the poverty of the central government. Yet that monk, through his charismatic leadership, through his supernatural powers (as some people believed) built the road, without costing the government a penny,

234 up to Doi Sutep. And that monk in fact was, fighting against the centralization of the Sangha in Bangkok. He was brought to Bangkok for trial twice. But unfortunately, eventually Bangkok centralized the whole Sangha. And the Sangha has became tools of the State. Particularly now, the Sangha has become tools of the State without realizing it. This brings me to the monk we are talking about, Buddhadassa. In, ,1932 he was a very young monk then and he felt that Bangkok was not a place for any serious monk. He felt of its illusion and that it was not even good ecologically. He felt that to practice Buddhism seriously, you must go somewhere, .where the original ,teaching-of the Buddha must be applied. And that is, you must live in a very natural condition. So he went back to his birthplace in Chaiya. And for him, particularly his younger brother, Chaiya is the original place of the Srivijaya culture, of the old original Buddhist culture, when it first came there. As his brother particularly was ah expert on local cultures, he even maintained that the Emerald Buddha in Bangkok was created in Chaiya. So Chaiya to the two brothers was a place historically, and naturally, to start something. And for Theravada Buddhism, to be pure means to go back to the original teaching of the Buddha as agreed upon by the First Council. The First Council is the Landmark of Theravada Buddhism because after the Second Council, the first schism took place. Then Mahayana took place —and.spread to the North— China, Japan, Korea—that was decided at the Second Council.. At the First Council, you have got to realize that when the Buddha was alive he said that of all his teachings, the major rules and regulations may not be changed. But the minor rules and regulations could be changed. At the First Council, only one mqnth after his passing away, they could not decide which were the major rules and which were the minor rules, though

235 they were supposed to be all enlightened. So they agreed that out of- respect for the Buddha, they would never change any rule or regulation. And only 100' years afterwards the schism took place. At the Second Council people said, “Well, why should we adhere to the First Council’s dictum?” We must adhere to the Buddha. He said “‘the minor rules could be changed, so we change them.” And then they changed them. And as you can see now, the Chinese monks are wearing trousers, the Japanese monks are now wearing neckties, whereas the Theravada monk, adhering to the First Council, still wears these robes.as you can.see, (the two examples sitting here). So when you talk of the reform of the Theravada Buddhism you must go right back to the First Council and to decide what was decided then. What is known as Tipitika —The Three Baskets —must be the final factor. ! But again you have got to realize that the Three Baskets — the Buddha’s ministry lasted forty five years and he taught a great deal. And the forty five years are summed up in the Three Bas kets —the Siamese version of the Tipitika is eighty volumes, or eighty times the size of the Bible. And yet, after 2500 years, so many commentaries have been written about these eighty volumes and so many subcommentaries have been written about these too. So what to decide? I think that —King Mbngkut went wrong in fact, which made that reformed sect come into being —he adhered to the commentaries. I t was the procedure on ordination which made him feel that he must have this kind of ordinations, made him feel that the other ordinations were not valid. I think this is what saved Buddhadassa—he adhered only to the Three Baskets, the first Basket is the Vinaya, the rules; th'eJ second Basket is the Sutta, the discourses; and the third' Basket is the metaphysics, the Abhidhamma. And in fact Buddhadassa stresses only the Suttas, the discourses. He feels that the metaphysic part is too much on the philosophical and to him if is too much a waste of time. For this, of course, he has been

236

attacked also by a school known as the Abhidhamma school — the metaphysicians in this country attacked him tremendously. But he said, “All right, if you have plenty of time, and if you want to talk philosophy on Buddhism, you go ahead.” And he said particularly Germans who became Buddhists are very -fond of this part of the teachings. They are full of intellectual ability. ,Even among the Discourses he feels that you must go right back to the central teaching, namely, how to confront suffering. And you must confront suffering here and now, which makes him become very unpopular again, because, in Buddhism people think of the Buddha as the founder, but in Theravada Buddhism the major ! figure' is a man called Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa was a Brahmin, converted to Buddhism, and went to Ceylon about 1000 years after the Buddha. He edited the Three Baskets and he burned the thing which he felt was not purified. On top of that he wrote many, many commentaries. And one of his. best commentaries, which all the Buddhist monks in this country must study to get the doctorate degree, is called the Visuddhi Magga, The Path of Purification. And this Path of Purification, explains how to confront dukkha, how to confront suffering, by saying that suffering really, or the cause of suffering really, has come from the past life, the past deeds. And to confront that suffering you must understand the past life. Buddhadasa said that this islBrahministic or Hinduistic and not Buddhistic. But he was not! the first one, to challenge this. The first one to challenge this is no less a person than the present King’s preceptor, the late Prince Patriarch Vajirananavamsa.. It must not be confused with the Prince Patriarch Vajiranana. Prine,e Patriarch Vajiranana was the son of King Mongkut. Prince Patriarch Vajirananavamsa was the great-grandson ofKingMongkut.He only died in the yearl958. He was a man of great learning, great spiritual depth and great character. I happened to know him slightly. He, never said a single polite word in his life. He was known for that, But he was a

237 man of great kindness. Though hewas the Princeof the Church, he took meals together with the lizards. All the lizards would come to eat with him because of his kindness. As you know, lizards are frightened of human beings, but because of the Prince Patriarch’s’ compassion, they all came to eat with him. And he said sometimes he preferred lizards to human beings. As I told you, he was .not a man of great politeness. Anyhow he was the first to challenge Buddhaghosa, but Buddhadasa even put it further.. And this I think is Buddhadasa’s great contribution. First, he constructed his path on the original teachings of the Buddha. He looked through the commentaries, and he even rejected those which are not practical. In Buddhism we are told to use our critical ability, not to believe even what the Buddha is supposed to have said. And yet the Buddhist minds, because of their scholastic learning, are in awe of the commentators, sub-commentators, and so on. And we become stuck, particularly .Theravada Buddhists, become stuck. I think Mahayana Buddhism is much better in this respect. The Mahayanists have much more creativity, much more originality. And this, I think, is the second step in Buddhadasa’s career. Having studied the original teaching of the Buddha with his own ideas, even disagreeing with great commentators, he. then embarked on studying Mahayana Buddhism, which is very very unusual, particularly for a Theravada monk. Theravada monks are known to be proud of their purity, because of all their rules—they have 227 rules to lead their conduct. In Theravada Buddhism the more rules you adhere to, the purer you are supposed to- be. The subject of Buddhaghosa’s book was thePrz/A of Purification. Purification must be the first step in Theravada Buddhism in order to achieve wisdom through meditation and wisdom is achieved in order to be compassionate. These are the three prongs of Theravada’s ethical code: purity, wisdom, and compassion. And for this purity, there are so many codes: a layman’s code

238

to practice five precepts, and if you want to be more pure, you have to practice eight, ten, and when you become a monk you have to practice the 227 rules. That is why people are in awe of the monks. In fact most' monks only practice about ten or twelve major precepts, Buddhadassa, because of his studying Mahayana philosophy, made him become a Zen-like monk. He made fun of that purification and he made! fun of purity. As you know, when you go to see a Buddhist monk, you prostrate three times and act very politely and they are supposed to be very kind, very gentle. Particular people who come to see Buddhadassa are in awe of him, his great learning, his great wisdom and his great compassion. He knows that. He would just get up and go and kick the dog, in front of them, to show them that he is not that compassionate. He likes to shock people that way, which shows he has that kind of Zen influence. I think that makes him quite unpopular in many circles in this country. And he does not go along with the usual, traditional role of a Buddhist meditation master. Again Buddhaghosa is the main character. Buddhism in this country, as in Burma, in Cambodia, in Laos, is really Singhalese Buddhism. In Ceylon, Buddhism divided monks into two branches. One is known as the expert on the texts, the learner, the scholar, the Gamavasi . These monks who live in town, are supposed to be experts on learning. The other branch is known as the Arannavasi , those who live in the forest. They become meditation masters. The Sangha in this -country, as in most countries, particularly a hierarchy, consists of those of the Gamavasi, the scholars. They are men of great learning, but they usually do not practice. They say that one must be kind and not ;arrogant, but many of them are very selfish and very arrogant. This is the drawback since the division of monks in Ceylon. Then’ you have those Arannavasi, who- are supposedly meditation

239

masters, of which we have quite a number, particularly in the Northeast. But the unfortunate thing about theArannavasi is that they put the teaching of the Buddha into practice but it must be realized that the teaching of the Buddha is now over 2500 years old. And it has been very successful, particularly in Southeast Asia, with the agrarian society, with a simple society, with a rural society. And yet these meditation masters want to carry on that kind of teaching. In many places in the Northeast particularly, they would not even allow electricity, which may be a good thing. They would not allow microphones, and so on. But what can you do now, because the road is reaching them? On the weekends they have people from Bangkok going to see them, you cannot even refuse them. So the Arahhavasd, the forest monastery, have become really like a town monastery. In spite of the fact that they try to maintain the form, yet in a sense they have become not different from the town monks. But Buddhadassa.was the only one, I think—fifty years ago he really started as he felt that the two must be combined. To learn a lot without practice is useless. And to practice without learning is also useless. And he has no time to play the meditation master, particularly for those people who revered him. He said this becomes a kind of preaching, it becomes a fad. So you must not revere any meditation master unknowingly, uncritically. I think he started that. So I think Buddhadassa’s contribution is very great 'in that respect. I think (with him) this split into the two sides is now combined. Some of you may know, in the Northeast there is one meditation master, Achaan Chaa. The most well-known meditation teacher in the Northeast is called Achaan Mun, who is no longer alive. And he was regarded, as he is usually regarded by most people, as being enlightened. That may be true or may be false; we do not know, we cannot judge. Achaan Mun and his. disciples belonged to the reformed sect.

