The ordination of a tree

·期刊原文
The ordination of a tree: The Buddhist ecology movement in Thailand[1]

by Susan M, Darlington
Ethnology

Vol. 37 No. 1 Winter 1998

Pp. 1-15

Copyright by Ethnology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of a growing environmental movement in Thailand, a small number of
Buddhist monks engage in ecological conservation projects. These "ecology
monks" teach ecologically sound practices among Thai farmers and criticize
rapid economic development nationwide (which they see as one of the primary
causes of the country's environmental crisis). This article examines how
one northern Thai monk used a tree ordination, adapted from a traditional
Buddhist ritual, to build villagers' commitment to his ecology projects.
(Buddhism, environmentalism, ritual, Thailand)

A Buddhist ecology movement, developing in Thailand and other Buddhist
nations, addresses local and national problems of deforestation and
ecological destruction. While this is only one aspect of growing
environmentalism in Thailand (Hirsch 1996), the Buddhists involved in this
movement see their religion as critical for providing practical as well as
moral guidelines for ecological conservation. This article focuses on how
Buddhists, especially monks, put their concepts of Buddhism and ecology
into action, and the consequent reinterpretations of both sets of concepts
that result from such behavior. As Buddhism is increasingly used to promote
social activism such as conservation, its role in Thai society is also
being implicitly challenged and reworked. While the exact changes that will
occur are unknown, the Buddhist ecology movement's potential direction may
be glimpsed by examining how rituals, particularly ordaining trees, promote
the ecology movement, lending it economic, political, social, and moral
force.

The "ecology monks" are those actively engaged in environmental and
conservation activities and who respond to the suffering which
environmental degradation causes. A major aim of Buddhism is to relieve
suffering, the root causes of which are greed, ignorance, and hatred. The
monks see the destruction of the forests, pollution of the air and water,
and other environmental problems as ultimately caused by people acting
through these evils, motivated by economic gain and the material benefits
of development, industrialization, and consumerism. As monks, they believe
it is their duty to take action against these evils. Their actions bring
them into the realm of political and economic debates, especially
concerning the rapid development of the Thai economy and control of natural
resources.

The scholarly debate that has arisen regarding the relationship between
Buddhism and ecology revolves around whether Buddhism promotes an
environmentalist ethic and what the basis of such an ethic is within the
religion. Much of this debate has occurred on an abstract level, looking to
the scriptures, such as the Pali canon, either to uphold or to refute the
idea that Buddhism supports environmentalism (e.g., Chatsumarn 1987, 1990;
Harris 1991; Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel 1995; Thurman 1984). Other work
has focused on the forest monks of Thailand and Sri Lanka, meditation
masters who emphasize a relationship between the Sangha (monkhood) and the
forest but not the monks' involvement in explicit environmental activism
(Chatsumarn 1990; Tambiah 1984; Taylor 1993a). A few studies examine the
interaction between Buddhist principles and concepts of ecology; looking,
for example, at the promotion of wildlife and plant conservation within
temple grounds due to the Buddhist notion of preserving life generally (Pei
1985; Sponsel and Natadecha 1988). While understanding the scriptural bases
of ecology and how daily practice coincides with conservation is critical,
for the most part these studies have not examined the conscious efforts of
Buddhists to become actively engaged in dealing with the environmental
crisis beyond the inherent connection between Buddhist teachings and
nature. This essay describes the response of a handful of Theravada
Buddhist monks to the severe environmental crisis in Thailand and its
impact on the lives of rural peoples.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

Although it has been suggested that Buddhism has been "co-opted to argue
the case for a more environmentally friendly approach to development" (Rigg
1995:12), the severity of the environmental crisis and its link with
development in Thailand cannot be denied. As will be explored below, the
monks are responding to the consequences of environmental degradation on
rural people and their quality of life. The debates surrounding
environmentalism are inherently political, involving control over and
access to natural resources (especially land, forests, and water) and the
causes of rapid deforestation and other environmental problems. The focus
here is on deforestation because of its relevance to the rural people with
whom the monks work; deforestation, however, is only one element of a
complex environmental situation in a rapidly changing national economy.

The rate of deforestation in Thailand is higher than in any Asian country
except Nepal (Hirsch 1993:2) and possibly Borneo. The official figures
given by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) indicate that in 1961 (when the
current drive toward economic development seriously began), 53 per cent of
the nation was covered in forest. By 1986, this figure dropped to between
25 and 29 per cent. Nongovernmental organization (NGO) estimates place the
current figure as low as 15 per cent (Hirsch 1993:26-27; Pinkaew and Rajesh
1991:22-23; Trebuil 1995:68). These figures represent a decrease from
approximately 75 per cent forest cover in 1913 (Hirsch 1993:27).

The differences between the official figures and NGO estimates are largely
due to how forest is defined. The RFD includes forest reserve lands,
despite the fact that much of the area labeled as such has been cleared.
They also include economic and productive forests, including monocrop
plantations such as eucalyptus forests. Environmental NGOs rarely consider
these lands as forested. The forest reserve lands are particularly
problematic as even areas which still have forest cover (usually secondary
forest) tend to be inhabited by small-scale farmers who either lived there
at the time the government designated it as forest reserve land or later
migrated into the area in search of land. These people have no legal title
to the land although they depend on it for their livelihood.

