Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:32:52.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Charles F. Keyes
Get access

Abstract

Buddhism in Thailand has been both subjected to integrative policies advanced by the Thai government and manipulated as an instrument for promoting national integration. As a result of reforms instituted at the end of the nineteenth century, several different traditions of Therevada Buddhism were united into a national religious system. In recent years, the Thai government has attempted to involve the Buddhist Sangha in efforts to promote economic development among the Thai peasantry and assimilation of tribal peoples into Thai society. While the policies designed to integrate Buddhism within Thailand were successful, the efforts to use Thai Buddhism as instrument of national policy could prove deleterious rather than advantageous to the attainment of national goals.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 1971 , pp. 551 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A preliminary version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in San Francisco, April 3, 1970. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Miss Amara Bhumiratana in researching some of the background to this paper and of Mrs. Diane Eddy who typed the manuscript. He would also like to acknowledge his indebtedness to Phra Khru Anusonsatsanakiat, District Abbot of Mae Sariang District, northwestern Thailand, who made possible the researches into the Buddhist missionary program among the tribal peoples and who interpreted many aspects of Buddhist tradition as it is found in northern Thailand.

1 Thailand. Department of Public Welfare, Ministry of Interior, Raingan kanphoeiphrae phraphut-thasatsana kae chaokhao thang phak nya pi 2510 ['Report concerning the Buddhist Mission to the Tribal People in the North in 1967'] (Bangkok, February 2, 1968), p. 28.

2 Thailand Official Yearbook 1964 (Bangkok: Government House Printing Office, 1965), p. 498.Google Scholar

3 Ibid., pp. 504–05.

4 In the use of this concept I follow Clifford Geertz (“Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States,” in Old Societies and New States, ed. by Clifford Geertz [New York: The Free Press, 1963], pp. 105–157) and Edward Shils (“Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties,” British Journal of Sociology [1957]).

5 This designation should not be confused with the official grouping of provinces into what is known today as the “northern region” (phaknya). This official region includes both provinces which were formerly in the semiautonomous principalities of the North and those which formed the northern provinces of the traditional Siamese kingdoms of Ayutthaya and then Bangkok. In this paper the term “the north” will be used to refer to an area today mainly confined to the provinces of Chiangmai, Chiangrai, Lampang, Lamphun, Mae Hong Son, Nan, and Phrae.

6 Dodd, William C., The Tai Race (Cedar Rapids: Torch Press, 1923), p. 75.Google Scholar

7 By “Siam proper” I am here referring to central and north central Thailand which had comprised the “inner provinces” of the Siamese states of Ayutthaya and 19th century Siam.

8 Following conventional usage, the term “Tai” will be here used to refer to any group belonging to the Tai (or Daic) language family, while the term “Thai” will be reserved for reference only to citizens of the modern nation of Thailand.

9 Cf. Coedès, G., “Documents sur l'histoire politique du Laos occidental,” Bull, de I'Ecole Française Extrême Orient, 25 (1925), pp. 1–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Koncak, Phraya Prachakit, Phongsawadan Yonok ['Yonok Chronicle'] (Bangkok, National Library Edition, 1964).Google Scholar

10 Chotisukkharat, Sanguan, Prawat Khruba Siwichai: Nakbun haeng Lannathai ['Biography of Khruba Siwichai: Lannathai Saint'] (Chiangmai: Sanguan Kanphim, 1963), p. 28.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Kunstadter, Peter, The Luá (Lawa) of Northern Thailand (Princeton University, Center of International Studies Research Monograph No. 21, 1965)Google Scholar and Kunstadter, Peter, “The Lua' and Skaw Karen of Maehongson Province, Northwestern Thailand,” in Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations, ed. by Kunstadter, Peter (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1967), vol. II, pp. 639–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Cf. Kunstadter, P., “The Lua' and Skaw Karen of Maehongson Province, Northwestern Thailand,” C. F. Keyes, “New Evidence on Northern Thai Frontier History” in In Memoriam Phya Anuman Rajadhon (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1970)Google Scholar, and Marlowe, David H., “Upland-Lowland Relationships: the Case of the S'kaw Karen of Central Upland Western Chiengmai,” in Tribesmen and Peasants in Northern Thailand, ed. by Hinton, Peter (Chiang Mai: Tribal Research Center, 1969).Google Scholar

13 Cf. Lehman, F. K., “Kayah Society as a Function of the Shan-Burma-Karen Context,” in Contemporary Change in Traditional Societies, ed. by Steward, Julian (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967), vol. II, pp. 1–104.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Kandre, P., “Autonomy and Integration of Social Systems: The Iu Mien (“Yao” or “Man”) Mountain Population and Their Neighbors,” in Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities, and Nations, ed. by Kunstadter, P. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), vol. II, pp. 583–638.Google Scholar

15 Wells, K. E., History of Protestant Work, in Thailand, 1828–1958 (Bangkok: Church of Christ in Thailand, 1958), p. 89.Google Scholar