240 Of those meditation masters, only one—Achaan Chaa — belonges to the Mahanikaya, the unreformed sect, the sect of the majority. And yet Achaan Chaa is known to be a disciple of Achaan Mun of that reformed sect.. And Achaan Chaa also is known to be a disciple of Achaan Buddhadassa. So of those meditation masters in the Northeast, Achaan Chaa is the only one who combined the learning and the practice. And luckily the disciple of Achaan Chaa, one American monk Sumedho, who is now very well-known in England, started a monastery just outside Londdn. Because of that deep spiritual meditation practice and great learning, it is now making much attraction. I think to communicate, particularly to foreigners —or not foreigners, even the contemporary Thais —without that kind of learning, without understanding of the contemporary setting, without understanding of the new psychology of young people, Buddhism would not make any sense. So I think Buddhadassa has made that great contribution. Having embarked on Mahayana Buddhism later on he embarked beyond Buddhism. He studied the Bible and he was the first non-Christian to be invited to give a lecture in Chiengmai by the Church of Christ in Thailand about Buddhism and Christianity. For him the Bible has. a great message that he feels for a Buddhist to look down upon the Bible or to look down upon Christianity, or - to look down even on the concept of God, would be self-conceited, which is alien to- the original teaching of the Buddha. Many Westerners have come to him with the idea of rejecting God, rejecting their own culture, their own religion, and he said rejection will not do you any good, because it becomes an enemy in yourself, it becomes hatred for you. So again we see this Buddhist concept of loving-kindness, of compassion, and of friendly feeling. To embark upon a new religion, a new culture, a new dress is rather superficial. You can become a Buddhist if you want to,

24=1

but he says you must understand the purity of the Christian love. Not only that, but later he also studied the Koran and there are some leading Thai Muslims who often go to him and have a good dialogue with him. So I think this is another great contribution from Buddhadassa. He would always start his teaching with his writing, and his publications. As soon as he founded Suan Mokh, the Garden of Liberation, he founded the magazine called Buddha, S'asana or the Buddhist religion. This was fifty years ago, and it is still going. It is a one-man show, or rather a one-family show, since his. brother is still the editor, and eventually there was a foundation supporting it. His place there is contrary to the idea that a Thai monk must be in a temple, and the temple must become something beautiful or else it will become a kind of forest monastery. He rejected both. He does not call his place a temple, he calls it a garden which is what the temple originally was. The first temple offered to the Buddha was a garden of a King. So he wished his temple to remain a garden. You must have plenty of trees, you must have natural surroundings, yet you must have a place of learning and he thinks that during this contemporary period you must even have a theater. You cannot do away with the film, music, slides etc., but he said that unfortunately this theatre, television, radio, and all have become so materialistic. The worldly theatre becomes a place of greed, hatred, and delusion. For those of us who are here for Buddhism of any spiritual path must fight against this and use the media for spiritual growth top. So here he agrees with McLuhan that the “medium .is the message.” For him to be a meditation master, teaching a small group of people is not enough. You must, also use the media, and he uses all kinds of things publishing, mural paintings, tape recording etc., and he goes right back to the original teaching, using folklore and sayings of the local peo-

242 pie. He interprets it with a new Buddhist message. H e uses shadow plays which are popular in the South too. This is another great contribution of Buddhadassa. ' When. he started fifty years ago, there were enough people interested in Buddhism in the West, but they would all go to Ceylon, Burma, or Japan and bypass this country, because we did not have a learned monk who knew enough English but there were Burmese and Singhalese monks who knew how to teach Buddhism in English. He felt we must do something to propagate Buddhism to the west. O n top of that h e felt Buddhists must do something to communicate Buddhism to the younger generation o f the Thais too. I think he might be glad that now his wish is by and large fulfilled. Lhave been teaching Buddhism a little in the West and in any institute of higher learning which teaches Buddhism and comparative religions, whether in Europe or North America, Buddhadassa’s works have been used there. There are s o many books written about him now, in French, German and English, so a new interpretation of Buddhism is being carried across to the. West. Particularly one message is very important for Westerners or for Thais which Buddhadassa contributed. In his b o o k called Phasa Khon Phasa Tham, he said people tend t o confuse the language o f ordinary persons and the spiritual language, when they studied Buddhism, a religion which teaches nonself yet teaches so much about selfhood. You have got t o make a clear distinction between these two types o f language, then you can understand Buddhism. This is a great contribution, and this book has been translated into foreign languages. As for the young Thai generations, when Buddhadassa started the Garden of Liberation fifty years ago, a year or two afterwards the Buddha-Dhamma Society was founded in Bangkok which is now the Buddhist Assoication o f Thailand tinder royal patronage. It was then founded by young Thai intellectuals

243 who have now become distinguished people like former Supreme Court Justice Sanya .Dhammasakti etc. Buddhadassa attracted their attention and particularly many judges were attracted to his teaching. Of course the Conservatives attacked him particularly when he gave a lecture at this newly founded society which is now the Buddhist Association. He said then that Buddha images could very well be hindrances to the teaching of the Buddha. He said the first thing Buddhists should do is to throw away the Buddha images, particularly those images which Thais are fond of making amulets. He said those amulets are really sacrilegious, particularly, the so-called Buddhist who drinks beer and whisky by pouring the drink over the image which he wears while having the Buddha on his neck. These ideas shocked people fifty years ago. Now when he- is seventy six, years old, he is still shocking people. They called him a communist at one time and even in the last coup of 1976 he was again called a communist. In this country you are called a communist if you disagree with the government. In the monkhood it is very difficult to disagree with the government since the reforms of King Chulalongkorn and' Prince Vajifanana. Since the monkhood has become so centralized and just one entity, I think because of Buddhadassa, the monkhood has become more independent of the State, not the heirarchy of the monkhood, but more monks have become more independent. The Buddhist Assoication of Thailand which was founded by young Thai intellectuals unfortunately become co-opted into the Thai heirarchy. Only the Chief Justice or would-be Chief Justice will become President, and they become President of the Buddhist Association by not practicing Buddhism seriously while they paid lip service to Buddhadassa and even to the Buddha and not adhering very much to the teaching of the Buddha, as of course in most societies and institutions,- leading members of government and

244 bureaucracies always do this. And yet although Bhikkhu Buddhadassa is now seventy six he has rhore courage in speaking out than most younger people, and this is the beauty of Buddhadassa. People do hot always agree with him, particularly when he attacks them, because he is one of the very few who says Buddhism does not make sense unless you put it into practice in society and you must challenge the political norms in society also. His latest contribution is called Dharmika Socialism. The originality of Buddhism, he claims, is socialism, but it must not be state capitalism.. Socialism means freedom for each individual who lives almost equally, a kind of village republic if you like. Each village must be self-contained and you must contribute for the well-being of the village as well as for the larger world, by not having greed as a criteria but by having love, sharing, compassion and togetherness as' a criteria. I think this is something very real and very meaningful. As I look back on all the reform movements, in the last fifty years, this is the most meaningful one, and I feel very proud that he is still with us. Although he may not be with us much longer, what he.has done fifty years ago until, how; and his teaching, writing and his way of life will have an everlasting, impact not only in this country but in the world as well.

Lecture given at the Siam Society, 22 May, 1982

.

First published by the Newsletter of Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development No. 2, May- Aug, 1983.

MISCELLANEOUS

WAT THONG NOPAKHUN

In the afternoon of Saturday 5th November, 1983 H.R.H. The Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorri in her capacity as a Vice Patron of the Siam Society and an Honorary Member of the Association of Siamese Architects, will present the Kathina robes to the assembly of monks at Wat Thong Nopakhun in Dhonburi. This is indeed a special event. The reason for her doing so is due to the fact that last year Wat Thong Nopakhun received an award from Her Royal Highness at the recommendation of the Association of Siamese. Architects as the only Buddhist temple that preserved its religious buildings with articulate care and with proper planning for a good environmental effect as well as the abbot’s conscientious efforts in conservation of the temple’s historical buildings. The award was one of a few others granted by H.R.H. in connection with the bicentennial celebration of Bangkok. Previously during the centennial celebration, King Chulalongkorn had created a precedence by acknowledging some artists and architects of outstanding merits. Last year, the Fine Arts Department, the State Railways and a few individuals as well as architects were also recognized for their achievements in conservation of historical monuments and for their creativity of new buildings.

248 It was no surprise for those in the conservation circle that Wat Thong Nopakhun received such recognition, because the Venerable Phra Dhammacetiya (Marajino) the late abbot was consulting with the same members of the Siam Society and the Association of Siamese Architects as well as with the Society on Conservation of National Treasure and Environment' for over a decade as how to plan and preserve his temple the best way possible. As Ecclesiastical Governor of Dhonburi, he used to conduct courses to build awareness for abbots under his spiritual jurisdiction to appreciate Buddhist arts and to conserve them. He was very strict against demolition of old monuments in various temples. He was assisted by-leading lay people from the above three societies. He .also received financial assistance for his endeavours from the Sathirako.ses Nagapratiepar Foundation,the Jim Thompson Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Asia foundation. Ven. Phi;a Bhadramuni (Seri) the present abbot, having received the award last year asked some council members of the Siam Society and the Association of Siamese Architects to assist him. He said the award was great, but in fact the temple needed more technical advice as well as financial assistance, especially the Consecrated Assemble Hall (Bote - Uposathaj which looked fine outwardly, but in. fact detonating quickly. He-said when he became abbot three years ago the Vihara was in a worse condition but because of His Majesty’s presentation of the Kathina robes to the wat that year, so many people contributed money to His Majesty that the abbot could rebuild the Vihara within a year. 1. From a book titled: “A Close Look at the Past, Present and Future of Thai Education” Page 43...