Environmentalism in Thailand is not equivalent to the Western distinction
between development and pristine natural areas that must be preserved. In
Thailand nature is inextricably linked with economics. The critical issue
is access to land and resources and the need to maintain sustainable
livelihoods. The debates revolve around whose concepts of sustainable
livelihood are to be upheld.

The causes of deforestation, complex and inherently economic and political,
range from poverty in rural areas to economic development and consumerism
in Bangkok (Rigg 1995:6). They include commercial logging (illegal since
1989), gathering fuel wood and making charcoal by rural poor, and swidden
agriculture in highland areas (although the blame placed on swidden
agriculturalists often ignores the recent decrease in available land that
would allow sustainable fallow periods and the upland migration of
increasing numbers of lowland peoples). Rural people, encouraged to clear
more forests to join in the market economy, have increased cash-crop
production, but at the cost of clearing natural forests. National security,
especially during the pre-1980 era of Communist insurgency based in remote
forest areas, contributed to deforestation by building roads to make the
forests more accessible and diminish the areas in which the Communists
could hide. Farmers in search of land quickly moved into the secured
forests. The process of state formation linked the national peripheries
with the center in Bangkok over the past century, similarly creating
greater access to previously isolated areas (Hirsch 1993:29). Cultural
views also promoted deforestation as the forests (paa and theuan) were
traditionally seen as wild or untamed (Stott 1991) and available to the
general population as common land to be brought into civilization and
productivity. These factors contributed to deforestation and the
integration of the rural population into mainstream political discourse
(Hirsch 1993:14). Both the environmental degradation and the limits placed
upon rural peoples through public policy (in particular, the efforts by the
government to remove farmers from national forest reserve lands in favor of
either conservation or economic development of productive forests) affect
the quality of life of the rural population. These issues have provoked
some monks into socially conscious action in the name of religious practice
and responsibility.

ECOLOGY MONKS

In Thailand, the self-proclaimed ecology monks (phra nak anuraksa) are at
the core of the Buddhist ecology movement. Although some of these
environmental activists participate in the scholarly debate on the issue,
their priorities lie in action to preserve vanishing forests, watersheds,
and wildlife, and to mitigate the negative consequences of their
disappearance on people's lives. Their efforts provide the motivation for
re-examining the scriptures in light of environmentalism rather than the
study of the canon creating the impetus for conservation. To understand the
current ecology movement in Thailand, and ultimately in other Buddhist
nations, it is important to examine the effect of the practice of the
ecology monks on religion in Thailand, to see how they base their projects
on Buddhism, reinterpreting and rearticulating religious concepts, the role
of the Sangha, and the function of Buddhist rituals in the process.

The number of monks involved in the ecology movement in Thailand, although
small, has recently grown rapidly2 with the popularity of environmentalism
currently sweeping Thailand. Given the respect the Sangha commands in Thai
society, the potential for their ecological activism is high. This can be
illustrated through the analysis of an ecology project conducted in 1991 in
Nan Province, northern Thailand. This project, co-ordinated by a Buddhist
monk, involved the creation and sanctification of a protected community
forest through the ordination of the largest remaining tree in the forest.
The tree ordination provides insight into how ecology monks throughout
Thailand are rethinking Buddhism and adapting Buddhist rituals to promote
their cause. Their concern is as much to maintain the relevance of the
religion in a rapidly changing world of industrialization and modernization
as to create an environmental awareness among local people and the Thai
nation as a whole.

The ecology monks come from a cross-section of the Thai Sangha. A few of
them are based in urban temples, and are involved in providing scriptural
justifications and scholarly examinations of the movement rather than
taking an active role. The majority of the activist monks are from rural
areas, the places most directly affected by threats of environmental
degradation. They come from both the Mahanikai and Thammayut sects. A few
are ranked members of the Sangha hierarchy, such as Phra Phothirangsri in
Chiang Mai Province, and come under greater scrutiny and criticism than
less prominent monks. Even while providing an alternative to the
traditional activities of the Sangha, few of the ecology monks I have
encountered belong to the more conservative radical break-away sects, such
as the Santi Asoke or Thammakaay movements. Most of the monks try to avoid
explicit political statements (although there are well-known exceptions,
particularly Phra Prajak Khuttajitto; Taylor 1993b, 1996; Reynolds 1994),
but the political nature of the issues cannot be ignored. Most ecology
monks are supported or assisted by local and even national environmental
NGOs, some of the loci of political opposition within Thai society today.

