Toward a Buddhist social ethics:

·期刊原文
Toward a Buddhist social ethics: The case of Thailand Conduct of life

by Tavivat, Puntarigvivat
Cross Currents

Vol. 48 No. 3 Fall 1998

Pp.347-365

Copyright by Cross Currents

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

Traditional Buddhist concepts of moral conduct need to be reinterpreted for
the modern world and integrated into a social ethical theory.

Buddhism is often criticized as a religion that, being mainly concerned
with personal salvation, lacks a social ethics. Although this may seem to
be true, Buddhist teachings on personal conduct do contain principles that
could be reinterpreted and extended to a social ethical theory. Thailand
offers a good framework in which to approach Buddhist social ethics, for it
provides an opportunity to examine sociopolitical issues under the global
market economy at a structural level and from a Third World point of view.
Buddhist monks in Thailand are part of a unified hierarchical sangha
(community of monks) which in turn is controlled by the government. Every
day, they also eat food donated to them by Thai people, the majority of
whom are poor and oppressed. This situation makes it possible to look at
Buddhism from a social justice perspective, and thereby add a new dimension
to the Buddhist hermeneutics for the poor. If greed is understood not just
in individual terms but also as a built-in mechanism of oppressive social
structures, then to reduce or eliminate greed through personal
self-restraint will not be enough; these social structures will have to be
changed as well. Many Buddhists seek liberation (Pali: nibbana; Sanskrit:
nirvana) by practicing meditation, but they do not pay sufficient attention
to the way the society in which they live is organized. I wish to offer a
challenge to Buddhist ethical values by interpreting liberation as
necessarily involving social as well as personal liberation.

The Thai Political Economy

Absolute monarchy was ended in Thailand in 1932. A revolution led by a
small number of members of the civilian, bureaucratic, and military elite
brought about a radical change in the power structure by placing the
monarchy under a constitution. Influenced by the Western idea of democracy,
they introduced a new political system in Thailand. Since then the country
has experimented with democracy for sixty-five years, during which politics
has been overwhelmingly dominated by the military, with seventeen coups
d'etat or attempted coups, and sixteen revisions of the constitution.
During this time, influenced by the global market economy, Thailand has
also experimented with capitalism. From 1932 to the fall of Phibun's regime
in 1957, it was ruled primarily by the military under democratic
constitutions. The monarchy was suppressed, and the economy was dominated
by state-owned enterprises. From the 1957 coup by Sarit Thanarat to the
fall of ThanomPraphat's regime in 1973, Thailand was under a military
dictatorship without a constitution. There was an increase of private
enterprise and capitalism. During the same period, the Thai monarchy gained
wide respect both among the people and the military.

The 1973 student-led revolution and the middle-class revolution of 1992
were the first uprisings by the people in the modern history of Thailand.
Although neither revolution changed the fundamental social and political
structures of the country, they demonstrated that ordinary people,
especially the middle-class, have become increasingly powerful in Thai
politics. From the the mid-90s, there was an economic boom in Thailand
within the global market economy dominated by the United States, Western
Europe, and Japan, but this was accompanied by a widening income gap
between urban elites and the rural poor, the destruction of the rain
forests, and deterioration of the natural environment. This economic
expansion, which saw the rise of an affluent upper-middle class, was
interrupted by the economic crisis of late 1997 1998.

During successive regimes from 1973 to the present, the military maintained
control, staging a number of coups and dominating parliamentary government.
The monarchy continued to win wide support from the Thai people, gaining
the power to negotiate with the military,

as seen by the king's intervention in the resignation of Thanom
Kittikhachorn in 1973 and of Suchinda Khraprayun in 1992, as well as in the
appointment of Sanya Thammasak as prime minister in 1973 and Anand
Panyarachun in 1992. Pro-democracy movements, especially the middle-class
revolution of 1992, gained international support in the post cold-war era.
Business elites became more influential in Thai politics as a more
democratic parliament and a civilian government gradually took shape. The
sixty-fifth anniversary of Thai democracy in 1997 marked a turning point
when a reformed constitution, to which many people contributed, was finally
promulgated.

In summary, since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, Thai politics has
gone through five stages, from constitutional military rule and military
dictatorship through democratic experiments and ideological conflict to the
rise of a middle class and the promulgation of a reformed constitution. It
is the hope of Thai people that when the new constitution has been fully
applied, they will experience a more genuine democracy and Thai politics
will have entered a new era.

The social and economic development of Thailand within the global market
economy in recent decades has increased the division between urban and
rural society. Industries and services have been emphasized in the cities,
while the agricultural sector in rural areas has been neglected. Education
and economic growth have been concentrated in Bangkok and other urban
areas, leaving most of the rural population, especially in northeastern
Thailand, undereducated, poor, and far behind in access to public services.
Tenant farming and agribusiness corporations have uprooted traditional
farmers from their own lands and pressured many younger men and women to
migrate from the countryside to the cities in search of jobs. This social
dislocation has brought about a continuing decline of rural social
structures, tradition, and culture, and has created the problem of
overpopulation in the big cities. Most of the young male migrants have
become low-wage laborers in construction, factories, and service
businesses; since the 1980s, many have left to work in the Middle East,
Taiwan, Brunei, and Singapore. Many young women from the countryside,
particularly from the north, have become prostitutes in Bangkok and other
cities. More recently some have traveled to Japan and elsewhere to work in
prostitution.