“that goes for the monks too, the King (6th) did not understand the monks, but he boasted that he knew very much about the monks. He wrote "THESNA suer pa" (Lecture for Royal .Scouts) to teach other people, so many of his royal subjects got excited, and read it with an understanding that the King could preach better than the monks. They misunderstood; in fact, he did not understand the monks. For example, the most impor-

340

tant monkdegraded by him - that was “PHRA U-BALIKHUNUPAMACHARN”, Interview: Answer:

Why did he have to degrade a monk like him? Because he had a different opinion form the King (6th) on the issue o f w . w . i . p h r a U-BALI KHUNUPAMACHARN, he was on the side o f Dharma, he thought war was wrong, h e had preached this matter, so the King was angry and made PHRA u-bali an ordinary monk. He was the important monk whom the E-SAN (Northeastern) people respected most. He was a contemporary to AR-CHARN MAN. Can’t you see the King made such a mistake?

Page 45-46... Interview:

If I may, I would like to change the subject and ask your opinion on the educators. Ar-charn, could you point out some outstanding educators during the reign of the 4th & 5th Kings? Did they have any interesting concepts on education?

Answer:

There were several o f them, though the 4th King was interesting in study, but no one has studied him as an educator, only studied him as a religious man, politician, astronomer. In the field o f education, it should be interesting to study him too. somdej phra maha s amana CHAO KROM PHRAYA VAJIRAYAN VAROROS, for one, he made great contributions, but. also did great damage- to the study o f Buddhism. So far, there is nobody making any study of him.

841

How is it that you say he did great damage? Great damage! You just look at the present state o f education for the m o n k s . “Because o f him, the monks now only study pali, they only have to take courses in PALI and “NAK DHARM” (Study o f dharma). H e probably did not intend it to turn out this way, may be without knowing it, other subjects have all been terminated, such as Thai boxing, music, all terminated. This is due to the influence o f SOMDEJ PHRA MAHA SAMANA CHAO KROM PHRAYa VAJIRAYAN.VAROROS. Interview: As the latter.generation of educators or educational administrators did not see the significance of a foundation of Thai culture is it because they were ignorant or because they did not pay any attention to this matter on purpose? Answer: They became ignorant since the reign o f King Rama the Fifth, especially when these princes who Went to school abroad came back to take up high official posts. They went abroad at a very young age; only 13 years old. Prince rajburi came back to become Minister of Justice. He has been praised as the Founding Father o f Justice. But they did not meet basic Thai values. Since h e was the prince, he wore pha MUANG (TRADITIONAL MALE GARB) living in the palace, crawling and GRAB (Traditional way o f paying respect on the floor). People thought h e knew everything about Thailand. Prince CHANDABURi is another case. He returned from abroad and took up the post o f Director Interview: Answer:

342

of Education. When he failed, he had no choice but to change posts to the Ministry of Finance. Because he was ignorant. He lived like Farang (European), thought like Farang, you can go ahead and read the manuscript written by phra bhuddha chao luang. (King Rama the Fifth). Saying things like this, some people may get very angry. Because we praised that these princes knew everything. Page 52-53... Interview:

Could this point be allowed to add on the part wherein you said PHRA BHUDDHA CHAO LUANG made great contributions but he also did great damage?

Answer:

The fact that I said phra bhuddha chao LUANG made great contributions, but also did great damage, Mr. Scott was, in fact, the one who said that. This fellow, Mr. Scott, was the Director General of Royal Mines, the Department of Mining which has become the present Department of Natural Resources. He was the one who said that phra bhuddha chao LUANG had contributed greatly to the country. But he had also done great damage to the country which had overshadowed all of his good deeds. - that is - sending young students to study abroad at an early age, when they came back they did .not understand many things about their home country. They thought they understood everything. For example, King Rama the Sixth, he thought he really understood the country. How could he have

343

understood? When he returned he led a rather cloistered existence surrounded by the court, circle. He did not understand it. Now, the present King also does not understand, but saying that he does not understand would make some people angry again, right? Especially when he goes upcountry and is surrounded by many people, he thinks he understands too. 2. Excerpt from “Looking at Political Changes Since the Establishment of Constitutional Monarchy”. Page 96-97... “ . . . . . Just like the case of Thai Feudalism, the circular and octagonal caskets: what is the difference between the two? How much higher is the 12 wooden casket than the octagonal one? What about the MONDOP-TYPE Casket? Is it the kind of Mondop with “FUENG”, how many “Chatr” do they have, and how many posts for each one of them? All this means that only those with keen interest could possibly know the differences and the details involved in royal cremations. They would be able to compare the ranks and the hierachy -and tell who is the more important person, you understand? It is just like what I told you, this value, for one, has died out already, starting from 1932 on. Now they are trying to revive it. But they failed, because those who are. in power now, are returned students from abroad, they are ignorant. They don’t read books at all, right? And those in the palace, nobody knows about these kinds of things any more. So now what was granted (by the King) was all nonsense. When I talked about the Royal casket, criticized it at the Bangkok Bicentennial, many of them got very angry with me. Because they did not understand what l

344

said. Because I am interested in this kind of thing, therefore I deemed it necessary. If you are interested in Thai society, but you don’t understand Thai society, and don’t clearly understand the Thai feudal' system, then you don’t understand the feudal lords . Page 135... “ At one time, I touched on Kukrit, but now I don’t have to mention him anymore, everybody touches on Kukrit, so I take it easy now. One time, I touched on the King now I don’t have to, because everybody touches on the King, but th.ey would not dare touch on him outright (or openly). I am the first one to criticize the King without any hint of censure. But 1 think the King should be looked Upon as a human being exercising his power judiciously. But he is nevertheless fallible. Page 160-161... Interview: Ar-charn, when Luang Vijit entered the political arena, one of his concepts, Economic Ideology, directly attacked King Rama the Sixth, but he still could get along quite well with the feudal lords .. Answer: You have to look at what he wrote, and during which reign he wrote. I dare him to have attacked during the reign of King Rama the Sixth, right? If I wish to attack the 9th King, I must write during the reign o f the 9th King, I don’t have to wait for the next. What do you think? Dear compatriots who cherish nation, religion and the King. When you have read these statements which we have excerpted, please raise questions and look for an answer for yourselves as follows:-

345

1. 2. 3.

After you have read all these statements, how do you feel about it? How does the Interview make you feel about the Dynasty? Shouldn’t we all jointly protect the nation, religion and the King as sacred institutes with our lives? Whatever the answer, we are waiting to heed your call, please propose any solutions and send them to us: “The Bangkok Village Scouts Club”.

Which Way Does The Wind Blow?

“CRITICISM,” T.S. Eliot once remarked, is not “autotelic.” And for this reason, that criticism is not an end in itself, it is therefore a means to a great understanding, a great appreciation. The history of criticism — from the ancient Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle to the likes of Matthew Arnold to the more modern world of critics and thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell — has shown that one of the most critical and civilised approaches to truth is through criticism. After human beings have learned to develop and strengthen this approach, only then do they learn how to discern value, to recognise and reject the spurious, and to respond maturely to the genuine. But it seems that in a developing nation these three' elements, unfortunately, do not often constitute the people’s usual ways of life. On the contrary, they may even be menacing to many people. However, Alexandre Blokh, established French literary critic and international secretary of the prestigious world federation of writers, the PEN International, during his recent visit here said that Thailand is not a developing country. “How can you call a country which has 1,000 or more years of culture a developing country?” questioned Mr. Blokh.

347 It was indeed a lucid observation. Our past of course reveals Thailand as a glorious nation rich in traditions and culture. We had before us great writers and artists. We even had critics. Someone like that popular court jester “Sri Thanonchai,” whose critical words, though on many occasions quite erratic, still made people stop and think. Duty Although not putting himself in the Sri Thanonchai’s genre, one of Thailand’s leading intellectuals and social critics, Sulak Sivaraksa, said in an interview with the Bangkok Post that the duty of a critic is to “criticise.” Sulak Sivaraksa, whose book “Lorkkrab Sangkhom Thai” (Sloughing off the Thai Society) has been banned recently as being “detrimental to the security of the country,” has once again become a subject of headlines in the local newspapers. Some people may also remember IQ years ago when his bookshop was raided and nearly 100,000 books were set on fire. The present cry for his arrest lodged by some groups of Village Scouts in connection with the book poses a growing fear amongst fellow writers: Is it safe any more to write or criticise? “To err is human and there’ re always both positive and negative sides to any academic debate,” explained the 50-year-old volatile critic. Looking unusually subdued in his typical attire — Thaistyle trousers and shirt, a hat — and' carrying a cane, Sulak Sivaraksa pointed out that as a critic he takes the Five Precepts in Buddhism as the “standing basis” for his criticism. “In fact,” said he, “all five precepts commonly indicate the same message — that people should not take advantage of one another.”