Over the past century, the government has taken over many traditional
activities of Thai village monks. While the temples remain the spiritual
heart of villages, only a few still house schools or serve as health-care
or community centers (Darlington 1990; Kingshill 1965 [1960]; Tambiah 1970,
1976). To compensate and maintain close contact with the laity, many monks
perform an increasing number of ceremonies. For example, the consecration
of Buddha images has become more frequent (D. K. Swearer, pers. comm.). The
more active, visible, and in many ways controversial response has been to
move toward socially engaged action. (See Queen and King 1996 for a good
overview of engaged Buddhist movements in Asia.) This first manifested
itself in Thailand in the 1970s through the rise of the development monks
(phra nak phadthanaa, an informal group made up of mostly rural,
lower-ranked monks working independently of the government), who promote
grassroots economic development throughout the country (Darlington 1990;
Somboon 1987, 1988).

From the development monks emerged the ecology monks, who see their work as
monks and Buddhists as promoting human responsibility toward the natural
(and inherently social) environment. They stress an interpretation of the
religion that emphasizes the Buddha's connection with nature and the
interdependence of all things. While many of these monks work independently
in their conservation programs, they are aware of the actions of other
monks, share ideas, information, and experiences, and participate in
regional and national training seminars (e.g., Thai Inter-Religious
Commission for Development 1992). Some provinces, such as Nakorn Ratchasima
and Surat Thani, also have co-operative associations of monks involved in
ecological projects. Through their preaching, educational programs, and
conservation activities, the ecology monks have influenced Thai society's
view of Buddhism and, to some degree, its practice. They have raised the
nation's consciousness regarding its environmental responsibilities as
their activities have drawn significant attention and media coverage.3

Criticism has been leveled at many ecology monks by the government,
developers, and the more conservative members of the Sangha for becoming
involved in political issues and activities seen as inappropriate for
Buddhist monks (such as protesting the construction of hydroelectric dams).
The Thai Sangha has traditionally been conservative (especially when
compared with the monks in Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Vietnam), rarely
making political statements or criticisms of the government. The actions of
the development monks and especially the ecology monks have challenged some
of the development policies of the government and questioned the
industrialization and increased consumerism of Thai society. Their critics,
many of whom tend to benefit from the current direction of Thai
development, believe the Sangha's role should be strictly in the spiritual
realm, keeping clear of political and economic issues. Some, such as the
Sangha hierarchy, are concerned that such potentially controversial actions
could harm the reputation of the Sangha as a whole, lessening its influence
in providing moral guidelines to the people.

Regardless of the reactions to them, the ecology monks argue that it is
their responsibility as monks and as Buddhists to become engaged in this
manner. The Buddhist ecologists (and socially engaged Buddhists in general;
see Queen and King 1996; Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development
and International Network of Engaged Buddhists 1990) stress their
connection with the Buddha's ideas of nature, the origins of the religion,
and the Buddha's admonitions to relieve suffering in the world. Their
movement does not advocate a new form of Buddhism, they argue, but is an
effort to put the basic ideas of the religion in terms that meet the needs
of the modern world. They see this movement as one of "radical
conservatism,"4 returning to the original teachings of the Buddha as
applied to contemporary situations. This movement is not limited to
Thailand, but is part of a growing international Buddhist movement that
goes beyond national and sectarian differences to promote ecological
awareness.

There have been monks in Thailand explicitly concerned about the
environment for some time, such as Phra Ajarn Pongsak Techadhammo in Chiang
Mai (Suchira 1992; Renard n.d.) and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in Surat Thani, but
their actions and teachings had limited scope. In recent years, the
Buddhist ecology movement has coalesced into a conscious and somewhat
co-ordinated institution. Its coherence and the increased co-operation and
dialogue among monks from different regions of the country have drawn
public attention to the movement and greater acceptance of its methods and
the appropriateness of such actions by monks. This new approach to religion
and monks in Thai society and the creative application of the ecology
monks' philosophy to make Buddhist rituals tools of social action may
change the concepts and practice of Thaie example is the work of Phrakhru
Pitak Nanthakhun of Nan Province, the monk who co-ordinated the tree
ordination examined here.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Phrakhru Pitak's sponsorship of tree ordinations and other environmental
actions came from his experience in a remote mountain village affected by
deforestation and the promotion of cash crops and consumerism. In the
mid-1970s, shortly after his ordination, Phrakhru Pitak became alarmed at
the deforestation and damaged watersheds in the region around his home
village due to extensive logging (legal and illegal) by large companies and
clear-cutting by northern Thai farmers in order to plant maize. The
villagers continually had to cut into the forest to grow maize as a
supplementary source of income, and the maize itself caused significant
erosion and damage to the soil, necessitating further clear-cutting for
agricultural land. This caused his district to become the poorest and
driest in the province, with the highest rate of adults migrating to find
work in Bangkok. For years the monk preached about ecological conservation,
stressing the interconnection between social and natural environments and
humankind's responsibility to each.