The widening gap in both income and education between urban and rural
society has turned Thailand into two worlds: the world of the urban rich
and the growing middle class, and that of the rural poor and city
slumdwellers. In 1996, the population was approximately 60.5 million. The
top 20 percent of the people in the income pyramid possessed almost 60
percent of the country's wealth, whereas the bottom 20 percent
(approximately twelve million people) owned only 3.5 percent.[1] While the
demand for democracy among urban Thais is increasing, it remains a low
priority in the countryside where economic concerns are primary. If Thai
democracy is to grow, the conditions of rural people need to be
dramatically improved, reducing income and educational differences between
them and their urban counterparts. Unfortunately, the Thai government,
under the influence of multinational corporations and international
capitalism, has failed to address the real problems facing farmers and
rural people. Government development projects tend to draw human and
natural resources from the periphery to the center, leaving the country
people in desperate poverty.

Structural Poverty: From the Perspective of Thai Prostitution

Thailand has world-wide fame- or rather shame -- for its well-established
prostitution and sex industry. Many Western and Japanese male tourists go
to Thailand simply for a "sex tour."[2] Donald K. Swearer points out that
although Thailand has over a quarter of a million monks in thousands of
monasteries throughout the land, it still has more prostitutes than
monks.[3] A great number of young women in Thailand, desperate in their
search for a better life, have been drawn into the sex industry. (The
international sex industry exploits adults and children of both sexes, but
the vast majority of prostitution and sex workers in Thailand are women and
girls.) In the past, many of them were tricked or even forced into
prostitution by mafia gangs. Today they are pressured by structural
poverty, consumerism, and sometimes a distorted idea of "filial piety."
Although prostitution is illegal in Thailand, the government, because of
the inefficient and corrupt bureaucratic system, seems unable to help these
unfortunate young women. Prostitution, of course, is against the teachings
of the Buddha, but the Thai sangha hierarchy has said virtually nothing
about this issue.

Under the present system, Thai farmers find it difficult to sustain their
families through agriculture. The harder they work, the deeper they find
themselves in debt because of their dependency as tenant farmers. Both sons
and daughters are driven to leave home in search of work, but it is easier
for women to find a "job" because they can quickly become prostitutes,
earning more money than factory workers? This has led some poor rural
families to send their daughters to towns and cities for "jobs" to support
their families.

In the Thai local tradition, especially in the north, parents prefer the
birth of a daughter to that of a son. While a son can help his parents in
the rice field, a daughter can help in both household work and farming.
After marriage, the daughter continues to serve her parents because a Thai
couple traditionally establishes their family close to the woman's parents.
Usually both a Thai son and daughter hold to the traditional values of
filial piety, but a daughter is especially valued because she can do more
for her parents. Unfortunately, this traditional Thai attitude fits in
quite well with the exploitative structures in which young rural women can
find "jobs" in the urban areas, even if such work exposes them to the
threat of AIDS.[5] (The proportion of people in Thailand infected with HIV
is among the highest in the world.) Prostitutes send more money back home
to their desperate families than do male or female factory laborers. Their
sin is forgiven and they are treated well in their village.

Prostitution is basically a byproduct of unjust economic and social
structures and the most obvious form of gender oppression. Although the
phenomenon is well-known in Thailand, few Thai people talk about it in
public. Tod and Buddhist social activists are beginning to speak up in
defense of the rights of their mothers, sisters and daughters, reminding
society that prostitution represents a distortion of traditional cultural
values and is caused by modern structural poverty.[6] Prostitution and
other economic, social, and political problems must be addressed by a new
systematic code of Buddhist social ethics which encompasses the whole range
of national issues, including human rights, drug abuse, economic
exploitation, and environmental degradation.

Outsiders may argue that these young women could live a simple life at home
in the country, and survive by working at their traditional tasks in the
household and rice fields without having to resort to prostitution.
Contemporary pressures, however, are extremely powerful. Development
projects undertaken by the central government have brought roads, radio,
television, and popular magazines to the villages, spreading the religion
of consumerism. People are no longer happy with older lifestyles.[7]
Traditional values are threatened by desperate poverty, the inability to
possess land, and agribusiness; meanwhile, the new values increase the
demand for consumer goods. Most rural Thai families are torn apart by these
forces, and under such circumstances, it is hard for young men and women to
stay home and be happy in rural areas. Today most rural villages,
especially in the north and northeast, are populated only by those left
behind, old people and children.