348 Regretting that his book has been confiscated, Sulak said • that he would: continue to write. “A novel this time, something I wanted to do a long time ago,” he related. The novel, incidentally, will be about the life* of an upcountry boy who comes io the city and lives with a monk at the temple, his struggle, etc. “Something like ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’ or ‘The Cardinal’ but with a Thai concept.” Meanwhile, it is a waiting period for the public as to the outcome of Sulak Sivaraksa’s current predicament. If arrested, Sulak said he has “no other choice but to defend myself. ” Defend “My task is to defend, not attack,” he concluded. And the question of freedom of criticism remains buried beneath the frightened minds of many writers. Perhaps we should all bear in mind the words of the German philosopher Karl Jaspers: “The man who will not ‘act except in total righteousness achieves nothing... The man who seeks to be true must run the risk of being mistaken, of putting himself in the wrong.” Kanjana Spindler

First published in Bangkok Post, 31 July 1984

Sulak Sivaraksa Unmasked

It must be a boon for Amnesty International what with the recent spate of arrests and potential arrests of political idealists and dissenters in this country. The world is really an odd place: in this country we prosecute Communists or dissenters who must be Communists, and in Poland they prosecute Capitalists or dissenters who must be Capitalists. Yet we all live together in such a tiny Spaceship Earth. Prosecuting people who profess a different belief than ourselves is at any rate un-Thai. Here I am reminded of the arrival of the first Catholic missionaries in Siam over three centuries ago when the King gave them land and material to build their church. It explains why there is no matyr, no Saint and little success in conversion. Pity, this has not been quite the case with Communism. On the question of Communism, I think that both the Anti-Communist. Act and Communists in this country are out of date, making the latter’s arrest an outdated occupation. Rephrasing it, what I mean is that anti-dogma laws and dogmatists have become so irrelevent in our present-day world that the former should be dissolved and the latter left to their own fate. Terrorism and bomb planting are a different matter, of course, and those involved should be apprehended, not as ideologists, but as common criminals.

350

I am willing to bet that if the Anti-Communist Act is repealed and the Communist Party is officially set Up, it would be a tiny party with only a handful of boring dogmatists, purists, fundamentalists and academicians. On the list of potential arrest is Khun Sulak Sivaraksa, the noted social critic, author, lecturer, enfant terrible, etc. But then he is a different kettle of fish. He is simply against everybody except Prince Sithiphorn, Prince Dhani, Dr. Puey, Luang Pradit, Plato and a handful of other Greek philosophers. However, the reason why his recent book “Unmasking Thai Society” has been confiscated by the police, besides his tirade against the establishment from the top down to the bourgeoisie and even students whether rightist or leftist, is because the language used is unpalatable. The latter, to my mind, must belong to an even pre-Ramkhamhaeng patois. All this is a pity since S. Sivaraksa, who : has done more-than most in cultural activities, can now: only achieve little in terms of social action. His good points — and there are several — get marred by his recent messianic style and by the battles which he has opened up on several fronts at the same time. That p'utting the books to the torch and possibly the author himself to the stake is part of a tit for tat by all those concerned is obvious. But then we should not be overly concerned. Village scouts and loyalists who have staged protest marches against S. Savaraksa are overly concerned and they only have themselves to blame"if they have now played into his hand. The whole episode concerning S. Sivaraksa is in the end rather tragic. I blame this on the sheer lack of the sense of humour of all those concerned. It is tragic because neither S. Sivaraksa nor those who want to prosecute him have any sense

351 of humour whatsoever. Our common friend, Angkhan the poet, on the other hand, has a fabulous sense of humour. But then he is poet and artist and therefore has several excellent outlets for his pent-up emotions. Angkhan is anti-establishment like all true artists and like them he transforms social criticism into poems and paintings. Now, a lawyer (like S. Sivaraksa) can never be an artist and consequently is denied such refined outlets. Moreover, a lawyer with a penchant for Plato and Aristotle will neve.r appreciate humour because for him and his Greek heroes the world is tragedy. Now that “Unmasking Thai Society” has been assigned to the bonfire I am afraid it will become literature (which it clearly is not) and because of the publicity given to it by the Police Department, instead of it being read in a small circle of disciples — and the author only has a very small circle o f disciples — it will now be read by many. On a more serious note, I wish to convey to the authorities that they should leave dissenters like S. Sivaraksa alone. The strength of the country lies in not confiscating ideological publications and arresting authors however outlandish. In fact, I would say that our very strength lies in having such outlandish thinkers, and writers around, unnoticed. Sumet Jumsai

First published in The Nation, I August 1984

Speaking from My Heart

I would like to ask for a chance to explain the reason why I have not yet given myself in to the police. Look back to the year 1967 when a certain Momrajwong and a certain Momhiang had requested the government to arrest me on lese majeste charge, the government at that time did not' pay attention to a person like myself and it was secure enough to ignore my words. The police did not seize the copies of the journal, but let me collect them back from bookshops myself, even though the regime at that time was a military one and of late it has even been called a tyranny regime. Considering what I wrote then and what I have written- or have spoken for the last two decades, I still stand firm on the same ground. I advocate the three main institutions of the country namely - nation, religion and kingship. But theseunstitutions have to be directed toward the goodness of the majority of the people, they should remain clean and just and should not be used politically by any groups. They should not be used for privilege or corrupted power as 'something sacred, magical, or supernatural beyond human reach. On the other hand, the more these institutions can live through criticisms, the more they can withstand any questions and the more they can be valuable to the people. However if they rely on any unjust power of any groups, they will decline and disappear.

353

In this context, Prince Sithiporn Kridakara quoted H . M . King Prajadhipok’s words given in the time of absolute monarchy which said that: “The king had an opinion that criticisms were necessary for H.M. and his government, and if what the people said was sound, it should be taken up, considered and followed by some actions. But if it had no ground, the readers or audience would have seen fallacy in it”. Now we claim that we have democracy. Why do we not hold to the words of H . M . the King who granted us the first constitution? When he abdicated the throne, he stated that his power was not given to any groups but for all of the Thai people. To be straight forward, our country now is in the hands of some groups of people, these people use the principal institutions for their own benefit by destroying others who obstruct their ways. If it is not so, why, in the reign of the present king (especially when the people in power used this institution as their legitimacy), there has to be so many cases of lese majeste. Some centuries ago in Europe, liberal intellectuals used to be blamed by the church or secular authorities that their speeches or writings maligned God Almighty. These intolerances blocked the freedom to acquire knowledge. But at last, the people who used intellect prevailed. Only in the case of Russia that the church and the king did not become reconciled with the liberal intellectuals. This inevitably led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and there came communism in its place. In our country, the majority of the people are Buddhists, and the government also claims that it gives the main support to Buddhism. We are now in the twenty sixth Buddhist century, so why do the leaders behave as though they were still liv-

354

ing in centuries past? Why do they try to raise the supposed god (in the case of a Buddhist king) to be God Almighty, above the whole cosmos and to be above a common human being that people cannot touch, converse with or criticize? The using of lese majeste charges against the people by the powerful in this way is not different from the suppression of the communist governments against their liberal intellecuals as in USSR and Poland. Does the government want this sort of bad reputation? Or is the government too weak to let any bureaucrats act arbitrarily without any responsibilities from the government? This is very different from the dictatorship regime in 1967. Atleast, that government took responsibility and there were considerations of the cabinet before any actions. Does this government claim that they will use political means? % The 6th October 1976 incident happened because the government at that time decided to use legalistic approach instead of political means. Hence the newly ordained monk, Thanom Kitikhajorn, became a spark which led to a bloody massacre— the most ruthless incident of the century.

I am not saying all of this, so that I would escape from the responsibility of my speeches and writings and I do not want to be a privileged person above the law. But as I have been observing the conduct of the police, I can see some hidden ill will attempt. For example, the arrests of Mr. Chitrakorn Tangkasemsukh of the Teacher College inUdornthani and Mr. Kitti Siddhichindachoke of Saengrung Printing House. This looks like a show of power over minute matters in the past rather than a sincere attempt to carry out justice. Because the two of them have already been interrogated before. Why do they have to be detained for a long time again, and the Un'• masking Thai Society and the book published by Udornthani

355 Teacher College are two different cases. The case of the latter has been already closed. A certain ex-official male Momluang tried to raise this issue like the female Momluang and the male Momrajwong before that (in 1967), the difference is that while the former government felt strong, the present government feels weak, so that the above - mentioned Momluang could do much in manipulating these affairs of the state. Moreover, the seizure of Unmasking Thai Society was well known for its intention to create political disturbances so that they could topple the government or stage a coup d’etat.. The big men in the police department also gave interviews that they would only seize the book, but there would be no arrests. This was similar to what they had done to Sutham Saengpratum’s book, after he had been granted amnesty and wrote the story behind the scene. His book was confiscated but he was not arrested. Yet after the seizure of my book they could not create enough political disturbances, so they had to instigate the village scouts to act against my case, to ask the government to arrest me. On the day that the police issued the warrant to- arrest me, there was also a rumor about a coup d’etat that night, so I warned the students who had come to listen to my last lecture at Thammasat University that they should stay calm because if they were too aggressive, they might fall into the political trap that the vested interests groups had laid down. These people would use us for their own economic and political interests. Whether or not our lives would become meaningless as vegetables as it had happened on 6th October 1976, it was difficult to- guess. The reason that I do not give myself to the police is because I do not want my case to raise any political disturbances that may take place on the students and intellectuals side. Let the Vested interestes clap with only one hand. Let us

356 be on the losers’ side for the time being, as the Thai proverb says: Losers are on the side of the Buddha, while winners are on the side of the devils. In the present situation we should consult our intellect, we should use tolerance in maintaining the situation of the country and not let it become even worse than the present state. If they are mean and vulgar to use law and the uninformed masses to destroy liberty and basic human rights of any members- in our society by introducing any false charges, we have to tolerate them. And if I see the chance to defend.myself fairly by not letting them use me as a political victim, then I will fight the case with the government according to the rule of law. About the time of the Buddha, Socrates was prosecuted for degrading the basic virtue of the young people. He was sentenced to capital punishment by drinking the Hamlock.' If he was to be in Siam now, he might be charged with lese majeste as I was, because, he had warned the-people not to believe blindly in superstitions and the supernatural, but to use reason and intellect critically. Though my intellect is inferior to that of the teacher of teachers, I armready to follow in his footsteps. I can fare a little better that the Thai law now is much better than the Greek law then, because the most serious punishment it can give me is only 20 years imprisonment. I don’t think I can live much more than 20 years from now. However, to spend the end pf one’s life in a confined place is not at all bad. It is a good time for rest and at least I could meditate asKing Bhimbhisara did in the past by spending the last days of his life in jail as he was betrayed by his own son. In the country that lacks virtue and justice, we should not roam about fooling each other, Thienwan,. the model of the common Thai people in this modern era, was repaid by the

357 government by an imprisonment that lasted more than a decade. This also happened to Prince’Sifhiporn — Government always punishes my heroes. Though I have tried to escape being a hero throughout my life, they try to push me toward being one, so I may have to accept it without any resistance. Or else I have to be an exile like Mr. Pridi Banomyong and Mr. Puey Ungphakorn who are also the ideal heroes of mine. Could not we let our ideal persons live their humble lives in Our country peacefully and let them have a chance to speak the truth instead of putting on masks to fool the people?