Despite Phrakhru Pitak's preaching, the destruction continued. The
villagers came to him to make religious merit and listen to his sermons,
then returned home to clear the land. The logging companies cut the forest
and the villagers were either too afraid of retribution or too unorganized
to oppose them. If they saw a connection between their actions, their
increasing poverty, and the environmental crisis, they did nothing about
it. In early 1990 Phrakhru Pitak visited Phrakhru Manas of Phayao Province,
the monk credited with performing the first symbolic ordination of a tree
to make people aware of environmental responsibility. In June 1990,
Phrakhru Pitak moved beyond preaching an ecological message and sponsored
a tree ordination in the community forest of his home village (see
Darlington n.d.), and in July 1991 he performed a second to sanctify the
forest surrounding ten neighboring villages.

These ceremonies were only a small portion of the monk's projects, which
included several months of educating villagers about environmental issues,
training young temporary novices about the natural environment, the
promotion of economic alternatives to growing maize as a cash crop, and the
establishment of protected community forests (see Darlington n.d.; Local
Development Institute 1992; Saneh and Yos 1993). Phrakhru Pitak promoted
self-reliant development projects, such as integrated agriculture
emphasizing planting for subsistence rather than for sale, because
protecting the forest simply by denying the villagers access to it would
not be successful. Since the villagers gained much of their income from the
forest, economic alternatives needed to be established to ensure their
co-operation in preserving the forest. Local committees were also
established to manage the forests, patrol the sanctified areas against
incursion, and sponsor continued ecological activities to keep the
commitment of the projects alive.

The tree ordination was the symbolic center of Phrakhru Pitak's
conservation program. The discussions with the villagers leading up to the
ordination and the conservation activities organized by them afterward were
all motivated by the emotional and spiritual commitment created by the
ceremony. Throughout the ceremony, Buddhist symbols were used to stress the
religious connection to conservation, the villagers' interdependence with
the forest, and the moral basis of the project.

THE TREE ORDINATION CEREMONY

Tree ordination ceremonies (buat ton mai) are performed by many
participants in the Buddhist ecology movement in order to raise the
awareness of the rate of environmental destruction in Thailand and to build
a spiritual commitment among local people to conserving the forests and
watersheds. Some large-scale ordinations have been carried out for
publicity and public sympathy to make the government see the environmental
impact of some of its economic development plans. (This was the case in the
southern province of Surat Thani in March 1991, when over 50 monks and lay
people entered a national park to wrap monks' robes around all the large
trees in a rainforest threatened by the construction of a dam [Pongpet
1991].) Most tree ordinations are aimed at local areas, and villagers,
through their participation in these ceremonies, signify their acceptance
of this adaptation of a Buddhist ritual to sanctify the forest and thereby
protect it. The regulations the monks establish limit their use of the
forest, forbidding the cutting of any trees or killing of any wildlife
within it.

In July 1991, I attended a tree ordination ceremony in Nan Province in
northern Thailand sponsored by Phrakhru Pitak Nanthakhun. Although the tree
ordination was the culmination of months of preparation and was one aspect
of a larger conservation program, the actual ceremony involved only a day
and a half of activities. Phrakhru Pitak invited over twenty monks from Nan
and other northern provinces to assist in performing the ceremony.
Recognizing the importance of gaining the support of the Sangha hierarchy
and the local government for the project's success, Phrakhru Pitak
consulted with and involved members of the province's Sangha organization,
especially the seniormost monk in the three subdistricts of the ten
participating villages, the District Officer, and other local bureaucrats.5
Many local government officials and mid-level members of the Sangha
hierarchy participated in the ceremony. Given the independent nature and
potentially controversial aspects of the activities of most socially
engaged monks, Phrakhru Pitak's attention to convincing the Sangha
hierarchy and the government of the project's importance is significant for
assuring its success. The night before the ceremony representatives of
Wildlife Fund Thailand (an affiliate of World Wildlife Fund) showed slides
to the villagers. Their cosponsorship of the project placed Phrakhru
Pitak's work on a national stage and gave it further legitimacy. Not only
is WFT one of the largest environmental NGOs in Thailand, but it also has
royal patronage. The involvement of NGOs in the work of ecology monks is
essential to much of their success, although at the same time it raises
potential political issues, as many NGOs are openly critical of government
policy.

The ordination ceremony began in the morning with a modification of a
traditional ritual, thaut phaa paa (the giving of the forest robes).
Traditionally, this ritual is performed by Thai lay people to donate robes,
money, and other necessities to monks for religious merit. The funds raised
support the monks and the upkeep of the temple. Since the 1980s this ritual
has been increasingly used across the nation to raise funds for local
development projects; those contributing offerings to the monks gain merit,
and the monks allow the money donated to be used for projects ranging from
building or repairing a school to establishing a local credit union or
village co-operative store. People's commitment to such projects is often
stronger because of the religious connotations behind the source of the
funds-they not only gain merit from the original donations at the phaa paa
ceremony, but from supporting the development project sanctioned by the
monks as well.

