03-18-2003, 03:37 PM
|
#1
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Sangha and State in Thailand
This is a study from another culture showing that government and religion do not mix well.
Review of Keeping the Faith: Thai Buddhism at the Crossroads
Quote:
Although no reliable quantitative data were collected, Thai scholars generally agree that Theravada Buddhism was in good shape in the country in the 19th century, and remained in decent shape right up to the early 1960s. This is explained, according to Sanitsuda, by the fact that originally there was no centralized governmental control of Buddhism. "A century ago, the Thai clergy was actually pluralistic. Monks were accountable to their communities and their practices varied with local cultures and their masters’ training" (p. 242.) The government, according to a century-old tradition, did provide financial supports to Buddhist institutions and temples, whilst these institutions were in fact competing between themselves, with State money working as a reward for those proving to be more popular. At the beginning of the 20th century, in the wake of colonial threats, the Thai State started moving towards political and religious centralisation, creating a national Sangha to overview the entire national Theravada clergy. In 1962, the military government became concerned about possible Communist infiltrations into Buddhist temples and passed the Sangha Bill which, according to Sanitsuda "concentrated power in a small group of senior monks" p. 314.) In fact, Theravada Buddhism as a whole was placed under the control of a single centralized directorate or Supreme Council, loyal to the government, which received all the public funds, and allocated them to local institutions according to a system giving precedence to seniority over merit. "In the old days, the neighbourhood controlled monks and temples. This went with the dictatorial Sangha Bill which gave the Supreme Council sole power to allocate monastic positions and power. Monks feel they only need to please the Council elders" (p. 290.)
Just as any religious economy theories would predict, the Council-controlled and State-salaried Buddhist clergy became complacent, infiltrated by careerists, and less keen to engage in missionary activities than to protect its own State-guaranteed situation. Most of Sanitsuda’s book is a familiar litany of how a State clergy, whose salaries are guaranteed no matter what, become lazy and incompetent. "People with dead-end futures use the monkhood as an occupation of last resort" (p. 63.) "The monopolistic, authoritarian structure of the Sangha, which allows no dissent nor local difference of religious practice, has rid the structure of internal challenges which might otherwise make it more alert to competition" (p. 240.) "One of the Sangha’s weaknesses is its heavy dependence on state power and nationalism to protect its turf and silence critics. This has encouraged a cry-baby mentality so that the clergy is forever demanding outside help instead of developing self-reliance" (p. 318.)
|
|
|
|