'

S. Sivaraksa

The Thai, version was first written on 4th and published by Matichon Daily on 8 th August 1984.

Thailand arrest Social Gadfly amid Rumors of Coup

Sulak Sivaraksa, one of Thailand’s, most prominent writers and social critics, has been arrested for lese majeste (defaming the much-revered monarchy). The offense that carries a maximum, sentence of seven years. Mr. Sulak’s arrest comes at a time of political uncertainty in Bangkok. There are rumors of coups and of conflict between prominent politicians. After eluding the police for several days, Sulak was taken into custody Sunday. The charge stems from an interview, with Sulak published in a collection of the writer’s works which appeared earlier this year. The book was freely distributed until early July, when the police confiscated stocks. Two others connected with the book were arrested last week and later released on bail. The arrests follow the roundup in early July of 16 suspected members of the Communist Party of Thailand, several of them Central Committee members. Shortly afterward a university lecturer, Pricha Piempongsan, was arrested. Dr. Pricha, the son of a former deputy premier, was accused of helping Communist leaders make contact with the Vietnamese Embassy in Bangkok. Commenting on these events, one of the country’s most influential newspapers, Siam Rath (State of Siam), theorized, “There might be some influential people trying to- create confusion ’in order to use it to stage a coup d’etat to Overthrow

359

the democratic system.” If this is true,’ the paper continued, “These people would be no better than communists.” “Dictatorship by a group of people,” Siam Rath commented, “always leads to corruption.” The Communist Party, basically pro-Chinese in its orientation, was a major threat in the 1970s but has experienced a rapid decline due to internal divisions and a successful government amnesty program. The director general of the Thai police, Gen. Narong Mahanonda, was quoted last week as saying that the move; to arrest Sulak was not connected to the Communist Painty roundup. Sulak is-generally considered a social gadfly rather than a pro-communist, commenting on —andirritating—both left and right. After the right-wing coup of October 1976, the contents of his bookstore were burned. Sulak, who had been out of the country at the time of the coup, spent most .of the following year in the United States.. Like many Thai public figures, he has visited China several times in recent years. His visits to the Indochinese states, less common at a time of poor relations with these countries, have given rise to criticism from some official quarters. Much of Sulak’s writing deals with the role of Buddhism in contemporary society. He has also written on nonviolence and is well-known as a historian. As a young man he was trained in law in Britain, where he worked for a time, for the BBC. Paul Quinn- Judge First published in The Christian Science Monitor,

9 August 1984

The bailing of Sulak Sivaraksa

AFTER two co-defendants namely KittiSitthichindachoke and Chitakorn Tangkasemsuk were granted bail on August 6, Sulak Sivaraksa applied to the police for bail, but his request was turned down by Police Director General. Pol Gen Narong Mahanonda who quoted Sulak’s action and fear of his escape as reasons for refusing bail. Then on August 10 the police asked the court for an extension of Sulak’s detention period, saying that Sulak and the other 'suspects had been arrested on August 5 on charges of insulting the Monarchy and publishing printed matter derogatory to the Monarchy. The police asked the court to extend Sulak’s detention period for another 12 days from August 10 till August 21. The police asked the court not to allow bail, saying that the suspect had acted against the Monarchy and that he has a strong influence oh others’ thinking so that to release him would adversely affect the case. The police also said that certain groups are also opposed to this person and his release may lead to unrest or the suspect may escape. In an appeal to the court for bail, Sulak demonstrated to the court that, he is a civilian with definite profession, property and family. He has a job both personal and connected with the public good. He is a Buddhist with definite stand and firm belief in the Nation, Religion, the Monarchy and the Constitution as the basic institutions for the country: To the police’s

361 statement that they had not finished questioning witnesses, Sulak said that it was a standard excuse used by the police to detain innocent suspects. Sulak said that the police have claimed to have followed and investigated the case for a long time and had full evidence before they made the arrests, therefore their claim not to have completed the investigation does not hold water.! His questioning was also completed, therefore there was no further reason for holding him, he said. To the argument that his temporary release would damage the case, Sulak’s appeal said that the most important evidence, the book Lokkrab Sangkhom Thai, is something which nobody can destroy or alter, therefore his release cannot alter the case. As for the claim that he has a strong influence over other people’s thinking, Sulak said that he is not an influential person and had never sought power or violence. “ I adhere strictly to Dharma and good deed and believe in peace. I seek to win through reason and truth. I have never sought the path of untruth. Seeing that this case has reached the court, I place my trust in the court of ‘justice.” Sulak’s statement said that his two co-defendants had already been bailed out. It is the same case and with basically the same charges. Sulak congratulated the police for giving bail to the other two defendants, but said that he should also receive the same treatment. To the police claim that he may escape, Sulak said that it was a police’s own speculation or an excuse. He said that it is the greatest threat to the rights and freedom of individuals to use speculations as the excuse for holding people. Sulak said that he had always said publicly that he would not flee, since there is still law in the land, in addition to which

362

he has much responsibility to attend to. He also had faith in his own innocence “and want to prove my belief. If I was frightened or wanted to flee, I was abroad at the time my book was seized and did not have to return. I did not do so. because I had faith in my own innocence. Therefore the claimed fear that I would flee is completely without basis,” Sulak’s statement said. Another reason given hi Sulak’s request for bail said that he had much responsibility toward society such asloward poor communities. He said that he is the secretary-general of a foundation for slum babies for helping children who are poor and abandoned by society.- He is also the manager of the. Kamol Keemthong Foundation and several other charitable associations. His detention would, adversely affect those , organisations, he said. Siilak pledged to follow the court’s conditions in granting bail and to help the investigating officers if there is a need for further questioning. On behalf of the Criminal Court, Chief Judge Pinyo Thiraniti allowed bail for Sulak. Thongbai Thongpao

'First published in Bangkok World, 15 August 1984

Social critics: Now an endangered

species?

Dear Sir, A typical Siamese, be he a farmer or a government official or a university professor, has certain characteristics w h i c h m a k e h i m u n i q u e , e v e n a m o n g Asians. He is pleasant in manner, soft spoken, a good listener with a ready smile for every occasion; a paragon of good behaviour. Of course, under certain circumstances, such as under the influence of .alcohol or anger, he might become outspoken or aggressive, but that will not last long. On certain subjects, such as political wrongdoings, corruption in high places or shortcomings of his superiors, a Siamese might speak freely in private, but not in public. Again, there are exceptions, such as in mob. demonstrations or under, parliamentary protection. But as a rule, it is not considered proper or decent to air >one’s frank opinion in public about anything if it goes against the accepted social norms and pleasantries. * All these make Siam an apparent haven of peace and harmony, but they also explain the reason why the Kingdom lacks, one of the vital factors for healthy growth: the legitimate; critics: social, art, literary and otherwise. Intellectually; Siam nowadays is quite stale and barren (Singapore is no better, but at least she can boast of better

364

environmental and economic, achievements.); In the dynamic world of today, to stand still is to slide backward. Rot starts on trees which stop growing. Sulak Sivaraksa is a rare Siamese indeed. You might even call him. un-Siamese. He rarely smiles. On the telephone, he does not say “Sawaddi” or ask about your health. He just goes right into business. In conversation and writing he often uses Pali and archaic Thai words nobody uses anymore. He dresses like a farmer or a fisherman to any social gathering. Worst of all, he' speaks his mind with no regard to the listeners’ comfort or level of acceptance,’ and he does all these without th'e excuse of alcoholic intoxication, mob support or parliamentary umbrella.. - However, nobody, not even his enemies, doubt Sulak’ s sincerity. That man is just crazy, some people say, while small group of friends and admirers call him a social critic, a rare Siamese creature with only very few predecessors like Nai Tienwan or Prince Prisdang a century ago, or Prince Siddhiporn of recent years. Their species was supposed to .have become extinct already* in Siam. Sulak proves the contrary, but he is .an endangered speciesmow, it seems. m At present, Sulak is in trouble with the authorities because of his writings and speeches. If you have read his books 'or heard his talks over the years, you cannot fail to come to the conclusion that this man will be hit by either the. right or the left, .whoever gains power arid misuses; it; He was as. harsh to the .power-blinded right as to the revolutionary left. .A man who preaches the moderate way, nonviolence and practices, freedom of thought is

365

always in trouble- since time immemorial. A scholar of history like Sulak should have known. Again, it is an irony that a conservative, royalist person, steep in the knowledge of royal tradition and history like Sulak is charged with lese majeste in the reign of the most democratic monarch in the history of Siam. Sulak will defend himself in court very soon. It is hoped that the sensibility and the magnanimity of Siam still prevail, and that Siamese society is mature and' broadminded enough to acknowledge the value of critics, social and otherwise; in the growing process of a healthy nation. Sirichai Narumit