Phrakhru Pitak added a new twist to this ceremony. Several nurseries around
the provincial capital and some wealthy patrons offered 12,000 seedlings to
the monks. Along with the donation of seedlings, there were several other
innovations. The villagers paraded their offerings in three groups,
representing the three subdistricts in which the ten participating villages
belonged. While they carried model trees with simple offerings of money and
necessities, they did not dance, drink, or play the traditional music that
usually accompanies a phaa paa parade (Darlington 1990:132-37). Rather,
each of the three groups performed skits they had prepared which presented
their ideas of conserving the forest. Two were straightforward; for
example, one group pantomimed planting seedlings. The most dramatic of the
three included political commentary. The villagers acted out an incident of
the forest being cut down, passing the blame from the minority hill people,
to the northern Thai villagers, until it finally settled on the government
for not protecting the forest. The political debate concerning forest
conservation and the economic interests involved in its destruction
underlies all conservation activities.6 It is unusual, however, for these
issues to be brought so openly to the surface, especially during a Buddhist
ritual. All three skits emphasized the urgent need for the villagers to
conserve the forest.

Once the forest robes were ritually accepted by Phrakhru Pitak, he and the
highest-ranking monk present accepted the seedlings, thus sanctifying them
and conferring merit on the donors and the participants. A few of the
seedlings were planted around the temple grounds and at the site of the
tree ordination as part of the ceremony. Most were given to the villagers
to reforest areas that had been denuded, following the pattern established
by phaa paa ceremonies conducted to raise development project funds. These
new trees were chosen carefully; they were species, such as fruit trees,
that were profitable without having to be cut down. Having been sanctified
and given by the monks further protected them, as the villagers would see
cutting them as a form of religious demerit (baap).

After planting the trees at the temple, the participants climbed into
trucks, vans, and buses to make the five-kilometer trip into the mountains
to the tree chosen to be ordained. Over 200 people accompanied the more
than twenty monks to the site, which had earlier been prepared by volunteer
development workers and villagers. A four-foot-tall Buddha image had been
placed on a concrete stand at the base of the giant tree. The thick
vegetation around the site had been trimmed, and a tent for the monks put
up. Phrakhru Pitak commented that over twenty years ago, when he walked the
eight kilometers from his village through the deep forest to school along
this route, this tree was not unusual for its height or size. Now it
clearly stood out as the tallest remaining tree. One could now see for
miles from it across a landscape dotted with nearly vertical maize fields,
visible because of the deforested hillsides.

It is important to note that in this ceremony, like all tree ordinations,
the monks did not claim to be fully ordaining the tree, as that status is
reserved for humans only. The ceremony was used symbolically to remind
people that nature should be treated as equal with humans, deserving of
respect and vital for human as well as all life. The opportunity of the
ordination was used to build spiritual commitment to preserving the forest
and to teach in an active and creative way the value of conservation. The
main emphasis of Phrakhru Pitak's sermon during the ritual was on the
relationship between the Buddha and nature, and the interdependence between
the conditions of the forest and the villagers' lives.

During the ritual, at the same point in which a new monk would be presented
with his robes, two monks wrapped orange robes around the tree's trunk,
marking its sanctification. A crowd of photographers from local and Bangkok
newspapers and participating NGOs, one anthropologist, and two video camera
crews documented the quick act. The robes stood as a reminder that to harm
or cut the tree-or any of the forest-was an act of demerit. While it was
not unusual to find bodhi trees (the tree under which the Buddha achieved
enlightenment) wrapped with sacred cloth, in those cases the tree was
already seen as holy; the cloth served more to honor the tree than to
sanctify it. The innovation here was that the tree ordained was not already
treated as sacred but was made so through the ritual. The orange robes
symbolized its new status.

As in most ordinations, the ritual included the sanctification of water in
a monk's alms bowl. A small Buddha image was placed in the bowl and candle
wax dripped into the water while the monks chanted. Traditionally, this
holy water (nam mon) is sprinkled on the participants, conferring a
blessing on them. This water is seen as ritually very powerful, and people
always make sure to receive some of the drops from the monk (Olson 1991).
On this occasion, Phrakhru Pitak used the blessed water in an original
manner. Each of the headmen from the ten villages drank some of the water
in front of the large Buddha image to seal their pledge to protect the
forest. This use of a sacred symbol to strengthen such an oath was another
innovation which reinforced the notion of environmentalism as a moral
action. It made the protection or destruction of the forest karmic action:
protecting it would confer good merit (bun), destroying it bringing bad,
the balance of which would ultimately affect one's rebirth or even quality
of living in this life. Beyond that, it drew on the belief of the villagers
in the magical powers of the holy water; while specific sanctions were not
mentioned for failing to uphold the headmen's pledge, the implications were
that breaking it would involve going against the power secured by the use
of the water.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the ceremony (the one which in itself
raises the most questions or is open to the greatest variety of alternative
interpretations) is the plaque that was nailed to the tree prior to the
ordination. No formal mention of the sign was made during the ritual, nor
was much discussion or fanfare made concerning its content or placement.
Yet it always draws the most attention and discussion from Thai who are
introduced to it. The sign reads, "Tham laay paa khee tham laay chaat,"
which can be translated, "To destroy the forest is to destroy life." The
word chaat (life) is problematic and can carry several meanings, all of
which relate to the issue of conservation on various levels.7 Chaat can
mean life, birth (as in rebirth), or nation. The sentence could thus be
read, "To destroy the forest is to destroy life, one's rebirth, or the
nation."