Buddhist Base Communities in Thailand

In the face of these forces, only a revitalization of Buddhist values can
help rural people retain a level of self-sufficiency and independence. In
the past, before the modernization of Thailand under capitalism, the
Buddhist monastery was the center of village life and Buddhist monks were
its cultural leaders. The Buddhist sangha provided villagers not only with
Buddhist teachings, culture, and ritual, but also education, medical care,
and occupational advice. In such a community, the spirit of sharing and
cooperation prevailed; villagers shared a common local Buddhist culture.
However, this Thai rural social structure, with the Buddhist sangha at its
center, has collapsed under the impact of economic dependence, social
dislocation, and cultural transformation.

What is needed in rural Thailand today is what I call "Buddhist base
community,"[8] with leadership from well-educated or well-informed Buddhist
monks or laity. Such a community would seek to promote the enduring values
of Thai culture, which are ultimately rooted in a religious worldview.
Cultural identity would be fostered through the adaptation of such values,
and Buddhist social ethics would become guidelines for action. The economic
model of such a Buddhist base community would be one of relative
self-sufficiency rather than market dependency. Buddhist teachings, as well
as the increase in self-respect and self-confidence likely in a society
based on such teachings, can reduce the impact of consumerism, which in
recent years has been exacerbated by omnipresent advertising on television
and radio and in popular magazines. A renewal of cultural values, along
with practical advice from well-informed professionals, would help rural
Thais regain economic independence and improve their physical well-being.

Buddhist base communities offer a more participatory democratic model for
society. By regaining cultural and economic independence, the rural sector
of society can take a more active role in promoting Thai democracy. Once
relative economic self-sufficiency, political decentralization, and local
cultural independence is established, rural villages could solve many local
problems in a new way. The task of rebuilding a healthier rural society
belongs to all Thais, with a pivotal role to be played by Buddhist monks,
who are widely respected, demographically represent the rural people, and
reside throughout the country.

It will be useful to look more closely at different types of Buddhist base
communities already existing in contemporary Thailand. Some of them are
centered around individual activist monks, while others are organized more
as networks of people.

A. Phra Khamkhian's Community

Phra Khamkhian Suvanno's community at Tahmafaiwan in northeastern
Chaiyabhum is an exemplary Buddhist base community centered around a
charismatic leader. Through Khamkhian's leadership, the Tahmafaiwan
community has significantly improved life in nearby villages, both
physically and spiritually. It has become a grass-root movement, struggling
to achieve a relatively self-sustaining local economy and self-determined
local polity, while working to alleviate ecological problems.

Khamkhian, a forest monk and dedicated meditation teacher, has campaigned
to help poor people in the northeastern rural areas where he has
established "rice banks" and "buffalo banks," which function as independent
local cooperatives where poor people can borrow the necessities for
agriculture, such as grain and water buffalo. If necessary, they can borrow
rice for their own consumption. When they produce a surplus of rice, they
deposit it in the rice bank. When a borrowed buffalo gives birth, half of
the young buffalo belongs to the farmer and the other half belongs to the
buffalo bank.

Khamkhian believes that the villagers' constant battle with poverty and
hunger is due to their being caught up in the main-stream, greedmotivated
economy. He encourages them to be self-sufficient by raising their own
vegetables, digging family fishponds, and growing fruit trees, instead of
producing a single crop like tapioca or eucalyptus and buying food from
outside the village. Near his forest monastery, he gave a plot of land to
one family to try vegetable gardening without chemical fertilizers or
pesticides, and the experiment was successful. To broaden the villagers'
perspectives, he has encouraged them to go on study trips to other
northeastern villages that have been successful in this kind of integrated
farming.

Khamkhian has managed to preserve against encroachment about 250 acres of
lush, green forest atop the mountain, the only greenery visible amid vast
tapioca fields that stretch as far as the eye can see. He plans to send
monks to live deep in the forest, so that villagers will not dare damage
the sanctified area, which has been declared a forest monastery.[9]
Khamkhian has also led the villagers' fight against local authorities who
have supported illegal logging, a struggle which has gained some degree of
self-determination for the community in regard to local polity. By
attacking consumerism with a renewed affirmation of Buddhist social and
ethical values, he has helped the Tahmafaiwan community win some measure of
local cultural independence.

B. Phrakhru Sakorn's Community

Phrakhru Sakorn's community at Yokkrabat in central Thailand is another
exemplary Buddhist base community centered around a particular leader.
Before Sakorn Sangvorakit came to Wat Yokkrabat at Ban Phrao in
Samutsakorn, most people who lived there were impoverished illiterate
farmers. The area was often flooded with sea water which destroyed the
paddies and left the people with no means of subsistence. Realizing that
poverty could not be eradicated unless new crops were introduced, since
salt water was ruining the rice fields, Sakorn suggested planting coconut
trees, following the example of a nearby province.[10]

Once the people of Yokkrabat started growing coconuts, he advised them not
to sell the harvest, because middlemen kept the price of coconuts low. With
assistance from three nearby universities that were interested in the
development and promotion of community projects, the people of Yokkrabat
began selling their coconut sugar all over the country. In addition to the
coconut plantations, Sakorn got the villagers to grow vegetables and
fruits, encouraged the growing of palm trees for building materials, and
the planting of herbs to be used for traditional medicine. Fish raising was
also encouraged. Within a few years the people's livelihood improved
significantly.[11]