First published in The. Nation, 20 August 1984

The Curious Case of Sulak’s Spring into Notoriety

He is an enigma in his own country: a traditionalist; an intellectual, but not really a liberal; an eccentric perhaps; an outspoken man who in the end felt emboldened enough to lead with his chin. And in early August, 51-year-old lecturer and social critic Sulak Sivaraksa paid the consequences when he was arrested and charged with lese majeste, a serious criminal charge in Thailand which could earn him anything up to 15 years in jail. Habitually dressed in loose-fitting farmer’s garb with a cloth bag over his shoulder and a cane in one hand, Sulak is far from being a revolutionary—though the warrant for his arrest came so close to the July round-up of Communist Party of Thailand suspects in Bangkok that there was speculation for a time about whether the two incidents were connected; He is also not, by all accounts, an anti-monarchist and, while he has a following, it is mostly confined to students and provincial school teachers. His best-known work translated into English is Siam in Crisis, a collection of vaguely nationalistic essays on Thai culture and politics. The lese majeste charge centres on a 261-page book, Lorkrab Sangkhom Thai (Unmasking Thai Society), in effect a compilation of interviews which include what Thai authorities allege are derogatory remarks about the present-day monarchy

367 and another of the Chakri dynasty kings. The first chapter of the book, which deals with Thai education in the past, present and future, was published two years ago, .but- two, further chapters were added in the final book form. Although Special Branch police seized about half the 2,000 soft-covered volumes, printed, there is probably no one in the intellectual community now who has. not read a copy, given the way forbidden publications seem to find their way into all corners of Thai society. Investigators say Sulak will be prosecuted under Article 112 of the Criminal Code over four particular passages in the book, which among other things criticise the two monarchs for not understanding the country and cast doubts on the value of royal decorations and also the functions of the Royal Academy. But it is mostly the language itself which, to traditional Thai sensibilities, appears inappropriate. At the same time, however, the Interior Ministry committee which handles lese majeste allegations is known to feel the volume should also be considered in its entirety in the prosecution of the case; ironically, while the committee is made up of officials from various branches of the ministry and also the intelligence services, there is no representative from the Royal Household. The case has stirred much interest abroad—more perhaps than in Thailand itself. Intellectuals from Indonesia, Japan, the United States and other countries have publicly voiced their support of Sulak. Such groups as the International Council of Churches, Amnesty International and the Asian Students Association have protested against the arrest. Indeed, Thai-language newspapers have been rather critical of what they call “foreign interference” in the case. Even some Thai intellectuals feel that it- is inappropriate for academics to get involved in a criminal case. This reaction is not surprising in a people as sensitive to “faraffg” criticism as the Thais.

368

But what if he had not been arrested? Would the book have been widely read? The general feeling appears to be it would not, simply bebause—sincere as Sulak may be— he is the sort of slightly outrageous person who is tolerated and regarded with affection in most societies simply for what he is'. As well-known architect arid political commentator Sumet Jumsai wrote in a recent column: “Now that Unmasking Thai Society has been assigned to the bonfire, I am afraid it will become literature (which it clearly is not) and because of the publicity given to‘ it by the Police Department, instead of it being read in a small circle of disciples — and the author has only a small circle of disciples — it will now be read by many.” John McBeth

i

First published in Eastern Economic

Review, Hong Kong 20 September 1984.

A Critic Stands Trial

Thai social critic Sulak Sivaraksa has been charged with lese majeste—for making remarks considered derogatory or insulting to the Thai monarchy. His latest book, Unmasking Thai Society, has been, banned. Police say it contains passages which criticise some past members of the Royal Family, including remarks that some, princes and monarchs did not understand Thai valued because they were educated abroad. NANCY CHNG spoke to Sulak in Bangkok., No' one quite knows how to describe Sulak Sivaraksa. Is he a lawyer, a lecturer, a scholar, a publisher, a historian, or a writer? Is he a monarchist, a feudalist, a trouble-maker, a mentor to idealistic students, an advocate of non-violence, or an enfant terrible? Back in 1977, when the respected Berkeley anthropologist Herbert Phillips was filling in an application form recommending Sulak for a prestigious American Social Science Research Council grant, he was stumped by a question asking for general remarks about the applicant. ' Asked to assess Sulak’ s past achievements and promise as a research scholar, he simply wrote: “In a class unto himself, He is almost a Thai institution.”

370 Gadfly In some ways, Sulak defies description. He is all of the above, and as the Americans would say, “and then some”. Prof Phillips describes him as “the most historically sensitive Thai that I have ever known”, and credits him as being “the major go-between linking the intellectual life of Thailand with the intellectual life of the international world”. Perhaps the most appropriate description is the one used by a long-time foreign friend, who called him a “professional gadfly”. Sulak’s acerbic wit has made him a popular figure at international seminars and at campus lectures. He’s got something bad to say on just about any subject. Yet he has innumerable friends throughout the world—. among them cabinet ministers, academics, religious personages and social workers. In Thailand, he is well respected by Buddhist scholars, activists, and students who seek more than book knowledge from the university. Shortly after his return from England in 1962, Sulak became the publisher of the Social Science Review, a journal which soon- became popular because of the high quality of its critical analyses of society and government. Two scholars of Thai politics, David Morell of Princeton University and Chai-Anan Samudavanija of Chulalongkorn University, described Sulak in their book Political Conflict in Thailand as “ a monarchist .and traditionalist (who) looks back with nostalgia to the golden age of King Chulalongkorn (who was. King Kama V, and the grandfather of the present King). “Though not opposed to progress and development, he believes that emphasis must be placed on preserving traditional Siamese institutions and values, “Most of the revitalised spirit of intellectual curiosity and scepticism during the 1963-1968 period may be attributed to the energetic work and contributions of Sulak and his journal.”

371

Exile

During that period, Sulak encouraged students to take part in small discussion groups at coffeeshops to discuss current social and political issues. Active members of these discussion groups included some who later became the leaders of the Oct 14, 1973 uprising, such as Seksan Prasertkun, Wehg Tochirakan and Pridi Boonsue. Sulak, or Acharn (a respectful term for a teacher) Sulak, as he is commonly called, had to seek exile during the rightwing period following Oct 6, 1976. During that time, the police and military burned an estimated 100,000 books from his bookshop and warehouse. Sulak was in-the United States at the time, giving a lecture at the Smithsonian Institute on the occasion of the American Bicentennial. He stayed away and spent two years in self-exile. “The burning of those books nearly made us bankrupt,” says Sulak, “so this' time, in July, when my wife called mein Tokyo to tell me my latest book had been confiscated, she also asked me to come back because we can’t go on running away from problems.” Sulak returned, only to be faced with a warrant of arrest on a charge of lese majeste shortly after. Friends of Sulak find it ironic that he should face such a charge'. Perhaps more than anyone else, he has been a serious scholar of the Thai monarchy. At age 12, he was already fascinated by several figures of the monarchy, and embarked on a lifelong study of Prince Damrong, brother of King Chulalongkorn, who is considered the father of modern Thai history. He has great respect for King Chulalongkorn, who led the country into progress -and development. On Sulak’s shrine at home, a figure of Prince Mahidol of Sohgkhla, the father of the present King, shares a place among other figures he reveres.

372

Chauvinistic Such a traditionalist is Sulak that hardly any of his friends can recall ever seeing him in Western clothes. He’s always dressed in traditional attire, changing his loose cotton pants for silk, ones for formal occasions;. So fervently chauvinistic is he that he won’t call his country Thailand, preferring the old nameof Siam. Some of his critics fault him for trying, to be more Siamese than the average Siamese. But that doesn’t bother him. < “I’m the first Thai who has written about his Chinese ancestry. I’m not ashamed of it. But others are reluctant to wash their private linen in public. I did it in my autobiography which was published last' year.” Of his recent arrest, Sulak. says, with his indomitable humour: “I tried to be good: All my life I have been trying to be good, now that I’m getting older it looks like I didn’t succeed.” He says the Greeks had a great influence on his life. (At university he studied Greek for three years.) “In the Greek tradition, we see things from both sides. Greek theatre doesn’t deal only with tragedy, it has comedy as well.” Thus, he says, reverence for a person, institution or idea doesn’t mean that the object of reverence is untouchable. He cites the case of Buddhadasa. Bhikkhu, the respected 80-yearold Buddhist monk, Abbot of Wat. Suan Mpk in southern Thailand, who is famous for his sermons urging believers to get to the essence of the religion rather than becoming lost in the trappings. “Buddhadasa sometimes touches the head.of the image of Buddha, and that doesn’t mean he’s- being disrespectful. When he does that he is saying the image only represents, the symbol of Buddhism. Moments later, he will prostrate himself

373

in front of the image,, as a sign of respect and reverence. “Similarly, people shouldn’t get too engrossed in the symbols of things, whatever they may be.” Sulak says it’s crucial to the survival of any kingship that lessons from history are learnt. “For a kingship to survive these days, it’s better to be based’on a European model. In the past, when the king became too powerful, the kingship was destroyed. The Khmer kingship was destroyed because it became too sacred. Once you become too sacred, you can’t use rationality.” Without the slightest trace of humility, Sulak recalled what Buddhadasa once said of him. “He said the country needs more people like me — people who will call a spade a spade — those who will speak the truth without fearing the consequences. That’s my strength; some people might say it’s a weakness.”

First published in The Sunday Times, Singapore 30 September 1984.