The first meaning is the most straightforward from the point of view of
environmentalists whose concerns do not necessarily involve either
religious or nationalist connotations. Yet it also implies the Buddhist
idea that one should respect and care for all life because any being could
have been one's mother in a previous life. The second meaning, to destroy
one's rebirth, invokes the concept of kamma. It raises the idea that
destroying the forest is an act of demerit and consequently has a negative
influence on how one is reborn in one's next life. The third possibility,
that of destroying the nation (meaning both territory and people; Reynolds
1977:274, 1994:442), is the most complex. It evokes nationalist feelings,
linking the condition of the forest with that of the state. It draws upon
the moral connection between nation (chaat), religion (satsana), and
monarchy (mahakeset), the trinity of concepts which supposedly makes up
Thailand's identity (Reynolds 1977, 1994). Even this meaning is
double-edged. While it invokes the villagers' loyalty to the nation and the
king in protecting the forest, it also calls upon the nation itself to
uphold its moral responsibility to preserve the forest. Given the political
undertones of the conservation issue, it is unlikely that this implicit
meaning is present by mere coincidence.

The use of the word chaat on the sign demonstrates the complexity and
significance of the tree ordination. Concepts of religion are being
reinterpreted to promote environmentalism at the same time the latter is
linked through moral ties with local and national political and economic
issues. Throughout the ordination, and the larger project of which it was a
part, Phrakhru Pitak extended his traditional role as spiritual and moral
leader of lay villagers to embrace an activism which necessitates political
involvement. The same kind of role enlargement is recreated in every
project run by ecology monks, from tree ordinations and the establishment
of sacred community forests to tree-planting ceremonies and exorcisms or
long-life ceremonies at sites threatened by ecological destruction.

THE MORALITY OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

Monks are not supposed to be concerned with worldly issues such as
politics. At the same time, however, the ecology monks see environmental
destruction as a crucial factor in their main concern-human suffering. They
cannot avoid a certain degree of involvement in the former if they are to
deal with the latter. They feel a responsibility as monks to teach people
environmental awareness and show them the path to relieving their
suffering. The root causes of suffering are, in Buddhist philosophy, greed,
ignorance, and hatred. As the destruction of the forest is caused by these
evils (through people's selfish aims at economic gain or unconsidered use
of natural resources to meet needs arising from poverty and overly rapid
development), the monks see it as their duty to adapt traditional religious
concepts and rituals to gain the villagers' acceptance and commitment to
their ecological aims.

The destruction of the environment was not a significant issue in Thailand
until the rapid industrialization of the country became a national priority
after World War II (Sponsel and Natadecha 1988:305). Even then, it was not
until the 1980s that nature conservation became a widespread concern,
despite the earlier efforts of such environmental NGOs as Wildlife Fund
Thailand and the Project for Ecological Recovery. The adoption of the issue
by the ecology monks beginning in the late 1980s has raised the movement to
a new level. It can no longer be seen simply as an economic or political
debate between environmentalists and developers, but has now been placed on
a moral plane. The monks are concerned with the suffering of both humans
and wildlife which results from the destruction of the forests and
watersheds. As it is a moral issue, the monks are interpreting the
scriptures to support their actions and are adapting traditional rituals
and symbols to involve lay villagers in the movement.

The ecology monks are walking a fine line between their traditional
responsibilities as spiritual leaders and their new practice as social
activists. They are con-sciously using the former to support and even
justify the latter, to counter the criticisms that their environmental
efforts are inappropriate for monks. The result is a complex interplay
between traditional religious concepts, symbols, and rituals, and moral
debates of political and economic issues. While the focus of specific
activities such as tree ordinations is predominantly on local areas, the
innovative use of traditional rituals, such as the parade and skits
accompanying the phaa paa ton mai ceremony, and the implication of signs
like the one nailed to the tree in Nan, place the issue on a national
political level as well. Through the use of words like chaat, the monks
raise issues that question the role and responsibility of the local and
national governments in deforestation and conservation.

Similarly, the practice of religion itself is being changed, even
challenged, in the process. Buddhism in Thailand has become less relevant
to daily life over the past century because of increasing government
involvement in lay life through schools, improved health care, development
projects, and other areas. The Buddhist ecology movement, following the
model of the work of development monks, is not allowing the religion to
become relegated to a secondary place in Thai society. It challenges the
Sangha, as well as the Thai people, to reconsider its role and not to
accept complacency or merely perform rituals that have no direct relevance
for relieving suffering in daily life. It forces Buddhists to question and
think about the causes of people's suffering, even when these causes are
controversial or political. While the activist monks' aim is to relieve
suffering and maintain the relevance of the religion in a changing society,
this has also resulted in questioning and rethinking the function of the
religion itself.