Sakorn believes that a community's basic philosophy should be selfreliance
and spirituality. He encourages residents to determine what they need in
their family before selling the surplus to earn money and buy things they
cannot produce by themselves. In this way, villagers depend less on the
market. This principle of self-reliance also underlies the community's
credit union project; members are encouraged to borrow money for integrated
family farming rather than for large enterprises in cash crops. Since
Sakorn is convinced that there can be no true development unless it is
based on spirituality, in addition to the projects in economic development
he has taught the villagers Dhamma -- the teachings of the Buddha -- and
meditation.[12]

Sakorn trains the younger generation of monks and novices for leadership
and encourages them to take greater responsibility for their own local
community. Although he "disrobed" some twenty years ago, he has continued
to support the community.[13] The self-reliance and ethical values he has
inculcated have made Yokkrabat an exemplary Buddhist base community in
Thailand.

C. Phra Prachak's Community dictatorship, the Thai military threatened Phra
Prachak Khuttacitto, a Buddhist monk who was campaigning to preserve a
large rain forest in Buriram, Pah (the Thai word for forest) Dongyai, from
further destruction. He was arrested and thrown in jail. It was the first
time in the history of Thai Buddhism that a monk in robes was jailed by the
authorities.[14] Although Prachak was later released, he had to defend
himself in court and was left in a position in which he could hardly resume
his work.

In 1992, during the civilian government of Chuan Leekpai, the deputy
Interior Minister went to see Prachak at Dhammachitra Buddhist Center in
Buriram and promised him and the villagers that the government would
cooperate in protecting the remaining forest in the area. He asked Prachak
to leave the forest but promised to build thirty cottages for monks, along
with a hall, a water tank, and a road in an area of 40 acres outside the
forest. He promised Prachak that the Forest Department would send fifteen
laborers to help him look after the forest, working twenty days a month for
eight months during the initial stage of the project.[15]

The promise has not been fulfilled. A hall was built, but only through the
personal effort of Prachak and with financial backing from the people.
Prachak asked the Forest Department to send tools, a car, and a
communication radio to help in the task of protecting the forest, but to no
avail. Without such equipment, the fifteen assistants can do little to stop
the felling of trees and protect the forest. After the first eight months,
the Forest Department reduced working schedules to only fifteen days a
month for the next six months and then stopped the project. Meanwhile
forest-destroying gangs intensified their operation and the cutting of
trees sharply increased. In other words, under the supposed cooperation
between Prachak and the Forest Department, the destruction of the forest
has accelerated. The government even publicized this situation to convince
the public that monks and villagers did not have the capacity to protect
the forest.

There were many attempts to discredit Prachak and to erode his support. A
rumor was circulated that he was paid a lot of money by the government,
which caused people to stop making donations for his work. Government
officials gave money to some villagers and not to others, with the
intention of causing misunderstandings among them.[16] The villagers
finally divided into three groups. The first, the majority, turned their
attention to new plots of land provided by the government. The second group
accepted patronage from the influential people who were behind the illegal
loggers and withdrew support from Prachak. The third and smallest group
continued to support his forest-conservation efforts, since they realized
that if the forest was completely destroyed, villagers would find it
extremely difficult to survive, and the area would face serious problems of
drought and water shortage.

Although Prachak's campaign was held back by government authorities, it
represents a grass-roots Buddhist struggle to respond to ecological issues.
Under Thailand's military dictatorship, the government openly used its
authority to destroy the forest for its own benefit. This prompted people
to organize and protest. Today, under an elected civilian government, the
process is more subtle yet equally destructive, since the bureaucracy
remains unchanged and influential people use covert tactics to invade the
rain forest.[17] Through his campaign against environmental degradation,
Prachak has helped awaken an ecological conscience at the national level.

D. Buddha-Kasetra Community

Buddha-Kasetra[18] is a group of Buddhist base communities in northern
Thailand organized under common leadership. It has established a number of
schools to care for orphans, juvenile delinquents, and economically
deprived children in the north and northeast of Thailand. Its goal is to
build strong Buddhist base communities in rural Thailand to fight poverty,
consumerism, and the structural exploitation created by a centralized
bureaucratic government.[19]

The first Buddha-Kasetra school, established at Maelamong in the northern
province of Maehongsorn, began its self-support program by growing their
own rice and vegetables, producing organic fertilizers, and raising cows to
produce milk for the school children as well as to supply milk at a cheap
price to the local communities. They also initiated some small commercial
projects to produce traditional foods and desserts, weave and sew clothes,
and make bricks and concrete posts for construction. All the teachers and
school children, in addition to school work, participated in occupational
training and manual labor. There was a project to establish a public health
center within the community to care for the health of the local people. The
Buddha-Kasetra school was able to be self-sufficient in most aspects of its
work. Three more Buddha-Kasetra schools were established -- at Nongho in
Chiangmai, at Khunyuam in Maehongsorn, and at Nonmuang in Korat. The number
of school children and teachers keeps growing.