16 Thra Loo Shwe, “The Karen People of Thailand and Christianity,” (typescript, n.p., 1961).

17 For excellent analyses of the impact of the Culalongkorn “Revolution” in the educational and provincial administrative systems see Wyatt, David, The Politics of Reform in Thailand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969)Google Scholar, and Bunnag, Tej, The Provincial Administration of Siam from 1892 to 1915 (Unpubl. D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1968).Google Scholar

18 LeMay, Reginald, An Asian Arcady (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1936), p. 54.Google Scholar

19 Graham, Walter A., Siam (London: Alexander Moring, 1924), vol. II, p. 172Google Scholar. Also cf. Bunnag, Tej, “Khabot ngiao myang Phrae” ['Shan Rebellion in Myang Phrae'], Sangkhomsat Porithat ['Social Science Review'] (Bangkok), 6 (1968), pp. 67–82.Google Scholar

20 The local aristocracy was retained in symbolic positions. In 1924 Graham reported that the indigenous northern chiefs “still hold their titles with the purely nominal status of President of Council, a body of officials appointed for each state, under the control and at the dictation of a Siamese Viceroy located in the neighbourhood with a strong staff of assistants” (Graham, vol. II, p. 168).

21 For example, among the laws concerning the Sangha (kosmai phra song) promulgated by Rama I was the extremely important one requiring that Buddhist clergy be registered and carry identification papers. See Dhaninivat, Prince, A History of Buddhism (Bangkok: Asia Foundation, 1960), p. 26Google Scholar. Mongkut had been a monk for 27 years before ascending to the throne. During his sojourn in the monkhood, he established a new Order, the Thammayutnikai which followed stricter interpretations of clerical behavior than did the dominant Manag, hanikai Order. During his reign, he promoted the strengthening and systematizing of Buddhist education, an effort which was even further advanced by the work of Mongkut's son, Prince Wachirayan who was to become Prince Patriach. On Mongkut's relationship with the Sangha, see Prince Dhaninivat, op. cit., pp. 32–39, Lingat, R., “La vie religieuse du Roi Mongkut,” Journal of Siam Society, 20 (1926), pp. 129–148Google Scholar, Moffat, Abbot Low, Mongkut: The King of Siam (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1961)Google Scholar, and Griswold, A. B., “Asian Religious Reformer: King Mongkut of Thailand,” Journal of the Vietnamese-American Association, 1 (1956), pp. 13–19.Google Scholar

22 The act appears in Chot Thongprayun, comp., Khambanyai phraratchabanyat khana song, Ph.S. 2505 ['Explanation of the Proclamation Concerning the Sangha, 1962'] (Bangkok: Hatthasin Press, 1966), no pagination. Also cf., Graham, vol. II, pp. 230–1 and Ishii, Yoneo, “Church and State in Thailand,” Asian Survey, 8 (1968), pp. 865–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Quoted in Chot Thongprayun; my translation.

24 Ibid.

25 Somdet Phramaha Somana Cao Khrom Phraya Wachirayan Wororot ['(Collected Writings of) Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Wororot'] (Bangkok: Department of Religion, 1967), vol. I, pp. 343–557.

26 Ibid., vol. I, p. 222.

27 Ibid., vol. I, pp. 243–5.

28 It is worthy of note that this monk came from another area of Thailand, i.e., the northeast, which like the north had enjoyed relative autonomy prior to the reforms of Culalongkorn.

29 Phra Wimon Yanamuni, “Prawat Phra Ratchawirakorn (Bunma Yankhuttathera)” ['Biography of Phra Ratchawirakorn (Bunma Yanakhuttathera)'] in Ubbai Banthao Khwamkrot ['Means for Alleviating Anger'], by Atsapha Thera (Mae Hong Son: Volume distributed on the occasion of the cremation of Phra Ratchawirakorn, 1968), p. viii; my translation.

30 Ibid., p. x.

31 Ibid., p. xii.

32 Sanguan Chotisukkharat, op. cit.

33 Ibid., pp. 16, 23–4.

34 Ibid., p. 16.

35 Cf. Bunnag, Tej, “Khabot phu mi bun phakisan R.S. 121” ['Millenarian Revolt in Northeastern Thailand, 1902'], Sangkhomsat Porithat ['Social Science Review'] (Bangkok), 5 (1967), pp. 78–86.Google Scholar

36 Sanguan Chotisukkharat, op. cit., pp. 16 et passim.

37 Ibid., p. 28.

38 Thompson, Virginia, Thailand: The New Siam (New York: Macmillan, 1941), p. 642.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., pp. 642–3. Sanguan does not discuss this incident, saying only that the details of the second incident were the same as the first (Sanguan Chotisukkharat, op. cit., p. 32).

40 Thompson, op. cit., p. 643.

41 Khru Ba Siwichai died in 1939.

42 While the Thai-Lue are ethnically different from the Yuan or Northern Thai, their traditional religion is of the Yuan variety.

