THE CONTESTED LEGACY OF MODERN THAI BUDHIST REFORM (5 papers)
Organizer/Chair: Justin McDaniel, University of California at Riverside
In the nineteenth century the Siamese kings Rama the Fourth (Mongkut) and Rama the
Fifth (Chulalongkorn) made great efforts to formalize the Buddhist ecclesiastical system
and educational practices in Siam and in their vassal states in the north, northeast and
south. Siamese ecclesiastical ranks, textbooks printed in Siamese script, monastic
examinations, the Pali Buddhist canon, and teachers approved from Bangkok and Central
Siam were disseminated to the rural and urban areas in Siam and its holdings. Monks
from the recently pacified north, northeast and south were brought to Bangkok to study in
two new monastic universities (Mahachulalongkon and Mahamakut). However, these
reforms were not only felt in Thailand, but became models for reform in Cambodia, Laos,
Sri Lanka, and Burma. These reforms were not adopted wholeheartedly inside or outside
of Thailand though. There has been disagreement over their importance, their reception,
and their implementation. This panel brings together scholars who work on Burma, Laos,
Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand to discuss the legacy of these Buddhist
modernization efforts and their impact on Buddhist education, self-representation, texts,
and teachings in the twentyfirst century.
Ignoring Reform: Lao and Northern Thai Monastic Education after the Sangha Act of 1902
Justin McDaniel, University of California at Riverside
Several studies attribute the advent of modern Thai Buddhism to the sweeping reforms
initiated by King Mongkut, Prince Wachirayan and others in the late nineteenth century.
These reforms, it is argued, culminated in the 1902 Sangha Act. This act consisted largely
of administrative rules dividing the Buddhist ecclesia into formal ranks and assigning
national, provincial and district heads of the Sangha. It also contributed to the formalizing
of a monastic examination system. They are still in effect today. These reforms have had
a mixed reception in Northern Thailand and Laos. In Northern Thailand, the
administrative rules have been largely accepted, but the educational reforms subtly
ignored in favor of regional pedagogical methods, scripts, and texts. In Laos, the reforms
largely rejected by monasteries under French colonial control, but embraced by postcolonial reformers in the 1950s and 1960s. The Post-1975 Marxist regime has attempted
to institute their own monastic educational reforms, but many individual monastic
teachers admire and have tried to implement these 1902 Thai reforms. This paper
examines the history of reception and argues against over-estimating the power of the
Central Thai Sangha to influence monastic schools in neighboring regions.
Governance and Modernity in Monastic Education in Nineteenth Century Thailand and
Twenty-first Century Sipsongpanna
Thomas Borchert, University of Vermont
The reforms in Buddhism and monastic education that took place in Thailand in the late
19th century have often been understood as important parts of Buddhist modernism. This
is because they favored an emphasis on the Pali canon and canonical Buddhist
knowledge. Buddhist monastic education in Sipsongpanna in the early twenty-first
century would seem to be a very different project. Despite the fact that monastic
education in Sipsongpanna has relied heavily on the monastic education system in
Thailand, this Tai minority region of Southwest China has established a system of
monastic education which is focused not on Pali or on canonical Buddhist knowledge, but
rather on mastery of the Dai-lue script and the protective texts written in this script. As a
consequence, and in part because of direct and indirect pressure brought to bear by the
Chinese state, the Buddhism of Sipsongpanna is marked most clearly by questions of
ethnic belonging. In other words, monastic education in nineteenth century Thailand and
contemporary Sipsongpanna bear little resemblance to one another. Despite the apparent
difference between these two systems of monastic education, however, I argue that there
is an important link between them, not in the content that they seek to teach, but rather in
the way they seek to make the Sangha conform to the demands of the modern state. This,
I argue, and not a concern with Pali, is the real mark of Buddhist modernism.