The use of traditional Buddhist rituals (such as ordinations and the phaa
paa ceremony) and the invocation of powerful religious symbols (such as
holy water and monks' robes, and the implication of words like chaat in the
plaque on the ordained tree in Nan Province) serve as vehicles which
simultaneously preserve religious concepts and sentiments and challenge
their traditional use and interpretations in Thailand. The ecology monks
are responding to what they perceive as threats to or, to put it more
mildly, inevitable changes in their social position. They are making
conscious choices and actions, guided by long-standing religious concepts
such as merit-making and karmic action, and social relations between the
Sangha and the lay villagers. As a consequence, their role, the concepts
and practice of the religion, and the relation between the religion (and
its practitioners) and the state are all changing. While the scriptural
justifications behind the ecology movement are important to understand, the
practice which accompanies or motivates the re-examination of the canon
demonstrates that the process cannot be examined solely on an abstract
theological level. The case of the tree ordination in Nan illustrates the
social, political, and economic issues involved, and reveals the levels at
which the major changes are taking place.

This dynamic process of change is far from complete. The Buddhist ecology
movement is still growing and becoming more vocal and controversial,
challenging specific cases of environmental destruction caused by policies
of the government or economic development plans. The responses of the
government, industrialists, and general members of the Sangha, as well as
the Sangha hierarchy, all need to be considered to judge the full effect of
this movement on the concepts of Buddhism and ecology as they are
interpreted and practiced in Thai society. It is apparent that Thai
Buddhism is changing dramatically and, despite some efforts to use it as a
conservative force to support the status quo and government policies, it
has tremendous potential to effect social and environmental change in
Thailand. The extent and success of these efforts, and the true direction
of the changes involved, remain to be seen.

NOTES

1. Research, conducted in Thailand June through August 1991, August 1992
through July 1993, and July through December 1994, was made possible by
grants from the Joint Committee on Southeast Asia of the Social Science
Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, with funds
provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ford
Foundation, the Southeast Asian Council of the Association of Asian
Studies, and the Ford Foundation Comparative Scientific Traditions program
of Hampshire College. I thank David Brawn and Ariel Heryanto for helpful
suggestions on an early draft of this article, and the National Research
Council of Thailand for research permission.

2. While it is difficult to determine membership in a category such as
"ecology monks," as many monks are interested in environmental work but do
not label themselves as such, a sense of the scope of the movement can be
gained from looking at the participation in a three-day conference (held
near Bangkok in July 1991) cosponsored by 23 nongovernmental environmental
and development organizations. The organizers expected around 60 monks to
attend; over 200 actually registered.

3. From June to August 1991, there were articles on the conservation work
of monks at least weekly in both Thai and English-language newspapers.
While much of the coverage focused on the case of Phra Prajak, the monk who
was arrested twice in 1991 for his ecological work as it conflicted with
government policies concerning national forest land, the work of other
ecology monks also received some attention. On the legal case concerning
Phra Prajak, see Reynolds (1994) and Taylor (1993b).

4. This term is borrowed from the title of a book in honor of one of the
best-known Thai monks, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, who called for social action as
an aspect of Buddhist practice (Thai Inter-Religious Commission for
Development and International Network of Engaged Buddhists 1990).

5. In later projects, Phrakhru Pitak involved provincial government
officials and Sangha, including the governor and military leaders.

6. Economic enterprises that destroy natural forests include the creation
of eucalyptus plantations and logging hardwood trees such as teak. The
former is occurring primarily in the northeast legally, and at a rapid rate
(see Lohmann 1991; Sanitsuda 1992a, 1992b), while the latter continues
throughout the country despite a national ban passed in 1989. The
widespread belief is that both frequently occur with the backing of
factions within local, regional, and national governments and the military
(Pinkaew and Rajesh 1991).

7. I thank Dr. Thongchai Winichakul and Dr. Robert Bickner for pointing out
to me the several meanings of chaat as used in the sentence on the plaque.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chatsumarn K. 1987. How Buddhism Can Help Protect Nature. Tree of Life:
Buddhism and Protection of Nature, ed. S. Davies, pp. 7-16. Geneva.

----- 1990. Buddhist Monks and Forest Conservation. Radical Conservatism:
Buddhism in the Contemporary World, ed. Thai Inter-Religious Commission for
Development and the International Network of Engaged Buddhists, pp. 301-09.
Bangkok.

Darlington, S. M. 1990. Buddhism, Morality and Change: The Local Response
to Development in Thailand. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Ann
Arbor.

----- n.d. Practical Spirituality and Community Forests: Monks, Ritual and
Radical Conservatism in Thailand. Environmental Discourses and Human
Welfare in South and Southeast Asia, eds. A. L. Tsing and P. Greenough.

Harris, I. 1991. How Environmentalist is Buddhism? Religion 21:101-14.

Hirsch, P. 1993. Political Economy of Environment in Thailand. Manila.

----- 1996. Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand: Material and
Ideological Bases. Seeing Forests for Trees: Environment and
Environmentalism in Thailand, ed. P. Hirsch, pp. 15-36. Chiang Mai.

Kingshill, K. 1965 (1960). Ku Daeng-the Red Tomb. Bangkok.