The Buddha-Kasetra is especially interested in the issue of the
exploitation of women and children. It has campaigned to protect women's
and children's rights and to alert people to the problems of prostitution
and child abuse in northern Thailand. At the BuddhaKasetra school at
Nongho, girls and young women from poor, marginal family backgrounds are
admitted to the school for education and occupational training, as well as
instruction in Buddhist ethics. There are six teachers, all female except
for the principal, Phasakorn Kandej, and eighty-six female students ranging
in age from thirteen to eighteen. If these students were not admitted to
the school, it is likely that most of them would have resorted to
prostitution.

The Buddha-Kasetra Foundation was founded in Chiangmai in 1989, with Phra
Chaiyot as coordinator of all its schools and activities. The foundation,
which has its own printing press, publishes a monthly newspaper, as well as
a number of books on Buddhism and social issues. The foundation has been
trying to alleviate the causes of social ills by working with the poor and
the unfortunate in a Buddhist base community context, and by training young
men and women to be leaders of their own communities in rural Thailand.
Although the number is still limited, base communities like Buddha-Kasetra
are important in their own right and serve as examples of a new vision of a
more humane, cooperative, and service-oriented way of life.

E. Thamkaenchan Community

In 1985 a group of people interested in Buddhism and social and ecological
problems came to live together on twelve acres along the Kwai river in a
partially destroyed forest at Thamkaenchan valley.[20] They helped develop
the area, which is in the central province of Kanchanaburi, erecting a
number of buildings and boathouses, growing vegetables, and planting trees
for reforestation. They were committed to the creation of a self-sustaining
Buddhist base community by engaging in natural farming and raising cows,
goats, and other farm animals. They planted part of the land with herbal
plants for the purpose of making traditional herbal medicines. They tried
to preserve forest trees and wild animals and were careful to prevent
forest fires. Buddhist meditation retreats were held in the community from
time to time, and well-known meditation teachers such as Phra Khamkhian
Suvanno were invited to lead a retreat. The community also produced
paintings as well as books on Buddhism and spirituality.

In 1992 the Riverside School, a school for children from poor families, was
established. Paiboon Teepakorn, the leader of the community, is convinced
that the right form of education is an important factor in altering the way
people think and in creating a new direction for society. Besides the
formal curriculum, the students are given occupational training in animal
farming, natural farming without using chemicals, local handicrafts, and
some knowledge of small engines, as well as training in Buddhist ethics and
local culture. After their training, the students are supposed to return to
their villages and help their own communities. In a way, Thamkaenchan
represents a Buddhist ashrama, helping rural people struggle for a more
just society under an exploitative system.

After visiting the Thamkaenchan community in December 1992, James Halloran,
an Irish Catholic priest, reported:

The Buddhist spirituality of the members gives them a tremendous regard for
creation. Consequently they are deeply reverent towards the natural
vegetation of the place, yet have separated a space for some organic
gardening.... The environment is a major issue for the community. ... There
is also a concern with genuine education, reflected by the fact that they
are helping a group of needy boys who are not just imbibing school
subjects, but a wonderful set of values too. They are courteous,
high-minded, and deeply involved with the chores of the community.[21]

The contemporary Buddhist base communities in Thailand are grass-root
movements going in the right direction. But their attempts are limited to
structural reform, since most of them are concerned with the micro level --
solving the immediate needs or the day-to-day problems of their
communities. Macro perspective and praxis, therefore, are needed at the
national as well as local levels in order to construct a more serious
Buddhist social ethics.

Since the unusual drought and water shortage of 1994, more country people
have migrated to towns and cities, adding to the overpopulation and traffic
problems in Bangkok and other major cities. The forest fire at Huey
Khakhaeng in Uthaithani, a national park with many endangered species and
designated as a world heritage site, destroyed some 25,000 acres of rain
forest in 1994 and another 125,000 acres in 1998, worsening Thailand's
water problems. Despite the prohibition against teak logging and the
selfless forest conservation work of individual monks like Phra Prachak and
Phra Khamkhian, the remaining forest has been further destroyed,
notoriously at the Salawin national park in Maehongsorn in 1998. Those
involved in this destruction of the forest include influential politicians
and officials, military and police officers, as well as officials from the
Forest Department itself. The unusual flooding throughout Thailand in 1995,
the most extensive in fifty years, was partly due to inadequate forests to
absorb water from the monsoons. The floods damaged hundreds of thousands of
acres of agricultural farmland, increasing the poverty of upcountry
farmers.

Thailand today faces a systemic problem, as shown by the economic crisis of
late 1997 to 1998. Although the country is presently administered by an
elected civilian government, the bureaucratic patronage system has remained
unchanged and constitutes a major obstacle to the decentralization of power
and to social and economic reform. Despite these circumstances, the Thai
Buddhist sangha remains silent and inactive, largely due to its
bureaucratic administration and individualistic approach to issues. Most
monks maintain that if all individuals were ethical, problems would be
solved naturally. While there is an element of truth to this approach, it
naively ignores the impact of modern economic, political, and social
structures on the everyday lives of individuals. A Buddhist social ethics
needs to be introduced at a structural level if Thai society is to cope
with its contemporary problems.