Contested Legacies of Thai Buddhist Reforms in Cambodia
Anne Hansen, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
The Buddhist reforms initiated in Bangkok by Rama IV and V had considerable impact
on the development of modern Khmer Buddhism, especially among several generations
of Sangha intellectuals educated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet while some
of the specific practices and ideas associated with the Thai reforms were zealously
introduced in Cambodia, their insertion into the colonial era politics of Buddhist
education in Cambodia and the emerging tensions between Khmer traditionalists and
modernists led to distinct Khmer interpretations of Thai reforms. The Dhammayutika
itself – introduced into the Khmer court in the mid 19th century – was less important in
Cambodia than the broader idea of reform that came to be articulated and debated within
the Khmer Sangha. This paper will briefly examine the history and contested reception
of Thai reformist influence among monks and officials in Cambodia through examination
of a Khmer biography of Mongkut, sermons and other writings on “purification” and
reform.
King Mongkut and Dhammayut: A Modern Approach to Thai Buddhism
Venerable Phra Dr. Anil Sakya, Mahamakut Buddhist University, Thailand
This paper will examine King Mongkut’s attempt to develop an interpretation of
Buddhism consistent with Western science and learning. This attempt marked the
beginning of a fundamental epistemological shift in doctrinal Thai Buddhism. The
theoretical shift, which continues to have significant religious implications today,
involved the rejection of the layered or hierarchical notion of truth which underlay
traditional Buddhist teachings and its replacement with the notion of a single, universal,
and all encompassing truth. King Mongkut found that the Thais have been practicing
Buddhism in the wrong way conjoined with delusion and far away from the true
teachings of Buddha. He referred this kind of practice as ‘Acinnakappika’ meaning the
type of Buddhism traditionally inherited without openness, without light and no further
explanations were given. King Mongkut viewed that the authentic Buddhism has a
unique principle of a single, universal and all encompassing truth. Rejecting the
superstitious beliefs that had attached themselves to Buddhism in the course of centuries,
he preached Buddhism in its pure form based on Pali Canon instead of Commentaries. He
showed that Buddhism, if properly understood, contains nothing that is contrary to
common sense or in conflict with science and it is primarily a moral system thoroughly
suited to modern needs. Reformation made by King Mongkut resulted in improving
monastic discipline in an effort to bring it closer to the Pali vinaya, and he also
deconstructed and reinterpreted many traditional Thai Buddhist teachings. This new trend
of practice formed the nucleus of a new, stricter group of Thai Buddhism named
Dhammayuttika meaning ‘those adhering to the doctrine.’ This reformation was
considered a daring innovation in Thailand and it led to initiate a group of ‘progressive’
Buddhist monks who are always seeking to learn and who dare to do new things to
uphold the correctness and purity of Buddhism.
Buddhist Education Reforms through Chanting Revisions
Dion Oliver Peoples, Buddhist Studies Lecturer, Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
The modernization reforms of the Dhammayuttika-nikaya appear to be largely
unsuccessful – if looking at percentages of adherents, and the intent of the reforms
suggested by King Mongkut [Rama IV]. Formerly, Thai Buddhists chanted the ‘Tam
Wat Phra’ in temples; however this was replaced by the ‘Tam Wat Chao/Tam Wat Yen’
version that is currently utilized in Thailand’s Buddhist temples. This literary and social
investigation determines the meanings behind daily chanting sessions - beyond the
surface level translations. The chanting ceremony is examined as originating from the
Tipitaka – the primary source for orthodox Theravada Buddhists in Thailand, and other
Thai literary sources vis-à-vis the ‘Buddhism’ as demonstrated in everyday life currently
in Thailand. Ultimately, this endeavor illustrates where Thai Buddhism is today.
Moreover, this work attempts to answer the following question: “Is the meaning of the
‘tam wat chao/yen’, Theravada Buddhism or Buddhism as King Rama IV felt important,
suitable for promotion in Thai society?” Major findings follow: the ‘refuge’ system is
flawed and redundantly expressed; the method of ‘apology’ should be discarded – since it
is counter to Buddhist doctrinal philosophy. The entire endeavor should give anyone,
ordained or not, a firm understanding of Buddhist doctrine as contained in ‘tam wat
chao/yen’, as obviously stated or hidden beneath layers of chanted metaphors.