43 Moerman, Michael, “Ban Ping's Temple: The Center of a ‘Loosely Structured’ Society,” in Anthropological Studies of Therevada Buddhism, by Manning Nash et al. (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Cultural Report Series No. 13, 1966), pp. 165–6.Google Scholar

44 This term is borrowed from Geertz, op cit.

45 Ishii, op. cit., p. 869.

46 Chot Thongprayun, op. cit.

47 I follow Kirsch in referring to the Thammayutnikai and Mahanikai as “orders” rather than the more common “sects.” See Kirsch, A. Thomas, Phu Thai Religious Syncretism (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1967), p. 13Google Scholar. The choice of terms here is predicated upon the observation that the divisions in the Thai Sangha appear to be more similar to the divisions between religious orders in the Catholic Church than they are to the divisions between Protestant sects.

48 Ishii, op cit., p. 869.

49 A text and explanation of the Sangha Administration Act of 1962 is given in Chot Thongprayun, op. cit. For a discussion of the significance of the act, see Ishii, op. cit., pp. 869–870.

50 See articles 24–30 and 42–44 of the act as given in Chot Thongprayun, op. cit.

51 Mahaculalongkorn Rajavidyalaya, Buddhist University under Royal Patronage, Catalogue, B.E. 2510–11/1967–68 AD. (Bangkok, 1967), p. 92.

52 Mulder, J. A. Niels, Monks, Merit, and Moltvation (DeKalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University, Special Report Series, No. 1, 1969), p. 16.Google Scholar

53 Mahaculalongkorn, op. cit., p. 89.

54 Lakpathibat nai phraphmthasatsana samrappen khumy phra thammathut nai prathet Ph.S. 2510 ['Principles of Buddhist Conduct for Use as a Guide for Thammathut Monks in the Country, 1967'] (Bangkok, n.d.).

55 Ibid, and Mahaculalongkorn, op. cit., pp. 89–91.

56 Research on the social action programs of the Sangha was carried out in 1967 and 1968. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation and die University of Washington which made this research possible.

57 The following discussion of the Thammacarik program is based in part upon the reports of the program for 1966 and 1967. See Thailand. Department of Public Welfare, Ministry of Interior, Raingan kanphoeiphrae phraphutthasatsana kaechaokhao thang phak nya pi 2509 ['Report Concerning the Buddhist Mission to the Tribal People in the North in 1966'] (Bangkok, March 20, 1967) and Thailand, Department of Public Welfare, Ministry of Interior, (1968), op. cit. In addition, I have also made use of the schedule for the 1968 program—Thailand. Department of Public Welfare, Ministry of Interior, Phaenkan thawai khwamsaduak. kae khane phrathammacarik. khyn pai phoeiphrae phraphutthasatsana kae chaokhao cangwat tangtang nai khet patthibatkan thang phak nya pracam pi 2511 ['Program Presented for the Convenience of Thammacarik Monks Going as Buddhist Missionaries to the Tribal People in Selected Provinces of the North, 1968'] (Bangkok, February 2, 1968).

58 Thailand. Department of Public Welfare, Ministry of Interior (1967), op. cit., p. 45; my translation.

59 This information is based on a mimeographed listing of the composition of each mission group which was distributed to the Thammacarik monks in 1968.

60 Interview with Phra Thammakittisophon, Abbot of Wat Bencamophit, Bangkok, February 12, 1968.

61 Report of the United Nations Survey Team on the Economic and Social Needs of the Opium-producing Areas in Thailand. January/February 1967 (Bangkok: Government House Printing Office, 1967), p. 8.Google Scholar

62 Ruenyote, Suwan, “The Development and Welfare Scheme for the Hill Tribes in Thailand,” (Chiengmai, Thailand: Tribal Research Centre, First Symposium on Hill Tribes in Thailand, August 29, 1967), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., p. 23.

64 Stern, Theodore, “Aryiya and the Golden Book: A Millenarian Buddhist Sect among the Karen,” Journal of Asian Studies, 27 (1968), pp. 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Marlowe, op. cit. In another paper, Marlowe has suggested that Karen followers of the Khu Ba Khao have become assimilated to Northern Thai (Yuan) ceremonials and institutions (David Marlowe, “The S'kaw Karen of Chiang Mai” [Un-published paper read at the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, San Francisco, April 3, 1970], p. 10). While I would not dispute the Yuan character inherent in the movement led by the Khu Ba Khao, my own investigations into this movement, primarily in Mae Hong Son and Tak provinces, have revealed the facts that die movement spurns any connection widi the established Sangha (except on a purely local and personalistic basis) and, in turn, is looked on with grave suspicion by members of the Sangha hierarchy. Far more investigation on this movement and upon Buddhist millenariasm in general as has appeared in Thailand still needs to be done.

66 Evers, Hans-Dieter, “The Buddhist Sangha in Ceylon and Thailand,” Sociologus, n.s., 18 (1968), p. 24.Google Scholar

67 Cf., Ingersoll, Jasper, “The Priest Role in Central Village Thailand,” in Anthropological Studies in Therevada Buddhism, by Manning Nash, et al. (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, Cultural Report Series No. 13, 1966), pp. 51–76.Google Scholar