Buddhist Social Ethics: A Structural Analysis

Historically, Buddhism arose in India at the time when the Aryan
civilization flourished. Unlike Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the main
concern of religious leaders and philosophers during the time of the
founder was not political liberation from social conditions, but personal
liberation from human psychological suffering arising from the cycle of
birth, old age, sickness, and death. Although the Buddha also taught
ethical principles regarding the social, economic, and political well-being
of people, the main theme in Buddhism was personal liberation from
psychological suffering. Since social and political conditions have changed
tremendously in Thailand, I maintain that Buddhism needs a structural
vision and a new emphasis on social liberation.

Before the country became modernized, Siam -- the original name of Thailand
-- was a traditional society whose values were articulated in terms of
Buddhism. The name was changed to Thailand by the government of Phibun
Songkhram, soon after he become prime minister in December 1938, as a step
toward westernization or modernization. Although Siamese people, measured
by modern economic standards, were poorer in terms of material wealth and
public health, members of older generations report that they were generally
happier and more humane than the Thai people today. The contrast between
yesterday's Siam and today's Thailand, however, developed over time as a
consequence of basic economic and social changes, themselves the product of
government efforts to modernize the country. This modernization has
shattered the self-sufficient economy of local communities and centralized
the relatively self-sustained polity of the provinces. Ultimately, this
process has tied the country economically to the global market economy, and
politically to the new international order. These economic and structural
changes have had a great impact on all social and cultural aspects of Thai
society, and consequently have affected the social values and well-being of
the Thai people.

A retro-utopian view, such as Buddhadasa's dhammic socialism,[22] which
uses the older form of traditional Buddhist society as a model for a
contemporary society, does not take sufficient stock of the intractable
nature of structural problems. If the life of the Thai people in the past
was "better" than today, it was mainly because of the self-sufficiency of
their local economy and the decentralization of political power, ensuring
the integrity of local culture and social values. To advocate a change of
form without changing the underlying structure is to miss the point. To ask
society to return to an older form of Buddhist society is to advocate the
impossible, and to risk ignoring the systemic nature of modern problems (in
Buddhist terms, dukkha). Without changing unjust, inequitable and violent
economic and political structures, a dictatorial dhammaraja is not so
different, in today's context, from an absolute dictator, and a sresthi
with a rongthan is not very different from the contemporary beneficence of
the exploiting billionaire.

Buddhist social ethics must do more than advocate mindfulness and the ideal
of simplicity. To construct a healthier Buddhist society requires a change
of the economic structure into one of more local self-sufficiency, and the
political structure into one of more local decentralization, with moral and
cultural values adapted to a contemporary context. Only then can Buddhist
social ethics take root in society as it did in the historical past. The
Buddhist spirit of loving-kindness, compassion, sharing, and cooperation
expressed in Buddhadasa's dhammic socialism will then prevail, at both a
personal and structural level.

If we consider Buddhist social ethics in contemporary Thai society from a
broader perspective, we are forced to recognize that greed, hatred, and
delusion,[23] which Buddhism identifies as the root of all harmful things,
currently prevail. A systematic and structural greed can be found in the
present economic system, in which millions of traditional farmers have been
uprooted from their farmlands by tenancy and agribusiness, causing massive
dislocation, unemployment, and poverty. Centralized political power and an
economic system of dependency have caused group hatred to arise as elites
grow richer while the vast majority of people are driven into greater
poverty. A structural delusion comes from the expanding influence of
commercial advertising in the mass media, leading local people to discard
their cultural values and embrace consumerism.

In order to overcome greed, hatred, and delusion, a person needs to change
not only his or her personal conduct or lifestyle, but also the system that
creates them. Buddhist ethics, such as the Five Precepts (sila), needs to
address this structural change more vigorously. For example, the first
precept is to refrain from killing and harming living beings; in applying
this to a poor country like Thailand, it becomes clear that the military
budget, which comprises a large portion of the GNP, should be reduced. The
violation of human rights, including political or economic assassination,
the torture of prisoners, and child abuse, has to be halted. There must be
an end to the slaughter of wild animals, especially endangered species. The
rain forests that shelter wild animals need to be recovered and preserved.
Obviously, if the moral precept forbidding killing were made more
meaningful, many of these measures could be implemented.

The second of the Five Precepts is to refrain from stealing. If we look at
the situation in Thailand, we will see that a more just social structure is
needed in order to prevent politicians, the military, police, civil
servants, and businessmen from engaging in corruption and systematically
robbing the common people. Furthermore, destruction of the rain forests and
degradation of the environment and world's ecology are stealing the future
of our children and grandchildren.

The third precept is to refrain from sexual misconduct. Prostitution is a
systematic violation of this rule, a problem Buddhists need to take more
seriously. Among other things, a substantial improvement in the economic
well-being of rural areas, as well as the enforcement of laws punishin
profiting from the business of prostitution, are needed to reduce pressure
on rural young women to resort to prostitution.