Local Development Institute. 1992. Community Forestry: Declaration of the
Customary Rights of Local Communities. Thai Democracy at the Grassroots.
Bangkok.

Lohmann, L. 1991. Peasants, Plantations and Pulp: The Politics of
Eucalyptus in Thailand. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 23(4):3-17.

Olson, G. 1991. Cries over Spilt Holy Water. Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies 22:75-85.

Pei S. 1985. Some Effects of the Dai People's Cultural Beliefs and
Practices on the Plant Environment of Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province,
Southwest China. Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia, eds.
K. L. Hutterer, A. T. Rambo, and G. Lovelace, pp. 321-39. Ann Arbor.

Pinkaew L., and N. Rajesh (eds.). 1991. The Future of People and Forests in
Thailand after the Logging Ban. Bangkok.

Pongpet M. 1991. Stopping the Chainsaws with Sacred Robes. Bangkok Post,
March 29, pp. 27-28.

Queen, C. S., and S. B. King (eds.). 1996. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist
Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany.

Renard, R. D. n.d. Using a Northern Thai Forest: Approaches by a
Conservationist Monk, Thai Lowlanders, Hmong Highlanders, and International
Development. Ecology, Ethnicity and Religion in Thailand, eds. L. E.
Sponsel and P. Natadecha-Sponsel.

Reynolds, F. E. 1977. Civic Religion and National Community in Thailand.
Journal of Asian Studies 36(2):267-82.

----- 1994. Dhamma in Dispute: The Interactions of Religion and Law in
Thailand. Law and Society Review 28(3):433-51.

Rigg, J. 1995. Counting the Costs: Economic Growth and Environmental Change
in Thailand. Counting the Costs: Economic Growth and Environmental Change
in Thailand, ed. J. Rigg, pp. 3-24. Singapore.

Saneh C., and Yos S. (eds.) 1993. Paa Chumchon nai Prathetthai: Naewthaang
kaan Phadthanaa (Community Forests in Thailand: The Direction for
Development). Bangkok.

Sanitsuda E. 1992a. Torn from the Land: How Tree-Planting Uproots Whole
Villages. Bangkok Post, 23 January, pp. 23, 42.

----- 1992b. Man and Forest. Bangkok Post, 24 January, pp. 27, 48.

Somboon S. 1987. Kaanphadthanaa Taam Naew Phuthasaasanaa: Karanii Phra Nak
Phadthanaa (A Buddhist Approach to Development: The Case of "Development
Monks"). Bangkok.

----- 1988. A Buddhist Approach to Development: The Case of "Development
Monks" in Thailand. Reflections on Development in Southeast Asia, ed. L. T.
Ghee, pp. 26-48. Singapore.

Sponsel, L. E., and P. Natadecha. 1988. Buddhism, Ecology, and Forests in
Thailand: Past, Present, and Future. Changing Tropical Forests, eds. J.
Dargavel, K. Dixon, and N. Semple, pp. 305-25. Canberra.

Sponsel, L. E., and P. Natadecha-Sponsel. 1995. The Role of Buddhism in
Creating a More Sustainable Society in Thailand. Counting the Costs:
Economic Growth and Environmental Change in Thailand, ed. J. Rigg, pp.
27-46. Singapore.

Stott, P. 1991. Mu'ang and Pa: Elite Views of Nature in a Changing
Thailand. Thai Constructions of Knowledge, eds. M Chitakasem and A. Turton,
pp. 142-54. London.

Suchira P. 1992. Changing Provinces of Concern: A Case-Study of the Social
Impact of the Buddhadasa Movement. Sojourn 7(1):39-68.

Tambiah, S. J. 1970. Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in North-east Thailand.
Cambridge.

----- 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and
Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background. Cambridge.

----- 1984. The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets.
Cambridge.

Taylor, J. 1993a. Forest Monks and the Nation-State: An Anthropological and
Historical Study in Northeastern Thailand. Singapore.

----- 1993b. Social Activism and Resistance on the Thai Frontier: The Case
of Phra Prajak Khuttajitto. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars
25(2):3-16.

----- 1996. "Thamma-chaat": Activist Monks and Competing Discourses of
Nature and Nation in Northeastern Thailand. Seeing Forests for Trees:
Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand, ed. P. Hirsch, pp. 37-52.
Chiang Mai.

Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development. 1992. Kaanoprom Phrasong
kap Kaananurak Thammachaat Khrang thii 3 (Training Monks and Nature
Conservation, Meeting Number 3). Sekhiyatham 2(11):26-31.

Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development and the International
Network of Engaged Buddhists. 1990. Radical Conservatism: Buddhism in the
Contemporary World. Bangkok.

Thurman, R. A. F. 1984. Buddhist Views of Nature: Variations on the Theme
of Mother-Father Harmony. On Nature, ed. L. S. Rouner, pp. 96-112. Notre
Dame.

Trebuil, G. 1995. Pioneer Agriculture, Green Revolution and Environmental
Degradation in Thailand. Counting the Costs: Economic Growth and
Environmental Change in Thailand, ed. J. Rigg, pp. 67-89. Singapore.