Unrest in Thailand

Sulak Sivarksa, a noted Thai social and cultural critic was arrested in Bangkok on August 5. But the arrest, part of a wider crackdown on dissident figures in Thailand, has much wider significance. When, arrested Sulak said he believed that the “police are not really in charge of this case”, hinting that his arrest served certain interests within the factionalised Thai military. Sulak was arrested on a “lese majeste” charge exceedingly complex even to highly trained Thai lawyers. It arose following the call by the Bangkok “Village Scouts” Club for Sulak’s arrest. They accused him of making “derogatory statements” against the Daynasty in a book entitled “The Unmasking of Thai Socielty” published in May, 1983. Sulak was one among 20-30 intellectuals and student leaders arrested in Thailand during July and August. These arrests, Sulak’s in particular, are seen by some observers as posibly provoking a crisis. The Scouts protest especially is seen as a deliberate attempt to engineer political chaos. The Thai M.P. for Si Saket, Mr.

375

Piyanat, believes that “some group is intentioally- lighting a fire by stirring them (the Scouts) for use as an instrument as has happened before in Thai political history”. Sucfr political unrest, especially if it reached crisis proportion, would provoke a coup. The coup would provide the occasion for officers wishing to see an end to the government of General Prem Tiriansulanad to have their way. At present the military is riddled with factions and contradictions, much as it was before the’October 1976 coup. Sulak’s arrests and subsequent temporary release on bail is seen, as part of the political and cultural restlessness beneath the apparent order and control of the Thai millitary. The “Village Scouts” a national paramilitary club active in cities, towns and villages, engage in organising events.through but the country to demonstrate their loyalty to Crown, Nation and Religion. They were particularly active after the 1976 coup and atteracted members by staging rallies, often in temple compounds by vigorous singing of National anthems. They complain about the present government’s alleged soft treatment of left-wing subversion and commmunism. They have become increasingly critical of the government’s amnesty legislation that has seen the release of many student activists,arrested in 1973 and 1976. The Scouts ’special allegiance to- the monarchy is particularly aggressive and it seems as if part of their mandate is to conduct

3?6 witch-huhtsTbr real or potential offenders of the“lese. majeste” charge. j I

To many observers these activities are also seen as part of a backlash by conservative forces within Buddhism, against- what, are seen as .movement's that are undermining Thai life. On the one hand many returned activists,, disillusioned with communist, structures and thought,, have looked to ways of changing Buddhism and Thailand’s traditional structures. Distinct from this movements are those Thais who claim Marxist-Leninist or Maoist leanings, and who continue to slough off these traditional attitudes and values: These different movements for change have sparked attacks by rightwing groups suspicious of those who advocate social or political change.'- The. suspicion is directed at student activists, writers or intellectuals, particularly if they are engaged in dialogue with Christian individuals or groups. This wave of attacks has caused people like Sulak some anxiety as he has played a large part in promoting the Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Sulak has been, in turn, outspoken and critical of Christian,groups who use such things as architecture and traditional symbols for exploitation of Thai people. At:the same time he, would see his role as social critic'to be quite consistent with Buddhism and its emphasis on development of the mind-consciousness .Through his travels and writings Sulak has endeavoured to create dialogue between different cultures and religions.

377 r

To!the average lay-person his critique" may appear esoteric or even elitist. Yet he has’consistently tried to build awareness and understanding of indigenous values as an integral part of social change. Together with many Thai groups critical of the present social and cultural structures, Sulak has endeavoured to remain unprovoked. Together, however, they are insistent on the need for international' attention to the*internal political manduverings designed to flatmt cultural value and democratic process in favour of an acceptable atmosphere for attracting foreign capital. ’ 'But whatever assessment one makes of Sulak’s work,t his arrest, and that of many others during the past Yew months, prompts many questions, not all of a literary type. Indeed, Thai politics remain, opaque, unless seen within the web of intricate social and cultural forces. r. Julienne' Williams

f

7

(Julienne Williams is-an Ursuline Sister who worked in Thailand for 16 years and now lives in Canberra.). t t"

f

'■

K

Asian Bureau Australia Newsletter

i


The College, briefed a television crew from HTV that was filjhing in Bangkok and was keen to interview. Sulak. Another

451

television company is, as a, result of the publicity from the College, now-working on a documentary of Sulak’s: experience, On the’ eve. of the trial the College sent two telegrams urging clemency and a fair and open hearing to the King and Queen of Thailand • and to the Prime Minister. The degree of Western interest shown in the trial has come as a considerable surprise to Thai circles. Whatever the outcome of Sulak’s case, it should not be forgotten that other academics and social reformers have staked as much of their personal freedom as he has, without the capital investment of support from the West. It is their interests that Amnesty International now keeps within its sights, preparing to adopt them as Prisoners of Conscience, with all the legal pressures and world opprobrium that implies. STOP PRESS : THE THAI MILITARY court has dropped its charges against Sulak Sivaraksa and two other men arraigned with him. As reported in The Times newspaper, there has been no official explanation for the decision, but lawyers close to the case say that the instructions came from the top, possibly from the Prime Minister or even King Bhumibol himself. Lawyers suggest that foreign interest in the case and concern fpr the conduct of the trial, may have infuenced the decision to drop the charges. Throughout the trial Mr.Sivaraksa kept in close contact with his supporters at Saint David’s University College, and he says that he was overwhelmed with gratitude at the help and encourage-

452

ment he received from all quarters, most particularly Amnesty International. ‘You have given us spiritual strehgth to fight for social justice’, he says, ‘and have done an untold amount- of good ’for the cause of democracy arid free speech. We thank you all very riiuch’. * ,* * u

c

'■

r

,

'4

I

1 ' aJ

2

i

•

»

kJ-

>

i

r

; fl ib

Newsletter

St David’s University College Lampeter Lent Term 1985

a

APPENDIX II

Violation of human rights in 1976 C/O 9A, Gainsborough Gardens, London N.W.3. December 18, 1976.

The Director General UNESCO 7 , Place de Fontenoy 75700 Paris Dear Sir, In Bangkok last October there was a violation of human rights in the field of science, education and culture. I should therefore like to request that the case be dealt with in accordance with the Executive Board of UNESCO at its 77th and 78th sessions. This violation of human rights involved the freedom of information as defined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It involves the field of competence of UNESCO because it concerns the dissemination of knowledge and the promotion of reading. I have the honour of providing you with details hereunder: Incident No. 1

On October 7, the special branch police came to Suksit Siam bookshop at 1715 Rama IV Road, Bangkok and seized the following to be burnt. 1 . Kan patiwat Khong Chin (The Chinese Revolution) 1 Copy.

455 2. Phon Khong Kan To-Su Doey Santividhi (The Result of Nonviolent Struggles) 4 Copies. 3. Arun hang chai (Dawn of Victory) 4 Copies. 4. Daekchai- Thuan paen Nai Muang (Little Country Boy Becomes Mr. Citizen) 4 Copies. 5. Khapuankan Kamkon nai pratet Thai (Labour Movement in Thailand) 3 Copies. 6. Yaoyachon phu bukbaek (Pioneering Youth) 4 Copies. 7 . Collected. Works of Karl Marx 1 Copy . The police seized and burnt all these volumes according to the Fifth Declaration .of the National’ Reform Council dated 6th October, 1976. 1 Incident No. 2 On October 12, the special branch police again came to the same bookshop, and according to the above Declaration of the National Reform Council seized,and burnt the following books. 8. Pichaisongkram (War Tactics) 4 Copies. 9. Eutopia, by Thomas Moore 6 Copies. It).-- Marxism; Engels and Hegel 6 Copies. , 1 1 . Marxism and Its Philosophy 1 Copy. 12. Pava Khong Silpa paitai padedkan (The Condition of Arts under Dictatorship) 1 Copy. 13. Khon Khi Sua (The Man on the Tiger’s Back) 6 Copies. 14. Pha daeng pandin dam (Red Sky Black Earth) 27 Copies. 15. Khod namta Kin (HavingTears forFoo.d) 19 Copies. 16. Ruam ruangsan ruamsamai Khong Russia (Collected Contemporary Russian Short Stories) 18 Copies.

456

17. Katipot Pradhan Mao (Chairman Mao’s Words) 33 Copies. 18. Mahachon Thasana (Public Opinion) 25 Copies. 19. Silpa punban Khong Chin (Chinese Folk Arts) 25 Copies. ’ 20. To Naw Chananut (Against N. Chananut on “Development of Marxism”) 8 Copies. 21. Kantosu Khong Khonderndin (The Struggles of the Common Man) 15 Copies. 22. Krai Lamefd adhipatai (Who Disregard the Sovereignty) 5 Copies. 23. Dokmai Siihong (Golden Flowers); 4 Copies. 24. Khwampenma Khong Kham Sayam Thai Lao Khom 10 Copies 25. Chit Phumisak 10 Copies 26. Krai Sang Sathanakdn (Who Create the Situation) 12 Copies. 27. Loke Thi Si (The Fourth World) 2 Copies. 28. Mahidolsarn (Journal of Mahidol University) 3 Copies. 29. Chaturat (Square Weekly Magazine) 3 Copies. 30. Plaeng paeri Chiwit (Songs for Life) 2 Copies. 31. Chou Enlai 16 Copies. 32. Ruam bodkhwam bangriiang Khong Pridi Panomyong Kieokap rabob prachathipatai lae rathathamanoon (Some Articles by Dr. Pridi Phanomyong on Democracy and Constitution) 2 Copies. 33. Kampir phu thuk kod khi (Texts for the Oppressed) 10 Copies. 34. Ruam Katoon Karnmuang (Political Cartoons) 10 Copies. 35. Narok Priek (Call by Hell) 15 Copies. 36. Prajaya maichai singrenlub (Philosophy Is No Secret) 16 Copies.