The fourth of the Five Precepts is to refrain from false speech. Buddhists
need to advocate truthfulness, even when this means challenging the status
quo and a corrupt system that often violates this demand. Political and
bureaucratic reforms, laws guaranteeing a free press, multiple political
parties, and grass roots participation in democracy are required to
establish and maintain this precept at a structural level. The fifth
precept, to refrain from intoxication, is systematically violated by the
widespread drug trade. The smuggling of drugs from Thailand has contributed
to the worldwide drug problems, and this must be stopped. In general, if a
Buddhist social ethics is to have any significant meaning for contemporary
society, Buddhists must reexamine the Five Precepts not just at a personal
but also at the structural level.

Toward Buddhist Social Liberation

The mind is not an independent entity; human beings also have bodies. Where
the body is, the mind is; they are mutually dependent. Without the mind,
the body is not different from other nonliving things; without the body,
the mind cannot exist. Physical activities affect the development and
quality of the mind. At the same time, the quality of the mind also affects
the well-being of the physical body.

We are not born in a vacuum but in a society and a culture. Our life is
affected by the quality of food, health care, and the physical environment,
as well as one's social, cultural, economic, and political environment. We
do not live alone, but in a network of complex social relationships. These
truisms bear repeating because many Buddhists believe that they can
automatically overcome socio-political problems through inner liberation
from psychological suffering. Such a conception of Buddhism lacks a
structural perspective from which to address social, economic, and
political problems of the modern world.

Such an individualistic attitude might work for a hermit who renounces the
world. But most Buddhists are not hermits; they live in a complex,
interconnected world. Indeed, today even a hermit cannot avoid this complex
nexus. The Thai Buddhist sangha has been controlled by the government since
the 19th century. Buddhist monks all over Thailand eat their daily food
given them by Thai people, the majority of whom are poor and oppressed,
whose sons become poorly paid laborers in construction and factories, and
whose daughters are exploited laborers or even prostitutes. Under such
circumstances, how can Buddhists avoid their social responsibility?

From a Buddhist social ethical perspective, the solution of Thailand's
structural problems is threefold. First, Buddhist base communities all over
Thailand should be linked, forming a grass-roots movement to combat social
injustice and environmental destruction. Their more self-sustaining economy
and relatively decentralized polity can serve as models for a better
society.

Second, Buddhist intellectuals and social workers at all levels should
learn more from the oppressed. By listening to the poor, they can
contribute to Thailand's broad-based reform, helping raise people's
consciousness in regard to structural problems, organizing all those
conscious of existing structural injustice -- the underprivileged, the
middle class, as well as the intellectuals -- and fostering a determination
to work for meaningful change.

Third, a more just society could be obtained on the national level by
pushing for political reforms advocated by the Buddhist thinker Praves
Wasi.[24] The newly won constitution, which includes a reformed democratic
process with a structural check and balance of power --including elections,
government administration, parliament and the judicial system -- is a first
step toward structural change in politics. The Thai bureaucracy, now the
biggest obstacle to social and political reforms in our country, needs
restructuring in order to become more efficient and decentralized. All
those who advocate Buddhist social ethics must continue to work for the
political, economic, and social reform and structural change at the
national level. By supporting the grass-root movements of Buddhist base
communities and a broad-based consciousness-raising process, they can help
build a more just society.

As a major world religion, Buddhism deals with the issues of human
suffering and liberation from those sufferings. There are, however, two
main types of human suffering: psychological and socio-political. Buddhism
provides a unique psychological treatment of the problem of human inner
suffering through meditation. Liberation (nibbana or nirvana) in Buddhism
is basically the liberation from this psychological suffering. As Leonard
Swidler puts it, Buddhism uses the language "from below" or "from within,"
whereas religions with God-centered orientations like Christianity use the
language "from above" or "from without."[25] From this perspective,
Buddhist language and concepts are closer to those of modern critical
thinkers. Or as Antony Fernando puts it, the way the Buddha dealt with his
disciples is similar to the way a psychotherapist deals with his patients
in a clinic.[26]

Buddhism seems to lack a precise theory and praxis to address the concrete
issues of contemporary socio-political suffering and its liberation.
Traditional Buddhism provides guidelines for personal moral conduct such as
self-restraint, patience, zeal, compassion, generosity, and mindfulness,
but these moral concepts need to be reinterpreted in modern context and
integrated into a social ethical theory. Buddhadasa's theory of dhammic
socialism tends to be too utopian and abstract. Although his theory
addresses the issue of "surplus" in a manner similar to Marx's "surplus
value," it still needs interpretation and clarification as a social praxis.
A comprehensive perspective on socio-political suffering and its liberation
from the existing exploitative system under global capitalism, a
consciousness-raising process in regard to socio-political suffering and
its struct the emergence of Buddhist base communities struggling for social
justice in solidarity with the poor and oppressed are steps toward the
construction of a Buddhist social ethics.

Notes

1. Matichon Weekly (Bangkok: Matichon Co. Ltd., 1996), April 9, 1996, 36.

2. For more details about prostitution in Thailand, see Pamela S. DaGrossa,
"Kamphaengdin: A Study of Prostitution in the All-Thai Brothels of Chiang
Mai City," in Grant A. Olson, Crossroads 4, no. 2 (DeKalb: Center for
Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University, 1989), 1-7.

3. Donald K. Swearer, "Dhammic Socialism," in Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Dhammic
Socialism, 23.

4. Young women make up about 80 percent of Thailand's low-wage factory
workforce. The fire on May 10, 1993, at Kader Industrial (Thailand) Co.
Ltd., a factory in the Phutthamonthon area fifteen miles west of Bangkok,
which killed at least 213 and injured 500 workers- most of them young
women-- revealed what the working conditions and safety standards in
factories are like for most rural women. The blaze may have been the
deadliest factory fire in history, surpassing the 146 killed on March 25,
1911, at the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. Factory in New York City. See
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 12, 1993.

5. For more details about the AIDS crisis in Thailand, see Mark A. Bonacci,
Senseless Casualties: The AIDS Crisis in Asia (Washington, D.C.: Asia
Resource Center, 1992).

6. For a Thai feminist view of prostitution, see Chatsumarn Kabilsingh,
Thai Women in Buddhism (Berkeley, Calif.: Parallax Press, 1991).

7. Sulak Sivaraksa, Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society,
ed. Tom Ginsburg, foreword by H. H. The Dalai Lama, preface by Thich Nhat
Hanh (Berkeley, Calif.: Parallax Press, 1992), 3-9.

8. I have refrained from defining "Buddhist base community" in the hope
that this concept, which conveys the notion of a community of study and
praxis, will be more adequately explicated by the examples in this section.
The term itself is obviously adapted from the concept of Christian base
communities in Latin America.

9. See Sanitsuda Ekachai, Behind the Smile: Voices of Thailand (Bangkok:
The Post Publishing Co. Ltd., 1991), 65-69

10. Sulak Sivaraksa, Seeds of Peace, 50.

11. Seri Phongphit, Religion in a Changing Society (Hong Kong: Arena Press,
1988), 48.

12. Ibid., 51-52.

13. In Thai Buddhism there is a tradition that if a monk feels he no longer
is fit to live a monastic life for any reason, he can disrobe and become an
ordinary man. The status of monkhood does not follow him after he disrobes.

14. In the past, Buddhist monks in Thailand who were arrested by the police
were forced first to disrobe before being put in jail. Most of them wore
white robes to defend themselves and their status.

15. Aphichai Phanthasen, "The Monk Is Still Destroyed, the Forest Is Still
Raped," in Sayamrat Weekly, 40th Year, 37th Issue, February 13-19, 1994,
36-37.

16. See Phra Prachak Khuttacitto, "Luangpoh Prachak Khuttacitto:
Conservation Monk Whose Determination Has Never Changed," in
Krungthep-Thurakit, January 22, 1994.

17. Phanthasen, "The Monk Is Still Destroyed...," in Sayamrat Weekly,
38-39.

18. Kasetra means agriculture. Thus, Buddha-Kasetra literally means "the
Buddha's way of agriculture for self-sufficiency."

19. The data in this section are based on my visit to the Buddha-Kasetra
communities and my interviews with people there.

20. The data in this section are based on my visit to the Thamkaenchan
community and my interviews with the people there. Also see Thamkaenchan
Ashrama, Thamkaenchan Education Center, 1-15.

21. James Halloran, "Counter-Witness on the River Kwai," a paper circulated
among friends, 7-8.

22. Buddhadasa portrays the ideal leader of a dhammic socialist state as
dhammartija, a leader with the ten royal virtues (dasarajadhamma). He
argues that "dictatorial" (Thai: phadetkan) -- meaning to handle things
expeditiously by moral people -- is a proper exercise of virtue and wisdom
to end the hatred and turmoil and to lead society to peace and justice.
Buddhadasa makes the distinction between a "capitalist" (Thai: naithun) in
the Western sense and a "wealthy person" (Sanskrit: sresthi) in the
Buddhist sense. For him, a capitalist is one who keeps accumulating
material wealth far beyond what he or she actually needs. A sresthi, on the
other hand, is a wealthy person who uses his or her accumulated wealth to
build a rong-than (almshouse) for the sake of social welfare. A rong-than
was an almshouse or a communal place where the poor could come and receive
what they lacked materially. The status of sresthi was measured by the
number of their rong-than. If they had no almshouses they could not be
called sresthi. The more rong-than one had, the wealthier one was
considered to be.

23. In the Theravada Buddhist tradition, it is very common to list these
three defilements together when describing the condition of the common man
or woman.

24. Praves Wasi was the chairman of the Committee of Democratic Development
that set the agendas for political reform supported by Thai intellectuals
and the middle class. For more details, see The Committee of Democratic
Development, The Political Reform of Thailand (Bangkok: Thailand Research
Fund, 1995).

25. For more details on interreligious dialogue, see Leonard Swidler, After
the Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990).

26. See Antony Fernando, with Leonard Swidler, Buddhism Made Plain: An
Introduction for Christians and Jews (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1986).