457 37. Payu (Storm) 10 Copies. 38. Rabob Sangkomniyom Rabob Communist cha mao kae muang Thai Rumai (Will Socialism or Communism Be Suitable for Thailand?) 16 Copies. 39. Rathathamanoon 10 Thanwa 18 (Constitution 10.12.1975) 13 Copies. 40. Sukdina kap Kanpathana Sangkom Thai (Feudalism and Thai Social Development) 2 Copies. 41. Pisat (The Devils) 38 Copies. 42. Chiwit nai Khansongcham (Memories of Life) 46 Copies. 43. Sethakit nai rabob Prachathipatai paen mai (Economics in the new Democratic Regime) 1 Copy. 44. Chon (A Magazine) 8 Copies. 45. Kham Plerng (Words of Fire) 23 Copies. 46. Sasana Sayam (A Magazine) 2 Copies. 47. Karawan (A Magazine) 53 Copies. 48. Khamsongcham Khong Krouschev (Kruschev’s Memoirs) 1 Copy. 49. Plien (Changes) 1 Copy. 50. Lokathat Yaovachon (Youth’s World View) 2 Copies. 51. Yuthavithi Chad kan prachum (Tactics for Arranging Meetings) 1 Copy. 52. Khum Thunniyom nai Prathet Thai (Capitalist Groups in Thailand) 2 Copies. 53. Khapuankan Prachachon (People’s Movement since October 1973) 2 Copies. 54. Chulasan Krongkan Tamra (Bulletin of Textbook Project on the*Social Science and the Humanities) 38 Copies. 55. Nungsu plaeng rebel (Rebellious Songs) 40 Copies. 56. Rumlukthung Khwam Lung (Maxim Gorgi’s Memories) 3 Copies.

458

,

57. Khamprakat pua Sangkhom mai (Declarations for the New Society) 18 Copies. 58. Sethasat Kanmuang (Political Economy) 26 Copies. 59. Songkram patiwat nai Lao (Revolutionary Warfare in Laos) 3 Copies. 60. Charuk wai nai paendin (Inscribe on Earth) 29 Copies. 61. Naknua Kankhwabkhwum (Beyond Control) 6 Copies. 62. Thanon thuksai mung sanamluang (All Roads Lead to Prameru Ground) 10 Copies. 63. Kantosu Khong Pak communist Thai (Struggles of the Thai Communist Party) 41 Copies. 64. Chapen Athit mua uthai (It Will Be The Sun After the Dawn) 2 Copies. 65. Patiwat Rathapraham Apiwat Wiwat (Explanation concerning the Word Revolution) 30 Copies. 66. Pua Khansuksa mai (For New Education) 15 Copies. 67. Chiwit lae gnan khong Lusin (Lieu Sin’s Life and Works) 16 Copies. 68. Pai Rathaprahan (Danger of coup' d’ etat) 50 Copies.

Incident No. 3 On October 14, the local police and the military came to bur warehouse at 303/7 Soi Santipap, Nares. Road, Bangkok, without any legal document and seized the following, without signing any receipt. They came fully armed with heavy weapons, and burnt the books in public. 69. Kawinipond Khong Angkan Kalayanapong (Angkan’s Collected Poems) 1,500 Copies. 70. Lok Khong Krusao (Orwell’s The Clergyman’s Daughter) 368 Copies.

459

71. Songkram patiwat nai Lao (Revolutionary Welfare in Laos) 450 Copies. 72. Sethasat Sangkhomniyom (Socialist Economics) 800 Copies. 73. Sethasat sawadikan (Welfare Economics) 300 Copies. ’ 74. Lanka vikrit- (Violence in Ceylon - a' poem) 700 Copies. 75. Warasan Thamasat (Journal of Thammasat University) quantity unknown. 76. Aksonsatpichan (Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn' University) quantity unknown. '77. Khwarnsongcham khong kruschev (Kruschev’s Memoirs) 1,400 Copies. 78. Allerde (A Biography) 2,500 Copies. 79. Manut titae (The Way of Chang Tsu) 190 Copies. 80. Pacharayasara (A bimonthly magazine for teachers) quantity unknown. 81. Chaoban (a monthly magazine for newly literates, •usually bought by Ministry of Education) quantity unknown. 82. Phon Kantosu doey Santividhi (Result of Nonviolent’ Struggles) 200 Copies. 83. Santipachatham (Peace, People and Democracy) 50 Copies. 84. Sakdina (Feudalism). 50 Copies. 85. Loksommut (Introduction to Sociology) 560 Copies. 86. Chotmailiet chak Thanom (Political Records from Marshal Thanom onward) 300 Copies. 87. Chiwit nai commune (Life in Commune) 1,300 Copies. 88. Thang klub kuo Kandernthang to (A Play on Nonviolence and Forgiveness) 600 Copies.

460

89. America pen tonphet (The US. Is the Cause of World Famine) 600 Copies. 90. Wanakadi German (German Literature) 3,500 Copies-. 91. Khokhien Khong Komol (Komol’s Collected Writings) 400 Copies. , 92. Ha pi chak parithat (Five Years of the Social Science Review) 30 Copies. ■ 93. Song Thai (Thai Anthology) 1,800 Copies. 94. Sart hang kanraktoneng (Science of Self Love) 700 Copies. 95. Dae khon num sao (For the Young) 50 Copies 96. Bang bon Konplerng (House onFire) 50 Copies. 97. Nayobai American nai Asia Akanay (American Policy in South East Asia) 200 Copies. 98. Sethasat Chao, Pudh (Buddhist Economics) 800 Copies. 99. Sieng hang Khwamwang (Voice of Hopes) 400 Copies t t 100. Pamong (Report of A Quaker’s Seminar) 300 Copies. 101. Kanvinichai Buddhadhamma (Helpful Indication on the. Teaching of the Buddha) 700 Copies. 102. «La«g 14 Tula (After 14th October 1973) 450 Copies. 103. Udomkati (Idealism) 1,200 Copies. 104. Kumua dulae Sukhapap (Handbook on Health) 18 Copies 105. Udomkan thang Kanmuang (Political Ideologies) 85 Copies. 106. Banthuk khong Khon Ba (Notes by a Mad Man) 650 Copies. Total about 30,000 Copies.

461

Incident No. 4 On October 19th, the special branch police called at our warehouse at 156/7 Sainamthip, Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok, using the Declaration of the National Reform Council, seized the following books for burning, (giving us the proper receipt). 107. Capitalism (by Supa Sirimanond, a senior businessman) 4,000 Copies. 108. Chuang hang kan patiwat (Era of Revolution) by S.Sivaraksa (myself) 1,000 Copies. 109. Khumue Rathaprahan (Handbook for coup d’ • etat ) by Pansak Vihyaratha (a well known journalist) 4,700 Copies. 110. Marx lae Sangkomniyom (Marx and Socialism) by S. Jayanam (a Diplomat now serving in Rome) 37 Copies. 111. Wiwatanakan Khong Marxism (Evolution of Marxism) by N. Chananut 1,063 Copies. 112. Udomkan thang Kanmuang (Political Ideologies) by Chai-anant Samudhavanij (Professor at faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University) 300 Copies. 113. Yudhavithi. chadkan prachum (Tactics in Arranging Conferences) by Mongkol (A Social Worker) 25 Copies. 114. Kdmakorn nai rabob naithun (Labours in Capitalist Society) by Supachai Manasphaibul (Professor at Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University) 975 Copies. 115. Adit Khong Anakot (Past of the Future) Collected articles by S. Sivaraksa 10 Copies. 116. Panyachon kap Anakot khong Sangkom Thai (Intellectuals and the Future of Thai Society) pro-

462

ceeding of a seminar held in 1973 at the Siam Society 1,080 Copies, Total 14,200 Copies. Incident No. 5 On October 26th, the special branch police requested the following be sent to them for burning: 117. Nikita Kruschev (His Memoirs) 21 Copies. 118. Pisat (a novel) 164 Copies. 119. Songkram patiwat nai Lao (Revolutionary Warfare in Lads) 21 Copies. 120. Patiwat lae Prachatiphatai (Revolution and Democracy) 16 Copies. 121. Sannipon Lenin (Lenin’s Selected Works) 20 Copies. 122. Sai tharok (The Young Left) 42 Copies. ,123. Tukakat sanamrob (To the Battlefield for Enjoyment) 19 Copies. 124. Tipakorn (His Poem) 54 Copies. 125. Panha Ladthi Lenin nai yuk khong rao (Problems of Leninism in Our Age) 16 Copies. ( 126. Silpa punban khong chin (Chines*e Folk Arts) 62 Copies. 127. Siengrong khong prachachon (Cries of the Masses) 20 Copies. 128. Pandin Dieokan (One Earth) 167 Copies. 129. Katipot Mao Tse Tung (Mao’s Red Bqok) 1 Copy. 130. Ruangsan Puthuchon (Selected Short Stories from A Magazine) 4 Copies. 131. Sukdhina (Feudalism) 4 Copies. 132. Pai Rathaprahan (Danger of A coup d’ etat) 23 Copies. 133. Ho Chi Minh [His Biography) 11 Copies. 134. Marx lae Sanzkomnivom (Marx and Socialism) 9

463

Copies. 135 . Chin Sam yuk (Three Periods in China) 27 Copies. 136. Bod kawi peua kati phuthuk kod khi (Poems for the Oppressed) 4 Copies. Total 691 Copies. In conformity with the accepted procedure, 'I have no objection to the divulgation to Thai authorities of my name and that of the organization involved, and I accept the procedure adapted by the Executive Board of UNESCO be applied to this case. Yours faithfully, (Sulak Sivaraksa) President Suksit Siam Co., Ltd. Bangkok.

Roongsang Printing Tel. 2891360